Nervous noise around the Tu-160

157
If we discard the husk and the howl raised in the biased media regarding the "world's first aircraft with reverse launch missiles", which looks like outright stupidity, then you can calmly talk about this topic and sort everything out without hysteria.


In general, of course, today is amazing. More precisely, the approach of many media. "The world's first aircraft with unique reverse launch missiles." Well, naturally, how can an aircraft be developed in Russia that is not unique and has analogues in the world? Of course not. And the rocket should be a match for him. That is, unique.
Nervous noise around the Tu-160




Yes, we have learned to make a win out of nothing. It will be interesting to read later how they will appreciate it there, among potential opponents.

I'm not sure that they will be hysterical (as our media usually portrays) from fear that here it is, a masterpiece that all of NATO will not be able to oppose.

So, victory! Russia has developed the world's first aircraft with "unique reverse launch missiles"!


Hurrah, comrades? Well, it seems like yes.

But "Military Review" is such a resource that can afford to impartially and closely consider any issue and express its opinion. What are we going to do shamelessly and without hysteria now.

In fact, the "world's first" aircraft was developed in the Soviet Union, almost 50 years ago.


Therefore, if you ask all the screamers the question: “What was developed in terms of the new aircraft”, I doubt that there will be a clear answer.

It is clear to all normal and understanding people that nothing. The plane is not new, with all the ensuing consequences. Modernization? Yes, but we'll talk about that a little later.

Next, we have a "unique reverse launch rocket."


In general, of course, it sounds. Approximately the same as "transfer of delivery dates to the right" instead of "delivery was disrupted."

It is difficult to say what is unique in the R-73 missile, which was put into service in 1983. The product will enter its XNUMXs next year, but it is still one of the best short-range air-to-air missiles on the world stage. Another question is that today the longer the arm of the aircraft, the better it is considered.

20 kilometers of confident work for the R-73 in modern air combat is not enough. It's like trying to portray something with PM versus AK. It's a matter of preparation and luck.

So, the new aircraft was not developed, as many media assure. The "unique" R-73 is not so unique, as practice shows. Ordinary short-range missile, invented in the last century in the last country. But the noise is all over the country. Tremble, enemies, be proud, ours!

Maybe the principle itself is new? The plane is "the first in the world." Well, at least, this eternal “unparalleled” has not yet been used, although, I think, everything is still ahead.

No, the principle of defending the rear hemisphere was formed during the First World War.



And many planes, and not only bombers, but also fighters, carried a machine gun on board, firing back and forth. It was very convenient to make holes in balloons, airships and balls of artillery spotters.


Before rockets, a very interesting invention was made in the USSR: aviation grenades. They were created by the designer A.F. Turakhin. It was meant weapon to protect the lower rear hemisphere of such aircraft as the Il-2, Il-4, Pe-2, in general, everyone who had problems installing machine guns firing back and down.


Aviation grenade AG-2 was a ball of cast iron weighing 2 kg.


The ball was filled with an explosive charge weighing from 80 to 100 grams. A brake parachute was attached to the ball. Grenades were placed in the holder of DAG-5 or DAG-10 aviation grenades, and when it was necessary to use a weapon, the pilot simply threw the grenade out of the holder with a drive. At the same time, the fuse fired and after 2,5-3 seconds the grenade exploded 40-50 meters below the aircraft at a distance of 250-300 meters, depending on the speed.

Efficiency was so-so, and even there was an opportunity to catch their planes flying in formation with shrapnel. But there were also cases of destruction of German aircraft up to the downing by shrapnel.

So the idea of ​​protecting the rear hemisphere with machine guns and grenades is not new. Missiles... If the Germans had held out a little longer in time, most likely, they would also have come up with something like that... reverse launch. After "Schrage Music" I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

The conclusion suggests itself that this very “reverse start” was simply not needed by anyone. Until today.

And now we will look at the situation without the joyous cries of "unparalleled", "new", "unique" and other propaganda thunder and lightning.

Let's just look at strategic bombers as a type of weapon and the tactics of their use.

Today, this type of weapon is available only to three countries. Russia, USA, China.

We do not take into account the Chinese Xian H-6A, this is the Tu-16 with all its shortcomings. And while Chinese designers are very far behind in everything from nuclear weapons to their carriers.

There remain Russian and American strategic bombers.


For American strategists, everything is greatly simplified by an aircraft carrier group of 10 sheds, which house almost a thousand aircraft. That is, floating airfields can take positions in the world's oceans so that strategic bombers will be covered almost the entire distance of approach to the launch lines.

Of course, they may not have time to take it. But, given that a certain number of aircraft carriers are still on alert, it is easier for the Americans.

In addition, naval fighter pilots, taken from aircraft carriers, can very easily intercept Russian strategic bombers. At least the Americans count on it and hope for it.

And it turns out not a very pleasant alignment. Can our fighters provide escort for strategic bombers over the Pacific, Arctic or Atlantic Oceans? No. There will not be enough range, and in the case of the Atlantic, you will have to fly over the countries of the NATO bloc, so there will be more than enough adventures. Otherwise, alas. The Su-35, even with external tanks, will be able to fly to Svalbard or Iceland at most. And that's it.

It is not worth talking about our naval aviation now. And in the future, the prospects are so-so, we admit honestly.

But the Americans will be able to prepare a "ceremonial meeting committee" even for the Tu-160. I’m not even talking about the Tu-95, it’s clear that suicide bombers or a distraction, nothing more.

But the Tu-160 has a chance. The speed of the bomber and the speed of the F / A-18E / F Super Hornet are approximately equal, which means that the Super Hornet pilot will have problems intercepting.

Compounding the problems of the enemy and complicating his task is a very smart move.

The rear hemisphere surveillance radar is very promising. Although this technique is actually 80 years old, but nonetheless. For the first time, the British began to install radars for viewing the rear hemisphere on their Halifax and Lancaster heavy bombers. According to these radars (Monica and AGLT), the tail gunners fired at night on German night fighters.






Of course, in our time, no one will sit on the antenna of the emitter, but the idea itself is quite. The surveillance radar on which the missiles will leave is a very beautiful move. The main equipment of the bomber will not be so loaded, and I'm sure there will be enough food resources there.

As for the "breakthrough and unique missiles" of the so-called "reverse launch" - well, if you close your eyes to enthusiastic nonsense, it turns out that everything is in order here too. You just need to look more calmly.

What's the easiest way for a rocket to launch? With airflow or against? Physics says that the flow. So there is nothing so supernatural in missiles that launch towards catching up enemy aircraft. They could go forward, "the old fashioned way" to start, but this is the time. That is, until the rocket turns around, until it finds a target - and now the fuel has been exhausted. Of course, it's easier to meet.

And what did we get? Nothing so innovative, nothing "unparalleled". There were just more than enough analogues in the world in the military stories. The issue of protecting bombers, who need to be given additional protection, which means a chance for successful completion of the mission, was simply correctly considered.

Nothing new. Just a beautifully transposed old one.

Arrow, defending the rear hemisphere, replaced the radar. Yes, 80 years ago. The locator looks farther and sees better.

A machine gun or aviation grenades will successfully replace rockets developed in a country where they knew how to make good weapons.

Rockets are good. Yes, they do not turn inside out, do not make innovative somersaults. They just hang backwards. And they fly towards enemy aircraft. In fact, they don't know anything else. Find, chase, kill. Everything, but do you need more?

Well-done work within the framework of the previously announced deep modernization of the Tu-160. And after all, this is indeed the case: a deep modernization, the essence of which is aimed at ensuring that the crew and the aircraft can perform their combat mission as efficiently as possible.

Regarding the raised hysteria, in conclusion, I would like to say only one thing: a calm and confident voice is much more impressive than the loudest squeal.

And Kazan aircraft builders wish success in further work on the Tu-160.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

157 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +18
    7 February 2022 06: 00
    With this missile, the aircraft's survivability in combat increased by 10-20 percent. smile
    So a good deed is done to carry out a combat mission.
    Well, as for the unparalleled ... couch warriors must be crushed with the power of thought and indestructible arguments.
    We should be glad that we have such aircraft at all.
    1. +40
      7 February 2022 07: 01
      Can you explain how you calculated the survival rate as a percentage?
      1. AUL
        -4
        7 February 2022 08: 42
        Good, objective and calm article.
        1. +27
          7 February 2022 10: 50
          Can our fighters provide escort for strategic bombers over the Pacific, Arctic or Atlantic Oceans? No.

          Excuse me, but why? If the AUG is used for anti-aircraft cover for American strategists, then the radiation from the radar will be recorded hundreds of kilometers away. and it will cost nothing for our strategist to bypass the air defense area. Yes, and the AUG will not climb into the Arctic Ocean.
          But the Americans will be able to prepare a "ceremonial meeting committee" even for the Tu-160. I’m not even talking about the Tu-95, it’s clear that suicide bombers or a distraction, nothing more.

          Given the range of Tu-95 and Tu-160 about 6000-7000 km. (if refueling is not taken into account) plus the X-102 flight range is about 5500 km., I have no idea where this "meeting committee" will look for our planes? They will come up to 2-3 thousand to the coast, without any opposition they will launch rockets and fly back. In addition, strategists have electronic warfare equipment on board, which will be much more effective than VV-MD missiles.

          I agree that the media inflated the news about the "reverse launch". But still, our planes are not as helpless as shown in this article.
          1. +5
            9 February 2022 09: 14
            I agree, the author is too confident in the "sheds" that supposedly will be able to organize air defense from Russian TU-160s. Firstly, there are (2-3)-and "sheds" in the sea at the same time, a maximum of four. The rest are under repair, on prevention or generally on conservation. Secondly, the combat radius of carrier-based aviation (700-900) km. Given the size of the oceans and the size of the TU-160, the task is comparable to finding a needle in a haystack. And do not talk about the all-seeing eye from outer space, it is very far from incarnation.
            Now about the new TU-160. It is probably difficult for the author to understand what it means to resume production after decades of devastation. In addition, this is a 50% or more new aircraft: avionics, navigation, electronic warfare, etc.
        2. +4
          7 February 2022 12: 48
          Ischo in the Second World War used pc to protect the rear hemisphere.
        3. +12
          7 February 2022 13: 24
          Quote from AUL
          Good, objective and calm article.

          Yeah. And the pay per article seems to be line by line.
          Why else would it be so long?
          You could just write: you rejoice in vain. hi
          1. KLV
            +2
            10 February 2022 12: 43
            Indeed, a very prolific author.
    2. +28
      7 February 2022 13: 03
      "... With this missile, the aircraft's survival rate in combat increased by 10-20 percent. smile
      So a good deed is done to carry out a combat mission.
      Well, as for the unparalleled ... couch warriors must be crushed with the power of thought and indestructible arguments.
      ..."
      - YAVOL, min hertz !!!
      Moreover, they DO NOT KNOW physics ...

      "... How is it easier for a rocket to launch? Along the air flow or against it? Physics says that it is along the flow. So there is nothing so supernatural in missiles that start towards catching up enemy aircraft, no.
      ..."
      - Otkel, dear, you know "what physics says", if you simply DO NOT KNOW it ...
      (but he would have kept silent - he would have passed for "smart-b" ... 8-)
      .
      You see, dear ... A rocket - it (usually) starts from ZERO
      initial speed (relative to the aircraft) ...
      - Look at various "videos" - well, for example, the launch of the same "dagger" ...
      How is it there? The rocket is DISCONNECTED - and it begins to "fall freely" and at the same time continues to "fly forward" with the initial speed of the aircraft that dropped it, but (until its own rocket engine is turned on) - FAST LAGGERS, because it is slowed down by the air flow on it. And then - when her engine turns on - she quickly picks up speed and flies away.
      - So? I hope that what "physics says" is stated - quite accessible?
      8-))
      - And now let's see what the same physics says, if "shoot a rocket - backwards" ...
      (note that "Your physics" - for some reason said that in this case "it would be easier for the rocket to start" 8-))))...
      - Will we try? eight-)))
      Let's try.
      So - we deploy the rocket with the engine (and therefore with the STABILIZER - these are such "wings" at the REAR end of the rocket 8-) - FORWARD (so that the jet of gases from the rocket engine is directed - "along the course" of the aircraft) ...
      - Now - WE DISCONNECT our "looking BACK" - rocket ...
      Yes, as before, she began to fall - and (by inertia) FLY in the same direction as the plane that dropped her was flying. This means that as long as the rocket engine DOES NOT ACCELERATE the rocket to the speed of the plane that dropped it - THE ROCKET WILL (by inertia) - FLY HARM (!!!!) AS A STABILIZER. And this is a very unstable position ...
      - Did you play darts? eight-))
      Try to throw the "arrow" not with the "nose", but with the "TAIL / stabilizer to the target" ...
      - not only will you not hit where you aimed - you WILL NOT HIT THE TARGET AT ALL.
      Moreover, with successive throws - it is IMPOSSIBLE to PREDICT - in which direction the "next" "forward-tailed" arrow of the darts will fly. It's a RANDOM process...
      - and ABSOLUTELY the same thing will happen when "firing a rocket BACK" ...
      Predicting the direction of her flight after turning on her engine is IMPOSSIBLE!!!
      Moreover - if the engine is turned on late enough - then the oncoming air flow - will have time to DEPLOY this rocket (into an aerodynamically stable state - that is, with a stabilizer back) - and the rocket will fly TO CATCH UP THE PLANE THAT RELEASED IT.
      - That's why planes NEVER FIRE ROCKETS. Suicides - NO ...
      - learn MATCH!

      - well - and now the Russian engineer has come up with something there ...
      And most likely - something like a mortar launch - with a preliminary acceleration of the rocket (at least) to the speed of the aircraft.
      1. +2
        7 February 2022 16: 56
        The Israeli fighters WERE armed with missiles to protect the rear received.
      2. 0
        8 February 2022 07: 02
        They wrote a lot, snobbishly and past. Actually, an attempt to show that the author does not know physics at your level showed that he does not know it, since you yourself do not know it yourself, or rather, you do not understand what and how it works. In one phrase, it is necessary to manage to combine two opposing statements ... So the rocket flies at the speed of the carrier until the engine is turned on, or is it still quickly behind ??? Real shots of launches show that it still flies, since the time before starting the engine is calculated in 1-2 seconds. And this type of launch is not always used and by no means on all types of missiles. Again, we are going, we are watching footage of the launch of explosive missiles. And suddenly we discover ... That the engine is turned on first and then the rocket descends from the pylon. Just in order to exclude the yaw of a light rocket with the ability to bite into its own carrier (and there are also real incident shots on this topic), so if the 73s are set to 160x they will be on external pylons and the whole physics will be that at the start they they will not accelerate from the speed of the carrier, but will actually have a negative speed for themselves, and after separation they will slow down / accelerate to "zero" and only then gain, which will significantly reduce the radius of action.
    3. +2
      7 February 2022 18: 48
      But test pilot Anatoly Andronov, in contrast to the skepticism of the author, considers the presence of these missiles Trump Tu-160M: Pilot Andronov Explained Russian Championship in Reverse Launch Rockets

      The upgraded Tu-160M ​​strategic bomber will be the first aircraft in the world to be equipped with reverse launch missiles. Charges of this class are capable of intercepting targets located behind the vessel. Test pilot, retired colonel and Hero of the Russian Federation Anatoly Andronov told iReactor in which situations the technology would be needed.

      The peculiarity is that the rear hemisphere of the aircraft, which is less maneuverable than fighters, will help to detect dangerous targets and fire at them. This is the first time we have used such know-how,” Andronov said.


      https://inforeactor.ru/407796-kozyr-tu-160m-letchik-andronov-obyasnil-pervenstvo-rf-v-raketakh-obratnogo-starta
  2. +50
    7 February 2022 06: 06
    One nuance. Tu-95MS does not need to go into the air defense zone or look for meetings with enemy fighters. The Kh-55 missile has a range of over 2000 km. And the Tu-160 will also not seek a meeting with the Hornets. So the R-73, if they are put on it, is more of a weapon in case of emergency. The hype was raised by illiterate journalists fool
    1. +12
      7 February 2022 07: 03
      They are the most. They like to come up with incomprehensible terms and now a reverse launch rocket. It is not clear what it is, but it sounds.
      1. 0
        7 February 2022 08: 41
        yes, and with writing terminology problems. no fantasy. I would write "inverse launch rocket"
      2. -2
        7 February 2022 13: 26
        Quote: YOUR
        launch rocket.
        By the way, in Afghanistan, even Rutskoi practiced hanging NURS cassettes backwards on his Su-25: flying over the target, he lifted the nose of the aircraft and fired back with missiles. As he explained, with this approach, it was not necessary to make an additional combat approach, which means that he spent less time in the enemy’s fire zone.
        1. +14
          7 February 2022 14: 14
          A block with NURS can only be hung as it is intended for this. Locks won't let you do it any other way. During the Second World War, they tried to scare off the Germans by hanging the RS-82 for firing into the rear hemisphere. The wake jet spun the rocket, there were several cases when the rocket hit the aircraft from which it was fired. Stop messing around with it.
          1. -2
            7 February 2022 15: 24
            Quote: YOUR
            A block with NURS can only be hung as it is intended for this. Locks won't let you do it any other way.
            1. +9
              7 February 2022 15: 29
              I will never believe it. A story told on camera. Two engines create such a swirl that those rockets will be scattered in different directions. And it will be great if the stabilizer is not demolished during launch.
              1. -5
                7 February 2022 23: 11
                Quote: YOUR
                I will never believe it. A story told on camera.
                Would you personally dare to lie, for the sake of a red word, in the video program "Military acceptance", which is played on central television, which has a million-strong audience, among which there are more than tens of thousands of experts on this topic?
                At the same time, given that the journalists themselves, who are filming all this, can double-check all this data.
                1. +4
                  8 February 2022 09: 10
                  Look at the Su-25 while firing. Now mentally turn the launch canisters back. They practically look at the tail. Considering that, according to Rutskoy's story, he shot making a "slide", i.e. the tail sags, then the shells will just pass through the tail. And Rutskoi is no stranger to lying to the camera
              2. +1
                9 February 2022 12: 11
                Quote: YOUR
                A story told on camera.

                Rutskoi is lying? winked Well I do not know...
      3. +2
        7 February 2022 14: 00
        They like to come up with incomprehensible terms and now a reverse launch rocket. It is not clear what it is, but it sounds.

        Yes, what is not clear here? Written: "reverse launch rocket". We define what "start" is, obviously, the launch of a rocket, this is the launch of its engine. Accordingly, the launch can be on rails or after a reset (we mean aircraft missiles). Now the definition of "reverse", undoubtedly the reverse start is the launch of the rocket engine, at the moment of turning its thrust vector, in the direction opposite to the direction of the carrier's flight.
        Then, first, the missile is reset, then the autopilot turns it in the opposite direction (with maximum overload), the kinetic energy of the missile will serve as the energy for maneuver, especially when the carrier is flying at high speed. After turning around, you can start the engine, etc.
        Here's a snap.
    2. -4
      7 February 2022 10: 30
      Well, in general, there is a fighter cover for strategists
      1. -3
        7 February 2022 18: 09
        Radars are used to detect strategists. The Americans in the Alaska region have less than a dozen of them, and there seem to be 2 large ones. So, for sure, one or two of the strategists on board have a flight mission even before reaching the launch lines of the main group, to launch missiles at these radars to destroy them. Or maybe and not only from aircraft but and from submarines at hour X. After that, US airspace is an OPEN GATE. Air defense within the states is weak, object cover for only a few strategic objects.
  3. +11
    7 February 2022 06: 10
    Hysteria is bad. But my first question was: where will the explosive missiles on the Tu-160 actually be suspended? Not instead of the main load, so to speak? External suspension will worsen aerodynamics and improve visibility. Then where? Will they block the new compartment of an old-design glider?
    1. -17
      7 February 2022 06: 47
      Quote: Wedmak
      and where will the explosive missiles on the Tu-160 actually be suspended?

      Wherever Putin says, they will be hung up there.
      1. +17
        7 February 2022 10: 35
        Quote: mordvin xnumx
        Quote: Wedmak
        and where will the explosive missiles on the Tu-160 actually be suspended?

        Wherever Putin says, they will be hung up there.

        You get the prize for the most moronic comment.
        1. -2
          7 February 2022 22: 02
          And you minus for the lack of a sense of humor
          1. +1
            8 February 2022 12: 37
            Quote: Romeo
            And you minus for the lack of a sense of humor

            Humor is different. In my country, on the most popular forum, such things are written by frank Russophobes, who have the most decent words in relation to Russia and Russians - a rashka and a quilted jacket. I will not quote the rest, because they will be banned here. And we get banned when you try to reason with these utyrks.
            And under any news, no matter what topic, these scum with slops addressed to Russia are always the first to come out. It will be interesting, I will make a selection.
            So for me, you have become exactly in a row of such people, if I may say so. So do not be offended, respect your country and respect yourself.
    2. -1
      7 February 2022 17: 16
      Most likely, these niches or places for missiles are provided for in the Tu-160 of the new assembly.
  4. -6
    7 February 2022 06: 19
    "Urrryaaaaaa!!!!" it is easier and more pleasant to shout than to have a little common sense. "Starting from 2021, we will start mass production of these machines. We discuss the exact figure with the customer. I think that the number will range from 30 to 50 cars," Slyusar said on the Rossiya24 TV channel., a spread of 20 cars for strategists, a lot! But how many will there really be? Or are they optimizing again?
    1. -8
      7 February 2022 07: 06
      Let's look at it from the point of view of the Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Arms. Each nuclear weapons carrier is equated to a deployed warhead. What is more profitable to have 50 missiles, for example Sarmat, or 50 bombers?
      1. -9
        7 February 2022 09: 08
        Read the contract first.
        1. +1
          7 February 2022 10: 29
          Take and read article 2 p.1 p.p. a
          1. -2
            7 February 2022 20: 31
            Have you not mastered paragraph b yet?
            1. 0
              8 February 2022 09: 12
              I tried to read the entire contract. Where specifically indicated on the restriction, I made a link to you.
              1. 0
                8 February 2022 11: 59
                a) 700 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers;
                b) 1550 units for warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;

                From which we conclude that the phrase "Each carrier of nuclear weapons is equated to a deployed warhead" is erroneous.
                1. +1
                  8 February 2022 12: 29
                  Quote: ares1988
                  700 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers;

                  And then p 2
                  2. Each Party has the right to independently determine the composition and structure of its strategic offensive weapons.

                  700 deployed, but how much and what to decide for everyone. But those 700 include ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers.
                  But it can already be deployed on them ..... well, you yourself brought this point
                  1. +1
                    8 February 2022 19: 27
                    You write that "EVERY carrier is equal to a deployed warhead". Obviously, this is not the case, because from p b it follows that deployed warheads are counted individually on ICBMs and SLBMs, and the number of deployed warheads on strategic bombers is counted according to the number of deployed bombers.
                    1. 0
                      9 February 2022 02: 36
                      Read the Agreement and understand its meaning. If there are difficulties in terms of understanding the letter of the law, I'm sorry I can not help.
                      1. +1
                        9 February 2022 08: 21
                        If you have difficulty with reading and mathematics, then medicine is powerless.
                        Let's just like in elementary school, kids, a problem: there is one ICBM with 10 AP, one SLBM with 10 AP, one bomber with 12 AP. How many carriers and warheads are considered deployed?
                        Based on what you write: "EACH carrier is equal to a deployed warhead" - we have deployed either 3 carriers and 3 APs, or 32 carriers and 32 APs.
                        In the adult world, according to the agreement, 3 carriers and 10+10+1=21 BBs are considered deployed.
                      2. +1
                        10 February 2022 13: 46
                        This is the generation of the USE.
                        Written clearly everything each country can have
                        700 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers

                        Further said
                        Each Party has the right to independently determine the composition and structure of its strategic offensive weapons.

                        Do you get what this means?
                        I see that no.
                        Warheads are described in the next paragraph. there may be 1550 units.
                        In general, understand. If something is not clear, please help.
                      3. 0
                        10 February 2022 21: 55
                        What do you understand by your own phrase "EVERY carrier is equated to a deployed warhead"? I gave a conditional example: "there is one ICBM with 10 AP, one SLBM with 10 AP, one bomber with 12 AP." How many delivery vehicles and warheads do you think are deployed?
                      4. +1
                        11 February 2022 06: 13
                        Feels like a sign. There are no ICBMs with 10 BBs. Read the restraining agreement. In addition to the BB (in your terminology), the number of camouflage blocks on one missile is also limited.
                        ok with that
                        You explain how you understand the clauses of the contract, take them apart
                        1. Each Party shall reduce and limit its ICBMs and ICBM launchers, SLBMs and SLBM launchers, heavy bombers, ICBM warheads, SLBM warheads and heavy bomber nuclear weapons in such a way that, seven years after entry into force of this Treaty and
                        hereinafter, the total quantities calculated in accordance with Article III of this Agreement did not exceed:

                        a) 700 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers;

                        b) 1550 units for warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;

                        c) 800 units for deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, deployed and non-deployed launchers of SLBMs, deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers.

                        2. Each Party has the right to independently determine the composition and structure of its strategic offensive weapons.

                        I suggest how to do it
                        In Art. 2 p "a" is written ..... which means ....
                        in article 2 p "b" it is written ... which means ....
                        etc.
                        you will do arithmetic at school.
                      5. 0
                        11 February 2022 06: 48
                        Yes, a better expert than you, it turns out. The examples were conditional (although about 10 bb, R-36 was taken as the basis). Okay, more mundane: the Americans deployed 1 Minuteman with 3 bb, 1 Trident with 8 bb and 1 b-52, let's say with 8 cr with sbch. How many carriers and warheads are considered deployed according to START-3 (in your flawed interpretation of "EACH carrier is equal to a deployed warhead")?
                      6. +1
                        11 February 2022 06: 53
                        Don't need your examples. You try to understand the contract.
                        Item "a"
                        a) 700 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers;

                        What does this mean?
                        b) 1550 units for warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;

                        What does this mean?
                        And what does it mean
                        2. Each Party has the right to independently determine the composition and structure of its strategic offensive weapons.

                        Nothing more is required of you. Understand. Or is it time for school, no time?
                      7. 0
                        11 February 2022 08: 15
                        Well, judging by the fact that you can’t solve the problem of the 1st grade: you have some kind of problems with the school. Didn't get a certificate?) Let's give you the correct answer. "the Americans deployed 1 Minuteman with 3 bb, 1 Trident with 8 bb and 1 b-52, let's say with 8 kr with sbch. How many carriers and warheads are considered deployed according to START-3" - 3 carriers and 12 warheads are deployed. And within the framework of your "EACH carrier is equated to a deployed warhead" how much does it turn out?)))
                      8. +1
                        11 February 2022 08: 23
                        Once again, how do you understand the clause of the contract
                        a) 700 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers;
                      9. 0
                        11 February 2022 08: 30
                        As the number of deployed media. What do you understand by "EVERY carrier is equal to a deployed warhead"?
                      10. +1
                        11 February 2022 08: 32
                        Those. deployed media can be no more than 700?
                        Did I understand you correctly?
                      11. 0
                        11 February 2022 08: 40
                        Yes, no more than 700 carriers deployed.
                      12. +1
                        11 February 2022 09: 07
                        Those. if another bomber is deployed, something else needs to be removed from duty. For example MBR.
                        One way or another?
                        By the way, further in the contract it is clearly stated when the new aircraft is considered deployed
                      13. 0
                        11 February 2022 09: 20
                        Yes, in order not to go beyond the limits of carriers: if you deployed a bomber, you need to remove the MBR or SLBM. And vice versa. You can combine media within the limit as you like. Perhaps it is time to move on to deployed warheads.
                      14. +1
                        11 February 2022 09: 25
                        Fuuuu finally got it.
                        Good luck to you.
                        And to make it easier for you where I wrote
                        Each nuclear weapon carrier is equated to a deployed warhead.
                        mistakenly worded it wrong.
                      15. 0
                        11 February 2022 09: 40
                        "I made a mistake and formulated it incorrectly" - this was the place to start. Actually, the whole claim was that, "1 deployed carrier" = "1 deployed warhead" is true only for bombers.
                      16. +1
                        11 February 2022 09: 54
                        Well, yes, it was. In addition to arithmetic and some evidence that is not intelligible
    2. +5
      7 February 2022 09: 00
      What's the difference? The goal is to have the production of strategist-carriers of the KR and RCC and something else .... Tu95 and Tu22 are leaving physically and old to resume their production. Under Tu160 everything is in Kazan. They will do it until there is a mass production of the next model. Weapons and avionics will also remain
  5. -13
    7 February 2022 06: 22
    Are aircraft carriers still needed?
    1. -5
      7 February 2022 06: 35
      One full-fledged aircraft carrier will cost about 8 billion rubles for the budget at best ... from whom will we withdraw this money?
      1. +14
        7 February 2022 06: 48
        Moreover, one full-fledged aircraft carrier is not a warrior at sea, he needs a detachment of ocean ships as an escort.
      2. -8
        7 February 2022 06: 52
        Quote: Lech from Android.
        Who will we take this money from?

        The retirement age has been raised, so we will withdraw it. Please bear with understanding. laughing
      3. -10
        7 February 2022 07: 10
        One palace less or more likely to increase the price of gasoline. By the way, another monthly increase of 40 kopecks is the 95th. In a month, the price of an aircraft carrier will be recaptured.
        1. -6
          7 February 2022 07: 41
          In Kazakhstan, they raised the price of gas ... a reason, of course, but it flared up throughout the country.
          So it's risky to do so.
          1. -5
            7 February 2022 08: 28
            Nevertheless, the price of fuel rises by 30-50 kopecks every month. And so for the third year.
        2. -2
          7 February 2022 13: 10
          By the way, the cost of Buckingham Palace is estimated at 4,7 billion dollars.
          - so what if the English queen is evicted from the dog ...
          8-)))
      4. +3
        7 February 2022 07: 44
        Alyosha, 8 billion rubles is not enough even for a full-fledged Buyan
        1. 0
          7 February 2022 07: 47
          Don't upset me... smile
          I want everything, but there is no money, and if there is, then they are always not enough.
          So it is here. what
          1. -13
            7 February 2022 08: 19
            ... chickens don’t peck their money
            and we don’t have enough for Avik
          2. +2
            7 February 2022 13: 12
            where does the dust come from and where does the money go?
            - eternal questions!
            8-))
    2. 0
      7 February 2022 12: 58
      Quote: kaufman
      Are aircraft carriers still needed?

      Okay, Yankees, but where will we take "democracy" lol
  6. -10
    7 February 2022 06: 39
    Auto RU:
    Novel! Most of your publications inspire respect for your performance, and, most importantly, for the desire to share (I assume) sore. The spirit of the articles, their focus suggests that you are a completely worthy citizen of your (our) country and you are not indifferent to its future.
    Thank you!
    ==========
    In the light of the publication, the words of Nikolai Alexandrovich Shakhov from an interview with an MK correspondent are once again confirmed:
    - What new weapon in your opinion can be considered a breakthrough?
    - A breakthrough can be considered a weapon that we created back in the Soviet years. Now that weapon is mostly modernized. First of all, by improving the handling characteristics, hitting accuracy, because at the present time the level of electronics is completely different than when I was working on the development of new types of weapons, especially missiles. It is reported by "The Rambler". Further: https://news.rambler.ru/weapon/46177291/?utm_content=news_media&utm_medium=read_more&utm_source=copylink

    ==========
    That is why modern managers prefer to create without risk - to add letters and numbers to the old name, taking into account the replacement of manufacturing materials and electronics. And the modernization itself takes place with such a creak and is accompanied by such excesses that even those who (NEVER) have nothing like (THE OWN) are allowed to mock our military-industrial complex.
    hi
  7. +8
    7 February 2022 06: 41
    I would not want to be a "captain of the obvious", it is clear that the strategists will try not to meet with enemy fighters, how lucky they are - it's hard to guess. Aerodynamics, and even more visibility, small air-to-air missiles, even on an external sling, will not greatly spoil, the reflective surface of the Swan is already hoo.
    For the crew, this is the weapon of "last hope", and hence my question is: how effective will it be? Imagine a situation, a fighter rushed in pursuit of the "carcass" and, not having much superiority in speed, tried to get the "strategist" with a "long arm" - a long-range air-to-air missile. Will the R-73 be able to shoot down a long-range Amer missile on a head-on course (of course, within its 20-km zone)?
    1. +7
      7 February 2022 08: 15
      American naval interceptors carry AIM-120Ds with a claimed range of about 160 kilometers specifically to intercept potential enemy bombers. And this is already the second generation of such weapons, already in the 1980s there were Tomcats with AIM-54 with a similar range. For a Russian bomber, approaching an enemy AUG at a distance of less than 200 km is already suicide
      1. +2
        7 February 2022 09: 23
        Given the F / A-16's combat radius of 726 km, it must be assumed that getting closer than 700 km is already suicide. And yet it is curious, can the R-73 shoot down the AIM-120D on a head-on course?
        1. +1
          7 February 2022 09: 34
          It is necessary to look at the detection range of US radars, given that they have done everything smartly and the radars of fighters, avaxes and ships are combined into one system with the exchange of information. Everything is simple here - either stealth, or BVRs of the X-55 type, otherwise it's all a fierce lottery. Even if the R-73 can still shoot down the AIM-120D, there will never be a XNUMX% guarantee, but one missed missile - and goodbye to the plane with the entire crew.

          And yet - how many R-73s can carry one Tu-160 and how many AIM-120Ds can carry one Hornet? The Internet says that four to eight can. As an experiment, I even carried ten

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/FA-18_Hornet_VX-4_with_10_AMRAAM.jpg
          1. +2
            7 February 2022 11: 59
            even heavy bulletproof vests do not give a 100% guarantee of protection, and here there is no guarantee, but with a minimum alteration, the aircraft receives additional protection, so it’s good that we received these missiles
        2. +11
          7 February 2022 10: 00
          Quote from Andy_nsk
          And yet it is curious, can the R-73 shoot down the AIM-120D on a head-on course?

          No. R-73 missile with IR head. If 120 flies by inertia, in general, the thermal footprint of the body is negligible. If the engine is running, then the probability, even if you do not take into account the crap with guidance 73 to 120, then the chances of 73 still tend to zero. Shooting down fighter missiles with missiles from another fighter is more of a bare theory.
          1. 0
            7 February 2022 10: 38
            Thanks! I realized that the idea with the R-73 is obviously complete nonsense, the strategist will not have to shoot down fighters with short-range missiles. A waste of budget money, production time and the labor of design engineers (the latter, as you might guess, did not take much, and this is the only good news). :(((
          2. -1
            7 February 2022 13: 21
            "... And yet, it's curious, can the R-73 shoot down the AIM-120D on a head-on course?
            - Not. R-73 missile with IR head.
            ..."
            - where does the "heat trace"?
            The "nose" of any rocket is always HEATED from friction against the air.
            And the stronger - the higher the speed of the rocket.
            And on the "supersonic" - it heats up SO much that you have to make it not from aluminum, but from steel and molybdenum ... AIM speed - 2500 km / h - more than Mach 2.5.
            .
            - so ANY - IR head - there IS SOMETHING TO POINT ON ....
            8-))
            Another thing is whether the R73 will withstand the OVERLOAD that occurs when the oncoming courses do not coincide, if it is aimed "in a bad way - where I look" - i.e. "without predicting the meeting point."
            1. +2
              7 February 2022 14: 34
              Quote: tikhonov66
              The "nose" of any rocket is always HEATED from friction against the air.
              And the stronger - the higher the speed of the rocket.
              And on the "supersonic" - it heats up SO much that you have to make it not from aluminum, but from steel and molybdenum ... AIM speed - 2500 km / h - more than Mach 2.5.

              It remains only to understand that the planes heat up much more even from the nose. IR radiation is a multiple higher, there is much more heating metal in an airplane than in a small 120 + constantly running motors. I hope you do not need to explain that the sensitivity of the seeker is limited?
            2. 0
              8 February 2022 04: 46
              Quote: tikhonov66
              The "nose" of any rocket is always HEATED from friction against the air.

              no, not from friction against the air, but because of the formation of a shock wave when the rocket moves at supersonic speed.
              so ANY - IR head - there IS SOMETHING TO POINT ON ....

              not any IR head, in the R-73 the head is designed for a shorter-wavelength IR, and the rocket skin will emit long-wave IR, it can only be detected by a specialist. a head, for example, such as in a javelin, on a matrix of bolometers cooled by compressed gas.
          3. D16
            +1
            8 February 2022 12: 09
            No. R-73 missile with IR head. If 120 flies by inertia

            At Mach 3-4, the AIM120 radome is a very contrasting target in the IR range. And if at a distance of 20 km the engine has already worked, then it will stupidly not catch up with the one going to 2 + Mach Tu. In pursuit of a supersonic aircraft, such missiles must be fired from a multiple of a smaller distance than stated in the performance characteristics of the missile. And then there is a non-illusory possibility of shelling catching up carriers, and not missiles. Especially if the interceptors are lower.
        3. -1
          7 February 2022 13: 15
          And how often do F/A-16s take off in your imagination from aircraft carriers? ))
          1. -2
            7 February 2022 13: 35
            In order to avoid blunders, I recommend everyone to call such eroplanes by this name, since it is given in the USA. It is more difficult to confuse Hornet and Viper than F / A-18 and F-16
          2. -1
            8 February 2022 04: 50
            I apologize for the typo, in my defense I can only say that whoever goes after the "strategist" - F / A-18 or F-16 - the result will be the same :(((
    2. 0
      7 February 2022 17: 25
      He can if he finds out in time. The rocket, when approaching the target and undermining it, creates a cloud of fragments that are directed towards the target. So the enemy rocket, as it were, flies into this cloud, and if we take into account the oncoming speeds, then a colander from the rocket flies out. Tail protection stations have been around for a long time, so it’s not a problem to detect a missile approaching from the rear hemisphere, make a decision to destroy it. known and worked out. I already meet with this more than once when they make applications for the start of development, but all this has been worked out a year or more ago, and something has already appeared in the troops in general.
  8. +21
    7 February 2022 06: 51
    Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
    What's the easiest way for a rocket to launch? With airflow or against? Physics says that the flow. So there is nothing so supernatural in missiles that launch towards catching up enemy aircraft. They could go forward, "the old fashioned way" to start, but this is the time. That is, until the rocket turns around, until it finds a target - and now the fuel has been exhausted. Of course, it's easier to meet.

    Oh Roman, Roman...
    To turn the rocket 180 degrees, it is enough to change the direction of the rudders, at the same time the resistance will increase and the speed will decrease even faster. Why turn on the engine?
    Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
    But "Military Review" is such a resource that can afford to impartially and closely consider any issue and express its opinion. What we are now shamelessly and without hysteria, we will do.

    Very Roman raises the resource with his "competent" articles.
    1. +7
      7 February 2022 06: 59
      Quote: KKND
      What we are now shamelessly and without hysteria, we will do.

      Everything, I fell into a sediment ....
      1. +7
        7 February 2022 09: 52
        Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
        What we are now shamelessly and without hysteria, we will do.

        I do not like Freud, but here the reservation is clearly from the depths of consciousness / subconsciousness. lol
        1. +5
          7 February 2022 11: 22
          Quote: KKND
          I don't like Freud, but
          Yes, just look at what sources he cited as a basis for his conclusions! Deutsche Welle, as a source of fake news, is resting. And with the Ukrainian word "peremoga", I just frequented it, so much so that you don’t understand right away
          Yes, we have learned to make a win out of nothing.
          , "with us", where is this?
    2. +1
      7 February 2022 12: 05
      the joke is that the RVV-MD can work both forward and backward, and as he says there are no goofballs, it’s just that the media, having received new news, began to distribute it .. and he refers to the air.pro laughing
    3. +1
      7 February 2022 13: 38
      "... Ehh Roman, Roman ....
      To turn the rocket 180 degrees, it is enough to change the direction of the rudders, at the same time the resistance will increase and the speed will decrease even faster. Why turn on the engine?
      ..."
      - eh KKND, KKND...
      You do not understand the principle of stabilizing a rocket projectile ...
      For a stable flight - the center of "projectile gravity" must be AHEAD of the "center of aerodynamic pressure". And the stabilizer (such small wings behind the rocket) - they are "made" specifically so that with any deviation of the rocket from a straight flight, the "aerodynamic pressure center" SHARPLY shifts "backward", creating a moment of force that returns the axis of the rocket to the direction of its movement.
      - And if, as you suggest, "turn the rudders" without turning on the engine, then even then the rocket will still NOT turn even 90 degrees - i.e. "across the flow" until the horizontal velocity is reduced to almost zero. And because of the extremely small area of ​​control surfaces - the efficiency of the "transition" of horizontal speed into vertical one - will lead to an almost complete stop of the rocket, at which the aerodynamic rudders will simply lose their effectiveness.
      - in a word - 180 degrees with aerodynamic rudders alone - this is UTOPIA.
      8-))
      1. -1
        7 February 2022 14: 29
        Quote: tikhonov66
        You do not understand the principle of stabilizing a rocket projectile ...

        Well, enlighten me. But what does stabilization and maneuvering have to do with it?
        Quote: tikhonov66
        stabilizer (such small wings behind the rocket) - they are "made" specifically so that with any deviation of the rocket from a straight flight, the "aerodynamic pressure center" SHARPLY shifts "backward", creating a moment of force that returns the axis of the rocket to the direction of its movement.

        This is such a scheme on bombs (unguided) and NURSs. They don't have rudders.
        Quote: tikhonov66
        And if, as you suggest, "turn the rudders" without turning on the engine, then even then the rocket will still NOT turn even 90 degrees - i.e. "across the flow" until the horizontal velocity is reduced to almost zero.

        Understood nothing. Very strong sorcery. wassat Tell us the secret knowledge, how a rocket of the classical scheme with rudders at the back, still maneuvers like that.
      2. 0
        7 February 2022 17: 42
        Most likely, the rocket starts normally during the flight, but immediately with a very large overload, it begins to turn towards the target. It is possible that both stabilizer rudders and gas-dynamic rudders of a special nozzle are involved. It is not structurally difficult to do this, and similar things have been used in missiles for about 10 years already, which allows the racket to turn around quickly with a very small radius towards the target.
        1. KLV
          0
          10 February 2022 13: 00
          Another option. The missile is directed nose to the rear hemisphere. At the moment of firing from the aircraft, some brake flaps diverge (open) at the nose of the rocket. At their expense, the rocket stabilizes and loses speed to zero, after which its engine is turned on, and the shields either shoot back or level out and stand in the position of minimum aerodynamic resistance, that is, strictly along the hull.

          The own speed of the rocket can be small, so that on the opposite course with the rocket / fighter there is more time for guidance.
      3. +2
        7 February 2022 21: 02
        Quote: tikhonov66
        "... Ehh Roman, Roman ....
        To turn the rocket 180 degrees, it is enough to change the direction of the rudders, at the same time the resistance will increase and the speed will decrease even faster. Why turn on the engine?
        ..."
        - eh KKND, KKND...
        You do not understand the principle of stabilizing a rocket projectile ...
        For a stable flight - the center of "projectile gravity" must be AHEAD of the "center of aerodynamic pressure". And the stabilizer (such small wings behind the rocket) - they are "made" specifically so that with any deviation of the rocket from a straight flight, the "aerodynamic pressure center" SHARPLY shifts "backward", creating a moment of force that returns the axis of the rocket to the direction of its movement.
        - And if, as you suggest, "turn the rudders" without turning on the engine, then even then the rocket will still NOT turn even 90 degrees - i.e. "across the flow" until the horizontal velocity is reduced to almost zero. And because of the extremely small area of ​​control surfaces - the efficiency of the "transition" of horizontal speed into vertical one - will lead to an almost complete stop of the rocket, at which the aerodynamic rudders will simply lose their effectiveness.
        - in a word - 180 degrees with aerodynamic rudders alone - this is UTOPIA.
        8-))

        laughing good
        It turns out that if the engine fails, I will not be able to turn the car 180 degrees on glide?
        wassat do rocket scientists have different aerodynamics?
      4. +1
        7 February 2022 23: 44
        Quote: tikhonov66
        - And if, as you suggest, "turn the rudders" without turning on the engine, then even then the rocket will still NOT turn even 90 degrees - i.e. "across the flow" until the horizontal velocity is reduced to almost zero. And because of the extremely small area of ​​control surfaces - the efficiency of the "transition" of horizontal speed into vertical one - will lead to an almost complete stop of the rocket, at which the aerodynamic rudders will simply lose their effectiveness.
        - in a word - 180 degrees with aerodynamic rudders alone - this is UTOPIA.
        8-))
        This would be relevant if the rocket was fired with its tail forward and, without changing the position of the rocket, wait until it slows down to zero and starts to accelerate back towards the enemy.
        And if it is fired along the way, then without even turning on the engine, due to aerodynamic surfaces, the rocket will be able to make a "dead loop" and hit the enemy aircraft from above (or, after the "loop", go on a collision course with the enemy).
  9. +1
    7 February 2022 07: 41
    20 kilometers of confident work for the R-73 in modern air combat is not enough.


    Does the RMD-2 variant seem to have a launch range of 40 km?
    1. +5
      7 February 2022 10: 50
      Quote: doktorkurgan
      Does the RMD-2 variant seem to have a launch range of 40 km?

      That's right, 40 km.
      Only - how effective is the use of missiles with TGSN? And how effective will they be against enemy missiles (launched from fighters and anti-aircraft)? First of all, bombers need missiles for missile defense, and not for fighting the fighters themselves.
      1. -4
        7 February 2022 12: 08
        well, RVV-MD can work on cruise missiles, which means that long-range explosive missiles should be seen
        1. +3
          7 February 2022 12: 26
          Theoretically yes. But the missile launchers are larger and slower (compared to the AMRAAM missile launcher as the main threat from fighters), the engine is constantly running, the engine burns out rather quickly in the missile launcher and the rocket goes by inertia. At what range will the TGSN of the same R-73 confidently take on such a target? In my opinion, interceptor missiles with RLGSN would be preferable (the possibility of radio correction and retargeting of interceptor missiles, the exclusion of the situation when they all go to the same target, the possibility of firing "cold" targets, as well as the best interception capabilities of UR explosives with ARLGSN). There are doubts about the effectiveness of existing explosive missiles against explosive missiles ... In the United States, they took the path of creating specialized small-sized missile defense missiles

          1. +1
            7 February 2022 12: 34
            1) there is still little information on the operating time
            2) medium-range missiles are much larger than RVV-MD, so I won’t be surprised that there are certain restrictions, not to mention the fact that can the RVV-AE radar target a missile? The questions are the same.
            3) rocket redirection is already from the section - give more and you can do it without bread.
            4) I repeat, we need more information, including on testing.

            Py.Sy. - about the speed of the rocket, it doesn’t matter since the flight is meeting, it’s more a question of the response of the GOS to undermining
  10. +2
    7 February 2022 08: 05
    It seems that the Germans still worked out the option of installing X-4 air-to-air missiles on bombers as defensive weapons. The rocket was manually fired, but one of the shooters could be singled out for this purpose in the bomber. Naturally, by the time of development, German bombers had practically ceased to fly, so the idea remained in development.
  11. +12
    7 February 2022 08: 25
    Physics says that the flow.

    Physics says otherwise. For a stabilized flight, the flow around the rocket must be from nose to tail. There was already a period when they wanted to put the RS-82 aircraft as a defensive weapon, during the tests it turned around and went towards its aircraft. This is not surprising, since at the first stage of the flight its speed was less than the carrier, relative to the flow it flew tail first, that is, the flow was from tail to nose. Naturally, she turned around. Therefore, they invented the AG-2.
    1. +7
      7 February 2022 10: 07
      Quote: Aviator_
      Physics says otherwise. For a stabilized flight, the flow around the rocket must be from nose to tail.

      Yes, if a rocket designed like the R-73 flies with its tail into the air stream, it will begin to tumble.
  12. +8
    7 February 2022 08: 31
    So, victory!
    What is this foreign word?
    But "Military Review" is such a resource that can afford to impartially and closely consider any issue and express its opinion.

    regarding "the world's first aircraft with reverse launch missiles"

    And many planes, and not only bombers, but also fighters, carried a machine gun on board, firing back and forth.

    Before rockets, a very interesting invention was made in the USSR: aviation grenades.

    Nothing so innovative, nothing "unparalleled". There were just more than enough analogues in the world in military history.

    It may not be innovative, but based on the data presented by Skomorokhov, the aircraft "with reverse launch missiles" is precisely the first in the world. A grenade and a machine gun are still not a rocket.
    A machine gun or aviation grenades will successfully replace rockets,

    But there is some contradiction with what was written just above:
    Grenades were placed in the holder of DAG-5 or DAG-10 aviation grenades, and when it was necessary to use a weapon, the pilot simply threw the grenade out of the holder with a drive ...
    Efficiency was so-so, and even there was an opportunity to catch their planes flying in formation with shrapnel.

    If the Germans had held out a little longer in time, most likely, they would also have come up with something like this ... a reverse start.
    If yes, if only ... They didn’t last. And they didn't think of it.
  13. +16
    7 February 2022 08: 43
    Before "hanging" these notorious missiles on the Tu-160, it is necessary to understand the tactics of using strategic aviation. In my opinion, the author did not succeed, and therefore he decided to understand the protection of the rear hemisphere of the "strategists". But here no special proceedings are required - any of our "strategists" when meeting with an enemy fighter will be destroyed, no matter what weapon the journalists "hang" on it.
    1. +2
      7 February 2022 09: 20
      All right. In general, there are many difficulties with the defense of a strategist, for example - which is more effective, the notorious missile or a tail gun mount? Or is both a meaningless load? How effective will electronic warfare means be in real life?
    2. 0
      7 February 2022 12: 10
      like any transport, which does not prevent them from placing turrets with near-zero efficiency in modern aviation, so taking into account what happened before and what is now, this is a pretty good step forward, especially if the missiles can intercept explosive missiles fired at the aircraft. Well, not to mention the fact that too little information is currently known
    3. 0
      8 February 2022 10: 21
      Quote: Bez 310
      Before "hanging" these notorious missiles on the Tu-160, it is necessary to understand the tactics of using strategic aviation. In my opinion, the author did not succeed, and therefore he decided to understand the protection of the rear hemisphere of the "strategists". But here no special proceedings are required - any of our "strategists" when meeting with an enemy fighter will be destroyed, no matter what weapon the journalists "hang" on it.

      First, they need to catch up with him ...
  14. +8
    7 February 2022 09: 19
    What's the easiest way for a rocket to launch? With airflow or against? Physics says that the flow. So there is nothing so supernatural in missiles that launch towards catching up enemy aircraft.

    And there is.
    The author contradicts himself in one sentence.
    The reverse launch rocket will leave the carrier with its tail forward at a completely non-zero speed. Of course, I am not an expert in aerodynamics, but it seems to me that this task is not so simple.
    Even with a start forward, there are still problems (a good example is the failure of the Americans with their hypersound), but here it is topsy-turvy.
  15. +1
    7 February 2022 09: 25
    On the subject:
    1. They also completed the Soviet backlog of the Tu160, and this is very good.
    2. on the suspension of reverse launch missiles - there is nothing but the assumptions of people who have not seen anything.

    According to the article: "Bez 310 (Bez310) Today, 08:43 NEW +4
    Before "hang these notorious missiles on the Tu-160, you need to understand the tactics of using strategic aviation. In my opinion, the author did not succeed, and therefore he decided to understand the protection of the rear hemisphere of the "strategists". But no special proceedings are required here - any of ours " strategist" when meeting with an enemy fighter will be destroyed, no matter what weapon journalists "hang" on him."

    Well, favorites laughing :
    So, victory! Russia has developed the world's first aircraft with "unique reverse launch missiles"!
    - in fact, not a single official source said this. And sources such as Sivkov K. - well, you know... https://360tv.ru/news/tekst/ataka-bez-povorota/

    For American strategists, everything is greatly simplified by an aircraft carrier group of 10 sheds, which house almost a thousand aircraft. That is, floating airfields can take positions in the world's oceans so that strategic bombers will be covered almost the entire distance of approach to the launch lines.
    - yeah ... "in a column one at a time" line up on the flight path ....

    and in the case of the Atlantic, you will have to fly over the countries of the NATO bloc, so there will be more than enough adventure
    But the Americans will be able to prepare a "ceremonial meeting committee" even for the Tu-160. I’m not even talking about the Tu-95, it’s clear that suicide bombers or a distraction, nothing more.
    - well, how would you read at least VO, for example, on the topic "what were the ALCMs for" ...

    Of course, in our time, no one will sit on the antenna of the emitter, but the idea itself is quite.
    as they say, there are no obstacles for patriots, if you want, sit until "time for scrambled eggs" comes.

    The surveillance radar on which the missiles will leave is a very beautiful move. The main equipment of the bomber will not be so loaded, and I'm sure there will be enough food resources there.
    for the radar, they will take one more board ration, there will be no problems with power! laughing
  16. -6
    7 February 2022 09: 36
    For bombers, it is necessary to develop air-to-air missiles with a vertical launch, similar to the Tor-M2.
    It flew up (you can go down), deviated towards the target ... and that's it.
    It turns out a circular shelling of air targets. The radar is appropriate.
    A kind of aviation air defense.
    1. +12
      7 February 2022 11: 07
      Thor can simply be tied to the Tu160, as they do on ships.

      Moreover, two Torahs can be attached to the Tu160 at once: one from above, for the upper hemisphere, the other from below, for the lower hemisphere (like machine-gun points on aircraft during WW2).
      Moreover, provide for squibs for shooting Thor after the exhaustion of BC.

      Tu 160 with two Torahs (which are "jack") will be a new modification, I propose to call it Tu 100 - 69.

      In the meantime, the production of Tu 100 - 69 has not been launched, I propose a new tactic for using the R 160 for all Tu 73. As soon as the Tu160 crew detects a NATO fighter approaching from behind, the Tu 160 makes the Pugachev Cobra and flies tail first for some time, while the initial starting conditions for the R73 they improve dramatically, and there is no need to fire "over the shoulder".

      In this regard, it is necessary to introduce the following exercise into the course of combat use of the Tu 160: according to the report of the navigator-operator "NATO is on the tail! What are we doing?" the commander gives the command "What? Over the shoulder!" and uses P73, or performs the "Pugachev Cobra" and uses NATO R73 in the best conditions.

      Why am I not K. Sivkov? laughing
    2. +4
      7 February 2022 11: 21
      Quote: prior
      For bombers, it is necessary to develop air-to-air missiles with a vertical launch, similar to the Tor-M2.
      It flew up (you can go down), deviated towards the target ... and that's it.

      how will such a rocket behave, which will be affected by a side "wind" with a speed of 950 km / h (this, by the way, is 250 m / s)?
      1. 0
        7 February 2022 11: 24
        If possible .... against the wind, why not downwind or across ?! lol
        The main desire and pressure.
        When the urge to eject does not even pay attention to it.
        1. +1
          7 February 2022 11: 53
          The fact of the matter is that bailout is the least of the worst options of all. Look carefully at how the ejection seat takes out - the running engines try to give it forward and upward movement, and still it is blown back and twisted by the oncoming air flow, and the stabilizing parachute is released first to stop the random rotation. And this despite the fact that the chair flies out at a higher speed than the rockets of the Thor you mentioned.
          What will happen to a vertically launched rocket from an aircraft flying at a decent speed is not difficult to guess - it will overturn and begin to tumble. In fact, you just throw away the rocket.

          Here comrade Wildcat wrote with humor, to joke - everyone understands this, and no one will correct him. But are you seriously suggesting that?
          1. -4
            7 February 2022 12: 34
            How to convey the taste of a pickled cucumber without trying it?
            Of course, every idea must be calculated, thought over, tested.
            For example, the cockpit of the TU-91, together with the engine, was placed on the wing of the TU-95 for testing.
            Even shooting from around the corner used to seem like nonsense, but now it has been implemented.
            1. +3
              7 February 2022 14: 49
              Basic knowledge of physics is enough to decompose the forces acting on the rocket into vectors and understand what will happen to it. Moreover, you do not forget that the launch of the "Tora" missile defense system is mortar?

              Quote: prior
              How to convey the taste of a pickled cucumber without trying it?

              There are substances that you don't have to taste to know what they are.

              Quote: prior
              For example, the TU-91 cockpit, together with the engine, was placed on the wing of the TU-95 for testing.

              They put it on the Tu-4.


              At the flying laboratory, they had to test the operation of the power plant and bring the braking system to the propeller in flight. The "removal" of motors in the air is still practiced today (one thing is on the stand, the second thing is in the air), and given the enormous power of the "Bull" power plant and healthy propellers that created powerful vortex flows, field tests were indispensable. And since the power plant of the Tu-91 occupied almost half the fuselage, this "stub" with the cabin was stuck.

  17. +7
    7 February 2022 09: 45
    A double impression of Roman's grumbling! On the one hand, he is right ... about "reverse launch" explosive missiles ... "zero start", they wrote a lot at the end of the last century ... incl. and in the "Foreign military review"! So, "sensation" is not "first freshness"! Since the 20th century and abroad, the damned have been actively interested in this "question"! But the task turned out to be not without problems and did not fit into Roman's dismissive attitude towards this "topic" ... ("let's turn the missiles back and shoot ... that's all...")! By the way, Roman mentioned the AG-2 aviation grenades for the Il-2 attack aircraft ... but on the Il-2 they also tried 82-mm "reverse launch" aviation eres for launching "backwards"! But the "stone flower" did not come out! Did not work out ! (I remember the reason vaguely, because I won’t “risk” voicing it ...) They decided to use the principle of “reverse launch”, fortunately, the latest for that time highly maneuverable explosive missiles with seeker with a wide target capture angle allowed this ... but with "emergency"! This method of using explosive missiles did not become "standard"! Moreover, if you "want", then the rocket will have to be launched forward, and then the rocket turns around and flies "back" ... There is also the concept: "zero start" ... In this case, RVV, intended for the self-defense of the eroplan, when moving away from the pylon ("ejection" from the bomb bay ...) first, the speed is reduced to "zero" received from the aircraft, and then they start "backward" ... But so far it is not audible, in any case, "loudly"; to be widely practiced! Such facts may indicate, as well as the fact that such a method ("shooting backwards") may not be very necessary (inconvenient ...); and that there are technical and organizational difficulties that have not yet been resolved ... PS Still, Roman is right ... and sometimes I "set my teeth" when I hear about "Russian innovations that have no analogues in the world", "sucked from the finger"!
    1. +4
      7 February 2022 11: 17
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      on the IL-2, they also tried 82-mm "reverse launch" aviation eres for launching "backward"! But the "stone flower" did not come out! Did not work out !

      RS was also tried on bombers, on Pe-2 and Tu-2.


      It didn’t work out, the rocket launched along the stream (and which first flies tail first, having the speed of the carrier) tried to deploy - accordingly, there was no need to talk about any accuracy (and the RS didn’t shine with it anyway). For guided missiles, this is not so critical, but everything is not so simple, the speeds have increased (and if on supersonic?), And the problem of stability of the ammunition compartment has not been solved
      1. +2
        7 February 2022 11: 34
        Quote from Tomcat_Tomcat
        RS was also tried on bombers, on Pe-2 and Tu-2.

        Well, I forgot about the "other" planes (I read it for a long time!) ... I firmly remember the IL-2 ...
        Quote from Tomcat_Tomcat
        a rocket launched along the stream (and which first flies tail first, having the speed of the carrier), sought to deploy ...

        I recalled such infa, but "vaguely" ... that's why I decided not to "voice" ...
        Thank you for reminding!
    2. +2
      7 February 2022 18: 37
      Bringing teeth together? What are you ashamed of? This is an information war, there is no need to be shy. Or do you think that this is a serious analytics in which everything should be in order? Also not true. The article does not pull on serious analytics, and in analytics it is sometimes necessary to fib. To fear our opponents. Or are you for justice? Also past. Now (and always) you need to stand up for the Motherland, and not for justice
  18. +1
    7 February 2022 09: 48
    Well, Roman ... You have to understand) World propaganda has not advanced a single step since the days of the USSR. The advanced developments of Comrade Suslov are always in the ranks! What has changed is the quality of secondary education in the world, which has fallen to the coveted baseboard. Well, chronic information overload, which in one fell swoop reduces the intelligence of smartphone slaves)
    So enthusiastic nonsense, stupid and meaningless, they are in demand by the customer, as it were, no more than before. Their role is not to wake up the mind) They are used to create a "positive" informational background, to calm down, to put to sleep. It's time to get used to it - clever people are not taken into account. All those nasty outcasts with working brains, they're out of the fray. You can't take them with propaganda. So you have to flatten them yourself ...
  19. +6
    7 February 2022 10: 40
    The idea of ​​equipping a bomber with defensive air-to-air missiles is not new. In the 60s, to equip the Valkyrie bomber, in the United States, the Conver company developed disc-shaped Pai Wacket interceptor missiles (it was believed that this shape would give the rocket exceptional maneuverability and allow it to repel enemy missile attacks from any angle), located in a special compartment of the aircraft.


    Since the XB-70 Valkyrie project was cancelled, missiles did not appear on these "strategists".

    Of course, domestic "strategists" need such missiles, in addition to electronic warfare systems. Provided that they can effectively shoot down fighter air-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft missiles. Of course, "strategists" should not go head-on on air defense and look for meetings with enemy interceptors, but anything can happen.
    1. +1
      7 February 2022 11: 05
      You are a hammer! good I didn’t even think that they still “remember” about these amusements of the US rascals! It only remains to add that there was a variant of "Pi Wacket" and a wedge-shaped shape ... and also the local rascals created anti-tank "balls" (spheres ...)!
  20. -1
    7 February 2022 10: 40
    In the back hemisphere of 2 Tungus
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. +6
    7 February 2022 11: 05
    What's the easiest way for a rocket to launch? With airflow or against? Physics says that the flow.
    Aerodynamics says it's easier against the flow. The stability of a projectile launched tail-first, and even "passing through zero" aerodynamic speed, leaves much to be desired. The missile is trying to deploy, which is highly undesirable for us. And even more so at supersonic speeds.

    The launch against the flow is more stable, while turning around is not a particular problem for a modern rocket. Yes, the efficiency will decrease somewhat, but this is an inevitable price to pay for the ability to shoot "over the shoulder"
  23. +2
    7 February 2022 11: 59
    Of course, in our time, no one will sit on the emitter antenna

    In our time, the KOU sits under the emitter antenna.

  24. +1
    7 February 2022 14: 43
    The R-73 has not been produced for a long time, it is unlikely that the new aircraft will receive old missiles from the bins of the Motherland. Most likely it will be R-74M
  25. Eug
    0
    7 February 2022 14: 46
    "Towards easier"? When intercepted in PPP - maybe, but if a certain sensitivity of the seeker is reached. And in the case of launching towards enemy fighters attacking the Tu-160 in the ZPS, there is a serious problem of "passing through 0" - because the rocket changes to the opposite velocity vector during the flight, and this gives rise to a lot of technical problems with controllability and simply with keeping the rocket in the air and on the trajectory... if the developers managed to solve these problems - I take off my hat!
  26. 0
    7 February 2022 16: 34
    Why r-73 missile, what about r-74M? This missile is in production et is the primary short range missile for the su-35. A new short range is coming for the su-57
  27. -2
    7 February 2022 17: 29
    Launching a long-range missile without entering the enemy's air defense zone is one thing. If you already have enemy interceptors hanging on your tail, and you are not stealth on radar and weigh 260 tons, this is completely different
    1. +1
      8 February 2022 10: 06
      Quote: AC130 Ganship
      Launching a long-range missile without entering the enemy's air defense zone is one thing. If you already have enemy interceptors hanging on your tail, and you are not stealth on radar and weigh 260 tons, this is completely different

      Yes, American planes do not catch up with our 160th, they do not catch up.
  28. +3
    7 February 2022 18: 33
    Yes ... That's how disgusting and tasteful our opponents are at writing articles. Roman is one of them.
    1. +2
      10 February 2022 00: 29
      Yes, I distorted and manipulated a lot.
  29. +3
    7 February 2022 20: 00
    Can AUGs work effectively in the Arctic Ocean? And in general, the article is similar to the ringing of a tin basin.
  30. +3
    7 February 2022 23: 55
    It seems that the author of the article does not understand the meaning of the use of strategic bombers. Slightly confused with the front.
  31. -5
    8 February 2022 03: 40
    R-73 is a "Sidewinder" obtained by the intelligence of the USSR, disassembled into parts, studied .... Well, that's all .... bully
  32. -1
    8 February 2022 10: 05
    At the maximum speed of 1.915 km per hour for the F / A-18E / F and 2200 for the TU-160, these are approximately equal ???
  33. 0
    8 February 2022 10: 36
    From the side of the enemy, there is a constant highly embellished propaganda of the superiority of Western weapons, and the townsfolk believe in it, both theirs and ours. In contrast, the same embellished our propaganda should sound so that ours do not fall to their knees and do not give up with one video of Western weapons. And the experts already know everything.
    1. 0
      10 February 2022 01: 37
      This propaganda did the Americans a disservice when they launched the misinformation that they had 30 km per hour torpedoes. Our eggheads tensed up and came up with the Flurry torpedo three times faster. The Americans then bit their elbows in annoyance.
  34. -3
    8 February 2022 16: 12
    Yeah. Squeaking down one side and yelling about it at every corner. Although you need to do them one at a time in 1-2 months, then there is a point. 1 a year is a disgrace!
    1. +1
      10 February 2022 00: 28
      Why Onishchenko is not to understand what is behind this plane. By definition, the ability and competence to build such an aircraft cannot be a disgrace. So in the USSR they were produced 1-2 per year. Firstly, you need to assess the need and why you need "1 aircraft per month", and secondly, there is a downside, this is the cost of maintenance and operation. Maybe you can rivet them, but they will ruin the army and the country in general). They release as much as necessary and in a balanced way.
  35. +2
    8 February 2022 17: 39
    But all you had to do was take an interest in the characteristics of that same "reverse launch rocket". Then they would know that its stability during the flight with its tail forward and until the moment of gaining evolutionary speed is ensured by the gas rudders available to it. And how it accelerates - then already the usual aerodynamic ones. And there would be no need to hypothesize about "mortar launches" and "dead loops".
  36. -2
    9 February 2022 02: 29
    Quote: Radikal
    R-73 is a "Sidewinder" obtained by the intelligence of the USSR, disassembled into parts, studied .... Well, that's all .... bully

    Those who sent the minuses do not know some of the historical and other points! Alas, alas...
  37. +2
    9 February 2022 06: 26
    "But they tell me, here's a new look! And I look and I see, it's not new. It was already forgotten for centuries, just as this will be forgotten."
    Eclisiast
    Everything that is happening now in the press is hype. It is not worth waiting for sober assessments from the media.
  38. 0
    9 February 2022 22: 50
    And as a child, I was taught that bombers shoot back and drop bombs.
    It was in 65
  39. +2
    10 February 2022 00: 20
    Well, you screwed it up. For 2020, the US "sheds" can fully go to sea on combat duty, only 2 (2,5)). And most importantly, money and potential for a 100% recovery of otovnlst in the near future is not expected. And it is not correct to speak simply of deep modernization. It feels like they were made yesterday. Much had to be created anew and already on the basis of other technologies, much to recreate, and this is not as easy as it seems, and sometimes more difficult than creating from scratch. Recreating lost competencies is not just "modernization". This is really a lot of work, and especially on engines. It is not for nothing that the authoritative international engineering magazine included the start of production of NK32 in the top five technical achievements of the World last year.
  40. +1
    10 February 2022 17: 05
    And why, likes for an article can be put, and there are no dislikes? request
    Tell this expert that out of 11 (or 12) OV floating coffins, 2,5 coffins can go into the ocean on combat duty tongue , as the saying goes, Google to help, expert clown. wink
    ===============
    Here is the infa for 2019 (before the "pandemic") And now for mattress covers, everything is much worse with their floating coffins, for hundreds of billions.
    So enjoy the exp wink
    =========
    Of the 11 US aircraft carriers, only 2 are in service. What would it be for?
    One of the key sources of information about the current geopolitical situation in the world is a map of the location of US aircraft carriers, which is worth 1 reports of 000 characters in the press.

    Imagine that you have just returned from wintering in Antarctica, where there was no connection with the world and you want to quickly get into the course of world events. To do this, just look at the AUG distribution map - and everything will be clear.

    If you see, for example, that 2 AUGs are in the Mediterranean Sea, 2 AUGs are in the Far East, 2 in the region of Sweden, and two more are on duty in the Pacific Ocean and in the Atlantic, it will be almost a direct command to pack things and move again to Antarctica. That is, with such a distribution of forces, it will be something similar to the beginning of the Third World War.

    In the light of the foregoing, the analytical community has the closest attention to the movements of the US AUG (there are no others in the world), and what military analysts have been seeing for several months now confuses many:
    ==
    This is a map for September 12, 2019, but almost nothing has changed on it in a month: USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), which was in the port of Yokosuka in Japan, entered the South China Sea, and USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69 ), hurrying to replace the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), returned home due to the failure of the ship's electrical systems. As a result, out of 11 US aircraft carriers, only 2 are deployed, and they are deployed conditionally.

    USS Ronald Reagan is a problematic aircraft carrier and spends most of its service life in the port of Yokosuka repairing something. USS Abraham Lincoln was supposed to return to her home port in September, but her patrol has been extended indefinitely. After that, he did not stop being an aircraft carrier, but his combat readiness was definitely reduced.

    Meanwhile, 9 other aircraft carriers are idle, which causes the American people a legitimate question: why? The official response from disparate sources of information is as follows:

    "George Washington" - out of dry dock, but for another two years will undergo RCOH procedures (refueling and complex overhaul);

    "John C. Stennis" - in preparation for RCOH;

    "Harry Truman" - went to COMPTUEX (complex exercises before deployment), broke down and went to be repaired;

    "Dwight Eisenhower" - went to COMPTUEX, broke down and went to be repaired;

    Carl Vinson - undergoing a 15-month maintenance period that began in February and may end by June next year, after which she will go to COMPTUEX, break down and return to port on a proven road;

    "George Bush" - preparing for DPIA (planned readiness for dry docking);

    Nimitz has been in operation since 1975, so it is being tested after a long period of maintenance and still needs a lot of work.

    "Theodore Roosevelt" - is in port, being repaired.

    "Gerald R. Ford" - a new type of aircraft carrier, transferred to the fleet, but is still being tested and brought up.

    In general, the combat readiness of aircraft carriers is less than 20%, and this has never happened in US history. Usually, smart people were engaged in military planning there, who had everything written in a notebook for decades. That is, who goes for deployment, who for a major overhaul. That's why there are 10 aircraft carriers.

    Even in Britain there are two of them with the expectation that while one is being repaired and prepared, the second is on duty at sea. One aircraft carrier / aircraft-carrying cruiser is purely show-off and it makes no sense.

    The Pentagon's official explanation for the situation is that maintenance schedules seem to have been there, but under Obama, aircraft carriers were often deployed on unscheduled deployments, leaving the ships worn out, overstressed, and reduced to junk. Now it needs to be done all at the same time.

    Moreover, as various knowledgeable people report, there is the same song with submarines. That is, nuclear submarines are in ports and something is being permanently repaired.

    No one knows how to explain what is happening, and therefore the following versions are offered:

    a) All these AUGs, nuclear submarines and SSBNs are funny troops to show to the local population so that they can see where their tax money goes. In fact, the Pentagon has a completely different weapon (different “Black Manti”, TR-3B, etc.), so the generals scored on the amusing fleet for a while;

    b) All American aircraft carriers and boats are in perfect order and are now stuffed with nuclear weapons, supplies, debugging and preparing to go to sea at the same time at one o'clock to take part in the Third World War;

    c) America now is a colossus which, despite its seemingly incredible military power, is completely rotten from the inside and will collapse at the first wind.
    ===
    http://новости-сша.ru-an.info/новости/из-11-авианосцев-сша-в-строю-только-2-к-чему-бы-это/
  41. 0
    12 February 2022 06: 42
    Slightly off topic, but maybe someone can help. Yesterday I witnessed an interesting and colorful spectacle - for about half an hour several Mi-28N combat helicopters were spinning roundabouts over our village, as if they were practicing their approach. Low - about 100 meters, not on the outskirts, but directly above us. Kuralesil, in general, is a helicopter regiment based on our airborne brigade in Ulyanovsk. This case was captured on video. Do I have the right to post such material in the public domain? Is there any prohibition or regulation on the placement of such materials on the network by a civilian, obtained freely outside of any secure facilities?
  42. +1
    15 February 2022 16: 53
    For American strategists, everything is greatly simplified by an aircraft carrier group of 10 sheds, which house almost a thousand aircraft. That is, floating airfields can take positions in the world's oceans so that strategic bombers will be covered almost the entire distance of approach to the launch lines.


    In general, commenting on this, only spoiling it. But honestly, to pass by such, I will not be afraid of this word, a revolutionary idea is beyond my strength. That's why I won't stop asking questions.
    Roma, but answer me unreasonable - what for to cover strategic bombers for the entire distance to the launch line? What could threaten them there?
    And why is this an IA cover for strategists, if it has long lost its meaning for two reasons:
    1. The basis of air defense is currently air defense systems, from which IA accompaniment is like a dead poultice;
    2. Strategists use their weapons without entering the air defense zone.
    And how do you imagine it? After all, Russia does not have so many important objects in the immediate vicinity of the coast, when compared with the United States. Drive aircraft carriers to the coast? Is it even better to shove it into the Sea of ​​​​Okhotsk in order to somehow get it deep into the territory of the Russian Federation?
  43. 0
    16 February 2022 20: 01
    The comments are kind of weird.
    I didn’t really understand why launch a rocket directly from under the wing?
    The rocket falls from under the wing with the retarder to launch.
    If there is an influence of some kind of turbulence from aircraft engines, then it is minimal.
    In our country, all CDs seem to be allowed a long time ago.
    And what is the difference between letting go back or forward if there is target designation, I don’t really understand.
  44. 0
    29 March 2022 08: 06
    As always, only combat use will show the true state of affairs. God forbid.
  45. +1
    April 8 2022 20: 47
    I've been away from journalistic clickbait headlines in a hurry to see style for a long time. Allergy as soon as I see something like this in the media and don’t even read it, there’s usually little information there, only water and a loud headline.
  46. 0
    April 13 2022 06: 35
    The American power of aircraft carriers is too exaggerated. At least they are not afraid of Russia. And in the rest, parity, and even an advantage in our direction, albeit a small one.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"