Poseidon Weapon

70
The Russian equivalent of the Harpoon missile was born in agony for more than 20 years.

On the night of 24 March 1986, a target appeared on the radar screens of the American cruiser “Yorktown”, which was in 70 miles from the Libyan coast. Initially, she was classified as a fishing vessel, but the cruiser commander ordered the observation to continue. When the distance between the ships decreased to 11 miles, the radar unexpectedly started working on the latter, which was turned off after the second turn of the antenna was completed. But that was enough to have a target classified at Yorktown using a radio intelligence station: this is the large missile boat of the Libyan Navy Ein Zaguit (Ean Zaguit, a former Soviet R & D project of 1234), which was located in 20 miles to the west of Benghazi. The boat was maneuvering at low speed, the running lights were off, all radio electronic equipment was turned off.

The American cruiser immediately fired two Harpoon missiles ("Harpoon") - and both of them hit the target. The first one pierced the board just above the waterline and exploded in the engine room. The boat lost speed, the onboard network was de-energized. There was a hole in the board with an area of ​​about 20 square meters, through which water began to flow. After hitting the second rocket on the boat there was a strong fire, as the unburned and half the fuel of the rocket exploded around the ship. The fire intensified and in five minutes covered the whole boat. With trim aft, he began to sink quickly and sank in 15 minutes. The whole crew of the boat died. This was the first case of the combat use of Garpun guided missiles developed by McDonnell Douglas and adopted by the US Navy in 1980.

Poseidon Weapon
The X-35 rocket (factory index 3М24) is designed to destroy ships with a displacement of up to 5 000 tons. By design, it is similar to the American PCR AGM-84 Harpoon.

Russian project

From the beginning of 1960, the design of anti-ship missiles (ASM) in the USSR was practically monopolized by V.N. Chelomey, who headed the OKB-52. In 1959, the P-5 shipboard projectile was put into service. Outwardly, he really looked like a jet fighter. But, although the name “projectile” perfectly suited the products of Chelomey, in the USSR in 1959, this term was officially replaced by the phrase “cruise missile”.

Subsequent ship missiles Chelomey P-6, P-35, "Basalt", "Vulcan" and "Granite", in simple terms, were "grown up" P-5 - larger size and mass. If the starting weight of the P-5 was 5,2 tons, then at Granite it exceeded 7 tons. But the Americans were not fond of heavy rockets - by 1960, they had stopped work on the Regulus I and Regulus II ship projectiles.

Almost simultaneously with the start of work on the “Harpoon” in the Moscow city of Kaliningrad, the design bureau “Star” began designing a similar rocket, which received an X-35 index. Did our designers know about the development of McDonnell Douglas? And if they knew, to what extent? One can only guess about it. By the end of 1977, the design bureau Zvezda developed technical proposals for the creation of the Uran missile system with the X-35 anti-ship missile, intended for use as part of the ship, helicopter and aircraft weapon systems.

Product 78

Tests of the Uranus complex began in 1983 at the Sand Gully test site near Theodosia. Preliminary tests consisted of three stages. In the course of the first stage, mock-ups of rockets with the factory index X-35 (marine index 3М-24) were carried out. In addition, the missiles had another name - the product 78. The models were equipped only with autopilot, cruising and starting engines. During the first stage of testing (from 1983 to 1984 year) 6 models were launched from the coastal launcher located in the village of Chernomorsk (combat field of the test site), and one rocket launcher was launched from the sea carrier - the rocket boat P-44 of the 206MR project .

The second stage of testing was delayed by as many 5 years - from 1985 to 1990 a year - restructuring began. This time, the X-35 missile models were fully equipped, as well as with telemetry, only active radar homing devices were missing. A total of 5 years have produced a total of 26 launches, 18 from a coastal launcher and 8 from a boat. However, only half of the starts were recognized as successful.

Although the documentation noted that at the third stage, the mockups were also launched, in fact they were X-35 missiles in full configuration, including with an active radar homing head - they were launched at the 1784 project's SM target. Even in the official environment there was no agreement on this issue - in some documents the launches were called the third stage of preliminary tests, and in others - flight tests.

The third stage lasted more than 5 years, from 1992 to 1997 a year. During this time, four launches were carried out - one from the coastal launcher and three from the boat, the firing distance was 40 km. However, success was again just 50% - two hits were recorded at the target (both at launch from the boat).

The Uranus missile system has aviation modifications - aircraft missiles X-35U and helicopter X-35V.

Independent sabotage

The tests of missiles in 1992 – 1997 years at the Sand Girder range were carried out in extremely difficult conditions. And not because of financial problems. Several times, “independent protesters” tried to seize the landfill, and when they did not succeed, they engaged in systematic sabotage — they cut off electricity, banned the delivery of missiles to the landfill, or closed the water area for firing. However, at the end of June 1999, state (joint) tests of the entire Uranus complex began at the Sandy Beam range. The first launch was made on September 10 1999 of the target CM-148 (project 1784) at a distance of 40 km, and it was unsuccessful because of the failure of the steering rocket in the stabilization section. The second (February 14 2000 of the year under the same conditions) was counted successful. The third launch was also successful - on the CM-148 target at a distance of 120 km (22 March 2000).

But the last launch, 30 March 2000, ended in failure. The launcher of the left side of the boat fired, further it was supposed to turn the rocket 90 degrees, but the starting engine was not separated. The next day, March 31, a meeting of the State Commission was held, at which it was decided to take a break to analyze the causes and eliminate the shortcomings that occurred in the first four launches of state tests. However, after the Ukrainian Armed Forces shot down the Russian Tu-154 plane flying from Israel over the Black Sea, President Kuchma banned any missile firing in the area of ​​Feodosia (as if an X-35 could shoot down an airliner!).

With great difficulty, another launch was made at the Sandy Beam range. 6 March 2001 of the year from the coastal position in the village of Chernomorsk from the Bal-E combat vehicle (3K-60) at the MKSh target was launched the X-35 rocket (at a minimum distance of 7 km with a shift to 90 degrees). But the launch was unsuccessful - the failure of the onboard control system ... We decided to restart the launch of the 206MR project boat. However, due to the sabotage of the Ukrainian authorities, it was not possible to carry it out. And only in the beginning of June 2003, the first launch of the X-35 rocket of the second stage of state tests took place, for the first time off the coast of Anapa, and not Theodosia. Shot from a boat at a distance of 7 km, the target was hit by a direct hit.

A total of nine X-35 missiles were launched in June, of which five were fully successful. All launches were carried out from the launch of the 206MP project at the target of the 1784М SM project. But the testers of the complex, and even Uranus itself, were very lucky, because at the end of the launches in the right place and at the right time there was a big boss - the Minister of Defense of Russia and the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy just arrived in Sevastopol. Naturally, they were very pleased to adopt the first Russian (and not Soviet) missile system, which was submitted for delivery in the last 12 years. Therefore, the final act of state tests of "Uranus" was sent to Moscow on July 28 2003. Soon the ship complex "Uranus" officially adopted.

The first ship equipped with the Uranus complex was the rocket boat P-44 of the 206MR project, from which they had been shooting all twenty years. But by the summer of 2000, both launchers of the Uranus complex were transferred to the destroyer Smetlivy, which became the second ship equipped with Uranus. However, in 2002, they were removed from the destroyer and returned to the rocket boat.

X-35 rocket design
1. Radar homing head. 2. Penetrating warhead. 3. Self-destruction system. 4. Inertial guidance system. 5. Radio altimeter. 6. Air intake. 7. Fuel system. 8. Turbojet. 9. Steering drive. 10. Solid propellant accelerator.


"Uranus" in turban

Abroad ship complex was a great success. India decided to equip Godavari-type frigates of the 16 project with a full displacement of 3850 and the first three F-20, F-21 and F-22 frigates were armed with four single launchers П-20М (export version) "Termite"), and the next four frigates, starting with the F-31, are armed with four Uran-E launchers. In December 1999, the Indian Navy frigate of the 16 Delhi Project fired missile training with four 3M-24E missiles in the Indian Ocean. The shooting was carried out according to own target designation data in the manual input mode for the 47 km range (two missiles), the 80 km range (one rocket), and the 100 km range (one rocket) in a position from two sea targets such as a sea trawler. All four missiles hit the target.

In addition, the Indians decided to install "Uran-E" on corvettes of the type "Kukri" ("Khukri") with a displacement of 1350 tons. Moreover, the first four corvettes were built according to the 25 project (Р-44, Р-46, Р-47 and Р-49 ) and armed with two twin launchers missiles P-20M. And the next four corvettes (P-61 - P-64) were built according to the 25A project and were equipped with four Uran-E launchers.



Land brother

On the basis of the Uran ship complex, the Bal-E coastal missile system (3K-60 was created, the 3М-60 index is mentioned in the literature). The complex’s missiles are completely identical to the X-35 ship-based missiles, but the ground part is different. In addition to the missile, Bal-E includes two self-propelled command and control points, four self-propelled launchers (each equipped with an 8 block of transport and launch containers with X-35 missiles), four transport-handling machines and ground equipment for maintaining all machines and preparation of the coastal missile system for combat use.

Uranus or Harpoon

So is the Uranus missile inferior to the American Harpoon? In general, no, its private advantages and disadvantages compared to the American counterpart can be easily compensated for by competent tactical use. The trouble of "Uranus", as well as many types of naval weapons over the past 200 years - the incompetence of the Russian admirals, sometimes reaching the point of absurdity - which is at least worth the requirement to unify the Uranus launcher with the Onyx launcher (pseudonym Yakhont). No less important is the desire to save, including in the price of cruise missiles going for export, the cost of their refinement. And in the West, both the state and private firms “get out of their pants”, but bring turnkey cruise missiles “on a turnkey basis” and only then sell them to their customers. In this case, the cost of development is not covered from the first, but from the subsequent batches of missiles sold.

Comparative tactical and technical data of the RK "Uranus" and "Harpoon"

"Uranus". The length of 4,4 is m, the maximum diameter of the hull is 420 mm, the launch weight of the ship-based missile is 520 kg, the maximum firing range is 130 km, the weight of the warhead is 145 kg.

"Harpoon". The length of 3,8 is m, the maximum diameter of the hull is 340 mm, the launch weight of the ship-based missile is 520 kg, the maximum firing range is 120 km, the weight of the warhead is 227 kg.
70 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    26 January 2013 10: 56
    Conditions of birth and gestation (design, testing), as when comparing Dogs and Elephants. In the first case, it’s 58-71 days, in the second, 22 months.
    Fly "birdie" to the joy of "parents" and "sadness" of "sworn friends"!
  2. +12
    26 January 2013 11: 42
    Tactical anti-ship missile X-35E

    The anti-ship missile (RCC) X-35E is designed to destroy missile, torpedo, artillery boats, surface ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons and sea transport. RCC X-35E can be equipped with:
    - shipborne missile systems of the "Uran-E" type;
    - mobile coastal missile systems of the "Bal-E" type;
    - Combat aircraft systems of tactical and naval aviation, search and patrol aircraft and helicopters.
    The Kh-35E missile can be used in simple and difficult weather conditions, day and night, in the conditions of fire and electronic countermeasures of the enemy.
    The low level of visibility of the rocket is ensured by its small dimensions, extreme low-altitude flight path, as well as a special guidance algorithm that ensures maximum secrecy of the use of an active radar homing missile. Target designation can come from onboard vehicle media as well as from external sources
    from the manufacturer’s website here

    Tests of the BRK "BAL" equipped with the X-35 missile



    About Paradise X-35

    1. +2
      26 January 2013 14: 01
      Launch range, km:
      130 (X-35)
      260 (X-35UE)
      Flight height, m:
      on the marching section - 10-15
      at the final stretch - 4
      Flight speed corresponds to M = 0,9
      Starting weight, kg:
      in the version of ship (shore) based - 600
      in the version of basing the plane / helicopter - 520/610
      High-explosive penetrating warhead of penetrating type
      Warhead weight, kg - 145
      Missile length, m:
      in ship (helicopter) version - 4,4
      in the airplane version - 3,85
      The diameter of the rocket, m - 0,42
      Type of fuel - liquid, kerosene.


      DBK "Bal-E"
      To control the coastal zone on the basis of the X-35 missile, the Bal-E coastal missile complex (DBK) was created. DBK uses ship-launch containers similar to the ship’s version with X-35E missiles. The presence of detection and control means determines the high autonomy of the complex, and placement on wheeled chassis of high cross-country ability - high mobility and low vulnerability for high-precision long-range weapons.

      DBK "Bal-E" includes:
      Command points of control and communication - up to 2 units.
      Launchers - up to 4 units.
      Transport and handling machines - up to 4 units.

      1. +1
        27 January 2013 09: 41
        the prefix "E" - as I understand it, speaks of export performance. It would be very interesting to know the characteristics "for myself"
    2. mamba
      0
      27 January 2013 10: 30
      And it’s creepy to be on a floating target ... belay
  3. VoStattik
    +3
    26 January 2013 11: 43
    Good weapons are born in the throes of designers.
    1. +1
      27 January 2013 18: 27
      In the 1970s, the development of anti-ship cruise missiles flying at ultra-low altitudes with supersonic speed began, which had a multi-layer warhead protected by armor and the ability to perform complex anti-aircraft maneuvers on the final section of the trajectory. We were 5 years ahead of Americans. But in the mid-70s, a group of specialists was allowed to leave for Israel, and this was when a simple citizen waited months for permission. Guys, for some reason, they got straight to the USA. After a couple of three years, we began to hopelessly lag behind ...
  4. +15
    26 January 2013 11: 48
    New RCC is good! But ... Ours is longer and thicker. The weight of the missiles is the same, and the explosive in our 80 kilo is less, therefore, the work on the target will be less somewhere by 35%. Of course, this is better than nothing at all, but it's worth considering.
    And there is no need to reproach the admirals for "incompetence". The military determines what weapons and with what characteristics they need. They fight. And if the designers and the industry will shove into the army and navy everything that has been "managed" to develop and create, then there will be little sense.
    1. Mik rybalko
      +2
      26 January 2013 17: 57
      Our systems have always possessed a greater mass, unfortunately our elemental base affected, this also applies to airplanes. In electronics, we lag behind the United States.
      1. scrack
        0
        26 January 2013 22: 59
        I would like to make the rocket supersonic
    2. beard999
      +10
      26 January 2013 18: 13
      Quote: IRBIS
      but worth thinking

      And what, in fact, to “think about”? The first modifications of the American RGM-84 anti-ship missile had a starting weight of 667 kg http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/harpoon/harpoon.shtml (and according to the English-language wiki, 691 kg in general), and the Russian ship anti-ship missile 3M24 - 600 kg http://www.ktrv.ru/production/68/673/67/. The maximum launch range for American anti-ship missiles is 120 km, and for 3M24 - 130 km. Thus, the larger mass and less fuel completely explain the difference in warhead mass between the RGM-84 and 3M24.
      But that’s not even the point. 3M24 was developed in the 80s. As written on the developer's website, this anti-ship missile system "is designed to destroy missile, torpedo, artillery boats, surface ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons." Those. during the development of 3M24 the task was to create a small-sized anti-ship missile system for well-defined surface targets. At that time, the Navy of the USSR already had PKR in service: 3M80 with a warhead mass of 320 kg, 4K80 and 4K85 with a warhead mass of 500 kg, 3M45 with a warhead mass of 750 kg, 3M70 with a warhead mass of about 1000 kg. The tests were 3M55 with 250 kg warheads, then work began on 3M54 with 200 kg warheads. Therefore, during the development of the 3M24 anti-ship missile system, no one set a target to stick the warhead close to the Harpoon mass in it. Is there enough 145 kg warhead for NK with a displacement of up to 5000 tons? As actual combat experience shows, yes. On May 4, 1982, Argentines sank the AM-39 Exocet British destroyer URO Sheffield with a displacement of 5350 tons. At the same time, warhead AM-39 - 165 kg, with an explosive mass of only 50 kg!
      Thus, 3M24 filled the niche of small-sized RCC, with a sufficient mass of warheads for the stated purposes. Moreover, even on the next 3M24 modification, they did not increase the warhead mass, but increased the maximum launch range by 2 times, from 130 to 260 km, because we already have anti-ship missiles for all types of surface targets, including aircraft carriers.
      1. mamba
        0
        27 January 2013 11: 22
        Quote: beard999
        As actual combat experience shows, yes. On May 4, 1982, Argentines sank the AM-39 Exocet British destroyer URO Sheffield with a displacement of 5350 tons. At the same time, warhead AM-39 - 165 kg, with an explosive mass of only 50 kg!

        Invalid comparison by weight of warhead. The missile pierced the destroyer board 1,8 m above the waterline, but inside the hull did not explode - the fuse timer did not work. According to some reports, the rocket engine worked for some time, provoking a fire. The compartment quickly filled with poisonous smoke, creating a real threat of missile explosion and artillery ammunition.
        After a four-hour unsuccessful struggle for the ship, the commander ordered him to leave. By that time, the crew had lost 20 people dead and 28 wounded.
        Ultimately, the Sheffield fire was extinguished by the approaching ships. Soon the destroyer was taken in tow and taken to South Georgia, hoping to carry out repairs there, but nothing came of it. On May 10, the ship sank at a depth of 200 m.
        1. beard999
          0
          27 January 2013 18: 19
          Quote: mamba
          Invalid weight comparison of warheads

          Why not “correct”? No, what you wrote is true. I do not argue with that. But this does not negate, the fact that even without the operation of the warhead, the destroyer immediately lost combat effectiveness and then sank. According to anyone, the mass of explosives in 165 kg warhead "Exocet" only 50 kg. At the time, they wrote on Wi-Fi that in 145 kg of warhead 3M24, the mass of explosives is 89 kg, i.e. even more than Exocet. In general, RCC with a close warhead mass is not so small: "Penguin" Mk 2 Mod. 7 - 120 kg, Kormoran - 160 kg, YJ-82 - 155 kg, Type 80 - 150 kg, AGM-65F - 136 kg, Marte Mk2 - 70 kg ...
          To combat ships with a displacement of up to 5000 tons, this is enough. Naturally, the defeat of one PKG does not always lead to flooding of the ship, but the probability of loss of combat effectiveness is very high. We can recall the defeat by the same anti-ship missiles AM-39 "Exocet" of the American frigate "Stark", class "Oliver Hazard Perry" (which, according to the Americans themselves, has a very high survivability). On May 17, 1987, Iraqis hit him with two anti-ship missiles, while the first missile also did not explode, but nevertheless left a 3,2 x 4,5 meter hole on board, the second AM-39 exploded and here is the result: the main systems and mechanisms of the frigate turned off, the ship lost speed and control, 37 people were killed, 21 wounded. The struggle for vitality has begun. The frigate was towed to the port. Refurbishment took 2 months, overhaul at Naval Ship Map took about 1,5 years.
          Thus, as combat experience shows, 50 kg of explosives is enough to deprive the combat capability of an NK with a displacement of up to 5000 tons.
      2. Windbreak
        +1
        27 January 2013 23: 36
        At Harpoon, the J402-CA-400 engine weighs 46 kg. Turbofan-50 about 100 kg
    3. -1
      26 January 2013 22: 50
      "But ... Ours is longer and thicker. The weight of the missiles is the same, and the explosive in our 80 kilo less, therefore, the work at the target will be less somewhere by 35%. Of course, this is better than nothing at all, but it's worth considering. "Well? And? .. Answer: our range is over 500 km ...
      1. 0
        27 January 2013 12: 19
        Read the text - the difference in range is only ten kilometers.
        1. -1
          27 January 2013 17: 09
          All listed ranges in open press are related to Export missiles ... They should not exceed 300 km ...
          And what do you think, for which the developers of the Uranus complex were recently given a state award? The characteristics were simply seriously improved: a container Club-K with X-35 missiles with Caliber capabilities ...
          1. Windbreak
            -1
            27 January 2013 23: 43
            Quote: Tektor
            All listed ranges in open press are related to Export missiles ... They should not exceed 300 km ...
            And why is the range 2,3 times less than 300 km? unlike export Yakhont, Caliber and Iskander-E with a close end to end. It is already written above because of what the difference
    4. 0
      30 January 2013 23: 49
      IRBIS. I support your comment and plus Uranus is worth a newer thought the whiter I have no doubt that they can do better.
  5. Misantrop
    +3
    26 January 2013 12: 09
    P-5, mentioned in the article, was also tested in Crimea. Her flight tests were conducted by Amet-Khan Sultan at the Bagherovo airfield near Kerch. They attached a tiny cabin and landing ski, launched from an airplane. And then they were in service with the BSF Air Force. In the Guards. When leaving the airport, a monument with her is
  6. +3
    26 January 2013 13: 36
    Quote: IRBIS
    And there is no need to reproach the admirals for "incompetence". .... Them to fight

    An old song - soldiers give cities, generals take them!
    1. +3
      26 January 2013 13: 53
      "Old songs" have nothing to do with it. The need for a weapon and its performance characteristics are determined by the military for subsequent development, and not vice versa.
      "We invented and assembled this stuff. Think about where to put it and how you will use it." - nonsense! And here the admirals have fair claims. Or do you think that in the Army and the Navy there is a completely stupid command and control?
  7. Fox
    +7
    26 January 2013 13: 39
    And in the West, both the state and private firms “get out of their pants”, but bring turn-key missiles “turnkey” and only then sell them to customers .------------- is it really possible? F22, too, turnkey? The author would have less often to look abroad in the ass.
  8. Mik rybalko
    0
    26 January 2013 15: 27
    It is interesting to compare the cost of Granite and X-35, how many X-35 missiles can be produced at the price of huge Granite. And a flock of 100 X-35 will penetrate the AUG air defense system will overload the vaunted IJIS, more successfully than 20 monstrous Granites.
    The class of light missiles proved to be a terrible enemy of the fleet in 1982. If the Argentines had more of them, and the courage of the pilots, then the British fleet would have suffered more serious losses.
    1. +1
      26 January 2013 19: 06
      Well then I ask the question of who will let you launch a flock of 100 X-35. They don’t take off in 1 minute
      1. Mik rybalko
        +3
        26 January 2013 19: 13
        So after all, not from one carrier, a coordinated attack from different directions and from different carriers of air, surface and underwater carriers.
        1. +1
          26 January 2013 19: 21
          You can’t launch uranium from submarines. and ships and planes need to get too close, and he is weak for an aircraft carrier. For the Baltic and the Caspian Sea still come down
          1. Mik rybalko
            +2
            26 January 2013 19: 25
            And who is talking specifically about the aircraft carrier? AUG does not consist of one ship, even destroying or damaging several ships from a marching order will already force the enemy to curtail his plans. The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is certainly gigantic, but damaged and deprived of the opportunity to fly its own air wing, is nothing more than a large pile of iron.
        2. 0
          26 January 2013 19: 29
          Well, yes, do carriers teleport to the launch range from their home base? Someone will not let you collect an attack group at launch distances, also after the first launch, there will be planes and missiles launched from the AUG of the likely enemy and 100-20% will take off from 30 missiles Then I think the attack group will need to take care of its survival and shot down missiles and planes flying in response to their missiles wink
          1. Mik rybalko
            -2
            26 January 2013 19: 36
            Quote: Atrix
            Then I think the strike group will need to take care of its survival and the downing of missiles and planes flying in response to their missiles

            If you are afraid of losses, it’s not worth fighting at all, it’s easier to immediately give up the island’s shelf ...
            Russians are so glorious that for their homeland they were never afraid to die
            1. +3
              26 January 2013 19: 42
              This nonsense needs to be eradicated in our minds to sacrifice people when losses can be avoided, and not to send people to certain death like pigs for slaughter. Heroic death is one thing, and useless is another when it could have been avoided.
              1. Mik rybalko
                -1
                26 January 2013 19: 55
                In the Russian faith, everyone who died defending the fatherland is a hero, and who says that she is useless is not for us to judge.
                Losses have always been, war without loss does not happen.
                Even in the exercises there is a percentage of losses ...
                1. +4
                  26 January 2013 23: 15
                  Quote: Mik Rybalko
                  In the Russian faith, everyone who died defending the fatherland is a hero, and who says that she is useless is not for us to judge. There have always been losses, there is no war without losses. Even in the exercises there is a percentage of losses ...
                  - nevertheless, improve your technique in such a way that it would turn out - "I kill the enemy, but he doesn't!" I only accept this approach! Not the same as in the song - "which means we need one victory, one victory for all - and we will not stand the price!" Beautiful words. With all due respect to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War, I bow low to them, but now this formula is irrelevant. There is nothing to pay that would not stand behind the price. China has something, India - but at least eat. Russia has nothing, and therefore the Israeli approach to the design of weapons will not interfere with Russia. And all the business - instead of loading the soldiers already during the hostilities, it is better to fully "load" the students of the same Chelomey - do they receive a salary? Bear the proud name of a defense industry designer? Let them plow and give the product - and I am not satisfied with the word "NOT WORSE" - namely BETTER (and BETTER in all respects) than your potential "friend" or closest competitor in trade in the military-technical cooperation. Yes, that's it, no more, no less. And threats to use foreign purchases sometimes also need to be used - sometimes the designers also fucking and are simply frankly lazy, where will you go, buy, what is worse than the amers - there are objective reasons for this, and in general:
                  Quote: Mik Rybalko
                  Losses have always been, war without loss does not happen.
                  . Yes here nifiga, isolate to plow! Plow like Korolev, Shipunov, Sukhoi, Miles and other GREAT did! Or make room, go to Holland and kill yourself on the rope there!
                  1. Mik rybalko
                    0
                    26 January 2013 23: 23
                    In our design bureau, the dominance of designers is far beyond the retirement age. Young people there do not give a head to raise, people come and almost immediately scatter.
                    Therefore, competition from the foreign military-industrial complex leads them to a state of stupor.
                    We don’t have any new ideas.
                    1. mamba
                      +2
                      27 January 2013 10: 57
                      Quote: Mik Rybalko
                      In our design bureau, the dominance of designers is far beyond the retirement age. Young people there do not give a head to raise, people come and almost immediately scatter. Therefore, competition from the foreign military-industrial complex leads them to a state of stupor.

                      We should not talk about the "dominance" of pensioners in the design bureau, but about the absence of a replacement for them. Low salaries for young specialists and low salaries for the same retirees, insufficient qualifications of young engineers, unstable funding for development, a destroyed production base, broken ties with subcontractors, an extremely limited choice of components - all this repels young people. They involuntarily ask themselves the question: "What for me this hemorrhoid?" It is this mess that does not allow them to "raise their heads", and by no means deserved specialists, who have been plowing for their homeland all their working life. And in a state of stupor they are driven by the government's irresponsible attitude to military developments, the impudent budget cuts in all sectors and at all levels, and those crumbs that only sometimes reach R&D and R&D projects. So they have to do with their bare hands on a thin knee what the amers never dreamed of. That's just until we get to the series, the amers will have time to come up with something cooler and rearm.
                      Personal question, Mik rybalko, if you are from Samara, in which I once had a chance to serve, where is the flag of Russia near your nickname?
                      1. Mik rybalko
                        0
                        27 January 2013 12: 32
                        Honestly, I did not understand how to attach this flag.
                        We do not want to work in a competitive environment. All the ideas of young designers are being trampled upon by the dominance of pensioners. In retirement you need to relax, and not try to grind ideas of 30, 40 years ago. fundamentally disagree about bare hands and thin knees, they don’t create modern technology, the Soviet design school was very serious (he studied in this specialty).
                        A simple example - "Theory of reliability" was created in the 80s before the destruction of the military-industrial complex.
                        In our science and technology, a traffic jam has formed from old ideas, which does not allow us to create fundamentally new models of weapons and equipment.
                      2. mamba
                        +1
                        27 January 2013 13: 25
                        Quote: Mik Rybalko
                        fundamentally disagree about bare hands and thin knees, they don’t create modern technology, the Soviet design school was very serious (he studied in this specialty).

                        Did the developer work? Or judge from other people's words?
                        Quote: Mik Rybalko
                        In our science and technology, a traffic jam has formed from old ideas, which does not allow us to create fundamentally new models of weapons and equipment.

                        I’ve been involved in the development of quantum electronics devices for 15 years and I know well who slows down progress in this industry. In addition to what I wrote in a previous post, I should also mention:
                        - business leaders who are afraid to take responsibility for the development of new ideas and the introduction of new developments;
                        - military representatives who are standing in the way of new ideas and devices.
                      3. Mik rybalko
                        0
                        27 January 2013 13: 28
                        had, but repelled the desire .. however, like all classmates ..
                        Yes, a rotten chain, not engaged in hydraulics and mechanical systems. There is a terrible stagnation ..
                  2. +3
                    27 January 2013 06: 12
                    I support 100 percent. A soldier should sit in a tank or on an airplane and not feel like a kamekdze, just because, excuse me, our generals in peacetime sawed through the budget, saluted and adopted outdated equipment. Of course, the members of the forum came in, crackled and sat down to play with toys. The military ranks should be in the courses of the latest developments and monitor their appearance with our "FRIENDS". Patriotism is never superfluous, but you must agree it is silly to argue with a sniper sitting in a trench with a Mosin rifle.
    2. 0
      26 January 2013 22: 58
      It is interesting to compare the cost of Granite and X-35, how many X-35 missiles can be produced at the price of huge Granite. Granites are no longer produced ... The price of the X-35 is two times cheaper than the Caliber.
  9. Misantrop
    0
    26 January 2013 15: 30
    Quote: Mik Rybalko
    It is interesting to compare the cost of Granite and X-35, how many X-35 missiles can be produced at the price of huge Granite.

    If THERE were such missiles, then the nuclear submarines for them would not be difficult to do. Or remodel, there were enough efficient submarines with outdated complexes. They will make the X-35 with an underwater start, IMHO will not rust behind Dvinsky wink
    1. Mik rybalko
      0
      26 January 2013 15: 46
      Yes, but Granite needs Tu-95RC or satellites. And the X-35 is lighter and simpler. in combination with light carriers (SU-34, SU-30) will be very effective. How many channels does the S-300 have? The attack of hundreds of X-35s, will be reflected oh how not easy.
      And huge boats such for the X-35 are not needed, which means cheaper and you can build more. Size also increases stealth.
    2. Windbreak
      0
      26 January 2013 19: 15
      Quote: Misantrop
      Make X-35 with underwater launch
      What didn’t please you with 3M-54?
      1. Misantrop
        +4
        26 January 2013 19: 38
        Than? Yes, the fact that under them to build specialized nuclear submarines not required
        Simply because they work perfectly out of standard torpedo tubes from a depth of 30-40m. The same practically silent 971 can take them on board at least 40 pieces and launch 8 pieces at a time with a minimum interval (an automatic reloading machine is a good thing). But I do not like "instead" more, but "together". Only one letter of difference, but the meaning changes significantly wink When the AUG has a lot of diverse threats, any of which is fatal, then the enemy strategists sharply increase their adequacy laughing
  10. +4
    26 January 2013 16: 16
    Yes, but for Granite you need Tu-95RC or satellites
    -
    RCC "Granit" was developed for SSGN, then adapted for firing from surface ships. Leave Granite alone. This is an old, but pretty good, naval rocket. And you definitely don't need to hang it on the plane.
    1. Mik rybalko
      0
      26 January 2013 17: 53
      Their purpose is one thing, to hit the surface target.
      I’m not saying that Granite is bad, but that in modern realities it’s not very likely to hit a target; you don’t want to, but you have to admit it. But there are a lot of X-35 class missiles in the world, and they fought quite a lot, the same example of ExoZet.
    2. politruk419
      0
      28 January 2013 06: 45
      Ha, figured the picture: "Granite" is suspended from an airplane. Outright removal of the brain. Because granite weighs 7 tons with a hook.
      http://images.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=3%D0%BC-45%20%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0
      %B8%D1%82%20%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0&noreask=1&img_url=http%3A%2F%2F
      www.yaplakal.com%2Fuploads%2Fpost-43-13347361654072.jpg&pos=24&rpt=simage&lr=113
      95
      1. 0
        29 January 2013 01: 19
        On the 76th IL can be downloaded. And dump it. ;)))
  11. +3
    26 January 2013 17: 41
    Uranus is just an unsuccessful attempt to catch up with yesterday, we must admit it. With comparable speed and range with Harpoon we have a lower warhead, it’s not capable of hitting ground targets, you won’t launch it from a submarine. The Americans have been improving Harpoon for 40 years, and there is combat experience, but we couldn’t put Uranus on the wing for 20 years. As a result, we only approached a rocket of the 70s.
    As for the replacement of Granite with Uranus - this boat absolutely needs to be approached point-blank, and the time of the volley will increase - this is death. New long-range supersonic time to design
    1. 0
      26 January 2013 18: 43
      I agree that long-range supersonic anti-ship missiles are also desirable with coast-based. Let's hope that something is already being developed ...
  12. +7
    26 January 2013 17: 42
    Harpoons, Kh-35 - these are all tactical-range missiles for hitting the enemy's NK within the range of their own detection equipment, and targets are mostly of no more than a frigate class (up to 5 thousand tons). To deal with a more serious enemy, you will need anti-ship missiles of an operational range, with a range of up to 500 km. Modified CDs from the Caliber and Onyx families will do. But at such a distance, an external control center is absolutely necessary - either AWACS or satellite, both are better. They pin their hopes on the Liana satellite system with the Lotos and Pion satellites.
    1. Mik rybalko
      -1
      26 January 2013 18: 07
      And the KVMS of Great Britain, they at the Falkland Islands received a painful lesson precisely from such missiles. Having lost 2 frigates, 2 destroyers, 1 auxiliary aircraft carrier, 1 landing ship.
      1. mamba
        0
        27 January 2013 12: 24
        Quote: Mik Rybalko
        they from the Falkland Islands received a painful lesson precisely from such missiles. Having lost 2 frigates, 2 destroyers, 1 auxiliary aircraft carrier, 1 landing ship.

        The destroyer URO "Sheffield" burned, but did not sink the missile "Exoset AM38".
        The destroyer URO "Coventry" was sunk using NURS and aerial bombs.
        The frigate URO "Ardent" was sunk by NURS and aerial bombs.
        The frigate URO "Antelope" was sunk by NURS and aerial bombs.
        The container ship Atlantic Conveyor, converted into an aircraft carrier, was sunk by an Exoset AM38 missile.
        The landing ship Sir Galahad was sunk by aerial bombs.
        The Foxtrot-4 landing craft was sunk by NURS and bombs.
        In addition to them they received damage:
        - aircraft carrier "Invincible" from hitting an aerial bomb on the deck behind the superstructure;
        - the destroyer "Brodsward" from being hit by aerial bombs;
        - landing ship "Sir Tristram" from being hit by aerial bombs.
        Argentine attack aircraft used Exoset AM38 anti-ship subsonic missiles weighing 735 kg with a 165 kg warhead, which could hit targets at a distance of up to 70 km, but only in the open sea, and not in narrow straits.
  13. +5
    26 January 2013 18: 25
    Among the targets, I mentioned frigates, the auxiliary aircraft carrier (container ship) and the landing ship - generally unprotected targets, and the destroyers were far from Arly Burke, also with very combustible structures.
    1. Mik rybalko
      +1
      26 January 2013 18: 56
      I set the criterion of cost-effectiveness, which is more profitable for Russia, to keep a fleet of obsolete SSGNs with Granites, spending astronomical amounts on their maintenance, or to build new SSGNs smaller in size with lighter weapons.
  14. Misantrop
    +2
    26 January 2013 19: 08
    Quote: Mik Rybalko
    which is more profitable for Russia, to keep a fleet of obsolete SSGNs with Granites, spending astronomical amounts on their maintenance, or build new SSGNs smaller in size with lighter weapons.

    Oh, damn it, another "effective manager" ... What should I do? Cut the "outdated" SSGNs and wait for new missiles to appear? How many more years will it take to do this? And then wait again until boats are made for them? And everyone else will understand everything and will not bother all this time. So?
    No need to tell that it is better to be rich and healthy than the poor and sick. It's obvious
    1. Mik rybalko
      -3
      26 January 2013 19: 16
      just about to leave the fleet of obsolete ships, formidable at the berths. wink
      it's time to set a goal and strive for the future, and not to shed tears on the Soviet legacy.
      1. Misantrop
        +1
        26 January 2013 20: 01
        Quote: Mik Rybalko
        it's time to set a goal and strive for the future

        Well, get started and start, show us how to do it right. Why should you stomp the keyboard? laughing

        And about
        Quote: Mik Rybalko
        formidable at the berths
        - that's for sure. When the country got bad money (thanks to the efforts of such advisers-economists, not otherwise) the so-called "Extern class combat duty" appeared. Those. boat at the pier with battened hatches. Ready to leave - 2 hours, readiness to fire - 20 minutes. The range of the complex was quite enough
        1. Mik rybalko
          0
          26 January 2013 20: 32
          With money it became just thanks to not being able to count money! Going personal is not the best reason if there are no other arguments
          1. Misantrop
            +1
            27 January 2013 16: 43
            Quote: Mik Rybalko
            if there are no other arguments

            In this discussion, I brought them with a dozen in different posts. Helped a lot?
        2. 0
          27 January 2013 16: 43
          Who told you about externs such tales ......
          God forbid, there were 20 times in the database (externally) no hatches there are closed up ....
          . We tested the launch from the pier of the boat on which -41 DiPL 667b began to serve ................ There is one shift on the ship, one more theoretically in the barracks (but this is from the realm of fantasy) .. ............ a couple-three times per shift play a missile attack .....
          Somewhere I have a unique photo - the first salvo of the BR with the RPK SN 667b from the pier in the White Sea ................ as I find it lay out ..
          1. Misantrop
            0
            27 January 2013 17: 04
            Quote: FREGATENKAPITAN
            Who told you about externs such tales .....

            We made this fairy tale come true. At the very beginning of the 90s, at the BDRM. And who the hell was released where. What the fuck is a barracks if it's in Olenya, and you're standing in Gadzhievo on pier 13. I was "lucky" to feel this crap on myself, then it went easier, they began to let go home one shift out of three.

            About Gremikha not in the know, but until the 90s, we in the 13th did not bother with such garbage. The cycle was tough: BS, MPR, BS. The ship rolled 2 autonomous units in a year, what kind of "external" here, the Ministry of Natural Resources would have time to carry out.

            By the way, did you have a chance to catch the cycle "60-30-60"? That's where the men howled at this "brilliant" invention of the admiral's thought ... wink
            1. +1
              16 February 2013 17: 44
              Here ... as promised, I post a unique photo ... the first salvo from the pier in the White Sea, Project 667b, as part of working out an external \\\\
              ........... Yes, yes ... as far as you know, they were caring for the Hajiyev 13 and 31 DIPL .........
              And in those years, and with us, the guys managed to go to the BS 3 times in a year ........... There were cases when they came from the BS and on the same pier they put on the TL to catch up with the boat leaving the autonomous area ... .
              and I’d love to roll up 90 days now ..................
  15. +2
    26 January 2013 19: 35
    No matter how they say here that they are old, and the amers are still afraid of "Granites".
  16. +7
    26 January 2013 19: 39
    The nuclear submarines of projects 949 and 971 need to be modernized, from the 949s they need to remove Granites, install the Caliber-PL and Onyx. What, in fact, is already in the plans: the 949A will start with the K-266 "Eagle" in 2013, the equipment of the 971s will begin with the K-328 "Leopard", which is now under repair. Equipping multipurpose nuclear submarines - strike and "hunters" with tactical missiles - is inexpedient. At one time, equipping such nuclear submarines of the Amethyst KR was already an outdated solution in terms of the range of modern missile defense systems and taking into account the increased TTE of the ships of the potential enemy.
    1. Mik rybalko
      0
      26 January 2013 19: 47
      Yes, a reasonable approach! Each submarine costs a lot of money. Our money with you and our state builds it not out of a whim, but because of the need to defend itself. Only the leaders of the world economy can afford to maintain a fleet of ships armed with various complexes in peacetime, to which, alas, we can’t attribute ourselves
      1. Misantrop
        +1
        26 January 2013 20: 04
        Quote: Mik Rybalko
        Only the leaders of the world economy can afford to maintain a fleet of ships armed with various complexes in peacetime, to which, alas, we can’t attribute ourselves
        And we can afford to build them urgently and at exorbitant prices, when they are suddenly needed, right? And also contain the plants necessary for such works here. Not loading them with orders wink
        1. Mik rybalko
          0
          26 January 2013 20: 19
          The American economy is 80% defense industry.
          Contain factories, design bureaus and science ?? WHY pay Russian workers and engineers, and why educate your workers and engineers.
          Build ships in series at several units per year. And who knows how many of them we need?
          Development should be continuous and support our economy, and not destroy the costs of maintaining the scrap metal.
          Shipbuilding is an industry that is extremely difficult to develop and sometimes not possible. In a large surface, we have already lost our achievements of the Soviet era, while in the underwater, no ...
          But with this approach, we will soon arrange there Yeltsinization-anihilation
          1. Misantrop
            0
            27 January 2013 22: 22
            Quote: Mik Rybalko
            Development should be continuous and support our economy, and not destroy the costs of maintaining the scrap metal.

            The scrap metal is already ALL cut. Mainly at the Nerpa shipyard in Polyarny. Obsolete ships used to stand in sludge bases and a penny was spent on their maintenance. "Several units per year" is an expensive pleasure, but at least one per year must be issued. In this regard, outdated (but technically quite alive) ships are extremely necessary - new complexes and systems are mounted on them and run in the sea. For not all design developments turn out to be successful, and reworking entirely new ships is prohibitively expensive. In this respect, at one time, "Andromeda" greatly helped out. What was not installed on it ...
  17. +2
    26 January 2013 20: 25
    Quote: IRBIS
    Or do you think that in the Army and Navy there is a completely stupid command and leadership?

    I hope not completely. Unfortunately, I saw stupid mediocrity.
  18. Misantrop
    +1
    26 January 2013 20: 28
    Quote: Mik Rybalko
    Development should be continuous and support our economy, and not destroy the costs of maintaining the scrap metal.

    These ships (possibly) will not become scrap metal before the new ones take their place at the piers. Yes, and that is unlikely. 667A were very handy when it was required to put torpedo blocks, new missile systems, etc. It turned out much faster, more efficiently and cheaper than to mold a project every time. Do you imagine the construction process in real life?
    1. Mik rybalko
      0
      26 January 2013 20: 40
      Of course not! Ships are built by themselves, and people have nothing to do with it. The volume of the NCIOR is certainly huge, but how can it be without it? Unfortunately, our opponents update their fleet very quickly and consistently ...
      We started to produce metalwork somewhere in 5 years ..
      The knowledge-intensive nature of nuclear submarines is certainly enormous, but it is the cost of Russian science and the economy.
      And the costs of how to compare the old car and the new cost of ownership
  19. sasha127
    0
    27 January 2013 16: 14
    Well, the fact that our rocket is not worse than the American one is good. I think that the performance characteristics of the Uran-X 35 missile are even better.
    1. +1
      27 January 2013 18: 32
      much worse, albeit 30 years younger
  20. MURANO
    0
    27 January 2013 21: 52
    Quote: Tlauicol
    much worse

    "a lot" can be voiced? smile
    1. +1
      28 January 2013 04: 23
      There are fewer warheads, no underwater launch, ground targets aren’t striking - and this is 30 years after Harpoon! this is not an achievement, it is a waste of money and time
      - pay attention to the possibilities
  21. +1
    29 January 2013 01: 37
    What does the good old "Granite" do not like? I still don't get it?
  22. +5
    1 February 2013 16: 23
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Less warheads, no underwater launch, ground targets not striking

    Why X-35 underwater start? It is not intended for submarines. The Navy had experience in operating tactical missiles with underwater launch (nuclear submarines of the 670M type with the Malachite missiles, 1973-80 built in the year). But in modern conditions, it does not make sense for a multi-purpose boat to have a separate class of tactical missiles on board if it is armed with a universal Caliber-PL complex with the ability to fire anti-ship missiles at NK in the 10 - 300 km range, which has warheads up to 200 - 400 kg. The same complex has 3M14 missiles for hitting ground targets.
    X-35 warhead (145 kg) is less than Harpoon's (225 kg), but taking into account what targets these RCCs are planning to hit (NK less than 5 thousand tons), then this is quite enough. Why overload a rocket?
  23. +5
    1 February 2013 19: 53
    Quote: Andrey77
    What does the good old "Granite" do not like? I still don't get it?

    Granite is a dead end apotheosis on the way to creating liquid-fuel supersonic rockets. The missile is incredibly massive - 7 tons, and oversized - the length of 10 m with a wingspan of 2,6 m, an entire aircraft, a convenient target for missile defense. Its tactical advantages are leveled by flight conditions: a missile can deliver 600 km of maximum range only on a high-altitude (combined) flight path, where missiles are most vulnerable, and on a low-altitude path, its range will not exceed 200 km, and the smallest approach height is 25 m, whereas modern missiles fly up to the target at altitudes of 5 - 20 m, supersonic maximum speed in 2,5M is realized only at high altitudes, and near the water the flight speed will not exceed 1,5М. Launchers are purely specialized, only for this type of missiles, and occupy a huge place: the underwater displacement of "loaves" (SSGN pr. 949A) - 20 thousand tons, and all this for the sake of 24 RCC Granite. Compare: the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine with a displacement of 12 thousand tons carries 32 anti-ship missiles and is able to use not only anti-ship missiles, but also missile launchers for ground targets.
    Granit’s “intelligence” in the “flock” was never tested in practical firing, attempts to launch them “flock” from three missiles in a salvo were unsuccessful, and Granit was practically not tested for firing at maximum range.
    So you need to replace Granites, and the faster, the better.
    1. 0
      3 February 2013 16: 19
      Data on "cleverness" have never been published in the open press. The results of the start-up "gregarious" even more so. Maybe this has already been declassified - it would be interesting to see. Are there any links?
  24. +5
    3 February 2013 19: 47
    Quote: Andrey77
    Are there any links?

    From the open press http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-398.html, you just need to carefully read the paragraphs: "Tests", "TTX missiles", "Status - USSR and Russia." The "cleverness" of anti-ship missiles Granite can only be checked when at least three missiles are launched.