Cruise missiles Kh-22 and Kh-32 in Special Operations

217
Cruise missiles Kh-22 and Kh-32 in Special Operations
Rocket X-22 in the museum. Photo Missilery.info


A significant contribution to the forced demilitarization of Ukraine is made by a long-range aviation aerospace forces of Russia. Long-range bombers of all types regularly carry out sorties and use weapons of different models. Relatively old Kh-22 Burya cruise missiles are used to destroy part of enemy ground targets. In addition, there is information about the use of a newer product of the same class X-32.



Combat application


Already in the first weeks of the Special Operation for the Defense of Donbass, there were reports of the participation of Tu-22M3 long-range bombers in it. With the help of regular weapons, these aircraft and their crews began to attack various enemy targets. In the future, such news acted with surprising regularity.

As part of the current operation, Tu-22M3 bombers carried out combat missions using Kh-22 Burya cruise missiles. From time to time there are suggestions and fragmentary information about the possible use of the new Kh-32 missile, created on the basis of the "Storm". Practice has shown that both products cope with the tasks and are effective. weapons.

According to known data, with the help of Kh-22 and Kh-32 missiles, various ground targets were hit. With their help, strikes were carried out against enemy manpower and equipment bases, against military infrastructure, dual-use facilities, etc. Missiles have shown their ability to pass through the remaining air defenses of the enemy and inflict critical damage to targets or completely destroy them.


X-22 missiles on a Tu-22M3 aircraft. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

The missiles have demonstrated their ability to destroy various structures and buildings, as well as disable or destroy various equipment, special equipment, etc. Such results are due to the use of a heavy 960-kg penetrating warhead.

At the same time, a fairly high accuracy of hitting is shown. Despite its great age, the Kh-22 missile remains an effective weapon and is capable of solving certain combat missions. The new X-32 has a number of advantages over its predecessor, and these qualities are also likely to be used in solving problems.

Enemy reaction


The reaction of the Ukrainian side to the use of Kh-22 missiles is curious. At first, her propaganda practiced wit and came up with offensive epithets for such products - they were called scrap metal, and also called old and useless. In addition, they promised to easily shoot down all such threats. In the future, Ukrainian air defense has repeatedly talked about the successful defeat of Russian cruise missiles, and without real reasons for such boasting.

However, even propaganda had to admit that missiles successfully break through to their targets. But in this case, the Kh-22s were accused of hitting civilian targets. The use of these facilities for military purposes, of course, was hushed up.

Not so long ago, Ukrainian propaganda statements about the X-22 have changed dramatically. So, on January 14, Ukrainian air defense tried to shoot down such a missile in the sky over the city of Dnepropetrovsk. She managed to damage an incoming missile, causing it to change course and hit a residential building. The destruction and casualties forced the Ukrainian propaganda to change its mind sharply and abandon previous statements. It suddenly became clear that the existing air defense could not work on Kh-22 missiles, and all the earlier reports of successful interceptions were not true.


Takeoff of a bomber with the X-22 product. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

It is obvious that the combat use of Kh-22 and Kh-32 missiles will continue in the future, probably until the very end of the Special Operation. How many times the Ukrainian side will have time to change its mind about this weapon and what statements it will come to, time will tell.

Consistent development


The promising Kh-22 air-launched anti-ship cruise missile has been developed at OKB-155-1 (now the Raduga Design Bureau) since the late fifties. It was to become a key component of the K-22 missile system for the Tu-22 bomber. Flight tests of the complex and the rocket began in 1963, but the fine-tuning was seriously delayed. The finished K-22 complex was put into service only in 1971.

Subsequently, the X-22 missile underwent a series of upgrades with the replacement of equipment and an increase in the main performance characteristics. In parallel, the K-22 complex developed. In particular, it was adapted for use on new media. So, by the mid-seventies, Tu-22M missile carriers with the K-22 complex appeared in combat units. The complex was also received by a certain number of Tu-95K-22 long-range bombers.

To date, the only carriers of Kh-22 missiles have been Tu-22M3 long-range bombers. Up to three missiles are suspended under the wing and fuselage of such an aircraft. The task of such aviation systems is to deliver strikes against enemy ground or surface targets, including large and covered air defenses.

Back in 1990, a project was launched for a deep modernization of the Kh-22 missile, aimed at improving overall performance and improving combat qualities. By the end of the nineties, he was brought to flight tests of experimental missiles, but then work stopped due to lack of funding. The project under the designation X-32 was resumed only at the end of the 2016s. As a result of these works, in XNUMX, a modernized complex with a new missile was adopted.


X-22 missile moments before hitting the target, June 2022, Kremenchug. Photo Telegram / Dambiev

According to known data, the Kh-32 missile is intended for the upgraded Tu-22M3M bombers. Such an aircraft receives an updated complex of electronic equipment, incl. modern weapons control system. The latter allows you to use all the functions and capabilities of a modern cruise missile.

Technical features


The Kh-22 cruise missile was originally intended to fight large enemy ships, incl. with aircraft carriers. In this regard, the product is large in size and weight. The rocket has a cylindrical body with an ogive nose fairing. A triangular wing of small elongation and a folding tail unit are provided. The design of the product is made of steel and titanium. The length of the rocket reaches 11,6 m, the body diameter is 900 mm. Wingspan - 3 m. Starting weight is 5,9 tons.

X-22 products of all modifications are equipped with liquid-propellant rocket engines, and most of the internal volumes are given over to fuel and oxidizer with a total mass of up to 3 tons. Such an engine allows the rocket to reach speeds of up to 4000 km / h and rise to great heights. The launch range of the main modifications of the X-22 exceeded 350-400 km.

The rocket used a combined control system with an inertial navigation system and a radar homing head. Active and passive AR GOS were proposed, due to which the rocket could independently search for a target or be guided by its radiation.


X-32 missiles on trials. Photo Airwar.ru

A heavy missile carries a warhead weighing 960 kg; several types of charges were produced. The bulk of the missiles were completed with a high-explosive-cumulative warhead of penetrating action. There was also a nuclear warhead with a capacity of 350 kt to 1 Mt. Other equipment options were also explored.

The upgraded Kh-32 missile retained the main features of its predecessor, but almost all components and assemblies were replaced. So, a new liquid engine with improved characteristics has been introduced. With its help, the flight range more than doubled, to 1000 km, and the ceiling rose to 40 km. A new anti-interference radar seeker was used, and the old autopilot gave way to a modern control system.

Thus, the new product X-32, with all the similarities with its predecessor, has obvious advantages. It flies higher and further, carries a similar warhead and more accurately delivers it to the target, incl. in the face of opposition from the enemy.

Old and modern


The Kh-22 cruise missile was created half a century ago and has since become morally obsolete. Objective claims are made against a propulsion system that is difficult to operate, an insufficiently perfect seeker, etc. All these features reduce the missile's combat potential and its value to the troops. However, in certain situations, the outdated X-22 is quite capable of solving combat missions and hitting the intended targets.

In addition, a new ammunition with modern equipment and without its shortcomings was created on the basis of the old missile. The X-32 product is capable of solving the same range of tasks, but it does it more efficiently and over a larger range of ranges. Right now, two types of missiles are demonstrating their capabilities in a real conflict. And the enemy has already learned what a threat they pose.
Our news channels

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

217 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    27 March 2023 06: 25
    Up to three missiles are suspended under the wing and fuselage of such an aircraft.
    Only for transportation without fuel and oxidizer, this also applied to ampoule fuel.
    As a normal load, the combatant Tu-22M and Tu-95K-22 could carry one, and the maximum - two missiles. Three X-22 missiles for all types of aircraft were suspended only in the transport version, this is due to the difficulties of transporting the missile. To transport one X-22, an AN-12 aircraft or one railway platform was required ...
    was the introduction of ampoule filling using a special unit. ... Refueling was carried out immediately before firing, storage of equipped missiles was no longer allowed.
    1. +5
      27 March 2023 09: 34
      I thought that ampoule storage of fuel and oxidizer is a step forward and on the 32nd this issue is closed. It’s a no brainer that with this method, combat readiness and safety are increased many times over, despite the fact that all components are terribly poisonous and it takes a lot of time to refuel.
    2. -1
      27 March 2023 18: 58
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Only for transportation without fuel and oxidizer, this also applied to ampoule fuel.

      So what's the problem? The mass of the X-32 is 5800 kilograms, the maximum combat load of the Tu-22M3 is 24 tons, 3 missiles are 17400 kilograms, not even the maximum combat load.
      1. +1
        28 March 2023 02: 08
        The problem is that the greater the combat load, the shorter the range of the aircraft :) ...
      2. +1
        28 March 2023 05: 09
        Quote: Lt. air force reserve
        The mass of the X-32 is 5800 kilograms, the maximum combat load of the Tu-22M3 is 24 tons, 3 missiles are 17400 kilograms, not even the maximum combat load.
        Maybe the problem is the maximum landing weight? 88 tons versus 68 empty. Well, safe.
  2. +5
    27 March 2023 06: 26
    I wonder if our army uses Tochka-U. There is a lot of it in warehouses, it is quite suitable at its effective range and can be used to detect enemy air defense systems. Ukraine uses it and quite successfully. soldier
    1. -3
      27 March 2023 06: 43
      Quote: V.
      I wonder if our army uses Tochka-U. There are a lot of them in warehouses, it is quite suitable
      The last missiles were produced 15 years ago, and unlike the ukrovs, ours hardly re-equipped the engines, so all the storage periods have expired.
      1. TIR
        +8
        27 March 2023 09: 58
        There are many in stock. And most are still working. He himself had a term in the brigade where Points-U were. Quite unpretentious. Yes, and the warehouses were dry and with a constant temperature
    2. +6
      27 March 2023 06: 52
      Quote: V.
      does our army use Tochka-U

      "Officially" - no! In fact, I don’t know ... But the use of the "Point" is "inconvenient" for the command of the Armed Forces for image or "political" reasons! After all, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have repeatedly stated that they are not shelling the cities of Donbass with civilians; and the Russian troops (the military of the DPR, LPR) fire at "themselves" in order to "show the Armed Forces of Ukraine in a negative light"! In response, the leadership of the Northern Military District constantly stated that there was no Tochka-U TRK in service with the Armed Forces ... these complexes were decommissioned by the Russian army! So how do you use them now? request
      1. +6
        27 March 2023 16: 20
        How?
        give to the Syrians.
        And they will smash the mattress bases.
      2. +14
        27 March 2023 19: 18
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        So how do you use them now?

        Just like the T-62 - out of necessity and expediency.
        And all the statements that "Donbass is shelling itself" are already outdated and long forgotten. So in this regard, the hands are untied, up to 10 "Points-U" are in warehouses, there is a considerable need for such weapons, and warheads weighing 000 kg. - a sufficient argument to deal with their rehabilitation and return to duty.
      3. +2
        27 March 2023 22: 55
        You might think that this somehow convinces enemy propaganda. And in general they used it, according to some Ukrainian beech, at the very beginning of the NWO, they tried to hit a point somewhere in the north, but it didn’t work out. It is doubtful that this vushniki tried to do
    3. +10
      27 March 2023 07: 16
      Uses, of course. Photo is avaiable. But officially, of course, this is denied.
      1. -4
        27 March 2023 07: 24
        Quote from: Alex_mech
        Uses, of course. Photo is avaiable. But officially, of course, this is denied.
        Of course there is, with analyzes that Tsipsoshnye capes.
        Yes, the Khikhly are just throwing up that the RF Armed Forces are hitting Tochka-U on Ukrovsky cities.
        1. +3
          27 March 2023 12: 07
          Yes Yes. All you don't like is cisso and chicks. Everything is exactly like that.
          1. +1
            27 March 2023 14: 10
            Quote from: Alex_mech
            Yes Yes. All you don't like is cisso and chicks. Everything is exactly like that.

            Those. do you not hesitate to assert that all the attacks by Tochka-U on Ukrainian cities were carried out by Russian missilemen? Who are you after this?
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. -5
              27 March 2023 19: 18
              Where did I claim that? Will you show me? Or write new fantasies? As you answer, we will all know who you are after that)))
              1. 0
                28 March 2023 05: 13
                Quote from: Alex_mech
                Where did I claim that? Will you show me? Or write new fantasies? As you answer, we will all know who you are after that)))

                What? Do you have photos of Tochka-U strikes on cities? Eat. Where is the photo of the use of the Points by the Russian troops from the beginning of the NWO? You wrote about it.
                Quote from: Alex_mech
                Uses, of course. Photo is avaiable. But officially, of course, this is denied.
                1. +1
                  28 March 2023 12: 20
                  Where does it say that * all the blows *, where is there * in the cities *? I wrote that there is a photo proving that "Point U" is used. I didn't write or claim anything about cities. You made it up. And you keep persisting.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. -1
                      29 March 2023 10: 10
                      Once again, I'll try to be slow... Where did I say "photos of the use of Dots by settlements"? Isn't it really so difficult to understand one's wrong and stop inventing something that wasn't there?
                      1. 0
                        29 March 2023 11: 52
                        Quote from: Alex_mech
                        Once again, I'll try to be slow... Where did I say "photos of the use of Dots by settlements"? Isn't it really so difficult to understand one's wrong and stop inventing something that wasn't there?

                        Do Khikhlov have such a tactic, under mow, in case of uncomfortable questions? You claim that there is a photo of the use of the Point by the Russian Army. And xIkhly say the same thing!
                        How strange.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        The RF Ministry of Defense denies the use of "Tochka-U" by the Russian Army anywhere

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Where is the photo of the use of the Points by the Russian troops from the beginning of the NWO? You wrote about it.

                        So where is the photo?
                      2. +1
                        29 March 2023 17: 50
                        Well, first, show me where I wrote about "Photo of Tochka-U strikes on cities." A? Of course, it's amusing for me to watch such wobbles, but let's take it in order. And then we get to the photo. But for some reason I'm sure that there will be another fantasy in half with hysteria and of course poking a finger "tsipsooo")
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                      4. 0
                        April 1 2023 10: 32
                        Do you continue to twist your ass and blame me for this?))) This is a very stupid trick, to come up with something for the opponent that he did not say, and then demand evidence. And as I asked for specifics (what is in brackets), hysteria and graphomania began))) I thought so, this breed is known to me.
            3. 0
              April 3 2023 13: 37
              Yes, just a pissant
    4. +1
      27 March 2023 12: 20
      Wagner (ZREY ZONE) writes (and uploads photos) that Dot-U is used by ours. Well, given the use of the T-62 and the ancient X-22, this clearly suggests itself.
      1. -5
        27 March 2023 14: 08
        Quote from: blackGRAIL
        Wagner (ZREY ZONE) writes (and uploads photos) that Dot-U is used by ours. Well, given the use of the T-62 and the ancient X-22, this clearly suggests itself.

        And what is the minimum zone out of ten? The one that VSUchkam collects money?
    5. +1
      27 March 2023 13: 57
      Quote: V.
      I wonder if our army uses Tochka-U. There are a lot of them in warehouses, she is quite

      citizen .... what reality do you live in?
      1.
      08.04.2022
      In Ukraine, a rocket attack was carried out at the Kramatorsk railway station during the evacuation of residents
      At least 39 people were killed and more than a hundred injured in a rocket attack on a railway station in Kramatorsk, Donetsk region. At the station at that moment there were thousands of people trying to leave the city.

      https://www.interfax.ru/world/833850
      2.
      The Russian Defense Ministry said that Russia did not launch a missile attack on Kramatorsk. The self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic called the shelling a provocation. The Russian military department claims that Tochka-U missiles are used only by the Ukrainian armed forces.

      “On April 8, the Russian Armed Forces did not have any fire missions in the city of Kramatorsk and were not planned,” the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement.

      The Ministry of Defense said that the statements of the Ukrainian authorities about the April 8 missile attack by Russia on the Kramatorsk railway station "are a provocation and are absolutely untrue."

      “We would like to emphasize that the Tochka-U tactical missiles, the fragments of which were found near the railway station of Kramatorsk and published by eyewitnesses, used only by the Ukrainian armed forces", - said the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

      3.
      In 2019, the Russian Ministry of Defense officially announced that the missile brigades of the Russian ground forces had completed the rearmament from the Tochka-U complexes to the more modern Iskander-M.

      https://www.interfax.ru/russia/833865
      1. +4
        27 March 2023 19: 08
        Quote from Digger
        In 2019, the Russian Ministry of Defense officially announced that the missile brigades of the Russian ground forces had completed the rearmament from the Tochka-U complexes to the more modern Iskander-M.

        And that was the absolute truth... for 2019. smile
        And then 2021 came - and as part of the 8th OA, the 47th RBR was formed with a deployment in Korenovsk.

        True, the brigade was promised to be re-equipped with Iskanders by the end of 2021.
        As Deputy Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Alexei Krivoruchko said on August 10, 2021, in a speech at the Single Day of Acceptance of Military Products, by the end of this year, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will receive a new brigade set of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system, which will be delivered at the same time "ahead of schedule".
        1. +1
          27 March 2023 20: 15
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And then 2021 came - and as part of the 8th OA was

          staggers MO RF oh staggers. Who is in the forest, and who is for firewood.
          1. +2
            28 March 2023 10: 25
            Quote from Digger
            staggers MO RF oh staggers. Who is in the forest, and who is for firewood.

            Yes, everything is fine. When they signed the contract for the Iskanders, the 47th RBR was not in the plans. And when it appeared in the plans, they decided to form it on the existing old equipment - temporarily, until a new brigade set was received.
            I was at the training camp in the zrp on the S-200, which they promised to re-equip with the S-300, but for the duration of the transition they gave ... S-125. smile
      2. 0
        28 March 2023 09: 45
        Quote from Digger
        citizen .... what reality do you live in?
        1.
        08.04.2022
        In Ukraine, a rocket attack was carried out at the Kramatorsk railway station during the evacuation of residents
        At least 39 people were killed and more than a hundred injured in a rocket attack on a railway station in Kramatorsk, Donetsk region. At the station at that moment there were thousands of people trying to leave the city.

        https://www.interfax.ru/world/833850

        It was the Ukrainian Tochka-U.
    6. +2
      27 March 2023 17: 19
      It seems that in 2019 they decommissioned and decommissioned all point-y. We decided that the Iskanders would completely replace them. But it was smooth on paper and forgot about the ravines. Now these points would be very useful. There were good missiles, the Nazis did not save them in vain and are now using them with might and main.
      1. 0
        28 March 2023 02: 16
        Not a single video with the launch of Tochka-U during the CBO has been seen on the Internet. It seems that these missiles are no longer there. But where did the very necessary and effective weapon go, the question is.
        1. +2
          28 March 2023 10: 28
          Quote: Garris199
          But where did the very necessary and effective weapon go, the question is.

          Part of it went for disposal by launch in one Middle Eastern country. wink
  3. -3
    27 March 2023 06: 44
    Quote: V.
    I wonder if our army uses Tochka-U. There is a lot of it in warehouses, it is quite suitable at its effective range and can be used to detect enemy air defense systems. Ukraine uses it and quite successfully. soldier



    But I’m thinking: Why can’t we use missiles for the S-300, the shelf life of which is expiring, for firing at GROUND targets?! request Destroy for nothing?

    And second: if an anti-aircraft missile, which is designed to fire at an air target, flies 120 km, then when fired at the ground, it will probably fly 130 km. She doesn't have to go very high. what
    1. -4
      27 March 2023 07: 18
      That is exactly how they are used. Another question is what is the accuracy of an anti-aircraft missile when firing at the ground? Probably low, if not random.
      1. +1
        27 March 2023 07: 22
        Quote from: Alex_mech
        That is exactly how they are used. Another question is what is the accuracy of an anti-aircraft missile when firing at the ground? Probably low, if not random.

        It's strange, Khikhly just throw it up that the RF Armed Forces are hitting Ukrovsky cities with S-300 missiles. Coincidence?
        1. 0
          27 March 2023 11: 57
          Of course, this is a CIA information operation, and the fact that the S-300 can do this on a regular basis, the Mossad has already come up with this.
          1. +2
            27 March 2023 17: 22
            Quote from: Alex_mech
            Of course, this is a CIA information operation, and the fact that the S-300 can do this on a regular basis, the Mossad has already come up with this.

            Well, who would doubt that you are dispersing the attacks of the Russian army with S-300 air defense missiles on Ukrainian cities. Actually, without a doubt.
    2. +5
      27 March 2023 07: 33
      Quote: Sulla__Glorious
      Quote: V.
      I wonder if our army uses Tochka-U. There is a lot of it in warehouses, it is quite suitable at its effective range and can be used to detect enemy air defense systems. Ukraine uses it and quite successfully. soldier



      But I’m thinking: Why can’t we use missiles for the S-300, the shelf life of which is expiring, for firing at GROUND targets?! request Destroy for nothing?

      And second: if an anti-aircraft missile, which is designed to fire at an air target, flies 120 km, then when fired at the ground, it will probably fly 130 km. She doesn't have to go very high. what

      There was an interesting article here on VO. The point is that those missiles of the complex that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have only radio command guidance to the target, i.e. the locator must see the target steadily. With the entire height of the locator mast, he will see a ground object no further than 30, well, 40 km. So it's cheaper to use MLRS.
      1. -1
        27 March 2023 09: 34
        Quote: South Ukrainian
        The point is that those missiles of the complex that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have only radio command guidance to the target

        The S 300 has semi-active homing, and it needs a radar for illumination and target guidance (RPNC).
        Quote: South Ukrainian
        With the entire height of the locator mast, it will see a ground object no further than 30, well, 40 km.

        But there was already a case when the S-300 of the Russian Federation shot down 2 aircraft of the Armed Forces of Ukraine when landing at the Mirgorod airfield, Poltava region, with a range of over 200 km. (which was an absolute record for S-300 type systems). According to my assumptions, in this case, the target was illuminated from another aircraft (possibly AWACS).
        1. +4
          27 March 2023 13: 06
          Quote: vvvjak
          The S 300 has semi-active homing, and it needs a radar for illumination and target guidance (RPNC).

          Semi-active radar guidance on missiles used in the S-300PM, on the old S-300PS, which are used to strike ground targets - command radio with sighting through the missile.
          1. 0
            27 March 2023 14: 40
            Radio command guidance was used only on the 5V55 (K) missiles back in the 70s. From the mid-80s, 5V55R went with a semi-active seeker. In any case, it was the 5V55R that got into the Polish tractor, so the APU definitely had them. On the S-300 of the P (T, S) series, missiles with PAGSN (the same 5V55R) were also used.
            Quote: Tucan
            which are used to strike ground targets

            Who uses and most importantly why?
            1. -5
              27 March 2023 16: 23
              APU, for krivorukie and stupid.
              But here they are trying to convince them of the opposite, because an informational victory is needed.
              1. 0
                27 March 2023 16: 49
                Quote: Hitriy Zhuk
                APU, for krivorukie and stupid.

                To use missiles against ground targets, both the head and hands are needed. At least to remove the self-destruct unit from the rocket. Another thing is that, according to the version that has the right to exist, the Armed Forces of Ukraine (not without the help of the "allies") have long removed these blocks on their missiles to increase the range of the missile, which is why they "fall" on the heads of their citizens anywhere.
                1. +3
                  27 March 2023 19: 38
                  At least to remove the self-destruct unit from the rocket.

                  there is no need to delete anything. The ability to fire at ground targets is the standard missile mode provided by the manufacturer.
                  1. 0
                    27 March 2023 19: 45
                    Well, explain how this "regular" mode works.
                    1. +1
                      28 March 2023 15: 44
                      Quote: vvvjak
                      Well, explain how this "regular" mode works.

                      Almost all Soviet air defense systems with command guidance had the ability to work on the ground, including the S-300PT-1 and S-300PS. To do this, the sensitivity of the radio fuse is "roughened" or the detonation occurs on command from the CHP. When firing at stationary ground-based radio-contrast targets for 5V55R missiles, the maximum range is 45-50 km.
                      Quote: vvvjak
                      Radio command guidance was used only on the 5V55 (K) missiles back in the 70s. From the mid-80s, 5V55R went with a semi-active seeker.

                      You are mistaken, the 5V55R and 5V55RM missiles used in the S-300PT-1 and S-300PS are equipped with a guidance system with a sight through the missile. This mode can be called a combination of semi-active and radio command guidance.
            2. +1
              28 March 2023 00: 03
              Quote: vvvjak
              Radio command guidance was used only on the 5V55 (K) missiles back in the 70s. From the mid-80s, 5V55R went with a semi-active seeker

              How much are you willing to bet that the S-300PS uses missiles with radio command guidance of the second kind?
              Quote: vvvjak
              Who uses and most importantly why?

              Much has been written about this, including on VO.
      2. +3
        28 March 2023 10: 40
        Quote: South Ukrainian
        The point is that those missiles of the complex that the Armed Forces of Ukraine have only radio command guidance to the target, i.e. the locator must see the target steadily.

        Just with RKTU, it is not necessary to see the target. For the rocket is not aimed at the target itself, but is launched by commands from the ground to a certain point in space ("cross"). And the task of the calculation is to make this point coincide with the target.
        This is what the RKTU is good for - you can shoot "by dead reckoning": at a temporarily invisible target (hidden by interference or terrain folds), continuing to manually drive the "cross" to the point where this target should appear according to calculations. Or on the ground, switching to the appropriate mode and simply setting the "cross" to the azimuth-range.
    3. +2
      27 March 2023 08: 02
      Quote: Sulla__Glorious
      why can't we use missiles for the S-300, the shelf life of which is expiring, for firing at GROUND targets?!

      The statements of the Armed Forces of Ukraine about the use of anti-aircraft missiles by the RF Armed Forces against ground targets are doubtful! It is possible to use missiles against ground targets, but not "ice"! SAM "at 120 km" will not fly "on the ground" at 130 km (!) ... it will fly at a distance much less than 100 km due to the peculiarities of "firing" with SAMs!
      PS This was all "understood" in detail on the Internet and on VO, in particular!
      1. +6
        27 March 2023 12: 08
        Yes, yes, doubtful. There are already so many photos on the net with very characteristic wreckage, and all are doubtful.
        Here, “analysis” from specialists like the same Skomorokhov is rather doubtful
        1. -3
          27 March 2023 13: 13
          Quote: prorab_ak
          Yes, yes, doubtful. There are already so many photos on the net with very characteristic wreckage, and all are doubtful.

          For the "especially gifted" I want to remind you that the S-300 is in service with the Armed Forces of Ukraine ... they are actively used! So ... picking up the wreckage of the S-300 missiles "3 carts and 4 carts" is not a problem for the Armed Forces of Ukraine!
          1. +4
            27 March 2023 15: 39
            Well, they have nothing else to do. Every time you yell at CIPSO, think about it, why the hell is a goat boyan? What's the point of this? to convince the West that Russia is the aggressor and is shooting at civilians? so everyone is convinced of it. Any assumptions, in the absence of clear facts, must be built from a position of probability. What is more likely: Russia is using S-300 missiles against ground targets (for which this is regular use), which, in the absence of Ukrainian aviation, are not particularly needed in order to save more expensive and new missiles, or that the Ukrainians, who really need these missiles, use them for self-attacking what would ....... To what? dont clear.
            1. +1
              28 March 2023 10: 45
              Quote: Arsen1
              Well, they have nothing else to do. Every time you yell at CIPSO, think about it, why the hell is a goat boyan? What's the point of this?

              You yourself answered:
              Quote: Arsen1
              to convince the West that Russia is the aggressor and is shooting at civilians? so everyone is convinced of it.

              The degree must be maintained, because consumers of media products quickly run out of steam, switching to other topics. And the S-300s are ideal for this - you don’t even need to spend special ammunition to create the necessary media picture: if a missile system shot down a target - it won, it failed and fell on a residential area - a double win.
              1. +2
                28 March 2023 18: 00
                Neither add nor take away good fully agree with you.
          2. +1
            27 March 2023 17: 12
            For those who have thrown in the morning, it seems that the glass is different (And grandfather regularly writes about this himself in his comments)
            In general, I didn’t write anywhere that only Russians are able to do this and do it. I challenged my grandfather's thesis that the use of our anti-aircraft missiles from the S-300 is very doubtful.
            After numerous facts of the use of expired (or expiring) ammunition of the most varied nomenclature, for an obvious reason, why r .... about throwing it away, if you can throw it at your neighbor, will you still argue that ours are not used?
            1. -2
              27 March 2023 18: 45
              Quote: prorab_ak
              I challenged my grandfather's thesis that the use of our anti-aircraft missiles from the S-300 is very doubtful.
              After numerous facts of the use of expired (or expiring) ammunition of the most varied nomenclature, for an obvious reason, why r .... about throwing it away, if you can throw it at your neighbor, will you still argue that ours are not used?

              Is this a "dispute"? What a miserable thing.

              Quote: prorab_ak
              Yes, yes, doubtful. There are already so many photos on the net with very characteristic wreckage, and all are doubtful.


              In general, is the contestant aware that they need to launch missiles from air defense systems and to work on the ground, these air defense systems need to be adjusted closer to the line of contact? I don’t think that the anti-aircraft gunners are as gifted as the “disputer” to risk very expensive equipment.
    4. +7
      27 March 2023 08: 28
      When firing at the "ground", it will fly 40 km.
    5. +3
      27 March 2023 12: 23
      Military correspondents periodically write about the use of the S-300 against ground targets, this is open information. And not only the S-300, there were cases of the use of Bukov.
      1. -1
        27 March 2023 13: 49
        Quote from: blackGRAIL
        Military correspondents periodically write about the use of the S-300 against ground targets, this is open information. And not only the S-300, there were cases of the use of Bukov.

        There may be "honest" delusions! From the very appearance of official information, the sources noted the possibility of using S-300 missiles on the "ground"! But this concerned the S-300 PT / PS with 5V55 missiles ... !! S-300PT / PS are not being produced and are being withdrawn from service ... (perhaps at present they are not even left on the periphery in the "deaf taiga"!) More modern S-300 PM / PM2 systems may participate in the NWO zone ... I "heard" about the S-300V4 ...! Nowhere have I seen a mention that somewhere ... ever used missiles of the S-300PM / PM2 or S-300V / VM complexes against ground targets! It may be worth considering that the guidance systems of the 5V55 and 48N6 missiles are different! If there are 5V55 Zurs left in Russia, then, I think, there are not so many ... and it’s not bad to save them; They are trying not to destroy the S-300PS, but to "donate" it to "friendly" countries! In extreme cases, it is more advisable to use the 5V55 zur for air targets, because. The Armed Forces of Ukraine are trying, when delivering strikes, to overload the air defense of the Russian army, "bullet" "with anything"! And you can't get enough of 48N6 missiles for every "muddy" target! But even here there are doubts ... but can the S-300PM / PM2 effectively use old 5V55 missiles? I consider it pointless to "send" old S-300PS systems to the NMD zone! The Buk air defense systems have the ability to fire at sea and ground radio-contrast (!) Targets, and can occasionally use this opportunity, if necessary ... but Occasionally!
      2. -4
        27 March 2023 18: 46
        Quote from: blackGRAIL
        Military correspondents periodically write about the use of the S-300 against ground targets, this is open information. And not only the S-300, there were cases of the use of Bukov.

        Just an impudent tryndez... I have never seen such a thing, and I’m sitting in a cart.
    6. 0
      April 3 2023 13: 41
      There, the charge of the explosives is scanty, the geranium drags more.
  4. +2
    27 March 2023 06: 51
    The picture shows a private greenhouse...
    Wasting a rocket on it?
    With 50% QUO 300 meters from it is of little use, PMSM
    1. +2
      27 March 2023 07: 04
      Quote: aars
      The picture shows a private greenhouse...
      Wasting a rocket on it?

      The fact that there is some kind of hangar across the alley, where the rocket dives, is not visible, is it?

      Quote: aars
      With 50% QUO 300 meters from it is of little use, PMSM

      X-22NA, adopted in 1976, inertial control system with correction according to the terrain, accuracy of guidance up to several meters.
      1. -6
        27 March 2023 07: 22
        The photo is signed "Kremenchug". Is this just the case when a rocket hit the Amstor shopping center, and not the factory workshop nearby?
        1. -1
          27 March 2023 08: 08
          Quote from: Alex_mech
          The photo is signed "Kremenchug". Is this just the case when a rocket hit the Amstor shopping center, and not the factory workshop nearby?

          On June 27, 2022, an X-22 missile hit the Amstor shopping center in Kremenchuk[18][19][8], killing at least 20 people and injuring at least 56[20][21]. Second rocket exploded 450 meters to the east, which could be the intended target of the strike - the Kredmash road engineering plant

          Dada, that's just the first missile and could have missed the S-300, only Ukrov, and not as you like.
          1. -8
            27 March 2023 08: 12
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            could be a missed S-300
            So what kind of rocket is in the picture?
            1. -1
              27 March 2023 08: 28
              Quote: aars
              So what kind of rocket is in the picture?

              So what is the wall from? Is it a factory hangar? Because I don’t see parking lots around any shopping center.
              1. -5
                27 March 2023 08: 35
                Once again - do not talk about the hangar.
                What rocket?
                A parking lot can be only on one side, and it usually is.
                1. -3
                  27 March 2023 08: 53
                  Quote: aars
                  Once again - do not talk about the hangar.

                  Well, it's not necessary, it's not necessary, but nevertheless.
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  And hangars have walls, can you imagine! And if you don’t believe me, then here’s a link for you, from Wiki, as you like.

                  "Hangars are also called industrial and utility rooms of an arched, straight-walled, polygonal or tent type. Often a hangar is a prefabricated building."

                  Quote: aars
                  What rocket?

                  Some kind of modification of the X-22, then what?

                  Quote: aars
                  A parking lot can be only on one side, and it usually is.
                  That's just around the "Amstor" in Kr. It is on three sides, and on all sides there are quite open spaces.
                  1. -4
                    27 March 2023 09: 26
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    Some kind of modification of the X-22, then what?
                    And the fact that she could not have missed the S-300
                    1. -4
                      27 March 2023 10: 05
                      Quote: aars
                      Some kind of modification of the X-22, then what?
                      And the fact that she could not have missed the S-300

                      Cococo...
                      The fact that there were two arrivals, but one photo, is it so, is it different?
                      1. +4
                        27 March 2023 10: 19
                        And the fact that your stupid crap causes the opposite effect is nothing, supposedly the way it should be?
                        The more oaks in the army, the stronger our defense?
                      2. -2
                        27 March 2023 11: 38
                        Quote: aars
                        And the fact that your stupid crap causes the opposite effect is nothing, supposedly the way it should be?
                        The more oaks in the army, the stronger our defense?

                        The opposite effect from what, from the fact that cissot drizzle about strikes on civilians interfere with lying, or what?
                      3. -10
                        27 March 2023 11: 55
                        There have been and will be strikes against civilians!
                        And this is right and good!
                        It doesn't matter where, the effect is important

                        And the harm is that you interfere ineptly and stupidly, through the obvious dumbest crap
                        Fuck talking about the S-300 if she's not in the photo?
                        What nonsense?
                        I want to tell misinformation so say that there is a factory, an ammunition depot, etc. behind the wall.
                        This is for example
                      4. 0
                        27 March 2023 14: 23
                        Quote: aars
                        Fuck talking about the S-300 if she's not in the photo?
                        What nonsense?

                        Once again, for a cisso with a Selyuk mindset: There were TWO arrivals, and a photo of one rocket! From different angles.
                      5. 0
                        27 March 2023 15: 41
                        there is a photo of the funnel at the mall. You can familiarize yourself and understand that the S300 rocket cannot leave such a funnel
                      6. 0
                        27 March 2023 17: 19
                        Quote: Arsen1
                        there is a photo of the funnel at the mall. You can familiarize yourself and understand that the S300 rocket cannot leave such a funnel

                        Photo to the studio, but while we are waiting - let me remind the viewers that the S-300 carries warheads from 130 to 150 kg. of which explosives are at least 50, and this is at least a 203 mm projectile.
        2. -4
          27 March 2023 10: 21
          Is this just the case when a rocket hit the Amstor shopping center, and not the factory workshop nearby?

          It was at your TsIPSOshnikov that a rocket hit the shopping center, and this video proves that the rocket hit the workshop, and the shopping center has already been hit by a shock wave. It was not for nothing that only the windows were shattered and the cars in the parking lot burned down.
        3. 0
          27 March 2023 10: 29
          The rocket hit the road machinery plant, and the shopping center was already hit by the shock wave. Where do you see the mall in this video?
        4. KCA
          +2
          27 March 2023 14: 54
          A warhead of 950kg will ruin some five-story Auchan to hell, and then some kind of shopping center and 20 dead?
      2. -8
        27 March 2023 07: 56
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        The fact that there is some kind of hangar across the alley, where the rocket dives, is not visible, is it?
        Hangar?!
        Damn, I really don't see it!
        Nothing is clear, the wall, but not the hangar.
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        X-22NA, adopted in 1976, inertial control system with correction according to the terrain, accuracy of guidance up to several meters.
        Where does the quote come from?
        If from the wiki, then with the "author's" additions about accuracy that are missing there.
        Here it is from the wiki
        The missile has an inertial navigation system based on a gyroscope and a primitive radar, which is known for its low accuracy[5]: only about half of the shots hit within 600 meters of the target[6][7][8].
        The X-22 is also known for its inaccuracy when used against ground targets, as its radar guidance system does not distinguish targets well in urban areas [9].
        1. +1
          27 March 2023 08: 17
          Quote: aars
          X-22NA, adopted in 1976, inertial control system with correction according to the terrain, accuracy of guidance up to several meters.
          Where does the quote come from?
          If from the wiki, then with the "author's" additions about accuracy that are missing there.
          Well, if Wiki is an authority, then of course ... Although even the wiki shows a modification of the X-22NA, and the "famous inaccuracy" about a certain X-22 in general is not known what year and definitely without correction for the terrain. But for you it seems to be difficult.


          Quote: aars
          Damn, I really don't see it!
          Nothing is clear, the wall, but not the hangar.
          And hangars have walls, can you imagine! And if you don’t believe me, then here’s a link for you, from Wiki, as you like.

          "Hangars are also called industrial and utility rooms of an arched, straight-walled, polygonal or tent type. Often a hangar is a prefabricated building."
          1. -4
            27 March 2023 08: 34
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            But for you it seems to be difficult.
            Once again, where is the quote from?
            The beginning is exactly as in the wiki, literally, exactly to the letter.
            Why are you shoving it here since the wiki is not an authority?
            But there is no about meters.
            So where did it come from?
            Notion?
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            And hangars have walls, can you imagine!
            Absolutely nothing indicates that this is a hangar, and at least not sporzal.
            1. 0
              27 March 2023 09: 06
              Quote: aars
              Once again, where is the quote from?
              The beginning is exactly as in the wiki, literally, exactly to the letter.
              The fact that information on the wiki can be cut off as you like, what does not allow you to understand?
              Quote: aars
              Why are you shoving it here since the wiki is not an authority?

              Do you know how to use contextual search? And what doesn’t allow you to understand that the wiki pulls information, and not from the wiki.
              http://авиару.рф/aviamuseum/dvigateli-i-vooruzhenie/aviatsionnoe-vooruzhenie/sssr/aviatsionnye-rakety/upravlyaemye-rakety/ur-vozduh-poverhnost/krylataya-raketa-h-22/krylataya-raketa-h-22-burya/
              https://testpilot.ru/rossiya/mikoyan/kh22/


              Quote: aars
              Absolutely nothing indicates that this is a hangar, and at least not sporzal.
              Either not a warehouse, or not a workshop, or not a HANGAR for equipment.
              1. -6
                27 March 2023 09: 24
                I admit it's not a fantasy.
                But it still does not inspire any confidence, an accuracy of several meters for 1976 is unlikely, even with correction, if only because of the lack of relief maps with such accuracy and computers of the appropriate dimensions
                8080, 8-bit only appeared in 1974
                And we have even later, k580vm80

                That's why this nonsense didn't make it to the wiki.
                1. -4
                  27 March 2023 10: 19
                  Quote: aars
                  8080, 8-bit only appeared in 1974
                  And we have even later, k580vm80

                  Nothing that were analog computers? Nothing that 76 years have passed since 45 and the element base and firmware have been changed? Nothing that a simple increase in the accuracy of the course at launch increases the accuracy of the hit? Nothing that the launch range is only 400 km?
                  Well, nothing is nothing, when instead of the mind a pro-Ukrainian wiki, then okay ...
                  1. -3
                    27 March 2023 10: 34
                    So it is necessary to write about modernization, if it was!
                    But I’m not stupid about the fact that the missile put into service in 1976 has an error of several meters
                    About the relief correction by means of an analog computer, in general, a pearl!
                    Do you even know what that is?
                    Of course not...
                    In short, your stupid speeches are nothing to the brink of harm
                    1. -2
                      27 March 2023 11: 35
                      Quote: aars
                      So it is necessary to write about modernization, if it was!
                      But I’m not stupid about the fact that the missile, adopted in 1976, has an error of several meters. About the relief correction by means of an analog computer, it’s generally a pearl!

                      A few meters, this is up to 10. And the replacement of the element base, for modernization, is not always carried out. And analog computers didn’t allow such things, according to height measurements at correction points, And stupid crap is your twisting.

                      Quote: aars
                      Do you even know what that is?
                      Of course not...
                      Well, flash your knowledge, insect me ...
                      Quote: aars
                      In short, your stupid speeches are nothing to the brink of harm
                      Of course, this does at least a little harm to the Ukrainian cissot sketches about the S-300, Tochka-U and X-22 at home and in shops, I hope ...
                      1. -1
                        27 March 2023 11: 49
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And analog computers didn’t allow that, according to height measurements at correction points
                        No, damn it, they didn’t allow it, they didn’t have so much memory, for relief maps
                        The accuracy of this missile is measured in hundreds of meters.
                        Enough for a nuclear charge
                        And that's a fact of life
                        This does not mean that it cannot be applied to an area target.
                        Oil depot is great
                        But units of meters and ten meters for 1976 are complete, absolute LAZHA
                        No one was going to use the X-22 in 1976 with a conventional warhead against an aircraft carrier group, because. this is idiotic
                        Only with nuclear
                        And anyone understands

                        As for houses and shops - no, it does not harm at all, let them be afraid!
                        We killed, we kill and we will kill because. "civilians"
                        Nehru here to behave like a young lady for the first time seeing a member
                        Fuck big on their houses and shops
                        The drum

                        But what’s not on the drum is the negligible effectiveness of our missiles
                        Nothing comes out
                        Neither with the power system nor with bridges

                        Although the same Kh-22 with a penny block of glonass could demolish the bridge
                        But judging by the result, no one bothered about it

                        In this problem
                        And you don't have to disguise it with stupid crap
                      2. +3
                        27 March 2023 12: 41
                        Quote: aars
                        No, damn it, they didn’t allow it, they didn’t have so much memory, for relief maps

                        The first cruise missile with terrain navigation was already in 1956 - MGM-13 Mace. "Memory" was enough for 540 miles. There is information in English-language sources about how it was technically organized, read it - you won't regret it.
                        PS About the accuracy of 10 meters for 76 years, this is certainly crap), but here, as they say: "Blessed is he who believes" bully
                      3. -2
                        27 March 2023 13: 59
                        Quote: BORMAN82
                        PS About the accuracy of 10 meters for 76 years, this is certainly crap), but here, as they say: "Blessed is he who believes"

                        9 m KVO is a circle of 18 meters
                        1974 ... The guidance system of the "autonomous" X-22MA received a relief correction system, due to which the KVO was reduced to a value of the order of magnitude comparable to warship size.

                        "Autonomous" Kh-22NA - with an inertial guidance system that provides correction for the terrain, guidance accuracy up to several meters.

                        X-22HA - with an inertial guidance system. Their REO was transferred to semiconductors. New ANS ensured high trajectory keeping accuracy

                        Could the new ANN give greater accuracy? Could. Could the transfer to a new base increase the accuracy of determining on the ground and the actual control? Could. That's all. From 200 m. to 20 m., a transition is quite possible. Yes, taking into account a more accurate launch from an aircraft.
                      4. +3
                        27 March 2023 14: 34
                        9 m KVO is a circle of 18 meters

                        in which only 50% of hits fit. Why is everyone forgetting about this? And the fact that KVO is just a concept, along with other methods of assessing accuracy, and the most inaccurate, but giving the most beautiful advertising figures, is generally known only to mathematicians who are not here.
                      5. 0
                        27 March 2023 17: 53
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        9 m KVO is a circle of 18 meters

                        in which only 50% of hits fit. Why is everyone forgetting about this?

                        And what estimate gives the exact, non-advertising figures? None, but the KVO is at least quite understandable and adequate.
                        And not "only 50% of hits" but guaranteed 50%.
                      6. 0
                        27 March 2023 18: 27
                        And not "only 50% of hits" but guaranteed 50%.

                        From this they will cease to be 50%?
                        And what estimate gives the exact, non-advertising figures? None

                        To begin with, what kind of people do you even know that you say so categorically that there is none?
                      7. 0
                        27 March 2023 18: 33
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        From this they will cease to be 50%?

                        But even with a small increase in the radius, they increase sharply.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        To begin with, what kind of people do you even know that you say so categorically that there is none?
                        Up to this point, it didn't bother me. And what/what?
                      8. +1
                        27 March 2023 18: 43
                        But even with a small increase in the radius, they increase sharply.

                        Just for fun - a small increase in radius is how much and sharply is also how much?
                        Up to this point, it didn't bother me.

                        Then how can you claim none if you don't know what there are?
                        And what/what?

                        After our conversation about migrants, do you think I will spend time educating you? It's useless.
                      9. 0
                        27 March 2023 18: 48
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic

                        After our conversation about migrants, do you think I will spend time educating you? It's useless.

                        And yes, I remember your ignoring the obvious things...
                        But just for fun, in case you didn't notice:
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        With an INS and a range of 400 km, one map is enough - in the target area. Everything you need to know about your knowledge of the topic

                        The fact is that you also do not have knowledge "on the topic" since you write this.

                        Justify. Let me just remind you that the X-22 is a high-altitude missile, and on the main, high-altitude, flight section, measurements of the radar map were ineffective. But with a gentle dive into the target area, the targets are already sufficient for correction.
                      10. 0
                        27 March 2023 18: 59
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Just for fun - a small increase in radius is how much and sharply is also how much?

                        In relation to the circular normal distribution, the value R95 ≈ 2,4477 σ ≈ 2,0789 L is also often encountered - the radius of a circle centered on the target, which hits 95% of the shells. Where L is the standard QUO.
                        Those. an increase from 9 (18) to 18 (36) m will result in 95% hits. From 9 to 13,5 to 75 percent hits.
                      11. +2
                        28 March 2023 09: 28
                        From 9 to 13,5 to 75 percent hits.

                        It would be better if you stopped at copy-paste from your Wikipedia "well of knowledge" - the Rayleigh distribution is one of the representations of the probability density function. which is not linear. Accordingly, your figure is not correct.
                        I asked just to make sure once again that it is pointless to continue the conversation with a person who thinks that he knows everything, since he has access to the Internet.
                      12. 0
                        29 March 2023 03: 46
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        It would be better if you stopped at copy-paste from your Wikipedia "well of knowledge" - the Rayleigh distribution is one of the representations of the probability density function. which is not linear. Accordingly, your figure is not correct.

                        Of course, it is not true, maybe 72, or maybe 78. Is there any claim to 95 percent when doubling the radius? It's just that this figure means an increase in the probability of hitting two missiles to one. Although I may be mistaken in the direct dependence of the QUO and the probability of hitting the target.


                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        I asked just to make sure once again that it is pointless to continue the conversation with a person who thinks that he knows everything, since he has access to the Internet.
                        But I don't know, I'm looking for evidence, and if I find evidence that I'm wrong, I'll admit it. And from you now I see just a play on words. Especially noticeable after ignoring this issue, simple.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Up to this point, it didn't bother me. And what/what?

                        and this

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        With an INS and a range of 400 km, one map is enough - in the target area. Everything you need to know about your knowledge of the topic

                        The fact is that you also do not have knowledge "on the topic" since you write this.

                        Justify. Let me just remind you that the X-22 is a high-altitude missile, and on the main, high-altitude, flight section, measurements of the radar map were ineffective. But with a gentle dive into the target area, the targets are already sufficient for correction.



                        You know everything without the Internet, so where is the answer, no matter how empty?
                      13. 0
                        29 March 2023 09: 10
                        Certainly not true

                        That is, you deliberately deceive people
                        maybe 72 maybe 78

                        82,17% (0,8217)
                        There is no claim to 95 percent when doubling the radius?

                        Should there be? The question is not in percentages and doubling the radius, but in the fact that you still do not understand the meaning of the QUO.
                        It's just that this figure means an increase in the probability of hitting two missiles to one.

                        Of course not. The probability of hitting the target in this case is 99,75% (0,9975)
                        Especially noticeable after ignoring this question, simple. And this

                        And there was no disregard. It is directly written to you - Do you think ... I will spend time enlightening you? It's useless. I can only recommend literature for self-education.
                      14. 0
                        29 March 2023 11: 30
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Certainly not true

                        That is, you deliberately deceive people
                        maybe 72 maybe 78

                        Wow wow, what a lazhovenkoe claim. Estimated estimate, and even as it turned out to be noticeably underestimated (82,17% (0,8217)) is not a hoax. Turn on your head. And then I see that your memory and counting are at the level, but with understanding, the matter is so-so.




                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Of course not. The probability of hitting the target in this case is 99,75% (0,9975)
                        Even to me, a person far from mathematics / statistics (and I do not hide it), it is clear that this figure differs little from one. And calculate as the probability of hitting a target with two missiles with fifty percent of hits. And then explain where I'm wrong when I wrote this -
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        But even with a small increase in the radius, they increase sharply.


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Should there be? The question is not in percentages and doubling the radius, but in the fact that you still do not understand the meaning of the QUO.
                        Something is not noticeable that you understand this meaning. Otherwise, you wouldn't write something like this:
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Just for fun - a small increase in radius is how much and sharply is also how much?

                        And then this:
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        82,17% (0,8217)


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And there was no disregard. It is directly written to you - Do you think ... I will spend time enlightening you? It's useless. I can only recommend literature for self-education.
                        Well, or they realized that I’m right, but you don’t like to admit your mistakes .. It hurts your eyes right. And recommend literature, why not. Although it was possible and immediately. Type from the master's shoulder.


                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        With an INS and a range of 400 km, one map is enough - in the target area. Everything you need to know about your knowledge of the topic

                        The fact is that you also do not have knowledge "on the topic" since you write this.

                        There is no justification for your correctness.
                      15. 0
                        29 March 2023 13: 27
                        Wow wow, what a lazhovenkoe claim. Estimated estimate, and even as it turned out to be noticeably underestimated (82,17% (0,8217)) is not a hoax. Turn on your head.

                        1) Am I talking to a teenager?
                        2) How, based on your text "That is, an increase from 9 (18) to 18 (36) m will lead to 95% of hits. From 9 to 13,5 to 75 percent of hits." can we conclude that this is a "estimate estimate"? A completely confident, unambiguous statement, without using, for example, the words "approximately", "estimated", "about", etc.
                        3) And the choice is not great - either deceit or mistake. The difference between one and the other is whether the speaker knows that he is giving incorrect information or not. You knew, since you yourself wrote - "Of course not true"
                        it is clear that this figure differs little from unity.

                        1) From this she does not become her
                        2) This figure is the probability of hitting one of two missiles, each of which has a hit probability of 95% (0,95). If we accept the probability of hitting a target with one missile as you indicated (75%), then the probability of hitting a target with one of the two missiles will be 93,75% (0,9375).
                        And calculate as the probability of hitting a target with two missiles with fifty percent of hits. And then explain where I'm wrong when I wrote this - But even with a slight increase in radius, they increase sharply.

                        Where did I tell you that you were wrong when you "wrote this"? I just asked for specifics. You don't spoil your interlocutors with it. He also explained why he asked for specifics - this immediately allows you to understand whether there is a foundation under the interlocutor's reasoning or whether he thinks so simply because he wants to.
                        It is not difficult to satisfy your request, but it, in the same interpretation as yours, made me smile - for two missiles, the principle "with a slight increase in radius, they increase sharply" will not work.
                        1) R50, the probability of hitting at least one missile when launching two missiles is 75% (0,75)
                        2) R82,17, the probability of hitting at least one missile when launching two missiles is 96,82% (0,9682)
                        The increase in probability in the case of one missile is 64%, and with two - only 29%.
                        Something is not noticeable that you understand this meaning. Otherwise you wouldn't have written this.

                        1) why I "wrote this", I sort of explained.
                        2) you say this to the person you are asking to calculate the probability for you because you yourself cannot do it.
                        Recommend literature.

                        George Siuris "Missile Guidance and Control Systems"
                        There is no justification for your correctness.

                        1) Kindergarten pants with straps, if you think that in this way you will provoke me to conduct an educational program for you.
                        2) Haven't you forgotten about your own justification for your "correctness" of your own statement.
                      16. 0
                        29 March 2023 14: 26
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Am I talking to a teenager?

                        Your claim is so untenable that it raises doubts about your adequacy - is that better?

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        How, based on your text "That is, an increase from 9 (18) to 18 (36) m will lead to 95% of hits. From 9 to 13,5 to 75 percent of hits." can we conclude that this is a "estimate estimate"? A completely confident, unambiguous statement, without using, for example, the words "approximately", "estimated", "about", etc.
                        3) And the choice is not great - either deceit or mistake.

                        And I proceeded from your own statement that:
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        KVO is just a concept, along with other methods of assessing accuracy, and the most inaccurate

                        I will explain in detail, because You are clearly clinging to letters, and not even words - how can you give accurate estimates knowing that the system is inaccurate? You pointed this out to me, I did not argue with this, which means I gave a deliberately inaccurate assessment FOR EVERYONE. A KNOWN FOR EVERYONE, an inaccurate estimate is not a deception, no matter what you try to assert there, but an estimated estimate, and even an underestimated one.
                        Otherwise, it turns out that it is you who are lying or mistaken when, claiming that the QUO is an inaccurate assessment system, you demand an accurate assessment from me.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        The increase in probability in the case of one missile is 64%, and with two - only 29%.
                        Let me remind you that even though mathematics / statistics is not mine, trying to tell me that a 64% or even 29% increase in probability is a slight increase is not necessary, it’s clear that this is nonsense! So my words are:
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        But even with a small increase in the radius, they increase sharply.
                        You are also confirmed.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        for two missiles, the principle "with a small increase in radius, they increase sharply" will not work.
                        Well, let's say initially it was not about two missiles.


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        1) Kindergarten pants with straps, if you think that in this way you will provoke me to conduct an educational program for you.
                        What possession of demagogy, at an adult level! Well, write at least how many radar correction sites are needed for a high-altitude missile with a maximum range of 400 km?


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Haven't you forgotten about your own justification for your "correctness" of your own statement.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Either it (GOS) was modified for terrain correction, but in any case, a downward view was impossible at a large angle, which means that the rocket needed a gentle dive to verify the terrain with the reference map ...

                        ... The course - no, but the RL-correction of the course - yes. Yes, and at a distance of up to 400 km, correction is needed only in the target area, to correct the error of the INS.

                        X-22HA in 76
                        "Tomahawk" was adopted in 83 with an accuracy of 80 m, it only flew 2500 km, at low altitude and with enveloping the terrain.
                        So at 400 km and with an accuracy of 18 m (9 KVO) and along a simple profile. it’s possible to compose something by the year 76.
                      17. -1
                        29 March 2023 16: 19
                        And I proceeded from your own statement that
                        I will explain in detail, because You are clearly clinging to letters, not words

                        You no longer know how to get out
                        1) Here you write - how can you give accurate estimates knowing that the system is inaccurate?
                        2) At the same time, this does not prevent you from giving an accurate assessment, knowing that the "system is inaccurate" - I.e. an increase from 9 (18) to 18 (36) m will result in 95% hits. From 9 to 13,5 to 75 percent hits. You don't specify limits, limits, or margins of error, and don't use vocabulary that indicates "inaccuracy" (words like "approximately", "estimated", "about") - nothing that could indicate that you consider it imprecise
                        3) We are with you within the boundaries of the ONE model, in which it is, of course, true with respect to itself. Somehow you were not embarrassed by her "inaccuracy" when you wrote - not "only 50% of hits" but GUARANTEED 50%.
                        Otherwise it turns out

                        It turns out all the same - you undertake to argue in matters in which you are incompetent.
                        Let me remind you that math/statistics is not my thing

                        But you take the liberty (or rather the arrogance) to argue about things that are pure mathematics.
                        to say that a 64% or even 29% increase in probability is a small increase is nonsense!

                        Another distinguishing feature of your conversation is to attribute to the interlocutor something that he did not say.
                        Well, let's say initially it was not about two missiles.

                        AND? Does this cancel your request to calculate the probability for the case of launching a couple of missiles?
                        Well, write at least how many radar correction sites are needed for a high-altitude missile with a maximum range of 400 km?

                        What for?
                        Either she (GOS) was ....
                        .... it’s possible to compose something by the year 76.

                        Sorry, you threw a sheet of your ASSUMPTIONS (speculation), and did not give their JUSTIFICATION.
                        And the logic "once in 1983 at a distance of 2500 km KVO 80 meters, which means in 1976 at 400 km they could get 9 meters" is simply discouraging. It is not more logical to assume that since two missiles have the same navigation principle (inertial with correction by comparing the contours of the terrain without correlation), then the QUOs are most likely comparable? No, it is necessary to fence inventiveness in order to fit the desired to the real.
                      18. 0
                        29 March 2023 17: 09
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You don't specify limits, limits, or margins of error, and don't use vocabulary that indicates "inaccuracy" (words like "approximately", "estimated", "about") - nothing that could indicate that you consider it imprecise

                        You are already slipping into frank chatter: because both you and I recognized the system as inaccurate. So?
                        And your mention of the word GUARANTEED as a sign of my denial of the inaccuracy of the system is a sign of GUARANTEED demagoguery - yours!
                        A demagogue is almost the same as a liar!


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        But you take the liberty (or rather the arrogance) to argue about things that are pure mathematics.
                        to say that a 64% or even 29% increase in probability is a small increase is nonsense!
                        Those. with this you are trying to talk about the fact that 29%, let alone 64%, is a significant increase? Actually, it's practically arithmetic.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Let me remind you that math/statistics is not my thing

                        But you take the liberty (or rather the arrogance) to argue about things that are pure mathematics.
                        I can’t calculate exact numbers, because I haven’t done this for a very long time, but I have full knowledge of logic and general technical knowledge. And I fully see and understand your demagoguery about the CVO and so on.



                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        to say that a 64% or even 29% increase in probability is a small increase is nonsense!

                        Another distinguishing feature of your conversation is to attribute to the interlocutor something that he did not say.

                        I poke you with my nose now -
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        But even with a small increase in the radius, they increase sharply.
                        Just for fun - a small increase in radius is how much and sharply is also how much?
                        What will you write - that this is not a denial of my statement about a sharp increase? Come on, let's talk words.


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Well, write at least how many radar correction sites are needed for a high-altitude missile with a maximum range of 400 km?

                        What for?
                        Then that your confidence in my zero knowledge on the topic is based on this.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        With an INS and a range of 400 km, one map is enough - in the target area. Everything you need to know about your knowledge of the topic
                        The fact is that you also do not have knowledge "on the topic" since you write this.

                        And if you excuse yourself, it means you cannot reasonably answer, and therefore your knowledge is also near zero. And scouring the internet doesn't help, does it? By the way, the book "recommended" by you, did you open it at least on some page, until now?

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        It is not more logical to assume that since two missiles have the same navigation principle (inertial with correction by comparing the contours of the terrain without correlation), then the QUOs are most likely comparable?
                        Only if you miss the difference between the altimeter and the GOS radar (there is no mention of an altimeter for the Kh-22NA) and if you miss the methods of preparing maps (for 400 km they are somewhat more accurate than for 2500), even if you compare 1976 and 1983.

                        By the way, about GUARANTEED - for QUO, this is a figure drawn around 50 percent of arrivals, so they, 50 percent, are guaranteed there (Laughter in the audience)
                      19. 0
                        30 March 2023 16: 22
                        You are already slipping into frank chatter: because both you and I recognized the system as inaccurate. So?

                        1) Not so. You didn't say a word about her inaccuracy. until you had to AT LEAST SOMEONE justify unfounded statements with "exact ceiling" figures. You didn't specify limits, limits, or margins of error, didn't use vocabulary that would indicate "inaccuracy" (words like "approximately", "estimated", "about") - nothing that could indicate that you considered it inaccurate.
                        Do you want a cherry on the cake? For that, let's jump to the end of your post:
                        By the way, about GUARANTEED - for QUO, this is a figure drawn around 50 percent of arrivals, so they, 50 percent, are guaranteed there (Laughter in the audience)

                        The laughter from the audience is mine.
                        1) not just a figure, but a specific figure with a specific location of the geometric center
                        2) here's just a snag - the possibility of combining a ballistic trajectory with this very specific location is also a probabilistic value, called the "average trajectory" in external ballistics.
                        3) therefore, the QUO cannot be empirically confirmed
                        4) therefore, if you seriously think that the KVO is determined by practically shooting Z times the Nth number of shells and then drawing figures on the ground until you get into these 50%, then I even feel sorry for you a little.
                        5) takeaway cherries - the very specific word "presumably" is used in the definition. Not "guaranteed". Need to explain that these are opposite words in meaning?
                        And your mention of the word GUARANTEED as a sign of my denial of the inaccuracy of the system is a sign of GUARANTEED demagoguery - yours!

                        Of course, I understand that the best defense is an attack, but one must be able to attack. Practice doing this somewhere. lol
                        Those. with this you are trying to talk about the fact that 29%, let alone 64%, is a significant increase? Actually, it's practically arithmetic.

                        You don't have to think for me. I'm trying to understand why a person without knowledge of mathematical modeling argues about things where knowledge of arithmetic is not enough.
                        I can’t calculate exact numbers, because I haven’t done this for a very long time, but I have full knowledge of logic and general technical knowledge.

                        How did you decide that general technical knowledge is enough?
                        Why did you decide that you fully own logic and general technical knowledge (and do not just think that you do)?
                        I show an example of "ownership" of logic - you judge the significance of the increase in probability (64%) whatever comparison with the increase in radius (50%). Does the 14% difference between the increase in two related values ​​not look so significant anymore? And as the radius increases, it will also decrease.
                        What will you write - that this is not a denial of my statement about a sharp increase?

                        belay you are discouraging. Of course not. This is a request to give specifics in order to understand your competence, because specific numbers, and not general phrases, will immediately show it.
                        PS See negation in an interrogative sentence, despite the fact that negation is always a statement (a statement of the opposite) is something.
                        Then that your confidence in my zero knowledge on the topic is based on this.
                        And if you excuse yourself, it means you cannot reasonably answer, and therefore your knowledge is also near zero. And scouring the internet doesn't help, does it? By the way, the book "recommended" by you, did you open it at least on some page, until now?

                        1) You make some primary statement. Do not substantiate it (speculation is not the same as justification). But you need me to justify. This situation is described by "Brandolini's law" - the amount of energy required to refute nonsense is an order of magnitude greater than is required to produce it. This is a common way of unfair polemics.
                        2) Here I will answer you that if they want to get somewhere (and they want to), then they track the track throughout the flight. I will answer that this is due to the mathematical models that encode the bump map in order to eventually convert it into a binary form. The only problem is that later I will have to explain the models themselves and how the rocket correlator works with the data array. This is the task of algorithmic topology. Which you probably never heard of. Therefore, as you can see our conversation on this topic is a mystery to me.
                        3) The book was opened.
                        Only if you miss the difference between the altimeter and the GOS radar (there is no mention of an altimeter for the Kh-22NA) and if you miss the methods of preparing maps (for 400 km they are somewhat more accurate than for 2500), even if you compare 1976 and 1983.

                        Both omissions are taken from the ceiling by you.
                        1) Where did the ARLGSN come from in your X-22NA? You would at least first ask yourself the question - why is she there?
                        2) Tell us, please, about "how to prepare maps." I would like to understand why they are "somewhat more accurate" for 400 km than for 2500 km lol
                      20. 0
                        31 March 2023 04: 30
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        The laughter from the audience is mine.
                        1) not just a figure, but a specific figure with a specific location of the geometric center
                        2) here's just a snag - the possibility of combining a ballistic trajectory with this very specific location is also a probabilistic value, called the "average trajectory" in external ballistics.
                        3) therefore, the QUO cannot be empirically confirmed
                        4) therefore, if you seriously think that the KVO is determined by practically shooting Z times the Nth number of shells and then drawing figures on the ground until you get into these 50%, then I even feel sorry for you a little.

                        Is it with this demagogy that you claim that the KVO figure is not determined by 50% of the percentage of arrivals, even calculated ones, relative to the target? Maybe you will still argue that all CVOs are calculated theoretically, without testing samples? Can testing of samples be called empirical confirmation or what?
                        So it turns out that almost everything you wrote above is frank demagoguery, just fierce.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        The book opened.
                        Did you buy it in paper or online? Let me not believe such a fierce demagogue as you. Because as soon as there is an opportunity, you do not hesitate to post pictures and fragments of text. And then a mysterious look and excuses ...

                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        This is a common way of unfair polemics.
                        The technique of unscrupulous polemics is a flood of scientific words, for the most part, and in your case, gleaned from the Internet with a quick search. In my case, quick search is also used, but to confirm or not confirm my point of view, and not to search for an array of words.


                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        Here I will answer you that if they want to get somewhere (and they want to), then they track the track throughout the flight. I will answer that this is due to the mathematical models that encode the bump map in order to eventually convert it into a binary form. The only problem is that later I will have to explain the models themselves and how the rocket correlator works with the data array. This is the task of algorithmic topology. Which you probably never heard of.
                        That's a scream, then you are afraid of the question of the required number of correction sites for the X-22NA. "The track throughout the flight on the map in binary code" can be tracked, now, since the year 2000. And in 1983, only a few dozen sections could be tracked, over 2500 km, to correct the ANN error. And not maps, but height profiles, guess in connection with what? As for topology... I'm sure that you know something about it, just like me, but you don't use it at all, and it's not a fact that you understand it, like I do. There are signs...


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Where did the ARLGSN come from in your X-22NA? You would at least first ask yourself the question - why is she there?
                        Not ARLGSN, but the GOS radar, far from the same thing. And from previous samples. And for comparison with the reference map of the area. Maps, and not a section with a height profile, as in 1983 at the Tomahawk. Although if you have accurate data on the composition and purpose of the X-22NA avionics, then you are welcome to expose it.


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        2) Tell us, please, about "how to prepare maps." I would like to understand why they are "somewhat more accurate" for 400 km than for 2500 km
                        If only because they are more accurate, because 400 km is the depth available to the radar of reconnaissance aircraft of that time, although at the limit, but you can fly closer, right ?. Unlike 2500 km, a significant part of which is in the depths of the enemy’s territory, and are available only to satellite surveillance and radar reconnaissance, also of that time.
                      21. -1
                        April 2 2023 14: 49
                        Listen, if you just need the "last word" to be yours, then say so, otherwise you start to tire.
                        Are you saying that the KVO figure is not determined by 50% of arrivals, even calculated ones, relative to the target?

                        What a fashion to ascribe to interlocutors what they do not say.
                        Maybe you will still argue that all CVOs are calculated theoretically, without testing samples? Can testing of samples be called empirical confirmation or what?

                        1) full-scale tests have two unrecoverable shortcomings:
                        a) the inability to eliminate aiming errors: a) it is impossible to ensure the constancy of both the Cartesian coordinates of the "ground surface - gun" system and the polar coordinates of the "gun - bore axis" system; b) artillery director at the range - something about 20 km. Therefore, as a result, you will get "KVO artillery crew", and not "KVO system gun-projectile"
                        b) The concept of KVO is based on the law of normal distribution. Which, in turn, obeys the law of large numbers. And here a contradiction appears - you need to shoot a lot and often, but in a short time (ensuring the constancy of meteorological conditions). But then the constancy of the permissible angles of projectile descent is not ensured, due to heating and wear of the barrel. At practical firing, shooting is carried out in series (at least three, in practice usually five) of 5-10 shots (usually 7 in practice). Can you tell me how many shots you need to make with the number of variables (muzzle velocity, drag, descent angle, nutation angle, precession angle, angle of own rotation, etc.) that form the projectile trajectory with at least 10 variants of each of these variables?
                        2) Mathematical modeling eliminates these two unavoidable shortcomings. In accordance with the known laws of dynamics, dispersion matrices of influence are compiled. I explain for shirnarmass - we collect all the variables (A, B ... N) that are contained in the function that describes the movement of the body, set the permissible deviations of the variables from the reference values ​​\u1b\u2b(as I get, I will tell you later), we divide the resulting deviation limits into numerical series (A[ k1, k2...kn], B[mXNUMX, mXNUMX,...mn], etc.) using random number generators according to Monte Carlo methods. This dataset is presented as

                        Now about where the reference values ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbare taken from (for example, drag or speed at the muzzle). The design bureau has created aeroballistic tracks - test facilities for obtaining initial data for calculations, consisting of a throwing device, a registration system (sensors), an automated results processing system, and a receiving device (catcher of a thrown body). The mentioned frontal resistance is determined even more simply - in wind tunnels.
                        And the firing at the ranges that you are talking about is 1) checking for compliance of GROSS shells with the design model. That is, samples are taken from each production batch, which are shot at the range and compare the results with reference values. If, with such and such an installation of the sight, the measured ranges Xs and the median deviations of Vd, Vb, Vv, after bringing the results to normal conditions, went beyond the permissible limits, the batch is rejected. 2) shooting practice, when the results of those being tested correlate with possible reference ones. That's all.
                        Did you buy it in paper or online? Let me not believe such a fierce demagogue as you. Because as soon as there is an opportunity, you do not hesitate to post pictures and fragments of text. And then a mysterious look and excuses ...

                        1) Do not believe as much as you like, my appetite will not disappear))
                        2) There was a request to recommend literature. Attention question. In such cases: 1) indicate the author and title? or 2) post pictures and text snippets? wassat
                        3) Both paper and electronic.
                      22. The comment was deleted.
                      23. -2
                        April 2 2023 14: 50
                        this is a fountain of scientific words, for the most part, and in your case, gleaned from the Internet with a quick search. In my case, quick search is also used, but to confirm or not confirm my point of view, and not to search for an array of words.

                        wassat Well, of course, it's my fault that you don't know or don't understand something.
                        then you are afraid of the question of the required number of correction pads for the X-22HA. "The track throughout the flight on the map in binary code" can be tracked, now, since the year 2000. And in 1983, only a few dozen sections could be tracked, over 2500 km, to correct the ANN error.

                        1) The question was raised without reference to a specific product
                        2) The answer directly says "if you want to get in". The reverse side of not fulfilling what I wrote is not hitting the target, but somewhere on an area of ​​​​8 hectares, where this target is located (since you have decided to remember the Tomahawk). Therefore, what I wrote is always a compromise with technical capabilities.
                        3) The scream is the one in whose head the theses about "one is enough at the end" and "intermediate ones compensate for the errors of the ANN" are combined and there is no dissonance.
                        And not maps, but height profiles, guess in connection with what?

                        1) A height map is a set of height profiles.
                        2) It is the sections of height maps that are prepared, which are divided into cells, ranging in size from 1000x1000 to 30x30 meters - to save memory at the beginning of the route, the largest sizes, the target has the smallest possible ones. For the same Tomahawk, the map in the target area was broken into cells of 400x400 feet (122x122 meters). Then the AVERAGE height of the WHOLE cell is calculated.


                        As for topology... I'm sure that you know something about it, just like me, but you don't use it at all, and it's not a fact that you understand it, like I do. There are signs...

                        Well it goes without saying laughing
                        Not ARLGSN, but the GOS radar, far from the same thing. And from previous samples. And for comparison with the reference map of the area. Maps, and not a section with a height profile, as in 1983 at the Tomahawk. Although if you have accurate data on the composition and purpose of the X-22NA avionics, then you are welcome to expose it.

                        1) not the same thing, right? wassat Well, tell us about the differences, but rather show with an example - in such a rocket (link to performance characteristics) this is, but in such a (link to performance characteristics) this.
                        2) From what previous samples? - 1971? So then there were two options - INS + ARLGSN, INS with relief correction. Both were modernized in 1976. Do you take Soviet engineers for idiots?
                        3) You are not embarrassed that in missiles with a similar system (INS with relief correction), which appeared later than the X-22NA a) radio altimeters are used b) KVO is an order of magnitude worse than you attribute to the X-22NA. For example, X-55. I immediately stop the stupidity "Look, they have different ranges" - in corrected systems, the range does not affect the KVO. Therefore, the KVO is indicated, and not, as for conventional systems, the accuracy of fire is the ratio of median deviations to range in the form of Vd / Xs. No, you still consider Soviet engineers to be idiots, since you think that they have devolved from a more accurate system to a less accurate one. And the idiots from the acceptance put a less accurate system into service.
                        4) the pearl about "not a map, but a section with a height profile" was explained above.
                        5) you were given a table below with the performance characteristics of the K-22 missile weapon system. You chose not to notice.
                        If only because they are more accurate, because 400 km is the depth available to the radar of reconnaissance aircraft of that time, although at the limit, but you can fly closer, right ?. Unlike 2500 km, a significant part of which is in the depths of the enemy’s territory, and are available only to satellite surveillance and radar reconnaissance, also of that time.

                        1) What reconnaissance aircraft do you mean? I'm afraid you are confusing passive electronic intelligence radars and radar capabilities in mapping mode. request
                        AND? If they are available to satellites. Even civilian satellite geodetic (including altimeter) reconnaissance will soon be half a century old.
                      24. 0
                        April 3 2023 09: 48
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        What a fashion to ascribe to interlocutors what they do not say.
                        Maybe you will still argue that all CVOs are calculated theoretically, without testing samples? Can testing of samples be called empirical confirmation or what?

                        "Maybe you will ..." this is not an attribution of one's words to the opponent, but an assumption about the further course of his thought, which was confirmed to a large extent:
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        a) the inability to eliminate aiming errors: a) it is impossible to ensure the constancy of both the Cartesian coordinates of the "ground surface - gun" system and the polar coordinates of the "gun - bore axis" system; b) artillery director at the range - something about 20 km. Therefore, as a result, you will get "KVO artillery crew", and not "KVO system gun-projectile"

                        And my assumption is also confirmed that you do not always understand the essence of the issue, because what does unguided projectiles have to do with missiles with course correction, what did you basically lead this Talmud to, sprinkle with words? And an excuse like: "it was only about the KVO, no matter what" will not work, because it ALL the time was about the X-22NA, with references to analogues. And not about "tests in general", but at least about tests BEFORE being put into service, including, I remember what kind of a bookworm you are, where it's profitable.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Perhaps you would argue that all QUO calculated theoretically without testing samples?




                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        checking for compliance of GROSS shells with the design model. ... ... 2) shooting practice, when the results of those being tested correlate with possible reference ones. That's all.

                        Dear Timur, how about:
                        In conclusion, full-scale tests of the sample as a whole are carried out with the task of preliminary assessing its effectiveness and making a decision on submitting the sample for acceptance (state) tests. The results of the state tests make it possible to achieve the second goal of the above and make a decision on the adoption of the sample for service and the start of mass production.

                        You missed at least two types of pre-series tests and wrote about serial samples. How is it, where is your meticulousness for letters?


                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        2) There was a request to recommend literature. Attention question. In such cases: 1) indicate the author and title? or 2) post pictures and text snippets?
                        Nowadays, to recommend is to post a working link, or even a document. And at all times they recommend what they themselves read.
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        3) Both paper and electronic.

                        I wrote to you directly that you did not open it, as a last resort, you are now in a hurry, so I think that you are lying
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        By the way, the book "recommended" by you, did you open it at least on some page, until now?









                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        PS See negation in an interrogative sentence, despite the fact that negation is always a statement (a statement of the opposite) is something.
                        By the way, somehow I missed it:
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        Just for fun - a small increase in radius is how much and sharply is also how much?

                        "Just for fun" unequivocally indicates that you are sure that the answer is wrong, perhaps fundamentally, and therefore you deny the proposed statement. In my case, an assumption, no matter what nonsense you write about deceit.

                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        The question was raised without reference to a specific product.
                        It's amazing, the whole dispute is about the X-22NA, but the question is without reference ...
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        The scream is the one in whose head the theses about "one is enough at the end" and "intermediate ones compensate for the errors of the ANN" are combined and there is no dissonance.
                        I am not at all surprised that you ignore the difference in ranges and flight profiles for Kh-22NA and Tomahawk missiles. You cannot or do not want, and stubbornly, to compare a much, half an order of magnitude shorter range and a much, an order of magnitude, greater height for the Kh-22HA. Intermediate and need Tomahawk, with its enveloping terrain and long range. Be proud that you have not forgotten, as I forgot, how to solve formulas, but at the same time do not understand elementary ones, there are no elementary ones! of things? This is not a sign of intelligence, just a sign of good memory and constant practice, like a calculator.

                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        From what previous samples? - 1971? So then there were two options - INS + ARLGSN, INS with relief correction. Both were modernized in 1976. Do you take Soviet engineers for idiots?
                        No, I don't take anyone for an idiot, not even you. But I doubt it's worth it to continue. Because neither I nor Soviet engineers are able to see the difference between the GOS itself and the GOS ELEMENT (radar is an element of the ARLGSN), but you are easy. And now the GOS ELEMENT could quite easily be used in the flight correction system, (and even modernized, which means at least lightweight in terms of element base), according to the terrain. And a comparison of the data obtained from the radar (as an element taken from the ARLGSN) and the reference map obtained by radar air reconnaissance and prepared intelligence was technically possible and made it possible to get by with one such map, analog, and with sufficient accuracy.
                        And the KR MGM-13 Mace with its analog, semi-tube, progressive system, albeit on a PV, relief corrections of the 50s, as it were, hints (shouts) about this.
                      25. 0
                        April 3 2023 09: 50
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        Well, tell us about the differences, but rather show with an example - in such a rocket (link to performance characteristics) this is, but in such a (link to performance characteristics) this.
                        You don’t see the difference between the ARLGSN and the radar station in its composition, what’s the point of giving you exact characteristics, even if I knew them ... Well, judging by the ridiculous requirements of exposure from you, we can’t see?
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Although if you have accurate data on the composition and purpose of the X-22NA avionics, then you are welcome to expose it.


                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        You are not embarrassed that in missiles with a similar system (INS with relief correction), which appeared later than the Kh-22NA, a) radio altimeters are used b) KVO is an order of magnitude worse than you attribute to the Kh-22NA. For example, X-55. I immediately stop the stupidity "Look, they have different ranges" - in corrected systems, the range does not affect the KVO.

                        No, it doesn’t bother me, because I have already compared the X-22NA with the Tomahawk and its dozens of required areas for correction, height, etc. Or am I again attributing to you something that you did not write or even think about?


                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        And not maps, but height profiles, guess in connection with what?
                        1) A height map is a set of height profiles.
                        But the altimeter can only observe the height PROFILE, limited in width. And the radar immediately map. But since your weak ability to think independently is clear to me, I will explain: the map is more accurate than a set of profiles, and very average ones, even in the final section. And a sharp increase in the accuracy of missiles, when it became possible to memorize maps, and a number of other improvements are proof of this.

                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        below you were given a table with the performance characteristics of the K-22 missile system. You chose not to notice.
                        It's amazing, but I took data from the QUO in units of meters from the same sources, how to live with this?


                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        What reconnaissance aircraft do you mean? I'm afraid you are confusing passive electronic intelligence radars and radar capabilities in mapping mode.
                        No, I do not confuse, but once again I am surprised at your ability to ignore obvious things when it is not profitable for you. Tu-22R - look for yourself?
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        AND? If they are available to satellites. Even civilian satellite geodetic (including altimeter) reconnaissance will soon be half a century old.
                        But you're afraid to confuse modern opportunities and then.

                        I summarize: a comparison of the data obtained from the radar (as an element taken from the ARLGSN) and the reference map obtained by radar air reconnaissance and prepared intelligence was technically possible and made it possible to get by with one such map, analog, and with sufficient accuracy.
                        And the KR MGM-13 Mace with its analog, semi-tube, progressive system, albeit on a PV, relief corrections of the 50s, as it were, hints (shouts) about this.




                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        Listen, if you just need the "last word" to be yours, then say so, otherwise you start to tire.
                        With your flooding with masses of quotes from the Internet that are poorly related to the topic and clinging to words, this is more likely for you. Yes, it's a nice addition though. Approximately as in the article about the mobile bunker.
                      26. 0
                        April 5 2023 10: 58
                        "Maybe you will ..." this is not attributing one's words to an opponent

                        You have now committed a forgery, my words were for a specific text. This one - "are you saying that the KVO figure is not determined by 50% of the percentage of arrivals, even calculated ones, relative to the target?" And you just quoted another passage. "You claim" of course "is not" an attempt to pass off deliberately incorrect information as my opinion.
                        because what do unguided projectiles have to do with course-corrected missiles

                        As part of the question, do all KVO theoretically calculate the most direct, since the process of mathematical modeling is MORE VISIBLY demonstrated on unguided projectiles, because it is IMPLICIT there. The QUO of corrected projectiles / missiles APRIORI depends on the mathematical model embedded in the navigation system and control system.
                        You missed at least two types of pre-series tests and wrote about serial samples.

                        I write only within the framework of what you have written. 1) If you write "ALL KVO", then such an expression makes sense only with the verification of factory batches and the educational process described above. Since for the design sample that will be adopted, only ONE KVO value will be accepted as a reference. For each factory batch or each art. calculation being checked, it can be different from the reference one. 2) Full-scale tests are, in addition to external ballistics, also internal and terminal. Not affecting our topic.
                        Nowadays, to recommend is to post a working link, or even a document.

                        What is "your time"? Time unable to find on their own? Freeloader time?
                        I wrote to you directly that you did not open it, as a last resort, you are now in a hurry, so I think that you are lying

                        You write a lot here. But you don't have much to substantiate.
                        "Just for fun" clearly indicates that you are sure that the answer is wrong, perhaps fundamentally, and therefore you deny the proposed statement

                        I was sure that the answer was wrong (and I turned out to be right). But this does not mean that I deny something - figuratively, if someone says that 2x2 = 5, I am sure that the answer is wrong, but I do not deny the multiplication table. This is again a forgery from you. And if you look at the order of questions and answers, you will see that the very "proposed statement" in which you "poked your nose" - "to say that a probability increase of 64% or even 29% is a slight increase is nonsense!" - also a fake. And when the fact of forgery was pointed out to you, you began to dodge, fabricating new forgeries.
                        It's amazing, the whole dispute is about the X-22HA, but the question is without reference

                        1) Marvel at yourself, the question you made up. 2) "The whole dispute is about" the rocket that fell in Kirovograd. And the fact that this is the X-22HA, and not any other of the X-22 family, was decided by you without any justification. Just because you need to somehow pull the owl on the globe.
                        I am not at all surprised that you ignore the difference in ranges and flight profiles for Kh-22NA and Tomahawk missiles. You cannot or do not want, and stubbornly, to compare a much, half an order of magnitude shorter range and a much, an order of magnitude, greater height for the Kh-22NA.

                        1) The meaning of the correction is to compensate for the error of the inertial system (the cumulative effect is removed). Therefore, the final navigation error depends solely on the accuracy of the inertial system, the accuracy of the correction system and the distance that the rocket has traveled from the LAST correction site. And since the last section of the correction is always in the target area, the total flight range DOES NOT PLAY A ROLE. 2) Guess how the variable D in the angle and height resolution formulas affects the actual resolution (that is, the maximum possible positioning accuracy) wassat 3) there is no "half order", this is an absurd expression, devoid of mathematical meaning.
                        You don’t see the difference between the ARLGSN and the radar in its composition, what’s the point of giving you exact characteristics

                        1) The point is to show that you don’t just invent what comes into your head just to pull an owl on a globe. Exact characteristics are not needed, I only ask for the name of the product and an indication of the guidance system.
                        2) Your specific words were "Only if you miss the difference between the altimeter and the GOS radar." The Kh-22NA does not have a seeker. Combined guidance system only for Kh-22 (M, MP, N).
                        Well, judging by the ridiculous demands of exposure from you, we can’t see?

                        Russell's teapot. The burden of proof is on the claimant. And you are still trying to make me waste my time refuting your stuffing (re-read again what "Brandolini's law" is)
                        No, it doesn't bother me, because I have already compared the X-22HA with the Tomahawk and its dozens of required areas for correction, height, and so on.

                        Above, it was explained to you that the range does not affect, and the dependence on height is inverse, not direct. Therefore, we return to the question - does it bother you that in missiles with a similar system (INS with relief correction), which appeared later than the Kh-22NA, a) radio altimeters are used b) KVO is an order of magnitude worse than you attribute to the Kh-22NA? For example, X-55.
                        What do you stop, stupidity about the comparable accuracy of mapping from satellites and radars of reconnaissance aircraft in the 70-80s? Or am I again attributing to you something that you did not write or even think about?

                        1) Yes, you attribute it again 2) Before explaining why the difference in the accuracy of mapping satellites and RA does not play a role in the accuracy of a missile hit, I want to clarify what is "comparable accuracy" in your understanding? So that you do not play around later.
                      27. 0
                        April 5 2023 11: 08
                        But the altimeter can only observe the height PROFILE, limited in width. And the radar immediately map. But since your weak ability to think independently is clear to me, I will explain: the map is more accurate than a set of profiles, and very average ones, even in the final section.

                        Naive youthful maximalism does not let you understand that accuracy has a downside - resource consumption. Probably, the developers had nothing to do but to find ways to achieve acceptable accuracy within the technical capabilities. Although it would seem something simpler - "radar immediately map." I explain on my fingers in relation to your fantasy "X-22HA is enough maps in the final section." For the X-22HA using terrain correction, let's assume a CEP of 9 meters. For the X-22 KVO, when firing at areas, they are voiced at 5 km. It turns out that the hypothetical "RSS GOS" must at the end of the path correct the trajectory so that the KVO is brought to 9 meters. Therefore, we believe that we need to know at least a map of the section with r=5 km. The area of ​​such a map is 78 m539. The resolution of the M-816 "Chompol" radar in the Tu-2RDM is 202-22 m (I did not find any numbers for Rubin, which is a pity). The "pixel" area is 7,5x10=10 m10. Our map will have 100/2=78539816 values ​​(pixels) for further processing. You complained there that Tomahawk has only a few dozen correction areas. So, if you EVEN make a "path" for the ENTIRE flight range, then this will require only 100 "pixels", 785 times less. Can you estimate the processing power to compare matrices of seven hundred thousand elements? Let's understand the time that it would take, say, Elbrus, occupying a room, for this operation and compare it with the flight time of a rocket in the final section)))))) It is noteworthy that BESM-398 with 327 KB RAM would not even be able to work normally with such an array data, since our matrix in binary code will take about 872 MB.
                        And a sharp increase in the accuracy of missiles, when it became possible to memorize maps, and a number of other improvements are proof of this.

                        "A sharp increase in the accuracy of missiles" correlates with the development of satellite navigation systems (WAGE), the replacement of mechanics in the inertial with optics (laser gyroscopes) and the output of compact computers to gigaflops power. And then, and then, and then - the 90s.
                        It's amazing, but I took data from the QUO in units of meters from the same sources, how to live with this?

                        It is possible to guess that all the "sources" that replicated the "units of meters" lead to one primary source - the multi-machine operator Shirokorad. He does not accompany the phrase about several meters with a link to the source of information. A banal author's, editorial or typographical error is possible when the word "dozens" is omitted. And then everything immediately falls into place. A book from the category of consumer goods, the editor is the notorious Taras A.E., who has no professional relation to missile weapons (and, in fact, to everything his books are about).
                        Tu-22R - look for yourself?

                        Wait. It was about an aircraft whose radar in mapping mode can reach 400 km. What does the Tu-22R have to do with it? Name the first model that came to mind? "Rubin" maps from heights up to 8 km and at a distance of up to 170 km. These are the technical possibilities in the case of the theoretical use of the radar for a similar purpose. Despite the fact that the main real tasks of the Tu-22R are electronic intelligence of NATO ships and their photography.
                        But you're afraid to confuse modern opportunities and then.

                        Do you know them, even "modern", even "then", what are you talking about? Some unsubstantiated statements without specifics. And the specifics is that the accuracy of determining the height at the end of the 70s is 10 cm (Seasat-A), in the middle of the 80s - 4 cm (Geosat-A), in the early 90s - 2,5 cm (Topex), 10 cm (Poseidon) , 10 cm (ERS), in 2018 the Japanese unsuccessfully (the rocket exploded) tried to send their MOMO-2, which also has an accuracy of 10 cm. Therefore, the "confusion" is only in your head. I'm silent about the fact that the height is AVERAGED on the cell, so even such accuracy is redundant.
                        And the KR MGM-13 Mace with its analog, semi-tube, progressive system, albeit on a PV, relief corrections of the 50s, as it were, hints (shouts) about this.

                        She cries out that her correction is not on the final section, but throughout the route lol
                      28. 0
                        April 5 2023 18: 06
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You have now committed a forgery, my words were for a specific text.

                        Just a complete little fox, you are already talking frank nonsense, with many hundreds of letters, literally with diarrhea, trying to prove that I lied with this phrase, and with underestimated numbers:

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Those. an increase from 9 (18) to 18 (36) m will result in 95% hits. From 9 to 13,5 to 75 percent hits.


                        Moreover, covering up your own lies about owning a particular book, you get off with short phrases, such as this one:
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        What is "your time"? Time unable to find on their own? Freeloader time?

                        This book is only available for purchase. You did not buy this book either in paper or in electronic form with a probability of 99,97% and did not buy it even after the "recommendation" with a probability of 75% (hand face). So the question of who is the liar here is closed.
                        And the book is curious to me, nothing more, but it turned out to be a marker.


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        If you write "ALL QUO", then such an expression makes sense only with the verification of factory batches and the educational process described above.
                        Nonsense, because the phrase was:
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Maybe you will still argue that all CVOs are calculated theoretically, without testing samples? Can testing of samples be called empirical confirmation or what?

                        You tear up quotes, this is a sign of a LIAR!


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        "The whole dispute is about" the rocket that fell in Kirovograd. And the fact that this is the X-22HA, and not any other of the X-22 family, was decided by you without any justification.
                        Well, you're lying shamefully. I mention the Kh-22NA the devil knows how many times, it was about the uselessness of the ARLGSN missiles for non-contrasting targets, the INS was mentioned more than once, and the Kh-22NA is the latest and here you are ... Yes, you are a fierce demagogue, I repeat.


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You cannot or do not want, and stubbornly, to compare a much, half an order of magnitude shorter range and a much, an order of magnitude, greater height for the Kh-22HA.

                        1) The meaning of the correction is to compensate for the error of the inertial system (the cumulative effect is removed).
                        And the error with a simple flight profile is LESS, and flying without contouring the terrain at high altitude - this is a simple profile. And a shorter range reduces the number of correction areas. Pts, chew on the elementary ...


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        There were your specific words "Only if you miss the difference between the altimeter and the GOS radar." The Kh-22NA does not have a seeker.
                        I understand that the analogy is absolutely not yours, with your accuracy, but the narrowness of the calculator, but answer yourself, aircraft can have several radars, but does this mean that the aircraft is equipped with a seeker? The presence of a radar station, even from a seeker, does not mean the presence of a seeker.


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Russell's teapot. The burden of proof is on the claimant. And you are still trying to make me waste my time refuting your stuffing (re-read again what "Brandolini's law" is)
                        And, some kind of diarrhea, a bunch of your arguments are swept aside by the same.


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Therefore, we return to the question - it does not bother you that in missiles with a similar system (INS with relief correction), which appeared later than the Kh-22NA a) radio altimeters are used
                        That's who you need to be to ignore the difference between an altimeter and a radar? In my stupidity.


                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And the specifics are that the accuracy of determining the height at the end of the 70s is 10 cm (Seasat-A), in the middle of the 80s - 4 cm (Geosat-A)
                        Simply amazing! Are you really that dumb? These are altimeter satellites with the only function of measuring height above the ocean! They had nothing to do with the satellites of specific reconnaissance that provided data for TerKom!



                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        It was about an aircraft whose radar in mapping mode can reach 400 km. What does the Tu-22R have to do with it? Name the first model that came to mind? "Rubin" maps from heights up to 8 km and at a distance of up to 170 km.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Despite the fact that the main real tasks of the Tu-22R are electronic intelligence of NATO ships
                        The "Ruby" you are writing about is a fighter radar, the first one you came across, and the T-22R is an example of an already quite old aircraft in 76 that had the ability to map by radar
                        terrain using the Rubin-1M radar and photographing the image on the screen with the FARM prefix.

                        Well, your already familiar quotation:
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        If only because they are more accurate, because 400 km is the depth available to the radar of reconnaissance aircraft of that time, although at the limit, but you can fly closer, right?
                        you ignored about closer in your usual manner, but the detection range of the Rubin-1M radar of targets at sea of ​​450 km will not work.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        I explain on my fingers in relation to your fantasy "X-22HA is enough maps in the final section." For the X-22HA using terrain correction, let's assume a CEP of 9 meters. For the X-22 KVO, when firing at areas, they are voiced at 5 km. It turns out that the hypothetical "RSS GOS" must at the end of the path correct the trajectory so that the KVO is brought to 9 meters. Therefore, we believe that we need to know at least a map of the section with r=5 km.
                        I already really consider you a fool, well, or pretending to be like that! That's just...
                        5 km is for the very first rocket, with an autopilot, and only for nuclear warheads in terms of area! Already the PSI modification gave a QUO of hundreds of meters, from 250 to 500. Here the radius is an order of magnitude smaller, and the area is two! But not only that, you still haven’t caught up with why I’m writing about MGM-13, it didn’t get into your mind that it is ANALOGUE, like the X-22HA correction system and all the speculation about computing power is untenable.
                      29. 0
                        April 7 2023 13: 18
                        Just a complete little fox, you are already talking frank nonsense, with many hundreds of letters, literally with diarrhea, trying to prove that I lied with this phrase, and with underestimated numbers:

                        1) What a "high" syllable. Characteristic for those who have not come out of puberty.
                        2) You commit another forgery, wishful thinking.
                        3) You still ignore that what was written in the previous message is written for your specific lie - "are you saying that the KVO figure is not determined by 50% of the arrivals, even calculated ones, relative to the target?" Of course, I didn't say that anywhere. You wished for reality.
                        4) You tried to hide your forgery by replacing the phrase from paragraph 3 with another one, starting with the words "maybe you will." This is also a fake.
                        5) Each of the forgery items is confirmed by previous reports.
                        Moreover, covering up your own lies about owning a particular book, you get off with short phrases ... This book can only be bought. You did not buy this book either in paper or in electronic form with a probability of 99,97% and did not buy it even after the "recommendation" with a probability of 75% (hand face). So the question of who is the liar here is closed.

                        And what, that this book can only be bought? Is this a problem for you? For me - no. Or maybe the discovery that books are being bought? This is the first moment. The second point - are you ready to bet? I, at your choice, post here any pages from the book, the numbers of which you name. You are leaving the site. If I don't, I'm leaving. Enough courage? Or is it not for you to be responsible for the words?
                        And the book is curious to me, nothing more, but it turned out to be a marker.

                        I have long understood that books are not for you.
                        Nonsense, because the phrase was like this: ... You are tearing up quotes, this is a sign of a LIAR!

                        I highlight phrases from the text, the content of which is SELF-SUFFICIENT within the framework of the answer to a specific previous question. What's the point in copying a sheet of text that won't affect anything in the answer? None, if not a graphomaniac. From the fact that you have now given extra sentences, the meaning of the answer remains the same - "such an expression makes sense only with the verification of factory batches and the educational process described above." Why - described above.
                        Well, you're lying shamefully. I mention the X-22NA the devil knows how many times, it was about the uselessness of the ARLGSN missiles for non-contrasting targets, the INS was mentioned more than once, and the X-22NA is the latest and here you are ...

                        And on what basis do you take the liberty of categorically asserting that it was the modification "NA" in Kirovograd? How and according to what publicly available photo/video materials did you install the rocket modification? But no way - you just pulled an owl on a globe. Yes, "the freshest" - does not roll. If only because the "freshest" CD is not about the X-22 family at all, but nevertheless this CD family is used. This means that in a single family, nothing prevents the use of not the latest modification, but, say, the penultimate "M". Which with "ON" entered service in the same year (1976), and is considered the penultimate one, because it began to enter the Air Force even before it was put into service, either in 1973, or in 1974.
                        And the error with a simple flight profile is LESS, and flying without contouring the terrain at high altitude - this is a simple profile. And a shorter range reduces the number of correction areas. Pts, chew on the elementary ...

                        Here is an example of how you crop texts. To be more precise, just cutting off significant explanations. But it's not hard for me to repeat:
                        Therefore, the final navigation error depends solely on the accuracy of the inertial system, the accuracy of the correction system and the distance that the rocket has traveled from the LAST correction site. And since the last section of the correction is always in the target area, the total flight range DOES NOT PLAY A ROLE. 2) Guess how the variable D in the angle and height resolution formulas affects the actual resolution (that is, the maximum possible positioning accuracy).
                        1) High altitude has a negative effect on accuracy, as the resolution decreases with increasing altitude. Maybe this fact will hint to you that the "NA" modification has a low-altitude profile (1000 meters) for a reason)))))
                        2) A large length does not affect the final accuracy, since the ANN error is removed by the correlator.
                        aircraft can have several radars, but does this mean that the aircraft is equipped with a seeker? The presence of a radar station, even from a seeker, does not mean the presence of a seeker.

                        I don't see the words "radar from GOS". I see the words "Radar seeker". Yours, not mine. Then you should not have had any difficulties with "I only ask for the name of the product and an indication of the guidance system" for the case with ARLGSN and separately with "Radar from GOS". Only for some reason there were no examples.
                        a lot of your arguments are swept away by the same

                        well, it's by itself)))
                        That's who you need to be to ignore the difference between an altimeter and a radar? In my stupidity.

                        The fool is the one who invented the radar in the "NA" modification.
                        "X-22N/NA/NP missiles have become more reliable and accurate thanks to a new control system based on a semiconductor element base. Saved the SAME three of its guidance options, but their work algorithms have been changed taking into account the improvement of the air defense of a potential enemy. Domestic cruise missiles. Georgiev S.G.
                        Simply amazing! Are you really that dumb? These are altimeter satellites with the only function of measuring height above the ocean! They had nothing to do with the satellites of specific reconnaissance that provided data for TerKom!

                        I answer "not stupid":
                        1) These are not "altimeter satellites with a single function". Even in your Wikipedia source of knowledge, you can look at the list of established research REAs. You are again talking self-confident nonsense. By the way, determining the heights above the ocean is much more difficult than determining the heights above the land.
                        2) Well, you and the weather vane. I will refresh your memory by recalling YOUR words:
                        “And in 1983, only a few dozen sections could be tracked, over 2500 km, to correct the INS error. And not maps, but height profiles" )))))
                        3) Attention to the question - if even in civilian satellites radio altimeters gave high accuracy, then why couldn't they be in military satellites to obtain accurate elevation marks for compiling altitude profiles? The question with "at 400 km the map is more accurate than at 2500 just because at such a distance you can only reach a satellite" is closed.
                      30. 0
                        April 7 2023 13: 21
                        The "Ruby" you are writing about is a fighter radar, the first one you came across, and the T-22R is an example of an already quite old aircraft in 76 that had the ability to map by radar

                        We needed an example of an aircraft whose radar can map at a distance of 400 km. The Tu-22R radar maps at a distance of up to 170 km. Here is confirmation of this figure.

                        By the way, this is also confirmation that you just found fault with the "fighter radar, the first one you came across", since when I wrote for the first time about 170 km I could not help but know that the full name of the Tu-22R radar - Rubin-1A - is present in text and you can see it. By the way, "fighter radar" is also in the treasury of your pearls.
                        you ignored about closer in your usual manner, but the detection range of the Rubin-1M radar of targets at sea of ​​450 km will not work.

                        1) I would like to look at the real implementation (and not your fantasies) of such a "closer" in relation to the aircraft, which even in the reconnaissance version was the carrier of bomb weapons. Can you show a Western newspaper issue about Tu-200 entering 22 km deep into the borders of Western Europe? ))))))
                        2) Before the collapse of the Union, the reconnaissance versions of the Tu-22 were either Rubin-1A or Rubin-1L. No, I can be wrong too, my memory can fail, although I can confirm my words with documents. Therefore, it will not be difficult for you to document the presence of Rubin-1M in the specified period. Is it true? lol
                        3) Wikipedia has done you a disservice again. And the fact that this is Wikipedia gives out the words about "detection of targets at sea at 450 km." It also shows that you are arguing about things that you don’t understand - the detection range of targets on the surface of the water does not mean that the radar will draw a land map for you at the same range. In one case, you just need to distinguish a piece of metal with a dimension of two hundred meters against a homogeneous surface, and in the other, create a two-dimensional image of a surface that is inhomogeneous in a radio-reflective sense with a resolution of 10 meters. This is if it’s completely in an accessible language.
                        I already really consider you a fool, well, or pretending to be like that! That's just...
                        5 km is for the very first rocket, with an autopilot, and only for nuclear warheads in terms of area! Already the PSI modification gave a QUO of hundreds of meters, from 250 to 500. Here the radius is an order of magnitude smaller, and the area is two! But not only that, you still haven’t caught up with why I’m writing about MGM-13, it didn’t get into your mind that it is ANALOGUE, like the X-22HA correction system and all the speculation about computing power is untenable.

                        1) KVO 500 meters for modification M, for PSI - 1000 (Domestic cruise missiles. Georgiev S.G.)
                        2) PSI modification - this is the VERY FIRST version of the Kh-22 missile for firing at areas
                        3) 5 km is the KVO figure for the case when the X-22 used the radar to fire at an area target on land, that is, our hypothetical case when the radar compares the map of the area, then what computing power will be required. It is described in the same place where you subtracted at "a few meters". What, not such a good "source" anymore? lol


                        4) Well, your "top" about the "analog correction system" on the X-22NA puts an end to your cognitive abilities. This is a diagnosis. Decide to challenge - start with evidence.
                      31. 0
                        April 7 2023 14: 46
                        I will not read the entire torrent, this paragraph will suffice.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And what, that this book can only be bought? Is this a problem for you? For me - no. Or maybe the discovery that books are being bought? This is the first moment. The second point - are you ready to bet? I, at your choice, post here any pages from the book, the numbers of which you name. You are leaving the site. If I don't, I'm leaving. Enough courage? Or is it not for you to be responsible for the words?


                        Too bold, but - lay out the title page, 10 pages in a row from the middle and the final page with the imprint, and I admit that I have lost this dispute in a clean one and I will write this in ten topics in each comment. Or you.
                        But this will not cancel my words: By the way, the book "recommended" by you, you opened at least on some page, until now?
                        Do not write in a personal, I turned you off there.
                      32. 0
                        April 7 2023 15: 26
                        Too bold, but - lay out the title page, and I admit that I have lost this dispute in a clean one and I will write this in ten topics in each comment. Or you.

                        I think I've made my terms clear.
                        I, at your choice, post here any pages from the book, the numbers of which you name. Are you leaving from the site. I won't - I'm leaving.

                        Yours doesn't interest me. Moreover, such a setting of conditions gives a huge scope for fraud - you simply go to the archive of articles, write in ten godforsaken topics and that's it, consider that you have fulfilled the conditions of the dispute proposed by you.
                        Not ready - you are a coward, unable to take responsibility for your words.
                      33. 0
                        April 7 2023 15: 35
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Yours doesn't interest me. Moreover, such a setting of conditions gives a huge scope for fraud - you simply go to the archive of articles, write in ten godforsaken topics and that's it, consider that you have fulfilled the conditions of the dispute proposed by you.
                        Not ready - you are a coward, unable to take responsibility for your words.

                        Well, go to hell, balabol ...
                        Because this book can be ordered one page at a time.
                      34. 0
                        April 7 2023 16: 03
                        Everything, all the "courage" went into the whistle lol negative
                        A coward who can't take responsibility for his words.
                        PS Yes, of course, one page of the books is sold, the rest are not needed. wassat
                      35. 0
                        April 7 2023 17: 21
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Yes, of course, one page of the books is sold, the rest are not needed.
                        Selling and ordering electronically are two different things. But about one page, I seem to be wrong.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        A coward who can't take responsibility for his words.

                        Offer some kind of low-value item in exchange for a fairly valuable thing, get a justified refusal (in my case, quite sane conditions), then take on a weakly - cheap trick of a cheap demagogue. And balabol.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Moreover, such a setting of conditions gives a huge scope for fraud - you simply go to the archive of articles, write in ten God-forgotten topics and that's it, consider that you have fulfilled the conditions of the dispute proposed by you.
                        Don't judge by yourself. balabol
                        And I can cut you off, balabol, by another parameter, even if you send one page.
                      36. 0
                        April 10 2023 10: 14
                        Offer some kind of low-value item in exchange for a fairly valuable thing, get a justified refusal (in my case, quite sane conditions), then take on a weakly - cheap trick of a cheap demagogue. And balabol.

                        1) For you to prove that you are not a slanderer - a low-value item? I'll keep it on mind.
                        2) Refusal is justified only by cowardice.
                        And I can cut you off, balabol, by another parameter, even if you send one page.

                        Cutter. lol
                        How is it with the answers to questions on the X-22? There will be no details about the "analog" guidance system?
                      37. 0
                        April 12 2023 10: 11
                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        How is it with the answers to questions on the X-22? There will be no details about the "analog" guidance system?
                        Can you tell me something about the digital guidance system for the X-22NA? Stunned, you don't know about analog computers ...



                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        1) For you to prove that you are not a slanderer - a low-value item? I'll keep it on mind.
                        Are you so stupid that you don’t understand that it’s your task to prove that you are not a liar?

                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        The refusal is justified only by cowardice.
                        Yes, you are just a liar. because there is no refusal, but there is a statement of sane conditions.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Too bold, but - lay out the title page, 10 pages in a row from the middle and the final page with the imprint, and I admit that I have lost this dispute in a clean one and I will write this in ten topics in each comment. Or you.



                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        And I can cut you off, balabol, by another parameter, even if you send one page.
                        cutter.


                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        3) Both paper and electronic.

                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        George Siuris "Missile Guidance and Control Systems"

                        You, from your words, have a book in paper. You "recommended" a book with a title in Russian. So the book is in Russian.
                        Provide either evidence that you have a book in paper or in electronic form, but in Russian.

                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Yours doesn't interest me. Moreover, such a setting of conditions gives a huge scope for fraud - you simply go to the archive of articles, write in ten godforsaken topics and that's it, consider that you have fulfilled the conditions of the dispute proposed by you.
                        This is precisely the sign of a coward who judges by himself.
                      38. 0
                        April 5 2023 08: 12
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        you have accurate data on the composition and purpose of the X-22NA avionics, then you are welcome with the exposure.

                        What a restless wink So be it, one-time educational program can be carried out. On Kh-22Nlow-riseАstand-alone equipment ПriborСnumeratorИintegrator. All guidance is holding the KU, measuring the ground speed and calculating the remaining distance from it due to the Doppler effect. There is NO homing and NO correction there. Anyone who has at least a minimal idea of ​​\uXNUMXb\uXNUMXbrockets from this photo will immediately understand what is there and what is not.
                      39. -1
                        April 6 2023 04: 05
                        Quote: Flying
                        So be it, one-time educational program can be carried out

                        Likbezder shtole?
                        Quote: Flying
                        DeviceNumeratorIntegrator
                        PSI was also installed on the X-22PSI (do the letters remind anything?) 7 years before NA.
                        And in the photo, the X-22PSI can be with Doppler speed meters, which have nothing to do with terrain correction. And such a possibility for a rocket with PSI is NOT MENTIONED.
                        Quote: Flying
                        NO homing and NO correction there

                        Is it not enough to understand that changing the element base could drastically reduce weight while adding accuracy? Apart from the fact that there is no homing for NA. And the presence of a radar does not mean the presence of a seeker.
                      40. 0
                        April 6 2023 09: 27
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        PSI was also installed on the X-22PSI (do the letters remind anything?)

                        Mastered the same table? Progress, congratulations good

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And in the photo X-22PSI

                        In the photo, training X-22NA. How easy is it to distinguish? The old lower keel does not fold wink

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        maybe with Doppler velocity meters, which have nothing to do with terrain correction.

                        Is it true? Yes, how so? wassat

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And such a possibility for a rocket with PSI is NOT MENTIONED.

                        Mentioned by some Vladimir_2U laughing

                        And what kind of "inertial system" or at least what it is called this character cannot answer.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Is it not enough to understand that changing the element base could drastically reduce weight while adding accuracy?

                        Change from what to what? Specifically

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And the presence of a radar does not mean the presence of a seeker.

                        What radar? On what? Although after the pearl "Rubin fighter radar" I do not expect an adequate response. request
                      41. -1
                        April 7 2023 03: 17
                        Quote: Flying
                        What radar? On what? Although after the pearl "Rubin fighter radar" I do not expect an adequate response.

                        RP-29 "Rubin" (N-019, "Sapphire-29") - MiG-29
                        That's all you need to know about your knowledge and mind...
                      42. 0
                        April 7 2023 07: 38
                        What a weak drain negative
                        Murzilki again? fool Do not master the normal documentation? Sapphires ran out on the RP-25 (MiG-25PD). The MiG twenty-ninth station is called H019 or RLPK-29.

                        Description of RLPK:

                        The official advertisement for the "phasotron":


                        Rubin-1K, - 1M, etc. were placed on modifications of the Tu-16 and Tu-22.
                        I don't expect a proper response. request
                      43. 0
                        April 7 2023 10: 57
                        Quote: Flying
                        The MiG twenty-ninth station is called H019 or RLPK-29.

                        So you're so dumb that you couldn't read it?
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        RP-29 Rubin (H-019, "Sapphire-29") - MiG-29

                        Are you so stupid that you don’t see the Radionix logo in the corner of the “advertisement”, but not any non-Phazotron?

                        Quote: Flying
                        Description of RLPK:
                        The fact that you post some pictures does not mean that they carry complete information, there are more complete sources;
                        Antenna system under the nose radio-transparent fairing
                        catelem is part of the Doppler radar N-091EA "Rubin"
                        (radar sighting complex RLPK-29E) exterminate
                        MiG-29

                        https://radar.dinos.net/Sukharevsky_Chapter3_3.1.5.pdf
                        And you are so stupid that you did not see this figure, initially?:

                        Quote: A vile skeptic
                        "Rubin" maps from heights up to 8 km and at distances up to 170 km.

                        And they didn’t see that I distinguish between different radars for different aircraft:
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        here is the detection range of the Rubin-1M radar of targets at sea of ​​450 km will not work.

                        Three examples of outright stupidity out of five. What are you arguing about?
                      44. -1
                        April 7 2023 12: 55
                        So you're so dumb that you couldn't read it?
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        RP-29 "Rubin" (N-019, "Sapphire-29") - MiG-29

                        The stupid one is not Flying, but the one who, without his knowledge, simply quickly looks for the answer on "Wikipedia", not realizing that there may be information that is not true. "Sapphires" ended on the MiG-25. In the form in which you torn from Wikipedia, the phrase is nonsense. Since the radar according to the code of the ROC "Rubin" cannot be assigned the code of the ROC "Sapphire". These are different developments. The one who wrote this nonsense on Wikipedia, mixing two different products into one pile, understood aviation in much the same way as you.
                      45. 0
                        April 7 2023 14: 56
                        Antenna system under the nose radio-transparent fairing
                        catelem is part of the Doppler radar N-091EA "Rubin"
                        (radar sighting complex RLPK-29E) exterminate
                        MiG-29

                        https://radar.dinos.net/Sukharevsky_Chapter3_3.1.5.pdf

                        That's better?
                      46. -1
                        April 7 2023 15: 30
                        That's better?

                        What's better? OCD for the cipher "Sapphire" became OCD for the cipher "Ruby"? Or "Sapphires" appeared on the MiG-29? No lol
                        It's too late to spin, as if in a frying pan, stupidity is frozen and no links will fix it.
                      47. 0
                        April 7 2023 17: 24
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        What's better? OCD for the cipher "Sapphire" became OCD for the cipher "Ruby"? Or "Sapphires" appeared on the MiG-29? No

                        Estimate, besides me, you, a cheap balabol, someone put a minus.
                        And balabol you because these are your words
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        just quickly looking for the answer on "wikipedia"


                        And an example
                        RP-29 "Rubin" (N-019, "Sapphire-29")
                        of
                        http://aviaros.narod.ru/radio.htm
                      48. 0
                        April 10 2023 10: 02
                        And an example
                        RP-29 "Rubin" (N-019, "Sapphire-29")
                        of
                        http://aviaros.narod.ru/radio.htm

                        1) This is a feature of information from the Internet - one froze stupidity, the rest replicated. Voila, stupidity is considered true. Well, since so many sources confirm it lol
                        2) Izvilin is not enough to look at the MiG-29S and MiG-29SMT radars in order to understand the crept error regarding the MiG-29?
                        3) The word "Wikipedia" was put in quotation marks and written with a small letter. Guess what that means?
                      49. 0
                        April 8 2023 15: 45
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U

                        So you're so dumb that you couldn't read it?
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        RP-29 Rubin (H-019, "Sapphire-29") - MiG-29

                        Whoa whoa, take it easy! The name without a dash is writtenlaughing

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Are you so stupid that you don’t see the Radionix logo in the corner of the “advertisement”, but not any non-Phazotron?

                        This is a gasket company to launder the loot, so that's not the point. Are you savvy? wink

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        The fact that you post some pictures does not mean that they carry complete information, there are more complete sources;
                        Antenna system under the nose radio-transparent fairing
                        catelem is part of the Doppler radar N-091EA "Rubin"
                        (radar sighting complex RLPK-29E) exterminate
                        MiG-29

                        So N-091EA or H019? Ruby or sapphire? Or maybe a diamond or tourmaline? Or in desperate attempts to get out, any nonsense will do?

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        https://radar.dinos.net/Sukharevsky_Chapter3_3.1.5.pdf

                        H019 can fire TWO R-27R missiles at one target. Conclusion: this is not a source, but garbage negative

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And they didn’t see that I distinguish between different radars for different aircraft:

                        Who started pushing behind the fighter radar? Why, in principle, it was necessary to start this flood?
                      50. 0
                        April 9 2023 06: 08
                        All this investigation and philosophizing about "dash without dash" cover up your stupidity:
                        Quote: Flying
                        Although after the pearl "Rubin fighter radar" I do not expect an adequate response.


                        Radar "Rubin" on the MiG -29 was installed


                        Quote: Flying
                        Who started pushing behind the fighter radar? Why, in principle, it was necessary to start this flood?
                        Rhetorical question - you started. And the flood is your attempt to cover up your incompetence, because the Rubin fighter jet is available.
                        You and Timur are generally eagles in terms of flooding.
                      51. 0
                        April 9 2023 06: 49
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        All this investigation and philosophizing about "dash without dash" cover up your stupidity:

                        You can’t protect your versions, you respond selectively to messages, so for now the situation is absolutely the opposite. wink

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Radar "Rubin" on the MiG -29 was installed

                        Yes, no question, bring a normal source, destroy the argument and be done with it. drinks
                        This infa about ruby ​​and 091ae, etc., came from one source - the monograph by S. I. Ivanovna. The book is good, but there are mistakes.
                        Therefore, I am waiting for a quote from TO or RTO laughing

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Rhetorical question - you started. A flood is your attempt to cover up your incompetence

                        Also not a question. Prove that on X-22HA (not 32, namely 22) there was a certain INS. Everything is simple: the name of the equipment, the principle of operation (it is generally simple, on this complex the name hides the principle of operation), the interfaced equipment of the carrier, the order of the navigator during programming and launch. Simply? smile

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        because the fighter jet "Ruby" is available.

                        Even if it were, why is this information here? request
                      52. 0
                        31 March 2023 06: 47
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        I show an example of "ownership" of logic - you judge the significance of the increase in probability (64%), regardless of the comparison with the increase in radius (50%). Does the 14% difference between the increase in two related values ​​not look so significant anymore? And as the radius increases, it will also decrease.

                        Initially, it was about a significant increase in PERCENTAGE of hits, and not an increase in the probability of hitting, but congratulations, you chatted me.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Those. an increase from 9 (18) to 18 (36) m will result in 95% hits. From 9 to 13,5 to 75 percent hits.
                      53. 0
                        April 2 2023 14: 53
                        Initially, it was about a significant increase in PERCENTAGE of hits, and not an increase in the probability of hitting, but congratulations, you chatted me.

                        "Chatty" has nothing to do with it.
                        "Increase in percentage of hits" - this is "increase in the probability of hitting." So the example of "ownership of logic" is still valid lol
                      54. 0
                        27 March 2023 14: 44
                        No I couldn't
                        Hundreds of meters could, 18 - no
                        Not in 1976
                        The aircraft does not affect the accuracy of the terrain, another "pearl"
                      55. 0
                        27 March 2023 18: 02
                        ,
                        Quote: aars
                        The aircraft does not affect the accuracy of the terrain, another "pearl"
                        Oh, now the relief correction has appeared, but it didn’t exist in 76, how is it, ayayay ...
                        The launch accuracy directly increases the accuracy of a missile hit with an INS, and this allows you to more accurately bind to the radio correction map, and make it smaller but more detailed. It's actually a simple connection...
                      56. 0
                        27 March 2023 16: 19
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        1974 ... The guidance system of the "autonomous" Kh-22MA received a terrain correction system, due to which the KVO was reduced to a value of the order of magnitude comparable to the size of a warship

                        I wonder why a correction is needed for the terrain when shooting at ships?) Yes, and the quo "comparable to the size of a warship" is a very vague concept. There is no reason to smack x22 on a ship less than a destroyer, the then destroyer has a length of 170m, and here we are talking about 9m KVO winked
                      57. +1
                        27 March 2023 18: 10
                        Quote: BORMAN82
                        There is no reason to smack x22 on a ship less than a destroyer, the then destroyer has a length of 170m, and here we are talking about 9m KVO

                        Do ships have no width?
                        Quote: BORMAN82
                        I wonder why you need a correction for the terrain when shooting at ships?)

                        The goal is a bridge type, a workshop type, a power plant type, no?
                        21st century in the yard, score in the search for "X-22 missile" what's stopping you?
                      58. +1
                        28 March 2023 08: 46
                        Do ships have no width?
                        More like heights. That is what determines accuracy. If the rocket gives short range and explodes under water, then the ship will be thrashed, but in the event of a flight, the crew will get off with a slight fright
                      59. 0
                        29 March 2023 03: 56
                        Quote: sivuch
                        Do ships have no width?
                        More like heights. That is what determines accuracy. If the rocket gives short range and explodes under water, then the ship will be thrashed, but in the event of a flight, the crew will get off with a slight fright

                        It was about the CVO without the use of GOS for a target "comparable to the size of a warship."
                        And yes, flying over the ship was considered the main possible reason for the miss of anti-ship missiles, and even getting into an unarmored superstructure could end in a ridiculous through hole. We decided this with a small slide of rockets in front of the target and a subsequent gentle dive.
                      60. -1
                        27 March 2023 14: 46
                        Read
                        Nice correlator...
                        If honestly, AVMs were associated with the solution of difurs and only
                        But no meters, of course, and close
                        Even with a plaster model
                      61. +2
                        27 March 2023 17: 45
                        Quote: BORMAN82
                        The first cruise missile with terrain navigation was already in 1956 - MGM-13 Mace. "Memory" was enough for 540 miles

                        it's not a number. Analog.

                        But you have to give credit. original. And yes, they are completely frozen.
                        In the Automatic Terrain Recognition System (ATRAN) of the long-range missile air guidance system, the terrain under the missile is compared with a transparent radar map. The amount of relative movement between the map and image required to achieve map and image registration is indicative of the missile position error.

                        TerCom was already close
                      62. -2
                        27 March 2023 14: 06
                        Quote: aars
                        No, damn it, they didn’t allow it, they didn’t have so much memory, for relief maps
                        With an INS and a range of 400 km, one map is enough - in the target area. Everything you need to know about your knowledge of the topic..

                        Quote: aars
                        No one was going to use the X-22 in 1976 with a conventional warhead against an aircraft carrier group, because. this is idiotic
                        And everything is clear about your development, too, you can’t learn anything about the topic - this is a level ...


                        Quote: aars
                        We killed, we kill and we will kill because. "civilians"
                        Yes, the tamers did not stop, and specifically you are no longer hiding for whom you are drowning ...

                        Quote: aars
                        Nehru here to behave like a young lady for the first time seeing a member
                        Well, you seem to be better at this.

                        In general, your hysteria satisfied.
                      63. +4
                        27 March 2023 14: 36
                        With an INS and a range of 400 km, one map is enough - in the target area. Everything you need to know about your knowledge of the topic

                        The fact is that you also do not have knowledge "on the topic" since you write this.
                      64. 0
                        27 March 2023 14: 47
                        It looks like a propagandist
                        Ours, but stupid
                        From such more harm
                      65. +1
                        27 March 2023 17: 33
                        Quote: aars
                        It looks like a propagandist
                        Ours, but stupid
                        From such more harm

                        I'm not yours, I can't be on the side of the procission subject. And just such a subject can catch up with strikes on civilian targets by the Russian army.
                      66. 0
                        27 March 2023 17: 42
                        In general, “knowledge” is a very specific subject, exclusively in his head. Well, plus a constant manner of answering a question in style
                        - How much will 2*2 be?
                        - Yes, chickens in September carry 5 eggs, how can you not understand !!! ... well, etc. Ostap can take you very far
                        .... however, he is regularly dipped for his "knowledge" in .... this is the most face and dunk))
                      67. +1
                        27 March 2023 18: 15
                        Quote: prorab_ak
                        In general, “knowledge” is a very specific subject, exclusively in his head. Well, plus a constant manner of answering a question in style
                        - How much will 2*2 be?
                        - Yes, chickens in September carry 5 eggs, how can you not understand !!! ... well, etc. Ostap can take you very far
                        .... however, he is regularly dipped for his "knowledge" in .... this is the most face and dunk))


                        What kind of fossil are you? Can you write something on the topic?

                        Well, examples of "questions in style .." in the studio!
                      68. -1
                        27 March 2023 17: 31
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        With an INS and a range of 400 km, one map is enough - in the target area. Everything you need to know about your knowledge of the topic

                        The fact is that you also do not have knowledge "on the topic" since you write this.

                        Justify. Let me just remind you that the X-22 is a high-altitude missile, and on the main, high-altitude, flight section, measurements of the radar map were ineffective. But with a gentle dive into the target area, the targets are already sufficient for correction.
                      69. +1
                        27 March 2023 20: 27
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        But with a gentle dive into the target area, the targets are already sufficient for correction.

                        looks like confusion.
                        ARGSN type "PMG" and her task is:
                        Upon reaching a distance to the target of 60 km and an angle between the axis of the rocket and the target up to 30 degrees. the rocket was transferred to a dive on the target, withstand 30 degrees of a dive.
                        as well as an inertial control system with an autopilot on the marching section and ARS GOS "PG"
                        X-22MA (X-22M)

                        Range up to 400 (350) km. Speed ​​4265 km / h. Flight altitude 12 or 22,5 km. Launch height from 1 to 13 km. KVO 0,5 km.

                        Kh-22N/NA/NP
                        the inertial X-22NA can go to the target at low altitude and make a “hill”, and the X-22N is capable of turning on the seeker in the final section.
                        / In any case, X-22 is "three bast shoes to the left of the moon." She cannot have a QUO of 9 meters

                        22000 flight level meters - do not interfere with keeping the course (if not over the sea or some desert)
                      70. 0
                        28 March 2023 05: 04
                        Quote from Digger
                        looks like confusion.
                        ARGSN type "PMG" and her task is:
                        In what, in the fact that it was not on the X-22NA? Either it was modified for terrain correction, but in any case, a downward view was impossible at a large angle, which means that the rocket needed a gentle dive to verify the terrain with the reference map.
                        The picture shows the scheme for using the H rocket, and as it is written there, before the ARGSN was turned on, the autopilot controlled it, and this is not the same as the INS system, not at all. And the X-22N rocket could also make a slide, it’s even in the picture, so what?

                        Quote from Digger
                        22000 flight level meters - do not interfere with keeping the course (if not over the sea or some desert)
                        Heading - no, but RL-course correction yes. Yes, and at a distance of up to 400 km, correction is needed only in the target area, in order to correct the INS error that has come up.

                        Quote from Digger
                        / In any case, X-22 is "three bast shoes to the left of the moon." She cannot have a QUO of 9 meters

                        Kh-22 was developed in 64, and Kh-22NA in 76.
                        "Tomahawk" was adopted in 83 with an accuracy of 80 m, it only flew 2500 km, at low altitude and with enveloping the terrain.
                        So at 400 km and with an accuracy of 18 m (9 KVO) and along a simple profile. it’s possible to compose something by the year 76.
                      71. 0
                        28 March 2023 06: 12
                        What is the terrain correction? What hill? Where do you get such nonsense from? All infa has been there for a long time. And straight from the guide to missile systems:
                      72. 0
                        28 March 2023 06: 35
                        And where is the Kh-22NA missile in your handwritten picture from the "reference book"? Where?
                        And 3 missiles under Tu - -22 ... They were dragged so only without fuel!
                      73. 0
                        28 March 2023 07: 06
                        NPSI. That is, with Нlow-altitude launch and equipment PSI. It is also product 108 according to the documentation.
                        Three missiles were banned in 77 after the catastrophe, edition 45-01 of commander Kulchitsky.
                      74. 0
                        28 March 2023 06: 17
                        Another "broadcaster" In X-22N and M, the head works ALL the way from the belly of the carrier to a DIRECT hit on the target!
                      75. -1
                        28 March 2023 08: 42
                        No one was going to use the X-22 in 1976 with a conventional warhead against an aircraft carrier group, because. this is idiotic
                        Only with nuclear
                        And anyone understands
                        This is understandable only to an illiterate amateur. The accuracy of using anti-ship missiles with an active head is just a few meters, i.e. the height of a medium sized ship. And use anti-ship missiles only against aircraft carriers and only with special warheads - even more so.
                2. KCA
                  -2
                  27 March 2023 15: 02
                  In 1976, anti-missiles already shot down ballistic targets with a kinetic strike, how was it with the KVO, do not tell me? +/- 0,1m?
                  1. 0
                    27 March 2023 15: 05
                    It was wonderful laughing laughing laughing
                    I wanted to answer, but the question itself is indicative
                    And delivers laughing
                  2. +2
                    27 March 2023 15: 14
                    In 1976, anti-missiles already shot down ballistic targets with a kinetic strike, how was it with the KVO, do not tell me? +/- 0,1m?

                    1) What kind of marvel is this, if during this period all anti-missiles were either with a thermonuclear or with a neutron warhead?
                    2) For air defense / missile defense missiles, instead of KVO, there is a probabilistic indicator of destruction. And, oddly enough, it is not equal to one.
                    1. -1
                      27 March 2023 15: 25
                      And they also had a radio command guidance system laughing
                      The anti-missile control system is radio command, includes a transponder placed on board the missile (responsible designers - V.I. Tolstikov and V.I. Dolgikh) and an autopilot 5A13 (responsible designer P.M. Kirillov) developed by Almaz Central Design Bureau with float sensitive elements .
                    2. 0
                      27 March 2023 17: 45
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      What kind of marvel is this, if during this period all anti-missiles were either with a thermonuclear or with a neutron warhead?

                      Yes, but what about system "A", which in 1961 intercepted the HE with a part of the R-12 warhead using a tube computer? Etc. until the age of 64...
                      1. +1
                        27 March 2023 18: 17
                        Yes, but what about system "A", which in 1961 intercepted the HE with a part of the R-12 warhead using a tube computer? Etc. until the age of 64...

                        I am glad that you read Wikipedia, but why share this joy with me? - what you wrote is not related in meaning to my answer to the forum member "KSA" - "this period" is the 70s. Tell me about the B-1000 in relation to 1976?
                        I won’t even remember that the comrade was talking about kinetic interception.
                      2. 0
                        27 March 2023 18: 27
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        I won’t even remember that the comrade was talking about kinetic interception.

                        Okay, I won't remember that the KSA didn't say a word about the fact that the intercepts were mass-produced missiles.
                      3. 0
                        27 March 2023 18: 33
                        Okay, I won't remember that the KSA didn't say a word about the fact that the intercepts were mass-produced missiles.

                        The point is small - to name non-serial missiles, which in 1976 were used for kinetic interception.
                        Well, there will be no story about the V-1000 in 1976, as I understand it?
                      4. 0
                        27 March 2023 19: 11
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        The point is small - to name non-serial missiles, which in 1976 were used for kinetic interception.
                        Well, there will be no story about the V-1000 in 1976, as I understand it?

                        Unfortunately there will be no story. Perhaps because at that time it was considered more effective to defeat multiple warheads with nuclear warheads.
                  3. 0
                    27 March 2023 20: 44
                    Quote: KCA
                    In 1976, anti-missiles were already shooting down ballistic targets with a kinetic strike.

                    recourse
                    5Y26-First successful interception of a ballistic target - April 1984 (range 40 km, divergence from the target 50 m, target - MRBM 8K65.
                    in all "A", "A-35", "A-35T", "A-35M", "S-225" "S-375", "A-135", "A-235" - special warhead.

                    The CEP is the radius of a circle, within which 50 per cent of all missiles fired at a target are expected to strike.
                    not applicable for air purposes ...
                    1. -1
                      28 March 2023 04: 36
                      Quote from Digger
                      in all "A"

                      "A" carried out 6 interceptions by HE units. Here
                      Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                      I am glad that you read Wikipedia, but why share this joy with me? - what you wrote is not related in meaning to my answer to the forum member

                      You see, even Wiki can be useful! wink
                      1. 0
                        28 March 2023 17: 23
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        "A" carried out 6 interceptions by HE units.

                        Well, of course, training launches.
                        I'm talking about standard equipment. Yes and this
                        Quote: KSA
                        serial missiles, which in 1976 were used for kinetic interception.

                        does not stand up to criticism.
                        And the special warhead ....
                        Who will test this over their territory?
                        So only the USSR had 456 air
                        In 1958, after a series of ground and atmospheric explosions, the United States joined a temporary moratorium on the cessation of nuclear testing. It lasted 33 months. The leadership of the USSR after the conflict in Cuba in 1961 came out out of the treaty and began their trials.

                        The Treaty on the Ban on Tests of Nuclear Weapons in the Atmosphere, Outer Space and Under Water (also known as the Moscow Treaty) was signed on August 5 1963 years in Moscow.
                      2. 0
                        29 March 2023 03: 31
                        Quote from Digger
                        Well, of course, training launches.
                        I'm talking about standard equipment. Yes and this

                        And what, somewhere when there were combat? But there were interceptions with the destruction of targets (warheads of ballistic missiles), I'm talking about them and specifically about the "A" system

                        Quote from Digger
                        serial missiles, which in 1976 were used for kinetic interception.

                        does not stand up to criticism.
                        With this I do not argue, I just missed it. Although the accuracies at total speeds of 10 M are impressive.
        2. 0
          28 March 2023 08: 35
          The missile has an inertial navigation system based on a gyroscope and a primitive radar, which is known for its low accuracy[5]
          Wow, and how was it planned to hit the ships with such low accuracy? Only about the special warhead is not necessary.
          Well, and the second question - and who gives such assessments, at the level of some Evil Odessan (who is simply illiterate)?
      3. The comment was deleted.
        1. 0
          27 March 2023 09: 11
          Quote: 1 11
          Well, don’t lie so frankly, basically the targets for such missiles were either wooden toilets or residential buildings, not a single military facility was damaged by it due to the low accuracy of the latter.

          With a throw-up about "residential buildings" - definitely okolotsipsotny evil spirits ...
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. +1
              27 March 2023 09: 55
              Quote: 1 11
              well, or village toilets,

              This is what kind of village you need to be in order to imagine your miserable farm as a target for X-22?
      4. 0
        27 March 2023 12: 26
        Write nonsense. The X-22NA KVO 500. Turn on your head, 1976, what the hell are a few meters ???
        1. -4
          27 March 2023 13: 26
          Quote from: blackGRAIL
          Write nonsense. The X-22NA KVO 500. Turn on your head, 1976, what the hell are a few meters ???

          Link to the studio.
  5. +1
    27 March 2023 07: 11
    Well, something about the Kh-22 and Kh-32 is not entirely clear to me ... At one time, there were reports about the creation of a new (!) Kh-22 missile based on the Kh-32 ... that is, as I understand it, these missiles must be produced from scratch! Some time later, there were reports that the "old" Kh-22s would be upgraded to the Kh-32 level ... even a new "index" was indicated to denote upgraded missiles ... Thus, it turns out that the VKS may have missiles of the mentioned type in 3 versions: 1.X-22 ; 2. X-22 "bis"; 3. X-32 ... But, recently, "digging" in the internet, I have not found any information about this. And on the page of the site he was already subjected to "criticism" after expressing his opinion ...
    1. 0
      27 March 2023 07: 43
      PS X-22/32 missiles are sometimes "called names" as "near personic"! Speed ​​up to M = 4-4,5 this "allows" ... But there was an experimental X-22 "truly" hypersonic ... up to M = 6! And here I would like to add that a "flying laboratory" was created on the basis of the X-22 to study hypersound ... This "product" had hypersonic speed and was equipped with a ramjet! That's the reason to "tell fortunes" ... why did they replace the X-22 with a liquid-propellant rocket engine, and not with a ramjet!?
      By the way, the "predecessor" of the Kh-22/32 was the Kh-15 ... also "near-peresonic"! Withdrawn from service after 2010 ...
      1. -5
        27 March 2023 08: 02
        Even if the X-22 is "not fashionable" in practice, this does not interfere - knock it down ничем Ukrainians cannot, there is not enough reaction time.
        The rocket is launched from 100-200 km and it flies quickly.
      2. KCA
        0
        27 March 2023 17: 26
        The flying laboratory for the study of hypersonic motion with a scramjet was called GELA and had nothing to do with the Kh-22, the Kh-32 took part in the joint program for the study of hypersonic motion of the Raduga Design Bureau and I don’t remember which institute of Germany, in the "holy 90s", The Kh-32 was accelerated to 8MAX while diving, but the engine was a conventional, liquid, rocket
    2. 0
      28 March 2023 08: 52
      I also saw ten years ago that at least the modernization of combatant 22s was planned. But now even the reluctance to waste time searching. Information in Runet has a vile property to disappear.
  6. 0
    27 March 2023 07: 15
    A notable contribution to the forced demilitarization of Ukraine
    Demilitarization - what is it, strikes on the energy sector? Well, this did not affect the situation at the front in any way, and the energy sector too. But, of course, not a day goes by without articles about the effectiveness of "ours" and "few / old / do not know how to use" theirs.
    1. -3
      27 March 2023 08: 22
      Quote from: Alex_mech
      Demilitarization - what is it, strikes on the energy sector?

      Absolutely correct observation! The fact that our Army inflicted on ukrams is not any blows, but so, semi-profanity
  7. +2
    27 March 2023 07: 20
    At the same time, a fairly high accuracy of hitting is shown.
    But in Kremenchug, one of the X-22 100 meters did not reach the target fence, as a result of which the Trade Center in the city burned down ...
    And the use of heptyl as part of its fuel is not "ICE" ...
    1. +4
      27 March 2023 08: 09
      But in Kremenchug, one of the X-22 100 meters did not reach the target fence, as a result of which the Shopping Center in the city burned down ..

      And what, the rocket was generally conceived as a carrier of special warheads, here +\- 100 meters does not matter
      1. +2
        27 March 2023 08: 51
        Quote: spektr9
        And what, the rocket was generally conceived as a carrier of special warheads, here +\- 100 meters does not matter

        It may be so, only at the same time it was designed for a conventional warhead, and here 100 meters already means a lot
        1. 0
          27 March 2023 12: 30
          It was designed primarily as an anti-ship radar. And the use of "inertial" against ground targets is already a bonus. The technologies of the 70s give the X-22 KVO 1000-500m.
      2. -1
        28 March 2023 08: 58
        And what, the rocket was generally conceived as a carrier of special warheads, here +\- 100 meters does not matter
        Can I not believe it?
        I am familiar with aviation anti-ship missiles only on the Internet, but with ships and from the stories of people who put these missiles on ships (I worked in the Northern Bureau and talked with guys from departments 11 and 51). So, even for RCC Basalt / Volcano and Granite, special warheads were installed only on every 4th product.
    2. -9
      27 March 2023 08: 14
      To be honest, we don't care about their mall.
      This is a war, no one can fight perfectly.
    3. -2
      27 March 2023 08: 23
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      On June 27, 2022, an X-22 missile hit the Amstor shopping center in Kremenchuk[18][19][8], killing at least 20 people and injuring at least 56[20][21]. The second rocket exploded 450 meters to the east, which could be the intended target of the strike - the Kredmash road engineering plant

      Dada, that's just the first missile and could have missed the S-300, only Ukrov, and not as you like.

      About the S-300 is not for you.
    4. -3
      27 March 2023 08: 44
      Quote: svp67
      But in Kremenchug, one of the X-22 100 meters did not reach the target fence, as a result of which the Trade Center in the city burned down ...

      And the fact that a warehouse with ammunition and weapons was located "meters" from the shopping center, is this according to Feng Shui?
      1. 0
        27 March 2023 08: 53
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        And the fact that a warehouse with ammunition and weapons was located "meters" from the shopping center, is this according to Feng Shui?

        That warehouse was JUST behind the fence and the first rocket hit it ....
        1. The comment was deleted.
    5. +1
      27 March 2023 23: 03
      Yes, it seems like she was in the fence and got at the entrance to the plant, the shopping center was nearby and burned down. The missile should work on radio-contrast targets, such as aircraft carriers or bridges
      1. -1
        28 March 2023 23: 38
        And why, then, were these missiles never used against bridges on the Dnieper?
  8. -6
    27 March 2023 07: 29
    Everything is the best, everything is analogous to shit, everything meets the highest requirements for modern weapons. And the air defense of Ukraine, as it was, is how it was, aviation, as it was, and is, the staffs, as they were, are. Kamaemo the rocket itself. If she is so beautiful, why is the slut alive? No intelligence? No agency? Can't get in? Are we concerned about the consequences?
  9. 0
    27 March 2023 12: 17
    At the same time, a fairly high accuracy of hitting is shown.

    It is written further in the article that this very accuracy in numbers is carefully avoided. The "inertial" X-22 KVO has 1000-500m (depending on the version). You can shoot only about a large industrial enterprise, and then, if it is in the city, then there is a big chance to get into a residential building.
    1. -2
      27 March 2023 14: 29
      Quote from: blackGRAIL
      It is written further in the article that this very accuracy in numbers is carefully avoided. The "inertial" X-22 KVO has 1000-500m (depending on the version).

      And you diligently bypass the correction of the course according to the terrain.
    2. -5
      27 March 2023 17: 04
      Well, when they designed this rocket, they did not assume that a shopping center the size of an aircraft carrier would be built in every city. And those who launched them in the NWO do not give a damn about this fact. Wherever they got, there is an ammunition depot, or a Khaimars garage, or a Bandera headquarters.
      1. -2
        27 March 2023 17: 16
        Quote: Torvlobnor IV
        Well, when they designed this rocket, they did not assume that a shopping center the size of an aircraft carrier would be built in every city. And those who launched them in the NWO do not give a damn about this fact. Wherever they got, there is an ammunition depot, or a Khaimars garage, or a Bandera headquarters.

        And the wretched cissote doesn’t care that a lot has changed in the rocket since the age of 67 ...
        1. -1
          27 March 2023 17: 30
          What are you talking about?! Nothing has changed in the base missile with an active radar homing head since then. There were passive guidance heads to the signal source (useless in NWO, useful at sea) and correction of terrain navigation (useless at sea, useful on land, but does not add anything to the head in terms of "intelligibility").
          But where they changed it is now called the X-32, designed for the Tu-22M3M, of which there is only one, and it is being tested along with the missile.
          1. -1
            27 March 2023 19: 31
            Quote: Torvlobnor IV
            What are you talking about?! Nothing has changed in the base missile with an active radar homing head since then. There were passive guidance heads to the signal source (useless in NWO, useful at sea) and correction of terrain navigation (useless at sea, useful on land, but does not add anything to the head in terms of "intelligibility").

            Even by the second big upgrade, the accuracy from 5 km to 200 m was improved in area! And the correction for the relief brought up to tens. WITHOUT GOS!
            Wikipedia frankly ukrovskaya mind chtol replaces?!
    3. 0
      28 March 2023 06: 20
      Simple fool With PSI accuracy kilometers. Therefore, it is EXCLUSIVELY thermonuclear. And with PMG tens of meters.
  10. 0
    27 March 2023 14: 55
    It is necessary to make a "simple" BR in the caliber of the Dagger ... 500-600mm with Glonass control.
  11. -2
    27 March 2023 15: 57
    X-22 is not designed to hit point targets. Only areal.
    1. +2
      27 March 2023 16: 20
      Quote: Pavel57
      X-22 is not designed to hit point targets. Only areal.

      Ah-ah-ah! Here it is! Finally explained! It turns out that the destroyer, frigate, etc. ... these are area targets! And not dotted! This means that the industrial building used as a warehouse or command post is an areal target! Bridge too! Now it is clear !
      1. +2
        27 March 2023 19: 04
        Radiocontrast and areal. Which does not negate the fact that X-22 can get into a specific building only if it stands alone in a field, in a very large field. In the city, the radar seeker is very easily retargeted at residential high-rise buildings and shopping centers. And inertial seekers have a CEP of 1000-500m (depending on modification) and can only hit area targets (for example, the territory of a plant, but not a specific building).
        All Kh-22s are missiles of the 70s and nothing has changed in them (produced missiles) within the framework of one modification. All changes are X-32.
        1. -1
          28 March 2023 23: 40
          So can a Kh-22 or Kh-32 rocket hit a big, long, high bridge on the Dnieper? Especially when there are no skyscrapers and large shopping centers near the bridge.
  12. +2
    27 March 2023 20: 01
    In the photo, the Kh-22 rocket is in the museum. That's where she belongs - right up to the moment when it will be necessary to hit aircraft carriers. For the X-22 is a missile for hitting large ships, that is, very strong radio-contrast targets. It is absolutely not intended to hit land targets smaller than 500x500 meters. As for its modifications like the X-32, this is also an anti-ship missile, which means its effectiveness against ground targets also cannot be very high, except perhaps against bunkers, because anti-ship missiles usually have penetrating warheads.
    1. -1
      28 March 2023 23: 43
      An interesting movie: "X-32, this is also anti-ship missiles, which means that its effectiveness against ground targets also cannot be very high, except perhaps against bunkers, because anti-ship missiles usually have penetrating warheads." - how to understand this? bunker type ground areal target? And how big should a bunker be to be considered an area target? 500x500 meters? Or 250x250 meters? And are there many such areal bunkers in the world?
  13. 0
    11 May 2023 17: 02
    Information periodically pops up that there are still point-y missiles, and it is possible to use it as a bomb from an airplane, remove unnecessary things or add what she planned, all the same, there are a lot of explosives in it
  14. 0
    11 January 2024 09: 13
    Where's M3M? They said 5 years ago that there would be a modernization of the M3 into M3M...

"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), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“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 Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"