Disposal by shot: the use of anti-ship missiles "Basalt", "Volcano" and "Granit" to destroy especially important targets on the territory of Ukraine

99
Disposal by shot: the use of anti-ship missiles "Basalt", "Volcano" and "Granit" to destroy especially important targets on the territory of Ukraine

The opportunity to take a fresh look at some problems was partly provided to us by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU), since it was they who clearly demonstrated that even outdated weapon (such as those produced back in the USSR unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) Tu-141 "Strizh" and Tu-143 "Flight") can be relatively easily turned into a fairly formidable weapon. Let's see how we can inflict maximum damage on the Armed Forces of Ukraine at minimum cost.


UAV Tu-141 "Strizh" (left) and Tu-143 "Flight" (right)

Anti-ship missiles (ASMs) have always been the basis of the combat power of the Soviet, and then the Russian Naval Fleet (Navy). In the absence of aircraft carriers and deck aviation it was possible to count on the destruction of the mighty American fleet only by delivering a massive strike of anti-ship missiles from surface ships, submarines and naval aircraft. The specifics of the targets being hit, such as aircraft carriers, forced Soviet engineers to create monstrous anti-ship missiles with supersonic flight speeds and a powerful warhead - where is the American Harpoon.



To some extent, the heavy Soviet anti-ship missiles of the P-500 Basalt, P-1000 Vulkan and P-700 Granit projects can be called the “top of the food chain” of their time.

P-500 "Basalt" / P-1000 "Volcano"


Anti-ship missiles of the P-500 Bazalt project were intended for nuclear submarines with cruise missiles (SSGN) of projects 675MK / 675MU, aircraft-carrying cruisers of project 1143 Krechet and missile cruisers of project 1164 Atlant. The P-1000 Vulkan anti-ship missile is a development of the P-500 anti-ship missile, which it replaced on Project 1143 aircraft-carrying cruisers and Project 1164 missile cruisers (RKR).


Project 675 SSGN, Project 1143 aircraft-carrying cruiser and Project 1164 missile cruiser

At present, submarines of projects 675MK / 675MU and aircraft-carrying cruisers of project 1143 "Krechet" have been decommissioned and withdrawn from the Russian Navy. After the tragic death of the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Moskva", two ships of project 1164 remained in service - the flagship of the Pacific Fleet of the RRC "Varyag" and the RRC "Marshal Ustinov" as part of the Northern Fleet.

And if the missile cruiser "Marshal Ustinov" passed in 2011-2016. modernization with the installation of a radar station (radar) "Fregat-M2M", capable of detecting low-flying targets, then the flagship of the Pacific Fleet RRC "Varyag" capabilities in terms of detecting low-flying targets should be comparable to RRC "Moscow".

The problem is that the reason for the death of the Moskva RKR could presumably be the hit of the Ukrainian light low-flying anti-ship missile Neptune, which raises the question of the advisability of these ships being part of the Russian Navy in an unmodernized form. And the potential cost of modernizing rapidly aging ships, comparable to the cost of building new ships of the frigate class, calls into question the feasibility of its implementation.

The ability of the P-500 Bazalt / P-1000 Vulkan anti-ship missiles to withstand modern means of electronic warfare (EW) and anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) of the enemy is also questionable.


RCC P-500 "Basalt"

Thus, with a high probability, the modernization of the RRC project 1164 will not be carried out in the future. The effectiveness of the ships of this project in the conduct of hostilities against an enemy with modern naval forces (Navy) is extremely doubtful and will decrease in the future, while the cost of operation will only increase. Most likely, the RRC "Varyag" and the RRC "Marshal Ustinov" will finish their lives, performing "ceremonial" functions, and will eventually be decommissioned.

All of the above means that in the foreseeable future, we will have a certain number of anti-ship missiles P-500 "Basalt" and P-1000 "Volcano" out of work.

P-700 "Granite"


The situation with the P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles is in many ways similar. This missile was intended for the SSGN of project 949 "Granit" / 949A "Antey", heavy nuclear missile cruisers (TARKR) of project 1144 "Orlan" and heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers (TAVKR) of project 1143.5.


SSGN project 949A, TARKR project 1144 "Orlan" and TAVKR project 1143.5

Both Project 949 submarines have been disposed of, two Project 949A SSGNs have been disposed of, one has been put into reserve before disposal, one, the K-141 Kursk, tragically sank, the entire crew died, four units are in service and more four are being upgraded under project 949AM with the replacement of 24 P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles with 72 Caliber missiles, Onyx anti-ship missiles and the latest Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missiles. Another SSGN of project 949A was completed according to a special project 09852 and will become the carrier of Poseidon strategic torpedoes with a nuclear power plant and a nuclear warhead of increased power.

Of the three Project 1144 TARKRs, two were sent for recycling, one is undergoing a large-scale modernization with a complete replacement of the weapons complex, and the fate of another TARKR of Project 1144.2 "Peter the Great" is in question - for modernization or for disposal, and, judging by the latest information, from -due to the huge costs of modernizing the same type of TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov", the decision leans towards the second option.


RCC P-700 "Granit"

As for our only aircraft carrier, more precisely the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser of project 1143.5, the words from the cynical anecdote “buried a stewardess, dug up a stewardess” would be most appropriate here. In any case, if this unfortunate ship is nevertheless decided to be restored and modernized, then it would be a very reasonable decision to dismantle the under-deck launchers (PU) of the P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles in favor of expanding the capabilities of carrier-based aviation.

Thus, from the real carriers of the P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles, we will most likely have only four Project 949A SSGNs, until they are also upgraded according to Project 949AM or sent for disposal, depending on their technical condition .

Based on the foregoing, it can be assumed that as a means of combating the ship or aircraft carrier strike groups of the enemy, the P-700 Granit anti-ship missiles are considered rather on the basis of the principle of "lack of fish and cancer."

Recycling or high performance application?


How many anti-ship missiles of the P-500, P-1000 and P-700 projects were produced?

Most likely, a lot, based on the number of carriers, we should talk about at least hundreds of anti-ship missiles of the P-500 / P-1000 projects, and also, possibly, several thousand anti-ship missiles of the P-700 project. If you roughly estimate - 4 TARKR 1144 + 1 TAVKR 1143.5 + 2 SSGN 949 + 12 (maximum) SSGN 949A = 428 anti-ship missiles in one salvo, that is, 5 ammunition for these ships and submarines is 2 anti-ship missiles.

Of course, here we go into the realm of speculation, since we do not have exact information on the number of these anti-ship missiles, nor is their technical condition known. On the other hand, if the author had accurate information about these anti-ship missiles, then it would hardly be possible to disclose it.

Given the obsolescence of anti-ship missile carriers of the P-500 "Basalt", P-1000 "Volcano" and P-700 "Granit" projects, a variant of their modification for use from ground launchers, for firing at stationary, especially important and fortified targets in the area carrying out the Russian special military operation (SVO) in Ukraine, by analogy with the modification of the outdated Tu-141 Strizh and Tu-143 Reis UAVs carried out by the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

How many anti-ship missiles of the P-500, P-1000 and P-700 projects can be used during the modernization?

Considering that some of the carriers of the P-1000 and P-700 anti-ship missiles are still in service, in any case, part of the Russian Navy will leave them as anti-ship missiles, even if it is reliably known about their low effectiveness against modern ships, however, with special combat part (SBC), they will certainly be much more effective. For our tasks, at a minimum, several hundred missiles of these projects are sufficient.

You can start with the P-500 Bazalt anti-ship missiles, since this missile is considered obsolete, of course, if the anti-ship missiles of this project are still in warehouses in an acceptable technical condition, and then extend the modification program to the P-1000 and P-700.

What improvements should anti-ship missiles of the P-500, P-1000 and P-700 projects undergo when they are modified into long-range cruise missiles (KR BD)?

If possible, it is necessary to do with the minimum number of improvements. First of all, it is necessary installation of an anti-interference signal receiver of the Russian global navigation satellite system GLONASS, to ensure accurate guidance of the modified anti-ship missiles at a stationary ground target in coordinates.

Electronic warfare equipment integrated into anti-ship missiles of projects P-500, P-1000 and P-700 (3B89 / 4B-89 "Shmel" on P-500 and P-1000 and 3B47 "Quartz" on P-700), designed to jam air defense systems it is probably better to leave the enemy, it is possible that they will not deceive modern air defense systems, but after all, the Armed Forces of Ukraine still have a lot of relatively outdated air defense systems, there is no need to make their work easier.

Most likely, it will be necessary to dismantle the active radar homing head (ARLGSN) to accommodate the equipment for entering target coordinates and the GLONASS receiver, just its antenna can be placed under a radio-transparent fairing, and weight reduction can favorably affect flight range.

The high-explosive-cumulative warhead used in the P-500 Bazalt and P-1000 Vulkan anti-ship missiles, weighing about 500–1 kilograms, can potentially be modified to increase the high-explosive effect to the detriment of the cumulative placement of additional fuses, and the semi-armor-piercing high-explosive-penetrating warhead Anti-ship missiles P-000 "Granite" weighing about 700-500 kilograms, most likely, will not require modifications.

And finally, it is necessary to ensure the firing of modified anti-ship missiles from ground launchers, since it is not possible to drag their carriers into the Black Sea. In fact, during the firing tests, the considered anti-ship missiles were previously produced from the surface, for example, the P-500 missile without radio equipment was launched from the SM-49 ground stand.

It can be assumed that there are three options for implementing the launch of the modified anti-ship missiles of the P-500, P-1000 and P-700 projects:

- launch from launchers developed on the basis of ground stands previously used for testing;

- launch from modified launchers dismantled from ships and submarines previously sent for recycling, depending on which option is preferable, provided that they have not yet been cut;

- launch from modified launchers that will be dismantled from ships and submarines that are just about to go for recycling, taking into account the understanding of the need to ensure their safety during extraction.

Why is it necessary to use the Basalt, Vulkan and Granit anti-ship missiles, if we have Caliber, Daggers, Iskanders, various Kh-555, Kh-101 and much more?

Compared to them, long-range heavy cruise missiles based on anti-ship missiles of the P-500 Bazalt, P-1000 Vulkan and P-700 Granit projects have a number of advantages.


Comparison of the dimensions of the anti-ship missiles "Basalt", "Granite" and "Yakhont" (P-800 "Onyx"). Image paralay, forums.airbase.ru

The mass of the anti-ship missiles under consideration is approximately 7–8 tons, which is approximately 1,5–2 times the mass of most cruise and ballistic missiles used by the RF Armed Forces. These missiles contain a powerful warhead and develop a flight speed of up to 2,5 M at altitude, which is significantly higher than the flight speed of subsonic missiles of the Caliber complex, Iskander-K missiles, as well as Kh-555 and Kh-101 missiles. When delivering strikes at a distance less than the maximum, the impact of burning fuel will be added to the destructive force of the strike - many remember the effect it had on the structure of the American twin towers rammed by passenger planes.

The combination of a powerful warhead, massive hull and high speed will make it possible to inflict significant damage on such objects that are difficult to destroy, such as railway bridges and industrial enterprises.

Modification of anti-ship missiles of projects P-500, P-1000 and P-700 in the KR database is a simpler, cheaper and faster alternative creation of "aircraft-shells" based on obsolete aircraft и intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with a conventional warhead.

Of course, this alternative should not cancel, but only complement and anticipate the emergence of other previously considered types of long-range precision weapons with a warhead of increased power - there are still many objects in the world that need not only be damaged, but demolished to the ground.

At the same time, in connection with the disposal of their carriers or their modernization for new weapons systems, the Basalt, Vulkan and Granit anti-ship missiles in the near future will still remain ownerless and rot in warehouses.

It is possible to place launchers, presumably, in the Crimea and in the Bryansk region. In this case, they will be difficult to reach for the enemy, while with a flight range of 500 kilometers, the entire left-bank Ukraine will be shot through, and with a range of 1 kilometers, all of Ukraine and a significant part of Poland in general.


The conditional location of the launchers (indicated in green); (indicated in yellow on the map) approximate reach zones for a range of 500 kilometers, red color - approximate reach zones for a range of 1 kilometers

For what purposes can the KR BD based on the Basalt, Vulkan and Granit anti-ship missiles be used?

Of course, first of all, on the cascade of transport facilities on the Dnieper - yes, we are again returning to the topic discussed in the material By destroying transport facilities across the Dnieper, it is possible to denazify half of Ukraine before the end of this year in September 2022 of the year.

Of course, by the end of 2022 it will definitely not be possible to denazify half of Ukraine, but by the end of 2023 you can try, provided that the bridges across the Dnieper are still destroyed.


The destruction of railway bridges on the Dnieper is vital to ensure victory in the NWO

In second place are industrial enterprises, enterprises of the military-industrial complex of Ukraineproducing weapons for the Armed Forces of Ukraine, including unmanned boats that can be used against the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy or against the Crimean Bridgeand decision centers.

Well, infrastructure is in third place - road and rail bridges, large power substations, fuel storage facilities, databases (HLR) and mobile switching centers (MSC) of mobile operators.

Ultimately, the choice of targets will directly depend on how much anti-ship missiles will be converted into BR DB.

How many anti-ship missiles "Basalt", "Volcano" and "Granit" need to be modified in the CD DB for use during the NWO?

Of course, the more the better. You can leave one ammunition load per active carrier, and a certain amount for training / test launches, and put the rest into action. It can be assumed that even a hundred KR BDs based on the Basalt, Vulkan and Granit anti-ship missiles will completely destroy the cascade of transport facilities on the Dnieper and ensure Russia's quick capture of the territory of the left-bank Ukraine, and a thousand of these missiles will achieve much more.

Conclusions


The value of anti-ship missiles of the projects P-500 "Basalt", P-1000 "Volcano" and P-700 "Granite" as a means to destroy enemy ships will inevitably and rapidly decrease, it is possible that their effectiveness for solving this problem is no longer high enough.

The number of carriers of these anti-ship missiles will inevitably decrease, it is possible that the principle “no missiles - no carrier is needed” will rather benefit the Russian Navy, facilitating the adoption of difficult decisions such as “modernize or dispose of”, freeing up resources and, as a result, updating the ship’s composition Russian Navy.

At the same time, the modification of anti-ship missiles of the P-500 Bazalt, P-1000 Vulkan and P-700 Granit projects into long-range cruise missiles designed to hit especially important targets will allow the Russian Navy to play a much greater role in the course of the NWO , and possibly inflict critical hits on the enemy, necessary to achieve victory.

And finally, the use of the KR DB based on the Basalt, Vulkan and Granit anti-ship missiles will allow the Russian Navy to "get even" with the Armed Forces of Ukraine for the Moskva missile cruiser, for escape from the island "Snake", for sabotage on the Crimean bridge and incessant attacks on ships of the Black Sea Fleet.
Our news channels

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

99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +21
    26 May 2023
    Judging by how things are being done in matters of arming the Russian army (Armata, Su-57), your proposals on missiles will be considered for a long time!
    1. +21
      26 May 2023
      Quote: andrewkor
      will be considered for a long time!

      And even longer to take root!
      1. AUL
        0
        26 May 2023
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        Quote: andrewkor
        will be considered for a long time!

        And even longer to take root!

        For - Where is the money, Zin? (C)
        1. +11
          26 May 2023
          It's not about the money. If desired, a lot can be written off for the creation of a ground-based launcher.
          But for some reason the author lost sight of the fact that Granite was designed for launches from under water. Even Kuznetsov and Peter I must fill the launcher with sea water before launch. Therefore, the alteration of Granites is something like that.
          And Vulkan is quite the topic. A volley of 16 launchers, taking into account group attack algorithms and warhead armor protection (lightened to increase flight range), is a very serious thing. And his range is wow.
          Basalt generally kept 30 mm shells calmly. hi
          1. +1
            27 May 2023
            fit the fire tank and fill the PU with water, what's the problem ??? I'm exaggerating of course, but filling the PU with water is an easy task ..
            1. +2
              28 May 2023
              For a cruiser, water is not a problem. Neither its presence, nor its mass.
              For land launchers, this is both a complication and an increase in cost.
              Will the tank follow the launcher to the launch site? Minus is not mine. wink
              1. 0
                2 2023 June
                Actually, there are stands for testing launches of these missiles.
              2. +1
                3 2023 June
                Quote: Alex777
                For a cruiser, water is not a problem. Neither its presence, nor its mass.
                For land launchers, this is both a complication and an increase in cost.
                Will the tank follow the launcher to the launch site? Minus is not mine. wink

                In fact, to begin with, explain to yourself why that TPK was flooded in the nuclear submarine? The answer is simple: there is the launch of the PAD and the cavitator - so that the booster does not damage the walls of the TPK during launch. In figs, is it all about a one-time ground-based TPK at the same ground pressure of the environment? Or did you not understand?
          2. +2
            30 May 2023
            Quote: Alex777
            But for some reason the author lost sight of the fact that Granite was designed for launches from under water. Even Kuznetsov and Peter I must fill the launcher with sea water before launch. Therefore, the alteration of Granites is something like that.

            yes, at least push the missile compartment with launchers into the hold of the Volgobalt. But it is necessary to agree on the project along the line of an apeshka for too much possible damage to partner property, to give a bite to the raftmen in the tender, to determine the main master sawmill ... in short, a lot of cases until 2030
            1. 0
              3 2023 June
              Quote: clou
              Quote: Alex777
              But for some reason the author lost sight of the fact that Granite was designed for launches from under water. Even Kuznetsov and Peter I must fill the launcher with sea water before launch. Therefore, the alteration of Granites is something like that.

              yes, at least push the missile compartment with launchers into the hold of the Volgobalt. But it is necessary to agree on the project along the line of an apeshka for too much possible damage to partner property, to give a bite to the raftmen in the tender, to determine the main master sawmill ... in short, a lot of cases until 2030

              I agree with you. Yes, at least let them from the Baltic. We are building and transporting submarine reactors in Gorky! And then everything is to shove the rocket into a disposable TPK. And take out the GOS from the rocket itself and put there a block from the same PD-1 that flew from suckers to Moscow. With that size, there is a block and a tele-GSN and GLONAS and TERCOM, a DMAC with a satellite dish can be installed! And we only have a starball marathon and hype in the media from the so-called. military correspondents. That the Pegovtsy refuted the battalion's invasion of Belgorod! No! Well, here we see who works, and who shekels shekels into accounts.
    2. 0
      28 May 2023
      You probably also need to take into account that these are naval missiles that hit objects at sea. And the sea, as you know, is flat, like a table. There are no trees in the sea. There are no high-rise buildings, no power lines, no various towers and pipes. There she can fly low, low. Therefore, over land, such a rocket will need to fly high. In the absence of air defense, this is not a problem; in the presence of air defense, it is unlikely that the missile will reach the target.
      Secondly, as already mentioned below, first you need to create a missile modernization project and a ground launch project, then build an experimental launcher, remake several missiles, and conduct tests. And only then proceed to the construction of serial launchers and serial conversion of missiles. It's not even two years.
      WOO will last all this time?
      Therefore, everything described in the article is the fantasy of a person far from the defense industry, to put it mildly.
      1. 0
        3 2023 June
        Quote: Oleg Ogorod
        You probably also need to take into account that these are naval missiles that hit objects at sea. And the sea, as you know, is flat, like a table. There are no trees in the sea. There are no high-rise buildings, no power lines, no various towers and pipes. There she can fly low, low. Therefore, over land, such a rocket will need to fly high. In the absence of air defense, this is not a problem; in the presence of air defense, it is unlikely that the missile will reach the target.
        Secondly, as already mentioned below, first you need to create a missile modernization project and a ground launch project, then build an experimental launcher, remake several missiles, and conduct tests. And only then proceed to the construction of serial launchers and serial conversion of missiles. It's not even two years.
        WOO will last all this time?
        Therefore, everything described in the article is the fantasy of a person far from the defense industry, to put it mildly.

        God, if a fence 70 meters high is built in Estonia, his anti-ship missiles will not fly over? Are you kidding me?
        1. 0
          July 30 2023
          From the second time for sure! Do not doubt.
      2. +1
        3 2023 June
        This balayka, if it flies there without even working from the shock wave, will break the windows in the houses! As far as I understand, the P-500 \ P-700 has a speed of more than 2M.
      3. 0
        July 21 2023
        Missiles fly high, drop in front of the target.
        The fact that it will bring down air defense is unlikely, onyx and x-22/32 almost never go astray.
  2. +12
    26 May 2023
    Let's do it: there is only one difficulty; it is necessary to prepare the launcher for a massive volley.
    1. +10
      26 May 2023
      Logically. At the same time, we take into account that otherwise they really need to be disposed of, and this, suddenly, is not cheap
    2. -10
      26 May 2023
      This complexity is very complex. It is necessary to prepare a launch complex, not very far from the border, because these missiles fly relatively not far, powerfully cover air defense, and so on. In practical terms, I think this is unlikely to happen.
      1. +6
        26 May 2023
        Damn, read the "Textbook of the Russian language." It is a shame to make more than five mistakes in 2 lines.
        1. 0
          1 September 2023
          And you do not admit that this person is not Russian, you are our literate ...
  3. +10
    26 May 2023
    The problem is that the reason for the death of the RKR "Moskva" could presumably be the hit of the Ukrainian light low-flying anti-ship missile "Neptune"

    The problem is in а) uncritical perception of Ukrainian propaganda and б) the absence of traces of hitting the cruiser, which should look like this.
    1. +2
      26 May 2023
      Yes, about "Moscow" the author is smiling about that ... but otherwise "would purkua not be pas?"
    2. +3
      27 May 2023

      Two hits might look like this. Warheads don't always explode, and ships can be durable.
  4. +27
    26 May 2023
    Moscow, by the way, could (if it was possible) fire a farewell salvo at Bandera before flooding, according to the "dead hand" principle.
    There are not so many railway bridges in Ukraine, at most 30-50 pieces.
    But now our main headquarters are learning how to launch bayonet attacks on the enemy. They do not even suspect that there are such missiles. In general, the idea with rockets is great. Maybe the fleet, so to speak, from below will timidly offer to use them. In WWII, naval aviation was the first to bomb Berlin, and now the fleet can excel. soldier
    1. +7
      26 May 2023
      The fleet, according to many, is a haven for the most corrupt representatives of the Moscow Region. The cream of the Parquet Generals, who live by the principle of "drink the maximum" and do the minimum. Do you think these Parquet generals need such hemorrhoids with missiles? They would be glad that we didn’t sail ships at all (no responsibility work) and would allocate a budget. So I’m sure these representatives will do everything so that they don’t have such burdensome tasks. hi
  5. Eug
    +10
    26 May 2023
    If the X-22 was "taught" to hit ground targets, then there should be no problems with other anti-ship missiles.
  6. -19
    26 May 2023
    Converting old missiles to new targets is more expensive than making new ones. The production of new missiles is working at full capacity, which means it is necessary to open a new one. Here it will be necessary to add the manufacture of carriers, if they are not on the Black Sea Fleet ships, in the land version. No one will do this now, and dill uses what is, only because of the lack of its own line of necessary missiles. They just do what they already have. And if you use rockets in their current form, then accuracy may suffer.
    1. +6
      26 May 2023
      SU is ready there, guidance, how to do it on Geranium. Cheap and cheerful. Goals - bigger choose.
      1. -3
        26 May 2023
        Quote: Zaurbek
        SU is ready there, guidance, how to do it on Geranium. Cheap and cheerful. Goals - bigger choose.

        Su there will need to be completely redone. The existing ones work not only according to other algorithms, but also have a different element base. Plus, a rocket is not a self-sufficient weapon; they need launch systems and carriers. All this will be possible to do only in single copies in some kind of workshops with a low "exhaust" output. Dill out, also tend to get ready-made, working, serial samples, since their own capabilities are only enough for high-profile sabotage or terrorist attacks.
        1. 0
          26 May 2023
          Quote: Horon
          Su there will need to be completely redone. The existing ones work not only according to other algorithms, but also have a different element base. Plus, a rocket is not a self-sufficient weapon; they need launch systems and carriers

          There are such missiles to be disposed of, where you do not need to redo anything, but only replace a special warhead with a high-explosive one. The rocket is called Topol-M. Of course, they are unlikely to hit the bridge, but it’s quite enough for large industrial facilities and energy infrastructure. Naturally, before launching such ICBMs, you will have to warn your Western "partners" without specifying the object of attack, which should be outside the range of the Patriot air defense system.
          1. +2
            27 May 2023
            There are such missiles to be disposed of, where nothing needs to be redone, but only a special warhead needs to be replaced with a high-explosive one. The rocket is called Topol-M.

            With an ordinary high-explosive military unit weighing one ton with a quo of 150-200 meters, it will be difficult not only to get into the bridge, but even into an industrial enterprise, but on the other hand, you can easily and naturally turn a high-rise building with people in the basement into a mass grave in case of accidental hit. In addition, the launch of such missiles will need to be carried out with a warning to the enemy on strategic offensive arms, otherwise, the launch of a conventional land mine will begin to launch nuclear land mines, regarding it as an attack. wassat
            Install the same maneuvering unit, with higher accuracy? Do we have one like this? Plus, there will remain the need to warn the enemy about nuclear weapons, about a non-nuclear missile launch. In general, a minimum effect, a maximum of problems.
            If they had begun to develop su for ancient missiles in advance, but there, as usual, questions would arise about the expediency, since by the time they were developed, tested and put into service, the missiles would have completely become unusable. There are many questions about dill alterations, and one of them is: when and where were they able to test their crafts under the "swift" and "flight", that intelligence did not know about this? No one will ever be able to make a su without testing in the hardware. The principle "it was smooth on paper ..." in technology works flawlessly.
            Naturally, before launching such ICBMs, you will have to warn your Western "partners" without specifying the object of attack, which should be outside the range of the Patriot air defense system.

            And what about "patriot"? Against ballistic missiles like poplar-m, it is completely useless. Other systems are used to fix launches. lol
        2. +2
          26 May 2023
          All control systems for analog units are purchased from aliexpress and are called microcontrollers. They can not only be duplicated - at least put five pieces into a rocket, they don’t need much space. But it’s the leadership that needs to move, it’s much easier to remove the T55 from storage, he said - go ahead, and that’s it, you can do nothing further
          1. +1
            27 May 2023
            All control systems for analog units are purchased from aliexpress

            How many missiles have you built? wassat
            1. 0
              27 May 2023
              Not at all, I observed a considerable amount of ancient equipment from the Soviet era, which was integrated with modern computer systems. I also heard many examples of modernizing everything in a row with the installation of modern electronics, but there are the same "flights" for example. I would listen with interest to how someone here at least tried to do something like that, and did not shrug, saying that it is difficult, we will not do anything, it is much easier.
              1. 0
                2 2023 June
                Quote from alexoff
                Not at all, I observed a considerable amount of ancient equipment from the Soviet era, which was integrated with modern computer systems. I also heard many examples of modernizing everything in a row with the installation of modern electronics, but there are the same "flights" for example. I would listen with interest to how someone here at least tried to do something like that, and did not shrug, saying that it is difficult, we will not do anything, it is much easier.

                Entire design bureaus work for us. And even private individuals do this over the hill.
        3. 0
          2 2023 June
          Well, yes. In fact, if in the Russian Federation somewhere "lying around" on sites and warehouses, until June 2022 the same Tu-123 or even KS-1 and KSShch (let me remind you that their VK-7 turbojet engines are still supplied to the Air Force for vehicles according to cleaning the runway) - then we would have already mastered the entire Left Bank, Khutorka 404! And so we see only one starball on mass media media and on the forums! and sisters of the militias and Prigozhin on the air, and even PR named after himself from the hype- "military correspondents" (a military correspondent is a military journalist).
  7. KCA
    -11
    26 May 2023
    Their Neptune is the X-35, it is necessary to sink a cruiser with a dozen of these missiles, at once, half a hundred kg of warheads, well, they won’t sink a cruiser, and even RTOs won’t sink, you can demolish masts and other hinged systems, but drown ...
    1. +13
      26 May 2023
      Their Neptune is the X-35, it is necessary to sink a cruiser with a dozen of these missiles, at once, half a hundred kg of warheads, well, they won’t sink a cruiser, and even RTOs won’t sink, you can demolish masts and other hinged systems, but drown ...

      "Sheffield" drowned "Exocet" with a broken warhead ...
      And "Monsoon" - generally drowned the target ...
      1. +6
        26 May 2023
        Quote: VIK1711
        And "Monsoon" - generally drowned the target ...

        So the "Monsoon" got RM-15 - the diluted anti-ship missile "Termite". Speed ​​- 320 m / s, weight - more than two tons (of which a ton is liquid fuel: "tonka" + oxidizer based on nitric acid).
        For RTOs, this is for the eyes and ears, even without warheads.
      2. +8
        26 May 2023
        Any ship will sink if a fire starts on it, and the crew is evacuated instead of fighting for survivability. As far as I remember, everyone was evacuated there at 11 pm, and the cruiser sank during the day during towing. With such Makar, probably every second ship in the world would have been lost, if a little something - and the team dumps
    2. GGV
      +1
      26 May 2023
      This is if you unload the ammunition. But with it, any missile is enough. And without a weapon there will be not a ship, but a ship
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. -11
    26 May 2023
    In connection with the upcoming saturation of the Ukrainian, and then the Belarusian theater of operations with NATO aviation, all launchers of outdated anti-ship missiles located at a distance of 500 km from the front will become the object of enemy attacks. The sea, air and space blockade of Russia, which is very likely in the short term, will make accurate targeting impossible. So, in order to increase the range, it is necessary to launch such radars from TU-22M3 and TU-160 aircraft (they will create additional lift on an external sling), and to compensate for a miss, replace the warhead with a special warhead.
    1. 0
      26 May 2023
      You just need to give the calculations a timetable for the passage of satellites, so that they know when to launch. Although, according to some, reconnaissance satellites hover directly above the Earth, without reducing the eyepieces
    2. +1
      27 May 2023
      I look like you can’t wait for a nuclear war
    3. +1
      2 2023 June
      Quote: Victor Leningradets
      In connection with the upcoming saturation of the Ukrainian, and then the Belarusian theater of operations with NATO aviation, all launchers of outdated anti-ship missiles located at a distance of 500 km from the front will become the object of enemy attacks. The sea, air and space blockade of Russia, which is very likely in the short term, will make accurate targeting impossible. So, in order to increase the range, it is necessary to launch such radars from TU-22M3 and TU-160 aircraft (they will create additional lift on an external sling), and to compensate for a miss, replace the warhead with a special warhead.

      Or maybe it’s enough to work for the IPSO and disperse mass psychosis. Even our hype-eaters are already itching to give in the face.
  10. +9
    26 May 2023
    Stop! sure..
    1. -2
      26 May 2023
      It is very difficult to destroy bridges, understand this at last. Remember the Antonovsky Bridge and how many Khaimars flew into it, and almost to one point. Broken bridge? No. It just became an emergency, but it was possible to drive on it. They collapsed its span only with an explosion. But it was the simplest bridge with reinforced concrete spans. It is even more difficult to destroy frame railway bridges, this is a much more durable spatial structure. The destruction of bridges requires a large expenditure of missiles and the result will not be guaranteed. Any individual entrepreneur from the construction industry can pour concrete and cook iron to repair bridges in Ukraine - yes, such repairs will not be in accordance with the norms and standards, but who cares at such a time? Bridges will simply be repaired faster than we will damage them. Bridges across the Dnieper can only be collapsed with heavy bombs, or with special ammunition, of course.
      1. +13
        26 May 2023
        Quote: Slon1978
        It is very difficult to destroy bridges, understand this at last. Remember the Antonovsky Bridge and how many Khaimars flew into it, and almost to one point. Broken bridge? No. It just became an emergency, but it was possible to drive on it.

        A classic example is how the Yankees destroyed the Vietnamese Dragon's Mouth Bridge.
        Departures with cast iron - zero result.
        Departures from the AGM-12 "Bullpup" - zero result, 110 kg warheads are too few.
        Departures from the AGM-62A Wallai - zero result, 370 kg warheads are too few.
        Departures from the AGM-62В "Wallay II" - successfully brought to 907 kg warheads in three sorties were able to destroy the bridge.
        Quote: Slon1978
        The destruction of bridges requires a large expenditure of missiles and the result will not be guaranteed. Any individual entrepreneur from the construction industry can pour concrete and cook iron to repair bridges in Ukraine - yes, such repairs will not be in accordance with the norms and standards, but who cares at such a time?

        If the bridge supports are more or less intact, then nothing needs to be poured. You just need to remove the damaged span, remove the destroyed part of the support and install a standard collapsible bridge. These structures were developed both in our country and in the West specifically for the restoration of destroyed bridges.
        Here, for example, is the domestic BARM (carrying capacity up to 60 tons) during the assembly process:
  11. +8
    26 May 2023
    The problem is not to finalize, the problem is the determination to apply them.
    1. +1
      26 May 2023
      FAB 1500-3000 can be used safely. And what are the problems here?
      1. 0
        2 2023 June
        Quote: Zaurbek
        FAB 1500-3000 can be used safely. And what are the problems here?

        Are you personally ready to be responsible for the collateral sacrifices? It’s not for you to take revenge on the Internet: percent of 58% of the motovs are outside, are INSIDE these very settlements. Example: a railway bridge from the village of Igren in the Dnieper or a bridge in Zaporozhye. railway bridge in Krivoy Rog. Can you imagine what will happen INSIDE a multi-storey building during the explosion of an armor-piercing FAB -2500 M52 or FAB -3200 M54?
  12. +7
    26 May 2023
    The idea of ​​the author is certainly reasonable. Only in the current conditions it is not economically rational to engage in the modernization of these missiles and they need to be disposed of by launching "as is". Choosing targets for this, where to suppress their electronic warfare will be less likely. Moreover, the modernization of these missiles may turn out to be impossible, since at the time of their release, any "modularity" was hardly envisaged - these are probably one-piece products, providing only for the replacement of the warhead.
    After the death of the RK Moscow, its analogue from the Pacific Fleet or the Northern Fleet (RK Varyag or RK Ustinov) Turkey will not let into the Black Sea, referring to the Motre convention. Therefore, the only option for quickly organizing launches of these missiles is to dismantle several launchers from "donors" (Varyag, Ustinov, Nakhimov) and install them on a suitable improvised base, for example, an old container ship or transport, or, indeed, the manufacture of a land launcher.
    The question of target designation for these missiles remains open. When firing at medium and long ranges, they require external target designation. The readiness of the satellite reconnaissance and target designation system of the Liana ICRC is currently in question. This is a much more important point than to bring from somewhere by land route and mount several launch containers for these missiles on some carrier.
  13. 0
    26 May 2023
    the author, when you talk about the use of anti-ship missiles to destroy bridges, then tell us what kind of "deviation" these funds have when they hit a target: last year there was a video of a bridge attack by a rocket, it seems in Zaporozhye, and so, the information was given as a "strike on bridge", but in fact the rocket hit next to the bridge - without even damaging it.
    There were also repeated attacks on the bridge in Zatoka, which could not destroy it ...
    It cannot be compared with strikes on the Antonovsky Bridge: there the accuracy of the hit was very high, another thing is that the Highmars warhead is not large enough for such a purpose.
    Therefore, the use of anti-ship missiles for attacks on bridges is only PR for us and nothing more, but for the enemy it will be a confirmation of our inability ...
    1. +1
      26 May 2023
      The big bridge seems to be a radio-contrast target, shouldn't the ARLGSN capture it?
    2. +5
      26 May 2023
      Let me ask you, how did they hit their direct targets - ships? After all, the bridge across, for example, the Dnieper, is much larger than even an aircraft carrier. Moreover, the bridge, unlike the ship, the target is motionless, cannot maneuver.
    3. 0
      2 2023 June
      Do you have RELIABLE information about the place where the bridge was hit in Zaperozhye? Oh well? I hope not from Arestovich with Podolyak, or even more so from Anya the Mad (Ganna Malyar).
  14. +1
    26 May 2023
    Of course, by the end of 2022 it will definitely not be possible to denazify half of Ukraine, but by the end of 2023 you can try, provided that the bridges across the Dnieper are still destroyed.
    Is this after the "Artemovsky standing"? Where is this from again? hatred?
    And finally, the use of the KR DB based on the Basalt, Vulkan and Granit anti-ship missiles will allow the Russian Navy to "get even" with the Armed Forces of Ukraine for the Moskva missile cruiser, for escaping from the Snake Island, for sabotage on the Crimean bridge and incessant attacks on the ships of the Black Sea Fleet.
    Maybe we can decide whether we are fighting or we are comparing peeps?
  15. +10
    26 May 2023
    Even if you just use outdated missiles to defuse the air defense system, this is already a big plus. And if somewhere else and get a nice bonus.
  16. +1
    26 May 2023
    Regarding the cruisers, pr. 1164, I strongly disagree with the author. They can still serve well. Replacing the REO with a more modern one, replacing anti-ship missiles and air defense systems, and it will be quite a suitable ship for the coming years.
    1. -4
      26 May 2023
      Economically not profitable. If a more modern one is in storage somewhere ...
  17. +3
    26 May 2023
    Good idea. Apply to destroy ports in Germany and / Poland, as well as arms production in Europe. No need to get hung up on Ukraine.
  18. +1
    26 May 2023
    It is necessary to dispose of it with greater benefit, but also with a head, and not bungling! Implement the new faster, destroy the old effectively!
  19. 0
    26 May 2023
    The idea is wonderful! Some part of these missiles could be used on the outskirts, but the rest, and a significant part, would intimidate any Poles, Romanians into incontinence, and, perhaps, would be tested on their skins ... But, remembering the faces marked by deep thought our cunning top leaders, reasonable doubts arise in the fulfillment of such hopes - most likely, all this is our empty dreams ....
  20. PPD
    +5
    26 May 2023
    the potential cost of modernizing rapidly aging ships, comparable to the cost of building new ships of the frigate class,

    And how, many new ships were built to replace it.
    Wow, probably hundreds.
    So far, the basis has only written off the sea.
    Note to the author - a simple 20380 is built for 7-8 years.
  21. +4
    26 May 2023
    The problem with the P-700 "Granit" is that this missile was designed for submarines! And to launch from a surface ship, the mine must first be filled with water. It just won't work. This is a very good rocket, but with an underwater launch.
    1. 0
      26 May 2023
      Can an underwater launch be replaced by an air one?
      1. 0
        2 2023 June
        Can. They did the P-1000 "Metorit-A", but then they decided that the mass character of a rocket launch is better than uniqueness and speed - for a lot.
    2. +1
      27 May 2023
      Well, if it is necessary to pour water into the mine, then this of course puts an end to such an application! We live on the planet Arrakis, where do we get so much water?!
    3. +1
      2 2023 June
      Quote: Andrey77
      The problem with the P-700 "Granit" is that this missile was designed for submarines! And to launch from a surface ship, the mine must first be filled with water. It just won't work. This is a very good rocket, but with an underwater launch.

      In fact, to begin with, explain to yourself why that TPK was flooded in the nuclear submarine? The answer is simple: there is the launch of the PAD and the cavitator - so that the booster does not damage the walls of the TPK during launch. In figs, is it all about a one-time ground-based TPK at the same ground pressure of the environment? Or did you not understand?
      1. 0
        19 2023 June
        And the ship will come to the base? Or he has another set in his cellars. And even if there is - how do you imagine a reboot? The rocket was made for the submarine. Disposable. Then they got into the first nuclear cruiser "Kirov". All equipment came from submariners. Looks like he didn't mess up anything.
    4. 0
      26 September 2023
      Install the launcher on the railway platform and this will allow you to carry as much water as you want. In addition, on railway platforms, a mass start can be organized.
  22. +1
    26 May 2023
    "By destroying transport facilities across the Dnieper, it is possible to denazify half of Ukraine by the end of this year in September 2022.

    Of course, by the end of 2022 it will definitely not be possible to denazify half of Ukraine, but by the end of 2023 you can try, provided that the bridges across the Dnieper are still destroyed. "- how to understand this?
  23. +1
    26 May 2023
    To make decisions, we need the will of the country's leadership, not the will of business, protecting its interests in the territory of the NWO ...
  24. +1
    26 May 2023
    Quote: Comrade
    The problem is that the reason for the death of the RKR "Moskva" could presumably be the hit of the Ukrainian light low-flying anti-ship missile "Neptune"

    the absence of traces of hitting the cruiser, which should look like this.

    Therefore, a version was invented with an unexploded rocket (explaining the absence of a huge hole in the hull), which still caused a fire due to the remaining fuel. Recently, Shurygin voiced this version on the anniversary of the death of Moscow.
  25. +1
    26 May 2023
    The idea of ​​recycling old and aging missiles looks tempting, but
    1. Who and in what time frame will finalize and make changes to the design. Moreover, this must be done according to the technical specifications agreed with the military.
    2. Who will conduct the tests and in what time frame?
    3. It is necessary, in fact, to create new parts, train personnel.

    All this can be done quickly only by an effort of will and in the presence of financial and production resources only by violating the established rules for accepting samples of new equipment into service.
    If we keep in mind that the NWO is for a long time and it is possible that it will develop into a larger conflict, then the game is worth the candle.
    1. +1
      26 May 2023
      Well, geraniums and planning modules were adopted quickly, and both are constantly being finalized and improved. There would be a desire
    2. +1
      1 2023 June
      Beria would have done it in a month and found people who can do it
  26. +2
    26 May 2023
    About bridges. Here they argue, we’ll hit, we won’t hit, we’ll destroy, we won’t destroy, but I’d like to screw up all the access roads by 5-8 kilometers, and every week I would load a racket there to help the repair teams. But, our leadership is conducting a Strange military operation and military logic, they don’t care about strategy. For them, the main loot!!!!
    1. 0
      19 2023 June
      A rocket costs money. The spetsnaz group will be cheaper, even with all the compensation, if the RDG is discovered.
  27. 0
    26 May 2023
    Quote: Dedok
    the author, when you talk about the use of anti-ship missiles to destroy bridges, then tell us what kind of "deviation" these funds have when they hit a target: last year there was a video of a bridge attack by a rocket, it seems in Zaporozhye, and so, the information was given as a "strike on bridge", but in fact the rocket hit next to the bridge - without even damaging it.
    There were also repeated attacks on the bridge in Zatoka, which could not destroy it ...
    It cannot be compared with strikes on the Antonovsky Bridge: there the accuracy of the hit was very high, another thing is that the Highmars warhead is not large enough for such a purpose.
    Therefore, the use of anti-ship missiles for attacks on bridges is only PR for us and nothing more, but for the enemy it will be a confirmation of our inability ...

    Why not? These missiles can fulfill a certain task if they are released in large numbers in the form of a "swarm", with the aim of opening and depleting the enemy's air defense, and then a complex raid from air, ground, and sea carriers of high-precision weapons. sad
  28. -1
    27 May 2023
    All this would be good and right, with the exception of one small "but". Are there any free production facilities at this stage? As I understand it, everything that is in any way connected with the production of defense products is already working at full capacity and with maximum efficiency. And to carry out such a conversion in the conditions of a shoe shop is not realistic, because here the process is only at first glance simple, but technologically it is the most difficult!
  29. -1
    27 May 2023
    Quote: MaKeNa
    every week I would load a racket there, to help repair teams

    Yes, there you can not destroy anything special, quite regularly and constantly stick anything in there, even geraniums, even rockets, to paralyze the work of bridges! An exciting lottery "will it arrive or not" will greatly reduce the capacity of highways. And besides, in case of a more successful hit on the infrastructure of the bridge, the bridge will actually not be used for a period of condition assessment and repair and restoration work, from a day or more. While design evaluation, railway track calibration, restoration of signaling and power supply. This is not an hour or two ... But alas, "we are not like that" and other excuses for the sake of "dear partners" of all stripes prevail in this case.
  30. I'm all for it. At least some benefit from all this will be.
  31. +1
    27 May 2023
    Everything is good in this article, one thing looks bad in the General Staff of the Military District they don’t read
  32. 0
    27 May 2023
    Question about the topic of the article? Were P-35 missiles fired at targets in Ukraine from object 100 near Balaklava?
  33. -1
    27 May 2023
    Eco the author swung. Shot disposal. For MO, there are no pluses in this, only minuses. Firstly, on ordinary disposal, you can cut well. And secondly, when disposing with a shot, what if the partners are offended and wring something out of their wives and children abroad?
    1. 0
      28 May 2023
      throw your mail - I'll throw off how they disposed of ICBMs from nuclear submarines at the KSF
  34. +1
    28 May 2023
    as I said, why do they keep a damn abyss of these same Granites and Basalts on Okolnaya. But somehow there is no movement. Probably nobody wants to win.
  35. 0
    31 May 2023
    All these old missiles can be installed on coastal launchers.
    After all, their speed reaches 3 M.
  36. 0
    1 2023 June
    Or maybe someone will convey this information to the General Staff and the Supreme, and a good proposal can be put into practice.
  37. +1
    3 2023 June
    From a technical point of view, the modernization of these anti-ship missiles in the KRBD for hitting ground targets is not a particular problem. Moreover, we have a similar experience and quite successful. The air-launched Kh-32 missiles were used in the SVO, which are not some kind of completely new development, but a modernization of the Soviet Kh-22. The X-32 rocket is made in the X-22 body of identical geometric size, but with a more powerful engine. In the new missile, the volume of tanks was increased by reducing the warhead, a new interference-protected radar-inertial guidance system was installed with radio command correction and reference to the terrain, and an automatic control system was installed instead of an autopilot. Nothing technically prevents doing the same on these missiles. There is, in my opinion, the problem of time and the need for costs at the present time, if the existing destruction systems perform the assigned tasks.
  38. 0
    July 18 2023
    Disposal by shot: the use of anti-ship missiles "Basalt", "Volcano" and "Granit" to destroy especially important targets on the territory of Ukraine. (WITH)

    In the light of recent events, let them dispose of the infrastructure of the Odessa port and the southern railways of Ukraine.
    The only pity is that the RF Ministry of Defense has a thin gut - the owners of life will not allow it!
    "... Ah, how sometimes it's a shame that the owner is not visible - the thread goes up and into the darkness ..." (c)
  39. 0
    July 21 2023
    Modern electronic warfare, probably, yes, but obviously not everything is covered by them, but air defense is only accidental, these are very high-speed missiles designed to overcome the multi-layered air defense of the AUG, it’s hard to shoot them down ...
    Why they were not used from Moscow on the first day of the conflict is unclear.
  40. 0
    July 24 2023
    It’s a pity that the EPR of such giants is also much larger than that of Caliber and Onyx.
  41. 0
    August 6 2023
    As an alternative to rockets - a large, huge contraption - a slingshot 200 meters in height and kilometers of rubber bands from shorts in order to shoot a core of cast iron with TNT about 900 kilo commercials through the stratosphere ..
  42. 0
    August 22 2023
    Quote: 9lvariag
    Quote: Zaurbek
    FAB 1500-3000 can be used safely. And what are the problems here?

    Are you personally ready to be responsible for the collateral sacrifices? It’s not for you to take revenge on the Internet: percent of 58% of the motovs are outside, are INSIDE these very settlements. Example: a railway bridge from the village of Igren in the Dnieper or a bridge in Zaporozhye. railway bridge in Krivoy Rog. Can you imagine what will happen INSIDE a multi-storey building during the explosion of an armor-piercing FAB -2500 M52 or FAB -3200 M54?

    What it should be: it will explode (if it explodes!) and destroy / kill the enemies (YES!!!! ENEMIES!!!) everything that falls into the area of ​​​​destruction. They will become friends when they are defeated, not before.
    fighting half a bump, no victory in sight.
  43. 0
    23 September 2023
    All that remains is to try to explain all this to the minister in an accessible language... but the chances are slim... if these missiles were used as exhibits in Kronstadt or other sites where the family is involved, then it would instantly work
  44. +1
    23 September 2023
    We have Shoigu as the Minister of Defense, so apparently he is afraid of everything, to hit here and there. Knowing that the enemy is merciless, they leave bridges for them; they did not organize a hunt for Zelensky. Zelensky must be removed so that he does not send so many Ukrainians to their deaths.
    Crimea is being attacked again and we are not responding to them with dignity.
    That's right, the missiles need to be modernized and converted for launch from ground-based installations
  45. 0
    November 12, 2023
    I am sure that the required number of old types of anti-ship missiles have already been converted. The time has simply not yet come to use them.

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

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