Strike capabilities of the British Navy

57
Strike capabilities of the British Navy
Frigate HMS St Albans (F83) of the Type 23 project. Harpoon anti-ship missile launchers are visible in front of the superstructure. Photo by UK Ministry of Defense


The Royal Navy of Great Britain is called upon to solve several main tasks of various kinds. In particular, he is required to fight surface fleet potential enemy and hit enemy ground targets. To carry out attacks of this kind, British ships and submarines of the main types carry and can use missile systems of several models with different levels of tactical and technical characteristics.



Fleet Composition


The fleet of the former “mistress of the seas” is going through hard times. In recent decades, Great Britain has economized excessively on the development of the armed forces in general and the KVMF in particular, which led to understandable results. The number of warships in service gradually decreased, and in addition, their quality indicators fell. However, despite all the limitations and problems, the KVMF was able to maintain a certain strike potential.

Currently, the British fleet has 10 missile-armed submarines on its roster. Of these, six are built according to the Astute and Trafalgar projects and carry tactical cruise missiles. There are also four strategic submarine missile carriers of the Vanguard type in service - formally, they are also designed to destroy ground targets.

The surface forces have less than two dozen ships with guided missile weapons capable of attacking surface and ground targets. The newest and largest in this category are six destroyers of the Type 45 or Daring-class project. There are also 11 Type 23/Duke-class frigates, of which no more than a dozen are operational.


Superstructure and Harpoon launchers of the destroyer HMS Diamond (D34). Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Special mention should be made of a pair of new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. They do not have their own strike missile weapons and are equipped only with air defense systems. However aviation a group of these ships in the future should receive strike missile systems.

The KVMF also has several dozen patrol and patrol ships and boats. These pennants are usually equipped only with anti-aircraft missiles and are also armed with small and medium caliber artillery. They are generally capable of attacking ships and coastal targets, but their capabilities in this context are very limited.

Underwater potential


All submarines of the British Navy are equipped with 533-mm torpedo tubes. Thus, modern multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the Estute type are equipped with six such devices, the older Trafalgars had five, and the strategic Vanguards have only four. In all cases, the use of Spearfish torpedoes is envisaged, capable of hitting underwater and surface targets at ranges of up to 50-54 km.

Multipurpose submarines of two current projects can also use torpedo tubes to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles. The missiles used are Block IV TLAM modifications with underwater launch, having a flight range of 1700 km. The ammunition load of the Trafalgar-class submarine's torpedo tubes includes up to 30 units. weapons - torpedoes and missiles are stored on common racks. New Astutes carry 38 units. weapons.


The corvette HMS Somerset (F82), which received NSM missiles. Photo: Norwegian Ministry of Defense

Missile carriers of the Vanguard type are also designed to solve strike tasks, although on a different scale. They are equipped with 16 silo launchers for Trident II D5 ballistic missiles provided by the United States. The firing range exceeds 12 thousand km. It is possible to use combat equipment of different configurations with special warheads.

Ship missiles


The basis of the KVMF's surface forces currently consists of Type 45 destroyers and Type 23 frigates. The two projects differ significantly from each other in terms of design and basic performance characteristics. In addition, ships of different types and classes use different weapons. The pennants carry various artillery systems and anti-aircraft missile systems.

With all this, the Darings and the Dukes have unified strike missile weapons. Initially, ships of both projects received Harpoon anti-ship missile systems. Two quad launchers were mounted in front of the superstructure across the hull - for firing over the side. The Harpoon subsonic missile, depending on its modification, can hit surface targets at ranges of at least 120-150 km. The combat characteristics of the product are sufficient to destroy ships of small and medium displacement, as well as to damage larger objects.

The Harpoon anti-ship missile system is not new, and the Russian Navy has recently begun to rearm its ships. The Norwegian NSM rocket was chosen as a replacement. As before, two launchers with four missiles each are used, located in front of the superstructure. The NSM product is a subsonic cruise missile with a flight range of 200-250 km. It differs from the Harpoon with a more advanced guidance system, but carries a less powerful warhead.


Launch of a cruise missile from the submarine HMS Astute. Photo by UK Ministry of Defense

To date, only one Type 23 frigate has received NSM missiles. Soon other ships of this type, planned to remain in service, will receive such weapons. In 2024, the first of the Type 45 destroyers will undergo a similar modernization. The re-equipment project is not complicated, and is expected to be completed over the next few years.

naval aviation


The naval aviation of the Russian Navy currently has only one type of combat aircraft - the American F-35B. To date, the UK has received several dozen such machines and is mastering them. According to existing plans, they should operate from coastal airfields and form aircraft carrier aviation groups. It is planned to continue procurement, due to which a group of aircraft of the desired size will be created.

F-35B fighter-bombers are capable of carrying a variety of aircraft weapons developed by NATO countries, incl. anti-ship missiles and air-to-ground munitions. However, as far as is known, the British fleet is not yet able to use all these capabilities. Naval aircraft are armed only with air-to-air missiles and guided bombs, while there are currently no missiles to destroy ships or ground targets.

The SPEAR 3 cruise missile is currently being developed for British tactical aviation. This will be a guided air-to-surface munition with a flight range of at least 130-140 km. The appearance of such products in the arsenals of the KVVS and KVMF is expected by the end of the decade. It is also possible to develop or purchase other types of ammunition that will allow naval aviation to attack a wider range of targets.


The aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth and its aviation group based on F-35B fighters. Photo by UK Ministry of Defense

Weapons of the future


A new generation of pennants are being developed and built for the KVMF. Thus, since 2017, the construction of several frigates of the promising Type 26 project has been underway, and in 2022 the lead frigate Type 31 was laid down. At least eight ships of these two projects will join the fleet by the end of the decade. In addition, completely new warship projects are being developed with an eye to the more distant future.

It is proposed to equip promising ships with the Mk 41 universal vertical launcher, compatible with various ammunition. A missile with the working title Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) is currently being created as a strike weapon for new ships. It will be a cruise missile with high flight characteristics, capable of attacking ships or coastal targets. The ship-to-ground ammunition is planned to be put into service in 2028, and the anti-ship modification will be expected until the mid-thirties.

Nomenclature and capabilities


The surface and submarine forces, as well as the naval aviation of the British Navy, have a certain strike potential. Using standard weapons, they can hit surface and coastal targets over a wide range of ranges. At the same time, the range of ammunition used has some characteristic features.

It is not difficult to notice the unification of weapons and the desire to maintain it in the future. Thus, all KVMF submarines use the same torpedoes, and multi-purpose nuclear submarines carry a common Tomahawk missile. The ships' strike weapons look similar. Currently, destroyers and frigates are armed with Harpoon products, and in the coming years they will all switch to modern NSM anti-ship missiles. The FC/ASW missile is being created for promising ships, and again we are talking about a single weapon for different types of carriers.

With all this, the strike weapons of the KVMF are not new. The Tomahawk modification used by submarine forces appeared in the mid-2000s, and the “new” NSM missile recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of the start of mass production. However, newly developed samples will have to correct the situation with the average age of weapons.

In general, the range of strike weapons of the Royal Navy looks acceptable and corresponds to the assigned tasks. However, it already has limited potential, and in the future it will decline. The fleet command understands this and is trying to take action. A number of new projects are already being developed, which are expected to help maintain the fleet's strike capabilities at the desired level. How successful they will be will become clear only by the end of this decade.
57 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    9 February 2024 05: 00
    In general, a satellite of the USA with attempts at independence.
  2. +3
    9 February 2024 07: 16
    “Funeral” articles on the British Navy are becoming very common... Why would this be?
  3. +6
    9 February 2024 09: 39
    The “new” NSM rocket recently celebrated its tenth anniversary of mass production

    Isn't it new? Ryabov is such Ryabov :((
    1. -4
      9 February 2024 09: 51
      It should be noted that it does not differ not only in novelty, but also in performance characteristics. The differences from the 40-year-old “harpoon” are minimal.
      1. +5
        9 February 2024 10: 05
        They have fundamental differences. Harpoon has a classic seeker for anti-ship missiles with guidance radar.
        NSM has a modern infrared matrix in its seeker. Plus the ability to jam, perform anti-aircraft maneuvers, approach a target from different directions, reduced ESR and a full-fledged ability to work on ground targets.
        This is a universal rocket of a different generation.
        1. -5
          9 February 2024 12: 00
          How is it different from a "harpoon"? Has the speed increased significantly? No. Has the range increased significantly? No. Has the warhead's power increased significantly? No, it is even weaker in explosive content. New GOS? Likewise, jamming systems do not stand still. Total? How is it better?
          1. +1
            9 February 2024 13: 09
            Of course, the guidance and protection systems are the main weak points of all cruise missiles. It has a fundamentally new control system for missiles of this class, and not just a new seeker (although the seeker is also fundamentally new).
            1. -3
              9 February 2024 13: 23
              What's fundamentally new about it? The ability to perform anti-aircraft maneuvers? So missiles are also able to maneuver with exorbitant g. You can deceive the IR seeker in the same way as the radar. I don't see any fundamental differences. The main problem of the new anti-ship missile system is its short flight range. A ship with a Zircon will fire as if at a firing range, because it will take the enemy about another hour to get within firing range.
              1. +2
                9 February 2024 13: 47
                The NSM has the ability to bypass the SAM coverage areas and choose the optimal direction of attack after detecting the target. Reduced RCS in combination with a passive seeker and approaches at ultra-low altitudes allows the missile to remain undetected for the maximum time.
                You can deceive the IR seeker in the same way as the radar.

                It does not have an IR seeker, but a matrix IR seeker, and it is much more difficult to deceive it than an RL. It has a much more advanced control system for selecting targets, working in coastal waters with the anti-ship missile function and TERCOM for working against ground targets, and a programmable fuse depending on the type of target.
                Harpoon has nothing like that.
                1. -1
                  9 February 2024 14: 18
                  How does a matrix IR seeker differ from a simply dual-band IR seeker?
                  1. +2
                    9 February 2024 15: 18
                    The fact that the matrix image of the target, and the conventional IR seeker has one point. In this connection, the noise immunity of the matrix is ​​much higher.
                    1. -3
                      9 February 2024 18: 41
                      What is the best way to achieve better noise immunity? If both there and there - the source of the signal is the same - heat. Do they operate at a different wavelength or have better receiver sensitivity? On this site, in the channel of the Karabakh conflict, there were alarmists who shouted about thermal imagers: “Chief, everything is lost, there is no salvation.” Now it turns out that there are a lot of scientific methods to deceive cunning technology. IR traps also do not stand still.
                      1. +1
                        10 February 2024 01: 11
                        Due to the fact that there is not a single point indicating the target, but an image of the target. And it is much more difficult to fake an image with a trap or interference than with one point.
                      2. 0
                        10 February 2024 12: 26
                        What I read is that LOCs can now be fired at several charges at once, forming from them very complex pictures and IR and RL ranges.
                      3. 0
                        10 February 2024 15: 54
                        I haven’t heard of traps used to form an image of a ship or a building or structure, and from all angles at the same time. If there are such photos, it will be interesting to see.
                      4. 0
                        10 February 2024 20: 44
                        Likewise, I have very little idea of ​​the picture on the heat-sensitive matrix, don’t think it’s too much trouble - post it. I have said more than once that mattresses and all other advertising brochures should be divided into two, or even three. Before the start of the SVO, what did they say about the Javelin ATGM? 100% death for any armored vehicle at 5 km. within radius? What turned out to be the case? Even Banderlogs write that even NLAV is better because it’s easier))))
                      5. +2
                        11 February 2024 12: 07
                        [quote]Before the start of the SVO - what did they say about the Javelin ATGM? 100% death for any armored vehicle at 5 km. in radius?[/quot]
                        I don't know where you read this nonsense. The range of the Javelin is 2500 (according to some sources 3000) m, no one attributed 5 km to it and does not attribute it.
                        [quote]Even Banderlogs write that even NLAV is better because it’s easier))))[/quote]
                        You probably read this in the same place as the Javelin 5 km.
                        I don't know what NLAV is. If you meant NLAW, this is a weapon of a different class, a non-homing grenade launcher with an advanced sight and flight stabilization. The range is several times less than the Javelin.
                        [quote]I too, have very little idea of ​​the picture on the heat-sensitive matrix[/quote]
                        https://topwar.ru/235932-ne-byt-rasterzannym-staej.html
                        https://applphys.orion-ir.ru/appl-10/10-4/PF-10-4-124.pdf
                        NSM has repeatedly confirmed the ability not only to hit different targets, but also to hit a vulnerable point selected on the target.
                        As I see, you have begun to openly stretch the “arguments”, so I see no point in further discussing, especially within the VO forum, such highly specialized issues as image processing and analysis.
                        Success.
                        hi
                      6. 0
                        11 February 2024 15: 41
                        What battles did this anti-ship missile take part in? Who assessed its real capabilities, and not those indicated in advertising brochures? Note that the British are in no hurry to adopt it. "Westminster" will shoot, and then they will think.
                        With the Javelin, I made a mistake in terms of range, but what does this change in principle? This ATGM was advertised as an absolute weapon (like the anti-ship missile system we are talking about), what did the real war show?
                        I have already said more than once that advertising brochures from Lockheed, Northrop, etc. should be treated with a fair amount of skepticism.
                      7. +1
                        11 February 2024 12: 16
                        NSM test results.
                        https://web.archive.org/web/20141203081502/http://www.janes.com/article/45398/precision-and-lethality-id14d2
                      8. +4
                        10 February 2024 12: 56
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        What is the best way to achieve better noise immunity?

                        Due to the possibility of selecting targets by radiation, which complicates the operation of traps. Strongly.
                      9. 0
                        10 February 2024 20: 35
                        The ship is not all "hot". There cannot be a target for a seeker 140 x 20 m. IR traps are fired according to a cunning scheme, creating several pictures at once.
                      10. +2
                        11 February 2024 02: 27
                        And all this sometimes works, and sometimes not. And there are a lot of reasons why it might not work. Creating a trap that will simulate the radiation of a ship in motion is “a little” difficult, you know, and statics are selective
                      11. 0
                        11 February 2024 10: 14
                        So, you know, anti-ship missiles can be shot down on approach, with its ridiculous speed. Note that the British are in no hurry to adopt it. Now, in the spring - summer, "Westminster" will shoot at the training ground, and there they will think.
                      12. +1
                        11 February 2024 10: 35
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        So, you know, anti-ship missiles can be shot down on approach, with its ridiculous speed

                        They can, and even, perhaps, they will knock something down. But I AGAIN remind you of the missile attacks of Sevastopol. In September, according to the Russian Ministry of Defense, out of 10 missiles, 7 were shot down, 3 were effective. So it was not the ship that was attacked, but the fleet base, which was covered by very decent ground air defense. In December there was another breakthrough, the Novocherkassk landing ship was hit. In greenhouse, one might say, conditions for our air defense.
                        Affected by subsonic anti-ship missiles. And what are all your thoughts on this matter worth?
                      13. 0
                        11 February 2024 10: 44
                        I would like to remind you that if you believe the advertising brochures, then “storm-shadow” is not knocked down at all. They are also “stealth”, they also have cunning flight trajectories, etc. Nevertheless, they shot down 70%. Don’t you know how many “deceptions” were released? When you find out, the picture will sparkle with different colors. A “bjork” or “tika” can afford such a number of launchers, but then what will be left for combat.
                      14. 0
                        11 February 2024 10: 48
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        I would like to remind you that if you believe the advertising brochures, then “storm-shadow” is not knocked down at all.

                        I wonder where you got these brochures from.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        They are also “stealth”, they also have cunning flight trajectories, etc. Nevertheless, they shot down 70%.

                        Who told you that all 10 missiles were Storm Shadow? There was a vinaigrette, including converted missiles, and MALD were also used.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Don’t you know how many “deceptions” were released?

                        Only 10 in September. Rockets and decoys
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        A “bjork” or “tika” can afford such a number of launchers, but then what will be left for combat.

                        Nikolay, you are already completely over... well, let’s say, you’re getting carried away. In your opinion, what kind of “PU police” does the Armed Forces of Ukraine have? Is there an AUS in the World Cup for launching missiles?
              2. +3
                9 February 2024 13: 52
                I wonder who will give the control center to the ship with the Zircon. It’s clear who the enemy is - they have a huge satellite constellation.
                1. -5
                  9 February 2024 14: 14
                  We are talking about a promising rocket that should be relevant for many years to come. Now Russia is working on its backwardness, but China does not have such a problem. So, who should be given target designation is a solvable problem. But what about the obviously weak performance characteristics of a promising rocket?
                  1. 0
                    9 February 2024 14: 16
                    Z.Y. incomprehensible interference for satellite reconnaissance in the Sevastopol area does not give rise to any thoughts.
                  2. +1
                    9 February 2024 14: 19
                    It may be a solvable problem in theory, but it hasn’t been solved in 30 years. And while it has not been resolved, the real firing range of anti-ship missiles, to put it mildly, is much shorter. Less than the British.

                    As for satellite interference, it is not a fact that they exist outside of RIA Novosti; until now, domestic electronic warfare has not demonstrated any particular effectiveness. Most likely from the same category as Khibiny and Promethea.
                    1. -3
                      9 February 2024 14: 26
                      Halfway across Europe, GPS navigation went down and no one noticed?))) Why do “axes” fly anywhere, but not where they need to be? “Axes” will soon be launched across Syria, and how many are there? Have you ever wondered why? I think that the problem of creating a constellation of reconnaissance satellites will be solved faster than in 30 years. And the main enemy now is not Russia, but China. So we need to use this time wisely.
                      1. +1
                        9 February 2024 14: 33
                        So I say - Khibiny. This news exists only in the domestic information field, so you should treat it with at least skepticism.

                        Well, when they decide (if they decide), then we’ll talk.
                      2. -2
                        9 February 2024 18: 33
                        I have a relative who lives in Poland and travels often and a lot for work, including using GPS, because there are different addresses and a lot. You tell him about the domestic information field)))) either it didn’t work at all or it gave such a scatter of points that you can go crazy.
                  3. +4
                    10 February 2024 13: 01
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    Now Russia is working on its backlog

                    The Russian Federation does not even imitate vigorous activity in this field.
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    but China does not have such a problem

                    China also has big problems with long-range control centers...
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    So, who should be given target designation is a solvable problem.

                    Yes. We have been deciding for 70 years now, but things are still there.
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    But the obviously weak performance characteristics of a promising rocket

                    Let me remind you that when testing counteraction to our AMG, the same United States, at the end of the last century, practiced carrier-based aircraft strikes over a distance of 1600 km.
                    They don’t need to measure the length of anti-ship missiles with us - they have carrier-based aircraft for this
                    1. -2
                      10 February 2024 20: 37
                      I’m embarrassed to ask which carrier-based mattress aircraft now, not to mention then, has a flight range of 3000 km?)))
                      1. +2
                        11 February 2024 02: 38
                        Why this question? Or, let me guess - do you think that in order to strike at 1600 km, an aircraft should have a flight range of 3000 km?;)))))
                      2. 0
                        11 February 2024 10: 16
                        Well okay - 2500 km. round trip? At the same time, do not forget about the reserve of fuel for afterburner and combat maneuvering, when kerosene runs out with terrible force.
                      3. 0
                        11 February 2024 10: 28
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Well okay - 2500 km. round trip?

                        What about 2500 in both directions? Nikolai, do you even know anything about naval warfare?
                      4. 0
                        11 February 2024 10: 34
                        Well, just a little bit))) let's start with something simple - the firing range of the Harpoon anti-ship missile system?
                      5. 0
                        11 February 2024 10: 37
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Well, just a little bit)))

                        Well, maybe you should at least learn the basics first?
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Let's start with something simple - the firing range of the Harpoon anti-ship missile system?

                        Oops, what does the range of the Harpoon have to do with it? We are talking about carrier-based aircraft now; they usually do not fire harpoons at maximum range
              3. +4
                10 February 2024 12: 52
                Quote: TermNachTER
                I don't see any fundamental differences.

                You just don't want to see them.
                Quote: TermNachTER
                The ship with "Zircon" will shoot

                The range is determined not by the missile's flight range, but by the enemy's detection range. So it is better to have over-the-horizon control systems and a 250 km missile than a 1000 km rocket without over-the-horizon control systems.
                Quote: TermNachTER
                You can deceive the IR seeker in the same way as the radar.

                It's possible, but it's more difficult. Accordingly, there are more chances for an air defense breakthrough, but the attack squad is less likely.
                Quote: TermNachTER
                The ability to perform anti-aircraft maneuvers?

                Also useful.
                Quote: TermNachTER
                So missiles are also able to maneuver with exorbitant g

                But Storm Shadow is not always able to be intercepted.
                From such “small” steps like a new seeker, capable of operating in active-passive, infrared guidance, maneuvers, a multiple increase in efficiency is formed - synergy.
                1. -2
                  10 February 2024 15: 53
                  We are talking about a promising anti-ship missile system for years to come. And what is promising about it? In addition to the GOS. I repeat, a couple of years ago everyone shouted: “What a horror, there is no salvation from a thermal imager.” Now it turns out that this is a completely solvable problem. The problem with this miracle seeker will be solved in the same way. Currently there are no control centers for Zircon over long distances. Who said they won't be there tomorrow? Technology is developing by leaps and bounds. "Storm - Shadow" is not always possible to shoot down - I agree, because all of NATO is working for them. I would like to remind you that the NATO manufacturers of these missiles generally positioned them as not being shot down. It turned out to be quite knockable. I repeat - we are talking about PROMISING anti-ship missiles. And what we see is a “harpoon”, slightly transformed by modern technologies.
                  1. +2
                    10 February 2024 16: 45
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    And what is promising about it? In addition to the GOS.

                    Already answered above.
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    I repeat, a couple of years ago everyone shouted: “What a horror, there is no salvation from a thermal imager.” Now it turns out that this is a completely solvable problem.

                    Solvable. Much bloodshed and tactical limitations.
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    The problem with this miracle seeker will be solved in the same way.

                    You are touchingly illogical. If countering active-passive seekers combined with IR guidance is a piece of cake, then the Zircon becomes as useless as this missile.
                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    "Storm - Shadow" is not always possible to shoot down - I agree, because all of NATO is working for them.

                    How is that? :))) I haven’t heard of the NATO Air Force opening up our air defense area in Crimea, crushing it with interference, missile defense and missile defense, paving the way for Storm Shadow. And all this would have taken place if we had fought against NATO.

                    Quote: TermNachTER
                    And what we see is a “harpoon”, slightly transformed by modern technologies.

                    Yes. And Zircon is the same Vulcan, slightly transformed by modern technologies wassat
                    1. -2
                      10 February 2024 20: 54
                      Regarding thermal imagers, they shouted: “it’s all screwed up, no chance.” I would like to hear specifics, and not a vague general phrase.
                      Do you know how the Zircon is aimed? please share, even without “00”, just general principles.
                      And for whom does the entire NATO satellite constellation, aircraft and UAVs work?
                      human intelligence, on the Pope?
                      What kind of electronic warfare aircraft would crush air defense in Crimea? Mattress Hornets?
                      Zircon differs from Vulcan, just a little bit, in speed))) and how much does the speed of the new anti-ship missile differ from the “harpoon”?)))
                      1. +2
                        11 February 2024 02: 56
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        I would like to hear specifics, and not a vague general phrase.

                        Excuse me, does the SVO experience tell you nothing? How about more specifics? Our losses in equipment are colossal, the T-62s are already in use.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Do you know how the Zircon is aimed? please share, even without “00”, just general principles.

                        But the general principles for the GOS are the same. Apart from active-passive radar seekers and IR + very limited optics, there is nothing. Therefore, your confidence that this means nothing nullifies the zircon.

                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        And for whom does the entire NATO satellite constellation, aircraft and UAVs work?

                        For the last attack, when the BOD was covered, none of this was needed.
                        We attacked a stationary target with a very limited missile salvo, which was covered by a powerful air defense area. They attacked without suppressing the radar, without covering the missiles heading towards the target with interference - a frontal attack, one might say. Successfully. Despite the use of GPS, and your stories about how it lies throughout Europe. Apparently, the rockets don’t read your comments, it’s a flaw...
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        ?
                        What kind of electronic warfare aircraft would crush air defense in Crimea?

                        Open the US Air Force lists and take a look. There are a lot of them there.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Zircon differs from Vulcan, just a little bit, in speed)))

                        And the new harpoon rocket has a seeker, EPR, programmable flight, etc.
                      2. 0
                        11 February 2024 10: 32
                        I don’t see any connection between the huge losses and the return to service of the T-62 and even the T-55. They were sent to the front because even an old tank is much better than none at all. You need to understand that the used calibers are 115 - 100 mm. Since the times of the USSR, there are countless reserves. Including ATGMs, which are still quite suitable against light armored vehicles, and just against transport. Nobody sent them into oncoming battles with “leopards”. They were used in secondary directions, as self-propelled guns. You have to understand it well. I saw the video, the fighters built a ramp to increase the elevation angle of the barrel and fired overhead fire from closed positions.
                        That is, the principle of guidance of the Zircon is unknown. Not you, not me, not anyone on this site. I see no point in continuing.
                        Which BOD was covered? Did I miss something? I'm watching very closely
                        what's going on at sea.
                        Regarding electronic warfare aircraft, I didn’t understand anything. Well, that’s still just a theory for now.
                        Fabulous performance characteristics are still an advertising brochure and nothing more. She did not participate in the actual battle. How Lockheed or Northrop are able to advertise their products has been known for a long time, as well as the fact that the stated performance characteristics do not always correspond to the real ones.
                      3. 0
                        11 February 2024 18: 42
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        I don’t see any connection between the huge losses and the return to service of the T-62 and even the T-55. They were sent to the front because even an old tank is much better than none at all.

                        That is, the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ ammunition, which also works using infrared radiation, has nothing to do with it. Let's write it down like that.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        That is, the principle of guidance of the Zircon is unknown. Not you, not me, not anyone on this site. I see no point in continuing.

                        Right. When you find out that Zircon’s seeker operates on new physical principles, then you will talk about how good it is and how bad foreign anti-ship missiles are.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Which BOD was covered?

                        This phone is weird. BDK
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        Regarding electronic warfare aircraft, I didn’t understand anything. Well, that’s still just a theory for now.

                        Well, read something about electronic warfare aircraft in the USA, about the tactics of their use. Then - about participation in the latest conflicts. So as not to make people laugh by saying that this is a theory...
                        This is practice, Nikolai. Which was demonstrated in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Libya.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        How Lockheed or Northrop are able to advertise their products has been known for a long time.

                        That is, you yourself came up with the idea that they are called unbreakable. I am not surprised
                      4. -2
                        11 February 2024 19: 05
                        About electronic warfare tactics in Iraq and Yugoslavia - it’s not even funny. There was such an advantage that they could do without electronic warfare altogether.
                      5. 0
                        11 February 2024 20: 02
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        About electronic warfare tactics in Iraq and Yugoslavia - it’s not even funny

                        Yes, it’s very sad that 30 years later we can’t show anything like this.
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        There was such an advantage

                        In Iraq - approximately the same as that of the Aerospace Forces over the Ukrainian Air Force. And yes, “don’t go into yourself as a mechanic - they’ll find you there in no time” (c). Will you teach materiel on the use of electronic warfare, or as usual?
                      6. 0
                        11 February 2024 22: 38
                        In Iraq, was the Coalition-Iraq ratio like it is now Russia-Ukraine? Are you kidding me or are you serious? All of NATO and the Gulf monarchy were against Saddam. The gap was not only numerical, but also qualitative.
                      7. 0
                        11 February 2024 22: 40
                        Quote: TermNachTER
                        In Iraq, was the Coalition-Iraq ratio like it is now Russia-Ukraine? Are you kidding me or are you serious?

                        I am completely serious, and the fact that you are not even aware of the balance of forces between the MNF and Iraq speaks of you as... well, a very knowledgeable expert in the field of the armed forces laughing
                      8. 0
                        12 February 2024 10: 06
                        And I never claimed to be an expert. I'm just expressing my opinion. Regarding Iraq, everything is clear, who understands something, and who just went for a walk)))
          2. +3
            10 February 2024 17: 00
            Quote: TermNachTER
            How is it different from a "harpoon"? Has the speed increased significantly? No. Has the range increased significantly? No. Has the warhead's power increased significantly? No

            Ahhhh, throw away the Kalashnikovs, bring back the mosquito boots, enemies of the people! The speed of a bullet with the same caliber is lower, the range is lower, the bullet is not more powerful!!!! No progress, a step back in all respects! Aaaaaaaah! wassat
            1. -2
              10 February 2024 20: 59
              A very powerful argument))) you can compare stone axes from the North. America and Eurasia, which is better?))) In my company, the sniper, in some cases, was preferred to the “Mosya” rather than the SVD, because in certain situations it was better.
              1. +2
                10 February 2024 23: 22
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Very powerful argument)))

                Absolute likeness of yours.
  4. +1
    9 February 2024 10: 35
    Considering the Western European fleets, one can notice that strike missile weapons in them (except for the United States and partly France and England) are poorly represented. Their functions are rather patrolling, anti-aircraft defense and air defense with some capabilities for supporting landing forces and anti-ship missiles.
  5. 0
    25 March 2024 18: 27
    And that England has a combat-ready fleet?