Military Review

Rocket for Storm

29
In accordance with the existing plan for the construction of the Soviet Navy at the end of the 1950-s, it was planned to build a series of special anti-aircraft ships 1126 and ships of the radar patrol 62 Ave. weapons which was supposed to be a universal anti-aircraft missile system M-11, designed to effectively deal not only with air, but also with surface enemies such as destroyers, torpedo boats and missile-carrying boats.



M-11 anti-aircraft missile system


The main technical decisions taken during the creation of the rocket for this complex were predetermined by the fact that at the initial stages of the development of M-11 one of the requirements for it was to ensure its maximum continuity with the M-1 complex, and, if possible, unification with its elements. The assumed unification, along with the natural desire to fit into the limited volumes of the ship’s ammunition cellars, determined the length of the missile of the new complex, almost equal to that of the M-1 complex. On the other hand, the range did not have to yield the C-75 medium-range air defense missile complex - M-2 “Volkhov-M” with the B-753 rocket, the experiment on the installation of which on the Dzerzhinsky cruiser was conducted at the end of the 1950-s.

Rocket for Storm

Launch of 4K60 rocket of the shipboard M-11 anti-aircraft missile system Storm


The final parameters of the M-11 complex were defined in the government resolution of 25 July 1959, and a year later, 22 July 1960, the need to expand this work was confirmed by another decree, which also expanded the list of carriers of the 1123 pr.

The M-11 complex was supposed to hit air targets flying at speeds up to 800 m / s, at altitudes from 250 m to 20 km and at ranges from 3 to 25 km from the ship. At the same distances, the M-11 was supposed to hit surface targets as well. At the same time, the most stringent requirements for the size and weight of the rocket were made - its length should not exceed 6 - 6,5 meters, wingspan should be no more than 1,7 meters, weight - less than one and a half tons.

The lead developer of M-11, which received the provisional name "Storm", was determined by the Scientific Research Institute-10 (hereinafter referred to as NPO "Altair"), the chief designer - G. Volgin. The development of the launcher was entrusted to the design team led by TD.Vylkostom.

The creation of a rocket for the M-11, which received the designation B-611, was assigned to be headed by P. D. Grushin of the OKB-2 (hereinafter, ICB Fakel). The first analysis of the requirements for a new rocket showed that the characteristics of B-753, which were considered the limit of attainable in the middle of 1950-s, should be implemented in a rocket with almost half the size. Not less rigidly, customers from the Navy insisted that only solid-fuel engines were used as part of the new rocket .. There was no question about all sorts of liquid fuels based on highly efficient hydrocarbon compounds and acids. The only thing that could have worked to facilitate the solution of the problem was time. The reserve of several years was then considered more than realistic, especially since the very first estimates showed that using solid fuels, the production of which was mastered by the end of 1950, would achieve the required characteristics rocket with its single-stage performance will be extremely difficult. However, the two-stage version of the B-611 also did not provide significant advantages - by obtaining the required range, the developers were simultaneously faced with the problem of finding means to protect warrant ships from falling accelerators.

To cut the tightly knotted knot of problems was to be achieved through the implementation of a whole range of measures, including the development of a rational method of radio command guidance of the missile at the target, choice of the aerodynamic design of the missile and, naturally, creating the most efficient propulsion system.

In the final version, the B-611 rocket weighing 1833 kg, of which 125 kg accounted for the warhead, was made in the normal pattern with an X-shaped arrangement of aerodynamic surfaces. The most rational for the rocket was recognized as a dual-mode engine, which ensured its intensive start from a short guide and maintaining a high average flight speed.

The rocket body consisted of five compartments. The first compartment housed the radio and contact fuses, as well as the fuse antenna, in the second — the main elements of the control system, and in the third — the warhead. The fourth compartment was a solid rocket engine housing. The tail section of the rocket was made in the form of a truncated cone, in which elements of the steering actuator were placed, located around the engine nozzle with an elongated gas duct.

Such an arrangement allowed to get a number of advantages. Thus, the solid-fuel charge was able to be positioned closer to the center of mass of the rocket, and its burnout had less effect on the change in the centering of the rocket during the flight. At the same time, the engine operation time was commensurate with the flight time of the rocket to the maximum range, which means that the rocket could do without the use of the passive portion of the flight trajectory and the attendant effects of reducing maneuverability and controllability. No less important was the preservation of the performance of the engine housing when the rocket performs intensive maneuvers in the target area.

Another novelty, proposed by OKB-2, was an on-board source of electricity for powering the rocket's equipment with alternating and direct current. In contrast to the predecessors, the new source of electricity worked on solid fuel.


cruiser "Moscow"


On December 15, 1962, almost simultaneously with the release of the draft design for B-611, the first anti-submarine cruiser of Project 444, the future cruiser “Moscow”, designed in TsKB-1123 for the TsKB-17, was laid on the slipway of the Nikolaev plant No. XNUMX (hereinafter the “Black Sea Plant”) the leadership of A.S. Savichev, then A.M. Marynich. In its purpose, architecture, weapons, technical means and tactical and technical data, it was fundamentally different from all the ships that were ever built for the Soviet fleetand therefore attracted the closest attention of the country's leadership. The initial schedule of work was planned to be completed in two and a half years, by mid-1965. This required to significantly accelerate the pace of work on the creation of the B-611 missile.

By the summer of 1964, the first B-611 missiles were prepared for throwing tests from a ground-based launcher, since by that time the equipment of the test ship OS-24 was not fully equipped for testing the Storm, the 30 of July was launched. After that, it took a number of necessary improvements and research, which took almost six months. However, not only missilemen, but also shipbuilders lagged behind the work schedules. By the summer of 1964, it became clear that the completion of the construction of "Moscow" was postponed for about a year and a half. Ultimately, the ship was launched only on 14 on January 1965 of the year, and the end of its construction was planned for 1967 on the year. Following him, literally the next day after the launch of the “Moscow” into the water, the second cruiser, the 1123 avenue, was laid, later called Leningrad.


Anti-submarine cruiser "Leningrad", autumn 1981 of the year


The first launch launch of the modified B-611 was performed from the pilot ship OS-24 14 on January 1966. This series of tests continued until the end of January. Their results were also not perfect, because by the beginning of 1966, they hadn’t yet been able to complete a bench test of the rocket’s propulsion system — its burnouts occurred, the dimensions were adjusted and the thermal protection increased.

At the same time, to solve another identified problem — screening the passage of radio signals from the hot gas torch station — four additional launches were performed, during which the effect of the engine torch on the operation of the control radio link with different locations of the on-board antennas was clarified. As a result, a decision was made to install double antennas of the command channel and the response channel on the pylons in the tail of the rocket. Now, at any mutual position of the rocket and the ship, the torch no longer prevented the rocket from receiving the necessary control commands.

27 February 1966 of the year completed the first launch of the B-611 in a closed control loop, and soon the first target that flew over the distance of 26 km and altitude 10,3 km was hit by a rocket. Another launch was made on a target boat moving at high speed, located at a distance of 20 km.

The following year, the tests of the M-11 continued, not only on the OS-24, but also on the anti-submarine cruiser Moscow. Unlike the trial vessel, two B-189 two-beam launchers with storage and feed devices capable of receiving 48 missiles were installed on it. Moscow was also equipped with two Grom guidance stations. But since both anti-aircraft missile complexes were placed sequentially in the bow, with the launch stations and antenna posts of the second complex exceeding the first, the huge mast-tube superstructure covered the aft corners, starting at about +/- 130 degrees, from the nose. As a result, a significant “dead zone” was formed behind the ship, in which the “Moscow” was defenseless against enemy air attacks. To some extent, this deficiency could be compensated for by the possibility of maneuvering the ship in case of timely detection of targets.

State tests of the M-11 with B-611 missiles were to begin simultaneously with the testing of other systems of the future flagship of the Soviet Navy and the ship itself. When preparing for them, the technology of firing anti-aircraft missiles, developed by the previous shipboard air defense systems, was carried out using target aircraft launched from the ground, which were accompanied by two interceptors under security conditions. They were supposed to finish off the target aircraft in the event that it deviated from the course, as well as if the missile missed or the shooting was canceled. To ensure these tests, a squadron of fighter planes based at an airfield near Feodosia was identified.



However, the first firing of "Moscow" anti-aircraft missiles, even prepared in all respects, did not work. Fighters had to kill targets in the air several times. Soon the shipbuilding plant director A.V. Gankevich arrived at the ship, who appointed a special award to the shooting participants for each effective launch. Indeed, without the successful completion of tests of the missile complex, there could be no question of the completion of state tests of the ship. And the matter began to gradually straighten out.
By mid-August 1967, just before the start of state trials, it remained to carry out the last shooting. And again the plant director had to connect. Unexpected Day was an impending obstacle aviationBefore which, in order to avoid accidents or catastrophes, all flights of military aircraft were forbidden, Gankevich managed to make his way to an appointment with Army Commander A.I. Pokryshkin, who entered the position of shipbuilders and missile officers and gave permission for fighter flights.

All this so increased the tension among the sailors, workers and testers, that before the last shooting on the flight deck and the cruiser superstructure, everyone who only could, genuinely worried about the result of such an important launch, gathered. And when the target was hit by the very first pair of missiles launched from the 611-x, the crowd was jubilant with the 1. The state tests of the M-11 began at a given time.

In the course of state tests of “Moscow”, 20 missile launches were conducted, including nine telemetry. About a third of them failed. Once there were flaws in the documentation, in three cases the ship’s control system let down and in three cases the onboard rocket control system. Four launches were carried out on simulated targets, the same number on parachute targets PM-6, which descended from a height of 8 km at distances of about 30 km. In addition, they carried out two two-missile volleys on targets La-17, flying at the same height, but at a distance of slightly more than 20 km, and two more - on a barge set at the same distance. In general, the tests confirmed the ability of the complex to hit targets at ranges from 6 km to 33,5 km in the altitude range from 100 m to 25 km.

It should be noted that the launches of anti-aircraft missiles from the "Moscow" set as their main goal the testing of a specific model of the ship’s armament, and not the M-11 complex, which continued to be worked out at OS-24 even after the first 25 December 1967 anti-cruiser was put into service. In the final form of the M-11 with missiles that received the naval designation 4K60, was adopted by the 6 September 1969.

Almost simultaneously with the adoption of the Storm, the fleet and the Leningrad anti-submarine cruiser Leningrad of the same type with Moscow were put into service, during the tests of which eight B-611 missiles were launched, including two with a simulated target, and a couple with a boat 199, and the rest - two two-barreled volleys on targets La-17. Despite the fact that one of the missiles after the launch did not begin to be controlled, both targets were shot down and the tests were considered quite successful.


Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Kiev"


In the future, the M-11 with the B-187 launchers was installed on the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Kiev" and 1143, the air group of which was no longer helicopters like the "Moscow" and "Leningrad", but the Yak-38 vertical take-off and landing aircraft The almost threefold increase in displacement compared with helicopter carriers made it possible to more efficiently place anti-aircraft missile systems one in the nose and the second in the aft, avoiding the presence of a dead zone. When testing the ship on the Black Sea, which lasted from 6 in May to 24 in October 1975, successfully conducted seven launches of B-611 missiles on parachute targets M-6 and the target boat.


Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser "Minsk"


Almost two years later, on October 15 of 1977, the tests of the same type of “Kiev” of the Minsk ship began, ending on February 18 of the year 1978. In this case, eight successful launches of B-611 missiles on the ship's shield, targets La-17 and M-6 were carried out. The last of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers with the “Storm” type complex was equipped with the “Novorossiysk”, built according to the improved 11433 project, which had a number of noticeable differences from its predecessors. With his tests conducted from 20 to 27 in May 1982, 11 launches were performed on the ship's shield, targets La-17М and M-6.


Shooting UZRK "Storm-M" TAVKR "Novorossiysk" pr.11433


The M-11 complex was upgraded twice in 1969, the Storm-M was equipped with advanced multipurpose stations Grom-M, and in the 1986 year - the Storm-N, the characteristics of which provided damage to aerodynamic targets at low altitudes .. Except Moreover, in the beginning of the 1970-s, attempts were made to deeply upgrade the Storm, bringing its maximum range to 50 km. But by this time its main developers had been loaded with work on the C-ZOOF created for its replacement and, in order not to distract the designers from this work, they had abandoned the radical modernization of Storm.

In general, over the years of service, Storm has shown itself on the positive side, becoming, according to the characteristics of the commander-in-chief of the Soviet Navy, S. G. Gorshkov, the backbone of the air defense of the fleet. Moreover, since the Storm was installed mainly on ships deprived of attack missile weapons, it also became the most important anti-ship weapon of the largest surface ships of the fleet built at the end of 1960 and 1970, with the exception of heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers.

In general, 44 of the Storm complex, installed on the OS-24 and 22 warships, was manufactured. But by the beginning of the XXI century in the ranks of them there were only two ship carrier M-11 pr 1134B - "Kerch" and "Ochakov."
Author:
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. vadson
    vadson April 20 2013 08: 33 New
    +3
    that’s the state’s will, ships and missiles were needed, they were built no matter what ...
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg April 20 2013 12: 11 New
      -10
      Quote: vadson
      that’s the state’s will, ships and missiles were needed, they were built no matter what ...



      What's the problem ? A planned state economy, read free slave labor allows you to produce anything and in any quantities. State will has nothing to do with it.
      1. Saburov
        Saburov April 21 2013 02: 26 New
        +6
        Free slave labor you say? Let's count. In 1987 as a company commander, I received 234 rubles + food rations, for example, a plane ticket from Perm to Simferopol cost 17,5 rubles, now a ticket for the same flight costs about 12 thousand rubles (about 380 dollars) in economy class, the salary of the company commander is now 30-40 thousand rubles (we take it to the maximum) the result: even sweeping away cheap fuel and aircraft maintenance with one Aeroflot + a single air and territorial space (let it be 250 dollars), I got it with the conversion to the dollar 2000 - 2500 $ per month, and considering cheap gasoline and bread, in general 3000 - 3200 $.

        PS Everything is relative.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe April 21 2013 02: 55 New
          0
          Quote: Saburov
          PS Everything is relative.

          The military lived in the Union better than anyone.
          Another thing is how much they received in civilian life. There were completely different rules of the game.

          ps / it always amazes me when modern Russia is taken as an example for comparison. It is clear that the Russian Federation is a stub from the Union and there is no point in comparing anything here.
          it is much more honest to compare the USSR of the 1980 model of the year and the USA of the same year model. And immediately the whole difference is obvious
          1. Raven1972
            Raven1972 April 21 2013 21: 27 New
            +3
            And what other let me ask you? My father at the factory had a salary of 330-384 rubles in '81, what's next? I myself came to the plant much later - in 1990, and I, a young specialist in the salary, had 257-283 rubles. Who wanted to WORK - he earned and very good ... hi
            1. papas-57
              papas-57 April 23 2013 04: 25 New
              0
              And where is it paid so well? The apparatchik at the defense plant in the early eighties received 200-220 rubles, risking his health, and sometimes his life
          2. Saburov
            Saburov April 22 2013 00: 12 New
            0
            In the USA in the 80 years, the salary of 350 $ per week was considered average, or rather during the 1985-1990 period.
          3. Saburov
            Saburov April 22 2013 00: 16 New
            +2
            The average per capita income of the United States during the 1985-1990 period was about 380-450 $ per week. So the meaning is clear, and do not forget that from 1950 to 1990 salaries in the USSR fell almost 2 times.
          4. Saburov
            Saburov April 22 2013 00: 21 New
            0
            And as for the military, it’s not quite so, my wife is a teacher at a music school, for the same period she received 187 rubles and worked only 2 days a week + every year resort tickets are free.
  2. Arberes
    Arberes April 20 2013 10: 24 New
    +2
    Many thanks to the author for the work and the most interesting material! hi
    Universal "Storm", excellent weapons!
    Interestingly, the S-300F can also do this ???
  3. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 20 2013 13: 43 New
    +2
    Quote: Arberes
    Universal "Storm", excellent weapons! Interestingly, S-300F can do it too ???


    Maybe within the radio horizon. Even land S-300s can shoot at ground-based radio contrast targets
    1. Arberes
      Arberes April 20 2013 15: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Maybe within the radio horizon. Even land S-300s can shoot at ground-based radio contrast targets

      Thank you for your reply, dear VohaAhov drinks
      I'm not a pro, so I ask! Your answer made me happy, it is really powerful !!!
  4. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 20 2013 15: 10 New
    +1
    Quote: Arberes
    it is really powerful !!!


    Of course it's powerful - the bean part is 143 kg.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 20 2013 16: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Of course it's powerful - the bean part is 143 kg.

      Quote: xomaNN
      Missiles looked powerfully alive there.

      anti-aircraft ammunition BOD pr. 1134-B - 80 of such babies
  5. xomaNN
    xomaNN April 20 2013 15: 35 New
    +1
    I had to interact with this complex at BOD 1134 of the project. Missiles looked powerfully alive there.
  6. Silhouette
    Silhouette April 20 2013 18: 33 New
    +2
    The complex was so-so. Because it is two-channel. And this means at the same time could fire a maximum of 2 targets. But such tasks were not even set and worked out. For reliability, two missiles were fired at one target. Like the British in conflict with the Argentines. That is, it was possible to fight with one missile. Then with another. And if 3 planes arrived, which, without entering the affected area, fired 2 rockets at a time, then the ship was guaranteed a kryndets.

    They usually shot at la- 17. This is what the article says. And this is a one and a half-ton "fool" the size of a "mig-17" plane. And the "enemy" at that time had "harpoons" and "exosets" that flew at an altitude of 20-30 m, not 1-2 km. The "storm" was powerless against them.
    Any shorty - frigate of the "Oliver Perry" class from a distance of 80-100 km
    launches 4 "harpoons" and the huge "Moscow" along with all the helicopters proudly goes to the bottom.
    That's it.
    Therefore, they did not begin to modernize them because multichannel complexes were needed. Like a foe.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 20 2013 18: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: Silhouette
      And the "enemy" at that time had "harpoons" and "exosets", which flew at an altitude of 20-30 m, not 1-2 km. The "storm" was powerless against them.

      Everything is mixed up in the Oblonskys' house

      RCC "Exocet", France.
      Maud. MM.39 ship-based - adopted by the 1975
      Maud. AM.39 Airborne Based - Adopted in 1979

      ASM "Harpoon", USA
      Maud. RGM-84A adopted in the 1977, among the shortcomings - high-altitude (!) Flight profile
      Maud. The RGM-84C was adopted by the 1982, the first sane modification capable of overcoming the ship’s air defense on PMV

      Shipborne SAM M-11 "Shtorm", USSR
      It was first installed on the Moskva anti-submarine cruiser in 1967.
      Officially adopted by the 1969

      In 1972, he underwent modernization, the task of which was to reduce the lower boundary of the affected area and ensure the possibility of firing at maneuvering targets and in pursuit. After the modernization, the complex received the name "Storm-M" and was put into service in the same year. In 1980-1986, the complex underwent modernization for firing at low-altitude anti-ship missiles. The air defense missile system was named "Storm-N", and the rocket - V-611M (4K65).


      Conclusion: "Harpoon", "Exocet" and "Storm" are things from different eras.
      At a time when the air defense system of Soviet ships was based on the Shtorm air defense system, the US Navy had nothing but subsonic attack aircraft A-6 Intruder and free-fall bombs
      1. Know-nothing
        Know-nothing April 20 2013 19: 26 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Maud. RGM-84A adopted in the 1977, among the shortcomings - high-altitude (!) flight profile

        Are you sure about that? Do not confuse with the need to climb before the attack?
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe April 20 2013 19: 48 New
          +1
          Quote: Dunno
          Are you sure about that? Do not confuse with the need to climb before the attack?

          Why is such a maneuver needed?
          1. Know-nothing
            Know-nothing April 20 2013 20: 11 New
            +1
            Perhaps to capture the target of the GOS.
            The rockets of the first modifications (RGM-84A and others), when approaching the target, made a slide, grabbed the target and dived onto it at an angle of about 30 °.

            http://commi.narod.ru/txt/0000/xx04.htm

            Or, I suppose, the "Harpoons" were initially considered only as a means of dealing with small-sized vessels, with which the rocket, during horizontal flight, fell into the superstructure.
            In the morning, 8.00 was attacked by Libyan ships along the parallel line 32о30 / by forces of the OBK and carrier-based aircraft. The strike was ruthless, cruel and senseless, given the superiority of the forces of the 6-th fleet of the United States. Almost all the ships there were destroyed. Eyewitnesses later said that ship superstructures, wheelhouse and deck devices were mostly affected. Missiles literally demolished the entire upper part of the boats with command together. The experts of internal combat posts and the specialists of engine rooms remained alive.

            http://blackseafleet-21.com/news/29-02-2012_reb-podavit-protivnika-i-obespechit-

            svoj-uspeh
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe April 20 2013 20: 40 New
              +1
              Quote: Dunno
              Perhaps to capture the target of the GOS.

              How is the moment to complete the slide determined?
              ANN? and if the exact position of the enemy’s OBK is unknown? or is the data out of date?

              By your link:
              Starting from 1982, a modification of the rocket (B1) with a lower flight height on the marching section of the trajectory began to come into service.

              Since 1985, another model of the "Harpoon" rocket, RGM-84D, has appeared ... The increase in the storage capacity by 2 times and the improvement of the software made it possible to introduce three reference points on the trajectory, in which the anti-ship missile system changes the direction of flight at low altitudes. Thanks to this, it is possible to use the missile in closed waters and among islands, hiding the true direction from which the missile strike was delivered.

              Those. the Yankees drove Harpoon to mind in the mid-80's and later
              1. Know-nothing
                Know-nothing April 21 2013 16: 38 New
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                How is the moment to complete the slide determined?

                Sets the operator before starting.
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                and if the exact position of the enemy’s OBK is unknown? or is the data out of date?

                The rocket of the first modifications will scan at the height of the "roller coaster", but still it is tens of meters, and not a high-altitude flight.
      2. Silhouette
        Silhouette April 20 2013 19: 44 New
        +1
        Conclusion: "Harpoon", "Exocet" and "Storm" are things from different eras.

        Funny conclusion.

        BOD "Tallinn" entered service in 1981, "Tashkent" in 1980.
        In the 80s, what kind of "Intruder" with bombs? Would you like an F-18 from the deck? Or an F-16 from Okinawa or Diego Garcia?

        At least they looked at Wikipedia:

        Guidance missiles is carried out in two stages. At first, the rocket follows the set course at very low altitude towards the goal. At the calculated point in time, the rocket initializes the active radar homing head AN / DSQ-28 and begins to search for a target in the sector 45 degrees from the direction of flight. The maximum destroyer detection range for modern GOS is, according to available data, 40 km, and boats - up to 18 km.
        And there were also "Spruyens" with "Ticonderogs" ....
        1. Silhouette
          Silhouette April 20 2013 19: 58 New
          0
          And on surface targets "Storm" could only be fired in line of sight. And only then to disable the ship antennas with fragments of the enemy, or to beat the windows on the chassis.
          That's all the damage.
        2. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe April 20 2013 20: 24 New
          +2
          Quote: Silhouette
          In the 80s, what kind of "Intruder" with bombs? Would you like an F-18 from the deck? Or an F-16 from Okinawa or Diego Garcia?

          The 80 years did not bode well for the Americans:

          Osonov air defense ships of the Navy of the USSR were
          - C-300F;
          - SAM self-defense "Dagger" with its own radar for detecting low-flying targets "Tackle";
          - SAM M-22 "Uragan" (officially adopted in 1983, actually installed on ships since 1980).

          Long-range air defense missile systems S-300F installed on ships:
          - a prototype at the Azov BPK (1977)
          - TARKR pr. 1144 "Orlan" (Kirov - 1980, Frunze-1984, Kalinin - 1988)
          - RKR pr. 1164 "Atalnt" (Moscow - 1983, Ustinov - 1986, Varyag - 1989)

          Medium-range air defense system M-22 "Uragan" installed on destroyers pr.956 with 1980 year.

          SAM short-range "Dagger" installed on BOD pr.1155 from 1980 of the year

          And in those days, when the helicopter carriers "Moskva" and BOD pr. 1134-A were built, the US Navy had nothing but bombs.
          Quote: Silhouette
          And there were also "Spruyens" with "Ticonderogs" ....

          Is this what? Spruance only reached sane status at the beginning of the 80's, the first Ticonderoga appeared in the 1983.

          PU S-300F aboard the cruiser Ave. 1164. Have a desire to sit at the helm of F / A-18?)))
          1. Silhouette
            Silhouette April 20 2013 20: 48 New
            +2
            The 80 years did not bode well for the Americans:

            Osonov air defense ships of the Navy of the USSR were
            - C-300F;
            - SAM self-defense "Dagger" with its own radar for detecting low-flying targets "Tackle";
            - SAM M-22 "Uragan" (officially adopted in 1983, actually installed on ships since 1980).
            ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

            Do not flatter yourself. They promised us even less.
            Experienced "Azov" and piece 1144 and 1164 did not do any weather in the air defense. Especially if we take into account the forgotten 61 and 1135.
            You can, of course, continue to engage in shapkozakidatelstvom on a blue eye, but I remember how in the 80s ships of the 1155 project came to the Pacific Ocean with unfinished "Daggers" (that is, without "Tackle").
      3. postman
        postman April 22 2013 03: 55 New
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Maud. RGM-84A adopted in the 1977, among the shortcomings - high-altitude (!) Flight profile

        something like something wrong (not like in the students that we were taught


        From the ship’s launcher, the rocket is launched using the launch accelerator and makes a slide. At the highest point of the hill, the starting accelerator is separated and the main engine is switched on, with the help of which the rocket continues to fly. In the initial (Fig. 3, AB) and marching (Fig. 3, BV) sections, the missile is controlled and guided by an autonomous inertial system and a radio altimeter. In the final section (Fig. 3, AB), the rocket is lowered to a low altitude, the active head is turned on homing, which begins the search, capture, tracking and pointing missiles at the target. At low altitude, it flies to meet the target or makes a hill in front of it and dives at it.



        The "Harpoon" rocket is launched from a submerged submarine through a torpedo tube using a special capsule ... Further, the rocket flight is similar to the ship's version.

        If the altitude and flight speed of the carrier aircraft are small, then the mid-flight jet engine starts to work at the time of its launch. If the aircraft is at a high altitude, then the rocket propulsion engine does not start until the rocket reaches a certain height at which the propulsion engine starts, and the rocket continues to fly on the marching section (Fig. 3, BV) similar to the ship version.



        The latest RCC models (C and D) use fuel of increased energy intensity (JP-10 instead of JP-5).
        and everyone’s head is PR-53 / DSQ-28 PBM AN / APN-194
        1. Know-nothing
          Know-nothing April 22 2013 07: 07 New
          0
          Thanks. From the article http://pentagonus.ru/publ/17-1-0-660
          After completing the launch hill, the rocket drops to an altitude of 15 m above sea level and then performs a march flight. Missiles of the first modifications (RGM-84A and others) when approaching the target made a hill, captured the target and dived onto it at an angle of about 30 °.

          we can conclude that the capture of the target RGM-84A produced on the hill, and not in flight at low altitude.
          Well it is, by the way ...
          1. postman
            postman April 22 2013 13: 59 New
            0
            Quote: Dunno
            we can conclude that the capture of the target RGM-84A produced on the hill, and not in flight at low altitude.

            Everything is true, but it has nothing to do with the flight profile (as O.K. claimed).
            If I am not mistaken, the capture of ANY RCC from the target (if this is not the distance of a pistol shot) takes place on a hill.
            How else?
            20m Orly radar - something 30-40 km.
            waves so far only in a straight line.
            Well, if there are no passive noise sensors (like the F-35 radar)
  7. Santa Fe
    Santa Fe April 20 2013 21: 21 New
    +2
    Quote: Silhouette
    Experienced "Azov" and piece 1144 and 1164 did not do any weather in the air defense.

    Between 1980 and 1990

    C-300F: installed on 6 cruisers + experienced BOD. The basis for six ocean battle groups.
    M-22 "Uragan": 13 destroyers pr. 956
    "Dagger": 11 BOD pr. 1155 + TAVKR Baku
    ____________________
    Total - 32 ship with the latest air defense systems
    + modernization of "Storm-N" (1986) to combat anti-ship missiles
    Quote: Silhouette
    Especially considering the forgotten 61 and 1135.

    Analogues of American anti-submarine frigates "Knox" and "Perry"

    "Knox" did not carry anti-aircraft weapons at all, except for the Phalanx
    "Perry" in terms of air defense turned out to be a complete sucker: damage to the "Strak" in the Persian Gulf, May 17, 1987
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette April 20 2013 23: 25 New
      0
      "Perry" in terms of air defense turned out to be a complete sucker: damage to the "Strak" in the Persian Gulf, May 17, 1987
      __________________________________

      And what did the US fight with Iran? Was there a war? I have not heard, however.
      If on the street a passerby silently gives you an eye - this does not mean that you are a sucker.

      You have so cleverly moved away from the topic of the mediocrity of the "storm" and its uselessness in missile defense and surface targets that it is pointless to continue.
  8. Silhouette
    Silhouette April 20 2013 23: 17 New
    0
    "Perry" in terms of air defense turned out to be a complete sucker: damage to the "Strak" in the Persian Gulf, May 17, 1987
    ------------------------------------------------

    Distort again. And what was the US war with Iran? I don’t remember something.
    If on the street the oncoming passer-by silently puts you in the face - this does not mean at all that you are a sucker.

    You have so cleverly moved from the theme of the mediocrity of "Storm" to the advantages of "Fort" and "Hurricane" that everyone forgot about its uselessness in missile defense and on surface targets.
    1. Santa Fe
      Santa Fe April 21 2013 01: 19 New
      +3
      Quote: Silhouette
      Distort again. And what was the US war with Iran? I don’t remember something.


      The Iranian frigate Sahand, destroyed by the US Navy aircraft, burns, 1988


      There was an undeclared war with Iran - a tanker battle, an AirIran 655 flight, Operation Mantis, etc. etc.

      But in this case it was the Iraqi Air Force Mirage.

      However, US Navy specialists from the Naval Aviation Combat Operations Center (TASMC), who are well acquainted with the real combat capabilities of the Oliver N. Perry-class URO frigaton, concluded that in the existing situation the Vulcan / Phalanx MZAK could not hit the target or open fire due to the approach of anti-ship missiles in the dead sector from the bow heading angles

      Two days before the incident, that is, on May 15, the US Navy in the Gulf of Mexico tested the combat capabilities of the ZOS of the Oliver N. Perry-class URO frigate and the Ticoderoga-class URO cruiser to repulse the Exocet anti-ship missile attack. For this purpose, one of the ships of the Allied Navy, armed with an anti-ship missile of this type, was invited as a firing ship (neither the ship nor the flag was indicated in the publication - author). The results showed that "Ticonderoga" knocks down "Exocet", "Perry" does not.
      Quote: Silhouette
      If on the street the oncoming passer-by silently puts you in the face - this does not mean at all that you are a sucker.

      Stark was on the border of the war zone. And he came there not to catch crayfish, but to declare the military presence of the US Navy

      At the moment preceding the unfolding events, the frigate had combat readiness number 3 (detection equipment and weapons - in readiness for use, personnel - at combat posts) and maintained automatic two-way communication with the destroyer URO DDG 40 "Coontz", the command ship AGF 3 " La Salle "and the AWACS aircraft AWACS of the Saudi Arabian Air Force
      Quote: Silhouette
      You have so cleverly moved from the theme of the mediocrity of "Storm" to the advantages of "Fort" and "Hurricane" that everyone forgot about its uselessness in missile defense and on surface targets.

      They explained to you: the ship M-11 "Storm" was created 15 years before the appearance of the "Harpoon" anti-ship missile system. This is a thing from a completely different era.
      By the time the combat-ready modifications of the "Harpoons" and "Exocets" appeared, much more advanced air defense systems appeared on Soviet ships.

      Also, do not forget to take into account that the missile defense in the near zone was primarily provided by ZAK self-defense - Soviet BODs carried 2 anti-aircraft guns with 630 radar-guided batteries, TAVKRs and TARKRs with 4 batteries (8 guns) on XNUMX.
      Quote: Silhouette
      and on surface targets.

      ?
      Secondary capabilities of the "Storm" (like any air defense system)
      140 kilo BB guaranteed to disrupt MRK or any boat
      SAM reaction time is significantly shorter than any anti-ship missile system
      Suitable remedy for short distances

      US Navy frigate of the "Knox" class. The lack of any intelligible air defense system turns him into a guaranteed corpse in any serious development of events
      1. Raven1972
        Raven1972 April 21 2013 21: 50 New
        0
        Thank you very much for the interesting information ... I read your dialogue with pleasure, learning a lot about myself about our Navy ... good good good
  9. 320423
    320423 April 21 2013 01: 19 New
    +3
    "Socrates found his own way of comprehending the truth. He rejected the saying that in a dispute truth is born, and opposed the dispute with dialogue." Thank you very much: Silhouette, SWEET_SIXTEEN, thanks for your dialogue, to some extent it was more interesting than the article.