Military Review

US missile sword. The effectiveness of cruise missiles is great, but there will always be opposition to these weapons.

128
Cruise missiles (CR), of course, are a powerful weapon system, but they do not cancel manned Aviation and cannot fully replace it. The operational niche of the Kyrgyz Republic in the armament system is the fight against targets that are well protected in the anti-air sense, the suppression of air defense systems and command and control of troops in certain areas. The experience of combat employment of the United States of America and analysis of the capabilities of existing and promising air defense systems indicate that the creation of an effective system to counter this arms quite possible.


In the system of modern weapons of the armies of the advanced countries of the world, high-precision rocket weapons are given key importance. A special place is given to long-range cruise missiles designed to engage ground targets, such as the American Tomahawk of various modifications. It was these missiles launched from both sea and air carriers that played a key role in solving the problems of enemy air defense, gaining air superiority, disorganization of state and military control systems, destruction of enemy based systems and communications by destroying the most important elements of these systems.

The importance of this type of weapons in the system of air attack weapons is constantly increasing, especially in connection with the increased capabilities of air defense systems and the desire to reduce losses of Air Force personnel. In this regard, an objective assessment of the capabilities of the CD is very important, since both the underestimation and the overestimation of the enemy are equally dangerous.

Cruise missiles in the war

In recent military conflicts: Iraq - 1991, Yugoslavia - 1998, Afghanistan - 2001, Iraq - 2003, Libya - 2012, cruise missiles were assigned the main role, especially in the early stages of hostilities. Moreover, the number of starts was measured in hundreds.

US missile sword. The effectiveness of cruise missiles is great, but there will always be opposition to these weapons.

These missiles were used for the first strike against air defense systems, command and control systems, long-range air defense systems, and important objects of state and military control. As a result of such attacks, the aggressor succeeded in suppressing the air direction system and the zone fire cover of the air defense systems in the direction of the main attack in air offensive operations, disrupting command and control, and disorganize resistance.

The first large-scale military operation, in which modern KR was massively used, was the Desert Storm. The intensity of their use is constantly changing as the advantages of this type of weapon over others are revealed. Thus, during the first four days of the operation, the share of the CD accounted for 16 percent of strikes. However, after two months of the campaign, this figure was 55 percent of the total number of all air strikes inflicted (with 80 percent of the launches accounted for by the SLCM). 297 launches were made from surface ships and submarines, of which 282 rockets hit their targets with six failures for technical reasons after launch and nine missiles did not come out of the launchers. Thus, according to official data, the success of the launches was close to 100 percent. However, it is possible that publicly announced high efficiency is propaganda pressure on a potential adversary.

The use of missiles in the first blows virtually eliminated the loss of manned aircraft in the subsequent phases of the operation. Thus, the CD showed its advantages as a weapon of first strike at the initial stage of the conflict.

However, disadvantages were also noted: the duration of the preparation of the flight task (up to 80 hours); difficulties with the choice of flight route, as in the specific conditions of the Iraqi terrain (not sufficiently intersected with the absence of noticeable landmarks) were limited by the trajectory of maneuvering; low efficiency with the defeat of mobile targets.

Based on the conclusions made by the US Department of Defense specialists, work began on improving the performance characteristics of the Kyrgyz Republic from 1993. Soon, new modifications (Block III) began to come into service, equipped with a GPS satellite navigation system, the use of which made it possible to significantly reduce the preparation time for a flight task.

The 1991 experience of the year was taken into account during 1998's operation “Fox in the Desert”, where new modifications of high-efficiency missiles were used, which reduced their consumption. So, 370 KR was released (13 did not hit targets for technical reasons). It should be noted that during this period, Iraq’s air defenses were disorganized and there was virtually no resistance.

The use of KR against Iraq was of a similar nature in the 2003 year, when, during Operation Shock and Awe, it was used around 700 KR. The KR was actively used during the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999. To participate in the hostilities, a powerful grouping of the Navy and Air Force was created, which at the first stage consisted of 49 warships (including three aircraft carriers) and 550 aircraft.

In the course of the operation, the combined forces of NATO for two days struck two massive missile air strikes (MRAUs), each lasting more than three hours. At the same time, the operational formation of forces in strikes has changed, with a separate echelon of cruise missiles. During the first strikes, more than 200 KR were used, of which the targeted objects hit 65 percent of the missiles (according to calculations, this indicator should be at least 80 percent), 10 missiles were shot down and six away from the target. This suggests that by defensive actions, masking, maneuvering, the defender is able to reduce the effectiveness of an adversary with overwhelming numerical and technical superiority.

However, it should be noted that despite a slight decrease in performance, the goals of the strikes were achieved. During the first phase of the operation, an 72 object was struck, of which 52 is a military.

In connection with the active opposition of the Armed Forces of Yugoslavia, NATO found it necessary to strengthen its grouping to 57 ships (four aircraft carriers). In the course of further hostilities, strikes were inflicted on 130 targets, of which 40 percent were civilian.

In general, more than 700 of the Kyrgyz Republic, released on Yugoslav objects, up to 70 percent were used to destroy stationary objects, and about 30 percent - on state administrative and industrial facilities. About 40 KR was shot down and 17 gone. Per day really hit up to 30 objects. As a result, NATO’s air operations seized complete air supremacy, disorganizing the air defenses of Yugoslavia, which ultimately led to the achievement of political goals.

In Afghanistan, around 600 KR was used, which is clearly redundant and, apparently, had the character of revenge and intimidation. There were no targets “worthy” of such a number of missiles in Afghanistan, there were no air defense systems, aerial surveillance system, aviation, a communication system, etc. Therefore, the operation “Inflexible Freedom” can be described as large-scale exercises in an environment close to combat, culminating in combat firing practice

In Libya, 112 KR was used during the first strike, which destroyed 20 from the first strike 22 objects.

Efficiency

As a rule, in all conflicts of the Kyrgyz Republic, they were used to defeat specific point objects, the destruction of which was achieved by disrupting the functioning of complex objects and systems organized in a certain area. For the destruction of each such point object with the required reliability, from one-two to three-four KR were allocated, depending on the design and size of this object and the degree of its protection by means of air defense.

The number of affected elements in the structure of military and government facilities varies significantly. So, relatively simple, such as radar posts, anti-aircraft missile systems, bridges, individual objects of the energy infrastructure, could be disabled or destroyed by the defeat of one or two elementary point objects from their structure.

More complex structures, such as command posts, communications centers, airfields, anti-aircraft missile systems, large objects of transport and energy infrastructure, required for the decommissioning (destruction) of the defeat of three or five elementary point objects from its structure.

Large industrial enterprises, military bases and other military and civilian objects, having in their composition a large number of structures, buildings, communications and other elements, can be disabled or destroyed by the defeat of 10 and more targeted objects.

Thus, for destruction (decommissioning) of significant military or civilian objects in the absence or weak air defense, an expenditure of two to four missiles is required, to defeat relatively simple objects — up to six to ten and more missiles — to destroy complex objects.

And if there is an organized air defense system, even built on the basis of obsolete means, the required outfit increases 1,3 – 1,5 times, reaching three to six missiles to hit relatively simple objects and 10 – 15 - more complex ones.

This means that even in the absence of effective air defense, the quantitative capabilities of defeating operatively important objects of the Kyrgyz Republic are relatively small - with typical consumption of 500 – 700 КР from 50 – 60 to 120 – 170 objects depending on their type. In the case of air defense cover up even with limited capabilities to counter the CD, the estimated number of targets hit will be reduced to 30 – 40 and 80 – 120, respectively.

That is, it is impossible to solve strategic tasks only with the use of the CD, since the number of objects that need to be hit for this, even in relatively weakly developed countries, can reach 500 – 600 and more. They need to be used in conjunction with manned aircraft, focusing on the performance of specific tasks that manned aircraft cannot solve or its use for the implementation of such tasks will be accompanied by unacceptable losses.

Assessing the capabilities of air defense to combat the Kyrgyz Republic from the experience of past military conflicts, it can be stated that the outdated long-range and medium-range air defense systems in use by the victims ’aggression countries could not hit the Kyrgyz Republic. The main reasons for this are their inability to destroy low-altitude air targets with a small effective dispersion surface (EPR), as well as the desire of the aggressor to bypass the deployment areas of the air defense missile system, preventing its CR from entering the zone of destruction of the air defense missile system.

Anti-aircraft short-range fire weapons from the object-defense system, primarily anti-aircraft artillery systems, have become the main means of fighting the CD. Their probability of defeating the Kyrgyz Republic in four to six percent (from the experience of the war in Yugoslavia), given the fact that these were outdated samples that do not have modern fire control systems, can be considered quite high. This may be evidence that the object defense system, based on modern short-range means, can be an effective tool to combat the CD.

So, if the object air defense system will be equipped with such complexes as Pantsir-S, Thor and the like, as well as mobile medium-range air defense systems capable of fighting CD, then if there is a minimum necessary low-altitude radar field, ensure the required covering reliability It will be quite possible for the most important objects from the KR, especially if the corresponding EW facilities capable of suppressing the KR management system will be included in this system.

The effectiveness of electronic countermeasures of the Kyrgyz Republic turned out to be comparable in effectiveness to the firing means of the target anti-aircraft defense, which, according to the experience of Yugoslavia, led away from the target about 2,5 percent of the Kyrgyz Republic. In operational terms, this is of course a minor result. However, given the lack of electronic countermeasures of the control system of the Kyrgyz Republic in the Yugoslav army’s armament, it should be recognized as quite good, giving reason to rely on an operationally significant effect when using modern electronic warfare equipment specialized for fighting the control system.

An important feature of the application of the CD is a fairly large scale volley in the target area, due to the movement of volley rockets along individual trajectories. It is very difficult to provide an approach to the target of rockets with an interval of a shorter cycle of firing anti-aircraft fire weapons. That is, in fact, rockets approach the target one by one, occasionally in small groups of two rockets. This creates favorable conditions for repelling the strikes of the KR, especially anti-aircraft fire weapons with a small firing cycle.

The movement of the Kyrgyz Republic along individual trajectories bypassing the air defense zones makes it difficult to cover them with EW facilities both on the flight route and in the target area, which, to some extent, makes it easier to fight them for anti-aircraft fire weapons.

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of the experience of using the US CD from the perspectives of their development.

The Kyrgyz Republic, of course, is a powerful armament system, but they do not cancel manned aircraft and cannot fully replace it. Its operational niche in the armament system is the fight against targets that are well protected against air defense, the suppression of air defense systems and the control of troops in certain areas.

The task of crushing the enemy's armed forces grouping, undermining its economic potential, relying mainly on the Kyrgyz Republic in conventional equipment, even in the medium term, cannot be solved due to the huge need for these weapons (it is not economically feasible), for the delivery of which there are not enough carriers.

Among the most important strengths of this weapon, stemming from the experience of its use, we can note the high secrecy compared with other means of air attack (EAS), a greater range of fire, which virtually eliminates personnel losses, excellent accuracy of hitting the target, ensuring the reliability of hitting the target. (when the rocket reaches its goal) and minimizes collateral damage.

The weak sides of this weapon, which facilitate the fight against it, include low flight speed, a large scale volley in the target area, and difficulties with covering with EW collective means.

In addition, a long cycle of input and correction of flight missions of these missiles (ranging from an hour and a half for missiles with which such correction is possible in flight, up to ten or more hours that do not have such a possibility) allows them to be used (at least for the nearest perspective) against stationary or low-maneuverable objects.

What can be opposed to a winged threat

The experience of the combat use of the CD, despite the demonstration by these weapons of exceptionally high efficiency, suggests that it can be effectively dealt with if an air defense system is created taking into account their strengths and weaknesses.

First, it is advisable to strive to build an air defense system with reliance primarily on maneuverable forces and assets. Their change of position at least once every two to three hours will dramatically (at times) reduce the likelihood of their defeat of the CD.

Secondly, to organize operational frontiers of combat with the Kyrgyz Republic on the basis of a continuous low-altitude radar field created by radar patrol airplanes (XRD) (for example, such as A-50 and its modifications, and specially trained fighters to combat the CD The RLD will destroy the KR on the flight routes. Russia as such could use MiG-31 interceptors.

Thirdly, to create an effective object-based air defense system based on modern short-range anti-aircraft fire weapons and specialized EW equipment, primarily around potential high-impact air strikes of the KR - air defense system objects (primarily long-range and medium-range air defense systems, fighter radar stations, aerodromes of fighter aviation) , control centers and communications centers), military and government administration.

Fourthly, to conduct a sufficient amount of operational camouflage measures (in particular, distortion of the radar picture of the terrain), which will not only hide objects of impact, but also in the event of a strike, will significantly reduce the accuracy of CR hit the target or lead to false.

To counter missiles with passive thermal imaging guidance systems, it is possible to create false thermal targets in the final segment, which will reduce the likelihood of hitting a real object.

Other effective and inexpensive methods are also likely.

However, even the measures considered may reduce the effectiveness of the application of the CD by four to six times, making their use for a number of tasks economically impractical.

In general, it can be stated that the CD is one of the most powerful modern weapons systems that use conventional ammunition. However, any means of attack is always a means of defense. The experience of combat use of the U.S. missile defense and an analysis of the capabilities of existing and prospective air defense systems indicate that the creation of an effective system to counter this weapon is quite possible.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/
128 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. xetai9977
    xetai9977 31 July 2013 08: 26 New
    +9
    The eternal confrontation of the shield and sword, armor and shell.
    1. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 27 August 2013 15: 42 New
      0
      I hope the Syrian missile defense will withstand the pressure of NATO ...
  2. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 31 July 2013 08: 30 New
    +3
    Any weapon can be found more or less effective anti-weapons or defense. The problem is "only" in that 1) have time to apply it, 2) have time to effectively apply it.
    1. Midshipman
      Midshipman 31 July 2013 10: 10 New
      17
      The best defense weapon is an attack weapon. The emphasis should be not so much on protection against missiles as on the means of preventive destruction of the carriers of these missiles, namely, medium-range missiles, preferably hypersonic. Then it simply won’t occur to anyone to even concentrate the tomahawks on the firing distance at our targets, respectively. and air defense systems are not needed.
      1. Gato
        Gato 31 July 2013 11: 03 New
        +4
        Quote: Midshipman
        It is necessary to focus not so much on protection against the Kyrgyz Republic as on the means of preventive destruction of the carriers of these Kyrgyz Republic

        It would be nice, but the fact is that detecting and hitting missiles on approach is much easier (and cheaper!) Than a carrier (a submarine, some Burke or an airplane), which is at a launch range of 1600-2500 km.
        Although the very fact of carrier concentration near our borders is already an occasion to introduce flight missions into our ICBMs
        1. Skiff-2
          Skiff-2 31 July 2013 11: 51 New
          11
          Effective detection of rockets is possible only in the “from above” position - AWACS planes, but they won’t be able to keep them in the air permanently; the use of autonomous (possibly unmanned) airships and airborne AWACS balloons is detection, target designation. Means of destruction - fighter aircraft, mobile air defense systems, long-range air-to-air missiles on the airships themselves, if any, can be envisaged. And most importantly - the possibility of guaranteed destruction of the enemy state by retaliatory strike by the forces of Strategic Nuclear Deterrence - so that the Wishlist did not excite the mind of the aggressor.
        2. Rus2012
          Rus2012 31 July 2013 18: 43 New
          +2
          Quote: Gato
          Although the very fact of carrier concentration near our borders is already an occasion to introduce flight missions into our ICBMs

          Dear colleague, if my memory serves me right, the Yankee Global Strike strategy suggests the following.
          Have in its composition 3 group. Each structure includes nuclear submarines with missile launchers and ICBMs, an air wing with strategic carriers, and the ground component of nuclear weapons and the WTO. Auxiliary forces and target designation and the cosmic component - I do not indicate. She certainly is.
          At the same time, the 1 group is on duty in the area of ​​regular patrolling (as it is now), 2 is going to the base, 3 is getting ready to replace ...
          Moreover, the forces and means of each group are enough to deliver a "disarming strike" to a potential adversary without involving additional forces.
          Further, each group is assigned a "day and hour X", before which - the strike is canceled.
          Those. as in the Barbarossa plan - the date is shifted to disorient the enemy. Once upon a time - the strike will not be canceled ...

          And all of them currently work in this vein:
          - to achieve Russian minimization of their nuclear potential by any means.
          - build missile defense
          - develop weapons on new principles (scramjet, tungsten arrows, penetrating bombs ...)

          Those. they want the so-called there was no "threatened period" (so that we would not find the accompanying elements of the impending attack and prepared), our potential for a retaliatory strike was minimized ... and on one bad day for us - to strike ...
      2. ben gun
        ben gun 31 July 2013 11: 12 New
        0
        It is difficult to drown them before the release of rockets, because the range of the Kyrgyz Republic under 2 is thousands of kilometers. And the distance from the coast where you can’t enter enemy sides is no more than 100 nautical miles.
        And then, as long as the missiles were not fired, they may well be located there according to the laws of the sea, and their drowning will be considered an act of aggression already arising from our seven.
        1. Midshipman
          Midshipman 31 July 2013 12: 31 New
          +1
          Who will be considered? We can also say that we consider an act of aggression the appearance of carriers at launch ranges and, if anything, we will take measures. Illegally? Spit on the laws when it comes to security.
          1. ben gun
            ben gun 31 July 2013 14: 01 New
            +1
            In the USSR, "weapon tracking" was practiced for the ships of probable friends. I think this is the only option under the laws. Otherwise, piracy is open and open. For this do not stroke the head. As an extreme option, it is possible to perform a "bulk" body. This happened in the Black Sea during the Cold War.
            1. Ezhaak
              Ezhaak 31 July 2013 16: 20 New
              +1
              Quote: ben gun
              As an extreme option, it is possible to perform a "bulk" body

              This was done in order to prevent foreign ships from crossing the border with all the ensuing consequences.
          2. Pilat2009
            Pilat2009 31 July 2013 16: 29 New
            +3
            Quote: Midshipman
            Illegally? Spit on the laws when it comes to security.

            bullshit, dear
      3. smile
        smile 31 July 2013 16: 02 New
        +2
        Midshipman
        Yeah, the best way to ensure an air defense-early missile and bomb attack on the airfields of a potential enemy ... :)))
      4. valokordin
        valokordin 31 July 2013 17: 24 New
        0
        Quote: Midshipman
        The best defense weapon is an attack weapon. The emphasis should be not so much on protection against missiles as on the means of preventive destruction of the carriers of these missiles, namely, medium-range missiles, preferably hypersonic. Then it simply won’t occur to anyone to even concentrate the tomahawks on the firing distance at our targets, respectively. and air defense systems are not needed.

        Midshipman you are already an admiral, think correctly that in the event of a missile attack, you need to destroy places and equipment to launch them. The fight against air defense against the massive use of winged ones, I think, will not be effective enough.
      5. alone
        alone 31 July 2013 18: 22 New
        0
        how many do not defend, the attacker will find some sort of flaw. you are right
      6. nnz226
        nnz226 31 July 2013 20: 55 New
        +2
        Yeah! The best air defense system is our tanks at the enemy airfield!
  3. omsbon
    omsbon 31 July 2013 08: 31 New
    +7
    There is no and cannot be an absolute weapon from which you cannot defend!
    Now, if it is vile to attack from behind, unexpectedly then there is an effect and an advantage!
    Conclusion: you can’t turn your back on liberals from geyropa and America!
    1. serge-68-68
      serge-68-68 31 July 2013 09: 17 New
      +7
      War is not an Olympics. Therefore, the concept of "vile" in it.
  4. matross
    matross 31 July 2013 08: 42 New
    12
    East Kazakhstan must be developed. Overwhelm how many GPS satellites and modern CRs will not reach their goals.
    1. sonik-007
      sonik-007 4 August 2013 18: 15 New
      +2
      True, only our satellites will also bring down ...

      I wonder if our cosmonauts have any special instructions for the event of the outbreak of war, such as "get key 27 out of hatch" B and * hit him on the head of an American astronaut ")))
  5. ed65b
    ed65b 31 July 2013 08: 48 New
    +5
    Low speed is probably the weakest link in the Kyrgyz Republic. therefore, Amer actively despite the failures, go to hypersound. As soon as it turns out to make a hypersonic full-time CD, the picture will change dramatically but the price of an already expensive product will increase, which will make its use even more selective.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 31 July 2013 09: 20 New
      +4
      Quote: ed65b
      Low speed here is probably the weakest link in the Kyrgyz Republic

      800km / h at an altitude of 60 meters is your low speed? A soldier with MANPADS without receiving information from the KP, having discovered the CR, will not have time to visually guide, and the TGSN will not have time to capture ...
      1. ed65b
        ed65b 31 July 2013 10: 06 New
        +2
        Quote: Nayhas
        Quote: ed65b
        Low speed here is probably the weakest link in the Kyrgyz Republic

        800km / h at an altitude of 60 meters is your low speed? A soldier with MANPADS without receiving information from the KP, having discovered the CR, will not have time to visually guide, and the TGSN will not have time to capture ...

        A soldier with MANPADS as a fighter of the Kyrgyz Republic is not considered at all. And for the barrel artillery the most. and 800 km the speed of an ordinary liner.
        1. Gato
          Gato 31 July 2013 10: 52 New
          +5
          Quote: ed65b
          and 800 km the speed of an ordinary liner

          Which goes at an altitude of 8-10 km, and not 20-60 m. The barrel will have to conduct continuous barrage fire in the directions of a possible attack
          1. viktorR
            viktorR 31 July 2013 12: 04 New
            +1
            Actually, a cloud of shells is created through which it passes (or rather will not pass) cr. The rate of fire of modern art systems for this and sharpened 2-4 thousand rounds per minute. Watch the video where the tunguska with 4 trunks is shown on air targets. There is also a video of marine complexes there generally two six-barreled guns create such a hail ...
            1. PSih2097
              PSih2097 31 July 2013 13: 40 New
              +1
              Quote: viktorR
              Watch the video where the tunguska with 4 trunks is shown on air targets. E

              at Tunguska, like at the Shell, two trunks of 30 mm each, four trunks at Shilka ...
              Tunguska


              Shell


              Shilka
              1. Windbreak
                Windbreak 31 July 2013 16: 31 New
                +3
                the Tunguska and the Shell have two double-barreled anti-aircraft guns
                1. viktorR
                  viktorR 31 July 2013 18: 11 New
                  0
                  Confused comrade, thanks for correcting him for me.
            2. alone
              alone 31 July 2013 18: 20 New
              +1
              Well, I’ll tell you that, in Iraq, a cloud of shells didn’t help the Iraqi army suppress these cruise missiles. but just a few missiles were shot down by the OSA system
          2. Ezhaak
            Ezhaak 31 July 2013 16: 30 New
            0
            Quote: Gato
            The STB will have to conduct continuous barrage fire in the directions of a possible attack

            What the ... (bad words) ??? And why is the obsolete "Shilka", the modern "Tunguska" with the "Shell"? Or are we hung up on the ZU-23?
        2. Nayhas
          Nayhas 31 July 2013 11: 37 New
          +1
          During WW2, a low-flying aircraft was always a difficult target even for automatic guns, and then the speeds were half as much.
          1. viktorR
            viktorR 31 July 2013 12: 09 New
            +1
            Then there were no guidance systems. That is, everything was done by sight with the sighting and the height of the detonation of shells was set manually. So, the comparison is not correct. Tunguska will easily hit cr if it is within its reach, for her this is a typical goal, especially since cr is not so small. In general, I know that even the shilka shot at mortar mines and hit, but only as trainings, of course, where already there ...
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 31 July 2013 13: 51 New
              +2
              These speeds are also different. I have no doubt that Tunguska will defeat the Kyrgyz Republic, only she should fly next to her and the Tunguska crew will in advance receive data from the CP on the course of the Kyrgyz Republic, its speed and flight altitude, and alert the equipment. In the presence of folds of the area, of course. In the open field of the radar, Tunguska can really detect flying CR.
              1. viktorR
                viktorR 31 July 2013 18: 10 New
                0
                That is, the tunguska will be buried in a ravine, just in case)), I agree with regard to target designation and KP. but if the air defense is objective, then she will cope herself.
        3. yanus
          yanus 31 July 2013 13: 39 New
          0
          Quote: ed65b
          A soldier with MANPADS as a fighter of the Kyrgyz Republic is not considered at all.

          Why? For him, a typical goal that gets off easier than others. Does not maneuver, does not use infrared traps, etc.
          The only problem is preventing the calculation from which side and when it flies up.
          If the terrain is difficult, such as mountains, then blocking the approach path to the object using MANPADS is relatively not difficult.
        4. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 31 July 2013 18: 55 New
          0
          Quote: ed65b
          A soldier with MANPADS as a fighter of the Kyrgyz Republic is not considered at all

          We have one development - an automatic mine, so to speak, firing a copper core with sound speed
          http://gunsite.narod.ru/pvm.htm
          it is quite possible to refine and instruct in missile-hazardous directions
      2. viktorR
        viktorR 31 July 2013 12: 01 New
        +1
        Yeah, it’s time to get on the plane, but not on the CD? Or do you think the plane is flying slower?
        And who told you at all that they should be spawned by MANPADS, This is a matter of Tunguska shells, well, maybe even tori.
    2. Akim
      Akim 31 July 2013 09: 24 New
      +4
      Quote: ed65b
      Low speed is probably the weakest link in the Kyrgyz Republic. therefore, Amer actively despite the failures, go to hypersound.


      Supersound and hypersound are good in the open spaces, against ships. In small water areas or on land, only subsonic missiles or ballistic missiles can do. Russia, although it has a high-speed form of cruise missiles, uses them only for coastal defense.
      1. ed65b
        ed65b 31 July 2013 10: 10 New
        +3
        Quote: Akim
        Quote: ed65b
        Low speed is probably the weakest link in the Kyrgyz Republic. therefore, Amer actively despite the failures, go to hypersound.


        Supersound and hypersound are good in the open spaces, against ships. In small water areas or on land, only subsonic missiles or ballistic missiles can do. Russia, although it has a high-speed form of cruise missiles, uses them only for coastal defense.

        maybe you are right. but as soon as the amers reach hypersound you will see they will be used on the ground, with hypersound there will generally be no need for active maneuvering at low altitudes. A breakthrough of enemy air defenses is guaranteed.
        1. Akim
          Akim 31 July 2013 10: 56 New
          +2
          Quote: ed65b
          but as soon as amers come to hypersound you will see they will apply on the ground

          They are soldiers on unpaid leave, now they are massively poisoning. There is no money for them, and not just for bulk purchases of promising KR. Iraq did not bring them dividends which they expected.
        2. Evgeny_Lev
          Evgeny_Lev 31 July 2013 12: 42 New
          0
          Yeah, and the mountains will pierce through. A sort of "smashers rogues"
    3. bootlegger
      bootlegger 31 July 2013 11: 38 New
      +6
      Hypersonic missiles are impossible while maintaining low altitude flight parameters.
      Here you have to choose either hypersonic or low altitude.
      It is impossible to combine all of the low energy capabilities of traditional fuel. It simply is not enough for a long flight in hypersound.
      And if you neglect low altitude and choose hypersound, then the CR turns into a variant of a ballistic missile with the same probability of its destruction. And maybe even more, because hypersonic speed, as a rule, is still less than the flight speed of ICBMs.
      You can of course make hypersound only on the final flight section of 10-20 km, but the rocket can be shot down long before this section. This option is good for anti-ship missiles and for attacks by countries with a small territory.
    4. CTEPX
      CTEPX 31 July 2013 18: 10 New
      -1
      From the articleThe task of crushing the enemy's armed forces grouping, undermining its economic potential, relying mainly on the Kyrgyz Republic in conventional equipment, even in the medium term, cannot be solved due to the huge need for these weapons (it is not economically feasible), for the delivery of which there are not enough carriers.
      Quote: ed65b
      Amer is actively in spite of failures, go hypersound

      According to estimates voiced by Rogozin, it will take 5-6 years for our sworn friends to solve these problems. They plan to solve the problem of accurate guidance by means of “fighters for faith”, reduce the delivery speed to 15 minutes, and increase the number of carriers around Russia with non-nuclear equipment to 300 thousand units. Goals - from ICBMs to power substations from 50 kW.
      Little fun)).
      1. tungus
        tungus 31 July 2013 23: 05 New
        +2
        Quote: ctepx
        and the number of carriers around Russia with non-nuclear equipment to bring to 300 thousand units

        Where will they find so many carriers? Or did you mean 300 thousand KR? But it doesn’t even come out ... After all, these missiles still need to be launched from somewhere.
        Look, on the "burke" a maximum of 56 tomahawks can be placed. 300 Thousand Tomahawks is 5357 destroyers. Which is not realistic in principle. Even if our striped friends leave 100000 missiles on the destroyers, and the remaining two hundred are divided between the nuclear submarines and the B-52, they still need;
        more than 1700 destroyers (now 54),
        649 submarines of the Ohio type (now only 4 of these) or 8333 submarines of the Los Angeles type (now 23)
        about 5000 B-52 (now ~ 89)

        Thus, we get that the Americans, in principle, can have 300000 missiles, but only a few hundred can launch them at a time. Well, a thousand. And even then, only a blind person will not notice the movement and accumulation of so many carriers.
        1. CTEPX
          CTEPX 1 August 2013 05: 19 New
          0
          Quote: tungus
          After all, these missiles still need to be launched from somewhere else.

          Why don't you consider launching hypersonic cruise missiles from the ground? From the territories of the states where the military bases of our sworn friends are located? And from our territory, in the case of the implementation of a plan of controlled chaos?
          Unfortunately, they ALREADY have such an opportunity. Unresolved issues of quality and quantity)). Five to six years, a few more debts and the likelihood of the above scenario being realized is absolutely unacceptable for guaranteed security of the Russian Federation.
          1. tungus
            tungus 1 August 2013 09: 09 New
            +1
            Quote: ctepx
            Why don't you consider launching hypersonic cruise missiles from the ground?

            Because, the launch of hypersonic rockets from the ground, i.e. from the United States will be little different from the launch of ICBMs.
            To overcome the distance in 10000 km per hour (fast global strike), the rocket will have to move at an altitude not lower than 40 km. Otherwise, it will simply melt. But at such a height it will be seen by the SPRN radar.
            When launched from the territory of European allies of the United States, the problem is the same. Plus, the deployment of such missiles in Europe will not go unnoticed. Countermeasures will be taken. For example, as an option, the creation and deployment of the BRDS. Not for nothing that they often began to speak out about the unprofitability of Russia’s agreement on intermediate and shorter-range missiles. What do the statements come from the leadership of mines. defense and leadership of the country.

            As for missile launches from our territory ... Is that a joke? If the enemy created this very chaos and through it managed to deploy his troops on the territory of Russia (the plot is surreal), then why should he also launch a missile strike? He has already occupied the country. And to shoot cruise missiles at partisan formations is not very effective.
  6. RussianRu
    RussianRu 31 July 2013 08: 55 New
    +4
    There is no reception against scrap. Unless of course there is another scrap.))) NATO members (USA) are terrible in the first days of the war, then all indicators and accuracy fall further. Why did they launch a rocket at the Chinese embassy in Belgrade? Probably something they do not know how. And all the reports that provide are questionable. But, nevertheless, the ear must be kept open!
    1. vadson
      vadson 31 July 2013 22: 06 New
      0
      I think at the expense of the Chinese embassy was specifically made
  7. eplewke
    eplewke 31 July 2013 09: 01 New
    17
    In the event of a full-scale war, detonate a 50 megaton atomic bomb in the exosphere, and farewell to the satellites and ZhPS. And all KRs are like blind kittens. And hello again wired radiotelephony ... Hello compass and maps.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 31 July 2013 09: 22 New
      +2
      With this option, it will not reach the Kyrgyz Republic, ICBMs will throw each other and then there will be no underwater telephony, but there and there smokes, if at all anyone will be able to do this ...
    2. Gato
      Gato 31 July 2013 10: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: eplewke
      In the event of a full-scale war, detonate a 50 megaton atomic bomb in the exosphere, and farewell to the satellites and ZhPS.

      And all of humanity laughing
    3. Windbreak
      Windbreak 31 July 2013 11: 03 New
      +1
      In the event of a full-scale war, cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads will fly, and not GPS, but terrain correction
      1. The comment was deleted.
    4. Tektor
      Tektor 31 July 2013 12: 48 New
      +1
      "...
      detonate a 50 megaton atomic bomb in the exosphere, and farewell satellites and FMS. And all the KR like blind kittens
      . "There is another option to make the atmosphere opaque for radio signals. As with the nuclear bomb, you can saturate the upper atmosphere with plasma due to its radio-frequency heating (station, type, harp). It is also possible to use beam weapons. The advantage is that blocked the passage of the signal from the satellite locally, over a specific area.
      1. Basil123
        Basil123 31 July 2013 14: 18 New
        +1
        what about neutron bombs?
        1. Basil123
          Basil123 31 July 2013 17: 26 New
          0
          or instant 31d on satellites wink
  8. a52333
    a52333 31 July 2013 09: 15 New
    +4
    On the south and north sides there is another effective way, I ka-aza, because they are sea-based, a preventive strike must be launched (to sink all SLCMs together with the ship). From the side of the geyrops, air defense closes more tightly.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 31 July 2013 09: 24 New
      +4
      What a dreamer you are ... The General Staff probably applauds you standing, are there already invitations from there?
    2. Akhtuba73
      Akhtuba73 1 August 2013 02: 18 New
      -1
      Curled up Kotyara!
  9. Prometey
    Prometey 31 July 2013 09: 36 New
    0
    Whoever invents a hypersonic cruise missile forward will receive an irresistible weapon. Then it will take years for the creation of air defense systems capable of repelling the attacks of hypersonic missiles.
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 31 July 2013 12: 46 New
      +4
      Something tells me that the "hypersound" and "wing" are not very good friends. Not?
    2. tungus
      tungus 1 August 2013 17: 01 New
      0
      Quote: Prometey
      it will take years to create air defense systems capable of repelling the impact of hypersonic missiles.

      And what is the difference between a hypersonic missile defense and a warhead of, say, a medium-range ballistic missile? I mean, in terms of goals for missile defense? Does S-500 suggest the destruction of ballistic missile warheads as well, will it not bring down a hypersonic cruise missile?
  10. Pacifist
    Pacifist 31 July 2013 09: 39 New
    +3
    A continuous low-altitude radar field of object defense is more efficient to create lighting equipment based on balloons. And cheaper and making up for losses faster. In addition, they can also mount electronic warfare equipment. And air complexes of the A-50 type are needed to create the field of a military force and it is simply stupid and economically unprofitable to use them for object cover.
  11. ben gun
    ben gun 31 July 2013 09: 49 New
    +7
    In any case, if ours spotted a massive start of the Kyrgyz Republic of any base in OUR direction - this is not an invitation to drink tea. A clear blow, a sudden prepared, i.e. act of aggression. And it seems to me that ICBMs will answer it, even before the end of the raid of the Kyrgyz Republic and aviation. Talking with those who launched the Kyrgyz Republic will no longer be either time or opportunity.
    1. Midshipman
      Midshipman 31 July 2013 10: 19 New
      0
      I hope that ours, without waiting for launches, will detect the concentration of carriers and create a threat of their destruction, thereby solving the problem.
      1. Kuzkin Batyan
        Kuzkin Batyan 31 July 2013 12: 49 New
        +1
        With the advent of all sorts of Clubs, it seems to me it became problematic to calculate the media of these CDs))))
  12. Nayhas
    Nayhas 31 July 2013 10: 03 New
    +9
    The issue of protection against tactical missile launchers should concern countries that are not able to launch a nuclear missile strike against the United States (for only so far they have a large number of tactical missiles and their carriers). Even the USSR was not able to protect all strategic objects from the strike of the Kyrgyz Republic. Means of counteracting tactical missile defense certainly exist, but given the length of our borders and the size of the Russian Federation, the cost of such missile defense will be prohibitive. Therefore, if there is anything to cover, then the ICBM mines and the places of the Topol bases.
    PS: the author proposes to return to the old scheme aircraft AWACS + MiG-31, which is not entirely true. We need an analogue of the American Link-16 data transmission system that connects all air defense systems from detection to interception in real time, we need an analogue of the JLENS system, a network of radars located on tethered balloons, because it is cheaper and more reliable to use aerostats to illuminate the air situation in stationary objects (DRLO aircraft airfield, fuel supply, duty hours are limited by the physical capabilities of a person). We need missiles in-in which can be aimed at the target not only by carrier aircraft, but also by means of AWACS, thereby heavy MiG-31s ​​will be unnecessary.
    1. Dart weyder
      Dart weyder 31 July 2013 11: 02 New
      +3
      yes, but only everyone misses such a factor as intelligence, in order to launch (if only about 700 KR were used against Iraq) the required amount of CR - a large group of carriers with the entire "retinue" is necessary, taking into account Russian air defense - air carriers (and taking into account the number of CDs on board these) they are unlikely to be used, even the vaunted V-2, so we represent a lot of ships and equipment, protection and subsequent impact, electronic warfare equipment, + ground grouping at the borders - it’s not realistic to miss ... ..... negative so that we simply transfer from empty to empty ...... that is, the factor of emerging aggression will be on the face. We recall Iraq, Yugoslavia - for months this gang gathered forces there, not being afraid of a preemptive strike, slowly deployed forces before the strike, tried on - and then attacked - that is, against a country that can give a head that doesn't seem like much (I I’m already silent about the full-fledged pills) such tactics will not work ............. and in the above privacy, according to your comment - just the same, the MiG-31 can give the TsU and direct the MiG-29 and Su-27 missiles which they do not see with their radars - so that it is more efficient and cheaper than the A-50, which under the nature described in the article of aggression but it will be susceptible to attack, the most effective thing is to hit such missiles on approaches to the borders - especially if it is sea open spaces or deserts, together with delivery vehicles, such as aggression (it’s better to preempt — it’s cheaper), do not forget that the Iraqi Air Force and the FRY were they were crushed extremely quickly, which is why they were smashed, for under the condition of a more or less active counteraction of air defense aviation as well as a retaliatory strike of tactical aviation and ground-based KR, tactical missiles and ballistic missiles, which are comparable in range to a range of half that KR - the enemy aviation base infrastructure and others - will be hit and destroyed (albeit partially) - and not like in Iraq and the FRY - they, like because of the fence, delivered strikes without fear of retaliation ....... ........
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 31 July 2013 13: 45 New
        +2
        Quote: Dart Weyder
        so that we simply overflow from empty to empty.

        Undoubtedly, the presence of nuclear weapons makes such predictions purely hypothetical.
        Quote: Dart Weyder
        and in the above privacy statement, according to your comment, just the same, the MiG-31 can give a missile defense and direct missiles MiG-29 and Su-27 which they do not see with their radars

        not true, the MiG-31 can appear in a bunch of four cars as a VKP, but very limited in capabilities, give target designation to missiles and transmit a course of air targets, things are completely different. The MiG-31 can bring conventional fighters to air targets, but it can’t transmit the air situation.
        Quote: Dart Weyder
        so that it is more effective and cheaper than the A-50, which under the aggression described in the article will naturally be attacked

        also absolutely not true, the MiG-31 radar station did not even stand next to the radar of an AWACS aircraft, even such as the A-50. The mere fact that the AWACS can conduct an all-round view makes it an order of magnitude more efficient than the MiG-31 radar system, which carries out an overview only along the course. Not to mention the size of the radar itself and power.
        The defenselessness of the AWACS aircraft is very conditional. Such machines do not fly without fighter cover, for there is no point in this, having discovered air targets whom will he then direct at them? Therefore, in order to destroy it, it will be necessary to break through the guards, not the fact that it will turn out, but if so, then with the help of electronic warfare the DRLOiU plane will crush the enemy's radar and it simply will not detect it.
        Then you have something incomprehensible and chaotic, as you understand the reason for the defeat of the air defense of Iraq and Yugoslavia, the absence of ballistic missiles in these countries ... Actually, Iraq had tactical ballistic missiles, it did not help at all ...
        1. Dart weyder
          Dart weyder 31 July 2013 14: 14 New
          -1
          about the confusion: more precisely, not about ballistic or tactical missiles (especially
          Elbrus, or rather truncated if I am not mistaken for the technical characteristics of the Scud) could not prevent the defeat, and the whole Iraqi army as well as the FRY with many times superior technical and quantitative opponents, especially the second desert war and aggression against Yugoslavia - the countries lost aviation in the first day, separate raids of one plane or unit did not matter - complete dominance in the enemy’s air put an end to the defeat was inevitable ... (and before the conflict began, everything was predetermined, the question was only with what score) and with less competition the potential of countries - such a scenario (even if the use of nuclear weapons is hypothetically excluded) is impossible - it was just a beating ...
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 31 July 2013 19: 21 New
            +1
            Iraqi Armed Forces as of January 1991 the most combat-ready of the Arab countries of that time. Iraq’s armament is equipped with modern weapons, tanks, airplanes, and Iraq’s air defense is almost similar to the Soviet air defense, only the S-300 was not. In the USSR, the S-300 at that time was not yet the basis of air defense, the main complex was the S-200, S-125 and even S-75. Those. purely technically, the Iraqi army was certainly weaker than the coalition, but there was no global superiority. The Iraqi army had the advantage of training fighters, because behind it was 10 years of a brutal war with Iran, a fired soldier is a priori better than an unfired one. I perfectly remember the analytical articles of the end of 1990, everyone expected a protracted conflict, a second Vietnam, a stream of coffins covered with American flags ... What then happened plunged everyone into shock. Nobody expected this, especially everyone was struck by how easily the USA dealt with Iraq’s air defense, because it was actually an analogue of the USSR air defense. After that, the reliability of our air defense began to be called into question, but then the USSR disappeared and this issue ceased to bother everyone, the slogan S-300 landed all axioms, and no one presented any evidence of this axiom.
        2. Dart weyder
          Dart weyder 31 July 2013 14: 37 New
          0
          Quote: Nayhas
          not true, the MiG-31 can appear in a bunch of four cars as a VKP, but very limited in capabilities, give target designation to missiles and transmit a course of air targets, things are completely different. The MiG-31 can bring conventional fighters to air targets, but it can’t transmit the air situation.

          partially wrong APD-518 digital noise-protected equipment allows exchanging data on air conditions at a distance of up to 200 km with airplanes having devices for interfacing with APD-518 equipment (MiG-31, Su-27. MiG-29, A-50) do not be so categorical ... (http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fighter/mig31.html is not the last resort, but nevertheless, they don’t write explicit nonsense here either),
          A-50 - Range of detection of air targets with EPR = 1 m² about 200 km .... I don’t know how much the MiG-31 has - clearly less ... but nevertheless - imagine the required number of aircraft! ?????
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 31 July 2013 19: 34 New
            +1
            Quote: Dart Weyder
            A-50 - Range of detection of air targets with EPR = 1 m² about 200 km .... I don’t know how much the MiG-31 has - clearly less ... but nevertheless - imagine the required number of aircraft! ?????

            I repeat, the AWACS have a CIRCUIT view, while the MiG-31 radars only view along the course of a relatively narrow beam. The patrol time for the A-50 is longer, moreover, the operator in the MiG-31 is in rather cramped conditions, recovering in flight is quite problematic, the operators on the A-50 are less tired, because there is an opportunity to walk around, "drain kerosene" and have lunch. In the end, it’s much easier to establish control from one machine than from four ...
    2. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 31 July 2013 12: 47 New
      0
      I don’t understand why to cover the whole border if you can cover the necessary objects?
      1. Dart weyder
        Dart weyder 31 July 2013 12: 53 New
        +2
        And the communications, the mains of the energy system or oil and gas transport, dams and dams, and just bridgeheads for the landing of saboteurs or enemy troops do not need to be covered !? Well, it’s not the Middle Ages - the fortified city - stayed out, the enemy got hungry - and went on his own wassat
        1. Evgeny_Lev
          Evgeny_Lev 31 July 2013 13: 00 New
          +3
          The main tasks of the Kyrgyz Republic are command and control posts and air defense facilities.

          The bridgeheads for a possible landing, do not cover, but you need to cover the opportunity.
          1. Dart weyder
            Dart weyder 31 July 2013 13: 16 New
            0
            yes - of course, i.e. doesn’t it matter that tactical aircraft at low altitudes, helicopters or the same route of the Kyrgyz Republic can pass through an uncovered section of the border - which will reduce the risk of being shot down at the border, and strike the object from the internal territory !? the entire frontier territory and borders should be covered by air defense air control means, - it’s clear that it makes no sense to put koi-ni-air SAMs every 1000 m — these are then put on objects, and there is air defense on another .. ..and long-range air defense systems. about the landing - as well as about the KR - it’s unrealistic to pull all this crap and drop it off or launch without counteraction - it’s necessary to preempt — both the landing vehicles and the KR’s carriers .... and if you cover them on your territory - it’s necessary bargain hard wassat
            and so in general I agree with you
            1. Evgeny_Lev
              Evgeny_Lev 31 July 2013 13: 28 New
              0
              Are we talking about the Kyrgyz Republic or about tactical aviation?
              For aviation, just the same, there is long-range air defense, which the Kyrgyz Republic is called upon to strike.

              Means of control of the border territory work even beyond the physical borders of the state, but this does not oblige them to be directly on the border.

              The coastal forces basically have mobile striking means, as you probably noticed, for entering data into the Kyrgyz Republic it takes time longer than what a division needs, for example, to relocate.
              1. Dart weyder
                Dart weyder 31 July 2013 13: 42 New
                0
                I agree, only taking into account the change in the area of ​​the temporary deployment of the division, it is completely possible to correct the route of the missile, without even using the theory of probability) there will definitely not be a small number of missiles that will go along similar routes .... but also at parallel distances to kilometers, they are they don’t expect that everyone will fly, but rather, that not everyone will be knocked down ....
                but again, all this boils down to inflamed delirium, because as I said somewhere above - they forget to take into account the factor - that it is impossible to deliver a massive blow unexpectedly ..... because the preparation and accumulation of such a quantity of equipment at the borders of the strike are clearly not will go unnoticed, the first launch of a rocket or something else means a blow to the group ... it scares the Africans .... so it’s just a theory from the category of "if-if" .... - as they say: - "If grandmother had a cock and an egg, then she would be a grandfather "
  13. Gato
    Gato 31 July 2013 10: 44 New
    0
    that the creation of an effective system to counter these weapons is entirely possible.

    But has it not been created yet? Or did I oversleep?
  14. patsantre
    patsantre 31 July 2013 10: 46 New
    +3
    It is unlikely that it will be possible to defend against missile defense with a short-range air defense system. There are thousands of potential targets for missile defense systems in Russia, and short-range air defense systems involve the protection of only one object due to their short range ... how many such air defense systems will be needed? rather intended to cover medium and long-range air defense systems.
    There is no reason to hope for long-range air defense systems either, our vast territories are not visible by radar, and the low-altitude radar field, due to the radio horizon, covers only a small part of the country. roughly speaking, even if we have half of the strategically and tactically important objects covered by an air defense system, there remains a huge amount of unprotected ones (the sky above them can be seen by radars, but there is no airspace near the earth, this would require a HUGE amount of radar), and these facilities can be mutated with impunity with the help of the Kyrgyz Republic, and this is already a huge damage to the economy and combat readiness.
    So all that remains is to hope for the A-50 and MiG-31, but the former are negligible, the combat readiness of the latter is a big question ... will they have time to spot the aircraft in time, prepare the pilot and plane and take them into the air? Will we be able to understand the situation before, What will the KR begin to get to the factories and airfields? Purely hypothetically, they are able to effectively counter the KR, in practice - not in the state in which they are now.
    Needless to say, KR alone cannot win a war, this is only an element of a large mechanism. But, they can very seriously weaken, disorganize and cause enormous damage to the economy. IMHO, KR is the most important and serious means of implementing the modern blitzkrieg.
    1. silver_roman
      silver_roman 31 July 2013 12: 14 New
      +1
      it is not necessary to cover objects in the interior of the country, as Kyrgyz Republic may just not fly there. look at the radius of action from an approximate launch point and proceed from here.

      It is unlikely that it will be possible to defend against missiles with a short-range air defense system

      You correctly noticed, but it all depends on the number of air defense systems. let's estimate: "Ax" (tomahawk) costs more than 1 cu
      Shell c1 for export (!) Goes from 13-15 million dollars. It is obviously cheaper for the armament of our army and obviously more effective complexes are coming. But one complex can work on several CRs at once, and, as practice and tests in the UAE show, effectively bring them down.

      again, CD carriers (if it is not a nuclear submarine) will act in groups and not small groups. It is good for children to swim one at a time. This is not our Petya, who plows the expanses of the oceans alone! it is possible to track such groups from satellites, the same our submarines can fall to the tail. The main thing is to suppress the launch site in time.

      but in general I had such an idea. A little from the topic. if we talk about a large-scale war, then we need to have some major military formations that would be designed purely for an enemy attack. I will explain: the attack was not by enemy troops, but not by covered sections. take a look for yourself: only 4 AUGs were involved in Yugoslavia alone. In a war with China or the Russian Federation, all AUGs will be involved. a small number of combat-ready units will remain under cover. And at this very moment, and attack support centers, airfields. she’s even landing in San Francisco. It's about how much demoralizing. The main thing is that such units be completely independent and report to a separate headquarters! the idea is perhaps even strange, but it seems to me it would be very effective. and public relations of such units is not necessary. everything is top secret.
      Of course, there are some groups of special troops, but this is not enough. you need heavy equipment. ships - not a lot, but so that little seemed to anyone.
      Well, judge strictly for fantasy)))
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 31 July 2013 13: 40 New
        +2
        Quote: silver_roman
        Shell c1 for export (!) Goes from 13-15 million dollars. It is obviously cheaper for the armament of our army and obviously more effective complexes are coming. But one complex can work on several CRs at once, and, as practice and tests in the UAE show, effectively bring them down.


        So you estimate how many complexes it will take to cover THOUSAND objects! Several complexes for each object ... this is completely unrealistic. Even 1/10 it is unrealizable.

        And about your idea ... well, the national guard in the United States has not been canceled))
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 31 July 2013 15: 44 New
          -1
          So you estimate how many complexes will be required to cover THOUSAND objects!

          Well, it’s not necessary to cover all the objects? only the most basic are vulnerable. besides, already some of the objects are already covered up. well, in the future, you should not scatter all objects anywhere. it is worth somehow organizing everything more centrally. Of course, "all eggs in one basket" is also not worth poking ...
          and still intelligence. nobody canceled the timely detection and destruction of CD carriers. Air defense is a purely defensive system. Do not forget about the attack.

          but about nat. guards, they are unlikely to be able to withstand serious complexes at sea and in the air. they are more suitable for suppressing protests within the army or for neutralizing individual groups. against a regular, well-trained army (unit) they can not resist the banal lack of experience in such conflicts. in general, the topic is very broad, so that it could be so easy to give a definite answer)
          1. a
            a 31 July 2013 16: 12 New
            0
            Quote: silver_roman
            but about nat. guards, they are unlikely to be able to withstand serious complexes at sea and in the air. they are more suitable for suppressing protests within the army or for neutralizing individual groups


            The US National Guard is still not a bunch of scouts. This is a fully operational reserve of the soldiers who have served.

            Quote: silver_roman
            against a regular, well-trained army (unit) they can not stand


            How many regular troops will you drop in San Francisco? unless a group of saboteurs on the submarine. and if a less serious division, then you need a connection to the BDK. so this connection is still on the way. You have fantasies.
            1. silver_roman
              silver_roman 31 July 2013 18: 24 New
              0
              I wrote about the BDK. I repeat: this is more of a kind of fiction or just thinking.
              For example, we have Pacific Fleet, Black Sea Fleet, etc. why not call a full-fledged armada somehow, which does not need to focus on the country's defense. they will only be designed to attack the enemy.
              Well, San Francisco ... do you really think that he is being defended diligently there? amers too strongly believed in their own impunity.
              if the same Japanese attacked the continental part of syshya instead of harbor pearls, then I think they would have done tremendous damage.
              if a dozen BDKs approached the western coast of North America with the support of a couple of Orlans 1144, an aircraft carrier, a nuclear submarine, send the same Mistrals there. first clean the orbit from their satellites, all the technology is there and there is nothing supernatural. we’re just used to it (propaganda works like a bang), that they are the strongest, that we have devastation, our T-90s are cheap, etc.
              you just need to believe in your sun and your country. sometimes the most ingenious plans, projects were born under a flurry of criticism and screams at the expense of what is not real, etc. understandably. I don’t offer anything, I just decided to dream a little.
              1. a
                a 31 July 2013 19: 28 New
                +2
                Quote: silver_roman
                Well, San Francisco ... do you really think that he is being defended diligently there? amers too strongly believed in their own impunity.


                Of course they did. because they live almost on the island. Canada borders on the north and Mexico on the south. they may not be zealous in their defense. the question is, what can another country do after having landed a limited contingent in America? can't do anything. drop the division there. it will not go far. keep in mind that the same national guard is not only armed with small arms. they also have combat aircraft. whether we like it or not, one division will do nothing there. and the two won't do anything either.
                if you fantasize, then you need to land not in San Francisco, but in Hawaii. here they can really be captured. much less is the base of their Pacific fleet. but there is another level of defense. Yes, and if the fleet itself is not there, the Japanese fleet will guard ..

                Quote: silver_roman
                if a dozen BDKs approached the western coast of North America with the support of a couple of 1144 Orlanes, an aircraft carrier, a nuclear submarine, send the same Mistrals there. pre-clean the orbit from their satellite


                fantasies. fantasies. Yes, our fleet will be spotted as soon as it crosses the middle of the Pacific Ocean and will be led constantly. well, and in the case of a real threat, a couple of Minutemen will crash it. and there is no our fleet.
                1. silver_roman
                  silver_roman 1 August 2013 10: 37 New
                  0
                  I am sure that you are aware of some facts about the reduction of the state military budget. almost everything has been reduced: they even want to reduce the number of AUGs. but it seems that one aircraft carrier has already gone on conservation. I'm not talking about aircraft, which are often older than their pilots and many other things.
                  if whole combat-ready subunits, units, etc. are reduced - that is the main PR of their entire power, "democracy" and other nonsense. I think few of the Amer warriors seriously consider the fierce defense of the city. maybe there are some plans since the Cold War, but nobody takes them seriously.

                  she will not go far

                  but it’s not necessary to go far. Do you understand what impact will have on ordinary soldiers that the enemy has strengthened almost in the heart of their homeland ??? why I said it was San Francisco, because there is a huge metropolis, which includes both San Francisco, Los Angeles and the surrounding villages, etc.
                  It’s easier to defend there, you won’t be planted with bombs, because the city is full of civilians. and again: the same fleet will help to spoil the nearby infrastructure, having worked out some “caliber” for the goals.

                  it goes without saying that the fleet can detect, but then again, when the war is on, all resources are directed and focused at the point of conflict. and no one canceled the shooting of low-orbit military satellites. if the Chinese shoot them down, then our air defense will certainly be able to.

                  to the account of Gavaev: the idea is also sound. but the demoralizing factor will not be the same.
            2. saturn.mmm
              saturn.mmm 31 July 2013 22: 45 New
              0
              Quote: uno
              How many regular troops will you drop in San Francisco?

              And why in San Francisco, it is better to Alaska through the Bering Strait.
              The smallest width is 86 km, the smallest fairway depth is 36 m.
              1. alone
                alone 31 July 2013 23: 39 New
                +1
                do you think the Americans will sit and wait for you to transfer ground troops across the strait? Yes. Americans are stupid. they sometimes even confuse the Czech Republic and Chechnya.
                but not so))) trust me
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 2 August 2013 22: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: lonely
                  do you think the Americans will sit and wait for you to transfer ground troops across the strait? Yes. Americans are stupid. they sometimes even confuse the Czech Republic and Chechnya.
                  but not so))) trust me

                  I don’t think that the Americans are stupid and the fact that someone confused the Czech Republic and Chechnya does not indicate that they are stupid. In America, powerful analytical centers, global intelligence, and the only thing we can do at this stage with our Navy is to create a bridgehead in Alaska by transferring troops across the strait, other options will be sunk and destroyed without options, that’s my humble opinion.
          2. patsantre
            patsantre 31 July 2013 18: 12 New
            0
            Quote: silver_roman
            Well, it’s not necessary to cover all the objects? only the most basic are vulnerable. besides, already some of the objects are already covered up. well, in the future, you should not scatter all objects anywhere. it is worth somehow organizing everything more centrally. Of course, "all eggs in one basket" is also not worth poking ...


            You yourself understand that only a small part of the objects will be able to cover up, and a huge number of very tasty targets - power plants, factories, military industrial complexes, airfields, warehouses, etc. will still remain uncovered, and the enemy will take advantage of this. The damage will be enormous.
            Quote: silver_roman
            they cannot survive the banal lack of experience of such conflicts.

            Umm ... what about the potential adversary, that is, we already have the experience of landing in the United States and the experience of war with them?
            1. silver_roman
              silver_roman 31 July 2013 18: 28 New
              0
              the fact of the matter is that you are considering the option in which all of their carriers were able to freely release all their CDs. By the way, according to unofficial data, they were produced in the region of 5. This is for all the time. if you estimate that they need about 000-10 to destroy the airfield, then they will not have enough corny missiles to destroy all targets on our territory. and again, if we consider the option in which all the missiles take off safely and achieve their goals.
              if they did not reach 2.5 percent in Yugoslavia, then I think we can expect a minimum of 15-20 percent. and this despite the fact that our army has only just begun to get on its feet.
              ps write again: we need more faith. if they were even a little bit close to destroying us, there would no longer be a Russian Federation.
              because issue price - a lot of resources in our territory. I am sure that in their worldview of the Russian Federation a purely raw material base and no more.
              1. patsantre
                patsantre 31 July 2013 20: 41 New
                0
                Quote: silver_roman
                By the way, according to unofficial data, they were produced in the region of 5.

                They are now in service with so much, even more.
                Quote: silver_roman
                to estimate that they need about 10-15 to destroy the airfield, then they will not have enough corny missiles to destroy all targets on our territory. and again, if we consider the option in which all the missiles take off safely and achieve their goals.

                It’s not enough by itself, and maybe even, in the most favorable scenario, most of them will be knocked down. But do you think that 1500 missiles aren’t enough to paralyze industry and infrastructure? You just have to hammer on power plants, pipelines, bridges, reservoirs, oil fields ...and hi
                1. silver_roman
                  silver_roman 1 August 2013 10: 25 New
                  0
                  where do you get information on the quantity account ??? I'm really interested, because open sources indicate precisely the figure of 5 units produced.

                  One has only to hammer on power plants, pipelines, bridges, reservoirs, oil fields

                  the people will suffer in the first place, but the army should not depend on these things and factors.
                  war is not grateful. especially if you fight with syshya, and not with Georgia.
                  here no one doubts the enormous damage. but it’s not about that. the main thing is that they do not destroy our strategic nuclear forces. Especially vulnerable are mine installations, the location of which has long been known to the enemy.
                  and on the account of the same Yarsov and Topolii read that despite their mobility, the area of ​​their patrol (movement) is not so big. rides in a radius of 200-300 km and that's it. I mean, if you want, you can try to track and destroy.
                  if a war starts, I’m sure that their infrastructure will also be completely lacking. but God forbid that such a scenario was only in the minds of science fiction writers.
                  1. patsantre
                    patsantre 2 August 2013 01: 02 New
                    0
                    Quote: silver_roman
                    where do you get information on the quantity account ??? I'm really interested, because open sources indicate precisely the figure of 5 units produced.

                    Are these only tomahawks? Have 2500 JASSM been taken into account?

                    Quote: silver_roman
                    the people will suffer in the first place, but the army should not depend on these things and factors.


                    And what would prevent them from causing irreparable damage to the economy and not attacking, waiting for the country to bend itself? Well, this is an option.
                    Well, if we take into account the strategic nuclear forces ... yes they will not attack us)
                    1. silver_roman
                      silver_roman 2 August 2013 10: 16 New
                      0
                      Did 2500 JASSM take into account?

                      This class of missiles is not comparable in terms of performance characteristics with tomahawks. they have a range of up to 400 km. there is a modification with an increased range, but still they are far from tomahawks, therefore, carriers need to approach an impressive distance to the target, which makes them extremely vulnerable.

                      And what will stop them from causing irreparable damage to the economy and not attacking, waiting for the country to bend itself? Well, this is an option.

                      this scenario would be run with countries like Libya, but not with Russia.
                      as Napoleon said: "Do not attack the Russians, your actions, the Russians will answer with their unpredictable stupidity" - and this stupidity is sometimes stronger and more destructive than any tactical weapon!
                      1. patsantre
                        patsantre 2 August 2013 23: 47 New
                        0
                        Quote: silver_roman
                        This class of missiles is not comparable in terms of performance characteristics with tomahawks. they have a range of up to 400 km. there is a modification with an increased range, but still they are far from tomahawks, therefore, carriers need to approach an impressive distance to the target, which makes them extremely vulnerable.


                        Most of the missiles with an increased range of 1000 km can be hollowed at more close targets, and tomahawks at longer distances. Objects are not located along the ruler at a distance of 1200 km from the coast. In addition, they will shower us with tomahawks with North and Pacific oceans, and from the southern direction only aviation and only JASSM.
                        Quote: silver_roman
                        this scenario would be run with countries like Libya, but not with Russia.

                        as Napoleon said: "Do not attack the Russians, your actions, the Russians will answer with their unpredictable stupidity" - and this stupidity is sometimes stronger and more destructive than any tactical weapon!

                        I do not see a worthy argument, except for self-confidence and patriotism)
                      2. silver_roman
                        silver_roman 5 August 2013 13: 02 New
                        0
                        I do not see a worthy argument, except for self-confidence and patriotism)

                        but I have already said everything and I see no reason to convince you of anything. We will remain in our opinion.
                        you are able to believe in the myriad power of the states, in their satellite intelligence, high-precision weapons, but not in our strengths. I already wrote that their naval formations will also be discovered before entering the Mediterranean Sea.
                        in general, I really see no reason to continue the debate.
  • silver_roman
    silver_roman 31 July 2013 11: 49 New
    +4
    she’s really sick of the names of the operations of these jackals .... "infallible freedom" ... I would like to see the dib * la who invents this nonsense!
    the only bad thing is that modern KR have a huge range of several thousand kilometers. This makes it possible, without entering the territorial waters of the country against which aggression is directed, to strike at the military and civilian infrastructure.
    if such aggression took place, then the fleet must quickly destroy the carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic. and as you know, only one Ohio-class submarine (rebuilt to the KR) carries more than 100 KR, and if we take into account the destroyers (Airlie Burke) and the cruiser (Ticonderoga), which are also armed with the KR, then a very formidable force will come out. Of course, it will be possible to neutralize part of the missiles by means of electronic warfare, air defense or the air force, but I am sure that all these errors will be laid by the Africans during the attack. Those. the volley will carry such a large amount of Raman, to surely hit the target, taking into account the loss of Raman during the attack.
  • USNik
    USNik 31 July 2013 11: 55 New
    +3
    To counter missiles ... Other effective and inexpensive methods are likely

    The easiest and most reliable way is to destroy the CD carrier. It has already been written more than once that the same American submarine cannot launch all the axes in one gulp, this process stretches for 15-20 minutes. And after the first start, the tomahawk is the easiest way to take and sink it to the nuclei ...
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 31 July 2013 12: 35 New
      +2
      They do something like that, only the boats are not American.
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 31 July 2013 14: 31 New
      0
      Quote: USNik
      The easiest and most reliable way is to destroy the CD carrier. It has already been written more than once that the same American submarine cannot launch all the axes in one gulp, this process stretches for 15-20 minutes. And after the first start, the tomahawk is the easiest way to take and sink it to the nuclei ...


      How to find her?
  • Alekseev
    Alekseev 31 July 2013 12: 01 New
    +3
    In my opinion, effective counteraction to cruise missiles is possible, like any other means of attack, only with an integrated approach.
    This is the cover by interceptors and air defense systems of the most important areas (objects), and striking at carriers, and disguise, and mobility, and, most importantly, the development and use of electronic warfare systems that can disrupt the guidance systems.
    Nothing like such a system of counteraction (although some elements were used) was not in Iraq, not in Yugoslavia, much less in Libya.
    here and the high efficiency of this weapon.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 31 July 2013 18: 18 New
      0
      Quote: Alekseev
      In my opinion, effective counteraction to cruise missiles is possible, like any other means of attack, only with an integrated approach.

      By itself...
      Passive sensors-detectors along the borders, dispersed passive receivers of radar fields ... mobile stations, UAVs - attack (fighters) and aiming - http://topwar.ru/31118-aktualnaya-tema-krylatye-rakety-i-kak-s -nimi-borotsya.htm
      l
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 31 July 2013 18: 27 New
      0
      Quote: Alekseev
      In my opinion, effective counteraction to cruise missiles is possible, like any other means of attack, only with an integrated approach.

      By itself...
      Passive sensors-detectors along the borders, dispersed passive receivers of radar fields ... mobile stations, UAVs - attack (fighters) and aiming - http://topwar.ru/31118-aktualnaya-tema-krylatye-rakety-i-kak-s -nimi-borotsya.htm
      l
  • Evgeny_Lev
    Evgeny_Lev 31 July 2013 12: 51 New
    +2
    I remember here, and even in some places, there was an interesting info on anti-helicopter mines.

    I don’t know how technically difficult this approach to missile defense (winged missiles) will be implemented, but as the idea of ​​a "cheap and angry" means of countering cruise missiles, it is worthy of discussion.
    1. Dart weyder
      Dart weyder 31 July 2013 13: 03 New
      0
      yes, the idea is good, but you can’t compare the speed of a helicopter with a speed of KR — FDA — speed of an intercepted target up to 100 m / s, for a Tomahawk CR — about 220 m / s — an upgrade is needed however what
      1. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 31 July 2013 13: 35 New
        0
        There are a lot of things there that are not just needed to be uploaded, but generally invented “anew”.

        For example, target detection - in FDA these are microphones, I think they will not help much in the case of Raman scattering, unless of course they are not separated by distances comparable to the warhead reaction time.
        The warhead itself is a kinetic core in the FDA (I can confuse it with anti-tank ammunition for the Hurricane, it’s not critical), for the Kyrgyz Republic, I think, a solution with a subversive charge like KAZ on tanks would be more successful. Typically, the launch of the warhead "mortar", the benefit of experience with us on such a start as a fool's glass, undermining the main charge at a given height detection complex.

        Well and so, on trifles to solve questions, like the price, mass-overall dimensions, statement / removal from duty, communication LOL
    2. patsantre
      patsantre 31 July 2013 14: 33 New
      0
      Yes, you need such tuev huh mines ... faster we’ll fry ourselves on them
      1. Evgeny_Lev
        Evgeny_Lev 31 July 2013 14: 52 New
        0
        Everything is relative.

        You can urge yourself to dot the dangerous direction with such mines.

        Anyway, something here I don’t quite understand the positioning of the Kyrgyz Republic - is it a high-precision weapon or is it like to chat?
        If it’s highly accurate, then I don’t understand where the opinion of their massive launch comes from. This is not "Grad"
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 31 July 2013 15: 53 New
          0
          KR - cruise missile. amers "tomahawk." this is a really high-precision weapon with various modifications depending on the type of target.
          Almost all destroyers (airlie burke), cruisers (tikanderog), and some Ohio-class submarines are carriers of this type of missile system as part of the Navy. so if the launch will be carried out not from one medium, but say from a dozen, then this can be called a serious salvo. KR is guided by GPS, the route can be adjusted after launch. "Grad" as well as "Tornado", "Hurricane" - multiple launch rocket systems. In these complexes, another principle is laid down, and that range is not comparable.
          1. Evgeny_Lev
            Evgeny_Lev 31 July 2013 16: 00 New
            0
            thanks, Cap

            Only I about the other, about the number of min. Comrade above, he complained that it would take a lot of mines, but I just stated the fact that mines and mines, that they are "bombarded" with dangerous directions.

            If we talk directly about the very idea of ​​the invention of mines against the Kyrgyz Republic, I think that something extraordinary, hyper expensive in the design should not be.

            Fill the field in front of the short-range air defense positions with such mines, and calmly shoot what breaks through. In addition, if you really want to, then the transfer of data about objects can be received from such mines, as well. Like, "the target flew out of the affected area, catch it."
            1. patsantre
              patsantre 31 July 2013 20: 43 New
              0
              so it’s in fact a miniradar. And thousands of radars with a range of 10 km will cost a pretty penny.
              1. Evgeny_Lev
                Evgeny_Lev 1 August 2013 09: 37 New
                0
                So zakonekt on every mine, something similar to what the traffic police uses to determine the speed. There are a lot of them + set "friend / foe"
  • Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 31 July 2013 14: 09 New
    +2
    Quote: silver_roman
    The main thing is to suppress the launch site in time.

    but in general I had such an idea. A little from the topic. if we talk about a large-scale war, then we need to have some major military formations that would be designed purely for an enemy attack. I will explain: the attack was not by enemy troops, but not by covered sections. take a look for yourself: only 4 AUGs were involved in Yugoslavia alone. In a war with China or the Russian Federation, all AUGs will be involved. a small number of combat-ready units will remain under cover. And at this very moment, and attack support centers, airfields. she’s even landing in San Francisco. It's about how much demoralizing. The main thing is that such units be completely independent and report to a separate headquarters! the idea is perhaps even strange, but it seems to me it would be very effective. and public relations of such units is not necessary. everything is top secret.
    Of course, there are some groups of special troops, but this is not enough. you need heavy equipment. ships - not a lot, but so that little seemed to anyone.
    Well, judge strictly for fantasy)))

    Well, I think this option is provided for in the General Staff, there were, perhaps, even now FSB special forces and GRU special forces, which were created for such scenarios. I won’t be surprised that the collapse of the GRU special forces that took place a couple of years ago was fake, God forbid that it would be so, and now the guys live in the States and are waiting for a signal.
    1. silver_roman
      silver_roman 31 July 2013 16: 01 New
      +1
      Well, if such special detachments exist, then these are more sabotage groups that are forced to act covertly so that they are not destroyed. I'm talking about a whole independent ... army or something, which will include, say, an aircraft carrier or helicopter carrier, BDK, infantry, airborne forces, its own separate independent infrastructure such as runways, communications and tracking satellites. just at that moment while the main troops are taking the battle with the advancing enemy, this "structure" strikes already at the very heart of the aggressor ... or at the most vulnerable and strategically important places such as points of contact, logistics. warehouses, etc.
      just eternal defense will never bring victory.

      Imagine the picture: 1941. the whole Hitler machine is attacking the USSR. there are fierce battles in Ukraine, Belarus, and at this time somewhere in the quiet to Berlin, Bovaria, etc. a separate army is moving. the Nazis, overwhelmed by their confidence in the blitzkrieg, suddenly find themselves stupidly demoralized due to the fact that their capital is already taken, the troops are cut off)). Of course this is all very rude, but it is all possible.
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 31 July 2013 20: 47 New
        0
        So part of the resources, equipment, people, finances will go to this army ... and a very large part. Then the defending forces will be much weaker. And if we had such an army at 41, it would not be a fact that we would keep Stalingrad and Moscow ...
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 1 August 2013 12: 12 New
          0
          Well, military affairs are generally expensive. that and this should be done not chaotically in the style of: "but let's get down to such a topic!".
          calculate everything in cold blood, allocate funds, form. and this should not be done in one month.
          and by the way about
          not the fact that we would keep Stalingrad and Moscow

          Moscow was kept thanks to the fact that our intelligence and undercover people worked correctly competently. It was at that moment when the Nazis stood near Moscow from certain deeply rooted agents that a message came that a war with Japan was not expected in the near future. it was then that the order was given to transfer serious forces to Moscow to repulse the attack. Well, there is such a version that it was so.
    2. Rus2012
      Rus2012 31 July 2013 18: 10 New
      +1
      Quote: Starover_Z
      Well, I think this option is provided for in the General Staff, there were, perhaps, now there are FSB special forces and GRU special forces, which were created for such scenarios.

      something was :)))
      But then they shuttled ...
  • guns-omega
    guns-omega 31 July 2013 14: 27 New
    +1
    An experienced operator is able to conduct "BGM-109 Tomahaw" at a height of no more than 80-150 meters. With its speed, even a fully robotic installation can intercept a rocket with a probability of only 35-40%. Agree - this is quite a bit. And usually cruise missiles do not fly alone
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 31 July 2013 14: 42 New
      0
      the more missiles in the "pack" the higher the likelihood that the operator will be able to shoot))
  • dizelniy
    dizelniy 31 July 2013 15: 31 New
    0
    Given that the airborne missiles are used for stationary purposes, and the attack is carried out from a direction that is most likely to be determined in the 180 g sector, then knowing that the altitude of the airborne missiles is about 200 m, aerostat networks need to be revived with new technologies. This tool is many times cheaper than any active air defense system. Equipped with subversive charges and consisting of high-strength basalt threads capable of cutting off aerodynamic surfaces, it will reduce the number of Raman penetrated to the protected area.
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 31 July 2013 18: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: dizelniy
      it is necessary to revive balloon networks with new technologies.

      already in some places it is planned to apply ...
  • SILVERLINE
    SILVERLINE 31 July 2013 17: 32 New
    0
    ya neznayu chem budut voyevat v 3 mirovoy voyne no tocno znayu chto v 4 budut voyevat s dubimkami
  • aud13
    aud13 31 July 2013 17: 38 New
    +2
    Quote: Midshipman
    The best defense weapon is an attack weapon. The emphasis should be not so much on protection against missiles as on the means of preventive destruction of the carriers of these missiles, namely, medium-range missiles, preferably hypersonic. Then it simply won’t occur to anyone to even concentrate the tomahawks on the firing distance at our targets, respectively. and air defense systems are not needed.


    In principle, a reasonable thought, another question is that these media are actually hard to get.
    Another answer option. If the aggressor begins hostilities and at the same time destroys not only military, but also economic facilities, then why not think about how to transfer this war to enemy territory. If, let’s say, the Libyans committed a number of sabotage operations in the territory of the aggressor countries (France, England, etc.) during the war, then the price of victory would probably have been much more expensive. I’m not sure that after that the voters of the aggressor countries applauded their warriors. I understand that terrorist attacks against civilians are not good, but what do aggressors themselves do in foreign countries?
  • saag
    saag 31 July 2013 17: 42 New
    0
    Starting the KR is not like a pistol shot, before this event steps are being taken to destroy all radio-emitting devices, both from within the country - covert sabotage, sabotage, bribery, and HARP missiles, jamming is also carried out, usually with the B-52 at the target site, taking these conditions into account, and plan how you will reflect the attack of the Kyrgyz Republic in 1000 units from various angles
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 31 July 2013 18: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: saag
      plan how you will reflect the attack of the Kyrgyz Republic in 1000 units from different angles

      There will be a Russian answer left by the Politburo: “with everything we have - MAX and FOR ALL PURPOSES AND OPPONENTS EVERYWHERE!” Those. massive nuclear strike ...

      As you know, it’s better not to touch the Russian bear while it’s quiet ...
      1. saag
        saag 31 July 2013 18: 10 New
        0
        Well, this is just collective suicide, who needs it, so if you can organize a reflection of the KR attack of 1000 units in the face of strong radio resistance. with an efficiency of at least 90 percent, you won this war, no one will organize this event for its loss-making
        1. Rus2012
          Rus2012 1 August 2013 00: 00 New
          0
          Quote: saag
          KR attacks in 1000 units

          at strategic facilities, even in conventional equipment they are equated to an attack with the use of nuclear weapons with all the ensuing consequences ... And there is no place for ceremonies. Let the aggressor care about the consequences ...
          The song "The last parade is coming ..." - you know?
          And if you leave the Supreme Will and determination - "Dead Hand" - the duty will be fulfilled ...
          And this will be the correct Russian answer!
          1. saag
            saag 1 August 2013 07: 41 New
            0
            Where it is, I repeat collective suicide is pathetic and stupid, nuclear weapons were created to deter, i.e. you weren’t going to use it, it’s better to think about solving the problem by conventional means and people will remain alive and your ambitions will be satisfied, by the way a possible solution, although somewhat costly but quite feasible, but it is in my opinion
  • SILVERLINE
    SILVERLINE 31 July 2013 17: 58 New
    0
    Quote: SILVERLINE
    ya neznayu chem budut voyevat v 3 mirovoy voyne no tocno znayu chto v 4 budut voyevat s dubimkami

    Quote: SILVERLINE
    ya neznayu chem budut voyevat v 3 mirovoy voyne no tocno znayu chto v 4 budut voyevat s dubimkami

    I don’t know what will be fought in the third world war but I know for sure that in the 4th they will fight with batons
  • Jet blackbird
    Jet blackbird 31 July 2013 21: 04 New
    +1
    It may be very expensive, but the best way to counter the “winged madness” is to patrol 10-15 of the latest submarine-launched missile carriers in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific. The damage from the strike of this armada in the United States will be colossal and it is unlikely that "they" after such measures ... will plan a "mass launch of the Kyrgyz Republic" towards Russia))
  • pavelk
    pavelk 31 July 2013 21: 05 New
    +1
    Funny article. The author does not see the essence of the problem. We must fight with the Kyrgyz Republic before they fly out of the mines. KR flying to you is a symptom of the failure of strategic defense and separation.

    "To participate in the hostilities, a powerful grouping of the Navy and Air Force was created, numbering 49 warships (including three aircraft carriers) and 550 aircraft at the first stage." - "In general, out of more than 700 KR issued at the facilities of Yugoslavia ....."

    It is much easier to launch 49 missiles on ships than mess with 700 missiles overhead.
    Each mine / ship over a distance of 400 km or so should be on the gun 24/7.
  • SPACE
    SPACE 31 July 2013 21: 17 New
    +2
    "..." Tomahawks "turned over Babozero and rushed to the airfields south of Kirovsk. But alarms have already sounded in the air defense regiments, covering the bases of heavy Soviet aviation. From the very beginning of the hostilities, on duty at the altitudes around the airdrome, “Tunguski” were on duty. And now, when the alarm was announced, their locators scanned the air over the tundra.

    Twelve goals from the northeast! Range - twenty miles. The towers of the five Tungusoks gently turned to face the attack. It took a second for the Tomahawks to cover just 222 meters of distance. Clinging to the sights, the gunners now saw the enemy and kept the brand of the sight on the chosen targets. The Tungusok on-board computers have already analyzed the interference, weather, speed and altitude of the targets. We chose the type of weapon - both missiles and guns. It took another five seconds. “Tomahawks” covered the distance in 1,1 versts.

    Sixteen seconds remained before the Tomahawks entered the firing zone of the first vehicle. Two distant "Tunguska" deployed towers across the course of cruise missiles. Ensign Sibirtsev led a missile, holding the mark of the sight on it. Having hit with a sheaf of fire, the Tunguska missiles rushed towards the enemy at a speed of 900 meters per second. Three kilometers north of the Tunguska rightmost, one 9МЗ11 hit the first Tomahawk directly in the forehead, and a ball of fire appeared over the tundra. The shock wave from the exploding cruise missile knocked another off course, and it slanted into the mossy ground obliquely.

    The second rocket from the Tunguska skipped over the Tomahawk shaving ground. But a non-contact fuse worked - and a Russian rocket burst in an explosion, throwing a five meter radius ring around itself - each made of metal rods 60 cm long and a cloud of fragments, steel cubes weighing 2-3 grams. Thrown out with cosmic speed, the rod and several fragments pierced the Tomahawk tanks, and it stretched out a strip of fire.

    The 30-millimeter guns of two Russian cars entered the frantic rhythm of fire. Flying enemy cars set their sides to them. Throwing out long “rays” of flame, the Tungusok shooters swept four more Tomahawks into pieces ”(Maxim Kalashnikov.“ Broken Sword of the Empire. ”M. - 1998).

    Shipunov remarks with a grin: “For us there is no sweeter purpose than Tomahawk.” Give us “Tomahawk!”
  • Svetlana
    Svetlana 31 July 2013 21: 33 New
    0
    Quote: Skif-2
    access to the use of autonomous (possibly unmanned) airships and DRLO tethered balloons - detection, target designation.

    and to feed tethered balloons of long-range radar detection (SARS) with hydrogen - use the recent development of the Kurchatov Institute - the on-board module for receiving (condensing) water from atmospheric air (which always has water vapor) with its subsequent electrolysis. It’s cheaper to keep 10 DRLO balloons on a leash than to burn kerosene in one DRLO airplane. By the way, for leash recently created lightweight conductive cables containing graphene.
  • Turner
    Turner 31 July 2013 21: 46 New
    0
    Gorbachev said at one time ... if we are threatened with complete destruction, then we will simply blow up all our nuclear potential on our territory, thereby destroying the whole world. And we must convince everyone that we CAN DO it. This is the most effective defense.
  • Genady1976
    Genady1976 31 July 2013 21: 57 New
    +4

    Time to make a decision. angry tongue
    Russian missile shield soldier
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 31 July 2013 23: 01 New
    +1
    Taking into account that mainly coastal areas are densely populated in the USA, there are two Sharks that are going to be sawed with needles, filled with large thermonuclear charges and one can be put on the ground in the Pacific Ocean and the other in the Atlantic, and in case of aggressive actions by the Americans, bring charges into action. In this case, the United States will simply wash it off, such a simple answer to a massive strike by cruise missiles.
  • Seawolf
    Seawolf 31 July 2013 23: 52 New
    0
    Yes us ..... be on their axes! We are not the SFRY and Iraq. The losses on that side will be terrifying (without nuclear weapons) and I’m sure of this, and therefore there will be no blow, there are no dumbasses either, they understand that we will burn our land for ourselves so that no Western homnidy sets foot here
    1. Witold
      Witold 3 August 2013 01: 08 New
      0
      I read your comments and I immediately remember such a picture.
  • Ronino
    Ronino 1 August 2013 00: 45 New
    0
    This system (system) will be really effective in the case of the perfect functioning of communications and reconnaissance, in conditions of tough electronic warfare, which in modern conditions is far from easy ...
  • Ramses_IV
    Ramses_IV 1 August 2013 03: 45 New
    0
    It seems to me that a relatively effective and relatively small-sized mobile (or with the possibility of relocation) long-range or medium-range anti-ship missile launcher launcher (comparable to launching an SLCM) that works in passive mode and receives missile defense from outside, from other systems, would be a very effective means of combating SLCM - PU maybe even the so-called "container" concept. I’m not talking about the “ball” - the range and stealth are probably not the same. Or you can even secretly arrange specials. containers with such PU at the required depth underwater in the sea at the right distance from the coast - you get a kind of minefield analogue. A similar system with flooded anchor torpedo launchers as far as I know, amers had or have had. How to make an analogue of the “perimeter”, but only from the SLCM, and we get a kind of half-dormant watchdog sitting in his booth and by whom you can pass, but ready in case of aggression and the command “face!” able to instantly show your teeth.

    Even if such a system is a weapon of retaliation, but this is quite enough for the democrats to comprehend.
  • dizelniy
    dizelniy 1 August 2013 09: 33 New
    0
    Quote: SPACE
    Shipunov remarks with a grin: “For us there is no sweeter purpose than Tomahawk.” Give us “Tomahawk!”

    The worst solution (reaction) to the problem is difficult to imagine. Count the tunguska, objects in need of cover and the number of cr. Long-range aviation on alert is alerted for a flight of 6 hours.
  • Witold
    Witold 1 August 2013 17: 49 New
    -1
    Bah, here everything is in the ranks and all the "military experts" with at least "10 years of military experience." Although I am sure that 80% did not smell gunpowder and shot only on the toilet. Cruise missiles were only seen in photos or on YouTube videos. The war took place at maximum in Battlefield or Call of Duty. Victory to you fearless warriors of computer fights.
    1. tilovaykrisa
      tilovaykrisa 1 August 2013 17: 51 New
      +3
      Judging by your kament, you are a participant in all Israeli wars.
      1. Witold
        Witold 2 August 2013 20: 46 New
        +1
        You are mistaken, glory is only in two, and not for long.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 3 August 2013 14: 15 New
    0
    Over 20 years of combat employment of their missile defense systems, staffers undoubtedly have accumulated real experience that other countries do not have without serious air defense. And for a clash with a serious more or less air defense (for example, at least Syrian), new tactical and technical "tricks" may have been saved
  • dvvv
    dvvv 4 August 2013 09: 55 New
    0
    Quote: Midshipman
    The best defense weapon is an attack weapon. The emphasis should be not so much on protection against missiles as on the means of preventive destruction of the carriers of these missiles, namely, medium-range missiles, preferably hypersonic. Then it simply won’t occur to anyone to even concentrate the tomahawks on the firing distance at our targets, respectively. and air defense systems are not needed.

    - I would like to supplement this idea. It is important that the adversary who is preparing the use of the Kyrgyz Republic knows for sure that he will receive in response a sufficiently strong blow to his territory and to his civilian targets. In all these local wars, the US attacker was in guaranteed security and did not risk either their economic facilities or the living conditions of their people. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to fight with the Kyrgyz Republic, although even 30% of missiles that have achieved their goals will cause such damage to the economy and discomfort of the civilized population that they will not want to fight further. Therefore, it is precisely the weapon of retaliation that will stop the very fact of using the KR
  • dvvv
    dvvv 4 August 2013 20: 19 New
    0
    The Kyrgyz Republic makes it very easy to cause irreparable damage to a developed economy and reduce it to the Middle Ages. With multimillion-strong and highly urbanized cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg and even small cities with multi-story buildings, the loss of power supply, which must be restored for many months and years is unacceptable and will make any government think. Enough for 1-2 KR for any electrical substation, and especially the junction, how the electric networks will be lost and a humanitarian catastrophe will happen. Imagine life in a city on the 9th floor when there is no electricity for six months ... restoration of circuit breakers and transformers is an extremely long and costly operation. Moreover, several global concerns produce these products often on different continents. For example, the French Areva has factories in the USA, France, Germany and they do not duplicate each other. In artisanal conditions, such devices cannot be repaired ... Americans are well aware that even 100 Kyrgyz citizens who flew to their substations could create a gigantic humanitarian and economic catastrophe and therefore will never fight with those who can give a similar answer on their territory
  • leon1204id
    leon1204id 11 August 2014 20: 09 New
    0
    And who writes this? I especially liked the proposal to use the MIG 31 to combat the mass of the KR. A fighter with a ceiling of 21000 m will catch fleas at an altitude of 50-150 m. So it pops up ... "strengthen .. deepen" with wrong accents. With our the terrain we’ll cry. And what is the assumption of hours and tens of minutes for the flight mission of the Kyrgyz Republic. To transfer gigabytes enough seconds. And about PAK FA. FA is FRONT AVIATION. Read the discussion in the State Duma on the issue of resuming the production of MIG 31. You can also dream while the Strategic Missile Forces plow.