Military Review

Ax of war. Five myths about the Tomahawk rocket

163



They will rain down from heaven like a rain of fire. Like a gust of "divine wind", sweeping enemy battalions from the face of the Earth. Winged suicide robots. They are braver than the most courageous kamikazes and ruthless than the most cruel SS umbrella teams.

Not a single muscle will tremble before the face of death. Machines are not afraid to kill and die. They are already dead from the beginning. And, if necessary, they will disappear without hesitation in a blinding flash when confronted with a target.

In the meantime ... the rocket rushes through the darkness of the night to the place of its death.
An hour ago, she left a cozy cell aboard a submarine and, having made her way through a layer of cold water, jumped to the surface. The booster flame boomed, raising the Tomahawk to 1000 feet. There, on the descending branch of the launch site, the engine air intake was advanced, short wings and tail fins opened: the combat robot rushed after the head of its victim. Now nothing will save the unfortunates whose photos are laid in the memory of the flying killer ...

Myth number XXUMX. "Tomahawk" is everything.

Nikita Sergeevich, are you still here ?!

Rocket euphoria does not leave minds and hearts: the impressive abilities of the “Ax” gave rise to confidence that the use of only cruise missiles alone can bring victory in any war.

Why risk expensive aircraft and the priceless life of a pilot? These endless training and advanced training of flight personnel. Airfields, fuel, ground support staff ...
Why such complications and unjustified risk, if you can drive a squadron of submarines and throw strikes of thousands of flying suicide robots? The range of the "Ax" in the "conventional" version - 1200 ... 1600 km - allows you to perform a task without entering the enemy's defeat zone. Simple, effective and safe.

Ax of war. Five myths about the Tomahawk rocket

12 launchers in the bow of a Los Angeles-type PLA

The mass of the missile warhead - 340 kg. There are a dozen different variants of warheads for various types of targets: cluster, armor-piercing, semi-armored, "normal" combat parts of high-explosive action ... Several attack algorithms: from horizontal flight, from a dive, with undermining during a horizontal flight over the target. All this allows you to perform almost any task on the territory of the enemy.

Eliminate the selected target, destroy any military or civilian infrastructure. Break the runway of the airfield, set fire to the hangar with military equipment, dump the radio tower, blow up a power station, punch a few meters of ground and concrete - and destroy the protected command post.

Continuously, work is underway to expand the tactical flexibility of the use of cruise missiles: the latest modification of the RGM / BGM-109E Tactical Tomahawk was equipped with satellite communication units and GPS navigation. The new rocket can patrol in the air, waiting for the right moment to attack. In addition, she received the ability to reprogram in flight and, depending on the situation, to attack one of the 15 pre-planned targets.


Attack with horizontal flight

The only thing that “Tomahawk” is still not able to do is to attack moving objects. *

* the ability to effectively defeat moving targets, including ships, was implemented in the modification "Tomahawk» Block IV Multi-Mode Mission (TMMM), recognized excessively expensive and never adopted by the US Navy

In addition, there was a modification of the BGM-109B Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missle (TASM) - the Tomahawk anti-ship variant with the active radar GPS from the Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Due to the lack of a worthy opponent, TASM was decommissioned about 10 years ago.


Intercept convoy with weapons (for example, S-300 air defense missile systems on the march) or delay the upcoming tank battalion? Modern cruise missiles are powerless on such tasks. Will have to call Aviation.
Front-line bombers, attack aircraft, attack helicopters, UAVs, in the end - these "birds" still have no equal over the battlefield. High tactical flexibility (up to the complete abolition of the mission and return to the base) and a wide range of ammunition make aviation indispensable in the fight against ground targets.

Nevertheless, the trend is evident: the experience of local wars over the past 20 years has demonstrated an 10-fold increase in the role of sea-based cruise missiles (SLCMs). Every year, "Tomahawks" acquire new skills and "get access" to perform more and more complex tasks.


The destroyer USS Barry (DDG-52) shelled Libya as part of Operation Dawn Odyssey (2011 year)

As practice has shown, the SLCM quite successfully “trample” the victim into the Stone Age, destroy the air defense system and disorganize the enemy army. Left in the first hours of the war without radar, air defense systems, airfields, power plants, fuel storage facilities, cell and radio towers, command posts and other strategic facilities, the enemy is unable to provide serious resistance. Now you can take it "cushy."

In such conditions, super-expensive and complicated stealth planes, etc., are no longer needed. Bomb bridges and retreating tank columns with unattainable heights? This task is easy to handle simple and cheap F-16.

Myth number XXUMX. "Tomahawk" is able to get into the window.

The accuracy of "Tomahawk" is the cause of heated debate. During Operation Storm in the Desert, wreckage of American missiles was found even in Iran - some of the Topors deviated from the course by several hundred kilometers! The result of a programmer's error or an accidental crash in the rocket on-board computer

But what are the real possibilities of "Tomahawks"? What is the calculated value of their circular probable deviation (CEP)?

Traditional methods of targeting "Tomahawks" include:

- INS for flights over terrain with a poorly pronounced radar contrast (for example, over the sea - the water is the same everywhere). Gyroscopes and accelerometers work until the rocket arrives in the first area of ​​correction over the enemy's coast, then the guidance is carried out in more high-tech ways.

- Terrain Contour Matching Relief System (TERCOM) - scans the underlying terrain and compares the data with the radar images stored in the rocket's memory.



The very principle of work of TERCOM serves as a reason for a lot of jokes: “While the Yankees will prepare the flight mission, our construction bat re-digs the whole relief”! But seriously speaking, TERCOM is one of the most reliable and effective methods for targeting SLCMs. "Tomahawk" focuses on the terrain in offline mode: it does not need constant guidance from the satellite or from a remote operator. This increases reliability and eliminates the risk of being deceived by enemy signals.

On the other hand, it imposes a number of restrictions - for example, TERCOM is ineffective when flying over deserts or snow-covered tundra. The terrain should include a maximum of contrasting objects (hills, roads and glades, railway embankments, settlements). The route is laid in such a way as to avoid open water spaces (lakes, estuaries of large rivers, etc.) on the way of the rocket - otherwise, this may lead to critical malfunctions in the rocket’s navigation system.



All this creates for the Yankees such a problem as the “predictability” of their missile attacks and, consequently, an increase in losses among the missiles launched. The enemy (if, of course, he has at least a drop of ingenuity) will quickly calculate the main directions of the threat - and set up air defense systems there.

- The third method of targeting. Optical-electronic system DSMAC in the final part of the trajectory of the rocket behaves like the legendary Terminator from the action movie James Cameron: it continuously scans the area with its electronic "eye", checking the image of the "victim" with a digital photograph embedded in its memory. The future is now!

- Finally, the last modification of the "Ax" was able to navigate according to GPS. This greatly simplifies the process of preparing to launch, because There is no need for complex maps for TERCOM work (routes and radar images of the terrain are prepared in advance, on the coast - in the training centers for flight missions on the territory of the naval base of Norfolk and Camp Smith).

In the case of working in GPS navigation mode, the crew of the ship can “drive in” the coordinates into the rocket’s memory without any specific description of the target — the rocket will do everything on its own, simply by exploding in the vicinity of the specified location. Accuracy decreases, but efficiency increases. SLCMs can now be used as a fire support tool and work on the emergency calls of marines.

In polygon conditions, in the presence of high-quality images of the “target”, the value of the circular deviation “Tomahawk” is indicated within 5 ... 15 meters. And this is with the launch range in 1000 and more kilometers! Impressive.

Myth number XXUMX. Tomahawk is easy to knock down.

Well, do it! Does not work?...

Security "Ax" is ensured by its secrecy. Extremely low altitude - just a few tens of meters - makes it invisible to ground-based radar. In this case, the radio horizon does not exceed 20-30 km, and considering the natural obstacles (hills, buildings, trees) - the detection of a low-flying rocket, which is cleverly hidden in the folds of the relief, is a very doubtful event.


Special operations boat based on the Ohio missile carrier. A total of 22 Tomahawk + 154 mines are placed in the 2 of the ship’s missile silos as sluice chambers for combat swimmers.




To find, take on escort and hit such a "difficult target" from the ground - this requires a large proportion of luck and, preferably, knowledge of the most likely routes of the Tomahawks approach. Accident, nothing more. There is no need to talk about any effective counteraction to the SLCM flocks.

Intercepting the "Ax" with the help of air tools is no less complicated - the small size and the EPR missiles make the "hunt for Tomahawks" an extremely difficult undertaking.

Tomahawk SLCM dimensions: length - 5,6 m, wingspan - 2,6 m.
For comparison - the size of the Su-27 fighter: length - 22 meters, wingspan - 14,7 meters.

"Ax" has a smooth, streamlined shape, without any radiopaque parts and hanging elements. The Yankees hint at using radio-absorbing coatings and materials transparent to radio waves in its design. Even without taking into account the elements of the stealth technology, the effective dispersion area of ​​the Tomahawk rocket does not exceed 1 sq. meters - too small to detect it from a distance. Finally, the search for a flying rocket is made against the background of the earth, which adds additional complexity to the work of fighter radars.

Official data on the MiG-31 interceptor confirm the following: from a height of 6000 meters, a target capture with an 1 ESR square. The meter flying at an altitude of 60 meters is produced at a distance of 20 km.
Given that only one SSGN on the Ohio platform is capable of releasing up to 154 SLCMs, the number of fighters required to repel the attack will exceed the capabilities of the Air Force of any of the countries against which the Yankees are going to fight.


The wreckage of the downed "Tomahawk" in the Belgrade Aviation Museum

In practice, the situation was as follows: during the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, the US Navy and the British Navy were fired at facilities in the territory of the FRY near 700 Tomahawks. Official Serbian sources cite numbers in 40 ... 45 shot down SLCM, NATO representatives do not agree and call even smaller numbers. In general, the situation is sad: the Serbian military hardly managed to shoot down 5% of the missiles fired at them.
It is noteworthy that one of the “Topors” was shot down by the Serbian MiG-21 - the pilot made eye contact with him, got close and shot the robot from an onboard gun.

Myth number XXUMX. "Tomahawks" are suitable only for the war with the Papuans.

The cost of the Tomahawk rocket, depending on its modification and the type of warhead, can reach 2 million dollars. To release 500 of such “stuff” means to ruin the US budget by 1 billion green banknotes.
Flight range 1200 ... 1600 km. Warhead 340 kg. Combined guidance system - relief TERCOM, DSMAC, satellite communications and navigation systems. Starting weight within one and a half tons. Carriers - destroyers and nuclear submarines.

No, gentlemen. Such a destructive and expensive weapon was not created to exterminate the unfortunate inhabitants of Papua New Guinea. Tomahawk should be used wisely; just scattering two millionth missiles across the desert is unheard of agility even for wealthy Yankees.


Launch of Tomahawk SLCM from the USS Mississippi nuclear cruiser (CGN-40), Operation Desert Storm, 1991 year. The rocket is launched from armored PU Mk.143 Armored Launch Box

It is not necessary to have seven genius in the forehead, that determine the purpose of cruise missiles - a deafening blow to the military and civil infrastructure of such an enemy who has some military potential: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia ... Against those who are able to snap back and resist.

In these cases, the Yankees take out their “insurance policy” from the sleeve - a flock of flying killers that will “clear” the corridors in the country's air defense system, disorganize the enemy army and allow NATO aircraft to seize dominance in the air. The Tomahawk cruise missile is not subject to any treaties and conventions on arms limitation - which means you can not be shy and launch Axes left and right without any remorse of conscience.

As for the usual basmachs with rifles - their Yankees are smeared from 105 mm howitzers installed in the openings of the sides of the ganships АС-130. Missiles "Tomahawk" and other high-tech there is no use.

Myth number XXUMX. "Tomahawks" pose a danger to Russia

Russia, along with India and China - one of the few countries who can not pay attention to the US Navy and their saber-rattling. "Tomahawk" - a purely tactical weapon for local wars. With Russia, such a thing will not work - the Russian General Staff will not understand American jokes, and the case may end in a terrible thermonuclear fight.

Even in theory, in the presence of a ratified agreement with the United States on the mutual abandonment of the use of nuclear weapons, sea cruise missiles are ineffective against purely continental Russia - all industrial centers, arsenals and strategic facilities are located a thousand kilometers from the coast, at the limit of Tomahavkov flight range.

As for the possible equipment of the Topors with thermonuclear warheads, this threat would make sense only in the absence of intercontinental ballistic missiles. In the event of a war with the use of the Trident-2, a belated strike with cruise missiles (the flying time of the Tomahawks will be calculated in many hours) will no longer matter.

Thrifty Yankees perfectly understood the futility of the “Ax” as a carrier of nuclear weapons, so they sent all their nuclear SLCM to scrapping 20 years ago.


The number of nuclear charges in service with the US Armed Forces. The thick line is strategic warheads for ICBMs. The thin line is “tactical” nuclear weapons, incl. "Tomahawks" with SBCH



Launch of "Tomahawk" from the bow of the USS Farragut destroyer (DDG-99)
Author:
163 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Katsin1
    Katsin1 29 October 2013 08: 58
    0
    And the Americans refused to sell us "tomahawks" :-(
    1. klimpopov
      klimpopov 29 October 2013 09: 01
      24
      And they did it right. :-)

      By the way, what are they doing? It seems that development is on the same level.
      1. rero
        rero 29 October 2013 12: 03
        +6
        they didn’t sell and didn’t have to, they did it themselves: they call torbo-popeye, the paliot range is 1600 km. it is based on a dolphin-type submarine. there are, of course, krilaty missiles of short range, different modifications of cr popai and dalila. range up to 300 km, gavariat ischo and 2 distance 600-700 km
      2. cherkas.oe
        cherkas.oe 29 October 2013 22: 26
        +9
        Quote: klimpopov
        By the way, what are they doing? It seems that development is on the same level.

        Well, it’s expensive to build the Kyrgyz Republic for our shekels, and if Uncle Sam is thrown into "tamahawks" under the pretext of the threat of a vigorous Iran, then this is a completely different gesheft, both in Feng Shui and kosher. laughing
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 29 October 2013 10: 32
      +4
      Quote: Katsin1
      And the Americans refused to sell us "tomahawks" :-(

      So what is the problem, do it yourself. It is doubtful that you cannot ...
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 29 October 2013 12: 36
        +6
        It is doubtful that you cannot ...

        And why do they need SLCM. Under them you need carriers to provide them. The Jews have excellent air forces who in the region carry out any task.
      2. Kyzmich
        Kyzmich April 14 2017 02: 25
        +1
        I heard a bike that in the 70s, our sailors in Cuba raped the "practical" purpose-built Tamagavk missile
        They just stole it during the US Navy exercises.
    3. Denis_469
      Denis_469 29 October 2013 11: 01
      +7
      Because Israel planned to install nuclear warheads on them. Therefore, it was decided not to sell them to Israel.
      1. In the reeds
        In the reeds 29 October 2013 20: 43
        0
        As on Chieftain, Abrams, Missile boats (Cherbourg). Nobody ever gave us the most modern weapons, unlike what is written by different paper marauks. The 5th generation fighters will not let us do it ourselves tomorrow. Therefore, the military industry did not develop thanks to ... but in spite of.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 29 October 2013 20: 57
          +5
          Therefore, the military industry did not develop thanks to ... but in spite of.

          It would be interesting how your military industry developed without US financial support.
          1. In the reeds
            In the reeds 29 October 2013 21: 50
            11
            When they (the Americans) realized that Lavi was better than the F-16, they stopped funding their finances. But we realized we need to finance our leading programs so that weapons don't go where they don't need them. UAVs (technology) they received from us - "Pioneer" for their fleet. And their military assistance has always strangled our VP. It was cheaper to take the M109 from them than our Sholef. They began to give us their best, so that we did not do something better. and at the tank competition in Turkey for the TKT, they openly asked us not to participate. We pay a heavy price for their funding. They even partially paid for "Kipat Barzel", not development-purchase to keep their finger on the pulse, and Hets-2 and three. There is only one consolation: today, they depend on our technologies more than we do on their money. Even the wings, not to mention anything else, for the F-35 will be made by us at their request
            1. Oberst_71
              Oberst_71 30 October 2013 08: 39
              0
              I do not even know. read about a lion cub, what is it better than F-16 or F-15
              1. In the reeds
                In the reeds 30 October 2013 14: 46
                +5
                The first lion cub rising into the sky had a smaller turning radius than the F-16 on horizontal maneuvers. With an engine with a thrust-weight ratio of 11 thousand tons. he would not be inferior to him even on vertical ones, since already then it was built from composite materials and was lighter. Well, its avionics is still relevant today. We put it on the F-16. Since then, they want to sell us the F-16I (according to our requirements and developments) but with their avionics. Eternal dispute ... We want our avionics. Although it’s as if it’s not for Uncle Sam’s money. And the cockpit there was magnificent, a survey of convenience, the pilots appreciated immediately.
            2. Vasyan1971
              Vasyan1971 4 November 2013 12: 28
              0
              An eternal desire - to eat a fish and not to choke on a bone. Yes, only life is such that whoever pays, he also orders music ...
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 1 November 2013 18: 05
          +1
          Quote: In the reeds
          We won’t give tomorrow the 5 generation fighters we will do it ourselves.

          Do you have experience in aircraft manufacturing? Yes, and 35 America will sell in packs to recoup costs
    4. washi
      washi 29 October 2013 12: 16
      +2
      Quote: Katsin1
      And the Americans refused to sell us "tomahawks" :-(

      Say thanks to them.
    5. Sasha 19871987
      Sasha 19871987 29 October 2013 13: 11
      +8
      Russia, along with India and China - one of the few countries who can not pay attention to the US Navy and their saber-rattling. "Tomahawk" - a purely tactical weapon for local wars. With Russia, such a thing will not work - the Russian General Staff will not understand American jokes, and the case may end in a terrible thermonuclear fight.

      the author is a comedian but said very correctly
    6. fedorovith
      fedorovith 29 October 2013 20: 30
      10
      I realized one thing, they need to be intercepted while they are in a basket, and 154 eggs, this is a cool scrambled egg.
    7. cherkas.oe
      cherkas.oe 29 October 2013 22: 23
      0
      Quote: Katsin1
      And the Americans refused to sell us "tomahawks

      Shaw, do you want to shoot at "hesbal"?
    8. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 30 October 2013 01: 04
      0
      Quote: Katsin1
      And the Americans refused to sell us "tomahawks" :-(


      right. only the axes were not given to you ...
      1. In the reeds
        In the reeds 30 October 2013 16: 06
        +2
        Nobody ever gave us anything for nothing. Even the Sinai that we left under an agreement with Egypt forced us to look for where to buy 6 million tons of oil that we produced there per year. And if about the tomahawks, this is not a strategic weapon, but an upscale tactical one. They didn’t give us ... They didn’t give us much. And they won’t give much. Intercept a convoy with weapons (for example, S-300 SAM systems on the march) or delay an advancing tank battalion? Modern cruise missiles are powerless on such tasks .... Our Delilah (Long) fly right into the windows, and moving targets on its side.
    9. Airman
      Airman 2 December 2013 19: 12
      +1
      Myth # 3 that a Tomahawk is easy to shoot down is not a myth. That's right, the TOR-M2 air defense system works great against the "tomahawks", and the author clearly embellishes its invulnerability. I do not know if the possibility of working on the "tomahawks" of the Shell was tested.
  2. Bongo
    Bongo 29 October 2013 09: 07
    22
    Google Earth satellite image, guess what?
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 29 October 2013 09: 47
      +3
      Quote: Bongo
      Google Earth satellite image, guess what?

      It's hard to say ... The wing is not like the Tomahawk, the scale indicates that the length of the object is 30 meters

      On the internet, there was a selection of interesting pictures from Google Maps - the place of the plane crash, "UFO", a fighter in the parking lot - google it, it's cool
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 29 October 2013 09: 58
        +7
        yes what 30! image height and altitude are indicated on the image itself. coordinates - polygon in pcs. Utah. maybe they’re testing a new rocket, or maybe Tomahawk hasn’t spread his wings yet - is the reset point shown?
        1. Magellan
          Magellan 29 October 2013 10: 27
          +1
          Altitude 2049 m
          Camera altitude - 2,28 km

          Which of these heights indicates the position of the camera that took this picture?
          And what is the selected position when viewing in Ghoul?

          The scale itself is indicated below - step 64 meters
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 29 October 2013 14: 53
            +3
            camera height 2280m, terrain height 2049m. above sea level - i.e. camera at an altitude of 231m above the ground
      2. Bongo
        Bongo 30 October 2013 06: 24
        +4
        Thank you, in my personal collection there are several thousand similar photos. I can share wink
      3. il grand casino
        il grand casino 1 November 2013 00: 41
        0
        Quote: Magellan
        fighter in the parking lot


        You won’t believe it, but I saw a fighter in the parking lot, instantly-21 with my own eyes ... at the consumer electronics store))) I almost fell out of the car. I stand at the traffic lights, I turn my head ... I see the 21st moment ... yellow ... in the parking lot. In Germany, it was)))
    2. Col.
      Col. 29 October 2013 13: 24
      +7
      Quote: Bongo
      guess what is it?


      With a 90% probability - "Harpoon".
      1. fedorovith
        fedorovith 29 October 2013 20: 36
        +1
        I looked at these pictures, it is above the forest, there are no landmarks nearby, someone accidentally got in and laid out. There are several objects, some are located right away. there are landmarks.
    3. turanchox
      turanchox 29 October 2013 18: 39
      +8
      this is a civilian airliner, dark console, double inversion track
      1. Santa Fe
        29 October 2013 19: 47
        +2
        Quote: Turanchox
        this is a civilian airliner, dark console, double inversion track

        Interesting version
        You "+" for attentiveness
        1. alex86
          alex86 29 October 2013 21: 00
          +3
          Quote: Turanchox
          double inversion trace

          I don’t agree, it’s just that at a close distance in the middle of the wake the gas temperature is still high, no condensation has occurred. If the track were visible longer, it would look uniform.
          1. Abracadabra
            Abracadabra 29 October 2013 22: 44
            +1
            And if you look very closely, you can see the wings and tail plumage. This is a plane.
  3. ammunition
    ammunition 29 October 2013 09: 08
    14
    Say what you like, and the Tomahawk is a very successful American "thing". And it is included in such a number of brands as - T-34, "Tiger", Il-2, AK 47, etc.
    ---------
    We have a similar rocket (or better), it would not hurt. Moreover, we would have kept in the cost of the rocket in 4-5 million rubles ... pennies.
    1. Bronis
      Bronis 29 October 2013 09: 23
      10
      There was a C-10 "Granat". Now, most likely, it is assumed from the "Caliber" family
    2. Russ69
      Russ69 29 October 2013 10: 38
      +2
      Quote: ammunition
      We have a similar rocket (or better), it would not hurt. Moreover, we would have kept in the cost of the rocket in 4-5 million rubles ... pennies.

      A missile like Tamagavku, of course, doesn’t hurt us ...
      But at a price of 4-5 million, it bent ..... smile
    3. Col.
      Col. 29 October 2013 11: 22
      +2
      Quote: ammunition
      Say what you like, but the Tomahawk is a very successful American "thing"


      Not only successful, but also one of the world's best weapons in terms of cost-effectiveness. And I don't really understand why the author named his opus that way. Not all five of his "myths" are. For example, the first one (by the way, there is a mistake, the launch range "along the coast" is not 1200-1600, but 2500 km!). Depending on the "intensity of the conflict" and other factors, "Tomahok" (as the missile is called in our official military "literature") are quite capable of "solving everything." Well, the author himself invented the 4th and 5th myths. In my 25 years of service in intelligence, I have not heard of such "formulations".
      1. Magellan
        Magellan 29 October 2013 11: 36
        +9
        Quote: Colonel
        and 2500 km!

        With a nuclear warhead W80. weighing 150 kg
    4. washi
      washi 29 October 2013 12: 20
      +7
      Quote: ammunition
      Say what you like, and the Tomahawk is a very successful American "thing". And it is included in such a number of brands as - T-34, "Tiger", Il-2, AK 47, etc.
      ---------
      We have a similar rocket (or better), it would not hurt. Moreover, we would have kept in the cost of the rocket in 4-5 million rubles ... pennies.

      Advertising, as well as tampax.
      Actually valid for the Papuans who do not have military air defense.
      Place old "shilki" along the border and not one "tomahawk" will fly. Just have time to feed ammunition.
    5. capellan29
      capellan29 29 October 2013 12: 22
      +2
      well, so far there are enough Iskanders, then.
      1. Sadikoff
        Sadikoff 29 October 2013 14: 33
        +5
        The Syrian issue collapsed after the so-called training launches of "hatchets. According to unofficial information, Russian efforts did not make it to the finish point. Russia does not advertise this, but the result is obvious.
        Do not beat iron with iron when there are electronics, programs, codes and agents.
  4. Nayhas
    Nayhas 29 October 2013 09: 08
    16
    Well, as if everything is correct. But in terms of detection, there is a system capable of doing this over a long distance. True, it was created in the USA, this is the JLENS balloon system. On balloons installed radar over-the-horizon target detection and radar fire control system. Huge advantages over AWACS aircraft in terms of operating time, airborne duty for 30-40 days, produces not only the detection of low-flying CRs, but also guidance on them with missile launchers and AS in fighter planes.
    1. bif
      bif 29 October 2013 11: 14
      +5
      Hazy technology. The Yankees threatened to launch hundreds of "balls" as a result of 2 pieces in trial operation. The main developers of this system (and suppliers) are from the Russian Federation, like the St. Petersburg company.
    2. leon-iv
      leon-iv 29 October 2013 12: 39
      +1
      From as soon as they do not go out so that ZGRLS does not (joke)
      We have a different principle for building defense. In the meantime, there are more questions than answers.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 29 October 2013 13: 24
        0
        Quote: leon-iv
        In the meantime, there are more questions than answers.

        And what kind of questions? Judging by the data on the tests conducted, the system works well. The only way I know they want her to work in missile defense, maybe there’s something wrong.
    3. sivuch
      sivuch 31 October 2013 12: 12
      +1
      Are you sure that there is an over-the-horizon radar there? What then are the 414L, Volna, Container and others?
  5. 31231
    31231 29 October 2013 09: 24
    +5
    I read it with pleasure. The analysis is not only technical, but also in real life. Thank you Oleg.
    1. bif
      bif 29 October 2013 11: 52
      +6
      Quote: 31231
      I read it with pleasure. The analysis is not only technical, but also in real life. Thank you Oleg.

      I agree. If you will, 1.wanted to find out why they compared the dimensions of the KR and Su-27?
      2. About the real facts ... you could give more examples of the use of the Kyrgyz Republic and the percentage of hit / missed and the total.
      3. The vulnerability of the Axes is quite high (ground-based air defense, aircraft, jamming of JPS, and other electronic effects), it seemed to me that you touched upon this topic rather fluently. I agree, there are few MiGs and they are not omnipotent, but you yourself specify -700 KR in Yugoslavia ... they simply crushed by quantity.
      4. I was glad that you indicated the DISADVANTAGES of Axes - the low power of the warhead - only 340 kg and the ability to "work" only on stationary targets with previously known coordinates, and of course the Price of $ 2 million per piece ... example export price of MiG-29 - $ 22-24 million, Su-27 - $ 30-35 million are aircraft, and the KR are disposable.
      5. The last and before the last myths contradict each other. Axes are used against weak opponents (their backwardness of the Armed Forces and modest capabilities in defense, and even more so in attack - at least nuclear weapons) "Papuans" talk about just such, and not really half-naked tribes from the jungle. Tomahawks are useless against equal opponents (Russia, China, India ...)
      6. For completeness and impartiality, it would be possible to draw data on similar Kyrgyz Republics from the Russian Federation and the EU.
      Thank you for attention.
      1. Magellan
        Magellan 29 October 2013 12: 14
        +3
        Quote: bif
        the price of the Mig-29 is $ 22-24 million, the Su-27 is $ 30-35 million

        Don't make my monitor laugh
        Who will sell a modern aircraft for such prices. The cost of the Su-30 is approaching $ 100 million. And this is completely normal, the same Reptor pulls 300 with a tail

        Pilot training, fuel - despite the fact that one hour of flight costs $ 20 thousand or more (depending on whether depreciation is included or not)

        In combat sorties, the strike group must be accompanied by electronic warfare aircraft, fighters, air tankers
        Plus the cost of the ammunition itself - the Payway guided bomb costs under $ 100.
        Quote: bif
        Axes use against weak opponents

        Does it make sense to use such weapons in conflicts like Grenada, in Afghanistan or during the 5-day war with South Ossetia?

        It seems to me that no. Too complicated and ruinous
        1. bif
          bif 29 October 2013 13: 35
          +2
          [b] The cost of Su-30 is approaching 100 million dollars. And this is completely normal, the same Raptor pulls on 300 with a tail
          I wrote about other fighter models cheaper .. about Su-30 there was no speech and still have the habit of putting links to the source of your data ... Next is an example of the cost of the Raptor ... in-1. More than 450mln $ (taking into account R&D), and in 2, you would immediately suggest to be equal to B-2 ... still, be closer to reality and criticize in essence.
          During the war, 080808 missile strikes were used by Russia, the targets were targets for pinpoint strikes. Minimal ... But still. The use of high-precision weapons must be justified ... the same Georgia in this case can be called "Papuan"!
          1. Magellan
            Magellan 29 October 2013 16: 13
            0
            Quote: bif
            I wrote about other cheaper fighter models .. about the Su-30

            What's the difference!
            Any aircraft from the Su-27mykh family costs about $ 100 million (today)
            Light MiG-29, with a primitive set of avionics, without any AFAR and cool PNK - 50 million minumum
            American SuperHornet - purchase price exceeds 80 million.
            French Rafale - under 100 million
            Quote: bif
            More than $ 450 million (including R&D)

            This is already an excess. Expenditures on R&D are always high - if they are added to the cost of the aforementioned Su-27 - the current price of such an aircraft will increase again by 1,5-2
            Quote: bif
            the same Georgia in this case can be called "Papuan"!

            I mean the same
            1. bif
              bif 29 October 2013 18: 23
              +1
              Do you know what constructive dialogue is? This is a valid argument, where are the links to your ridiculous thoughts?
              Here we read ... Data from Wiki
              "Sometimes they say about the F-22 that it is" worth its weight in gold "[44], which literally corresponded to the financial markets in February 2006 - the cost of 19,7 tons of pure gold (the weight of an empty F-22A) during this period was the same 350 million dollars [45].
              According to the General Administration of Control (GAO) of the United States, at the end of 2010, the full price of one F-22 aircraft (taking into account the cost of the development program) reached $ 411,7 million [48] [49]. "
              Further ... we read Su-27 at 35mln $ http://www.aviaport.ru/directory/aviation/su27/
              By analogy, it is not difficult to find the Export MiG-29 without "navarot" - up to $ 24 million
              1. Santa Fe
                29 October 2013 19: 38
                +3
                bif, you really are not in the subject and are utter nonsense

                Firstly, it makes sense to compare the prices of ONE period of time - The MiG-29 once, 30 years ago, costs 24 million. Now it costs twice as much, excluding modern electronics

                Secondly, prices are different - flyaway cost, marginal cost, procurement cost ...

                The price of an "empty" vehicle, the price taking into account the installation of a full complex of avionics, the price taking into account the supplementary cost (life cycle), the price taking into account the costs of creating an assembly line, the price taking into account all of the above + R&D

                It is this last price that scares the ignoramus when they say that the Raptor is worth $ 400 + million.

                A lot depends on the mass of the aircraft - with an increase in the number of units built, the cost of R&D and production is "scattered" on everyone and the final cost of the aircraft decreases.

                You claim that the MiG-29 is worth 24 million. laughing
                And you don’t want to calculate R&D (like the Raptor’s)?
                Life cycle? plant construction costs?

                Empty F-16



                and the F-16 in "full body kit". under the belly, containers with Low-Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infrared for Night equipment are visible - each adds $ 5 million to the cost of the aircraft.


                This is what the cost of an airplane is stuffed from. For heavy Sukhoi cars, it has long reached 100 million dollars or more. It’s cheaper to create an aircraft of this level.

                Assembly line F-35
                1. bif
                  bif 30 October 2013 10: 49
                  0
                  Oh, forgive me for not accuracy, so lay out the prices for the corresponding aircraft models. Criticism is constructive only when offering a reasonable alternative. Perhaps I did not give the correct figures for years and taking into account R&D, but the essence remains the same ...
                  1. Santa Fe
                    30 October 2013 11: 51
                    0
                    Quote: bif
                    but the essence remains the same ...

                    What is the new MiG-29 today worth $ 24 million?
                    This is stupid and absurd
                    Quote: bif
                    lay out the prices for the corresponding aircraft models prices in accordance with all the rules !!!

                    On May 1, 2013, at the Indian Naval Aviation Air Base INS Hansa near Goa, a ceremony was held for the commissioning of the first squadron of MiG-29K carrier-based fighters, the 303rd Black Panthers Squadron (INAS 303 'Black Panthers'), into the service of the Indian naval aviation. The squadron has 12 MiG-29K (9-41) fighters and four MiG-29KUB (9-47) fighters received from Russia under a 2004 contract

                    India signed a contract with FSUE Rosoboronexport worth $ 740 million for the acquisition of 12 MiG-29K and four MiG-29KUB on January 20 2004 years as part of a package deal for the purchase of the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov. The first four aircraft under this contract were delivered in December 2009 - two MiG-29K (Indian numbers IN 801 and IN 802) and two MiG-29KUB (Indian numbers IN 671 and IN 672) - and were officially adopted by the Indian Navy on February 19, 2010 of the year.


                    Draw conclusions
                    1. bif
                      bif 30 October 2013 21: 57
                      0
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Draw conclusions

                      Good 740mln / 16 planes (for simplicity we will consider the instant-29k and the instant-29cube are the same) = 46,25mln $ for a new modern aircraft.
                      Even without saying that this price, more than likely, includes spare parts or after-sales service, it turns out as I said
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      Quote: bif
                      but the essence remains the same

                      It is senseless and incorrect to compare with the cost of Rapters - they are not exported, and the price for internal "use" is usually lower than the export price, they are not produced, etc. So let's compare with a similar aircraft for the most part flight characteristics - F-18F super hornet. " On 3 on May 2007, a contract was signed for the supply of Australia's 24 F / A-18F Super Hornet worth $ 2,9 billion."So, master the math yourself, we get $ 120,8 million apiece. This is stupid and absurd As the saying goes, feel the difference.
                      1. Santa Fe
                        31 October 2013 02: 20
                        0
                        Quote: bif
                        $ 46,25 million for a new modern aircraft.

                        no longer 24)))

                        And these are prices 10 years ago! Moreover, the MiG has neither a radar with an active phased array, nor a LANTIRN PNK, nor other high-tech.
                        Quote: bif
                        So compare with a similar aircraft for most LTX - F-18F super hornet.

                        F / A-18F performed at a different technological damage
                        These are aircraft of different generations.
                        Quote: bif
                        we get - $ 120,8 million apiece

                        Did you expect a different result?

                        The AN / APG-79 radar, new engines and measures to reduce the visibility of the Super Hornet could not appear for free. In addition, it is larger and 3 tons heavier than the MiG

                        Secondly, the Australian contract includes not only aircraft:
                        The initial package offered to the RAAF will include:

                        48 installed engines and six spares
                        APG-79 AESA radar in each plane
                        Link 16 connectivity with the AN / USQ-140 Multifunctional Informational Distribution System (MIDS)
                        LAU-127 guided missile launchers
                        AN / PVS-9 night vision goggles
                        12 Joint Mission Planning Systems (JMPS)
                        AN / ALE-55 fiber optic towed decoys


                        Full "stuffing" - "smart" missile pylons, night vision goggles, towed traps. Six spare engines. Equipment for ground command posts and dispatchers - 12 JMPS stations

                        SuperHornet, true amersky
      2. Abracadabra
        Abracadabra 29 October 2013 22: 56
        -1
        Quote: bif
        I was glad that you indicated the DISADVANTAGES of Axes - the low power of the warhead - only 340 kg and the ability to "work" only on stationary targets with previously known coordinates



        This is nonsense, or outdated data. In Iraq, used "Tomahawks" with GPS guidance. And those that did not hit the target hit the equipment that was produced in Russia. This thing, the size of a suitcase, is capable of completely shutting off the GPS signal at a radius of 5 km. They showed on German TV such a suitcase and its operation on the Autobahn bridge, as expected, the GPS signal disappeared within a 5 km radius. So the "Tomahawks" before the target lost their orientation and went over the target .., unfortunately, one such hit the market. There was a scandal related to the sale of such systems to Russia to Iraq, the Russian side pledged not to sell these things .. If there is no GPS signal, then the Tamagavka can be guided with the camera, the operator simply steers the missile to the target, or can change the target.
        1. bif
          bif 30 October 2013 10: 42
          0
          Quote: Abra Kadabra
          the operator simply steers the rocket to the target, or it can change the target like that.

          Sheer nonsense. Read again at least from the Wiki about Ax guidance systems. When jamming the GPS, the KR is not detected by the TERCOM system according to the data downloaded at the start ..
  6. Baron Wrangell
    Baron Wrangell 29 October 2013 09: 31
    0
    beautiful article!
    1. washi
      washi 29 October 2013 12: 28
      +2
      Quote: Baron Wrangell
      beautiful article!

      And what is beautiful?
      Junk advertiser?
      He would also advertise "Harpoon"
      Yes, there are many. But the quantity We have already seen during the Second World War. At both sides.
      And with regard to the quality of use, let the shareholders of NorilskNickel think. Maybe think about the role of the RF Armed Forces in preserving their finances
      1. Baron Wrangell
        Baron Wrangell 29 October 2013 15: 03
        +2
        Quote: Vasya
        And what’s beautiful? A junk shop advertisement?

        I'm not talking about a rocket! I'm talking about the article itself, it’s written well! easy to read!
        and a rocket is like a rocket!
    2. knn54
      knn54 29 October 2013 14: 50
      0
      Nikita Sergeyevich, are you still here ?!


      At one time, Khrushchev said: we will rivet rockets like a sausage! "Axes" are very technological in manufacture and, in fact, they are the first combat disposable drones.

      - As practice has shown, SLCMs quite successfully “trample down” a victim in the Stone Age,
      Missiles are optimal for conducting local operations with coastal, small states as the first, "disarming" strike on VIP targets. During the second war with Iraq, about 2/3 of the “Axes” were released within 2 hours. The main advantage of the Tomahawks is the safety and impunity of their use at a very high efficiency, this allows you to neglect these shortcomings. The United States has already spent about XNUMX thousand in wars. SLCM and ALCM with fairly good results.
      -Well, do it! Does not work?...
      During the exercises, the Osa complex, the oldest and most widespread in the Russian army. at the training ground, Kapustin Yar successfully shot down simulators of the tactical ATACMS missile (an analogue of the Russian Iskander) and the Tomahawk cruise missile (an analogue of the Russian X55 — it moves at the same speed and along the same trajectory).
      1. Abracadabra
        Abracadabra 29 October 2013 23: 03
        0
        Successfully waiting from where he will arrive sooner. That neither Libya nor Iraq, in the presence of more modern equipment than the oldest and widespread as "Wasp" could not shoot them down? I doubt that they are so easy to shoot down, especially if the whole flock is on the way.
  7. Avenger711
    Avenger711 29 October 2013 09: 34
    +4
    And yet there is a similar X-55. Only she should fly not where-to-thread to Syria, but to Fascistton.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 29 October 2013 10: 22
      +2
      Quote: Avenger711
      And yet there is a similar X-55. Only she should fly not where-to-thread to Syria, but to Fascistton.

      More nowhere?
  8. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 29 October 2013 09: 45
    11
    Quote: ammunition
    Say what you like, and the Tomahawk is a very successful American "thing". And it is included in such a number of brands as - T-34, "Tiger", Il-2, AK 47, etc.
    ---------
    We have a similar rocket (or better), it would not hurt. Moreover, we would have kept in the cost of the rocket in 4-5 million rubles ... pennies.

    Well, why, is there a Caliber up to 2000km, there is x-101 to 5000km, x555. There are questions about their number, but the possibilities are quite on the level.
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 29 October 2013 09: 59
      0
      In my opinion, "Caliber" turned out to be somehow too heavy and expensive. 2+ tons
      1. bif
        bif 29 October 2013 17: 25
        +1
        Quote: Magellan
        In my opinion, "Caliber" turned out to be somehow too heavy and expensive. 2+ tons

        Caliber is a system that includes several types of missiles.
      2. bif
        bif 29 October 2013 17: 25
        +1
        Quote: Magellan
        In my opinion, "Caliber" turned out to be somehow too heavy and expensive. 2+ tons

        Caliber is a system that includes several types of missiles.
        1. Santa Fe
          29 October 2013 19: 20
          0
          Quote: bif
          Caliber is a system that includes several types of missiles.

          Ax has no less

          1. anti-ship TASM
          2. nuclear BGM-109A
          3.Tactical unit2, unit3, unit4

          A dozen combat units for various purposes, several attack modes, a set of guidance systems for different versions of the rocket - optical, telemetry, GPS, RLGSN

          Options for land, air, ship and underwater
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 29 October 2013 20: 07
            +1
            1. anti-ship TASM
            2. nuclear BGM-109A

            And there was information that these options were withdrawn from service.
            1. Santa Fe
              29 October 2013 20: 34
              0
              Quote: Wedmak
              And there was information that these options were withdrawn from service.

              Ktozh is guilty that Tomahawk is 30 years older than Caliber
          2. bif
            bif 30 October 2013 22: 31
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Options for land, air, ship and underwater

            Yes, in theory. but of the 9 modifications of the 1-2 are in service, the rest are at best donors of spare parts or a pile of high-precision garbage for 1,5mln
            1. Santa Fe
              31 October 2013 02: 24
              0
              Quote: bif
              but out of 9 modifications 1-2 in service

              He is already over 30 years old.
              Various threats. Various modifications. For each of the time periods
    2. Russ69
      Russ69 29 October 2013 10: 42
      +7
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      Well, why, is there a Caliber up to 2000km, there is x-101 to 5000km, x555. There are questions about their number, but the possibilities are quite on the level.

      At the beginning of the year, it was still officially announced that the number of cruise missiles in Russia would be increased by 7 times. in the coming years. Moreover, words and deeds do not diverge yet. KB "Raduga" ordered engines for missiles, for a very decent amount (like 4 billion for 2 years.)
  9. Wedmak
    Wedmak 29 October 2013 09: 54
    19
    Myth number XXUMX. "Tomahawk" is everything.

    More precisely - a flock of axes is everything. As described in the article, 700 (!) Axes were fired on Yugoslavia, which did not have a generally strong air defense. And what did you achieve in the end? Only the destruction of infrastructure. The air defense itself and the troops suffered little.
    Myth number XXUMX. "Tomahawk" is able to get into the window.

    In a landfill, it’s easy. In conditions of normal air defense and the use of electronic warfare, it is far from a fact.
    Myth number XXUMX. Tomahawk is easy to knock down.

    Shoot down is easy. It’s hard to detect. Nevertheless, single missiles go off with a bang. The flock is again the problem.
    Myth number XXUMX. "Tomahawks" are suitable only for the war with the Papuans.

    Yes exactly. Only by "Papuans" is meant an adversary that has several times less combat capability than the United States. The United States has never faced an equal adversary.
    Myth number XXUMX. "Tomahawks" pose a danger to Russia

    Axes are dangerous only in flocks. Then the erupted part can cause irreparable damage to bases, ships and submarines at bases, airfields, etc.
    But it is worth agreeing that after that a retaliatory strike will be dealt. And behind it is a nuclear conflict. There will not be a long time to figure out the situation.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 29 October 2013 10: 24
      +2
      Quote: Wedmak
      As described in the article, 700 (!) Axes were issued to Yugoslavia, which did not have a generally strong air defense. And what did you achieve in the end? Only the destruction of infrastructure. The air defense itself and the troops suffered little.

      Actually, they achieved surrender, if the enemy surrendered, then what is the safety of his air defense?
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 29 October 2013 12: 39
        0
        Actually, they achieved surrender, if the enemy surrendered, then what is the safety of his air defense?

        And how did you achieve surrender? Stupidly bought the top command. Otherwise, even 700 axes would have started to no purpose.
        1. Denis_469
          Denis_469 29 October 2013 13: 03
          +1
          Well, there was a good sense. American propagandists have come off in full glorification of these rockets.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 29 October 2013 13: 16
            +3
            American propagandists are the most propaganda in the world. smile Nobody can beat them at all.
        2. Nayhas
          Nayhas 29 October 2013 13: 26
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          And how did you achieve surrender? Stupidly bought the top command. Otherwise, even 700 axes would have started to no purpose.

          In Yugoslavia bought the top? Which top exactly? Let's name them in detail.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 29 October 2013 13: 48
            +1
            Do you seriously believe that a bunch of NATO countries actually bombed and bombarded a small country for three months and after that something else remained from the country ??? Or believe that the brave US Marines, etc., stormed Belgrade? Yes, of course ... From afar, from above, hundreds of tons of ammunition were placed on the country, having managed to lose the secret F-117 and a bunch of drones!
            This went on for almost three months !!!! And suddenly the UN resolution is adopted, the war is over, NATO won ... Doesn’t it seem strange to you? Maybe they didn’t buy it, but they threatened ...
            1. Nayhas
              Nayhas 29 October 2013 22: 49
              0
              Quote: Wedmak
              Maybe they didn’t buy it, but they threatened ...

              Emotions prevent you from thinking.
              Thanks to the blows inflicted by the Tomahawk missiles and air strikes, the goal set for the Allied Force operation was achieved with minimal losses, the ground operation was not even required, Giulio Douai creaks with bones rather ...
        3. e3tozy
          e3tozy 29 October 2013 23: 08
          +1
          If you recall the story, then peacekeeper Viktor Stepanovich went to seek surrender. The army did not want to leave Kosovo. And the Western military, when Serbian columns of armored vehicles left Kosovo, were surprised: “But what did we bomb ?,” Initiative and preventiveness decide a lot. In the late 80s, the Iraqi Mirage put an Amerov cruiser into drift with one Exocet. I think Russia will not wait until a flock of axes begin to peck its territory.
        4. Abracadabra
          Abracadabra 29 October 2013 23: 09
          -3
          They bought it again ..., they bought everything, from the Japanese, Germans, to Iraqis and Yugoslavs .., only the Vietnamese could not be bought .., their Chinese and the USSR bought .. In fact, NATO aviation just morally battered the troops of Yugoslavia and Milosevic correctly did that he withdrew his troops from Bosnia, which prevented even more senseless victims. Moreover, he himself was guilty, how much he was warned to stop the disgrace and calm down the Bosnian Serbs, Mladic, Karačić, etc.
          1. bif
            bif 30 October 2013 23: 28
            0
            Quote: Abra Kadabra
            In fact, NATO aviation is just
            showed its helplessness and inefficiency - several hundred of the most modern aircraft, thousands of sorties, thousands of bombs and missiles in the 2,5 month only morally well battered the troops of Yugoslavia, countries with obsolete weapons, scanty aircraft, etc. Heroes EPT.
            Quote: Abra Kadabra
            Moreover, he himself was to blame
            it probably told you on CNN.
            1. Santa Fe
              31 October 2013 02: 27
              0
              Quote: bif
              could only morally well patted the troops of Yugoslavia

              laughing
              You did not bother to familiarize yourself with the list of losses of the Armed Forces of Yugoslavia?
              three long lists near the end of the comment thread
              Quote: bif
              several hundred of the most modern aircraft, thousands of sorties, thousands of bombs and missiles ... Heroes ep.

              What did you expect?
              So that they moved from the place of the mountain with such a meager number of strategic offensive arms?
    2. 0255
      0255 29 October 2013 11: 46
      +3
      More precisely - a flock of axes is everything. As described in the article, 700 (!) Axes were fired on Yugoslavia, which did not have a generally strong air defense. And what did you achieve in the end? Only the destruction of infrastructure. The air defense itself and the troops suffered little.

      Americans could specifically launch their axes only in residential areas (and at the same time at the chemical plant and the Chinese consulate, where the fragments of F-117 were transferred) and not to military facilities. They are generally fond of bombing cities since World War II, when they destroyed at least one Japanese city a day.
      The United States has not yet faced an equal adversary.

      their last worthy adversary is the Vietnamese, supported by the USSR.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 29 October 2013 12: 42
        +2
        their last worthy adversary is the Vietnamese, supported by the USSR.

        Well, let's just say axes didn’t fly across the Vietnamese (is it understandable, can you see the figs in the jungle?). And the Vietnamese still did not have tanks, armored personnel carriers, guns. Our planes were, but how many really Vietnamese flew on them is unknown. Our air defense was the same story. But partisan actions - yes. They drank a lot of blood from amers.
        1. 0255
          0255 29 October 2013 13: 02
          +1
          Well, let's just say axes didn’t fly across the Vietnamese (is it understandable, can you see the figs in the jungle?). And the Vietnamese still did not have tanks, armored personnel carriers, guns. Our planes were, but how many really Vietnamese flew on them is unknown. Our air defense was the same story. But partisan actions - yes. They drank a lot of blood from amers.

          I mean the last war, where the US lost the defeat. The Vietnamese also got a lot without axes - for example, the damage from bombing from the B-52 is, by some estimates, comparable to WMD. And still won, albeit with Soviet help.
          And where did you get that the Vietnamese did not have tanks? They had T-54, T-55, PT-76 and even the old T-34. I am wrong?
          1. Magellan
            Magellan 29 October 2013 13: 16
            0
            Quote: 0255
            I mean the last war, where the US lost the defeat. Vietnamese

            The Yankees are gone, realizing that they cannot keep the territory - the pro-Soviet sentiments in northern Vietnam are too strong

            But to say that they "lost" is at least incorrect - they had enough strength to wipe Vietnam off the face of the Earth (even without megaton nuclear weapons). However, the Vietnam War pursued other goals.
            1. bif
              bif 29 October 2013 15: 54
              +1
              There are many reasons for leaving, for sure, and no one will tell us the degree of their importance, we can only guess. The main thing is that the cost of monetary and human sacrifices for this war did not pay off, so the states are considered "losers". It is possible to erase, but by what sacrifices? But they just did not achieve their goals.
              1. Santa Fe
                29 October 2013 19: 12
                -4
                Quote: bif
                About erasing is possible, but what kind of victims?

                Much less than all previous efforts to control the territory in the war with the ubiquitous partisans of the Viet Cong, fed the USSR

                - destruction of ports in the North, where Soviet transports with weapons were unloaded. Campha, Haiphong, etc.
                - the use of chemicals (previously used "orange" to clear the jungle, just lemonade against the background of sarin and VX)
                - the use of tactical nuclear weapons

                There is nothing to argue about here - to win a military victory within a week would not be difficult for the Yankees. But the tasks of the war were different: it was required to preserve the mask of decency and not enter into direct confrontation with the USSR. Naturally, under the circumstances, the Yankees were doomed.
                1. bif
                  bif 30 October 2013 23: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  the tasks of the war were different: it was required to preserve the mask of decency and not enter into direct confrontation with the USSR. Naturally, under the circumstances, the Yankees were doomed.

                  Attempts to make excuses after the failure are the destiny of the weak, you won’t be able to - take it.
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  winning a military victory within a week would not be difficult for the Yankees
                  If they could, they won ... And so it looks like "waving fists after a fight."
                  1. Santa Fe
                    31 October 2013 02: 35
                    0
                    Quote: bif
                    Attempts to make excuses after failure are the destiny of wimps, if you can’t, take it.

                    If Lumumba had the mind, then there would have been no reason for Chombe to be))
                    (you probably know this story about Patrice Lumumba, his friends and the internecine war in Nigeria)

                    or a good Russian folk version: I would know where I fall - I laid straw
                    Quote: bif
                    If they could, they won ...

                    Do you even think about the meaning of what you read

                    100% victory in case of:
                    - destruction of ports in the North, where Soviet transports with weapons were unloaded. Campha, Haiphong, etc.
                    - the use of chemicals (previously used "orange" to clear the jungle, just lemonade against the background of sarin and VX)
                    - the use of tactical nuclear weapons


                    Yes, the first point would have been enough, but in any case, this is a direct confrontation with the USSR. Vietnam, supported by the USSR - the immortal three-headed dragon. While you chop the third head - the first regrowth
            2. e3tozy
              e3tozy 29 October 2013 23: 49
              +2
              I do not agree with you, it was lost by all criteria. The losses in aviation are monstrous; on the fronts, the initiative is entirely with the Vietnamese. Without this base, they needed to be maintained all over the world, and here for the first time after the Second World War they simply began to lack aviation. Yes, and the footage of the chronicle, where the Vietnamese drop their helicopters from the roofs of houses. How Americans in a hurry drop planes from aircraft carriers into the water to receive helicopters with the remains of the military speak for themselves. The retreat was very hasty, the Vietnamese literally stepped on their heels. And their depressive after that was so tough that I had to come up with Rambo. And how many photos of captured and missing pilots. It was just a defeat. Forgetting your victories is no less dangerous than hatred.
              1. Santa Fe
                30 October 2013 00: 20
                0
                Quote: e3tozy
                The losses in aviation are monstrous; on the fronts, the initiative is entirely with the Vietnamese.

                Do you at least think a little about the meaning of what you read?


                To win a military victory within a week would not be difficult for the Yankees. But the tasks of the war were different: it was required to preserve the mask of decency and not enter into direct confrontation with the USSR
          2. Wedmak
            Wedmak 29 October 2013 13: 18
            0
            damage from bombing with the B-52 is, by some estimates, comparable to WMD

            And much more came from the use of bacteriological weapons, oranges, etc.
            And where did you get that the Vietnamese did not have tanks? They had T-54, T-55, PT-76 and even the old T-34. I am wrong?

            Honestly, how many have not watched films on this topic, I do not remember the use of tanks against the Americans. Maybe something and forgot.
            1. Santa Fe
              29 October 2013 20: 45
              +1
              Quote: Wedmak
              I do not remember the use of tanks against the Americans. Maybe something and forgot.


              "... So, in the area of ​​landing zone" 32 "destroyed six T-54 and sixteen PT-76 without losses in heavy equipment, the landing site was abandoned on February 16; in the battles for Alu, 30 T-54 and PT-76 were destroyed, nine М113, the city was abandoned on February 19. "

              “therefore, the fire strike on March 29, 1972 on the positions of the South Vietnamese and the subsequent attacks by infantry and tanks were sudden. In retrospect, the CIA considered that up to 700 tanks took part in the offensive, mainly T-54s. The main blow fell on recently Formed by the 3rd Infantry Division of the South Vietnamese Army, the division was crushed and, having lost almost all of its heavy weapons, was thrown back to the city of Quang Tri. . "

              Sounds like the Afghan mujahideen ragamuffins who were "heavily sponsored" by the CIA? wink

              M48
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 29 October 2013 21: 00
                0
                Ah, well, I see why I didn’t pay attention to the tanks. The Vietnamese tanks were simply defeated, they did not play a significant role in the war.
                1. Santa Fe
                  29 October 2013 21: 12
                  0
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  The Vietnamese tanks were simply defeated, they did not play a significant role in the war.

                  Who was beaten? The text refers to 1972, after which the Yankees withdrew troops from Vietnam

                  There is a comment below - the tank enters the territory of the palace in Saigon, this is already 1975. BTT was one of the most important means of the Viet Cong
        2. Magellan
          Magellan 29 October 2013 13: 21
          +1
          Quote: Wedmak
          And the Vietnamese still did not have tanks, armored personnel carriers, guns.

          According to the Minister of Finance of the USSR, Alexei Kosygin, Soviet assistance to Vietnam amounted to 1,5 million rubles a day

          60 divisions and 7500 delivered missiles of the S-75 systems already say a lot
          powerful fighter aircraft with hundreds of reactinh cars
          armored vehicles

          and the Yankees could not do anything with this — to bomb the North Vietnamese ports where Soviet ships were unloaded — it would mean a direct confrontation with the USSR.

          the most famous photo, the end of the war
          1. 0255
            0255 29 October 2013 13: 50
            +4
            Once upon a time someone in the comments of VO wrote such a story.
            The withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam. Rides a Vietnamese tank, towards the American. A commander protrudes from an American tank and shouts to the Vietnamese:
            -Go away! (like let me drive through)
            In response, the Vietnamese sticks out and says:
            -Passel nah ***!
            Then he turns to another crew member and asks:
            -Samely, I said?

            so the Vietnamese still had tanks smile
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 29 October 2013 14: 03
              0
              -Passel nah ***!

              Ah, well, yes ... that explains a lot. smile
            2. Col.
              Col. 29 October 2013 14: 39
              +2
              Quote: 0255
              In response, the Vietnamese sticks out and says:
              -Passel nah ***!


              An old joke on the topic: Vietnamese pilot Lee Si Tse
              1. 0255
                0255 29 October 2013 15: 45
                0
                Quote: Colonel
                Quote: 0255
                In response, the Vietnamese sticks out and says:
                -Passel nah ***!


                An old joke on the topic: Vietnamese pilot Lee Si Tse

                But Soviet instructors taught the Vietnamese to fight. So such an episode could well have been.
          2. sivuch
            sivuch 31 October 2013 12: 22
            0
            S-75 was not delivered to Vietnam. Only SA-75
        3. Andrey57
          Andrey57 29 October 2013 17: 11
          0
          Well, of course, but Vietnam bought tanks exclusively in Papua New Guinea !!! For your information, Vietnam received tanks, armored personnel carriers, and mortar guns from the USSR, so you have a very strange idea about the equipment of the Vietnamese army in the war against mattresses. This information, if desired, is easy to find.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 29 October 2013 17: 13
            0
            Okay, okay ... I was wrong with the tanks ... were. Was their use massive, like SAM and aircraft?
            1. Santa Fe
              29 October 2013 21: 01
              0
              Quote: Wedmak
              Was their use massive, like SAM and aircraft?

              Yes
      2. e3tozy
        e3tozy 29 October 2013 23: 16
        0
        Here in this they have no equal. They do not shun anything, they will bring the country to a state of fainting with sanctions, and then the axes will move.
    3. old rocket man
      old rocket man 29 October 2013 11: 54
      +1
      Quote: Wedmak
      Axes are dangerous only in flocks. Then the erupted part can cause irreparable damage to bases, ships and submarines at bases, airfields, etc.
      But it is worth agreeing that after that a retaliatory strike will be dealt. And behind it is a nuclear conflict. There will not be a long time to figure out the situation.

      Thank you, this is a more realistic estimate than in the article. But the article is also a "plus", although the author greatly zantzal the range.
  10. zollstab
    zollstab 29 October 2013 10: 02
    +6
    Quote: Bongo
    Google Earth satellite image, guess what?

    I go for mushrooms in my Tavria lol
  11. Rinat 1
    Rinat 1 29 October 2013 10: 03
    0
    A good thing. Only the Americans themselves, what does he think of them?
    1. 0255
      0255 29 October 2013 11: 58
      +3
      Quote: Rinat 1
      A good thing. Only the Americans themselves, what does he think of them?

      Americans think the Tomahawks are the super-duper-mega-weapons that Iraqis, Serbs and Libyans used to gain freedom and democracy. In their jingoistic computer games and films, they saw how "Tomahawks" sweep away hordes of alien invaders, all kinds of terrorists of the next Allah-Babah group and the Soviet / Russian army. They are brainwashed that Tomahawks are a good thing, they believe in this nonsense.
  12. Denis_469
    Denis_469 29 October 2013 11: 00
    +7
    The author clearly smoked something heavy and narcotic. Very selective nonsense. The author is completely unaware of Schwarzkopf’s order of February 1, 1991 on the complete prohibition of the launch of these cruise missiles in Iraq due to their complete inefficiency. 22 years have passed - and most of the authors still have not heard about the existence of an order caused by a small reason - by this time, 66% of the missiles launched by Iraqi air defense, and the rest did not hit the target.
    The myths about omnipotence of Tomahawk are especially clearly visible when you begin to disassemble each fought and fired submarine with the results of its shooting. These results are not much advertised in the West (and ours), because they show only the mythical essence of these cruise missiles.
    In order to defend against the Tomahawks, it is enough to have an air defense of the level of Iraqi air defense of the 1991 model.

    If anyone has a desire, then they can read about all the US Navy submarines that fought and used Tomahawks. Due to the large number of boats that fought, the results of the shooting, in which many boats participated, I tried to smear between all the boats that were shooting then.
    You can read all the military campaigns of American submarines starting with the first "SSN-724" here: http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-10-0-00000003-000-0-0
    There, you can read the links starting with "SSN-688", because boats up to moose were not used in battle, although they went on military campaigns with them.

    By the way, it was the ineffectiveness of the Tomahawks that caused the US to abandon its attack on Syria. And "SSN-724" is indicated because it officially completed the first, after World War II, military campaign, from which the military campaigns of World War III began to be counted in the United States. And the link lists all military campaigns made by American submarines starting from the very first.
    There are also descriptions of military campaigns of English submarines who fired Tomahawks. They can be found here:
    http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-10-0-00000002-000-0-0

    All information on military campaigns and shooting received from the United States. And the results are a joint assessment of the United States and the attacked country made after the end of the war.
  13. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 29 October 2013 11: 21
    +1
    Quote: Magellan
    In my opinion, "Caliber" turned out to be somehow too heavy and expensive. 2+ tons

    Well, the range is longer. For example, the x55-555 series missiles. The mass is from 1300 to 1500 kg and the range is from 2000 to 3200 km. The 3m14t caliber rocket (for hitting ground targets) has a mass of about 1920 kg, but it has a 450 kg warhead mass and a range of 1800 to 2500 km. Of course it is heavier than the Ax. A x55-555 is easier due to the upper stage because they are aviation.
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 29 October 2013 11: 40
      -3
      Quote: 1c-inform-city
      range from 1800 to 2500km

      Don't you think this is excessive for light tactical Raman weapons?

      KR - consumable, the cheaper the better
      90% of the world's population lives within 500 miles of the coast
      450 kg warheads

      Tomahawk Block II, too, 1000-fn. Warhead
      Starting with Block III, they changed the type of blisant and reduced the weight of explosives, the mass reserve went to increase the fuel supply - the launch range increased from 1200 to 1600 km
      1. washi
        washi 29 October 2013 12: 36
        +2
        [quote = Magellan] [quote = 1c-inform-city] range from 1800 to 2500km [/ quote]
        Don't you think this is excessive for light tactical Raman weapons?
        KR - consumable, the cheaper the better

        2500 is with a vigorous warhead. With USUAL equipment less.
        90% of the world's population lives within 500 miles of the coast
        This coast still needs to be approached.
  14. Taoist
    Taoist 29 October 2013 11: 42
    +4
    Well, at least "anti-helicopter mines" will be effective against this type of missile defense. Place them on the probable flight paths and that's it. The main protection of these low-altitude missile launchers will immediately turn against them.
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 29 October 2013 11: 48
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      "Anti-helicopter mines" will be effective. Fill them in the probable flight paths and that's it

      useless, rocket speed too high

      "anti-helicopter mines" toys themselves are not cheap
    2. Wedmak
      Wedmak 29 October 2013 12: 46
      0
      I agree with Magellan, the speed of the ax is higher than that of a helicopter, the cost of a mine is also not small. The effectiveness of these mines, by the way, is also not confirmed.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 30 October 2013 02: 24
        +1
        To protect the local military, industrial and other objects around them at some distance equip zones of complete exclusion, which are equipped with ordinary mortars. Crushed stone is poured into the mortars, which, when fired, creates a cloud in the path of the rocket to disable its aerodynamic rudders and guidance heads.
        Mortira is a large-diameter cannon with a short barrel. When fired with a powder charge, a gravel is thrown from the mortar to a height of 100 - 150 m. When a rocket collides with fragments of gravel, its aerodynamic rudders and homing heads are damaged. Result - the rocket loses altitude, falls and explodes within the territory adjacent to the attack object, without damaging the object.
        Mortar fire control can be carried out from a control bunker by commands of air defense surveillance and warning devices (from the radar) via an electric cable network. In principle, since cruise missiles fly at low altitude, which means they have subsonic speeds, microphones with amplifiers and filters tuned to frequencies characteristic of the noise of missiles can be removed and installed at a distance from the mortar. For example, you can install a narrow microphone with a vertical orientation, but with a wide horizontal sector. When flying a cruise missile above the microphone, a signal is automatically issued to undermine the mortar's charge.
        The thrown cloud of gravel contains about 200 thousand fragments of granular (3-5 cm3) gravel, which in space at a height of 100 - 150 m creates a fence zone with a width of about 600 m.
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 31 October 2013 18: 18
          0
          and recharge too by wire? or condition: unlimited gold-millions of mortars? :)
  15. washi
    washi 29 October 2013 12: 38
    +1
    Quote: Magellan
    Quote: Taoist
    "Anti-helicopter mines" will be effective. Fill them in the probable flight paths and that's it

    useless, rocket speed too high
    "anti-helicopter mines" toys themselves are not cheap

    Mines are always cheaper than the weapons against which they are used. The speed of the missiles is subsonic.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 29 October 2013 13: 04
      +1
      Mines are always cheaper than the weapons against which they are used. The speed of the missiles is subsonic.

      Only here the helicopter speed is unlikely for 300 km / h, and the ax to 800. Do you feel the difference? Dimensions also matter, because the strike core of an anti-helicopter mine can simply miss.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 29 October 2013 13: 35
        +5
        There is no such difference. De facto. During the Vietnam War, there was such a case ... our S-75 air defense system had a height limit - when the Americans cut it through, they began to strike from ultra-low heights - and the air defense system could not fire at them. But the bridge they were defending was located so that a low-altitude approach was possible only on a limited section of trajectories. It was then that our "military experts" came up with a method of dealing with this scourge. The missiles of the complex were simply laid on the ground on the trajectories of the approach to the target, having poured out a couple of trucks of rubble from above. With the threat of an air attack, power was supplied to the radio fuse. The plane flying at low altitude triggered the radio fuse and the detonation of the warhead lifted a cloud of rubble into the air into which the attacking pepelats flew in. The ax, although it is small and low-flying, is not a maneuvering target. Moreover, it has a very narrow "corridor" of flight.
        So this kind of mine can be very simple and quite cheap. at the level of a banal MONKA only directed not to the side but up. several thousand steel balls ejected by a charge of explosives are faster and cheaper than an "ax".
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 29 October 2013 13: 56
          0
          So this kind of mine can be very simple and quite cheap. at the level of a banal MONKA only directed not to the side but up. several thousand steel balls ejected by a charge of explosives are faster and cheaper than an "ax".

          Steel balls at a height of 20-30 meters will lose their speed. I doubt that from them it is possible to create at least any continuous field for defeating the tomahawk. Thousands of balls is a barrel weighing more than 100 kg. How will you put it? And if the ax passes 100 meters to the left or right?
          An anti-helicopter mine uses an impact core that has infernal speed and penetration. But unfortunately, it is very subtle. You need to be a super sniper in order to get into an ax with a diameter of 60 cm flying at a speed of 800 km / h.
        2. JIaIIoTb
          JIaIIoTb 29 October 2013 14: 26
          0
          Plus for savvy. They are an ax for 2 million green rubles, and we give them the latest air defense from improvised materials .... for free laughing
          1. Tektor
            Tektor 29 October 2013 23: 34
            0
            " Even without taking into account the elements of the stealth technology, the effective dispersion area of ​​the Tomahawk missile does not exceed 1 sq. Km. meter - too small to detect it from a long distance... "However, military thought is not asleep. This is what they tell us about export version of the radar "Casta-2E2": -The detection range of targets with EPR 0,3 m2, flying at a height of 60 m, (when working with an antenna on a light transportable mast 50 m high) = 44 km ...
            1. Santa Fe
              30 October 2013 00: 23
              0
              Quote: Tektor
              flying at a height of 60 m, (when working with an antenna on a light transported mast with a height of 50 m) = 44 km ...

              Discovered. So, what is next?
              1. Kars
                Kars 30 October 2013 00: 33
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Discovered.
              2. Kars
                Kars 30 October 2013 00: 33
                +1
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                So, what is next?
                1. Santa Fe
                  30 October 2013 01: 32
                  0
                  SAM needs to somehow aim at the target

                  By the way, what is a "50 m high tower"?
                  1. Alex 241
                    Alex 241 30 October 2013 01: 37
                    0
                    Oleg welcome this 9C36 - the Russian radar station for illuminating targets and guiding missiles 9K317 Buk-M2. And the height there is only 21 meters.
              3. sivuch
                sivuch 31 October 2013 11: 35
                0
                shot down. Because it is detection that is the main problem
        3. Mooh
          Mooh 31 October 2013 18: 22
          0
          Theoretically, a very good solution to deal with a single CR flying up from a given direction at a certain time. In practice, it is unrealistic financially and from the point of view of public safety.
  16. lotar
    lotar 29 October 2013 12: 54
    0
    The technology is developing, and everything goes to the point that sooner or later such types of weapons will appear that will be able to destroy moving targets as well. And everyone is well aware that other cruise missiles are being replaced by the same Tomahawks. It’s another matter that any weapon has its own weak link, and it’s worth destroying this link and it is advisable to use the simplest and cheapest option. For example, the same satellites can be destroyed in a fairly simple way, though for example this The person will cause losses in the composition and his satellite constellation. Launching a rocket into orbit and its further detonation with small metal balls (I think it will not seem to anyone). You can also use cyber diversion throughout the theater of operations, but you’ve prepared for similar ones before scenarios.
  17. Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 29 October 2013 12: 59
    +1
    Quote: Bongo
    Google Earth satellite image, guess what?

    It looks like a "Harpoon".
  18. Denis_469
    Denis_469 29 October 2013 13: 02
    0
    Quote: Kovrovsky
    Quote: Bongo
    Google Earth satellite image, guess what?

    It looks like a "Harpoon".

    Yes, this is Harpoon for hitting ground targets. In a variant in the sense of.
  19. 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 29 October 2013 13: 17
    0
    Quote: Magellan
    Quote: 1c-inform-city
    range from 1800 to 2500km

    Don't you think this is excessive for light tactical Raman weapons?

    KR - consumable, the cheaper the better
    90% of the world's population lives within 500 miles of the coast
    450 kg warheads

    Tomahawk Block II, too, 1000-fn. Warhead
    Starting with Block III, they changed the type of blisant and reduced the weight of explosives, the mass reserve went to increase the fuel supply - the launch range increased from 1200 to 1600 km

    If you think this is redundant, that is, the x-35 120km, x59mk2 300km x69 700km. Etc. Choose for every taste.
  20. SkyMaXX
    SkyMaXX 29 October 2013 14: 17
    +3
    The author showed Tomahawk from the best side. But Tomahawk has a rather big drawback - subsonic speed, which means it is quite possible to intercept such a missile. In any case, Shell-C1 could easily have shot him to fly over it in the affected area.
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 29 October 2013 22: 53
      +1
      Quote: SkyMaXX
      In any case, Shell-C1 could easily have shot him to fly over it in the affected area.

      Of course it can, subject to the implementation of many IF.
  21. Taoist
    Taoist 29 October 2013 14: 37
    +3
    Quote: Wedmak
    Steel balls at a height of 20-30 meters will lose their speed. I doubt that from them it is possible to create at least any continuous field for defeating the tomahawk.


    Well, you tell this to the designers of warheads of the same missiles ... All the more so because there is no need for high speed. An ax, unlike a helicopter, flies fast enough. Either the ball will crash into it or it will hit the ball (like an owl about a stump or stump about an owl) ... So accuracy is not needed here either ... something will fly by within the radius of the radio fuse and hello ... Well, the dimensions and the density of the layout here is also not even helicopter - it does not need much ... This is not Granite with its dimensions and armor. So there is no need for "barrels with balls" ... High-density fragmentation fields have long been learned to form.
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 29 October 2013 15: 06
      0
      Well, you tell the designers of warheads of the same missiles ...

      If I am not mistaken, in the missiles any pins or other damaging elements of a complex shape are used to increase the likelihood of damage. And undermining warhead occurs next to a target measuring at least 20 by 15 meters. If you want it or not, you will get it. But ... very often planes withstand this too.
      he doesn't need much

      I agree, a lot is not necessary. Suppose you are right, a can with nuts and explosives has been laid, we are waiting.
      But how are you going to be induced? If the ax is within the radius of defeat, let's say a cube of 50x50x50 meters. How much will it be in it? 800 km / h is approximately 220 m / s, i.e. He will fly 50 meters in 1/5 of a second. Enough of that to raise a fragmentation field of sufficient density into the sky?
      When the spinner flies, it has a characteristic sound and is heard far away. What about the ax?
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 29 October 2013 19: 24
        +1
        There are rod warheads, there are fragmentation ... cubes, balls - shrapnel is shorter. With 75 in general, the warhead was like a grenade - an explosive charge and a steel shirt ...
        I emphasize once again that a radio fuse is a simple and well-oiled thing. An object flew into the field blocked by the fuse, and the detonation ... Taking into account the fact that the speed of the shrapnel dispersed by the explosion is much higher than the speed of the "ax", then he has no escape. And there is no need for guidance here ... just a cloud of small shrapnel in the flight zone is enough to provide ... The height is from a gulkin's nose ... Let one mine block the strip of 50 meters (and this is not a problem at all) how many of them are needed to cover the perimeter ? In general, it is not so much ... And they will cost definitely less than one tomahawk ... All the same, a Tomahawk is for the Papuans. Or over the sea ... You can't throw too much mines there. But there are no stationary targets either.
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 29 October 2013 20: 10
          0
          I did not quite understand about the radio fuse. How does he define the goal?
          1. Was mammoth
            Was mammoth 29 October 2013 20: 39
            +2
            Quote: Wedmak
            I did not quite understand about the radio fuse. How does he define the goal?

            All ingenious is very simple. wink Roughly, this is an ordinary capacitor. It accumulates energy from the pulses reflected from the target returned to the antenna. As soon as the capacitor is charged, there is a discharge to undermine. The fuse itself, a kind of grenade with an electric blast. The warhead explodes, the fragments fly cone and cover the target. This is, so to speak, a simplified radio fuse circuit.
            I will add, traffic cops measuring the speed of a car apply the same principle.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 29 October 2013 21: 02
              0
              I will add, traffic cops measuring the speed of a car apply the same principle.

              The traffic police have a Doppler radar (a change in the frequency of pulses when reflected from a moving object), and you are talking about the accumulation of pulses.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 29 October 2013 21: 08
                +1
                If a textbook is very interesting for you ... I studied on it at one time ... There are also about fragments and about fuses ... and about many other interesting things ... http://scilib-avia.narod.ru/AWeapons /acn.htm
                1. Wedmak
                  Wedmak 29 October 2013 21: 17
                  0
                  Thank you, I read at your leisure.
              2. Was mammoth
                Was mammoth 29 October 2013 21: 23
                +1
                I tried to say as simple as possible about the radio fuse. Not everyone is familiar with Doppler. wink
  22. Volkhov
    Volkhov 29 October 2013 15: 00
    0
    Somewhere in a distant galaxy there is a magical country like the demo version of America in which they wanted to use rockets similar to the tomahawk, but they started having problems with the carriers (they drowned), and at a distance slightly greater than the flight range of a similar rocket. The process is so commonplace that it is possible to guess the area of ​​drowning of the next one simply on a map of any type.
    So the tomahawk is still for the Papuans, because America is not holding by a miracle, like a magic country, but by the dollar, and a dollar without a fleet, which will disappear when tomahawks are used, will not last.
    Tomahawk - an indicator of belonging to the Papuans - flew in, so the savage.
    1. Know-nothing
      Know-nothing 29 October 2013 15: 14
      +2
      Quote: Volkhov
      Tomahawk - an indicator of belonging to the Papuans - flew in, so the savage.

      Right. McDonald's, iPhones, 3D films, Ford and Coca-Cola factories, and the opportunity to invest in American bonds flies to non-Papuans.
      1. Volkhov
        Volkhov 29 October 2013 15: 34
        +2
        This is the demo version of America, but it’s not accepted to bomb your own.
        They are sent to fight for themselves.
  23. RPG_
    RPG_ 29 October 2013 15: 37
    0
    Here, many write that we (tomahawks) also need us. And who can thoroughly paint nakoy they to us?
    1. JIaIIoTb
      JIaIIoTb 29 October 2013 16: 43
      +1
      Here the Taliban will trample in Central (or, as it is now fashionable in Central) Asia, how will we ram them? Aviation is of course good, but so our "friends" will again give them a cloud of stingers.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 30 October 2013 00: 59
        0
        Quote: JIaIIoTb
        Here the Taliban will trample in Central (or, as it is now fashionable in Central) Asia, how will we ram them? Aviation is of course good, but so our "friends" will again give them a cloud of stingers.

        We’ll ramp with artillery, artillery is still the god of war, in spite of any new-fangled little things, and rockets and aircraft - from guns on sparrows.
  24. ramin_serg
    ramin_serg 29 October 2013 17: 11
    +2
    Don’t say that, but the tomahawk is the most massive and most used + dofig war veteran SHOWING and stota and cruise missile Respect
  25. voliador
    voliador 29 October 2013 19: 10
    0
    The ax, indeed, is a rather successful KR, and, moreover, I do not agree with the author. As a carrier of a nuclear warhead, it is very suitable for a second wave strike.
    1. Denis_469
      Denis_469 29 October 2013 19: 23
      +1
      BLL for Tomahawks have already been disposed of. They are no more. As there are no missiles and anti-ship and nuclear options. The missiles of both of these options were all converted to conventional cruise missiles, because conventional missed.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 29 October 2013 20: 11
        0
        because the usual lacked

        That's for sure ... they spent more than normal on Libya.
        1. Denis_469
          Denis_469 29 October 2013 20: 18
          +1
          Not to Libya. And to Iraq. All anti-ship and nuclear missiles were redone to attack Iraq in 2003.
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 29 October 2013 20: 30
            0
            Is it to Iraq? In my opinion, during the shelling of Libya, the British complained that their tomahawks on the submarine were ending, and the ships had already used all of their ships.
            1. Denis_469
              Denis_469 29 October 2013 20: 34
              0
              Yes, the alteration was under Iraq. As for Libya, the problem was different there. The boat that fired then was on an ordinary BS and had only 6 missiles. A boat loaded with missiles for the war was sent late. That's why there the British complained about the lack of missiles.
              1. Santa Fe
                29 October 2013 21: 06
                0
                Quote: Denis_469
                A boat loaded with missiles for the war was sent late. That's why there the British complained about the lack of missiles.

                The British have nothing to do with it.
                Everything was decided by amer USS Florida, releasing 93 Axes in the first night
                1. Denis_469
                  Denis_469 29 October 2013 21: 24
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  Everything was decided by amer USS Florida, releasing 93 Axes in the first night

                  On her first night, she fired a total of 80 rockets. And the results of her firing became the decision that the United States no longer planned to throw this rubbish down the drain.
      2. Know-nothing
        Know-nothing 29 October 2013 20: 13
        0
        Oh well. The Americans still keep the barrels of naval artillery in warehouses. And given the modularity of the Tomahawk, one should not say so categorically that the warheads that are irrelevant in the current conditions have been disposed of.
        1. Denis_469
          Denis_469 29 October 2013 20: 20
          +1
          So about the disposal of nuclear warheads Tomahawks back in 2005, the Americans themselves said. The reason was simple - to install nuclear warheads, you need to have a special modification of missiles adapted for installing nuclear warheads. They were all converted into ordinary ones and shot in 2003 in Iraq. After that, the missiles of the necessary modification were not left. Therefore, JBCH was not installed on anyone. This was the reason why the nuclear warhead for the nuclear version of the rocket was disposed of.
          1. Know-nothing
            Know-nothing 29 October 2013 20: 40
            0
            So that's great. And then everyone is talking about the American threat. And here we need to see who we rattles with nuclear weapons, and who eliminates it wink
            1. Santa Fe
              29 October 2013 21: 09
              0
              Quote: Dunno
              And here we need to see who we rattles with nuclear weapons, and who eliminates it

              If we remove the "rattling" of nuclear weapons, we will have no other "points of contact" with the United States. This is the only topic where we can still discuss something, demand something and prove something.
          2. Volkhov
            Volkhov 29 October 2013 20: 41
            0
            Quote: Denis_469
            So about the disposal of nuclear warheads Tomahawks back in 2005, the Americans themselves said.

            So this indicates a desire not to get into a war, at least in the beginning (for this there are Russians and Arabs) and an advertisement for peace, and not a real situation.
  26. Denis_469
    Denis_469 29 October 2013 20: 52
    +1
    Quote: Volkhov
    So this indicates a desire not to get into a war, at least in the beginning

    They already got into it in December 1990. Just at the very beginning.
    1. Volkhov
      Volkhov 29 October 2013 21: 13
      0
      This is not a war, but a personnel intrigue - Iraq was not an adversary and fought in the interests of the United States with Iran and did not have the protection of a system like Iran. They just fired for excessive independence as Luzhkov in Moscow. It is fighting the Russian Federation, mainly in the last six months.
      1. Denis_469
        Denis_469 29 October 2013 21: 27
        +1
        Quote: Volkhov
        This is not a war

        The Americans still do not know about this. Perhaps they will be interested to know about it.
        1. Volkhov
          Volkhov 29 October 2013 22: 06
          0
          They have known since the time of Forrestal - he himself took such news hard.
  27. Santa Fe
    29 October 2013 20: 54
    0
    Quote: Denis_469
    The author is completely unaware of Schwarzkopf’s order of February 1, 1991 on the complete prohibition of the launch of these cruise missiles in Iraq due to their complete inefficiency.

    The fact that Saddam Hussein won the war, we know about it

    But do we know about this:
    Quote: Wedmak
    As described in the article, 700 (!) Axes were issued to Yugoslavia, which did not have a generally strong air defense. And what did you achieve in the end? Only the destruction of infrastructure. The air defense itself and the troops suffered little.

    Air defense and troops suffered little laughing


    According to the official assessment of the Yugoslav Air Force’s own losses of September 1999, “irretrievable” losses amounted to 156 aircraft (7 of them in the air) and another 20 can be repaired - a total of 176.

    The commander of the Air Force and Air Defense General Smilaynich indicates the following numbers: 127 aircraft were destroyed, 119 of them on the ground and 8 in the air, 50 aircraft (1 in the air) damaged - 177 out of 50 damaged aircraft after repair were returned to service 17 ( 15 aircraft and 2 helicopters), so that irretrievable losses amounted to 151 aircraft or 41,09%.

    ...to be continued
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 29 October 2013 21: 10
      0
      Air defense and troops suffered little

      Stop, stop ... actually I meant the losses from the tomahawks. Most of these aircraft were destroyed by manned aircraft and their weapons.
      1. Santa Fe
        29 October 2013 21: 15
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        Most of these aircraft were destroyed by manned aircraft and their weapons.

        And the axes just flew by
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 29 October 2013 21: 31
          +1
          Well, I don’t know, maybe by ... Somehow 700 axes and a couple of hundreds of destroyed targets do not fit. This is excluding the departure of aviation.
          1. Denis_469
            Denis_469 29 October 2013 21: 33
            +2
            Quote: Wedmak
            Somehow 700 axes and a couple of hundreds of destroyed targets do not fit

            There were not 700 axes released, but only 550. Of these, only 450 US ships and boats were released. And after the war, only 156 missiles were hit by targets, of which 5 to 10% did not explode. Assuming that more hits were possible, but they were hidden by the Serbs, and their traces were eliminated.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 29 October 2013 21: 50
              +2
              Well, actually what I'm trying to prove. According to your figures from 550 axes, only 156 hits. To get a percentage of efficiency. Where did the rest go?
              1. Denis_469
                Denis_469 29 October 2013 21: 54
                +1
                Quote: Wedmak
                Where did the rest go?

                238 were shot down by air defense of Yugoslavia. The rest were disoriented by electronic warfare systems and flew off somewhere.
                1. Santa Fe
                  29 October 2013 23: 16
                  +1
                  Quote: Denis_469
                  238 were shot down by air defense of Yugoslavia

                  Wow! Why not 239?
  28. Santa Fe
    29 October 2013 20: 56
    +1
    Losses of air defense systems amounted to: P-15 radars (3 destroyed and 2 damaged), P-18 (1/1), P-12 (3/2), 1S91M2 (5/10) radar surveillance and guidance stations, UNV- cabins M (9/4), control cabins UNK-M (3/7), RKU-N (5/6), self-propelled launchers "Cube" (3/4), launching ramps "Neva" (1/0), PfP (1/1), UV-600 (0/1), command and fire control equipment: UPPTS (0/2), UKUV (1/0), RPV -16 (0/2) radars, OAR - 1 RL -128D -1 (0/4), missiles for the Neva complex (122/5), Cube (9/0), cars (33/7), the cabin of the Dvina complex (0/1), anti-aircraft guns L-70 (3/4), anti-aircraft guns 20/3 (6/0).

    The following anti-aircraft guns were destroyed in the Yugoslav Army: 16 20/1 mm, 17 20/3 mm, 4 BOV-3, 1 30/2 Prague, 1 ZSU - 57/2, 3 L-70 Bofors, damaged 6 guns 20/3 mm, 4 L-70 and 1 BOV-3.
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 31 October 2013 12: 56
      0
      Only all this figure -with a note "according to other data." So all questions to the author of the article Dmitry Neklyudov
  29. Santa Fe
    29 October 2013 20: 57
    0
    Of the original 17 Airborne Surveillance, Alert and Guidance (VOJIN) units, 9 companies and 8 platoons 14 (82,3%) were knocked out six of them were completely destroyed (4 companies and two platoons). 17 radars were destroyed, 15 of which out of 126 alert and guidance airborne brigades and two P-15 radars belonging to the 1st Army. Eight units (3 companies and 5 platoons) with 19 radars received various injuries

    Losses of radar equipment of the 126-th brigade of airborne warning and guidance (VOJIN) were distributed as follows:

    - 1-I company of the 20-th battalion - С-613 (reg.Number 024) - Pazova

    - 2-I company of the 20-th battalion - П-14 and PRV-11 (reg. Numbers 752115 and 112929) - Kacharevo

    - 3-I company of the 20-th battalion - AN / TPS-70 (1001) - Goliisk river

    - 4-I company of 20-th battalion a- AN / TPS-70 (1003) - Kitka

    - 1th platoon of the 20th battalion - AN / TPS-70 (A3B3) - Vladimirtsy

    - 1-I company of the 31-th battalion - S-1020, S-1017 (007 and 035) - Kopaonik

    - 2-brightness of the 31-th battalion - S-5016М, S-5016С (011 and 014) - Zlatibor

    - 3-I company of the 31-th battalion - S-613, S-1017 (023 and 027) - Pazova

    - 4th company of the 31th battalion S-5016М, S-5016Д (042 and 043) - Pasyacha

    - 1th platoon of the 31th battalion AN / TPS-63 (A4B2) - Mallen

    - 1th company of the 58th battalion S-5016Д, S-613, S-5013, S-1016, S-1017, П-15 (029, 003, 023, 009, М-4444, / 987640 /) - Crni RT

    - 1th platoon of the 58th battalion - S-5016М (006) - Mokra Gora

    - aviation technical support battalion - S-1016 (010) - Pazova

    - From the 1 Army - P-15 (M-3034) - Ulcinj

    - From the 1 Army - P-15 (K-1865) - Parachin



    As a result of NATO air strikes, 803 air-to-air missiles (17%), 4116 air-to-ground missiles (6,4%), 449 air bombs (2%), 107 pieces of aviation ammunition of various calibers (000%) were destroyed in warehouses. Most of the weapons were destroyed in a warehouse in Stanichy Forest, part of the Pristina 7nd air base.

    Out of 1406 objects, 958 (68%) were attacked, 527 (38%) were destroyed, 341 objects could be restored. Destroyed 100% of hangars and 74% of buildings. Runways, taxiways and parking lots were hit by 454 missiles and bombs.

    http://ruserbia.com/history/586-yugoslavskaya-vojna-1999-chast-i-poteri-yugoslav


    ii
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 29 October 2013 21: 12
      +2
      How many of these losses are tomahawks?
      1. Santa Fe
        29 October 2013 21: 48
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        How many of these losses are tomahawks?

        The list of losses was not limited to the above.

        factories, headquarters, barracks ... destroyed everything

        The ruins of the General Staff, today
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 29 October 2013 21: 58
          +1
          And it seems to me that the tomahawks have to do with the ruins of buildings, bridges, barracks, and even just residential buildings. All other targets were destroyed by bombs and missiles from aircraft.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 29 October 2013 23: 04
            0
            Quote: Wedmak
            And it seems to me that the tomahawks have to do with the ruins of buildings, bridges, barracks, and even just residential buildings. All other targets were destroyed by bombs and missiles from aircraft.

            Denis. The task of the Kyrgyz Republic Tomahawk in Yugoslavia, as before in Iraq, was not to race for tanks, but to destroy the centralized control system. Make the enemy defenses focal. What the Tomahawk successfully coped with. It is clear that not only the Tomahawks won the war, but their role was the main one.
            1. Wedmak
              Wedmak 30 October 2013 10: 22
              +1
              Let’s recall the article. The author claims that the tomahawk is an excellent weapon, capable of getting the enemy in a window from a range of 2500 km. In fact, it turns out that these are just stupid robots for destroying enemy infrastructure that does not have good air defense. Moreover, with a very small coefficient of utility / cost. Yes, with the help of them, personnel losses are reduced to zero. But this is again against a not very experienced and not very armed enemy. Humanitarian bombing is the real goal of the Tomahawks.
              1. Know-nothing
                Know-nothing 30 October 2013 10: 30
                -1
                Tell us how the Russian army would have fought against Yugoslavia?
              2. terehvlad
                terehvlad April 8 2017 15: 28
                0
                brave Americans have 200 meter vents, though
                https://youtu.be/QgqKtmLNli4?t=311
  30. akm8226
    akm8226 30 October 2013 00: 36
    +2
    Well, what can I tell you, comrade strategists? No one will chase the Tomahawks. There is a more important goal - the United States itself. And as soon as the start of one TOMahawk is discovered, much larger weapons will sprinkle on the heads of the Americans. It’s necessary to hit the head ... and not spray on robots.
    1. JIaIIoTb
      JIaIIoTb 30 October 2013 05: 49
      0
      Quote: akm8226
      It’s necessary to hit the head ... and not spray on robots.


      And it is desirable so that the control shot was no longer needed.
  31. sivuch
    sivuch 31 October 2013 11: 40
    0
    Successfully waiting from where he will arrive sooner. That neither Libya nor Iraq, in the presence of more modern equipment than the oldest and widespread as "Wasp" could not shoot them down? I doubt that they are so easy to shoot down, especially if the whole flock is on the way.
    ---------------------------
    Could you give a list of more modern equipment?
  32. sivuch
    sivuch 31 October 2013 13: 58
    0
    And here are other data on the loss of air defense of Yugoslavia
    http://www.e-reading.biz/chapter.php/1021548/48/Chuzhie_voyny.html
    The results of the Air Force and Air Defense of Yugoslavia
    But where did American radars come from in Serbia, for example AN / TPS-70, the question, of course, is interesting
    1. Santa Fe
      31 October 2013 19: 04
      +1
      Quote: sivuch
      where did the American radars come from in Serbia, for example AN / TPS-70

      Civil three-coordinate, is included in the complex of radio facilities of many airports around the world.
  33. sivuch
    sivuch 31 October 2013 20: 18
    0
    Okay, at least do not disgrace once again. A civilian with such a designation as the same. Is it really 3D.
    http://www.harpoondatabases.com/encyclopedia/Entry1922.aspx
    AN / TPS-70 Vigilant, AN / TPS-75, and AN / TPS-78
    There is also about Yugoslavia
  34. bublic82009
    bublic82009 2 November 2013 00: 38
    0
    where there is powerless tomahawk will work Predator unmanned.
  35. jacket spb
    jacket spb 5 November 2013 19: 09
    0
    I read it with pleasure. Thank you for the article.
  36. And Us Rat
    And Us Rat 12 November 2013 06: 19
    0
    Quote: Pilat2009
    Quote: In the reeds
    We won’t give tomorrow the 5 generation fighters we will do it ourselves.

    Do you have experience in aircraft manufacturing? Yes, and 35 America will sell in packs to recoup costs


    There is. AFAR have been using their production for 8 years already, helmets for the "glass cockpit" on ALL F-35s have begun to be produced, avionics are being made, aircraft engines are manufactured under license from French, British and American companies, wings for the F-35 are produced (that is, coatings, materials and other materiel know), weapons - rockets, bombs, etc. They produce their own software, other little things - from hydraulics to electronics - they also have their own, and in the end there is experience in assembling aircraft. So if you feel like it, an analogue of the F-35 is riveted, only better and cheaper (as was the case with Lavi against the F-16). The question of the expediency of financing.
  37. Cormorants
    Cormorants 12 November 2013 10: 53
    0
    Quote: rero
    they didn’t sell and didn’t have to, they did it themselves: they call torbo-popeye, the paliot range is 1600 km. it is based on a dolphin-type submarine. there are, of course, krilaty missiles of short range, different modifications of cr popai and dalila. range up to 300 km, gavariat ischo and 2 distance 600-700 km

    Learn Russian, nothing is clear!
  38. Cormorants
    Cormorants 12 November 2013 10: 53
    0
    Quote: rero
    they didn’t sell and didn’t have to, they did it themselves: they call torbo-popeye, the paliot range is 1600 km. it is based on a dolphin-type submarine. there are, of course, krilaty missiles of short range, different modifications of cr popai and dalila. range up to 300 km, gavariat ischo and 2 distance 600-700 km

    Learn Russian, nothing is clear!
  39. Dr. Sorge
    Dr. Sorge April 7 2017 22: 07
    +1
    As they looked into the water, 4 years passed and the article is so relevant ....
    1. Grigory_78
      Grigory_78 April 8 2017 08: 16
      +1
      How to say ... Block IV was finished during this time. It turned out to be not so expensive with other characteristics. Tomahawks, as far as I know, not only did not know how and do not know how to barrage - they are not going to teach them either. No meaning. The only mention I met about this ability of Ax is in this article. Moreover, there is a well-founded opinion that “Tomahawks get off without problems with any modern air defense” - they are not too low-altitude and inconspicuous, and the speed is far from supersonic. The MiG-31 managed to be massively upgraded to the MiG-31BM, and the old MiG-31 detected the Tomahawks not for 20km, then the author lied so lied.

      The lies in the article are complete and in this sense the article is still relevant. Although in general terms - a very good overview.