Military Review

The company "Reyteon" put the US Navy 3000-th KR "Tomahawk" Blok.4

73
The company "Reyteon" put the US Navy 3000-th KR "Tomahawk" Blok.4

Command aviation The US Navy announced the delivery of the 3000th Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile (TACTOM) by Raytheon Missile Systems.


For reference: The US Navy 2000 missile received the 2010 of the year in February.

TACTOM, which has the designation "Tomahawk" Block 4, is a long-range cruise missile designed to attack ground targets.

KR "Tomahawk" is constantly being improved and remains one of the main weapons systems of the US Navy.

The maximum range of the KR flight "Tomahawk" Block 4 exceeds 1150 miles. The missile can be equipped with a nuclear, conventional unitary or cluster warheads. The launch of the KR can be carried out from the board of surface ships and submarines. From the moment of putting into service in combat operations, more than 2000 Tomahawk missiles were used.

The KR “Tomahawk” Block 4 is equipped with a two-way satellite data channel, which allows the operator to correct the route during the flight and redirect the missile to a new object, as well as receive data on the results of fire damage. This feature also allows the CD to patrol in the designated zone while waiting for the target to enter it.

Missile adopted by the main combat ships of the US Navy, as well as the US Navy and US submarines of the class "Los Angeles", "Virginia", "Ohio", "Estyut" and "Trafalgar".
Originator:
http://www.armstrade.org/
73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. DimYang
    DimYang 12 November 2013 14: 49 New
    +2
    Prepare for our "guests".
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 12 November 2013 18: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: dimyan
      Prepare for our "guests".

      Now it's our turn! soldier
    2. Lord of the Sith
      Lord of the Sith 12 November 2013 19: 19 New
      0
      how can it be 3000th, and in 2010 2000th, if already in 2004 4000 rockets were made?
      1. TRAFFIC
        TRAFFIC 12 November 2013 20: 24 New
        +2
        Meaning
        Block 4
      2. Professor
        Professor 12 November 2013 20: 50 New
        +3
        Last year, several hundred Tomahawks were used against Libya. The Tomahawk cruise missile was first introduced 29 years ago, and since then more than 6000 of these missiles have been produced. The U.S. Navy released over 2000 Tomahawks in combat and 500 in exercises and trials. Currently, the U.S. Navy has more than 3000 Tomahawks in its warships or in storage.

        Later 6000 Tomahawks
    3. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 13 November 2013 06: 03 New
      +1
      if you remember how in 1987 a German landed on a "sessna-172-skyhawk" on Red Square, it becomes not very funny ... the flight path was similar to that of the "ax", it looked like it was low, in relief ...
      1. Alexander Romanov
        Alexander Romanov 13 November 2013 06: 19 New
        0
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        .. the flight path was similar to that of the "ax", it looked like it was low, in relief ...

        Who told you such nonsense, they intercepted him from and to Moscow itself, there was simply no command to bring down or put him down.
        1. Andrey Yuryevich
          Andrey Yuryevich 13 November 2013 06: 29 New
          +1
          and for this "interception", about 300 officers flew from their posts, including MO Sokolov and the commander-in-chief of the air defense Koldunov .... so excuse me, Alexander, but I am tormented by "vague doubts"
  2. T-100
    T-100 12 November 2013 14: 50 New
    +4
    It is necessary in large numbers to build air defense, shell, s-400, s-500, upgrade the tunguska))))
    1. Onyx
      Onyx 12 November 2013 14: 57 New
      +7
      Quote: T-100
      It is necessary in large numbers to build air defense, shell, s-400, s-500, upgrade the tunguska))))

      EW forgot
      1. Sirs
        Sirs 12 November 2013 15: 42 New
        12
        We urgently need to pull ourselves together and work ...
      2. AVV
        AVV 12 November 2013 16: 35 New
        +1
        A Buk m2-e forget this system is also worthless !!!
      3. Nick
        Nick 12 November 2013 19: 50 New
        +1
        Quote: Onyx
        EW forgot

        Here! To their sophisticated Tomahawk (ax), our electronic scrap! ... our asymmetric answer, so to speak ..
    2. evgenii67
      evgenii67 12 November 2013 16: 02 New
      +2
      China needs to get rid of the dollar en masse (bring to the foreign market), thereby bring down the world currency $, and collapse the American economy with all the ensuing consequences (many economies will fly after the American one), so you need to create a reserve currency that will be convertible in any corner of the earth (maybe Chinese Yuan). There is such a program ArtMoney, which is used in computer games (strategies), with which you can have 999999999 ........ gold, ore .... and any other kindness, and so the Americans have long been using life "ArtMoney" it's time to stop it, play, or rather, you need to live by honest rules.
      1. predator.3
        predator.3 12 November 2013 17: 14 New
        +1
        Quote: evgenii67
        China needs to get rid of the dollar in droves (withdraw to the foreign market),


        Yes, China is buying gold and other precious metals all over the world!
      2. clidon
        clidon 12 November 2013 17: 34 New
        +1
        Well, to bring down the American economy, cause the global crisis, to collapse all the economies of the world, including its export-oriented one, and then sit down and think ... That's why we forgot. )
        The United States has offered the world the rules of the game, the world still uses them, and it cannot turn the table upside down. For little will not seem to anyone. Therefore, they endure until an alternative appears. And it should be more significant than "let's all go to the yuan" or "we are all buying gold."

        Well, on the topic - the news because of which for some reason everyone was excited, some kind of revelation is not. This year the United States has practically no more "Tomahawks", as well as their carriers - they have spent a lot of them on various local conflicts, and there is not so much money.
    3. Eugeniy_369
      Eugeniy_369 12 November 2013 17: 17 New
      +1
      Quote: T-100
      It is necessary in large numbers to build air defense, shell, s-400, s-500, upgrade the tunguska))))

      This, of course, is also necessary, but it will not solve the problems of massive application of CD. They will hit from all sides. I’m certainly not special, but I think it is necessary to do something proactive, not only to hope for nuclear weapons.
    4. clidon
      clidon 12 November 2013 17: 38 New
      +1
      To do this, you will need to massively change the budget or print massively money. )
    5. Army1
      Army1 12 November 2013 21: 31 New
      0
      Quote: T-100
      It is necessary in large numbers to build air defense, shell, s-400, s-500, upgrade the tunguska))))

      It is necessary to destroy the carriers and enjoy life on a mass scale in the event of a turmoil, and how much you can already say that in order to give a volley that is clearly insufficient for Russia and does not reach its main strategic objects, it is necessary to concentrate the group and score all the cells MK 41 leaving ships without air defense, which will doom them to death, and even with air defense, they have little chance.
  3. Migari
    Migari 12 November 2013 14: 58 New
    +2
    “Tomahawk” has become an extremely successful weapon, despite such serious shortcomings as low speed with a complete lack of defensive capabilities. The main advantage of the Tomahawks is the safety and impunity of their use at a very high efficiency, this allows us to neglect these shortcomings. And the states love to be sneaky.

    The United States has already spent more than 1,9 thousand SLCMs and ALCMs in wars with fairly good results. Although there were misses and missile losses for various reasons, most of them hit targets. And our S-ZOOPMU-1 is hit by a plane and a cruise missile within a radius of 150 kilometers. Even if they fly at an altitude of ten meters from the earth or water at a speed of 10 thousand miles per hour! And a ballistic missile is shot down within a radius of 40 kilometers ...
    1. Net
      Net 12 November 2013 15: 29 New
      +6
      They will "spam" any air defense with these missiles, one Ohio carries 154 SLCMs, the URO cruisers are somewhat smaller. Where one conditional Trident was previously expected, they will receive 7 tomahawks. Ours apparently also understand this, and are making retaliatory moves, I mean the S-350 with 12 anti-aircraft missiles per launcher.
      1. STALGRAD76
        STALGRAD76 12 November 2013 16: 14 New
        +1
        Let's not panic, the subsonic, not maneuvering, ax, will even knock down an arrow at short ranges with a command and control point, all the more so since their flight routes can be predicted, well, and even set up a regiment of the construction battalion to change the landscape on their way laughing
        1. Ivan Tarasov
          Ivan Tarasov 12 November 2013 17: 19 New
          0
          Why is there a construction battalion, there is a special station, it will "draw" an obstacle on the way of Tomahawk, he makes a "slide" and can be easily knocked down.
        2. clidon
          clidon 12 November 2013 17: 36 New
          +2
          These missiles may well go only on GPS signals. Therefore, landscape changes will not help. But for Russia, little has changed - just as the Americans had more than a thousand cruise missiles 10 years ago, now they are. As nuclear deterrence was a priority for us, so it remains to this day.
        3. eagle11
          eagle11 13 November 2013 13: 30 New
          +2
          Quote: STALGRAD76
          Let's not panic, the subsonic, not maneuvering, the ax, will even knock down an arrow at short ranges

          I understand that you shot down? I think no.
          So I had to participate, though we didn’t shoot the BGM-109, we shot down the older and overall X-55, but it didn’t hit anything, and that’s when flying 200-350 meters. In a group of PS, Buka and Wasp.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 12 November 2013 18: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: Migari
      And our S-ZOOPMU-1 is hit by a plane and a cruise missile within a radius of 150 kilometers. Even if they fly at an altitude of ten meters from the earth or water at a speed of 10 thousand miles per hour!

      What dream did you have in this? This even the creators have never claimed.
    3. Professor
      Professor 12 November 2013 19: 07 New
      +2
      Quote: Migari
      And our S-ZOOPMU-1 is hit by a plane and a cruise missile within a radius of 150 kilometers.

      Do not believe in fairy tales. This CR moves around the terrain, clinging to the surface. And even in an open field, the S-300 is not able to detect it beyond 150 km. Do you know why? They say that the earth is round. In other words, the radius of curvature of the home planet will not allow.

      Quote: Onyx
      EW forgot

      EW there is not very effective. On the final part of the trajectory, this killer scans the terrain and checks with his maps, and also uses optical pattern recognition.
      1. Saburov
        Saburov 12 November 2013 21: 01 New
        -3
        Well, in general, practice has shown that just to electronic warfare, or rather its proper use, the ax is extremely unstable, so the 1991 US ambassador to the USSR declared a note of protest that supposedly Soviet reconnaissance ships, constantly located near the launch point of the ax, were able to flood 14 pieces with interference. ours denied everything.
        1. clidon
          clidon 12 November 2013 21: 27 New
          +1
          Can I find out your source of information? Because in 1991 the USSR supported the coalition. And of course I didn’t bring down the "tomahawks" with any ships.
          1. Saburov
            Saburov 12 November 2013 23: 18 New
            -1
            Of course you can, in the archive of the Foreign Ministry, and also in the newspaper for the 1991 year, there was an article, although we only admitted that they were observational programs and there could be no talk about any effects of electronic warfare, and if the SUU program was signed with the Americans , this does not mean that they do not follow, do not spy, and do not try to gain access to our combat technologies.
            1. clidon
              clidon 13 November 2013 05: 18 New
              0
              Clear. In general, another bike on the topic.
        2. Professor
          Professor 12 November 2013 21: 54 New
          +1
          Quote: Saburov
          Well, in general, practice has shown that just to electronic warfare, or rather its proper use, the ax is extremely unstable, so the 1991 US ambassador to the USSR declared a note of protest that supposedly Soviet reconnaissance ships, constantly located near the launch point of the ax, were able to flood 14 pieces with interference. ours denied everything.

          Tales of it. Was this note posted on the Foreign Ministry website? wink
          Tamogavki 1991 were generally super autonomous and did not use GPS or satellite communications, but only
          - 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.

          http://topwar.ru/35142-topor-voyny-pyat-mifov-o-rakete-tomagavk.html
          1. Saburov
            Saburov 12 November 2013 23: 01 New
            0
            Are you out of your mind, first of all, who will post this information on the Foreign Ministry website? Yes, and in the 1991 year? Everything is on the shelf, as it should be. GPS NAVSTAR has long been learned to safely jam, thanks to Valentin Kashinov, and not only her, as well as the Gulfstream G500 Sema, IAI G-550, E 3 Sentry, are jammed with interference, do not mess, it’s just the difference in who uses it, the AGM bombs are also on this list, and much more is interesting, the more complicated the filling, the easier it is to influence it from the outside, according to Lomonosov’s law.
            1. Saburov
              Saburov 12 November 2013 23: 06 New
              -1
              And even more so, the Americans do not just fall axes, too unified and run-in machine, why would they then modify them? The phase-modulated signals used in GPS were still considered the height of noise immunity, but this is not so - here they were grossly miscalculated. The optimal interference for jamming the FM signals was simply the detuned carrier. You can't imagine a simpler electronic warfare device! If the signal from the satellites is lost, the Tomahawk computer loses orientation. In this case, a self-liquidation program is provided in the computer. And this means that Tomahawks are by no means flawless weapons, as the Americans assured the whole world. As well as the widely advertised American satellite navigation system GPS NAVSTAR, consisting of 24 satellites in orbit and compact receivers that fit in the palm of your hand. They show the location of the object in any coordinate system, as well as the speed and height of movement. And the higher the technology of the weapon, the easier it can be to suppress it. Western scientists have generally disaccustomed to thinking, the computer should think for them. "
              1. studentmati
                studentmati 12 November 2013 23: 14 New
                +1
                Quote: Saburov
                And the higher the weapon technology, the easier it is to suppress it


                I agree completely!
            2. Professor
              Professor 12 November 2013 23: 27 New
              0
              Quote: Saburov
              Are you out of your mind, first of all, who will post this information on the Foreign Ministry website?

              But did you know about her? wink

              Quote: Saburov
              GPS NAVSTAR has long been learned to safely jam

              Safely? EW troops lose GPS fight
              And what does it have to do with 19991? Then in Tomahawks it was not used.

              Quote: Saburov
              And even more so, the Americans simply don’t fall axes, too unified and run-in machine, why would they then modify them?

              They fall, fall. Here are even packs picked up a couple and copied.
              Pakistan has successfully tested the new Hatf-VII cruise missile

              Quote: Saburov
              If the signal from the satellites is lost, the Tomahawk computer loses orientation.

              It would be nice if you read about the navigation methods of the Kyrgyz Republic and then you might not be able to carry such nonsense.

              Quote: Saburov
              And the higher the weapon technology, the easier it is to suppress it.

              Verbatim shapkozidatelny statements. How will you "crush", say, laser gyroscopes in an inertial CD?
              1. Saburov
                Saburov 12 November 2013 23: 49 New
                -1
                According to your comments, you can say that you are apparently a far from a military man, firstly, well, which one will blow, that we have successfully drowned out using EW GPS, so that the United States immediately began to correct this error, and secondly, I repeat that it’s just that , the Tomahawk combat product does not fall, it is too suspicious, in the third and fourth, do you know what a mirror radio navigation impulse is or do you think that for autonomous navigation in axes you haven’t come up with ways to fight?
                1. Professor
                  Professor 13 November 2013 09: 45 New
                  0
                  Quote: Saburov
                  According to your comments, you can say that you are apparently a far from a military man, firstly, well, which one will blow, that we have successfully drowned out using EW GPS so that the United States immediately began to correct this error

                  ... and this is such a military trick in Izvestia, disinformation for adversary.
                  laughing

                  Quote: Saburov
                  secondly, I repeat once again that just like that, the Tomahawk combat product does not fall, too suspiciously

                  Share the failure statistics of these CRs. Well, let's say they have MTBF? Just not your feelings like "too suspicious", but numbers.

                  Too many assumptions in your comment and absolutely no information. I repeat my question: In the course about Tomahawk navigation methods and how is GPS linked to the Tomahawks of 1991? Can you enlighten me?
          2. Saburov
            Saburov 12 November 2013 23: 32 New
            0
            Apparently you have no data about the encrypted impulse, how interesting could operators get information about the defeat of the target? Or about the exact course of the rocket? Let's not get into polemics, because I don’t see the point in this, especially since your information is from the Internet, and mine, as they say first hand.
            1. Professor
              Professor 12 November 2013 23: 39 New
              0
              Quote: Saburov
              Apparently you have no data about the encrypted impulse, how interesting could operators get information about the defeat of the target? Or about the exact course of the rocket? Let's not get into polemics, because I don’t see the point in this, especially since your information is from the Internet, and mine, as they say first hand.

              First-hand? Did the Americans tell you? Judging by the fact that you are sure that in 1991, these CRs had a link to a satellite or GPS, then you urgently need to learn the materiel.

              how interesting could operators get information about hitting a target?
              As usual: Justifying Mass Confusion
              1. Saburov
                Saburov 12 November 2013 23: 52 New
                0
                An encrypted radio command connection, why the hell are there so many planes with radio-shackled harnesses?
                1. Professor
                  Professor 13 November 2013 09: 47 New
                  0
                  Quote: Saburov
                  An encrypted radio command connection, why the hell are there so many planes with radio-shackled harnesses?

                  Only on block 4 there was feedback with the Tomahawk, and indeed the connection. Prior to this, no signals were sent to him or from him. Show on the diagram or fragments of the Tomahawk antenna and continue our conversation.
                  1. Saburov
                    Saburov 13 November 2013 23: 41 New
                    0
                    Do you know what a bar altimeter and a radio altimeter are? Or do you think that they work flawlessly like a Swiss watch on a holiday? Feedback also appeared on the 3 block, although you probably don’t know about it, and an emergency radio channel (switch) is put on almost all missiles starting with tactical ones, otherwise there is a high chance of losing your pants due to an abnormal rattle flight and remember that all Axes in 1991 because of failures, emergency groups were taken away, or do you think that they were looking for them with metal detectors in the desert? Any questions?
                    1. Professor
                      Professor 14 November 2013 09: 16 New
                      0
                      Quote: Saburov
                      Do you know what a bar altimeter and a radio altimeter are?

                      It is known. Their accuracy is also known. And what do they have to do with the Tomahawk? Would you read about the TERCOM system? How does it work and how can it be drowned out and what does it measure height on Tomahawk? And you always answer a question with a question?

                      Quote: Saburov
                      Feedback appeared even on block 3, although you probably do not know about it

                      No feedback. Would you enlighten me enlightenment and a link which they threw off to the site or what?

                      Quote: Saburov
                      Any questions?

                      There is. What kind of GPS GPS did you fasten to them? And where is this communication antenna on TASM block 1? Any mention of her in the literature?
                      1. Saburov
                        Saburov 15 November 2013 00: 03 New
                        0
                        TERCOM, and now DSMAC, an old song about the invincibility of systems, as a doctor I’ll say that a couple of gas-inflated cylinders completely knock out the rocket’s reintegration along the way, even a couple of three bonfires laid out in rows to ... TERCOM, secondly you bring a magnet to the compass and see what happens with the arrow, so what the hell are you proving to me about their accuracy, with inertial means and correlation navigation receivers that are guided by the terrain, they’ve managed to cope back in the last century, thirdly, with the advent of optical For example, in television systems that recognize the target’s image, instruments for changing the optical image of targets by projecting other images in different frequency ranges have long and successfully worked, and in the fourth, to argue about armament, you need to be at least a developer or a doctor of technical sciences.
                      2. Professor
                        Professor 15 November 2013 13: 31 New
                        0
                        Quote: Saburov
                        TERCOM, and now DSMAC, an old song about the invincibility of systems, as a doctor I’ll say that a pair of gas-inflated cylinders completely knock out the rocket’s reintegration along the route, even a couple of three bonfires laid out in rows to ... TERCOM,

                        I asked without gag. About a couple of cylinders generally button accordion, I will remember and I will pin others. You also turned down about bonfires, they will not bewilder even DSMAC (Terminal Guidance Optical Correlator), not to mention TERCOM. You see, this is not a thermal imager, but a radar. You are going to suppress the radar with bonfires? wink
                        TERCOM generates position fixes by sampling terrain height using a radar altimeter, and then correlating the elevation profile against a digital elevation map in the missile guidance system's memory. DSMAC performs a correlation between a stored image and snapshot of the terrain beneath the missile to generate a position fix (General Dynamics).

                        Quote: Saburov
                        secondly, you bring a magnet to the compass and see what happens with the arrow, so what the hell do you prove to me about their accuracy,

                        What does the compass have to do with it? Are you going to create a magnetic field capable of disrupting the functionality of the inertial guidance system? Laser gyroscopes magnet? Hooray!!!!! wassat

                        Quote: Saburov
                        with inertial means and correlation navigation receivers, guided by the terrain, will cope learned in the last century

                        Evidence in the studio.

                        Quote: Saburov
                        third, with the advent of optical television systems that recognize the image of a target, devices for changing the optical image of targets by projecting other images in different frequency ranges have been working for a long time and successfully

                        Reinforce your fantasies with links to the materiel pliz.

                        Quote: Saburov
                        fourth, to argue about weapons, you need to be at least a developer or a doctor of technical sciences.

                        Well, as you can see, I am a "professor" (by the way, I wrote my dissertation in the field of electro-optics), but you seem to be poorly versed in technology and are using slogans more and more. So how does GPS refer to Tomahawks in 1991? The connection with the Tomahawk did not appear, as you say in block 3, but only in block 4 - Walleye is called. hi
                      3. Saburov
                        Saburov 15 November 2013 21: 55 New
                        0
                        A MAGNETIC FIELD
                        - This is a special type of matter through which the interaction between moving electrically charged particles.
                        PROPERTIES OF A (STATIONARY) MAGNETIC FIELD
                        A constant (or stationary) magnetic field is a magnetic field that does not change over time. 1. The magnetic field is created by moving charged particles and bodies, current conductors, and permanent magnets.
                        2. The magnetic field acts on moving charged particles and bodies, on conductors with current, on permanent magnets, on the frame with current.
                        3. The magnetic field is vortex, i.e. has no source.
                        MAGNETIC FORCES
                        - these are the forces with which conductors with current act on each other.
                        MAGNETIC INDUCTION
                        is the power characteristic of the magnetic field.
                        The magnetic induction vector is always directed in the same way as a freely rotating magnetic arrow is oriented in a magnetic field.
                        Unit of measurement of magnetic induction in the SI system:
                      4. Saburov
                        Saburov 15 November 2013 21: 56 New
                        -1
                        MAGNETIC INDUCTION LINES
                        - these are lines tangent to which at any point is the magnetic induction vector.
                        A uniform magnetic field is a magnetic field in which at any point the magnetic induction vector is unchanged in magnitude and direction; observed between the plates of a flat capacitor, inside a solenoid (if its diameter is much less than its length), or inside a strip magnet.
                        Magnetic field of a direct conductor with current:
                        or
                        where is the direction of the current in the conductor towards us perpendicular to the plane of the sheet,
                        - the direction of the current in the conductor from us perpendicular to the plane of the sheet.
                        Solenoid magnetic field:
                        Magnetic field of a strip magnet:
                        - similar to the magnetic field of the solenoid.
                        PROPERTIES OF MAGNETIC INDUCTION LINES
                        have a direction;
                        continuous
                        closed (i.e. the magnetic field is a vortex);
                        do not overlap;
                        by their density they judge the magnitude of the magnetic induction.
                        DIRECTION OF MAGNETIC INDUCTION LINES
                        - determined by the rule of the gimlet or by the rule of the right hand.
                        Rule of the gimlet (mainly for a direct conductor with current):
                        If the direction of translational movement of the gimlet coincides with the direction of the current in the conductor, then the direction of rotation of the gimlet handle coincides with the direction of the lines of the magnetic field of the current.
                        Right hand rule (mainly for determining the direction of magnetic lines
                        inside the solenoid):
                        If you grab the solenoid with the palm of your right hand so that four fingers are directed along the current in turns, then the set apart thumb will show the direction of the magnetic field lines inside the solenoid.
                        There are other possible ways to apply the gimlet and right hand rules.
                      5. Saburov
                        Saburov 15 November 2013 21: 57 New
                        0
                        AMP
                        is the force with which a magnetic field acts on a conductor with current.
                        The Ampere force modulus is equal to the product of the current strength in the conductor by the magnetic induction vector module, the length of the conductor and the sine of the angle between the magnetic induction vector and the direction of the current in the conductor.
                        Ampere force is maximum if the magnetic induction vector is perpendicular to the conductor.
                        If the magnetic induction vector is parallel to the conductor, then the magnetic field has no effect on the conductor with current, i.e. Ampere force is zero.
                        The direction of Ampere force is determined by the rule of the left hand:
                        If the left hand is positioned so that the component of the magnetic induction vector perpendicular to the conductor enters the palm of the hand, and 4 of the extended fingers are directed in the direction of the current, then the thumb bent at 90 degrees will show the direction of the force acting on the current conductor.
                        examples:
                        ACTION OF A MAGNETIC FIELD ON A FRAME WITH A CURRENT
                        A uniform magnetic field orientates the frame (i.e., a torque is created and the frame rotates to a position where the magnetic induction vector is perpendicular to the plane of the frame).
                        An inhomogeneous magnetic field orients + attracts or repels the frame with the current.
                        So, in a magnetic field of a direct conductor with current (it is heterogeneous), the frame with current is oriented along the radius of the magnetic line and is attracted or repelled from the direct conductor with current, depending on the direction of the currents.
                      6. Professor
                        Professor 15 November 2013 22: 05 New
                        -1
                        Bravo. I went to copy-paste from the wiki. Can you answer your own "postulates" in your own words?
                        So how does GPS refer to the Tomahawks in 1991? The connection with the Tomahawk did not appear, as you say in block 3, but only in block 4 - Walleye is called.
                      7. Saburov
                        Saburov 15 November 2013 22: 12 New
                        0
                        You will first learn a simple theory of magnetic fields, and then prove to me that directional magnetic fields do not act on inertial devices and correlation navigation receivers, then, a radio altimeter from the word Radio !!! And if there is a radio signal, then you can work on it and then go to work in some closed research institute, you will find out a lot of interesting things that you did not suspect of, or you think that in the USSR and the Russian Federation they only know how to knit bast shoes and inflatable tanks ? I myself personally ended up PTCA, back in 80x and I wonder at your naivety, discard links and stuff, who will merge SOV.SEK information to you? People don’t believe in anything as firmly as in what they least know about. ” No longer intends to discuss with you.
                      8. Professor
                        Professor 15 November 2013 22: 42 New
                        0
                        Quote: Saburov
                        You will first learn a simple theory of magnetic fields

                        I will definitely learn. I promise. As soon as you explain your opus
                        So how does GPS refer to the Tomahawks in 1991? The connection with the Tomahawk did not appear, as you say in block 3, but only in block 4 - Walleye is called.
                        Do not forget about the bonfires, do they also create a magnetic field? wink

                        Quote: Saburov
                        No longer intends to discuss with you.

                        Thank goodness one dreamer less. hi
                        For advice, teach the materiel.
  • Army1
    Army1 12 November 2013 21: 42 New
    0
    Quote: Professor
    They say that the earth is round

    They say!
    Quote: Professor
    Do not believe in fairy tales. This CR moves around the terrain, clinging to the surface. And even in an open field, the S-300 is not able to detect it beyond 150 km. Do you know why?

    You are right, that’s why there is a high-altitude detector. Yes, and the same 77Y6 Voronezh, still capable of detecting aerodynamic targets.
    1. Professor
      Professor 12 November 2013 21: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: Army1
      that’s why there is a high-altitude detector.

      Wow, another child prodigy. Does she see through the mountains? laughing

      Quote: Army1
      . Yes, and the same 77Y6 Voronezh, still capable of detecting aerodynamic targets.

      I'm still happy for her, but what place does she belong to the small, low-flying low-speed boat Tomahawk? Or does the S-300 have an over-the-horizon radar?
      1. Army1
        Army1 13 November 2013 17: 18 New
        0
        Quote: Professor
        Wow, another child prodigy. Does she see through the mountains?

        Most likely, it’s not through the mountains, if it is not disguised on this mountain, then the effect will be double.
        Quote: Professor
        I'm still happy for her, but what place does she belong to the small, low-flying low-speed boat Tomahawk? Or does the S-300 have an over-the-horizon radar?

        Well, she, in general, has the ability to detect Tomahawk, and transmit the coordinates.
        1. Professor
          Professor 13 November 2013 21: 00 New
          0
          Quote: Army1
          Most likely, it’s not through the mountains, if it is not disguised on this mountain, then the effect will be double.

          To disguise the actively emitting radar, and even on the mountain that would shine from afar? wink

          Quote: Army1
          Well, she, in general, has the ability to detect Tomahawk, and transmit the coordinates.

          I have to upset you, she cannot detect the Tomahawk and accordingly transmit its coordinates. Insidious is a rocket however.
  • eagle11
    eagle11 13 November 2013 13: 25 New
    0
    Quote: Migari
    And our S-ZOOPMU-1 is hit by a plane and a cruise missile within a radius of 150 kilometers. Even if they fly at an altitude of ten meters from the earth or water at a speed of 10 thousand miles per hour! And a ballistic missile is shot down within a radius of 40 kilometers ...

    Dear, to begin with, learn the subject, after which, write your "pearls"
    Firstly, the S-300PMU-1, the export version of the S-300PS, the distant border of the affected area is 75 km, with the target flying altitude of 5 meters.
    Secondly, the lower boundary of the targets hit 25 meters, when flying at 10, it will not even be detected.
    Thirdly, the maximum speed of the hit targets for the S-300PMU-1 is 1200 meters per second.
  • ZU-23
    ZU-23 12 November 2013 15: 24 New
    +4
    For me, Americans with weapons like a monkey with a grenade, and they have already proved this more than once, on the domestic and on the military level.
  • Ihrek
    Ihrek 12 November 2013 15: 32 New
    0
    There is no money for social affairs, but they find it, the true face of the hateful state.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 12 November 2013 16: 29 New
    +1
    And where do you take the regiment of the construction battalion? Taburetkin reduced the building authorities of the Ministry of Defense said they were hiring civilians, but civilian prices were crap for the hall for work in Plesetsk and so on. that Shoigu was hastily reinstated while the commander of the special building that what will happen next is not clear.
  • HAM
    HAM 12 November 2013 16: 32 New
    -2
    It is necessary to develop anti-GPS /
    1. Onyx
      Onyx 12 November 2013 16: 57 New
      +1
      Quote: HAM
      It is necessary to develop anti-GPS /

      The Americans are already worried about this. They want to create an alternative to GPS guidance.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 12 November 2013 16: 38 New
    +5
    In general, 3000 axes in a salvo I don’t know which air defense and strategic nuclear forces will stand. Some of our old Great Grandfathers said it is necessary to destroy the carriers. For this we need multipurpose nuclear submarines, A-50, MiG-31 aircraft, aircraft carriers, fighter aircraft, and all this in sufficient quantities. It seems to me the danger of underestimating it is great.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • saag
    saag 12 November 2013 17: 22 New
    0
    Quote: kapitan281271
    In general, 3000 axes in a salvo

    This is you from the heart :-)
  • dobrik10
    dobrik10 12 November 2013 17: 25 New
    0
    Actually, it may not be 3000, the Americans will not be "shot" in the first place.
    But as mentioned above, carriers must be destroyed.
  • cherkas.oe
    cherkas.oe 12 November 2013 17: 55 New
    -1
    What to talk about? Their weapons are like fleas on a dog, and the carriers of these weapons are not bad, but they are still smaller than axes, and from here you need to dance, namely; -Create long-range weapons with tactical UX to destroy MB carriers, but with carriers WB can cope with what we already have, only we need more AWACS aircraft, tankers, and fighters like Su-30cm and Su-35
  • Nayhas
    Nayhas 12 November 2013 18: 06 New
    0
    The company "Reyteon" put the US Navy 3000-th KR "Tomahawk" Blok.4

    Do they have a holiday about this? Or so troll waiting for a blow from the sky?
  • voliador
    voliador 12 November 2013 18: 23 New
    +1
    kapitan281271

    For this we need multipurpose nuclear submarines, A-50, MiG-31 aircraft, aircraft carriers, fighter aircraft, and all this in sufficient quantities.

    But there is no money for that amount, and of those that are, half will be stolen by "effective managers".
  • mountain
    mountain 12 November 2013 18: 54 New
    0
    Who knows the phone, Minister of Defense. Call, let the CARRIERS destroy, But-si-Te. )))
    1. clidon
      clidon 12 November 2013 19: 48 New
      0
      No pass In the warehouses, directly in the warehouses. )
  • APASUS
    APASUS 12 November 2013 19: 20 New
    +1
    In the tactics of using the Russian Armed Forces, the KR did not take their rightful place. That's why the MO does not order the KR and their number is minimal. Although the use of such a missile as the X-101 could greatly save the lives of our soldiers in the same 080808
    1. clidon
      clidon 12 November 2013 19: 49 New
      0
      Well, about "strong", given the relatively small losses of the Air Force and the generally not too strong air defense of Georgia. But the weapon is definitely serious and necessary.
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 13 November 2013 18: 53 New
        0
        Quote: clidon
        Well, about "strong", given the relatively small losses of the Air Force and the generally not too strong air defense of Georgia. But the weapon is definitely serious and necessary.

        Georgian air defense was created according to the NATO model and it wasn’t too stupid to say. Read the pilots' memoirs.
        But with a massive use of such missiles, troops might not have to be brought in at all. In 10 days, Georgian troops would have asked for peace.
        1. clidon
          clidon 13 November 2013 19: 34 New
          0
          Well, I’m just very well informed on the capabilities of Georgian air defense and not only on the memories of the pilots. She was very weak, not echeloned and, in principle, was a cross between what the Georgians left from the USSR and were hastily modernized by the Ukrainians, plus what they managed to replenish in Ukraine.
          Since everything was bought in a hurry, there was no talk of any sort of combat coordination and even more so of some sort of training by the crews. The control system of part of the detection tools was generally connected three months before the start of the operation.
          And all this vinaigrette "modern air defense according to NATO standards"? Actually, its effectiveness was very low.
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 12 November 2013 19: 51 New
    0
    Quote: Lord of the Sith
    how can it be 3000th, and in 2010 2000th, if already in 2004 4000 rockets were made?

    3000th Tomahawk Block4

    And in 2004, 4000 Tomahawk rockets were made (of all types available at that time).
  • Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 12 November 2013 19: 52 New
    +3
    Quote: APASUS
    In the tactics of using the Russian Armed Forces, the KR did not take their rightful place. That's why the MO does not order the KR and their number is minimal. Although the use of such a missile as the X-101 could greatly save the lives of our soldiers in the same 080808

    In 080808 X-101 was not yet in service.
    Not the X-55 with the YaBCh bullet ...
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • The fat man
    The fat man 12 November 2013 23: 52 New
    +1
    Quote: Migari
    “Tomahawk” has become an extremely successful weapon, despite such serious shortcomings as low speed with a complete lack of defensive capabilities. The main advantage of the Tomahawks is the safety and impunity of their use at a very high efficiency, this allows us to neglect these shortcomings. And the states love to be sneaky.

    e goals. And our S-ZOOPMU-1 is hit by a plane and a cruise missile within a radius of 150 kilometers. Even if they fly at an altitude of ten meters from the earth or water at a speed of 10 thousand miles per hour! And a ballistic missile is shot down within a radius of 40 kilometers ...

    do not forget that the S-300 has never been used in a combat situation; its advantage (effectiveness) is very, very controversial
  • lucidlook
    lucidlook 13 November 2013 03: 40 New
    0
    TACTOM, designated “Tomahawk” Block 4, is a long-range cruise missile designed to attack ground targets.

    And not a word about the "Tomahawk Maritime Interdiction Capabilty", which was separately announced in Block IV?

    Here's how the developer himself, Raytheon, imagines it: