Military Review

Even US aircraft carriers cannot escape from Russian missiles

356



Recently, the head of the Pentagon, Leon Panetta, said the truism: "Any fifth grader knows that US carrier strike groups are not able to destroy any of the existing powers in the world." Indeed, American AUGs are invulnerable because aviation “Sees” further than any land (and marine) radar system. They quickly manage to "detect" the enemy and from the air do with it everything that the soul wants. However, we were able to find a way to "put black marks" on the US Navy - from space. At the end of the 70s, the USSR created the “Legend” marine space reconnaissance and target designation system, which could direct a missile onto any ship in the oceans. Due to the fact that high-resolution optical technologies were then unavailable, it was necessary to launch these satellites into a very low orbit (400 km) and power them from a nuclear reactor. The complexity of the energy scheme predetermined the fate of the entire program - in 1993 the Legend ceased to “cover” even half of the marine strategic directions, and in 1998 the last unit ceased to serve. However, in 2008, the project was reanimated and already on new, more effective physical principles. As a result, by the end of this year, Russia will be able to destroy any American aircraft carrier anywhere in the world within three hours with an accuracy of 3 meters.

The United States made a win-win bet on the carrier fleet - the “poultry farms”, together with the missile protection of the destroyers, became inaccessible and extremely mobile floating armies. Even the powerful Soviet naval fleet there was no hope of competing with the American on equal terms. Despite the presence of submarines in the USSR Navy (nuclear submarines pr. 675, pr. 661 Anchar, submarines pr. 671), missile cruisers, coastal missile systems, numerous fleet of missile boats, as well as numerous missile systems P-6, P -35, P-70, P-500, there was no certainty about the guaranteed defeat of AUG. Special combat units could not correct the situation - the problem was reliable over-the-horizon detection of targets, their selection and providing accurate target designation for flying cruise missiles.

The use of aviation for guiding the anti-ship missile system did not solve the problem: the ship-based helicopter had limited capabilities, moreover, it was extremely vulnerable to carrier-based aviation. The scout Tu-95РЦ, despite the excellent makings, was ineffective - the plane took many hours to arrive in a given area of ​​the oceans, and again the scout became an easy target for fast deck interceptors. Such an inevitable factor, like weather conditions, finally undermined the confidence of the Soviet military in the proposed target designation system based on a helicopter and a reconnaissance aircraft. There was only one way out - to observe the situation in the World Ocean from space.

The largest scientific centers of the country - the Institute of Physics and Energy and the Institute of Atomic Energy named after A.M. I.V. Kurchatov. The orbital parameters were calculated under the guidance of Academician Keldysh. The head office of the organization was the VN Design Bureau. Chelomey. The development of a nuclear onboard power plant was carried out at OKB-670 (NPO Krasnaya Zvezda). At the beginning of 1970, the Leningrad plant Arsenal manufactured the first prototypes. The radar reconnaissance device was put into service in the 1975 year, and the radio intelligence satellite - in the 1978-m. In 1983, the last component of the system was adopted - the P-700 supersonic anti-ship missile Granit.
Even US aircraft carriers cannot escape from Russian missiles
Supersonic anti-ship missile P-700 "Granit"


In 1982, the unified system was tested in action. During the Falkland War, data from space satellites allowed the command of the Soviet Navy to track the operational and tactical situation in the South Atlantic, accurately calculate the actions of the British fleet and even predict the time and place of landing in the Falklands of the English landing force. The orbital grouping together with the ship information receiving points ensured the detection of the ships and the issuance of target designation to the rocket arms.

The first type of satellite US-P (“controlled satellite - passive”, index GRAU 17Ф17) is a complex of electronic reconnaissance, designed to detect and find objects with electromagnetic radiation. The second type of US-A satellite (“controlled satellite is active”, the GRAU 17Ф16 index) was equipped with a two-way side-looking radar system providing all-weather and all-day detection of surface targets. Low working orbit (which eliminated the use of bulky solar panels) and the need for a powerful and uninterrupted power source (solar batteries could not work on the shadow side of the Earth) determined the type of on-board power source - the BES-5 “Buk” nuclear power unit with thermal power 100 kW (electric power - 3 kW, estimated operating time - 1080 hours).

18 September 1977 was successfully launched from Baikonur spacecraft "Cosmos-954" - the active satellite of the Legend international satellite center. For a whole month, Cosmos-954 worked in space orbit, along with Cosmos-252. October 28 The satellite 1977 suddenly ceased to be controlled by ground control services. All attempts to orient him to success have failed. It was also not possible to put the graves into "orbit". At the beginning of January 1978, the depressurization of the instrument compartment of the spacecraft occurred; the Cosmos-954 completely failed and stopped responding to requests from Earth. An uncontrolled descent of a satellite with a nuclear reactor on board began.


Spacecraft "Cosmos-954"


The Western world looked with horror into the night sky, expecting to see the falling star of death. Everyone was discussing when and where the flying reactor would fall. "Russian Roulette" has begun. Early in the morning of January 24, Cosmos-954 collapsed over the territory of Canada, filling Alberta province with radioactive debris. Fortunately for Canadians, Alberta is a northern, sparsely populated province, and no one from the local population has been hurt. Of course, an international scandal occurred, the USSR paid a symbolic compensation and for the next three years refused to launch US-A. Nevertheless, in 1982, a similar accident occurred on board the Kosmos-1402 satellite. This time the spacecraft safely drowned in the waves of the Atlantic. If the fall had begun on 20 minutes earlier - Cosmos-1402 would have landed in Switzerland.

Fortunately, no more serious accidents with “Russian flying reactors” were recorded. In case of emergency situations, the reactors were separated and transferred without incident to the “burial orbit”. In total, under the program “Marine Space Intelligence and Targeting System”, 39 launches (including test ones) of US-A radar reconnaissance satellites with nuclear reactors on board were made, of which 27 were successful. As a result, US-A in 80-ies reliably controlled the surface situation in the oceans. The last launch of this type of spacecraft took place on March 14 1988 of the year.

At present, only the US-P passive radio intelligence satellites are part of the space group of the Russian Federation. The last of these, Cosmos-2421, was launched on 25 on June 2006, and failed. According to official information, there were some minor problems on board due to incomplete disclosure of solar panels.

During the chaos of 90's and the underfunding of the first half of 2000's, Legend ceased to exist — in 1993, Legend ceased to even cover half of its strategic maritime directions, and the last active device was buried in 1998. However, without it, it was impossible to talk at all about any effective counteraction to the American fleet, not to mention the fact that we became blind - military intelligence remained without an eye, and the country's defense capability deteriorated sharply.


Cosmos-2421


The resuscitation of the intelligence and target designation system was returned to 2006, when the government instructed the Ministry of Defense to work out the issue in terms of the use of new optical technology for accurate detection. 125 enterprises of 12 industries, the working title “Liana” was connected to the work. In 2008, a well-developed project was ready, and in 2009, the first experimental launch and removal of the experimental apparatus into a given orbit took place. The new system is more versatile - because of the higher orbit, it can scan not only large objects in the ocean, which the Soviet Legend was capable of, but any object up to 1 meters in size anywhere in the world. Accuracy has increased more than 100 times - to 3 meters. And at the same time no nuclear reactors that threaten the Earth’s ecosystem.

In 2013, the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roskosmos) and the Ministry of Defense of Russia completed the experimental creation of Liana in orbit and began to debug its systems. According to the plan, by the end of this year, the system will work on 100%. It consists of four newer radar reconnaissance satellites, which will be based at an altitude of about 1 thousand kilometers above the surface of the planet and constantly scan ground, air and sea space for enemy targets.

“Four satellites of the Liana system — two Pions and two Lotos — will detect enemy objects in real time — planes, ships, cars. The coordinates of these goals will be transmitted to the command post, where a virtual real-time map will be formed. In the event of war, high-precision strikes will be delivered to these objects, ”a representative of the General Staff explained the principle of the system.

Not without the "first pancake." “The first satellite Lotos-S with the index 14Ф138 had a number of drawbacks. After launching into orbit, it turned out that almost half of the onboard systems were not functioning. Therefore, we demanded that the developers bring the equipment to mind, ”said the representative of the Space Forces, which are now included in the aerospace defense. Experts explained that all the flaws of the satellite were associated with flaws in the software of the satellite. “Our programmers have completely reworked the software package and have already reshuffled the first Lotus. Now the military has no complaints against him, ”the Ministry of Defense told.


Satellite "Lotos-S"


Another satellite for the Liana system was launched into orbit in the fall of 2013 of the year - Lotos-S 14F145, which intercepts data transmission, including enemy negotiations (radio intelligence), and the advanced radar reconnaissance satellite will go to space in 2014. Peony-NKS »14F139, which is able to detect an object the size of a passenger car on any surface. Before 2015, another “Peony” will be included in “Liana”, thus the size of the system grouping will expand to four satellites. After entering the settlement mode, the “Liana” system will completely replace the outdated “Legend - Tselina” system. It will significantly increase the capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces to detect and destroy enemy targets.
Author:
Originator:
http://expert.ru/2014/01/24/ot-rossijskih-raket-teper-ne-skryitsya-dazhe-avianostsam-ssha/?ny
356 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. sasha.28blaga
    sasha.28blaga 28 January 2014 08: 43
    +61
    All the same, it’s difficult to deceive a Russian.
    1. Canep
      Canep 28 January 2014 08: 53
      +68
      Oh, someone here on the site assured that AUG is almost invisible, and that it cannot be destroyed. Clever guys AU WHERE ARE YOU ?. "Poplar M" with satellite guidance and all goodbye AUG.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 28 January 2014 09: 26
        -4
        Quote: Canep
        Oh, someone here on the site assured that AUG is almost invisible, and that it cannot be destroyed. Clever guys AU WHERE ARE YOU ?. "Poplar M" with satellite guidance and all goodbye AUG.

        Here, somewhere else.
        Satellites are undoubtedly a useful thing, but not a panacea. You may not know, but the world okian is teeming with all sorts of ships, while their sizes correspond to the size of an aircraft carrier, and some container ships can be confused with an aircraft carrier even in light ones. The same electronic intelligence is able to detect the AUG in peacetime quite easily. But also not a fact. I can remind you that this resource has already published the memoirs of the Soviet admiral, how the American AUG, having cut out all the radio-electronic equipment, was lost, how all the KTOF services were on their ears in search of "invisibility". In reality, only reconnaissance aircraft are capable of detecting AUG. You need to understand that the ocean is not just big, it is huge, and ships and ships on it move regularly. The simplest example. The famous ghost ship "Lyubov Orlova", which has been drifting in the ocean for a year, the towing cable broke during a storm. The coastal services of Ireland, Great Britain and Norway searched for him for about three months with the help of patrol ships, aircraft, satellites, but it was useless, they did not find ...
        Container ship Emma Maersk, length about 400m., Width 62.

        1. Evgeny_Lev
          Evgeny_Lev 28 January 2014 09: 35
          +67
          And since when did container ships go in the warrant?
          1. kplayer
            kplayer 28 January 2014 15: 14
            +15
            The distance between the ships in the AUG travel order is tens of miles, and the travel order on the high seas / oceans is a huge circle with a diameter of 100 or more miles, in the center of which the aircraft carrier itself and the guard carrier’s aircraft carrier are usually not even visible, all the ships in warrants are connected by a single information field with real-time exchange, carrying out air defense, PLO and FFP with a center (ASBU) on board an aircraft carrier.
            The average speed of ships in the order is usually 18-20 knots (i.e., in an economical move, the aircraft carrier itself can periodically slow down and temporarily change course to ensure take-off and landing of deck aircraft).
            1. dustycat
              dustycat 28 January 2014 17: 53
              +42
              You didn’t finish the extra zeros?
              Aegis is able to cooperate with the defense of individual ships at a distance of no more than 20 miles (excuse me, but VHF and above - this is up to the horizon).
              There is still a 30m range, but there is so much garbage on the air that avoiding interference and intermittent signal loss even PSM CMM will not help.
              In this case, Aegis will have to work in a very specific radiation mode by which it can be identified in a passive mode.
              Not a single container ship will make such noise on the air.
              To launch the aircraft again, you need to make noise on the air.
              AUG can go into radio silence mode again within no further than direct optical visibility - laser communication systems are less noisy on the air and seem to not shine anywhere, but ...
              But then again, laser radiation is also easily detected even reflected and scattered from atmospheric inhomogeneities, and this can be very very far beyond the horizon. Where further 200 miles.
              So the "invisible" AUG is the "elusive" Joe - who needs it ?!
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. kplayer
                kplayer 29 January 2014 18: 02
                +2
                I am not involved in the preparation of tactical standards and techniques for the US Navy, I can only present the existing ones. Of course, air relay (deck helicopters) and orbiting satellites are not supposed by you.
              3. Kyzmich
                Kyzmich 12 June 2017 12: 56
                +3
                Yes, there is only one take-off and the inclusion of E2C "Hokai" will illuminate this whole AUG on the ocean floor))
                I think there are few idiots who will believe that a UFO flies among the ocean with a locator.
                And they will detect in passive mode.
                All these AUGs were created to "democratize" the "banana" countries, which accidentally discovered an oil field on their mountain.
                I honestly do not understand what real threat all of these AUGs can pose to us?
                Within the range of our coastal strike and air defense forces, they are doomed.
                But running after them in the ocean like these plans was not and no.
            2. Vlad.by
              Vlad.by 27 February 2017 15: 55
              0
              if we are talking about a “single information field”, then the warrant, sorry, glows like a Christmas tree in the radio range. His usual Vega or Chain Mail will detect and determine the coordinates of the "main beaver" at a time, not to mention the satellite intelligence. And the radio silence mode, as applied to the warrant, I have little idea for myself - too much radio equipment is crammed into modern ships, compared with the time of World War II.
              And from the moment of leaving the home port, all these orders are tracked and it is almost impossible to lose them to satellites under the control of the global automated control system. So that...
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. Vasek
            Vasek 28 January 2014 21: 48
            +24
            Quote: Evgeny_Lev
            And since when did container ships go in the warrant?

            Since then, as containers "Club-K" began to carry! laughing
          4. Geisenberg
            Geisenberg 28 January 2014 21: 55
            +8
            Quote: Evgeny_Lev
            And since when did container ships go in the warrant?


            Since Club rockets began to be placed in containers ....
          5. Region-25.rus
            Region-25.rus 2 February 2014 05: 09
            +2
            Quote: Evgeny_Lev
            And since when did container ships go in the warrant?


            Ever since such a tactic appeared - the aircraft carrier can go alone on its route, using weather conditions and other factors of stealth! And in the center of the order they put such a "box" as bait. The speed and size are quite the same! After, at the conditional meeting point, the aircraft carrier joins the escort. I myself saw aircraft carriers and such container ships!
            1. Kyzmich
              Kyzmich 12 June 2017 12: 59
              +1
              with this tactic, the aircraft carrier itself runs the risk of running "accidentally" into the "damned echo of war")))
              Very dubious tactics.
            2. dustycat
              dustycat 16 June 2017 07: 32
              0
              Yankee carriers, unlike the USSR / Russia aircraft carriers, are just a maximum airfield with MZA weapons.
              To let such a bucket without a warrant under the threat of a boat attack with a ton of another explosive - do you really think the SGA admirals have extra stars on shoulder straps or is there any desire to solve problems with insurance companies ??
              So a bullet with a container ship in the center of the AUG order is just a bullet.
              It’s easier and more economical to attach a pair of supertankers like Condoleezza Rice to the order.
              And a suitable size and kerosene with other necessary oil products for non-nuclear ships at hand.
        2. Canep
          Canep 28 January 2014 09: 36
          +12
          And what do container ships, ore carriers and tankers go with escort ships?
          Quote: Nayhas
          The famous ghost ship "Lyubov Orlova", which has been drifting in the ocean for a year, a towing rope broke off during a storm
          Are you sure that he is drifting? I think he sank for a long time, otherwise someone has already noticed him for a long time. Moreover, you can get good money for him, and no rats will scare anyone who decides to bring him to the port.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 28 January 2014 10: 28
            +3
            Quote: Canep
            And what do container ships, ore carriers and tankers go with escort ships?

            Everybody walks. Once, two tankers hobbled past us in a row, add cruise ships here, not to mention all the fishermen who go in packs. Ocean traffic is very busy ...
            Quote: Canep
            Are you sure that he is drifting? I think he sank for a long time, otherwise someone has already noticed him for a long time.

            Well, there is an opinion that if he was not found, then he sank, but this is not at all a fact. A vessel with a displacement of more than 4 thousand tons with the hatches closed up is practically impossible to flood into a storm, this is not a wooden boat for you. The coast guard was just tired of looking.
            1. Canep
              Canep 28 January 2014 10: 47
              +25
              Quote: Nayhas
              Everybody walks. Once, two tankers hobbled past us in a row, add cruise ships here, not to mention all the fishermen who go in packs. Ocean traffic is very busy ...

              Do not dissemble, although the traffic is brisk, civilian vessels do not go with a travel order at a speed of 30 knots, dispersing all other ships on their way. In addition, only an idiot can confuse the deck of an aircraft carrier with the deck of a container ship.
              Quote: Nayhas
              Well, there is an opinion that if he was not found, then he sank, but this is not a fact
              There is an opinion that Umarov was soaked and this is also not a fact. The proof is a corpse. Umarova in the toilet, and the ship at the bottom. Until the ship is discovered, anything can be considered. But this does not prove that the AUG cannot be detected, it must sometimes go into ports, and from the port you only need to monitor it continuously.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 28 January 2014 12: 33
                +2
                Quote: Canep
                Do not dissemble, although the traffic is brisk, civilian vessels do not go with a travel order at a speed of 30 knots, dispersing all other ships on their way.

                And AUG doesn’t walk.
                Quote: Canep
                In addition, only an idiot can confuse the deck of an aircraft carrier with the deck of a container ship.

                Visually being close by undoubtedly, looking at the spot transmitted from a satellite with a resolution of several meters is not quite simple. But I hope you do not believe that the satellite transmits an image with photographic clarity?
                Example.
                The picture was taken by the RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV radar, the picture was taken from a height of 12-18 km., Not higher.

                Synthesized aperture radar allows you to take pictures with a resolution of 0,3m. on an area of ​​4 square kilometers with a resolution of 1,8 m. on an area of ​​10 sq. km., with a resolution of 6m. over an area of ​​up to 400 sq. km., scanning and detection of moving targets within a radius of 100 km.
                From a height of 1000km. It is possible to achieve the characteristics stated in the article only on a narrow section of the ocean, a small area. But how to determine what exactly is an aircraft carrier?
                1. saturn.mmm
                  saturn.mmm 28 January 2014 19: 52
                  +9
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  From a height of 1000km. It is possible to achieve the characteristics stated in the article only on a narrow section of the ocean, a small area. But how to determine what exactly is an aircraft carrier?

                  The "Liana" system in a modern design. Plus, remote sensing satellites have learned to work well on ships:
                  This is a radar image of Gibraltar.
                  For Russia, this is the Kondor-E satellite.

                  http://www.sdelanounas.ru/blogs/39852/
                  1. clidon
                    clidon 28 January 2014 20: 12
                    +3
                    And where is the aircraft carrier here? )
                  2. Nayhas
                    Nayhas 28 January 2014 20: 34
                    +3
                    Quote: saturn.mmm
                    This is a radar image of Gibraltar.

                    It remains to call psychics to tell who there is waxing in the water ...
                  3. tlauicol
                    tlauicol 29 January 2014 11: 17
                    .
                    Vasya Batareikin with binoculars, sitting on the shore of Gibraltar, will receive more information
                    1. abrakadabre
                      abrakadabre 29 January 2014 12: 08
                      +5
                      Vasya Batareikin with binoculars, sitting on the shore of Gibraltar, will receive more information
                      Do you propose to densely poke buoys around the entire world ocean and put Batareykina with binoculars and a walkie-talkie on each Vasya?
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 29 January 2014 13: 25
                        0
                        I point out that in such narrowness even from visual observation there will be more sense. and in the ocean, you see what the hell from a satellite, not knowing where to look. Remember how two regiments of the Air Force could not find Sablin in the Gulf of Riga
                    2. GDP
                      GDP 31 January 2014 11: 13
                      0
                      So these photographs are taken in the highest resolution, they can be analyzed, filtered and accurately determine who is who ... + radiation analysis + the ability to track infrared radiation from the launch of rockets and aircraft + speed analysis, etc.

                      When the launch of a small Israeli ballistic missile in the Mediterranean was recently launched, ours raised a howl in a few minutes, the station in Armavir spotted this disgrace ... What can we say about satellites?
                      And warships, especially aircraft carriers, have very recognizable shapes, and the declared accuracy is not even needed to determine them ...
                      1. tlauicol
                        tlauicol 31 January 2014 12: 02
                        +1
                        go to the balcony - look into the starry sky - and you will see a satellite, and if you are lucky, then a rocket launch. and now try to see the aircraft carrier ... doesn’t work?
                        a high-resolution image needs accurate knowledge of the place where the aircraft carrier is located - otherwise you will get many, many high-quality images of sea waves
                      2. Rus2012
                        31 January 2014 13: 24
                        0
                        Quote: Tlauicol
                        high resolution shot

                        ... and you know why they take a high-resolution image, and for this, just intelligence reconnaissance with a lower resolution?
                        Why - RL review and detailed RL sight? Why set the flight task with the on / off coordinates. FA optical intelligence?
                      3. clidon
                        clidon 31 January 2014 15: 41
                        0
                        Species reconnaissance also has its own specific physical parameters of "scanning". And they, by the way, are not that big.
                      4. Rus2012
                        2 February 2014 12: 09
                        -1
                        Quote: clidon
                        Species reconnaissance also has its own specific physical parameters of "scanning". And they, by the way, are not that big.

                        The width of the observation strip, for example, for the promising Fikus spacecraft is 1000 km, the duration of the radar operation at orbit is 35 minutes, for the Sever spacecraft - 630 km and 14 minutes ...
                      5. clidon
                        clidon 2 February 2014 12: 37
                        +1
                        For "promising", does that mean for non-existent? Here, only about "Peonies" began to declare at least some plans ...
                        And with what resolution is this thousand kilometers issued? So far, as I can see from a modern German radar reconnaissance satellite, these parameters are much more modest - with the lowest resolution - the width of the "frame 60x14 km". At high resolution 2-3 meters - 5x5 km. Plus the limitation on continuous work, of course.
                      6. Rus2012
                        2 February 2014 14: 31
                        +3
                        Quote: clidon
                        For "promising", does that mean for non-existent? Here, only about "Peonies" began to declare at least some plans ...

                        ... what did the young "experts in mortar missiles" of military-technical intelligence come to?
                        fellow laughing
                        Oh well...
                        laughing laughing laughing
                        from open data -
                        http://vinek.narod.ru/satellites.html
                        study, take notes at least
                        anyway, gsa scouts will not tell you anything more ...
                      7. clidon
                        clidon 2 February 2014 16: 44
                        0
                        Well, just write, without grimacing "I don't know anything", except for this document, which does not indicate satellites about the radar. And it can be seen that even in the visible range the satellites of the stars from the sky are not enough. Everything is quite within the framework.
            2. _CAMOBAP_
              _CAMOBAP_ 3 February 2014 14: 55
              0
              This is the case if you do not know where to look. Firstly, there are not so many AUGs and in what area at a given moment one or another AUG is known now. The task is not to detect it, but to provide target designation. Well, you can confuse an aircraft carrier with a container ship only if you forget to remove the glass from the lens before launch. Faceted.
            3. clidon
              clidon 3 February 2014 15: 37
              0
              Firstly, there are not so many AUGs and in what area at a given moment one or another AUG is known now.

              How is it known?

              .You can confuse an aircraft carrier with a container ship only if they forget to remove the glass from the lens before launch.

              Or if the resolution is 40 meters. Which by the way is very close to the view satellites.
    2. rereture
      rereture 30 January 2014 19: 24
      +9
      I think there is not only radar, but also photography.

      I think military satellites are shooting in higher resolution than there are on Yandex maps
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 30 January 2014 21: 54
        +1
        Quote: rereture
        I think military satellites are shooting in higher resolution than there are on Yandex maps

        Reconnaissance optoelectronic satellites can take high-resolution images, but again on narrow sections of the earth’s surface. The transfer of images to the ground and their processing takes some time, but this is not the point. Looking at the pictures on the earth there is a high chance to see only clouds ...
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 31 January 2014 09: 37
        +2
        I think military satellites are shooting in higher resolution than there are on Yandex maps
        You're right. But! The higher the resolution, the smaller the area covered. For example, the commercial satellite Landsat-TM:
        - the standard resolution of the main channels is about 30 m per pixel (I just don’t remember the exact value and look for laziness)
        - while the image covers approximately 220 by 240 km
        - 9 channels (wavelengths), from the average ultraviolet to the thermal range (thermal with a resolution of 90 m per pixel)
        - The size of one image is about 700 megabytes.

        other resolutions provided: 10 m per pixel, 3.6 m per pixel and 0.6 m per pixel. The file size of the image in all resolutions is the same, but the surface area covered proportionally decreases with increasing resolution. At 0.6 m per pixel, this is about 250 times smaller area. Although it is not clearly visible large bushes, cars and other details.

        In addition, due to the rotation of the Earth and the precession of the satellite's orbit, the satellite, as it were, scans the Earth's surface in stripes from turn to turn. The survey is conducted close to the direction perpendicular to the surface in order to minimize distortion from the curvature of the Earth's surface and terrain overlays. Sideways shots are not taken. Therefore, the satellite visits the same area of ​​the surface not at every orbit, but after a certain period of time. Quite significant for such dynamic events as tracking moving objects.
      3. tlauicol
        tlauicol 3 February 2014 16: 10
        0
        Large and detailed photos on Yandex cards are made by a low-flying airplane
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 4 February 2014 10: 00
          0
          Large and detailed photos on Yandex cards are made by a low-flying airplane
          Satellites take high-resolution images. I myself was processing at one time such images as the Landsat-TM I mentioned above with a resolution of 0.6 m per pixel. Such images are in the public domain. Old pictures that have lost their relevance are generally free to download from the Internet from their website.
  2. dustycat
    dustycat 16 June 2017 07: 35
    0
    This is not a radar image. There are no sun shadows on the radar image.
  • HAM
    HAM 28 January 2014 16: 47
    +2
    In the old days, an amateur radio station worked on board the aircraft carrier, so there wasn’t much trouble watching it. I personally heard the work of such a station at r \ l frequencies.
  • Danafxnumx
    Danafxnumx 28 January 2014 15: 55
    +1
    Quote: Nayhas
    Well, there is an opinion that if he was not found, then he sank, but this is not at all a fact. A vessel with a displacement of more than 4 thousand tons with the hatches closed up is practically impossible to flood into a storm, this is not a wooden boat for you. The coast guard was just tired of looking.

    yeah, and if he is in a strong storm on board to the wave?
    1. commbatant
      commbatant 31 January 2014 00: 08
      0
      4 thousand tons is a frigate or even a corvette, no?
  • Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 28 January 2014 21: 57
    0
    Quote: Nayhas
    ... impossible, this is not a wooden boat for you. The coast guard was just tired of looking.


    Type of guard tired of standing ??? Krata currents and the last position - all that is needed to capture. If you didn’t find it, it’s sank.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. negeroi
      negeroi 1 February 2014 15: 01
      0
      A week ago, the Irish coast service said that it saw Lyubov Orlova. From time to time, someone sees different ships that have been missing for a long time. But we don’t know for sure, we will believe the Irish and other eyewitnesses of the flying Dutch. There are no reasons not to believe. For many years For hundreds of years, scientists considered the stories of fishermen and sailors about Death Wave to be fairy tales. However, for several years now they have been monitoring, searching, studying Death waves. In general, there is no exact data on Love Orlova, which means that she was missing and did not sink.
  • iwind
    iwind 28 January 2014 10: 45
    +5
    Quote: Canep
    And what do container ships, ore carriers and tankers go with escort ships?

    The area of ​​the AUG order can take up to 100 km2.
    Ships do not go in a tight group.
    Processing time and obtaining target designation from a satellite takes up to 3 hours (according to American standard, I somehow doubt that we will be much faster).
    Three times at AUG very powerful systems EW aircraft, ships.
    A satellite moving in a fixed orbit its change is given at a high price. Tracking the location of 4 satellites is not difficult.
    With the development of satellite groupings in America, the number of drone aircraft is only growing.
    Too many disadvantages of satellite target designation.
    1. VKabanov
      VKabanov 28 January 2014 11: 53
      +36
      Taking the order as a conditional circle, we get a diameter of just over 11 km. But this is an Independence Day building for the photo.

      In fact, usually an order is more like a very elongated ellipse of a much larger area, where advanced ships go at a distance of up to 100 km. In any case, a warrant is issued by many factors, first of all, the general synchronism of the direction of movement and especially the traces in all ranges of radiation. + A swarm of aviation in the air which is visible from above on the surface of the ocean again, clearly.

      It is possible to confuse AUG in an order only with another AUG.
      1. Semen Semyonitch
        Semen Semyonitch 28 January 2014 17: 07
        +13
        Best AUG-flooded AUG laughing
    2. rolik
      rolik 28 January 2014 13: 35
      +8
      Quote: iwind
      Processing time and obtaining target designation from a satellite takes up to 3 hours (according to American standard, I somehow doubt that we will be much faster).

      The article reads in black and white: “Four satellites of the Liana system - two Peonies and two Lotos - will detect enemy objects in real time - airplanes, ships, cars.
      There is a slight difference between real time and working time for processing the received information. We won’t have to talk about three hours, the conversation will be about 20 minutes in normal mode, and about 5 in alarming.
      1. max702
        max702 28 January 2014 19: 41
        +5
        Here, in the comments, they often wrote about the fundamental impossibility of real-time monitoring of the land area such as at the moment there is no technology, there is no physical possibility, and the article says that with the help of only 4 satellites this control is possible, even if it is possible to distinguish a car then AUG all the more, and any reasoning that you can confuse an Aircraft Carrier with a container ship, a tanker, and other ships of similar sizes sound complete nonsense. The only question is how far the specifications stated are real. not 4 satellites, but 16-20? It will still be cheaper than building your own aircraft carrier fleet, or organizing other actions against the AUG. But at the same time, it prevents the likely enemy from doing the same and deploying your satellite group by taking control of our mobile systems and at the same time deciding on the mass of other military and not only tasks, with the technical, scientific, technological component of the probable opponent, everything is in order.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 28 January 2014 20: 22
          +11
          Quote: max702
          It will still be cheaper than building your own aircraft carrier fleet, or organizing other actions against the AUG.

          For pennies again!

          Yes, how much can I repeat that the AUG is a political tool, not a military one!
          Show your coolness!
    3. lestad
      lestad 28 January 2014 14: 58
      +7
      it seems to me that during an attack all satellites will be disabled first of all
      1. Onyx
        Onyx 28 January 2014 15: 31
        +3
        Quote: lestad
        it seems to me that during an attack all satellites will be disabled first of all

        Yes? But as?
        1. dustycat
          dustycat 28 January 2014 18: 09
          +4
          Quote: Onyx
          Quote: lestad
          it seems to me that during an attack all satellites will be disabled first of all

          Yes? But as?

          An attack from a hill with air-to-space missiles.
          Another MiG-23 was able to.
          And on F16 such a maneuver was practiced.
          True, the aircraft must be at a distance of no more than 50 km from the place of attack on the satellite when launching a rocket.
          But with DUS it is not difficult to arrange.
          True, such a missile aircraft can carry only one.
          So you can raise three aircraft. Four. Five.
          The presence of aircraft carriers facilitates this procedure at any point on the planet. On the question of why Russian aircraft carriers. :)
          1. Onyx
            Onyx 28 January 2014 19: 58
            +2
            Quote: dustycat
            An attack from a hill with air-to-space missiles.

            satellites at what altitude allows you to shoot down such weapons?
          2. viktorR
            viktorR 28 January 2014 22: 45
            +1
            What a mess ... Ib-23 instantly knocked down satellites in batches ... You would have taught the materiel, or what. There was a project Mig-31d. But because of the collapse, he remained a project and did not shoot at IZS!
            1. Alex 241
              Alex 241 28 January 2014 22: 48
              +4
              MiG-31d, there was also a MiG-31s ​​project
          3. uhu189
            uhu189 28 January 2014 23: 34
            +5
            So not only do we have this MIG-31 q in the quantity of 2 pcs. I could do so, and for Americans, only a few modernized F-15 missiles could carry and launch (the F-14 planned to adapt to its use, but they didn’t do it, but the F-16 just won’t pull it), if I’m not mistaken in 3 pcs. And it seems that information slipped that they were all written off. Only low-orbit satellites (orbits several hundred kilometers high) could shoot down, so they certainly do not threaten our modern system, they will not reach.
          4. GDP
            GDP 31 January 2014 11: 35
            0
            Even the latest system of aygis and that far can not always bring down a satellite flying in low orbit up to 400 km. And then - it was an American satellite and its location was tracked by those who shot it down.
            Do the above systems fly at an altitude of 1000 km? How can you bring them down?
            Read the article carefully. The USSR was at the peak of its capabilities and could not bring down its own satellite, which at the final stage had fallen to a height of 100km which fell into Canada ...
            And no one could bring down ...
            Some fool like an American shuttle equipped with promising yet undeveloped weapons could theoretically bring down. How many shuttles are there on the siding on Cape Canaveral?
            Watch less American star wars movies for less ...
        2. Cynic
          Cynic 28 January 2014 20: 33
          +1
          Quote: Onyx
          Yes? But as?

          Cribble-Crabble-Booms!
        3. smart ass
          smart ass 30 January 2014 08: 52
          -5
          GPS satellites, like GLONASS satellites, are destroyed by an ordinary bucket with nails launched into the orbit of these satellites
          1. clidon
            clidon 30 January 2014 15: 48
            +1
            smart assand you write nonsense.
          2. Cynic
            Cynic 30 January 2014 15: 52
            +1
            Quote: Clever man
            destroyed by an ordinary bucket of nails launched into the orbit of these satellites

            And how do you imagine this? This is to the fact that there are about three dozen of them. Yes, and they were born by the Pentagon for their beloved.
            wink
          3. GDP
            GDP 31 January 2014 11: 41
            0
            GPS satellites, like GLONASS satellites, are destroyed by an ordinary bucket of nails launched into the orbit of these satellites

            First you still need to get this bucket of nails correctly ... It will be very expensive and damn difficult for NATO, for example, there are certainly no missiles that could shoot satellites at an altitude of 1000 ... Theoretically, such missiles can be built, but it will very expensive and inefficient ...
      2. Cynic
        Cynic 28 January 2014 20: 29
        +2
        Quote: lestad
        it seems to me that during an attack all satellites will be disabled first of all

        And what?
        Do not you think that this will be a declaration of war in itself. And how far can the AUG go from the place of the last fixation?
        I’m silent that the ICBMs carry a multiply charged warhead.
        1. kostiknet
          kostiknet 30 January 2014 11: 02
          +1
          Quote: Cynic
          Don't you think that this will be a declaration of war in itself

          Do you think it scares amers? All these AUG, satellites and other iron exist just for the war. And the destruction of the satellite constellation is its logical beginning. (if the war is not with "sovereign democracies" and "banana republics") Only the Yankees are tied to our orbits more tightly than us. Our VKS will not let the same snot. Will the vaunted AUG and other NATO troops be able to wage a war in the "Stone Age" regime? They are very addicted to satellites. The infantry goes to the toilet using GPS ... wassat
      3. Andrey Yuryevich
        Andrey Yuryevich 29 January 2014 05: 53
        +2
        everyone remembers that the satellites in orbit are 1000 km away. ???
    4. GDP
      GDP 31 January 2014 11: 23
      0
      Ships do not go in a tight group.
      Processing time and obtaining target designation from a satellite takes up to 3 hours (according to American standard, I somehow doubt that we will be much faster).

      So what? the carcass of an aircraft carrier in the tens of thousands of tons displacement will go somewhere on top of the sound in these three hours? even if we assume that this will happen, does he change direction and speed every hour? :)))
      Anyway, something makes me doubt this speed. GLONAS gprs detection drive the car on the highway in real time without any problems. Are military systems less accurate?
      And even if so, do not forget that rockets still have such a thing as an active guidance system ...
  • Uncle
    Uncle 28 January 2014 13: 49
    +1
    Quote: Canep
    Are you sure that he is drifting? I think he sank for a long time, otherwise someone has already noticed him for a long time.

    Today I heard on the radio, showed up somewhere, listened to where.
  • Danafxnumx
    Danafxnumx 28 January 2014 15: 51
    +3
    Quote: Canep
    Moreover, you can get good money for him, and no rats will scare anyone who decides to bring him to the port.

    or they’ve already brought him to some port ... well, there is Sudan or Cote Divoire for example ...
  • dustycat
    dustycat 28 January 2014 17: 57
    +4
    Are you sure that he is drifting?

    Last week, a container ship barely dodged a five-point storm from it. After arriving 6 hours later, the coast guard helicopter was unable to detect anything due to the low border of cloud cover and fog.
  • saturn.mmm
    saturn.mmm 28 January 2014 11: 57
    +4
    Quote: Nayhas
    Here, somewhere else.

    Why look for them? Set a marker on each and leave it for constant auto tracking.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • CHILD
    CHILD 28 January 2014 15: 20
    +7
    if the AUG drowns out all the RE equipment, then it’s worthless as a combat unit, its main purpose is to project power anywhere in the ocean, and it doesn’t know how to hammer through the floor of the world .... therefore it’s not a secret where they are located, and there it’s a matter of technology .... but the technology is now there (although it seems to me in which case the satellites are the first to beat (drown ..))
  • Danafxnumx
    Danafxnumx 28 January 2014 15: 49
    +3
    Quote: Nayhas
    In reality, only reconnaissance aircraft are capable of detecting AOGs. You need to understand that the ocean is not just big, it is huge, and ships and ships on it regularly move.

    that is why maintaining an AUG order from a satellite in real time is the solution ...
    besides, the inclusion of an electronic warfare system on satellites will not affect ...
  • Simon
    Simon 28 January 2014 17: 51
    +8
    The article clearly states that "Liana" can scan objects up to one square meter, so it won't even notice the aircraft carrier of the American aircraft, and the planes located on it, not the container. fool
  • BARKAS
    BARKAS 28 January 2014 18: 11
    +2
    Quote: Nayhas
    some container ships can even be confused with the aircraft carrier.

    Such vessels do not go secretly, anyone can detect or track them in real time, even semi-wild pirates do pretty well, and if the container ship in the conflict zone is hiding from someone, it means the matter is not purely in general the main reconnaissance and reconnaissance by all means and using all channels !
  • Cynic
    Cynic 28 January 2014 18: 52
    0
    Quote: Nayhas
    You need to understand that the ocean is not just big, it is huge, and ships and ships on it regularly move.

    You still attract the Flying Dutchman as evidence, he has the status of non-detection of O_GO_GO!
  • Ascetic
    Ascetic 28 January 2014 20: 12
    +6
    Quote: Nayhas
    , and some container ships can even be confused with an aircraft carrier into a light one. The same electronic intelligence is able to detect the AUG in peacetime quite easily. But also not a fact. I can remind you that this resource has already published the memoirs of the Soviet admiral, how the American AUG, having cut out all the radio-electronic equipment, was lost, how all the services of KTOF were on their ears in search of "invisibility".


    In June 2013 Another satellite, OER Persona, was launched, which is capable of taking high-resolution images and transmitting them online via a radio channel. According to unofficial data, its resolution should reach 30 cm. Now in orbit, one second is being prepared for launch. Finally, we get rid of the film and it becomes possible to control moving targets like the same AUG.
    1. clidon
      clidon 28 January 2014 20: 22
      -1
      The person is related to FEU? Do you even guess about the size of its frame at a resolution of 30 cm? )
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas 28 January 2014 20: 26
      -1
      Quote: Ascetic
      In June 2013 they also launched the OER Person satellite, which is capable of taking high-resolution images and transmitting them online via the radio channel.

      In order to photograph an aircraft carrier, you need to know where it is. Even if the satellite takes high-resolution photographs of an area of ​​100 square kilometers. A lot of time will be spent on checking for an example of the entire Pacific Ocean, despite the fact that the aircraft carrier does not stand still. Do not forget about the influence of weather conditions on the operation of optics; the sky is not always clear on the ocean.
  • Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 28 January 2014 21: 55
    +1
    Quote: Nayhas
    Container ship Emma Maersk, length about 400m., Width 62.


    What, too, fell off the coward and cannot be found ?????
  • abdrah
    abdrah 28 January 2014 23: 53
    +14
    Nayhas - "Container ship Emma Maersk, length about 400m., Width 62 .."

    - Sometimes you need to sink a container ship - "A huge container ship" Mol Comfort "with a cargo of weapons for the Syrian Free Army crashed in the Indian Ocean. It was heading from Singapore to the port of Jeddah, carrying 4500 containers with weapons for the Syrian rebels." , did not swim a little ..
    1. Aljavad
      Aljavad 31 January 2014 19: 03
      +1
      and really - Comfort!
      more often ...
  • Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 29 January 2014 05: 45
    +3
    at a resolution of 1m, can't you see that this is an AUG, and not a "container" group? laughing I beg of you... wassat
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 29 January 2014 11: 21
      0
      it's like looking through a powerful microscope to look for a grain of sand on a carpet - you need to know where to look
  • Ram chandra
    Ram chandra 30 January 2014 21: 24
    +1
    In peacetime, tags are put on objects such as an aircraft carrier - and they are constantly watching. Those. they will not search for it only at the beginning of the war. The goal is ALWAYS tracked. If she came out of an observation in some way, the radius for the search is programmatically drawn, taking into account her speed and probable direction.
    I hope so..
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 4 February 2014 05: 58
      +1
      the satellite "looks" down perpendicularly and flies around the Earth. in 5 minutes he is already 1000 km away - at an acute angle he does not see anything through the atmosphere. Let's say the satellite passes the baton to sl. satellite, etc. How many of them are needed to always control one aircraft carrier? and 1? at the same time, aircraft carriers do not move only along the meridian or only under the satellite trajectory. It will take hundreds, if not thousands, of satellites to constantly scan the ocean surface at high resolution. in other cases, only occasional discoveries in parking lots (well, any newspaperman knows this) and narrow
  • air wolf
    air wolf 30 January 2014 21: 32
    0
    I support the aforesaid, in addition to radio silence, there are electronic warfare equipment, AUG can detect only real PLA or Tu-142M3
  • Senior manager
    Senior manager 9 February 2017 15: 54
    0
    Naihas. The classification of goals is carried out on many grounds, but for those who know arithmetic, the remark is essential.
  • clidon
    clidon 28 January 2014 10: 04
    +19
    The Americans have a satellite reconnaissance group that currently outnumbers the Russian one, six times (without even touching on the issue of quality). And three times "Liana" when it is deployed to the regular grouping. Why do you think they continue to produce patrol aircraft, AWACS and other reconnaissance systems. Would the "Minutemans" do it with satellite guidance and say goodbye to the Russian (Chinese) Navy?
    This is to say that journalists or patriotic citizens like to exaggerate everything a bit (in order).
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 28 January 2014 10: 32
      +10
      Quote: clidon
      This is to say that journalists or patriotic citizens like to exaggerate everything a bit (in order).

      You're right! Good health would not hurt patriotism! drinks
    2. vthrehbq
      vthrehbq 28 January 2014 10: 55
      +20
      less watch Pentagon promotional films.
      Satellites are not a panacea, but one of the means of reconnaissance .. each output of the US aircraft carriers is tracked not only by satellites but also by reconnaissance ships, aircraft, submarines + ground stations ...

      satellites are mainly intended for a general analysis of the grouping of American vessels in the ocean. Based on the received intelligence, a general analysis is carried out.

      submarine missile carriers will deliver the main blow to the aircraft carriers, and they constantly follow the aircraft carriers .. if I am not mistaken, 1 to 2 of our boats are always close to the US fleet, just like the US submarines always accompany our ships to the sea .. this is a mutual constant hunting
      1. Canep
        Canep 28 January 2014 11: 39
        +10
        Quote: vthrehbq
        If I am not mistaken, from 1 to 2 of our boats are always close to the American fleet, as well as the American submarines always accompany
        Well, that was before Judas and the drunks did not ruin the country. Now I doubt it. To restore such an escort, an arms program has been adopted, which is somehow being implemented.
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 28 January 2014 17: 32
          +3
          Quote: Canep
          Well, that was before Judas and the drunks did not ruin the country. Now I doubt it.

          To listen to the opinion of submarine officers on this topic, how many submarines really can currently perform such tasks! I think that now literally units can do this ???
          1. Senior manager
            Senior manager 9 February 2017 15: 57
            0
            Arberes. Well, this question to comrade Bortnikov, he will explain.
      2. clidon
        clidon 28 January 2014 14: 11
        +2
        Satellites, of course, are not a panacea, as the authors of this article try to present to us. This is just an element of intelligence. Well, as for the submarines, then yes, this is a brief from past practice.
      3. pl675
        pl675 28 January 2014 17: 48
        +2
        submarine missile carriers will deliver the main blow to the aircraft carriers, and they constantly follow the aircraft carriers .. if I am not mistaken, 1 to 2 of our boats are always close to the US fleet, just like the US submarines always accompany our ships to the sea .. this is a mutual constant hunting

        it is physically impossible.
        the arithmetic is simple - knowing the number of apl on our sf and tof, we divide them into 11 (number of aircraft carriers), we take into account that it is 75% of the world's oceans (minus our high latitudes) - we conclude that it’s not possible to sit at the tail at aug is always.
        1. i.xxx-1971
          i.xxx-1971 28 January 2014 23: 40
          +2
          At the same time, 11 aircraft carriers are never at sea. Two or three, the rest in the bases. Too expensive pleasure.
          1. pl675
            pl675 29 January 2014 00: 22
            +1
            like all of our apl, logical.
            - continuous monitoring of aug from under water - utopia.
        2. i.xxx-1971
          i.xxx-1971 28 January 2014 23: 40
          0
          At the same time, 11 aircraft carriers are never at sea. Two or three, the rest in the bases. Too expensive pleasure.
    3. vthrehbq
      vthrehbq 28 January 2014 10: 55
      +2
      less watch Pentagon promotional films.
      Satellites are not a panacea, but one of the means of reconnaissance .. each output of the US aircraft carriers is tracked not only by satellites but also by reconnaissance ships, aircraft, submarines + ground stations ...

      satellites are mainly intended for a general analysis of the grouping of American vessels in the ocean. Based on the received intelligence, a general analysis is carried out.

      submarine missile carriers will deliver the main blow to the aircraft carriers, and they constantly follow the aircraft carriers .. if I am not mistaken, 1 to 2 of our boats are always close to the US fleet, just like the US submarines always accompany our ships to the sea .. this is a mutual constant hunting
    4. avg
      avg 28 January 2014 11: 20
      +8
      Quote: clidon
      This is to say that journalists or patriotic citizens like to exaggerate everything a bit (in order).

      Here I completely agree with you. But to deny that using space reconnaissance and target designation is the easiest and cheapest way to deal with AOG is not worth it. I don’t know how things are now, but in Soviet times, one of the main tasks of Gukos in case of military danger was the accelerated launch of backup satellites into orbit. Thus, the capabilities of the group increased, in addition, all aircraft carriers were tracked from the moment they went to sea, and the loss of contact was regarded as an emergency.
      1. clidon
        clidon 28 January 2014 14: 14
        +2
        Alas, even the reinforced Soviet constellation of satellites only narrowed the search areas, or aimed at a relatively narrow section of the surface.
    5. Alekseev
      Alekseev 28 January 2014 11: 49
      +7
      Quote: clidon
      Why do you think they continue to produce patrol aircraft, AWACS and other intelligence systems.

      As the famous character said: we never bet on one horse! yes
      That's why "they keep on producing" this and that.
      In addition, there is a difference in the capabilities and purpose of reconnaissance and target designation systems.
      Nevertheless, the Liana system is extremely necessary and important. And it is effective if it really "can scan not only large objects in the ocean, which the Soviet Legend was capable of, but any object up to 1 meter in size anywhere in the world." The aircraft carrier will be bigger!
      1. clidon
        clidon 28 January 2014 14: 17
        0
        The effectiveness of the system in this case needs to be known not in recognizable meters (they are more likely to be needed for reconnaissance than target designation), but in the area of ​​the scanned surface. One does not need to be a space science thrice to guess that it is relatively small. ) And the fact that any point on the planet is achieved by a group not in a matter of minutes or even hours.
    6. Onyx
      Onyx 28 January 2014 12: 50
      +4
      Quote: clidon
      Would the Minutemans do it with satellite guidance and say goodbye to the Russian (Chinese) Navy.

      Well then both America and Russia goodbye, since the launch of ICBMs, it doesn’t matter that only the ships will cause a retaliatory nuclear strike from Russia towards the United States. I think that’s why Russia is in no hurry to create anti-ship ballistic missiles, although successful models in the USSR have already been created.
      1. clidon
        clidon 28 January 2014 14: 19
        +1
        That is, the nuclear warheads on the Granites were not supposed to cause a nuclear strike, but the nuclear launches of ICBMs should? The point is rather different.
        1. Onyx
          Onyx 28 January 2014 14: 47
          +5
          Quote: clidon
          That is, the nuclear warheads on the Granites were not supposed to cause a nuclear strike, but the nuclear launches of ICBMs should? The point is rather different.

          It’s not about warheads, but about the flight path. The launch of the Minutemen can be mistaken for a nuclear strike on Russian territory with all the consequences.
          1. clidon
            clidon 28 January 2014 15: 23
            0
            And here are the flight paths if the scenario involves the use of nuclear warheads ?! Does it matter how they deliver it - the Kyrgyz Republic or ICBMs.
            It would be a different matter if we were talking about ordinary equipment.
            1. Onyx
              Onyx 28 January 2014 15: 55
              +5
              How then? Can a minuteman launched from the United States fly to Russia? Can. And Granite, let, say, from the Barents Sea, can fly to the United States? Can not. Therefore, the launch of the Granites will not provoke a retaliatory strike with strategic nuclear weapons. And that is precisely why, by the way, the deployment by the Americans of non-nuclear weapons on ICBMs causes such concern. The launch of such ICBMs, even if not from any of the nuclear powers, can provoke these nuclear powers into a retaliatory nuclear strike, because the SPRN radars are not able to determine what kind of charge there is on flying missiles.
              1. clidon
                clidon 28 January 2014 16: 01
                0
                That is, you are sure that a nuclear strike on aircraft carriers with the use of anti-ship missiles will not provoke the United States to retaliate "nuclear" measures, as well as the flight of a supposedly nuclear strategic intercontinental missile.
                Of course, ICBMs with conventional equipment are precisely why they are not put into service.
                1. Onyx
                  Onyx 28 January 2014 16: 15
                  +3
                  Quote: clidon
                  That is, you are sure that a nuclear strike against aircraft carriers using anti-ship missiles will not provoke the United States to retaliate "nuclear" measures

                  It will not provoke nuclear attacks on the territory of our country. They are not suicides there. As long as we have nuclear potential capable of destroying any state in retaliatory action, nobody dare to launch nuclear strikes on our territory. Naturally, we will destroy AUGs while defending ourselves against aggression.
                  1. clidon
                    clidon 28 January 2014 16: 17
                    0
                    Well, that is, in your opinion, they will swallow a nuclear pill and will not take retaliatory nuclear actions because we are defending (good), and they are attacking (bad)?
                  2. Onyx
                    Onyx 28 January 2014 16: 34
                    +2
                    On the territory of Russia - no. And not because we are good, but they are bad, but because they also want to live.
                  3. clidon
                    clidon 28 January 2014 18: 00
                    +1
                    Well then, okay. I forgot that we are courageous and strong, and they are cowardly and weak. And of course they want to live. And here we are.
                  4. Onyx
                    Onyx 28 January 2014 19: 59
                    0
                    Quote: clidon
                    And here we are.

                    You also forgot that it is they who attack us using AUG.
                  5. clidon
                    clidon 28 January 2014 20: 13
                    +1
                    So do not forget that the war is, as it were, non-nuclear. I don’t think the Pentagon will take it for granted - "Here we have a mess, the Russians began to beat them with nuclear weapons. Let's bear it, they are right."
                  6. Onyx
                    Onyx 29 January 2014 00: 25
                    0
                    Well, maybe they will answer in proportion to our ships, but no more
                  7. clidon
                    clidon 29 January 2014 17: 53
                    0
                    This is exactly the same chance as the fact that an "anti-ship ICBM" will provoke a nuclear retaliatory strike. )
                  8. Tiamat2702
                    Tiamat2702 30 January 2014 14: 57
                    0
                    Not "exactly the same" at all
                  9. clidon
                    clidon 30 January 2014 15: 50
                    0
                    Well this is nothing more than your opinion. I now believe that the use of nuclear weapons is real, which destabilizes the situation much more than the flight of a strategic missile. Given that the retaliatory strike in general, neither we nor the Americans have long (officially) been considered acceptable.
                  10. Onyx
                    Onyx 30 January 2014 16: 15
                    0
                    Quote: clidon
                    Given that the retaliatory strike in general, neither we nor the Americans have long (officially) been considered acceptable.

                    I don’t know exactly how the Americans do, but in our country, at least officially, a retaliatory nuclear strike is considered possible.
                  11. clidon
                    clidon 30 January 2014 18: 51
                    0
                    Long gone. And until now.
        2. alexng
          alexng 29 January 2014 08: 50
          +1
          No nuclear war between two nuclear powers is impossible, except for information, of course, and other crap ...
        3. alexng
          alexng 29 January 2014 08: 50
          +3
          No nuclear war between two nuclear powers is impossible, except for information, of course, and other crap ...
        4. Aljavad
          Aljavad 31 January 2014 19: 21
          0
          A non-nuclear warhead carrier does not sink.
        5. Cynic
          Cynic 31 January 2014 19: 29
          0
          Quote: Aljavad
          A non-nuclear warhead carrier does not sink.

          At what roll does an aircraft carrier lose the ability to receive / raise aircraft?
          wink
  • Aljavad
    Aljavad 31 January 2014 19: 19
    0
    when struck by AUG, they will first understand. Although everything will lead to increased combat readiness, they will try to drown the attacking nuclear submarines. (Also by local non-strategic forces.)
  • xtur
    xtur 28 January 2014 22: 23
    +1
    > That is, the nuclear warheads on "Granitah" were not supposed to cause a nuclear strike, but nuclear launches of ICBMs should?

    and think about it?
    "Granite" is in any case a local weapon, you cannot use it on the territory of the USA. Its launch can become a pretext for a nuclear war only if the attack on the fleet is regarded as a worthy reason for this war.
  • Danafxnumx
    Danafxnumx 28 January 2014 15: 58
    +1
    Quote: clidon
    Would the "Minutemans" do it with satellite guidance and say goodbye to the Russian (Chinese) Navy?

    Yes, everything is simple ...
    they lost the Minuteman scheme ... just like the shuttle once wink
  • dustycat
    dustycat 28 January 2014 18: 14
    0
    Quote: clidon
    Why do you think they continue to produce patrol aircraft, AWACS and other intelligence systems.


    "No need to shaggy grandma! Guys! All because of the attendants!" (C)
    What is there to think then? There is a budget - it must be mastered!
    And it will be mastered!
    1. clidon
      clidon 28 January 2014 18: 16
      +2
      Well, it’s understandable — we alone are arming ourselves to defend the Motherland scrupulously assessing every penny. Everyone else stupidly and uselessly sawing dibs. )
      1. Danafxnumx
        Danafxnumx 28 January 2014 19: 52
        +1
        Quote: clidon
        Well, it’s understandable — we alone are arming ourselves to defend the Motherland scrupulously assessing every penny. Everyone else stupidly and uselessly sawing dibs. )

        is this news for you?

        Nata understands perfectly well that we are not going to attack her ...
    2. Vasek
      Vasek 28 January 2014 22: 19
      0
      Quote: dustycat
      There is a budget - it must be mastered!
      And it will be mastered!

      The triangle will be drunk!
      Be it parallelepiped
      Or a cube, a louse is vigorous.
      For three you give it!
  • VKabanov
    VKabanov 28 January 2014 11: 42
    +4
    An atomic warrant was invented 50 years ago. Do not drown more than 2 ships.
    1. Canep
      Canep 28 January 2014 11: 51
      +7
      It’s enough to drown the aircraft carrier, the remaining ships will be able to do the nuclear submarines. Without air cover they are poorly protected. Better yet, damage the aircraft carrier, then escort ships will be forced to protect it from drowning, and will not be able to perform independent tasks.
    2. user1212
      user1212 28 January 2014 16: 38
      +3
      I agree with one rocket. Yes, that's just on the same 949A Antey 12 twin launchers and that 24 missiles. What order do you propose to build from them?
      1. clidon
        clidon 28 January 2014 18: 08
        +1
        As far as I remember, when the Granit system was created, it was believed that to reliably defeat an aircraft carrier (2 hits), at least 20 missiles were required, then on the go (after testing) they counted 1 hit for 12 launches, respectively, 949 missiles were already laid on the 24 project submarines ... After the commissioning of Aegis, it was decided to double the number of missiles - up to 1 guaranteed hit on 24 missiles, respectively, the construction of a larger number of Anteevs began to be included in the armament program, and communication systems were blocked for their coordinated launches.
        1. user1212
          user1212 29 January 2014 18: 34
          +1
          The problem is that these assumptions are very arbitrary. History knows no cases of an attack on a US aircraft carrier with a granite missile, as well as cases of successful counteraction to a missile by a missile defense and electronic warfare system of an aircraft carrier group, subject to a mass launch. How effective is IJIS against anti-missile defense systems of a modern Russian missile (not granite)? The tests were carried out only on American missiles, and often "twisted" to obtain the desired result (reduced speed, increased flight altitude, chosen a predictable trajectory, the time and place of launch are known in advance, etc.).
          A striking example is the history of the boat project 671RTMK in 96. Both by our and American standards, the boat is outdated and very noisy. How could you miss it at anti-submarine exercises? But the boat could put the floor of the warrant to the bottom with one salvo
          1. clidon
            clidon 29 January 2014 19: 10
            0
            The tests were carried out only on American missiles, and often "twisted" to obtain the desired result

            Can I find out where you got information about the conditions for launching American target missiles?
            1. user1212
              user1212 30 January 2014 03: 59
              0
              Flickered somewhere interview gene designer MIT
              1. clidon
                clidon 30 January 2014 15: 54
                0
                They then relate to what kind of American tests in the field of RCC? Or is it a private opinion?
          2. litus
            litus 29 May 2015 14: 29
            0
            on the wiki they say that it was the K-448 Tambov nuclear submarine of project 671RTMK, and not the Pike-B.
    3. Tiamat2702
      Tiamat2702 30 January 2014 15: 03
      0
      But it’s not necessary. It’s enough to drown the aircraft carrier. Without it, AUG will not be able to fulfill its main mission. Without it, AUG is not AUG. )))
  • Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 28 January 2014 12: 04
    +5
    With AUG only fight with the Papuans.
  • Sgt.
    Sgt. 28 January 2014 12: 41
    +6
    Well done !!!
    Now amers can insert the wick in one place.
    I thought that they would not restore the satellite group of naval intelligence.
    Thank God and Shoigu with Putin
  • Uncle
    Uncle 28 January 2014 13: 09
    +10
    Quote: Canep
    "Poplar M" with satellite guidance and all goodbye AUG.

    Give more satellites, good and different!
  • Zubr
    Zubr 28 January 2014 13: 56
    +4
    Well, Poplar is quite an expensive pleasure, but a flock of winged Lyagavy, and a pair of them with a special warhead, will cause a lot of concern to our "PARTNERS".
    It is gratifying to hear that by the end of the year this guidance system will be fully operational.
    Well, I think so, in the process of fine-tuning the software, our military programmers will work hard and the performance will improve. Our then, I think, reserve capabilities were laid in the elemental base.

    LET IT BE SO ! drinks
  • The comment was deleted.
  • AVV
    AVV 28 January 2014 14: 25
    +3
    Quote: Canep
    Oh, someone here on the site assured that AUG is almost invisible, and that it cannot be destroyed. Clever guys AU WHERE ARE YOU ?. "Poplar M" with satellite guidance and all goodbye AUG.

    Why is Toplem? He has one unit, for this Yars is better suited he has enough blocks for an aircraft carrier and escort ships !!! And there is also naval aviation with Corresponding missiles, or Tu-22m2 with super sonic missiles !!! creeper America throat will pull !!!
  • Sirocco
    Sirocco 28 January 2014 15: 33
    +5
    Quote: Canep
    Oh, someone here on the site assured that AUG is almost invisible, and that it is impossible to destroy it. Wise guys WOW WHERE ?.

    I remember remember this discussion. I would like to add that in order to combat these chicken coops, it is necessary to use a set of measures for destruction, and nuclear submarines are in the forefront. More than once they were purged under the American warrant. lol
  • postman
    postman 28 January 2014 16: 55
    +5
    Quote: Canep
    "Poplar M" with satellite guidance and all goodbye AUG.

    With a fright?
    1. TM -not guided "by satellite" - IT JUST DOESN'T FOR THIS
    1.a instrument (receiving equipment)
    1.b DU correction (TM and so everything is squeezed dry to ensure the required performance characteristics of ICBMs)
    1. c. The control system (TM) is inertial based on the CCVC and the gyro-stabilized platform.
    2. Moreover, the maneuvering target
    3. TM-Year of adoption: 2006. ICRC "Legend" fell apart after the death of the Soviet Union, the last satellite fell into 300 fragments in 2007.
    4.14F138 "Lotus-S" TOTAL 1n
    14F145 "Lotus-C1" seems not to be launched? yes and not foreseen
  • smith7
    smith7 29 January 2014 12: 00
    +1
    It is not at all easy to detect AUG. So far, even with the commissioning of Liana, there is only a fundamental possibility of detecting and organizing any kind of effective counteraction. In conditions of a serious armed confrontation, it is possible that adequate measures will be taken by the enemy, and the effectiveness of Liana will be in question. At least the prospect of Liana's development into an effective space system is encouraging! Financial investments in this matter will be huge, but they are justified. "Goodbye AUG" cannot yet be said ...
  • Eugene M
    Eugene M 30 January 2014 08: 32
    -5
    A wise guy is someone who believes that Topol will be fired at the country into which the shooter took out billions earned by overwork ... Dollars .....
    1. Rus2012
      30 January 2014 09: 44
      +1
      Quote: Eugene M
      who believes that Topol will be fired at the country into which the shooter took out billions earned by overwork ... Dollars .....

      ... when the ass burns and a pistol is attached to the temple, about those exported, such people will think in the last turn, do not you think so?
      With all this, their actions will be accompanied by other worthy sons who have nothing to do with zabugr, but they have powers and "makarov" in the belt / armpit. Yes, and the "Dead Hand" is involved ...
      To choose the right Hamlet-or-or?
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 30 January 2014 16: 02
      +2
      Quote: Eugene M
      Topol will be fired at the country into which the shooter took out the billions earned by excessive labor .... Dollars .....

      Here such a thing, it seems to many wise men now it begins to reach that they cannot see this exported money.
      That's who tyryl on trifles those yes, enjoy the benefits of Western civilization.
  • GSH-18
    GSH-18 31 January 2014 13: 37
    0
    Quote from the article: "As a result, by the end of this year, Russia will be able to three hours destroy any American aircraft carrier anywhere in the world with an accuracy of 3 meters "
    ================================================== ===============
    Rather, it will not "be able", but will have some kind of opportunity (since it makes no sense to speak of a 100% probability in all cases). We must always remember that the AUGs are not blind or deaf, and they are not controlled by brainless and .diot recruits.
    All of these new Russian miracle rockets are certainly good. But in order to effectively confront Amer’s AUGs, you must have your own. China and India already understood this yes
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 31 January 2014 15: 43
      0
      Quote: GSH-18
      But in order to effectively confront Amer’s AUGs, you must have your own. China and India already understood this

      And where is this visible?
      That one, that the other state, as it were, aircraft carriers and, accordingly, will be sort of like AUG.
      Hmm, our foundation, really then, at the time of the heyday of the AUG, our at least one full-fledged aircraft carrier to do.
      Or why not consider this?
      hi
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 31 January 2014 16: 17
        -1
        Quote: Cynic
        That one, that the other state, as it were, aircraft carriers and, accordingly, will be sort of like AUG.
        Hmm, our foundation, really then, at the time of the heyday of the AUG, our at least one full-fledged aircraft carrier to do.
        Or why not consider this?

        For starters, China bought one Soviet TAKR for review. Now sculpts YOUR AUG-google. India recently accepted a redesigned by us, our TAKR-in India, it is proudly called the Aircraft Carrier (although the TAKR from the Aircraft Carrier differ like a boat from a cruiser).
        Ours, even at the time of the USSR, had a project for the construction of the Soviet nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Ulyanovsk". The main supporter of the construction of Aircraft Carriers and AUG-like the newest model of the Navy, was the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Sergei Gerasimovich Kuznetsov.
        Everyone knows how it ended - the "Solomon solution" gas turbine aircraft carrier with a raised nose (because of the length of the take-off deck) and three times cut (in comparison with the American aircraft carrier) air group, with a 45-day sailing reserve! A strange creation, fit only to guard its own coast.
        RF in the new political situation needs AUG. Since this is a military-political instrument (in the current conditions) in the first place. One has only to adjust the AUG to the shores of the "abutting" power, and the problems begin to be solved surprisingly easier! And mind you, without a single shot! It is impossible to solve such problems by submarines. That is why we cannot effectively protect our supporters around the world today. The absence of AUG in our country is fraught with a lack of supporters in the future. Their States with the help of their AUGs "democratize" as they want (example, Iraq).
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 31 January 2014 17: 17
          -1
          Quote: GSH-18
          Everyone knows how it ended - "Solomon solution" gas turbine aircraft carrier

          What is the conversation about?
          Quote: GSH-18
          One has only to adjust the AUG to the shores of the "abutting" power, and the problems begin to be solved surprisingly easier!

          This is the case you are not talking about Iran?
          And recently here forum users referred to the absence of the ACG as a solution to the Senegalese problem.
          Yeah, blacks in Africa to drive, the Iranians no longer succeed.
          You can still remember Libya _ Bomb, bombed so what? Libyan has arrived happiness ?
          Vietnam is also the former field of activity of the ACG air forces.
          Don’t you think that you are offering Yusov’s copyright solution to problems?
          1. GSH-18
            GSH-18 2 February 2014 12: 25
            0
            Quote: Cynic
            Don’t you think that you are offering Yusov’s copyright solution to problems?

            It does not seem. I believe that the Russian Federation should have the most modern Navy. A catfish modern model of the Navy today is AUG and AUS. Nikolay Gerasimovich Kuznetsov also spoke about this. But then the Warsaw Pact countries hung on the USSR and other sympathizers around the world-did not give money to AUG.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 2 February 2014 16: 18
              0
              Quote: GSH-18
              It does not seem. I believe that the Russian Federation should have the most modern Navy.

              You might think that someone is against it.
              Quote: GSH-18
              A catfish modern model of the Navy today is AUG and AUS.

              More than a controversial statement at this point in time.
              Aug is the quintessence of old aglitsky expressions about large ships.
              Quote: GSH-18
              still Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov, he said.

              I have great respect for the Fleet Admiral Nikolai Gerasimovich Kuznetsov, I think the contribution of the Soviet Navy under his command to the victory was not fully disclosed due to the ambiguity of his estimates.
              But sorry _ When was that?
              hi
  • SuperVodka777
    SuperVodka777 2 February 2014 00: 15
    0
    Recently they talked about this ship "Lyubov Orlova" which is drifting in the ocean and cannot be caught, as well as the case with the landing of Rusta on Red Square and how our aircraft of the USSR Air Force, after the pilot's ejection in Poland, flew the entire super NATO air defense line and fell when fuel ran out somewhere in Holland. So it seems to me that all these detection tools are not so perfect. Another thing is if you follow him all the time, 10 goals, then you can know where they are.
    1. clidon
      clidon 2 February 2014 09: 09
      0
      Well, that plane (MiG-23) - the air defense system led from the borders of Germany. He was not shot down, hoping that he himself would fall down in the Atlantic.
    2. Cynic
      Cynic 2 February 2014 16: 32
      0
      Quote: SuperVodka777
      So it seems to me that all these detection tools are not so perfect.

      Despite the imperfection, at any time, of the means of detection in both cases of violators led .
      The political factor is an even more lousy thing than the human factor.
      hi
      Yes, at least got acquainted with history of the issue before speaking out.
      wink
  • GSH-18
    GSH-18 2 February 2014 13: 00
    0
    Quote: Canep
    Clever guys AU WHERE ARE YOU ?. "Poplar M" with satellite guidance and all goodbye AUG.

    I used to think that such bloopers can only be heard from Aunt Sonya from Odessa! belay laughing laughing
    Thanks Canep, had fun good
  • Berxen
    Berxen 2 February 2014 17: 15
    0
    Quote: Canep
    Oh, someone here on the site assured that AUG is almost invisible, and that it cannot be destroyed. Clever guys AU WHERE ARE YOU ?. "Poplar M" with satellite guidance and all goodbye AUG.



    Topol-M is a ballistic missile.
  • lelikas
    lelikas 28 January 2014 20: 05
    +9
    Actually, what am I talking about? And so it all started with a funny picture ...
    When the full polar fox arrives, one of the parts of the first missile strike will significantly change the terrain of such places as Norfolk, San Diego and other places where the AUG is based and repaired. (in fact, the same will fly back to us)
    We don’t really need to catch aircraft carriers in the vast expanses of the world’s oceans - wait until they come closer — and there’s not so much taking into account the polar ice and big Eurasia. It’s more than easy to cover them with satellites.
    Further - nothing will prevent our A-50 and others from giving target designation.
    He wrote already, but I repeat - our fleet has always been (at least after the WWII) littoral, this time little has changed. Accordingly, the fight against AUG is a complex of ships, boats and naval aviation.
    In fact, the hunt will unfold for the BDK, UDK and other means of transporting drugs.
    Well, the picture itself, so pleased me. hi
    1. clidon
      clidon 28 January 2014 20: 17
      +1
      We don’t really need to catch aircraft carriers in the vast oceans of the world - we’ll wait until they come closer — and there aren’t so many, taking into account the polar ice and big Eurasia

      And if they do not fit, but simply take on the task of transferring troops and resources from the United States to the Old World? Or come from the Pacific?

      PS Have you ever heard about the work of the A-50 on aircraft carriers in real life? Me not.
  • Corsair
    Corsair 28 January 2014 20: 32
    +1
    Quote: sasha.28blaga
    All the same, it’s difficult to deceive a Russian.

    And whoever tries will not live a day wink ...
  • Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 28 January 2014 21: 53
    +4
    Quote: sasha.28blaga
    All the same, it’s difficult to deceive a Russian.


    In general, not very. It’s hard not to regret it later ...
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 29 January 2014 13: 02
      +5
      In general, not very. It’s hard not to regret it later ...


      “Do not hope that once you take advantage of Russia's weakness, you will receive dividends forever. Russians always come for their money. And when they come, don’t rely on the Jesuit agreements that you have signed, supposedly supporting you. They are not worth the paper on which they are written. Therefore, it’s worth playing with the Russians honestly or not playing at all ”- Otto von Bismarck.
      smile
  • igor.borov775
    igor.borov775 3 February 2014 11: 54
    0
    Hi, what kind of fraud are you talking about? Please clarify, Of course, it’s good that they took on the space group of reconnaissance and target designation so that 20 years we’ll come around again and again, Before you rejoice, you need to understand how the Yankees use the fleet, and here everything immediately gets out, After all, over-the-horizon means of detection are needed without them like without one eye or I’m confusing something, then please answer why did the Yankees set up so many stations of this type far from their coast on the islands, Or I confuse, the Pentagon Chief knew what he was talking about, In today's conditions, we are just desperately trying to equalize parity with naval weapons, for 20 years it will be hard to find an adequate answer, Granite is outdated, Of the new warships that meet modern requirements, we still have one, but look at what kind of storm our dear friends raised with us and there abroad, too, do not sleep slander and threaten, This Ash is really an adequate answer to all these AUGs, And this is really for them kaput, Yankisy now with solve a very important problem of controlling the space around the AUG within a radius of 1500 km, they have been going to this for twenty long years, I must admit they have managed to do a lot now they are working out and bring all systems to full interaction, while we don’t have such a surface ship, but they promise it, and probably they’ll build it, and we don’t need such a fleet about which Admiral Kasatonov wrote so colorfully with a tear in his eyes, this is the road to nowhere, And I’m sorry for YOU not to clap your hands before the fleet has such problems that the solution will require many efforts of many thousands of compatriots, After all, a ship is a naval weapon system and it is very serious that it’s not possible
  • Old scoop
    Old scoop 28 January 2014 08: 46
    +8
    "I can see everything from the top,
    You should know so. "
    You won’t throw words out of a song.
    1. Arberes
      Arberes 28 January 2014 09: 33
      +5
      Quote: Old scoop
      "I can see everything from the top,

      And I liked the photo of the aircraft carrier (view from the top), it impresses me, at least!
      Today the site is simply full of materials on the marine theme! Friends, I’m just torn to pieces, but you can’t do it all at once?
  • Dangerous
    Dangerous 28 January 2014 08: 48
    +5
    Glad for ours that really something necessary and modern is being adopted
  • Professor
    Professor 28 January 2014 08: 49
    -4
    Until 2015, another “Peony” will be included in Liana, thus, the size of the system constellation will expand to four satellites.

    And the aircraft carrier cannot hide from four satellites?
    Of course of course. Americans are already nervously smoking on the sidelines. bully
    1. Canep
      Canep 28 January 2014 08: 56
      +11
      Good to you Professor! hi And how many satellites you need, keep in mind that they never enter the Arctic regions of AUG. 4 satellites will monitor the probable location of the AUG every 3 hours.
      1. Professor
        Professor 28 January 2014 09: 15
        +1
        Quote: Canep
        And how many satellites you need, keep in mind that they never enter the Arctic regions of AUG. 4 satellites will monitor the probable location of the AUG every 3 hours.

        Not knowing the exact performance characteristics of the satellites (orbital period, field of view, etc.), let's take a break from your "data" at 3 o'clock. Nimitz develops a speed of 30 knots (56 km / h). In three hours, it "fades" kilometers by 130-140. So try to bomb it. bully
        1. Evgeny_Lev
          Evgeny_Lev 28 January 2014 09: 38
          +7
          comrade, do they always walk at full steam?
          What about parking at the roadside or other ports?
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. RussianRu
          RussianRu 28 January 2014 09: 43
          +8
          You yourself answered your own question, (speed). It is enough to know the location, speed and direction of movement. And then a matter of technology and knowledge. Aircraft carriers do not have incredible maneuverability. Nimitz will not know that a supersonic "bun" flew to him.
          1. Professor
            Professor 28 January 2014 09: 51
            +12
            Quote: Russian
            Carriers do not have incredible maneuverability

            Well yes? Like a barge, she is a barge. wink



            1. Canep
              Canep 28 January 2014 10: 15
              +13
              To start steering like this, the aircraft carrier commander must know that an ICBM has been fired at him. To determine the point of impact of ICBMs, you must first wait for the marching rocket engines to turn off. it is somewhere around 5 minutes then actually calculate the point and pass it to the command, let it be 1 minute, then the command should determine what is there and inform the commander of the AUG, another 3 minutes. Then the commander must decide on the maneuver and prepare the ship and notify the escort ships of his maneuver, another 2 minutes. And he has 9 minutes left to get away from the point of impact. A simple calculation gives a result of 8334 meters at a speed of 30 knots.
              PS cool pictures.
              1. clidon
                clidon 28 January 2014 10: 30
                +5
                Well, you have the Hollywood version of the situation, so the aircraft carrier’s commander will be immediately informed by the SPRN system, he will give a full turn in a split second.
              2. rolik
                rolik 28 January 2014 13: 45
                +12
                Quote: Canep
                To start driving like this

                On the upper deck should not be a single aircraft)))))
                1. hello
                  hello 28 January 2014 15: 07
                  +7
                  Under the threat of drowning the entire vessel - you can sacrifice everything that is not fixed. But if, even after such a maneuver, it turns out that the alarm is false ...
                2. pl675
                  pl675 28 January 2014 17: 40
                  +4
                  Quote: rolik
                  Quote: Canep
                  To start driving like this

                  On the upper deck should not be a single aircraft)))))


                  this is exponential circulation -
                  in combat, this is fraught with casualties.
              3. AVV
                AVV 28 January 2014 14: 43
                +3
                Quote: Canep
                To start steering like this, the aircraft carrier commander must know that an ICBM has been fired at him. To determine the point of impact of ICBMs, you must first wait for the marching rocket engines to turn off. it is somewhere around 5 minutes then actually calculate the point and pass it to the command, let it be 1 minute, then the command should determine what is there and inform the commander of the AUG, another 3 minutes. Then the commander must decide on the maneuver and prepare the ship and notify the escort ships of his maneuver, another 2 minutes. And he has 9 minutes left to get away from the point of impact. A simple calculation gives a result of 8334 meters at a speed of 30 knots.
                PS cool pictures.

                Yes, where he’s an Aircraft Carrier, even from the old Volcanoes, they’ll disappear, they fly in a flock along the AUG and grab a homing head at a distance of 700 km and will not let anyone out, not a single bastard will leave, especially now there is such an assistant as a creeper, I’m not talking about Onyx and Caliber with submarines !!! So that professor is a wimp, but he wanted to seem smart !!!
                1. clidon
                  clidon 28 January 2014 16: 19
                  +5
                  Capturing a homing head at a distance of 70 kilometers you wanted to say?
            2. RussianRu
              RussianRu 28 January 2014 10: 25
              +6
              Beautiful commercial. What will have time to do when approaching a supersonic rocket? Say oops? There is no time for making a decision and even more so for some actions.
            3. Victor-M
              Victor-M 28 January 2014 10: 25
              +10
              Quote: Professor
              Well yes? Like a barge, she is a barge.

              I would like to see his maneuvers, when a nuclear warhead is detonated near the AUG or in the area where a nuclear warhead is located, there is no population, no one will be harmed, well, if only the maneuvering "barge". With such maneuvers, it is unlikely that at least one unit from the Air Force, from those present in this chicken coop, will have time to take off, or at least there will be a desire to start the engine. lol
              1. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 28 January 2014 12: 10
                +5
                I would like to see his maneuvers
                The video is impressive of course. After all, such a colossus. But to do this without preliminary preparation - fixing everything in the holds and on the deck ... I also doubt that it is possible to spin the helm without loss.
                lol
            4. PN
              PN 28 January 2014 11: 11
              +7
              With such an emergency turn and roll, everything that is on the deck will be overboard, and everything that is not fixed in the hangar will be a pile of scrap metal lying on the side. And without aviation, he really is nothing more than a barge.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. kplayer
            kplayer 28 January 2014 16: 08
            +1
            The supersonic "bun" is still not hypersonic, and the "air-to-air" missiles cannot work through it?
            1. clidon
              clidon 28 January 2014 16: 20
              +2
              Of course they can. Otherwise, we would have a big problem with the interception of supersonic bombers.
              1. kplayer
                kplayer 28 January 2014 19: 01
                -1
                Those. "Bun" (PKR Granite) can easily go to the bottom and frighten whales.
              2. The comment was deleted.
          4. Vasek
            Vasek 28 January 2014 22: 32
            0
            Quote: Russian
            It is enough to know the location, speed and direction of movement.


            ... and the direction of travel!
        4. Ataman
          Ataman 28 January 2014 09: 48
          +2
          And the flight time of ICBMs is 15 minutes. And they will find out, and will carry out target designation, and they will manage to photograph the wreckage.
        5. Canep
          Canep 28 January 2014 09: 52
          +20
          Quote: Professor
          Nimitz develops a speed of 30 knots (56 km / h). In three hours, it "fades" kilometers by 130-140. So try to bomb it. bully
          The ICBM flight time is not three hours, but only 20 minutes. After detection, it will pass not 130-140 km, but only 18 kilometers (10 miles). And if the direction of its movement is known, then it is not difficult to calculate the rendezvous point. I hope you do not intend to inform him that you are going to make fun of him? So that he begins evasion maneuvers. I think the deviation will be no more than 6 km. 0.5Mt at a distance of 6 km with a probability of 1000% will destroy all the electronics of both ships and aircraft, and the shock wave may overturn the ship, or cause severe damage to it, planes from the deck will be washed away, and those in the hangar and loose, will begin to move around the hangar destroying everything in its path.
          Well, if you drag the Yars with 4 warheads, lay them down over the area, then the aircraft carrier has no chance to survive.
          1. clidon
            clidon 28 January 2014 10: 08
            +8
            You somehow do not take into account the time of processing information from the satellite. But it is not 0 seconds. And there are no such weapons yet (anti-ship strategic missile), yet.
            The Chinese say something there, but in any case hastily build "unpromising" aircraft carrier targets.
            1. rolik
              rolik 28 January 2014 13: 59
              +7
              Quote: clidon
              You somehow do not take into account the time of processing information from the satellite. But it is not 0 seconds. And there are no such weapons yet (anti-ship strategic missile), yet.

              I want to disappoint you there is such a rocket. In November 1973, a ballistic missile was launched from a diesel-electric submarine of the USSR Navy K-102, the head of which accurately hit the target ship. The launch was carried out as part of the tests of the D-5 marine missile system. The R-27K became the first ballistic missile in history capable of hitting moving surface ships. Soviet designers, in particular, were prevented from developing the PKRB theme by Soviet-American agreements on limiting strategic arms, however, for example, China is not a party to these agreements and its hands are untied. There was a sensational report about China developing a ballistic missile designed to deal with aircraft carriers. The information was subsequently repeatedly confirmed by senior Pentagon officials. The flight range of the rocket is about 1700 km. They suggest the possibility of using a target-oriented over-the-horizon radar and existing reconnaissance satellites for target designation. Experts believe that the range in the future can be increased to 2700-3000 km.
              A more advanced missile is being developed than the R-27K, R-29 SLBM, which has an intercontinental flight range. In 1971, it was decided to create the D-13 missile system with the R-33 ballistic anti-ship missile. Unlike the R-27K, the use of combined (active-passive) homing equipment for the warheads in the atmospheric portion of the flight path was envisaged. PKBR R-33 was supposed to have a mass and dimensions similar to the R-29 rocket (launch weight 33,3 tons, length 13 m, body diameter 1,8 m) and firing range up to 2000 km. It was envisaged equipping the missile with a monoblock and separable warheads with nuclear and conventional equipment. The development of the missile system reached the preliminary design, but did not have further continuation. This was due to both technical difficulties and the entry into force of strategic arms limitation treaties, according to which this missile was considered strategic.
              That something like this.
              1. clidon
                clidon 28 January 2014 14: 23
                +4
                I am well aware of those tests (the number of fantasies regarding them is on the Internet). And believe me, I know even better that at the moment there is no such weapon operating reliably from such distances. First of all, the problems were of a technical nature, in the second, also technical.
                1. rolik
                  rolik 28 January 2014 15: 10
                  +3
                  Quote: clidon
                  First of all, the problems were of a technical nature, in the second, also technical.

                  In those days, yes. Now the technical problems of those years are already being solved.
                  And, if I understood correctly, then you say that we didn’t make such missiles ????
                  1. clidon
                    clidon 28 January 2014 21: 28
                    0
                    The topic was not abandoned because the Americans with the treaties so wanted.
          2. Professor
            Professor 28 January 2014 10: 12
            +4
            Quote: Canep
            0.5Mt at a distance of 6 km with a probability of 1000% will destroy all the electronics of both ships and aircraft, and the shock wave may overturn the ship, or cause severe damage to it, planes from the deck will be washed away, and those in the hangar and loose, will begin to move around the hangar destroying everything in its path.

            What are you speaking about? what are 0.5MT? Nuclear weapons are fictitious and their use is finita la comedy for everyone.
            1. Canep
              Canep 28 January 2014 10: 19
              +17
              Quote: Professor
              Nuclear weapons are fictitious and their use is finita la comedy for everyone.

              And shooting at an American aircraft carrier isn’t a comedy? Or do you hope that the Americans congratulate us on a successful hit on their ship.
              1. rolik
                rolik 28 January 2014 19: 03
                0
                Quote: Canep
                And shooting at an American aircraft carrier isn’t a comedy?
                .
                You can make a surprised face, say UUUPPSSS))))) and apologize.
                Mistake, they say, partners came out)))) But we are partners, so to speak, in the global fight against terrorism. Aimed at the Somali pirates, but there was a software failure .... well, they slammed the wrong way ..... sorry, you know))))) recourse lol laughing
            2. Victor-M
              Victor-M 28 January 2014 10: 45
              +27
              Quote: Professor
              Nuclear weapons are fictitious and their use is finita la comedy for everyone.

              Do you think that at the beginning of the third world war, which the United States is preparing with its allies against Russia, they will peacefully destroy our population with cruise missiles, and we must put forward protest notes in the person of Sergey Lavrov? To prepare for the systematic destruction of the Russian population, well, if so, then we will die everything, together with you. And there is no need to talk about phobias among Russians against the USA, with the same success we can say about phobias among Jews against Iran. In the end, in the 20th century, both our Soviet people and your Israeli, experienced it in their own skin, so we will not build illusions about the virtues of the Western world, or rather, their power elites.
              1. rolik2
                rolik2 28 January 2014 11: 52
                +4
                Quote: Victor-M
                at the beginning of the third world war, which is being prepared by the USA

                Are you out of your mind? Who needs a radioactive desert? They will tear you down to their green candy wrappers from the inside, it is much cheaper, and the territory is left intact. We already have examples (USSR). So your reasoning about how you will drown AUG with the help of nuclear weapons is all just chatter.
                1. iwind
                  iwind 28 January 2014 14: 00
                  +5
                  Quote: rolik2

                  Are you out of your mind? Who needs a radioactive desert? They will tear you down to their green candy wrappers from the inside, it is much cheaper, and the territory is left intact. We already have examples (USSR). So your reasoning about how you will drown AUG with the help of nuclear weapons is all just chatter.

                  I also see no reason to launch ICBMs on ships. If it comes to ICBMs, then everyone will be deeply purple about the presence of something there in the ocean, be it AUG or AUS or the whole fleet of any country. Such a war will end very quickly and there will be no winners.
                2. xtur
                  xtur 28 January 2014 22: 40
                  +1
                  > Who needs a radioactive desert?

                  did you read Kissinger's interview? He clearly stated that large / huge losses are an acceptable payment for eliminating strategic competitors.

                  And for all this time I have not read a single refutation of this interview.
                3. Victor-M
                  Victor-M 28 January 2014 23: 27
                  0
                  Quote: rolik2
                  So your reasoning about how you will drown AUG with the help of nuclear weapons is all just chatter.

                  May God grant that it would remain just a chatter, I do not mind, only about the "green candy wrappers" you tell the Serbs, or the Libyans with the Iraqis.
                4. Victor-M
                  Victor-M 28 January 2014 23: 52
                  +1
                  [quote = rolik2] s in your mind? Who needs a radioactive desert? [/ Quote in general I would like to see your actions, if your loved ones are in danger (God forbid), I will probably take all the means at hand to eliminate it, will I? For example, a gas canister against a criminal threatening the life of your loved ones, you probably ask the latter to go into a room where there are no your loved ones to repel him, namely to spray a gazka in his face, so what?
              2. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 28 January 2014 12: 12
                +2
                with the same success we can say about the phobias of the Jews against Iran.
                And against the Nazis too wink
            3. Suvorov000
              Suvorov000 28 January 2014 10: 51
              +2
              That you tell the Japanese)))) then they will be delighted
            4. Uncle
              Uncle 28 January 2014 13: 42
              +5
              Quote: Professor
              Nuclear weapons are fictitious and their use is finita la comedy for everyone.

              The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, as well as in response to large-scale aggression using conventional weapons when the very existence of the Russian state is threatened .
              The military doctrine of the Russian Federation, so it’s not such a fiction.
            5. rolik
              rolik 28 January 2014 18: 59
              0
              Quote: Professor
              finita la comedy for everyone.

              Oleg (Professor) !!! Greetings !!! All rage)))))
            6. Tiamat2702
              Tiamat2702 30 January 2014 16: 20
              0
              Dear Professor, the nuclear warhead RCC Rocket Granite (if the Wiki is not lying) is the same in power as Topol, namely about 0,5 MT.
            7. The comment was deleted.
          3. Nayhas
            Nayhas 28 January 2014 10: 46
            +3
            Quote: Canep
            The ICBM flight time is not three hours, but only 20 minutes. After detection, it will pass not 130-140 km, but only 18 kilometers (10 miles).

            At the expense of three hours you yourself stuttered. Like with a period of 4 hours, 4 satellites are able to cover the entire water area of ​​the world ocean minus the Arctic and Antarctic. I don’t know where you got such confidence that the radar on the satellite is capable of scanning exactly the entire surface of the ocean and land? Moreover, conducting the selection of all moving objects on the expanses of the ocean in real time with a resolution of 1m. It's impossible. Especially from a height of 1000 km.
            1. Canep
              Canep 28 January 2014 11: 04
              +6
              Quote: Nayhas
              I don’t know where you got such confidence that the radar on the satellite is capable of scanning exactly the entire surface of the ocean and land?

              It is not necessary to scan the entire surface, if it is known where the aircraft carrier was 3 hours ago, at what speed and where it was heading, then it is not difficult to guess where it will be during the next flight of the satellite. For 1000 km, he certainly will not leave.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas 28 January 2014 13: 00
                +1
                Quote: Canep
                It is not necessary to scan the entire surface, if it is known where the aircraft carrier was 3 hours ago, at what speed and where it was heading, then it is not difficult to guess where it will be during the next flight of the satellite.

                IF. The most important thing is IF. The ocean is very large. A satellite reconnaissance system is good in a complex when there is reconnaissance aircraft, and the vast expanses of the ocean plow their ships + intelligence. Satellites alone cannot solve the problem.
                1. dustycat
                  dustycat 28 January 2014 19: 36
                  +2
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  The ocean is very large.

                  The ocean is certainly large.
                  But there are a lot of places in it where it does not make sense to look for AUG.
                  For example, standard trade sea lanes.
                  They are even applied to globes.
                  To find on the ocean surface a cluster of high-resolution objects that is characteristic of an AUG order is not necessary.
                  And then it is already possible to clarify with a resolution of 1m - what exactly is floating there on the surface of the ocean.
                  Efficiency of information - real time.
                  And if in a rough search it is still possible to prevent the satellite from using electronic warfare equipment, then when switching to optical and thermal imaging tracking, the very fact of using countermeasures will give a signal for alarm and the use of other, more operational, means of deploying orbital constellation and observation.
                  In the end, Don quite successfully puts into orbit and satellites. And not only in low orbits.
          4. rolik
            rolik 28 January 2014 13: 51
            +4
            Quote: Canep
            The ICBM flight time is not three hours, but only 20 minutes. After detection, it will pass not 130-140 km, but only 18 kilometers (10 miles). And if the direction of its movement is known, then it is not difficult to calculate the rendezvous point.

            Well, why are these difficulties ??? After all, we did a Ballistic missile with satellite corrections in the initial section and a final adjustment when the warhead was in the upper atmosphere. the warhead itself was adjusted. What the Chinese are trying to do to defeat the aircraft carrier. For this case, the new detection system is simply irreplaceable.
          5. Sirocco
            Sirocco 28 January 2014 16: 55
            +3
            Quote: Canep
            . 0.5Mt at a distance of 6 km with a probability of 1000% will destroy all the electronics of both ships and aircraft

            Just this component of nuclear weapons, many do not take into account. I spoke and will continue to speak. Aircraft carriers are intended to intimidate third world countries, I once asked on this topic, how many% of the planes (of the total number of NATO blocs) with the USAG took part in the destruction of Libya? 5%, 10% ??? in short, full zilch. Nevertheless, he declared himself in Libya, and stood quietly on the sidelines awaiting the allied mass raids. Why such a trough which is afraid to undertake aggression on its own.? Even 2, 3, AUG will not do anything against an equal opponent.
        6. neri73-r
          neri73-r 28 January 2014 10: 12
          +5
          In three hours, it "fades" kilometers by 130-140.


          This is not a distance for rocket weapons! It’s easy to bring the main rocket into the given square, and from the height it will easily see the AUG (which is about 10 NOT small ships), the homing head will work and that’s it, hello! It will damage the deck, everything, no one flies, then those who need to get closer will finish off, aviation no longer bothers! Something like that, professor! hi
          1. clidon
            clidon 28 January 2014 10: 32
            0
            In general, we are canceling American aircraft carriers, "Kuznetsovs" and "Admirals Nakhimovs?))
            1. Canep
              Canep 28 January 2014 11: 28
              +2
              Why cancel, they can be useful until World War III begins. And what, in the process of modernization, do they want to attach the flight deck to the cruiser "Admiral Nakhimov"?
              1. clidon
                clidon 28 January 2014 11: 33
                0
                And that "Nakhimov" will withstand a nuclear warhead hit?
                1. Canep
                  Canep 28 January 2014 11: 47
                  +1
                  I think the cruiser can, before its destruction, launch a dozen missiles and destroy several enemy ships. In addition, a missile launched on a cruiser can no longer be launched on Irkutsk, Omsk, or Krasnodar.
                  1. clidon
                    clidon 28 January 2014 14: 25
                    -1
                    It is in the same plane as an aircraft carrier can have time to raise its planes and destroy someone before drowning. Well, it's over the missile that hit it will not reach the Michigan region.
                    1. dustycat
                      dustycat 28 January 2014 19: 49
                      +1
                      Quote: clidon
                      It is in the same plane as an aircraft carrier can have time to raise its planes and destroy someone before drowning.

                      Well, he can lift it and have time, but not for that, not there, and not then.
                      Yes, and pilots will be more interested in where to flop later than how to complete the task
                      1. clidon
                        clidon 28 January 2014 20: 19
                        -1
                        Well, we are in a fantasy world Sapperand. In it, sinking cruisers receive target designation at the last moment and shoot "with their last bit of strength" at an adversary sailing nearby. Instead of drowning when leaving Severomorsk, having received that very magic ICBM. )
            2. lpd1
              lpd1 30 January 2014 18: 37
              0
              What about the pirate problem? Suddenly, both Somali motorboats will unexpectedly leave their home base and start choosing the thickest tanker flying the Panamanian flag?
              This is where world AUGs of all countries come in handy. smile
        7. Rus2012
          28 January 2014 14: 19
          +2
          Quote: Professor
          Nimitz develops a speed of 30 knots (56 km / h). In three hours, he "fades" kilometers by 130-140. So try to bomb it.

          Even the early Soviet BPCR system based on the P-27K was able to work out 150km - http://topwar.ru/36200-protivokorabelnye-ballisticheskie-rakety-dalnego-deystviy
          a.html

          New homing heads have already appeared ...
          - radar correlation GOS - developed by TsNIIAG (Moscow) in the late 1980s on the Volga theme, the missile is guided by comparing the digital terrain map in the target area and the GOS radar data;

          - optical correlation GSN 9E436 - developed by TsNIIAG (Moscow), the missile is guided by the reference image of the target, similar to the GOS missile 8K14-1F ("Aerofon") GOS is first presented at Eurosatory-2004.
          GOS weight - 20 kg
          Flight mission input time - no more than 5 min
          QUO - up to 20 m
          - radar active seeker 9B918 - developed and manufactured by NPP "Radar MMS" as of 2009
          This is all the MS Iskander ...
          I hope I understood the hint :)
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas 28 January 2014 20: 32
            -1
            Quote: Rus2012
            New homing heads have already appeared ...
            - radar correlation GOS - developed by TsNIIAG (Moscow) in the late 1980s on the Volga theme, the missile is guided by comparing the digital terrain map in the target area and the GOS radar data;

            Quote: Rus2012
            - optical correlation seeker 9E436 - developed by TsNIIAG (Moscow), the rocket is guided by the reference target image, similar to the seeker of the 8K14-1F rocket (Aerophone). GOS first presented at the exhibition

            Quote: Rus2012
            This is all the MS Iskander ...
            I hope I understood the hint :)

            It's a pity that you don't understand the term "correlation". The use of rockets with an optical correlation seeker on the sea is impossible because the radar picture of the water surface is the same everywhere, the rocket will simply get lost and fly away to ... Well, you understand, I hope ...
            1. Rus2012
              28 January 2014 21: 55
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              get lost and fly away to ... Well, you understand I hope ...

              she simply selects in the optical or radar range from contrast targets - the necessary one and hit her. the head does not need to be correlated, i.e. to compare the area ... it has already been sent to the search area. See the radar map of Gibraltar ...
              1. Rus2012
                29 January 2014 14: 35
                0
                See the radar map of Gibraltar ...

                I explain to the uneducated "minus markers" - if the 3,14ndos saw from their satellites an approximate radar map with the Topol PGRK in the taiga, there would be no limit to their delight ...
                And what about "raising" the AUG here (ie, allocate for the dull) - there it may not be ... laughing
                For an experienced decoder - there is no need for "seven spans on the forehead" ...
              2. Nayhas
                Nayhas 30 January 2014 21: 58
                -1
                Quote: Rus2012
                she simply selects in the optical or radar range from contrast targets - the necessary one and hit her. the head does not need to be correlated, i.e. to compare the area ... it has already been sent to the search area. See the radar map of Gibraltar ...

                And how does the rocket know that it has flown to the desired area? If the GOS does not need to be correlated, then what kind of GOS is needed? Only GPS / ANN, no options.
                1. Rus2012
                  30 January 2014 22: 14
                  +1
                  Quote: Nayhas
                  And how does the rocket know that it has flown to the desired area? If the GOS does not need to be correlated, then what kind of GOS is needed? Only GPS / ANN, no options.

                  The BKR leads the INS to a given area. He just needs to find the desired target in the specified area (the left one or work out a "miss"), don't you think? This is what the AGSN RL or the optical one does, or both, by comparing the images stored in the memory ...
  • ovokasi08
    ovokasi08 28 January 2014 08: 54
    +2
    this is only seen in films))))) I hope it works as it should!
  • Tron
    Tron 28 January 2014 08: 59
    +10
    It is immediately evident that Leon Panette is not our man. I have not read Lenin's works: "The most dangerous thing in a war is to underestimate the enemy and rest on the fact that we are stronger." There is some kind of "Kuz'kina mother" in our army to "comb" the American carrier strike groupings. tongue
  • slavik_gross
    slavik_gross 28 January 2014 09: 04
    +5
    We are following the right course !!!
  • Cormorants
    Cormorants 28 January 2014 09: 10
    +7
    Well done, keep it up!
  • Stiletto
    Stiletto 28 January 2014 09: 23
    +11
    "Even US aircraft carriers cannot hide from Russian missiles"

    I would only specify - not even, but especially.
  • 09061982
    09061982 28 January 2014 09: 25
    +3
    And what will they shoot ???
    1. Sashkessss
      Sashkessss 28 January 2014 15: 58
      0
      Poplar-M, missiles will send directly from Siberia. It will be fun
  • Ivan Petrovich
    Ivan Petrovich 28 January 2014 09: 27
    0
    and if at the right moment the satellites are destroyed? (Amers already have such an experience) or are they just going to break?
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 28 January 2014 09: 40
      +5
      then the total annihilation of each other will begin.
      And the aircraft carriers will not help.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Onyx
      Onyx 28 January 2014 13: 08
      +4
      Quote: Ivan Petrovich
      and if at the right moment the satellites are destroyed? (Amers already have such an experience) or are they just going to break?

      And if all the American aircraft carriers break down?
      1. Ivan Petrovich
        Ivan Petrovich 28 January 2014 14: 36
        -2
        this did not happen, but the satellites flew into pieces to us more than once
  • Metal
    Metal 28 January 2014 09: 28
    +3
    Yo-ho-ho, ki! (c) Bruce Willis smile
  • Rash
    Rash 28 January 2014 09: 29
    +3
    Quote: Professor
    In three hours, it "fades" kilometers by 130-140. So try to bomb it.

    And what prevents to give target designation, launch Granite, aim at the target in real time during the AUG visibility session? Moreover, the EMNIP Granites at the final site use their GOS?
    1. Professor
      Professor 28 January 2014 09: 32
      -1
      Quote: Rash
      And what prevents to give target designation, launch Granite, aim at the target in real time during the AUG visibility session?

      The presence of granite in the reach of the AUG.
      1. Rus2012
        28 January 2014 22: 04
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        The presence of granite in the reach of the AUG.

        ... do you know, to detect a shock nuclear submarine beyond 50km from highly efficient ASGs - the probability is close to zero ...
        Accordingly, a strike submarine in the 50-700 range (max missile launch range according to open data) km with preliminary target designation of a spacecraft or other channels - makes almost 100% AUG defeat ...
  • Corporal
    Corporal 28 January 2014 09: 37
    +1
    The information is pleasing, but the article is very poorly written. Captions for illustrations cannot be distinguished from the main text.

    And another question, the SDI was bombarded, including for the reason that the orbits and location of the satellites are no secret to anyone, and in the event of a conflict with a high-tech enemy, the necessary satellites will be destroyed in the first place. Mines and missiles can be used here.

    Who has something to say?
    1. clidon
      clidon 28 January 2014 10: 24
      +2
      There is only one thing to say. According to the article - it is a little "hurray-forward", because of course no information in real time from the satellites will be obtained.
      We can rejoice in the downing of satellites - so far no sensible interception systems in the world have been created and tested.
      1. AK-47
        AK-47 28 January 2014 10: 47
        +1
        Quote: clidon
        so far no sensible interception systems in the world have been created
        Firstly, secondly, who knows.
        1. clidon
          clidon 28 January 2014 10: 59
          +1
          Well, when there is no "yet", then I think that a lot will change, including in satellite systems. Well, who knows? Yes, everyone who is at least a little involved. Secretly test the anti-satellite system and secretly put it into service, at about the same level as secretly building and testing a nuclear aircraft carrier. As if possible, but already on the verge of fantasy. More precisely beyond the bounds. )
          1. rolik2
            rolik2 28 January 2014 11: 57
            +1
            Quote: clidon
            Secretly test the anti-satellite system and secretly put it into service,

            Why on the sly? Why fiction? The X-37 has been in orbit for a year now, it can be launched quickly, maneuver, has a cargo hold, so here is a full-fledged "Satellite Killer", you can also squeeze an ICBM warhead into the cargo hold.
            [img] http://images.yandex.ua/yandsearch?text=x-37&fp=0&pos=11&rpt=simage&uinfo=
            ww-1261-wh-923-fw-1017-fh-598-pd-1&img_url=http://rocketry.files.wordpress.com/2
            009/06 / x37-whiteknight.jpg [/ img]
            1. clidon
              clidon 28 January 2014 14: 28
              +1
              The fact is that the x-37 is perfectly tracked - its orbits are known (by the way, it flies relatively low). Immediately, the intersection with the orbits of other devices and attempts to destroy them would be noticeable.
              Anyway, I don’t really believe that it’s some kind of fighter. It is much cheaper to send one-time interceptors.
        2. Rus2012
          28 January 2014 22: 09
          0
          Quote: AK-47
          Firstly, secondly, who knows.

          low-orbit - 100-600 km - yes (Ishim / MiG-31I)
          Heights to and above - 1000km - no ...
    2. rolik
      rolik 28 January 2014 20: 38
      +1
      Quote: Efreytor
      Who has something to say?

      Of course I have ))))
      The defeat of the satellite by EMP (to explode a vigorous charge in space), processors with a low clock frequency are used (already).
      Shoot down with a rocket, so the mattresses shot down their satellites with a rocket. They shot down long-calculated orbits. The preparation was lengthy. And if it will be a maneuvering satellite, with a small correction of the orbit in height. If he has a sleeping brother in a pair, it turns on after the predecessor is out of order.
      You do not know, and I do not know what functions are inherent in these devices. So that the question is open, before the onset of a real incident. And it’s not a hunt for it to come.
  • brainkiller
    brainkiller 28 January 2014 10: 11
    +5
    “Four satellites of the“ Liana ”system - two“ Peonies ”and two“ Lotos ”- will detect enemy objects in real time - planes, ships, cars. The coordinates of these targets will be transmitted to the command post, where a virtual real-time map will be formed.
    four satellites ... real time .....
    Circular orbit. 1000 altitude. The period of revolution is about the spirit of a clock. It means four satellites of radar reconnaissance.
    You can take for example the globalstar satellite system with a similar orbit height.
    There, 8 orbits are used for coverage (so that the sinusoids of the trajectories on the surface of the earth are located nearby and cover the area evenly) by 6 satellites on each.
    Calculate how many satellites you need in order to work effectively.
    1. clidon
      clidon 28 January 2014 10: 33
      +2
      The system only 2 radar satellite. Plus two radio engineering ...
      1. brainkiller
        brainkiller 28 January 2014 10: 40
        +3
        Quote: clidon
        The system only 2 radar satellite. Plus two radio engineering ...

        then on vskidku the same square will be visible not every 8 but every 16 hours. What kind of real time can be discussed, I do not understand.
        1. clidon
          clidon 28 January 2014 11: 01
          +2
          The creators of the system did not say a word about any "real times". People just want more and all at once. )
  • click80
    click80 28 January 2014 10: 26
    +3
    "Any fifth grader knows that US carrier strike groups are not able to destroy any of the existing powers in the world."

    About 2 or 3 months ago, there was an article in the VO that said that at the US Navy exercises, some kind of an old, intact cruise missile entered the ship’s hull. They will destroy themselves laughing
  • Dovmont
    Dovmont 28 January 2014 10: 36
    +1
    I think 4 satellites for such tasks will not be enough. And I also care about the question: what is the period of their active activity in orbit? It is known that the weak point of the Soviet satellites was the short duration of their work, inferior to the American 3-4 times.
  • kapitan281271
    kapitan281271 28 January 2014 10: 45
    +8
    Somehow a scenario of a 24-rocket salvo of an Antey-type nuclear submarine by AUG was presented here. Three volleys of 8 missiles at a short interval were written by some very strong Aegis fan, so even he admitted that the last 8 missiles would hit the bull's-eye. Although I agree with you, urapatriotism will not lead to anything good, this we have already gone through "BEATING the enemy on his territory with little blood" we know how it ended, and more than once the guys wrote in comments if AUG is so easy to destroy why G.P. Lyachin ( blessed memory of him) for the conditional destruction of the AUG given the Hero of Russia comes out in vain because it's a trifle.
    1. plotnikov561956
      plotnikov561956 28 January 2014 12: 36
      +4
      Blessed memory ... G.P. Lyachin made not one training attack, but several during the AUG shift ...
  • runway
    runway 28 January 2014 11: 22
    -1
    Another small detail, I think, was missed by the participants in the discussion of this topic. AUG is not a floating target. Escort ships have powerful anti-ballistic and anti-aircraft defense systems. Even if you find an aircraft carrier, receive reliable data for launching our missiles, it’s not yet a fact that we will deliver in the place, as some here say, to damage the take-off deck lol
    One thing pleases (upsets) that no matter how powerful the NATO satellite constellation may be, they definitely cannot find our AUGs, no matter how hard they try request
    1. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 28 January 2014 14: 51
      +4
      Quote: piston
      AUG is not a floating target. Escort ships have powerful anti-ballistic and anti-aircraft defense systems.

      Not able to fight neither supersonic anti-ship missiles, nor ballistic targets.
      Quote: piston
      Even if you find an aircraft carrier, receive reliable data for launching our missiles, it’s not yet a fact that we will deliver in the place, as some here say, to damage the take-off deck

      In the light of the above, upon detection of AUG and the massive use of anti-ship missiles or anti-ship missiles against it, and even more so in nuclear weapons, there will be no problems with "damage to the take-off deck". winked
      1. clidon
        clidon 28 January 2014 15: 25
        0
        Rakti-kali
        Not able to fight neither supersonic anti-ship missiles, nor ballistic targets.

        Why do you think so?

        In light of the above, when AUG is detected and massively used against it, SZ RCC or BPCR, and even more so in nuclear equipment,

        When using nuclear equipment, these aircraft carriers will no longer make much sense.
  • chizhik
    chizhik 28 January 2014 11: 31
    +2
    An attack on an aircraft carrier warrant is a declaration of WAR. In the case of Russia, I think Nuclear. Any fleet is DOOMED, ​​a matter of time, the attacker will use everything that can destroy and kill, the answer will be the same. The main priority will be the prompt delivery of nuclear weapons to the targets, and this is EVERYTHING, the whole The accumulated arsenal of conventional weapons will be useful for conducting "natural science". The polemics of the THEORETICAL destruction of an aircraft carrier formation is appropriate and useful for many reasons, but in practice it is a War. Means for an attack are SUFFICIENT, DO NOT LET THIS WAR HAPPEN WE AND TEACH OUR ENEMIES
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. Dovmont
        Dovmont 28 January 2014 12: 22
        +9
        Long ago I noticed such a tendency, as soon as a critical passage in the direction of "God's chosen people" arises, immediately from the representatives of this people, accusations of his notoriousness and mental disability flies towards the author of the passage. Indeed, the thought expressed by the Russian is definitely stupidity, and the stupidity uttered by a Jew is already a revelation!
        1. abrakadabre
          abrakadabre 28 January 2014 12: 34
          0
          Verily, the thought expressed by the Russians is definitely stupidity, and the stupidity uttered by the Jew is already a revelation!
          I will correct in the direction of generalization: "The thought expressed by the goy -...". and further in the text.
        2. tenere1200
          tenere1200 2 February 2014 21: 28
          0
          Quote: Dovmont
          Long ago I noticed such a tendency, as soon as a critical passage in the direction of "God's chosen people" arises, immediately from the representatives of this people, accusations of his notoriousness and mental disability flies towards the author of the passage. Indeed, the thought expressed by the Russian is definitely stupidity, and the stupidity uttered by a Jew is already a revelation!

          The truth is so. Amen.
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 28 January 2014 12: 30
        +2
        I already raised this topic somehow, why did the bulk of anti-Semites from Kazakhstan (at least at this forum) take you there specifically or not to get back to the local population - so frolic here?
        Oh don’t bring such thoughts about anti-Semites! And then you can get a lot of things in return. Offhand:
        “And you, too, have been specially transported to the promised land.”
        “You are not the only Semites on the planet.” Palestinians, Arabs, and many more are Semites too.
        - According to genetic studies of the spread of peoples, at least half of the individuals who think of themselves as Abraham’s children have a relationship to Jews only on paper.
        Etc. etc.
        So we will not remember the national question. At the forum, it was chewed many times that the majority of the people did not have a negative attitude towards Jews as humans, but toward Israel as a state.
  • chizhik
    chizhik 28 January 2014 12: 17
    +4
    The professor's "bazaar" with a sapper is just a storehouse of slops!
  • Svyatoslavovich
    Svyatoslavovich 28 January 2014 12: 42
    +1
    The most complex developments, working documentation, test analyzes for a nuclear reactor for space satellites were sold to the Americans in the mid-90s, by one of the leading employees of the development institute, for the cost of a 3-room apartment. In those codes I worked at the Electro-Automation Design Bureau and this topic directly concerned us. This is one of the reasons for abandoning technology. the Americans, however, could not and come close to it.
  • chizhik
    chizhik 28 January 2014 12: 52
    +2
    Quote: Canep
    It’s enough to drown the aircraft carrier, the remaining ships will be able to do the nuclear submarines. Without air cover they are poorly protected. Better yet, damage the aircraft carrier, then escort ships will be forced to protect it from drowning, and will not be able to perform independent tasks.
    1. Zaslavsky-S
      Zaslavsky-S 28 January 2014 14: 03
      +2
      Or "easier", shoot down all the planes. And let him swim.
  • chizhik
    chizhik 28 January 2014 12: 54
    0
    From WATERING it is even better not to WATER! hi sapper strategist fucking!
  • scientist
    scientist 28 January 2014 13: 02
    +1
    All this looks beautiful while the Liana system with its satellites of radar and electronic intelligence works in ideal conditions without counteracting electronic warfare equipment. How she will behave in difficult jamming conditions is a big question. I doubt that on the headlamp with a synthesized aperture of the antenna, you can create additional channels for spatial interference selection. Not to mention data channels. Although it is more difficult to suppress them, there is nothing impossible.
    1. brainkiller
      brainkiller 28 January 2014 14: 19
      +3
      Quote: scientist
      How she will behave in difficult jamming conditions is a big question. I doubt that on the headlamp with a synthesized aperture of the antenna, you can create additional channels for spatial interference selection.

      If it were possible to selectively suppress reconnaissance satellites, then they would be doing it now, in peacetime, but as you can see, no one is doing this. Warming space is expensive, the effect is doubtful and dangerous especially for other satellites =) (the density is decent now, usually the Satellite-Consumer channel is jammed, because the energy of such a signal is weak.
      By the way, if the strengths begin to fight, the satellites will sprinkle like mosquitoes from fumitox after the first half hour of the conflict, because nuclear warheads in near and far space will be undermined as well as on earth.
      1. scientist
        scientist 28 January 2014 22: 25
        +1
        Quote: brainkiller
        usually jam the Satellite-consumer channel, as the energy of such a signal is weak.

        just the jamming of these channels is immediately noticeable and in order to drown out the point-to-point channel, energy is needed more than at a ground station, which is potentially problematic even with well-known signal modulation and polarization algorithms. But to supply power to the sensitive channels of radios, lower their sensitivity or even lock it by overloading the amplification stages, this is much simpler. Without special direction finders, it is very difficult to determine whether they are interfering or simply the data has ceased to flow.
        Although the developers also know all this very well, including anti-radar formulas, the main thing is that there would be no desire to cheat or save on safety.
  • Boricello
    Boricello 28 January 2014 13: 15
    +5
    Quote: atalef
    I already raised this topic somehow, why did the bulk of anti-Semites from Kazakhstan (at least at this forum) take you there specifically or not to get back to the local population - so frolic here?
    Or in Kazakhstan, the Jews do not give the same life? Or are you most concerned about pallet problems?
    It’s strange like that. Do you have any complexes or low self-esteem?

    At what point am I anti-Semite then? wink The fact that I relate to your posts is so to blame. Look soberly at what you write and in what tone all the questions will disappear why the negative is going on. Sorry, but with such defenders and friends of Israel, enemies are not necessary for sure. ! Reading what you write, or rather, HOW do you write the feeling that we are not even people of grade 3. What they wanted is what they got. And I am very good with Jews. My neighbors are Jews and left for Israel. And a bunch of friends. I treated them well here and now I am wonderful. But I hate such arrogant gentlemen. In general, I feel sorry for you. You suffer from the eternal disease of small nations under the patronage of a big brother ... Like that pug ...
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 28 January 2014 13: 23
      +3
      At what point am I anti-Semite then?
      To be precise, the largest percentage is the anti-Semitic population in Israel. After all, Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular, are also Semites. Like the Jews themselves. But they hate each other fiercely furiously. So they are all anti-Semites.
      laughing
  • spirit
    spirit 28 January 2014 13: 16
    +2
    Satellites for detection is good !!! And someone already pulls weapons and into orbit. why bother someone if you can immediately piz ** from space! It’s like with an UAV. So it's time to think wider.
    1. dustycat
      dustycat 28 January 2014 20: 13
      +1
      Quote: spirit
      And someone already pulls weapons and into orbit. why bother someone if you can immediately piz ** from space! It’s like with an UAV. So it's time to think wider.

      The thing is that the time is as if peaceful.
      And most of the weapons fall a bit under START restrictions.
      But so far it’s as if in peacetime it is banned.
      But in the type of "non-peaceful" time - there is and what Granite where to deliver.
      Or something that can replace him.
      But orbital weapons are both powerful and vulnerable.
  • rotor
    rotor 28 January 2014 13: 28
    +1
    Until 2015, another “Peony” will be included in Liana, thus, the size of the system constellation will expand to four satellites.


    It would be necessary to keep a couple of backup satellites at a distance, and then in the event of which they will be hurt.
  • Mizhgan
    Mizhgan 28 January 2014 13: 33
    +2
    Quote: scientist
    During the chaos of 90's and the underfunding of the first half of 2000's, Legend ceased to exist — in 1993, Legend ceased to even cover half of its strategic maritime directions, and the last active device was buried in 1998. However, without it, it was impossible to talk at all about any effective counteraction to the American fleet, not to mention the fact that we became blind - military intelligence remained without an eye, and the country's defense capability deteriorated sharply.

    In those days, not only space troops, but the whole country with services 01-02-03-04 and all (!) Others were in chaos. Now everything is getting better. And all thanks to the KGB officer. It is not possible to speed up the process of adjustment along the way - without revolutions. But systematically, without much blood, completely. It is received !!! And even lowering the NATO block. ))))
  • Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 28 January 2014 13: 59
    +5
    Well? Years old srach bigan ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Leshka
    Leshka 28 January 2014 14: 23
    +2
    I hope many satellites will be launched
  • polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 28 January 2014 15: 29
    +2
    We all hope that the satellites will also be launched with a reserve and there will be enough new missiles, but do not forget, they also do not sleep there, and for sure the combat systems in space, if they have not yet been deployed, they will certainly be deployed. And if we have enough opportunities, I mean purely economic, not to mention production capacities, we even large ships are not what it costs, but we repair for 10 years.
    1. Onyx
      Onyx 28 January 2014 16: 02
      +1
      Quote: polkovnik manuch
      . And if we have enough opportunities, I mean purely economic, not to mention production capacities, we even large ships are not what it costs, but we repair for 10 years.

      If we stop paying tribute to the United States, then we definitely have enough financial opportunities.
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 28 January 2014 20: 18
        0
        Quote: Onyx
        If we stop paying tribute to the United States, then we definitely have enough financial opportunities.

        And how can this be done if the licenses are withdrawn from small banks of the operators of the domestic payment system, and their clients who suffer from it are put on the Visa and MaterCard?
  • Magyar
    Magyar 28 January 2014 15: 51
    +11
    Good day to all. I read the comments, my friends, frankly, the number of satellites in the amount of four pieces, they certainly won’t do what, and what kind of real-time mode is involved if the ACG is constantly moving, that is, it needs to be dubbed by its position by other means of reconnaissance, this is an axiom, now many people write about impact using means of strategic nuclear forces, this is a utopia at the moment none of the leaders of the states will take such responsibility on themselves, it’s very cumbersome. Now, on the merits of the issue, let's say the time has come and the conflict between the US and Russia has begun, now the question is how many anti-satellite missiles are needed to destroy four satellites knowing the USA has such opportunities in their orbit, they went on a strike with the help of strategic nuclear forces and immediately discard there are no suicides on both sides, that is, the conflict will develop according to the classical canons, that is, aviation plus precision weapons of ships and submarines, now we look at the capabilities of the parties, if we try hard to scratch from all fleets a group for destruction from forces of the two AUG USA factions. Well, the United States does not need to advertise at the moment, it is the strongest Navy on the planet who would not say anything. Undoubtedly, our soldiers and officers will fulfill their duty to the end there will be ramming attacks by aviation as in 41, and our submariners sacrificing themselves will inflict a crushing blow, just would not want all this, war is dirt and blood, there is no romance in it. The only thing that pleases is that slowly began to move forward earned the defense industry people are doing business. By and large, men, by and large, the US boltology will not directly fight when we and all these warlike rhetoric are only for domestic consumption, they will bite us differently through terrorist attacks, creating constant problems around the perimeter of Russia that they are now successfully and do to Ukraine look what we are talking about. Many of the problems of Russia from ourselves in the 90 years we exchanged the GREAT POWER of the USSR for sneakers and tampaks now for us the main god is conscientiousness and you are talking about the use of strategic nuclear forces, as Professor Preobrazhensky devastation in our heads said that’s what we need to heal. I want to end on an optimistic note that our mother, Russia, did not emerge victorious from such situations, so I think time will put everything in its right place.
    1. Firstvanguard
      Firstvanguard 28 January 2014 19: 55
      +2
      It’s a pity that I can only put one plus! Normal adequate kament.
    2. ACKiPaPa,
      ACKiPaPa, 30 January 2014 21: 39
      0
      Magyar - chesh-say, and no one will drown AUG with ordinary weapons, and there are many reasons for this. For the rest I agree with you completely. Plus for you personally and for the post good .
  • ko88
    ko88 28 January 2014 16: 18
    +2
    Well, this is a classic of the genre, as always Americans are the best, strong and fair, this is their truth, our facts suggest otherwise.
  • Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 28 January 2014 17: 33
    +1
    <<< It (the "Liana" detection system) will increase by an order of magnitude the capabilities of the Russian Armed Forces to detect and destroy enemy targets. (Such as AUG) >>>
    This is another very important ARGUMENT (for Russian supporters of the construction of aircraft carriers, the creation of a fleet of Russian AUGs, similar to American ones), proving that the time of giant aircraft carriers is becoming a thing of the past, becoming more and more significant in the sky, on land and at sea, and which stealth can be discussed, speaking of modern communities - aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers and others. marine surface giants! If Russia is not going to wage war with third-rate states or be a policeman over them, then building a fleet of Russian AUGs is a huge waste of money!
  • edeligor
    edeligor 28 January 2014 18: 01
    +4
    Not so long ago there was an article about Chinese ballistic missiles used against AUG. I’m interested in the ironic comments about our satellite guidance. The Chinese undoubtedly lag behind us in space technology, the Americans collapsed in earnest when they became aware of Chinese rockets. Question to those who doubt - do the Chinese have better guidance?
    1. clidon
      clidon 28 January 2014 18: 11
      0
      Question - why do the Chinese build aircraft carriers for crazy money? After all, drown them - just spit .. Stupid Chinese themselves do not know what they are doing?
  • Koliamba_TV
    Koliamba_TV 28 January 2014 18: 22
    +2
    I read and rejoice, there were and still are smart people in Russia (formerly the USSR)!
  • andron352
    andron352 28 January 2014 18: 39
    -1
    By ballistics on a moving target - bullshit.
    Even after discovering the AUG, you still have to go the distance of the strike. How many cruise boats do we have? AUG has a powerful anti-submarine defense. And a couple of submarines to boot. So the possibility of a strike is very dubious. Not for nothing and in the Soviet Navy began to build aircraft carriers. Understood that without carrier-based aviation, the fight against AUGs is highly questionable.
    1. Rus2012
      29 January 2014 14: 54
      0
      Quote: andron352
      By ballistics on a moving target - bullshit.

      It was back in that century ...
      Anti-ship ballistic missiles long-range, link - http://topwar.ru/36200-protivokorabelnye-ballisticheskie-rakety-dalnego-deystviy
      a.html
  • kplayer
    kplayer 28 January 2014 18: 45
    -1
    Too few satellites (4), because The capabilities of the fleet to search for and detect AUG have decreased several times compared to the capabilities of the Soviet Navy (ie, there are fewer NKs, submarines and UUVs), so the small orbital group will not make the "weather".
    Of the surface launchers of the Granit anti-ship missiles, only Kr. "Peter the Great", which in the event of a possible conflict himself will be among the priority targets and may become a victim of carrier-based aircraft of the same aircraft carriers, since the launch range of the Harpoon anti-ship missile system (up to 220/280 km.) from aircraft exceeds the range of the S-300F Fort shipborne air defense system (up to 150 km, in the case of an unknown air defense missile system modernization, then up to 200 km.), about the Tomahawk air defense missile system "Cr. and ESM. Damage to a potential enemy - I will keep silent.
    Project 949A nuclear submarine (nuclear submarines of the same type "Kursk") - receiving targeting data from satellites only at radio-periscope depth (or during ascent), which threatens with visual detection of nuclear submarines, especially from the air, i.e. in real time, target designation is impossible. It is good if target designation is synchronized with target acquisition by the submarine's onboard GAS (which is unlikely).

    All victories at sea are made by aviation! (this is an axiom)
    1. kplayer
      kplayer 28 January 2014 20: 13
      -1
      It is unlikely that the nuclear submarine (pr.949A) will shoot the anti-ship missiles in the blind, just in a given square at a given time (i.e. according to the schedule, the risk for detecting the nuclear submarine itself) in the hope of only satellite (inertial) guidance, starting immediately from the initial missile flight stage.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. kplayer
        kplayer 28 January 2014 23: 07
        -1
        An aircraft carrier is a non-static target, so that firing of anti-ship missiles from the submarine on schedule (at a specific place and at a certain time) seems unrealistic considering only 4 guidance satellites and the impossibility of updating data for a nuclear submarine, in addition, such firing may not be possible due to circumstances , i.e. due to the risk of detection.
        1. Rus2012
          29 January 2014 14: 51
          0
          Quote: kplayer
          seems unreal

          have you ever heard about a "wolf pack" of granites? read-interesting ...
          1. kplayer
            kplayer 29 January 2014 18: 28
            -3
            What are the "wolf packs"? ackte! Apparently, you still have multimillion-dollar armies and thousands-kilometer front lines in your head. The very Soviet concept of "aircraft carrier killers" on the platform of submarines and surface ships (too vulnerable in overcoming the AUG defense) is questionable, it is permissible to sacrifice an aircraft with a crew of 1-2 people than a warship with a crew of 100 (pl) -600 (cr) people (+ cost-effectiveness criteria).

            All victories at sea are made by aviation! (this is an axiom).
            1. Rus2012
              29 January 2014 18: 43
              0
              Quote: kplayer
              What are the "wolf packs"?

              ... the limit of your incompetence knows no bounds!

              "Granite": life according to the laws of a wolf pack

              Cruise missiles are one of the main striking means of any serious army. Released over many kilometers from the target, they fly according to their guided program only and hit the enemy at a time when he is not aware of the danger. Russia is a leader in rocket science. Moreover, in the field of supersonic cars flying at speeds above 2,5 Mach - 1 kilometers per second. In the USA there are none. We have a whole arsenal.

              The USSR miscalculated with the creation of aircraft carriers, and when the question arose of opposing the US naval power, they responded with nuclear submarines and surface ships with long-range cruise missiles. The most powerful of them is "Granite". It is in service with atomic missile cruisers of the "Peter the Great" type and atomic attack submarines. Each ship has 24 missiles. Each is the size of an aircraft and can carry a nuclear warhead. But it is not for this to be afraid of them.

              "Granite" - the first machine, endowed with artificial intelligence akin to human. Launched from a submarine or surface ship, the rocket finds the target itself. Having determined its coordinates, "waits" for the last partner to leave the mine. Then, lined up like a wolf pack, the missiles begin to "chase the prey." The designers from the Moscow Region NPO Mashinostroyenia do not particularly advertise this moment, but it is the missiles that will decide which of them, how and which one will attack the target. The rocket "flock" will itself distribute these targets, classify them according to their importance, and choose the attack tactics and plan for its implementation. To eliminate errors in the choice of maneuver and the method of hitting a given target, electronic data on all modern classes of ships are embedded in the onboard computer of missiles. There is also purely tactical information - for example, about the type of ships. This makes it possible for the missiles to determine who is in front of it - a convoy, aircraft carrier or landing group, and attack the main targets in its composition.

              The on-board computer "Granit" also contains data on countering enemy electronic warfare devices capable of jamming missiles away from the target, tactics for evading air defense weapons. At the same time, as in a wolf pack, the missiles themselves will decide which of them is the main one - the attacker, and who is destined for the fate of a decoy duck, diverting the enemy's aviation and air defense systems. Having destroyed the main target, the chosen one, the remaining missiles will immediately redistribute combat missions among themselves and begin to destroy other ships. Not a single ship in the world is capable of dodging the onslaught of the Granites. Yes, ship radars will be able to notice their launch, but further resistance is useless. The speed and constant maneuvers over the sea surface make it almost impossible to intercept them using air defense or aviation.

              Now NPO Mashinostroyenia offers the fleet a new modification of the Granit - the Onyx anti-ship missile (in the escort version - Yakhont). Unlike its predecessor, it is smaller. You can place 3 Onyx in the Granite mine. It is made on a modern electronic base, has a more advanced guidance system and engine. In addition, now it can be used not only from surface and submarine ships, but also from naval aircraft. One Su-33 can lift up to three such missiles.

              Read on: http://izvestia.ru/news/327375#ixzz2rnaFMufd
              1. kplayer
                kplayer 29 January 2014 20: 06
                -1
                Politics of media relations (including intimidation of a potential adversary), what is overseas that we have. (alas, long ago left adolescence). We have no lag in digital and radio electronics! all the same about all missile systems, especially about AI. The difficulty of intercepting anti-ship missiles without question.

                "... The designers from the Moscow Region NPO Mashinostroyenia do not particularly advertise this moment ..."

                This is evident from the uncertainty that this will work in practice, everything will be 100% work only according to previously issued target designation data and probably with preliminary radar illumination. And it has already been mentioned that the satellite constellation is too small, i.e. the concept has not been fully implemented 100%
                Nothing has changed in the optimal choice of carriers, aviation is preferable and there is a big risk for the cruiser and not many submarines adapted for the use of anti-ship missiles.

                Of course interesting! because it excites your imagination. It would be run in conditions "as close as possible to combat", in dynamics, with EW interference and anti-air defense systems.

                PS: Read more specialized authoritative publications (with the names and indexes of subsystems and products), if you open your link, the headings make everything clear.
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. kplayer
              kplayer 30 January 2014 20: 59
              0
              How many people want to sacrifice other people's lives! narrow-minded negatives!
            3. The comment was deleted.
          2. kplayer
            kplayer 29 January 2014 18: 28
            0
            What are the "wolf packs"? ackte! Apparently, you still have multimillion-dollar armies and thousands-kilometer front lines in your head. The very Soviet concept of "aircraft carrier killers" on the platform of submarines and surface ships (too vulnerable in overcoming the AUG defense) is questionable, it is permissible to sacrifice an aircraft with a crew of 1-2 people than a warship with a crew of 100 (pl) -600 (cr) people (+ cost-effectiveness criteria).

            All victories at sea are made by aviation! (this is an axiom).
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • voliador
    voliador 28 January 2014 18: 52
    0
    Such a system is an absolute plus. It allows PCRs to fly up to the ship in the radio silence mode, and turn on their GOS at the last moment.
  • Indifferent
    Indifferent 28 January 2014 19: 11
    +2
    Much has been written, but little practical! I'm sorry. I can’t imagine yet how a fighter, even at an altitude of 30 km, with its nose up, will be hit by a satellite flying at an altitude of 1000 km. I have not heard about such American aircraft missiles. To shoot down a satellite, you need a ballistic missile and you need to launch it not anyhow, but at a certain point in the passage of an enemy satellite. Then success is guaranteed.
    Now about the aircraft carriers. Why keep an eye on everyone if it’s interesting to know only about those who are on the verge of raising their military aircraft, which should reach our territory, destroy something there and return to the ship. This is about 700km. Detection problems are reduced. And the problems of destruction are simplified. Here, any of our aircraft will fly and launch its missiles. The main thing is to do this synchronously in place and time. As for the boats, there are so few of them left that they should not be taken seriously. And they are not able to walk at speeds of 30 knots. AUG will not be able to catch up. And floating up to get target designation is dangerous, they can be detected and destroyed.
    This means that you need to place boats in several echelons so as not to miss the AUG, as the Germans did in their "wolf packs". We do not have so many combat-ready boats and hardly ever will be in the future.
    As my late commander said, if you want to ruin a small country, give it a nuclear boat.
    1. clidon
      clidon 28 January 2014 19: 56
      +1
      Indifferent
      I have not heard about such American aircraft missiles.

      The system of satellite interception from fighter aircraft was developed by the Americans and ours - respectively, the role of carriers of anti-satellite missiles was played by their F-15 (with the ASM-135 ASAT missile) and the MiG-31D here (with the 79M6 Contact missile). Moreover, the Americans conducted a number of experiments and in one of them they shot down a target satellite at an altitude of 555 km. We did not go that far, however, we and they did not deploy such "fighter systems", and mutually stopped the tests.
      1. Yorgven
        Yorgven 29 January 2014 06: 29
        0
        Only now our new satellites fly in 4000 km orbit and this rocket is absolutely useless against them, well, except that the shuttles will be mothballed.
      2. Rus2012
        29 January 2014 14: 45
        0
        Quote: clidon
        "Fighter systems" were not deployed, and tests were mutually stopped.

        Your data is not true:
        - 2009 August 11 - Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force, Colonel-General Alexander Zelin said that during the Soviet era, a version of the MiG-31 aircraft was created for anti-space defense tasks. "This system is being reanimated to solve the same problems," RIA Novosti quotes.

        - 2010 - as part of the modernization of the radar-optical complex (ROK) "Krona" successfully carried out State tests of the laser optical locator. It is planned to conduct State tests of the entire complex "Krona"


        Radar 20Zh6 complex 45Zh6 "Krona" (Falichev O. Outside the atmospheric security umbrella of Russia. // Independent military review. 08.04.2011).
        1. clidon
          clidon 29 January 2014 17: 56
          -2
          Well, so far she has been so reanimated that no one has noticed this. In words.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. kplayer
      kplayer 28 January 2014 21: 06
      -1
      They say: "If you want to ruin a small country, give it a cruiser", a nuclear submarine does not eat solarium (your commander quoted in his own way).
    4. Rus2012
      29 January 2014 14: 49
      0
      Quote: indifferent
      Much has been written, but little practical! I'm sorry. I can’t imagine yet how a fighter, even at an altitude of 30km, with its nose up, will be hit by a satellite flying at an altitude of 1000 km.

      I repeat -
      Ishim / MiG-31I theme - interception height 600 km
      For greater heights, one more stage or RSD-based interceptor missile is required ...
    5. GSH-18
      GSH-18 31 January 2014 15: 08
      -1
      Quote: indifferent
      This means that the boats need to be placed in several echelons so as not to miss the AUG, as the Germans did in their "wolf packs".

      Dear, reading your post, a wide smile never left my face. First, the naval strategy has changed a little since the Second World War. Therefore, it is not correct to give an example of German "wolf packs". AUG does not follow the ruler, it is impossible to predict its route. In front of the escort, at some distance, there are always 2-1 reconnaissance ships, and of course reconnaissance aircraft.
      Quote: indifferent
      Why keep an eye on everyone if it’s interesting to know only about those who are on the verge of rising their combat aircraft

      Then, dear, to avoid a very unpleasant surprise.
      Quote: indifferent
      Here, any of our aircraft will fly and launch its missiles.

      Do you think that our aircraft in the event of such a conflict will be unoccupied and completely intact, and will rack their brains, but what would you do today? what
  • Strong
    Strong 28 January 2014 21: 19
    +2
    According to AUG "Topolem-M".

    You’re cool here, it’s interesting to read you. Why look for a group at sea, if you can erase several cities with a well-known location? Received gifts in return.

    And the aircraft carriers do not let you sleep.
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 31 January 2014 15: 21
      -1
      Quote: Fuerte
      Why look for a group at sea, if you can erase several cities with a well-known location? Received gifts in return.

      "Erasing" megacities, you will not solve the problem with the AUG. But "gifts" you will receive "in return" without a doubt.
      In general, the answer to the question-how to resist Amer AUG, lies on the surface. And for some reason everyone stubbornly did not notice him. Tell me why they’re not fighting tanks with RPGs alone ?? To paraphrase the rhetoric of opponents of Russian AUG-RPGs is much cheaper than a tank, and an ordinary soldier can shoot from it! It would seem that there are some pluses. Then WHY does the Russian Federation have the LARGEST tank corps in Europe ??
      So at sea, you can't shoot AUGi from the "RPG". Our admirals are well aware of this. They are not given these connections due to the famous concept of "asymmetric response".
      And that's why we are here discussing laudatory missile articles, instead of the new Russian AUG!
      1. Rus2012
        1 February 2014 01: 08
        -1
        Quote: GSH-18
        Tell me why they’re not fighting tanks with RPGs alone ??

        ... to begin with, it’s not the tanks that are fighting the tanks, because the main task of the tanks is to break through the layered defense and support the motorized infantry in the offensive.
        As a rule, anti-tank artillery, ATGM, IT tank destroyers, self-propelled artillery mounts, AA army aircraft in the form of attack helicopters are usually set up against tanks. And in the end, the tanks themselves - in the form of buried fire mounts.
        The meeting of tanks against tanks in open battle, as a rule, is nonsense, and does not happen so often, because some defend when others advance. There is such a thing as anti-tank defense ...
        Prokhorovka is just that exception to the rule.

        As for your "saving idea", our AUGs are being used against the Yankers - it's absurd! For the sake of "symmetry" you are proposing to ruin the country for the time being. That's when we ripen to the need - that without AUG, in any way, then they may appear ...

        The commissioning of long-range missiles with UBB (homing on a descending trajectory with AGSN) with preliminary target designation will forever keep all AUGs of the world at a respectful distance from our shores, and most likely will settle in ports of origin
        1. GSH-18
          GSH-18 2 February 2014 12: 40
          -1
          Quote: Rus2012
          For the sake of "symmetry" you propose to ruin the country in the meantime

          What country are you talking about now? belay
          The Russian Federation now has enough funds to create an AUG; I don’t see any problems here.
          Quote: Rus2012
          That's when we ripen to the need - that without AUG, nothing, then they may appear ...

          At the time such a need arises, it will be too late. Or do you propose as in the old Russian saying: "until the thunder breaks out, the man crosses himself"? To plug up the lack of military equipment with the millions of lives of Russian people again? belay The lessons of the 2nd world are on your side ..
          1. Rus2012
            2 February 2014 12: 56
            0
            Quote: GSH-18
            The Russian Federation now has enough funds to create an AUG; I don’t see any problems here.

            ... recently an article on the defense industry -
            http://vpk-news.ru/articles/18657
            Return to the oceans. The Russian Navy must comply with the level of economic development.
            message - "according to Senka and a hat ..."
            1. Rus2012
              2 February 2014 12: 58
              0
              and here dreamers like to amuse yourself -

              Konstantin Sivkov, 1-th Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Economics:
              - Can you, in the roughest approximation, say what composition our fleets should have in order to be able to solve the whole range of tasks assigned to the Navy?

              Vladimir Komoedov, Admiral, retired Commander of the Black Sea Fleet:
              - Of course, in the roughest approximation of need can be defined as follows.

              Northern Fleet: 12 – 16 RPL SN, 20 – 25 nuclear multipurpose, 10 – 12 missile (??? We did not understand this ...) and 30 – 35 non-nuclear submarines, two medium or large class aircraft carriers, 20 – 25 ocean surface ships and up to 140 (including up to 30 strike ships, including missile boats, up to 40 anti-submarine and up to 50 mine-sweeping) near sea zones, to 15 large landing ships, two naval aviation regiments, one regiment of coastal fighter, reconnaissance and anti-submarine aviation, anti-submarine and transport-combat helicopter regiments, naval attack aviation squadron, coastal missile and artillery regiment , regiment or battalion of the marine corps.

              Pacific Fleet: to 20 atomic multipurpose, 10 – 12 missile (apparently does the SSBN mean?) and 20 – 25 non-nuclear submarines, two medium or large class aircraft carriers, 20 – 25 ocean surface ships and up to 160 (including up to 40 strike ships, including missile boats, up to 60 anti-submarine and up to 60 mine-sweeping) near sea zones, 20 – 25 large landing ships, two naval aviation regiments, one regiment of coastal fighter, reconnaissance and anti-submarine aviation, anti-submarine and transport-combat helicopter regiments, naval attack regiment, marine regiment, two coastal missile regiments tilleriyskih troops.

              Baltic Fleet: 10 – 12 non-nuclear submarines, up to 20 strike (including missile boats), up to 20 anti-submarine and up to 40 mine-sweeping surface ships of the near sea zone, 10-12 large and medium landing ships, fighter aviation regiment, separate reconnaissance squadrons and reconnaissance anti-submarine aircraft, anti-submarine and military transport helicopter regiments, naval assault squadron, battalion or regiment of the marine corps, two regiments of coastal missile and artillery troops.

              Black Sea Fleet: to 15 non-nuclear submarines, to 30 attack ships and boats, 15 – 25 anti-submarine and to 30 mine-sweeping surface ships of the near sea zone, seven to ten large and medium landing ships, a fighter aviation regiment, separate reconnaissance, anti-submarine and naval assault squadrons aviation, anti-submarine helicopter regiment and transport and combat helicopter squadron, marine battalion, regiment of coastal missile and artillery troops.

              As part of the center's forces, it is advisable to have a division of naval rocket-bearing aviation, one regiment of reconnaissance aviation of the ocean and near-sea zone, anti-submarine aviation, naval attack aviation, a division of marines and one or two coastal missile and artillery regiments.
              Read more: http://vpk-news.ru/articles/18748


              The admiral is forgotten, tea is not living in the USSR already
              It is necessary to clarify, even in Soviet times, the Navy did not possess such colossal power.

              In connection with the above,
              QUESTION AUG-manam - and you, dear ones, would agree to take off-give up to the last shirt (cars, cottages, apartments ... and much more) in order to get hold of this armada?
              After all, all the money of the oligarchs, taken together and taken away and launched for the construction of such an armada - is not enough. We tried in the USSR - it did not work, alas ...
              What would you do?
  • Sobol
    Sobol 28 January 2014 21: 20
    +1
    Such are they, these AUGs are not detectable, that it just shivers! Especially for our "blind" pilots on "old technology" and with "little flying"!
    http://politikus.ru/events/10711-rossiyskie-istrebiteli-su-27-nadrugalis-nad-ame
    rikanskim-avianoscem-kiti-hok.html - as an example.
    1. kplayer
      kplayer 28 January 2014 21: 44
      0
      Quote: kplayer
      ... All victories at sea are made by aviation! (this is an axiom)
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. kplayer
        kplayer 29 January 2014 21: 22
        0
        Rus2012
        For this "-" (the post is not even addressed to you) I conclude about the man that he is not just a "minus throw", but simply 3,14-yes! -Rock.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  • Power
    Power 28 January 2014 21: 29
    +1
    The Soviet Union did not particularly bother with aircraft carriers. Our nuclear submarines were, first of all, "City Killer" Now, after all these "Treaties", the Gorbochevs and Chubais parity has been violated. And it's hard to believe in such notes about the four satellites that will save the world.
    1. clidon
      clidon 28 January 2014 21: 58
      0
      First of all, our tactical boats were "AUG killers". And in the second too.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 31 January 2014 16: 33
        -1
        Quote: clidon
        First of all, our tactical boats were "AUG killers". And in the second too.

        It is also worth noting that they also played the role of "game" for the carrier-based aircraft AUG and its multipurpose submarines with anti-submarine escort ships yes
        "Killer AUG" is very loud.
  • pvv113
    pvv113 28 January 2014 22: 00
    +6
    ARTICLE IN ANY EVENT IS POSITIVE AND ONCE AGAIN SHOWS THE EXCELLENCE OF THE SOVIET TECHNOLOGIES, WHICH ARE VERY FAR FORWARD
  • rotor
    rotor 28 January 2014 22: 53
    +1
    If we assume that our missile cruiser or missile submarine reached the salvo position and fired it, then the chances of hitting an aircraft carrier are still small.

    A volley of 16, 20 or 24 missiles against a naval connection, saturated with multi-channel air defense systems, covered with fighters of a combat air patrol that has powerful EW tools, is unlikely to achieve the goal.

    http://topwar.ru/34098-ubiystvennaya-pravda.html
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 28 January 2014 23: 01
      -1
      Quote: rotor
      A volley of 16, 20 or 24 missiles against a naval connection, saturated with multi-channel air defense systems, covered with fighters of a combat air patrol that has powerful EW tools, is unlikely to achieve the goal.

      Great are USA and AUG its prophet.
      Most likely it is at least five times a day pronounce?
      You at least look at the performance characteristics, or else an adult, and believe in fairy tales.
      bully
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 31 January 2014 14: 30
      0
      Quote: rotor
      If we assume that our missile cruiser or missile submarine reached the salvo position and fired it, then the chances of hitting an aircraft carrier are still small.

      Or rather, not even so. Our surface ships (such as "Peter the Great" or "Varyag", as well as submarines) will not allow the AUG to reach the range of an anti-ship missile salvo (this is not even discussed). The range of our anti-ship missiles is 200-300 km less than the range of the carrier-based aircraft of the Aircraft Carrier. Moreover, obtaining target designation for our anti-ship missiles will be impossible due to the actions of the same carrier-based aircraft. But the receipt of the control center for escort missiles and assault air groups will be carried out without problems, thanks to the presence of carrier-based AWACS aircraft.
      Conclusion: the use of only missile weapons against the AUG combat complex is extremely inefficient!
      Spreading the combat capabilities of new missiles (in terms of solving absolutely any problem by them) is extremely counterproductive.
      The solution to the problem of effective counteraction of the AUG lies in the plane of creating similar naval naval formations.
      I consider the concept of "asymmetric response" to be false and harmful to the defense capability of the Russian Federation. yes
  • rotor
    rotor 28 January 2014 23: 02
    +1
    All Tu-22M3s in service will be sharpened for anti-ship missions, in fact, this aircraft was developed as a "killer of aircraft carriers".

    Tu-22M3 can detect and strike enemy ships within a radius of 2 thousand km from its airfield, and Tu-95MS and Tu-160 with new X-101 cruise missiles will be able to destroy even a well-defended enemy naval base at a distance of 10 thousand km from the launch site. The naval surface and submarine forces do not have such an opportunity, except for nuclear weapons, which will not be used in local conflicts.

    According to Vladimir Shcherbakov, editor-in-chief of the Vzlyot profile publication, the Air Force long-range aircraft will increase the combat capabilities of the Russian Navy several times over.

    - In the USSR Navy, submarines and missile-carrying aircraft were to destroy enemy naval groups in the far sea zone. Now the submarine fleet has significantly decreased and cannot solve these problems. After the transfer of marine missile carriers from the Navy to the Russian Air Force, long-range aviation bombers remained the only element that can solve this problem, ”explained Vladimir Shcherbakov.
    1. AVV
      AVV 29 January 2014 11: 09
      0
      Quote: rotor
      Tu-22M3 can detect and strike enemy ships within a radius of 2 thousand km from its airfield, and Tu-95MS and Tu-160 with new X-101 cruise missiles will be able to destroy even a well-defended enemy naval base at a distance of 10 thousand km from the launch site. The naval surface and submarine forces do not have such an opportunity, except for nuclear weapons, which will not be used in local conflicts.

      Here I’d like to clarify a little the capabilities of surface and submarine forces, too, can’t be minimized: The Severodvinsk Project 885 ASN-type multi-purpose nuclear-powered submarine with cruise missiles will be armed with Caliber caliber supersonic cruise missiles that have no analogues in the world, a variant of which has a maximum flight range exceeding 2,5 thousand kilometers. And the rest is right !!!
  • D_L
    D_L 29 January 2014 00: 04
    +1
    It was gratifying to read.