Military Review

Anti-aircraft missile - on ships!

51
Anti-aircraft missile - on ships!



August 10, 2008 the group of ships of the Black Sea fleet in the composition of two BDK (flagship "Caesar Kunikov" and "Saratov") and two guard ships (MRK "Mirage" and MPK "Suzdalets") was located off the coast of Abkhazia.

In the area of ​​patrol by Russian ships, five unidentified boats were found at high speed. They violated the boundary of the declared security zone and did not respond to warnings. In 18: 39, one of the Russian ships fired a warning shot with an anti-aircraft missile fallen between the boats. The Georgians continued to move closer.

In 18: 41 IRA "Mirage" from the distance 25 km launched two anti-ship missiles "Malachite" towards the targets. As a result of both missiles hit the target, the Georgian hydrographic boat sank (disappeared from radar screens after a short-term exposure).

In 18: 50, one of the Georgian boats again went on rapprochement with the ships of the Black Sea Fleet. IRA "Mirage" from a distance of 15 km launched an anti-aircraft missile complex "Osa-M". As a result of a missile hit, the Georgian boat lost speed, and after the crew was removed by another boat, it finally burned out and sank.


SAM "Osa-M", preparations for the battle. A double-girder PU with rockets extends from under the deck.

This is how the naval battle off the coast of Abkhazia, which occurred during the Five-Day War 2008, is described. Despite the discrepancies in some details, each source cites data on the shelling of Georgian boats with the help of the Osa-M missiles.

But how adequate is the use of anti-aircraft missiles at sea targets? Or is it all about the peculiarities of the Russian Navy ships, which at that time had no other, more suitable weapons?

The answer to this question can be events that happened exactly 20 years before the sea battle off the coast of Abkhazia.

18 April 1988 of the year. Persian Gulf. The US Navy carrier strike team bravely battles with three Iranian corvettes and two oil platforms during Operation Mantis. There are losses on both sides.

... At nine in the morning, the Charlie unit, consisting of the Wainwright missile cruiser and two frigates, Badley and Simpson, attacked the Iranian oil platform Sirri and after two hours of shelling completely destroyed the offshore oil-producing complex.

Towards lunchtime, the Iranian "fleet" was pulled up to the scene of the fighting. The 44-meter corvette (missile boat?) Joshan, who had the most serious intentions, approached the US Navy. The Iranian sailors responded by launching the Harpoon anti-ship missiles to the proposal to stop the engines and leave the ship. Yankee only miraculously managed to dodge the fired rocket.

There was no time for much thought. Simpson immediately responded with two RIM-66E missiles that fell into the Iranian corvette add-on. Following this, another anti-aircraft RIM-67 flew into Joshan from the Wainwright cruiser.


The boat of the Greek Navy, identical in design to the Iranian Joshan.
Full in / and 265 tons. Armament: 4 PKR, 76 mm caliber artillery and 40 mm artillery.



Launch of the Standerd-1 MR (RIM-66E) anti-aircraft guided missile. The mass of the warhead - 62 kg.

By this time, almost the entire crew of Joshan was dead. Three powerful explosions disfigured the superstructure and completely destroyed the Iranian ship. But the Americans only inflamed hunting passion. Not wanting to miss their portion of glory, the frigate “Badley” joined the gang beating, firing a “Harpoon” rocket at the ruins of Joshan from close range. However missed. Not wanting to spend more rockets, the American ships approached the sinking corvette and finished it off with cannons.

That's so sad история with a dark crimson hue.


Lit Iran frigate "Sahand". This ship was destroyed by an air strike.

It is noteworthy that today the gallant frigate USS Simpson remains the only (!) Ship in the US Navy, which was given to sink the enemy ship (even if it is as poor as Joshan). Over the ensuing 26 years, the US Navy never again participated in a naval battle.

Hidden features

About this remarkable feature of anti-aircraft missile systems, the sailors have known for a long time. A half-century ago, during the naval exercises, an obvious discovery was made: at the line of sight, the ZUR should be the first to be launched. They have a smaller mass of warheads, but their reaction time is shorter compared to RCC by 5-10 times!

Unlike ground-based air defense systems, where the detection of low-flying targets is limited by terrain folds, trees and buildings, the open sea provides unprecedented opportunities in terms of detecting NLC — the line of sight is limited by the range of the radio horizon. In the case of large ships with high masts and superstructures, the detection range can reach 20-30 km. Most modern naval battles (or rather, skirmishes) occurred precisely at such a distance. And each time anti-aircraft missiles were actively used to defeat surface objects.

Is it difficult to direct an anti-aircraft missile on a ship?

Regardless of the method of targeting missiles (along the beam, radio command I and II, etc.), ultimately, the homing head (GOS) of an anti-aircraft missile or guidance station on board a ship doesn’t matter what radio signal is reflected from. From the wing of a low-flying aircraft or superstructures of an enemy ship, it does not matter! The main thing is that the target is within the line of sight, above the radio horizon.

In comparison with the aircraft, the colossal size (and, consequently, the EPR) of the enemy ship, on the contrary, contributes to improving the accuracy and reducing the likelihood of a miss.

It turns out that any marine air defense missile system has a mode of shooting ships?

No, not any. To effectively defeat surface targets, you need to fulfill one small condition - turn off the proximity fuze. Otherwise, a strong reflection of the signal from a large (compared to the aircraft) ship will cause a premature response of the warhead rocket. It detonates in the air at a considerable distance, without causing serious damage to the enemy.

The secret of focus was simple.

The missile defense system possesses all the useful skills of an anti-ship missile, while being several times superior to conventional RCC in response time. It has great speed (Mach 2-4) and extremely high maneuverability (RIM-162 ESSM available overload - up to 50g). Reduced flight time. Smaller SAMs make it difficult for an enemy ship to intercept it with air defense / missile defense systems. The cost of most missiles, as a rule, does not exceed the cost of anti-ship cruise missiles.

As a result, we have a dual-use system capable of hitting air and surface targets with equal efficiency.

What has been repeatedly proven in practice!

The only limitation for the air defense missile system is the firing range. When shooting at sea targets, it does not exceed 20-30 km - but, as practice shows, this is enough to fight at short distances, typical of modern local wars. In the era of confrontation between the Navy of the USSR and the US Navy, a small firing range was also not an obstacle to the use of the air defense system in naval combat. The fleets of the great powers practiced continuous tracking of each other, regularly approaching at a distance of direct visibility.


Anti-aircraft missile complex M-11 "Storm". Museum of the Black Sea Fleet (Sevastopol)

As for the "weakness" of the combat units of the Zour, it all depends on the specific complex. It was hardly more pleasant to get into the Z-BN X-board of the Storm anti-aircraft complex (mass of 611 warheads kg) than to withstand the impact of the French Exocset anti-ship missile (kg 120 warhead) or the Norwegian NSM warhead kg.

This feature of the air defense system was well known overseas. The results of the firing of the ship's anti-aircraft complex RIM-8 Talos at the target destroyer shocked all who watched these tests. A giant supersonic rocket nearly cut the unfortunate ship in half!

However, they did not expect anything else - a sea monster called “Talos” with an 136-kilogram warhead and a range of 180 kilometers of launch was a killer weapon, equally dangerous for air and surface objects.


The nuclear modifications of Talos - RIM-8B and RIM-8D, equipped with SBCh with 2 CT, were supposed to be used for “clearing” the coast before the landing in the course of the Third World War.

The theme of the unique air defense system began to develop further: in 1965, a new modification of the RIM-8H Anti-Radiation Missile (ARM) was introduced into service, suggesting the emission of enemy radar stations. It was not possible to shoot such weapons at ships, but it is known that the cruiser Oklahoma City launched such ammunition through the jungles of Vietnam and even, according to the stories of the Yankees themselves, managed to crush enemy radars.
However, this improvisation on the basis of an anti-aircraft missile can no longer be regarded as an ordinary Zur.


Anti-aircraft missile complex "Talos". The starting mass of this "baby" together with the accelerator is over 3,5 tons!



Start "Talos" from the cruiser "Little Rock"

Concluding the story about the unusual features of the ship's anti-aircraft missile systems, it is worth recalling the tragicomic event that occurred in the Mediterranean at the international sea exercise "Exercise Display Determination 92".

At that time, the command of the Sixth Fleet invited Turkish sailors to participate in the exercises. Seduced by such attention from "Uncle Sam," the Turks happily agreed and put out a few of their "pelvis" next to the US Navy carrier group. But no one told the Turks that they would be used as targets.

Overnight from 1 to 2 in October, 1992, a group of NATO ships, was plowing the Mediterranean, and by morning it turned out that the Turkish destroyer TCG Muavenet had broken the bridge and killed 5 officers. Another 22 Turkish sailors after those "exercises" were in a hospital bed.

... The officer who was in charge of the USS Saratoga aircraft carrier's self-defense systems, cheerfully reported to the commander: “All the assigned tasks were completed successfully. Consumption - two SiSperrow anti-aircraft missiles!


The result of 2 missiles RIM-7 Sea Sparrow in Muavenet

The Turks were terrified and bewildered - how could this happen? Two "Sisperrou" could not accidentally get into the Turkish destroyer. It was necessary to direct them specifically using radar illumination. The operator could not see and did not know whom he shoots. What happened looks like an unfriendly act and betrayal of an ally.

When they began to understand, it turned out that on that night the Americans were training the shipboard air defense missile systems, alternately “taking the fly” Turkish ships going abeam (of course, the Turks were not warned about this). Then - the usual army humor: “Who threw the boots on the rocket console ?!” The launch command went through the electrical circuits, the plugs of the guides of the launchers flew out with a clang, two anti-aircraft missiles went to their chosen target. The sailor, who controlled the illumination radar, did not have time to say “Oh, shit”, as a pair of fiery lightning plunged into the superstructure of a nearby ship, illuminating for a moment the vastness of the sea.

The whole story ended in the typical way. Seven American sailors received a penalty, and another outdated frigate was presented to the Turkish Navy to replace the beaten Muavenet.

What is left to add? Now even the Turks know that the ship's air defense missile system is not a pound of raisins.


Turkish newspaper indignant
Author:
51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Kovrovsky
    Kovrovsky 28 January 2014 08: 52
    +26
    An interesting, informative article. Thanks to the author.
    1. Ascetic
      Ascetic 28 January 2014 20: 22
      +6
      Quote: Kovrovsky
      An interesting, informative article. Thanks to the author.


      Well done, author. For a long time it was necessary to work out this topic and set out sensibly, There is nothing to add.
      ship SAMs have always been considered "dual-use" weapons.
      1. Kasym
        Kasym 28 January 2014 20: 50
        +2
        Hello, Stanislav! I think the land options are dual-use weapons. I think this feature of the air defense system (like tactical missiles) played that role in not selling the S-300 to Iran. hi .
      2. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 28 January 2014 22: 16
        0
        Quote: Ascetic
        Well done, author. For a long time it was necessary to work out this topic and explained it sensibly, There is nothing to add. Shipborne air defense systems have always been considered [b] weapons of "dual use


        For a weapon, dual use would look like "kills" and "heals" laughing ... And then atypical use.
        1. Kars
          Kars 15 February 2014 14: 48
          +1
          ______________
          1. Santa Fe
            15 February 2014 18: 55
            0
            How to make a depth effect? Oil painting in the background?
            1. Kars
              Kars 15 February 2014 23: 54
              +2
              I think so far, most likely there will be enough dark fabric. Now there is Ohio, I was going to put it in the aquarium and make the effect of launching rockets with construction foam, but it doesn’t work out yet.
  2. Arberes
    Arberes 28 January 2014 08: 56
    +11
    Thank you, I read it with great pleasure! He himself more than once thought about the use of anti-aircraft missiles for surface targets, because this increases the power of the ship at times! I also heard about the successful defeat of the Turkish frigate in the first and from you - dear OLEG hi
    Probably the time will come when the weapons of ships (missiles) become universal? Agree, this is a very promising area? Bring to mind the range of defeat and fuels and lubricants of the target designation system and here it is a universal killer?
    I want to ask one question that gnaws at me all the time; what weapons did Georgian boats have and why didn’t they use weapons against our ships? Didn’t have RCC or were there problems with guidance, or maybe they just didn’t dare?
    1. mamba
      mamba 28 January 2014 13: 30
      +2
      Quote: Arberes
      Bring to mind the range of defeat and fuels and lubricants of the target designation system and here it is a universal killer?

      Fuels and lubricants are fuels and lubricants. You probably meant the GOS - the homing head.
      Quote: Arberes
      ... what weapons did Georgian boats possess and why didn’t they use weapons against our ships? Didn’t have RCC or were there problems with guidance, or maybe they just didn’t dare?

      The debate about this unfolded below.
      1. Arberes
        Arberes 28 January 2014 16: 17
        +3
        Quote: mamba

        Fuels and lubricants are fuels and lubricants. You probably meant the GOS - the homing head.

        Here is a curse on my gray head! You are right, of course, GOS !!! I remade the switch into English and I so ineptly redirected it. I apologize again hi
        I read the lower comment about the launch of Malachite, but I wanted to know why the Georgian boats did not use their weapons?
        Thank you dear mamba for the correct remark, but I didn’t even notice!
        What to take with an amateur?
    2. postman
      postman 28 January 2014 17: 16
      +4
      Quote: Arberes
      He himself more than once thought about the use of anti-aircraft missiles for surface targets, because this increases the power of the ship at times!

      "Shoot the sparrows with a cannon"
      It:
      1.Ink increases the cost of a shot
      2. Warhead ZR will not do anything with the ship (La oen fragile little thing, the ship compared to the tank Tiger 2)
      3. As a rule, serious software processing is required (flight, launch, backlight radar programs), etc.
      4. Fuse

      ===
      meaningless occupation


      Quote: Arberes
      Probably the time will come when the weapons of ships (missiles) become universal?

      will not.
      it's technical nonsense
      1. Arberes
        Arberes 28 January 2014 18: 03
        +2
        Quote: Postman
        will not.
        it's technical nonsense

        Perhaps you are right and I will not argue with you! The only thing I can tell you is that a person has always been looking for a universal type of weapon and these attempts will continue!
        I don’t doubt it! Thank you for the time you spent on my person-dear postman (3) hi
        1. postman
          postman 28 January 2014 23: 48
          +1
          Quote: Arberes
          Thank you for your time.

          please no offense.
          if there is such interest in the topic, write in a personal, I will send: the results of firing and "homologation" of the S-200 and S-75 (or 125 I don't remember anymore) on surface, ground targets.
          The bar is already taken.
          BUT!
          In this case, it was about the use of a MORALLY and TECHNICAL outdated air defense complex (SAM) against ships (it was no longer "rolling" against the aircraft), well ...
          Well, to help "our friends" against the US 6th fleet (Libya, Syria, Iraq).
          The results are less encouraging.
          But in the compartment I will send the cost of air defense systems.
          Even at those (!) Prices, the price is fantastic.
          Therefore, there will be no "unification", it is economically unjustified, and for some reason I wrote below
      2. Santa Fe
        28 January 2014 19: 19
        +2
        Quote: Postman
        meaningless occupation

        Let's argue with the obvious?

        Ship-based air defense systems have always been considered a "dual-use" weapon. I gave real examples

        Regarding your doubts:
        1. Cost - Unlikely SM-1MR / ESSM (M-22 Hurricane?) More expensive than Harpoon
        2. Modes of operation - that’s why developers’s heads are to take into account such an important point. As a result, most marine air defense systems have such a regime (there are a lot of examples)
        3. Fuse - pin. Almost all missiles have a default

        The destructive effect is small, but sufficient to destroy the superstructure of modern armored pelvis from a distance of line of sight. Remember what the unexploded anti-ship missile did to Sheffield? A "Stark" - 165 kg (+ 1 unexploded) and 1/2 of the crew for scrap, the ship is barely alive
        1. Ascetic
          Ascetic 28 January 2014 20: 35
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          As a result, most marine air defense systems have such a regime (there are a lot of examples)

          And not only sea. The same "Buk-M1-2" (the latest modernization of the "Buk" air defense missile system) has such a regime of firing of surface and ground radio contrast goals.
          (SAM) 9M317 is also used in the ship's air defense system "Shtil-1" Weight 715 kg max speed 1200m /

          a multi-mode semi-active radar homing head with an integrated on-board computer integrated into it, operating in systems with a different structure of backlight and radio correction signals;
          combat equipment with a two-channel (active pulse and semi-active) radio fuse, a system of contact target sensors and a high-explosive fragmentation warhead with striking elements adapted to the entire fleet of striking targets.

          9M317 anti-aircraft guided missile
          1. Ascetic
            Ascetic 28 January 2014 20: 43
            +1
            Even Fort-M can work on surface targets beyond the horizontal horizon if their coordinates are known or using an AWACS plane, but this is from the field of nailing with a tablet.
            1. postman
              postman 29 January 2014 00: 14
              +1
              Quote: Ascetic
              Even Fort-M can work on surface targets beyond the horizontal horizon if their coordinates are known or using an AWACS aircraft

              AWACS?
              1. It does NOT have a CHANNEL FOR RECEIVING SUCH DATA (and DROLO has no transmission channel)
              NO
              The operation of the "Fort-M" air defense system is provided external target designation from shipborne lighting equipment
              2. possible (!) - defeat of class surface targets "boat-frigate".


              Quote: Ascetic
              But this is from the field of nailing with a tablet.

              That's right, it (Fort SAM missiles) is 7 times (or 10) more expensive than anti-ship missiles, with a comparable range, BUT MORE POWERFUL
          2. postman
            postman 29 January 2014 00: 09
            +2
            Quote: Ascetic
            .The same "Buk-M1-2" (the last upgrade of the "Buk" air defense missile system)

            1. Not a sea-based beech
            Affected area aerodynamic goals, km 3-42
            Firing range on surface targets, km 3-18-25
            Let's say it can still "spit" from the shore at 25 km, from the PU (if it goes DIRECT to beach).
            WHAT SHIP ?????
            2. SAM 9M317 designed to defeat .... surface contrast radar and ground targets.
            3. The mass of the warhead: 50-70 kg.
            Well, probably, where the thread from the territory of Abkhazia could be pulled along the Georgian pelvis
            1. Ascetic
              Ascetic 29 January 2014 01: 22
              +1
              Quote: Ascetic
              And not only sea. The same "Buk-M1-2"

              Quote: Postman
              1. Not a sea-based beech


              Well, what am I talking about?


              Quote: Postman
              2. ZUR 9M317 designed to destroy .... radar-contrast surface and ground targets.
              3. The mass of the warhead: 50-70 kg.
              Well, probably, where the thread from the territory of Abkhazia could be pulled along the Georgian pelvis


              By the use of the new 9M317 rocket and modernization of other means of the complex, for the first time, the ability to defeat tactical ballistic missiles of the "Lance" type, aircraft missiles at ranges of up to 20 km, elements of high-precision weapons, surface ships at ranges up to 25 km and ground targets (aircraft at aerodromes, launchers, large command posts) at ranges up to 15 km. The effectiveness of hitting planes, helicopters and cruise missiles has been increased. The boundaries of the affected areas are increased to 45 km in range and up to 25 km in height.

              link

              Well, compare francs RCC Aérospatiale .15TT for the Saudis with a Dauphin helicopter which was going to fight with Iranian boats. It has a warhead weight of only 30 kg. and the mass of the rocket is about 100kg. Range 17km. But the anti-ship. There was a ship version of MM.15. Even announced the development modifications for coastal defense complexes. Of course, it’s not bullets for frigates, but for small boats and MDKs the very same Bison or river-sea class ships. So in Gudauta Buk quite fit
              1. postman
                postman 29 January 2014 01: 42
                +1
                Quote: Ascetic
                Well, compare francs RCC Aérospatiale.

                Do you forget about the form (field, zone) of the fragmentation of fragments in missiles and anti-ship missiles ....
                Remember?

                Fragmented warhead missiles of a cylindrical shape with an internal cavity (US patent No. 3853059)


                Their goals and objectives (RCC and SAM) -DIFFERENT, as well as targets
                Quote: Ascetic
                So in Gudauta Buk quite fit

                Hah
                in the Dardanelles the same
                1. Ascetic
                  Ascetic 29 January 2014 02: 25
                  +1
                  Quote: Postman
                  Do you forget about the form (field, zone) of the fragmentation of fragments in missiles and anti-ship missiles ....
                  Remember?

                  Fragmented warhead missiles of a cylindrical shape with an internal cavity (US patent No. 3853059)


                  She has a fragmentationhigh explosive Warhead. OFBCH. Missiles direct hit on target
                  corresponds to the English term "High Explosive Blast Fragmentation Warhead".
                  1. postman
                    postman 29 January 2014 03: 35
                    +2
                    Quote: Ascetic
                    She has a high-explosive fragmentation warhead

                    Yes, they all have practically disc variations
                    but not like that:
                    1. Ascetic
                      Ascetic 29 January 2014 13: 06
                      0
                      Quote: Postman
                      Yes, they all have practically disc variations


                      the last variant with the letter M (it’s not yet in service, like) is different, everything is classified there, there was a spy scandal with Shtil. They wanted to find out how the shooting modes for the internal high-explosive detonation are programmed, and the target’s undermining depending on the target. the office where they saw it, I ordered myself a fence made of aluminum profile smile There, half of the capacities were leased. Previously, they saw a lot of things, now practically this one rocket remained
        2. postman
          postman 28 January 2014 23: 56
          +2
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          have always been considered a "dual-use" weapon.

          DP not always You confuse with "the beginning of the path"

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          1. Cost

          Harpoon costs $ 1,5 mn. or something similar
          DO 280 km and 225 kg warhead.
          SM-1MR / ESSM, up to 65 kmi 62 kg bch !! (PIG)
          It costs $ 0,4 million.
          THERE IS YOU AND ANSWER
          The glider is a rocket supporting structure and consists of a body and aerodynamic surfaces. ABSOLUTELY OVER OVERLOADS AND OTHER MEDIUM DENSITY CALCULATED
          "Standard-1ER" (RIM-67A) .... an autopilot that ensures greater stability of its flight in the middle segment of the trajectory and increases maneuverability at the end, as well as the modernization of the fairing to withstand the high temperatures that occur at high flight speeds (over 1000 m / s).
          Naafiga goat button accordion?
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          2. Modes of operation

          Vidal Sassoon. Shampoo and conditioner in one bottle
          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          3. Fuse - pin.

          and who's arguing? "... or from a self-liquidator."
          This is the easiest (pin RV)

          Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
          Lethal action - small

          6000 small fragments, the initial velocity of which is about 2000 m / s.
          Cool!
          but I will disappoint you: there is a SPECIFIC debris formation cloud, calculated (people of the year spent tons of explosives) on a "specific target (aircraft)
          1. Santa Fe
            29 January 2014 00: 46
            +1
            Quote: Postman
            DP not always You confuse with "the beginning of the path"

            Ashen is red - created an anti-aircraft tool. But already in the first years of testing, it became clear that you can extinguish them all
            Quote: Postman
            THERE IS YOU AND ANSWER

            Cheaper!
            Quote: Postman
            . DESIGNED ABSOLUTELY OVER OVERLOADS AND OTHER MEDIUM DENSITY

            Priority - LA.
            Sea targets are secondary. Petty indulgence, but with a serious hint
            Quote: Postman
            lacquer shatter SPECIFIC

            in the form of a body ... mmm ... formed by the rotation of a cone around its apex

            But what does it matter if the baby pulled on the deck
            Or under the deck, the boat / corvette will be disabled. And more was not required.
            1. bif
              bif 29 January 2014 01: 39
              0
              SAM has all the useful skills of an anti-ship missile, while several times faster than conventional RCC in response time.

              Why such difference?
              1. Santa Fe
                29 January 2014 01: 57
                +2
                Quote: bif
                Why such difference?

                The anti-ship missile system is launched according to the principle of "fire and forget" - the very process of preparation for launch takes a lot of time (enter the course into its inertial and select the flight algorithm, turn-on time and ARLGSN mode, etc. necessary information)

                SAM without any questions starts up - after all, all the necessary calculations are carried out on board the ship and are broadcast on board the flying rocket via the radio channel, at the terminal stage the target is "highlighted" with an additional locator - all this is already happening "in the process"

                It is important that PU anti-ship missiles are most often stationary or able to rotate only at a certain angle, to launch in a given direction you will have to deploy the entire ship, which is extremely long

                The air defense system does not have such problems - the beam launchers are almost instantly aimed at the desired angle, the delivery of the finished missile from the cellar is a matter of seconds, the passage from the UVP cell is clear.

                Panel SWG-1 - the attack algorithm was manually selected on it and the trajectory of the Harpoon anti-ship missile system was calculated (American ships 1980-90, perhaps even now)
                1. postman
                  postman 29 January 2014 02: 16
                  +1
                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  It is important that PU anti-ship missiles are most often stationary or able to rotate only at a certain angle, to launch in a given direction you will have to deploy the entire ship, which is extremely long

                  ? from the cells of the container launcher Mk-16 (RUR-5 ASROC)

                  Where to turn?
                  You did not confuse with granite?

                  The warriors did not have enough money to adapt with the Mk-41.
                  will be performed at the next generation of RCC

                  Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                  The SAM has no such problems - beam PU

                  find the differences with the MK-16?
                  1. Santa Fe
                    29 January 2014 02: 39
                    +1
                    Quote: Postman
                    ? from the cells of the container launcher Mk-16 (RUR-5 ASROC)

                    Mk.11 (Adams)
                    Mk.13 (Perry)
                    RUR-5 (Knox)

                    Mk.141 is no longer turning

                    And this is one little harpoon! - all other anti-ship missiles are launched from a fixed launcher (with a fixed angle) - П-35, П-500, Uranus, etc.
                    1. postman
                      postman 29 January 2014 16: 36
                      0
                      Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                      And this is one little harpoon! -

                      most common? Elsie, I'm not mistaken
            2. postman
              postman 29 January 2014 01: 49
              +3
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              what can they extinguish all of them in a row

              Well, duck, and what am I talking about, there are 3500 kg of lope there?
              "When the missiles were big," the PU is the same, but there is little space

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Cheaper!

              RCC ... almost an order of magnitude

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Petty indulgence, but with a serious hint

              One and an idiot did not know how to say that a combat missile and how to cancel
              (OFFICERS OF IDYIOT, ALSO IDIOTS)
              Without providing prior notice of the exercise, officers on Saratoga woke the enlisted Sea Sparrow missile team and directed them to conduct the simulated attack. According to US Navy, certain members of the missile firing team were not told that the exercise was a drill, rather than an actual event.
              As the drill progressed, the missile system operator used language to indicate he was preparing to fire a live missile, but due to the absence of standard terminology, it was failed to appreciate the significance of the terms used and the requests made. Specifically, the Target Acquisition System operator issued the command "arm and tune", terminology the console operators understood to require arming of the missiles in preparation for actual firing. The officers supervising the drill did not realize that "arm and tune" signified a live firing and ignored two separate requests from the missile system operator to clarify whether the launch order was an exercise. As a result, shortly after midnight on the morning of 2 October, Saratoga fired two Sea Sparrow missiles at Muavenet.


              Others go iots know that they are being highlighted (combat mode) and does not even come to the brain to ask: "Why are you stupid there?"


              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              in the form of a body ... mmm ... formed by the rotation of a cone around its apex

              http://topwar.ru/38905-zenitnoy-raketoy-po-korablyam.html#comment-id-1895137
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              But what does it matter if the baby pulled on the deck

              HERE APPLY THE ABOVE DRAWING ON THE DECK
              + HIS speed (APPROACH)

              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              Or under the deck

              THIS YES, AGREE ...
              IF FINALLY GETS WATER BACKGROUND
      3. sivuch
        sivuch 29 January 2014 12: 45
        +1
        And besides warhead there is also the kinetic energy of the rocket itself and at a speed of 2-3M rocket it is it that is the main damaging factor
        1. postman
          postman 29 January 2014 22: 59
          +1
          Quote: sivuch
          at a speed of 2-3M rocket, it is it that is the main damaging factor

          ?
          Never!

          I’ll take 5V55RM, 48N6E, 48N6E2 (“Fort” (S-300F))
          I’m not saying anything about Osa
          5V55RM-1664 kg
          minus 130 kg
          minus (approximately n.d.) weight TTZ 1400kg (hardly mistaken)
          minus fuel (or reagent) for UPS, 7-10 kg
          IN THE DRY RESIDUE WE HAVE 134-250kg WE TARE that flew up to the ship
          TARA THIN-WALLED TUBE, which "kept" its shape ONLY thanks to TTZ
          Ek will be around (2M, 3 M is fantastic at SUCH HEIGHT) = 924800 kg 2 m2 / sXNUMX.
          (Most of this energy will go to the destruction and heating of the glider glider, is this not a BB projectile?)
          How many?
          a car weighing 2000 kg, at a speed of 100 km / h (28 m / s), has 784000 kg ∙ m2 / s2.
          while "less crushing" than 5В55РМ
          ===============
          The remains of the fuel components of the RCC, yes, the enemy is a serious enemy for the ship.
          But all missiles (practically) have solid propellant rocket engines

          1. sivuch
            sivuch 30 January 2014 10: 49
            -1
            Something I did not understand these calculations.
            about Wasp and other trifles are not talking.
            By definition, we shoot at a short range limited by the radio horizon when the rocket engine is still running, i.e., the rocket speed is maximum (how much is the same 48N6?), And the fuel has not burned out yet. And then we include the kinetic energy formula, etc. e. dependence on the square of the speed and compare with RCC.
            Even for a Mosquito with a lower (2700 km / h) speed and a comparable mass (2 tons reach the target), kinetic energy is one of the main damaging factors. The X-22, as you know, makes a hole in the housing of 22 sq. M. At the same time, the approach speed 800m / s, and weight 3-3.5 tons (depending on how much fuel is left)
            This is not to mention the fact that from such an impulse mechanisms breaks off the foundations and breaks pipelines throughout the ship
            1. postman
              postman 30 January 2014 11: 04
              +1
              Quote: sivuch
              By definition, we shoot at a short range

              then "neosoy" is meaningless - there is an artillery system that will do this work efficiently and cheaply

              Quote: sivuch
              Even for Mosquito with less

              1. mosquito, according to the starting weight, fighter MIG-21,5V55RM-RDTT
              2.will never such a speed (2700km / h) at an altitude of 10m - the atmosphere is too dense, it is energetically not feasible, and the thermal barrier
              Quote: sivuch
              inetic energy is one of the main damaging factors.

              Nonsense.

              1 kilogram of TNT = 4 J; How much is a kilogram of trinitrotoluene ???? MULTIPLE THIS AMOUNT BY 200?
              800 MEGA J?
              1 J = 1 kg · m² / s², te.5V55RM = 924 800 J .... 0,9 MEGA j?
              ALMOST (!) 3 orders (!) 10 to 3 degrees
              ... well, if so hotz recount at 3000km / h (fiction for a height of 10m) and for a FULL STARTING WEIGHT 5V55RM (1664 kg) (we simulate the side-by-side barrel)
              CHANGED HIGHLY?

              Quote: sivuch
              This is not to mention that mechanisms from such an impulse

              everything is calculated above, just solid math
              1. sivuch
                sivuch 30 January 2014 12: 07
                -1
                Tell me, for you, any opinion that differs from yours is nonsense? If so, then there is no need to communicate.
                Just do not forget to write to all sites, for example here, that they write nonsense
                http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/moskit/moskit.shtml
                After the launch, the rocket makes a "slide", and then descends to a cruising altitude of about 10-20 meters, when approaching the target, it descends to 7 meters above the crest of the waves (see]]> diagram]]>). The missile can perform intense anti-aircraft maneuvers with overloads exceeding 10g, which are completed 9 km before the target. Due to the huge kinetic energy "Mosquito" pierces the hull of any ship and explodes inside
                Airspeed:
                - maximum
                - cruising
                2.8M
                2.35M
                1. postman
                  postman 30 January 2014 13: 51
                  +1
                  Quote: sivuch
                  Tell me, for you, any opinion that differs from yours is nonsense?

                  Of course not.
                  But when the opinion is contrary to sound logic and the postulates of mathematics (physics), that is studied in grade 10-YES.
                  (Here somewhere there is a confession of a "real Russian" officer, well, how he shot down the S-200m in Iraq Tomkats, and shot at him from Ghana Galaxy ... COOL look, that's really nonsense, so nonsense)
                  the flight of the B-58A aircraft along the Tokyo-London route with a length of 12919 km.
                  The record flight was launched at a speed of 2,0 M. Moreover, the temperature of the skin of the aircraft in some areas reached 300 ° C, which created interference with the operation of navigation equipment.
                  After reducing the speed, the aircraft structure cooled down, and the normal operation of the equipment was restored, which allowed again to increase the speed to 2,0 M. The flight took place with such a periodic change of modes at altitudes of 14326-18 288 m,

                  Quote: sivuch
                  like here that they write nonsense

                  1. And where is it written about 2,5M by 10m? on the "schematic, or what?
                  at 2,5M at an altitude of 10m, NGranit can only "spit", on the strength of 10-15 km and because of the thermal barrier it will burn out for 10-20 seconds
                  2. The weight of the warhead, kg 300-320
                  The weight of the explosive warhead, kg 150
                  warhead piercing
                  Should I write further?
                  And what is a missile launcher (well, or RCC), a glider venere?
                  Thin-walled, "fragile" design, maximally lightweight (container)
                  which will begin to crumple first, when Ek goes into heat (Entropy, like water, will "flow" to where it is lighter)

                  Well, you shoot a thin-walled tube with a DIAMETER 760 mm (pi and D in sq. / 4) at the ship, at 2,5m ..
                  Result?
                  what do you think for what they add uranium, use tungsten in BBS? or sub-caliber for what?

                  Quote: sivuch
                  Due to the huge kinetic energy "Mosquito"

                  the formulas are given, they are publicly available ... "huge kinetic energy" is easy to calculate

                  ==============
                  Okay, I can’t prove it.
                  Ask from:
                  Russian expert "Military Review" Oleg Kaptsov
                  "link" http://obozrevatel.com/abroad/52936-konets-sirii.htm
                  1. sivuch
                    sivuch 30 January 2014 19: 03
                    -1
                    Okay, convinced
                    So, the X-22 target didn’t make a hole
                    1. postman
                      postman 30 January 2014 20: 52
                      +1
                      Quote: sivuch
                      So, the X-22 target didn’t make a hole

                      Not!
                      I did not say SUCH. (I will not take this episode)
                      LRE, this is still not a solid propellant rocket engine, and anti-ship missiles (6tn) are not SAM
                      could be completed as a HE-M explosive-cumulative warhead weighing 950 kg (500 kg of explosives), and thermonuclear warhead "N" 350-1000 ct.
                      900kg HIGHLY CUMULATIVE will sew (offhand) a meter of 3 armored drivers probably
  3. Professor
    Professor 28 January 2014 08: 58
    -38%
    As a result of hitting both missiles at the target, the Georgian hydrographic boat sank (disappeared from the radar screens after a short exposure).

    RTO Mirage from a distance of 15 km launched an anti-aircraft missile of the Osa-M complex on it. As a result of a missile hit, the Georgian boat lost speed, and after the removal of the crew by another boat, it finally burned out and sank.

    Again these tales. In that battle, not a single Georgian boat was sunk. Photos of all Georgian boats after the war are uploaded online.

    Despite the discrepancies in some details, each source provides data on the shelling of Georgian boats using the Osa-M air defense missiles.

    Is this called a discrepancy in some detail?
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. Professor
        Professor 28 January 2014 09: 48
        -6
        Quote: vthrehbq
        they don’t like idiots trying to troll

        Do not be so self-critical.
        1. Roman 1977
          Roman 1977 28 January 2014 10: 14
          +17
          Oleg, well, you are wrong again, initially it was claimed that the RCA of the project 206 "Tbilisi" (the former Ukrainian "Konotop") was sunk, but later it was destroyed by the Lebed paratroopers in Poti.

          The same fate befell another Georgian RCA "Dioscuria", the former Greek "Ipoploiarchos Batsis" of the La Combattante II type.

          The P-120 Malachite missile from the Mirage most likely sunk the Gantiadi, a former seiner, later used by the Georgians as a patrol ship, and then converted by them into a hydrographic vessel with tail number 016, armed with two 23-mm twin ZU-23- 2 and two 12,7 mm machine guns.

          Georgian "patrol ship" "Kodori", similar to the sunk "Gantiadi"


          But "Wasp" sunk the patrol boat DHK-82 of the "Yaroslavets" type.
          Those. it seems the Georgians were withdrawing their auxiliary ships, they ran into our squad and were sunk.
          1. Professor
            Professor 28 January 2014 11: 00
            -12%
            Quote: Novel 1977
            Oleg, well, you're wrong again

            And when was the last time I was wrong? I forgot something.

            Quote: Novel 1977
            The P-120 Malachite missile from the Mirage most likely sunk the Gantiadi, a former seiner, later used by the Georgians as a patrol ship, and then converted by them into a hydrographic vessel with tail number 016, armed with two 23-mm twin ZU-23- 2 and two 12,7 mm machine guns.

            Here they drowned him, but here he rusts on the pier. Wonders




            Quote: Novel 1977
            But "Wasp" sunk the patrol boat DHK-82 of the "Yaroslavets" type.

            This is generally a masterpiece. Photo from here:
            http://www.dsk.ru/cgi-bin/forum.pl?id=26&cid=3856&oid=5273
            I will sell the boat YAROSLAVETS, 1976 of release. Boat on the go. Engine: 3D6 - 150 hp There is a boat in Astrakhan. Bargaining is appropriate. Price: 1 000 000 rub
            Features:
            Length: 21 m
            Width: 3.98 m
            Draft: 1.03 m
            Draft Maximum: 1.15 m
            Sleeps: 14
            Engine: 3D6
            Fuel tank: 3000 l
            Water tank: 500 L
            Maximum speed: 18 nodes
            Cruise Speed: 10 Knots
            Cabins: 2
            Телефон: +7 (903)-348-22-08
            +7 (909)-456-64-61
            +7 (851)-238-78-84

            Email: [email protected]

            Is there a photo of the Georgian boat? laughing

            Moldovan motor ship Lotos 1 You somehow threw out of history. Not good. wink
            1. PLO
              PLO 28 January 2014 11: 27
              +2
              Here they drowned him, but here he rusts on the pier. Wonders

              rust Kodori
              1. Professor
                Professor 28 January 2014 11: 37
                -2
                Quote: olp
                rust Kodori

                The fact that it rusts there is in 2006 on the pier, namely Gantiadi.

                Kodori here:
                1. PLO
                  PLO 28 January 2014 11: 47
                  +5
                  You want to say that Kodori is walking now?
                  for a photo of a rusty skeleton on the shore spilled by Kodori
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 28 January 2014 11: 50
                    -4
                    Quote: olp
                    You want to say that Kodori is walking now?

                    I have no idea what happened to him. request
                    1. PLO
                      PLO 28 January 2014 11: 54
                      +10
                      I don’t have what happened to him. request

                      that’s the point.
                      by and large, no matter who was sunk by Gantiadi or Kodori, for they look like twins.

                      and your link about the boat "Yaroslavets" is generally extremely funny.

                      generally say hello to the Moldovan ship
                2. alone
                  alone 29 January 2014 22: 37
                  0
                  By the way, too, rusty, judging by the state
            2. Cynic
              Cynic 28 January 2014 18: 34
              +3
              Quote: Professor
              And when was the last time I was wrong? I forgot something.

              Already complaining of a memory?
              Ai-ya-yay.
              It was, it was.
              wink
      2. ICT
        ICT 28 January 2014 14: 12
        +1
        Quote: vthrehbq
        You need to Kasparov.ru

        YOU campaign by chance didn’t bring us from there
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Vadivak
      Vadivak 28 January 2014 09: 55
      +13
      Quote: Professor
      In that battle, not a single Georgian boat was sunk

      It is believed that the Georgian fleet was destroyed by paratroopers
      Missile boat "Dioscuria" destroyed by the Airborne Forces in Poti. 13.08.2008/XNUMX/XNUMX



      But this photo was taken from the "Mirage" MRK after the missiles hit the target.

      I don’t know who, but they definitely drowned someone.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 28 January 2014 10: 10
        -4
        Quote: Vadivak
        I don’t know who, but they definitely drowned someone.

        The smoke trail from a rocket absolutely does not mean that it’s got somewhere and even more so destroyed. The fact that all Georgian boats were sunk in Poti by specialists was established and this cannot be denied.
      2. Professor
        Professor 28 January 2014 10: 14
        -13%
        Quote: Vadivak
        I don’t know who, but they definitely drowned someone.

        Moldovan ship seems to have sank ... request
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 28 January 2014 10: 20
          +12
          Quote: Professor
          Moldovan ship seems to have sunk

          Why Moldavian? Maybe he was coming from Israel? You yourself an hour from the wrong side, miraculously survived?
          I welcome you dear Professor (2) hi
          1. Professor
            Professor 28 January 2014 11: 06
            +2
            Quote: Arberes
            Why Moldavian? Maybe he was coming from Israel? You yourself an hour from the wrong side, miraculously survived?

            At the expense of "sunk", of course I got excited, just damaged. The missile didn't even hit the side.
            1. Arberes
              Arberes 28 January 2014 11: 19
              +3
              Quote: Professor
              At the expense of "sunk", of course I got excited, just damaged. The missile didn't even hit the side.

              Yes, the crew tried to present fragments of an alleged Russian missile, but nothing came of it.
              At least I got this information. Dark story?
              1. badger1974
                badger1974 28 January 2014 16: 27
                +4
                as far as I know, Malachite warhead weighs about a ton, if it got into someone else, it’s about a sledgehammer, if you remember that the Israeli destroyer Eilat went down immediately after the P-15 bch 300kg hit, you know what I'm getting at
      3. Gato
        Gato 28 January 2014 15: 38
        +3
        Quote: Vadivak
        I don’t know who, but they definitely drowned someone.

        Probably again a Turk lol
    4. Ataman
      Ataman 28 January 2014 10: 11
      +4
      Quote: Professor
      Photos of all Georgian boats after the war are uploaded online.

      And here are the photos themselves. The photo was taken with the "Mirage" MRK after the missile attack on Georgian boats. A small hydrographic boat of the "Yaroslavets" type is on fire, and the "Gantiadi" has already sunk.
      1. PLO
        PLO 28 January 2014 10: 34
        +6
        video from warhead-5

        1. PLO
          PLO 28 January 2014 10: 54
          0
          By the way, they say that Osa was shot only once, after which the PU jammed / refused
          2 Malachite were launched on the first boat. the first hit destroying Gantiadi, and the second launched along it fell into the water (because the boat was already destroyed)

          after which just one of the OSA missiles was fired at Yaroslavl, after which the launcher jammed

          in the video, by the way, you can see how to manually remove PUs with one remaining rocket
        2. badger1974
          badger1974 31 January 2014 09: 29
          0
          in general, this is a warhead-2, slingshots, and a warhead-5 is "oils", mechanics, in this video it is a warhead-2 post 2-0
        3. Starina_hank
          Starina_hank 11 February 2014 20: 55
          0
          Floating menagerie with half-naked hamadril! Horror! Nightmare! Is that really a warship? Was it not a shame to spread such a disgrace? The description of the battle, in addition to bewilderment, causes nothing more: 1. What is the warning shot of a missile that fell between boats? Nonsense! Most likely, the rocket simply did not aim or self-destruct. 2. What considerations did the 2 Malachites fire on one boat each? One missile is enough with a huge surplus, the second one that didn’t hit again? 3. Since when Was Osa fired at 15 km? Yes, even hit? 4. After starting 2 OSs (according to the story), there are no signs of missile launch on the launcher, at least something should remain on the paint. 5. Who let these idiots with an uncleared rocket into the base? I'd like to believe that in the Russian fleet over the past 6 years, something has changed for the better!
    5. Cynic
      Cynic 28 January 2014 18: 32
      +3
      Quote: Professor
      Again these tales.

      Oh oh
      Hello dear Professor . Having met in the article a mention of the drowning of orphaned and wretched Georgian opponents, I immediately thought _ I wonder who and how quickly will defend the flag of the Georgian Navy?
      And this is you.
      With the coming year 2014 already.
      hi
      1. Professor
        Professor 28 January 2014 20: 30
        0
        Quote: Cynic
        Having met in the article a mention of the drowning of orphaned and wretched Georgian opponents, I immediately thought _ I wonder who and how quickly will defend the flag of the Georgian Navy?

        No protection for the Georgian Navy flag. The flag may have been, but the Navy did not have time to create.

        Quote: Cynic
        With the coming year 2014 already.

        And you do not praise.
        1. Cynic
          Cynic 29 January 2014 17: 40
          0
          Quote: Professor
          But the Navy did not have time to create.

          How everything in our world is predictable.
          As you remember, I hope wink , discussion of the losses of the Georgian Navy always takes place in several stages _
          There wasn’t that!
          Someone drowned, fi.
          How embarrassing it was to shoot!
          So that immediately went over
          to the second question
          drinks
  4. Vadivak
    Vadivak 28 January 2014 09: 03
    +21
    Oleg Hello. As always, I read it with pleasure. but there was still a battle and, unlike the Persians, a real one.

    Over the next 26 years, the U.S. Navy has never been able to participate in naval combat.

    In 1999 there was a unique naval battle of the Yugoslav (Russian-built) and American warships. Yugoslav SKR of the project 61SK "BEOGRAD"

    The commander of the American AUG sent an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Ross to intercept the next dangerous course.
    The destroyer, acting as a forward patrol, approached the 200 km distance at a distance of 8 km from the main forces of the AOG, and noted that the SKO Beograd transmitted a flag signal “I have a malfunction” to the destroyer and reduced its course. It was at this moment that the Russian command finally figured out the situation and informed the American side about the ship’s ownership. Meanwhile, the destroyer lifted a SH-60 Sea Hawk helicopter with an inspection batch. The American Sea Hawk helicopter approaching for landing at the helipad received two long lines of 800mm shells from a distance of 30 meters at the same time from both ZAK-630 aft artillery guns, collapsed and fell into the water. 4 URM anti-aircraft missile launchers were fired from the Beograd missile launcher on the destroyer, 2 of which were destroyed in the air by 20 mm Vulkan-Falanks anti-aircraft artillery mounts. The second and fourth anti-ship missiles fell into the mid-frame area and the Mark 41 stern launcher area, and caused an explosion and fire aboard the destroyer.
    This command of the Beograd missile defense system was not enough, and a 76 mm gun mount was opened at the affected destroyer and, after approaching a distance of 5 kilometers, both RBU-6000. The shots tearing at 35,5 knots to the American TFR ship at the time of the RBU-6000 salvo were shot by pilots of two aircraft, and for a long time became leaders in viewing on the Internet

    ... In response, "Ross" opened fire from a bow 127-mm gun mount and launched two homing torpedoes from an onboard anti-submarine vehicle - due to damage to the OMS, the destroyer crew had to aim the device and launch torpedoes manually. Unfortunately, the outdated anti-torpedo protection system of the SKR "BEOGRAD", which was switched to manual mode for firing on the destroyer from RBU-6000, did not allow timely issue of fire decisions for the anti-torpedo salvo. Already burning from the results of the shelling "BEOGRAD" after being hit by two torpedoes went to the bottom.
    Severely damaged, in smoke and fire, "Ross" was abandoned by the crew, and sank from the explosion of the cellars four hours later.
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 28 January 2014 09: 11
      +6
      quote-10 On August 2008, the group of ships of the Black Sea Fleet consisting of two BDKs (the flagship Caesar Kunikov and Saratov) and two guard ships (the Mirage and the Suzdalets MPKs) was located off the coast of Abkhazia.

      In the patrol area of ​​Russian ships, five unidentified boats traveling at high speed were found. They violated the border of the declared security zone and did not respond to warnings.
    2. Know-nothing
      Know-nothing 28 January 2014 09: 18
      +10
      You have a fire at the Otvazhny shipyard in the photo. And Ross is alive and well.
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 28 January 2014 10: 07
        +6
        Quote: Dunno
        And Ross is alive and well.

        in America, it is customary to give the same names to ships of the same class. As soon as the New York cruiser is decommissioned, a ship of the same name leaves the slipway.
    3. Arberes
      Arberes 28 January 2014 09: 20
      +6
      Quote: Vadivak
      Severely damaged, in smoke and fire, "Ross" was abandoned by the crew, and sank from the explosion of the cellars four hours later.

      I have no words! Never heard of it!
      Thank you, dear Vadivak (1) for this fascinating fact from the history of modern maritime conflicts! hi
      1. Volkhov
        Volkhov 28 January 2014 10: 03
        +4
        This is a magazine tale, unfortunately.
        1. Arberes
          Arberes 28 January 2014 10: 12
          +3
          Quote: Volkhov
          This is a magazine tale, unfortunately.


          Quote: Nayhas
          Dear, and where do you only find such a canoe?

          SO WAS OR WASN'T ??????
          Answer us, our friend Vadivak (1) recourse
          1. Vadivak
            Vadivak 28 January 2014 10: 20
            +5
            Quote: Arberes
            AK WAS or WASN'T ??????


            According to the American version was not.
          2. Magellan
            Magellan 28 January 2014 10: 21
            +2
            Quote: Arberes
            SO WAS OR WASN'T ??????

            Did not have

            As Yugoslavs never had BOD pr.61 and RCC Uranus
            Quote: Vadivak
            Severely damaged, in smoke and fire, "Ross" was abandoned by the crew, and sank from the explosion of the cellars four hours later.

            Fantasies
            1. Vadivak
              Vadivak 28 January 2014 10: 23
              +5
              Quote: Magellan
              Like never before Yugoslavs BOD pr.61


              TFR project 61SK
              1. Magellan
                Magellan 28 January 2014 10: 34
                +2
                Quote: Vadivak
                TFR project 61SK

                Such a project has never been

                Quote: Vadivak
                запустил two homing torpedoes from the onboard anti-submarine vehicle - due to damage to the OMS, the destroyer crew had to aim the device and launch torpedoes manually. Unfortunately, the outdated anti-torpedo protection system of the SKR "BEOGRAD", which was switched to manual mode for firing on the destroyer from RBU-6000, did not allow timely issue of fire decisions for the anti-torpedo salvo. Already burning from the results of the shelling "BEOGRAD" after being hit by two torpedoes went to the bottom.

                324 mm Mk.46 not intended for firing at surface ships
          3. desertfox
            desertfox 28 January 2014 10: 26
            -1
            And so myths are born)))
            Someone came up with an interesting fairy tale, someone brought it without specifying that it was a fairy tale, and someone who did not understand it rejoiced that our ancient boats could still send enemy destroyers to the bottom))
            1. Arberes
              Arberes 28 January 2014 10: 41
              +5
              Quote: desertfox
              And so myths are born)))

              I will not argue about myths. hi

              Quote: desertfox
              our ancient boats can still send enemy destroyers to the bottom))

              Probably some can still! Project 1164 cruiser ATLANT code, how does this suit you?

              Quote: desertfox
              and someone did not figure it out rejoiced

              Well, at least dream, isn’t it harmful? drinks
              1. desertfox
                desertfox 28 January 2014 13: 20
                +1
                Quote: Arberes
                Probably some can still! Project 1164 cruiser ATLANT code, how does this suit you?


                I do not even doubt that they can sink to the bottom, because they were made for this purpose. hi

                Quote: Arberes
                Well, at least dream, isn’t it harmful?


                I also liked the story, though looking for more detailed information I came across the source, and everything fell into place: http://alternathistory.org.ua/alternativnaya-sudba-poyushchikh-fregatov-vmf-sssr
                -razvilka-ai-v-1995-godu
                There at the end, in the comments)
    4. Nayhas
      Nayhas 28 January 2014 09: 55
      +6
      Quote: Vadivak
      In 1999 there was a unique naval battle of the Yugoslav (Russian-built) and American warships. Yugoslav SKR of the project 61SK "BEOGRAD"

      Dear, and where do you only find such a canoe? If for the sake of a joke you laid it out, then write that they say there is a story about the brave Yugoslav TFR which has never been in nature, but the story is beautiful, the writer is truly an illiterate liar, but it sounds encouraging.
      PS: the main contradictions of Yugoslavia-BOD pr.61-PKR-Uranus.
      1. Vadivak
        Vadivak 28 January 2014 10: 16
        +7
        Quote: Nayhas
        the brave Yugoslav TFR which has never been in nature



        Oh how?

        The project of a multi-purpose frigate (TFR) was developed in 1970 by the Zelenodolsky Design Bureau specifically for export deliveries to the Warsaw Treaty countries. According to it, with various changes, two ships for the GDR were built in the USSR, two with anti-ship missiles for Yugoslavia, three for Algeria, three for Cuba and two for Libya. Beograd was transferred to Yugoslavia on March 10, 1980, and Podgorica on December 5, 1982.
    5. Zymran
      Zymran 28 January 2014 11: 33
      +1
      BUGAGA, forgot to add that this is an alternative story from the category, but in reality there was no such battle. laughing
    6. Santa Fe
      28 January 2014 19: 09
      +2
      Quote: Vadivak
      but there was still a battle and, unlike the Persians, a real one.

      Over the next 26 years, the U.S. Navy has never been able to participate in naval combat.

      Vadim, about the only active US ship who participated in the battle - there really can be argued

      USS Simpson is not the only one
      There is also a sailing frigate USS Constitution (1797 year of construction) - is still listed in the Navy. Over the course of his career he has gone through a bunch of wars, sunk and captured with a dozen enemy ships


      Drowning British HMS Guerriere


      Until 1997, the Constitution of 116 did not go to sea for years. Recently, periodically goes to the amusement of the public
    7. Fofan
      Fofan 28 January 2014 21: 58
      0
      minus you for the replicated nonsense and lies.
    8. Starina_hank
      Starina_hank 11 February 2014 20: 59
      0
      Rave! In the photograph of BOD Brave Black Sea Fleet.
  5. archi.sailor
    archi.sailor 28 January 2014 09: 52
    +4
    Quote: Arberes
    Quote: Vadivak
    Severely damaged, in smoke and fire, "Ross" was abandoned by the crew, and sank from the explosion of the cellars four hours later.

    I have no words! Never heard of it!
    Thank you, dear Vadivak (1) for this fascinating fact from the history of modern maritime conflicts! hi

    unconditionally support !!! Thank you very much, if you can link to the video please hi
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 28 January 2014 10: 03
      +2
      Quote: archi.sailor
      unconditionally support !!! Thank you very much, if you can link to the video please

      What do you support? And look into the network and see that ships of Project 61 were NEVER transferred to Yugoslavia, the only country that exploited Project 61 except India / USSR is India? What is the only ship pr.61 on which the Uranus missile launcher was installed, is it the BKK Shrewd going into the Black Sea Fleet with tail number 810?
      1. Ivan Petrovich
        Ivan Petrovich 28 January 2014 10: 33
        +3
        we divorced a lot of storytellers :) and all the specialists on all issues of the war ...
        for half a year they would be in the hold for the minders, wiser immediately
      2. Roman 1977
        Roman 1977 28 January 2014 10: 44
        +5
        Dear Vadim, this case is taken from the site "alternative history", here is the payroll of the Yugoslav Navy at the time of the NATO aggression ;:
        2 patrol ships of the 1159TR project with 4 anti-ship missiles П-15

        VPBR-31 "Split" built in 1980, in the Navy of the FRY "Belgrade", withdrawn from the fleet, for sale
        VPBR-32 "Koper", built in 1983 in the Navy of the FRY "Podgorica", cut into metal
        2 frigates of the "Kotor" type - the Yugoslav version of the SKR project 1159, armed with 4 anti-ship missiles P-15, the "Osa" air defense missile system with 20 missiles,

        VPBR-33 "Kotor", built 1985 of the year, continues to serve in the Montenegrin Navy
        VPBR-34 "Pula", built in 1986. in the Navy of the FRY "Novi Sad", continues to serve in the Navy of Montenegro
        3 diesel-electric submarines: 1 of the "Hero" type (3 were built in total, but two P-822 “Junak“, P-823 “Uskok“, decommissioned in the mid-90s); 2 types "Sava"; 4 small diesel-electric submarines of "Una" type

        5 RCA type "Konchar" 2 launchers PKR P-15 "Termit":

        5 minesweepers,
        10 small patrol ships.
        As you can see, there is no TFR of the 61 project.
      3. Zapasnoy
        Zapasnoy 28 January 2014 11: 26
        +1
        I agree completely. Moreover, by 1999, all ships of Project 61, except for the "Sharp", were decommissioned. There is no such project modernization as "SK". This whole story is complete nonsense.
  6. Nayhas
    Nayhas 28 January 2014 10: 18
    +4
    The missile defense capabilities, as Oleg correctly pointed out, are limited by the radio horizon, BUT there is one missile defense system in the world capable of hitting targets behind the radio horizon, thereby realizing its capabilities at maximum range. This is an American Standard Missile-6 or SM-6. But this requires guidance from the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.
    1. Magellan
      Magellan 28 January 2014 10: 29
      +3
      Quote: Nayhas
      BUT there is one missile in the world capable of hitting targets beyond the radio horizon thereby realizing its capabilities at maximum range.

      Yes there is. European Aster-15/30

      It is part of the PAAMS ship-based air defense system. It is in service with the Navy of Great Britain, France, Italy and Singapore
      Quote: Nayhas
      This is an American Standard Missile-6 or SM-6.

      The first production rockets will appear no earlier than 2015
      The Yankees are 10 years late from the Europeans - that's why you have computer graphics in the picture, instead of a real rocket
      Quote: Nayhas
      But this requires guidance from the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.

      An ordinary Hokai, of course, cannot))) Adwanced Hawkeye is needed)))

      But the main thing is why the heck. RCC works at great distances
      1. Know-nothing
        Know-nothing 28 January 2014 11: 29
        +2
        Quote: Magellan
        Yankees are late from Europeans for 10 years

        And she used to be and is not needed, for example. We must say "the Europeans rushed to do it 10 years earlier than necessary, but the Americans did it on time" wink
        1. Magellan
          Magellan 28 January 2014 12: 04
          +1
          Quote: Dunno
          But she was not needed before

          SAM with an active seeker, for the guidance of which is not required ship radar illumination - anti-aircraft gunners dream since the beginning of the air defense system era (1940-50s)

          It is no coincidence that the Yankes tried to adapt an active infrared seeker to the SM-1MR (including for intercepting "stealth" with low ESR) - but they failed. IR head sensitivity is insufficient
          1. postman
            postman 29 January 2014 02: 05
            +1
            Quote: Magellan
            active infrared seeker on SM-1MR

            How do you imagine the ACTIVE IR GOS?
            Huh?
            Type in SAM, is an infrared spotlight (blowtorch) and radiates the IR spectrum towards the target?
            1. None of the modifications of the SM-1MR (RIM-66A, B, E) was placed IR GOS
            2.
            Quote: Magellan
            but nothing came of it.

            Yes?
            Works great on SM-2MR with RIM-66K version
            SM-2ER with RIM-156B has a new combined radar / infrared guidance system
            3.
            Quote: Magellan
            The sensitivity of the IR head is insufficient

            Heatseeker have been working great for a long time, what we have, what they have
            Over the course of decades, the GOS IC underwent little changes in comparison with the original Sidewinder of the 60s and our copies.
            To create the effect of "running hares", of course, it is necessary to know the frequency of stabilization of the gyroscope revolutions and the thickness of the lines on the modulator disk.
            Those. steal somehow Stinger and / or Sidewinder


            But for every bolt there is a nut with a left-hand thread. For some time now, more than one bolometer was started on the Stinger (and the Eagle) - at different spectral frequencies. And filter.

            For filtering, it is desirable to have a spectrum of the engine (which is easy) + a spectrum of a xenon masquerade lamp
            The CCDs are INSERT ALREADY, they don’t need moving parts, they don’t need external modulation and they don’t care about all these tricks.
    2. postman
      postman 28 January 2014 17: 12
      +3
      Quote: Nayhas
      This is an American Standard Missile-6 or SM-6. But this requires guidance from the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.

      1.No, the GOS from AIM-120 (adding the active radar homing seeker from the AIM-120C AMRAAM) was added, and THIS "AIR-AIR", GOS simply does not distinguish a surface target against the background of a water mirror.
      2. What can a kinetic or fragmentation Mk 125 do for a surface ship? = 0
      1. patsantre
        patsantre 28 January 2014 19: 09
        +1
        Why then neither one nor the other prevented the adoption of missiles in the situations described in the article?
        1. postman
          postman 29 January 2014 00: 19
          0
          Quote: patsantre
          did not interfere with the adoption of missiles in the situations described in the article?

          probably apply?
          They were not used!
          It
          Sea Sparrow incident
          Not in vain, the US court ruled on the appeal of the affected Turks:
          This case presents a nonjusticiable political question because it would require a court to interject itself into military decision making and foreign policy, areas the Constitution has committed to coordinate branches of government.
          free shorter.
          After all, planes shot down from a tank gun. So what?
      2. dustycat
        dustycat 28 January 2014 22: 04
        +1
        Quote: Postman
        2. What can a kinetic or fragmentation Mk 125 do for a surface ship? = 0


        About the same as a high-explosive fragmentation shell of the same mass of explosives.
        And this is far from = 0.
        1. postman
          postman 29 January 2014 00: 20
          +2
          Quote: dustycat
          About the same as a high-explosive fragmentation shell of the same mass of explosives.


          Not roughly.
          the SAM has a "specific" (specially programmed by the creators) field of dispersion of fragments and hydrocarbons.
          and other fragments, against light thin-walled structures made of duralumin
          1. badger1974
            badger1974 29 January 2014 12: 12
            0
            Quote: Postman
            the SAM has a "specific" (specially programmed by the creators) field of dispersion of fragments and hydrocarbons.
            and other fragments, against light thin-walled structures made of duralumin

            a missile fuse is provided in the missiles - this is precisely what led to the creation of the RIM-66 Standard missile defense system and the Standard anti-ship AWP, as well as the Sea Sparrow-Sea killer base, and the widespread and famous mm38 Exoset based on the Amour Exoset missile system, with all its analogues passive guidance system without changing warheads, the changes affected only their solid-propellant engines, in the Navy of the USSR no one changed anything in the SAM - they are therefore universal
            dv and about the price, you do not confuse the cost of the complex and the rocket itself, for example, you mentioned SN-2 and the harpoon itself, and so it’s right to call it SAM SAM RIM-66 the standard of the CH complex and the complex number — the cost is from 500000 gems to 900000 gems, at the harpoon the last modifications cost about two lyam lyakhli, you smell the difference,
            so that a volley for a target of three standards will be equal to one harpoon, and efficiency, well, think it yourself
            1. postman
              postman 29 January 2014 16: 50
              0
              Quote: badger1974
              in missiles provided contact fuse

              always, like self-liquidator (almost always). BUT WHAT does this have to do with the formation of a field of expansion of fragments?
              RCC FITTED penetrating High-explosive fragmentation warhead WDU-18 / B weighing 221 kg and a length of 0,9 m (for Harpoon an example, but for all the same)
              missiles have such an opportunity? - NO
              I’m not even sure that the detonation when overcoming the armored belt (side) will happen as it should.
              And the high-explosive action, when undermining on the surface, is NOTHING, for such a warhead

              Quote: badger1974
              anti-ship AWP Standard,

              ? AGM-78 Standard-ARM this is a radar missile, really based on the RIM-66A Standard-1 missiles, but it's not RCC(all mods: GM-78A (mod. 1-3), AGM-78B (mod. 1-3), AGM-78C (mod. 1-3) and AGM-78D (mod. 1 and 2).)
              Quote: badger1974
              and on the basis of SAM - the widespread and famous mm38 Exoset

              Heresy some! NO ZUR "am Exocet" !!!!
              there is anti-ship missile AM-39 "Exocet"
              there is SAM "Mistral" (1,2) with PU "Atlas"
              But their developers are different !!
              By the company “Nord Aviation”.
              M - by the French company "Matra" based on the SATCP project (Sol Air a Tres Court Portee)
              therefore statement
              Quote: badger1974
              without changing the warhead,
              -NONSENSE

              Quote: badger1974
              dv and about the price, you do not confuse the cost of the complex and the rocket itself, for example, you mentioned the SN-2 and the harpoon itself, and so it’s right to call it RIM-66 SAM


              I don’t confuse anything.
              Harpoon - $ 1 in 500 prices
              SM-3 (B3) - $ 8 (adjustment for 500 million) in 000 prices
              Feel the difference. almost an order of magnitude
              (If we equip the SM-3 with a comparable warhead and flight profile, then its range will be equal to the Grapun)
              Quote: badger1974
              three standards will be equal to one harpoon, and efficiency, well, think it yourself

              and nothing to think
              Volley will be 3 times more expensive and 10 times LESS effective
              NO PENETRATING SHIP BREAKTHROUGH WAR
              1. badger1974
                badger1974 30 January 2014 02: 29
                0
                on the first question. the harpoon must still reach the target, what would be the effect of 220 kg, and even this case still has to explode, also a question
                on the second. just the AWP in the first place and must hit precisely the ship's radar systems of the review, etc. etc., in short, where it will get
                the third .SM is a complex, and the unit’s equipment for the especially gifted is the Standard SAM in two trim levels, as for the old Standards (distant and near) with and without accelerating RTTD, so for new missiles the same with the same configuration (abbreviation can be find if you want), does not exceed millena bakley, imagine where and what kind of degenerate missiles such missiles take for such loot when you can use one missiles for multozar bakley
                in the fourth. multiply the weight of the missile at the end point by the speed of this rocket - get the penetrating power in the pulse, for more detailed consideration, apply the received pulse in the direction vector and calculate all this on the cross-sectional area of ​​the rocket to the material of which the ship is made, and that will be penetrating ability (and you say dural)
                interesting, but what about si killer ignored
  7. Volodya Sibiryak
    Volodya Sibiryak 28 January 2014 10: 40
    +1
    Informative, thanks to the author for the work!
  8. crambol
    crambol 28 January 2014 11: 39
    +7
    I got great pleasure. No, not from the article, but from a calm friendly discussion over a glass of lemonade without cursing and shouting "hurray"! And this is in our hysterical age!
    PSI started to put pluses for everyone out of a sense of deepest pleasure, but I got it all the way - so many! Consider that everyone has pluses!
  9. kind
    kind 28 January 2014 12: 18
    +3
    When they began to sort it out, it turned out that on that night, the Americans trained the calculations of the ship’s air defense systems, alternately “taking the fly” of Turkish ships going on the beam (of course, the Turks were not warned about this).

    Another confirmation that the staff have no friends. There are states that can be used as an "ally" in a certain period, and then betray, set up or defeat.
  10. patsantre
    patsantre 28 January 2014 12: 50
    0
    After all, in principle, can these missiles be used as anti-radar radar? That is, the GOS is switched to passive mode and the contact fuse is turned off. Then 40N6E, SM-3 and SM-6 in the presence of a command center (we just have nowhere to take it) can be used on large it’s extremely difficult to shoot down such fast and maneuverable targets, the missiles themselves will be able to disable the enemy’s radar in a matter of minutes, after which they will be defenseless from air attacks and it will not be difficult to finish it with conventional anti-ship missiles.
  11. ICT
    ICT 28 January 2014 14: 05
    +8
    about the "battle" with the boats of Georgia (repost repost ........ unfortunately I lost the original address where the discussion took place, but there were also questions and photos. The conversation was conducted on one of the Sevastopol forums)
    Guys! Stop breaking spears! The story is as follows:
    1. When the hostilities were carried out, the entire group was under the control of the "Moscow" GRKR, which communicated directly with Moscow and even the OD of the Black Sea Fleet did not particularly know anything about the specific events taking place.
    2. Shooting from MRK "Mirage" was carried out according to the assigned bearing in the ZLC mode from two upper tubes # 1 and # 2, and only by the main complex (not by the own means of issuing the control center). The use of the "Wasp" air defense system was out of the question. when firing with the main complex, the launcher is retracted into the gold processing plant and the "Wasp" antenna is turned towards the superstructure to avoid damage.
    3. A combat alert for the ship was announced, but within 3 hours of being in a similar state, hp BCH-5, represented by the sailor Mursalov, went to the upper deck for a bucket of seawater from the USVZ tap to cool the HP BCH-5 in the CPU of the MU (there is no PES on the MRK, it is simply not called that). As soon as the aforementioned sailor closed the door behind him on the left waist, a rocket from KT # 2 came down, the boy first turned white, and then turned pink with joy that it was not blown away. And the door vomited. Since at least the launch was carried out from the upper pipe, then part of the jet from the gas baffle plate (which is the only steel in the superstructure) is powerful enough to bend the door in the opposite direction ... Then there was a launch from the first pipe. The command "Personnel for cover" did not follow, why?, In view of the sudden command for a missile attack.
    4. The personnel were in shorts and with a bare torso because the only air conditioner that is in the gyro post cannot physically, with all the equipment working, a large concentration of hp in one room and hot weather, provide sufficiently comfortable conditions for sailors to were like in the chronicle at battle posts in shirts and ties.
    5. There was no fire. RTOs quite nicely burns at any missile launches. The rails were bent due to the fact that they were not overwhelmed as in practical shooting, in view of the possible output of hp. to the upper deck. Nobody really knew where and why we were going.
    ... cut out a long comment
    8. Debris on a superstructure, pieces of a chest for storing vegetables. The poor man could not stand it for the old one!
    9. We couldn't get into the boat because of the very close distance. And if they had hit, then after the "Malachite" nothing would have remained by definition (MRK "Monsoon" in 15 minutes drowned from being hit by a target rocket!)! The media should speak beautifully about our successes and promptly. As well as about the reform in the army. But somehow anything else, this is the first combat experience of using "Malachite". It's not for me to judge its success. This is a different and big topic. And "Malachite" turned 50 this year! And they extended his life for another 7 years. With which I congratulate all the missilemen of the Black Sea Fleet and all the sailors who are involved in the difficult matter of defending the Motherland, no matter how it all happens.
    Thanks for attention. All items in the LAN.
    PS MRK "Mirage" is currently located in Streletskaya Bay on the territory of 91 shipyards in the navigation repair, will be released in October this year. Feels good, which he wishes to all of you. The materiel is in service, ready to perform the assigned tasks as intended.

    although I didn’t find it, here the guys are more competent, they’re talking about this episode
    http://forum.sevastopol.info/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=270240
  12. Leshka
    Leshka 28 January 2014 14: 51
    0
    Roughly speaking, ZRK is small PKR
  13. tlauicol
    tlauicol 28 January 2014 15: 20
    +1
    SAM TARTAR. French people
  14. muhomor
    muhomor 28 January 2014 15: 38
    0
    Regarding surface-mounted missiles. The flight path of missiles in comparison with anti-ship missiles is closer to ballistic (the missile is not low-flying). So the rocket is more vulnerable.
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 28 January 2014 16: 45
      +1
      the speed of an anti-aircraft missile is three times higher than the speed of sound9 (newer and more), it is difficult to intercept such an object (there is no time to retarget at all), and if there are 2-3 missiles in the salvo, the effect will be 100%
  15. badger1974
    badger1974 28 January 2014 16: 05
    +2
    The facts are certainly interesting, but ship’s air defense systems were originally used as universal ones — for example, the Volna air defense system was immediately tested after surface tests, as well as surface ones, since the reaction time was 6 times less than that of the air defense system, so in the late 60s sailors 5 The 35st Mediterranean Navy of the USSR Navy hoped more for the speed of the Volna’s reaction than the formidable P-4 anti-ship missiles, then the ship’s air defense system Storm was designed immediately for the universal complex, with the same reaction, the more advanced naval air defense system Hurricane generally had instantaneous the range and height of the interception of objects is 300 meters, since it used data from a general radar survey using the same OSA-M method as it was immediately universal, the FORT (s-XNUMX) is theoretically also considered universal, although it is unknown whether the firing was carried out, however can use information from over-the-horizon targeting radars Harpoon or Monolith, suggestive-ship air defense systems is an anti-ship missile system of quick reaction
  16. [comment-show]
    postman
    postman 28 January 2014 17: 30
    0
    [quoteAuthor] SAM has all the useful skills of an anti-ship missile,

    not all, ONE SIGNIFICANT DISADVANTAGE: warhead (or even a kinetic warhead in general), that the ship, like an elephant, is a pellet

    [quoteАвтор] at the same time several times superior to conventional RCC in response time.

    the same

    [quoteAuthor] She has a great speed (Mach 2-4)

    Why to hit a target moving at a speed of 40 miles an hour in TWO-DIMENSIONAL SPACE ... such parameters?

    [quoteAuthor] and exceptionally high maneuverability (disposable overload RIM-162 ESSM - up to 50g).

    Why such maneuverability for anti-ship missiles?
    -planner, and even the SAM itself, with a comparable firing range (like RCC) MUCH MORE THAN RCC.
    (other requirements for overload, accuracy, etc.)

    [quoteAuthor] The flight time is reduced.

mb but American anti-ship missiles can barrage in the area where the target is located ..

[quoteAuthor] The smaller dimensions of the SAM make it difficult to intercept the means of air defense / missile defense of an enemy ship.

1. they (air defense / missile defense) in general are unlikely to intercept it
2. and what can this turd do to the ship? WDU-27 / B warhead weight: 40,5 kg

[quoteAuthor] The cost of most missiles, as a rule, does not exceed the cost of anti-ship cruise missiles.

Expensive At times (or even an order of magnitude), if you do not take "Wasp" and "Granite" (like you, manipulating immature minds). TAKE SIMILAR ON TTX (range is admissible)
$ 10 000 000 SM-3 (let 8,5 on wholesale)
и
$ 1 500 000 RGM / UGM-84 Harpoon
[/ comment-show] [comment-deleted]
The comment was deleted.
[/ comment-deleted]
  • [comment-show]
    postman
    postman 28 January 2014 17: 31
    +3
    [quoteAuthor] SAM has all the useful skills of an anti-ship missile,

    not all, ONE SIGNIFICANT DISADVANTAGE: warhead (or even a kinetic warhead in general), that the ship, like an elephant, is a pellet

    [quoteАвтор] at the same time several times superior to conventional RCC in response time.

    the same

    [quoteAuthor] She has a great speed (Mach 2-4)

    Why to hit a target moving at a speed of 40 miles an hour in TWO-DIMENSIONAL SPACE ... such parameters?

    [quoteAuthor] and exceptionally high maneuverability (disposable overload RIM-162 ESSM - up to 50g).

    Why such maneuverability for anti-ship missiles?
    -planner, and even the SAM itself, with a comparable firing range (like RCC) MUCH MORE THAN RCC.
    (other requirements for overload, accuracy, etc.)

    [quoteAuthor] The flight time is reduced.
    mb but American anti-ship missiles can barrage in the area where the target is located ..

    [quoteAuthor] The smaller dimensions of the SAM make it difficult to intercept the means of air defense / missile defense of an enemy ship.
    1. they (air defense / missile defense) in general are unlikely to intercept it
    2. and what can this turd do to the ship? WDU-27 / B warhead weight: 40,5 kg

    [quoteAuthor] The cost of most missiles, as a rule, does not exceed the cost of anti-ship cruise missiles.
    Expensive At times (or even an order of magnitude), if you do not take "Wasp" and "Granite" (like you, manipulating immature minds). TAKE SIMILAR ON TTX (range is admissible)
    $ 10 000 000 SM-3 (let 8,5 on wholesale)
    и
    $ 1 500 000 RGM / UGM-84 Harpoon [/ comment-show] [comment-deleted]
    The comment was deleted.
    [/ comment-deleted]
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 15 September 2018 09: 29
    0
    Everything is great, but I didn’t understand when the proximity fuse was turned off ... How easy is this to do, automatically?

    And if it’s clear with the Iranian boat, they wanted to destroy it, then why did they hit the Turkish ship, well, let the launch be random, but who turned off the non-contact fuse?