Development and role of air defense missile systems in the air defense system. Part 4




Since the second half of the 60s, anti-aircraft missile systems began to play a significant role in the course of regional conflicts, significantly changing the tactics of using combat aviation. Now the side of the conflict, which has overwhelming superiority in the air, could not achieve a clear dominance in the theater of operations.

The Soviet C-75 air defense system, designed primarily to counter long-range bombers and high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, proved to be quite effective against tactical and carrier-based aircraft. Although the share of American planes shot down in Vietnam, missiles are relatively small (according to crafty US statistics, the SRA was shot down a little more than 200 from 4000 planes), the very presence in the area of ​​the combat departure of the SAMs required an increased level of forces and means to render opposition. As a result, significantly reduced the effectiveness of bomb attacks. It is also worth remembering that the main task of the air defense forces is not to defeat air targets, but to effectively cover the protected objects. The Vietnamese air defense forces coped well with this task, the American "air offensive" could not completely destroy the military and industrial infrastructure of the DRV and force North Vietnam to make concessions.

Development and role of air defense missile systems in the air defense system. Part 4

Last moments of American F-105


No less effective weapons In the Middle East, the C-125 low-altitude complex and the Kvadrat mobile (export version of the Kub air defense system) proved themselves to provide effective air cover for the Arab armies at the first stage of the 1973 war.


The wreckage of the Israeli fighter "Kfir"


Only emergency US aid allowed Israel to quickly compensate for the loss of the Air Force. Of the western anti-aircraft complexes in terms of the prevalence and effectiveness of combat use, only the American Hok air defense system could compare.

Taking into account the experience of the combat use of the air defense system in local conflicts in the USSR, work began on new-generation missile systems, which should have been able to simultaneously fire several targets and be placed on the mobile chassis with a short transfer time from traveling and standby to combat (and vice versa). This was due to the need to leave the firing position after the shooting before the strike of the enemy aviation group. So, for example, the standard coagulation time of the C-125 complex - 1 hour 20 minutes, was brought to 20 — 25 minutes. Such a reduction in the standard was achieved by improvements in the design of the air defense missile system, training, and coherence of combat calculations, but accelerated folding resulted in cable management losses, which did not have time to collapse.

Since the opportunities for improving the C-75 air defense system with single-channel radio command guidance for the purpose and the use of two-stage liquid-based missile defense systems have been exhausted, the need for a fundamentally new medium-range system has been identified. To this end, by the end of the sixties, sufficient technical prerequisites had been formed. Lamp technology was replaced by semiconductors, analog computers - digital computers. The introduction of phased antenna arrays ensured the rapid scanning of a radar beam with a “transfer” to the viewing sector, which is necessary for multichannel complexes. In terms of their mass-energy perfection, solid propellant engines approached the level of liquid-fuel propulsion systems.

All these innovations were implemented on the C-1978PT anti-aircraft missile system that entered service in 300 year ( Anti-aircraft missile system C-300P). The anti-aircraft missile forces received a new medium-range air defense missile system, designed to defend administrative and industrial facilities, stationary command and control posts, staffs and military bases from attacks by strategic and tactical aviation and the Kyrgyz Republic.

For the first time a system was created with full automation of combat work. All tasks - detection, tracking, target distribution, target designation, target designation, target acquisition, tracking, acquisition, tracking and missile guidance, evaluation of shooting results - the system is able to solve automatically with the help of digital computing means. The functions of the operator are to control the work of the funds and launch missiles. In a difficult situation, manual intervention is possible in the course of combat work. None of the previous systems possessed these qualities. The vertical launch of the missiles ensured the shelling of targets flying from any direction without turning the launcher in the direction of firing.


PU C-300PT


All elements of the anti-aircraft system were mounted on wheeled trailers, towed by cars. The structure of the air defense missile system consisted of 5B55 SAM systems with a radio command guidance system and a maximum damage zone in range - 47 km, the maximum damage height was - 27 km.



Initially, the C-300PT battery consisted of three PUs (4 TPK), a radar for lighting and an on-load tap-changer and a control cabin. In the middle of the 80, the system went through a series of upgrades, receiving the designation C-300PT-1.



A new rocket type 5ВХNUMXР with a range of up to 55 km, which was built on the principle of “tracking a target through a rocket”, entered service.

In 1982, the new version of the C-300PS was adopted by the Air Defense Forces, the elements of which were placed on powerful four-axle vehicles MAZ-543. Adopted in 1984, the 5B55РМ SAM, the range was increased to 90 km. It can simultaneously fire up to 6 12 targets with rockets at a pace of 3-5 seconds, while aiming up to two missiles at one target. Provided for shooting at ground targets.


C-300PS


The C-300PS mobile multi-channel anti-aircraft missile system consists of control means, self-propelled launchers (up to six), and technical equipment. Unlike C-300PT systems, which are mainly placed on prepared positions, C-300PS were designed for use with a maneuver on the ground. All the combat elements of the system, placed on the basis of a high-speed automobile chassis, ensure the transfer to the combat position from the march within 5 minutes without preliminary preparation of the position.

In the decade that has passed since the creation of the first C-300PT model, a new elemental base was created, providing the possibility of developing a practically new C-300PM system with high noise immunity and better combat performance. In 1993, the new 48H6E missile with a launch range of 150 km was commissioned. In this rocket, a combined guidance system is used — a radio command on the initial and middle trajectory, a semi-active one on the final one.

C-300PM serially delivered to the troops from the late eighties to mid-nineties. Unfortunately, the C-300PM air defense system was not built much, for the most part they were sent to the Moscow air defense zone, or for export. As a result, the main air defense systems in the air defense and air forces of the Russian Federation are the deserved C-300PS, most of which are in need of repair and modernization. Earlier C-300PT systems due to the full development of the resource are currently written off or transferred to “storage”. A further development of the C-300P family of systems was the universal mobile multichannel anti-aircraft missile system C-300PMU2 and C-400.

According to foreign data, around 3000 PU systems of the C-300P system were deployed in various regions of the USSR. Currently, various modifications of the C-300 ZRS, besides the Russian army, are available in Ukraine, in the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Air defense systems of the C-300P system were delivered to foreign countries, in particular, to China, Slovakia and Greece. At the beginning of the 90-C elements of the C-300PT (without PU and missiles) were supplied for "familiarization" in the United States. What made it possible for our "partners" to get acquainted in detail with the characteristics of radio equipment and to develop countermeasures.


Satellite image of Google Earth: elements of a ZRS-300P satellite at a test site in the USA


Even at the design stage of the S-300P, it was supposed to create on its basis a unified system for anti-aircraft missile units of the Ground Forces of the Soviet Army and Air Defense fleet. However, in practice, complete unification did not occur. This happened for several reasons, the fact is that the main elements of the specific modifications of the S-300 system, in addition to the all-round radar and SAM, were designed by various enterprises on the basis of their own components, technologies and operational requirements. Moreover, the need for a military air defense system to protect important objects from operational-tactical ballistic missiles caused an even greater isolation of the first topic in the S-300P project.

One of the main tasks that have faced a long-range systems, is their use to combat ballistic and cruise missiles. Improvement of anti-aircraft systems is carried out in the direction of increasing the capacity to defeat the largest possible number of such targets.

ZRS C-300B (C-300B anti-aircraft missile system) was conceived as a front-line air defense system to combat various air attack weapons (EAS) —Lance and Pershing ballistic missiles, SRAM, cruise missiles (KR), airplanes, and combat helicopters — with their massive use under active fire and electronic countermeasures of the enemy.

The adoption of the C-300V took place somewhat later than the air defense system of the country C-300P. The first truncated version of the air defense system (which did not include the program review radar, the 9М82 SAM and its corresponding launchers and launchers) under the designation C-300В1 was adopted in the 1983 year. In the 1988, the C-300B anti-aircraft missile system was put into service in the full set of all its assets.

The S-300B SAMS system provided damage to aerodynamic targets at a range of 100 km and an altitude of 0,025-30 km, with a probability of 07, -0,9 with one rocket. Ballistic targets hit at an altitude of 1-25 km.



All combat weapons of the system were deployed on high maneuverability and equipped with navigation equipment, topographic location and relative orientation of unified tracked chassis. Also used for the self-propelled artillery installation "Peony" and unified on separate units with a tank T-80.

The adoption of the C-300В coincided with the beginning of the collapse of the USSR, which in many respects had a negative impact on the number of constructed air defense systems intended to replace the Krug air defense system. Full replacement in the ratio of 1: 1 did not happen. Compared with the air defense systems of the country C-300, the military C-300В was built approximately 10 times smaller.



The C-300B4 ISS is a further upgrade of the C-300B AOCS. It provides for the defeat of ballistic missiles and aerodynamic targets at distances up to 400 kilometers and altitudes up to 37 kilometers. The air defense missile system has increased combat capabilities achieved through the introduction of new components, the introduction of modern hardware and computing facilities, which has improved the technical and operational characteristics of the air defense systems. The effectiveness of the new version of the C-300B4 1,5-2,3 times more than in previous versions. In 2012, the modernization of all C-300В complexes to the С-300В4 level was completed, 2015 of the new С-3В300 division was also supplied to 4 and a new division was signed to supply 2015 to the end.

In 80-ies, the monopoly of the USSR and the USA as the main developers of medium-range and long-range air defense systems was lost. Work on the creation of such complexes began in Europe, China, Israel and Taiwan. Often, when creating an air defense missile system, developers relied on existing air-to-air missiles or ship-to-air missile systems.

In 1980, the Swiss company Oerlikon Contraves Defense created the medium-range anti-aircraft missile system Skyguard-Sparrow. It was a combination of two systems: the Skygard fire control system, previously used to control the fire of the paired X-NUMX-mm towed Oerlikon anti-aircraft installation, and the Sparrow air-to-air AIM-35 rocket.

During the course of combat operations, the Skygard / Sparrow complex reviews the space and identifies the detected targets using a survey impulse-Doppler radar with a detection range of up to 20 km. The target is accompanied either by the tracking radar or by an opto-electronic module. The maximum launching range is 10 km, the height reach is 6 km.


Anti-aircraft missile artillery complex Skyguard-Sparrow


A missile is aimed at a target using a passive infrared homing head (GOS), created on the basis of the GOS of the South African aviation air guided missile “Darter” of the air-to-air class. Capturing the GOS target (100 ° viewing angle) produces both when the rocket is on the launcher (before launch) and when it is flying. In the first case, the shooting is carried out on the air at a distance of no more than 3 km. To defeat targets located at a distance of 3-8 km, the second method is used, which is as follows. The missile launcher is launched at the interception point determined by the tracking radar, and flight control before the target is captured is performed using an on-board inertial measurement unit based on the program entered before it starts.

Launcher with 4 guides for missiles mounted on the chassis of a twin towed anti-aircraft gun. Rocket stabilizers open after its departure from the transport and launch container. Two pairs of rockets are located on the right and left side of the operator’s workplace. All equipment is housed in a unified cabin mounted on a two-axle towed trailer, armored personnel carrier or other chassis.

The Skygard system includes: aerial target detection radar, target tracking radar, an opto-electronic module and control panels for fire control system operators.

The most common configuration of the system consists of the Skygard fire control station, two paired 35-mm GDF anti-aircraft guns, as well as two PU SAM systems. Due to the fact that anti-aircraft guns overlap the "dead zone" of missiles, the system fully protects the protected space.

The Skyguard-Sparrow anti-aircraft missile system of various modifications is in service with Switzerland, Taiwan, Italy, Spain, Greece, Canada and Egypt. In many countries, the Skygard complex is used as a “clean” air defense system, without anti-aircraft artillery.

In Greece, the Skyguard-Sparrow complex was named Velos. It uses the RIM-7M rocket. From 1984 to 1987, 18 Skyguard-Sparrow air defense system batteries were installed in Egypt, which received its own name Amoun. In Spain, the Skyguard system was combined with Spada PU, with Aspide missiles.

In 1983, the Italian Air Force put Spada on combat duty, and in 1986, the Italian Air Force was already equipped with the 12 SAM. Four more complexes entered service by 1991.


Spada


The Italian all-weather medium-range anti-aircraft missile system Spada is designed for anti-aircraft defense of airbases, groups of forces and other important military and political-administrative facilities.

The complex is towed; radar equipment for detection of the operational control center and fire control center is housed in standard hardware containers that are equipped with special jacks for installation on the ground. Launchers, platforms with radar detection antennas and a backlit radar are also installed on jacks. The firing section consists of one control point and three container-type launchers (6 missiles).

With mobility comparable to that of the American Hawk missile systems in Italy, the Spada complex is inferior in range — 15 km and target height — 6 km. But it has a shorter response time, a higher degree of automation, noise immunity and reliability.



The Spada SAM system includes a solid-fuel rocket Aspide-1А with a semi-active seeker (created on the basis of the American Sparrow AIM-7E rocket), which is also used in the shipboard Albatros SAM.
For the transportation of Spada SAMs including 48 spare TPK with rockets, 14 vehicles are required, three of which must be equipped with mobile cranes. The complex is also airborne and can be transported by military transport aircraft such as C-130 or CH-47 Chinook helicopters.

Spada air defense system was repeatedly upgraded, the latest version of the complex with a range of 25 km was designated Spada-2000. In addition to the Italian Air Force, deliveries of this air defense system were carried out to Taiwan and Peru.

In the midst of 60-x, American specialists came to understand that the Nike-Hercules long-range air defense system in the future will not be able to meet the modern realities of aviation confrontation. This long-range and high-altitude stationary complex was created primarily to protect North America from Soviet long-range bombers.

After upgrading the missile defense and guidance equipment, the Nike-Hercules was able to redeploy, but in terms of maneuverability it was inferior to the Soviet long-range air defense system C-200, which had a large defeat zone.

In addition, the capabilities of the American complex to combat tactical aviation aircraft were very limited, it was single-channel, its noise immunity left much to be desired.

The US military wanted to get a multi-channel long-range complex capable of simultaneously firing several actively maneuvering targets, with the possibility of hitting ballistic targets, in terms of mobility not inferior to the medium-range air defense missile system "Hockey".

In May, 1982, the new ZRK under the designation Patriot (Modern air defense systems, Patriot) was adopted by the US Army. "Patriot" is primarily intended to cover the major administrative and industrial centers, naval and military air bases from all existing means of air attack. The complex is capable of simultaneously detecting and identifying more than 100 air targets, continuously accompanying eight selected ones, preparing initial data for firing, launching and targeting up to three missiles to each target. The anti-aircraft battery includes 4-8 launchers (launchers) with four missiles each. A battery is a minimum tactical-fire unit, which can independently carry out a combat mission.

Flight control Zour is carried out using a combined guidance system. At the initial stage of the flight, program control is implemented, at the average, a radio command command is implemented, at the final stage, according to the rocket tracking method, combining command guidance with semi-active. The use of this method of guidance has significantly reduced the sensitivity of the system to various electronic countermeasures, and also made it possible to organize a rocket flight along optimal trajectories and hit targets with high efficiency.


Start Zour MIM-104


PU is mounted on a two-axle semi-trailer and moves with the help of a wheeled tractor. The launcher includes a lifting boom, a mechanism for lifting the missile defense system and pointing them in azimuth, a drive to install a radio mast, which is used to transmit data and receive commands to the fire control center, communications equipment, power supply unit and electronic unit. PU allows you to rotate the missile in the container in azimuth ranging from + 110 to −110 ° relative to its longitudinal axis. The launching angle of the rockets is fixed - 38 ° from the horizon line.



When the complex is located on the ground, each sector of space is assigned to each of the launchers, and these sectors overlap many times. Thus, it is possible to achieve all-shooting, in contrast to the SAM, which use a vertical launching anti-aircraft missiles, which turn to the target after the launch. However, the total deployment time of the complex from the march is 30 minutes, which significantly exceeds the deployment time of the Russian air defense systems.



Soon after its adoption, the question arose of upgrading the Patriot air defense system, primarily with the aim of giving it anti-missile properties. The most advanced modification of the complex is the Patriot PAC-3. The last version of the MIM-104 SAM includes the destruction of air targets at a range of 100 km and an altitude of 25 km. ERINT missile missile introduced into the complex specifically for hitting ballistic targets has a maximum range of up to 45 km and an altitude of up to 20 km.

Due to the significantly smaller ERINT anti-missile missiles, it is planned to place it in the number of 16 units as part of the existing launchers (four anti-missile missiles in each MIM-104 SAMs container). In order to maximize the capabilities of the Patriot PAC-3, it is planned to combine launchers with MIM-104 and ERINT missiles, which will increase the firepower of the battery by 75%.


Satellite image of Google Earth: position of the Patriot air defense system in Qatar


The Patriot complex in various modifications is in service: Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Japan, Israel, South Korea and Saudi Arabia. The chassis complex "Patriot" have a different base, depending on the country. If in the USA it is, as a rule, automobile hawkers from Kenworth, then in Germany it is “Man”, and in the Netherlands - “Jinaf”.

The “Patriot” air defense system received a baptism of fire during the military conflict in Iraq in 1991. Placed on American bases in Saudi Arabia and on the territory of Israel, the Patriot SAM PAC-2 reflected the attacks of the Iraqi P-17 tactical ballistic missiles Scud. The first successful interception took place on January 18 1991 over the territory of Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the Patriot air defense missile system did not always sufficiently effectively hit the BR P-17, which often only slightly deviated from the original trajectory. Despite the shooting in almost perfect conditions (no false targets and radio interference), the effectiveness of the complex was low - around 0,5. As a rule, the shelling of targets was carried out by two missiles. When intercepting the Iraqi "Scuds" in most cases, only the corps was damaged, and not the destruction of a warhead with an explosive charge, which practically does not reduce the damage caused by firing at areal targets. Fortunately for the Americans and their allies, the Iraqi BRs carried combat troops equipped with conventional explosives, if Saddam Hussein decided to use WMD damage and the casualties could be much greater.

During the fighting, there were cases of defeat by "friendly fire", so, in March 2003 of the year, on the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border, the American battery "Patriot" was shot down by a British Tornado fighter-bomber. The last case of combat use was recorded in September 2014 of the year when the Israeli Patriot air attack system shot down a Su-24 bomber of the Syrian air force that invaded Israeli airspace.

In the domestic media, it is customary to speak of the “Patriot” dismissively and point out its real and perceived shortcomings as compared to the C-300P and C-400 family. However, it should be understood what to compare with. The US Patrik "Patriot" of the PAC-2 and PAC-3 modifications of which only in the US Army has more than 480 PU is really inferior in a number of parameters to the latest C-300PM and C-400 variants. However, there are still not many of these anti-aircraft systems in the armed forces, for example, the C-400 has been supplied with the 19 divisions located in Kamchatka. That if there is a 8 PU in the same division corresponds to a total of 152 PUs. The base of the air defense missile system of the air defense missile system consists of fairly worn-out C-300PS of production of the beginning-middle 80-s, which have no special advantages over the latest modifications of the Patriot air defense system.

To be continued ...

Based on:
http://www.army-technology.com
http://rbase.new-factoria.ru
http://geimint.blogspot.ru/
http://www.designation-systems.net/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

126 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Magic archer 4 May 2015 06: 02 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    A good series of articles. I’ll add from myself. I remember how Patriot was praised. During the Desert Storm, the Americans declared that he was the best in the world. Even later in the year, 2000 read an article written by an American air defense officer. In 1991, Patriot acted in PERFECT conditions as the author correctly noted, but the antimissile expenditure did not reach 2 but 3 and even 4! And even this did not guarantee 100% interception of obsolete Scuds! After the war, the Americans did everything to get C-300 to bring their sight to mind. And got thanks Khokhlov. By the way, experience has been applied The Patriots' genius forced Israel to start developing its own air defense, and this says a lot hi
    1. Professor 4 May 2015 08: 03 New
      • -12
      • 0
      -12
      In fairness, it is worth noting that Patriot was not originally intended to deal with ballistic missiles. This explains its low efficiency. However, only over the past year, Patiot wrote down on his combat account a fighter-bomber and a drone.
      The combat effectiveness of the S-300 is out of the question.
      1. Sasha 19871987 4 May 2015 13: 15 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        professor, with 300 one hundred percent better than patriots ... compare their characteristics, wise guy
        1. Throw 4 May 2015 14: 57 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          According to the domestic anti-aircraft defense systems, with the permission of the author, I will make a systematic supplement to the article.

          According to the type of tasks, domestic complexes were divided into air defense complexes of object cover (cities, industries, transport units, places of permanent deployment of units) and military (cover troops on the march, in battle). The latter had corresponding requirements for mobility and cross-country ability of the chassis, and deployment time.
          The object cover lay on the low-altitude complex C-125, C-75 and the "long arm" C-200.
          The military cover was carried by "Circle", "Cube", "Shilka", etc.

          Such "mottling" on the maintenance, operation and implementation of air defense tasks naturally affected negatively.

          With the advent of such factors as:
          -element base that allows you to create new types of radar and provide multi-channel operation of air defense systems;
          - low-altitude small-sized high-speed targets - KR;
          - and most importantly, ballistic goals,
          the main task arose of the need to create a unified complex (a family of maximally unified complexes) solving the whole range of tasks of object, military and naval cover.

          This complex became C-300.

          In 90 and 2000, due to well-known events, work on the development of the complex has stopped, but what we see now in the C-400 family and the modernization of C-300, in particular the introduction of different types of missiles according to the classes of targets hit, is a continuation the implementation of the main task is a unified air defense complex of all types of the Armed Forces.
          1. opus 4 May 2015 20: 54 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Lance
            According to the type of tasks, domestic systems were divided into air defense systems

            I do not agree.





            What you write is a classification for ground air defense systems by mobility:

            stationary
            sedentary
            Mobile


            By the way of movement:

            Portable
            towed
            self-propelled

            ship it (
            Quote: Lance
            by type of task
            ):
            object? troop? mobile? or landline?






            1. Throw 6 May 2015 00: 05 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              What do I disagree with?

              How did the concept of the C-300 family come about?

              Or with classification?

              The classification is carried out according to formal signs, which must be separated, and in your screenshot examples you mixed yesterday's snow with tomorrow's fried eggs ...

              I wrote: “according to the type of tasks” —the task of covering what type of object is set, stationary or mobile. And here is the "way of movement" or "range"? In the lines of both object and military systems there are complexes of all zones, I wrote about them. Though TTX look before ... And how there the complex is dragged or it is dragged itself, it does not matter.

              Here, where did you get the subclass of the "sedentary" air defense systems ??
              "Sedentary" is an ensign after mating and pay, and the SAM has the characteristic "deployment time".
              - At the object - the clock, deployed - .. it’s been years.
              -At the military - minutes or "work on the move."

              And when the object complex was “turned” on the chassis, it is quite mobile. The truth can’t shoot ..

              (Naval air defense systems, if it "scratches" itch, consider object objects. They are deployed and screwed to the object to be covered.)

              To understand what was written, the air defense missile systems were designed for full-scale military operations and massive air raids of the Air Force, the Kyrgyz Republic, the BR, ... (otherwise there was no point).
              The facility complex has no tactics of "driving - shooting - quickly dumped". The covered object will not dump anywhere, it is a monument. In a bad version: either they’ll disperse the air defense first, then there’s nothing to dump, or the object, then there’s no reason to dump the air defense — it has now surrendered to no one, the attackers' task has been completed.
              Therefore, for operational amplification, objective air defense systems need to be covered by military / mobile systems.

              And finally, where does the subclass "stationary" or "Modern classification of air defense systems .. by types of troops"? The events described by me relate to the period when there were no stationary air defense systems for a long time, and air defense was still a separate type of troops.
              Do you even understand in what decade what happened, Opus?
      2. andj61 4 May 2015 14: 01 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: Professor
        The combat effectiveness of the S-300 is out of the question.

        The S-300 was created to replace not only the S-75, but also the S-125 and S-200. I don’t know, of course, who, what and on the basis of what materials writes about these air defense systems, but if the S-75 had command missile guidance (missile guidance station - SNR), the S-200 was semi-active, then the S-300 initially went combined - and that, and that. This was taught at the institute when they trained me as an engineer of the KBU S-200 air defense system. However, after 1984, when he graduated from the institute, it was rather difficult to follow the news and changes.
        The concept and ideology of the S-300 is the development of the S-75, S-125 and S-200, and they have proven themselves in combat operations from the best side. And the S-300 was created based on the experience of operating previous highly successful systems. Considering that the S-80 significantly exceeded the S-300, S-75 and S-125 at the firing range in the 200s, I do not think that it will be worse than them in real combat work on the basis of the only argument - the non-participation of S- 300 in combat.
        1. opus 4 May 2015 21: 02 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: andj61
          C-300 was created to replace not only C-75, but also C-125 and C-200.

          C-300 was created BECAUSE:




          =====================================
          C-300 calmly "served" with C-75, C-125 and even more so with C-200

          Quote: andj61
          The concept and ideology of C-300 is the development of C-75, C-125 and C-200

          The concepts are different.

          One ideology - to provide air defense facility
          1. andj61 4 May 2015 21: 30 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Unfortunately, such a book did not fall into the hands. When I studied - at the top instead of the "Russian Federation" stood - "USSR".
            Mobility has sharply increased - the survivability of systems has increased. And the S-300 is much easier and more convenient to use than its ancestors equipped with liquid-propellant missiles. I wrote my phrase precisely in the sense that the S-75, S-125 and S-200 were created so different, and so different that there was no talk of unification. S-300 in various modifications should replace all these systems. Replaced. But unification didn’t hurt.
            Quote: opus
            C-300 calmly "served" with C-75, C-125 and even more so with C-200

            Of course, served! He witnessed how in the Polar in the anti-aircraft missile brigade somewhere in 1983 adopted the S-300. There was already a group of S-200 divisions, and a bunch of S-75 and S-125.
            Served together, even in one zbrbr.
            The concept is the architecture for building an anti-aircraft missile system. Ideology - methods and ways to implement the fight against the CC. The S-75 had a missile guidance station, while the missile was controlled from the ground. C-200 - radar target illumination, while the target is highlighted by a locator, and the guidance head captures the reflected signal. As I was taught in the 80s, a combined guidance scheme was to be implemented on the S-300, which significantly increases the capabilities of the entire system. It was in this vein that I wrote about the development of the concept and ideology.
            And providing air defense of an object - or territory, as in the USSR (or rather there was an object-territorial principle of building up an air defense system) - this is the air defense task.
            1. opus 4 May 2015 21: 59 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: andj61
              Unfortunately, such a book did not fall into the hands.


              There is nothing “new”, everything ends in 1990. It was simply published in 1994, the USSR Ministry of Defense was gone.
              Quote: andj61
              . C-300 in various modifications should replace all of these complexes.

              Yes, one pencil case can be used for different SAMs.
              But different radars, reps, etc. are also required.
              Keyly "multi-channel"
              Quote: andj61
              But unification didn’t hurt.

              yes .. RLOT 5Н84 and 9С15?
              1. andj61 4 May 2015 22: 15 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Thanks for the info. But the S-200 was already two-channel ...
                And actually, work as a part of ACS significantly increased efficiency. Then for the regiment brigade it was "Vector-2M" and "Senezh". Now something about the ACS is generally silent - as if they were not there.
                Another point is the radioengineering troops, which carried out early detection of targets and gave out to the ACS a real radar situation. Under the USSR, there was a covering by the air defense forces of the country of the entire territory of the USSR and allies, plus radio technical troops of at least 600 km - outside this territory. What do we have now?
                1. opus 4 May 2015 23: 22 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Quote: andj61
                  But C-200 was already two-channel ...

                  Why 2x? ROC 1-5, maximum to 5


                  3's channel option:


                  A source:

                  how many Russian Orthodox Church, how many shooting channels (of course) - so many targets and shells.
                  Here the trick is that the Russian Orthodox Church not the PAR can not accompany more than one target (if they are not in the same sector), "next"
                  30Н6=4,30Н6Е2=100

                  1. opus 4 May 2015 23: 31 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    Quote: andj61
                    Now something about the ACS is generally silent - as if they were not there.

                    How's that no?





                    / many knowledge, many sorrows ... /
                    Glade is a family of automated control systems for an anti-aircraft missile brigade or a mixed group of air defense forces.







                    1. andj61 5 May 2015 08: 23 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Thanks for the info! I confess, I really remember that the S-200 supports up to 5 channels. These are memory tweaks - I actually got acquainted with the S-200 in two places - and they had exactly two channels - therefore, it was remembered that way, and not the way I taught. Honestly, after 1984, I was only at the training camp once in 1991, and then instead of my "regular" S-200, I was fooling around on the S-75, so it wasn’t possible to refresh my knowledge. And now, with the supply of S-300, in particular, to Iran, is it a question of supplying this very ACS?
                      After all, air defense systems operating without automatic control systems are unlikely to be able to give all their
                      capabilities.
                      And yet - the book about the S-200 is very familiar (I had to learn so much time in the regime premises!) - and the fingerboard - also familiar - is covered up.
                      And there were definitely no such beautiful schemes then. There were made by the students themselves, including ourselves, on oilcloth - so they also had to be updated from time to time: the mascara crumbled over time.
                      1. opus 5 May 2015 10: 38 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        Quote: andj61
                        And now, with the supply of C-300, in particular, to Iran, is it a question of supplying this very ACS?

                        required. Just don’t know what they will be delivered.
                        all the same, Iran is only "not an enemy."
                        Quote: andj61
                        the vulture - also familiar - is smeared.
                        And there were definitely no such beautiful schemes then.

                        A diagram directly from the book.
                        In stitched notebooks, answering "tricky questions" they did with their hands ...
                        more posters were
      3. carbofo 4 May 2015 14: 26 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Professor
        The combat effectiveness of the S-300 is out of the question.

        Appreciate on your pilots, perhaps in Iran or Syria.
        1. Professor 4 May 2015 14: 40 New
          • -8
          • 0
          -8
          Quote: carbofo
          Appreciate on your pilots, perhaps in Iran or Syria.

          The shells have already appreciated ...
          I repeat, the whole "screech" due to the ability to shoot down passenger liners.
          1. Sonik 4 May 2015 18: 55 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            "The shells are already appreciated ..." Please tell me in more detail, I can not find information about this. thank
          2. carbofo 4 May 2015 21: 16 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Professor
            I repeat, the whole "screech" due to the ability to shoot down passenger liners.

            You might think that they do not have systems capable of shooting down liners! The S-300 will not essentially add anything new.
            Around the liners, hysteria is only for the reason that the S-300 limits the military use of aviation, but the world is so worried about the problems of the military, but people already perceive civilian liners, and therefore they yell at the sore spot.
          3. zyablik.olga 5 May 2015 05: 56 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Professor
            I repeat, the whole "screech" due to the ability to shoot down passenger liners

            It seems to me that the issue is not at all with passenger airliners, the anti-aircraft systems available in Iran are quite enough to solve this problem. Another issue is that the supply of C-300 would greatly complicate the ability of the Israeli Air Force to press through the Iranian air defense in case of conflict and could lead to serious losses, which the Israelis are very painful.
      4. sivuch 4 May 2015 15: 44 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        You were modest. There were 3 downed Tornados, F-18s and Su-24s.
      5. opus 4 May 2015 20: 24 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: Professor
        that Patriot was not originally intended to fight ballistic missiles.

        I do not agree.
        1. The Redstone arsenal, and he shot down the earlier Safeguard Program ballistic missile interception system (Spartan and Sprint).
        2. Before MIM-104A was XMIM-104A, and it is essentially SAM-D (Surface-to-Air Missile, Development)
        those. FABMDS (Field Army Ballistic missile Defense System) = protect field units from ballistic missiles adversary
        3. SAM Patriot PAC-1 was tested at the White Sands training ground in September 1986 during interception ballistic missiles “Lance” (MGM-52 Lance) at an altitude of about 8 km and a range of 13 km.
        The same thing with PAC-2 (again, Guidance Enhanced Missile and Quick Response Program -increase the ability to intercept TBR for both SAMs and software), and PAC-3
        ALREADY IN PAC-1, the elevation angle of the radar with headlamps (AN / MPQ-53) has been increased from 45 ° to almost 90 °. Adjustments have been made to the software, the algorithm for the ASN commands (AN / MSQ-104), etc. 104 SAM unchanged

        PAC (Patriot Advanced Capability, originally Patriot Anti-TBM Capability)
        4. Overloading in 25g is basically not necessary for intercepting typical la

        ---------------
        Well, the fact that in a real combat situation the effectiveness of complexes against TBR (Scud) turned out to be half the results of field tests: the probability of hitting a target ranged from 0,4 (according to the estimates of the Soviet General Staff) to 0,6 (according to the Pentagon), versus 0,8 range indicators - 0,95. ..... Who is to blame for this?

        Why for radar AN / MPQ-53 (The detection range with probability 0,9 during the EPR of the target 0,1 m2 (warhead of the rocket) is equal to xNUMX-0 km) and the Patriot fire control point, a satellite warning is required about a missile attack no later than 90 seconds before the appearance of the BG (TBG) on the air defense radar screen ... for me a mystery
      6. Zuborez 4 May 2015 22: 25 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Professor
        The combat effectiveness of the S-300 is out of the question.

        Well then, the Turks howled when Cyprus acquired the complex? He completely canceled their take-off from the main airfields.
      7. Saburov 5 May 2015 02: 22 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Oh, how did you talk about it, Professor ... and then in the USSR, developers and military were completely idiots and ignoramuses that they adopted the ineffective S-300 air defense system ... unfortunately I will disappoint you, C-300 therefore does not have baptism of fire because that this system, on the contrary, has high efficiency and characteristics and beyond the hill it is well known and understood (unlike you) by all reputable, military publishing houses and analytical centers with a mass of military and scientific consultants, so this is just your opinion, of which lot...
    2. voyaka uh 4 May 2015 10: 06 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Combat practice is the best test. Patriots in
      Israel and Saudi worked in real conditions and shot down
      (or didn’t shoot down) real Scud military missiles, not
      similar to the Tornado target type "Boar", not even close
      approaching the characteristics of the Scud BR.
      1. Malkor 4 May 2015 12: 19 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        I think that since the use of S-75 and S-125 was evaluated more than positively, the S-300 will obviously be applied no worse. The main aggressor of the world (pin_dosia) avoids attacking countries with effective air defense (ate cacti in Vietnam). Any air defense system can be overcome - the main thing is the price of the issue!
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Dormidont2 4 May 2015 13: 58 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          there are no invisibles in the IR, and they are not leveled by the REB, therefore it is necessary to develop mobile air defense systems based on IR sensors that will be installed on drones
      2. family tree 4 May 2015 23: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Combat practice is the best test.

        Aswan Dam what .
    3. Zuborez 4 May 2015 22: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Magic Archer
      .I remember how praised Patriot

      Especially when the Iranian airbus was not hit the first time.
  2. Vadim12 4 May 2015 07: 31 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Ukraine and with the SU-27 pumped up, with the S-300 managed to spoil. TU-160 almost all sawed. And Russia gave them gas discounts, loans, they also called fraternal people ...
  3. NEXUS 4 May 2015 07: 45 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    The S-400 complex is by far the best in the world. Despite the fact that it is criticized, there are no air defense systems in the world that have come closer to Triumph in parameters. But the S-2 is coming very soon (I think 5-500 years). And there already and the range will increase significantly and the near space can be controlled. In addition, as the developers say, the S-500 will be able to destroy ballistic dividing blocks of missiles and hyper-speed targets. All this in a compartment makes Russia the actual and uncontested leader in the production and construction of air defense systems .
    1. Nayhas 4 May 2015 10: 34 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: NEXUS
      The S-400 complex is by far the best in the world. Despite the fact that it is criticized, there are no air defense systems in the world that have reached the parameters of Triumph.

      And what is the best? So what range is the most? Duc is not the main thing for an air defense system. The most effective air defense system is the Patriot PAC-3 in which the AC was defeated by a direct hit on the target, which they could not realize in the S-400 (although there were promises).
      1. NEXUS 4 May 2015 11: 50 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Nayhas
        So, it’s not the main thing for an air defense system. The most effective air defense system is the Patriot RAS-3, which defeats the air defense system by directly hitting a target,

        yah! laughing But it’s nothing that this target flew along a predictable trajectory and the brave American missiles knew where it would arrive and the complex was already deployed. That is, laboratory conditions are obtained.
        About-
        "So then the SAM range of destruction is not important"
        , I have not heard more stupidity long ago.
        As to why our air defense system is better, I’ll answer as follows: deployment time from a march of s-400 is 5 minutes, the Patriot has 30 minutes! The launch vehicle is launched from a vertical platform. The range of missile launch and their accuracy at Triumph is an order of magnitude higher. Plus the lower threshold for detecting a target, the Patriot is 60 meters at Triumph 10 meters.
        Enough for you? I can still sketch it. what
        1. Professor 4 May 2015 11: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: NEXUS
          Enough for you? I can still sketch it.

          I don’t have enough. Please announce the track record.
          1. NEXUS 4 May 2015 12: 10 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            Quote: Professor
            I don’t have enough. Please announce the track record.

            Do you think that military use somehow affected the quality of the Patriots?
            Well then, did our old friends of Israel raise such a screech indignantly at deliveries not even of the S-400, but of the S-300 to Iran, if these systems are so poor and ineffective and have no military use at all?
            1. Professor 4 May 2015 12: 40 New
              • -8
              • 0
              -8
              Quote: NEXUS
              Do you think that military use somehow affected the quality of the Patriots?

              I believe that a complex that does not have a track record cannot be called the best, and even less so when compared with a complex that has proved its effectiveness in battle.

              Quote: NEXUS
              Well then, did our old friends of Israel raise such a screech indignantly at deliveries not even of the S-400, but of the S-300 to Iran, if these systems are so poor and ineffective and have no military use at all?

              Shoot down passenger Boeings a lot of intelligence and efficiency is not necessary.
              1. NEXUS 4 May 2015 12: 45 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Quote: Professor
                Shoot down passenger Boeings a lot of intelligence and efficiency is not necessary.

                but from this place in more detail please ...
                1. Professor 4 May 2015 12: 50 New
                  • -4
                  • 0
                  -4
                  Quote: NEXUS
                  but from this place in more detail please ...

                  More details (click)?

                  1. NEXUS 4 May 2015 12: 51 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    Quote: Professor

                    More details?

                    and where is the S-300 air defense system hollowed at the passenger Boeing?
                    1. Professor 4 May 2015 12: 59 New
                      • -7
                      • 0
                      -7
                      Quote: NEXUS
                      and where is the S-300 air defense system hollowed at the passenger Boeing?

                      Quote: NEXUS
                      Well then, did our old friends of Israel raise such a screech indignantly at deliveries not even of the S-400, but of the S-300 to Iran, if these systems are so poor and ineffective and have no military use at all?

                      the "screech" must be raised before the S-300, S-200 or Buk will shoot down the passenger airliner. After knocking down it’s too late.
                      1. NEXUS 4 May 2015 13: 04 New
                        • 6
                        • 0
                        +6
                        Quote: Professor
                        "screech" must be raised before the S-300, S-200 or Buk will shoot down a passenger airliner

                        Dear, are you about a Boeing shot down over Ukraine? Proof that it was an air defense system in the studio.
                      2. Professor 4 May 2015 13: 11 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        Dear, are you about a Boeing shot down over Ukraine? Proof that it was an air defense system in the studio.

                        I’m talking about a potential threat to passenger airliners emanating from long-range air defense systems. For example, the S-200 in crooked hands and the Russian Tu-154.
                        The disease is more effective in preventing rather than curing.
                      3. NEXUS 4 May 2015 13: 23 New
                        • 6
                        • 0
                        +6
                        Quote: Professor
                        The disease is more effective in preventing rather than curing.

                        exactly ... or WALL, with Patriots headless to trust hi
                      4. Professor 4 May 2015 13: 26 New
                        • -6
                        • 0
                        -6
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        exactly ... or WALL, with Patriots headless to trust

                        If the United States sold Patriots to Iran, then Israel would have squealed just like that. A monkey with a grenade is a dangerous phenomenon.
                      5. NEXUS 4 May 2015 13: 32 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        Quote: Professor
                        If the United States sold Patriots to Iran, then Israel would have squealed just like that. A monkey with a grenade is a dangerous phenomenon.

                        but I was not talking about Iran what Iran is our ally, unlike Israel "friendly" to us
                      6. Professor 4 May 2015 13: 45 New
                        • -4
                        • 0
                        -4
                        Quote: NEXUS
                        and I’m not talking about Iran, Iran was our ally, unlike Israel’s "friendly" to us

                        Well, what is the ally in FIG? Iranian soldiers will fight for Russia? Has the Caspian been shared with an ally? Have you signed an "allied" agreement?

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        Tell it to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

                        In Tokyo, more people died without nuclear weapons, and since then nuclear weapons have not been used and their application has not been discussed due to the utopian situation.
                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        It did not prove, since in the first countries of the Third World had practically no air defense, and there were no anti-submarine measures. You also give an example of the effectiveness of the use of JDAM and drones against terrorists who have only AKM from their weapons (AK-47).

                        It proved. The minimum amount of ammunition caused significant damage. The same goes for smart bombs and drones. "Partners" urgently concluded.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        Tell the Professor, a weapon will be considered effective if it destroys an entire Aboriginal village in a banana republic that has only bows and arrows from a weapon?

                        Yes, if such a task is set. Efficiency = Return / Cost.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        No, we can write on paper that the submarine is the quietest in the world, but where is the evidence of how these quiet submarines worked in a combat situation? Working out to the fullest?

                        Never, in any of my comments or my article you will not find the word "best" or "best."
                      7. Lt. Air Force stock 4 May 2015 16: 11 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        In Tokyo, more people died without nuclear weapons, and since then nuclear weapons have not been used and their application has not been discussed due to the utopian situation.

                        More people died in the war, not in the cities, and soldiers died, not women, old people and children. They can apply, low-power warheads of up to 20 kilotons, if there is no other choice. For example, Russia clearly will not be able to compete with NATO in conventional weapons, which means, in which case, we use all strategic and tactical warheads without looking back. And this is 5000+ warheads.

                        Quote: Professor

                        It proved. The minimum amount of ammunition caused significant damage. The same goes for smart bombs and drones. "Partners" urgently concluded.

                        So efficiency upon application against a knowingly weak adversary.
                        Quote: Professor
                        Yes, if such a task is set. Efficiency = Return / Cost.

                        You still defame the professor. Initially, it was about the ability of the S-300 in a combat situation. Then I expanded your example to other weapons. It was about the ability to effectively work out the goals, in the case of combat use against the enemy equal in capabilities. Because armament does not reveal its potential if it is used against a knowingly helpless enemy.
                      8. Professor 4 May 2015 19: 28 New
                        • -3
                        • 0
                        -3
                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        More people died in the war, not in the cities, and soldiers died, not women, old people and children.

                        Do you really have anything to do with the Air Force, or are you here to expose the Jews? Read what firebombing raids are in Tokyo. Between 75000 and 200 civilians died there.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        For example, Russia clearly will not be able to compete with NATO in conventional weapons, which means, in which case, we use all strategic and tactical warheads without looking back.

                        No, do not apply. La-la-la-la daughters live in the Netherlands, and Lavrov’s daughter is a permanent resident in England. Who will bomb them?

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        So efficiency upon application against a knowingly weak adversary.

                        There is no variable in the effectiveness formula called "enemy strength."

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        You still defame the professor.

                        Never.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        Initially, it was about the ability of the S-300 in a combat situation.

                        No combat situation was provided, respectively, about the "ability" can only speculate.
                      9. arnulla 4 May 2015 20: 06 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Putin’s daughters where, where they live?))) In Holland?))) Or maybe you live there, sniffing something? Give at least one fact of daughters living in the Netherlands. Links to liquid-liberal sites with common, blurry phrases past the cash register. Go for it.
                      10. Lt. Air Force stock 4 May 2015 21: 53 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Professor
                        Do you really have anything to do with the Air Force, or are you here to expose the Jews?

                        What does the Jews have to do with it? Was it about the use of the US atomic bomb against Japan? You already have some complexes, it seems to you everywhere that someone is trying to insult and humiliate you. I have an indirect relation to the Air Force; I am a military financier.
                        Quote: Professor
                        Read what firebombing raids are in Tokyo. Between 75000 and 200 civilians died there.

                        This is not the point, the bombing is one thing, people have a chance to hide in bomb shelters, in the subway, in cellars, and quite another when a nuclear explosion occurs, nothing will save you if you are in the radius of a solid defeat, even if you are lucky enough to survive, you you will painfully die from radiation.


                        Quote: Professor
                        No, do not apply. La-la-la-la daughters live in the Netherlands, and Lavrov’s daughter is a permanent resident in England. Who will bomb them?

                        Putin does not care where any relatives live. It's about survival.
                        Quote: Professor
                        There is no variable in the effectiveness formula called "enemy strength."

                        On the contrary, one weapon will be very effective against a weak enemy, but not effective against a strong one, since it has countermeasures.

                        Quote: Professor
                        No combat situation was provided, respectively, about the "ability" can only speculate.

                        Do you think the S-300 is capable of knocking down a target? Do you really think that in the days of the USSR you would have accepted an absolutely useless weapon?
                      11. Professor 5 May 2015 06: 41 New
                        • -3
                        • 0
                        -3
                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        What does the Jews have to do with it?

                        So I think with it. However, Lt. the stock of the Air Force occasionally sins this on the site ...

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        I have an indirect relation to the Air Force; I am a military financier.

                        I guessed about an indirect attitude for a long time, and thanks to today's discussion I was finally convinced of this. Your nickname just hit me.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        This is not the point, the bombing is one thing, people have a chance to hide in bomb shelters, in the subway, in cellars, and quite another when a nuclear explosion occurs, nothing will save you if you are in the radius of a solid defeat, even if you are lucky enough to survive, you you will painfully die from radiation.

                        As we can see from the figures during non-nuclear bombing more people died - they didn’t hide. This is about the effectiveness of the application ...

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        Putin does not care where any relatives live. It's about survival.

                        ... about the survival of his offspring. This is the basic instinct.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        On the contrary, one weapon will be very effective against a weak enemy, but not effective against a strong one, since it has countermeasures.

                        Sophistry. The performance formula does not take these variables into account.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        Do you think the S-300 is capable of knocking down a target? Do you really think that in the days of the USSR you would have accepted an absolutely useless weapon?

                        I did not state this. I affirm that comparing a weapon that has never been fought with a weapon with a track record is not correct, and there is no question of the effectiveness of the former.
                      12. Lt. Air Force stock 5 May 2015 09: 14 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        So I think with it. However, Lt. the stock of the Air Force occasionally sins this on the site ...

                        My quote to the studio. You already have paranoia.
                        It’s just that Professor I have long noticed how constantly you praise Israeli military equipment, to a lesser extent American. And you are normally treated on the site. But if I start praising Russian military equipment on an American site, they will call me Putin’s troll and ask how much they paid me.
                        Quote: Professor
                        ... about the survival of his offspring. This is the basic instinct.

                        He said his daughters in Russia.

                        Quote: Professor

                        I did not state this. I affirm that comparing a weapon that has never been fought with a weapon with a track record is not correct, and there is no question of the effectiveness of the former.

                        The Patriot needs a special satellite in orbit. This satellite must inform the location of the rocket and its flight path to the PATRIOT location station in advance. It takes as much as 90 seconds. (almost 10 times longer than the S-400).
                        Quote: Professor
                        Sophistry. The performance formula does not take these variables into account.

                        Professor you said that efficiency = return / cost
                        So the return on weapons will be low against a strong enemy, therefore, the effectiveness will decrease.
                        Quote: Professor
                        As we can see from the figures during non-nuclear bombing more people died - they didn’t hide.

                        You can still say that more people died from the Kalashnikov assault rifle than from the atomic bomb. The question is about the criminal use of nuclear weapons and all other weapons against civilians. Why were residential areas bombed, why weren’t they limited to bombing military bases and industrial plants?
                        Quote: Professor

                        I guessed about an indirect attitude for a long time, and thanks to today's discussion I was finally convinced of this. Your nickname just hit me.

                        And there was nothing to make sure everything was written in my profile for a long time. You, too, are not like a specialist in air defense air forces. As you said, you served in the Black Sea Fleet, it's like a construction battalion will talk about the Strategic Missile Forces.
                      13. Professor 5 May 2015 11: 18 New
                        • -1
                        • 0
                        -1
                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        My quote to the studio. You already have paranoia.

                        "Even if you are paranoid, this does not mean that no one wants to kill you."
                        http://topwar.ru/index.php?cstart=3&do=lastcomments&userid=131271#comment

                        http://topwar.ru/73595-eksperty-nazvali-polozhenie-s-bespilotnoy-aviaciey-v-ross
                        ii-unizitelnym.html # comment-id-4406907

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        It’s just that Professor I have long noticed how constantly you praise Israeli military equipment, to a lesser extent American. And you are normally treated on the site.

                        I don’t praise any technique. Never used the word "better." And about how they treat me on this site, how do you know? Do you get these insults and threats?

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        The Patriot needs a special satellite in orbit.

                        What?

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        Professor you said that efficiency = return / cost
                        So the return on weapons will be low against a strong enemy, therefore, the effectiveness will decrease.

                        No. Technique is either effective or not. “Enemy Strength” is not a factor in the formula.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        You can still say that more people died from the Kalashnikov assault rifle than from the atomic bomb.

                        We compare the bombing of one country in one conflict, rather than a spherical horse in a vacuum.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        The question is about the criminal use of nuclear weapons and all other weapons against civilians. Why were residential areas bombed, why weren’t they limited to bombing military bases and industrial plants?

                        These bombings were not recognized as war crimes. They bombed everything and everyone with the goal of causing "tangible" damage. The goal was achieved, Japan surrendered.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        You, too, are not like a specialist in air defense air forces. As you said, you served in the Black Sea Fleet, it's like a construction battalion will talk about the Strategic Missile Forces.

                        I am not a specialist in the Air Force and therefore I am not a big deal with specialists in this area.
                      14. Lt. Air Force stock 5 May 2015 13: 09 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        "Even if you are paranoid, this does not mean that no one wants to kill you."
                        http://topwar.ru/index.php?cstart=3&do=lastcomments&userid=131271#comment

                        http://topwar.ru/73595-eksperty-nazvali-polozhenie-s-bespilotnoy-aviaciey-v-ross

                        ii-unizitelnym.html # comment-id-4406907

                        There it was about selective freedom of speech in European and American media. From the point of view of the law, everyone should be equal, but in European media Muslims are ridiculed, and Jews are not touched in cartoon magazines. What is it if not selective freedom of speech?

                        Quote: Professor

                        I don’t praise any technique. Never used the word "better." And about how they treat me on this site, how do you know? Do you get these insults and threats?

                        Well, the comments seem to be more or less normal. In any case, no one calls the troll Natanyahu and does not ask how much they paid you. There is no need to use the word “best” to praise equipment; to covertly call Russian military equipment bad enough to exalt foreign ones.
                        Quote: Professor

                        No. Technique is either effective or not. “Enemy Strength” is not a factor in the formula.

                        Professor, tell me the Su-35 will be effective against Zimbavbe (which has virtually no air force and air defense) as well as against the United States?
                        Quote: Professor
                        We compare the bombing of one country in one conflict, rather than a spherical horse in a vacuum.

                        Yes, people died after bombing with ordinary bombs, only after atomic bombs, for decades, children with genetic abnormalities were born. From the point of view of humanity, atomic weapons cannot be compared with conventional weapons.


                        Quote: Professor

                        These bombings were not recognized as war crimes. They bombed everything and everyone with the goal of causing "tangible" damage. The goal was achieved, Japan surrendered.

                        Again, the ethical issue, Japan could capitulate if all the plants were destroyed, the new equipment would have no place to take and the emperor would capitulate.
                        Quote: Professor
                        What?

                        http://www.ctv.by/node/54909
                      15. Professor 5 May 2015 13: 58 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        There it was about selective freedom of speech in European and American media. From the point of view of the law, everyone should be equal, but in European media Muslims are ridiculed, and Jews are not touched in cartoon magazines. What is it if not selective freedom of speech?

                        1. Jews can be written with a small letter.
                        2. The well-known Charlie ridiculed Jews an order of magnitude more than Muslims. This is information for you for general development.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        and they don’t ask how much they paid you.

                        I myself inform everyone that I work for the money of the CIA, Mossad and MI6.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        Professor, tell me the Su-35 will be effective against Zimbavbe (which has virtually no air force and air defense) as well as against the United States?

                        I do not know. History knows of cases when super duper units got off on an empty spot.


                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        From the point of view of humanity, atomic weapons cannot be compared with conventional weapons.

                        We are about efficiency.
                        Was it effective? No.
                        Did it stop the samurai? No.
                        Did it do more damage? No.
                        Was it cheaper? No.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        Again, the ethical issue, Japan could capitulate if all the plants were destroyed, the new equipment would have no place to take and the emperor would capitulate.

                        The subjunctive mood is not applicable.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        http://www.ctv.by/node/54909

                        Where did you find such a crazy article?
                        Unlike the PATRIOT and S-400 missile systems, which use the Hit-to-Kill principle, or directly hit the target, the Khets missiles do not hit the target, but explode at a small distance from it, forming a cloud of fragments that Destroy an enemy shell.


                        The satellite is not part of the Patriot SAM.
                        Anti-aircraft missile system (SAM) Patriot: modifications and characteristics
                      16. Lt. Air Force stock 5 May 2015 19: 33 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        1. Jews can be written with a small letter.

                        This is to once again not offend you out of the blue.
                        Quote: Professor
                        2. The well-known Charlie ridiculed Jews an order of magnitude more than Muslims. This is information for you for general development.

                        They ridiculed the rabbis; this is not the same thing. In the case of Muslims, they ridiculed the holy face of the Prophet Muhammad. No one made fun of Moses.
                        Quote: Professor

                        I myself inform everyone that I work for the money of the CIA, Mossad and MI6.

                        Reverse psychology works great, telling the truth in the context of not truth, so that no one believes that you really get paid.
                        Quote: Professor
                        We are about efficiency.
                        Was it effective? No.
                        Did it stop the samurai? No.
                        Did it do more damage? No.
                        Was it cheaper? No.

                        Nuclear weapons are effective in terms of quantitative and qualitative use. To achieve such destruction as from an atomic bomb, you need to drop hundreds if not thousands of bombs.
                        Quote: Professor
                        The subjunctive mood is not applicable.

                        It's not about history, but about common sense. What would Japan fight if the entire military industry were destroyed? The answer is that until there is technology and weapons will not end. Towards the end of the war, two other axis countries capitulated to wait for military assistance;
                        Quote: Professor
                        Where did you find such a crazy article?

                        http://www.licey.net/war/book5/patriot
                        "On the ground, missile homing was carried out as follows. The Skuds' launch was fixed by a pair of geostationary satellites suspended over the bay. They were controlled from Australia, where they transmitted information about the missile launch. From the Australian MCC, information flew across the Pacific Ocean to Colorado, where the American was the headquarters of the space defense. There, the computer interpreted the information and gave sighting characteristics to the Patriot batteries deployed on the promised land. When the communication worked, and it happened, the Skuds were intercepted; when not, nobody interfered with the missiles. "
                      17. Professor 5 May 2015 19: 57 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        They ridiculed the rabbis; this is not the same thing. In the case of Muslims, they ridiculed the holy face of the Prophet Muhammad. No one made fun of Moses.

                        They allowed themselves everything including insulting religious feelings. You are not in the subject.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        Nuclear weapons are effective in terms of quantitative and qualitative use. To achieve such destruction as from an atomic bomb, you need to drop hundreds if not thousands of bombs.

                        The bombing of Japan showed that conventional bombs were much more deadly and the atomic bomb was much more expensive.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        What would Japan fight if the entire military industry were destroyed?

                        Who would work at these plants if only 200 people died in Tokyo and a million fled?

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        http://www.licey.net/war/book5/patriot

                        A patriot can also receive target designations from an over-the-horizon radar, but this does not mean that he is not capable of acting without it.
                        The Patriot was sold to Greece, Egypt, Israel, Germany, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Spain, Poland, Jordan ... Which of these countries have satellites in geostationary orbit? So their Patriots are impotent?
                      18. Lt. Air Force stock 5 May 2015 20: 21 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Professor
                        They allowed themselves everything including insulting religious feelings. You are not in the subject.

                        Well, a literally recent example of a Texas caricature exhibition that was shooting. What is not visible caricatures of Israel? But Muslims were often frequented, as if the order from the government was to ridicule.
                        Quote: Professor
                        The bombing of Japan showed that conventional bombs were much more deadly and the atomic bomb was much more expensive.

                        Quantitatively, because more were dropped. As for nuclear bombs, the baby bomb's power was 13-18 kilotons, which is equivalent to 13000-18000 tons of conventional explosives detonated simultaneously in one section of the terrain (unlike carpet bombings, when the plane flies and the bombs disperse on the ground)
                        Quote: Professor
                        Who would work at these plants if only 200 people died in Tokyo and a million fled?

                        Here again, the victory of the war is due to the extermination of the enemy’s manpower, and not by smart, low blood, by decapitating the military machine.
                        Quote: Professor
                        A patriot can also receive target designations from an over-the-horizon radar, but this does not mean that he is not capable of acting without it.
                        The Patriot was sold to Greece, Egypt, Israel, Germany, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Spain, Poland, Jordan ... Which of these countries have satellites in geostationary orbit? So their Patriots are impotent?

                        The radar detection range is much shorter than that of the S-400. At the S-400, the radar sees 600 kilometers. But the patriot is absolutely deplorable. It turns out the X-101/102 missile, with an EPR of 0,01 square meters, the Patriot’s radar will see for 7 kilometers, under ideal conditions (if the position of the air defense missile system is in a mountainous area, where the missile can hide until the very last behind natural barriers, then it won’t see at all)
                        AN / MPQ-53
                        Detection range with a probability of 0,9 for the EPR of the target:
                        0,1 m² (head of the rocket) 70 km,
                        0,5 m² (rocket) - 100 km
                        1,5 m² (fighter) - 130 km
                        10 m² (bomber) - 180 km
                      19. Professor 5 May 2015 20: 28 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        Well, a literally recent example of a Texas caricature exhibition that was shooting. What is not visible caricatures of Israel? But Muslims were often frequented, as if the order from the government was to ridicule.

                        Again. You are not in the subject. So it’s better not to even start.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        Here again, the victory of the war is due to the extermination of the enemy’s manpower, and not by smart, low blood, by decapitating the military machine.

                        This does not happen. Victory is achieved when the defeated party considers further damage unacceptable. This mainly refers to loss of life.

                        Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
                        The radar detection range is much shorter than that of the S-400.

                        The effectiveness of the Patriot has been proven repeatedly. What besides the exercises can the S-400 boast?
                        Thank you for the attention. I'm leaving the branch, I'm tired of walking in a circle. hi
                      20. Lt. Air Force stock 5 May 2015 20: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        This does not happen. Victory is achieved when the defeated party considers further damage unacceptable. This mainly refers to loss of life.

                        And what happens if the defeated side lacks weapons? The fleet is broken, the tanks are all destroyed, the planes are also destroyed, the factories are all destroyed. Will they fight with their fists? Or in the case of Japan, a katana?
                        Quote: Professor
                        The effectiveness of the Patriot has been proven repeatedly. What besides the exercises can the S-400 boast?

                        The performance characteristics of our system prove the great effectiveness, which were confirmed during numerous firing.


                        Quote: Professor
                        Again. You are not in the subject. So it’s better not to even start.

                        Come on, Professor. I have been reading foreign news for more than a year, any article on terrorism cannot do without drawing parallels with Islam. It is clear that in the minds of ordinary Westerners, who for the most part have no normal education, having read such articles, they put an equal sign between terrorism and Islam. And when a person is afraid of something, he psychologically begins to make fun of the subject of his fear. These are all cartoon magazines and exhibitions that satisfy the demand of ordinary people for such things, which was formed at the expense of Western media.
  4. andj61 4 May 2015 17: 34 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: NEXUS
    Iran is our ally, unlike Israel "friendly" to us

    Well, this is extremely doubtful! Iran is our fellow traveler, not an ally, and it is unlikely that he will even be a fellow traveler in the case of minimal normalization of relations with the United States.
  5. Zuborez 4 May 2015 22: 57 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    A monkey with a grenade is a dangerous phenomenon.

    And the Persians have exactly the same opinion about you laughing The main thing is that vigorous loaves should not be played out.
  6. andj61 4 May 2015 14: 21 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: Professor
    For example, the S-200 in crooked hands and the Russian Tu-154.

    About the plane shot down by the Ukrainian S-200 - this is generally something! If they didn’t shoot at it specifically (!), But I hope that it wasn’t, then after the disruption of the seizure of the training target, the rocket was OBLIGED to self-destruct, and not to the plane, which was practically beyond the range of destruction.
    Soviet and Russian air defense systems and air defense systems require professionalism from calculations, but on the Ukrainian S-200 it was not there.
  7. Zuborez 4 May 2015 23: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: andj61
    About the plane shot down by the Ukrainian S-200 - this is generally something!

    There was a complete madhouse. Two divisions of C200. The one who shot, removed the backlight of the target. Well, and the second star: ((
  8. carbofo 4 May 2015 14: 29 New
    • -6
    • 0
    -6
    Quote: Professor
    For example, the S-200 in crooked hands and the Russian Tu-154.
    The disease is more effective in preventing rather than curing.

    Tu shot down from s-300.
  9. Bongo 4 May 2015 14: 34 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Quote: carbofo
    Tu shot down from s-300.

    At a distance of 280 km fool What kind of missile of the C-300P system has such a range?
  10. carbofo 4 May 2015 14: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Bongo
    At a distance of 280 km fool What kind of missile of the S-300P system has such a range?

    Yes, you're right, I did not study this episode in detail.
    The S-300 doesn’t really shoot at 300km, but if my memory serves me, it was a program that talked about the S-300 and a new long-range missile, as I understand it was an erroneous statement, but I remembered it, I will take note of new facts.
    It is not known for certain which complex the plane was shot down, so the question is actually open.

    On September 20, 2004, the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine closed the criminal case on the fact of the disaster, since the investigation did not establish objective data that would reliably indicate that the Tu-154 was shot down by a S-200 missile launched during the exercises of the Ukrainian air defense forces


    It’s not right and wrong, but the question is in the years the missiles were staged and whether Ukraine had them at that time.

    S-300 “Favorite” (customer index: 35Р6, 70Р6, 75Р6, 9К81, 3М-41) is a family of anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) capable of hitting various targets at altitudes: from lower than the possible flight altitude to exceeding the ceiling heights [4] for purposes; at ranges: from several kilometers to 150, 200, 300 kilometers, depending on the type of used elements of the S-300 family and, in particular, interceptor missiles


    The continuation of the line is the S-300VM Antey-2500. The Antey-2500 complex is an export modification developed separately from the S-300 family but fully corresponding to it, delivered to Venezuela, an approximate export price of $ 1 billion, the system has 1 type of missiles in 2 versions, the main and complemented by a marching stage, doubling firing range (up to 200 km, according to other sources up to 250 km)

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1-300
  11. Bongo 4 May 2015 15: 00 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Quote: carbofo
    It’s not right and wrong, but the question is in the years the missiles were staged and whether Ukraine had them at that time.

    There were no new missiles for the C-300P in Ukraine, and no. We ourselves have very few of them. Moreover, not a single serial modification of the rocket for the C-300P at such a range at that time could shoot. You should not refer to Wikipedia, for me personally it is a bad form.
  12. voyaka uh 4 May 2015 15: 45 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    for bongo:
    So from what was Tu-22 shot down over Georgia?
    It's been 7 years, haven't they come to some
    any conclusion?
  13. opus 4 May 2015 21: 46 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: voyaka uh
    So from what was Tu-22 shot down over Georgia?

    SAM, what was in service with the Georgian Armed Forces.
    moreover, missiles Soviet / Russian production.
    And what are you hinting at?
    11 August 2008 Saakashvili announced the destruction of 80 — 90 ( fool ) aircraft of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation?
  14. andj61 4 May 2015 17: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Tu-154 shot down from the S-200. Net range of 200 km. But this is without taking into account the terrain, that is, over the sea and there will be these same 200 km. In assessing the effectiveness of the calculation, it is believed that if the CC has come closer to this very line of defeat, then the combat mission has not been completed. Actually, a rocket with an S-200 can easily fly 300 km, and even a little more. It is not clear why this rocket did not self-destruct.
  15. opus 4 May 2015 21: 38 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: andj61
    But this is without taking into account the terrain,

    Heights and speeds of the target. ZUR uses lift, which "saves" fuel

    The relief has nothing to do with it.
    Even over the sea.
    (The data is somewhat old, maybe for the "base" but not the point)

    Quote: andj61
    In fact, a rocket with C-200 can easily fly over 300 km, and even a little more

    but do not get into La, in any case what was in the APU.
    SAM V-880M / 5В28М or В-880МН / 5В28МN they did not have

    Quote: andj61
    It is not clear why this rocket did not self-destruct.

    The Russian Orthodox Church was not disconnected and the Russian Orthodox Church was not dropped after the loss of the target. ...

    Fuel is not over yet:
    when the signal disappears, the missile homing head (GOS) scans the space for another 5 seconds (first in a narrow sector, then in a wide one). If the signal cannot be detected, the rocket continues flight up to the development of fuel, and at the end of the flight the contacts of the combat charge are closed.


    WHAT TO DESTROY WITH IT?
  16. andj61 4 May 2015 22: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: opus
    The Russian Orthodox Church was not disconnected and the Russian Orthodox Church was not dropped after the loss of the target. ...

    And why did the Russian Orthodox Church suddenly illuminate a civilian plane, and not a target?
    Accidentally? There are too many accidents.
    PS I studied in other textbooks, then, in the 80s, each page was marked "top secret". Of course, memory may fail, but according to the specifications, the maximum range is 200 km, and here it’s only 160 ... request
    And much depends on the relief. If not the steppe and not the sea, then the hills very “close” the target, accordingly, there will never be such a detection range as on a flat surface, no matter how you put the radars on the hills. And the anti-aircraft missile brigades-regiments themselves did not engage in the early detection of targets - this was the task of the radio engineering troops. And the SAM, having received target designation, practiced it up to the performance of a combat mission.
  17. opus 4 May 2015 23: 45 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: andj61
    And why did the Russian Orthodox Church suddenly illuminate a civilian plane, and not a target?

    ROC highlighted sector.
    The Russian Orthodox Church cannot illuminate the space at an angle of 72g and a depth of 30,50,100km.
    it “shines” as much as it shines (taking into account weather conditions)

    why a civilian plane got there - I don’t know.
    State enterprise (of Ukraine) for air traffic control closed the corresponding airspace in the Ukrainian zone of responsibility in full compliance with regulatory documents, notifying all Ukrainian and international services about this.
    The aircraft was in the zone of responsibility No. 7 of the North Caucasus Center for Automated Air Traffic Control (ASC AIM) “Strela” and the crew informed the dispatcher about the passage of the ODIRA mandatory reporting point.
    What did the SCC AUVD-xs do
    Well, it’s hard to believe in stupid excuses of Ukrainians ...

    belay

    Quote: andj61
    range - 200 km, and then only 160

    I wrote:

    Quote: opus
    The data is a little old mk for the "base" but not the point

    first that is
    After "A" were still:
  18. Locksmith 4 May 2015 17: 24 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: Professor
    I’m talking about a potential threat to passenger airliners emanating from long-range air defense systems. For example, the S-200 in crooked hands and the Russian Tu-154.
    The disease is more effective in preventing rather than curing.

    It seems to me that the Israelis have a completely different headache, namely that the plane launched a rocket from a neighboring space (a favorite pastime of pissing Israeli pilots), it’s very easy to get the “return line” unexpectedly and inevitably. wink
  19. carbofo 4 May 2015 21: 21 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Locksmith
    it’s very easy to get a “return” - unexpectedly and inevitably. wink

    Although the Israelis are well prepared, the S-300 is a headache for them, it can spoil both nerves and skins, hence the screams, everyone wants to do what they want without problems.
  20. carbofo 5 May 2015 10: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Professor
    "screech" must be raised before the S-300, S-200 or Buk will shoot down a passenger airliner

    You have enough money to bring down the liners, but no one says that Israel can bring down the plane!
    Or for example, Swedes or Vietnamese, screaming only about those countries where your "valiant" warriors are going to fly !! or American.
    It does not seem that this has already become fashionable.
  • Lt. Air Force stock 4 May 2015 12: 47 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Quote: Professor

    I believe that a complex that does not have a track record cannot be called the best, and even less so when compared with a complex that has proved its effectiveness in battle.

    Professor, following your logic, there is not a single effective nuclear ballistic missile in the world, because it has never been used. Multipurpose submarines are also not effective, as they were used only once during the Falkland War. There are many such examples.
    1. Professor 4 May 2015 12: 55 New
      • -5
      • 0
      -5
      Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
      Professor, following your logic, there is not a single effective nuclear ballistic missile in the world, because it has never been used.

      And there is. The effectiveness of a nuclear ballistic missile is close to zero since it cannot be used. They can only deal with phalometry.

      Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
      Multipurpose submarines are also not effective, as they were used only once during the Falkland War.

      ... proving its effectiveness. EMNIP then the Americans used them.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock 4 May 2015 13: 14 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Professor
        And there is. The effectiveness of a nuclear ballistic missile is close to zero since it cannot be used. They can only deal with phalometry.

        Here you are mistaken Professor, only the effectiveness of anti-missile defense can be questioned in a ballistic missile, and the ability to launch and deliver combat units was not once proven during numerous control firing, combat units were also repeatedly tested by detonation at the training grounds, during the Soviet era, that is the structural ability of a warhead to detonate is not in doubt.
        As for the Falkland War, the Argentinean fleet was old there, and it was not an equal opponent of the British submarine.

        Quote: Professor
        EMNIP then the Americans used them.

        What is EMNIP? If you are talking about tomahawk cruise missiles, then you don’t have to think a lot about the third world country on a submarine without meeting any countermeasures on your way and launch missiles on land targets. By this, the submarine only proved the ability to launch missiles from an underwater position, but this was not once proved during firing exercises.
        I’m talking about the overall effectiveness of the submarine, when it must, for example, go to the order of the warships that were not found and torpedo them, or track down the enemy’s submarine and sink it, or approach the enemy’s coast passing through a powerful and complex defense system with active and passive detection and perform firing at coastal targets.
        1. Professor 4 May 2015 13: 22 New
          • -3
          • 0
          -3
          Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
          Here you are mistaken Professor

          No, I'm not mistaken. Weapons that cannot be used by definition cannot be effective.

          If my memory serves me...
          The use of nuclear submarines with cruise missiles on board has already proved its effectiveness in combat conditions. I hope that we will not discuss the remaining combat aspects of the nuclear submarine based on the experience of combat use.
          1. Lt. Air Force stock 4 May 2015 13: 30 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: Professor
            No, I'm not mistaken. Weapons that cannot be used by definition cannot be effective.

            Tell it to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
            Quote: Professor
            The use of nuclear submarines with cruise missiles on board has already proved its effectiveness in combat conditions.

            It did not prove, since in the first countries of the Third World had practically no air defense, and there were no anti-submarine measures. You also give an example of the effectiveness of the use of JDAM and drones against terrorists who have only AKM from their weapons (AK-47).
            Tell the Professor, a weapon will be considered effective if it destroys an entire Aboriginal village in a banana republic that has only bows and arrows from a weapon?
            Quote: Professor
            I hope that we will not discuss the remaining combat aspects of the nuclear submarine based on the experience of combat use.

            No, we can write on paper that the submarine is the quietest in the world, but where is the evidence of how these quiet submarines worked in a combat situation? Working out to the fullest?
          2. carbofo 4 May 2015 14: 37 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: Professor
            Weapons that cannot be used by definition cannot be effective.

            Verbiage, you got the atomic weapon, why? it is not effective!
            Any weapon is supposed to be effective, and only practice shows how much.
            For example, the Mig-3 fighter was high-altitude, but it was practically not used for its intended purpose, due to the lack of tasks on the profile where it would be as efficient as possible, its effectiveness decreased.
            But this does not mean that the machine was ineffective; rather, it was used inefficiently.
      2. carbofo 5 May 2015 11: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Professor
        The effectiveness of a nuclear ballistic missile is close to zero since it cannot be used. They can only deal with phalometry.

        Then explain why you need nuclear weapons ?? how do you differ from the Iranians? the same **** with a grenade! in fact .
        You are cunning like any of you, and only to your side.
        This is a good position for a religious fanatic, but you only make the situation worse by confusing the already difficult problems, which later, including through your own fault, will have to be cut off your shoulder, someone will suffer, and you somehow have nothing to do with it again, for that the whole world hates you.
        1. Professor 5 May 2015 11: 24 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: carbofo
          the whole world hates you for this

          This is not your concern. You will make sure that you are loved in the world and do not give advice on a cosmic scale and cosmic stupidity.
          1. carbofo 5 May 2015 12: 07 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Professor
            This is not your concern.

            This is always the case when you communicate with the elect.
            Just like you are a goy unworthy of communication with the Almighty :).
            I still love me or not, but you don’t, therefore no one loves you.
          2. Professor 5 May 2015 12: 44 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: carbofo
            I still love me or not, but you don’t, therefore no one loves you.

            For the last time: you make sure that you are loved in the world and do not give advice on a cosmic scale and cosmic stupidity.
          3. carbofo 5 May 2015 13: 45 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            It is you who care to be loved, but nothing happens.
            I have large-scale thinking, not like your affair.
            But stupidity does not determine morality, you are smart but whether you have morality! all your people think about profit, therefore they do not love you and you worry about it, we have never been loved, therefore we do not pay attention to this.
  • james 4 May 2015 16: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You are on the censor.
  • Zuborez 4 May 2015 22: 36 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Professor

    Shoot down passenger Boeings a lot of intelligence and efficiency is not necessary.

    So far, the passenger leader of the Patriot laughing If without Ukrainians.
  • Nayhas 4 May 2015 13: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: NEXUS
    But it’s nothing that this target flew along a predictable trajectory and the brave American missiles knew where it would arrive and the complex was already deployed.

    You confuse it with the GBI interceptor, the MIM-104F missile launcher knocks down targets with a direct hit in the conditions of electronic countermeasures and intensive maneuvering according to manufacturer reports.
    The domestic 9M96 missile system, which repeatedly (until it was understood that it couldn’t) was declared as striking the CC with a direct hit, could not do this even under the conditions described by you.
    Quote: NEXUS
    I have not heard more stupidity for a long time.

    Because it is not stupid. Ground-based air defense systems are not the main part of air defense. The basis of air defense is aviation, air defense systems only protect the object from the penetrating enemy aircraft that are unable to organize an attack. The large radius of the air defense system narrows the scope of its own aircraft because it is likely to suffer from "friendly fire" (which is not uncommon despite the presence of friend or foe identification systems that are on the complex, but not on the rocket, which frankly does not care who you are after launch) . Moreover, the presence of a radio horizon deducts the super-range of the same S-400 air defense system to nothing, in any case, the target is flying at an altitude of 2 km. he can shoot down exactly at the same distance as the Patriot ...
    Quote: NEXUS
    As to why our air defense system is better, I will answer this way: deployment time from the march from s-400 is 5 minutes, the Patriot has 30 minutes!

    And what is the gain? But the Patriot can be transported by air with C-17 aircraft to anywhere in the world, and the S-400 can only be w / d or on its own.
    Quote: NEXUS
    .The American launches from an inclined platform, and the missiles must be directed towards the target, which is not necessary for Triumph, since the launch is made from a vertical platform.

    You have outdated data. SAM MIM-104F is biased by gas-dynamic engines in any direction and it doesn’t matter which direction the launcher is directed to.

    Quote: NEXUS
    The range of missile launch and their accuracy at Triumph is an order of magnitude higher

    I already wrote to you according to the launch range. By accuracy, you see, you are not completely aware that a direct hit is the highest accuracy, or rather, it doesn’t happen anymore. SAM missiles S-400 can not boast of this, respectively, they have an accuracy lower by an order of magnitude. For a better understanding, imagine the task of destroying an enemy moving across the battlefield. You can kill him with a bullet to the head from a sniper rifle, or you can use an artillery shell. In both cases, the task will be completed, but in the first case you will need a maximum of two people and a sniper rifle, in the second you need a gun and a crew of five, plus means of transportation.
    Quote: NEXUS
    Plus the lower threshold of target detection, the Patriot is 60 meters from the Triumph of 10 meters.

    Where did you get these numbers? I hope you didn’t come up with it yourself?
    Quote: NEXUS
    Enough for you? And I can still sketch

    Come on until your hand gets tired ...
  • Bongo 4 May 2015 14: 06 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: NEXUS
    The range of missile launch and their accuracy at Triumph is an order of magnitude higher.

    An order of magnitude - this means "about ten times more." Are you really sure this is so?
  • Lt. Air Force stock 4 May 2015 12: 17 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Nayhas
    direct hit on target, which they could not realize in the S-400 (although there were promises).

    Just a direct hit on the target is bad. If you take a stealth fighter, it’s hard to get into it by a direct hit, and if it also turns on the reb, it’s not realistic at all. At large distances, kinetic interceptors are not very effective.
    1. Nayhas 4 May 2015 15: 43 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
      Just a direct hit on the target is bad.

      And what? In your opinion, it turns out that it is better to shell the enemy fighter with an explosion, and not kill him with a bullet?
      Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
      If you take a stealth fighter, it’s hard to get into it by a direct hit, and if it also turns on the reb, it’s not realistic at all.

      If the missile seeker could not capture the target, then it does not matter how the missile could hypothetically destroy the target.
      Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
      At large distances, kinetic interceptors are not very effective.

      Mlyayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayay ..................
      .
      1. What makes you think that there is no explosive charge on the MIM-104F SAM?
      2. A missile flying at a speed of 900 km / h flies a missile 5,2 m long and 250 mm in diameter. even at a speed of (for laughter) 100km / h. What will happen to the aircraft fuselage made of aluminum alloys?
      Or do you think that this is a different case and the laws of physics do not apply to it?
      A car at a speed of 200km / h driving into STANDING! the pillar ceases to exist, what is wrong with the plane?
      1. Aleksandr2012 4 May 2015 16: 38 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It is bad at a much lower probability of being hit by a hit than undermining next to a target.
      2. Lt. Air Force stock 4 May 2015 19: 18 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        And what? In your opinion, it turns out that it is better to shell the enemy fighter with an explosion, and not kill him with a bullet?

        No, we can draw an example with a sniper in an urban setting, when a grenade launcher is fired at the window where the sniper is sitting. It is better to be able to bring down with an error than not to bring down at all.
        Quote: Nayhas
        If the missile seeker could not capture the target, then it does not matter how the missile could hypothetically destroy the target.

        Well, for example, I was able to detect it, but it fell into the tail or wing of a plane breaking off a piece, the plane returns safely to the base, and if a 150 kilogram warhead from the S-300 detonates nearby, there will be no one to return to.
        Quote: Nayhas
        1. What makes you think that there is no explosive charge on the MIM-104F SAM?

        We are talking about the trend of abandoning fragmentation warheads, for example, the SM-6 will already be able to carry out kinetic interception.

        Quote: Nayhas
        2. A missile flying at a speed of 900 km / h flies a missile 5,2 m long and 250 mm in diameter. even at a speed of (for laughter) 100km / h. What will happen to the aircraft fuselage made of aluminum alloys?
        Or do you think that this is a different case and the laws of physics do not apply to it?
        A car at a speed of 200km / h driving into STANDING! the pillar ceases to exist, what is wrong with the plane?

        Accurately getting into a fighter flying at 2500 km / h is more difficult than just approaching 20-30 meters from it and detonating the charge, for example, the airplane’s rap can deflect the missile from the target by several meters, but it can destroy the plane by detonation, and if you reject the kinetic missile from the target she will fly by.
        1. Nayhas 4 May 2015 19: 43 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
          you can draw an example with a sniper in an urban setting

          This you have danced in the wrong steppe.
          Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
          It’s better to be able to bring down with an error than not to bring down at all

          And where did you get that in case of a miss, the b / h will not explode? Is this your holy prejudice?
          Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
          and if a 150 kilogram warhead from the S-300 detonates nearby, there will be no one to return to

          History knows many cases of successful return of planes after 200kg blasting. b / h S-75
          Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
          Well, for example, she was able to detect, but hit a piece or tail of a plane

          Those. operation of 90 kg. b / h after falling into the same tail or wing you do not consider at all? I wonder why?
          Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
          We are talking about the trend of abandoning fragmentation warheads, for example, the SM-6 will already be able to carry out kinetic interception.

          However, 115kg is installed. fragmentation warhead Mk.125
          Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
          Accurately getting into a fighter flying at 2500 km / h is more difficult than just approaching 20-30 meters from it and detonating the charge, for example, the airplane’s rap can deflect the missile from the target by several meters, but it can destroy the plane by detonation, and if you reject the kinetic missile from the target she will fly by.

          Ie what do you model for an American rocket does not apply to ours? Electronic warfare systems not only interfere with the guidance system, but they also suppress the operation of the radio fuse, to the point that the 40H6E will not only fly by and will not explode? Or explode at a safe distance?
          1. Lt. Air Force stock 4 May 2015 21: 42 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Nayhas
            And where did you get that in case of a miss, the b / h will not explode? Is this your holy prejudice?

            Kinetic interception, this is when a missile hits exactly the target, instead of a warhead there is a light aluminum blank. So there’s nothing to explode there.
            Quote: Nayhas
            However, 115kg is installed. fragmentation warhead Mk.125

            There are two options for a fragmentation warhead, or kinetic (aluminum blank instead of warheads).

            Quote: Nayhas

            Ie what do you model for an American rocket does not apply to ours? Electronic warfare systems not only interfere with the guidance system, but they also suppress the operation of the radio fuse, to the point that the 40H6E will not only fly by and will not explode? Or explode at a safe distance?

            The fragmentation warhead may explode, or maybe not. But the aluminum disc does not exactly detonate.
            The point of building kinetic anti-aircraft missiles is precisely that, due to the light warhead, to increase the technical characteristics of the missile, without increasing the mass-dimensional characteristics, since the fragmentation warhead weighs much more than a solid aluminum
            Quote: Nayhas
            History knows many cases of successful return of planes after 200kg blasting. b / h S-75

            So it worked far, or there was no perfect system of undermining. Then the anti-aircraft missile warheads are somewhat reminiscent of the F1 grenade, inside there is explosive, and the outer layer is metal rods, which fly apart when undermined. Modern warheads explode directionally towards the target, more than one aircraft can’t stand it.
            1. Nayhas 5 May 2015 06: 47 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
              instead of a warhead there is a lightweight aluminum disc. So there’s nothing to explode there.

              Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
              The fragmentation warhead may explode, or maybe not. But the aluminum disc does not exactly detonate.

              Uff ... Ie. when the question arose for you regarding the presence of explosive in the MIM-104F missile launcher, you did not dig into open sources (of which there are more than a few), but decided for yourself that there is nothing there over the acre of aluminum disc ... Where does such confidence come from ? In the video below, does aluminum explode like that?
              1. Lt. Air Force stock 5 May 2015 09: 19 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Nayhas

                Uff ... Ie. when the question arose for you regarding the presence of explosive in the MIM-104F missile launcher, you did not dig into open sources (of which there are more than a few), but decided for yourself that there is nothing there over the acre of aluminum disc ... Where does such confidence come from ? In the video below, does aluminum explode like that?

                This is not about specifically MIM-104F, but in general about the causes of failure and the transition to purely kinetic interceptors. The SM-6 has two rocket options with either a kinetic warhead or a fragmentation warhead. The United States seeks in the future that only anti-aircraft missiles be kinetic; now they are developing a CUDA air-to-air missile with kinetic interception.
  • andj61 4 May 2015 14: 14 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Nayhas
    The most effective air defense system is the Patriot PAC-3 in which the AC was defeated by a direct hit on target, which they could not realize in the S-400 (although there were promises).

    The very concept of Soviet and Russian air defense systems and air defense systems does not suggest that a missile hits a target directly, but merely yes DESTROYING A GOAL. If there is nothing to brag about, then they are created - and artificially - these are such "world" achievements. It's like an elusive Joe who is elusive just because nobody needs a fuck! bully
    It reminds me of real engineering stories from the 70s. One Swiss company, in order to show its capabilities at the exhibition, took a shapeless casting, milled-polished the ends - and drilled a hole with a diameter of 1 mm to a length of 1 m. Mechanical engineers will confirm that now it is an extremely difficult task. The engineers of the USSR also surpassed them at the exhibition the following year: they not only drilled a hole with a diameter of 1 mm to a length of 1 m in monolithic steel, but also cut a thread along the entire length - also with a diameter of 1 mm. Any engineer will confirm that now it is almost impossible. But why at all do these holes and cut the threads in them? request
    So is this staged hit by a rocket directly at the target: it makes an impression, and the real value is extremely doubtful.
    1. Nayhas 4 May 2015 16: 16 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: andj61
      The very concept of Soviet and Russian air defense systems and air defense systems does not allow a missile to hit a target directly

      And the general designer of machine-building design bureau Fakel Vladimir Svetlov does not agree with you, which is 06.04.2007/9/96. in the "mouthpiece of power" "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" quite specifically described the "promising" XNUMXMXNUMX missiles
      Bang bang - and to the point

      WG | And what is the main secret of 9M96?

      Svetlov | First, a small educational program. The probability of a direct hit by an anti-aircraft missile at a target is usually low. Usually it passes somewhere nearby, and therefore, to guarantee the destruction of the target, one has to use a decent amount of explosives and metal fragments. For the first time, this technology implements key technologies that determine the appearance of promising anti-aircraft guided missiles used in both European and American developments. Including the use for control in the final phase of the gas-dynamic guidance method. As a result - high-precision guidance of the missile right up to a direct hit on the target. To do this, we used an engine that allows the rocket to perform non-standard maneuvers. This is our patented invention. In general, she has many unique qualities.

      Are you ready to call the WG and the general designer of the ICB "Fakel" yap?
      Quote: andj61
      But why at all do these holes and cut the threads in them?

      If the achievements you listed were not possible to use in practice, then yes, only a demonstration of the achievements. But between the useless hole in the metal and the downed air target, as it is, there is a difference.
      Now about practicality.
      There are really two ways to accomplish the same task. Either by a direct hit on the target, or by detonation near the target of a massive warhead. But what are the means.
      MIM-104F
      Length 5,2m., Diameter 250mm., Weight 318kg.
      48H6
      Length 7,5m., Diameter 520mm., Weight 1800 kg.
      As a result, the S-300/400 has 4 missiles on one launcher, and the Patriot PAC-3 has 16 missiles (MIM-104F).
      With one S-300/400 launcher, two VCs can be destroyed, and with a Patriot PAC-3 launcher, 8 VCs. There is a difference?
      The reduction in size allows you to create a new SAM (replacing the Patriot PAC-3) MEADS in which the PU 4 missiles, but the entire complex was compact and lightweight, it can be transported by C-130 and A-400.
      S-300/400 is generally not transportable by air.
      Quote: andj61
      So is this staged hit by a rocket directly at the target: it makes an impression, and the real value is extremely doubtful.

      I repeat. If you are better off not having a direct bullet hit in the forehead, but an explosion of 152mm. a shell ten meters away, then those are your preferences that have nothing to do with practicality.
      1. andj61 4 May 2015 17: 27 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        A bullet in the forehead, of course, is better and cheaper than a 152 mm shell. But why then are all our troops not made up of snipers alone?
        To get directly into the EC is quite simple with a uniformly and rectilinearly flying target. In the case of a fighter, this is by no means the case. The rocket is not capable of maneuvering just like an airplane - it is not designed for overloads, it’s not so simple with engines, maneuvering control is also a problem. Therefore, they make it simpler - they put a decent charge, there are a bunch of damaging elements, the cloud of which destroys the CC when it is detonated near it - and that's enough. And to reduce the missile, guaranteed to get a small missile (or at least with a probability of 0,97 - two missiles - as in existing air defense systems) in the CC - this is a task for military science. They are doing this - and rightly so!
        Quote: Nayhas
        As a result, the S-300/400 has 4 missiles on one launcher, and the Patriot PAC-3 has 16 missiles (MIM-104F).
        With one S-300/400 launcher, two VCs can be destroyed, and with a Patriot PAC-3 launcher, 8 VCs. There is a difference?

        CAN destroy and DESTROY - these are completely different things. Patriot PAC-3 does not show such efficiency.
        If their missiles, yes to our system ... what
        1. Nayhas 4 May 2015 19: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: andj61
          A bullet in the forehead, of course, is better and cheaper than a 152 mm shell. But why then are all our troops not made up of snipers alone?

          Because you transferred the analogy with which you had to either agree or deny to the plane of sophism.
          Quote: andj61
          To get directly into the EC is quite simple with a uniformly and rectilinearly flying target. In the case of a fighter, this is by no means the case. The rocket is not capable of maneuvering just like an airplane - it is not designed for overloads, it’s not so simple with engines, maneuvering control is also a problem.

          Nonsense. For some reason, maneuvering missiles doesn’t prevent missiles from getting into the plane exactly. For example, the R-60 rocket became famous for falling directly into the engine of the aircraft making crazy overloads, and for example the R-73 rocket is capable of maneuvering with 40G overloads thanks to the gas-dynamic control system. As far as I understand, you were too lazy to look at the topic of conversation because you would not write such nonsense. For intensive maneuvering SAM missiles MIM-104F uses gas-dynamic control with 180! RTTT. The fact that LM engineers were able to solve a difficult problem does not mean that it is not solvable.
          Quote: andj61

          CAN destroy and DESTROY - these are completely different things. Patriot PAC-3 does not show such efficiency.

          Let's clean. Do you talk about weapons systems only on a national plane? Like, if it’s not ours, does it mean "everyone lies calendars"?
          1. andj61 4 May 2015 21: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Nayhas
            Let's clean. Do you talk about weapons systems only on a national plane?

            Not at all. With regard to small guided missiles, we really lag behind, but solved this problem in a different way, and solved it cheaper and generally more efficiently than those on the other, in your expression, “non-national plane”. I just doubted that the Patriot PAC-3 is the best system in the world, as you deigned to say, that’s all. But even at the end of that comment, on the basis of which you categorically accuse me of "national" addictions, I wrote:
            Quote: andj61
            If their missiles, yes to our system ... what

            And you prefer not to notice it ...
            1. Nayhas 5 May 2015 07: 13 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: andj61
              I just doubted that the Patriot PAC-3 is the best system in the world.

              Unfortunately, having even a ton of information is impossible to separate intentions from facts. But if you are suspicious, then with respect to everything, but then we find ourselves in a situation of "I don’t believe anything" in which it is impossible to conduct any analysis.
              Quote: andj61
              And you prefer not to notice it ...

              Of course. This is not an Alternative History website, it is only welcome there.
      2. carbofo 5 May 2015 11: 44 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        Quote: Nayhas
        As a result, the S-300/400 has 4 missiles on one launcher, and the Patriot PAC-3 has 16 missiles (MIM-104F).

        You did not indicate the mass of B / h and the distance of the defeat, as well as the effectiveness of interception!
        So:
        1: Number of SAM 40N6E per launcher, pcs. up to 4 range up to 400km weight 1800kg b / h - 180kg
        Number of missiles 9М96Е2 on the launcher, pcs. to 16 range 120km mass-420 kg b / h-24kg

        When launching one missile, the 9M96M missile provides the probability of intercepting a tactical aircraft [no EPR of targets specified] - 0,9, UAV - 0,8. It can maneuver with 20G overload at altitudes up to 35 km, which significantly increases the ability to intercept medium and short-range ballistic missiles.

        2: MIM-104
        PAC-1: 70 km
        PAC-2: 96 km
        PAC-3: 20 km against ballistic missile
        PAC-3 MSE: 35 km against ballistic missile

        You mentioned:
        Quote: carbofo
        As a result, the S-300/400 has 4 missiles on one launcher, and the Patriot PAC-3 has 16 missiles (MIM-104F).
        With one S-300/400 launcher, two VCs can be destroyed, and with a Patriot PAC-3 launcher, 8 VCs. There is a difference?

        1-You think incorrectly, we have a rocket efficiency of 0.8-0.9, they have about 0.5.
        2-Pak-3 is an analogue of 9M96E2, and not 40N6E with which you compared by the number of missiles on the launcher.
        3- with the same number of missiles on launchers, we have a significantly higher range and most importantly we have universal missiles, without sharpening the kinetic b / h against ballistic missiles.

        At the same time, our air defense systems, including naval ones, have a special feature, the possibility of firing at ground / surface targets, which was demonstrated in 2008.
        After the RCC hit the boat, little remained; after the anti-aircraft missile hit, the second boat left the battlefield with damage.

        I don’t see significant differences here in PU capacity in missiles! for some reason, there is a clear distinction between the functionality of the Patriot’s missiles, as well as limitations on the number of missiles and the number of targets, the accuracy is also low, and generally comparing the S-400 with the Patriot is incorrect, the S-400 is significantly more modern and has more opportunities, really compare the Patriot with the S-300, but even the S-300 is superior to the Patriot.

        We have airplanes that can carry it, but in general we do not have military bases abroad where we constantly need to transfer something, so air transport is not an important criterion for our air defense systems, but we have airplanes that can also have such complexes carry :) assembled !!!!.
        1. Bongo 5 May 2015 11: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: carbofo
          Number of missiles 9М96Е2 on the launcher, pcs. to 16 range 120km mass-420 kg b / h-24kg

          When launching one missile, the 9M96M missile provides the probability of intercepting a tactical aircraft [no EPR of targets specified] - 0,9, UAV - 0,8. It can maneuver with 20G overload at altitudes up to 35 km, which significantly increases the ability to intercept medium and short-range ballistic missiles.


          Let's talk about what is available in the troops really. Unfortunately, the mass production of the 9M96M you indicated has not yet been established.
          1. carbofo 5 May 2015 12: 17 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Bongo
            Let's talk about what is available in the troops really. Unfortunately, the mass production of the 9M96M you indicated has not yet been established.

            1999 year of arming or development, then even the S-400 was not in the metal.
            I don’t know what the troops really have, to be in the know you need to read 10 times “War and Peace” to have at least an approximate idea, it’s too tough for me to say so.
            1. Bongo 5 May 2015 12: 58 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: carbofo
              I don’t know what the troops really have, to be in the know you need to read 10 times “War and Peace” to have at least an approximate idea, it’s too tough for me to say so.

              Thats exactly what I mean. yes Let’s write only about what we know.
              1. carbofo 5 May 2015 13: 50 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Bongo
                That's what I'm talking about. yes Let's write only about what we know.

                Here they exchange opinions on the basis of what everyone knows individually.
                I write that I know, you know what, the truth and facts come to light, for that there are comments.
  • Russian_Bear 4 May 2015 07: 47 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    An interesting and well-written article.
    Thanks to the author!
    1. Malkor 4 May 2015 12: 20 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      We look forward to continuing the cycle! drinks
  • andrei.yandex 4 May 2015 07: 56 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The article as a review, very good. As for the indicators of the combat use of the Patriot SAM system in Iraq, the data were posted in a small article in the magazine Wings of the Motherland in 1993, well, that’s the way.
  • LIBERATOR
    LIBERATOR 4 May 2015 08: 31 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    author go to school wink
    MIM-104

    Rocket diameter: 410 mm
    Missile length: 5310 mm
    Scope of stabilizers: mm 870
    Missile weight: 912 kg
    Missile weight in TPK: kg 1696
    Warhead Weight: 91 kg
    Max. flight speed: no more than 1700 m / s of a rocket [20] 1800 m / s of a target [11]
    MIM-104A / B 3 Mach
    MIM-104C Mach 5 (PAC-2)
    Firing range
    Minimum: 3 km
    maximum ballistic target: 20 km (MIM-104C / D / E)
    maximum aerodynamic target: 80 km, maximum 100 from the radar, taking into account the removal of the division and launcher [19].
    Target hitting height
    Minimum: 0,06 km
    Maximum: 24 / 25 km
    Max. transverse overload: 30 g
    Flight time: 8,3-17 with
    Engine running time 11,5 with
    Thrust over 11 t
    Number of missiles per launcher: 4 [21]

    S-300PS, S-300PMU with 5V55R (V-500R) missiles 1983 5–75 0,025–27 to 0,9 to 1300 96–288 3-5 5 XNUMX
    1. Bongo 4 May 2015 10: 46 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Your knowledge of Wikipedia is certainly commendable, but where did you see the discrepancy with the data provided in the publication?
      1. Professor 4 May 2015 10: 52 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Bongo
        Your knowledge of Wikipedia is certainly commendable, but where did you see the discrepancy with the data given in the publication?

        Sergey, why waste time on this troll?
        Respect to you for a series of articles. hi
        1. Bongo 4 May 2015 10: 57 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Quote: Professor
          Sergey, why waste time on this troll?

          Yes Oleg, you are absolutely right yes , I didn’t specifically take up a place and paint TTX complexes, and where it was possible I inserted active links (from your submission), for which special thanks. Before that, there were problems with the browser, apparently, because of this, links were not inserted.
          Quote: Professor
          Respect to you for a series of articles.

          Thank you! hi
          1. Malkor 4 May 2015 14: 41 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Many thanks to the author for an interesting cycle. The material is large - and what will include, what to throw out, as they say, is a household matter. I especially like examples of real military use (I’d like to look at where to read why such and such a rocket such and such a plane shot down or not shot down because of this bully ) But we can read wikis. laughing
  • LIBERATOR
    LIBERATOR 4 May 2015 08: 34 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    official name S-300PMU [29] S-300PMU1 [19] S-300PMU2 [30] S-300VM [30] Patriot PAC-2 [31] Patriot PAC-3 [32]
    Range,
    km aerodynamic targets 5–90 5–150 3–200 200 (250) 3–160 15, up to 20
    ballistic targets up to 35 to 40 5–40 40 20 [33] 15–45 [34] (20) [35]
    Height,
    km aerodynamic targets 0,025-27 0,01-27 0,01-27 0,025-30 0,06-24 15 [35]
    ballistic targets (?) (?) 2-25 1-30 3-12 15 (?) [35]
    Maximum target speed m / s 1150, up to 1300 to 2800 to 2800 4500 for ballistic targets [30] to 2200 to 1600 [35]
    The maximum speed of system missiles m / s up to 2000 [29] (?) 1900 2600 (1700) [35] 1700 [36] (?)
    the number of induced missile interceptors in a salvo up to 12 to 12 to 72 48 (?) / 96 (?) up to 24 [33] (?)
    The number of simultaneously fired targets up to 6 to 6 to 36 to 24 to 8 to 8
    Missile weight, kg 1400-1600 (?) From 330 to 1900 (?) 900 312
    The weight of the warhead, kg 150 (?) 180 (for the heaviest) [18] (?) 91 74
    Seconds between shots of the complex 3-5 3-5 3-0 (1,5 when starting from different carriers) 0 (3 when starting from different carriers) 4-1 (36 [XNUMX] when starting from different carriers) (?)
    Minutes to minimize / maximize the system 5 5 5 5 15/30 (?) 15/30 (?)
    Mobility wheeled self-propelled wheeled self-propelled wheeled self-propelled crawler self-propelled wheeled semi-trailer wheeled semi-trailer
    1. Bongo 4 May 2015 10: 48 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: LIBERANT
      official name С-300ПМУ [29] С-300ПМУ1 [19] С-300ПМУ2

      Index PMU accepted for export modifications C-300. For internal, the index is applied PM
    2. voyaka uh 4 May 2015 10: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      copy-paste learned to do. Already good for a start smile
  • LIBERATOR
    LIBERATOR 4 May 2015 08: 36 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    1900 launchers S-300PT / PS / PMU, 200 S-300V (presumably by 2012 all have been upgraded to B4 [59] [60]) as of 2013 [100];
    1. Bongo 4 May 2015 10: 49 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Quote: LIBERANT
      1900 PU C-300PT/ PS / PMU

      Do not tell me where in the Russian Federation remained in combat units C-300PT?
  • LIBERATOR
    LIBERATOR 4 May 2015 08: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Petriot sucks like he sucked
  • Thunderbolt 4 May 2015 09: 39 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Infographics on the S-300V is not accurate. Depicted guidance station 9C32, and signed that it is 9C15.
  • Zigmars 4 May 2015 12: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Vadim12
    Ukraine and with the SU-27 pumped up, with the S-300 managed to spoil. TU-160 almost sawed everything

    UK sales of two T-80s in 1992 or 1993 - here too. What is this if not a betrayal? And after all that has been done by the Ukrainian leadership over the past 25 years - do we need such “brothers”? ..
    1. Lenivets 5 May 2015 00: 32 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And what is the relationship between the "Ukrainian leadership" and the "brothers"?
      Have you already written down the entire population of the outskirts (all 30-40 million people) in the enemy?
      Aren't you afraid to stay without the “brothers" like that?
      1. Ruslan67 5 May 2015 00: 37 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Lenivets
        Aren't you afraid to stay without the “brothers" like that?

        Zampolit me instead of mom
        Commander Father Native
        On ... I’m kindred
        I'd rather be an orphan wassat
        1. Lenivets 5 May 2015 00: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Isn’t it hard for an orphan?
          Hard childhood, toys screwed to the floor ... wassat
          1. Ruslan67 5 May 2015 00: 56 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Lenivets
            Isn’t it hard for an orphan?

            Valechka wassat Have you personally known at least one politician?
            1. Lenivets 5 May 2015 00: 57 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I knew it, but did you know Ruslanochka?
              1. Ruslan67 5 May 2015 01: 00 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Is it to revive a boring evening at VO or to really get involved? what
                1. Lenivets 5 May 2015 01: 06 New
                  • -1
                  • 0
                  -1
                  "Is it to revive a boring evening at VO or to really get involved?"
                  You, as a lady of old age, could not understand my answer?
                  Well, yes and there is no need to waste time on people who have no idea about the basic rules of communication.
                  Be Ruslanka! wink
                  1. Ruslan67 5 May 2015 01: 08 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Lenivets
                    You, as a lady of old age, could not understand my answer?

                    I took it as an insult to the ... tribe of political leaders request
                    1. Zuborez 5 May 2015 02: 29 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Ruslan67
                      I took it as an insult to the ... tribe of political leaders

                      Zampolitans are people too laughing Of the six I met in 2 years, three were normal officers, well, and the rest ... according to jokes :))
                      1. Ruslan67 5 May 2015 02: 59 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Of my six, only one is funny laughing The rest of the site will not miss request And one could compete with Klitschko but not in the ring wassat
  • Vitas 4 May 2015 14: 27 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Vadim12
    Ukraine and with the SU-27 pumped up, with the S-300 managed to spoil. TU-160 almost all sawed. And Russia gave them gas discounts, loans, they also called fraternal people ...


    With 300 V - Russia was sold under the priest Yeltsin, in order to bring Antei 2500 to mind.
    watch the video from 33:40.
  • Zigmars 4 May 2015 14: 33 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The article is very interesting - it’s especially good that the author bothered to compare the development of air defense systems of different years and different countries, and he did this intelligibly, concisely and reasonably. But I have a backfill question: the naval modification of the S-300 (S-300F) when compared with the American Aegis system with its missile defense - is it really losing “in all respects”? Someone could clarify this point?
    1. Zuborez 4 May 2015 22: 51 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Zigmars
      Aegis

      This is BIUS. It solves a complex of tasks, both PLO and air defense. Depending on the ship composition of the warrant.
      Lonely Burke on the Black Sea himself and Aegis, and Petriot laughing
  • Aleksandr2012 4 May 2015 15: 05 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    I can’t say that the patriot is a bad or good system, I didn’t work on it and saw it only in the photo. But when we were taught how to work on the S300PS, we examined in detail the experience of the combat use of patriots. If three hundred were working instead of patriots, then the firing efficiency would be an order of magnitude higher. It was just on the basis of combat use that they came to the conclusion that the patriot system is, to say the least, so-so. In the early 2000s, there was nothing equal to the S300PS in terms of performance characteristics in the world. As of now, I don’t know, but I don’t think much has changed, taking into account the comparison with the S400.
    1. Bongo 4 May 2015 15: 10 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Aleksandr2012
      If instead of patriots, three hundred were working, then the firing efficiency would be on order above.

      An order of magnitude is 10 times. I treat your patriotism with understanding, but a huge request - please select the wording carefully.
      1. Aleksandr2012 4 May 2015 16: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        This is not patriotism, I write only what I personally know. In the same C300, there are many shortcomings, but in terms of comparing the effectiveness of combat use, we were voiced just such numbers)
        1. Bongo 5 May 2015 06: 43 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Aleksandr2012
          This is not patriotism, I write only what I personally know.

          Ie you say that the S-300PS air defense system is more effective than the Patriot in the sum of its combat characteristics 10 times ? wassat
  • dojjdik 4 May 2015 16: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    the Persians will never buy any weapons from the Jews and even more so air defense systems; no need to strain
  • Falcon5555 4 May 2015 17: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Well, and what is the role of air defense systems? I found only at the beginning of the article that it became "noticeable" in regional wars, but which one? What is their role? Protect objects? Point or city? Troops? Stand to death, or if possible? Or guerrilla warfare: turned on - shot - left - hid? Destroy the fleet, and objects are baits? What is the role of an air defense system - to bring down something, to shoot everything down, even cheap drones, having spent all the titanic missiles from C with hundredth numbers, hold out for 1 day, protect only from sudden raids (and then let the aircraft work), hide and save weapons? Rhetorical questions.
  • Denimax 4 May 2015 18: 18 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Professor
    If the United States sold Patriots to Iran, then Israel would have squealed just like that. A monkey with a grenade is a dangerous phenomenon.

    Why do you think Iranians are “monkeys”? It seems to be people too.
  • Denimax 4 May 2015 18: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    The effectiveness of a nuclear ballistic missile is close to zero since it cannot be used. They can only deal with phalometry.

    Press the button, and there will be a result (from a song). In general, nuclear weapons have long been effective, even while in mines. For simplicity, such owners are not attacked.
  • tracker 4 May 2015 19: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And what can be doubts about the combat effectiveness of the S-300 and S-400 if the previous generations of the S-75, S-125, Kub, etc. air defense systems were proved in real battles
  • Radikal 4 May 2015 20: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the early 90s, elements of the S-300PT air defense system (without launchers and missiles) were delivered for “familiarization” in the USA. This made it possible for our "partners" to familiarize themselves in detail with the characteristics of radio equipment and to develop countermeasures.
    Not yet translated all the traitors in Russia! angry
  • Redfox3k 4 May 2015 23: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Shoot down passenger Boeings a lot of intelligence and efficiency is not necessary.

    Well, it’s you who contact your American friends, they are specialists in this matter, there is even a successful application - the Iranian Boeing, shot down in 1988
  • Zigmars 5 May 2015 02: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Lenivets
    And what is the relationship between the "Ukrainian leadership" and the "brothers"?
    Have you already written down the entire population of the outskirts (all 30-40 million people) in the enemy?
    Aren't you afraid to stay without the “brothers" like that?

    Do you want to say that ordinary Ukrainians have nothing to do with the processes that have taken place in Ukraine for the past 25 years? The political elite, from 1990-1991, actively exaggerated the theme of the so-called "independence", which in fact - except for the exclamations "Glory to Ukraine!" and "heroes" such as Mazepa, Bandera and Shukhevych - was little reinforced. What this led to - we now see everything perfectly, and to think that these are just mistakes by Ukrainian leaders would be extremely primitive. The problems that Ukraine is now experiencing are the result of many years of delusions of the entire Ukrainian people, their guilt and their tragedy. Today Ukraine - no matter how bold my words may seem - has no future. Ahead is only devastation and decline. Long-term debt bondage, which has nothing and nothing to recover from. I am sure that in 20 years, the Ukrainians themselves will begin to give different assessments of current events. Remember my words.
    But brother, constantly letting down and betraying another brother - would you yourself need to? Personally, I don’t.
  • Alex_59 6 May 2015 14: 47 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    As of 2009, the year in the air defense of the Russian Federation was:
    54 Division C-300PS
    32 Division C-300ПМ
    4 Division C-400

    This does not include C-300 complexes that are part of the Navy (Sevastopol, Kamchatka).
    1. Bongo 6 May 2015 15: 23 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      As of 2009, the year in the air defense of the Russian Federation was:
      54 Division C-300PS
      32 Division C-300ПМ
      4 Division C-400

      This does not include C-300 complexes that are part of the Navy (Sevastopol, Kamchatka).


      What are you talking about?