American Patriot "too tough" Russian "Iskander"

The tactical missile system "Iskander", an indispensable participant in various exhibitions and salons, personifies the strike power of the Russian ground forces. He is not afraid of even the latest versions of the American air defense system "Patriot", the agency writes Messenger of Mordovia.


American Patriot "too tough" Russian "Iskander"


“The launcher of the complex is made on the chassis of a highly mobile four-axle vehicle of high traffic. Its weight is more than 42 t. Maximum speed - up to 80 km / h. Power reserve - up to 1000 km. Crew - 3 people. Number of missiles on one PU - 2 pcs. The flight range of the export version of the Iskander-E is 280 km. Versions for the Russian army are even more long-range, according to some data - up to 500 km ", - leads the agency characteristics of OTRK.

According to the developers, “the missiles of the complex are made using Stealth technology; they can maneuver during the flight and hide behind various interferences.”



As for the American Patriot, it can successfully fight only with outdated Scud missiles, while the latest Russian developments, it is still too hard for them.

“Therefore, the operational-tactical missile systems of the new generation are an excellent deterrent from various military provocations of potential opponents who hope to sit under an American anti-aircraft umbrella. Will not work. Retribution will be swift and guaranteed, ”concludes the Herald of Mordovia.

Photos used:
http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. roskot 7 September 2015 12: 27 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    Let them not rely on the American umbrella. His Iskander patted.
    1. Finches 7 September 2015 12: 31 New
      • 48
      • 0
      +48
      Oh! Miloshivich would have had these complexes at the time, but the S-300 still ....! Europe would have been different now!
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. siberalt 7 September 2015 12: 35 New
        • 91
        • 0
        +91
        Oh, if Kutuzov had machine guns and “city”, they would not have surrendered Moscow! laughing
        1. Now we are free 7 September 2015 12: 44 New
          • 34
          • 0
          +34
          Hmm, that the “Patriots” did not really help the Saudis against the old antediluvian “Tochka-U” in the hands of the “Highly Qualified” Husits ​​... What can we say about “Iskander-M”?
          1. Byshido_dis 7 September 2015 13: 29 New
            • 9
            • 0
            +9
            If there were 5 times more such complexes. Then it seems to me not a single mongrel would not open his mouth in Europe ....
            1. gav6757 8 September 2015 23: 40 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Iskander?
              About tsilo !!!
          2. sir.jonn 7 September 2015 14: 09 New
            • 8
            • 0
            +8
            Quote: Now we are free
            Hmm, that the “Patriots” did not really help the Saudis against the old antediluvian “Tochka-U” in the hands of the “Highly Qualified” Husits ​​... What can we say about “Iskander-M”?


            About the Tochka-U strike is an assumption of not competent sources. The Saudis, with their unreasonable losses due to illiterate actions, even the RPG-7 grenade will be presented as the latest generation ATGM.
            1. Tusv 7 September 2015 14: 23 New
              • 10
              • 0
              +10
              Quote: sir.jonn
              even the RPG-7 grenade will be presented as the latest generation ATGM.

              So the seventh RPG inherited according to NATO and Israeli technology and ours, purer than any Jewels. Etozh the same Kalash, only shoots from the shoulder and against turntables and tanks
          3. unclevad 8 September 2015 17: 37 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            "Skuds" they also missed.
            "After the war, the official army statistics on the effectiveness of the Patriot system gradually lowered its ratings:
            in March 1991, the overall success rate was 96%; in may 1991
            years - 69%; and 1992% in April 59. "http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/en/archive/sgsr08sullivan.pdf
          4. ism_ek 9 September 2015 16: 39 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            To bring down Point U is not at all trivial. Flight time - 20 ... 30 seconds
        2. Finches 7 September 2015 13: 20 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          It's good that at least Alexander Nevsky was remembered! laughing
        3. svp67 8 September 2015 14: 25 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: siberalt
          Oh, if Kutuzov had machine guns and “city”, they would not have surrendered Moscow!
          I’m afraid that Napoleon would have had “things” and tanks ...
        4. Archon 8 September 2015 15: 06 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          and if in the 1200's in Russia there were T-90, then Genghis Khan would not have climbed.
          1. Uncle VasyaSayapin 8 September 2015 17: 15 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            And if in Russia Genghis Khan was the head of the administration of the Trans-Baikal Territory, then the T-90 would not be needed.
        5. Uncle VasyaSayapin 8 September 2015 17: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Not, for the existing infrastructure, a Jedi detachment, hand dragons, giant eagles, or at least the army of the dead, headed by Aragorn, are better.
        6. satris 9 September 2015 06: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And Napoleon has the Mistral. He would not have left Paris either: he would have been looking for where to attach them. smile
      3. Tusv 7 September 2015 12: 39 New
        • 14
        • 0
        +14
        Quote: Finches
        Oh! Miloshivich would have had these complexes at the time, but the S-300 still ....! Europe would have been different now!

        Des about three hundred delayed the bombing for a month. But this is what Slobadan thought when he received such a reprieve
        1. Maj. 7 September 2015 20: 40 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I thought to sell not to sell, they won’t help, but at the same time, our elite rotted in full swing. That's the result.
          1. ZKB
            ZKB 8 September 2015 02: 01 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            but I think they sold it ...
      4. Imigrantt 7 September 2015 12: 39 New
        • 28
        • 0
        +28
        Oh! Miloshivich would have had these complexes at the time, but the S-300 still ....! Europe would have been different now!
        YES AND THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE US AT THIS TIME OTHER !!! EVERYTHING WOULD BE ELSE !!!! hi
        1. sneg6680 8 September 2015 12: 18 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          But Yeltsin drank not only Russia but also other countries
          1. damirez 10 September 2015 06: 45 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            let me ask a rhetorical question: "Why then voted for such a president?"
      5. Anti-ukra 7 September 2015 12: 41 New
        • 24
        • 0
        +24
        Oh, if my grandmother had .... th she would be a grandfather. laughing
        1. Tusv 7 September 2015 14: 06 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: Anti-Ukr
          Oh, if my grandmother had .... th she would be a grandfather.

          In this case, another variation of this saying is probably more suitable:
          Grandma remembered when she was grandfather
      6. MIKHAN 7 September 2015 12: 43 New
        • 25
        • 0
        +25
        "Patriot" but not that ...! The Iskanders think only for seed ... There is something else I think, it is not in vain that Putin is so calm and impudent with the West!
        1. kocclissi 7 September 2015 13: 44 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          So they are afraid of cruise missiles:
          1. Tusv 7 September 2015 14: 16 New
            • 10
            • 0
            +10
            What is the difference between Xa one hundred and Xa 102. They say that the first is not nuclear. BUT love TTX rolls over. Little Johnny promised a carabile variant - the Pentagon is hysterical. EPR is low, Range and speed are a dream. It is a pity that so far only a white swan can carry these birds
            1. shans2 7 September 2015 19: 18 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              the 95 on the external sling carries 8 pieces, there are pictures on the network.
              1. VeteranS 8 September 2015 08: 14 New
                • 9
                • 0
                +9
                In 1971, I served as an air gunner and radio operator for military service on the Tu-95, participated in the Yug exercises ... So, under the fuselage we carried one cruise missile (unmanned aerial vehicle) ... At a distance of almost 500 km. they made a launch to the target (an American group with an aircraft carrier) ... a rocket first flew along the radio beam of guidance, and then on its own ... there could be a nuclear warhead in the bow of the rocket ... for several km. wings were shot to her target and she flew at great speed like a real rocket (bomb) at a target ... I can imagine how powerful our modernized TU-95s are now .... Let the Americans go with diapers like that, they will be very useful to them when meeting with our cruise missiles!
                1. satris 9 September 2015 06: 39 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  And so the diapers are Kevlar! smile
            2. Boa kaa 8 September 2015 15: 05 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Tusv
              It is a pity that so far only a white swan can carry these birds

              There was infa that 885 ave. Also armed with this charm.
            3. Koshak 9 September 2015 18: 15 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Tusv
              It is a pity that so far only a white swan can carry these birds

              I would not be surprised if it turns out that we have somewhere in the stash there is a ground version of the X-101 (102) It is not for nothing that the Yankees lament about the violation of the INF Treaty.
          2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Vadim237 7 September 2015 15: 08 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Patriot will not protect against Iskanders, but the THHAD missile defense system is likely to be able, Germany decided to purchase this complex.
      7. Polite Moose 7 September 2015 14: 14 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Quote: Finches
        Oh! Miloshivich would have had these complexes at the time, but the S-300 still ....! Europe would have been different now!


        During Milosevic’s time, we would have had a different president. Europe would have been different now.
      8. go21zd45few 8 September 2015 10: 27 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        But the Serbs fellows, from the "double-barreled shotgun" shot down their invulnerable, and invisible aircraft, here you have the stealth technology. Goal fudge cunning well done.
      9. vyinemeynen 8 September 2015 22: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In an interview with Dejan Deci (a Serbian sniper in LDNR), he said that Russia offered Serbia to acquire the S-300 even in very generous installments, but Serbia REFUSED!
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. dr.Bo 7 September 2015 12: 39 New
        • 12
        • 0
        +12
        The article does not seem to be about anything, but acts as a "balm for the soul."
    3. Silkway0026 7 September 2015 13: 29 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      Most likely they are hoping for Iron Bonce, ugh you !!!, Dome. According to the latest information, the Dome is very advanced - now it intercepts not only sewer pipes, but even water pipes ... The truth is not all, but it has already begun!
      1. shans2 7 September 2015 19: 20 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        by night there will be an explosion of zhydobandera on your comment)
    4. marlin1203 7 September 2015 14: 08 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Don’t all hope so for Iskander in the “big batch”. The complex is beautiful, but it is a precision weapon for single point strikes on key targets (bridges, bases, command posts, launch points) and there are not thousands of them. The main role in the battle will still be played by artillery and, as recent events show, MLRS, and also, oddly enough, tanks, which many analysts have already written off as the main striking force.
    5. sneg6680 8 September 2015 12: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Escander steers !!! Russia forward!
    6. bekjan 9 September 2015 18: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Strong modesty adorned !!!
  2. vadson 7 September 2015 12: 28 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    but how they wanted to deprive us of this type of weapon from the mattresses, they even chatted with missiles to cut them, although you could send them away
    1. kartalovkolya 7 September 2015 12: 55 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      They didn’t "chat", but ordered, because the agent has no choice! And then they hung a medal “For the victory over the USSR in the Cold War”, I don’t know why, after all this, the “labeled” one is alive and prospering! Yes, the corresponding organs were almost completely destroyed by him, and the remaining ones were in the position of the letter “ЗУ”, in the sense : "... what you please ...", but really there wasn’t at least one well-aimed shooter ?!
      1. Nyrobsky 7 September 2015 13: 07 New
        • 17
        • 0
        +17
        Quote: kartalovkolya
        They didn’t "chat", but ordered, because the agent has no choice! And then they hung a medal "For the victory over the USSR in the Cold War"

        Well, nothing, soon we will play the situation in the opposite direction. We are not vindictive - just a good memory
        1. Maj. 7 September 2015 20: 45 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          no shit, we are brakes and forgive everything, but in vain.
      2. sneg6680 8 September 2015 12: 25 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        It was necessary to fill up another hunchbacked country now for sure!
  3. Vladimir 1964 7 September 2015 12: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The complex is excellent, only the author of the publication, or the one who came up with a similar phrase

    According to the developers, "the missiles of the complex are made using the Stealth technology, they can maneuver during the flight, hide behind various obstacles."


    I could not disclose it in more detail (within the permissible).
    1. Puler 7 September 2015 12: 42 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Maximum target range:
      500 km Iskander-K (2000 km with a cruise missile R-500) If you believe Wikipedia ...
      1. Vadim237 7 September 2015 15: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The P 500 rocket has a launch range of 500 kilometers.
      2. sneg6680 8 September 2015 12: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        It turns out that the complex is both short and medium range!
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Mera joota 7 September 2015 13: 19 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Vladimir 1964
      I could not disclose it in more detail (within the permissible).

      In order to understand that what has been said is nothing more than idle talk, just look at 9M723. Cone and cylinder with wings, stealth no more than any other OTRK missile. This is with regards to stealth.
      9M723 can maneuver (intensively with high overload) only with an undeveloped solid-fuel engine, as soon as it burns out (terminal section), the efficiency of gas-dynamic rudders is multiplied by zero. From aerodynamic rudders at heights of 10km. and above there is no sense.
      This is about maneuverability.
      1. VP
        VP 7 September 2015 14: 44 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        It’s good to be able to determine all the performance characteristics with a look at the picture, I envy wink
        A single-stage rocket with a solid-fuel engine working not only at launch, it is enough to maneuver on the trajectory and maneuver when approaching the target.
        Gas-dynamic rudders operate the entire flight route.
        Housing with a radar absorbing surface.
        1. Mera joota 7 September 2015 20: 56 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: VP
          A single-stage rocket with a solid-fuel engine working not only at launch, it is enough to maneuver on the trajectory and maneuver when approaching the target.
          Gas-dynamic rudders operate the entire flight route.

          And who tells you such nonsense ...
          Simple parsing. The developer claims that the 9M723 rocket has a flight range of 500 km., While achieving a maximum speed of 2100 m / s. Note that this is the maximum achievable speed, the average speed of the rocket is much lower. But we can omit this question because the average speed is not known to us. Let’s take as a basis the speed of 2 m / s with which the rocket flies 100 m. It is not difficult to calculate the time for which the rocket will fly this distance, 500 seconds! Those. almost 000 minutes! Where have you seen a solid propellant rocket burner capable of burning such a time? What will be its size? For comparison. The mass of the first stage of the Trident-238D4 ICBM is 2! Tons, of which 5 tons account for solid fuel. The operating time of the first stage (until complete burnout) is 38 seconds., During this time the first stage raises ICBMs to a height of only 35,5 km. You can compare with our solid propellant rocket engines, on the Point-U propulsion system of the 68M30 rocket it works for a maximum of 9 seconds.
          Therefore, leave these stupid conjectures that the solid propellant rocket engine works on the entire flight site.
      2. SIvan 7 September 2015 17: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Mera Joota
        9M723 can maneuver (intensively with high overload) only with an undeveloped solid-fuel engine, as soon as it burns out (terminal section), the efficiency of gas-dynamic rudders is multiplied by zero.

        This is disa. A few months ago has already been discussed. Now I can’t find it right away, but the gas-dynamic rudders work throughout the flight.
        1. Mera joota 7 September 2015 21: 01 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: SIvan
          Now I can’t find it right away, but the gas-dynamic rudders work throughout the flight.

          And you will not find. The operation of gas-dynamic rudders requires the operation of a solid propellant rocket engine. The operating time of the solid propellant rocket engine does not exceed 30-40 seconds, this is their peculiarity, it is impossible to turn off the solid propellant rocket for a while and how to reduce the fuel supply on the liquid propellant rocket engine.
          The range is 500 m., The maximum speed is 000 m / s, the speed at the terminal section is 2 m / s. (http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-100.html), it’s not difficult to calculate the flight time that you think is equal to the operating time of the solid propellant rocket engine ...
      3. Lenivets 7 September 2015 22: 03 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        "From the aerodynamic rudders at altitudes of 10 km. And above there is no sense."
        Yes you are raving! belay

        Replace 10 km. 30 km. and then you go around. hi
  4. Rurikovich 7 September 2015 12: 29 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    “Patriot” and “Scuds” “successfully” fought only because they knew when, what and where it was flying from! In the case of this air defense system, the defense is weaker than the attack! And even if our S-300 family is constantly improving, then this cannot be said about the Patriot. Yesterday...
    Well, just so that the local Euro-indigenous people sleep peacefully, then you can put this junk to them wink And even more so, in the wake of hysterical Russophobia, the ancient lol
    1. Tusv 7 September 2015 12: 56 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Quote: Rurikovich
      And even if our S-300 family is constantly improving, then this cannot be said about the Patriot.

      "The professor may be a mug, but the equipment is with him."
      The third version of Patriot is at a decent level. In terms of escort, our four hundred is an order of magnitude higher. But this complex has 2 drawbacks. As you don’t upgrade, you still can’t reduce the reaction time below 25 seconds, and the second, most important one. A satellite in such weather as it is now over Moscow distorts information.
      Therefore, even one hundred and twenty-fifth is better than Patriot.
      Our complexes are good in that they have the main function of landing, and we trust RTV to watch
      1. Rurikovich 7 September 2015 22: 35 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        That and that. Ours are designed not for beauty, but for business. wink
        And it would be interesting to watch our reaction to the type When it's cloudy, don’t shoot at us, otherwise our satellites are blind and we can’t answer. " laughing Although the "Patriots" should not be underestimated ... But still they do not reach our heights, do not reach! hi
  5. bronik 7 September 2015 12: 31 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    The article inspires us with optimism, and we won’t be worried about the state mongrels.
  6. sever.56 7 September 2015 12: 31 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The thing is that our developers are ahead of the curve. "Iskander", "Yars", "Armata" and much more, an example.
  7. Tusv 7 September 2015 12: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    according to some reports - up to 500 km

    And Americans trynd about 2500. What data to believe? Around deception, as well as the flight of this bird. But still this is a solitary pebble (in NATO terminology) gets off, even the 125th. True, if the Starts (starting battery) have time to reload the PU in 25 seconds on the rocket. The first salvo of 16 missiles will not be enough
  8. RUSIVAN 7 September 2015 12: 36 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    Our "Iskanders" are the best hangovers for western badianish heads ...
  9. rotmistr60 7 September 2015 12: 39 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Rurikovich
    our S-300 family is constantly improving, it’s impossible to say about the Patriot

    I agree with you. Not only that, it turns out that even with the not bad characteristics of the American complex, the main violin was played by PR. You need to sell, but to successfully sell you need excellent advertising, plus “soft” pressure on your NATO partners.
    1. slavaisrael 7 September 2015 13: 02 New
      • -5
      • 0
      -5
      You know, of course you can with caps. But. This complex was not intended to defeat UAVs, but several months ago, Israeli air defense in the Golan Heights by the Patriot complex successfully shot down UAVs (most likely of Iranian origin). At the same time, we have Block 3 in service, and the Americans already have Block 4. On the set, you can clearly see how 2 missiles were fired, the first hit the target and, in the absence of such, it self-destructed as it should in an air defense missile.
      1. VP
        VP 7 September 2015 14: 33 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        There is little difference in shooting down a low-speed UAV that even the Wasp will take, the main thing is to detect a missile flying at a speed of over 7,5 thousand km / h. going along a quasi-ballistic (and therefore not calculable) trajectory.
        1. slavaisrael 7 September 2015 15: 38 New
          • -16
          • 0
          -16
          So why fence the garden? If 40 year old air defense systems are capable of shooting down modern aircraft. Can then build new hospitals instead of missiles? After all, and so has no analogue in the world.
          1. Stanislas 7 September 2015 17: 46 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: slavaisrael
            After all, and so has no analogue in the world
            Envy is a bad feeling.
          2. mitrich 7 September 2015 18: 18 New
            • 14
            • 0
            +14
            Well, of course, where can we be a sibling, only among the God-chosen and their master, without whom they would not have been able to survive a month, everything is kosher, but we have made rusty or made from turnips. Already got their orthodox propaganda.
            1. a-cola 8 September 2015 16: 00 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              How intelligently and figuratively said! Plus! Sorry plus only one ...
            2. a-cola 8 September 2015 16: 00 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              How intelligently and figuratively said! Plus! Sorry plus only one ...
          3. mitrich 7 September 2015 18: 18 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Well, of course, where can we be a sibling, only among the God-chosen and their master, without whom they would not have been able to survive a month, everything is kosher, but we have made rusty or made from turnips. Already got their orthodox propaganda.
          4. Xergey 7 September 2015 22: 07 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            It’s good to build in you, of course, but as soon as you are amer’s bent to the fullest, that’s why you live quietly with your legs apart, you’ll still be handled like hohlam, but we need to protect and feed ourselves, so we live as we can and you live like you conscience tells.
          5. satris 9 September 2015 06: 47 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            "We have already overtaken everyone in the number of doctors. Now we would be left behind in the number of patients" - M. Zhvanetsky. "The salvation of drowning - the work of the drowning themselves" - Ilf and Petrov. Exercise and you won’t need doctors.
      2. Tusv 7 September 2015 15: 00 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: slavaisrael
        This complex was not intended to defeat UAVs, but several months ago, Israeli air defense in the Golan Heights by the Patriot complex successfully shot down UAVs

        Count it up. The UAV shell can shoot down offline. Type pressed the button and a beer truck to drink beer. When I looked at it - the eyes themselves on the ass wanted to be pulled.
        And even it is not easy to bring down a sound ax, but a maneuvering seven-swing fool learns, learns and learns. And Onyx Americans still can’t cut
        1. slavaisrael 7 September 2015 15: 13 New
          • -13
          • 0
          -13
          Play less games.
          1. Volzhanin 8 September 2015 12: 44 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            In "toys", as we see from history, Jankermans and aglosaxes play with the Zionists. They won’t play enough at war.
            All climb and climb into our garden, do not calm down ...
            The question is - what the hell do you all here in Russia need? Smeared with honey?
            Some of them exist on a miserable islet, others live on another continent - what the hell are being screwed to our mainland? Let their blacks spud. Still others, in theory, Stalin, should erect monuments and pray, as if they were God for the given territory.

            How lucky you all are that Russian people are not evil and not greedy. But don’t make us angry if you don’t want your existence to end. But we can arrange it. So, Jewish citizens, close your mouth and do not yap at Russia. You are still alive only thanks to her!
  10. arane 7 September 2015 12: 44 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Do you really consider the messenger of Mordovia a source of expert truth? Something skepticism parses me ......
    Iskander, of course, the Pts Pts system is good, and is probably capable of breaking through the air defense system based on the Patriot. But, as it’s not so simple .....
    I am not an expert in air defense, I can’t say anything, but .....

    Compare with the scud is not correct! A skud is an iron pipe flying along ballistics not very far and not very fast, without any maneuvers there. In essence, this is a Soviet rocket of the beginning of the era of missile weapons!

    I would like to hear the opinion of experts in this matter .....
    1. Barakuda 7 September 2015 13: 06 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      SCAD is an excellent target, as Patriot missed it, the mind is incomprehensible. If we fired at Katyusha shells (they really screwed the reflector) from the OS, we would have hit the scad for sure.
      And who is the true owner of the "Messenger of Mordovia", can anyone in the know?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Mera joota 7 September 2015 13: 23 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Barracuda
        SCAD is an excellent target, as Patriot missed it, the mind is incomprehensible.

        It didn’t miss, and the warhead of the missile launcher could not always disable the warhead of the Scud. Different things. Therefore, the Americans relied on the principle of hit-to-kill and successfully implemented it.
      3. satris 9 September 2015 06: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It misses very simply: SCAD is an iron pipe (see above), and the iron rusts. And rust is non-magnetic and does not reflect radio waves. That miss. smile
    2. Generalissimus 7 September 2015 13: 22 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      The Bulletin of Mordovia is a source that provides information on the military topics of precisely the expert class. Moreover, often the Bulletin of Mordovia is generally the only source on a particular topic on the military-industrial complex, which knows something among the media. And experts are accustomed to trust the information of the Bulletin of Mordovia. Both for the quality of information and for reliability.
    3. VP
      VP 7 September 2015 14: 58 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      And what does the source have to do with it?
      Just compare the performance characteristics of the complex and the latest Patriot.
      Iskander can fly at an altitude of 50 km, the Patriot PAK-3 operates at 15-20.
      Those. interception is theoretically possible only when diving Iskander missiles at a target.
      The Patriot PAC-3 has a maximum target speed of 1600 m / s. Iskander has a rocket speed of 2100 m / s. On a dive, probably more.
      PAC-1 has a higher target speed than treshka, up to 2500 m / s. But it can intercept a missile up to 1800. At the same time, it works with a low probability on tactical missiles, somewhere around 0,3. If a tactical missile maneuvers, then the probability is generally awful, even if the speed of the tactical missile is in the permissible range and not like that of Iskander in excess.
  11. MolGro 7 September 2015 12: 49 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Yes, actually the scads were too tough for them.
    1. Vadim237 7 September 2015 15: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      This Scuds to the first generation Patriotov was too tough, but no one knows the following modifications of PAC 2 and PAC 3.
  12. MIKHAN 7 September 2015 12: 50 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    The guys mishap .... Beautiful dears went, trembling straight through the body!
    1. inpu 7 September 2015 13: 00 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Yes, magic ...

      They would have shown where it went. : /
  13. pasha88tt 7 September 2015 12: 50 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    Of course too tough, in fear the whole of Europe! )))
  14. kartalovkolya 7 September 2015 13: 02 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Well now, the "experts" will quit their business and begin to divulge "military secrets", no one will ever tell you anything other than general phrases about Iskander and will not show! And to draw conclusions from Wikipedia and from our statements is not quite partners "just stupid!
    1. arane 7 September 2015 13: 32 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: kartalovkolya
      Well now, the "experts" will quit their business and begin to divulge "military secrets", no one will ever tell you anything other than general phrases about Iskander and will not show! And to draw conclusions from Wikipedia and from our statements is not quite partners "just stupid!


      Actually, dear Kartalov Kolya, I was interested in the opinion of experts regarding the capabilities of the patriot as an air defense system as a whole! Nevertheless, plus you for your vigilance! The enemy is eavesdropping!

      The article is propaganda in nature and may not have anything with reality! From this article we can conclude that our potential adversary has no air defense per se! So, shoot down the skads, and then through one!
      Underestimating the enemy always leads to disastrous results.
    2. VP
      VP 7 September 2015 15: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Iskander-E has long been sold for export.
  15. starshina pv 7 September 2015 13: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    well done, "Messenger of Mordovia"! zapadentsy cry!
  16. BOB044 7 September 2015 13: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    They rest under an American umbrella, and the earth will rest in peace for them. laughing
  17. Mera joota 7 September 2015 13: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Kindergarten ... What makes everyone think that the Iskander is afraid in the West? 500 kg warhead capable of relatively accurately hit when launched from a distance of 500 km. So what? The worse a plane with a range of much more than 500km. with 500kg. a smart bomb
    Well, at the expense of the integrity of Iskander. OTR 9M723 can maneuver only when the solid propellant rocket engine is running, after fuel is exhausted (that is, in the terminal section) maneuvers are possible only with aerodynamic surfaces whose efficiency occurs only at altitudes below 10 km.
    The fact that the Patriot can shoot down the CC at altitudes of more than 10 km. I hope it’s no secret to anyone, even in the last century older air defense systems were also able to do this.
    The question then is why on 9M723 gas-dynamic rudders? So that the enemy could not calculate the flight path, and not in order to get away from the interceptor missile.
    1. slavaisrael 7 September 2015 13: 56 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Or maybe these very aerodynamic wheels just simply adjust the battle head on the target. Without any anti-aircraft maneuver? I can hardly imagine the maneuver of a ballistic missile in the final section. This is balistic.
  18. 31rus 7 September 2015 13: 48 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Exactly, one cannot hope that Iskander is a panacea, everything should “work” in a complex, intelligence, rap, aviation, narcotics, then there will be an effect and, of course, do not stop improving and developing new
  19. Volonter 7 September 2015 14: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    He is not afraid of even the most recent versions of the American Patriot air defense system, writes the Bulletin of Mordovia


    Sorry, but the source is from the category of OBS (one grandmother said). It may be true, but there are no reliable data or practical results. And thank God, by the way.

    The reaction of some commentators is simply surprising: they wrote something on the website of some agency - “well, now we’ll tear everyone apart!”, “You can sleep peacefully!”, “We are the very best!”, “Hurray, Hurray, Hurray! ", and jokes about diapers. Reminds Americans with their faith in their own exclusiveness, because they said so on TV ...

    It seems that on this site more and more trolls of varying degrees of thickness are fed from Savushkin. Sometimes it’s disgusting to read.
    1. Tusv 7 September 2015 14: 43 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Volonter
      The reaction of some commentators is simply surprising: they wrote something on the website of some agency - “well, now we’ll tear everyone apart!”, “You can sleep peacefully!”, “We are the very best!”, “Hurray, Hurray, Hurray! ", and jokes about diapers. Reminds Americans with their faith in their own exclusiveness, because they said so on TV ...

      Just go down and serve for the good of the motherland. You learn a lot about patriotism and the reliability of our technology. For example, the combat readiness of P-12/18 is treated by advancing the block - everything glows, then everything is in order, it does not glow - replaced and sees everything again. Now replacing the hard drive on the server also looks like. How simple it all turns out.
      We also have caps measured in megatons, you will throw a couple and they will think there, and if life is on Mars.
      It would be different, we would speak English obscene, but why do we need this lack of language?
  20. VP
    VP 7 September 2015 15: 24 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: Mera Joota
    The worse a plane with a range of much more than 500km. with 500kg. a smart bomb

    Vulnerability.
    The ratio of the cost of the aircraft + bombs versus the cost of the rocket.
    Mobility: a missile can be struck from any ravine; it is not tied to airfield infrastructure. And for the next strike, you do not need to return to base.
    Range: Iskander has two missiles, one at 500, the other at 2500 (winged)
    Quote: Mera Joota
    The fact that the Patriot can shoot down the CC at altitudes of more than 10 km. I hope it’s no secret to anyone, even in the last century older air defense systems were also able to do this.

    Of course it’s no secret. The ceiling of the Patriot is 20-25. Iskander can go at 50.
    Quote: Mera Joota
    OTR 9M723 can only be maneuvered with a solid propellant rocket engine running, after fuel has been exhausted (that is, at the terminal section)

    Who told you that her fuel is produced at startup? All sources that I met unequivocally say that there is enough fuel for both route and finish maneuvering. Drop the link to your source.
    Quote: Mera Joota
    maneuvers are possible only with aerodynamic surfaces whose effectiveness occurs only at altitudes below 10 km.

    Moreover - after the launch, the rocket tilts aerodynamic planes in order to reduce visibility laughing And then it is controlled by what you stubbornly refuse to it - in a gas-dynamic way.
    1. slavaisrael 7 September 2015 15: 41 New
      • -5
      • 0
      -5
      Well, at least do not write frank nonsense -
      Who told you that her fuel is produced at startup? All sources that I met unequivocally say that there is enough fuel for both route and finish maneuvering. Drop the link to your source.

      All ground-to-ground missile rockets produce fuel to their climax.
      1. Generalissimus 7 September 2015 16: 22 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        That's really really stupid winked
        But how convincing!

        As for Iskander, then his engine runs until it hits the target.
        And his ability to overcome air defense is based on this, in addition to the notorious stealth technologies - on a highly maneuverable movement to the target along a non-ballistic trajectory. The so-called quasi-ballistic. And the movement of Iskander is adjusted before it hits the target and, moreover, Iskander is able to change the target altogether.
        1. Mera joota 7 September 2015 21: 38 New
          • -1
          • 0
          -1
          Quote: Generalissimus
          As for Iskander, then his engine runs until it hits the target.

          Indicate the operating hours of the solid propellant rocket motor to confirm your words.
      2. Absurdidat 7 September 2015 23: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Look online for videos with comments from developers. Iskander is so scary that NP is like everyone else.
    2. Mera joota 7 September 2015 21: 30 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Quote: VP
      Vulnerability.

      Come on. F-35 equipped with two UAB JSOW-ER with a range of 200 km. able to complete the task that Iskander is much more effective, moreover, unlike Iskander, it can be recalled from the task. And with stealth technologies and with the capabilities of REB it is much better than the 9M723. Not to mention the great range and flexibility of use.
      Of course it’s no secret. The ceiling of the Patriot is 20-25. Iskander can go at 50.

      So what? Doesn’t it fall below 50? Let's say the MIM-104F hits 9M723 with a direct hit at an altitude of 10 km. What will it change? Only if the air defense system will be located not at the target, but on the way to it ...
      Quote: VP
      Who told you that her fuel is produced at startup?

      Elementary calculations.
      Quote: VP
      All sources that I met unequivocally claim that there is enough fuel for both route and finish maneuvering. Drop the link to your source.

      Which sources? Patriotic editions? For example, the recognized authority of DIMMI, which is maintained by the site http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-816.html, cites data at a speed of 9M723:

      Airspeed - 2100 m / s
      Speed ​​at the target - 700-800 m / s

      How can you explain a three-fold drop in speed with a solid propellant rocket engine running? Yes, everything is simple, he has the same:
      The range of the active section of the trajectory is 12-15 km

      If this is not enough for you, then you can calculate the flight time of a rocket at a distance of 500 km., The maximum speed is 2100 m / s, and the target has 800 m / s. If you take it at maximum speed, it turns out (according to your statement) that the solid propellant rocket propellant will last 4 minutes, which is simply unthinkable for such a meager amount of solid fuel. For example, MTKK Space Shuttle side accelerator having 500! tons of solid fuel runs for about 80 seconds.
      PS: If domestic chemists developed a solid fuel capable of weighing about 3 tons. burn for 4 minutes with a specific impulse like a 9M723 missile, then an ICBM with a range of 11 km. would be transported in an ordinary semi-trailer, and not on semi-axial MAZs.
      1. Absurdidat 7 September 2015 23: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Mera Joota
        For example, MTKK Space Shuttle side accelerator having 500! tons of solid fuel runs for about 80 seconds.

        You uncle do not try on these "examples". No logic. You’re better to mate the part precisely on the Iskander teach.
      2. SIvan 8 September 2015 12: 56 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Mera Joota
        Which sources? Patriotic editions? For example, the recognized authority of DIMMI, which is the site http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-816.html, cites data at a speed of 9M723 ...


        You, apparently, did not notice that the link you provided says, for example, this:
        Quote: http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-816.html
        Control and guidance system - autonomous inertial missile control system (developed by TsNIIAG, Moscow), the missile is controlled by the control system throughout the flight. The control system is built on the basis of a gyro-stabilized platform (GSP) and a digital computer (analogous to the OTR "Point"). When using missiles with GOS, the digital computer of the inertial missile control system corrects the trajectory according to the GOS. Management is carried out using aerodynamic and gas-jet rudders and, probably, on the missile part 9M723-1 gasdynamically using reusable shunting solid propellant rocket engines or using a gas generator. The warhead is inseparable.


        Therefore, not everything is so simple (s)
  21. atamankko 7 September 2015 16: 07 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I don’t give a damn about a potential adversary,
    and a readiness check should be carried out regularly, which is done.
  22. yuriy55 7 September 2015 16: 43 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I like everything, especially clips with rocket launches. But when I see a battery commander with flags in his hands, running ahead of the installation, I recall the years of my service, when I could only dream of intercoms ...
    PS In the conditions of the enemy’s use of electronic warfare and in daylight - it is irreplaceable ... good
    1. Stanislas 7 September 2015 17: 56 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: yuriy55
      one could only dream of intercoms
      It is necessary that the driver sees the dimensions, and not "talked about the device."
  23. voyaka uh 7 September 2015 16: 44 New
    • -3
    • 0
    -3
    Here is the Iskander rocket. Short rudders at the rear
    for flight stability.
    There are no steering wheels for maneuverability in the bow.
    Not noticeable holes on the sides of the body - gas-dynamic rudders.
    It is not clear to me how a rocket of this form can maneuver.
    If someone understands - explain.
    1. tehnoluks 7 September 2015 17: 11 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Why the hell do you need it, "general" ?! The less you know the better you sleep )
    2. Generalissimus 7 September 2015 17: 44 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      The "openings on the sides of the housing" would obviously indicate the use of control shunt engines on the product, which use liquid fuel, since the TT is activated once and further combustion proceeds until it is fully developed, which for maneuvering (i.e., impulses issued by the control system to the operation of the shunting engine, and even more than one) is obviously not suitable.
      Iskander - a single-stage rocket with a turbojet engine.

      Maneuvering occurs due to the control of the thrust vector. Gas-dynamic control of the thrust vector on Iskander can be implemented (as I understand from available sources of information and common sense) by the method of asymmetric feed of the control flow into the nozzle.
      That, in fact, is the whole “secret” of the absence of control surfaces, shunting engines, and so on in the photograph. The entire "control mechanism" of the thrust vector is located inside the nozzle itself and is achieved due to the non-axial outflow of the jet and some other effects.

      There is an even simpler explanation. This is the use of mechanical gas rudders, as implemented on old, still Soviet LV designs. This is such a rather massive structural element, reminiscent of an ordinary ship steering wheel. The working surface is covered with a thick layer of ablation coating. Such an element during engine operation can cross the outflow of a gas stream at the required angle.

      Between these two principles, from ancient to advanced, there are still a number of methods for controlling the thrust vector of the launch vehicle, in which you will not see anything in the photographs that you were looking for.
      1. SIvan 7 September 2015 18: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Generalissimus, thanks a lot for the detailed explanation! Could you provide links to the sources you used? It is interesting to read about Iskander and compare it with what is in the West.
        1. Generalissimus 7 September 2015 18: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Guys, I'm just an engineer specializing in rocket science.
          The key was the "gas-dynamic rudders." Naturally, there is an understanding of what is at stake. How it is implemented on Iskander is the same mystery for me as it is for all the uninitiated. But there are enough worked out methods - choose, based on need, financial resources and ambitions.
          Old, Soviet "wheels" with the P-7, for example, I picked my fingernail as a student in the laboratory. I remember a classmate pinching a finger .. winked
          1. Generalissimus 7 September 2015 19: 00 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            If there was a photo with the right angle, on which Iskander’s propulsion system would be visible, it would be possible to quite confidently exclude some options for the implementation of the GUVT, but such photos, probably, are not. However, I did not look.
            1. Generalissimus 7 September 2015 19: 18 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              Although here.

              The mechanization is clearly visible: 4 control surfaces. The control system gives an impulse, the steering wheel rotates at the required angle in the gas stream.
              Each of the surfaces can rotate independently of the others.
              A fairly old and well-established technology, with fairly serious traction losses in certain modes. However, if this is an obvious disadvantage for a space launch vehicle, this can be a big plus for a combat missile - a change in traction, as the possibility of changing speed in different parts of the trajectory, or if necessary ..
              They also write that Iskander has aerodynamic wheels. Since the "plumage", as I see it, is static, it means that there are retractable surfaces that are covered up to the set speed (effective for aerodynamic surfaces) under the discharged shells.
              1. Generalissimus 7 September 2015 19: 37 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The mechanization is clearly visible: 4 control surfaces.

                Not stabilizers, of course, but over there, on the "ring" of the 4 nozzle of the device .. That’s them.
      2. voyaka uh 7 September 2015 18: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Thanks for the explanation. hi
      3. Echelon 8 September 2015 21: 05 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Maneuvering occurs due to the control of the thrust vector. Gas-dynamic control of the thrust vector on Iskander can be implemented (as I understand from available sources of information and common sense) by the method of asymmetric feed of the control flow into the nozzle.
        That, in fact, is the whole “secret” of the absence of control surfaces, shunting engines, and so on in the photograph. The entire "control mechanism" of the thrust vector is located inside the nozzle itself and is achieved due to the non-axial outflow of the jet and some other effects.

        It was still implemented on the Oka, at the end of the 70's.
    3. brn521 7 September 2015 17: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      It is not clear to me how a rocket of this form can maneuver.

      They write, there are rudders. http://dokwar.ru/publ/vooruzhenie/pvo_i_rvsn/raketnyj_kompleks_quot_iskander_quo
      t / 16-1-0-82:
      "The flight path is not ballistic, difficult to predict for the enemy. The missile is controlled along the entire flight path. At the initial stage, by gas-dynamic rudders, then, after gaining speed, by aerodynamic ones."
      1. Mera joota 7 September 2015 21: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: brn521
        then, after gaining speed, aerodynamic. "

        Yeah, at altitudes from 10 to 50 km. aerodynamic rudders?
        1. Generalissimus 7 September 2015 22: 46 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          What is strange about these heights? Here is a regular IL-86 at an altitude of 10 km flies - and is controlled aerodynamically .. =)) And the Mig-31 - and on the 20 km is controlled by these same rudders.
          And the lattice rudders (as on the Iskanders) - they, generally speaking, from space came a direct road. They generally planned to equip ships and descent capsules for control in the upper atmosphere and for descent.
          And now they are used on strategic and tactical missiles.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Mera joota 8 September 2015 06: 17 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            Quote: Generalissimus
            What is strange about these heights? Here’s the usual IL-86 at a height of 10 km flies - and is controlled aerodynamically .. =)) And the Mig-31 - and 20 km is controlled by these same rudders. And the lattice rudders (as on the Iskander) - they, generally speaking, came from space direct dear. They generally planned to equip ships and descent capsules for control in the upper atmosphere and for descent. And now they are used on strategic and tactical missiles.

            With a 50G overload, maneuver with trellised rudders at a height of 10-20km? Not at all serious.
      2. Echelon 8 September 2015 21: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What you call a difficult-to-predict trajectory is called yaw and pitch)))
  24. Old26 7 September 2015 20: 28 New
    • -4
    • 0
    -4
    Quote: Vadim237
    Patriot will not protect against Iskanders, but the THHAD missile defense system is likely to be able, Germany decided to purchase this complex.

    even if you really want to, the Patriot missile defense system is not designed to intercept operational-tactical missiles. Only so tactical. The SCADAS in the first war in the bay were intercepted by the Patriots simply because there were no other interception systems.

    Quote: Mera Joota
    It didn’t miss, and the warhead of the missile launcher could not always disable the warhead of the Scud. Different things. Therefore, the Americans relied on the principle of hit-to-kill and successfully implemented it.

    The first version of the “Patriot” was generally “imprisoned” to intercept ballistic targets. Mostly aerodynamic. And here they had to face tactical, and operational-tactical missiles

    Quote: Now we are free
    Hmm, that the “Patriots” did not really help the Saudis against the old antediluvian “Tochka-U” in the hands of the “Highly Qualified” Husits ​​... What can we say about “Iskander-M”?

    Stop repeating media delusions. Highly qualified RK calculations were without all the quotes.
    And how could the complexes help? After all, it is absolutely unknown where the complexes were and where the shooting was from ??

    Quote: Rurikovich
    In the case of this air defense system, the defense is weaker than the attack! And even if our S-300 family is constantly improving, then this cannot be said about the Patriot. Yesterday...

    The Patriot system is being improved just like all other air defense systems (S-300 is not a criterion, others are also being improved). So your score is past the basin

    Quote: Generalissimus
    They also write that Iskander has aerodynamic wheels. Since the "plumage", as I see it, is static, it means that there are retractable surfaces that are covered up to the set speed (effective for aerodynamic surfaces) under the discharged shells.

    In addition to the retractable aerodynamic surfaces, the Iskander also has a retractable cockpit for the pilot ....
    Do not post nonsense about retractable aerodynamic surfaces ...

    Quote: Generalissimus
    As for Iskander, then his engine runs until it hits the target. And his ability to overcome air defense is based on this, in addition to the notorious stealth technologies - on a highly maneuverable movement to the target along a non-ballistic trajectory

    Oh well, does it really work before being hit? Wow. In TTX we read that the rocket flies (for example) to the target for 250 seconds, and the engine runs for 75 seconds. And how to understand this, about what works before hitting? RAVE............
    1. Generalissimus 7 September 2015 21: 35 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Opponents who are aggressive and obviously not ready for discussion always scare me, but they put themselves in advance as if they know everything and everything. It seems to me that such people are hostages of their upbringing and, most often, total incompetence. Therefore, they try in advance by their behavior to convince the opposite. True, it turns out they only occasionally.

      But back to the topic.
      Oh well, does it really work before being hit? Wow. In TTX we read that the rocket flies (for example) to the target for 250 seconds, and the engine runs for 75 seconds. And how to understand this, about what works before hitting? RAVE...........


      If you plunge into different sources of information, up to the company-arbitrariness of the Iskander, then black and white is written everywhere and everywhere: (By Iskander-M)

      1. ... The missile is a single-stage, has a single-nozzle engine, non-ballistic and controlled over the entire flight path through aerodynamic и gas dynamic steering wheels.

      2. ... immediately after the start and directly when approaching the target, the missile performs intensive maneuvering.

      Explain to me how the product will conduct intensive maneuvering when approaching a target with the engine turned off? Aerodynamic wheels intensive maneuvering without engine thrust will not.

      But such behavior of Iskander is his signature style.

      And here is another excerpt from Iskander’s description:

      Iskander-M - the main option for the Russian army - is significantly more complex than Iskander-E, exported. Less noticeable, more maneuvering at launch and at the end of the flight. In addition, it has not just an inertial guidance system, like Iskander-E, but a combined one, including radio correction, GPS, GLONASS, laser and optical homing in the final section. It is controlled by trellised rudders. The warhead does not separate in principle, as the housing serves to create a lifting force in the final section.


      http://expert.ru/2014/01/27/neulovimyij-raketnyij-mstitel/

      Do you see lattice rudders in the photo? Not? So do I.
      Conclusion: the rudders extend during the flight. What made you so emotionally angry?
      In addition to the retractable aerodynamic surfaces, the Iskander also has a retractable cockpit for the pilot ....
      Do not post nonsense about retractable aerodynamic surfaces ...

      So why is this defiant epistolary attack?

      Lattice rudders - this is the aerodynamic control.

      You would throw less at people, and think more about your own thought processes. OK? You will benefit.

      As for zeroing traction, Iskander-E, the export version, suffers from this fact. He really flies in a "throwing" way after 15 km of the initial section.
      Iskander-M, on the other hand, is not a ballistic, but an AER ballistic scheme, and - and this is the main thing - in the adopted rocketeers classification. In the Air Force (according to their classification), an aeroballistic missile really flies toward the target horizontally, but at the final stage it nullifies the thrust and flies like a ballistic missile.
      Iskander-M in the vertical plane uses ricocheting trajectories and intensively maneuvers along the course, with 20-30 g overloads.
  25. Vlad5307 7 September 2015 20: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Mera Joota
    Kindergarten ... What makes everyone think that the Iskander is afraid in the West? 500 kg warhead capable of relatively accurately hit when launched from a distance of 500 km.

    Here is your reasoning and there is baby talk! Yes, if the “Iskander” would be as bad as you see it, then the “partners” would not screech with only one statement that they will be placed in Kaliningrad! And let your "patriot" -s put yourself in ... nna you understand where! What works well for them is PR companies to promote their shit to their "democratization" comrades! Although we have such figures, especially in the social sphere, they learn the worst from the “partners”, or maybe it's their veiled agents ?! hi
  26. Old26 7 September 2015 21: 31 New
    • -1
    • 0
    -1
    Quote: VP
    There is little difference in shooting down a low-speed UAV that even the Wasp will take, the main thing is to detect a missile flying at a speed of over 7,5 thousand km / h. going along a quasi-ballistic (and therefore not calculable) trajectory.

    What kind of nonsense? Speeds of 7,5 km / s are speeds INTERCONTINENTALrather than operational tactical missiles. "Patriot" was never intended to destroy not only intercontinental, but even tactical missile. Only tactical.
    The Iskander has a speed of 2,1 km / s. But even for her, the Patriot is not enough, since the maximum target speed for him is 1,6-1,8 km / s
    1. Generalissimus 7 September 2015 21: 54 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      You would read a little about what you are struggling with.
      7.5 thousand km was written to you \hour This is just 2.1 km \ s ..

      So what are you arguing with, such an impulse? =)
      1. Cat man null 7 September 2015 22: 03 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Generalissimus
        You would read a little about what you are struggling with.
        They wrote you 7.5 thousand km \ hour. This is just 2.1 km \ s ..

        So what are you arguing with, such an impulse? =)

        +100000 ... and cast into granite drinks
  27. Old26 7 September 2015 22: 45 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Quote: Generalissimus
    1. ... The missile is a single-stage one, has a single-nozzle engine, is non-ballistic and is controlled along the entire flight path using aerodynamic and gas-dynamic rudders.

    Exactly. And how can it be controlled by gas-dynamic rudders with an engine operating time of approximately 70 seconds and a flight time of 4 minutes (approximately 240 seconds)? Do not tell me how?

    Quote: Generalissimus
    Immediately after the launch and immediately upon approaching the target, the rocket performs intensive maneuvering.

    After the start, intensive maneuvering is technically possible, of course, but on the approach? The body “falls”, even if we consider that this body is controlled by aerodynamic rudders, but the language does not turn to call this maneuvering intense ...

    Quote: Generalissimus
    Explain to me how the product will conduct intensive maneuvering when approaching a target with the engine turned off? Aerodynamic wheels intensive maneuvering without engine thrust will not.

    Exactly. How can the engine work at the end of a 4-minute flight if the engine runs a little more than a minute?

    Quote: Generalissimus
    Do you see lattice rudders in the photo? No? Me too. Conclusion: the rudders extend during the flight. What made you so emotionally angry?

    None of the existing missiles EXISTED retractable trellised rudders. They were "pressed" to the body, were reclining, but never ADVANCED
    1. alstr 9 September 2015 13: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Regarding the engine running time.
      And it never occurred to anyone that the engine could operate in a pulsed mode? In the simplest version - does the engine work only at the start and at the end of the trajectory?
      1. SIvan 9 September 2015 17: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Really. For a long time there are two-time solid propellant solid propellant solid propellant rocket motors Here's what I found:
        Quote: http://engine.aviaport.ru/issues/33/page37.html
        One of the promising technical solutions could be the creation of solid-state solid-propellant solid-propellant rocket motors. The use of such engines will increase the launch range of the missiles, increase their speed and maneuverability at the end of the flight, etc.
        Work related to the creation of such engines was started in the United States back in the 1960s. The most effective option, ensuring the minimum mass of the structure, was recognized as a solid propellant rocket motor, the charge of which is divided into separate sections by heat shields. The implementation of such a design made it possible in the late 1960s to create a two-time solid propellant solid propellant rocket for the SRAM guided missile.


        Domestic scientists have developed more advanced ways to control the operation of solid propellant rocket motors. This article will be interesting to read: http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/opyt-razrabotki-kombinirovannogo-rdtt-mnogokrat
        nogo-vklyucheniya
  28. Old26 7 September 2015 22: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Generalissimus
    That’s why this defiant epistolary lunge? Lattice rudders - this is the aerodynamic control.

    Than? Nonsense about retractable trellised rudders. Iskander has aerodynamic surfaces - 4 planes, but there aren’t any, including and retractable trellised rudders. These four planes are the aerodynamic surfaces ...

    Quote: Generalissimus
    Iskander-M, on the other hand, is not a ballistic, but an AER ballistic scheme, and - and this is the main thing - in the classification adopted by rocket launchers. In the Air Force (according to their classification), an aeroballistic missile really flies toward the target horizontally, but at the final stage it nullifies the thrust and flies like a ballistic missile.

    Missile launchers have never had such a classification - "AEROBALLISTICHESKAYA" rocket. This is from the Air Force missile classification. That is how ballistic missiles of the air-to-ground class were classified. The flight profile could be different. What you described is one option. According to another option, the rocket after a horizontal flight made a slide, 10-20 km up and dive to the target ...

    Quote: Generalissimus
    You would throw less at people, and think more about your own thought processes.

    You know, you don’t have to worry about my thought processes. At least I try not to write frank nonsense or use only the data from Wiki or the media as arguments. Frets? As they say, you should not say what I need to do and I will not say where you should go ...

    Quote: Generalissimus
    They wrote you 7.5 thousand km \ hour. This is just 2.1 km \ s ..

    Here I apologize. All the time they talked about speeds in km / s (or m / s) and here in km / h
    1. Absurdidat 7 September 2015 23: 42 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Iskander and rudders have retractable, and specially designed, valves that “smooth” the rocket body for less radio visibility. This is a very complex complex and there, in a few minutes of a flight with a rocket, complex transformations take place, which is why it is considered advanced. Look for a video about the complex, the Star went like that ...
  29. Anchonsha 8 September 2015 10: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We need to develop our defense industry constantly in search of weapons that would be less costly, but more effective. I think that the big future lies with electronic radar systems and hyper-moving objects. True, scientific research also requires huge funds, but the results of the work of scientists here should be recouped.
  30. gregor6549 8 September 2015 13: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    To begin with, the latest modifications of the Patriot PAC-3 were developed taking into account the technologies used in the C300, and the C300 can intercept targets like Iskander missiles. Moreover, the United States and Israel are now developing new missile defense systems, which will have higher compared to Patriot TTX
    1. voyaka uh 8 September 2015 14: 25 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Israel is currently undergoing tests
      David Sling system. She is imprisoned for intercepting BR
      short range 100-500 km, flying stately,
      on the middle section of the trajectory. Direct hit interception -
      kinetic kick.
      David’s sling was not intended to intercept Iskander,
      and to intercept Iranian BR caliber 300 (approximately) mm supplied
      Iranians to Lebanon to organize Hezbollah.
      ABM missiles are used to intercept larger Scud missiles
      Hets.
      pictured: David's sling in flight
  31. Volga Cossack 8 September 2015 14: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    the article directly warmed the soul - thanks!
  32. The comment was deleted.
  33. rBo3qb 8 September 2015 14: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: sneg6680
    But Yeltsin drank not only Russia but also other countries

    about the dead either good or nothing (but this M&A deserves more)
  34. Persifal 8 September 2015 18: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I have already seen many articles about Patriot. They write that it is worse than the S-300, then it is inferior to the S-400, then its Iskander will break. Of course, all this is true. Only such a comparison does not make sense. It also surprises me with our advertising of different systems, with the note "Unparalleled in the world." All this is cap-hatred. Seriously, I have no doubt about the capabilities of our weapons. But everywhere there is a "But." For example, the SM-3 rocket https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-3
    Our promising “Unparalleled” S-500 system, which “Possibly” will shoot down even satellites, is 3 years behind SM-15. We should not forget about this either. As they say, "The enemy is not asleep."
    I believe that our systems should not be compared with Patriot.
    1. SIvan 9 September 2015 16: 58 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I agree with you that hatred is harmful, and it is necessary to compare not with Patriot, but, for example, with THAAD.

      However, I am not at all sure that the S-500 is technically inferior to the SM-3. Your ability to evaluate the performance characteristics of classified systems (telepathically?) Deserves respect wink
      1. Persifal 9 September 2015 17: 37 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I rely only on publicly available facts. SM-3 in the early 2000s already shot down satellites and ballistic missile warheads. This missile is very small in mass, about a ton or less. The claimed range of 500 km in range and height of 250. And you have to believe in such performance characteristics since the rocket showed them in practice. The missile is clearly very high-tech. For example, 3 missiles are possessed by 3 units all over the world. According to the performance characteristics, it is more than 300 times superior to the S-30 missiles, while it is 40-12% lighter (as a result, less). But the price of $ 24 million is simply unrealistic.
        On the other hand, our S-500 will not be adopted soon. In something it will be better. I think at least in the probability of warheads being hit. But if you sit on the declared performance characteristics, then the S-500 approximately corresponds to systems with SM-3 missiles. The difference is only in the abyss, at 15, between these systems ...
        1. moroz656 9 September 2015 22: 50 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I completely agree with you! Most likely the difference will only be in price., But given the progression of the backlog, the same SM3 will not catch up soon .... And I'm not sure that we will again try to catch up with someone., Even after accepting C- 500 for armament.
  35. The comment was deleted.
  36. romashki74 9 September 2015 12: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "Herald of Mordovia", as always, steers !!!
  37. moroz656 9 September 2015 22: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Who knows a little about weapons ... OTK "Iskander" - range up to 500 km ... stealth technology, maneuvering in all areas of the flight., And how the "ax" of the blok3 version differs, I'm not talking about biok4 .... just by one thing - in the same England there are many of them .. at a range of 1600 km. And who came up with the idea that our complexes see and destroy low-flying, maneuvering targets, but there are no foreign ones? Although maybe not all ... but we only have 2 divisions -, and the air defense systems in Europe more than.


    and,