Military Review

How Russia removed the US Navy with one gulp from the sea

294



No one paid attention to the fact that the Russian aviation the group in Syria in terms of the quantitative composition and nomenclature of aircraft is almost identical to the Ukrainian Air Force who tried to bomb Donbass in 2014. The basis is the same Su-24 bombers and Su-25 attack aircraft.

In a matter of weeks, only Ukrainian aviation was driven from the sky by miners, hairdressers, taxi drivers and supermarket guards, while Russian could not be damaged by perfectly trained, armed and experienced in long-term hostilities IG terrorists. Moreover, her warplanes of Israel, Turkey, and the entire American "anti-terrorist" coalition as a whole respectfully eschew her.

This is evidence of both the high level of training of Russian pilots and the capabilities of modernized aircraft created in the 70-s of the last century, and the fact that the Russian HVAC, in contrast to the Ukrainian Air Force, are indeed a well-coordinated and effective tool that attack air components integrated into the system of air defense, radio electronic warfare (EW), global positioning (GLONASS) and space reconnaissance.

Kiev used aircraft at the level of the First World War - individual aircraft took off, found a separate target and bombed (or shot down). Russia, on the other hand, demonstrated a full-fledged aviation strike complex, in which the aircraft and the pilot piloting it are important and most noticeable, but only one of many links ensuring the effective destruction of the enemy and their own security.

But nevertheless, the Russian VKS group in Syria is too small, the enemy does not have a full-fledged modern air defense system, Western countries aviation does not directly counter the Russian VKS, and the Ukrainian army, on combat capabilities, is more correct to compare with the tribal militia of the Republic of Chad than with the Armed Forces of Russia . Therefore, it is not yet necessary to talk about complete superiority over the likely adversary in the aviation component - there is not enough material for comparison.

Blow from the Caspian Sea

But as regards the naval component, on October 7 one Caspian military flotilla, with one salvo of 26 Caliber missiles at ISIS bases in Syria for a long time (and in its current form forever) removed the US Navy from the sea as a real factor capable of providing the so-called projection of force (previously called "gunboat diplomacy").

What is the beauty of the situation?

First, Russia supplied missiles similar to those used on October 7 for export. Their range was 300 km. The United States reasonably assumed that the range of similar missiles in service with Russia could be longer (from 400 to 600 km). The volley of the Caspian flotilla covered targets at a distance of 1500 km, and this, apparently, is not the limit. There were reports that the actual firing range may exceed 4000 km.

Secondly, earlier, not only the Caspian Flotilla, but also the Black Sea and Baltic Fleets of the Russian Federation were considered by the likely adversary as forces capable only of defending the relevant coastal areas, catching smugglers and poachers, as well as conducting amphibious operations in their closed waters. The Black Sea Fleet also provided for the rear of the Mediterranean squadron.

But as a real threat, the United States considered only pre-deployed squadrons in the open ocean and strike ships, as well as those of the Pacific and Northern fleets that could at least theoretically break out into the expanses of the Atlantic and Pacific, in the event of a serious conflict.

Third, as a result, the United States turned out that their carrier strike groups (AUG) are practically invulnerable. According to the calculations of American strategists, for the destruction of one AUG, the Russian fleet was to provide a volley of not less than one hundred missiles, for which practically all strike ships (missile cruisers, missile destroyers and multi-purpose nuclear submarines) of the Northern or Pacific fleets were to be concentrated in one place. Washington believed that each of the two Russian fleets, not locked tightly in closed waters, could in the worst case cause some (perhaps even significant) damage to one AUG, after which its strike forces would practically cease to exist, and the domination of the remaining US forces in the expanses of the oceans nothing will threaten.

Fourth, it turned out that, in fact, the firing range of even small ships is not 400 and not 600, but much more than 1,500 kilometers.

That is, the Caspian Flotilla and the Black Sea Fleet can, without leaving their waters, destroy any enemy in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, while the Baltic Fleet is capable of holding the North Sea, the English Channel and part of the Norwegian Sea. Given the ability of the Northern Fleet to control the North Atlantic from outside the enemy’s reach and the similar ability of the Pacific Fleet to drown everything that floats in the Pacific Ocean north of Hawaii, the US fleet was unable to project a threat to the coasts of Eurasia.

Since a missile salvo can be given completely imperceptible by ships of the near-sea zone with a distance of thousands of kilometers, American sailors will see missiles only when they hit their ship or on approach. To take effective measures of self-defense, they just do not have time.

Thus, the number of missiles in the volley needed to destroy AUG is sharply reduced. There is no need to bring large surface ships of the Russian fleet to it at a distance of effective retaliatory strike. But to monitor every guard who catches poachers in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk or the Caspian Sea (but who can suddenly drown an American aircraft carrier peacefully pasturing for three seas from this inconspicuous boat) the United States is simply not able to.

And here is the result

Until October 7, Washington was confident that Russia was not able to effectively resist US forceful actions without the use of nuclear weapons. This, in fact, was based on American impudence in international politics.

The Americans did not hide the fact that they use force when they want, simply because no one can adequately respond to them with conventional weapons, and Russia will not start a nuclear war not because of Iraq, nor because of Syria, nor even because of Ukraine. . They, like a cheeky teenager, accustomed that everyone in the company is weaker than him, quietly ran into conflict according to the principle: “Give up if you can,” in full confidence that no one can. And suddenly it turned out that they can. Russia can.

The Americans were in an extremely difficult situation. The entire policy of recent years has been based on the fact that at a critical moment Washington is able to use force with relatively impunity. Now it turned out that no.

Moreover, having projected the capabilities demonstrated by the fleet to aviation, the Pentagon generals have already calculated that the Russian videoconferencing can shoot targets in the United States without leaving the airspace of Russia. America for the first time in stories I felt defenseless before conventional (non-nuclear) weapons.

But the most dangerous thing for the United States is not that Russia has the ability to cover its territory and the territory of its allies in Eurasia from the American fleet, which is now becoming a meaningless burden for taxpayers (it is essentially eliminated as a military-political argument). And not even the fact that Moscow can, if it wishes, shoot at US territory with conventional weapons from safe disposal (just like the US in Iraq).

The main thing is that the US allies understood this. And most of them have long been loyal to the world hegemon only because of the fear of its military capabilities, from which (according to their ideas) no one can protect. October 7 Russia demonstrated that it can. And this radically changed the entire military-political situation in the world.

Of course, American alliances and coalitions will not begin to crumble immediately, but the United States will now find it much more difficult to simply command its allies without taking their interests into account. Partners now have to go. Washington will have to convince and bargain. Americans have long forgotten how to do it. Resources for the satisfaction of the allies are not provided. And the arguments in the US are weak. If you believe Obama, the United States is the best because the best, and they all owe because they have to.

This argument was strong until October 7 2015 year. Now this is a personal opinion of one person.
Author:
Originator:
http://cont.ws/post/131821
294 comments
Ad

The editorial board of Voenniy Obozreniye urgently needs a proofreader. Requirements: impeccable knowledge of the Russian language, diligence, discipline. Contact: [email protected]

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. vorobey
    vorobey 12 October 2015 14: 16 New
    93
    I say SMS understood correctly ..

    Theodore Roosevelt 26 president .. 26 missiles launched ..

    The American aircraft carrier "Theodore Roosevelt" left the Persian Gulf on Friday, where he was in April of this year, TASS reports a message to Iranian radio station IRIB.
    1. viktorrymar
      viktorrymar 12 October 2015 14: 20 New
      -46
      Why put old things here in the news section?
      1. MIKHALYCH1
        MIKHALYCH1 12 October 2015 14: 28 New
        35
        Quote: viktorrymar
        Why put old things here in the news section?

        Well, firstly, do not want to do not read .. And secondly, they are preparing something else interesting! I like how they worked clearly and I think the missiles were not only from boats (they are very compact) hi
        1. viktorrymar
          viktorrymar 12 October 2015 14: 39 New
          69
          MIKHALYCH1 Well, first of all, you don’t want to don’t read ..

          Just the news from 08.10. 2015 of the year, given the fact that events are developing rapidly, and every day brings changes, and this volley of cruise missiles on each of the resources was sucked from all sides.
          Well, in addition, I sent this text to be posted on the VO on October 8, the moderators rejected it without even explaining why, and now post it today ...

          So call uncle ...
          1. Kostyar
            Kostyar 12 October 2015 14: 49 New
            30
            And the United States has weak arguments. If you believe Obama, the United States is the best because it is the best, and they all owe it because they must.


            You can’t say better!
            And the article will be relevant for a very long time !!!
            Thanks to everybody, you're free.....
            1. Baikal
              Baikal 12 October 2015 15: 13 New
              -18
              I just didn’t understand one thing ... request

              Let's solve the puzzle:
              In the article, the author passionately asserts that the United States allegedly got scared of the "Caliber" and removed its aircraft carrier, which located in the Persian Gulf and covered from the Caspian (or the Black Sea). At the same time, the performance characteristics of "Caliber" say that his work on surface targets the distance is very modest.

              Question:
              How "Caliber" works on surface targets (not ground!) in the aisles of 300-400 km (well, even 600!) could threaten Roosevelt if there is more than 700 km from the coast of the Caspian Sea to the nearest shore of the Persian Gulf?
              1. Alexander Romanov
                Alexander Romanov 12 October 2015 15: 20 New
                10
                Quote: Baikal
                Question:
                How "Caliber" with work on surface targets in the aisles of 300-400 km (well, even 600!) Can threaten "Roosevelt" if there is more than 700 km from the coast of the Caspian Sea to the nearest shore of the Persian Gulf?

                Answer, Caliber has a range of 1500 km
                1. Baikal
                  Baikal 12 October 2015 15: 24 New
                  13
                  Quote: Alexander Romanov
                  Answer, Caliber has a range of 1500 km

                  In a question, black in Russian says - on surface... You are talking about the capabilities of the "Caliber" on land goals hi
                  1. sabakina
                    sabakina 12 October 2015 15: 49 New
                    10
                    Quote: Baikal

                    In a question, black in Russian says - on surface... You are talking about the capabilities of the "Caliber" on land goals hi

                    How is the surface target different from the ground?
                    1. clidon
                      clidon 12 October 2015 15: 54 New
                      15
                      The fact that RCC warheads are heavier. In addition, it is unreasonable to make anti-ship missiles of such a range - until the rocket flies (for almost two hours) the target will leave for a long time.
                      1. Alexander Romanov
                        Alexander Romanov 12 October 2015 16: 09 New
                        +5
                        Quote: clidon
                        Due to the fact that RCC warheads are heavier.

                        Oh oh In this case, we are talking about a cruise missile.
                        Quote: clidon
                        . In addition, it is unreasonable to make anti-ship missiles of such a range - until the rocket flies (almost two hours) the target will leave for a long time.

                        With controlled flight.
                      2. clidon
                        clidon 12 October 2015 18: 33 New
                        10
                        And anti-ship missiles all (or rather almost all) are cruise missiles and have correspondingly active guidance.
                        Compare the ranges of the anti-ship "Tomahawk" and its "coastal" version:
                        RCC UGM-109B - 550km
                        High-explosive UGM-109C - 1250 km.
                        nuclear UGM-109A - 2500 km.

                        And the anti-ship "Caliber" can be supersonic.


                        With controlled flight.

                        This will require constant tracking of the target. So far, no one has implemented this, on the contrary - "let it out, forget it."
                      3. opus
                        opus 12 October 2015 22: 04 New
                        14
                        Quote: Alexander Romanov
                        With controlled flight.

                        Do not mislead the electorate.
                        On the Caliber class, Caliber is simply NOT a two-way communication (carrier rocket).
                        1. "controlled" flight is not possible
                        2. The Kyrgyz Republic itself learns that the target was missed when its ARS-14 (with a maximum capture range of 20 km) arrives at the point where the target was once.
                        Все.
                        Even if you put a heavier ARS-54 (with 60 km) it will not solve anything, for a launch range of 1500 km
                      4. 34 region
                        34 region 12 October 2015 22: 38 New
                        +2
                        It turns out that GLONASS has nothing to do with it and the rocket flies along the coordinates. And how does she determine them (coordinates)? The question is of course dumb from the point of view of a specialist. But can people be enlightened on this subject? After all, not all specialists in terms of performance characteristics.
                      5. opus
                        opus 12 October 2015 22: 53 New
                        +9
                        Quote: Region 34
                        It turns out GLONASS absolutely nothing to do with

                        how does it have nothing to do with it?
                        Previously, they flew along the ANN (girskoskom + BTsVM).
                        Threat earlier in the stars, lighthouses, etc. wink
                        glonas still has something to do with it, but it is auxiliary, it provides ANN correction with operational navigational-temporal support of the current coordinates of the receiver, which is not the case with the KR (or a rocket or a car).
                        KR then flies on a radio altimeter and electronic height map
                        Quote: Region 34
                        And how does she determine them (coordinates)?

                        as follows:
                        1.Thanks to the ANN and the inherent flight mission (the geographic point of the target, stationary at that)
                        2. Glonas gives the correction of the rocket’s own coordinates, in relation to the real (well, almost) time)
                        3.KR follows to the point where the target WAS found, so

                        using a radio altimeter and a digital computer (where electronic terrain maps)
                        4.U Caliber (ZM-14),unlike Ax there is still ARGS-14 (E)
                        , with a maximum capture range of 20km, which
                        intended for accurate pointing a cruise missile at a ground target in the final section flight paths.


                        Provides
                        Determination of coordinates of a ground target;
                        Detection and goal selectionsubject to defeat;
                        Determining the position of the target in azimuth and elevation, distance to the target and speed of approach with the target;
                        The issuance of the determined coordinates of the target in the missile guidance system.

                    2. Starley from the south
                      Starley from the south 14 October 2015 00: 04 New
                      0
                      Quote: opus
                      The KR itself learns that the target was missed when its APC-14 (with the maximum capture range in 20km) arrives at the point where the target was once.

                      Maybe this is true, but the Americans apparently did not know this and took away from sin.
                  2. egor1712
                    egor1712 12 October 2015 22: 12 New
                    +5
                    Yes, tell him that the caliber is a further development of the "grata" rocket. range of which is 1000 km by water.
                2. Eugene-Eugene
                  Eugene-Eugene 12 October 2015 16: 12 New
                  +2
                  And will it be spotted at launch and flight?
                3. Alexander Romanov
                  Alexander Romanov 12 October 2015 16: 26 New
                  +9
                  Quote: Eugene-Eugene
                  And will it be spotted at launch and flight?

                  Not a fact.
                4. Baikal
                  Baikal 12 October 2015 16: 53 New
                  18
                  Quote: sabakina
                  How is the surface target different from the ground?

                  For weapons, something is different.
                  To all minuses to fans - the question is asked not from scratch, it is enough to include eyes, and then a brain.
                  For example:
                  ... the Dagestan missile ship became the first ship in the Russian Navy armed with the latest Caliber-NK missile system designed to launch missiles at sea targets at a distance of up to 350 km and coastal to 2600 km ...

                  http://eurasian-defence.ru/?q=node%2F31968
                  http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/3m14e/3m14e.shtml
                  And such sources, suggesting that for land and sea purposes, distances different - abound.
                5. Talgat
                  Talgat 12 October 2015 19: 05 New
                  +8
                  Quote: Baikal
                  for land and sea purposes the distances are different


                  Completely true Baikal! The maximum range of anti-ship missiles for naval targets is 500 - 700 for old Granite-Basalts - and even then when the Legend gave target designation. Uranium 260, Gauges 300, etc.

                  KR on ground targets is another thing - they fly to a given fixed point of the earth and range for thousands of km long - those tomahawks grenades, etc.

                  Although, there were articles on the ax that developed the Tomahawks and other Amer’s anti-ship missiles with thousands of kilometers - and the ability to hit a moving target

                  If they can make such Gauges - then it will really be a threat to the AUG - it’s possible to shoot without entering the AUG air defense zone or the zone of attack of corals by aug aircraft
                6. Arkon
                  Arkon 12 October 2015 21: 55 New
                  +2
                  for marine purposes it’s 500 - 700 for old Granite-Basalts - and even then when the Legend gave target designation


                  Well, what is stopping now from giving target designation in flight?
                7. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 October 2015 22: 46 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Arkon
                  Well, what is stopping now from giving target designation in flight?

                  Lack of target designation :)) Who will tell the rocket where the target is located?
                8. Arkon
                  Arkon 13 October 2015 09: 20 New
                  0
                  If the Legend gave target designation, then why a more perfect Liana could not? She has been working since 2014.
                9. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 13 October 2015 11: 59 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Arkon
                  If the legend gave target designation,

                  Giving something gave, but not enough :). In general, the Legend could give TsU only during the satellite’s flight over the target, and these satellites in the USSR at the same time in space were few, because the dear ones were insane, but served a little (low-orbit satellites were falling rapidly), in addition there were problems with the transmission of data from the satellite to the RCC carrier. On the whole, the Legend was considered by sailors not so much as a means of TsU, but as a means of illuminating the surface.
                  Linan is a classified thing, its performance characteristics are unknown, what it can and cannot do, alas, we don’t know. But it is highly doubtful that 4 satellites could solve the problem of central control.
                10. Arkon
                  Arkon 13 October 2015 17: 30 New
                  0
                  Linan is a classified thing, its performance characteristics are unknown, what it can and cannot do, alas, we don’t know.


                  Exactly. wink
              2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. opus
        opus 12 October 2015 22: 58 New
        +7
        Quote: Baikal
        that for land and sea purposes, the distances are different - plenty.

        that's right
        In addition to the difference in the mass of the ARGSN itself (14 and 54), the power of the BIP (it consumes 54 times more energy), 54 (54E) provides
        MAIN CHARACTERISTICS
        It can be used both in single and group missile use.
        Provides guidance to the target in the sector of angles in azimuth ± 45 °, in elevation from + 10 ° to -20 °.
        The maximum range is up to 65 km.
        It can be used at any time of the day at an ambient temperature of -50 ° С to + 50 ° С, in conditions of rain and fog, sea waves up to 6 points.
        Mass and dimensional data:
        weight (without compartment housing and fairing) - no more than 40 kg;
        diameter (maximum) - 420 mm;
        length - 700 mm.

        Shooting at a moving (surface or ground) target at a range of over 500-600 km (and even 1500 km even more) is pointless.
        During the approach time, the subsonic missile target will leave the coverage area of ​​the radar seeker.
        30 knots in 2 hours = 60 miles (X1,7 in km)
        Without two-way communication, the KR carrier (or spotter) and a full-fledged satellite constellation are completely absurd


        The author of the article ... of these, the victim of the exam is shorter
      5. afdjhbn67
        afdjhbn67 13 October 2015 03: 20 New
        +9
        Quote: opus
        Quote: Baikal
        that for land and sea purposes, the distances are different - plenty.

        that's right
        In addition to the difference in the mass of the ARGSN itself (14 and 54), the power of the BIP (it consumes 54 times more energy), 54 (54E) provides
        MAIN CHARACTERISTICS
        It can be used both in single and group missile use.
        Provides guidance to the target in the sector of angles in azimuth ± 45 °, in elevation from + 10 ° to -20 °.
        The maximum range is up to 65 km.
        It can be used at any time of the day at an ambient temperature of -50 ° С to + 50 ° С, in conditions of rain and fog, sea waves up to 6 points.
        Mass and dimensional data:
        weight (without compartment housing and fairing) - no more than 40 kg;
        diameter (maximum) - 420 mm;
        length - 700 mm.

        Shooting at a moving (surface or ground) target at a range of over 500-600 km (and even 1500 km even more) is pointless.
        During the approach time, the subsonic missile target will leave the coverage area of ​​the radar seeker.
        30 knots in 2 hours = 60 miles (X1,7 in km)
        Without two-way communication, the KR carrier (or spotter) and a full-fledged satellite constellation are completely absurd


        The author of the article ... of these, the victim of the exam is shorter

        Angry, you ruined such a sweet delight .. once again did not let the Americans defeat fellow laughing
      6. opus
        opus 13 October 2015 12: 39 New
        +3
        Quote: afdjhbn67
        . once again did not let the Americans defeat

        I'm not angry.
        did not give "win" on paper (or rather on a computer screen), and to losers.
        I will reassure the winners.
        Don't forget
        1.3K10 / S-10 Pomegranate - SS-N-21 SAMPSON.
        They are 100 years old at lunch.
        Launch range up to 3000km
        2.ZM-51 or P-900 Alpha e1 50 years in the afternoon.
        3.1 + 2 will be you (and us) distant PKKR.
        4. They solve the issue of satellite grouping (or correction from submarines, from aviation) and 2-way communication = everything will be fine.
        But it will not be ZM-14, not what was attacked from the Caspian
        and the author of the article is a victim of the exam. It is a fact
    2. Petrix
      Petrix 13 October 2015 13: 03 New
      -6
      Quote: opus
      During the approach time, the subsonic missile target will leave the coverage area of ​​the radar seeker.

      And if you give a volley in area, from the last point of the target? We produce twenty missiles that, flying in front, cover the entire area of ​​a possible target?
      At least one rocket, but will find. And if the coordinates are discarded by the neighboring ones?
      And the goal is not always moving at full speed.
      And to scare off enemies, missiles do not have to be equipped with a warhead. It’s easier and more. It is enough just to fall near the target ship (with warning leaflets) to tickle the nerves. Infovoyna!
    3. opus
      opus 13 October 2015 14: 03 New
      0
      Quote: Petrix
      And if you give a volley over the area

      1. expensive.
      Out of 20, the probability of capture is 1.
      2. You fired a volley along the front (wide): "to the right", "to the left" of the carrier-target line.
      what if the target went "forward" "backward"? or "forward-right", "back-left", and so on?
      will have to fire a volley not a phalanx, but a square (time delay, waiting, building)
      Enough of kr?
      Bloggers will also notice such a launch in norway
      ESR of the PRK front will significantly facilitate their notch and subsequent interception
      Quote: Petrix
      And if the coordinates are discarded by the neighboring ones?

      while there is no two-way communication system on calibers
      Quote: Petrix
      And the goal is not always moving at full speed.

      14-24 knots, if not mistaken
      Quote: Petrix
      And to scare off enemies, missiles do not have to be equipped with a warhead.

      Dear KR and guidance system (ARGS-14 head, on-board control system based on the AB-40E autonomous inertial navigation system, RVE-B type radio altimeter and satellite navigation system signal receiver (GLONASS or GPS)).
      Warhead is not very expensive what's the point of bullying a blank on the Kyrgyz Republic, with a launch cost of $ 1-2 million?
      Quote: Petrix
      It’s easier and more.

      no, that will not do .
      The mass of the head in the form of a blank should be = the mass of the warhead.
      Otherwise, do not respect the center of mass.
      And if the excess fuel supply, instead of warheads, it is necessary to pick up the BIP (it has limited operating time) - expensive
  2. Fast_mutant
    Fast_mutant 14 October 2015 12: 32 New
    +1
    If you are trying to teach, then at least be accurate in numbers! Nautical mile - 1852m, not 1700 (overland mile 1609m, again by) ... and this is a coefficient of ~ 1,9. But your teaching is of purely academic interest. Since (first) even the range of the "Caliber" is not really known, and even its capabilities for completing the search for targets, coupled with the adjustment of the route, are not known at all, only assumptions (which is VERY correct)! Even if they are absent or they are minimal, nobody canceled the "streaming" effect. The departure of Roosevelt confirms this! Farther. Second. 30 knots for 2 hours, if you KNOW that something is flying towards you, and if not? That's 6-12 knots. "Exocet" on the destroyer "Sheffield" found VISUAL! The result is known! And the Americans are still those warriors! Against the guys with spears, they are very brave, and as soon as there is a chance to suck something into the side, the crew is written off to the shore by half ...
  3. Kunar
    Kunar 12 October 2015 16: 56 New
    +1
    I agree ..... This is also very problematic ...
  4. clidon
    clidon 12 October 2015 18: 55 New
    +1
    No, not at all necessary - the rocket flies rather low and has a low EPR, and the torch at launch is not so big relative to the ICBM.
    In fact, this is a Russian "Tomahawk" with an increased flight range.
  5. Gregazov
    Gregazov 12 October 2015 21: 02 New
    +1
    Quote: clidon
    The fact that RCC warheads are heavier. In addition, it is unreasonable to make anti-ship missiles of such a range - until the rocket flies (for almost two hours) the target will leave for a long time.

    It all depends on the head of RCC. If it (RCC) is guided only by coordinates, then I will agree with you, but if the missile has any target location sensor, then its (target) maneuver will be detected, new target designations will be introduced.
  6. clidon
    clidon 12 October 2015 22: 05 New
    0
    The problem is that someone must point the CR, that is, tell her the coordinates of a moving target. If this someone is nearby (and he is alive), then maybe he will launch millet with a missile of shorter range and cost?
  7. opus
    opus 12 October 2015 22: 07 New
    +2
    Quote: GregAzov
    if there is any target location sensor, then its (target) maneuver will be detected,

    what kind of target position sensor is this?
    Which being on the KR (max flight altitude of 150m) will detect the target’s body movements at a distance of 1500km? Or 100km?
    What about the power of the radar seeker and the sensitivity of the receiver?

    your "sensor" is a direct radio link (via a satellite repeater) target-missile.
    Target: "I'm leaving" in the coordinates X, Y
    KR: "accepted", adjusting the trajectory.
    YES?
    The trouble is: Caliber has no data line, two-way.
  8. Flexsus
    Flexsus 12 October 2015 22: 35 New
    +5
    To leave, the target must know that missiles were fired at it. A launch in 1500 km. even if you notice you won’t understand where it flies. I think that our missiles flew in such an intricate course, not only because they did not want to disturb someone on the territory of Iran and Iraq, but also to show those who need it to be targeted), it will not be able to understand what is being shot at it ...
  9. opus
    opus 12 October 2015 23: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: Flexsus
    To leave, the target must know that missiles were fired at it.

    Have you watched an anchored ship?
    Well, those in the port, we are sweeping.

    ======================
    They MOVE ALL THE TIME, and even in a military campaign, they move "chaotically": pl zigzags, snakes, rearrangements, jerks, and so on
  10. antipendos
    antipendos 13 October 2015 05: 56 New
    0
    where will she go from caliber?
  11. shasherin.pavel
    shasherin.pavel 13 October 2015 18: 00 New
    -4
    Quote: clidon
    while the rocket flies, the target will long be gone.

    where will she go ?! Under water - to a depth of 500 meters? When our first time showed at the international exhibition "Mstu", everyone was amazed that the self-propelled guns that had just come off the platforms, came to the range and in a very short time opened fire on targets beyond the horizon and 38 shells destroyed 36 targets. And you, silly, can you assume that a surface ship can go somewhere from the surface of the sea - the ocean? But he is not a "miracle yudo fish whale" and cannot dive. And one more thing: to avoid a strike, you need to know the launch time of the missiles, and if you are in the galley during their launch, then excuse yourself "Who can save yourself!", "Who can't?"
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 12 October 2015 15: 59 New
    +7
    How is the surface target different from the ground?

    In order to work on a surface target, a missile needs a radar: it’s just that you can’t approach it from the terrain images, right? A radar is an extra weight that greatly affects range.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • kote119
    kote119 12 October 2015 16: 12 New
    +1
    surface moves, land stationary
  • Kunar
    Kunar 12 October 2015 16: 51 New
    +2
    It moves ... And it is quite problematic to track it in combat conditions. Another thing is somewhere in the port or in the base ... Then any illegal agent uses a "call to a friend" And then it all depends on the quickness of the missilemen laughing
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. maxcor1974
      maxcor1974 12 October 2015 18: 29 New
      +3
      But do not you think that guidance in the current conditions is possible by satellite. The aircraft carrier is not a needle, it is clearly visible from space. Therefore, the coordinates of the target can be transmitted online ...
    3. clidon
      clidon 12 October 2015 18: 58 New
      +2
      Here it is better to immediately determine which satellite. And then they can be counted on the fingers. Especially if you do not want to depend on the time of day, weather and clouds, then you need not just a satellite, but a space radar. Do you know how many of these the United States has now? And what about Russia?

      PS An aircraft carrier in such open spaces of the ocean is actually a small needle.
    4. tlauicol
      tlauicol 12 October 2015 19: 19 New
      +8
      “And you don’t think that guidance in the current conditions is possible by satellite. The aircraft carrier is not a needle, it is perfectly visible from space. Therefore, the coordinates of the target can be transmitted online.” ( from )
      That's right, only for a stationary purpose - that is how the Caliber in Syria was aimed. Any Googlemap knows where the bridge, the house, the airfield, the thermal power plant, and so on. Even aircraft carriers standing at the pier in Norfolk or Yokohama. Blind KR is guided by the ANN (a hundred steps straight, then right), a map of the area or a call to a friend (JIPIES satellite, where am I?) Flies and hits a stationary target. But no country in the world can track a moving ship or plane from space online, unless it itself transmits a signal about itself, for example, through Marine Traffic or Air Traffic to a satellite.
    5. Scraptor
      Scraptor 13 October 2015 06: 15 New
      0
      Quote: Tlauicol
      MarineTraffic or AirTraffic by satellite.

      These are civil systems lol
    6. tlauicol
      tlauicol 13 October 2015 09: 06 New
      0
      bravissimo! you are so insightful! and you’ll reach twice two four with your mind!
    7. Scraptor
      Scraptor 13 October 2015 11: 45 New
      0
      and you - no ... and you probably learned about it from someone.
  • mav1971
    mav1971 12 October 2015 21: 34 New
    +1
    Satellite guidance is not possible under the current conditions.
    The satellite will leave in a very short time.

    Take an interest in the trajectories of satellites.
  • opus
    opus 12 October 2015 23: 29 New
    0
    Quote: mav1971
    Satellite guidance is not possible under the current conditions.

    maybe already.
    This is how RGM / UGM-109E Tactical Tomahawk and RGM / UGM-109H TTPV (Tomahawk Block IV) work

    Namely: two-way satellite communication (VHF) with a carrier (via satellite essno)

    So it will be on LRASM-A

    ==================================
    Threat. our same finish soon
  • mav1971
    mav1971 13 October 2015 01: 18 New
    +1
    Quote: opus
    Quote: mav1971
    Satellite guidance is not possible under the current conditions.

    maybe already.
    This is how RGM / UGM-109E Tactical Tomahawk and RGM / UGM-109H TTPV (Tomahawk Block IV) work

    Namely: two-way satellite communication (VHF) with a carrier (via satellite essno)

    So it will be on LRASM-A

    ==================================
    Threat. our same finish soon



    This is not that.
    Not guidance in the full sense.
    Not a primary target location. Not a target designation.
    It is just a two-way satellite.
    Yes, correction is possible on the marching section.
    Not targeting then who will do it?
    Satellites With a radar - not real.
    optical - as well. They are weather-dependent and hundreds of them are needed.
    Radio engineering too.

    theory for now.
    There was a practice when in the USSR - but even then they understood all its frantic high cost and lack of prospects.
  • opus
    opus 13 October 2015 13: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: mav1971
    This is not that.

    This is the thing.
    In the Kyrgyz Republic, data are received (almost in real time) about the location of the target and its velocity vector, which allows the correction of the trajectory before approaching the target. so that when entering the coverage area of ​​the ARGSN (Texas Instruments PR-53 / DSQ-28 v ??) you could take the target for escort.

    Quote: mav1971
    Not targeting then who will do it?

    YES?
    1. Who do you think is issuing a command center for NATO aviation? Santa Claus?
    2. Who issued according to your CU for tactical KR of the USA in
    Gulf War (1991)
    Operation Decisive Power (1995)
    Operation Desert Strike (1996)
    Operation Desert Fox (1998)
    NATO war against Yugoslavia (1999).
    Invasion of Iraq (2003)
    Intervention in Libya (2011)?

    including for carriers - submarine type "Los Angeles", type "Ohio", type "Sivulf", type "Virginia"?
    Quote: mav1971
    Satellites With a radar - not real.
    optical - as well.

    do not make me laugh:
    US Air Force Orbital Grouping
    -2x KN-11 optical-electronic reconnaissance spacecraft (1 in reserve),It allows optical-electronic reconnaissance of the territory of Russia in the 3600 km band with two spacecraft more than 8 hours a day, with three spacecraft more than 12 hours a day.
    - 3x SC "Lacrosse" radar reconnaissance (1 in reserve) and 3-4 SC-repeater "TDRS" .OThe orbital construction of the system and the capabilities of the on-board equipment allow reconnaissance of the territory of Russia with two spacecraft with a 4000 km field of view — more than 9 hours a day, with three spacecraft — more than 14 hours a day.
    in Lacrosse mode tracking moving targets with radar shooting.

    - about 16 x spacecraft of the marine radio-technical intelligence SSU.
    3-6 groups of SC "SSU-1" and "SSU-2" (3 SC in a group). OG consists of 9 "SSU-2" and 3 "SSU-1" and allows you to determine the coordinates of surface ships by the interferometric method with an accuracy of 1 km, as well as produce non-permeable viewing of the oceans in 1,5-2,5 hours.
    Radio intelligence SC: 2x SC "Ferret" and 2x advanced SC "Ferret-D".
    The orbital construction of the system and the capabilities of the on-board equipment allow reconnaissance of the territory of Russia with four spacecraft with a viewing range of 5600 km - throughout the day.

    Spacecraft of radio and radio intelligence:6 SC "Jampsit" and "Jumpseit-2", 5 SC "Dzheroboom", 1 SC "Magnum", 1 SC "Mentor", 3 SC "Shale") continuous monitoring of the operation of RES in the CIS in real timewhich is close to real in the Northern Hemisphere for 10–11 hours at each turn by each spacecraft, as well as continuous reconnaissance by three spacecraft during the day.
    US Navy Tactical Communications System

    The system operates 9 Ufo spacecraft, 3 Fleetsatcom spacecraft, covering the entire territory of the globe with view zones, with the exception of polar regions over 76 degrees, which allows you to constantly maintain communication with ships, submarines (using Takamo repeater aircraft), located in the waters of the oceans, and aircraft in flight. Using satellites provides one-way communication (transmission only) with all mobile means, two-way communication with large surface ships and submarines, aircraft.
  • opus
    opus 13 October 2015 13: 02 New
    0
    and this is not the whole US OG, about the Air Force, strategists, early warning systems, geodesy, meteorology, 10 satellites of the "Sds" type, and a google-type shellon and I will keep silent
    +aviation reconnaissance, UAV, U-2 II etc.


    Quote: mav1971
    There was a practice when in the USSR - but even then they understood all its frantic high cost and lack of prospects.

    you do not understand why write. Those were other radars.
    Now the Synthetic Aperture (SAR) satellite radar will give you from a height of 400 km, like 20 Legends with a DOE of 180 km.
    Better, faster, better and 10 times cheaper
    and in weight and size characteristics of PCA is 6 times less
  • lelikas
    lelikas 12 October 2015 16: 53 New
    -2
    Quote: sabakina
    How is the surface target different from the ground?

    She has a waterline that gives + 50% stealth against the "Caliber".
  • Ramzaj99
    Ramzaj99 12 October 2015 17: 14 New
    0
    Quote: sabakina
    How is the surface target different from the ground?

    The fact that the surface target is moving, and firing at surface targets is connected only by guidance systems, that is, by radar. Roughly speaking: as far as the radar sees, the rocket flies. A special anti-ship missile carries a radar, hence there is more weight, less fuel, etc. And if the target is "highlighted", then ordinary Calibers can be fired at sea within 1500 km, especially in such a mountain as an aircraft carrier. But highlighting an aircraft carrier is something of a fantasy.
    1. tlauicol
      tlauicol 12 October 2015 17: 44 New
      -1
      Make the story come true - light the aircraft carrier, put a radar on the Caliber and ... and it will not fly at 1500 km. The curtain..
    2. opus
      opus 13 October 2015 13: 49 New
      +3
      Quote: Tlauicol
      put a radar on Caliber and ..

      the Caliber has a "radar", or rather the AGSN radar:
      ARGS -14 (E) at ZM-14 (E)
      и
      ARGS -54 (E) at ZM -54 (E), (1)
      Quote: Tlauicol
      light aircraft carrier

      Why "shine" it?
      A target with an image intensifier tube under 20000m ^ 2 shines very easily with a mini UAV radar, a satellite radar with RSA (with a synthesized aperture) even RADARSAT-1 always sees it, in any mode, from a height of 800km






      and after all there is still a bunch of LA with RSA (AVIATION MOBILE SMALL-SIZED RADAR SENSORS WITH SYNTHESIZED APERTURE OF THE COMPACT FAMILY)



    3. tlauicol
      tlauicol 13 October 2015 15: 22 New
      -1
      it remains to establish two-way communication with the caliber and ask the Americans not to shoot down UAVs over the AUG request Business then a penny!
      As for the ARLGSN: one is standing on the RCC Caliber (the problem of flight range), the other is moving fixed targets - the problem with defeating the aircraft carrier Caliber for 1500-2500km is still not solved.
    4. Scraptor
      Scraptor 13 October 2015 15: 33 New
      0
      Quote: Tlauicol
      UAV over AUG

      and satellites too. all UAVs do not have time to shoot down.

      Granites change roles in the attack - each anti-ship missile can be a high-altitude control (UAV). Of calibers, you can make every 2-3. Everything for 1200-1500 is exactly decided.
    5. tlauicol
      tlauicol 13 October 2015 16: 04 New
      0
      Do you have several UAVs over each aircraft carrier?
      Granite is not Pomegranate, it does not pretend to be at a range of 1500-5000km and it does not fly for 2-3-4-5 hours.
      what exactly is decided there? for 1200-1500 by ship. kindly answer for your words
    6. Scraptor
      Scraptor 13 October 2015 16: 32 New
      0
      Who do you have it with? Why several hundred? Why over (and not within the radio horizon)?
      Are you responsible for yours?
    7. tlauicol
      tlauicol 13 October 2015 17: 37 New
      -1
      and what not to shoot down the drone within the radio horizon? why some honeycombs? then that in aug a thousand missiles
    8. Scraptor
      Scraptor 13 October 2015 21: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Tlauicol
      and what is within the radio horizon

      from drone to ship do not have time to direct anti-ship missiles? Or a pair of drones? then let them knock down at least a hundred milen thousand wassat
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 13 October 2015 16: 22 New
    -1
    As for the well-known story that Granite rockets themselves distribute targets using a reconnaissance rocket .. Hmm.
    P-6, Progress, Granite, Basalt, Vulcan are controlled by telemetry - the operator from the remote control, guided by the radio image that the missiles transmit to him, chooses the desired goals himself. Otherwise, in automatic mode, missiles stupidly attack the fattest target, analyzing the reflected signals of the targets and their geometric location in the resulting radar picture, for example, the place of an aircraft carrier in an aircraft carrier warrant. Most likely, there is no exchange of information m / y by the missiles themselves (I will be glad to make a mistake, if that).
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 13 October 2015 17: 01 New
    +1
    It is possible with the remote control ... Automatic target selection and interference screening mastered for a long time.
    Otherwise, you don’t need to translate your level to the rocket, those who did it, as well as the short-range missile defense where there is no time for operator intervention.
    Most likely you will soon stop paying for your comments or reduce them to a minimum.
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 13 October 2015 16: 30 New
    0
    Also :
    The range of the aforementioned anti-ship missiles is 450-500-600-700-1000? (Volcano?) Km along the high-altitude trajectory and only 120-145-200-250 km along the low-altitude trajectory. Well, a reconnaissance rocket flies at an altitude of 4-14 km, well, I saw the AUG - who will she notify about this if her goods fell into the ocean, flying 200 km and using up fuel And to fly to her at a short range and warn that after such a time more rockets will fly from there to the bottom? Meaning? Instead of delivering a sudden blow from the bottom of the dagger, report this in advance? More like misinformation
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 13 October 2015 17: 04 New
    0
    And all this was what? They themselves chose other rockets and their theory of chaos wassat and let's discuss it all?
    Then it makes no sense.
  • Ladoga
    Ladoga 13 October 2015 19: 13 New
    +1
    ,, to deliver a sudden blow from the bottom of the dagger, ,,

    You play computer games a lot, comrade. (dagger distance down!) Nonsense, but how poetic.
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 14 October 2015 04: 09 New
    0
    Well, essentially there is something to answer?
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 14 October 2015 06: 13 New
    0
    was essentially ...
  • opus
    opus 13 October 2015 17: 32 New
    +1
    Quote: Tlauicol
    left to establish two-way communication with the caliber

    Take the example of the Americans.
    2-way communication did not appear from the floundering bay, but on the example of AIM-120D.
    But we also have the same R-37, RVV-BD
    The same X-59M Gadfly-M.

    Replace the communication with the carrier (nevertheless it is not pulled by 140km), with the communication with the carrier via satellite, that's all.
    Quote: Tlauicol
    ask Americans not to shoot down UAVs

    it still needs to be discovered. With an RSA UAV, you don’t have to be above an aircraft carrier.
    And in general, only record the movement of 70-100000 tons of displacement (40000 tons of steel) along the sea-ocean.
    Maybe a submarine with a sonar.
    The velocity vector is important and its change in a mode close to real time, delays of 10 minutes are tolerable (for ARGS -14) and 30 minutes (for ARGS -54)
    Quote: Tlauicol
    As for ARLGSN: one is standing on the RCC Caliber (the problem of range), the other locks motionless targets

    on ZM-14 is ARGS -14 (E)
    1. It can be used both in single and in group
    the use of missiles.
    2. Provides guidance to the target in the sector of angles in azimuth ± 45 ° in
    corner of places from + 10 ° to -20 ° along various trajectories.
    3. The maximum range is up to 20 km.
    4. It can be used at any time at a temperature
    ambient air from + 60 ° С to -50 ° С, in adverse weather conditions
    any geographical latitude.
    5. Mass and dimensional data:
    weight (without compartment housing and fairing) - no more than 40 kg;
    diameter (maximum) - 514 mm;
    length - 660 mm.

    on the ZM-54 is ARGS-54 (E)

    It can be used both in single and group missile use.
    Provides guidance to the target in the sector of angles in azimuth ± 45 °, in elevation from + 10 ° to -20 °.
    The maximum range is up to 65 km.
    It can be used at any time of the day at an ambient temperature of -50 ° С to + 50 ° С, in conditions of rain and fog, sea waves up to 6 points.
    Mass and dimensional data:
    weight (without compartment housing and fairing) - no more than 40 kg;
    diameter (maximum) - 420 mm;
    length - 700 mm.

    Find differences more than 2?
    Or with ARGS for RCC 35E?

    (are there any differences?)

    ARGS Slate is used in air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles (Buk-type air defense systems).

    Quote: Tlauicol
    another locks motionless targets

    she doesn't care what to "lock", what to invest in the on-board computer, then it will "lock"
    if only the goal was RADIO CONTRAST
    =====================
    it is not understood that you minus
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 13 October 2015 18: 04 New
    -1
    Dreams inspire, of course, but it still needs to be realized in Caliber.
    The radius of the air defense AUG is somehow more than the "farsightedness" of our UAVs. The submarine also needs to stick out the antenna. There is still no two-way communication with Caliber. Still plow and plow. To carry out all this, it is not in words to melt the aircraft carriers.
    ARGS Slate then what? He is not looking for a surface target, but in the sky.
    Ps. And how do you yourself think why two different ARLGSN? Is the underlying surface different? radio contrast goals? frequency of operation, wavelength? The devil is in the details
  • opus
    opus 13 October 2015 18: 43 New
    +1
    Quote: Tlauicol
    but it still needs to be implemented in Caliber

    realize. the thing went
    Quote: Tlauicol
    The radius of the air defense AUG is somehow more than the "farsightedness" of our UAVs.

    AUG air defense does not always see the Tu-95RC, and UAVs are orders of magnitude smaller.
    Yes, and you do not need to enter into a radio contact - AUG is tracked indirectly: radio communications, heat, environmental disturbance, etc.
    Quote: Tlauicol
    The submarine also needs to stick out the antenna.

    buoy, or a torpedo.
    The main thing is to give the command center sufficient for the capture zone of the ARGS

    Quote: Tlauicol
    ARGS Slate then what? He is not looking for a surface target, but in the sky.

    the weight is the same, the weight and overall characteristics are the same, the radar power is not the same as that of the ARGS-54, but not many times lower (EOP).
    With that: The PHYSICAL PRINCIPLE of radar is the same, and both ARGS.
    A VTs that maneuvers in 3D, with overloads and at 10g, at speeds from 800km / h is much more difficult to catch than a ship with an image intensifier from 5000sq.m to 20000sq.m, which maneuvers in 2D, with speeds of 30 knots and overloads of 0,5, XNUMXg

    Quote: Tlauicol
    Ps. And how do you yourself think why two different ARLGSN?

    ARGS-14 is cheaper, energy does not consume 3,6 kW (per pulse), like ARGS-54, and hits, respectively, not at 65 km but at 20 km.
    no task to shoot at 1500km on a maneuvering target, tk so far
    Quote: Tlauicol
    There is still no two-way communication with Caliber


    but there is an RGM / UGM-109E TLAM-E (Tomahawk Block IV).
    So we will (and maybe already)
    No need to plow. All used
    Quote: Tlauicol
    Is the underlying surface different? radio contrast goals?

    a piece of metal of 40000 tons with a mass on the water surface is always easier for a radar than a Wahhabi bunker in the Syrian foothills.
    14 are used for cheapness.
    Yes, and not on ZM-14 only it is used, or rather its ancestor.
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 13 October 2015 18: 57 New
    0
    I’ve broken my head a bit, why the heck are two different ARGS ..
    IMHO about ZM-14 with ARGS -14 (E) - this head possibly compares radio-electronic pictures of previously shot areas of the terrain on which the blow is being hit (well, like the Tomahawks had, only there are optical images). then this GOS at sea is useless.
    what do you think? till tomorrow drinks
  • opus
    opus 13 October 2015 19: 57 New
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    this head possibly compares electronic pictures of previously captured areas of the terrain on which the strike

    no.
    "compares" RVE-B type radio altimeter
    low altitude radio altimeter mode (up to 1500m) .... power is about 0,2 W
    high-altitude radio altimeter mode (up to 30 km) power is about 150 W (if not forgotten)



    data is fed to the autonomous ANS AB-40E and BTsVM (where the cast of heights and CT for this combat mission is laid)

    among the Americans, the AN / APN-194 (Radar Altimeter) radio altimeter is "engaged" in this; manufactured by Honeywell; INSTALLED (used in) on F-14, A-6E, AH-1W, HH-60H, EA-6B, AV-8B, C-2A, P-3C, EP-3E, F / A-18, SH- 60B / F, T-45A, TA-4J, TC-130G, S-3, A-4, A-7, A-10, B-1, TC-4C, QF-4, BQM-8D / F, MQM-8G, BQM-34S, AQM-34U, RGM / UGM-109B

    here it is radar Altimetr called


    viewing angle in elevation - from + 10 ° to -20 ° is not enough for the PB, and it's silly (expensive, pointless)


    Threat args on tomahawks not yet
    DSQ-28 not even on Tomahawk Block IV


    Quote: Tlauicol
    Well, like the Tomahawks had, only there are optical images)

    early tomahawks had TerCom (radio altimeter), then added OESK on digital terrain maps AN / DXQ-4 (DSMAC IV)

    Digital Scene-Mapping Area Correlator (DSMAC)

    But the grater remained ... because?
    because the giant CT database for Terkom was recruited in 25 or 35 years
    ============
    till tomorrow hi
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 14 October 2015 04: 19 New
    0
    Thanks for the answer. But I did not mean the flight route, but the area of ​​the target itself (to hit one house out of a dozen identical ones) - i.e. homing already. Then the role of the radar (as well as the optics or thermal imager on other missiles) is understandable - most of the path of the AGSN 14 is silent, only the target turns on
  • opus
    opus 14 October 2015 11: 10 New
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    and the area of ​​the target itself (hit one house out of a dozen identical ones)

    and CR reaches the target, just going to the target area, according to the coordinates of the BS.
    And there she goes through the ANN with a glonas correction and passing control points, 11 in my opinion.
    CT is a grater (Radio Altimeter)
    It cannot be considered that a complete map of the heights of the route in the digital computer.
    Do not.
    Next, we have the target -ARGS-14.
    The Americans have DSMAC (but did not have before)

    Quote: Tlauicol
    most of the way AGSN 14 is silent,

    required
    Why does a 1,3kW radar glow, when you can get by with a watt radar, almost strictly down to the surface.
    Accordingly, the BIP does not require such a powerful one.
    The radar is switched on well, about 30 km to the target according to the ANN.
    I’m assuming that we have more than one goal in our flight mission.
    RLSGSN allows, in the case of: the target disappeared, covered, anti-interference, destroyed .. and so on
    go to the second run, to another goal.
    Although maybe wrong
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 14 October 2015 12: 13 New
    0
    I’m thinking: maybe on board there is a standard (picture) of the target itself (10-50 square meter), which the computer recognizes when the AGSN turns on?

    15 control points
  • opus
    opus 14 October 2015 14: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Tlauicol
    maybe on board there is a standard (picture) of the target itself (10-50 square meters -),

    RL characteristics of the object.
    Yes.
    This is laid down in the digital computer when taking a combat mission.
    Moreover, it is processed for the attack height of the Kyrgyz Republic.
    Clear the stump of the UAV did not remove the object from 50 m.
    Quote: Tlauicol
    15 control points

    I don’t remember, probably
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 13 October 2015 05: 07 New
    0
    Nothing of the kind, he has too much EPR and can be emphasized by lidar
    Well, launch two "Calibers" ... one with an optical-contrast warhead, the other for reconnaissance and the first in the target area.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • opus
    opus 12 October 2015 22: 01 New
    0
    Quote: sabakina
    How is the surface target different from the ground?

    stationary ground.
    KR does not go to the target, but to the place where, according to intelligence, the target is located.

    and the surface ... it floats (whether it walks), to whom it is like. As a rule, with speeds of 20-40 knots.
  • Felix1
    Felix1 13 October 2015 04: 50 New
    -1
    stupid question however
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 13 October 2015 05: 07 New
      +1
      The answer is no better ... And if the ground target is mobile?
  • although
    although 14 October 2015 09: 25 New
    0
    anchored by nothing, and so it’s just a little .... hmm moves! wink
    Baikal is right, according to the technical specifications, the missiles have different caliber ranges for aimed fire at surface and ground targets.
    Yes! with the same missiles!
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 14 October 2015 11: 57 New
      0
      how different and (for non-export) unclassified?
  • Homo
    Homo 12 October 2015 15: 49 New
    0
    http://zagopod.com/blog/43420991809/Realnaya-zona-pokryitiya-kryilatyimi-raketam
    i-Kalibr-NK? page = 1
  • i80186
    i80186 12 October 2015 15: 51 New
    +1
    Quote: Baikal
    In the question in black it says in Russian - on the surface. You are talking about the capabilities of the "Caliber" for ground targets

    On surface targets, you can even work anti-aircraft missiles, for example, Georgians were shown how. Naturally, a specialized missile will be more effective, because there is supersonic in the final part of the trajectory (in fact, why the range is less) and much more, but nevertheless no one bothers to get subsonic.
  • Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 12 October 2015 16: 07 New
    -4
    Quote: Baikal

    The question says black in Russian - on surface.

    Read and what? Who told you that the Caliber cannot work on surface targets for 1500 meters?
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Kalmar
      Kalmar 12 October 2015 16: 39 New
      12
      Who told you that the Caliber cannot work on surface targets for 1500 meters?

      And again: the RCC must drag the radar on itself.

      CD for attacking ground targets works on stationary objects. A flight task is put into her head: to fly so many kilometers in this direction, then so many more - to the other, etc. From time to time, with the help of an optical seeker, she checks the terrain "under her" with the pictures, also laid in her head, and corrects the course. Upon arrival at the target area, it again determines the exact location of the target from the picture and attacks it.

      This trick will not work with surface targets. Firstly, there is no connection to the terrain for correcting the course (there is only water under the belly). Secondly, the target is moving and will not wait for the arrival of the CD. Then, the flight task is also formed for a very long time (up to 36 hours). Convince Roosevelt not to go out for a couple of days?

      As a result, the RCC enters the arena with another, heavier GOS, which has a powerful radar in its composition. This radar already makes it possible to carry out additional reconnaissance upon arrival at the place of the possible location of the target and to accurately target the target if it was found (this is not always the case).

      The radar station weighs a lot and does not work from the holy spirit; all this does not in the best way affect the range of the rocket. So 1500 for a relatively small "Caliber" in anti-ship performance is extremely unlikely. Is that the warheads to shrink in size to a minimum, but then the point is such a firecracker?
      1. lelikas
        lelikas 12 October 2015 17: 11 New
        -2
        What makes you think that it is not on the usual "Caliber" -?
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Kalmar
        Kalmar 12 October 2015 21: 28 New
        0
        What makes you think that it is not on the usual "Caliber" -?

        Ordinary - which is for ground purposes? Why does he need a radar? In this case, every gram counts, carrying along a whole radar just in case is painfully cool.
      4. opus
        opus 12 October 2015 23: 13 New
        +2
        Quote: lelikas
        From time to time, with the help of an optical seeker, she checks the area "under her" with pictures, t

        1. On the ZM-14 (with which they fired in Syria) NO OPTICAL GOS (OESK type on digital terrain maps AN / DXQ-4 (DSMAC IV))
        maybe later, as the remnants from Temp-SM and OTR-23 Oka will finalize for the current time

        2. We have an almost complete analogue of TerCom: a radio altimeter, a digital computer and an electronic height map

        3.
        Quote: lelikas
        Upon arrival in the target area, she again from the picture determines the exact location of the target and attacks it.

        Not. unlike an ax, we have on ZM-14 (E)
        ARGSN (RL GSN)

        ACTIVE RADAR HEAD OF HAMING ARGS-14E - Designed for precise guidance of a cruise missile at a ground target in the final section of the flight path.
        Quote: lelikas
        The radar weighs a lot and does not work from the holy spirit;


        the weight is not very important (ARGS-54E weighs up to 40 kg), but the BIP, yes. There are other capacities
        Quote: lelikas
        incorporating a powerful radar. This radar already allows for additional reconnaissance upon arrival at the location of the possible target

        This is pointless for subsonic CD.
        The best seeker (ARGS-54) will capture the target at a distance of 65 km ...
        For 2 hours of flight to the target location, the target will sail 100-120 km. 30 nodal move.
        65 km is generally super, a slide is needed, naturally from 20 m (profile above the sea) you will not see ANYTHING (only direct visibility)
        Without two-way communication of full-fledged intelligence in real time, it makes no sense.
        Or do you need BRDS (R-27K)
    3. i80186
      i80186 12 October 2015 21: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: Kalmar
      Is that warhead squeeze in size to a minimum, but then the point of such a cracker?

      Well, I don’t even know. 200 kg, instead of 400, there probably is a difference for an aircraft carrier. laughing Forrestola won one nursa with 15 kg for example. He, after hitting a couple of such surprises, will surely be able to raise an air group in the air? Or not? I think we will talk about the struggle for survivability, and the lack of contamination of the area, with the destruction of the reactor. It’s as if they shot a nuclear missile with 80 kg of HMX inside, but only with a shell not of meters of concrete, but with millimeters of aluminum. smile
    4. Kalmar
      Kalmar 12 October 2015 21: 31 New
      +1
      Forrestola won one nursa with 15 kg for example

      The incompetence of the team plus an extremely unfortunate combination of circumstances .. It happens, but the experience of “Forrestal” is also taken into account, so you should not count on such things. It was not for nothing that in Soviet times it was believed that in order to reliably disable an aircraft carrier, it was necessary to plant several missiles at once, moreover, "heavy" missiles (like "Granit" or "Basalt").
    5. i80186
      i80186 12 October 2015 22: 43 New
      0
      Quote: Kalmar
      team incompetence plus extremely unfortunate combination of circumstances.

      Pretty boy. And how will he help five pieces of 200 kg of warheads, after the explosion? laughing
      Granites and basalts - a delivery vehicle of 500 kt - in one fell swoop 15 ships.
    6. Kalmar
      Kalmar 12 October 2015 22: 46 New
      +1
      And how will 200 kg of five warheads on board help him?

      Of course, they will not add health to him. But what damage will be done will greatly depend on where exactly they get. It is possible that the aircraft carrier will even partially maintain combat effectiveness.
      The point is small: somehow push these same 5 warheads through the air defense missile defense :)
    7. i80186
      i80186 12 October 2015 22: 51 New
      0
      Quote: Kalmar
      Of course, they won’t add him anything. But what damage will be done will greatly depend on where exactly they get. It is possible that the aircraft carrier will even partially maintain combat effectiveness.
      The point is small: somehow push these same 5 warheads through the air defense missile defense :)


      I think that a person needs to become more frequent, not only write, but also count. laughing
  • Baikal
    Baikal 12 October 2015 17: 00 New
    -1
    Answered above. In addition, noting about the eyes and the brain wink
    Kalmar, thanks for the clarification about the reason for the difference in ranges!

    However, the question of how "Caliber" can threaten the AUG in the Persian Gulf is open. Most likely the author of the article did not figure it out himself.
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 12 October 2015 17: 57 New
      +2
      Quote: Baikal
      Answered above. In addition, noting about the eyes and the brain

      What does the eye with the brain have to do with it? wink
      As I understand it, there is no one on the site who owns 100% information on the capabilities and the complete set of this type of missile, but twenty years ago, launching missiles into a given sector and independently guiding with target selection did not constitute an impossible task. As they say - wait and see.
    2. Baikal
      Baikal 12 October 2015 18: 25 New
      +3
      Quote: lelikas
      What does the eye with the brain have to do with it?

      Given that based on simple numbers and characteristics of missiles (once again I remind you - to defeat ground и surface goals, these characteristics are very different), it turns out that the article itself is based on the wrong thesis that "Caliber" threatens the US AUG in the Persian Gulf.
      And if it doesn’t threaten, then why did the author of the article, without understanding the topic, make a garden in the city? yes
    3. lelikas
      lelikas 12 October 2015 18: 47 New
      0
      Quote: Baikal
      Despite the fact that, based on simple numbers and characteristics of missiles (I remind you once again - these characteristics are very different for hitting ground and surface targets), it turns out that the article itself is based on the wrong thesis that "Caliber" threatens US AUG in the Persian Gulf ...
      And if it doesn’t threaten, then why did the author of the article, without understanding the topic, make a garden in the city?

      So far, the whole debate has been reduced to the presence of a radar in Caliber - and, if you look even at the description of export ones - it is there.
    4. tlauicol
      tlauicol 12 October 2015 19: 05 New
      +3
      There is. On the RCC, but not on the tactical. Otherwise, the Tomahawk could have Baltic Fleet drowned from Cyprus even 30 years ago, but no, however
  • mav1971
    mav1971 12 October 2015 21: 39 New
    +4
    The entire world missile-building industry cannot do this, and Alexander Romanov believes that it turns out that the Russian (read Soviet) technology rocket of the late 70's, the beginning of the 80's can.
    Enough to include the "fool mode".
    They have already explained to you a bunch of times the futility of realizing a long-range strike on a maneuverable surface target.
  • Rusich is not from Kiev
    Rusich is not from Kiev 12 October 2015 16: 09 New
    +2
    Quote: Baikal
    In the question in black it says in Russian - on the surface. You are talking about the capabilities of the "Caliber" for ground targets

    It’s difficult to tie a route by water and it guarantees 100% hit at 300km. But through Iran, then it flies on land, and then on water. How many Persian puddles are there?
    1. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 12 October 2015 16: 27 New
      -3
      Quote: Rusich is not from Kiev

      It’s difficult to tie a route by water and it guarantees 100% hit at 300km.

      True, and if the ship goes 30 knots and then changes course, do you think the missile will fly by?
      1. Ladoga
        Ladoga 12 October 2015 17: 07 New
        +5
        The correction of the trajectory of the Kyrgyz Republic can occur at any flight site from the space constellation of satellites. And in the final section, too, given the offset location of the target. The width of the surface coverage area, including the sea, with the passage of the satellite is approximately 800 km. Digital data transfer rate volley, in a split second.
      2. Kalmar
        Kalmar 12 October 2015 21: 36 New
        -1
        Correction of the trajectory of the Kyrgyz Republic can come at any flight site from the space constellation of satellites

        The ambush is that all sorts of "Growlers" are hovering around the AUG and diligently firing noise. Whether the rocket will be able to receive a signal from a satellite in such conditions is a big, big question.
      3. Ladoga
        Ladoga 12 October 2015 22: 26 New
        +4
        ,, Grunts ,, will not help. Even on the way to the area, the satellite signal is no weaker than the interference. At the end of the route, an active search is activated. The main thing was to determine the location of the target in real time. Wide-angle cameras for optoelectronic surface scanning for reconnaissance satellites were created almost 30 years ago. By the way, the clouds are not a hindrance.
      4. Kalmar
        Kalmar 12 October 2015 22: 31 New
        -1
        ,, Grunts ,, will not help. While approaching the area, the satellite signal is no weaker than the interference

        You already had time to measure? :) GPS, let's say, is completely jammed. Cellular communication can be blocked without problems, although the cell is almost next to the subscriber, and not in low Earth orbit.
      5. opus
        opus 13 October 2015 00: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: Kalmar
        rather than in Earth orbit, dangles.

        This is the whole cimus.
        How can I drown out the signal from 4 (!) Satellites (azimuthally spaced) located in an orbit of 20000-24000 km for a target that is ABOVE the emitter of the REB (standing on the ground) if the antenna receiving the target is directed upward and receives the signal from above?
        The mind is incomprehensible!
        Of course you can.
        It is only necessary to raise the REP emitter (and not one, but at least 3) above the target (m / y target and 20000-24000 km) and radiate purely down to the target
        Feasible?

        The fact that the jammer suppresses the GPS of a car (or boat) standing on the ground or LMA (barrage at an altitude of up to 50 m) does not mean anything
      6. Kalmar
        Kalmar 13 October 2015 08: 57 New
        0
        How can I drown out the signal from 4 (!) Satellites (azimuthally spaced) located in an orbit of 20000-24000 km for a target that is ABOVE the emitter of the REB (standing on the ground) if the antenna receiving the target is directed upward and receives the signal from above?

        Sinful, I didn’t think about the directional antenna. The point is small - to get 4 of the above satellites :) Do we have them, or is it only planned so far?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Ladoga
      Ladoga 13 October 2015 02: 20 New
      0
      Perhaps you are a great connoisseur of radio communications, and yet I would advise you to turn to space intelligence specialists working directly with UWB technologies. Or directly to KB ,, Innovator ,,. I am sure that they are much more authoritative and, most importantly, more clearly explain to you all the nuances and subtleties in the field of radio communications and its suppression.
    4. Ladoga
      Ladoga 13 October 2015 03: 40 New
      0
      This is for Kalmar.
  • Ladoga
    Ladoga 13 October 2015 03: 37 New
    0
    Perhaps you are a great connoisseur of radio communications, and yet I would advise you to turn to space intelligence specialists working directly with UWB technologies. Or directly to KB ,, Innovator ,,. I am sure that they are much more authoritative and, most importantly, more clearly explain to you all the nuances and subtleties in the field of radio communications and its suppression.
  • clidon
    clidon 12 October 2015 22: 07 New
    0
    In order to indicate to the rocket via satellite where the target is, you need to know where it is. And who will tell you at such a distance?
  • Scraptor
    Scraptor 13 October 2015 03: 39 New
    0
    tracking satellites ...
  • mav1971
    mav1971 12 October 2015 22: 11 New
    0
    There is no space constellation of satellites.
    do not dream.
    Not with us. nor the Americans.

    Do not think about satellites in the James Bond movies. when they could watch at any minute. where once again is Bond drinking vodka with martini ...
  • mav1971
    mav1971 12 October 2015 22: 10 New
    +1
    The rocket speed in marching mode is 900 km \ hour.
    The missile makes the last throw (dodging to 2200km \ hour) for 3-5 kilometers to the target, so this indicator can be neglected.
    When firing for 300 km (20 minutes of flight), the full speed (normal takeoff and landing mode) of an aircraft carrier passes 12-16 km (8-10 miles).

    The viewing angle of the active radar seeker within 30-35 degrees.
    GOS turns on in active mode beyond 15-20 km then the target point.
    Its inclusion means - full disclosure of yourself, beloved.
    Accordingly, when you turn on the active mode for 20 km, the viewing angle at this distance will give the detection zone of all 15 km (this is on both sides of the original point, i.e., correspondingly, only 7.5 kilometers in each direction).
    Aircraft carrier, cruiser, destroyer, frigate, etc. already left the affected area.
    A curtain.

    Therefore, no one does long-range anti-ship subsonic missiles.
    And not going to do it.
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 12 October 2015 22: 39 New
    +3
    Therefore, no one does long-range anti-ship subsonic missiles.

    I have something to argue.

    Firstly, they do - Google LRASM. The project should fly almost 1000km, the finished sample is expected in 2018-2019, i.e. 2025 may already be in service.

    Secondly, the problem of target detection is, in principle, solvable. In the final section, the rocket performs search maneuvers, i.e. corny moves his nose in different directions until he notices something interesting. Then, if the missiles in a salvo are able to exchange information, then together they can scan already very large areas, having a good chance of detecting a target. It was argued that the same "Granites" work according to this scheme.
  • mav1971
    mav1971 12 October 2015 23: 05 New
    +2
    Quote: Kalmar
    Therefore, no one does long-range anti-ship subsonic missiles.

    I have something to argue.

    Firstly, they do - Google LRASM. The project should fly almost 1000km, the finished sample is expected in 2018-2019, i.e. 2025 may already be in service.

    Secondly, the problem of target detection is, in principle, solvable. In the final section, the rocket performs search maneuvers, i.e. corny moves his nose in different directions until he notices something interesting. Then, if the missiles in a salvo are able to exchange information, then together they can scan already very large areas, having a good chance of detecting a target. It was argued that the same "Granites" work according to this scheme.


    Well, he's not there yet.
    And it is not known what it will be.
    800 km is the same declared theoretical limit as the 550 of the ax, although the Americans themselves later declared the real 280.
    so closer to 500 kilometers - it will be more honest.
    And in the search - well, yes, there are principles of joint target search, algorithms for working in active search by the snake, spirals - especially if the engine is small-sized and the fuel supply is more than decent.
    But still.
    The air defense of a normal order (modern) 10, and even 15 missiles removes not particularly straining, regardless of the coordination of the approach.
    10 anti-ship missiles - Burke’s ammunition will be standard.
    They are mainly air defense.
    Accordingly, the trend is already towards the fact that again a meat grinder with the involvement of a large number of forces in a small area.
    Dog dump, only at sea. :(
    Back to the tactics of the battleships? :)
    Kaptsov - you were right! :)
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 12 October 2015 23: 49 New
    0
    800 km - the same declared theoretical limit as 550 for an ax

    I agree, 900-1000 km - this is, apparently, when straight to the target. If a rocket needs to be pranced in search of a target, the range will be significantly reduced. But, as they say, we will survive - we will see.

    10 anti-ship missiles - Burke’s ammunition will be standard.
    They are mainly air defense.

    It’s stupid to attack a whole order with Burke alone. Again, there are really a lot of Berks in the US Navy; in the field they can afford to pack some of them mainly with LRASMs. As a result, you can place a volley of several dozen missiles that will make anyone sweat.
  • opus
    opus 13 October 2015 00: 52 New
    0
    Quote: mav1971
    The missile makes the last throw (after-run to 2200km \ hour) in 3-5 kilometers

    This is only for the ZM-54 (anti-ship missiles at 300-600m), the ZM-14 does not "do"
    and not 2200km / h, but 3550km / h (M = 2,9)
    Quote: mav1971
    The viewing angle of the active radar seeker within 30-35 degrees.
    GOS turns on in active mode beyond 15-20 km then the target point.

    ARGSN 54 (E)

    Provides guidance to the target in the sector of angles in azimuth ± 45 °, in elevation from + 10 ° to -20 °.
    The maximum range is up to 65 km.

    ARGSN-14 (E), which ZM-14:
    viewing angle in azimuth (bearing) ± 45 °, in elevation - from + 10 ° to -20 °. Maximum range up to 20 km



    Quote: mav1971
    Its inclusion means - full disclosure of yourself, beloved.

    do not care"
    20km / 900 km / h = 0,02 h = 72 seconds.
    They won’t even have time to fart (as it should)
    Quote: mav1971
    ast at this distance the detection zone is only 15 km

    ? belay
    somehow abstruse
    Quote: mav1971
    Therefore, no one does long-range anti-ship subsonic missiles.

    1. What did you do before?
    2. How about RGM / UGM-109E TLAM-E (Tomahawk Block IV)

    and LRASM-A by 2020?
  • opus
    opus 12 October 2015 21: 59 New
    +1
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    Answer, Caliber has a range of 1500 km

    The answer is not correct.
    1.This "Caliber" (ZM-14) is for shooting at STANDBY ground targets.
    2.ARGS -14 will not "take the ship
    3. Yes and all this is stupid.
    During the flight time, the ship takes off, where the ARGS-54 will not "take" it (but it is much heavier and 1500 for this version of the "caliber" will not work)
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS 13 October 2015 01: 08 New
    +2
    Quote: Alexander Romanov
    Answer, Caliber has a range of 1500 km

    Are you sure? TTX Kalibrov, namely, range is secret information ... numbers were announced and up to 4 km.
    On surface targets, there is not only Caliber, but also say X-101 ... And it hits 5 km. And soon X-000 will still be added. And there everything is completely foggy with TTX and its capabilities as a whole, maybe state tests. So for the US Navy, not everything is so rosy and cloudy. We had a nuclear triad, and now there is a non-nuclear triad with the Kyrgyz Republic.
    And as for the Caliber ... they are already being produced (in the updated version: the electronics are all new). And we will see how much they will do.
  • Dm-sl
    Dm-sl 13 October 2015 03: 24 New
    -3
    Have you ever read the EP
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 13 October 2015 03: 29 New
      0
      read the site.
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 13 October 2015 08: 51 New
      +3
      Quote: Dm-sl
      Have you ever read the EP

      If the wiki is your reliable source, then everything is clear and understandable with you.
  • Gregazov
    Gregazov 12 October 2015 20: 57 New
    -1
    I don’t know how for the caliber, but for many aviation ammunition there is no difference between naval and land inactive targets.

    [quote = Baikal]
    Let's solve the puzzle:
    In the article, the author passionately asserts that the United States allegedly got scared of the "Caliber" and removed its aircraft carrier, which located in the Persian Gulf and covered from the Caspian (or the Black Sea). At the same time, the performance characteristics of "Caliber" say that his work on surface targets the distance is very modest.
  • opus
    opus 12 October 2015 22: 00 New
    -1
    Quote: Baikal
    The article author passionately affirms

    No questions.
    The author is just a fool.
    he’s a thief, a military man
    1. Firstvanguard
      Firstvanguard 13 October 2015 13: 59 New
      +1
      No questions.
      The author is just a fool.
      he’s a thief, a military man

      You do not have to consider yourself smarter than others, you can sit in a luda hi
      GDP said the same - there are still many surprises. In military developments, doctrines, tactics, everything flows, everything changes. Sometimes it is very fast and very inconspicuous for mere mortals, because you know less - you sleep longer.
  • steel_balls
    steel_balls 13 October 2015 00: 24 New
    +3
    Why are Baikal minus? The same question to the author of the article: Where did you get the idea that the "Caliber" shoots at 1500 km at a moving surface target? How Buyan-M shoots from the Caspian at a ground, static target with previously known coordinates is understandable, but how he will hit a moving target with a subsonic missile (which will sail anywhere in 3 hours of flight) is a mystery to me personally ...
    So IMHO a modification of a missile with a range of 1500 km only shoots at static ground targets.
    1. Baikal
      Baikal 13 October 2015 00: 49 New
      +3
      Thanks for the support, colleague. drinks
      It was a surprise to see public censure for "doubting" laughing
      We must not forget that time is difficult and all information should be questioned - both ours and others. Tested on their own bitter experience)
      After all, if recklessly and thoughtlessly - how will we differ from the same Ukrainians or pendosov?)
      1. mart-kot
        mart-kot 13 October 2015 06: 54 New
        +1
        I wonder why was it soaked in one gulp? because the Americans in Iraq didn’t seem to let the tomahawks flock (maybe I’m mistaken)? Well, if a swarm system is organized in Caliber like in Granites, then 200 km for a swarm of 22 missiles with a detection radius of 20 km each (respectively, with a swarm of information exchange) is not a problem. IMHO. And what kind of algorithms are implemented there, and that no one will tell you what is crammed into the control system. But launching 22 missiles at the same time seems to me a hint, moreover a concrete one.
  • Dm-sl
    Dm-sl 13 October 2015 02: 55 New
    +1
    I support. Who set the cons there? A sense of imperial pride above mathematics? I understand the yachts would be scared, but the caliber? If only as a hint of a yacht.
  • Appraiser
    Appraiser 13 October 2015 16: 13 New
    0
    The United States understood the simple thing that the Gulf Fleet located in the Gulf is insecure. And in what way to deliver cruise missiles, this is a matter of technology .... soldier
  • OlegLex
    OlegLex 13 October 2015 19: 09 New
    0
    As I understand it, the author meant that if we have a "caliber" that can and can hit targets for one and a half thousand kilometers, then it is most likely that we have our favorite and anti-ship missiles on the same engine
  • Das Boot
    Das Boot 12 October 2015 17: 01 New
    +3
    Quote: viktorrymar
    this volley of cruise missiles on each of the resources was sucked from all sides.
    but the title of the article Ishchenko outdid all the suckers.
    1. lelikas
      lelikas 12 October 2015 18: 03 New
      +1
      Quote: Das Boot
      but the title of the article Ishchenko outdid all the suckers.

      I did not surpass, but stood on a par with such as "Revealed deception in the range of" Caliber "" laughing
      1. Das Boot
        Das Boot 12 October 2015 18: 58 New
        +2
        Quote: lelikas
        I did not surpass, but stood on a par with such as "Revealed deception in the range of" Caliber ""

        Achtung! British scientists detective .... laughing
  • Semen Semyonitch
    Semen Semyonitch 12 October 2015 20: 59 New
    0
    Quote: viktorrymar
    Well, in addition, I sent this text to be posted on the VO on October 8, the moderators rejected it without even explaining why, and now post it today ...

    Similarly hi08.10.2015 - 8: 56
    The American command is in shock: the Russian Federation is a more dangerous opponent than the USSR.
  • evfrat
    evfrat 13 October 2015 00: 24 New
    +2
    Because the author of "napalm burns" our brains -

    "... The basis is made up of the same Su-24 bombers and Su-25 attack aircraft.

    Only Ukrainian aviation was driven out of the sky by miners, hairdressers, taxi drivers and supermarket guards in a matter of weeks, while perfectly trained, armed and experienced ISIS terrorists cannot inflict any damage on the Russian one ... "

    - he cried, did not read further.
  • antipendos
    antipendos 13 October 2015 05: 52 New
    0
    But it was still interesting to read
  • shasherin.pavel
    shasherin.pavel 13 October 2015 17: 48 New
    0
    To me, too, two topics were not published, published on "Military Affairs". We took it with pleasure and even illustrated it.
  • Vladimir 1964
    Vladimir 1964 12 October 2015 19: 33 New
    0
    Quote: MIKHALYCHXNNX
    I like how they worked clearly and I think the missiles were not only from boats (they are very compact)


    Dear Just Mikhalych, I will allow myself to correct you a little. Not a single publication, reportage or news report was about boats. The launches were carried out, among other things, from 3 small rocket ships (Buyan type).

    Something like this is more accurate. hi
  • Now we are free
    Now we are free 12 October 2015 14: 42 New
    29
    The article is good, BUT it’s too early to suffer from hats ... The United States simply pulled a “salvo from the Caspian Sea” on October 7, one might say, gave a light bream to a particularly overgrown overgrowth, with the tacit approval of Iran, Iraq (considering that Iraq is still under American occupation) and Syria. I do not think that China was not warned about the upcoming "Leshche", which is going to be prescribed to "Smoked" -Obama Huseynovich.
    What happened on October 7 has many positive factors from Suddenly rising oil prices, to the appearance of serious doubts by the sixes of the United States in the omnipotence of its master-state of overgrowth, but the work has only just begun ...
    As Churchill once said, “This is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, this is the end of the beginning ... Ahead is a lot of work and tests that our country will have to go through, BUT on October 7 we all saw that we can win and win systematically, arguing and reinforcing each its effect by international law.
    1. Svetlana
      Svetlana 12 October 2015 15: 05 New
      +6
      Quote: Now we are free
      What happened on October 7 has many positive factors.

      I agree with you, even if we didn’t scare anyone very much, we made it clear to the whole world (I think the second time after the events in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea to Russia) that we ourselves are no longer afraid and we can already do something . This is evidenced by the fall of the dollar and the rise in price of oil (why then suddenly?) And the change in tone from arrogant to somewhat more friendly in communicating with us.
      1. Das Boot
        Das Boot 12 October 2015 19: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: Svetlana
        even if we didn’t scare anyone, we made it clear to the whole world

        did not scare. The adversary was puzzled back in 2012, during test launches of the Caliber from Severodvinsk. And now this is a field test - the dream of any designer) There is no doubt that the eventuals have an arsenal to counter the Caliber, but the very fact of combat use is worth a lot)
    2. bulvas
      bulvas 12 October 2015 15: 05 New
      +9
      No one has yet seen the Caliber’s ability to hit moving targets, so it's too early to talk about the US Navy.

      And how to provide target designation in the ocean?

      In addition, if the Caliber was not noticed from the air, then the Tomahawks can go unnoticed, or not?

      And if you notice, then they may not reach their goals, at least they will need a lot.

      It is written beautifully, but does the author get ahead of himself?

      I think the main thing is that the European and other NATO members and their allies will no longer be so sure of their impunity, and the feeling of being under the gun will be stronger

      1. ver_
        ver_ 12 October 2015 15: 32 New
        +2
        ... they do not need to be noticed from above .. it is enough for them to give coordinates from the satellite by the call sign of the rocket and not necessarily by a narrow beam, for this there is a programmable guidance head ...
        1. bulvas
          bulvas 12 October 2015 16: 06 New
          +1
          Quote: ver_
          ... they do not need to be noticed from above ..


          interesting, but did not understand:

          how to intercept them, if you don’t notice, and if they fly very low, you can only notice from above, right?

          Quote: ver_
          .. it’s enough for them to give coordinates from the satellite by the call sign of the rocket and not necessarily by a narrow beam, for this there is a programmable guidance head ...


          Is it for guidance?
          Then what to do with a goal that moves?

          Should the satellite hang in the target area?




          1. Das Boot
            Das Boot 12 October 2015 19: 59 New
            -2
            Quote: bulvas
            Should the satellite hang in the target area?

            about how. What for? What is a weapon tied tightly to a satellite?
            1. bulvas
              bulvas 12 October 2015 21: 00 New
              0
              Quote: Das Boot
              Quote: bulvas
              Should the satellite hang in the target area?

              about how. What for? What is a weapon tied tightly to a satellite?


              Interesting judgment

              What do you think?

              The satellite moves in orbit, cannot hang in one place
              The target (ship) moves, the coordinates of the target change, while it can change speed and direction.

              The aircraft cannot constantly hang in the target area; enemy aircraft will not allow it.

              In such circumstances, how can a missile be aimed at a target from a long (thousand km) distance if ships can go tens of kilometers during the time of a missile’s arrival?

              1. atalef
                atalef 12 October 2015 21: 04 New
                +1
                Quote: bulvas
                Quote: Das Boot
                Quote: bulvas
                Should the satellite hang in the target area?

                about how. What for? What is a weapon tied tightly to a satellite?


                Interesting judgment

                What do you think?

                The satellite moves in orbit, cannot hang in one place
                The target (ship) moves, the coordinates of the target change, while it can change direction.


                The aircraft cannot constantly hang in the target area; enemy aircraft will not allow it.

                How in such conditions to direct a missile at a target?


                A satellite can hang over one place, a geostationary orbit, with an altitude of over 36000 km
                1. bulvas
                  bulvas 12 October 2015 21: 11 New
                  0
                  Quote: atalef
                  A satellite can hang over one place, a geostationary orbit, with an altitude of over 36000 km



                  And what, is this target designation method used?

                  I do not know, from a geostationary orbit, is a satellite able to find and track a target on Earth?

                  It looks like you own information, tell me.

                  I remember that the USSR even created the Legend system - a monster with dozens of low-orbit satellites with nuclear reactors on board that were specially tracked by American AUGs

                  1. atalef
                    atalef 12 October 2015 21: 23 New
                    +2
                    Geostationary satellites are divided into
                    functional purpose:
                    Scientific.
                    Geodetic.
                    Meteorological.
                    Navigational.
                    Military purposes, which are divided into several subclasses (optical, radio engineering, radar reconnaissance, nuclear missile attack warning - SPRN).
                    Telecommunication satellites (including commercial).
                    Engineering
                  2. kote119
                    kote119 12 October 2015 22: 17 New
                    0
                    at a geostationary it is not possible tsu in real life
              2. opus
                opus 12 October 2015 23: 16 New
                +2
                Quote: atalef
                A satellite can hang over one place, a geostationary orbit, with an altitude of over 36000 km

                1. and how to determine the place over which "the satellite should hang"?
                Today it is the Persian Gulf, tomorrow the territorial waters of Israel, after tomorrow 200km from the east coast of the United States.
                ?
                You can’t get satellites geostationary.
                2. From 36000 km, the OESK will see almost nothing, and the radar will not select the ship from the underlying surface
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. mav1971
      mav1971 12 October 2015 22: 27 New
      -1
      Quote: bulvas

      It is written beautifully, but does the author get ahead of himself?


      The author is a stupid person.
      Shapkozakatitelsky stupid person.
      Absolute ignoramus.

      Not understanding what the anti-ship version of the rocket caliber is:
      1. carry at least an additional 40-50 kilogram radar.
      2. Half-armor-warhead warhead weighing 400 kg, instead of 200kg in the tactical version.
      3. the flight mode on the marching section at 3-7 meters above the sea surface in order to avoid the rapid detection of the radar of the attacked ships, which entails an almost twofold increase in fuel consumption, in contrast to the average altitude flight mode of the tactical version.

      It is precisely because of this that anti-ship versions have much weaker flight ranges before tactical ones.
      The author simply does not understand what he is writing about.
      Another hat-making idiot.

      Well, if you write an article. Well, take an interest in the subject of writing.
      Chukchi from a joke, in a word.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 October 2015 22: 37 New
        -2
        Quote: mav1971
        carry at least an additional 40-50 kilogram radar.

        EMNIP there all 80 kg.
        Quote: mav1971
        Well, if you write an article. Well, take an interest in the subject of writing.
        Chukchi from a joke, in a word.

        Indeed, the Chukchi is not a reader ...
        Himself in shock, to be honest.
        1. opus
          opus 12 October 2015 23: 20 New
          +3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          EMNIP there all 80 kg.

          EMNIP Head ARGS-14E diameter - 514mm and weighing 40kg
          viewing angle in azimuth (bearing) ± 45 °, in elevation - from + 10 ° to -20 °.
          Typical target detection range of about 20 km

          Well, plus of course:
          The onboard control system is based on the AB-40E autonomous inertial navigation system. The missile control system includes a RVE-B type radio altimeter and a satellite navigation system signal receiver (GLONASS or GPS).

          This is all for the ZM-14
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Edvagan
    Edvagan 12 October 2015 16: 16 New
    +2
    I agree. It is clearly too early to write off the entire American fleet for scrap, no matter how much everyone wants to. Threats still need to be assessed realistically, so as not to become like the same Americans who "slept through" the strengthening of Russia
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Alex20042004
    Alex20042004 13 October 2015 19: 20 New
    0
    The new is the forgotten old.
    Repetition is the mother of learning.
    There are 33 letters in the Russian alphabet, and each time in any sentence you have to repeat the same letters.
    PS: Piz / vzdat - not bagging bags, And could you suggest something to your dear readers?
  • MIKHALYCH1
    MIKHALYCH1 12 October 2015 14: 23 New
    +4
    That is what doctrines and sudden checks mean! We study and well ..... Caspian pancake GOOD FELLOWS!
  • Alekseyklg
    Alekseyklg 12 October 2015 14: 25 New
    -1
    Yes exactly wassat
    1. SRC P-15
      SRC P-15 12 October 2015 14: 28 New
      -1
      Cool US Navy CALIBRATION, conducted by Russia! tongue
  • 222222
    222222 12 October 2015 15: 21 New
    +1
    From sin .. away ..
    as of
    October 9, 2015
    Underway Aircraft Carriers:
    USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - Atlantic
    USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) - 7th Fleet
    USS George Washington (CVN 73) - Pacific
    Underway Amphibious Assault Ships:
    USS Essex (LHD 2) - 5th Fleet
  • vodolaz
    vodolaz 12 October 2015 16: 47 New
    0
    Very informative article. I read about the Caliber: three missiles are capable of sinking an aircraft carrier.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar 12 October 2015 22: 10 New
      -1
      I read about calibers: three missiles can sink an aircraft carrier

      Only if hanging on them.
      1. Scraptor
        Scraptor 12 October 2015 22: 23 New
        0
        Not only:
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пожар_на_авианосце_«Форрестол»_(1967)
        and then he just becomes a big target.

        or immediately 600 kilogram under the keel and it breaks in half.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 12 October 2015 22: 56 New
          0
          and then he just becomes a big target.

          Current aircraft carriers have more powerful fire extinguishing systems. Using seawater, he simply washes everything off the flight deck (on the Internet you can find a photo on the topic). And when attacking the AUG, the planes are unlikely to stick around as a friendly crowd on the deck; they will be in the air, repel the attack.

          or immediately 600 kilogram under the keel and it breaks in half.

          It remains only to teach the diving rocket :)
          1. Scraptor
            Scraptor 13 October 2015 02: 10 New
            -2
            There will be nothing to wash off, and not the fact that it is not in the hole in the hangar. Only a small part of them will have time to rise in the air.
            Aerospace lol attacks on airfield strathems being considered? Aircraft carrier is the same airfield! repeat

            It has long been taught ... and rocket torpedoes too.
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 13 October 2015 16: 17 New
              0
              It has long been taught ... and rocket torpedoes too.

              Really? As I understand it, you are talking about 91RE1 and 91RTE2 from the "Caliber" family, which fly 50 and 40 km, respectively, and are designed to fight submarines, not aircraft carriers. Or I don’t know something, and some kind of diving rocket has already been developed?
            2. Kalmar
              Kalmar 13 October 2015 16: 17 New
              0
              It has long been taught ... and rocket torpedoes too.

              Really? As I understand it, you are talking about 91RE1 and 91RTE2 from the "Caliber" family, which fly 50 and 40 km, respectively, and are designed to fight submarines, not aircraft carriers. Or I don’t know something, and some kind of diving rocket has already been developed?
              1. tlauicol
                tlauicol 13 October 2015 16: 36 New
                -1
                It’s not true, in the world there is not one RCC capable of diving and hitting a ship below the waterline. Just not everyone can come to terms with this. (People want to sleep peacefully and constantly need miracle weapons). In principle, a perfectly understandable desire, but sometimes you need to stay awake and sober up. In short, there are no such missiles
                1. Scraptor
                  Scraptor 13 October 2015 17: 10 New
                  0
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  It’s not true, in the world there is not one RCC capable of diving and hitting a ship below the waterline.

                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  In short, there are no such missiles

                  How do you know that? bully

                  There are they
                  Quote: Tlauicol
                  Just not everyone can come to terms with this. (People want to sleep peacefully and constantly need miracle weapons). IN

                  in the form of battleships or AUGs, according to which, because of this, only TNW and TNW of the type cannot be of type ... laughing
              2. Scraptor
                Scraptor 13 October 2015 16: 38 New
                -1
                It was written - "taught long ago", really.

                And rocket torpedoes (of many types), and diving warheads and at maximum ranges. RT can be given along the NK, but more often diving warheads, since bringing it under the keel of the NK is a fairly simple maneuver, in contrast to the homing submarine search at depth.
                1. tlauicol
                  tlauicol 13 October 2015 17: 42 New
                  -2
                  "It was written -" taught long ago "(C) -
                  the problem is that this x..nya is written by you request Like this one:
                  "diving warheads and at maximum ranges. RT can also be given by the NK, but more often a diving warhead, since bringing it under the keel of the NK is a fairly simple maneuver" (C) - that is, you lied again! not tired?
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 13 October 2015 20: 23 New
                    +1
                    The problem is that you are stupid (at least), and it (the same one) was written by you.
                2. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 13 October 2015 22: 16 New
                  +1
                  And rocket torpedoes (of many types), and diving warheads and at maximum ranges. RT can be given along the NK, but more often diving warheads, since bringing it under the keel of the NK is a fairly simple maneuver, in contrast to the homing submarine search at depth.

                  What are we arguing about? Name at least one rocket that can perform such a trick and exists even in the form of a layout, then there will be something to talk about.
                  1. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 14 October 2015 00: 00 New
                    -2
                    What is the trick in that? When jumping into the water, the swimmer moves in an arc until he emerges. laughing
                    1. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 14 October 2015 04: 24 New
                      0
                      Well, call or admit that you're lying?
                      Everyone is waiting for you to repent of a lie ..
                    2. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 14 October 2015 06: 28 New
                      -1
                      Well, the P-35/6 already certainly could. This is the standard for anti-ship missiles with warheads greater than 200 kg. laughing
                      From you - not wait, so what is the actual "trick"?
                    3. Kalmar
                      Kalmar 14 October 2015 08: 24 New
                      +1
                      Well, the P-35/6 already certainly could.

                      Link to the source, please. Something I do not see a single mention of the ability of this rocket to dive under the target.
                    4. tlauicol
                      tlauicol 14 October 2015 09: 51 New
                      0
                      You will not wait for the link. the person is just lying. And no one in the world can do this "trick" until now

                      http://topwar.ru/73634-pochemu-u-nas-net-torpedonoscev.html
                    5. Scraptor
                      Scraptor 14 October 2015 11: 11 New
                      -1
                      Is it Oleg Kaptsoff again? bully lol
                      He is also an expert on the F-35 as "all planes fly belly forward". good
                  2. Scraptor
                    Scraptor 14 October 2015 11: 09 New
                    0
                    Did you have to write about this? repeat
                    They already wrote about the P-700, but then they stopped ...
  • mav1971
    mav1971 13 October 2015 00: 30 New
    0
    Quote: Scraptor
    Not only:
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пожар_на_авианосце_«Форрестол»_(1967)
    and then he just becomes a big target.

    or immediately 600 kilogram under the keel and it breaks in half.


    something seems. that in order to break the modular design of the 330 meter carrier under the keel, you need to undermine more times in 20 ...
    1. Scraptor
      Scraptor 13 October 2015 02: 07 New
      0
      The bottom sub-floating mines in the Second World War weighed something like this (900 kg) ... At the "Granit" BCh 600-700, there is another explosive.
  • oleg-gr
    oleg-gr 12 October 2015 14: 17 New
    -1
    Now the Americans will change their tactics of applying AUG. If the Caliber really hits 4000 km, then the whole of Eurasia can be under the gun and huge sections of the coastal zone.
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 12 October 2015 14: 18 New
    +2
    We calmly and "politely" demonstrated our capabilities in the so-called non-nuclear war ... it immediately became clear to everyone ... Straits ... channels ... All of Europe ... everything is at gunpoint
    A good answer to everyone who is trying to talk from a position of strength ... And nuclear performance will simply add compliment to opponents ...
  • svetoruss
    svetoruss 12 October 2015 14: 19 New
    10
    The echo of the "Caspian salvo" will be walking around the world political space for a long time ...
  • Good cat
    Good cat 12 October 2015 14: 20 New
    +2
    Well, gentlemen are striped, times are changing. In general, it seems to me that today's American figures have become similar to the heroes of their militants, the same stupid and "cool type".
    1. kil 31
      kil 31 12 October 2015 14: 27 New
      +1
      Moreover, having projected the capabilities demonstrated by the fleet on aviation, Pentagon generals have already calculated that the Russian air force can shoot targets in the United States without leaving the airspace of Russia. What infuriates me the most is this. From which x .. we did not have a CD before. Just like now, strategists had to approach the border and launch their missiles.
      1. Cube123
        Cube123 12 October 2015 15: 35 New
        +3
        Quote: Kil 31
        From which x .. we did not have a CD before. Just like now, strategists had to approach the border and launch their missiles.

        GLONASS was not. Try another way to build a route of one and a half thousand kilometers. and ensure accuracy of several meters.
        1. kote119
          kote119 12 October 2015 16: 16 New
          0
          there were slightly different methods
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 12 October 2015 17: 05 New
          +3
          That's right. The revolution with the Kyrgyz Republic (and not only!) Was made global
          satellite positioning. Americans first did
          GPS and walked around with the Tomahawks with might and main. When the Russians deployed Glonass,
          they were able to effectively use the Caliber.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 October 2015 15: 52 New
        0
        Quote: keel 31
        What infuriates me the most is this. From which x .. we did not have a CD before. Just like now, strategists had to approach the border and launch their missiles.

        And who told you that it was not? "Caliber" is a development of the Soviet serial long-range missile launchers X-55, S-10 and RK-55 (the latter fell under the Reduction Treaty) towards maximum unification of the missile launchers for underwater, surface, air and ground launchers.
        1. kil 31
          kil 31 12 October 2015 20: 58 New
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Quote: keel 31
          What infuriates me the most is this. From which x .. we did not have a CD before. Just like now, strategists had to approach the border and launch their missiles.

          And who told you that it was not? "Caliber" is a development of the Soviet serial long-range missile launchers X-55, S-10 and RK-55 (the latter fell under the Reduction Treaty) towards maximum unification of the missile launchers for underwater, surface, air and ground launchers.

          So I write about it. Which x ... decided that we did not have a CD. hi
    2. alvog
      alvog 12 October 2015 14: 36 New
      +1
      On October 7, Russia demonstrated that it can. And this fundamentally changed the entire military-political situation in the world.

      I completely agree, and I'm glad that this time has come ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Same lech
    Same lech 12 October 2015 14: 24 New
    +4
    Since a missile salvo can be given by completely invisible ships of the near sea zone from a distance of thousands of kilometers, American sailors will see missiles only when they hit their ship or on approach.


    Here, of course, the author went too far ... giving his wishful thinking.

    A hundred or two hundred km, I still believe it, and if the effect of surprise and the principle of the wolf pack are used .... The USG is too well protected and it is very difficult to drown the main target of an aircraft carrier with such missiles.

    Although, if a hundred kilotons of nuclear ammunition is flung near the AUG and then struck by a wolf pack, it might work.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 12 October 2015 15: 22 New
      +2
      The fact is that nobody will want to test in practice the combat stability of the AUG against such a wolf pack. Neither they nor we.
  • katalonec2014
    katalonec2014 12 October 2015 14: 24 New
    +1
    GDP will make us reckon with us, we are an independent country, and therefore we will conduct policies based on our own interests.
  • rf xnumx
    rf xnumx 12 October 2015 14: 25 New
    17
    Since a missile salvo can be given completely imperceptible by ships of the near-sea zone with a distance of thousands of kilometers, American sailors will see missiles only when they hit their ship or on approach. To take effective measures of self-defense, they just do not have time.
    Disturbing times have come for the US Navy and not only
    1. Pensive
      Pensive 13 October 2015 11: 39 New
      0
      Quote: treble 72019
      Since a missile salvo can be given completely imperceptible by ships of the near-sea zone with a distance of thousands of kilometers, American sailors will see missiles only when they hit their ship or on approach. To take effective measures of self-defense, they just do not have time.
      Disturbing times have come for the US Navy and not only


      The anti-ship version of Caliber flies a much shorter distance.
  • Denis_469
    Denis_469 12 October 2015 14: 25 New
    13
    Lord, what nonsense. Anti-ship missiles fly much less than cruise missiles. And that's not what the US was afraid of. They saw that the missile launches and flight remained undetected by US early warning systems. That's all. Trillions of US dollars invested in missile early warning systems by the Americans have been wasted. The US AWACS hovering in the air over Turkey also did not see Russian cruise missiles. And this calls into question the possibility of detecting approaching anti-ship missiles by carrier-based Hokai. Also, the United States saw that the air defense of our cruise missiles was 3 meters, instead of 10 meters that the American Tomahawks can have. This means that GLONASS is more accurate than GPS. And the American aircraft carrier left the Persian Gulf due to the fact that for this autumn-winter they planned a war between Iran and Saudia. Therefore, they take their ships and boats from there, from the area of ​​future hostilities. so that they do not accidentally fall under the distribution.
    1. retardu
      retardu 12 October 2015 14: 38 New
      -6
      Where do you get these nonsense that they did not notice something there? Did they report to you or what?
      Or do you draw information from the media with links to anonymous generals?

      Oh yes, although I remember you, you know where all the submarines are, you have an all-seeing eye
      1. Denis_469
        Denis_469 12 October 2015 14: 53 New
        0
        From them I take. Where else can I get? I don’t know where all the boats are. Not interested. but according to American non-strategists I post it. And about the all-seeing eye: you will be a specialist in something and you will have an all-seeing eye. You can’t get fish out of the pond without labor. And if you work, you will know.
    2. Sinoby
      Sinoby 12 October 2015 15: 04 New
      -1
      The anti-ship missiles have a different warhead. This is just a note. One reasonable question arises: WHY is the anti-ship missile in the Caspian? There, the speed-shooters of the A-xxx series are already "wunderwaffen". Warhead anti-ship missiles of the "Granite" type; "Basalt"; and gyrosonic, the newest super-missiles "Obsidan" are equipped with tandem ammunition. The dreadnoughts' armor belt is cut through like a sheet of paper, not to mention the aircraft carriers. A jet of liquid copper (if I am not mistaken) flies into the "guts" with the first cosmic velocity + EMP. So, by the way.
      1. your1970
        your1970 12 October 2015 16: 04 New
        0
        it was precisely then that everyone would be aware that with KVO 3 meters, hundreds of kg of explosives would be enough for the eyes and ears for any oil: factory / well / tanker / terminal ...
        A subtle and tactful hint to everyone in the Middle East region
      2. kote119
        kote119 12 October 2015 16: 25 New
        0
        tandem is how?
      3. Kalmar
        Kalmar 12 October 2015 22: 16 New
        0
        the newest super - Obsidan missiles are loaded with tandem ammunition. The dreadnoughts' armor belt is pierced through like a sheet of paper, not to mention aircraft carriers. A jet of liquid copper (if I am not mistaken) flies into the "guts" with the first cosmic speed + EMP

        "Obsidian"? A jet of liquid copper? AMY?! What a charm :)
    3. kote119
      kote119 12 October 2015 16: 23 New
      0
      and anti-ship missiles are not cruise missiles? And WHERE HERE, RCCs fired not PKR, and the quo for PKR is not an indicator, with rare exceptions.
    4. Pensive
      Pensive 13 October 2015 12: 03 New
      +2
      Quote: Denis_469
      And the United States was not afraid of that. They saw that missile launches and their flight remained undetected by American early warning systems. That's all. Trillions of US dollars swelled by Americans in missile strike early warning systems were thrown to the wind.


      So, missile attack warning systems were not created to protect against the Kyrgyz Republic. Only from ICBMs. Or from medium-range ballistic missiles.

      Also, the United States saw that the air defense of our cruise missiles was 3 meters, instead of 10 meters that the American Tomahawks can have. This means that GLONASS is more accurate than GPS.


      Firstly, the KVO of modern Tomahawks is 5-10 meters. Secondly, there is no documentary evidence of this, because the allegedly KVO Caliber is 3 meters.

      Watch this video:



      Moscow Defense Ministry claims that these are the results of the use of KAB-500s, with inertial-satellite guidance (according to GLONASS, apparently). If so, then there is nothing special to be proud of. Since of all the goals, only the last one was struck, and somehow, it was somehow unconvincing.
  • JACTUS RECTUS
    JACTUS RECTUS 12 October 2015 14: 25 New
    +8
    I don’t understand these reproaches in antiquity of SU 24, both from the side of our media and from the bourgeois media. Actually, Sushka 24 is the same age as F 16, let it be written then that their main light fighter is rusty trough, by analogy with the dirt that is poured on the SUSHEK.
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 12 October 2015 14: 39 New
      +6
      Most of these "our" media outlets are not ours at all, there is no need to talk about Western ones.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 October 2015 16: 02 New
      +5
      Quote: JACTUS RECTUS
      I don’t understand these reproaches in antiquity of SU 24, both from the side of our media and from the bourgeois media. Actually, Sushka 24 is the same age as F 16, let it be written then that their main light fighter is rusty trough, by analogy with the dirt that is poured on the SUSHEK.

      The problem is that during this time the F-16 went through a series of Block ** upgrades. And our only modernization of the Su-24M is dated 1976. Moreover, in some places, until recently, even "clean" Su-24s, without letters, were flying.
      But the Su-24M2, unfortunately, has not yet become widespread.

      So it turns out that the base cars took to the wing at about the same time, but their modernized modernized versions differ like heaven and earth.
  • mig31
    mig31 12 October 2015 14: 26 New
    0
    There will be no rest for the glorious aircraft carriers, they will see "Caliber" everywhere, and the "Caliber" will be drilled into the mattress and ground-based navy bases !!!!!!
    1. Engineer
      Engineer 12 October 2015 14: 29 New
      +2
      they have no peace from Granite, Vulcan, and Onyx, and the caliber is too small a caliber for aircraft carriers.
      1. mig31
        mig31 12 October 2015 14: 36 New
        +1
        Three are enough, the cost of three "Calibers" versus the cost of an aircraft carrier - yes, "exceptional" will bite their own ass out of anger ....
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 12 October 2015 22: 38 New
          -1
          Three Granites could possibly be enough.
          There are a dozen calibers. and even a couple of dozen.
          1. Ladoga
            Ladoga 13 October 2015 12: 37 New
            0
            If you get into the add-on, then one is enough to turn the aircraft carrier into a cripple. For a long time . And this is an ordinary warhead.
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 13 October 2015 12: 46 New
              0
              And if on board or on deck, then just full aviation kerosene burns down, as does the UDC with all its landing.
              Fear the French gifts bringing ...
      2. KCA
        KCA 13 October 2015 11: 55 New
        -1
        both "Granit" and "Caliber" have the same caliber, however, 533mm for greater unification and the possibility of firing from torpedo tubes
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 13 October 2015 22: 18 New
          0
          Quote: KCA
          both "Granit" and "Caliber" have the same caliber, however, 533mm for greater unification and the possibility of firing from torpedo tubes


          Nothing beguiled?
          The diameter of the Granite seems to be almost 0.9 m ...
  • Engineer
    Engineer 12 October 2015 14: 26 New
    +9
    The author is an ignoramus, because 3M14 is not an anti-ship missile, but on ground targets. Therefore, only aircraft creators in their fantasies can shoot at aircraft carriers with it. Her range is an example of 1500-1600km with a conventional warhead, and with a nuclear warhead should reach 2500-2600km.
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 12 October 2015 14: 42 New
      +2
      I do not think so. The purpose of this demonstration is to explain to the arrogant Anglo-Saxon world that their temporary, quarter-century superiority ends. And why and why bullet, in this lesson the second thing, the main thing that we can.
      And I’ll also note that it’s not worth it to engage in hat-making with such enthusiasm. The Americans are not inferior to us in technical terms. We are stronger than the will to win. And the technology - it is with us, and they have about one, but a very high level. We just take turns ahead (or without it), and then catch up, but we go nose to nose, for which I really hope. It is necessary to work and revive the Soviet (Stalinist) school of the military-industrial complex and then everything will be in order.
    2. Stirbjorn
      Stirbjorn 12 October 2015 15: 47 New
      +4
      Quote: Engineer
      Author layman
      So this is Ishchenko, the same "expert" as Feldengauer from Novaya, only with a hurray-patriotic bias.

      and the Ukrainian army, in terms of combat capabilities, is more correctly compared with the tribal militia of the Republic of Chad than with the Russian Armed Forces.
      That is, there is no way to drive away the "tribal militia" from the cities of Donbass ?! fool Nothing is a militia with hundreds of MLRS units and armored vehicles.
      Previously, not only the Caspian flotilla, but also the Black Sea and Baltic fleets of the Russian Federation were considered a probable adversary as forces capable of only defending the relevant areas of the coast, catching smugglers and poachers, and also conducting landing operations in their enclosed waters. The Black Sea Fleet, in addition, provided the rear of the Mediterranean squadron.
      This is if such "experts" as Ishchenko considered. Cruiser "Moskva" for catching smugglers and poachers? or Baltic destroyers and new corvettes ?! wassat
      According to the calculations of American strategists, in order to destroy one AUG, the Russian fleet had to provide a volley of at least one hundred missiles
      I don’t know what calculations American strategists did, but at the military department, they said that a salvo from 16 "granites" would be enough to drown any aircraft carrier - 4 would fly at least, despite any security.
      why in one place it was necessary to concentrate almost all attack ships (missile cruisers, missile destroyers and multipurpose nuclear submarines) of the Northern or Pacific fleets.
      In business)) But what, modern means of communication do not allow a simultaneous strike from different points? Or Ishchenko thinks that the admiral hangs the corresponding flag on the flagship - as in the days of Nelson and Ushakov ?!
      Fourth, it turned out that, in fact, the firing range of even small ships is not 400 and not 600, but much more than 1,500 kilometers.
      Well hello, about "calibers" in Wikipedia has long been written even. It is not in vain that new ships and submarines are being fired on the Northern Fleet - to test this very "caliber".
      Since a missile salvo can be given completely imperceptible by ships of the near-sea zone with a distance of thousands of kilometers, American sailors will see missiles only when they hit their ship or on approach. To take effective measures of self-defense, they just do not have time.
      Is it right on the way up? Then the submarines are generally invincible. Oh, they are the most inconspicuous.
      Ishchenko seems to be writing his articles on his knee, I don’t even study the materiel at least a little. After the unfulfilled forecast about the August offensive of the ukrovermaht, I decided to try myself as a naval expert)))
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 12 October 2015 16: 05 New
        0
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        I don’t know what calculations American strategists did, but at the military department, they said that a salvo from 16 "granites" would be enough to drown any aircraft carrier - 4 would fly at least, despite any security.

        On VIF2-NE they wrote that according to the results of calculations of the 80s of the last century, a coordinated attack of 2 pr.949 SSGNs and 2 pr.670M SSGNs was required to ensure the destruction of the AW, following as part of the wartime AUG.
      2. Kasym
        Kasym 12 October 2015 16: 25 New
        +1
        What's the difference between anti-ship missiles or not? The fact is that all of Eurasia is being shot through. On the BV to Suez and Gulf of Aden; west to England. And how to land forces and create infrastructure - they have all the bases in Eurasia at gunpoint - and they didn’t blow up, now they were poked into this fact !? And if they really could not "detect" the shelling, then it is hundreds of mil. to the new system!
        No matter what PRI they create for their high-tech weapons, they have clearly shown an alternative to everyone. And that it is in no way inferior in performance characteristics, and somewhere superior to the Tomahawks. Well, it's high time for them to understand that the X-101 aircraft missile is capable of reaching the United States (and the "old" X-55 was not clearly demonstrated), launched from an aircraft carrier from the territory of the Russian Federation, and this is not a myth or a fairy tale. hi
        1. Stirbjorn
          Stirbjorn 12 October 2015 16: 34 New
          0
          Quote: Kasym
          And if they really could not "detect" the shelling, then it is hundreds of mil. to the new system!
          And who said they could not detect? Now detect any volleys of cruise missiles. Satellites are everywhere. Here the question is how quickly to get ready to counter.
      3. mav1971
        mav1971 12 October 2015 22: 43 New
        -1
        Quote: Stirbjorn

        According to the calculations of American strategists, in order to destroy one AUG, the Russian fleet had to provide a volley of at least one hundred missiles
        I don’t know what calculations American strategists did, but at the military department, they said that a salvo from 16 "granites" would be enough to drown any aircraft carrier - 4 would fly at least, despite any security.

        Forget what you were told in the pulpit.
        An order will protect at least from 25 the first granites flying in low-altitude and supersonic flight modes.
        Moreover, only Tika, whether she in the order calmly takes over 8 granites.
        And there will be another 2-3 berka.
      4. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 October 2015 22: 50 New
        0
        Quote: Stirbjorn
        but for us at the military department, they claimed that a salvo from 16 "granites" would be enough to drown any aircraft carrier - at least 4 would fly, despite any security

        It was believed so, while Aegis was not, with him the number of missiles needed in the salvo increased significantly.
  • Mowgli
    Mowgli 12 October 2015 14: 26 New
    +3
    On October 7, Russia demonstrated that it can. And this fundamentally changed the entire military-political situation in the world.



    October XNUMXth Day -
    Red calendar day ...
  • panfil
    panfil 12 October 2015 14: 27 New
    +4
    To be honest, I didn’t even imagine that a volley of 26 missiles from the Caspian through Syria could affect the overall perception of the Russian armed forces. However, now I am tormented by the question, how many have managed to release these missiles? Will there be enough of them for a more serious application, if necessary? (God forbid). In my opinion, we need as many of them as possible, since for sure production is labor-intensive and takes a certain amount of time.
  • Svetlana
    Svetlana 12 October 2015 14: 28 New
    +2
    The main thing is that the US allies understood this. And most of them have long been loyal to the world hegemon only because of the fear of its military capabilities, from which (according to their ideas) no one can protect. October 7 Russia demonstrated that it can. And this radically changed the entire military-political situation in the world.

    Yes, Saudi Arabia confirmed this right there. They sent their kid to the arrow, maybe they want to ask under our roof, och..ku..yut already under Obama’s.
  • marlin1203
    marlin1203 12 October 2015 14: 29 New
    +6
    Rostislav Ishchenko is a prominent political scientist and respected specialist. But in his specialty (historian, diplomat) he has nothing to do with weapons and military equipment. If you believe the article, the "Caliber" complex is right "wunderwaffle" and we will now let all the American augs go to the bottom. A civilian is forgivable for such a delusion. The complex itself is good, such a massive use is being done for the first time, so our "partners" have become frightened. But in itself it is not a panacea, we must remember that this is a subsonic cruise missile. Accordingly, modern air defense systems are lost. Americans have been using their Tomahawks in this way for about 30 years and this did not particularly bother us. And then again ... And the US fleet was "deleted". It will not work out so simply, for this you need a comprehensive re-equipment of the fleet. And, by the way, in the USSR Navy, when hunting for Aug, the main emphasis was on multipurpose nuclear powered aircraft. soldier
    1. ziqzaq
      ziqzaq 12 October 2015 14: 41 New
      +1
      Quote: marlin1203
      The complex itself is good, such a massive use is being done for the first time, so our "partners" have become frightened. But by itself it is not a panacea, we must remember that this is a subsonic cruise missile.

      On approaching the target, it seems that it accelerates to 3 max ....
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 October 2015 15: 20 New
        +3
        Quote: ziqzaq
        On approaching the target, it seems that it accelerates to 3 max ....

        There is one :) But missiles with this function fly only 220 km
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Svetlana
      Svetlana 12 October 2015 14: 46 New
      +4
      Quote: marlin1203
      And then again ... And the US fleet was "deleted". It will not work out so simply, for this you need a comprehensive re-equipment of the fleet.

      Of course, you are right, but sometimes it doesn’t seem stronger than the one who has bigger fists and shoulders wider, but the one who has more courage. For a very long time and very much courage was just not enough. Now we have demonstrated it. And this is respected by many. Someone just has bad premonitions, someone has a panic, but hardly anyone has remained indifferent, and this is a step forward.
  • Meh-forester
    Meh-forester 12 October 2015 14: 30 New
    +1
    How many "wonderful" discoveries the Russian world is preparing for them (the Americans).
    26 Caspian missiles, both the USA and NATO as a whole have clearly demonstrated that for every sly face you can always find a suitable fist.
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar 12 October 2015 14: 33 New
    11
    Another stream of violent imagination from a person who does not distinguish between RCC and surface-to-surface RCC.

    Since a missile salvo can be given by completely invisible ships of the near sea zone from a distance of thousands of kilometers, American sailors will see missiles only when they hit their ship or on approach.

    About thousands of kilometers - complete nonsense, even reluctant to comment. About "they'll see it on the way" - have they already been canceled by AWACS planes? They are provided on each aircraft carrier and a flock of missiles can be seen from a fairly decent distance.

    Keep track of every watchman who catches poachers in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk or the Caspian Sea (but who can suddenly drown an American aircraft carrier

    Heh, and for some reason the stupid Soviet soldier invented all sorts of "Granites" and "Basalts", created huge cruisers (including underwater ones) ... Well, it was necessary to make patrol boats, since everyone can calmly shake the aircraft carrier, its escort and a couple more states in the US itself for delivery.

    People, well, seriously. I understand: the successful use of a new (for us) weapon and all that, but you don’t need to publish such nonsense.
    1. Awaz
      Awaz 12 October 2015 14: 49 New
      +2
      Well, like the American AWACS did not see the launches and their flight. Well, and I agree - Caliber is not a super weapon that can decide the success of the operation, but still turned out to be a surprise for a potential enemy. Who knows what else is in the arsenal of the Russian Armed Forces. In the USSR, a lot of things were invented at the time.
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar 12 October 2015 15: 52 New
        +1
        Well, like American AWACS did not see the launches and their flight

        They could not see the launches: after all, the AWACS plane is not a satellite, it cannot look at 1500 km. The flight was simply not tracked, because their task was to guard the AUG, and not a single AUG was hanging out near the Calibrov route.
  • VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 12 October 2015 14: 35 New
    -2
    "Theodore Roosevelt" has limped home from the Persian Gulf - psychological diarrhea - I suppose!
  • ilyaches
    ilyaches 12 October 2015 14: 39 New
    +1
    "This is evidence of both the high level of training of Russian pilots ... and the fact that Russian aerospace forces are indeed a well-coordinated and effective tool ..."

    Yes, you count how many exercises, sudden readiness checks, etc. over the past 2 years. So much for coherence and interaction. The answer seems obvious.
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 October 2015 14: 39 New
    13
    Having fallen, the respected author should be immediately bombarded with flowers. In the pots. It is desirable - stone.
    Such blatant illiteracy, I did not even see Dave Majumara.
    First, Russia supplied missiles similar to those used on October 7 for export. Their range was 300 km. The United States reasonably assumed that the range of similar missiles in service with Russia could be longer (from 400 to 600 km). The volley of the Caspian flotilla covered targets at a distance of 1500 km, and this, apparently, is not the limit. There were reports that the actual firing range may exceed 4000 km.

    1) The author does not know that there is a fundamental difference between an anti-ship missile (ASM), which, if anything, will be fired at by aircraft carriers and a missile to hit stationary land targets (AS) with which we fired ISIS.
    2) The author does not know that the anti-ship missile always has a shorter range than the anti-ship missile. At least, because the seeker (GOS) of the anti-ship missile system must solve the problem of hitting a MOVING, MOBILE target. And the GOS KR strikes a STATIONARY target, which is by no means easier. Accordingly, the GOS RCC is heavier and requires more energy than the CD. A simple example is the American "Tomahawk" - while the range of the KR reached 2500 km, the anti-ship missile (and the Tomahawk had such a modification) flew only 550 km.
    3) It was repeatedly written about "Caliber" that 300 km is the range of an export anti-ship missile. But the range of the CD, according to numerous media outlets, reached 2500-2600 km, and how it could pass by the author is a mystery to me.
    4) Accordingly, the author's delight from the fact that the KR "Caliber" flew 1500 km is understandable (well, he did not know!) But it is impossible to divide it.
    5) If the range of the caliber of the caliber is 2500 km, then the range of the caliber of the caliber is just 400-600 km. By the way, our officials called 375 km, although it is not so simple (they could have misinformed). But in any case, it is NOT possible to equate the range of the Kyrgyz Republic (with which they were beaten by ISIS) with the RCC.
    That is, both the Caspian Flotilla and the Black Sea Fleet are capable, without leaving their waters, of destroying any enemy in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, while the Baltic Fleet is capable of keeping the North Sea, English Channel and part of the Norwegian Sea on target

    If the Americans put their aircraft carriers in an eternal parking lot somewhere in the English Channel - then certainly. Otherwise, the GOS KR Caliber, not designed to defeat mobile targets, will not be able to direct missiles onto the ships of our sworn friends
    1. Yuri Y.
      Yuri Y. 12 October 2015 15: 03 New
      +3
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      The author does not know that there is a fundamental difference between an anti-ship missile (RCC), which, if anything, will be fired at by aircraft carriers and a missile to hit stationary ground targets (RC) with which we fired ISIS.

      I wanted to notice about this but you got ahead. Come on. But the launch of these missiles made an impression, because anyway, stationary targets in Europe are enough. In the light of our frictions in the current period with the West. In addition, we are accused of violating the INF Treaty, and we have shown that without its violation we will fall into these goals.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 October 2015 15: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: Yuri Ya.
        But the launch of these missiles impressed

        For me - huge and positive. On the Americans - no less huge, but negative, since their missile warning systems did not record our "flight of the Valkyries" laughing
        Quote: Yuri Ya.
        In addition, we are accused of violating the INF Treaty, and we have shown that without its violation we will fall into these goals.

        drinks
        But good ...
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 October 2015 16: 33 New
          0
          Quote: Yuri Ya.
          But the launch of these missiles made an impression, because anyway, stationary targets in Europe are enough.

          It's not just about the impression. This launch also showed the validity of the appearance in the Caspian of super MRCs with "Calibers" that are superfluous for this flotilla (at which some giggled - "Well, whom do they drown").
          The result is a kind of "regional strategist" who keeps the main oil-producing areas of the Gulf at gunpoint.
    2. question
      question 12 October 2015 15: 56 New
      0
      Excuse me, but can these missiles be launched from a satellite, an airplane, or even a drone?
      1. kote119
        kote119 12 October 2015 16: 36 New
        0
        no such opportunity
      2. mav1971
        mav1971 13 October 2015 00: 49 New
        0
        Quote: question
        Excuse me, but can these missiles be launched from a satellite, an airplane, or even a drone?


        In principle, external target designation is possible during horizontal launch of a rocket.
        Those. with the rocket receives data not from "its own ship's radar", but for example from data. coming from an AWACS aircraft located far enough.
        and it is his data on the course, bearing, target range - are used.

        Correction of the goal position on the march section is practically unrealistic so far ...
        It is difficult to ensure interference immunity and counteraction of electronic warfare in the conditions of a possible conflict.
    3. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 October 2015 16: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      3) It was repeatedly written about "Caliber" that 300 km is the range of an export anti-ship missile. But the range of the CD, according to numerous media outlets, reached 2500-2600 km, and how it could pass by the author is a mystery to me.

      Do not just write. And they quoted official statements by people in uniform, including from the Caspian flotilla, that "Caliber-NK" is designed to launch missiles at sea targets at distances up to 350 km and coastal up to 2600 km.
      This, for a minute, was written in 2012.
      So the strike on Syria was only a documentary confirmation of the declared range (at least the effective range). smile
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 October 2015 16: 48 New
        +1
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Do not just write. And they quoted official statements by people in uniform

        That is howdrinks
        Quote: Alexey RA
        So the strike on Syria was only a documentary confirmation of the declared range

        I agree. Although, of course, it’s still nice. In the first - a difficult route, in the second - as many as 26 in a salvo, in the third - hit, however! laughing
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 12 October 2015 17: 34 New
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          In the first - a difficult route, in the second - as many as 26 in a salvo, in the third - hit, however!

          Chihiks ... about the joy of getting in - I immediately remember the Battle of Matapan:
          The first salvo of the Worspite was perhaps the most effective of the entire war. 5 out of 6 15 "shells fell under the upper deck of the enemy ship at small intervals. The rightmost of them threw the rotating part of the Y turret overboard. ABK especially admired the remark of the battleship commander, a former artilleryman:" Great God! But we got hit! " Immediately after the battle, he ordered that this expression be recorded in case he needed to wipe his nose at the artillery school of the fleet.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 October 2015 22: 20 New
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Great God! But we hit!

            Yes, it was :)))) I myself laughed for a long time about that ... however, the British have such a sense of humor. Peculiar. A little about "African rats":
            There is a column of British technology suddenly - an air raid, planes with British identities storm on a shaver and leave ... corpses, burning cars, a nightmare and hell ... An English sergeant gets up, scratches his head thoughtfully and says:
            - And I thought the FAC (Royal Air Force) was on our side ...

            The British tank brigade is trying to get out into the location of its units, they get confused a little. Suddenly they see - the sentries are walking by the sign "Mines!" The lead tank drives up, the brigade commander leans out and says to the chaos:
            - What a blessing that we saw you, just three more meters - and we would have ended up in a minefield!
            The sentry replies:
            “No, sir, another three meters - and you will leave the minefield ...”

            The same team in a day. heavy battles, losses, ammunition and food are few, the commander on the radio is trying to conduct a convoy of supplies to his location. The Germans are sluggishly shooting, but this is not the problem - there are no landmarks in the desert, so it is difficult to determine where the brigade is and where the column is. And suddenly the Germans give a good salvo, shells with a howl rush over the brigade and fall somewhere behind the British. There are strong explosions, flames to heaven ... the joyful brigade commander yells into the radio to the column commander:
            “Report your position on that bonfire!”
            Answer:
            “I am that bonfire, sir ...”
    4. Das Boot
      Das Boot 12 October 2015 17: 20 New
      0
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      Having fallen, the respected author should be immediately bombarded with flowers. In the pots. It is desirable - stone.

      laughing Norm) Ishchenko is a favorite of our URAKratia and Vesti FM. He was never a military expert and a star of political forecasting; his ceiling is a light genre of political ordering and coffee grounds. You and camera Stirbjorn absolutely right in their skepticism against him.
      A plus.
  • alex74nur
    alex74nur 12 October 2015 14: 45 New
    +1
    Well, who is the regional power here?
    1. Das Boot
      Das Boot 12 October 2015 18: 55 New
      0
      Quote: alex74nur
      Well, who is the regional power here?

      and who?
  • Idunavs
    Idunavs 12 October 2015 14: 50 New
    0
    And if the aug is on the raid, then can she pulnit?
    1. Das Boot
      Das Boot 12 October 2015 19: 39 New
      0
      Quote: Idunawa
      And if the aug is on the raid, then can she pulnit?

      maybe it’s cheaper to shoot the dismissal team? laughing
  • Roman 1977
    Roman 1977 12 October 2015 14: 51 New
    +4
    In the Caspian Sea, we still have everything in chocolate - this is the only Navy unit capable of fully performing the assigned tasks: 2 missile defense systems pr.1166.1 "Dagestan" with "Caliber-NK", "Tatarstan" (while under repair, however, a new radar was installed on it "Hals", which indicates a change in the composition of weapons, according to some sources it will be armed with "Calibers", like "Dagestan", according to others, anti-submarine weapons will be installed to fight the Iranian submarine), 3 MRK pr.21631 with "Caliber-NK", 3 MAK pr. 21630, RCA pr. 12411T, "Serny", "Dugong", and even four "old men" of project 1204 will not fail.

    True, last year they brought out 3 RCA pr.206M, but the boats themselves are old, and the P-15M does not meet modern requirements. However, only the city of Engels was presented with the not used RCA "Karachay-Cherkessia". RCA "Budennovsk" and "Borovsk" stood in Makhachkala with the teams and went into obscurity. They are not in ports, they are not visible from space. The journalists were told that Budennovsk would become a museum in Mikhailovsk, but the deadlines passed twice. The same story with RTShch-71 pr. 1258. The minesweeper is nowhere to be found. Some unknown warships appeared in the Azov Sea ...
    There is a partnership with Iran, and the Navy of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan can not be taken into account. However, the number of IRAs pr 21631 on CFL plan to bring to the originally planned 6, after the end of the series for the Black Sea Fleet.
    Baltika, too, is not all that bad: "Persistent" pr. 956-flagship, from time to time goes out to sea, showing the flag. True, it is a little unclear what will happen to "Restless", they do not repair, and they don’t rent out ... .11540 "Undaunted" is under repair until the beginning of next year, but this is good, at last it will be equipped with strike weapons, at least X-35 "Uranus", as on "Wise". The second TFR of the Yaroslav Mudry project is urgently restoring technical readiness, preparing for a campaign in November on the BS in Mediterranean to change the Black Sea Fleet ships. All 4 newest corvettes of pr.20380 (the situation with the "Guarding" is not clear, allegedly it is still under repair), regularly nightmare sprats and insignificant descendants of the Vikings. Plus the latest Dugongs and Raptors. In 2013, the landing force was reinforced by the repaired Zubr, pr. 12322, Evgeny Kocheshkov. The situation with the submarine also improved a little: the B-227 Vyborg was repaired, which allowed the B-471 Magnitogorsk to go home from the Northern Fleet. Next year they plan to transfer the repaired B-806 Dmitrov to the fleet. The main problem in the Baltic is the absolute obsolescence of the IPK pr. 1331M, which do not have missile weapons (the Strela-2M MANPADS does not count). If they can still fight with the Polish (former Norwegian) "Cobbens", then they are absolutely helpless against the newest German pr. 212A, and especially the Swedish "Gotlands" with VNEU. However, with the arrival of the newest corvettes of the project 20380, they continue to be written off, so last year they wrote off the MPK-105. This year, the Baltic Fleet should also transfer the newest BTShch pr. 12700 "Alexander Obukhov", which will finally strengthen the fleet's capabilities to combat modern mines.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 October 2015 15: 17 New
      0
      Quote: Novel 1977
      True, last year 3 RCAs of Project 206M were launched, but the boats themselves are old, and the P-15M does not meet modern requirements.

      Judging by the well-known events of the Yom Kippur War, the P-15M has not met the requirements since the 70s of the last century.
    2. Roman 1977
      Roman 1977 12 October 2015 15: 31 New
      +3
      The situation at the Black Sea Fleet has also changed for the better: This year the fleet will receive the first TFR pr. 11356 "Admiral Grigorovich", the delivery date of which has once again shifted "to the right" for the month of November, it is quite likely that it will appear at the World Cup this year, and in November -December the second TFR of the "Admiral Essen" project, which is completing mooring trials and this month should go to the ZHI.

      Last year we renovated the old people "Petrel" pr. 1135 - "Ladny" and "Pytlivy", which are already serving in Mediterranean. The repaired SKR "Smetlivy" left Sevastopol for the BS in the Mediterranean, followed by the GRKR "Moscow", the SKR pr. 1135 "Ladny" (yesterday returned to Sevastopol), the RCA "R-109" pr. 12411, which joined the TFR pr. . 1135M "Inquisitive". According to some information they should be joined by the RCVP pr. 1239 "Samum" and MRK pr. 1239 "Mirage", which left Sevastopol, but there were no reports of their passage through the Straits.

      Last year, the Bulgarians repaired the BDK pr. 775 "Caesar Kunnikov", which was actively involved in the "Syrian Express". Allegedly, the newest large landing craft "Ivan Gren", pr. 11771, on which mooring trials began at the weekend and which is planned to be transferred to the fleet this year (hardly ...), will also leave for the Black Sea Fleet. This year, the strike forces of the fleet will also be strengthened, due to 2 new MRK pr.21631 with "Caliber-NK" "Zeleny Dol" and "Serpukhov", which are already undergoing sea trials. Plus, under the guise of the story of the transfer of the R-32 pr. 12421 from the Moskit anti-ship missile system to Egypt from the Baltic Sea Fleet to the Black Sea Fleet, at least it is now based in Sevastopol. The departure to the Zvezdochka for the repair and rearmament of the Moscow has been postponed, and the fleet will not be left without a long arm and a flagship, since it has been decided to dispose of the Kerch. But here, too, different options are possible: from the inclusion of "Admiral Gorshkov" in the Black Sea Fleet, to the transfer of "Yaroslav the Wise" from the Baltic Fleet. Submarine forces have sharply increased - by the end of the year, the Black Sea Fleet is planning to have 4 diesel-electric submarines of pr.636.3, the first of which B-261 "Novorossiysk" arrived at the base on September 21, and came to Sevastopol on Monday, September 28. In total, the B-237 Rostov-on-Don should be transferred by the end of the year.

      Plus, by the end of the year, they plan to withdraw the B-871 Alrosa from repair. And in general, the situation will already become bearable.
      I hope that the fleet will still include captured Ukrainian ships, at least the most modern ones: BDK pr. 775 "Konstantin Olshanskiy", MPK pr. 1124M "Ternopil" and "Lutsk" and SRZK "Slavutich".
      1. Roman 1977
        Roman 1977 12 October 2015 15: 36 New
        +2
        Not everything is so good in the North. Due to problems with an unreliable control system, the "Admiral Kuznetsov" is more idle in the port than sailing at sea, as recently it was taken out of the dock at the 82nd Shipyard. And his air group is still incomplete, since the newest MiG-29Ks have not yet arrived and are being tested at the Nitka in Yeisk. The aircraft carrier requires major repairs, but due to lack of funding, the repairs are constantly postponed indefinitely. However, according to some reports, in November-December he will go to the BS in Mediterranean, possibly together with "Gorshkov", who came to continue testing in Severodvinsk.

        TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov" under repair until 2018. There remains one "Peter the Great", which also docked for repairs.

        The situation is no better with other ships of the 1st rank: the newest "Admiral Chabanenko" pr.1155.1 is under repair until next year, the "Admiral Ushakov" pr. 956 is not allowed further than Spitsbergen, there are 3 BODs of pr.1155 that have essentially become "workhorses. ". So in October, the VPK "Vice-Admiral Kulakov" is going for a combat exit to the Atlantic.
        However, in November the newest frigate of project 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov" will be handed over to the fleet, which will be handed over to the fleet in November, which can be considered as a temporary replacement for "Chabanenko", after the repair of which not a single modern "running" strike ship for escorting remained in the fleet. Peter "and" Kuzi ". This year, the Federation Council planned to receive a corvette pr.20385 "Thundering", but due to sanctions, most likely not. Things are no better afloat, despite the last year SSBN K-84 "Yekaterinburg", the transfer of the newest K-560 "Severodvinsk" pr. 885 to the fleet, and the arrival from the Baltic at the end of 2013 B-585 "St. Petersburg "project 677, which is still listed in trial operation. So out of 18 nuclear submarines, only 7 are in service (1 project 885, 2 project 949A, 1 project 945A, 1 project 971, 2 project 671RTMK). True, that year it was planned to return from repair B-336 "Pskov" pr. 945A and K-335 "Gepard" pr. 971. Things are no better with diesel-electric submarines, despite the withdrawal in 2013 from the modernization of B-800 "Kaluga" and September 23 B-459 "Vladikavkaz".

        Thus, in addition to the "St. Petersburg" in trial operation, I am building 3 diesel-electric submarines: B-800 Kaluga, B-471 Magnitogorsk and B-459 Vladikavkaz. The B-402 Vologda will most likely be scrapped, while the B-808 Yaroslavl is being repaired at Zvezdochka. True, the B-177 Lipetsk returned from the Baltic Fleet, but immediately got up for repairs, and most of its crew was sent to Vietnam to help receive diesel-electric submarines of pr. 636.1. So far, no improvements can be expected here.
        1. Roman 1977
          Roman 1977 12 October 2015 15: 42 New
          +2
          Pacific Fleet-full Arctic fox. The core of the RRC fleet of pr.1164 "Varyag", 3 BOD pr. 1155 and the destroyer pr. 956 "Bystry", which does not go further than Shanghai. True, they should return from repair of the BOD pr.1155 "Admiral Tributs" and BDK-101 "Oslyabya" Perhaps this year the Pacific Fleet will be replenished with the repaired RRC pr.1164 "Marshal Ustinov." The deadlines for the delivery of the first corvette of the ASZ "Perfect" pr. 20380 are shifted to the right next year, and knowledgeable people say that at best, and most likely in 2017. The situation with the TARKR pr.1144.2 "Admiral Lazarev" is not clear. The situation with the submarine is even worse: out of 10 nuclear submarines, only 3 are in service (pr. 949A K-456 "Tver" and K-186 "Omsk" and K-150 "Tomsk"). Out of 8 diesel-electric submarines-5. B-187 "Komsomolsk-on-Amur" (launched last week) and B-190 "Krasnokamensk" under repair. B-445 "St. Nicholas the Wonderworker" is likely to be decommissioned. However, on September 30 AICRSN "Alexander Nevsky" pr. 955 "Borey" came to Vlyuchinsk.

          And all this against the backdrop of the growing by leaps and bounds of the Navy of China, Japan and South Korea.
          So this year the Navy should receive:
          Surface ships:
          - frigate pr. 22350 "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov" - November.
          -SKR pr. 11356 "Admiral Grigorovich" - November
          -SKR pr. 11356 "Admiral Essen" (Black Sea Fleet) - November-December.
          -BDK pr. 11711 "Ivan Gren" (not a fact !!!).
          -2 MRK pr. 21631 "Zeleny Dol" and "Serpukhov" (Black Sea Fleet)
          -BTSch pr. 12700 "" Alexander Obukhov ".
          -2 DKA pr. 21820 "Dugong" "Lieutenant Rimsky-Korsakov" and "Warrant officer" Lermontov "(BF) -already in the Navy
          -5 patrol boats of project 03160 "Raptor" (Black Sea Fleet) -4 have already been transferred to the Navy: 3-Black Sea Fleet, 1-BF.
          -patrol boat pr.BK-16 (CSF)-passes the test
          Submarines:
          -B-262 "Stary Oskol" pr. 636.6 (Black Sea Fleet)
          -B-265 "Krasnodar" pr. 636.6 (Black Sea Fleet). Launched on April 25, according to the plan, it should be transferred to the Navy in November.
          Total: 2 DEPL, 11 surface ships (6-7 for sure) and 8 boats.
          Auxiliary:
          -Rescue vessel pr. 21300S "Igor Belousov"
          - Oceanographic vessel pr. 22010 "Yantar" (SF) - delivered to the fleet on May 23
          -Medium reconnaissance ship pr. 18280 "Yuri Ivanov" (SF) -adopted by the Navy
          -Marine transport of weapons, pr. 20180TV "Akademik Kovalev"
          From the repair plan to withdraw:
          - BOD pr. 1155 "Admiral Tributs" (Pacific Fleet) -planned to withdraw by June 30, but there is no information about this
          - RKO pr. 1166.1 "Tatarstan" (KFL)
          - BDK pr. 775 "Oslyabya" (Pacific Fleet) -planned to withdraw by June 30, but there is no data on this
          - SSBN K-44 "Ryazan" pr. 667 BDR (Pacific Fleet)
          - nuclear submarine pr.945A "Condor" B-336 "Pskov" (Northern Fleet)
          - nuclear submarine pr. 971 K-335 "Gepard" (Northern Fleet)
          - nuclear submarine pr. 971U K-419 "Kuzbass" (Pacific Fleet)
          - diesel-electric submarines pr. 877 "Alrosa" (Black Sea Fleet)
          - diesel-electric submarines pr. 877 B-459 "Vladikavkaz" (repair and modernization) - handed over on September 23.
          1. Roman 1977
            Roman 1977 12 October 2015 15: 46 New
            +3
            With ships of the first and second rank now in the Navy is a big shortage, so in the ranks:
            1 aircraft carrier "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov", with an incomplete air group (8 Su-33), with missing "Granites", the MiG-29K has not yet been received.
            1 TARKR pr. 1144.2 "Peter the Great" is undergoing repairs at the dock, the second "Admiral Nakhimov" (former Kalinin "is currently not capable of combat) is being repaired and modernized until 2018." Admiral Ushakov "(former" Kirov ") has already been decommissioned, and after him "Admiral Lazarev" is written off to the Pacific Fleet (formerly "Frunze"). Total of 2 TARKRs, 1 is under repair and one is under repair and modernization.
            3 RKR pr. 1164: 1 SF ("Marshal Ustinov"), 1-Black Sea Fleet ("Moscow"), 1-Pacific Fleet (Varyag "), of which" Marshal Ustinov "is undergoing repairs and modernization, the terms of which have shifted" to the right "by next year. Its place at the end of the year was to be taken by "Moscow", however, due to disruptions in the delivery time of the SKR pr. 11356 and the fire at the BOD pr. 1134B "Kerch", which led to the decision to dismantle the ship, it was decided to postpone the repair until next year ...
            7 BOD pr. 1155 (3 Northern Fleet and 4 Pacific Fleet), of which the BOD Admiral Tributs (Pacific Fleet), according to the plan on June 30 was supposed to get out of repair, but there were no reports about this, the one that we will look at has not yet been received ... Those. dry residue 6.
            1 BOD pr. 1155.1 "Admiral Chabanenko" (SF) is our only ship that can be safely called a destroyer under repair until the end of next year.
            3 destroyers pr. 956 (BF, Northern Fleet. Pacific Fleet) - due to problems with the DCU, they became essentially ships of the near sea zone. "The Baltic" Nastoichivy "- with tugs only goes to the test ranges near Baltiysk. Svalbard, Pacific "Fast" beyond Shanghai.
            2 TFR pr. 11540 (BF), of which "Fearless" is undergoing repairs and modernization until the middle of next year, followed by "Yaroslav the Wise" for repairs. while in service alone
            1 BOD pr. 01090 "Sharp-witted", loyal to the fleet already in 1969, and did not receive the Kh-35 "Uran" anti-ship missile system, to its launchers removed from the decommissioned "R-44" RCA, to which the route cable was not even connected.
            SKR pr. 1135 "Ladny" and SKR pr. 1135M "Pytlivy" are outdated ships, with weak air defense (2 "OSA-MA" air defense systems), the enemy will be good enough to frighten the enemy, but in a real battle, at best, "rocket catchers"
            Total we have-19 ships, of which only 13 are in the ranks, of which 3 are completely obsolete ships ...
          2. katalonec2014
            katalonec2014 12 October 2015 16: 26 New
            0
            No Rum, Tributs is stuck, the money for repairs is over, and the condition is kapets, so it should not be expected soon.
        2. complete zero
          complete zero 12 October 2015 21: 59 New
          0
          I wonder how many (aircraft) on board "Peter the Great" and in general how many pilots of the Russian Navy have the skills (ability) to land on the deck in relation to the aviation of the Navy and the Marine Corps (there is also such an aircraft in the United States)?
          1. kote119
            kote119 12 October 2015 22: 18 New
            0
            practically about
      2. Eugene-Eugene
        Eugene-Eugene 12 October 2015 16: 39 New
        0
        Well, okay, the Ukrainian IPC and SRZK will be included, it can be understood, but why BDK? To be detained at the first roar of the Ukrainians?
        1. Roman 1977
          Roman 1977 12 October 2015 17: 03 New
          +4
          Quote: Eugene-Eugene
          Well, okay, the Ukrainian IPC and SRZK will be included, it can be understood, but why BDK? To be detained at the first roar of the Ukrainians?


          So, for example, before the arrival of Novorossiysk, our only submarine at the World Cup capable of submerging under the periscope, how funny it sounds, was the captured Ukrainian B-435 Zaporozhye, pr. 641, which is still maintained in a combat readiness state, and since Ukraine refused it pick up, it was decided to turn it into a launch-charging station for new diesel-electric submarines pr. 636.6.
          BDK-56 pr. 775 / II, the former "Konstantin Olshansky" of the Ukrainian Navy stands quietly in the South Bay of Sevastopol. B-disgusting Latin letter U on board is painted over (w / n 402 remains), barely discernible in the picture jack is raised, on board - "sludge command". Once the jack is raised, then the ship is listed in the Russian Navy according to the order of the commander-in-chief (most likely - in the reserve of the 2nd category). Most likely, it will be quietly repaired and put into operation after the passions around Donbass subside.

          The control ship of project 1288.4 "Slavutich" is planned to be converted into a RZK and for this purpose saturate with modern equipment. They are going to remove the mainmast and make at least a helicopter runway in the stern.

          MPK pr. 1124M "Lutsk" and "Ternopil" are in the reserve of the 2nd category of the 68th brigade of ships for the protection of the water area in Sevastopol. IPK pr.1241.2 "Khmelnitsky" is also listed there. However, rumor has it that with the capture of Mariupol, it could become the flagship of the Novorossiya fleet, together with two RCA pr. 206M and RTShch pr. 1258 (see above). Thus, the Novorossiya naval forces will be twice as large as the "stub" of Ruinda's fleet in their strike capabilities.

          RCA R-54 "Pridneprovye" pr. 12411T in the reserve of the 295th Sulinsky division of missile boats.
          MTShch pr.266M "Cherkasy" and "Chernigov" -418th minesweeper division.
          The IPC, the RCA and the ITSC may become a bargaining chip in the process of establishing Russian-Ukrainian-European relations.
  • emercom1979
    emercom1979 12 October 2015 14: 52 New
    +2
    What are the real performance characteristics of "Caliber", in this context, citizens are of little interest. The main thing is that there is a reason for pride in the Motherland. Of course there is an admixture of "hurray-patriotism" but still damn nice ... And about not knowing the differences between the types of missiles and weapons, this should be left to specialists. Let them use them competently and please with such news.
    1. Das Boot
      Das Boot 12 October 2015 18: 54 New
      +2
      Quote: emercom1979
      What are the real performance characteristics of "Caliber", in this context, citizens are of little interest.
      The layman, you know, is now vividly interested in the technical side and what is in the public domain is enough for him to appease cheers-speculators like Comrade. Ishchenko. Actually, the name is a classic agitprop product - to scratch the patriomaniac, where it itches.
      Quote: emercom1979
      but damn nice anyway ...

      I agree, it’s nice, but rather because the weapon passed the combat test. The conversations of specialists around Caliber did not stop, EMNIP, since 2012, from tests in the White Sea. Plus START-3 context (so-called START agreement)
      Quote: emercom1979
      And about not knowing the differences between types of missiles and weapons, this should be left to specialists.
      Of course. But, however, one should not leave the field for speculation to admired idiots. It ends badly.
  • 123321
    123321 12 October 2015 15: 00 New
    +6
    Small aircraft engine TRDD 37-01, on which the KR 3M14 "Caliber" flew to Syria
    This product, which is not too serious at first glance, reminiscent of a household vacuum cleaner, is nothing more than a small-sized twin-circuit turbojet engine (turbojet engine) 37-01, developed and mass-produced at NPO Saturn (Rybinsk) and used as a marching engine on the KRBD 3M14 of the Caliber complex (OKB Novator, Yekaterinburg).
    It’s hard to believe, but a strategic cruise missile with a flight mass of about 1 kg at a speed of 300 km / h (850 M) is carried by an “engine” the size of a travel bag that two people can easily lift (the proportion of the mass of the turbojet engine in the load of the mass of the rocket - only 0,7%).

    The efficiency of the engine is impressive no less than its weight and size characteristics. With the declared specific fuel consumption, the fuel reserve for a full-range flight (1 km, 500 hour 1 minutes) should be 45 kg (about 560% of the flight weight) (Ref. 45).

    According to the data from the manufacturer 37-01 has the following specifications:

    maximum traction - 450 kgf;
    specific fuel consumption at maximum mode - 0,71 kg / kgf / h;
    diameter - 330 mm;
    length - 850 mm; dry weight - 82 kg;
    fuel used - aviation kerosene TS-1, T-1, T-6, RT, decilin T-10.

    This means that 3M14 consumes 48 liters of aviation kerosene per 100 km of flight, which corresponds to the fuel consumption of KAMAZ-6460.

    The fuel share in the flight mass of the rocket is not in doubt, since warheads (450 kg) account for 35% and, minus the turbofan engine, about 15% of the airframe, control equipment, steering gears and other things remain, which seem more or less reliable. Aviation kerosene (TS-1) almost does not differ in cost from diesel fuel.
  • Gray 43
    Gray 43 12 October 2015 15: 06 New
    +2
    The article is optimistic, but do not underestimate the staff members, yes, in the military sphere, we showed them Kuzkin's mother, which means now they will rock Russia in every possible way from the inside, preferably with the neutralization of the leader - the signature "dish" of former convicts - they will not get into open battle, these are still events in Pristina showed when the excellent work of the military was multiplied by zero politics in power
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 12 October 2015 15: 08 New
    +1
    In just a few weeks, Ukrainian aviation was driven out of the sky by miners, hairdressers, taxi drivers and supermarket guards,

    Chihiks ... but before they joked that:
    It is a pity that those who know how to manage the state work as taxi drivers and hairdressers.
    And got it ... smile
  • boris117
    boris117 12 October 2015 15: 16 New
    +2
    Quote: Now we are free
    BUT on October 7 we all saw that one can win and win systematically, arguing and reinforcing each of its actions with international law.

    Behind this is Russia's huge advantage. Our country shows an example of decency in international affairs. Let's hope that gradually the world community will turn to face Russia. The lies and the infinite impudence of the USA, the open disregard for moral standards, the desire to subjugate everything and everything and rob in the end, are the rule of conduct of the American government
  • cergey51046
    cergey51046 12 October 2015 15: 25 New
    +1
    Do what you must and let it be, what will be. Know ours.
  • kuguar7777
    kuguar7777 12 October 2015 15: 51 New
    0
    Quote: MIKHALYCHXNNX
    and I think the missiles were not only from boats (they are very compact) hi

    But they say there are also shipping containers .. smile This is terrible for the states, suddenly they are already on their territory .. lol
  • Longmire
    Longmire 12 October 2015 17: 00 New
    -4
    In a matter of weeks, only Ukrainian aviation was driven out of the sky by miners, hairdressers, taxi drivers and supermarket guards
    these are not those "parakems" who are "vacationers" of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, if you start to lie, then at least write a truthful misinformation, dear authors, especially the calculations of the BUK were from "taxi drivers", it is already good to write fairy tales, investigators.
  • tlauicol
    tlauicol 12 October 2015 17: 19 New
    0
    The author annealed in full of course! Not to distinguish RCC from tactical missiles is five! With the same success, he can embed an article in the Washington Post, as the Tomahawks will sink the Black Sea Fleet, CF and BF without leaving Naples - the range allows :)) winked
    I propose to write to the author a series of articles: "An armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile at a tank for 20 km" (but cho, a high-explosive one flies request ); "SAM for a surface target at 200 km" (well, for a high-altitude target :)) what ";" Iskanders guarding the ocean "
    in short: excellent, sit down - two!
    1. Dm-sl
      Dm-sl 13 October 2015 03: 20 New
      +3
      author, yes. But the number of idiots admiring this nonsense in comments is more frustrating.
    2. Scraptor
      Scraptor 13 October 2015 03: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: Tlauicol
      "An armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile at a tank for 20 km"

      the Israelis fired a little less ... and no one expected the escavators either.
      Quote: Tlauicol
      "SAM for a surface target at 200 km" (well, for a high-altitude target :))

      "Nike-Hercules" had a fire translator for a surface target, smaller missiles were fired at the ships.
      Quote: Tlauicol
      how the Tomahawks will sink the Black Sea Fleet, CF and BF without leaving Naples - the range allows

      no seiyasas anti-ship tomahawk - not allowed
      Quote: Tlauicol
      "Iskanders guarding the ocean"

      There is a warhead with a contrasting seeker; it’s not a problem to finish it.
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 13 October 2015 04: 24 New
        0
        They fired, shoot, but not with anti-caliber shells at the tanks; they need speed to break through.
        Nike Hercules, like other missiles, can hit surface targets within sight, as in the backlight. About 200km only to dream. And on the earth, an atomic charge was planned using an inertial, because he would not see anything beyond the horizon.
        RCC Tomahawk is there again. And the range not only to him, but also to the RCC Caliber does not allow. The author does not understand this at all.
        Modify. and do not forget about space
        1. Scraptor
          Scraptor 13 October 2015 04: 32 New
          +1
          Tanks at such a range were amazed. What is subcaliber is not a fact, but the velocity of the projectile drops most rapidly at the muzzle end.
          With the help of inertia and coordinate (approximately like P-7). You can highlight ...
          Caliber range, see the manufacturer’s website. Or did another anti-ship missile fly to Syria?
          What about space? Even China has been modified for a long time.
          1. tlauicol
            tlauicol 13 October 2015 05: 20 New
            0
            Not sub-caliber. Heavy land mines - which I wrote about right away.
            A ship can only illuminate a target only to a radio horizon. point inertia to the ship - pff! We have not yet learned how to highlight other people's missiles.
            I see that you don’t know at all that RCC NOT FLY TO Syria? Then it’s better not to argue with you at all. waste of time.
            Buy from China, since everything is so simple
            1. Scraptor
              Scraptor 13 October 2015 05: 26 New
              0
              Why from a tank gun?
              Quote: Tlauicol
              A ship can only illuminate a target only to a radio horizon.

              Well, it must be provided.
              There were no semi-active GOS in the USSR? Or who are we?
              Do you know exactly what flew, and what are the differences now? And then something like a tomahawk is again anti-ship and appeared ...
              Nowhere is easier - Eitai bought it, together with the engineers ...
  • Prometey
    Prometey 12 October 2015 17: 32 New
    -1
    In just a few weeks, Ukrainian aviation was driven out of the sky by miners, hairdressers, taxi drivers and supermarket guards,
    Does anyone still believe in these tales? And they apparently brought MANPADS from mines, hairdressing salons and supermarkets with them and in the same place learned to shoot from them at leisure? The sky of Donbass for the Bandera Air Force was closed by Russian air defense. So probably closer to the truth.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 12 October 2015 17: 50 New
      +2
      Quote: Prometey
      Does anyone still believe in these tales? And they apparently brought MANPADS from mines, hairdressing salons and supermarkets with them and in the same place learned to shoot from them at leisure?

      The first MANPADS were received by the militia along with the BMD that switched to their side. Plus there were reports of MANPADS taken after the capture of one of the buildings of the SBU.
      Well, do not forget about such a phenomenon as ensign-xoxol ... only the base in Artyomovsk, for a couple of months of neighborhood with the militias, lacked equipment for a full-blooded BTG. At the same time, all the "assaults" of the base were limited to hours of theatrical post-firefights at the checkpoint - without casualties or destruction.

      Plus, the tactics of the Ukrainian pilots made the use of MANPADS as easy as possible. Flying at a constant altitude without changing course and speed, multiple approaches to the target, hovering, using the same route, not using the linden and the LTC - in short, the first few months of the Ukrainian Air Force did the maximum possible for training air defense calculations.
  • Balagan
    Balagan 12 October 2015 17: 40 New
    +3
    I’m a land person, and therefore I am curious to read all the calculations of those who know. But the Caspian salvo, even without all the marine subtleties, is very impressive.
    1. Das Boot
      Das Boot 12 October 2015 19: 10 New
      0
      Quote: booth
      I’m a land person, and therefore I am curious to read all the calculations of those who know. But the Caspian salvo, even without all the marine subtleties, is very impressive.

      I agree. Not the Tsar bomb, of course, but ... laughing The western (and eastern, too, by the way) mass media pleases with their assessment - "no practical sense", "Putin show", "Message for America", etc. I estimate the headlines of the modern media in August 45 about the atomic bombings of H. and N. - "no practical sense", "Truman Show", "Message to the Soviets", etc. Everything seems to be extremely clear - political tectonics should be accompanied, in addition to throwing words, by something effective.
      However, comrade Ischenko is a speculator.
  • lopvlad
    lopvlad 12 October 2015 18: 47 New
    +1
    The characteristics of the non-export version of the 3M14 missile are classified and therefore each puts forward its own hypotheses. The only thing we know (after October 7) is that the launch range on ground targets is definitely no less than 1500 km.
  • Bayonet
    Bayonet 12 October 2015 19: 51 New
    +1
    "How Russia removed the US fleet from the sea in one salvo" - it is clear that the article about the hat-making did not work ...
    1. Das Boot
      Das Boot 12 October 2015 20: 09 New
      +1
      Quote: Bayonet
      "How Russia removed the US fleet from the sea in one salvo" - it is clear that the article about the hat-making did not work ...

      Camerad, hats are a thing of the past. Calibrosis is more relevant. One salvo tries.
      1. Dm-sl
        Dm-sl 13 October 2015 03: 16 New
        0
        And it's a pity, an article about a hat, a landmark article. But what to talk to fools. They are just a talking litmus of the information space - in 2012 they yelled "Putin is a Thief", then "Crimea is ours", now "AUG get out!" The Mzdobulov cause is alive and well not only in the outskirts.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Sergey Mikhailov
    Sergey Mikhailov 12 October 2015 21: 02 New
    +1
    There were reports that the actual firing range may exceed 4000 km.

    Have any messages? Is this something like what the GDP told in an interview with Solovyov about air-based cruise missiles with a range of up to 4500 km?
  • RUS69
    RUS69 12 October 2015 21: 22 New
    -1
    Quote: Das Boot
    Quote: Bayonet
    "How Russia removed the US fleet from the sea in one salvo" - it is clear that the article about the hat-making did not work ...

    Camerad, hats are a thing of the past. Calibrosis is more relevant. One salvo tries.

    "One gulp tries" It's a little bit from another system to shoot smile
    And so what is wrong with cap-making ?? The people believe in their country and their strength in the first in many years !!! How can you win somewhere if you do not believe in your strength ??? It's impossible.
    Let’s say I believe in my country and my people and I’m 100% sure that, God forbid, something happens, we can all deal with this, and no one will convince me of this. As for underestimating the enemy, this is a subjective thing and is learned in practice.
    1. Dm-sl
      Dm-sl 13 October 2015 03: 11 New
      +1
      And you look at Ukraine, with "their strongest army on the continent." If a person stops thinking critically, he becomes an idiot.
  • Yak28
    Yak28 12 October 2015 21: 24 New
    +1
    The Caliber missiles are good, of course, well, the United States has a lot of interesting things, and in the number of missiles, aircraft and ships, Russia is very much inferior to NATO. Russia is very far from the USSR in terms of military power. If NATO members manage to build their own missile defense system in Europe and more to place cruise missiles with nuclear warheads there, and you can try in Ukraine, then you get a completely different alignment
    1. complete zero
      complete zero 12 October 2015 21: 48 New
      0
      on the whole, I agree for that and a plus ... but it is unlikely that it will be possible to create such a missile defense system (guaranteed) that covers the sky ... and for Europe it would be enough that FIVE missiles from TWENTY fall on it (it will not seem enough), but in general it becomes scary what are we all going to (really not funny)
      1. Yak28
        Yak28 12 October 2015 22: 03 New
        -1
        The missile defense goal is not to close the sky over Europe, but to shoot down our rockets on takeoff so as not to get a retaliatory strike. This missile defense will block part of Russia, NATO ships can block the other part from the sea. Yes, and cruise missiles from eastern Europe will fly quickly.
    2. meandr51
      meandr51 16 October 2015 16: 04 New
      0
      What is the difference, once destroy NATO or 10? By the way, after the first nuclear explosions, aircraft will not fly at all. She will be swept away by shock waves, and electronics will go crazy. In space - the same thing.
      Therefore, they should be afraid of us.
  • viach
    viach 12 October 2015 21: 28 New
    +3
    I am proud that I am RUSSIAN !!!
    1. Dm-sl
      Dm-sl 13 October 2015 03: 08 New
      -2
      Considering under what nonsense you wrote this ... I remember the incorruptible "In Russia, thank God, there are 100 years of fools in store"
  • complete zero
    complete zero 12 October 2015 21: 42 New
    0
    yes no guys ... of course I want to believe in it, but the article is somewhat (how to say that?))) pioneer, hardly due to the presence (albeit good) missiles, the fleet left ... well, about comparing the actions of our aviation with the Ukrainian (but what to compare actually))) but most likely ALL pilots participating in the operation in Syria are not quite ordinary pilots ... most likely, since the operation was prepared in advance, the pilots underwent retraining at the Lipetsk Combat Use Center (I mean, how many us in general in the aviation of pilots of this level after the Yeltsin times?) This is not a conscript soldier for a year to cook))). so comparing the current state of the Ukrainian Air Force even with the combatant pilots of the Russian Federation is stupid, but here Asy.nu and the last thing is that the "miners" and the "teachers" of Donbas were armed with Needles and Arrows, which seems to be (thank God) not yet among the Wahhabis
  • opus
    opus 12 October 2015 21: 56 New
    0
    Quote: Author Rostislav Ishchenko, observer for MIA “Russia Today”
    That is, both the Caspian Flotilla and the Black Sea Fleet are capable, without leaving their waters, of destroying any enemy in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, and the Baltic Fleet is capable of keeping the North Sea, English Channel and part of the Norwegian Sea on target.

    Amendment "Observer" Rostislav.
    CD data, those that at 1500 km (and even 4000 km) cannot attack moving targets (there is no radar "full-fledged" seeker - only A-14, but only an "altimeter" and a map of the area)
    Well, even if they could (ARGS-54), dear Ishchenko .....
    There is no correction in flight (there is no 2-way communication), for 1500 km / 800km / h = almost 2 hours, the target will go far beyond the coverage area of ​​the ARGSN ..
  • Yak28
    Yak28 12 October 2015 22: 09 New
    0
    I think the objects in Syria could be neutralized from bombers, strikes from ships are a demonstration of determination and technology, so that our sworn American friends would know that Yeltsin did not destroy the entire military-industrial complex
  • Pensive
    Pensive 12 October 2015 22: 47 New
    0
    Nobody paid attention to the fact that the Russian aviation group in Syria is almost identical in terms of the number and type of aircraft to the aircraft that the Ukrainian Air Force attempted to bomb Donbass in 2014 during the year. They are based on the same Su-24 bombers and Su-25 attack aircraft.


    The APU has no Su-30 SM and Su-34.
  • lelikas
    lelikas 12 October 2015 23: 09 New
    0
    Quote: Kalmar
    What makes you think that it is not on the usual "Caliber" -?

    Ordinary - which is for ground purposes? Why does he need a radar? In this case, every gram counts, carrying along a whole radar just in case is painfully cool.

    Yeah - and with the envelope of the relief, he flies on Google maps?
  • Oleko
    Oleko 13 October 2015 00: 43 New
    0
    Quote: Ramzaj99
    .. And if the target is "highlighted", then ordinary Calibers can work at sea for 1500 km, especially in such a mountain as an aircraft carrier. But highlighting an aircraft carrier is something of a fantasy.

    The Shaggy Ears modernized on the Yantar left Baltiysk for Syria. "Shaggy ears" is slang. The name of the radar reconnaissance ship. Can't he light up the Caliber aircraft carrier? I dont know. He was not admitted to the headquarters of the fleet. But vague doubts are always plagued, but did they report everything to us for a comprehensive and objective analysis? Maybe something was hidden? Covering "something" with a simple veil, on which is written in large letters: Military and state secrets.
  • TopNaDo
    TopNaDo 13 October 2015 01: 09 New
    0
    I wonder what prevents a spotter with a large amount of fuel (instead of warheads) and a radar or lidar from making a cruise missile? I launched a couple of three in front (at a higher speed) of the main number of missiles in the predicted directions when approaching a hill a couple of thousand meters .... voila.) I understand the loss of surprise but (although how to calculate) as an option is not bad. I meant the option of using cruise missiles against ships.