What is NATO going to shoot down "Caliber"




Striving for world hegemony, Washington is imposing on its allies the deployment on their territory of their defensive and offensive weapons, including a missile defense system. According to the Pentagon, it is designed to protect Europe from a missile threat from the East. However, sober-minded Western politicians have already begun to ask the question: Is this air defense system as effective as it is advertised by the United States or is this being done to ensure ever-greater military dependence on Washington?

I, of course, apologize, but just have to return to this topic. Surprisingly, he did not see a logical analysis of the essence of the incident.

Let's, as usual, "from the stove." The stove in this case is the Tomahawk cruise missile. I remind you what it is. The BGM-109 Tomahawk is an American multi-purpose, high-precision subsonic cruise missile (hereinafter referred to as the CD) for long-range, tactical and strategic purposes. It flies at extremely low altitudes with rounding of the terrain. It is in service with submarines and surface ships of the US Navy since the year 1983. Going into technical details too deeply makes no sense, you just need to remember the key concepts. 1) 1983 year; 2) supersmall heights; 3) on ships and submarines - that is, along the entire coast of the former USSR, now Russia; 4) range of a modern modification of the RGM / UGM-109E Tomahawk Block IV - up to 2 500 km.



Why enough? Enough to understand the response of the military-industrial complex of the USSR and the military-industrial complex of the Russian Federation. All anti-aircraft missiles, all radar systems from the 70-s (the "Tomahawks" began to develop from the 1972 year, and KGB agents not only live on TV), initially at the R & D stage (research and development) took into account the existence of the CD and the urgent need for the ability to destroy them.

Slowly, by letter: the USSR Air Defense learned to destroy the KR from the end of the 70s theoretically, from the 1983 - practically. Your humble servant (author - Konstantin Borisov, ed.) 2, conscripts held in ZRV (anti-aircraft missile troops) from 1984 to 1986. By virtue of this, I have the right to report: even the old, Vietnamese war SNR-75, who by that time reached the modernization called “Desna”, could shoot at the CD. CR was shot at CHP-125, CHP-200. From 1986, the SNR-300 came to the air defense system - they shot down the CD even better. I am writing the “SNR” according to the soldier’s habit - the “missile guidance station”, although the latter two letters are not used more often.

C-300, C-400 - this is what was created and put into service in front of even the youngest readers, and now we are talking about C-500. I assure you - all this technique can knock down the CD. As a guidance operator, I still remember what horror for us these CRs were at the test sites ... They rushed about the monitor, trying to jump out of its limits, they "flew" into the background from the relief, could turn almost 180 degrees and jump out capture. And we only reacted with our eyes and hands - against the Tomahawks on-board computers. Our lesion rate is 0,1 at best. 1 of 10! Therefore, the air defense missile defense system, which covered strategic objects, stood in three echelons. Therefore, the ZRV was reinforced by interceptors, while front-line air defense stood close to the objects - those designed to destroy everything that flies above the parapet of the trench.

This multi-layered system, I repeat, lined up from the beginning of 80's. It was improved by automated control systems (automatic control system), radio engineering troops put into operation more and more new radars, missiles were upgraded, fighter-interceptors became “meaner”, Shilki built fire walls even at night ... In the form in which Russian air defense exists on Today's day is a true work of military art. Beautiful, reliable, perfect. And - very expensive. Highly. Why about the price suddenly remembered? Now I will explain.

We turn around to face a probable opponent. What is NATO in Europe today? All our ears buzzed that there is in the charter of this organization “the famous item 5”, according to which “when attacking one NATO country to defend it, all the others will stand up at once”. Because "Boyztsa, shitty, we will kill and tear you all at once!" Heard of course? In the days of historical materialism, the party taught us not to steal the primary sources from small things. Therefore - read the original. Here it is, that same article number 5:

“The Contracting Parties agree that an armed attack on one or more of them in Europe or North America will be considered as an attack on them as a whole, and therefore agree that if such an armed attack takes place, each of these, in the exercise of the right to individual or collective self-defense, recognized by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, will assist the Contracting Party subjected to, or the Contracting Parties msya such attacks by the immediate implementation of such individual or joint action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. "

Read? I highlight the main thing:

"... each of them ... will help ... as it deems necessary"

We translate from bureaucratic to universal. That attacked the green Martian men on ... well, for example, Latvia. All other NATO countries, as soon as the news of this terrible horror reached them, begin ... what, to fight? Nope For-se-give. Meet headquarters, parliaments, governments to decide: what do we, the brothers, consider it necessary? Estonia considers it necessary ... crap mount dug-out walls. Turkey believes that it is better to chew dried apricots. Cyprus believes that it would be necessary to go to the store for a new geographical atlas, because on its headquarters maps Latvia is still part of the USSR. After a couple of days or weeks of meetings, the NATO countries begin ... what, to fight? Indian hut you! You need to get in touch with each other, agree who is the first, who is the second, who agrees only to wash the diapers and put Coca Cola in the fridge. "Guys, who will bring shells?" Ay, who as with jet fuel? Wow, Canadians are full ?! Well, give me a ride, we’ll sweep the takeoff ... "

The 5 article is no guarantee for an immediate, powerful collaborative response. Whoever decides that it is necessary to harness is harnessing. Well, when will agree, in what place, by what forces and when. Who decides that the best tactic - to hide in the house - hide. And there is no way to punish for this, there is no punitive measures in the NATO charter to those who consider it necessary to use the tactics of “Whatever happens”.

And what, I ask, then you need to be afraid of NATO? Yes, because there is a damnable little tree in the sea-ocean, in which they also know how to read the 5 article. And they know very well that all these “NATO allies” and “brothers in arms"Will fight only after powerful kicks and cuffs. But time is also required for kicks with splints, and green Martian men, as shown by the past year, will not give time. They guys, of course, polite, but some quick. Never Estonians. So, all that is left to the overseas democrats is to be the first to harness oneself while the diplomats kick and slap. And how to stay the first? The answer is only one: you need to have your own military bases in the territories of ALL NATO allies. And keep there technique. And keep people there. And be ready to really fight. Sad for the Americans, but these are “European values”.

And let's stop wondering that the Americans strive to regularly clean the pockets of all of Europe - it is the Americans that represent the first echelon of the defense, the military fist of NATO. Do you want to save on defense, to keep especially puppet armies with a set of cans, which you call “armored armada”? Yes, the problems are known, but ... “If you don’t want to feed your army, you will feed someone else’s” this time. Two - "Who is having a girl dinner, that is her dancing." Because a) feed, what are you standing? and b) bend down and pick it up hem, it is not so painful ...



Okay, enough of the lyrics. Let's explore the list of US bases outside the United States. No, not all - we have already seen the defeat zones “Calibres”, so we'll see in them.

Air force
Bahrain - Ise air base
Belgium - Chieveres Air Base
Belgium - Kleine Brogel airbase
Bulgaria - Bezmer Air Base
Bulgaria - Graf-Ignatievo air base
United Kingdom - RAF Lakenthealth, Brandon, Suffolk
United Kingdom - RAF Menwith Hill, Yorkshire Dales
United Kingdom - RAF Mildenhall, Mildenhall
United Kingdom - RAF Croughton, Upper Heyford
United Kingdom - RAF Alconbury, Oxfordshire
Germany - Ansbach
Germany - Airbase Geilenkirchen
Germany - Ramstein
Germany - Spangdahlem Air base
Greenland - Tule AB
Greenland - Guam - Andersen Air Force Base
Spain - the base of 1 in Andalusia
Spain - the base of 2 in Andalusia
Italy - Aviano Air Base
Italy - San Vito dei Normann Air Station
Qatar - Al Udeid Base
Netherlands - Joint Force Command Brunssum
Norway - base in Stavanger
United Arab Emirates - Al Dafra base
Oman - air base in Mazir
Oman - Tumrate air base
Portugal - Lajes Field
Saudi Arabia - Eskan Village airbase
Turkey - Incirlik Air Base

Navy
Bahrain - Naval Support Activity Bahrain
Bahrain - Naval Detacment Dubai
Greece - Souda Bay
Spain - Rota Naval Station
Italy - Naval Support Activity Naples (US 6 fleet)
Italy - Naval Air Station Siginella, Sicily
Italy - Naval Support Activity Gaeta

I do not consider land bases, marine bases. Aviation and the fleet are carriers of strategic weapons, first strike weapons. What should be ready for battle 24 hours a day in order to be able to respond to a hypothetical attack of Russia or deliver a preemptive strike in case of aggression. And these are objects, I repeat, located in the zone of destruction of the Caliber. If these facilities are destroyed, disabled, the strategic balance in favor of Russia will be upset. Therefore, these objects must be reliably protected, including from air attacks. It seems that the logic of reflection is not broken anywhere yet?

Minimum - 36 objects. It remains to be understood - are they covered by air defense from the attack with “Gauges” or not? Yes, yes, I do ask a question with a question, that's right. Before 7 in October, 2015 was in service with Russian cruise missiles. Could a mentally normal American designer of anti-aircraft missiles lay in his creations a safety factor in the event of an attack of what-no? We study.

I do not see the slightest point in considering the missile defense of the American ships - the “Calibers” did not take the capitalist obligation not to fly to the target over land, which we clearly saw when hitting the Syrian basmachs. The speed of the "Caliber" - 0,8 M (Mach), which is in terms of the usual - 989 km / h, they went to the target 50 meters from the ground. Since this is a modern fight, let's recalculate the speed more precisely. 989km / h = 16,48 km / min = 0,274 km / sec.

The main US anti-aircraft missile early warning system today is the Patriot PAC-3, which was put into service in the 2001 year. There is nothing newer. According to his TTH, "the probability of a tactical missile being hit is 0,6-0,8." As if all 2 were lucky, the 10 missiles could reach the target. Not bad? We read once again: we are talking about a tactical rocket. What is this most tactical missile, obviously from its more accurate name: front-line ballistic missile. Ballistic. That is, its trajectory is not like that of a cruise missile, it follows a ballistic trajectory. Consequently, a remarkable ratio in the Patriot’s performance characteristics is not about the Kabir KP. And there is no reason to be surprised: the latest modification of the Patriot was put into service on 2001, the Caliber started this month.



But, being a skeptic, I began to read a little into the performance characteristics of the Patriot components. Well, you never know: just forgot to write about the CD, and in fact bring them down to the “Patriot” - like two ... bytes to send. Here is the Patriot radar: AN / MPQ-65. We read:

"The radar is set in the direction of the expected threat and maintains this position in the process of firing."

That is - if the direction of “arrival” of Caliber is known in advance - we work, if we need to react in the improvisation mode - “we turn the entire radar relative to the trailer”. Time of such a turn, sorry, I could not find yet. Suppose, for example, 10 seconds. The caliber during this time will fly, as we have just considered, 2,7 km. We read further.

"Homing time - 8-10 seconds"

Let 8 be kinder! Caliber during this time has passed 2,2 km. That is, for the time while the radar is spinning and pointing, Caliber approached 5 km. Here is another feature of this radar:

"The detection range of the EPR target in 0,1 sq. M (the head of the rocket) - 70 km."

Total: while the radar caught and began to accompany, Caliber was already in 65 km from the target. The radar "took" the target, the command went to the Patriot missile. Missile - MIM 104. A good rocket, no words - it has speed up to 1,7km / s, that is, as much as 6 times as fast as the Caliber. No problem shoot down? There is. The minimum height is 60 meters. The caliber flies on the 50. NDA ... But, as an anti-aircraft gunner, I report - you can get on 50 meters. It is necessary that this very MIM intercepted Caliber at the stage of gaining its height - a bale, and hit. We on CHP 75 - fell. 1 times from 10, but fell! The main thing - the angle of the launcher to have time to pick up so that the anti-aircraft missile and the CR crossed at that very hypotenuse. And right here ... TTH PU "Patriot":

"The launching angle of the rockets is fixed - 38 ° from the horizon line"

It's not me who composed it, honestly! Fixed. Do you remember trigonometry? We have a leg in 50 meters and the opposite angle 38 degrees. The hypotenuse is a leg divided by the sine of the opposite angle. You can count them yourself, you can believe the word - somehow. Sine 38 degrees = 0,615. 50 / 0,615 = 81,3 meter. It's not me, it's Pythagoras who is to blame for the fact that the Patriot is able to knock down the Caliber at a distance of 81,3 meters from the launcher. Warhead Caliber weighs, recall, 450 kg. You know, I somehow do not want to comment on the explosion of 450 kg of TNT in 80 meters from me. And after passing the 81,3 meter, all that MIM 104 can do is go 10 meters above Caliber. The warhead can be eroded directly above the Caliber, but the beam of striking elements cannot be directed vertically downwards. It turns out that the defeat ratio at the amazing work of the Patriot operators (and giving a signal to undermine specifically OVER Caliber at the speed of the latter almost 1000km / h is something daunting) will not rise above 0,1.

With the "Patriot", like, figured out. What options are there yet? Means of electronic warfare - electronic warfare. We put the most powerful interference, break the connection with GLONASS, Calibers go crazy and fly away in different directions, without getting to the goal. Is it logical It would seem yes, but Caliber is in many ways an analogue of Tomahawk. And the “Tomahawks” did not stray towards our radio troops in the direction of: the on-board computers have the coordinates of the target. Tomahawks reacted to the limit to the limit simply - they ceased to perceive any signals at all and went on commands from the on-board computer. Of course, we don’t know anything about Caliber’s computers from the open press, but I see no reason to suppose that they are “dumber” than those on the Tomahawks.

Hypothetically, we continue to track the approach of Calibres to the goal. 70 km - the Patriots were involved, but they couldn't do anything. Is there anything in the arsenal of NATO that can destroy the Calibers on a smaller distance? I searched for a long time, but still found it.

Norwegian Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System - NASAMS. “A medium-range mobile air defense missile system is designed to hit air targets at low and medium altitudes in all weather conditions.” Upgraded to index II, it covers all air bases in Norway from 1994. Its performance characteristics make it possible to “grab” a target at 40 km from launchers, and at that, at 30 meters from the ground as the minimum height. Recall what 40 km is at Caliber speed. 2 minutes 25 seconds of flight. The reaction time of the complex (from the moment when the radar "grabbed" the target before the launch of the anti-missile from the launcher) - 10 seconds, during this time Calibers are getting closer by almost 3 km. That launched a NASAMS II rocket complex, which has a speed of 1020 km / hour.

A beautiful picture - two rockets are rushing towards each other in the air, the rendezvous speed is 2 000 km / h! 1 minute 11 seconds before the "meeting", that is, the caliber can be shot down at a distance 17,5 km from the target. Only I was going to be happy for NATO, how my eyes rested in the performance characteristics of this very NASAMS II radar. This radar is called AN / TPQ-64 - this product is part of the complex with the 1999 of the year. The radar has such an indicator as the period of updating the combat situation data - the speed with which the radar records changes in the position of the target and its missile. So with this AN / TPQ-64 it amounts to ... 2 seconds. And two seconds at the speed of convergence in 2000 km / h - this is, sorry, more than a kilometer! That's the whole reason why this complex is only in Norway for the time being: the radar does not allow for an anti-aircraft missile to be deployed to the CD.

The development of the Norwegians, of course, was noticed by the Americans. Since the beginning of 2000-x, the American manufacturer of the Patriot complexes - Raytheon has joined the Norwegians. In October, 2006 reported that the development of their joint air defense system - SLAMRAAM (Surface Launched Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile) was completed. It sounds beautiful, but the only one news about this - the fact that in the summer of 2009, this complex successfully shot down at a distance of 30 km at an extremely low altitude ... drone. Since then, no news has been received, and the SLAMRAAM complex itself, which was scheduled for the 2012 year, did not enter service. The reasons are not voiced - most likely, he is so called and “not brought to mind”. Beating drones is one thing, but getting into Caliber with its 1000 km / h and the ability to maneuver is something completely different ...



We continue to "follow" the flight of the Caliber. 70 km to the target - Patriot flew by, 40 km - NASAMS flew by and hypothetical SLAMRAAM. What else is in stock?

The Avenger short-range anti-aircraft missile system (ZRK) is intended for hitting air targets at ranges of 0.5-5.5 km, altitudes of 0.5-3.8 km on heading courses and in pursuit. I began to read the description of this "Avenger". Got to this phrase:

"The operator accompanies the goal visually, using an optical sight, or using a thermal imager"

... Yes, and stopped reading. Visually accompany the target, which for 1 seconds moves to 270 meters, and also performs the “Snake” maneuver, when you have only 5,5 km (20 seconds) left in your stock only Hollywood heroes can. Yes, and that, if the Calibers go "flock", as in Syrian Basmach, strabismus will work ...

Let's summarize. 36 strategic objects of the US Army located in the zone of destruction of the Caliber missiles from the impact of these missiles are not covered by anything. Base fleet and aviation are not protected by anything. And yes - for me, these words sound like music.

Let's estimate what happened. If the US wants to preserve these objects, they, roughly speaking, need to throw all their forces at R & D and be able to create in the shortest possible time what they have never had before: anti-aircraft missile systems capable of destroying the CD. How long it will take - I can not predict. The “Patriots” were designed and manufactured by Raytheon, I don’t have a clue how things are going there. In 70-s, when the system, called the “Patriot”, was developed, R & D, test launches, debugging took 6 years. It cost 2,3 billion then dollars. In the current 1 dollars, the Patriot division costs 1 billion dollars, which are all 4 launchers. How much are the new Caliber - no one will say. The export version (up to 300 km range) is sold at 3.6 million dollars, but what is the rate of profit there is again unknown. Let 3,0 - sorry, or something. Let the Americans use the same 1 billion for the new air defense system - they will hurt, they will save, they will buy paint from the Chinese. Let - according to the Russian tradition - 100 million dollars stolen. The output will still get 300 Caliber on the 1 Division from 4 PU ...

A year ago, a certain B. Obama spoke about the Russian economy, "torn to shreds." After October 7, these are the words of a man who simply does not have air force bases in Europe and the Middle East. We live in an amazing time, gentlemen! .. The arms race, among other reasons, once ruined the USSR - there is such a well-founded version. 36 strategic objects not protected by anything. 5-6 years that are needed to close them from Calibres. 5-6 has been with Russia for the purpose of riveting, riveting and riveting these very Gages and carriers for them.



Today Calibers can start from tiny “Buyanov-M”, from 636.3 class submarines, from 11661 class patrol ships. "Tomahawks" can start from airplanes, we have not heard about the fact that Calibres can do it. But, strictly speaking, how does the air-based CD differ from the sea-based CD? The fact that an airborne KR does not need the first, accelerating, engine — from under the wing of an airplane, a rocket starts at the speed of an airplane. The length of the Caliber is 8 meters, without one engine step, it will be shorter to fit on the suspension. If the designers unknown to us managed, without changing the dimensions of the Calibres (compared to the export versions), “teach” them to fly 10 times as large as the export version, then they can be assured that they will overcome the Air-Caliber calibers.

Why did I talk about economics? By signing the INF Treaty in 1987, the Americans deliberately removed their Tomahawks from the field of its operation. In the zone of their defeat, there is a huge part of Russia and the fact that strategic objects are securely covered by a layered air defense system is a legacy from the USSR, but not collapsed, but reinforced by the newest C-300 of the third generation, C-400 and the Pantsiry. How much it cost, what kind of effort it required - our military and workers of the military-industrial complex know in detail. Since October 7, the USA and NATO will have to climb into this skin - it is unlikely that the Americans are smiling alone to cover even their objects. But “not our own,” but purely European, is ten times more. Exactly the same way as the Union once did, European NATO countries now need to think about how to close their nuclear power plants, thermal power plants, chemical plants, refineries, hydroelectric dams, their capitals and major cities.

Russia has managed to make the same asymmetrical retaliatory move: Calibres and carriers that can carry them to any point in Europe and the Middle East are many times cheaper than the defunct NATO air defense system that does not exist today and is able to cope with this offensive weaponry. The trick applied by the Americans when signing the INF Treaty, beats them on the forehead - foreheads will have to develop and learn how to produce air defense missiles capable of destroying the CD. This trick beats their wallet: the creation of hundreds of complexes is not the reproduction of dollars on the Fed's computers, and no one can help the exchange.

Does this mean that Russia has achieved a complete and final breakthrough in the military-strategic situation? Not. We have not seen whether the Calibres are able to cope with surface targets, and no one has "canceled" the US carrier groups. But the blow was strong: NATO will have to spend a lot of its resources on the creation of air defense. This gives Russia a head start in creating a new shield against aircraft carrier groups, against the US submarine fleet. This is a huge, hard work, especially given the sad state of the economy. But the fact that Russia turned out to be capable of such a beautiful and effective maneuver as the creation of the newest Caliber makes it possible to look at the situation with somewhat greater optimism.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 06: 31 New
    • -33
    • 0
    -33
    The author has a lot of mistakes, he presents little anti-aircraft missile technology.
    - In the Kyrgyz Republic fired SNR-125, SNR-200. Shoot SAM, and not CHP.
    - They rushed about the monitor, trying to jump out of it, they “flew” into the background from the relief, could turn around almost 180 degrees and jump out of the capture sector. Directly a computer game. Turning the target 180g is cool!
    Analysis of performance characteristics and possibilities of shelling - I'm a patrol!

    But about article 5 and the fact that Europe will have to puff in the first place, or even without FSA, this is true.
    1. Duke 31 October 2015 06: 44 New
      • 22
      • 0
      +22
      Does this mean that Russia has achieved a complete and final turning point in the military-strategic situation? Not. We have not seen whether the Caliber is capable of coping with surface targets, and no one has "canceled" US carrier groups. But the blow learned a lot: NATO will have to spend a lot of its resources on creating air defense.




      1. severniy 31 October 2015 09: 21 New
        • 64
        • 0
        +64
        Oh, and neighing in the morning .... From the heart of the author for the style ..
        PySy save the article ... :) ..
        1. figwam 31 October 2015 10: 34 New
          • 14
          • 0
          +14
          It’s a pity that so far there are very few “caliber” carriers
          1. wiwa 31 October 2015 20: 16 New
            • 11
            • 0
            +11
            Do not tell anyone about this - let everyone think that you have them like dirt .... no one has canceled the bluff and is not considered a west ...
            1. crazyrom 1 November 2015 01: 12 New
              • 23
              • 0
              +23
              The author is very well done, an excellent article.

              By the way, while I was reading, I found a solution for patriots!

              Since they take targets from 70 meters, and the Caliber flies to 50, you just need to put the Patriots in the foundation pit of 21 meters of depth, then he can catch the caliber wassat
              1. koyur 1 November 2015 12: 18 New
                • 14
                • 0
                +14
                and immediately calculate the diameter of the pit at a shooting angle of 38 grams! min 60m, and taking into account tolerances and errors all 100. I liked the article 100%.
            2. Gogia 1 November 2015 22: 50 New
              • 8
              • 0
              +8
              And how much did Club-K do? Right?
              Any river container ship will take 50 20-foot containers on board. And there are almost 200 Caliber rockets :)))) Now this is no longer funny ..... And the factory, they say, calibers in three shifts horseradish ...
          2. Mahmut 31 October 2015 20: 47 New
            • -2
            • 0
            -2
            I didn’t write it, honestly! Fixed. Remember trigonometry? We have a leg in 50 meters and an opposite angle of 38 degrees. Hypotenuse - leg, divided by the sine of the opposite angle. You yourself can count, you can take a word - whatever. Sine 38 degrees = 0,615. 50 / 0,615 = 81,3 meters.

            What is this, the author has such a joke. What does the launch angle have to do with the range of the target. Or does Amer’s air defense strike directly on target?
            1. izGOI 31 October 2015 23: 13 New
              • 13
              • 0
              +13
              Quote: Mahmut
              . Or does Amer’s air defense strike directly on target?

              And so it turns out. If at the stage of climb (i.e. direct fire) the target was not shot down, then the anti-aircraft missile will be able to work only at altitudes significantly higher than the flight of the Kyrgyz Republic.
            2. koyur 1 November 2015 12: 22 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              otherwise they will not converge at an altitude of 50m! Patriot is flying at 60m! and a 50 m mark can
              pass only at the moment and it is when shooting direct fire, then it will go higher and cannot fall by 50 m
            3. i80186 1 November 2015 12: 59 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Mahmut
              81,3 meter.

              This is, SUDDENLY, height. laughing In general, he writes normally, knows, in general, the situation at that time. winked
          3. koyur 1 November 2015 13: 07 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            where did you get that little? Caliber can be ANY BASIS:
            “This cruise missile is widely known and has been in the arsenal of the Russian army for more than a year, and it is used both in the navy and aviation, as well as in the ground forces and coast guard. Our specialists identify it with the Russian code 3M-14 and 3M- 54 with different indices (“A” - aviation, “M” - mobile, “NK” - surface ships, “PL” - submarines, “K” - cruise missiles, “E” - export, etc.) and by the name "Caliber" - a unique development of the OKB "Innovator" named after LV Lyulyev from Yekaterinburg, now part of the Almaz-Antey Air Defense Concern. According to NATO classification, this missile is listed as "Sizzler" - an ashtray. Perhaps the most suitable name because its purpose is to deliver powerful point strikes. "
          4. Pilot 1 November 2015 13: 56 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: figvam
            It’s a pity that so far there are very few “caliber” carriers

            Who knows? If you wish, for each BMT (large freezer trawler), in addition to direct duties, you can hoist a caliber, but how many container ships and other merchants floats? Maybe I'm wrong, but the direction is obvious.
          5. Susul 2 November 2015 16: 20 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            So then they’re also calibers to get into any torpedo tube, I won’t be surprised if they are compatible with the aiming system
        2. YARUSSIAN39 31 October 2015 12: 47 New
          • 18
          • 0
          +18
          Plus, the author, Moreover, the author intelligently explains everything, with humor and immediately everything is clear, and not as I recently read "comparing SU35 and a typhoon like" there, the author without explaining anything simply claims, without giving any calculations
        3. MOISEY 18 November 2015 08: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Like article !!!
      2. beitar 31 October 2015 20: 00 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        What about the Israeli spyder system? The minimum height of damage is 20 meters.
        I'm not talking about the "iron dome" and the "magic wand" ...
        1. Zaurbek 31 October 2015 21: 28 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          You are right, the systems will work. And if the Kyrgyz Republic first gets to the radar center? You will be left without radar support, the general picture will not be visible, will the CR come from different random sides? in the USA, there has long been a clear standard for the consumption of KR for hitting protected targets. Although, what I am telling you, in Israel are specialists in breaking through air defense systems.
      3. rBo3qb 2 November 2015 13: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        underestimation of the enemy leads to defeat, so it’s better to re-watch and play it safe
    2. i80186 31 October 2015 07: 10 New
      • 31
      • 0
      +31
      Quote: armored optimist
      Directly a computer game.

      Well, as far as I understand, we didn’t have tomahawks then. Rather, it was exercises, with shooting just at simulated, and electronically, targets. So it's quite a computer game. And how do you, as a connoisseur of rocketry, see the exercises for calculating air defense systems? laughing
      1. seos 31 October 2015 07: 47 New
        • -53
        • 0
        -53
        There were "Tomahawks", but for some reason they were called "Caliber" ...
        1. Alexander_ 31 October 2015 10: 56 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          All cars are also very similar in appearance.
        2. vostok68 1 November 2015 13: 43 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          "Pomegranate" they were then called ...
        3. rusih 3 November 2015 04: 27 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Anglo-Saxons are also similar to people ...
      2. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 07: 54 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        I realized that he was talking about firing range, the maneuver of targets of all types was minimal there, and most often completely absent. If anyone is interested, look here about air defense targets
        http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/mk.html
        http://www.buran.ru/htm/rm.htm обратите внимание на высоты и скорости
        1. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 08: 22 New
          • 39
          • 0
          +39
          Quote: i80186
          And how do you, as a connoisseur of rocketry, see the exercises for calculating air defense systems?

          But, if the author means shooting at imitated targets, then on the S-75, in the “U” cockpit, the I90 cabinet simulator was used for these purposes, which made it possible to train calculations in the “EV” mode — an electronic shot. However, he didn’t very imitate the maneuverability characteristics of the targets, it was enough for the instructor or the head of the combat control department to move the potentiometer a little, as the target imitated unreal maneuverability and it was impossible to accompany it.
          The Accord simulator — control equipment for missile battalion operators, a whole wagon of direct current amplifiers in a trailer 828 — was of better quality. But such were only at the UTP - training center, although they could drive around the divisions.
          I answered? Then do not minus the next time without understanding the essence.
      3. Vita vko 31 October 2015 09: 18 New
        • 29
        • 0
        +29
        In vain attacked the author. It is clear that he wanted to explain in simple terms that the near and far borders of the Patriot’s defeat zone did not correspond to the boundaries of issuing combat and reconnaissance information necessary for the effective destruction of the Kyrgyz Republic (for some reason, this article is called Patriot). In fact, Americans understand this, not fools. Therefore, the system of radars on balloons and airships is very developed on the continental territory of the United States, which allows you to increase the lower boundary of the detection zone to 200 km, sufficient for Patriot to work on low-speed speed targets, even a fighter can be raised.
        1. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 09: 24 New
          • 11
          • 0
          +11
          Quote: Vita VKO
          It is clear that he wanted to explain in simple terms that the near and far borders of the affected area of ​​Patriot did not correspond

          Take a closer look. He writes that you can shoot down a target at a distance of 81.3m from the launcher.
          To explain in “plain language”, one must first understand the complexity of the question being explained.
          1. mark2 31 October 2015 16: 00 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            And the author wrote about this purely from theoretical considerations. It is theoretically possible. If you're lucky, of course.
        2. adept666 2 November 2015 14: 45 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          It is clear that he wanted to explain in simple terms that the far and near borders of the Patriot’s defeat zone did not correspond to the boundaries of issuing combat and reconnaissance information necessary for the effective destruction of the Kyrgyz Republic
          In fact, we do not exactly know the capabilities of the patriots, only from press releases of export versions, which is not equal to the true TTX of the product, which the amers themselves have in stock. But as for the Kyrgyz Republic, before the Caliber, something doesn’t fit here ... And the X-55 / X-555? those. we have a cruise missile with YaGCH with the same envelope of the terrain already from the age of 83, is in service with the strategists Tu-160 and Tu-95, and the enemy, as it were, are not aware of what? But such cars as the S-10 Grenade (and the ground version of the RK-55 Relief (now apparently Iskander-K)) are also made in 83-84 and haven't been noticed by potential friends? The only thing that fundamentally (not the design, but the principle of action) is the caliber that differs from them and what we didn’t have is ship-based in USK.
      4. Amurets 31 October 2015 09: 41 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +11
        Quote: i80186
        Well, as far as I understand, we didn’t have tomahawks then.

        There really were no Tomahawks in the late 60s and early 70s, but there was a “Mad Dog” and there were RM “Strizh.” Don’t think that it was easy to get into them from the Volkhov S-75m-1 air defense system? “Hound Dog” can be watched on Wikipedia and the “rocket technology” site. They actually shot at the Swift RM, and once we didn’t know, together with the S-25 air defense system. The launch of the S-25 missile was detected by the SRC. Yes, they reported hitting the target. According to the simulator, I don’t remember shooting anything, but the operators went to the Accord once a week. And God forbid that there were flights of strategists on the same day, then training began as the operators of the U-cabin and operators cabin "A" and diesel engines, to work out interchangeability. Yes, and the article is really weak.
      5. todhunter 31 October 2015 22: 20 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: i80186
        Quote: armored optimist
        Directly a computer game.

        Well, as far as I understand, we didn’t have tomahawks then. Rather, it was exercises, with shooting just at simulated, and electronically, targets. So it's quite a computer game. And how do you, as a connoisseur of rocketry, see the exercises for calculating air defense systems? laughing

        I personally confirm that I served on the P-180 radar station in 1984-86, the complex consisted of 2 simulators - essentially computer gaming units, the computers were true tube and the simulator weighed several tones and occupied a volume of 8 cubes. Twice a week, they fought under photo control. After the “battles” lasting 5-6 hours, with all the RLC equipment working only “high”, they didn’t turn on, they worked only under diesel engines, the whole staff was resting, and I, like a damn thing, showed kilometers of film all night and printed hundreds of photographs in the morning, I often took them into consideration the air defense corps commander himself. The next day, the debriefing of the officers in the presence of a commander.
    3. seos 31 October 2015 07: 42 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Crazy article! In the USSR, cruise missiles of the Tomahawk type since the mid 80s. The author should write articles only on the Censor .... Could read a couple of articles about the same “Tomahawks” before his reasoning. I wish the author to read about the Kyrgyz Republic "Caliber" in 1983 and the "Pomegranate" in 1975
      1. Igor K 31 October 2015 09: 12 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        The range of action was completely different, respectively, and potential threats to the enemy were completely different.
        1. adept666 2 November 2015 14: 53 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Range of action was completely different
          What are these others? X-55 (2500, late modifications 3000), S-10 "Pomegranate" - 2500 km.
          and the potential threats to the enemy were completely different.
          I don’t quite understand what kind of threats are you talking about? Those. A caliber without SBN is worse than the X-55 / C-10 with nuclear weapons? wassat
      2. vostok68 1 November 2015 13: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        + set you, but not everyone knows about the "grenades"!
    4. Zoldat_A 31 October 2015 07: 58 New
      • 45
      • 0
      +45
      Quote: armored optimist
      But about the 5 article and what Europe will have to puff out first, and even completely without FSA, It's right.

      I must admit, before that, I never read the 5 article, I just knew about its existence. But he suspected that somewhere it was the way it happened. Because it would be foolish to think that the United States would deliver a nuclear strike in Moscow by dinner if the Pskov division in the morning during the physically capture some Latvia. This is not to say that we are not afraid of anyone, because the United States will not get involved anyway, but to the fact that Americans trained in commerce are tricky enough to not substitute in any case, referring to a double-triple interpretation of any treaty. By the way, unlike Russia. Because the story of the Entente and the First World War taught us nothing, because we are accustomed to relying not on the casuistry of the contract, but on the reliability of the word. I think if, for example, somewhere in the 70's, America decided to bomb Belgrade, then they would start looking for holes in us, not in the text of the Warsaw Pact, but in the US air defense system.

      The poor, stupid, deceived EU! Which hopes that the United States will collapse with all that is, to Moscow, as soon as we ride astride the fighting bears to capture Europe ...

      Respected Armored optimist! I wildly apologize, my hand faltered, accidentally slammed into a minus ... repeat Of course, a plus! hi
      1. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 08: 10 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Received! I agree with you!
      2. Doctorleg 31 October 2015 21: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Zoldat_A
        Quote: armored optimist
        But about the 5 article and what Europe will have to puff out first, and even completely without FSA, It's right.

        I must admit, before that, I never read the 5 article, I just knew about its existence. But he suspected that somewhere it was the way it happened. Because it would be foolish to think that the United States would deliver a nuclear strike in Moscow by dinner if the Pskov division in the morning during the physically capture some Latvia. This is not to say that we are not afraid of anyone, because the United States will not get involved anyway, but to the fact that Americans trained in commerce are tricky enough to not substitute in any case, referring to a double-triple interpretation of any treaty. By the way, unlike Russia. Because the story of the Entente and the First World War taught us nothing, because we are accustomed to relying not on the casuistry of the contract, but on the reliability of the word. I think if, for example, somewhere in the 70's, America decided to bomb Belgrade, then they would start looking for holes in us, not in the text of the Warsaw Pact, but in the US air defense system.

        The poor, stupid, deceived EU! Which hopes that the United States will collapse with all that is, to Moscow, as soon as we ride astride the fighting bears to capture Europe ...

        Respected Armored optimist! I wildly apologize, my hand faltered, accidentally slammed into a minus ... repeat Of course, a plus! hi

        Yugoslavia was not a member of the Warsaw Pact. She is from the "non-aligned countries" along with India. That means we would not be looking for anything
        1. koyur 1 November 2015 13: 21 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          that: "from the" non-aligned countries "along with India." - That's right, they wouldn’t have given the bomb anyway. At that time, the Black Sea Fleet was on combat duty in the Mediterranean all the time, against their 6th fleet. So if they hadn’t gone from there in the 90s, then as they say, “not a single bomb would have fallen” on Belgrade
    5. EGOrkka 31 October 2015 08: 32 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      ... well-structured and detailed article .... straight ..... the caliber itself ... you rule. To the author sincere respect! ... but what they showed .... not everything else is ... bully
      1. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 08: 51 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Egor! From a technical point of view there is sheer stupidity! For example, he writes about the possibility of destroying the Kyrgyz Republic with a rocket of a patriot at 81.3m from the complex. At such a distance, even warhead warping will not occur. A person does not understand at all how an air defense system works.
        1. NEXUS 31 October 2015 10: 14 New
          • 54
          • 0
          +54
          Quote: armored optimist
          From a technical point of view there is sheer stupidity! For example, he writes about the possibility of destroying the Kyrgyz Republic with a rocket of a patriot at 81.3m from the complex. At such a distance, even warhead warping will not occur. A person does not understand at all how an air defense system works.

          Dear Bronoptimist, you heard about the proverb, don’t shoot at tapers, he plays as best he can.
          The idea of ​​the article is faithfully true - to date, no Amerov or NATO air defense missile systems are able to effectively resist our missile defense systems, let alone a massive strike by these same Caliber. As for inaccuracies, I look at it this way - every artist sees the picture in his own way. step on the throat of the troubadour if he doesn’t sing quite right. And if you know more about the subject of the conversation than the author, then write the article in a more technically competent way. At the same time, I think the essence will not change.
          Best regards hi
          1. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 11: 02 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            I'll think about your suggestion.
          2. Semen Semyonitch 31 October 2015 13: 56 New
            • 9
            • 0
            +9
            Quote: NEXUS
            Do not step on the throat of a troubadour if he does not sing quite right.


            -I don’t like the way this Caruso sings ...
            -And where did you hear him?
            - Yes, Petka sang it to me. laughing
          3. mark2 31 October 2015 16: 06 New
            • -9
            • 0
            -9
            Right! And another question, what kind of sources were used by local experts on all types of rocket and other equipment. The Internet? Well, yes ... a reliable source of any more or less serious technical information! As a Facebook intelligence provider)
          4. koyur 1 November 2015 13: 29 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            I completely agree with NEXUS! The most important thing, and this was confirmed by the US Secretary of Defense, that now Russia can shoot at the United States without ballistic missiles, which are easier to shoot down without leaving the territory of Russia !!!! I'm not talking about these missiles that are based on nuclear submarines
          5. vostok68 1 November 2015 13: 57 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            And anti-ship, they are supersonic to the goal! There are generally no options ...
            Sorry for the amers, because they did not serve in our Army (in the Navy)!
          6. adept666 2 November 2015 14: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The idea of ​​the article is betrayed rightly - to date, no Amer or NATO air defense system is capable of effectively resisting our missiles, let alone a massive strike by these same Caliber.
            Too loud a statement, the United States has been following our developments in the Kyrgyz Republic since the late 70s and didn’t do anything in terms of air defense or what? Despite the fact that the features of the work of such complexes are more than known to them. Article sucked from the finger on the TTX from Wikipedia do not underestimate the enemy.
        2. TT62 31 October 2015 22: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          "Your humble servant (author - Konstantin Borisov, editor's note) spent 2 years of military service in the Air Defense Forces (anti-aircraft missile troops) from 1984 to 1986." I do not think that the Russian Orthodox Church and the PU are still deploying flywheels.
        3. koyur 1 November 2015 13: 24 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          he wrote that, theoretically, Petriot can bring down only at this distance from himself, and what the explosion at such a distance will lead to
      2. NEXUS 31 October 2015 09: 56 New
        • 17
        • 0
        +17
        Quote: EGOrkka
        ... well-structured and detailed article .... straight ..... the caliber itself ... you rule. To the author sincere respect! ... but what they showed .... not everything else is ... bully

        There may be many inaccuracies in the article, but the essence is conveyed absolutely correctly - the USA and NATO DO NOT PROTECT AGAINST CALIBERS. In addition, there are also X-101/102, which are undergoing state tests. And on the way, another surprise is a high-speed missile and the hyper-speed aircraft that we are developing, and which the Americans are loudly screaming about. And while the United States will scratch the pumpkin in order to make an antidote against our KR, I’m sure our developers will not sit as well and in 5-7 years new CRs (modified) will probably be and faster and smarter and more long-range.
    6. lablizn 31 October 2015 08: 41 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      The author specifically noted that he was a guidance operator and the term "CHP" is a kind of professional slang. And to be precise, the "shooter" is not the SAM, as you write, but a specific launcher.
      1. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 09: 33 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Teach me professional slang, Comrade Captain, otherwise I didn’t understand him for 27 calendars in ZRV.
        PS and in the S-200, in fact, CHP is not at all. The ROC is there instead of her.
        PS "that" shoots "not the SAM, as you write, but a specific launcher." That is, not a Kalashnikov assault rifle, but a barrel? Or even a finger?
        1. ROD VDVshny 31 October 2015 13: 28 New
          • 27
          • 0
          +27
          Quote: armored optimist
          otherwise I didn’t understand it for 27 calendars in ZRV. PS and in the S-200, in fact, there is no CHP at all. The ROC is there instead of it. PS "that" shoots "not the SAM, as you write, but a specific launcher." That is, not a Kalashnikov assault rifle, but a barrel? Or even a finger?

          That's what I love "our Prostokvashino" lol ... so this is a debate in the spirit of "... and who are you?" two spree associate professors - one from the department of internal ballistics, and the other from the external laughing
          And not a single one will clearly explain to a soldier, for example, how to shoot from a machine gun in order to destroy an enemy infantry group at a distance of 400m, because in the heads of the subtleties of the processes of the aforementioned ballistics lol
          Dear anti-aircraft gunners, Broneoptimist and Fedor, with all your knowledge and enormous length of service - without clinging to trifles, explain to me whether the essence of the article is true, whether a possible adversary is able to conceal the listed objects from a massive salvo of our missiles with available air defense systems? Explain to me and those around you not anti-aircraft gunners how much the huge locators of the euro and other missile defense are protected from them in the current conditions? How will Euro-missile defense work when they are destroyed? Proceeding from the concept voiced by the President "... first ..." in the event of an inevitable mess, I would destroy them.
          With great difficulty, I believe in a “sudden and global disarming attack” ... speaking the language of my native aspens, leaving for the hunt in the morning, with a backpack packaged in the evening and a gun standing on the threshold, I cut circles around the house repeat and I don’t think it’s better for the enemies to gather and carry out such a large-scale action to go unnoticed?
          1. Zoldat_A 31 October 2015 13: 40 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            Quote: PANEL VDVshny
            With great difficulty, I believe in a “sudden and global disarming attack” ... in the language of my native aspens, leaving in the morning to hunt, with a backpack collected from the evening and a gun standing at the doorstep, I cut circles around the house

            I’ll raise my whole family to look for a gun ... laughing But in the end I’ll leave without my beloved faceted glass in the cup holder ... Well, at least with a gun ... laughing
          2. Armored optimist 1 November 2015 02: 11 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            I’ll try to choose the time and scribble an article, but I need a co-author with knowledge of the current composition of air defense in Europe. Who can help, please in PM, please.
            But so far in a nutshell - no, not capable. The author considered duel situations - one CD - one SAM. But in reality it will be an air operation, here is a maneuver, electronic warfare and anti-radar missiles, synchronization of the strike from our side and somehow echeloned forces from the enemy, including AWACS, electronic warfare and fighters from them.
            1. Gogia 1 November 2015 23: 05 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              I completely agree. Avaxa will have to be destroyed Long-range air defense. A new rocket up to 1000 km on the way.
          3. adept666 2 November 2015 15: 55 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Is a likely adversary capable of using the available air defense systems to shield the listed objects from a massive salvo of our missiles?
            The main role in the detection and destruction of such targets (CR on NVD) is assigned to them and us on air defense aircraft! And this is not accidental because, due to physical limitations, the ground-based complex is not capable of detecting an object (even if the flight passes over a crystalline flat surface of the earth - a plain) at an altitude of 30-50 meters well beyond 40 km - see the concept in Wikipedia radio horizon. No over-the-horizon radar can detect RS due to its insignificant effective scattering surface. If you can’t find it, then you can’t take TsU for escort!
            Is a likely adversary capable of using the available air defense systems to shield the listed objects from a massive salvo of our missiles?
            Today - yes, it’s capable (we have quite a few carriers and deployed such missiles)
            How will Euro-missile defense work when they are destroyed?
            It will lift into the air the entire composition of the aircraft detection systems - AWACS and everything that can be from aviation - this is the most effective weapon against the Kyrgyz Republic.
            is the action better to go unnoticed?
            The launch of the Kyrgyz Republic due to the persistent flight path is not so easy to detect because they will shoot not from 50 km but from 1000, many couch experts shout about the caliber, only 26 missiles are almost a volley of the entire Caspian flotilla (max 32KR), and nobody else and can’t use such weapons (they just appear on the Black Sea), for reference, one ArlyBurk has -96 cells, and there are about 60 of them in the US Navy, not counting 4 nuclear submarines (128 cells each) and 22 Ticanderogs (128 cells each) I wonder who the volley will be louder?
    7. vyinemeynen 31 October 2015 12: 54 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Thanks to the author for a very interesting article! hi
    8. Altor86 31 October 2015 14: 37 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      What do you want, he served as a soldier, not a divisional commander wink
    9. Bongo 31 October 2015 14: 53 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: armored optimist
      The author has a lot of mistakes, he presents little anti-aircraft missile technology.

      Unfortunately, this is so yes
      What is it worth:
      On KR fired CHP-125, CHP-200. From the 1986 of the year, the SNR-300 came into the air defense - they shot down the Kyrgyz Republic even better.

      The S-200 air defense system of any modification has a target illumination radar (ROC) - and not "SNR" (pictured)

      The C-300P has RPN for guidance of the missile launcher - illumination and guidance radar (pictured). Well, there are not a few other “jambs” in the publication. negative
      1. jjj
        jjj 31 October 2015 17: 13 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        And yet, it must be admitted that both Caliber and its export version Club came from the USSR, they were offered for export as a fully-used weapon already in 1997
      2. Saburov 31 October 2015 20: 06 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        You didn’t read the article well, the author apologized and said that he spoke of the military habit of the CHP missile guidance station, read carefully.
      3. AllXVahhaB 31 October 2015 20: 17 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Where did you serve ???
    10. Susul 2 November 2015 16: 18 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: armored optimist
      - In the Kyrgyz Republic fired SNR-125, SNR-200. Shoot SAM, and not CHP.

      An assault rifle shoots with an assault rifle or bullets? This is from the same opera shot from what and with what =)
  3. Fedor 31 October 2015 06: 38 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    It is not worth the site to publish such opuses, frankly weak, if not illiterate. This I say to the author, as a person who once served on the S-125 and S-200. Such a creation is suitable on a urapatriotic site, which is read by enthusiastic girls, but here all the same on the site there are mainly people who have served in this or that volume of service and have appropriate training.
    1. sa-ag 31 October 2015 07: 08 New
      • -11
      • 0
      -11
      I agree with you "... The fleet and aviation bases are not protected by anything. And yes - for me these words sound like music." Is it that fighter aircraft will sit and watch the show, who will pick up whom?
      1. lablizn 31 October 2015 08: 33 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        And how do you imagine the actions of fighters against a group of, say, their 50-70 cruise missiles on the approach trajectory?
        1. sa-ag 31 October 2015 08: 59 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: lablizn
          And how do you imagine the actions of fighters against a group of, say, their 50-70 cruise missiles on the approach trajectory?

          It’s difficult, of course, with such an amount, but at least somehow it is possible to reduce the damage done, the earlier the launch of the missiles is detected, the greater the chance of doing something
        2. Awaz 1 November 2015 21: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          and then the question? how many missiles are needed with such a posedovka issue that would damage all 30 with a hook objects described by the author.
    2. Sura 31 October 2015 07: 28 New
      • 28
      • 0
      +28
      Alas, but it’s all right, the author simply did not indicate the most important thing, not a half-word about the doctrine, the United States has this attack, our defense, on the basis of this, the structure of the army is built, respectively, its financing and weapons. That’s why they have such an air defense, but we have it. Even the MIG-31 was created on the basis of their doctrine of bombing us through the North Pole, followed by landing in Turkey (the tundra is large and air defense systems are not enough there).
      I myself am the commander of the launch "Cube" (77-79g.)
      1. figwam 31 October 2015 10: 51 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Even the MIG-31 was created on the basis of their doctrine

        MIG-31 fell yesterday, the crew is alive.
        1. Semen Semyonitch 31 October 2015 15: 01 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: figvam
          Even the MIG-31 was created on the basis of their doctrine

          MIG-31 fell yesterday, the crew is alive.

          + not for falling ...
          1. jjj
            jjj 31 October 2015 17: 15 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            The main thing for the “twinkles” was to overwhelm the B-52 until he launched rockets over the pole
            1. TT62 31 October 2015 22: 57 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              But this is not entirely correct. Read its purpose.
      2. PPD
        PPD 31 October 2015 12: 29 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        And the US doctrine does not provide for a retaliatory strike?
        In the USA, the main thing is PR, visibility, impudence. They’re not going to fight seriously for a long time.
        Therefore, they behave in such a way-schach all tear keep me seven!
        They hope that the enemy will be scared to respond. Demonstrate determination.
  4. VNP1958PVN 31 October 2015 06: 40 New
    • 33
    • 0
    +33
    Anyway, after the flight of the Caliber, the United States became much more accommodating. And then before that "point blank did not see Russia"!
  5. yuriy55 31 October 2015 06: 42 New
    • 33
    • 0
    +33
    And I'm at the table and I’ll tell those who are thinking about the opportunity to shoot down the Russian “Caliber”:
    "DO NOT THINK - THAN (TO KNOW), THINK ABOUT WHERE (TO RUN) ... laughing
    LIVE WITH RUSSIA IN FRIENDSHIP AND COOPERATION AND WILL BE HAPPINESS !!!" soldier
    1. Aksakal_07 31 October 2015 09: 35 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      For them, happiness is not peace and friendship with other countries, but the realization of their deepest aspirations - to live at the expense of others, while waving hundreds of millions of shabby people, both fellow citizens and "strangers."
  6. Strashila 31 October 2015 06: 57 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    “There is only one answer: we must have our own military bases in the territories of ALL NATO allies. And keep the equipment there. And keep the people there. And be prepared to really fight. It’s sad for the Americans, but these are“ European values. ” doubts are growing about really fighting ... Americans are scrupulous about losses, only the first corpse in Europe, given the fact that the base of the target is usBOU, maybe hundreds ... and in America the president will get to the next, and given the difference in time zones and impeachment on the same day.
    And the task will be not to fight, but to quickly evacuate ... which they demonstrated during military exercises by draping from the eastern borders.
    It’s one thing to raise money, another to work out by their corpses ... and these are taxpayers and votes in the elections, whose relatives do not like to receive zinc coffins as a present.
  7. parafoiler 31 October 2015 06: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Let America and their sixes crap bricks!
  8. Koronik 31 October 2015 07: 29 New
    • 47
    • 0
    +47
    True, there is nothing to add!
    1. mad
      mad 31 October 2015 07: 58 New
      • 15
      • 0
      +15
      Actually, these words are attributed to Bismarck (and it’s not the fact that he is), and Bush would not have enough brains for such a long phrase.
      1. askort154 31 October 2015 13: 25 New
        • 12
        • 0
        +12
        mad ..... Actually, these words are attributed to Bismarck (and it’s not the fact that he is), and Bush would not have enough brains for such a long phrase.


        "Do not hope that once you take advantage of the weakness of Russia, you will receive dividends forever. Russians always come for their money. And when they come - do not rely on the Jesuit agreements that you allegedly justify you. They are not worth the paper on which they are written.
        Therefore, it’s worth playing with Russians either honestly or not at all .. "
        Otto von Bismarck.
      2. inpu 31 October 2015 16: 43 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: mad
        Actually, these words are attributed to Bismarck (and it’s not the fact that he is), and Bush would not have enough brains for such a long phrase.

        Well, it's you in vain about Bush Sr. He is very, very adequate.
    2. rf xnumx 31 October 2015 08: 37 New
      • 26
      • 0
      +26
      Quote: Koronik
      True, there is nothing to add!

      Add a little
      1. Igor39 31 October 2015 09: 20 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        So what already?
        1. Tektor 31 October 2015 11: 04 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          So what already?
          Yeah. Everything happens before our eyes. Now we can insist on our conditions: in any clashes the victory will remain with us. It’s just that the power of our armed and not very strong forces was realized in the west: everything happened somehow imperceptibly. We have grown, and the west has weakened.
    3. veksha50 31 October 2015 09: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Koronik
      Rightly said



      Sometimes even the enemy wants to applaud ...
  9. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 07: 57 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    It would be interesting if someone from our forum community posted an article on the state of air defense of Europe and the FSA here. The author did not even think about the fact that there is still a moment connected with combat readiness and combat duty, more precisely with their absence.
    1. veksha50 31 October 2015 09: 14 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: armored optimist
      associated with combat readiness and combat alert, more precisely with their absence.



      Honestly, you first made me wonder with your question: In general, is there in any country, except the USSR-Russia, air defense, which is on alert around the clock ???
      1. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 09: 47 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        I wonder who minus for the question then?
        In the days when I served, we represented this question. In the then still paper VO, I do not know if it is being published now, there have been articles on these topics. For example, it was reported that two pairs of fighter aircraft were on duty on the continent in the USA, SAM, they did not seem to be on duty at all. And this is at the height of the confrontation with the USSR - the end of the 70s.
        1. Amurets 31 October 2015 12: 20 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: armored optimist
          In then still paper VO, I don’t know if it is published now,

          It is published. It’s called ZVO. I recently searched for an article about missile guidance, there was a link. True, the article was muddy, like this one.
      2. Amurets 31 October 2015 10: 00 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        You know, probably not. Although this is a broad concept. Air defense includes air defense, RTV, and aviation. So, the radio engineering troops monitor the sky. I ran through air defense sites now and haven’t found anywhere that air defense are on duty on a regular basis.
        1. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 10: 20 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          This is the whole point!
          And if the air defense is not on duty, what can we say about the ground forces, fleets? While they are going to fight with us, there will be nothing to fight.
          1. Aleksey_K 31 October 2015 13: 57 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: armored optimist
            This is the whole point!
            And if the air defense is not on duty, what can we say about the ground forces, fleets? While they are going to fight with us, there will be nothing to fight.

            You are not right. If someone planned to attack us, then certainly all his troops would be on full alert and air defense too. And for this, you don’t need to conduct round-the-clock combat duty before that, if you know that Russia will never be the first to attack.
            The second one. Even if Russia attacks, air defense will not help, only missile defense. These systems are on duty with the Americans, like ours, around the clock. Otherwise, why are they needed, when you first need to turn them on and lose a lot of time on this. Do you really think so bad about Americans? Such fools imagine. After all, they know that Russian submarines with cruise and ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads are hiding in coastal waters or at a small distance.
            1. Armored optimist 1 November 2015 11: 36 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Алексей_К
              If someone planned to attack us, then certainly all his troops will be on full alert and air defense too.

              If with a threatened period, then yes.
              But now theories are crumbling, and doctrine updates are not keeping pace with changes in situevina.
      3. Bongo 31 October 2015 15: 23 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: veksha50
        In general, is there at least in some sort of country, except for the USSR-Russia, air defense, carrying combat duty around the clock ???

        Of course there is, in almost all countries where there are air defense systems and IA they carry a database.
        Another question is what is the degree of combat readiness?
    2. Bongo 31 October 2015 15: 20 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: armored optimist
      It would be interesting if someone from our forum community posted an article on the state of air defense of Europe and the FSA here.

      I'm sorry, but it was already hi
      Igor Vladimirovich, you can look here
      http://topwar.ru/74540-razvitie-i-rol-zrk-v-sisteme-pvo-chast-6-ya.html

      http://topwar.ru/31354-protivovozdushnaya-oborona-ssha.html
      1. Armored optimist 1 November 2015 11: 32 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Thank you!
        1. mAgs 2 November 2015 14: 26 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          If you write an article, then if you can concentrate on the list of databases that is given in the article. Or at least in the European and Middle Eastern parts. With respect.
          1. Bongo 2 November 2015 14: 34 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: mAgs
            If you are writing an article, then if you can concentrate on the list of databases that is given in the article. Or at least in the European and Middle East.

            Part of these bases, at least that in Germany and the Middle East are covered by the Patriot air defense system, the airfields in Italy are protected by the Spada and Us Haw air defense systems. This was repeatedly written on the pages of VO; I don’t see any sense in repeating myself. hi
            1. mAgs 2 November 2015 15: 00 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Thank you. hi
            2. mAgs 2 November 2015 15: 00 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Thank you. hi
  10. Alexander 3 31 October 2015 07: 57 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Our calibers and other complexes are also being modernized. And work is ongoing in this direction, otherwise there would be no calibers. We used to say that while the plane flew from the factory to its destination, it was already outdated.
  11. plotnikov561956 31 October 2015 08: 45 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Thanks to the author for the article ... there are a lot of skeptics. they’ll find flaws .. but the outline of the article can’t be crossed out ... "But the blow learned a lot: NATO will have to spend a lot of its resources on creating air defense. This gives Russia a head start on creating a new shield against carrier groups, against the US submarine fleet. This is a huge , hard work, especially given the gloomy state of the economy. " THERE IS IT ... America has another headache now
    1. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 10: 25 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      See my dialogue above with
      veksha50
      и
      Amurets

      First of all, they need to create an ideology of defense. We have the discipline of combat alert for decades. And they need to understand in principle that this is necessary.
      And here I am not building illusions that we will not start first. Will run up, let's start! Obliged! It’s not for nothing that the GDP said about the Leningrad experience - you need to beat first!
      1. Aleksey_K 31 October 2015 14: 17 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: armored optimist
        Obliged! GDP was not in vain about the Leningrad experience saying - you need to beat first!

        In our World, nothing is not noticeable. Any step by the president and those people responsible for deciding on an attack on Russia never goes unnoticed. The simultaneous absence of these people in the "public" means that these people together decide the issue of the attack. This question is very serious and requires a long study, even with earlier prepared plans (scenarios) of the attack. It is clear that they are interested in the latest intelligence and the likelihood of a nuclear response, not even in a nuclear attack.
        By the way, a non-nuclear attack with the help of tens of thousands of cruise non-nuclear missiles is even more difficult to carry out. First you need to bring your Tomahawks as close to the borders of Russia as possible.
        Such a movement of these funds never goes unnoticed. Well, all the fleets of America should also go in full swing to Russia from all sides.
        Such questions are never resolved like this - all responsible people gathered, and the US president says: “Let's push all the red buttons.”
    2. Mera joota 31 October 2015 18: 14 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: plotnikov561956
      NATO will have to spend a lot of its resources on air defense.

      Everything is normal with air defense. And with the ground and air component.
      1. purple 2 November 2015 12: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, yes, for sure, I checked it myself, yes?
  12. gattus 31 October 2015 08: 49 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    Nevertheless, the article is much better, especially the person who served in the air defense, rather than opuses from "independent military experts", well, those who are "on the couch." And blaming the author for "cheers-patriotism" is completely not worth it.
  13. Blackwizardru 31 October 2015 08: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Authors credit and a lot of advantages from me personally!
  14. dmi.pris 31 October 2015 08: 53 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    No country has one hundred percent air defense. Including ours, a huge territory is not covered in many places. I saw in the exercises how the Tungusok battery shoots .. Very effective .. the truth of three targets shot down one .... And this the system is designed to protect it from low-flying subsonic weapons. The “shell” may be better, but it cannot shoot on the go .. Also our “dear partners", although it seems the British have created something outstanding, I will not say. And the article is clearly illiterate.
    1. Rokossovsky 2 November 2015 22: 22 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The carapace may be better, but it cannot fire on the go.

      Nonsense! fool The ability to fire on the go was one of the main criteria in the development of this air defense system!
  15. 3vs
    3vs 31 October 2015 09: 08 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    Thanks to the admins for my request to post this article here.
    I would like to critics who in the subject, directly in the text of the article, express their justified
    reasoning and not just "article ..., vsysovreti, etc."!
    1. Mera joota 31 October 2015 18: 12 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -4
      Quote: 3vs
      and not just "article ..., vsyvsoreti, etc."!

      And what is there to criticize ... The author is a populist, crossed out the most important segment of air defense, aviation. Like, if you didn’t mention it, then it’s not there. And the conclusion is that all US bases are not protected from attack by cruise missiles.
      Amateur, what else can I say ...
      1. Dad Uassia 31 October 2015 23: 58 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Duck, we're talking about missile defense, not about air defense
        1. Mera joota 1 November 2015 11: 39 New
          • -4
          • 0
          -4
          Quote: Dad Wassia
          Duck, we're talking about missile defense, not about air defense

          Do you have an opinion that the NATO Air Force will not be able to intercept cruise missiles?
  16. veksha50 31 October 2015 09: 20 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    The author rather diligently tried to show that the US-NATO bases are not covered by anything and that it is possible to cover them even today ...

    Hardly, and there are plenty of reasons ...

    The first reason - our doctrine does not carry aggression and the possibility of attack first without a serious reason ...

    The second - "nails", that is, there will not be enough calibers ...

    Well, and about the supposedly super-capabilities of our air defense ... Of course, our squash complexes are modern and powerful, however, God forbid, a massive blow will take place (as Amers plan), then not a single air defense will hold it back, even with a super-high hit percentage 0,6-0,7 ...

    So, by and large, the issue of calibers needs to be increased, and the calibers themselves should continue to be improved, modernized ... The same goes for the air defense system ... After the collapse of the USSR, such a thing as the country's air defense ceased to exist ...
    1. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 10: 05 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      To reflect the massive raids and created, IMHO, S-350. The range is less, but the BK division is larger. And the probability of defeat in the article is indicated for firing with one missile, although the main type of fire is a line of 3 for the S-75 or 2 for the subsequent ones. By the way, the probability itself is more than 0.6 (for the S-300, anyway).
      The formula for the probability of hitting n missiles looks like Pn = P1- (1-P1) to the power of n
      1. Lenivets 31 October 2015 13: 31 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        "The formula for the probability of hitting n missiles looks like Pn =P1- (1-P1) to the power of n "

        Everything is great, but there is a small typo in your formula (otherwise it turns out that using two missiles only reduces the chance of hitting the target). laughing

        Replace "P1" with 1 and there will be happiness. hi
    2. Alexy 2 November 2015 06: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Absolutely agree. For some reason we think or want to think that they are all stupid there. It is foolish to believe that NATO bases are poorly protected. Caliber, of course, carries a certain threat. But do not exaggerate. There are few carriers, missiles are also not sure what is enough. And it must be used massively. Do not underestimate the enemy. It always costs us dearly.
  17. silver169 31 October 2015 09: 25 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    I served on the S-200M Vega air defense missile system, (military specialty K-9M cockpit tablet player, DMB 1982-1984). The main problem for our air defense then was the American reconnaissance aircraft SR-71 with a speed of more than 3000 km / h. As soon as this high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft took off from a base in West Germany, we were immediately alerted at any time of the day or night.
    1. Amurets 31 October 2015 13: 57 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      If it’s not a secret where they served? We got the same headache when Kelly Johnson's Blackbirds settled at Okinawa Island's Kadena airbase. Only we have the S-200 Angara. Served near Komsomolsk.
      1. silver169 31 October 2015 15: 21 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        No, what a secret. He served in Ukraine, the complex was located near the village of Yulievka near Zaporozhye. And I got there after finishing an air defense training course located near Leningrad in the village. Borisova Mane.
        1. Amurets 31 October 2015 15: 50 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Thank you! There was only one headache, but it was in different parts of the country.
    2. todhunter 31 October 2015 22: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      SR - 71 took off on Mondays at 15-00 from the base in Iceland, we were raised on readiness 1
      on Thursday I flew in my opinion with Loh-Yu at 13-00 and so every week.
  18. gjkrjdybr50 31 October 2015 09: 40 New
    • 12
    • 0
    +12
    The author’s concept of the combat use of air defense systems is extremely primitive, and there is absolutely nothing about the specific combat work of the air defense system. "Learn materiel" and that says it all. Of course, the Patriot is, at some points, a primitive system, but quite functional and quite effective. Amused description of the fixed angle of installation of PU in elevation. On our S-300 and other air defense systems, the elevation angle of launchers with TPK is also fixed equal to 90 degrees, but this does not mean that they shoot down targets only at their zenith.
    Regarding the work on targets at the training ground, it can be perceived as humor, but I can say to critics that yes, they shot at those times on KPM (target cruise missiles). Being the commander of the RTV regiment, he provided experienced live firing at the Northern Shooting Army, including and on these targets. The S-75 cannot work on them, this is an exaggeration, while the S-125 could, and with certain limitations of the S-200. Subsequent air defense systems were mainly built for such work and were built to reflect the massive attack of the Kyrgyz Republic. In the list of adversary bases of error, Guam in Greenland will clearly freeze. And since the article is no better and no worse than many that appear here, the author just needed to show it to a specialist for editing, and not rely on the knowledge gained from the RM of the manual tracking operator S-75.
    1. Amurets 31 October 2015 10: 33 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: gjkrjdybr50
      S-75 can’t work on them, this is an exaggeration,

      You are my age mate. We started the service at about the same time. 1969. I specially looked through the combat manual for the S-75m-2 / m-3 air defense system and there are provisions there: features of firing at high-speed and low-altitude targets. And I had to firing ranges to participate in firing at RM Strizh. Moreover, both times the divisions fired perfectly. The firing was carried out by different divisions of one regiment. SAM S-75m-1.
    2. todhunter 31 October 2015 22: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Kind! gjkrjdybr50
      If you were a RTV regiment, then you should know what exactly the S-75 with the Camomile warhead is, well, you understand "the ideal way to remove any aircraft from the sky is a rocket, plane, KR, etc.
  19. gattus 31 October 2015 10: 01 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: gjkrjdybr50
    S-75 can’t work on them, this is an exaggeration,

    According to TTX, it may not be possible, you are a professional, you know better. If at one time they were monitoring information on the Desert Storm, then according to the technical specifications the Shilka will not be able to shoot down stealth aircraft. However, in Iraq, the F-117 failed.
    According to subsequent publications on the application of the Patriots in the same place, the effectiveness of their use was found to be 0.36.
  20. Sergey Sitnikov 31 October 2015 10: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    If the main idea is, in principle, true)))) ??? I refuse the post of chief accountant of the USA!
  21. RF92 31 October 2015 10: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I liked the article
  22. Stoler 31 October 2015 10: 53 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Russia is simply obligated to OFFICIALLY NOTIFY the countries that hosted parts of the missile defense system that these objectives become priorities for the Russian Strategic Missile Forces and will be destroyed in the first place by ANY FUNDS! No matter what "close partnership" we have. As they say, there is nothing personal just National Security.
    1. jjj
      jjj 31 October 2015 17: 21 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      And notify. The flow of diplomatic mail is only expanding
  23. Dingo 31 October 2015 11: 02 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Someone heard a thread here on this forum, such geographical names as Sary-Shagan (Sary-Paris in another way ...) About "Dal-78" and "Soyuz-79"? ... a simple question - without any " analysts "... all the more," sofa "...
    1. Amurets 31 October 2015 12: 36 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Yes! And what? In my time, this training ground was called Balkhash, but I didn’t have to be on it. I was on the Cap Yar, they got air defense systems from industry. These are air defense platforms near the S-25 sites, and I was on Telemb.
    2. silver169 31 October 2015 15: 38 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Probably everyone heard about Sary-Shagan who served in the air defense. Unfortunately, I did not have to go there, which I still regret. In 1983 I served only a year, and then experienced guys were sent to rocket firing from our unit (S-200M complex). According to their stories, they saw how they tested the S-300 air defense system.
      1. Bongo 31 October 2015 15: 45 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: silver169
        In 1983 I served only a year, and then from our unit there (complex C-200M) sent experienced guys to rocket firing.

        I apologize, but the S-200M air defense system never existed in nature request
        1. Amurets 31 October 2015 16: 00 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Sergey! Http: //pvo.guns.ru/s200/i_vega.htm#30 This is a link to the website of the air defense bulletin. The troops could be called S-200Vm or Vega, M
        2. silver169 31 October 2015 16: 01 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Are you sure? If sclerosis doesn’t fail me, there were C-200А and С-200В and С-200М and even С-200Д with С-200ВЭ.
          1. Bongo 31 October 2015 16: 06 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: silver169
            Are you sure? If sclerosis doesn’t fail me, there were C-200А and С-200В and С-200М and even С-200Д with С-200ВЭ.

            Apparently cheating request C-200А ("Angara") - this is the very first modification that appeared at the end of the 60's, followed by the more advanced and long-range C-200В ("Vega"), С-200Д ("Dubna") - the most long-range, but it was developed in 80 and few were released. C-200VE is a purely export option. hi
            1. silver169 31 October 2015 16: 11 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              All right. good And the S-200M (Vega-M) is a modernized S-200V. hi
  24. Old26 31 October 2015 11: 15 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    Quote: Sveik
    The author is interesting but no more. A huge number of errors, conjectures based on ignorance, etc. ...

    I have some ambivalence about the article. On the one hand, the author (Konstantin) rather vividly outlined the overall picture of the targets (bases of NATO), touched upon the NATO weapons of destruction, but on the other hand, the impression is of some kind of “brushstrokes”, as if the author wanted to show that “we’ll tear them apart all of them are KR, and they are defenseless against our Caliber. " No offense to the author - the article is replete with a large number of numbers, but it becomes difficult to read, especially for an unprepared reader. In addition, describing the bases and means of destruction, the author takes part of something and concludes that this is all. In order not to be unfounded, I will give a few such examples.

    Describing Article 5 of the NATO Charter, the author focused only on how quickly NATO member countries “subscribe” to a country subjected to aggression. Here you can agree with him. It is unlikely that all this will happen automatically, but they will hardly be "pickle" for a long time either, not suicides ... But this is not even the point.

    1. The author gives an example of US aviation and naval bases in countries. But the question is, for some reason, these bases are considered as a spherical horse in a vacuum. They are located in other countries on the basis of bilateral and multilateral agreements. And as the author believes, if the base in Italy or Spain is hit by the same “Caliber” (I won’t talk about the possibility or impossibility of such a strike), then the host country will relate to the fact that through its territory and in its direction (and not from her) will unknown cruise missiles go? Will it hit such targets? After all, it is not written on the rocket that it is aimed at an American base ??? According to the article Konstantin felt. that this will not happen. Spain (Italy, etc.) separately, US bases - separately.

    2. Next, air defense weapons are taken exclusively by the United States. Again, the base is separate - the country is separate. In addition, 1-2 complexes are taken and draws conclusions based on this. But even the same Patriot complex has a large number of modifications. For example, in addition to the first, standard, option there is also PAC-1, ASOJ / SOJC, PAC-2, PAC-2 GEM, GEM / C, GEM / T (or GEM +), PAC-3 and now we are talking about RAAC- 4. Moreover, GEM / C is adapted specifically for the interception of cruise missiles and a low height of interception.

    3. At the same time, air defense systems of other countries that may be involved in interception are not considered at all. And the range of NATO is very large. Starting from the options of the American “Hawk” and ending with our S-300 complexes

    4. Next, the author writes:
    I don’t see the slightest sense of considering American missiles — the Caliber didn’t take the capitalist obligation not to fly to land over land, which we clearly saw when striking the Syrian basmachi.

    I apologize, but what, did they fly over the sea? To the torm, on the basis of a special case, throwing out an air defense system of ships is at least stupid. It does not mean at all that in certain situations the bases will be covered precisely by the air defense of the ships. The passage is incomprehensible.
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. Old26 31 October 2015 11: 16 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    5.
    The speed of the "Caliber" is 0,8 M (Mach), which, in terms of the usual one, is 989 km / h, and they reached the target 50 meters from the ground. Since this is a modern battle, let's recount the speed more precisely. 989km / h = 16,48 km / min = 0,274 km / sec.

    In fact, a speed of 0,8M is the maximum speed that such missiles can develop. At a range, especially at a range of 1500-2000 km, it goes at a cruising speed, which is 180-200 m / s, which corresponds to 648-720 km / h (these data are shown in the video above). Further, where does the figure of 50 meters come from? On the pillars on the same MAX, the altitude was mentioned. The height on approach to the target is 50-150 meters. Our president, voicing this event, generally said that the rocket went at heights of 100-150 meters, and in some places rose to heights of over 1 kilometer. But for some reason everyone takes the altitude as a minimum (50 m). Likely to compare it with the “Patriot” and prove that he could not bring down. Although in all serious publications (not the media) regarding the flight of the Kyrgyz Republic such as Tomahawk and Caliber, land heights indicate 100-150 meters.

    6.
    Patriot PAC-3, adopted in 2001. There is nothing newer. According to his TTX “the probability of defeating a tactical missile is 0,6-0,8. As if with luck, only 2 out of 10 missiles can reach the target. Not bad? We read again: we are talking about a tactical missile. What is this tactical missile, obviously from its more precise name: front-line ballistic missile. Ballistic. That is, her trajectory is not like that of a cruise missile, it follows a ballistic trajectory. Therefore, the remarkable coefficient in the performance characteristics of the Patriot is not about the Caliber CR.

    Yes, not about Caliber. CALIBER is an aerodynamic target and the HCV of the aircraft is suitable for it, where a maximum of 0,9

    7.
    And there is no reason to be surprised: the last modification of the Patriot was put into service in 2001, Caliber started this month.

    Are you sure about that? Already from ships at the KVF they were shot at least 3-4 years ago. For foreign purposes - yes, this month

    8.
    Beating drones is one thing, but getting into the Caliber with its 1000 km / h and the ability to maneuver is something completely different ...

    CALIBER - this is the same drone that does not maneuver at all, except that it makes turns at the given correction points, like a regular drone (according to the GDP, it made 144 turns in two hours of flight, it’s not known whether they did everything in total, or each ) And so, between the correction points (and the rotation, if necessary), it flies in the same straightforward manner, without maneuvering, like a regular drone ...

    And the last one. In addition to the radar of the Patriot complex, the adversary also has others who are engaged in a review of the air situation. On land, on ships, in the end, in the air. Nobody has canceled AWACS yet.

    The article is neither a plus nor a minus. The set of facts and figures is quite large, but this is now fragmented, piled up in one heap, and sometimes far-fetched ...
    1. Armored optimist 31 October 2015 11: 40 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      SchA namusuyut you. Haters do not accept this argument. Trying to explain something objectively, with arguments is useless. I agree that air defense in Europe is not suitable for our soles. But the analysis itself is distant (although it served on the S-75) from the technique of man illiterate.
      1. Amurets 31 October 2015 12: 10 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Bronoptimist. In some countries, the S-75-Volga of the latest modifications is still in service. And in China, the HQ-2 air defense system, the S-75 clone is the main medium-high complex and let's not forget that this is the most effective complex in the world for hit targets, but time comes and the best becomes obsolete. And the S-75 is not for nothing that monuments were erected and he deserved them as a soldier.
        1. TT62 31 October 2015 23: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And where are the "bourgeois" air defense systems, so massively actually used as the S-75? No where! So no argument.
          1. Amurets 1 November 2015 01: 40 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            TT62 Because it was so massively used that it was very effective and even in a cut-down version of equipment, it was bought by many countries of the world. Nobody imposed it on third countries. And it was the S-75 that drove the aircraft to low altitudes. And if you could not find a solution to the problems of the S-300P complex, the very effective S-75M-4 Volkhov would be put into service. Then it went for export like the Volga-3, if my memory serves me. A major drawback of the S-75 was only the single-channel purpose and the S-300 was developed to eliminate this drawback of the S-75. Look at the data from the experienced S-300 and the tasks of creating the complex. By the way, McCain made the SA-75Dvina the worst enemy of the USSR and Russia.
  27. Dingo 31 October 2015 11: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We then looked for an “answer” with this KR that we placed our “sworn friends” - or, at present, “partners” - in Z. Europe. Shot 3 air defense corps (THERE were then three - Gorky, Rzhevsky and Yaroslavl). Now disbanded. ZRV-Cherepovets brigade. RTV-2 ... center. IA - flyers from Tunoshny. Now - it is already possible - the statute of limitations has expired.
  28. Dingo 31 October 2015 11: 27 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    ZRV fired S-200 .. IA-guidance in the front and rear hemispheres ... the task is to catch the "target" against the background of "locals" ... the height of the target is not more than 150 meters ... speed - 2 swing ... s enveloping the terrain ... with interference, both active and passive ... Can you even imagine what it is? ... the range of destruction is at least 70-80 km ...
  29. Dingo 31 October 2015 11: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    .. the sight of the fighter is 140 km ... it is higher than the target, but “takes” it against the background of the earth ... (a parabolic sight, as if highlighted with a mirror) ... but “pull2 pointing to the observation deck - show” a sight "to the flamingos ... and this is in the machine ... the pilot has nothing to do with it," the ACS operator suggests ... that is, me, the sergeant-conscript ...
    1. TT62 31 October 2015 23: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Funny !!! An-2 airplane?
  30. Dingo 31 October 2015 11: 41 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    ..but I can make a mistake in azimuth, then a jerk to the side ... in range - or afterburner - or braking .... the overloads of the flyers are wild .... Then they showed us a record in the control trailer - and let them listen to the mat of the flyers. ... I remember one - with the call sign "Yacht-6" ..... ento something ... even I don’t know how now .... but I’m already the sixth dozen ...
    1. NIKNN 31 October 2015 12: 25 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      with the call sign "Yacht-6"

      The call signs of the Air Force pilots are only digital. Full 5 mean. There are 3 extreme numbers on the air. belay
      Although the author of the article introduced himself as a professional, while discussing about air defense I had doubts crept in (although I served in the Air Force, I also know a lot about tanks), by the way, other officers in these troops also confirm this, which I look at in discussions not a little (all respect, always a pleasure to read). Air defense is a system and not a separate complex and the reflection of an air attack is somewhat different from that described by the author.
      The rest of the article put a plus, the mood in the morning lifted. wink
  31. Unsam 31 October 2015 11: 42 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The US missile defense system in Europe is not deployed to protect "someone" there. Their missile defense is being built against the volley of our "adult" ballistic missiles in order to bring them down on take-off, at the beginning of the ballistic curve, when dodge maneuvers are not yet carried out, there are no false targets and other goodies, there is only a carrier that is gaining speed. In this sector, until speed is gained, all of our BRs deployed in the European part of Russia are vulnerable. Roughly speaking, in the event of our sudden return launch, most of our BRs will be shot down. And all this talk about the fact that their missile defense is defenseless against our missile defense systems makes sense only if we shoot first.
    UPD:
    Threat. But thanks to the author for the article! It is clear and understandable.
  32. Dingo 31 October 2015 11: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    ..many simply refused guidance - and went aside ... It was worse - when the "carrier" ("carcass"), dropping the CD - and that, picking up speed to the ground, went along the highway - but by a couple waiting in -not "instant" .. and they began to hover on the carrier (pointing to the front hemisphere) ... on the CP - .... in general. ... the flyers then fired "under the parameter", i.e. - not in the forehead ....
    1. TT62 31 October 2015 23: 42 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The parameter for air defense vehicles, in aviation, is a crab ali hemisphere. "Fly" further, you say cool!
  33. Dingo 31 October 2015 11: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Anyway - we found a "cure" ... from June to November ... AND FOR THE NEXT YEAR .... All the same - and for the new ... week on the road .. unloading ... steppe ... the heat at 40 - but who measured it then? .. I remember the snow fell on September 13 - and by noon, the heat and dust ....
    1. TT62 31 October 2015 23: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Even the foxes, hot from the heat, and you caught them with your hands. Are there scorpions in epoxy?
      1. Amurets 1 November 2015 15: 47 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Especially "Fox-M" when she released "Swifts".
  34. Dingo 31 October 2015 12: 20 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    ..this was already Soyuz-79 ... corps commander Mr. Major A. Ustinova - and the Air Marshal Koldunov arrived, the Air Defense Commander - that one. whom Rust “sent to retire” ... Nice uncle ... I, the sergeant, shook my hand, thanks for the service ... So, offhand .. that I remember ... and next, on this marble hill - there passed "(state tests), as they later found out - the legendary c-zoo ... once I saw how he shoots ... it's something ... THIS IS SO. GUYS ... analysts are bad ... Moderator - sorry - if I said something wrong ... All the best ... and clear skies over your head ...
    1. Amurets 31 October 2015 12: 51 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Dingo
      Air Marshal Koldunov,

      Quote: Dingo
      Nice guy ... I, the sergeant, shook my hand, thanks for the service ..

      This glorious uncle (with two stars of the Hero of the Soviet Union), we were the commander of the 11th separate air defense army and liked to fly over Amur from Khabarovsk to Komsomolsk so that against the background of the locals he was not visible, and then followed the corresponding "debriefing" if he was missed .A they missed it often, flew at that time like a god.
  35. tomcat117 31 October 2015 12: 21 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Yeah, the abbreviation of the NATO SLAMRAAM complex (according to the Russian classification SAM USRALSYA) really inspires "fear" for us Ivanes, especially the longer it is.
  36. Old26 31 October 2015 12: 47 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: UnSam
    The US missile defense system in Europe is not deployed to protect "someone" there. Their missile defense is being built against the volley of our "adult" ballistic missiles in order to bring them down on take-off, at the beginning of the ballistic curve, when dodge maneuvers are not yet carried out, there are no false targets and other goodies, there is only a carrier that is gaining speed. In this area, until speed is gained, all of our BRs deployed in the European part of Russia are vulnerable. Roughly speaking, in the event of our sudden return launch, most of our BRs will be shot down. And all this talk about the fact that their missile defense is defenseless against our missiles makes sense only if we shoot first. UPD: PS. But thanks to the author for the article! It is clear and understandable.

    Yes, it’s famously ... Now, if it were still in reality, one could plus for such a comment. But realities are different from what is written. I don’t even want to put a minus for such stupidity (and terminology)
  37. Sergey Loskutov 31 October 2015 13: 12 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Good article.
    System analysis is given, possible scenarios are described, and this is all tied to real TTX.
    Who has the opportunity to fill in the blanks, if there are any, I will say thank you.
  38. Olegmog 31 October 2015 13: 22 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Against the Kyrgyz Republic there is only one salvation! In a menacing period of time,
    Keep AWAC constantly in the air. Any station will see KR only in radius
    50km And this is very little for issuing to the CP and the reaction of the rocket launchers!
  39. okroshka79 31 October 2015 13: 55 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The article is the reasoning of a person, a complete amateur, completely far from air defense and everything connected with it. The topic of IA and its capabilities against our "Caliber" is not completely covered, but it is predominant in the NATO air defense system. Let him write. And even trying. I do not want to offend the author of the article. And if you put a plus, except perhaps for patriotism
  40. dvg79 31 October 2015 14: 09 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    But I’m interested in producing nuclear weapons and stuffing for them or living on Soviet stocks. Without them, our missiles are unable to inflict unacceptable damage to NATO due to their small numbers.
  41. Letterksi 31 October 2015 14: 38 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    For manifested PR-patriotism criticized by Patriot'a five, for knowledge of the subject two
  42. Dimon19661 31 October 2015 15: 34 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    . As a guidance operator, I now remember that for our horror these CDs were at the training grounds ... They darted around the monitor, trying to jump out of it, they “flew” into the background from the terrain, could turn around almost 180 degrees and jump out of the sector capture. And we reacted only with our eyes and hands - against the onboard computers of the Tomahawks.

    After reading only this, it’s not interesting anymore, why write something that you don’t understand. At least you should read how interception of air targets, including KR, is carried out. And you don’t have to mislead people.
  43. Lumumba 31 October 2015 16: 04 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: figvam
    It’s a pity that so far there are very few “caliber” carriers


    There is such a Club-K complex, in the form of a standard sea container. Such containers can be installed on any suitable platform. As a result, any civilian marine and river container ship turns into a missile cruiser, the train into the BZHRK, and the auto-trailer platform turns into the OTRK. In each container on 4 "Caliber".

    I think everyone understands that installing a couple of clubs on a "peaceful Russian container ship" is 100 times cheaper than producing a large military and expensive missile boat. This is a real, Russian, evil and merciless weapon. NATO and the US know about it, and are afraid.
    1. mav1971 31 October 2015 18: 01 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: Lumumba
      Quote: figvam
      It’s a pity that so far there are very few “caliber” carriers


      There is such a Club-K complex, in the form of a standard sea container. Such containers can be installed on any suitable platform. As a result, any civilian marine and river container ship turns into a missile cruiser, the train into the BZHRK, and the auto-trailer platform turns into the OTRK. In each container on 4 "Caliber".

      I think everyone understands that installing a couple of clubs on a "peaceful Russian container ship" is 100 times cheaper than producing a large military and expensive missile boat. This is a real, Russian, evil and merciless weapon. NATO and the US know about it, and are afraid.



      No one is afraid of anything.
      For nothing further and will not go beyond the layout.
      If they do, then the Americans will immediately find out.
      And on which ship and on which car.
      If in Soviet times they had hundreds of real scouts and they had almost all the information. now ...
  44. Gormenghast 31 October 2015 16: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Unfortunately, pogans and some dangerous actions are committed. Atomic bombs in Germany, and even teach foreign aviators to use them. Probably enough time has passed after 45 years; there is little hibakushya left, and the current "strategists" have little idea of ​​what it is - atomic bombing not from a satellite, but under a mushroom. Although, it is thought that there will still be no atomic war; I want to believe it.

    If the calibers begin to shoot down - it does not matter with what probability, then these calibers will fly. And they can’t fly without a serious reason. And then the Iskanders can fly. I wish all fools to think it over before it’s too late.
  45. iouris 31 October 2015 16: 16 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Probably, in case of their mass application, some amount of missile defense will not reach the target due to an "internal" reason, some due to interference with the guidance system, some will be destroyed by air defense systems. Problem statement: will the enemy suffer unacceptable losses? Therefore, CDs also play the role of a deterrent.
    In the summer, at the Mary-1 training ground in 1979, research exercises were conducted on the destruction of the Kyrgyz Republic against the background of the earth with the launch of R-23 missiles in the front hemisphere. The result was this: the MiG-23M sights built in 1973 were useless, the latest MiG-23M series (after 1976) successfully hit targets in such conditions. MiG-23ML aircraft in such conditions in the summer of 1983 already worked quite successfully in the Kyrgyz Republic. By the way, the Syrian pilots in battles with the Israeli Air Force also successfully shot down the more advanced F-15s and F-16s against the backdrop of the earth.
    The Raman guidance system is correlation-extreme (CENS), rather than satellite.
  46. 16112014nk 31 October 2015 16: 46 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The article is generally interesting, but it looks somehow capricious.
  47. inpu 31 October 2015 16: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I’m once again pleased with the pictures when the earth’s surface is depicted on a plane with strong distortion, and then they are drawn and drawn on top with a compass xD
  48. Rostislav 31 October 2015 17: 00 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    36 strategic objects of the US Army located in the zone of destruction of the Caliber missiles from the impact of these missiles are not covered by anything. The fleet and aviation bases are not protected by anything. And yes - for me these words sound like music.

    By signing the 1987 INF Treaty, the Americans deliberately removed their Tomahawks from the field of its operation.

    Ka says: "Do not dig a hole for another ... Use the one he dug for you."
  49. Mera joota 31 October 2015 18: 02 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Absolute nonsense. The author did not give an attempt to analyze, but his firm belief in the inefficiency of NATO air defense, while to prove his conviction, he easily wrote off NATO aviation, which is the main component of air defense. They say the Patriots are useless, but you can’t remember about aviation why it is ...
    The author has all the signs of PGM, which he goes and is proud of. Well, pearls, as without them ...
    Until October 7, 2015, there were no cruise missiles in service with Russia.

    Maybe for the author and yes, but in the US Ministry of Defense, the tactical cruise missiles of the USSR are not known by hearsay. Sea-based TKR 3K10 Grenade received NATO SS-N-21 SAMPSON code, ground complex 3K12 Relief had NATO code SSC-X-4 SLINGSHOT, and air-based X-55, respectively, AS-15 KENT. Why these missiles are needed and how they are used in the United States are well aware, therefore, their anti-aircraft gunners regularly practice the interception of tactical cruise missiles in exercises. Moreover, the Americans are puzzled by the interception of cruise missiles, the JLENS balloon system is just designed to intercept over-the-horizon low-flying targets.
    Let's summarize. The 36 strategic objects of the US Army, located in the zone of destruction of Caliber missiles from the impact of these missiles are not covered by anything. The bases of the fleet and aviation are not protected by anything. And yes - for me, these words sound like music.

    Here is such a conclusion, the triumph of stupidity ...
    1. voyaka uh 1 November 2015 15: 10 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      A strange article ... CR is not a new thing. Anti-ship
      in the USSR were a very long time. And against them in many exercises
      on specially designed simulation targets
      all possible means. The caliber flies at a speed of 700 km / h on
      altitude of about 100 m. It will be unpleasant if you miss such a plop, but nothing
      super-difficult to intercept. The fact that they missed their launch with
      unexpected direction .... a puncture of American intelligence, spotted
      would launch - if they wanted to bring down, they raised the usual F-15.
    2. purple 2 November 2015 12: 12 New
      • -2
      • 0
      -2
      Well, where is she, this balloon system?
      The meaning is not to be measured by pussy, but in a specific military application.
      They clicked the launch of calibers in full, this is a fact.
      And all these your calculations about technical characteristics and systems and mythical teachings, it's just noodles on the ears for the layman
  50. An-mi 31 October 2015 18: 24 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    It is pleasant and useful to read specialist analytics!
    Thank you!