Military Review

Development of US ground-based missile defense

96
Development of US ground-based missile defense



Split kinetic interceptors are a literary translation of the name of the US missile defense warhead. The real name is: Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV).

The United States Missile Defense Agency (MDA), together with Raytheon, has completed the drafting of a technical assignment for multiple atmospheric kinetic interceptors (MOKV). In December, a development agreement is expected to be signed.


Multi-Object Kill Vehicle (MOKV) after resetting the head fairing.


Each of the MOKV must be guided independently on the target and hit it. The MOKV kit will be launched by a ground-based rocket, similar to the GBI system. Each MOKV will be equipped with its own flight guidance, flight adjustment and information exchange system for targeting to individual targets. The rocket will carry a set of six MOKV, which will be induced by its own sensor and adjust the flight.

The interceptor kit is a further development of the Raytheon missile defense system, which already has a number of successful and proven products.


Ground Base Intercept - EKV Interceptor Booster


Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) is a solid-fuel rocket with detachable stages, carrying one extra-atmospheric interceptor (EKV), capable of intercepting a ballistic missile with an indivisible warhead. GBI delivers an extra-atmospheric interceptor to space. There at hypersonic speed and starts working EKV.


Exoatomospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV). Interceptor currently used in the GBI system


EKV searches for a target by the heat trace, calculates the trajectory with its own computer and adjusts the flight with jet engines. It hits the target with an accuracy of a few millimeters and is hit by a kinetic hit ("hit to kill").

This is the third generation of interceptors Raytheon makes for GBI. The first prototype appeared in 1998. The program developed with great difficulty. Ten launches were conducted, of which only two were successful (in 2013 and 2014), which determined the need for further development. Currently, all interceptors are being upgraded to the second stage (CE-II KEV).

After the first relatively unsuccessful tests of the GBI / EKV program, it was decided to increase the number of carriers. The Americans decided to create several interceptors for confronting one rocket (plans are to deploy up to 44 GBI / EKV to 2017).

The development of the next stage CE-II Block 1 interceptor is currently being completed. It tried to take into account all the shortcomings of past versions. The first flight is planned in 2016 year, in case of success, production will be able to start as soon as possible. And the remaining 10 EKV may be produced by the new project already by 2017.

Constant problems associated with the EKV, forced the National Missile Defense Agency of the United States to begin to develop a fundamentally new interceptor "Redesigned Kill Vehicle" (RKV). In some sources, RKV is called EKV CE-III. Thanks to the new approach, RKV should be more reliable and less expensive. It is planned to increase the manageability and its own computing power. The most important change is the appearance of feedback between the ground control center and the interceptor. RKV should be ready for 2018 year, and in 2020 it is planned to begin its deployment on media.


Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV). Draft Interceptor Project


The US National Missile Defense Agency planned to create the Multi-Kill Vehicle (MKV) series of over-atmospheric interceptors as early as 2004, but decided to suspend the project in 2009 due to the incredible complexity and decision to concentrate on developing an AEGIS-based missile defense system .


Rocket SM-3 system Aegis


MOKV is essentially a reincarnation of the MKV project. Plans to revitalize the program appeared in August 2015. If successful, the acceptance of MOKV on duty is planned for 2030. Unlike the GBI / EKV program, MOKV will be able to intercept a larger number of targets, with a smaller number of carriers.

Raytheon has also developed another type of over-atmospheric interceptor, on a hit-to-kill basis, for the SM-3 missile defense system. This type is capable of intercepting medium-range ballistic missiles, and is the naval component of the US missile defense system.


SM-3 Kinetic Interceptor


Raytheon’s MOKV design work is carried out as part of the product line of missile defense systems, which is responsible for the development of EKV, SM-3 and the development of RKV.

On the materials of the sites:
http://defense-update.com/
http://www.raytheon.com/
96 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. igorka357
    igorka357 28 November 2015 07: 08 New
    +8
    I always write the same commentary on similar articles ... more..more dough in the wunderwaffles of gentlemen and Washington ....
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 28 November 2015 07: 22 New
      +2
      ... more .. more dough


      What? Maybe a ride. After all, there are amateurs grown on Star Wars, computer shooters and comic book pictures, even among our political DAMS ...
      1. SveTok
        SveTok 28 November 2015 17: 56 New
        0
        Another bluff for money laundering.
        1. Lt. Air Force stock
          Lt. Air Force stock 28 November 2015 22: 39 New
          0
          Quote: SveTok
          Another bluff for money laundering.

          Well, SM-3 missiles are embodied in metal and put into the fleet, the same principle here; only the kinetic warhead is not one in the missile, but several.
    2. Falcon
      28 November 2015 07: 48 New
      +7
      Quote: igorka357
      I always write the same commentary on similar articles ... more..more dough in the wunderwaffles of gentlemen and Washington ....


      Cool thought!

      Just tell it to the engineers from Almaz-Antey who have long been creating our pro X-NUMX


      Or that serve the Moscow A-135 missile defense system






      And they plan to develop it in A-235 ...
      1. slavarachkov.
        slavarachkov. 28 29 November 2015 19: 45 New
        +1
        > Tell it to engineers from Almaz-Antey who have long been creating about the S-500

        The situation with missile defense resembles the situation with fusion, which was promised a long time ago, but things are still there. A global missile defense is impossible because it is extremely expensive and because the ICBM is moving at speeds close to the 1st space one. At the same time, false goals are used, the warhead maneuvers and there is a struggle in all conceivable ranges of counteraction. This is all with a massive nuclear attack. A missile defense can protect a specific object from a specific warhead and not from a large number of warheads. In general, nuclear winter is not canceled. (
    3. ava09
      ava09 28 November 2015 11: 41 New
      +6
      Quote: igorka357
      I always write the same commentary on similar articles ... more..more dough in the wunderwaffles of gentlemen and Washington ....


      Unfortunately, the gentlemen from Washington draw this "loot" themselves ... And almost the whole world they are accomplices in this crime. Russia as well.
    4. psiho117
      psiho117 28 November 2015 15: 59 New
      0
      Quote: igorka357
      I always write the same commentary on similar articles ... more..more dough in the wunderwaffles of gentlemen and Washington ....

      More than a dollar to the God of the Dollar! bully
    5. Lepila
      Lepila 28 November 2015 22: 08 New
      0
      I don’t know how they have in Rytenen and our “iron dome” works great, be healthy. Repeatedly personally observed how they intercepted the “Grad”. And an improved version works on the smallest drones
      1. bulvas
        bulvas 29 November 2015 12: 56 New
        +3
        Quote: Lepila
        I don’t know how they have in Rytenen and our “iron dome” works great, be healthy.



        Hailstones and maneuvering warheads with separable parts and many false targets are slightly different

        Quote: Lepila
        Repeatedly personally observed how they intercepted the “Grad”.


        In the summer of 2014, I also happened to see the interception of the city over Tel Aviv.

        But the fact is that the warheads and interceptors in question in the article cannot be seen - they fly in space and there are other speeds




      2. The comment was deleted.
    6. mav1971
      mav1971 29 November 2015 16: 01 New
      +3
      Quote: igorka357
      I always write the same commentary on similar articles ... more..more dough in the wunderwaffles of gentlemen and Washington ....


      Because you are an illiterate person.
      Nichrome does not want to look carefully at what is happening around you.
      Do you think that you are so smart and troll these mattresses?
      But you are not trolling anyone, for you are stupid.


      Development is in this direction for everyone.
      And Chinese kinetic direct hit interceptors are already being tested even. about which there are videos even on YouTube.
      And their size is very compact.

      And our money is invested in the extreme, precisely in the development of C-500 as a missile defense system with the same concept. Direct kinetic.

      Always think before you write.
      ask questions to yourself and the rest - and only then thinking again - write something ...
      D, B!
  2. Vladimyrych
    Vladimyrych 28 November 2015 07: 12 New
    +6
    Things do not stand still, no matter what they say. There is a real threat now for the Russian nuclear triad.
    It seems to me that the Russian leadership in vain underestimates Washington's obstinacy in the missile defense component.
    1. yuriy55
      yuriy55 28 November 2015 07: 27 New
      +1
      It seems to me that the Russian leadership in vain underestimates Washington's obstinacy in the missile defense component.


      The leadership of the Russian Federation in the person of GDP spoke out about missile defense and its shit ... components:
      Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, said: “The combat capabilities of any missile defense system will improve. This means that and we must respond to this in a timely manner. Of course, it would be better for our partners not to do this, since such actions will lead to the depreciation of our strategic nuclear potential, and this will inevitably cause our adequate reaction. ”


      That is, the lathes are already working in the sharpening mode of bolts with "left-hand thread" laughing

      In addition to the words:
      Poland refused to buy rockets against the United States from Russia, suspending the contract for the supply of American weapons.

      http://warfiles.ru/show-101279-polsha-otkazala-ssha.html
      1. Mera joota
        Mera joota 28 November 2015 08: 44 New
        +8
        Quote: yuriy55
        In addition to the words:
        Poland refused to buy rockets against the United States from Russia, suspending the contract for the supply of American weapons.

        Like most patriots, you are not trying to figure out the essence of the issue, trying to pass off wishful thinking by relying on an article in which the phrase was translated "as I want to hear"
        Cena jest nieporównanie wyższa, możliwość dostarczenia produktu nieporównanie dłuższa, a warunki przejściowe do realizacji ogólnie nieznane stronie, która miałaby to realizować
        http://www.superstacja.tv/Wiadomosc/Producent_Rakiet_Patriot_Proponuje_MON_Rozmo
        wy, 1482718 / Kraj /

        suddenly it turned out:
        The price is much higher and the delivery time is too long. In general, this contract does not currently exist
        RIA Novosti http://ria.ru/world/20151126/1329352281.html#ixzz3slDpMHAj

        Where are the translators of RIA Novosti saw the rejection of the contract?
        From the history of the issue:
        Poland announced a competition to update the national air defense system, "Wisla". Raytheon with Patriot, Lockheed Martin with MEADS and Eurosam with SAMP-T participated. Lockheed Martin with MEADS was considered the leader, but the events in Ukraine forced the Poles to speed up the selection and April 22, 2015 min. nat. Poland's defense decided in favor of Raytheon with Patriot. It would seem that the choice was made, but the conservative party won the elections (others), which began to revise the decisions made earlier. Hence the statement by Minister Antoni Macierewicz, not a refusal as RIA Novosti interpreted it, but dissatisfaction with some points. Given that the Germans decided in June this year to allocate 4 billion to MEADS, it is predictable that the Polish conservatives will follow suit. Moreover, Lockheed Martin in September this year bought a company Sikorsky Aircraft which has great connections with Poland. Well, Lockheed Martin constantly breaks off Raytheon ... where without it.
        1. yuriy55
          yuriy55 28 November 2015 12: 08 New
          +2
          Actually, my answer is a response to Maxim’s message, with the opinion of the leadership of the Russian Federation about the underestimation of the Washington missile defense project. In my message, I clearly expressed in Russian the idea that for every tricky missile defense there may not be an adequate answer + a quote from GDP.

          Like most patriots, you are not trying to figure out the essence of the issue, trying to pass off wishful thinking by relying on an article in which the phrase was translated "as I want to hear"


          Yes, like most patriots, I am glad that our missiles are too tough for the American PatriotAm, which the owner-producers are trying to "breathe in" ("vparivat") gullible customers, as a panacea for Russian missile attack. This is exactly what I saw in the article: Poland refused the USAhttp://warfiles.ru/show-101279-polsha-otkazala-ssha.html
          I made a link to this article.

          And where did you find the phrase:
          Cena jest nieporównanie wyższa, możliwość dostarczenia produktu nieporównanie dłuższa, a warunki przejściowe do realizacji ogólnie nieznane stronie, która miałaby to realizować
          which translator translates as:
          The price is incomparably higher, the ability to deliver the product is incomparably longer, and the transitional conditions for implementation are generally unknown to the page that will implement it
          and what is this:
          http://www.superstacja.tv/Wiadomosc/Producent_Rakiet_Patriot_Proponuje_MON_Rozmo


          wy, 1482718 / Kraj /

          to which these are the answers in the search:

          I do not know and do not see the point in discussions on a similar topic ...
          hi
          1. Razvedka_Boem
            Razvedka_Boem 28 November 2015 18: 19 New
            0
            We understood that if God forbid, the confrontation will turn into a "hot phase" .. then everything that will interfere will be extinguished .. Although they were always like a bone in the throat for Russia without anti-missile defense .. Although being part of the Russian Empire, the emperor allowed them some liberties, down to newspapers in Polish.
        2. Razvedka_Boem
          Razvedka_Boem 28 November 2015 18: 15 New
          0
          I think everything is much simpler and the Poles just tried to make a good face in a bad game .. realizing .. that the deployment of missile defense elements makes them the primary goal in case of war.
        3. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 29 November 2015 11: 30 New
          +2
          Patriot is a purely air defense missile. Equivalent to S-300.
          MEADS - medium-range air defense / missile defense missile. It
          cannot replace the Patriot. What to do with high flying
          by airplanes?
          MEADS is more likely the equivalent of the Israeli Barak-8.

          And the BR of the class Point MEADS will not intercept. I need Aegis and Hetz here.
          For complete overlap of aerospace
          Poles will need three (!) types of missiles, and not one.
    2. NordUral
      NordUral 28 November 2015 12: 43 New
      +3
      Exactly. These are not Reagan toys. And do not laugh at the States, but carefully study all those technological tricks that they prepare for us and think about how to respond adequately and not ruinously.
    3. Nirag013
      Nirag013 28 November 2015 15: 18 New
      +1
      And who told you that he underestimates? Simply, it’s not in the traditions of the Russians to “crack” the tongue in advance when nothing is done. Pay attention - some “prodigy” is still being designed or even being considered among amers, and they are already “ringing” about this all over the world and beautiful pictures are being laid out. And in Russia they quietly do business, and then it suddenly turns out that ... Well, for example, there is a “Caliber” or something else. So I am sure that all these toys are carefully reviewed, evaluated and response measures are being developed. Or maybe already.
      1. Bayonet
        Bayonet 29 November 2015 04: 50 New
        +2
        Quote: Nirag013
        Simply, it’s not in the traditions of the Russians to “crack” the tongue in advance when nothing has been done.

        Well, yes, especially when you constantly hear what will be done by 2020! fellow
      2. mav1971
        mav1971 29 November 2015 16: 11 New
        +4
        Quote: Nirag013
        And who told you that he underestimates? Simply, it’s not in the traditions of the Russians to “crack” the tongue in advance when nothing is done. Pay attention - some “prodigy” is still being designed or even being considered among amers, and they are already “ringing” about this all over the world and beautiful pictures are being laid out. And in Russia they quietly do business, and then it suddenly turns out that ... Well, for example, there is a “Caliber” or something else. So I am sure that all these toys are carefully reviewed, evaluated and response measures are being developed. Or maybe already.


        Well what nonsense are you writing?
        Looking at this site - how you are convinced of the complete inverse.
        here is the great Russian electronic warfare - which in fact turns out to be an advertisement for KRET, and which exists only in the form of mock-ups or single copies.
        Here are comparisons of the great Armat tank - which we simply won’t see in the troops for another 5-7 years .. Almost anything can be added to this list. And T-50 and destroyers and submarines.
        And what is, like Caliber, like the latest SD / DB missiles, our "latest submarines and ships" - this is honestly a junk, and most importantly is our answer to their junk. And about it was known 20 years ago. All this has long been known to everyone.
        And the fact that you personally only learned about him is your personal problem.

        25 years of development of the military-industrial complex - simply did not exist.
        And what is going on now is the resurrection of those old, old developments.
        And therefore, we can only dream of a small-sized kinetic interceptor.
        And so in everything.
        Restoring school, when everyone left 90's lack of money, is not just difficult, but impossible.
        Only from scratch to create.
  3. Old26
    Old26 28 November 2015 09: 25 New
    +3
    Cyril !, Thanks for the translation. All the leisure was to go to the website of Rayton and the ABM Agency and read. Thank.
    1. Falcon
      28 November 2015 09: 45 New
      +3
      Quote: Old26
      Cyril !, Thanks for the translation. All the leisure was to go to the website of Rayton and the ABM Agency and read. Thank.


      drinks Nema for Sho hi
  4. Alexanast
    Alexanast 28 November 2015 12: 22 New
    +7
    I don’t know how you guys do, but it reminds me of something terribly. I remember when I was still in school, I watched on TV all the same cartoon showing how famously Amer’s missile defense destroys ALL of our warheads from space. Humpbacked then a very small crap crap and ... destroyed the USSR. Although then many of our competent scientists proved to him that at this stage of the development of science and technology in the WORLD it was nothing more than PR Reagan. Of course, time goes ahead, technology is developing, and the arms race can have both positive aspects (the development of the defense industry and science in general) and negative ones (Brokeback). The most important thing is how to perceive it.
    After all, we then know for sure that the trickiest w .. will definitely be found with a screw.
    1. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem 28 November 2015 18: 20 New
      0
      hunchbacked then was not afraid of amers .. they just bought it with something .. in vain if he was there like cheese in butter ..
      1. sheridans
        sheridans 5 September 2017 20: 36 New
        0
        They bought it specifically - diamonds as a gift to Raisa, and then they blackmailed with tagged publicity. I don’t know how much a fake, for I read an overview on the internet.
    2. aleksey980
      aleksey980 28 November 2015 19: 15 New
      0
      Hunchback only set the point, and the collapse began even before him.
  5. Yak28
    Yak28 28 November 2015 13: 00 New
    +3
    In the future, the US missile defense is really a serious thing, especially near our borders. I think our military is drawing conclusions, and I hope the c-400 will eventually get the opportunity to shoot down ballistic missiles and enemy satellites
    1. Falcon
      28 November 2015 17: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: Yak28
      In the future, the US missile defense is really a serious thing, especially near our borders. I think our military is drawing conclusions, and I hope the c-400 will eventually get the opportunity to shoot down ballistic missiles and enemy satellites


      C-400 is an air defense system, not a missile defense system. Here is the transatmospheric interception homing b / h!

      Completely different things.
      C-400 knocks down in the atmosphere. Atatmospheric interception with us is carried out only by A-135 with nuclear b / h. In general, it’s not quite right either.
  6. evil partisan
    evil partisan 28 November 2015 13: 06 New
    +2
    Well, let’s suppose they always had good pictures. This is what I remember from the time of Star Wars. And how will it be in practice? If the same as with the F-35, then let them build ... But the threat to our country, of course, is very significant. Almost the main one. Do not miss the flash ...
    1. Cap.Morgan
      Cap.Morgan 28 November 2015 14: 44 New
      +3
      F-35 car is very serious. There, the engine is simply unrealistic. Unlike us, the Americans are loading their defenses at 100. In Russia, Su-34 aircraft are produced in a small series, almost by the piece. The cadres are gone. Pensioners stand at the machine tools and the kulmans. Much needs to be recreated.
      1. Days
        Days 28 November 2015 22: 40 New
        -1
        About the F-35 engine is a lie. It is larger in diameter and 1,7 times heavier. And he is alone on the plane, against our two on the T-10 and T-50 platforms. You would also compare and lament with the engine from the Tu-160.

        And about the Su-34 lie, enlighten: http://gelio.livejournal.com/172070.html

        You were late with yours, everything disappeared for 10 years.
        1. Killj
          Killj 29 November 2015 01: 35 New
          0
          the F35 engine is more powerful than the F16 and two from the Mig29, it is also optimal in terms of mass and size.
          1. Days
            Days 29 November 2015 10: 48 New
            +1
            It is weaker than two Su-35 engines. And by weight they already compared: F-35 in the same boat with the Su-27-35, and not with the Mig-29.

            And in terms of specific gravity, it is also weaker than AL-41F1.
  7. 528Obrp
    528Obrp 28 November 2015 13: 16 New
    +2
    Quote: Yak28
    US missile defense in the long run is really a serious thing

    I think no. Intercepting a ballistic target and maneuvering - fundamentally different things. If the meeting point of the ballistic target and the projectile can even be calculated by a student on a calculator, then it is impossible to calculate the maneuvering one. And the overload experienced by the interceptor when hovering over a maneuvering target is many times greater, the interceptor will simply fall apart. So the future is with maneuvering warheads.

    PS
    I mean that there will be no ballistic systems very soon.
    1. Yak28
      Yak28 28 November 2015 15: 36 New
      0
      But missiles can be shot down on take-off where they are as vulnerable as possible, having missile defense at our borders
      1. trantor
        trantor 28 November 2015 16: 45 New
        +2
        Quote: Yak28
        But missiles can be shot down on take-off where they are as vulnerable as possible, having missile defense at our borders

        It is possible from a machine gun or a granotomet. If you know exactly the time and place of launch, it may be time to take aim (1-2 seconds) until the marching starts.
        What next? Next is the active section (minutes) and who knows what trajectory and maneuvers are laid down in the SU, try to count, and it’s flying far from the border.
        And then there are areas of reorientation and breeding BB and false goals - also complete obscurity. And then intercept do not understand that, but already in space.
        Not intercepted there, you can try to catch at the entrance to the atmosphere. But there are also difficulties to be added both in the form of false illumination on the screens, and in the unpredictability of the nature of the fall of flying BEs, and there are too many goals. Which one to respond to?

        So not everything is so obvious with the effectiveness of missile defense. A global umbrella from a massive nuclear weapons cannot be delivered. And any modernization of the delivery vehicles and the BB and LC themselves will be much cheaper.
        1. trantor
          trantor 28 November 2015 16: 52 New
          0
          PS And more. After all, warheads can not only fly from the west-east, but also through the poles (the north one so for sure) - you can’t hide from all sides.
          1. Yak28
            Yak28 28 November 2015 19: 14 New
            0
            So they’ll hide somewhere, but Russia is generally naked
            1. trantor
              trantor 28 November 2015 19: 29 New
              -1
              Quote: Yak28
              and Russia is generally naked

              Right, really, really?
              Single launches and available means can be intercepted, but from a massive nuclear warhead it’s the same as closing an umbrella from drizzling shallow rain with a small wind. IMHO.
              1. Bayonet
                Bayonet 29 November 2015 04: 58 New
                +1
                Quote: trantor
                Right, really, really?

                Not really, Moscow is covered, and the rest can immediately wrap themselves in a sheet smile
                1. vadimtt
                  vadimtt 30 November 2015 13: 20 New
                  0
                  Strange you, considering that in Moscow they will blow 100% and not one dozen warheads. So do not even have time to wrap yourself in the sheet (try to evacuate such a city in 10-15 minutes).
                  So there is no need to incite ethnic hatred between Muscovites and Zamkadyshevites :)

                  PS: Somewhere there was a cool text of the GO instruction in case of an atomic attack in Moscow. There is a lot of text what to do and not to do, where to run, and at the very end - the zone of absolute defeat on the MKAD, everything is useless :)
      2. Bayonet
        Bayonet 29 November 2015 04: 55 New
        0
        Quote: Yak28
        But missiles can be shot down on take-off where they are as vulnerable as possible, having missile defense at our borders

        Therefore, our strategists are not standing at the borders.
    2. Falcon
      28 November 2015 18: 04 New
      0
      Quote: 528Obrp
      Intercepting a ballistic target and maneuvering are fundamentally different things.


      Do we even have warheads on BR missiles maneuvering? wink
      1. trantor
        trantor 28 November 2015 19: 24 New
        +1
        Quote: Falcon
        Do we even have warheads on BR missiles maneuvering?

        Already 25 years like :)
        1. Falcon
          28 November 2015 19: 27 New
          0
          Quote: trantor
          Already 25 years like :)


          wassat And what method does he maneuver? Rocket engine or turbojet engine or solid propellant rocket engine? wassat

          Not even a single accepted and completed project laughing 25 years ...
    3. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 29 November 2015 00: 05 New
      +2
      Quote: 528Obrp
      ballistic systems soon, very soon will not.
      Flying pillars, such as "Scud," probably will not. And here are the “composite” systems of the “Bulava” - “Yars” type, which overclock the BB IN in 90 seconds, and then they go about their own business - hardly. At the same time, the BB breeding area is increased several times. BBs are now maneuvering, carrying means of overcoming missile defense. In addition, I do not yet know the means of faster delivery of nuclear weapons to the target. GZO is a matter of the future (not far off, presumably), but it will also go into the near space, where there is a prospect of meeting with MOKV.
      You’ll have to think about his infrared guidance channel!
    4. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 29 November 2015 11: 33 New
      0
      "it’s impossible to calculate the maneuvering." ///

      They do not count it. At the "killer" GOS with IR optics.
  8. sergo1914
    sergo1914 28 November 2015 13: 22 New
    +3
    "delivers the atmospheric interceptor into space. There on hypersonic speed and starts EKV "

    "EKV searches for targets by thermal footprintcalculates the trajectory with its own calculator and corrects the flight with jet engines. He goes on target accurate to a few millimeters and strikes with a kinetic strike "

    I like to read such articles. They are soothing. No American Yoda Masters. And without it, such maneuvers are IMPOSSIBLE. Count, if not laziness, overload. See that supermaterials from the same movie series should also be added to the Jedi.

    Everything is as usual. Amerovskin shpaki sawing loot. Periodically show the client a beautiful movie. The customer is satisfied. Thermal footprint in space? And what? Fine. In ZV war in space goes with voice acting. Boom bang babah. Why not be a thermal footprint? There he is!
    Americans ... such Americans.

    And what is strange

    "The US National Missile Defense Agency planned to create a series of transatmospheric interceptors" Multi-Kill Vehicle "(MKV), launched by one carrier, back in 2004, but they decided to suspend the project in 2009 due to incredible complexity solutions"

    But no. This is our rake. How many times we want to step on them, so many times we will attack.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 28 November 2015 16: 05 New
      0
      Quote: sergo1914
      EKV searches for targets by thermal footprintcalculates the trajectory with its own calculator and corrects the flight with jet engines. He goes on target accurate to a few millimeters and strikes with a kinetic blow

      Yeah, it’s so amazing, it’s so amazing that already 2 out of 10, and this is in polygon conditions bully Well, just millimeter accuracy))
      I like to read such articles. They are soothing.

      Similarly hi
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Falcon
      28 November 2015 18: 01 New
      0
      Quote: sergo1914
      . They are soothing. No American Yoda Masters. And without it, such maneuvers are IMPOSSIBLE.


      good Razor on the Raytheon exchange! They don’t even know. Here a secret was revealed, in VO, the secret engineer of the secret design bureau wink

      Why all these engineers, when there are Urya-patriots

      Quote: psiho117
      Yeah, it’s so amazing, so amazing that already 2 from 10


      The latest 2 is already an upgraded version.
      After improvements, the EKV shot down all fired targets
    4. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 29 November 2015 11: 42 New
      0
      If Raytheon "sawed loot", then the results
      tests would be 100%.
      And they do not exceed 30% of hits "killer".
      The tests are real. And so we decided to beat
      three killers one warhead to
      bring efficiency to 100%.

      As was the case with SAM in due time. At first they started 3
      one plane. Then two. Now - 1-2 according to the situation.
    5. mav1971
      mav1971 29 November 2015 16: 26 New
      +1
      Quote: sergo1914
      "delivers the atmospheric interceptor into space. There on hypersonic speed and starts EKV "

      "EKV searches for targets by thermal footprintcalculates the trajectory with its own calculator and corrects the flight with jet engines. He goes on target accurate to a few millimeters and strikes with a kinetic strike "

      I like to read such articles. They are soothing. No American Yoda Masters. And without it, such maneuvers are IMPOSSIBLE. Count, if not laziness, overload. See that supermaterials from the same movie series should also be added to the Jedi.


      Masters are not needed.
      And there are already interceptors.

      https://youtu.be/KBMU6l6GsdM
      2008 year - mind you.
      And no master Yoda.

      https://youtu.be/63gqPvWbkMg
      https://youtu.be/GGvlNufdeL8
      Japanese. and by the way even earlier - 2006 year.
      Also no masters.
  9. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 28 November 2015 13: 48 New
    +7
    Quote: Vladimir
    Things do not stand still, no matter what they say.
    It seems to me that the leadership of the Russian Federation in vain underestimates Washington's obstinacy in missile defense.


    Who says management underestimates?
    All work in sweat, including over our nuclear weapons delivery vehicles. People from related developments are constantly invited to move on to the topic. Twice a year.

    This is a top priority. Another thing is that by improving offensive weapons we cannot completely fend off the effect of their defensive component. But all efforts are thrown at it.

    In order to brake, all forces are also included, including diplomatic incl. at the highest level, including support for movements against the deployment of a 3rd position area, etc.. A fight is going on at every village near which the United States wants to deploy missile defense components. Putin's question is constantly on the agenda. He is just very concerned about the creation of each position area and each missile defense component.
    Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine ... come and go, and this topic is 40 years on the agenda of relations. Remember the howl at the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty ("the volleys of thousands of guns (political and propaganda) merged into a long howl").

    Unfortunately, we have no opportunity to keep up. First of all, the potential in basic research is small. Yes, and very expensive. But the resources allocated to the S-500, T-50, Almaty, surface fleet, etc. are crumbs in comparison with what works for the "nuclear missile shield." By the way, even in the Yeltsin era, when oil cost $ 10 (rather than 40-50 as it is now) and everyone was on a starvation ration, funding for these topics continued in full. But this is a topic where you can move only on a wide front (fundamental, applied, branch science, designers, technologies, materials ....). Fundamental science, for example, has been lost (abstractions thought), but it turns out that without it, it is impossible to go forward without crawling.

    How much all the time funds were allocated for underwater deployment? This is the most expensive part of the triad. It would seem that in the difficult 90s it would be possible to close.

    But the fact is that armaments are developing, and even more so are being developed taking into account promising threats. If your ground forces are multiplied by 0, well, or it’s 0,1 and you have a failure with others, then it will take 10-20 years to build things up. But they may not be given to you.
    By the way, the topic of the article is also relevant because, unlike the current positional (patchwork) missile defense, it is more global and multiplies by the coefficients below 1 the whole triad and not just ground forces.

    Therefore, and because of a number of other programs, now our concern regarding the preservation of the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence forces is especially high. Well, partly because it is already difficult for us to repulse conventional weapons even to such countries as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

    For those who were in a tank or in the womb of the USSR, I remind you that US star wars contributed to the collapse of the USSR. And by the way, about X-ray lasers (from SOI), the US has not forgotten the work is going on.

    What do you think the leaders of the USSR and Russia shout for 40 years about not placing weapons in space?
    From pacifist beliefs? Why, then, do convictions do not interfere with the need to fight in Afghanistan, Syria ... Why didn’t we agree to the reduction of strategic offensive arms proposed by the USA?

    I am sure that our leaders would exchange both Syria and Ukraine for reliable missile defense guarantees. But the "peace partners" do not change strategy for tactics. And there are no “reliable” guarantees.

    The USSR was also forced to spend a lot of money on an "asymmetric response." The leadership of the USSR raised a question about this from the UN to the military industrial commission to specific research institutes and factories. Gorbachev came and rushed once a quarter. But even the USSR could not stand the race.

    PS And the racket in the photo by the way is not from the A-135 but from the A-35.
    1. Former battalion commander
      Former battalion commander 29 November 2015 22: 34 New
      +3
      How much all the time funds were allocated for underwater deployment?
      By the way, even in the Yeltsin era, when oil cost $ 10 (rather than 40-50 as it is now) and everyone was on a starvation ration, funding for these topics continued in full.

      Dear, you probably are confusing something about the "Yeltsin times."
      But was it then that the SUBMARINE submarine fleet of the USSR was FULLY CUT TO ALMOST? But weren’t mobile railway complexes destroyed then? But was it not then that MASS missile launchers along with the Voivode missiles were mass destroyed? I advise you to REMOVE PINK GLASSES at least a little and look at the previous and CURRENT leadership of the Russian Federation more objectively ... But the point is that now the Russian Federation and those who "joined them" are in an EMBLEM from the time of the Tatar yoke DANGER OF DISAPPEARANCE ... Thanks to the gullible, stupid , a thieving and lazy leadership ... I can be banned for such epithets here, but let him who has eyes see:
      1. How can the country's leader call the PRIMINENT enemy a friend and almost a brother. (Then this brother knocks down planes).
      2. How can ALL HUMAN MONEY be stored in enemy papers, while their industrialists are forced to take THESE MONEY FOR LOAN from the enemy?
      3. How can UNLIMITED INFORMATION resources of a country be pumped UNLIMITEDLY almost for free to the west (gas, oil, etc.) while more than half of their (?) People do not even dream of using these resources in the long term?
      4. How can you CONTINUE DESTROYING your (?) Agriculture despite the fact that up to 40% of the food the country purchases from potential enemies?
      5. How can one finance potential and real enemies of the country by purchasing from them all trifles at the same time, the PUS of their producers is the same?
      And there are HUGE NUMBER of such questions to the CURRENT leadership of the country ... And only a fool and a blind man can not see the REAL actions of the authorities ... Unfortunately, you can say that you fall into this category ...
  10. sergo1914
    sergo1914 28 November 2015 14: 22 New
    -1
    Quote: Abrekkos
    The USSR was also forced to spend a lot of money on an "asymmetric response."


    Cheap it, the "asymmetric answer." Cheap and efficient. Because "ASYMMETRIC".
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 29 November 2015 16: 35 New
      0
      Quote: sergo1914
      Quote: Abrekkos
      The USSR was also forced to spend a lot of money on an "asymmetric response."


      Cheap it, the "asymmetric answer." Cheap and efficient. Because "ASYMMETRIC".


      All asymmetry does not mean "cut", but full 100% "grabbing"?


      I don’t quite understand the term "asymmetric answer".
      What could be an asymmetric response to a global nuclear strike?
  11. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 28 November 2015 14: 24 New
    +2
    Quote: 528Obrp
    Intercepting a ballistic target and maneuvering are fundamentally different things. If the meeting point of the ballistic target and the projectile can even be calculated by a student on a calculator, then it is impossible to calculate the maneuvering one. And the overload experienced by the interceptor when hovering over a maneuvering target is many times greater, the interceptor will simply fall apart. So the future is with maneuvering warheads.


    Respected. Do you even remotely imagine the flight conditions of a warhead? Imagine maneuvering capabilities? Limitations of modern materials, technologies? How does this affect her speed? At the time of stay in the missile defense area? The probability of hitting a target, even without counteracting anti-missile defense? At a cost?

    So actually "it was smooth on paper ..." On newsprint. In fact, there are problems on our side of their existing "shield missile defense" sea.

    And in the newspapers, writing and evaluating the prospects of top secret developments is easy only for those who know absolutely nothing about this and understand nothing about it. All this is 50% misinformation, 30% speculation and only 20% related to reality. Like any advertisement of top secret developments. Actually, we know almost nothing about them.

    So you also consider these facts.
    1. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem 28 November 2015 18: 23 New
      +1
      Therefore, dear, let's not break the virtual spears ..) We are all here "couch eHsperts" .. and even spiritperts ..)
  12. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 28 November 2015 14: 56 New
    0
    Quote: Alexanast
    I remember when I was still in school, I watched on TV all the same cartoon showing how famously Amer’s missile defense destroys ALL of our warheads from space. Humpbacked then a very small crap crap and ... destroyed the USSR. Although then many of our competent scientists proved to him that at this stage of the development of science and technology in the WORLD it was nothing more than PR Reagan. Of course, time goes ahead, technology is developing, and the arms race can have both positive aspects (the development of the defense industry and science in general) and negative ones (Brokeback). The most important thing is how to perceive it.


    Dear of course, you are right in something.
    But keep in mind other facts.

    As a person who did not study at school then graduated, I will tell you a specialized university. Humpback is not due to star wars crap. No one has built up opposition to this system. Even the sketches weren’t the only scientific study in the field. The hunchbacks have grown due to the fact that the United States successfully developed, tested in the 90s, for the sake of which it withdrew from the ABM Treaty and because the United States is still successfully implementing it. And because of what we are worried about right now.

    And if then Humpbacked didn’t “shit”, then their missile defense would have been 10 times bigger and we would have been sitting with a bare ass (with striking forces incapable of delivering a strike). All that we oppose missile defense now and that we will oppose the next 10-15 years exists precisely thanks to the Gorbachev period. Russia wouldn’t be able to raise such a thing. And the USSR, with an “asymmetric response” on the one hand, prevented the deployment of a number of missile defense components and created means of effectively counteracting the other.

    Of course there was another option. Dramatically close the military-industrial complex, leave only basic research (which is not so expensive), build up economic power, and then return to the topic with other possibilities. But this is not a fact that they would increase. Yes, and not the fact that they would give back to the topic.
    Here China went this way, but it went in the shadow of the USSR and not being the USSR.

    And the existing missile defense system has already tied our hands.
    The threat of not massive use by us of nuclear weapons against countries that generally support the United States has technically ceased to exist.

    For some reason, figures such as Erdogan are impudent.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 29 November 2015 01: 42 New
      +1
      Quote: Abrekkos
      And the existing missile defense system has already tied our hands.
      Sprinkle ash over your head and intimidate the ignorant! The Amsk missile defense system is a serious but not surmountable problem for our ICBMs.
      According to data provided by the Director of the United States Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Henry Obering, the United States missile defense system at the time of withdrawal from the Treaty already included facilities located in North America, Western Europe and the Far East:
      • 4 early warning radars: Cobra Dane (Shemiah Island, Aleutian Islands); Beale (California); Fylingdales (UK); Thule (Greenland, Denmark);
      • Sea-based radar SBX, deployed in the Pacific Ocean in the Alaska region;
      • FBX-T advanced radar station on Honshu Island (Japan);
      • 16 ground-based missiles, of which 13 - at Fort Greeley (Alaska) and 2 - at Vandenberg Air Force Base (California);
      • 16 cruisers and destroyers of the Aegis system, equipped with a total of 18 SM-3 missiles and deployed in the Pacific Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea;
      • missile defense systems Patriot (PAC-3).
      By the end of 2011, the US Navy had a total of 24 cruisers and destroyers equipped with Aegis MBIUS. The total number of SM-3 interceptor missiles in the US Navy was 111 units. But already in 2015 - 436, and by 2020 515 units are planned. Powerful. But here's the bad luck:
      Michael Gilmore, director of the Operational Testing and Evaluation Department, at a hearing in the Senate Armed Forces Committee, explicitly told senators that “If we are not able to separate false and real goals from each other, it does not matter how many missiles are in our arsenals.”
      “In this case, we will simply not be able to hit the targets that we must destroy,” the director stated. About the problem of separation of true and false goals.
      The SNB specialized group issued a report entitled “Scientific and technological problems of ensuring effective early interception of targets by missile defense systems”, which indicated that if the Defense Ministry did not find ways to overcome this deficiency of the missile defense system and would shoot at false targets, then it would waste all missile interceptors . http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2014-08-22/1_pro.html

      U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that in 2017, the United States will deploy another 14 ground-based interceptor missiles at Fort Greeley (Alaska) in addition to the 26 mine-based missiles already on alert.
      Currently, it is planned to continue the deployment of the US NMD system. Further plans for the period until 2025:
      • Creation of the third missile defense area of ​​the continental US covering the industrial centers of the Atlantic coast;
      • Bringing the total number of GBMD anti-missile systems in the US to 56 (28 in Alaska, 14 in California and 14 on the Atlantic coast); in the future, up to 100 missiles.
      • Deployment of stationary versions of the Aegis missile defense system SM-3 in Europe to cover the territory of the US European allies.
      • Increasing the number of ships with an anti-ballistic version of the Aegis system to 32 units.
      • Integration of the Aegis-based missile defense system in the Japanese Navy.
      • Development of promising aviation-based weapons.
      Now also the space echelon is being added.
      That is what our President is against. For such an "abundance" can turn the * unstable * head of the "Exceptional" and move it to the fateful line of drawing on us Moscow State University. At the same time, they are unlikely to be told the truth: to guarantee the interception of the Bulava / Yars, 5-7 a / missiles are needed. And this is in the absence of fire resistance to missile defense carriers, the dubious possibility of recognizing BB and LC.
      Here is such a "oil painting" looms today.
      1. Abrekkos
        Abrekkos 29 November 2015 02: 29 New
        +1
        You apparently did not read or understand what I wrote. Maybe I did not clearly express my thought.
        I wrote the following verbatim:
        "And the existing missile defense system has already tied our hands. The threat of not using massive nuclear weapons against countries that we generally support the USA has technically ceased to exist. For some reason, figures like Erdogan are impudent."

        I talked about "not a massive application." Everything that you wrote makes any sense only in the case of massive use.

        I will explain with an example.
        Ship-based interceptor missiles are now pulled up to Turkey.
        This means that it is impossible for us to deliver one or two single nuclear weapons stopping strikes (like the United States to Japan). They will probably be reflected by the US missile defense and everything will turn out to be a defeat for us.

        Those. to show strength does not work out and to set up the whole world against yourself is easy.
        A massive blow means huge sacrifices, the risk of a retaliatory strike by NATO by mistake and the start of a big war. This means a war with the whole world is cold and maybe hot.

        In this sense, and in such circumstances, the American missile defense system has already multiplied the effectiveness of the presence of nuclear weapons by almost 0.

        Meanwhile, such a scenario is the only likely scenario for the use of nuclear weapons. But it was just him who deprived us.

        This is precisely what annoys our leadership in the missile defense system. It reduces our weight in the world as a nuclear power. You can no longer be afraid of us.

        Therefore, figures like Erdogan consider a nuclear response impossible. Those. for him, from a practical point of view, we are, as it were, not a nuclear power. If he even had a low probability of allowing such an answer, he would not have behaved so brazenly.
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 29 November 2015 12: 32 New
          +2
          Hello, hello
          I am lucky for opponents who have their own position and defend it. Let's see what I disagree with.
          Quote: Abrekkos
          I talked about "not a massive application."
          This US Doctrine allows limited use of nuclear weapons. But we believe that any use of nuclear weapons will immediately develop into a full-scale nuclear war.
          W-2's, we have never threatened other countries with the use of preventive nuclear weapons. And against nuclear-free (I myself do not have and do not place foreign) - its use.
          B-3's, our defense doctrine speaks of a retaliatory, or a retaliatory strike. New - the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, as a lotion from the creeping annexation of the USA / NATO using the WTO and conventional weapons.
          Quote: Abrekkos
          Ship-based interceptor missiles are now pulled up to Turkey. It means that it’s impossible for us to apply one or two single nuclear strike stop

          Smiled! If you are a military, then apparently a tactical level; If spar - I will try to explain on the fingers.
          "Single" nuclear weapons can be used not only for ICBMs / ballistic missiles, but also for aviation, and missile defense, and even carrier pr.1164. And what will “catch” Aegis? But it will only use nuclear weapons without providing electronic warfare, force impact on the air defense / missile defense system. And what it will be - don’t hesitate, for it has already come to a hot and a couple of sunken ships - nothing compared to a nuclear strike on the territory of a NATO member.
          And then, do not tell me why the Yankees hysterically so loud when they tested the Rubezh in Ashuluk? Everyone shouted about Russia's withdrawal from the INF Treaty, but forgot about Iskander with their K-500?
          (to be continued)
        2. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 29 November 2015 12: 39 New
          +2
          Quote: Abrekkos
          and maybe hot. = continued =

          So, if desired, everything will be in accordance with the plans for use, and do not even doubt it!
          Quote: Abrekkos
          In this sense and in such circumstances, the effectiveness of our nuclear weapons the American missile defense system has already multiplied by almost 0.

          This is a bold statement, contrary to the statements of Shoigu, Rogozin, Lavrov and Putin; statements by Solomon.
          But for some reason it seems to me that they have a higher level of awareness and competence in this matter than their Apricot counterparts!
          Quote: Abrekkos
          Meanwhile, such a scenario is the only likely scenario for the use of nuclear weapons. But it was just him who deprived us.
          I am glad that I finally met a colleague on the site planning the use of nuclear weapons! It touches me how easy you feel about nuclear planning! But most importantly, you know the Strategic Nuclear Forces Application Plans! You are not a "shypien" by chance? because in the GOU General Staff of the Armed Forces, you, sorry, did not see you.
          Second.Who, and what deprived us? Or do you seriously believe (from the suggestion * an action bum * you must assume!) That Russia is an aggressor, sleeping and seeing who would be punished with a nuclear club. Yes, there are now no grounds for using nuclear weapons in Turkey.
          Quote: Abrekkos
          This is precisely what annoys our leadership in the missile defense system. It reduces our weight in the world as a nuclear power. You can no longer be afraid of us.
          What our military-political leadership fears, I wrote in a previous comment. I do not think it necessary to repeat.
          Our weight as a nuclear power, the States are trying to reduce, proposing to reduce the number of carriers from 1500 units to 700. For they believe that such an amount of ICBMs will be able to neutralize by 2030. I think they will not succeed.
          It is us who are afraidas the only country capable of drawing a line under their existence. Well, the rest (according to your logic), of course, are not afraid of us! Therefore, apparently, Erdogan immediately ran to NATO for protection.

          Alexander, I expressed my point of view. You undoubtedly have a right to yours. The difference in them is obvious.
          But, in any case, your koment is interesting and informative on the merits of the issue. Thank. hi
  13. Ribald
    Ribald 28 November 2015 15: 10 New
    -1
    Cool way to cut. "Sorry" will not live up to real results.
  14. IAlex
    IAlex 28 November 2015 15: 14 New
    +1
    Well, well done, that they are developing, it’s really shitty that they are climbing to us with their imperialism and, as a result, they will be hit by us after development.

    Our missiles can’t be brought to the S-500 and S-1000 for years already, especially since they can only intercept medium-range ICBMs with striking elements without confirmation of destruction, which is the most bummer in contrast to American kinetic missiles. T.ch. while sadness ...

    And A-135 slag which, after the explosion, blinds itself, stepping on the same rake as Zeus ...
  15. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 28 November 2015 15: 17 New
    +1
    Quote: sergo1914
    Quote: Abrekkos
    The USSR was also forced to spend a lot of money on an "asymmetric response."


    Cheap it, the "asymmetric answer." Cheap and efficient. Because "ASYMMETRIC".


    Thank you for enlightening.
    1. atalef
      atalef 28 November 2015 15: 23 New
      +2
      Quote: Abrekkos
      Quote: sergo1914
      Quote: Abrekkos
      The USSR was also forced to spend a lot of money on an "asymmetric response."


      Cheap it, the "asymmetric answer." Cheap and efficient. Because "ASYMMETRIC".


      Thank you for enlightening.

      well asymmetric. as an option, it may be - yet more expensive and not effective. wassat
  16. SIMM
    SIMM 28 November 2015 15: 37 New
    -4
    Oh, I beg you ...
    I saw such pictures in 80 in "Crocodile", but this work was called not PRO, but SOI.
    These clowns will not do anything, they can do it more precisely, but as always, their "5 generation plywood" is worse than our generation before last, but also costs a billion ...)))
    Let them get involved, it’s profitable for us! We will tear them “economically” by drawing them into an arms race, and we will answer in our own way - asymmetrically ...)))
    1. Falcon
      28 November 2015 18: 09 New
      +2
      Quote: SIMM
      Oh, I beg you ...
      I saw such pictures in 80 in "Crocodile", but this work was called not PRO, but SOI.
      These clowns will not do anything, they can do it more precisely, but as always, their "5 generation plywood" is worse than our generation before last, but also costs a billion ...)))
      Let them get involved, it’s profitable for us! We will tear them “economically” by drawing them into an arms race, and we will answer in our own way - asymmetrically ...)))


      Try not to look at pictures, but read text wink Sometimes it helps, but not for everyone.
  17. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 28 November 2015 15: 50 New
    +1
    Quote: Nirag013
    Pay attention - some “prodigy” is still being designed or even being considered among amers, and they are already “ringing” about this all over the world and beautiful pictures are being laid out. And in Russia they quietly do business, and then it suddenly turns out that ... Well, for example, there is a “Caliber” or something else. So I am sure that all these toys are carefully reviewed, evaluated and response measures are being developed. Or maybe already.


    Pay attention to the fact that often "they are calling the whole world" about one thing and then they suddenly experience and put into service a completely different but solving the same tasks.
    Yes, and from the fact that “I heard a ringing without knowing where he is”, you will not agree much sense in military affairs and long-term planning.
  18. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 28 November 2015 16: 03 New
    +3
    Quote: wicked partisan
    Well, let’s suppose they always had good pictures.


    Yes, I even remember how we have mock-ups of one and the same product (the coming thunderstorm of adversaries) on the table at the Civil Code and then were replaced in all shop windows. and now we are replacing. Fantasy (albeit scientifically based) is one thing and the real thing is not another at all. Even in general appearance.

    And the F-35 is a formidable car. In a real war, if I put something on the current Su-35 against the F-35, it is only for patriotic reasons, and then only with a bet ratio of 1: 5 is not in Su's favor.

    You can be patriots, but you can not be stupid patritoms.
    And stupid patriots do more harm than any liberals, cosmopolitans and traitors.

    In military affairs, the worst thing you can do is underestimate the enemy by overestimating yourself. always the opposite.
    1. Bayonet
      Bayonet 29 November 2015 05: 11 New
      +1
      Quote: Abrekkos
      In military affairs, the worst thing you can do is underestimate the enemy by overestimating yourself. always the opposite.

      Just nothing to add! good hi ?
  19. sergo1914
    sergo1914 28 November 2015 16: 31 New
    0
    Quote: atalef
    Quote: Abrekkos
    Quote: sergo1914
    Quote: Abrekkos
    The USSR was also forced to spend a lot of money on an "asymmetric response."


    Cheap it, the "asymmetric answer." Cheap and efficient. Because "ASYMMETRIC".


    Thank you for enlightening.

    well asymmetric. as an option, it may be - yet more expensive and not effective. wassat


    Can. But this is not our method.
  20. sergo1914
    sergo1914 28 November 2015 16: 47 New
    -3
    Quote: Abrekkos
    Quote: 528Obrp
    Intercepting a ballistic target and maneuvering are fundamentally different things. If the meeting point of the ballistic target and the projectile can even be calculated by a student on a calculator, then it is impossible to calculate the maneuvering one. And the overload experienced by the interceptor when hovering over a maneuvering target is many times greater, the interceptor will simply fall apart. So the future is with maneuvering warheads.


    Respected. Do you even remotely imagine the flight conditions of a warhead? Imagine maneuvering capabilities? Limitations of modern materials, technologies? How does this affect her speed? At the time of stay in the missile defense area? The probability of hitting a target, even without counteracting anti-missile defense? At a cost?


    We do not represent. We know. Therefore, we do not understand this "Crying Yaroslavna"
    Why are you making this nonsense?


    Quote: Abrekkos
    And by the way, about X-ray lasers (from SOI), the US has not forgotten the work is going on.



    The same shnyaga. But in advertising materials - beautifully. Pentagon creators devour two throats. You still do not mention lightsabers. Secret?

    Well, to distract


    Quote: Abrekkos
    As a person who then did not study at school he graduated


    Strange phrase. Both in construction and in meaning.
  21. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 28 November 2015 17: 09 New
    +3
    Quote: sergo1914
    We do not represent. We know. Therefore, we do not understand this "Crying Yaroslavna"
    Why are you making this nonsense?


    If it’s not a problem for you, but nonsense, and if it’s just then you don’t know anything about it. And you don’t know anything about our achievements. Such is my humble opinion. You have the right to have and express your opinion.


    Quote: sergo1914
    Quote: Abrekkos
    And by the way, about X-ray lasers (from SOI), the US has not forgotten the work is going on.

    The same shnyaga. But in advertising materials - beautifully. Pentagon creators devour two throats. You still do not mention lightsabers. Secret?
    Well, to distract


    Then you misunderstood. I meant that even such seemingly crazy ideas are actually not so crazy.


    Quote: sergo1914
    Quote: Abrekkos
    As a person who then did not study at school he graduated

    Strange phrase. Both in construction and in meaning.


    A typo letter didn’t get there. I write very fast. I apologize for my carelessness.

    And so everyone understands to the extent of their depravity. And perverts to the extent of their perversity.
    That the whole phrase is not quoted?

    PS Educated or at least educated people usually express their opinions and correct other people's mistakes in the correct form and, by the way, also speak on the subject.
  22. fa2998
    fa2998 28 November 2015 20: 01 New
    0
    Quote: SveTok
    Another bluff for money laundering.

    I want to say something else: I’ll put a warhead instead of a space interceptor. Based on high speed, such a missile will fly more than a thousand until it hits the ground. And as you know, there is an agreement on the refusal to develop ground-based medium-range ballistic missiles (from 500 to 5500 km.). There is a violation of the contract. hi
  23. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 28 November 2015 20: 42 New
    +1
    Quote: Razvedka_Boem
    Therefore, dear, let's not break the virtual spears ..) We are all here "couch eHsperts" .. and even spiritperts ..)


    I accept your remark.

    I agree. Sprayed was wrong. I will try to be restrained.
  24. kuz363
    kuz363 28 November 2015 21: 40 New
    +1
    I read your crap. And I realized that the matter is seams. Sakharov was probably right when he proposed laying a thermonuclear mine off the US coast and detonating it at the right moment in the ocean. Then nothing needs to fly. And there’s nothing to bring down either. Or use missiles with a range of 5000 km, which are launched from the TU-160. They do not go into space. You just need to increase the range to 10000 km. And so that you can let off the land, ships and submarines. And from underwater containers, which in peacetime lie quietly at the bottom of the seas and oceans. Then their missile defense from space will not hit atmospheric targets. Because now you have to take into account the parameters of air, cloudiness, wind and so on, which is not in space. And all their programs and tests can be thrown away. True, they can then come up with missiles for low altitude targets.
  25. Old26
    Old26 28 November 2015 22: 13 New
    +2
    Quote: yuriy55
    Yes, like most patriots, I am glad that our missiles are too tough for the American Patriots, which the owner-owners are trying to "breathe in" ("steal") gullible customers, like a panacea for a Russian missile strike. This is exactly what I saw in the article: Poland refused the USA http://www.warfiles.ru/show-101279-polsha-otkazala-ssha.htmlI made a link to this article.


    In fact, Poland does not buy Patriots to build a missile defense system. Exclusively to modernize the air defense system. The Poles inherited from the Polish People's Republic: 64 "OSA-AK", 17 S-125 divisions and one separate S-200 division. The latter are brought into the brigade. That is, Poland practically has no air defense, which it is trying to make up for by purchasing the Patriot systems from the Americans

    Quote: Abrekkos
    And by the way, about X-ray lasers (from SOI), the US has not forgotten the work is going on.

    As far as I remember, in the late 80s they tested the Escalibur at a Nevada training ground. And successfully.

    Quote: IAlex
    moreover, they can intercept only medium-range ICBMs with striking elements without confirmation of destruction, which is the most bummer in contrast to American kinetic missiles. T.ch. while sadness ...

    Respected IAlex. Do not count as nitpicking, but your phrase
    can intercept Medium-range ICBMs
    caused a smile. ICBMs are never medium range . Like the ballistic missile systems are never ICBMs fellow

    Quote: fa2998
    I want to say something else, if I put a warhead instead of a space interceptor

    The mass of the interceptor on the American "Standards" is about 30-50 kg. What kind of warhead will you put there. After all, you will need to do a lot with this warhead. Replace the control system, put thermal protection on this BG. And the ranges of these interceptors are not such as to use them as a ballistic missile system. More dangerous are completely different missiles. And the talk that they will intercept our ICBMs with their Standards or that there will be medium-range missiles instead of anti-missiles - this is for internal use, a way to support the image of the enemy in their people
  26. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 28 November 2015 23: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: Old26
    Quote: Abrekkos And by the way, about X-ray lasers (from SOI) the USA did not forget the work is going on.

    As far as I remember, in the late 80s they tested the Escalibur at a Nevada training ground. And successfully.


    Yes, you are right, they conducted several tests of different lasers with different types of pumping.
    But they were not entirely successful. The physical principles of pumping were confirmed; the system worked but it was not possible to achieve the desired focus level. Because of this, they did not even sign a test ban treaty in all environments and did not support the moratorium.

    Then, due to unexpectedly great successes in other areas, the topic was frozen. And in connection with the collapse of the USSR, the need for a layered missile defense system has disappeared.

    But the main question is whether they were able to construct a stable mathematical model of process physics from the data collected so far. PSU did not give an answer to this question. There is reason to believe that yes.
    If you could tady oh. If not, it’s good.
  27. guzik007
    guzik007 29 November 2015 09: 41 New
    +1
    Oh, how many Anik warriors are among us! bomb-blow-yellowstone ... Or maybe a bad world is better than a good quarrel, can it be negotiated? From the position of a strong state, having something in reserve, but to agree? All and sundry kick the "dead lion" in the person of Brezhnev. L. I. But it was he who gave our country more than 40 years of respite. He knew how to negotiate ...
  28. The comment was deleted.
  29. Old26
    Old26 29 November 2015 10: 34 New
    0
    But they were not entirely successful. The physical principles of pumping were confirmed; the system worked but it was not possible to achieve the desired focus level.

    The fact that physical principles are confirmed is undoubted success. The focus problem has not been resolved, not because it has no solution, but because while Americans don’t need it
  30. Old26
    Old26 29 November 2015 10: 36 New
    +1
    Quote: kuz363
    I read your crap. And I realized that the matter is seams. Sakharov was probably right when he proposed laying a thermonuclear mine off the US coast and detonating it at the right moment in the ocean. Then nothing needs to fly. And there’s nothing to bring down either. Or use missiles with a range of 5000 km, which are launched from the TU-160. They do not go into space. You just need to increase the range to 10000 km. And so that you can let off the land, ships and submarines. And from underwater containers, which in peacetime lie quietly at the bottom of the seas and oceans. Then their missile defense from space will not hit atmospheric targets. Because now you have to take into account the parameters of air, cloudiness, wind and so on, which is not in space. And all their programs and tests can be thrown away. True, they can then come up with missiles for low altitude targets.


    This is not a crap, dear namesake. It may be somewhat messy written, but not crap. It can be related to the American missile defense system in different ways, but you should not underestimate their development.

    It is clear that the topic is very burning, everyone perceives it in their own way. some believe that Euro-missile defense is directed exclusively against us (I am not one of them), others give it the ability to wave our hands at becoming a strike system. Nevertheless, there is a problem.

    As it was, the problem of target selection, energy interceptors and many others remains.

    The matter is by no means a seam. But some emphasis has already shifted. Human comrade Abrekkossaying that unmassaged the strike may not even succeed (though with certain types of missiles)

    Stupidly repeat fake about thermonuclear mines laid off the US coast. Surely something, but as far as is known, Sakharov did not propose this. T-15 nuclear torpedo strike - yes, it was, offered.
    But to offer mining of the bottom (fault), all the more in advance, knowing full well (being the "father" of a thermonuclear bomb) how long it takes to carry out routine maintenance with charges so that they remain operational - he simply could not. And by no means by virtue of "humanity."

    Besides only very narrow-minded people (do not take it personally) may think that "channel named after Stalin" will arise, and the USSR / Russia will remain unharmed. It will not remain, as in the version with the volcano ...

    You can certainly use missiles launched from a bomber, but the aviation component of the triad has always been (since the 60s) exclusively auxiliary, suitable only to “clear” the enemy’s territory.

    Agree that by releasing Subsonic cruise missile as a weapon of the first strike, firing it from the maximum range, we give him as much SEVEN HOURS OF TIME. And this with a range of 5000 km, at 10000 km you give a response more than half a day

    Underwater containers that lie on the ocean floor in peacetime are as fake as mining the bottom off the coast of the United States.
    In-1 because they were banned 35 years ago
    In-2 because work on them was discontinued by the mid-70s
    in-3 because all the developments that were were habitable. and not only had restrictions on the time spent at sea (autonomy up to 60 days with a crew of 24-64 people), but also restrictions on the time of continuous stay under water.
    There was also a number of parameters that put an end to such developments
  31. Old26
    Old26 29 November 2015 10: 36 New
    0
    Quote: kuz363
    I read your crap. And I realized that the matter is seams. Sakharov was probably right when he proposed laying a thermonuclear mine off the US coast and detonating it at the right moment in the ocean. Then nothing needs to fly. And there’s nothing to bring down either. Or use missiles with a range of 5000 km, which are launched from the TU-160. They do not go into space. You just need to increase the range to 10000 km. And so that you can let off the land, ships and submarines. And from underwater containers, which in peacetime lie quietly at the bottom of the seas and oceans. Then their missile defense from space will not hit atmospheric targets. Because now you have to take into account the parameters of air, cloudiness, wind and so on, which is not in space. And all their programs and tests can be thrown away. True, they can then come up with missiles for low altitude targets.


    This is not a crap, dear namesake. It may be somewhat messy written, but not crap. It can be related to the American missile defense system in different ways, but you should not underestimate their development.

    It is clear that the topic is very burning, everyone perceives it in their own way. some believe that Euro-missile defense is directed exclusively against us (I am not one of them), others give it the ability to wave our hands at becoming a strike system. Nevertheless, there is a problem.

    As it was, the problem of target selection, energy interceptors and many others remains.

    The matter is by no means a seam. But some emphasis has already shifted. Human comrade Abrekkossaying that unmassaged the strike may not even succeed (though with certain types of missiles)

    Stupidly repeat fake about thermonuclear mines laid off the US coast. Surely something, but as far as is known, Sakharov did not propose this. T-15 nuclear torpedo strike - yes, it was, offered.
    But to offer mining of the bottom (fault), all the more in advance, knowing full well (being the "father" of a thermonuclear bomb) how long it takes to carry out routine maintenance with charges so that they remain operational - he simply could not. And by no means by virtue of "humanity."

    Besides only very narrow-minded people (do not take it personally) may think that "channel named after Stalin" will arise, and the USSR / Russia will remain unharmed. It will not remain, as in the version with the volcano ...

    You can certainly use missiles launched from a bomber, but the aviation component of the triad has always been (since the 60s) exclusively auxiliary, suitable only to “clear” the enemy’s territory.

    Agree that by releasing Subsonic cruise missile as a weapon of the first strike, firing it from the maximum range, we give him as much SEVEN HOURS OF TIME. And this with a range of 5000 km, at 10000 km you give a response more than half a day

    Underwater containers that lie on the ocean floor in peacetime are as fake as mining the bottom off the coast of the United States.
    In-1 because they were banned 35 years ago
    In-2 because work on them was discontinued by the mid-70s
    in-3 because all the developments that were were habitable. and not only had restrictions on the time spent at sea (autonomy up to 60 days with a crew of 24-64 people), but also restrictions on the time of continuous stay under water.
    There was also a number of parameters that put an end to such developments
  32. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 29 November 2015 12: 06 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    If Raytheon "sawed the loot", then the test results would be 100%.
    And they do not exceed 30% of hits "killer". The tests are real. And so they decided to hit three "killers with one warhead in order to bring efficiency closer to 100%.
    As was the case with SAM in due time. At first they launched 3 on one plane. Then two. Now - 1-2 according to the situation.


    Of course Rayton saws the loot he is a commercial company. His task is to earn. Truths and if not truths.

    But the test you are not quite right. They achieved a high percentage of defeat of purely ballistic targets in the mid-2000s. On this test with ballistic objectives completed.

    Further, all tests were conducted on "difficult" goals. The goals reproducing the behavior of our separable warheads and reproducing the possible maneuvers of promising systems. Here the likelihood of defeat seemed to fall again, although in fact it is growing.

    Hence the %% you quoted
    So the wording does not exceed is not entirely accurate.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 29 November 2015 12: 19 New
      0
      "Of course, Rayton is cutting loot" ///

      Then I do not understand the Russian term "loot cuts".
      In my understanding, this is: "to take money from the state budget and
      and not give a quality product in return. "

      But Rayton gives a quality product to his country!
      “Killer” hits. Not completely, but they do not hide it.
      Where is the dough cut here?
      1. vadimtt
        vadimtt 30 November 2015 13: 27 New
        0
        Well, I mean the old American saying that a hammer alone can cost $ 1000 in the army. And yes, it clogs nails, of course :)
  33. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 29 November 2015 15: 20 New
    0
    Quote: BoA KAA
    US doctrine allows the use of nuclear weapons. We believe...


    So the USSR thought, and then for the press. The General Staff was preparing to fulfill any order in any situation. They do not rely on doctrines, but on agreements that are held in balance of power.

    Quote: BoA KAA
    we have never threatened other countries with the use of nuclear weapons.


    Threaten and do not. People themselves behave politely when you have a working machine on your shoulder.

    Quote: BoA KAA
    If you are a military, then apparently a tactical level; "Single" nuclear weapons can be used not only for ICBMs / ballistic missiles, but also for aviation, and missile defense, and even carrier pr.1164. And what will “catch” Aegis? But it will only use nuclear weapons without providing electronic warfare, force impact on the air defense / missile defense system. And what will it be - do not hesitate


    I’m not a military man, but in the general rank, although I did not serve a day in the army. Thank you for your concern and your time, but you should not teach me a profession. A scientist can only be spoiled. wink

    Do you seriously think that there is no air defense in Turkey? There, a layered air defense system has been deployed there for a long time, and judging by the fact that wlink16 is shining, it is an integrated system with Patriot no lower than PAC3. he has no problems with intercepting ours and NATO ships too. The probability of destruction by one missile in a safe zone is not lower than 0,8 in the conditions of counteraction not lower than 0,5. To shoot two three missiles at single targets is not a question.
    And I was talking about not a massive blow. Such a blow is not inflicted by means that can be destroyed even simply by dense barrage fire. Not to mention air defense.

    And do you believe in fairy tales about the miracle of electronic warfare? Especially in this context? In secret I’ll say it's just a kindergarten. Literally. EW in war is a child in the sandbox. Of course, it can throw sand in the eyes, but who will let it go. Scrap can also be used to break the Patriot, but this does not mean that scrap is an anti-aircraft defense weapon.

    And in general, we are talking about nuclear weapons. So let's talk about the systems in service and not about what could happen if the world was different and with a different story.

    Maybe you are a military strategic link. I do not know. But the application scenarios you describe are not related to reality.

    Quote: BoA KAA
    don’t tell me why they hysterically so loud ... "Boundary" ..., Iskander with K-500


    I will not say. This is not part of my professional or personal interests. Maybe they, under this pretext, want to get out of some other agreement? I take into account only our statements and the fact that where not to blurt out.

    But, that this has nothing to do with what I said and the topic is a fact. Iskanders do not carry nuclear weapons. And nothing of the kind is even being developed. Yes, and if it was developed then before the combat use as to Shanghai and crawling. I declare this to you responsibly.
    I do not discuss abstractions of the topic. Because you do not think balabol mine. You also think this is not interesting.

    And what issues can be discussed here? Everything is very superficial and the devil is in the details. as you wrote correctly, expressed your opinion, listened to someone else's. All. We are having fun here and not working.
    That "smiled" is good

    So it already bears us. Like Ostap at the meeting of the Union of the Sword and Screaming
  34. sergo1914
    sergo1914 29 November 2015 17: 16 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    “Killer” hits. Not completely, but they don’t hide it. Where did the dough cut here?


    As already said here, the devil is in the details. Where does it go? How realistic is the polygon target? How reliable are the performance characteristics of a real goal?
    I will give an example. During the installation test at the training ground, the training target maneuvered with overloads TWO times higher than the real prototype. And it turned out after the launch. To the question "What the ... nya?", The military answered - "what do you need ... nya, work." But this is with us (USSR)
    Moreover, people from the goal development department (sitting door-to-door) did not even hint.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 29 November 2015 18: 14 New
      0
      You're right. Organize full trials -
      tens of millions of dollars. ICBM target is not worth
      smaller than a real ICBM. Therefore, there are few tests.
      Not enough. But you have to live. It's a shame to get to your capital
      a single nuclear missile from some dictator dork
      and not have an umbrella, albeit not 100%.
      There are few trials - but not only among the Americans. Everyone has. What do you think,
      Did the S-400 shoot at real BR or simulated targets?
      The mace is adopted by 50% of successful launches. etc.
  35. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 29 November 2015 17: 27 New
    0
    Quote: BoA KAA
    everything will be in accordance with the application plans, and do not even doubt it!

    No doubt! Should we be sad?
    "And if suddenly the enemy hardened ...
    He will be beaten everywhere and everywhere ... "
    ... 1940 And beat! The truth was 41 ... and not everywhere. And now the enemy of World War I and World War II has matured.
    I generally believe that Constantinople, the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. A worthy goal.
    But alas ...

    Quote: BoA KAA
    contrary to Shoigu, Rogozin, Lavrov and Putin ...

    I am not a politician and I have little respect for non-professional opinion. Especially politicians on TV for the electorate. And what else can they say to the people? Oh, we can’t ruined everything, but we won’t buy tomatoes and we won’t let you go there ...

    The opinion of the advanced development program and weapons plan is different from the TV version. Identity in the cut.

    So GDP in the 2000s said: we have the means to overcome any missile defense. And in 2015, he says, we create and plan to put into service weapons that overcome ... How is it?
    Why am I doing this? Yes, to the fact that everything is open source.

    Quote: BoA KAA
    Aren't you "shypion"?
    because in the GOU General Staff of the Sun ... did not see
    you think that Russia is an aggressor, sleeps and sees


    Not a spy. Help, form and prescription is available. I am not a member of the General Staff. We are science and industry. But O. Mitrofanov, say hello to me if you meet me - I must remember the klikuha from the academy (the one that looked at the Kremlin).

    And what would the General Staff did not plan. Weapons can only be used if they are and only in accordance with the technical specifications. You can shoot it, the squib will work, the engine will start ... But it will not fly and will not hit.

    If you from the General Staff know that in terms of response, not response, first, not first ... they plan only strategic nuclear forces. And we are talking about something else. But you can keep military secrets. There are cards in safes where to hit without any doctrines ... Although I haven’t seen them. tongue

    He wrote about the rest: just a gun on his shoulder. it is not necessary to threaten and apply.

    Quote: BoA KAA
    States, offering to reduce the number of carriers from 1500 units to 700. ...
    States are afraid of us.


    I wrote about this above.
    But the elephant is afraid of mice. A mouse is not afraid of an elephant. They eat him. I do not want to be like an elephant.

    And so "I recognize Brother Kolya." Massive strikes, tank wedges, a joint operation of all kinds, concentrating on the decisive, entering the flank and rear ... with its subsequent ...
    I understand, well, what is Turkey? So the destruction of the radar and position area. Sliver.
    But it is this sliver in our ass. Neither sit down nor run. And the potential one is sitting and watching how we will pull it out?
    Tomatoes? Or tourists?
    What if both? Here is the fear !!!

    We are talking about not a massive blow. And not about the blow. And about being afraid. They don’t believe in the third world because of the plane or platoon. And Erdogan is not afraid of her. To fight in it is not for him. A must be afraid.

    Quote: BoA KAA
    koment interesting and informative on the merits. thank


    Thank you. But at different echelons.
    You are about the fate of the world, dominance, victory in a vigorous war.

    And I'm on the ground. I'm talking about a splinter and an ass.
  36. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 29 November 2015 17: 47 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    "Of course, Rayton is cutting loot" ///

    Then I do not understand the Russian term "loot cuts".
    In my understanding, this is: "to take money from the state budget and
    and not give a quality product in return. "

    But Rayton gives a quality product to his country!
    “Killer” hits. Not completely, but they do not hide it.
    Where is the dough cut here?


    Oh, you do not understand the mind Dear ...

    Sawing is not a good thing. And about the Soul and about Justice!
    Well, if anyone got rich on what. So he is no longer a good person. But we suffer. We are silent.

    And if he got rich at the state order, he sawed something in his pocket. So who is he but a world-eater? Well this is how you can, it’s loot that folk.

    If he had a barn burned down ... But he would have drunk with grief and drank the house ... he would have been a good person.
    We would have regretted it, settled at home, would have shared the last glass.

    What's not clear? So you overturn the glass. What is the point of sitting. the soul then it will open.
    And mother will get sick for Russia ...
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 29 November 2015 18: 18 New
      0
      Well, if anyone got rich on what. So he is no longer a good person. "///

      And we do not. If someone is rich, then he is a respected intelligent person.
      They treat him well. He pays taxes to the country (both personally and from his firms)
      and creates jobs for people.
  37. Risiana
    Risiana 29 November 2015 20: 54 New
    -1
    They are thinking of creating candy, but it will turn out as always shit!
  38. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 29 November 2015 21: 08 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    If someone is rich, then he is a respected intelligent person.
    They treat him well.


    So I say angry you. wink
  39. Abrekkos
    Abrekkos 29 November 2015 23: 37 New
    +1
    Quote: Former Combat
    Dear, you probably are confusing something about the "Yeltsin times."
    But was it then that the SUBMARINE submarine fleet of the USSR was FULLY CUT TO ALMOST? But weren’t mobile railway complexes destroyed then? But was it not then that MASS missile launchers along with the Voivode missiles were mass destroyed? I advise you to REMOVE PINK GLASSES at least a little


    I am not confusing anything. When oil cost $ 10, the country had no money at all. Inflation was tens of% per year. They cut everything. Mostly under the root.
    But it was precisely at this time that Topol-M was made, all R&D on Yars was carried out, a mace was created, and new missile carriers were brought. Without this, now we simply would have practically no strategic nuclear forces since components from the CIS countries are no longer available. Ukraine introduced an embargo. Almost everything failed and the strategic nuclear forces were already imported. And how do you propose to maintain the combat readiness of all junk. Dates how many do not extend the whole end will be. I don’t see a problem in removing weapons from combat duty whose combat readiness is impossible to maintain and which is outdated by the same BZhRD, submarine missile carriers ... That they were cool in the concepts of the 70-80s, but now it would have to be replaced anyway. ABM can no longer be ignored. And what would it be to us that we would have not 1400 but 2400 nuclear charges? Spend on them twice as much and that's it.

    Yes, a lot was closed, but the development was abandoned, and as soon as the money appeared, it became possible to immediately begin production and OCD. So basically everything was done reasonably based on available funding.
    In other weapons systems, everything was almost destroyed. All that remained was that it had export earnings. Even the air defense still did not really bring the S-400, and this is a development begun in 1988. And it was after Yugoslavia that they woke up.

    I did not wear pink glasses. I remember what happened after 1998. The economy grew by 10% per year, and this is due to devaluation, $ 10-15 for oil, all gold and foreign currency reserves $ 14 billion (not 380 now) the real sector grew. What now? Everything is falling. And then the situation was the same, there were no loans, devaluation, cheap oil, etc. ... Then already 99% of our successes since 2003. determined by the fact that oil cost $ 100-120 and the fact that not all of the real economy was still ruined.

    Let's see what happens if the price of $ 40-45 lasts a couple more years. They’ll cut everything too. I am silent if 10 years. and in the 1990s, $ 10-15 and lasted 10 years.
    All this import substitution, etc., is a purely erected screen ... It’s worth the problem to resolve and everything may again surrender. There is no guarantee that everything will suddenly not return to normal and that means no one will invest and give all the best. And our GDP does not control any of this.
  40. sergo1914
    sergo1914 30 November 2015 08: 53 New
    0
    Quote: voyaka uh
    You're right. Organize full trials -
    tens of millions of dollars. ICBM target is not worth
    smaller than a real ICBM. Therefore, there are few tests.
    Not enough. But you have to live. It's a shame to get to your capital
    a single nuclear missile from some dictator dork
    and not have an umbrella, albeit not 100%.
    There are few trials - but not only among the Americans. Everyone has. What do you think,
    Did the S-400 shoot at real BR or simulated targets?
    The mace is adopted by 50% of successful launches. etc.



    Single can be removed by air defense. In general, a single launch is from the category of science fiction. There is a strategic medium. There is a target with certain characteristics. There is a chance of a single shot loss. There is a guaranteed hit by launching the N-th number of carriers. So musketeer injections are already ruled out. There will be some club, shafting, drin (I do not knowingly use the word "mace"). Well ... no one has canceled our "ours." My opinion is that they cannot stop. Israel is now training on funny Arab homemade products. Maximum - SCAD. But this is a ballistic trajectory. Abandoned Cobblestone. Nevertheless, the quantity always goes into quality. I talked for a long time with Israeli gunsmiths. The topic was true about the long-suffering "Galil", but this was discussed.
  41. sergo1914
    sergo1914 30 November 2015 16: 24 New
    0
    Quote: Abrekkos
    Iskanders do not carry nuclear weapons. And nothing of the kind is even being developed. Yes, and if it was developed then before the combat use as to Shanghai and crawling. This I declare to you responsibly.


    ?? laughing