Military Review

Another successful GBI advanced anti-missile test

118
Another successful GBI advanced anti-missile test

02.02.2016 of the United States Missile Defense Agency announced the successful flight test of a modernized ground-based anti-missile missile, which was carried out without intercepting the training target.

The purpose of launching an anti-missile missile launched by 28 on January 2016 from Vandenberg Air Force Base (California) was to test the performance of the improved interceptor head shock control engines, as well as troubleshoot the 06 detected in the FTG-2014B test in June.

FTG-06b Ballistic Missile Defense Test. The fifth launch of the LV-2 target missile, test FTG-06B 22 June 2014. This was a test of failed test FTG-06A from 2010.


Note: during the test in 23 of June 2014, non-calculated vibrations of the over-atmospheric EKV interceptor were observed during operation of the shunting control unit

US Ballistic Missile Defense System - Target Launch and Interceptor Launch (2010). FTG-06A failed test



During the test, 2016 also monitored the telemetry of the control system of the shock head, which corrects its flight in height and course, leading to the target. The agency MDA notes that the purpose of the test was the correction of long-standing problems with the shock head of the anti-missile.



As part of a test launch from a C-17 military transport aircraft off the shores of the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific, a medium-range ballistic missile was launched, the head part of which was equipped with false targets and means to create interference. After the ground-based and sea-based radars in the Hawaiian Islands recorded a rocket flight, a command was given to launch anti-missiles from a silo launcher at Vandenberg airbase. Separated from the carrier, the over-atmospheric shock apparatus EKV then carried out a series of maneuvers to demonstrate the ability to adjust its flight in height and course in space, choosing the main target for destruction.

According to the US authorities, the missile defense agency spent more than $ 2 billion to fix the problems in the control system of the strike head after it failed to intercept the target in space in 2010.

As a result of numerous improvements during the test 2014, the anti-missile successfully hit the target. MDA is constantly improving both the antimissile, the targeting and targeting systems, and the transatmospheric interceptor.

GBI early anti-missile sample launched from the mine (2000-x start)



Modern version of the GB GB OL. Starting weight of 12000 anti-missile kg, launch cost about $ 70 000 000






Some explanations:

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III - American strategic military transport aircraft used by the US Air Force Test Center for launching imitators of medium-range ballistic missiles:


Launch of LV LV medium range simulator with Boeing C-17 Globemaster


Prototype eMRBM Simulator (LV) of medium range ballistic missiles manufactured by Lockheed Martin:


The technical data is classified, but press releases have reported that it ensures that the target meets ballistic missiles with an 3780 launch range of more than a mile.

Types of launches and tests for ground-based PRO:

Bv - verification test booster (accelerator).
CMCM - tests after making critical changes in the performance characteristics, testing countermeasures.
FTG - flight tests ground interceptor.
FTX - flight tests, other purposes.
IFT - integrated flight tests.

GBI tests performed (up to May 2012):








Successful transatmospheric interception of the target simulator (2014 year):




"Exoatmospheric Killer". The principle of hit-to-kill (some "reflections" on the example of the interception of the Topol ICBM warhead: the pros and cons):


Raytheon’s striking anti-missile module is called the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV). It is known that it has about 140 cm in length and 70 kg of weight, equipped with an engine and guidance system, including an infrared sensor. Destruction of the goal is carried out on the simple principle of hit-to-kill, that is, using the energy of the colliding objects. The task of kinetic interception can be compared with a bullet hit a flying bullet. All the way to the target, the EKV and the accelerating missile receive data from land, sea radars and satellites, which are used to correct the course. The impact force when an EKV hits a target is equivalent to a collision with an 10-ton tractor, which rushes faster than 1000 km / h!

Is it possible to dodge the kinetic impact? The myth that the Topol-M warhead is equipped with engines for maneuver and is able to evade ABM interceptors has infiltrated the media “Russian space”.


The warhead has advanced jamming techniques, false targets and other warhead tricks designed to deceive enemy radars. However, one with the other is incompatible due to the inertia property of the bodies: orbital maneuvers or interference to radar, both will not work together.

If the Topol warhead maneuvers, then it eliminates the missile defense from the problem of self-selection from false targets. CU can only dodge interceptors.

A brief assessment of the prospects of "dodging":


The BB poplar mass is close to 1 t, of which several hundred kg are accounted for by a thermonuclear bomb, a thermally protected and durable body, and also a guidance system. Frequent maneuvers during the flight require several hundred kg of fuel, therefore, the mass of the shunting LRE can be estimated at ~ 100 kg. Or several shunting engines, each ~ 10 kg of weight, which does not change the essence.

Assuming that the ratio of the mass of the engine to the load does not exceed 100, the total thrust during the maneuver is ~ 1 t. Based on such estimates, it could be several tons. In the case of one such LRE, it is obvious that only a small part of the thrust can be directed in the transverse direction, while a few small shunting control systems can only work for transverse thrust.

Thus, it can be said that the monoblock is able to maneuver under the action of shear force in 10 000 N.

Let the lateral acceleration be g. Over 10 seconds, the EKV approaches the target on 100 km. It is obvious that in 10 seconds, the “stationary” maneuver of the EKV will have time to adjust the course and hit the target. Therefore, it is necessary to frequently change the direction of movement of the BB. Presumably the estimated maneuver time should be ~ 1 seconds. Then the transverse displacement of the monoblock will be several meters. Enough to dodge the interceptor. In this case, at a speed of about 7,5 km / s, the angular deviation of the warhead from the desired path will be of the order of 0,001 happy. This is acceptable, bearing in mind the task of destroying a large city. With such a deviation, the miss will be several kilometers, even if the direction of the warhead movement changes several thousand kilometers from the target.

The specific impulse of rocket fuel (UDMG + AT) is assumed to be 3 000 m / s, then 1 a second thrust in 10 000 N will be spent 3,33 kg of fuel. For frequent maneuvers need a substantial supply of fuel.

It can be assumed that the monoblock is able to perform ~ 100 maneuvers - yaws from side to side, each lasting ~ 1 seconds, and still get into the doomed city. Performing such maneuvers continuously or periodically in ~ 1 seconds, he will extremely complicate the task with the EKV aimed at him. During this time ~ 2 000 km will be covered to the target and ~ 300 kg of fuel will be spent. This is a lot.

Conclusion: it is impossible to dodge interceptors on the whole trajectory.

And when do you need to start dodging? When does the CU "know" that it has been attacked by an EKV? Radar on the combat part of the ICBM? Command control from the starting position?

Using radar, the warhead must wait until the distance to the attacking interceptor decreases to ~ 10 km. From this point on, she will have in stock ~ 1 seconds to dodge the blow. The CU turns on the engine at full thrust and makes a jerk with acceleration g in the direction to which its axis is directed. By the time of approach with the interceptor, the engine will work ~ 1 seconds and the warhead will move a few meters, which is quite enough for a miss. In my opinion, this is unrealizable ...



Computer animation of Minuteman-3 flight (due to the lack of a similar for the Topol-M ICBM). On video, the active site appears long, although it is measured in hundreds of kilometers. It can be seen that the warhead rotates before entering the atmosphere in order to enter at the correct angle and not stray from the course under the action of aerodynamic drag.


Probably, on the basis of these estimates, we can assume that the "random yawning of the warhead" algorithm is implemented in our warheads of ICBMs, from a certain height (where interception is possible), which makes it difficult to defeat with a kinetic strike.

On the other hand, if the response time of the EKV to a change in the target's trajectory turns out to be significantly shorter than 1 seconds (which is what the Americans are trying to achieve), in principle, it will not be possible to dodge.


MDA-prediction of the interceptors flight trajectory compared to Russian ICBMs



GBI anti-missiles. Missile defense position area in Alaska:
Transportation by OTH:



Unloading from the conveyor:




GBI in MIC Boeing before sending to the position area:


SBX radar (sea-based, X-band) is the main sensor for tracking ICBMs and interaction in the GBI system. The design is an AFAR with a diameter of 22 meter with 45 056 MRP. Image before mounting on a floating platform):




Over-atmospheric interceptors of the missile defense system:



Video of the first ground tests of the remote control maneuvering and correction.


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


Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV). The project is a promising interceptor.


The United States Missile Defense Agency (MDA), together with Raytheon, has completed the drafting of a technical assignment for multiple atmospheric kinetic interceptors (MOKV).

Splitting kinetic interceptors (literary translation of the name of US missile warhead warheads). The real name is "Multi-Object Kill Vehicle" (MOKV).

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


Selection of documents on GMD (in English):
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
Statement - Missile Defense Agency
Missile Defense Agency Successfully Completes Ground Test

Conclusion

The perseverance (I would say, "uproarness") of Americans in their tests of missile defense against medium-range ballistic missiles is not entirely clear. After all, the contract is still valid. Next to the "best country on the planet" there are no launch sites for ballistic missiles, countries with such missiles are now also missing in the western hemisphere and even in the distant future are not expected. Monroe Doctrin (“America for Americans”) is running out with a bang soon as 200 years. Russian (or even the mythical Iraqi, Korean) medium-range ballistic missiles by no means reach the other hemisphere, and the GBI ICBM is not yet able to intercept.



"On the thief and the cap is burning"?

The US does not rule out the introduction of sanctions against Russia because of the INF Treaty

Used photos, videos and materials:
http://www.mda.mil; http://media.al.com; http://photos.al.com; http://novosti-dny.com; https://www.flickr.com; http://extremal-mechanics.org; http://www.travis.af.mil; http://www.indiedb.com; http://www.reuters.com; http://cdn.fishki.net; http://www.smdc.army.mil; http://www.heritage.org; https://en.wikipedia.org; http://www.jeffhead.com; http://www.ausairpower.net; www.lockheedmartin.com; https://www.youtube.com; http://www.madeinalabama.com; http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org; https://mostlymissiledefense.com; http://www.designation-systems.net; ghttp://www.northropgrumman.com; http://www.defense-aerospace.com; http://abyss.uoregon.edu; http://businessinsider.com
Author:
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. am808s
    am808s 6 February 2016 07: 27 New
    -5
    Why is it here and for whom?
    1. Sura
      Sura 6 February 2016 07: 46 New
      -5
      Like scientific trolling, amers still have the best of everything ... fellow
      1. Sura
        Sura 7 February 2016 13: 20 New
        -4
        Here about this kind of article and why they are made http://mpsh.ru/242-ssha-vydelili-dengi-na-sverzhenie-putina.html
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 7 February 2016 13: 24 New
          +2
          Quote: Sura
          Here about this kind of article and why they are made http://mpsh.ru/242-ssha-vydelili-dengi-na-sverzhenie-putina.html

          So you want to say that Anton working in the missile design bureau receives money from the US State Department to overthrow Putin? fool Like everyone who liked this post? wassat
          1. Sura
            Sura 7 February 2016 13: 49 New
            +1
            Did he personally show you the ID of the SECRET KB employee?
            An employee, any secret design bureau, any country will try to write and publish articles on such websites, will be fired. Do you think rockets are invented by sick people?
            1. Bongo
              Bongo 7 February 2016 13: 55 New
              +1
              Quote: Sura
              Did he personally show you the ID of the SECRET KB employee?

              I have enough communication in a personal, where he demonstrated deep knowledge of the subject. And where does my comment say that "SECRET"? what You may not "know", but we do not have "SECRET" design bureaus now No. There are design bureaus in which tolerances of the corresponding form are issued for workers.
              1. Sura
                Sura 7 February 2016 14: 13 New
                -1
                I guessed with reference that he is an enemy in Africa, an enemy, for example, any company that produces cars has its own secrets and there are few who have access to them, and suddenly the state corporation that produces military missiles has no secrets? ... wassat
                1. Bongo
                  Bongo 7 February 2016 14: 16 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Sura
                  I guessed with reference that he is an enemy in Africa, an enemy, for example, any company that produces cars has its own secrets and there are few who have access to them, and suddenly the state corporation that produces military missiles has no secrets? ...

                  And since when has the information about testing the components of the American missile defense published on the network become secrets of domestic state-owned corporations? wassat
                2. opus
                  7 February 2016 22: 45 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Sura
                  I guessed with reference, the enemy is he and the enemy in Africa

                  The term "Snitch" that used to be: a night watchman who beater beats time .
                  Already out of fashion.

                  reborn TUMPER-o scammer ◆ The last thing they cared about was reality; Based on a network of constant informers and on the denunciations of volunteers, they compiled lists of arrests. Nadezhda Mandelstam(or anything that I "wrong people" brought in the quote?), “Memoirs”, 1960-1970 (quote from the National Corps of the Russian Language, see References)
            2. Bongo
              Bongo 7 February 2016 14: 13 New
              +2
              Quote: Sura
              An employee, any secret design bureau, any country, will try to write and publish articles on such websites, will be fired

              Really? No. Do you personally track these? negative Maybe you are 25 years behind life?
              1. Sura
                Sura 7 February 2016 14: 19 New
                -3
                Yes, indeed, they are right here and there is http://mpsh.ru/242-ssha-vydelili-dengi-na-sverzhenie-putina.html they even left the person on duty according to the article, the heart is expelled, the denyushka needs to be worked out ...
                1. Bongo
                  Bongo 7 February 2016 14: 25 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Sura
                  Yes, indeed here they are right and there is http://mpsh.ru/242-ssha-vydelili-dengi-na-sverzhenie-putina.html even the person on duty for the article was left.

                  Where can you get money for "duty"? laughing
                2. zyablik.olga
                  zyablik.olga 7 February 2016 14: 46 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Sura
                  Ek Serdishny bends, denyushku work out necessary ...

                  And do not tell me the address where they give out denyuzhku on duty, otherwise I also want to earn extra money laughing
                  1. Bongo
                    Bongo 7 February 2016 14: 52 New
                    +1
                    Quote: zyablik.olga
                    And do not tell me the address where they give out denyuzhku on duty, otherwise I also want to earn extra money

                    Olya, a person who undertakes to talk about lofty matters and "foreign agents" on the Internet is unlikely to be able to give you an answer to this question. Although the imagination of the comrade is outstanding, we must give him his due. laughing
          2. opus
            7 February 2016 22: 42 New
            +2
            Quote: Bongo
            So you want to say that Anton working in the missile design bureau receives money from the US State Department

            Thank you Sergey, you appreciated the heck.
            I’m working, the stump is clear. They really pay a little, but everything is in the smelly dollars that have been burying 10 for years ....
            ---------------------------
            Quote: am808s
            Why is it here and for whom?

            Quote: Sura
            Here about this kind of article and why they are made

            Well, okay.
            You will of course excuse me "Sura", but it seems to me your ancestors also drove SP Korolev, L. L. Kerber, Yu. V. Kondratyuk, S. I. Lodkin, V. M. Myasishchev, etc. persecuted cybernetics and genetics.
            I'm not the one of course.
            But your petty "approaches" are very similar.
            Quote: Bongo
            Like scientific trolling, amers still have the best of everything ...

            Where is it said.
            oh yes I forgot, you by your worthlessness can only slander and knock.
            And thanks to people like you .... we remember (If tomorrow is the War, w / w week in Berlin) .... the adversary reached Moscow
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Sura
              Sura 8 February 2016 06: 48 New
              -3
              Well, the liberalist got out, sprayed with poison, Korolev sat down for embezzlement because of his wife, and again there http://mpsh.ru/242-ssha-vydelili-dengi-na-sverzhenie-putina.html
            3. Falcon
              Falcon 8 February 2016 09: 23 New
              0
              Quote: opus
              I’m working, the stump is clear. They really pay a little, but everything is in the smelly dollars that have been burying 10 for years ....


              I hope you immediately transfer them to their native rubles, thereby reducing capital outflows?

              On the topic - a great article!

              Question:
              Why traction in 10000 N? These are transverse corrective engines. On the example of the corrective engines of the Union or Buran. There are several kilograms of pshikalki - they just need to move the block a few meters in a vacuum.
              1. opus
                8 February 2016 17: 06 New
                +1
                Quote: Falcon
                Why is the thrust of 10000 N? These are transverse corrective engines. On the example of the corrective engines of the Union or Buran. There are several kilograms of zigzags -

                Cyril, prt.
                1. "Soyuz", "Buran", Mir, ISS have no hurry. They fly themselves and fly 1: 30,1: 40 revolution.
                On the contrary, they need to do everything very "gently". Support orbit, communication, moments of inertia, and so on.
                The BB "flies" only 300-500 km. The warhead enters the tangible atmosphere at an altitude of ~ 130 km.
                VERY LOW TIME FOR MANEUVER, critically few, and the speed is 5-7,2 km / s (almost like the ISS) + EKV flies towards towards it at a speed of 5 km / s. Well, there are meeting angles and so on.
                Approaching speed around 10km / s - it is VERY intensive to maneuver +
                Quote: Author
                For 10 seconds, the EKV draws closer to the target for 100 km. Obviously, in 10 seconds of the “stationary” maneuver, the EKV will have time to correct the course and hit the target. Therefore, it is necessary to more often change the direction of BB movement. Presumably, the estimated maneuver time should be ~ 1 sec.
                On the other hand, if the reaction time of the EKV to a change in the trajectory of the target is significantly less than 1 second (which is what the Americans are trying to achieve), it’s impossible to dodge in principle.


                2. I will reveal a "terrible" secret, there the MRL is not transverse (or rather, not only this way), there is cos and sin.
                as well as "dodge" you can slow down / accelerate. Interceptor may lose target.
                The Minuteman BB slows down 3-7 times (it can burn out and at the same time the ABM maneuver)


                3. Thrust 10000N, this is 1 ton thrust,
                The BB itself weighs 1 ton and has inertia d (MV) / dt. Which in itself is not enough.
                The only feasible option is to use one engine with a longitudinal thrust vector and create lateral acceleration due to warhead rotations by small LRE orientations
                So, these are not "pshikalki", pshikalki "twirl" BB, GDU carries out maneuvers

                This is not an Aster ZUR, and the task is different, to dodge. Quickly, creating a giant acceleration that the head of the interceptor and radar lost the BB
                here DU of small thrust, such as DST-do not roll ...

                and with Km they don't "stand on ceremony", the lifetime is seconds, they don't care about burnout

                Quote: Falcon
                they just need to move the block a few meters in a vacuum.

                key: FOR WHAT TIME? (see above)
                1. Falcon
                  Falcon 8 February 2016 20: 33 New
                  +1
                  Quote: opus
                  Cyril, prt.
                  1. "Soyuz", "Buran", Mir, ISS have no hurry. They fly themselves and fly 1: 30,1: 40 revolution.
                  On the contrary, they need to do everything very "gently". Support orbit, communication, moments of inertia, and so on.
                  The BB "flies" only 300-500 km. The warhead enters the tangible atmosphere at an altitude of ~ 130 km.
                  VERY LOW TIME FOR MANEUVER, critically small, and the speed 5-7,2km / s (almost like the ISS) + EKV flies towards towards it at a speed of 5km / s. Well, there are meeting angles and so on.
                  Approaching speed around 10km / s - it is VERY intensive to maneuver +


                  Greetings Anton! drinks

                  Well, I understood the logic, thanks!
    2. yuriy55
      yuriy55 6 February 2016 07: 58 New
      -1
      Here the question is relevant:
      1. NIKNN
        NIKNN 6 February 2016 13: 42 New
        +7
        The persistence (I would say, "stubbornness") of the Americans is not entirely clear

        If you suffer for a long time, whatever it is .... In reality, I also do not quite understand the choice of the kinetic method of interception, to achieve such accuracy at such speeds at such prices ... request But all the same, their perseverance is alarming, probably I have a lot of things that I don’t understand and don’t know, but my knowledge allows me to conclude that dodging such a kinetic interceptor is easier than getting there. recourse
        1. tol100v
          tol100v 6 February 2016 17: 13 New
          +4
          Quote: NIKNN
          to achieve such accuracy at such speeds at such prices ..

          Most important: PRICES! And not even the product itself, but its development and deployment! And here it does not smell of efficiency, here it is important to master huge funds and ask for more and more! And for more "more", you need to scare your vassals with all kinds of horror stories.
        2. An64
          An64 6 February 2016 21: 35 New
          0
          Quote: NIKNN
          I don’t quite understand the choice of the kinetic method of interception, to achieve such accuracy at such speeds at such prices ...

          ... but in fact they reached back in 2008 when they intercepted USA-193.
          And dodging an interceptor is no easier than hitting - a reversible task, you need the same maneuvers. In this case, the interceptor "knows" where the target is, and the target itself does not know where the interceptor is. It is difficult, expensive and not rational to "teach" missiles (warheads) to look for interceptors - excess weight, other operating principles - as a result, only one platform can remain from the warhead
          1. tovarich67
            tovarich67 April 2 2016 19: 37 New
            0
            quite true. and there is a difference Dozens of detection stations help the Interceptor while the RGM flies along a pre-selected route. And yet. The Russian Federation cannot make such a system fundamentally since There is no microelectronics in the Russian Federation at all, and such a correction by engines is possible only with a wild computer processing speed. So there is no need for illusions. The USA has already done this and ours can never. That’s why our Yankees bred for the destruction of nuclear weapons that the USA itself has not They put it on nuclear weapons as the main type of weapons. Today they are high-precision weapons and drones of all mediums.
    3. Bongo
      Bongo 6 February 2016 10: 24 New
      +8
      Quote: am808s
      Why is it here and for whom?

      Of course, the site is "patriotic" fellow Personally, I read with great interest. good Although, in my opinion, Anton (Opus) sometimes "went too far". It is possible that among the visitors and authors of the site, Anton has the most in-depth knowledge in the field of rocketry, but when writing publications, in my opinion, it should be understood that not everyone who will read it has the same basic education as the author. It seems to me that this very interesting material could have been submitted in a form more accessible to the general reader. But I liked the article, of course "+".
      1. Voice of the Mind
        Voice of the Mind 6 February 2016 16: 51 New
        +3
        Quote: Bongo
        Of course, the site is "patriotic"

        Type rusvesny? So here it is))) but I thought that the site is about weapons and military equipment
        1. Bongo
          Bongo 7 February 2016 03: 32 New
          +4
          Quote: Voice of Mind
          Type rusvesny? So here it is))) but I thought that the site is about weapons and military equipment

          It is a pity that you did not understand the essence of the comment request At one time, in a commentary on a publication about the state of our air defense system, the author of which I had the honor to be, one of the site visitors wrote:
          Quote: crambol
          crambol (1) March 10, 2015 12:40
          - Amiable Bongo! After all, the site is military-patriotic!

          The minus that you slapped, for not too thoughtful comment, I corrected. hi
          1. Voice of the Mind
            Voice of the Mind 7 February 2016 21: 31 New
            +3
            Quote: Bongo
            It is a pity that you did not understand the essence of the comment

            Really, my jamb. Didn't catch sarcasm on first reading wink
    4. zyablik.olga
      zyablik.olga 6 February 2016 12: 32 New
      +3
      Quote: am808s
      Why is it here and for whom?

      Quote: Bongo
      Of course, the site is a "patriotic" fellow

      If the author wrote in enthusiastic tones about the "no analogues" missile defense system of the "hero-city" of Moscow, then probably such a question would not arise. No. By the way, I would like to ask a respected author, are you informed how realistic this system is?
      Quote: Bongo
      It seems to me that this interesting material could be submitted in a form more accessible to the general reader.

      Yes, let's face it - to read the material presented by the author, the task is not the easiest for the unprepared reader.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 6 February 2016 19: 35 New
        +1
        Our Moscow missile defense system A 135 may, hypothetically bring down 41 warheads, in the future this system will be modernized - A 235 and add to it 10 divisions of S 500 S-XNUMX.
        1. Remy_Argo
          Remy_Argo 6 February 2016 19: 54 New
          0
          namely A-235!
          article sucks - Cupid not suited to soles!
        2. An64
          An64 6 February 2016 21: 52 New
          -4
          Quote: Vadim237
          Our Moscow missile defense system A 135 may, hypothetically bring down 41 warheads, in the future this system will be modernized - A 235 and add to it 10 divisions of S 500 S-XNUMX.

          Excuse me, is this serious?
          What nonsense can you read from the pen of amateur graphomaniacs!
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 7 February 2016 00: 55 New
            +2
            And what is the nonsense? - Justify please.
            1. An64
              An64 7 February 2016 12: 52 New
              +2
              Quote: Vadim237
              Justify please

              I read your link on the A-135. Something about being able to shoot down 41 warheads - not a word!
              The S-500 is not yet in the hardware, and you are talking about 10 divisions. The division has about 10 launch vehicles, that is, a total of 100 vehicles! Let's wait for the S-500 to go to some tests, otherwise:
              At the end of February 2014, the chairman of the presidium of the expert council of the Aerospace Defense Igor Ashurbeyli said that there was a lag in terms of the development and testing of anti-aircraft missiles for the S-500 complex. At the same time, he noted that a deterioration in the characteristics of the rocket is possible in comparison with the approved terms of reference, which, according to him, may cast doubt on the need for further work
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 7 February 2016 21: 36 New
                0
                I wrote, hypothetically, and not 41 - here I was mistaken, but 50, based on the calculation of an ode to a warhead, two missiles. The rearmament program until 2020 provides for the purchase of 10 divisions of the S 500 S-missile systems, but it is not known how many launchers there are in one division.
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 7 February 2016 01: 03 New
            0
            And here is more detailed about our missile defense A 135 http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-345.html
            1. Lt. Air Force stock
              Lt. Air Force stock 7 February 2016 15: 55 New
              +1
              Here is the United States deploying missile defense in both Alaska and California. And in our country only in Moscow A-235 (sort of modernized) +8 S-400 divisions.
              But many million cities in which 1200000 people live do not cover.
              When will the ABM systems capable of intercepting the Minutmen-3 and Trident-2 missiles finally be installed throughout Russia?
              Missile defense systems should have the same priority as the Strategic Missile Forces.
              1. Vadim237
                Vadim237 8 February 2016 10: 36 New
                0
                When there will be a lot of money, then they will begin to cover up, but they will not beat the cities, this is no longer a priority goal - all military facilities are priority goals.
      2. opus
        8 February 2016 17: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: zyablik.olga
        , the task is not the easiest for an unprepared reader.

        Olga ... well, I tried my best.
        So I wanted to give the source for Mathcad, even if not taking into account aerodynamic drag. That the reader would easily carry out his calculations by copying this worksheet. It is only necessary to set the distance to the target L (km) along the Earth’s surface and the time t_1 (sec) of the warhead’s flight along a ballistic trajectory. The angle \ alpha (deg) and speed v_0 (km / s), which give such a path, will be found automatically and their values ​​are visible at the bottom of the sheet ("adjusted pitch angle" and "adjusted speed").


        Something stopped me ... belay
  2. magirus401
    magirus401 6 February 2016 07: 57 New
    -3
    "The modern version of the PR GBI. The launch mass of the anti-missile is 12000 kg, the launch cost is about $ 70"
    We have about 1700 ICBMs, and if you start them all right away, ..... they just go bankrupt
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 6 February 2016 10: 31 New
      +7
      Quote: magirus401
      We have about 1700 ICBMs, and if you start them all right away, ..... they just go bankrupt

      Really? No. We have about 1700 deployed military units on strategic media, and this is not the same thing as the 1700 ICBMs.
      As of 2014, there were 390 ICBMs in the Strategic Missile Forces capable of delivering 1190 nuclear charges. The combat structure of the Navy of the Russian Federation lists 11 SSBNs, Project 667BDRM Dolphin, Project 667BDR Kalmar, and Project 955 Borey. Their missiles are capable of carrying about 500 warheads.
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 7 February 2016 15: 56 New
        0
        Quote: Bongo
        As of 2014, there were 390 ICBMs in the Strategic Missile Forces,

        The United States has 450 shafts with Minuteman-3 missiles. In addition, about 6-7 Ohio strategic submarines are constantly on combat patrol.
  3. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 6 February 2016 10: 43 New
    +6
    The author did not take into account one thing in the analysis - the missile correction can be performed impulsively, just as the Krasnopol complex does. In terms of the speed of the adjustment, the Americans did not come close to solving this problem. A warhead of an ICBM can include a thermal indicator to determine the approach of an anti-missile and start maneuvering at the right time.
    1. Simple
      Simple 7 February 2016 12: 19 New
      +2
      Thermal "indicator" is not possible on bb.
      bb heats up to 700 grS from friction against the atmosphere
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 7 February 2016 15: 57 New
        0
        The indicator is possible.
        After all, it is needed only in the trans-atmospheric area, if against GBI.
        At the entrance to the atmosphere, the indicator is no longer needed.
        1. opus
          8 February 2016 17: 20 New
          +1
          Quote: mav1971
          The indicator is possible.

          no.
          The mass of warhead Topol is close to 1 t, of which several hundred kg fusion bomb thermally protected and durable housing, as well as a guidance system. Frequent maneuvers during the flight will require several hundred kg of fuel, so the mass of the rocket engine can be estimated at ~ 100 kg.
          The BB is covered with ablation protection, under it is a refractory thermal protection.
          Any "indicator" hole close to the end - instant burnout of the BB and not completing a combat mission.
          There are NO "indicators" there, and the body indicator (EKV) of 70 kg will not be caught in the transatmospheric section (before the separation of the last stage, everything was under the casing.)
      2. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 8 February 2016 13: 35 New
        0
        Quote: Just
        Thermal "indicator" is not possible on bb.
        bb heats up to 700 grS from friction against the atmosphere

        The interceptor is atmospheric.
        1. opus
          8 February 2016 17: 21 New
          +2
          Quote: saturn.mmm
          The interceptor is atmospheric.

          of course.
          An estimated interception is above 70-80 km.

          from 200 km to 100 km the BB warms up to 1500K (depending on the angle of entry)
  4. Voice of the Mind
    Voice of the Mind 6 February 2016 12: 41 New
    +5
    The article is unambiguous + It's time to remember, the age of technology is in the yard and the "hat-throwing tactics" will not work anyway.
  5. magirus401
    magirus401 6 February 2016 13: 39 New
    -2
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: magirus401
    We have about 1700 ICBMs, and if you start them all right away, ..... they just go bankrupt

    Really? No. We have about 1700 deployed military units on strategic media, and this is not the same thing as the 1700 ICBMs.
    As of 2014, there were 390 ICBMs in the Strategic Missile Forces capable of delivering 1190 nuclear charges. The combat structure of the Navy of the Russian Federation lists 11 SSBNs, Project 667BDRM Dolphin, Project 667BDR Kalmar, and Project 955 Borey. Their missiles are capable of carrying about 500 warheads.

    I see, it’s very difficult for comrades here with humor, you would have to sit in the General Staff and not on the network, experts .....
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 7 February 2016 03: 38 New
      +5
      Quote: magirus401
      I see, it’s very difficult for comrades here with humor, you would have to sit in the General Staff and not on the network, experts .....

      This is the public information that we exchange under the START-3 Treaty with the United States, confirmed by mutual inspections. If you are not competent enough, what does humor have to do with it?
  6. Operator
    Operator 6 February 2016 14: 23 New
    +7
    The article and the illustrations attached to it incorrectly describe the tactics of using intercontinental ballistic missiles, both Russian and American.

    After separation from the third stage, the combat units fly surrounded by false targets, which are plastic metallized conical hollow hubcaps, worn by several dozen pieces before the start, on the front conical surface of each BB.

    Therefore, the transatmospheric interception of the BB after their separation from the third stage of the rocket is impossible except for firing at each group of false targets with interceptor missiles in an amount equal to the number of false targets plus one BB. As a result, the cost of intercepting one BB will be several billion dollars.

    BB interception is possible only at the final atmospheric site (with a length of the order of 150 km at a speed of 6 km / s), when false targets will be intensively slowed down and burned in air. It is in this area that the BB begins to maneuver for the anti-aircraft maneuver, which requires the use of other antimissiles - with a nuclear warhead, as in the Moscow missile defense system.

    Therefore, the space GBI interceptor is intended only for the transatmospheric interception of medium-range missiles of North Korea, Iran and China (of old types) that do not carry false targets.
    1. An64
      An64 6 February 2016 21: 58 New
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      Therefore, the space GBI interceptor is intended only for the transatmospheric interception of medium-range missiles of North Korea, Iran and China (of old types) that do not carry false targets.

      Absolutely agree. Neither the GBI nor the SM-3 are capable of intercepting our ICBMs !!!
    2. Simple
      Simple 7 February 2016 12: 17 New
      +3
      "Eclipse" is everything that is above the Karman line: Natural selection will start intensively from 200-250 km (in terms of aerodynamics), and in terms of gravity, in principle, from 1000 km
      1. Operator
        Operator 7 February 2016 15: 07 New
        +1
        What is the connection between the Karman line (the upper boundary of the atmosphere at an altitude of 100 km) and the intensive aerodynamic deceleration of spurious targets, starting from an altitude of 200 km (in your opinion)?

        I gave the value of 150 km as the BB inclined flight distance and false targets in the atmosphere.

        The trajectory of the ballistic flight of the BB and false targets in the near-Earth airless space is determined by their speed, not the mass (due to incompatibility with the mass of the Earth).
        1. opus
          8 February 2016 17: 37 New
          +1
          Quote: Operator
          What is the relationship between the Karman line

          The most direct. "Just" is right.
          The Karman line is a technical (engineering) space.
          The first comic flight is the FAU-2.
          At altitudes from 100 km, flight with orbital (1st space) speed (short-term) using remote control is possible
          Quote: Operator
          intensive aerodynamic braking of false targets, starting from an altitude of 200 km (in your opinion)?

          ?
          1. The estimate (western) for the Topol BB is that the warhead is separated at 300 km with a pitch angle of 6 degrees and, rising to a maximum altitude of 550 km (apogee), for "others":
          Warhead speed at the time of release reaches 7 - 7.5 km / s. In the case of a missile with multiple warheads, the so-called The bus or breeding platform disperses the deadly cargo within a few minutes, bringing each warhead to the flight path to its target. Apogee H, i.e. the maximum height of the trajectory above the Earth varies in the range of 750 - 1 km.
          2. Where does the figure of 200km come from?
          The passage of 8 separate MX missile warheads during their arrival at the Kwajalein missile test site, Pacific Ocean, December 20, 1984.

          Polygon Kura

          entry angles 50-30gr (steeper you can’t burn, put a rebound)
          let it be 45g (you can count for any). Hypotenuse of a right triangle (for simplification)
          c = sqrt {a ^ 2 + b ^ 2} = 200
          then a = b = 141 km.
          Height 141 and projection (range 141.
          But actually 350-500km for ICBMs
          3. Already from an altitude of 120km, the Shuttle carried out AERODYNAMIC maneuvering, and the low-orbit Legend (180-200km) required constant overclocking and solar panels could not be opened at that altitude (atmospheric erosion)
          4. Puppies on the World and Salute, they simply threw it into the bag (through the adapter) and, having the same 1 kumicheskoe as the World / Salute, they braked and fought, then burned. The truth is a long time.
          apogee perigee World 400x600km
          Quote: Operator
          in near-Earth airless space is determined by their speed, and not mass (due to incomparability with the mass of the Earth).

          what nonsense.
          Speed ​​changes acceleration (v = v0 - (+) at), acceleration is the result of the action of force (F = ma).
          The force we have: The force of gravity and the force of resistance (environment), I neglect the rest

          gravitational attraction between two material points of mass m_1 and m_2, separated by a distance R,
          G is the gravitational constant equal to 6,67384 (80) * 10−11 m³ / (kg s²).
          m2 is the mass of the Earth. R = H (orbit height) + r (earth radius)
          m1 is the MASS of the object.
          Well, put in m1 the mass of BB (1000 kg) and then (for comparison) the mass of the false target (20-30 kg)
          how are the forces acting on the bodies equal or?
          Do you need a calculator or do you manage it visually?

          1. Operator
            Operator 8 February 2016 19: 14 New
            0
            1. The parameters of the orbit (circular, suborbital, apogee, perigee, etc.) are determined not by the mass of the body, but by its speed (for example, the first space, second space, etc.).
            Otherwise, one could have achieved same speed at the moment of separation from the launch vehicle, launch the 1000-kg satellite into a circular orbit around the Earth, the 10-kg satellite - to the Moon, and the 1-kg - to Mars laughing

            2. Please specify the height of the beginning of intensive aerodynamic drag during flight in the Earth's atmosphere, stated in a message from 8.02.2016 17: 41.
            It turns out a paradox - your BB at a speed of 7 km / s starts to slow down at an altitude of as much as 200 km, and its interception using GBI is already possible from an altitude of 70 km.
            However, before intercepting, the GBI should free itself from the aerodynamic fairing and at a speed of 8,3 km / s start to drill air.
            At the same time, the BB is protected from aerodynamic heating by its conical shape, ablation coating, thermal insulation and steel casing, and GBI - by the holy spirit. Not only that, its infrared sensor will burn with a clear flame at an altitude of up to 100 km above the Earth, but at least something can be seen only from a height of more than 200 km am
            Information for consideration - according to the program Ground-Based Midcourse Defense, in which GBI was developed, the maximum height of interception is 2000 km.
            1. opus
              8 February 2016 20: 16 New
              +1
              Quote: Operator
              same speed

              Keyword: FIRST Outer.
              Not a single ICBM accelerates a BB to 1 KS. This is nonsense.
              because everything else is written "rubbish"
              And so for reference (suddenly again "failure" in knowledge)
              Quote: Operator
              not determined by body weight, and its speed (for example, the first space, second space, etc.).

              fool
              First space (speed)

              (The minimum speed at which a body moving horizontally above the surface of the planet will not fall on it, but will move in a circular orbit.)
              where m is the mass of the object, M is the mass of the planet, G is the gravitational constant, v_1 ​​is the first cosmic velocity, R is the radius of the planet

              Quote: Operator
              and its interception using GBI is already possible from an altitude of 70 km.

              Read more carefully:
              EKV itself can intercept targets from 70 km (up to 600 km).
              This is a feature of both its sensor and shunting.
              no contradictions
              Quote: Operator
              . Please specify the height of the beginning of intensive aerodynamic braking

              What for? and why SPECIFICALLY?
              On which trajectory? Laying? Typical? What range?
              Quote: Operator
              The maximum height of interception is 2000 km.

              the same to me "information" and what?
              Was the GBI interception at that height?
              there are questions, no questions.
              / no need to bring a journal
              Was it written about 6000km?
              http://www.boeing.com/defense/missile-defense/ground-based-midcourse/
              DO NOT CONFUSE RANGE WITH HEIGHT.

              AND NOT 6000 AND 5 AND THAT IS NOT NOW
              1. Operator
                Operator 8 February 2016 22: 28 New
                -1
                In addition to the first, second and third cosmic velocities (which were mentioned only to refresh your knowledge), there are also suborbital velocities, for which the rule established by Tsiolkovsky is also absolutely true - the trajectory of the ballistic motion of a body in airless space depends only on its initial velocity, and by no means not by mass.

                Naturally, the GBI launch vehicle itself is not able to intercept anything at any height. Its warhead EKV is engaged in interception after dropping the aerodynamic fairing and separating from the last stage of the launch vehicle, which occurs at an altitude twice as high as you stated (70 km), namely 140 km (see the name "transatmospheric").
                Only after that the warhead sensor comes into operation and the EKV can intercept something.
                All this to the fact that you are confused with the height of the beginning of intensive aerodynamic heating - then your EKV opens up for 70 km, then the BB starts to heat up for 300 km.

                PS. You definitely work in a missile design bureau, and not in artillery? laughing )
                1. opus
                  8 February 2016 23: 33 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Operator
                  the rule established by Tsiolkovsky is absolutely true - tthe trajectory of the ballistic movement of the body in airless space depends only on its initial speed, and not on mass.

                  yep ... Tell this to the first FAA-2 suborbital flights ....

                  Tsiolkovsky? Did Tsiolkovsky count the trajectories?belay
                  What about the speed of the rocket that it will develop under the influence of traction?
                  HERE ONE MASS (and a CLEAR dependence of v on M):


                  ------------------------------
                  The action of gravity does not depend on the speed of the projectile (gravity speed on the drum)
                  gravity DEPENDS on mass.
                  F = ma, in our case = mg
                  g depends on the distance from the center of the earth


                  Quote: Operator
                  what happens at a height twice as high as you stated (70 km),

                  discharge occurs at 65 km.
                  As with other launch vehicles (they are slightly higher: the diameter is larger than the other Fx and the pitch angle is different)
                  Then the sensor starts to "search" BB.
                  interception is possible from 70km height (+ 10km), depending on the pitch.
                  GO at altitudes of 65 km tries not needed
                  Quote: Operator
                  that you are confused with the height of the beginning of intensive aerodynamic heating - then you have EKV

                  Phnogram (or look at the interceptor).

                  Pay attention to heights and speeds
                  Threat for each launch vehicle has its own discharge height GO (but somewhere around)

                  it is not necessary to blunt at the interceptor, the speed is still about 2-3 km / s, this is tolerable for such a medium density.
                  At BB from 7,2 km / s and below.
                  Movement at heights of 20 km with 10M gives more than 5000K at the end (sun 6000kv corona)

                  Quote: Operator
                  then the BB begins to heat up for 300 km.

                  200 km is already more substantial, at 300 km yes, heating will begin. What did you want at 7,2-7,4 km / s? belay

                  So for reference: RIM-161A at maximum accelerates to 9600 km / h (6000 mph) = 2,67 km / s (suddenly they did not know). Minitman BB up to 7,6 km / s (they say)
                  Quote: Operator
                  PS. You definitely work in a missile design bureau, and not in artillery?

                  And to you what?
                  How will this help your mental process (it slows down, and strongly, and you obviously engage in fraud)?
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 9 February 2016 00: 11 New
                    -2
                    Let’s forget for clarity the question of the independence of the mass of the inertial motion velocity of bodies in the Earth’s gravitational field (at leisure you can familiarize yourself with the results of Galileo’s experiment) laughing

                    As for the height of the beginning of the kinetic interception of the BB: here is a diagram of the heights, times and ranges of the interception, the initial (zero) time corresponds to the height of 250 km
                    1. opus
                      9 February 2016 17: 13 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Operator
                      at your leisure you can get acquainted with the results of Galileo's experiment

                      Why not Giordano Bruno right away?
                      Where did KE Tsiolkovsky go with a job / rule unknown to anyone
                      Quote: Operator
                      the rule established by Tsiolkovsky - the trajectory of the ballistic motion of a body in an airless space depends only on its initial speed, and by no means on mass.

                      ?

                      Quote: Operator
                      here is a diagram of the heights, times and ranges of interception,

                      Why do I need "DVViDP" for Standard Missile 3 Block I (red) and Block II (blue).
                      And so for reference, this is not
                      Quote: Operator
                      you diagram heights, times and ranges of interception,
                      ,but mathematical modeling SS-19 trajectory interception for Norfolk Va and calculation of its interception time SM-3 Block IIA, based in Poland (green) and the North Sea (red) ..
                      WHAT FOR?
                      Threat calculation / modeling performed by the Dutch in the interests of the United States, in order to justify the safety of EUROPRO for the RF Armed Forces ....

                      Is the article (and generally) about the SM-3 or GBI yet?
                      and what positioning area?
                      wink
                      Let me stick with you too "DVViDP".


                      argument?
                      ==========================
                      Threat. Well, you and Troll.

                      I will probably finish the LESSONING ... everything is empty
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. Operator
                        Operator 9 February 2016 22: 23 New
                        -3
                        What did you take and merge right away - you would defend your epoch-making discovery about the difference in the airless space of the ballistic trajectories of bodies of different masses, but one initial speed laughing

                        What is the difference, over what water area the inter-atmospheric interception is simulated - over the North Sea or the Pacific Ocean (or are there different atmospheres)?

                        The EKV / GBI and LEAP / SM-3 kinetic interceptors are equipped with technically similar infrared sensors and therefore have the same minimum interception height.

                        On this conversation ended.
                      3. fzr1000
                        fzr1000 9 February 2016 22: 30 New
                        +1
                        In vain you went down to a banal showdown, instead of a constructive dialogue. Thank you for the article.
                      4. Operator
                        Operator 9 February 2016 23: 11 New
                        -3
                        In discussion order

                        Evaluation of BB motion characteristics in the final section of the ballistic trajectory (distance from the starting point to the target 10350 km):

                        ~ speed 7 km / s, altitude 250 km, angle of inclination of the trajectory 20 degrees, distance to the target 600 km - selection of false targets;

                        ~ speed 6,5 km / s, altitude 100 km, angle of inclination of the trajectory 30 degrees, distance to the target 200 km - BB entry into the atmosphere, heating of the BB surface;

                        ~ speed 5 km / s, altitude 25 km, inclination of the trajectory 45 degrees, distance to the target 35 km - BB entry into the dense atmosphere, the formation of a plasma cloud around the BB;

                        ~ speed 3 km / s, altitude 1 km, the angle of inclination of the trajectory 45 degrees, the distance to the target 1,4 km - air blast BB.
                      5. opus
                        10 February 2016 14: 17 New
                        +1
                        Quote: fzr1000
                        You shouldn’t go down to a banal showdown,

                        Well, I didn't "go down" anywhere.
                        What dialogue can be with an opponent, if he appeals:
                        1.
                        Quote: Operator
                        absolutely right rule established by Tsiolkovsky - the trajectory of the ballistic movement of the body in airless space depends only on its initial speed, and not on the mass.

                        ? Konstantin Eduarditch probably turned over a couple of times in the coffin ..
                        Then the truth moved on
                        Quote: Operator
                        Galileo's experience
                        .
                        Well, in passing, forgetting about gravitational maneuvers (acceleration and even what up to 40km / s, and braking) KA (all sorts of Voyagers, Venus, Mars, Apollo, etc.)

                        The speed of a body in a gravitational field does not depend on body mass .... belay Pearl.

                        (V = at, a = F / m and so on
                        2. Discusses the height of interception GBI, and leads
                        Quote: Operator
                        here is a diagram of the heights, times and ranges of interception, the initial (zero) time corresponds to an altitude of 250 km

                        for SM-3 from the European position area for STARTING (non-BB falling onto the target) ICBMs from the territory of the Russian Federation.
                        Gives an "argument" without even looking at the article.
                        Everything is chewed there: it is not possible to shoot down at altitudes of 70 km (above the territory of Russia) due to the removal of the launch site from the PU location point, there is only a short time (altitude) interval from and to ... well, etc.
                        Quote: fzr1000
                        Thanks for the article.

                        please. Want a PM about Slingatron (not printed)? The topic is also entertaining

                        Quote: Operator
                        Why did you immediately take and merge

                        how can I not merge if I have to talk with a clown?
  • arhitroll
    arhitroll 6 February 2016 15: 13 New
    0
    Let's see what a respectable bourgeoisie entrust to test this in practice to his boys ...
  • 31rus
    31rus 6 February 2016 15: 25 New
    +6
    Dear, not a specialist, but I think the following, along with the launch of ICBMs, there will be launches to destroy the radar and the satellite constellation as strategically important targets, which means that you need a lot of duplication, and this is a lot of money, besides, the anti-missile bases themselves will be targets and suppressed first of all, everything is too complicated and the output of one component will lead to a "hole" in the entire system
  • doework
    doework 6 February 2016 17: 41 New
    +4
    Well, for me - so interesting material. There is no doubt that the United States will build a layered missile defense (and not only for protection against medium-range missiles). The fact that it is expensive is of little concern to them, because printing press - in their hands.
    But the take-off of the C-17 transporter from such an angle I could not even imagine! belay
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 February 2016 19: 31 New
      +2
      It turns out that in the future, C 17 could become a platform for launching real ICBMs - an upgraded Trident 2 air launch rocket.
      1. Simple
        Simple 7 February 2016 12: 24 New
        +5
        +.
        All true.
        The author, for some reason, missed this thought.
        In my opinion there is a clear violation of the START treaty
      2. mav1971
        mav1971 7 February 2016 16: 04 New
        +2
        Quote: Vadim237
        It turns out that in the future, C 17 could become a platform for launching real ICBMs - an upgraded Trident 2 air launch rocket.


        This technology is already 50 years old at lunch.
        And ours, too, at An-22 created this.
        It is called "Air Launch of ICBMs by Parachute Drop".
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 7 February 2016 21: 38 New
          +1
          Only we have covered it all.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 February 2016 19: 40 New
      +4
      But the video with the vertical take-off of the transporter installation - if he had been pulled up like that, he would have collapsed.
      1. opus
        7 February 2016 22: 50 New
        +3
        Quote: Vadim237
        But the video with the vertical take-off of the transporter installation - if he had been pulled up like that, he would have collapsed.

        This is the angle. A camera in the right hands.
        It's not "editing", is it?

        lol

      2. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 8 February 2016 11: 40 New
        0
        "And here is a video with a vertical takeoff of a transport worker editing" ////

        This transporter can make a loop and not crash -
        to land. This was in an emergency. Only after that the plane
        just in case they wrote off - the load on the fuselage exceeded the permissible.
    3. forumow
      forumow 6 February 2016 21: 11 New
      +1
      It was not a C-17, but a C-5 "Galaxy" - an analogue of "Ruslan".
  • Denimax
    Denimax 6 February 2016 22: 08 New
    -3
    Quote: Bongo
    It’s possible that among visitors and authors of the site, Anton has the most in-depth knowledge in the field of rocketry,

    This Anton (Opus), just an abstruse copy-paste.
  • An64
    An64 6 February 2016 23: 00 New
    +3
    What is surprising is that there is a fairly comprehensive amount of information on both the MDA website and the manufacturers' websites. Maybe it's bragging, maybe it's advertising, maybe it's a desire to splurge ... But, nevertheless, I have never met anyone who doubted this information from our side, and even more so - they refuted it.
  • GDV
    GDV 6 February 2016 23: 51 New
    +3
    Another fake mattress 30% of the truth, the rest is bullshit vyser in the hope that we will do it, even if they did something, there are many factors affecting the anti-missile system - these are data from satellites and ground radars, false targets, will fly up to the target in waves (several missiles -chelon), and not a single missile makes it difficult to select a priority target, that is, when a wave of several missiles travels, they throw out dipole reflectors and hundreds, if not thousands of false targets on the radar screen, do not take into account the erosion of the charge in the atmosphere for output from c three enemy electronics (satellites, radars).
    They are trying to calculate the creation of a mathematical model of the behavior of one rocket without considering that there will be more by default.
    Fortune telling on rocket thickets, like it should work out.
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 7 February 2016 21: 18 New
      +1
      Quote: GDV
      when there is a wave of several missiles at the same time they throw out dipole reflectors and hundreds if not thousands of false targets on the radar screen, it does not take into account the undermining of the emi charge in the atmosphere to disable the enemy’s electronics (satellites, radars).
      They are trying to calculate the creation of a mathematical model of the behavior of one rocket without considering that there will be more by default.
      Fortune telling on rocket thickets, like it should work out.


      We learn materiel again.
      I will quote in memory (of course with my own words, but the meaning is true for 100%) from the educational literature for rocket launchers.
      "To facilitate the solution of the problem of intercepting warheads, selection methods should be applied in the atmospheric and extra-atmospheric segments of their flight. One of the methods, the" principle of active selection ", is applied on the trajectory of missiles and warheads. targets will either be destroyed or discarded due to the lightness and materials of their construction, while both light and heavy decoys will be 100% selected for trajectory changes.The real warhead will most likely remain on the trajectory, will be accompanied to guide atmospheric interceptors.
      If it deviates from the trajectory, the trajectory is calculated and a decision is made on its future fate.
      Those. if in the ocean or field - then to hell with her - they will forget about her.

      Repeated nuclear counter-explosions along echelons up to atmospheric level in 40 km. For impact on warheads by shockwave.

      Everything has been invented for a long time already.
      Stop believing in the power of dipole reflectors.

      1. Operator
        Operator 7 February 2016 22: 22 New
        -1
        The fact of this is that the kinetic interceptor GBI is pure budget cutSince the only way to over-atmospheric and atmospheric interception of BB, accompanied by false targets, is to undermine the thermonuclear warheads of antimissiles.

        At the same time, X-ray radiation (in the radius 6 km) is the main damaging factor in the trans-atmospheric region, and neutron radiation (in the radius 1,5 km) is in the atmospheric region.

        This is how the Moscow missile defense system works with two types of antimissiles.
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 7 February 2016 22: 57 New
          +3
          Quote: Operator
          The fact of this is that the kinetic interceptor GBI is pure budget cutSince the only way to over-atmospheric and atmospheric interception of BB, accompanied by false targets, is to undermine the thermonuclear warheads of antimissiles.

          At the same time, X-ray radiation (in the radius 6 km) is the main damaging factor in the trans-atmospheric region, and neutron radiation (in the radius 1,5 km) is in the atmospheric region.

          This is how the Moscow missile defense system works with two types of antimissiles.



          Not only that.
          Do not forget that the Americans poked at their interceptors ballistic warheads in the atmospheric area in the form of Patriots AND THAAD. Around the world (and off the coast of the USA), about 70 Standards are floating, which can also be used in this role.
          So the attempts to create a system of firing past high-altitude nuclear explosions continue and the Americans believe in them ...
          1. Operator
            Operator 8 February 2016 00: 19 New
            -1
            Patriots will not reach the trajectory of the ICBM, Standards and TXAADs with kinetic interceptors will not be able to select BB from false targets in the transatmospheric region.

            Of course, one can hypothetically assume a two-stage scheme for the BB atmospheric interception:
            - at the first stage, selection of BB and false targets takes place with the help of a thermonuclear charge explosion;
            - In the second stage, the BB is destroyed by the GBI kinetic interceptor.

            But then for every BB in the transatmospheric region:
            - it is required to spend twice a large number of antimissiles;
            - for the GBI interceptor, the interception time is drastically reduced, since after an explosion of a thermonuclear charge accompanied by an EMP, the missile defense radars will fail for a certain time (as a rule, they re-enter into operation when the BB approaches the atmosphere boundary, that is, to the second interception boundary );
            - dumping of false targets from the surface of the BB can be carried out repeatedly after each thermonuclear explosion and so on up to the very border of the atmosphere.

            So is it worth it?
            1. Falcon
              Falcon 8 February 2016 08: 22 New
              +3
              Quote: Operator
              But then for every BB in the transatmospheric region:
              - it is required to spend twice a large number of antimissiles;
              - for the GBI interceptor, the interception time is drastically reduced, since after an explosion of a thermonuclear charge accompanied by an EMP, the missile defense radars will fail for a certain time (as a rule, they re-enter into operation when the BB approaches the atmosphere boundary, that is, to the second interception boundary );
              - dumping of false targets from the surface of the BB can be carried out repeatedly after each thermonuclear explosion and so on up to the very border of the atmosphere.

              So is it worth it?


              No one says that the system about the United States at the moment is able to repel the attack of our missiles!
              She is in the initial stage of the journey. Calculation of a further reduction in nuclear charges and BR. Which should systematically go through with the next START treaty

              Blocks, including false ones, will be shot down by MOKV in the future.

              Of course, a kinetic interceptor is more expensive than a false block, but they, as well as several blocks, will be launched with one missile. The cost will not increase much.

              I repeat - long-term calculation and further reduction of BR. Especially given the current oil prices and our economy.

              Residues will finish the THAAD at the final stretch.

              About nuclear interception - like Moscow’s missile defense. It has already been said more than once. In any case, it will lead to the death of part of the population. Such tactics have no prospects. Even if tons of nuclear shells are blown up behind the atmosphere.

              In addition, at the moment, our pro can only carry out atmospheric interception. Transatmospheric interceptors removed from duty - worked out storage periods.
              1. Operator
                Operator 8 February 2016 11: 31 New
                -2
                No MOKV is able to kill several dozen plastic metallized "cups" of decoys accompanying in flight each combat unit.

                The first time I hear that calculations for the creation of a new type of weapon (GBI) can be built on the expectation of the goodwill of a potential adversary to reduce its main type of strategic weapons (ICBM).
                In any case, the waiting flag will be in hand: especially against the background of the development of Sarmat and Rubezh, the official refusal of the RF Ministry of Defense to reduce strategic nuclear forces, as well as a multiple rise in oil prices after the main oil producers - Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf countries and Iran - were drawn in. into a full-scale military conflict in the Middle East (as a result of the introduction of their ground forces into Syria) am

                High-altitude air explosions of neutron warheads and antimissile missiles of atmospheric interception will not lead to losses among the residents of the covered village, since the neutron mileage in the air is 1,5 km, there is no radioactive contamination of the earth’s surface, the contribution of the plutonium ignition to the total neutron warhead power is of the order of 1 percent, fission products of plutonium possess a short period of decay.

                The problem of atmospheric BB interception using nuclear warheads lies in a completely different plane - a nuclear explosion at an altitude of up to 100 km from the ground for several minutes jammed radar missile defense with the help of electromagnetic radiation, and also creates a relatively long-lived plasma cloud in the air, shielding radar attackers following in order BB.

                Therefore, it is for atmospheric interception that the development of kinetic interceptors instead of nuclear interceptors is particularly relevant (from which it follows that the development of GBI trans-atmospheric interceptors is a purely concrete budget cut).

                An example of a kinetic interceptor with a spiral destructive element HOE (Homing Overlay Experiment)
                1. voyaka uh
                  voyaka uh 8 February 2016 11: 43 New
                  0
                  "No MOKV can beat dozens of
                  plastic metallized "cups" for decoys,
                  accompanying each combat unit in flight. "////

                  As far as I heard, a certain spectrometer is put on the "killer", which
                  can distinguish between empty caps and full cones.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 8 February 2016 12: 18 New
                    -1
                    Metallized cones, i.e., have a reflection degree equal to that of the BB metal sheath in the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including the ultraviolet, optical, infrared and radio bands.
                    The spectrometer will not help here.
                  2. opus
                    8 February 2016 17: 55 New
                    +2
                    Quote: voyaka uh
                    As far as I heard, a certain spectrometer is put on the "killer", which
                    can distinguish between empty caps and full cones.


                    Search and tracking of targets in the upper atmosphere and in outer space is provided by the missile defense radar (s).
                    They issue commands for missiles via a two-way digital communication channel and missiles continuously receive course corrections from it. The current position of the missile defense is set with high accuracy using the GPS system.
                    After resetting the non-Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) -EKV fairing, the multi-color sensor starts to work.
                    Those. multispectral IR sensor

                    Warhead after entering the atmosphere at an altitude of 120 - 150 km aerodynamically slows down from 6.5 - 7.5 km / s to about 3 km / s, so as not to burn out like a meteorite before the target is hit: the warhead drops speed to about 3 km / s when entering the troposphere. At v = 3000 m / s and \ rho = 0.02 kg / mXNUMX, a heat flow is obtained 70 MW per sq m of warhead surface.
                    This is a very strong heating, but the warheads are saved from it by heat-resistant coatings made of graphite, teflon, carbon fiber, etc. Thus, the only way to avoid the fate of the meteor is aerodynamic braking of the warhead to 2.5-3 times less than max. speed (after which it is still burns in flight, but manages to work).
                    The BB glows like a gigawatt laser, and also phonite in the entire spectrum.
                    "empty" caps have been scattered long ago or they have already burned out.
                    1. fzr1000
                      fzr1000 10 February 2016 09: 32 New
                      0
                      And then what is the meaning of these false warheads? When until recently there was no missile defense project, if they burn out in high layers of the atmosphere?
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 10 February 2016 13: 42 New
                        -1
                        False targets protect the BB in the middle section of the flight (ballistic) - after the end of the initial section (launching onto the trajectory with the help of a launch vehicle) and before the start of the final section (entering the atmosphere).
                      2. fzr1000
                        fzr1000 10 February 2016 14: 34 New
                        0
                        And from what or whom they could protect the bb before entering the atmosphere, especially since the missile defense system has been tested for no more than 10 years.
                      3. Operator
                        Operator 10 February 2016 15: 08 New
                        +1
                        The American Safeguard missile defense system was put on combat alert in the 1975 year. The structure of the system included, inter alia, atmospheric missiles LIM-49A Spartan.

                        The Soviet missile defense system A-135 "Amur" was put on alert in 1990. The system included, among other things, anti-atmospheric intercept missiles 51T6 "Azov".
                      4. fzr1000
                        fzr1000 10 February 2016 21: 32 New
                        +1
                        Well, she (the anti-missile) acted not by the kinetic method, but by the method of detonating a neutron charge. Well, not the point. The method for distinguishing false warheads from combat ones already did not differ from that given in this article.
                        Quote

                        The concept of "Sprint" (missiles of the second echelon of interception) was based on the interception of warheads in the upper atmosphere, at a distance of up to 40 kilometers. It was assumed that at this stage all false targets would be filtered out due to braking in the upper atmosphere (lighter false targets slowed down faster than heavier warheads) and a missile could accurately hit real warheads.

                        Those. for 45 years there has been little municipal change, what has changed? Or has changed, but we are not quite up to date.
                      5. Operator
                        Operator 10 February 2016 22: 27 New
                        -1
                        You are right - the then transatmospheric missiles had nuclear warheads.

                        Perhaps the false targets were designed for kinetic transatmospheric interceptors, which were planned as part of the SDI program.

                        The reference material provides estimates of the impact on the BB and the false targets of X-rays and neutrons from an explosion in space 1-Mt warheads
                        http://www.wrk.ru/forums/attachment.php?item=78127
              2. opus
                10 February 2016 14: 34 New
                +1
                Quote: fzr1000
                And then what is the meaning of these false warheads? When until recently there was no missile defense project, if they burn out in high layers of the atmosphere?

                1.Now it’s not much different due to the thrust-weight ratio of ICBMs (flat trajectories, the apogee is underestimated to reduce flight time, although to the detriment)

                1). The active section, where due to the operation of the marching engines of the rocket stages, it is accelerated to a final speed (6 - 7 km / s).
                2). Separation area where individual warheads and false targets are separated.
                3). A ballistic section where all objects launched by the rocket move along the paths of free flight.
                4). The approach section (the final section), on which the warheads enter the dense layers of the atmosphere and are sent to the targets, and the false targets burn up when they enter the atmosphere.


                2. The number of BG (BB) is reduced (contract)

                3.Difficult to destroy the breeding platform (bus). Separation of individual warheads from the carrier platform is accompanied by short-term operation of small thrust engines, which allows missile defense systems to detect the platform and determine its position in space. If you then measure the platform velocity vector, then its position at subsequent times can be predicted with a fairly high degree of accuracy.
                Not all warheads are separated at once, so the defending side for some time continues to have the ability to defuse several warheads with one blow.
                bus sows them for a relatively long time.

                4. Powder the brains of SPRN, radar OK anyway, you need time to take on tracking, processing and transferring data to the fire system.
                All this complicates the work of the missile defense system, especially during a massive "raid" (the missile defense system itself will not cope with a global strike so far)


                Chevaline Polaris A-135 Program

              3. opus
                10 February 2016 14: 40 New
                0
                ----------------------------------
                Quote: fzr1000
                When until recently there was

                Well, missile defense, it was, you can say from the very beginnings of missiles

                At the end of 1940-x years, the United States began developing anti-ballistic systems designed to counter Soviet ballistic missiles. The first US missile defense programs were called Nike-Zeus and Nike-X.



                NIKE-ZEUS RADAR CHARACTERISTICS
      2. Falcon
        Falcon 8 February 2016 13: 10 New
        +1
        Quote: Operator
        The first time I hear that calculations for the creation of a new type of weapon (GBI) can be built on the expectation of the goodwill of a potential adversary to reduce its main type of strategic weapons (ICBM).


        Nobody expects goodwill - this is calculation and reality. All weapons go through a long development phase. Fighters were also piston several decades ago.

        Quote: Operator
        Russian Defense Ministry from the reduction of strategic nuclear forces, as well as the multiple increase in oil prices after the main oil producers — Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and Iran — are drawn into a full-scale military conflict in the Middle East (as a result of the introduction of their ground forces in Syria)


        stop Immediately omit the topic. I haven’t been discussing dreams and fantasy. You can add a nuclear strike on Turkey. Well or better for the Saudis right away. So in general the price will increase.

        Quote: Operator
        several dozen plastic metallized "cups" of decoys accompanying each warhead in flight


        False targets are almost identical in size to real ones. Dozens of them can not be placed on the rocket - in view of the dimensions.

        Quote: Operator
        The problem of atmospheric BB interception with nuclear warheads lies in a completely different plane


        Let's see how, after a dozen launched missiles, the missile defense system will control the space and look for the next BR
        1. Operator
          Operator 8 February 2016 14: 42 New
          -3
          What sane person (not a budget saw) will spend billions today on a GBI interceptor, which will be in demand only a few decades after the Sarmat and Rubezh are decommissioned (ie, after all GBI technical solutions have become obsolete)?

          Science fiction is not tomorrow’s Gulf War, science fiction is today's expeditionary operation of the Russian Aerospace Forces in Syria laughing

          During long-range atmospheric interception of warheads (at a distance of 800-1000 km) with the help of thermonuclear anti-missile warheads, an air plasma cloud does not form, which makes it possible for missile defense radars to detect successive warheads. And for near atmospheric interception, kinetic interceptors (but not GBI) are required, as I said.

          Light false targets are similar to BB only with their conical shape-forming surface, and inside they are dummies in the full sense of the word. Therefore, their number per each BB is several dozen pieces. Solid LCs are stacked on the BB, soft LCs are stored in a folded state and inflated with gas before discharge
      3. opus
        8 February 2016 21: 11 New
        +3
        Quote: Operator
        GBI type interceptors are purely a specific budget cut.)

        all our "inadequate" worries about the DRUNK AMERICAN BUDGET.
        What do you want?
        Let them cut it! Or you still have 3 years after renouncing US citizenship wink ?
        Them




        need to worry.

        We only rejoice.

        how would they cram the repeated interest in gamma-ray lasers, $ 50 billion?
        1. Operator
          Operator 8 February 2016 21: 38 New
          -4
          The use of the "budget drank" characteristic does not mean at all concern about the US finances, but the technical deadlock of their defense programs such as GBI.
          1. opus
            8 February 2016 22: 03 New
            +2
            Quote: Operator
            and the technical dead end of their defense programs like GBI.

            Ah, got it.
            and the technical justification for deadlocks can be given?
            Well, at least at the level of:


            I'm not asking for "numerical modeling of the ballistic trajectory section"


            or analysis of a typical active flight profile of a solid fuel ICBM

            Or "flat" trajectory "Topol-M", which runs almost parallel to the earth's surface belay
            with a pitch angle of \ alpha = 0.174 degrees, and it looks like this "funny" (journalists simply do not suspect it):


            they do not suspect that in 3 minutes the BB will receive 10-100 MJ of heat per sq. cm surfaces ...

            and interception of all this, or rather
            Quote: Operator
            dead end of their defense programs.

            The example of midcourse ABM missile defense
            1. Operator
              Operator 8 February 2016 23: 18 New
              0
              The technical dead end of all types of transatmospheric kinetic interceptors, including EKV, lies in the fact that they cannot select BB and false targets.

              Naturally, only when the BB is flying along a normal ballistic trajectory without any exotic flatness.

              For example, as in the table you presented: the height of the beginning of the ballistic trajectory 250 km, the speed 7 km / s, the angle of inclination 20 degrees, the apogee 1360 km. range 10350 km.
    2. opus
      8 February 2016 17: 41 New
      +2
      Quote: Falcon
      Blocks, including false ones, will be shot down by MOKV in the future.

      no false knock will not.
      what's the point?
      If the BB begins to maneuver (avoidance of EKV), all selection is made, LC do not maneuver.
      If not, then from the heights of 200 km natural selection will begin (gravity, aerodynamic drag, infrared trace, ablation coating loop, etc.).
      Quote: Falcon
      Transatmospheric interceptors removed from duty - worked out storage periods.

      and GBI and SM-3 intercept at altitudes from 70 to 300km.
      EKV (70-90 kg fragile design) is not suitable for flying in dense atmospheres at speeds above 5km / s
      1. Falcon
        Falcon 8 February 2016 20: 51 New
        +2
        Quote: opus
        and GBI and SM-3 intercept at altitudes from 70 to 300km.
        EKV (70-90 kg fragile design) is not suitable for flying in dense atmospheres at speeds above 5km / s


        Well, yes, I wrote about our missile defense system in Moscow.

        Quote: opus
        A warhead after entering the atmosphere at an altitude of 120 - 150 km aerodynamically slows down from 6.5 - 7.5 km / s to about 3 km / s so as not to burn like a meteorite before the target is hit: warhead drops speed to about 3 km / s at the entrance into the troposphere. With v = 3000 m / s and \ rho = 0.02 kg / m3, a heat flux of 70 MW per square meter of the warhead surface is obtained.


        Are they slowed down? I thought it was only Pershing who did this to ensure the operating time of the GOS. What then is the difficulty of intercepting them with existing air defense systems. If the C-400 is to intercept targets at a speed of 4,8 km / s, i.e. it should be quite acceptable to fight warheads in the atmospheric portion of the trajectory
        1. opus
          8 February 2016 21: 20 New
          +3
          Quote: Falcon
          Are they slowed down?

          Mandatory, otherwise it will burn
          with v = 7285 m / s BB will get heat flow of 1 GW (!) per sq.m warhead surfaces. The time of descent from a height of 35 to 20 km will be 13.2 seconds, during which time each square centimeter of the surface will receive 1.3 MJ heat. This is enough to melt and evaporate the tungsten casing with a thickness of 13 cm!
          With a cone base diameter of 1 m, such a shell would weigh 7.5 tons (the entire Topolya-M warhead weighs a little more than a ton). But the most interesting thing will begin in the troposphere (below 10 km), where the air density will reach 0.4 and almost linearly increase to 1.2 kg / cubic meter at the Earth's surface. This flight phase will last 8.6 seconds and obviously that the heat flux will increase by an order of magnitude. It is safe to say that no reasonable thermal protection, whether graphite or ceramic, including ablation coating, will save the warhead from monstrous overheating.


          Quote: Falcon
          If the S-400 should intercept targets at a speed of 4,8 km / s, i.e. it should be quite acceptable to fight warheads in the atmospheric portion of the trajectory

          I think it will miss. It all depends how close to the vertical drawn from the PU the BB trajectory will go
    3. opus
      8 February 2016 21: 08 New
      +1
      Quote: Falcon
      Blocks, including false ones, will be shot down by MOKV,

      This is a kind of mocca from Raytheon

      from Lockheed he is so

      "feel the difference".
  • magirus401
    magirus401 7 February 2016 11: 35 New
    -4
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: magirus401
    I see, it’s very difficult for comrades here with humor, you would have to sit in the General Staff and not on the network, experts .....

    This is the public information that we exchange under the START-3 Treaty with the United States, confirmed by mutual inspections. If you are not competent enough, what does humor have to do with it?


    Are you very competent? Maybe the General Staff Academy was graduating, except for the marshal epaulets on your page, for amateurish chatter on the network, something you can’t see
    1. Bongo
      Bongo 7 February 2016 12: 17 New
      +5
      Quote: magirus401
      Are you very competent?

      Apparently more than you.
      Quote: magirus401
      Maybe the General Staff Academy graduated

      That I ended up some on the site know, but this does not concern you. No.
      Quote: magirus401
      in addition to the marshall epaulettes on your page, for amateurish chatter on the network, something you can’t see

      Have you ever come to my profile? fool
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 7 February 2016 22: 03 New
        +3
        Quote: Bongo

        Have you ever come to my profile? fool


        Why do they need this?
        They came for an hour. Potryndely, nickname changed. and further. and so on in a circle on all possible sites.

        "Daughters of Officers" ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • magirus401
    magirus401 7 February 2016 23: 33 New
    -6
    Quote: Bongo
    Quote: magirus401
    Are you very competent?

    Apparently more than you.
    Quote: magirus401
    Maybe the General Staff Academy graduated

    That I ended up some on the site know, but this does not concern you. No.
    Quote: magirus401
    in addition to the marshall epaulettes on your page, for amateurish chatter on the network, something you can’t see

    Have you ever come to my profile? fool

    Quote: mav1971
    Quote: Bongo

    Have you ever come to my profile? fool


    Why do they need this?
    They came for an hour. Potryndely, nickname changed. and further. and so on in a circle on all possible sites.

    "Daughters of Officers" ...

    I don’t care about your profile, I think you graduated from a maximum of vocational schools, well, and the corresponding competence, but you need to be friends with humor, otherwise you won’t be long.
    And to you dear mav1971, you don’t need to tell anyone your methods, and it’s not good to jackal ..... "and we will go to the north"
    1. Amurets
      Amurets 8 February 2016 00: 56 New
      +4
      Quote: magirus401
      I don’t care about your profile, I think you graduated from a maximum of vocational schools, well, and the corresponding competence, but you need to be friends with humor, otherwise you won’t be long.

      Bongo graduated from a military school, unlike you, but judging by your statements, you have not risen higher than changing a wheel on Magirus. You were even expelled from vocational school for complete incompetence. So ". And we will go north" >> and don't come back. And let the Papuans be friends with your humor.
    2. Falcon
      Falcon 8 February 2016 08: 36 New
      +3
      Quote: magirus401
      I don’t care about your profile, I think you graduated from a maximum of vocational schools, well, and the corresponding competence, but you need to be friends with humor, otherwise you won’t be long.
      And to you dear mav1971, you don’t need to tell anyone your methods, and it’s not good to jackal ..... "and we will go to the north"


      Came, left poop, dirtied a branch and happy winked

      I hope you have achieved your goal ...
      You better write in the political branches of the site, they like those there. Slogans, loud phrases, caps, etc. And immediately a bunch of pluses yes
  • Fastenkov
    Fastenkov 8 February 2016 01: 31 New
    +2
    I live for a long time, but I cannot understand. Someone struck a nuclear strike on Russia. "Dead Hand Kremya" went as intended. Well this is hundreds, if not thousands of warheads of at least 100 kilotons (probably more powerful). If the destruction of each one requires (at best) two interceptors, each costing, say, 20 megabax, then already with a quantity of 2000 pieces, this is 40 dollars. Plus costs for silos and infrastructure, media rework ... a hundred yards. Not less. But all these activities DO NOT GIVE 000% guarantee of undershoot. And the part that reaches its destination is more than enough to destroy human life not only on the continent.
    In other words, creating a missile defense system, and undoubtedly realizing that it will not save, people are actively cutting the budget and that’s it. Hence the conclusion encouraging that they will attack in such a way that it is not clear who to shoot at. Say from the territory of Europopa. And hardly nuclear.
    1. opus
      8 February 2016 18: 02 New
      +4
      Quote: Fastenkov
      I live for a long time, but I cannot understand. Someone struck a nuclear strike against Russia. "Dead Hand Kremya" went as intended.

      Ours just refused to continue discussions on START-4.
      Americans INSECT: nuclear weapons must be completely eliminated.
      That is their goal.
      To do this, they torture missile defense.
      Quote: Fastenkov
      people are actively sawing the budget and all.

      Let's forget this phrase "saw the budget"
      Sawing and sawing. American after all.
      We are not American taxpayers; the drum is cut to us, the MORE they will saw, the less they will be able to FRAUD us.
      WE HAVE TO BE HAPPY.
      However?...
      However, all inadequate "ours." for some reason they care about the "drink of the American budget" (F-35, missile defense, SM-3, etc.).
      strange.
      It would be better if the budget of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, and they were interested in other Chubais with the Sechins
      1. BEECH 1972
        BEECH 1972 18 May 2016 19: 35 New
        0
        Quote: opus
        \\\ Let's forget this phrase "cut the budget"
        Sawing and sawing. American after all.
        We are not American taxpayers; the drum is cut to us, the MORE they will saw, the less they will be able to FRAUD us.
        WE HAVE TO BE HAPPY.
        /// Rejoice at what? If inadequate spending or cuts in the US budget, at least somehow reflected on the US economy or the welfare of their taxpayers, then it would be possible to rejoice. But knowledgeable people too well understand the price of such expenses when they spend the United States, but the whole world has to take a puff. And to rejoice in such a situation, you need to be at least a masochist.
  • Fastenkov
    Fastenkov 8 February 2016 01: 34 New
    0
    Or they won’t be at all, because the risk of getting an answer is great, there is little faith in missile defense (and when it will be ready), and a terrible enemy across the ocean is needed to receive funding. I want to eat something.
  • Old26
    Old26 8 February 2016 09: 21 New
    +5
    Anton! Thank you for the article. There is no time to read comments, although the first one is already clear that you "ENEMY", with a capital letter, for they encroached on the most sacred that our cheers-patriots have, and it has been said that the Americans are all bad.
    Part of the slides from the presentation of T. Postol, but the second with test paths, if not a secret, where it came from. From the MDA website? You can answer in PM, if that.
    Everything, ran to work
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 8 February 2016 11: 21 New
    +6
    The article is awesome. I've never read this before
    detailed and understandable presentation of this topic.

    In essence: I think to achieve high performance
    direct interception of ICBMs in space - impossible.
    Part of the warheads will always break through.
    But, it’s better to intercept something than nothing ...

    The use of ICBMs (someday) will be strangled by lasers from lower space
    (or stratosphere) down the stratosphere with the defeat there of the 1st stage of the ICBM - the largest
    and vulnerable parts of the rocket. There is nothing faster than a laser.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 8 February 2016 11: 39 New
    +2
    "The persistence (I would say," stubbornness ") of Americans is not entirely clear
    in missile defense tests against medium-range ballistic missiles "////

    Why is it incomprehensible? BRDS - the most common weapon of the third world leader countries.
    And not only the third - China, for example.
    Here the Americans and "insured themselves" - did Aegis.
    1. opus
      8 February 2016 23: 42 New
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Why is it incomprehensible? BRDS - the most common weapon of the third world leader countries.

      where are the GBI position areas and where are the third world countries?
  • Rumata
    Rumata 8 February 2016 20: 44 New
    +4
    Thank you, the article and the comments, for the exception of a couple of particularly stubborn, very interesting.
  • Mikhail Matyugin
    Mikhail Matyugin April 15 2016 18: 51 New
    +1
    Cool article! Very detailed and intelligible!