Military Review

NI on the main types of NATO weapons, opposed to Russia

69
Recently, the Pentagon announced plans to build up NATO forces in Eastern Europe. The publication of The National Interest in this connection has compiled a list of the main armaments that the alliance opposes to Russia.




The editor-in-chief, Dave Majumdar, placed Virginia-class submarines in first place, with $ 5 billion to be allocated from the US budget for 48,1 years to purchase and update.

“We are talking not only about purchasing nine most modern Virginia-class submarines of five years, but also about equipping existing submarines with modules of various combat loads. Thus, the shock potential of each submarine will triple - from Tomahawk's 12 missiles to 40, ”the author quotes RIA News.

Next on the list is the F-35 fighter. The observer admits that “Lockheed’s F-35’s lagging behind the schedule is several years, the developers have many technical shortcomings and flaws, the cost overruns are enormous, and the machine’s specifications do not match the promises.” At the same time, in his opinion, “F-35 has certain advantages, which include stealth and a sensor system that allows strikes against areas, being inaccessible to conventional fighters.”

The alliance plans to counter the Russian air defense systems with the newest LRS-B bomber, which is still under development. “The LRS-B program,” the article says, “is top secret, but the general technical requirements for developers are known - this is the ability to overcome the densest air defense system.”

On the 4th place is the Leopard 2 tank, which, apparently, will form the basis of the armies of NATO countries - “its advanced, longer gun L55 has much better characteristics for fighting heavily armored tanks».

“One of the shortcomings of the 2 Leopard is that Germany refuses to use depleted uranium in tank ammunition. This means that the Bundeswehr must look for alternative materials, ”the author notes.

The attack helicopter AN-64 Apache manufactured by Boeing, which comes into service with 1986, closes the list. "Since then, Apache has gone through many upgrades, getting more sophisticated detection and weapon. But, like its predecessors, the Apache of the latest models can carry Hellfire anti-tank missiles on board the 16, ”Majumdar writes.
Photos used:
kenallensforum.blogspot.com
69 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Al_oriso
    Al_oriso 6 February 2016 09: 20 New
    14
    Ours also has something to be proud of.
    1. vovanpain
      vovanpain 6 February 2016 09: 24 New
      27
      Well, so we are in the armed forces are not bows with arrows, there is something to answer adversaries. hi
      1. oleg-gr
        oleg-gr 6 February 2016 09: 27 New
        13
        Continued cutting of the US defense budget is confirmed. No matter how hard the F-35 is, they are not going to abandon it. "the latest LRS-B bomber, which is still under development" - a continuation of the banquet?
        1. krot
          krot 6 February 2016 09: 50 New
          +8
          Only now those serving them through 10 will make gentle homosexuals)) And how they will fight!
          1. maxxdesign
            maxxdesign 6 February 2016 10: 52 New
            +7
            gently and will))
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 6 February 2016 11: 27 New
            +4
            Quote: krot
            Only now those serving them through 10 will make gentle homosexuals)) And how they will fight!
            Maybe you're right.
            But only they will not go hand-to-hand. And they will sit at the consoles, controlling robots and drogues with a joystick ("mouse-obstructing" according to Zadornov). And all this fits into the concept of "contactless" level 6 war.
            No, the brave marines and paratroopers with special forces will, of course, remain, but only in the clash areas (a solid front line is not provided), the motorized infantry will have to fight against a robotic enemy controlled from around the corner (from cover). This is where EW, WTO and RUK means, high-precision MLRS, military air defense for stripping drones will be required. And of course, army aviation: attack helicopters and armored vehicles.
            Here, in general terms, as I see the combined arms battle of the future.
            1. Muvka
              Muvka 6 February 2016 13: 05 New
              +3
              And if we can land their drones, we can’t control their robots? Well, it's funny. In general, I consider these robots for the military to be nonsense. Only if they are good against isles.
              1. looker-on
                looker-on 8 February 2016 20: 05 New
                0
                Give examples of us landing their drones please. And in vain you as a whole: it is better to lose a drone with a rocket than a pilot (priceless) and an aircraft with weapons. The drone can be stood. Like a plane. In war mode, no one will even consider the cost (conditionally). But the pilot is almost irreparable loss. Pilot training is a long and expensive story. History (Germany, Japan) WW2 explained this very well to us.
            2. your1970
              your1970 6 February 2016 23: 14 New
              +1
              And if something (an adult) arrives at the substation that feeds the eagles who "will sit at the consoles, controlling the robots"? How many batteries will the robots have? Will the communication lines work without leprechaun? Will a generator be screwed to each robot / drone? destroying everything, including the operators of those drones / robots - there is no continuous front line! who will stop?
              A war against the Russian Federation / Europe / China / USA (the main military forces of the world) even without the use of nuclear weapons, as a result of large territories and sufficient military forces will never be the same - as described above
          3. avdkrd
            avdkrd 6 February 2016 13: 30 New
            +3
            Quote: krot
            Only now those serving them through 10 will make gentle homosexuals)) And how they will fight!

            why in 10 years? Today, the percentage of buggers is already quite high, and given the number of rapes directly in the US Army, it seems that they constitute the backbone.
        2. hrych
          hrych 6 February 2016 10: 00 New
          +6
          Quote: oleg-gr
          the latest LRS-B bomber, which is still under development

          Those. virtual, like Neo in the Matrix, by the way, unlike the original script, the trilogy film ends with nothing (may Morphius forgive me). According to the original plan, Neo's superpowers in the "real world" are made clear when the final shots of the film show all of our heroes bald in the capsules of the Matrix. Those. that real world also turned out to be virtual, i.e. a matrix in a matrix, so that the connected siskins generate more energy ...
          Yes, of course the only and tangible threat to us is the carriers of the Tomahawks, on which the concept of the "Global Strike" is actually based, but the Tomahawk, a low-flying subsonic slug, is an easy target, not just for air defense missiles, but also for cannon shells of interceptors, its rounding on the East European Plain (Russian Plain) is negligible, the flight time to targets is calculated in hours (and the BB of our missiles to New York fly in 20-30 minutes, not counting the strike of Sineva and Bulava, in the Arctic they get as close as possible to targets in the United States and fly a gift already a few minutes), and to defeat targets, the carrier (sea) must get close to the coast due to the limited range of the CD, but there is anti-ship defense ... in a word, the concept is initially a failure, and the stake is not on quality, but on the number of CD , however, the number of carriers (ships and submarines) is sometimes limited, and also the KR - drone-kamikaze, is highly susceptible to the action of electronic warfare, and if in a cloud of KR to detonate an air nuclear charge, then due to for EMP, everything falls like locusts. And more or less effective air-based missile launchers are very limited in number, stealth bomb carriers are not designed for them, they are trying to reanimate the old man B-52, well, a new virtual, but they are not given hypersound. In short, Morphius will help them ...
          1. skeptic
            skeptic 6 February 2016 10: 53 New
            +2
            Quote: hrych
            Yes, of course, the only and tangible threat to us is the carriers of the Tomahawks, on which the concept of the "Global Strike" is actually based.



            The main thing in their combat system is Ponte.
            The whole strategy is based on psychological pressure and the work of special services for the collapse of Russia as a state. Therefore, they mainly develop police functions. And they are sure that Russia and China will never be the first to use strategic nuclear forces, and therefore they will not bother much like cats in the kitchen, in full confidence that everything around them is their property.
            1. hrych
              hrych 6 February 2016 11: 54 New
              +6
              Quote: skeptic
              Russia and China will never be the first to use strategic nuclear forces

              Well, why, for all the nasty things, they try to stay away from aggravation, especially when the head of the Russian Federation outlined the boundaries beyond which there is a tough response, moreover, with the advancement of our troops and the annexation of lands, moreover determining in a geophysical sense (the Caucasus Range, the Black Sea strange, but the center of the sea is Crimea, the Syrian coast of the Mediterranean Sea). Therefore, on the Syrian and Novorossiysk fronts, we see only an attempt to incite the Turks and the bandura, with the prospect of their destruction and, as always, chatter in the media. The funniest thing is that in the Near East, the same Turkey is opposed by Iran of comparable power, the Arabian Kingdoms showed their "POWER" in Yemen, which even Zakharova laughed subtly. But we also have in stock the Peshmerga, Hisbollah, the PKK, the Syrian army is turning from a bloated rabble into a mobile army with experienced and battle-hardened fighters, the Iraqi army, the interesting position of Egypt, etc. And of course the reluctance of tolerant NATO members to fight, so the Turks remain in loneliness and with the prospect of catching a blow to the coast and from the Caucasus from the Russians.
              1. Inok10
                Inok10 6 February 2016 13: 02 New
                +3
                Quote: hrych
                But we also have Peshmergu, Hizbullah, PKK in reserve, the Syrian army is turning from a bloated rabble into a mobile army with experienced and battle-hardened fighters, the Iraqi army, an interesting position of Egypt, etc. And of course, the reluctance of tolerant NATO troops to fight, so the Turks remain in alone and with the prospect of catching a blow along the coast and from the Caucasus from the Rus.

                ... exactly ... hi ... two steps were still very significant in the second half of 2015 ... the export by Germany of its Patriots from Turkey and the removal of mattress mats from Injerlik F-15 ... and this at a time when the situation was heating up .. hi
              2. PValery53
                PValery53 6 February 2016 20: 40 New
                0
                And why not, that is, "yes." - I agree with the analysis of the situation.
          2. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 6 February 2016 12: 03 New
            +4
            Quote: hrych
            Yes, of course, the only and tangible threat to us is the carriers of the Tomahawks, on which the concept of the "Global Strike" is actually based ...

            Good afternoon, old comrade!
            With your permission, a few words on the topic.
            According to the estimates of our General Staff, yuser will be ready to go for a self-propelled lightning-fast global strike only if they have a GZO. They have the means to break through missile defense / air defense: this is the "Trident II D-5". Now they are making a new modification "E", possibly under the G / Z BB.
            "Tomahawks" in the form in which they were in the 20th century, will be used after the neutralization of the air defense system as a whole, to "finish off" the remaining and newly identified targets. But in the first echelon of the KRBD will go stealth-KR type LRAMS. Old axes are also tricky: according to the programmed program (flight map), they will simply bypass air defense systems out of the reach of FOR.
            Counteraction will be organized on the basis of the destruction of WTO carriers, the organization of electronic warfare and the EIM effect on bursting products. And of course, camouflage, silos protection systems, mobile systems (Borei, Yars, Barguziny, TU-160).
            "My native land is wide, there are many in it" ... closed secret places where you can place, scattered across the territory, means of retaliation. And so that the eggs do not lie in one basket, the Pacific Fleet is reinforced with the latest RPKSNs.
            1. hrych
              hrych 6 February 2016 12: 41 New
              0
              Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
              Good afternoon, old comrade!

              Strongly welcome !!!
        3. NIKNN
          NIKNN 6 February 2016 10: 18 New
          +5
          Quote: oleg-gr
          Continued cutting of the US defense budget is confirmed. No matter how hard the F-35 is, they are not going to abandon it. "the latest LRS-B bomber, which is still under development" - a continuation of the banquet?

          Interesting car. At the same time, and in the 5th worst and in the top five threats ... request
          Or the author is a sucker or they want to scare us with unpredictability. lol

          PS: Damn everything is clear, author Majumdarfoolread in vain ...
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 6 February 2016 09: 31 New
        11
        The most important thing is not to succumb to their provocations. By provocation I mean NATO's manifestation of peace, cooperation and their proposals to jointly ensure security in Europe. Under these "blah blah blah" they have already moved to our borders. We must stop them somewhere ...
      4. user
        user 6 February 2016 15: 51 New
        0
        “The LRS-B program,” the article says, “is top secret, but the general technical requirements for developers are known - this is the ability to overcome the most dense air defense system."


        It’s so secret that even what air defense it can overcome is secret
        There can be no secrecy if you follow certain areas of fundamental and applied physics.
    2. DIVAN SOLDIER
      DIVAN SOLDIER 6 February 2016 09: 25 New
      +8
      And of course, the main striking force of NATO is the Baltic states with horses.
      1. yuriy55
        yuriy55 6 February 2016 09: 38 New
        +2
        There is something to stop both horses and ss.kunov:
        1. hrych
          hrych 7 February 2016 08: 08 New
          +1
          Quote: yuriy55
          There is something to stop both horses and ss.kunov:

          Colleague, in your video Shurygin, a well-known military expert, bears an outright blizzard, in particular, blurted out (for 7 minutes 40 seconds) that the flight time from the border of Estonia (Narva) to Moscow for a cruise missile is less than 10-15 minutes. This "expert" apparently scratched the testicles in mathematics lessons instead of solving elementary problems about a train that travels from point A to point B at a certain speed and it is necessary to calculate the travel time. In short, from Moscow to Narva, it is almost 700 km, the maximum speed of the Tomahawk CD is 880 km / h, but in fact it is much less because it does not fly not in discharging by 10 thousand km, but flies 50 meters above the ground, respectively, the speed due to the density of the atmosphere The bending of the terrain also falls significantly, says that it is not flying in a straight line, and (the pilots will confirm) a head wind or side wind, and at such heights, it will have a strong effect on the speed and range of this device. In a word, it takes more than an hour to fly from the Estonian border of the Kyrgyz Republic. Here hypersound would have helped, but so far it was only given to the BB Bulava and Yars maneuvering at this speed ... As for tanks, the Ministry of Defense has more on its balance sheet than that of the PRC and the United States combined, as for the European armies, then ...
          1. hrych
            hrych 7 February 2016 08: 13 New
            +1
            ... better quote:
            As a result, to date, all NATO forces have 1,5 million people, of which 990 thousand are American troops (of which only 30 thousand soldiers and officers are deployed in Europe, the rest are deployed in the United States, and many of them are involved in wars, conducted by America in the Middle East).

            Those. in fact, the “Europeans” in the alliance’s forces include only 600 thousand. Moreover, this number includes all the national armed forces of the participating countries, although less than a third are given under the command of the headquarters structures of the alliance.

            Thus, in reality, the military bloc has only 200 thousand soldiers of the European armies. By the way, the arrogance that arose in the spring of 2014 near Kiev, on paper “having” 130 thousand soldiers and officers, becomes clear here. However, in comparison with the Bundeswehr, whose total number was reduced to 2010 thousand by 201, the Ukrainian military machine also looked solid.

            And on the tanks there, it’s absolutely pyachal ...
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 6 February 2016 12: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: DIVAN SOLDIER
        And of course, the main striking force of NATO is the Baltic states with horses.

        They are fully engaged in strengthening their air defense!
    3. Diana Ilyina
      Diana Ilyina 6 February 2016 09: 36 New
      18
      As soon as I read the name of the "expert", it immediately became clear that the conclusions were about nothing! I think even I know more about military technology than this "expert"! All his messages boil down to one thesis: America is the coolest, Russia sucks!

      I was pleased with the statement about their new bomber, capable of overcoming any missile defense. Nu-nu ...! Probably the next invisible hat will be put on him, and then it turns out that some old tube radar is seeing him. It was already, I think, that our designers are not worse than American. For each of their bolts, they come up with a nut with a reverse thread!
      1. Mountain shooter
        Mountain shooter 6 February 2016 11: 02 New
        0
        Yes, Diana, you understand very correctly. This expert, even that "expert"!
    4. The comment was deleted.
  2. Ami du peuple
    Ami du peuple 6 February 2016 09: 20 New
    +7
    F-35 has certain advantages, which include stealth and a sensor system.

    Is that all? Are the advantages of this uber waffe exhausted?
    The LRS-B program is top secret, but the general technical requirements for developers are known - these are ability to overcome the most dense air defense system

    To other bombers. such requirements, apparently, are not imposed. "Houston, we have problems. A dense enemy air defense system has been found! We are returning to base" - so what?
    Closes the list of attack helicopter An-64 Apache, which has been in service since 1986.

    I'm embarrassed to ask, what about the Comanche? Is the project completely over?
    1. Foresterer
      Foresterer 6 February 2016 09: 56 New
      +1
      He must be treated with care, he is dear. And it seems like a very beloved. That's all its advantages.
  3. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 6 February 2016 09: 27 New
    +3
    Majumdar, contrary to his usual habit, decided to write about NATO weapons. smile

    Nothing breakthrough except the hypothetical LRS-B. Where are the lasers, hypersound, unmanned fighters?
    1. kartalovkolya
      kartalovkolya 6 February 2016 13: 37 New
      0
      This Mujumdar (abbreviated eccentric with the letter "M") is "wise", but where are the results of the last check of the NATO Air Force BG starting at least from the FRG, and other "allies" of the United States will hardly be able to take off even 50% of the devices! And the rest of this expert is "bullshit"!
  4. pan.70
    pan.70 6 February 2016 09: 31 New
    +2
    It will be weak. The leopard is far from Almaty, F-35 to T-50, and in other military equipment. Our developers are also on the alert for weapons of any kind. Russia has great design, technological and technical potential, and we will become a leader. Go Russia!
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 6 February 2016 12: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: pan.70
      Russia has great design, technological and technical potential, and we will become a leader.

      Certainly!
      Here are just cadres of engineers and technicians capable of working on processing complexes with CNC and 3D printing parts. And we will also build factories and equip them with the means of production of the 21st century, removing the machines of the 18th century (and there are still such machines! - I saw myself - the truth of the company "Siemens").
      And so, of course, we are ahead of the rest!
  5. Olegater
    Olegater 6 February 2016 09: 31 New
    +3
    An interesting conclusion is drawn - they, with their weapons against us, are awesome, and there is a small one - this is what will happen in the future, for example, their much-praised fi35 and the modernization of submarines, and they’ll buy as many as 9 within five years !!!! And it is not known what will happen tomorrow in BV with an uncontrolled farther, who will strive to unleash a massacre and draw all NATO members into a meat grinder. Still out of the arsenal of dreams about the “LRS-B program,” the article says, “ is top secret, but the general technical requirements for developers are known - this is the ability to overcome the most dense air defense system". it is top secret, even they do not know about it, but according to their ideas it will overcome all systems of pro. I just want to say "dreams, dreams, where your sweetness dreams are gone, muck remains." And about tanks, in general, leopards with a long cannon, but there is a problem - the Germans, who stubbornly do not want to receive a dose of radiation from shells with depleted uranium. So they need to be forced to take it into service by 2020 and let them shine with fireflies in the night - after all, the sheriff's problems do not bother the Germans. And so this is the most powerful and invincible armada, BUT in the future.
  6. Pitot
    Pitot 6 February 2016 09: 33 New
    +2
    Pro-Western civilization as a whole cannot and cannot oppose the Russian soldier. His national spirit, patriotism, ingenuity, sacrifice - this and much more is what will break the stinking, rotten, but we will pay tribute, pro-Western, pro-Western sodomy and homorra. True, this can cost a lot of blood .... damn it, but what to do? Otherwise, we kirdyk. But in principle, in the post-apocalypse we will survive - they are not.
    1. Mikhail Krapivin
      Mikhail Krapivin 6 February 2016 10: 52 New
      +4
      Colleagues, just don’t kick, but no one, and certainly America, is going to give the Russian soldier the opportunity to show his best qualities, which are correctly listed by the respected colleague Pitot. They spit on our national spirit, patriotism, ingenuity, sacrifice, they fight as they please, remember Yugoslavia. I am sure that the Yugoslav troops would also show themselves, when fighting chest to chest, only no one gave them such an opportunity. They bombed, crushed, drove under the baseboard and did not allow them to stick their heads out, until they surrendered. In about the same way they see themselves as a war with us. And given the superiority in the number of relevant weapons, they have the right to do so. Is the Tomahawk old? Is it flying slowly? But there are a lot of them. Our T-50s are the coolest? Unconditionally believe! And how many T-50s are ready to immediately fly, shoot down the Tomahawks and hopelessly faulty F-35s? Two? Three? And that will decide the outcome of a future war, are you serious? The Chinese went their own way, they stamped weapons, planes for example, although it is simpler than that of amers, but in huge quantities. According to the principle - ten of ours will fill up one F-35 in any way. But we are stuck at some intermediate stage, we are striving for quality, but we are not doing the right amount ... Gauges are cooler than Tomahawks? Probably, but they are much smaller. Is the T-50 cooler than its counterparts? Maybe, but their units are against hundreds. Armata? Cool, but not an order of magnitude, everyone has good tanks now, and again there are dozens of them, and not hundreds and thousands. Helicopters? The same picture is on the level, but much less than necessary. All we can seriously oppose to them is a nuclear triad. It would also be good to pump up, especially the flight and underwater component, but not so bad. This is what we need to rely on, and all other types of equipment are to do, do, do ..
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 6 February 2016 12: 37 New
      +1
      Quote: Pitot
      Pro-Western civilization as a whole ... pro-Western sodomy and Gomorrah.

      The idea, of course, is interesting! (C)
      That's just with the terminology ... as if to put it mildly ... not quite adequate!
      T.K. "WESTERN" is not "Western", but different (African, Asian - for example), gravitating towards the WEST!
      And who, then, is this "radish"? Am I really * AUSTRA * or am I a drink? Then scary!
  7. LÄRZ
    LÄRZ 6 February 2016 09: 33 New
    +4
    “The LRS-B program,” the article says, “is top secret, but the general technical requirements for developers are known - this is the ability to overcome the most dense air defense system."
    "Blessed is he who believes."
    “It’s not just about purchasing nine of the most modern within five years percussion submarines of the "Virginia" type
    But here it is nonsense to you guys! Again, just think about the attack?
  8. yuriy55
    yuriy55 6 February 2016 09: 33 New
    +7
    Easier to depict:
    1. LÄRZ
      LÄRZ 6 February 2016 10: 22 New
      +2
      Quote: yuriy55
      Easier to depict:

      And they always have the language in front of business.
  9. zollstab
    zollstab 6 February 2016 09: 36 New
    0
    I will deviate a little. Yesterday 05.02.2016/17.00/XNUMX. at XNUMX on REN TV there was a film "Russian Strike". The point is that it is not the weapon that wins, but the man, his spirit and ability to fight!
  10. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 6 February 2016 09: 38 New
    +1
    ... contrast the latest LRS-B bomber, which is still under development

    Still in development, and already opposed to our air defense (as I understand it means the S-400). What, another "invisible". Only for some reason, only the US officials do not see them.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 6 February 2016 12: 44 New
      +1
      Quote: rotmistr60
      What, another "invisible". Only for some reason, only the US officials do not see them.

      To convince everyone of the seriousness of their intentions, they even provided photos!
  11. Olegater
    Olegater 6 February 2016 09: 40 New
    +3
    I’m embarrassed to ask why in a photograph in a submarine such a huge hatch? For very complete lice submariners?
    1. cap
      cap 6 February 2016 10: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: Olegater
      I’m embarrassed to ask why in a photograph in a submarine such a huge hatch? For very complete lice submariners?


      Luke "Admiral" laughing
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 6 February 2016 13: 06 New
      +3
      Quote: Olegater
      why is there such a huge hatch in a photograph in a submarine?

      Quote: cap
      Luke "Admiral"

      Not ... men! This is for the super-duper thermonuclear rubber ICBM. Which jumps on the territory of the enemy and crushes everyone, like cockroaches! laughing
      But seriously, this is most likely a photo montage. Hatch from silos Nuts. Mounted in the nose of the Elk, well, to make it worse.
      In general, it is planned to 2 hatch (on 6 KR drum PU in each). But this is for Virginia (retractable fence licked forward). Elks were also going to modernize in the same way, but something was not heard so far.
  12. Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 6 February 2016 09: 42 New
    -1
    Will it end on this? I can compare for example f35s su 35 and say we will also look at what your air detective is capable of in a battle against an equal opponent and good air defense!
    1. Mikhail Krapivin
      Mikhail Krapivin 6 February 2016 11: 02 New
      +1
      Oh, I’ll catch the cons, oh well .. And you, colleague, compare the F-35 and our Su-35 by the area of ​​the reflecting surface. Our ours, unfortunately, is an order of magnitude higher. This means that the F-35 will see ours for several hundred kilometers, and our F-35 will never see, but will only hear an alert about the attack .. Only this is the meaning of all these invisibles, but it is. And no matter how wonderful our Drying is, it will not be able to do anything with the F-35 until the ground-based radars highlight this very F-35. But our ground-based radar will be in this particular place, or rather not, this is a philosophical question.
      1. 1774
        1774 6 February 2016 12: 13 New
        +2
        Do you know that all fighters, when intercepting the CC, are aimed at the target either from the ground or from an Aircraft-Based Aviation Aircraft. And the command to turn on the airborne radar is given at the very extreme moment, indicating all the parameters of the airborne radar. This is done to turn on the radar immediately to detect the target, aim and launch the missile and get out of the attack. Since radar radiation is a unmasking sign, and no one and it never flies with a radar that is always on, if it is constantly on an invisible plane, then its invisibility is worthless. I know what I'm talking about, we were taught to do this.
        1. Mikhail Krapivin
          Mikhail Krapivin 6 February 2016 13: 20 New
          0
          May God grant that everything is so.
      2. VP
        VP 6 February 2016 22: 18 New
        0
        Tell me, please, is it valid for several hundred kilometers?
        Farther than Avks can or only at the Avax level?
        And tell me, please, why is it for him, how will he use it?
        I heard that the farthest launch of the VV missiles which managed to hit the enemy was from a distance of about 30 km. Despite the fact that the same aim-120 is declared for a multiple long distance. But the reality, they say, is just that - to confidently defeat an explosive rocket, you need to approach a distance at which the stealth is no longer stealth.
        Are they lying?
  13. Yak28
    Yak28 6 February 2016 09: 43 New
    +4
    Quote: pan.70
    It will be weak. The leopard is far from Almaty, F-35 to T-50, and in other military equipment.

    There are hundreds if not thousands of leopards, several pieces of Armata, about two hundred F-35s, and 50 prototypes T-5 laughing .
    And if you take the fleet, then Russia is hopelessly behind, it’s about how to compare our fleet and the Ukrainian one. The number of aircraft is also an abyss. request
    1. VP
      VP 6 February 2016 22: 27 New
      0
      Which leopards are there in the thousands? They are very different leopards. Even among the second lepers. It's like saying "we have thousands of T tanks"
  14. BOB044
    BOB044 6 February 2016 09: 55 New
    +2
    NI on the main types of NATO weapons, opposed to Russia
    You swim, fly up, drive up. And we will answer you with what we have prepared for you. Poles, French, Germans tried many countries and they all got what they deserved. Not to mention such small countries as Turkey, the UK, though not with its own hands, but got it in the teeth.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 6 February 2016 13: 15 New
      +1
      Quote: BOB044
      Great Britain, though not with her own hands, but still got it in the teeth.
      I apologize - BLANKS!

      That is, before that, GB was engaged in self-torture? knocking out her own teeth? - original!
  15. Yak28
    Yak28 6 February 2016 10: 26 New
    +1
    I personally strongly doubt that in the event of a serious war in NATO there will be unanimity, I doubt that the armies of Greece, Spain, Italy and other NATO countries will move to Russia by order of Washington
  16. sabakina
    sabakina 6 February 2016 10: 30 New
    +1
    the strike potential of each submarine will triple - from 12 Tomahawk missiles to 40
    Guys, who in the subject, tell me, is it really possible to shove 40 missiles into a submarine instead of 12? Or are they rubber? I would still understand 24, but not 40 ....
    1. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 6 February 2016 10: 48 New
      0
      If 12 disassemble into 40 parts. So here it does not converge with arithmetic.
    2. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 6 February 2016 13: 29 New
      +1
      "This is ... about equipping operating submarines modules of various combat load. Thus, the strike potential of each submarine will triple - from 12 Tomahawk missiles to 40 "
      , apparently this is the whole secret.
      But what they cram there: long Axes or short Harpoons - will depend on the tasks.
      Apparently somehow. hi
    3. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 February 2016 17: 52 New
      0
      Instead of torpedoes, you can cram.
    4. clidon
      clidon 6 February 2016 21: 36 New
      0
      A 28 meter compartment will be added. It has 4 modules for 7 "tomahawkomest" each. Is quite real. "Ohio" so carries 154 missiles and manages.
  17. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 6 February 2016 10: 32 New
    0
    The impression that the article was written by an American fifth grader.
  18. Gormenghast
    Gormenghast 6 February 2016 10: 58 New
    +2
    Something like that.

  19. evge-malyshev
    evge-malyshev 6 February 2016 11: 40 New
    0
    In my opinion, Majumdar is not Korotchenko.
  20. Remy_Argo
    Remy_Argo 6 February 2016 18: 36 New
    0
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    To other bombers. such requirements, apparently, are not imposed. "Houston, we have problems. A dense enemy air defense system has been found! We are returning to base" - so what?

    actually yes!
    The S-300V4 air defense brigade has a range of 385 km and a height of 185 km.
    2 battalions of 4 Batteries
    two launchers 9A82 - with two 9M82 missiles
    four launchers 9A83 - with four 9M83 missiles
    and one ROM 9A84 - for working with PU 9A82 and 9M82 missiles
    t two ROM 9A85 - to work with PU 9A83 and 9M83 missiles
    BC Brigade is 232 missiles in a volley
    1. rfv0304
      rfv0304 6 February 2016 19: 10 New
      0
      Is it possible to disclose such information? At best, this is nonsense.
  21. rfv0304
    rfv0304 6 February 2016 19: 07 New
    +1
    If these are their plans for 5 years, then this is still bearable. The main thing to plan is to strike not so much in Europe as in the USA and England. Although England without the United States shut up. Therefore, in the beginning it is necessary to put an end to the Americans (all skin colors).
  22. vitvdv75
    vitvdv75 6 February 2016 20: 30 New
    0
    Quote: maxxdesign
    gently and will))

    They will be gentle, and that is not the fact that gentle
  23. vetlan19
    vetlan19 7 February 2016 01: 58 New
    0
    Quote: skeptic
    The main thing in their combat system is Ponte.


    Ponte, as you know, are very expensive.