Military Review

Rematch

136
Declassified TTH new Russian missiles brought the West into shock


Shock ships - destroyers, URA cruisers desperately need the North and the Pacific fleets in an amount of at least 20 units - 10 each. And we have such ships, thanks to the Soviet military-industrial complex. The cruisers of projects 1144 and 1164 require only overhaul and re-equipment with modern models of radio engineering and missile weapons.

The news of the refusal of France to supply the Russian Navy "Mistral" was greeted by experts with great enthusiasm. Our fleet ships of this class "and the gift of neither nat, nor the money for not nat", as they said in a popular Soviet cartoon. But for four troughs - that is exactly what was planned to buy - would have to lay out as much as two billion euros. Apparently, someone's sick fantasy painted a picture of the suicide landing of four battalions of the Russian marines on the coast of Alaska, nothing else. Perhaps one such ship would be useful for the Emergency Situations Ministry, but not for the fleet.

Sometimes it is very sorry that the Russian land rarely gives birth to such patriotic intellectuals as Sergei G. Gorshkov. With him in the period from 1956 to 1985, the Russian fleet reached its peak of power. The Navy received a large series of first-class red-deck handsome rocket carriers. The Soviet school of shipbuilding has always stood out against the faded world background. Destroyers have always been a special feature, since the first project, they succeeded better than others. Recently, the fleet has hope. 13 February 2013, the Navy Main Board, approved the conceptual design 23560 (cipher "Leader") of the promising destroyer of the far sea zone, which introduced the Northern PKB. This is an excellent ship with rapid lines and unlimited seaworthiness, the king of the ocean zone. Looks clearly advantageous puffy and overweight "Orly Burke". A worthy heir to the Soviet destroyer of the 1-type project "Leningrad". The main armament is cruise missiles for firing at ground targets, the ammunition load is 100 – 120 units.

Truly formidable


At the end of 60's technological gap with the USSR in the field of rocket weapons the sea became apparent to most western military experts. For clarity, let us imagine a hypothetical duel somewhere in the North Atlantic between peers (1961 of release) - the American flagship, the nuclear supercar “Long Beach” and the Soviet rocket destroyer “Grozny” (the 58 project, which, after the entry of the lead ship with a light hand Khrushchev pereklassifitsifirovan in URO cruisers). First, consider the onboard arsenals. On board the "Long Beach" there are missile weapons: RIM-2 Terrier - 120 units, RIM-8 Talos - 52, ASROC-24 PLUR. On board the Grozny: PKR P-35 Progress and Z-V-600 Wave: 16 units. Nuclear weapons on “Long Beach”: Talos had six SAM-N-6bW / RIM-8B nuclear missiles equipped with W-30 0,5 kiloton warheads in the cellars of the long-range Talos long-range SAM system, from other well-known sources of the Navy, NN, according to other well-known sources - XNTX, from other United States Navy Forms, according to other well-known sources — XNNX, from other well-known sources, the Navy 2B, NGX, from other United States sources, XNTN, according to other well-known sources, X.N.X. 5 kt) plus 46 conventional SAM-N-6b / RIM-8A. In the Terrier 10 medium-range SAM systems (from 120), the RIM-2D missiles are equipped with one-kiloton W-45 nuclear warheads. In addition to the anti-aircraft missiles, there were three nuclear ASROC (W-44) from 24 onboard. The Grozny’s nuclear arsenal is not that impressive: only four 3М44 missiles of the anti-ship missile complex P-35 of 16 were equipped with TK-11 nuclear warheads with a 200 kiloton capacity.

The US Navy did not see the special need for specialized anti-ship weapons, considering that the deck aviation with tactical nuclear bombs B43 and B58 more effective. The tasks of self-defense of the ships were supposed to be solved with the help of anti-aircraft missiles adapted for firing at surface targets. Until the advent of Harpoon in 1977, the U.S. Navy did not have specialized anti-ship missiles. Of the many types of air defense systems that the Navy of the NATO countries possess, the most adapted for firing at surface targets is precisely Talos. In it, at the initial and middle sections of the flight path, the principle of guidance by a radar beam or the three-point method is applied, in the Western technical literature - a saddled beam. Its main drawback was that the width of the radar beam increased with distance, so guidance was possible as long as it did not exceed the radius of the missile’s warhead. To correct errors on the final section of the trajectory, semi-active radar guidance is used. The missile could be launched at a surface target located within the radio horizon of the ship. Since the reflection of the rotating radar beam from the surface of the water at small angles of inclination could create problems for the autopilot, Talos SAM went up to a great height and then dive almost vertically onto the target illuminated by the SPG-59 radar beam. Experienced firing from the Oklahoma City cruiser against an obsolete destroyer, carried out in 1968, showed that a massive missile with half-empty tanks without a starting accelerator weighing 3300 pounds even with an inert warhead flying at Mach 2,5 (1800 miles in hour), has sufficient kinetic energy to sink the ship. SAM went almost vertically, striking the stern, pierced the deck, rammed the engine room, blowing the nozzle of the boiler, and the bottom, roaring into the depths. The ship broke into two parts and sank. The damage would be even greater if the warhead carried explosives. The only condition limiting the possibility of firing Talos SAM on surface targets is that at least part of the metal mast should stick out from under the radio horizon. Experienced firing determined the maximum range of 25 miles (40 km) for the destroyer. That is, in this conditional battle, a situation develops when one ship attacks, and the enemy has the ability to only defend. Why are Talos guidance principles described in such detail? The fact is that the nuclear RIM-8B does not have semi-active radar guidance, it is controlled only in the radio beam throughout the flight, so you can forget about shooting at surface and low-flying targets. It even differs externally from the usual RIM-8A by the absence of “horns” - four interferometer antennas on the outer surface of the air intake ring. The missile is designed to fire at a group of air targets flying at high or medium altitudes. The radius of the nuclear warhead is up to 1000 feet (300 meters). If she shoots at a train of four P-35 missiles, stretching for eight kilometers, it will hit at best one.

“Grozny” is capable, with an external target designation from a Tu-16РЦ, Tu-95РЦ or Ka-25РЦ helicopters, to strike at Long Beach from a distance of 200 – 250 kilometers by two volleys of four missiles. They are two echelons with an interval of two kilometers, nuclear - closing in the ranks will overcome this distance in eight to nine minutes. The first missiles with conventional warheads go to the “slaughter”, in other words, they are designed to glut single-channel Talos and Terrier SAMs and, of course, will be shot down, and the nuclear ones will get to the super cruiser with a 15 tonnes X displacement and send the charred skeleton to the bottom.

It is clear that Long Beach is an escort ship, it does not go alone, only as part of the AUG. But this is an example of how a “lone wolf” - a small Soviet destroyer with a displacement of 4500 tons can tear apart a whole herd of expensive American buffaloes.

"Tomahawk" undershoot


From January 24 on 2014, works on the modernization of Admiral Nakhimov on the 11442 project have been going on at Sevmash. Technical project developed by Northern PKB. Modernization of the cruiser began with the dismantling of large equipment and systems that need to be replaced and repaired. This made it possible to reduce the weight of the structure, which facilitated the transfer from the mooring wall to the liquid pool of the enterprise. In one of the shops of Sevmash, pontoons were made to transfer the “Admiral Nakhimov” across the threshold of a floating hydraulic gate in the bulk basin. October 16 2014-th head of the Northern PKB said that after the repair, "Admiral Nakhimov" will serve another 30 – 40 years: “It will be a fundamentally updated ship, almost new. He has a good body. And everything else, except the body and part of the power plant, will be new. "

Sevmash and design bureaus of special machinery made a deal for 10 XYUM XC-3 UVP kits for installation on the missile cruiser during modernization. The contract is estimated at 14 billion rubles. Thus, the 2,559 PU SM-20 Granit 255K3 complex will be replaced with ten 45С-3 vertical launch installation modules under the 14М3 КРібр and КCR 14М3. Total ammunition will be 54 missiles.

3M14 "Caliber" showed extremely high efficiency during a combat operation in Syria. The first baptism of Russian-Soviet strategic KR took place on the night of October 7 2015. The grouping of the Caspian Flotilla in the composition of the rocket ship Dagestan of the 11661 project (code Gepard) and three MRKs of the 21631 project Buyan-M launched 26 3М14 Caliber missiles on the objects of the Islamic State banned in Russia. November 20 the same composition on targets in the territory captured by terrorists in Syria, was hit by eighteen "Calibers". 8 December The Rostov-on-Don submarine of the 636 project, while in the Mediterranean, fired a volley of four such missiles from a submerged position at its IG facilities. Immediately after the second rocket attack, all the central TV channels showed footage of the report of the Minister of Defense to the President on the results of the military operation. Vladimir Putin noted the high efficiency of the new Russian KR air X-101 and sea-based 3М14. For the first time declassified and announced personally by the president of the performance of new missiles. In particular, the world public has become aware of the operating range of the KR X-101 - 4500 kilometers and 3М14 - 1500 kilometers. If the first number did not surprise the leading Western experts, the second one caused a shock. Previously it was believed that the 3М14Э export version has a range of 275 kilometers, and the Russian version is no more than 500. Although it is worth recalling: high-ranking naval officers in the official Russian press unambiguously hinted at the range of 2000 kilometers and even 2600. The President emphasized: "If necessary, missiles can be equipped with nuclear warheads." Let's dwell on this in more detail.

Rematch


There are no technological problems here, given that the "Caliber" is the direct heir of the Soviet sea-based KR 3М10 "Granat". More precisely - a deep modernization. Soviet nuclear warheads can be easily removed from warehouses, depreciated and mounted on new missiles. The range is rich. First of all, these are almost “native” 66-02 TCs with a 200 kilo ton capacity. They were installed not only on the “Grenades”, but also on the X-55 and KNS 3М12 “Relief” air-jackets, better known as the RK-55. The advanced model of the 66-05 TC increased to 250 kilotons of power was installed only on X-55CM missiles. Both warheads have the same weight - 140 kilograms. Another “candidate” is a lighter 90-kilogram low-power TC-60 (10 CT), specially developed for the Onyx RCC 3М55. The original version of the "Caliber" has a high-explosive fragmentation warhead weighing 500 kilograms. With the replacement of a conventional warhead with a nuclear warhead with the rational use of the released internal volumes of the rocket, you can place up to 400 kilograms of additional fuel, which will increase the range to a thousand kilometers. Let me remind you: KR is a medium-range sea-based not related to the INF Treaty.

The other premiere remained unnoticed - the first in stories Combat use of TFRs, equipped with fundamentally new HSS ARGS-14 - active radar, capable of working on land stationary and limitedly moving targets in a complex natural and artificially created jamming environment. That is, the GOS ARGS-14 is capable of highlighting targets against the background of a complex terrain and in conditions of active radio resistance of the enemy. In 2014, Raytheon, catching up with the lag in the guidance systems of Russian technologies for TFR, began test flights of an improved modification of Block IV for attacking surface and restrictedly mobile ground targets. The new active radar IMS-280 radar with AFAR X-band (2) band 10-12 GHz (wavelength - 2,5 cm) is able to determine autonomously by the reflected electromagnetic signal, comparing it with the archive of signatures of potential targets stored on the on-board computer hard drive. "Your" - "alien" ship or a civilian ship. Depending on the answer, the rocket independently decides which target to attack. Gradually, the ARL of the GOS is squeezing the OE of the GOS from missiles of different classes from anti-tank guided missiles to missiles. However, the trend. With the same, one might say, identical characteristics, the American GOS is heavier than the Russian by 25 percent and occupies a larger volume in the rocket. The designers warned the military: in spite of the fact that the new GOS will be installed instead of the AN / DXQ-1 DSMAC opto-electronic module, it will be necessary to remove part of the fuel tanks of sections 1, 2, 3, the total amount of fuel will be reduced to 360 kilograms. This will reduce the operating range of the missile from 1600 to 1200 kilometers. The military creaked, but agreed. Instead, they get a universal long-range KR for strikes against ground targets and full-fledged anti-ship missiles in one rocket, which they never had. The previous, outdated model of the anti-ship "Tomahawk" TASM, retired more than a decade ago, was equipped with a primitive active radar seeker AN / DSQ-28 of Harpoon missiles, and there was serious concern about the very limited ability to clearly highlight targets from a long distance. The rocket could not find the target or take the first available to the AU, including its ships. Even the installation of GPS satellite navigation receivers on all rockets in the middle of the 90-s did not really improve the situation. The BGM-109B TASM RCC had an unprecedented maximum aerodynamic range of 500 miles (800 km), but the submarine and NK commanders were prohibited from using its internal instructions for more than 200 miles. Raytheon is clearly winning the competition for the long-range advanced RCC from its rival, Lockheed Martin, with its LRASM project. The company proposes not to produce new missiles, but to upgrade the entire arsenal of four thousand existing Tomahawks. The repair kit, which costs 250 thousands of dollars apiece, includes an overhaul with an extension of the resource for 15 years and the installation of a new GPS. Completion of works is planned for 2021 year.

All last year at Raytheon, research and development on the supersonic 3 Flywheel version of Tomahawk was in full swing. With its predecessor, it will have nothing in common except the name. Instead of a TDRD, the rocket will receive a fundamentally new ramjet, which accelerates it to the cruising speed of 3 M, maintained throughout the flight to the target. The factor seriously limiting the missile technology performance characteristics is the size of the ship launch tubes (cups) of the Mk-41 ATC. The container with the missile must not exceed 21 inch (533 mm) in diameter and 266 inches length (6756 mm). The launch accelerator rocket weight is limited to 4000 pounds (1800 kg). It is appropriate to recall the DARPA Arc light program, which at one time did not descend from the pages of the media. The impression was that extremely naive people with knowledge of physics at the level of the 6 grade of secondary school gathered in the agency. The very first reports of Arc light were very similar to science fiction. In the dimensions of the Mk-41 PU, it is impossible to make an aero-ballistic rocket with a hypersonic upper stage, which has an astounding launch range - 3700 kilometers, even with a microscopic warhead in 100 pounds. The rocket was created on the concept of fast global strike. To achieve such results with the available initial data, you need solid fuel ten times better than the best modern grades in specific impulse and caloric content. In the end, the Ministry of Defense realized that DARPA was holding its nose, since 2012, they have stopped funding this program and now, in general, they distrust all the agency's developments.

Peter the Great TARKR is scheduled to be docked for major repairs in the third or fourth quarter of 2019 and completed at the end of 2022. Unlike the Admiral Nakhimov, the ship will have a mixed ammunition package from subsonic CU 3М14 Caliber, supersonic 3М55 Onyx, and is also equipped with a fundamentally new hypersonic rocket complex 3KKNNXX Zircon (Div). MIC ", No. 22, 12). The product is on the test trials, which are scheduled to be completed by 2016 year. All the missiles of Peter the Great will be placed in the same 2020 universal UVP 10С-3 modules. Unlike the American Mk-14, the Russian UVP will allow placing weapons with large weight and size characteristics: diameter up to 41 millimeters, length up to 750 millimeters, starting mass up to 9000 kilograms for rockets on liquid fuel and up to 4000 kilograms for solid propellants. This gives significant advantages in range (up to 4500 km), speed and combat load.

Younger brothers "Kirov"


As part of the Soviet Navy, by the middle of 1989, there were approximately 1000 surface ships and 377 submarines (including atomic 189). Of these, 276 and 338, respectively, were capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Surface forces consisted of seven aircraft-carrying cruisers, 34 cruisers, 52 destroyers, 119 large and small anti-submarine ships and 65 rocket corvettes. The main strategic strike force was the 64 SSBN, which had onboard 980 ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons to the 2956 intercontinental range. The Soviet Navy at that time was able to wage armed struggle on the sea and ocean expanses with any enemy, successfully resisting the most powerful fleet - the American and the dwarf fleets of NATO countries at the same time.

The modern Russian fleet is the pale shadow of the mighty Soviet Navy. The project of the last Soviet missile cruiser 1144 began to be developed in the middle of the 60-s. The first ship from the series of five units was laid on the Baltic GCC in Leningrad 26 in March 1974 of the year and became operational in the 1980. He received the name "Kirov". Cruisers of this type are the world's largest combat surface ships, laid down after World War II, except for aircraft carriers. Displacement - 24 500 tons, length - 251 meter. The power plant is nuclear, has the full power of thousands of horsepower 140. Travel speed - 31 node. Crew - 728 officers and sailors. The cruiser carries three Ka-27 (Helix) helicopters. The main armament of the ship - 20 supersonic anti-ship missiles 3М45 "Granit" with a range of 600 kilometers. The second cruiser, the Frunze (renamed Admiral Ushakov from 1992), was put into service on 1984. Both ships were in the fleet reserve for some time. Currently, "Kirov" dismantled metal. "Admiral Ushakov" - in a sludge in the Abrek Bay in the Far East. The other two ships, the Admiral Nakhimov and Peter the Great, which were laid out as Kalinin and Yuri Andropov in 1983 and 1986, entered service in 1988 and 1998 respectively. Construction of the fifth ship in 1989-m was canceled.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/30325
136 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Same lech
    Same lech April 23 2016 05: 28
    +1
    To achieve such results with the available initial data, you need solid fuel, ten times superior in specific impulse and caloric content to the best modern grades.


    Fuel is a key element of any rocket ... in RUSSIA GLORY TO GOD this is all right.

    The military-analytical center Janes Information Group (USA) published a report on the successful test by Russia of the new hypersonic aircraft Yu-71 (Yu-71 in English transcription).
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 April 23 2016 12: 23
      -1
      Quote: The same Lech
      To achieve such results with the available initial data, you need solid fuel, ten times superior in specific impulse and caloric content to the best modern grades.


      Fuel is a key element of any rocket ... in RUSSIA GLORY TO GOD this is all right.



      Why did it happen?
      Solid rockets have always lagged behind amers .. Maces example is not enough? In 2013, they made a full solid fuel analog of the Second Trident ... How many years have passed? 30-40? And after all, it is all about fuel mixtures.
      1. Saburov
        Saburov April 23 2016 18: 13
        +12
        Quote: mav1971
        Why did it happen?
        Solid rockets have always lagged behind amers .. Maces example is not enough? In 2013, they made a full solid fuel analog of the Second Trident ... How many years have passed? 30-40? And after all, it is all about fuel mixtures.


        Well, here you got excited. There are a lot of USSR / Russia missiles, for example solid propellant rocket launchers, which are still confidently overtaking all existing analogs in their performance characteristics, including American ones. The point is not in fuel mixtures, but in the possibility of a rocket. The mace is focused on the breakthrough of missile defense. Rocket increased acceleration speed. They loaded it with false goals and other means, although all the performance characteristics in secret and the exact cast weight will not tell you either. There is one more nuance. The fact is that Russia (if you have not noticed) is on the path to reducing the size of nuclear weapons carriers, including warheads, the logic is simple, modern electronic filling and composites can significantly reduce the size and weight, and also to a small target, and maneuvering is also harder to hit. And then our designers have advanced very far with the experience of Soviet developments. The USSR in rocket science was already ahead of the USA at the beginning of the 80x. The only problem was with electronics, the desire to deliver as many kilotons and composites to the enemy as possible, which resulted in increased missile sizes. And besides, the comparison does not take into account such important parameters as the survivability of the rocket (resistance to the damaging factors of a nuclear explosion), its trajectory, the duration of the active section (which can greatly affect the weight cast). In addition, the maximum range is not always indicated for the variant with the maximum cast mass. So at the Trident 2 rocket with 8 load of the W88 RGCh (2800 kg), the 7838 range is km.

        PS And as for the fuel mixtures ... they are exactly the same as there. For example, the starting mass of Trident 2 is almost 60 tons, while Bulava has almost two times less, about 37 tons. So it turns out that it’s not a matter of fuel, but of its quantity, capabilities and rocket filling.
        1. opus
          opus April 23 2016 20: 46
          +1
          Quote: Saburov
          RCC on solid fuel, which are still confidently overtaking all existing analogues in their performance characteristics, including American ones. The point is not in fuel mixtures, but in the possibility of a rocket. The mace is focused on the breakthrough of missile defense. Rocket increased acceleration speed.

          1.Don't overtake
          2. A mace somewhere at the level of UGM-96A Trident I C-4 (- / +)
          3. They didn’t increase anything. Due to TK, MS reduced the apogee.
          Quote: Saburov
          PS And as for the fuel mixtures ... they are exactly the same as there. For example, the starting mass of Trident 2 is almost 60 tons, and at Bulava it is almost half as much, about 37 tons


          1. Our TC is worse, therefore we cannot create solid propellant rocket motors as the first booster stages for LV



          about porosity, generally I’m silent

          2. You compare with casting weight
          2 800kg vs 1150 gk (more than 50% Mon, requires 70-80% more starting weight)
          and with range. 9300km along the flat path 3М30 -will not
          1. Saburov
            Saburov April 23 2016 22: 49
            +12
            Quote: opus
            1.Don't overtake
            2. A mace somewhere at the level of UGM-96A Trident I C-4 (- / +)
            3. They didn’t increase anything. Due to TK, MS reduced the apogee.


            1) Arguments on the performance characteristics of bourgeois anti-ship missiles?
            2) No, there is a completely different level from separation of warheads to navigation systems, engine design and ways to overcome missile defense. Do you really think that they are sitting in the General Staff of Bol.Va.? They didn’t listen to you! I’ll tell you one secret, Moscow Region sets the technical task, and rocket scientists must fulfill it. Then a series of tests, those that are shown on television and those that are closed and that you cannot know about. It's like a barter. If something MO does not suit or does not meet the technical requirements, the product simply will not be accepted.
            3) Here I am amazed. Was that what they told you, or are you one of those people who truly believe in Wikipedia? From well-known sources in the vast expanses of the network, the height of the apogee of the Bulava trajectory during the test is 1000 km. Well, for everything else, some of the developments on the product P-39UTTH were used in Mace.

            Quote: opus
            1. Our TC is worse, therefore we cannot create solid propellant rocket motors as the first booster stages for LV


            Tell this to the designers of the Iskra NGOs, they will at least have something to laugh at. Photo attached.


            Quote: opus
            2. You compare with casting weight
            2 800kg vs 1150 gk (more than 50% Mon, requires 70-80% more starting weight)
            and with range. 9300km along the flat path 3М30 -will not



            Well, you’re kind of not a stupid person, think for yourself why it was to create a knowingly losing rocket? And make a boat under it? Cut, corruption? No dear, it is not a matter of throwing weight or even the number of warheads. As you probably know, the Bulava has completely different BBs that are maneuvering, light and have good protection (which cannot be said about the W88, which was developed without the requirements of protection against the effects of a nuclear explosion and weighs 350 kg). Here is a completely different principle of diluting and delivering the BB to the goal, the methods of setting the LC, and much more about which is not you, I don’t know. And given the fact that Russia is a leader in nuclear energy and industry, including the nuclear weapons complex, one Commander-in-Chief knows what’s inside the BB, while Russia is now getting weapons-grade plutonium for free.

            PS If there were a bad rocket, our Western "colleagues" would tell us that you are going the right way, and since they are fussing with measuring ships and observation, then something went wrong. Something that they are not to be seen in the Chinese and North Korean trials, one dry cargo ship for honor and that's it. Don't read Jewish newspapers.
            1. opus
              opus April 23 2016 23: 23
              +2
              Quote: Saburov
              1) Arguments on the performance characteristics of bourgeois anti-ship missiles?


              Do they have RCC with solid propellant rocket engines?
              They went the way: small size / mass, a lot: put on any pie and bullet.

              UGM-89 Perseus -ce current project!
              Quote: Saburov
              2) No, there is a completely different level from the separation of MS

              what other?
              we (according to tradition) "reverse" (against the move), they have "direct".
              And it’s clear why.
              Quote: Saburov
              Do you really think that they are sitting in the General Staff of Bol.Va.? They didn’t listen to you! I’ll tell you one secret, Moscow Region sets the technical task, and rocket scientists must fulfill it.

              1.Not fools. But they are limited by the technological capabilities of industry.
              2. Once they listened to me (or rather hear) m. I will get bread and butter
              Quote: Saburov
              Here I am amazed. Was that what they told you, or are you one of those people who truly believe in Wikipedia?

              I don’t read it. See SNV-1,2,3, there it is.

              Quote: Saburov
              Tell this to the designers of the Iskra NGOs, they will at least have something to laugh at.

              I don’t have to tell anyone anything.
              if you show me the SRB of the first (auxiliary) stage of ours, on 1400 tc - I will bury myself with tears ...
              Threat you and me at 1400ts will not show.
              This is the problem of our medium / heavy class launch vehicles
              Quote: Saburov
              Well, you’re kind of not a stupid person, think for yourself why it was to create a knowingly losing rocket? And make a boat under it? Cut, corruption?

              stupid me.
              1. ICBMs with solid propellant rocket engines are urgently needed for the submarine fleet. Although I am a supporter of liquid propellant rocket engine specific impulse, adjustable traction, multiple inclusion) ... but here is the price ..
              2. R-39 (3M65) example and project 971 is the same
              Quote: Saburov
              It is known that the Bulava has completely different BBs maneuvering, light and having good protection (which cannot be said about the W88 which was developed without the requirements of protection against the effects of a nuclear explosion and weighs 350 kg). T

              1. Oh come on.
              There will be time I will write an article about picking Americans with a flat trajectory.
              2. W88 / Mk-5, unlike W87 in terms of TOR, did not need to be protected from the effects of a nuclear explosion, which allowed to reduce the mass of the warhead.
              But structurally it is 1 in 1 in 87
              and it "weighs" 350 kg, and has 475 kt (as opposed to 87 -300 kt)

              Well, Clubs 150ct with a mass of 110-115kg. SO WHAT?

              About Quo I generally keep quiet
              and BG Bulava is not "protected".


              Quote: Saburov
              one Commander-in-Chief knows what's inside the BB,

              the Commander-in-Chief, I suppose, will not distinguish the BG from the warhead and from the RMS the same.
              not his "specificity"
              1. Saburov
                Saburov April 24 2016 02: 09
                +2
                Quote: opus
                Do they have RCC with solid propellant rocket engines?
                They went the way: small size / mass, a lot: put on any pie and bullet.


                Are you not interested in range and speed and warhead of anti-ship missiles?

                Quote: opus
                what other?
                we (according to tradition) "reverse" (against the move), they have "direct".
                And it’s clear why.


                And then the separation of the BB with their divorce? Are you possibly confused with the breeding unit? The divorce or withdrawal to the target trajectory and the area of ​​the BB on the ICBM cannot be known to you under any conditions. State secret.

                Quote: opus
                1.Not fools. But they are limited by the technological capabilities of industry.
                2. Once they listened to me (or rather hear) m. I will get bread and butter


                And tell us what technologies we have, for example, in Dubna or even on the same Spark? Is it known? And I very much doubt that you have any idea what technologies we have. But with design solutions and tasks more difficult. So these are your guesses and conclusions.

                Quote: opus
                I don’t have to tell anyone anything.
                if you show me the SRB of the first (auxiliary) stage of ours, on 1400 tc - I will bury myself with tears ...
                Threat you and me at 1400ts will not show.
                This is the problem of our medium / heavy class launch vehicles


                So start wiping yourself, and showing you is optional. Understand one thing that an ICBM is not a Caliber and a vivid demonstration of the capabilities of the same Mace can be seen only in one case ... and the data and TTX simply will not shine, just like the capabilities of electronic warfare, although few people believed in it.

                Quote: opus
                1. Oh come on.
                There will be time I will write an article about picking Americans with a flat trajectory.
                2. W88 / Mk-5, unlike W87 in terms of TOR, did not need to be protected from the effects of a nuclear explosion, which allowed to reduce the mass of the warhead.
                But structurally it is 1 in 1 in 87
                and it "weighs" 350 kg, and has 475 kt (as opposed to 87 -300 kt)
                Well, Clubs 150ct with a mass of 110-115kg. SO WHAT?
                About Quo I generally keep quiet
                and BG Bulava is not "protected".


                And who told you that the BB Mace weighs 110 kg? Have you guessed it yourself or divided the weight into 10? I’ll tell you a secret about our warheads, but what’s there ... even artillery special ammunition is under the stamp of SS or OP. So if you knew what was very unlikely, you would be silent. I will give you one example. Back in the distant 2001, there was a design warhead for one rocket known to everyone, weighing 83 kg and a design capacity of 670 ct ... whether it was accepted or not, is not known. In general, guesses and conclusions are a good thing, but not ungrateful ... sometimes you are mistaken.

                Quote: opus
                the Commander-in-Chief, I suppose, will not distinguish the BG from the warhead and from the RMS the same.
                not his "specificity"


                That's just the point that you assume, but he disposes.

                PS Ever since the days of the USSR, ours has remained the habit of secreting everything to the ground. For example, no one has data on the number of type and baseline of the Kyrgyz Republic in Russia or the names and types of BBs. And the START treaties are like bookkeeping, there is official and shadow. And everyone is trying to convince each other of sincerity.
                1. opus
                  opus April 24 2016 15: 09
                  +1
                  Quote: Saburov
                  Are you not interested in range and speed and warhead of anti-ship missiles?

                  interesting. And as interesting TSU and combat effectiveness (real).
                  If you take: A / U / RGM-84A and B, A / U / RGM-84C, A / U / RGM-84D2, AGM-84E
                  150 (old) -300 km, weight 740 kg (_ / +), with warhead, kg 230 (- / +)
                  not for nothing that the P-15 () was replaced by the X-35 (130-300km, 700kg weight, 145kg warhead)

                  “Malachite” - 3,18 t
                  Mosquito - 3,95 t
                  “Basalt” - 6,2 t (length 11,7 m)
                  Granite - 7 t
                  ----------------
                  Yes PJ-10 "BrahMos" (P-800 Onyx - Yakhont) M2-M2,8 (at the height). But 2500-3000kg!
                  Range 120-300km, with warheads up to 250kg.
                  A LOT of aviation carriers? And how many pieces carry?

                  X-31a? Range, km 5-50 (10-70), warhead weight, kg 90-95,9

                  ----------------------------------
                  Either speed or mass.
                  and the range ... today, over 300km makes sense?
                  Let's see what the Japanese get with XASM-3

                  The application is serious

                  Weight 900 kg, Length 5.25 m
                  Operational range150 km (81 nmi; 93 mi)
                  Speed ​​Mach 3-Mach 5
                  Quote: Saburov
                  And then the separation of the BB with their divorce?

                  what is the question
                  Quote: Saburov
                  there’s a completely different level from the separation of warheads,

                  that’s the answer. what's the problem?
                  Quote: Saburov
                  And I very much doubt that you have any idea what technologies we have

                  you do the right thing (doubt my mental abilities). Usually (as you) declares the person who is 2theme. "Well, share it with me, with a fool, within the limits of what is permitted.
                  Quote: Saburov
                  And who told you that the BB Mace weighs 110 kg?

                  and mother is just like that. A lot of verbal husks. we read the agreement there, in the applications. You’ll spread your brain a bit, figure out how you can conclude restriction agreements, control their implementation, not knowing the exact data.
                  1. opus
                    opus April 24 2016 15: 14
                    +1
                    Quote: Saburov
                    I’ll tell you a secret about our BBs,

                    god ... "secret".
                    We watch TV reports, move our brains




                    Quote: Saburov
                    And everyone is trying to convince each other of sincerity.

                    You know better, probably.
                    Let me remind you: they also "treated" us ("if there is war tomorrow, we are in Berlin for 2 weeks") and they ("secret weapon of the Reich")
                    ------------- I express my point of view, within the framework of the permissible, that's all.
                    I’m trying to justify it, at the level of the 7 class. You are floating in the clouds, arguing for nothing, nonsense in fact.

                    Quote: Saburov
                    So start to wipe yourself, but it’s optional to show you. Understand one thing that an ICBM is not a Caliber and a vivid demonstration of the capabilities of the same Mace can only be seen in one case.

                    "wipe off"? For rudeness, you can get into a melon, although I am not a supporter, but some mutants only understand such a dialogue ...
                    1. Saburov
                      Saburov April 24 2016 17: 08
                      +2
                      Quote: opus
                      god ... "secret".
                      We watch TV reports, move our brains


                      Already one answer raises doubts about the adequacy and knowledge of the material. I already told you that there are trials and funny adventures in the factory for TV (that is, for you) and closed to the Moscow Region.

                      Quote: opus
                      You know better, probably.
                      Let me remind you: they also "treated" us ("if there is war tomorrow, we are in Berlin for 2 weeks") and they ("secret weapon of the Reich")
                      I express my point of view, within the framework of what is permitted, that’s all.
                      I’m trying to justify it, at the level of the 7 class. You are floating in the clouds, arguing for nothing, nonsense in fact.


                      That's it! There is either a point of view or logic! And she is known to be neither male nor female, she is either there or not!

                      Quote: opus
                      "wipe off"? For rudeness, you can get into a melon, although I am not a supporter, but some mutants only understand such a dialogue ...


                      What are your words?

                      Quote: opus
                      I will wipe my tears ...


                      And about the melon ... yes with pleasure! For the sake of such a thing, I’ll even write you a pass to Raduzhny or I can drop by when I go on a business trip. So how do we agree?
                      1. opus
                        opus April 24 2016 19: 44
                        +1
                        Quote: Saburov
                        Already one answer raises doubts about the adequacy and knowledge of the material.

                        Well, yours, in general, chatter, under the "vodka" ride, and so.
                        Let me remind you: they operate on open sources here
                        Quote: Saburov
                        tests and funny adventures around the factory for TV (that is, for you) and closed to the Moscow Region.

                        The stump is clear, "3" we write ", but in the mind" 8 ".
                        You are here: http://malchish.org/, and "Broken (either sword or shield) of the empire) read.
                        It is completely degenerative logic to compare the performance characteristics of their products and ours and imply that they are suckers print with an overstate, and we are smart people with an understatement.
                        Quote: Saburov
                        And she is known to be neither male nor female, she is either there or not!

                        you don’t have it, only myths and la-la.
                        Quote: Saburov
                        And about the melon ... yes with pleasure! For the sake of such a thing, I’ll even write you a pass to Raduzhny or I can drop by when I go on a business trip. So how do we agree?

                        1. I do not need to go to "named after A. Ya. Bereznyak", I was already, quite recently.
                        2. If you need a pass, help is not needed, they’ll write out at work. I’ll take my son, I’ll show the museum
                        3.No better you are with us

                        the fountains in St. Petersburg opened yesterday, albeit coldly, but really, at the same time, visit the Soyuz FTsDT, there they’ll get their brains checked and corrected.
                        Have agreed
                      2. Saburov
                        Saburov April 24 2016 20: 25
                        +2
                        Quote: opus
                        you don’t have it, only myths and la-la.


                        Well, guess.

                        Quote: opus
                        Visit the "Union", there are brains and win / correct.


                        Who! Mikhalych? Do not make me laugh. The rank is not the same.

                        Quote: opus
                        If you need a pass, help is not needed, they will write out at work


                        Not. They will not write out, as the doctor tells you, prescriptions only through me. And about Peter it would be necessary to go. I have not been there for a year.
                    2. otter.1
                      otter.1 April 27 2016 12: 07
                      +1
                      Why did you enter into polemics with him, myzh are backward in terms of technology, plywood "Vostok" from a slingshot launched into space.
                2. Saburov
                  Saburov April 24 2016 17: 00
                  +3
                  Quote: opus
                  “Malachite” - 3,18 t
                  Mosquito - 3,95 t
                  “Basalt” - 6,2 t (length 11,7 m)
                  Granite - 7 t
                  Yes PJ-10 "BrahMos" (P-800 Onyx - Yakhont) M2-M2,8 (at the height). But 2500-3000kg!
                  Range 120-300km, with warheads up to 250kg.
                  A LOT of aviation carriers? And how many pieces carry?


                  Are you sure that they will tell you real TTX missiles and even write in detail? You are a naive person. You take information from the Internet, isn’t it funny for you? Now they will say everything and the enemy will begin to redefine all his defensive abilities in joy! Bravo! So what's more important? Range, warhead or speed?

                  Quote: opus
                  and mother is just like that. A lot of verbal husks. we read the agreement there, in the applications. You’ll spread your brain a bit, figure out how you can conclude restriction agreements, control their implementation, not knowing the exact data.


                  What morals. Of course, but the fact is that the product can be put on display at least 30 a year ago and experts will not suspect anything and guess and even prepare documentation for this. I’ll give you an example. For example, China bought 2008 gold bars from the USA in 400 in the year of which 280 were filled with tungsten, and the Indians also got unfortunate from the IMF. Young green! Photo attached.
                  1. opus
                    opus April 24 2016 19: 53
                    +1
                    Quote: Saburov
                    Are you sure that they will tell you real TTX missiles and even write in detail?


                    Tell me "unreal"?
                    repeat
                    Quote: opus
                    It is completely degenerative logic to compare the performance characteristics of their products and ours and imply that they are suckers print with an overstate, and we are smart people with an understatement.

                    I'm afraid that your "unreal will be, like your favorite chatter:

                    Quote: Saburov
                    I will give you one example to

                    Where is the "example" found?
                    Quote: Saburov
                    You take information from the Internet, isn’t it funny for you?

                    http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001386.html
                    ?
                    Elinor Ostrom's 8 Principles for Managing A Commmons?

                    or "paranormal news"?
                    http:// paranormal-news.ru / blog / zoloto_dlja_reptiloidov / 2012-05-07-798
                    Quote: Saburov
                    Young green! Photo attached.

                    1. Where do we retirees
                    Quote: Saburov
                    What morals.

                    2. "attached" ... the postscript remains to be done
                    Quote: Saburov
                    You take information from the Internet, isn’t it funny for you?


                    fool
                    1. Saburov
                      Saburov April 24 2016 20: 31
                      +1
                      Quote: opus
                      I'm afraid that your "unreal will be, like your favorite chatter:


                      Well, everything is quite simple here, you need to be in the bathhouse with respected people, especially who is at work. Although it is not difficult to guess.

                      Quote: opus
                      2. "attached" ... the postscript remains to be done


                      You turned everything upside down again, I told you that there is a deception and a scam at the official level, so what do you want from the MO? Honesty with "partners"?
                    2. opus
                      opus April 25 2016 12: 41
                      +1
                      Quote: Saburov
                      Well, everything is quite simple here, you need to be in the bathhouse with respected people, especially who is at work.

                      I'm more and more used to documents / products ...

                      Under the beer and with a broom you can hear not such stories (like Terekty burned everyone with battle lasers, even buckles were not found)
                      Quote: Saburov
                      I tell you that at the official level there is a deception and a scam, so what do you want from MO? Honesty with "partners"?

                      I repeat
                      Quote: opus
                      It is completely degenerative logic to compare the performance characteristics of their products and ours and imply that they are suckers print with an overstate, and we are smart people with an understatement.

                      1.We "compare" what? data is open (let
                      Quote: Saburov
                      cheating and scam
                      ) them and ours.
                      2. Why, then, we believe that they write the correct or underestimate, but we write the wrong, with understatement.
                      they are right
                      Quote: Saburov
                      in the bath with respected people

                      3. Why so?

                      This version does not roll (for sure)
                      Conclusion: Either we and they have averaged "correct" data on which you can rely and argue.
                      Or they and we have the same (+/-) distorted data, again on which you can rely and argue.
                      Everything Else
                      Quote: Saburov
                      to be with respected people, especially who is at work
                      ...Mystic.
                      Desired to pass off as reality.
                      which, in principle, confirms the reality surrounding us.
                      And there and with us.
                      Quote: Saburov
                      Who! Mikhalych? Do not make me laugh. The rank is not the same.

                      I will issue a pass. What problems?
                      For a person who interprets about
                      Quote: Saburov
                      even artillery special ammunition is under the stamp of SS or OP
                      it's not that hard.
  2. opus
    opus April 23 2016 20: 34
    +1
    Quote: mav1971
    Solid rockets have always lagged behind amers .. Maces example is not enough?

    and liquid ones were ahead.
    liquid fuel is used in ramjet (oxidizer outside air)


    An example solid fuel ramjet the main engine of the anti-ship cruise missile P-270 Mosquito can serve ... but there is subsonic combustion.
  3. Nick
    Nick April 23 2016 23: 44
    +3
    Quote: mav1971
    Solid rockets have always lagged behind amers .. Maces example is not enough? In 2013, they made a full solid fuel analog of the Second Trident ... How many years have passed? 30-40?

    From what ...? During my service in the Strategic Missile Forces, our unit was armed with 8K98P solid-propellant missiles or SS-13 "Savage" according to NATO classification. The first 8K98 were put into service back in 1968. Yes, their accuracy was not very good, the CEP was 1500 m., But the charge power of 750 kilotons more than compensated for this shortcoming.
    And you didn’t remember the Mace. She had problems not in fuel mixtures, but in production defects.
    1. opus
      opus April 24 2016 00: 06
      +1
      Quote: Nick
      During my service in the Strategic Missile Forces, the weapons of our unit were 8K98P solid-fuel missiles

      8K98P

      RT-2P flight tests took place from January 1970 to January 1972, and on December 28 1972 the complex was put into service.

      Quote: Nick
      The first 8K98 were adopted in the distant 1968.

      The RT-2 was shown at a military parade in Moscow on May 9, 1965 ....
      Modest performance characteristics rockets predetermined
      the bridge of its modernization. The modernized RT-2P, had at all three levels a solid
      dye fuel PAL-17/7 (NII-9) based on butyl rubber, which has high ductility, has no noticeable aging and cracking during storage, while the fuel was poured directly into the engine body, then it was polymerized and the required combustion surfaces were formed charge. The 3-stage case of the RT-2P rocket was made in two layers: a high-strength steel shirt was reinforced with fiberglass threads wound from the outside.
      Quote: Nick
      But the charge power of 750 kilotons more than compensated for this drawback.

      I don’t know how RT-2P, but RT-2
      With a mass of the warhead of 500 kg, the flight range of the rocket was 10000-12000 km, and when installing a heavier warhead weighing 1400 kg, 4000-5000 km.

      LGM-30G Minuteman III in service from 1970 to the present: GRP,PRP, SMP, REACT, SERV and PSRE ... what are there 7 years of storage (18,5 after stress)?
      13000 km = 1150 kg, quo from 180 m, 3 × 170 ct 3 × 340 ct or 1 × 300 (475) ct, with mass MS in 1100kg?
      ?

      45 years on alert: Minot conducts Minuteman III test launch
      1. Nick
        Nick April 25 2016 10: 29
        +3
        Quote: opus
        8K98P

        RT-2P flight tests took place from January 1970 to January 1972, and on December 28 1972 the complex was put into service.

        I do not quite understand your comment. What do you want to say that the first solid-fuel intercontinental missiles appeared in the USSR four years later? You write about the product 8K98P, but this is a modification, and the first solid fuel ICBM was with the index 8K98. 8K98 was adopted by the Strategic Missile Forces of the USSR at the end of the 60's.
        1. opus
          opus April 25 2016 14: 45
          +1
          Quote: Nick
          What do you want to say that the first solid-fuel intercontinental missiles appeared in the USSR four years later?

          I write as is
          Quote: opus
          The RT-2 was shown at a military parade in Moscow on May 9, 1965 ....


          15P098 /8K98 was in service with the Strategic Missile Forces with 1969 (adopted December 1968) through 1994.

          Quote: Nick
          and the first solid fuel ICBM was with the index 8K98

          FIRST BR with RDTT in the USSR was RT-1 (8K95) / Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR of November 20, 1959 No. 1291-570.


          but not "gone"


          A RT-2P (8K98P) was adopted in 1972 year

          Quote: Nick
          But the charge power of 750 kilotons more than compensated for this drawback.

          I do not agree. Compare


          ==========================
          Great confusion in the minds
    2. Operator
      Operator April 24 2016 21: 42
      +3
      Domestic missiles had problems with the technology of forming a large-sized solid fuel charge checker in the rocket engine body — uniformity of the mixture, lack of shrinkage, and predetermined porosity.

      These problems were gradually overcome in "Topol-M", "Bulava" and "Yars". We can expect that with the new Rubezh missile we will finally break away from the Americans with their obsolete Minutemans and Tridents.
      In addition, solid fuel inevitably oxidizes with time and, accordingly, the flight range decreases. Therefore, the multiple extension of the operational life for American missiles means only one thing - a reduction in the number of goals that they achieve in range.

      It should be remembered that we could not have bothered with the problem of solid fuel for ICBMs, because we have long gone into the lead in this class with liquid-fuel missiles - Voevoda, Sineva and Sarmat.
      Our "partners" do not have anything similar (from the word in general) to the technology of ampulating fuel tanks of liquid fuel, which allows for decades to maintain 100% combat capability of once fueled missiles.

      KB Makeeva - a world leader hi
  • opus
    opus April 23 2016 20: 31
    +1
    Quote: The same LYOKHA
    Janes Information Group Military Analytical Center (USA) published a test report

    Decilin-M(The newspaper "Krasnaya Zvezda" February 16, 2016 published an interesting conversation with the Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia Dmitry Bulgakov about the current state of the Fuel Service of the Armed Forces of Russia.)
    In recent years, the following have been accepted for the supply of the Armed Forces:

    <br>• Decilin-M fuel, which allows to increase the range of use of cruise missiles by 250-300 km;
    • jet fuel and diesel fuel with operating temperatures up to minus 65 degrees;
    • fireproof summer and winter diesel fuel;
    • all-weather oil KA-7,5 for TU-95MS rocket carriers (providing low-temperature start-up of turboprops without the use of airfield heating means and reducing the preparation time for an aircraft for departure by 6-8 hours);
    • multigrade gear oil for the operation of modern and promising models of equipment of the Ground Forces, including Arctic brigades. It ensures that the equipment is ready for movement without heating at temperatures up to minus 60 degrees Celsius;
    • universal multifunctional oil KRM, which allows lubrication, cleaning and corrosion protection of small arms and tank guns at temperatures from minus 50 to plus 50 degrees.

    The production of all fuel and lubricants developed is fully provided by the domestic raw material and technological base.


    Well, they wrote:
    On the basis of scientific developments of the IOKh RAS at JSC Redkinsky Pilot Plant on a pilot industrial scale An original safe process of catalytic cyclopropanation of stressed unsaturated hydrocarbons with diazomethane generated in situ directly in the reaction medium, providing 100% cyclopropane yield, was implemented. This process is the basis a key stage in the production of high-energy rocket fuel Decilin-M, which was successfully tested during training combat launches of airborne cruise missiles

    (Chemistry of unstable molecules and small cycles, head. - Academician O.M. Nefedov, lab. No. 6, manager. Professor Yu.V. Tomilov).
    1. Tektor
      Tektor April 24 2016 17: 11
      +1
      opus is just an impenetrable id..t: if I just let you know that the Mace surpasses Trident II D5 in all respects? Will you calm down You just need to know the real TTX of the products being compared, and not those wound by propaganda. The mace is a little heavier, that's all.
      Japanese XASM-3 just nervously smokes on the sidelines, because inferior in all respects to the X-31AD ...
      1. opus
        opus April 24 2016 17: 59
        +3
        Quote: Tektor
        opus is just impenetrable

        type are you covered in perforations (with "holes")?
        Quote: Tektor
        if I just inform you that the Mace surpasses Trident II D5 in all respects? Will you calm down

        1. You can tell me about the antimatter emitter as well. What will change?
        you are calmer, I do not believe in stupidity.
        2. Not superior. At T1.This is also evident to my youngest at 12
        3. WHAT CAN YOU "REPORT" TO ME?


        About toilets? About the "borehole fluid" what "clogs up" the air intake?
        ---> this does not interest me
        Quote: Tektor
        Japanese XASM-3 just nervously smokes on the sidelines, because inferior in all respects to the X-31AD ...

        1.Japanese XASM-3 not yet, not accepted. I’m afraid to assume, but probably you first heard about XASM-3 from me.
        2.Pro X-31AD is generally stupid




        Quote: Tektor
        You just need to know the real TTX of the products being compared, and not the ones wound up by propaganda.

        1. Tektor
          Tektor April 24 2016 19: 59
          +1
          Well, I didn’t just tell you about real TTX.!. For example, the speed of the X-131AD above water is 3M, and the launch range is 260 km, the weight is 720 kg ... This is the performance characteristics of a real product, and not tsiferki to tune the brains of dunno. Absolutely the same with the Mace.
          1. opus
            opus April 24 2016 20: 40
            +2
            Quote: Tektor
            Well, I didn’t just tell you about real TTX.

            what to say? Better show
            Quote: Tektor
            For example, speed X-131AD above water is 3M, and the launch range is 260 km, weight 720 kg ... This is the performance characteristics of a real product

            X-131AD? fool
            3M "over water"? belay
            she (X-31AD) has a maximum speed of 1,5 m per 10 km, the lower the density of the medium is, the speed is lower (resistance is greater)

            Fstar. = Cx * S *ρ*ν^ 2/2
            the midsection is the same, Cx is the same. here and think F air where there will be more: at 10000m or at 10m?
            Hint: Fstar. directed along the axis of La and acts opposite to the traction created by La.

            and range is less (profitability worse).
            never wondered why the "cruising" altitude for an aircraft is 9,5-11 km, at v = 0,9M. In the most delicate layer of the atmosphere (ecologists howl)?

            she (X-31AD) has a maximum launch range of 160 km, under the CONDITION, the carrier speed is 1,5M and the launch height is 15000 m.
            Quote: Tektor
            digits for troubles
            by the way, I brought the data MANUFACTURER.
            http://www.ktrv.ru/production/68/673/898/
            Oh well yes i forgot
            Quote: opus

            It is completely degenerative logic to compare the performance characteristics of their products and ours and imply that they are suckers print with an overstate, and we are smart people with an understatement.

            another energetic uryakra without "screws in the head"

            Quote: Tektor
            to brainwash dunno.

            Yes Znayka. well enlighten
            1. Tektor
              Tektor April 24 2016 21: 48
              +2
              It may seem strange, but the data above is also from the manufacturer ... It is not indicated that the entire distance of 260 km of anti-ship missiles flies at a speed of 3M ...
              1. opus
                opus April 24 2016 22: 02
                +1
                Quote: Tektor
                Strange as it may seem, the data above is also from the manufacturer ...

                prize... (pah) DATA to the studio !!!
                Oh please!!!
                Repeat:



                acceleration to a speed corresponding to M = 1.8, discharge of the solid propellant rocket engine after burn-out, separation of plugs and launch of ramjet. Acceleration on ramjet to ... nd.



                "at an altitude of 15000m"
                1. Tektor
                  Tektor April 24 2016 22: 13
                  +1
                  prize ... (pah) DATA to the studio !!!
                  Oh please!!!
                  Do not even dream. Boch will serve.
                  1. opus
                    opus April 24 2016 22: 46
                    +1
                    Quote: Tektor
                    Boch will serve.

                    got it


                    When there are no other arguments
                    1. Tektor
                      Tektor April 25 2016 11: 10
                      +3
                      The ability to communicate involves the presence of an interlocutor with minimally sufficient mental abilities, i.e. at least the presence of three classes of education. If you have the ability to add 1 + 1 =?, Then communication can bring at least some benefit ...
                      It can be very difficult for a person with elementary education to understand that the expression "PKR X-31-AD has a range of 130 km and a speed of 3M" and "PKR X-31-AD has a range of 260 km and a maximum speed of 3M" refer to the same the same product. It's just that in the first case, the PRK honestly flies all the way in a straight line to the target at low altitude at a speed of 3M, and in the second case, most of the way flies at a cruising speed, taking into account the directions of the winds at different heights and directions in accordance with the logic laid down in the brain, and only the last 50 kilometers - above the wave crests at a speed of 3M. Anyone who has even a little experience in launching paper airplanes can understand this.
                      And now about Trident and the Mace. Just a couple of phrases to clarify the situation. Trident has the maximum combat equipment of 14 W76 Combat Units, which he can throw at a maximum range of ~ 7700 km. It implies the use of tactics of striking from a minimum distance, literally - from our territorial waters, with a minimum flying time. A mace can throw a maximum of 10 BBs at a range of ~ 9300 km, which makes it possible to launch directly from the pier in the base. But there is a difference: the Trident BB dilution platform of the development of the 70s of the last century is outdated, and it is not capable of diluting all 14 BBs for significantly distant goals, i.e. blocks will be forced to be used to defeat a maximum of 3-4 targets ... Now the states have launched a program to finalize this breeding platform, but for now - alas. The Bulava BB breeding platform has no such drawback and is capable of breeding BB from one carrier to the entire state for 10 different purposes. For the idiots, I repeat: one Trident - 4 goals, and one Mace - 10 goals. Need more explanation?
                    2. opus
                      opus April 25 2016 12: 25
                      +1
                      Quote: Tektor
                      , i.e. at least the presence of three classes of education.

                      2 higher, technical ... E1.1 + PM and VT + VUS
                      Where am I going ...

                      Quote: Tektor
                      If you have the ability to add 1 + 1 =?, Then communication can bring at least some benefit ...

                      You yes. Something did not reach me right away.

                      Since you are so "sophisticated", I suggest rubbing this Talmudik ..

                      Well, from chapter 9 at least.
                      Or the application of Monte Carlo methods for the approximate calculation of multiple integrals.
                      Dare (1 + 1)?
                      Quote: Tektor
                      For a person with primary education, it can be very difficult to understand.

                      This is really hard to understand.
                      Quote: Tektor
                      And now about Trident and the Mace

                      deducted on sites like ... http: //malchish.org/
                      Long and persistent nightly search for sewage internet?

                      Threat.UGM-133A Trident II (D5), the same as 1C4, only longer range. there is one bus, the same Modes of Flight


                      About the "pricks" and "short hand" generally stuck
                      Quote: Tektor
                      Now the states have launched a program to refine this breeding platform.

                      no such program. E2 - completely different
                      Quote: Tektor
                      Need more explanation?

                      no. thank you. I'm far from you

                      ... go down
                    3. Operator
                      Operator April 25 2016 12: 54
                      +1
                      Trident modes of flight laughing
                    4. opus
                      opus April 25 2016 14: 31
                      +1
                      Quote: Operator
                      Trident modes of flight

                      Are we "operating" again?
                      Better about the "degree of internal turbulence" and "penetration through plasma, even stabilized"


                      Or about the fact that gravity (poor Newton) does not affect the BMBM ...
                      I don’t understand how a person who wrote a decent enough pack

                      (which has been unjustly deceived and minus) bears such a heresy wink
                      About the "picture"
                      maybe not in the know?

                      Trident II D5 has achieved over 150 successful test launches since completion of development in 1989 - the record of any other major ballistic missile or space launch vehicle unrivaled.









                      recall that out of 24 Bulava test launches, 11 were recognized as successful
                    5. Operator
                      Operator April 25 2016 14: 57
                      +1
                      No need to act as Trident's lawyer - according to the flight technical and operational characteristics, Sineva rules.

                      In fact, descent vehicles and warheads in the atmosphere are surrounded not by plasma (a beautiful word, cho), but by a golem ionized and, therefore, conductive air. Although it serves as an excellent reflector for external electromagnetic waves, it is not an antenna for receiving and transmitting radio waves, since gas-air is not a solid metal, it is subject to turbulence, plus constant recombination of ionized molecules in the plasma shell (this is how I studied in the specialty of spacecraft I am studying for the specialty PM&VT explain).

                      If it’s not a secret, in which university did you study in the specialty E1.1?
                    6. opus
                      opus April 25 2016 16: 21
                      +1
                      Quote: Operator
                      No need to act as Trident's lawyer - according to the flight technical and operational characteristics, Sineva rules.

                      Trident II D5 - the best on the planet to date SOLID FUEL ICBMs.

                      R-29RMU2 "Sineva" the best on the planet at the moment ICBMs with rocket engine.
                      R-29RMU2.1 “Liner” is even better.
                      As we have already reached consensus: in terms of LRE we are at least no worse than someone else. And in fact, probably better.
                      It is a pity that the specificity of combat ICBMs and ballistic missiles does not allow our liquid-propellant rocket engines to "turn around", in which we are docks.
                      Let's see if the GPP LA will revive the "liquid" ...
                      The solid propellant rocket engine at the ramjet gas processing plant I somehow do not really comprehend
                      Quote: Operator
                      and a golimy ionized and, therefore, conductive air.

                      P-partially or completely ionized gasformed from neutral atoms (or molecules) and charged particles (ions and electrons)
                      Quote: Operator
                      Although it serves as an excellent reflector for external electromagnetic waves,

                      solitons?
                      the continuity equation and the Euler equation -> an equation of the Klein – Gordon type, in which there is a plasma frequency p and a factor similar to the thermal velocity of electrons ve

                      1) w> wp electromagnetic waves propagate in the plasma and the dielectric constant takes values ​​in the range from 0 to 1, which is characteristic exclusively of plasma media (the expression for the refractive index in optically transparent solid media is greater than unity).
                      2) w
                      The magnitude of the electric field in the plasma will decrease
                      In this case, an electromagnetic wave is reflected from the plasma boundary. This effect is of great importance when reflecting radio waves from the ionosphere.


                      Quote: Operator
                      (I’m explaining how to study in the specialty of spacecraft for those studying in the specialty of PM&VT)

                      I don’t understand ... apparently, because I didn’t receive the PM&VT in the base and under the USSR ... such a misfortune
                      Quote: Operator
                      If it’s not a secret, in which university did you study in the specialty E1.1?

                      Why do you need? smile
                      Threat in PM strike.
                    7. Operator
                      Operator April 25 2016 16: 52
                      +1
                      Sineva / Liner and Trident belong to the same target class of missiles, so it is legitimate to compare them with each other according to the LTEC.

                      I believe that the Makeyevka solution for the liquid-propellant rocket engine will find application not in exotic hypersonic aircraft, but in conventional medium-range ballistic missiles (not covered by the INF Treaty) launched from submarine-based Caliber launchers, since they maintain stable temperature terms.

                      If such BR equipped with an active RCGS and special warheads with a capacity of several kilotons will fly on 1000 km in 540 seconds, the AUG can be safely discarded.
                    8. opus
                      opus April 25 2016 17: 08
                      +1
                      Quote: Operator
                      Sineva / Liner and Trident belong to the same target class of missiles, so it is legitimate to compare them with each other according to the LTEC.

                      the specific impulse of the rocket engine is 30% -40% higher than Yi solid propellant rocket engines. why compare it?
                      Quote: Operator
                      what is the Makeevsky decision of the rocket engine

                      What is the "Makeyevskoe solution"?
                      Quote: Operator
                      and special warheads with a capacity of several kilotons

                      With SBCH and so can be written off
                    9. Operator
                      Operator April 25 2016 18: 09
                      +1
                      Comparison is possible according to the final effects - the proportion of cast weight in the starting weight, the operating time without reducing the initial characteristics.

                      Makeevka solution - amplification, immersion of the engine in fuel.

                      Oh, do not tell me - special warhead, of course, is a nyasha, but the type of carrier is also important.

                      With the achieved naval missile defense level, the percentage of cruise missiles reaching the target, including supersonic ones, will be vanishingly small. And the EMP from a high-altitude nuclear explosion will not help here, since the RC will be intercepted in the final section of the trajectory when their own SRWS starts to work.

                      Another thing is the warheads (warheads) of medium-range ballistic missiles that fly up to the target at hypersonic speed (~ 3000 m / s) and can therefore blindly overcome the final section (heading to the calculated meeting point), because the speed and maneuverability of the targets (surface ships) are extremely small.

                      And, on the other hand, the use of ballistic missiles with a longer range with a flight speed of more than 3 km / s will exclude for them the possibility of using an SSG after entering the atmosphere (due to plasma formation), when the distance to the target will be on the order of 100-150 km or several dozen seconds of flight time. In these seconds, the ships will be able to maneuver and leave the calculated point of the meeting.

                      The use of special warheads of high power does not guarantee the defeat of the ship if it explodes at a certain distance from it (see the test results of the last century). If you use more than one special warhead of high power, the first one in turn can damage the second before the explosion, because the order of the ships is not so widely spaced in space.

                      Well, the limit of ballistic missiles under the SALT agreement, primarily intended to destroy other targets, also means a lot.

                      Therefore, all the arguments about shooting ICBMs on ships are golimoy propaganda or horror stories (depending on the direction of view).
                    10. opus
                      opus April 25 2016 20: 19
                      +1
                      Quote: Operator
                      Makeevka solution - amplification, immersion of the engine in fuel.

                      1.All the 1930s and 1940s passed under the banner of finding suitable containers for nitric acid. But even the most resistant grades of stainless steel were slowly destroyed by concentrated nitrogen; as a result, a thick greenish “jelly”, a mixture of metal salts, formed at the bottom of the tank.

                      A successful supplement was found only in the late 1950s by american chemists - It turned out that only 0,5% of hydrofluoric (hydrofluoric) acid reduces the corrosion rate of stainless steel by ten times! Soviet chemists delayed this discovery for ten to fifteen years.

                      Specialists of the Central Design Bureau and its branch No. 1 in 1963 (and not the Academician V.P. Makeev State Missile Center) surpassed their counterparts from the United States, who failed to end the leakage of liquid missiles "Titan":only welded inseparable joints were used, membranes were used to isolate rocket elements from aggressive fuel components, automatic monitoring of the state of the gas medium in the container and silos was carried out.


                      ... In the USSR, chemists came up with a method for producing asymmetric dimethylhydrazine, and the Americans preferred a simpler process in which monomethylhydrazine was obtained.
                      2. The problem of frost resistance of the LV components (TPK, mine) and the pressure in the tank (10 storage, and with increased pressure and boiling point are much less worried) has disappeared
                      continuous reaction with itself and the formation of fragile, but extremely chemically active states of aggregation ..
                    11. Operator
                      Operator April 25 2016 22: 20
                      -1
                      Glory to domestic chemists (and Miass bone-builders who turned chemistry into products) fellow
                    12. opus
                      opus April 25 2016 22: 50
                      +1
                      Quote: Operator
                      translate chemistry into products

                      the first was embodied by the specialists of TsKBM and its branch No. 1.
                2. opus
                  opus April 25 2016 20: 30
                  +2
                  Quote: Operator
                  immersion of the engine in fuel.

                  -can fuel components in the tank?
                  -Gabarit (in length, the trouble of our SLBMs.)

                  Quote: Operator
                  Therefore, all the arguments about shooting ICBMs on ships are golimoy propaganda or horror stories (depending on the direction of view).

                  not sure
                3. Operator
                  Operator April 25 2016 22: 26
                  -1
                  The size of nuclear submarines is small things, especially since the basis of Russian strategic nuclear forces are land-based ICBMs, including Governors / Sarmatians (the main thing is to get bigger and heavier).

                  The thesis expressed by me about the inexpediency of firing ICBMs on ships is IMHO.
                4. opus
                  opus April 25 2016 22: 48
                  +1
                  Quote: Operator
                  moreover, the basis of Russian strategic nuclear forces are land-based ICBMs,

                  eeeeee
                  902 warheads on the ground
                  704 bz on water
                  and 808 strategic aviation
                  I wouldn’t be so categorical, especially since there were 1735 units on duty, and it seems to me that there are no more land-based ICBMs
                5. Operator
                  Operator April 25 2016 22: 53
                  -1
                  Let us hope that the Sarmatians, Boundaries, and that our railway is planned to increase the separation of the ground component of the strategic nuclear forces from the other two.
  • Tektor
    Tektor April 25 2016 16: 23
    +1
    You just faded, without giving a single technical argument in defense of such shit compared to the Mace, as Trident II D5. Tailwind ... And in the BB catch, the Clubs fly along the flat path, which makes it possible to reduce their delivery time and the ability to maneuver due to deflected surfaces over a considerable distance of the path. The states have no protection against them, while the missile defense system of the Central Industrial Region of the Russian Federation with a high degree of probability is able not to miss any of the 80 warheads that are regularly aimed at Moscow. In total, about 4500 special warheads from NATO countries with varying degrees of readiness for use are aimed at the Russian Federation and our allies. We have less, but only for now. Until Sarmat stands on alert duty.
  • opus
    opus April 25 2016 16: 49
    +1
    Quote: Tektor
    You just faded

    They didn't drink sour beer at the broodershaft! With what fright did you slide down to "you"?
    Quote: Tektor
    such shit compared to the Mace like Trident II D5.

    Repetition
    Quote: opus
    Trident II D5 has achieved over 150 successful test launches since completion of development in 1989 - the record of any other major ballistic missile or space launch vehicle unrivaled.


    Quote: opus
    recall that of the 24 test launches of the "Mace", ONLY 11 recognized successful

    Quote: Tektor
    without giving a single technical argument

    What else can I add?




    ЗЫ.Maximum range with full load, km 7800
    Dare

    And you, how will you provide the thread?
    ==================================

    the month of August 2011 ends with a worthy joke (or a scandal, as anyone) from the website of the Ministry of Defense of Russia .... on the official website of the department, the news about the launch of the Bulava missile on August 27, 2011 is illustrated with a photo launch of a similar American missile "Trident-2" on December 4, 1989

    The photo has been replaced ... but it would have been better if they hadn't (removed the Trident photo and ... and inserted a photo of the Sineva rocket launch instead

    finally, and this photo was removed from the MO website. Instead, a video is shown in which a V-2 rocket is launched from the Akula nuclear submarine. ..
    Quote: Tektor
    Tailwind ..

    And you don’t get sick ..
  • opus
    opus April 25 2016 17: 05
    +1
    Quote: Tektor
    And to catch BB mace fly on a flat path,

    Oh ... correction written ++++
    As for the flat trajectory of "Topol-M" / "Bulava", which runs almost parallel to the earth's surface at an altitude of 200 - 250 km, this is nonsense invented by journalists. The limiting case of such a trajectory is obtained in MathCad at an initial speed v_0 = 7.65 km / s and a pitch angle \ alpha = 0.174 degrees and it looks like this:


    Such a flight at a range of 10 km will last 000 minutes, if aerodynamics does not make its own adjustments. And she will definitely make them! On this trajectory warhead will fly below 50 km for more than 3 minutes. Even if we take the density \ rho = 0.001 (as at an altitude of 50 km), then in 3 minutes it will turn out 1 MJ heat per sq. cm surface. In fact, this estimate will be 1 - 2 orders of magnitude higher, because air density increases.
    For 3 sq. M this will be a paragraph
    Burnt out ? and deltaV will be about 8km / s (how to compensate?)

    The flat trajectory worked out on the UGM-133A Trident II (D5) I don’t remember in 1992- or 98, I need to look at the report (exo-atmospheric trajectories) - a lot of overheating and a significant reduction in range
  • Tektor
    Tektor April 25 2016 22: 01
    0
    The flat trajectory is also not in the sense of losing common sense, no. It’s just that the apogee point will be 1,5 times lower (about 1000 km), and that’s it. The flat trajectory is flawed by the overheating of warheads and the loss of the standard deviation, moreover, by multiple. That is why Bulava has the ability to correct the flight path in dense layers of the atmosphere, i.e. starting from a height of 100 km and below.
    In this regard, I can not help but insert the Trident hairpin: their parameter for maximum range and RMS are specially given for the case with a minimum payload, i.e. with one BB. It is difficult for me to imagine a real situation when such loading of Trident will be necessary. With the standard loading of the BB and the maximum reduction in the distance, in order to reduce the time for a retaliatory strike, the RMS will be several times worse, that is, "plus / minus a kilometer" and then they really need to spend several BBs on one target ...
    Well, I can not wet! States lose the ability to produce their Tridents, because the last order was executed with a wild increase in carrier price ^ from 2006 to 2010 ~ $ 5yards was paid for 60 missiles or ~ $ 83 million for each, while 5 yards for 2,9 were spent over the previous 53 years. or at $ 54 million per pc.
  • opus
    opus April 25 2016 22: 40
    +2
    Quote: Tektor
    Just the apogee point will be lower than 1,5 times (about 1000 km), and that's it

    belay
    According to data from the Report American Rhysical Society (and they are not suckers in this matter) typical active flight profile of solid propellant ICBMs as follows.


    Quote: Tektor
    The flat trajectory is also not in the sense of losing common sense, no

    Do you have it at all?


    The flight for 10 km of the MX Peacekeeper, which was decommissioned, would supposedly last 000 minutes at v_28 = 0 km / s, \ alpha = 7.1 degrees and with an apogee of 13.6 km. Apparently, significantly flatter trajectories are impractical due to excessive heating while decreasing by the target
    (For the Minuteman-3 trajectory, the situation with heating looks less dramatic. Namely, below 10 km the warhead will be 4.3 seconds, and the time of descent from 35 to 20 km will be reduced to 6.6 seconds.)

    Quote: Tektor
    That is why Bulava has the ability to correct the flight path in dense layers of the atmosphere, i.e. starting from a height of 100 km and below.


    The warhead enters into a tangible atmosphere at an altitude of ~ 130 km.

    The mass of the Topol warhead is close to 1 ton, of which several hundred kg are accounted for by the YaBZ, a thermally protected and durable case, and also 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. Or warhead has several of these engines, each ~ 10 kg of weight. Assuming that the ratio of engine mass to thrust does not exceed 100, we estimate the total thrust during the maneuver at ~ 1 t. Based on such estimates, it could be equal to several tons. In the case of one such rocket engine, obviously, only a small part of the thrust can be directed in the transverse direction, while several small remote control engines can only work on the transverse thrust. We assume that the monoblock is capable of maneuvering under the action of a transverse force of 10 N.
    The specific impulse of rocket fuel (say hydrazine with nitrogen tetroxide) is 3 000 m / s, then 1 kg of fuel will be consumed in 10 000 N in 3.33 second of thrust.
    The candy bar is forced to complete ~ 100 maneuvers - yaw from side to side, each lasting ~ 1 second (otherwise they will fall into it). During this time, ~ 2 km to the target will be covered and ~ 300 kg of fuel spent. It follows that along the entire trajectory dodging interceptors will be impossible.
    Yars / Mace warheads are not likely to be able to maneuver ... each one has a mass no more than 350 kg.
    Quote: Tektor
    Well, I can not wet!

    Well, do not wet it. Any sense from this? You need
    Quote: Tektor
    the presence of an interlocutor with minimally sufficient mental abilities,
  • CC-18c
    CC-18c April 23 2016 06: 00
    +3
    TARKR “Peter the Great” is planned to be docked for overhaul


    In 2012, they planned from 3 ships in the reserve similar to TARKR Peter the Great, to restore and modernize 2 TAKKK and then to modernize Peter the Great himself. And that would be 3 TARKR. The fate of the fourth was vague.

    BUT in 2015, they decided to refuse one ship, officially said there is no money, and instead of 3 TARKR, the Navy will receive 2 TARKR current. But ... but after all, in the same 2015, the Yeltsin center was built for rabid grandmothers, they found money to build exaltation of betrayal and destroy the country, but there is probably no money to modernize the ship ... there are no words alone (((According to the estimate for modernization 1 the ship needed funds 2 times less than was spent on the construction of the Yeltsin center.
    sad
    Here you go.
  • Knowing
    Knowing April 23 2016 06: 24
    +24
    Oh, what can I say - "... thanks to the Soviet military-industrial complex ...", and of course to all the Workers and Employees of Engineering of the USSR-RF, - HOWEVER, not all, all (E apart.) ate, carried.
    1. Reddragon
      Reddragon April 23 2016 12: 06
      -11%
      In the USA, everything is private, so it’s cheaper to fly with the help of Russia. For your understanding: they don’t have all the documentation on RD-180 (greetings from 90x), which allows plagiarizing them ... but for financial reasons - they are not being built by dosihpors.
      1. Navy7981
        Navy7981 April 23 2016 13: 11
        +4
        Quote: RedDragoN
        In the USA, everything is private, so it’s cheaper to fly with the help of Russia. For your understanding: they don’t have all the documentation on RD-180 (greetings from 90x), which allows plagiarizing them ... but for financial reasons - they are not being built by dosihpors.



        I think it's not just the cost of building these motors that is a problem. Maybe I'm not quite right, or maybe I'm completely wrong, but there is an interesting example (for what I bought, I sell for that). At the end of the 19th century, either Amosov, or at the Putilov factories, ductile ship steel was developed. Steel for ages !!! Until now, the ship "Komunna" goes to the Black Sea Fleet, a submarine rescuer that entered service in 1915 under the name "Volkhov" see Wikipedia. So, with the help of modern analysis tools, the composition has become known to the atom, but cannot be repeated. I am not an expert on steels, but apparently the point is in the brewing technology. So it seems to me and here the same reason, otherwise they would have done. You can relate to Amera as you like, but in engineering they are definitely not the last.
  • avg-mgn
    avg-mgn April 23 2016 06: 30
    +10
    Thanks to the author for the detailed layout. In my opinion, such articles are constantly in short supply at VO.
    1. lelikas
      lelikas April 23 2016 10: 59
      +6
      Quote: avg-mgn

      Thanks to the author for the detailed layout. In my opinion, such articles are constantly in short supply at VO.

      Just an article on the profile and pleases, in almost every paragraph, he managed to mess up.
      I don’t even want to disassemble.
      1. severyanin
        severyanin April 23 2016 14: 52
        +5
        Quote: lelikas
        Just an article on the profile and pleases, in almost every paragraph, he managed to mess up.
        I don’t even want to disassemble.

        Not that word, the author, before writing an article, needs to learn the "materiel", so that at least the most elementary not to be confused - the names and renaming of nuclear cruisers have messed up everything wassat
        And it is strange that the "younger brothers" of Kirov does not say a word about the cruiser of project 1164: "Moscow", "Ustinov" and "Varyag" - here they are really "younger" brothers of "Orlan"!
        In short, the author - for the idea of ​​the article - "five", for the execution - "bad"! laughing
  • Operator
    Operator April 23 2016 06: 31
    +4
    Cruise missiles have a single drawback - a great flying time. Therefore, it is time to switch to sea-based ballistic missiles with a speed of 3 km / s (10 M) - the limit determined by the absence of plasma formation during flight in the atmosphere. The detachable warhead must be equipped with aerodynamic surfaces for active maneuvering at the end of the trajectory.

    BR should be equipped with an active centimeter-range radar seeker for use on surface ships. Made in the dimensions of "Calibers" and placed in their launchers on ships and submarines, the missiles will be capable of delivering a nuclear warhead with a capacity of about 10 kt at a distance of 1000 km with an flight time of about 450 seconds.

    The layered multiple launch rocket launcher use on naval formations with the detonation of the warheads of the first missiles in a salvo in the upper atmosphere will allow using an electromagnetic pulse to guarantee the failure of ship and aircraft radars for the entire duration of attacks by second-tier missiles and minimize the number of missiles in a salvo.

    An 10 ct nuclear explosion on the deck of any ship, including an aircraft carrier, will vaporize most of the metal hull and heat the remainder to several hundred degrees before it is flooded. The power of the warhead will also allow its use on large coastal facilities - naval bases, fortified areas and ports.

    External target designation for mobile targets for sea-based ballistic missiles in real time will be carried out by over-the-horizon ground-based radars of the "Sunflower" and "Container" type.
    1. venik
      venik April 23 2016 11: 48
      +5
      Quote: Operator
      Cruise missiles have a single drawback - a great flying time. Therefore, it is time to switch to sea-based ballistic missiles at a speed of 3 km / s (10 M) - the limit determined by the absence of plasma formation during flight in the atmosphere.

      Dear Operator! You are probably confused about the terminology. The very concept of "cruise missiles" is slang! In general, rockets, as objects, can be divided into 2 types: aeroballistic and aerodynamic. In the first case, the engine works ONLY at the initial (acceleration stage), and then the missile or its part (warhead) continues flying along the ballistic curve. It can be corrected by gas-dynamic or aerodynamic methods.
      In the second - the engine runs throughout the flight or most of it. At the same time, the rocket can actively maneuver (up to aerobatics, unless of course someone needs it!). The flight itself can take place both at very low altitudes (X-55, Tomahawk), and at large, including profile small-large-small height (Zircon and others).
      Usually, a flight at ultra-low altitudes (with rounding the terrain) takes place at high subsonic speeds (800-900 km / h) for a long range (up to 2,5-5 thousand km). Some cruise missiles (KSR-5, Kh-15) have high supersonic (Mach 3-5) or even hypersonic speed (Zircon) and shorter range. So, the statement that ALL aircrafts have a long flight time is somewhat incorrect !!!


      Quote: Operator
      at a speed of 3 km / s (10 M) - the limit determined by the absence of plasma formation during flight in the atmosphere.


      In the Zircon missiles, by the way, the plasma generated by the interaction of the air stream with the skin is used as a kind of radio-absorbing "coating"!
      1. mav1971
        mav1971 April 23 2016 12: 33
        +2
        Quote: venik


        Quote: Operator
        at a speed of 3 km / s (10 M) - the limit determined by the absence of plasma formation during flight in the atmosphere.


        In the Zircon missiles, by the way, the plasma generated by the interaction of the air stream with the skin is used as a kind of radio-absorbing "coating"!


        Very interesting. Some kind of new physics turns out. How then will radio correction work on RCC?

        Just bullshit ...
        Well, the Operator is a fantasy from an alternative universe, but why are you going there?
        1. Inok10
          Inok10 April 23 2016 14: 25
          +2
          Quote: mav1971
          Very interesting. Some kind of new physics turns out. How then will radio correction work on RCC?

          ... it was decided on the X-90 ... on the "Meteorite" 3M25, a plasma generator was provided to protect the CD from radar detection:
          Of key importance to increasing the missile’s ability to break through air defense was the achievement of a low level of radar visibility. A new special electronic installation was created that did not have world analogues. The principle of its action was based on the effect of absorption of external electromagnetic radiation. When creating an electronic installation, the results of scientific developments and experiments on masking spacecraft at altitudes of over 100 km were used. Such experiments were carried out by the Central Design Bureau and the Research Institute of Thermal Processes (now the MV Keldysh Research Center).
          The development of the electronic installation was carried out by the Research Institute of Thermal Processes under the supervision of Vitaly Ievlev, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The installation was created and passed a full range of bench and field flight tests. During flight tests of the Meteorite rocket, when the electronic installation was turned on, air defense radar indicators showed a decrease in the brightness of the target’s mark, unstable tracking and the disappearance of the mark. Source: http: //rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/meteorit/meteorit.sht
          ml
          ... and from another source ...
          During the tests, the greatest problems were caused by the development of correction systems for radio-contrast radar-image of the area, the failure of the plasma formation system of the complex of protection of the Kyrgyz Republic from radar detection ... Source: http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-406.html
          ... that's where it is ... hi
        2. venik
          venik April 23 2016 17: 55
          +6
           mav1971
          Very interesting. Some kind of new physics turns out. How then will radio correction work on RCC?

          Just bullshit ...
          Well, the Operator is a fantasy from an alternative universe, but why are you going there?
          ==============
          Answer mav1971
          First, physics is not new, but classical! I will try to explain "on the fingers". An electromagnetic wave, interacting with the plasma field, affects its physical characteristics, which can be recorded by sensors installed on the rocket itself. Thus, the plasma field itself can act as a kind of antenna, moreover, quite "sensitive". More or less like this!

          And "prus" I go to where, unlike you, I understand a little! It's just that you should have taught physics better at school!
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 April 23 2016 20: 00
            -1
            Quote: venik

            And "prus" I go to where, unlike you, I understand a little! It's just that you should have taught physics better at school!


            ABOUT! Finally, there was a specialist who would explain to us the business and finally give a reasoned answer to the question:
            "Why does the plasma field around the missile practically extinguish the impulses of powerful enemy radars, preventing them from receiving a target mark, and at the same time allows its own seeker (low-power GLS) to unhindered impulses outward and receive its reflected signal?"

            Explain to us why such selectivity ...
            1. opus
              opus April 23 2016 20: 54
              +2
              Quote: mav1971
              practically dampens the impulses of the enemy’s powerful radars preventing them from getting the mark of the target,


              not ...
              Well this is nonsense.
              All meteors in the "plasma cocoon" are perfectly localized and accompanied by radar ...
              if the azimuthal speed allows you to take the object for tracking.
              They also sometimes go beyond the Karman line at 70 km / s
              1. mav1971
                mav1971 April 23 2016 21: 48
                0
                Quote: opus
                Quote: mav1971
                practically dampens the impulses of the enemy’s powerful radars preventing them from getting the mark of the target,


                not ...
                Well this is nonsense.
                All meteors in the "plasma cocoon" are perfectly localized and accompanied by radar ...


                those. quote from one of the previous posts:
                During flight tests of the Meteorite rocket, when the electronic installation was turned on, airborne radar indicators showed a decrease in the brightness of the target’s mark, unstable tracking and disappearance of the mark. Source: http: //rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/meteorit/meteorit.shtml

                all the same crap? :)
                So it was interesting to me - how the detection of the same meteorites and fireballs and descent vehicles in the plasma cloud is available for the radar, but missiles - it turns out not :)
                1. Inok10
                  Inok10 April 23 2016 22: 15
                  +2
                  Quote: mav1971
                  So it was interesting to me - how the detection of the same meteorites and fireballs and descent vehicles in the plasma cloud is available for the radar, but missiles - it turns out not :)

                  ... elementary Watson ... hi ... the way the early warning system works ... the basics of radar will help everyone ... I hope we will do without offense and will not touch the ionization level ... 100 tons at the launch of an ICBM and 100 tons from 25 km / s arriving from space are not comparable with a "bzdyushka" of 9 tons ... hi
                  1. Inok10
                    Inok10 April 23 2016 22: 30
                    +2
                    Quote: Inok10
                    are not comparable with the "bzdyushka" of 9 tons ...

                    P.S. ... since childhood and is available ... laughing
                2. opus
                  opus April 23 2016 22: 21
                  +2
                  Quote: mav1971
                  all the same crap? :)

                  crap. I wrote a lot.
                  Quote: mav1971
                  and rockets - it turns out not :)

                  a rocket in a plasma cloud is also stably accompanied by radar.
                  -------------
                  What determines the propagation of radio waves (EM) waves in the medium?
                  Praaal! from dielectric constant of the medium.
                  Any change EVEN the flow turbulence changes the DE permeability of the medium.
                  IMHO:
                  meteorological radars EVEN civil La "see" turbulence and "cloud"






                  let alone a "plasma cocoon" ....


                  I’ll keep silent about the OELS system (light is not sound, the speed of em waves of this range is the same 298000 km / s)

                  I do not need radar for such a purpose
            2. venik
              venik April 23 2016 22: 34
              +1
              ABOUT! Finally, there was a specialist who would explain to us the business and finally give a reasoned answer to the question:
              Why does the alternate field around the rocket practically extinguish the pulses of enemy powerful radars preventing them from getting the target mark, and at the same time allow their own GOS (low-power radar) to freely transmit pulses to the outside and receive their reflected signal?
              ========
              Reply mav 1971

              Honestly, I expected a similar malicious question. I answer:
              Firstly. I don’t know which guidance principle is used on hypersonic missiles (for example, Zircon type) and how it is implemented in practice. And if I knew, I would never say on this forum. And he would work quietly for himself in some very closed laboratory and get a very good salary!
              Secondly. I tried “on fingers” (without formulas) to explain a simple thing - a hypersonic projectile surrounded by a plasma cloud could well be controllable (at least controllable from the outside) and that a plasma “cloud” could well be a rather sensitive receiving antenna. Those. I tried to explain in what way I would try to solve such a problem (if ever, someone thought of putting it in front of me!).
              T.O. Given that the plasma “cloud” is very sensitive to electromagnetic radiation, at least 2 options can be implemented:
              - remote control from an external source (satellite, plane, ship, etc.)
              - passive guidance on the source of electromagnetic radiation.
              Is it possible to radar in active mode - I do not know. There is not enough data to carry out the calculations. But it should be borne in mind that the plasma cloud formed around a flying hypersonic missile is heterogeneous. Those. there may be points where it is weak enough to place an active radar. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the RCC has a small EPR, unlike a surface ship, and therefore the detection of the latter (through a plasma cloud) is a simpler task than the inverse!
              [quote = mav1971] [quote = venik]
              And "prus" I go to where, unlike you, I understand a little! It's just that you should have learned physics better at school! [/ Quote]

              ABOUT! Finally, there was a specialist who would explain to us the business and finally give a reasoned answer to the question:
              "Why does the plasma field around the missile practically extinguish the impulses of powerful enemy radars, preventing them from receiving a target mark, and at the same time allows its own seeker (low-power GLS) to unhindered impulses outward and receive its reflected signal?"

              Explain to us why such selectivity ... [/ quote]
              [quote = mav1971] [quote = venik]
              And "prus" I go to where, unlike you, I understand a little! It's just that you should have learned physics better at school! [/ Quote]
              1. Operator
                Operator April 24 2016 20: 18
                -1
                The plasma cocoon surrounding the rocket or warhead on the downward path after entering the atmosphere consists of ionized air with a greater degree of internal turbulence.
                In connection with the latter circumstance, the plasma layer cannot serve as a transceiver radio antenna — the signal passing through it is distorted until the information content is lost.

                There are experiments on plasma ordering using a high-frequency generator on board a rocket / BB, but it is only possible to stabilize the plasma for a few seconds to send or receive a short message.
                The airborne radar signal cannot penetrate through plasma, even stabilized. But the signal from an external radar perfectly reflects from a stabilized or unstabilized plasma.

                Therefore, the use of ballistic missiles against moving objects such as surface ships is possible only when braking (or not accelerating) maneuvering warheads to a speed of less than 3 km / s, after which the plasma disappears and the radar seeker warhead begins to work.
          2. FM-78
            FM-78 April 23 2016 23: 23
            0
            Crest, but right!
    2. Svetlana
      Svetlana April 23 2016 12: 38
      +11
      Quote: Operator
      A 10 kt nuclear explosion on the deck of any ship, including an aircraft carrier, will vaporize most of the metal hull and heat the remainder to several hundred degrees before it is flooded.

      A ship at sea can sink without even being exposed to the contact effects of a missile warhead or torpedo.
      According to the Archimedes law, ships can go to the bottom if the density of water around them decreases by 1,5 ... 2 times, becomes bubbled by bubbles of compressed gas released under the bottom of the ship from the depths of the sea.
      They write what happened in the Bermuda Triangle. when billions of small bubbles suddenly rose from the bottom of the sea,
      the water around the ship boiled, lost density, and the ship was sinking.
  • aszzz888
    aszzz888 April 23 2016 06: 49
    +7
    Sometimes you really regret that Russian land rarely gives birth to such patriotic intellectuals as Sergei Georgievich Gorshkov.

    I saw him in Vlad, during the service. I flew in with Brezhnev and was on the Sinyavin. A small sprout, a modest uncle. With rubies in the stars on the shoulder straps.
    1. ametist415
      ametist415 April 23 2016 11: 12
      -6
      The United States and NATO are grateful to him in many ways.
    2. Vladimir61
      Vladimir61 April 23 2016 14: 59
      +1
      Quote: aszzz888
      With rubies in stars on uniform.
      To some generals and admirals, their contemporaries and grateful descendants are ready to insert diamonds!
      General or admiral with a string bag in a trolley, from the news stories of the 90s, national shame!
  • Rurikovich
    Rurikovich April 23 2016 07: 11
    +3
    The one that stands in the Abrek Bay is called "Admiral Lazarev"! And the one that was called "Kirov" later became "Admiral Ushakov" and it is he who is disposed of hi
    This is regarding the last paragraph at the moment 7'11 "in Minsk
  • svp67
    svp67 April 23 2016 08: 07
    +1
    Russia without a fleet, this negative
    Any potentate (that is, a ruler) that has a single ground army has one hand, and which the fleet has, has both hands.
    Peter 1.
  • Michael
    Michael April 23 2016 08: 29
    +6
    Restore the fleet definitely !!! And this is not an arms race, but jobs, high technology, etc. Otherwise, we degrade to the point of no return. Still liberal worms to learn how to derive (+ youth education). Oh, to survive ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. THE_SEAL
      THE_SEAL April 23 2016 10: 01
      -3
      What are you doing yourself? Where do you work?
  • NEXUS
    NEXUS April 23 2016 09: 18
    +5
    Russia is currently a world leader in rocket science, but in addition to the creation of anti-ship missiles, the Kyrgyz Republic, there is a carrier problem. At the same time, arsenal ships capable of carrying hundreds of missiles are being developed all over the world. And here the question has ripened — what do we have to oppose this? Today the day is essentially nothing similar. TARK Nakhimov and Peter the Great were created for other purposes, and precisely because of this, it is now necessary to remodel them under new realities.
    The Leader and Flurry project is the future, but judging by how they are being worked on, it is not a close future. Meanwhile, the mattresses have already launched the first Zamvolt and the second one is approaching. The Husky project is also at the stage of drawings and layouts, and the submarine 885 projects were postponed for two years, which does not inspire optimism. Project 11356 ships are a little happy, but so far they are prohibitively small ...
    1. Taoist
      Taoist April 23 2016 09: 37
      +11
      The idea of ​​"arsenals" has long been abandoned ... The other side of such a medal is that if such a chest with missiles would be very expensive to drown ... So it is more logical to split such an arsenal into several smaller carriers. Apparently ours are moving in this direction ...
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS April 23 2016 10: 03
        +1
        Quote: Taoist
        The flip side of such a coin is that if such a chest with missiles is drowned it will be very expensive ...

        Such, as you say, "chest" you have to try very hard to send it to the bottom. Besides, such ships do not go alone, but only as part of a formation or a squadron. And the presence of an arsenal ship as part of a squadron will only enhance.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist April 23 2016 10: 12
          +8
          Well, we're back to the old "aircraft carrier srach" ... You can drown anything. And putting eggs in one basket is not the best solution. In any case, the study of "arsenals ships" appeared in the 70s of the last century, but so far nothing of the kind has been built. The bookmaker is building up - which is natural. Since there is a decrease in the mass and size characteristics of the RO. On the other hand, this makes it possible to install RO on ever smaller ships and to provide "target distribution" ... The modern system of unified combat control allows the squadron to be used as a single combat organism and does not require concentration in one ship.
          IMHO, of course, but the very idea of ​​"the very" ship is perverse in essence. YAMATO was the most powerful battleship, but it did not help him ...
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS April 23 2016 10: 29
            +1
            Quote: Taoist
            The modern system of unified combat control allows the squadron to be used as a single combat organism and does not require concentration in one ship.

            You can’t send RTOs to the ocean zone. Unfortunately ...
            1. ametist415
              ametist415 April 23 2016 11: 37
              0
              You can’t send RTOs to the ocean zone. Unfortunately ...

              And in the coastal zone they are drowned by enemy aircraft, and then the enemy sends ships if the aircraft was able to suppress defense air defense. It turns out due to the weakness of the anti-aircraft weapons of the MRK, for example, type 1234 useless ships. In the USSR, a lot was built due to erroneous decisions of this trash. Work, money, resources were spent, and the fleet is not a fleet.
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS April 23 2016 11: 47
                +7
                Quote: ametist415
                And in the coastal zone they are drowned by enemy aircraft,

                The conclusion is stupid in the root. Probably you don’t even think about coastal missile defense and air defense. Yes, and about aviation based not nearby either. Russia is not Ganduras, dear.
                Quote: ametist415
                and then the enemy sends ships if aviation was able to suppress air defense

                I highlighted the main word.
                Quote: ametist415
                It turns out due to the weakness of the anti-aircraft weapons of the MRK, for example, type 1234 useless ships.

                Just MRCs are needed in large quantities, since in the coastal zone under the cover of coastal missile systems, electronic warfare and coastal aviation and carrying Caliber on board they will be very effective, even against much larger ships of the adversary. The story with Cook confirms this when the coastal electronic warfare complex turned the combat destroyer into a useless barge, which the MRC could drown without much effort.
                Quote: ametist415
                In the USSR, a lot was built due to erroneous decisions of this trash. Work, money, resources were spent, and the fleet is not a fleet.

                Listen to you, so all Russian ships are the last century. Absolute stupidity.
                1. ametist415
                  ametist415 April 23 2016 13: 14
                  -5
                  Listen to you, so all Russian ships are the last century. Absolute stupidity.

                  YES, the last century, only pr. 22350 is still nothing if it is made in good faith, but it is alone (its name is moronic). Only the Russian sailing fleet had great victories and glory. When the "iron" ships with a mechanical installation went, the fleet began to lag behind the West and not one major victory, mainly defeats, excl. attack submarine S-13.
                  The issue of standardization of missiles and launchers is one of the most important. The United States did this in the 80s, we are only now barely approaching this, the gap is 30 years. They have HEADLIGHTS, we have multi-ton rotating lattices, this is a lag in technology, mechanical installations are less reliable. Therefore, "Peter the Great", "Glory" and so on. obsolete at the time of keel laying.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS April 23 2016 13: 41
                    +2
                    Quote: ametist415
                    They have a headlamp, we have multi-ton rotating grilles, this is a lag in technology, mechanical installations are less reliable.

                    We are already in full swing testing ROFAR, which mattresses will not have another 5 years.
                    1. Vadim237
                      Vadim237 April 24 2016 19: 38
                      0
                      We already have a CRET photon radar.
            2. Taoist
              Taoist April 23 2016 14: 23
              +3
              Well, no one is talking about this, they need larger carriers. (Again, the story with the modernization of Project 1144 is an example) - but not at all barges with hundreds of anti-ship missiles ... I have already noted more than once that the fleet is primarily a task. For us now, first of all, the defense of the near sea zone is urgent. For raiding operations in the oceans (demonstration of the flag), universal ships are also needed (something like TAKRs), and the idea of ​​an "arsenal ship" stemmed primarily from the doctrine of the first, disarming strike with conventional weapons ... Purely mattress feature. And she seems to have been blown away ...
    2. ametist415
      ametist415 April 23 2016 11: 29
      0
      Project 11356 ships are a little pleasing, but so far they are prohibitively few ...

      This project has been deprecated on a slipway. Etc. 22350 more or less, but we have been building it for ten years, we can only dream of a large series. In the 80s, the United States built universal multi-purpose ships with VPU. In the USSR, new ship designs were already outdated in the factory. All sorts of pr. 956, 1155, 1164, 1144, etc. They are built according to an outdated concept. Plus, most do not have the understanding that if the fleet is oceanic, then an AB type like CVN-78 is needed. The Hindus and the Chinese realized that the fleet needed an AB, we weren’t there for a long time and we won’t understand.
      From envy, it only remains to call the USA mattress mats and come up with an illusion that, of course, "Peter the Great" is better than USS Zumwalt.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS April 23 2016 11: 38
        +6
        Quote: ametist415
        They are built on an outdated concept.

        The fleets have different concepts and tasks, too. Russia is a continental power, and therefore the land and aviation component is developing more. The amers are all different, the emphasis is on the fleet, there are elements of a missile defense system and a nuclear arsenal and AUG. And therefore talk about obsolescence Projects on slipways are stupid, not understanding that the concepts and the doctrine of the development of the fleet are fundamentally different.
        Quote: ametist415
        From envy, it only remains to call the USA mattress mats and come up with an illusion that, of course, "Peter the Great" is better than USS Zumwalt.

        Why is it an illusion? You draw this conclusion because mattresses all over the world cried out that Zamvolt is a super duper ship of the future? So nobody saw him in business. And what tests will show is also a big question. With zircons "and new radars, electronic warfare systems, etc., our cruisers will be, if not better, then certainly no worse than these Zamvolts.
  • Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 April 23 2016 09: 34
    +6
    If we recall the recent history and the military conflict with Georgia, it becomes clear that the purchase of the French Mistrals was a payment to this country for its position in this conflict.
    Our Navy, of course, does not need them.
    And further events safely liberated Russia from the useless spending of a large sum of funds.
    So that France we can say twice - thank you.
    1. ametist415
      ametist415 April 23 2016 11: 42
      +1
      So that France we can say twice - thank you.

      If Russia decides on an ocean-going navy, then we need not Mistrals, but multifunctional transport ships, helicopter carriers, such as LHD WASP, at least three hulls.
  • Taoist
    Taoist April 23 2016 09: 34
    +9
    It was interesting to read, but difficult ... "Horses, people mixed up in a heap" (c) - transitions from the description of American developments to ours are sudden and logically haphazard. If you are doing such a review, take care of the systematization and logic of the narrative ...
  • 11 black
    11 black April 23 2016 09: 46
    -3
    Quote: Taoist
    The modern Russian fleet is the pale shadow of the mighty Navy of the USSR.

    He’s cutting ears - well, the mighty Navy of the USSR at all times was a pale shadow of the US Navy (with the exception of the submarines - this was all right), so what?
    1. Taoist
      Taoist April 23 2016 09: 58
      +1
      You have not confused anything with quoting?
    2. THE_SEAL
      THE_SEAL April 23 2016 10: 05
      -2
      Quote: 11 black
      Quote: Taoist
      The modern Russian fleet is the pale shadow of the mighty Navy of the USSR.

      He’s cutting ears - well, the mighty Navy of the USSR at all times was a pale shadow of the US Navy (with the exception of the submarines - this was all right), so what?

      The fleet is an expensive pleasure. Emphasis should be placed on the submarine fleet. Both multi-purpose and strategic. And I want to say to all the capes that spit saliva about liberals that the Russian Federation does not have such an economy that it has a fleet like the states.
      1. ametist415
        ametist415 April 23 2016 11: 48
        -4
        Emphasis should be placed on the submarine fleet.

        Shovel approach to the concept of the Navy, erroneous. Another experience of World War II showed that some submarines cannot be defeated at sea, even on nuclear and missiles. So far, even many admirals have not yet understood this.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS April 23 2016 11: 54
          +5
          Quote: ametist415
          Emphasis should be placed on the submarine fleet.

          Shovel approach to the concept of the Navy, erroneous. Another experience of World War II showed that some submarines cannot be defeated at sea, even on nuclear and missiles. So far, even many admirals have not yet understood this.

          But you, as I understand it, you understand everything. wassat During the Second World War there was no nuclear weapons on board the submarines. In addition, with each generation, submarines are becoming more quiet and subtle. And today, submarines, rather than surface squadrons and AUGs, pose the greatest threat to the adversary.
    3. THE_SEAL
      THE_SEAL April 23 2016 10: 05
      0
      Quote: 11 black
      Quote: Taoist
      The modern Russian fleet is the pale shadow of the mighty Navy of the USSR.

      He’s cutting ears - well, the mighty Navy of the USSR at all times was a pale shadow of the US Navy (with the exception of the submarines - this was all right), so what?

      The fleet is an expensive pleasure. Emphasis should be placed on the submarine fleet. Both multi-purpose and strategic. And I want to say to all the capes that spit saliva about liberals that the Russian Federation does not have such an economy that it has a fleet like the states.
    4. ametist415
      ametist415 April 23 2016 11: 44
      -3
      (except for the submarine - this was all right), and so what?

      The submarine fleet also lagged behind the US submarines.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS April 23 2016 11: 49
        +1
        Quote: ametist415
        The submarine fleet also lagged behind the US submarines.

        Why is this a fright? The USSR had the largest submarine fleet in the world. Moreover, the submarines themselves, especially titanium ones, were no worse, but better than mattresses.
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 April 23 2016 12: 48
          +2
          Quote: NEXUS
          Quote: ametist415
          The submarine fleet also lagged behind the US submarines.

          Why is this a fright? The USSR had the largest submarine fleet in the world. Moreover, the submarines themselves, especially titanium ones, were no worse, but better than mattresses.


          Stop thinking in terms of speed and depth. That is, pipelining.
          The main indicator of submarines is only secrecy.
          And only secrecy.
          First discovered - first shot.
          For subflooding, this means won.
          If you are a “roaring cow”, no matter how fast you walk, no matter how deep you dive, you are always a target.
          You are the goal.
          Therefore, ours have always been worse.
          If we were given awards for the discovery of nuts and their short escort - do you understand how much more secretive the nuts were in comparison with the capabilities of our boats?
          You probably read all this and understand.
          Stop bragging.
          Be honest with yourself ...
          1. 11 black
            11 black April 23 2016 13: 21
            +2
            Quote: mav1971
            Stop thinking in terms of speed and depth. That is, pipelining.
            The main indicator of submarines is only secrecy.
            And only secrecy.
            First discovered - first shot.
            For subflooding, this means won.
            If you are a “roaring cow”, no matter how fast you walk, no matter how deep you dive, you are always a target.
            You are the goal.
            Therefore, ours have always been worse.
            If we were given awards for the discovery of nuts and their short escort - do you understand how much more secretive the nuts were in comparison with the capabilities of our boats?
            You probably read all this and understand.
            Stop bragging.
            Be honest with yourself ...

            Have you ever heard of Operation Aport and Atrina? Something the whole west, I'm sorry, was fucking looking for our "roaring cows" as you say.
            1. ametist415
              ametist415 April 23 2016 13: 39
              -5
              Have you ever heard of Operation Aport and Atrina? Something the whole west, I'm sorry, was fucking looking for our "roaring cows" as you say.

              When the US submarine drowned Project 949A, it was not found either.
            2. mav1971
              mav1971 April 23 2016 19: 43
              +2
              Quote: 11 black

              Have you ever heard of Operation Aport and Atrina? Something the whole west, I'm sorry, was fucking looking for our "roaring cows" as you say.


              Your words, incidentally, just confirm my ...
              If you do not understand this - I will explain.
              This is an exception.
              Exception confirms the rule.
              In order to make only daily support for SSBNs of the USA, it was necessary to make a top-secret operation.
              How many SSBNs did the US have at one time at sea then?
              What is their combat patrol period?

              The fact that the norm for their submarines is to rub close against our bases, fight with their submarines in almost our TerVody buildings, and then for years they install huge devices for collecting information from our communication cables in our waters.
              We have such a super-rarity, for which they then give orders and a bunch of laudatory television shows.
              1. 11 black
                11 black April 24 2016 08: 56
                0
                Quote: mav1971
                The fact that the norm for their submarines is to rub close against our bases, fight with their submarines in almost our TerVody buildings, and then for years they install huge devices for collecting information from our communication cables in our waters.
                We have such a super-rarity, for which they then give orders and a bunch of laudatory television shows.

                Here I fundamentally disagree with you - the atomic deep-sea stations of the USSR, and now Russia, perform the same tasks, but at depths of many kilometers at the bottom of the oceans, where communication cables of NATO countries are laid, only our "huge devices" with the help of these stations can be installed not only near the coast, but anywhere in the world ocean along the entire length of the laid cable.
                1. mav1971
                  mav1971 April 24 2016 16: 53
                  0
                  Quote: 11 black
                  Quote: mav1971
                  The fact that the norm for their submarines is to rub close against our bases, fight with their submarines in almost our TerVody buildings, and then for years they install huge devices for collecting information from our communication cables in our waters.
                  We have such a super-rarity, for which they then give orders and a bunch of laudatory television shows.

                  Here I fundamentally disagree with you - the atomic deep-sea stations of the USSR, and now Russia, perform the same tasks, but at depths of many kilometers at the bottom of the oceans, where communication cables of NATO countries are laid, only our "huge devices" with the help of these stations can be installed not only near the coast, but anywhere in the world ocean along the entire length of the laid cable.


                  Why do I think. what do you come up with now ...
                  Do you know that fiber optic links are on now?
                  Can you imagine what difficulties it is when reading information from just one fiber-optic fiber without damage, and what are the difficulties when working with the marine fiber-optic cable?
                  FOCL simply does not have EMP ...
                  It is unrealistic to shoot information without damaging the cable.
                  Even if you find a repeater point, and having hypersensitive equipment, try to remove the EMP from its point. I dare to assure you that the amount of information transmitted per second is such that you get a couple terabytes of incoherent code in a few seconds.
                  Everything is very difficult :)
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. 11 black
                    11 black April 27 2016 16: 16
                    0
                    Quote: mav1971
                    Why do I think. what do you come up with now ...

                    Ready to answer for any word from my quote you quoted hi
              2. Cro-Magnon
                Cro-Magnon April 24 2016 17: 30
                0
                You are a little wiser with cables!
          2. ametist415
            ametist415 April 23 2016 13: 28
            0
            And yet, the diversity of design creates additional difficulties in service. What for so many projects have PLs done? Even the rich USA did not allow themselves to do this, only small series at the beginning for an experiment, and then a Los Angeles type in a large series, a small Sea-Wolf series to gain experience with new technologies, then in a Virginia type series. All boats are multipurpose.
          3. NEXUS
            NEXUS April 23 2016 13: 44
            +1
            Quote: mav1971
            The main indicator of submarines is only secrecy.

            I totally agree.
            Quote: mav1971
            If you are a "roaring cow"

            Our submarines were called 2nd generation, and only roaring cows. I’m talking about 4th and later 5th generation submarines. By the way, the Varshavyanki also detected it with difficulty and rarely. This is what the Americans themselves have said more than once, even though this is 3 generation submarines.
            1. mav1971
              mav1971 April 23 2016 19: 45
              +1
              Quote: NEXUS
              By the way, the Varshavyanka was also spotted with difficulty and rarely. About this the Americans themselves have said more than once, although this is a submarine of the 3 generation.


              Well, I don’t consider Varshavyanka a worthy weapon and a real, adequate weapon similar to a nuclear submarine.
              All the same, dieselyuha is very limited in capabilities. Yes, there are a couple of advantages expressed in short-term electric movement - and that’s all.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 23 2016 23: 42
                0
                Quote: mav1971
                Well, I don’t think I’m a Varshavyanka worthy weapon and a real, adequate equivalent nuclear submarine weapon

                Well, in vain. See what San Luis did at the Falklands
                1. mav1971
                  mav1971 April 24 2016 19: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Quote: mav1971
                  Well, I don’t think I’m a Varshavyanka worthy weapon and a real, adequate equivalent nuclear submarine weapon

                  Well, in vain. See what San Luis did at the Falklands


                  Good example.
                  I do not argue.

                  "Under the Falklands" - I want to cry from the understanding of "what is unlucky - and you can't fight it" ...
                  And you fully understand the Argentines in their mildly disappointed - if the equipment was appropriate for the people - the English squadron would not return home.
      2. 11 black
        11 black April 23 2016 12: 11
        0
        Quote: ametist415
        The submarine fleet also lagged behind the US submarines.

        On the contrary, the Soviet submarine fleet was the most combat-ready and surpassed the US submarine fleet!
        Understand the essence of the thought - for America the navy is everything. They have no worthy opponents on the continent, all serious enemies are on another continent, which means that the issue of domination at sea is vitally important for them. We have the NATO EU, Japan, China - these are all "dangerous partners", and first of all for Russia (as well as for the USSR) ground forces and front-line aviation are important, and it is they who should develop in the first place, and they are traditionally well developed and should develop - that's what I mean.
        And your minus signs do not change anything - the SURVEILLANCE Fleet of the USSR would last against the US fleet for several days, maybe a week ... 10 battleships of the modern type, more than 30 heavy attack aircraft carriers, more than 20 heavy cruisers and more 200 destroyers - you seriously think that the FILL did the USSR fleet have any chances?
        1. Cartalon
          Cartalon April 23 2016 15: 14
          +1
          And for what year do you bring such an interesting composition of the American fleet?
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. 11 black
            11 black April 23 2016 17: 29
            0
            Quote: Cartalon
            And for what year do you bring such an interesting composition of the American fleet?

            1950 and 60 years hi
            Why "interesting" is the most natural - heavy Aircraft carrier Essex - 24, Midway - 3, Forrestal - 4 + "trifle"
            Essex

            Midway

            Forrestal

            Heavy cruisers Baltimore - 14 units, Oregon - 6.
            Battleships Carolina - 2, Dakota - 4, Iowa - 4.
            Destroyers Fletcher - 175, Goering - 98
            1. 11 black
              11 black April 23 2016 17: 48
              0
              Baltimore

              Oregon

              Iowa

              Dakota

              Goering

              Fletcher


              To make it clear how shortsighted the statement about the "Mighty Soviet Navy".
  • Verdun
    Verdun April 23 2016 10: 03
    +2
    3M14 "Caliber" showed extremely high efficiency during the military operation in Syria
    The missiles were used unexpectedly and against an enemy that was not able to provide serious resistance to such weapons. It is quite possible that "Caliber" is a good rocket, but it is not worth judging its merits unequivocally, only by the example of Syria. For all its merits, cruise missiles fly at subsonic speeds. This means that when approaching the target, they are detected visually and can be destroyed by rapid-fire anti-aircraft artillery. This was well understood by Soviet specialists, developing hypersonic missiles in parallel with cruise missiles. They understand this even now, continuing the development of hypersonic anti-ship missiles. Arming all ships in a row with the same "Caliber" is a dangerous bias. The same Indians are paying attention to the development of the Bramos rocket - the further development of Onyx. Helping them in the development of this weapon, it would be a sin not to use the obtained developments.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst April 23 2016 11: 40
    +1
    Rust's flight at the peak of combat readiness of the most modern air defense of the Moscow Region, during the day, without interference, and with visual observers at each RT point is a convincing example of the fact that CR at transonic speeds with envelope relief and extremely low altitudes (and I almost forgot about stealth -technologies) can be detected, and even more so fired upon only by accident, both SAM and ZA. Active families are not on duty around the clock with the included radars and full calculations neither in peacetime nor in wartime.
    1. Verdun
      Verdun April 23 2016 13: 57
      +3
      Rust's flight at the peak of combat readiness of the most modern air defense of the Moscow region
      I served urgent in air defense a little earlier than Rust flew. But still I know that his flight was tracked almost along the entire route. That's why there was no order to bring down, this is another question ...
      1. Wheel
        Wheel April 23 2016 21: 22
        +1
        Quote: Verdun
        That's why there was no order to bring down, this is another question ...

        There is a version that the flight was agreed at the top ...
        1. iouris
          iouris April 27 2016 00: 01
          0
          This follows, in particular, from the fact that certain polite people in civilian clothes are removing trolleybus wires so that this zayec can land and taxi to Red Square. After that, the leadership of the country's air defense forces was removed, and wildly growing breeders came to Moscow instead of Gorbachevsk (in Stavropol), who later, as the rumor said, often visited and fed Rust in prison (and probably even for own account) ... And then it started.
          MiG-23 Rust escorted along the route, could fill him with a cannon, but there was no command.
  • Nirvanko
    Nirvanko April 23 2016 12: 02
    0
    Why is AGSN-14 new? The enterprise producing them has other GOS with a large index. But the fact itself: CRs with a range of 3000 km and a nuclear warhead equipped with new GOS can easily cut carrier groups.
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 April 23 2016 19: 50
      0
      Quote: Nirvanko
      Why is AGSN-14 new? The enterprise producing them has other GOS with a large index. But the fact itself: CRs with a range of 3000 km and a nuclear warhead equipped with new GOS can easily cut carrier groups.


      Can not...
      In order for you to understand this, you need to read at least a little about the composition of the fleet and their functional components, their application schemes, etc.
      And when you read. you’ll understand - that’s how to cut an aircraft carrier like that with one rocket is a night fantasy.
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 April 23 2016 12: 05
    +1
    The article certainly deserves a positive assessment. Although, it is very long written and mixed in one heap, our fleet with the American. Better and more readable, this should have been done separately in two articles. There are also "shoals" that mislead readers. For example, the Kalinin TARKR (803 order), served in the Northern Fleet under this name since 1989 and was renamed in 1992 in the post-Soviet period. For some reason, the tactical capabilities of the RRC pr. 58 are stuck out (by the way, in the domestic classification it was never a URO cruiser), but other projects of ships with anti-ship missile weapons are not mentioned at all. Anyway, comparison of the tactical capabilities of this ship with the nuclear-powered cruiser URO "Long Beach" is completely incorrect, because The American command considered carrier aircraft to be a strike force in the war at sea and, therefore, accordingly armed its ships.
  • cedar
    cedar April 23 2016 14: 19
    +6
    Quote: Scharnhorst
    Rust's flight at the peak of combat readiness of the most modern air defense of the Moscow Region, during the day, without interference, and with visual observers at each RT point is a convincing example of the fact that CR at transonic speeds with envelope relief and extremely low altitudes (and I almost forgot about stealth -technologies) can be detected, and even more so fired upon only by accident, both SAM and ZA. Active families are not on duty around the clock with the included radars and full calculations neither in peacetime nor in wartime.


    Since then, a lot of water has flowed, though the brains too ... But those that remained created systems capable of detecting, tracking and destroying cruise missiles. Mig-31, S-300, S-400 on the approach of the S-500.
    Russia does not yet have the prospect of having a fleet like the USSR, but the fact that it should be and be armed with the most modern missile weapons is certainly correct. Look in Syria the cruiser "Moskva" having on board an analogue of the S-300 was able to effectively carry out air defense missions together with the S-400. It is hard to imagine that any SP could do this. Therefore, the Russian Navy needs ships of all classes and ranks. Moreover, the Arctic region is becoming more and more accessible for navigation, here, of course, modern submarines with their ability to sail under the ice are still out of competition.
    An unfortunate example with Rust. This is a clearly developed and carried out enemy operation to decapitate and discredit the top leadership of the USSR Armed Forces! Three marshals were removed, including the Minister of Defense, and three hundred senior officers, plus an inflated campaign of vilification of the Armed Forces in the media. This was a planned clearing and elimination of the main opponents of Gorbachev's "perestroika", with the involvement of not only external, but also internal agents, and at the very top! If there were no betrayal, Rust would have been lying in the Russian land, as many are lying who climbed to us without asking and with malicious intent!
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon April 23 2016 15: 12
      +1
      Excuse me why the thesis is taken that the cruiser Moscow effectively provided air defense, who checked it and how?
  • realist
    realist April 23 2016 15: 17
    -1
    it is necessary to build a series of inexpensive small (but with the possibility of unlimited seaworthiness) missile ships. a small target with a powerful missile salvo is a nightmare for aircraft carrier groups (in my opinion) ..........
    1. okroshka79
      okroshka79 April 23 2016 16: 52
      0
      Dear Realist! Your proposal to build ships with such parameters, unfortunately, is not real. Alas! We need to talk about optimizing the tactical characteristics and other parameters of the ship. But, what you take for the objective function, such a ship and get.
  • Grim Reaper
    Grim Reaper April 23 2016 17: 16
    +1
    Quote: NEXUS
    Quote: Taoist
    The flip side of such a coin is that if such a chest with missiles is drowned it will be very expensive ...

    Such, as you say, "chest" you have to try very hard to send it to the bottom. Besides, such ships do not go alone, but only as part of a formation or a squadron. And the presence of an arsenal ship as part of a squadron will only enhance.

    The chance is one in a million - it works in half the cases. (C) Especially in wartime ....
  • Verdun
    Verdun April 23 2016 17: 18
    0
    Quote: realist
    it is necessary to build a series of inexpensive small (but with the possibility of unlimited seaworthiness) missile ships. a small target with a powerful missile salvo is a nightmare for aircraft carrier groups (in my opinion) ..........
    Exactly, and they also have to fly ... smile
  • okroshka79
    okroshka79 April 23 2016 17: 54
    0
    There are constant disputes about how to build ships for our fleet on this resource in that format. as it happens now, they have no soil under them. For one reason. The fleet needs such ships and other types of fleet forces and their numerical ratio, which correspond to the current military doctrine. Read, everything is written there. In my opinion, it is along this path that the construction of our fleet is going on.
  • mav1971
    mav1971 April 23 2016 19: 02
    -1
    Declassified TTH new Russian missiles brought the West into shock


    After this beginning, the author needs to drive an aspen stake ...

    Sergei!
    Are you a spy chtoli in the US MoD?
    or are you stealing secret notes from the US President’s national defense adviser?

    No?
    Then why the hell are you spreading your nightly fantasies like reality here too?
    for general familiarization?

    D, B!
    Well, you can’t do that ..
    Just some suicidal manic desire to show us Russians what we are. Russians, everyone is afraid ...
    No one is afraid of us.
    And because of authors like you, psychosis is created all over the world that "Russians want war"!
    The author - I will repeat once again how for the ensign you are - D, B!
  • former
    former April 23 2016 21: 49
    +4
    I’ll correct it a little. A roaring cow is only the 675th project. Now about the noise. On the paper moose 0,06-0,08 and Ohio
    0,04-0,06 against the Russian 3rd generation 0,1-0,2 looked better. On paper. There are nuances in the sea. First about the Barents one. The eternal fifth type. Or "no one hears anyone." you will not track.
    And the noise is nothing to do with. The ocean is simpler. The second type. Sitting under the PZK and the scatter of your own noise is not so important. In any case, without underwater supply, not a single AUG beyond the Faroe Icelandic border will climb. Here's a dilemma. a dead man abroad. At the Pacific Fleet the same crap only the names of the borders are different.
    I’ll honestly tell you that the number of NKs has little effect on the real combat efficiency of the fleet. The fight will begin under water and whoever wins it will win the war. And in this area the current Navy has so many unpleasant surprises for NATO.
    I will say so in the 80s war submarines would have won. In the 90s we. In 00e again mattresses. Now I would not put them. Where they lagged behind (performance RE) well, let's say 10 times ... changes over 30 years 100000 times. In fact, parity.
    Where ahead, and ahead. In any case, that the wolf and the wench are found almost guaranteed.
    Enough quantity. And the wisdom of the command staff.
  • alexmach
    alexmach April 23 2016 22: 22
    +1
    By the middle of 1989, the USSR Navy had about 1000 surface ships and 377 submarines (including 189 nuclear ones). Of these, 276 and 338, respectively, were capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The surface forces consisted of seven aircraft-carrying cruisers, 34 cruisers, 52 destroyers, 119 large and small anti-submarine ships and 65 missile corvettes


    This quote made me almost cry ...
  • Freeman
    Freeman April 24 2016 01: 25
    0
    The news of the refusal of France to supply the Russian Navy "Mistral" was greeted by experts with great enthusiasm. Our fleet ships of this class "and the gift of neither nat, nor the money for not nat", as they said in a popular Soviet cartoon. But for four troughs - that is exactly what was planned to buy - would have to lay out as much as two billion euros. Apparently, someone's sick fantasy painted a picture of the suicide landing of four battalions of the Russian marines on the coast of Alaska, nothing else. Perhaps one such ship would be useful for the Emergency Situations Ministry, but not for the fleet.

    A controversial issue. Call these "troughs" not "Sevastopol" and "Vladivostok", but "Gazprom" and "Rosneft" and everything will fall into place. These companies bought up a lot of assets abroad, in Nigeria, for example, but incidents involving the seizure of our sailors and oil workers there were already several.
    And so I would look at the local president, when such a "box" hangs in the roadstead (and the living conditions for the l / s on it are much better than on the BDK) and in the case of a "jamb", your "presidential palm" will fly to "pollinate" from the "Bumblebees" a battalion of marines. laughing
    And off the coast of Syria, as a command center, such a ship would not hurt.
  • isker
    isker April 24 2016 08: 08
    0
    Quote: RedDragoN
    In the USA, everything is private, so it’s cheaper to fly with the help of Russia. For your understanding: they don’t have all the documentation on RD-180 (greetings from 90x), which allows plagiarizing them ... but for financial reasons - they are not being built by dosihpors.


    Nonsense, the Americans do not have documentation on the RD-180! They were offered to invest in the development of the engine and get all the documentation - they refused, agreed to pay for the finished goods, so they were given Technical Documentation, affecting only the issues of technological equipment of the engines - how and where and how to fasten them to their rocket - no more, no less , everything else is the know-how of Russia.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 April 24 2016 19: 41
      0
      Only they have documentation for our NK 33.
  • rubidiy
    rubidiy April 24 2016 16: 18
    -2
    article - cheers patriotic nonsense of the layman. am I thought of finding something useful in it, but nothing but generally known facts and bullshit was found.
  • Operator
    Operator April 25 2016 23: 07
    -1
    Quote: opus
    typical active flight profile of solid propellant ICBMs

    Is everything really so bad with solid-fuel ICBMs - the fourth stage (breeding) completes its work only 10 minutes after launch?