"Caliber" shoots past missile defense

95



The article was posted on the site in 2016



A cruise missile is a guided bomb with wings and an engine that allows 1,5-2 to fly thousands of kilometers to the target. But ultimately, a charge, generally identical to a conventional warhead, not the largest, aerial bomb weighing 300-400 kg, will collapse on the head of the enemy.

And if in local conflicts many thousands of tons of air attack means are “poured out” into enemy positions, then it would be naive to believe that the use of a couple dozen “flying bombs” can somehow affect the course of military operations even in the most insignificant conflict. What, in fact, is confirmed by the current chronicle of events: despite the rocket attacks of the Russian Navy and dozens of destroyed terrorist headquarters, the war in Syria has no end in sight.

Fact: During Operation Desert Storm, coalition air forces were dropped on Iraqi army positions. 144 thousands of tons of bombs. 30% shots accounted for highly controlled weapon, including almost three hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles. As a result of the rocket-bombing extravaganza, Saddam's troops were forced to leave the previously occupied Kuwait. However, despite all the fictional and real losses, there was no question of a total defeat of the Iraqi armed forces. Iraq has retained much of its military capabilities. Otherwise, with whom the Americans fought again gallantly twelve years later? Then, by the way, I had to release 800 naval cruise missiles for Iraqi targets. That's not counting the rocket attack in the 1998 year (Operation Desert Fox), when 218 Tomahawks were additionally launched on Iraq.


It can be seen from the above statistics that the combat value of single cruise missiles, as well as of any conventional means, to put it mildly, is low. A certain effect can have only their massive use, and then only with the direct complicity of the air forces and ground forces.

SLCMs are suitable for hitting stationary targets with previously known coordinates, which makes it impossible to use them in a rapidly changing situation on the battlefield. The situation is complicated by the hours of waiting when a slow missile (0,6-0,8M) gets to the target ... Finally, the inappropriately high cost of SLCMs compared to conventional aviation ammunition: up to $ 2 million for the serial “Tomahawk”. The cost of the Russian “Caliber” is classified, but taking into account their piece production it exceeds the cost of a similar “Tomahawk” several times.

Sea-based cruise missiles are an auxiliary element to enhance the fire power of the Air Force. And they are not at all like the “miracle weapon” replicated in the press, which can instantly erase all bases and armies of the “probable enemy” from the ground.

Fact: As of 2016, the Russian Navy has 17 carriers of the Caliber family SLC. Among them:

Multi-purpose nuclear submarine K-560 "Severodvinsk" (project 885 "Ash"). In the middle part of the nuclear-powered ship there are eight SM-343 launch silos with four missile cells each (total ammunition load - 32 "Caliber")


Frigate Ave 22350 - “Admiral Gorshkov”. The ship's shooting complex installed on it (USCS) allows placing “Calibrov” aboard the 16.

Three frigates pr 11356: "Admiral Grigorovich", "Admiral Essen" and "Admiral Makarov". The ships installed a UCSC module for eight cells for the “Calibrov”.

"Caliber" shoots past missile defense

Patrol ship “Dagestan” (Ave. 11661K). It has a similar module UKS on eight cells.

Small rocket ships pr. 21631 “Buyan-M”, five units. They have all the same module UKS on eight cells.

The diesel-electric submarines of the 636.3 Ave. (modernized Varshavyanka), six units of the project. They have four SLCMs in ammunition (torpedo tubes are launched via standard 533 mm).

Total: 17 carrier ships with 144 Caliber missiles deployed on them.

The second major operator of sea-based cruise missiles is the US Navy. They have a much more impressive arsenal of SLCMs and their carriers. “Tomahawks” can be placed aboard 85 surface warships and 57 submarines.

All American cruisers and destroyers are equipped with universal launch cells - from 90 to 122 per ship (only Zamvoltov has reduced their number to 80). As practice shows, during shock and “punitive” operations, up to half of the ship’s launch shafts can be given to accommodate “Tomahawks”. However, when carrying conventional combat duty, the number of cruise missiles on board is small or absent. Most of the DPS are usually empty because of the lack of adequate tasks and the desire of the command to reduce the number of incidents by reducing the number of “dangerous toys” on board. The remaining mines are occupied by anti-aircraft missiles, space interceptors, and the Asrok anti-submarine missile torpedoes.


In the fall of 2014 of the year, the American cruiser "Phillipines C" launched 47 cruise missiles from the Red Sea to ISIS positions.

The main method of placing the “Axes” on American submarines is the 12 vertical mines in the bow of “Los Angeles” and “Virginia”. Some of the outdated “Elks” are capable of launching SLCM in a horizontal way through torpedo tubes.

Similarly, the Sivulf boat ammunition (8 TA, up to 50 marine ammunition, including Tomahawk SLCM) is stored and used.

Finally, the Ohio-type submarine missile carriers. Four of the 18 SSBNs built under the START Treaty were rebuilt into cruise missile carriers. Seven Tomahawks in each of the 22 mines, where the Trident strategic missiles were previously deployed. The remaining two mines converted into airlock chambers to exit the combat swimmers. Total: each special operations submarine may have an “Ax” onboard the 154. However, in practice, everything is different: starting glasses are installed only in 14 mines, the other eight are given to accommodate diving equipment. Record salvo belongs to the submarine "Florida", launched overnight 93 "Tomahawk" (operation against Libya, 2011 g.).

In view of the high unification of missiles and the possibility of placing them in any configuration, in accordance with the current situation and tasks fleet, to establish the exact number of SLCMs on ships of the US Navy is impossible. From the facts presented it is clear that it can reach several thousand units.


Open cover of missile mines of the submarine "Santa Fe"[/ Center]

Brief description of rockets


ЗМ-14 “Caliber” (the anti-ship variant ZM-54 was not considered, since it has little in common with the tactical cruise missile database).

Length - from 7 to 8,2 meter.
Starting weight - according to various data, from 1,77 to 2,3 tons.
Flight range - from 1,5 thousand in conventional to 2,5 thousand km in nuclear equipment (with a relatively light special warhead).
Mass of high-explosive warhead - 450-500 kg.

Flight control and target targeting methods: the rocket is controlled by an inertial system on the cruising segment, and also uses GPS / GLONASS satellite navigation data. Guidance is performed on a radio-contrast ground target using the ARGS-14 radar homing head.



The first test launches from domestic ships - 2012 year. At the same time, export modifications of “Calibra” (Club) were successfully shipped abroad already from 2004.

BGM-109 TOMAHAWK


The original “Battle Ax” with a nuclear warhead was adopted in 1983 year. In 1986, its conventional counterpart BGM-109C with high-explosive warhead appeared, from that moment on the rise of the popularity of cruise missiles.

Below are data on the modification of the RGM / UGM-109E “Tactical Tomahawk”, which is the main modification of the SLCM, which is in service with the US Navy. The main changes are aimed at reducing the cost of ammunition (rockets are not value, but consumables of war). Weight reduction, cheap plastic hull, turbofan engine with minimal resource, three keels instead of four, because of its “fragility” rocket is more unsuitable for launching through TA. In terms of accuracy and flexibility of the new rocket, on the contrary, surpasses all previous versions. Two-way satellite communication channel allows you to retarget a rocket right in flight. It was possible to shoot only at the GPS coordinates (without the need to have photographic images and radio contrast images of the target). Classic TERCOM (navigation system that measures the height of the terrain along the flight route) and DSMAC (optical and thermal sensors that determine the target, checking data with the “picture” loaded into the rocket’s memory) are supplemented with a TV camera for visual monitoring of the target status.

Length - 6,25 m.
Starting weight - 1,5 tons.
Flight range - 1,6 thousand km
The mass of the warhead - 340 kg.

Some conclusions from the above


1. Cruise missiles are not glorified "miracle weapons." The crushing power of the CCDB is comparable to an 500 kg caliber air bomb. Can you win the war by dropping only one or a few bombs on the enemy? The answer is: of course not.

2. The possibility of firing targets in the depth of the enemy's territory is also not the prerogative of the CBRC. The armament of the Russian Aerospace Forces has tactical cruise air-launched missiles with a range of 5 thousand km, which is significantly higher than any “Caliber”.

3. The RSMD Restriction Agreement referenced by Caliber fans is not worth a penny. Before we rejoice at how the ban on the deployment of cruise missiles with a range over 500 km onshore was bypassed, you need to think: do you really need such weapons? This niche has been long and firmly occupied by aviation: the planes will “cover” any target, much faster and at a greater distance than the Caliber is capable of.


4. Stories on the topic of how five rocket boats are hiding in the Volga backwaters and “holding at gunpoint” the whole of Europe, we will leave journalists on our conscience. Fussing with ISCs, of which only 8 cruise missiles are of serious armament, means one thing: USC is not capable of building a warship of the ocean zone, engaging in profanation and mastering the means of HPV-2020. Such boats with “Caliber” do not mean anything against the background of the power of the aerospace forces of Russia.

5. Destruction of objects of American missile defense in Europe. Believe me, for this there are much more efficient and effective ways than a handful of subsonic rockets, which will take hours to crawl to Romania.

6. Given the difference in the number of cruise missiles and their carriers, the ban on the deployment of nuclear weapons on ships (with the exception of 14 strategic submarines) was an absolute victory of Russian diplomacy over the American side.

7. Surface combat ships are built as platforms for the deployment of anti-aircraft weapons. It is a fact. Look at the birth of the "Aegis", "Tikonderog" and domestic class "Orlan" cruisers. On the number of anti-aircraft missiles, radar and air defense missiles on board.


The appearance of the missile cruiser is determined by non-rocket mines with Tomahawks. The main design feature of Tikonderog is a huge superstructure with octagons of the SPY-1 radar antennas placed on its walls.

The launches of hundreds of “Tomahawks” is a tribute to the unified installation of a vertical launch. Allowing to take on board the SLCM instead of part of the anti-aircraft ammunition. But not the primary task for a large warship.

The article was posted on the site in 2016
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    5 December 2022 05: 31
    Cruise missiles are not the glorified "miracle weapons". The destructive power of the CRBD is comparable to a 500 kg bomb. Is it possible to win a war by dropping just one or a few bombs on the enemy? Answer: Of course not.

    Can special forces, saboteurs win the war. Answer: of course not. But they can significantly complicate the life of the enemy. Same with CR.

    Otherwise, I agree with the author 100%. CDs can make life difficult for the enemy but not win the war. We have already seen this, at least on the example of the "destroyed" airfields.
    1. +20
      5 December 2022 05: 45
      The question is for you and the author, what kind of weapon can win the war? Even a single use of nuclear weapons does not give a guarantee, so why is it? The Air Force themselves can win the war, without other branches of the military, in my opinion this is idiocy. long arm" would be much more interesting.
      1. +4
        5 December 2022 07: 00
        and what weapon can win the war? Even a single use of nuclear weapons does not guarantee, so why is it

        Well, for starters, decide on the terminology - what is "win the war." If victory in the war means hoisting a banner over the Reichstag, then you are right. And if the war has the goal of destroying the military, technical and geopolitical potential of the country, then nuclear weapons will cope with it easily.
        1. +5
          5 December 2022 07: 44
          What is the author hinting at? Is it really the senselessness of our missile strikes?
          1. +2
            5 December 2022 07: 49
            what are you asking me about it? I am not an author or a revealer of his ideas.
          2. 0
            9 December 2022 22: 08
            From 2016 hints, by the way!
        2. -2
          5 December 2022 12: 35
          It is precisely the achievement of the goals set and, as a symbol, the hoisting of the banner. About nuclear weapons, striking will entail a retaliatory strike and it is not a fact that the side that used the first nuclear weapons will benefit from this.
          1. -3
            5 December 2022 12: 50
            It is precisely the achievement of the set goals and, as a symbol, the hoisting of the banner.

            By today's standards, this is stupidity and anachronism. For example, the example of the war in Yugoslavia: the United States caused a collapse by bombing, and then achieved results through political blackmail and betrayal. No one hoisted the flag, but the strongest state of Yugoslavia finally disappeared.
            About nuclear weapons, striking will entail a retaliatory strike and it is not a fact that the side that used the first nuclear weapons will benefit from this.

            not all countries have nuclear weapons and not all are able to deliver it to enemy territory
            1. +5
              5 December 2022 13: 59
              The strongest (as it were) state of the SFRY disappeared back in 1992. And in the late 90s, NATO bombed the FRY, or "small" Yugoslavia, which consisted of not 6, but 2 republics, Serbia and tiny Montenegro.
              1. -4
                6 December 2022 04: 21
                The strongest (as it were) state of the SFRY disappeared back in 1992.

                I didn't ask you to explain when it started to disappear. I wrote (verbatim)
                the strongest state of Yugoslavia finally disappeared
            2. -2
              5 December 2022 14: 23
              Here is your answer, why use nuclear weapons if there are other methods, including missile defense. About the Americans, it was you who correctly noticed the military strikes, together with other methods of "arm twisting" and lead to success. About the banner, the Americans are great actors on all levels. They don't need it
              1. +1
                6 December 2022 04: 27
                Here is the answer for you, why use nuclear weapons if there are other ways, including CR.

                Are you making a clown out of yourself? I gave you the example of Yugoslavia because no one was going to hoist the banner there. Yes, they managed with cruise missiles and bombing, because there was no need as such to use nuclear weapons. But in the case of North Korea, this will not work - the risk of losing Seoul is too great. Therefore, a hypothetical US/NATO war against Eun would be purely nuclear. And no one will think about the banner there. And with regard to Iran, this is likely to happen - Iran is very militarized. And the Iraqi theme of bribing generals will not work there - a different organizational structure. This means that we will have to try to hammer the CD, but with this the United States will not achieve what it wants - the overthrow of power and its replacement with puppets. And even more so, no one will seek to hoist a flag over the Kremlin. And no cruise missiles can change the power in Russia. But you can grab it very easily. So there is only one argument - nuclear weapons.
                1. -1
                  6 December 2022 05: 58
                  I don't understand, are you making any claims to me?
      2. +8
        5 December 2022 08: 57
        Quote: Mikhail Maslov
        The air force itself can win the war

        Have the Air Force alone won many wars? In my opinion none.
    2. +1
      5 December 2022 06: 28
      From the fact that the article, as we are stubbornly told, was posted in 2016, it, unlike wine, has not become better. Brad, if short and succinct
      1. +10
        5 December 2022 07: 17
        Try not to be short and succinct, but to put it on the shelves, what is nonsense?
        Can you?
        1. +1
          5 December 2022 07: 20
          Quote: YOUR
          Try not to be short and succinct, but to put it on the shelves, what is nonsense?
          Can you?

          The cost of the Russian “Caliber” is classified, but taking into account their piece production it exceeds the cost of a similar “Tomahawk” several times.

          Dispute, for starters, this nonsense. hi
          1. +1
            5 December 2022 07: 25
            What's wrong, what's wrong?
            Quote: Mitroha
            The cost of the Russian “Caliber” is classified, but taking into account their piece production it exceeds the cost of a similar “Tomahawk” several times.

            Can you prove the opposite?
            But suppose the author exaggerated here and that because of this the whole article is not true? Or are you frantically looking for something to cling to?
            1. 0
              5 December 2022 07: 33
              Quote: YOUR
              Or are you frantically looking for something to cling to?

              It looks like it's your conscious choice. hi Because, in fact, you didn’t answer ... The author is not writing a fairy tale here, and if he wants to pass off his article as an analyst, then he will not write obvious nonsense, no matter how much you want to smooth it out with "exaggeration". And since he allows himself this, then there is no faith in the rest. Is it logical? Completely, in my opinion.
              1. +2
                5 December 2022 08: 29
                That is, for your words
                Quote: Mitroha
                Brad, if short and succinct

                you are not going to answer about the article. They hid behind a bunch of meaningless words.
                Quote: Mitroha
                The author is not writing a fairy tale here, and if he wants to pass off his article as an analyst, then he will not write obvious nonsense, no matter how much you want to smooth it out by "exaggerating".

                So what's the nonsense? Be specific, do not follow the example of ladies' talkers.
                1. -4
                  5 December 2022 09: 42
                  You are not yet for your words
                  answered, but what do you require from me
                  Quote: Mitroha
                  Dispute, for starters, this nonsense.
              2. Fat
                +6
                5 December 2022 09: 10
                Quote: Mitroha
                Quote: YOUR
                Or are you frantically looking for something to cling to?

                It looks like it's your conscious choice. hi Because you didn't really answer... The author is not writing a fairy tale here, and if he wants to pass off his article as an analyst, then he will not write obvious nonsense, no matter how you want to smooth it out with "expanding colors". And since he allows himself this, then there is no faith in the rest. Is it logical? Completely, in my opinion.

                This is an article by Oleg Kaptsov! They have always been controversial to say the least. Alternative fiction to a certain extent.
                Those who are familiar with the work of this author perceive these publications quite adequately, with a fair amount of doubt.
                Kaptsov gives his own vision very assertively, but it is absolutely not worth considering his opinion as "the deepest analysis with serious insight into the topic" smile
                1. +2
                  5 December 2022 09: 32
                  If you remove all these performance characteristics and other arguments, they do not carry any other meaning to fill the article. The conclusions are correct. CR alone is not such a miracle weapon. They won't win the war. The damage to the enemy will be significant, and even then not in the military sphere. We have already verified this. How many different missiles were fired in Ukraine? Zelensky said that 4700, I don’t know how true this figure is, most likely exaggerates. How many of them were shot down, the network is full of videos of how our missiles are shot down. See the Military Chronicle website. So what, the factories are working, the transport network is not broken, the bridges are intact. The damage is definitely dealt, but not critical. Probably even more geraniums.
                  1. +1
                    5 December 2022 09: 40
                    Quote: YOUR
                    CR alone is not such a miracle weapon. They won't win the war.

                    Obvious things ≠ conclusions. Just like verbiage ≠ article. This is exactly what we are talking about
          2. +4
            6 December 2022 00: 05
            So everyone knows that in the USA rockets are "made like sausages." And in Russia - piece by piece, by hand laughing laughing
          3. +1
            6 December 2022 17: 02
            Quote: Mitroha
            The cost of the Russian “Caliber” is classified, but taking into account their piece production it exceeds the cost of a similar “Tomahawk” several times.

            I understand that in 2016 the cost of "Caliber" was unknown to many and one could make any guesses on coffee grounds, but even then assume SUCH ... that in our performance a simple CD will cost ... several times more expensive than "Tomahawk "? belay This is beyond understanding. fool
            Let's try to remove the veil of secrecy and clarify the situation somewhat.
            To begin with, we are aware that "Caliber" and their shortened counterparts under the nickname "Iskander-K" are produced here not just in series, but in MASS. And mass production is always a cost reduction. And also our dear MO so ... or rather SO (!) Can twist the hands of the manufacturer at the purchase price, that you need to forget about the fabulous "rates of profit" in their production.
            Now about numbers.
            According to the price lists for the EXPORT version of the KR "Caliber-E", its cost is 650 dollars. USA .
            I repeat, this is the EXPORT price. Which includes the export tax, includes the development cost rate (this is not included in the domestic cost price, because the state has already paid for everything). Usually the domestic price differs from the export price by 1,5-2 times. From which it follows that the cost for MO will be no more than 400 - 450 thousand dollars. And in the light of the actual mass production today, it may be even less.
            Therefore, the rockets do not end.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. +5
      5 December 2022 06: 34
      "Geraniums" with 50 kg of warheads can also complicate life!
    4. +5
      5 December 2022 11: 42
      But the current war has shown that in conditions of more or less decent air defense, it is better for our aircraft not to even approach enemy targets. And it remains to peel the CD and mopeds.
      1. +9
        5 December 2022 11: 50
        Quote: Sahalinets
        But the current war has shown that in conditions of more or less decent air defense, it is better for our aircraft not to even approach enemy targets.

        Disagree with you. The current war has shown that we do not have enough aviation, that the tactics of using it are outdated or developed somewhere in the wrong direction, that we do not have enough anti-radar missiles, that we do not have enough satellites capable of finding and detecting enemy air defense systems, showed that our electronic warfare is about nothing at all.
        That's what this war has shown.
        1. +2
          5 December 2022 12: 40
          Well, I'm talking about the same. It is our aviation that should not approach.
        2. -1
          6 December 2022 00: 06
          Let me ask a rhetorical question: in what year did the United States and NATO countries (Israel, of course) begin to use towed decoy radar traps to overcome air defense?
          And which of our aircraft, even the Su-34 and Su-57 types, has such a device?
    5. -1
      7 December 2022 16: 47
      However, if the cruise missiles are equipped with a nuclear warhead, then, for example, if such a missile hits an airfield, it will definitely destroy it for a very long time.
      1. +2
        8 December 2022 03: 24
        Do we have a war with the use of nuclear weapons? Or do you want to vigorously bang a single broad on some super-important airfield?
        1. +1
          9 December 2022 15: 01
          Yes, not an unpaved airfield for AN2. Yes, and winged ones were developed as a carrier of nuclear warheads.
  2. +8
    5 December 2022 05: 38
    Finally, the inadequately high cost of SLCMs compared to conventional aviation munitions: up to $2 million for a serial Tomahawk. The cost of the Russian "Caliber" is classified, but taking into account their piece production, it exceeds the cost of a similar "Tomahawk" by several times.
    Why not how many orders? They are so "few" that they "ended in March."
  3. +3
    5 December 2022 05: 56
    Cruise missiles were developed precisely as a carrier for a nuclear warhead. The main task of the CD is to break through the enemy's missile defense system by flying at low altitude, with enveloping the terrain. This is a first strike weapon delivered from the side of submarines. The use of a conventional warhead, as noted in the article, justifies itself when striking a stationary target, but the missile launchers were created specifically for nuclear weapons.
    1. 0
      6 December 2022 00: 11
      This was at a time when air defense and aviation did not yet have special capabilities to intercept and detect them. Now is another time. If there are AWACS aircraft, fighters and air defense systems, even military air defense, then the effectiveness of this kind of weapon is very small even in the usual version.
      1. 0
        6 December 2022 04: 43
        I do not agree. The effectiveness of this type of weapons is quite high, since the saturation of air defense / missile defense in different parts of the territory is different. Again, flying at low altitudes, 3-5 meters from the surface, guarantees the invulnerability of the CD from fighters and missile defense. It is possible to notice a rocket going at such a height. But it won't work for her. Now, in the NVO zone, missiles are flying at a height, but in the event of a conflict with the same United States, the situation will be different. The submarine approaches as close as possible to the enemy's shore and fires missiles. Start - will be detected. But the CRs themselves will drop and go, clinging to the ground. Ground radars will quickly lose them, due to the terrain. An AWACS aircraft can track, but where is the guarantee that it will be nearby? The constant presence of fighters in the air in all areas is also from the realm of fantasy. Clancy had a similar situation in the book "Red Storm". hi
        1. 0
          6 December 2022 12: 59
          Germany has more than 15 AWACS aircraft only. France has 4 + deck ones.
          In Europe there are more than 30 AWACS aircraft, in the USA only in the Air Force there are more than 40 + deck ones.
          They can keep them in the air around the clock.
          in the right areas.
          For the take-off of bombers, as well as the movement of submarines, will be tracked using satellites / PLO aircraft.
          And then AWACS rises and waits.
          1. -2
            6 December 2022 14: 46
            The movement of submerged submarines is not monitored by satellites. Do you think that AWACS aircraft are hovering over the entire territory of the United States around the clock? Yes, they can keep them in the air, but they will never take such a step unless there is a direct threat of war. First, it's not even millions, but billions of dollars for the fuel for these aircraft alone. Not counting the development of the resource, moreover, with unclear prospects: they will discover the submarine only if it emerges. And the surfacing of submarines off the coast of the United States will mean only one thing: the launch of missiles. Anti-submarine aircraft will no longer have time to fly out to destroy the boat, the launch will be carried out. The missiles will take from three to ten minutes to reach the target. Fighters will definitely not intercept them: they need to get coordinates, take off, go to the area ... Do you think that American pilots are sitting in cockpits? 24 hours a day? It remains air defense / missile defense. But if missile defense forces are not deployed on high alert, they will also need time. In 5 minutes, not a single air defense / missile defense system will work in such conditions. PLO aircraft, by the way, also need to know the Pl search area. After that, all these "Orions" need to put sonar buoys in order to calculate the exact location of Pl. And that's a few hours of work.
            1. +1
              6 December 2022 17: 28
              You do not take into account the fact that the United States and Britain have dozens of the latest multi-purpose nuclear submarines. And they track all our boats, both strategic and multi-purpose, almost when leaving the bases, if necessary, also attracting very modern anti-submarine aircraft, of which there are also many.
              The February incident with the Virginia near the Kuril Islands after several weeks of her being in the waters of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and tracking SSBNs is clear evidence of this.

              With the support of AWACS, fighters easily intercept cruise missiles.
              Even the MiG-29 and Su-27 of the Armed Forces of Ukraine did this more than once effectively with the help of R-73 guns and missiles.
              Modern F-15, F-22 and F-35 such targets are easily destroyed either by guns or AIM-9 missiles.
              1. -2
                6 December 2022 18: 02
                You do not take into account the fact that the United States and Britain have dozens of the latest multi-purpose nuclear submarines. And they track all our boats, both strategic and multi-purpose, almost when leaving the bases, if necessary, also attracting very modern anti-submarine aircraft, of which there are also many.
                It is not a fact that our SSBNs are tracked. Otherwise, the enemy would not have panicked when they could not track down the Varshavyanka off the coast of Syria. Note, not a submarine cruiser, but a diesel submarine. And the fact that the "Virginia" was hiding near the Kuril Islands means only one thing: our anti-submarine forces "slept through" it. And not that each of our boats is monitored by two or three multi-purpose American submarines.
                I have already spoken about the support of AWACS and AWACS aircraft. As well as about the interception. Aviation simply will not have time to track and intercept missiles in the event of a missile launch off the coast of America.
                1. 0
                  7 December 2022 00: 31
                  How is it that aviation will not have time? If from the border of Canada to targets in the continental United States, the flight time of these missiles will be 3-6 hours?
                  This is a lot.
                  1. 0
                    7 December 2022 04: 47
                    And why did you decide that the missiles would be launched from there? What does Canada have to do with it, we, it seems, do not deploy our missiles there. smile And what exactly will it be cruise missiles with subsonic speed? In the event of a global conflict, all missiles will go to the most appropriate targets. Subsonic missiles will only finish off what is left after ballistic missiles, or hit point targets during / before the main strike. In the first case, aviation (the one that remains in service) will be slightly out of time to intercept missiles. In the second - they do not have enough time and money. If the strike takes place, it will be massive. There are no fools sitting there either, and if Armageddon has begun, then no one will chase single missiles: you still can’t intercept each one. ABM will have to focus on ballistic missile warheads, moreover, the effectiveness of this same American missile defense system is in question, it has not been used anywhere for real.
  4. +2
    5 December 2022 06: 02
    No weapon can win a war. Regarding the placement of Calibers, it is most logical to place them on railway platforms. Russia is a land power, our ocean is an immense railway network. You can transfer forces very quickly and concentrate the rocket fist in the right place. It is also much easier to provide disguise.
    1. -1
      5 December 2022 06: 32
      Concern Morinsis-Agat has a similar development. Everything is packed in a container.
    2. 0
      5 December 2022 17: 12
      The main advantages of railways are stealth - it is impossible for the enemy to understand in which carriage the rocket is.
      And habitability for calculation, especially a good difference with a large minus air temperature. The calculation of the BZHRK does not go out into the cold for a couple of weeks, having three hot meals a day, a warm toilet, a shower and other residential parts of the car.
      The "persistent overcoming of the hardships of service" by the calculations of the PGRK can lead to colds, pleurisy and other sores that put a person out of action for a long time. Yes, and just shitting in a snowdrift is inconvenient.
      1. +1
        13 December 2022 00: 53
        The monotony and boredom of a living railway worker FORCES to see which car "inhumanly" sank on a certain "rail", the number of the cars, their "pretentiousness" in any "idle idiot" immediately "Gives birth" to the thought of what is in front of him. Do NOT be a "railroad man". Send a message and you will receive a prize, but rather install a "tracker" and the meal is served ... Nonsense, "invisibility" is left only for "Jack London."
        1. 0
          21 January 2023 13: 26
          Wow, stick a tracker on a strategic train. Did you want to live? laughing
  5. +4
    5 December 2022 06: 14
    What nonsense is written in this article, starting from a comparison of a free-falling aerial bomb to ships as platforms for anti-aircraft weapons.
  6. +6
    5 December 2022 06: 27
    A very strange consideration of one type of weapon in isolation from others. And the conclusions are equally inadequate. As the practice of NMD has shown, strikes by the CD from different sides and different carriers can not only disable the enemy’s sensitive infrastructure, but the carriers themselves, by their very presence, can cause nervousness in a very large area.
    Where did the author find such a statement that SLCM is a miracle weapon? High-precision weapons are called weapons because they are capable of incapacitating only what is needed, and not arranging a lunar landscape near the target. And for this, 300-400 kg of explosives is enough.
    1. -1
      6 December 2022 00: 14
      Are there any exact statistics on what% of these missiles Ukraine shot down?
      Albeit based on Western intelligence.
      Even if 18-20-25% is downed, it is very very significant!
      Considering that the country does not have a fleet, it actually does not have aviation and anti-aircraft defense of obsolete types works separately.
  7. +1
    5 December 2022 06: 30
    I remember how the cruiser "Princeton" of the Ticonderoga type came to visit us in Vladivostok in September 1990. We were shocked by the afars on the wheelhouse, by the fact that the deck was covered with a non-slip coating, and by what cabins and how the officers live.
    1. 0
      13 December 2022 00: 56
      I was at the "Frderikshaven" base, also .. ate boiled potatoes with herring .. during the "joint", but hacked on the nose that the "Idiots" in 3-meter showers with scrub, 24 dishes on a weekday, SPA cabins ... " they don't weed the lawn", "they don't clean the rust.. and generally well-groomed, and 'robust affirmitive'". By the way, the head of the base is Pakistani "ethnic", ..
  8. +2
    5 December 2022 07: 19
    And if in local conflicts many thousands of tons of air attack weapons are “poured” onto enemy positions, then it would be naive to believe that the use of a couple of dozen “flying bombs”
    The author has a problem with both the account and knowledge, even with a discount for 2016.
    Firstly, not a couple of tens, but a couple of hundreds, secondly, not a word about the accuracy of the hit, and finally, last on the list, but not least - the choice of target. The author, (as well as our command) doesn’t seem to care - a strategic bridge, a power plant (one of several dozen per country) or a barn in the desert.
  9. +3
    5 December 2022 07: 28
    Well, of course, miracle weapons don't exist. But if we imagine the following situation. Electronic reconnaissance aircraft pinpoint the location of air defense and stationary radars, satellite reconnaissance determines the location of headquarters, and then a massive strike is delivered to these targets. The goal is to disrupt control, to make air defense fragmented. And then an air raid, which will hit targets of your choice, identify air defense positions and destroy them. Strike k.r will win the war? No. Will he contribute to the victory? Undoubtedly. Is it a useless weapon? Definitely not. Or, depending on how you use it.
  10. +2
    5 December 2022 07: 40
    Ambiguous article. Big, good, but I still seasoned a spoonful of shit! How could it be without this, the liberal principle is not easy to eradicate from a person!
    The cost of the Russian “Caliber” is classified, but taking into account their piece production it exceeds the cost of a similar “Tomahawk” several times.

    So there will be no plus from me!
  11. 0
    5 December 2022 08: 16
    Whether the article is old and corrected to date, whether the author deliberately takes data from 2016? But, the truth that the CD alone cannot win the war is known to everyone. CR are an integral part of the fire impact on the enemy!
    To date, We have more ships and boats that are carriers of Caliber, Onyx and the Zircon missiles that have appeared!
    On the ships there are not only Calibers for striking coastal targets, but also anti-ship Calibers! Just the use of missile defense systems with RTOs against enemy ships in the waters of the Baltic and Black Seas will be effective. Frigates, destroyers and other ships and vessels of large displacement, (the Americans drove the UDC into the Baltic.), will be their targets.
    There has always been a triad of the use of weapons (land, sea, air), and it remains!
  12. +6
    5 December 2022 08: 20
    but taking into account their piece production
    Well, yes. They (calibers) have all ended a long time ago. Already finished a few times.
  13. -2
    5 December 2022 08: 34
    Rather, we were specially given to read an article from 2016, for comparison. The analysis and conclusions in the article correspond to the time, albeit with the scent of liberalism. After all, then few people could even give a description of the performance characteristics of Caliber, but now everyone knows them. Now, at the end of 2022, from the height of 10 months of the NWO, we perfectly understand what the author was wrong then.
    1. 0
      5 December 2022 09: 11
      "Piece production of Caliber" is not true, aircraft are assembled piece by piece, but Caliber must be believed on the assembly line
  14. +3
    5 December 2022 09: 07
    Now I will imagine that we do not have cruise missiles.
    and immediately the author’s thoughts that aviation will be able to cover someone there turns into a pumpkin. Russian aviation clearly showed nothing without missiles.
  15. +1
    5 December 2022 09: 25
    "And if in local conflicts many thousands of tons of air attack weapons are “poured out" onto enemy positions, then it would be naive to believe that the use of a couple of dozen “flying bombs” can somehow affect the course of hostilities even in the most insignificant conflict "

    So, are many thousands of tons of air attack means “poured out” onto enemy positions, not so that at least something from the “poured out” hits the target? After all, most of this will go into "milk" and will not give practically any result. Those. the efficiency of these "many thousands of tons" can easily be lower than or comparable to a dozen hits of cruise missiles in the "bull's eye". Is not it?
    1. +2
      5 December 2022 09: 48
      Quote from vicvic
      Those. the efficiency of these "many thousands of tons" can easily be lower than or comparable to a dozen hits of cruise missiles in the "bull's eye". Is not it?

      Yes, everything is so. It’s just that the author needs to be poked in the right place in the bombing of Dresden in the Second World War, did they break a lot of key targets there? And then poke him in the same place in his enthusiasm for the fact - the genocide of the civilians in the same Dresden. And to see how he will excuse himself from his own delights ...
  16. +2
    5 December 2022 09: 56
    It has been 2016 years since 6. As they say, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since that time. It's like quoting articles about the first cell phones now. In the realities of that time, maybe it will work, but over time it turns into nonsense ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  17. +1
    5 December 2022 10: 36
    The cost of the Russian “Caliber” is classified, but taking into account their piece production it exceeds the cost of a similar “Tomahawk” several times.

    Absolutely sucked from the finger. And taking into account the piece production, the Su-30 is more expensive than the F-15? But nothing that is at least 4 times cheaper? They agreed to sell F-250s to Indonesia for 15 million each, and the Su-30SM flew to Armenia for 50 million each.
    Traditionally, the cost of weapons in the United States is skyrocketing, and traditionally Russian is cheaper
    And as for the prodigies - they never existed. It’s at the opposite camp that they have a bzik, we understand that the Dagger alone will not win the war
  18. 0
    5 December 2022 10: 54
    KR is part of the system ... the destruction of objects and the breakthrough of air defense (this was done at 404) the second phase - aviation with guided bombs and missiles ... the third aviation with cast iron with the help of Hephaestus ... we have delays with 2m and 3m, in my opinion look lacking in aircraft pieces.
    1. 0
      6 December 2022 00: 20
      The third phase could not be and will never be for sure.
      Because thousands and thousands of modern Western MANPADS firing at heights up to 5 km were brought there. And even if they were bad or old (and this is far from the case), then the effect will be on the quantity.
      The other day we lost 2 bombers and Ka-52 from these same MANPADS in Donbass.
      1. 0
        6 December 2022 12: 28
        Hephaestus allows you to bomb from 5-6000km ... and it’s not MANPADS that interfere with this, but not the finished BukM1 and S200 ... the Poles begin to supply upgraded C125 ... Ka52, as they shot down Buk
      2. 0
        6 December 2022 14: 16
        And that Bandera should sit silently and passively and wait for them to be bombed? MANPADS for modern cruise missiles is pah, nonsense. The margin in performance characteristics is colossal! It is necessary to skillfully and competently use weapons!
  19. 0
    5 December 2022 11: 48
    Strange article. Looks like someone's political order. Now the vast majority of effective strikes of the RF Armed Forces in the NMD have been made with the help of guided cruise missiles. The entire energy system of Ukraine was hit by guided cruise missiles. The author specifically distorts the essence of the problems in the NWO. The question should be raised not about the effectiveness of guided cruise missiles, but about the expansion and intensification of the combat use of other combat weapons, in particular tanks, and the expansion of tactics and methods of warfare and the activation of the NMD itself in the current conditions.
  20. 0
    5 December 2022 13: 33
    The cost of the Russian “Caliber” is classified, but taking into account their piece production it exceeds the cost of a similar “Tomahawk” several times.


    The production isn't all that fancy. I do not know the exact price, but the cost of production is definitely lower than that of "tomahawks". Everything is cheaper here, especially the cost of skilled labor.
  21. +1
    5 December 2022 13: 42
    Quote: Ka-52
    The United States caused a collapse by bombing, and then achieved results through political blackmail and betrayal. No one hoisted the flag, but the strongest state of Yugoslavia finally disappeared.


    In fact, Yugoslavia as a state began to disappear long before the NATO operation began.
    And even if there had been no such aggression, Yugoslavia would still have collapsed.
    And Serbia, as the core of Yugoslavia, still remained. The Serbs retained most of their military potential, although the NATO CR was used in large numbers. The fact that Serbia is now forced to retreat before the West is caused, first of all, by economic reasons.
  22. +1
    5 December 2022 13: 54
    Cruise missiles are not the glorified "miracle weapons".


    Allow me to congratulate you on the assignment of the next title: "Major Evidence!" laughing

    The fact that the KR with a conventional warhead is not a child prodigy was obvious to reasonable people even at the end of the Second World War. The prototype of the KR was the V-1, as you know. Yes, they did not have high accuracy, but they were used on a truly massive scale. But the effect of their use was very modest.
  23. 0
    5 December 2022 15: 08
    At least the caliber can turn off heating and electricity to an inadequate neighbor.
    And in general, to build nuclear bombs with delivery and forget about the rest of the means of destruction as ineffective or what?
  24. +1
    5 December 2022 17: 22
    Each weapon solves its own problems. High-precision - strikes at the most important targets. And it cannot win the war. But it can bring its end closer, or end it (for example, by destroying the command and military-political leadership of the enemy)
  25. 0
    5 December 2022 17: 35
    A few questions for the author:
    1. [quote] generally identical to the warhead of a conventional, not the largest, air bomb weighing 300-400 kg. [/ quote] and [quote] The mass of a high-explosive warhead is 450-500 kg [/ quote] from your article. What is it like?
    2. [quote] A cruise missile is a guided bomb with wings and an engine that allows you to fly 1,5-2 thousand kilometers to the target / quote] and [quote] Flight range - from 1,5 thousand in conventional to 2,5 thousand .km in nuclear equipment [/quote]?
    3. And where are the combat characteristics of missiles? It would be necessary to compare the flight speed, KVO, the design of the BG.
    4. And let me remind you the words of the President of the United States that this is an ordinary cruise missile, only it is invulnerable to missile defense.
    5. And - the last one. And what if the full charge [quote] of the 144 Kalibr missiles [/quote] deployed on them was sent to the thermal generation of Ukraine?
  26. +2
    5 December 2022 18: 55
    “Finally, the inadequately high cost of SLCMs compared to conventional aviation ammunition: up to $2 million for a serial Tomahawk. The cost of Russian Calibers is classified, but taking into account their piece production, it exceeds the cost of a similar Tomahawk by several times. " You can not read further, but it finally kills - as of 2016 ..., but as of 12.2022? Kaptsov in one word.
  27. -1
    6 December 2022 00: 27
    Ukraine does not have a fleet, almost no aviation (Soviet fighters), air defense systems are mainly Soviet systems and have long been operating separately.
    And what percentage of launched cruise missiles was shot down by Ukraine?
    This is not known for sure, but even if it is 20%, then in this state of affairs it is very significant.

    And if a country has dozens of AWACS aircraft, ground-based radars, satellite reconnaissance, hundreds of 5th generation fighters, modern air defense systems, then the effectiveness of such weapons is zero or so.
    1. 0
      6 December 2022 00: 55
      Do you want to learn how to find out the effectiveness of Ukrainian air defense?
      We take the report of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation:
      The target has been reached. All assigned 17 objects were hit.
      We take a report on the hit targets from Ukrainian sources:
      Infrastructure facilities were damaged in:
      — Odessa region (Odessa CHPP-2, electrical substations)
      — Vinnytsia region
      — Dnepropetrovsk region
      — Zaporozhye region
      — Kirovograd region (Kirovograd thermal power plant)
      — Kyiv region
      — Zaporozhye

      We get, 17 missiles were fired, 8 targets were hit. Air defense efficiency 53%. This is also confirmed by earlier figures, something around 55% efficiency.
      1. -1
        6 December 2022 03: 00
        Oh how! This is already an excellent indicator for such a system.
        And suppose that 200-250 missiles with a nuclear charge need to break through NORAD and hit targets
        on the continental United States.
        The takeoff of the bombers is fixed by satellites. And they calculate the boundaries of the launch of the CD.
        AWACS is raised from airfields in Greenland, Alaska and Canada and they detect
        the approach of bombers and the separation of cruise missiles from them.

        And then, as I understand it, the shooting range for missiles and even for bombers will simply begin, when will air defense systems and fighters begin to operate?
        1. 0
          6 December 2022 21: 49
          This is a shooting range in which targets will appear and disappear.
      2. +1
        6 December 2022 21: 47
        Sucked from the finger. How do you know that in one area - one object? How do you know that official Ukrainian messages are complete and do not contain misinformation? How do you know that there are 17 missiles for 17 objects? There are so many assumptions here that you can generate any figures for the effectiveness of air defense. You brought the maximum possible.
      3. 0
        10 December 2022 01: 17
        This is only if one missile was fired at each target. What if there are two?
  28. +1
    6 December 2022 14: 27
    I largely agree with the author. But....
    The combat value of single cruise missiles, like any conventional means, can have a certain effect when used on single important targets.
    Why not arrange a safari to Zelensky and his "brotherhood"?
    Even if you miss, the EFFECT will be amazing.
    Everything will be in place here. And long range, and low power, and maneuverability. The main thing is to BEAT!!!!
    Imagine: striking daily, several times, at identified locations.
    So let the "rat" rush through the bomb shelters. Here's a SHOW!
  29. +1
    6 December 2022 15: 51
    No war can be won either by cruise missile strikes or nuclear weapons, or even by a millennium falcon. Only infantry, which will cut off important strategic railway lines, routes where large-tonnage transport, seaports can pass. When the flow of aid from the West disappears, the war will end on its own ... the great army of ukrov will have no cartridges, no shells or anything else, because everything of their own is already gouged. Therefore, playing in the couch general, I would declare a full mobilization, from Belarus along the border I would cut it with a quick offensive march right up to Romania ... and that's it. Is it just necessary? More precisely, you need to understand the goals of all this SVO, but I don’t really understand what this demilitarization and denazification is ... In my opinion, this should mean only one thing - the state of Ukraine must disappear as a state.
  30. 0
    6 December 2022 21: 37
    As far as I understand, the main carriers are ships and aircraft. Both are not cheap, so the question is - is there a resource for launchers on ships, submarines, airplanes? or can submarines be reloaded indefinitely and launched Caliber?
    And the second question, a few years ago they said on TV that calibers can be transported and launched almost from sea containers. Why are calibers now launched from the sea and air, and even from the Caspian Sea?
  31. 0
    7 December 2022 09: 22
    Quote from cold wind
    We get, 17 missiles were fired, 8 targets were hit. Air defense efficiency 53%. This is also confirmed by earlier figures, something around 55% efficiency.


    Brad of siv mares. Some targets could hit 2 or even 3 missiles, as one may not be enough.

    No one calculates the effectiveness of air defense like that. They shot down the KR - let's provide documentary evidence, otherwise it's an ordinary hohlosrach.
  32. 0
    9 December 2022 18: 36
    against the backdrop of the might of the Russian aerospace forces.

    December 2022 sounds funny...
    1. 0
      10 January 2023 18: 06
      Quote from the author "The cost of r“ Caliber ”is classified, but taking into account their piece production, it exceeds the cost of a similar“ Tomahawk ”several times. "- why so,? although if you want, the cost can be any, but on the other hand, cruise missiles have the simplest engines with a resource of 3 hours, by the way, you can find a link where a person alone in the garage makes similar engines, though smaller ones for aircraft models (this does not simplify the task), and wheels with blades sharpen the same himself.
      1. 0
        18 January 2023 14: 36
        Well, firstly, mass production, and secondly, 10 times less, the author is a dunce ...
        The caliber costs for our MO no more than $ 300k
  33. 0
    18 January 2023 14: 31
    Kr is a way to destroy the infrastructure of a country with air defense...
    Well, this is not to mention the fact that they can carry special warheads ...
  34. 0
    4 February 2023 13: 00
    The KR was not created for strikes against troops, but rather against point objects such as power plants, railway junctions, etc.
  35. 0
    23 February 2023 15: 04
    It’s like with the rail war by our partisans during the Second World War, it seems to have caused serious damage, but this did not stop the Germans from transporting panthers to Germany for repairs and back to the front, this is for those who believe that the destruction of bridges on the outskirts will change something. There was euphoria from the tomohawks, a beautiful picture that could be sold and a weak opponent, almost like the Indians in America. Especially the Arabs, even those warriors. And Vietnam, strewn with bombs, drove out the Americans, although there were many Americans on the ground, 60 thousand remained in the ground.
    1. 0
      23 February 2023 15: 30
      it did not interfere with the Germans
      Enemy traffic was reduced by 35-40%.
      It's like a machine gun does not interfere with the infantry, mowed down only a third of the attackers.
      The weapon does not interfere, takes out less than half.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"