Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Share
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Regular on Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:36 am

    Vann7 wrote:NATO army is very static and purely offensive

     sunny You made my day!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:47 am

    NATO had serious trouble with the mobility and skill of the Serbian air defence forces... I would suggest that the Russian air defence forces would be equally as challenging, but also far better equipped with systems and weapons that can reach out and touch.

    And then they have the Russian Air Force to deal with which includes its own SAMs and radars, and the Russian Army which again has its own SAMs and radars and of course the Russian Navy which also has its own SAMs and radars...

    I don't see any Rush to send NATO forces to deal with the evil Russians invading and annexing Crimea...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Djoka

    Posts : 13
    Points : 13
    Join date : 2013-01-21

    SAMs

    Post  Djoka on Sun Mar 23, 2014 9:57 am

    GarryB wrote:NATO had serious trouble with the mobility and skill of the Serbian air defence forces... I would suggest that the Russian air defence forces would be equally as challenging, but also far better equipped with systems and weapons that can reach out and touch.

    And then they have the Russian Air Force to deal with which includes its own SAMs and radars, and the Russian Army which again has its own SAMs and radars and of course the Russian Navy which also has its own SAMs and radars...

    I don't see any Rush to send NATO forces to deal with the evil Russians invading and annexing Crimea...
    Not only that Russian forces would be equally if not better trained than Serbian forces,but they unlike Serbia would have thousands of latest sam's like s-300,s-400,buk's,tor's,pancirs.....We in Serbia used sam's that were from Vietnam war era.Not to mention the difference in the size of the territory and the number and quality of the air force.Serbia had 10 mig 29s out of which majority didn't have spare parts or working radars.And dodnt forget the upcoming s-350,s-500....
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3247
    Points : 3333
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  medo on Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:NATO had serious trouble with the mobility and skill of the Serbian air defence forces... I would suggest that the Russian air defence forces would be equally as challenging, but also far better equipped with systems and weapons that can reach out and touch.

    And then they have the Russian Air Force to deal with which includes its own SAMs and radars, and the Russian Army which again has its own SAMs and radars and of course the Russian Navy which also has its own SAMs and radars...

    I don't see any Rush to send NATO forces to deal with the evil Russians invading and annexing Crimea...

    Don't forget, that NATO need to have troops in Africa, ME and US have to have large capabilities around Iran, China, Pakistan, Latin America, etc. They could not just take all forces from all around the World to challenge Russia, because China will fill this vacuum with their forces and many places around the World will become free of Westerners and trade with others without western influence. On the other hand, unfortunately, stupidity and greed don't have limits.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    NATO vs Russian Air Defence

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:39 pm

    TR1 wrote:To be quite frank until I see photos of the drones I am skeptical the event ever happened.

    Alleged video of American drone over Crimea:


    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Vann7 on Mon Jun 09, 2014 10:23 pm

    Viktor wrote:
    Vann7 wrote:Well not really.. No idea what a battery of 56 is ,so calculate for me.. lol


    I meant to say that by 2020 Russia will have 56 S-400 batteries meaning it will be able to shoot with those 56 S-400 at 56 x 10 = 560 targets at once with 560 x 2 = 1120 missiles.

    Got it?

    Oh i see..

    But 560 targets doesn't look like a lot for me.. Im sure if NATO wanted they can fire 5,000 cruise missiles + long range artillery at the same time in case the of war. Maybe they counter with the rest with S-300s, Pantsirs ,Tors and others the difference.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:02 am

    Hahahaha... NATO has never fired more than 200 cruise missiles at anything ever before and the last time they fired 100 or so they had fired there available stocks and had to put in big replacement orders... which took time.

    Also... this is just SAMs so add fighter aircraft using AAMs to down aerial targets as well.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Vann7

    Posts : 3471
    Points : 3583
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Vann7 on Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:28 am

    GarryB wrote:Hahahaha... NATO has never fired more than 200 cruise missiles at anything ever before and the last time they fired 100 or so they had fired there available stocks and had to put in big replacement orders... which took time.

    Also... this is just SAMs so add fighter aircraft using AAMs to down aerial targets as well.

    Thats because NATO  fights are against  third world countries.. in low level easy wars.. and they go cheap.. but in a world war 3 , they do have the capabilities to fight many thousands projectiles.... between Cruise missiles , Rocket artillery , and Air to Ground missiles. Just because in Libya they don't used more than 200 does not means they cannot launch more. in IRAQ war for example US alone launched 800 cruise missiles in just 2 days..

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/25/1042911596206.html

    and we are talking at something bigger than IRAQ like Russia. So between Cruise Missiles and Planes flying low  launching air to ground missiles ,Drones ,Rocket artillery and decoys launched , NATO could fill their enemy radars Airspace easily with several thousands targets without problem.


    dionis

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dionis on Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:52 am

    I generally roll my eyes a bit when Garry suggests that Russia would go nuclear over some low-level attack on its territory by NATO... but 5000 cruise missiles (if that's even possible) might just warrant a nuclear response.

    Seriously, what the hell would you even target with the 5,000 missiles that may not even exist in all of NATO.. collectively!?
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  sepheronx on Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:41 am

    dionis wrote:I generally roll my eyes a bit when Garry suggests that Russia would go nuclear over some low-level attack on its territory by NATO... but 5000 cruise missiles (if that's even possible) might just warrant a nuclear response.

    Seriously, what the hell would you even target with the 5,000 missiles that may not even exist in all of NATO.. collectively!?

    What Garry states is correct, as tactical nukes are part of the use if any engagement on Russia happens. This could be at home or abroad. This was mandated under Medvedev. Tactical Nukes. Not ICBM's.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jun 10, 2014 7:43 am

    dionis wrote:I generally roll my eyes a bit when Garry suggests that Russia would go nuclear over some low-level attack on its territory by NATO... but 5000 cruise missiles (if that's even possible) might just warrant a nuclear response.

    Seriously, what the hell would you even target with the 5,000 missiles that may not even exist in all of NATO.. collectively!?

    I aggree on a small scale and an insignificant attack on Russian soil will not be answered with full nuclear response, but the problem still lies here.

    If one Nuclear Power attacks another one regardless of how intensive the attack is be it a mosquito sting or deadly bite both can not be tolerated and have to punished in an oversized manner, not because it is revange but because Pardon one such attack with insignificant answers you will only encourage your enemy for bigger attacks.

    Never forget bullies only know the policy of strentgh.

    Pardon one offense and you encourage many more.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Viktor on Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:29 pm

    Vann7 wrote:Oh i see..

    But 560 targets doesn't look like a lot for me.. Im sure if NATO wanted they can fire 5,000 cruise missiles + long range artillery at the same time in case the of war. Maybe they counter with the rest with S-300s, Pantsirs ,Tors and others the difference.

    And what if Russia lauches 5000 cruise missiles + long range artillery first or second? West does not have any defenses against it and Russia on the other hand has the most formidable

    in the world.

    1. West would need to find goals for such a large number of missiles and finding goals and making ELINT against Russia would be fun to watch
    2. We dont know full extent of Russian ASAT weapons and dont know how many of US GPS satellities would remaine in orbit within few hours after outbrake of war
    3. Organizing 5000 cruise missiles attack from the planes would be fun to watch as NATO never did anything like it before and than there is always danger of Russian pre-emptive missile strike
    4. Russia can raise few thousand SAMs in the air and how its quite questionable how many western pilots would survive to live another day and get in the plane
    5. Russian ELINT and ECM/ECCM is great and it can reduce efficiency of western CM attack by few orders of magnitude
    6. Than there is a Russian interceptors in form of MiG-29/31 and Su-27/30/35
    7. Russian Army would launch missile attack against whole spectrum  of targets bringing stone age to any country that hosts agressor planes
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3247
    Points : 3333
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  medo on Tue Jun 10, 2014 4:36 pm

    First of all, not all 5000 cruise missiles will be launched at the same time, so there will be time for reloads. Second, cruise missiles as Tomahawk is quite easy target for AA guns and MANPADs, specially, when they are well integrated inside IADS, like with Barnaul-T and considering, that majority of them will be launched from the ships and subs, their flight paths could be well predicted and they could be shot down over sea by naval ships guarding the coast (even coast guard ships could do this job).

    dionis

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dionis on Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:17 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    I aggree on a small scale and an insignificant attack on Russian soil will not be answered with full nuclear response, but the problem still lies here.

    If one Nuclear Power attacks another one regardless of how intensive the attack is be it a mosquito sting or deadly bite both can not be tolerated and have to punished in an oversized manner, not because it is revange but because Pardon one such attack with insignificant answers you will only encourage your enemy for bigger attacks.

    Never forget bullies only know the policy of strentgh.

    Pardon one offense and you encourage many more.

    This is a bunch of armchair general malarkey. There's a lot of things to consider in a real world scenario.


    sepheronx wrote:
    What Garry states is correct, as tactical nukes are part of the use if any engagement on Russia happens.  This could be at home or abroad.  This was mandated under Medvedev.  Tactical Nukes.  Not ICBM's.

    The number of tactical nukes left in the Russian arsenal is rather low - and given their otherwise large yield, would limit their use vastly in most cases.

    Viktor wrote:

    And what if Russia lauches 5000 cruise missiles + long range artillery first or second? West does not have any defenses against it and Russia on the other hand has the most formidable

    in the world.

    1. West would need to find goals for such a large number of missiles and finding goals and making ELINT against Russia would be fun to watch
    2. We dont know full extent of Russian ASAT weapons and dont know how many of US GPS satellities would remaine in orbit within few hours after outbrake of war
    3. Organizing 5000 cruise missiles attack from the planes would be fun to watch as NATO never did anything like it before and than there is always danger of Russian pre-emptive missile strike
    4. Russia can raise few thousand SAMs in the air and how its quite questionable how many western pilots would survive to live another day and get in the plane
    5. Russian ELINT and ECM/ECCM is great and it can reduce efficiency of western CM attack by few orders of magnitude
    6. Than there is a Russian interceptors in form of MiG-29/31 and Su-27/30/35
    7. Russian Army would launch missile attack against whole spectrum  of targets bringing stone age to any country that hosts agressor planes

    I'd be surprised is Russia had even 1000 cruise missiles with a range higher than 1500KM.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Viktor on Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:06 am

    dionis wrote:I'd be surprised is Russia had even 1000 cruise missiles with a range higher than 1500KM.

    I would be supprised if they dont

    Cruise Missile Engine Manufacturing Localized

    NPO Saturn and state machine-building design bureau Raduga officially announced on Monday an agreement to manufacture cruise missile engines worth 4 billion rubles ($120 million).
    "We plan to produce over 1,500 such engines per year," said Ilya Fyodorov, managing director of NPO Saturn
    "Strategic air and sea-based missiles should not depend on other countries, even friendly states, for major parts supply. So we are now organizing local engine production," Fyodorov said.
    Saturn's new manufacturing program has grown 250 percent compared to the previous three-year production plan. It's factory in Rybinsk in Yaroslavl region will now start to produce missile engines at the rate it did before the collapse of the Soviet Union.


    dionis wrote:The number of tactical nukes left in the Russian arsenal is rather low - and given their otherwise large yield, would limit their use vastly in most cases

    Its number is unknown. You can use 1000 (lowest estimate) to few or even several thousand - no one knows and that includes all of us here but the thing is that their number is great

    for any occasion.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:44 am

    There isn't specific nuclear cruise missiles, cruise missiles with nuclear warhead is a different case.  Kh-55's were capable of carrying a warhead, so I would not be surprised if they have a lot of them in reserve, as they are significantly cheaper than a nuclear warhead for an ICBM.

    On top of that, Russia has so many generations of cruise missiles, and with the fact of keeping them in storage rather than use, to saver them for if incase a conflict (as evident they use dumb bombs mostly in training exercises), they more than likely have a lot in reserve.

    And as Victor said, they localized production prior to the Ukrainian conflict, since a lot of the cruise missile engines came from Ukraine, and stated something like 1500 new cruise missiles per year?  Or something along those lines.

    If in case of a conflict, guaranteed the production rate would go up, even if it called for opening another plant for its production.

    More specifically, Kh-15 was a nuclear tipped cruise missile. Upgrade was proposed in 1991 but never gone through though.


    Last edited by sepheronx on Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:53 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:49 am

    This is a bunch of armchair general malarkey. There's a lot of things to consider in a real world scenario.
    ^

    And you think letting a nuclear power attack your country regardless of the size of the attack will give you anything else but encouraging your enemy to provoce you more and kill more people of you?

    Bullies only understand violence, never try to use diplomacy against someone who does not want to listen but only to attack, this is not armschair general "malarkey" that is how the world works since millenias. Yes, there are things and consequences you have to think about but so does the enemy and if you don't give your enemy and appropriate answer he will bully you around even more.

    dionis

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dionis on Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:05 am

    Guys - the US Navy has something like 4,000 Tomahawks in total. Do you seriously think Russia is about to pump out 1,500 Kh-101 class weapons per year!? How many bombers have even been upgraded to fire them?

    Ramping up production in a conflict is basically game over, as these things can happen without any warning and the key military events may unfold in a matter of days.

    -----

    Regarding the tactical nukes - AFAIK the Kh-15 is completely gone, which is a shame, but seems to be the latest news on the missile.

    If NATO fires missiles from subs or bombers - what are you going to nuke? A military airport next to a civilian center or the middle of an ocean?!
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Werewolf on Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:35 am

    It does not really matter what US has, what relevant is how many of those cruise missiles are available in engagement, because if they gonna attack they have to use Large numbers and i mean really large numbers.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jun 11, 2014 6:54 am

    Actually US has less than 2000 Tomahawks in its Naval inventory.

    The AF had about 1500 long range cruise missiles, but the AGM-129 has been scrapped, so it is left with ~1000 AGM-86s.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4488
    Points : 4661
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:02 am

    TR1 wrote:Actually US has less than 2000 Tomahawks in its Naval inventory.

    The AF had about 1500 long range cruise missiles, but the AGM-129 has been scrapped, so it is left with ~1000 AGM-86s.

    Really? So the total cruise missile stockpile is less than 3000 (correct me if I'm wrong)? That's surprising...I was under the impression the U.S. military cruise missile assets were somewhere between 8,000-10,000 (especially considering how much is spent for defense). It's interesting that different parties (in power in the U.S. Executive Branch) favor different tactics and strategies to fighting wars. Republican's favor fighting large scale land wars with boots on the ground (with sharp increases in M1 Abrams purchases) while Democrats prefer largely to rely on having bellicose asymmetrical fighting groups to act as meat shields and take up all the loses while Naval and Air assets attack from safe distances and extended ranges.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16882
    Points : 17490
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:22 am

    Thats because NATO fights are against third world countries.. in low level easy wars.. and they go cheap.. but in a world war 3 , they do have the capabilities to fight many thousands projectiles.... between Cruise missiles , Rocket artillery , and Air to Ground missiles.

    They go cheap?

    B-2s in the Kosovo conflict is cheap?

    Apart from cruise missiles no other ordinance available to the US has the range to be delivered outside the range of Russian SAM defences.

    To launch all these weapons would require the mobilisation of enormous forces... which would not go unnoticed either.

    in IRAQ war for example US alone launched 800 cruise missiles in just 2 days..

    They had over 6 months to prepare for that attack and it still took 2 days to fire just 800 missiles? That is about 7 per hour... even the most pathetic old S-300 system from the 1970s could shoot those down at that rate... and even OSA was shooting down those cruise missiles as witnessed by western reporters in Iraq.

    NATO could fill their enemy radars Airspace easily with several thousands targets without problem.

    Such an attack would warrant a tactical nuclear strike on airfields and ports used to mount the attacks from.

    I generally roll my eyes a bit when Garry suggests that Russia would go nuclear over some low-level attack on its territory by NATO... but 5000 cruise missiles (if that's even possible) might just warrant a nuclear response.

    Putin has stated that any attack from anyone on strategic assets of Russia... which would include political, military, and economic targets I presume... and Russia reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons. You work it out.

    Just look at Klub. It is based on the Granat also known to NATO as SS-N-21. A 2,500km range nuclear armed cruise missile. Unlike the western model the Granat didn't have terminal homing and did not have a CEP of 25m so there was no conventional armed model... it was only nuclear and had a CEP of 250m.

    A CEP of 250m is worthless for a HE warhead on conventional targets, but easily good enough for a small nuclear warhead.

    Modern technology however has meant improvements in guidance technology so now the new missiles have much better accuracy... reportedly less than a 20m CEP... some say 10m. This has meant accuracy is no good enough that conventional warheads become an option and the choices when making attacks can now include all conventional weapons with a reasonable chance of success. In other words precision conventional weapons can now do jobs previously only a decent sized nuke could do.

    This means instead of having to launch a nuclear strike to take out the enemies nuclear capability you might have the option to use conventional weapons to do it.

    The fact is that the west has had the capacity to attack and try to take out Soviet/Russian nuclear capabilities with conventional weapons for some time, so of course the Russians not only have dropped their policy of no nukes first the have adopted a policy of strategic attacks will be met with nuclear retaliation... basically a use it before you lose it policy... which is basically common sense.

    The number of tactical nukes left in the Russian arsenal is rather low - and given their otherwise large yield, would limit their use vastly in most cases.

    Last figure I saw was about 8,000. The US would love to negotiate those away but with ABM systems in Europe and possible systems with Japan and China I rather doubt they will get rid of them any time soon.

    I'd be surprised is Russia had even 1000 cruise missiles with a range higher than 1500KM.

    Compared with ballistic missiles cruise missiles are very cheap and easy to build.

    Of course American ones are expensive...

    More specifically, Kh-15 was a nuclear tipped cruise missile. Upgrade was proposed in 1991 but never gone through though

    Technically it was a nuclear armed ballistic missile.

    If NATO fires missiles from subs or bombers - what are you going to nuke? A military airport next to a civilian center or the middle of an ocean?!

    Yes.

    Why not?

    Obviously shooting down the bombers and cruise missiles would be the first priority, and dropping a few anti sub torpedoes in the water near where the cruise missiles appeared would likely also be considered too.

    Deterrent doesn't work if your enemy doesn't think you will use them... if you don't use them when your enemy blatantly attacks you when would you use them?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:41 am



    GarryB wrote:have much better accuracy... reportedly less than a 20m CEP... some say 10m

    Actually you have greatly underestimate Калибр Garry Smile 



    "Ракета отвечает всем предъявляемым требованиям Министерства обороны России по дальности, точности стрельбы, поражающему эффекту и неуязвимости при полете к цели. Такой ракеты в силу ее уникальных тактико-технических характеристик нет ни у кого в мире.
    Ракета будет нести моноблочную боевую часть. В случае если боевая часть будет в обычном снаряжении, то предельная дальность полета ракеты составит более 2,5 тысячи километров.
    Если же боеголовка будет ядерной килотонного класса, то дальность полета несколько уменьшится
    «Калибр» – это высокоточное оружие, его вероятное отклонение от цели при стрельбе на тысячи километров не превышает двух–трех метров."

    http://vpk-news.ru/news/2106

    The missile is superior ,by a very wide margin, to all foreign model in almost any cardinal factor ; in particular just in the mean deviation area and engagement range parameters.
    For comparison the most advanced universal US stand-off cruise missile , in its conventional land attack version (BGM-109 Block IV TLAM-E) exibit a range inferior of most than 1000 km and a mean deviation radius over three times greater  Wink 

    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 806
    Points : 888
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Stealthflanker on Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:55 am

    Mindstorm wrote:


    The missile is superior ,by a very wide margin, to all foreign model in almost any cardinal factor ; in particular just in the mean deviation area and engagement range parameters.
    For comparison the most advanced universal US stand-off cruise missile , in its conventional land attack version (BGM-109 Block IV TLAM-E) exibit a range inferior of most than 1000 km and a mean deviation radius over three times greater  Wink   


    i'm curious why ?

    avatar
    dino00

    Posts : 116
    Points : 161
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Location : portugal

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dino00 on Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:59 am

    Mindstorm wrote:

    GarryB wrote:have much better accuracy... reportedly less than a 20m CEP... some say 10m

    Actually you have greatly underestimate  Калибр Garry Smile 



    "Ракета отвечает всем предъявляемым требованиям Министерства обороны России по дальности, точности стрельбы, поражающему эффекту и неуязвимости при полете к цели. Такой ракеты в силу ее уникальных тактико-технических характеристик нет ни у кого в мире.
    Ракета будет нести моноблочную боевую часть. В случае если боевая часть будет в обычном снаряжении, то предельная дальность полета ракеты составит более 2,5 тысячи километров.
    Если же боеголовка будет ядерной килотонного класса, то дальность полета несколько уменьшится
    «Калибр» – это высокоточное оружие, его вероятное отклонение от цели при стрельбе на тысячи километров не превышает двух–трех метров."

    http://vpk-news.ru/news/2106

    The missile is superior ,by a very wide margin, to all foreign model in almost any cardinal factor ; in particular just in the mean deviation area and engagement range parameters.
    For comparison the most advanced universal US stand-off cruise missile , in its conventional land attack version (BGM-109 Block IV TLAM-E) exibit a range inferior of most than 1000 km and a mean deviation radius over three times greater  Wink   


    The cep is 2,5 m?

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:34 pm