Sea scuba powerlessness

Problems of the state of the sea underwater weapons (MPO) and countermeasures have been raised many times, and some positive developments can be seen, for example, serial deliveries of the Russian Navy torpedoes "Physicist-1". However, the essence of positive decisions clearly does not correspond to the depth of the extremely acute "torpedo crisis".


The Black Sea Fleet, for example, received the new 636.3 project boats in an obsolete form, since they do not have flexible extended towed antennas (GPBA) of the hydroacoustic complex (GAK), GAK on-board antennas, and anti-torpedoes.

Probably, drift interference devices “Vist” from obsolete launchers of type VIPS (developed by 50's) are used as self-defense devices. The submarine torpedo armament complex of this project is obsolete. It has high noise and a number of design flaws. But the most important thing is that salvo firing of remote-controlled torpedoes is not assured.

Lag more than half a century

The use of the latest torpedoes with a towing bobbin reel instead of a hose coil (used in the West since the end of 60-x) shows a serious backlog of naval underwater weapons of the Russian Navy.

Effective telecontrol (TU) allows reliable and covert destruction of targets from large distances, a sharp increase in noise immunity of the volley. Modern Western (hose) systems practically do not limit the maneuvering of non-nuclear submarines when firing from TU.

Negative attitude towards him in our navy it was formed because the technical specifications are not reliable enough, the submarine crews are poorly prepared for its use, and the technical characteristics of domestic systems (including the latest torpedoes) are very low. However, for all the shortcomings, the commanders and crews of the submarines that mastered it became ardent supporters of the method.

More than a decade and a half ago, the specialists of the Gidropribor concern handed over a torpedo with hose telecontrol (211ТТ1) to the customer - the PRC Navy, which is superior to what the St. Petersburg people today are delivering to the Russian Navy and for export. The then-created remote-controlled torpedoes, commonly referred to as “Chinese physicist” (211ТТ1 and their development - Yu-6), are many times superior in characteristics to the naval underwater weapon that the Russian submarine has. A fact demonstrating the depth of the IGO crisis and the level (“compliance” with the positions held) by responsible military officials.

Happen at the end of 2015, the battle clash between the newest submarines of the Black Sea Fleet and the Turkish submarines, the chances of our sailors would be slim ... In fact, Russian submarines will be shot. From the moment the first torpedo comes out, the low-noise factor ceases to be decisive in the underwater battle, the capabilities of the weapon complex, the means of illumination of the situation, and hydroacoustic counteraction (SGPD) come to the fore.

Unlike our submarines, Turkey had the possibility of salvo firing with more sophisticated torpedoes, from large effective distances, carried by modern SGPD (with outdated “Whists” with us).

It is worth noting that according to some characteristics, 211TT1 torpedoes are superior to Turkish ones, but the question is: has anyone bothered to analyze the real combat capabilities of submarines and develop the most effective tactics of the battlefield?

Where to put the "sample"

Sea scuba powerlessness"It is proposed to equip the submarines of the Ash and Borey projects being built with PTZ systems, the development specifications of which were compiled as early as the 80 years of the last century, the results of studies of the effectiveness of these means against modern torpedoes testify to an exceptionally low probability of nondefeating submarine submarines", Rear Admiral Anatoly Lutsky wrote in the Sea Collection back in 2010 year.

How did it happen that one of the leading specialists is forced to sound the alarm? It is very simple - OCD topics are passing through, allocations allotted for their implementation are mastered even when there is a clear impasse. A number of specialists and their supervisors are tied (from reports to money), they have no courage to admit failure. And the outdated MPO managed to push the fleet. Paths were found, for example, with the exception of the participation of new torpedoes in testing. It comes to anecdotal situations, when the developers of the SFDS require to test exactly that torpedo and in no case the other. I do not even mention the fact that the SCPD are deliberately placed aside so as not to interfere with torpedoes being aimed at the target.

Obviously, the key issue here is a comprehensive and objective joint development, testing of new FGPDs and homing systems (CLS) torpedoes. But this is precisely what some “specialists” and their superiors shy away from.

It is appropriate to recall the fate of the onboard complex GPA "Proba", developed, manufactured and installed on board the Black Sea Fleet S-37 submarine on the initiative of its commander Victor Proskurin. The author made a conclusion about this device (the only onboard complex of the GPD PL of the USSR Navy) and was struck by the depth of development, the adaptive, very flexible and effective logic of setting various interferences, and this was done in the second half of the 80's. The self-made device included both means of the spectral analysis, and an electronic synthesizer of noise.

Of course, the technical part of the Sample complex is already outdated, but its ideology remains breakthrough today. Because it was developed by an intelligent commander and one of the best torpedo riflemen of the Navy (from personal achievements of Viktor Vladimirovich Proskurin, successful firing of the torpedo 53-65K, torpedoing of high-speed MPK on hydrofoils Kunakhovich and a number of others).

Proskurinskaya C-37 of the 633 project was already “aged”, but it was simply well-groomed and modernized from the end of 80-s to 1992, all Black Sea submarines (including the 877 project) in duels with bilateral use of weapons and CRCS. By participating in the combat training activities of the Black Sea Fleet, the C-37 successfully evaded all the anti-submarine forces and withdrew about two dozen torpedoes from itself, not having received a single defeat.

The question arises: why is this experience firmly forgotten, why is there no such thing, for example, on new submarines of the Black Sea Fleet?

The answer is simple: almost no one needed it. Captain Proskurin was supported by admirals Igor Kasatonov and Viktor Kravchenko, but Proba provoked a sharply negative reaction from a number of officials, such as the then head of the UPV Navy, G. Emelin, for "discrediting the torpedo weapon of the Navy." There are no comments ...

Today it is important that the development of new SSN and SGPD was carried out in conjunction with the integrated research and experimental work of "SNG-GPD." It is necessary both to identify and verify promising directions for the development of CLS and SGPD, as well as to obtain a real picture of the state of the MPS of the domestic sub-melt.

The transition in the West to ultra-wideband CLS torpedoes sharply reduced the effectiveness of countermeasures, which raised the question of the fundamental possibility of their effective use. Today, the development of new CGDs is not completed anywhere. Therefore, in a submarine war, the means of attack (torpedoes and their CLO) are clearly ahead of the means of defense (SGPD PTZ).

In these conditions, a huge role is played by anti-torpedoes.

Why throw flippers?

And we have them? How to say ... Everything that happened on this topic in the last decade can be described as conscious sabotage. And there is no exaggeration. The first real targeting of anti-torpedo prototypes was carried out in Russia in 1998 year. And with high accuracy and in difficult conditions. But they repeated it only after a decade and a half. "So they worked." Although with the adoption of the Mk48 mod.7 torpedoes in the US Navy, due to the reduction in the effectiveness of the SFGS (including the Vist PTZ devices) against it, an emergency modernization of the MPO was needed to virtually zero. Instead, not just delaying the process by all means, but even attempts to open those OCDs, the real purpose of which was to throw antitrust off the submarine.

Considering the fact that work on them for our submarines was started much earlier than for surface ships, in the second half of 80's, their use from the submarine is much simpler, the problem of detection and accurate targeting of torpedoes was successfully solved even in 70 – 80 years (GAS mine searching "Harp", GAS "Polynom-AT"), there are questions.

Why is there not a single message about the successful use of anti-torpedoes from the submarine, despite the fact that they are fired quite often from surface ships?

Why is no antiporped ammunition in the new submarines of the project 636.3? Why did the anti-torpedo "Lasta" declared at the Army-2015 forum as part of the Borei SSBN ammunition, even though the fleet on the submarines of this project could have more advanced products?

Yes, today the reactive M-15 is more likely than any other anti-torpedoes (including the United States Navy's Tripwayr) to solve the problem, but its considerable weight and dimensions sharply limit the ammunition load (on the Borey only the 6 Pull Last).

The main reason for this is the officials tied up with both mistaken decisions and the use of budget funds.

Separately talk about the reports to the leadership. To justify OCD and the need for the Navy to completely outdated torpedoes TTX of the latest modifications of the western Mk48 mod.7 and DM2A4 were deliberately and significantly underestimated. For example, the range of DM2A4, which has the highest transport characteristics, has been reduced several times.

Especially anecdotal situation has developed on the performance characteristics of telecontrol systems. When discussing the article “Modern submarine torpedoes” at the beginning of 2015, the author, despite the cited references, expressed claims about the allegedly unrealism of such TTX: they said that the fifth generation Lomonos was going to lay the fifth generation torpedo. But how did our “specialists” turn out that the TU of Supertorpedo XXI was worse planned than it was in the ROC “Shturval” ten years earlier. Recall that the "Shuttle wheel" - the development of the beginning of the 2000-x at the level of the best world samples. The design and development works were successfully completed with the creation of technology and the production of a special cable, but the “Steering Wheel” was not needed, it was put on the shelf.

Something "Physics" in the pen

On the Innovation Day of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation 5 October 2015, the author spoke about the existing problems. If we talk about the timing of OCD, in some cases they are obviously unreal - and all those involved are perfectly aware of this. Nevertheless, deadlines are set, and this leads not only to the disruption of the program, but also to the adoption of non-optimal technical decisions.

The second problem: without comprehensive research, we will not get a modern IGO. Today we do not have a full-fledged scientific and technical reserve even to write a reasonable TTZ OKR. Example: the project "Lomonos" was supposed to be the base in the adopted "Concept of the development of sea underwater weapons." The forum "Army-2015" sounded that the ROC "Lomonos" are closed. The reasons were clear, and they were called - unrealistic terms and requirements, the absence of a normal scientific and technical reserve. Another example: we didn’t have any objective tests of modern SSN torpedoes against the same countermeasures.

We are approaching the next problem - an imperfect testing system; for a number of OCDs, it is necessary to objectively review the results obtained.

Separately, it should be said about the level of scientific and technical support of work performed by industry. There are three components here: research organizations (NIO MO), the Department of the RF Ministry of State Order Ensuring (DOGOZ), military acceptance.

In the NIO Navy, where they developed the TTZ of the ROC Lomonos, they knew very well the unreality of the work being done, nevertheless they continued.

DOGOZ is actually responsible for the line in the plan, for the cause - no.

The institution of customers that existed in Soviet times had a lot of flaws, but in it the resources were in the hands of the boss in charge of solving the problem. In order for the system that we have today to work effectively, it is necessary to introduce double subordination to the Office of Military Missions (OHR) and DOGOZ, which should be confined to the deputy chief commanders for armament of the Armed Forces (with the formation of a corresponding apparatus).

But the main question is the formation of a scientific and technical reserve, for which comprehensive research and development is needed. If there is no money for them, it means that we will have to reduce the number of ships, because without scientific research we will not be able to ensure their real combat effectiveness in the future.

After the next meeting, the representative of DOGOZ stated that the author would report on the issues raised to the director of DOGOZ RF Ministry of Defense. However, later in the department did everything to disrupt the report. And this was done under the pretext that supposedly not everything is so bad with us.

The same persons who submitted false reports to management about the alleged well-being, under the pretext of a lack of money, simply strangled all R & D on the subject. The wildness of the situation is that even in difficult 90s, the Defense Ministry tried to preserve as much as possible critical R & D (and preserved), because there was an understanding: there is no future without them.

Characterized by the discussion that unfolded at the conference on the IGO Forum "Army-2015" on one of the "innovative detection systems", which the Central Research Institute of the VK (Navy of the Russian Federation) "prescribed" in almost all current R & D. The head of the developer organization acknowledged that of the real groundwork there are only the results of mathematical modeling, and the range of the equipment is very small. At the same time, its implementation was “justified” by the termination of promising R & D on the subject of acoustic homing systems (CLS). As they say, the mistake became worse than the crime. Maybe the fact is that the head of the torpedo department of the Central Research Institute of VK the dissertation was just about this “innovation theme”?

In my opinion, what happens to the series and the perspective of the torpedo "1 Physicist" requires special attention, because it borders on sabotage:

the discovery of the ROC “Lomonos” on “super torpedoes of the 21st century” without any scientific and technical groundwork, with fantastic performance characteristics and unrealistically short terms (discontinued on 2015);
the continuation of OCD on a deliberately antique item with TTX is much worse than that of the American Mk48 mod.1 (1971), and attempts to impose it on the fleet without the necessary tests;
long absence (actually deliberate sabotage) of any serious modernization works on the most promising domestic model - the torpedo “Physicist-1”.

I will cite excerpts from the public discussion of “torpedo articles” (including in the “military industrial complex”) with the participation of a “representative of the Gidropribor concern in Moscow”.

Sergey, 07.05, February 21, 2014 "... the question of the timing of OCD. This term puts the customer. For this, the Customer specially held meetings with the industry and asked: I need it, precisely at such a time! Then he announced a competition. One company, realizing the importance of this request, went to the competition. ”

Maxim, 10.33, 21 February, 2014: “Another lie, because these fantastic dates did not appear this year and not last year, but in the 2009 – 2010 area, when ... Vysotsky’s former GK Navy (again) wrote a conclusion for Admiral Suchkov), in order to substantiate the destruction of "Physics", and this scam was invented with "the development of the 21st century supertorped" (without scientific and technical groundwork and research), and in absolutely unrealistic terms.

By the way, where does this rush come from, because the “Physicist”, in spite of fierce opposition, has been launched into a series? And from the fact that what is happening now with the series and the prospect of “Physics” requires special attention from the competent authorities, because what is happening borders on sabotage. ”

This was followed by the events of the end of 2014 - the beginning of 2015, when the problems of the IGOs ​​of the Russian Navy were raised to the highest level and a number of solutions were made.

Response by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation: “Your appeal from 15 of September of 2015 on the implementation of the OCR“ Case ”... has been reviewed. According to the facts stated in the appeal, verification activities are organized, the results of which will make appropriate decisions. ”

Despite statements in the media about the tests of the improved "Physics" - torpedoes "Case" in the 2017 year, it will not be handed over (subject to full and objective tests) neither in 2018, nor in 2019. This is obvious to all specialists. The normal duration of OCP torpedoes is about 6 years (the same number in the West). If OCD was preceded by NIR, perhaps 4 + 2 of the year (that is, the same 6 years). In addition, there are acute systemic problems of domestic torpedo building, calling into question these deadlines as well, for example, insufficient statistics on firing and joint development with the CGDD.

I stress: the problems with our IGOs ​​have purely organizational reasons. Technically, we still in 2000-x had quite a decent groundwork and went on a new development at a decent level. A sharp backlog has occurred in recent years.

I would especially note the breakthrough proposals for acoustic torpedoes CLOs of the former head of the department of minor acoustics AKIN D. Frolov, who are able to increase the efficiency of our submarine forces by an order of magnitude. Their implementation allows even the old submarines of the 667BDR project to have equal chances with the newest Virginia submarines in combat. And this is quite objective, since the solutions were checked at sea by real goals, the question of their introduction into the torpedoes "Physicist" and "Case" was put by experts many times. But work on this topic was discontinued in the middle of 2000-s with the transfer of order and control functions to the ROC from the Anti-Submarine Armament Directorate, first to the Directorate of orders and deliveries of ships and armaments, then to the Department of State Defense.

The list of questions can be continued. For example: how many "Physicists" in ammunition have the latest "Boreas"? Which of them ever fired these torpedoes? How many times - with a TU and a volley, with the use of modern SGDS? Answers can be quite interesting.

The MPO is the most critical and disastrous direction of the VVST of the Russian Federation, including one that is extremely important for ensuring defense capability and strategic deterrence. The main thing here is not the flight range and the number of SLBM warheads, but the inevitability of a retaliatory strike, the basis of which is the fighting stability of the NSNF (the most important part of which is the MPO).

IGO problems need to be addressed before it’s too late. First of all it is necessary:

1. Conducting objective tests (including complex tests - SSN-GPD) and special shooting.

2. Decision-making on officials who deliberately misinformed the leadership of the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation about the real state of affairs and responsible for the situation.

3. Immediate allocation of funding to address the most critical IGO issues.

4. A rigid establishment of real terms for carrying out activities for solving IGO problems and its verification in conditions as close as possible to the combat ones.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

58 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrey Yuryevich April 19 2017 05: 43 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    I look forward to comments on the article from the respected KAA and Rudolph BOA! hi
    1. maxim947 April 19 2017 10: 29 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Again the old song, as in the joke "At the top, all the stupid rams don’t understand anything, I would do everything right, but once, you have to tax ..."
      1. jjj
        jjj April 19 2017 10: 50 New
        • 12
        • 0
        +12
        Let's look at the topic this way: is the real state of affairs with torpedo weapons in our Navy a military and state secret? Of course. And if so, can military and state secrets appear in the form of publications on the pages of the media? Especially from the mouth of a person who "writes reports upstairs"?
        Here I am about that. I believe that this publication is carried out as part of the "Elections-2018" project. Still not write
        1. maxim947 April 19 2017 11: 07 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          I also thought about it, see the iron dolls))) were still not enough ...
          1. Inok10 April 19 2017 13: 26 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: jjj
            I believe that this publication is part of the Election 2018 project. Still not write

            ... absolutely true ... escalating hysteria ... hi
            Quote: maxim947
            I also thought about it, see the iron dolls))) were still not enough ...

            ... apparently the administration of the resource is not familiar with the current legislation ... Quote from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Art. 205:
            1. Explosion, arson or other actions, frightening population and creating the danger of death of a person, causing significant property damage or other serious consequences, in order to destabilize the activities of authorities or international organizations or the impact on their decision-making
            ... to local "revolutionaries" to the note and naturally to the administration ... hi
            1. myobius59 April 19 2017 19: 12 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              So if “awesome actions, then you need to start from the television. There, especially in the evenings, such“ awesome actions ”go that the local chatter does not suit him. And what fears are in the State Duma and the government ... Horror. Over in April my mother-in-law raised my pension BY 10 RUBLES.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. mervino2007 April 19 2017 17: 56 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: jjj
          I believe that this publication is part of the Election 2018 project. Still not write

          - Is it possible to specifically answer the questions posed in the article? Or at least one?
        4. myobius59 April 19 2017 19: 01 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Listen, do not tell my slippers. Always this military secret was a secret only for its people, our "partners" were very aware of these secrets. And since the 90s, for them our secrets have ceased to be such. Over the past few months, nothing seems to have changed, so do not console yourself with illusions. All current secrets have a certain price list, and there are enough buyers and sellers. Moreover, in our current mess.
    2. Boa kaa April 19 2017 12: 28 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Andrew Y.
      article comments

      What to say, what to say?
      so people are arranged ... (c)

      Yurich, welcome! hi
      I read the article, and my hand reached for the parabellum: either to shoot myself, or to shoot all the figures from the science of eggheads!
      The topic is complex and closed. But Klimov is undoubtedly a brave man. I am sorry more on the "heads", and in carriers and GOS in general terms. Here only dear MINA can lift the veil of secrecy ... Moreover, this is according to his profile and his way of thinking is critical. So, * bullet *, I think, will not let go.
      Yours faithfully, drinks
      1. kepmor April 19 2017 12: 48 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        as a “Romanian” (miner-PLOShnik) by education, I’ll say one thing ... the topic of technical maintenance and technical training in the fleet was equally “not rosy” and the 70s - 80s - 90s ... there were always problems with telecontrol ... apparently "things are still there" ...
        the only product that everyone in the Navy loved was a “masterpiece” - 53-65k ... AK-47 in a marine version ...
        1. Inok10 April 19 2017 13: 35 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: kepmor
          Here only a respected MINA can lift the veil of secrecy ...

          ... already "raised" a week ago, having entangled the HAC - sonar system and the HAC - sonar system, portable, their names are the same ... although in the article by K. Ryabov it was specifically for the sonar system ... hi
          Quote: kepmor
          as a “Romanian” (miner-PLOShnik) by education, I’ll say one thing ... the topic of technical maintenance and technical training in the fleet was equally “not rosy” and the 70s - 80s - 90s ... there were always problems with telecontrol ... apparently "things are still there" ...

          ... it's a pity none of the modern "Romanians" can answer you ... disclosure of state secrets and 10 years ... that's what such "commentators" use ... a petty trick ...
          1. kepmor April 19 2017 14: 41 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            interestingly, "girls are dancing" ... about the "respected MINU" not at all in courses, read the comments carefully ...
            but in what, in fact, did you see the disclosure of state secrets in my comment? ... did it seem like something? ...
  2. The comment was deleted.
    1. ligre April 19 2017 07: 36 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      You just need to catch up, Russia will never catch up in the field of nuclear submarines to anyone, this is a fact all that the USSR and Russia could have done a long time ago, some Sharks are worth it, it’s not for nothing that the US gave money for disposal, but thieves only need this if their will were cut everything would be used for metal, but only Putin did not.
      1. goblin xnumx April 19 2017 08: 30 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        but the fans pulled themselves up? -uraaaaa .....
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. goblin xnumx April 19 2017 23: 13 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            no, not a fan, I live in Russia and feed these geeks who sell everything and everyone, but essentially experts will say, I only saw at one time how they cut the square on the boiler and what the marine plant looked like - and the arsenal is nearby ...
        2. V.ic April 19 2017 18: 24 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Leshy74
          ? -uraaaaa ..

          ... yeah, "rya-i-i-ya-.ja-ja"!
      2. donavi49 April 19 2017 08: 38 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Well here is debatable. 855 - one + Kazan. And Virginia riveted how much:
        10 - boat block 1 and 2 (they are generally similar).
        3 - boats block 3 (with 2 VPU for Axes - each block of 6 axes).
        5 (of which two are in the final stage) - the 3 block is being completed.
        10 - the boat block 4 is ordered and from them 3 is already being built.

        This is in addition to a bunch of Elk.
        1. jjj
          jjj April 19 2017 10: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The point is not who riveted how many boats, but the fact that out of all this looms. And it is emerging that the States in their attempts to their hegemony must constantly look back at Russia. And check your steps. Therefore, it turns out - based on the arichmerika that you proposed - that a pair of boats of 885 Ave. is equivalent to twenty Virginia, and one Kuzya is equivalent to the entire US carrier fleet
      3. The comment was deleted.
  3. ramzes1776 April 19 2017 07: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Everything depends on the customers. What TTZ will be requested, they will work on this. What is difficult to study the performance characteristics of foreign analogues, even in open press, to compare with ours and issue a competent TTZ with real terms? Etozh how many people work there and gets free money, doing sawing the budget into unpromising OCD.
    1. yehat April 19 2017 12: 14 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      we fell into exactly the same trap that the Red Army found itself in 41
      then it was also completed by ticks in quantity. They put in new tanks, but no one was interested in the fact that they stood without anti-tank shells 3 years before the war.
      So here we are. The main thing is reporting, go ahead. Efficiency doesn't interest anyone.
    2. serezhasoldatow April 19 2017 16: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Now you can’t find sensible customers in the RF Ministry of Defense with fire! Who will issue TTZ?
  4. Evgeniy667b April 19 2017 07: 36 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    It is not clear what Rubin is doing, which should be a unifying center for armaments and related tasks. They are also sad with VNEU, but all their thoughts are clogged with commercial issues of what and to whom to sell. Oskomin was already filled with their mock demonstrations. Probably it's time to change their general! And it's time to turn to the Russian Navy, seriously get down to business!
    1. ramzes1776 April 19 2017 09: 01 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      We have now the fleet is not a priority since the 90s of the last century. Now all the forces to modernize nuclear weapons and their carriers have been thrown.
  5. Thompson April 19 2017 09: 56 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Quote: Monster_Fat
    Now the "patriots" will run up and they will say we have already "caught up with everyone" by torpedoes and throw them all with "calibers", .. and towed ASGs are not needed at all - the "last century", now we use other means of detection based on new "physical principles" "found in Skolkovo" -on what? we’ll not say because it’s secret ... and in general, our boats in 202 ... will already be crewless, they will have a team of "robots" "Fedor", of which there will already be thousands by this time, and everywhere ...

    So far, only PoRiot has come running and everyone has interesting flags: star-starry and yellow-flea!
  6. Semenov April 19 2017 10: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, that’s all for us.
    1. YUG64 April 19 2017 17: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The funny thing is, on a nearby branch, an analysis of an American article on the dangerous lag of the US Navy from the Russian and Chinese fleets in terms of advanced weapons ...))
  7. PPD
    PPD April 19 2017 10: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The whole article is reduced, except for emotions, to paragraph number 3 at the end.
    The fleet chose the wrong principles of rearmament, which led to such results. All types and arms of service are more or less rearming normally. One Polent-Redoubt is worth what, and in general, how much money was spent on pr 20380
    Wagon and now there-savvy weapons tests only involved, what kind of Syria. It got to the point that they sent Bora to the middle-earth, in the North the same situation is shown by the IPC flag, etc.
    What R&D can be with such throwing and "targeted" spending of budget funds.
    100 km wires like in Germany is fashionable of course, but as far as it makes practical sense. And with the Caliber on board?
    VNEU for pl 636, as I understand it, is also covered. etc.
  8. zak167 April 19 2017 10: 45 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Absolutely stupid article. It seems that, apart from Mr. Klimov, no one else understands the Russian submarine fleet in the country. Only Klimov can save the fleet. Bravo.
    1. Palch April 19 2017 11: 50 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      Well, why only Klimov, there is still someone zak167! So he will help. Not to him, in the split hull of the submarine, on occasion, go to the bottom of the sea! And with torpedoes both in the USSR and in Russia it was always bad and there was nothing to make a discovery from this. They lagged behind a lot, but now we’ll stretch in the pope. As usual - we create an excellent carrier, but there is no body kit. Therefore, there is nothing to put on the database in fact .....
  9. Sagaidark April 19 2017 12: 07 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    As everyone attacked the author. Connoisseurs straight. And by the way, the problem really exists ...
  10. Dzafdet April 19 2017 12: 22 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Exactly the same story with the detection systems of enemy submarines and surface ships. Our boats are blind, in fact it’s a pile of iron for slaughter ...
    1. serezhasoldatow April 19 2017 16: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And you are operating obsolete weapons. Probably do not climb out of the depths for days.
  11. Indifferent April 19 2017 12: 23 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Apparently, the prevailing opinion in the Navy is that torpedoes for surface ships are ineffective. But merchants and tankers and old torpedoes can safely be drowned. They are drowning from any explosion and there is no countermeasure to them. Boats will rarely get into a duel situation. And against the surface forces of a rocket it’s more effective. Apparently this is why they are not seriously engaged in new torpedoes. No money for everything. We are not the USA. I do not believe in outright sabotage.
    Well and more. We always had torpedo weapons much more secret than rocket weapons. And, as far as I know, we do not sell completely new torpedoes over a hill to anyone. So the real state of affairs may be better than the author drew. Moreover, I literally three days ago read about a new dashboard that floats at depths of 600 meters at a distance of 50 km and sizes 533mm.
    I'm already starting to hate the internet quietly. They write two "experts" (and not only on torpedo weapons), completely opposite things. One-hooray we all won, the other right there on another site - everything was gone! they remove the plaster, the client leaves ... Or write that you know for sure or don’t write anything !!!
  12. Thompson April 19 2017 13: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I also read the feeling that all the specialists are sitting here, and at the top there are also constr. Bureau alone amateurs and ignoramuses! A curtain!
    Each at his workplace did a lot of things?
  13. Odysseus April 19 2017 14: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    How many commentators and they write about everything ... So is there at least one expert on the forum who can say anything intelligible on the topic of the article?
    Is the author right or does he exaggerate?
  14. lance April 19 2017 15: 27 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    then the author writes what is happening, but including state secrets it can be said that these products are the same from the 90s and how modernization is suitable for existing ones without significant costs. Of the developers, no one will comment on this.
  15. serezhasoldatow April 19 2017 15: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I read it, I thought. And who is Maxim Klimov. From the film “The Truth of Lieutenant Klimov,” but he was called differently. Perhaps this is a GREAT NAVY WEAPON SPECIALIST. The article is in the spirit of bulk. Picked up shit and threw it out.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Mordvin 3 April 19 2017 21: 37 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: serezhasoldatow
      Probably a SPECIALIST for arming the Navy.
      Oddly enough, but you are right.
  16. Buffet April 19 2017 16: 17 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Immediate allocation of funding to address the most critical issues of IGOs.
    And where can I get them?
  17. Richard. Iskander April 19 2017 16: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And here everything is not thank God. So where is good with us !?
  18. turbris April 19 2017 17: 36 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Such publications are not desirable in the media, if the authors want to promote their development, then this site will not help them and don’t have to take the rubbish out of the hut, you need to deal with these issues in competent circles, and not appeal to the opinion of the general reader .
  19. tinibar April 19 2017 17: 53 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: jjj
    Let's look at the topic this way: is the real state of affairs with torpedo weapons in our Navy a military and state secret? Of course. And if so, can military and state secrets appear in the form of publications on the pages of the media? Especially from the mouth of a person who "writes reports upstairs"?
    Here I am about that. I believe that this publication is carried out as part of the "Elections-2018" project. Still not write

    And if the author reliably knows the composition of the onboard weapons 636.3, then how, let me know? repeat
  20. Vladimir Mamkin April 19 2017 17: 56 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The author himself served on the Premier League or DEPL? or at least be in the compartments?
    1. Andrey Yuryevich April 19 2017 18: 11 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Vladimir Mamkin
      The author himself served on the Premier League or DEPL? or at least be in the compartments?

      since they themselves were, they served, let's make a sensible comment ... why drive the air ...
  21. SIMM April 20 2017 08: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As expected - nothing!
  22. anakost April 23 2017 14: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Sorry, I haven’t read it to the end. The first words have one nagging.
    1. 3245325235 11 May 2017 18: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      yes, my friend, you seem to be a drug addict;)
  23. Pilat2009 April 23 2017 22: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: myobius59
    .Always this military secret was a secret only for its people, our "partners" were very aware of these secrets

    I agree. In general, it’s only in the box that’s all right for us, but if you look with an unblinked look, it’s not very .... It’s generally possible to learn a lot of interesting materials.
    For example, where is Roskosmos moving ... There was an article on the Tape here ... It turns out that everything rests on the Soviet backlog, but it is not endless. When does halvah end with foreign launches, export engines and transportation of tourists, and how does Roskosmos plan to be? Now by the number of launches Russia in 3rd place
  24. Pilat2009 April 23 2017 22: 51 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: serezhasoldatow
    Picked up shit and threw it out.

    Dear, where did you see the shit? The author tried to analyze the situation. Are you competent in this matter? I think not. Then there’s nothing to talk about. You just need to blurt out something
  25. 3danimal 4 May 2017 06: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: jjj
    Therefore, it turns out - based on the Arichmerika that you proposed - that a pair of pr.885 boats is equivalent to twenty Virginia, and one Kuzya is equivalent to the entire US carrier fleet

    Tell me, how do you stimulate your imagination that "draws" such strange conclusions? ;)
    What is the real combat value of Kuznetsov? With fighters taking off from the springboard underloaded (fuel or weapons)? It is no coincidence that the Chinese are working on their “clean” aircraft carrier, with steam catapults (EM catapults have not yet been “pulled” by the technical level, apparently).
  26. 3danimal 4 May 2017 06: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: PPD
    One Polement Redoubt is worth

    So because of him, "Gorshkov" is still virtually unarmed against the "air." SAM is not ready, even the completion of R&D is in question. The production team has collapsed at the factory (the "old people" have gone or eke out a miserable existence, the youth do not go to the "anti-aircraft gunners", not wanting to be "losers" without money).
    It is necessary to change the situation, but who will do it?
  27. 3245325235 11 May 2017 18: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Vladimir Mamkin
    The author himself served on the Premier League or DEPL? or at least be in the compartments?

    as they say they only peeled potatoes in the galley
    coastal

    what do you think?
    or don't you think? ;)
  28. 3245325235 11 May 2017 18: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: tinibar
    And if the author reliably knows the composition of the onboard weapons 636.3, then how, let me know?

    for example with a photo of ammunition loading in Sevastopol at 6363
  29. 3245325235 11 May 2017 18: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: turbris
    and generally it’s not necessary to take out the “rubbish” from the hut, it is necessary to deal with these issues in competent circles

    the problem is that a significant part of these so-called "competent circles" must be brought to the "end of the pier" - because it is 100% "fifth column"
  30. 3245325235 11 May 2017 18: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Thompson
    A curtain!

    a curtain
    Did you see the photo? - the fact that the torpedo on the "ass" - from the distant 60s
  31. 3245325235 11 May 2017 18: 31 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: serezhasoldatow
    Now you can’t find sensible customers in the RF Ministry of Defense with fire! Who will issue TTZ?

    and the mentioned persons are quite sensible - Wreckers
  32. 3245325235 11 May 2017 18: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Liger
    Never and never will anyone catch up with Russia in the field of nuclear submarines, this is a fact all that could be done by the USSR and Russia was done a long time ago, some Sharks are worth nothing

    Do I understand correctly that you in your avatar are "a little mistaken" (instead of the letter T they wrote G)?
  33. 3245325235 11 May 2017 18: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Inok10
    Already “raised” a week ago, having entangled the HAC - sonar system and HAC - sonar system, portable, their names are the same ... although in the article by K. Ryabov it was specifically for the sonar system.

    Are you a liar in life or just here?
    Ryabov in his opus about "Mallard" simply "got into a puddle", the fun is that he didn’t even read the tender documents, but simply broke the rubbish (despite the fact that everything in the tender documents is written in Russian and clearly)
    ;)
    Quote: Inok10
    that's what such "commentators" use ... a petty trick ...

    petty receiver - according to YOUR part - to lie;)