Military Review

Chopping house


By the degree of compliance of the combat effectiveness of the ship with its destination, our "Shark" is inferior to "Los Angeles" about 12 percent. However, in a duel situation, the submarines are about equivalent. Our surpasses the American in favorable hydrological conditions and somewhat inferior in difficult.

After establishing the degree of compliance with the conditions of combat use and the tasks in modern wars and armed conflicts of the main classes of surface ships of the ocean and long-range maritime zone (aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and frigates), naturally, there is an interest to evaluate these indicators submarines.

The technique should be similar to the one used previously. First of all, it is necessary to choose the matching samples correctly. It is interesting for us to take a foreign one for comparison. When choosing an analogue, certain requirements must be met. First of all, it must belong to the same class as the Russian sample, and represent approximately the same generation of military equipment. Although the latter is not necessary, since often new weapon systems, winning against their predecessors in one, lose in other characteristics. As a result, an advanced sample may be less effective in a specific situation when solving specific problems.

To compare submarines, it is important to choose the right conditions. That is, to imagine in which military conflict the samples are involved, against which adversary, etc. Often, actions are considered according to the one-on-one scheme. However, there are types of military equipment that do not imply direct confrontation. A striking example is anti-submarine aircraft. They do not have weapons to destroy each other. If the effectiveness of the compared samples is asymmetric in terms of combat use, that is, superiority is on one side, then on the opposite side, it is necessary to consider different scenarios taking into account the probability of their implementation. Similarly, the situation variants are also predicted for the solution of various combat missions.

Only after that it makes sense to proceed to the analysis of tactical and technical characteristics. We focus on those data that are significant in relation to the selected combat missions and conditions. On this basis, it is possible to give estimates of the expected efficiency, including in the one-on-one scheme. The calculation is done for each sample compared for all combat missions under consideration and for possible applications. Next, the integral performance indicator is calculated. This is more or less an objective characteristic of the compared tactical units. She answers the question: which of the samples will be more effective in a real combat situation?

As with the comparison of surface ships (“Sea battle with the shadow:“ Moscow ”against“ Ticonderoga ”), it is necessary to begin with the choice of the type of wars and armed conflicts in which submarines are compared.

In the confrontation with a weak enemy, their main tasks may be the destruction of groups of surface ships and their own kind, striking at ground targets. In a large-scale war, in addition to those listed above, the destruction of aircraft carrier strike and multi-purpose groups, and the launch of nuclear missiles. The task of destroying the light forces of the enemy fleet - boats of various classes, as a rule, are not placed due to the specific armament of submarines, as well as the mismatch of areas of military operations. Therefore, in local wars and in large-scale targets of submarine strikes, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and possibly corvettes will become targets for the destruction of ship groups.

Another specific feature of the comparison of submarines in contrast to surface ships will be the exclusion from the consideration of the task of repelling air attack weapons. MANPADS are usually included in the armament system of modern submarines. However, as a means of defense in real combat, they are of little use. The main air enemy is anti-submarine aircraft and ship-based and coastal-based helicopters. They are equipped with a variety of weapons: torpedoes, depth charges and anti-ship missiles of various types, have effective means of search: radio-acoustic buoys systems, lowered gas and magnetometers, and radar. MANPADS can only be applied from a submarine from a surface position. At the same time, anti-submarine (base patrol) airplanes and helicopters have indisputable advantages in the possibility of both detection and destruction using RCC. Therefore, the battle of the submarine with the air enemy is reduced to evading his attacks. And the effectiveness of these actions is determined to a greater extent by the capabilities of the hunter than by his potential victim.

It is worthwhile to dwell on the task of fighting enemy submarines. When it comes to multipurpose, the indicator of effectiveness will be the likelihood of destruction in a particular area. If we are talking about comparing such classes, for which the main task is another task, for example, delivering a nuclear missile strike on targets in enemy territory or destroying large ship formations with long-range missiles, then the struggle with one’s own kind is evaluated according to a different indicator — the probability of surviving. In this case, two possible areas will be considered: for nuclear submarines and non-nuclear submarines, for the latter - twice as small in area, which corresponds, judging by open data, to views on the combat use of submarines in leading countries. But to obtain comparable results, the sizes of search areas for all types within the same class are assumed to be the same.

We will determine with the ground objects of destruction. For the shooting of the KR submarine can be assigned to any target. However, to ensure comparability, we take a single type of object. A submarine is a tactical unit, so it will be fair to accept that the target must also be an object of operational and tactical importance. This, for example, an airfield that requires a large rocket to defeat a large number of missiles or a lot of point. An example of the latter is an air defense connection, including 12 – 15 objects such as a command post, communications center, a radar station and an anti-aircraft missile launcher, with the destruction of which the compound loses combat capability.

We start the comparison with the most common modern submarines. This, of course, is our Shark (971 project) and, like its competitor, the American Los Angeles.

Weapon for inspection

Judging by the open data, the Russian Navy has four combat-ready ships of the 971 project. Six are being upgraded, which will bring them closer to the fourth generation in combat capabilities. The surface displacement is about nine thousand tons, and the scuba exceeds 12 thousand. This is comparable to some types of ballistic missile submarines. “Sharks” have a large working and maximum depth of immersion: respectively 480 and 600 meters. The maximum speed in the surface position reaches 10 nodes (limited by "burying" in the water), and in the underwater position - 33. The 971 project has eight torpedo tubes — four 650-mm and 533-mm each. Ammunition - 40 units: 12 caliber 650 millimeters and 28 caliber 533. Today it is the only third-generation submarine in the world with anti-submarine missiles: the RPK-6 “Waterfall” and the RPK-7 “Wind”. Both those and others are shot from standard TA. The PLNK 83P PLRK RPK-6 PLUR is from TA millimeter 533 caliber, and the Wind Wind 86P PLUR is made from 650 mm. The firing range of 533-mm PLUR is about 50 kilometers, and 650-mm - to 100. The speed of flight of all PLURs in the air segment of the trajectory is supersonic, which ensures the delivery of the warhead to the target area within one and a half to two minutes to the maximum range. The combat part of these PLUR - small-sized torpedoes. During the movement, each for five or six minutes surveys the area up to 25 – 30 square kilometers with an estimated probability of detecting the submarine 0,7 – 0,9 depending on the accuracy of the positioning of the target. Salvo firing of up to four missiles simultaneously is allowed.

Chopping house

From the torpedo armament "Shark" can use all the main types of torpedoes available in our Navy: 533-mm USET-80, SET-65, TEST-71, UGST and others (including anti-ship 53-65) and 650-mm 65 -76. The most modern torpedoes of the 533 caliber of millimeter have a range of 40 – 50 kilometers with a marching speed of around 35 nodes with the possibility of increasing to 50 with the capture of the submersible homing target. Older (SET-65) range is 16 kilometers at speed 40 nodes. The weight of the warhead is 250 – 300 kilograms. According to open data, torpedoes of caliber 650 millimeters have a range of up to 50 kilometers at speeds of 50 nodes and up to 100 kilometers at speeds of 35 nodes. Their warhead includes more than 500 kilograms of explosives.

The submarine can use rocket weapons - well-known in Syria missiles "Caliber PL". The submarine ammunition version is determined by the tasks it is facing. Suppose that the multipurpose is: 8 4P, 6 – 86 4 6 83 4 6 8 65 76 10 12 533, XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX XNumX caliber XNUMX millimeter.

Hydroacoustic armament includes the main SJC MGK-540 (“Skat-3”), including a station with an extended sonar antenna operating in the infrasonic range, and the Omnibus control system. According to experts, including foreign, in terms of physical fields, the 971 project is comparable to those of the fourth-generation American submarine Sivulf.

The US Navy had 2017 Los Angeles submarines at the start of the 35 of the year. They have the most sophisticated hydroacoustics compared to foreign analogues of their generation (including a station with an extended sonar antenna for detecting submarines in the infrasonic noise spectrum), HAP tools and torpedo armament — the latest-generation dual-purpose Mk-48. The displacement is significantly less: about six thousand tons and a little more than seven thousand, respectively. Immersion depth: working - 250 – 280, maximum - up to 450 meters. Torpedo tubes - four in the middle of the hull, all caliber 533 millimeter. In addition to these, the boats have 12 vertical launchers for launching the Tomahawk or the Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Possible start RCC "Harpoon" of the TA. Ammunition of torpedo / missile weapons for firing from TA - 26 units. Thus, all 38 weapons are almost like ours. The standard version, according to open data, includes 12 KR “Tomahawk”, 6 – 8 RCC “Harpoon” and 16 torpedoes Mk-48. The rest are self-propelled imitators.

The “Harpoon” PKR version for firing from submarines has a range of 70 kilometers, other things being equal to other tactical and technical data modifications. Torpedo Mk-48 dual-purpose, remote-controlled. The course range is up to 50 kilometers at the marching speed of 35 nodes accelerated to 55 from the moment the target is hit by a GOS. Telecontrol - up to 18 kilometers. It is believed that the effective firing range - 12 – 15 kilometers.

The main hydroacoustic armament is represented by the ANK / XQUMXNXX SAC of various modifications, the most advanced of which are C, D and E. Naturally, all these complexes have an infrasound detection path with a corresponding towed antenna.

The speed characteristics of the "American" roughly correspond to our submarine. For both, the lowest possible noise velocity can be taken equal to 8 – 10 nodes.

With approximately comparable levels of physical fields (ours are somewhat better in this respect), both have equivalent GAK. The 971 project is stronger in anti-submarine weapons due to the PLUR, the “American” in the missile, surpassing in the number of long-range missiles and anti-ship missiles that ours do not have at all. True, the latter is partly compensated by the presence of "thick" 65-76 torpedoes in our submarine. They have an effective range that is almost equal to the “Harpoon” (albeit, the economic speed of 35 nodes).

Task book shooting

In a local war against an enemy weak in naval terms, the distribution of task significance coefficients for our 971 project can be as follows: the destruction of groups of surface ships - 0,3, submarines - 0,1, strikes on ground targets - 0,6. The "American" is different: the destruction of groups of surface ships - 0,2, submarines - 0,1, striking ground targets - 0,7.

In a large-scale war, the distribution of the significance of tasks for the Shark may look like this: the destruction of carrier strike and multipurpose groups - 0,2, groups of surface ships - 0,1, submarines - 0,5, strikes on ground objects - 0,2. The Los Angeles functionality is defined by a slightly different purpose of the submarine as part of the American fleet in a large-scale war: the destruction of carrier strike and multipurpose groups - 0,05, groups of surface ships - 0,1, submarines - 0,55, attack on ground targets - 0,3. The significance of the task of delivering nuclear missile strikes on ground objects in both submarines should be recognized as zero, since both the 971 project and the aircraft are unlikely to become carriers of long-range nuclear missiles.

The limited volume of the article does not allow to show in detail the justification of the calculated values. Therefore, we dwell only on the most important aspects that determine the results of evaluations.

In local wars against a weak naval enemy, his group of three or four frigates and destroyers can do little to counter attack the modern multi-purpose submarine. The only thing, having discovered the direction from which the attack followed, they will try to get out of the dangerous area at maximum speed. Since even submarines follow at the speed of the lowest possible noise, such a maneuver is very effective. However, the ships will not be able to prevent the first attack. "American" will give one or two salvoes on two anti-ship missiles "Harpoon" from the distance to 50 – 60 kilometers or firing two torpedoes Mk-48. As a result, one or two ships from the group will be destroyed, which corresponds to the efficiency of 0,3 – 0,5. Russian "Shark" can only rely on torpedoes. A salvo of two or three of the TAs of both calibers will have approximately the same effect — the destruction of one or two ships from the group.

In a battle with a surface unit in a large-scale war, both submarines will have to deal with powerful anti-submarine weapons, in particular, effective means of detection, as well as with an advanced air defense system. Under these conditions, the “American” with its two-barreled Garpuns salvo (you cannot shoot four, you need to have two more torpedoes in TA for self-defense) can do little. We'll have to come closer to attack with a torpedo weapon to the effective shooting range (12 – 15 km). And this already corresponds to the detection range of the boat by the ship SAC. In any case, the Russian MG-335 have about the same energy range. With the discovery of a submarine, the ship group will undertake an evasion maneuver with the subsequent attack of the enemy by helicopters and PLUR. Therefore, the probability of successfully solving the “American” task of destroying groups of surface ships is small - 0,15 – 0,2. The Shark has the ability to use special anti-ship torpedoes 65-76 from a distance of 30 – 40 kilometers, which should correspond to the effective firing range of these weapons (speed 50 knots). A salvo of two such torpedoes will most likely destroy one ship from a warrant, or even two (there are almost no chances to keep afloat from a destroyer and even a cruiser, not to mention a frigate). ). The effectiveness of the project 971 - 0,3 – 0,35.

In a battle with an aircraft carrier group, both submarines will have to overcome the entire PLO system created around such a compound. In the American AUG, the farthest zone begins with 200 – 300 miles, reaching a sufficiently high density of anti-submarine forces in 60 – 80 miles from the center of the order. The near zone of the PLO AUG may have a depth of 20 miles. Under these conditions, there are few chances for the Shark to get into a torpedo attack on the fully combat-ready AUG of the USA - 0,1 – 0,15. Even less likely to get a torpedo into an aircraft carrier: it can be detected in advance and the core ship will evade impact. Our aircraft carrier, led by the Admiral Kuznetsov TAKR, has significantly lower PLO depths - we have the wrong forces. However, for “Los Angeles” to successfully attack torpedoes (“Harpoons” will not give anything here - escort ships have powerful air defense systems and the aircraft carrier of the 1143.5 project can successfully repel such strikes) should be closer to the target much closer than our submarine . In fact, enter the zone fully controlled by escort ships. Therefore, the chances of taking a position for a successful attack from an “American” are even less than that of ours. But on the other hand, target designation of the detected aircraft carrier boat can. Actually, as part of the shock groups, this will be their main task in defeating aircraft carrier forces. In this regard, the effectiveness should be assessed by the likelihood of target designation of missile weapons to others. Estimates for the "Shark" give the value of 0,3 – 0,5, depending on the area of ​​hostilities and the composition of the US AUG, for the “American” - 0,5 – 0,6.

In a local war against a weak enemy, both submarines, solving antisubmarine missions, will act against EPTs of relatively old types, which are part of the patrol time in battery charging areas, being extremely vulnerable to nuclear submarines. With comparable capabilities of the SJC, the chances of destroying an enemy submarine are about the same - 0,7 – 0,8.

In a large-scale war, the opponent of the Shark will be mostly American Los Angeles (the possibility of a collision is estimated based on their share in the US Navy in 0,55), Virginia (0,4), as well as the British and French (0,05). Accordingly, the average probability of destroying an enemy submarine by our 971 project in a typical search area for three days is 0,44 – 0,52. "American" will act against our project 971 (meeting opportunity - 0,2), project 671РТМ (0,1), project 955 (0,15), project 667БДРМ (0,1), project 949А (0,2) and Chinese NPS (0,25). The average probability of solving the problem lies within 0,55 – 0,62.

It remains to assess the capabilities of submarines for the destruction of ground targets. “Los Angeles” can strike 12 KR “Tomahawk”, Russian “Shark” - eight KR “Caliber-PL”. The effectiveness of such a strike "American" is estimated at 0,4 – 0,6 (the proportion of destroyed point targets), and the project 971 - 0,33 – 0,45.

The analysis performed allows us to derive an integral index of compliance. The "Shark", he is 0,44 in relation to local wars and the same to large-scale. The "American", these figures differ slightly: 0,50 and 0,51. That is, according to the degree of compliance of the combat effectiveness of the ship with its mission, the “Shark” is inferior to about 12 percent. Meanwhile, in a duel situation, our ship is roughly equivalent to an opponent, surpassing it in favorable hydrological conditions and slightly inferior in difficult ones. That is, the boats are equivalent. Our number is slightly inferior in terms of compliance with the conditions of combat use due to the fact that Los Angeles has many weaker opponents. Affect and more ammunition missile weapons "American".
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vard
    Vard 24 December 2017 07: 09
    What is the use of comparing ... The one who has more aggression wins the fight ... Unfortunately, in terms of decision-making, the Americans always had more freedom ...
  2. Fox
    Fox 24 December 2017 07: 12
    with all the paper comparisons, I recall one story when ours were preparing to liberate Europe from the fascists, preparing anti-partisan detachments ... but the geyrope did not have them. So here. Why will the moose attack the order?
  3. 24 December 2017 08: 18
    So that's it ... In theory, there may be one thing, but in practice it’s completely different. Take all the same vaunted abrams ... Our t-90s are better, but not in the theory of counteracting abrams, but according to a number of technical combat characteristics, confirmed not in theory but in combat practice. The price also has its important role. A bunch of orders from different countries confirms this.
    And if you take the “vacuum” battle of two submarines, how many stars should converge for such a battle? There will be different factors, both hindering and contributing. Therefore, this article personally reminds me of a situation from childhood: My dad is stronger! -No, this is mine stronger and he will beat yours! ... hi
    1. Mixa 2106
      Mixa 2106 4 July 2018 08: 23
      My dad is a minister, my boxer and mine, and I have aaaa my shtum ban Fuhrer ss
  4. Victor_B
    Victor_B 24 December 2017 08: 21
    Well, and who (what) has not yet been driven in battle by Sivkov?
    But I wonder who will win the Soyuz spacecraft or their Dragon?
    Gr. Sivkov - please answer!
  5. Conductor
    Conductor 24 December 2017 10: 57
    And how did you calculate that 12%. You will not give the formula?
    1. dvaposto
      dvaposto 24 December 2017 12: 59
      (0,5-0,44) * 100 = 6% + 6% for all kinds of cockroaches not included in the calculation - just in case.
      1. dumkopff
        dumkopff 24 December 2017 16: 36
        Generally: 0,44 / 0,5 = 0,88 (88%). Those. 0,44 is 12% less than 0,5.
        And according to your formulas, it turns out that 100 grams is only 10% less than 200 (in fact, 50%). Obviously hezh: (0,2-0,1) * 100% = 10%.
      2. Days
        Days 24 December 2017 17: 46
        Then already (0.5 - 0.44) / 0.5 * 100% = 12%
  6. ava09
    ava09 24 December 2017 11: 09
    (c) When choosing an analogue, certain requirements must be observed. First of all, it should belong to the same class as the Russian model, and represent approximately the same generation of military equipment. (C)
    Let me disagree with Sivkov. First of all, they “dance from the stove”, that is, from the strategic and operational-tactical situation on the theater of war and the threats of the enemy on it. In accordance with them the tasks of forces and means are determined. But only then is the quantity and technical features of weapons models capable of performing these tasks sorted out. It is useless to measure the pipette of individual samples without taking into account the situation, because depending on it, some disadvantages can turn into advantages and vice versa. This is me about the methods of "testing" ...
  7. dvaposto
    dvaposto 24 December 2017 12: 58
    and project 971 has some wrong Caliber, not the ones that buzzed in Syria? there everything is in a 1: 1 beam. or are they lying to us?
    1. NikWik
      NikWik 24 December 2017 19: 22
      Project 971 nuclear submarines do not have Caliber.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 24 December 2017 20: 45
        Quote: NikWik
        The submarine can use rocket weapons - Caliber-PL missiles well-known in Syria.

        Not quite so ... Grenades with nuclear warheads were removed from Shchuk-B, and instead they were re-equipped for Caliber-PL. But Pike would embed vertical PUs, and not bullet through TA with Gauges then ...
        At the moment, boats of this type are sent for modernization. During the planned modernization of the Russian fleet’s boats, as far as open sources can tell, the submarines will be completely replaced by on-board electronic equipment, and the weapon system will be changed, in particular, the submarines will be equipped with the new Caliber-PL universal missile system, which makes it possible to use anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine missiles and missiles to strike ground targets.

        And one more question for the author: And since when, did the project 971 nuclear submarine begin to be called not ShchUKA-B, but Shark? M. Sharks we called project 941, according to the NATO Typhoon, but this is not a multi-purpose, but the SSBN.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 24 December 2017 23: 26
          Quote: NEXUS
          And since when, did the project 971 nuclear submarine begin to be called not ShchUKA-B, but Shark?

          Shark is a NATO designation originally pr.971 and pr.941 for NATO Typhoon.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 24 December 2017 23: 30
            Quote: saturn.mmm
            Shark is a NATO designation originally.

            I know ... but comrade Sivkov, who do we have? American or Russian? This is not literary criticism. Why use the NATO nicknames given to our weapons to a person who considers himself Russian?
  8. bandabas
    bandabas 24 December 2017 13: 00
    A bunch of layouts. We play simulations?
  9. Operator
    Operator 24 December 2017 13: 38
    As always, Sivkov has a "floor / ceiling" rating.
  10. kot11180
    kot11180 24 December 2017 14: 41
    Isn't Shark a 941 project? this is a strategist, and 971 - "Pike-B."
    1. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 24 December 2017 16: 48
      Quote: kot11180
      Isn't Shark a 941 project? this is a strategist, and 971 - "Pike-B"

      That is precisely why I just “ran through” the article. yes Authorship left no doubt. laughing
  11. Old26
    Old26 24 December 2017 15: 35
    Quote: kot11180
    Isn't Shark a 941 project? this is a strategist, and 971 - "Pike-B."

    This is your “Shark” - a boat of the 941st project, I have many more, but the author - Konstantin Sivkov - captain of the 1st rank - he has his own truth. He seems to be in all these designations because of his love for comparisons and graphs, he began to get completely confused
    The American designation of our submarines has always been based on the rules of the phonetic alphabet, English, of course. That is, one or another code word of this phonetic alphabet was taken that corresponded to one or another letter and was assigned to one or another project of our submarines. If the words of the alphabet ended, other words were taken. In principle, this was until the collapse of the Union. After that, they (the Americans) gave the boats the names corresponding to the names of our projects.
    The letter B (Bravo) was assigned to our boat project 690. But here is the second time the letter B was encoded as Borey
    The same with the letter S. The project boat 945 was assigned the code designation Sierra. And now another boat, which did not have enough letters of the English alphabet, was assigned the code designation Shark. Translated by Shark. And it was a project 971 boat.
    But in our terminology, the name of the project Shark was at the boat of project 941 (971 had the name "Pike-B") And in the west the boat of this project was given the designation Typhoon. And this very name "stuck" to the boat. At the CPSU Congress, he was voiced by L.I. Brezhnev, saying that they have a Trident submarine, and we have a Typhoon.
    But it seems that the author himself got confused in these names
    1. jjj
      jjj 24 December 2017 16: 47
      Quote: Old26
      and the author - Konstantin Sivkov - captain of the 1 rank - he has his own truth

      He is also an "academician of military sciences"
    2. The Siberian barber
      The Siberian barber 24 December 2017 18: 43
      For cap. 1 rank, such errors or confusion are unforgivable, actually ..)
      Wikipedia seems to be a source of information, for Mr. Sivkov)))
      I wonder where he served?)
    3. NikWik
      NikWik 24 December 2017 19: 14
      I agree. Comrade Sivkov, since he is already writing about a Russian boat, it would be nice to use the Russian classification. I’ve served half my life in Sharks, but I always knew that this was a 941 project. As for the calculation of combat effectiveness, the formulas do exist, and the probabilities are close to those used by Comrade. Sivkov. Los Angeles is a very serious opponent, Although much depends on the training of the crew.
  12. Alexey Antonov
    Alexey Antonov 24 December 2017 15: 51
    What kind of "project 971" Shark "? Project 971 is called" Pike-B ", the people are" Bars "." Shark "is a project 941. If you sing from American words, then correct the information.
  13. realist
    realist 24 December 2017 15: 55
    in theory, one thing, but in practice a little differently. sad quantitative imbalance. need to do something, urgently!
  14. NF68
    NF68 24 December 2017 16: 52
    A theory without practice is dead. But this kind of practice is not necessary for nothing.
  15. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 24 December 2017 18: 38
    From the first words, I realized who the author of the opus is))
    Something reminds Majumar, from the "National Interest" The main message: who is stronger or who will win))
    And, as it were, "Shark", not pr.941 ??
    1. The Siberian barber
      The Siberian barber 24 December 2017 18: 49
      ... In terms of compliance with the combat effectiveness of the ship to its purpose, our "Shark" is inferior to "Los Angeles" about 12 percent. However, in a duel situation, submarines are roughly equivalent ...
      Strange thesis ..
      I recalled an advertisement for cat food: "now our food is 50% tastier .."
      Barographer, this Sivkov
  16. seos
    seos 24 December 2017 20: 55
    The obvious advantage of a submarine skips over surface ships ... especially if a 650mm torpedo can reach 100 km ... but it’s not clear how effective these torpedoes are in a modern war?
    A drone is needed for submarines ... the weakness of the fleet can be compensated for by a strong submarine component (although we already have a bias in this direction).
    And here the question arises - why do not we have mini-submarines of the Scandinavian type, with a displacement of about 1000 tons, can we really push normal equipment into such a boat and it will be too blind?
    And by the way, why did not develop naval anti-helicopter mines - this is a surprise to make for submarine hunters ...
  17. Spook
    Spook 25 December 2017 08: 55
    Here you are laughing, but I have the impression that a friend is calibrating artificial intelligence)))
  18. Old26
    Old26 25 December 2017 13: 47
    Quote: NEXUS
    I know ... but comrade Sivkov, who do we have? American or Russian? This is not literary criticism. Why use the NATO nicknames given to our weapons to a person who considers himself Russian?

    There is nothing wrong with the fact that he also applies the NATO designation. The question is on a slightly different plane. If you use Western or our designation - be kind to apply both at the same time. Having written, for example, the Pike-B submarines, known in the west as Shark (Shark). Then the use of notation would be correct

    Quote: seos
    Slips the obvious advantage of the submarine over surface ships ...

    Only one advantage - stealth

    Quote: seos
    The obvious advantage of a submarine skips over surface ships ... especially if a 650mm torpedo can reach 100 km ... but it’s not clear how effective these torpedoes are in a modern war? .

    This is the main question. Of course, you can shoot a torpedo at 100 km, but what does it fall into - is the question?

    Quote: seos
    A drone is needed for submarines ... the weakness of the fleet can be compensated for by the strong submarine component (although we already have a bias in this direction) ..

    IMHO the weakness of the fleet does not compensate for the strong underwater component. Firstly, submarines are used exclusively for specific tasks, secondly, the weakness of the surface fleet will affect the combat stability of the submarine forces. A UAV on a submarine is a purely tactical decision, and how much it is needed and what it will be used for is the question. In addition, what exactly is for drones. In what environment will they work ...

    Quote: seos
    And here the question arises - why do not we have mini-submarines of the Scandinavian type, with a displacement of about 1000 tons, can we really push normal equipment into such a boat and it will be too blind? .

    But why? For what purposes do we need boats with a displacement of less than 1000 tons. For some Western countries, this is understandable. It is more profitable for them to have 10 boats with 900 tons of displacement each, than 3 boats with 2000 tons each. Moreover, the area of ​​responsibility of their fleet does not extend to the same distances as ours.
    Well, why should we have boats with autonomy, for example, 10-12 days and with such a displacement? What will they do, what weapons to carry, and what speed characteristics to have

    Quote: seos
    And by the way, why did not develop naval anti-helicopter mines - this is a surprise to make for submarine hunters ...

    Same question. What for? Well, with anti-helicopter mines on land - there is at least some sense there, although it is not so often heard that they were used somewhere. But even on land, to cover the "helicopter-hazardous" directions would have to be put to hell with these mines. And in the sea? Where to "sow" them? Okay, on land you can determine the most commonly used helicopter flight routes and use these mines (again, it all depends on how high these helicopters will go). And in the sea? At sea, the same helicopter can go from point A to point B in a dozen routes, and not in one or two, as on land. Is this mine an anchor? Then it’s completely pointless. If it’s floating, then any storm can blow this mine into the flight zone of its own helicopters. And who then will be a surprise? Him or us?
  19. pacific
    pacific 25 February 2018 20: 06
    And why, Mr. Sivkov, do you not take into account the depth of the boats in your calculations?
    Although I am a surface navigator, I know that the combat stability of the submarines and the effectiveness of their use depend to a large extent on the depth at which this boat can operate.
    I think that this indicator should also be included in your calculations. Given almost 25% superiority of “Pike” over “LA” in this indicator, the final results will be completely different.