Military Review

Atomic Multifunctional Submarine Cruiser: Asymmetrical Response to the West

210
The fleet of the United States and its allies is currently significantly superior to the fleet of the Russian Federation (RF). Compete with them the number of ships and the rate of commissioning them in the near future is unrealistic. Thus, the need for an asymmetric response arises.


Since the time of the USSR, asymmetric tactics have been based on the use of anti-ship missiles (PKR) launched from air, underwater and surface carriers.

Surface groupings of ships of NATO countries are built around aircraft carrier groups. Accordingly, the area of ​​responsibility of such a group is controlled at a considerable distance at the expense of aviation reconnaissance equipment - airborne early warning aircraft (AWACS) and anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters (PLO).



The detection range of airplanes and ships by DRLO aircraft exceeds 500 km, cruise missiles - over 250 km. This allows you to destroy both the carriers and the anti-ship missiles themselves with a range of use up to 500 km by means of carrier-based aviation and air defense of surface ships. Due to the use of missiles with an active radar homing head (ARGSN) and external targeting from DRLO airplanes it is possible to damage the anti-ship missiles throughout the entire length of the flight.

Atomic Multifunctional Submarine Cruiser: Asymmetrical Response to the West


The organization of air defense systems AUG USA (from the magazine "Foreign Military Review")

For anti-ship missiles with a range of applications over 500 km, such as the Dagger rocket, there is a problem of issuing sufficiently accurate coordinates for target designation. The reconnaissance satellite group capable of tracking aircraft carriers quickly, according to public information, is currently absent from Russia. In addition, in the event of a global conflict, satellites can be destroyed by anti-satellite weapons. The use of reconnaissance aircraft to accurately determine the coordinates of the AUG does not guarantee that they will not be detected or destroyed before.

Anti-submarine aircraft carrier lines exceed 400 km, but are not insurmountable, and do not guarantee one hundred percent detection of submarines. This is confirmed by the cases when the USSR submarines floated in close proximity to the AUG.

In general, submarines have significantly greater combat stability compared to surface ships, however, the target designation problem for submarines PKR is also relevant, as is the defeat of PKR missiles with ARGSN and external target designation.

Proceeding from the above, in order to counter large formations of surface ships, including carrier strike groups, I propose at a new level to implement an asymmetric concept, including new types of weapons and tactics of its use.

The basis of the concept should be a new combat unit, in functionality that combines the capabilities of a submarine and a destroyer / cruiser. The proposed provisional name is the Atomic Multifunctional Submarine Cruiser (AMPPK).

To maximize cost reduction and increase the speed of creation, I propose to implement AMPPK based on the strategic missile submarine cruiser (SSBN) of the Borey 955A project. Maximum unify the elements of the hull, power plant, hydroacoustic complex, life support systems.


SSBN project 955 "Borey"

The main differences AMPPK:

1. Replacing mines of ballistic missiles with universal vertical launchers for cruise and anti-aircraft missiles.

2. Installation of radar with an active phased antenna array (AFAR) on a lifting mast, retractable in the submerged position, allowing the use of anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM) C-350 / C-400 / C-500 complexes

3. Installation of an optical location station, including day, night and thermal imaging channels.

4. Installation of powerful sources of interference in the radar range, based on modern solutions for the armed forces of Russia.

5. Installation of a combat information system (CICS), ensuring the use of installed weapons.



Installing a retractable mast with an AFAR radar will likely require an increase in the size of the felling. With its design it is necessary to implement a set of measures to reduce the visibility in the radar wavelength range.

Based on the mass-dimensional characteristics of the antenna arrays of the Sampson radar and the S1850M radar of the British destroyers of the Dering type, the mass of the radar with AFAR should not exceed ten tons. AFAR should be lifted to a height of ten to twenty meters. Unsolvable, this task is not seen, modern truck cranes with a telescopic boom are capable of lifting a load of about ten tons to a height of over thirty meters.

In the process of development it is possible to reduce the mass of AFAR. For example, planar AFARs developed by NIIPP have significant advantages in terms of weight and dimensions compared to other solutions. At times, the mass and thickness of the sheet AFAR decreases. This allows using them for a new class of antenna systems - conformal antenna arrays, i.e. repeating the shape of the object.


Comparison of the dimensions of the “classical” and planar AFAR (JSC “NIIPP”, Tomsk)

If, however, constructive difficulties arise with the removal of an AFAR to a specified height, it can be placed below, or even on the sides of the existing logging (conformal antennas), which will reduce the possibility of hitting low-flying targets and, accordingly, reduce the potential of AMPPK to solve some types of problems . It is possible that changes in the hull of the submarine, including the installation of large retractable structures, will require to reduce the maximum depth of the AMFPK.

Estimated amfpk ammunition should include:

- PKR "Onyx", "Caliber", "Zircon";

- SAM from the C-350 / C-400 / C-500 complexes in the "sea" version;

- long-range cruise missiles (CR) of the Caliber type for use on ground targets, possibly ballistic missiles based on Iskander operational-tactical missile complex (OTRK) missiles, if such missiles are developed / adapted for fleet;

- non-returnable unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the purpose of which will be discussed further.

Preserved existing weapons used from torpedo tubes.

Unrecoverable UAVs can presumably be developed based on existing Caliber subsonic missiles. Instead of the warhead, reconnaissance equipment is installed — radar, data line, and jammers. Its mission is to search for the exact coordinates of the AUG to issue target designation of the RCC. After launching the UAV gains maximum height, carrying out a circular scanning of the water surface. After the detection of the AUG, the UAV flies in its direction, specifying the coordinates of the order ships and at the same time carrying out the jamming.

Drawing an analogy with Ohio-type submarines adapted for use of Tomahawk cruise missiles, AMPPK based on the BNR 955A SSBN should accommodate about one hundred universal launch cells.

Ohio-type SSBNs contain 24 ballistic missiles, and Ohio-type SSGNs contain 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Accordingly, if 955A “Borey” SSBN accommodates 16 ballistic missiles, then 154 / 24 x 16 = 102 UVPU.

Unfortunately, at the moment in the Russian fleet there is no truly universal vertical launcher, into which both cruise and anti-aircraft missiles can be loaded, or I have no information on such an installation. If this problem is not solved, then this will significantly reduce the flexibility of forming amfpk ammunition, as during the construction phase a fixed ratio of cells for cruise and anti-aircraft missiles will be determined.

In the absence of UVPU for all types of weapons planned for use, I propose to implement the universality of the weapons compartment as follows.

Starting cells KR, PKR and ZUR are mounted in specialized containers of weapons, containing the installation of vertical launch (OHR), respectively, for KR / PKR or ZUR. Weapon containers, in turn, are located in the AMFPK’s internal universal weapons compartment. Thus, by changing the composition of the containers, you can change the type of ammunition amfpk. Replacing the ammunition after it is consumed can be carried out by replacing the missiles in the CIP, and replacing the CID (containers) themselves and their further recharging outside AMPPK. The optimal size of universal weapons containers should be determined at the design stage.

Significantly increase the survival of AMPPK can the implementation of the possibility of launching all types of missile weapons (SAM) from under water. If the possibility of equipping AMPPK with a retractable mast can be constructively feasible, launching the missile defense from a depth of at least a few meters will allow AMPPK not to emerge completely, but to raise to the surface only a mast with radar and OLS.




Container installations for vertical missile launch (example)

Taking the ratio as 52 cells for cruise missiles and 50 cells for anti-aircraft missiles, the following ammunition load can be formed:

- 10 cruise missiles such as "Caliber for hitting ground targets";

- 40 CRP type "Onyx", "Caliber", "Zircon";

- 30 long-range missiles on the basis of missiles of C-400 / C-500 complexes;

- 80 small / medium missiles (4 per cell) based on the missiles of the С-350 / С-400 / С-500 complexes;

- 2 non-returnable reconnaissance UAVs based on existing cruise missiles.

The composition of the ammunition is adjusted depending on the tasks solved by AMPPK. The nomenclature of weapons used from torpedo tubes is generally maintained, but can also be adjusted for the tasks.

Separately, it is necessary to consider the use of laser weapons on AMPPK. Despite the skepticism of many towards laser weapons, one cannot but note significant progress in this direction. Obtaining compact installations on fiber-optic and solid-state lasers with a power of up to one hundred kilowatts placed on automobiles suggests the possibility of creating a similar megawatted class laser complex, the weight and size characteristics of which will allow it to be placed on a submarine. The presence of a nuclear reactor as an energy source will provide the laser with the necessary power supply.

The possibility of creating such a laser weapon in Russia remains in question, since there are no reliable tests on lasers of such power. The characteristics of the Peresvet laser complex are classified, its power and purpose are unknown. The technological laser complexes based on CO2 lasers created in Russia have a power of the order of 10-20 kilowatts. IRE-Polyus, which manufactures high-power fiber-optic lasers, is formally part of IPG Phtonix and is registered in the USA, and its military products are unlikely to be used.

The reason why a laser weapon installation is generally considered at AMFPK is the combination of weapons with unlimited ammunition (with a nuclear reactor) and the possibility of destroying enemy aircraft without unmasking in the form of an anti-aircraft missile. The primary targets of the laser complex are Groomman E-2 “Hokai” DRLO aircraft, Boeing P-8 “Poseidon” type PLO aircraft and MC-4C “Triton” long-range UAV.

As part of the US Boeing YAL-1 program, the possibility of a laser of the megawatt class of launching ballistic missiles at a distance of up to 500 km was considered by a laser. Despite the closure of the program, certain results were obtained on the defeat of training ballistic targets. For AMPPK, a significantly shorter range of damage is suitable, which can be on the order of a hundred or two hundred kilometers, which makes it possible to count on a sufficiently high efficiency of the complex in good weather conditions.

In the case of a package of fiber lasers, the possibility of providing separate guidance packages can be considered. When installing five packages of 200 kilowatts, AMFPK will be able to simultaneously hit five targets simultaneously. As such, subsonic anti-ship missiles, low-flying UAVs, unarmored helicopters, motor boats and boats can be considered. If necessary, attacks of a large remote target packets are reduced to one channel / focus on one target.

In the further description of the scenarios, the use of AMPPK does not reveal the use of laser weapons. In general, it is equivalent to the use of missiles, adjusted for the specifics of the use of this type of weapon.





The German concern Rheinmetall has experienced a high-energy laser. The laser power is less than the minimum value required for the battlefield - 100 kW, but simultaneous targeting of several rays at a time enables weapons to achieve similar results, with the required minimum. In some cases, when there is no need for high beam power, all laser weapon modules have the ability to work on individual targets.

Of course, the development and installation of a laser complex should be considered both from the point of view of feasibility at the existing technological level, and with respect to the cost / efficiency criterion, taking into account the available developments in Russia and abroad.

The main scenarios for the use of AMPPK:

- destruction of carrier strike groups and ship formations;

- Missile defense functions (ABM) - the destruction of the launching ballistic missiles in the initial part of the trajectory in the areas of the SSBN patrols of the likely enemy;

- the destruction of anti-submarine aviation, cover SSBN;

- causing massive strikes with cruise missiles with conventional or nuclear warheads on the territory of a potential enemy;

- the destruction of transport aircraft on the flight routes, the interruption of supply lines;

- the destruction of artificial earth satellites along the optimal trajectory (if such an opportunity will be realized by the 500 С missiles);

- the destruction of cruise missiles and UAVs launched on the territory of Russia's allies in regional conflicts.

Let us consider in more detail the scenarios for the use of AMPPK.

Destruction of carrier strike groups.


The strike group consists of two AMPPKs and two multi-purpose nuclear submarines (MTSPL) of the “Ash” type (project 885 / 885М). MCCLs of the “Ash” type provide cover for AMFPK from enemy's PLA and participate in striking the anti-ship missiles on the AUG.

The preliminary location of the AUG is determined by the emission of DRLO planes or receiving data from external intelligence sources. Scanning is performed by passive antennas without submarine unmasking. In the case of the detection of DRLO planes, the group diverges, covering the AUG over a large radius. The goal is to ensure the reach of missiles to airborne early warning aircraft carrying out patrols and unnoticed to approach the AUG at the missile launch range.

Depending on the distance to the DRLO aircraft and weather conditions, a partial ascent, extension of the mast with radar and RLS and pointing the missile at the radio signal source, according to the RL or AFAR operating in LPI mode (“low signal interception capability”), is carried out. Simultaneously, the detection of PLO aircraft and helicopters, combat aircraft in the air F / A-18E, F-35.

After capturing on the support of all available targets, AMFPK performs the ascent and launch of missiles on all enemy aircraft within reach. The speed of the missile flight ranges from 1000 m / s to 2500 m / s. Based on this, the time of hitting targets will be from two to five minutes from the moment of launching the missile defense system.

Simultaneously, the launch of a non-refundable UAV. After launching the UAV gains maximum height, carrying out a circular scanning of the water surface. After the detection of the AUG, the UAV flies in its direction, specifying the coordinates of the order ships and at the same time carrying out the jamming.

Immediately after receiving the updated target designation, the RCC is launched from all submarines of the strike group. Based on the above AMFPK ammunition, the total salvo can reach up to 120 RCC (according to 40 RCC at AMPPK and according to 30 at ICAP of the “Ash” type).

Given that enemy aircraft will be destroyed or will carry out active evasion of missiles, the issuance of external target designation or the defeat of anti-aircraft missiles by aviation is unlikely. Accordingly, the ability of AUG to resist a massive attack of low-flying targets will be significantly reduced.

The average time spent on the surface after the ascent should not exceed 10-15 minutes. Then under water is carried out and concealed from the forces of the enemy. In the event of the detection of the actions of the antisubmarine aviation of the enemy, active defense can be carried out - subsurface and destruction of the enemy's aviation.

A detailed study of the tactics of use, taking into account the real characteristics of the weapons being developed, can make changes to the specified tactics. The main innovation here is the ability of AMFPK to actively counteract enemy aviation, which is the main trump card of the AUG.

Also AMPPK, in contrast to the surface ship is almost invulnerable to the RCC, since his time on the surface is small. This will limit the range of weapons used against AMPPK torpedoes and depth bombs. Taking into account the presence at AMPPK of serious air defense capabilities, this will be a difficult task for enemy aircraft.

An alternative use of AMPPK vs. AUG is clearing the sky for missile-carrying bombers before launching the anti-ship missiles. This ensures a significant reduction in the probability of damage to the carriers of anti-ship missiles and the elimination of over-the-horizon shooting at low-flying anti-ship missiles.

Implementation of missile defense (missile defense).

The basis of the strategic nuclear forces of NATO countries is the maritime component - nuclear submarines with ballistic missiles (SSBN).

The share of US nuclear warheads deployed on SSBNs over 50% of the entire nuclear arsenal (about 800 - 1100 warheads), UK - 100% of the nuclear arsenal (about 160 warheads on four SSBNs), France 100% of strategic nuclear charges (about 300 warheads about 2004 ).

Destruction of the enemy's SSBNs is one of the top priorities in the event of a global conflict. However, the task of destroying a SSBN is complicated by the concealment by the enemy of the SSBN patrol areas, the difficulty of determining its exact location and the presence of combat escort.

In the event that there is information on the approximate location of the enemy SSBNs in the world ocean, AMPPK may be on duty in the area along with hunter submarines. In the event of a global conflict, the hunter boat is assigned the task of destroying the enemy SSBNs. If this task is not completed, or the SSBN began launching ballistic missiles before the moment of destruction, AMPFK is charged with the task of intercepting the launching ballistic missiles at the initial part of the trajectory.

The ability to solve this problem depends primarily on the speed characteristics and range of the use of promising missiles from the C-500 complex, intended for anti-missile defense and the destruction of artificial earth satellites. If these capabilities are provided with missiles from the C-500, then AMPPK can realize a "blow to the head" to the strategic nuclear forces of the NATO countries.

The destruction of the launching ballistic missile in the initial part of the trajectory carries the following advantages:

1. The launching rocket cannot maneuver and has maximum visibility in the radar and thermal range.

2. The defeat of one rocket can destroy several combat units, each of which can destroy hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people.

3. To destroy a ballistic missile in the initial part of the trajectory, knowledge of the exact location of the enemy SSBNs is not required, it is sufficient to be in the range of the antimissile action.

In combination with the possibility of destroying the carriers themselves, primarily those being serviced at the docks (long-range cruise missiles), one can expect a marked decrease in the effectiveness of the use of US nuclear weapons. Under certain conditions, the complete destruction of the strategic nuclear forces of Great Britain or France is possible. It can be considered an asymmetric response to the deployment of missile defense systems near the borders of the Russian Federation.

The destruction of anti-submarine aviation, cover SSBN.

Within the framework of this task, AMFPK provides support for its own SSBNs. By ensuring the possibility of effective destruction of anti-submarine aviation and enemy surface ships, the stability of the submarine component of strategic nuclear forces can be significantly increased. Destruction of destroyers and cruisers with guided missile weapons in the launch zone of strategic ballistic missiles will prevent their defeat in the initial part of the trajectory by means of the ship's missile defense system.

Applying massive strikes with cruise missiles.

AMPPK acts like an Ohio-type SSGN. Most of the ammunition consists of long-range cruise missiles, there is only a small amount of missiles and anti-ship missiles for self-defense of AMFPK. Not the most rational task for these ships, but in some cases may be in demand. The advantage of AMPPK in this case will be the opportunity to bring the frontier of the launch of the Kyrgyz Republic closer to the shores of the enemy due to the ability to actively counteract PLO aviation.

Destruction of transport aircraft on the flight routes, interruption of supply lines by sea.

A task similar to that solved by the "Wolf Packs" of German submarines during the Second World War. Unlike Admiral Doenitz submarines, AMPPK can effectively destroy all types of targets on the water, under water (not priority) and in the air. Placing AMFPK on the flight routes of transport airplanes and the movement of sea transport in the event of a global conflict will allow “cutting” supply routes from the United States to Europe.

Opposition AMFPK will require the diversion of significant forces to protect maritime convoys. Changing the routes of movement of transport aircraft, with an increase in the length of their flight, will increase the time for delivery of cargo, will require cover by combat aircraft with anti-radar missiles and torpedoes to counter AMPPK. Also, aircraft can be destroyed tankers, which are the basis of the strategic mobility of US aircraft. A side effect will be the constant stress of the crews of airplanes, since they will not be able to withstand the powerful missiles in the ocean, a single transport aircraft or tanker is guaranteed to be destroyed.

For the escort forces, AMFPK will not be an easy target and will be able to act even against protected convoys.

Destruction of a satellite.

Provided that the C-500 air defense missile system will include missiles with the ability to destroy the satellites, the same possibility can be realized on the AMPFK. The advantages of AMPPK will be the ability to reach a position in the world ocean, which provides the optimal trajectory for hitting selected AES. Also, a launch near the Earth’s equator provides for the possibility of hitting targets at a higher altitude (the launch of cargo into orbit from the equator is used in the commercial launch site “Sea Launch”).

Destruction of cruise missiles and UAVs launched on the territory of Russia's allies in regional conflicts.

In operations similar to the company in Syria, AMPPK, carrying out duty in the region of the coast of Syria, could partially destroy cruise missiles launched across Syria in a flight above the water where the missiles cannot hide in the folds of the terrain, thereby reducing efficiency strikes of ships, submarines and planes of NATO. An additional effective means of exposure may be the use of radar interference.

The need may arise in the case when the defeat of manned carriers can provoke a global conflict, but it is necessary to maximally weaken the attack on an ally.

Based on the foregoing, it can be assumed that the creation of AMFPK will be an effective asymmetric solution of the Russian Navy to powerful naval groups of NATO countries.

At the moment, the construction of a series of SSBNs of the Borey project is being completed. In the case of the timely development of AMPPK based on the 955M project, their construction can be continued on the liberated stocks. Taking into account the experience gained in the manufacture of the Borey-type SSBN series, a lower level of technological risks can be expected than, for example, in the implementation of a project of Leader-type destroyers. The implementation of destroyers of the type "Leader" will require the creation of gas turbines that do not exist at the moment, the same project with a nuclear reactor will turn the destroyer into a cruiser, with a corresponding cost. In any case, AMPPK will have incomparably greater flexibility and combat stability compared to surface ships that are guaranteed to be detected and destroyed in the event of a collision with superior enemy forces.

For those actions where you can not do without surface ships - demonstrating the flag, escorting transport ships, supporting amphibious operations, participating in conflicts of low intensity, in my opinion, building frigates is enough, including increased displacement, like the proposed 22350M project.

The construction of a series of twelve AMPPK, staffing them with replaceable crews and carrying out timely maintenance, will allow to realize a high coefficient of operational tensions, and keep eight AMPPKs at the same time at sea.

According to information from the open press, a new generation of submarines is currently being developed in Russia. Their possible benefits include the modularity of the design, the use of newer reactors, sonar systems, less noise. It is possible, taking into account all these innovations, to implement AMFCK optimally on the basis of the design of new-generation submarines. However, due to lack of information, this option was not considered. If AMPPK is implemented on the basis of submarines of a new generation, the period of their entry into service will increase substantially, financial and technical risks will increase.Read more...

Prepared according to the materials in the open press. In preparing the article used images from the Internet.
Author:
210 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vard
    Vard April 12 2018 06: 17
    +18
    For us, AUGs are dangerous only if they approach the shore ... And there are coastal missile systems ... Front-line aviation ... Missile frigates and ships ... Against air defense aircraft ... Against an aircraft carrier ... One warhead is enough to the flight deck ... And do not bother with this ...
    1. ZVO
      ZVO April 12 2018 12: 12
      +5
      Quote: Vard
      One warhead on the flight deck is enough ... And you don’t need to bother much with this ...


      Always the cost of defense will be equal to the cost of the attack.
      In order for one cheap missile to hit an aircraft carrier, it will be necessary to build several airfields, build hundreds of aircraft, train hundreds of pilots, provide training for thousands of BAO specialists, etc.
      Spend the same. Tens of billions of dollars.
      1. Paul zewike
        Paul zewike April 12 2018 12: 52
        +3
        This is especially true for anti-tank missiles. What needs to be built there, which airfields? So the costs are not always equal. I really like the idea of ​​the author. Something may not be feasible, but there is a large rational kernel.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO April 12 2018 13: 28
          +8
          Quote: Paul Zewike
          This is especially true for anti-tank missiles. What needs to be built there, which airfields? So the costs are not always equal. .


          Always.
          Again you count 1 missile against 1 tank.

          In your universe on an enemy tank - at the behest of a magic wand appears ATGM - "and life is good"?
          But who is armed with missiles?
          Maybe the foot soldiers?
          Which need to be taught, who need training ranges, who need to shoot several missiles, who need delivery vehicles on the battlefield in the form of armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles ???
          Or a deep intelligence company?
          Which will "block" tank movements behind enemy lines? They need to be taught much more strongly, cast to the rear, etc. Providing activities to carry out.

          Look at the world wider, it is much more multifaceted than your direct thought about 1 target and 1 rocket.
          1. Paul zewike
            Paul zewike April 13 2018 22: 24
            +1
            To look broadly is right. Tankers do not need to be taught? No need to refuel this tank? But do you have to wand put a tank in the field? There are 4 more trained tankers. No need to confirm stupid theories with types, sorry, fabrications. In your universe, a tank with 4 tankers is tearing peter. Live in illusions
            1. Su24
              Su24 April 17 2018 11: 37
              0
              To look broadly is right. Tankers do not need to be taught? No need to refuel this tank? But do you have to wand put a tank in the field? There are 4 more trained tankers. No need to confirm stupid theories with types, sorry, fabrications. In your universe, a tank with 4 tankers is tearing peter. Live in illusions


              Yes, you are tenacious) Read to begin with what is being answered.
        2. the most important
          the most important April 12 2018 23: 21
          +3
          Quote: Paul Zewike
          I really like the idea of ​​the author.

          I expressed the idea with the departure of the main forces of the fleet under water and the underwater deployment of missiles for various purposes more than a year ago. I am sure that I am not alone. So the author did not make a discovery. I like the idea and it is quite possible that it will be realized in 20 years. And a retractable antenna is best placed not in the wheelhouse, but along the hull, so its height can be designed much higher.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat April 13 2018 13: 41
            +1
            Quote: the most important
            I am sure that I am not alone.

            not you alone, I generally think that it is possible to transport tanks on the “boreas” to capture the bridgehead. But it’s impossible to create a truly universal submarine anyway, it’s more accurate to make it, but not on the basis of existing submarines, here you have to make a completely new submarine, and it will radically differ from the existing ones in the hull, and therefore in everything else.
            1. dauria
              dauria April 14 2018 00: 37
              +4
              not you alone, I generally think that it is possible to transport tanks on the “boreas” to capture the bridgehead. T


              And before both of you, the Germans tried to compensate for their backlog also "asymmetrically." And the Japanese. They tried to create cargoes, fuel, even an underwater aircraft carrier. The result is deplorable - they drove under the water and did not allow their nose to stick out. They didn’t even let me run away - only quietly crawling, so God forbid to be discovered. The master in the sky will always be the winner. And sticking out a working locator is already detecting yourself, without even having time to find the enemy. The fleet must be balanced. And underwater - only destroy cities with missiles with nuclear weapons and have torpedo boats to protect these submarines. It’s ridiculous to demand more. AUG is good, but only as long as it has where to return. There will be no USA - this is the asymmetric answer. Enough of him.
              1. ProkletyiPirat
                ProkletyiPirat April 14 2018 01: 11
                0
                Quote: dauria
                The fleet must be balanced.

                The only reasonable phrase. The rest is demagogy. Here explain to me how you can ensure the capture of the bridgehead in the United States without the secret delivery of people and equipment in submarines? You cannot corny with your ships because they will be tracked even at the stage of leaving the home port, and therefore the enemy will be able to sink a horseradish cloud of times and disable the ships.
                Meanwhile, a dozen redesigned boreas will be able to deliver people with equipment including tanks, do it invisibly to the enemy, and even cover it from the water, and even ensure the ships' approach to the bridgehead. And about various MTR operations, including secret operations on the territory of other states, you can generally talk endlessly, but some secret deliveries of weapons / money \ information \ specialists and other resources to Russian supporters on the territory of unfriendly states are worth it.
                In general, I advise you to stop looking at the world through the prism of the Cold War.
                1. dauria
                  dauria April 14 2018 01: 53
                  +4
                  In general, I advise you to stop looking at the world through the prism of the Cold War.


                  Yes, see how you want. And advise that you come up with someone you want .. Your business. Although Mars capture the "hidden landing." And bring tanks to Antarctica under water.
                  It is necessary ? What for ? hang a flag over Washington? And what shisha and with what industry to create your "project"? In principle, we cannot win a nuclear war. One task - to make sure that the United States could not win it.
                  1. ProkletyiPirat
                    ProkletyiPirat April 14 2018 02: 49
                    0
                    Quote: dauria
                    In principle, we cannot win a nuclear war. There is only one task - to make sure that the USA cannot win it.

                    You look at the world through the prism of the Cold War, in this we differ in point of view. And it is from this difference that you do not understand the essence of the "project".
                    For example, suppose that a civil war broke out in the United States tomorrow, the question is how can the Russian Federation protect dangerous facilities in the United States? I explain there in the USA there are nuclear, chemical, bacteriological and other types of weapons. And as a result of the GV, obvious and / or secret opponents of the Russian Federation can use these weapons to harm the Russian Federation. How can the Russian Federation ensure control of hazardous facilities?
                    Well, or another example, more practical for the coming decades, suppose that GV will begin in Turkey tomorrow, and one of the parties to the conflict is a clear-cut hater of the Russian Federation (well, for example, an analogue of the Ukrainian right sector). How can the Russian Federation provide inconspicuous material support to opponents of this side of the conflict?
                    In general, the world should not be looked at from the side of the Cold War, but from the side of the modern hybrid war.
                    1. Alex777
                      Alex777 April 19 2018 23: 29
                      +1
                      Which side do not look at the author's project - it is delusional. I will not cling to trifles. The main drawback is the price of this miracle of technology. As an abstract example, I understand when 1144 is being modernized. But I would not build such new ones. The reason is elementary - we will not build them more than 2-3. And the modern hybrid warfare is not a pair of wunderwafers (like Yamato), but what is described in the available literature as the result of the Husky project. Small, universal, well-doing what they are intended for, in an amount of 20 and the more, the better. hi
                      They were wondering in the Navy how to convert Sharks into underwater transports. We realized that no money would be enough. Dispose of. And rightly so. The discovery and destruction of what tanks can carry in quantity under water is the current United States mission. This must be understood. hi
        3. Sckepsis
          Sckepsis April 25 2018 18: 59
          0
          I really like the idea of ​​the author. Something may not be feasible, but there is a big rational kernel

          The author’s idea is absurd in the bud. I was sure that in the comments everything would be explained to him, but here they were sitting from the same opera.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 12 2018 16: 58
        +1
        well, not quite the same tens of billions, ground airfields are cheaper, and a rocket is cheaper than AB
      3. Setrac
        Setrac April 12 2018 17: 54
        +2
        Quote: ZVO
        train a hundred pilots

        But pilots do not need to be trained for aircraft carriers; they are immediately born as pilots.
        1. ZVO
          ZVO April 12 2018 19: 17
          +3
          Quote: Setrac
          Quote: ZVO
          train a hundred pilots

          But pilots do not need to be trained for aircraft carriers; they are immediately born as pilots.


          So I say that the Amer aircraft carrier group costs 30 billion dollars, that our reciprocal preparations for the destruction of the Amer aircraft carrier group cost the same 30 billion dollars.
          Anyway. But it will be so.

          The exception is if someone drops the goby in the wrong place ...
          1. Setrac
            Setrac April 12 2018 19: 54
            +4
            Quote: ZVO
            So I say that the Amer aircraft carrier group costs 30 billion dollars, that our reciprocal preparations for the destruction of the Amer aircraft carrier group cost the same 30 billion dollars.

            You are absolutely wrong, destruction is much cheaper than construction.
            1. Don
              Don April 12 2018 20: 43
              +1
              Quote: Setrac
              Quote: ZVO
              So I say that the Amer aircraft carrier group costs 30 billion dollars, that our reciprocal preparations for the destruction of the Amer aircraft carrier group cost the same 30 billion dollars.

              You are absolutely wrong, destruction is much cheaper than construction.

              Bravo! This comment draws on the Nobel Prize, it is very detailed, detailed and, most importantly, understandable to our forum users.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac April 12 2018 20: 48
                +2
                Quote: Donskoy
                very detailed, and most importantly

                You see, it's just a relapse
                Quote: ZVO
                So I say that the Amer aircraft carrier group costs 30 billion dollars, that our reciprocal preparations for the destruction of the Amer aircraft carrier group cost the same 30 billion dollars.

                A man sincerely believes that the destruction of one aircraft carrier requires another aircraft carrier. We will drop our aircraft carriers from our aircraft carrier onto an enemy aircraft carrier, and we will throw the enemy at aircraft carriers.
                Quote: ZVO
                Anyway. But it will be so.

                And he is sure that there are no other options.
                1. Don
                  Don April 12 2018 20: 56
                  +2
                  Quote: Setrac
                  A man sincerely believes that the destruction of one aircraft carrier requires another aircraft carrier. We will drop our aircraft carriers from our aircraft carrier onto an enemy aircraft carrier, and we will throw the enemy at aircraft carriers.

                  Alas, the builders of the aircraft carrier also at the project level are calculating all the risks and threats. Countermeasures will be found on any missiles, torpedoes, aircraft that threaten an aircraft carrier. The struggle of the sword and shield will continue as long as the history of mankind hi
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac April 12 2018 20: 58
                    +1
                    Quote: Donskoy
                    The struggle of the sword and shield will continue as long as the history of mankind

                    At this stage of development, the “sword” wins, now the struggle goes “sword” into “sword”, because active defense is the same sword.
                    1. Don
                      Don April 12 2018 21: 12
                      +1
                      Quote: Setrac
                      At this stage of development, the “sword” wins, now the struggle goes “sword” into “sword”, because active defense is the same sword.

                      What kind of sword is this? This is the most that is a shield. For such systems is the future of defense systems for all military equipment.
                      1. Setrac
                        Setrac April 12 2018 21: 52
                        +2
                        Quote: Donskoy
                        What kind of sword is this? This is the most that is a shield.

                        Air defense missiles, with the help of which they reflect the attacks of cruise missiles - this is the most that is a sword.
                        A shield is a constructive armor.
                  2. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 April 13 2018 13: 59
                    0
                    AB builders usually don’t calculate everything, because they are interested in a profitable contract, and if they did, they wouldn’t build it, ..... if you think that there would be no accidents on earth on earth, but they have
    2. Su24
      Su24 April 17 2018 12: 05
      0
      The article was written by a graphomaniac) What has really been built there for a long time has a name - AICC. No wild AFAR and SAM missiles are needed.
      1. Ace Tambourine
        Ace Tambourine April 30 2018 09: 39
        0
        The author would need to inquire about the life of a planar AFAR after contact with seawater.
        Dyuzhe aggressive environment that ...
        1. Shopping Mall
          22 June 2018 12: 00
          0
          Any ship equipment is calculated on the impact of sea water, including the so-called "salt fog". Any existing ship is exposed to salt water, including its radar (splashing during a storm). Antennas are retracted into radio transparent covers.

          By the way, this is the main reason why land equipment, even if protected from rainwater, cannot be directly integrated into ship systems.
    3. Cyrus
      Cyrus April 19 2018 22: 22
      0
      Absolutely amateurish point of view, read the naval doctrine of the US Navy, study history and study geographical maps ...
  2. mark1
    mark1 April 12 2018 06: 26
    +21
    I thrust out the antenna from under the water and they would immediately detect you, especially if it was turned on. So the submarine's best friend is depth. Now, if the author had found a way to scan the airspace without protruding (or at least the CC of the CC, from where to get something from the side), then yes, the underwater air defense system of the database sounds!
    It is a pity that the Sharks were betrayed - that would be AMFPK! I would say - heavy linear AMPPK!
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte April 12 2018 08: 11
      +20
      Even it is not necessary to stick out. Multipurpose submarines that are part of the AUG (about which the author has completely forgotten) will detect it even under water.
      And if not - then the noise of the ballast tanks blown upon ascent will be guaranteed guaranteed.
    2. vkl.47
      vkl.47 April 12 2018 10: 03
      +1
      Waiting for the advent of phaton radars
    3. Mestny
      Mestny April 12 2018 13: 29
      -2
      So the author offers such a method - "Caliber" with a radar and a data transmission system on board.
      Almost without protruding. At least there is no need to raise something to a height of 20 m.
      1. mark1
        mark1 April 12 2018 14: 08
        0
        Quote: Mestny
        So the author offers such a method - "Caliber" with a radar and a data transmission system on board.

        With "Caliber" more or less - and what about the underwater air defense system of a DB?
        1. Shopping Mall
          April 12 2018 14: 20
          0
          For the AMFPK SAM system to emerge. If it is possible to realize the launch of rockets from under water (I do not know how difficult it is), then it will only be possible to raise the radar on the mast.
          1. mark1
            mark1 April 12 2018 15: 32
            +1
            Quote: AVM
            For the operation of SAMP AMPK it is necessary to surface.

            This is where the “paragraph” comes. This is a flaw!
    4. Setrac
      Setrac April 12 2018 17: 59
      +4
      Quote: mark1
      It is a pity that the Sharks were betrayed - that would be AMFPK! I would say - heavy linear AMPPK!

      This is your AMPPK - inherit the era of dinosaurs. At a time when the “sword” defeated the “shield” to build large warships - throwing money away. It is necessary to distribute the functions of one large multi-functional ship among several smaller tonnage.
      1. mark1
        mark1 April 12 2018 19: 08
        +1
        Quote: Setrac
        This is your AMPPK - inherit the era of dinosaurs.

        Well, AFMPK may be, although what kind of legacy it is, judging by the article, is a variant of the future development of the Navy. But the ability to fire 20 th 100 ton rockets with 40-60 vanguards from anywhere in the world ocean or up to 200 missile defense systems is a long time it will be relevant in vain you are so about the Soviet legacy
        1. Setrac
          Setrac April 12 2018 19: 57
          0
          Quote: mark1
          judging by the article - a variant of the future development of the Navy

          Well, if only "judging by the article", but the article is a complete mess.
          Quote: mark1
          But the ability to shoot the 20th 100 tons rockets

          You don’t need such a ... child prodigy.
          Quote: mark1
          200 KR

          You greatly exaggerate the capacity of "sharks." The caliber cell is much larger than the Mk41 cell.
          1. mark1
            mark1 April 12 2018 21: 09
            0
            Quote: Setrac

            Well, if only "judging by the article", but the article is a complete mess.

            Everyone has the right to his own vision. What today cannot be tomorrow already can. DARPA works like that.
            Quote: Setrac
            You don’t need such a ... child prodigy.

            She already is (or else). And what else are you shooting a 100t rocket from? Can build a new "Shark" and do not, but do not use what we have is not smart.
            Quote: Setrac
            You greatly exaggerate the capacity of "sharks." The caliber cell is much larger than the Mk41 cell

            Well, let not 200 and not “Caliber” but 80 X-102, although someone said that the cell should be universal (under “Caliber” and “Onyx”) and the KR cannot be placed in 2 tiers (the start is not necessarily mortar)
      2. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat April 13 2018 13: 47
        0
        Quote: Setrac
        At a time when the “sword” defeated the “shield” to build large warships - throwing money away.

        And why did you get that the sword defeated the shield? Proof of? Justification? Only at once I ask all this for the Navy, and not for the SV / VKS.
        1. Setrac
          Setrac April 13 2018 19: 15
          0
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          And why did you get that the sword defeated the shield?

          Based on the performance characteristics of modern weapons.
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          Proof of? Justification?

          Tanks have long ceased to hold ATGM strikes without active defenses; on ships they generally abandoned their armor.
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat April 14 2018 01: 15
            0
            Quote: Setrac
            Based on the performance characteristics of modern weapons.

            Clearly, you are apparently from that cohort of couch analysts who believe that the ships go alone and without protection ... Then my reasoning of the mind will be useless.
            1. Setrac
              Setrac April 14 2018 15: 18
              0
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              Here my reasoning of the mind will be useless.

              A pointless argument about terms. What is considered a "sword" and what is a "shield".
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              you are apparently from that cohort of couch analysts who believe that the ships go alone and without protection ...

              You open google and see how much weight modern ships use for structural protection and for comparison look armored ships of the 19-20th century.
              Quote: ProkletyiPirat
              Here my reasoning of the mind will be useless.

              Here you are right, if you cannot operate with double-digit numbers, nothing will help you.
    5. Severok
      Severok April 12 2018 20: 52
      +2
      Have you noticed that the author absolutely did not think about MINED weapons ??? After all, Germany’s anchor sea mines in both world wars account for a very large percentage of losses. By the way, a logical question arises: why are our boats not armed with weapons such as sea mines? Indeed, modern reality makes it possible to create a drifting minefield in the path of any AUG! Cheap and cheerful, and the enemy a specific headache !!! By the type and urgency of the mines I leave a theme for your imagination.
      1. gaudin
        gaudin April 12 2018 22: 51
        +2
        Yes, there is a long time in the Russian fleet on YouTube look at the "military acceptance" - the animal division.
  3. andrewkor
    andrewkor April 12 2018 06: 30
    +2
    Laser out of the water? This is awesome! And with on the water, this “Vunderväflä will definitely be destroyed!
    1. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo April 12 2018 07: 27
      +3
      PLARK ave. 949AM equipped with devices laser underwater vision, such as MTK-110, coupled with the SAC, can see in real time any underwater objects, keels of ships at a distance of up to 50 km, at a depth of up to 300 meters and use torpedo and missile weapons on them
      BOARD Ave. 971 has visibility at depths of up to 60 meters with a range of 500 meters, for passage under the ice
      DEPL Ave. 636.6 equipped with underwater vision devices, type MTK-110, which is characteristic only of nuclear submarines
      and against AUG aviation on our submarines and submarines, ammunition is included
      TPK for TA 533 mm with SAM 9М317МД with AGSN with a range of 75 km.
      * at VO is not in one article all discussed
      * see spacecraft 2525 below
      1. mark1
        mark1 April 12 2018 07: 40
        0
        Quote: Romario_Argo
        laser underwater vision devices, type MTK-110

        Cool! Enlighten! Well, by golly, interesting! truth
        1. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo April 12 2018 07: 42
          +3
          there are civilian diving options when there is no way to be fed to the nuclear rector :), only the range of all is 15-25 meters, depending on how deep
          1. ZVO
            ZVO April 12 2018 12: 17
            +3
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            there are civilian diving options when there is no way to be fed to the nuclear rector :), only the range of all is 15-25 meters, depending on how deep


            The patents have a maximum range of 27 meters.
            If you think. that for the military - water has other physical properties, then yes - for the 100th time we can say that you live in an alternative reality ...
            Operator number 2.
            1. Mestny
              Mestny April 12 2018 13: 32
              -2
              The radiation power is different. The military has a reactor nearby - you can boil this water.
              And to increase the range from 25 meters by 10 times - you don’t even need to boil.
  4. Per se.
    Per se. April 12 2018 06: 55
    +15
    Since the time of the USSR, asymmetric tactics have been based on the use of anti-ship missiles (PKR) launched from air, underwater and surface carriers.
    If, from Soviet times, the word "aircraft carrier" did not become synonymous with imperialism and aggression, you wouldn’t have suffered from garbage, and wouldn’t spend a lot of forces and means on "asymmetry" more than building full-fledged aircraft carriers. Until now, these dogmas remain, to all, the Anglo-Saxons cunningly heat them up in our media with the fact that Russia is a "land country", and other "wisdom" about the asymmetry and uselessness of aircraft carriers. That
    The fleet of the United States and its allies is currently significantly superior to the fleet of the Russian Federation (RF). Compete with them the number of ships and the rate of commissioning them in the near future is unrealistic. Thus, the need for an asymmetric response arises.
    does not mean that we do not need a balanced and full-fledged fleet. Edak, in such a scenario, it’s useless for Russia to have a fleet in general, since not only aircraft carriers, but we cannot build the same submarines and corvettes anymore. It is as if not to make tanks, but to look for asymmetry in the RPG-7 or in bottles with the Molotov cocktail. It is necessary to build a fleet, a full-fledged fleet for Russia, capable of performing all the tasks at sea, and not the quantity is measured. If you run into one "asymmetrical answer", and we get the conclusion that instead of your car, it is cheaper to pierce a wheel with a neighbor at a wheel that would also go on foot ...
    1. rkkasa xnumx
      rkkasa xnumx April 12 2018 07: 45
      +5
      Quote: Per se.
      If the word "aircraft carrier" had not become a synonym for imperialism and aggression since Soviet times, then they would not have suffered garbage, and did not spend a lot of effort and money on "asymmetry" more than on building full-fledged aircraft carriers in their fleet

      An aircraft carrier is more expensive than a nuclear submarine, and the symbols of imperialism have nothing to do with it. It is expensive in itself, plus the cost of aircraft, the cost of pilots, the cost of guarding ships must be taken into account.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 12 2018 10: 17
        +6
        it has already been reliably estimated that instead of one AB, you can make 33 Borea, and taking into account the maintenance costs .... even cooler, or instead of AB, strengthen the country's air defense twice ... the game is not worth the candle with AB
        1. rkkasa xnumx
          rkkasa xnumx April 12 2018 10: 47
          0
          Quote: vladimir1155
          already reliably counted

          Not, if you push the slogan about imperialism with aggression and post the picture from "Behind the Wheel", then the kament will come out prettier. And what is there to consider - boring.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA April 12 2018 11: 31
        +6
        Quote: rkkasa 81
        An aircraft carrier is more expensive than a nuclear submarine, and the symbols of imperialism have nothing to do with it. It is expensive in itself, plus the cost of aircraft, the cost of pilots, the cost of guarding ships must be taken into account.

        Heh heh heh ... at one time on VIF2-NE uv. Exeter calculated that with the money invested in the "asymmetric response to US aircraft carriers", the USSR could build and maintain 7-8 of its carrier groups with full-fledged ABs.
        1. rkkasa xnumx
          rkkasa xnumx April 12 2018 13: 02
          +3
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Heh heh heh ... at one time on VIF2-NE uv. Exeter estimates that with the money invested in the "asymmetric response to US aircraft carriers", the USSR could build and maintain 7-8 of its carrier groups with full-fledged AB

          Hehe, and you can give a reference to this counting? Well, or at least approximate figures, how much is it?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 12 2018 17: 02
            0
            Already considered, AB 13 billion dollars, and Borey 400 million dollars, The most expensive military equipment of the necessary RF), compare ... well, if with 400 then hundreds you can replace one AB, not to mention tanks and armored personnel carriers
            1. rkkasa xnumx
              rkkasa xnumx April 12 2018 17: 48
              +2
              Yes, I understand that AV pleasure is too expensive. This does not reach the aircraft scoffers. So I asked them for numbers. Apparently I can’t wait, because they basically have slogans lol
            2. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA April 13 2018 10: 11
              +3
              Quote: vladimir1155
              already thought AB 13 billion dollars, and Borey 400 million dollars

              Heh heh heh ... 400 megabytes is the cost of a serial "borea" at the rate 2008 in rubles, converted at the current dollar rate. smile
              And AB for 13 billion evergreens is the head Gerald Ford, to which the full R&D costs of everything that was used on it are added. AB itself was worth less than 10 billion.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 13 2018 14: 06
                +1
                it’s important not to consider what, but who believes ..... the new AB would also require R&D, because Cousins’s achievements are outdated, they need updating, and they can cut budgets in the Russian Federation no worse than Amers, a new super-large shipyard would have to be added to the cost of AB residential neighborhoods, so your argument is weak, I won’t repeat about exchange rates, you already read
            3. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat April 13 2018 13: 55
              +1
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Well, if with 400, then hundreds of aircraft can replace one AB, not to mention tanks and armored personnel carriers

              Nuka, share your universal knowledge, how are you going to replace the AB with boreas and tanks when seizing a bridgehead in the United States \ Syria \ Egypt \ Turkey \ to substitute what you need?
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 April 14 2018 09: 09
                0
                1) why do we need a foothold in the United States? 2) Boreas, TU 160, VKSKS of all kinds, nuclear submarines DEPL clear the place, and BDK and silt 76 deliver tanks and infantry
                1. ProkletyiPirat
                  ProkletyiPirat April 15 2018 02: 24
                  0
                  1) I wrote above in another komenta look for Ctrl + F => "You are looking at the world through the prism of the Cold War"
                  2.1) VKS, Tu 160, Il 76, and BDK will not be able to approach the shore from the word at all. They will be trite destroyed yet on the way, just as a safety net.
                  2.2) DEPL will not reach the USA, both for fuel and for 2.1
                  2.3) diesel-electric submarines, nuclear submarines, including today's boreas, are unable to deliver a sufficient quantity and quality of military resources to seize the bridgehead, and even more so, they cannot keep it ..
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 April 15 2018 07: 44
                    0
                    everything is in porridge, first we calculate the territory, and then the landing
                    1. ProkletyiPirat
                      ProkletyiPirat April 16 2018 10: 40
                      0
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      everything is in porridge, first we calculate the territory, and then the landing

                      Are you crazy? no, you really went crazy! and it’s not even a matter of “unnecessary sacrifices among the locals,” everything is much more prosaic, Do you propose to arrange a carpet bombardment of the territory within a radius of 100-150 km from the landing point? if you buy all the bombs at your own expense, and then drag yourself to the USA, then I do not mind. laughing
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 April 16 2018 14: 01
                        0
                        What did you get about carpet bombing? did you dream it? I did not offer this ..
                      2. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat April 17 2018 15: 54
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        What did you get about carpet bombing? did you dream it? I did not offer this ..

                        Then HOW do you "clear the territory"? you cannot discreetly land, a maximum of a couple of dozen MTRs, but they will not be able to clear (this is on today's submarines). Nobody will let you come up with the main fleet, even if you win a naval battle you are guaranteed to be injured enough to fail your mission.
                    2. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 April 16 2018 14: 36
                      0
                      and in general a young man, you are no longer a schoolboy and shouldn’t burst with your hands and shout “a bird”, especially in the war, I’ll say more. Firstly, right after the obvious aggression of an armed country against Russia, a nuclear strike will be delivered to the enemy’s territory, and this there will be not a hundred kilometers as you lament, but it will be the total destruction of cities, millions of people who have chosen their rulers as fascists, and aggressors — such is the military doctrine of the Russian Federation. As for the landing, count the number of armed forces of the Russian Federation, the number of airborne troops and the Marines, the landing can tactically land usually no further than 100 km from the advance of the ground forces,. The landing is used to support the ground forces. landing on other landing continents from the Russian Federation is excluded.
                      1. ProkletyiPirat
                        ProkletyiPirat April 17 2018 16: 02
                        0
                        Well, why this verbal diarrhea from the top comment? I wrote to you above that it’s inappropriate to think in the framework of the XB and especially in the framework of the WWII, it does not exist and will never be.
    2. zoolu350
      zoolu350 April 12 2018 08: 55
      +3
      What does imperialism and aggression have to do with it? Russia (USSR) has the longest land border in the world and its defense is a priority, while the fleet is supplied according to the residual principle. Therefore, the bet on the underwater component of the fleet is absolutely correct. Russia needs only 2-4 aircraft carrying cruisers on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet for long-range operations and cover the deployment of submarines.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 12 2018 10: 18
        +1
        maritime border is tundra and taiga
        1. Per se.
          Per se. April 12 2018 10: 55
          +3
          Quote: vladimir1155
          maritime border is tundra and taiga
          What is the difference, the taiga or the resort area, if the problem is in the deployment of our or other people's boats in the Arctic, there is a need to protect the economic and military interests of Russia in the north, there are claims by the United States that "the northern sea route must be international"?
          1. Mestny
            Mestny April 12 2018 13: 34
            0
            Ice class aircraft carrier, comparable to the usual?
            Can you imagine how much it will cost, and how to keep it in such harsh conditions?
            1. Per se.
              Per se. April 13 2018 06: 13
              0
              Quote: Mestny
              Ice class aircraft carrier, comparable to the usual?
              Here we are talking about the "land" of Russia, with its long maritime boundaries, in particular, in the Arctic, about the role of the fleet, and not the "icebreaking-type" aircraft carrier.
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 12 2018 17: 03
            0
            "Protecting Russia's economic and military interests" is enough for this and a pair of fr 11356
      2. Per se.
        Per se. April 12 2018 11: 08
        +5
        Quote: zoolu350
        Russia (USSR) has the longest land border in the world
        Russia (USSR) has the longest coastline in the world. As for the rest, I have already said that it is not in the attempt of superiority in the quantitative composition of the Russian fleet, but in its balanced and full form, in which, there is not only a "pawn", but also a "rook" with a "queen" as heavy figures. Without aircraft carriers, our fleet will not be full, and being "defective" will not be able to solve the whole range of combat missions at sea. How much we need aircraft carriers, and what kind of it is a separate topic, but for those who like to play chess with pawns alone, I’ll say, it is more expensive for us. Otherwise, without a strong fleet, there can be no great country, which is why Peter I, was cut for maritime exits, for building a fleet, making a powerful Russian empire out of regional Muscovy.
      3. max702
        max702 April 12 2018 11: 08
        +2
        Quote: zoolu350
        Russia needs only 2-4 aircraft carrying cruisers on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet for long-range operations and cover the deployment of submarines.

        It was it’s necessary to landing in rocket technologies, aviation, and radars .. In the coming decades, even theoretically no operations are foreseen for our fleet in the far zone .. And during this time progress will finally nullify the ocean fleet as such ..
    3. Nekarmadlen
      Nekarmadlen April 12 2018 09: 11
      +5
      In the photo, by the way, you most likely do not puncture the wheel, but eliminate the puncture with the flagellum))))
      1. Per se.
        Per se. April 12 2018 10: 47
        +6
        Quote: Nekarmadlen
        and the elimination of a puncture with a flagellum))))
        Oh, women, I take off my hat! ... This, Tatiana, was an allegory, like "carnations" and photos in general, but, "the devil in little things", we change the picture to a closer to the meaning.
    4. andrew42
      andrew42 April 12 2018 19: 41
      +2
      So what? A puncture of a wheel equalizes Laborghini with Kalina. Try to say that it is not! Oh yes, in Lamborghini, of course, coffee will be more comfortable to drink. Only. Zeroing the loot invested by the enemy in expensive toys that have become unnecessary is a holy thing. "They" have a printing press with a discharge of inflation in 3 countries, you can not brainwash. We don’t have a machine, in any case we’ll have to figure out how to dodge with minimal cost. As for the AMFPK mega-super-duper boat, this is of course some kind of comic. The future belongs to small, inconspicuous, but "evil evil" vehicles, and with a roll in quantity in the direction of underwater drones. Not at all for the "golden coffins." Do not pull for the money.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac April 12 2018 20: 00
        +2
        Quote: andrew42
        Oh yes, in Lamborghini, of course, coffee will be more comfortable to drink.

        Kalina carries four people, and Lamborghini - two.
        Quote: andrew42
        "They" have a printing press with a discharge of inflation in 3 countries

        Sounds nice - export inflation.
      2. Simargl
        Simargl April 13 2018 23: 35
        +1
        Quote: andrew42
        Oh yes, in Lamborghini, of course, coffee will be more comfortable to drink.
        Exactly the opposite drinks
  5. Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo April 12 2018 07: 02
    +3
    the day before yesterday launched the spacecraft 2525, such as an autonomous dopnik to the ICRC Liana, here you are TsU in a specific area for the same dagger
    1. mark1
      mark1 April 12 2018 07: 37
      0
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      here you have the TsU in a specific area for the same Dagger

      This is good - but for an underwater air defense system?
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo April 12 2018 07: 43
        0
        ICRC issues TSU and missiles with AGSN in highlighting the target does not need
        1. mark1
          mark1 April 12 2018 07: 46
          0
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          ICRC issues TSU and missiles with AGSN in highlighting the target does not need

          Well this is how science has gone forward! I would say by leaps and bounds!
      2. Setrac
        Setrac April 12 2018 18: 04
        +1
        Quote: mark1
        This is good - but for an underwater air defense system?

        With the ideas of an underwater air defense system for you to a psychiatrist, the very idea of ​​an underwater UNMISSIBLE ship is lost.
        1. mark1
          mark1 April 12 2018 19: 11
          +1
          Quote: Setrac
          to you to the psychiatrist

          Or maybe you? Actually, it was sarcasm, but you, my friend, have problems with adequate perception.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac April 12 2018 19: 58
            +1
            Quote: mark1
            Actually it was sarcasm

            Yes? Your humor is so subtle that it is not visible.
            1. mark1
              mark1 April 12 2018 21: 12
              +1
              Quote: Setrac
              Yes? Your humor is so subtle that it is not visible.

              Do not worry, which of us is without flaws ...
              For you I will put emoticons
              1. Setrac
                Setrac April 12 2018 21: 53
                +2
                Quote: mark1
                For you I will put emoticons

                After a hard day, your emoticons will not help me.
    2. ZVO
      ZVO April 12 2018 12: 50
      0
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      the day before yesterday launched the spacecraft 2525, such as an autonomous dopnik to the ICRC Liana, here you are TsU in a specific area for the same dagger

      How much can we say that the functionality of Liana is to transfer data to the Communication Center ...
      To the end user in the form of a rocket - data transmission directly from the satellite is impossible.
      1. Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo April 12 2018 13: 17
        0
        How much can we say that the functionality of Liana - to transmit data to the Communication Center ... To the end consumer in the form of a rocket - data transmission directly from the satellite is impossible.

        How many times can I write here about the fact that someone has constant difficulties with interpretation
        With everything in our complex, infa is transmitted through its communication lines to its centers, then to carriers: nuclear submarines, OTRK, etc.
        By means of their complexes ACS, LMS, TSUDOS, etc.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 12 2018 14: 54
          +4
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          How many times can I write here about the fact that someone has constant difficulties with interpretation
          With everything in our complex, infa is transmitted through its communication lines to its centers, then to carriers: nuclear submarines, OTRK, etc.
          By means of their complexes ACS, LMS, TSUDOS, etc.

          That is, another system for a low-intensity war with a technically inferior enemy.
          In our air defense, we also counted on the centralized management of antiaircraft reconnaissance and reconnaissance missions - collecting and processing data in centers and further issuing commands and command and control regiments to regiments-divisions / regiments-squadrons-links. Designed and made increasingly sophisticated control systems for interceptors from the ground, turning them into practically reusable missiles with a return marching stage and separated guided warheads.
          And then they were faced with reality - when it turned out. that you can’t attach the wire to the plane, and only interference is coming through the radio channel. And the squadron of jammers immediately destroys the air defense system of the whole district.
  6. tchoni
    tchoni April 12 2018 07: 39
    +11
    Not an article, but another essay on the topic: how to win the war with the help of wunderwaffe with a complete lag in the industrial and economic spheres.
    1. Mestny
      Mestny April 12 2018 13: 37
      -1
      Well, that’s it.
      With full. Just the same.
      Are you joking like this, or are you really not aware of anything?
  7. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat April 12 2018 08: 13
    +10
    After listing all the equipment and weapons that this “vundervaffen” should carry, it should be a phrase (paraphrased) from the anecdote: "... and now, with all this crap, try to dive and surface without being noticed,"
    1. Mikhail Zubkov
      Mikhail Zubkov April 12 2018 17: 20
      +1
      Mattresses 25 years old milked their and other taxpayers on the project F-35, supposedly invisible. Only recently recognized that even the old radars of the USSR see him, not to mention the modern Russian, who see a soccer ball 100 km away. The author bothers with the discovery of AUG from space, which is already not 50 years old. Now the task of over-the-horizon detection of single adversary submarines from space has almost been solved - but I most likely do not catch up with our current level of the Navy. Recently, an entire flock off the coast of Norway was tracked online. Putin once casually said something about this at the Valdai Forum.
  8. Operator
    Operator April 12 2018 08: 38
    +1
    That’s why we need to climb into the sea, where the enemy has multiple advantages in anti-submarine ships and aircraft?

    It is enough to place on the national territory from all sea approaches to the coast of Russia one Container ZGRLS (total number of 5-6 units) and we get external target designation for any surface ship larger than 50 meters at a distance of 6000 km from the ZRLLS location SLBM launch - 6000 km, detection of aircraft takeoff and launch of the KR - 3000 km.

    And this despite the fact that the maximum range of American carrier-based aviation with cruise missiles with nuclear equipment is 3400 km, and surface ships with the same missiles are 2400 km.

    All we need to do is to withdraw from the INF Treaty and deploy ballistic anti-ship missiles with a range of 5500 km (which corresponds to the detection range of surface ships from ZRLS locations in the depths of the national territory) on mobile soil carriers on the shore, and also equip them with controlled warheads with a thermonuclear charge and RGLS on board.

    Then multipurpose submarines will not be needed.
    1. lipart
      lipart April 12 2018 09: 08
      0
      With such success, it is possible to use the Vanguard (announced by Putin), perhaps even without a thermonuclear charge it is not necessary to withdraw from the INF Treaty.
      1. Operator
        Operator April 12 2018 09: 31
        +1
        The vanguard is also suitable - a total of about 20 (in terms of the number of aircraft carriers of NATO countries).

        In the absence of ZGRLS with external target designation, the RTR satellites will quite cope.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 12 2018 10: 21
      0
      why bi and not have multi-purpose, nuclear submarines? this will be feasible, and will give the potential aggressor nervousness, along with strategic nuclear forces, which can save the world
    3. papik09
      papik09 April 12 2018 15: 52
      +1
      hi Question Mona? Why withdraw from the INF Treaty? This agreement prohibits the development of testing and the presence of missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 kilometers. Conclusion: if a missile with a range of 5500 is normal, and there is no need to withdraw from the INF Treaty, because the range is not "TO" 5500, but "OT" repeat .
      After all, we are not Americans who have existing treaties "side by side"? drinks
      1. Operator
        Operator April 12 2018 17: 05
        0
        With 5500 km, ICBMs begin, limited by another treaty - on the limitation of strategic offensive arms.
  9. NikWik
    NikWik April 12 2018 09: 07
    +7
    I wonder - What did the author of this article smoke and when was the last time he looked at a physics textbook?
  10. Shopping Mall
    April 12 2018 09: 11
    +1
    Quote: NikWik
    I wonder - What did the author of this article smoke and when was the last time he looked at a physics textbook?


    What exactly is your question?
    1. NikWik
      NikWik April 12 2018 20: 29
      +6
      Young man, I'm not a scientist - a theorist and not a couch strategist. I'm just a submarine officer who served on the submarine from lieutenant to caperang. And therefore, I know that it’s possible to place everything you think up on my Shark. But why? And I don’t see the point of listing all the mistakes of this article.
      1. Shopping Mall
        April 13 2018 08: 45
        +1
        Wonderful.
        When upgrading equipment changes, internal volumes appear due to reduction in size. They could squeeze calibers into Varshavyanka, and this is also an apparatus.
        New ammunition should be placed in the dimensions of the existing compartment, by analogy with the SSBN / SSGN type "Ohio". This is a real modernization.

        Radar, which must be installed on the maximum mass will be 10 tons, and in fact it may be less, because I took a lot of radar with EM Dering, with the best air defense. We also consider AFAR from C-400 / 500, placed on the car, it can not be "stuck" on the side of the cabin? If this is a lot, then the Su-57 is worth the radar, raised by a fighter, while its performance is very good.
        Remains only container electronics Zour, it also fits in the car complex C-400.

        For the rest of blunders - at your discretion.
        1. NikWik
          NikWik April 13 2018 13: 42
          +2
          You forgot to place another plane on the submarine. Also does not hurt. Do you have any idea how the submarine works? Article complete nonsense not worthy of discussion
  11. Shopping Mall
    April 12 2018 09: 12
    +1
    Quote: Monster_Fat
    After listing all the equipment and weapons that this “vundervaffen” should carry, it should be a phrase (paraphrased) from the anecdote: "... and now, with all this crap, try to dive and surface without being noticed,"


    Which of the listed equipment is so cumbersome that it can be stated unequivocally that it does not fit in a submarine the size of a five-story house?
    1. Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat April 12 2018 10: 24
      +5
      Absolutely "any" will fit, if you increase the size to the island ... then you can also add carrier-based aviation, for greater "multitasking" ... laughing
      1. papik09
        papik09 April 12 2018 15: 55
        +1
        Well, you cut the "deck aviation to attach." good Well done, sit down eight. You’ll come to school tomorrow with dad and mom. bully
  12. Cympak
    Cympak April 12 2018 09: 16
    +4
    I remember Admiral Vitya dreamed of a "multi-media" aircraft carrier, so that he had to face enemies on the water, under the water, in the air, and even in space. As a result, we have a failed fleet rearmament program. Frigate can not build ....
    And fans of Uber Nagibibor and Vundervaffe should study the history of such projects: everything was fine on paper, but in practice it was possible to build several copies that turned out to be very expensive and had unresolved constructive problems. As a result, all the vundervaffe did not play any significant role in the war.
    A good example is the battleship Yamato. He was powerful beautiful and expensive. So expensive that he was cared for almost the entire war. And when it became clear that the war was lost, they sent heroically to die, so that the enemy would not get as a trophy.
    Therefore, when atomic destroyers rave about us, and I remember the battleships of Yamato, and our Orlans, by 1144, were not far from him.
  13. Shopping Mall
    April 12 2018 09: 18
    +2
    Quote: mark1
    I thrust out the antenna from under the water and they would immediately detect you, especially if it was turned on. So the submarine's best friend is depth. Now, if the author had found a way to scan the airspace without protruding (or at least the CC of the CC, from where to get something from the side), then yes, the underwater air defense system of the database sounds!
    It is a pity that the Sharks were betrayed - that would be AMFPK! I would say - heavy linear AMPPK!


    An important advantage of AUG is DRLO and PLO aircraft. They allow you to see "beyond the horizon." They do not "hang" over the aircraft carrier, and cover up any direction in accordance with the patrol scheme. For example, the DRLO aircraft may be located 100-150 km from the aircraft carrier. The range of air defense missile systems from 250 to 500 km (250 km missiles there, 500 possible).
    The time to detect high-flying aircraft with radar turned on is small. Zur flight speed I indicated. Yes, AMPPK will find out the question of who and what will be done with this if AMPPK “shoots” first.
  14. Shopping Mall
    April 12 2018 09: 21
    +1
    Quote: Snakebyte
    Even it is not necessary to stick out. Multipurpose submarines that are part of the AUG (about which the author has completely forgotten) will detect it even under water.
    And if not - then the noise of the ballast tanks blown upon ascent will be guaranteed guaranteed.


    Did not forget. AMPPK in the framework of solving the problem against AUG should hide behind a multi-purpose submarine.
    With AUG go 3-4 PLA cover. With the RCC range in 500 km, they must control a circle with a diameter of 1000 km. The speed at the maximum of 60 km / h, at this speed, AMPPK or MTSAPL will be the first to find it.
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte April 12 2018 22: 08
      0
      You have a poor idea of ​​how American nuclear submarines operate. They are not at all worn in circles around the AUG at maximum speed.
      And in general, if the submarines are able to approach the AUG at the launch line, why arrange a show with an ascent and an air defense system? While the air defense systems will shoot airplanes in the air, the aircraft carrier within 5 minutes will raise the duty link into the air. Which is capable of intercepting the launched anti-ship missiles (by this time the AMPPK will have plunged and the air defense will stop working) or disable the AMPPK (if it has not already plunged).
      Isn’t it easier to replace the SAM with the same amount of anti-ship missiles? A massive salvo from under water from a command center from a drone (Americans plan, by the way, to equip their submarines with drones).
      In general, this article reminded me of a story with the inventor of a system for removing ships from the shallows.
      1. Shopping Mall
        April 13 2018 08: 32
        0
        I understand that American submarines do not rush around AUG, respectively, in the presence of 4-x submarines to cover one aircraft carrier, they cannot be simultaneously everywhere in circles with a diameter of 1000 km.
        If one of them turns out to be close, then AMPPK should cover the MTSPL. If not, then she will have to move out at maximum speed to the zone where AMPPK is noticed, respectively, to make a lot of noise.

        LAW to shoot down an ARLO aircraft. With it, PKR will start shooting with 250 km, without it, with 45-50, so doubling the BC will not help much here. And even after launching from under the water, the SSGNLs or the MTSAPL will also be heavily searched for, and if they find a chance to defend themselves from aviation, they now do not have.

        And drones, yes, I also mentioned about them - a non-refundable drone on the basis of the Kyrgyz Republic. There will be something else - wonderful.

        The link, yes, will be lifted to the surface, but their own ammunition is limited, the capabilities of the radar fighters / attack planes are more modest in terms of the detection range and the number of accompanied targets. In addition to taking off in 5 minutes, they still need to gain altitude, navigate, under stress, it's not so easy.
        1. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte April 13 2018 09: 48
          0
          The trick is that the Premier League interacts with AUG. She does not have to race at a detected contact. Having found something suspicious, the submarine will transmit data to the AUG control center and at least an anti-submarine helicopter will be sent to the suspicious area.
          Covering will not help much, the submarine is quite capable of attacking several targets at the same time.
          And in general, the whole concept is sharpened to counter the existing AUG order. If the enemy has such a potential threat, the Americans will take appropriate measures to strengthen anti-submarine forces.
          1. Shopping Mall
            April 13 2018 10: 05
            0
            Helicopter fly 200-500 km for a very long time, and if it is closer then it will be shot down.

            The submarine can attack, yes. But she first needs to be close, secondly, to see both boats. First of all, AMPPK unmasks itself. In addition, I do not insist that AUG should take 4 boats - 2 AMPK + 2 MCVP. May need to increase the number of boats in the attacking group.

            Of course they will, they will always make a step, we take a step ...
            1. Snakebyte
              Snakebyte April 13 2018 10: 22
              0
              Quote: AVM
              Helicopter fly 200-500 km for a very long time, and if it is closer then it will be shot down.

              This is the case if the detection was at a time when AMPK is already attacking or immediately before the attack. If a suspicious contact is detected while it is sneaking up to the target at great depths, anti-submarine forces will have plenty of time to react.
              1. Shopping Mall
                April 13 2018 10: 56
                +1
                Well, this is the case with any submarine works, only then it has even less chance.
  15. Shopping Mall
    April 12 2018 09: 28
    +1
    Quote: andrewkor
    Laser out of the water? This is awesome! And with on the water, this “Vunderväflä will definitely be destroyed!


    The laser is not a critical element of the complex. It is applied of course over the water. The unit itself is located in the housing, only the “head” of the laser with the focusing system rises to the surface. It can be placed on the wheelhouse or on the periscope. See laser cutting complexes:

    a large cabinet is a laser source, on the robot "head".

    If the task is to destroy a single PLO plane at a distance of 50-100 km, and it will be shot down by a laser, then who will destroy AMPPK if it has again gone into depth?
  16. Shopping Mall
    April 12 2018 09: 30
    +2
    Quote: tchoni
    Not an article, but another essay on the topic: how to win the war with the help of wunderwaffe with a complete lag in the industrial and economic spheres.


    This is a concept. I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth. Of course, everything needs to be calculated and worked through by competent specialists.
    At my level of competence, I do not see any unsolvable technical obstacles to the implementation of the AFMPC.
  17. Shopping Mall
    April 12 2018 09: 44
    +1
    Quote: Cympak
    I remember Admiral Vitya dreamed of a "multi-media" aircraft carrier, so that he had to face enemies on the water, under the water, in the air, and even in space. As a result, we have a failed fleet rearmament program. Frigate can not build ....
    And fans of Uber Nagibibor and Vundervaffe should study the history of such projects: everything was fine on paper, but in practice it was possible to build several copies that turned out to be very expensive and had unresolved constructive problems. As a result, all the vundervaffe did not play any significant role in the war.


    I just want to get away from the "vundervaffe" type of atomic EM "Leader".
    The AMPPK (if you do not consider the laser, which as already mentioned "option") is practically no special technology.
    The redesign of the SSBNs in the SSGNs has already been done - the Ohio series boats.
    Installing the air defense system - it is possible that difficulties will arise, and it is possible that there will not be a particular problem. This question can only be answered in Rubin KB, possibly in Malakhit KB.
  18. alekc75
    alekc75 April 12 2018 10: 14
    0
    author bent !! satellites will destroy, and our means will wait and can not do anything = did he drink something when he wrote this article ???
    1. papik09
      papik09 April 12 2018 15: 58
      0
      Precisely drank. Vodka. And ate haloperidol wassat
  19. Shopping Mall
    April 12 2018 10: 23
    +2
    Quote: alekc75
    author bent !! satellites will destroy, and our means will wait and can not do anything = did he drink something when he wrote this article ???


    We now have no satellites capable of issuing target designation for the Navy, there is nothing to shoot down.

    I look, with the formulation of their thoughts here are some obvious problems, except as "smoked", "drank", do you not judge yourself?
  20. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 12 2018 10: 26
    0
    in general, I liked the idea, but unfortunately it’s not feasible, you can’t push everything into one small boat, there are tanks, propulsors, there’s no extra space, it’s not a titanic, although some elements can be considered as a promising nuclear submarine, after a comprehensive analysis by specialists ..... so we continue our course on nuclear submarines, coastal assets and possibly drones of all kinds
  21. alstr
    alstr April 12 2018 11: 10
    +2
    The idea is correct, but somewhat hypertrophied.
    1. SAM on the submarine is not needed from the word AT ALL. At best, MANPADS are needed. Like a laser.
    2. The number of RCC should be at least a hundred (or so). In this case, the volley should not go more than 5 minutes.
    3. More drones, both underwater and air, are needed. Moreover, those and others should be cheap and actually disposable. Their main goal is to detect the enemy and throw off the TsU.

    4. Have atomic torpedoes. Moreover, in commodity quantities
  22. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2018 11: 35
    +9
    Well what can I say? Spring...
    1. Shopping Mall
      April 12 2018 14: 17
      +1
      "Without any doubt, aviation achieves the greatest effect when fighters, EW and DRLO aircraft are used together. But basing the latter on TAKR that were not equipped with catapults was impossible."

      Not your quote? One of the main tasks, just to deprive the AUG of this "greatest effect." This can be done with the help of long-range air defense missile systems.

      Technically impossible to implement?
      1. Nehist
        Nehist April 12 2018 15: 01
        0
        If you carefully study the construction of the lines of air defense and anti-aircraft missile defense, then at this stage of technology, it is impossible to implement, as it is very expensive.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2018 16: 27
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        One of the main tasks is to deprive AUG of this “greatest effect”. This can be done using long-range air defense systems.

        In theory, yes. It remains only to understand why a submarine is needed for an air defense system ...
        Quote: AVM
        Technically impossible to implement?

        Technically, everything is possible. In practice, we have the following. RPKSN and MAPL - these are two fundamentally different classes of warships. They have different tasks, and the SSBN is not good as a MAPL. A simple example - the SSBN does not really need a high "silent" speed, but the MAPL is very necessary, questions of maneuverability of the speed of immersion, etc. - everything is different.
        Modern MAPL is a gladiator of the depths, even you will know where it is - you learn how to kill, it is imprisoned for opposing surface and underwater enemies. SSBN - no.
        This time. The second one. If S-500 is desperately needed, it’s not a question, but why shove it all into a submarine, and not into a regular surface cruiser, which will be half as much and an order of magnitude more efficient? Do you think that the submarine will give you greater stealth and combat stability? I am sorry - after you find yourself emitting radar signals thereby informing your area of ​​location, there will be no talk of any secrecy. And to kill such a miracle that is weaker than the MAPL in underwater combat, and weaker than the RKR in air defense will not be too difficult
        1. Shopping Mall
          April 12 2018 16: 59
          0
          The surface ship is unlikely to be able to quietly approach the DRLO aircraft over a range sufficient to defeat the missile defense. The submarine can push the periscope with the equipment, detecting the radiation of the Hokai radar radar, without being noticed.
          A single surface ship will be guaranteed to be destroyed, since the entire pack will be deployed to it - the AUG air group with RCC.
          One aircraft carrier 4 DRLO aircraft and 4 PLO. Fighter / attack aircraft 80 pieces. Even if the attacking squadron will have 20 airplanes and Harpoon 40-60 missiles, then no surface ship will fight off.

          The submarine must fight back from dozens of anti-ship missiles. According to the approximate calculations indicated in the main material, it will stay on the surface for no more than 15 minutes. Given that air targets within 300 km will be destroyed, there is simply nothing for AMFPK to hit. If the enemy’s multipurpose PLA is next, then the problem will arise, but it should be resolved including. PLA cover. No one says that AMPPK must act alone.
          During the time that other PLO planes reach AMPPK, at least 20 minutes will pass (this is the 900 km / h Poseidon plane), after that it will only begin to search for AMPPK.
          During the actions of the group, in 200 km there may be a second AMFPK under water, which will bring down the newly arrived Poseidon. I am sure the third will fly more slowly.

          In addition, in the main article, the attack of the aircraft carrier group is only one option for using AMFPK, and almost all require the presence of missiles.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2018 17: 53
            +1
            Quote: AVM
            A surface ship is unlikely to be able to quietly approach the AWACS aircraft at a range sufficient for its destruction by missiles.

            Just a surface ship will do it without problems. The fact is that the detection range of a DRLO carrier-based aircraft is limited by the same radio horizon, which, when its flight altitude is about 400-450 km maximum. At this distance, the DRLO aircraft can be rendered by the cruiser radar and destroyed by modern Zur
            Quote: AVM
            A single surface ship will be guaranteed to be destroyed, since the entire pack will be deployed to it - the AUG air group with RCC.

            The submarine ship will be destroyed much faster - in order to crush a single radar will be enough just one aircraft, and it is destroyed by the PRR or other ammunition. The surface ship is so good that it has a lot of radar at its disposal and it is rather difficult to crush them all. It is possible, but - more difficult. And your mast will be easily crushed, one Grouler will be behind the eyes to cover the strike group
            Quote: AVM
            The submarine must be beaten off by dozens of anti-ship missiles. According to approximate calculations indicated in the main material, it will stay on the surface for no more than 15 minutes

            So it will arrive enemy aircraft PLO and ALP
            Quote: AVM
            Given that air targets within a radius of 300 km will be destroyed, there is simply nothing to hit the AMFPK.

            They will not be destroyed. A single radar chokes on the EW without any problems, the Americans were preparing to crush the TENS of the weapon control channels (when attacking the 8-10 order of surface targets there will be so many of them) and you expect to seize the air domination of one :)))
            You understand that if the presence of one radar and C-500 would solve the issue of state security in the air, then the surface cruiser would achieve this
            Quote: AVM
            At least 20 minutes will pass during the time until other PLO planes get to the AMFPC

            So what? on a low-noise run in the 5-7 nodes, your AMPPK will take more than an hour to reach 10-15 km.
            1. Shopping Mall
              April 13 2018 09: 55
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

              Just a surface ship will do it without problems. The fact is that the detection range of a DRLO carrier-based aircraft is limited by the same radio horizon, which, when its flight altitude is about 400-450 km maximum. At this distance, the DRLO aircraft can be rendered by the cruiser radar and destroyed by modern Zur


              Yes, but since the DRLO aircraft itself is in 100-150 km from AUG, with the existing CRC range, the ship will still need to move towards the same 100-150 km launch (if we take the 500 km missile launch range) may happen.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

              The submarine ship will be destroyed much faster - in order to crush a single radar will be enough just one aircraft, and it is destroyed by the PRR or other ammunition. The surface ship is so good that it has a lot of radar at its disposal and it is rather difficult to crush them all. It is possible, but - more difficult. And your mast will be easily crushed, one Grouler will be behind the eyes to cover the strike group


              On the destroyer Dering, with the kind of as the best in the world of air defense, from where I took the mass-dimensional parameters of the radar, only two antennas. The time when a bunch of antennas were needed is gone. The capabilities of AFAR are many times superior to them all together. Even two antennas are set only because of the different wavelengths. AFAR is most resistant to interference, it can form beams with a narrow radiation pattern, operate in LPI mode with a noise-like signal that is difficult to detect, or in a completely passive mode, and interfere with it.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

              They will not be destroyed. A single radar chokes on the EW without any problems, the Americans were preparing to crush the TENS of the weapon control channels (when attacking the 8-10 order of surface targets there will be so many of them) and you expect to seize the air domination of one :)))
              You understand that if the presence of one radar and C-500 would solve the issue of air superiority, then this would be achieved by a surface cruiser.


              AMPPK need to achieve air domination for a very short period of time. On his side, the suddenness of the attack (5-10 minutes). The main means of interference are placed on ships, and they are on the opposite side of the DRLO aircraft. If one Growler is guaranteed to disable the 1 C-400, then why do we need air defense at all? I think there is not so simple.
              Zur by the way can go to the source of interference.
              Anti-radar missiles are dangerous - high speed, but less than the SAM, range, too. In any case, they will be launched after the launch of the missile defense, the submarine moves, and after the radar has been turned off, the HARMs will lose their target. The mass of the warhead is small, if you hit the radar, durable body is not a fact that will suffer.
              But the surface ship has nowhere to go. If they find him, they will release the same long-range anti-ship missiles, soon it is AGM-158C LRASM, but now the air group with Harpoons is also not a gift. It will simply be scored by quantity.

              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

              So what? on a low-noise run in the 5-7 nodes, your AMPPK will take more than an hour to reach 10-15 km.


              And fall under the distribution of the second AMFPK. AUG is too serious a goal to go for it alone.

              In general, the described tactic is just one of the options. The key question is to give the submarine a beat on the air. Modern technology allows it.
              Large radar? - You can consider installing a radar type installed on the Su-57. Yes, dimensions Н036, less 1 м2. Such a periscope can be put. And again, the possibilities of AFAR are very great.
              Do not like SSBN as a basis? - it is possible to consider the installation of missiles on the MTSPL of the Ash type (with something like H036). I chose the SSBN because of the possibility of placing a large ammunition.

              And the task of attack AUG is not the only one for AMPPK.
              1. alstr
                alstr April 13 2018 11: 32
                +1
                Why hit a submarine in the air? She needs a CU for a warrant, not an AWAC.

                Now AUG is imprisoned to repel an attack from the air.
                The capabilities of the AUG PLO are actually small:
                10 helicopters and 4 destroyers. At the same time, destroyers are only the near zone (up to 30-50 km). Plus 1 or 2 Los Angeles submarines.
                Remain helicopters and submarines. There will be no more than 5 helicopters in the air and it is impossible to close space with a radius of 500 km.
                And the most dangerous are the submarines. But they have only 4 torpedoes, which gives a chance to destroy them with torpedoes and traps.

                Moreover, we say that the rest of the air group of 50-70 aircraft will be useless for hitting submarines (well, they do not carry torpedoes, but anti-ship missiles are useless).

                Based on this, it is most logical to strike from under water and, moreover, with torpedoes. But even a blow from under the water of the RCC from a distance of even 300 km will be dangerous (especially if you strike from the stern).
                1. Shopping Mall
                  April 13 2018 13: 33
                  0
                  The range of torpedoes is about 50 km, i.e. need to come close. In the security of AUG also multi-purpose submarines, most likely, to prevent precisely the torpedo attack, they “graze” near the aircraft carrier.

                  It is necessary to calculate all the nuances, including closed data on the noise of our PLA, enemy PLA, sonar sensitivity, etc., etc. And then the price analysis (cost / effectiveness) of all options.

                  Moreover, it is necessary to consider AMPCK in the context of all tasks. For example, I would be more attracted by the possibility of using it as a missile defense system in the initial part of the trajectory of missiles with SSBNs. But here immediately a question about the capabilities of the missiles is the range / set speed. On the one hand, we blame the US for placing missiles near our borders to intercept our missiles at the initial stage of the flight, on the other hand, will we be able to implement similar missiles at C-500? And can this be done by American, or is it a political game.
                  1. alstr
                    alstr April 13 2018 13: 54
                    +1
                    Have you forgotten about atomic torpedoes? And why torpedoes, if a volley of supersonic anti-ship missiles from the rear course angles from a distance of 100 to 300 km with a flight time of 10-15 minutes is guaranteed to create global problems for the entire order.

                    Yes, and you can play with ordinary torpedoes, although this is much more difficult.
                    Again, you can use the tactics of drones. We take an underwater drone with a couple of torpedoes. We release it in the direction of the counter-order AUG. He slowly draws closer to the AUG and fires torpedoes at a given moment into a given ship. Moreover, the probability of its detection is extremely small, and the damage will be significant. And the same drone can be sacrificed if you exchange it for the incapacity of AB.

                    And we don’t forget that if it’s impossible to accept aircraft as an aircraft carrier, everything in the air is automatically debited, tk. nowhere to sit. Save only a ground airfield or refueling. Both of these may not be at hand. In any case, the combat mission of aircraft that are in the air with high probability will be disrupted.
          2. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte April 12 2018 22: 13
            0
            Quote: AVM
            The submarine can advance the periscope with equipment detecting the radiation from the Hokai radar, undetected.

            For information, the airborne radars of British patrol aircraft of the Second World War era, primitive by today's standards, detected a raised periscope or snorkel for tens of kilometers.
            1. Shopping Mall
              April 13 2018 08: 51
              +1
              Periscopes also change, they can be used to reduce the visibility in the RL range:

              “Airbus Defense and Security developed the low-profile OMS-200 opto-optic mast, either as a supplement to the OMS-110 or as a separate solution. by design. "
              (Posted here on VO.)
    2. Svarog51
      Svarog51 April 12 2018 14: 48
      +2
      Andrey, welcome hi What do you think, can it be worth Gridasov to say that he has a competitor?
      I wanted to insert a video, but changed my mind about scaring people. Here is a link for those interested
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ3eHs6v59I
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2018 17: 54
        +1
        Quote: Svarog51
        What do you think, can it be worth Gridasov to say that he has a competitor?

        :))) Well, this is without me :))))))
        1. Svarog51
          Svarog51 April 12 2018 19: 15
          +2
          Well it's without me

          Do not you like thrillers? wink
  23. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I April 12 2018 11: 39
    +3
    Installation of an optical location station, including day, night and thermal imaging channels.
    Great! Now the day will be "divided" by day, night and "thermal imaging"! fellow
    It’s not difficult to understand the author, he works with paper! And there is such a "truth": ,, it was smooth on paper, but in fact ...... "
    The United States has long been “worried” about Russian (earlier, Soviet ...) submarines and is trying to find an “antidote” ... By the way, about a year or two ago there was a message that the United States hoped to solve the “invisibility” of submarines by 2020. Currently, the United States is “counting” on FOSS (underwater lighting system), a rapidly deployable, multi-element, local (landmark
    ovannaya on the theater) system ...
    What are such systems? A group of radiators pre-placed in the sea (installed either at the bottom or at a predetermined depth or towed) sends acoustic signals according to a given program in the specified frequency ranges and time intervals. These signals are received by a whole network of pre-deployed special antennas (they can be placed on submarines, surface ships, systems of dumped radio-acoustic buoys, antenna arrays placed at the bottom, etc.). This group works as one giant sonar device, which allows, in the shortest possible time, using echo signals to obtain the coordinates of a target that has come into the area of ​​responsibility. From the FOSS command center, information about the target is transmitted via space communications to the command center of the joint operational unit. Thus, the location of even the most modern and quiet submarine can be immediately established - and its destruction is extremely simplified.
    FOSS is mainly focused on the echo-location ... but here it is worth remembering SQUID (the Chinese have made great progress on this topic!) So you can add "SQUID" in the staff FOSS or build a SQUID-oriented FOSS ... You can put it on helicopters , airplanes, drones, heat-finders (detection by thermal trace ...), radars (detection by turbulent trace), the same SQUIDS ... Now methods of detecting submarines from satellites are also being considered: thermal trace, turbulent trace. water surface above the hull DKI ... Thus, the effectiveness of Author submarine can greatly downplaying!
    1. Nehist
      Nehist April 12 2018 14: 57
      0
      The States have already done this, the SOSUS system. Currently, it is ineffective and half mothballed.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I April 12 2018 15: 20
        +1
        Quote: Nehist
        The States have already done this, the SOSUS system. Currently, it is ineffective and half mothballed.

        SOSUS is being replaced by FOSS ... Some number of years ago, in the USA, they considered developing a kind of "satellite" system (I don’t know what happened to it ...)
        1. Nehist
          Nehist April 12 2018 16: 06
          0
          In the USSR, there were similar developments, only we were going to track nuclear submarines from satellites along the thermal trail.
  24. Ivan Tucha
    Ivan Tucha April 12 2018 12: 54
    +1
    Shove the unwelcome. Remaking the old is not always cheaper than the newly developed.
  25. konstantin68
    konstantin68 April 12 2018 13: 12
    +2
    Quote: mark1
    It is a pity that the Sharks were betrayed - that would be AMFPK! I would say - heavy linear AMPPK!

    And they are suitable for displacement, for all that the author suggests installing.
  26. Kyzmich
    Kyzmich April 12 2018 13: 47
    0
    In general, the idea is interesting, given that attacking the Yankees is assumed from a distance of not hitting shipboard missiles.
    And this is the distance 400-500km.
    And when you try to attack from under the radio horizon, unexpectedly surface air defense can come as a surprise.
    Yes, and "Hokayu" can fry the tail. For this, you will not need any C500.
    Enough and sea "TOR" and small submarines.
  27. Curious
    Curious April 12 2018 13: 53
    +3
    Well, there were ideas and abruptly.

    Cadet of the naval engineering school B.P. Ushakov in the mid-30s developed the design of a flying submarine (LPL). He envisaged a steel frame and a lining of 6 mm duralumin, three engines with a capacity of 1200 hp. for flight and an electric motor for underwater travel (10 hp), which was supposed to provide an underwater speed of 2-3 knots (3,7-5,5 km / h).
    Today's technology allows you to embody this idea at a completely different level.
    In general, the author formulated the key idea of ​​the article in one of the comments:"At my level of competence, I do not see unsolvable technical barriers to the implementation of AFMPK."
    The cadet Ushakov at his level of competence also did not see any problems.
  28. Shopping Mall
    April 12 2018 13: 55
    +1
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Installation of an optical location station, including day, night and thermal imaging channels.
    Great! Now the day will be "divided" by day, night and "thermal imaging"! fellow
    !


    Very funny, you know what that means?

    Day channel is a high definition video camera.
    Night channel - light amplification on the principle of photomultiplication.
    Thermal imager - cooled matrices that capture the thermal range.
    + put the laser range finder.
    Everyone has his own purpose, in modern systems, the image can be "mixed", i.e. displayed on one screen, taking advantage of all the channels.

    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    What are such systems? A group of radiators pre-placed in the sea (installed either at the bottom or at a predetermined depth or towed) sends acoustic signals according to a given program in the specified frequency ranges and time intervals. These signals are received by a whole network of pre-deployed special antennas (they can be placed on submarines, surface ships, systems of dumped radio-acoustic buoys, antenna arrays placed at the bottom, etc.). This group works as one giant sonar device, which allows, in the shortest possible time, using echo signals to obtain the coordinates of a target that has come into the area of ​​responsibility. From the FOSS command center, information about the target is transmitted via space communications to the command center of the joint operational unit. Thus, the location of even the most modern and quiet submarine can be immediately established - and its destruction is extremely simplified.
    FOSS is mainly focused on the echo-location ... but here it is worth remembering SQUID (the Chinese have made great progress on this topic!) So you can add "SQUID" in the staff FOSS or build a SQUID-oriented FOSS ... You can put it on helicopters , airplanes, drones, heat-finders (detection by thermal trace ...), radars (detection by turbulent trace), the same SQUIDS ... Now methods of detecting submarines from satellites are also being considered: thermal trace, turbulent trace. water surface above the hull DKI ... Thus, the effectiveness of Author submarine can greatly downplaying!


    This is all possible, but what then, generally abandon the submarines?
    There will be a system (if there will be) and methods of counteraction.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 12 2018 15: 38
      +2
      Quote: AVM
      Installation of an optical location station, including day, night and thermal imaging channels.

      Quote: AVM
      Do you know what that means?

      I know ..... I’ve joked ..... I’m ready to apologize if you think that the joke is unsuccessful ... recourse
      Still, I prefer more "clear" explanations ... yes
      Quote: AVM
      what then, generally refuse submarines?

      No, of course! Anyway, bye! You see ... in my "narrative", I wanted to "bring" you closer to a "shower of cold water" ... to cool your fervor a little oooh ... that does not at all imply disrespect to you! hi
  29. Shopping Mall
    April 12 2018 14: 52
    0
    Quote: Kyzmich
    In general, the idea is interesting, given that attacking the Yankees is assumed from a distance of not hitting shipboard missiles.
    And this is the distance 400-500km.
    And when you try to attack from under the radio horizon, unexpectedly surface air defense can come as a surprise.
    Yes, and "Hokayu" can fry the tail. For this, you will not need any C500.
    Enough and sea "TOR" and small submarines.


    I thought about it. But long-range air defense systems will allow AMFPK to be as far as possible from the AUG. From 250 to 500 km, depending on which missiles will be in C-500. With TOR, you'll have to approach 20-30 km.
    In the center of the AUG, most likely there will be 1-2 multipurpose SSNs representing the maximum threats to AMFPK, since their main task is to defend AUG from torpedo submarines, and a torpedo for a ship is much more dangerous than a rocket (the maximum range of torpedoes is about 50 km).
    The remaining two or three submarines will have to operate in threatened directions, but yes the range of 250-400 km is too much space for guaranteed detection of submarines of the enemy.
    Hokai can be detected by radiation at a greater range than he detects. And after that for a short period of time to push and turn on the radar and shoot down air targets.

    If it becomes possible to arm all the submarines of the air defense system (not necessarily of a long range), this can significantly increase their survival rate. An interesting solution was proposed by the Israelis - the Polifem rocket, controlled by optical fiber and launched from under water.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I April 12 2018 16: 04
      +2
      Quote: AVM
      An interesting solution was proposed by the Israelis - the Polifem rocket, controlled by optical fiber and launched from under water.

      "Polyphem" - a pilot development of Germany-Italy-France. Speed-150 m / s .... what can it bring down? request
      Quote: AVM
      Long-range air defense systems allow AMPPK to be as far as possible from the AUG. From 250 to 500 km, depending on which missiles will be in C-500. With TOR, you'll have to approach 20-30 km.

      Good luck and the threat of submarines in the tactics of "ninja" ... The enemy heard a rustle, and the ninja already cut his throat ... And you want the submarine to "shoot back" from AUG at a distance of 250-500 km! Well .... shoot something, maybe she will shoot out .... only on the fig then she will need AUG?
      1. Shopping Mall
        April 12 2018 16: 31
        0
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Quote: AVM
        An interesting solution was proposed by the Israelis - the Polifem rocket, controlled by optical fiber and launched from under water.

        "Polyphem" - experimental development of Germany-Italy-France. Speed-150 m / s .... what can it bring down
        ?


        A PLO helicopter, in some cases a low-flying PLO aircraft.

        Quote: Nikolaevich I

        Quote: AVM
        Long-range air defense systems allow AMPPK to be as far as possible from the AUG. From 250 to 500 km, depending on which missiles will be in C-500. With TOR, you'll have to approach 20-30 km.

        Good luck and the threat of submarines in the tactics of "ninja" ... The enemy heard a rustle, and the ninja already cut his throat ... And you want the submarine to "shoot back" from AUG at a distance of 250-500 km! Well .... shoot something, maybe she will shoot out .... only on the fig then she will need AUG?


        She should not shoot from the AUG, but make a gap in her defense. Destroy the patrol, first of all DRLO aircraft, and deprive AUG of the possibility of over-the-horizon firing of air defense missiles, which in turn will increase the likelihood of AUG RCC being hit.
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I April 12 2018 17: 02
          +2
          Quote: AVM
          "Polyphem" - experimental development of Germany-Italy-France. Speed-150 m / s .... what can it bring down
          ?
          A PLO helicopter, in some cases a low-flying PLO aircraft.

          At a speed of 150 m / s? Well .... "Wanting is not harmful, but who will give it to him?"
          Quote: AVM
          She should not shoot from the AUG, but make a gap in her defense. Destroy the patrol, first of all DRLO aircraft, and deprive AUG of the possibility of over-the-horizon firing of air defense missiles, which in turn will increase the likelihood of AUG RCC being hit.

          belay Oh ho ho! No. No comments !
          PS No, no! Who knows? Maybe you are proposing a revolution in the "tactics and strategies" of the Navy and naval battles! But I am “a man of the old formation” ... “an old soldier who does not know the words of love”, ... “a handicraftsman without a motor” - I can only recall the words of V. Vysotsky: “Let there be big changes ahead, I never will” I will love "(I mean, I don’t understand your" master "plans!) I'm sorry!
  30. Dormidont
    Dormidont April 12 2018 16: 39
    +1
    It would not hurt to place gates in the bow for landing tanks and armored personnel carriers, and at the stern a superstructure for the railgun
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 12 2018 17: 56
      +3
      Quote: Dormidont
      and aft superstructure for railgun

      And they forgot to build a railway on the deck. For stealth movement
      1. Svarog51
        Svarog51 April 12 2018 19: 18
        +2
        And they forgot to build a railway on the deck. For stealth movement

        No comments, just good good good
        Better concrete under "YaRS"
  31. John Steinpreiss
    John Steinpreiss April 12 2018 16: 50
    +1
    * There is no dispute about the superiority of military equipment with Russia. If WE Russians didn’t have a Nuclear Gun, then We would have been raped and torn like a Tuzik heating pad, all the more with such savings, thieves and the removal of all money for Boundary.
  32. Grxachina
    Grxachina April 12 2018 16: 50
    0
    Well, why do we need an underwater monster, if it’s clear to the child from the picture drawn with a pencil - remove the satellite from the design and everything else will immediately have very serious problems ....
    1. andj61
      andj61 April 12 2018 17: 26
      0
      Quote: Grxachina
      Well, why do we need an underwater monster, if it’s clear to the child from the picture drawn with a pencil - remove the satellite from the design and everything else will immediately have very serious problems ....

      It is extremely difficult to remove them from high orbits, even more complicated than launching this satellite into the same orbit. If you remove half of the LPS satellites, then the problems for the US Army will generally be enormous. But just how to do it? 36 km - this is not so easy! hi
  33. businessv
    businessv April 12 2018 17: 14
    0
    Thanks to Andrey for the article! I am not a specialist in naval combat, but everything that I read is absolutely clear to me and I certainly like such an alternative, for example, an aircraft carrier! In my inexperienced view, to us, a continental power, AMFKP will solve most of the problems that may arise if the conflict goes into a hot phase. The main issue that will surely arise is the order price of AMFKP, and existing projects will probably lobby, unlike those that need to be worked on a little more - these will try to push them away. The ambitions of the leadership, unfortunately, ruined many wonderful projects and ideas!
  34. ivan0vitch
    ivan0vitch April 12 2018 17: 20
    0
    "boats surfaced in the immediate vicinity of the AUG" and? on this basis, conclusions were drawn that they were not detected?)
    1. businessv
      businessv April 12 2018 22: 57
      0
      Quote: ivan0vitch
      and? on this basis, conclusions were drawn that they were not detected?)

      So they were not discovered until they surfaced, and this happened more than once! Have you heard about this for the first time?
      1. YELLOWSTONE
        YELLOWSTONE April 13 2018 09: 28
        0
        he meant that the Americans might not specifically show that the boat was discovered by them even before the ascent,
        on the basis of the ascent within the AUG order in the Mediterranean, the fleet commander was withdrawn.
  35. andj61
    andj61 April 12 2018 17: 22
    0
    Ohio-type SSBNs contain 24 ballistic missiles, and Ohio-type SSGNs contain 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. Accordingly, if 955A “Borey” SSBN accommodates 16 ballistic missiles, then 154 / 24 x 16 = 102 UVPU.

    Ohio has smaller missiles - as does displacement. and in all other respects, Northwind is superior. If the UVPUs are the same as the axes, if the size gauges are the same as the axes, then they will fit even more on Borey than in Ohio. Approximation of old versions does not directly roll here. hi
    1. Shopping Mall
      April 13 2018 08: 37
      0
      If there is something more to accommodate, it’s good, but another opinion prevails that it’s not possible to integrate essentially one / two antennas placed on a C-400 vehicle and an electronics container into an atomic submarine the size of a five-story building. I certainly understand that the submarine "tightly packed." But still...
  36. Operator
    Operator April 12 2018 17: 25
    0
    Quote: ZVO
    To the end user in the form of a rocket - data transmission directly from the satellite is impossible

    To give the horseradish data to Iskander after it was launched into the target area - the ballistic missile has a flying time of 10 minutes, during which time the AOG will creep away at best 10 km from the satellite’s detection site. And the Iskander RGSN covers the sea surface with a diameter of 50 km.
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte April 12 2018 22: 22
      0
      Strange, the Iskander with such excellent anti-ship capabilities was adopted in 2006, and in 2010 - the special coastal anti-ship complex "Bastion". That's pests laughing how much folk money stolen.
  37. Operator
    Operator April 12 2018 17: 33
    +2
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    SQUID

    A superconducting magnetometer (aka SQUID) has a range of 6 km, so it is suitable only for anti-submarine aircraft and ships.

    Hydrophones are more suitable for a stationary network for the underwater situation overview in the territorial waters (20 km) and economic zones (360 km).

    SKID is perfect as a magnetic GOS missile torpedo of the Flurry type, moving under water in a combined cycle gas cavity.
  38. Nikolay Kuznetsov
    Nikolay Kuznetsov April 12 2018 18: 52
    0
    There’s only one question for this whole article .. Where to get TIME for all this re-equipment and who will allow to start it .. Probably they’ll realize they are not ready to attack yet ..
  39. bk316
    bk316 April 12 2018 18: 56
    +7
    You guys are like 19th-century science fiction from a cannon to the moon, steam-powered mega-rotors ....
    Are you trying to talk about a mega-submarine ...
    The asymmetric response to the West is not a miracle submarine, which seems to be designed and probably after 15 years to put 5 pieces in operation.
    An asymmetric response to the west is a reconnaissance and target designation system in the form of satellite constellation and ZGRLS + strike component in the form of tens to hundreds of missiles capable of hitting slowly maneuvering targets (up to 100 km / h) anywhere in the world with anti-missile maneuver in hypersound. AND THE MAIN THING IS NOTHING TO INVENT ANYTHING everything is already either in service or will arrive within two to three years.
    Finita a la comedy - AUG are turning into VERY Gorgeous mass graves.
    1. Svarog51
      Svarog51 April 12 2018 19: 23
      +1
      Vladimir hi Well, Jules Verne, too, at first was not believed. "What if it works out? And if it doesn’t work out, let’s try again!" (with) good
    2. Bogatyrev
      Bogatyrev April 12 2018 20: 44
      0
      You can’t spoil Masha Kaslom - what prevents to do both this and that? But you are right - you can’t get carried away with such mega-projects - it’s too expensive and it is weak that stimulates technology. What you say stimulates technology.
  40. the same doctor
    the same doctor April 12 2018 19: 19
    +2
    Ideas are not radical enough. Modern technology allows more than just replacing one missile with another and installing the best radar.
  41. Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev April 12 2018 20: 40
    +1
    Hello.
    The idea itself is far from stupid. The Americans also developed the AWACS boat and even made it on the basis of one of the first nuclear submarines - the Triton project. This in itself suggests that the idea is obvious and useful. They refused because AWACS aircraft appeared and such boats became unnecessary - aviation solved all problems.

    A few more points:
    1. Northwind is too expensive and it is a pity to give it away for this purpose. We need to calculate the economy, whether an increase in the series on the basis of Borea will save costs per unit.
    2. Too much stuff is crammed, just like in the cruiser Kirov. This contradicts the idea of ​​being split into smaller carriers and reducing risks. Perhaps that is why it makes sense to think about the diversity of functions for different projects. One project is the AWACS functions (such as Triton) and a missile launcher. The second project is the attack of AUG PKR and the launch of an UAV. It already is - Ash.
    3. Well, finally. UAV with radar - perhaps the best means of detecting AUG. 2 - obviously not enough. It is also necessary to work out the reduction of visibility and passive mode of the PAR. Another good idea for a marine UAV is an atomic engine. In peacetime, application is limited. In the military and during escalation - launch. In addition, the launch of such nuclear UAVs during escalation is a good way to play on the nerves of the enemy.

    And - and yet - the distant missiles are very cool to grunt Hokai, right? )))
  42. Urantian
    Urantian April 12 2018 21: 31
    0
    Logically ...
  43. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri April 12 2018 21: 38
    0
    "Cross the whale with an elephant" :) How to target designation for air defense from underwater to carry out? Nui stuff .. Any "universal solution" is worse than a complex of specialized ones. We recall "Surkuf", for example.
  44. Romul_78
    Romul_78 April 12 2018 21: 49
    +1
    To combat aircraft carriers ichmo, a well-developed system of satellite target designation and long-range missile systems is needed. As an option of PCR bottom-based strategic directions. Chasing aug do not see the point
    1. alstr
      alstr April 13 2018 10: 57
      +1
      Yeah. They themselves will come. Moreover, the areas for attacks with ACG are, in principle, miscalculated.
  45. ism_ek
    ism_ek April 13 2018 00: 20
    +1
    It is necessary to develop civil shipbuilding. To order gas carriers not in Korea, but to build at home. Then the construction of a pair of aircraft carriers will not be a problem.
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri April 13 2018 23: 36
      0
      Container ship. If something in the "threatened period" everyone turns into an "arsenal-ship" with a hundred or two container installations "Caliber-K" (in each - 4 KR)
  46. geniy
    geniy April 13 2018 10: 00
    +1
    Quote: Snakebyte
    And if not - then the noise of the ballast tanks blown upon ascent will be guaranteed guaranteed.

    You forget, or don’t know, that in hostilities submarines almost never float completely to the surface, and they float only to the so-called "positional position, that is, most of the submarines remain under water and only the deckhouse and deck are above water. ballast tanks are not blown in position. And consequently there is no noise from their blowing.
    1. alstr
      alstr April 13 2018 11: 11
      0
      Ours do not come up at all. They can shoot from under water from a depth of 30 meters.
      Therefore, only the launch of the missiles will be heard, but it will be too late.
  47. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn April 13 2018 10: 39
    +1
    Wow This is HERESY !? The meaning of the combat use of submarines is to sneak up on the enemy covertly and inflict a mortal blow !? 3/4 of the Earth’s surface, covered with the World Ocean and the ice cap of the Arctic Ocean, allows submarines to provide stealth! If you, dear author, first graduated from VVMU and studied the “Navy Tactics course” (theory), and then also served (ordered) submarines (combat training, exercises on the BP and BS Plan), then you would graduate from a couple of Academies, including ASG ! Then would you, SURELY, not draw "funny pictures"? Good luck everyone!
    1. Shopping Mall
      April 13 2018 10: 54
      +2
      The meaning of the military use of "secretly sneak up" is preserved, the "mortal blow" is inflicted not only on surface forces, but also on air. Or do you think that a submarine producing 24 RCC (949 project) or 32 (Ash) ammunition will not be detected by the same AWACS? She is for this, although it does not float, but is close to the surface. How much more advanced radar unmasks the PLA compared with the launching missiles?
      2 / 3 of the earth’s surface is only in theory, and in fact the ocean is full of bottlenecks, and hot spots are formed extremely unevenly.

      By the end of the training period of all of the above, I would have 60-70 years, sclerosis, insanity and creative impotence. The military is very conservative, rarely anyone can break stereotypes and dogmas, and the older, the worse.
      And by the way, weapons are more often developed not by those who exploit it, but are developed taking into account their opinions. Moreover, sometimes this opinion has to be “broken”, otherwise there is no way to get rid of cavalrymen demanding a saber able to cut the tank.
      1. bk316
        bk316 April 13 2018 11: 38
        +3
        How much more advanced radar unmasks the submarine compared to the launch missiles?

        None advanced, but WORKING by orders of magnitude!
        Need to explain?
      2. Servisinzhener
        Servisinzhener April 13 2018 12: 13
        0
        I would venture to suggest that if an underwater launch of the aforementioned number of missiles is detected, the search for submarines in this place will be the last thing they will do.
      3. Kudrevkn
        Kudrevkn April 13 2018 13: 21
        0
        Comments, as they say, are "superfluous"! Dear Author! You talk about Strategy and Tactics solely as a "little boy" who heard something. sitting at a table with adult uncles "?! With regards to" study, study and study again ... military affairs! "That is how the study of military craft is built all over the world, and not just in the USA or the USSR (RF)! Yes, the Fleets Admirals command, but in the beginning you need to become at least a lieutenant !? Yes, there was a case when a lieutenant decided to “command the Fleet"? But he ... was shot! I kindly ask you - write only about what you are very good at! Otherwise, you risk becoming a universal laughing stock !? Good luck!
        1. Shopping Mall
          April 13 2018 14: 08
          +1
          Yes, yes, do not worry, I understood everything. I did not pretend to command the fleet.
          The concept of “concept” is different in that it is not a deeply developed project, but requires study and coordination in various institutions. And when working through the feasibility of creating a particular weapon system, no admiral can give an answer, you can or cannot do / need not. Even director KB Rubin.

          There is not a single person here who clearly convinced me of the inferiority of this concept.
          Can't place equipment? To answer this question, it is necessary to have several divisions of Rubin Design Bureau (what volumes are in stock, what can be moved / reduced), Almaz-Antey specialists - what dimensions will the radar and equipment have, etc.
          Tactics of application - for this purpose there must be whole institutions.

          The idea is, so to speak, hovering in the air, in one form or another:
          https://topwar.ru/20482-predlozhenie-dcns-zrk-dly
          a-podvodnyh-lodok.html

          https://topwar.ru/11548-vooruzhenie-podlodok-popo
          lnitsya-zenitnymi-raketami.html
          “The adoption of anti-aircraft missiles on submarines will change the deployment of naval forces. Until now, submarines had only conditional protection against air threats — a large depth or several man-portable air defense systems. This made it possible to conduct a search for submarines with impunity at low altitudes, hitting them on the surface without fear of a retaliatory strike. ”

          https://topwar.ru/21001-franciya-sozdaet-zrk-dlya
          -podvodnyh-lodok.html

          Here are our something noted:
          http://www.findpatent.ru/patent/238/2382313.html
          One of the authors:
          Director of the Central Research Institute "Gidropribor"
          Proshkin Stanislav Gavrilovich was born in 1939 in Penza. He graduated from the Leningrad Shipbuilding Institute in 1963. In 1964, he went to work at the Central Research Institute "Gidropribor", where he passed the career path from a design engineer to the chief designer of mine weapons. From August 1996 to the present time she has been working as the Director of the Institute He has more than 20 scientific papers and more 90 copyright certificates and patents. For his great scientific contribution to the creation of underwater weapons, he was awarded orders and medals and was awarded the title of laureate of the RF Government Prize for 1997 in science and technology, as well as the title of Honored Scientist of the Republic of Dagestan.

          https://www.top-technologies.ru/ru/article/view?i
          d = 34968
        2. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 April 15 2018 07: 48
          +1
          Sobolev described the case when the midshipman Truk commanded the fleet, and he was not shot, though it was on a Sunday, because the command was resting .....
  48. Meloman76
    Meloman76 April 13 2018 13: 31
    0
    Welcome all!
    IMHO, the author has a conceptual problem - it describes the INITIALLY INCORRECT application for a complex of weapons of this kind! Andrei writes that it is (mainly) intended for a secretive approach to AUG and its destruction, but other systems, including new ones with hypersound, which other commentators have already written here, are better suited for this.
    This tool should be considered as an EXCELLENT ATTACKING complex, that is, a secret attack tool, which directly contradicts the defense doctrine of both the USSR and the current Russian Federation. IMHO, this submarine fits perfectly into the concept of using just the US Navy, with a hidden approach to the bases and coast of the Russian Federation, and a massive missile strike. Only here, for a complete and disarming one, more than 30 simultaneously operating boats will be required (their total fleet would then be around 40-50 - terrible as expensive even for the USA), all the more so that all or most of them would go unnoticed by the strike distance (in practice - unreal).
    Otherwise, hypersonic missiles are better suited as a means of a preventive strike against AUGs than low-speed submarines with their long term of reaching the theater of operations.
  49. mkpda
    mkpda April 13 2018 19: 51
    0
    April 1 is long gone.
  50. Sergey Petrovsky
    Sergey Petrovsky April 14 2018 20: 09
    +1
    Author on the count. Such things do not describe, they are made, and not laid out for discussion.