On the collapse of the Russian Navy and new ways of detecting submarines
I read the article with great interest. “Fleet without ships. Russian Navy on the verge of collapse ". The material is largely in tune with personal feelings about what is happening with the domestic naval fleet, however, at the same time it contains something that was never heard of before, namely, a new way to detect and track submarines:
Of course, it became very interesting to understand what was going on, since the author of the article, the respected Alexander Timokhin, not only described the phenomenon, but also gave a fairly broad evidence base, with links to sources, including English-speaking ones.
So, we have the thesis:
Let us examine the sources on the basis of which the respected A. Timokhin formulated this thesis. So the first is the report "A RADAR METHOD FOR THE DETECTION OF SUBMERGED SUBMARINES" ("Radar method for detecting submerged submarines"), published in 1975. The author of this article downloaded and diligently translated the English text, as far as it could ( Alas, the level of proficiency in English is “reading with a dictionary”, so errors are possible). In short, the essence of the report is as follows:
1. Since the Second World War, and especially during the 1959-1968 years. recorded multiple cases of detection by radar submarines, following in a submerged position. Almost all types of then American submarines at depths up to 700 feet (213,5 m) were detected.
2. Although in some cases it was possible to control the movement of submarines for quite a long time (up to 2 hours), but in general this effect was not permanent. That is, they could observe him at some point, and then not observe: they could detect the submarine, immediately lose it and be unable to restore contact, even knowing the position of the submarine.
3. And now - the strangest, and very unusual. The fact is that the radar did not detect a submarine at all - this is impossible, the radar does not work under water. We can assume that the radar reveals any traces over the submarine on the surface of the sea ... nothing like that! The radar detects disturbances in the airspace at a height of 1000-2000 feet (300-600 m) above sea level! It sounds completely delusional (which the author of the report himself admits) but, nevertheless, was repeatedly confirmed by observations.
In order to avoid misunderstanding with the translation I will quote a fragment of the report in English:
Then the author of the report indicates that in the USA they could not come up with a theory that could substantiate such a phenomenon and tries to explain what, in his opinion, is still happening. Having considered various “sources” that could at least theoretically lead to such a phenomenon (thermal footprint, the influence of magnetic fields, etc.), the author comes to the following conclusion.
The radar sees a kind of “air turbulence”, and it is formed like this. It is known that the layer of air near sea water is saturated with water vapor and is in constant motion (convection). A large underwater body, such as a submarine, puts pressure on the water in which it moves, including upward (that is, the boat “pushes” the water column, as it were, pushing the water in different directions). This pressure creates an underwater wave, including upward, which, reaching the surface layer of water, changes its relatively natural state (in the report, this effect is called “Bernoulli Hump” (Bernoulli Hump)). And these changes provoke the direction of convective air movement and ultimately create the very air turbulence that the radar intersects.
The author points out that the work in this area in the United States has been curtailed, and believes that this was done in vain, because this effect, which allows us to observe submarines, does not occur on a permanent basis, but it is observed quite regularly. And the absence of a theory why this is happening is not a reason to stop working in this direction. Interestingly, the report concludes with a classic horror story: Russian BODs are equipped with very powerful radars, stronger than those used by the USA to monitor the submarines, which means they probably figured out everything for a long time and ...
Thus, we can summarize: according to American data and in certain circumstances, submarines that are underwater can be detected using radar. But ... I must say that the Americans took the underwater threat very seriously. The memory of the Doitsa boys was still fresh, and the Soviet fleet in the 50 and 60 years was built mostly underwater.
And yet the Americans are closing the project. This can only say one thing - despite many precedents at that time, the detection of submarines using radar did not reach the level of technology, that is, something that could give lasting results when searching for enemy submarines. However, there is no information that the Americans resumed work in this direction. That is, we have a report in which the author considers it necessary to resume work on this project, but there is no evidence that his opinion was heeded.
The next argument in favor of the fact that the Americans not only resumed work on radar methods for detecting submarines, but also achieved complete success in them, is the story of Lieutenant General V.N. Sokerin, former commander aviation Air Force and Air Defense of the Baltic Fleet.
Without quoting it completely, let us briefly recall the essence: in the 1988, the Northern Fleet conducted exercises, during which 6 nuclear and 4 diesel submarines were deployed in the sea. In addition, each of them received their own sea area, where it was supposed to be, however, within the limits of a given area (and they were quite extensive), the commander himself determined where his submarine ship was located. In other words, until the end of the maneuvers, no one, including the fleet command, could have known the exact location of the deployed ships. And then the patrol "Orion" of our "sworn friends" appeared - it passed over the submarine deployment areas in a strange, "broken" route. And when fleet officers compared the maneuvering of our submarines, then:
“... putting the route of the Orion movement on the map made an unequivocal conclusion, all ten“ turning points ”of its actual track line were absolutely exactly above the actual place (for the time of flight) of all 10 (!) Boats. Those. for the first time in 1 an hour and 5 minutes, the second in 1 an hour and 7 minutes, one plane covered all 10 pls.
What I would like to say about this? Literally a couple of words about the man who told us this: Viktor Nikolaevich Sokerin, Honored Military Pilot of Russia, commanded the Air Force and Air Defense of the Baltic Fleet in 2000-2004 and ... left this post, like the ranks of our armed forces, writing a report "on our own" , in protest against the collapse of the sea (and not only) Russian aviation. But he was "in plain sight," "in good standing," with our powers that be. I think it makes no sense to explain that in whatever bad condition a particular branch of military force was, its top officers always have the opportunity to ensure a comfortable and comfortable existence. All I have to do is to keep silence somewhere diplomatically, somewhere to cheerfully report what they expect to hear from you ... Yes, only Viktor Nikolayevich was a completely different person, from those for whom the work he does is above all. I recommend reading his collection of poems - yes, not Pushkin's syllable, but how much love there is for sky and airplanes ... And also - V.N. Sokerin served for a long time in the north and was friends with Timur Avtandilovich Apakidze.
Of course, the author of this article wanted to know in more detail what V.N. Sokerin on the detection of submarines by radar methods. And here began the oddities. The fact is that the respected A. Timokhin writes that VN quotes. He took Sokerina from the article “What to Ask Ash,” M. Klimov, but ... the problem is that they are not there. The author of the article, Maxim Klimov, mentions the fact that 10 detected Soviet submarines, but without any reference to the respected V.N. Sokerina. Well, we will search.
Google said that these lines are found in the article "Anti-submarine warfare. A look from SSSR ”, released from the pen of Semenov Alexander Sergeevich.
In confirmation of his words, A.S. Semenov gives an interesting screenshot
I would like to note the following. The reliability of this screenshot does not cause the slightest doubt. It is well known that V.N. After leaving the stock, Sokerin did not completely shun the Internet, by the way, VO has his material), he also most certainly was present on the AVIAFORUM website, from which, in fact, this screenshot was taken. Alas, today the discussion thread in which this comment by V.N. Sokerina, is in the archive, so that to get to him "from the Internet" is impossible. However, one of the forum administrators was so kind that he confirmed the existence of this comment.
And here the author of this article was in a very ambiguous position. On the one hand, the words of Viktor Nikolayevich do not require any evidence or evidence - they themselves are evidence. And on the other ... If it was said in an interview, or stated in the article, there could be no other options. But the replica on the Internet, the more pulled out of context - it's still a little different. In conversations on such forums “for their own”, people can joke, tell stories, etc., without thinking that someone later on their words “will defend a scientific dissertation”. Again, much has become clearer, it would be possible to read the entire thread of the forum, but alas, it does not exist. And it won't work to ask Viktor Nikolaevich - he left this forum many years ago.
But what else needs to be noted in particular - by reading the words of V.N. Sokerina, we still do not see direct confirmation that the radar method for detecting enemy submarines was brought to the result in the United States. Dear V.N. Sokerin says only that "Orion" with high accuracy revealed the location of our submarines, and he himself is not the primary source of information (speaks from an unnamed officer) and makes the assumption that, perhaps, this is a consequence of the theme "Window", which our abandoned, and the Americans advanced.
But recall that, in addition to hydroacoustic, there are also other methods for determining the location of submarines. One of them is a magnetometric, aimed at detecting anomalies of the Earth’s magnetic field, which is created by such a large object as a submarine. Or, for example, infrared (which, by the way, in no case should be confused with radar) - the fact is that a nuclear submarine uses water as a cooler, which is then dumped overboard, having, of course, a higher temperature than the sea or ocean surrounding the boat. And it can be tracked. Of course, this method is only suitable for detecting atomic submarines, but over time — who knows? After all, the submarine moves in the water column, “pushing” water from itself with a screw or water cannon, and in any case it is friction. And friction, as is well known, raises the body temperature, and, in principle, the wake, probably a little bit, and warmer than the surrounding water. The only question is the “sensitivity” of surveillance devices.
That is, strictly speaking, the fact that the Americans spotted our submarines (which, in fact, says VN Sokerin), still does not indicate the triumph of the radar method for detecting submarines - perhaps the Americans used some other existing method by refining it.
By the way, what is this “window theme”? Let's try to deal with this on the basis of the same article “Anti-submarine warfare. A look from SSSR. ”A.S. Semenova, especially as the respected A. Timokhin in his article “presents it as:
The principle of "Windows" A.S. Semenov describes as follows:
Immediately, we note that, by its principle of operation, “Window” is fundamentally different from what the Americans were going to use. Those were going to look for the "air trace", and we have the sea, some concentric waves ... or not? The fact is that when describing the work of “Windows” A.S. Semenov points out: “A brief description of the principle. From the story "Netradication". "
What kind of “non-tradition” is this? And this is the story of the same A.S. Semenov. So what, the reader will say, is it really impossible for an author to take a description from his own “early” work? Of course, maybe this is normal if it were not just one “but”. Genre story. Just by opening the page of A.S. Semenova at samizdat, read (especially highlighted in red)
Fantasy. No, it is clear that “A fairy tale is a lie, and there is a hint in it, a good lesson is a lesson,” the work itself is based on the fact that the author is a “self-absorbed person”, that is, he returns to himself young in all the splendor of his life experience. over the years of service and creates an alternate reality. Often in such works a lot of real things are revealed ... But the problem is that we can only guess what is true of what was said in the story, and what is fiction. And then to say - the work is not written in the simplest language, it, if I may say so, is intended rather for “one’s own and for one’s own”, that is, for those who are familiar with firsthand knowledge of the naval service, and who, to this day, are easily capable to separate the truth from the fiction.
In general, A.S. Semenov is a person who obviously knows, but what he wrote ... it may turn out to be “not very true, or even completely wrong.” But in this case, does it make sense to refer to his work?
And yet, while reading his “Anti-submarine warfare. A look from SSSR ”, which is positioned by the author precisely as an article, and not as a literary fiction work, strongly rebuffed the eye. A.S. Semenov, describing the state of our submarine forces (if briefly, according to AS Semenov is complete darkness, the Americans controlled us at every turn and could be taken for soft spots at any time), referring to Vice-Admiral Ryazantsev Valery Dmitrievich, the author of the book "In the wake of the system after death." At the same time, A.S. Semenov characterizes Valery Dmitrievich as an extremely competent person.
So the thing is that V.D. Ryazantsev wrote an article in 2014 with an extremely “speaking” title: “Once again about sea fairy tales and warriors-navy tales”, in which, among other things, he paid attention to “The Window”. According to him, the very beginning of work on this topic was a form of scam and juggling of facts that the intermediate tests of the commanders of ships and aircraft received the order: ““ Blood from the nose, ”but the results of the research should be positive, and that all this was done in order to obtain financing, and then:
However, A.S. Semenov does not mention, although his article “Anti-submarine warfare. A look from SSSR. ”Was posted on Samizdat much later than the material of the vice admiral. However, the author is not going to blame AS Semenov in the deliberate concealment of information - he did not have to read all the work of V.D. Ryazantsev and could easily have missed this article.
And that's what we do. It sounds "alarm" - the submarines of the Fatherland are in danger, the Americans use a new method of radar detection of submarines, they see everyone! However, when you begin to understand all this in detail, it turns out that the rationale of the "alarm" is:
1. The 1975 report of the year of birth, from which it follows that work in this direction was once closed in the United States, and it is completely unclear whether they were resumed as a result of the report;
2. A forum replica of a very respected person;
3. And finally, a work written in a fantasy genre “an alternative story».
Then the question arises - is this base sufficient for the announcement of an "alarm"? Let everyone reading these lines decide for himself.
And one more thing - sub-submarine detection of submarines. Here, the respected A. Timokhin refers to the words “one more officer of the Navy, the most experienced anti-submarine, the commander of the anti-submarine ship, captain of the first rank A.Ye. Soldatenkova. All this is so - dear A.E. Soldatenkov really published his memoirs “Admiral Routes (or flashes of memory and information from the side), but ... it is necessary to state that A. Timokhin quoted A.E. Soldatenkov is not entirely correct.
The essence is that the familiar A.E. Soldatenkova did observe an ellipse around the place where the submarine soon surfaced. Moreover, such ellipses were fixed by the radar before (outside the ice), but for a long time no one associated them with submarines, considering them only as interferences. Then they tied it up, already using radar reconnaissance satellites: “For example, in the area of Cuba in the Caribbean Sea, a US submarine was detected by a satellite by a ring effect.”
Generally speaking, all of the above correlates well with the data of the report “A RADAR METHOD FOR THE DETECTION OF SUBMERGED SUBMARINES” - similar entities were observed there. But further A.E. Soldatenkov tries to explain the nature of this phenomenon ... or, rather, simply plays the reader.
For those who have completely forgotten the course of physics behind current troubles, we recall that the gravitational field is the fundamental physical field through which the gravitational interaction between all material bodies takes place. Moreover, the essence of this interaction is that the force of gravitational attraction between two points is directly proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them. That is, all the objects of the world are in the gravitational field - not only the “surface layers of sea water” interact with the same submarine, but also the Sun, Jupiter and Alpha Centauri, just the force of their interaction is negligible. But “a part of the gravitational field sticking up above the surface of the water” is, generally speaking, physical and mathematical nonsense.
Of course, one would assume that dear EA Soldatenkov simply did not quite correctly formulate his idea, and by the “gravitational field of the boat” is meant the distance from it, at which its gravitational attraction is capable of having some noticeable influence on some particles of air and water. But even in this case, his further explanation of this phenomenon does not look quite scientifically, and makes it possible to suspect a respected author in ... let's say, one of the favorite sea sports: “etching the tales” by a gullible civilian.
But what is important is A.E. Soldatenkov anticipates his scientific calculations with the words "With regard to all the above, I dare to suggest the following." That is, he directly writes that his words are nothing more than his personal hypothesis. At the same time, the quote by A. Timokhin looks as if A.E. Soldatenkov absolutely sure, and does not have a shadow of a doubt in his words.
But the biggest question is not even that. As we said earlier, the respected A. Timokhin in his article “Fleet without ships. Russian Navy on the verge of collapse” made two key statements. The first is that modern technologies allow detecting submarines underwater and even under the ice. And second - that the existence of such opportunities is completely ignored by us.
So, to confirm the first thesis A.Timokhin quotes a fragment of one of the chapters of the book A.E. Soldatenkov. But for some reason, he completely “forgets” to quote another fragment of the same chapter, in which A.E. Soldatenkov suggests ... that this method of detecting submarines with might and main is used by the Russian Navy! We quote:
It turns out not good: where the words of the respected A.E. Soldatenkov is confirmed by the theses of the author of the article “Fleet without ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse ”, they are not only quoted, but also presented to readers as a given (while AE Soldatenkov himself presents only a personal hypothesis). And in cases where the opinion of A.E. Soldatenkova comes in contradiction with the opinion of A. Timokhin, so what, it turns out, will we forget for clarity?
Well, what conclusion would you order from all of this? And no - at the disposal of the author there are no facts that would confirm or refute the assumptions of the distinguished A. Timokhin. And, despite all the above criticism of the evidence base on which the article “Fleet without ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse, ”it may well be that its main postulates are absolutely true.
The personal opinion of the author of this article, which he does not impose on anyone, is as follows. Most likely, a submarine submarine detection method using radar does exist. But he, like other methods for detecting submarines (magnetometric, hydroacoustic, thermal, and now, according to some information, some kind of “chemical” is patented), is not a guarantee of detection and destruction of submarines, although it may work under certain circumstances - like all the above methods. In other words, it is quite possible, and even more than likely, that it will now be even more difficult for submarines, but, nevertheless, submarines, as a class of warships, have not lost their combat significance at all.
This view is indirectly supported by the following considerations. For example, at the end of the 20 of the 20th century, the United States really invented a method that allows it to detect submarines with an efficiency close to 100%. But in this case, the very concept of American submarines, implying the ability to independently act in conditions of a strong enemy ASW, loses meaning. Why, then, the Americans are increasing the pace of commissioning of their newest "Virginia"? After all, it is clear that sooner or later, potential adversaries of the United States will also learn this method and will be able to detect American submarines operating near the bases.
In such a case, it would be logical to expect the creation of some completely new type of submarines, and maybe abandoning them altogether, or at least slowing down the construction programs of new submarines - but nothing like that happens. And, most likely, this indicates that with methods of searching submarines in a submerged position using radar tools, this is not so clear.
But in any case, we need to clearly understand that a submarine is not at all a self-sufficient means of fighting at sea. With the illusions that by developing one type of naval armed forces, it is possible to solve the tasks of the Navy as a whole, one should say goodbye as soon as possible. With all its advantages, a submarine is not a vundervaffe, and submariners can inflict damage to the enemy only in close cooperation with surface ships, naval ground-based and carrier-based aircraft, and if there is an advanced system of naval intelligence and target designation - over-the-horizon radars, satellite spyware, networks of underwater sonar stations and other, and other.
And in this with the author of the article “Fleet without ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse. ”A. Timokhin, we should unconditionally agree.
"... technology that enables aircraft to radar search for submarines in submerged (submerged) position by the disturbances of the surface medium (radar detects" tracks "on the surface of the water that the submarine leaves at the surface) when they move)."
Of course, it became very interesting to understand what was going on, since the author of the article, the respected Alexander Timokhin, not only described the phenomenon, but also gave a fairly broad evidence base, with links to sources, including English-speaking ones.
So, we have the thesis:
“Having added all of the above, we have to admit: the ability to detect a submarine with the help of radar and optical electronic monitoring of the surface of water or ice is a reality. And this reality, unfortunately, is completely negated by the modern domestic naval strategy. ”
Let us examine the sources on the basis of which the respected A. Timokhin formulated this thesis. So the first is the report "A RADAR METHOD FOR THE DETECTION OF SUBMERGED SUBMARINES" ("Radar method for detecting submerged submarines"), published in 1975. The author of this article downloaded and diligently translated the English text, as far as it could ( Alas, the level of proficiency in English is “reading with a dictionary”, so errors are possible). In short, the essence of the report is as follows:
1. Since the Second World War, and especially during the 1959-1968 years. recorded multiple cases of detection by radar submarines, following in a submerged position. Almost all types of then American submarines at depths up to 700 feet (213,5 m) were detected.
2. Although in some cases it was possible to control the movement of submarines for quite a long time (up to 2 hours), but in general this effect was not permanent. That is, they could observe him at some point, and then not observe: they could detect the submarine, immediately lose it and be unable to restore contact, even knowing the position of the submarine.
3. And now - the strangest, and very unusual. The fact is that the radar did not detect a submarine at all - this is impossible, the radar does not work under water. We can assume that the radar reveals any traces over the submarine on the surface of the sea ... nothing like that! The radar detects disturbances in the airspace at a height of 1000-2000 feet (300-600 m) above sea level! It sounds completely delusional (which the author of the report himself admits) but, nevertheless, was repeatedly confirmed by observations.
In order to avoid misunderstanding with the translation I will quote a fragment of the report in English:
“It’s hard to imagine how it can be. It is understandable why there might be skepticism. Nevertheless, it is an experimental observation reported on many occasions. ”
Then the author of the report indicates that in the USA they could not come up with a theory that could substantiate such a phenomenon and tries to explain what, in his opinion, is still happening. Having considered various “sources” that could at least theoretically lead to such a phenomenon (thermal footprint, the influence of magnetic fields, etc.), the author comes to the following conclusion.
The radar sees a kind of “air turbulence”, and it is formed like this. It is known that the layer of air near sea water is saturated with water vapor and is in constant motion (convection). A large underwater body, such as a submarine, puts pressure on the water in which it moves, including upward (that is, the boat “pushes” the water column, as it were, pushing the water in different directions). This pressure creates an underwater wave, including upward, which, reaching the surface layer of water, changes its relatively natural state (in the report, this effect is called “Bernoulli Hump” (Bernoulli Hump)). And these changes provoke the direction of convective air movement and ultimately create the very air turbulence that the radar intersects.
The author points out that the work in this area in the United States has been curtailed, and believes that this was done in vain, because this effect, which allows us to observe submarines, does not occur on a permanent basis, but it is observed quite regularly. And the absence of a theory why this is happening is not a reason to stop working in this direction. Interestingly, the report concludes with a classic horror story: Russian BODs are equipped with very powerful radars, stronger than those used by the USA to monitor the submarines, which means they probably figured out everything for a long time and ...
Thus, we can summarize: according to American data and in certain circumstances, submarines that are underwater can be detected using radar. But ... I must say that the Americans took the underwater threat very seriously. The memory of the Doitsa boys was still fresh, and the Soviet fleet in the 50 and 60 years was built mostly underwater.
The diesel submarines project 613. In the period 1950-1957. 215 boats were built
And yet the Americans are closing the project. This can only say one thing - despite many precedents at that time, the detection of submarines using radar did not reach the level of technology, that is, something that could give lasting results when searching for enemy submarines. However, there is no information that the Americans resumed work in this direction. That is, we have a report in which the author considers it necessary to resume work on this project, but there is no evidence that his opinion was heeded.
The next argument in favor of the fact that the Americans not only resumed work on radar methods for detecting submarines, but also achieved complete success in them, is the story of Lieutenant General V.N. Sokerin, former commander aviation Air Force and Air Defense of the Baltic Fleet.
Without quoting it completely, let us briefly recall the essence: in the 1988, the Northern Fleet conducted exercises, during which 6 nuclear and 4 diesel submarines were deployed in the sea. In addition, each of them received their own sea area, where it was supposed to be, however, within the limits of a given area (and they were quite extensive), the commander himself determined where his submarine ship was located. In other words, until the end of the maneuvers, no one, including the fleet command, could have known the exact location of the deployed ships. And then the patrol "Orion" of our "sworn friends" appeared - it passed over the submarine deployment areas in a strange, "broken" route. And when fleet officers compared the maneuvering of our submarines, then:
“... putting the route of the Orion movement on the map made an unequivocal conclusion, all ten“ turning points ”of its actual track line were absolutely exactly above the actual place (for the time of flight) of all 10 (!) Boats. Those. for the first time in 1 an hour and 5 minutes, the second in 1 an hour and 7 minutes, one plane covered all 10 pls.
What I would like to say about this? Literally a couple of words about the man who told us this: Viktor Nikolaevich Sokerin, Honored Military Pilot of Russia, commanded the Air Force and Air Defense of the Baltic Fleet in 2000-2004 and ... left this post, like the ranks of our armed forces, writing a report "on our own" , in protest against the collapse of the sea (and not only) Russian aviation. But he was "in plain sight," "in good standing," with our powers that be. I think it makes no sense to explain that in whatever bad condition a particular branch of military force was, its top officers always have the opportunity to ensure a comfortable and comfortable existence. All I have to do is to keep silence somewhere diplomatically, somewhere to cheerfully report what they expect to hear from you ... Yes, only Viktor Nikolayevich was a completely different person, from those for whom the work he does is above all. I recommend reading his collection of poems - yes, not Pushkin's syllable, but how much love there is for sky and airplanes ... And also - V.N. Sokerin served for a long time in the north and was friends with Timur Avtandilovich Apakidze.
Of course, the author of this article wanted to know in more detail what V.N. Sokerin on the detection of submarines by radar methods. And here began the oddities. The fact is that the respected A. Timokhin writes that VN quotes. He took Sokerina from the article “What to Ask Ash,” M. Klimov, but ... the problem is that they are not there. The author of the article, Maxim Klimov, mentions the fact that 10 detected Soviet submarines, but without any reference to the respected V.N. Sokerina. Well, we will search.
Google said that these lines are found in the article "Anti-submarine warfare. A look from SSSR ”, released from the pen of Semenov Alexander Sergeevich.
“There was direct evidence that the US Navy advanced much further in the development of 'unconventional' search methods. I will cite the testimony of the commander of the naval aviation of the Baltic Fleet ... "
.In confirmation of his words, A.S. Semenov gives an interesting screenshot
I would like to note the following. The reliability of this screenshot does not cause the slightest doubt. It is well known that V.N. After leaving the stock, Sokerin did not completely shun the Internet, by the way, VO has his material), he also most certainly was present on the AVIAFORUM website, from which, in fact, this screenshot was taken. Alas, today the discussion thread in which this comment by V.N. Sokerina, is in the archive, so that to get to him "from the Internet" is impossible. However, one of the forum administrators was so kind that he confirmed the existence of this comment.
And here the author of this article was in a very ambiguous position. On the one hand, the words of Viktor Nikolayevich do not require any evidence or evidence - they themselves are evidence. And on the other ... If it was said in an interview, or stated in the article, there could be no other options. But the replica on the Internet, the more pulled out of context - it's still a little different. In conversations on such forums “for their own”, people can joke, tell stories, etc., without thinking that someone later on their words “will defend a scientific dissertation”. Again, much has become clearer, it would be possible to read the entire thread of the forum, but alas, it does not exist. And it won't work to ask Viktor Nikolaevich - he left this forum many years ago.
But what else needs to be noted in particular - by reading the words of V.N. Sokerina, we still do not see direct confirmation that the radar method for detecting enemy submarines was brought to the result in the United States. Dear V.N. Sokerin says only that "Orion" with high accuracy revealed the location of our submarines, and he himself is not the primary source of information (speaks from an unnamed officer) and makes the assumption that, perhaps, this is a consequence of the theme "Window", which our abandoned, and the Americans advanced.
Orion Royal Australian Air Force
But recall that, in addition to hydroacoustic, there are also other methods for determining the location of submarines. One of them is a magnetometric, aimed at detecting anomalies of the Earth’s magnetic field, which is created by such a large object as a submarine. Or, for example, infrared (which, by the way, in no case should be confused with radar) - the fact is that a nuclear submarine uses water as a cooler, which is then dumped overboard, having, of course, a higher temperature than the sea or ocean surrounding the boat. And it can be tracked. Of course, this method is only suitable for detecting atomic submarines, but over time — who knows? After all, the submarine moves in the water column, “pushing” water from itself with a screw or water cannon, and in any case it is friction. And friction, as is well known, raises the body temperature, and, in principle, the wake, probably a little bit, and warmer than the surrounding water. The only question is the “sensitivity” of surveillance devices.
That is, strictly speaking, the fact that the Americans spotted our submarines (which, in fact, says VN Sokerin), still does not indicate the triumph of the radar method for detecting submarines - perhaps the Americans used some other existing method by refining it.
By the way, what is this “window theme”? Let's try to deal with this on the basis of the same article “Anti-submarine warfare. A look from SSSR. ”A.S. Semenova, especially as the respected A. Timokhin in his article “presents it as:
"One of the" fathers "of the theme" Window ", a pilot-anti-submarine from the Pacific Fleet"
The principle of "Windows" A.S. Semenov describes as follows:
“... using the on-board radar ... to find the same disturbance zones called“ Standing Wave ”. With a certain experience and tuning of the radar station, they looked like concentric circles, several tens of kilometers in diameter with a boat in the center of this circle ... Attempting to apply this method on the IL-38, Tu-142 did not have much success. It was clear that for such a goal, the development of a radar of the appropriate frequency range is needed. ”
Immediately, we note that, by its principle of operation, “Window” is fundamentally different from what the Americans were going to use. Those were going to look for the "air trace", and we have the sea, some concentric waves ... or not? The fact is that when describing the work of “Windows” A.S. Semenov points out: “A brief description of the principle. From the story "Netradication". "
What kind of “non-tradition” is this? And this is the story of the same A.S. Semenov. So what, the reader will say, is it really impossible for an author to take a description from his own “early” work? Of course, maybe this is normal if it were not just one “but”. Genre story. Just by opening the page of A.S. Semenova at samizdat, read (especially highlighted in red)
Fantasy. No, it is clear that “A fairy tale is a lie, and there is a hint in it, a good lesson is a lesson,” the work itself is based on the fact that the author is a “self-absorbed person”, that is, he returns to himself young in all the splendor of his life experience. over the years of service and creates an alternate reality. Often in such works a lot of real things are revealed ... But the problem is that we can only guess what is true of what was said in the story, and what is fiction. And then to say - the work is not written in the simplest language, it, if I may say so, is intended rather for “one’s own and for one’s own”, that is, for those who are familiar with firsthand knowledge of the naval service, and who, to this day, are easily capable to separate the truth from the fiction.
In general, A.S. Semenov is a person who obviously knows, but what he wrote ... it may turn out to be “not very true, or even completely wrong.” But in this case, does it make sense to refer to his work?
And yet, while reading his “Anti-submarine warfare. A look from SSSR ”, which is positioned by the author precisely as an article, and not as a literary fiction work, strongly rebuffed the eye. A.S. Semenov, describing the state of our submarine forces (if briefly, according to AS Semenov is complete darkness, the Americans controlled us at every turn and could be taken for soft spots at any time), referring to Vice-Admiral Ryazantsev Valery Dmitrievich, the author of the book "In the wake of the system after death." At the same time, A.S. Semenov characterizes Valery Dmitrievich as an extremely competent person.
So the thing is that V.D. Ryazantsev wrote an article in 2014 with an extremely “speaking” title: “Once again about sea fairy tales and warriors-navy tales”, in which, among other things, he paid attention to “The Window”. According to him, the very beginning of work on this topic was a form of scam and juggling of facts that the intermediate tests of the commanders of ships and aircraft received the order: ““ Blood from the nose, ”but the results of the research should be positive, and that all this was done in order to obtain financing, and then:
“I would like to ask those who have squandered huge amounts of money today:“ Where is the new technology that would allow finding foreign PL? Where is that plane or helicopter on which this technique is installed? There are no planes, no helicopters, no technology. And there is no money. The “Window” theme turned out to be a soap bubble, a “Potemkin village,” a dummy. ”
However, A.S. Semenov does not mention, although his article “Anti-submarine warfare. A look from SSSR. ”Was posted on Samizdat much later than the material of the vice admiral. However, the author is not going to blame AS Semenov in the deliberate concealment of information - he did not have to read all the work of V.D. Ryazantsev and could easily have missed this article.
And that's what we do. It sounds "alarm" - the submarines of the Fatherland are in danger, the Americans use a new method of radar detection of submarines, they see everyone! However, when you begin to understand all this in detail, it turns out that the rationale of the "alarm" is:
1. The 1975 report of the year of birth, from which it follows that work in this direction was once closed in the United States, and it is completely unclear whether they were resumed as a result of the report;
2. A forum replica of a very respected person;
3. And finally, a work written in a fantasy genre “an alternative story».
Then the question arises - is this base sufficient for the announcement of an "alarm"? Let everyone reading these lines decide for himself.
And one more thing - sub-submarine detection of submarines. Here, the respected A. Timokhin refers to the words “one more officer of the Navy, the most experienced anti-submarine, the commander of the anti-submarine ship, captain of the first rank A.Ye. Soldatenkova. All this is so - dear A.E. Soldatenkov really published his memoirs “Admiral Routes (or flashes of memory and information from the side), but ... it is necessary to state that A. Timokhin quoted A.E. Soldatenkov is not entirely correct.
The essence is that the familiar A.E. Soldatenkova did observe an ellipse around the place where the submarine soon surfaced. Moreover, such ellipses were fixed by the radar before (outside the ice), but for a long time no one associated them with submarines, considering them only as interferences. Then they tied it up, already using radar reconnaissance satellites: “For example, in the area of Cuba in the Caribbean Sea, a US submarine was detected by a satellite by a ring effect.”
Generally speaking, all of the above correlates well with the data of the report “A RADAR METHOD FOR THE DETECTION OF SUBMERGED SUBMARINES” - similar entities were observed there. But further A.E. Soldatenkov tries to explain the nature of this phenomenon ... or, rather, simply plays the reader.
“When the submarine is moving in a submerged position, a predetermined depth of immersion is held by horizontal rudders, which are controlled by the boatswain or the autopilot. Accuracy of retention of a given stroke depth within ± 5 meters. That is, the gigantic mass of the metal (from 6000 to 33800 tons) makes vertical oscillations in depth, and its gravitational field also oscillates with the mass. Part of the gravitational field of the hull of the underwater ship, with the intensity detected by the measuring instruments, goes to the surface of the water, to the boundary of two media, water and air. This part of the gravitational field, at some equal level of its intensity, enters into resonant interaction with the near-surface layers of sea water and air. ”
For those who have completely forgotten the course of physics behind current troubles, we recall that the gravitational field is the fundamental physical field through which the gravitational interaction between all material bodies takes place. Moreover, the essence of this interaction is that the force of gravitational attraction between two points is directly proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them. That is, all the objects of the world are in the gravitational field - not only the “surface layers of sea water” interact with the same submarine, but also the Sun, Jupiter and Alpha Centauri, just the force of their interaction is negligible. But “a part of the gravitational field sticking up above the surface of the water” is, generally speaking, physical and mathematical nonsense.
Of course, one would assume that dear EA Soldatenkov simply did not quite correctly formulate his idea, and by the “gravitational field of the boat” is meant the distance from it, at which its gravitational attraction is capable of having some noticeable influence on some particles of air and water. But even in this case, his further explanation of this phenomenon does not look quite scientifically, and makes it possible to suspect a respected author in ... let's say, one of the favorite sea sports: “etching the tales” by a gullible civilian.
But what is important is A.E. Soldatenkov anticipates his scientific calculations with the words "With regard to all the above, I dare to suggest the following." That is, he directly writes that his words are nothing more than his personal hypothesis. At the same time, the quote by A. Timokhin looks as if A.E. Soldatenkov absolutely sure, and does not have a shadow of a doubt in his words.
But the biggest question is not even that. As we said earlier, the respected A. Timokhin in his article “Fleet without ships. Russian Navy on the verge of collapse” made two key statements. The first is that modern technologies allow detecting submarines underwater and even under the ice. And second - that the existence of such opportunities is completely ignored by us.
So, to confirm the first thesis A.Timokhin quotes a fragment of one of the chapters of the book A.E. Soldatenkov. But for some reason, he completely “forgets” to quote another fragment of the same chapter, in which A.E. Soldatenkov suggests ... that this method of detecting submarines with might and main is used by the Russian Navy! We quote:
“But there are indirect signs that the polarization method of detecting submarines has broken its way into life. So, for example, the sonar complex of the heavy atomic cruiser “Peter the Great” (with all its perfection) could not provide full coverage of the underwater situation during the tragic events with the Kursk nuclear missile complex, however, it had it. Not only that, one of the officers of the press center of the General Staff of the Navy said openly that the underwater situation in the crash site is being monitored. This could have been taken for incompetence or reservation of a former political worker, but the officer told the truth, just no one believed it. In addition, nowhere in the open press there is no mention of work in the field of the polarization method of detecting submarines. And this happens in two cases: the first, when no one at all deals with this problem, the second, when significant progress has been made and the topic is classified. Another sign. Ultra-long cruise of the atomic cruiser Peter the Great around the world to the Far East to participate in the exercises of the Pacific Fleet without escort ships. It seems to be a great negligence for the only ship of this class on the Planet. But no, BIP (or BIC) cruisers knew the whole situation around the ship: surface, underwater, air, space, and would hardly have allowed themselves to offend. Another indirect sign: when dealing with the media in an interview with high naval commanders, tragic notes ceased to sound at the mention of an underwater threat from a potential enemy, and earlier they were already crying out for their own powerlessness. Plus, the loss of interest in anti-submarine surface ships and the reduction of OVR brigades in all fleets. Plus, the resumption of flights of long-range aircraft around the borders of the Russian Federation. After all, hundreds of tons of aviation kerosene are burned not only for training pilots. ”
It turns out not good: where the words of the respected A.E. Soldatenkov is confirmed by the theses of the author of the article “Fleet without ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse ”, they are not only quoted, but also presented to readers as a given (while AE Soldatenkov himself presents only a personal hypothesis). And in cases where the opinion of A.E. Soldatenkova comes in contradiction with the opinion of A. Timokhin, so what, it turns out, will we forget for clarity?
Well, what conclusion would you order from all of this? And no - at the disposal of the author there are no facts that would confirm or refute the assumptions of the distinguished A. Timokhin. And, despite all the above criticism of the evidence base on which the article “Fleet without ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse, ”it may well be that its main postulates are absolutely true.
The personal opinion of the author of this article, which he does not impose on anyone, is as follows. Most likely, a submarine submarine detection method using radar does exist. But he, like other methods for detecting submarines (magnetometric, hydroacoustic, thermal, and now, according to some information, some kind of “chemical” is patented), is not a guarantee of detection and destruction of submarines, although it may work under certain circumstances - like all the above methods. In other words, it is quite possible, and even more than likely, that it will now be even more difficult for submarines, but, nevertheless, submarines, as a class of warships, have not lost their combat significance at all.
This view is indirectly supported by the following considerations. For example, at the end of the 20 of the 20th century, the United States really invented a method that allows it to detect submarines with an efficiency close to 100%. But in this case, the very concept of American submarines, implying the ability to independently act in conditions of a strong enemy ASW, loses meaning. Why, then, the Americans are increasing the pace of commissioning of their newest "Virginia"? After all, it is clear that sooner or later, potential adversaries of the United States will also learn this method and will be able to detect American submarines operating near the bases.
In such a case, it would be logical to expect the creation of some completely new type of submarines, and maybe abandoning them altogether, or at least slowing down the construction programs of new submarines - but nothing like that happens. And, most likely, this indicates that with methods of searching submarines in a submerged position using radar tools, this is not so clear.
But in any case, we need to clearly understand that a submarine is not at all a self-sufficient means of fighting at sea. With the illusions that by developing one type of naval armed forces, it is possible to solve the tasks of the Navy as a whole, one should say goodbye as soon as possible. With all its advantages, a submarine is not a vundervaffe, and submariners can inflict damage to the enemy only in close cooperation with surface ships, naval ground-based and carrier-based aircraft, and if there is an advanced system of naval intelligence and target designation - over-the-horizon radars, satellite spyware, networks of underwater sonar stations and other, and other.
And in this with the author of the article “Fleet without ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse. ”A. Timokhin, we should unconditionally agree.
Information