Military Review

On the collapse of the Russian Navy and new ways of detecting submarines

123
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:


"... 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)

On the collapse of the Russian Navy and new ways of detecting submarines


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 история».

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.
Author:
123 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vard
    Vard 16 November 2018 05: 59
    +14
    In short ... Felts from his coat were stolen ... He felts ... But there was a story (c) there is one thing in the ocean between the water with different temperature and salinity ... So no boat is found under it modern means of detection ...
    1. Titsen
      Titsen 16 November 2018 07: 07
      +4
      Quote: Vard
      Tolley from his coat was stolen ... Tolley he ...


      Fortune-telling by superfood over a secret topic.

      If yes ....

      But interesting!

      And especially for couch warriors!

      But no one will ever know the truth ...

      Only on day M and after Ch.

      And so - load the barrels with oranges!
      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 16 November 2018 08: 12
        +26
        Andrey from Chelyabinsk is a definite plus for an interesting article. And Timokhin has better articles about corvettes of 20380 / 20386 projects than about submarines.
    2. jonht
      jonht 16 November 2018 08: 16
      +5
      Perhaps that is why our boats were built and are being built with a working depth of 600 meters or more, and it is not for nothing that our hydrographs have plowed all the oceans.
      1. jjj
        jjj 16 November 2018 11: 55
        +8
        And at sea there is excitement. And air masses move from high pressure to low. And the sun does not very evenly irradiate the Earth, from which all sorts of anomalies arise
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 17 November 2018 03: 13
          +1
          Quote: jjj
          And the sun does not very evenly irradiate the Earth, from which all sorts of anomalies arise

          Exactly ! The article, for example, mentions air "vortices" caused by the evaporation of sea water ... The instability of this phenomenon is associated with the temperature difference during the day (week, month ...) in different regions ... with different "salinity" of the seas (density ) in the regions ... and vobche: the sun shines in different ways. It is impossible to use this phenomenon on a "regular basis"; but you can use it as an additional auxiliary method. To do this, you need to dig up more statistics, put it into a computer memory and computer will prompt: when and under what conditions this method can be applied.
        2. meandr51
          meandr51 17 November 2018 23: 11
          0
          It is logical. Any excitement on the surface vibrates the water hundreds of times stronger than any "gravitational fields". It's good that no one remembered about the "torsion" ...
    3. Poppy
      Poppy 16 November 2018 15: 07
      +7
      The jump layer is called.
      If it is not shallow, as in the Mediterranean, then just towed antenna was thrown under it
  2. svp67
    svp67 16 November 2018 06: 50
    +18
    Be that as it may, the author raised one of the most pressing topics of our life. This is the state of the theoretical and practical sciences in modern Russia. Most, moreover, the overwhelming majority of new things that are being put into service with us are still "Soviet" developments. And it seems that exactly a century later Russia has returned to the point when it is necessary to restore and rebuild everything. The main thing is not to let it all go down on the brakes.
  3. 501Legion
    501Legion 16 November 2018 06: 53
    +13
    Something the Argentinean submarine cannot already find by any of the methods.
    And the article is interesting
    1. vkl.47
      vkl.47 16 November 2018 07: 06
      +5
      I mean moving objects under water and not those that drowned
    2. Poppy
      Poppy 19 November 2018 12: 48
      0
      Found her the other day
      1. 501Legion
        501Legion 19 November 2018 14: 27
        +1
        we know)) when he wrote apparently he looked into the water)
  4. wooja
    wooja 16 November 2018 08: 09
    0
    there is no smoke without fire ...., the technology exists, the author is not the first to write about it. the drain was most likely in Gorbachev’s times .... then they sold everything in a row, who could naturally
  5. malyvalv
    malyvalv 16 November 2018 10: 01
    +6
    Most likely, the detection is using the effect of the hydro waves created by the boat when moving. For example, if you imagine a surface ship invisible, all the same its location and course can be recognized by the emerging diverging waves. Submarine under water, expanding the thickness of the water also creates similar waves. We just don’t see them. But pressure sensors can very much record this. Therefore, it is enough to scatter a small amount (compared with an attempt to determine the presence of a submarine by fixing its noise) of sonar buoys to fix the formation of a wave from a moving submarine to determine the location and course.
    Regarding the possibility of detecting submarines from an aircraft, the effect of submarine movement can be manifested in the superposition of the wave frequency from the submarine movement with the frequency of natural sea waves. That is, according to the course of the submarine’s movement, the resulting frequency of sea waves can differ from the rest around. And the only question is how to distinguish this anomaly of excitement using a radar and a computer. This effect of superposition of waves will strongly depend on sea waves and on the type and size of submarines and, accordingly, on the frequency of the wave created by the movement of submarines, and most likely therefore it is not always the case or not always distinguishable.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 16 November 2018 19: 34
      +4
      the waves do not go in orderly rows, but are pushed, so it is almost impossible to isolate a couple of millimeter in them from the influence of submarines. there are albatrosses and gulls and sharks with dolphins
    2. meandr51
      meandr51 17 November 2018 23: 15
      +2
      And how do you distinguish this "unusual resulting frequency" from the "normal" when the pattern is sea waves as opposed to radio waves. constantly and unpredictably changing?
      1. malyvalv
        malyvalv 19 November 2018 05: 14
        0
        It is not the "pattern" that matters, but the frequency. That is, the distance between the waves. This distance, in turn, depends on the height of the waves, which in turn depends on the strength of the wind. Of course, the task is not easy, since the wind can change and the boat can change speed and a lot of other factors. Therefore, they probably abandoned such studies, since they do not give a 100% guarantee of detection.
    3. Usher
      Usher 18 November 2018 10: 29
      +1
      But what if the boat is standing?
      1. malyvalv
        malyvalv 19 November 2018 05: 10
        0
        If it's worth FSE. no way. The experience of finding the bottom of the Argentinean San Juan hints. For more than a year, everyone has been looking for sundry, including ours, approximately knowing the place.
  6. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 16 November 2018 10: 15
    +10
    Thank you, sensibly and on business. In general, everything is unclear, but at least you have analyzed open sources.
    I am certainly not an expert, but one of my classmates served as a submarine officer back in the USSR and said that during their cruise in the Mediterranean in the late 80s, the Orions had no problems finding them. Whenever they come up, it hangs over them ...
    It is clear that these words cannot be put to business, and the friend was only a junior officer, but it hardly made sense to him to lie in a private conversation. So the problem really exists, but the devil, as usual, hid in the details ...
    1. Soho
      Soho 16 November 2018 10: 26
      +2
      hiking in the mediterranean sea

      The Mediterranean Sea, like all inland seas, is a fairly small water area. Especially with a narrow input-output. They could well be detected when passing the gate, which is crammed with sonar systems, and then tracking them is no longer as difficult as a search. Our boats in the Mediterranean often tried to disguise themselves as civilian traffic. But often DPL was found precisely on the thermal wake trace, about which Andrei writes
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 16 November 2018 10: 29
        +4
        -The Mediterranean Sea, like all inland seas, a fairly small water area-

        How to say. In the 80s, long-range reconnaissance officers in the amount of three Tu-16s spent from three to five days searching for AUGs in the Mediterranean Sea. Besides the size of the naval theater operating area, intelligence capabilities are taken into account. The quantity and quality of forces, equipment and level training search and tracking operators.
        1. Soho
          Soho 16 November 2018 10: 37
          +10
          In the 80s, long-range reconnaissance aircraft in the amount of three Tu-16s spent from three to five days searching for AUGs in the Mediterranean Sea

          I won’t be surprised, given that, if I’m not mistaken, the Tu-16RMs were based only in the Far East and Kamchatka
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 16 November 2018 10: 44
            +3
            They were not rare guests at the Libyan airport of Maitig, near Luanda, in Conakry. Tu-6M22 regiments were also supposed to strike at ships and forces of the 3th fleet. Tu-16R crews also attracted them for reconnaissance.
            1. The Siberian barber
              The Siberian barber 17 November 2018 15: 57
              0
              Quote: gunnerminer
              They were not rare guests at the Libyan airport of Maitig, near Luanda, in Conakry. Tu-6M22 regiments were also supposed to strike at ships and forces of the 3th fleet. Tu-16R crews also attracted them for reconnaissance.

              Where is Libya and where is Luanda ?!))
              Map, bother to look
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 16 November 2018 12: 20
          +10
          Quote: gunnerminer
          In the 80s, long-range reconnaissance aircraft in the amount of three Tu-16s spent from three to five days searching for AUGs in the Mediterranean Sea

          Yeah ... and by means of PP / RTR, the AV located near Alexandria was detected already from Italy - by characteristic radio exchange. smile
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 17 November 2018 06: 59
            +1
            - Alexandria AB was detected already from Italy - by characteristic radio exchange. smile-

            Without the possibility of determining the elements of movement of the main target, and the distance to it.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 17 November 2018 01: 41
        0
        Quote: Soho
        But often DPS was detected precisely on the thermal wake trace,

        DPL was mainly taken by the gas analyzer when recharging the battery.
        And in the heat trace, mainly PLA was found. Also went to the head of the wake trace ...
        However, I know for sure that the "Window" was tested on experimental exercises. Moreover, once at a time it was not necessary. But the reports were written regularly.
        So, the guys from St. Petersburg drank a lot with us, but NIOR didn’t go further ...
        True, the President's phrase about the fact that "we can see all your boats from space perfectly" does not leave me. So, it seems to me that not all is lost for the PLB of the Russian Navy.
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 17 November 2018 06: 58
          0
          -DPL mainly taken on the gas analyzer when recharging AB.-

          And also because the operational management of the fleet cut the AB charging areas without taking into account the presence of NATO anti-aircraft forces. Plus, low discipline to maintain the secrecy of the commanders, and the wretched state of the AB. Not allowing it to be operated according to the REAB.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 17 November 2018 17: 50
            +1
            Quote: gunnerminer
            fleet operations management cut AB charging areas without taking into account the presence of NATO anti-aircraft defense forces

            Charging areas were cut, based on an analysis of the situation and intelligence, as well as reports on the results of the BS. But they cannot be too far from the patrol area (RBD). Otherwise, the entire charge will go to the round-trip transition.
            Quote: gunnerminer
            low discipline to maintain the secrecy of the commanders, and the wretched state of AB.

            The commanders tried as best they could to recharge overnight ... But everything happened to AB. Sometimes it happened, they sometimes didn’t keep the density ... But, as a rule, they always stood in front of the autonomous system to replace the batteries. 4 pits by 112 elements, a spangle ... 4 times I had to hunch ... As you recall, the hand itself stretches behind a glass ...
            Yeah! (with).
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 16 November 2018 19: 32
      -2
      and your friend didn’t think that as they pop up so quickly the Orions and arrive, they are with wings, it’s faster to fly in than to open the hatches in the wheelhouse
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 17 November 2018 03: 18
      +2
      Quote: Sahalinets
      in the late 80s, the Orions had no problem finding them. Whenever they come up, it hangs over them ...

      In this discussion, somehow everyone "forgot" that at the end of the last century, the United States tried to stuff every sea with hydroacoustic buoys ... and to a large extent they succeeded.
  7. Avior
    Avior 16 November 2018 10: 27
    -1
    all ten “turning” points of its actual line of track were exactly above the actual place (at the time of flight) of all 10 (!) boats.

    if the location of the boats was known at headquarters, then this could be the result of an information leak.
    but on the other hand, the path from the spy to Orion is not long, and the boats do not stand still ....
    Unless the positions were predetermined in the order.
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 16 November 2018 10: 33
      +3
      - if the location of the boats was known at headquarters, then this could be the result of a leak of information.

      The presence of foreign submarines and unmanned aerial vehicles is quite sufficient. The probability of having an undercover source is low. But this cannot be ruled out, the heart of the fleet, its central food warehouse, is in Rosta. There, employees of the Norwegian and Swedish consulates trodden the track 40 years ago.
      1. jjj
        jjj 16 November 2018 12: 20
        +9
        Pay attention to the year of the exercises - 1988. The parade of sovereignties began in the country. Mikhail Sergeevich on the UN rostrum vowed adherence to universal values. The USSR and America even conducted a joint nuclear test. We then agreed with the "partners" on many issues. So, they should have known about the teachings in advance.
        But the authors indicate that boat commanders in designated areas could act on their own. And the data on the location of the boats were taken later from the course layouts. And they overlaid the location data of the reconnaissance aircraft.
        The question is, have the data from all of our boats been taken into account?
        1. faradien
          faradien 17 November 2018 00: 51
          +2
          In 87, the famous "Atrina" was carried out, an operation to covertly reach the US shores of our submarines. One of its participants told in the film about her that they first allowed themselves to be discovered, so as not to worry potential partners ahead of time, and then "disappeared". So the key word here is "let themselves be discovered" ...
          The teachings mentioned in the article took place in the 88th, when warming with the States was planned. Perhaps, in those exercises, our submarines simply at some point allowed themselves to be discovered, so as not to irritate the mattresses. And Orion then simply confirmed their whereabouts.
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 17 November 2018 06: 55
            -2
            -and then "disappeared". -

            It seemed so to them.

            -In those teachings, our submarines simply allowed at some point -

            This is at least something new in naval art. Confirmation is based on several data sources. Not on reports from the crew of a single aircraft.
        2. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 17 November 2018 06: 53
          +1
          -Pay attention to the year of training - 1988.-

          The combat readiness of the fleet was by no means reduced by Mikhail Sergeyevich, but quite specific officers of the General Staff of the Navy and the fleets.

          -So that they should have known about the teachings beforehand .-

          Information about the exercises was provided to partners in the most general terms.
  8. Avior
    Avior 16 November 2018 10: 29
    +2
    someone tell me why I see Timokhin, but not Mina? In old posts, I saw him like.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 20 November 2018 14: 15
      0
      He seems to be banned here.
  9. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 16 November 2018 10: 35
    0
    -For those who have completely forgotten the course of physics behind the current troubles, we recall that the gravitational field is a fundamental physical field through which the gravitational interaction between all material bodies is carried out.

    It is for this reason that measurements of these parameters by the hydroharps of the Navy of the Russian Federation have ceased, due to the inability to send annual measurements to the GISU GA of the Russian Navy.
    1. Vladimir 5
      Vladimir 5 16 November 2018 22: 16
      +2
      The stronger the environmental impact of the submarine, the more traces can be found. If the nuclear submarine is at full speed and its blunt nose, like an elephant, is pushing the aquatic environment, obviously the transmission of disturbances will be large compared to the smallest move. The same with magnetic and thermal fields and the trace ... It is necessary to take into account the state of the sea, the calm is more noticeable, and of course it is mixed in the storm and it is unlikely that you will notice manifestations in the transmission of disturbances. But the perturbations created on the surface are so small that it is possible to detect in resonance manifestations whether they are constant, therefore they were not observed systemically ... Conclusion: you go quieter, you will continue ...
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 17 November 2018 03: 22
        0
        Quote: Vladimir 5
        Conclusion: you go quietly, you will continue ...

        And ysho: lie down and rest! fellow
      2. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 17 November 2018 06: 50
        +1
        -If the submarine is in full swing and a blunt nose, like an elephant, pushes the aquatic environment-

        The modest remnants of the forces of the KSF and KTFO anti-aircraft defense forces can only rely on misses in maneuvering the NATO crews.

        -Need to take into account the state of the sea, in calm -

        You can try to fight without taking into account weather conditions only on the simulator, in the base, and then the inspector from the headquarters of the fleet will not put above the deuce. And the commander will be presented with a small elephant at the compound headquarters.

        -But the perturbations created on the surface are so small-

        Especially when the boat maneuvers at a minimally low noise speed, and at a depth greater than periscope.
  10. vadimtt
    vadimtt 16 November 2018 11: 53
    +2
    Standing waves - this is to Tesla. Even before World War I, he stated that not a single submarine could use its stealth after the launch of its world telegraph system. The smartest man was, so far no one has mastered his theory. Although, reading such articles, you might think that someone somewhere sometimes guessed something :)
  11. Operator
    Operator 16 November 2018 12: 48
    +18
    A nuclear submarine with a displacement of several thousand tons or more, sailing at shallow depths (up to 100 meters), without fail generates on the sea surface a "hump" several centimeters high. This circumstance is used in systems for searching for nuclear submarines using lidar - a laser analogue of a radar, which is installed on an aircraft and scans the water surface in a strip of 500-1000 meters along the aircraft flight path.
    But this method of searching for submarines works only in the absence of cloud cover and at 1-2 ball waves of the sea, when the water surface is not distorted by waves, which practically does not happen in the open sea or, moreover, in the ocean. Therefore, this method is used only in shallow sea water in clear weather in the absence of waves against submarines of large displacement, sailing at a speed of 5 or more knots (otherwise the "hump" is not fixed by the lidar). In particular, this method, even in ideal weather conditions, does not work against submarines of small displacement, which from time to time are found near the Baltic coast of Sweden.

    Theoretically, submarines in motion generate circular (elliptical) waves with a diameter of several kilometers, but the height of these waves is of the order of a millimeter. To see them, it is necessary to conduct radar observation from the aircraft in the range of millimeter waves, while sea waves should also be at the level of 1-2 points, the humidity of the surface air should be minimal due to the high attenuation of millimeter waves in water vapor. The latter circumstance makes the application of this method practically unrealistic.

    Submarines under ice can be detected in an 200 meter wide flight strip only using an aircraft magnetometer when flying at an altitude of 100 meters and a submersion depth of not more than 100 meters. Submarines with a non-magnetic titanium case are found at a depth of not more than 50 meters.
    1. meandr51
      meandr51 17 November 2018 23: 24
      0
      This is the most likely and physically adequate explanation!
  12. Tektor
    Tektor 16 November 2018 13: 18
    +2
    The topic is important and interesting. I believe that it is possible to find practical application of precisely the polarization method of searching for moving submarines. The analogy is this. He flew, somehow, on a plane above the clouds and saw the shadow of the plane on the clouds in the rays of the bright Sun. I was surprised by the fact that there was something like a rainbow around the shadow, moreover, in the form of an oval, which was far ahead of the nose of the plane, by several fuselage lengths. Like, the yolk in the egg, only the yolk has a dark liner profile. This can be explained by the area of ​​air compression, the wave front. Apparently, the compression region influenced the mutual orientation of the atoms and molecules of the residual atmosphere around the aircraft, forcing the light passing through this region to partially diffract, polarize, etc. From a satellite, you can probably find a similar effect if you irradiate the sea surface with a laser and notice the appearance of an oval of an egg from a trace of a compression wave when the underwater body moves.
    1. jjj
      jjj 16 November 2018 15: 09
      +1
      When flying over forests, the exact same effect. And only the observer sees him
  13. LONON
    LONON 16 November 2018 13: 36
    +4
    As has been said many and many times - we learn reality (or rather, I hope we don’t learn) only in a real war. Who and how will find and destroy whom. And everything else is fortune-telling on the coffee grounds. It's like stealth planes. In peacetime, F-22 and F-23 fly with special protrusions on the body - "lenses" that increase the reflecting radar surface, misleading the enemy. And in a combat mission, these lenses are removed and if the enemy sees these planes on radars, then at half the distance. And this is very critical when repelling an air strike. So it may be with submarines - they probably use systems that increase noise and the ability to detect them in other ways in peacetime. At the X-hour, these systems are removed and bam - figs you will find this boat by standard means.
    1. gaudin
      gaudin 16 November 2018 17: 22
      +2
      In peacetime, F-22 and F-23 fly with special protrusions on the body - "lenses" that increase the reflecting radar surface, misleading the enemy.

      Even F117 flew with corner reflectors on the wings, in combat, they hid right in flight.
      even if the enemy sees these planes on radars, then at half the distance. And this is very critical when reflecting airstrike

      10 years before the F22 was put into service, the aircraft's radar signature was removed, military research institutes are working ahead of the curve, for non-believers we are looking at "military acceptance"
  14. Alceers
    Alceers 16 November 2018 13: 37
    +4
    Well done Andrey. Well answered. And thymokhin's ravings periodically popped up.
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 16 November 2018 13: 38
      +2
      The fleet is not falling apart Timokhin.
  15. Poppy
    Poppy 16 November 2018 15: 12
    +8
    I won’t lie, but in 88 in the Mediterranean Sea, we in the Leningrad RCC somehow discovered the American boat not by the GAS, but with the help of the radar, and at a distance of almost 60 miles, which was unattainable for our GAS. I don’t know which specific method, for I was an acoustics, not a radiometer, they told me. that the square was known, but they already found it - our radiometrists told.
    Maybe they are lying, but the vacationer really found out
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 17 November 2018 01: 21
      0
      Quote: Poppy
      in the 88 year in the Mediterranean, we, on the RCC of Leningrad, somehow discovered an American boat not by GAS, but by radar,
      Or maybe everything is easier? With the help of Ka-27PL ... at the exit courses from the search bar. The distance just matches ...
      AHA.
      1. Poppy
        Poppy 19 November 2018 12: 45
        0
        Using helicopters, they searched in the standard version many times, since the ship was created for this. And here type experimentally.
        But I myself didn’t participate, we were just in the same division, we all knew each other, the neighboring tanks in the dining room, so we told
    2. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 17 November 2018 06: 46
      +2
      Good story tale. wassat
  16. Aqso
    Aqso 16 November 2018 15: 27
    +5
    In the Union, several groups in academic institutes and boxes worked on this topic. One of the ideas is fixing the exit to the surface of the internal wave from the boat. There are many articles on remote wave research in open sources. These are all echoes of the main theme. A lot of money was spent, but as of the beginning of the 90s the problem was not solved. Then most likely the money ran out and everything died out.
  17. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 16 November 2018 19: 23
    +1
    [quoteRadar detects disturbances in mid-air at an altitude of 1000-2000 feet (300-600 m) above sea level! It sounds completely crazy] [/ quote]
    What is true, it is true, the radar will not take air turbulence. The only thing that can be is a wave on the surface of the water from a submerged submarine, if the speed is high, then its characteristic size can be on the order of a centimeter and have a characteristic shape. But to isolate such a signal against the background of ordinary waves is a problem. But gravity, of course, has nothing to do with it. Gravimeters on the submarine are used to detect a dangerous bottom topography, etc.
    1. Aqso
      Aqso 16 November 2018 21: 14
      +2
      Yes, in those days it was an unsolvable problem to isolate a signal. The Fourier transform of a 256 by 256 image on an HT was considered 4 hours. I think that now this task could already be raised.
  18. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 16 November 2018 19: 25
    +4
    I fully support Andrei, a thorough balanced analysis, I will supplement only one nuance. Indeed, methods for detecting submarines have long existed, but their main drawback is the narrowness of the area of ​​reliable detection and dependence on random conditions, that is, unreliability. in other words, to ensure the effective operation of the submarines, it is not necessary to control all the oceans and the coast of the United States by airplanes and surface ships, because in the ocean the submarines practically do not flood, but close to their bases, it is necessary to control the surface and underwater space to prevent the enemy’s anti-submarine and impact assets .
    ,
  19. ccsr
    ccsr 16 November 2018 21: 18
    +3
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Suppose, at the end of the 20th century, the United States really invented a method that allows you to identify submarines with an efficiency close to 100%.

    I think that many specialists from the Navy have been well aware since the 70s of the existence of American reconnaissance buoys with a diameter of about 2 m and a length of more than 15-18 meters, which, in an upright position for many years moving under water, record the movement of our fleet in different regions of the world ... They had a nuclear power plant (RTG) for powering the equipment and could float up to dump information on both aircraft and low-rate satellite constellation. So they could detect all our submarines, issue a prearranged signal, and the Orion flew over so that the information accumulated by the reconnaissance equipment of the buoys was dropped on it, and on several parameters. It is strange that the authors of articles about American radar stations, which are unlikely to have advanced further than R&D, did not turn to this real possibility of detecting our submarines.
    1. Aqso
      Aqso 16 November 2018 22: 57
      +1
      Orions themselves set up buoys. Once I watched their work. From a low altitude, he throws a buoy that works for a while and then sinks. Cheap and cheerful.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 17 November 2018 19: 48
        0
        Quote: Aqso

        Orions themselves set up buoys.

        The Americans had several types of reconnaissance buoys, including those dropped from planes and helicopters. But there were those that were put from the ships, and which were intended for a long autonomous existence.
    2. takr54
      takr54 17 November 2018 01: 49
      +1
      Since the end of the 80s, the radar and on-board computers have been replaced on the Orion base patrol aircraft, which made it possible to use unconventional methods for detecting submarines. Do not confuse a buoy with a dear Quaker ...
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 17 November 2018 19: 49
        0
        Quote: takr54
        Don’t confuse the buoy with the Quaker dear ...

        I am not confusing anything, because I saw a detailed description of these devices. What you saw, I have no idea. By the way, these buoys could then drop information on low-orbit satellites without Orions at all.
  20. shalkir
    shalkir 16 November 2018 23: 10
    +1
    Very interesting! Especially, to read any nonsense. Why did I read all this? - I do not know! And especially, about the imposition by the OFFICERS of the Navy on the flight maps of some kind of enemy aircraft and their maneuvers! It's funny! Can you imagine that the seamen of the Northern Fleet and their commanders did such things ??? The feeling that all this is being massaged and agitated specifically to reveal a certain topic, its secrets, who knows what and then post all the comments of "expert commentators" for the truth and the enemy will present it as the pure truth! In addition, reading here the comments of individual "specialists", I do not understand at all how one can talk about buoys dropped from a reconnaissance aircraft, and even towed by it? People wake up !!!
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 16 November 2018 23: 55
      +1
      if they dropped such a buoy, then you need to immediately catch it and study
    2. takr54
      takr54 17 November 2018 01: 52
      +1
      I agree with you specifically about massaging, to reveal a certain topic, its secrets, who knows what. Well, about the sailors of the Northern Fleet, you do not know - do not write ...
      1. shalkir
        shalkir 17 November 2018 14: 41
        +1
        Well, how can I say, maybe I do not know, maybe the engineer himself is a submariner, and hereditary in 3 generations. I can’t imagine how my division commander with a number of navigators can put something on the flight map. So I wrote
    3. ccsr
      ccsr 17 November 2018 20: 02
      +1
      Quote: shalkir
      And especially, about the imposition by the Navy OFFICERS on the flight maps of some enemy aircraft there and their maneuvers!

      Apparently, one of the sailors remembered the siege of Port Arthur, where they analyzed the routes of Japanese ships, and then put minefields there, which led to the undermining of Japanese ships when they next approached the city for shelling. At least V. Pikul wrote so, if my memory serves me right. It seems that the story is inspired by the story.
      1. Poppy
        Poppy 19 November 2018 12: 47
        0
        Stepanov wrote this in "Port Arthur"
  21. Father of papa carlo
    Father of papa carlo 16 November 2018 23: 53
    +2
    What about whales? Whales do not mislead?
  22. Wildcat
    Wildcat 17 November 2018 00: 05
    0
    Here is a well written "Cherry Nine" about the author of the article "Fleet without ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse ", you can't say better:
    "The author has a very strange way of writing articles.
    The first half of the text is trash, fumes, altistoria.
    The second half of the text, when it comes to hardware, is a relatively realistic overview of the situation. "
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 20 November 2018 14: 18
      +1
      According to the "altistory" of links you were thrown - read not re-read wink
      1. Wildcat
        Wildcat 20 November 2018 14: 26
        0
        Yes, thanks for the links! hi
        I still read the American book (on Arab-Israeli history)!
        But our admiral (who was "spotted" in the Indo-Pakistani conflict), to put it mildly, is accused of a lie according to your links: he could not take a position for interception, and was generally in a different place, could not maintain clear contact (somehow ) ... repeat
  23. VSrostagro
    VSrostagro 17 November 2018 01: 30
    0
    She put it on the shelves, but ... did not refute it.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 November 2018 10: 24
      +3
      Quote: VSrostagro
      She put it on the shelves, but ... did not refute it.

      The task was to understand, not to refute :)))
      1. Fizik M
        Fizik M 2 July 2019 16: 14
        -1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The task was to figure it out.

        parsing failed;)
  24. takr54
    takr54 17 November 2018 01: 42
    +1
    Gentlemen, the issue of detecting submarines using non-traditional detection methods has been used by the Navy of the Soviet Union since the late 80s. This topic was developed by Doctor of Technical Sciences Captain 1st Rank A.S. Kravchenko, head of one of the departments of the 14th Navy Research Institute.
    1. Simeonov
      Simeonov 23 November 2018 08: 02
      -1
      He is civil. At that time.
  25. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 17 November 2018 03: 57
    +2
    Most likely, the method of detecting submarines in the underwater position using radar does indeed exist. But it, like other methods of detecting submarines (magnetometric, sonar, thermal, and now, according to some sources, some kind of "chemical" is patented), is not a guarantee of detection and ...
    It can be assumed that the main method for detecting submarines (the only super effective ...) is currently dumb ... and it remains to use a combination of "additional-auxiliary" methods (like: today one thing, tomorrow another ... on the Mediterranean Sea, but in the Baltic Sea ...) But "technologies" are improving! Thermal method: At the end of the last century, Americans boasted of the SDI program developed for the IK.GOS interceptor missiles capable of detecting a burning match at a distance of 1600 km ... this is with regard to the sensitivity and capabilities of infrared technology. Magnetometric method:
    Rumors about the Great Underwater Wall, which seals the South China Sea from unfriendly PRC naval forces, have received indirect confirmation. This is a new quantum magnetometer - he finds submarines for hundreds of kilometers.
    Magnetometers detect submarines as a kind of anomaly in the conditionally flat, stable magnetic field of the Earth, but their range is small. The use of quantum technologies greatly increases the sensitivity of such a detector, but along with the desired signal, it will also catch an infinitely large amount of noise, including echoes of solar storms. At one time, the United States could not solve the problem of eliminating interference, but in China, it seems, they achieved a positive result. The innovative Shanghai quantum magnetometer uses not a single sensor, but an array of sensors, the data from which are compared with each other. This allows you to find and identify permanent sources of interference, so you can then not pay attention to them, focusing only on new signals. According to rumors, since the disinformation campaign is in full swing, after calibrating the installation, the detection range of submarines increases to 500 km.
    It is possible that thermal and magnetometric sensors will be placed on unmanned underwater vehicles and drones will operate in patrol mode ...
  26. Indifferent
    Indifferent 17 November 2018 07: 23
    +1
    In the early 80s, our boat worked together with the Salyut-7 orbital station. We made various movements in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, and they spotted us from space. Detection accuracy was 100%. What methods were used, I do not know. And still I can’t guess. As soon as we surfaced, they were waiting for us. Why all this was poher I don’t know either. After all, 40 years have passed. During this time, the method could be brought to mind. Given the collapse of the Fleet in the 90s, I am not very surprised at this. I don’t want to guess on the coffee grounds about the principles of detection. But for some reason I think that without special buoys, the business could not have done.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 17 November 2018 20: 06
      0
      Quote: indifferent
      But for some reason I think that without special buoys, the business could not have done.

      I am sure of this, and everything else, I think, is far-fetched.
  27. konstantin68
    konstantin68 17 November 2018 09: 34
    +1
    Andrew, as always pleased with an interesting article!
  28. beeper
    beeper 17 November 2018 10: 21
    +2
    Test article, Thank you, Andrew from Chelyabinsk! good
    In the 80s and early 90s, I subscribed to a lot of our (and foreign) military and all kinds of newspapers and magazines, and either in the "ZVO", but rather in the "Marine collection", I read about a new method of detecting enemy submarines by their " the upwelling trail (this is what I just called myself so as not to go into details, who is "in the subject" will understand, I hope, did not reveal any military secrets, since the sources of this information were "open", this is, in part, in the topic our holivar about the search capabilities of the underwater "robot-hunter" - "entering the tail" on the trail left by the submarine winked ) ". In your Article, Andrey, the word" upwelling "was never mentioned, although," out of context ", it was very obvious. winked
    By the way, I think that the new water-jet propellers and the low speed movement of the submarine to some extent contribute to a decrease in the visibility of such a "trace" or not ?!
    I hope, with your meticulousness, that you will pay attention to this aspect of the "search for PLs" and please your grateful readers with the continuation of this Article (unless, of course, this will violate the Russian laws "on disclosure of state secrets") ?! wink
  29. Berg berg
    Berg berg 17 November 2018 11: 15
    -1
    The article reminds me a bit of the old joke about how the old grandfather came to the doctor and asked why I didn’t stand as a young man at 80, my neighbor, also 80, says that he’s standing every day and several times a night with his grandmother engaged in. What the doctor answers him, but don’t worry so everything is normal, and answer the neighbor and I also have CSO - GO! So in this topic there is too much PR and ours also need to say that we see them in all places! Yes, but you need to work on the topic!
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 November 2018 11: 21
      +4
      Quote: Berg Berg
      What the doctor answers him

      I like the other option more. The doctor replies:
      - Open your mouth!
      The doctor stares thoughtfully at the open hole:
      - Your language is in perfect order, so nothing prevents you from saying the same thing as your neighbor ...
  30. absaz
    absaz 17 November 2018 11: 18
    -8
    Tired of these panic stories - everything was gone, everything was gone.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 November 2018 11: 47
      +10
      Quote: absaz
      Tired of these panic stories - everything was gone, everything was gone.

      Yes, it’s not a question of who makes you read? :)))) Watch TV and enjoy
  31. barbiturate
    barbiturate 17 November 2018 15: 25
    +3
    Thanks to the Author for the article, I read it with great interest! I myself think that all the described methods of detecting submarines can take place, but everything can be simpler and more standard. The Americans invested very heavily and are still investing in underwater lighting systems (FOS). Their boats constantly grazed and graze in our coastal waters, the crews of special submarines receive medals and thanks for something ... Personally, I am almost sure that for a long time, maybe since the 70s, an FOSS system from the most common hydrophones and is constantly being updated, for which the medals and the crews of all kinds of Jimi Carters catch on). And now, and even more so, having vast experience in creating such systems and a modern technological base, it has long been possible to dot all our exits from the bases with hydrophones. The Americans themselves published the data and here it was already described that modern mobile FOSS, installed from a submarine, "take" Virginia from 30 km !!! Such a hunter comes up - he joins in an already deployed stationary system + installs a pair of his own and that's it, you are the master of the sea.
    Our admirals have already stated that we do not know at all what is being done in our waters, everything is in the rubble.
  32. Valcioc
    Valcioc 17 November 2018 21: 31
    +1
    The idea of ​​finding a boat on a trail at a depth is a hundred years at lunch. In the late 80s and until the collapse of the Soviet Union, this topic was dealt with by KB "G ... t" in cooperation with some other research institutes, including ours. The product was called N..B and P..B, had surface and underwater use. The fact is that, depending on the depth, the water has a different temperature, which is natural, and different signal reflections from these layers ... without going into theory I will say that in the end we got a picture of a cut of the distribution of these layers. The boat, passing through, mixes these layers with its screws, and this trail persists for quite a long time: it was possible to detect it even six to seven hours after the boat passed. Weaknesses: it is not possible to work in a storm or strong pitching - the antennas on the bottom of the ship simply showed up in the air, the picture turned out to be ragged; the age of the track was determined by eye, the direction of movement of the boat could not be determined at all; the discovery was 100% random and no one could guarantee that this trail was indeed a trail of a boat, and not of a sea animal.
    1. MrFox
      MrFox 20 November 2018 16: 28
      0
      With the development of signal processing tools, it is possible to more effectively isolate such heterogeneities and construct a map of their distribution that varies over time. Example: the network published the operation of a device - a high-speed video camera that shot outside objects located in a room, such as a sheet of paper. Due to the micro-vibrations of the sheet, thanks to the conversation being conducted in the room, and high-speed shooting, the corresponding algorithm extracted the voices of those present from the video. Only recently has it seemed fantastic
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 20 November 2018 20: 17
        0
        Quote: MrFox
        Due to the micro-vibrations of the sheet, thanks to the conversation being conducted in the room, and high-speed shooting, the corresponding algorithm extracted the voices of those present from the video. Only recently has it seemed fantastic

        In fact, the method of acquiring information on the vibration of window glasses using microwave signals or using a laser beam was developed and implemented in intelligence about fifty years ago. So no fiction - the video camera is less suitable for this.
        1. MrFox
          MrFox 23 November 2018 11: 33
          0
          Yes, it’s understandable ... about the fact that the video camera is the least suitable. The meaning of the post is in an algorithm that can pull out inaccessible information
  33. VRF
    VRF 17 November 2018 22: 15
    -7
    How did you get so sick with your alarmism ..
  34. Bogatyrev
    Bogatyrev 17 November 2018 23: 12
    0
    In general, as if a boat with an infrared probe should be visible from space, and this is not surprising.
    Just how long will all these systems really live when needed? And will survive the ZhPS with GLONASS?
  35. Vlvl
    Vlvl 18 November 2018 11: 20
    -2
    Respect for the work done to the author. But the result was clear in advance. Some scribblers either like to draw attention to themselves, or on contentment at the west and love to sow panic and confusion, such as everything is gone. Previously, the article was CC. And in wartime they put it to the wall. But now the freedom of speech, Amelie Emelya is your week. (similar timokhiny) Lashing out stitches from nowhere. Pisaki, their mother ichi. Hollow Nuts.
  36. optimist1966
    optimist1966 18 November 2018 21: 11
    0
    One can put forward arbitrarily bold theories on alternative methods of detecting submarines in the sea. But there is physics. All submarine unmasking fields have a very specific value that can be measured. The attenuation of fields (except acoustic) is calculated in one formula and is proportional to the cube of the distance. In turn, the sensitivity of the detection means is also quite specific and cannot be higher than certain values. Theoretically, at a certain stage, interference can already cause atomic vibrations. Knowing approximately the level of the field (electromagnetic, radiation, even gravitational) and the sensitivity of the detection means, we can estimate the distance at which submarine detection is possible. The result for supporters of the theory of defenselessness of the Russian submarine fleet will be discouraging.
    My opinion is a journalistic duck based on a Russophobic position and backed up by quasi-scientific dances with tambourines.
    1. VSrostagro
      VSrostagro 18 November 2018 21: 29
      0
      Then the glare from the optical sight is also a duck.
      Are you too simplistic?
    2. ccsr
      ccsr 19 November 2018 12: 48
      0
      Quote: Optimist1966
      Knowing approximately the level of the field (electromagnetic, radiation, even gravitational) and the sensitivity of the detection means, we can estimate the distance at which submarine detection is possible. The result for supporters of the theory of defenselessness of the Russian submarine fleet will be discouraging.
      My opinion is a journalistic duck based on a Russophobic position and backed up by quasi-scientific dances with tambourines.

      I agree with this opinion, but there is one small nuance that should not be forgotten. The creation by the Americans of a large number of underwater reconnaissance buoys will seriously complicate the exit of our boats into the patrol area, because their route will be tracked and recorded by the enemy.
      1. optimist1966
        optimist1966 21 November 2018 07: 09
        -1
        They went out and out. And they will go out. And in the Hudson surfaced, and then went unnoticed. Despite all the sauces and borders in Iceland and Bear. At the Pacific Fleet, I think, even easier.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 21 November 2018 09: 52
          0
          Quote: Optimist1966
          They went out and out. And they will go out.

          I have no doubt about that. Here are just accurate information about whether the Americans knew the route of our submarines we do not have. And therefore, always laid down on the worst option.
  37. MrFox
    MrFox 20 November 2018 16: 20
    0
    All the same, the hump formed on the surface of the water due to the movement of the submarine is difficult to take as a detection factor, since it will be difficult to measure this height by radar, due to the fluctuation in the height of the aircraft itself. Most likely, the water movement factor works, especially since for the locator the acquired Doppler shift is a more significant measurable quantity and allows you to tune out the interference caused by reflection from a relatively motionless water surface.

    The physics of this process could look as follows. When moving, the submarine carries with it the nearest water layers, the speed of which naturally decreases with distance from the boat, but on the scale of an extended wake the velocity gradient on the water surface can be detected. Locators are known, such as this one:
    https://www.generalacoustics.com/products/water-flow-sensor/
    which measure the speed of the flow of water in open water. Frequency - 24 GHz, radiation pattern in the horizontal and vertical plane of 11 degrees. The resolution of the speed of water movement is 5 centimeters per second.

    Obviously, for such measurements, an aircraft with a locator should be located as low as possible in order to increase the radial velocity component. By accumulating data on the proposed track of the motion of the submarine, it is possible to detect the flow of water caused by the movement of the submarine at a much lower speed.
    1. optimist1966
      optimist1966 21 November 2018 07: 13
      0
      5m / s is about 10 knots. 10! Are you a submariner?
      1. MrFox
        MrFox 23 November 2018 11: 35
        0
        To mix meters and centimeters need to be a submariner?
  38. PavelT
    PavelT 21 November 2018 01: 09
    0
    Quote: MrFox
    the hump formed on the surface of the water due to the movement of the submarines is difficult to accept as a detection factor, since it will be difficult to measure this height by radar because of the height variation of the aircraft itself.

    And when there is agitation and rippling, lambs from the wind (which often blows strongly in those parts), it’s all the more difficult to detect.
  39. PavelT
    PavelT 21 November 2018 01: 15
    0
    Quote: barbiturate
    I am sure that for a long time, maybe with 70-x, the FOSS system from the most common hydrophones has been deployed in our coastal waters and is constantly being updated, for which the medals and crews of all kinds of Jimi Carters cling. And now, and even more so, having a vast experience in creating such systems and a modern technological base, it is possible to fill all our outlets from bases with hydrophones for a long time.

    I think so too.
    Most likely, there was a qualitative increase in the sense of the range of detection / release of noise from submarines by bottom hydrophones, or maybe the hydrophones themselves just became cheaper, their installation methods at the bottom. Well, plus added all sorts of new algorithms for the selection of useful signals on the general background, maybe this neural network attracted. As a result, the discovery of our submarines has become the routine of calculating data from hydrophone networks. And in order to divert attention from this logical way of obtaining information about underwater activity, a misinformation about the almost perfect recognition of some traces of submarines on the surface of the sea, supposedly even storming, was allowed into the network.
  40. Simeonov
    Simeonov 23 November 2018 08: 20
    +1
    1988. After the PPO "Collision". The PLB office at the headquarters of the KVF.
    Present Nach PLB Pacific Fleet Candidate Admiral Ovchinnikov, Nach PLC KBF Yushenkov. His deputy, Fedorov, and I, an aviation commander.
    I’m sitting and writing a search report.
    Sheepskin reads. "Add here that the effectiveness of the unconventional" Window "method is again confirmed.
    I- "Yes, damn it as much as possible. I've been adding it for five years. They come from Moscow, I’m convincing them .. They will retire in a year. Well, you can? I'm not a "Nagant" to shoot forever, I can break. " The sheepskin was bursting ... Fedorov took him to Avacha with an awl to solder it off. He lived there while he was in Kamchatka on a business trip.

    I read the article ... One of us. I probably.
    Continue to convince? Thirty years have passed.
    1. Alex-333
      Alex-333 27 January 2019 00: 12
      -4
      The method worked. I flew over it. He made calculations and carried out short-term search and anti-submarine operations. As the same "Collision" (In the story "Non-Tradition" is about this).
      Then I could not convince ... 30 years have passed. And things are still there.
      Continue in the same spirit)))
  41. Alexy
    Alexy 24 November 2018 01: 59
    0
    I read the title of the article and the first paragraph. And for some reason I immediately guessed who the author was.
    Strange?
  42. tazilion
    tazilion 3 December 2018 20: 08
    0
    Knowing why I'm here about the fishfinder

    We will help the fish finder

    Signal re-reflection does not allow to determine
    real maximum depth of the Mariinsky Depression.

    1. maximum depth of the Mariinsky Depression
    12 7 10 7
    ten eleven twelve
    6 11 10
    M GM VD O Д MM GV DD O
    12 7 10 7 6 11 10 12 77 1010 11

    2. More less twelve kilometers
    6 6 10 10
    БMD K DB M K
    6 61010 6 6 1010

    3.eleven one hundred and three hundred seven hundred
    11 3 6 7
    О C T С
    11 3 6 7

    4. eleven seven hundred smooth more less
    11 7 5 6 6
    About s Р B M
    11 7 5 6 6

    5. maximum depth of the Mariinsky Depression
    12 7 9 7
    eleven thousand seven hundred meters YES NO
    11 5 7 6 2 3
    M G M V O T S M Д Н
    12 7 9 7 11 5 7 6 2 3


    The maximum depth of the Mariinsky Depression is 11700 meters!
    1. tazilion
      tazilion 3 December 2018 20: 25
      0
      M.b. tell me why? [email protected]
      I will be grateful to you.
    2. tazilion
      tazilion 3 December 2018 20: 26
      0
      M.b. Can you tell me why I'm not allowed to comment on your site? [email protected]
      I will be grateful to you.
  43. Alexey E.
    Alexey E. 5 December 2018 13: 06
    0
    The article is interesting.
    All of the above methods for detecting submarines, including biochemical, more than thirty years ago were described in detail in Nikolai Cherkashin's novel “The Secret of Archelon”. Boats both built and are building, which is rather strange when you consider how easy it is to detect and, therefore, destroy them. Afraid of wolves, as they say, do not go to the forest.
    The conclusion suggests itself, probably controversial. Either the ability to detect and even identify boats is greatly exaggerated for propaganda purposes, or the weakness and vulnerability of boats to modern means of detection is nothing but misinformation to eradicate vigilance.
    And the fact that the fleet with MA is collapsed, and they continue to break up ... all this is within the framework of the doctrine of A. Makedonsky, according to which "no army in the world can do as much as just one donkey loaded with gold."
  44. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 23 December 2018 15: 58
    0
    "Why, then, are the Americans stepping up the pace of commissioning their newest Virginias?" /////
    -----
    Then, that they have complete dominance in the air. Not only many dozens of anti-submarine aircraft, but also hundreds of fighters from aircraft carriers covering them. Americans themselves can submarine under water from the air, but their opponents do not have such an opportunity. There is no air supremacy.
    1. Newone
      Newone 4 January 2019 22: 21
      +1
      In the area of ​​their nuclear submarines in the Barents and Okhotsk Seas, the Americans have no air supremacy.
  45. The comment was deleted.
  46. Charik
    Charik 1 February 2019 19: 30
    0
    in every fairy tale there is some truth
  47. Kavtorang
    Kavtorang 10 February 2019 11: 58
    0
    The author is talking about, science cannot understand the distribution of sound rays in a marine aquatic environment, there are so many factors influencing this distribution: salinity, temperature, current, depth, chemical composition, etc., hydrology - the theory of troubled water, when and why jump layers are formed, and in which cases, but under the same conditions, this does not happen, when and most importantly, how underwater sound channels are formed, and when, under suitable conditions, for some reason, they are not formed and so on ..... according to the list, all other detection methods Submarines (not acoustics Critical) is an even more complicated story - thermal, wake (perturbed), magnetic, radioactive, chemical, etc. in these cases, with a probability of 50%, you can simply state whether the submarine was in this place or it is a natural background, and you don’t have to talk about determining the direction of its movement (read the course of the submarine) - it's like a finger to the sky .... In my opinion, the most effective search for submarines is aviation using magnetometers .....
  48. The seventh
    The seventh 27 March 2019 22: 05
    0
    . In my opinion, the most effective search for submarines is aviation using magnetometers .....
    ..... And if the submarine is wrapped with autonomous demagnetization coils and in this form is bounced out into distant ocean distances. How then to search for it with a magnetometer? ...)
  49. Fizik M
    Fizik M 17 September 2019 19: 31
    +1
    Still, the Americans are closing the project. This can only speak about one thing - despite many precedents at that time, the discovery of submarines using radar did not reach the level of technology, that is, something that could give stable results when searching for enemy submarines.


    they close this because the detections were very unstable and unstable, and hydroacoustic means at that time gave long ranges and reliable contact

    However, there is no evidence that the Americans resumed work in this direction.


    Generally given a very clear fact of this

    Without quoting it in full, let us briefly recall the essence: in 1988, the Northern Fleet conducted exercises,


    it was in the 1996 area

    taken from the article “What to Ask Ashen,” M. Klimov, but ... the problem is that they are not there. The author of the article, Maxim Klimov, mentions the fact that 10 Soviet submarines were identified, but without any reference to the respected V.N. Sokerina. Well, we will search.


    see the source code of the article (without editorial editing)

    And here the author of this article found himself 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 this had been said in an interview, or set out in an article, there could have been no options. But the replica on the Internet, especially taken out of context - is still a little different. In conversations on such forums “for their own people” people can joke, tell stories, etc., without thinking that someone later “will defend a scientific dissertation” in their words.


    Sokerin wrote everything clearly and comprehensively
    + quote from Novoselov (settlement ZGK-V of the USSR Navy), you apparently "did not notice" "out of modesty"


    But remember that, in addition to sonar, there are other methods for determining the location of submarines. One of them is magnetometric, aimed at detecting anomalies in the Earth's magnetic field, which are created by such a large object as a submarine.


    Andrew, but nothing the range of the magnetometer is MISSER?

    Or, for example, infrared (which, incidentally, should never be confused with radar) - the fact is that a nuclear submarine uses water as a cooler, which is then dumped overboard, of course, having a higher temperature than the sea or ocean surrounding the boat. And it can be traced. Of course, this method is only suitable for the detection of atomic submarines.


    THE BEYOND - just diesel
    for obvious reason
  50. Fizik M
    Fizik M 17 September 2019 19: 33
    +1
    Often, in such works, a lot of things that really existed are revealed ... But the problem is that we can only guess what is said in the story is true and what is fiction. And to say that - the work is not written in the simplest language, it is, so to speak, intended more “for yours and for yourselves,” that is, for those who are familiar with the hardships of maritime service firsthand and who, apparently, are easily capable to separate truth from fiction.


    I personally knew the officers from the Kamchatka Il-38s who did it and actually discovered the submerged IPL radar "Initiative"


    Often, in such works, a lot of things that really existed are revealed ... But the problem is that we can only guess what is said in the story is true and what is fiction. And to say that - the work is not written in the simplest language, it is, so to speak, intended more “for yours and for yourselves,” that is, for those who are familiar with the hardships of maritime service firsthand and who, apparently, are easily capable to separate truth from fiction.


    I am capable;) because there is someone to "ask and clarify" "what and how" + personally did something concerning this topic

    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.


    verbiage
    Soldatenkov - PRACTICIAN, and by theoretical justification, scientists still have no clarity (as for example, for the same "parametric prefixes" to the SAC - the "effect" is also confirmed, but there is no scientific justification for it)

    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?


    Andryusha, let's start with the fact that Soldatenkov is NOT a SUBMARINEER, and "from below" is vague about the specifics of the issue.
    So your "statements" of "phrase accuracy" can be immediately sent to the trash bin


    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


    actually they do it
    and VERY VIVIDLY - I'm talking about a series of new SSBNs

    we need to clearly understand that a submarine is not at all a self-sufficient means of fighting at sea.


    it's been a long time since
    A submarine is an element of the SYSTEM, a grouping of forces on a theater since the days of the Navy, and now - even more so