Atomic drone "Poseidon": useless superweapon

839

Military lovers stories remember that Nazi Germany at a certain moment was obsessed with the ideas of creating super-weapons. "Super weapon" and "Weapon retaliation "became the axial concepts of German military propaganda.

I must say that the Germans did a lot. They massively used cruise and ballistic missiles, massively and for the first time they successfully used guided air bombs to destroy surface targets, and with a rather destructive effect, they also used jet combat aircraft. It was Germany that was the first to introduce an intermediate-cartridge based assault rifle into mass production, it was the Germans who first tested anti-tank and anti-aircraft guided missiles, the first to use tank night vision devices with infrared illumination. The German submarines of the XXI series became a genuine revolution. The first photo of our planet from a mark above the "Karman line" is Germany. The canceled projects are also impressive - a suborbital rocket-bomber, an intercontinental ballistic missile ...



The Germans didn’t have enough for a nuclear weapon, if they had a bit more foresight in the late thirties, everything could have gone differently. No, they would still have been crushed, of course, but the price would have been significantly higher. They lacked a little ...

Yes, and serial weapons were made on the same canons. Take, for example, the Tigr tank - the gun could reach T-34 or KV at a distance of a couple of kilometers, armor ruled out defeat of the tank "head on" by tank and anti-tank guns at the time of its appearance with the enemy , the tank could easily move along the spring and autumn fields and roads of the Eastern Front. Yes, we had to have spare rollers and carry a set of narrow tracks. But what power! And the "Panther" did according to the same criteria.

The result, however, was not very. Yes, the Russians gave several lighter T-34s for each Tiger and Panther, and then the Americans with their Shermans experienced the same thing. But the Shermans and T-34 were too many. More than the technically sophisticated Tigers and Panthers could win in battle, more than the huge and heavy 88-mm cannons could destroy, more than the German rocket launchers could burn out of Faustpron.

The number won. The Russians made tons of steel more weapons than the Germans, the Americans, too, the military economy of the allies was much more efficient, and they also had numerical superiority. But most importantly, their commanders and fighters learned to resist the German super-weapon. Yes, the "Royal Tiger" was 180 millimeters frontal armor. But the tank guards Colonel Arkhipov "carried" the first battalion of "Royal Tigers" "dry." On the T-34. And the staff bus was taken away from the surviving Germans, as if in mockery. Human will and intelligence can level the power of any weapon.

Over-weapon doesn't work. Or almost does not work. For example, a hundred US atomic bombs in 1944 would work. And in 1962 there is none. What matters is the number and "overall average level" of troops or forces. A lot of tanks and guns, a lot of ships, a lot of planes and soldiers. A lot of ammunition. Powerful economy capable of supplying all this. Trained personnel who can use all this.

It is important. And a separate sample of super-weapon will not give anything if it does not raise the destructive power of striking an enemy by orders of magnitude, like a firearm and an atomic bomb. Such a lesson gives us the story.

No, his, this sample, can be made. But not to the detriment of what is the basis of military power.

The latest news about what was previously known as the "Status-6" nuclear submarine crewless device "Poseidon" will be put on combat duty in the number of 32-x units, for which 8 will be specially built (or upgraded for this super-torpedo, which is less likely) of submarines, makes us recall the experience of the strategists of the Third Reich who put the wrong ones on those horses wherever possible.

What good will the creation of a group of such devices give Russia? What opportunities will take? Let's think about it.

But first, a technical caveat.

"Poseidon" is small in comparison with the size of submarines. For this reason, its detection by radar methods, which were mentioned earlier, will apparently be difficult. However, if you believe information about the giant torpedo speed, then it should be recognized that its detection and relatively accurate localization will be quite possible by acoustic methods - the noise from torpedo nodes going at speed in 100 will be heard from great distances as the Poseidon approaches the arrays US SOSUS / IUSS bottom sensors, it will be possible to send anti-submarine aircraft to the intended area of ​​torpedo movement and determine its location accurately. Next comes the question of defeating the target. Admittedly, technologically, the West is already able to quickly and inexpensively create weapons for this.

For example, the European MU-90 Hard Kill, the anti-torpedo capable of hitting targets at a depth of 1000 meters, can be the basis for an anti-torpedo capable of being dropped from an aircraft on a heading course. There are other candidates for antitrust, the same American CAT (Countermeasure anti-torpedo), already tested from surface ships and also optimized for the destruction of high-speed deep-water targets (which is interesting, to the detriment of the main purpose, we will return to this). It will, of course, have to be “taught” to be applied from an airplane at first, but this is not a big problem, after all, in the USA there are single torpedoes used both from surface ships and aircraft, they are able to solve such problems. A MU-90 from the plane is quite a flies.



Naturally, the speed of the Poseidon will complicate the interception, but the basing of anti-torpedoes on an aircraft will make it possible to attack an underwater drone on a head-on course, which will allow it to be “reached”, and the huge distance to the target, which drone will have to pass, will give the Americans hundreds of attempts.

Of course, it is possible that this device will actually sneak in a small way, for example, on 10-15 nodes, in the “problem” depth zone - no more than 100 meters, near the boundaries of the “jump layer”, or, if there are several such layers, between them. Then its detection will become much more difficult - the ocean is huge, and to provide the necessary forces and means everywhere will not work. Again, just below we will see that geography also "plays" on the side of the enemy. If the “Poseidon” goes along the route at a great depth, as promised, but at low speed, then this will reduce to zero the possibility of detecting it with non-acoustic methods (by radioactive trace or by thermal radiation, or by other known methods), but it will somewhat simplify Acoustic detection, although at low speed, it will be difficult to detect it.

We will not build our conclusions in the absence of accurate information about the performance characteristics of a nuclear drone. We will further proceed from the fact that the mode of its movement provides the necessary level of secrecy, that is, in any case, this is a small move.

Now we estimate the usefulness and justification of this super-weapon.

The first. When and if the Poseidons rush off the American coast, we will all be dead. This in a sense depreciates the investment. In reality, the sense of means of deterrence, and weapons, and the armed forces is that we still remain alive, preferably in such quantity that our culture is preserved. The bet on “doomsday machines,” even from the point of view of logic, looks flawless. According to the statements of some comrades in uniform, theoretical research on such a torpedo goes almost from Soviet times, and the final "go-ahead" for the project was given immediately after the Americans left the ABM Treaty. Elementary logic demanded that those in power ask themselves two questions. First, can the Americans, with the help of their missile defense, repel the strike of our strategic missile forces? Second - under what circumstances will the answer to the first question be positive?

The answer is one and he is known - missile defense is only missile defense when the United States managed to deliver a sudden disarming nuclear strike to the Russian Federation. In another case, the missile defense does not make sense. But with a missed strike - it has, because in the opposite direction a very small number of missiles will fly.

Then, the powers that be should have thought, the Americans must be preparing such a blow to the Russian Federation - otherwise, why would they need all this?

At this moment, the only real way to solve the “American question” should have been not the cost of a new deterrent, a plus to the existing ones, but political decision to destroy the United States, and to start preparing such an operation. We will not speculate on how to do this - the Americans are planning a disarming and decapitating strike in the first round, and, for about twenty minutes, a counter-force, with the destruction of all the Strategic Missile Forces deployed on the ground, and destruction with the help of anti-submarine aviation and our submarines of our SSBNs. The last teachings on the subject known to the author took place in 2014. Probably, they are also passing now.

The problem here is that even if it is a counter-attack, against our SNF and tactical nuclear weapons, they will have to break their warheads to destroy silo at the surface of the earth, and this will cause a radioactive contamination of such strength that the attack can be equated to the consequences. And we will not care whether these drones work or not.

We, in general, can be guided by the same logic and throw all the resources on solving the same tasks: a decapitating strike to gain time, a blow to communications with SSBNs, ICGS silos, Strategic Aviation Command air bases, SSBNs naval bases, air force bases capable of covering with their aircraft areas of SSBN combat patrols and, within the next few hours, destroying SSBNs themselves. To the Americans simply do not suicide to attack in response. This is certainly not easy, and very dangerous, but not impossible.

Americans, with their equipment, by the way, something “does not work” all the time at the maneuvers - one or two Russian submarines manage to “shoot”, the mission failed. But they train, learn. We could also, if we concentrated on the main task. On the other hand, the American society is now seriously split, full of contradictions, and, perhaps, the “American question” could be solved not by a direct military strike, but somehow, by organizing some sort of “get-together” inside their country and throwing it up. fuel "to all parties to the conflict to maximize losses. One way or another, if your neighbor is a crazy cannibal, determined to kill you, when the opportunity arises, then slapping him first is your duty, and the tactics of showing him all new and new rifles and carbines stored at your home is wrong it just waits for you to turn your back on it. And it can not wait for one day in fact.

We, with our super torpedoes, act exactly the opposite.

The second. Poseidon really adds nothing to our deterrence potential. Our missiles with a preventive or retaliatory strike against the United States are fully capable of tearing their country off the face of the Earth. They will actually survive there, but after that even Mexico will be able to conquer them. What gives also super torpedo? Maybe it increases the fighting stability of the NSNF? No, it does not increase, the Americans are grazing on the outs of our bases, and they hang on the tail of the SSBN for a long time. What will also prevent them from "spudding" several Poseidon carriers? Nothing.

Our PLO forces have practically died, there are practically no underwater lighting systems (FOSS), we cannot even deploy existing submarines, several new ones will not change the situation from the word “absolutely”. It’s just that the last money will go to them, and it will be possible to solve the problem of “Poseidon” even by banal mining of the waters around the bases, against which we have no means. The SSBN, at least from the pier, can fire, and the Poseidon carrier will have to pass mines. Or to Poseidon himself.

If we do not miss the first blow from the United States, then the funds already available will allow the Americans to cause unacceptable damage. If we skip, then "Poseidons" will not solve anything - we will not, and they are not the fact that they will work. As James Mattis rightly pointed out, all these systems (Dagger, Avant-garde, Poseidon) add nothing to the Russian deterrent potential, and therefore the reaction from the United States does not require. In the latter, he was cunning, but he spoke about containment very precisely.

And really, is there a difference - a volley of one submarine in US cities, or an attack of a pack of super-torpedoes? The number of dead Americans will be comparable. The destruction, however, from the "Poseidon" will be more, but here comes the third "but."

Third. "Poseidon" quite intercepted system. Contrary to what the press claims, the search and detection of such a device is possible. If we assume that he is moving toward the goal at slow speed, then the Americans will have several days for the active part of the search and reaction operation. Even frankly, up to two weeks. If the device goes fast, then it will begin to hear sonar with all the consequences. At the same time, a significant part of the US anti-submarine forces can deploy in advance. Geographically, Russia is located so that the Poseidon can reach important cities in the United States only through narrowness or simply limited water area, which the enemy either controls now, or can take control with the beginning of the conflict - the English Channel, the Faro-Icelandic barrier, Robson Strait on the Atlantic theater; Bering Strait, the Kuril Passages, the Sangar and Tsushima Straits, the North-West Passage and a number of other narrow straits in the North-West of Canada in the Pacific. At the same time, NATO countries in the United States in the Atlantic, collectively possessing huge naval forces, and Japan in the Pacific theater, with its huge numbers and very powerful anti-submarine forces. In fact, we have only one naval base from which you can go directly into the ocean - Vilyuchinsk. But just there the Americans are conducting very intensive observation of our submarines, and to slip past them with our present state of the Navy is a serious problem.

Currently, the number of ships that can be mobilized by both the US Navy and the allies to fight the underwater threat is hundreds of units. Also, hundreds of units calculated fleet of anti-submarine aircraft, and this is a truly effective and modern aircraft with very experienced crews. The helicopter-carrying amphibious assault ships of the US, NATO, Japan and Australia fleets allow us to deploy hundreds of anti-submarine helicopters into the sea, plus those deployed on destroyers and frigates. The overlap of a few narrows by such forces is quite real. Under the conditions, when some of these places are covered with ice, it is quite possible to mine them with the help of submarines from under water, and try to intercept the drone with them, only later, with a hypothetical failure, “transferring” it to other forces. Again, this task does not look easy, but it also does not look unsolvable. Well, we must understand that some of those cities in the US, about which we say that they are “on the coast”, are really on the “specific” coast - it’s enough, for example, using the Google-card service to see how Seattle is located ( and the largest US Navy base is Kitsap there, nearby), or another naval base - Norfolk.

There it will be even easier to control the narrowness.

On the one hand, the final part of the Poseidon attack can be facilitated where the depth of the sea is sufficient to form an artificial Tsunami. Then he will jerk away from the shore. On the other hand, these places will be under the special scrutiny of the enemy, including with the possible deployment of additional bottom sensors on the ways of approaching them even in peacetime.

Thus, in order to use the Poseidon, the boat of the carrier, like the SSBN, will have to avoid the hunter boat hanging on its tail and survive the raids of the patrol aviation, then the super torpedo will have to leave them, then it will have to break through the comb anti-submarine ships and hydrophone fields in narrows, and in some cases the USA has the opportunity to resort to using low-frequency acoustic “highlight” over these fields, which makes any object under water visible, even completely silent, then erezhit many days hunting on the part of anti-aircraft may slip through minefields, and only then to the drone will be the last defense outline - PLO forces near large cities, breaking through which he will be able to fulfill its task. All this looks, to put it mildly, more complicated than launching a ballistic missile with SSBNs.

So, one wonders how the Poseidons change the military situation at sea in our favor? The fact that they can explode under AUG? But in conditions when nuclear weapons, and even high power, went into action, aircraft carriers will not be our biggest problem, to say the least. In addition, claiming that the Poseidons will heat the AUG, we must abandon the 100 fantasies on the megaton warhead and the initialization of the man-made Tsunami, because it will wash us too - the AUG will strive to be closer to the country under attack even before of war.

There is a feeling that it would be simpler and cheaper to invest in existing NSNFs, to increase the operating voltage ratio and increase the time on duty (this is not particularly difficult, since for many boats the second crews are formed, and, generally speaking, it is not clear what keeps them in the bases), and their anti-submarine and anti-mine support, in training crews of multi-purpose submarines "insuring" SSBN, in exercises for submarine torpedo firing, in modern hydroacoustic countermeasures, in new controlled torpedoes, in contrast zling aircraft and aircraft refueling for them in the interceptor squadron to protect the airspace over the areas of deployment of SSBNs, and complete modernization "Kuznetsov" and its wing, for the same.
In the end, on the Caliber missiles, so that the fleet could work them out at the locations of anti-submarine aviation identified by intelligence.

Instead of something from this list of useful things, we got a thing in ourselves. And worst of all, they are going to spend extra money on it. Thirty-two "Poseidon" is from four new nuclear submarines carrier. Inapplicable in a non-nuclear war. And as vulnerable as now, in the conditions of the collapse of the Navy, the submarines we already have are vulnerable.

The Marine Nuclear Deterrence Force is one of the pillars of our security. Unlike land-based ballistic missiles, submarines, when properly used and properly equipped by combat services, have real secrecy. The enemy, if we organize everything correctly, either will not know at all where the submarine is, or will know approximately, and definitely will not be able to approach it. In a pinch, will not be able to approach all of them and thwart a missile attack completely. The nuclear torpedo "Poseidon" does not increase the potential of the NSNF, but requires large expenditures of public money, which, frankly, no. It is precisely these funds that are probably not enough to reduce the vulnerability of our NSNF to a level at which the Americans will no longer be able to fantasize about disarming attacks on our country. But they will be squandered on Poseidons, which do not reduce this vulnerability per se, and the potential for deterrence does not increase. With all its destructive power (theoretical).

And now what are they cunning about NATO?

Actually, they knew and knew about the project for a very long time, most likely when the tactical-technical assignment for this drone was released, and maybe even earlier, when various research projects were being done on the topic. In any case, the pictures of “the future Russian unmanned nuclear submarine” in the United States were painted before 2015. And a number of parameters knew. Taking into account how many fans of the American way of life among the intelligentsia (including technical) (remember the recent “plums” in the US of information about hypersonic weapons - hopefully, the runner will die in prison in some bad way) expect something the other was very naive. And by a strange coincidence, for Western anti-torpedoes, the defeat of high-speed deep-water targets became a kind of “common place”. Given that such an anti-torpedo is not optimal for defeating “normal” torpedoes. And this is true for CAT, and for MU-90 Hard Kill. Did they agree?

No, just before Vladimir Vladimirovich announced the existence of our miracleRobot out loud, the West already knew everything, and was preparing to intercept these torpedoes. And it's cheap to catch. And this, among other things, may mean that they are really afraid of the use of these devices. This means that they consider the situation when we will launch them very likely, and in the near future. So, they are planning ... well, then think for yourself what they are planning, which will cause the mandatory launch of Poseidons in the foreseeable future. However, it really can be some kind of fatal coincidence.

How, in theory, it is necessary to properly dispose of this miracle weapon? Well, firstly, the money that has already been spent on it, can not be returned. At the same time, it must be admitted that the largest technological breakthrough has been achieved. In the correct version, you need to limit yourself to the number of Poseidon carriers that are already in place or incorporated, especially since those boats and besides the Poseidons are full of tasks of particular importance. At the same time, the drones themselves must, of course, continue to experience and bring to readiness for mass production, but not so much to build it, but in order to develop the received technologies into something useful - for example, we didn’t stop would be a compact low-noise nuclear turbogenerator for diesel submarines. The combination of such a device with a diesel-electric power plant and a lithium-ion battery would make the diesel-electric submarines more autonomous than those of the NPS, at a disproportionately lower price. Of course, such boats would not have been able to replace full-fledged nuclear, but, at least, they would no longer have to stand under the RDP and “beat the charge”, roaring at the whole ocean. This would be an important step in the development of the diesel-electric submarines. Yes, and unmanned combat vehicles with small-sized nuclear power plants - the direction is very promising. Especially armed. And the technological backlog of "Poseidon" may well be used to work on their creation.

And davanut on the United States with the help of several built prototypes is quite possible. Send the CBG to the Carbibe Sea, and it is significant to catch such a “fish” from the water, not far from Florida. The effect in some cases could be quite good - before the meeting of our president with the American one, for example. To not forget with whom he is talking.

But to build a whole fleet of such drones, and carriers for them, as well as refitting existing submarines for this super-weapon (removing them for a long time from service - and for what?) Will be a monstrous mistake. This program received funding in the most difficult years and “ate” a lot of what our Navy is now very short of — with zero, as we see, result. You can not repeat this mistake, replicating and scaling it in a shrinking budget.

Super weapons do not exist and can not be invented. Remember this phrase. I would like to hope that we will remember this history lesson and will not scatter the last money on non-military projects.

Although in the light of the current epidemic completely irrational decisions related to naval construction in the last five to six years, this hope seems very weak.
839 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    16 January 2019 05: 29
    Ahhhhh! Everything is lost ? recourse
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. +46
        16 January 2019 08: 33
        Quote: another RUSICH
        Moreover, the author did not understand the essence of his contradictions.

        Learn to write correctly, a miracle. Then, perhaps, you will learn to read, although it is unlikely. You are not even able to understand that the author is just warning against the path of the Third Reich, with its focus on superweapons, and recalls that although the Germans created a lot of new and advanced, all this did not help them.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. +17
                  16 January 2019 10: 45
                  OU! Do you, sir, know the performance characteristics of Poseidon and the strategy for its use? Its cost? His ability to perform a combat mission? Necessary resources and components for its use? If not, then you, my dear, are just hollow, nothing personal, just a statement)
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. +5
                    16 January 2019 13: 52
                    Quote: another RUSICH

                    OU! Do you, sir, know the performance characteristics of Poseidon and the strategy for its use? Its cost?

                    Do you know the plans and performance characteristics? That’s why you are in such puppy enthusiasm that the author, who offers to think, having already chewed everything for you, starts ..... I don’t even know what to call your un motivated (completely illiterate) statements. In any case, I do not find decent words.
                    1. +10
                      17 January 2019 13: 29
                      why 8 will be built specifically (or upgraded to this super torpedo, which is less likely)

                      After this passage, the author can not read. Of course, he heard something, but confused everything.
                      - The boat is not 8, but 4 - this time.
                      - Poseidons on the boat are not 4, but 8 are two.
                      - Two boats of project 949 have already been converted to carriers - these are three.
                      And to build 2 more boats (and most likely to rebuild, because 4 SSGN 949 will not be upgraded to 72 cruise missiles)) - we can somehow handle it, without much damage to the rest. hi
                      1. +11
                        17 January 2019 13: 47
                        Threat Nobody will launch Poseidon from our shores. I assure all doubters.
                        Neither planes have time to take off with torpedoes, nor the American warning system, which is long outdated, will not find anything. But to dump money in order to try to learn how to intercept Poseidons - will have to be unlimited. Here is our asymmetric answer.
                        The Americans conducted a study and concluded that during the war, the reproduction of modern weapons is impossible. And will have to fight on the available stocks. From this point of view, the destruction of the largest naval bases is useful, necessary and feasible. hi
                      2. 0
                        17 January 2019 18: 04
                        ZYU Rzhu - I can not !!! laughing
                        https://topwar.ru/152668-v-minoborony-otvetili-na-zajavlenija-o-neperspektivnosti-gsrk-avangard.html
                        I politely stated. And here - diplomatically! bully
                    2. +4
                      19 January 2019 08: 30
                      )) I am amazed by a similar style of discussion, when my question is addressed to me))
                      yes! I, too, are not spies and not the chief designer!)))
                      Well, if you don’t know either the characteristics of the weapon, or the possibility of its use, what for it is to blame initially?
                      Or, following the logic of this article, let's do what is thought up to us? There would be no A20, there would be no t34. Or did they also throw money away ?, I don’t mention other projects in the same aviation, without which there wouldn’t be those planes that are now legendary.
                      Do not smack nonsense
                      Give an example of my "puppy delight" to begin with.
                      I explained the motivation of my words at the very beginning, and a little lower, do not be lazy, there in Russian in white, in your words "chewed"
                  3. +9
                    17 January 2019 14: 13
                    100% empty gibberish ... I didn't even read the article in full. It is enough to compare the speed of the Poseidon with its ability to maneuver and proov torpedoes to understand that the author is not in the subject.
                    1. +4
                      17 January 2019 21: 34
                      although I’m not in the subject, but to publish such low-grade nonsense ... it's like launching Khokhla on channel 1 in order to raise ratings ...
                      1. +3
                        17 January 2019 22: 29
                        Quote: evgeny68
                        it’s like Khokhlov to run on 1 channel to raise ratings ...

                        Duc, and raised. Yes Over 700 responses. fellow Well, here, at least, the author is somehow trying to defend his opus. And so, from the outside - it's still a circus. Especially those characters who throw themselves into denials according to the principle: "If I do not know about something, then it is not" and "there are only two types of opinions: mine and others, a priori wrong." Moreover, no arguments work, because they will shove with a drill. Yes Oh, these unrecognized geniuses of Internet resources ... laughing
                  4. -3
                    17 January 2019 17: 26
                    Quote: another RUSICH
                    OU! Do you, sir, know the performance characteristics of Poseidon and the strategy for its use? Its cost? His ability to perform a combat mission? Necessary resources and components for its use? If not, then you, my dear, are just hollow, nothing personal, just a statement)

                    ICBMs have a breakthrough probability of 92-98%. what should be the probability / guarantee of Poseidon to arrange a drink? and the carrier of these pepelats to bring 8 units into the launch zone? To generally spend money on this garbage, and not build a couple more hundred ICBMs?
                2. 0
                  16 January 2019 11: 21
                  Hello Andrei. I always read your articles with great interest and I am interested in your personal opinion - can "today's" Poseidon develop in application not only as a means of charge delivery? If I understood the expression "unlimited power reserve" correctly, then what could prevent the appearance of underwater drones with a different purpose (reconnaissance, convoy, hunting, etc.)? And do we (Russia) need this development? Thank you in advance for your response.
                3. +13
                  16 January 2019 22: 22
                  Oh again, the genius from Chelyabinsk speaks "the truth" for everyone, and whoever does not agree is the "kid" and "talker" probably from Chelyabinsk, the plans of the General Staff are better known! or probably they are brought to him on a silver platter and he broadcasts them further! In fact, Timokhin's article is very tendentious (like all his others) and is simply custom-made and is designed for people who are not familiar with real technology. Anyone who went on an autonomous boat can give a lot of epithets for "hitting at 1000 meters" or "it is easy to find a drone going at 100 nodes"! Those who discovered the "squall" never talked about it. And just to recognize the breakthrough of their country and to rejoice in it, our "intellectuals have lost it!" Well, how did engineers (without them) do a good thing again!
                  1. +10
                    16 January 2019 23: 29
                    Where and when did a Flurry sink at least one ship? Do you even know the range of this device?
                    1. 0
                      17 January 2019 05: 09
                      Nehist (Alexander)! Do not write nonsense about the Flurry, the data about which you do not know! Each torpedo is used according to its own TTD. And the word "device" speaks very "well" about you, as about a "specialist" in military equipment ... Don't worry so much - when using Shkval torpedoes, all targets will be destroyed and not only!
                      1. +6
                        17 January 2019 05: 46
                        Huh? You are sure? With a range of 13 km for the last modification, not a single submarine will fit and close to the order where the continuous PLO zone is 20 miles. You should learn this mate part. Anyway, get the expert opinion
                      2. +5
                        17 January 2019 10: 39
                        "Yes, not a single submarine will come close to the warrant where the continuous PLO zone is 20 miles."
                        But how then to be with our submarines, emerging in the middle of the AUG order, or opposite Manhattan? There were no such?
                    2. 0
                      17 January 2019 14: 18
                      Is there any evidence that someone managed to intercept the Shkval?
                      1. +2
                        17 January 2019 15: 27
                        And what is the data on combat application? !!
                      2. -4
                        17 January 2019 15: 56
                        I have less and less normal words, only swearing, but still I can restrain myself, otherwise they will be banned. So: cheers to patriots and not mind that the Flurry torpedo is completely useless as a weapon, and its combat value tends to round zero. Most likely, they don’t know that Flurry, due to its high speed, is an uncontrollable weapon, and the probability of it falling even into a weakly maneuvering target is close to 0%, especially considering that the Flurry attack is devoid of any stealth. An underwater missile going on a combat course is easy to detect - and no matter how fast the “Flurry”, while it overcomes 10 km, the ship will have time to change course and retreat a considerable distance from the estimated aiming point. It is not difficult to imagine what will happen in this case with the submarine that launched the Flurry - a distinct trace of the rocket-torpedo will clearly indicate the location of the submarine, which will come after the launch of the Arctic fox.
                        Bottom line: A flurry is another prodigy.
                      3. +3
                        22 January 2019 18: 44
                        Under the USSR, it was deliberately equipped with SBN. At least in the documents. I did not check it myself, although I was at RTMke. Submariners were taken to see during the break at the training camp. And 10 ct. will turn the belly even an aircraft carrier at such a distance.
                    3. Oml
                      -5
                      18 January 2019 03: 37
                      Nehist, how many nicks do you have? Perhaps you yourself vote for your articles and comments? Do not you understand, if there is technology, then it must be used. Maybe she will be the best.
                      1. +1
                        18 January 2019 04: 30
                        I don’t know how much you have, but I have one and do not provoke rudeness
              2. +4
                16 January 2019 13: 12
                Quote: another RUSICH
                There are big doubts about your competence in this matter, as well as the competence of the author of the article)

                for which there is no doubt - this is that the trampoline for YOU is very jumping;)
                Timokhin is an amateur, and he has mistakes. Trivia.
                But even he understands the whole PROOF nonsense of this "status scam".
                And as a PROFESSIONAL in this I fully agree with him
                1. 0
                  16 January 2019 22: 24
                  HE is a "sofa professional" as recently in another article (about corvettes) admitted to himself!
            2. +29
              16 January 2019 11: 06
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              This is unlikely - someone should neatly put people like you in a puddle when you start to carry fierce nonsense, not being able to even read several sheets of A4 format that the article takes

              To the question of sitting in a puddle:
              How many times will the cost of countermeasures to Poseidons exceed their cost?

              Since you have so zealously opposed those who did not understand the author, I will ask you another question.
              Here the author began his "mnogabukaf" with references to the Third Reich. Blah blah blah, "wonder weapon." How do you feel about the fact that the V-1 launches were economically fully justified. Despite their near-zero combat effectiveness. After all, Britain was forced to invest huge resources in the fight against these ersatzKR. A complete overhaul of the air attack warning system, new high-speed aircraft, the best pilots who are not over Germany but in the rear ... And there are direct analogies here. Is that "Poseidon" is somewhat more effective than "V-1", and a potential enemy is forced to defend an order of magnitude longer border
              1. -1
                16 January 2019 11: 29
                How many times will the cost of countermeasures to Poseidons exceed their cost?


                It will be cheaper. It is necessary to teach CAT to fall from an airplane or buy MU90 from Europeans, rivet them. During the period of danger, bring the ships from Surtass to the threatened directions, and kick allies to monitor the narrowness of which there are less than ten on the planet. Relocate its PLO aircraft to Iceland. Withdrawal near 10-15 of additional submarines at sea with mines to cover Robson Strait-type locations under ice.

                All

                The circle will be cheaper at times, than we have already shook.
                1. +22
                  16 January 2019 11: 40
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  It will be cheaper.

                  Yes? The ancient VAS over half a billion per year requires its own maintenance.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  During the threatened period, launch ships with SURTASS

                  8)))))
                  I wonder why then the Americans create a missile defense infrastructure? After all, everything can be dramatically launched during the threatened period
                  eight))))))))))))))))))))))

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  and kick the allies to monitor the narrownesses of which there are less than ten on the planet.

                  And what is the name of the narrowness from Chukotka to Antarctica, sort of like the Pacific Ocean?
                  1. 0
                    16 January 2019 12: 09
                    Yes? The ancient VAS over half a billion per year requires its own maintenance.


                    He is not only against Poseidon, and in any case would be contained.

                    I wonder why then the Americans create a missile defense infrastructure? After all, everything can be dramatically launched during the threatened period


                    I believe they are preparing a sudden nuclear strike on us. And missile defense is needed to intercept the surviving missiles, there will be few of them.

                    And what is the name of the narrowness from Chukotka to Antarctica, sort of like the Pacific Ocean?


                    Narrowness Naval term.

                    How many bases do we have with direct access to the Pacific Ocean, without straits, etc.? Besides Vilyuchinsk?
                    1. +12
                      16 January 2019 12: 28
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      He is not only against Poseidon, and in any case would be contained.

                      Just do not contain, canned. But for protection you have to deploy them. With all the ensuing financial implications.

                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      I believe they are preparing a sudden nuclear strike on us. And missile defense is needed to intercept the surviving missiles, there will be few of them.

                      And they will not intercept the surviving Poseidons?

                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Narrowness Naval term.

                      The built-in browser grammar is drummed up.


                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      How many bases do we have with direct access to the Pacific Ocean, without straits, etc.?

                      I apologize, will the Americans block the straits located in our territorial zones during the threatened period?
                      1. +5
                        16 January 2019 19: 48
                        Mr. Lopatov, are you fighting here for my concept? Since I respect your opinion, I would like to acquaint you with the history of this issue. To know who you are "fighting" for. Poseidon is a project that has not yet been completed. There also "the horse was not lying around." Moreover, it is very similar to a bluff. So you are here arguing with the author of the article "for the idea."
                        Well, it’s better to study the idea from the beginning, and you should start from the source:
                        https://yadi.sk/i/NW6oDlkFcYGerg
                        For a long time it was possible to begin these works, but it seems that they have not seriously begun so far. hi
                    2. 0
                      16 January 2019 19: 04
                      Despite the fact that in general I agree with the assessment of Poseidon, I am directly dismayed by curiosity:
                      I believe they are preparing a sudden nuclear strike on us. And missile defense is needed to intercept the surviving missiles, there will be few of them.

                      What for :)? War is needed to make the post-war world more comfortable for the winner. For whom will the globe become more comfortable after several hundred nuclear warheads are detonated in Eurasia, a crowd of refugees will rush to Europe, and a huge country will fall into chaos (this is even if we are considering an ideal "clean" option, when not a single missile will reach answer)?
                      1. -2
                        16 January 2019 22: 27
                        Comfortable for transnational financial circles. They do not care about the USA either. The main thing is to eliminate Russia and China, as competitors to their world order. Moreover, Europe and China are just enough to weaken. But they do not need Russia at all.
                        By the way, the terrible consequences for the environment from nuclear war are greatly exaggerated. The eruption of any volcano is many times worse. Radiation is quickly dropping. The number of people is not a problem.
                      2. +1
                        17 January 2019 17: 33
                        Oga-oga, world-wide Freemasonry, conspiracies and jedoreptiloids. For all this, Russia is the main goal, the eternal enemy! Only these elites living in this world, spoiling it with a nuclear war is somehow silly, and given our current elites, world Freemasonry may well achieve the collapse of the Russian Federation without nuclear war and the collapse of the entire current economic model, tea is not Iran from the world economy uproot.
                      3. -1
                        3 March 2019 00: 26
                        And what is wrong? Napoleon and Hitler, the Crimean Far Eastern War and intervention during the civilian period is not enough? That's enough for me. And you think too well of our opponents. They are often captivated by the illusions of their superiority.
                      4. 0
                        17 January 2019 08: 23
                        Do you know the goals of Americans for the next 50 years for example?
                      5. 0
                        17 January 2019 17: 39
                        Judging by the fact that 25 years of de facto world domination were ineptly proy by them, no global goals (such as the notorious "Peter's plan") were set by the state. The undercover struggle of globalists and imperials is certainly interesting and affects the entire world order, but fanatics capable of starting a nuclear war in our century are not allowed to be governed. Incidentally, this is precisely where, in my personal opinion, the danger of canceling the INF Treaty - the chance for a mistake or a deliberate decision by a fanatic, which could lead to a nuclear war, grows by orders of magnitude.
                      6. +6
                        17 January 2019 22: 15
                        Quote: CTABEP
                        danger of canceling the INF Treaty


                        The INF was actually canceled since the installation of MK-41 launch containers (into which winged tomahawks with a range of up to 2400 km are normally loaded without any modification of the launch container, which the Americans riveted as much as 7500 pieces) at the first US missile defense base in Poland during Medvedev's presidency. The RIAC is long gone and the accusation against Russia is just a pretext to break the agreement that prevents the official delivery of several thousand axes to these bases, and if you're lucky, as with Gorbachev, and get rid of the threat to these missile defense bases emanating from the Iskander OTRK.
                        So whether they drank or did not drink the Iskander missile defense system of the US missile defense base with winged axes near the borders of Russia is a reality. The US wants the current government of Russia, like in the 80s, the USSR government unilaterally disarmed where the stars-stripes needed.
                        Simply, the Iskander OTRK and its missiles are the only existing Russian weapons capable of neutralizing the US missile defense bases in Europe, which means the only deterrent from the application of BGU at us using thousands of cruise tomahawks.
                      7. 0
                        3 March 2019 00: 22
                        The neocons need war to reduce the population of the Earth by a factor of 20. Then they have enough.
                      8. 0
                        10 March 2019 21: 06
                        What for :)?

                        You see, the Americans have long thought about the future of the planet and the survival of their population in the face of a severe resource shortage. According to their calculations, the Earth can bear no more than 1 billion people for a long time (before the development of appropriate technologies) (the well-known concept of the "golden billion"). As a result, they conceived (also long ago) a very logical plan: to unleash an atomic massacre in Eurasia, after serving on their continent. According to this plan, the population should disappear, and the resources will remain. And after some 50-100 years they can already be mined (first with the help of convicted criminals, for example). No wonder they have almost mothballed their oil fields, and other minerals are not being extracted very intensively.
                    3. The comment was deleted.
                  2. +5
                    16 January 2019 13: 19
                    Quote: Spade
                    Ancient SOSUS more than half a billion a year for its own maintenance requires.

                    the enormous cost of SOSUS is primarily the price of its cable economy
                    Now there is no need to drag the analog signal over copper over a huge distance with minimal attenuation and distortion, because the ADC can stand in the hydrophone, and then the figure for cheap fiber

                    Quote: Spade
                    8

                    What I personally seen in Avacha Bay, this "official" number was not included

                    Quote: Spade
                    And what is the name of the narrowness from Chukotka to Antarctica, sort of like the Pacific Ocean?

                    only now the "neck" of the deployment from Kamchatka has already been "crushed" by the F-22 and P-8 from Alaska and the Aleutian air hub
                    1. +13
                      16 January 2019 13: 59
                      Quote: mina024
                      the enormous cost of SOSUS is primarily the price of its cable economy

                      8)))))
                      You read inattentively. I wrote about the enormous cost of one content VOCUS
                      Deployment - under a separate article for a fee.

                      Quote: mina024
                      cheap fiber

                      ?????
                      Cheap fiber?

                      Quote: mina024
                      only now the "neck" of the deployment from Kamchatka has already been "crushed" by the F-22 and P-8 from Alaska and the Aleutian air hub

                      And what will prevent them from shooting down in their own airspace? And how will they act there in the absence of war?
                      1. 0
                        16 January 2019 14: 16
                        Quote: Spade
                        about the huge cost of content alone

                        for certain reasons, I can’t go into details about SOSUS and how
                        and yes, I personally did not "directly check", it was done by others, but with whom I communicated directly
                        there are no "outrageous costs" for SOSUS now, and new SOPOs are RADICALLY CHEAPER
                        Quote: Spade
                        Cheap fiber?

                        yes, incl. with special requirements (real and not idiotic like ours)
                        VOK for Mk48, EMNIP 50 cents per meter

                        Quote: Spade
                        And what will prevent them from shooting down in their own airspace?

                        for example, our military-technical lag
                        and the fact that instead of the Su-35S, T-50, A-50U, new radar systems and missiles, the money was SAWN to Crap with Status
                      2. +11
                        16 January 2019 14: 25
                        Quote: mina024
                        for certain reasons, I can’t go into details about SOSUS and how

                        You cannot "go into" something or not. There is a fact, published in open sources, the cost of the annual maintenance before the system is shut down. Which I wrote about.

                        Quote: mina024
                        EMNIP 50 cents per meter

                        If you can find the manufacturer and contractor for such a cost of laying an underwater fiber optic cable, then a huge queue will line up for you. 8)))))))

                        Quote: mina024
                        the money has been CRASHED with Status

                        And what, also the argument 8))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))
                      3. -4
                        16 January 2019 16: 29
                        Quote: Spade
                        open source cost of open maintenance

                        this figure itself is irrelevant, for there is no decryption of works
                        Quote: Spade
                        If you are at such a cost for laying an underwater fiber optic cable

                        YOU just went crazy. For there is no need to pull a "transatlantic fiber-optic cable" to the antennas, and the price tags are quite divine for this matter, even with us (Dubna was on public procurement)
                      4. +9
                        16 January 2019 16: 40
                        Quote: mina024
                        this figure itself is irrelevant, for there is no decryption of works

                        Uh .... Do you understand the expression "spent on maintenance"?
                        Oh ... Everything is weirder and weirder 8))))))

                        Quote: mina024
                        YOU just went wrong.

                        Professional argument. Highly.
                        8))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
                      5. 0
                        16 January 2019 18: 08
                        Quote: Spade
                        argument. Highly.

                        face about teybl
                        http://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ea44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=0173100004515001193
                        and it’s for us and from Antsev’s very immodest financial demands
                        Quote: Spade
                        Do you understand the expression "wasted on content"?

                        for those who are on an armored train and in wooden helmets - NO decoding of these numbers
                        without it there is no subject of conversation
                      6. +7
                        16 January 2019 18: 58
                        That is, the expression "spent on content" is unknown to you.
                        Professionally.
                        Likbez: It means everything from paper clips to electricity. That is, everything without which the system does not work. But remember, you have to remove from conservation for a separate money
                      7. The comment was deleted.
                      8. -4
                        17 January 2019 05: 27
                        mina024 (mina024)! "Five-column babble!"
                      9. 0
                        17 January 2019 22: 31
                        Quote: mina024
                        the money was sawn

                        Oh, that's where I had to start. And then: "I am special, I am very special !!!" laughing
                2. +22
                  16 January 2019 12: 25
                  It is necessary to teach CAT to fall from an airplane or buy MU90 from Europeans, rivet them. During the threatened period, take ships from SURTASS to threatened directions, and kick the Allies to monitor the narrownesses of which there are less than ten on the planet. Transfer your PLO planes to Iceland. Withdraw about 10-15 additional submarines into the sea with mines to block places like the Robson Strait under the ice.

                  As it is, everything is simple. There are no carriers whose speed is comparable to Poseidon. There are no means of destruction. For "capable of striking at a depth of 1000 meters" is a theoretical possibility, and not a result of combat use.
                  and then they saw Poseidon sailing at a depth of 1000 meters at a speed of 200 km / h past the ship. Questions:
                  1 - where is the anti-torpedo plane?
                  2 - Poseidon's trajectory?
                  3 - probability of interception?
                  4 - the result is not an interception?

                  That is, like in a joke - theoretically, son, you and I are billionaires, and practically with us in the hut live two b-boys and one old pid-horace.
                  1. -1
                    16 January 2019 13: 20
                    Quote: Botanologist
                    There are no carriers with speeds comparable to Poseidon. Means of destruction - no.

                    they were back in the cold war
                    R-3C (with modified at the end of 80 faculty) and Mk50 (or nuclear warhead)
                    1. +11
                      16 January 2019 14: 29
                      [quote = mina024] P-3С (with modified at the end of 80 faculty) and Mk50 (or nuclear warhead) [/ q

                      Will the R-3 be able to quickly fly onto the course of Poseidon, discard buoys, calculate the trajectory and (!) Destroy it at a depth of 1 kilometer? Can any precedent be voiced? I strongly doubt this time. And secondly, do you think that all these systems are already imprisoned for Poseidon? They deal with SSBNs in probability much lower than 100%, and this is completely different.
                      1. +8
                        16 January 2019 15: 26
                        Quote: Botanologist
                        P-3 will be able to quickly fly out onto the course of Poseidon’s movement, drop buoys, calculate the trajectory and (!) Destroy it at a depth of 1 kilometer?

                        R-3s do not need to fly out - they are regularly on duty in the air in their areas, listening to their RSL and passing the situation to the coast headquarters.
                        Upon receipt of data on the detection by any of the means of illumination of the underwater situation of a target classified as Poseidon, the coastal headquarters of the ASW will calculate the approximate course and speed and will push the nearest P-3 to the meeting area. And they will begin to sow not quite good and not quite eternal ...
                      2. +1
                        16 January 2019 15: 36
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        will nominate the coming P-3 to the meeting area


                        Poseidon is a toy that must be met with full ammunition. The nearest P-3 what's in the staff under the wings?
                      3. +7
                        16 January 2019 19: 01
                        Quote: Botanologist
                        Poseidon is a toy that must be met with full ammunition. The nearest P-3 what's in the staff under the wings?

                        Staff BK in the weapons compartment.
                        In any case, the R-3 with incomplete ammunition in the zone will not be on duty - simply because before spending part of the ammunition, it will spend most of the RSL in the hunt for the target. And with a small supply of RSL, he has a direct road home.
                  2. +6
                    16 January 2019 14: 13
                    Quote: Botanologist
                    Somehow you are all simple. There are no carriers with speeds comparable to Poseidon.

                    Since WWII, the worst enemy of submarines is a plane with RSL and anti-submarine torpedoes. The speed of the aircraft is several times higher than the speed of any underwater means.
                    The tactics of use are standard: first, the RSL barriers are set in the most probable directions, then, based on the RSL operation, the target’s course and speed and the area of ​​its possible location by the time the aircraft approaches is approximately calculated, after which this region begins to be ringed and dissected by barriers until the position determination accuracy the goal will not be enough to use weapons.
                    At a speed of 100 knots, locating the Poseidon will not be particularly difficult.
                    Plus, do not forget about surface ships with their PLUR (and a program for increasing the range of the same VL-Asroc to 140-150 km).
                    And also about the fact that PLO in the same Atlantic is a system according to the type of our air defense, with a single center for processing data from various sources, target classification and target designation.
                    1. +4
                      16 January 2019 14: 35
                      Quote: Alexey RA
                      this area begins to ring and dissect with barriers until the accuracy of determining the position of the target is sufficient for the use of weapons.


                      count the necessary outfit of forces and means for ringing 1 Poseidon, provided that the United States has 154 Orion suitable for this, and almost all of them are not in America.
                    2. -4
                      16 January 2019 14: 58
                      In this regard, the Navy is about to have "gadgets" - robotic mini-submarines - bogus, for one Poseidon - there are 10 imitators. - All the anti-submarine forces of NATO and the United States are being driven across the entire oceans - both with warheads and false blocks - guess which one is real and try to impress everyone.
                      1. -1
                        16 January 2019 16: 26
                        Quote: Vadim237
                        tricks, for one Poseidon - there are 10 such imitators. - across the oceans, all anti-submarine forces of NATO and the United States drive

                        do not smash nonsense, it hurts
                        what you offer is beyond real physics
                      2. +3
                        16 January 2019 18: 44
                        Nothing extraordinary is already being done - just an unmanned underwater vehicle, electrically powered, with an acoustic simulation system of apl and many other charms - hello OKB Rubin.
                      3. +2
                        16 January 2019 19: 43
                        Quote: Vadim237
                        with acoustic simulation system apl

                        in the NECESSARY frequency range it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
                        only in the range HAK NK
                    3. +3
                      17 January 2019 19: 11
                      Do you think that it will constantly be worn at a speed of 100 knots? Having such etc. (as stated), taking into account the course, concealment, immersion and other things (if this is so), then it can be detected only after it has completed a combat mission.
                    4. 0
                      24 January 2019 14: 53
                      This is all correct and correct, only where are all these PLOs on the day of the Answer, and how can 100% answer all the triggered Poseidons? That is, in other words, how many need to have deployed sets of PLO for 100% suppression of all Poseidons at the same time?
                  3. -1
                    16 January 2019 14: 30
                    The plane with the anti-torpedo can be on the base. Poseidon saw for example the day before Juan de Fuca, and amerskie P-8 above him will be in five hours. They have a higher speed in 4 times. With buoys and anti-torpedoes. Next will begin visits to the forehead with anti-torpedoes. Not the first time, so in the tenth, they will get it.
                    1. +13
                      16 January 2019 14: 50
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      and the Amer P-8 will be above him in five hours


                      That is, in ideal conditions, when we announce the launch of Poseidon for 3-4 so that our partners can:
                      - take under observation the launch area,
                      - fit a dozen or another Orion to the nearest base rate,
                      - prepare them,
                      - organize any sane grouping of ships along the route (intended),
                      - put in the search area a couple - three tankers,
                      - and much more

                      Poseidon may or may not swim.

                      Now everything is simple - we multiply all this by 32, or at least by 20 Poseidons, and consider the outfit of forces and means. Not forgetting that at the same time, Poplars, Minutemans, Maces and much more fly over the world.
                      In short, this Poseidon crap, any student will tell you that if the coastal service gathers in one area, they will easily drive it in shallow water, and there they will either peck the seagulls or pull out nets to the shore and there it will rust wassat
                      1. +7
                        16 January 2019 15: 35
                        Quote: Botanologist
                        That is, in ideal conditions, when we announce the launch of Poseidon in 3-4 days,

                        In real conditions, our carriers of "Poseidons" the enemy will lead from the base itself. Because our SSNNs and SSGNs, for the most part, were built in the USSR and will not go forever, and the arrival of new nuclear submarines does not cover the write-off of old ones. So the enemy has fewer potential targets.
                      2. 0
                        16 January 2019 22: 42
                        In real conditions, no one will lead anyone. They will immediately destroy. In real conditions, Americans will have to catch the carriers or Poseidons themselves outside the control of our aviation and Navy. That is, for 500 - 1000 km from the bases.
                      3. +5
                        16 January 2019 19: 54
                        Quote: Botanologist
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        and the Amer P-8 will be above him in five hours


                        That is, in ideal conditions, when we announce the launch of Poseidon for 3-4 so that our partners can:
                        - take under observation the launch area,
                        - fit a dozen or another Orion to the nearest base rate,
                        - prepare them,
                        - organize any sane grouping of ships along the route (intended),
                        - put in the search area a couple - three tankers,
                        - and much more

                        Poseidon may or may not swim.

                        Now everything is simple - we multiply all this by 32, or at least by 20 Poseidons, and consider the outfit of forces and means. Not forgetting that at the same time, Poplars, Minutemans, Maces and much more fly over the world.
                        In short, this Poseidon crap, any student will tell you that if the coastal service gathers in one area, they will easily drive it in shallow water, and there they will either peck the seagulls or pull out nets to the shore and there it will rust wassat

                        When you wrote this, you somehow forgot that it’s they who are preparing a strike against us, and not vice versa. Accordingly, they may well create some kind of preferential conditions for themselves before the first strike.
                      4. -1
                        17 January 2019 14: 49
                        Quote: free
                        it’s they who are preparing a strike against us, and not vice versa. Accordingly, they may well create some kind of preferential conditions for themselves before the first strike


                        Everyone has a battle plan. Until they hit him.
                        M. Tyson
                    2. +3
                      17 January 2019 01: 14
                      And that Poseidons can not be launched from the floating dock already in the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean?
                    3. +2
                      17 January 2019 12: 33
                      How (hypothetically) can the detection tools be developed among the US troops to capture the detection of a device such as Poseidon (just at the declared depth)?
                3. +7
                  16 January 2019 18: 42
                  You, my dear, "beguiled the trump cards" - "Poseidon" is not a weapon of retaliation, but a weapon of warning .. And further works "anti-Poseidon" and "Proposeidon", with different twists will go. The offensive weapon always has a handicap in time and superiority. You can fire up a cloud of false Poseidon targets, that the enemy will spend a lot to intercept them, slow-moving Poseidons are possible, and they are completely indistinguishable in the vastness, etc. ... ruin ....
                4. 0
                  22 January 2019 17: 45
                  I have small additions. Lots of text.
                  A bit of ground shaking thinking
                  http://samlib.ru/editors/s/semenow_aleksandr_sergeewich333/poseidon.shtml
                  There will be time, check out.
              2. -4
                16 January 2019 13: 14
                Quote: Spade
                How many times will the cost of countermeasures to Poseidons exceed their cost?

                "penny" against the background of this OUR SCAM

                Quote: Spade
                Launches of the V-1 were economically entirely justified. Despite their near-zero combat effectiveness. After all, Britain was forced to invest huge resources in the fight against these ersatzKR. Complete restructuring of the air attack warning system, new high-speed aircraft, the best pilots who are not over Germany but in the rear ...

                Germany was just spending resources
                in this case - EMPTY
                and with the V-1, the modernized "anti-aircraft" air defense system coped well - WHICH WAS ALWAYS
                1. +10
                  16 January 2019 14: 08
                  Quote: mina024
                  and with the V-1, the modernized "anti-aircraft" air defense system coped well - WHICH WAS ALWAYS

                  For some reason, the British did not think so .... 8)))))) After only 144 out of 32 ersatzKR flying to the Island ...
                  A huge amount of money was spent on constant air patrol alone, which was not necessary in the fight against conventional bombers.
                  In short, learn materiel 8)))))))

                  Quote: mina024
                  "penny" against the background of this OUR SCAM

                  Well, of course 8)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))
                  1. -10
                    16 January 2019 14: 41
                    Quote: Spade
                    A huge amount of money was spent on constant air patrol alone, which was not necessary in the fight against conventional bombers.

                    they are "huge" only in YOUR inflamed "reality" (in quotes)
                    1. +6
                      16 January 2019 14: 50
                      Quote: mina024
                      they are "huge" only in YOUR inflamed "reality" (in quotes)

                      Once again, convincing me with hysterical cries will not work, rather, you make me laugh.
                      Especially when you showed complete ignorance of the subject.
                      Your application
                      Quote: mina024
                      and with the V-1, the modernized "anti-aircraft" air defense system coped well - WHICH WAS ALWAYS

                      was just an extravaganza of ignorance. Considering the fact that “coped” should mean 32 downed projectile aircraft out of 144
                      8))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))
                      1. -4
                        16 January 2019 16: 25
                        Quote: Spade
                        Once again, convince me of hysterical cries

                        you hysteria here;)
                        Quote: Spade
                        "coped" must mean 32 downed projectile aircraft out of 144

                        what are you singing! in Syria, air defense is the same, not all the Kyrgyz Republic shot down
                      2. +7
                        16 January 2019 16: 36
                        Quote: mina024
                        what are you singing! in Syria, air defense is the same, not all the Kyrgyz Republic shot down

                        Exactly. In your opinion, there was simply an outstanding victory in Syria.
                        But the British did not satisfy a similar one, to put it mildly. And they started work on the bugs. As a result of these rather expensive events, they reached completely different numbers. For example, on one of the days of August 44, they shot down 93 projectile aircraft out of 97 flying to the territory of Great Britain.
                      3. -2
                        16 January 2019 18: 16
                        Quote: Spade
                        In your opinion, there was simply an outstanding victory in Syria.

                        YES
                        Quote: Spade
                        Well, a similar British, to put it mildly, did not satisfy

                        Monsieur you are not imbitsil
                        for above you yourself wrote about the extremely low efficiency of strikes V-1
                        Quote: Spade
                        on one of the days of August 44, they shot down 93 of the projectile out of 97 flying

                        those. STRENGTHENING SEPARATE figures that are not related to the overall results and the meaning is YOURS
                        a simple question - where on the Western Front allegedly "lacked" fighters because of the Fau?
                      4. +6
                        16 January 2019 18: 46
                        Quote: mina024
                        Monsieur you are not imbitsil
                        for above you yourself wrote about the extremely low efficiency of strikes V-1

                        you have to be fully "professional" to manage to pick up some kind of contradiction 8)))
                        Hamas missiles are even less effective, but at the same time the "allowable losses" of the Israelis are even less, and therefore the defense system is even more expensive. But this is probably too difficult for you. You are a "professional" 8)))

                        Quote: mina024
                        those. STRENGTHENING SEPARATE figures that are not related to the overall results and the meaning is YOURS

                        I understand that comparing two groups of numbers - the complexity for a real professional is simply unlimited. But they indicate a sharp increase in the effectiveness of defense in almost three months.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                  2. +2
                    16 January 2019 18: 03
                    After out of 144 ersatzKR flying to the Island, only 32 were shot down ...

                    And what exactly was that day?
                    1. +2
                      16 January 2019 18: 47
                      Quote: frog
                      After out of 144 ersatzKR flying to the Island, only 32 were shot down ...

                      And what exactly was that day?

                      They write, June 16
                2. 0
                  17 January 2019 19: 19
                  Come on! We all need to say thank you that the Fuhrer scored on the advice of professionals on the use of new weapons that he had. So Germany spent the resource in the right direction, only the finished product was used to a minimum.
                3. +2
                  19 January 2019 19: 56
                  Quote: mina024
                  Germany was just spending resources
                  in this case - EMPTY
                  and with the V-1, the modernized "anti-aircraft" air defense system coped well

                  We know this today, or think we know how Germany wasted resources. But in 19441-43, for example, the same Americans did not think so. They seriously strained at the stage of the Germans' elaboration of the atomic bomb theme. And all because the topics of defense production, its quality condition and technical capabilities are secrets behind seven seals. And you and the author discuss them as specialists directly involved in these developments, on both sides. All your arguments about Poseidon as a roaring cow in the silence of the ocean do not have invoices under them. The Americans may have immense opportunities for searching and intercepting underwater objects, but they searched for a drowned boat for several months, the Malaysian plane, and today it is unclear whether they found it or not. DEPLs simulating the enemy in exercises pop up unnoticed inside an aircraft carrier warrant. Maybe your idea of ​​their omnipotence is the result of watching commercial advertising? All discussions about Poseidon begin with the fact that it must go at maximum speed. And why shouldn't she, as an Albanian rebel, sneak up to the zone of use at minimum speed without noise and dust. You don’t need to feed anyone on board, that for a week she should swim, that for three - what difference does it make? And the sea, it is only visible on a globe from coast to coast, but in realities you can’t put a sensor on every kilometer of coast. And put in the algorithm of the Poseidon program the ability to hide behind tankers or container ships, then all their sensors are wasted money. I do not think that we, as first graders, need to fall into extreme points of view, the truth is somewhere in the middle. And people in the manual are no stupider than the author. Only they have some responsibility for the decisions made, and the author can be clever as he pleases, there is no demand. Is it just grandmothers from an anonymous source .... wink
                  1. 0
                    22 January 2019 19: 48
                    We know this today, or think we know how Germany wasted resources. But in 19441-43, for example, the same Americans did not think so. They seriously strained at the stage of the Germans' elaboration of the atomic bomb theme.
                    as far as I know, the Americans weren’t very tense about the German atomic bomb because US-British intelligence found out that German engineers were moving along the dead end path of creating an atomic bomb. I read about this for a long time, so please do not criticize much, because most of it was forgotten, but the German project was somehow connected with the use of heavy water, either in the bomb itself, or for something else ... Besides the fact that heavy water, as far as I know, was also used in reactors, to produce weapons plutonium, the Americans and the British, as far as I remember, carried out an operation to destroy the heavy water plant in Norway, which killed two birds with one stone - and deprived the Germans of heavy water for the reactors and prompted them to think that the plant was bombed with good reason - it means they are on the right track.
                    And people in the manual are no stupider than the author. Only they have some responsibility for the decisions made, and the author can be clever as he pleases, there is no demand.
                    Hmmm ... this is where I got interested ... can you tell me what their responsibility is? Who can take them by the gills for their actions / inaction? One such "responsible", better known as "marked" is still alive and well, and none of the current not only top officials, but even the most sniffed officials did not even say a bad word ...
                    1. 0
                      22 January 2019 20: 09
                      Quote: AnderS
                      but do not tell me what is their responsibility? who can take them for their gills for their actions / inaction?

                      Are you familiar with the inner sensations of a person sending another person to where he might not return? Responsibility is not always a cell in the courtroom .... I will not go into the explanation. I will say only one thing - do not consider yourself holier than the Pope. Lamps to trousers are sewn not to every passerby, but as a rule to those who responsibly approach the assigned business.
                      1. 0
                        23 January 2019 00: 15
                        I will only say one thing - do not consider yourself holier than the Pope
                        I do not quite understand what this has to do with it. I do not seem to pretend to infallibility, neither my judgments, nor my actions. And about
                        Are you familiar with the inner sensations of a person sending another person to where he might not return? Responsibility is not always a cell in the courtroom ....
                        Seriously? but a cage in a courtroom, it still encourages a more balanced approach. And you didn't answer the second part of my comment - what about "tagged"? Someone who has internal feelings, probably, wakes up from nightmares right every night ... all of him must be filmed by those people who either defended the TV center in Vilnius, or stormed it while performing their official duty (excuse me, I don’t remember the details) and those who are in Tbilisi he dispersed the demonstration ... and from which this mister successfully disowned afterwards ... Directly internal sensations are evident ... You would also tell that after death he will go to Hell for this ...
                      2. 0
                        23 January 2019 10: 22
                        Quote: AnderS
                        what about "tagged"?

                        From my point of view, everything is simple - it must be condemned by the court during his lifetime, and, at the same time, it is difficult - the political culture of non-public agreements and the status of the first president of the USSR interfere with a simple decision. Most likely, the current government does not want to set a precedent for reprisals against people who played the main roles in the state. For better or worse, I can’t decide for myself yet. The question, as I said, is not simple. And not from the point of view of the validity of a critical assessment, but from the point of view of the effectiveness of the current one. Something like this.
                      3. 0
                        24 January 2019 15: 03
                        without any doubts
              3. 0
                16 January 2019 18: 41
                "How many times is the cost of countermeasures to Poseidons"
                will exceed their cost? "
                ------
                Poseidon's countermeasures universally fit
                detection, tracking and destruction of submarines.
                See Poseidon as a high-speed mini submarine.
                Therefore, the funds invested now in the USA against
                fast-growing Chinese submarine fleet come in handy
                and the fight against Poseidons and their carriers.
                Extra money will not be spent.
            3. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. +5
            16 January 2019 19: 45
            Quote: another RUSICH
            And you, sir, teacher, or just want to seem smart?
            You have already been answered below that Poseidon is not a superweapon in any way, and no one considers him to be such, this time. Secondly, the truth that the commanders are always preparing for the last war is obviously not familiar to you, however, this does not cancel the different concept of waging wars in the 20th century and in the 21st, for this, the holding of parallels between the tiger and Poseidon, is not correctly.
            And thirdly, who are you in life?))) Do you know all the plans of the military-industrial complex? Is the budget known? General Staff plans for the sequence of the use of nuclear weapons in case of aggression?
            Even 15 years ago, you snot wound on a fist counting in your mind the ratio of t72 and Abrams.
            So sit and keep quiet, you are our strategic tag)))

            And you can’t see how to think and never learn.
        2. +3
          16 January 2019 10: 16
          Well, we are then, thank God, not at war. And right now, by all indications, there is no "wunderwaffe" hobby. Nobody is in a hurry to buy thousands of "Armata" and Su-47s, well, perhaps with "Ash", they went on an uncompromising move. On the contrary, they buy well-tested samples that have not yet exhausted their modernization potential. Syria, in this regard, played a colossal role and saved billions.

          Everything is logical: there will not be an ordinary war with an equal enemy, for wars of the last fifty years with an unequal enemy, it is necessary to develop electronics, electronic warfare, UAVs, which the beloved state seems to be doing with special care. Therefore, by the way, and to the fleet (your sore subject), apparently similar neglect, in addition to the main, most important direction: strategic deterrence, as a result of which, SSBNs are put at the forefront, and everything else, according to the residual principle and besides, is clearly not there will be no common understanding and agreement on what kind of fleet we need, apart from "strategists". The ocean surface fleet is seen by many as an expensive way to demonstrate the flag and nothing more, to deal with the coastal one. Well, yes, of course, AUG is needed, for example, for situations such as with Libya, but ... you understand. Well, at least that's how I see it.

          So, the strategic containment of an EQUAL enemy, it just requires, at least, not to lag behind him, or better, to be ahead of him at least half a step. the Americans, it seems, got ahead with their missile defense (although, for me, this is the missile defense, or it should work with 100% efficiency, which no one will ever give a guarantee, or it is not needed nafik), they had to make "vanguards", " Poseidons "and ... I don't remember what they called this CD with NPP, it doesn't matter. The ocean surface fleet is seen by many as an expensive way to display the flag and nothing more. Well, yes, of course AUG is needed, for example, for situations such as with Libya, but ... you understand. Well, at least that's how I see it.

          In conclusion, I will express a slightly crazy and funny thought that recently came to my mind, well, that is, it must have come to someone's head before me, but for some reason, no one voiced it, at least I did not hear. Poseidon, in theory, can serve as a preemptive strike that will remain unanswered. Well, if you recall the well-known idea of ​​Sakharov and implement it with the help of this torpedo. The United States has an established procedure for a missile attack, but what will it do if an unknown nuclear device is detonated somewhere in the ocean depths, which caused known predicted events? What do you think?
          1. +8
            16 January 2019 11: 31
            Poseidon, in theory, can serve as a preemptive strike that will remain unanswered. Well, if you remember the well-known idea of ​​Sakharov and implement it with the help of this torpedo. The United States has an established procedure for a missile attack, but what will it do if an unknown nuclear device is detonated somewhere in the ocean depths, which caused known predicted events? What do you think?


            They will look at seismographs, for a couple of seconds they will understand that it was a nuclear explosion, take a water sample, determine what isotopes are there, and then they will know not only in which country this bomb was made, but also in which reactor plutonium was developed.

            Nuclear weapons leave quite "readable" traces sometimes.
            1. +9
              16 January 2019 11: 37
              Mm ... And how much will all this take? The decision will need to be taken instantly, or already no one.))
              1. -1
                16 January 2019 12: 11
                About a week.
                1. +5
                  16 January 2019 12: 13
                  So, other suggestions.))
                2. +1
                  17 January 2019 19: 25
                  So wash off the floor of the country. Something like this.
              2. 0
                16 January 2019 20: 01
                Quote: Sevastiec
                Mm ... And how much will all this take? The decision will need to be taken instantly, or already no one.))

                You are at enmity with a neighbor, to death. Suddenly your house lights up, is engulfed in flames and cannot be extinguished. What’s your action? Given that there’s nothing to lose, life is at stake? You grab a shotgun! True? True!
                But if it caught fire a little and can be put out, then there is a different scenario. But then you remained alive, you will have time both for reflection and for answering.
                1. +5
                  17 January 2019 04: 41
                  Quote: free
                  You grab a gun! Right? True!


                  No, not true. And the analogy is a curve. Now, if this neighbor starts shooting from the window from the gun, then THEN, you grab the gun and start firing back. And if you suddenly started a fire in which you have no chance to escape, you are unlikely to look for a gun, because to save, you will EVERYTHING try. And only IF you manage to do this, you will probably deal with who is to blame, but it may turn out that your gun burned out along with the house.
                  Something like this wassat
            2. KCA
              +1
              16 January 2019 12: 36
              Something when ruthenium was allegedly discovered in Europe, no one ever named where, how or why, and whether it was. What kind of plutonium after an explosion in the ocean? In a thermonuclear explosion, it burns up nafig, and its quantity is insignificant, in peacetime you can send ships or planes with an analyzer, but after the explosion it is no longer necessary for anyone, there will be enough other worries, then, plutonium does not occur in nature, it is a product of uranium processing, to know where it comes from, you need to have samples from many reactors, and who will let them take it?
        3. +5
          16 January 2019 12: 54
          Well, this is certainly not a child prodigy, but an underwater drone that is able to get to the aug from below at great depths or to get into a large port and tear it down with one blow is a good idea. At one time, the Americans conducted an experiment at the Bikini Atoll to undermine a nuclear charge under the fleet and over the fleet. For this, real warships intended for decommissioning and captured Japanese and German were used.
          Moreover, it should be noted that the ships of the Second World War were much more armored and stronger.
          Result. In both cases, part of the ships died, some of the small ships simply disappeared, but the largest survived. However, the fleet clearly cannot carry out a combat mission after this. Only one column of radioactive water with a frantic background that flooded all the surviving ships, this guarantees. The deck of even the surviving aircraft carrier will fonit so that about any use of it is out of the question. This is not to mention that everything will be swept away from it - both the air wing and all fragile systems.
          In opposition to Poseidon - AUG I would put on Poseidon. hi
          And there is another point why the GDP announced all the cartoons at a time. You can spend a ton of money and protect yourself from one thing. For example, from the Vanguard. But from all systems completely different in scope, there will not be enough any opportunities even of a global hegemon. And this will have to be considered by mattresses. request
          1. +4
            16 January 2019 13: 23
            Quote: g1v2
            Pt in opposition Poseidon - AUG I would put on Poseidon

            if you take the trouble to study the "Bikini Experiments" more closely, you will find that the effectiveness of nuclear warheads against ships is rather low
            1. +5
              16 January 2019 14: 27
              It is high enough so that the ships could not fulfill the task.
              1. -3
                16 January 2019 16: 23
                about SPM, did you hear anything?
                hear
                and stop flogging bullshit
                1. +2
                  17 January 2019 20: 28
                  Well, I know your reputation and intolerance towards the opinions of others, therefore I will not enter into a dispute. Although the results of the Baker explosion in my opinion are quite visual. And what kind of struggle for vitality did you intend to wage when the ship grabbed so much radiation that it almost glows - xs. And one more thing worth noting. The charge power under Baker was 23 kilotons. I have little faith in the Poseidon charge of 2 megatons, but even a half megaton charge is 20 times more than in the Baker explosion. The result will also be much cooler. Well, by the way, while you are fighting for survivability, you cannot perform a combat mission - you are trying to survive on a broken, luminous ship.
                  That's it, the argument has ended. hi
              2. +5
                16 January 2019 17: 00
                N-yes ... Pick up Crossroads! You will suddenly be surprised. The conclusions were completely opposite to yours- [quote] [/ quote] It is high enough so that the ships could not fulfill the task
          2. 0
            16 January 2019 20: 03
            Quote: g1v2
            Well, this is certainly not a child prodigy, but an underwater drone that is able to get to the aug from below at great depths or to get into a large port and tear it down with one blow is a good idea. At one time, the Americans conducted an experiment at the Bikini Atoll to undermine a nuclear charge under the fleet and over the fleet. For this, real warships intended for decommissioning and captured Japanese and German were used.
            Moreover, it should be noted that the ships of the Second World War were much more armored and stronger.
            Result. In both cases, part of the ships died, some of the small ships simply disappeared, but the largest survived. However, the fleet clearly cannot carry out a combat mission after this. Only one column of radioactive water with a frantic background that flooded all the surviving ships, this guarantees. The deck of even the surviving aircraft carrier will fonit so that about any use of it is out of the question. This is not to mention that everything will be swept away from it - both the air wing and all fragile systems.
            In opposition to Poseidon - AUG I would put on Poseidon. hi
            And there is another point why the GDP announced all the cartoons at a time. You can spend a ton of money and protect yourself from one thing. For example, from the Vanguard. But from all systems completely different in scope, there will not be enough any opportunities even of a global hegemon. And this will have to be considered by mattresses. request

            Is it because it was partly for domestic consumption.
            1. 0
              17 January 2019 20: 30
              It was just for external consumption. The reason is the operation in Eastern Ghouta. On the townsfolk, such news has little effect - their own ass is much more worried. hi
        4. 0
          17 January 2019 15: 42
          ... the author just warns against the path of the Third Reich,

          Andrew! I am reading your articles with interest.
          But what does modern Russia and the Reich have to do with it?
          Do we have tasks to expand our living space? No.
          Are we going to conquer Europe? No.
          Maybe we need the British Isles? So for nothing are not needed.
          Do we have a task to develop a "pure race"? We don't have such tasks!
          So what do we and the Reich have to do with it?
          Starting with a deliberately false premise, the author went into flight fantasies not connected with real life in any way. hi
          At 5 a.m. nothing normal can be written IMHO.
        5. -3
          17 January 2019 21: 47
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          that the author warns against the path of the Third Reich


          The United States follows the path and methods of the Third Reich, when they have not yet created anything breakthrough, but they want to bend the whole world. The Third Reich if it did not rush straight to the East hoping to capture the Soviet continent empire and create in sufficient numbers under the leadership of Werner von Braun, then now the whole planet flew a flag with a swastika.
          "Superweapon" is a Hollywood term hammered into the dull minds of popcorn eaters. This is just a weapon of the next technological cycle and woe to those who will not have this weapon.
          At one time, such a weapon was the invention of a nuclear bomb, the possession of which provided a peaceful sky for many decades over the heads of our grandfathers, fathers and you and me.

          The article is an open verbal rubbish of an ignoramus-old believer with an exorbitantly hyped ego who wants to score points on provocation, especially since there is no way to put a minus on the article.
        6. 0
          19 January 2019 17: 52
          But later the USA and the USSR helped.
        7. 0
          21 January 2019 20: 06
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          although the Germans created a lot of new and advanced, all this did not help them.

          so what’s new not to create? And if these drones are based on civilian ships or on airplanes?
      2. +10
        16 January 2019 09: 08
        I read today's articles and it seems that half of them wrote in the New Year’s hangover syndrome. . .
      3. +24
        16 January 2019 09: 11
        Quote: another RUSICH
        Moreover, the author did not understand the essence of his contradiction: either "they filled up the number, yours", then they beat the "ingenious engineering thought" in the form of royal tigers with thirty-fours WITHOUT LOSS)))
        Thanks, neighing)

        But it seems to me that you did not understand anything!
        If you discard the emotions and cries of cheers, and leave one logic, then personally I see one solid bullshit where not to rush. The question is why with these developments, with the army as a whole, is not the same nonsense.
        PS TV channel "RUSSIA" evening "Vesti" I quote from memory "Since the new year, 12 national projects have started and we can already see the first results now ************* finally in RUSSIA with the help of high technologies launched the production of domestic hockey sticks "******** A little earlier, the valiant cries of hurray, we won against RusAl, they lift the sanctions ************* only a small nuance the controlling stake can never belong to RUSSIA and this is not enough, the main condition of 12 directors Russian citizens can only be four others must be Americans or British. WITHOUT ANY POSEIDONS WE COULD TAKE OUR WITHOUT DISARMING HITS, and we talk about clubs, poseidons, vanguards, and wave shukshin. You can even Zeus, with a perun, but without a powerful economy, without a nationally oriented elite, they will kill us. Who will be engaged in this Medvedev, Siluanov, Manturov who, oh yes, apparently HE HIMSELF, HE KNOWS, HE IS KNOWLEDGE, HIS HAS A Tricky PLAN
        1. 0
          16 January 2019 10: 18
          Let's not sculpt everything together, okay? What does the media have to do with it?
          Yes, I trust our defense industry, but not because of cheers, but because of real changes in our army for the better. And if you don’t remember what condition she was 15-20 years ago, and what was the gap between her support and the NATO armies, I can remind you that it only takes a lot of space and time.
          The article is crap because it is very narrow and not very objective, well, elementary, simply because none of those present here knows and can not know the performance characteristics of Poseidon!
          Well, it can’t!))) Just as it does not know the limits of the capabilities of the American (I think no one has any doubt against whom Poseidon is developed) PPO system.
          And if so, then we look at the general background of the article. And he is typically pro-Gorbachevsky: let’s not develop anything, let’s go everywhere, because it eats a lot of money. Yeah ... it was already ...
          With the same Gorbachev, he will be remembered by night. Did you heal richly later?
          1. +2
            16 January 2019 11: 33
            The article is crap because it is very narrow and not very objective, well, elementary, simply because none of those present here knows and can not know the performance characteristics of Poseidon!


            But the physical limits beyond which these performance characteristics will never go very well known. And all the shoals of the concept of "Poseidon" are written for the conditions when its creators PERFECTLY guessed the performance characteristics - which is not a fact at all.
            1. +5
              16 January 2019 15: 24
              But the physical limits beyond which these performance characteristics will never go very well known

              Well, since you are well aware of these "limits" (!), Answer me a simple question - does Poseidon use a screw when moving or not?
              And in your article there are a lot of your own contradictions and even blunders (when assuming something "from the ceiling", you immediately use it as an "argument" (mainly in the "policy" of use). But about it another time (when there is time)
          2. +6
            16 January 2019 12: 12
            And yet, the article is not a bit about that, or not at all about that. The second army is different? Well, according to the media, yes another. And here the question arises, but is it necessary to believe the media? You didn’t remember Gorbachev by night, but how do these guys differ from him? They became smarter that we didn’t quite identify them with the humpback, they will tell us about clubs and Poseidons. Grains from the chaff can be distinguished only by their fruits and in no other way, and their fruits turned out to be one chatter in 20 years, and the situation worsens every day.
            1. +3
              17 January 2019 16: 34
              Well, what did you want if Shoigu was a fireman by training and not a bit military? Putin, too, is far from military equipment, cartoons were drawn to him and speech was written by political strategists at the Chubais level, and he voiced this nonsense. Although there is a thought that the purpose of this is to either misinform the enemy (which is unlikely, there are no fools at all) or show off to raise a jingoistic wave in Russia.
          3. +6
            16 January 2019 13: 30
            Quote: another RUSICH
            Yes, I trust our defense industry, but not because of cheers, but because of real changes in our army for the better. And if you don’t remember in what condition she was 15-20 years ago, and what was the gap between her support and the NATO armies

            well, compare
            20 years ago we had about 20-24 modern at that time Aircraft AWACS
            now 4 (four)
            20 years ago, the equipment of the enemy Air Force AIM-120 was just beginning, which sharply increased their combat capabilities, now it is a STANDARD - THEM
            and we still have the "standard" R-27, and new ones are just beginning to appear
            20 years ago we had 2 loaves at the Pacific Fleet in the ranks (and 15 - three), now - one
            1. 0
              16 January 2019 18: 25
              Well, for drills, thank Gorbachev and EBN, and not only for drunk drills, but also for the destruction of the torpedo bomb regiment in Severomorsk-3,
              The reduction of the fighter regiment in Maly Safonovo is also there, and if not for Kuzya, and a bold enough epaulette who did not hesitate to reason with Borya, then this would not have happened
              Give statistics on the procurement of aircraft, or find yourself?
              For missiles, you yourself admitted that the progress has gone)
              Let's talk about tanks? For the air defense system? For ammunition, small arms?
              Well, what kind of Pacific Fleet, then with the fleet in the USSR it was on a residual basis.
              Well, the supply is far from the same as in the 90s
              Naturally problems remain! But it’s difficult to embrace the guys, especially after the Gorbachev-Yeltsin betrayal
          4. -7
            16 January 2019 14: 45
            Quote: another RUSICH
            The article is crap because it is very narrow and not very objective, well, elementary, simply because none of those present here knows and can not know the performance characteristics of Poseidon!

            shit stupid and stinky here are YOU

            for an objective assessment of the Status I do not need accurate performance characteristics, this does not even make sense - because SCAMMERS do not even think of getting them

            but for the EVALUATION of this Crap information is more than enough
            1. +1
              17 January 2019 14: 36
              for an objective assessment of the Status I do not need accurate performance characteristics, this does not even make sense -

              Good comment. I have not read the author, but I am outraged.
              Of course, why know the subject of discussion - you can just reason.
            2. -3
              17 January 2019 22: 35
              Quote: mina024
              for an objective assessment of the Status I do not need accurate performance characteristics

              Well, who would doubt it ... laughing
              Quote: mina024
              shit stupid and stinky
              Yeah, already a hysterical ... Damn it, the vulnerable nature was caught.wassat
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. -1
          17 January 2019 18: 40
          we won with RusAl lift sanctions ************* only a small nuance the controlling stake can never belong to RUSSIA and this is not enough, the main condition of 12 directors Russian citizens can be only four others must be Americans or the British. WITHOUT ANY POSEIDONS, WE TAKE OURS OUR WITHOUT DECUMPING Bumps

          Do you really think that those who need it have not agreed in advance?
          And what could prevent Russia from nationalizing if something happens?
          We need them to have something to lose. Then they will sit calmer. hi
          1. +2
            18 January 2019 08: 49
            Quote: Alex777
            And what could prevent Russia from nationalizing if something happens?

            Do you seriously think that with this government, with this elite, some kind of nationalization is possible, UTOPIA. The second thing, in order to carry out nationalization in today's conditions, we need people of the scale of Stalin, Beria, Kosygin, Ustinov, Slavsky, and so on, and with these even if for the sake of (as the Russian language is spelled pi ar) they decide on it, then how it will not seem strange, it will only lead to the same if not more disaster, like privatization by Chubais
      4. +1
        16 January 2019 13: 05
        Quote: another RUSICH
        neighing)

        apparently, only YOU are capable of it;)
        Well, DOWNLOAD
    2. +4
      16 January 2019 08: 40
      1. Striking the enemy after his own death, this is an excellent deterrence factor that has been working for many years.
      2. US and Allied PLOs will be critically damaged by the impact of our nuclear warheads
      Although, there is a certain amount of empty hype. One nonsense about the 100 megaton warhead of what it costs.
      1. +2
        16 January 2019 11: 34
        Do you mind shooting first? And why, in order to contain a torpedo, why do you not like rockets?
        1. +4
          16 January 2019 11: 49
          These are mutually complementary elements of strategic deterrence. And the rockets suit me, it’s strange that you didn’t understand this from my words.
          1. -2
            16 January 2019 12: 12
            But in order for the missiles to launch on time, some kind of infrastructure is needed. Poseidon "ate" it. And he himself does not give anything new, and he himself needed that infrastructure. Does this bother you?
            1. +2
              16 January 2019 12: 18
              Poseidon "ate" apl that would have been written off without him. So this does not affect the strategic nuclear forces.
            2. +7
              16 January 2019 13: 19
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Poseidon "ate" it

              I will express a seditious thought, but, dear, how did Poseidon "eat it"? I mean, are you sure that Poseidon needs a carrier at all, with his nuclear reactor? Or such a question - if Poseidon still needs a carrier, why can't they have a surface ship?
              And in this regard, I want to ask you, what did he eat and to whom does he interfere?
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. +4
                  16 January 2019 13: 46
                  Quote: mina024
                  add. Yarsov

                  Have you watched the START-3 Treaty for a long time?
                  Quote: mina024
                  add. Avant-garde

                  Have you already made the media, except for the Stylets that are?
                  Quote: mina024
                  add. Su-35С

                  Have you prepared pilots for these additional fighter parties, along with those personnel?
                  1. -2
                    16 January 2019 14: 24
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Have you watched the START-3 Treaty for a long time?

                    he has nothing to do with it
                    for in this case, you can safely write off the very same Pacific Fleet - which do not have any combat significance today

                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Have you already made the media, except for the Stylets that are?

                    To do
                    Are the statuses "done"? Have I TESTED their "KOTELOK" at least once? .ui! AND DO NOT COLLECT !!!
                    because there is a "practical option" for hanging noodles on the ears of the piplu and VLOOKUP (of course, without the "pot")
                    a precedent when, after 61-53, only AFTER 10 years of operation (and then by accident) they found that most of the time that torpedoes (combat) were in the BC were not operational - there is


                    Quote: NEXUS
                    Have you prepared pilots for these additional fighter parties, along with those personnel?

                    and problems in l / s, including because the loot goes to Crap type Stsutusov
                2. 0
                  16 January 2019 18: 30
                  Provide data on what exactly he ate, and whether the development of Poseidon really hindered the supply of Dryers to the Air Force
                  1. The comment was deleted.
              2. +1
                16 January 2019 15: 31
                if Poseidon still needs a carrier, why can't they be a surface ship?

                Yes, I also thought about it, or DEPL. Better DEPL ...
                And the carrier is needed, because in the "threatened period" they will not be left in the base, but it is still impossible to release "the genie from the bottle"
        2. +2
          16 January 2019 15: 02
          And Poseidon - as a guarantee of mutual destruction and a warning that the United States would not do in case of using nuclear weapons - will receive the maximum, from all mediums ..
          1. +1
            16 January 2019 20: 10
            Quote: Vadim237
            And Poseidon - as a guarantee of mutual destruction and a warning that the United States would not do in case of using nuclear weapons - will receive the maximum, from all mediums ..

            Money, families, property of our elite in the West to help. As soon as they hit, so the dust in the back streets.
            1. -4
              17 January 2019 14: 39
              Get a new training manual already. It is strange that this did not affect either Crimea, Syria, the sale of American debt securities, or Nord Stream 2, but during the war it will be a decisive factor, yeah.
              1. +1
                17 January 2019 18: 24
                Quote: Lock36
                Get a new training manual already. It is strange that this did not affect either Crimea, Syria, the sale of American debt securities, or Nord Stream 2, but during the war it will be a decisive factor, yeah.

                Nothing strange! American debt securities are still full, the northern stream has nothing to do with it. If they hadn’t taken Crimea, it would have cost them too much. Well, Syria, nobody canceled the competition.
    3. +6
      16 January 2019 11: 59
      Quote: Theodore
      Everything is lost

      Well, not all, but the fact that the Navy is practically defenseless against a mine threat is a fact. As well as the fact that minefields + Air Force are able to "block" our missile carriers.
      Another thing is that everything must be spent on resources and it is impossible to block everything and everything.
    4. 0
      2 June 2023 09: 57
      Disappears. Right now.
      -------------------------
  2. +5
    16 January 2019 05: 41
    Well done, Alexander! Now hold the defense good
    1. +13
      16 January 2019 06: 53
      Author! You with such confidence describe the characteristics of the latest weapons, as if you yourself are its creator ... wassat The topic of the article is a continuation of the American theme: “If you do not stop creating new types of weapons, we will withdraw from the INF Treaty” ... laughing S-400 do not need to be cut into scrap metal? But can Su-35 be allowed for chemical processing of farmland?
      And this strange phrase: “A dog is a friend of man! stop When and if the Poseidons are torn off the American coast, we will all be dead ... "Do you want us to give a damn about the advice of Alexander III and betray our allies? laughing Do not tell mine ...
      1. +4
        16 January 2019 13: 44
        Quote: ROSS 42
        as if you are its creator


        I had a relation to the development of MPO, directly (up to the development of ONR-2030 on the topic)
        I agree with Timokhin
        1. 0
          16 January 2019 15: 36
          mina024 I had a relation to the development of IGOs, directly ... I agree with Timokhin

          Wow, so you are from the "budget drinkers"?)))
          1. -4
            16 January 2019 16: 21
            Quote: anzar
            you mean

            you mean from stupid schnicks
            1. +4
              17 January 2019 16: 54
              Those who unprovenly believe in the superiority of our "miracle weapon" do not agree with Timokhin. These are the same jingoistic patriots who three years ago came into indescribable delight that our Su-24 allegedly completely turned off the American destroyer. If they then took on faith that bullshit about the Khibiny electronic warfare complex, then this wunderfall causes no less delight in them.
    2. -8
      16 January 2019 10: 21
      And what to hold on to?)))
      It would be something to criticize
      1. -1
        16 January 2019 14: 25
        Quote: another RUSICH
        And what to hold on to?)))

        YOU - for your trampoline, of course
  3. +11
    16 January 2019 05: 43
    So let the USA spend money on Poseidon’s reflection, and not First Impact technology, I’d put sensors on interception, if Poseidon was intercepted, then there’s still an atomic explosion, which will first put the US anti-submarine defense out of the way, and Poseidon’s main torpedoes will already go without obstacles. I think ours will come up with the idea that part of the Poseidons should disable the US anti-submarine defense, paving the way for others.
    1. +16
      16 January 2019 07: 39
      Quote: ain1959
      The atomic explosion, which will initially lead out of the standing anti-submarine defense of the United States, and the main torpedoes of Poseidon will already go without obstacles.

      I'm afraid you have no idea what you are writing about. US PLO is not destroyed by a single atomic explosion. And five. And ten.
      Quote: ain1959
      So let the US spend money on Poseidon reflection, not First strike technology

      The question is, what will they spend on this no more than we will on Poseidons. So it’s we who will spray the funds, not they
      1. +2
        16 January 2019 11: 11
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I'm afraid you have no idea what you are writing about. US PLO is not destroyed by a single atomic explosion. And five. And ten.

        I’m afraid you can’t imagine the US PLO cannot exist without bases.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The question is, what will they spend on this no more than we will on Poseidons.

        To put it mildly, complete nonsense.
        1. +4
          16 January 2019 11: 35
          Without any bases? The ships will be at sea, they will be back when it is all over, there are more airfields in the world than we have warheads on ICBMs. What is the problem with the bases?
          1. +8
            16 January 2019 11: 47
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Without which bases? Ships will be at sea

            ??
            Is it like "the Americans will helpfully warn us about the readiness to use XYAN, putting all their submarine forces into the sea"?

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            What is the problem with the databases?

            They will be destroyed. Ships, not receiving timely replenishment of stocks and timely service will become useless.
            1. -5
              16 January 2019 12: 15
              Ships are launched into the sea, the United States inflicts its desired disarming strike on us, PLO aircraft are dispersed beforehand.

              What you do not understand? Bases they lose? Yes, they will lose some, but the ships and fuel will be enough to intercept Poseidons.

              How does Poseidon help here? Protecting our missile submarines helps completely, building up the forces of the NSNF on patrols also helps, and how does Poseidon help?
              1. +5
                16 January 2019 12: 23
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Ships are launched into the sea, the United States inflicts its desired disarming strike on us, PLO aircraft are dispersed beforehand.

                Under such conditions, a disarming strike is impossible, because its basic principle, surprise, is not respected.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                What you do not understand? Bases they lose? Yes, they will lose some, but the ships and fuel will be enough to intercept Poseidons.

                Everyone will lose. Completely.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Here is the protection of their missile submarines - it helps completely,

                And why are these missile boats needed, following your logic? It is much cheaper to cut them, so as not to spend money on maintenance, and to place more missiles on ground launchers.
                1. +5
                  16 January 2019 15: 41
                  Quote: Spade
                  Under such conditions, a disarming strike is impossible, because its basic principle, surprise, is not respected.

                  And who said that the departure of US ships to the sea and the full deployment of the ASW system necessarily mean war? Offhand - the US Navy may resume the annual "Reformers" - to work out the salvation of democracy in Europe from evil Russians. With full working off the cover of the Atlantic KON from the Russian nuclear submarines and DA. And, having accustomed to the traditional nature of the teachings, in advance to deploy forces to strike under the brand name of the next "Reforger".
                  1. +5
                    16 January 2019 16: 14
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And who said that the release of US ships into the sea and the full deployment of the anti-aircraft defense system necessarily means war?

                    This will not mean war, it will be a signal for the transfer of Russian SJAN to higher levels of combat readiness. After all, this also will not mean war, will it?

                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    And, accustomed to the traditional teachings

                    At our higher levels, the transfer took place even before the US invasion of Iraq 8)))
                    1. -6
                      16 January 2019 17: 04
                      Quote: Spade
                      This will not mean war, it will be a signal for the transfer of Russian SJAN to higher levels of combat readiness. After all, this also will not mean war, will it?

                      now look autonomy those and others ...
                      1. +5
                        16 January 2019 17: 09
                        Quote: mina024
                        and now we look at the autonomy of those and others ...

                        Our land mobile and mine complexes have autonomy, which is orders of magnitude superior to the autonomy of the American fleet
                      2. -1
                        16 January 2019 18: 33
                        Quote: Spade
                        Our land mobile and mine complexes have autonomy, which is orders of magnitude superior to the autonomy of the American fleet

                        by mine agree
                        Navy - no
                        PGRK - no comments
                      3. +2
                        16 January 2019 18: 57
                        Poseidon is the last hand, if you put hydrogen bombs there, and the engines are nuclear reactors, the interception of Poseidon, it will still provoke a nuclear reactor explosion and an atomic explosion that will launch a hydrogen explosion, and a nuclear-powered rocket works on these principles. An explosion of such power will remove all anti-submarine defense sensors. And on other Poseidons there are sensors for detecting a hydrogen explosion, the DEAD HAND works and the Poseidons start up, but I would also set the interval so that the first Poseidons destroy the anti-submarine defense of the United States, and then the latter are launched and are guaranteed to reach the US coast or there is a good volcano in Hawaii it’s not enough to explode or the Islands of Malaysia, in general, to the places of volcanic activity of the earth, we will not be there anyway, but the United States is unlikely to survive, but may think to attack or not attack.
                      4. +1
                        17 January 2019 17: 22
                        I confirm, but all the prowlers have nothing to worry about, Putin has everything under control, the army is rearmament, the latest weapons that have no analogues in the world on alert duty.
                        I will only list the main ones:
                        - We can turn off GPS and all of their missiles will not hit the target.
                        - Our electronic warfare will create a canopy of interference and all of their aircraft will get lost in space, like blind kittens.
                        - We will use the Khibiny and all their ships will receive scorched electronics, become blind and deaf.
                        - And we also apply climate weapons on new physical principles and they will pierce.
                        - And we’ll also explode nuclear landmines off the coast of the USA and wash them all off into the ocean.
                        - And we’ll also use fart weapons - as a chorus we’ll all fart and they will rest.
              2. 0
                17 January 2019 14: 43
                Ships are launched into the sea, the United States inflicts its desired disarming strike on us, PLO aircraft are dispersed beforehand.

                EMNIP usual scheme: one boat in the dock, one on the database, one goes home. If they ALL go out to sea - you have to hit right away. )))
            2. 0
              16 January 2019 16: 20
              Quote: Spade
              Ships, not receiving timely replenishment of stocks and timely service will become useless.

              Monsieur about Amerov submarine floating base walk
              discover a lot of new

              and before that - stop flogging nonsense
        2. -6
          16 January 2019 14: 34
          Quote: Spade
          US PLO cannot exist without bases.

          NONSENSE

          Quote: Spade
          To put it mildly, complete nonsense.

          complete nonsense - YOU have
          1. +9
            16 January 2019 14: 53
            The statement that PLO can exist without bases, to put it mildly, is inadequate. Even if it is written in capital letters 8)))))))))
            1. -1
              16 January 2019 16: 19
              Quote: Spade
              The statement that PLO can exist without bases, to put it mildly, is inadequate. Even if it is written in capital letters 8)))))))))

              jump a little
              do YOU ​​google on coupons?
              taking into account the probable destruction of naval forces, the Americans already had a powerful auxiliary fleet in the 60s including the preparation of torpedoes and SLBMs (!!!) for maneuvering
              1. +6
                16 January 2019 16: 51
                Quote: mina024
                already in the 60s they had a powerful auxiliary fleet including the preparation of torpedoes and SLBMs (!!!) for maneuvering

                Who stood at these very bases, right?
                Well, they managed to show the Russians that a sudden attack was being prepared, besides all the forces of the submarine, all the auxiliary vessels in full force were completely driven out to sea. So what? This will only prolong the agony. No more.

                Quote: mina024
                jump a little
                do YOU ​​google on coupons?

                eight))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
                Another "argument" indicating "outstanding professionalism"?
                I'm afraid this "professionalism" consists exclusively of hysteria, rudeness and illiteracy
                1. -6
                  16 January 2019 17: 03
                  Quote: Spade
                  Who stood at these very bases, right?

                  Are you tired of jumping?
                  ask what maneuvering is
                  Quote: Spade
                  Another "argument" indicating "outstanding professionalism"?

                  Monsieur YOU are here now in the role of a piglet whining beads
                  I do not give
                  1. +4
                    16 January 2019 17: 13
                    Quote: mina024
                    Monsieur YOU are here now in the role of a piglet whining beads
                    I do not give

                    And is this evidence of superprofessionalism?
                    eight)))))))))))))))))))))))))

                    But you could not answer a simple question. And what, professionally and unsurprisingly. 8))))))))))))))))))
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. +2
                        16 January 2019 18: 52
                        Is your "professionalism" not enough to notice? 8)))))))
                        Autonomy, superbrain, autonomy. How long will the PLO last with full autonomy? Just don't repeat the nonsense about "forever"
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                2. +1
                  17 January 2019 22: 40
                  Quote: Spade
                  this "professionalism" consists solely of hysteria, rudeness and illiteracy

                  In this case, it is. A small discount only if 024 in nickname is age. laughing hi
      2. 0
        16 January 2019 17: 12
        Or maybe there is not a nuclear bomb but HYDROGEN !!!!!
    2. -5
      16 January 2019 13: 45
      Quote: ain1959
      So let the US spend money on Poseidon reflection, not technology

      it’s a penny, and not only for them, but also against the backdrop of our huge costs for this Crap
      1. +8
        16 January 2019 14: 16
        Well, of course, to completely protect both the east and west coasts from underwater vehicles is mere pennies 8)))))))))))))
        You yourself are not funny from their own statements?
        1. -7
          16 January 2019 14: 27
          Quote: Spade
          Well, of course, to completely protect both the east and west coasts from underwater vehicles is mere pennies 8))))))))))))) Are you not ridiculous from your own statements?

          do not smash nonsense, it hurts
          no "additional costly protection" is required for the enemy
          1. +7
            16 January 2019 14: 30
            Quote: mina024
            no "additional costly protection" is required for the enemy

            This is your next unfounded statement.
            Are you sure that the argument can be replaced by hysteria?
            Quote: mina024
            do not smash nonsense, it hurts
            1. -7
              16 January 2019 14: 47
              Quote: Spade
              This is your next unfounded statement. Are you sure that the argument can be replaced by hysteria?

              Monsieur, in ecstasy you fight here
              I have PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION and KNOWLEDGE
              and not "sofa"
              1. +9
                16 January 2019 14: 59
                Quote: mina024
                I have PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION and KNOWLEDGE
                and not "sofa"

                An unsophisticated professional does not need to hysteria how you do it.

                While all your "argumentation" is reduced to your own phrase "tell, YOU are" pricked "or are you just stoned?" (C)

                What kind of "PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT and KNOWLEDGE" can be?
                1. -3
                  16 January 2019 16: 16
                  Quote: Spade
                  While all your "argumentation"

                  monsieur, unlike YOUR squeezed sofa, on my part the arguments "a carriage and a small cart" - starting with a red diploma from the VVMU, covered scorecards in the navy and personal independent search for IPL and work in OVU (including taking into account and on SOSUS)
                  1. +7
                    16 January 2019 16: 26
                    Quote: mina024
                    from my side of the arguments "wagon and small cart"

                    And, well, yes, you are still using the "arguments" of the level "do not screw nonsense, it hurts"

                    Quote: mina024
                    starting with the honorary diploma of the VVMU, covered record sheets in the fleet and personal independent search for IPL and work in the internal affairs department (including taking into account the SOSUS)

                    And you are not the Chairman of the Earth? 8)))))))))
                    Dear, now if someone asks my opinion about the advantages and disadvantages, for example, of modular loading of MLRS, I will not have to arrange tantrums, I do not need to howl about "nonsense", I do not need to hit my heel in the chest "I am the Chief Artilleryman of Russia, and you're a couch ignoramus. " I'll just explain, because I have enough knowledge for this.
                    But you did not find your knowledge, to put it mildly, at all, only emotions. Well, with protection from V-1 they treated themselves Actually, and that's it
                    1. -8
                      16 January 2019 16: 52
                      Quote: Spade
                      Dear, now if someone asks my opinion about the advantages and disadvantages, for example, of modular loading of MLRS, I will not have to arrange tantrums, I do not need to howl about "nonsense", I do not need to hit my heel in the chest "I am the Chief Artilleryman of Russia, and you're a couch ignoramus. " I'll just explain, because I have enough knowledge for this.

                      Monsieur, you do not ask
                      does the difference come?
                      and given YOUR stubbornness, the adequacy of YOUR "answer" on MLRS raises questions
                      (just in case - I know the price tags and features of the modules from the management of the factory that makes them in the office of the Chief Designer of PU and launch complexes, which invited me)
                      Quote: Spade
                      Well, with protection from the V-1 were treated

                      and with this question you did the same
                      1. +7
                        16 January 2019 17: 04
                        Quote: mina024
                        Monsieur, you do not ask

                        Come on, what can I ask you? Your main argument is rudeness.

                        Quote: mina024
                        (just in case - I know the price tags and features of the modules from the management of the factory that makes them in the office of the Chief Designer of PU and launch complexes, which invited me)

                        E .. Actually, nobody has done them yet, even those that are used in the Hurricane-1M tests were charged on the spot.
                        Have you already visited the factory that produces them? Powerful. Back to the future? 8)))))))))

                        Quote: mina024
                        and with this question you did the same

                        Well yes. Instead of tantrums, I presented the numbers. 8))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) )))))))))))))))
                      2. -5
                        16 January 2019 17: 13
                        Quote: Spade
                        Come on, what can I ask you?

                        with NORMAL people I have a NORMAL conversation
                        Quote: Spade
                        Your main argument is rudeness.

                        with cranks I have a short conversation
                        throw beads - not mine
                        Quote: Spade
                        In fact, no one else has them here.

                        in fact, Khotkovo makes them and equips Tula
                        Quote: Spade
                        Instead of tantrums, I presented the numbers.

                        Zaya, your cheating figures have no meaning and relation to the subject of conversation
                      3. +8
                        16 January 2019 17: 23
                        Quote: mina024
                        with NORMAL people I have a NORMAL conversation

                        Judging by your benefit on this thread, you consider yourself only normal. Because to everyone else you are stupidly rude. Almost from the first post starting.

                        Quote: mina024
                        with cranks I have a short conversation
                        throw beads - not mine

                        An interesting excuse to justify ignorance 8)))))

                        Quote: mina024
                        in fact, Khotkovo makes them and equips Tula

                        Nobody does them, because there is nothing to run. None of the MLRS installations available in the troops can do this, all have their own permanent guides. 8)))))
                        But you can continue to compose 8)))))

                        Quote: mina024
                        your cheating figures have no meaning and relation to the subject of conversation

                        And nevertheless, these are not hysterical howls about "nonsense", these are numbers. Which the "professional" could not refute.

                        Quote: mina024
                        Zaya

                        What are you looking for partners? No, I'm not yours, I love women 8))))))))))))))))))))))))
                      4. -7
                        16 January 2019 18: 00
                        Quote: Spade
                        all the rest you are stupidly rude

                        Apparently, YOU's eyesight is very "selective" - ​​to see only the BAC type
                        Quote: Spade
                        An interesting excuse to justify ignorance 8

                        Zaya, it seems you are not 9 years old, and before you carry your Crap about the ports you could at least google a question
                        Quote: Spade
                        everyone has their own constant guides. 8))))) But you can continue to compose 8)))))


                        Quote: Spade
                        these are numbers. Which the "professional" could not refute.

                        not having anything to do with the case
                        Quote: Spade
                        What are you looking for partners? Not me

                        zaya, 3, .4 here you are
                      5. +9
                        16 January 2019 19: 12
                        8))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))))))
                        This is "Uragan1M" which I have already mentioned.
                        Here is a puddle so a puddle ... 8))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
                        quote = mina024] bah, 3, .4 here you are [/ quote]
                        Well, it's not I who call the men "zay" ... Habit? Get better, people don't like you 8))))


                        In general, let's see you, I try not to communicate with your audience. Knowledge - zero, rudeness and hysteria - just rolls over. Yes, and some incomprehensible tackles. It is necessary to call an unfamiliar man "zay" 8))))))
                      6. The comment was deleted.
      2. +2
        16 January 2019 23: 02
        Crap is cheap by definition. Maybe this is generally a fake? It is hard to believe that two dozen torpedoes are more expensive than the new generation of anti-aircraft guns for intercepting underwater robots with hard-to-predict intelligence.
  4. +30
    16 January 2019 05: 50
    I think a feature of Poseidon is its great autonomy and the ability to strike from different directions, unlike ballistic missiles. The trajectory of which can be calculated.
    The second feature is the diversion of the enemy's forces and means to search and destroy. even now, the world's intelligence services should spend efforts to simply find out the very fact of whether "Poseidon" is it fake or not? "Well, if not" fake ", then in case of a conflict we will annoy in different ways, including like this ...

    The article is strange. It is replete with phrases like: "the noise from a torpedo going at a speed of 100 knots will be heard from great distances." With "huge" is it with what? One gets the impression that it’s just worth the "turn on." such speed and the whole world will know exactly where it is. What about layers of water with different temperatures?

    Further, in general, a strange statement: "Why should we destroy the enemy if we are not there." Well, you know an opus worthy not even of an 18 year old boy, but a younger one. Actually, the whole world has been holding on to the fear of being destroyed after the first strike for many years. This is the peculiarity of the weapon of retaliation.

    In general, I don't even know what is more in this "work": stupidity or malicious intent?
    1. +1
      16 January 2019 06: 45
      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      In general, I don't even know what is more in this "work": stupidity or malicious intent?

      This is called analytics .... what Or "analytics" request In short, most likely, this is the personal opinion of the author smile
    2. -3
      16 January 2019 06: 53
      In general, I don't even know what is more in this "work": stupidity or malicious intent?
      Well, what can you add? "Genius" to the tenth degree.
    3. +6
      16 January 2019 07: 37
      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      I think a feature of Poseidon is its great autonomy and the ability to strike from different directions, unlike ballistic missiles. The trajectory of which can be calculated.

      There is a simple fact - ICBMs are now practically non-interceptible. Therefore, you can calculate, you can not calculate, and the result will be the same.
      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      The second feature is the distraction of the forces and means of the enemy to search and destroy.

      The question is that we will spray funds much more strongly than the Americans, who, in fact, still have excellent systems for controlling the underwater situation since the times of the USSR
      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      It is replete with phrases like: "the noise from a torpedo going at a speed of 100 knots will be heard from great distances." With "huge" is it with what?

      Heavily dependent on a particular place, hydrology. And so, if offhand - from tens of kilometers to hundreds, and in some places more
      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      What about layers of water with different temperatures?

      I remind you that today the best submarines do not develop more than 20 nodes in low-noise mode.
      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      In general, I don't even know what is more in this "work": stupidity or malicious intent?

      Most common sense in her, oddly enough
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. +8
          16 January 2019 08: 49
          Quote: Angelo Provolone
          Wikipedia to help you.

          I have more serious sources
          Quote: Angelo Provolone
          It is intercepted in small quantities and interception systems are constantly being improved.

          No, they are not intercepted, because the available funds were "intercepted" only in children's, previously known conditions. But when the Koreans launched a single rocket near Japan ...
          Quote: Angelo Provolone
          That is, to maintain a whole system of control of the underwater situation around the entire perimeter of the country - is it cheaper than several tens or hundreds of drones?

          Why would they do this if it is enough to cover the approaches to the 20-30 largest cities on the coast? Are you going to attack with Poseidon any American "Upper Desman" with 5 people?
          Quote: Angelo Provolone
          That is, through such a distance you should have means of interception and detection?

          Hassle, which is completely solvable and completely not expensive. I just remind you that the Ka-27 pair is capable of controlling up to 2 000 sq km of underwater space in one combat mission. Buoys are cheap today.
          Quote: Angelo Provolone
          And if it is a C - glider that does not make a sound and is generally hidden as much as possible?

          Let's discuss real weapon systems. Because the C-glider is elementarily neutralized by the pi-glider, which can do everything that the C-glider, but also makes coffee perfectly
          Quote: Angelo Provolone
          If there are fewer 20 nodes, then what does that change?

          The fact that on 100 the bonds of the torpedo will roar on the polokane
          Quote: Angelo Provolone
          Yes. Especially after a phrase like: "Why should we destroy them if we are already dead anyway? We need to preserve our culture."

          I understand that it is difficult to argue with the author of the article, but there is no need to come up with theses for him. The author wrote about a completely different
          The answer is one and he is known - missile defense is only missile defense when the United States managed to deliver a sudden disarming nuclear strike to the Russian Federation. In another case, the missile defense does not make sense. But with a missed strike - it has, because in the opposite direction a very small number of missiles will fly.

          That is, we are talking about the fact that we should not build our defense solely on the principle of "dead hand" - otherwise, too few missiles may fly to the United States. It is clear that a "dead hand" is still needed, but it would be much more correct to strike before we collapse a full-fledged nuclear missile.
          Quote: Angelo Provolone
          Learn the story.

          You know, there is some feeling that I took up an in-depth study of history long before your birth
          1. +4
            16 January 2019 11: 26
            Andrey, my thoughts went to "raskaryachku": 1) it is stupid to put money on the spray. German political scientist Rahr believes that the Union is "covered up" because of the arms race. So or so, it doesn't matter now 2) After all, the General Staff should think with their heads, not the booty. 3) Without knowing all the performance characteristics and plans of the designers, we can quarrel in fluff, but what's the point? "Russich" has one sofa, I have another, you have a third.
          2. -3
            16 January 2019 12: 28
            Let's discuss real weapon systems. Because the C-glider is elementarily neutralized by the pi-glider, which can do everything that the C-glider, but also makes coffee perfectly
            This five! ....
            Well, since the real thing to be. Consider ... uh ... Poseidon! But instead of warheads he can place 3 torpedo tubes ... What does this give us? Plus, there will still be a small charge in Poseidon itself, i.e. Only 4 charges for 4 targets.
            If you load the Shkval-2 torpedoes in the TA, then you can knock out heavy tanks with a charge of any NK or submarine from a distance of about 10 km. Can Poseidon go that far unnoticed? Quite since probably it is noisier than the nuclear submarines at low noise levels, such as 30-35 knots ... Check.
            If you charge Zircon in a TA, then you can carry any city and port with the same TK from a distance of 400 km. Those. outside the enemy FOSS zone ... Mat.
            1. +1
              17 January 2019 17: 42
              As you all perfectly planned, it’s just magnificent, enchanting, check and checkmate to the Americans. Everything is finished, with such minds, the devil himself is not afraid of us.
          3. +4
            16 January 2019 16: 57
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            No, they are not intercepted, because the available funds were "intercepted" only in children's, previously known conditions. But when the Koreans launched a single rocket near Japan ...

            Defense should be built on the principle of minimum sufficiency, which Andrei pointed out. No one will spend money on a lightsaber if you can slam a stone ax with the same effect, but ... 50 times cheaper.
            What does this principle give? The country is developing more actively, and does not creep into every milestone in history with the last bit of strength - "survived". I don't like this approach, as well as the presence of only 100 million of the indigenous population of the Russian Federation. You need at least 350 million Russian aborigines, and so that living is comfortable, and that there is money for roads, science and everything, everything, everything, but there is always no money for this, in particular, due to failed programs, cuts and private interests of individuals ...
            1. +1
              17 January 2019 17: 46
              In general, I am surprised how Andrei is not annoyed by this unscientific rubbish that is being carried here, how he has the patience to respond and explain to every dreamer.
      2. +5
        16 January 2019 09: 19
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Angelo Provolone
        I think a feature of Poseidon is its great autonomy and the ability to strike from different directions, unlike ballistic missiles. The trajectory of which can be calculated.

        There is a simple fact - ICBMs are now practically non-interceptible. Therefore, you can calculate, you can not calculate, and the result will be the same.
        Quote: Angelo Provolone
        The second feature is the distraction of the forces and means of the enemy to search and destroy.

        The question is that we will spray funds much more strongly than the Americans, who, in fact, still have excellent systems for controlling the underwater situation since the times of the USSR
        Quote: Angelo Provolone
        It is replete with phrases like: "the noise from a torpedo going at a speed of 100 knots will be heard from great distances." With "huge" is it with what?

        Heavily dependent on a particular place, hydrology. And so, if offhand - from tens of kilometers to hundreds, and in some places more
        Quote: Angelo Provolone
        What about layers of water with different temperatures?

        I remind you that today the best submarines do not develop more than 20 nodes in low-noise mode.
        Quote: Angelo Provolone
        In general, I don't even know what is more in this "work": stupidity or malicious intent?

        Most common sense in her, oddly enough

        Andrey, as always, could have put 100+ in the hole. ANDREY RESPECT !!!!!!!!!!!
        1. +7
          16 January 2019 09: 42
          Quote: kapitan281271
          ANDREY RESPECT !!!!!!!!!!!

          Thank:)))) hi
          1. 0
            17 January 2019 17: 57
            I wish you to continue to competently refute all this unscientific rubbish. If it weren’t for you and Timokhin and some other adequate people, then there would be a complete swamp on Military Review. I join in the respect expressed above.
      3. +3
        16 January 2019 19: 56
        But what if Poseidon does not need to approach the shores of America ???
      4. +12
        16 January 2019 22: 41
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        we will spray funds much more strongly than the Americans, who, in fact, still have excellent control systems for the underwater situation since the times of the USSR

        A ~ 10MW Poseidon nuclear reactor costs about $ 20 million.
        In fact, Poseidon is even cheaper than the Trident II D5 intercontinental ICBM, which costs about $ 70 million apiece. An ICBM with a comparable range of 10000 km obviously loses to Poseidon by an order of magnitude of the weight of the delivered warhead.
        There is nothing to bring down Poseidon. The UUM-125A project with nuclear missile deep bombs was closed by the United States due to too high a cost.
        Poseidon moves slowly to the intended point of detonation in stealth mode, listening to the surrounding area using a sensitive cylindrical antenna, which is visible on the slides of the Russian Ministry of Defense. Active sonar anti-submarine systems US NAVY produces strong acoustic noise and is noticeable to Poseidon, and at a distance greater than the radius of detection of objects. Therefore, Poseidon performs maneuvers in advance to leave the active sonar patrol zone. In addition, modern sound-absorbing coatings make active sonars almost useless, and the US Navy does not have active sonars with a range of more than 18 km.
        An attacking high-speed torpedo needs to detect Poseidon with its less perfect acoustic microphones. At the same time, the torpedo at high speed will itself be very noisy and easily detected, which allows Poseidon to begin a quick exit at a cruising speed of 185 km / h to perform the evasion maneuver. Poseidon’s liquid metal nuclear reactor has been specifically designed for this application tactic with a very fast transition between maximum and low power modes of a nuclear reactor.
        The only NATO torpedo capable of reaching a depth of 1000 meters is the MU90, worth more than $ 2 million. But even in boost mode, with a sharp reduction in range, a torpedo at a speed of 92 km / h slower than Poseidon will not be able to catch up with him.
        1. +9
          16 January 2019 23: 23
          Quote: Svetlana
          than the radius of detection of objects

          Correction: Active US NAVY anti-submarine sonar systems produce strong acoustic noise and are noticeable to Poseidon, and at a distance greater than the detection radius of Poseidon himself.
        2. +1
          17 January 2019 13: 16
          If I could put 10 pluses!
          In the comments, hi and disassembly instead of analysis.
      5. +6
        16 January 2019 23: 17
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        ICBMs today are practically unreceptible

        ICBMs (with an uncontrolled predictable ballistic flight path) are intercepted. Otherwise, why should America spend money on a missile defense base in Elecampane, and for us on the Vanguard?
    4. -8
      16 January 2019 13: 47
      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      Poseidon's feature is

      HIGH NOISE
      and accordingly - ABSOLUTE INEFFICIENCY
      and the means to combat it were back in the late 80s!
    5. -7
      16 January 2019 13: 53
      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      Poseidon's feature is

      HIGH NOISE AND ABSOLUTE INEFFICIENCY

      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      it is a distraction of the forces and means of the enemy to search and destroy

      and why should they be "distracted"? "status CRAP" stupidly goes in the general list of targets for the anti-submarine warfare system in the theater of operations


      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      What about layers of water with different temperatures?

      You would at least have opened some kind of primer on this issue;)
      at a kilometer depth in general the conditions for detection will be close to ideal


      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      Further, in general, a strange statement: "Why should we destroy the enemy if we are not there." Well you know an opus worthy even

      Timokhin’s typo
      the question is not the OPPONENT - but the rest of the WORLD
    6. -1
      16 January 2019 18: 48
      There are a lot more nonsense in the article.
  5. -1
    16 January 2019 05: 52
    TCA case of relatives in the US do not have? , and then something is suspicious tongue
    1. +8
      16 January 2019 06: 05
      the author spun all sorts of nonsense in his opus, even nothing to discuss.
      1. -6
        16 January 2019 14: 36
        Quote: Aerodrome
        the author spun all sorts of nonsense in his opus, even nothing to discuss.

        if YOU with a little mind is completely ill, then refrain from even a dumb flood
    2. +19
      16 January 2019 06: 44
      Quote: Graz
      TCA case of relatives in the US do not have? , and then something is suspicious tongue

      If you read the article, you would have noticed that the author suggests reliably and quickly filling up the enemy with yars and clubs, and not wasting time and money on dubious crap. Moreover, he recommends striking first
      1. +4
        16 January 2019 11: 36
        He is an airfield. They do not read))))
        1. +2
          16 January 2019 20: 24
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          He is an airfield. They do not read))))

          And unfortunately I don’t think at all. They believe in a cunning plan.
      2. +1
        16 January 2019 20: 44
        Quote: Tlauicol
        Moreover, he recommends striking first

        It also alarmed me somewhat. The author, apparently, seriously considers himself smarter and more informed than all those who developed and adopted the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation. This is indeed an alarming symptom.

        Quote: free
        They believe in a tricky plan

        A favorite trick of all, alas, patriots (they are "all-propolymers"): to declare the opponent an idiot, and "cunning" (and in general any) plans - non-existent.

        When any of the "non-existent" plans suddenly (su-u-u-rpri-and-eeez!) Is implemented, these characters with a blue eye declare, for example, that the plan was not at all in this, but this is - it happened by itself, and in general - "it will not be enough" ...

        Pah negative
        1. -3
          17 January 2019 22: 50
          Quote: Consultant
          Pah

          This time, it seems, the bottom is broken. Yes On the branch in defense of this opus released some hysterical and cattle young freshman. Of course, it will not last long here, but the sediment and, especially, the smell will remain. laughing hi
  6. +3
    16 January 2019 06: 03
    The petrel and Poseidon are IMHO components of a dead hand, we may die, but you die.
    1. +8
      16 January 2019 07: 30
      Quote: evgen1221
      Petrel and Poseidon is IMHO components of a dead hand

      A regular ICBM is a much better component
      1. +1
        16 January 2019 08: 06
        Andrey, I am waiting for a detailed analysis to calculate the probability of intercepting ICBMs and Poseidon ...
        1. +2
          16 January 2019 09: 03
          Quote: g1washntwn
          Andrey, I am waiting for a detailed analysis to calculate the probability of intercepting ICBMs and Poseidon ...

          Sorry, but my beads have run out. It’s easy to give an analysis (I’ll think about an article), but spending so much time on you is counterproductive
      2. 0
        16 January 2019 15: 12
        They see the ICBM take-offs - but they won’t see launches of underwater drones. Poseidon can even go to the coast of the enemy, under the belly of transport vessels of tankers and container ships.
        1. +3
          16 January 2019 23: 11
          Moreover, to be in the belly itself. Or on deck in two or three containers. And also just "lie at the bottom in the blue cool haze ..." Until the signal is received.
    2. -5
      16 January 2019 14: 37
      Quote: evgen1221
      Poseidon is IMHO components of a dead hand, we may die, but you die.

      this is primarily a component of CUT
  7. +5
    16 January 2019 06: 12
    In general, according to the author, no high-tech weapons are needed. Only an infantryman with a three-line can solve everything. The main thing is that there should be a lot of them (infantry and three-line).
    1. -1
      16 January 2019 10: 09
      Only an infantryman with a three-line can solve everything. The main thing is that there should be a lot of them (infantry and three-line).

      Mikhalkov - MiGalkov thinks that three-rulers are not needed. Enough wooden clubs. wassat
    2. +7
      16 January 2019 11: 37
      You need to have enough troops with good combat capability. And investing in a few wunderwales, which these troops will "eat" and will not give anything in return is a direct path to defeat. And we have embarked on this path.
      1. +6
        16 January 2019 12: 13
        Unfortunately, few understand this, alas (
        A dozen SU-57s, a hundred "Aroma", etc. and the like, on the scale of such a country, with such ambitions, about nothing!
        It is clear that those. thought does not stand still. But yelling, to the whole world, that we have a "panacea" for the foe, though in single copies, is not smart))
        We are screaming about "Poseidons", and we cannot find an alternative to the dock, which we ourselves drowned. Even raise the problem !!
        All great things are done in silence !!! The rest is fraud
        1. +3
          16 January 2019 14: 27
          Quote: The Siberian Barber
          All great things are done in silence !!! The rest is fraud

          Oh, right !!!
        2. -3
          16 January 2019 18: 49
          What are your ambitions?
          1. 0
            16 January 2019 19: 37
            ??? Excuse me, where do you live ??? Not on Mars ??
            The guarantor yourself, revered by you, has indicated the return of the Russian influence on world politics after the collapse of the USSR))
            Or was there none ???
            Or is this, in your opinion, not ambition ???
        3. +3
          16 January 2019 23: 14
          An attack is being prepared in silence. A noisy campaign is designed to disorient the enemy. Ancient Chinese proverb: "If you are strong, pretend to be weak, if you are weak, pretend to be strong."
      2. +3
        17 January 2019 13: 19
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        investing in a few wunderwales, which these troops will "eat" and will not give anything in return is a direct path to defeat.

        In order to argue that the Status-6 project is just such a Wunderwaffe, you need to know exactly the product characteristics, product development strategy and tactics of its application. Neither the first, nor the second, nor the third are known to us. Even the video in which Poseidon is shown to us may not have anything to do with Poseidon. (I exaggerate)
        Maybe today Poseidon does not look convincing, but tomorrow he can become a nightmare for the enemy. You cannot immediately make a third-generation product without creating the first.
        Today we do not have enough arguments for political bargaining with the United States. But tomorrow, perhaps with the development of the Status-6 project, we will force them to bargain for every mile that we agree to take drones from their coast.
        When an accident with a nuclear power plant occurred in Japan, there was a fit of hysteria among the inhabitants of the West Coast of the USA (according to the Atominfo forum), penny iodine-containing drugs sold for $ 1000 per blister. And the US authorities are well aware of this emotional feature of their citizens. We know too.
        The appointment of Status-6 voiced by the authorities as a means of destroying coastal cities and the killer of AUG, can be aimed at the American layman. What exactly is under the shell of the product is known only to its creators.
        I understand that you are appealing to the general principles of the structure and development of both submarines and submarines, but it is naive to believe that they are not known to the designers of Poseidon and the command of the fleet. The part of the project hidden from prying eyes may be more important than the voiced one.
    3. +1
      16 January 2019 14: 24
      Quote: Old Shoe
      three-line infantryman will be able to solve

      And which of the ICBMs do you associate with the three-ruler? request Instead of thinking, arguing somehow, as, for example, Lopatov does, clearly disagreeing with the author, showed up, mocked in a silly way. What for?
    4. +1
      16 January 2019 14: 38
      Quote: Old Shoe
      In general, according to the author, no high-tech weapons are needed. Only an infantryman with a three-line can solve everything. The main thing is that there should be a lot of them (infantry and three-line).


      YOU? The author just writes that because of cuts like the Status with NORMAL high-tech weapons in the troops, we are quite liquid
  8. +9
    16 January 2019 06: 31
    For some reason, the author does not take into account that with the launch of the Poseidons, other military means will be launched. No one in their right mind pretends to be a strong adversary with single combat units - be it planes, ICBMs or Poseidons with Petrels. A glut of the defending air defense / anti-aircraft defense / missile defense targets, creating interference, an attack from different directions. A lot of forces and means will be thrown at their search and destruction and a breakthrough of at least a dozen devices will ensure a successful attack.
    In general, there is a tendency: as a possible NATO attack, so massive, with everything and everything being burned out by complex impact from air, land, sea with minimal losses of attackers, as the military operations of the Russian Federation, even retaliatory, so heroic single torpedoes unsuccessfully break through dozens of barriers, our submarines quickly find, planes shot down, ICBMs do not fly / do not take off, and we all die.
    What do the manuals have no other options?
    1. +6
      16 January 2019 06: 46
      The glut of missile defense is more missiles, not drank torpedoes
      1. +7
        16 January 2019 06: 55
        Glut of missile defense is more missiles

        Do we have few of them? All formations of the Strategic Missile Forces are gradually re-equipping to Yarsy, the sea is already Bulava, Sarmat on the way. This is not counting tactical.
        By the way, Poseidons can also be released during the threatened period, come at a slow speed under the AUGs and graze them as much as you need. They can lie down near the base of the IUD, etc. Here the field is not plowed for suggestions, the performance characteristics of the device are classified, as are the options for its use. What about reconnaissance or patrolling? Creating such an apparatus only as a large torpedo with a vigorous warhead is not very logical.
        1. 0
          16 January 2019 07: 01
          Fiction on the second floor (s). And AUG sometimes moves at such a speed that a roaring cow will be detected anyway. This is the same disease as the ekranoplanes and others. Wunderwaffe.
          1. +5
            16 January 2019 07: 08
            And AUG sometimes moves at such a speed

            Which one? 100 km / h?
            This is the same disease as the ekranoplanes and others. Wunderwaffe.

            Yes, yes ... and only the bright elves of America are cool and helpful.
            1. +2
              16 January 2019 07: 12
              At a speed when the cow begins to roar across the ocean Yes
              When there is nothing to answer, accusations of cooperation with the elves immediately follow. am although the author offers a way to destroy them and even a preemptive strike
              1. +4
                16 January 2019 07: 16
                At a speed when the cow begins to roar

                And usually it is an economical move, any torpedo can overtake them.
                When to answer nothing

                Yes, I just got tired of explaining that the same ekranoplanes were a big headache for NATO, although their appearance was somewhat premature.
                and even a preemptive strike

                Not thinking that he could fly back.
                1. +3
                  16 January 2019 07: 56
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  Yes, I’m just tired of explaining that the same ekranoplanes were a big headache for NATO,

                  Is NATO at least aware of this? :)))))
                  1. +1
                    16 January 2019 12: 07
                    In the know and actively serialized
                2. +8
                  16 January 2019 10: 44
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  Yes, I’m just tired of explaining that the same ekranoplanes were a big headache for NATO, although their appearance was somewhat premature

                  Yeah ... the target is a low-flying, low-speed, non-maneuverable target. Subsonic aircraft with the dimensions of a small rocket ship. In short - a child prodigy, combining all the flaws of a ship and aircraft. With the same success, you can use the An-124 with anti-ship missiles. smile
                  The ekranoplanes were a problem only for the fleet, which was unable to ensure the presence of aviation above the ships and the over-the-horizon (relative to the ships) detection.
              2. 0
                16 January 2019 20: 01
                Do you click the button?
        2. 0
          16 January 2019 07: 29
          Quote: Wedmak
          By the way, Poseidons can also be released during the threatened period, come at a slow speed under the AUGs and graze them as much as you need.

          Denis, this is impossible. Well, there are no detectors on Poseidon that can "hold" the AUG the way you want it. And the hefty torpedo "controlling" the AUG will be easily detected, it will be elementary to destroy it.
          1. +2
            16 January 2019 08: 21
            Do you know the performance characteristics of Poseidon?
            1. +7
              16 January 2019 08: 54
              Quote: Wedmak
              Do you know the performance characteristics of Poseidon?

              Do you understand that SJSC "Irtysh-Amphora" does not guarantee the tracking of the AUG? And in a torpedo, nothing of the kind can be by definition. The technical level is not the same. Why do you think the whole world toils about torpedoes on wire control? There are no reliable and somewhat long-range underwater seeker
              1. +1
                16 January 2019 09: 07
                You confuse target designation and search. Bring Poseidon to the right square and let him search, autonomy allows.
                1. +7
                  16 January 2019 09: 40
                  Quote: Wedmak
                  You confuse target designation and search. Bring Poseidon to the right square and let him search, autonomy allows.

                  Firstly, you are tormented to deduce. A cruise missile and then an additional missile control center during the flight is desirable, and even Poseidon weaving under water even more so.
                  Secondly, well, went into the square. After that, the American destroyers will mock with interest in the attempts of the blind torpedo to find something there, when they have fun, they will destroy it. This, incidentally, is not the merit of the American destroyers, if a torpedo a la Poseidon tries to fire at our ships, it will be the same
                  1. +2
                    16 January 2019 15: 56
                    torment output

                    That is, it can go at a kilometer depth in 100 km / h, but does it bring us to the required square? Something is wrong, don’t you?
                    destroyers will laugh with interest at the attempts of the blind torpedo to find something there

                    Why is she suddenly blind? How does she find your way to the goal? From memory blindly rushing? Finding this torpedo at a depth is actually more difficult than submarines. It is simply much smaller and makes less noise. So who is there who will make fun of another question.
                    1. +4
                      16 January 2019 18: 32
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      That is, it can go at a kilometer depth in 100 km / h, but does it bring us to the required square? Something is wrong, don’t you?

                      It's not that strange? There is no connection with Poseidon after its launch, and even 500 km will go 5 hours at full speed. Where will the AUG be at this time?
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      Why is she suddenly blind? How does she find your way to the goal? From memory blindly rushing?

                      Quite right, inertia + probably correction sections along the bottom topography. This helps hit coastal stationary targets with good accuracy but is completely useless against maneuvering targets.
                    2. -7
                      16 January 2019 19: 51
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      Finding this torpedo at a depth is actually more difficult than submarines. It is simply much smaller and makes less noise.

                      in depth it’s just easier
                      and it makes a lot more noise
            2. 0
              17 January 2019 13: 34
              I believe Poseidon and "imprisoned" under the AUG and the base.
              And radioactive tsunamis are fantasies.
          2. 0
            16 January 2019 08: 57
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Well, there are no detectors on Poseidon that can "hold" the AUG the way you want it.

            judging by your awareness of what is and what is not, as well as noise characteristics, you took a direct part in the development. or is it your speculation that you issue as the ultimate truth?
            1. +5
              16 January 2019 09: 11
              Quote: dragy52rus
              or is it your speculation that you issue as the ultimate truth?

              This is not speculation, but an understanding of the level of current technology. For example, SSN UGST sees surface ships from 1,2 km. not 12 km, namely 1,2 km. And in order to be able to hear the enemy at 10-12 km, you need a GAS of a modern corvette, which in its mass will probably be more than Poseidon
              1. -3
                16 January 2019 11: 00
                just speculation. you don’t know anything and you only guess how it can be. Have you seen the measurements of the noise of Poseidon at different speeds and depths?
            2. +9
              16 January 2019 10: 57
              Quote: dragy52rus
              judging by your awareness of what is and what is not, as well as noise characteristics, you took a direct part in the development. or is it your speculation that you issue as the ultimate truth?

              This is banal physics. The characteristics of the HAC are tied to the dimensions of the antenna complex. To ensure maximum antenna dimensions, the ICAPL even had to remove the traditionally located TAs from the nasal tip - the detection range was more important than the possibility of torpedo firing at high speeds.
              1. +1
                16 January 2019 17: 05
                Quote: Alexey RA
                detection range was more important than the possibility of torpedo firing at high speeds.

                Just the TA in the bow creates difficulties, both for the design of the architecture of the bow, and for the actual shooting, it is cheaper to make a TA with a shot on board. The incoming flow at a speed of 40 knots creates some difficulties for the exit of the torpedo, which pour into the large dimensions of the TA, and the open TA cover stupidly creates resistance to the incoming flow.
              2. +3
                16 January 2019 18: 23
                Quote: Alexey RA
                torpedo firing at high speeds.

                NO ONE torpedoes at high speeds shoots
                including with nasal TA
                1. +3
                  16 January 2019 18: 52
                  Quote: mina024
                  NO ONE torpedoes at high speeds shoots
                  including with nasal TA

                  OK.
                  I just read at one time a comparison of "Pike" and "Elk", which said that on the "moose" due to the location of the TA at an angle to the DP, the maximum permissible speed when firing from the TA is lower.
                  1. +2
                    16 January 2019 19: 33
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    I just read at one time a comparison of "Pike" and "Elk", which said that on the "moose" due to the location of the TA at an angle to the DP, the maximum permissible speed when firing from the TA is lower.

                    not much
        3. +1
          17 January 2019 17: 34
          Denis, think: the ICBM breaks through the defense with the probability of St. 92%. Fuck a goat button accordion? to enrich another hundred officials like Chubais? And ruin the military-industrial complex?
          What is the guarantee of Poseidon? and its carrier? and the price of this scam?
          the author, unlike all of you, FOR THE Homeland, not Against Yes
    2. +2
      16 January 2019 11: 39
      Why Poseidon at all, if we have time to "launch other means"? Other funds are enough to manually set the sun, if that. Why spend money on a wunderwaffe?
      1. -1
        16 January 2019 15: 24
        The number of warheads is limited to 1700 units, and 10000 targets - one torpedo with a powerful charge and 1000 objects are missing, especially unlike warheads - which weigh hundreds of kilograms - to reduce the reflective surface and dimensions, as well as the weight to be thrown on ICBMs, the torpedo can be placed several tons of thermonuclear charge and there are no restrictions there - which are for warheads.
      2. 0
        16 January 2019 18: 52
        Fortunately, we must admit that for the destruction of the United States and NATO, 1700 warheads are definitely not enough for Poseidona, as an option to strengthen the destructive impact, in which case.
      3. -2
        17 January 2019 13: 56
        Why splurge on a wunderwafel?

        It was you who "enrolled" him.
        Who told you that Poseidon is more expensive than ICBMs?
        While a significant part of the NATO fleet is caught by Poseidons and imitators in tightness, this part of the funds does not intercept our strategists from ICBMs.
    3. -1
      16 January 2019 14: 39
      Quote: Wedmak
      What do the manuals have no other options?

      don't worry there
      SCAM members with Statuses have several more options - CUTS
      1. +4
        16 January 2019 19: 00
        Yes, you have everything that they don’t do - Raspilov and Scams - unlike such skeptics, those who created Poseidon and other systems have practical knowledge and they have a huge reserve of knowledge: in submarines, sonar systems, control systems, hydrodynamics, as well as in all counteraction systems currently available in the arsenals of NATO and the United States.
        1. 0
          17 January 2019 22: 54
          Quote: Vadim237
          unlike such skeptics,

          How are you, Vadim, gently and diplomatically ... laughing hi
    4. 0
      16 January 2019 20: 27
      Quote: Wedmak
      For some reason, the author does not take into account that with the launch of the Poseidons, other military means will be launched. No one in their right mind pretends to be a strong adversary with single combat units - be it planes, ICBMs or Poseidons with Petrels. A glut of the defending air defense / anti-aircraft defense / missile defense targets, creating interference, an attack from different directions. A lot of forces and means will be thrown at their search and destruction and a breakthrough of at least a dozen devices will ensure a successful attack.
      In general, there is a tendency: as a possible NATO attack, so massive, with everything and everything being burned out by complex impact from air, land, sea with minimal losses of attackers, as the military operations of the Russian Federation, even retaliatory, so heroic single torpedoes unsuccessfully break through dozens of barriers, our submarines quickly find, planes shot down, ICBMs do not fly / do not take off, and we all die.
      What do the manuals have no other options?

      There is no money in the budget! Money!
    5. 0
      16 January 2019 23: 15
      They are trying to cover up the weakness of NATO with a noisy campaign.
  9. +6
    16 January 2019 06: 32
    Poseidon just enhances the strategic nuclear forces of Russia with the possibility of striking at the enemy not only from the side of the atmosphere (all missiles and land and sea and underwater and air go to the target above the ground), but also from the sea, from the underwater environment. This is an increase in sustainability. Deterrence is exactly the same as creating the conditions for preventing the conditions of an attack on us, and not creating the conditions for the first attack.
    On the one hand, the author writes that the money has been thrown away and we get a zilch, and on the other, what we need to bring to mind, we got the technology. So zilch or technology ?!
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 07: 27
      Quote: savage1976
      On the one hand, the author writes that the money has been thrown away and we get a zilch, and on the other, what we need to bring to mind, we got the technology. So zilch or technology ?!

      We got zilch, but if you properly manage what you got and invest more - there will be technology
      1. +3
        16 January 2019 13: 43
        And now there is no technology? A compact nuclear reactor, robotics and the beginnings of AI, methods of movement under water, materials? Once the product goes into series, then the technology has already been created.
        1. +2
          16 January 2019 23: 18
          Nothing is known except for the cartoon. Uncertainty created. For the sake of this, this whole campaign exists. In conditions of uncertainty, the enemy is nervous and refrains from abrupt steps. We all remember about advertising SOI.
      2. 0
        16 January 2019 15: 26
        No zilch - everything was done right and about technology - you will definitely not be discovered by anyone, since it is a state secret.
    2. -1
      16 January 2019 17: 08
      Quote: savage1976
      Poseidon does strengthen the strategic nuclear forces of Russia with the possibility of striking at the enemy not only from the side of the atmosphere (all missiles and land and sea and underwater and air go to the target above the ground)

      But wasn’t it easier to make a seiner or an oligarch’s yacht with a thermonuclear charge? Secrecy is better, the price is less, there is no R&D. Why expensive underwater vehicle with disabilities?
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 19: 02
        "Dear" - Do you know how much it costs? "Disabilities" - Do you know his capabilities?
      2. +2
        16 January 2019 23: 20
        And then, to divert the attention of the PLO and the budget funds of the enemy. But the real blow will be delivered by just the sailors and yachts of the oligarchs!
  10. +3
    16 January 2019 07: 10
    If the Poseidons are already in the free hunt, it means that the Strategic Missile Forces have already worked out the Strategic Missile Forces in the US with all the ensuing consequences. The state of aftershock from visiting a "fur animal" in all areas. Apart from the surviving PLO, how many forces and means will remain for interception? Even if we take into account the fact that the military has steel "Faberge", there will be practically no one and nothing to catch such "fish" in troubled water. The level of losses "Poseidons" in this case is acceptable and the use is advisable. What will happen if even a couple of a dozen seeps out and works in a tectonic fault near the coast of the United States not a single British scientist will undertake to assess.
    “Cheap detection and interception” is another questionable fact. Now even the detection of an aircraft carrier order is such a simple task, nuclear submarines are constantly playing cat-and-mouse, and breaking away from pursuit with covert patrolling is an ordinary and constantly improving task. Even at first glance, maintaining a full-scale and effective detection network around and near all potential coastal targets will be in the order of zeros more expensive than we would spend on 4 Poseidon carriers. Finances are fought off not even by destroying the enemy, but by forcing him to spend more on defense than on means of attack.
    And you also need to remember that "Poseidons" are partisans and avengers, the more the enemy diverts scarce post-fox resources to them, the easier it is for the front.
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 07: 26
      Quote: g1washntwn
      What will happen if even a couple of a dozen seep and work in a tectonic fault off the coast of the United States will not undertake to evaluate any British scientist.

      (yawn) nothing will happen. The energy level is not comparable
      Quote: g1washntwn
      Even at first glance, maintaining a full-scale and effective detection network around and near all potential coastal targets will be in orders of magnitude more expensive than we would spend on 4 Poseidon carriers

      Which outside of a full-blown and efficient detection network cannot do anything at all. Brilliant, Watson
      1. -7
        16 January 2019 07: 34
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        The energy level is not comparable
        British scientists told you this. The telephone directory is torn by hands not with blunt force but with a correctly applied force vector.
        Read the beginning for sure? Whether this entire network will function after visiting the Strategic Missile Forces warheads is a big question and a lottery.
        ps wake up and turn on the brain.
        1. +3
          16 January 2019 07: 50
          Quote: g1washntwn
          British scientists told you this.

          Nope. Just an understanding of the energies of ordinary earthquake, which you obviously can’t see
          Quote: g1washntwn
          The telephone directory is torn by hands not with blunt force but with a correctly applied force vector.

          Do you at least understand that no one has ever worked with seismic weapons seriously, did not conduct experiments and, accordingly, there can be no talk about any point impacts? We just don’t know where to push and what will come of it.
          Quote: g1washntwn
          Read the beginning for sure? Whether this entire network will function after visiting the Strategic Missile Forces warheads is a big question and a lottery.

          Well, if you use dozens of warheads to destroy the appropriate infrastructure - then yes, you can knock it out. But this is just a silly thing to spend so much warhead on paving the way for the 32 warhead. It’s easier not to build any Poseidons, and to hammer at their goals those warheads that need to be spent to eliminate the PLO. It is strange that such a simple thought cannot enter your head.
          Quote: g1washntwn
          ps wake up and turn on the brain.

          I’m trying to do this, but he seems to have completely atrophied
          1. -1
            16 January 2019 07: 56
            The opponent has reached banal insults - which means that there are no more sane arguments.
            1. +6
              16 January 2019 08: 18
              Quote: g1washntwn
              The opponent has reached banal insults - which means that there are no more sane arguments.

              It’s interesting - that is, when you offer me to turn on the brain, it’s not an insult, but when I complain about the fact that I can’t turn it on for you - this is an insult laughing
              1. -3
                16 January 2019 08: 24
                You (yawn) - I tried to wake you up, because the activity of the brain at the time of awakening and sleep is minimal. What is wrong with physiology? Or are you able to solve Fermat’s theorem awake? )))
                Your argumentation is based on the principle - just to insert it, they called me frankly brainless that there is, in general, a violation of the rules of the site.
                1. +2
                  16 January 2019 08: 52
                  Quote: g1washntwn
                  You (yawn) - I tried to wake you up, because the activity of the brain at the time of awakening and sleep is minimal.

                  Yes, don’t bother to snake in a frying pan. Are you a man or a girl? You essentially said that I write my comments with the brain disconnected. Please answer for your words
                  Quote: g1washntwn
                  they called me frankly brainless that there is, in general, a violation of the rules of the site.

                  Well, please, the administration :))) I have one warning, if they consider that I have violated the rules, there will be two.
                  1. -2
                    16 January 2019 10: 07
                    Already three violations))) They also called me a woman. Get excited and withdraw your alter accounts from the holivar.
          2. BAI
            +1
            16 January 2019 11: 03
            Nope. Just an understanding of the energies of ordinary earthquake, which you obviously can’t see

            Well, the fact that Sakharov is a sucker, you proved on July 25 of last year.
            https://topwar.ru/144685-o-megacunami-akademike-a-n-saharove-i-superoruzhii-putina.html
      2. +6
        16 January 2019 08: 13
        Which outside of a full-blown and efficient detection network cannot do anything at all. Brilliant, Watson

        You see, it's about CONTENT. And when they write to you about the CONTENT, you "change shoes" on the fly and write about what "can" or "cannot". Don't jump from one topic to another.
        1. +3
          16 January 2019 08: 20
          Quote: Angelo Provolone
          You see, this is CONTENTS

          About the content of what? You’ll at least get acquainted with what the United States has at the moment and what the US contains in terms of PLO. However, I admit that I misunderstood the author’s thought
      3. +5
        16 January 2019 09: 06
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        (yawn) nothing will happen. The energy level is not comparable

        Sure ? Only for some reason, scientists from at least 3 countries of the world "scatter" efforts and resources in the field of applied geophysics. But I'm afraid you are exceptionally competent in geophysics.
        If something like Poseidon appeared first in the USA, then I am sure the chatter in the spirit of "yes he is useless", "he cannot hit anyone" would not be.
        1. +7
          16 January 2019 09: 46
          Quote: Humpty
          Sure ?

          Absolutely
          Quote: Humpty
          For some reason, scientists from at least 3 countries of the world "scatter" efforts and resources in the field of applied geophysics. But I'm afraid you are exceptionally competent in geophysics.

          Well, yes, 6 years of work in the largest geophysical company of the Russian Federation did not teach me anything :))))))
          Quote: Humpty
          If something like Poseidon appeared first in the USA, then I am sure the chatter in the spirit of "yes he is useless", "he cannot hit anyone" would not be.

          There is truth, and there is something in which we are sure that this is truth - alas, as a rule, these are two completely different things.
          1. -3
            16 January 2019 10: 20
            Andrey, then also demonstrate the mathematical calculations to everyone, proving the futility of seismic weapons, it is not so difficult for you as a specialist working in this direction. Otherwise, you risk trying on all the common nouns that hung on me.
            1. +6
              16 January 2019 10: 40
              Quote: g1washntwn
              Andrei, then also demonstrate mathematical calculations to everyone, proving the futility of seismic weapons

              Forgive me, you won’t understand anything in them, since most of the same geophysical materials look like ... well, if you compare with something that you are familiar with, it doesn’t seem like an encephalogram.
              And if in very simple words, then research in applied geophysics is directed in a completely different direction, and not in seismic weapons. For example, today we are far behind as the seismic equipment from the same French. That is, in applied geophysics, the tasks of efficient search for resources are now being solved, and not mythical tectonic wars.
              Quote: g1washntwn
              Otherwise, you risk trying on all the common nouns that hung on me.

              And this is not up to you to decide, but to those who read our correspondence.
              1. -4
                16 January 2019 10: 43
                You already post, then which of us will dumber decide
                those who read our correspondence.
          2. -1
            16 January 2019 10: 35
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Well, yes, 6 years of work in the largest geophysical company of the Russian Federation did not teach me anything :))))))

            The largest "company" is called IMHO RAS. There are people there who do not actively share your pessimism. And judging by the fact that the research has been going on, I don't know exactly how many years (at least 35), it does not seem that there are no results. It also seems unlikely that naval weapons are being created to explode in a rift.
            1. -3
              16 January 2019 11: 02
              It's just that in the RAS pessimists of seismic weapons, as an experiment, knocked on the valve of an empty cylinder with a hammer, and another doubters got a pressure cylinder a couple of times))) It is the same with seismic weapons, you can slightly relieve tension with a local earthquake, or you can also use a "pressure cylinder hit with a hammer. "
              How much is visible from open sources, the seismic studies of the same Yellow Stone are revealed in open form in small portions and badly cut, to say nothing of the tectonic faults of San Andreas, Cascadia, etc.
          3. NKT
            +2
            16 January 2019 13: 30
            Andrey, what company did you work for? In the box or by the interpreter?
            1. +3
              16 January 2019 15: 13
              Quote: NKT
              Andrey, what company did you work for?

              OJSC "Khantymansiyskgeofizika" :)))))
          4. -3
            16 January 2019 22: 43
            Well, what more to say if geophysicists went to shipbuilding! and at the same time to the General Staff! only cooks are worse, although Krupskaya’s husband advised precisely this!
        2. +4
          16 January 2019 11: 41
          Could you suggest why nothing "like this" appeared in the US, or can you guess?
          1. +2
            16 January 2019 14: 51
            Because it’s a break for them to develop either dofig dough requires they won’t understand how long they replace their paladins missile tanks were not allowed into mass production because of the reluctance to create an armor-piercing projectile for a gun
            1. +1
              17 January 2019 11: 15
              They have no armor-piercing shells? Wow!
              1. 0
                21 January 2019 00: 59
                Purely for Sheridan, they did not develop an armor-piercing shell if the memory does not change, there was only a high-explosive conventional 152mm cumulative shell and shillell
          2. -2
            16 January 2019 15: 31
            Yes, because the control systems for robotic nuclear submarines are still being tried there.
            1. 0
              17 January 2019 11: 16
              Think with your head slightly - what is the control system (not the sensors responsible for controlling the external environment, but the brains) of Poseidon are fundamentally different from the brains of a cruise missile?
    2. NKT
      +4
      16 January 2019 13: 28
      Stop telling tales about faults. First, you will need to place the charge directly into the fault and the deeper the better. How will you do this, drill a well? Secondly, you will need to provide the charge with the required power to create longitudinal and transverse waves. Help, charge of the order of 165 Mt ~ M8.0, 5Gt ~ M9.0.
      1. -3
        16 January 2019 13: 49
        No, I’m not hooked on this theory, let’s "talk about".
        a) Tectonic fault - is already an area of ​​violation of continuity and integrity, that is - free space. Therefore, suppose there is sufficient free space to obtain the necessary blasting energy without drilling. Without drilling, the same effect can be obtained by tandem blasting, when the free cavity is created by the first explosion and the next nuclear mine is already at maximum efficiency in the resulting cavity. I see difficulties for implementation, but nothing is impossible.
        b) The examples you cited about the expected power of Poseidon are too fantastic.
        c) To initiate a tectonic tectonic shift, 100500 Gt may not be enough ... or it may be torn off with a penny tonnage - this is the problem of correctly assessing this tension between the plates.
        1. NKT
          +5
          16 January 2019 14: 01
          Let’s discuss, only a break - a breakdown. As I understand it, you want to discuss areas of tectonic plate subduction zones, where discontinuous violations are present in large numbers.

          a) There is no free space (our planet does not tolerate voids, with the exception of karst formations). Your task is to create oscillatory movements in the lithosphere of the earth for the occurrence of earthquakes. Those. make less static sections of the lithospheric plate oscillate. So you need to directly place the charge in the same fault. Again the question - how? Your option is not suitable.

          b) I say that a very powerful charge is needed. In the 70s, calculations and modeling of artificial earthquakes using nuclear weapons were carried out in the USSR. Then they turned off the work.
          1. 0
            29 January 2019 09: 54
            a) our task is to remove the maximum accumulated voltage between the plates, and not make these plates crawl into each other with a bunch of megatons.
            b) read A
      2. -2
        16 January 2019 15: 40
        What faults, waves - what are you talking about, an explosion in the harbor of Pearl Harbor 165 Mt - most of Hawaii will not, and the rest will turn into a burnt stone. 10 such torpedoes and a khan along the entire coast of the United States, even to the west, even to the east - with all the infrastructure and the waves will be in last place, according to the destructive impact.
    3. +4
      16 January 2019 17: 11
      Quote: g1washntwn
      Even at first glance, maintaining a full-scale and effective detection network around and near all potential coastal targets will be in the order of zeros more expensive than we would spend on 4 Poseidon carriers. Finances are fought off not even by destroying the enemy, but by forcing him to spend more on defense than on means of attack.

      Incorrect goal setting. The United States and its allies for the arms race agree to spend 10 times more than the Russian Federation, and will still benefit from the budget. At the same time, something with R&D will be welded for the economy. For the Russian Federation in the current situation, the principle of minimum sufficiency is tantamount to survival. Any unnecessary spending and rampant corruption is another step to the elimination of the state more sure than the US attack.
  11. +5
    16 January 2019 07: 20
    An article, a classic example of the substitution of concepts. Poseidon is not a super weapon, but the development of the concept of nuclear deterrence at a new level. Moreover, it is far from new and original. It appeared immediately after the Tsar bomb test. Then they refused to implement it, now they are back. In essence Poseidon, the marine equivalent of heavy-duty monoblock ICBMs of the Torol type. And as with the same ICBMs of that power, they need not so much. 20-30 pieces, no more.
    1. +5
      16 January 2019 11: 42
      And why is it necessary? Wouldn't it have been better to restore anti-submarine aircraft with this money, for example? We have, and so full of deterrence.
      1. +5
        16 January 2019 17: 13
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        e was it better to restore anti-submarine aviation with this money, for example

        Or local airlines, for example. Or normal schools, which, according to Clausewitz and Bismarck, win in the end, all wars.
        1. -1
          16 January 2019 19: 08
          Which airlines - you won’t restore them for a billion rubles, and new schools are already being built throughout Russia.
          1. +2
            17 January 2019 18: 30
            Dear, it would be better if you didn't think about schools. Here's some information: "According to official data (Rosstat), it is clear that during the reign of Putin and Medvedev, Russia lost 26,3 thousand schools. That is, 1650 schools were closed in the country every year."
    2. -2
      16 January 2019 14: 53
      Quote: shinobi
      An article, a classic example of the substitution of concepts. Poseidon is not a super weapon, but the development of the concept of nuclear deterrence at a new level. Moreover, it is far from new and original. It appeared immediately after the Tsar bomb test. Then they refused to implement it, now they are back. In essence Poseidon, marine equivalent of heavy duty monoblock ICBMs such as Torol

      don't bullshit her hurt
      Title:
      - INCOMPATIBLE WITH HIDDEN
      - ABSOLUTELY INEFFECT
      - OH ... BUT ROAD
      1. +1
        16 January 2019 20: 32
        Oh, well, just don't need cheap populism! Seeing an object and intercepting is not the same thing at all. How many successful interceptions of torpedoes fired at ships do you know? I don’t know. But you can see them perfectly, everyone. Sailors say that you can only dodge, or substitute something under the blow. Poseidon, in essence, is a further development of the concept used in the torpedoes of the "Kit" series. Yes, actually Poseidon is an intercontinental torpedo.
    3. +2
      16 January 2019 20: 42
      Quote: shinobi
      An article, a classic example of the substitution of concepts. Poseidon is not a super weapon, but the development of the concept of nuclear deterrence at a new level. Moreover, it is far from new and original. It appeared immediately after the Tsar bomb test. Then they refused to implement it, now they are back. In essence Poseidon, the marine equivalent of heavy-duty monoblock ICBMs of the Torol type. And as with the same ICBMs of that power, they need not so much. 20-30 pieces, no more.

      At that time, NATO didn’t have such capabilities to detect our submarines, and within the borders the UNION was much wider, there were more access to the ocean, and the Union forces were not a couple of the Russian Federation.
  12. +6
    16 January 2019 07: 23
    I disagree with the author radically, because this is not about a prodigy, but about the theory of an asymmetric answer. The only possible tactic for Russia.

    Quote: Author
    Super weapons do not exist and can not be invented. Remember this phrase.


    Yes you can, author, you can - remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Tsar bomb.

    Nuclear "super weapons" have radically changed the world; they have deprived interested countries of the opportunity to unleash world wars.
    1. +6
      16 January 2019 07: 55
      Quote: 11 black
      Yes you can, author, you can - remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Tsar bomb.

      You can't. The concept of "superweapons" implies that the enemy does not have an adequate response, and atomic weapons are "mirrored" - that is, the United States very quickly faced the fact that there is nuclear weapons, but it is not possible to use them.
      1. +4
        16 January 2019 09: 21
        You can't. The concept of "superweapons" implies that the enemy does not have an adequate response, and atomic weapons are "mirrored" - that is, the United States very quickly faced the fact that there is nuclear weapons, but it is not possible to use them.

        There is nothing eternal in the world, so why not develop? Even a true "super weapon" eventually becomes "not super".

        I would like to remind the author that the recently adopted models appeared as a response to the actions of the Americans. They do not fit the vague notion of "super weapons", they are simply an asymmetrical response to America.

        This is better than a symmetric answer.
        1. +2
          16 January 2019 11: 44
          You just do not understand how the Vanguard + Dagger + Lasers can work. There is a completely different case, and for other purposes.

          "Poseidon" here in terms of usefulness is very out of the ordinary.
          1. +1
            16 January 2019 19: 10
            It is only in your narrow understanding - Poseidon stands out from the general row.
            1. 0
              17 January 2019 11: 18
              No, that's basically it. He does not give anything that would not have given missiles earlier, but is at times more vulnerable. And the mass has already demanded money, and it will require more.

              A negative result in the end.
      2. BAI
        0
        16 January 2019 10: 53
        The concept of "superweapon" means that the enemy does not have an adequate response,

        Found only one formulation "superweapon" -
        weapons superior to destructive conventional weapons

        The word "ordinary" appears here. As soon as a weapon goes into production and becomes common, it ceases to be a "superweapon". Those. - this is a new weapon of increased power (increased effect of defeat) up to mass production.
    2. -4
      16 January 2019 14: 54
      Quote: 11 black
      it’s not about the prodigy, but about the theory of an asymmetric response. The only possible tactic for Russia.

      in this correct case, there is not an asymmetric answer, but a BLUEP CUT
    3. 0
      16 January 2019 20: 44
      Quote: 11 black
      I disagree with the author radically, because this is not about a prodigy, but about the theory of an asymmetric answer. The only possible tactic for Russia.

      Quote: Author
      Super weapons do not exist and can not be invented. Remember this phrase.


      Yes you can, author, you can - remember Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Tsar bomb.

      Nuclear "super weapons" have radically changed the world; they have deprived interested countries of the opportunity to unleash world wars.

      The problem is how to get it to the shore of the enemy.
  13. +1
    16 January 2019 07: 24
    What can you say? The article is absolutely correct. Unlike the Vanguard, which really enhances the power of our strategic nuclear forces, Poseidon is an arch-dear and, by and large, completely useless toy. With ALL the tasks that can be assigned to Poseidon (if you do not take into account the fantasy attack AUG, for which Poseidon is practically useless), the same Yars will cope better and cheaper.
    1. +7
      16 January 2019 08: 00
      Poseidon is an invitation to an arms race underwater. It's like Reagan's Star Wars, but vice versa. We will make (or have already done?) 32 pieces of real and 200 false, and they are a global network of underwater warning. How much resources will be used to continue SOSUSa further in the Atlantic, in the Pacific, in the Arctic?
      1. +3
        16 January 2019 08: 31
        Quote: Gumma
        How much resources will be used to continue SOSUSa further in the Atlantic, in the Pacific, in the Arctic?

        Yes miserable. They already have SOSUS for a long time, and also have a similar network along the US coast (now it is mothballed, but it is) and plus they have a bunch of SURTASS ships - (Stolvorty, etc.) - that is, a mobile system for monitoring the underwater situation . This is the time. The second - the US does not need to block the oceans - it is enough to control the approaches to 20-30 to the largest cities on the coast.
        1. +3
          16 January 2019 11: 27
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          now - it is preserved, but it is

          Or can you say out loud why it is preserved? Is it because its maintenance cost 631 million dollars a year for modern prices.
          1. +5
            16 January 2019 12: 29
            By the time the decision was made about its conservation, the activity of our fleet was striving for zero.
            1. -3
              16 January 2019 19: 13
              But the Chinese are growing - something one does not fit with the other - oh yes, the DPRK still has submarines.
              1. +2
                16 January 2019 19: 39
                What does not fit ??? More precisely possible?
          2. +5
            16 January 2019 15: 15
            Quote: Spade
            Or can you say out loud why it is preserved? Is it because its maintenance cost 631 million dollars a year for modern prices.

            Quite possible. And these 631 million were thrown to the wind, due to the zero activity of the Russian Navy. And if this activity resumes, then these millions begin to "beat themselves off" and will be put into operation immediately. The amount for the USA is penny
            1. +3
              16 January 2019 15: 21
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And if this activity resumes, then these millions begin to "beat themselves off" and will be put into operation immediately.

              Exactly. Half a billion every year. And this is only one of the elements of a large System.
          3. 0
            16 January 2019 15: 59
            Quote: Spade
            canned Is it because its maintenance cost $ 631 million a year for modern prices.

            efficiency cost

            newer and more effective means appeared
            + decrease in confrontation after CV
          4. -1
            16 January 2019 17: 46
            Quote: Spade
            why is it preserved? Is it because its maintenance cost $ 631 million a year for modern prices.

            against the background of the fact that the Americans wrote off then 16 (!) summer cruisers for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Texas_(CGN-39) to save
            SOSUS is just a trifle
      2. +3
        16 January 2019 11: 45
        They need to buy a license for European anti-torpedoes and everything, everything else already exists, and would be out of touch with Poseidon.
      3. -4
        16 January 2019 14: 55
        Quote: Gumma
        Poseidon is an invitation to an arms race underwater. It's like Reagan's Star Wars, but vice versa. We will make (or have already done?) 32 pieces of real and 200 false, and they are a global network of underwater warning. How much resources will be used to continue SOSUSa further in the Atlantic, in the Pacific, in the Arctic?

        Do not hurt bullshit, it hurts!
        Status was not a problem for the US PLV system, even in the late 80s!
    2. +2
      16 January 2019 09: 46
      There are also questions about Avangard. Rather, one question: what is his KVO? The problem is not to make maneuvers when descending from orbit, the problem is to get to where you were aiming after maneuvering ...
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 15: 57
        Quote: Cympak
        There are also questions about Avangard. Rather, one question: what is his KVO? The problem is not to make maneuvers when descending from orbit, the problem is to get to where you were aiming after maneuvering ...

        Hochma is that if you do it CORRECTLY, then the error will be LESS than "just fall";)
        1. 0
          17 January 2019 11: 21
          4202 seems to be going well, according to rumors.
    3. 0
      16 January 2019 12: 20
      Andrew, you remind me of a guy with a shotgun against a crowd of zombies laughing

      I will try to help you as much as possible.
      1. +4
        16 January 2019 14: 01
        author zhzhot. How can I help you? Cons and attempts to troll instead of answers and arguments?
        The coincidence of your position on the worthlessness of the Poseidons with IMHO "Andrei from Chelyabinsk" without an evidence base is equal to the majority of comments from readers whom you call "zombies".
      2. +2
        16 January 2019 15: 16
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Andrew, you remind me of a guy with a shotgun against a crowd of zombies

        laughing hi
        Nothing, I'm not in the first :))))))
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        I will try to help you as much as possible.

        Thank:)
        1. +3
          16 January 2019 16: 22
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Andrew, you remind me of a guy with a shotgun against a crowd of zombies

          Nothing, I'm not in the first :))))))

          Have a bite)) hi
        2. +1
          16 January 2019 16: 50
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Andrey, you are me reminiscent of a guy with a shotgun against a crowd of zombies

          laughing hi
          Nothing, I'm not in the first :))))))
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          I will try to help you as much as possible.

          Thank:)

          Exactly! laughing
          Again with timokhin-aa "for hardware" I agree!

          laughing laughing laughing
      3. +1
        16 January 2019 20: 47
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Andrew, you remind me of a guy with a shotgun against a crowd of zombies laughing

        I will try to help you as much as possible.

        Judging by the pros and cons, zombies are in the minority. And it pleases.
  14. -3
    16 January 2019 07: 49
    The fact is that doomsday machines were created long ago. This is not strange, ordinary nuclear power plants. The correct undermining of these will lead to the extinction of even cockroaches, even in distant Australia. Poseidon should be considered precisely as an offensive weapon designed to destroy all naval ships floating or standing on the shore. Well, in my opinion. winked
    1. +3
      16 January 2019 10: 24
      Excursions lead to the zone of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Cockroaches are fine.
      And even people live.
      1. +2
        16 January 2019 11: 00
        Truth? But nothing, that in Chernobyl only a couple of tons evaporated and it wasn’t the fuel itself, but there were 300 tons of it? And to what height? And if you seriously undermine it, well, so that 20 percent flew into the stratosphere? What are you talking about? That one charge will pollute half of the US coast, and there are two tons of fissile material, and here 300 tons in each reactor. You think about it at your leisure then.
        1. +3
          16 January 2019 11: 06
          will lead to the extinction of even cockroaches, even in faraway Australia

          The Chernobyl reactor contained about 200 tons of uranium dioxide plus a large amount of graphite.
          after the explosion, the photo shows that it remained almost empty.
        2. +4
          16 January 2019 17: 25
          Quote: 1810BM86
          But it’s nothing that in Chernobyl only a couple of tons evaporated and that wasn’t the fuel itself, and there were 300 tons of it

          Please explain what evaporated there when, after a hydrogen explosion, the core cover destroyed the roof of the hall?
          As noted in the joint report of MinAtom and the Academic Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences, graphite and core materials got into the atmosphere. There is no worse composition for contamination of the area than graphite, which was irradiated for a long time. There were about 160 tons of primary radioactive materials and about 5 times more secondary ones, which were irradiated and "overgrown" with active isotopes. All this got into the atmosphere within several days and fell in the form of precipitation on the strip from Chernobyl to the Belgorod region. The planned time when the contaminated area will become acceptable for life, with a level of ecology comparable to that of Cherepovets, for example, is 80 years. It will take longer to reach the level of Moscow, about 130 years.
    2. +3
      16 January 2019 10: 26
      Quote: 1810BM86
      The fact is that doomsday machines have been created for a long time. This is not strange, ordinary nuclear power plants. Proper undermining of these will lead to the extinction of even cockroaches, even in distant Australia.


      Not. Neither will. Even people will survive. They will live badly, get sick a lot, die early, sick children, but they will live.
      1. -2
        16 January 2019 11: 11
        No one will survive if you put a couple of megatons of ammunition under the reactor, in which 300 tons of uranium. All this will fly away into the stratosphere, after an explosion with a power of unknown size, together with the remains of the reactor and station activated by this explosion. So it goes.
        1. +4
          16 January 2019 11: 30
          are mistaken.
          if dispersed over a large area, the level of pollution will be much less.
          most of it will go to the oceans or be washed away in a short time.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
        3. 0
          16 January 2019 15: 42
          Well, in the first place it will not fly away - it will evaporate in one second.
  15. Ham
    +5
    16 January 2019 07: 49
    after specialists in hypersonic weapons there appeared specialists in underwater .... these strategists, experts in all areas of knowledge always touch .... only one question prevents them from enjoying their work: if they are so smart, why do they write articles on and do not work in the analytical department of the General Staff ???
    1. +2
      16 January 2019 07: 53
      Quote: Ham
      if they are so smart - then why are they writing articles on and don’t work in the analytical department of the general staff ???

      Do you seriously believe that Poseidon is the brainchild of the General Staff Analytics? :)))))))) Naive :)))))
      1. Ham
        -1
        16 January 2019 09: 42
        Do you seriously believe that Poseidon is the brainchild of general analytics?

        nonsense! the "general staff analytics" refers to the issues of the USE of weapons - about which the author is trying to "talk" ...
        but since he’s never an expert in the issues under consideration, it’s not very
        1. +7
          16 January 2019 11: 48
          Well, you see a specialist, once able to evaluate.

          Well, let's - what kind of warhead is needed to flood the banks of the Strait of Juan de Fuca with an artificial Tsunami (if you even know where the strait is and what is so important from a military point of view is in it)?

          What is wrong in the article is written essentially can tell?
          1. Ham
            -4
            16 January 2019 11: 50
            what is your rank in the army?
            1. +3
              16 January 2019 12: 21
              I'm not in the army.

              Well, I'll tell you that cap-2 is retired, that it will change, eh? Scan the officer's ID card ask to lay out? You essentially write. Is there anything essentially to object?
              1. Ham
                0
                16 January 2019 12: 26
                they have already written to you what is wrong in your article ... not a hunt to throw out another similar koment, comrade captain of the 2nd rank
                1. -2
                  16 January 2019 13: 40
                  Nobody wrote to me what is wrong in the article. So, murzilki from their heads quoted.
                2. -4
                  16 January 2019 15: 56
                  Quote: Ham
                  they have already written to you what is wrong in your article ... not a hunt to throw out another similar comment, comrade

                  Monsieur, smoke "carbon monoxide", "STAR", "Izvestia" - this is YOUR wretched "level" SKAKUN.
                  Yes, do not tear your trampoline;)
          2. 0
            16 January 2019 20: 43
            From 1 megaton, detonation at a depth of 80-120 meters, depending on the desired effect. Just a tsunami, tsuami + cloud.
    2. +1
      16 January 2019 10: 25
      exactly.
      if they are so smart, why aren’t they building and don’t wear a vest?
      a mess! lol
    3. -4
      16 January 2019 16: 10
      Quote: Ham
      General Staff Analytical Department ???

      ZAYA, I will disappoint you - there is NO such thing
  16. +3
    16 January 2019 07: 51
    The author thanks, shared his vision of the situation.
    For me, everything is better than discussing movies and reserved seats.
  17. +5
    16 January 2019 07: 54
    An article as a sofa “analytics”, about nothing
  18. +18
    16 January 2019 07: 55
    Not being a Hurray-patriot, however, I can definitely say that the article is clearly superficial and one-sided. The author drew a situation in which Mother Russia has only useless underwater drones, which the United States, its allies and all of NATO will seek with all their might and will definitely find. In addition, the author ascribed properties to the weapons of our "partners" that were not known to their developers themselves. It can be described in one word - delirium. The Poseidon system is a new component of the nuclear triad that complements the maritime one, but is exceptional throughout the system. All other means of delivery of nuclear warheads are exclusively airborne (aircraft, missiles, possibly orbiters). Accordingly, the entire strategic defense system of the United States and our other "partners" is based on intercepting air targets. The threat of a nuclear strike from the depths of the sea may have been thought about earlier, but no serious measures were taken. All ASW in terms of a possible nuclear strike is reduced to combating ICBM and CD carriers. That is, it was about the detection and destruction of submarines with a displacement of 10 tons. It is for these purposes that all means of detecting and attacking both ships and aircraft are sharpened. Anti-torpedoes were also developed to defend ships and their formations from attacks from the depths. As for Poseidon, in this case we are talking about a small underwater unmanned vehicle - a nuclear charge carrier, which is capable of developing significant speed at a depth of approx. 000 meters, maneuver with unlimited travel. Any expert in this area will agree that the existing anti-aircraft missile system of our opponents is not capable of effectively dealing with the new threat, simply because it was not created for this. So now they need to develop a new system to deal with the new threat. And this is a lot of money! After all, it is necessary to develop new means of detection and destruction and introduce them into the existing system. And this will entail the modernization of old carriers or, most likely, the construction of new ones. At the same time, the performance characteristics of the new Russian weapons are not yet fully known, that is, all possible options will have to be taken into account, which will lead to an even greater rise in cost and stretching in time. And it's not a fact that the system will actually be effective in the end. And Russia only needs to finish building two nuclear submarines and build 1000 more, as well as make 2 Poseidons. All means of ensuring the deployment of the Poseidon system simply fit into the overall system of the Russian submarine forces. Or even easier. Given the described features of Poseidon, it can be used from anywhere in the world ocean, while missile carriers are limited by the range of missiles.
    But Russia has not only Poseidon, it is now necessary to solve something with hypersound. That is, our "partners" must invest heavily here too. And the budget is not rubber.
    And while we have weapons of mass destruction, from which our enemy cannot defend himself effectively, he will certainly not attack.
    1. Ham
      -5
      16 January 2019 10: 09
      The author drew a situation in which Mother Russia has only useless underwater drones, which the United States, its allies and all of NATO will look for with all their own strength and will certainly find

      the author's task is simple - under the guise of "analytics" to tell us how everything is bad with us and that omerica will win us over ...
      Katz again stupidly suggests giving up ...
      1. +4
        16 January 2019 11: 49
        Did you read exactly what you were commenting on?
      2. -1
        16 January 2019 15: 48
        Katz offers to give up - he’s already gone and how many times he’s not giving up, something is interfering, either the guys on the other side aren’t accepting, or they are letting go.
  19. 0
    16 January 2019 08: 06
    Again, the couch analyst clears up. The problems are obvious ... for whom? but for anyone not in the General Staff, this Timokhin is sitting, they are obvious to those who are supposed to be ex officio. And if in the end this program advanced, then there were serious reasons for this.
    1. +3
      16 January 2019 11: 49
      Deeper head in the sand comrades!
    2. -1
      16 January 2019 15: 55
      Quote: Molot1979
      Again, the couch analyst clears up. The problems are obvious ... for whom? but for anyone not in the General Staff, this Timokhin is sitting, they are obvious to those who are supposed to be ex officio. And if in the end this program advanced, then there were serious reasons for this.

      FACE ABOUT TABLE
      from the deputy chief of the UPV Navy of the USSR:
      http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1321&p=15#p1045142
    3. -2
      16 January 2019 16: 10
      Quote: Molot1979
      Again, the couch analyst clears up. The problems are obvious ... for whom? but for anyone not in the General Staff, this Timokhin is sitting, they are obvious to those who are supposed to be ex officio. And if in the end this program advanced, then there were serious reasons for this.

      do not tear the trampoline
      and a bit of reality https://vpk-news.ru/articles/47578
  20. 0
    16 January 2019 08: 10
    I absolutely agree with VV Putin's words "... why do we need such a world in which there is no Russia"! Let them know - don't get (Peace) to anyone!
  21. +2
    16 January 2019 08: 20
    Even with my persistent patience, I read only until the middle of the article ... Very superficial and drawn conclusions
    1. +7
      16 January 2019 12: 22
      So Conclusions there at the end, where you have not read laughing
  22. 0
    16 January 2019 08: 26
    the author sprinkled to hell, why? The question is of course. The very possession of such weapons is already terrifying and panic for potential aggressors, and this is one of the most important deterrents, no one has yet tested the power of such weapons and I don’t think anyone will know how this will work! !!! But it will work for sure. soldier
    1. +3
      16 January 2019 11: 50
      It does not.
  23. +4
    16 January 2019 08: 30
    Anger and dullness of comments rolls over, the author doubted the wisdom of his superiors, atu him.
    1. +5
      16 January 2019 09: 04
      The author encroached on the sacred - "those who have analogies" weapons - the basis of the weapons system of the army of any self-respecting Uryapatriot. This "overwhelming" weapon has been very popular lately, new designs are being created, and here is the author with such an article. The reaction is like a baby's, whose favorite nipple was pulled out of his mouth insolently - a loud roar.
      1. +3
        16 January 2019 09: 12
        Quote: Decimam
        The reaction - like a baby who has brazenly pulled out his favorite nipple from his mouth - a loud roar.

        laughing good
        You can’t say more precisely :)))))
        1. +5
          16 January 2019 11: 17
          Infants were offended and rushed to put a minus.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. -2
            16 January 2019 13: 41
            It is not served.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. 0
                16 January 2019 15: 52
                Yes, there is something like that - an article with analytics of one day, but in fact - a story of assumptions from a chair.
              2. -2
                16 January 2019 20: 43
                Pray to Holy Poseidon! And you will be!
        3. 0
          16 January 2019 14: 59
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

          Quote: Decimam
          The reaction - like a baby who has brazenly pulled out his favorite nipple from his mouth - a loud roar.


          You can’t say more precisely :)))))

          I sincerely admire your restraint and correctness with so many, to put it mildly, incorrect attacks!
          Mr. Tikhonov should be grateful to you! smile
          1. 0
            16 January 2019 17: 40
            Quote: victor50
            Mr. Tikhonov should be grateful to you!

            Alexander Timokhin, of course, I'm sorry! request
    2. 0
      17 January 2019 18: 52
      "the author doubted the wisdom of the authorities, atu him."
      People wake up. But did you doubt the wisdom of our government? But the fireman Shoigu is also the minister of this government. If there are idiots in the government, then why can't there be such idiots among the military? If our power cannot raise the economy, it is logical that it will not raise the country's defense either.
  24. +5
    16 January 2019 08: 42
    When and if the Poseidons are torn off the American coast, we will all be dead.

    And why do we need such a world if Russia will not be there?

    Something like this ...
    In general, at first there was "cartoons and you will vyvsevrete", and now begins "useless superweapon".
    1. +1
      16 January 2019 11: 50
      What you do not like rockets?
      1. +3
        16 January 2019 12: 09
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        What you do not like rockets?

        At one time, ships were cut to metal because they relied on missiles. As it turned out, this decision was somewhat hasty and the state still could not do without a fleet. Now you are proposing to abandon new weapons, from new technologies in favor of all the same missiles. However, you actually know nothing (because everything is classified) about what you want to refuse. Moreover, no one refuses from missiles.
  25. -2
    16 January 2019 08: 50
    The author is entitled to all 100. The use of nuclear weapons has 2 options.
    1. The United States strikes first. Knowing that there is a certain Poseidon, stupidly mined the outputs of our nuclear submarines. When Poseidon is dragged to the show, the carrier will stupidly die in the minefield, as it once was in the Baltic.
    Conclusion. Poseidon will not help with this option.
    2. Russia strikes first. The United States is not able to repel a strike of about 300 ICBMs with about 1000 warheads. When Poseidon stumbles to the shores of the United States, his artificial tsunami will only put out the fire in the ashes. True, there will be no one to rejoice on both sides, the United States has an SPRN and the answer will be similar.
    Conclusion. Poseidon will not help.
    And to hell to spend money on it?
    1. +8
      16 January 2019 09: 10
      Quote: Puncher
      stupidly mines the exits of our submarines

      you forgot to write the word quietly. quietly mined, quietly deploying troops and so on. the conflict does not start in one second. it must be preceded by events that last for some time. Do you think in case of aggravation our troops will sit exactly on the pope?
      1. +7
        16 January 2019 11: 12
        Quote: dragy52rus
        you forgot to write the word discreetly. discreetly mined

        And what - will the Virginias have any problems with the invisibility of mining approaches to our bases?
        The basis of the OVR in the fleets is the IPC built in the 80s of the last century. There are no substitutes for them - the design of the OVR corvette was directively discontinued by the Navy Commander-in-Chief in 2014, and the tasks of the PLO were assigned to aviation. How many new anti-submarine aircraft do we have?
        The situation is the same with anti-mine defense - there is one new TSC for them in 4 fleets. Five more are under construction or are undergoing tests with planned dates for delivery to the fleet until 2021.

        So come, whoever you want, and put up either self-transporting mines or good old "captors".
        1. -1
          16 January 2019 16: 04
          There is a Su 30 MK - and there are missile torpedoes based on 3M14.
      2. +2
        16 January 2019 15: 55
        Quote: dragy52rus
        Do you think in case of aggravation our troops will sit exactly on the pope?

        It doesn’t matter if they sit or ride.
        1. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has no means of monitoring the seabed. Regular mapping of the terrain is necessary to identify all suspicious changes with subsequent verification.
        2. Bottom mines are set by submarines not in the port water itself, but far at the exit, the mines themselves are self-transporting, that is, after exiting the torpedo tube they deliver themselves to the right place.
        3. Bottom mines installed by aviation are JDAM-ER bombs, only the fuse is not contact, but with acoustic, hydrodynamic and magnetic sensors. Sensors of multiplicity and urgency. Such mines are dropped by any strike or anti-submarine aircraft at pre-set coordinates for 60 or more kilometers.

        Those. the United States has enough funds to block all the fleets of the Russian Federation in its bases in abundance. The Russian Navy has practically no means for trawling such mines.
        1. +2
          16 January 2019 18: 29
          Quote: Puncher
          1. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has no means of monitoring the seabed. Regular mapping of the terrain is necessary to identify all suspicious changes with subsequent verification.

          Pomnitsa, in the still Soviet ZVO, the French basic minesweeper-catamaran was described. More precisely, it’s not even a minesweeper, but a mine defense ship, the main weapon of which was a powerful SAS side view. This ship was to regularly crawl near the base, take a picture of the bottom on the fairways and next to them and transfer it to the coastal center - for comparison with previous pictures and identify new objects at the bottom. And then TSH-IM should have examined all suspicious new objects.
    2. -4
      16 January 2019 09: 14
      Quote: Puncher
      Knowing that there is a certain Poseidon, stupidly mines the exits of our nuclear submarines

      What smart you are, thank God that you are not the Minister of Defense of Russia.
      Quote: Puncher
      Conclusion. Poseidon will not help.
      And to hell to spend money on it?

      The order came from the State Department, by all means, there should not be a Paseidon
      1. +1
        16 January 2019 10: 10
        And what, the Minister of Defense rivets bundles of minesweepers and anti-submarine ships? Or he thinks where he and how to build 8 carriers for 32 Poseidons.
        Managery they are
        1. -8
          16 January 2019 14: 54
          Quote: Tlauicol
          Managery they are

          It’s you who is a specialist who knows how to manage an army, while he didn’t have a machine gun in his hands
        2. 0
          16 January 2019 16: 07
          These 32 Poseidons will be built in the same place where the first one was built, and the carriers - any rescue and hydrographic trough - are not so simple as it seems.
      2. +2
        16 January 2019 12: 24
        Paseidona


        Gygy laughing

        Keep up the good work.
      3. +5
        16 January 2019 12: 39
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Quote: Puncher
        Knowing that there is a certain Poseidon, stupidly mines the exits of our nuclear submarines

        What smart you are, thank God that you are not the Minister of Defense of Russia.
        Quote: Puncher
        Conclusion. Poseidon will not help.
        And to hell to spend money on it?

        The order came from the State Department, by all means, there should not be a Paseidon

        By the way, the remark is fair: Hde to take minesweepers to provide an exit from the base, carriers ?? Cover, again ??
        Everything should be decided in a complex, in my humble opinion hi
        1. -5
          16 January 2019 14: 55
          Quote: The Siberian Barber
          Everything must be decided in a complex,

          In the Moscow region we have woodpeckers who do not understand anything?
          1. +3
            16 January 2019 15: 06
            Well, why, right away ??? Rather, it is interesting and careerists, judging by the lack of a sound concept for the development and application of the Fleet.
            Such an answer will be the most logical, based on what is happening, in the Navy.
            Agree that the "woodpecker" is unlikely to be able to reach the admiral's shoulder straps))) This is not an Internet forum, after all)))
          2. +7
            16 January 2019 15: 50
            Quote: Alexander Romanov
            In the Moscow region we have woodpeckers who do not understand anything?

            In the MO we have people who have ordered a French unmanned boat for the newest TSC-IM pr. 12700, which does not fit on this TSC. Moreover, the performance characteristics of the "newest" system purchased for 12700 are inferior to the performance characteristics of the system developed in the 80s of the last century.
      4. 0
        16 January 2019 15: 58
        Quote: Alexander Romanov
        Quote: Puncher
        Knowing that there is a certain Poseidon, stupidly mines the exits of our nuclear submarines

        What smart you are, thank God that you are not the Minister of Defense of Russia.
        Quote: Puncher
        Conclusion. Poseidon will not help.
        And to hell to spend money on it?

        The order came from the State Department, by all means, there should not be a Paseidon

    3. -2
      16 January 2019 11: 52
      Amen.

      And there is. And the Poseidon that has slipped into the sea is quite vulnerable. It really wasn't worth spending money on it.
      Now it is necessary to develop the developments in the energy of this drone for other systems.
    4. 0
      16 January 2019 12: 05
      there is a third option.
      Russia deals a limited blow, and the Americans are frightened and retreat from this.
      The Americans themselves believe that the Kremlin mistakenly believes that this will be so.
      wrote in detail below.
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 15: 44
        Quote: Avior
        there is a third option.
        Russia deals a limited blow, and the Americans are frightened and retreat from this.

        This is ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooobooooooooooo
        The SPRN will not give much time for reflection, and until the moment the missiles arrive, the answer will be launched. This is 100%, because it will not be known whether this is the only blow or a second one will follow. It will be necessary to suppress the possibility, but if not with a nuclear missile strike? After that there will be no one to negotiate for a long time.
        1. -1
          16 January 2019 15: 51
          limited punch.
          in a pair of European cities with tactical charges with relatively few casualties.
          and Americans need to think about whether to start a global war.
          or another option, Poseidon with a comment, we don’t know what exploded there, it will get nasty ...
    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. NKT
      +2
      16 January 2019 13: 39
      There is still a choice to make. Either the creation of a tsunami and the laying on of it to destroy coastal cities and naval naval forces or to destroy them directly - nuclear weapons, since for the formation of a tsunami you need to create an underwater explosion at a depth of at least 4-5 km and a capacity of about 1 Gt. Then you will receive, approximately, the energy equivalent of M8.7, a wave height of 15-30m at a speed of 700-800 km / h and, if the coastal line allows, the introduction of a water stream up to 5 km inland.
    7. 0
      16 January 2019 16: 01
      "Stupidly - mines" - You probably have the means of mining from the United States and NATO - these are such small mosquitoes loitering along the entire length of our maritime border - which no one can see or hear and which drop thousands of mines along our coast, and these mines too stupidly - invisible.
      1. -3
        16 January 2019 16: 44
        Quote: Vadim237
        "Stupidly - mines" - You probably have the means of mining from the United States and NATO - these are such small mosquitoes loitering along the entire length of our maritime border - which no one can see or hear and which drop thousands of mines along our coast, and these mines too stupidly - invisible.

        small mosquitoes - at YOU
        in .... e
        1. +1
          16 January 2019 19: 39
          Well, education is immediately visible, the upbringing of a person is a typical injury, with a rotten attic.
    8. +1
      16 January 2019 17: 30
      Quote: Puncher
      The author is entitled to all 100. Conclusion. Poseidon will not help.

      You are right, the misfortune of a humanitarian society is the substitution of values ​​and goal-setting. People are not taught to plan, imagining life as a chain of random impulsive events.
      The creation of Poseidon is the fruit of wrong goal-setting.
  26. +10
    16 January 2019 09: 07
    why should we destroy the enemy if we are not
    As lawyers have, it is not the punishment itself that matters, but its inevitability! It was fear, to receive irreparable damage from the retaliatory actions of Russia (USSR), that held back and is holding back the American military.
    1. +1
      16 January 2019 09: 39
      The current nuclear triad solves the issue of "retaliation" more efficiently and faster than the Poseidons. Why create new entities of questionable efficiency and spend our taxes on "This"?
    2. BAI
      +3
      16 January 2019 10: 41
      How is Putin doing? "Why do we need a world in which Russia will not be?"
  27. +1
    16 January 2019 09: 10
    For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that along with sound thoughts, the author also generates outright nonsense like: "Yes, the Russians paid for each "Tiger" and "Panther" for several lighter "thirty-fours", and then the Americans with their "Shermans" experienced the same. But there were too many Shermans and T-34s. "
    The fact is that in each of the several "given out" thirty-fours there were four or five crew members, who were "given away" together with the thirty-fours.
    1. BAI
      +4
      16 January 2019 10: 39
      When a tank was defeated, the crew (part of the crew) did not always die. A lot of tankers changed several vehicles during the war.
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 11: 11
        And what does this fundamentally change?
        1. BAI
          +1
          16 January 2019 11: 48
          Not every car killed 4-5 people. Those. the T-34 crew against the Tiger was not a doomed suicide bomber.
    2. +1
      16 January 2019 11: 53
      Firstly, not all of them died, and secondly, the allies also had more people; thirdly, many weak tanks could sometimes bombard one strong one. That is, they were stunned by the crowd - this is the main bonus of quantity in the fight against quality.

      So everything is correct.
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 12: 58
        "That is, they kicked the crowd - this is the main bonus of quantity in the fight against quality. "
        If you play tanks in the sandbox, then yes, that's right.
        1. 0
          16 January 2019 13: 44
          And if not too. There is a correlation between the initial ratio of forces before the attack and the ratio of losses after. And they are not just there. One hundred guns stronger than fifty in the end. Usually.
          Including if they are installed on tanks.
          1. +2
            16 January 2019 14: 14
            "There is a relationship between the initial ratio of forces before the attack and the ratio of losses after."
            There is also a correlation of apathy and vitality in the psychotherapy of depression and a host of other relationships, the understanding of which requires special knowledge. Therefore, so that in the end a hundred guns were stronger than fifty, the commander of a hundred guns must have the appropriate knowledge, at least in the volume of a textbook on general tactics. Otherwise, the fifty-gun enemy will carry it along with the guns and the honorary title of the author of the VO site. Examples of this - a lot.
            1. 0
              16 January 2019 20: 46
              This was a simplified example.
      2. -1
        16 January 2019 16: 12
        Unfortunately, in these realities, many weak tanks will turn into a pile of scrap metal - from the impact of modern ATGMs and unmanned kamikaze drones.
      3. +3
        16 January 2019 17: 36
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        That is, they stumbled by the crowd - this is the main bonus of quantity in the fight against quality.

        The main bonus of quantity regarding quality, given the tanks, is that an American or Russian soldier always had the opportunity to attract tanks for help. And the German infantry had to do it on their own 4 times more often, which affected the losses of infantry personnel many times more than in the losses of tank crews. Tanks with tanks in fact did not fight, they fought with field fortifications, infantry and anti-tank missiles. Even at Prokhorovka, the main purpose of the tanks was not tanks.
        As an example, the Japanese marine proudly recalled the battleship Yamato when he was shot on the islands by a miserable Sherman or M3, against whom there was nothing to oppose. As a result, based on the results of the fighting on Guadalcanal and other places, the losses of the US Marine Corps were on average almost 8 times less than the Japanese, because the necessary funds were not in the right place at the right time. But Yamato and Musashi were hiding all over the ports from the submarines throughout the war.
    3. NKT
      +1
      16 January 2019 13: 44
      Unlike the Tigers and Panthers, the T-34 was a more reptile-suitable machine, especially in the field, which made it possible to quickly restore the machine, change crew and go into battle.
      But, of course, the Tigers and Panthers are very interesting tactics. Panther, in fact, is the first attempt at MBT.
  28. 0
    16 January 2019 09: 20
    "Superweapons do not exist and cannot be invented. Remember this phrase. I would like to hope that we will remember this lesson of history and will not waste the last money on projects that have no military significance."
    Therefore, let's cover all the developments in Armata, Dagger, Su57, Relight, etc., and polish the good old AK47, which we already have a lot of)))
    Once I heard it ...
    Oh yes! In the late 80s under Gorbachev!
    Only then not only did they cover a bunch of projects, but they also sawed missiles and tanks. And what? Began to live richer?)
    I understand, the question is rhetorical))))
    1. +1
      16 January 2019 09: 27
      Quote: another RUSICH
      Therefore, let's cover all developments in Armata, Dagger, Su57, Relight, etc.

      How is Comrade Lavrov said? :)))))
      All of the above is not a superweapon - these are ordinary weapons systems that overtake Western developments because of their novelty. However, where do you understand this ...
      1. +2
        16 January 2019 10: 32
        All of the above is not a superweapon
        And Poseidon is laughing
        Since when did a torpedo with nuclear war become a superweapon I don’t understand?
      2. +3
        16 January 2019 10: 33
        As I recently discovered in a practical way, Comrade Lavrov said such a diplomatic thing that the rules of the forum wrote that for citing it on the Russian military-patriotic resource - a warning and a ban for a week, no matter how many points you put there.
  29. -3
    16 January 2019 09: 23
    The uncle that he wrote clearly gravitates towards the United States. It is a pity there is no name for this "educator" of the military apparatus. Otherwise they would have laughed in detail. The article is long, but it is of little use, as one Soviet anecdote said. Only one conclusion - overseas have already obserted!
    1. +8
      16 January 2019 09: 38
      Quote: polarural
      There is only one conclusion - overseas have already become obsessed!

      It reminded me very much of the Kiev casserole-headed ones - they also exceeded 100500 every day, from which they beat Russian kondraty. True, we in Russia know nothing about them, but they don’t care
    2. -1
      16 January 2019 15: 28
      Quote: polarural
      The uncle that he wrote clearly gravitates towards the United States. It is a pity there is no name for this "educator" of the military apparatus. Otherwise they would have laughed in detail. The article is long, but it is of little use, as one Soviet anecdote said. Only one conclusion - overseas have already obserted!

      Monsieur, smoke "carbon monoxide", "Star", "Izvestia" - DO NOT FOIL
      Yes, do not tear your trampoline;)
  30. +7
    16 January 2019 09: 36
    The comments are full of "writers", but there is no one to read :(
    Really no one understands that plus 1 Poseidon, questionable in its effectiveness, = minus 10 Su-57 or 100 Armat. Our economy is "dead" for such experiments. And long-term conflicts are won at the expense of the economy, not a miracle weapon. If you have a powerful economy, then you don't need a miracle weapon. And if everything is bad with the economy, then all sorts of "V-X" projects come to the fore. This, by the way, is one of the lessons of the Second World War.
    1. -3
      16 January 2019 11: 05
      do not be trifles. 1 "Poseidon" of questionable efficiency = minus 1000 Su-57 or 1000000 "Armat"
      1. -1
        16 January 2019 11: 55
        Yes, do not trifle. All the torpedoes in the Navy could be replaced with the latest ones, to test, shoot, reload, reveal and eliminate all the flaws - and there would be more money left.

        Here's the approximate price for Poseidon.
  31. -1
    16 January 2019 09: 38
    Who do I believe more? A couch expert or specialists from the Ministry of Defense where scientists, designers and other design bureaus and research institutes work. Of course to specialists!
    1. +3
      16 January 2019 15: 14
      Quote: Fungus
      specialists from the Ministry of Defense where scientists, designers and other design bureaus and research institutes work. Of course to specialists!

      Not so long ago there was a certain Serdyukov with a ladies' team .. Did you believe them as "specialists" too? request A "sofa expert" can only be years old or some sores ... or adherence to principles and lack of restraint do not allow being a "specialist" in the Ministry of Defense, more abruptly than those you are talking about.
    2. -1
      16 January 2019 15: 27
      Quote: Fungus
      Who do I believe more? A couch expert or specialists from the Ministry of Defense where scientists, designers and other design bureaus and research institutes work. Of course to specialists!

      get it!
      writes the Deputy Chief of the UPV Navy of the USSR:
      http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1321&p=15#p1045142
    3. +4
      16 January 2019 15: 54
      Quote: Fungus
      Who do I believe more? A couch expert or specialists from the Ministry of Defense where scientists, designers and other design bureaus and research institutes work. Of course to specialists!

      Will you always trust the Navy Commander?
      The Commander-in-Chief does not see any prospects in the creation of ships previously designated as “Corvette OVR”. One of the main tasks of the OVR is to ensure the protection and defense of naval forces in the areas of naval bases and in the territories adjacent to them. This task is now carried out by coastal surveillance equipment, stationary sonar stations and coastal missile and artillery troops, armed with anti-ship missiles of different ranges, as well as anti-submarine and attack aircraft.
      © Chirkov
      And how is our coastal anti-submarine aviation? Is she capable of replacing two dozen IPC OVR?
      1. +2
        16 January 2019 17: 43
        Gg especially when you consider that we simply don’t have either one. And what is left breathes in the air and is not able to perform its functions
  32. +4
    16 January 2019 09: 47
    By the way, why are Poseidons planned to be used only from submarines? What prevents to sink launchers just offshore anywhere? Range allows you to. Again, then the number of Poseidons will not be limited by the number of submarines - hostels, who will still be building. Yes, and media, as such, then will not be needed at all.
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 10: 38
      The Japanese prepared their kamikaze in this way and there were bases. Given the presence of the "Belarusian sea" on the American globe, the situation with their PLO is generally awful)))
    2. -3
      16 January 2019 11: 56
      It seems like this is also being worked out. But the Americans are not sleeping, should they learn about such a base, they will lay down in the first minutes of the war. And after leaving it, the device is still vulnerable.
      1. +5
        16 January 2019 14: 13
        You absolutely do not allow the word "if" from others, but you happily insert it into your comments and pass it off as a victory. LIKE it would be worked out ... IF they find out ... YES AND ... And "they will cover it in the first minutes" and "vulnerable" is already far-fetched to the first assumptions. Answer questions without bias and people will reach out to you)))
    3. +1
      16 January 2019 16: 15
      And who told you - for sure that they will only use it from submarines?
  33. +5
    16 January 2019 10: 00
    Atomic drone "Poseidon": useless superweapon
    There is no useless superweapon, if, indeed, we are talking about superweapons, and not about bluff, adventures, propaganda. Quality or quantity, in comparison, is not a constant value in the assessment. Extensive or intensive methods in economics, more recently, have been the subject of criticism of the first method. The author criticizes the Poseidon project, but for illustration draws on the example of the Tigers and T-34 ... Yes, Germany did not have such human resources as the USSR, and any country in the world, if it lost prisoners, wounded and killed in In the first months of the war, 4,5 million soldiers would have surrendered, the same Britain, had it lost its expeditionary forces at Dunkirk, would have been on the brink of disaster; for Germany, the loss of Paulus's army at Stalingrad was a national mourning. We also do not have the USSR's capabilities now, not in quality, not in quantity, or in human resources, or in scientific and technical potential, which was laid down in Soviet times, and which capitalist Russia almost ate. This is the problem, which forces us to “light up” projects like “Status-6” and return again to Soviet ideas and developments. Now, the Poseidon bluff and gamble, or an effective measure in the current reality, that's another question.
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 11: 57
      This is not a bluff and not an effective measure, it drank money, which, however, can still be turned to benefit. Until.
      1. +3
        16 January 2019 12: 58
        Alexander, I can only say one thing - in Soviet times, military developments were a secret, even the true names were a secret. An attraction with a cameraman's lens peering over the general's shoulder into the image of "Status-6" ... I personally didn't like this show very much, it was very reminiscent of Iran's "show-offs" with a new fake fighter jet. At one time, in one of the comments on the topic, I questioned the navigation of such a drone, since, for a torpedo-drone, the topography of the seabed is much more complicated in an aquatic environment than land relief in an air cruise missile, sea currents will be influence the torpedo more strongly than the wind on the rocket. Finally, for the CD, satellite navigation can be used, what will correct the torpedo's multi-mile route? But, let it be solved successfully, what we have ... The "King of Torpedo" was abandoned in the USSR, the project seemed questionable, including in terms of radioactive contamination of the ocean. It is possible to make an exclusion zone from the territory of the United States, we do not need their resources in the form of a trophy, but the pollution of the world ocean with nuclear shit is dangerous for us, in this regard, the "jihad torpedo" seems, if not a "drank of dough", then an adventure with a saw, which, as a rule, was the case in tsarist Russia, for example, with the same Lebedenko tank or "water-armored" destroyer. I have already said that it is not because of the good life that we "light up" secrets and demonstrate computer animation. Well, there is Chubais, Skolkovo, money will not go to Poseidon, they will find another similar direction, this is capitalism, into which we have plunged. When this capitalism dies, and our bad boys screw up, in the very first hard year, then without them they will revive the new Soviet Union, our science and the new navy, along with the country's economy.
  34. +2
    16 January 2019 10: 03
    For example, a small-sized low-noise nuclear turbogenerator for diesel submarines would not hurt us very much. The combination of such a device with a diesel-electric power plant and a lithium-ion battery would make the diesel-electric submarines more autonomous than those of the NPS, at a disproportionately lower price. Of course, such boats would not have been able to replace full-fledged nuclear, but, at least, they would no longer have to stand under the RDP and “beat the charge”, roaring at the whole ocean. This would be an important step in the development of the diesel-electric submarines. Yes, and unmanned combat vehicles with small-sized nuclear power plants - the direction is very promising. Especially armed. And the technological backlog of "Poseidon" may well be used to work on their creation.


    I fully support. It is the development of compact small-sized nuclear power sources and engines that can be obtained both from Poseidon and from Petrel, although both systems are extremely doubtful as weapons.
    1. -1
      16 January 2019 10: 36
      The worst thing for our potential opponents is that it will be impossible for Poseidon to penetrate the AI ​​by freezing his foreign accounts after the beginning of the end. Unpredictability is worse than even 100 MT.
    2. 0
      16 January 2019 11: 00
      Last year there was a report on US nuclear policy, is on the website of the Department of Defense.
      The Americans proceed from the assumption that Russia (read Putin) mistakenly believes that in the event of a conflict, the threat of use or the real first limited use of nuclear weapons by Russia will de-escalate the conflict and it won’t come to a big nuclear outage - the Americans will be scared and go back down.
      Russian strategy and
      doctrine emphasize the potential coercive and military uses of nuclear weapons. It
      mistakenly assesses that the threat of nuclear escalation or actual first use of nuclear
      weapons would serve to “de-escalate” a conflict on terms favorable to Russia. These
      mistaken perceptions increase the prospect for dangerous miscalculation and escalation.


      I don’t know how it really is, but nuclear torpedoes, Vanguards and Daggers, deployed in limited quantities, fully fit into this doctrine and have a completely reasonable explanation within it, otherwise all these measures are simply stupid, as the author rightly writes.

      It should also be noted that Obama not only wrote in Russian entrances and hollowed Russian roads with a pickaxe, but also disarmed the United States in terms of tactical nuclear weapons, destroying completely nuclear versions of the Tomahawks, and Russia now has great superiority in tactical nuclear weapons.

      The consequences of this are obvious.
      Now Trump, as part of a new nuclear strategy, is trying to fix this - to create a new inconspicuous cruise nuclear missile instead of Tomahawk for tactical charges with increased range, replace strategic nuclear missiles and take other measures ..
      In addition, Trump raised the issue of accounting for tactical charges in the new Nuclear Weapons Treaty - the old one ends in 2021, if I'm not mistaken.
  35. -6
    16 January 2019 10: 09
    The author clearly has an attack of Americanophilia laughing

    The RF Ministry of Defense has already chewed everything and presented it on a plate with a blue border:
    - no one is going to deliver Poseidon to the launch area on their own, this will be done by nuclear submarines dropping Poseidons to the bottom of the shelf near the ocean coast of Europe, North America, and then everywhere;
    - Lying on the bottom, the Poseidons will wait for the launch command, after which they will reach the design points of detonation in the immediate vicinity of the enemy's coast at a speed of 100 (at a depth of 1000 km) to 50 (at a shallower depth) knots, time will be spent on this within 30 minutes, i.e. Poseidons explode earlier than Minuteman BB;
    - the power of the explosion of 100-Mtn warhead "Poseidon" is such that the New York metropolis will be completely destroyed and flooded with radioactive bottom sediments.

    It is easy to calculate how many Poseidons will be required to "flush down the toilet" the entire coastal infrastructure of North America, Western Europe, Japan and South Korea.
    1. +5
      16 January 2019 10: 33
      Quote: Operator
      no one is going to deliver Poseidon to the launch area on their own, this will be done by nuclear-powered submarines dropping Poseidons to the bottom of the shelf near the ocean coast of Europe, North America, and then everywhere;

      Enchanting ravings. MO NEVER said this, and could not speak in principle.
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 11: 07
        And think for yourself? Or is Russia OBLIGED to shout to the whole world about its, not just actions, but also plans? Something I do not see lighting about the real tasks of haarpa, except for water about "yes, in kind, this is a purely scientific project, I swear by my mother!" - from striped.
      2. +1
        16 January 2019 11: 29
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Operator
        no one is going to deliver Poseidon to the launch area on their own, this will be done by nuclear-powered submarines dropping Poseidons to the bottom of the shelf near the ocean coast of Europe, North America, and then everywhere;

        Enchanting ravings. MO NEVER said this, and could not speak in principle.

        He said, said: he will lie and grow with marine organisms, waiting for an hour x
        1. +4
          16 January 2019 15: 30
          Quote: Tlauicol
          He said, said:

          No :)))) Declaring such a MO would inform about a unilateral termination of the agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons on the seabed and in its bowels :)))))
    2. +7
      16 January 2019 11: 19
      Quote: Operator
      - no one is going to deliver Poseidon to the launch area under its own power, this will be done by nuclear submarines dropping Poseidons to the bottom of the shelf near the ocean coast of Europe, North America, and then everywhere

      That is, the Navy will again have to solve the problem of the 80s - the secret exit of the ICAPL to the Atlantic. That's just the enemy’s goals this time will be much less than in the 80s, and our submarines will have no cover from the surface and air at all.
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 14: 30
        The Poseidons will be dropped in exclusively in peacetime, without noise and dust at any point on the route of the carrier nuclear submarines, since the Poseidons will reach their final deployment site at their own low speed at depths of 1 km or more.
        1. -3
          16 January 2019 15: 01
          Quote: Operator
          the Poseidons will get to the final deployment site at their own low speed

          they are UNABLE to move at low speed due to significant overload
          the speed that they need in order to be minimally controlled is already incompatible with stealth
          1. +2
            16 January 2019 15: 04
            "Overweight" in relation to a floating craft is how to understand: negative buoyancy, or what? laughing

            You probably meant the relatively small area of ​​the rudders, but here I can tell nothing from the photo of Poseidon.

            In any case, any underwater vehicle at low speeds is perfectly controlled in three planes by thrusting water cannons hidden in the body of the device, which also have minimal sonar audibility.
            1. -3
              16 January 2019 15: 22
              Quote: Operator
              "Overweight" in relation to a floating craft is how to understand: negative buoyancy, or what?

              Yes
              and this is not "how to understand" but a normal technical term (as well as the coefficient of overweight)

              Quote: Operator
              In any case, any underwater vehicle at low speeds is perfectly controlled in three planes by thrusting water cannons hidden in the body of the device, which also have minimal sonar audibility.

              do not smash nonsense, it hurts
    3. +3
      16 January 2019 22: 58
      It is easy to calculate how many Poseidons will be required to "flush down the toilet" the entire coastal infrastructure of North America, Western Europe, Japan and South Korea.


      Not difficult. The most powerful tsunami in Japanese history is the 2011 tsunami and earthquake. The energy of the wave and tremors is 2 by ten in seventeenth joules. One megaton equals 4 times ten at fifteenth joules. When a hydrogen bomb explodes, the shock wave accounts for 50% of the energy. So the tsunami of the eleventh year is equal to an underwater explosion of a 100 megaton bomb. The tsunami victims amounted to 20 thousand people. This is certainly a terrible tragedy, but it is far from "flushing down the toilet".
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 23: 26
        I wrote figuratively: "flush into the toilet" (and not into the ocean) - I mean the destruction of coastal megacities (as well as naval bases, ports, industrial facilities) not by a tsunami, but by an air shock wave and light radiation from a fireball after the explosion 100 Mtn Poseidon warheads near the surface of the water at a distance of several miles from the coast.
        And as a bonus - aerosols from the bottom sediments with radiation induced by the neutron flux on land am
        1. 0
          17 January 2019 18: 35
          not a tsunami, but an air shock wave and light radiation from a fireball after detonating a 100-Mtn Poseidon warhead near the water surface


          In this form, it is true. Although it must be taken into account that some final segment of the dashboard will have to go at shallow depths and relatively low speed, because at shallow depths cavitation will occur, destroying the propellers. In addition, you will probably have to come up several times to get the coordinates from Glonass or astronavigation, how else to find deep-sea fairways? And if the weather is cloudy, and the Glonass signal (having received a warning from SOSUS) is silenced, at ZhiPiES they will urgently change the codes, turn off the beacons, and introduce blackout on the shore?

          Many, however, write about the explosion precisely at a kilometer depth even before the shelf and the supposedly terrible unprecedented tsunami of almost the middle of America. We note for ourselves that such a use of a torpedo will be relatively harmless to the enemy.
          1. +1
            18 January 2019 09: 41
            The Poseidons will be located on the seabed outside the 24-mile zone of national control. They will move to the place of detonation (several miles from the coast) at shallow depths at a speed of 50 knots, which excludes cavitation of the propeller blades. Navigation at this moment will be carried out using the onboard inertial system, for 30 minutes of travel the possible error in the Poseidon's location will be about 100 meters - nothing compared to the scale of the explosion of a 100-Mt warhead.
            1. 0
              18 January 2019 20: 30
              Poseidons "will be located at the bottom


              The bedding option is even worse. Smooth on paper. To begin with: how can this command be transmitted to the dashboard, what is the time to emerge when it is at the bottom? If on a long-wave connection, then she will have to lie down to the bottom no deeper than 100 meters, and this is very close, several kilometers from the coast. Will it fit several kilometers of antenna cable? In order to unwind it, she will have to walk a dozen kilometers in a direct course close to the shore, but what if on the way stranded? But there is also such a difficulty. It is easy for SSBNs to drag such an antenna across the ocean at a constant depth. And here it is necessary to lie at the bottom, and so that the antenna lies at the bottom, too, directly and at a constant depth. It is necessary that the bottom is flat without pits and no deeper than hundreds for several kilometers. It is also necessary that the antennas do not stray into the rings from inertia, so that it does not carry sideways. Should torpedoes float before bedding to get the exact coordinates? Obviously a must. Should she contact herself in order to report on her arrival? I think it should, if only so that later, when we make friends with America, it could be quietly and easily removed. If you get in touch, then how? HF I think it disappears, because noticeably, possible only during the day, requires a long search for noiseless frequencies, i.e. long communication session. Satellite microwave is no longer in place, the plate cannot be placed in the torpedo. Remains VHF. VHF is only possible with a low-flying communications satellite, and they still need to be launched, with a ship or with an airplane. The ship will give the enemy the position of a torpedo, the plane too. Those. the enemy will know the location of the torpedo with a circle accuracy of 10 km. A jammer for long-wave signals will be brought ashore. A helicopter or aircraft with a magnetic detector will quickly find a cable unwound at the bottom. Customize the motor bot, lower the diver ...

              Surely, while this super torpedo is still at the stage of a general concept, when they get to the questions above, the concept will quietly die by itself.
              1. +1
                18 January 2019 21: 35
                The command to activate the Poseidons will come from the Zeus radio transmitter located on the Kola Peninsula and operating at a frequency of 82 Hertz (wavelength 3658 km). In practice, the Zeus radio signal was received in Antarctica
                http://geoksc.apatity.ru/images/stories/Print/snch_2014.pdf
  36. +2
    16 January 2019 10: 28
    In the correct version, you need to limit yourself to the number of Poseidon carriers that are already in place or laid down, especially since those boats and in addition to the Poseidons are full of tasks of special importance. At the same time, the drones themselves must, of course, continue to be tested and brought to readiness for mass production, but not so much in order to build it, but in order to develop the technologies obtained

    Maybe the soap is better than the author, he writes that there are no submarines, so at least make drones that are a minute cheaper than the last ... All weapons can be intercepted and even ICBMs, will we also refuse this logic? Why only strikes on the US coastal zones, when in cases of the same global war a 10-kiloton warhead can AUGs be disabled ...
    The article is similar to the screams of our bureaucrats - "no, only to produce, let's continue to cut money on projects !!!!"
    1. +5
      16 January 2019 11: 28
      Quote: spektr9
      Maybe the soap is better than the author, he writes that there are no submarines, so at least make drones that are a minute cheaper than the last ...

      And where does the author write about the production of drones? The article talks about bringing the development to the stage of readiness for the series, but without starting production - to bring to mind the technologies used in drones and their further use in other areas.
      At the same time, the drones themselves must, of course, continue to be tested and bring to readiness for mass productionBut not so much to build it, and in order to develop the resulting technology

      Quote: spektr9
      All weapons can be intercepted, and even ICBMs, will we also refuse from this logic?

      The problem is that interception of Poseidons, even at the current level, is much more likely than interception of ICBMs.
      Quote: spektr9
      Why only strikes on the US coastal zones, when in cases of the same global war a 10-kiloton warhead can AUGs be disabled ...

      In the event of a global war, exchanging for tactical goals is already pointless.
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 11: 36
        The problem is that interception of Poseidons, even at the current level, is much more likely than interception of ICBMs.

        By the year 30, the probable adversary will finish completely, withdraw its elements into space, and the interception of ICBMs will also be more likely ...
        In the event of a global war, exchanging for tactical goals is already pointless.

        In the event of a global war, the main launches of cruise missiles with nuclear warheads will be carried out from naval carriers that need to be destroyed ... Since the Russian fleet is now unable to carry out such a task, there are two options left, either to follow the Chinese route and supply the ballistic missile system missile with Ya ... Or torpedo drones with the same Ya, there is no other way out in the current economic situation
        1. +3
          16 January 2019 12: 43
          Quote: spektr9
          By the year 30, the probable adversary will finish completely, withdraw its elements into space, and the interception of ICBMs will also be more likely ...

          By the year 30, our combat-ready SSNNs can be counted on one hand. So the probability of intercepting Poseidon carriers will increase even more.
          Quote: spektr9
          In cases of global war, the main launches of cruise missiles with nuclear warheads will be made from marine carriers that must be destroyed ...

          In the event of a global war, SLCMs will be a problem of the second degree of importance - against this background:
          1. 0
            16 January 2019 22: 43
            By the year 30, our combat-ready SSNNs can be counted on one hand. So the probability of intercepting Poseidon carriers will increase even more.

            That is why it is necessary to arm them with torpedoes with nuclear warheads, moreover, in 1962 there was a situation in which the USSR fleet was also inferior to the US fleet, and torpedoes with nuclear warheads were also loaded into the submarine fleet, because in another way the US fleet was extremely problematic to destroy .. .
            And as I said above, it is not necessary to come up with unrealistic scenarios with an attack by the United States through the floor of the Poseidon world, not for this the latter will be applied

            In the event of a global war, SLCMs will be a problem of the second degree of importance - against this background

            And what is depicted here? Enlighten, what kind of even rays send to the damn grandmother the whole idea of ​​ballistics?
            1. +2
              18 January 2019 04: 51
              Quote: spektr9
              Enlighten, what kind of even rays send to the damn grandmother the whole idea of ​​ballistics?

              Just all the same according to these very laws.
              1. +1
                18 January 2019 06: 23
                Just all the same according to these very laws.

                Truth ? That's just why they scum do not fly with laser beams with the same intensity of glow and at the same distance laughing
                But in the video, reluctant to fly like that request
                1. +1
                  18 January 2019 16: 51
                  Quote: spektr9
                  That's just why they scum do not fly with laser beams

                  Ah, well, here I agree with you. To admit, I did not immediately realize what you were ... Guilty. I will correct ... soldier
  37. +3
    16 January 2019 10: 33
    I give the author a tip for the next article - "Tu-160M2: useless superweapon" negative
  38. BAI
    +1
    16 January 2019 10: 34
    1.
    The answer is one and he is known - missile defense is only missile defense when the United States managed to deliver a sudden disarming nuclear strike to the Russian Federation. In another case, the missile defense does not make sense. But with a missed strike - it has, because in the opposite direction a very small number of missiles will fly.

    And shouldn't a missile defense reflect the first (disarming) strike?
    2.
    Super weapons do not exist and can not be invented.

    the author is not childish to make such categorical statements. Is he aware of all the latest developments of theoretical physicists? How is the classic? "The world is not as amazing as we can imagine. It is so amazing that we cannot imagine it."
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 11: 59
      And shouldn't a missile defense reflect the first (disarming) strike?


      She can not

      Well, the rest is in the same spirit, yes. (((
      1. BAI
        +2
        16 January 2019 13: 27
        She can not

        And what will be the first blow? The bombs? And if missile defense in an intact state is not able to reflect the first strike, then how will it reflect the second, having significant damage after the first?
        1. -2
          16 January 2019 20: 52
          I once witnessed the discussion of American citizens in uniform. So they were sure that the first strike would be for portable nuclear weapons that had been delivered in advance to the right place. And they were not at all embarrassed by the idea of ​​delivering them by deep mail. So, by the way.
          1. +1
            16 January 2019 23: 11
            Not to mention the fact that they may well be delivered and ........ in the usual way)))
          2. 0
            18 January 2019 20: 46
            portable nuclear munitions


            I think this is just the most unlikely option. When to hide? Many years before the attack? What if Snowden runs away and betrays everyone. Then do not hide? And where to store? At the Embassy? Again, Snowden will give out. Store in the basements of the Pentagon and send by diplomatic mail a couple of days before the start of the war? I can imagine: at the time of the highest political tension, the exchange of notes and ultimatums, from the gates of the American embassy, ​​such an uncle in black glasses with a weighty backpack behind his back comes out straight into the raging crowd of demonstrators. So anyway, he won’t get to Monchegorsk in a couple of days. And to the berths of SSBNs, and to mine installations. And if he gets there, they will not let him in without closer access to five kilometers. They will also search the rucksack. A megaton bomb cannot be put in a backpack, and five kilotons in the tundra many kilometers from a mine or a berth will only cause a psychological effect.
  39. +1
    16 January 2019 10: 43
    In the right way, you need to limit yourself to the number of Poseidon carriers that already exist or are laid
    I take into account the reduction of programs in all directions, most likely it will be so.
  40. +1
    16 January 2019 10: 50

    (Germans) were the first to use tank night-vision devices with infrared illumination.
    - debatable.

    1939-1940 Night vision devices "Ship" and "Dudka" were tested on BT-7.
    Sources:
    https://history.mirtesen.ru/blog/43077764533/Dudka
    https://topwar.ru/14990-pervye-sovetskie-pribory-nochnogo-videniya.html
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 20: 53
      Yes, I was wrong. I thought these NVDs were without illumination.
      1. +1
        17 January 2019 09: 32
        The main thing is to eliminate the error in time. Then she is not scary. ))))
  41. +1
    16 January 2019 11: 01
    However, if you believe the information about the gigantic speed of the torpedo, it should be recognized that its detection and relatively accurate localization will be quite possible using acoustic methods - the noise from the torpedo nodes traveling at speed in 100 will be heard from great distances, as Poseidon approaches the arrays bottom sensors of the American SOSUS / IUSS system, it will be possible to send anti-submarine aircraft to the alleged torpedo area and determine its location accurately.
    I have only one question, but the author is sure for sure that Poseidon is not capable of moving at other speeds? That 100 knots is the ONLY speed possible for this vehicle to move?
    1. +3
      16 January 2019 11: 30
      Quote: svp67
      I have only one question, but the author is sure for sure that Poseidon is not capable of moving at other speeds? That 100 knots is the ONLY speed possible for this vehicle to move?

      Ahem ... actually, the author considers all the options:
      The third. Poseidon is a completely intercepted system. Contrary to what the press claims, the search and discovery of such an apparatus is possible. If we assume that he is approaching the target at low speed, then the Americans will have several days for the active part of the search and counteraction operation. Even frankly, up to two weeks. If the device goes quickly, then it will begin to hear sonar with all the consequences. At the same time, a significant part of the US anti-submarine forces can deploy in advance.
      1. +2
        16 January 2019 11: 41
        Quote: Alexey RA
        At the same time, a significant part of the US anti-submarine forces can deploy in advance.

        But the author does not take into account that these systems, even in peacetime, can "quietly lie down" where, at the first signal, they will go for a breakthrough, and these points of location may be already beyond the line of the intended deployment of ASW forces. It is also important who will be the first to play "ahead of the curve"
        1. 0
          16 January 2019 12: 27
          They cannot, the reactor cannot be cooled in such conditions, the apparatus must move.
        2. +2
          16 January 2019 12: 46
          Quote: svp67
          But the author does not take into account that these systems, even in peacetime, can "quietly lie down" there, from where, at the first signal, they will go for a breakthrough, and these points of location may be already beyond the line of the intended deployment of ASW forces.

          Hmm ... in peacetime, to scatter nuclear charges in neutral waters? And how long will these "nobody's" charges last?
    2. 0
      16 January 2019 12: 02
      read carefully
  42. +2
    16 January 2019 11: 03
    "... There is no superweapon ..." - no, it does exist, nuclear for example. It radically changed the concept of military confrontation. And Poseidon is only a means of delivering it, a kind of something to itself, but very necessary, in a complex. What happened not so long ago - the Americans worked intensively on the missile defense system and were approaching the moment when they could ensure the interception of intercontinental strategic missiles, thus neutralizing the threat of a nuclear strike, which allowed them to act even more naturally and openly against the interests of Russia. And now they have a new threat, for which it is necessary to develop an appropriate confrontation strategy. An asymmetric response to the threat, the only thing that is possible for Russia, its survival. Another thing is that it is impossible to dwell on this, Poseidon is really not a superweapon, but it is still needed as a new threat.
  43. -3
    16 January 2019 11: 09
    from the same place from the report on the views of the Americans on further actions in the field of nuclear weapons
    Russia continues to violate a number of treaties and obligations
    arms control. In a nuclear context, the most significant of
    violations allowed by Russia are connected with the system prohibited by the Treaty on
    elimination of intermediate and shorter range missiles. In a broader context
    Russia either abandons its obligations under
    by numerous agreements, or avoids their implementation, and opposes
    US efforts to organize another round of negotiations to
    Conclusion of a New Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty
    Arms (START), and Rejects US Proposals for Reduction
    non-strategic nuclear forces.
  44. 0
    16 January 2019 11: 15
    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3015546.html
  45. -1
    16 January 2019 11: 26
    Everything is correct, but only based on publicly available information. And if this information is completely incomplete? For example, about the submarine leaving the base in Velyuchinsk. There are torpedoes that mimic our submarines. What prevents the release of a real SSBN to release a few false? Let the hunters grazing in front of our base chase tricks. And at the same time, anti-submarine Orions and Poseidons cannot be allowed within 200 km of the base. If there is an S-400, then it will be possible to close the 400 km radius ...
    Well, probably now our experts grinned very pretty, reading the following:
    Our PLO forces have practically died, underwater lighting systems (FOSS) are almost gone, we cannot even deploy the existing submarines, several new ones will not change the situation from the word “completely”.
    That's what everyone should think. Radio game. And that we do not have the opportunity to fight with mines - either. Otherwise, they will start to invent something else.
    I want to remind you that according to the plans, the Unified State System for Lighting of the Surface and Underwater Conditions (EGSSONPO) is supposed to close the Arctic territory by 50% by 2020.
    1. -1
      16 January 2019 11: 54
      ... by creating a system of anti-submarine borders in the “shallow sea”, the United States has completed the practical formation of the concept of “A powerful sea shield”.

      What are such systems? A group of emitters placed in the sea in advance (installed either at the bottom, or at a given depth or towed) sends acoustic signals according to a given program in the established frequency ranges and time intervals. These signals are received by a whole network of pre-deployed special antennas (they can be placed on submarines, surface ships, systems of discharged radio-acoustic buoys, antenna arrays located at the bottom, on crewless boats, AUVs, etc.).

      This group works as one giant sonar device that allows you to quickly obtain the coordinates of the target that has come into the zone of responsibility of the system using echo signals. From the command post of SOPO, information is transmitted via space communication to the command post of the united operational formation. Thus, the location of even the most modern and low-noise submarine can be immediately established, which simplifies its destruction.

      The amount of work that has yet to be accomplished as part of the creation of EGSONPO is evident even from this far from complete list of the means and forces used for these purposes by the Americans. And it is clear that Russia has practically no time to pull with an adequate response.
      Sergei Zhandarov, Rear Admiral
      In a similar way, it is possible to tightly seal especially important sections of the open sea, i.e. exits from the bases and the main deployment routes of our submarines.
      And our Poseidons can "stick" to the ship going to the right port ...
      1. +3
        16 January 2019 12: 28
        And our Poseidons can "stick" to the ship going to the right port ...


        No, there GUS necessary not fit.
      2. +2
        16 January 2019 13: 47
        Zhandarova flooded from the Navy, he is now in command of some HOA in the suburbs, if that. His role in the situation with our FOSS is far from positive.
    2. +2
      16 January 2019 13: 59
      Quote: Tektor
      That's what everyone should think. Radio game.

      Yeah ... a dozen modernized IL-38s are a radio game. The absence of new IPCs at the shipyards and the order of only seven TSCs is also a radio game. In fact, in secret factories deep underground, there are PLO aircraft, and new IPCs, and new MFs. smile

      The times of the USSR are long gone. We do not have many factories, and now you can hide the maximum - the appearance of a ship or aircraft, but not the fact of ordering and construction.
      However, in Soviet times, the adversary knew enough about the construction of ships and aircraft in the USSR. It was only from Soviet citizens that even Jane’s handbook was kept secret because of information about Russian weapons.
    3. +1
      16 January 2019 15: 20
      Quote: Tektor
      There are torpedoes that mimic our submarines.

      there are no such
      for an adequate simulation of the low-frequency HAP SIPL is physically impossible
    4. 0
      16 January 2019 16: 18
      At the moment, C 400 is armed with missiles with an interception range of 200 kilometers - the one with 380 kilometers has just begun to be launched.
  46. -2
    16 January 2019 11: 49
    It seems that the article was written either by Dill, or by Americans.
    1. -4
      16 January 2019 15: 19
      Quote: VLADIMIR VLADIVOSTOK
      It seems that the article was written either by Dill, or by Americans.


      Monsieur, smoke "carbon monoxide", "STAR", "Izvestia" - this is YOUR wretched "level" SKAKUN.
      Yes, do not tear your trampoline;)
  47. +3
    16 January 2019 12: 04
    The opinion of a layman in favor of Poseidon.
    1. The ratio of the entire complex of costs for PLO assets in terms of "catching" such a torpedo to the funds for its manufacture will sooner or later lead the states to an understanding of the impossibility, precisely in financial terms, of a prolonged confrontation of this kind of drones with unlimited range and autonomy, "it's "performing the programmed task.
    2. Continuing the author’s thought about the technically complex decisions of the Third Reich, “clogged” with the mass of weapons of the “allies”, for the case of Poseidon, we can confidently draw a cost analogy between the PLO complex and the royal tiger on the one hand and between the swarm of Poseidon and the avalanche T -34 on the other hand.
    3. The States, pursuing, to put it mildly, an unfriendly policy towards Russia with such a geography of their own, simply begged for themselves "Poseidon" ...
    1. +2
      16 January 2019 12: 29
      1. The ratio of the entire complex of costs for PLO assets in terms of "catching" such a torpedo to the funds for its manufacture will sooner or later lead the states to an understanding of the impossibility, precisely in financial terms, of a prolonged confrontation of this kind of drones with unlimited range and autonomy, "it's "performing the programmed task.


      Alas, no, opposition will not cost them too much. That is the problem.
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 14: 26
        While there is no open information on the Posedon program and US response, there is nothing to compare, to put it mildly. Spherical horse in vacuum against Malevich square.
      2. 0
        17 January 2019 20: 55
        Alas, no, opposition will not cost them too much. That is the problem.

        It seems to me that the discovery in the ocean and especially the elimination of a single shallow underwater object, going at depths of about a kilometer at a speed of up to 200 km / h, of constantly maneuvering, changing travel modes from low noise to full, capable of evading, will require the creation and maintenance of significant the amount of anti-missile defense means, since the current anti-missile defense tools are designed for facilities with a different set of parameters. As for the actual military equipment itself, directly capable of guaranteed to hit maneuvering underwater objects moving at such speeds and at such depths, here our "partners" also "did not roll." That is, they can write about such opportunities as in the case of the Patriots, as we know, whatever they like, but they will pay, pay, and pay many more times in life. You just need to give them time to calculate the costs, and then they will receive a proposal "to limit ...".
        We all remember how the “partners” bought from us in the early 90's dozens of anti-ship missiles to work out protection against them, and so none !!! of them they did not bring down. On this occasion, even then, Izvestia published a rather detailed article with a sarcastic proposal, the next time to buy two sets from us at once: one anti-ship, and the second anti-missile to obtain a guaranteed positive interception result ....
  48. +1
    16 January 2019 12: 19
    "But in 1962, no."
    What does it mean no? How it worked! America was frightened of our, obviously smaller, number of nuclear weapons. The conflict has resolved.
    And who said that you can only launch from a submarine? There is a "Skif" theme for missiles (a missile in a launcher under water in standby mode). Who said Poseidon shouldn't be allowed in this way? Putin didn't say? So he doesn't have to say everything. He's a sane person. Especially from the KGB.
    The use of technology (engine) for other purposes is doubtful. I have a suspicion that the engine is very simple in design, but disposable. And that makes it relatively cheap.
    The device is uninhabited, so the maximum depth is likely to exceed 1 km.
    Accordingly, if in the threatened period to set the launcher at 500-600 km from the targets, then it will be impossible to intercept.
    And about hydroacoustic detection - I would, in the place of our commanders, develop a special high-noise torpedo. This is unlikely to be a serious problem. At the right time, launch several roaring torpedoes in the right directions and ensure a time gain. Then the interception will become unrealistic.
    By preparing a variety of striking means, we will force the enemy to divert much larger resources to search for the possibility of their reflection.
  49. +1
    16 January 2019 12: 44
    In my understanding, Poseidon will be effective against AUG and ports. To work on urban agglomerations, there are ballistic missiles.
  50. +2
    16 January 2019 12: 44
    hi
    "The first half of the text is trash, frenzy, altistory.
    .... when it comes to hardware, a relatively realistic overview of the situation. "

    Since there is no disagreement over the iron, for example, I warmly support this fellow "Yes, and unmanned combat vehicles with a small-sized nuclear power plant are a very promising direction. Especially armed ones. And the technological groundwork for Poseidon may well be used to work on their creation."
    consider disagreements on its impact fellow
    1. "a political decision to destroy the United States, and to start preparing for such an operation" and why it is bad.
    If the MAD concept and the subsequent concept of disarmament to minimum levels still somehow worked, then a "political decision to destroy" (which a lot of people will know about) will only lead to a "disarming and decapitating strike in the first round, and, during about twenty minutes - counter-force "from the sphere of exercises will go into the sphere of action in connection with the" direct and obvious threat. "
    Why? Yes, because "if your neighbor is a mad cannibal who has firmly decided to kill you when the opportunity presents itself, then it is your duty to slap him first." This is exactly how it will look from the White House, the Capitol and the dacha of the President of the United States, which we fly by reconnaissance planes for greater love for us (the "percentage of love" after that was 2% in the Senate). And if for this it is necessary to incur losses, then one should not think that the Americans cannot fight, bearing losses or without assortments or without hamburgers, they immediately surrender - they somehow burned the White House, but they won anyway. In the "kill or minimize casualties" alternative, their choice would be obvious - "turn the enemy country into a territory filled with volcanic glass, and then send the Marines to make parking markings on it."
    Now IMHO: if now our potentials, both nuclear and non-nuclear, are not very equal, then after such a "decision" the Americans will very quickly build up their potentials in order to "solve" the guarantee problem.

    2. "As James Mattis rightly noted, all these systems (Dagger, Avangard, Poseidon) do not add anything to the Russian containment potential, which means they do not require a reaction from the United States." Here "there is a feeling that it would be easier and cheaper to invest in the existing NSNF" and there is no need to argue with him. wink
    The only thing that is alarming is that the respected Andrey from Chelyabinsk believes that "Avangard" ... "really enhances the power of our strategic nuclear forces" ... although .... "There is a simple fact - ICBMs are practically non-intercepted today. Therefore, you can calculate, you can not calculate, and the result will be the same. "

    3. "Yes, and it is quite possible to hit the United States with the help of several built prototypes. Send an IBM to the Carbibian Sea, and there it is indicative to catch such a" fish "from the water, not far from Florida. The effect in some cases could be good - before the meeting of our president with the American, for example. So that he does not forget who he is talking to. " I'm just uncomfortable uploading a photo from the last "meeting" of the Presidents of the United States and the Russian Federation. They don't talk to us anymore (one can seriously suffer for talking to the Russian ambassador or simply the Russians), although we hope for meetings, at least on the sidelines, at least on our feet. It worked with Obama, now it won't even work with Obama.
    "On the other hand, American society is now seriously split, full of contradictions, and, perhaps, the" American question "could have been solved not by a direct military strike, but somehow else, by organizing some kind of" get-together "inside their country and throwing "Fuel" to all parties to the conflict to maximize losses. " - Several vacationers, volunteers, owners of factories have already started writing posts on Facebook and Instagram, now they are being caught to chat, and the TV is discussing "the success of import substitution" and the usefulness of sanctions. In the proposed version, life will simply be arranged for us, worse than in Iran (we carefully read the corresponding works of Sorokin).

    Summary: Poseidon and Co. will achieve nothing but support for the military-industrial complex (American) (for greater security, it would be nice for us to finally reach the upper limit of the treaty restrictions on strategic nuclear forces) and “it would be easier and cheaper to invest in the existing NSNF, in increasing the coefficient of operational stress and an increase in time on alert (this is not particularly difficult, since for many boats second crews have been formed, and, generally speaking, it is not clear what keeps them in bases), and their anti-submarine and anti-mine support, in the training of crews of multipurpose nuclear submarines , "Insuring" SSBNs, into ice torpedo firing exercises, into modern hydroacoustic countermeasures, into new guided torpedoes, into anti-submarine aircraft and tanker aircraft for them, into a squadron of interceptors to protect the airspace over the areas of SSBN deployment, and a full modernization " Kuznetsov "and his wing, for the same.
    In the end, on the Caliber missiles, so that the fleet can work them out at the bases of anti-submarine aircraft identified by reconnaissance. "
    We need to get out of the situation in which we find ourselves, and not climb further ("we, of course, immediately go to heaven, they - I don't think that either").

    4. ... "A small-sized low-noise nuclear turbine generator for diesel submarines would really do the trick for us" - here is more detailed, plz ...
  51. +1
    16 January 2019 13: 02
    The Tsar Cannon did not fire, but it made an impression on the ambassadors. So let it be.
  52. -2
    16 January 2019 13: 04
    It is very likely that the author of this nonsense is a complete idiot and simply has no idea what he is trying to write about here, his illiteracy in the military-technical direction is visible to the naked eye, such would-be experts have become too active lately, their the number is simply overwhelming.
    1. -1
      16 January 2019 13: 49
      Well, you’re not like that, you understand everything how it is there, right?
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 16: 20
        Well, you’re certainly not in the know about how it is there.
        1. -1
          17 January 2019 11: 31
          Well, off topic...
          Let's say I know something. Unlike.
    2. -2
      16 January 2019 13: 57
      Quote: sgrabik
      It looks very much like the author of this nonsense is a complete idiot and simply has no idea what he is trying to write about here, his illiteracy in military-technical matters is visible to the naked eye, these are the would-be experts

      it looks like YOU ARE A STUPID JUMP
      Don’t tear the trampoline, and don’t hit your stump on the ceiling!
  53. BAI
    +3
    16 January 2019 13: 20
    A very heated discussion. But it seems to me that it is appropriate to remember that in the use of such weapons, in addition to the military-technical and economic ones, there is also a political aspect.
    1. As long as the United States does not have such weapons, the state (leaders) that used them will be declared war criminals. Let's remember WWII - Hitler did not dare to use chemical weapons, he preferred to shoot himself (poison himself) (we are not considering the Adzhi-Mushkai quarries). Suddath applied - everyone knows the end.
    2. The presence of such weapons in Russia and the absence of the United States is an excellent reason for organizing a new wave of attacks on Russia and rallying everyone around the United States against Russia: “Look, they are going to destroy continents, a cannibalistic, inhumane war against women, children and the elderly!” I don't understand why this hasn't been implemented yet.
    3. I have a strong feeling that these weapons are not going to be used. Let me explain. This is all public, psychological intimidation. Poseidons, Almatys, Su-57s - we won’t have them in mass quantities for a big war. Beyond our means. In small quantities they will not make a difference against a strong enemy, i.e. - useless. Borisov’s phrase that the Armata and Su-57 are too good and there are no targets for them is completely justified. They can only be used against a weak enemy in a small local conflict. A conflict with a strong enemy will immediately escalate into TMB. Therefore, such publicity glorifies weapons that are useless (for global conflicts in small quantities) from a military point of view. This is information and psychological warfare. Do we hear a lot about the reincarnation of “Barguzin” into “Molodets”? And it poses a real danger to the United States, such that when a museum model was put in for repairs, there immediately followed a question about where it had gone. Yars and Well done, who will get lost in the endless forests of our Motherland, will have a decisive influence on the damage to the potential enemy. And work in this direction is going on quietly, not publicly, without any political shows.
    1. +2
      16 January 2019 15: 00
      1. By the beginning of World War II, everyone had chemical weapons, but the Germans did not use chemical weapons for only one reason - England, in response to the use, would begin to bomb the cities of Germany already with chemical weapons (according to Churchill’s agreement with Stalin, an attack with chemical weapons on Soviet troops was equated to an attack on Britain: speech Churchill on the radio May 12, 1942). Hitler simply saw the results of conventional raids and was forced to understand the consequences. Thus, the presence of weapons of mass destruction on all sides became a deterrent to their use, and given that they are not “uber-alles” at all, they became worthless. The conclusion suggests itself: if Vietnam had a way to symmetrically respond to Agent Orange, it would still remain in Monsanta’s laboratory.
      2. Poseidon is a weapon of retaliation (from our position). Just like our nuclear doctrine, therefore it must be understood based on the Doctrine, and not on the capabilities of this or that strategic complex. Until ANY methods of taking a person’s life are prohibited, talking about the humanity of weapons is meaningless, because that is precisely what they are created for.
      3. Enemy misinformation is also a weapon on which you need to spend money. Anything can happen... but this is IMHO.
  54. 0
    16 January 2019 13: 31
    Poseidons, Vanguards, ... - let them be afraid and waste resources on counteraction.
    Just like we fell for their “star wars” back in the day.

    These weapons do not require large expenditures compared to common weapons. And you don’t need a lot of them to burden the “partners”.
  55. -1
    16 January 2019 13: 33
    Why can't we just place Poseidons covertly on civilian ships? Then all critical bottlenecks will be passed without the risk of PLO detection. And already near the ports they will separate and lie on the bottom - listen to the ultra-long range through which the signal will arrive at the hour "H". Or they will go up the rivers into the interior, to the reservoir dams, and wait there.
    1. +2
      16 January 2019 14: 27
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      Why can't we just place Poseidons covertly on civilian ships?

      Because after the first leak about the beginning of such deployment, a civilian ship with Poseidon on board will be stopped at sea for inspection, a capture group will be landed on it and the whole world will be told that Russia is engaged in nuclear smuggling, secretly transporting ready-made ones to _____ (insert as appropriate) for the use of a nuclear charge. The practice of inspecting foreign ships in international waters is commonplace for the United States and other potential adversaries.
      The only thing that saves you from such actions is the Navy flag over the ship... but the secret delivery of Poseidon on a ship or fleet vessel is like Stirlitz walking through Berlin, in a Budyonnovka, with a walkie-talkie and a parachute dragging behind his back. smile
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 15: 07
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Because after the first leak about the start of such deployment, a civilian ship with Poseidon on board will be stopped at sea for inspection, a capture group will be landed on it and the whole world will be told that Russia is engaged in nuclear smuggling

        Well, let’s imagine that it will dangle under the bottom - it is not connected to the ship by anything other than the suspension brackets, it is controlled by signals via a satellite, using the carrier body as an antenna. Well, they stop the ship for inspection, and at a signal it uncouples - and into the depths. Well, the mattresses will start a scandal, and we’ll say to them: “Show me the charger! Can’t you? Then it’s just bullshit. Take a walk in the forest!”
        In addition, it is possible to charter ships under a foreign flag, then bribes are generally smooth.
        1. +1
          16 January 2019 15: 59
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          Well, they stop the ship for inspection, and at a signal it uncouples - and into the depths. Well, the mattresses will start a scandal, and we’ll say to them: “Show me the charger! Can’t you? Then it’s just bullshit. Take a walk in the forest!”

          Gorgeous. “Lose” an atomic charge in neutral waters. belay
          By the way, if the Yankees involve one of the Special Forces nuclear submarines in the case, then they will present the charger very quickly. Along with a film about his reset.
          1. +1
            16 January 2019 16: 29
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Gorgeous. “Lose” an atomic charge in neutral waters.

            Who said about "losing"? He will go under his own power to the base or to a designated square, where he will be caught by a submarine or other merchant ship. No one will be able to catch up with him. But photos/videos are not proof - now you can draw anything.
  56. +3
    16 January 2019 13: 54
    Reading the first half of the article, the author thought he was an enemy. And yet I disagree. Poseidon is needed. Very.
    Why does everyone think that the depth of Poseidon's passage is 1000 meters. Harpsichord 1 was tested at a much greater depth. What if it turns out that he is swimming, say, at a depth of 1500 meters. I think much deeper.
    Okay, let's make it 1000.
    With 32 Poseidons, we can keep 8 on patrol around America at all times. They can sail under the merchant fleet, sometimes revealing themselves, they can hide 60 km from the coast, they can find themselves near the AUG and then leave. They have a lot of options. Programming nowadays allows for a lot of things. The answer to the question is, if the Americans detected such a nuclear device 50 km from their borders in peacetime, will they sink it? Why, the main thing is that the tide would not last longer or the reactor would not be damaged. Whether there will be a nuclear war or not, only God knows, but having Poseidon near its borders we will begin to spoil their nerves right away. How much did we spend on this program? How much more will we spend?
    How much will they spend? For a detection system, for mines, sensors, and so on. Hundreds of times more.
    Why did you decide that Poseidon is launched only from boats, and under the belly of a civilian vessel? Will it not reach directly from the base? Problem loading maps. America lives as long as its ports work, and it is Poseidon who can break this trade.
    A very useful thing. Yes, you don’t need 200 of them, but 100 is quite enough.
    As for their straits, we’ll blow up one and then the second will pass by. The road has been calculated.
    1. -1
      16 January 2019 20: 56
      With 32 Poseidons, we can keep 8 on patrol around America at all times. They can sail under the merchant fleet, sometimes revealing themselves, they can hide 60 km from the coast, they can find themselves near the AUG and then leave. They have a lot of options. Programming nowadays allows for a lot of things.


      Does the lifetime of the reactor of such a thing allow this to be done?
  57. +3
    16 January 2019 14: 36
    Another crazy article. It doesn't represent anything. Indeed, I wrote so much out of fear. Most likely the author lives in the USA, then his trembling is understandable.
    1. -3
      16 January 2019 15: 17
      Quote: Shadows
      Another crazy article. It doesn't represent anything. Indeed, I wrote so much out of fear. Most likely the author lives in the USA

      Monsieur, smoke "carbon monoxide", "STAR", "Izvestia" - this is YOUR wretched "level" SKAKUN.
      Yes, do not tear your trampoline;)
  58. +4
    16 January 2019 14: 46
    I read the pearls of Alexander Timokhin.
    Timokha, you are Timokha.
    It's strange that there is a pointer to Min. defense It is a pity that the country of this MO is not indicated.
    A small educational program for an eccentric who did not attend lectures on tactics and strategy of military art at a military school.
    If the enemy is afraid of you, he has already lost - this is the main thesis (like the Epominondas principle) that first-year cadets absorb in the first semester. This is the first thing.
    Secondly, the use of “Poseidon” in the mode that the author gave out to the mountain can only be a complete eccentric with the letter “M”. The maximum speed of movement is needed to attack an AUG, when the distance between the AUG and the attacking boat is within the attack zone (~ 30-50 km), and at the final segment of the trajectory. What kind of multiple use of aircraft and torpedoes are we talking about if in this situation the calculation of time is a few minutes? OR does he think that the torpedo travels at a speed of 100 km/h all the time??? across the entire ocean. Wonderful.
    Thirdly, the advance to the location is carried out by a submarine. The author doesn’t remember that in the mid-2000s the United States went a little crazy when our strategist surfaced near their shores in the Caribbean Sea??? Waugh was surprised at his whereabouts with all their SOSUS/IUSS systems. So delivery to the coast is not a matter of the Poseidon itself, but of the boat for which it is intended as a weapon. Well, then a spurt of ~50 km, and then in the last segment, if a fleet base or a significant object is attacked, or into the abyss of the ocean to create a tsunami. Everything is as simple as a bucket. And those who started the war instantly get their coastline washed away. (So ​​we will have time to rejoice before the radiation increases to a lethal level, which is very doubtful when you know that pressing a button is tantamount to shooting yourself in the head. Let him take the PM and try to shoot at his “scientific” stupidity.) It is the fear of retaliation that is that strategic force acting on the liberals overseas and preventing them from starting hostilities with us. This is the main strength of this weapon.
    And so the reasoning costs a ruble, but the exhaust costs a penny. Learn the math part, exPerd and don’t embarrass yourself.
    1. -6
      16 January 2019 15: 14
      Quote: Observer3
      If the enemy is afraid of you, he has already lost - this is the main thesis (like the Epominondas principle) that first-year cadets absorb in the first semester

      ZAYA, from the first lines of your nonsense it’s clear that you didn’t take your butt further than a squashed sofa and a run-down TV box
      Quote: Observer3
      Secondly, the use of “Poseidon” in the mode that the author gave out to the mountain can only be a complete eccentric with the letter “M”. The maximum speed of movement is needed to attack the AUG, when the distance between the AUG

      ZAYA, this CRAP is simply UNABLE to move at low (low noise) speed
      DROWNING
      Did they say anything about old Archimedes in your bursa? or did you skip everything?
      Quote: Observer3
      Thirdly, the advance to the location is carried out by a submarine

      which was TORN OUT from among the normal ones (only “Belgorod” is already MINUS almost 100 KR)

      Quote: Observer3
      Learn the material part, exPerd and don’t embarrass yourself

      Zaya, your “level” is the ducks in your sofa, and your “materiel” is a sagging sofa
      1. BAI
        +3
        16 January 2019 15: 43
        Did they say anything about old Archimedes in your bursa?

        M.b. this will be a discovery for you - the buoyant force does not depend on the speed of the object. Old man Archimedes: “A body pressed into the water bulges out of the water with the weight of the upturned water.” Where is the speed here?
        1. -2
          16 January 2019 15: 50
          Quote: BAI
          M.b. this will be a discovery for you - the buoyant force does not depend on the speed of the object

          YOU have problems with education
          if there is not enough ejection, then LIFTING can help
          which is what happens in real life
          1. BAI
            +2
            16 January 2019 17: 33
            LIFTING
            which is what happens in real life

            What does Archimedes' law have to do with lift? From now on, more details please.
            1. +3
              16 January 2019 17: 51
              Quote: BAI
              What does Archimedes' law have to do with lift? From now on, more details please.

              Hmm... in my opinion everything is written clearly and clearly:
              Quote: mina024
              if there is not enough ejection, then LIFTING can help

              If there is not enough buoyancy force, for which Archimedes’ law is responsible, then you have to compensate for its lack with additional lifting force.
              The problem is that for lift to appear, the object must move or be powered by lifting motors. Otherwise this force is zero and the object will sink.
              1. +1
                16 January 2019 20: 20
                If there was a problem to compensate for the lifting force of the buoyant force, then it would be reasonable to install an analogue of wings or propellers in the front part of the hull. There are no wings in the video photographs.
                Again, if Poseidon provides buoyant force due to water jets in the rear, then what prevents it from using the lifting force of the propellers to move at low speed due to the greater inclination of the hull to the axis of movement?
                1. 0
                  16 January 2019 20: 32
                  Quote: Newone
                  it would be reasonable to install analogue wings

                  on the English "Targerfish" this is exactly what was done
                  on ALL others - due to the lifting force on the body
                  1. +3
                    16 January 2019 20: 57
                    You are always inclined to believe that the Poseidon is just a torpedo with a nuclear power plant and a nuclear warhead.
                    If this is so, then the combat usefulness of Poseidon is really small.
                    However, in cartoons Poseidon is positioned as an autonomous MULTI-FUNCTIONAL underwater vehicle.
              2. BAI
                +3
                16 January 2019 20: 23
                It is necessary to separate the flies from the cutlets. With the same success, you can cross Ohm's law and Bernoulli's law - it sounds smart, but makes no sense.
    2. +1
      16 January 2019 16: 24
      Well, what are you doing with the author - let people dream - on a stool.
      1. -4
        16 January 2019 16: 41
        Quote: Vadim237
        Well, what are you doing with the author - let people dream - on a stool.

        in this case, at the level of the stool YOU
        1. +2
          16 January 2019 18: 29
          Yes, especially this - “AUGs will strive to be closer to the attacked country, even before the start of the war.” Just all 10 AUGs - and thereby expose themselves to attack: Kinzhalov, Kalibrov, Iskanderov, Granitov X 22 and 32 - just enough for all the AUGs - considering that some of the missiles will have a nuclear charge. There are not so many fools in the US Navy - as the author makes them out to be in his “tabcrete” article.
          1. +1
            16 January 2019 19: 09
            Quote: Vadim237
            Just all 10 AUGs - and thereby expose themselves to attack: Kinzhalov, Kalibrov, Iskanderov, Granitov X 22 and 32 - just enough for all the AUGs - considering that some of the missiles will have a nuclear charge.

            The flight range of the "caliber" version of the anti-ship missile system is less than the combat radius of carrier-based aircraft.
            "Iskander" according to AUG? And why not immediately “Voevoda” - the effectiveness will be the same.
            Finding a living “Granit” and its carrier will soon be impossible - it’s not for nothing that “loaves” and TARKR are being converted into “Calibers”.
            X-22 and X-32... First, you will knock out the “twenty-second” from the Air Force to solve naval problems. Because there is no more air defense, and all carriers of heavy anti-ship missiles are now in Long-Range Aviation.
            Quote: Vadim237
            There are not so many fools in the US Navy - as the author makes them out to be in his “tabcrete” article.

            Of course not - fools would not have been able to hide the AUG “around the corner” from the main base of the Northern Fleet back in the 80s. We are interested in carrier-based aircraft, but we are not interested in aircraft carriers. smile
            1. 0
              16 January 2019 19: 54
              Didn’t you know that Iskander can work against naval targets? Granites are still in service and will remain until all nuclear submarines of the 949 project are converted to 3M14, I also forgot to mention the Vulcan missile, in short, against the AUG we have everything in abundance and SASK also knows that we have it all - that’s why they AUGs will keep a significant distance.
  59. +2
    16 January 2019 14: 52
    The article is crazy. It starts from one premise - Poseidon is a homing robot - kamikaze. That's all.
    Although it has been repeatedly said that this is a multifunctional complex.
    With regard to the possibility of applications, the author demonstrates conservatism bordering on, I will say correctly, very great short-sightedness. Similar conservatism has already been demonstrated in Russia: in the days before the Crimean War (when they abandoned breech-loading fittings and the construction of steamships). The result is known - a shameful defeat.
    1. -4
      16 January 2019 15: 10
      Quote: Newone
      The article is crazy. It starts from one premise - Poseidon is a homing robot - kamikaze. And that’s all. Although it has been repeatedly said that this is a multifunctional complex. Regarding the possibility of applications, the author demonstrates conservatism bordering on, I will say correctly, very great short-sightedness. Similar conservatism has already been demonstrated in Russia: in the days before the Crimean War (when they abandoned breech-loading fittings and the construction of steamships). The result is known - a shameful defeat.

      Monsieur, the place for this YOUR “brain juice” is in the toilet
      1. +3
        16 January 2019 15: 57
        If you are sitting there (on the toilet), don’t try to get some company.
        1. -3
          16 January 2019 16: 05
          Quote: Newone
          If you are there

          I know, I studied the question not only from books, but at sea ;)
          and not just contacts, but also independent search for "moose"
          SUCCESSFUL
          1. +4
            16 January 2019 16: 19
            Well, then tell us why this device has an autonomy greater than that of a nuclear submarine, its dimensions (and, accordingly, all the parameters that increase the probability of detection are several times smaller than nuclear submarines, the depth range is several times greater than that of nuclear submarines (and not only greater but also less side), speeds many times greater than nuclear submarines will be detectable by anti-aircraft defense systems at least at the nuclear submarine level?
            At the same time, explain why you got the idea that Poseidon does not have tanks that provide buoyancy? Because they are not in the torpedo or what? And the fact that they can still be placed on Poseidon is unshielded, right?
            P.S. On the Internet you can call yourself a submariner, fortunately there is no one to check except for real submariners specially conducting the inspection.
            1. -2
              16 January 2019 16: 40
              Quote: Newone
              dimensions (and, accordingly, all parameters that increase the probability of detection are several times smaller than nuclear submarines

              conversely
              Quote: Newone
              the depth range is several times greater than the submarine (not only more but also less),

              it does nothing for stealth
              Quote: Newone
              speeds many times greater than nuclear submarines will be detectable by anti-aircraft defense systems at least at the nuclear submarine level?

              stupid because it makes noise MUCH MORE than nuclear submarines

              Zaya, you jump, jump ;)
              1. +4
                16 January 2019 17: 04
                "vice versa"
                several times less power of noise sources, several times smaller sizes INCREASE noise
                The ability to go into the deep-sea current and below the deep-sea current does nothing for stealth?
                OF COURSE “you are our underwater wolf”...
                So go ahead and be the “grandfather of the submarine fleet.”
                Who did you even serve? Miner?
                1. -3
                  16 January 2019 17: 19
                  Quote: Newone
                  The ability to go into the deep-sea current and below the deep-sea current does nothing for stealth?

                  before you write nonsense, look in books
                  and behind one, look at the depth of the axis of the deep (hydrostatic) shut-off valve...
                  1. +4
                    16 January 2019 17: 29
                    The field axis of the sound channel PRETTY SUDDENLY critically depends on specific conditions in the world's oceans and passes in a layer where in a layer where the vertical temperature gradient is -0.005 degrees/m. And there are SUDDENLY more sound channels separated by anti-channels in a vertical layer up to 1000 m deep than in a vertical layer up to 400 m deep. Deep underwater currents create additional channels and anti-channels.
                    1. -3
                      16 January 2019 17: 40
                      Quote: Newone
                      Sound field axis

                      let's leave your funny murzilkas to the ducks
                      and at least read something on the topic
                      for example, what is the difference between a deep shut-off valve and a “thermal” one?
                      1. +5
                        16 January 2019 17: 48
                        Let's back up your words with at least some clear arguments, yeah. The fact that a larger immersion value makes it possible to use more inhomogeneities of the sound field in the ocean is obvious to any owner of convolutions in an amount greater than 1 (rubbing from a cap).
                      2. -4
                        16 January 2019 18: 19
                        Quote: Newone
                        Let's back up your words with at least some clear arguments, yeah. The fact that a larger immersion value makes it possible to use more inhomogeneities of the sound field in the ocean is obvious to any owner of convolutions in an amount greater than 1 (rubbing from a cap).

                        Monsieur, open any primer on hydroacoustics and get an educational program
                        and you seem to have only one gyrus - the one that’s “softer on your back”
                      3. +4
                        16 January 2019 18: 24
                        I, as an interested amateur, have already opened and read some information. I did not find confirmation of your information cries. The fact that you introduce yourself as a submarine officer on the Internet suggests that either you are 60+ years old and are retired and have nothing to do, like an old man, you are killing everyone around you, or that you are a fighter in information wars and work for a small price.
                        The second, judging by the vocabulary and the lack of clear arguments, is more likely.
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. +2
                        16 January 2019 18: 47
                        What are you answering to me, who is so “uninteresting”? Just in case, I’ll be with you in case you really are an old man 60+ :)
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. +1
                        16 January 2019 21: 00
                        Those. Are you trying to dip, what are you up to your ears in? Okay, keep trying :)
                      8. The comment was deleted.
                      9. +1
                        16 January 2019 21: 56
                        So far, only you, sea top, have shit yourself. There are a handful of arguments on the Internet floor shouting. My aviation bursa.
                        By the way, you screamed something there about the high noise level of smaller underwater objects relative to larger ones.
                      10. 0
                        16 January 2019 22: 26
                        From the sign on the link you gave as a liar https://topwar.ru/75895-ob-oblike-sovremennyh-torped-podvodnyh-lodok.html:
                        A nuclear submarine creates a noise level of 21 dB at a speed of 15 knots, and a Mk48 torpedo at a speed of 40 knots.
                      11. 0
                        17 January 2019 11: 37
                        There is a comparison with the submarines of the 60s, now everything is different, if anything, and the author says it in plain text:
                        Comparison of external noise (from the stern) of the Mk48 mod.1 torpedo (1971) with the noise level of nuclear submarines (probably Permit and Sturgeon types from the late 60s) at 1,7 kHz:


                        That is, your objection is “bypass the cash register” from the word in general. Not relevant to the subject of discussion.
              2. +1
                16 January 2019 17: 20
                And in addition: the admirals before the Crimean War also spoke about the uselessness and harm of steamships: they sailed slower than sailing ships, and there were fewer guns. Only then, because of the steamships, the fleet in Sevastopol Bay had to be sunk.
                1. -2
                  16 January 2019 17: 41
                  Quote: Newone
                  The leaders before the Crimean War also spoke about the uselessness and harm of steamships: they sailed slower than sailing ships, and there were fewer guns.

                  lies and bullshit
                  see LJ Makhova
                  Quote: Newone
                  then because of steamships the fleet in Sevastopol Bay had to

                  again lies and nonsense
          2. +1
            16 January 2019 19: 56
            Yes, you see they were knocked out there every day - with a cabin chair.
    2. -1
      16 January 2019 23: 33
      in the days before the Crimean War (when they abandoned breech-loading fittings


      And in the thirties, Kurchevsky and Bekauri experimented with recoilless rifles, radio-controlled tanks, electric rifles, etc. The result is known: the war came and the infantry with Mosinki and Maxims became dusty.
      1. +1
        17 January 2019 00: 48
        Well, in addition to mosquitoes, there were also Katyushas and T-34s, the combat qualities of which also had many questions at first.
  60. Fat
    +2
    16 January 2019 15: 33
    Latest news that the Poseidon nuclear underwater unmanned vehicle, previously known as “Status-6,” will be put on combat duty in the amount of 32 units, for which 8 will be specially built (or upgraded for this super torpedo, which is less likely) submarines.
    Questions:
    1. What is Poseidon and supertopred or underwater unmanned vehicle?
    2. Can Poseidon dock with its carrier after combat duty? Something like "reverse embarkation".
    3. Does Poseidon have a “sleep mode” and the ability to move covertly at a speed of 1-5 knots, in addition to the attack speed of 100 knots?
    4. Is it possible to covertly launch a unmanned vehicle?
    5. Is it possible for a carrier to be on combat duty in the world’s oceans in the “pre-crisis” period?
    Summary: if the answer to the second question is positive, I can automatically conclude that there is a “diffusion of funds”, because then this is a breakthrough addition to the strategic nuclear forces
    1. +1
      16 January 2019 16: 04
      Why would it moor to a carrier with a stated range of thousands of kilometers? All this device needs is to receive general control and target designation signals. He can return to base on his own.
    2. -1
      21 January 2019 14: 10
      1. What is Poseidon and supertopred or underwater unmanned vehicle?


      Torpedo.

      2. Can Poseidon moor to the carrier after combat duty? Something like "reverse embarkation".


      It is not known for sure, but most likely not. firstly, you need to somehow find the carrier and the ANN will not help here. Secondly, there is most likely a reactor with a short lifetime, a few days at most.

      3. Does Poseidon have a “sleep mode” and the ability to move covertly at a speed of 1-5 knots, in addition to the attack speed of 100 knots?


      Presumably not. Reactors cannot operate in such different modes. In addition, calculations by some experts show that the device is overweight and must move quickly to maintain buoyancy.

      4. Is it possible to covertly launch a unmanned vehicle?


      Yes. But not the media output. True, if those who point out that it is overweight are right, then the device will then unmask itself at high speed.

      5. Is it possible for a carrier to be on combat duty in the world’s oceans in the “pre-crisis” period?


      Yes, but the carrier will be tracked in the same way as the SSBN.
  61. +1
    16 January 2019 15: 49
    And the nuclear submarine is a completely interceptable system... but it needs to be found first, and the Poseido is several times smaller, travels 1000m, quickly... it may have algorithms for evading surveillance. Another thing is how effective the explosion will be against ground targets?
    1. -1
      16 January 2019 16: 03
      Quote: Zaurbek
      it must be found first, and poseido is several times smaller, walks 1000m, fast.

      those. KNOWNLY NOT HIDDEN
      1. +2
        16 January 2019 16: 08
        At what distance is "NOT hidden"? 50 km? Is the Atlantic covered with buoys with a frequency of 50 km? Do MAPLs go on combat duty at 5-6 knots? Why then do they need a speed of 30-35 knots? Are they being built by morons?
        1. -3
          16 January 2019 16: 38
          Quote: Newone
          At what distance is "NOT hidden"? 50 km?

          less for guarantee
          Quote: Newone
          Is the Atlantic covered with buoys with a frequency of 50 km?

          It's not a problem
          absolutely
          at one time they were preparing a “Faroe-Icelandic fence” from “Captors” with a detection range of less than 2 km

          Quote: Newone
          And MAPLs go on combat duty at 5-6 knots

          somewhere so
          Quote: Newone
          Why do they need a speed of 30-35 knots then?

          for example to dodge or jump
          Quote: Newone
          Are they being built by morons?

          Morons WILL ROCK
          1. +2
            16 January 2019 17: 58
            Quote: mina024
            at one time they were preparing a “Faroe-Icelandic fence” from “Captors” with a detection range of less than 2 km

            Hmmm... Have the Americans decided to repeat the Great Northern Barrage at a new technical level?
          2. +3
            16 January 2019 18: 02
            It's not a problem

            The problem is the cost.
            at one time the "Faroe-Icelandic fence" was being prepared

            Stationary hydroacoustic barriers "Poseidon" can pass at low speeds, just like nuclear submarines.
            somewhere so

            If nuclear submarines exit, what prevents Poseidon from exiting in the same way?
            for example to dodge or jump

            What prevents Poseidon from using its speed to dodge or jump? Modern information systems allow you to set a program of almost any possible complexity.
            Morons WILL ROCK

            Then I agree.
            1. -3
              16 January 2019 18: 30
              Quote: Newone
              Stationary hydroacoustic barriers "Poseidon" can pass at low speeds, just like nuclear submarines.

              1. HE CAN. Stupidly lose control and drown
              2. The “fence” today starts from our bases
              Quote: Newone
              What prevents Poseidon from using its speed to dodge or jump?

              for starters, how does he know to dodge? He doesn't have a GAC
              resp. and no jump needed
              1. +3
                16 January 2019 18: 32
                Where did you get the idea that the Poseidon doesn’t have a main gun?
                What makes you think that one “Poseidon” will operate and not a connected group, where each device will perform its own function?
                At the same time, what makes you think that a group control ship with a crew cannot issue a program of actions to each of the Poseidon group?
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. +3
                    16 January 2019 20: 47
                    what are you talking about?!?!

                    Everyone, calm down.
                    since this is YOUR personal verbiage

                    These are my personal assumptions. You are engaged in verbiage here, doing categorical statements about the device, information about which you get from cartoons.
                    by effort of thought

                    It is also possible via cable. Or through other means. There are plenty of options.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. +3
                        16 January 2019 21: 26
                        50 km to the torpedo via cable THROUGH THE OCEAN somehow communicate. The submarines somehow exchanged information THROUGH THE OCEAN among themselves during the operation in which you allegedly participated. Over the past 30 years, radio communication systems have, if anything, decreased in size by an order of magnitude. Whales THROUGH THE OCEAN for hundreds of kilometers somehow exchange information.
                        Simply put, there are theoretical possibilities. Practice depends on whether the creator of the system is smart and talented enough or is just sitting in his pants in a design bureau.
      2. +3
        16 January 2019 16: 10
        There is an opinion that the speed can be flexibly changed, as well as the trajectory....and that at 1000m there are difficulties with detection. And there are the same difficulties with detecting the host and the launch point... And this creates multivariate trajectories of movement.
        1. -4
          16 January 2019 16: 35
          Quote: Zaurbek
          that at 1000m there are difficulties with detection.

          this is not an "opinion" but nonsense
          speed yes, you can change it
          only it can’t be SMALL and LOW NOISE
          1. +2
            16 January 2019 16: 43
            Do you know something about the propulsion system? Cavitation is clearly not the main type of movement at long range... but one of the modes.
            1. -3
              16 January 2019 16: 57
              Quote: Zaurbek
              Do you know something about the propulsion system?

              of course
              everything is quite obvious
              and moreover, there was (a lot of things) on the websites and in the publications of the developers
              1. +3
                16 January 2019 17: 05
                And what prevents this object from being low noise? There are no people, no diesel engine, great depth...
                1. -5
                  16 January 2019 17: 07
                  Quote: Zaurbek
                  And what prevents this object from being low noise? There are no people, no diesel engine, great depth...

                  high overweight (which requires speed)
                  and, by the way, the same depth
                  1. +3
                    16 January 2019 18: 41
                    Please provide at least some argument for this statement about overweighting.
                    1. -4
                      16 January 2019 18: 58
                      Quote: Newone
                      Please provide at least some argument for this statement about overweighting.

                      specific gravity of nuclear power plants
                      that's enough already
                      and there is still “something” there...
                      1. +4
                        16 January 2019 20: 25
                        Yes, the mass of nuclear power plants and propulsors is an argument, of course. However, in an aquatic environment it is possible to maintain buoyancy down to zero speed due to the lifting force of the engines and the tilt of the hull. Pugachev's Cobra in the aquatic version. However, if this option was chosen, the device will still not be low-noise. Nevertheless, this issue is resolved (if not resolved) by ballast tanks.
                      2. -4
                        16 January 2019 20: 30
                        Quote: Newone
                        body tilt

                        THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
                        but for this you NEED SPEED
                        and in this case it’s big
                      3. +2
                        16 January 2019 21: 08
                        This requires not speed but thrust from the screw group. However, horseradish is not sweeter than radish. Therefore, if your assumption about the absence of buoyancy tanks is fulfilled, Poseidon will indeed be relatively noisy.
                        But now the question is: What is the difficulty in increasing the volume to add buoyancy tanks/dropper buoyancy tanks?
                      4. The comment was deleted.
                      5. +3
                        16 January 2019 22: 24
                        If you don't understand something, try re-reading it again. If you don’t get it: the lack of buoyancy can be compensated by the lifting force of the oncoming flow and/or the thrust of the propeller group. I understand that this is too difficult for you, but tense up, you were, in your words, the leading designer of the complex. I'm afraid this was the very same anti-mine complex for which we had a complete failure.
                      6. -2
                        17 January 2019 11: 40
                        Lift requires speed. This is an axiom. What don't you understand?? Speed ​​means noise, and not just from propellers.
                      7. +2
                        18 January 2019 15: 50
                        Timokhin (or mina024?) If you don’t read my posts, why answer? I have already written that buoyancy at a given level can be created:
                        1) Buoyancy tanks
                        2) Lifting force of a moving body and/or special elements to create lifting force (wings)
                        3) traction main mover.
                        4) traction special buoyancy propulsors.
                        For pp. 1, 3 and 4 Poseidon's movement speed is not needed at all.
                        item 3 really gives an increase in noise level at the level of item 2.

                        But questions remain:
                        1) why on earth did you decide that buoyancy tanks are not used?
                        1) why on earth did you decide that special low-noise buoyancy propellers are not used?
                        3) why on earth did you decide that the reactor would overweight the boat? The mass-dimensional parameters of the reactor depend on many factors, some of which are unknown to us and cannot be guessed about (for example, the duration of the core campaign).
                      8. -1
                        19 January 2019 00: 01
                        Citizen, have you seen the video of this torpedo? Where are you going to put the "buoyancy tanks"?
                        The lifting force is caused by the difference in pressure between the media under and above the object; for this it is necessary to form different flow regimes around the medium above and below the object. This requires speed. Not a craving.
                        The thrust, for example, will disappear when the turbine speed is reduced, but if by that time the device has gained speed, then the lifting force will remain for some time. On the other hand, if the device gets into a network barrier, the thrust there will not disappear even if the device comes to a complete stop due to hitting the obstacle, but there will be no lifting force.
                        Why don't you understand this?

                        The reactor cannot help but make the apparatus overweight, if only because it has a cooling circuit filled with metal. Not with water, you understand? Its density is not much lower than a monolithic piece of metal of the same volume.
                        And in general, the layout of the drone is very dense - a reactor, a turbine, an electric generator, a powerful steering machine, a computer with a microclimate control system, albeit a primitive one, but a sonar (probably), a long-wave radio station, well and the nuclear charge itself, and, if you believe the statements about the kilometer depth, then the thickness of the walls of the torpedo body starts from 20 mm. Probably even more.

                        How can THIS have buoyancy in given volumes?

                        Almost no one ever reads your comments, because they are usually illiterate, contradict elementary logic and, in general, reveal you as a person incapable of the thought process, and not just ignorant, but aggressively ignorant. Why read them then?
                      9. +2
                        19 January 2019 00: 58
                        Timokhin, I saw the video of the device. But neither you nor I have seen the dimensions of the internal elements.
                        I’ve written to you about lifting force 4 times already. The buoyancy of the apparatus can be maintained 4 (by four) different ways. Maintaining buoyancy due to the oncoming flow is just one of them. Where did you get the idea that he is the main one is unclear.
                        The reactor cannot help but make the apparatus overweight, if only because it has a cooling circuit filled with metal.
                        You should at least study the design of reactors. At least approximately. The core and the first cooling circuit are not the entire reactor. Besides, why on earth did you think that it was tin-bismuth? Maybe Na-K? So to judge the overweight due to the reactor without knowing its mass and dimensions is complete amateurism, which is so typical of you.
                        The same goes for judging propulsion and energy systems.
                        your mention of “a computer with a microclimate maintenance system and a long-wave radio communication station” as significant elements of filling the volume of such a large drone as Poseidon speaks of your lack of knowledge of modern hardware in general.

                        Why read them then?
                        “I haven’t read it, but I condemn it.” For managers who are mastering the PR budget, like you, this is normal.
                      10. 0
                        19 January 2019 15: 24
                        A "longwave radio" requires decent power, with corresponding heat generation, and a decent antenna. The length of it, taking into account the attached attachment for operations with it, is inspiring)) On a regular boat, this may not be very annoying (although, how can I say))), but on this device.... I don’t know, I don’t know. .....
                      11. 0
                        19 January 2019 21: 30
                        A long-wave communications radio station operating for transmission for a device acting as a nuclear torpedo, as the author insists, is simply not needed (and I would question the feasibility of this solution even in the case of a submarine). At the reception - there are no particularly large sizes or capacities.
                      12. -1
                        21 January 2019 00: 27
                        But what can I say about the lack of size.... I agree with the power, you don’t need much for reception. It’s just that if we consider him specifically as a warhead deliverer and nothing more, a lot can be thrown out. True, the question remains - why do we need THIS? If it is possible to use the “carcass” to solve different problems, questions still remain, let’s do it a little less. But there is at least some, albeit crooked, meaning, and so.....
                        In general, the entire speech on this hypothetical topic can be reduced to one point. “Everything is fine with us and we have nowhere to spend money?” (c)
                        As I understand it, it’s not very good, and I haven’t seen any trends towards improvement yet. It's not even about what we have or what we ordered. The point is that both industry and science are rapidly, to put it mildly, becoming outdated/moving away from reality... And let them call you whatever they want))) But I have somewhat...contacts with this industry and science. Everything is sad there. Those few bright spots that are still there only emphasize the overall rainbow situation.
                        All this fuss reminds me of farming in the 80s. There were allocations, new equipment (if you believe the TV)) was arriving. But in the stores it was a little...more prosaic...
                      13. 0
                        21 January 2019 01: 47
                        It’s just that if we consider him specifically as a warhead deliverer and nothing more, a lot can be thrown out.
                        Well, that’s exactly how the author of the article views it. But a station - a transmitter of ultra-long-wave waves - is generally needed for a completely autonomous device. Poseidon, taking into account the known presence of a carrier, is not such.
                        The shown dimensions of Poseidon suggest that it has quite a rich set of equipment. To be honest, it’s impossible to compare it with a torpedo except as custom-made nonsense. According to the frames shown, the displacement of Poseidon is 100 tons, the newest torpedo “Physicist” is 1,6 tons. More than 50 times the difference. The difference in displacement with the Varshavyanka submarine is 23 times. Simply put, Poseidon is 2 times closer to a submarine than to a torpedo.
  62. +2
    16 January 2019 15: 56
    In my opinion, the author overestimates the enemy’s capabilities.
  63. +2
    16 January 2019 16: 05
    I read in the open press that the task of the Poseidons is not to create a Tsunami, but to radioactively contaminate the area through radioactive isotopes of cobalt. Maybe Putin was hinting at this, that when we are in heaven, they will die from terrible tumors?
    1. +3
      16 January 2019 16: 10
      Well, Putin actually said that they would die “so quickly that they won’t even have time to repent”....
  64. +1
    16 January 2019 16: 11
    If the author had bothered and rummaged around on the Internet, he would have found enough information about how our ancient submarines are on duty off the coast of the United States right under the noses of the omnipresent and omniscient.
    http://russiahousenews.info/other-story-news/ssha-podvodnaya-lodka-akula-schuka-b
    1. -6
      16 January 2019 16: 34
      Quote: Nikolai R
      If the author had bothered and rummaged around on the Internet, he would have found enough information about how our ancient submarines are on duty off the coast of the United States right under the noses of the omnipresent and omniscient.

      Monsieur, smoke "carbon monoxide", "STAR", "Izvestia" - this is YOUR wretched "level" SKAKUN.
      Yes, do not tear your trampoline;)
      1. 0
        16 January 2019 16: 44
        Author's level: "Broadcaster from the wind of his head" And nothing more. And yours too. Enough of this nonsense already.
    2. +5
      16 January 2019 17: 55
      Quote: Nikolai R
      If the author had bothered and rummaged around on the Internet, he would have found enough information about how our ancient submarines are on duty off the coast of the United States right under the noses of the omnipresent and omniscient.

      Firstly, the “ancient” nuclear submarine is one of the best nuclear submarines of the “Pike-B” type in the world, which in terms of its low noise characteristics corresponds to the American “improved moose”, only the “Seawolf” and “Virginia” are cooler than them, that is, the next nuclear submarine, 4th generation.
      Secondly, the hydrophone system off the US coast is currently mothballed.
      Thirdly, our Ministry of Defense did not confirm the location of the boat in that area. It is impossible to say where the information from the original source - The Washington Free Beacon - came from; they did not disclose their sources.
      Fourthly, it is unclear where the boat was (since it was not detected) and how close they came to the US terrorist waters.
      Fifthly, you just need to know nothing about the submarine fleet in order to compare a boat with an experienced crew and powerful means of illuminating the underwater situation and, excuse me, a stupid torpedo.
      1. +3
        16 January 2019 18: 17
        Andrey, if Poseidon is a stupid torpedo, then your skeptical opinion has a basis. But modern developments in information technology make it possible to make Poseidon a very smart torpedo. Modern AI already has no alternative to beating humans in games like chess or Go. Submariner games, from the point of view of management organization, are fundamentally no different.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. +2
            16 January 2019 18: 49
            The flow of verbiage comes from you. No arguments on topic.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. +1
                16 January 2019 20: 48
                Thank you, don't judge by yourself.
        2. +5
          16 January 2019 18: 50
          Quote: Newone
          But modern developments in information technology make it possible to make Poseidon a very smart torpedo. Modern AI already has no alternative to beating humans in games like chess or Go.

          Boris, your logic is clear to me, but you make 2 mistakes
          1) AI wins at GO and chess not because it is smart, but because a huge number of studies and games have been entered into its memory. That is, the AI ​​doesn’t actually think, after a move by a human chess player, it stupidly goes through the many options included in it and chooses a move, by analogy with the games it knows, which gives the best chance of winning (e2-e4 wins in 20% of known games, the knight - at 45, queen - at 35, which means we move with a horse). That is, if it were possible to put into the computer an adequate reaction to ALL situations that a submariner might encounter, then yes, the AI ​​would outplay the submarine commander.
          But this is impossible, due to the fact that these situations are completely individual and unpredictable in advance. You see, today we cannot even entrust a robot to remove a person’s appendix on their own, although it would seem that there is no simpler operation. And the decisions of the submarine commander are orders of magnitude more complicated
          2) You don't consider situational awareness. Due to the powerful HAC, etc. the submarine commander will know much more about the world around him than a torpedo, and accordingly, it will be easier for him to make the right decision
          1. +2
            16 January 2019 19: 13
            Andrew,
            on point 1: Modern AI is already capable of self-learning. This is the one who won Go. Of course, it is premature to say that AI is capable of defeating humans in any way. But AI has a chance and it is growing very quickly.
            2) Regarding situational awareness, you are certainly right, if we assume that Poseidon will act alone. However, it can be part of a group, for example, of two Poseidons connected by a cable on two winches, which at the same time serves as an extra-long antenna of the sonar and a means of exchanging information between the Poseidons. On one of the Poseidons there is GAK and communications equipment, on the other there are means of destruction. The super-long antenna of the GAK and its own low noise make such a bunch of Poseidons much more information aware than any submarine.
            1. -3
              16 January 2019 19: 25
              Quote: Newone
              part of a group, for example, of two Poseidons connected by a cable on two winches, which is at the same time an extra-long antenna of the SAC and a means of exchanging information between the Poseidons. On one of the Poseidons there is GAK and communications equipment, on the other there are means of destruction. The super-long antenna of the GAK and its own low noise make such a bunch of Poseidons much more information aware than any submarine.

              wassat wassat wassat wassat
              lol
              1. +2
                16 January 2019 20: 49
                A great example of an argument...
      2. -6
        16 January 2019 18: 27
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        one of the world's best nuclear submarines of the "Pike-B" type, which in terms of its low noise characteristics corresponds to the American "improved moose",

        this is not true
        and even VERY wrong...
        1. +1
          16 January 2019 18: 52
          And this is the phrase a Soviet submarine officer tells us?
          Oh well....
          1. -3
            16 January 2019 18: 56
            Quote: Newone
            And this is the phrase a Soviet submarine officer tells us? Well, well....

            yyyyyy
            Well, enlighten me about my 971 project ;)
            1. +3
              16 January 2019 19: 01
              I'm not going to enlighten you. Search the Internet yourself, yeah.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. +2
                  16 January 2019 20: 51
                  Another excellent example of your arguments :)
            2. +2
              16 January 2019 19: 29
              I know a number of Navy officers. Not one of them ever spoke badly about THEIR ship, although the ships were not always problem-free.
              1. -5
                16 January 2019 20: 13
                Quote: Newone
                Not one of them ever spoke badly about THEIR ship, although the ships were not always problem-free.

                YOU don’t see the difference between “giving bad feedback” and OBJECTIVELY EVALUATING
                1. +2
                  16 January 2019 20: 32
                  Those I know LOVED their ships. But what you love is not objectively assessed. Although, of course, when listing the characteristics they added what was there and what was wrong.
                  1. -3
                    16 January 2019 21: 42
                    Quote: Newone
                    LOVED. And what do you love? do not evaluate objectively


                    it looks like YOUR acquaintances were those who in the navy are called “close your mouth - the equipment is in the original”
                    1. +3
                      16 January 2019 22: 11
                      It looks like you are one of those “miners” who were depicted in “Shark of Steel”. The creature is worthless.
        2. +4
          16 January 2019 20: 05
          Dear Mina, I can’t argue with you. My personal opinion on this issue is worthless - I simply have nothing to base it on, but I had detailed conversations on this issue with several naval officers up to and including the rank of capraz, including submariners. They do not confirm what you said. Of course, I take your words into account, I always listen to you most attentively, but in a matter in which I myself am incompetent, but there is several professional evidence for and one against, I simply do not have the opportunity to do for myself some final conclusion. In addition, there are polar opinions on this issue :)))
          Don't take it as disrespect.
          1. -5
            16 January 2019 20: 17
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            I had detailed conversations on this issue with several naval officers up to and including the rank of capraz, including submariners. They don't confirm what you said

            acoustics - not much, but worse
            noisiness - not much, but higher
            in terms of torpedoes and countermeasures in general, oops
            Loss speed is higher (both maximum and low noise)
            yes, there is a serious plus - PLUR, but its warhead is UMGT-1 with the Vodopad SSN (which is far from good)
            and these are FACTS
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. The comment was deleted.
          4. +4
            17 January 2019 00: 08
            Andrey, don’t take it as intrusive, but why do you consider the 16-day-old user mina024, who is in the “journalist” category, “respected”?
            Could you provide links to articles based on the comments to which you came to the conclusion that mina024 is worthy of respect.
            Suddenly I’m really arguing incorrectly with a worthy person...
            1. +1
              17 January 2019 05: 54
              Don’t judge people by their cover, especially by the age of the account. Nobody canceled re-registration, for example due to a ban.
              1. +1
                18 January 2019 15: 22
                And I don’t judge, unlike the character.
                But registering an account while masquerading as another person is elementary.
                I started looking at the account after reading the comments. The person positions himself as:
                a) Soviet submarine officer - participant in epic campaigns;
                b) leading designer of naval systems.
                At the same time, in his posts, apart from aggression and a lot of methods of psychological pressure, there is not a single answer that carries at least some specific information on the topic that cannot be found out in 5 minutes on the Internet. I did not find some supposedly specific terms introduced by the character in specialized literature (scientific dissertations on the topic of the dispute). It kind of hints.
                The attitude of the Soviet submarine officer towards his own boat, on which he spent his youth, hints.
                The biggest hint is the lack of competent argumentation. The lead designer, by definition, would have either smeared his opponents with a normal technical analysis. devices or spoke once on the topic. And we see a style of argument more typical of junior managers - victims of the Unified State Exam.
                1. +2
                  19 January 2019 00: 02
                  He is not Soviet. Later he served. Already in the Russian Federation.
        3. +1
          16 January 2019 21: 16
          Quote: mina024
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          one of the world's best nuclear submarines of the "Pike-B" type, which in terms of its low noise characteristics corresponds to the American "improved moose",

          this is not true
          and even VERY wrong...

          What's wrong with shuka-b?
          1. The comment was deleted.
      3. 0
        16 January 2019 23: 48
        https://www.google.com/amp/s/rg.ru/amp/2018/03/16/reg-szfo/atomnye-podlodki-severnogo-flota-doshli-do-ssha.html
  65. +1
    16 January 2019 16: 19
    How much of what was declared for production or purchase was actually implemented? Well, let’s remember at least the Chubafon, Mistral, etc. And here we are talking about a top-secret, super-technological project. Yes, none of the sensible people responsible for this project will bring such details to the attention of the world community. How long ago did everyone except the special services know about “Belgorod” and its specifics? The information surge around the Poseidons and their carriers is a deliberate injection of misinformation and a bluff in front of the enemy.
    In fact, the entire process of deploying torpedoes looks extremely simple. A piece of rock of a suitable size is broken off and preferably with accompanying flora, a hole is made inside, a device is inserted, everything is mined from uninvited guests and then unloaded to the bottom in a given area. The most important task is to distract the enemy from this very process.

    Several waves along the entire perimeter will seriously devalue economic power. A supertanker or gas carrier following its usual route, sending a cargo that is small by their standards to the bottom near the coast, should not cause anything suspicious.
    1. -3
      16 January 2019 16: 33
      Quote: pyc.arpeccop tornado 150
      In fact, the entire process of deploying torpedoes looks extremely simple. A piece of rock of a suitable size is broken off and preferably with accompanying flora, a hole is made inside, a device is inserted, everything is mined from uninvited guests and then unloaded to the bottom in a given area

      This is not only STUPID, but also directly prohibited by international treaties
  66. +2
    16 January 2019 16: 50
    Laughed at the author, how many Chukchi writers we have!
    1. -2
      16 January 2019 16: 56
      Quote: Astronaut
      Neighing

      "laughter for no reason...."
      well YOU got it ;)
      1. +1
        16 January 2019 17: 20
        Of course it’s not smart, but that’s the way the North American continent is located.
        The Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM) was signed on May 26, 1972
        The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) between the United States and the Russian Federation was signed by George W. Bush and Boris Yeltsin in January 1993. The treaty prohibited the use of ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. Although the treaty was ratified by the parliaments of both countries, it never came into force. In response to the US withdrawal from the 14 ABM Treaty on June 2002, 1972, Russia withdrew from START II.
        Let’s wait for the expiration of the American ultimatum to limit the INF Treaty and we can begin to dismantle this treaty in earnest: “NON-PLACEMENT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA AND OCEANS - established by the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Placement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Types of Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Bottom of the Seas and Oceans and in Their Subsoils 1971. The Treaty entered into force on May 18, 1972.” This will devalue their withdrawal from the INF Treaty.
        1. -1
          17 January 2019 11: 42
          They have more money, they can also place something at the bottom, even down to mines.
          1. +2
            17 January 2019 11: 50
            The Seabed Treaty of 1972 prohibits the deployment of non-propelled nuclear weapons there. And only Russia has self-propelled nuclear weapons suitable for placement on the seabed.

            And the main thing here is not money, but brains laughing
          2. 0
            17 January 2019 15: 31
            Unlike them, we are a continental power. The giant coastline in the northeast doesn't count. It does not yet provide anything to the economy except energy resources, which are then transported inland anyway. But to build a port for nuclear submarines at the mouth of the Lena or Yenisei, with the ability to hide immediately after going to sea under the polar cap, would be very useful. And if you equip it with several underwater exits and hide shelters, then there will be no price for it.
            1. 0
              18 January 2019 15: 06
              Well, since the main threat to our nuclear submarines will be enemy nuclear submarines, the detection of which by our aviation will be difficult due to ice - the proposal is not very good.
              1. 0
                19 January 2019 15: 33
                If you place it deep in the mouth of the Ob, you can control everything.
      2. +1
        16 January 2019 20: 46
        without a reason

        If YOU don’t see the reason, it’s YOUR problem!
  67. 0
    16 January 2019 17: 21
    If a weapon is created, it means someone needs it. Weapons are, first of all, technology, and technology is science, education, jobs for thousands and thousands of engineers, programmers, scientists, this is an interesting job for young people, it is the prestige of the country, it is consumer goods, finally. The Germans initially produced their tanks to kill people. We produce weapons for the defense of our borders; a small part of it is sold, mostly finished products. We need to understand one thing, no one in today's world is going to fight globally, neither a super weapon nor a mooper weapon. But modern weapons, using the latest achievements of science, technology and technology, are necessary in any army. Often, inventing a self-brewing kettle is boring, and no one will give you money for it, but inventing some little thing that cooks cartridges like pies on its own, and then shoots itself, and even knows exactly the target, is cool. Then the kettle will come along and a fashionable smartphone will tell you who is the cutest in the world, too.
    1. -5
      16 January 2019 17: 37
      Quote: 1536
      If a weapon is being created, it means someone needs it

      including, in some cases (as in this) - for stupid CUTTING OF THE DOUGH

      Quote: 1536
      Weapons are primarily technology

      weapons are first and foremost weapons
      By the way, YOU are not a fan of the general from “Pentagon Military”;)


      Quote: 1536
      technology is science, education, jobs for thousands and thousands of engineers, programmers, scientists, it is an interesting job for young people, it is the prestige of the country, it is consumer goods, finally

      this is if you don’t do CUTTING
      By the way, participation in SCAMs and CUTTING DECAYS scientists and youth

      Quote: 1536
      no one in today's world is going to fight globally

      GOING TO
      and they fight
      1. +3
        16 January 2019 20: 49
        for a blunt cut of dough

        Well, I see, you are the chief specialist in cutting, then you should definitely go to the Pentagon, the amounts there are different, but with us it’s such a trifle laughing
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. +3
            16 January 2019 21: 05
            Trampoline specialist

            How many Unified State Exam victims like you are gathered here!
            I received my education in the USSR and devoted my best years to the defense industry. So you need to jump on the trampoline!
            1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +1
        17 January 2019 07: 14
        I am sometimes not a fan of the idiots who ruined the defense industry during the years of “perestroika,” when “new thinking” prevailed in our country.
        However, I thought, cornet, are you a woman?
  68. 0
    16 January 2019 17: 39
    The Cossack was sent. The author does not understand at all either the mentality of the Russian people or the mistakes of the leadership of the USSR, when the emphasis was placed not on quality, but on quantity.
    1. +1
      16 January 2019 18: 09
      About quality and quantity in the USSR.
      There was such a secretary of the Central Committee Katushev. In recent years, right up to the collapse of the USSR, he worked as chairman of the State Committee on Foreign Economic Cooperation.
      I published a memoir several years ago and here is an interesting quote, word for word, characterizing the price, and therefore the quality, of Soviet export goods.
      “Quite often before, and especially now, we heard that the USSR in Soviet times gave its aid, especially weapons, to developing countries “for free.” This is not true.

      At one time, I instructed the specialists of the State Committee for Electricity Research under the leadership of Yu. P. Grishin to study this issue.

      Scrupulous calculations have clearly shown that the cost of various types of resources diverted or allocated to provide technical assistance and even royalty free assistance to developing countries was returned to us in an amount 2,5 times greater than spent. And this is natural: we “sold” our services at world prices, which were significantly higher than domestic economic prices.”
      1. +1
        16 January 2019 18: 40
        Yes, we still forgive debts; we probably haven’t forgiven everyone yet.
        In general, I meant that the USSR was overextended in the arms race, since the leadership wanted to have a quantitative superiority over the United States in nuclear weapons. But given the more developed US economy, such a position was initially doomed to failure. And now, in essence, the doctrine of sufficiency is being projected. When the emphasis is on inflicting unacceptable damage on any aggressor with 100% probability and so that the enemy does not even dream in his worst nightmare that he is attacking us.
        1. +1
          16 January 2019 19: 14
          We are already involved in an arms race.
          Now, according to this indicator, Russia has fallen below the USSR.
          1. 0
            16 January 2019 19: 37
            We got involved, but this time on our terms. The USSR adhered to symmetry, so it overstrained itself. Today's Russia is waging an asymmetric arms race.
            1. 0
              16 January 2019 19: 40
              And Russia is not being symmetrically responded to with sanctions. Hybrid war, that's what they call it now.
              1. 0
                16 January 2019 19: 43
                In the USSR, the wall was reinforced concrete and they didn’t bother with anything.
            2. +2
              17 January 2019 10: 29
              Quote: Nikolai R
              The USSR adhered to symmetry, so it overstrained itself.

              Oh, come on. The USSR at sea just adhered to the strategy of an asymmetric response - "We don’t need aircraft carriers, and we will fight the enemy’s AUG in other ways".
              As a result, according to rough estimates, with the funds spent on the asymmetric response, the USSR could build and maintain 7-8 of its own AUGs. laughing
          2. 0
            16 January 2019 21: 01
            All these lists are from the evil one, China is therefore even further down the list, although your list is leftist
            1. 0
              16 January 2019 22: 52
              China is further away from us at the top of the list. But that's not all. In Turkey, which in this list is only 2 points higher than Russia, the minimum wage is more than 2000 liras (30000 in rubles). Our deputies came up with a revolutionary proposal to increase the minimum wage by as much as 2 times to 25000 rubles.
  69. -1
    16 January 2019 17: 50
    My personal opinion is that the author is stupid as a plug.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  70. +5
    16 January 2019 18: 29
    Heated discussion!!! After reading everything I created an image of this device!!! Poseidon has a powerful sonar, thruster water-jet propulsors, ballast tanks, 3 or even 4 TA powerful means of communication..... N-yes.... With such gadgets, it will have a displacement of 2000-2500 tons wassat
    P. S The analysis was carried out based on the opinions of all those who claim that Poseidon is a very necessary and useful device.
    P.S.S I support the author
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 21: 40
      10 mini submarine traps forgot
  71. 0
    16 January 2019 18: 38
    It is the “doomsday weapon” that restrains the hotheads of the “partners” from any nonsense. It is the realization that what happened and what will not happen is very sobering.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  72. 0
    16 January 2019 18: 47
    No modern weapon is CAPABLE of intercepting all an attacker’s missiles with a 100% guarantee. And only the fear of receiving an all-crushing retaliatory blow leading to complete destruction can stop the aggressor from attacking. Poseidon is precisely one of the links in a guaranteed retaliatory strike, leading to catastrophic consequences for the attacker. Therefore, first of all, it is necessary to develop, deploy and improve deterrents. Deterrence at the political level and then there will be no attack....IMHO...Well, the rest of the weapons, of course, are needed. Moreover, the non-brothers are nearby, and the rest of the neighbors are always blathering...
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. +1
        16 January 2019 18: 55
        Are you saying this based on test results?
        Do you have permission?
        Or are you just lying?
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. 0
            16 January 2019 19: 18
            Are you a specialist in submarine design, so that you can determine design features by appearance, especially on new technologies? And they positioned themselves as a submariner officer...
            Or just a paid liar on the Internet?
            1. -4
              16 January 2019 19: 22
              Quote: Newone
              Are you a specialist in submarine design, so that you can determine design features by appearance, especially on new technologies? And they positioned themselves as a submarine officer...Or just a paid liar on the Internet?

              last position in the defense industry - leading designer of the complex
              before that - submerged
              so get out of here, you bastard - learn PHYSICS
              at least at the school level
              1. +2
                16 January 2019 19: 39
                Yes yes
                Everyone believes you
                You are also a successful businessman, banker and theater director...
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. +3
                    16 January 2019 19: 56
                    My “opinion” floats so shallow that you keep catching it with your mouth.
                    leading designers of complexes do not behave like this :)
                    However, in the 90s they recruited everyone into the design bureau due to lack of money - rockets are still falling.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. +1
                        16 January 2019 22: 14
                        From the sign on the link you gave as a liar https://topwar.ru/75895-ob-oblike-sovremennyh-torped-podvodnyh-lodok.html:
                        A nuclear submarine creates a noise level of 21 dB at a speed of 15 knots, and a Mk48 torpedo at a speed of 40 knots. Somehow it doesn’t agree with your screams.
                        Miner-dipper :)
                        If you were involved in mine warfare or torpedoes in your design bureau, it is not surprising that we have such a failure there.
                      2. -1
                        17 January 2019 11: 44
                        There is a comparison with the submarines of the 60s, now everything is different, if anything, and the author says it in plain text:
                        Comparison of external noise (from the stern) of the Mk48 mod.1 torpedo (1971) with the noise level of nuclear submarines (probably Permit and Sturgeon types from the late 60s) at 1,7 kHz:


                        That is, your objection is “bypass the cash register” from the word in general. Not relevant to the subject of discussion.
                      3. +2
                        18 January 2019 15: 58
                        Why is that?
                        I provided a real comparison of the characteristics of objects that are at the same technical level on the topic of the dispute.
                        If you have other data, please provide it. Only objects at the EQUAL technical level. MK-48 according to 1978 data with the nuclear submarine Virginia block 4 EMNIP developments of 2014 should not be compared: for our dispute this is incorrect.
    2. -1
      19 January 2019 00: 04
      No modern weapon is CAPABLE of intercepting all an attacker’s missiles with a 100% guarantee. And only the fear of receiving an all-crushing retaliatory blow leading to complete destruction can stop the aggressor from attacking. Poseidon is precisely one of the links in a guaranteed retaliatory strike, leading to catastrophic consequences for the attacker.


      You don’t see mutually exclusive paragraphs in this one.
  73. +1
    16 January 2019 19: 01
    I'm sorry - I have a question. The author served? If so, what rank? If not, let him kill himself up the wall. I have not the slightest desire to debunk bullshit. I am an engineer. And I’m just sick of reading such nonsense. .
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. -1
        16 January 2019 19: 26
        Judge by yourself?
      2. -3
        16 January 2019 19: 48
        no, not fat, but zhyd from this skirmish
      3. +1
        16 January 2019 21: 19
        To debate with me is too much honor for you.
    2. 0
      16 January 2019 21: 19
      Quote: akm8226
      I'm sorry - I have a question. The author served? If so, what rank? If not, let him kill himself up the wall. I have not the slightest desire to debunk bullshit. I am an engineer. And I’m just sick of reading such nonsense. .

      Then give a constructive refutation of the author’s words. We are waiting.
      1. +1
        16 January 2019 21: 31
        We will not draw our conclusions in the absence of accurate information about the performance characteristics of a nuclear drone. (end of quote)

        I think this is absolutely enough.
        1. -2
          17 January 2019 11: 45
          The article was written under the conditions that the performance characteristics are IDEAL for performing the stated task.
          1. +2
            17 January 2019 20: 04
            The article is an empty bazaar. Have you PERSONALLY read the mentioned performance characteristics? Me not. I guess you don't either. I don’t see any point in pounding water in a mortar.
            1. -2
              19 January 2019 00: 07
              Once again, for those in the tank.

              All the project jambs listed in the article will occur with performance characteristics that IDEALLY MEET THE TASK. That is, if you suggest that the performance characteristics are ideal, then with them, with the ideal ones, everything is just that bad.
              If we assume that they are not ideal in some way, for example, not in the sneaking mode, then in general the guard is simple.
  74. -2
    16 January 2019 19: 29
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    They need to buy a license for a European anti-torpedo and that’s it, everything else is already there

    they have their own
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 22: 14
      I just haven’t found any mention of its use from an airplane, not even once. So that is, I’m sort of aware)))
  75. -1
    16 January 2019 19: 32
    a bit of reality - on the topic of low-noise torpedoes
    https://topwar.ru/75895-ob-oblike-sovremennyh-torped-podvodnyh-lodok.html
    and more on the topic
    https://topwar.ru/53304-techestvennoe-torpednoe-oruzhie-na-mirovom-rynke.html
    https://topwar.ru/56393-podvodnye-kamni-severodvinska-istoriya-s-nedovooruzheniem-apl-tretego-pokoleniya-ne-dolzhna-povtoritsya.html
    https://topwar.ru/83586-sovremennye-otechestvennye-neatomnye-podvodnye-lodki.html
    "slightly and a little bit" in my opinion
    1. +1
      16 January 2019 19: 47
      Wonderful. Only the Poseidon is positioned as an underwater drone, and not as a torpedo.
      1. -4
        16 January 2019 20: 11
        Quote: Newone
        Wonderful. Only the Poseidon is positioned as an underwater drone, and not as a torpedo.

        and therefore it must have "alternative physics"?
        Maybe YOU shouldn’t have walked her after all?
        1. +3
          16 January 2019 22: 16
          You probably had alternative physics. That’s why your torpedoes are noisier than submarines. True, the articles you cited speak about something completely different, but the Chukchi are a writer and not a reader.
    2. +2
      16 January 2019 22: 43
      Now look at the sign on the first link. Unexpectedly, torpedoes are less noisy than submarines. What a twist. As for the frequency spectrum, the size of the Poseidon water cannon shown in the film, the overall ratios of Poseidon, seem to hint that the Poseidon spectrum is closer to a submarine, rather than a torpedo. And the measures to blur the frequency spectrum used on submarines are quite applicable on Poseidon.
  76. +1
    16 January 2019 19: 45
    1) The result, however, was not very. Yes, the Russians gave several lighter T-34s for each Tiger and Panther, and then the Americans with their Shermans experienced the same thing. But the Shermans and T-34 were too many. More than the technically sophisticated Tigers and Panthers could win in battle, more than the huge and heavy 88-mm cannons could destroy, more than the German rocket launchers could burn out of Faustpron. - In the forest, the next chorus of the endless saga of #corpses was heard, and there was a sharp smell in the air of an unafraid liberal.
    2) The first one. When and if the Poseidons are torn off the American coast, we will all be dead. In a way, this depreciates the investment. Really, the meaning of deterrents, both weapons and armed forces so that we still remain alive, preferably in such quantities that our culture is preserved. - in fact, the point of a deterrent weapon is precisely this: the potential enemy knows that even if he shoots first, he will still receive a response. And the enemy really doesn’t care about this fact. So the author is distorting things a little here. Next, we take the author’s theses - is there a difference between a salvo of one submarine hitting US cities or an attack by a swarm of super torpedoes? The number of dead Americans will be comparable. и Our missiles, in a preventive or retaliatory strike against the United States, are quite capable of wiping their country off the face of the Earth. They will actually survive there, but after that even Mexico will be able to conquer them. - our "Poseidons" will be able to do the same. Those. Instead of one “postmortem” blow, the adversary will receive two. And if the situation AFTER the war is so much worse that even Mexico can conquer the USA, then the adversary will think three times whether to launch a preemptive strike. Therefore, the “Poseidons” as a weapon of deterrence will fulfill their task. No matter how the author tries to prove the opposite.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      16 January 2019 23: 26
      In the forest, another chorus of the endless saga was heard #filled with corpses


      To attack one Tiger, a platoon of five Shermans was required. Three distracted him from the front, and two went to the rear and shot him from behind. (source: diaries of General J.S. Patton Jr.)
  77. -1
    16 January 2019 19: 53
    Quote: mina024

    for those who are "on an armored train and in wooden helmets"
    - return fiery greetings to the cast-iron-headed representatives of the creative intelligentsia.
    Quote: mina024
    Status-6:
    - secrecy knowingly does not possess
    - proof or sound
    Quote: mina024
    - detected and defeated by means from the end of the Cold War
    - back proof or sound
    Quote: mina024
    - very expensive
    - and once again - proof or sound
    1. The comment was deleted.
  78. 0
    16 January 2019 20: 28
    But I don’t understand who is calming or scaring whom?
  79. +1
    16 January 2019 20: 29
    Quote: mina024
    Quote from Gnus
    and once again - proof or sound

    go to the optometrist
    the answers were given here a long time ago

    Do you consider your hysterical cries of nonsense and CUT as proof? But then, alas, you couldn’t make it into proofs. And why am I not surprised?
    In response, for my part, I can wish you not to miss appointments with your doctor and take your pills strictly according to the schedule.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  80. +2
    16 January 2019 20: 30
    But Poseidon scared its “partners”. Scared me. By the way, "Vanguard" too. With what excitement they began to publish “exposing” articles everywhere they could and everywhere they could not. laughing
    1. The comment was deleted.
  81. +1
    16 January 2019 20: 47
    Quote: mina024

    Monsieur, hysterical (and stupid) cries are here at YOU
    “Madam I have to severely disappoint you, but there are no shouts from me here.” So on this point, madam, you have crap your pants.
    Quote: mina024
    and it was clearly indicated to me what the technical problems were with the Status
    - and you, madam, have only hysterical screams here - nonsense and CUT
    Quote: mina024
    When you are jumping, YOU hold on to the trampoline ;) - otherwise you will hit the ceiling with the stump...
    however, it looks like YOU have already “attached”
    - I dare to recommend that you, madam, sign up with your doctor for additional sessions of electroshock treatment, you will become much calmer, you will stop being rude to people you don’t know, and you will stop imagining horse racing on a trampoline with a stump.
    Sincerely concerned about your mental health.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  82. -1
    16 January 2019 20: 59
    Quote: mina024
    Zaya, you've shit yourself here
    - Sweetie, you shouldn’t take the pills the doctor prescribed for you.
    Quote from Gnus
    screams - nonsense and cut

    Quote: mina024
    with this = - to the ophthalmologist
    - take this to a neuropathy specialist.
    Quote: mina024
    Hello, I dare to recommend YOU to open a physics textbook and get involved with the trampoline
    - I dare to recommend that you cover up the pipe and inject yourself with haloperidol.
    Quote: mina024
    otherwise YOUR stupid stump may not be able to withstand the next “application in a jump”
    - otherwise, with the next hallucinations about a trampoline, you may be sent for a lobotomy.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  83. Cry
    +2
    16 January 2019 21: 05
    The author has a thinking apparatus at the level of the Stone Age. “For example, a hundred atomic bombs in the United States in 1944 would have worked.” In 1944, one atomic bomb was the size of a three-story house, so you could only blow yourself up. Further, continuous reasoning at the level of the Stone Age.
  84. 0
    16 January 2019 21: 16
    Quote: mina024

    Zaya, the ducks in the bathroom are waiting for you
    - Sweetie, were you deprived of your ducks for skipping electroshock treatment sessions? is it bombing you?

    Quote: mina024
    hmm... you're also hitting my eyes...
    - No, I just hammer people like you in the place where normal people have their brains. Well, what can you do, sweetie, you've been hit again, you're no stranger to it.

    Quote: mina024
    Zaya, your “boldly recommend” is exclusively for your ducks
    - Well then your trampoline is sweet only for your stump.

    Quote: mina024
    Apparently, with YOUR trampoline YOU have already passed it ;)
    - judging by your manner of communication and the “depth” of your arguments, are you with your trampoline... or ducks? However, it doesn’t matter if you have suffered from this defect since birth. Well, just think, you dropped your head on the tiled floor in the maternity hospital... and that’s not how people live.
    The main thing is to take the pills regularly.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  85. +1
    16 January 2019 21: 28
    - Weapons of maniacs (customers and all sorts of developers of concepts for its use, the creators have nothing to do with it). They are holding back everything, they are holding back, they are holding back! Are there few other weapons of mass destruction, or is it not enough to update its existing classes?
  86. 0
    16 January 2019 21: 33
    I agree with the title - the verbose and scientific argumentation made me laugh. laughing
  87. 0
    16 January 2019 21: 35
    Quote: mina024
    coefficient overweighting

    Drink less or snack more often laughing
    1. The comment was deleted.
  88. 0
    16 January 2019 21: 43
    Quote: mina024

    Zaya, so what's up with PHYSICS? ;)
    or are you a "complete duck"? and is not capable of anything other than stupid QUACKING?
    Everything is fine with PHYSICS, sweetie, especially when you don’t remember about it.
    sweetie, what’s wrong with your arguments, or are you not capable of anything other than hysterical screams? you cackled here, about the object - sawing, it turns out, etc. So be responsible for your words. Or are you only capable of wet dreams about jumping on a trampoline with a stump?
    1. The comment was deleted.
  89. 0
    16 January 2019 22: 00
    Quote: mina024

    Zaya, your physics is at the level of stupid ducks
    - You’re not very sweet Vanga, to put it simply, you again got your finger in... the chocolate eye.

    Quote: mina024
    Are you completely blindsided that you don’t see OVERWEIGHT?
    - Sweetie, have you lost your mind? You'll see my quote where I'm talking about OVERWEIGHTING or lack thereof I say? Or is the sweetie bombing you so much that you are confused in your accounts? With a split personality, this is not for me, this is for you again to the attending physician.

    Quote: mina024
    you're clucking like a cockerel here
    - come on, sweetie, I’m not writing here about ducks or a trampoline with a stump, so here you are again... in the chocolate eye... right up to the tonsils.

    Quote: mina024
    So ZAYA, will there be any objections to the FACT of the huge overweight of the device?
    - so sweet my quote about OVERWEIGHTING or lack thereof I say it will happen or will you shit yourself again?
  90. +1
    16 January 2019 22: 04
    Indeed, it is not good to make weapons that the Americans cannot make and use. We must stop immediately.
    But seriously, the author... is extremely stupid. Hence the sheet of verbal diarrhea. Typical "sudden Hitler".
  91. +1
    16 January 2019 22: 46
    This Poseidon is a good thing. I hope that the talk about the tsunami is a fairy tale. But the hunt for enemy AUGs and nuclear submarines by robots with nuclear weapons is strong.
    1. 0
      17 January 2019 11: 47
      And how to do this? The AUG has a zone of continuous hydroacoustic illumination by active sonar tens of miles in radius and more than a kilometer in depth. How to get there?
      1. +1
        17 January 2019 18: 57
        They have no methods against Kostya Saprykin. The eye sees and the tooth numbs.
        And the fact that the AUG has good illumination is wonderful. This means that the sonars are constantly working in active mode. You can aim Poseidon from afar and without problems.
  92. +1
    16 January 2019 23: 07
    The site's editors work in the same spirit. It's a pity! It would be necessary to select articles based on the competence of the authors. There is nothing to write about the article itself. The dog barks, the caravan moves on, thank God!
  93. +3
    16 January 2019 23: 22
    In my opinion, if we relate only to naval matters, a much more dubious investment of gigantic funds in modern conditions is the construction and maintenance of expensive aircraft carriers.
    But, thank God, we are not the ones who suffer from this. Albeit forced: since the times of Kuznetsoov and Gorshkov, the fleet has been stamping its feet and demanding aircraft carriers “like the boys had.” Just like before the Second World War, everyone wanted and built, whoever could, super battleships. Which didn’t help any of the “builders” much, not to mention that they didn’t decide the outcome of the war in any theater of operations.
    But uninhabited robotic vehicles are the future of the Navy; China, the USA, and, fortunately, us too, are working on this. And if we taught the Iskander to loop and deceive, then who said that we couldn’t do the same underwater?
    There is one advantage in our 20-year “break” in the development and implementation of weapons - we do not have to spend money on the missed stage of development. Despite the fact that there are also a lot of disadvantages - entire technologies and competencies have been lost, a generation of workers, engineers and scientists has been lost.
    Unfortunately, realpolitik convinces us that any media prohibited for military use is, of course, gradually being prepared for this by our “partners”. Be it Antarctica, space and the Moon (questionable, but if the United States could place something dangerous there, they would do it without bothering). Therefore, answers to these not yet asked questions also need to be prepared. In advance.
  94. 0
    16 January 2019 23: 25
    Poseidon is small in size compared to submarines. For this reason, its detection by radar methods, which were mentioned earlier, will apparently be difficult.

    What methods were mentioned earlier? The problem of radio communication with submarines in an underwater position has not yet been solved, and then there is underwater radar.
    First. When and if the Poseidons explode off the American coast, we will all be dead. This, in a sense, devalues ​​the investment. In reality, the point of deterrence, both weapons and armed forces, is for us to remain alive, preferably in such numbers that our culture is preserved.

    And what, when the response “Topols” are torn, will it be different?
    As the Darkest One said:
    “The aggressor must know that retribution is inevitable, that he will be destroyed. And we, the victims of aggression, we, as martyrs, will go to heaven, and they will simply die, because they will not even have time to repent.”
  95. +1
    16 January 2019 23: 48
    Below is a more plausible description of their combat and reconnaissance capabilities.

    "Poseidon": Nuclear weapon with zero "flight time"
    Three secret missions of the elusive Russian underwater drone
    Vladimir Tuchkov

    The attack of the newest Russian underwater drone “Poseidon” cannot be repelled not only by modern, but also by promising US anti-submarine and anti-torpedo defense systems, a source in the military-industrial complex told TASS.

    The invulnerability of the Poseidon from anti-torpedoes and other weapons of the US Navy is based on two unique properties of the drone, developed at the Rubin Central Design Bureau for Marine Technology and the Malachite SPMB. Firstly, its speed exceeds 200 km/h. This became possible thanks to the use of the cavitation effect. In this area of ​​underwater propulsion, Russia is a pioneer. The theory of cavitation motion began to be developed in the Soviet Union in one of the TsAGI branches in the late 40s. It represents the “underwater flight” of a projectile surrounded by an air bubble. More precisely, steam that is produced by a steam generator.

    The first practical results were obtained in the sixties, when testing of the Shkval torpedo began, the speed of which reached 370 km/h. Despite receiving intelligence data, the Pentagon did not believe in the possibility of creating such a weapon until 1977. Well, in 1977, the torpedo was put into service.

    READ ALSO

    “Mothers of all bombs”: Whose air strikes are the most terrible
    Russia, China, the USA are improving superweapons that can reach the enemy underground
    However, pretty soon they were disappointed in her. The Shkval made such a loud noise while moving and left a clear mark on the surface of the water that it instantly unmasked the submarine that launched the torpedo. There was one more drawback - the small working depth of the torpedo, equal to six meters. In the end, Shkval was abandoned.

    Poseidon has a different ideology of use. Having left the carrier boat, he continues moving on his own. There are two modes. The main one involves covert movement at relatively low speeds of about 50 km/h. In this mode, the drone, due to its design, practically does not emit acoustic waves, that is, it is an “invisible device.” It is estimated that the most advanced American hydroacoustic stations are capable of detecting Poseidon no further than at a distance of 2-3 km.

    If detected by anti-submarine defense systems, Poseidon switches to emergency mode. A TASS source in the military-industrial complex reported that its speed exceeds 200 km/h. But this means that it may be close to the performance of Shkval. Although 200 km/h is quite enough to evade enemy torpedoes. Because the speed of the fastest and most massive American torpedo, the Mark 48, is 100 km/h. But the Poseidon is also inaccessible to the American torpedo because it moves at a depth of 1000 meters.

    It is also not available for the deep-sea Euro torpedo MU90 IMPACT. At a maximum speed of 93 km/h, it can only travel 10 km.

    The probability of interception is practically reduced to zero due to the fact that Poseidon actively maneuvers at depth. These unique capabilities, fast and dynamic, are obtained through the use of a compact nuclear power plant.

    There is no exact technical information regarding the characteristics of the main systems of Poseidon. However, there are expert assessments based on partially disclosed parameters of the drone. And they were revealed during the broadcast of a military-technical meeting with Putin’s participation, when the camera for several seconds showed a slide with a sketch of “Status-6,” as Poseidon was then called, and its description with some numbers.

    So, experts agree that the nuclear power plant used in the drone produces a power of 8 MW. Liquid (molten) metal is used as a coolant that removes energy from the reactor core. Such reactors have two advantages that are ideally suited for underwater moving vehicles. Firstly, they are absolutely silent. Because they use a magnetohydrodynamic pump operating on an electromagnetic principle as a pumping device. That is, it does not have any rotating or moving parts.

    Secondly, a liquid metal coolant reactor (LMC) allows you to change operating modes almost instantly compared to water-cooled reactors. For Poseidon, this is necessary in order to transition with minimal delay from a low-energy mode, which ensures silent creeping of the drone, to full speed mode, when it is necessary to break away from torpedoes fired by the enemy. If the power in a pressurized water reactor is suddenly increased, an avalanche-like increase in steam pressure in the circuit can lead to an explosion. When the temperature of the liquid metal rises sharply, it expands slightly.

    As a result of experiments at the AMB-8KM1 stand with liquid metal reactors, which are carried out at the Research Institute named after. Aleksandrov, it was found that the regime change occurs within one minute. This is quite enough to detect an attack and escape enemy torpedoes at a speed unattainable for them.

    The nuclear power plant provides a range of more than 10 thousand km. An inertial system is used as a navigation aid, as well as tracking movement on a seabed relief map. The relief is recorded using a 3D sonar located in the head of the Poseidon.

    Experts unanimously agree that the capabilities of the Poseidon hydroacoustic station are not limited to the bow antenna. That to a certain extent it uses the principles embedded in the deep-sea thermal torpedo “Physicist-1”. That is, there are antennas located on the sides for all-round listening. Of course, the GAS operates both in passive mode, that is, without emitting anything, and in active mode. The active mode is necessary in order to carry out an attack on aircraft carriers even if all the AUG ships, including the “floating airfield”, decided to hide, turning off not only the engines, but also all above-deck and below-deck noisy mechanisms.

    Poseidon is a multi-purpose underwater vehicle. In its most formidable form, it is a nuclear deterrent weapon. Equipped with a 100-megaton nuclear warhead with a cobalt section, resulting in the most “dirty” radiation contamination of a vast territory, it is much more effective than “classical” ICBMs. Because this warhead can be delivered by drone “to its original positions” in advance. And be in standby mode for any length of time off the coast of the North American continent. That is, if a missile needs to spend time to reach its designated target and at the same time overcome the missile defense system, then Poseidon is already “in place” and is already awaiting the command to fire the warhead. So it has “zero time of arrival.”

    READ ALSO

    “Night Hunter” got improved vision after fighting in Syria
    The modernized Mi-28NM helicopter has increased striking power
    Of course, to solve this problem, the drone must be equipped with a reliable communication system. Communication with submarines is implemented in two ways. The first of them is the transmission of information by hydroacoustic means using command ships. However, in this case this is not applicable, since the ship must be at a small (by naval standards) distance from the drone taking up a combat position. That is, almost in US territorial waters.

    The second method is communication using ultra-long radio waves, which can penetrate to a depth of 150 meters. Such communication nodes (transmitters) are located on the Kola Peninsula, in the Nizhny Novgorod region and in Belarus. This method is more suitable for deterrent weapons.

    Another combat mission of the Poseidon is the destruction of aircraft carrier strike groups. Why should a drone be equipped not with a nuclear warhead, but with a penetrating high-explosive high-power one? The “transport” capabilities of the Poseidon make it possible to use warheads whose mass can reach several tons. This is much more powerful than the warheads of modern torpedoes, weighing no more than 500 kg.

    And finally, the third task is reconnaissance. The material collected during autonomous navigation is transferred by Poseidon upon returning to the mother submarine. It is planned to use a specialized nuclear submarine of Project 09851 “Khabarovsk” as a carrier of drones. It can accommodate six drones. Its construction is expected to be completed in 2020. Until this moment, the Project 20120 diesel-electric submarine Sarov is taking part in the tests of Poseidon.
    1. 0
      16 January 2019 23: 56
      And why copy an article from an obscure online publication?
      https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/221151/
      1. +1
        17 January 2019 00: 01
        Well, if the original article causes mixed reviews, you can provide the opportunity to look at alternative options.
    2. -2
      17 January 2019 08: 30
      The article is a stimulant of jingoistic patriotism, like the one that played out in the comments. Firstly, it is clearly visible from Poseidon’s body that there is no supercavitation there, not even close. Secondly, if there was one, it would have been heard from at least several hundred kilometers away. With all the consequences.

      Well, the “flight time” of a torpedo cannot be considered zero - zero is the launch of an SLBM along a “flat” trajectory from a couple of thousand kilometers away.

      And it would be worth thinking about this, and not fussing over the miracle of the torpedo.

      Well, yes, it is impossible to keep nuclear charges at sea anywhere in advance except on boats and ships; the USSR and the USA long ago agreed to a ban on such a measure.
  96. 0
    17 January 2019 00: 17
    I must say that the Germans achieved a lot. They massively used cruise and ballistic missiles, massively and for the first time successfully used guided bombs to destroy surface targets, and with quite a destructive effect, they also used jet combat aircraft. It was Germany that was the first to introduce an assault rifle based on an intermediate cartridge into mass production, it was the Germans who first tested anti-tank and anti-aircraft guided missiles, and were the first to use tank night vision devices with infrared illumination. The German submarines of the XXI series were a true revolution.


    Interestingly, if the Germans had built at least six aircraft carriers similar to the Lexington in the late thirties, they would no longer need the Tirpitz, the XXI boats, the V-1 and 2, or even the Tigers, or the planning UAB, neither "Zaunkening" nor anything else that was ahead of its time.
    1. +1
      17 January 2019 01: 19
      If the Fuhrer had been a real medium and at the end of the 30s he could have known that in the early forties he would have bases on the coast from Norway to the Bay of Biscay and controlled Danish Straits, he would have started building them, but he still would not have made it to Stalingrad.
    2. +1
      17 January 2019 10: 36
      Quote: Sasha_rulevoy
      Interestingly, if the Germans had built at least six aircraft carriers similar to the Lexington in the late thirties, they would no longer need the Tirpitz, the XXI boats, the V-1 and 2, or even the Tigers, or the planning UAB, neither "Zaunkening" nor anything else that was ahead of its time.

      That's for sure. They would then not need anything at all - because then:
      1. The Reich would have no funds left for an army capable of defeating France. Because it would be necessary to build six ABs and an escort for them.
      2. AB takes 4-5 years to build. That is, they would have had to be laid down in the first half of the 30s - and in this case the Reich would have been slammed already at the stage of remilitarization of the Rhineland.
      1. 0
        17 January 2019 18: 01
        The Reich would have no funds left for the army,


        Instead of the Bismarck and the Tirpitz, there is one large aircraft carrier each, such as the Lexington. Instead of "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau" there is one more, a little smaller. Well, instead of three Deutschlands, let there be two light high-speed aircraft carriers, like the Independences. And this one, “Count Zeppelin”. Little ones pirate in the North Atlantic. The big ones are on duty in the North Sea. The main forces of the British are guarding.
  97. -1
    17 January 2019 00: 38
    For this reason, its detection by radar methods, which were mentioned earlier, will apparently be difficult


    In the article, the only thing that technically confused me was this quote... =scratching my turnips=... and, most importantly, “earlier in the text” the reservation about “radar methods of detecting” targets under water, I never found... and in general, Maybe something happened in physics, urgently? So much so that radars have learned to “see” under water, huh?
    1. 0
      17 January 2019 01: 17
      in the weapons section there was an article by the same author on this topic a couple of weeks ago, with a lot of discussion.
      there are features there.
      look at the section's article history.
      1. 0
        17 January 2019 01: 23
        I roughly remember this article too... but still, it doesn’t really fit together. If the device goes below the “jump layer” (and possibly several), then we can already talk about difficult detection even by hydroacoustic means, gas analyzers, or by the topology of the surface layer of water (“wake”) ... therefore my question is still open - Has physics urgently “changed”? *)
    2. 0
      17 January 2019 01: 21
      These articles are about what interests you.
      https://topwar.ru/149232-flot-bez-korablej-vmf-rossii-na-grani-kollapsa.html
      and the reaction to it
      https://topwar.ru/149631-o-kollapse-vmf-rf-i-novyh-sposobah-obnaruzhenija-podvodnyh-lodok.html
      1. -1
        17 January 2019 01: 37
        By the way, as far as I remember, the author of the article himself did not insist that the Americans detected submarines using radar (he has a reservation on this topic). But he immediately puts forward other assumptions - the “Bernoulli hump”, the thermal trace... which, in the presence of a “jump layer” (or even several, as the author himself says), will no longer work. None of these options... something like this...
        1. 0
          18 January 2019 19: 49
          that the Americans detected submarines using radar


          Nobody, naturally, discovered anything. I carefully read that sea story in the American original source. It was like this: in the post-war years, a US Navy destroyer was going somewhere about its business. And a boat, also from the US Navy, was walking on a diverging course towards it on the surface. To avoid getting bumped, radar contact was constantly maintained with the boat. After some time, the boat disappeared over the horizon, and then completely sank. The sailor, the radar operator of the destroyer, perhaps fearing catching up, continued to report that he was in contact with her. The sailor should have been sent for recertification, the navigator on watch would have been given a verbal reprimand, and that would have been the end of the matter. But an overly zealous careerist was found and wrote a report: bubbles from the submarine’s hull rose into the air, formed a cloud, this cloud was allegedly observed on the destroyer’s radar, supposedly this was observed often. This report was sent to scientists with a proposal to develop a new way to search for submarines. Scientists wrote a resolution: “nonsense.” End. An ordinary naval nonsense in the spirit of "Nitochkin's stories."
          1. 0
            23 January 2019 00: 02
            I posted the real Pentagon docks in the original, go to my profile, there in articles about submarines the docks and research results, and Soviet developments on the topic are posted, and in the comments there are witnesses from our MA))).
            1. 0
              23 January 2019 01: 19
              Thank you.

              I looked at your profile. The original Pentagon document is apparently the one that ends with a dot mil. I found it from the link you provided here:

              https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/b228588.pdf

              Above, I actually retold it in my own words. If you skip all the water, the main conclusion of the last paragraph of the last page is this:

              ...responsibility for its further pursuit was assigned to the Naval Research Laboratory. NRL was skeptical about the NIDAR detections. They witnessed at-sea tests but concluded that operations were locking onto sea clutter rather than a valid target.


              I believe in science, so I think the topic has been exhausted.
    3. +1
      17 January 2019 08: 32
      When moving, a submarine generates wave disturbances of water on the surface of the sea, and in addition, it generates a magnetic anomaly (not to be confused with its own magnetism), and these disturbances and anomalies are sometimes detected by radar. We have known this effect since the 60s, Americans since the 40s, and there is an opinion that they have learned to use this search method.
      1. +1
        17 January 2019 11: 22
        generates a magnetic anomaly (not to be confused with its own magnetism),


        Ummmmm... a “magnetic anomaly” from a boat with a titanium hull (and its hull is definitely titanium), going at a depth of more than 1000 meters... Alexander, forgive me, but you’ve already started talking a little... I understand - these are stories A very necessary weight... the bikes need to be poisoned. definitely... but in moderation, all the same... *)
  98. -3
    17 January 2019 00: 52
    “Helicopter-carrying landing ships of the US, NATO, Japanese and Australian fleets make it possible to deploy hundreds of anti-submarine helicopters at sea, in addition to those deployed on destroyers and frigates. Covering a few narrow passages with such forces is quite possible.” - it’s strange that it doesn’t even occur to the author It occurred to me that several drones can be used against one target with the simple calculation of expanding these very bottlenecks into a nuclear desert... The power of Poseidon’s charge is practically unlimited.
    1. 0
      17 January 2019 02: 22
      And what do they have in service besides the MK 46, Mk 50, Mk 54 torpedoes, in fact in the Pacific Ocean - none of these weapons are capable of intercepting torpedoes, even large ones at depths of 1000 meters or more, and the author simply forgot or forgot - that after the start of the nuclear mess, in which the Poseidons will participate, the warheads will destroy all bases with SOSUS command and control systems, along with energy generating capacities, and this system will turn into a dummy - and heavy-duty torpedoes have already been launched, one of the targets in front of them is Great Britain , after the explosions of 2-3 such torpedoes off the coast of which all anti-submarine aviation in the region will, for the most part, cease to exist, and since Russia withdraws along with the United States - from the INF Treaty - all other naval bases and airfields of NATO countries will also destroyed and the author - your vaunted MU 90 torpedoes, in this case, there will be nothing and no one to launch from, the remaining 29 Poseidons will continue their deadly journey across the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic, while the AUGs frantically head towards our coast, and 60 nuclear submarines and 200 anti-submarine aircraft of the US Armed Forces - the aircraft have a combat radius of only 3700 kilometers - there will be no refueling, look for our submarines and Poseidons, the latter will approach the ships without any problems, the coast will carry out their mission as intended - maximum destructive impact on the territory and infrastructure - thermal impact, shock, wave and powerful radioactive contamination after which 99% of the US population will die with one hundred percent probability. Poseidon is effective simply because it exists and, like all components of the Strategic Missile Forces, serves to deter a potential enemy.
    2. 0
      17 January 2019 08: 33
      So he must first reach these ships.
      1. +1
        17 January 2019 12: 41
        Technically, after warhead strikes on US bases in the Pacific and Atlantic regions, as well as the lack of complete control over underwater objects and the interception means themselves at such depths, nothing will prevent Poseidon from reaching the AUG, the remaining naval bases and US shores - since everywhere there will be an apocalypse - in everything, Poseidon will make this apocalypse eternal and put an end to the existence of the USA and half of the world.
  99. +1
    17 January 2019 01: 27
    Time will tell whether Poseidon is good or bad. The fact is that this is a Soviet development, and the USSR made quite decent weapons. So the Amers will have to take a steam bath to find an effective antidote.
    The question is different: if Russia manages to restore the personnel of the military-industrial complex, restore fundamental science from the industry and industry as a whole, then the Americans will have to endure blood until their very end. But judging by the jerks, none of this will happen, which means it is quite possible that the Americans will find an antidote in the end.
    1. 0
      17 January 2019 12: 42
      Actually, this is a Russian development - a Soviet concept.
  100. +1
    17 January 2019 02: 45
    Quote from the article:
    First. When and if the Poseidons explode off the American coast, we will all be dead. This, in a sense, devalues ​​the investment. In reality, the point of deterrence, both weapons and armed forces, is for us to remain alive, preferably in such numbers that our culture is preserved. The bet on “doomsday machines” even from a logical point of view looks flawed.

    I remember that you and I have already discussed the losses in the Third World War. According to the loss figures you indicated, with the current number of ICBMs, SLBMs and ALCMs, both Russia and the USA will survive.
    Next:
    - One RKPSN with 16 Maces is not capable of destroying the United States;
    - A Poseidon strike on an aircraft carrier near our shores will not lead to the sinking of Russia, but a strike on New York or Washington is a completely different matter;
    - The Poseidon turbogenerator will not necessarily be suitable for diesel-electric submarines, trivially in terms of t steam and P steam.
    We can continue, but that’s enough for now (especially with the argument about “cutting”, which without evidence of it is slander).
    1. -1
      17 January 2019 08: 38
      According to the loss figures you indicated, with the current number of ICBMs, SLBMs and ALCMs, both Russia and the USA will survive.


      I indicated approximate estimates of our losses at the time of the missed American strike - from 100 to 132 million people. Is this "will survive"?
      The US would lose about half its population by the end of the first year from our hypothetical attack. Then maybe some more, but not all. They will survive.

      - One RKPSN with 16 Maces is not capable of destroying the United States;


      Did I say this?

      - A Poseidon strike on an aircraft carrier near our shores will not lead to the sinking of Russia, but a strike on New York or Washington is a completely different matter;


      Well, a gust of 100 MT in the Sea of ​​Japan under an AUG may well cause a tsunami that will drown the same Vladik.

      - The Poseidon turbogenerator will not necessarily be suitable for diesel-electric submarines, trivially in terms of t steam and P steam.


      And who said about simply rearranging it without thinking? It’s just that the scientific and technological base that was created when working on Poseidon makes it possible to create such a generator.
      1. 0
        25 January 2019 22: 14
        Timokhin, what is your method for calculating losses? Let me remind you: we have a missile defense system with 100 interceptor missiles covering Moscow (and the surrounding area), i.e. approximately 20-25 million people, and they have Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado, where in general there is no population or industry. Our energy supply system is looped, duplicated many times on its own, and it is simply unrealistic to destroy it all at once. They have autonomous generation, they destroyed the state’s power plants and it’s as if everyone will be without electricity.
        We have a fuel supply system - linear facilities, damage from nuclear explosions on which can be eliminated in days (if pipelines are damaged) and in weeks (if they hit pumping stations (which is expensive). Their fuel supply system is tied to the port infrastructure - point facilities that need to be completely rebuilt after nuclear strikes, which takes years.
        Nobody will hit the squares bluntly - it’s not effective.
    2. The comment was deleted.