Minelayers of modern fleets

44
More recently, such a class of ship as a minelayer, or minzag, was quite common. Moreover, “recently” is recently in the most direct sense: the same Denmark had such ships in service in the late nineties. Today, after less than twenty years, such ships have almost disappeared. Nevertheless, there are countries that do not give up ships of this class and continue not only to use them, but also to design new ones.

To the west of our country belongs to Finland.



For a long time, the flagship of the Finnish Navy was Pohjanmaa minzag (Pohjanmaa). This ship with a displacement of 1450 tons near the end of its life was upgraded to conduct patrol operations and even managed to chase Somali pirates, and successfully. 6 April 2011 of the Year “Pohjanmaa” caught a pair of high-speed pirate boats and a pirate ship-base.

Minelayers of modern fleets

"Pohjanmaa" at the exercises of BALTOPS 2013. In the background - Absalon, KVMS Denmark.


In 2016, the old ship was already sold to a private firm and converted into a research vessel. But after that, the main class of warships in the Finnish Navy remains minzag.

Today it is the class ships "Hameenmaa" (Hameenmaa). There are two such ships of the Finnish Navy - "Uusimaa" (Uusimaa), accepted into the Navy 2 in December 1992 of the year, and actually "Hameenmaa", in line with 15 in April 1992 of the year. The latter since 2013 of the year, after the withdrawal from service of the Navy, the Minzag Pohjanmaa is the flagship of the Finnish Navy.

Video (English) from the board:



The ships are able to carry up to 150 mines of various classes, mainly Finnish-made. Finland has huge stockpiles of mines, which it considers to be the most important means of ensuring national security.


"Hameenmaa"


In general, no other way arms, neither in terms of parameters, the ships are not impressive - 1 cannon "Bofors" with a caliber of 57-mm, an RBU-1000 bomb launcher, a pair of automatic grenade launchers Heckler & Koch GMG with a caliber of 40-mm, two NSV machine guns with a caliber of 12,7-mm, an 8 anti-aircraft missiles produced by the South African company Denel. There is a set of passive jamming. In addition, there are rails for dropping depth charges overboard (pair) and four rail guides for dropping mines overboard. All this, like the old ship "Pohyanmaa", is "packed" in a displacement of 1450 tons. The maximum speed is 20 knots. The crew is 60 people.


Start Zour with minzaga class "Hameenmaa"


The above composition of weapons ships received during the modernization of 2006-2008's. Then, apparently, they were installed reconnaissance equipment.

Today, their main task in peacetime is to monitor the Baltic fleet Russian Navy in the framework of joint EU military programs. It is impossible to say exactly to whom else Finland provides intelligence information. In the case of military operations, the main task of these ships will, of course, be mining.

But the following (in descending order) in the class of ships of the Finnish Navy are also minelayers. We are talking about the Pansio class ships. There are three ships in the class, the Pansio, the Pyhäranta, and the Porkkala. The first was adopted by the Navy in the 1991 year, the rest in 1992.


Minzag / Pansio class multipurpose ship


These ships are substantially smaller than the Hameenmaa and carry fewer weapons. Their displacement is 680 tons and they do not have anti-aircraft missile systems. In fact, they are not armed, except for one 7,62 mm PKM machine gun and one Heckler & Koch GMG automatic grenade launcher of 40 mm caliber. The ship is capable of carrying 50 min.

I must say that the “Pansio” is rather a universal Minzag-transport than a warship. He is fully capable of laying mines, but other than that, he can also carry various cargoes. This is the "workhorse" of the coastal fleet, capable in addition to setting mine barriers, to perform a wide range of auxiliary tasks - but not combat ones. So, they are quite good at carrying out military shipments and can be involved in the course of landing operations. "Horse", in general, very good, successful. Finns are planning to keep these ships in service at least until 2030 year.

In the future, Finland plans to move away from specialized minzags. Not completely, of course. In the future, when the ships of the Hamienmaa class will be decommissioned according to age, their place will be taken by a universal corvette, in its ideology very reminiscent of our 20380 - even the layout is similar. This corvette is created by the Finns as part of the 2020 squadron program and will become the basis of their naval power. He has already been given a name - in honor of the former flagship, "Pohjanmaa." That is how the new class of warships will be called. However, and this is very Finnish, unlike all analogs, including our 20380, the Finns on board the corvette will have places for mines to be stored, and rails for putting them up.

Also of interest is its reinforced hull, for the passage of thin ice.


The new corvette with the function of mine layer, also "Pohjanmaa"


In theory, surface minzagi are designed for, to put it in Western terminology, “defensive” mining - setting mines in the narrows and the coastal zone, to prevent foreign naval forces from accessing there. For Finland, this means mining the adjacent water areas and land-dangerous areas of the coast.

However, the specifics of the Baltic Sea, its coastline and size, and most importantly - the outline of the state border of Russia, and the location of its harbors give the Finns the opportunity to carry out the so-called "offensive" mining, similar to the one they carried out in 1941-th year together with the Germans.

It must be admitted that the Minzagi fit perfectly into almost every possible Baltic war scenario for Finland.

Naturally, not only Finland pays attention to the issue of mines. In the Baltics, this is generally a common “theme,” with not the Finns, but the paranoid Swedes taking the lead. They openly mine their territorial waters in peacetime, and the Finns are very far from them. Poland does not stand aside either - any of its landing ship of the “Lublin” class, even according to its classification, is a landing ship-barrier, and is more likely intended for mining than for landing a landing. But neither the Swedes nor the Poles have special Minzags in service, although the Swedes had them very recently. Finland is an exception in this case, and it is not going to stop them in the foreseeable future.

However, the five small Finnish minelayers are nothing compared to the development of this class of ships in Asia.

In 1998, the Navy of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) received a new minelayer “Wonsan”. It was an amazing fact - the opinion prevailing at that time in the expert community clearly stated that minzagi, as a class, were outdated. But South Korea has refuted such opinions, having designed and built the newest mine layer. The ship received the classification MLS-1 (Mine laying ship-1, translated as “ship - producer of mines - 1”). Koreans planned to build three such ships, but limited the class to one for reasons of economy.


Minzag class "Wonsan"



Ship systems in the photo.


"Wonsan" has 3300 tons of displacement, more than double the Finnish minzagi. Its length is 104 meters, and the crew is 160 people. On the ship, there is a landing pad large enough to receive MH-53 helicopters, which, however, so far the South Koreans do not have. The maximum speed of the ship is the 22 node.


MH-53 on the landing deck.


The artillery gun is Oto Melara's 76-mm gun, with a rate of fire of up to 85 rounds per minute. The air defense system provides with it two NOBONG gun mounts with paired 40-mm automatic guns each. One tower is located behind 76 graph paper on the bow, the second, closer to the stern, on the superstructure, in front of the landing pad. Cannons are Korean copies of the Italian automata Oto Breda.


The LCVP boat aboard the Wonsan is also used to mine mines. The ship has two such boats.


The most interesting feature of the Korean Minzagov is that they have all anti-submarine capabilities.

So, “Wonsan” has an American hydro-acoustic complex AN / SQS-56 and two three-tube torpedo tubes Mk.32 mod.5, produced in South Korea under license. The latter are designed for launching 324-mm anti-submarine torpedoes LIG Nex1 K745 Blue Shark, Korean development and production, which carries this ship.


View of the aft anti-aircraft gun and torpedo unit of the left side.


The ship is also equipped with sophisticated Korean-made Dagaie Mk.2 jamming complexes, capable of operating in fully automatic mode.

But the main "caliber" of the ship is its ability to lay mines.

The mine setting system with which the ship is equipped was developed and manufactured by the Korean company Keumha Naval Technology Co Ltd. Mechanically, the system is organized as six guides along which mines are discharged through a pair of fodder lazportov (three streams per lazport). In total, the ship is able to set up 500 mines in one battle trip, and on three mine decks mines of different types can be stored together and put in one stream, bottom mines, mine torpedoes, and anchor ones.



Feed lazportov and setting min - one minute can be seen on the bottom photo.


After the South Koreans abandoned the continuation of the series “Wonsans”, it seemed that this would all end, however, 28 May 2015, at the Hyundai Heavy Industries shipyard, laid an even more powerful polisher, designed on the basis of Wonsan - Nampo .


Anti-submarine minelayer class "Nampo".



Ship systems "Nampo"


The ship received a class MLS-2 (Mine laying ship-2, translated as "ship - producer of mines - 2"). Nampo is an enlarged and improved Wonsan. Its length is 114 meters, and the displacement is 4000 tons. As you can see, it is longer than “Wonsan” and longer. He, in contrast to the "Wonsan" is not only a helicopter deck, but also a hangar. The gun has only a swinging part from 76-mm Oto Melara, everything else is designed in South Korea. The crew is less than the "Wonsan" due to greater automation. The mine setting system has been upgraded, and instead of six guides for dumping mines, there are eight, and four stern lazport, with a pair of guides each. At the same time, the system allows automatic discharge of mines overboard according to exact coordinates, with setting individual intervals between dumping the previous and next mine and the dump itself in automatic mode.


On the model are clearly visible differences from the "Wonsan"

The ship is equipped with a much more powerful radar complex than the "Wonsan". If Wonsan has the main Marconi radar (Marconi S-1810 2D radar detection of air and surface targets, besides it has a Thales DA-05 2D radar search radar KDT SPS-95K radar and Marconi RS ST radar radar RS 1802), the “Nampo” as the “main” radar carries a multi-radar LIG Nex1 SPS-550K 3D radar, which has significantly greater capabilities.

Air defense weapons are much more efficient than Wonsan’s - instead of a pair of 40 mm machine guns, Nampo has an air defense system with K-SAAM missiles, the vertical launcher of which is installed in a general superstructure with a helicopter hangar. In UVP placed 16 missiles (4 in a cell).

But the most important thing - in the same UVP can be installed up to 4-x PLURS of the Red Shark, with the already mentioned Blue Shark torpedo as the head part. This very seriously raises his anti-submarine capabilities.


Comparative photos of "Wonsan" and "Nampo"

Among other things, Nampo has, as stated in the press, "anti-mine systems," as well as advanced capabilities for finding submarines. Taking into account the possibility of basing on the ship of an anti-submarine helicopter, it turns out to be in demand not only as a minelayer. Apparently, therefore, recently, both “Wonsan” and “Nampo” in English-language sources began to be called “Anti-submarine minelayer”.

Apparently, therefore, in addition to anti-submarine weapons, the ship also received means of hydro-acoustic countering Korean production - devices (instruments) LIG Nex1 SLQ-261K in the amount of two units.


During the flag raising ceremony.


9 June 2017 of the year, two years after the launch, the Nampo entered service, and the flag of the Republic of Korea Navy was raised. Thus, South Korea today is a country that has two large and modern mine layers of special construction. At the same time, the Koreans never stated that they would be limited to the minzagas already built, so it is quite possible that other ships of the same class will follow the Nampo.

However, apparently, this is not the last example. “Apparently,” since the next ship is Japanese, and with the Japanese everything is not easy.

As mentioned earlier, in the article about the future Japanese aircraft carriersJapan masters the entire humanity with its military programs. The Japanese underestimate the performance characteristics of their weapons, assign them “wrong” names (for example, an aircraft carrier on the 27-28 LA they have a “helicopter-carrying destroyer”, and even take pictures of their ships so that their real size is not obvious. In addition, the Japanese are just such a “fog” they launched around their two ships - the so-called “mine-ship base”, the class “Uraga” (Uraga). There are two ships in the class, “Uraga” and “Bungo” (Bungo).


"Uraga", view from the stern.


These ships were taken into service by the Japanese Navy's Self-Defense Forces in the 90s, the Urag in the 1997 and the Bungo in the 1998. These are big ships, the displacement of the Uragi 5640 tons, the Bungo has 5700. Diesel GEM in 19500 HP gives ships the ability to go at maximum speed in a 22 node.
"Bungo" is armed with 76-mm gun Oto Melara, "Uraga" does not carry weapons.


The gun is the characteristic difference between the "Bungo" and the "Uragi"


Both ships are classified as “tenders”, that is, “mother ships”, and specifically for minesweepers. And although technical information on these ships is not found either in Russian or in English, press releases about their participation in mine action exercises in conjunction with the United States or Australia appear regularly. Ships do what is evident from their declared purpose - they transfer fuel and supplies to the minesweepers. Even touching photos of floating bases with Australian minesweepers are - well, not to give, not to take the mother with the children.


Refueling minesweepers in the entrance of the exercises. This is "Bungo".

And the ship's constructive design corresponds to the stated purpose - there is a hangar for a large helicopter capable of towing a trawl, and a compartment under the trawl itself in the stern.

However, there are nuances.

We look at the view from the stern.



Four lazporta on the right and left clearly hinted to us that "Uraga" and its sistership not only destroy the mines, but also put them. Explicitly, these ships have 4 mine decks, and to save space, lanceports for dumping mines from these decks are made on each of them - specifically not to drag the mine to the rails common to different decks. Opened the lid and everything. And judging by the size of the ship and these covers, the mines there are about the same as those of the Wonsan or Nampo.

And this means that those who call the ships of the Urag class the largest mine-barriers in the world are right.

Both Japanese and Koreans are able to carry out mining operations of truly strategic proportions with the help of these ships. Korean minzags are capable of setting at least a thousand mines in a matter of hours. During the week, covered with minimal forces aviation, this pair of ships is able to set as many mines as will prove to be a planetary scale factor. With the maximum degree of probability, both Korean and Japanese ships are intended for emergency organization of anti-air defense or blockade of narrownesses.



Korean mino-torpedo К701, analogue of the American CAPTOR.


However, in the case of an offensive operation of Japan in the Kuriles, Uraga and Bungo will be very useful in the subsequent organization of the defense of the captured islands, the blockade of navigation in the Laperuz Strait and, in the event of an escalation of the conflict, the mining of the Kuril Straits, or Tsugaru (Sangarsky). Thus, the Japanese ships indirectly increase not only the defensive, but also the offensive potential of Japan.

Summarize.

In spite of the fact that almost all the fleets in the world refused from specialized mine-barriers, this class of ships exists quite to itself, moreover, oddly enough, it is developing. At the same time, the “trends” is the increase in the displacement of the barriers (even new Finnish corvettes will have about 3300 tons of displacement - mainly due to the mine-fencing function, and the Nampo has already 4000 tons), combining the functionality of other warships in the minzag , giving the ship anti-submarine capabilities, like the Koreans, or a combination of a minzag and a corvette, as Finns will have). It is worth expecting that at a certain level of exacerbation of the military-political situation in the world, which will again make relevant "strategic" "defensive" mining (for example, the blockade by the mines of the Faro-Icelandic barrier or the Danish straits), the new minzagi can quickly return. unprecedented technical level.
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    25 March 2019 05: 53
    It’s strange. Not like Timokhin. At the end of the article, I expected abuse at our Commander-in-Chief and the Navy for the lack of such devices
    1. +10
      25 March 2019 08: 06
      Russia does not need such ships. Why should I criticize the Commander in Chief? The commander in chief has something to criticize without it.
      1. 0
        27 May 2019 23: 51
        And Fedorov Until 1991, the USSR Navy had minelayers of project 317 of the Chernomorets Central Design Bureau. During the Second World War, minefields were placed with great efficiency by submarines of the "K" and "L" types
        1. 0
          28 May 2019 07: 39
          Now they are putting up with BDK, submarines and airplanes, in the event of war - they will still be putting up with mobilized ships. Spec.minzagi not needed.
  2. +3
    25 March 2019 06: 27
    Thank you, an interesting review.
    1. +4
      25 March 2019 07: 32
      Quote: cobalt
      Thank you, an interesting review.

      The main thing is missing, the types of mines and the tactics of setting minefields are precisely minzags.
      1. +5
        25 March 2019 08: 09
        Types of mines are all - bottom, mine-torpedoes, anchor. Tactics - go to the designated area and start dumping mines into the water)))
        Aviation and ship cover - according to the situation, mining on the map, fields with assigned density are put in designated zones, in the case of Koreans, you can program an automatic reset on the coordinates, then the ship just goes along the course from one reference point to another, the system is in the right place and number drops mines from the right tracks.

        Something like that.
    2. +1
      25 March 2019 08: 06
      Please.
  3. +5
    25 March 2019 07: 02


    Croats. tank landing ships - minzags
    1. +3
      25 March 2019 08: 10
      Poles, too. On the multifunctional ships, I deliberately did not turn on. Only the Finns mentioned it because they have specialized ones.
      And so the Poles could add and Croats.
  4. +2
    25 March 2019 07: 37
    Great review, thanks!
    1. +2
      25 March 2019 08: 10
      Please.
  5. +2
    25 March 2019 07: 43
    minzags can quickly return, and at a new, previously unprecedented technical level.

    Minzags are more for defensive events, a massive exhibition of mines, not hiding the fact itself from the enemy. Like, look, I’ve instructed the mines here, don’t pop here. Accordingly, they will not receive any development, because developed countries have a lot of means of setting mines, mines can also be set from submarines, frigates and helicopters. Not to mention anti-submarine aircraft. It makes no sense to make a specialized ship. It's like with minesweepers.
    1. 0
      25 March 2019 08: 11
      Accordingly, they will not receive any development, since in developed countries, there are many means of laying mines; mines can be put from submarines, frigates and helicopters. Not to mention antisubmarine aircraft. It makes no sense to make a specialized ship.


      Koreans tell, they will appreciate.
      1. -1
        25 March 2019 09: 25
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Koreans tell, they will appreciate.

        Koreans are not "trendsetters" in military shipbuilding, so you shouldn't be equal to. There are the USA, Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, they have mines, but there are no mines. Because there is no need for them. Mines are a universal thing in use.
        1. 0
          25 March 2019 10: 24
          You confuse warm with soft. The fact that one or another country does not need Minzagi is one thing, that there are those who develop them or have them, the other one, who among them is the legislator is the third.
          And you don’t need to even be equal to anyone, you need to build a fleet for yourself.
          1. +4
            25 March 2019 15: 33
            I did 100% agree with you: blind imitation is complete stupidity: the Finns have one theater of operations, and Yukorea has completely different conditions. In Russia, both finance and mentality are completely different than that of Koreans or Americans, which means we need a fleet in accordance with the conditions and needs + finances
    2. -1
      27 March 2019 19: 30
      Quote: Puncher
      minzags can quickly return, and at a new, previously unprecedented technical level.

      Minzags are more for defensive events, a massive exhibition of mines, not hiding the fact itself from the enemy. Like, look, I’ve instructed the mines here, don’t pop here. Accordingly, they will not receive any development, because developed countries have a lot of means of setting mines, mines can also be set from submarines, frigates and helicopters. Not to mention anti-submarine aircraft. It makes no sense to make a specialized ship. It's like with minesweepers.


      Abstract example.
      You have 150 cars.
      Ordinary cars.
      and you are fine.

      But suddenly force majeure occurs when only a swamp is needed.
      And nothing else.
      And this swamp - one can save the situation.
      at a greater price. than all these 150 ordinary cars.
      During the time of force majeure.

      and if you are faced with force majeure - you will always have a swamp rover
      He will stand for years.
      He will be damaging.
      But if he is needed, he will pay for everything. And your downtime will save your company.
      He is alone.

      Force majeure is war.
      Swamp is a minzag.

      Threat.
      We have 400 cars.
      And there are a couple of swamp walkers.
      Because. something. what will he do - even once every 5 years. but gives peace of mind. that we will not disrupt the tasks. and we will fulfill them and save the company and work for the remaining 400 drivers ...
      State contract if that ...
  6. +1
    25 March 2019 07: 53
    Thanks for the very interesting material. Probably, like most, I considered mine loaders a "dead" class of ships.
    1. +2
      25 March 2019 08: 11
      Well, they are in the "Red Book" all the same)))
  7. -2
    25 March 2019 07: 57
    Why dear A Timokhin did not describe the mine capabilities of the Russian Federation, and it should also be noted that Russia should have a wide possibility of placing mines, and I also believe that it is necessary to abandon battleship and superfrigates, in favor of submarines of minesweepers and coastal aviation
    1. +3
      25 March 2019 08: 13
      It is necessary to fight only with your left hand and right foot. Other limbs can not be used, you can not beat your head too, right?

      Regarding the Russian Federation, we have hundreds of thousands of mines, and so far there is a BDK, each of which is completely minzag.
      We do not need such ships.
      1. +2
        25 March 2019 08: 45
        Regarding the Russian Federation - we have hundreds of thousands of mines,

        Are you sure about that? Something tells me that this is not so. There were articles, and even here on VO, that Russia's naval mine arsenal is in a depressing state, especially when it comes to "complex technical" mines such as floating, bottom, etc. due to the fact that they have not been serviced for many years , checks, etc. some parts containing precious and non-ferrous metals were simply stolen. Only classic anchor mines remain in a more or less operational state, which are easily detected and destroyed. And besides, in Russia, it seems, the development of new models of sea mine weapons is not being carried out, due to the destruction ("optimization") of the very places (research institutes, design bureaus) for the development of these weapons and their production.
        1. 0
          25 March 2019 10: 25
          It can slowly be played back, it would be something to repair and restore.
          1. +1
            25 March 2019 11: 40
            Maybe it’s possible, only the elementary base is already different and many of the old technology are already lost and do not exist ..... look for a replacement? It is necessary to process the entire structure then, but this time, money, and who will do it? It’s easier to do new things on a new base. And on new technologies. So again there is no one to do this.
            1. +1
              25 March 2019 12: 01
              Quote: Moore Meow
              elementary base

              What kind of "base"? Or not a base, but
              Quote: Moore Meow
              old technology

              belay
              Quote: Moore Meow
              Easier to do new

              Blah blah blah...
            2. +2
              25 March 2019 12: 41
              Well, in general, the characteristic difference between mines and torpedoes is precisely in the relative ease of modernization compared to the same missiles. On old torpedoes, for example, you can install a new CLO, remote control. Mine is a similar story. Even if they were all right, they would have to be upgraded anyway.
              Well, then for the sake of recovery will have to do it.
              1. -1
                27 March 2019 19: 34
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Well, in general, the characteristic difference between mines and torpedoes is precisely in the relative ease of modernization compared to the same missiles. On old torpedoes, for example, you can install a new CLO, remote control. Mine is a similar story. Even if they were all right, they would have to be upgraded anyway.
                Well, then for the sake of recovery will have to do it.


                I do not agree.
                it is impossible to send digital telecontrol and digital CCH to analogue control systems and CCHs.
                An example is Trident-2.
                Minuteman 3 would also be on my list - but just recently there was information about its digitalization. so here I will "watch and wait".
      2. 0
        25 March 2019 21: 15
        BDK is enough for landing operations, but is such a small amount of BDK enough to set mines?
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        while there is a BDK, each of which is quite a minzag.
        and another problem that has long been condemned is size, finzans have small minzags, which means skerries are submissive to them, and even smaller minzags could go through GDP between the seas, Question to respected Timokhin, is Dugong also minzag, or just BDK?
        1. 0
          26 March 2019 01: 11
          The dugong is a landing craft, and a very unfortunate one. Mines from him can not be put, there is no way out to the stern. Well, if only the ramp nasal fold and give a full back.
          1. 0
            26 March 2019 09: 16
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            You can’t put mines from it, there is no way out to the stern.
            Thank you, it’s very sorry, but one could foresee, and why unsuccessful?
            1. +1
              26 March 2019 20: 28
              Not guessed with dynamic loads on the body, very quickly fatigue disturbances begin. Now there is an improved project.

              It was necessary to provide it for sure.
  8. -2
    25 March 2019 14: 57
    Russia doesn’t stand in the same place - it is developing countermeasures based on uninhabited underwater vehicles
    1. +1
      25 March 2019 16: 44
      Develops, yeah. While we are about forty years behind, but still ahead.
      1. -4
        25 March 2019 17: 29
        What we are lagging behind, in unmanned underwater vehicles - ahead of the rest, in mines - there were bottom reactive, anti-submarine mines, torpedoes, anti-missile mines, information on new developments was closed, as well as about new ones: anti-personnel, anti-tank and anti-helicopter.
        1. +1
          25 March 2019 18: 55
          And pink ponies riding on Poseidon. laughing
          1. -1
            25 March 2019 19: 31
            One of the samples of the old "Pink Pony" anti-submarine mine torpedo PMT 1
            - And now it is an effective weapon against nuclear submarines.
            1. 0
              26 March 2019 01: 08
              Now I will write what I think about you and I’ll get banned again.

              This is where you started:

              Russia doesn’t stand in the same place - it is developing countermeasures based on uninhabited underwater vehicles


              How does mine belong to this? Do you want to prove that we have good countering systems by showing me a mine? Is this okay for you?
              1. 0
                26 March 2019 19: 55
                This is my answer to you about the means we have - supposedly backward for 40 years, this mine, even by today's standards, meets all the parameters of countering submarines and ships of any enemy on the seas and oceans, and as countermeasures to enemy mines there are unmanned vehicles such as the Harpsichord and others based on them, as well as the creation of new vehicles such as the Cephalopod - nothing is worth on the meta, everything develops. And you better continue to write articles about the assault aircraft of the banana republics, your last one turned out well. "Now I will write what I think about you and they will slap a ban on me again" So you do not keep in yourself - take your sea will into your fist and express yourself.
                1. 0
                  26 March 2019 20: 31
                  Ay, come out of the world of pink ponies, please, back to reality.

                  The conversation was about a friend. On anti-mine systems. Not about the mines. Not about raktah, not about torpedoes and Ceflopods (which, by the way, still do not).

                  The fact that a mine can be made in Russia does not mean that good anti-mine systems actually do it. These are not related things. And the reality confirms this - we have mines, but there are no mine complexes.

                  As said at the time cap-1 Taran, beg. IGOs - when ships start to be undermined by mines, then we will take measures.

                  That's all. And you tales to others the same as you tell.
  9. +1
    26 March 2019 18: 09
    Offensive mining (like any offensive operation) requires the involvement of large forces. Attempts to use such minesags without cover (or under the cover of a pair of boats) to mine narrows in order to lock up the Russian (Chinese, North Korean ...) fleet in bases or in closed seas will lead to the fact that you can quickly be left without minesags. Or they will be drowned in the open, if there is already a state of war, or surreptitiously (if the time is formally "peaceful"), saying something like "blown up on their own mines while they were violating the freedom of navigation." So with minimal cover - only for defensive mining. And if they want to lock someone up, then either they will have to carry out a major operation, going with all their might to the A2 / AD zone in an actual state of war, or else plant mines secretly from submarines (secret mining).
    Anyway, the main damaging factor of mine weapons is "mine fear", i.e. limitation own freedom of maneuver due to fear of losses due to mines. To do this, both defensive and offensive mining should be carried out openly so that the enemy knows about it (but, of course, he should not be handed maps of mine laying and fairways), and with hidden (secret) mining, "mine fear" appears after 1 -2 detonations, so such mining does not have to be too large-scale.
    1. 0
      26 March 2019 20: 33
      In general, these minzagi are mainly for defensive mining, but you are somewhat wrong with the offensive - remember the experience of the Second World War at least.
  10. +1
    26 March 2019 23: 07
    Thanks to the author! Like your articles. Under their influence, I began to think about the importance of the Navy! Previously, like most, it was considered an expensive toy. And one of the components of the nuclear triad. Write more and more!
  11. 0
    24 July 2019 12: 58
    Whether minzags will return, I don’t know. Now, for setting mines, you can really adapt practically anything. But the development of new systems of mine weapons and maintaining the proper readiness of existing systems (really good) is a necessary task. I wonder in what condition we are currently in mine business?