The return of surface raiders. Is it possible?

132
When in the 2011 year, Russia demonstrated prototypes of the Club-K container missile systems, they positioned themselves as a means to quickly increase the strike power of the armed forces, placing these complexes on different types of mobile carriers - on landing craft, cars, generally anywhere.

The return of surface raiders. Is it possible?

This is how a modern day auxiliary cruiser might look like.




In the West, however, they saw basically the last option - accommodation on merchant ships. And it was just such an option that in the Anglo-Saxon countries the concern of military experts. This is quite understandable.

During both world wars, the survival of Britain depended on whether communications were maintained between the British Isles on the one hand, and the colonies, allies, and the US on the other. The British understood this, the Germans understood it.

During World War I, the latter, in addition to conducting unrestricted submarine warfare, massively used auxiliary cruisers, raiders, civilian vessels, hastily armed with artillery of small and medium caliber, whose task was to destroy the shipping - banal sinking of the enemy's merchant ships. Raiders were very hard to survive - sooner or later the Allied Navy, consisting of more or less "real" warships, found and stoked the raiders. But before that, they had time to cause serious damage. And, of course, there were exceptions, for example the most successful German raider for the whole history - “Mowe” was never caught by the allies.

During the Second World War, the situation repeated itself, only now the former civilian raiders were better prepared. They had not only guns, but also torpedo tubes, sea mines, and even reconnaissance aircraft on board.

The most successful raider of this type (not to be confused with special warships performing raiding tasks) during World War II was Atlantis, sinking 16 and seizing 6 allied merchant ships, putting 92 sea mines and carrying out two refueling submarines in the Atlantic. It is worth noting that the raider was “caught” precisely because of them - the British intercepted a radiogram on board the submarine, in which the coordinates of the meeting point with Atlantis were indicated. If it were not for this, it is still unknown how many cases this former cargo carrier would have done.
Another raider, the Cormoran, was able to attack fewer ships - the 11, but then sank the cruiser Sydney in battle.

In total, Germany during the Second World War threw ten auxiliary cruisers-raiders into the communications of the allies:

Orion (HSK-1)
Atlantis (HSK-2)
Widder (HSK-3)
Thor (HSK-4)
Penguin (HSK-5)
Stir (HSK-6)
Comet (HSK-7)
Cormoran (HSK-8)
Michel (HSK-9)
Coronel (HSK-10)

And although they could not inflict fatal damage to shipping, they caused a lot of problems to the allies. They drowned or captured 129 ships, including one warship - the cruiser "Sydney". Two of them even survived!

Advertising Russian container launchers seemed to have raised the ghosts of the past from the depths of Anglo-Saxon consciousness. After all, now any container ship could suddenly bring down on any other ship a volley of rockets, which the latter simply could not repel. And this any container ship has the possibility of the first rocket volley.


These are Club Club launchers, technically it’s a short-range Caliber.



And this is a container "Uranus" (the same X-35). For a sea raider this is better suited.


An example of what impact on the brains of the Anglo-Saxons had the appearance of container launchers, should consider the article by Chuck HillRETURN OF THE CLANDESTINE MERCHANT RAIDER?"(" Return of the secret armed merchant raider? "). Hill is a US Coast Guard veteran who also underwent special tactical training in the US Navy, a graduate of the Naval College in Newport, and one of those cohorts of Coast Guard officers who would have had to fight against the Soviet Navy in the eighties, do not provide any auxiliary functions. In general, it is one of the most militarily competent officers of the Coast Guard of the eighties of the last century.

Briefly the essence of the article for those who do not speak English.

In 1943, the Allies achieved such a level of sea control that raiding by surface ships became impossible.

But the emergence of such means as satellite reconnaissance, container launchers for anti-ship missiles, UAVs and non-crewed boats, made the revival of auxiliary cruisers-raiders real.

Now it’s not necessary for the raider to approach the attacked ship - the range of the anti-ship missiles is hundreds of kilometers.

UAV will provide an opportunity to conduct reconnaissance in the required volume and go unnoticed.

The raider can also attack ground targets, while he cannot be identified until the launch of the missiles.

AIS (automatic identification system of trading vessels), on the one hand, can help find a raider, but on the other hand, it can help the raider choose targets in advance, plan an attack, or even the entire raid, starting from knowing the real position of the targets, and then deliver a strike.

Unmanned boats or even ships managed by a raider can help him hunt on the wrong track and leave.

The raider can pre-stage quite large minefields, including with the help of uninhabited underwater vehicles (NPA), or self-transporting mines.

China seems to be the main candidate for the creators of future raiders - its merchant fleet is under strong state control and it has sea irregular forces disguised as fishermen (other authors, by analogy with the Crimean events, call these Chinese sailors "blue men").

If China gets too tight with military pressure on its neighbors, then they will do the same.

If the missiles fall into the hands of terrorist groups, they will be able to resort to attacking ports and infrastructure on the coast, using carrier ships.


In 2017, container launchers for missiles placed on the deck of any vessel successfully tested Israel, ahead of the Russian Federation, which did not go beyond throwing tests and mockups.


Missile OTRK IAI LORA in container PU for placement on the ship


The Israelis fired, however, with the machine on the deck. And then just showed PU. But here is the case when everything is clear.



And in 2019, news agencies reported that China had experienced container launchers.

From the point of view of the Anglo-Saxons, it looks like a slow creep of gin from a bottle. They are just not ready for such a problem and do not know yet what to do with it. They have no panic, and not a single country has yet got into the program documents on military construction, but alarmism reigns in the expert small parties. And it is not just like that.

Consider whether it is realistic with the help of a secretly armed merchant ship. To cause serious harm in the war at sea. As we know, last time (the Germans) decisive harm did not happen.

In order to bring the situation “to the limit,” we consider the attack of the strongest rival - the United States, some weak country, for example, Iran.

So, the introduction: the United States began concentrating troops on the Arabian Peninsula, Iranian intelligence clearly believes that this is about the beginning of preparations for the US invasion of Iran by land. Can raiders "smooth out" such a problem, for example, reducing it to a series of air raids on Iran, but without a land invasion?

March 29 in the newspaper "Independent Military Review" published an article of your humble servant "There will be no ground invasion"dedicated to US logistics capabilities for the transfer of troops to Europe in the event of a major war. It will be quite interesting to those interested in the naval theme, but we are interested in the following: currently, the United States has very few transport vessels that could be used for military transport. Currently, the Shipping Command has only 15 large transports suitable for mass troop transfer. 19 ships are the so-called forward deployment vessels, that is, to put it more simply, vehicles that carry equipment, fuel and ammunition for a particular compound. The personnel of such a compound is transferred through the air, and then receives military equipment and supplies from such a vessel for entry into hostilities.

The disadvantage of such vessels is that they are too versatile - there are tanks for bulk cargo, and places for containers and decks for equipment. This is good when it is necessary to supply the expeditionary brigade of the Marine Corps with all necessary equipment, but it is very inconvenient to supply when it is necessary, for example, to load only with shells or only tanks.

46 ships are still in reserve and can be released on the line within a short time. And 60 ships are in the hands of private firms that have the obligation to provide them to the US Navy on demand. Total we have 121 normal transport and still 19 of ships-warehouses, limitedly suitable for shipping. This would not be enough even for Vietnam, and very much so.

This is a little more than the primitive German raiders found and sank in the ocean during the Second World War. At the same time, the Germans had to look for their victims, and the services of our “Iranians” have AIS and they can simply see every merchant ship. They know in advance where to hit.

Also, the United States does not have enough people - with a six-month transport operation, even for the rotation of crews, there is not enough, there is no talk about compensation for losses.

Now we look at the merchant navy. The US has the national flag of the entire 943 vessel with a displacement of more than 1000 tons. Is it a lot or a little? This is less than the "land" Russia. At the same time, a significant part of large ships under the US flag is already included in the list of 60 ships that are available to the Pentagon at any given time (see the article in IEE). Frankly speaking, there is nothing special to “rake up” there; many small vessels of the weather will not do.

And there is nothing to escort available transport - the times when the USA had a mass of simple and cheap Oliver Perry class frigates are long gone.

Thus, in order to deprive the United States of the ability to transfer troops, it is necessary to damage or sink just a few dozen merchant ships, which, firstly, go without an escort, and secondly, whose location in the world's oceans is known in advance. And that are defenseless, even the machine gun is not on board (mostly). And all this is in conditions when no one will touch the raider before the first salvo.

Iran is one of the world leaders in the production of UAVs, they also do something rocket, and they won’t have a problem buying the same X-35 after lifting the sanctions, recruiting motivated crews who are willing to risk desperately to save their country - also never no problem.

Iran’s large ocean-going merchant ships have hundreds of units, if you count together the neutral flag and the Iranian flag, where they have to tie the container PUs.

So are the fears of Americans justified?

Obviously, yes.

Indeed, a dozen and a half “traders” with PKR and UAVs follow the route that allows intercepting the transport of interest at a point where there is no accumulation of targets, and there will be no one to take the PKR apart from the object of attack to instantly reduce the tonnage used in military transport to which will make any large-scale use of ground troops simply impossible, at least for a long time.

The same applies to the hypothetical strike on the shore. Currently, Iran is not able to deliver such a blow to the United States. However, it is widely known that Iran conducted a reverse-engineering of the Soviet X-55 cruise missile, created its modification with a non-nuclear warhead for launching from the surface and set up small-scale production. The secret placement of such missiles on raiders will allow them to be brought to the launch line sufficiently close to the United States, and to keep there under the guise of containers on a container ship under a neutral flag for an arbitrarily long time without revealing themselves until the launch of the missiles. In a sense, such an arrangement is even more secretive than on submarines.

Yes, all these raiders will not survive for a long time. They are quickly, within a few days, reheated. But the damage inflicted by them in the concretely described situation will be irrecoverable - everything necessary for an overland invasion will simply not be transferred - even if it’s urgent for any money to buy all the necessary ships in the world (and there are fewer in the world than they need, and it is too). Yes, and the Americans in the merchant fleet after such a bloodletting will not recruit.

So our Iran seems to have won (If you don’t like Iran as such, replace it with anyone).

Does the West have an antidote against such tactics?


This is not a lot of ships, it is not enough. Hiding in the seas and oceans is real even in the era of radar stations and satellites


More recently, a retired US Navy officer (and now an analyst at CNA (“Center for Naval Research”, private think tank) Stephen Wilz wrote an article “MERCHANT WARSHIPS AND CREATING A MODERN 21ST CENTURY EAST INDIAMAN"(" Trade warships and the creation of "East Indian" 21-th century "." East Indian "- slang name of a well-armed and high-speed merchant ship of the sailing era, working on lines in Southeast Asia).

Briefly, the essence of his proposal is the following: it is necessary to create well-armed transport ships, in terms of cargo capacity and dimensions approximately the same as container ships of the Panamax or Super-Panamax class, and armed at the level of a light frigate, mainly containerized (to reduce the cost of the ship) systems weapons, but not only them.

Such a decision makes sense. A speeding ship that can protect itself will not need an escort. But there are a lot of minuses - in peacetime such a ship is completely inefficient, and it will not be able to enter most of the ports. Or you have to place ALL weapons in containers.

Most likely, such decisions will go into action after the first organized act of maritime raiding.

However, if we assume that our raiders carry missiles to strike the coast, and combat swimmers, for sabotage in the harbors, where they go under the guise of merchant ships (and even unload something there), and self-transporting mines, and and all this can be hidden in containers or constructions from containers), and even that they rely on full-fledged naval forces deployed in the World Ocean (even if they are weak), and they themselves, for example, serve to supply submarines, even here in theory.

Hill, mentioned above, ends his article as follows: “I do not believe that we will see the end to the offensive use of merchant ships”.

It remains only to agree with him.
  • Alexander Timokhin
  • Concern Morinformsystem-Agat, V. Kuzmin, IAI, Marine traffic application
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

132 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +14
    April 1 2019 05: 35
    This is how a modern day auxiliary cruiser might look like.

    In reality, container ships look like this:



    How, with such a load, to get a place in the top row, "in the sun"? Otherwise ...

    And the name of the container ship in the photo is symbolic ...
    1. +9
      April 1 2019 07: 00
      I already raised this topic in the topic. Placement of containers on deck - maximum 1/3 of the total load. If you turn a Panamax or larger into a rocket platform, then you need to either modify the containers with an overboard dump device (to the bottom of the container a catapult ejection device), or place them end-to-end and provide for a launch parallel to the water (but then such an arrangement immediately unmasks).
      It is more profitable to use small deadweight ships for container raiders and only in wartime, and still use large container ships for their intended purpose for transporting military cargo.
      Although, in wartime, for self-defense such "hippos" may well be useful several containers with anti-ship missiles, anti-submarine torpedoes and UAVs.
      Regarding the fact that everyone sees everything, I doubt that in wartime cargo ships will use the civil AIS transponder system and enemy satellites for GPS navigation.
      1. +2
        April 1 2019 13: 21
        So we can talk about small container ships, not about hippos.
        1. +3
          April 1 2019 13: 58
          Yes. For a handy raider or feeder, it makes no sense more than two rows of TEUs and it is advisable to have their own cranes to dump empty containers overboard. He is a pirate.
          But for a Panamax and larger, if you have already entered the warpath, starting from the end of the container will be very suitable, all 5+ floors of 4 TPUs ... It will be just like the sailing linear "El Ponderoso" only with missiles. And for torpedoes, mines or underwater unmanned hunters, a cold start from the end of the container on the lower tier is more convenient. There is no longer anyone to hide from - "a la herr com a la herr" - and the power of the volley may be decisive if he suddenly ran into a large convoy or received an introductory order for an attack.
        2. 0
          April 1 2019 18: 49
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          So we can talk about small container ships, not about hippos.

          ==========
          Moreover, in the QUANTITATIVE ratio of them ("small-sized") just MORE! And keeping track of them is where it's HARDER !!!
    2. +4
      April 1 2019 07: 09
      Can you imagine how then to put THIS in the Neva at the Nakhimov school belay
    3. +9
      April 1 2019 09: 38
      Quote: Separ DNR
      In reality, container ships look like this:


      =========
      Or so:


      Why go straight to the large-tonnage "Handysize" or even smaller "Panamax"? It is clear that for transoceanic transportation, these are basically used .... But a considerable number of "trucks" and smaller ones (like those in the pictures above are shown!) Are scurrying back and forth across the "seas and oksiyanam". Why is a bad platform for container PU ?? And the "eyes are not so striking" .....
      1. +2
        April 1 2019 13: 21
        Yes, that's right.
        1. +1
          April 1 2019 22: 58
          I did not understand one thing: how to direct these missiles? belay
          Raiders used to shoot guns within the visual range.
          visibility.
          And how to direct cruise missiles?
          1. 0
            April 2 2019 13: 37
            Quote: voyaka uh
            And how to direct cruise missiles?
            And how are they now being induced? Point finger.
            1. 0
              April 2 2019 22: 21
              Actually, it is guided by the satellite, either with the help of a drone (included in the kit), or with the help of another vessel, a tip-off (it seems like it was passing by), this is a "raider" pirate type, go and prove the tip.
              And then the rocket has a head. feel
              1. +1
                April 3 2019 11: 21
                Only on a motionless target on the shore does such a strike of the Kyrgyz Republic
                real. By inertial or GPS / GLONAS. The rest is unmasked by the raider.
                To defeat the ships you need a serious radar.
                But in general, the whole idea is a desperate attempt by the sea outsider to "give the go-ahead"
                in a hopeless situation.
                1. -12
                  31 May 2019 07: 43
                  To defeat the ships you need a serious radar.

                  No. Not needed.
                  And you confuse guidance and target designation: guidance there itself, and target designation is a satellite or UAV
            2. 0
              April 2 2019 22: 37
              And then "forever paranoia".
          2. 0
            April 3 2019 01: 52
            On the ship are a pair of containers with catapults and UAVs. Drones are launched with catapults, they give target designation, they return to the ship, where they are caught with a large net (the drone just slowly flies in there).
          3. +1
            April 3 2019 20: 36
            The kit includes a container radar. And the initial target designation of undercover intelligence, information from control centers, etc., when approaching from the AIS.
          4. -12
            31 May 2019 07: 40
            I did not understand one thing: how to direct these missiles?

            Satellite (Sputnik)
            UAV
      2. 0
        April 1 2019 21: 00
        I completely agree. And the crew is small assembled from everywhere. You can use the vessel in the dark. The team has several mishandled Cossacks (or all), shot PU in the sea themselves on a boat and look for winds in the field, let the enemy drown someone else's ship (it will work for political problems with third countries).
    4. 0
      April 1 2019 10: 01
      The emergence of such means as satellite reconnaissance, container launchers for anti-ship missiles, UAVs and crewless boats, made the revival of auxiliary cruisers-raiders real.


      Countries with satellite reconnaissance and UAVs do not need to deploy missiles on civilian ships
      1. +1
        April 1 2019 13: 22
        Yes? Iran has a UAV, if they learn how to make satellites, then there will be intelligence, they have already taken 80 kg into orbit.

        This is an example.
        1. 0
          April 4 2019 05: 22
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Iran has a UAV

          Iran has no sea ambitions, which could require a container ship with missiles

          Iran has no bpla capable of providing intelligence over the ocean - nothing like GlobalHawk or Triton

          Iran does not have a single chance to create a system of marine space reconnaissance targets. How these systems look and how much they cost - can be seen from the experience of the USSR (US-A), USA (NOSS) and China (Yaogan)

          Even in its existing backward state, being thrown out on the edge of history, the Islamic Republic of Iran will not allow itself to descend before placing weapons on ships registered as civilians. For such a crime will follow sanctions worse than Parmesan. At the same time, in the deployment of several missiles on a container ship there is no military sense
          1. 0
            April 4 2019 12: 20
            According to introductory Iran threatens land invasion. Compared to this, any sanctions are nothing. I note that the idea of ​​gaining sea power in many Iranians is a fixed idea. Not once had the opportunity to make sure, incl. personally.
      2. -12
        31 May 2019 07: 47
        Countries with satellite reconnaissance and UAVs do not need to deploy missiles on civilian ships
        PMV.
    5. The comment was deleted.
  2. +3
    April 1 2019 05: 51
    and what, all these auxiliary cruisers without a flag will walk?
    and where to get so many suicides? in contact or something request
    1. +6
      April 1 2019 07: 16
      The disguise with the change of the flag of the name and the OSDR system has long been tested by poachers and this is in peacetime. And there are always enough adventurers.
      1. +1
        April 1 2019 11: 20
        poachers and war criminals are two different things.
    2. +3
      April 1 2019 08: 38
      Well, they find "suicides" on ordinary warships? And as sailors - submariners in the war, in general, "suicides" twice. There is a difference in risk, as between an infantryman at the front and a guerrilla behind enemy lines. The "sea" partisan masquerades as merchants and has (most importantly) freedom in choosing an attack (I want to fight, I don’t want to, I don’t fight))) These raiders, they do not only use merchant ships initially. Complete visual camouflage, meticulous legend. Even disguise from express - inspection, so that the inspection party did not find anything military. Moreover, they do not have to go into battle "to the end." A salvo from all the "trunks" of a scattered squadron along a convoy of merchants - that's all, ends in the water (in the literal sense), transfer to a small (but with air defense) and high-speed boat with the tactical technique "legs, legs, carry my .opa" - while the enemy is busy rescuing the drowning.
      There is only one nuance in this whole "bacchanalia" - or these forces will achieve complete closure of the air and sea routes at the beginning of the war and keep it - or it is better not even to fence the garden. The Germans in WW1 and WW2 could not (despite the sunk tonnage).
      1. 0
        April 1 2019 22: 00
        Quote: Wilderness
        Well, they find "suicides" on ordinary warships?


        These "suicides" are protected by the Geneva Conventions. The enemy sunk your ship, so he will lift you out of the water, rub you with alcohol, change into dry clothes, give you to the Red Cross, and lie on the couch until the end of the war. And here the probability of being caught is almost one hundred percent, and then either squatting in an orange robe for life, or they will shoot you on the spot. It is easy to find suicides among the dark Palestinian fools. And we need people with higher technical education. Knowing English means reading English means reading the Internet. With swimming experience - money in their pockets, familiar with the entertainment industry and the prostitution curve. Stories about 72 houris may not have such attractive freshness for them.
        1. +4
          April 2 2019 08: 34
          In war, as in war. Enough before the attack is raised a naval flag to formally cease to be a pirate. This time. How did you decide that the conventions on the rules of war would suddenly help our sailors? In a total world war? Do not confuse Germans, British and other Europeans with us, "savages and barbarians".
      2. -1
        April 1 2019 22: 05
        Quote: Wilderness
        Full visual masking, meticulous legends


        And how will you legend it. After each meeting, "Atlantis" was repainted to resemble a similar real-life ship, changed its flag, wrote the name and home port. Then, when requested, they reported this name and destination port, and that was all. And now they will enter the name on the Internet, they will see, either there is no such name anywhere, or there is a double ship in another part of the world. Then it will be compared with a photograph. A cursory interrogation on the radio and everything will quickly become clear.
        1. +1
          April 1 2019 23: 04
          Of course. Any merchant ship is tracked along its entire route.
          All ports, all stops. And without a GPS beacon, they will immediately take him on suspicion
          and check.
        2. +1
          April 2 2019 08: 47
          Why such difficulties? The raider is "disposable". Shot and flooded it. Moved to a high-speed ship (and even Abramovich's yacht))) and do your feet. Until the moment of the attack, he is an ordinary, real merchant ship, with an owner and a flag. And a well-hidden weapon. Those. exactly disguise and legend.
          Yes, and during the fighting, will the Internet, satellite beacons and navigation work?
          1. 0
            April 2 2019 13: 52
            Quote: Wilderness
            And until the moment of the attack, he is an ordinary, real merchant ship, with an owner and a flag.
            And after the attack, as I understand it, all countries will begin to closely monitor who raised their flag due to the fact that all merchant ships will be suspected of raiding.

            Quote: Wilderness
            Yes, and during the fighting, will the Internet, satellite beacons and navigation work?
            The database today is not a paper hangar - anyone can take it with them.
      3. +1
        April 2 2019 22: 16
        The Germans needed to approach the victims for a cannon shot, and here he was grumbling for a couple of hundred kilometers on target, and go find you on a busy highway (there were a couple of dozen ships in this area, nobody could see anything out of sight of each other).
    3. +4
      April 1 2019 09: 51
      Quote: Tlauicol
      will they go without a flag?

      =============================
      Nearly more than half of the world's merchant fleet operates under "flags of convenience" (Panamanian, Liberian, etc.)! Here the author (Timokhin) remembered that the American merchant fleet is smaller than the Russian one (only 943 ships with the I / O more than 1000 tons). But I forgot to mention that only approx. 1/3 or 1/4 of the total number of transport ships owned by US shipowners !!! The rest just go with Panamanian, Liberian and other "flags of convenience"!
      1. +1
        April 1 2019 11: 15
        This is piracy.
        1. +1
          April 1 2019 12: 31
          Quote: Tlauicol
          This is piracy.

          Privateering...
          1. 0
            April 1 2019 12: 38
            Quote: max702
            Quote: Tlauicol
            This is piracy.

            Privateering...

            whom will they privateer if all Americans fly under Panamanian flags? to attack aircraft carriers? piracy is.
            private privateers will be the first to take Caliber to Norfolk or Shanghai for sale
        2. +2
          April 1 2019 13: 24
          Do not invent, raiders will have very specific goals, they will not attack everything.
        3. +1
          April 1 2019 17: 18
          Quote: Tlauicol
          This is piracy.

          ==========
          This is NOT PIRACY! Alas! This is reality!
          Modern commercial maritime shipping is a very complicated and confusing "thing" ... And this is not only your "humble servant" - in this problem - even the experts cannot really figure it out !!
        4. -13
          31 May 2019 08: 12
          This is piracy.

          Given that real piracy today (as well as yesterday and in the past) is organized by gentlemen from the City of London?
      2. 0
        April 1 2019 13: 23
        I meant only the court under the nat flag.
        1. +2
          April 1 2019 17: 24
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          I meant only the court under the nat flag.

          =======
          So I also meant the same! I just recently managed to "cheat" - to make an educational "presentation" on the US infrastructure for one of the universities .... When I was working, I discovered such a strange thing: it turns out that a BIG part of the American merchant fleet is "running under false flags" .... Somewhere there were numbers. If you want - I will look!
    4. 0
      April 1 2019 13: 23
      The Germans did it.
      1. -1
        April 1 2019 17: 16
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The Germans did it.

        Simply, many people think that a warship is precisely a warship of special construction, but they have never heard of auxiliary cruisers, raiders, aircraft-carrying container carriers, etc.
      2. 0
        April 1 2019 22: 25
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The Germans did it.


        How to say it turned out. "Atlantis" was drowned by some rusty coal miner under the English flag at the Cape of Good Hope, ie. fought against "sea trade". It is clear that the English economy suffered terrible damage, some colony (not necessarily English) on a godforsaken tropical island then had to chop bamboo for heating for a whole year. At the same time, in the far North Atlantic, hundreds of Liberty ships and tankers were carrying millions of tons of gasoline, engine oil, thousands of tanks, guns, cars, millions of shells and aerial bombs to England and Murmansk. Not a single troop transport that was carrying American soldiers to participate in D-Day was sunk by the German auxiliary.
        1. 0
          April 1 2019 22: 33
          At that time, American shipments only gained momentum, then what you wrote about later, but I’ll once again focus on the fundamental difference - today the transport capabilities of the United States are in the absolute limit of 140 large ships, of which 19 are warehouses that are very bad for such tasks despite the tonnage, and in which there are not very many chances to reach the territory of the United States when it all begins.

          And that's all.

          And they have nowhere to replenish the loss, if these ships begin to sink. People also have nowhere to take.

          And the location of these vessels is known in advance.
          1. 0
            April 2 2019 20: 43
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            US transportation capabilities are in the absolute limit of 140 large ships


            Looking at the long, long list of foreign ships chartered by the US during Desert Storm, we conclude that US transportation options are practically limited only by the number of ships in the world's merchant fleet.

            http://www.usmm.org/gulfcharter.html

            For the escort, mainly frigates of the European allies will go, which are still not needed on the front line. They will be supported by aircraft carriers. There are also enough of them: "De Gaulle", "Elizabeth", "Garibaldi", "Cavour". The total power of their air groups will be enough to destroy the entire surface grouping of the Russian KSF without any problems, if it suddenly turns out to be in the way of the convoys by magic. And also coastal patrol aircraft. In the Pacific, the role of escort aircraft carriers will belong to the four Japanese DDHs.

            Let's look at the capabilities of the American Sea Lift Command.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Military_Sealift_Command_ships_2018b.pdf

            One ro-ro type "Shugart" takes 400 Abrams tanks at a time. A tank division is about 250 tanks, 250 tracked units and 1000-1500 wheeled vehicles. Mechanized division - 200 tanks, 300 tracked. Assuming that one Abrams is equal in weight to three Bradleys and ten trucks, two ro-ros will be enough for the equipment of one division. The US Army currently has six "heavy" divisions. But one, 2 pd, is in South Korea, i.e. there are five heavy divisions left. And they have ten ro-ro transports only Surge Sealift, not counting five "Army prepositioned" and four more in "fleet support". There are also three "light" divisions in the US Army, forming the 18th "Rapid Response" AK: 82 Airborne Division, 101 Airborne Division, 10 Airborne Division. But that is why they are "quick response", which are intended to be airlifted in full force. Those. All eight available divisions can be delivered to any part of the world by the Americans in one haul only by Sea Lift Command and transport aircraft.
            1. 0
              April 3 2019 20: 45
              I don’t want to remember the exact numbers and don’t want to look for them, but there were riots on this list from the list of 13 ships, they turned from the port of destination and went to the left ports, part of the crew went ashore, etc.
              And this despite the fact that there was no loss.

              How will all this work when they stupidly begin to sink? Think about it.

              Plus, look, HOW MANY did you manage to hire these vessels.
              It was a one-time freight, all such contracts will be broken by force majeure after the first recessed transport.
      3. +1
        April 1 2019 23: 07
        Then there was no global positioning and satellite communications.
        Any merchant ship must go with a GPS beacon. His route is tracked
        constantly. And if there is no beacon, then it is not commercial, and its containers will be checked.
        1. 0
          April 8 2019 13: 26
          Any merchant ship must go with a GPS beacon. His route is tracked
          constantly. And if there is no beacon, then it is not commercial, and its containers will be checked.

          It can be complicated a little. Trade ship, everything is in order. The containers are delivered on board and placed in the right order. The ship goes along the route and only the captain knows at what point he will meet "polite Somali pirates". Since the pirates are polite, they give the captain the opportunity to press their red button and leave the ship. The crew rolls off, "polite people" begin to unfold the launcher. And this is in an area of ​​intense shipping!
          They calmly shoot back and leave. For the ship, the owner will receive insurance, and who loaded the containers and where they came from .... can be sorted out for years.
      4. -13
        31 May 2019 08: 13
        The Germans did it.

        The Germans did NOT succeed: they did not achieve any noticeable result
  3. [quote = Separ DNR] [quote] This is what the auxiliary cruiser of our days might look like [/ quote]
    In reality, container ships look like this:


    How, with such a load, to get a place in the top row, "in the sun"? Otherwise ...
    ***
    Chief, you burned our new raider - all these containers with "Caliber" ...
    Give the command to the raider to switch to mode "B" - scuba diving at hypersonic speed. bully
  4. +4
    April 1 2019 07: 56
    not meaningless ..., technical problems are completely solvable ...
    1. +2
      April 1 2019 13: 30
      The first to deploy rockets in civilian transport ships were the Americans. After that, the British pulled themselves together. They generally managed to use their container ships as auxiliary aircraft carriers in the Falkland War.
      The Americans planned to use Palaris ballistic missiles on civilian container ships. There were tests, but they refused or agreed on SALT.
  5. +4
    April 1 2019 08: 31
    There will be no blockade of the British Isles. Given that the naglitsanka is constantly spoiling, and lately she has lost the coast, they will be blown to dust and ashes, and the raiders will not be needed. There will be no limited war, it will be total, and WWII will seem like a game in the sandbox.
  6. +1
    April 1 2019 09: 29
    means of the first strike, so to speak before the declaration of war, the crews are most likely suicide bombers, there is no need to talk about constant raiding in this form
    1. +1
      April 1 2019 13: 25
      In the example we are talking about disrupting the deployment of enemy ground forces.

      The ships that the United States has, I considered, follow the link to the NWO, everything is in the details.
  7. +2
    April 1 2019 10: 30
    1. I think that if the Americans mobilize civilian ships for the transport of military goods, they will hardly transmit data to the AIS (just as the Navy ships do not), and without this the possibility of Iranians finding targets will greatly diminish.
    2. Is there any reliable evidence that Iran has a UAV capable of being based on a ship and flying for many hours, as well as transmitting data on potential targets in a format that can be used to direct missiles?
    3. Do I understand correctly that in the proposed scenario, Iran will have to start sinking American ships to the outbreak of hostilities against him? If so, then the reaction of the world community to his actions will be quite predictable. In response to aggression, the Americans will quite legitimately deliver a massive blow with hundreds (if not thousands) of "axes", and no one will condemn them.
    1. 0
      April 1 2019 13: 27
      1. Follow the link to the IEE, there it is disassembled.
      2. Iran has the technology to create such UAVs, but you can do without them.
      3. This is the goal - to turn a ground invasion into a punitive air strike, drowning the necessary to ensure the invasion of the court.
      1. 0
        April 1 2019 14: 40
        1. I do not understand what link is in question request The article has two references to foreign sources, but this question does not understand them.
        2. How, in fact, civilian ships that do not have any target designation will find and attack the necessary ships?
        3. What do you think, how many years will the US need in order to restore the necessary number of military transports, taking into account their own considerable shipbuilding capacities, as well as the capacities of Japan and South Korea? https://www.sajn.or.jp/files/view/articles_doc/src/44fcbeaa8b99e973ce83c007e9650fad.pdf
        Even if 10% of the existing potential is used for military needs, the annual increase will be over 2 million tons.
        It will take two or three years, and the United States will be able to secure the ability to transport cargo volumes comparable to the 1944 figures of the year when more than a million American soldiers were in Europe. http://www.usmm.org/armycargo.html
        Naturally, all this time, the Persian Gulf will be completely blocked by warships of the US Navy (so that no new vessel with containers can leave it), and the territory of Iran will methodically turn into a desert with the help of aviation and cruise missiles.
        1. 0
          April 1 2019 22: 39
          1. The article has three links, one is Russian-speaking on HBO.
          http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2019-03-29/1_1039_agressia.html

          2. Receiving from outside, the ways in the modern world are obvious.

          3. What do you think, how many years will the US need in order to restore the necessary number of military transports, taking into account their own considerable shipbuilding capacities, as well as the capacities of Japan and South Korea?

          Three years. But this is a breakdown of the operation. We are discussing the breakdown of the ground offensive and this is ensured.

          4.
          and the territory of Iran will methodically turn into a desert with the help of aviation and cruise missiles.


          They have somewhere on the 100 days of high-precision weapons, and Iran has hundreds of ballistic missiles plus the opportunity to have raiders from the Kyrgyz Republic not involved in the database to work on ground targets. Not so simple.
          1. 0
            April 2 2019 09: 44
            1. The article has three links, one is Russian-speaking on HBO.
            http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2019-03-29/1_1039_agressia.html


            I'm sorry, I thought HBO is the name of an English-language channel :)
            I read the article. The relevant paragraph is as follows.
            The problem, however, is that the communications equipment installed on the ships of the Shipping Command sends various signals and data to command centers in the United States automatically. To keep silence, the crews of tankers and transports will have to literally turn off everything on board, leaving only a navigation radar to simulate the signature of a merchant ship. But this will significantly complicate the performance of service for crews.

            IMHO, full radio silence will not be required. It is enough that potential raiders could not detect the transports using the AIS service.

            2. Receiving TS from
            Is logical. The question is, who will give it to the CO?

            Three years.
            I think that if the Iranian raider drowns amerovsky transport with several thousand soldiers, then the US will have enough patience to wait three years, and then wipe the wound aggressor into powder.

            They have somewhere on the 100 days of high-precision weapons, and Iran has hundreds of ballistic missiles plus the opportunity to have raiders from the Kyrgyz Republic not involved in the database to work on ground targets.


            And what will remain of Iran's army and civilian infrastructure if it is hit with precision weapons for 100 days? Preparations for Desert Storm lasted about a week, and the consequences for Iraq were the most catastrophic.
            What will help ballistic missiles against ships and aircraft of the United States, I did not understand: (
            1. 0
              April 2 2019 13: 59
              IMHO, full radio silence will not be required. It is enough that potential raiders could not detect the transports using the AIS service.


              There are technical problems there - the radio exchange is not disconnected separately - either all or nothing. And no one wants to do anything.

              Is logical. The question is, who will give it to the CO?


              To begin with an intelligence agency that will be able to report the exact date of the vessel’s release. Then some glamorous boat with a satellite phone will hang at a vehicle on its tail for a day or two. By this time, his position in the ocean will become predictable - the destination is known.

              As an extreme measure - the use of real merchant ships in intelligence - secret and without the use of weapons.

              There are shorter options.

              I think that if the Iranian raider drowns amerovsky transport with several thousand soldiers


              They do not transport people by sea almost. Technique only. There will be no more 50 people, of which at least half will survive.

              And what will be left of the army and civilian infrastructure of Iran, if it will be hit with high-precision weapons during 100 days?


              So they will be applied anyway, Iran is not losing anything.
  8. -1
    April 1 2019 10: 55
    The big trouble is that we also have problems with civil shipbuilding. And so the idea is not new. Back in the first half of the sixties, the Scorpion project was being developed in the Soviet Union - a dry cargo ship with eight ballistic missiles.
  9. -1
    April 1 2019 11: 12
    the idea is so-so, now there are no conditions for classic raiding, but as an "unexpected" missile platform against AUG, it will not be rolled out, no one will let anyone in the launch range
    1. 0
      April 1 2019 13: 27
      And here AUG?
      1. 0
        April 1 2019 18: 05
        lan and what else can a kamikaze missile carrier of one volley do? it’s just all that he can shoot at the III’s target, which is highlighted by someone else, there’s no more sense, he swam to aug 100 km away and breathed out according to external target designation, after the crew jumps overboard
        1. 0
          April 1 2019 22: 40
          I basically do not answer figures who comment on articles that have not read.
  10. +2
    April 1 2019 11: 19
    it is not surprising that no raiders after the war as a phenomenon are observed.
    maybe somewhere there it can be used for a single action, but as a phenomenon affecting something, it is unrealistic.
    The blockade of the coast in the age of aviation is easier to organize, and it will be organized if there is a real threat of such raiders entering the sea from any country, and then they will all be tracked and hunted by the seas and begin to follow them.
    A drone from a raider will fly only until it comes across any RTR station — coastal, ship or airbase, then the drone and the carrier ship will be tracked and show little to the crew committing a war crime waging war without the Navy’s flag, nor to those who sent him to the sea.
    I think there will be nothing similar in reality - the effect is doubtful, and the hands will untie the enemy very much.
    1. +1
      April 1 2019 13: 28
      And bind even more.
    2. +1
      April 1 2019 21: 06
      It’s as if the United States’s hands are somehow tied. Only a technical opportunity. Therefore, the DPRK raiders with nuclear missiles and a foreign flag, I think, are already preparing.
  11. +3
    April 1 2019 11: 45
    Attention to the author:
    1. AIS is simply a transceiver with VHF and GPS antenna. If desired, both the victim (transport) and the hunter (raider) can drive into their AIS block any data about themselves that you want, even though you are a 300-meter liner and IMO code from the bulldozer, who will check it there (there is only a signal from their position is driven in automatically), or you can simply turn it off. Accordingly, both sides "in the threatened period" will manipulate this and mislead the enemy, and it is impossible to rely on him.
    2. AIS transmits and receives other people's data through a standard VHF antenna ie. limited by the radio horizon. Accordingly, even in an attack "suddenly in peacetime", identification and target designation to a raider by AIS is possible only within the radio horizon (the picture in the article is a collected image from the coastal network of GMDSS stations). Why then missiles with a range of hundreds of kilometers without over-the-horizon target designation means?
    3. If you fantasize that US / NATO intelligence has missed such an elephant as the number and location of such expensive and few toys as the indicated PUs, as well as their actual installation in ports, which can initially only be carried out in the ports of the target country. These "defenders" need to cruise off their coast, preferably without going to the port of another country once again in order to prevent accidental opening. How long will such a reveler not raise suspicion?
    4. Under international law (for which the Americans did not spit), any such ship outside the law and for a long time in peacetime will not be able to patrol, will open - they will melt everything indiscriminately where will the flag and crews of the target country ignore the collateral mistaken victims.
    1. 0
      April 1 2019 13: 32
      1. If you wish, yes. But it will do when the threat is revealed. In addition, follow the link to the IEE, there is the beginning. MARAD has well characterized the electromagnetic visibility of American transports.

      2. There are big doubts that even warships will be bullet for hundreds of kilometers. In real life, they did not shoot so far in a combat situation — tens of kilometers from the force. Raider will also do. The composition of the container complex includes radar if that.

      3. They will need to work on a limited number of goals once.

      4. The end justifies the means in this case.
      1. +1
        April 1 2019 14: 20
        all raiders will not be able to attack all targets at the same time. those. the threat will be revealed after the first attack and the ships will "hide" from the AIS
        1. 0
          April 1 2019 21: 02
          And what will prevent them from reaching the targets in advance and receiving the radio signal of the start of the attack?
        2. 0
          April 1 2019 22: 41
          So what? A third will be drowned - already a victory.
  12. +2
    April 1 2019 12: 02
    It is possible to interrupt the offensive operation with the help of container systems installed on raider ships. But, as far as I know, there is an unspoken moratorium on the use of such systems, which is respected by all interested parties.
    1. -1
      April 1 2019 12: 25
      the only thing this thing can do is terror of the civilian population, therefore, a moratorium on such systems, it will not do anything to the military, but to civilians, well, it’ll flood the ferry with tourists on board, and then the otvetka and the new Newberg’s tribunal are generally unpromising
      1. 0
        April 1 2019 13: 34
        There is a list of ships, quite specific, that need to be sunk. There is an agent intelligence that visually tracked their way out to sea.
        There is an understanding of what port they need to come to, and the knowledge of how fast they are going.

        And here civil?
        1. -2
          April 1 2019 13: 52
          Japanese strategists of the 2nd World War were guided by approximately the same "arguments" when they wanted to solve problems with waves of kamikaze ... It did not work out very well in practice. Air castles on the sand, without taking into account the enemy's opposition, is the most
          1. 0
            April 1 2019 14: 56
            Quote: Town Hall
            Japanese strategists of the 2nd World War were guided by approximately the same "arguments" when they wanted to solve problems with waves of kamikaze ... It did not work out very well in practice. Air castles on the sand, without taking into account the enemy's opposition, is the most

            There is no connection between the kamikade and the raiders. Kamikaze are military men who operate from warships or airfields and, moreover, will die with approximately 100% probability. Here we are talking more conceptually about sabotage: when an old freighter sailing with a load of scrap metal to China can fire a salvo of anti-ship missiles at a military or civilian ship of the enemy. But, I repeat, the application of this concept opens a "Pandora's box", the consequences of which no one wants to check, because in reality such methods of warfare are not used. At least in conflicts below the "total war" level.
          2. 0
            April 1 2019 22: 41
            Do not confuse warm with soft, please.
            1. 0
              April 2 2019 10: 17
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Do not confuse warm with soft, please.

              That's for me?
              1. 0
                April 2 2019 14: 01
                No, not you.
        2. -1
          April 1 2019 19: 51
          if during the war there is little sense in such a raider, they will be tracked and drowned, and ships and especially ships from this list will not go openly and no one will report whether he is at sea or on a bank somewhere.
          If without declaring war, then such a government will be recognized as war criminals and it will have problems above the roof.
          and keep in mind, unlike Hitler's raiders, the proposed ones require special weapons, and if their production begins, it is impossible to hide it, and suitable vessels will track during the threatened period
          1. 0
            April 1 2019 20: 59
            Tracking all ships within a radius of 400 km - utopia.
    2. -3
      April 1 2019 12: 27
      there is also a vowel.
      Hague Convention.
      1. 0
        April 1 2019 13: 35
        It's just simple there. 10 minutes before time "H", a statement is made that such and such vessels have been mobilized in the Navy and that the naval flag has been raised on them, the crews and commanders are military.

        Well, yes, they will raise the flag. The callsign will be changed and disconnected from civilian networks.

        Everything, requirements of the Hague Convention are met.
        1. 0
          April 1 2019 13: 52
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          It's just simple there. 10 minutes before time "H", a statement is made that such and such vessels have been mobilized in the Navy and that the naval flag has been raised on them, the crews and commanders are military.

          Well, yes, they will raise the flag. The callsign will be changed and disconnected from civilian networks.

          Everything, requirements of the Hague Convention are met.

          and weapons? Prior to mobilization, these container ships were already armed and had military personnel on board with orders to kill Algol or Sirius there ..
          1. 0
            April 1 2019 22: 42
            Convention requirements are quite specific.
        2. 0
          April 1 2019 19: 46
          not so easy.
          if he left the port armed, but before that he was not entered in the register of the Navy of the country, did not put identification marks and did not raise the flag of the Navy, and he started military operations, then a war crime is already evident.
          1. 0
            April 1 2019 22: 44
            He came out armed, but who would prevent him from stating that the weapon was received at sea from another ship? And everything else is really done - and the identification marks, and the flag, and entry in the registry - tens of minutes before.

            It is quite possible.
            1. -1
              April 2 2019 22: 53
              this is unrealistic. and will not convince anyone.
              1. 0
                April 3 2019 20: 48
                Really quite, there is no one to check. Formally, there will be no reason to present a violation of the convention.
                1. -1
                  April 4 2019 08: 13
                  it will be before.
                  if the enemy knows that you are making such specific launchers in containers, then your ships will begin to inspect under any pretext during the period of exacerbation, such as the fight against pirates, and all critical shipments will be masked by false ones.
                  then look for winds in the field, if they don’t stop before that.
                  and if one is caught with this, then all these ideas can simply be thrown away.
                  1. 0
                    April 4 2019 12: 22
                    This is war. Securing secrecy, surprise, etc. There is someone who trained.
    3. 0
      April 1 2019 13: 32
      This is for now. You want to live - you will raskoryachish
    4. -13
      31 May 2019 08: 26
      It is possible to interrupt the offensive operation with the help of container systems installed on raider ships.

      impossible: fiction is
  13. -2
    April 1 2019 13: 59
    For Russia, tractors with similar containers and river vessels are more relevant.
    1. 0
      April 1 2019 22: 44
      And Poseidons.

      Here's how to be, eh?
  14. 0
    April 1 2019 14: 01
    Yes, all these raiders will not live long. They will be quickly melted within a few days. But the damage done by them in the specifically described situation will already be irreparable - everything that is needed for a land invasion will simply not be transferred - even if it is urgent to buy up all the necessary ships available in the world for any money
    The author regularly and with a twinkle smashes Americans in heaven, on land and at sea.
    Today, paraphrasing a well-known saying, the vessel did not leave the ship on board from the US for transportation to Iran. The plan is quite drawn to the Order of Leo and the Sun.
    True, there are several questions in the sound of victorious panfar.
    During World War II, German submarines sank more than 3500 merchant ships in the battle for the Atlantic, and more than 30 merchant marine sailors died. 000 merchant ships - this is one and a half lots of today's Liberia - the second most popular among shipowners.
    And all these losses neither forced Britain to surrender, nor did they prevent landings in Italy and Normandy, nor did they cause a shortage of crews.
    And the Americans riveted three transports of the "Liberty" type a day. I don't think this process is unique at today's level. Therefore, the United States will quickly restore the loss of transports, but how Iran will restore the raiders is a question. Those. in such a suicidal way you can "delay the end", no more.
    In general, when reading an article, written, as always, in living language and abundantly filled with facts, the old verse is constantly recalled: "Here in the warlike excitement of the governor Palmerston hits Russia on the map with his index finger." True, the article is not about Russia, but the meaning is very suitable.
    1. 0
      April 1 2019 20: 57
      These were other Americans. And their reaction to the blows will be different.
    2. 0
      April 1 2019 22: 49
      And all these losses neither forced Britain to surrender, nor did they prevent landings in Italy and Normandy, nor did they cause a shortage of crews.


      And now, even without war, MARAD cannot at least 10% gain a crew reserve and keep sailors older than 70 in the ranks so that there is someone to sail on these ships.

      How so, and?

      And the Americans riveted three transports of the "Liberty" type a day. I don't think this process is unique at today's level.


      Modern military transport has a displacement of 40-60 kilotons. Consider this moment. Will MAN, MTU and Wartsila get the right amount of GEM, for example?

      And what about the timing of entry into battle? In the worst case, the enemy will win three years - and his troops are already there.

      In general, when reading an article, written, as always, in living language and abundantly filled with facts, the old verse is constantly recalled: "Here in the warlike excitement of the governor Palmerston hits Russia on the map with his index finger." True, the article is not about Russia, but the meaning is very suitable.


      You really study the state of affairs in the USA with naval logistics, the link in the text of the article was.
      1. +1
        April 1 2019 23: 27
        Alexander, first of all - thanks for the answer.
        Secondly, about the real state of affairs in the USA with logistics. It is unlikely that there is at least one country in which in peacetime the state of the armed forces, defense industry, logistics fully complied with the requirements of, say, wartime. The question is how quickly a country on these wartime rails can arise if necessary, including in terms of logistics.
        Even if you take those 60 ships ("And 60 ships are in the hands of private firms, which have an obligation to provide them to the US Navy on demand"), which are available under the Maritime Safety Program. There are 60 of them, not because there is no more, but because, according to the calculations of the Americans, they do not need any more. There were 47 of these ships at first. I see no obstacles to the expansion of this fleet if necessary ...
        But where will Iran draw resources for the kamikaze fleet? Iran does not have 80 trading ships.
        Therefore, as for me, the question of the destruction of American communications is still more complicated and is unlikely to be solved with the help of partisans in containers.
        1. 0
          April 2 2019 14: 08
          Secondly, about the real state of affairs in the USA with logistics. It is unlikely that there is at least one country in which in peacetime the state of the armed forces, defense industry, logistics fully complied with the requirements of, say, wartime. The question is how quickly a country on these wartime rails can arise if necessary, including in terms of logistics.


          Well, think about it, if in peacetime they cannot recruit people, then how to be in the military? Universal military to enter? A revolution will not work there? In the United States there is no powerful anti-war movement just because the war was done by a deed that does not concern the people in any way. If you do not go to the sun as a volunteer, you will never be at war. If you kick American kids to death with kicks, then this circus will quickly stop, within a week, from strength.

          They are because 60 is not because there is no more, but because. that according to the calculations of the Americans, they no longer need it. These ships first generally had 47.


          It was because we were in Sealift. Not now. Let me remind you that in the figure 943 vessels under the national flag EVERYTHING appears that has a displacement of more than 1000 tons and is not a fishing or passenger vessel. If the total tonnage of ships under the national flag is divided by the number, then there is something like 14 kilotons per ship or so, taking into account all kinds of high-speed ferries, etc.

          In fact, these 60 ships are very close to the limit of what the US can muster for military transport. Tankers in excess of this will accumulate a bit and container ships, and that's it.

          But where will Iran draw resources for the kamikaze fleet? Iran does not have 80 trading ships.


          There is))))
          1. +2
            April 2 2019 14: 19
            Hmm. Based on your assessment of the military potential of the United States, it is surprising that this state still exists. In this state, even Honduras can conquer them, in extreme cases, in alliance with Guatemala. It is strange that Honduras still has not taken this chance. No one to tell?
            Guatemalans try to stir up the old ties, can bite.
            1. 0
              April 3 2019 20: 50
              I take my information from official American sources, most often from reports of the Congress research service.

              And you?
              1. -2
                April 3 2019 21: 31
                I also use this source. But the matter is not in the sources. Your articles are precisely in terms of the use of sources at the level, I have always noted this.
                It's just that your interpretation of the information received is one-sided due to your "anti-American" worldview.
                If you ignore this, then in your articles you can find a lot of interesting information.
                But for the current site contingent, information is secondary. The main thing for them is to kick Ameryk.
                1. 0
                  April 3 2019 22: 21
                  There is at least one-sided, though not one-sided. 121 ship - fact. Riots in civil courts - a fact. Incomplete l / s - fact.

                  Well, maybe I somehow do not interpret these facts in this way, of course, well, I interpret them in some other way, if you want.
                  1. -2
                    April 3 2019 22: 23
                    Alexander, if I suddenly start writing articles for the VO site again, I will certainly take your advice and interpret.
  15. 0
    April 1 2019 14: 05
    Sorry, I didn’t read the whole article, everything is fine, everything is great, but Russia has a scanty merchant and fishing ocean fleet at the expense of China, I won’t say it, but I know world shipowners who will not give 90% of the world tonnage, and nat ships are always at gunpoint
    1. 0
      April 1 2019 22: 50
      I'm sorry I did not read the whole article, everything is fine, everything is great, but Russia has a scanty merchant and fishing oceanic fleet


      Our ships are more inflamed than the United States, if that.
  16. +1
    April 1 2019 19: 23
    Warships and ships carrying military cargo are likely to be too tough for such a raider. When approaching an area with threats in the form of raiders, drones, etc. an umbrella from an UAV will be hung over the ships, both tracking all other passing ships, and preparing for the launch of missiles from the container. An impact UAV is easier to hit the container itself at the time of preparation for launch. When approaching the coast, kilometers per hundred, it’s possible to cover with fighters, ready to intercept both missiles and enemy drones.
    Most likely, now all container ships following from the ports of a potential adversary are tracked as potentially dangerous (a mark on the computer does not ask for much).
    The launch of missiles from a container ship will probably be detected by early warning systems, therefore, even in case of luck, this is definitely a one-time thing. But the ship itself, weapons and crew cost a lot of money, it is economically unprofitable - only a raider can be exchanged for a commercial ship, all the military will be covered either by security vessels in convoys, or UAVs and aircraft.
    Therefore, there are no orders for such containers. But there are orders for missiles (for example, BRAMOS). After all, it is quite possible to track to which country, to which port, to which ship such containers from the manufacturing country went (no one canceled spies, satellites and technical means).
    Perhaps the inconspicuous setting of smart, self-propelled mines from a container ship is a much more effective weapon. The side flap of the container opens in the lower row (it is more difficult to track by technical means), mines are poured overboard and lie down or move close to the position. After a certain time, they are activated and look for the target according to the noise signatures. If this happens after a certain signal, after the outbreak of hostilities, and after the announcement that the area is mined, then the reputation will not suffer much. Although, what kind of reputation in our time can already be said ...
    1. 0
      April 3 2019 20: 53
      The launch of missiles from a container ship will probably be detected by early warning systems, therefore, even in case of luck, this is definitely a one-time thing.


      Yes and no. After the first salvo, you can launch the BEC into the water with corner reflectors, and you can drastically change the course yourself and gain speed. Somewhere, seven or eight hours will be lost in traffic. And this is a departure from the site of attack by about 120-130 miles. If you have a lot of traffic and you can get lost.
  17. -1
    April 1 2019 19: 34
    I knew that the author is a cavalryman, but the fact that he is a Persian cavalryman came as a surprise to me. laughing

    In reality, the placement of anti-ship missile launchers in containers on commercial ships is nothing more than a PR move by the missile manufacturers (which are mainly journalists bought).

    It makes it all the more senseless to use such missiles against NATO countries in a conventional war with Iran or another country that has missile weapons: the number of Western ships is orders of magnitude greater than the number of Iranian, Pakistani, etc. rockets, plus Western shipbuilding capacity. Iran’s missiles are clearly running out before he plunges into the Stone Age under the strikes of Western aviation and missile forces.

    In a nuclear war between geopolitical opponents, the task of sinking commercial ships at sea in one way or another is absent by definition - an hour after the start of the war all ports will cease to exist.
    1. 0
      April 1 2019 20: 54
      Vietnam, Syria in the Stone Age? But for them there is an opportunity to strike at enemy territory. Which is very painful for Europe and the USA.
      1. 0
        April 1 2019 21: 07
        And what’s the point of Vietnam / Syria, for which the USSR / RF were largely / overwhelming? The author - a follower of rocket concerns PR men means something like the wars of the West with Iraq / Libya.

        If Vietnam / Syria were somehow foolishly attacking the national territory of the United States or Western shipping, they would be happy to glaze with American nuclear weapons, which the US Presidents commanders of the American Expeditionary Corps repeatedly requested according to the declassified documents of the US-Vietnam War period ( on Syria in the USA until the moment of declassification has come).

        Another characteristic example is North Korea - if the Kimov dynasty would invest in medium-range conventional missiles (including those deployed in containers on commercial ships) rather than nuclear weapons and land-based ICBMs, Trump would not have negotiated, but simply rolled into North Korean concrete.
    2. 0
      April 1 2019 22: 58
      And pink ponies riding on Poseidon, lalalalalala laughing laughing

      Some citizens have such a reputation that they no longer communicate with them. laughing

      What is the nuclear war with Iran, huh? Enough already.

      the number of western courts is orders of magnitude greater than the number of Iranian, Pakistani, etc. rockets


      Link to the most detailed article with the real number of ships in the United States in the article is. The number of ships is indicated in the article itself, and is listed by type.

      I am absolutely convinced that you saw these numbers.
      You just did not understand what they mean laughing laughing
      And they saw the link too.

      Just did not understand that this link laughing

      Other would be surprising.

      As a sample of the level of development of your consciousness, the US 121 has a full-fledged transport that can be involved in the performance of military transport — everything, including private companies. There are no other ships there.

      You write that Iran has an order of magnitude less rockets.

      You want to say that Iran has 12 missiles? laughing

      That's what Poseidon does to people!
  18. -1
    April 1 2019 19: 35
    And what does possible vessel with missiles in containers have to do with raiders of the past? —The main advantage of raiders of the past is secrecy and keeping the ships of the shipping guard in constant tension, and now what secrecy is? —Yes and who will fight shipping now, let alone shoot at enemy territory? -MBR in half an hour all the problems will be removed.
    1. +1
      April 1 2019 22: 59
      I'm still waiting for you to write something adequate, apparently I can't wait. What are the ICBMs from Iran? Well, think already something a little bit.
      1. 0
        April 2 2019 19: 50
        So die without waiting laughing
        1. 0
          April 3 2019 20: 54
          I think the same. You never write anything sane.
  19. +2
    April 1 2019 19: 47
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    So we can talk about small container ships, not about hippos.

    Alexander! As far as I remember, this system was offered mainly for export to countries that are not capable of maintaining a sufficiently strong navy. That is, for third world countries. And logically, this system could even the odds with stronger neighbors

    For developed countries, this is a dead end. Of course, you can put it on a small container ship. but for some reason everyone, speaking about this system, forgets that in addition to containers with missiles, there must be (he was present at exhibitions) a container with a radar system. And if such a container ship turns on its military-grade radar, I think it will be easy to identify it. And when identified, then the destruction of such a "container ship" will be a matter of time. Especially if he can launch a rocket and will not carry the naval flag of his country (at least auxiliary forces). This will already be an act of piracy and will end with the enemy sinking the ships of this country indiscriminately, although without such a "container ship" this could not have happened ..

    Quote: Wilderness
    Even a disguise from an express search so that the inspection party does not find anything military.

    First of all, the inspection party will inspect containers that are "from above", and not deep below. And what, this will save you from express inspection?

    Quote: YOUR
    The Americans planned to use Palaris ballistic missiles on civilian container ships. There were tests, but they refused or agreed on SALT.

    We were also going to build similar vessels in a series. EMNIP for 6-8 R-25 or R-27 missiles (to be honest, I don't remember). The project was called "Scorpion". But under the SALT-2 treaty, there was a ban on the deployment of ballistic missiles on any floating craft except submarines. You can place it more precisely, but only with a range of no more than 600 km

    Quote: timokhin-aa
    It's just simple there. 10 minutes before time "H", a statement is made that such and such vessels have been mobilized in the Navy and that the naval flag has been raised on them, the crews and commanders are military.

    Well, yes, they will raise the flag. The callsign will be changed and disconnected from civilian networks.

    Everything, requirements of the Hague Convention are met.

    And as the ships of the navy of this country, they will be considered as primary targets for interception, because they will not have the means to defend themselves ...

    Quote: Vadim237
    For Russia, tractors with similar containers and river vessels are more relevant.

    Vadim! These container ships are primarily regarded as vessels with ANTI-SHIPPING rockets. And what will these tractors with containers (or trains with such containers give, not to mention barges and river vessels with such containers.
    The average range of an anti-ship missile is about 500 km. Without external target designation, they will shoot milk. And do we have a lot, for example, navigable rivers near the state border? Only Neva comes to mind
    1. 0
      April 1 2019 23: 00
      For developed countries - this is a dead end. Put on a small container ship of course you can. but for some reason everyone, speaking of this system, forget that in addition to containers with missiles there must be present (at the exhibitions he was present) a container with a radar system. And if such a container ship turns on its military-pattern radar, I think that it will be easy to identify it.


      Well, who says about the developed countries? Although to be honest, they would have been limited to the developed ones, but in the example Iran is generally.

      And yes, the complex is put all - PU, a container with command equipment and a container with a radar. And yes again - transport without an escort cannot detect such a radar, and there is nothing to identify the raider from a distance.

      And the USA have no ships for escort.
    2. +1
      April 5 2019 18: 33
      Only Neva comes to mind

      Why not Cupid with Ussuri? On them and the border passes.
  20. 0
    April 1 2019 20: 45
    Quote: Santa Fe
    Countries with satellite reconnaissance and UAVs do not need to deploy missiles on civilian ships

    From what? If a major land power decides to deliver a sudden nuclear strike against a sea power, then it’s better not to think of anything.
  21. 0
    April 2 2019 00: 49
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    USA 121 is a full-fledged transport that can be involved in the performance of military transport - everything, including private companies

    Teach materiel - NATO and the US allies control two orders of magnitude more commercial ships (under the flags of other countries) than the US itself.
    1. 0
      April 2 2019 14: 09
      Will they agree to attack Iran along with the United States? You are in your style as usual. laughing
  22. kig
    0
    April 6 2019 14: 36
    at the services of our "Iranians" there is AIS - warships do not have this device, and rightly so - why should they show their position to everyone? In the same way, any transport vessel can safely turn off this AIS, especially if it carries out military tasks.
  23. +1
    31 May 2019 03: 05
    The author describes, as usual, not science fiction. Exactly the same systems that will allow, according to the author, to determine the position of the goals, will much more effectively allow to detect the raider. And in peacetime, the slightest leak through reconnaissance channels will lead to inspections of possible raider ships with an understandable outcome (confiscation of the ship and the arrest of crews as criminals and this is a minimum of negative consequences).
  24. 0
    15 June 2023 23: 45
    I like the idea of ​​surface raiders. If earlier they existed because there were no adequate detection systems. And it was possible to use the expanses of the ocean in order to hide. Now, as the author correctly described, you can hide in the fact that there are VERY many ships of maritime trade (an example of how quantity has grown into quality).

    But using light / medium container ships for this is, in my opinion, a dubious idea.
    Until the moment of the first volley, you will not find it at all. Unless the enemy begins to inspect all ships. Well, or the crew will simply be unlucky if they randomly choose it for verification.
    But it is worth making the first volley, as a problem arises. Focusing on the strength of the explosion, it will be possible +/- to understand what it was attacked with (anti-ship missiles or deck artillery). This means to outline a circle in the attack zone, where the center will be the convoy that was attacked, and the radius of the circle is the known maximum range of the weapon that was attacked. And then they will look at navigation, surveillance radars and satellites - which ships of those that were in the region at that moment in time fall into this circle. And as a result, instead of hundreds of ships, the enemy will have only (further let's say) 20 ships. And checking 20 ships is much easier than 50, or even more so 10.
    In addition, no one canceled the factor of witnesses. For example, the crew of an ordinary merchant ship that was sailing not far from our raider did not see our ship itself (because we are beyond the horizon). But the crew noticed columns of smoke on the horizon from taking off anti-ship missiles. And he can just report it on the open air to everyone in the district.
    And therefore the bet only on disguise is losing. So we will get a sea of ​​​​raiders, but only each raider will be one-time.

    Another thing is if you still develop a specialized raider or a semi-civilian vessel.
    The main thing in this ship will be that it will have tremendous seaworthiness and speed (in order to perform maneuvers to escape from the attack zone), with the ability to sail in "camouflage mode" (i.e. sail at an economical speed like all ordinary ships of the merchant fleet at 20 knots).

    Ordinary tankers, even if they are heavily modified, will not be able to reach speeds of at least 25 knots. Their contours and power plant are not designed for this. And the Raider should be able, if necessary, to go at a speed of more than 30 knots (more than 30 in order to be able to break away from the enemy fleet if something happens). At the same time, in terms of dimensions and external contours of the deck and superstructure, it should be (as far as possible) similar to a conventional sea tanker. The underwater part of the hull, of course, needs to be made streamlined to be able to go on 30+ knots. But to make the surface part such that, having found the ship at a great distance, at the beginning it seemed to be a trading ship. Whatever, even on satellite images, it could be identified as a military one only if it is not lucky to get into the frame of a high-quality satellite in good weather (and there are not many of them, and their orbits are known, most satellites have a larger field of view but lower resolution) .

    In addition, such a ship, if necessary, should have the ability to carry out mining. For example, if a raider ship performs deceptive maneuvers along communications, as if it were a merchant ship. And then he was informed that a convoy was coming near him. So he can simply navigate the route towards the nearest port for "unloading". But in fact, use it as an excuse to cross the trajectory of the convoy, drop mines, and without changing course, continue on to the port for "unloading". And the convoy will go to the region where some of the ships will be damaged by mines or even sunk.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"