Light torpedo tube. We need this weapon, but we don't have it.

223
Today in the Russian Navy are in service with torpedoes and anti-torpedoes caliber 324 mm. On surface ships this weapon used as part of the Package-NK complex widely advertised by the press.

However, the press, as usual, forgets about the "nuances". And they are.




A simple and necessary device - torpedo tube caliber 324 mm. But we do not have it.


We will not dwell on the management system of the complex - sooner or later, experts on this issue will express themselves in detail.

But something is also obvious to a non-specialist — a problem launcher of the complex, limiting the functionality of the ship as a whole.

Meet CM-588


Both torpedoes and anti-torpedoes used by the complex are launched using the CM-588 launcher.

Light torpedo tube. We need this weapon, but we don't have it.

The launch of the anti-torpedoes M-15 from the CM-588 launcher. Flame like a cannon and recoil is comparable. The consequence - need a hardened deck


And here we have a problem. The fact is that, unlike the “normal” torpedo tube, the CM-588 can only be reloaded at the base. Next comes simple arithmetic. The 20380, 20385 project corvettes, the 20386 project corvette-overgrowth (unknown or unknown), as well as the 22350 project frigates have two CM-588 launchers, one on board. Taking into account the non-rechargeability and the fact that the ship necessarily needs anti-torpedoes to protect against attacks from submarines, we have a standard ammunition load: 4 torpedoes and 4 anti-torpedoes for each combat ship.

What if they are shot? How to fight? The answer is no way. This can not be done in any way. Having shot off the existing 4 anti-torpedoes, the Russian warship will become a target for an enemy submarine, which no one will reload.

How does the problem "look" technically?

From the "usual" torpedo tube the torpedo is fired with compressed air. The launch of a torpedo or anti-torpedo from CM-588 is performed using a powder charge. Naturally, the re-installation of the powder charge in TPK outside the manufacturing plant is impossible. In the usual TA torpedo load sailors, with the help of simple devices.

Sailors cannot load anything into TPK, it comes to the fleet already equipped, it is only necessary to install it on the launcher and connect the wiring.

And its mass is such that even if it is tightly surrounded by sailors, they will not be able to lift it to the height needed for reloading PU (look again at the photo). Mass TPK with a torpedo of about a couple of hundred kilograms fails to a ton. He is too heavy to be turned over in the closed ship space.

In a normal TA, a lid is opened during launch, for ejecting torpedoes from the TA pipe. The TPK "Package" no openable cover on a fully insulated and equipped TPK can not be, so there is a removable removable cover when fired. Disposable. Cost about 500 000 rubles. Shot from PU SM-588 frankly, is not cheap, that we, with our limited budget, looks like a mockery.

What is the process of reloading PU CM-588? Consider the example of a corvette project 20380.

Above the PU there is a sliding hatch through which the transport and launch containers can be loaded on board the ship and immediately put on the launcher. In order to take advantage of this hatch, it is necessary to moor the ship to the pier overboard, adjust the crane to the ship, remove the boat with the hatch, and then everything is simple - the TPC crane rises to the height and then descends into the hatch, where personnel of the warhead-3 secures them to the launcher.


CM-588 with two TPK behind the sailor. Pay attention to the size of the TPK and the size of the base installation


Then the hatch closes, the boat is put in place, and that's it - we can again beat off the 4 torpedoes and attack the boat with the same number of our torpedoes. And then you have to go back to the base, wherever the ammunition is spent.

You can, of course, assume that with the proper level of training, the personnel will be able to reload the CM-588 at sea using the floating crane, just as with the help of the floating crane it is possible to reload the Uran missile system at sea. But, firstly, it’s still a question of whether the enemy will give us the use of a floating crane, and secondly, a ship that has such a small number of anti-submarine weapons and anti-torpedo ammunition is very vulnerable. The helicopter onboard may not allow the weather to be used, and then, having repulsed the attack of the submarine and once counterattacked it, the ship would be unarmed. Until the floating crane still have to live.

Everything? Not.

The powder charge ejecting a torpedo from the TPK, generates a serious return when fired. But the installation has no depreciation devices. As a result, all the impact from the shot is perceived by the base of the installation and the deck of the ship on which it is installed.

The forces there are such that the base of the launcher had to be made really large and very heavy, and the launcher could only be installed on specially reinforced places on the decks of ships - specially reinforced for the installation of this launcher.

Can all this be considered normal? Just as normal non-rechargeable outside a gun factory machine at an infantryman. This not normal.

How did it happen?

It turned out that the idea of ​​re-training torpedoes born only in the time immemorial early post-Soviet times was obtained only by the manufacturer.

The whole stupidity of this concept is impossible to describe. In theory, a torpedo launched in a “practical” (without a warhead) version can be fished out after firing practice, reprocessing and being issued back into ammunition, albeit in a combat version, even in a practical one.

The number of such re-preparations can be very large. At the same time, since the torpedo is a technically complex machine, a certain amount of its training launches in the practical version just need to be made to make sure that it is properly assembled and has no factory defects (and subsequently storage defects). Such launches do not adversely affect the torpedo resource, in order to “work it out”, it is necessary to launch it much more often than the fleet “of free will” would have done.

And this is not working with CM-588. The shot is too expensive (we remember the destructible cover), and the process of re-preparing the torpedo with reloading the TPK is also not cheap, and it takes a lot of time. As a result, we will not have statistics on failures for 324-mm torpedoes and anti-torpedoes.

It is also not clear how you can equip anti-submarine torpedoes launched in this way with modern hose telecontrol. After all, the explosion of a powder charge and a hose reel control, theoretically attached to the back of the torpedo tube, are incompatible from the inside.


TPC with antiporped section


And, of course, there is no question of upgrading an already existing ship, on which such a monster was not foreseen constructively from the very beginning.

Sell ​​a similar system for export is also impossible.

What to do now?

First of all, look at the experience of other 324-mm torpedoes used by other countries (and we are entitled to consider our anti-torpedo M-15 a subspecies of 324-mm torpedoes).

Foreign experience


Foreign experience is simple. 324-mm torpedoes are launched from a small and light torpedo tube with a pneumatic launch, as a rule, a three-pipe, but there are other options. The main way to install TA - on the deck on the rotator. Since the recoil is low during the launch of a torpedo, the places for installing such TAs can be different, which is especially important when upgrading previously built ships. Moreover, if the rolling and maneuvering of the ship does not interfere, the TA is easily recharged after the launch of the torpedoes - the torpedoes are delivered on rails specially built on the decks on transport bogies by hands of personnel and the personnel are manually loaded into the torpedo tubes. The mass of 324-mm torpedoes is small and, as a rule, does not exceed 400 kilograms, and the six sailors with such a mass copes well, especially with special devices, very simple.


Reloading American torpedo tube Mk.32 caliber 324 mm


On a specially built ship, with the placement of a torpedo tube in an enclosed space, from where the sailor will not fall during any rolling, and partially mechanizing the supply of torpedoes to the TA from the ship’s arsenal, it is theoretically possible to recharge the TA directly during the battle, as on submarines, which multiply increases the combat capability of a ship compared to its counterpart, where it is impossible or difficult and dangerous to recharge directly in battle.


"Closed" installation of two-pipe TA Mk.32 Mod 9. on the Canadian frigate class "Halifax"


Naturally, the fleets of most countries have a streamlined mechanism for re-preparing torpedoes by forces and generally do not bear such expenses for a single shot, which are borne by the Russian Navy.

Can our fleet acquire such light torpedo tubes? Naturally. The scientific and technological potential of the Russian industry makes it possible to create such a torpedo tube without any problems and in a short time, and to adjust its mass production.

The problems here are purely organizational and psychological, having basically the destructive idea of ​​re-preparing torpedoes solely by industry. Having refused this idea, it is possible to make a TTZ on a “normal” torpedo tube.

How it should look


We need a family of unified one-, two-, and three-tube torpedo tubes, suitable both for installation on a rotary device, and for a fixed installation, including inside the ship's hull. They should have pneumatic start, low recoil and simple construction. No need to wise, this is not the case.


A pair of single-tube TA on the frigate "Westminister" of the British Navy


After the creation of such a device, the “Package-NK” complex should be reworked to be combined with it. After this, it is necessary to replace the CM-20380 installations already installed on the 20385, 22350, 588 projects with normal torpedo tubes, and to design the newly designed ships in such a way that torpedo tubes can be reloaded during the battle, which is technically quite feasible.

The creation of such devices will open up opportunities for the use of the Package-NK complex on ships built in the past years, on which the Package-NK was not intended to be the original design, including on light ships, even on small rocket ships that today are quite "worthy" target for submarines. Now all this is almost impossible. With light monotube hard-mounted TAs, this will be possible even on very small ships.


Single pipe TA Mk.32 Mod11



"Short" TA caliber 324 mm on Israeli crewless boat Seagull. TA under a normal torpedo will be longer and the 15-meter boat will not get up, but it will get on IRAs and rocket boats


The export potential of such a torpedo tube will also be incomparable with the existing CM-588, in which it is equal to zero.

Currently, having an excellent anti-submarine torpedo caliber 324 mm and so far the best anti-torpedo in the world in the same caliber, and in mass production, Russia does not have a full-fledged torpedo tube for its launch. This is paradoxical and absurd, and this problem should be solved as soon as possible, and the monstrous CM-588 should replenish a number of technical curiosities, which they, in fact, are.
223 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -22
    24 May 2019 05: 30
    An article in the Ministry of Defense for a puddle. They instantly perk up, and go to war. It turns out that all of us eat bread for nothing. There is nothing for us to defend recourse
    Even the sailor in the photo was covered with a face. Hosts of state secrets will not show. The enemy is not asleep !!!
    1. +3
      24 May 2019 06: 30
      Quote: luka57
      Even the sailor in the photo was covered with a face. Hosts of state secrets will not show.

      Sailor from the warhead-5, with PDA - I think he is from the duty on the ship, has nothing to do with torpedoes.
      1. -7
        24 May 2019 07: 26
        Quote: alma
        Sailor from the warhead-5, with PDA - I think he is from the duty on the ship, has nothing to do with torpedoes.

        then photo why? horror catch up? Yes, already tired of reading everything, that everything around is bribe takers, saw cutters, and we have nothing to fight.
        Well, why do all the smart people throw mud at EVERYTHING ???
        Maybe because from the couch more visible?
        How can you talk at the company, crumbs ??? ALL because you can know when ALL info will be.
        And her NEVER at VO will not throw off.
        1. +22
          24 May 2019 08: 25
          The photo is because there were no other CM-588 photos with the installed TPK.

          Well, why do all the smart people throw mud at EVERYTHING ???


          If the doctor tells you that you have a sore throat and need to undergo treatment, does he insult your health in this way or what?
          1. -14
            24 May 2019 08: 29
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Photo because other photos SM-588 with installed TPK was not found.

            Iron logic laughing
            When you come to the store and in the pocket of money was not foundwill you buy? laughing
            If the doctor tells you

            And the "doctor" who pours mud all the "analyzes" studied?
            They brought it to the sofa?
            1. +3
              24 May 2019 11: 44
              The doctor studied everything, yes. I felt your tonsils properly, found pus there, took a blood test ...

              Well, so?
              1. The comment was deleted.
          2. +3
            24 May 2019 11: 59
            Are you a doctor or professor?
            1. +4
              24 May 2019 12: 59
              I am a liquidator. Liquidation specialist. I can eliminate the sore throat.
              I can still eliminate something.

              Unfortunately, scientific degrees in our environment are not appropriated.

              And Topvar is so, a hobby.
              1. -1
                25 May 2019 04: 52
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                And Topvar is so, a hobby.

                Paid, judging by the number of letters.
              2. The comment was deleted.
                1. +6
                  25 May 2019 19: 29
                  I see you pisses off when exposing scams that are dangerous to the RF Armed Forces.

                  Why? Personal interest?
              3. 0
                29 May 2019 09: 10
                So eliminate the sore throat.
          3. -7
            25 May 2019 18: 06
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            The photo is because there were no other CM-588 photos with the installed TPK.

            in the pocket of money not foundWill you go to the store?
            1. +7
              27 May 2019 07: 41
              luka57 (Sergey) May 25, 2019 18:06 p.m.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              The photo is because there were no other CM-588 photos with the installed TPK.

              there was no money in your pocket, will you go to the store?

              the author cites a constructive flaw (in his opinion) that can affect the ship's combat capability. If you disagree with a specific argument, write in what and why. And so they lit up a clamor in the style of "offensive for the Motherland." At what slipped into trolling
        2. +6
          24 May 2019 13: 17
          luka57 ... You distinguish dirt from very serious flaws in the stream of eulogies of "unparalleled" weapons samples .. Confirmed weaknesses, even critical weaknesses of weapons, should be perceived as anxiety with all the ensuing actions. Your "concealment" of the weaknesses of weapons, only by working for the enemy can determine ... You really understand, first of all, the essence of the problem, and then give out your opinion. so far, only I see not rubbing dirt under the sofa, but the problem of weapons, which is the main thing in military affairs ...
          1. 0
            24 May 2019 14: 04
            The only way to create anti-torpedoes weighing 180 kilograms and caliber, up to 200 millimeters with the launch of the launchers on the deck for reloading. and let the NK Package remain - there's nothing you can do about it.
            1. +1
              25 May 2019 17: 47
              Quote: Vadim237
              caliber 180 kilogram

              lol
              YOU are there with the tincture on the Amanita more careful laughing
              1. 0
                27 May 2019 23: 24
                And you learn to read correctly - Physicist Sh zik
          2. -1
            25 May 2019 18: 09
            Quote: Vladimir 5
            You distinguish dirt

            I distinguish dirt.
            do not pour anything new. "sawed, plundered, stolen" at what who "sawed, stole" do not know. solid "common fund"
        3. +3
          25 May 2019 17: 50
          Quote: luka57
          Well, why do all the smart people throw mud at EVERYTHING ???
          Maybe because from the couch more visible?
          How can you talk at the company, crumbs ??? ALL because you can know when ALL info will be.
          And her NEVER at VO will not throw off.

          for reference - my first TK was just for the "alternative" PU (TA) for the "Package"
          with pneumatics
          and it was written when this STUPID could still be corrected (KBM was ready to do it in the shortest possible time, despite the fact that at that moment the "Region" and KBM had one General Director)
  2. +21
    24 May 2019 05: 35
    Timokhin, hi as always, clearly laid out the problems on the shelves! The question arises: how was this miracle weapon not only adopted, but also massively put on warships? ?? This is what you need to have connections and opportunities. They managed to impose on the fleet essentially useless-disposable weapons.
    1. +8
      24 May 2019 05: 43
      Quote: Thrifty
      Timokhin, hi as always, clearly laid out the problems on the shelves! The question arises: how was this miracle weapon not only adopted, but also massively put on warships? ?? This is what you need to have connections and opportunities. They managed to impose on the fleet essentially useless-disposable weapons.

      here truly "has no analogues" ... just some kind of tin. the ships themselves are few, so also "disposable".belaysome disgrace and mockery on the verge of wrecking.
      1. +9
        24 May 2019 05: 45
        Quote: Aerodrome
        here truly "has no analogues" ... just some kind of tin. the ships themselves are few, so also "disposable". Some kind of disgrace and mockery on the verge of sabotage.

        And I liked the price for the foam cover ...
        1. +7
          24 May 2019 07: 01
          Yes, colleagues, yes ...
          I would not want to remember the holy name in vain, but now you begin to understand why he shot ...
          1. 0
            31 March 2020 23: 09
            He shot a lot for that, in particular, for political competition. Then, in the early 30s, many of the "old" colleagues "suddenly" turned out to be spies, moreover, solely on the basis of their own confessions (well, what honest person would incriminate himself under torture?).
            T.N. “Holiness” is the result of praises in 00-k and subsequent years in many publications.
        2. +1
          25 May 2019 05: 14
          And I liked the price for the foam cover ...

          Well, this is taking into account the fact that once the product is not recharged, it means the cost of the launch and the rocket itself are inseparable, because it has to be changed after use. In this regard, it turns out that each launch of this product costs us half a million rubles, i.e. it is the cost of both the torpedoes and the tube in which it is located and which in general serves as a launcher.
          1. +1
            25 May 2019 17: 44
            Quote: Dante
            Well, this is taking into account the fact that once the product is not recharged, it means the cost of the launch and the rocket itself are inseparable, because it has to be changed after use. In this regard, it turns out that each launch of this product costs us half a million rubles, i.e. it is the cost of both the torpedoes and the tube in which it is located and which in general serves as a launcher.

            No, the main price is TPK (which costs half as a torpedo), and the multiplicity of use of which is very small
            But in principle, the price tag for the "Packet" shot is more than divine - it's stupid because the "Region", having missed the deadline, completed it at its own expense, and "having raised" the price of the shot (which happened to the "Physicist"), he would have "done hara-kiri"
        3. 0
          25 May 2019 17: 46
          Quote: polar fox
          And I liked the price for the foam cover ...

          she's not foam
          and there is not a penny penny
          what the fleet ordered - got it

          similarly happened on "Physics", in which the warhead (and in terms of power "in one weight category" as a penny USET) costs almost half a torpedo
    2. +1
      24 May 2019 07: 07
      how to deal with these connections. the whole chain to the wall with confiscation if damage is caused to the state and defense ... although the raven does not raven the eye ...
      1. +1
        24 May 2019 08: 01
        Quote: ilimnoz
        how to deal with these connections. the whole chain to the wall with confiscation

        just one of. Enough even a threat of use later ... The situation will fundamentally change ... Not immediately ... Several cases of application are necessary.
    3. +7
      24 May 2019 08: 26
      The reason was originally in the restriction on the preparation of 324-mm torpedoes, this constituted the TTZ on the TPK for the torpedoes, and starting from the TTZ the promka piled this here.

      There were no objective reasons.
      1. +5
        24 May 2019 13: 17
        were Suppliers torpedoes profitable in precisely this form to do
        for them it is the best option, but the convenience of the fleet is going through the forest
        1. +2
          24 May 2019 13: 31
          Yes, but if the fleet had not succumbed to this heresy, he would have been given a normal TA, just like the one in the pictures.
          And no one particularly pressured the Navy when they wrote to the TTZ. But there were clever men there, and there was no one who would pull their hand ...
        2. -1
          25 May 2019 17: 42
          Quote: yehat
          were Suppliers torpedoes profitable in precisely this form to do
          for them it is the best option, but the convenience of the fleet is going through the forest

          NO
          the normal TA has lost the GC "Packet" Drobot, with a literal phrase:
          - We are not interested in the series ... so if the new OCD ...
          and one of the messages for working out the issues of "alternative TA" for the "Packet" were not only troubles with TPK, but also the proposals of one of the chiefs of the Navy to make a multi-tube TA for the "Packet" at 11356
    4. 0
      25 May 2019 11: 26
      I have a question for the author .. For a crumbling membrane cover for half a million .. Where does such a horse price tag come from. Fill the cover!
      1. -1
        25 May 2019 17: 39
        Quote: 210ox
        I have a question for the author .. For a crumbling membrane cover for half a million .. Where does such a horse price tag come from. Fill the cover!


        of the requirements of the TTZ
        what the fleet ordered - got it
        no theft and drank there
        set inadequate requirements - get inadequate price
  3. +3
    24 May 2019 05: 50
    Can you shoot starboard with a starboard pack? if not, then 2 anti-torpedoes against a torpedo salvo on each side.
    1. +1
      24 May 2019 08: 30
      With certain limitations, you can, plus the ship is vertki)))

      In short, 4 + 4 is an adequate score, no less.

      If only the submarine will shoot point-blank from several kilometers, but for her it is a tremendous risk, so ...
      1. +1
        24 May 2019 09: 19
        Does a pl launch a 4-torpedo salvo, a corvette will detect, release 2 antitorpedi, two more will turn around? hardly
        1. +2
          24 May 2019 11: 47
          The Corvette consistently shoots the 4 AT. The fact is that the torpedoes are not straightforward; they can enter shooting data into their heads, including the maneuver to reach the target.

          Just shooting with another side will not always work, but if the boat shoots far enough away, then it will be possible.

          The ship does not need to fully unfold, even in cases where the maneuver does not go around.

          In general, in the 90% case, you can count on the 4 anti-torpedoes.
  4. 0
    24 May 2019 06: 12
    on some traffic jams you can make money !!! on 500 000 !!! from what they make wiseas ????
    1. 0
      24 May 2019 06: 37
      Quote: alekc75
      on some traffic jams you can make money !!! on 500 000 !!! from what they make wiseas ????

      I'm even afraid to think how much YARS has a cover ...
    2. 0
      24 May 2019 14: 07
      Probably made of aluminum scandium coating and a special polymer.
    3. 0
      25 May 2019 17: 38
      Quote: alekc75
      on some traffic jams you can make money !!! on 500 000 !!! from what they make wiseas ????

      this is not a "traffic jam" and there is not a penny of theft
      it's just that vEmEfe "hung" on this cover a number of requirements, after which it became "golden"

      and examples of such units can bring a bunch
      1. 0
        26 May 2019 14: 35
        Quote: Fizik M
        and examples of such units can bring a bunch

        1) Put the whole list (which is not secret) and put the link here (for example, in the guildold the list with explanations and examples, and here the link).
        2) And in honor of what is such an expensive cover? Do you have a copy of TTZ on this cover? (if so, post the link)

        At the moment, I personally see either a mutual misunderstanding between the customer and the contractor or an attempt by the contractor to heat the customer or, more likely, the contractor’s mistake in the analysis / development / design of the cover (this is all subject to the truth of the fact).
  5. -6
    24 May 2019 07: 42
    And let's take the assault ladders and boarding sabers into the standard weapon of the ship.
    1. +6
      24 May 2019 08: 27
      It is better to prohibit reloading the missiles in the base - let them go to the factory and only there.
      1. -2
        24 May 2019 08: 29
        What is the effect of a torpedo with a diameter of 300 mm. and the same diameter of the rocket, and if you still use a torpedo, then you are in the last century.
        1. +2
          24 May 2019 11: 48
          The 324 mm is approximately 20 km range. There is no PLUR on corvettes if it is not 20385.

          In general, calm down already please.
      2. +2
        24 May 2019 13: 01
        In short, you need this: gave a salvo of 4 torpedoes-4 anti-torpedoes, we write off the whole ship to hell and build a new one. But seriously, it really turns out to be very sad, I’m not an expert, I don’t know the subtleties, maybe there are some hidden pluses, but here it’s clear to the ram that the SM 588 is absurd, nonsense and generally a wrecking invention! Thanks to the author for the article +
        And please tell the amateur: Can torpedoes for this TPU be launched from, say, a launcher of the same caliber but under air pressure, without altering the torpedo itself? In short, I want to understand if we can shove and shoot these torpedoes from WWII launchers (figuratively) or will we have to finish the torpedoes themselves? (Which I would not want to, because, as I understand it, they themselves are very cool)
        1. +4
          24 May 2019 13: 15
          Can torpedoes under this TPU be launched, say, from a PU of the same caliber but under air pressure, without reworking the torpedo itself?


          Specialists on torpedoes say that yes, and with reference to MTT (anti-submarine) it would be possible even from a helicopter.
          1. 0
            24 May 2019 13: 19
            Thank you for the information hi
          2. 0
            25 May 2019 17: 36
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Specialists on torpedoes say that yes, and with reference to MTT (anti-submarine) it would be possible even from a helicopter.

            from a low height
  6. 0
    24 May 2019 07: 42
    Summer is already beginning in the center of Paris.
    Outside, the smells of coffee and the sounds of chanson.
    And with us, as always, everything is not like in Paris!
    The snow fell in your knee in April!
    I am ready to get already sheathed skis
    And from the classics
    Russia can not understand with a mind!
    She has a special to become!
    You can only believe in Russia!
    I believe in our sailors, these are special people! Anyway, whom I know. They will launch 800 kg with hands from the deck from a slingshot, just give them a command! (I seriously for them there are no impossible tasks)
    The author, as always, hit the nail on the head. Well done! I look forward to continuing about Vietnam!
  7. +2
    24 May 2019 07: 43
    It is too heavy to be tilted by hands in a closed shipboard space.

    How is the space in the room? What about placing racks with additional 533 mm torpedo / anti-torpedo ammunition? Under the roof of the room or on the wall, place an ordinary hoist per tonne of lifting weight, and you can also use a simple mechanical hoist, or a jib crane. In general, there are a lot of options, there would be a desire at a ship repair / shipyard and the necessary space for accommodation.
    1. +3
      24 May 2019 08: 29
      Specifically, in the place where the photo was taken, that is, on the 20380 with the space is very bad, there is a narrow passage around the CM-588 that has a narrow passage used to go to the take-off area, and you will not turn it around. If only in the corner behind the door on the runway, make a rack for a couple of torpedoes, and the equipment of the warhead from there somewhere (I still have to think of where) to remove ...

      In short, on the already built ships everything is not easy.
      1. -1
        25 May 2019 17: 35
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Specifically, in the place where the photo was taken, that is, on the 20380 with the space is very bad, there is a narrow passage around the CM-588 that has a narrow passage used to go to the take-off area, and you will not turn it around. If only in the corner behind the door on the runway, make a rack for a couple of torpedoes, and the equipment of the warhead from there somewhere (I still have to think of where) to remove ...
        In short, on the already built ships everything is not easy.


        No problem
        all has long been written (in the form of TZ), technical meetings were held
        BH is clear
        there is no problem with space
        the problem is that the products (at the request of the Navy!) were on the ground in the MBS (with TPK), but this is ... C worse than sabotage
      2. 0
        25 May 2019 20: 37
        In short, on the already built ships everything is not easy.

        Alexander, I once suggested somewhat raising the take-off platform (possibly with raising the hangar itself or installing a ramp in it as on 1155) and load into the formed niche on-board by 3 533 mm torpedo tubes. In total, 6 pieces, which is similar to the number of SLTs on frigates of the 11540 ave. Of course, they would not be serviceable in terms of reloading, but we could use the Package for anti-torpedo purposes, and for submarines we would have a better option. In general, the big problem with the 20380 / 20385 corvettes is precisely the lack of long-range torpedo weapons that can reach the enemy as far as possible. No, of course, in ZS-14 you can also install a torpedo missile, which can be used on enemy submarines, but again at the expense of the ammunition intended for surface targets. And this would not be desirable.
        1. +1
          26 May 2019 14: 47
          Quote: Dante
          and load the 3 mm torpedo tubes with the 533 XNUMX mm into the resulting niche.

          there is no mass and stability for this, and it does not make sense - will you ship there? SET-65?
          1. 0
            27 May 2019 19: 45
            there are no stocks of mass and stability for this

            But after all, the 11661 of the Vietnamese Navy deployed 2x2 533 mm torpedo tubes, although the Cheetah on 300-500 tons (small and full displacement) is less than the Steregus.
            What will you be there? SET-65?

            I can’t give an answer here, because I don’t know the nomenclature request
  8. -2
    24 May 2019 08: 47
    During my service, torpedoes also loaded on the shore. Now imagine what a ship is. This is fuel, ammunition on board (missiles, artillery shells, possibly mines, etc.) Now we will add another stock of torpedoes to the arsenal and all this will turn into a floating arsenal. And what will happen when a shell hits it? Yes, there will be nothing. A ship cannot carry endless ammunition. What is an aircraft carrier for example? At least he has ship cover, but the battleship does not and his task is different.
    1. -1
      24 May 2019 10: 40
      Now another tactic.
      Even our ships, although they are few, try to go in a group even with support ships ...
      Raiders do not have a chance to exist ...
      Moreover, such small-sized ones and with so many missiles on board as ours ...
    2. +1
      24 May 2019 11: 52
      You apparently dealt with heavy 533 mm torpedoes. There is another completely. They are heavier, and the length of 7 meters is not particularly shabby.
      Although you can reprocess in the database.

      And here we are talking about a baby 324 mm, which weighs 400 kg. Moreover, the anti-submarine MTT is potentially capable of becoming a single torpedo for both 324mm TA and helicopters, respectively, it becomes possible to have a single arsenal on board the ship and not be bound by a limited ammo. And right there "bast in line" - by 20380 a rather large compartment for storing aircraft torpedoes, which is redundant for a helicopter.

      God himself commanded and for the ship's TA to use it, it would be possible to drag the torpedo to the deck, where the TA is.

      Is it bad?

      But this is potential, but in reality everything is different, alas.
      1. -1
        24 May 2019 14: 19
        So you forgot about the helicopter - it can also carry a torpedo and anti-submarine bombs Corral 2, Corral 3

        Type adjustable anti-submarine hovering - Weight, kg 120 Length, mm 1500 Caliber, mm 232 Warhead high-explosive HEAT Mass of explosives in TNT equivalent, kg 35 Explosive device electromechanical Guidance system (submarine trajectory correction) active hydroacoustic Target detection range, m, up to 450 Hovering time, min., up to 4 Probability of hitting a submarine by a series of 6 PL-E KABs with a target designation error σ = 200 m, up to 0,6
        1. +1
          24 May 2019 14: 24
          I have not forgotten about the helicopter, but with a sudden attack they will not have time to pick it up, besides, the weather may not allow it to be used, it may be lost as a result of an accident or an enemy’s actions, etc.

          In the end, his torpedoes can go to the SCPD and the submarine will win at least half an hour.

          Therefore, the surface ship in any case should be able to fight on their own.
          1. -3
            24 May 2019 15: 37
            What kind of surprise attack is this - in full combat readiness of the ship at sea, but also in real combat operations - will the nuclear submarines find out at a distance of 50 kilometers - its torpedo will go this distance for about 20 minutes, the helicopter will be lifted in three to five minutes, since it will be ready for departure. And if the helicopter drops its bombs and a torpedo directly above the submarine - no means of counteracting it will help, it will be destroyed - the crew simply will not have time to react. And as a result of the accident, anything can be lost, not only with us, but also with the enemy - a catastrophe with an Argentinean diesel submarine, as well as with a Norwegian frigate and damage to a German submarine - this is confirmation.
            1. +1
              24 May 2019 18: 49
              In the submarine the detection range of NK is higher than one and a half to two. A helicopter may not fly for half a year, but the ship should still be able to fight.

              This is briefly, without parsing your delusions.
              1. -5
                24 May 2019 21: 41
                "At a submarine, the NK detection range is one and a half to two times higher" - And ... with a maximum torpedo range of 50 kilometers - this detection ability will not help her much. When launching a torpedo on the Khan's submarine, this will reveal itself. In a war at sea, ships and submarines will be suicide bombers with a 50/50 survival probability. A warship has more chances to destroy a submarine than a submarine to destroy a ship with torpedoes, it will have to use all weapons - anti-ship missiles and cruise missiles.
                1. +2
                  26 May 2019 14: 47
                  From the statements it is clear that about the features of the use of torpedo weapons by submarines, the comparative detection ranges of submarines and NKs, you have the most approximate idea. Please do not disgrace and do not write about what you do not know.
                  1. -3
                    27 May 2019 23: 25
                    And you know when you yourself - don’t drive garbage yourself.
                2. 0
                  31 March 2020 23: 28
                  Modern TA submarines allow torpedoes to exit on their own, without unmasking the launch vehicle.
        2. -1
          25 May 2019 17: 33
          Quote: Vadim237
          So you forgot about the helicopter - it can also carry a torpedo and anti-submarine bombs.

          YOU he doesn't know ANYTHING except "murzilok"
          especially about LIMITATIONS on their use
          1. -1
            27 May 2019 23: 27
            In what year were you expelled from KB in 2013?
      2. 0
        25 May 2019 20: 57
        You apparently dealt with heavy 533 mm torpedoes. There is another completely. They are heavier, and the length of 7 meters is not particularly shabby.

        Threat always believed that reloading TA on 1155 use a crane. Well, objectively, not only for the sake of the boat is he there, but there is still a SAM Dagger, which also needs to be recharged

        Although even so there is not much space.
        By the way, do not tell me that this is heaped up on top of the designated Dagger? An hour, not compressed gas cylinders for TA?
  9. +2
    24 May 2019 08: 50
    Nd ...
    Gunpowder GG made specifically to throw overboard compressor, compressed air cylinders, lines and shut-off automation. There is no problem to make a pneumatic start-up and call it the Package-PL, but did just that, because it was necessary.
    The lid is made from a piece of polystyrene and costs a lot less. Where this crazy figure came from is not clear.
    But, in fact, the author has a huge field for work. We have full of weapons supplied to the TPK. It is necessary to make rechargeable and reusable and grenade launchers and TSA and anti-aircraft missiles. All this was invented by pests to annoy the author.
    So forward, towards adventures!
    1. -3
      24 May 2019 10: 10
      Really. An article just for the sake of shouting how bad everything is.
      Massive foundation? It is also on rechargeable TA.
      Strong returns? This is physics. It depends only on the mass and the initial speed of the torpedo.
      Cover cost ... Have official information?
      I suspect that the task of placing weapons in the minimum volume was solved.
      The number and composition of the ammunition of ships must correspond to the tasks performed. Well, at short distances, RBU performs similar functions.
      1. +2
        24 May 2019 12: 01
        Massive foundation? It is also on rechargeable TA.


        No, look at the photo.

        Strong returns? This is physics. It depends only on the mass and the initial speed of the torpedo.


        Not only.

        I suspect that the task of placing weapons in the minimum volume was solved.


        And now with our eyes we look at the photos of CM-588 and MK.32 and answer the question whether they have decided it.

        The number and composition of the ammunition of ships should match the tasks performed.


        Task search and destruction of submarines. And it is destroyed by torpedoes. And she has dozens of imitartors to evade a torpedo attack, and in the future there will also be anti-torpedoes. And what to do against it with torpedoes 4?

        Would you go into battle with a non-rechargeable machine gun? Why?

        Well, at short distances, similar functions are performed by the RBU.


        It remains only to find it on the under construction and built corvettes and frigates (except 11356).
        1. 0
          24 May 2019 13: 32
          Young man, what is your education? Not important. To place an additional supply of torpedoes, you need a cellar, an elevator, rails on the deck, a hoist with a trolley, which are in a stowed position somewhere somewhere, a room for servicing and checking weapons, and a specialist who fumbles in this (1 minimum), equipment. Do not confuse the corvette with the cruiser, and you should not feed it to the size of the cruiser at all.
          1. 0
            24 May 2019 18: 51
            It does not matter.


            Here it is.

            To accommodate an additional supply of torpedoes you need a cellar, an elevator, rails on the deck, a hoist with a trolley that has been installed somewhere in the stowed position, a room for maintenance and testing of weapons and a specialist who fumbles (1 minimum) and equipment.


            And what of this is not on 20380? laughing
          2. +1
            25 May 2019 17: 27
            Quote: asp373
            Young man, what kind of education do you have?

            vyunosh, you would be silent about your lol
            Quote: asp373
            To accommodate an extra supply of torpedoes you need a cellar,

            on 20380, just the fucking cellar of a helicopter base station
            and which is used for a very small part of its volume (due to this, the "Reduta" TLU was placed in the stern for 20385)

            etc.
      2. -1
        25 May 2019 17: 28
        Quote: Waltasar
        Strong returns? This is physics. It depends only on the mass and the initial speed of the torpedo.

        YOU have bad physics
        You forgot about ACCELERATION

        Quote: Waltasar
        the task of placing weapons in the minimum volume was solved.

        lol
        and now we look at that MONSTRA which turned out

        Quote: Waltasar
        The number and composition of the ammunition of ships should match the tasks performed.

        and he DOES NOT MEET
    2. +1
      24 May 2019 12: 06
      Gunpowder GG made specifically to throw overboard compressor, compressed air cylinders, lines and shut-off automation. There is no problem to make a pneumatic start-up and call it the Package-PL, but did just that, because it was necessary.


      Compressors from the ship throw out? Strong!
      1. 0
        25 May 2019 17: 24
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Compressors from the ship throw out? Strong!

        laughing
        especially taking into account the fact that I wrote a separate item in the technical specification for the TA for the "Packet" - "providing backup / emergency firing from AVM-5 cylinders"
    3. +1
      24 May 2019 14: 36
      Quote: asp373
      We have full of weapons supplied to the TPK. It is necessary to make rechargeable and reusable and grenade launchers and TSA and anti-aircraft missiles.

      In fact, rechargeable grenade launchers are still produced and are in service. In parallel with disposable.
      And as for the anti-aircraft missiles - that's the point. Imagine the PU SAM, which is recharged only on the basis of storage and equipment of missiles. That is, I shot the installed TPKs - and that's it, you are removed from the position and you scratch to the base for new ones. No TZM on duty in the embankments - only a stationary base.
      1. 0
        24 May 2019 15: 39
        At sea, you won’t change the package - there aren’t any charging devices there - drawing an analogy with an air defense system.
        1. 0
          24 May 2019 16: 21
          Quote: Vadim237
          At sea, you won’t change the package - there aren’t any charging devices there - drawing an analogy with an air defense system.

          So am I about that. Conventional SAMs just rechargeable - their TPK or missiles are placed on the launcher by forces and means of self-propelled guns.
          So anti-aircraft missiles in the list below a little off topic: smile
          Quote: asp373
          It is necessary to make rechargeable and reusable and grenade launchers and TSA and anti-aircraft missiles.


          If the air defense systems were created according to the "Package" concept, then they would have to return to the missile storage and equipment base every time the missile launchers ran out of missiles. And no TPM!
    4. The comment was deleted.
  10. +6
    24 May 2019 09: 03
    Something tells me that the technical solutions laid down and applied in the PU SM-588 have deep, unparalleled roots in the field of idiocy, incompetence and cuts. Most likely, a similar situation has developed in many areas of the military-industrial complex.
  11. -1
    24 May 2019 09: 35
    The most correct solution is to abandon any counter-torpedoes altogether (launched from TPK or from a torpedo unit) and switch to using super-cavitating guided missiles with self-guided SQUID, launched from existing rocket bomb bombers and developing speed in air and water at 100 m / with / xnumx nodes.

    Torpedoes / anti-torpedoes with a blade propulsion from the 19 century - leaving nature in connection with ridiculous speeds, making them a complete analog of today's shahid vehicles. To gain an advantage in speed over ships with propellers or water cannons is only possible in one way - using rocket or jet engines in combination with the use of supercavitating annular protrusions in the ammunition head.

    It is necessary as soon as possible to replace all types of blade torpedoes in the arsenal of the Russian Navy with a homing modification of the Shkval supercavitating torpedo with a water-jet engine, being developed under the Predator theme.
    1. +1
      24 May 2019 21: 48
      It’s better for anti-submarine missile launchers - the range of destruction is large and the speed is significant than that of torpedoes - as is the probability of destruction.
    2. 0
      25 May 2019 17: 23
      Quote: Operator
      To get an advantage in speed over ships with propellers or water cannons is only one way - using rocket

      fool
      tell me, are you sure you studied at Moscow State University? I have the impression that it was a "parish bursa" laughing
      read a book on jet underwater engines Shahidzhanova (in collaboration) MSU editions
      discover a lot of new and amazing lol
      starting with the efficiency of such thrusters
      1. -1
        25 May 2019 19: 12
        What does the efficiency (quality indicator) of a water jet engine / propulsion unit?

        It is necessary to be guided by the quantitative indicators of a specific product "Shkval" M-5: torpedo weight - 2700 kg, conventional warhead weight - 210 kg, cavitator - gas generator, jet fuel - magnesium, range - 13 km.

        When replacing magnesium with aluminum, a gas-generating cavitator for a mechanical one (annular protrusion in the bow) and a conventional warhead for a nuclear one (40 kg, 5 ktn), the range of the Shkval M-6 product will be 25 km.

        PS I studied in the Soviet time in MAI at the faculty of KLA (I have already told you about this) laughing
        1. +1
          26 May 2019 14: 45
          Quote: Operator
          What does the efficiency (quality indicator) of a water jet engine / propulsion unit?

          I understand ... YOU about sveom JAKOB "MGU" better do not stutter ...
          Quote: Operator
          It is necessary to be guided by the quantitative indicators of a specific product "Shkval" M-5: torpedo weight - 2700 kg, conventional warhead weight - 210 kg, cavitator - gas generator, jet fuel - magnesium, range - 13 km.

          and from what YOU took that these YOUR imaginations wassat have at least some relation to reality?
          Quote: Operator
          When replacing magnesium with aluminum, a gas-generating cavitator for a mechanical one (annular protrusion in the bow) and a conventional warhead for a nuclear one (40 kg, 5 ktn), the range of the Shkval M-6 product will be 25 km.

          fool
          especially funny about aluminum - taking into account how much "sipped" with it crying
          Quote: Operator
          PS I studied in the Soviet time in MAI at the faculty of KLA (I have already told you about this)

          YOU would be better off keeping quiet about this (taking into account the amount of nonsense written by YOU and the number of people who wrote from under "YOUR" account)
          1. 0
            26 May 2019 22: 29
            Quote: Fizik M
            aluminum - taking into account how much "sipped" with it

            It was necessary not to "slurp", but to turn to the rocket scientists, they would suggest that to heat the aluminum checkers inside it, place a checker made of phlegmatized HMX mixed with aluminum powder, raising the temperature to the desired level (well, some other details are not for public discussion). The inner checker also serves as a starting accelerator.

            Report on Kashirku - they will support you there laughing
  12. -6
    24 May 2019 09: 46
    Hello everyone! Military equipment has the concept of a life time in battle! That is why light ships do not cram a large arsenal! Its task is not a full-scale battle, but a proactive one to catch up and strike and bounce. Then it will become useless or will be knocked out or will be able to slip away!
    1. +5
      24 May 2019 10: 20
      Logically, I agree. It remains to make disposable machine guns and a martyr’s belt instead of body armor for infantry, for example. Dealt a blow, used up ammunition, became useless - blew up opponents and blew himself up!
      Military equipment has a concept of life time. And everything must be done so that this lifetime is as long as possible. Have a massive, heavy launcher + reinforced deck for this installation and one-time 800kg crap for this installation on the ship, or have a light launcher and 3-4 anti-torpedoes - which is better?
      Maybe it's enough to use the principle of "Women still give birth" in the country's military-defense doctrine?
    2. -1
      24 May 2019 10: 32
      Light torpedo boats for one-time use with high speed> the speed of ships (such as our corvette in terms of displacement, armament) of the near sea zone of the United States, that is, more than 50 knots ....
      Fantasy...
    3. +2
      24 May 2019 11: 55
      This is, to put it mildly, a wrong ideology. The ship is not a mortar, it is built over the years, and not to lose with the crew of dozens or hundreds of people, each of whom also cost a pretty penny, as a specialist.
    4. 0
      31 March 2020 23: 50
      Then it is logical to assume that these corvettes will be produced in record time by dozens of pieces negative
  13. +1
    24 May 2019 10: 24
    In essence, this is an undermining of the defenses of the fleet. Which ships of the far sea zone can be dreamed of ...
    We must then build a motor boat kamikaze ....
  14. 0
    24 May 2019 10: 45
    We have various design bureaus in charge of weapons systems like dirt. I doubt that they did not foresee this blunder, they have everything, but rather something else - sabotage by other leaders of the military-industrial complex and the Government responsible for the rearmament of the army and navy. Arms commissions are now increasingly suppressing cognac. Other plants and design bureaus even now, in conditions of the greatest likelihood of war, are closing and curtailing. For example, in Perm, the forge of the defense industry.
    1. +2
      24 May 2019 11: 54
      These are the consequences of the idea to remove the fleet from the torpedo reprocessing process.
      1. 0
        25 May 2019 17: 18
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        These are the consequences of the idea to remove the fleet from the torpedo reprocessing process.

        exactly
    2. 0
      24 May 2019 16: 27
      The problem is not in the PKB, but in the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense in general and the General Staff of the Fleet in particular. This problem is called "the lack of an analytical bureau \ department \ service" Maybe something with that name is there, but in order for such a department to be useful, it must be public (for receiving information) and must pay money (for preparing analytical calculations) , if these two points are not present (and they are not there because there is no contact information), then an outside observer (that is, not the General Staff and PKB) will not spend their resources (time and money) on the design and pre-check of their calculations. Which actually translates into various official, semi-official and unofficial holivars ("holy" wars) on various topics ...
    3. 0
      25 May 2019 17: 20
      Quote: Yuri Konevskikh
      rather, another is sabotage on the part of other leaders of the military-industrial complex and the Government responsible for the rearmament of the army and navy.

      No, it was exactly Navy blunder
      I can name the name of the person who personally planted this "pig" of the Navy - Vyaznikov (from the UPV of the Navy, then to the VP "Region")
  15. 0
    24 May 2019 11: 33
    And yet, enough to implement the principle of universality in the creation of weapons. Each type of weapon, including ships, is created for specific purposes. There is a class of cruisers, there is a class of anti-submarine ships, there is a class of aircraft-carrying ships, there are landing ships, that is, each for its own specific purposes. Let me remind you that the creation of universal artillery mounts, which against tanks and against enemy aircraft and against infantry almost led to the loss of barrel artillery. These were the ideas of Tukhachevsky.
    1. +2
      24 May 2019 14: 59
      Quote: sv-georgij
      Let me remind you that the creation of universal artillery mounts, which against tanks and against enemy aircraft and against infantry almost led to the loss of barrel artillery. These were the ideas of Tukhachevsky.

      Comrade Grabin is cunning, talking about the cessation of work on the barrel artillery at Tukhachevsky. The work did not stop just - they just didn’t get to the army, because the industry regularly failed to put the products in series.
      As for the depravity of the concept of a universal weapon ... I recall that the task for this gun was issued in the early 30s. When the main anti-aircraft gun of the Red Army was the usual field division gun - a three-inch gun on Ivanov’s machine. And it was to replace it that a new universal gun was designed - not instead of a specialized anti-aircraft gun, but instead of an ersatz. Because it was impossible to count on 3-K mass deliveries to the army at that time. Well, how would factory number 8 fail and its release?
    2. +1
      28 May 2019 14: 44
      Well, how can I say, the Wehrmacht takin turned out with their 88mm cannon) maybe a question in ideology?)
  16. -5
    24 May 2019 14: 00
    in fact, if you are asking to pay attention to the dimensions of the installation behind the sailor's back, then please also pay attention to the dimensions of the "small installation" next to people in another photo, which you also put. As for the recoil - the powder charge is the same as compressed air. Only compressed air must be previously pumped into the container, and the powder charge itself creates compressed air by a chemical reaction. Both have a return, because they should give approximately the same impulse.
    The second - comparing the Russian installation with the proposed foreign one, I get the feeling that the author does not see a very large and bold similarity.
    Is the author a very fat troll?
    1. +5
      24 May 2019 14: 28
      I compared, CM-588 in a curb form is taller than a man, and somewhere twice as large as Mc32. It has a much more massive foundation to compensate for the return, it is only twice as high in height as that of the Mc32.
      And it can not be recharged in the sea,
      This promise did not reach, I look, yes?
      1. -3
        25 May 2019 21: 13
        are you one hundred percent sure that it can not be recharged at sea or have you made this conclusion based on some information?
        Are you one hundred percent sure that one hundred mk32 CAN be reloaded at sea, or did you decide so based on some information?
        Here I read the info below that it is impossible to reload the American apparatus at sea.
        I am not familiar with both devices, but the presentation style in your article gives a gag.
        1. 0
          26 May 2019 14: 41
          Quote: Marat79
          are you one hundred percent sure that it can not be recharged at sea or have you made this conclusion based on some information?

          Yes
          Quote: Marat79
          Are you one hundred percent sure that one hundred mk32 CAN be reloaded at sea, or did you decide so based on some information?

          Yes
          photo of this - mass
    2. 0
      25 May 2019 17: 18
      Quote: Marat79
      As for recoil - a powder charge is the same as compressed air.

      NO
      Especially considering the troubles of our special chemistry.
      Pneumatics is possible LOW acceleration to the desired output speed
      1. -1
        25 May 2019 21: 11
        I need to see this in action.
  17. +3
    24 May 2019 15: 23
    Arly Burke:
    "As an auxiliary anti-submarine weapon on destroyers of all three series, there are two built-in torpedo tubes Mk. 32. Ammunition - 6 anti-submarine torpedoes Mk. 46 or Mk. 50. The maximum firing range of torpedoes is 10 km. The possibility of reloading them is not provided. Torpedo tubes on series IIA ships were retained. "

    Weight Antitorpeda-400kg.
    Reloading what is easy, what is not easy TA in battle by the crew is UNrealizable. The ship maneuvers -> rolls, accelerates, fires. Where is the crew? Somewhere deeper. There is no such gap on the nuclear submarine - rail guides, suspensions, and just the fact that the boat does not shake, does not stagger, and the automation decides.
    Fully automatic recharge can be done, yes. What for? length 324mm torpedo 3m, devices are on board, i.e. the minimum ammunition of +1 units per "barrel" is 6,5 m of the ship's width! We do not have a battleship with a width of 50m, and inside it is not foam, but important mechanisms, etc.



    No, of course there is a rational grain. Considering that it’s not the 20th century now, and torpedoes can still maneuver, why not make a stationary TA, which does not need to rotate at all, and say 20 pipes? Well they are light in themselves - fiberglass. Like on ships of the beginning of the 20th century, but not by 1 pipe, but by 10 on board. Protection? BGG, what protection from PCR at a speed of 300-700m / s and a mass of 1-3t on an armored ship? ballistic, bulletproof, location away from the proposed guidance points - the center of the radar spot and warhead VPU. Make armored covers on the outside of the side, stupidly let the covers turn 180 clockwise. In peacetime, you can carry 3 pieces on board, as in the standard, in war - ammunition in 20 anti-torpedoes / torpedoes.
    1. +3
      24 May 2019 16: 40
      Quote: Devil13
      Reloading that light, that is not light TA in a battle by the crew is IMPOSSIBLE.

      You tell the Japanese. smile

      Yes, this is a 610 mm torpedo reload device. Full reload of 8 TA - 30 minutes.
    2. +3
      24 May 2019 18: 58
      Arly Burke:


      The photo article with the Mk.32 recharge is on the deck of Arly Burke. I like Kuzma Prutkov need to do, do not believe your eyes? It may be better for the aftar of the quotation given by you to give an adequate assessment (but not on the BO here for this ban immediately laughing )?

      Essentially: this is a jamb of translation. On the first flight, Burke has a very small supply of torpedoes, this is due to the fact that the first flight was not intended for PLO, as Perry was then. Therefore, there is no hangar and almost no spare torpedoes, I don’t want to climb directories right now, like 9 units there.

      But technically, even there it was possible to transport them on a cart to the TA and reload it, it was just very inconvenient and impossible on a strong roll (in theory it is impossible, the heroes could have been found).

      On the second flyte, everything was fixed.

      Reloading what is easy, what is not easy TA in battle by the crew is UNrealizable. The ship maneuvers -> rolls, accelerates, fires. Where is the crew? Somewhere deeper.


      Look at the photos from Halifax. There is exactly one difference from the submarine - pitching, roll, etc. No others. But this is to a certain extent solved.

      length 324mm torpedo 3m, devices are on board, i.e. the minimum ammunition of +1 units per "barrel" is 6,5 m of the ship's width!


      At an acute angle to the diametral axis famously put? Strange logic you have a friend ...
      1. 0
        25 May 2019 00: 27
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        At an acute angle to the diametral axis famously put? Strange logic you have a friend ...


        Not bad. But given the density of the layout of our ships, this is also a problem.

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Look at the photos from Halifax. There is exactly one difference from the submarine - pitching, roll, etc. No others. But this is to a certain extent solved.

        to a certain extent, precisely.
        And here is the question, but what for? if this system is recharged quickly - there is a benefit. if within 5-10 + minutes - no longer.
        What will be better in size and weight - supply, recharge, compressor systems ... or 20 pipes 324mm in diameter of 10 pieces in a row (or 5x2) should be considered. 10 in a row will allow you to implement any number of Torpedo / Antitorped in terms of combinations. in the case of a recharge system - it depends on the version.
        1. +1
          25 May 2019 17: 16
          Quote: Devil13
          What would be better in terms of size and weight - supply systems, recharge, compressors ... or 20 pipes 324mm in diameter in 10 pieces in a row (or 5 x2)


          my first TK was "alternative PU" (TA) for "Package"
          the main option - to the regular place DTA-53 (with an eye on 11356)
          8 pipes 32cm for MPT and AT
          1. +1
            25 May 2019 21: 44
            How did it happen that they spat on the safety of the ship and left everything on board the 4 PU?
            1. 0
              26 May 2019 14: 40
              Quote: assault
              How did it happen that they spat on the safety of the ship and left everything on board the 4 PU?

              great question!
              on this occasion I read just an epic "justification" wassat from 1 Central Research Institute of the Navy (by the way, unclassified)
              I had only one question about this STUPID - why was it not coordinated with the "probable adversary"? (well, that he will attack the corvette just as idiotically as the developers of this foolishness from the 1st Central Research Institute wanted)
        2. 0
          25 May 2019 19: 40
          to a certain extent, precisely.


          Which will often be decisive.

          If this system will recharge quickly - there is a benefit. if within 5-10 + minutes - no longer.


          Well, why, the submarine shoots torpedoes from 30-40 km, and this distance is quite a long time to go torpedoes. Moreover, on a specially built ship it is quite possible to organize everything in such a way that the reloading of one TA will be just 5 minutes.
  18. -1
    24 May 2019 16: 06
    timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin), for the case, "you can consider those around you dumber" (this makes you chew everything as for full D-lovers) but "you cannot consider yourself smarter than those around you" (then the brain will not perceive the most important information),
    1) your statements about the benefits of reusable torpedoes can be safely thrown out because in practical exercises BPs are used whose shelf life is coming to an end (this is ideally when the reserve warehouses are already filled), and the problems of "defects" are eliminated by military inspectors at the factory. That is, in fact, in your method, only the TA itself is tested "repeatedly", and not the torpedo, which becomes unnecessary in the presence of the TPK.
    2) Your statements about the "expensive cover"
    TPK “Package” cannot have any openable lid on a fully isolated and equipped TPK, therefore there is a fixed cover that is destroyed when fired. Disposable. Costing approximately 500 rubles.
    very controversial and require proofs, but even if it really is, then it’s easier to change (reduce the cost) of this very cover, for example by making a hermetic plug from foil and a pyro-cap for protection.
    3) Your statements about the location of the TA and the impact load - you can safely throw it out because they refused to start the pneumatic launch because it is too slow and when the ship is heavily rocked, a long torpedo starts crookedly, sometimes with a torpedo, TA and the ship itself, and in the worst case a torpedo can go over on a friendly ship due to a sharp shift in the no direction. At the same time, due to the integration of shock absorbers (springs) in the rotary control unit, the shock load problem will be solved.

    psThank you for informing me about hemorrhoids with the "package" equipment, I did not know about it
    1. +2
      24 May 2019 20: 24
      ) your statements about the benefits of reusable torpedoes can be safely thrown out because in practical exercises BPs are used whose shelf life is coming to an end (this is ideally when the reserve warehouses are already filled), and the problems of "defects" are eliminated by military inspectors at the factory.


      Firstly, this is not always the case even now, secondly, with the TPK Package even this is unrealistically expensive, thirdly, I am aware that this approach is flourishing in the Navy, but this is wrong. We recall 53-61, which has been in service with 10 for years in a non-operational form. There, however, it was necessary for her to hammer at the real goals in order to find in time, but nevertheless, without shooting torpedoes you simply DON'T KNOW THE CAPABILIZED THEY OR NO. Well, the holy faith in the integrity of the VP is something, of course. Another example, amers on any torpedo body scratched, because they constantly shoot them for control purposes.

      Your statements about the location of the TA and about the shock load can be safely thrown out because they refused to start the pneumatic launch because it is too slow.


      strangely, the heavy and long 533-mm on the 1124 is still used and launched.

      and with a strong pitching of the vessel


      a primitive command device that would select the right starting moment for rolling should actually be done even on the 50's element base.

      long torpedo starts crookedly


      324-mm short, not long wink

      wry start, sometimes with torpedo breaks


      It is solved when modifying the TA to the working state, in any case, on the 324-mm TA, the amers do not have such a problem. On submarines with a torpedo Mk.48 was, but it was decided.

      and in the worst case, a torpedo can hover on a friendly ship.


      Anti-submarine torpedo? On the ship? Are you aware of its depths? Why do you write this?

      At the same time, due to the integration of shock absorbers (springs) into the rotary PU, the problem of shock load will be solved.


      And PU will be the size of the ship itself.
      1. -2
        24 May 2019 22: 47
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        without shooting torpedoes you just DON'T KNOW ABLE OR NOT

        I paraphrase: without firing a new cartridge, you do not know whether it is combat-ready or not, that is, following your logic, the machine gunner must first shoot the tape, then collect the bullets (shells), then reload them, and only after that go into battle in full confidence that his cartridges are "combat-ready" ... fool I haven’t laughed like that for a long time laughing
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        strangely, the heavy and long 533-mm on the 1124 is still used and launched.

        Yeah, at exercises with a slight pitching, and with strong excitement or God forbid, in a storm, "everything is fine, beautiful marquise, everything is good, everything is good", the homeland can sleep peacefully! soldier By the way, this hemorrhoids has been known since the time of WWII and its torpedo boats, then the torpedoes were pulled from the TA attached to the side, launched manually and dropped sideways with a small stroke. By the way, notice! the larger the ship, the less it is prone to rolling in its central part or stern (in the case of stabilizers), and there is also a big difference between launching longitudinally-forward, longitudinally-sideways and transversely-sideways, all this dramatically reduces the accident rate during longitudinal launch but requires time to turn the ship \ PU \ torpedoes which is acceptable when attacking but not defense.
        ps So it turns out that it is better to fix the recharge method and cover than to use your option.
        1. -1
          25 May 2019 17: 04
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          there is, following your logic, the machine gunner must first shoot the tape, then collect the bullets (shells), then reload them, and only after that go into battle in full confidence that his cartridges are "combat-ready". fool I haven't laughed like that in a long time

          "laughter for no reason - ..." - well, YOU understand laughing
          because before the adoption of the cartridge passes just a huge amount of testing + periodicals in the series
          and it costs MUCH less torpedoes (despite the fact that there were one-time practical torpedoes, for example, UMHT-1)
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          ps So it turns out that it is better to fix the recharge method and cover than to use your option.

          You are just talking rubbish
          what is the "Aubrey device" and when it appeared google lol
        2. +2
          25 May 2019 19: 42
          To paraphrase: without firing a new cartridge, you do not know whether it is combat-ready or not, that is, following your logic, the machine gunner must first shoot the tape, then collect the bullets (shells), then reload them, and only after that go into battle in complete confidence that his cartridges are combat-ready "


          Curve comparison - the torpedo is caught and recharged. Chuck no. Do you understand this yourself?
    2. -1
      25 May 2019 17: 13
      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
      1) your statements about the benefits of reusable torpedoes - can be safely thrown out because in practical exercises BPs are used whose shelf life is coming to an end (this is ideally when the reserve warehouses are already filled), and the problems of "defects" are eliminated by military inspectors at the factory

      fool
      don't bullshit hurt her laughing
      YOU just have no idea about the subject you are trying to talk about.

      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
      very controversial and require proofs

      let's say I am pruff
      Moreover, this price is pretty tired, and now it is much more

      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
      Even if this is so, in fact, it is easier to change (cheapen) this very lid, for example, by making a sealed foil cap and pyro-lid for protection.

      it is clear ... "that we should build a house - we will draw we will live"
      extremely simple question - Will this YOUR "plug" of the WWF requirements (shock, vibration, fire field, RVII, EMP, etc.) withstand?

      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
      3) Your statements about the location of the TA and about the shock load - you can safely throw it out because you refused to start the pneumo-launch because it is too slow and when the ship is rolling, the long torpedo starts up crookedly, sometimes with torpedo failures,

      YOU carry illiterate nonsense
      the exit speed of the product with the conventional and gas-generating firing system of the same DTA-53 is the same

      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
      and in the worst case, a torpedo might be sent to a friendly ship due to a sharp shift to the wrong side.

      fool
      nothing that on board the product is an ISU which from the moment of input "keeps coordinates"?

      Quote: ProkletyiPirat
      At the same time, due to the integration of shock absorbers (springs) into the rotary PU, the problem of shock load will be solved.

      Monsieur, apparently YOU have a special attitude towards "integration of springs in YOUR sofa" lol
      only here the return of the TPK "Package" is such that when it is installed on the deck, for example, 1124 will simply open the deck like a tin can, and the PU itself will fly overboard
      Solving this problem at the ZPKB at my PERSONAL REQUEST FOR A MONTH we were looking for a place where to install the PU "Packet" you can do only with a deck foundation (without reinforcements from inside the hull - because everything is in cables and pipelines)
      1. 0
        26 May 2019 12: 03
        It was impossible to install reinforcement reinforcement over the deck?
        1. 0
          26 May 2019 14: 37
          Quote: Newone
          It was impossible to install reinforcement reinforcement over the deck?

          on 1124M ZPKB MONTH I was looking for a place where I could get by with only a deck foundation
          (because the "inside" of the body was in cables and pipelines)
  19. +2
    24 May 2019 21: 46
    As usual, the industry is pushing something "unparalleled in the world", the command, encouraged by the rollback, takes it into service, and the crews fuck with this mum.
    1. -1
      25 May 2019 00: 45
      But the crew do not need to fuck with this - the vehicles are charged, they do not need to be reloaded afloat, and the ships have PLO helicopters with torpedoes and anti-submarine bombs in case all torpedoes are shot by the NK Package.
      1. -1
        25 May 2019 17: 01
        Quote: Vadim237
        PLO helicopters with torpedoes and

        we have NO torpedoes for helicopters
        and those that were (UMGT-1) have already died

        the rest is YOUR ordinary crap
        1. 0
          26 May 2019 12: 06
          APR-3 canceled?
          1. 0
            26 May 2019 14: 36
            Quote: Newone
            APR-3 canceled?

            CANCELED
            Google to help (I will not comment on this topic)
            1. 0
              26 May 2019 14: 40
              But on the manufacturer's website - the Rocket Arms Concern, it is: http://www.ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/protivokorabelnye_rakety/raketa_apr-3e.html
              1. -1
                26 May 2019 17: 13
                Quote: Newone
                But on the manufacturer's website - the Rocket Arms Concern, it is: http://www.ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/protivokorabelnye_rakety/raketa_apr-3e.html


                "on the fence ... it is written, and there is firewood"
                APR-3 was produced in Alma-Ata
                extremely limited party (what became of it - "Google to help", the story was loud)
                plant covered in 90x
                80x product
                TCHK - I believe that everything is clear
                Or do you believe in fairy tales and murzilki?
                1. 0
                  26 May 2019 18: 17
                  I believe you know. Just offer APR-3E - then there is something to sell. A transfer / restoration of production - though it is difficult but feasible.
        2. 0
          27 May 2019 23: 55
          APR 3M updated recently launched into serial production
          "May 13. / TASS /. The State Scientific and Production Enterprise" Region "(part of the corporation" Tactical Missile Armament ") has launched into serial production a new aircraft anti-submarine missile APR-3M, General Director of the enterprise Igor Krylov said in an interview with TASS.

          "All tests of the APR-3M have been completed, its serial production has been mastered, supplies to the Russian Defense Ministry are beginning. In the near future, we will also begin to promote this missile for export. The APR-3M has been integrated into the armament of the modernized Ka-27M anti-submarine helicopter," Krylov said.

          According to him, it can also be used by other modern aircraft and helicopters of the naval aviation of the Russian Navy. "Since this rocket is a high-tech digital product, it can also be used from [other] modern aircraft," the CEO said.
          "We have NO helicopter torpedoes
          and those that were (UMGT-1) have already died

          the rest is YOUR usual nonsense "- you lie to the chuvachek - you completely lie.
      2. 0
        26 May 2019 14: 17
        A helicopter cannot always be lifted into the air due to weather conditions, and the time spent in the air is limited, and the fuel reserves on board the ship are also not unlimited.
  20. -1
    25 May 2019 02: 42
    The article at first glance looks reasonable, as if it was written by Maxim Klimov, and not Alexander Timokhin,
    HOWEVER the picture spoils the distortion of the author:
    1) for reloading TA, located inside the ship, you need a VOLUME of approximately the same volume of the TA, which is not and will not be. TA rechargeable in a vertical position through the hatch in the upper deck does not require such a volume.
    2) The weight of the existing installed TA, according to the author's words, differs from the weight of the torpedo by 2 times (1000kg-2 * 100 = 800kg = 2 * 400kg), that is, it will require only 2 times more conventional "sailors". If according to the norms, then 16 against 8. With the use of the simplest lifting mechanisms, there is no difference at all. No truck crane required. A trolley and a simple manual crane are required exactly the same as those required for a torpedo.
    3) the price of the cover in 500 000 rub is clearly overestimated (or the author distorts the information, on which he was caught)
    4) the muzzle brake in artillery was invented for a long time. Air shock absorbers too. Neither the muzzle brake nor the large-volume shock absorbers are required and lie about the fact that they will occupy the entire volume of the ship - count readers.
    5) Modern rocket surpasses the torpedo in complexity, but for some reason it does not require test launches. And when testing specified reliability indicators shows.
    1. +2
      25 May 2019 05: 07
      the price of the cap in 500 000 rub is clearly overstated

      Here I joked around the vastness of the network and found that 500 000 rub. - this is the cost of the tube with the rocket itself. This is not a substitution of concepts or misleading readers, it is a deep irony in the sense that the product is not rechargeable and cannot be reused, which means that without a cover it is already used, is illiquid and needs to be disposed of. In this vein, it turns out that the cost of the locking cover costs us half a million forever wooden.
      A modern rocket is superior in complexity to a torpedo, but for some reason, test launches do not require

      And what do we have? How many axes did not fly to Syria? And how many calibers? Or what do you think this problem is exclusively mattresses? Oh well. Most recently, in a private conversation, one of the employees of one of our glorious Black Sea frigates, while on vacation, told me that the last 2 caliber firing missiles did not start at all, and the 1 th yet failed the engine on the marching flight section. I have no reason not to trust him.
      1. 0
        25 May 2019 11: 38
        It is good that they did not explode during launch on board.
      2. -2
        25 May 2019 16: 53
        Quote: Dante
        I’ve been screaming across the expanses of the network and found that 500 000 rub. - this is the cost of the rocket tube itself

        LIE
        Now the cap is significantly more expensive than these 500 (this figure is from a distant 2011).
        а TPK of this crap at a cost, roughly "half a torpedo"

        Quote: Dante
        Used, illiquid and in need of disposal.

        LIE
        used
        BUT - the multiplicity of use is very small
        1. +3
          25 May 2019 20: 11
          Dear Maxim Klimov, I formed my request to the search engine based on the author’s data, which means that not only I lie, but Alexander Timokhin too. This time.

          Two. In general, in my life I try not to lie. I either say as it is, or I am silent. It sounds strange, I understand, but this is my life credo. Unlike you, I am not a specialized specialist in torpedo weapons. I am an ordinary citizen who is simply not indifferent to the state of our army and navy and who is trying to figure out the state of affairs to the best of his own abilities, which is greatly helped by articles published in the military. Yours including. In my comments, I am guided solely by the data provided in these materials, the laws of logic and cause-effect relationships. And if I'm wrong about something, then the reason is in the introductory questions that were asked by the author or the team of authors.

          After all, in essence, what is a lie? Lying is a deliberate distortion of truth for the sake of one’s personal interests. I have no personal interest in distinguishing you from this topic. I do not know the whole truth, relying on the author’s position in this matter. If the author left gaps in his reasoning, I try to fill them in, guided by the above principles and the general nature of the reasoning. No more and no less.

          You, of course, are free to call people like me liars at the full height of your knowledge, but this is at least incorrect, because it draws a line between the public and you as an author, turning you from an enlightener of the masses into another celestial person endowed with sacred knowledge and swearing about it. In addition, let's not forget that hanging labels is a double-edged weapon and many in the comments also call you a liar and lobbyist for certain structures, although I have never shared this point of view and, on the contrary, always treated you with understanding. I have the honor! hi
          1. 0
            26 May 2019 14: 35
            Quote: Dante
            Dear Maxim Klimov, I formed my request to the search engine based on the author’s data, which means that not only I lie, but Alexander Timokhin too. This time.
            Two. I generally try not to lie in my life.

            I will clarify, I answered in the heat of the moment and to your statement that "we found data on TPK"
            Alas, they are not in the network
            I called these numbers, and they are pretty outdated (but even they are impressive)

            if that - for the vehemence excuse me
            1. +1
              27 May 2019 19: 19
              Maxim, there’s nothing to apologize for. You will also forgive me for my amateurish approach, simply not having a stamp ... well, you yourself know.

              My logic was as follows: I went to the state procurement website and typed in CM-588. There were about 5 matches. Of these, "Purchase of side closure of the product SM-588-03" by Severnaya Verf for 45 rubles, "Rotating devices PU SM 736" ordered by the Amur Shipbuilding Plant for 825 rubles, as well as 588 orders for the launchers themselves: one for 59 140 371 rubles, the second for 2 58 291 rubles. Moreover, the second appears as manufacturing and delivery, and the first as the launchers themselves. The customers of both are again ASZ.

              In general, I took the price tag for launchers (that is, RUB 58) and divided it by the number of ships under construction or built by the NEA that can carry the Package-NK. There are 291 of them, each with 657 PU CM 4. In total, 8 pieces. I divided them into them. It turned out about 588 rubles, deducted VAT 32%, it turned out about 1 but the cost of a product of half a million no longer seemed so fantastic. Maybe I got something very wrong somewhere, I do not argue, but proceeded from the fact that after all the costs of materials, wages to workers and kickbacks in the bottom line (that is, at cost), somewhere there should be amounts, approximately commensurate with what the author indicated.

              In general, the price tag for the iron pipe, to put it mildly, is inadequate.
      3. 0
        26 May 2019 11: 45
        We have a product that has not been developed yet. In the case of amer-products with expiring expiration dates. A test run from the point of view of reducing failures of the tested instance itself affects only the DEPRECATED reliability.
        The fact that Americans reload torpedoes after training launches is how they SAVE MONEY (guidance equipment, an engine, a case of considerable cost), and not reliability increase launched products. And I have great doubts that the reloading of torpedoes occurs on ships. And just like that, torpedoes launched from the TPK of the Package can also be re-loaded at the factory just as there would be a desire, a technique and appropriate, non-destructive torpedoes, target simulators.
    2. -2
      25 May 2019 16: 59
      Quote: Newone
      1) for reloading TA, located inside the ship, you need a VOLUME of approximately the same volume of the TA, which is not and will not be. TA rechargeable in a vertical position through the hatch in the upper deck does not require such a volume.

      if in place of PU "P" on the corvette there would have been Mk32 - there would have been NO problems with reloading

      Quote: Newone
      2) The weight of the existing installed TA, according to the author's words, differs from the weight of the torpedo by 2 times (1000kg-2 * 100 = 800kg = 2 * 400kg), that is, it will require only 2 times more conventional "sailors". If according to the norms, then 16 against 8. With the use of the simplest lifting mechanisms, there is no difference at all. No truck crane required. A trolley and a simple manual crane are required exactly the same as those required for a torpedo.

      for the "Package" it is the crane that is required, and if it is a truck crane, but not on every pier it is possible (because the crane needs to "spread its legs")
      Quote: Newone
      3) the price of the cover in 500 000 rub is clearly overestimated (or the author distorts the information, on which he was caught)

      Lies here YOU
      and about allegedly "caught", and about 500 (in reality - already much more expensive)
      and there is nothing "overpriced" here - for the SAM Navy made such demands (idiotic) and the defense industry "just fulfilled"
      Quote: Newone
      5) Modern rocket surpasses the torpedo in complexity, but for some reason it does not require test launches. And when testing specified reliability indicators shows.

      YOU have the wrong data
      and BOB, which incidentally is operated by a number of missile commanders, about torpedoes
      the cost of "Spearfish" and Mk48 was significantly higher than "Harpoon" and "Tomahawk"
      conditions of use (ENVIRONMENT) are MANY harder
      so in the same The US Navy has approximately TEN TIMES more than a number of missiles
      1. +1
        26 May 2019 11: 04
        Citizen Klimov
        1)
        if in place of PU "P" on the corvette there would have been Mk32 - there would have been NO problems with reloading
        Where are you from where will you take for the place of service when reloading and the transport path? Space curtail?
        2)
        the "Package" requires a crane
        You are Lying (I will already speak with you in the spirit that is characteristic of you). Based on the weight indicated by Timokhin (or still you) is not required. To organize reloading of launchers of the Package in the scheme described by Timokhin (location on the lower deck with reloading through the upper hatch), a path for delivering launchers from the arsenal is required (for comparison, the load capacity of a standard hydraulic trolley is 2 tons or more) and a crane is installed on the deck / superstructure of the ship above the hatch loading PU for only vertical movement of PU, i.e. without horizontal movement and movement in height when removing spent / installing a new one. Cranes for lifting 800 kg are mounted on pickups. There are NO difficulties in installing such equipment on the deck for reloading. And the overall dimensions of such equipment DO NOT EXCEED the masses of the overall dimensions of the transportation equipment for 400 kg (torpedoes). SO YOU, Klimov, are Lying about some super special equipment needed to install existing Packages and not required for torpedoes. If this is not done, then the questions to the developers of the TK are on SHIPS, not the launcher.
        3)
        and there is nothing "overpriced" here - for the SAM Navy made such demands (idiotic) and the defense industry "just fulfilled"
        The fleet made a demand for a cap cost of 500k? Or did the fleet nevertheless make quite reasonable, justified and verified on other products requirements for launching a torpedo from a transport launch container, the use of which significantly reduces the likelihood of damage to a complex and explosive product during transportation / installation? LIE AGAIN?
        And the fact that at some factories the leadership wants to eat a lot - so it’s not for nothing that prosecutors and other inspections regularly go through and this management goes on trial.
        4)
        and BOB, which incidentally is operated by a number of missile commanders, about torpedoes

        What nonsense? The fact that you are comparing firing from a carrier with weapons (torpedoes) and firing weapons where in fact only the coordinates of the target are loaded on the ship and little depends on the crew’s work after launch. Yes, THIS is nonsense.
        The fact that the anti-aircraft missile (and the equipment in it) is experiencing shock loads tens of times greater than the load on the torpedo is nonsense?
        The fact that anti-aircraft missiles operate at speeds ORDER exceeding the speed of torpedoes (and this is the accuracy and speed of the controls) is this rubbish?
        If the torpedo developer did not foresee the proper exit control of the product, this only speaks of him, the developer of the qualification. Tell me the torpedo components that are fundamentally not checked at the stand, but checked during firing? Fuel composition? So this is the developer's problem - to choose fuel that does not lose its characteristics for a guaranteed product life.
        5)
        The US Navy has approximately TEN TIMES more than a number of missiles
        Quite possibly. But the firing is carried out not to test products but to test crew actions. Given the fact that American torpedoes are mainly controlled by the SAC, a carrier-engine of operations of the crew is necessary.
        1. +1
          26 May 2019 13: 34
          Quote: Newone
          5)
          The US Navy has approximately TEN TIMES more than a number of missiles
          Quite possibly. But the firing is carried out not to test products but to test crew actions. Given the fact that American torpedoes are mainly controlled by the SAC, a carrier-engine of operations of the crew is necessary.

          There, the testing is not so much the actions of the weapons operator (the launch is so the same) as the training of crew members responsible for reloading, or rather neat moving a torpedo from a transport container to a warehouse, and then neat transportation to PU, and at the end neat insert in PU. Here is our MO introducing TPK and excludes all this neat hemorrhoids and its accompanying accidents / emergency. Plus TPK has another no less important advantage, it is the storage of ammunition in an inert environment, this allows you to create long-term reserves (decades before the war).
          1. -3
            26 May 2019 14: 12
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            Luc TPK has another equally important advantage.

            again
            BK corvette with these TPKs is not enough even at 1 battle
            PM
            Further, the problem of operating costs (firing)
            1. +1
              26 May 2019 14: 37
              BK corvette with these TPKs is not enough even at 1 battle

              These are the problems of TK on the corvette. Reinstalling the TPK from the arsenal directly on the ship is NOT fundamentally different from reloading a torpedo tube from the arsenal.
        2. -3
          26 May 2019 14: 31
          Quote: Newone
          Where are you from where will you take for the place of service when reloading and the transport path? Space curtail?

          no, competently use
          and not me, but TA developers (it was about KBM)
          put the tray - in the passage in the superstructure, TA turns on the angle of loading
          - this is if you leave it in the add-in (optimally - in another place)
          Quote: Newone
          You are lying (I will be talking to you in your own spirit). Based on the weight indicated by Timokhin (or by you) - is not required. To organize reloading of launch packages in the scheme described by Timokhin (positioning on the lower deck with recharging through the upper hatch), a track is required to bring PU from the arsenal (for comparison, the carrying capacity of a standard 2 hydraulic trolley and more) and a crane mounted on the deck / on the ship's superstructure above the hatch loading PU for only vertical movement of PU, i.e., without horizontal movement and movement in height when removing the spent / new installation. Cranes for lifting 800 kg INSTALL ON PICKUP.

          Lying here you
          Timokhin has numbers, let's say - "not complete"
          the track is not needed (we don’t 2t torpedoes), a simple trolley is enough
          and what a nafig "tap"?!?! - trolley (with a lift) - tray - TA
          and, for reference, 800kg crane for TPK (not torpedoes) LITTLE, because MBS weight is MORE + this is DISCHARGE load (and corresponding coefficients)
          and most importantly - NO Crane on the 20380 NO, respectively - LOADING ONLY WITH BASIC MEANS
          well, YOUR complete "denseness" is already visible in the statement about 800kg and a pickup - elementary questions - what HEIGHT and DEPARTURE?
          I emphasize - loading (standard) goes through the removed "top" of the add-in
          Quote: Newone
          AK WHAT are you, Klimov, BET about some kind of super special equipment needed to install existing Packages?

          so LIE here you are
          Quote: Newone
          Fleet made a claim on the cost of the cover in 500?

          The Navy made demands the fulfillment of which led to the specified cost
          Quote: Newone
          Or did the fleet present quite reasonable, reasonable and proven requirements for launching a torpedo from a transport launch canister on other products, the use of which SIGNIFICANTLY reduces the likelihood of damage to a complex and explosive product during transportation / installation? Are you lying again?

          LIE Here you
          And the ESSENCE of this is written - instead of presenting them to the EQUIPMENT, the fleet presented them to the IBS (i.e. TPK)
          the name of the diversion is listed above
          and a number of requirements of the Navy are simply absolutely inadequate - after the Navy received a "price tag" for "Physics", he howled, but there was no one who would dare to revise this inadequate
          Quote: Newone
          And the fact that at some factories the leadership wants to eat a lot - so it’s not for nothing that prosecutors and other inspections regularly go through and this management goes on trial.
          4)

          in the deleted article, DOCUMENTS were given about how the VP SF "twisted the arms" of one of the factories, demanding approval of the repair and modernization of torpedoes with Kiev (in 2015 !!!) and a FINALLY increase in the cost of work
          Quote: Newone
          What nonsense? The fact that you are comparing firing from a carrier with weapons (torpedoes) and firing weapons where in fact only the coordinates of the target are loaded on the ship and little depends on the crew’s work after launch. Yes, THIS is nonsense.

          YOU carry nonsense without having a clue about the subject
          "water" for YOU apparently "tap water in a glass" laughing
          Quote: Newone
          The fact that the anti-aircraft missile (and the equipment in it) is experiencing shock loads tens of times greater than the load on the torpedo is nonsense?

          fool
          Mousia, do you have an idea about shock loads on supercavitating torpedoes (SPR)?
          Quote: Newone
          Tell me the torpedo units that are not fundamentally verifiable on the stand, but are checked during firing? The composition of the fuel?

          fool
          the work of the product (especially SSN) IN REAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
          however, the fact that for YOU water is "water from the tap in a glass", we have already found out
          Quote: Newone
          That's just the shooting is not carried out to check the products and for practicing the actions of the crew.

          don't bullshit her hurt
          it was just that the US Navy was "overwhelmed" in the first half of WWII with the consequences of small statistics on the use and development of torpedoes, and I know TOO well what this is fraught with
          Quote: Newone
          controlled by the carrier GAK-from

          fool
          where is the Mk54 "controlled by the SAC"?
          You are not tired of trash bullshit?
          1. 0
            26 May 2019 15: 05
            Lying here you
            Timokhin has numbers, let's say - "not complete"

            Those. the numbers do not beat Timokhin and I’m lying? Really? Or are you there at home used to talking like that who is louder than the ORE of that and slippers?
            the track is not needed (we don’t 2t torpedoes), a simple trolley is enough

            ugums on the corvette, with excitement. I love you, you see our sailors ...
            and most importantly - NO Crane on the 20380 NO, respectively - LOADING ONLY WITH BASIC MEANS
            So maybe better to think about the installation? As well as the placement of reserve TPK in the arsenal.
            YOU carry nonsense without having a clue about the subject
            "water" for YOU apparently "tap water in a glass"

            Well, enlighten readers about the aggressive factors affecting the equipment inside the torpedo's sealed enclosure.
            Monsieur, you have an idea of ​​shock loads on super-cavitating torpedoes (SPR)
            what are we discussing "Shkval"? Or are you trying to create a halo of secret knowledge?
            don't bullshit her hurt
            Brad do not carry, overstrain.
            it was just that the US Navy was "overwhelmed" in the first half of WWII with the consequences of small statistics on the use and development of torpedoes, and I know TOO well what this is fraught with

            Please provide a document about the goals and objectives of torpedo firing of the US Navy. I do not want to discuss your fantasies.
            where is the Mk54 "controlled by the SAC"

            Torpedo firing in the United States was limited to torpedo firing Mk 54? And let me ask you about the source data on the shooting of the 54 Mk? And then you somehow spread the data on the firing of all US torpedoes (including the remote-controlled MK-48) to this torpedo.
            1. -1
              26 May 2019 15: 30
              Quote: Newone
              and I lie? Is it real? Or are you accustomed to communicate there so who is louder than the dregs of that and sneakers?

              fool
              yes, YOU LIE, and, apparently, with a "good skill" of pulling "cards out of your sleeve"
              Quote: Newone
              ugums on the corvette, with excitement. I love you, you see our sailors ...

              No problem
              in the TZ (and constructive solutions) it was provided for (up to a certain value)
              Quote: Newone
              So maybe better to think about the installation? As well as the placement of reserve TPK in the arsenal.

              fool
              YOU represent the dimensions and weight of this "crane"?!?! - taking into account the fact that through the TOP of the superstructure YOU propose to throw in a DISCHARGE load weighing about a TON (if there is only one MBS) ???
              compare the dimensions of the product and TPK - starting with the diameter (where instead of 32 it becomes sharply more than half a meter and ending with a length)
              Quote: Newone
              Well, enlighten readers about the aggressive factors affecting the equipment inside the torpedo's sealed enclosure.

              fool
              What are you talking about?!?!
              it was about hydrology, and the conditions for the use of search and defeat submarines
              I have said enough about this, and a special cycle of articles about this will not be published on the VO, due to the "run over" on the VO because of me (whose - it is already clear)
              Quote: Newone
              what are we discussing "Shkval"? Or are you trying to create a halo of secret knowledge?

              Musia, the regulatory framework (as it relates), as if not the same, it is very close (I will rejoin the concrete numbers, read GOSTs, and worship)
              Quote: Newone
              Brad do not carry, overstrain.

              nonsense - on your part, musia
              Quote: Newone
              The document please provide about the goals and objectives of the torpedo firing of the US Navy.

              laughing
              YOU like - with its details acc. our special services?
              YOU there as - at all wassat ?
              Quote: Newone

              Torpedo firing in the United States was limited to torpedo firing Mk 54? And let me ask you about the source data on the shooting of the 54 Mk? And then you somehow spread the data on the firing of all US torpedoes (including the remote-controlled MK-48) to this torpedo.

              firing of the McNuhx make up their very significant part
              and for Mc48, only for testing the 4 version of the 7 modification software in the 2011 fiscal year 330 shooting was performed (see GAO documents)
              1. +1
                26 May 2019 18: 34
                1)
                yes, YOU LIE, and, apparently, with a "good skill" of pulling "cards out of your sleeve"

                In lies, I do not even hope to reach out to the "designers of complexes" and "liquidators on vacation." The ability to say without batting an eye that black is white I have not acquired.
                2)
                YOU represent the dimensions and weight of this "crane"?!?! - taking into account the fact that through the TOP of the superstructure YOU propose to throw in a DISCHARGE load weighing about a TON (if there is only one MBS) ???

                You did not understand or do not want to understand the scheme I proposed. I do not propose to install a crane for lifting TPK from the pier (although there is no particular difficulty in this either. I suggest a crane for lifting TPK (spent) from the hatch. Loading it onto the trolley on the track in the arsenal. And accordingly loading from the TPK trolley in the hatch.
                3)
                it was about hydrology, and the conditions for the use of search and defeat submarines
                What does hydrology have to do with equipment reliability?
                4)
                YOU like - with its details acc. our special services?
                There is an opinion that this is an open document. I'm just too lazy to look for him through TOR
                5)
                nonsense - according to YOUR part
                Judging from the relation to you of profile specialists, and not the inhabitants of the forums, nonsense is YOUR EVERYTHING :)
  21. +1
    25 May 2019 07: 10
    Seafarers deal with torpedoes weighing a ton and suspiciously
    1. -2
      25 May 2019 16: 51
      Quote: FoxNova
      Seafarers deal with torpedoes weighing a ton and suspiciously

      MBS (TPK with a product) is heavier (than the same SET-72)
      + it is structurally very inconveniently done
  22. 0
    25 May 2019 11: 53

    The better a thing is, the more expensive it is.
    The more expensive the thing, the better. Better for us and for the industrial finance plan.

    Post-Soviet decisions are based solely on this logic.
  23. +1
    26 May 2019 01: 14
    How many bukaf you can stretch the order ?? !!
    Yes, you can even suck the whole article out of your finger! laughing
    1. In TPK, conditions are created for torpedoes, where they can be located up to an 10 without holding a TO.
    2. "The M-15 product is equipped with a jet engine. The engine housing contains a charge of hydroreactive solid fuel. Thus, when an anti-torpedo enters water, a fuel combustion reaction begins, leading to the formation of traction."
    3. All characteristics of "Packet-NK" torpedoes are checked and adjusted at the factory,
    To make Nehruin in the hands of foremen and midshipmen in their filling!
    4. Let's build on a tiny corvette a torpedo cellar with talis, a monorail and winches as on a cruiser (which in reality are all Burks) laughing
    5. More than one or two DPL attacks, even on a single corvette / frigate, will not succeed in principle! (corvette \ frigate \ MPK is simply faster) this is enough for its staffed BC PLO and BC deck helicopter.
    6. In the case of the nuclear submarines, the corvette \ frigate \ MPK will either sink in the first attack or it will be sunk (only in shallow water can it escape wink ), and in this case with BC PLO everything is as in paragraph 5 Yes
    7. If you really want to, you can return to the ancient monsters of the BOD project 1155.1 (there are plenty of weapons, crew and displacement, and the cost of operating the monster on 9000) hi
    1. -1
      26 May 2019 09: 36
      they lead a boat in the exercises, and in real combat conditions they shoot as soon as they discover suspicious contact, as the Falkland War showed.
      Moreover, everything that the British used against the Argentine boat was used very far from its real location.
      So if a torpedo is needed in order to store it, then the TPK steers. And if in order to use it for its intended purpose (and train accordingly) - then the TPK is not very suitable, especially for small torpedoes.
      To make Nehruin in the hands of foremen and midshipmen in their filling!

      and they will remain so if they didn’t even see the torpedo itself, but only the container from the outside.
      And really, they never shot her.
      1. -1
        26 May 2019 11: 14
        In a real combat situation, only anti-torpedoes will be installed. The effective range of the Mk-48 launched from a submarine by a surface ship is 38 km. The range of the packet is 20. Do you think the attacking submarine will come closer to receive an answer? I doubt something.
        1. -1
          26 May 2019 15: 48
          Quote: Newone
          In a real combat situation, only counter torpedoes will be installed.

          to reality YOUR fantasy relationship does not have
          1. 0
            26 May 2019 18: 35
            to reality YOUR fantasy relationship does not have
            Yours - even more so.
        2. 0
          27 May 2019 09: 58
          I think if everything was so simple and fell from the first missile, shell or torpedo, both at the firing range and at the maximum range, but no one would have stockpiled ammunition.
    2. -1
      26 May 2019 10: 44
      3. All characteristics of "Packet-NK" torpedoes are checked and adjusted at the factory,
      To make Nehruin in the hands of foremen and midshipmen in their filling!


      Do not lala. With proper preparation, midshipmen and foremen are quite self-sufficient and the shoals behind the plant are found and corrected. And after all, they were treated for decades by midshipmen and foremen.
      And with your approach to the fleet, no money is enough and the shop can be simply closed immediately.

      7. If you really want to, you can return to the ancient monsters of the BOD project 1155.1 (there are plenty of weapons, crew and displacement, and the cost of operating the monster on 9000)


      A very successful ship, by the way, and still effective when used for its intended purpose - including the assessment of American submariners.
      If it had air defense with a nominal altitude and some anti-ship missiles, at least the same "Uranus", it would just be a dream ship.
      And, for example, if he received a modern towed GUS, he would have been a fully-fledged combat unit of the year to the 2035.
      It is a pity that time was missed with the modernization ...
      1. +1
        26 May 2019 14: 13
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        3. All characteristics of "Packet-NK" torpedoes are checked and adjusted at the factory,
        To make Nehruin in the hands of foremen and midshipmen in their filling!
        Do not lala. With proper preparation, midshipmen and foremen are quite self-sufficient and the shoals behind the plant are found and corrected. And after all, they were treated for decades by midshipmen and foremen.

        Provide evidence that the midshipmen and foremen on the ship disassemble and repair the combat torpedo without TPK, and then provide evidence that the same people will not be able to pull the torpedo out of the TPK for its repair, followed by packing.
        In general, midshipmen and foremen can climb inside the torpedo only in order not to get stuck after it was fucked up \ damaged \ broke during transportation \ installation.
        1. -1
          26 May 2019 15: 51
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          Provide proof that midshipmen and foremen on the ship dismantle and repair the combat torpedo without TPK,

          keep your fantasy with you
          and as for the "warrant officers and foremen", it is enough that they are witnesses of how stubbornly rushed "to their heart's content" - the industry is raking
          here you can recall one ex-admiral, a very tough, "Zhukovsky" warehouse, who not so long ago recalled with a shudder how his "pug for materiel" (from the company where he now works) was "driven" by the foremen!
      2. -1
        26 May 2019 15: 56
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        With proper training midshipmen and foremen


        Against your representation will be enough sergeant in the service life of a torpedo arsenal. Fight on a specialty with him.
        ... Electricians have a good day today. Two weeks ago, we received from the industry a new - third in a row - version of the execution of the torpedo SET-65. With the new homing equipment "Sapphire". The new equipment pulled changes in the power supply units, cable routes ... Let us see, God willing.
        The predecessor Larion on the post of Rudolf Gusev had a good practice. He prepared the calculation of the elders and sailors, he himself selected. Having received his inheritance in the specialty, Larion also prepared himself specialists. The commanders of the calculations were not only their students in their specialty, but also pupils in life. The heads of the workshops, and the chief engineer of the arsenal, were, of course, chiefs for them, but not authorities. In matters of serious, they called directly to their bosses. Got a call and Larion.
        - Please come!
        Apparently, this is a serious matter. The calculation is just working with the new torpedo. Must go. Documents - in a suitcase, a suitcase - in the safe, on the car - and in the arsenal.
        - Look!
        That gave the industry a bubble! And the commander of the calculation is great! Such a "bubble" caught, and even on the first torpedo. Great! We will not allow the issuance of non-capable torpedoes to ships.
        Very handy in the arsenal were the guests from the factory from the city of Frunze. Head of KB and leading engineer. They, my dears, and we need! They flew to air, boast a new torpedo, stock up on colonial goods: caviar, fish, crabs. They walked around the shops of the arsenal, praised the order in the shops, stood on the last tie of the Trans-Siberian Railway. Guests are specially led to stand on the last sleeper: local exotic. And we went to the head of the department to share impressions, to talk "for the torpedo life".
        Larion - on the phone.
        - Comrade Head! The guests from Frunze went to you. I have information on the new 260 product of extreme importance. (God forbid: the word "torpedo", so that on the phone - not in life! Awesome secret! Specialists will hear - great lovers of eavesdropping - you will not be in trouble.) I will arrive in 15 minutes. When you have guests, please call me and ask my opinion about the new product.
        - welcome.
        On arrival:
        - The officer responsible for mastering your new torpedo. Listen to his opinion.
        - The torpedo is made well, it will probably be good to walk. (On the faces of the guests - complete satisfaction. Otherwise it can not be!) On the work of the homing equipment "Sapphire" let's say shots after a hundred. But at the moment, the torpedo is not capable and the situation is worse than everything you can imagine.
        On the faces of the guests bewilderment.
        - It can not be, because this can never be!
        - I report scientifically: on the batteries to the new version of torpedoes, the tips of the instrument cables are color-coded, rather than the terminals on the torpedoes. Connecting the battery cables in accordance with their marking to the electrical circuits of the torpedo, we get: in the circuits 27 volts - 80, and in the circuit 80 volts - 27. With all that it implies.
        - This can not be!
        - At the site of the preparation of torpedoes on the goats - a torpedo, on the rammer - the battery, in the stack with the batteries one container was opened, and below - the machine under pairs. Ready to show you all this in metal. And at the end of the working day there is a proposal to get together again in this office and think about how to turn out of this situation. And the situation is as follows: the same modification of the torpedoes is completed with the same batteries. They simply do not use voltage 80 volts. The batteries arrived much earlier than the torpedoes, and we have been sending them to the bases of the fleet for six months already. And it is not known how many “dead” torpedoes were issued during this time on ships, including those who went into combat service. Here I have well-trained people and fished this "bubble" on the first torpedo. And from the naval base "Strelok" and from Kamchatka there is no news on this issue. It means that they have missed it. And if there is no such information from Moscow and Leningrad, it means that they were spilled on the Northern Fleet: all this material part goes there for half a year, or even a year, earlier than to us.
        On the faces of the guests genuine alarm. There is no place for colonial goods. And it's scary to think what kind of torpedoes ships are armed with!
        - We are going to see everything on the spot!
        Came, looked.
        - To the entrance of the nearest plant Minsudproma!
        Let's take a lunch break, while the guests break through to Dalzavod and ask the chief engineer to give them - colleagues in the ministry - a link with distant Kyrgyzstan
        By the end of the day, the guests arrived at the head again. Cheered up! As a result of intensive negotiations with the native firm, it was established that there was an error in the drawing on the battery container. It is not they who are to blame for this “goat”, but the developer of the drawing: the design bureau of the plant “Engine”. There is someone to transfer the arrow "in case of anything"!
        - It's time to think about how to get out of this ... peak position.
        - You probably need to attend to the publication of the Bulletin for the completion of the battery. Yes, come up with a couple of little men with colored vinyl chloride stockings, alkali-resistant paint ... Right in the stack and finish it, and we will fill it with nitrogen after yours. And now we will agree on the main points of the future newsletter. Tomorrow I will fly (150 versts one way by car - not the distance) to the Shooter, I will teach my people there and install which ships need to be re-armed. After - on Kamchatka for the same. And you yourself there quietly, underground in the Northern Fleet. While you have not taken for a trunk for such affairs corresponding comrades from the Cheka. After all, they had as before: “there would be a man, and there will be an article!” And here both the article and the humans are all in stock. Comrade Head! It would be good for my commander to calculate the preparation of vacation leave. On your behalf.
        - welcome. Deserved - let him go.
        Larion felt internal satisfaction from the fact that it his pupil fished the “bubble” of industry and military representatives, while the torpedoists of the Northern Fleet armed the ships with “dead” torpedoes for about six months. And learn about this security officers? The military representative, who put a consensus signature on the drawing, might not have been torn off his head - not the 1937 year - but the epaulet might well have been lost. And maybe not one.

        https://www.proza.ru/2017/01/24/2066
        1. +1
          26 May 2019 18: 43
          Is this an example of a jamb caught? Reliable?
          In my opinion, this is an example of the absence of output control at the manufacturer’s enterprise.
      3. -1
        27 May 2019 17: 49
        then timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin)
        If I didn't restore for "no need for lyal" and "correctors with proper preparation"
        equipment, then maybe I would agree that TPK is evil, and revolving launchers "rulezz imperishable" laughing
        The manufacturer has only one opportunity to meet the conditions of operation - TPK
        And you please do not compare with the midshipmen and foremen of the USSR !!!
        The Soviet sailors did not have enough "With proper training of warrant officers and foremen, the shoals behind the plant should be found and corrected" by replacing tantalum and oxide-semiconductor capacitors with ceramic and paper ones !!! laughing
        1. +1
          28 May 2019 15: 30
          Well, the "opponents" can tell a lot about your colleagues.

          But the fact is that there is such a fleet, where TPK is half the price of a torpedo, reprocessing at the factory, and so on and so forth, even the United States cannot afford it, Russia — all the more.
    3. -2
      26 May 2019 14: 01
      Quote: Protos
      How many bukaf you can stretch the order ?? !!

      wassat
      YOU see the doctor fool with YOUR hallucinations
      Quote: Protos
      1. In TPK, conditions are created for torpedoes, where they can be located up to an 10 without holding a TO.

      Does the torpedo work?
      is its software not required?
      and most importantly - the PRICE of this - a sharp decrease in the BC of the ships, and up to the values ​​obviously putting them in a losing position in battle
      Quote: Protos
      2. "The M-15 product is equipped with a jet engine. hydro reactive solid fuel. TIn this way, when the anti-torpedo hits the water, the fuel combustion reaction begins, leading to the formation of thrust."

      don't bullshit hurt her
      YOUR fantasies have nothing to do with reality.
      Quote: Protos
      3. All characteristics of "Packet-NK" torpedoes are checked and adjusted at the factory,
      To make Nehruin in the hands of foremen and midshipmen in their filling!

      these foremen and midshipmen can tell a lot about the "hands-on settings at the factory";)
      Quote: Protos
      4. Let's build on a tiny corvette a torpedo cellar with talis, a monorail and winches as on a cruiser (which in reality are all Burks)

      what is the problem? TK was developed, technical meetings were held, the appearance of terms and costs (by the way, extremely small, and the industry wanted to stay at the expense) the same
      Quote: Protos
      5. More than one or two DPL attacks, even on a single corvette / frigate, will not succeed in principle! (corvette \ frigate \ MPK is simply faster) this is enough for its staffed BC PLO and BC deck helicopter.

      and this is just ignorant nonsense, I speak as a professional (and successful) counter-processor
      Quote: Protos
      6. In the case of a nuclear submarine, the corvette / frigate / IPC will either sink in the first attack or be sunk (he can only leave in shallow water;), and in this case, the situation with BC PLO is as in 5

      even a single submarine battlefield is not enough
      Quote: Protos
      7. If you really want, you can return to the ancient monsters BOD project 1155.1

      YOUR fantasy has nothing to do with reality
      all work has been done on 20380, 1124М, 11356
      1. +1
        26 May 2019 15: 22
        Quote: Fizik M
        Quote: Protos
        1. In TPK, conditions are created for torpedoes, where they can be located up to an 10 without holding a TO.
        Does the torpedo work?
        is its software not required?
        and most importantly - the PRICE of this - a sharp decrease in the BC of the ships, and up to the values ​​obviously putting them in a losing position in battle

        You kind of claimed that you had access to proprietary information and to developers, but from the words above it becomes clear that you do not even understand the development of software and its testing (in particular, on torpedoes). I, like any other programmer / engineer / developer, the first thing I require for each error statement is "how can I reproduce the error".

        In the event of launching and abnormal work on the ship (informing me about this event), I do not receive a single gram of useful information, I simply don’t know if the software or hardware is to blame, or if someone messed up with the production / transportation / storage / installation / launch of the torpedo, or who threw some playful hands there. In general, not an ounce of useful information. And for me, as a programmer, to test the hardware and software part, I need to place and configure additional equipment that is not and cannot be on a warship. At a minimum, I need to create several laboratory installations that reproduce all stages of the torpedo's operation and their connections with a computer, and before that I need to analyze the incoming limiting parameters. And this "test" launch of yours is guaranteed not to give any useful data, moreover, it is guaranteed to introduce errors into the tests, for example, in the form of clogging of moving elements and various channels / pipes with rust / salt / dirt ...
        1. -3
          26 May 2019 16: 00
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          You kind of claimed to have access.

          Monsieur, I claimed that I was the developer of the technical specification for the "alternative TA" for the "Package"
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          above, it becomes clear that you do not understand at all in software development and testing (in particular, on torpedoes). I

          fool
          from this YOUR nonsense it follows that YOU have no idea what is at all
          and if YOU were once engaged in software, then in relation to COMPLEX TECHNICAL SYSTEMS - never

          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          And for me, as a programmer, to test the hardware and software part, I need to place and configure additional equipment that is not and cannot be on a warship. At a minimum, I need to create several laboratory installations that reproduce all stages of torpedo operation and their connection with a computer, and before that I need to analyze the incoming limiting parameters. And this "test" run of yours is guaranteed not to give any useful data, moreover, it is guaranteed to introduce errors into the tests, for example, in the form of rust / salt / dirt clogging of moving elements and various channels / pipes \ ....

          I see ... YOU in duvannaya ducks waited
          and it’s very good that you didn’t allow anything serious to develop
        2. -1
          28 May 2019 00: 14
          Yes, he generally has nothing to do with anything - an ordinary zvizdab.
  24. 0
    26 May 2019 11: 25
    Now I would like to ask more questions:
    How does the author, without reconfiguration of the ship, suggest the installation of compressor equipment to launch torpedoes?
    Where is it supposed to install compressed air tanks?
    Where to drive the compressed air?
    This is both a place and weight and money. Yes, and with normal compressors, we do not really.
    Conclusion: throw existing ships into landfills? Perfectly...
    1. -3
      26 May 2019 13: 51
      Quote: Newone
      How does the author, without reconfiguration of the ship, suggest the installation of compressor equipment to launch torpedoes?

      lol
      Does a diving compressor need a "ship redesign"? belay
      Quote: Newone
      Where is it supposed to install compressed air tanks?

      in the TC TA or on it - as a developer (KBM) will be more convenient
      Quote: Newone
      Where to drive the compressed air?

      what nafig trails? removable pipeline (for scuba tamping) with an additional drying unit?
      Quote: Newone
      This place and weight and money.

      those. MONSTER in the form of a "standard" PU and a very high cost of operation, you "don't notice"?
      Quote: Newone
      Conclusion: throw existing ships into landfills? Perfectly...

      fool
      This is not a "conclusion", but your personal nonsense!
      Modern was real and possible not only for 20380, but also for 11356, and with very little cost.
      1. 0
        26 May 2019 14: 09
        very high cost of operation

        Here, in more detail, please.
        And the cost of a launcher at half the cost of a shot of a homing torpedo is clearly not a feature of the technical solution, but someone wants to eat a lot. I think this someone’s lips should be easier and cheaper to get away from a safer design to an archaic.
        Art Nouveau was real
        The keyword WAS.
        1. -2
          26 May 2019 14: 53
          Quote: Newone
          And the cost of a launcher at half the cost of a shot of a homing torpedo is clearly not a feature of the technical solution, but someone wants to eat a lot. I think this someone’s lips should be easier and cheaper to get away from a safer design to an archaic.

          read carefully:
          I wrote about the cost of the TPC about half the cost of a battle torpedo
          and once again - poping there is not a penny
          what the fleet ordered - he got it

          and there is nothing "archaic" in a TA (or other launchers) with a pneumatic firing system - they are still massively used on the latest weapons and military equipment
          1. 0
            26 May 2019 15: 21
            If there is no peeling there, then the fleet presented some kind of arch-stringent conditions for the military-industrial complex. In fact, the TPK torpedoes are completely similar to the TPK of the same sea-based anti-aircraft missile. The same mortar launch with a powder charge. But for missiles, the launch container is much cheaper than a missile.
            1. -1
              26 May 2019 16: 01
              Quote: Newone
              Essentially TPK torpedoes are completely analogous to TPK

              have you heard about the "group of requirements"?
    2. +1
      26 May 2019 14: 20
      If desired, these problems can be solved, offhand a pair of high-pressure cylinders integrated into the launcher (if necessary, instead of one of the torpedoes) plus [a few [] many] small-diameter elastic high-pressure pipes hidden under a raised floor resistant to the transport trolley and [one [ ] many] civilian compressors crammed into free space.
      1. 0
        26 May 2019 14: 25
        Problems with the impact of the powder installation are also solved, moreover, elementary and without the cost of space. The only question is to the fleet TZ at the speed of the torpedo exit.
        1. -1
          26 May 2019 14: 50
          Quote: Newone
          Problems with the impact of the powder installation are also solved, moreover, elementary and without the cost of space. The only question is to the fleet TZ at the speed of the torpedo exit.

          still - the question is not the speed of the exit, but speeding up
          1. 0
            26 May 2019 15: 17
            The calculated torpedo acceleration is calculated based on the speed of the torpedo exit from the launch vehicle.
            1. -1
              26 May 2019 15: 32
              Quote: Newone
              The calculated torpedo acceleration is calculated based on the speed of the torpedo exit from the launch vehicle.

              YOU to kindergarten
              to ducks
              on "Courage" I laid out acceleration graphs when fired at the amerovsky analogue of TPK for torpedoes (in the end, they spat and saved the TA)
              1. +1
                26 May 2019 15: 39
                And you in the mental hospital to life-giving haloperidol.
                Are you trying to disprove physics?
                1. -1
                  26 May 2019 16: 02
                  Quote: Newone
                  And you in the mental hospital to life-giving haloperidol.
                  Are you trying to disprove physics?

                  Monsieur, YOUR "physics" wassat from the category "altrenative"
                  1. 0
                    26 May 2019 18: 47
                    "altrenative"

                    Do not judge all by yourself.
                    Although yes.
                    You are an expert in drawing up "alternative specifications", you have never heard anything about the connection between speed and acceleration. The same is not found in translated American journals.
        2. 0
          26 May 2019 15: 34
          This is understandable (I am for TPK myself), but regarding TK this is not so, this is an erroneous action, TK from the fleet should be launched at N-sea state. It is just that the maximum and minimum exit speed is proportional to the ship's pitching, and it, in turn, is the size of the ship and the performance characteristics of its pitch stabilization systems, so the same TK for the exit speed will be different for different ships, places on the ship and types of launchers. I wrote about this above.
          1. -2
            26 May 2019 16: 03
            Quote: ProkletyiPirat
            TK from the fleet should be on launch at N-th sea agitation.

            yes
            of course
            + to this the requirements for the "exit geometry" (taking into account the traction and structural elements of the ship
  25. The comment was deleted.
    1. -3
      26 May 2019 14: 10
      Quote: asp373
      The competent decision. The fleet decided that the zour was more important to him than the torpedoes of the last chance

      is this SAM without RC (at 20380) "smart decision"?!?! belay
      and the TLU for them in the stern turned out to be for a simple reason - instead of installing simple and light inclined launchers under the "Caliber", they began to twist the ship under the UVP
      Quote: asp373
      Well imagine :-) Uh

      The lie
      Quote: asp373
      Are these problems solvable?

      NO
      and I am too familiar with this question - I was "full of food" by analyzing the test results (after some very serious troubles)
      Quote: asp373
      Then you have to take # poo in a fist and solve them,

      once again - this is our special chemistry
      in the same US gg much better
      Quote: asp373
      do not incite children

      insensible (and deceitful) little child here YOU
      and there was no "hitting" - yes, the article was written on the basis of my discussions (including with experts) on "Courage", but if I had seen it beforehand, Timokhin would have "poked" on a number of points (for example, the cost of the cover disproportionate to the cost of extremely expensive TPK, etc.)
      Quote: asp373
      Do you know how many problems the fleet has with any ratsuha from our best in the world?

      lol
      understandably ...
      You are not in the subject at all, and you don’t even have a minimal idea
      as they say - "to the ducks, to the divan" ... laughing
      Quote: asp373
      By the way, ACCELERATION can be adjusted by choosing the burning rate of the "pasta" in GG,

      DO NOT (in the sense of getting what you need)
      and there are no "pasta"
      there is no pvz
      Quote: asp373
      Who writes TK ?!

      for reference - sane and adequate TTZ - has long been a rarity
      1. -1
        26 May 2019 19: 08
        Clear. TK is written by the developer, since only he knows what is feasible and what is not. Then the product is accepted by the customer, finding out at the state tests the developer was able to fulfill his own TK or not. If the product TK does not comply, then it is being finalized until the customer fails the act of state acceptance.
        If the product of state acceptance has not passed, then the developer himself must determine the set of measures to bring it to the requirements of the statement of work. For example, in our case, redo the GG and add the wad, since the torpedo has gas indigestion from gas-generating gases.
        If the customer waved the act, then who is to blame? Now it is necessary to persuade the developer to carry out modernization in order to improve the performance characteristics, and to allocate for this appropriate funding for the development of OCD.
  26. +1
    26 May 2019 15: 35
    Additionally, the question: What are the restrictions on the reuse of torpedoes launched from TPK?
    Is the algorithm possible:
    Start torpedoes from TPC
    removing the torpedo and delivering it to the factory
    Extraction of TPK and its delivery to the factory
    reloading the torpedo and installing it into the used TPC
    1. -2
      26 May 2019 16: 04
      Quote: Newone
      Start torpedoes from TPC
      removing the torpedo and delivering it to the factory
      Extraction of TPK and its delivery to the factory
      reloading the torpedo and installing it into the used TPC

      yes, initially it was not foreseen for TPK, but "life forced"
      however the multiplicity of this is VERY low
  27. -2
    26 May 2019 16: 07
    Well, and more realities - from the former beg. 28 Torpedoes Operations Department
    A serious drawback in the development of torpedoes in the USSR is a small amount of testing, as a result of which this type of weapon was produced with serious flaws. The massive use of torpedoes during combat training was essentially a continuation of state tests. In the first five or six years of mastering this weapon by the fleet, serious shortcomings are discovered and various modifications are made, including to achieve the declared technical characteristics. Examples of this mass.
    When Americans developed Mk-48, then during the tests more than a thousand shots were fired, thanks to which they discovered and eliminated all the flaws and launched into a series. Our analogue of this torpedo is USET-80 had a little over a hundred test shots. Therefore, probably, he was born, despite the 15-year development period, prematurely with six acute problems.

    https://vpk-news.ru/articles/22059
    1. 0
      26 May 2019 18: 58
      You are always trying to prove that you need as many starts as possible. With this, no one disputes. More start-ups - more application experience.
      However, in addition to launches (which are needed to catch the jambs of developers and simply unknown problems with the application), it is necessary to minimize operating costs i.e. Maximize the life of the product, reduce the likelihood of damage to the product during transportation storage installation. TPK allows this to be done. And a slight increase in the cost of starting (TPK is reused) is more than an acceptable price for reducing the accident rate and increasing the service life. This is a path already practiced on many other products.
    2. -1
      28 May 2019 00: 25
      Well, and more reality - from the former beginning. of the torpedo operation department of the 28th Research Institute of the Navy - This is already a distant past. "When the Americans were developing the Mk-48, they fired over a thousand shots during the tests, thanks to which they found and eliminated all the flaws and put them into production." That later made this torpedo the most expensive in the world - and its efficiency is 50-50.
  28. -1
    27 May 2019 18: 04
    then Fizik M
    Okay, I'll talk on your "anti-submarine" ...
    Dude, are you pure performance characteristics read on "Package = NK" at least in open sources?
    Well, or like on the exiled click .. you are clean as a "successful anti-submarine"
    http://ktrv.ru/production/voennaya_produktsiya/vooruzhenie_dlya_vmf/malogabaritnaya_teplovaya_torpeda_mtt.html
    https://masterok.livejournal.com/1928202.html
    Well, at the end of the delivery
    Contents of delivery:
    - MTT in combat and practical configuration;
    - spare parts for the preparation and repair of torpedoes;
    - operational equipment for inspection, preparation and repair;
    - educational tools;
    - coastal maintenance complex.

    (Specialist, Schaub to the expatriates and the kulibins on the ground were than to take the pens and the forage space)

    Advantages of UGST:

    - high transport characteristics: speed, range;

    - the possibility of combat use in any areas of the World Ocean;

    - smooth adjustment of speed;

    - high security from sonar;

    - safety, simplicity and low cost of operation of torpedoes and their storage;
    - modular design, the possibility of subsequent modernization;

    - automated control of the technical condition;


    - long service life.
  29. -3
    27 May 2019 19: 12
    Protos Today, 18:04 Dude, are you clean TTX read on "Package = NK" at least in open sources?
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    Mousye, drink some water;)
    YOU ducks in divanny were waiting :)
    for reference - RP "Packet" is on my table.
    now;)
    Well, about the "cheapness" of the operation of the UGST, whinnying like a horse :))))
  30. -3
    27 May 2019 19: 16
    Newone (Boris) Yesterday, 18: 58
    You are always trying to prove that you need as many starts as possible. With this, no one disputes. More start-ups - more application experience.
    However, apart from the start-ups (which are needed to catch the developers’s shoals and simply unknown problems with the application), it is necessary to minimize operating costs, i.e. MAXIMUM increase the service life of the product, reduce the likelihood of damage to the product during transportation storage installation. TPK allows this
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    MDA ... already pleased that the need for statistics (necessary and large) is beyond doubt ... Progress however :)))
    As for the "operating costs" ONCE AGAIN: A FEW YEARS AGO, TPK COST LIKE HALF-HALF, THE MULTIPLICITY OF ITS APPLICATION IS LITTLE
    For transportation - all normal costs are carried by TRANSPORT CONTAINERS
  31. -3
    27 May 2019 19: 20
    asp373 Yesterday, 19: 08
    Clear. TK is written by the developer, since only he knows what is feasible and what is not
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    Do not hurt the crap, it hurts!
    And open GOST and read
  32. -3
    27 May 2019 19: 23
    Newone (Boris) Yesterday, 18: 47
    You are an expert in drawing up "alternative specifications", you have never heard anything about the connection between speed and acceleration. The same is not found in translated American journals.
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    CHILL OUT VASYA
    and not even in the bursa (to teach physics), but to the fox pickers (they will be fine with you)
  33. -3
    27 May 2019 19: 27
    Newone (Boris) Yesterday, 18: 43
    Is this an example of a jamb caught? Reliable?
    In my opinion, this is an example of the absence of output control at the manufacturer’s enterprise.
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    YOUR post is an example of "pulling YOU cards out of your sleeve"
    YOU "modestly did not notice" about 100 shots to assess the CLS (I note that it took a LOT more, and the last "shoals" from "Sapphire" were already raked out by the Indians, after 10 years)
    further in the text there is about 53-61, according to which only after 10 years of operation it was discovered that most of the time they were kept in ammunition, they were not capable of combat (and this defect did not manifest itself in any way in the "practical version" and it was pushed through on combat on PI and GI)
  34. -3
    27 May 2019 19: 31
    Protos Today, 17: 49
    The manufacturer has only one opportunity to meet the conditions of operation - TPK
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    LIE

    Protos Today, 17: 49
    And you please do not compare with the midshipmen and foremen of the USSR !!!
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    "for some reason", most of my fighters had a very decent level (and it is far from the fact that it was higher in the USSR), and "thanks" for this not so much to me as to my foremen of the teams and the training center of the Navy
  35. -3
    27 May 2019 19: 41
    Newone (Boris) Yesterday, 18: 17
    I believe you know. Just offer APR-3E - then there is something to sell. A transfer / restoration of production - though it is difficult but feasible.
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    Boy, you still believe in God Kuzu :)))))))))))
    For reference: given that the APR-3 is developed by 80x (and the beginning is generally at the beginning of 70x), this requires a new OCD. Which was (APR-3M)


    Newone (Boris) Yesterday, 18: 34
    You did not understand or do not want to understand the scheme I proposed. I do not propose to install a crane for lifting TPK from the pier (although there is no particular difficulty in this either. I suggest a crane for lifting TPK (spent) from the hatch. Loading it onto the trolley on the track in the arsenal. And accordingly loading from the TPK trolley in the hatch.
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    ONCE AGAIN: ON 20380 DOWNLOAD TPK - TOP, THROUGH THE REMOVED TOP ADJUSTMENT
    PM

    Newone (Boris) Yesterday, 18: 34
    What does hydrology have to do with equipment reliability?
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    Mousye, YOU deal with your verbiage;)
    about reliability began to flog YOU
    Yes, this is a factor, and it requires application statistics
    BUT - the main thing is HYDROLOGY (conditions of the environment of use), and even on an absolutely finished product

    Newone (Boris) Yesterday, 18: 34
    There is an opinion that this is an open document. I'm just too lazy to look for him through TOR
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    :))))))))))))))))))))))))))


    Newone (Boris) Yesterday, 18: 34
    Judging from the relation to you of profile specialists, and not the inhabitants of the forums, nonsense is YOUR EVERYTHING :)
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    LIE (proof can you bring it? Or, as always, YOU have a "puddle and bush") boy! you first learn to answer for your blah blah blah.
  36. -2
    27 May 2019 19: 43
    Dante (Cyril) Today, 19: 19
    In general, I took the price tag for launchers (that is, RUB 58) and divided it by the number of ships under construction or built by the NEA that can carry the Package-NK. There are 291 of them, each with 657 PU CM 4. Total 8 pieces. I divided them into them. It turned out about 588 rubles, deducted 32% VAT, and it turned out to be about 1.
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    this is the price of the turning base itself and the "electrics"
    TPK prices are not in them
    they are part of MBS (with products)
    1. 0
      27 May 2019 19: 50
      Strange, the swivel base is on another purchase ... although there the price tag differs by only one and a half. In general, without knowing the context, it is very difficult to understand.
      1. 0
        28 May 2019 00: 32
        The result of all this torpedo crap - TPK for torpedoes on a ship is the best solution - in terms of design it is simpler and cheaper - in combat, it is better to double the number of launchers on ships. Fighting alone, no ship will lead.
        1. 0
          28 May 2019 04: 24
          Quote: Vadim237
          The result of all this torpedo crap - TPK for torpedoes on a ship is the best solution

          In all cases, it is better with the exception of aviation ammunition, or rather aircraft ammunition, but there is its own specificity. Even the TPK submarine is better, although it seems at first glance this is not so, but there the TPK allows you to double the number of torpedoes in the first salvo relative to a conventional torpedo (we are talking about onboard versions of TA-s)
          1. 0
            28 May 2019 15: 43
            Even on the submarine, the TPK is better, although it seems to be wrong at first glance, but there the TPK allows you to double the number of torpedoes in the first volley with respect to the usual torpedo (we are talking about onboard TA variants)


            Masterpiece. MARVEL Comics approves laughing !
  37. xax
    -1
    28 May 2019 02: 36
    Quote: Fizik M
    YOU have bad physics
    You forgot about ACCELERATION

    In my school, when they were already preparing for the university, a physics teacher between the physics and physics problems sometimes instead of taking a break, for the sake of fun, inserted tasks from some thread of the agricultural institute:
    "The body has speed (the explanation" V "in brackets, so that the applicant agrarian understands where in the formula to insert this figure) ... blah blah blah ... find the acceleration (in brackets" a ")" laughing
    Did you also graduate from the agricultural one? Don't write the word "acceleration" to you, you can't see it at two speeds (conditional 0 before launch and initial speed after the torpedo leaves the vehicle)? request
    Do you write below that some kind of TK was? I get scared.
  38. 0
    29 May 2019 18: 55
    xax (xax) Yesterday, 02: 36 New
    At my school, when they were already preparing for the university, a teacher in ... You also graduated from the agricultural school? Don't write the word "acceleration" to you, you can't see it at two speeds (conditional 0 before launch and initial speed after the torpedo leaves the vehicle)?
    Do you write below that some kind of TK was? I get scared.
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    Moussier, I certainly sympathize with YOUR 3 classes in the parish, but I still had a normal Soviet school (mathematical class, VZMSH) and the oldest secular university of the Russian Federation;)

    A bit of reality
    http://2013.attaches.forums.a0z.ru//10/16-3269443-346757546.jpg
    for the "especially vigilant" - the ACCELERATION charts when firing from the TPK from "ues navi" (at one time they also toiled with this FUCK, but they had enough common sense to leave it at the level of experiments), we were VERY jealous of these charts
    PM
  39. 0
    29 May 2019 18: 57
    Vadim237 (Vadim) Yesterday, 00: 25
    What subsequently made the Mk-48 torpedo the most expensive in the world - and its effectiveness 50 on 50.
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    Mousia, keep YOUR incompetent nonsense and nonsense with you (and Aibolit)
    to reality she has nothing to do
  40. 0
    29 May 2019 19: 32
    clarification
    график http://2013.attaches.forums.a0z.ru//10/16-3269443-346757546.jpg
    not with accelerations, I will get to the company and lay them all out (including accelerations along the axes) from that document (UES Navy)
    1. 0
      30 May 2019 00: 49
      Isn’t it easier to drop the link to the document itself?
  41. xax
    -2
    30 May 2019 00: 30
    Quote: Fizik M
    oldest secular university of the Russian Federation

    The Russian Federation and 3 are not a decade old yet. What is the oldest university in Russia?
    In my university, for your writing there exists (existed?) Meme: SPM (ashamed of MSU, that is to say). If I correctly understood where you were tolerated during your studies, then SZS is more suitable for you.
    Quote: Fizik M
    ACCELERATION graphs when shot from TPK

    You are confusing basic physical quantities. What you mean in physics is called a jerk. Acceleration acceleration, if you want. And this quantity is similar to the acceleration just as much as the acceleration itself is similar to the speed, because these quantities are, respectively, the third, second, and first derivatives of the distance over time.

    Do not be offended, but wishing your country to have a future, I sincerely hope that the most difficult TK that you have ever made up is TK to the villagers for weeding the beetle.
  42. 0
    30 May 2019 13: 23
    xax (xax) Today, 00: 30 New
    The Russian Federation and 3 are not a decade old yet. What is the oldest university in Russia?
    In my university, for your writing there exists (existed?) Meme: SPM (ashamed of MSU, that is to say). If I correctly understood where you were tolerated during your studies, then SZS is more suitable for you.
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    Mousye, we already understood that YOUR TsPSH (oh, excuse the wSS) :))))) these are village buryak :)))))))))))))))

    xax (xax) Today, 00: 30 New
    You are confusing basic physical quantities. What you mean in physics is called a jerk. Acceleration acceleration, if you want. And this quantity is similar to the acceleration just as much as the acceleration itself is similar to the speed, because these quantities are, respectively, the third, second, and first derivatives of the distance over time.
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

    If YOU, after the Buryaks, are confused with derivatives - this is YOUR personal problem. But do not drag your problems with "aibolites" to the public :))))
    "For reference" - the third derivative is used in special equipment, but in CONTROL SYSTEMS, primarily to ensure effective STABILIZATION.
    But about the "purely mechanical" questions - the second (ie ACCELERATION) is enough in the vast majority of cases. There are other examples, but they are unique in themselves (for example, the control laws of the "Cobra-Gyurza" mine projectile)

    xax (xax) Today, 00: 30 New
    Do not be offended, but wishing your country to have a future, I sincerely hope that the most difficult TK that you have ever made up is TK to the villagers for weeding the beetle.
    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    It is ridiculous and sinful to be offended by the stupid and the poor (like YOU) :))))))))))))
    but about your alternative "physics" "from the buryaks" (like murzilki), if you please, your ducks in the bathroom rub
    :))))))))))))))))))))))))))
  43. xax
    -1
    30 May 2019 14: 57
    Quote: Fizik M
    But about the "purely mechanical" questions - the second (ie ACCELERATION) is enough in the vast majority of cases. There are other examples, but they are unique in themselves (for example, the control laws of the "Cobra-Gyurza" mine projectile)

    Above you write:
    Quote: Fizik M
    Pneumatics is possible

    Smooth acceleration - this is motion with variable acceleration, which in physics is called a jerk, being the third derivative of the distance over time.

    I understand who you are. Look, the news about your "colleague" from another specialty (they say, he also liked to write on thematic forums, there, they say, he was exposed):
    https://tjournal.ru/news/87020-na-urale-arestovali-vracha-za-rabotu-po-poddelnomu-diplomu-20-let-nazad-on-lechilsya-ot-shizofrenii

    The reason for his "success" is that he does not really stand out among the general level of our doctors.
    But you have chosen a technical "field of activity" for yourself, this is your mistake. Here a person who does not even know school physics (that's you) looks so ridiculous that he immediately fired up.

    It was not difficult.
  44. 0
    31 May 2019 18: 50
    xax (xax) Yesterday, 14: 57 New
    Smooth acceleration - this is motion with variable acceleration, which in physics is called a jerk, being the third derivative of the distance over time.

    I understand who you are.
    The reason for his "success" is that he does not really stand out among the general level of our doctors.
    But you have chosen a technical "field of activity" for yourself, this is your mistake. Here a person who does not even know school physics (that's you) looks so ridiculous that he immediately fired up.


    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    Monsieur, as it was already shown above, who YOU ​​are clearly exhaustively - a cheap SHULEROK, and with the level of "education" "priest" from the TsPSh :)))
    "Smooth acceleration is movement with variable acceleration," - oh, right? or YOU just so "really want"? Or maybe YOU have "just such a card up your sleeve"?
    By my education, I brought the documents;) well, YOU in your "biryukas from TsPSh" exhaustively signed - YOURSELF;)

    For those in "wooden helmets" I repeat:
    - the mass of the TPK with the product (MBS) of the "Package" is MORE THAN 2 times the mass of the product
    - The size of the WPC with the product is roughly 1,5 times the size of the product.
    - recoil parameters TPK "P" and Mk32 are simply incomparable
    Americans: http://2013.attaches.forums.a0z.ru//10/16-3269349-32-15.jpg (from the Mk32 manual)
    I will not give figures for us, they are "not closed", but they are not in the RP and WTE, so I do not want to be the first to name them
    I will only note that where in many places they put the Mk32 PU "Packet" will simply vomit with a piece of the ship (add-on or deck), i.e. needs a strong foundation and reinforcements

    In the "bottom line" we have the fact that the PLO BK (PTZ) is ALWAYS INSUFFICIENT for solving problems not only on a corvette, but also on a frigate ...
    "Repin's painting" Swam "...
    But the "fleet is happy" with the "fucking" TPK

    PM

    PS Monsieur xax, YOU have done it with your head? Aren't YOU tired of being dunked in YOUR "pearls" yet? YOU ducks in YOUR bathroom are tired of waiting :)))))
  45. xax
    0
    31 May 2019 23: 21
    Quote: Fizik M
    YOUR "pearls"

    They are more likely "pearls" of Newton and the mathematicians who developed his theory than mine.
    You will not be able to overcome physics, the charge of madness of one person will not be enough for this)).
    I respect and share in people the craving for technical sciences, I wish you only to hold in your hands the psychological (mental?) Aspect.
  46. 0
    1 June 2019 18: 03
    xax (xax) Yesterday, 23: 21 New
    They are more likely "pearls" of Newton and the mathematicians who developed his theory than mine.
    You will not be able to overcome physics, the charge of madness of one person will not be enough for this)).
    I respect and share in people the craving for technical sciences, I wish you only to hold in your hands the psychological (mental?) Aspect.

    xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
    Mousia, you are not tired of guzu their next nonsense flog?
    Or "Newton" is YOUR "Napoleon" and YOU write from the "sixth"? ;) - very similar :)))
    In the next hospital attendant, ask yourself a physics textbook for the 6 class.
    :))))))))))))))
  47. +1
    20 January 2021 15: 59
    I didn’t even know that the advertised "Package" is UG. It's just logical to launch a torpedo with air, why such an overcomplication?