65 centimeters of death. Refusal of 65-cm torpedo tubes - error

288

PLARK pr. 949A. Two middle torpedo tubes in the bottom row - 65 cm

In April 1972 of the year, the Krasnoye Sormovo plant laid the head submarine of the 671РТ Salmon project - K-387. At the end of December 1972, the ship went into operation. This boat became the first carrier of the new weapons: torpedoes and anti-submarine missiles in caliber 650 millimeters. Of the six torpedo tubes on board, only four had an 533 caliber. And two were 650-millimeter, designed for huge anti-ship torpedoes with a caliber of 65 centimeters or comparable in size anti-submarine missiles (PLUR).

65 centimeters of death. Refusal of 65-cm torpedo tubes - error

Torpedo 65-76

From that moment on, large torpedo tubes and ammunition for them were firmly registered on Soviet "cruising" submarines. It is understandable: a more powerful warhead, more fuel and oxidizer, a more powerful engine providing greater speed were placed in a large torpedo. For Soviet submarines, which also required the ability to attack surface ships as part of strong enemy battle groups, the presence of long-range and high-speed torpedoes was very important. It was 650-mm torpedoes that became the "main caliber" when working on surface ships in our submarine.



Also, in the case of PLUR for the 650-mm torpedo tube (86P), a significantly faster delivery of weapons to the target was provided than in the case of PLUR for the 533-mm TA (83P). The reason is the best flight performance of the “big” rocket, directly related to the size of its engine.

The following samples of weapons launched through the 65-cm TA were in service with the Navy:
- 65-73: uncontrolled torpedo with a nuclear warhead TNT equivalent in 20 kilotons;
- 65-76: torpedo with a non-nuclear warhead and homing system on the wake of the track. Later, an improved version appeared - 65-76А;
- PLUR of several types from the RPK-7 "Wind" PLRK (86Р, 88Р).

Already in the early eighties, there was a more advanced than the 65-76, DST torpedo, but it didn’t get into service, although on many boats, by the early nineties, it even had a modified BSI. The torpedo was distinguished by greater safety, the presence of remote control, less noise and was generally much more advanced than the 65-76A, and much safer to use.


Model of the DST torpedo against the wall. You can see how much the 650-mm torpedo is larger than the 533-mm (on the other side of the photo)

Its pilot operation in the North navy in 1991-1992 was quite successful. Alas, for some strange reason, the well-proven torpedo was never adopted, which later had fatal consequences: it was the explosion of the 650-65A torpedo that led to the disaster of the Kursk submarine K-76 and the death of its crew and seconded specialists. More about all this in article by M. Klimov “DST: torpedo, which was not on the“ Kursk ”.

After the Kursk disaster, the 65-76A were withdrawn from service, and the 650-mm torpedo tubes were left without weapons. But even earlier, long before this, a trend appeared to reject “large” TAs. The first "swallow" was the titanium submarine of the 945A project. It used 8 torpedo tubes of the traditional caliber 533 mm. This allowed on the one hand to increase the ammunition to 40 torpedoes and PLUR. On the other hand, the boat lost its long-range torpedo.

But the main event that put an end to the further development of such a weapon system as the 650 mm TA was the development of a submarine of the 885 Ash project, which was positioned as a submarine of the future and also did not have an 650 mm TA. In the future, such torpedo tubes were not installed on new boats. "Ash-M" also does not have them; the "strategists" do not have them either.

A few years later, under completely insane circumstances, the corresponding test benches were destroyed. This is best illustrated in the book:



At the time when the decision was made to abandon the 650-mm torpedoes, he had certain sound arguments. So, a surface ship inside a protected warrant could be hit with a cruise missile, and the abandonment of the 650-mm TA made it possible to increase the ammunition of torpedoes of the 533 mm caliber and cruise missiles of the S-10 Granat complex (the Soviet "ancestor" of the Caliber with a nuclear warhead )


Torpedo compartment of the 945 project boat, lower torpedo - “thick”, 65-cm

Today, however, the situation has changed dramatically, and we can firmly be sure of the following - a refusal to develop the 650-mm torpedo line and SLTs for them is a mistake. And that's why.

The new reality of submarine warfare.


At the end of the 80's - the beginning of the 90's of the XX century, the anti-submarine forces of the US Navy made a revolutionary breakthrough in their development. A jerk similar to that made during the Second World War during the Battle of the Atlantic. Or, we use a different analogy - the situation in submarine warfare for submarines changed the same way it changed for airplanes in the sky when massive air defense radars appeared - this did not lead to the disappearance of aircraft, but the nature of the war in the air completely changed.

So, the means of low-frequency acoustic search were put into operation en masse - now a submarine that reached a long wavelength from an external low-frequency source - “backlight” returned it back to the water column and was detected regardless of its level of low noise and stealth. Computing systems have appeared that are capable of working with any array of sensors and emitters as a single unit, which turned the field of buoys into a huge single antenna of many collaborative elements.

Non-acoustic methods for detecting submarines by wave manifestations on the surface of the water have powerfully entered into practice. High-performance towed GAS appeared, capable of tracking low-frequency water oscillations generated by a moving submarine.

Significantly increased the efficiency of torpedoes. Combining with the experience gained in the NATO countries in anti-submarine defense, all this dramatically, by orders of magnitude, facilitated the work of anti-submarine forces and made it difficult for submarines to maintain stealth.

The latter is now critical not only at the stages of a boat going out to sea, moving to a given area and searching for a target, but also at the moment of using a weapon and even after it. And here the bet on missiles turns out to be a problem - launching missiles from the underwater position of the enemy’s acoustics will be detected from such a distance that the fact of a missile attack will be known long before the first Caliber or Onyx is detected by the enemy’s radar. Moreover, the number of missiles in the salvo will be known.

That is why, for example, American submariners do not like to use Harpoon anti-ship missiles - it unmasks the fact of being in the submarine area and can show the enemy where it is located exactly. And the Mk.48 torpedo, although it is distinguished by a high level of noise, but due to the launch range on remote control and the ability to bring it to the target from the direction from which it was launched (giving the enemy a false bearing), the boat has a chance to remain undetected even when the use of torpedoes, "showing" to the enemy only the torpedoes themselves, but not their carrier.

At the same time, hitting a torpedo with a modern surface ship is much more difficult than hitting a missile, and the destructive force of a torpedo is incomparably higher.

In the conditions of a jump-like increase in the combat effectiveness of anti-submarine forces, not rockets, but torpedoes again become the main weapon, and torpedoes used at the maximum distance with remote control, in the case of surface ships, are used from outside the zone of acoustic illumination that takes place around every western ship group, like on remote control, and with guidance on the wake of the wake.

Size matters


And here it suddenly turns out that in the dimensions of the 650-mm torpedoes, you can create a much more effective means to attack surface ships than the 533-mm torpedo of a normal size. Whatever level of perfection power plants of torpedoes reach, and in the 650-mm case you can put a much more powerful propulsion system than in the 533 millimeter, unless of course we are talking about engines that are at the same technical level.

This makes it possible to increase the speed of the torpedo. But it’s even more interesting to use the reserves of its internal volumes not so much for speed (for 533-mm torpedoes it is mainly sufficient), but to increase the range. Modern remote control systems allow you to shoot at a range of tens of kilometers, so the length of the fiber optic cable on the best German telecontrol coils reaches 60 kilometers. The ranges of modern torpedoes at speeds in 35-40 nodes reach up to 50 kilometers - and the old 650-mm 65-76 had the same at 50 nodes.

If one day it comes to creating new torpedoes in this caliber, then, combining the 650-mm torpedoes with an economical travel mode with the speed of 35-40 nodes, a large supply of unitary fuel or powerful batteries, a smooth set of speed (and a slow increase in noise) after exit from the torpedo tube, the presence of remote control to control the torpedo until it is detected by the homing system of the wake of the target ship and the homing system of the wake after switching off the remote control and separating the optical fiber horse cable, you can achieve truly “missile” ranges of torpedoes against surface ships and their groups, while the boat will not need to take risks and take a position too close to the attacked warrant, and the presence of remote control will allow for additional reconnaissance of the wake track with the arrival of the submarine information that the trace was actually found.

The enemy is aware of the fact that an attack is taking place only when his sonar speakers hear a torpedo coming to the ship, that is, a long time after launch, which will give the boat enough time to escape - and this is the cardinal difference between a torpedo attack and a missile one.

On a torpedo with an 533 mm caliber, all this is also possible to realize, but providing the same “missile” range is incomparably more difficult, firstly, and in this parameter the 650-mm torpedo will still win, all other things being equal - secondly.

Another important factor is the power of the warhead. It is extremely unlikely that one torpedo with an 533 mm caliber is capable of incapacitating, for example, an aircraft carrier. A large 650-mm torpedo is quite capable of this.

Thus, of all the available options, when developing a torpedo to attack surface targets, an 650 millimeter caliber is preferable.

An important point - in the thick case of 650-mm torpedoes it is much easier to implement certain measures for acoustic protection of the torpedo - the layout of the 533-mm torpedoes is too dense for this, it’s not at all a fact that it will be possible to provide them with the necessary secrecy in the near future - Americans with their Mk.48 of this can no longer provide it. A large 650-mm torpedo can be much less noisy than an 533-mm torpedo made at the same technological level.

The disadvantage of this caliber is the size, due to which the presence of such torpedoes limits the ammunition for conventional 533-mm torpedoes. However, a small number of such torpedoes on board and a pair of torpedo tubes (or one at all) will not limit the ammunition load of 533-mm torpedoes to a critical degree. At the same time, 533-mm torpedoes can be the "main" weapon for most situations, and 650-mm torpedoes can be for the most difficult targets, which are too dangerous to approach.


65 cm and 53 cm. The size difference is rather big

In addition, the option of “double ammunition” is possible and effective - when short torpedoes are received in the caliber 650 mm, which significantly reduces the severity of the problem. According to the estimates of domestic experts, the 650-mm torpedo in its transport characteristics will surpass the 533-mm torpedo even with a body length of 6 meters (65-76 had a length of more than 11 meters), (see Dr. A.S. Kotov , A. Yu. Krinsky, "There is an alternative to the 65-76 long-range anti-ship torpedoes", Scientific and technical collection "Underwater marine weapons" Concern MPO "Gidropribor").

And for the fight against submarines caliber 650 mm can give a lot.

It is no secret that American and English submarines have a huge superiority in the range of detection of the sonar system in a passive, covert mode over domestic submarines. However, domestic submarines are equipped with SOKS - a wake track detection system, which makes it possible to detect the passage of a foreign submarine at a distance large enough so that it does not detect a Russian submarine or if it could detect, but could not immediately use a weapon because of the long distance.

In open water, the commander of an atomic submarine, upon detection of a wake trace of a foreign submarine, sometimes it is possible to immediately use the launcher launched through the torpedo tube. This method of attack allows you to prevent a foreign submarine from approaching the domestic range of weapons


The use of PLUR from a submarine. 1 - launch from TA, 2 - exit from under water, 3 - acceleration, 4 - separation of the accelerator, 5 - drop of spent accelerator into the water, 6 - decrease in payload (anti-submarine torpedo or a shell with a nuclear warhead) at the target location, 7- defeat the target. In fact, a torpedo, if it is a load, can also search for a target after a splashdown

But a significant part of our underwater confrontation with the West passes under the ice. And there it is impossible to do.

A hypothetical torpedo guided by an underwater wake trail could follow a foreign submarine, and at low speed, without revealing itself - this mode of movement is quite feasible on electric torpedoes at a modern technological level. And here we again come to the conclusion that the 650-mm torpedo in performing such a task may turn out to be better than the 533-mm. A boat that performs the task of covertly searching for an enemy underwater can loop, change course, in order to detect self-tracking. Given the fact that the torpedo-pursuer must move behind the scenes, it may take a long range to go after the target repeating its trajectory. And the dimensions of the “head” of the torpedo will make it possible to place a larger-sized homing system in it, which, in light of the size of our electronic equipment, may also be necessary if the necessary functionality cannot be realized in a normal 533-mm caliber.

Naturally, such an anti-submarine bulky torpedo should be electric, not thermal. And even when following the wake trail, it should have remote control to evaluate what is happening on board the Russian submarine that launched it.

All of the above unexpectedly makes 650-mm torpedo tubes in demand even on strategic submarines - after all, if hunting surface ships is not their regular task, then fighting with an enemy hunting boat is almost inevitable for them in the event of a real war.

Another advantage of a large-caliber torpedo tube is the ability to launch a larger uninhabited underwater vehicle through it than the 533-mm TA provides. Such UUVs, as well as torpedoes controlled or guided through a fiber optic cable, can be used for reconnaissance in a wide variety of conditions. They can even be used to issue target designation to weapons. Moreover, it is technically feasible to create a “remote periscope” on such a NPA, with the help of which the submarine commander could visually assess the surface situation tens of kilometers from the submarine itself. And again, the dimensions of suchdrone"turn out to be useful - it is possible to install more powerful batteries and more voluminous and heavy electronic systems in it, which, alas, is still in demand in our conditions.

Another important advantage that gives the 650-mm torpedo tube on each multi-purpose submarine is the ability to create and combat use of large-sized cruise missiles and, accordingly, range.

It is no secret that the Navy 3M14 Caliber cruise missile in its performance characteristics is significantly inferior to the X-101 cruise missile used by the VKS. This is due precisely to the size of the missiles - the X-101 is corny more, which makes it possible to place more fuel on it, an engine with more traction, more explosive in the warhead, if it is ever needed, and so on. The possibility of increasing the size of the Kyrgyz Republic "Caliber" is limited precisely by its diameter, which is the same for the surface and underwater versions. "Large" torpedo tubes allow you to create and use and underwater version of the increased size of the Kyrgyz family "Caliber". This will increase the importance of any torpedo submarine in the system of strategic nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence and ensure the launch of missile strikes at a great range from safe waters.

One of the advantages of deploying long-range missiles on marine carriers is that they allow you to "push" the launch line of the Kyrgyz Republic to any enemy. The presence of cruise missiles of particularly long range in the arsenal of submarines will make this much easier and safer. In addition, they, like a large torpedo, may have a more powerful warhead.

It was for similar purposes that Israeli-built Delphin-type German-built submarines installed 4 650-mm torpedo tubes. According to the US Navy, they are used to launch Israeli cruise missiles with Rafael Popay Turbo with a range of up to 1500 kilometers. It is believed that some of these missiles may be equipped with a nuclear warhead.

In the case of Russia, a hypothetical large missile will have a range of many thousands of kilometers.

Conclusions


At the end of the eighties, an underestimation of the potential of 650-mm torpedoes arose in the Navy and the military-industrial complex. Partly this was due to objective reasons, and partly it was just a mistake.

But today, in the new changed conditions, the need to resume the development of torpedoes in this caliber and the use of such torpedo tubes in future submarines is obvious. The presence of such weapons is one of the very few potential (not yet real) advantages of Russia in submarine warfare, which can become real in a few years (from seven to eight with the right approach). And the opportunity to realize such an advantage should not be missed.

At the moment, in Russia there is OCD "Laika" - a program for the development of the next generation submarine. It will be correct if 650-mm torpedo tubes reappear on board. In the same way, it will be right if, with the modernization of the third generation nuclear submarines starting now, the 650-mm torpedo tubes will not only remain in their armament, but will also receive new torpedoes and cruise missiles in their ammunition.

If we do not do stupid things, “65 centimeters of death” will still say their weighty word.
  • Alexander Timokhin
  • Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, warcyb.org.ru, GVP of the Russian Federation
Our news channels

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

288 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +35
    13 December 2019 18: 17
    I and 533 mm in the museum, at one time, was impressed by the dimensions, and then I looked at the photo comparison ....
    1. +17
      13 December 2019 18: 51
      Interesting? For what Leader negative !!!?
      And pulls blur: "size matters"!
      Regards, Kote!
      1. +24
        13 December 2019 18: 54
        I have "personal" minus players! Like many, I think ... Here, woke up, probably)))
    2. +9
      13 December 2019 18: 55
      We all remember the rocket boom in the USSR. Nikita Sergeevich attached his little handle. Even tanks were equipped with missiles belay instead of tank guns and fighter jets, air cannons were removed. Then the renaissance of traditional weapons came, and the missiles occupied their reasonable niche. As for the “confrontation” between torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, it seems that it has not yet ended ..
      1. +20
        13 December 2019 19: 13
        Well, the "rocket trend" took place over the hill too! It is worth recalling only the American F-4, which initially had no cannon weapons!
        Missile tanks, or rather their fighters, served as the impetus for rethinking the tank weapons of the USSR. By the way, since then our BTTs have not just a cannon, but a “gun launcher”! By the way, the tanks of the partners M60A2 and Sheridan de facto were also missile tanks. In principle, you can go further and discover other parallels! But is it worth it?
        After all, you can banally throw the stamp "Khrushchev = Missiles, Khan to cruisers and guns" and a mustache !!!
        R.s. I am not a supporter of "Uncle Corn", but if you recall him in a sou, you have to do it, and "crush the water in the mortar" !!!
        Regards, Kote!
        1. +1
          22 December 2019 16: 10
          Exactly so, everything should be reasonable.
      2. +1
        14 December 2019 14: 17
        Quote: Proxima
        As for the “confrontation” between torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, it seems that it has not yet ended ..

        there is no "opposition"
        they have different "tactical niches"
        1. +3
          14 December 2019 15: 12
          Quote: Fizik M
          Quote: Proxima
          As for the “confrontation” between torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, it seems that it has not yet ended ..

          there is no "opposition"
          they have different "tactical niches"

          That is the trick that every type of weapon is trying to expand this niche. It was already said above that at the time fighters abandoned air guns, relying only on missiles. Here you have a “niche” ...
    3. +2
      14 December 2019 14: 17
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      I and 533 mm in the museum, at one time, was impressed by the dimensions, and then I looked at the photo comparison ....

      there is an option here - to halve the length (i.e. double the ammunition load)
      "half" 65cm torpedo, still SIGNIFICANTLY exceeds 53cm (all other things being equal ...)
    4. +1
      26 December 2019 21: 34
      Yes, here, even from the photo next to it, you can see that 653 mm. it is a colossus in the floor of some MRBMs. It is certainly comparable in size to the Iskander-M OTRK or the P-500 missile.
  2. +12
    13 December 2019 18: 32
    The trouble is that some responsible "uncles" mistakenly consider the torpedo to be a weapon of the NEAR battle, concluding that it does not need range.
    1. +10
      14 December 2019 00: 07
      The level of competence in various important issues of the country's life does not always, unfortunately, correspond to the high rank of officials at the top, and quite often it is necessary to make fateful decisions for all of us.
      1. +5
        14 December 2019 14: 01
        Their competence is clearly visible on the example of the government, and yet such people are sitting in the Ministry of Defense.
        1. +1
          14 December 2019 15: 59
          Quote: Fan-Fan
          But in the Ministry of Defense such people are

          MO competence is visible to the naked eye:
          There was not a single person worthy to take the post of Minister of Defense for the entire higher generals ...
      2. +5
        14 December 2019 20: 18
        Quote: Chaldon48
        The level of competence in various important issues of the country's life does not always, unfortunately, correspond to the high rank of officials at the top, and quite often it is necessary to make fateful decisions for all of us.

        I agree. I’ll only add that the level of competence of local authors, perhaps also no better than the level of high ranks, is rather the opposite. And to draw conclusions on the basis of such articles is very risky. hi
    2. 0
      14 December 2019 14: 18
      Quote: knn54
      The trouble is that some responsible "uncles" mistakenly consider the torpedo to be a weapon of the NEAR battle, concluding that it does not need range.

      exactly!!!
      as a result, the huge and successful experience of the USSR Navy in firing torpedoes from ultra-long distances was thrown out!
      1. +1
        15 December 2019 04: 24
        Everyone has! Officials from the state apparatus of money abroad. Arrested bills, suppressed the law.
  3. +11
    13 December 2019 18: 43
    And here it suddenly turns out that in the dimensions of a 650 mm torpedo, you can create a much more effective means of attacking surface ships than a 533 mm torpedo of a normal size.
    And in dimensions of 1000 mm torpedoes, you can far exceed the capabilities of a torpedo with a caliber of 650 mm. In turn, torpedoes of 1500 mm will be significantly more powerful than 1000 mm.
    I advise the author to see the history of the race of calibers of naval guns and its finale.
    1. +12
      13 December 2019 19: 08
      Have you heard Mk. 48? This is a moped practically laughing With the emergence and development of systems such as "Packet" / "Fins" and supercavitating artillery shells, such noisemakers will have insoluble problems.

      In addition - range. The article gives a lot of arguments for the 65-cm caliber, try to refute them.
      1. +13
        13 December 2019 19: 38
        The article gives a lot of arguments for the 65-cm caliber, try to refute them.
        What am I supposed to refute? That the larger the torpedo, the more powerful and long-range it can be? Do I look like a "citizen of the polis living in isolation from public life?"
        And the bigger the gun? Tank?
        Absolute weapons do not exist. There is a whole range of factors and the linear increase in size does not solve the issue.
        1. +11
          13 December 2019 20: 32
          This is not about absolute weapons, but about the fact that the technology available right now and the equipment available right now (65 cm TA) make it possible to obtain a substantial increase in military power for a penny.
          Once upon a time, I recall, there were 400 mm torpedoes. The current 53 cm has not always been the standard. Even now, the Ryazan submarine has those old torpedo tubes, for which there are no torpedoes.

          Nothing prevents making a new torpedo in an already mastered caliber
          1. +8
            13 December 2019 21: 15
            The question is - what will this "increase in military power" give, apart from expenses? For the Japanese, Long Lance also provided an increase in military power.
            1. +9
              13 December 2019 21: 29
              So you can dissolve the armed forces in general and that’s all.
              1. +13
                13 December 2019 21: 46
                So you can dissolve the armed forces in general and that’s all.
                You have everything from the extremes. There is a principle of reasonable sufficiency. And security is provided primarily by political means. And if politics is in opera, then no torpedoes will save.
                1. +17
                  13 December 2019 23: 39
                  But politics cannot be effective if there are no torpedoes. That is the trick.
                  1. +3
                    14 December 2019 05: 34
                    Exactly so and not otherwise. I don’t remember a more terrible state of the country than in the 90s, when the policy was "zashibis". But with "torpedoes" then it was bad.
                    Remind who changed the situation?
                2. +6
                  14 December 2019 07: 55
                  Quote: Undecim
                  And security is provided primarily by political means.

                  Can I illustrate with examples?
                  And it is desirable in relation to Russia.
                  1. -1
                    14 December 2019 12: 28
                    Well, for example, Alexander-1 and the Crimean War.
                    1. 0
                      14 December 2019 14: 12
                      Quote: alexmach
                      Well, for example, Alexander-1 and the Crimean War.

                      What do you mean?
                      1. +1
                        14 December 2019 17: 13
                        I give an example of ensuring security by political means. In Russia. Those that would be successful of course.
                      2. +1
                        14 December 2019 19: 11
                        Quote: alexmach
                        I give an example of ensuring security by political means. In Russia. Those that would be successful of course.

                        That is, the whole point is not in the heroic resilience of the soldiers and sailors, but in some political means? Which ones?
                      3. +1
                        14 December 2019 20: 29
                        Take an interest in the affairs of Alexander-1. What he did after the Napoleonic Wars and what came of it (spoiler - Crimean War)
                      4. 0
                        15 December 2019 01: 55
                        Quote: alexmach
                        Take an interest in the affairs of Alexander-1. What he did after the Napoleonic Wars and what came of it (spoiler - Crimean War)

                        You give an unobvious argument.
                        Not even an argument, a hint of some kind of connection between the emperor and the war.
                        The connection then exists without a doubt.
                        It runs a continuous line through generations and centuries in the history of Russia.
                        But in the context of the question "ensuring security by political means"?
                        Can you explain what you meant?
                        "Read it yourself to find out what I wanted to say" - I received the answer.
                        Don't you find this manner of discussion very strange?
                        If you have nothing to add, then perhaps it was better not to write anything?
                        I would be interested in your arguments, but certainly not references.
                      5. 0
                        15 December 2019 11: 45
                        I tried to support your thought, but apparently too foggy
                        But in the context of the question "ensuring security by political means"?
                        Can you explain what you meant?

                        Well, in fact, Alexander did this, and devoted the rest of his life to this. He restored the monarchies knocked down by Napoleon and traveled around "assemblies" building reliable peaceful relations with "partners". At the same time, Russia itself degraded and missed its historical chance, accumulated problems that were fired already in the 20th century, the army was slowly falling apart, look at least at the history of the Semenov regiment and technically lagged behind. It all ended with the Crimean War, against all yesterday's allies and a crushing defeat.
                      6. +1
                        15 December 2019 18: 05
                        Quote: alexmach
                        I tried to support your thought, but apparently too foggy

                        Only now I realized that we share one point of view.
                        Funny incident.
                3. 0
                  14 December 2019 14: 24
                  Quote: Undecim
                  You have everything from the extremes. There is a principle of reasonable sufficiency.

                  YOU have only slogans
                  our 53cm caliber torpedoes have a ton of problems to put it mildly, and most importantly, it’s far from the fact that modern and future requirements for them (especially in stealth) can generally be implemented in a 53cm caliber
                4. +1
                  14 December 2019 20: 37
                  Quote: Undecim
                  And if politics is in opera, then no torpedoes will save.

                  Politics needs tools to be used for it, and the military power of the state is a very good instrument, and even, if you will, an argument for the state's foreign policy. Not for nothing, when Churchill declared the need to take into account the interests of the Pope in Catholic Poland, Stalin immediately asked the British Prime Minister, "How many divisions does the Pope have?"
                  Something like that...
                  1. +3
                    14 December 2019 21: 54
                    the military power of the state is a very good tool, and even, if you like, an argument for pursuing the state’s foreign policy.
                    I was not talking about military power as such, but about its reasonable size to ensure the security of the state, which directly depend on the principles of foreign policy. Otherwise, you can choose such a "foreign policy course" that there will not be enough divisions and torpedoes will not help.
                    Today, the main instrument and argument of foreign policy is not waving torpedoes and divisions, but the appropriate economic base. And its absence will not replace either super torpedoes, or any doctrines of "the war of the seas" that the author of the article develops, or the number of divisions "at the Pope's."
                    1. -3
                      15 December 2019 03: 51
                      Quote: Undecim
                      Today, the main tool and argument of foreign policy is not waving torpedoes and divisions, but the corresponding economic base.

                      At the expense of the main tool and argument, this is unlikely. Ancient Rome was at one time the center of world politics, an economic giant, and it was destroyed by barbarians with virtually no economy.
                      1. +3
                        15 December 2019 12: 00
                        It's not like that at all. Rome rotted from within, an ineffective state apparatus destroyed the economy, constant intrigues and coups destroyed power - in the end no one even wanted the emperor, the successes of the barbarians are a consequence of this, and even a trifle, in comparison with other problems.
            2. 0
              14 December 2019 14: 22
              Quote: Undecim
              The question is - what will this "increase in military power" give, apart from expenses? For the Japanese, Long Lance also provided an increase in military power.

              a sharp change in the criterion "efficiency / cost" - in favor of 65 cm caliber
              about the Japanese and the history of the appearance of this caliber - see my article in the military-industrial complex (about the T-15 torpedo)
              1. +6
                14 December 2019 15: 27
                about the Japanese and the history of this caliber - see my article
                Thank you, but I like Campbell and Lacroix more.
                As for the "slogans", it is more to you with your statements about "drastic changes" from scratch. Do it first, then talk about "drastic changes". There are some doubts about what will happen "dramatically change", especially on the old base.
                Minuses are not mine.
                1. -1
                  14 December 2019 15: 34
                  Quote: Undecim
                  As for the "slogans", it is more to you with your statements about "drastic changes" from scratch.

                  before smacking nonsense, you did not think to think?
                  For example, what gives an increase in the antenna aperture?
                  or improving the hydrodynamic shape of the hull?
                  etc.
                  all the necessary calculations were made a long time ago, see their echo - an article by the major hydra specialties on Courage (since 2007)
                  1. +3
                    14 December 2019 15: 50
                    You will leave the fuse of a propagandist for the local turbopatriots, who are very fond of "in peace with no analogs".
                    Before writing slogans in fiery indignation, try to look around, how to evaluate reality. All the time you operate on what happened. Experience shows that the past does not guarantee similar success in the future. But I’m not even talking about that, which you don’t realize. Even the possession of a separate sample of "superweapons" does not guarantee anything in terms of achieving strategic preferences, and adding one more sample to the list of "unmatched" samples is not the factor that will tip the scales in favor of victory.
                    Regarding the technical aspects, thanks for the information - I am able to find it out.
                    1. -1
                      14 December 2019 15: 53
                      Quote: Undecim
                      Regarding the technical aspects, thanks for the information - I am able to find it out.

                      very glad that you still decided to go read on the topic;)
                      still "before torturing Claudia" - it would be absolutely wonderful laughing
                      1. +2
                        14 December 2019 16: 16
                        still "before torturing Claudia" - it would be absolutely wonderful .
                        At the end of the discussion, in order to land a little, I recommend that you read Brant. Perhaps this will somehow contribute to a return to reality and weaken the burden of the crown, which you stubbornly try to hoist for yourself, and to your own detriment. All the best.
                      2. -1
                        14 December 2019 16: 57
                        Quote: Undecim
                        At the end of the discussion, in order to land a little,

                        here and land lol
                        "it is far to see a falcon in flight, but a good fellow in snot" laughing
                      3. +2
                        17 December 2019 12: 53
                        Behave yourself properly. Offending people you dishonor yourself. We are not in the pub, and the site is not a passage yard.
              2. 0
                26 December 2019 22: 03
                And what article?
                But here's what I see when looking at these products and reverential engineering ancestors:
                1. Yes, 65 cm. TA were made on the basis of old and huge SBCHs, our first atomic torpedoes (remember the S-80 atomic super gun and the 2B2 Oka super mortar). Well, we were not able to Soviet and then at that time, a lot of things and what now? Time goes by and the SBCs have become smaller. As I understand it, the apologists of redneck "economy and unification" always hint about the same "fact" ?! As an offtopic: I read the legends about the suspended TBCH of the mythical Sakharov T-15 torpedo. If this "ingolin unit" is a balalaika the size of a P-500 missile or an Iskander-M OTRK and the floor of the Pershing-2 MRBM, then what kind of "fool" would the T-15 be? Really 1500mm diameter. and the length of the R-5 / R-12 rocket ?!
                2. Second and main. We are always lagging behind in engine building and electronics, from the progressive world military-industrial complex. This is not a mockery. For me, resuscitation is 65cm. TA is the ability to fire submarines / submarines with everything that our military-industrial complex standards system has to offer. From "old-new" torpedoes with thermonuclear sub-warheads and sub-calibers with KR / PLUR. And still no one thought (here on the portal) that through such TA, it is possible to launch OTRK, MRBM. It is also possible to equip or re-equip such TA, for launching a wide range of UAVs / UAVs, for reconnaissance and pre-guidance of formations and single submarines / submarines. Launch through such reconnaissance and spy UAVs (combat autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles - drones). Such large TA, will allow not to smoke the submarine hull for the sake of, for example, a pair of spy scouts with good GAS and magnetometers, as well as other equipment?
                3.This is what came to my mind when I looked at the US Navy boats with huge drones and manned vehicles on the hump and backs. Often such "stowaways" prevented the boat from going under water on a good "cruiser". We look at the history of the submarines of the "secret divisions of US NAVY" Halibut & Suordfish, Parch.
          2. +13
            13 December 2019 21: 21
            Well, actually, a lot of problems. Starting with how far the telecontrol works and why the heck then you need a range of 650 mm torpedoes or how to provide such a range on an electric ship. Nevertheless, I agree with you: the 650 mm was a sincere thing (both in range and power), and its successor could create NATO hemorrhoids in volumes that significantly exceed its cost. Underwater drones, again, will be easier to create in caliber 650.
            1. +7
              13 December 2019 21: 31
              Starting with how far the telecontrol works and why the heck then you need a range of 650 mm torpedoes or how to provide such a range on an electric ship.


              Well, right now - the TU cable length is up to 60 km with the potential for increase, after the torpedo on the lace found the wake, the lace is cut off and then it goes to the wake. I think in the length of 11 meters to 100 km range at AML can be taken out.

              can create NATO hemorrhoids in volumes that significantly exceed its cost.


              About that and speech.
            2. 0
              14 December 2019 14: 26
              Quote: bk0010
              or how to provide such a range on an electric ship.

              in the west, electric torpedoes have long surpassed thermal torpedoes in terms of driving performance ("Shevelo criterion" - DV2)
              1. 0
                14 December 2019 18: 29
                This is cool, they are great. But it's not just that physicist-2 has a turbine engine, sort of.
                1. 0
                  15 December 2019 15: 34
                  Quote: bk0010
                  physicist-2 has a turbine engine, sort of.

                  it's fake
            3. -2
              14 December 2019 15: 34
              Quote: bk0010
              how far does telecontrol work

              over 100 km
              1. 0
                14 December 2019 18: 29
                But what did Physics-2 not do for the entire range?
                1. +3
                  14 December 2019 18: 47
                  He did NOT have a hose TU at all - none. There is a towed reel there, and it’s like a weight on the feet of a boxer.
                2. 0
                  15 December 2019 15: 35
                  Quote: bk0010
                  But what did Physics-2 not do for the entire range?

                  Physicist-2 NO, this is a fake
                  and on Physics - ask him Gavrilov's GK, he is a LIE in an interview, so let him answer something to his "observer" (without translating "shooters" into military)
                  1. 0
                    15 December 2019 17: 58
                    That is, we still do not have an analogue of the MK-48?
                    1. 0
                      15 December 2019 18: 25
                      Quote: bk0010
                      we still do not have an analogue of MK-48?

                      There is "Physicist-1"
                      "Physicist-2" - FAKE
            4. 0
              26 December 2019 22: 10
              What am I writing about. I didn’t publish my posts, otherwise I’ll get a strike for multi posting.
              Although I’ll edit it.
              1. Yes, 65 cm. TA were made on the basis of old and huge SBCHs, our first atomic torpedoes (remember the S-80 atomic super gun and the 2B2 Oka super mortar). Well, we were not able to Soviet and then at that time, a lot of things and what now? Time goes by and the SBCs have become smaller. As I understand it, the apologists of redneck "economy and unification" always hint about the same "fact" ?! As an offtopic: I read the legends about the suspended TBCH of the mythical Sakharov T-15 torpedo. If this "ingolin unit" is a balalaika the size of a P-500 missile or an Iskander-M OTRK and the floor of the Pershing-2 MRBM, then what kind of "fool" would the T-15 be? Really 1500mm diameter. and the length of the R-5 / R-12 rocket ?!
              2. Second and main. We are always lagging behind in engine building and electronics, from the progressive world military-industrial complex. This is not a mockery. For me, resuscitation is 65cm. TA is the ability to fire submarines / submarines with everything that our military-industrial complex standards system has to offer. From "old-new" torpedoes with thermonuclear sub-warheads and sub-calibers with KR / PLUR. And still no one thought (here on the portal) that through such TA, it is possible to launch OTRK, MRBM. It is also possible to equip or re-equip such TA, for launching a wide range of UAVs / UAVs, for reconnaissance and before the guidance of formations and single submarine submarines / submarines. What is difficult to create turbojet or theater drones with a folding wing, on the type of KR?
              3. Launch through such reconnaissance and spy BPA (combat autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles - drones). Such large TAs will allow not hulling the hull of a submarine for the sake of, for example, a pair of spy scouts with good GAS and magnetometers, as well as other equipment?
              4.This is what came to my mind when I looked at the US Navy boats with huge drones and previously manned vehicles on the hump and backs. Often such "stowaways" prevented the boat from going under water on a good "cruiser". And the huge "gates" (gates) in the hulls of some USA boats? We look at the history of the submarines of the "secret divisions of US NAVY" Halibut & Suordfish, Parch.
          3. 0
            26 December 2019 22: 00
            I’m the namesake, of course not a mine torpedo worker and a small expert on subflooding. am winked But here's what I see when looking at these products and reverential engineering ancestors:
            1. Yes, 65 cm. TA were made on the basis of old and huge SBCHs, our first atomic torpedoes (remember the S-80 atomic super gun and the 2B2 Oka super mortar). Well, we were not able to Soviet and then at that time, a lot of things and what now? Time goes by and the SBCs have become smaller. As I understand it, the apologists of redneck "economy and unification" always hint about the same "fact" ?! As an offtopic: I read the legends about the suspended TBCH of the mythical Sakharov T-15 torpedo. If this "ingolin unit" is a balalaika the size of a P-500 missile or an Iskander-M OTRK and the floor of the Pershing-2 MRBM, then what kind of "fool" would the T-15 be? Really 1500mm diameter. and the length of the R-5 / R-12 rocket ?!
            2. Second and main. We are always lagging behind in engine building and electronics, from the progressive world military-industrial complex. This is not a mockery. For me, resuscitation is 65cm. TA is the ability to fire submarines / submarines with everything that our military-industrial complex standards system has to offer. From "old-new" torpedoes with thermonuclear sub-warheads and sub-calibers with KR / PLUR. And still no one thought (here on the portal) that through such TA, it is possible to launch OTRK, MRBM. It is also possible to equip or re-equip such TA, for launching a wide range of UAVs / UAVs, for reconnaissance and pre-guidance of formations and single submarines / submarines. Launch through such reconnaissance and spy UAVs (combat autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles - drones). Such large TA, will allow not to smoke the submarine hull for the sake of, for example, a pair of spy scouts with good GAS and magnetometers, as well as other equipment?
            3.This is what came to my mind when I looked at the US Navy boats with huge drones and manned vehicles on the hump and backs. Often such "stowaways" prevented the boat from going under water on a good "cruiser". We look at the history of the submarines of the "secret divisions of US NAVY" Halibut & Suordfish, Parch.
        2. 0
          14 December 2019 14: 21
          Quote: Undecim
          Absolute weapons do not exist. There is a whole range of factors and the linear increase in size does not solve the issue.

          65cm caliber size could be REDUCED (halving length)
          with a significant increase in efficiency from 53cm caliber
    2. 0
      14 December 2019 14: 19
      Quote: Undecim
      And in dimensions of 1000 mm torpedoes can be much

      must not
      optimum about 800mm
      the question has already been considered
      but 65cm were already
      1. 0
        26 December 2019 22: 12
        Frontal resistance too .. You're right about that. And that will be a huge kitten
    3. 0
      26 December 2019 21: 36
      You can read my comment on the article.
  4. -6
    13 December 2019 18: 44
    launching missiles from the underwater position of enemy acoustics will be detected from such a distance that the fact of a missile attack will be known long before the first Caliber or Onyx is detected by the enemy radar.

    Such an argument will soon become irrelevant, since any rocket flying with an average speed of more than 4 max outruns the sound of its underwater launch.
    1. +14
      13 December 2019 18: 53
      The speed of sound at an altitude of 10000m is about 300 m per second, in water - 1500, so in order to overtake, you need an average speed above 5M
      1. +3
        13 December 2019 19: 16
        The speed of sound at an altitude of 10000m is about 300 m per second, in water - 1500, so in order to overtake, you need an average speed above 5M

        Now re-read the quote and pay attention to
        long before the first Caliber or Onyx is detected by the enemy radar.

        After that, solve a simple arithmetic problem taking the range of RCC 800 km, and the detection radius of 300 km and get 4M
        1. +2
          13 December 2019 19: 38
          radio horizon for an altitude of 10 km - more than 400 km
          On 4M, in a straight line to the ship for more than 5 minutes, fly, a sudden blow will not work well
          Therefore, we are talking about a sudden hit only from much shorter distances, and there every second counts
          1. 0
            16 December 2019 10: 51
            Therefore, we are talking about a sudden hit only from much shorter distances, and there every second counts

            And where does the sudden blow? The strike on the AUG will be delivered on external target designation from a distance of about 800 KM, which is quite safe for the boat. Why surprise if no one can intercept a maneuvering hypersonic target. 4M is the speed that would overtake the sound in the water, and zircon will attack at a much higher speed.
            Yes, you don’t worry, as soon as he goes into service everyone will show you laughing
      2. +3
        13 December 2019 19: 33
        Quote: Avior
        in the water - 1500

        Taken off the tongue, colleague! drinks
    2. +10
      13 December 2019 19: 10
      Do not write nonsense, hypersound has a lot of other unmasking signs, and launching can be detected not by the purpose for which the missiles will go, but for example a PLO helicopter at a distance.
      1. -2
        13 December 2019 19: 26
        Do not write nonsense,

        Well, what are you getting into the bottle?
        1. I wrote about the insolvency of a specific argument, there is a radar station, and not about something OTHER DEMOCRATING it happens.
        2. Missiles will still be hypersonic.
        3. Yes, the sound from the launch can detect the PLO helicopter, only almost certainly before the missile will be detected by the AWACS aircraft.

        REPEAT:

        launching missiles from the underwater position of enemy acoustics will be detected from such a distance that the fact of a missile attack will be known long before the first Caliber or Onyx is detected by the enemy radar.


        DO NOT SLICK HER ACOUSTICS IF ROCKET FLIES AT SUFFICIENT SPEED (4M)
        1. +9
          13 December 2019 20: 35
          DO NOT SUSPEND HER ACOUSTICS IF THE ROCKET IS FLYING AT SUFFICIENT SPEED (4M)


          I will not comment on 4M, but I suggest keeping in mind that a missile can hit, for example, a cruiser 200-300 km from a submarine, and an anti-submarine frigate of 40, which was on the foot and the submarine was not detected, can hear its launch.
          With a raised system of mutual exchange of information in the group, the cruiser will learn about the launch of missiles before the sound reaches them.

          It is time.

          A group can have several or many ships, everyone will hear the launch of rockets. Regardless of how successful it is, all survivors will begin hunting for submarines, moreover, knowing exactly where it was at the time of launch.

          This dooms her to death with a very high probability. Therefore, the ability to hit a target HIDDEN does not become less important even when there is hypersound.
          1. 0
            14 December 2019 12: 37
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            DO NOT SUSPEND HER ACOUSTICS IF THE ROCKET IS FLYING AT SUFFICIENT SPEED (4M)


            I will not comment on 4M, but I suggest keeping in mind that a missile can hit, for example, a cruiser 200-300 km from a submarine, and an anti-submarine frigate of 40, which was on the foot and the submarine was not detected, can hear its launch.
            With a raised system of mutual exchange of information in the group, the cruiser will learn about the launch of missiles before the sound reaches them.

            It is time.

            A group can have several or many ships, everyone will hear the launch of rockets. Regardless of how successful it is, all survivors will begin hunting for submarines, moreover, knowing exactly where it was at the time of launch.

            This dooms her to death with a very high probability. Therefore, the ability to hit a target HIDDEN does not become less important even when there is hypersound.


            Let me criticize your position:
            1) Where is the evidence that launching cruise missiles through torpedo tubes is a noisier event than launching torpedoes themselves?
            2) Even if the launch of missiles is really a noisier event, can it be easier to carry out a set of measures to reduce the noise level when launching missiles?
            3) The use of torpedoes, suggests that the submarine itself must detect the target. And this is always roulette. Suddenly she will be discovered first!
            4) In contrast to paragraph 3, the use of cruise missiles almost always involves external target designation. Which is first modern. And secondly, it allows to realize the huge advantage of cruise missiles over torpedoes. Range of application.
            For example, passive space reconnaissance means, we were able to calculate the location of the enemy destroyer, according to the work of its radar. Information is transmitted to the submarine and it launches a couple of missiles at a destroyer from a distance of 500 km. Let's say the missile launch was detected and the launch point was precisely determined.
            It is highly unlikely that within the radius of 30-60 km from the launch site will be the enemy ship PLO. But even if this happens, then only situation number 3 will arise, which you proposed initially. Moreover, even in this embodiment, the submarine will have a significant advantage. It is thanks to the ability to use cruise missiles on the enemy. The enemy can only use torpedoes. Cruise missiles have speeds several times faster than torpedoes. The missile captures the target at ranges of 50-70 kilometers. The torpedo captures the target, at ranges of just over 1 kilometer.
            By the way, I want you to pay attention to the fact that in this case the rocket and torpedo have almost the same length, weight, caliber. And even they are supposed to be launched from one device. But at the same time, a cruise missile has dozens of times greater basic combat characteristics. Range of application, speed, range of capture of the homing head. Additionally, the ability to work on ground targets. In fact, only submarines are left for torpedoes. Cruise missiles will cope with other goals much better.
            And continue. If in the vicinity there is no PLO ship, then the enemy can only react with aircraft. By air / helicopters. And how much will they cut to the rocket launch site? Given the fact that from the launch site to the aircraft-based locations, there will most likely be several hundred kilometers? Hour? Two hours? And how far is our submarine from the launch site of cruise missiles? 60 km? 80 km? And in any direction! And what is the probability that a single plane / helicopter can immediately! find our submarine in such a huge search area? And you need to find out right away! For the longer the enemy searches for our submarine, the further it will go away from the launch site. And the probability that our submarines will be found will be proportionally reduced.
            Of course, the probability of finding our submarine can be increased by sending several aircraft / helicopters. But here is the question. Will the enemy be able to simultaneously engage a large number of aircraft PLO. After all, by default there is a war. So most of the aviation is already involved in ongoing operations. And to find an additional large number of combat-ready units that are within the reach of the launch area. Which should come to this area at the same time !, in order to examine the necessary site as soon as possible (about the importance of the speed of the examination, I wrote above). In general, a moot point.
            And in any case, all that the enemy can use against our submarines, after launching cruise missiles, the same enemy will use against our submarines after they use torpedoes. After all, the launch radius of torpedoes is only tens of kilometers. And accordingly, the area where our submarines will rush to look for will not exceed the area that I described above in area.
            In general, you guessed it, I'm for cruise missiles.
            Because they allow you to work on external target designation and from a great distance. Which reduces the probability of detecting our submarines by orders of magnitude before they use weapons.
            And even after the use of weapons, if the launch area is established, then our submarine has TIME to hide.
            And this is even provided that the launch of cruise missiles is indeed such a unmasking factor that, as I already wrote, is not a fact at all!
            1. +4
              14 December 2019 13: 36
              1) Where is the evidence that launching cruise missiles through torpedo tubes is a noisier event than launching torpedoes themselves?


              Ask people who launched rockets from submarines, who launched torpedoes from submarines, and who listened to others do.
              They will confirm to you what I said.

              can it be easier to carry out a set of measures to reduce the noise level when launching missiles?


              Well, suggest how to make a silent solid fuel accelerator, we will discuss.

              The use of torpedoes suggests that the submarine itself must detect the target. And this is always roulette. Suddenly she will be discovered first!


              Well, this is a war, nothing to do.

              4) In contrast to paragraph 3, the use of cruise missiles almost always involves external target designation. Which is first modern. And secondly, it allows to realize the huge advantage of cruise missiles over torpedoes. Range of application.


              It remains only to provide it somehow, this is target designation. It is usually not. This exceptional case will be - TsU for 300-400 km.
              The rest falls off after TSU.

              And in any case, all that the enemy can use against our submarines, after launching cruise missiles, the same enemy will use against our submarines after they use torpedoes.


              Just look for the submarine after the torpedo attack will have to in a circle with a radius of 50-60 km, and after the missile attack - at a point with coordinates and an error of 200-300 meters.
              And this is a fundamental difference.

              then our submarine has TIME to hide.


              How many? The helicopter will be exactly above the launch site after 20 minutes maximum.
              At a typical low-noise speed, the boat will leave no more than 2-3 miles during this time. Or reveal itself with noise.
              1. 0
                14 December 2019 15: 43
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Well, suggest how to make a silent solid fuel accelerator, we will discuss.

                a controversial argument - the accelerator can be involved in the launch of a missile torpedo to the surface already in the air, hi just enjoy jumping fish or dolphins .... wink
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Well, this is a war, nothing to do.

                this argument also breaks yours about detecting a submarine when launching a CR ... request
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                that launched missiles from submarines,

                so your opponent is quite reasonable to raise the question of changing the launch mechanism of the CD - it is more reasonable from any point of view! They created bubble-free torpedo launch systems .... technically, it’s not so difficult! We launch the CR from the TA as a torpedo, it accelerates with a set of speed and sharp acceleration at a shallow depth (in the wave zone), flies into the air, and at that time accelerators start ... request
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                at a point with coordinates and an error of 200-300 meters.

                If it's not a secret, where does the data come from? Even at 18uz the submarine leaves at a speed of 10m / s - do you promise an answer in 30 seconds? This is simply not realistic given the flight response time ... request
                1. 0
                  14 December 2019 15: 45
                  Quote: ser56
                  Launch KR from TA like a torpedo,

                  By the way, this also allows you to mask the location of the submarine ... request
                2. +1
                  14 December 2019 15: 57
                  She will not come to the surface, you what! This is metal, there is negative buoyancy.
                  1. +2
                    14 December 2019 16: 15
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    She will not come to the surface, you what!

                    from what ? hi let it from a depth of 50m at an angle of 3g - it will come out in 1km from the water in 1,5 minutes at a speed of 50uz - even as it flies ... hi
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    This is metal, there is negative buoyancy.

                    why do not the iron ships sink? bully
                    1. +1
                      14 December 2019 16: 50
                      How will it go up without an accelerator? This is ROCKET!
                      1. +1
                        14 December 2019 17: 13
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        How will it go up without an accelerator? This is ROCKET!

                        1) as there in a joke - let the engineers think ... bully
                        2) But seriously - it is necessary to make a special stage of withdrawal of the CR to the surface. Which will solve at least 2 goals: reduce the acoustic visibility of launching the launch vehicle and increase the uncertainty of determining the location of the firing submarine. soldier
                        I don’t see any particular difficulties in creating such a stage - it’s just part of an electric torpedo with a battery of reduced capacity.
                      2. 0
                        14 December 2019 17: 26
                        You just do not imagine the mass-dimensional x-ki products. There are no options - a start on a solid fuel accelerator, on it there is a way out from under water, there will be no miracles here, PLUR is too hard a thing.
              2. 0
                14 December 2019 17: 53
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Well, suggest how to make a silent solid fuel accelerator, we will discuss.

                A rocket or several, can be anchored or in programmed underwater movement for a couple of hours (preferably at the rate of passing targets). A submarine can, during this time, move a considerable distance. Then - launch rocket (s).
                1. 0
                  14 December 2019 17: 55
                  The goal is gone.
                  1. 0
                    14 December 2019 18: 28
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    The goal is gone.

                    A missile half a hundred miles is not a problem .... even in the stern.
                    1. 0
                      14 December 2019 18: 42
                      .For GOS this is exactly the problem.
                      1. 0
                        14 December 2019 19: 03
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        For GOS, this is precisely the problem.

                        In missiles of this class, we can talk about the orientation system, when it still does not see the target, but knows ....
                      2. 0
                        14 December 2019 19: 11
                        This is true for any rocket, it goes part of the path along the ANN. Then the GOS turns on. And if the target of the GOS is not detected, then the self-liquidator is triggered, or it stupidly flies on until it catches some random scandal. Or until it runs out of fuel and falls.
                      3. 0
                        14 December 2019 22: 38
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        For GOS, this is precisely the problem.

                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        This is true for any rocket, it goes part of the path along the ANN.

                        So it’s not worth it to worry.
                      4. 0
                        14 December 2019 22: 54
                        Well, yes, the GOS did not find a goal, what is there to worry about.
                      5. 0
                        15 December 2019 14: 26
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Well, yes, the GOS did not find a goal, what is there to worry about.

                        Even in medium and long range air defense, when the GOS does not see the target at the start, and then captures it in the search area, it finds everything perfectly. And you do not find huge goals.
                      6. 0
                        15 December 2019 16: 01
                        Do you really see the difference? I will not even comment on the fact that "In air defense" everything is not at all so rosy, I'm just curious. Do you really see the difference between firing a missile defense system at an air target and hitting a ship's anti-ship missile system at a great distance (beyond the horizon)?
                      7. -1
                        15 December 2019 16: 23
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        You really don’t see the difference between firing a missile launcher at an air target and hitting a ship’s anti-ship missile at a large distance (over the horizon)?

                        You also do not rummage in air defense.
                        In long and medium range, it is over-horizon work, moreover, on high-speed targets.

                        And among anti-ship missiles, there have long been Granit missiles that hit over-the-horizon targets. Now "Onyx" appears.

                        So don’t worry ....
                      8. +2
                        15 December 2019 18: 39
                        That is, you do not see the difference, but you are clever.
                        Well, okay.
                      9. -1
                        15 December 2019 20: 07
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        That is, you don’t see the difference,

                        I don’t see a fundamental difference.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        but smart.

                        You are trying to convince me of the zero wave resistance of water at the N-th depth.
                        And what is the compression coefficient of water from pressure?

                        How do you answer?
                      10. +1
                        15 December 2019 20: 21
                        I don’t see a fundamental difference.


                        Well, what to talk about with you after that

                        And what is the compression coefficient of water from pressure?

                        How do you answer?


                        I already answered - I am not participating in clowning. You yourself came up with nonsense about compressible water and ascribe it in a row to all opponents, not just me. I suggest you in this vein to communicate with someone else.
          2. 0
            16 December 2019 10: 44
            Would you like to hear me?

            40 anti-submarine frigate can hear its launch


            this is not an argument because

            a missile can be seen by an air defense destroyer 100 km immediately at the time of exit from the water, that is, almost at the time of launch, therefore

            DO NOT SUSPEND HER FIRST ACOUSTICS IF THE ROCKET FLIES AT SUFFICIENT SPEED (4M)
          3. 0
            16 December 2019 10: 55
            This dooms her to death with a very high probability. Therefore, the ability to hit a target HIDDEN does not become less important even when there is hypersound.

            I’ve already written and will repeat (if you want to expand the topic), I’ll wang, after some time there will be no torpedoes to work on surface targets on the submarine. Strikes will be carried out from 800-1000 km for external target designation.
            I don't really think so laughing (torpedoes will remain anyway), just your reaction to the comments in my opinion is too emotional.
          4. 0
            16 December 2019 22: 47
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            and anti-submarine frigate 40 can hear her launch
            (presumably km),
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            which was on the foot and the submarine was not detected.
            those. Do you have strong confidence / illusion that the launch of a torpedo (with a range of 45-55 km?!) This frigate will not want / cannot hear ?! And what is it from - this illusion ?!
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            A group can have several or many ships, everyone will hear the launch of rockets.
            Audibility, it is selective ...?!
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Regardless of how successful it is, all survivors will begin hunting for submarines, moreover, knowing exactly where it was at the time of launch.
            And-and-iii ?!
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            This dooms her to death with a very high probability.
            Although all the same, I, like you, are a supporter of maintaining the 650 mm TA, but alas, not in view of the arguments given by you. !!! Roughly speaking, the hope, on the contrary, for the possibility of delivering a long-range (gratuitous strike), but alas, this is only possible in the absence of a "guard order", which in reality is hardly possible in principle ... Here, perhaps more important is the fact that for the enemy, inflicted harm to him, will be greater than later (after an open attack by the submarine), avenged / not prevented ... so to speak. and this is also important !!
    3. +1
      14 December 2019 12: 30
      any rocket flying with an average speed of more than 4 max ahead of the sound of its underwater launch.

      And what kind of missile launched from TA flies at such a speed?
      1. 0
        14 December 2019 13: 37
        It was a hint of a hypothetical "Zircon"
        1. +1
          14 December 2019 17: 10
          from a torpedo tube? And hypothetical is a very correct word.
          1. 0
            14 December 2019 17: 25
            While it is hypothetical, what prevents believing in its launch from TA? But seriously, I just assumed I had that commentator in mind
            1. 0
              14 December 2019 17: 33
              Yes, nothing prevents. You can believe in anything at all. But Zircon has not yet been accepted into service at all in any form. That was my main point. And even if it is adopted, it is not clear what it will be, and in particular whether it will fit into the TA at all. In general, I very much doubt that in the next 10 years there will be a hypersonic missile with an underwater launch from TA. This is just my personal opinion.
      2. 0
        14 December 2019 13: 44
        Did you ask me this question?
        I just quoted one commentator
        1. 0
          14 December 2019 17: 12
          No, not for you, in the comment there is a link to the comment to which I replied.
  5. +5
    13 December 2019 18: 46
    I put a plus for the article (an interesting discussion may turn out), but the known comes to mind: Soviet microcircuits are the largest in the world! I would like to hear the competent opinion of opponents of both increasing the caliber and the assessment of the unification of weapons for our not the most omnipotent military-industrial complex. And something tells me that the Japanese were already stepping on this rake in World War II.
    1. -1
      13 December 2019 19: 02
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      but the well-known comes to mind: Soviet microcircuits are the largest in the world!
      The problem is in Soviet microcircuits: they will end soon.
    2. +5
      13 December 2019 19: 12
      The Japanese, besides the very fact of having an increased caliber, had nothing to do with this topic; Long Lance is a fundamentally different weapon.
  6. +4
    13 December 2019 18: 47
    Although it is difficult for a non-professional in this matter, but it is quite understandable, it is a pity that this understanding does not affect the decision "at the top"! There are games, and it is not a fact that someone deliberately overwrites this issue!
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +2
        14 December 2019 10: 23
        LeonidL
        Are you a professional and for you at the top are good Samaritans? What is causing it, a reaction? Negative from all slots (TV screens, radio broadcasts) pret.
        Article on the case. The author has a proposal to increase the striking power of the fleet. We discuss the pros and cons, reasonably. Power has nothing to do with it yet. But the fact that 650 mm was crushed with a humpback says a lot.
        1. 0
          14 December 2019 20: 38
          Two decades have passed since the days of the humpback - a lot has changed. I'm not against the fat one, another thing is to return it to boats, where it is already provided, or to do something for it? how appropriate is it? There are always a lot of the best wishes and the finest inventions, but we do not know all the arguments why we have not returned to the fat one now. There is only a peremptory judgment of the professional Mr. Timokhin - "mistake". It seems to me that the point here is that a thick torpedo is a naval weapon, for example, against AUG surface ships. But now, apparently, the leadership considers it more important to develop a strategic component based on new achievements of science and technology, simply excluding both war and traditional naval combat. An example is the Cold War. how much has been invented, how much has been invested ... just to keep naval battles from happening.
          1. The comment was deleted.
      3. -3
        14 December 2019 14: 29
        Quote: LeonidL
        You have correctly identified Mr. Timokhin's readership - non-professionals. For them, all this is really convincing and as a conclusion "up there" villains and byaks in general ... This is the main message of Mr. Timokhin's articles - to cause such a negative reaction. Soros School!

        Lenya, just the Soros school - you and your kind.
        For they need the MILITARY DAMAGE of Russia.
        And one of the means to bring the situation to this is the activity of such "laziness" to "varnish" and conceal the real problems of the combat effectiveness of the RF Armed Forces
  7. +4
    13 December 2019 18: 51
    If we do not do stupid things, “65 centimeters of death” will still say their weighty word.
    Interesting article, thanks to the author! For me, a person far from the fleet and its weapons, this is all new, interesting, and thanks to the article with its detailed description, I did not have a single question in connection with the perception of this news and concerns. Thanks again!
    1. +5
      13 December 2019 19: 10
      Please glad you liked it.
      1. 0
        14 December 2019 15: 50
        The article is interesting! Especially interesting are thoughts about underwater reconnaissance drones, etc.
        However, there is one question that you did not cover, and it is the key one - logistics!
        It will be necessary to have torpedoes, missiles, anti-torpedoes, etc. in 2 calibers. Otherwise, the meaning of using the new caliber is lost ... request Accordingly, the costs of development, testing, production .... request
        1. 0
          14 December 2019 16: 52
          This is incomparable in price even with one boat lost in battle and the cost of training its crew - on a fleet-wide scale, if that.
          1. +1
            14 December 2019 17: 21
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            This is incomparable in price even with one boat lost in battle and the cost of training its crew - on a fleet-wide scale, if that.

            1) But this is debatable - weapons are one of the most expensive parts of any ship, even in the era of the EDB the ammunition load of the main missile was noticeable at a cost of the price of the ship.
            2) The problem is that torpedoes and missiles during ship service change - they are modernized, new types are accepted, etc., and all this is done in 2 calibres - the costs are double ... request
            3) Finally, your thesis about increasing warhead power is not so obvious - when striking an AB, it is more advisable to use special equipment - its sinking is already a transition to a global war - there is no need for illusions ... request I personally saw a mock-up of a 6dm nuclear projectile at the VNIITF Museum - it’s easy to enter a 21dm torpedo with a large margin feel and 300 tons of TNT equivalent will be more than enough AB ... hi
            1. +1
              14 December 2019 17: 36
              And yet, Alexander, the use of 2-caliber TA will increase the displacement of submarines, especially diesel-electric submarines. And the task is precisely to make them smaller - see the Lada project. However, for the nuclear submarines, in my deep conviction, it would be necessary to return to the sizes of 5-6 ct ... Otherwise, they cannot be built en masse, even if you abandon the SSBN in general ... request
              1. 0
                14 December 2019 18: 49
                Not really - take a look at Dolphin
              2. 0
                15 December 2019 15: 07
                Quote: ser56
                the use of 2x caliber TA will increase the displacement of submarines

                length is critical for shipbuilders, not caliber
                in this regard, the transition to 65 with a length of "slightly less" 53 is beneficial for shipbuilders
                + "Caliber" in this version is much more "stealth"
              3. 0
                16 December 2019 23: 36
                Quote: ser56
                However, for the nuclear submarines, in my deep conviction, it would be necessary to return to the sizes of 5-6 ct ... Otherwise, they cannot be built en masse,
                tsilkom for, yak it seems !!! Tob then, tse may buty (tired of grimacing), something in between RTMK, "Barakuda" and "Lira" (Well, in my subjective opinion), taking the best from each of these projects, and bringing it "to the maximum" .. ..
                Quote: ser56
                the use of 2x caliber TA will increase the displacement of submarines,
                but this is no longer a fact ...?! I think so.
                Quote: Fizik M
                Lenya, just the Soros school - you and your kind.
                judging by the lack of consistency of actions aimed at reviving the Navy, this is much more evident in the country's leadership and in the Navy than in Lenya. For example, the same Chubais, not behind bars, but still "in favor" ... why, somehow ?!
                Quote: Thrifty
                .... that this understanding does not affect the decision "above"! They have their own games, and it's not a fact that someone deliberately overwrites this issue!
                There, in general, "a lot looks like not intentional", but alas, there are many oddities ...
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                .... I communicate quite normally with normal people - including with those who criticize me.
                perhaps I will confirm. with long resistance, but reasoned criticism, Alexander is quite capable of perceiving, and eventually agrees, although not very willingly, under the weight of the arguments ... :)
                1. 0
                  17 December 2019 11: 22
                  Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                  and over time, agrees, although not very willingly under the weight of the arguments ... :)

                  so this is normal! only a weather vane spins easily ... bully
  8. -2
    13 December 2019 19: 07
    More torpedoes, good and different! Paraphrasing the classics, the Lord will figure out what torpedoes the Yankees knock on in hell.
  9. +3
    13 December 2019 19: 41
    For 650 mm vehicles it’s useful to have adapter inserts for 533 mm torpedoes, a universal approach will be
    1. -4
      13 December 2019 20: 38
      What is the point in 650 millimeter torpedoes now - submarines are already hypersonic in the future to be armed with submarines, 533mm torpedoes against the enemy’s nuclear submarines will have enough distance from 50 to 90 kilometers for their eyes if there is no difference why pay more for 650 caliber torpedoes?
      1. +3
        14 December 2019 14: 12
        Vadim, is it difficult to read an article? What are RCCs if the boat is under ice? And we have under the ice many boats.
    2. +9
      13 December 2019 23: 09
      Quote: Avior
      For 650 mm vehicles it’s useful to have adapter inserts for 533 mm torpedoes, a universal approach will be

      And not only. The Germans have torpedoes coming out, thanks to the grating, self-propelled. This provides stealth and the ability to use TO in shallow water, because there is no "torpedo bag" when the torpedo sags 20m in depth.
      Therefore, there is much to improve.
      But which is better - a whale or a cat - must be considered based on the specific conditions of combat use. For example, a CR can shoot across islands, which a TO cannot do. The carrier, after launching the CD, can perform vigorous post-salvo maneuvering. And the boat leading the TU via optical fiber is deprived of such an opportunity - it is possible to cut off the "leash" ... And in case of SN the torpedo has a radius of active GA of only 2500 m, in ShP mode - depending on hydrology ... And it can be 6th type, when the beams are "bent" under the stern ... And what will you then hear a low-power GA torpedo !?
      On the issue of massing efforts and salvo launches. KR can put up to 6 units in a volley. But to fire a 2-torpedo salvo with TU ... I didn’t hear something ...
      Therefore, there are "+" and "-" in each type of submarine weapon. One thing is clear: they must all be the best in the world. In terms of KR we are on a level and even ahead of the Yankees, but in terms of TO - in a dupe! Therefore, you need to use your advantages and quickly eliminate the maintenance gap.
      IMHO.
      1. +3
        13 December 2019 23: 46
        The carrier, after launching the CD, can perform vigorous post-salvo maneuvering. And the boat leading the TU via fiber optic is deprived of such an opportunity - you can cut off the "leash" too ...


        Only on our antediluvian towed coils, on the hose TU submarine is generally not limited in maneuver, in any way. The wire is pushed out of the coil, and not pulled out from somewhere by traction, plus a corrugation that protects it from a break on the submarine case. The Germans had to put protection on the propeller so that the cable would not be cut by the blades, because the boat with the technical specifications could easily turn around and go the other way.


        And with SN the torpedo has an active GA radius of only 2500m, in the SN mode - depending on hydrology ... And it can be of the 6th type, when the beams are "bent" under the stern ... And what are you then a low-power GA torpedo will you hear !?


        Well, everything can be, this is war ... The main method of shooting should be shooting at the TU, and the CCH is rather a means of letting the fish go on the COP when possible.


        On the issue of massing efforts and salvo launches. KR can put up to 6 units in a volley. But to fire a 2-torpedo salvo with TU ... I didn’t hear something ...


        That's the joke that hose reels make it possible to make a multi-torpedo volley. And Westerners can do that.
      2. -3
        14 December 2019 15: 18
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        The Germans have torpedoes coming out, thanks to the grating, self-propelled. This provides stealth and the ability to use TO in shallow water, because there is no "torpedo bag" when the torpedo sags 20m in depth.

        for a long time without self-exit (which was on 205, 207, 209)
        212 hydraulic turbopump low noise firing system
        there are serious questions about the "secrecy" of self-exit
        the bag is determined by overweight and exit speed, exit speed to product power

        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        can perform vigorous post-salvo maneuvering. And the boat leading the TU via optical fiber is deprived of such an opportunity - it is possible to cut off the "leash".

        do not confuse our wretched TU (which would be more correct to call "reins") with the norms. western
        on 212 there are NO restrictions on maneuver and speed with TR (except "do not cross your cable")

        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        And it can be of the 6th type, when the beams are "bent" under the stern ... And what will you then hear a low-power torpedo GA !?

        actually 5;)
        for with type 6 everything is OK
        and for this it’s just very good to have TU, because torpedo will be induced according to the powerful low-frequency submarine hull

        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        But to fire a 2-torpedo salvo with TU ... I didn’t hear something ...

        once again - this is from the wretchedness of our TU
        in the west, multi-torpedo with TU normally shoot
    3. +2
      13 December 2019 23: 40
      I have no confidence that this is feasible. Have you seen the 324 mm launcher for the TA 533 mm? It is quite massive, I think that there may not be enough stock in diameter. Although who knows, on the other hand ...
  10. +3
    13 December 2019 19: 56
    Another would be to implement the start of the electro-torpedo by self-exit from the TA. Launching torpedoes with the help of the VVD also makes noise throughout the ocean. Plus, it will be possible to launch from extreme depths. Eh, dreams, dreams. It is a pity that they abandoned the development of Soviet "longlance", Japs in World War II proved their effectiveness.
    1. +4
      13 December 2019 20: 39
      There are different schemes with a silent start, not only self-exit. For the French, this is a pin ejector - a telescopic pin that pushes a torpedo out of a TA.
      In general, the TA noise problem is solvable.

      As for the Long Lansov, I would not be so optimistic - not the fact that the twenty with the small ships that they sank could not have been sunk under the same conditions without this fanaticism.
      My personal opinion is that Long Lance, although it cost the Allies losses, but how the project turned out to be too expensive.
      1. +3
        13 December 2019 20: 51
        My intuition tells me that torpedo weapons are science-intensive enough to NOT be cheap. Damn them with longlens, this is my attitude, I always identified them with 65-76 and I admit that I’m wrong. But the fact that the explosive at 65 cm fits more than the 533, and is sent to a long range is beyond doubt.
  11. +8
    13 December 2019 20: 15
    Immediately in his youth, the author returned smile To the family torpedoes. It was in the first compartment of the nuclear submarine of the 941 project that the dispenser with torpedo tubes was located, incl. and 65 cm in diameter. The commanders of the BCh-3 spoke with great respect about the "large" torpedoes. Our "long arm" against the foe drinks
    1. +6
      13 December 2019 20: 57
      Well, now they have been abandoned, although this is obvious stupidity.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      14 December 2019 15: 12
      Quote: xomaNN
      The nuclear submarine is 941 of the project and the fuel dispenser was located with torpedo tubes including and 65 cm in diameter

      was not at 941 65cm caliber
      even the central shelving was not
      only airborne and dopa
      1. +2
        14 December 2019 15: 19
        It’s a pity that we didn’t meet with you on that submarine, otherwise I would have pointed a finger at the TA.
        1. 0
          14 December 2019 15: 26
          let's not la la
          if only because near Obninsk with my fighters studied from 941 and that I know their fuel dispensers by documentation
          Shl there even the length of the "barrel" 1 compartment for products 65cm is not enough
          I’m not talking about the diameter of TPL laughing
  12. The comment was deleted.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  13. +4
    13 December 2019 22: 08
    Gigantomania in the history of weapons has been more than once; it can hardly be called a solution to problems. P39, for example. Compared to Trident. Shark and Ohio.
    1. +2
      13 December 2019 23: 47
      Here is another completely.
  14. +4
    13 December 2019 22: 11
    To be honest, from the article I did not understand the advantages of 650 mm torpedoes. Constant references to abstract "more is better ... can be placed" without specifics. In which specific situations and with which specific equipment is 650 mm better?

    From narrow-minded notions, it is clear that a torpedo can have a longer range more. OK, count. Power? Hm. A nuclear torpedo can also be 533 mm. Electronics is rapidly striving for miniaturization, that is, all guidance systems will fit in 533.

    Cruising at the cost of less ammunition. So I understand that.
    1. +3
      13 December 2019 23: 48
      More warhead mass, more range, less noise, if necessary - higher speed, and all at the same time.
    2. 0
      14 December 2019 10: 38
      Quote: Proctologist
      Electronics is rapidly striving for miniaturization,


      The point is not even in electronics (although for military products, a priori, the mass of electronics is not of paramount importance), but in sensorics.
  15. -6
    13 December 2019 22: 34
    Quote: xax
    And where is this crazy city Fizik M?


    This is a very old training manual-button accordion for bots to declare the opponents of the owners crazy. Really someone pays for such posts yet.
    1. xax
      +1
      13 December 2019 23: 12
      Quote: Demagogue
      This is a very old training manual-button accordion for bots to declare the opponents of the owners crazy. Really someone pays for such posts yet.

      Hi Fizik M!
      Are you still the chief designer of a secret research institute, or have you changed your character?

      Just kidding. You have too few capsules to be a given citizen. Although neither of which can, of course, be ruled out.
      1. 0
        14 December 2019 00: 41
        Quote: xax
        Kidding

        Every joke has some truth
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. xax
          +5
          15 December 2019 01: 10
          Quote: Fizik M
          proof

          Have fun poking your nose? No problem.

          "I had the pleasure" to draw attention to you properly in only one topic. There she is:
          https://topwar.ru/158193-nam-nuzhno-jeto-oruzhie-no-ego-u-nas-net.html#comment-id-9409747

          But this one topic is enough to assess who you, dear, are.

          That you TK on arms write alone:
          Quote: Fizik M
          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 "Region" and KBM had one General Director)

          Quote: Fizik M
          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"


          Then carry out technical meetings, determine the terms and costs, determine:
          Quote: Fizik M
          TORs were developed, technical consultations were held, the appearance of the time and costs (incidentally, extremely small, and the industry wanted at an expense)


          Then your table is littered with documents containing private data:
          Quote: Fizik M
          for reference - RP "Packet" is on my table.


          Well, clearly! Chief Designer - no less!
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. xax
              +5
              15 December 2019 21: 18
              Yes, I forgot to add.
              The discrepancy between the above guise of reality is revealed by a simple debriefing of the presented topic. The respected "physicist" at that time got confused in school physics, confusing the concepts of jerk and acceleration (more precisely, he had no idea about the existence of the first of the quantities).
              I can’t believe that people who don’t even know how much physics work for us are engineers in weapons design bureaus. And you?
  16. -2
    13 December 2019 22: 48
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Well, now they have been abandoned, although this is obvious stupidity.


    It is unlikely that everything is so straightforward. SAAB did not accidentally create the same torped 47. They want to compensate for the small size with high-quality guidance, the ability to circumvent tricks, undermining under the keel, etc. Torpedo 62 is quite competitive in heavy weight. If there is a compact filling, then 533 can be effectively made. Here's a beauty option 650 rather.
    1. +1
      13 December 2019 23: 51
      It’s easier for them with their technologies, and for a 100 km range in 650 mm, a torpedo can be made, but in 533 and less - no.
      Plus the noise factor, the farther, the more critical will be the low-noise course of the torpedo, the same Mk.48 does not take out the word "in general", only the "head" and the stupidity of the enemy, who are not puzzled by anti-torpedoes, will save it.
      But you cannot secretly bring it to the goal right now.
  17. +3
    14 December 2019 00: 18
    The author raised a very, very complex topic (thank you very much!), Such problems should be considered exclusively by professionals! Hats off to the submariners!
    1. -4
      14 December 2019 05: 05
      You will laugh - but the author is not a professional! He did not serve in the Navy; he does not have a naval education. If you read retrospectively everything that he (or they) wrote, then there simply is Tmuktrakan - each subsequent article either refutes or excludes what was written in the previous one.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. 0
                15 December 2019 00: 53
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                A decent person with Leonidl will not normally communicate

                I asked him a question about his assessment of the author of the article. request Is this communication?
                I have long noticed your painful attitude to any criticism Yes You are not a guru, but the maximum popularizer of open sources is the same as Andrei from Chelyabinsk but there are only two claims to him on the site over the years
                1 115 years after Tsushima, already do not care what hand the Admiral Rozhdestvensky scratched his ass,
                2 I never expected from him the peculiarities of the use of aviation from aircraft carriers request
                PS The railway from Buenos Aires to Cape Town via Chukotka is quite real after the Crimean Bridge
                1. 0
                  15 December 2019 01: 09
                  Quote: Ruslan67
                  The railway from Buenos Aires to Cape Town via Chukotka is quite real after the Crimean Bridge

                  And the Chukchi raped this road. Knives forged ...
                  1. +1
                    15 December 2019 01: 14
                    Quote: Mordvin 3
                    And the Chukchi raped this road.

                    Quote: Mordvin 3
                    Knives forged ...

                    Are you the knife of my dream? am wassat
                    1. -2
                      15 December 2019 01: 33
                      Quote: Ruslan67
                      Are you the knife of my dream?

                      Nah ... As a collector of knives, I haunt you. Wow ... I’m drunk on the board ... sad
                      1. +1
                        15 December 2019 01: 38
                        Quote: Mordvin 3
                        As a collector of knives, I pursue you. Wow ... I’m drunk on the board ...

                        Interconnected wink
                        Quote: Mordvin 3
                        . So I'm drunk on the board ...

                        Today we have a kitten knocked down on the street, his brother-in-law picked up. They drove to the clinics for two days, but they did not request Same......
                      2. +1
                        15 December 2019 02: 10
                        Quote: Ruslan67
                        Today we have a kitten knocked down on the street, his brother-in-law picked up

                        Sorry. I also got Kesha under the car. The noble was a cat ...
                      3. The comment was deleted.
                2. -2
                  16 December 2019 14: 01
                  I have long noticed your painful attitude to any criticism yes you nihera no guru, and the maximum popularizer of open sources is the same as Andrei from Chelyabinsk


                  You don’t project your complexes on me, please. I communicate quite normally with normal people - including with those who criticize me. You don’t get on this list, but it’s not in me. The point is your boorish behavior, such as

                  Have you greatly overestimated the place of this graphomaniac from near fleet in the food chain?


                  which you don’t even notice. They didn’t beat you for a long time apparently, or vice versa, they constantly kick you, like a submarine mongrel. So you come off the Internet.
                  Waiting in such circumstances for a tolerant attitude towards you from normal people is stupid.
                  1. +1
                    17 December 2019 02: 58
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    You don’t project your complexes on me, please.

                    Two days hatched the answer?
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    . The point is your boorish behavior,

                    Imagine I'm reading you request And so many times in the comments to the articles I saw your inadequate reaction winked It costs a little against the wool, as the arrogance of a true graduate of an elite vocational school rushes out
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    They didn’t beat you for a long time, apparently, or vice versa, they constantly kick you

                    Adequate you our Straight want crying from your intelligence ....
                    1. The comment was deleted.
            2. -1
              15 December 2019 00: 40
              Dear Ruslan! I fully agree with your definition of Mr. Timokhin as "a graphomaniac from the near-fleet in the food chain." Just remembering history. The First Big Fleet, the fleet of the line handsome Istomin, Nakhimov, Kornilov, after the proud Sinop ... flooded in Sevastopol. The Second Large Fleet of Alexander III was partially killed in the battles in the Pacific Ocean, partially ... sailed under the flag of the winner's country, which was previously impossible to imagine. The Third Big Fleet, the creation of which, due to the discussion by the "progressive public", began to be built only in 1912 and did not actually have time to take part in the war, in particular, because of this delay, the landing operation in the Bosphorus did not take place, but it was carried out in parallel with the Brusilov breakthrough, it had every chance of success. Part of this Big Fleet ended up in Bizerte, part at the bottom in Novorossiysk, part cut into scrap ... Sea battles took place in a very, very truncated form - in fact, only one battle of a brigade of outdated battleships with "Gaben" on the Black Sea. Stalin's large fleet did not participate in any sea battles at all, except for the heroic deaths of the "Tuman" in the Northern Fleet and the "Sibiryakov". The fleet did everything possible and impossible by supporting the ground forces, ensuring the landing, escorting convoys, but all this is completely far from "supremacy at sea." finally, Stalin's Big Fleet was cut to metal by Khrushchev. Let me remind you that I mean the surface fleet. in fact, Brezhnev managed to create a Big Fleet. This is a truly ocean-going fleet, handsome ships, professional sailors from admirals to sailors. in parallel, the Big Merchant Fleet of the USSR was created. Due to the practical destruction of tonnage during the Second World War, it was created from scratch. It was gratifying to see in all the harbors of the world that the cleanest, newest, best merchant ships are Soviet. Soviet Morimans were noted as the most decent among a motley and often inadequate audience. Each commercial or other side was laid taking into account the MP, there were places for artillery cellars and foundations, and much more. That is, it was all exactly - the Large Oceanic Fleet and its oceanic status was reinforced by the presence of a naval base, parking lots, friendly ports and supply bases in the World Ocean. But this was a fleet that never fought! Where is this fleet now? Partially in the ranks ... But for the most part it can be observed either under false flags, or in amusement parks around the world, or sawed up by hardworking Indians ... Times have changed and naval battles, artillery attacks, torpedo strikes are all the lot of computer games in geopolitics. The slightest threat of an attack and ... the enemy will not understand, but will immediately strike by all forces and means. A large surface fleet today is a very costly anachroism and a blow to the budget. And it is very dangerous to succumb to pseudo-patriotic provocations like the Timokhinskys in this regard. That's why I'm trying to opine for him. As well as happy with the almost complete disappearance of Rezun, also as a result of worthy criticism.
              1. The comment was deleted.
            3. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
          2. -1
            14 December 2019 21: 57
            Is it because, unlike him, for a long time I had to serve in the Navy and communicate with real naval officers.


            Lenya, but you and I already figured out that you never served in the Navy. Why are you singing these songs here again?
            1. 0
              15 December 2019 00: 46
              Mr. Timokhin, if you are so honest and straightforward - tell me frankly, as they wrote to me - what do you have to do with the Fleet? You clearly wrote - you are not a naval officer, you have no naval education. I already know from your own words your priorities in life, but they have nothing to do with the Navy either. most likely, as a child, you just dreamed of getting into the Navy, becoming an officer ... it didn't work out. In your 40s -50s, you have been somewhere in the analytical department. most likely it means they were a part-time programmer in the office of "Horns and Hooves". Now you are trying to get into the naval theorists with something like a carcass. And from the fact that you "poke" me it is neither cold nor hot, but you, my dear, very much humiliate yourself.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
            2. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  18. -2
    14 December 2019 00: 26
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    It’s easier for them with their technologies, and for a 100 km range in 650 mm, a torpedo can be made, but in 533 and less - no.
    Plus the noise factor, the farther, the more critical will be the low-noise course of the torpedo, the same Mk.48 does not take out the word "in general", only the "head" and the stupidity of the enemy, who are not puzzled by anti-torpedoes, will save it.
    But you cannot secretly bring it to the goal right now.


    T9 corrected my previous post, and I wrote there about cr for 650. Actually, torpedoes in close combat can only be effective any. For 100 km, the target will simply turn around and leave. Here cr is an option. The Swedes put torped 47 for a plane with a radius of 20 km max for a reason. Further launch on the pl is futile. Long-range 650th torpedo on warships is pointless to bullet. Unless to cover the convoys ...
    1. +3
      14 December 2019 00: 47
      Quote: Demagogue
      For 100 km, the target will simply turn around and leave

      Does the commander have a bad dream, or how will it work?

      Quote: Demagogue
      Further launch on the pl is futile.

      Anyway, life is perishable. But still I would like arguments.
    2. +2
      14 December 2019 01: 03
      The article gives an algorithm. Having approximate data on the target's location and course, a telecontrolled torpedo is launched with the task of finding its "head" wake.
      When the KS is found, the TU cable is detached and the torpedo goes on its own. The nature of its undermining is quite appreciated by acoustic methods.

      That's all.
      650mm caliber is good because it provides the desired range.
      1. 0
        14 December 2019 01: 44
        The algorithm is good, but a ship with a gus will detect such a large torpedo far enough. 10 km minimum. With towed gus even more. There are towed trompe l'oeil also ... And telecontrols no longer have to get around them. In general, transport can work. And with a modern warship there is little chance.
        1. +4
          14 December 2019 09: 34
          And here the question arises of the noise of the torpedo, right? If you do not chase phenomenal speeds, if the torpedo is electric, if measures for acoustic protection are implemented in it, then you can only detect it figuratively speaking under the side.
          And the 65cm case is good because it has a place for acoustics. protection - in 53 cm there is nowhere to put it.
          1. -4
            14 December 2019 14: 14
            For this, new materials are created - so that you do not have to shove and shove somewhere.
            1. +3
              14 December 2019 14: 33
              You know for sure! laughing
          2. +2
            14 December 2019 18: 26
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And the 65cm case is good because it has a place for acoustics. protection - in 53 cm there is nowhere to put it.

            Protection from long-wave sonars will be thicker than a torpedo.
            And the larger the object and the higher its speed - the more noise it creates and the lower the spectrum (which is heard further).
            1. -1
              14 December 2019 18: 33
              If without external illumination, then the torpedo is too small. And it goes at a depth where its wave impedance is near zero.

              So the noise is critical.
              1. +1
                14 December 2019 18: 59
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                If without external lighting,

                Without backlight, no protection is needed ...
                And who canceled the highlight?
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                And goes in the depths where it wave impedance near zero.

                I don’t understand ... The speed of sound propagation was reset in water ???
                1. -2
                  14 December 2019 19: 07
                  Without illumination, you will hear your own signature of the torpedo and not the reflected long wave.

                  I don’t understand ... The speed of sound propagation was reset in water ???


                  No, of course, just a long wave does not give the noise from the mechanisms of the torpedo, but its displacement by the body of the volume of water. There are depths for any body where such a wave is minimal.
                  1. +3
                    14 December 2019 19: 50
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Without illumination, your own torpedo signature will be heard

                    The signature is not audible - it is calculated from the object's activity signal. And it does not depend on the presence of illumination. But ... illumination gives a signal even from a "dead" object (and resonances are possible).

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    the long wave does not give the noise from the mechanisms of the torpedo, but the displacement of water volume by the hull. There are depths for any body where such a wave is minimal.

                    Again?
                    Do you have any kind of education?
                    Even a schoolchild knows that water does not compress and the wavelength is independent of pressure.
                    1. +1
                      14 December 2019 20: 58
                      In the case of a torpedo, you can calculate it with the help of the HACK and hear it with your ears - no problem.

                      Here is an example of a torpedo with a heat engine.



                      And the spectrum is visible on the screen, and everything is perfectly audible.

                      Again?
                      Do you have any kind of education?
                      Even a schoolchild knows that water does not compress and the wavelength is independent of pressure.


                      Did I write something about pressure? And what about the pressure? Depth influences, but it’s not a matter of pressure, and I repeat - for a torpedo this is insignificant, it is too small, the displaced volume of water is also small, without low-frequency illumination - see the video, this is all that will be detected by acoustic methods and this is what the acoustic needs protection.
                      1. +1
                        14 December 2019 21: 46
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        And the spectrum is visible on the screen, and everything is perfectly audible.

                        Is this a sonar screen ???
                        Seagal with a time spectrum ... (Who knows what kind of program?)
                        There is a stripped-down (under the ear) acoustic signal of a steam torpedo and a t-device.

                        Where is the signature? ("Where is hello?" - m / f 38 parrots)
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Depth affects, but it’s not a matter of pressure, and I repeat - for a torpedo this is not essential, it is too small, the displaced volume of water is also small ....

                        What else does depth provide besides pressure?
                        (The fact that water can have different salinity and temperature does not determine the depth - this is geography.)

                        What gives a volume of water?
                      2. 0
                        14 December 2019 21: 52
                        There is a stripped-down (under the ear) acoustic signal of a steam torpedo and a t-device.


                        Not steam. Thermal.
                        So it is heard without processing. And this is exactly what you need to defeat with acoustic protection - both the part heard by the ear and not heard as much as possible.

                        What else does depth provide besides pressure?


                        In the case of such a small object as a torpedo - almost nothing, in the case of a large one, for example a submarine - that "column" of water that is above the boat, when it passes further along the course, how does it behave? And what generates? Think about it.
                      3. +2
                        14 December 2019 22: 34
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        it is heard without processing. And this is exactly what you need to defeat with acoustic protection

                        Since the noise level from the external nodes of the torpedo covers all its other noises, there is nothing to fight with.
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        in the case of a large submarine, for example, the "pillar" of water that is above the boat, when it passes further along the course, how does it behave? And what generates? Think about it.

                        Do not try to get off topic! (About the connection between submarines and the viscosity of water, you generally drown ..)

                        What else is there with the wavelength and characteristic impedance, even in your "post" above the torpedo?
                      4. +3
                        15 December 2019 16: 38
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Not steam. Thermal.

                        And what engine in the engine?
                      5. -4
                        15 December 2019 18: 40
                        I do not participate in clowning in principle.
                      6. +4
                        15 December 2019 19: 10
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        I do not participate in clowning in principle.

                        So you work in the circus? !!
                    2. -5
                      15 December 2019 15: 25
                      Quote: Genry
                      Even a schoolboy knows

                      lol
                      subject to YOUR nonsense wassat above, about "school" - "whose cow would bellow, and YOUR would be quietly silent" lol
                      1. +1
                        15 December 2019 16: 28
                        Quote: Fizik M
                        taking into account YOUR nonsense wassat above, about "school" - "whose cow would bellow, and YOUR would be quietly silent" lol

                        Maybe explain or you stupidly neighing?
                      2. -3
                        15 December 2019 17: 47
                        Quote: Genry
                        Maybe explain or you stupidly neighing?

                        YOU should not skip school
                        and i'm not your tutor
                      3. +2
                        15 December 2019 18: 35
                        Quote: Fizik M
                        YOU should not skip school

                        You joined the opinion that water is compressed under pressure.
                        What else do you disagree with?
                    3. +1
                      15 December 2019 23: 31
                      Quote: Genry
                      Do you have any kind of education?

                      Yes, they have already been disassembled more than once. Read the xax user, for example, in this thread and see his links. Do not waste time on an unhealthy person.
                      1. +2
                        16 December 2019 00: 45
                        Quote: Gosh
                        Yes, they have already been disassembled more than once. Read the xax user, for example, in this thread and see his links. Do not waste time on an unhealthy person.

                        No, Henry wrote about timokhin, and not about the physicist.
                        Although, as for me, their posts are really written from the same person.
                    4. 0
                      17 December 2019 22: 33
                      The schoolboy knows. The great naval commander and specialist in all warheads of any ship, Mr. Timokhin, is not required to know such trifles.
            2. -1
              15 December 2019 15: 24
              Quote: Genry
              And the larger the object and the higher its speed - the more noise it creates and the lower the spectrum (which is heard further).

              You're wrong
              1. 0
                15 December 2019 16: 29
                Quote: Fizik M
                You're wrong

                About what?
          3. 0
            16 December 2019 23: 43
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            ... if the torpedo is electric, ...
            then, as I think, against the background of existing developments (technologies), its range is more than 25-30 km, it will not be possible to ensure ... but if thermal, then even 50 km (for 650 mm) is not a problem, but there will be higher speed of the torpedo, but also its audibility ("a silver lining," as they say) ...
  19. +1
    14 December 2019 02: 13
    Of course, 650 mm torpedoes have certain advantages in relation to the 533 mm caliber. However, given the quantitative superiority of the NATO strike ship group, the battle will resemble the battle between David and Goliath. Critical damage to enemy ships without the use of nuclear weapons is simply impossible. The very first salvo of a submarine will most likely be the last for her.
    1. -2
      14 December 2019 02: 20
      Cruise missiles in such conditions due to the long launch range make it possible not to enter the security zone of the ship’s warrant. Torpedoes will most likely be used as a means of self-defense against enemy anti-submarine forces.
      1. -2
        14 December 2019 02: 26
        Therefore, on pr. 885, mentioned in the article, torpedoes are not the main weapon and not so fundamentally what caliber they are - 650 mm or 533 mm.
        1. -3
          14 December 2019 02: 31
          And there are already super torpedoes for striking purposes - the Poseidon system. A meter in diameter, not 650 mm.
        2. +3
          14 December 2019 09: 36
          Well, this is the set of errors that led us to the current state of affairs. The specifics of torpedoes - they can be used covertly. Missiles can't.

          Well, about nuclear weapons - just a 650mm torpedo is powerful and long-range enough to do without it, and overwhelm the Goliath with one well-aimed throw.
          1. +1
            14 December 2019 09: 38
            Poseidon is a stupid cut of folk money, it’s not a weapon, you won’t put it on any submarine, you won’t use it against any enemy.

            Yes and no, they are still alive and ready for use and it is not known when they will be. The timing of the tests this year was torn off, the stone flower in general does not come out.
          2. -4
            14 December 2019 14: 21
            Now 500 kiloton thermonuclear charges weigh from 100 kilograms - for them, 533 mm torpedoes are more than enough, and the warhead in conventional equipment can be equipped with a more powerful mixture of explosives that surpass TNT by 2,3 times.
            1. +1
              14 December 2019 14: 34
              Now 500 kiloton thermonuclear charges weigh from 100 kilograms - for them, torpedoes of 533 millimeters are more than enough,


              This is so, but with the exception of the global war with the United States, where are you going to apply it?

              and the warhead in conventional equipment can be equipped with a more powerful mixture of explosives that surpass TNT by 2,3 times.


              This has long been done.
            2. +1
              14 December 2019 16: 12
              Now 500 kiloton thermonuclear charges weigh from 100 kilograms
              There are doubts about the mass and power.
              Well, if you say that the cost of 20 and 500 is the same, then I wash myself and shut up.
    2. xax
      +3
      14 December 2019 12: 45
      Quote: Izotop1983
      However, amid the quantitative superiority of the NATO strike ship group

      But what, do NATO ships go exclusively in warrants? You made the wrong assumption. This later led you to the wrong conclusions:

      Quote: Izotop1983
      Torpedoes will most likely be used as a means of self-defense against enemy anti-submarine forces.
  20. -4
    14 December 2019 05: 00
    There are many well-founded doubts about the fact that it was the "thick" torpedo that was the root cause of the Kursk's death. "Fat" is a good weapon, who argues. But here the question arises: "Is it possible, in real terms and on a real scale of costs, to transfer an existing project for a product that has not gone into series?" This is the first thing. The second - a torpedo is a weapon of naval combat, and naval combat in the first second of the beginning will pull the trigger of the nuclear-missile confrontation. I am not sure that traditional naval battles are generally possible between the Russian Navy and NATO countries. Remains the Far East and the PRC fleet. It is possible that this theater has "thick" modern torpedoes and has a reason. The article seems to be correct, but ...
    re-reading everything published by the author, you are surprised. here and advocating for the Big Fleet with aircraft carriers, cruisers, large destroyers, here and obsessive proposals for changing the structure of the Navy command, teratisation about achieving superiority, mining the Baltic Sea, and finally, building an armada of cheap and simple surface ships. It worries me. As alarming and a very frivolous insult in the articles of the leadership of the Navy and the Defense Ministry.
    I will quote from an interview with a very respected person - an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Hero of Labor of Russia and the general designer of the Moscow Institute of Heat Engineering, the creator of Pioneers, Topoli, Yars and Bulava, the author of the unique book The Nuclear World by Yuri Semenovich SOLOMONOV: "Needless to say, the United States, in its activities and as one of the main priorities of its state in relation to others, considers the imposition of permanent changes in everything and everyone by these others."... ("Arguments of the week" No. 48 for 2019)
    Doesn't this remind you of anything?
    "Permanent change of plans", the involvement of non-professionals, social activists and activists, the emergence of mistrust ... All this is very reminiscent of valuable instructions from the old Soros brochures. Therefore, the articles of Mr. Timokhin, filled with super-patrotism and good feelings, do not inspire confidence. Moreover, a person writes (or signs) them as a professional who is not a professional, has not served in the Navy, does not have a naval education, which he himself witnessed. This, of course, is my personal opinion.
    1. +2
      14 December 2019 09: 39
      For reference - an analysis of Leonidl's personality from his own words and his personal confession of why he is on "VO" - here:

      https://topwar.ru/165313-fregat-perri-kak-urok-dlja-rossii-sproektirovannyj-mashinoj-massovyj-i-deshevyj.html#comment-id-9923471

      do not succumb to the provocation of Leonidle.

      This is now your signature on every comment, Leonidle.
      laughing
      1. 0
        14 December 2019 15: 00
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        For reference - an analysis of Leonidl's personality from his own words and his personal confession of why he is on "VO" - here:

        https://topwar.ru/165313-fregat-perri-kak-urok-dlja-rossii-sproektirovannyj-mashinoj-massovyj-i-deshevyj.html#comment-id-9923471

        good
        angry
      2. -2
        14 December 2019 20: 28
        Analysis of the personality of Mr. Timokhin by me is presented on the basis of his own quotes, the fact that he weaves there does not interest me at all. But, my dear, try to refute Solomonov.
        1. -1
          15 December 2019 15: 27
          Quote: LeonidL
          Analysis of the personality of Mr. Timokhin by me is presented on the basis of his own quotes, the fact that he weaves there does not interest me at all. But, my dear, try to refute Solomonov.

          one short word "Mace" belay
          those who wish can compare "what we have" with the "Solomnov & Co." advertising of the late 90s request
    2. +1
      14 December 2019 14: 04
      This, of course, is my personal opinion.
      Yes, I see ... You would write an article on VO. Well, how do you see all this. Just wondering.
      There is a concept of criticism, but there is criticism.
      1. -3
        14 December 2019 20: 30
        Maybe you're right, but ... it's just hard for me to physically write, age. Yes, and frankly, the writer's itch has long passed.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. -1
          15 December 2019 15: 28
          Quote: LeonidL
          it's just hard for me to write physically, age. Yes, and frankly, has long been a writer pruritus passed.

          rather he appeared
          in a "known place" lol
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. +1
      17 December 2019 00: 26
      Quote: LeonidL
      There are many well-founded doubts about the fact that it was the "thick" torpedo that was the root cause of the Kursk's death.
      probably because of the correct form, round hollows on the starboard side in the photo, present in the network, tend, in principle, to push the sane, that the explosion was not from within, but vice versa. A “fat woman” that would explode inside would turn the inner (and behind it the outer case) outward, and the “volumetric explosion” would not give the “visibility and correctness” of the torpedo shape, and would have been wrong round shapes ... And most importantly, the edges of irregular shapes would be out .. !!! that is, yes, I agree.
      Quote: LeonidL
      ... Therefore, the articles of Mr. Timokhin, filled with superpatrotism and good feelings, do not inspire confidence ...
      but here it’s not very. I mostly like Alexander’s articles (as well as the topics raised in them). And most importantly, in principle, it is open for discussion. All your other accusations with him (by the way, mutual and often unbalanced) can be explained only by your mutual hostility, nothing more (regard as a side view) .. from the same series his answers are like, -
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      do not succumb to the provocation of Leonidle.
      ... but a cool opinion (also an outside observer) on the reason for the death of the Kursk, and not on your verbal squabbles ....., -
      Quote: Yuri Malyshko
      ... And the Kursk was not destroyed by a torpedo, but by human stupidity and indifference: it was necessary to carry out, as expected, routine maintenance with torpedoes, to comply with the requirements of bulletins to extend the service life.
      .... this is how a person can explain the sunken round marks on the outer hull of the Kursk .... This does not at all suggest traces of the very MK-48 (enriched with uranium "for burning" the outer hull of the submarine ... But also he is right. He has the right to his own opinion. Moreover, such an opinion does not at all contradict the official version, but, as it were, even "FOR" it .... ?! And here you are: trying to find out relations with each other ... Why gentlemen ?! Is it worth it ?! Better remember the souls of those 118, "for their homeland" innocently and ingloriously fallen (because both Kolesnikov and those who remained with him, 27 seem to be submariners who, to the last, probably believed that they, torpedoed almost in their waters, would certainly be avenged. but ...). Did you believe ?! Surely !!! Yes, because in their understanding / worldview, otherwise it shouldn't have been ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
  21. +3
    14 December 2019 06: 01
    I am not a "mariman", and my judgments about the qualities of 650-mm torpedoes at the level of emotional perception: "I do not like it"! But once I was so impressed by the performance of such torpedoes that I "cried" crying upon learning of the disarmament of a 650 mm torpedo ...
  22. -1
    14 December 2019 06: 18
    Yes, what kind of Saturday is this, then Roman wrote an article where everything is bad, then everything is gone, guys, didn’t you meet Friday the 13th yesterday?
    "Maybe it's better about the reactor?
    About the favorite moon tractor ....
  23. +1
    14 December 2019 08: 07
    I suppose that the reason for the rejection of "fatties" may lie in the desire of the current political and military leadership to "optimize" everything and everyone. As a result, design bureaus and production facilities are liquidated. In addition, "fat women" are made and accompanied during operation from abroad (Kazakhstan) - these are additional difficulties and costs for today's Russia. And the Kursk was not destroyed by a torpedo, but by human stupidity and indifference: it was necessary to carry out, as expected, routine maintenance with torpedoes, to fulfill the requirements of the bulletins to extend the service life.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      14 December 2019 09: 41
      In general, the rejection of fatties is a long-standing topic, such a decision was made even under Brezhnev.
      And then he even had rational arguments. They, in general, remained and now, just from my point of view the benefits of not 65cm do not outweigh the potential disadvantages.
      1. 0
        14 December 2019 14: 53
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        even under Brezhnev

        no, already under Gorbi, at the very end of the 80s
        1. 0
          14 December 2019 15: 53
          Well, in general, 945A began to be drawn in the 82nd, and before that there had been some research work on changing the composition of weapons in any way, plus we were looking at the dialogue in the Torpedoes fresh.
  24. +5
    14 December 2019 08: 55
    The torpedo is the main weapon of the submarine. It is necessary to develop underwater weapons in every possible way, including this rather promising direction. No need to dwell on "Calibers" in a bad way.
    1. +4
      14 December 2019 09: 42
      No need to dwell on the "Caliber" in a bad way.


      Golden words
  25. -2
    14 December 2019 09: 33
    Have you noticed too? Even the nineties could not finally bury the 650-mm torpedoes. The last blow was already done by the person. And I suspect that the collapse of Kursk could be a planned action - just so that an excuse would appear to get rid of the 650-mm torpedoes. The person, too, is in vain sawing and breaking weapons, Yeltsin is not unique here. And perhaps the person even surpasses Yeltsin here.
    1. 0
      14 December 2019 11: 19
      No need to look for a conspiracy in this case - the decision to abandon the 650mm began to be thought out even under Brezhnev.
      1. -4
        14 December 2019 15: 59
        After the practically confirmed involvement of the office and personally of the person in the bombings in Moscow, it should be expected that the person had a hand in the Kursk crash - this is completely in his character.
        1. -1
          15 December 2019 23: 51
          Quote: Basarev
          After the practically confirmed involvement of the office and personally of the person in the bombings in Moscow, it should be expected that the person had a hand in the Kursk crash - this is completely in his character

          Very interesting. What does it mean "practically confirmed" and what for "person" to drown Kursk?
          1. -1
            16 December 2019 08: 55
            After the story, when in Ryazan the residents caught red-handed Chekists loading the explosives into the basement, it immediately became clear who the true villain was. And about Kursk even easier. The person from the very beginning works against the country and fulfilled a specific order - to rid the Russian fleet of such formidable weapons as thick torpedoes - and in order to create an excuse inside the country, Kursk was sunk. A lot of things become clear if you drop the halo of holiness from the person and the court - you too.
            1. 0
              17 December 2019 00: 59
              Quote: Basarev
              After the story, when in Ryazan the residents caught red-handed Chekists loading the explosives into the basement, it immediately became clear who the true villain was.
              well, even if this is so, then only for a faster accession to the throne ...
              Quote: Basarev
              And about Kursk even easier.
              not really ?!
              Quote: Basarev
              A person from the very beginning works against the country
              therefore, following the example of Chechnya, it did not allow small, separate divisions to split the country according to the interethnic and interethnic / interfaith paradigms (while preserving the fragments of the empire from further collapse) ?! Have mercy, sir, here, something really does not fit with you, well, really, think about it yourself ?!
              Quote: Basarev
              rid the Russian fleet of such formidable weapons as thick torpedoes
              ... that formidable weapon agrees, but far not the most... I hope in this and you will agree with me ?!
              Quote: Basarev
              and in order to create an excuse inside the country, Kursk was just sunk.
              well, that is. let's call this your point of view. I parry mine. It seems to me that he was torpedoed by the Yankees, but not on purpose, but in panic (without understanding the situation), after the collision with Memphis, the guys from Toledo (in panic), but reinsured / reinsured, desperately firing first (well, as in a yard fight happens), when the outcome is not for certain clear and not predetermined, and the right / possibility of the first strike can "decide" the outcome. Then, realizing what happened, even more morally "obosr .....", but since it is impossible to rewind the time, they reported to OWN how it happened ... But it turned out very, Very bad, straight - "incident Belli", with a nuclear (albeit weakened at that time) power ...?! And straight then (like never sooner or later !!!) the director of the CIA himself, very urgently flew to Russia mother, - "extinguish a fire, AT ANY PRICE, - arising !!! ", since there was something !!! Forgive the huge external debt of Russia, and pay ANY compensation to the families of the deceased sailors (and, presumably, to roll back" any large sums towards the button holder "), for the United States, it was in love case much easier than admitting this "Belli's incident" and letting America incinerate with reason in front of the entire world community, even if observers from old Europe are living their last minutes before Armageddon (after all, everyone would not be on their side anymore !!!). .. For bread and they (for the company) would probably go ...
              Quote: Basarev
              A lot of things become clear if you drop the halo of holiness from the person and the court - you too.
              Well, as if there is no special "halo" ... In general, there is an opinion that "he" is not "he", but already a long time ago - a "duplicate" ?! Well then ...
              Quote: Basarev
              ... and to create within the country pretext...
              Well, and the excuse of what, let me ask you ?!
              1. -2
                17 December 2019 08: 41
                Chechnya was also directed, perhaps even the first - because the person already held a sour post in the service. The idea was to destroy Russia's foreign policy prestige, turning it from a free, peace-loving country into a vicious aggressor. And, giving the Western media the right picture, the task was completed. In the West, no one believes in Chechen terrorism and firmly believe that Russia treacherously attacked little Chechnya simply out of ethnic hatred. This is what the person sought, this is what was achieved. Why was this needed? If Russia had the image of a free, peace-loving country, it would become the number one target for Endless Western investments, with the help of which it would be possible to build the right capitalism, not the current vile perversion. Wealthy people who know rights and laws, independently thinking, on a friendly footing with the West ... Would become an insurmountable obstacle to the dictatorship that the person aspired to. It was necessary to destroy the situation fundamentally, for which Chechnya had to be invented.
                1. +1
                  17 December 2019 19: 23
                  Quote: Basarev
                  Chechnya was also directed, perhaps even the first - because the person already held a sour post in the service. The meaning was to destroy foreign policy prestige of Russia...
                  ?! Sorry, but by 1995-1997 years to him (foreign policy prestige of Russia) was practically gone !!
                  Quote: Basarev
                  turning it from a free, peace-loving country into a vicious aggressor.
                  it probably just seems to me, but alas, - Russia (historically) never looked in the eyes of the world community as - free loving country, often by creating her an artificially negative image !! Do not find? To her, - to Russia, (in particular to Europe) on the contrary, an image has always been imposed - "aggressive and insidious / treacherous bear" ...
                  Quote: Basarev
                  And, giving the Western media the right picture, the task was completed.
                  by whom giving out, forgive me - "persona" ?! Maybe a little differently ?! May be not western, namely - Western media ?! ... Big difference, don't you think ?!
                  Quote: Basarev
                  ... Have Russia the image of a free peace-loving country ...
                  Well, it never happened. Always just the opposite! From it they intensively "molded" the image of an enemy for Europe, and they set someone (dragged) into the slaughter with Russia, then one or another of the most powerful at that time European / and not only / empires (Sweden, France, Austria Hungary, Japan, Germany) ...
                  Quote: Basarev
                  she would be the number one target for Endless Western Investment,
                  ?! Sorry, but I don’t believe it. In particular, I do not believe in the disinterestedness of Western investment! Or maybe we are talking about the sale of part of the property rights of the Russian Federation (subsoil, forests, land, etc.) ?! Then yes, but in my opinion, this cannot be called investment in the Russian Federation !!
                  Quote: Basarev
                  ... with the help of which it would be possible to build right capitalism ...
                  And of course, please forgive me, but in - right capitalism, I also unfortunately do not believe it !!
                  Quote: Basarev
                  Wealthy people who know rights and laws, independently thinking, on a friendly foot with the West ..
                  ?! Who are they, for example ?! Not the ones that Honoré de Balzac seems to be, at one time he logically remarked - "Behind every great fortune lies a crime!" It seems so he wrote once ...
  26. 0
    14 December 2019 10: 08
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    And here the question arises of the noise of the torpedo, right? If you do not chase phenomenal speeds, if the torpedo is electric, if measures for acoustic protection are implemented in it, then you can only detect it figuratively speaking under the side.
    And the 65cm case is good because it has a place for acoustics. protection - in 53 cm there is nowhere to put it.


    The range of weapons is still not a key factor. It affects the minds and attracts, but this is not a decisive factor. The main thing is the guidance system. The ability of the carrier to find the target and parameters of the weapon guidance system. A submarine with the help of a gas can detect a target for a maximum of 50 km. Really much less. Especially pl. That is, it is much more efficient to have large bk torpedoes with a radius of 50 km. Modern ships will counteract the launch of torpedoes by deceit. Therefore, not the size, but the guidance system and the ability to pass the interference here are key parameters. Secretly launch the maximum number of smart torpedoes.
    1. +1
      14 December 2019 14: 52
      Quote: Demagogue
      The range of weapons is still not a key factor. It affects the minds and attracts, but this is not a decisive factor.

      the decisive factor is the ability to fire BEFORE you are discovered
      Quote: Demagogue
      The main thing is the guidance system. The ability of the carrier to find the target and parameters of the weapon guidance system.

      which in 65cm caliber is several times greater than 53cm
      stupidly due to the larger aperture of the antenna
  27. +1
    14 December 2019 10: 55
    Thank you. Curiously.
    Doubts are here.
    "However, domestic submarines are equipped with SOKS - a wake detection system, which makes it possible to detect the fact of the passage of a foreign submarine at a distance large enough so that it does not detect a Russian submarine or detect, but could not immediately use weapons due to the long distance."
    Detection is preceded by maneuvering. The narrowing and intensity of the trace determine the EDC. Now imagine how easy the IPL can be? Or a PLA with AOKS needs to be maneuvered at large moves, more than 15 knots. Or have two boats. Or a Boat and a GISU with AOKS. The same MNK-400 that we used at the GISU "Sever" in Kamchatka.
    Or IPL should be located in a certain area, but then it turned out to be "porridge". Traces intersected.
    Closer to the 90s, we stopped kicking out before searching for IPL GISU with AOKS. He unmasked and showed the enemy that we were planning "something". That there is a boat in Avach, and so it is known.
    As a rule, after detecting the GISU exit, they pulled the boat above Shipunsky, or to the south. And the BPA took the load. When they noticed this, they stopped expelling GISU.
    AOKS was used successfully when tracking SSBNs to identify the area. And then all the same acoustics.
    1. 0
      14 December 2019 11: 22
      This is the logic of peacetime. In the military (in the presence of a torpedo capable of walking normally along the lead COP), determine the direction in which the boat left, whose trail was found and about how long ago. And send the "fish" on the trail. She will follow the "snake" herself.
      1. 0
        14 December 2019 11: 32
        Maybe. This is necessary to ask submariners. Here u are not very in the subject.
        1. +1
          14 December 2019 13: 04
          I asked))))
          1. +3
            14 December 2019 14: 11
            Did they fight? Really used torpedo weapons on American boats?
            All this is very speculative.
            Someone was going to "With one blow ... on the territory of the enemy ... If a formidable force arrives ..." But they had to retreat to Moscow.
            My personal opinion ... there will be no "super plan", there will be a dump. They will beat at everything that moves. And then smart "political workers" will write history - as it really was.
            Search IPL really engaged, it is tested. There is an experience about which I am writing.
            And to fight theoretically and on paper ... wise men dofig.
            1. 0
              14 December 2019 14: 32
              One does not contradict the other in any way. Technically, a torpedo with the corresponding MSS can itself follow the trail, repeating the route of the target. I checked this before writing. How it goes on there will be another conversation.
              1. +1
                14 December 2019 15: 43
                Yes, of course it contradicts.
                Search activities have been tested many times. Communication, management, interaction, options.
                Combat firing by a group of boats only theoretically.
                In the war, we will begin to search as we searched in peacetime. And practically no one knows how to shoot at a real evading target using a GPA.
                I about it.
            2. 0
              14 December 2019 14: 49
              Quote: Polinom
              Search IPL really engaged, it is tested. There is an experience about which I am writing.
              And to fight theoretically and on paper ... wise men dofig.

              but on the torpedo preparation of the MA of the Navy of the USSR there were very bad questions
              even amid all the problems with this at the Navy
              1. +2
                14 December 2019 15: 40
                Yes.
                "The people gave, let the people laugh."
                The practical preparation and conduct of the vehicle was not very different between flying and diving.
                Especially after hitting the light body, there was a lot of paper and screaming. On the target boat, the people are really scared.
                Clearly, they began to simplify.
                But I did not write to Alexander about this, but about the planning of the DB by the forces of more than one boat. Division SSGN-like everything is fine in the decision. As soon as it went wrong, everything falls apart. And the management and delay of decisions and their implementation. Therefore, the cry is "Act like a war" (Read-every man for himself). I heard this from Baltin several times. However, I wrote about this earlier.
                And this is not only in the Navy.
                As an example (when 5 Megs were shot down in one battle in 1970)
                "The outcome of the fight was summed up by one of its participants, Lieutenant Colonel Avihu Ben-Nun:"
                “I think the Russians fly quite well. I was even surprised by what they did with their machines. But they obviously lacked the skills of effective combat maneuvering to hit the enemy. They are good pilots, but weak tactics. They have no combat experience. pattern and therefore easily predictable. "

                Well, I had about the obstinacy of the 877 commanders in the Kuril Islands. You read.
                Sad humor, like Zadornov's - "Separately, all geniuses, but how they get together - a herd of sheep"
  28. AAK
    +3
    14 December 2019 11: 15
    Colleagues, no matter how naive or paradoxical our comments might look, they are mostly written by people who are not indifferent and wanting benefits to our armed forces (with the exception of proclaiming slogans and some dumb trolling or outright rudeness), I also hope that they are also read by competent comrades who know how to analyze, choose a rational component from what we have written and have the right to give advice to other comrades who are responsible for their duty to make certain decisions. solutions (if not, then it’s sad).
    This article was written on a very "sore" issue, tk. the fleet is the most lagging behind the modern requirements of all types of Russian armed forces, and the submarine fleet (which was our pride in the USSR and a very important factor in nuclear and conventional deterrence) is rapidly losing its capabilities.
    The author expressed his thoughts on the subject, sorry in the article there are no references to the reasons that led to the corresponding decisions of the "authorities", as well as to specific individuals in the command of the Navy and the military-industrial complex who "had a hand" in this. Of course, I would like to find out in publications about the comparative results of the real effectiveness (both structural and combat training) of products in calibers 533 and 650 (torpedoes, rocket-torpedoes, CD, uninhabited vehicles of different categories), but this information, I believe, is "under the bar".
  29. +1
    14 December 2019 15: 45
    Quote: Fizik M

    Quote: Demagogue
    The main thing is the guidance system. The ability of the carrier to find the target and parameters of the weapon guidance system.

    which in 65cm caliber is several times greater than 53cm
    stupidly due to the larger aperture of the antenna


    Well yes, there will be a silver bullet. The Germans also thought so of their acoustic torpedoes. But towed tricks appeared and all in vain. In fact, the ships soon so hang up with all kinds of obstacles that there is nothing to catch without remote control. And the real launch range along the cable length.
    There is also a price issue. The adversary wants to rive torpedoes from cheap civilian components.
    1. 0
      14 December 2019 15: 55
      Quote: Demagogue
      The Germans also thought so of their acoustic torpedoes. But towed tricks appeared and all in vain. In fact, soon the ships so hang up with all kinds of obstacles that there is nothing to catch without remote control

      At the moment, the CLP of the latest torpedoes is significantly ahead in terms of the level and capabilities of the SRG
    2. +1
      14 December 2019 16: 17
      The adversary wants to rive torpedoes from cheap civilian components.
      So they have this basic principle. Not to have two industries, civilian and military, but to have one. And from it to compose and the military and the military.
      Do you think cheap is bad? But what about quality and cost? And why "wants"? He has been doing this for a long time.
  30. 0
    14 December 2019 16: 34
    Quote: Fizik M
    Quote: Demagogue
    The Germans also thought so of their acoustic torpedoes. But towed tricks appeared and all in vain. In fact, soon the ships so hang up with all kinds of obstacles that there is nothing to catch without remote control

    At the moment, the CLP of the latest torpedoes is significantly ahead in terms of the level and capabilities of the SRG

    So there are wires too. You can manually point the same black shark all the way. Not just a picture, but sensor data. Which basically the same picture. I do not believe in artificial intelligence and homing. What one person came up with, the other will get around.
    1. -2
      14 December 2019 16: 59
      Quote: Demagogue
      So there are wires too.

      there has long been fiber
      Quote: Demagogue
      You can manually point the same black shark all the way.

      must not
      stupidly because of errors
      see for example the Okeanpribor website
      Quote: Demagogue
      I do not believe in artificial intelligence and homing.

      issues of faith and theology are discussed in religious forums
      1. +2
        14 December 2019 19: 24
        It is clear that the optical fiber was meant that by cable, and not by male.

        For Black Shark, they announce a manual mode on the way to the goal for sure.

        By faith: the Germans launched acoustic torpedoes in 1943, like a breakthrough technology, and the exhaust was zero. Often a less sophisticated weapon performs better.

        Not to mention the current craze for anti-torpedoes. All these tricks and torpedoes will inevitably require the launch of a larger number of torpedoes. And you won’t get enough of the 650x. Something cheap is needed.
        1. 0
          15 December 2019 15: 30
          Quote: Demagogue
          For Black Shark, they announce a manual mode on the way to the goal for sure.

          to the periscope - yes
          and acoustics - physics alone, both among us and Italians laughing
          and no "active PR" can cancel it
    2. 0
      14 December 2019 17: 27
      They ran into cruise missiles with a 533mm launcher and torpedoes with a caliber of 650mm, and that a cruise missile launched from TA 650 cannot be made, its launch range will be far beyond 1000 km.
      1. 0
        14 December 2019 18: 54
        Everything is written in the article and about it too.
  31. +4
    14 December 2019 17: 43
    Yesterday, the remaining bison gathered on the date of the creation of the first division of nuclear-powered submarines at the Pacific Fleet. 60 years.
  32. +2
    14 December 2019 22: 10
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    In general, the rejection of fatties is a long-standing topic, such a decision was made even under Brezhnev.

    You have now misled the people. The 65-76A torpedo was put into service only in 91, when Comrade Brezhnev had already left this mortal world for 9 years. And submarines carrying torpedoes 65-76 (65-76A) were mostly laid down and put into operation after the death of LI. For each torpedo carrier, factories make 2,5-3 rounds of ammunition. That is, after the death of Brezhnev, for at least another 20 years, the Alma-Ata Kirov Plant riveted these torpedoes with might and main. Well, the decision to refuse was just "great"! The decommissioning of these torpedoes pushed the leadership of the Navy, which had to blame for the death of the Kursk, on something - they blamed it on "iron".
    1. 0
      14 December 2019 22: 57
      Back in the early 80s, they again began to make submarines without a 650 mm TA - project 945A, the beginning of design in 1982.
      Plus "Ash", this is the end of the 80s, they were immediately designed without a 650-mm TA.

      So the trend was born a long time ago.
      1. +3
        15 December 2019 01: 12
        Only two boats 945A of the project were built. At the same time, the main weapons on them were "Granat" missiles, which were launched from 533 mm TA. The main method of firing cruise missiles is salvo. A volley of six missiles out of all six available by the TA. Therefore, there were no other TA.
        As for the Yasen, as a 4th generation multipurpose nuclear powered submarine, it was born for so long and in pain like no other boat in the history of the Soviet and Russian fleets (about 30 years). And what kind of armament options were there not sorted out! It is only clear that the laid hull of the first boat stood for a very long time (8 years) awaiting its fate, and only in 2004, i.e. several years after the sinking of the Kursk, more or less active work continued on a radically revised project; Naturally, the 65-cm TA was out of the question.
        1. -2
          15 December 2019 15: 32
          Quote: Yuri Malyshko
          all six available TA

          at 945A 8 TA

          Quote: Yuri Malyshko
          active work; Naturally, there was no talk of a 65 cm TA.

          at 885, in fact, a WORSE 3 generation complex (the phrase "either cry or laugh" is from the book of "Malachitites" indicated in the article)
          1. The comment was deleted.
        2. -1
          15 December 2019 19: 04
          As for the Yasen, as a 4th generation multipurpose nuclear powered submarine, it was born for so long and in pain like no other boat in the history of the Soviet and Russian fleets (about 30 years). And what kind of armament options were there not sorted out!


          But in the end, even under the USSR, they finally abandoned the 65 cm on this project
  33. 0
    14 December 2019 23: 17
    "In the late 650s, the Navy and the military-industrial complex underestimated the potential of the XNUMX-mm torpedoes. This was partly due to objective reasons, and partly it was just a mistake."
    Given that the top leadership of the country was saturated with agents of influence, it is not surprising if they reached the MO. So it’s not a mistake.
    1. 0
      15 December 2019 19: 05
      No, that was exactly the mistake. You can even understand why it was made.
  34. -2
    14 December 2019 23: 51
    Through the standard 533 mm TA from submarines, in addition to torpedoes, it is possible to launch several types of Caliber (anti-ship, anti-submarine, winged ...), which, with the appropriate ammunition, makes the submarine a universal fighter, but it is time to abandon the nostalgia for "gigantomania" in favor of increasing combat characteristics in existing dimensions.
    1. +2
      15 December 2019 01: 53
      Quote: assault
      Through standard 533 mm SLTs, in addition to torpedoes, submarines can launch calibers of several types (anti-ship, anti-submarine, winged ...) which, with the corresponding ammunition, makes the submarine a universal fighter

      Such a super-universalization of torpedo tubes is a very dubious thing for a number of reasons:
      - TAs in the initial state are charged according to the duty mode, but if the conditions require reorientation, for example, to strike at surface ships, then you need to reload the TA on anti-ship missiles, weakening your anti-submarine component, and vice versa; torpedo compartment turns into a complex warehouse of diverse weapons;
      - the specialists of БЧ-2 and БЧ-3 should use torpedo tubes simultaneously (or alternately), which is fraught with confusion and delays (the task of training universal specialists in the fleet has not yet been solved);
      - torpedo tubes themselves are very complicated, because they need to close control systems for diverse products, provide for various start-up methods, a set of guides;
      - the operational and tactical characteristics of such a ship are inferior to a ship that can simultaneously use various weapons in full.
      Look at "Ash" - there is no universalization proposed by you: cruise missiles have their own launchers. Weapons are also smashed, for example, on Project 949A submarines.
      1. 0
        15 December 2019 18: 47
        As a result - the monstrous size of the submarines. And this, by the way, is a big minus in our time.
  35. 0
    15 December 2019 00: 43
    IMHO the author is right and "a big ship - a big torpedo", and what prevents in the hull of the "granite" mine for 949A to place a module with a 650 mm torpedo with a gas generator launch as one of the weapons. You can create several pieces in the reconnaissance version for additional reconnaissance and tracking the target. And now they are with missiles, but "blind".
  36. 0
    15 December 2019 02: 04
    Quote: paul1979
    what prevents to place a module with a 949 mm torpedo in the "granite" mine housing for 650A

    And in the torpedo compartment what to place?
    1. 0
      15 December 2019 12: 11
      Onyx-PL any. Nekhai, the adversary is getting stronger: missiles in the torpedo compartment, torpedoes in the rocket ... Only for Onyx will have to TA from 650 to 700 mm, otherwise it will not fit.
    2. 0
      15 December 2019 12: 12
      But does anyone forbid having the necessary set of 533mm torpedoes, calibres / onyxes and additional 650mm torpedoes in the torpedo compartment? Just launching missiles for a submarine becomes a secondary function if it greatly violates its secrecy.
  37. 0
    15 December 2019 10: 50
    Quote: LeonidL
    Now, apparently, the leadership believes it is more important to develop a strategic component on the new achievements of science and technology, which simply exclude both war and traditional naval combat. An example is the Cold War. how much has been invented, how much has been invested ... only so that naval battles do not occur.

    Here I will agree with the leadership and with you. There will be no traditional war, IMHO. If it starts, we'll be kirdyk. The professional army of the Russian Federation, with huge losses, naturally for itself, will be exhausted by the adversary in months, in view of his numerical superiority and in many areas of quality. We are alone, without real, combat-ready allies and, most importantly, without mobreserves. There are big doubts that these "Koli from Urengoy" dreaming to go there will go to defend their homeland. There remains a blow to the puppeteers' lair.
    And yet, in the author’s article there is a rational grain and he quite reasonably proved that 650mm is not useless. hi
  38. -1
    15 December 2019 15: 32
    The caliber 650 mm was caused by a technical lag behind the West in electronics and technology. And nothing else. The sailors were not happy with these "pillars" ...
    1. +1
      15 December 2019 16: 16
      Quote: Dzafdet
      The caliber 650 mm was caused by a technical lag behind the West in electronics and technology. And nothing else. The sailors were not happy with these "pillars" ...

      where he came from, I clearly wrote in an article in the "VPK" (about the T-15)
      and "not happy" were only "hands * experience" who did not know how to use this ammunition
      1. 0
        16 December 2019 09: 59
        The funny thing is that I came across an article about "pillars" on a site dedicated to computer toys, it was this year 2012. Cap-three, a submariner, wrote a devastating article about the torpedo armament of the fleet and the fact that there are no normal programs for the combat control of the fleet in real time.
        And judging by the article, the comrade was clearly in the subject.
    2. AAK
      0
      15 December 2019 16: 37
      Maybe this is so, colleague, but then tell me the caliber of the torpedo tubes on the most "advanced" US submarine - the Sea Wolf?
      1. 0
        15 December 2019 17: 57
        This is not an argument: they have an adversary - our fleet, but we have them. Moose, for example, has only 4 TA. But, by the way, Si Wolfe has 8mm TA.
  39. 0
    15 December 2019 15: 51
    Quote: Fizik M
    Quote: Demagogue
    For Black Shark, they announce a manual mode on the way to the goal for sure.

    to the periscope - yes
    and acoustics - physics alone, both among us and Italians laughing
    and no "active PR" can cancel it


    I may not understand what I understand, but it seems like on such torpedoes a lot of attention is paid to manually adjusting the course when the operator checks the readings of the hull and torpedo sensors. This is in terms of overcoming interference.

    As for the supposedly silent 650th, which Alexander is lobbying for, we understand that the adversary has unlimited finances and can quickly introduce countermeasures.

    The trouble with our squares is not in the absence of such silver bullets, but in defenselessness in terms of VET. We must not lobby, but the 650th IMHO. And try to push the enemy’s fire in one gulp of 324 or more torpedoes. Yes, primitive with TV, but a lot. And they are for intercepting torpedoes adversary. The Americans on this subject have one ditty like: the current goes through the wires 4 volts, and I got a little one gave me a six-shot colt.
    1. 0
      15 December 2019 16: 19
      Quote: Demagogue
      I may not understand what I understand, but it seems like on such torpedoes a lot of attention is paid to manually adjusting the course when the operator checks the readings of the hull and torpedo sensors. This is in terms of overcoming interference.

      correctly
      BUT - they have "great wisdom" (and experience) - "not to pull the torpedo once again" (because the dynamic errors of gyroscopes are sharply increasing "
      our "hands * experience" "pull" the torpedo with the TU CONSTANTLY (just the algorithms are so stupid), and therefore "are surprised" that they shoot milk (due to accumulated errors)

      Quote: Demagogue
      not the 650s, but the 324s to lobby IMHO. And try to push the enemy’s fire in one gulp of 4 or more torpedoes.

      the enemy will stupidly shoot from long distances
      which 32cm just won’t go to
  40. 0
    15 December 2019 16: 49
    Quote: Fizik M

    the enemy will stupidly shoot from long distances
    which 32cm just won’t go to


    The real detection distances in the PL are still small. Weapons like 32x volleys will make the adversary stay out of the way, which is enough for Borey to say. It will protect itself with 32-meter anti-torpedoes, will give a volley at the adversary to occupy it and will launch rockets or quietly be removed. Then it is possible to use not the 32nd, but the 40s with a reach already under 20 km. These are the details.
    In the fantastic Wing Commander universe, there was a 650th analogue weapon that is offered here. Skipper missile. It didn’t work very well) now if it were possible to make a 650e with a shared base in order to go through PTO, this would be an option.
    1. 0
      15 December 2019 17: 50
      Quote: Demagogue
      The real detection distances in the PL are still small.

      sure?
      personally had fun in LA-I at the distance of ХХkm
      and more than once laughing

      however, the question is not even that - but THE POSITIONS OF USING WEAPONS (torpedoes) FOR US
      if our "handles" are "short" we will be stupidly shot from great distances
  41. 0
    15 December 2019 17: 22
    Quote: AAK
    Maybe this is so, colleague, but then tell me the caliber of the torpedo tubes on the most "advanced" US submarine - the Sea Wolf?


    So he is there 660 for new torpedoes. Which themselves quietly float out of the apparatus, and are not thrown away. This does not mean that the caliber of a torpedo is necessarily 660.
    1. 0
      15 December 2019 17: 52
      Quote: Demagogue
      So he is there 660 for new torpedoes. Which themselves quietly float out of the apparatus,

      why they muddied the caliber (there are more than 700 and a cone) - an interesting question
      BUT there is no Mk48 self-exit to SW NO, and for the first time it was implemented on Brazil 209/1400 and was associated with very serious modifications of the torpedo
      On SW turbo-hydraulic shooting system
  42. 0
    15 December 2019 17: 56
    Quote: Fizik M
    Quote: Demagogue
    The real detection distances in the PL are still small.

    sure?
    personally had fun in LA-I at the distance of ХХkm
    and more than once laughing

    however, the question is not even that - but THE POSITIONS OF USING WEAPONS (torpedoes) FOR US
    if our "handles" are "short" we will be stupidly shot from great distances


    So I did not offer 533 to clean at all. Only reduce their number and instead of them a larger number of 32x. From 533 to 50 km can be reached.
  43. 0
    15 December 2019 18: 00
    Quote: Fizik M
    Quote: Demagogue
    So he is there 660 for new torpedoes. Which themselves quietly float out of the apparatus,

    why they muddied the caliber (there are more than 700 and a cone) - an interesting question
    BUT there is no Mk48 self-exit to SW NO, and for the first time it was implemented on Brazil 209/1400 and was associated with very serious modifications of the torpedo
    On SW turbo-hydraulic shooting system


    Muti for uvv drones. Mega promising topic. And they still had a way out on Mark 37.
    1. 0
      15 December 2019 18: 28
      Quote: Demagogue
      And they still had a way out on Mark 37.

      even earlier
      the caliber itself is 482 mm - a very competent move - to give the ENTIRE "MASSOVKA" submarine (since WWII) the ability to shoot from great depths (at 613 we originally had 30m, and then (not for everyone) increased to 70)
      BUT - this is for the ELECTRIC ESU
      with Otto II, cyanides are formed with which the launch in the pipe is fraught with "breathing them well in the compartment"
  44. 0
    15 December 2019 18: 10
    can you exit the device through 533 mm?
    1. -1
      15 December 2019 18: 29
      Quote: Hello
      can you exit the device through 533 mm?

      can
      But not all
      for example, some of them do not have gratings, and leaving them people will float into (and clog with bodies) EASY HOUSING
      1. 0
        15 December 2019 19: 39
        and so it turns out?
        otherwise throwing a pity
  45. 0
    18 December 2019 12: 55
    I see the author actively commenting on what is happening. Actually on the topic at once several thoughts arose in my head:
    1. What is the combat scenario considered in the outline of the use of torpedoes by our fleet?
    2. What do you think of the reverse side of the wunderwaffle - mini torpedoes?
    3. How do you assess the possible presence of a development strategy for combat-oriented unmanned aerial vehicles that override the autonomy and launch range of torpedoes of any caliber?
    1. 0
      19 December 2019 11: 57
      1. In fact, anyone where the opposing side will have at least some fleet or submarines - in any war, even in a defensive, even in an offensive, even near the territory of Russia, even far away - this is like having to have rifles with a telescopic sight in the infantry. They are used in any conflict in which infantry is used.
      2. They have a small range. From my point of view, the anti-torpedo has the prospect of a small caliber 324 mm. This should be on every submarine.
      3. Well, the United States has such a strategy and devices that go through the torp. there is an apparatus.
  46. -1
    29 December 2019 06: 01
    The article is interesting, as always in general. Nevertheless, it is difficult to agree with the proposals of the author. What is the point of returning 650 mm TA and PLRK for them, would it be much more realistic to try to fully use the potential of the anti-submarine modification of the Caliber?

    https://regnum.ru/news/2717230.html

    Already, the range of the PLRK Answer is about 50 km, which is two times the range of its American counterpart ASROC. You can try, for example, by reducing the weight of the torpedo to increase its range to 100 km and thereby bring it closer to the performance of the SPLK Wind?
  47. -1
    12 November 2020 17: 09
    The article is interesting. I also thought about whether it was justifiable to abandon the concept. But I came to the conclusion that the rationale should not be based on the principle of "more is better" but on something specific, for example, on modeling data - what is the real distance of a torpedo attack in modern conditions on different classes of targets? This is the same as with a pistol - 90% of fire contacts at a distance of up to 7 meters. Those. it may turn out that 90% of the targets that are safe and justified to attack with a torpedo are quite amazed and standard. And for hitting targets that are dangerous to approach ... this increase of 20 km will give little. Without relying on modeling, you get fortune-telling on the coffee grounds ... it is corny, if more is better, then more is how much? Why 600 and not 650 or 625 or 575?

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

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