"Burak-M" for the protection of underwater missile carriers


For Russian underwater fleet various promising remedies are being developed. A few years ago it became known about the start of production of the Burak-M electronic warfare system, designed to counter the enemy’s anti-submarine defense (PLO). Now new details of this project have become known - technical and operational.


Product Purchases


The public first learned about the Burak-M submarine electronic warfare system in August 2018 from domestic press reports based on data from the government procurement portal. It was reported that the Ministry of Defense in the coming years plans to purchase several new models of equipment and equipment for submarines.

The Ministry of Defense planned to acquire ten Burak-M complexes. In 2019 and 2020 It was supposed to get five units of such equipment. The total value of the ordered products is 300 million rubles. In 2019, 149,2 million rubles were allocated for the purchase of the first half of products. The remaining should have cost 150,7 million. The selection of the supplier was carried out in a closed format.

The Burak-M product was designated as a complex of electronic warfare with deep jet mines. Technical details were not given, they became known much later.


The same messages featured another purchase. The Ministry of Defense was going to acquire ten anti-torpedo protection devices “Udar-1”. Deliveries were also expected in 2019-2020. The total cost of the products is 200 million rubles. Thus, in the next two years, the military department intended to invest 500 million rubles in the protection of submarines.

New Information


The other day, new information about the Burak-M complex, obtained from unnamed sources in the military department, became known. On March 12, Izvestia published them. The architecture, principles of work, mission and other features of the project are announced.

Earlier it was reported that "Burak-M" is a complex of electronic warfare for submarines. This information is confirmed by new messages. The complex is designed to counter enemy surveillance, detection and communication systems. The complex should suppress the radio channels of a potential enemy, making it difficult or precluding the operation of anti-submarine defense.

The key element of the complex is a buoy with special electronic equipment. The submarine can carry several such items and throw them away as needed. Coming to the surface of the water, the buoy turns on its equipment and suppresses radio communications in the immediate area.

One of the main means of searching for submarines at present is the dumped radio sonar buoys (RSAB) used by anti-submarine aviation. After setting in a given area, such equipment communicates with the carrier using a radio channel. The Burak-M complex buoy should “jam” this connection, preventing data exchange. As a result, the enemy loses the ability to track a certain zone.


Loading the RSAB on board the P-3C Orion

The size and weight of the promising buoy has not yet been disclosed. The operating ranges of the transmitter, the parameters of the jamming station and the range also remain unknown. Perhaps this data will be revealed in the future.

Test Media


It is reported that a promising EW complex can be used on several types of domestic submarines. Such equipment is obtained by strategic submarine missile carriers of projects 955 Borey and 667BDRM Dolphin. Recent reports also mention the use of Burak-M on diesel submarines. Probably, we are talking about modern ships pr. 636.3 "Varshavyanka".

According to Izvestia, the electronic warfare complex has already been brought up to tests on standard carriers. On which submarines it is installed and is being tested is not specified. Also, the deadlines for the completion of current activities and further plans of the Ministry of Defense remain unknown. Apparently, after the completion of the current tests, a decision will be made on the adoption of new buoys for service.

The prospects of the complex


According to data from 2018, the navy was to receive two batches of five Burak-M complexes in each. Judging by the cost of all purchases and individual products, we are talking about complete sets of tools for installation on carrier submarines, as well as some stock of buoys spent during operation.


Ejection of a buoy by a patrol helicopter

Thus, in the near future it will be possible to equip up to 10 submarines of all main classes and types with new protective equipment. Of the last News it follows that such equipment will first of all be received by strategic submarines, including old project 667BDRM. Also, "Burak-M" can be installed on multipurpose nuclear and diesel boats.

The advantages of such a modernization of submarines are obvious. "Burak-M" will be able to disrupt the activities of the PLO of the potential enemy and thereby contribute to the successful work of submariners. Unable to timely receive data from their RSLB, the enemy loses control over the water area. Accordingly, the submarine gets the opportunity to secretly go through the desired area or disrupt observation of itself.

It should be noted that some of the Russian submarines regularly have on board their own means of electronic reconnaissance and electronic warfare. The appearance of a new electronic warfare complex will expand their capabilities. This will be facilitated by the ability to reset the buoy with the jamming station.

However, the proposed method of combating enemy PLO can have certain problems. So, the appearance of a source of interference and loss of connection with sonar buoys can indicate to the enemy the presence of a submarine. Her further search can be carried out by means independent of radio communications. However, such a search will not be simple and quick, and the submarine has sufficient time left to leave the dangerous area.

"Burak-M" for the protection of underwater missile carriers

Modern patrol plane P-8A Poseidon

In the future, the appearance of electronic warfare buoys can affect the development of the RSL, which will lead to an increase in the characteristics of communications or the introduction of new solutions that ensure a stable exchange of data even in the presence of electronic warfare.

Threats and answers


Currently, leading foreign countries are modernizing their PLO systems. New patrol aircraft and various auxiliary equipment are coming into service. The development of fundamentally new anti-submarine boats and equipment is underway. For example, the United States and its allies are developing new Boeing P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft carrying a wide range of different equipment. Experiments are underway on the topic of crewless boats PLO operating in the "flock."

Such a development of foreign technologies and equipment is a serious threat to the Russian submarine forces - first of all, for the marine component of the nuclear triad. Strategic missile carriers on patrol routes should be protected from the detection and tracking of potential enemy PLO.

An important component of protective equipment is electronic warfare systems. Some of our submarines already have such equipment, and now they are testing a new system of this kind. The timing of the completion of the tests of the Burak-M complex and its subsequent adoption into service is still unknown, but the positive consequences of the appearance of such systems are obvious.
Author:
Photos used:
Russian Defense Ministry, US Navy
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

87 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Aleksandr1971 13 March 2020 06: 55 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    But is there any information about why they had not thought of applying such anti-aircraft defense systems of the enemy before? After all, Americans have been dumping the RSLA for several decades.
    And why the name "Burak"? - buoy with special electronic equipment. Where is the letter "k"?
    1. Rostovchanin 13 March 2020 09: 38 New
      • 13
      • 1
      +12
      Beetroot is beetroot laughing
      1. sidoroff 13 March 2020 15: 23 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Burak is a horse with a human head in the Quran. Muhammad
        on it there, galloped here.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Boa kaa 14 March 2020 21: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Aleksandr1971
      Where is the letter "k"?

      The letter "K" means - "ship" ...
      (I think so, yeah!) (C)
    4. Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Aleksandr1971
      But is there any information about why they had not thought of applying such anti-aircraft defense systems of the enemy before? After all, Americans have been dumping the RSLA for several decades.

      because science and industry wrote dissertations and suffered garbage
      "Burak" was urgently needed by our submarines from the 60s-70s, and it could be done elementarily, providing a MULTIPLE increase in the combat stability of our submarines ... however, they never did ...
      Today, “Burak” is just OUT OF DATE, and for a generation
  2. Vladimir_2U 13 March 2020 07: 14 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    It seems to me that this is a means of "last chance", but if it is, then it is very good.
    1. georgiigennadievitch 15 March 2020 13: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And if only as one of the links in the set of measures? For centuries it was believed that the oceans are the most reliable protection of the states against any adversary. However, with the advent of nuclear thermonuclear weapons, it is the surrounding oceans that become their “Achilles heel." It is unclear why we have a long time, and indeed emphasis has now been placed on launching vehicles to the ground. A sudden strike from the depths of the oceans is difficult to prevent and intercept. In combination with small surface ships armed with cruise and hypersonic missiles, this will create almost inextricable states for missile defense other problems. If submarine missile carriers can strike even from their bases (but the closer, the better and more reliable), then surface ships should, changing each other, be on friendly visits in the waters of the countries of Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela on an ongoing basis, to conduct joint exercises there with them, and to refuel with necessary things and rest at the relatively small and inexpensive material and technical supply points created there. And there are no military bases there, etc., so as not to provoke the states to deploy their missiles in Evr opera and Asia close to us. And US submarines and surface ships do just that to us, snooping around in seas close to us.
    2. Fizik M 15 March 2020 14: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      It seems to me that this is a means of "last chance", but if it is, then it is very good.

      certainly better than nothing at all, but about the "last chance" you said well ...
  3. Eug
    Eug 13 March 2020 07: 50 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Hmm ... and the pop-up buoy itself does not unmask the sub?
    1. Kalmar 13 March 2020 11: 05 New
      • 11
      • 0
      +11
      Quote: Eug
      Hmm ... and the pop-up buoy itself does not unmask the sub?

      It shouldn’t be by itself: it’s small, it cannot be seen from above. But the interference generated by him, I think, it will already be possible to detect. I wonder if this will turn it from electronic warfare equipment into a radio beacon, indicating the place of recent residence of the submarine?
      1. knn54 13 March 2020 15: 05 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        The secret routes of the Russian strategic nuclear submarines for the Yankees are not new.
        Here it would be necessary to think so that the buoy would not just pop up, but would go to the side, because the "shooting" also lends itself to fixation.
        And at the same time "misled (at a certain stage) and the UNDERWATER" hunters "of the adversary.
        1. Kalmar 13 March 2020 15: 22 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: knn54
          The secret routes of the Russian strategic nuclear submarines for the Yankees are not new.

          This is clear. But the route is one thing, and the bell is another thing, that a potential victim is crawling right now on a certain section of this route.

          Quote: knn54
          Here it would be necessary to think so that the buoy would not just pop up, but would go to the side, because the "shooting" also lends itself to fixation.

          This is also not an easy task. If he goes too far, he will not be able to drown out enemy buoys, there will be no sense in him. If not too much, it will attract that unnecessary attention.
      2. Aleksandr1971 13 March 2020 16: 08 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        You can program it to turn on after the required period of time
        1. Kalmar 13 March 2020 16: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Aleksandr1971
          You can program it to turn on after the required period of time

          Provided that "Burak" can jam enemy buoys at a sufficiently large distance. Otherwise, the submarine simply leaves the zone of its operation, which makes the idea meaningless.
      3. Akuzenka 13 March 2020 21: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And what prevents to change course after a reset? Or will the probe go away after a reset? I do not understand the problem.
        1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 14: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: AKuzenka
          And what prevents to change course after a reset? Or will the probe go away after a reset? I do not understand the problem.

          1. The "probe" will not go away, it is drifting
          2. Yes, even though the maneuver is in full swing, aviation will block it anyway (if it doesn’t “click with its beak”)
  4. Gust 13 March 2020 09: 13 New
    • 7
    • 6
    +1
    You need to deal with the cause, not the effect. A submarine needs its own air defense. The French already have something similar, you can take it as a starting point.
    1. Grigory_45 13 March 2020 20: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Rafale
      PL needs its own air defense

      yeah, put the S-400F)))
      How do you imagine the battle of a submarine with enemy aircraft (albeit the same helicopters)? But they do not fly in a vacuum (although they themselves are capable of effortlessly drowning any discovered boat) - somewhere nearby a carrier ship. Against him - what? Put guns and RCC? Hang on armor?

      The main thing in the defense of a submarine is its secrecy. Not detected - not destroyed.

      By the way, on some of the nuclear submarines, eight Igla MANPADS were standardly included in the armament (I think now they are not, but on the Sharks (pr 941) they were. They were not needed by anyone, but they were formally listed.
      1. Gust 13 March 2020 21: 09 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Yeah, it was him;))
        https://topwar.ru/160189-podlodka-sjuffren-brosaet-vyzov-morskoj-aviacii-vmf-rossii-kovarnyj-ohotnik-s-vozmozhnostjami-pvo.html

        Although in our version you can slightly modify. But judging by the number of minuses, a constructive discussion will not work;)
        1. Grigory_45 13 March 2020 21: 24 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Rafale
          Yeah, it was him;))

          you really don’t look at the French, they are strange guys))
          They had a white crow, Surkuf with a pair of 8-inches.

          To give equipment unusual and unnecessary properties to it - this means spoiling it, not fully realizing the qualities that it needs to fulfill the main combat mission. They are. hope you know.

          The fight against aviation is not an element of submarines. And her survivability is low (compared to a surface ship), and airspace monitoring tools are more than modest. And the extra equipment only complicates and increases the cost of submarines, in addition, it will be necessary to sacrifice space and mass for dubious pleasure in the form of SAM, reducing the composition of the main armament.

          The baker must bake pies, the shoemaker - stitch boots
          1. Boa kaa 14 March 2020 22: 09 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Gregory_45
            The fight against aviation is not an element of submarines.

            You have correctly noticed this. But to break away from the turntables (pairs) transmitting contact with the submarines to each other is possible only by active means. Therefore, the Germans and the French have on board capsules with SAM, fired from TA.
            And that they were able to neutralize the field or the barrier from the RSLA, think of a pop-up electronic warfare buoy - it's good, but the RTR station on the Poseidons R-8 will immediately detect its work, thereby confirming the presence of submarines in the search area. After that, they will dig like a dachshund in a hole at a badger!
            1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 36 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: BoA KAA
              Therefore, the Germans and the French have on board capsules with SAM, fired from TA.

              already Americans too
      2. Polite Moose 13 March 2020 21: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Gregory_45
        How do you imagine the battle of submarines with enemy aircraft

        Gregory! hi
        About 10 years ago there was an extensive article on this topic. I do not remember the name and source. But even without it there is plenty of information. Development has been going on for quite some time. Here are a couple of offhand links.
        https://prokhor-tebin.livejournal.com/195607.html
        https://bmpd.livejournal.com/366487.html
    2. Fizik M 16 March 2020 09: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Rafale
      You need to deal with the cause, not the effect. A submarine needs its own air defense. The French already have something similar, you can take it as a starting point.

      Exactly!
      Only here, according to the "custodian model", it is not necessary to do it;
  5. Undecim 13 March 2020 11: 05 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    As always, the author has a lot and about nothing.
    For the first time, the public learned about the Burak-M submarine electronic warfare complex in August 2018 from domestic press reports based on data from the government procurement portal.
    For the first time, the public learned about the electronic warfare complex of submarines "Burak-M" fifteen years ago - in June 2005, at the II International Naval Salon IMDS-2005.

    And even then he was "promising."
    1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 36 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Undecim
      For the first time, the public learned about the electronic warfare complex of submarines "Burak-M" fifteen years ago - in June 2005, at the II International Naval Salon IMDS-2005.

      it’s not “Burak”, but PLR 90P
      1. Undecim 15 March 2020 13: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, I screwed up with the photo.

        But this does not change the essence. Development of the USSR from the last century.
  6. Arkon 13 March 2020 11: 06 New
    • 1
    • 15
    -14
    The same messages featured another purchase. The Ministry of Defense was going to acquire ten anti-torpedo protection devices “Udar-1”. Deliveries were also expected in 2019-2020.


    Brazenly lying. VO site experts know for sure that there is no PTZ in Borey and Varshavyanka. For the Russian submarine fleet was finally destroyed by "Putin".
    1. Alexey RA 13 March 2020 12: 08 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Arkon
      Brazenly lying. VO site experts know for sure that there is no PTZ in Borey and Varshavyanka. For the Russian submarine fleet was finally destroyed by "Putin".

      In fact, the same SW. mina has repeatedly written that the presence of a certain PTZ complex does not mean the presence of the PTZ itself. Because it’s impossible to build a modern system on the designs and concepts of the end of the Cold War.
      Given the significant level of “side lobes” of the directional patterns of analogue hydroacoustic acoustics of the 80s of that time, the timely use of a pair of powerful drifting devices Mk3 and Mk4 (high-frequency against torpedo tubes and low-frequency against sonar target designation) practically guaranteed the US Naval Aviation avoidance in the 80s attacks of anti-submarine forces of the Navy of the USSR (success was possible for us, but only through "non-traditional" methods of using weapons - at the level of "military cunning"). However, today the efficiency of even powerful single-hull SGPD drifting devices of the Mk3 and Mk4 type against modern torpedoes (of the UGST or MTT type) and HAC (of the MGK-400EM type) is low. In this regard, bewilderment is the presence in the procurements of the Ministry of Defense (and the Navy) of such means as the extremely expensive “drift anti-torpedo protection device“ Udar ”.” The question arises - did the “Blow” pass tests against modern torpedoes? Or was it with us “as usual” with us - “please get us the tests of that torpedo” (obsolete) and “by no means new”?
      (...)
      The obvious solution in this situation is a comprehensive joint development of new SSN and SRPD, with real modeling of a variety of options for “duel situations”. However, there was allegedly “no money” for this (due to the extremely high cost of the same “Shocks” and “Physicist” torpedo shots).
      (...)
      Until now, our ships are widely represented (used) by the ancient and completely obsolete MG-34 and GIP-1 devices. The "new" Vist-2 drifting device, with good technical parameters, was appropriate in the 80s-90s, but today it’s obviously completely outdated, several generations of torpedo weapons have changed, and with the outdated Vista concept, its effectiveness against modern torpedoes is low. The “MG-74M type” self-propelled multipurpose GPD device is a repetition of the outdated SRPD concepts of the 70s-80s at the modern technical level (and, accordingly, with limited efficiency). The MG-104 self-propelled torpedo launch device was probably the best example of this purpose in the world at the time of its creation. However, the conditions for its placement on submarines (the developer of the Malakhit SPBM complex) made it very difficult to operate and did not provide the necessary ammunition on board (971 projects — only 6 devices, if necessary at least three dozen!). The media cited data on the purchase by the Russian Defense Ministry of drifting protection devices “Udar-1” and “Oplot”. Given their extremely high cost and small quantity, it is obvious that we are talking about new products, but created under the long-obsolete requirements and conditions of the submarine war of the 80s and correspondingly low efficiency.
      © Maxim Klimov
      1. Arkon 13 March 2020 12: 45 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        The question arises - did the “Blow” pass tests against modern torpedoes? Or was it with us “as usual” with us - “please get us the tests of that torpedo” (obsolete) and “by no means new”?


        So, what is the answer? Why should it be exactly negative? If the Package is checked and do not regret the "expensive" anti-torpedoes, then why not check the "Blow" on yours? This is the first. And secondly, I want to say that the purchase of Udar-1 suggests that work in this direction is progressing. Based on this, we can predict that Packages will be adapted for boats, as the press slid.
        I am not against questions, I am against the initial increased acridity and unreasonable skepticism. smile
        1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 34 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Arkon
          Why should it be exactly negative?

          because "Beat-1" against new torpedoes is liquidated
          therefore, "it is in no way impossible to allow such tests"
          only against "junk" ...
          Quote: Arkon
          If the package is checked and do not regret the "expensive" anti-torpedo

          because with all the "shoals" of the "Region", they didn’t deal with forgeries with tests
          worked honestly
          Quote: Arkon
          And secondly, I want to say that the purchase of Udar-1 suggests that work in this direction is progressing.

          http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1891&p=33
          - there is exhaustive
          1. Arkon 15 March 2020 10: 54 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Fizik M
            because "Beat-1" against new torpedoes is liquidated

            Quote: Fizik M
            http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=1891&p=33
            - there is exhaustive


            Well, I read "exhaustive." All quotes are "mina" from 2013. When asked what happens to the topics "now", uv. mina just answers:
            only how "it" was SHIT, so SHIT and remained
            . Moreover, it no longer gives links.

            This means that mina simply does not have information about the current situation with the subject “Beat-1”.
            But the derogatory pathos remained. Where without him. wink

            Like you, however. What to invent - blame, let the opponent make excuses. Right? lol
            1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 13: 31 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Arkon
              . Moreover, it no longer gives links.

              This means that mina simply does not have information about the current situation with the subject “Beat-1”.
              But the derogatory pathos remained. Where can I go without neg

              1. Quote from Lutsky in 2010, and he "more than got it." Since then, NOTHING has changed
              2. The "Module" has FUNDAMENTAL errors in application models and algorithms.
              3. Klimov personally demanded, for example, from Nach. Navy EW services in August 2013 carrying out the products of the "Module" in conditions "close to real combat," but this did not cause "interest" (for obvious reason - they would then "shove" this fleet to hell)
              4. Klimov did an analysis of the problems of the “Module” (and what to do next), - at the request of the Head of the Navy MPO service. The document was transmitted including in “Malachite” (the head one in “Module”), there were NO OBJECTIONS TO IT.
              5. No “poultices”, “cold treatment”, etc. “modifications” of “Module” will not help where SEPSIS is already (and SURGERY is required). ONCE AGAIN - errors of the “Module” in its initially erroneous concept (moreover, “Malachite” EXACTLY KNEW about this since 2003, but continued to “saw the loot”)
    2. Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 35 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Arkon
      VO website experts know for sure that there are no PTZs on Borey and Varshavyanki

      Yes exactly
      Quote: Arkon
      For the Russian submarine fleet was finally destroyed by "Putin".

      where does Putin come from? it just requires what would be and really work - see the same Syria
      the same “Kuznetsov” reached it only on the “podzhopniks” of the Supreme High Command to our “rafters”
  7. Pashhenko Nikolay 13 March 2020 13: 14 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Ofiget. The boat itself means a buoy. And since it is not difficult to find and slap by radiation, it remains only to look for a boat somewhere nearby. A good tool, nothing to say)) It is definitely unparalleled, especially by stupidity) ()
    1. Aleksandr1971 13 March 2020 16: 10 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      If the buoy turns on later, the boat will not be unmasked.
      1. Alexey RA 13 March 2020 16: 48 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: Aleksandr1971
        If the buoy turns on later, the boat will not be unmasked.

        If the buoy turns on upon reaching the surface, he himself unmasks the place of the submarine.
        If the buoy turns on later than reaching the surface, then either the RSLB next to the buoy will have time to report the presence of submarines before the communication line is noisy, or the submarine will go beyond the range of the buoy, and then the RSLB will report about it in the new area.
        1. Newone 13 March 2020 19: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The buoy is supposedly turned on after the start of the radio exchange. To unmask the boat, the buoy must be switched on when passing over the boat of Poseidon, which is unlikely.
    2. Arkon 13 March 2020 18: 54 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Here stupidity sits in KB, right? You took them through in two minutes. Head ...
      1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 13: 36 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0

        Monsieur, this is a photo of the torpedo deck of the "newest" Borea - stuffed with ANCIENT "wood" type USET-80
        on this fact YOU will have something to object to?
        1. Arkon 15 March 2020 14: 58 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Fizik M
          on this fact YOU will have something to object to?


          Strange you. What exactly should I "mind" you? You brought some photos from open sources. I have no idea Borey this or anything else and at what stage the photo was taken. That borea has the opportunity apply USET-80, I know. Like the fact that he has the ability to use any weapons of caliber 533. So what? What do you want to say?
          1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 16: 14 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Arkon
            Like the fact that he has the ability to use any weapon of caliber 533.

            I disappoint YOU - it does not;)
            for besides caliber (which, by the way 534) there is much more ...
            Quote: Arkon
            What do you want to say?

            Yes, nothing, I already realized that YOU are a banal "trampoline breaker" lol
            1. Arkon 15 March 2020 17: 33 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Fizik M
              I disappoint YOU - it does not;)


              Well, i.e. new torpedoes for submarines are adopted, but the latest submarines cannot use them. No, well, anything can be, of course. Everything is possible in the universe. However, why I should trust you, and not official communications, I do not understand. smile

              Quote: Fizik M
              Yes, nothing, I already realized that YOU are a banal "trampoline breaker"


              I ask questions that you could not answer. And "call names", of course, is a high class discussion. laughing
              1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 18: 20 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Arkon
                However, why should I believe you, and not official communications, I do not understand

                lol
                ANSWER TO PHOTO
                exhaustive
                Of course, I understand everything - “pink ponies”, “torn trampoline”, but still “pink glasses” at least sometimes you need to wipe
                Quote: Arkon
                I ask questions that you could not answer.

                Monsieur, YOU have deigned not to notice even fresh references to arbitration cases (via my link) !!!
                Shl a conversation can be with YOU only after YOU wipe your "pink glasses" and stop portraying

                however - you want to "ride" on to the "pink ponies", and "believe in the god Kuzyu" (etc.) - I do not interfere;)
                1. Arkon 15 March 2020 18: 33 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  To clarify the position: I have no doubt that in our military-industrial complex there is a fig mountain of “dough sawers”. I just doubt that right now the fleet conducts some "pocket" tests. And, even if the initial TTZ for military equipment was outdated, that they were not adjusted.

                  Quote: Fizik M
                  ANSWER TO PHOTO
                  exhaustive


                  Would it make it difficult for you to explain what it is?

                  Quote: Fizik M
                  Monsieur, YOU have deigned not to notice even fresh references to arbitration cases (via my link) !!!


                  Well, perhaps overlooked. Will you quote here?
                  1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 18: 44 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: Arkon
                    Would it make it difficult for you to explain what it is?

                    in the photo - "Northwind" (more precisely 202 order)
                    his whole "torpedo drum" - USETki
                    why he "can not" "Physics" in the original link was stated clearly and directly
                    may very well be the master of the photo
                    Quote: Arkon
                    Well, perhaps overlooked. Will you quote here?

                    see link Courage and my LJ
                    there when this BODYAGA started with OCD (1993) it is indicated (in DOCUMENTS)
                    93 - this is OCD, and research - still the end of the 80s - about which Lutsky wrote
                    1. Arkon 15 March 2020 18: 55 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: Fizik M
                      why he "can not" "Physics" in the original link was stated clearly and directly
                      may very well be the master of the photo


                      Well, and what was “indicated” there?
                      1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 19: 04 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        BIUS "not stitched"
                        from myself on this situation already wrote:
                        The problem of "data entry"
                        In the same place, on “Army-2015”, the representatives of the Navy expressed an extremely controversial thesis: “let the old ships live with the old torpedoes”. I emphasize that this was announced a year and a half after the sharp exacerbation of the military-political situation in 2014!
                        In general, the very division of ships into "old" and "new" is nonsense. A ship is a combat unit, while it is in service, it must be combat-ready and undergo timely upgrades. There is no sound logic behind this statement.
                        The real reason is “the problem of entering data into new torpedoes on old carriers”, more precisely, simply “wild” financial requests from the CIAS developer - Morinformsystem-Agat concern and SPBM Malachite (as the head organization for torpedo complexes) to pay for these works . It comes to amounts in three-digit terms (in millions of rubles). And this is only a "refinement" and "registration". The cost of the new CICS is billions. It is absolutely abnormal when in the procurement for the modernization of the “Irkutsk” APCR, the cost of a new CICS is almost equal to the cost of a new hydroacoustic complex.
                        At the same time, “our CUIs” are not Western ASBUs, which are actually “smart superstructures” over sonar facilities, and the processing of tactical information and the use of weapons is carried out by them not only at the “geometrical level” (as in our CES), but also “ signal ". Against this background, all Russian PIUS PLs are simply “rudimentary”, and their extremely high cost is apparently due to the fact that “someone really wants fat budget financing.” And for the sake of these "willing", we were "strangled" by all the developments of small-sized devices for data entry into weapons and the "mini-BIUS". For the situation itself when a small-sized device for extremely small money makes the main part of the work of a huge and extremely expensive CICS (calculation of firing data and their input) raises questions. And this is not some kind of "initiative". For example, the data entry module, in one of the designed PDFs, is identical with the data entry module of the CICS on the St. Petersburg submarine (providing, among other things, torpedo telecontrol). And such examples can be continued.
                        The author of this article in the fleet was working out (together with interested representatives of central bodies and organizations) the questions of “tapping” new modules and the PDF in the standard firing systems on the serial Navy ship. All this was absolutely real, did not require significant funds, but in the end it ended in nothing. To the leadership of some defense companies, this turned out to be “extremely unnecessary” (for huge new CEMPs mean corresponding revenues for them), and they managed to “convey” this opinion to the command of the Navy.
                        For comparison: having received two Tang type submarines (the same age as our 80 project) at the start of the 611, the Turkish Navy independently upgraded them, ensuring the use of new torpedoes (including the Mk48), by installing a “mini -BIUS »VATOS. In 1999, the same submarines received a more modern version - VATOS Mk2

                        Those. what the Turks did quickly and easily for themselves in the 80-x, the Russian Navy could not do. The command of the Navy did not have the courage to go against certain individuals in the military-industrial complex.
                        How can one not recall the general designer of non-nuclear submarines Kormilitsin Yu.N. about the "distant 70s - 80s.": My reports to the board of the Ministry of Industry about the fact that the "Node" BIOS is only 2-3 racks, and the number of tasks to be solved corresponds to the giant systems and sizes of other developers, caused in those years, violent resistance in the Ministry and the directorial corps of the ship industry. The fact is that the introduction of the “Knot” BIUS led ... to a sharp reduction in the consumption of financial and labor resources ... “self-ignition” of the BIUS, acoustic and navigation systems led to the creation of mastodons of 3 and 4 generations, inferior in terms of quality to the ships of a potential enemy, and to unjustified the cost.
                        Good question: is there an admiral in the fleet who can toughly raise problematic issues before the defense industry?

                        https://topwar.ru/156811-arkticheskij-torpednyj-skandal.html
                      2. Arkon 15 March 2020 19: 12 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        But I agree with that. Also heard that while Only old torpedoes can be used programmatically. However, firstly, this is not visible in the photo. wink and secondly - this "till". The main thing is that there are torpedoes, we can develop mathematics. The current developers will not cope, they will give ... yes even Almaz-Antey. smile Thank God we do not have private shops doing this, as in the United States.
                        Solve the problem. If you haven’t decided yet.
                      3. Fizik M 15 March 2020 19: 26 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: Arkon
                        Thank God we do not have private shops doing this, as in the United States.

                        we have "very fat cats" (and fatter than in the US)
                        and they STUFFED EVERYTHING on what this could be done
                        so pay money ...
                        and since the money is not very, then ships in the end with "bare * opoy"
  • Polite Moose 13 March 2020 22: 11 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
    Ofiget. The boat itself means a buoy.

    Quote: Aleksandr1971
    If the buoy turns on later, the boat will not be unmasked.

    Quote: Alexey RA
    If the buoy turns on upon reaching the surface, he himself unmasks the place of the submarine.

    Quote: Newone
    The buoy is supposedly turned on after the start of the radio exchange.

    Gentlemen, with your permission I’ll insert my 5 kopecks.
    I dare to assume that the occurrence of a situation where the boat is being wrapped around with RGA buoys means that it has already "lit up" and now the enemy is taking action to accurately localize it. Well, don’t you think that the Orions, when patrolling the zone of responsibility, sow the vast expanses of the oceans with buoys in a square-nesting way in non-stop mode? Perhaps some kind of enemy submarine. So you can’t save any buoys. Another thing was when the surface anti-submarine forces had, but contact with the submarine was lost. Then the "cavalry" arrives and expands the search area. And then a plane / helicopter poured into the water of buoys like firewood, and there is no connection with them. And the source of the interference - here it is, in full view. And how to destroy it the same "Orion"? Depth bombs? Until they destroy it from the water, it will take a lot of time. And the boat too. And then, if necessary, a new buoy will pop up, and then another one.
    I think so. Purely my speculation. I do not pretend to be an expert opinion. hi
    1. Arkon 14 March 2020 09: 02 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Quote: Polite Moose
      And the source of the interference - here it is, in full view.


      I don’t understand: why is he "in full view"? Noise is emitted at the same frequencies that beacons use. You simply cannot distinguish it in frequency from your own buoys. It can only be visually found. By external differences. And for this they need to fly around - and that is not a fact that you will find.
      1. Polite Moose 14 March 2020 09: 30 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Arkon
        I don’t understand: why is he "in full view"?

        This is a hypothetical assumption. Handicap to a potential opponent. I fully admit that the interference will not be in the form of constant noise at the radiation frequency of the RSLA, but of “intellectual” distorting the information in the buoy messages, or the device described in this article can completely imitate the operation of the “native” RSLAs, but transmit false information. Yes, a lot of things you can think of. Yes, for a good snack. wink In general, the underwater topic in our country is the most classified. About twenty years later, we may learn the technical details of the Burak. But, even assuming that our anti-buoy simply clogs the range with noise, is painted in bright orange and rises 2 meters above the water, and at the same time, until it is detected and neutralized, gives the boat 10 minutes of “invisibility”, then it already deserves the right to exist.
        1. Arkon 14 March 2020 09: 39 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: Polite Moose
          But, even assuming that our anti-buoy simply clogs the range with noise, it is painted in bright orange and rises 2 meters above the water


          laughing Just as described from nature!
          1. Polite Moose 14 March 2020 09: 45 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Arkon
            Just as described from nature!

            Hmm. According to the description - not quite a buoy turned out. what
        2. tima_ga 14 March 2020 18: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I’m wondering if the buoy is drowning after some time, so that its opponent does not pick up and investigate in order to decipher and develop countermeasures.?
          1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 27 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: tima_ga
            I’m wondering if the buoy is drowning after some time, so that its opponent does not pick up and investigate in order to decipher and develop countermeasures.?

            sinking
            but pick up and study - with modern technology is no problem
        3. Boa kaa 14 March 2020 23: 33 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Polite Moose
          gives the boat 10 minutes of "invisibility",

          Oh !? Look at the tactics of using weapons by PLO aviation. If there is infa about the location of the submarine in the search area, then the weapon will be used at the slightest contact, even false ... Nobody will wait for the ICE to produce full shooting data. Moreover, the torpedoes dropped on the boat will search in a diverging spiral ... Our Ceramics have a response radius of a GOS of about 2500m, and for amans ... think less? So, in 10 minutes you can’t get far!
          What to do? Set GPA, change course, depth, dive under the jump layer ...
          And here nothing can replace the skill of the commander, the sophistication of the crew, and of course LUCK ...
          1. Polite Moose 15 March 2020 00: 12 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: BoA KAA
            Look at the tactics of using weapons by PLO aviation. If there is infa about the location of the submarine in the search area, then the weapon will be used at the slightest contact, even false ...

            In wartime - absolutely true. But in recent decades, I don’t remember the situation in the Russia-NATO relations, when it came to the attack of one of the sides of the underwater target. Squeezing out of the area or forcing to ascend - yes. And that is a great rarity.
            Quote: BoA KAA
            So, in 10 minutes you can’t get far!

            And for 20? And over 30? Neither you nor I know the real TTX of the buoy. But the fact that he can give a chance to submarine screw from a problem area - I have no doubt.
            Quote: BoA KAA
            And here nothing can replace the skill of the commander, the sophistication of the crew, and of course LUCK ...

            Only an alternatively gifted person can argue with this. drinks
            1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 24 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Polite Moose
              But in recent decades, I don’t remember the situation in Russia-NATO relations, when it came to the attack of one of the sides of the underwater target

              simulation of an attack, sometime in 2004, 971 with 622 crews each
            2. Fizik M 15 March 2020 11: 08 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Polite Moose
              Neither you nor I know the real TTX of the buoy. But the fact that he can give a chance to submarine screw from a problem area - I have no doubt.

              1. Yes, they are obvious: BH - similar to the RSAA, power - as much as the AB allows (corresponding dimensions and weight), antenna height - also on official photos has long been laid out ...
              2. The models of its application and algorithms themselves are erroneous ...
          2. Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 26 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: BoA KAA
            If there is infa about the location of the submarine in the search area, then the weapon will be used at the slightest contact, even false ...

            no, and the peculiarity of the actions of the US Navy submarine is that they have the stage of "classification" often BEFORE the stage of "detection" (that is, they are "tuned" to search for specific targets)

            Quote: BoA KAA
            Our Ceramics has a response radius of GOS of about 2500m

            it wasn’t even close
            ideally 1,5km (unattainable, not to mention the “butterfly” of her Rssn chart)
        4. Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 27 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Polite Moose
          I fully admit that the interference will not be in the form of constant noise at the radiation frequency of the RSLA, but of “intellectual” distorting the information in the buoy messages, or the device described in the article can completely imitate the operation of the “native” RSLAs, but transmit false information.

          these are mriy not related to reality
      2. Fizik M 15 March 2020 13: 38 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: Arkon
        I don’t understand: why is he "in full view"? Noise is emitted at the same frequencies that beacons use.

        lol
        in order not to flog public bullshit, read something on noise-resistant radio communication
        for one remember that the Earth is ROUND wink
  • Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Pashhenko Nikolay
    Ofiget. The boat itself means a buoy. And since it is not difficult to find and slap by radiation, it remains only to look for a boat somewhere nearby. A good tool, nothing to say)) It is definitely unparalleled, especially by stupidity) ()

    Lutsky’s literal assessment of the Module-D complex (which includes “beetroots”) -
    there’s a cow, s..t, that's why this torpedo will come out on it !!!

    PS at "Module-D" in principle, incorrect models of application and algorithms ...
  • Grigory_45 13 March 2020 20: 13 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    The Burak-M complex buoy should “jam” this connection, preventing data exchange. As a result, the enemy loses the ability to track a certain zone.

    and at the same time, the Premier League most actively informs the enemy - I am in such and such an area! double edged sword.
    Now, if it were not a buoy, but a false target that imitates the submarine as much as possible - in noise parameters, in magnetic parameters, performing maneuvers in speed, depth, course, etc. - probably it would be more effective. By releasing two or three such simulators that diverge in different directions, the boat will make the "hunters" sweat pretty hard, determining where the "game" itself is and where the snag
    Fortunately, noise imitators have long been used in evading enemy torpedoes.
    1. tima_ga 14 March 2020 18: 43 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      No one bothers to use rap buoys and false targets in the complex. And if we do not know about them, then this does not mean that such a thing is not being developed or tested. The public was informed about buoys, and also kept silence about many things ...
      1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 22 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: tima_ga
        The public was informed about buoys, and also kept silence about many things ...

        yep -
        EVERYTHING IS WORSE WORSE - MUCH WORSE ...
    2. Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 23 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Gregory_45
      and a false target that imitates the submarine as much as possible - by the noise parameter

      in the field of low frequencies this is impossible due to purely physical limitations (in fact, a "second submarine" is needed)
    3. Fizik M 15 March 2020 11: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Gregory_45
      Fortunately, noise imitators have long been used in evading enemy torpedoes.

      against torpedoes it is real, and even at distances greater than the CLS classification distance (on old torpedoes it is less than 1 km), but this is the HF range
      but high-quality simulation of the low frequency range - in small calibers and masses is physically unrealistic
      the best there is in this part is the American GNATS, but it is the ON-BOARD complex, respectively. antennas and power, and even then it was "calculated", even on the already ancient "Skat-3"
  • reader65 14 March 2020 08: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    1. "Burak-M" - development started back in 1993. (as a product of the Modul-D complex), - and taking into account the R&D stage, the creation began back in the late 80s.
    In general, on "Module-D" and its firing products ("Udar-1", "Oplot", Burak-M ") everything was exhaustively said by Rear Admiral Lutsky in 2010 (article in the" Marine Collection ") :
    Subscriber projects of Yasen and Borey under construction are proposed to be equipped with PTZ systems, the development specifications of which were compiled even in 80x years of the last generation, the results of studies of the effectiveness of these means against modern torpedoes testify to an exceptionally low probability

    2. Accordingly, there is no reason to hope for "high efficiency" against modern means of searching for submarines (new RSLAs) "Burak". Yes, it will be effective against the old RSLBs, but it’s akin to “stuffing an ostrich’s head in the sand”: the work of Burak clearly says that the latest submarines like Ash or Borey-A (with the Modul-D complex) are operating in the area ), and then the enemy simply “covers” the area with aviation with new buoys (against which the Burak is ineffective) ... Next - the destruction of our submarines.
    3. Thus, there is no reason for the "joyful puppy bark" traditional for Yzvestia. Of course, the presence of "Burak" is still better than its absence, but today there is no reason to talk about the "high efficiency" of products conceived back in the 80s of the last century.
    4. Obvious nonsense is the announcement of the Izvestia about the "Beetroot" on the "Varshavyanka" and "Frets", because the complex "Module-D" simply did not interfere on them (due to its very large dimensions and weight). Those. our "dizelungs" as they were "naked" against enemy aircraft, and remain.

    Klimov
  • tima_ga 14 March 2020 19: 01 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Many commentators, including those who are really well versed in the topic, position themselves as 100% knowledgeable in the matter and start criticizing. But such units with the appropriate tolerance. It is unlikely that they will be distributed, otherwise they may go on a stage ... Some information about Burak was thrown into the press. But what does this complex really look like and what are its elements ... In the framework of fantasies: maybe this is not only buoys of rap, but also counteraction of hydroacoustic location + false targets that mimic submarines ... All the same, we have a lot of bright heads in science and the military, who is well aware of the forces and means of the enemy, which must be countered.
    1. Fizik M 15 March 2020 10: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: tima_ga
      It is unlikely that they will be distributed, otherwise they may go on the stage ..

      Lutsky was not afraid, but he was directly involved in this.
      Quote: tima_ga
      And what is this complex really like and what are its elements ...

      ONCE AGAIN - TTZ of the complex - "out of 80s"
      moreover, people were admitted to him (I can give specific names) for whom the "green card" and permanent residence of the United States since the early 90s
      Quote: tima_ga
      All the same, we have many bright heads in science and in the military,

      which either die out or shut up (for they shut up)
      not so long ago I crossed with the ex-GK from one well-known company, the brow that what was going on there “glowed” before I came to the “faces” with this, and then the management knew about this “for some reason” and he was fired
  • Fizik M 15 March 2020 11: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I emphasize the situation is not fatal. There are, let’s say so, “new technologies” that allow solving the problem an order of magnitude more efficient than the ancient “Burak”. But in order for them to reach the fleet and ships, a tough statement of the question on the ancient .nudes is necessary. Today, under the guise of the "newest" and "unparalleled" military hardware, the Navy is being supplied. Otherwise, "why new" if "what is (JACOB)" works well "???
  • Fizik M 15 March 2020 16: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Arkon
    Well, I read "exhaustive." All quotes are "mina" from 2013.

    those. links to arbitration Monsieur Arcon "did not notice" fool
  • Fizik M 15 March 2020 18: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Arkon
    And, even if the initial TTZ for military equipment was outdated, that they were not adjusted.

    again
    PRINCIPLES underlying this complex are mistaken
    the fact that there were "dopa" - I have no doubt, and moreover - in 2013. State contract was re-signed
    only these are “poultices” and “cold treatment” (while the “patient” has SEPSIS and SURGERY is needed)

    Threat I was asked on the "Module", and the faces acc. posts.
    I presented my proposals (including in Malachite), there were no objections to them ... except that everything about * the officials was pretending that "nothing happened" and "everything blossoms and fragrant "
  • Gust 16 March 2020 15: 46 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Yes, it is necessary to attack the enemy submarine aircraft, and not to crush the RSLA with the noise interference! The most paradoxical thing is that there is already everything for this, you just need to "fasten" one to the other. The same launcher is fired from a standard TA and searches in the PASSIVE mode of a multi-band ECO without unmasking submarines, according to the tactical preferences introduced. Poseidon for such a complex is a fat duck, with no chance at all. Helicopter PLO- too! There is no one to drop the RSLB, there is no one to localize the submarine, there is no TsU for other means of destruction. Checkmate.