Anti-submarine defense: ships against submarines. Hydroacoustics


Surface combat ships continue to be a critical means of anti-submarine warfare. In the photo: Italian submarine ITS Salvatore Todaro (S 526) and Canadian frigate HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337) during NATO Dynamic Manta exercises, February 24, 2020. Photo: USNI News


There is an opinion that surface ships are extremely vulnerable against submarines. This is not entirely true. Moreover, although in modern warfare at sea, submarines are mainly supposed to destroy surface ships, in the past, when naval confrontation was reduced to fighting surface fleet with the underwater, surface fleet won. And the key success factor in all cases was sonar detection of submarines.

Home


Early in the morning of September 22, 1914, three British armored cruisers of the Kressi type patrolled at sea near the port of Hook Van Holland on the coast of the Netherlands. The ships moved along the front line in a 10-nodal course, in a straight line, maintaining a distance of 2 miles from one ship to another, going without anti-submarine zigzags.

At 6.25, a powerful explosion occurred on the port side of the cruiser “Abukir”. The ship lost speed, steam engines on board (for example, winches for launching lifeboats) were disconnected. After some time, a signal was raised on a sinking ship forbidding other ships from approaching it, but the commander of the second cruiser, the Hog, ignored him and rushed to save his comrades. For a moment, the Hoga sailors saw a German submarine in the distance, which surfaced after the torpedo was shot due to its sharply reduced weight, but disappeared into the water right there.

At 6.55, a powerful explosion was also heard on the port side of the Hog. Immediately after him another thing happened - detonated part of the ammunition of 234 mm artillery shells on board. The ship began to sink and after 10 minutes it sank. By this moment, “Abukir” has already sunk.

The third cruiser "Cressi" went to the rescue of drowning sailors from the other side. A periscope of a German submarine was observed from its side and opened fire on it. The British even thought that they had sunk it. But at 7.20 on the side of the "Cressi" also occurred a powerful explosion. The ship after him, however, remained afloat, and at 7.35 he was finished off by the last torpedo.

All three cruisers were sunk by a German U-9 submarine under the command of Capt. Lieutenant Otto Veddigen. The old submarine, built in 1910, which had extremely modest characteristics for 1914 and only four torpedoes sent to the bottom three even outdated, but still quite combat-ready ships in less than an hour and a half and left intact.


1914 German propaganda poster depicting U-9 attack

So in the world began the era of submarine warfare. Until this day, submarines were considered by many naval commanders as a kind of circus on the water. After - no longer, and now this "no longer" was forever. Soon, Germany will go on to unlimited underwater warfare, and its submarines will continue to be used against Entente surface ships, sometimes with deadly effects, such as U-26, which drowned the Russian cruiser Pallada in the Baltic, on which the entire crew died in detonation of ammunition in 598 human.

About a couple of years before the end of the war, engineers in the Entente began to approach submarine detection tools. At the end of May 1916, the inventors Shilovsky and Langevin filed a joint application in Paris for “a device for remote detection of underwater obstacles”. In parallel, similar work (under the conditional code ASDIC) in an atmosphere of deep secrecy was carried out in the UK under the leadership of Robert Boyle and Albert Wood. But the first sonar type ASDIC Type 112 entered service with the British Navy after the war.

After successful tests in 1919, in 1920, this model of sonar gets into series. Several advanced instruments of this type were the main means of detecting submarines during World War II. It was they who "took out" the battles of escort ships against German submarines.

Anti-submarine defense: ships against submarines. Hydroacoustics

View Area ASDIC Type 144Q Type (1942)

In 1940, the British transferred their technology to the Americans, who themselves had a serious program of acoustic research, and soon sonar equipment appeared on American warships.

The Allies passed the Second World War with precisely such sonar.

The first post-war generation of sonar equipment


The main direction of the development of hydroacoustic stations in the first post-war years of surface ships was the integration with weapons (fire control systems of deep jet bombs and torpedoes), with a slight increase in performance from the level achieved during the Second World War (for example, SAS SQS-4 on destroyers Forest Sherman ").

A sharp increase in the characteristics of ASGs required a large amount of research and development work (R&D) that had been intensively going on since the 50s, but in serial models of ASGs were already implemented on ships of the second generation (commissioned from the beginning of the 60s) .

It should be noted that the GAS of this generation were high-frequency and made it possible to efficiently search for submarines (within their characteristics), including in shallow water, or even lying on the ground.

In the USSR at that time both promising R&D and active development of the Anglo-American and German experience and scientific and technical groundwork of the Second World War were going on for the creation of domestic GAS of the first post-war generation of ships, and the result was quite worthy of work.

In 1953, the Taganrog Plant, now known as “Surf”, and then just “Mailbox No. 32”, released the first full-fledged GAS “Tamir-11”. According to its performance characteristics, it corresponded to the best examples of Western technology at the end of World War II.

In 1957, the Hercules Hercules was adopted, which was installed on ships of various projects, which by its characteristics was already comparable to the American SAS SQS-4.



Schemes of the Soviet post-war GAS and portraits of the chief designers.

Of course, the effectiveness of the use of ASGs in difficult marine environments directly depended on the training of personnel, and experience has shown that in capable hands ships with such ASUs could effectively counteract even the latest nuclear submarines.

As an illustration of the capabilities of the GAS of the first post-war generation, we give an example of one pursuit of an American submarine by Soviet ships

From the article cap. 2 ranks Yu.V. Kudryavtseva, commander of the 114th brigade of ships OVR and cap. 3 ranks of AM Sumenkov, commander of the 117th PLO Division of the 114th OVR Brigade:

May 21-22, 1964 ship anti-submarine strike group (KPUG) 117 dk PLO 114 bq OVR KVF Pacific Fleet as part of the MPK-435, MPK-440 (project 122 bis), MPK-61, MPK-12. MPK-11 (pr.201-M), under the command of the commander of the 117th PLO Division, has long pursued a foreign nuclear submarine. During this time, ships traveled 2186 miles at an average speed of 9,75 knots. and lost contact 175 miles off the coast.

To evade the ships, the boat 45 times changed its speed from 2 to 15 knots, turned 23 times by an angle of more than 60 °, described four complete circulations and three circuits of the G11 type. released 6 movable and 11 stationary simulators, 13 gas curtains, 11 times created sighting interference with ship sonars with light from records. During the persecution, the operation of the UZPS means and the operation of the GAS boat in active mode were noted three times. It was not possible to precisely note the changes in the depth of immersion, since the ships chasing it were equipped with the GAS Tamir-11 and MG without a vertical path, but judging by an indirect sign - the range of reliable contact - the travel depth also varied widely .


The pursuit of the submarine "Snook" KPUG 117 dk PLO 114 bk OVR. A hydrological section is in the bottom left, and the estimated GAS submarine detection zone for ships calculated on its basis is on the right.

The whole article with the schemes of pursuit, combat maneuvering and building a warrant PLO here, highly recommended to all interested in the subject.

It is worth paying attention to this: the article describes how an American submarine repeatedly tried to hide from pursuit with the help of a gas curtain, but even then it failed. Nevertheless, it is worth focusing on this - gas curtains were an effective means of evading the first generation GAS. The high-frequency signal with all its advantages did not give a clear picture when working “through” the veil. The same applies to the situation when the boat intensively mixes the water with sharp maneuvers. In this case, even if the CEO detects it, then apply weapon according to her data, it doesn’t work: the curtain, whatever it is, prevents the determination of the elements of the target’s movement - speed and course. And often the boat was just lost. An example of such evasion is well described in the memoirs of Admiral A.N. Lutsky:

New small anti-submarine ships (MPC) arrived at the next OVR brigade. The local brigade commander, allegedly, told ours that now the boats now can’t get away from them. Argued. And somehow he calls the brigade commander, sets the task - to occupy the BP area, in front of the IPC to plunge, break away, in any case not to let him follow himself for more than 2 hours continuously with a total search time of 4 hours.
We came to the area. Four IPCs are already in the area, waiting. We approached the “voice” communication, stipulated the conditions. IPC retreated to 5 cables, surrounded on all sides. Now, hell, we agreed that they would move by 10 kb! Yes, okay ... Let's see how to digest the homemade. In the central post, a set of IPs (hydroreactive imitation cartridges - ed.) And something else was prepared for production ...
- combat alert! Stand in places to dive! Both motors forward middle! Below, how much under the keel?
- The bridge, under the keel 130 meters.
- The IPC launched, turned on the sonar, accompanied by hell ...
- All down! Urgent immersion! ... The upper hatchway hatched up! Boatswain, dive to a depth of 90 meters, trim 10 degrees deposited!
At a depth of 10 meters:
- Starpom, VIPS (launcher for jamming devices - ed.) - Pli! Put IPs with full rate of fire! At a depth of 25 meters:
- Blow fast to the bubble! The right to board! Right motor back middle! Boatswain, complete circulation with the motors "rip" on the course ...!
So, stirring up water from the surface almost to the ground, lay on a course along the underwater hollow into the far corner of the BP area. Under a keel of 10 m, the stroke with one engine is “the smallest”. The squeak of sonars remained behind the stern at the dive point, as they moved away, it became quieter, quieter and quieter ...
The IPCs were spinning at the point of our dive, probably for almost an hour, then they were built into the front line and began the systematic combing of the area. We, clinging to the ground, maneuvered along the far edge of the area. Four hours later, they never reached us.
...
Came to the base. I report to the brigade commander, but he is already in the know.
- What did you throw there again?
- A bunch of IPs.
- ...?
- Well, the maneuver, of course.

In the next generation of GAS, the problem of gas curtains was solved.

Second postwar generation


A key feature of the second post-war generation of GAS was the emergence and active use of new powerful low-frequency GAS, with a sharply (an order of magnitude) increased detection range (in the United States it was SQS-23 and SQS-26). Low-frequency GAS were insensitive to gas curtains and had a much longer detection range.


GAS SQS-26 destroyer Willis A. Lee, type "Mitcher", 1961.

To search for submarines under the jump in the United States, the towed mid-frequency (13KHz) GAS (BUGAS) SQS-35 was developed.


BUGAS AN / SQS-35

At the same time, the high technological level allowed the United States to create low-frequency GAS, suitable for placement on ships of even medium displacement, while the Soviet counterpart SQS-26, GAS MG-342 "Orion" anti-submarine cruisers of project 1123 and 1143 had a huge mass and dimensions ( only the telescopic retractable antenna had dimensions 21 × 6,5 × 9 meters) and could not be installed on ships of the SKR - BOD class.


Antenna GAS MG-342 "Orion" on the cruiser project 1123

For this reason, on ships of smaller displacement (including the BOD of project 1134A and B, which had an “almost cruising” displacement), a smaller mid-frequency GAS “Titan-2” (with a range significantly less than its American counterparts) and towed GAS MG were installed -325 Vega (at the level of SQS-35).


Scheme GAS "Titan-2" and its Chief Designer.


Staging BUGAS "Vega"

Later, to replace the GAS "Titan-2", the hydroacoustic complex (SAC) MGK-335 "Platinum" was developed in its entirety, which had a telescoping and towed antenna.


GAS "Platinum" and its Chief Designer

New sonar stations dramatically expanded the anti-submarine capabilities of surface ships, and in the early sixties of the last century, Soviet submariners had to fully test their effectiveness on themselves.

Let us cite as an example an excerpt from the story of Vice Admiral A.T. Shtyrov, "It is ordered to observe radio silence," about an attempt by a diesel-electric submarine of the USSR Navy to go the distance of using weapons on an American aircraft carrier. The described events date back to the mid-sixties and took place in the South China Sea:

- And how will you act when you discover the work of low-frequency sonars? - how the burdock seized the representative of the fleet in Neulyba.
- The instruction developed by the squadron regulates: to evade divergence at a distance of at least 60 cable. I can detect the noise of the propellers of my ship's ShPS (noise-finding station) at a distance of about 60 cable ones too. Therefore, having discovered the operation of low-frequency GAS, I must assume that I myself have already been detected by the enemy. How to get out of this situation, the situation will tell.
- And how will you keep track of the main objects, being inside the warrant ship warrant?
Neulib did not know how to carry out such a task, having noise direction finders with a range shorter than the "lighting zones" of low-frequency sonars of aircraft carrier protection ships. He silently shrugged: "This is called - and eat the fish, and do not sit on the hook."
However, he guessed: a comrade from the headquarters of the fleet, a probable creator of the combat order, does not know this himself either.
But that was the time when it was fashionable to “set tasks” without thinking about the possibilities of their implementation. According to the formula: "What does it mean I can’t when the party ordered ?!"
...
By the end of the seventh night, Sinitsa, the commander of the OCHNAZ group of rumors, had climbed the bridge and reported:
- Decoding, Comrade Commander. The Ticonderoga carrier group arrived in the Charlie area ...
- Well! Let's get closer.
If Neulyba could have foreseen what it would cost him, this invigorating lightweight is “excellent”.
...
- The sector on the left is ten - on the left sixty there are three sonars. Signals are amplified! The interval of parcels is a minute, periodically go to the interval of 15 seconds. Noises are not audible.
- combat alert! Dive to a depth of thirty meters. Record in the logbook - they began rapprochement with the forces of the AUG (carrier-strike group) for reconnaissance.
- Sonar signals are amplified quickly! Goal Number Four, Sonar Right Sixty!
“Oooo-oo-oo-oo! Oo-oo-oo-oo-oo!” Powerful low-tone packages were now tapped to the chassis.
Neulyba's cunning plan - to slip along the security forces to the alleged place of the aircraft carrier - turned out to be ridiculous: after half an hour the boat was tightly blocked by ships on all sides of the horizon.
Maneuvering abrupt changes in course, speed throws from small to full, the boat went to a depth of 150 meters. There was a meager "reserve" of depth - twenty meters.
Alas! Isothermal over the entire range of depths did not impede the operation of sonar. The blows of powerful packages hit the body, like sledgehammers. The "gas clouds" created by the carbon dioxide cartridges fired by the boat seemed to be a little embarrassed by the Yankees.
The boat darted, striving with sharp throws to get away from the nearest ships, whose clearly visible noises were now slipping in unpleasant proximity. The ocean raged ...
Neulib and Whisper did not know (this was realized much later) that the tactics of "evasion - separation - breakthrough" available to them, nurtured by post-war instructions and tortoise speeds, are hopelessly outdated and powerless in front of the latest technique of the "damned imperialists" ....

Admiral I.M. gives another example in his book. Captain:

... two American ships arrived: a destroyer of the Forrest Sherman type (which had a GAS AN / SQS-4 with a detection range of 30 cable) and a frigate of the type Knox (as in the text of I. M. Kapitanets, it’s really just “Knox” "- author)
... set the task: to ensure the immersion of two submarines; forces were determined for this - three surface ships and a floating base.
The first submarine, which was tracked by a Forrest Sherman type destroyer when it counteracted our floating base and patrol ship, managed to come off after 6 hours. The second pl, which was watched by the frigate Friend Knox, tried to tear itself away for 8 hours and, having discharged the battery, surfaced.
Hydrology was the first type favorable for podcast sonar stations. Nevertheless, we hoped with two ships against one US ship to push it back, make tracking difficult, and planned to interfere with the hydroacoustic stations by resetting the regeneration.
...
according to the actions of the patrol ship, we realized that it maintains contact with the submarine at a distance of more than 100 cable ... GAS AN / SQS-26 had ... a detection range of up to 300 cable.
... intense resistance within 8 hours did not produce results; the submarine, having consumed the energy of the battery, surfaced again.
We were no longer able to oppose the new sonar station, and we had to go to the Navy CP with a proposal to send a detachment of ships on a planned official visit to Morocco, in which a submarine will also take part.

These examples are formally contradictory: the instructions of the submarine Pacific Fleet brigade indicate the detection range of new low-frequency GAS US Navy about 60 cabs, and the Captain (up to 300 cabs). In reality, everything depends on the conditions, and primarily hydrology.

Water is an extremely difficult medium for the work of search tools, and even the most effective means of search in it - the acoustic environmental conditions influence very strongly. Therefore, it makes sense to at least briefly touch on this issue.

In the Russian Navy, it was decided to distinguish 7 main types of hydrology (with many of their subtypes).

Type 1. Positive gradient of sound speed. There is usually in the cold season.


Type 1

Type 2. The positive gradient of the speed of sound changes to negative at depths of the order of tens of meters, which takes place when there is a sharp cooling of the surface or near-surface layer. At the same time, below the “jump layer” (“fracture” of the gradient), a “shadow zone” is formed for the sap liners.


Type 2

Type 3. The positive gradient changes to negative, and then again to positive, which is typical for the deep-sea regions of the oceans in winter or autumn.

Type 4. The gradient changes from positive to negative twice. Such a distribution can be observed in shallow areas of the ocean, shallow sea, and shelf zone.

Type 5. A decrease in the speed of sound with depth, which is typical for shallow areas in the summer. In this case, an extensive “shadow zone” is formed at shallow depths and a relatively small distance.


Type 5.

Type 6. The negative sign of the gradient changes to positive. This type of VSWR occurs in almost all deep-sea areas of the oceans.

Type 7. The negative gradient changes to positive, and then again to negative. This is possible in shallow sea areas.


All types together. Source: Navy hydroacoustic tutorial. Military Publishing House, 1991

Particularly difficult conditions for the propagation of sound and the operation of the GAS take place in shallow areas.


The reality of the detection range of low-frequency GAS strongly depended on hydrology, and on average were close to the previously mentioned 60 cabs (with the possibility of a significant increase in favorable hydrological conditions). It should be noted that these ranges were well balanced with the range of the main anti-submarine means of the US Navy - Asrok anti-submarine missile system (SLCM).

At the same time, the analog low-frequency sonars of the second post-war generation of ships had insufficient noise immunity (which in some cases our submariners successfully used) and had significant limitations when working at shallow depths.

Considering this factor, the previous generation of high-frequency GAS was preserved and was widely represented in the fleets of both the USA and NATO, and the Soviet Navy. Moreover, in a sense, the “revival” of high-frequency anti-submarine ASGs has already occurred at a new technological level - for air carriers - helicopters of ships.

The US Navy was the first here, and Soviet submariners quickly appreciated the seriousness of the new threat.

In the USSR, for the Ka-25 anti-submarine helicopter, the omitted GAS (OGAS) VGS-2 "Oka" was developed, which, despite its simplicity, compactness and cheapness, turned out to be a very effective search tool.


The small mass of the Oka made it possible not only to provide a very good search tool for our helicopter pilots, but also to massively equip the Navy ships (especially those operating in areas with complex hydrology) of the OGAS. The HCV-2 was also widely used on border ships.


The ship's version of the VGS-2 "Oka" - MG-329, at the MPK pr. 204.

Of course, the lack of OGAS in the ship version was the ability to search only on the foot. However, for the weapons of submarines of that time, the ship at the foot was a very difficult target. In addition, anti-submarine ships were usually used as part of ship search and strike groups (KPUG), had systems of group attacks and data exchange on detected submarines.

An interesting episode on the use of the Oka OGAS with actual performance characteristics is much higher than the established ones (and under the difficult conditions of the Baltic Sea) is contained in the memoirs of cap. 1 rank of V. V. Dugints. "Ship fanagoria":

... at the final stage of the Baltic-72 exercise, the commander-in-chief also planned to check the vigilance of all anti-submarine forces of the BF naval bases. Gorshkov gave the command of one of the Kronstadt submarines to make a secret passage through the Gulf of Finland, and then along our territorial waters right up to Baltiysk and set the task for the entire Baltic Fleet to detect the “enemy” submarine and conditionally destroy it. On May 29, the base commander drove out all combat-ready anti-submarine forces at sea from Liepaja to search for a boat in the Livmb area of ​​responsibility: three SKRs and 5 MPKs ironed their assigned areas for several days with two search and strike groups. Even two submarines 14 provided this search operation in designated areas, and in the daytime anti-submarine aviation Be-12 also provided assistance with its buoys and magnetometers. In general, half the sea was blocked off by the forces of the naval bases of Tallinn, Liepaja and Baltiysk, and each commander dreamed of catching the aggressor in their separated networks. After all, this meant actually catching the real prestige of the anti-submarine in the eyes of the Navy commander in chief.
.
The tension grew every day, not only on ships, but also on the CP KP of the commanders of bases and the entire BF. Everyone was anxiously awaiting the results of this protracted duel of submariners and anti-submariners. By noon on May 31, MPK-27 found contact, joyfully reported it, however, by all indications it turned out to be an underwater boulder or rock.
... when searching, they used the innovative 'double-scale' technique or, more simply, 'work through sending', which increases the range of the station. This trick was developed by our divisional acoustics midshipman Alisov A. It consisted in the fact that while the first impulse of sending the generator went into the water, the next next sending was manually turned off and as a result it turned out that this first impulse passed and listened to twice the distance scale.
... on the indicator quite unexpectedly appeared a blurry burst of sweep at the maximum distance, which after a few parcels formed into a real mark from the target.
- Echo-bearing 35, distance 52 cable. I suppose contact with a submarine. The echo tone is above the reverb tone!
... the usual silence and monotonous boredom of a search on a ship instantly exploded on the ramps and deck of the ship. ...
... the acoustics kept contact for 30 minutes, during which time Slynko transmitted the data to the division commander, and brought to the target two IPCs that took contact and attacked the submarine.

Working from the stop allowed us to take into account the conditions of hydrology as much as possible, literally "select all the possibilities" for the search for submarines. For this reason, the powerful OGAS “Shelon” IPC of project 1124, for example, from the history of MPK-117 (Pacific Fleet): 1974 - when practicing the tasks of detecting a pl, he set a division record. GAS MG-339 Shelon discovered and held the boat within a radius of 25,5 miles; 26.04.1974/1/50 - monitored a foreign square Contact time was 00.02.1975 hour. 2 minutes (according to intelligence by the U.S. Navy apl); 10/XNUMX/XNUMX - monitored a foreign square Contact time was XNUMX hours. XNUMX minutes.

At the end of the seventies, a new technological leap was outlined in hydroacoustics.

Third post-war generation


The key feature of the third post-war generation of GAS was the emergence and active use of digital processing in GAS and the massive introduction of GAS with a long-distance towed antenna in the Navy of foreign countries - GPBA.

Digital processing dramatically increased the noise immunity of the GAS and made it possible to efficiently operate low-frequency sonars in difficult conditions and in areas with shallow depths. However, the main in the guise of the western anti-submarine ships became flexible extended towed antennas (GPBA).

Low frequencies in water propagate over extremely long distances, theoretically giving the possibility of detecting submarines at very large distances. In practice, the main obstacle to this was the high level of background noise of the ocean at the same frequencies, respectively, for the implementation of long detection ranges, it was necessary to have separate (in frequency) “peak” emissions of acoustic energy from the submarine's noise spectrum (discrete components - DS), and appropriate means of processing information anti-submarine, allowing you to "pull" these DS "from under the interference", and working with them to obtain the desired long range detection.

In addition, working with low frequencies required the size of antennas that went beyond the possibilities of placement on the ship's hull. So GAS with GPBA appeared.

The presence of a large number of characteristic “discrete” (discrete noise signals, that is, noises clearly audible at certain frequencies) in Soviet submarines of the 1st and 2nd generations (not only atomic, but also diesel (!) Ensured the high efficiency of GAS with GPBA. to the least, they retained effectiveness on already well-noiseed boats of 3 generations when solving the problem of anti-submarine defense of convoys and warship units (especially when moving our submarines at higher speeds).


Features of the directivity pattern of the GAS with GPBA.

To ensure maximum ranges and optimal detection conditions, the GPA sought to penetrate into the underwater sound channel (PZK).


Taking into account the peculiarities of sound propagation in the presence of a slam-shut device, the detection zone of the GPA was a few “rings” of the lighting and shadow zones.



The diagram also shows what the ship needs a sap for GAS too.

The requirement to “catch up with and overtake” the USA according to the GAS for surface ships was embodied in our SAC MGK-355 Polynom (with a winged, towed antenna and for the first time in the world (!) - a really working path for detecting torpedoes, ensuring their subsequent destruction). The backlog of the USSR in electronics did not allow creating a fully digital complex in the 70s of the last century, Polynom was analog with secondary digital processing. However, despite its size and weight, it ensured the creation of highly effective anti-submarine ships of Project 1155.


SJSC "Polynom" and chief designer


BOD of project 1155 - not the only, but the most famous "carriers" of SJSC "Polynom"


BUGAS complex "Polynomial"

Vivid memories of the use of the Polynom complex were left by hydroacoustics with the BPC Admiral Vinogradov:

... we were also found and "drowned". Then how the cards will fall. Sometimes “Polynom” is useless, especially if you were too lazy to put the BASIC in time under the jump layer. But sometimes "Polynomka" catches all sorts of things there under water, even for 30 kilometers, in person.
"Polynomial". Powerful but ancient analogue station.
I don’t know what state the Polynomials are in now, but about 23-24 years ago it was quite possible to passively classify surface targets located 15-20 km away, that is, outside visual control.
If there is a go-ahead to work in the active, always try to work in it. The active is more interesting. With different ranges and power. Surface targets, depending on hydrology, in active mode are also well caught.
Here we somehow stood for ourselves in the center of the Strait of Hormuz, and it has a width of 60 km with something. So the “Polynomushka” whistled all of it. The minus of the strait is that it is shallow, 30 meters in total, and a bunch of signal reflections accumulated. Those. quietly along the coast you could sneak unnoticed, probably. In the Baltic, diesel was kept at 34 km from a towed station. Perhaps, the BOD of project 1155 has a chance to use the Trumpet to its full range on its own control unit.
According to the direct participant in the events, who was then the cap "Vinogradov" V. Chernyavsky
Then the amers, English, French and ours conducted joint teachings in Persian (the beginning was like in a joke). .. went on to catch underwater objects.
The amers had a couple of simulators (the cap persistently called them “interference”) with a programmable driving route.
"The first one went." At first, while the “noise” was spinning nearby, everyone maintained contact. Well, for the Polynomial, a distance of up to 15 km is generally considered a close search. Then the “hindrance” went away and from the collective of those who saw, the paddling pools with the Saxons began to fall off. The amers fell off, and the whole western crowd could only listen to our reports on the distance, bearing, course and speed of the “interference”. Chernyavsky said, at first, probable allies did not really believe in what was happening and asked again, such as "rial stable contact, or not rally."
Meanwhile, the distance to the interference exceeded 20 km. In order not to be bored, amers launched a second simulator. The oil painting repeated. At first, the animation was revived while the noise was spinning nearby (the whole simulator continued to keep ours) and then the silence broken by the reports from Vinik: “the first“ interference ”is there, the second is there.”
It turned out to be a real embarrassment, given that ours, unlike not ours, was what to hammer at the target at such a distance (PLUR shoots at 50 km). According to the cap, the data on the maneuvering of the simulators taken from the “bodies” and “tracing-paper” removed from the water from “Vinika” completely coincided.

Separately, it is necessary to dwell on the problem of developing GPBA in the USSR. Relevant R&D was started back in the late 60s, almost simultaneously with the United States.


Tests of the Soviet GPBA on Lake Ladoga, 1970.

However, the significantly worse technological capabilities and a sharp decrease in the noise level (and DS) of underwater targets, which were clearly identified from the late 70s of the last century, did not allow the creation of an effective GPA for NKs until the early 90s.

The first prototype of Centaur State Joint-Stock Company with GPBA was deployed aboard the GS-31 test vessel of the Northern Fleet.


From the memoirs of his commander:

He took an active part in testing the new GA complex ... opportunities - just a song - from the middle of the Barentsukha you can hear everything that is being done in NEA (North-East Atlantic. - Auth.) ... Norwegian dieselyuha was heard underwater from far away, English “Trafalgar” led without a break for two days ...
...
in order to draw up a “portrait” of the newest American submarine such as Sea Wolf - Connecticut, which made its first trip to the shores of Russia, I had to directly violate the Combat Order and meet it at the very edge of the tervodes, where specialists from “science” copied it far and wide ...

And in the mid-80s, R&D was completed on fully digital HAC for ships - a series (from small to largest ships) of Zvezda.


SJSC "Star-M1" of "average dimension"

Fourth generation. After the cold war


The decrease in the noise of submarines built in the 80s led to a sharp decrease in ranges and the possibility of their detection by passive GPA, which led to the logical idea: to “highlight” the water area and targets with a low-frequency emitter (LFR) and not only to preserve the effectiveness of passive search means for submarines (GPBA ships) , Russian State Aviation Safety Aviation), but also significantly increase their capabilities (especially when working in difficult conditions).


The dynamics of changes in the “visibility” of submarines of the Navy of the USSR in the primary acoustic field (“noise”) and the ability of the LF (LFA) to detect low-noise submarines


"Tactical Combination": GPBA and NCHI anti-submarine ship

Corresponding R&D was started in Western countries at the end of the 80s of the last century, while their important feature was the initial bet on ensuring the operation of various GAS (including ships and RSLA aviation) in multi-position mode, in the form of a “single search systems. "


One of the first NFT contracts for the GPA US Navy, 1990


"Family" low frequency Bugas CAPTAS. Detection ranges and equipment weights are indicated.

Domestic experts have formed views on what such systems should be. From the work of Yu.A. Koryakina, S.A. Smirnova and G.V. Yakovleva "Ship hydroacoustic equipment":

A generalized view of GAS of this type can be formulated as follows.
1. Active HAS with GPAA can provide a significant increase in the effectiveness of submarines in shallow water areas with complex hydrological and acoustic conditions.
2. GAS should be easily accommodated on small warships and civilian ships involved in anti-aircraft missions without a significant change in ship design. At the same time, the area occupied by UHPV (storage device, setting and retrieving GPBA - auth.) On the deck of the ship should not exceed several square meters, and the total weight of UHPV together with the antenna should not exceed several tons.
3. The operation of the GAS should be provided both in stand-alone mode and as part of a multistatic system.
4. The detection range of submarines and the determination of their coordinates should be provided in the deep sea at distances of the 1st DZAO (the far zone of acoustic illumination, up to 65 km) and in the shallow sea under continuous acoustic illumination - up to 20 km.
To implement these requirements, the creation of a compact low-frequency emitting module is of paramount importance. When linking a towed body, the goal is always to reduce drag. Modern research and development of low-frequency towed emitters go in different directions. Three of them can be distinguished of practical interest.
The first option involves the creation of a radiating module in the form of a system of emitters forming a three-dimensional antenna array, which is located in a streamlined towed body. An example is the arrangement of emitters in the LFATS system of L-3 Communications, USA. The LFATS antenna array consists of 16 radiators distributed over 4 floors, the pitch between the radiators is λ / 4 in the horizontal plane and λ / 2 in the vertical plane. The presence of such a bulk antenna array allows you to give a radiating antenna, which helps to increase the range of the system.
In the second version, omnidirectional powerful emitters (one, two or more) are used, as is implemented in the domestic GAS Vignette-EM and some foreign GAS.
In the third embodiment, the radiating antenna is made in the form of a linear array of longitudinally-bending radiators, for example, of the Diabo1o type. Such a radiating antenna is a flexible garland consisting of small cylindrical elements of very small diameter, which are connected by a cable. Due to its flexibility and small diameter, the antenna, consisting of EAL (electroacoustic transducers - ed.) Type “Diabolo”, is wound on the same winch drum as the tow cable and GPBA. This allows you to significantly simplify the design of UHPV, reduce its weight and dimensions and abandon the use of a complex and bulky manipulator.



Complete set and ratio of ranges of detection of elements of shipboard GAS of ATLASELEKTRONIK firm[/ Center]

An example of a compact BUGAS with GPA manufactured by Geospectrum technologies

In the Russian Federation, a family of modern BUGAS “Minotaur” / “Vignette” was developed, with close performance characteristics to foreign analogues.

New BUGAS are installed on ships of projects 22380 and 22350.

However, the real situation is close to catastrophic.

Firstly, the modernization by new GAS of the ships of the combat crew and the normal (mass) supply of new ones were disrupted. Those. there are very few ships with new GAS. And this means that, taking into account the real (complex) hydrological conditions and, as a rule, the zonal structure of the acoustic field (the presence of zones of "illumination" and "shadow"), there can be no talk of any effective anti-submarine defense. Reliable PLO is not provided even for warships (and even more so single ships).


Towed body BUGAS "Minotaur"

Given the conditions, effective and reliable lighting of the underwater environment can be ensured only by a group of dissimilar anti-submarine forces optimally distributed in the area, operating as a “single multi-position search complex”. The extremely small number of new ships with the Minotaurs simply does not allow it to be formed.

Secondly, our "Minotaurs" do not provide the creation of a full multi-position search system, because they exist in a "parallel world" from our own anti-submarine aircraft.

Anti-submarine helicopters have become a very important part of the new search engines. Equipping them with new low-frequency OGAS allowed to provide an effective "backlight" for both the aircraft RSLA and GPBA ships.


OGAS HERLAS multi-position mode


TTX OGAS HERLAS


Characteristics and lighting area in different conditions ОГАС FLASH

And while Western helicopters are able to provide multi-position joint work with Bugas and aviation (RSAH) with the new OGAS, even the latest project 22350 ships have a modernized Ka-27M helicopter, which essentially has the same high-frequency OGAS “Ros” (digital only) and on a new element base), as on the Soviet Ka-27 helicopter of the 80s, which has absolutely unsatisfactory performance characteristics and is unable to work together with the Minotaur, or to "highlight" the field of the RSGB. Just because they work in different frequency ranges.



OGAS "Ros"

Do we have low-frequency OGAS in our country? Yes, there is, for example, “Sterlet” (having a close mass to the OGAS HELRAS).


OGAS "Sterlet".

However, its frequency range of the active mode differs from the Minotaur (that is, it does not provide for joint work again), and most importantly, naval aviation "does not see it point blank".

Unfortunately, until now, our naval aviation is a "detached car" from the "train" of the Navy. Accordingly, the OGAS and the Navy RSLAB “live” in the same “parallel reality” from the naval GAS of the Navy.

The result?

Despite all the technological difficulties, we have a very decent technical level of domestic hydroacoustics. However, with the perception and implementation of new (modern) concepts for constructing and using submarine search tools, we are simply in the dark - a lag behind the West by at least a generation.

In fact, the country does not have anti-submarine defense, and this does not bother officials at all. Even the latest Caliber carriers (project 21631 and 22800) have no anti-submarine weapons and anti-torpedo protection.

The elementary “modern HCV-2” could already significantly increase their combat stability, making it possible to detect both a torpedo attack and underwater means of saboteurs (at distances much more than the regular “Anapa”), and, if you're lucky, and submarines.

We have a large number of PSKR Bohr, which are not planned for use in the event of war. A simple question - in the event of a war with Turkey, what would these PSKR Bohr begin to do? Hide in the bases?

And the last example. From the category “to make admirals ashamed”.



Towed GAS is visible at the stern, in the first photo - without a cover.

The Egyptian Navy modernized its patrol ships of the Chinese Hainan project (the “pedigree” of which comes from our project 122 of the end of World War II) with the installation of modern BUGAS (VDS-100 from L3 was mentioned in the media).

In fact, according to its characteristics, it is the Minotaur, but installed on a ship with a displacement of 450 tons.


[Center]

VDS-100

Why is the Russian Navy nothing like this? Why do not we have a series of modern low-frequency OGAS? Small-sized GAS for the mass equipment of both Navy ships (not having a "full-scale" GAK), and PSKR BOHR during mobilization? Indeed, technologically, all this is completely within the power of domestic industry.

And the most important question: will measures be finally taken to correct this shameful and unacceptable situation?

To be continued ...
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia commons, Surf Factory, GeoSpectrum Technologies, L3, Russian Ministry of Defense, USNI News
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sun chaser 20 March 2020 18: 25 New
    • 23
    • 4
    +19
    Great stuff.
    1. Fizik M 20 March 2020 18: 26 New
      • 10
      • 3
      +7
      Quote: Sun Chaser
      Great stuff.

      to be continued ;)
      1. Boa kaa 21 March 2020 01: 35 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Fizik M
        to be continued ;)

        Maxim, first of all, with the last day of the submarine. drinks
        A well-illustrated article with solid analytics and texture ... good
        But I was tempted to ask: what happened to the Kuryshevskaya prefix “Ritsa”, which was born in the throes of a KSF submarine; with "Delta PM1", (R&D "Mera-A", "Median") of the Lexins brothers. (At the same time, the brothers note that the antennas of Oceanopribor are the best in the world). And with the use of GPAA and their prefixes with unique software operating in the VLF band ("VLF illumination Targets" by natural noises of the sea and vibrations of the submarine itself).
        There was infa that our 955 hear SSBNs on D from 15 to 150 km (depending on the depth of the sea and the texture of the bottom in the area). At the same time, the Amy allegedly hear their Ohio at D = 4,0 km only.
        If not a secret, enlighten, plz!
    2. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 20: 12 New
      • 14
      • 1
      +13
      Thank you, we tried
  2. Masha 20 March 2020 18: 28 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    We are from nuclear
    You do not reproach us
    for forgetting everything in the world
    When the hour beeps,
    When only we are responsible for you.
    We are from nuclear
    You do not reproach us
    For writing less often than anyone.
    After all, our life is beautiful without embellishment,
    And perhaps they’d better live.
    We are from nuclear
    You do not reproach us
    For the fact that the days, and months, and years,
    You wait, we believe in you,
    And, like on wings, under water - on campaigns.
    We are from nuclear
    You do not reproach us ....
    love
    1. Masha 20 March 2020 20: 02 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Someone who didn’t like my verse
      dedicate love
      I know that sea wolves have
      And I know only one thing.
      Like everyone, he can drink and eat,
      But only this moment is dear to him,
      When the submarine goes deep,
      And there, at the periscope depth,
      Here lurking at the bottom of the sea,
      Finds the target!
      That the request “I don’t own” is not sent,
      And a predatory grip ....
      Shoots tentacles of torpedoes
      And drowns the target direct fire!
      For this moment he is ready to give everything
      Grace does not accept another,
      Sees a sense in his calling -
      And that’s all - he’s a sea wolf !!!!
  3. Fizik M 20 March 2020 18: 30 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    so ... in his part of the article, Alexander forgot to kick the developers of the "Tomb of the Minotaur" for 22160 ...
    and there is something for it:

    something that weighed only 4 tons more than the BUGAS on the "Egyptians" and easily got up in a 20-foot container, put in a 40-foot (!!!) fool Insanity, this is the most affectionate that asks about this ...
    1. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 19: 59 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      The article is overloaded with pictures, even a part of those that you found were left unused, that up to the Minotaur in the container, you need to look at the task.
      1. Fizik M 20 March 2020 20: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        as for the Minotaur in the container, it is necessary to watch the task.

        and I have no doubt that this is not a jamb of "Oceanopribor" and TTZ developers
        1. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 20: 11 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          Well, and for what developers to kick? I would not be surprised if they inflated a small system to the sizes specified in the statement of work, at least for normal weight distribution of the container.
          This, apparently, someone else should be kicked.

          1. Fizik M 20 March 2020 20: 13 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Well, and for what developers to kick?

            Quote: Fizik M
            and TTZ developers

            moreover, I strongly suspect that it was not the RTS employees who managed it, but the "shipwreckers" (Central Research Institute of VK
  4. Fizik M 20 March 2020 19: 02 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    Quote: Nikolai-1970
    Amused.

    the funniest thing is not this, but the fact that Tonkovid forgot about the transition was OFFICIALLY announced by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in the media (after which Tonkovid’s entire vocabulary about "secrecy" only causes fool ) Well, the level of TASS has fallen so much that they did not even bother to look at past news
  5. Podvodnik 20 March 2020 20: 08 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Somehow, a low-frequency backlight emitter worked for us. Apparently, we were pleased with our presence and trained to the full using all that is new and old. We saw this with GPBA. Acoustics invited to the cabin, showed. The “column” was clearly visible on the screen, periodically “firing” up. Unfortunately, the results of the "Ihnin" work did not bring us. The result, as far as we were able to ensure our secrecy, is unknown. We could not use this. Once I had to work on a “partner” in the usual active. I understood that I can. Just a little bit.
    1. Fizik M 20 March 2020 20: 15 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Podvodnik
      Acoustics invited to the cabin, showed. The “column” was clearly visible on the screen, periodically “firing” up. Unfortunately, the results of the "Ihnin" work did not bring us.

      for the first time it was at the GVP of the head “barracuda” (the eldest went Chernov), the year was about 84-85
      specially suited to the carrier of LFD, examined
    2. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 20: 20 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      In the war would have sunk.
    3. Fizik M 22 March 2020 12: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Podvodnik
      Somehow, a low-frequency backlight emitter worked for us.

      they can do it including UNMISSIBLE (discreetly) for our HACs (primarily old ones)
      1. Podvodnik 22 March 2020 18: 48 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        they can do it including UNMISSIBLE (covertly)


        The reason is the "frequency" of our SACs. Could not catch low frequencies. And they fade out the least and the distribution range is higher. The elemental base did not allow. Therefore, by the way, we bought Brühl ... appliances. They couldn’t do it themselves.
        1. Fizik M 22 March 2020 19: 21 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Podvodnik
          The reason is the "frequency" of our SAC.

          no other
          already wrote how they discovered it on the emergency bailiff for Skat-3
          (there was NOTHING on MGK-540 itself)
          1. Podvodnik 23 March 2020 13: 12 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            like on a bailiff


            The ramp was developed much earlier than the emergency console. I saw the boards in the cabinets of the HAC. There were discrete elements. Capacitors, resistors, operational amplifiers and integrated circuits of the first degree. These are all the "bricks" from which the building was built. From the brick you can ward off a decent mansion, you can ugly angular "coat." But in any case, there is a limit to altitude. Bricks themselves limit. We need reinforced concrete monolith.

            In fact, Scat caught a lot more than he could process and display. Two secondmented with IGAP went to the autonomous area with us. They had a system unit with "huge" RAM as much as 4 MB. Stone type 486-DX. The screw probably did not reach 1GB. But there was an expansion board from our institute. They simply stuck their computer into the output from Skat's headphones and saw much more on the monitor than the acoustics on their screens. Naturally, there were several of its processing programs.

            Since I had my responsibilities, and the computer was new to me then, I did not understand the reasons for this situation. If you can, enlighten.

            It is completely clear that without the availability of competent engineers, normal technical tasks from the Navy and feedback from the fleet, a good HAK cannot be done. We need not only an advanced elemental base. Need brains. And the "burning eyes."
  6. Fizik M 20 March 2020 20: 09 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The article is overloaded with pictures

    there is such
    but the topic is very complicated, and without acc. explanations (and the graphics are very appropriate here) it’s difficult to perceive the meaning
    in my opinion it turned out pretty well
    1. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 20: 19 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      It turned out normally, I just didn’t cram the secondary pictures at any cost, otherwise the comic book would have come out. This also applies to the Minotaur scheme.
      Something, however, in the following parts can be applied.
      Unused pictures from BGAS, for example, when it comes to modern search tactics.
  7. knn54 20 March 2020 20: 16 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Modest in terms of armament, even by the standards of the WWI, the submarine sank three cruisers. Distracting from the topic I will allow (ONCE AGAIN) to doubt the title "Lady of the Seas."
    1. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 20: 31 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      The Germans lost both submarine wars.
    2. Scaffold 21 March 2020 12: 15 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      So say, as if the cruisers were rushing about in panic, and the boat drowned them one by one. Two cruisers died trying to save people. The Germans acted in a pig-like manner. But then they shouted when their cities were demolished from the face of the Earth by bombing: “And what a sho ?!”
      1. timokhin-aa 21 March 2020 13: 06 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        The commander of the "Abukira" figured out that he was attacked by a submarine and raised the signal "not to approach" or how the Britons were there then.
        What else was needed?
        The German acted like in a war. Destroyed manpower (very skilled and difficult to replace) and enemy warships.
        The Germans did not attack the survivors.
        From any point of view, Weddingen did not violate any military law and there is nothing to condemn him for, it is a war.

        Chistoplyuyam better remember the word "Lae." There it was "like a pig." Familiar with this case?
        1. Scaffold 23 March 2020 12: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I’m not to the fact that he acted dishonestly, but to the fact that there was no shame for the British here.
          1. timokhin-aa 23 March 2020 13: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            They twice did not fulfill the requirements of their own instructions, if not for this, they could get off with one cruiser
        2. 3danimal April 11 2020 12: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          So in Dresden and a number of other worn-out cities there was a lot of valuable labor.
  8. Avior 20 March 2020 20: 20 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    Excellent article
    That's what I noticed
    Many times I had to read in the Internet battles “how to destroy the AUG” that a submarine aircraft carrier hears from almost 600 km away.
    Read here
    I don’t know what state the Polynomials are in now, but about 23-24 years ago it was quite possible to passively classify surface targets located 15-20 km away, that is, outside visual control.

    That is, a very good Polynom is able to classify a surface target with 20, let an aircraft carrier with 50 km, a fool is healthy, it turns out that for a boat without third-party target designation this is the real range of the RCC application?
    If, of course, the boat’s GAS is not inferior to Polynom
    1. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 20: 31 New
      • 7
      • 1
      +6
      The boat is under water and can choose the depth at which the sound spreads further, it has a greater range of detection of the target. I could be wrong but sometimes more than 100 km.
      The problem here is different - it’s not enough to detect, you need elements of the target’s movement - the relative exact position of the target at the time of detection, course and speed. And here the problems begin.
      Therefore, Americans do not like Harpoons, for example. It takes a place, it is difficult to apply.
      As for our SSBNs, they had to shoot at the external control system from the "Legends" or other means. And this is another question - what would happen there in the long run.
      1. Fizik M 20 March 2020 21: 07 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Therefore, Americans do not like Harpoons, for example. It takes a place, it’s difficult to apply

        I think the matter is different - unmasking the place of the submarine (A)
        1. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 21: 12 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Literally: we have our Mk.48, why do we need rockets?
          Unmasking also takes place, but nevertheless, without external range support, comparable results are obtained, the rocket is perhaps faster.
          Although it seems like from 2016 they were again forced to shoot Harpoons in exercises.
          1. Fizik M 20 March 2020 21: 16 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Unmasking also takes place

            just if it was easy to get away from SET-65 and UMGT-1, then APR-2 with Ka-27 was a killer thing
            1. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 21: 18 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Including therefore, I do not deny torpedoes.
              1. SovAr238A 21 March 2020 16: 08 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                It is very interesting to observe when co-authors continue to polemicize in the process of discussion by readers of their article ...

                With respect to you, Maxim and Alexander!
                1. timokhin-aa 21 March 2020 17: 56 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Thanks. Complete unity of opinion usually does not exist, nor does the final truth.
      2. Podvodnik 20 March 2020 21: 35 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        I could be wrong but sometimes more than 100 km.


        There is no mistake. In the deep sea I observed several distant zones (DZAO). They took surface targets about 500 km. Naturally, civilians. They drove for days. The target was observed for several hours, went into the shade, in the morning again “emerged”, etc. Naturally, the contact is instrument, there was no discussion of any classification and definition of EDC. On practicing the use of weapons all the more. You need an external data center. Where to get it?
        In combat NK, the distance would be less, but still decent. And again, the EDC cannot be determined. If necessary, do not use weapons.

        We took a partner in the silos. First dash. "Fought" for a while. Then he “put aside” everything back. He whistled in surprise. The range was very good.

        One more point: During our entire service, we have never been brought down with surface guides for the exchange of experience, etc. But we practiced on them at training firing, and they on us. I consider this a big omission in combat training. A couple of times there was a feeling that she was ... nobody needed. Sorry.
        1. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 22: 29 New
          • 9
          • 1
          +8
          Another point: For the entire service, we have never been brought down with the surface guards for the exchange of experience, etc. But we practiced on them at training firing, and they on us.


          I once had such an idea that on a submarine base on a submarine, second anti-submarine pilots should be seconded as advisers. An exchange of experience is definitely needed, and the fact that it is not there is a huge fat minus.
      3. Avior 21 March 2020 02: 08 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        I understand, but finding and classifying is not exactly the same thing.
        This is a case when there is no external target designation and the boat operates autonomously.
        The two main elements are bearing and range, when it comes to a relatively short range at which the target does not have time to leave the capture zone of the GOS RCC, and you can neglect the speed and course.
        And although with the range of the problem, indirectly it can be estimated by the noise level.
        But the classification of the attack target, as well as all objects located in the target area or between the target and the boat, is imperative that the attack does not fall into some kind of tanker, for example.
        Therefore, I became interested - how real can a boat independently from a certain range without activating the active search mode classify the target for attack
        1. Podvodnik 21 March 2020 09: 14 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          how real can a boat independently from a certain range without activating the active search mode classify the target for attack


          The active path does not classify the target. To determine the EDC, the boat must take special maneuvers to create conditions for course, speed, and distance correction. For classification, signs are needed: target speed, group or single, maneuvers or upright, the number of shaft lines and blades, the presence of discrete, etc. The active path will not. Acoustics should hear it, see on the screen. And this is a silos contact. If the contact is instrument, it is impossible to judge the use of weapons. Only in the case of a counterattack if there are signs of the use of weapons against us. We were technically unable to use anti-ship missiles. Only torpedoes or rocket torpedoes. But still: the technical range of missile weapons far exceeded the range of self-classification. The external control center was not practiced. We did not have such a task. Classification of targets at ranges of torpedo weapons is real and actually applied. Naturally, this requires a silo (noise direction finding) contact. The active path can be used immediately before firing to determine the exact distance.
    2. Fizik M 20 March 2020 20: 56 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      Many times I had to read in the Internet battles “how to destroy the AUG” that a submarine aircraft carrier hears from almost 600 km away.

      more about this will be in the article on the GAS (SAC) PL
      Quote: Avior
      it turns out, for a boat without third-party target designation this is the real range of the RCC?

      no, if there is a SYSTEM and BRAINs then full ranges are realized
      for Grozny, it was worked out a year after his arrival in the Federation Council (there was no MRCC at that time)
      1. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 21: 06 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        no, if there is a SYSTEM and BRAINs then full ranges are realized


        On HUNDRED km in any case, the external control center. From any source, but external.
      2. Podvodnik 20 March 2020 21: 38 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        that the submarine aircraft carrier hears almost 600 km.


        You can hear, but you can’t even determine the side of the target (it goes left or right). Without an external control system, the use of weapons is ineffective.
        1. tlauicol 21 March 2020 03: 24 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Podvodnik
          that the submarine aircraft carrier hears almost 600 km.


          You can hear, but you can’t even determine the side of the target (it goes left or right). Without an external control system, the use of weapons is ineffective.

          Why are ours so stubbornly building carriers of anti-ship missiles, without solving the problem of central control? It’s just ballast.
          Article - in good
          1. Andrey.AN 21 March 2020 09: 23 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Who said that he had not decided with TsU? There, at least from the same Containers TSU will give, from satellites, but there are not many means that intelligence uses.
          2. timokhin-aa 21 March 2020 09: 23 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Well, anti-ship missiles can work for a short distance, tactically, a submarine can give an approximate guidance to a missile guidance system via satellite, a missile defense system, having entered a region, can use helicopters for reconnaissance and missile defense.

            Plus there is some kind of satellite and air reconnaissance. TS cannot be obtained from them, but it is possible to find the desired target. And if VZOI is established, then you can get from TsU airplanes, “Success” is a guarantee.

            It’s just that we need to grind this system so that everything works together without failures, and we have a normal serial radar, they cannot stick into a helicopter from the presence and can’t enter RCCs tested with Ka-27 into the BC.
            1. Andrey.AN 21 March 2020 09: 37 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              The use of missile weapons is a very responsible matter, the command of the task comes from the leadership of the armed forces, this leadership has target designation equipment, satellites, radars (like Container), and other reconnaissance equipment including submarines. On which side do not look, drowning on the orders and tips of Moscow is safer.
              1. timokhin-aa 21 March 2020 10: 05 New
                • 6
                • 1
                +5
                Can then still give each infantryman a direct connection with the General Staff? And then suddenly he sees the enemy, to drown, that is, to shoot on the orders of Moscow is safer.

                In the war - I saw the target, attack. There may not be a central control unit at all, ZGRLS cannot provide accurate data on the target technically, and one cannot count on stationary objects, they will be delivered on the very first day.
                1. Andrey.AN 21 March 2020 10: 07 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  A cruise missile isn’t automatic, it’s possible to smash the Pentagon’s floor, it’s bad if because of the captain’s schiz.
                2. Andrey.AN 21 March 2020 10: 14 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  In wartime, they will most likely give access to reconnaissance bases.
                  1. timokhin-aa 21 March 2020 10: 17 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Everything is clear, and on this we will end with your permission, thank you.
            2. alexmach 21 March 2020 23: 02 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Hello Alexander, thank you and Maxim for an interesting article.
              so that everything works together without failures, and we have a normal serial radar, they cannot stick into the helicopter from the presence and cannot enter the RCC tested with the Ka-27 into the BC.

              And what kind of radar are we talking about? What exactly could be installed on the Ka-27?
              As for the rocket, as I understand it, we are talking about the X-35?
              1. timokhin-aa 21 March 2020 23: 37 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                The point is that any marine helicopter must have a powerful radar, in the case of the Ka-52 it could be a “Beetle” of a helicopter modification, and the same radar can get on a hypothetical new helicopter PLO based on the Ka-27, if it can be made finally.
                Then any helicopter could also be used as an AWAC, albeit with a short range of target detection (this is still much better than relying only on a ship’s radar). Here, with the help of such a turntable, it is possible to completely obtain an accurate control center for a range exceeding the radio horizon.

                RCC X-35 of course.
                1. alexmach 21 March 2020 23: 54 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  and the same radar can get on a hypothetical new helicopter PLO based on the Ka-27, if they are able to make it finally.
                  Then any helicopter could also be used as an AWAC, albeit with a short range of target detection

                  It sounds just fine, it would make the ship's helicopter truly multi-purpose. The only thing I would like to clarify is it possible, in principle, to install a radar on existing Ka-27s during modernization or is it necessary to create a new machine for this?
                  1. timokhin-aa 22 March 2020 00: 59 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    I can’t say, but considering the fact that the new helicopter is in any case to do, this is already unprincipled.
                    1. alexmach 22 March 2020 09: 46 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      On the other hand, a helicopter capable of providing target designation, but with a limited-range radar, would it not be easy extraction of enemy air defense equipment?
                      Although yes, it’s better to have a limited opportunity than not have it.
                      1. timokhin-aa 22 March 2020 10: 13 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        In good weather, the Zhuk will be able to spot a destroyer from ~ 200 km from the ceiling.
                        Then no.
                      2. Fizik M 22 March 2020 12: 34 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: alexmach
                        On the other hand, a helicopter capable of providing target designation, but with a limited-range radar, would it not be easy extraction of enemy air defense equipment?
                        Although yes, it’s better to have a limited opportunity than not have it.

                        it needs to be covered with air defense systems and electronic warfare of the ship
                        acc. - altitude and removal (small) and radar requirements
                      3. alexmach 22 March 2020 12: 38 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        and radar requirements

                        If the requirements for the radar, then this already seems to me more likely to be a DRLO helicopter and not to a multipurpose submarine.

                        But again, to really have the opportunity is better than not having it, and judging by the article on work in anti-submarine defense, there is still no end.
        2. Podvodnik 21 March 2020 09: 33 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          not solving the problem


          We are not talking about the absence of an external control center in general. There is a satellite system for marine space reconnaissance and target designation. It was for sure. It's about the impossibility of an independent solution to the problem of firing anti-ship missiles at a distance of several hundred km. due to the impossibility of detecting / classifying and therefore generating correct firing data. Destruction of the AUG is not a task for one boat with anti-ship missiles. This is an event of the entire fleet with the use of diverse forces and means. Naturally, in peacetime this should be practiced. And the external control unit as well. One on one is an extreme case.
          1. rudolff 21 March 2020 09: 51 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Igor, I wanted to ask how difficult it is to integrate the Caliber into the 971th RK, from the point of view of the BIUS? Does the hardware solve the problem? Separate firing complex?
          2. Fizik M 22 March 2020 12: 33 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Podvodnik
            It's about the impossibility of an independent solution to the problem of firing anti-ship missiles at a distance of several hundred km. due to the impossibility of detecting / classifying and therefore generating correct firing data.

            there is an option here
            I say how I was directly involved in this issue (in GPPMC PAD), incl. with the development of new unconventional tactics
  • rudolff 20 March 2020 20: 27 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    Good material. I began to read, thought Timokhin. When the schedules went, Klimov thought of the scheme. It turned out both. Well done!
    "Why do not we have a series of modern low-frequency OGAS? Small-sized GAS for mass equipping of both Navy ships (without" full-scale "HACs) and PSKR BOHR during mobilization? After all, all this is technologically possible for domestic industry."
    The answer is obvious. There is no technical task, there is no order, so there is no product. But there is no task due to the lack of a clear concept, a systematic approach to the construction of PLO. Confusion and staggering in the heads of decision makers.
    I look forward to continuing! Alexander and Maxim with the last Day of the submariner!
    hi
    1. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 20: 50 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      I am not a submariner. But thanks anyway! laughing
      And here you are with the day of the submariner!
      1. rudolff 20 March 2020 21: 09 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Well, maybe they didn’t kiss the sledgehammer and didn’t drink the overboard, but they were still involved! So you do not get out!
        Thanks to you, too!
        drinks
  • V.I.P. 20 March 2020 20: 44 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    You write why we don’t have this and will do something? ..... And we have a lot of things where there isn’t. But the ranks in the stripes as well as the media, about and for no reason, yell about "NONE OF AN ANALOGUES IN THE WORLD" and this is enough for them))) ..... We also had torpedoes at the level of the 80s, and the French were supposed to supply equipment for new minesweepers, but sanctions have happened and now, they are trying to mold something of their own, only the performance characteristics are worse .... Our radio electronics is decades behind, the elemental base is Chinese, what do you want ...
  • dgonni 20 March 2020 20: 49 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Respect! Great article. It can be seen that the people in the subject!
    1. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 21: 07 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      This is Klimov basically.
      1. dgonni 20 March 2020 23: 41 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        I noticed a co-author or author. Not important. Maltz is not your profile. But the article is sensible.
        1. kepmor 21 March 2020 02: 09 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          authors the deepest respect ... very professionally worked out the topic ...
          I will look forward to continuing ... do not delay, pleas ...
          1. kepmor 21 March 2020 03: 13 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            from the experience of serving on the IPC SF, good memories are only about the “Sheloni” ... especially the Silk Road is good for her .. but by varying the depth of the “body” and at the EP decent ranges came out ... and the EDC according to its data were calculated easily ...
            only you can use it in good weather ... already at 3 points to raise the "body" the problem is still that ...
            in the conditions of the golf stream and the shallow water of the Barents, they really had a tough relationship ... they had no interference ... the titanium was easier and more reliable in work, and conscripts coped there with a bang. .. "Platinum" is too sophisticated and capricious ... the display of screens is complicated ... although sometimes, as a rule, in the winter, and they showed good ranges, but only in an echo ...
  • Fizik M 20 March 2020 21: 06 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Quote: rudolff
    I began to read, thought Timokhin. When the schedules went, Klimov thought of the scheme. It turned out both.

    I will explain the role of Timokhin - "just explain difficult questions"(and he certainly has talent in this), because the topic is really complicated, and its correct perception is important, both in society and in" high offices "
    1. Nemchinov Vl 21 March 2020 00: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Fizik M
      I’ll explain the role of Timokhin - “simply explain difficult issues” (and he certainly has talent in this), because the topic is really complicated, and its correct perception is important both in society and in “high offices”
      tell me, Maxim, - and what about the promotion of the Husky / Laika theme ?! Do you plan an article in this direction (yourself or in collaboration with Timokhin) ?! How much will they be more compact / reduced in size (if any) compared to Ash-M ?!
      1. timokhin-aa 22 March 2020 10: 15 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        If you believe the information available, then Husky is a submarine that is outdated even before it began to be drawn. Two cases, a screw instead of a water jet, the dimensions are only half smaller than that of Ashen. Nothing serious, Americans can start laughing at us now.
        But the money will be mastered.
        1. Nemchinov Vl 22 March 2020 11: 46 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Two buildings
          Is it always bad ?! after all, there is an opinion that this is a plus (both in terms of buoyancy and survivability) ?!
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          a screw instead of a water jet,
          you want to say that the water washer is always quieter ?! and maximum speeds do not suffer ?!
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          only half as large as Ash
          logically, this is already a lower price, and the speed (time) of construction ?! and probably (therefore) the possibility of building a larger series of ICAPL units ?!
          1. timokhin-aa 22 March 2020 12: 42 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Is it always bad ?! after all, there is an opinion that this is a plus (both in terms of buoyancy and survivability) ?!


            When the adversary uses the low-frequency illumination described in the article, the light hull resonates much stronger than the durable one and “illuminates” the boat’s location very accurately.

            you want to say that the water washer is always quieter ?! and maximum speeds do not suffer ?!


            Hush. And speed is not the main thing here, the main thing is stealth.

            logically, this is already a lower price, and the speed (time) of construction ?!


            It’s necessary to make the boat even smaller - 1,5 Varshavyanka approximately, with electric movement, a water jet with a “faceted” hull like Astyut’s to reduce target strength with active lighting, naturally a single hull, with a developed hull, bow, airborne and towed antennas with dozens of launchers under anti-torpedoes, with air defense, intelligence reconnaissance, etc.
            The main tact.property of the boat is stealth.
            In Malachite, they forgot about this and seem to be doing “just an underwater ship”, not for war, but on TV.
            1. Nemchinov Vl 23 March 2020 12: 53 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              It’s necessary to make the boat even smaller - 1,5 Varshavyanka approximately, with electric propulsion, a water jet with a “faceted” hull like Astyut’s to reduce target strength with active lighting, ...?! ..., with a developed hull, bow and airborne and towed antennas with dozens of launchers for anti-torpedoes,
              There certainly is nothing to argue about !! I agree with these theses in full. Thanks you. I was afraid that not everyone thinks the same way (in the same direction).
              1. timokhin-aa 23 March 2020 14: 06 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                These are, generally speaking, self-evident things.
          2. Fizik M 22 March 2020 12: 51 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Nemchinov Vl
            that the water washer is always quieter ?! and maximum speeds do not suffer ?!

            quieter jet at high speeds
            those. water cannon is a clear sign of "high low noise speed"
      2. Fizik M 22 March 2020 12: 30 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Nemchinov Vl
        How much more compact / smaller they will be

        Timokhin has an article on this issue, I will give him links
        briefly - for “Malachite” “Ash-tree is Fsey”, but life (specifically, troubles of 160 order) was forced to “cut”.
        The main problem is that the "Husky" is the 5th generation only in the "mrias" of "Malachite" and Evmenov
    2. Avior 21 March 2020 02: 11 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In my opinion, it’s good that the two are complementary
    3. rudolff 21 March 2020 10: 00 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Maxim, a question that many asked, but did not receive a definite answer. How difficult is it to realize the self-exit of our 533 (534?) Mm torpedoes through 650 mm TA?
      1. Fizik M 22 March 2020 12: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: rudolff
        How difficult is it to realize the self-exit of our 533 (534?) Mm torpedoes through 650 mm TA?

        for "Physics" the problem is in the cyanides in the exhaust
        Americans only recently decided it for export MK48-6AT for 209 submarines of Brazil (opening the exhaust already outside the submarines)

        for USET-80 and others - a problem of very high overload and safety (ensuring emergency release in case of unauthorized use of the battery)

        besides - samovyhod, to put it mildly, not very quiet ...
        and the operation of modern TA power plants is quite quiet ("Malachite" divisions. Including 885 do not apply to them)

        about “Lada” I heard that it was generally incomprehensible (inaudible) that there was a shot (and this, taking into account the pneumatics! - they just did very competent specialists)
      2. Podvodnik 22 March 2020 19: 09 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        How difficult is it to realize the self-exit of our 533 (534?) Mm torpedoes through 650 mm TA


        The 65 cm TA has its own automated shelving. They have the appropriate ammunition. It can also be shifted from "simple" racks. When loading ammunition is unfastened in regular places. Practically, if nothing interferes overall, and there are "intermediate" empty places, you can put a thin torpedo on a thick rack. Even upload it to TA. But it will be just a blank. TA is not just a pipe. There are obturating rings guiding the tracks (inf. For a general view). There are corresponding devices that are triggered when the product is in the TA. There is a data input connector. He has a certain orientation. The product is loaded in a strictly defined position. The position of the devices is verified using special templates during construction. The position of any product (and error) is known by the BIOS. All this is taken into account when calculating the shooting data. A thin torpedo will dangle in a thick TA. Do not enter data.

        So just a shot of "blank". But why bother with a garden if there are regular TAs? It's faster.

        For what reason may it be necessary to use a thin torpedo (missile) from a thick TA? This is unknown to me.
        1. rudolff 22 March 2020 20: 51 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Igor, do we have any ships now with “fatties” going to the BS? If only on RTB still remained. Than 650 mm TA equip? Old RPK-7?
          I understand everything you are talking about. Just reasoning. Americans self-propelled torpedoes implemented. Theoretically, if you install rails with a connected bus, you can adapt 533 mm torpedoes under 650 mm TA. And in case of self-exit, obturation is probably not needed either ..
          1. Podvodnik 23 March 2020 13: 49 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            self-propelled torpedoes implemented

            In any case, there is a shooting system. Just samovyhodov with obturation torpedo will not work. It needs to be either “spit out” or replaced with some space in the back. Try to remove the piston from the plugged syringe. It takes effort. TA cross-sectional area 53 cm = 3,14x26,5 squared = 2200 sq. see at a depth of 100 meters per square meter presses 10 kg. Total 22 tons. With this force, you need to pull out the "piston by the syringe." Self-exit does not work. You need to "spit" or air, or water, or replace the space behind the product. The annular gap is not so large. Conditions of self-exit will not provide. Or a special design that provides throwing water back.

            You can insert a transition grate into a thick apparatus, to ensure that all that is needed is combined. Insert the grill into the nasal tip of the light body - from the TA slice to the breakwater shield several meters. Redo shelves, reflash BIOS manually.

            There is a weapon for thick devices. These are thick missiles with an anti-submarine torpedo or depth bomb with SBN. All boats with thick vehicles loaded on board the corresponding ammunition (We did not load the NBC) and went to combat services.
            Whether the storage periods have passed at the moment and whether new products are being produced (being developed), I am not aware. Let that hurt the heads of those who get big money for it and build smart faces on TV.
          2. timokhin-aa 23 March 2020 14: 04 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Than 650 mm TA equip? Old RPK-7?



            The officialdom from MO, 2015. And, why not? It's a pity The Onyx will not creep in diameter there, but maybe the future Caliber-M will be able, with an increased range.
            This is if there is no return to this caliber.
        2. timokhin-aa 23 March 2020 13: 54 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          . Practically, if nothing interferes overall, and there are "intermediate" empty places, you can put a thin torpedo on a thick rack. Even upload it to TA. But it will be just a blank. TA is not just a pipe. There are obturating rings guiding the tracks (inf. For a general view). There are corresponding devices that are triggered when the product is in the TA. There is a data input connector. He has a certain orientation. The product is loaded in a strictly defined position. The position of the devices verified with the help of special templates during construction. The position of any product (and error) is known by the BIOS. All this is taken into account when calculating the shooting data. A thin torpedo will dangle in a thick TA. Do not enter data.


          At the Nerpa - Chakra, they all decided that it was, by altering the feeders, replacing the obturating rings, like remaking the TA cover, connectors, etc., as a result, the Indians fired a 53 cm torpedo from 65 cm TA.
          They never had 65 cm torpedoes.

          The question is self-exit, and Maxim wrote on it.
          1. rudolff 23 March 2020 14: 18 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            But I somehow missed this moment with the Chakra. Thank you for your attention! Curious!
  • Gust 20 March 2020 21: 13 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    The article is clearly necessary and good. But to be honest, the lack of a sufficient number of patrol planes, helicopters and UAVs scares me more. The task of guaranteed closure of at least the White and Okhotsk seas should be solved, and aviation should solve it. And as rightly noted in the article, in collaboration with frigates PLO and DPL.
    I don’t understand why we are building a series of DPLs, but there is no patrol plane ????
    1. Fizik M 20 March 2020 21: 14 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Rafale
      patrol aircraft, helicopters and UAVs

      this will be a separate article
    2. rudolff 20 March 2020 21: 23 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      There are not only new PLO aircraft, no helicopters. With the sky we generally have seams.
      1. Fizik M 20 March 2020 21: 27 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4

        Given this (and significant financial constraints), the most optimal option seems to be the transfer of the Navy (as part of the North-USS and OKVF Pacific Fleet) from the VKS 1-2 regiments of the first series Su-34 fighter-bomber aircraft, with their modernization (taking into account touched the design of the Su-32FN aircraft, experience search and sighting system (PPS) "Sea Snake" (Indian Navy) and "Novella" (Russian Navy), and the latest domestic developments of arms and military equipment), ensuring the solution of problems:
        • delivering strikes (including joint strikes with ships and submarines) against sea and ground targets (including highly protected, over a large radius from the departure aerodrome) with modern and promising aviation weapons;
        • conducting independent reconnaissance and target designation (TsU) to the striking forces of the Navy and Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (and ensuring the integrated use of other reconnaissance equipment and TsU for a large radius);
        • solving the problems of providing air defense for the ships of the Navy (and submarines (including the strategic nuclear forces) of the military service) and the bases of the Navy (including when repelling a massive surprise strike by cruise missiles);
        • a significant increase in the combat potential of the mixed groups of Su-30SM (35) and MiG-29K (31BM) aircraft with Su-34 aircraft during air battles (including against new enemy fighters and in the conditions of counteraction of enemy airborne warning and electronic warfare aircraft) ;
        • decisions of patrol and anti-submarine missions, including ensuring close tactical interaction with surface combat ships (BNKs) and Navy submarines (including strategic nuclear forces);
        • electronic warfare at the modern technical and conceptual level;
        • solutions to “other special tasks”.
        Note: the key feature of the proposed modernization of Su-34 aircraft was not only to increase their combat capabilities and expand the range of tasks, but also (most importantly!) ensuring close tactical interaction between ships (including submarines) and Su-34M aircraft (a group of aircraft) through the use of modern means of communication and placement on ships and submarines of special small-sized “information terminals of joint actions” (ITSD), ensuring effective interaction of the forces of the Navy and the Russian Armed Forces with Su-34M (and others) aircraft.
        https://mina030.livejournal.com/17860.html
        1. rudolff 20 March 2020 21: 56 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Regarding the Su-34, for a long time it was necessary to do so, and not to produce these useless, by and large RTOs. And it’s high time to decide on a new PLO aircraft, and not to wind snot on your elbows for two decades. The short story, of course, smoothed out the situation, but did not fundamentally decide. And having fun with helicopters. Two Ka-31s for the whole fleet, this is not even funny. If it’s good, all search and rescue and PLO turntables should issue target designation.
      2. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 22: 14 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        With torpedoes for helicopters, it is also unclear what, by the way. It can be said that nothing is already there - the ASG are deaf, there are no weapons other than GB, helicopters are not mass-produced, airplanes too.

        The hole in the PLO is with us.
        1. rudolff 20 March 2020 22: 19 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Not just a hole, but a black hole. We have all the military construction, in any case regarding the fleet, not in the calculation of war, but in the expectation that it will not happen.
          1. timokhin-aa 20 March 2020 22: 21 New
            • 6
            • 1
            +5
            Klimov can tell a lot about this if he wants. “There won’t be a war anyway” - this is a popular excuse in high offices, and the fleets come across commanders who love such a phrase.
            1. Nemchinov Vl 21 March 2020 00: 24 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Thanks for the article, to both authors !! It was interesting !! You are well done.
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              “There won’t be a war anyway” - this is a popular excuse in high offices,
              along the development of the fleet it seems. Of course it is sad.
              Tell me plz. how are you now on Surf, for today ?! Saw "Dawn-3.3.", For frigates 22350, as I understand it, they continue to do (since it is planned to lay another 2 frigates this year) ?! But what about the possibilities for the Star / 2 type / class hacks ?! Competencies and opportunities are not lost ?! When will be born 22350M or is there some kind of modern analogue 11560 (in short a project of the EM / BOD class), what will they be equipped with ?!
              1. Fizik M 22 March 2020 12: 26 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Nemchinov Vl
                Saw "Dawn-3.3.", For frigates 22350, as I understand it, they continue to do (since it is planned to lay another 2 frigates this year) ?! But what about the possibilities for the Star / 2 type / class hacks ?!

                I think that there are no special problems
                talked with Dawn Group in 2013 on a number of "promising issues"
                muzhik honest (normally sees "bottlenecks" and calmly and in the case spoke about them) and very sensible

                according to Dawn, there is another aspect, its elements were worked out on old HACs (ships of combat personnel), and the results were simply excellent - i.e. it turned out to be a very worthy modernization of the old GAS (which, alas, was cheated)
                1. Nemchinov Vl 22 March 2020 14: 12 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Fizik M
                  I think that there are no special problems
                  talked with Dawn Group in 2013 on a number of "promising issues"
                  honest man (he normally sees "bottlenecks" and calmly and in the case spoke about them) and very sensible
                  thanks for the answer. it was very interesting to me. (from me plus).
                  Quote: Fizik M
                  those. it turned out to be a very worthy modernization of the old GAS (which, alas, was cheated)
                  and what are the reasons ?!
                  1. Fizik M 22 March 2020 19: 19 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Nemchinov Vl
                    and what are the reasons ?!

                    в UE
                    which our vEmEfE "put" on anti-submarine defense
    3. Aviator_ 21 March 2020 09: 11 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      I don’t understand why we are building a series of DPLs, but there is no patrol plane ????

      Different departments are building. In aviation, to put it mildly, a mess. I don’t know about the fleet.
      1. timokhin-aa 21 March 2020 10: 07 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        In aviation, against the backdrop of the fleet, everything is more or less, if it is not naval aviation.
        1. Aviator_ 21 March 2020 11: 27 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Probably it is - the Air Force has recently been fighting, starting with Afghanistan (then Chechnya, Syria), and the naval - by the residual principle.
  • Sailor 21 March 2020 11: 58 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Only one thing surprises me: what is the stupid leadership in the Navy? And in double, it is surprising that the Navy aviation did not become one of the fleet components, perhaps because the "main" on the fleet was always a submariner (I do not want to offend the fleet caste in any way)?
  • Maxim BY 21 March 2020 12: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Very high quality
  • bk0010 21 March 2020 22: 12 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Extremely interesting. One question: they said that a gas tank at 1155 weighs about 1000 tons, but here I did not notice equipment weighing more than 72 tons, how much did the gas tank weigh?
    1. Fizik M 22 March 2020 12: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: bk0010
      They said that a gas tank at 1155 weighs about 1000 tons, but here I did not notice equipment weighing more than 72 tons, how much did the maximum weight of the gas tank weigh?

      this is with a "torpedo" - i.e. all ship structures
  • Fizik M 22 March 2020 12: 39 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    It’s about that any marine helicopter must have a powerful radar,

    she is and a long time ago
    "novelty for vert"
    very good ranges, the ability to detect periscopes (as a result, it is one of the best in the country in terms of detection of small UAVs)
    but ... in MA, completely different lobbyists (the same scam when the organization was NEVER and NOTHING developing anything on this subject by the "head" for MA complexes)

    according to the "Beetle" and Ka-52, "somewhat did not understand" Guskov’s position on this issue
    despite the fact that it was discussed with him more than once and not two
  • Fizik M 22 March 2020 12: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Nikolai-1970
    Although they make it possible to classify goals by "portrait".
    At least for LRASM was online.

    a number of our funds provided this back in the 80s
    with good ranges
    in the modernized "Volcano" the defeat of specific (predetermined) parts of the target was generally laid down (for this, a laser locator was placed in a cone)
  • Alien From 26 March 2020 17: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The author a huge respect! Very interesting article !!!
  • Sckepsis 27 March 2020 16: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Plus set, but authors should pay more attention to typing. Okay, typos just mazilo eyes, but when it falls half the sentence becomes stressful. It would also be nice to split up such rich materials into several articles.