Military Review

At the border of two environments. Diving ships: history and prospects

47
At the border of two environments. Diving ships: history and prospects

On and under water



At the beginning of the XNUMXth century in the naval fleets leading countries of the world began to develop two types of ships: surface ships (NK) and submarines (PL), the design and tactics of which were radically different. However, before the appearance of submarines with a nuclear power plant (NPP), submarines could be called rather underwater surface, since the imperfection of the electric batteries of that time did not allow them to stay above water for a long time. Even the invention of the snorkel only partially solved the problem, since the submarines of that time were still tied to the surface of the water.


1900 French boat Narwhal. The submarine used a steam engine to move on the surface and electric motors recharged from the steam installation to move under water

Nevertheless, finding the submarine at the interface between the two media was not an end in itself, but a necessary measure, and in the future, as technology improved, submarines began to be under water most of the time. The appearance of nuclear power plants provided the submarines with almost the time spent under water, limited more by the endurance of crews than by technical barriers.

Since in the first half of the XNUMXth century, submarines spent most of the time moving above the surface, with short-term dives to carry out an attack on the target or to avoid a strike, the submarine hulls of those times had a nose-tip construction with a pointed nose, optimized for better seaworthiness. As submarines spent more and more time under water, the form of their hull more and more departed from the form inherent in surface ships, acquiring characteristic drop-shaped outlines.

Over time, there was practically nothing in common between surface ships and submarines. However, there were projects in which it was supposed to combine the advantages of surface ships and submarines.

Diving ships


One of the most famous hybrids of a surface ship and a submarine can be considered the project 1231 domestic small submersible missile ship, developed since the 1950s, which was a missile boat capable of diving and moving under water, which provided greater stealth compared to conventional missile boats at a higher than conventional submarines surface speed.

It was assumed that the projecting 1231 missile ship would be able to ambush, secretly waiting for the enemy, or also secretly independently advance under water in the direction of the enemy. After detecting the target, the diving ship ascends and reaches the distance of a missile strike at maximum speed. The advantage of the approach was to be greater stability over aviation the enemy. At the same time, air defense systems were absent on the project 1231 ship.


Project 1231 Submersible Rocket Ship

In fact, the submersible missile ship of project 1231 had a low speed and underwater range. Shallow immersion depth in the absence of air defense allowed enemy aircraft to freely use anti-submarine weapon. The disadvantages include the increased complexity of the design, as well as the imperfection of the design due to the lack of experience in the construction of "hybrid" ships of this type.

A modern example of a diving ship is the 25st century SMX-2010 warship project, presented by the French shipbuilding concern DCNS at the Euronaval 25 naval exhibition. The length of the SMX-110 is about 3000 meters, the underwater displacement of 25 tons. The semi-submerged body has an elongated shape, optimized for high speed in the surface position. As conceived by the creators, the submarine frigate SMX-38 should quickly, at a speed of XNUMX knots, arrive in the combat area, and then go under water and covertly attack the enemy.


DCNS SMX-25 warship project

It is characteristic that in the Soviet project 1231 and in the French project SMX-25, the main mode is the surface mode of movement, while the underwater mode is intended only to “creep up” to the enemy. Under the conditions of saturation of the battlefield with various sensors, it can be assumed that a ship moving at high speed will be detected long before approaching the enemy forces, and after immersion it will be found and destroyed by anti-submarine forces.

Another "hybrid" vessel can be considered the project of a high-speed submarine of the British company BMT. An SSGT submarine with a ship-borne submersible gas turbine must be capable of cruising at near-surface depths at a speed of 20 knots, with the possibility of acceleration up to 30 knots.

Air supply for turbines is carried out through a retractable shaft, essentially a snorkel. The shape of the submarine housing is optimized to minimize the influence of surface waves. In a completely underwater mode of movement, the movement is carried out due to fuel cells with autonomy up to 25 days.


BMT SSGT High Speed ​​Submarine

Unlike the Soviet project 1231 and the French project SMX-25, which are more likely to be surface ships with the possibility of immersion, the British project of a "hybrid" ship is more likely to be a submarine. Nevertheless, SSGT project submarines are firmly attached to the surface, since its supposed advantage - high speed of movement, is realized only when moving in the near-surface layer with an extended air intake device.

Indirectly, semi-submersible transport vessels, such as, for example, the Chinese ship Guang Hua Kou, can also be mentioned. In them, the partial immersion ability is used not for gaining advantages in battle, but for loading and transporting bulky goods - oil platforms, surface ships and submarines.


Guang Hua Kou

In addition to the above projects of diving and semi-submersible vessels, there were other projects, for example, to create semi-submerged tankers for transporting oil and gas in the extreme north. One of these projects was proposed by the candidate of military sciences, Yuri Berkov, who served in the Northern Fleet, later a leading employee of one of the defense research institutes of the USSR / RF Ministry of Defense, in the editions From Fiction to Reality and My Underwater World, which included, among other things, problems of the movement of ships in the surface layer. In general, it is difficult to say how many such projects and studies are in the secret archives of the Ministry of Defense, specialized institutes and design bureaus, so the topic can be worked out much deeper than it seems.



Sketch and description of the underwater tanker Yuri Berkov

Threats to surface ships


Are there any factors that may require the development of submersible / diving ships? After all, apart from conceptual projects, no country in the world produces such ships? There is no doubt that diving ships will be more complicated and more expensive than traditionally built ships. What is the point of creating them then?

If we talk about reducing visibility, then this problem is successfully solved by the layout of the surface of the ships in accordance with the canons of stealth technology. Movement under water for the purpose of camouflage would be better carried out by a submarine of a classic design, which does not need to be close to the surface.

Perhaps for Russia the answer lies in quantity. In the number of enemy surface ships and submarines, the number of universal launchers on them, the number of weapons carriers on aircraft carriers of potential opponents.

If during the Cold War, the reflection of massive attacks by anti-ship missiles (RCC) was primarily a US problem, now the situation has changed. In the 158st century, the U.S. Navy received highly effective long-range anti-ship missiles AGM-84C LRASM. Compared to the previously used AGM / RGM / UGM-500 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, LRASM anti-ship missiles have a significantly longer flight range (over 158 kilometers), unlike the anti-ship version of the Tomahawk cruise missile, LRASM anti-ship missiles have versatile carrier types. In addition, AGM-XNUMXC LRASM anti-ship missiles have low visibility, a highly efficient noise-resistant homing head and intelligent target attack algorithms.


RCC AGM-158C LRASM

About RRC LRASM is written in detail in an article by Andrey from Chelyabinsk “On the revolution in the naval art of the USA. RCC LRASM ».

Carriers of LRASM anti-ship missiles should be surface ships with vertical launch installations (UVP) Mk 41, supersonic bombers B-1B (24 anti-ship missiles), carrier-based multi-role fighters F-35C, F / A-18E / F (4 anti-ship missiles). It is likely that there will be a modification of the LRASM anti-ship missiles for equipping submarines of the US Navy and their allies.

Ten B-1B bombers can carry 240 LRASM anti-ship missiles, and twenty B-480B bombers can carry 61 anti-ship missiles, and the US Air Force has 1 B-48B bombers. The Nimitz-type aircraft carrier group includes 18 F / A-192E / F multipurpose fighters, which can carry 41 LRASM anti-ship missiles, and a hundred can add security ships with the Mk XNUMX air defense system. Thus, the air forces and the USS Navy can launch massive attacks against the enemy fleet including several hundred anti-ship missiles in a salvo.

Russia is not capable of building a surface fleet capable of withstanding a massive attack by anti-ship missiles in the foreseeable future.

Earlier on “Military Review”, articles by Oleg Kaptsov on the expediency of reconstructing battleship-class ships at a new technological level, the armor of which will be able to withstand the attacks of anti-ship missiles, were published.


Perspective Battleship Concept

Without going into a confrontation between missile and armor, it can be assumed that in Russia, which is unable to build destroyer-class ships, it will be practically impossible to build a battleship. But Russian industry has not yet forgotten how to build submarines.


The promising destroyer "Leader" of the Russian Navy, most likely, will remain in the form of pictures and models

But abandoning surface ships in favor of building submarines alone is impossible, since the latter cannot completely replace surface ships, primarily because of the impossibility of providing air defense (air defense) of the combat area. Equipping submarines with anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM) capable of operating from under water from a periscope depth, discussed in the article At the border of two environments. The evolution of promising submarines in conditions of increased probability of their detection by the enemy will allow the submarine to solve limited missions for defense against anti-submarine aircraft of the enemy, but not provide air defense of the area.

Even the equipment of submarines of long-range air defense systems considered in the articles “Atomic multifunctional submarine cruiser: an asymmetrical response to the West” и "Nuclear-powered multi-functional underwater cruiser: a paradigm shift"will not allow the replacement of surface ships. In the considered form, the AMPKKs are more likely to be used for raider operations: entering the line, striking at carrier-based aircraft in the air, and enemy surface ships, followed by secretive withdrawal, but not to provide air defense for the combat area.

Perhaps a solution to diving ships operating on the border of two environments? The concept of a diving surface ship, its advantages compared to surface ships of a classic design and its place in the Russian Navy will be considered in the following material.
Author:
Photos used:
wiki.wargaming.net, bastion-karpenko.ru, forums.airbase.ru, deepstorm.ru, bmt-defence.com, topwar.ru
Articles from this series:
Atomic Multifunctional Submarine Cruiser: Asymmetrical Response to the West
Atomic Multifunctional Submarine Cruiser: Paradigm Shift
Nuclear submarines - carriers of cruise missiles: reality and prospects
Ensuring the work of the air defense system on low-flying targets without involving Air Force aviation
At the border of two environments. The evolution of promising submarines in conditions of increased probability of their detection by the enemy
At the border of two environments. Why is the US Navy a combat laser for a Virginia-type nuclear submarine and is Peresvet needed for a Laika project nuclear submarine?
47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dmitry from Voronezh
    Dmitry from Voronezh 13 May 2020 05: 27 New
    +5
    Interesting, but extremely exotic. Crossing a surface ship with a submarine means getting an expensive hybrid - worse than a classic submarine and worse than a classic NK. For the foreseeable future, surface ships will remain surface ships, and submarines will remain submarines. The ideas described in the article are of theoretical interest rather than military-practical.
    1. seregatara1969
      seregatara1969 13 May 2020 19: 57 New
      0
      . not allowed for a long time to be above the water.

      Why is that?
  2. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 13 May 2020 06: 18 New
    +5
    "Eh, Marfush ... shall we live in sorrow!?" Well, readers will criticize IN the "hybrid" destroyer with the SSBN ... so what? "Popular writers" always have a fallback! Do not want such a "hybrid" - get another one! How do you like a “hybrid” submarine with a fighter? This is just for the aperitif! yes And already, if a big booze starts, then the MO can offer a hybrid RPKSN and Tu-160! Money can then be requested in! good That's how many kickbacks fellow
    1. Ros 56
      Ros 56 13 May 2020 06: 56 New
      +5
      I remember something like that was published about 45-50 years ago in the Technique of Youth or in the Young Technique, I don’t remember exactly.
      1. Aag
        Aag 13 May 2020 08: 21 New
        +4
        Quote: Ros 56
        I remember something like that was published about 45-50 years ago in the Technique of Youth or in the Young Technique, I don’t remember exactly.


        Both there and there slipped ...
        There, and then, I think it was appropriate. For adolescents, technical romantics it is interesting and informative. In today's realities, it seems like nothing ...
    2. Catfish
      Catfish 13 May 2020 07: 24 New
      +3
      Yeah, or something. Dreaming is not forbidden. laughing drinks
      1. DDT
        DDT 13 May 2020 16: 28 New
        +1
        Surely, the Soviet Union’s underwater battleship creeps up to the adversary, pops up, gives a salvo of all the guns and the rRraz dived back to unknown depths ... And the adversary rushes about on the burning deck and sends despairing signals SOS wassat
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Sevastiec
        Sevastiec 14 May 2020 11: 42 New
        +2
        No, something like that laughing
    3. seregatara1969
      seregatara1969 13 May 2020 19: 59 New
      0
      As a pilot - will we call a sailor? Diving pilot or flying sailor?
  3. Ros 56
    Ros 56 13 May 2020 06: 54 New
    +5
    Crossing a snake and a hedgehog for the sake of 2 meters of barbed wire does not make sense. Different environments, different requirements for each environment, as a result, there will be nothing good. I am surprised that they have not yet offered this miracle to rise into the sky.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 13 May 2020 07: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Ros 56
      Different environments, different requirements for each environment, as a result, there will be nothing good.

      Do you think? Do you think that “popular writers” have only 2 figs in their pockets? Do not guess! And there is a third! How do you like a hybrid of a submarine and an ekranoplan? Or ... a "triple" hybrid: submarine + ekranoplan + airplane ...?
    2. AllBiBek
      AllBiBek 13 May 2020 10: 57 New
      0
      And it was like that, in the States they were blinded in the 80s, seem.
  4. demiurg
    demiurg 13 May 2020 07: 25 New
    +2
    For some reason, ships with a small waterline are not mentioned.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 13 May 2020 07: 41 New
      +2
      Quote: demiurg
      For some reason, ships with a small waterline are not mentioned.

      Yes .... but what about monitors ... what monitors are silent !? am
      1. Sevastiec
        Sevastiec 14 May 2020 11: 44 New
        +1
        Yes, also while reading, I immediately remembered them.
  5. SVD68
    SVD68 13 May 2020 09: 14 New
    +4
    All submarines before the appearance of the atomic were diving ships. There is no sense in returning to them.
  6. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 13 May 2020 10: 06 New
    0
    The submarine used a steam engine to move on the surface and rechargeable electric motors from steam installation, for movement under water
    I did not expect such a blooper from the author.
    Well
    Perhaps a solution in diving ships operating on the border of two environments
    The ship already functioning on the border of two environments is already an ekranoplan! Let it be a niche fighting vehicle.
    We are waiting for the article.
    1. Shopping
      14 May 2020 09: 59 New
      +2
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      The submarine used a steam engine to move on the surface and rechargeable electric motors from steam installation, for movement under water
      I did not expect such a blooper from the author.


      There is no blooper. This submarine was one of the first to recharge batteries from a steam engine, of course, in the above-water position.

      The first submarine on electric engines was the construction of the French shipbuilder Claude Goubay, subsequently developed by Dupuis de Lom and Gustav Zede. The submarine, named Gymnote, was launched in 1888. She had a displacement of 31 tons, had a body with pointed ends, used an electric motor with a capacity of 50 horsepower, powered by a rechargeable battery weighing up to 9,5 tons.

      Then built in 1898, on the basis of this design, the Siren submarine was able to develop an underwater speed of up to 10 knots. After the death of G. Zede, the submarine received his name. In 1901, during maneuvers, the Gustave Zédé submarine secretly entered the raid and, having surfaced 200 meters from the battleship, carried out a successful training torpedo attack.

      In 1900, France launched the Narwhal submarine, designed by Max Loboeuf, in France. The submarine used a steam engine to move on the surface and electric motors for movement under water. A unique feature of this submarine was the use of a steam engine not only for the movement of the vessel in the surface position, but also recharging the batteries with its help. This opportunity led to a significant increase in the autonomy of the submarine, which no longer needed to return to the base to recharge the batteries.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 14 May 2020 10: 16 New
        0
        Quote: AVM
        There is no blooper. This submarine was one of the first to recharge
        accumulators
        from the steam engine, of course, in the water position.
        There is no blooper in the comment, but in the caption
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        surface and rechargeable electric motors from steam installation

        Waiting for an article, success!
  7. Interdum_silentium_volo
    Interdum_silentium_volo 13 May 2020 10: 34 New
    +2
    That's all, it remains to make landing underwater trays))) They will secretly transport a company of marines with equipment))) Project 717
  8. Taoist
    Taoist 13 May 2020 11: 25 New
    +4
    What kind of exotic garbage is not found on the vast network ... And so, to build everything? I suggest then I’ll take care of the underwater space battleship ... As the saying goes, “walk like that walk” ...
    But seriously, the only more or less working option is to use a "semi-submerged" scheme for a large combat ship (such as a ship - an arsenal) to reduce its radar visibility and increase speed ... But this should be considered a lot because the "medicine" can be much more expensive disease ...
    1. Shopping
      13 May 2020 11: 48 New
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      ... Well, seriously, the only more or less working option is to use a “semi-submerged” scheme for a large warship (such as a ship-arsenal) to reduce its radar visibility and increase speed ... But this should be considered a lot because the “medicine” can turn out to be much more expensive than illness ...


      It will not be possible to especially increase the speed, if I understand correctly, you can increase the speed by removing the wave impedance, and for this it is necessary to immerse the hull to a depth of more than half the length of the ship's hull. Then you get just a submarine.

      Secrecy is already more interesting, but there are also advantages, but more on that in the next article.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 13 May 2020 18: 32 New
        +3
        No. Such ships were being developed. With a "minimum waterline" - roughly speaking, the hull resembles a torpedo and a small wheelhouse sticks out of the water on the narrow "fin" of the console ... In this case, the wave resistance is minimal as well as the influence of wind and waves ... The power plant’s power gain is about 20%. .. but how much such a design came out more expensive ... Again - the consequence is a sharp increase in draft, and as a result of navigation restrictions ... In general, as practice shows, “everything has a price”
        1. Shopping
          14 May 2020 13: 52 New
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          No. Such ships were being developed. With a "minimum waterline" - roughly speaking, the hull resembles a torpedo and a small wheelhouse sticks out of the water on the narrow "fin" of the console ... In this case, the wave resistance is minimal as well as the influence of wind and waves ... The power plant’s power gain is about 20%. .. but how much such a design came out more expensive ... Again - the consequence is a sharp increase in draft, and as a result of navigation restrictions ... In general, as practice shows, “everything has a price”


          Do you happen to have no links to such projects in the public domain? Actually, the next article is close to this.
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 14 May 2020 20: 05 New
            +1
            https://ship.bsu.by/download/book/6250.pdf - очень старая книга... Но это то что лежало в сети... дома в бумаге больше есть... одно время большая мода была на эти разработки.
  9. fruit_cake
    fruit_cake 13 May 2020 11: 56 New
    +4
    and war buns
  10. Nitarius
    Nitarius 13 May 2020 12: 40 New
    -1
    Lord .. what is the conversation about ... if this has been around for a long time ..? enlighten ... well, you never know what they say to the people ..
  11. Usher
    Usher 13 May 2020 14: 02 New
    +1
    Such a concept in my nonsense, there are more minuses than pluses, if there are pluses at all. There can be no talk of any stealth at all. Now the periscope of a submarine is easily detected by radar. And then a semi-submerged ship. The speed is the same as that of a nuclear submarine, it cannot dive, what is the advantage over a nuclear submarine?
    And offtopic, why is it more difficult to build a destroyer than a nuclear submarine? In my SSBN, it’s much more complicated technically than any surface ship of comparable displacement. And why the hypothetical battleship as much as 3 towers of the Civil Code? One is enough. The rest are ZRAKI and UVP. with small TA and helicopters for a snack.
    1. Shopping
      13 May 2020 14: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: Usher
      There can be no talk of any stealth at all. Now the periscope of a submarine is easily detected by radar.


      Periscopes are also made using stealth technology. Why then do surface ships with stealth technology at all, since they discover the periscope, then what about the destroyer? But in fact, the stealth destroyer Zamvolt is visible on the radar screen as a fishing boat, how then will a disguised periscope look like a sparrow or a fly? It all depends on the distance, height of the radar, its perfection and power, you can not say for sure.

      Quote: Usher
      And then a semi-submerged ship. The speed is the same as the submarine


      Most likely less - wave impedance.

      Quote: Usher
      can't dive


      Maybe of course, why is he then "diving"?

      Quote: Usher
      What is the advantage over the Premier League?


      They do not exclude, but complement each other, but more on that in the next article.

      Quote: Usher
      And offtopic, why is it more difficult to build a destroyer than a nuclear submarine? In my SSBN, it’s much more complicated technically than any surface ship of comparable displacement.


      The fact remains. We are building nuclear submarines, but no destroyers. These are still different products - different shipyards, different specialists, layout, etc.

      Quote: Usher
      And why the hypothetical battleship as much as 3 towers of the Civil Code? One is enough. The rest are ZRAKI and UVP. with small TA and helicopters for a snack.


      I don’t know. He doesn’t need PMSM at all. If only the railgun will be brought to mind.
      1. DDT
        DDT 13 May 2020 16: 32 New
        +2
        Give the submarine battleships and flying aircraft carriers to the proletariat! So that according to Marvel, a pulling screw must turn into a pushing screw under water, but this is not interesting! love
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 14 May 2020 05: 27 New
          0
          Why then do surface ships with stealth technology at all, since they discover the periscope, then what about the destroyer?

          Surface ship can hit aerial targets

          And, no matter how trite it may sound, a surface ship inspires. Demonstration of presence.

          ps / Andrey, I never called to build battleships. And such 406 mm towers in our time are simply meaningless
          1. Shopping
            14 May 2020 08: 24 New
            0
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Why then do surface ships with stealth technology at all, since they discover the periscope, then what about the destroyer?

            Surface ship can hit aerial targets


            Today, a new and most likely final article from the series “On the border of two environments” should be published, there is just about that.

            Quote: Santa Fe
            And, no matter how trite it may sound, a surface ship inspires. Demonstration of presence.


            Yes, but what if you have to choose - efficiency or effectiveness?

            Quote: Santa Fe
            ps / Andrey, I never called to build battleships. And such 406 mm towers in our time are simply meaningless


            Sorry, Oleg. Perhaps I spoke incorrectly or misunderstood something, but in my opinion this topic skips in many of your articles, by the way very interesting, in my opinion:
            - You cannot book a modern ship
            - Rocket and artillery battleship of the XXI century
            - “Nimitz” versus “Yamato”. Why modern aviation can not sink the battleship
            - Battleship in the Falkland War. Dreams of the past
            - Lead and cotton. On the confrontation between electronics and armor
            - Is there any armor from the blows of fate?
            - Reincarnation of ship armor
            1. Santa Fe
              Santa Fe 14 May 2020 10: 41 New
              0
              Quote: AVM
              Yes, but what if you have to choose - efficiency or effectiveness?

              NK in its current form is quite effective for air defense / PLO. And effective for blockade and show of strength
              Everything is important
              Quote: AVM
              I may have spoken incorrectly or misunderstood something, but in my opinion this topic skips in many of your articles

              Nowhere does it say that it is necessary to build a LC that is appropriate in size and appearance to the dreadnought of the 1st half of the XNUMXth century. Except for one article where the American concept is capital surface warship, but it's exotic

              2. lx - good examples and examples. From what we see, the thickness of their protection is excessive and the protection scheme is useless in our time. Need to change. But examples of the benefits of protection are excellent.

              3. Interested in the possibility of installing security elements on modern ships of 10-15 thousand tons. "Reincarnation of ship's armor" is an extreme article of the emnip, in it all theses

              4. Marine art 16dm was of interest in 1970-80. before the appearance of the Tomahawks and Caliber. The Angles had cut their Wangard in vain; it would have been useful in the Falklands. Now, of course, such a ship is not needed
              1. Shopping
                14 May 2020 11: 53 New
                0
                Quote: Santa Fe
                Quote: AVM
                Yes, but what if you have to choose - efficiency or effectiveness?

                NK in its current form is quite effective for air defense / PLO.


                I’m just interested in the sufficiency of the effectiveness of air defense. How many subtle subsonic anti-ship missiles attacking from different directions can a conditional destroyer - 20/30/50 intercept? What will happen if at least one breaks through?

                And on this basis, how much can we build destroyers? And what is the use of them, if all the same the KUG of 4-6 destroyers (and for us this is an unrealistic PMSM, if we need not one but 3-4 KUG) will be able to drop RCC, i.e. arrange a raid of 200-400 anti-ship missiles of the LRASM type?

                You suggested increasing survivability by increasing the security of the NK, I don’t argue, maybe it’s really effective, I just don’t have any information about what kind of armor is needed to withstand 500 kg of explosives, and whether we can do it in current realities.

                I look forward to your comments on the next article.
                1. Taoist
                  Taoist 14 May 2020 20: 09 New
                  0
                  Well, by the way, a semi-submerged ship has an advantage in protecting against anti-ship missiles ... If you do not understand that the reverse side of the coin is an increased vulnerability for underwater weapons ... And anti-ship missiles will simply be replaced by warheads ...
                  1. Shopping
                    14 May 2020 20: 50 New
                    0
                    Quote: Taoist
                    Well, by the way, a semi-submerged ship has an advantage in protecting against anti-ship missiles ... If you do not understand that the reverse side of the coin is an increased vulnerability for underwater weapons ... And anti-ship missiles will simply be replaced by warheads ...


                    It is not so simple:
                    https://topwar.ru/171181-na-granice-dvuh-sred-nyrjajuschij-nadvodnyj-korabl-2025-koncept-i-taktika-primenenija.html
                    1. Taoist
                      Taoist 15 May 2020 10: 49 New
                      0
                      It’s easier than you think ... For a semi-submerged ship you don’t need a torpedo that is enough to “dive” warheads - Such warheads were put on the first CDs ... (when it was still meant to hit armored targets ...) And equip warheads with a hydrostatic fuse of the type a deep bomb is not a problem at all ... So believe me - this will not affect the range of the missiles ... But the vulnerability of the underwater hull from such warheads will be higher - hydroblow + a complicated struggle for survivability.
      2. Usher
        Usher 14 May 2020 09: 36 New
        +1
        what then will a disguised periscope look like a sparrow or a fly?

        Well, I read right there on the portal that submarines allegedly find almost on the wake trail, and here a whole periscope.
        1. Shopping
          14 May 2020 09: 49 New
          +1
          Quote: Usher
          what then will a disguised periscope look like a sparrow or a fly?

          Well, I read right there on the portal that submarines allegedly find almost on the wake trail, and here a whole periscope.


          And along the wake trail, and the rise of a column of water.
          The question is, from what distance. One thing is a PLO plane that flies at an altitude of 200 meters is purposefully looking for a submarine - it will probably notice a periscope or wake track from a distance of 5-10 kilometers, another thing is an AWACS plane that is looking for planes and ships from a height of 5000 meters at a range of 300- 500 km - he is unlikely to see the wake track, and the modern periscope too.

          + the periscope is put forward for a very short period of time, put forward, taken a panoramic picture and hidden, there the count goes for seconds. A flare flashed on the radar and disappeared.
  12. ser56
    ser56 13 May 2020 16: 18 New
    +1
    Technically and economically, such systems are stupid ... request
    like project 1231 initially - the idea of ​​one general secretary request
  13. DDT
    DDT 13 May 2020 16: 40 New
    +3
    Okay, have fun and enough. Now essentially: does the author propose to revive the war monitors of the First World War? "But what for? How will its application be technically more expedient than existing types of murder?"
    And here comrade Stalin puffing his pipe and looking straight into the soul - “think Comrade DDT incorrectly, you will not at all get out the prospects for scientific and technical progress” ... Good day to all am
  14. Metlik
    Metlik 13 May 2020 23: 02 New
    0
    It would be more correct not to make a diving ship out of a surface ship, but to increase the functionality of our submarines, bringing them closer to the destroyers in terms of air defense and reconnaissance.
  15. Evil 55
    Evil 55 14 May 2020 09: 37 New
    0
    Another utopia on the verge of fantasy and light paranoia ..
  16. CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 14 May 2020 13: 29 New
    0
    Bezsmiselno
  17. Vladimir SHajkin
    Vladimir SHajkin 15 May 2020 00: 48 New
    0
    Any waterfowl are two-medium ones because they are affected by both water and air, that is, by wind.
    Considering the confrontation between the missile and the armor does not make any practical sense, but you can create a zone, the dome of the passage of any air enemy, just like underwater, but this is a task of a different scientific and technical level.
  18. Observer2014
    Observer2014 27 June 2020 12: 43 New
    -4
    The promising destroyer "Leader" of the Russian Navy, most likely, will remain in the form of pictures and models
    laughing wassat laughing Class! You are the best at binding! How could it be without a quarterly mention of this future powerful creation. laughing About "Manatee" Let's. We are waiting! yes
    Perhaps a solution to diving ships operating on the border of two environments? The concept of a diving surface ship, its advantages compared to surface ships of a classic design and its place in the Russian Navy will be considered in the following material.
    What sorry do you still diving ships? wassat laughing Do you fully understand the economic opportunities of your country?
  19. Yuri Sivov
    Yuri Sivov 7 July 2020 15: 42 New
    0
    I think it is necessary to consider weapons of defeat (delivery of warheads): underwater start-air delivery to the assured destruction line by air defense systems - an underwater section of delivery of warheads to the target. Given the performance characteristics of the torpedo squall and the backlog in the development of ekranoplanes: this could look as follows. 1. vertical start from underwater position 2. Disclosure of the delivery vehicle (unmanned winged craft) and delivery of a torpedo to the border of the air defense response area 3. One of the winged planes is a command one. When reaching the distance of destruction, either he or the built-in module is fired at the viewing height with subsequent adjustment of the target selection for each device participating in the attack. 4. An impact rocket plane at a distance of confident destruction (or before approaching missile countermeasures) immerses in the course of the intended location of the target. There is a separation and launch of a torpedo - the defeat of the target. Something like this)))