At the border of two environments. Diving surface ship 2025: concept and tactics of application


The squadron of diving surface ships may not look as impressive as the squadron of classic surface ships, but this will make it no less dangerous


On the border of two environments


Based on the premises set forth in the article “On the border of two environments. Diving ships: history and prospects ", consider a variant of a diving surface ship (NSC), the hull of which is under water, in the near-surface layer, and above the water there is only a superstructure mast with radar stations, with active phased antenna arrays (AFAR), optical reconnaissance aids and communication antennas . In other words, the waterline of such a ship should go just above the base of the mast superstructure.



Diving surface ship can be implemented on the basis of one of the projects of nuclear submarines

Design

The design of NNCs to a greater extent should be based on the design of submarines (PL) than surface ships (NK), but taking into account the influence of surface factors: wave resistance, near-surface rolling, etc. Given the Russian specifics, the optimal basis for a ship of this type is likely to be one of the projects existing or promising nuclear submarines, for example, the project of the Strategic Missile Submarine Cruiser (RPKSN) 955A, with contours optimized for movement in the near-surface layer. Perhaps the NOC should be supplemented by installed high-speed low-inertia thrusters and control surfaces, as well as ballast tank pumps of increased power.


Diving surface ship based on Project 955A RPKSN

Previously, the SSBN project 955A has already been considered by the author and as the basis for nuclear submarine with cruise missiles (SSGN) conditional project 955K, and implementation of SSBNs based on project 955A is considered by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, and as a basis for nuclear multifunctional submarine cruiserintended for raider operations against surface forces and aviation the enemy. The reason for such attention to project 955A is that it is quite modern, well-developed and is being built in a large series, which will simplify the development and reduce the cost of solutions based on it.

As the name implies, the NOC should be able to dive to a shallow depth of not more than 20-50 meters, which will reduce the requirements for the hull structures of the original submarine design.

Intelligence tools

The mast must be located at the top of the superstructure. unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), most likely quadrocopter (octopopter, hexacopter) type with reconnaissance equipment on board, which is powered by flexible cable from the side of the NOC. Depending on the permissible UAV dimensions, both optical, thermal imaging, and radar reconnaissance equipment can be placed on it. The possibility of automatic tracking of UAVs of UAVs flying at an altitude of 50-100 meters, and, if possible, more, will make it possible to detect surface and low-flying targets at a much greater distance than is possible with the help of the mast of the NSC.


The concept of the British warship Dreadnought-2050 with a UAV, powered by a flexible cable

If the radar stationed on the mast at an altitude of 5-15 meters can see an anti-ship missile (RCC) flying at an altitude of 20 meters, at a range of about 25-30 kilometers, then the radar stationed on a UAV at an altitude of 50-100 meters can see the same RCC at a range of 40-55 kilometers.


Dependence of the range of visibility of a target located (flying) at a height of 20 meters, on the height of the deployment of reconnaissance equipment

The NOC submarines will inherit a powerful sonar station (GAS).

The NOC will not be able to place the classic manned anti-submarine defense helicopters (PLO). Their functions can be divided between UAVs, crewless boats (BEC) and uninhabited underwater vehicles (NPA), accompanying NOCs and recharging batteries from it (refueling). For the release and reception of UAVs or crewless boats, the NOC must perform a short ascent with the hull rising above the waterline.

Anti-submarine UAVs can be implemented on the basis of a helicopter or quadrocopter (octopopter, hexacopter) UAV.


UAV helicopter type company "Radar mms"

Speaking about UAVs for a diving surface ship, one cannot but recall the UAV projects starting from under water. One of the most interesting projects is the Cormorant UAV, designed to launch nuclear submarines and ballistic missile launchers (SSBN) from mines from a depth of 46 meters. For NOCs, such difficulties are not required, the start may well be carried out from the surface. Such a UAV can be used to perform reconnaissance missions at a relative distance from the ship.


Underwater reconnaissance UAV Cormorant

Crewless surface and underwater vehicles can be used both to perform the functions of anti-aircraft defense, and to solve missile defense tasks.

At the border of two environments. Diving surface ship 2025: concept and tactics of application
The Iskatel crewless boat, developed by Aviation and Marine Electronics and Design Bureau Luch [/ size
]

Tetis Pro experimental pilot autonomous radio-controlled boat with side-scan sonar Kalan


The submarine autonomous uninhabited apparatus of NPO Aurora, equipped with an echo sounder, side-scan sonar, sonar positioning and communication system, satellite and inertial navigation systems, a sound depth and speed meter


Autonomous uninhabited underwater vehicle "Klavesin-1R" developed by the Institute of Marine Technology Problems

weaponry

Since the main task of the NOC is air defense (air defense), like the British destroyer type 45, its main weapons should become a powerful anti-aircraft missile system (SAM). Presumably this may be a modernized air defense system, implemented on the basis of the Poliment-Redut air defense system. It is possible that a naval air defense system based on the promising land complex S-500 would become a more promising option, but, given the fact that its composition and capabilities are not yet known, it would be more logical to dwell on more worked-out solutions. The basis for the ammunition should be anti-aircraft guided missiles (SAM) of medium range 9M96E, 9M96E2 with an active homing radar (ARLGSN) and short-range missiles 9M100 with an infrared homing head (IKGSN), capable of hitting targets without continuous target designation or highlighting targets.


Antennas SAM Polyment-Redoubt on frigates of project 22350

To destroy air targets at long range, the air defense system’s ammunition should be supplemented with long / super long-range missiles. There may be few of them, but their very presence will force the enemy to plan their actions taking into account this fact, to keep away high-altitude UAVs and early warning radars (DRLs).


Super long-range missiles 40N6E

If technically possible, placement on the NOC would be a good help. laser weapons (LO) with a power of 100-500 kWcapable of defeating small-sized targets: UAVs, light boats and boats, destroying sensitive elements of the optics of anti-ship missiles and enemy aircraft, and in the long term ensuring their physical destruction. Despite the fact that many are skeptical of laser weapons, they will not become less effective from this. The leading powers of the world (USA, UK, Germany, Israel, China) are investing huge amounts in the development of laser weapons. For example, Germans plan to put LO on corvettes, the British on type 45 destroyers, the United States even plan to put laser weapons on almost all types of ships (promising frigates, destroyers, landing ships, and even on multipurpose nuclear submarines) And do not think that it will occupy half the ship. A laser module with a 100 kW cooling system can be comparable in size with one or two refrigerators.


Dragonfire's UK Laser Weapons Program (LDEW) is designed to provide short-range air defense

From the initial submarine project, 533 mm torpedo tubes will remain. The NOC will lack artillery weapons, as well as short-range air defense systems / anti-aircraft missile systems (anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems).

Placement

The question arises: where to place all of the above and how can you save space? The answer is simple: the NNP should become exactly the air defense ship of the combat area, that is, its strike functions will be minimized. The same goes for anti-submarine functions.

If we say that the project 955A SSBN is taken as the basis, then it has space to accommodate 16 missile silos (with a diameter of about 2,2 meters), 6 (8?) Torpedo tubes of 533 mm caliber with an ammunition load of about 40 torpedoes, and also six disposable non-rechargeable 533 mm launchers for launching sonar countermeasures, which are located in the superstructure.

Based on this, the NOC ammunition can be:
- 10 standard torpedoes of caliber 533 mm of the current model;
- 40 anti-torpedoes having dimensions half the standard torpedo 533 mm;
- 10 uninhabited underwater vehicles made in the dimensions of a standard torpedo of caliber 533 mm;
- 2 (4) anti-submarine UAVs with a release-receiving-refueling device occupying the space of two conventional missile silos;
- 2 crewless boats in containers on the hull, by analogy with external docking cameras implemented at the Ohio SSBN;


SSBN "Ohio" with external docking cameras

- 12 super-long-range missiles 40N6E in four conventional missile silos, taking into account the diameter of one missile in a transport and launch container (TPK) 1 meter;
- 192 medium-range missiles 9M96E2 in four conventional missile silos, taking into account the diameter of one 240 mm missiles;
- 264 9M100 short-range missiles in four conventional missile silos, taking into account the diameter of one 200 mm missiles (according to some sources, 125 mm, that is, the number of short-range missiles can be increased to 584 units);
- 24 missiles (anti-ship, cruise missiles, missile and torpedoes) of the Caliber complex, with a complete set, depending on the task of the NOC, in two conventional missile silos, taking into account the diameter of the missile in the TPK 533 mm.


An approximate calculation of the number of missiles that can be placed in compartments under the RPKSN mine project 955A. For 9M96E2 and 9M100 missiles taken an additional margin of 40 mm in size, taking into account the need for TPK

Of course, the actual ammunition will be 20-30-50 percent less due to the need for cabling, installation of power structures and so on. Nevertheless, a general idea of ​​the potential NOC ammunition based on the project 955A SSBN can be obtained, and even if the ammunition is halved, the NOC will be equivalent to several air defense divisions.

In addition, it must be borne in mind that the dimensions of the missile silos on the SSBNs are much larger in height than the missiles and missiles that are placed in them, that is, there will be a reserve of volumes to accommodate the necessary additional equipment.

The advantages of NOCs over surface ships of a classic design


First of all, the appearance of NOCs will significantly depreciate the reserves of RCC available to potential opponents, including the latest AGM-158C LRASM. Protection of the NOC from a massive impact of RCC can look something like this:

After the discovery of a group of NOCs by the enemy, the latter carries out a strike with a large number of RCC. Active radars will detect flying, anti-ship missiles from a distance of at least 20 kilometers. After that, the NOC carries out an urgent dive, having previously released the protective curtains. In principle, the creation of false targets can also be considered, which are inflatable quick-deploy simulators of the surface of the NN mast, ejected from torpedo tubes or air-launched vehicles and inflated with compressed air.


Setting protective curtains by surface ships

Even the RCC’s retargeting capabilities will not allow them to “circle forever,” waiting for the NOCs to reappear on the surface. In order to provide anti-ship missiles with the ability to barrage in the air, to search for targets and retargeting, they must not be launched at maximum range, but closer to the target, which puts carriers at risk. And still, not being able to track NOCs under water, RCCs will quickly move away from them, run out of fuel, or hit false targets.

Can RCC defeat a target underwater? In its present form, no. Equipping the RCC with a depth-bomb type warhead will also do little, since the NOC is a moving target, capable of changing course and speed, and it cannot predict the movement of the NOC under water. The weight of the warhead (warhead) of most modern anti-ship missiles does not exceed 500 kg. Any complication of warheads, giving it the function of destroying underwater targets, will weaken it even more.

There remains the option of equipping the RCC with a small-sized torpedo, that is, in essence, turning it into a missile torpedo (RT). But in this case, we will expect a comprehensive drop in the characteristics of the Republic of Tatarstan in comparison with the RCC. For example, the firing range of the RPK-6 Vodopad missile and torpedo complex is only 50 (according to some sources, 90) kilometers, plus the UMGT-1 torpedo range is another 8 kilometers.


Rocket-torpedo complex RPK-6 "Waterfall" with a torpedo caliber 400 mm UMGT-1

The American RUM-139 VLA missile torpedo has an even shorter range of 28 kilometers, and the Mark 46 or Mark 54 torpedoes installed on it have a range of 7,3 or 2,4 kilometers, respectively.


RUM-139-VL-ASROC anti-submarine missile torpedo and Mark 54 torpedo

Thus, RTs will have a smaller range, speed, maneuverability, warhead mass and at the same time greater visibility and cost compared to RCC. If the enemy wants to increase the firing range of the Republic of Tatarstan, their dimensions and mass will increase significantly, which will not allow placing them on those aircraft carriers that can carry anti-ship missiles. And those aircraft carriers that can carry RT with an increased range, will take them less than they could take RCC.

It is possible to practically exclude the possibility of a “firefight” of a KGU from surface ships of a classic design and a KGU consisting of diving surface ships, since the latter will have time to reach the launch line of the RCC, shoot and change course long before the enemy’s KGU can approach the RT launch range.

In terms of the probability of hitting the target, the missile + torpedo bunch will most likely also be inferior to the probability of hitting the target of anti-ship missiles, although here we partially compare the incomparable, but, in the end, we are interested in the final result - hitting the target, be it NK or NNK.

As a result, short-range RTs will force aircraft carriers to enter the NOC air defense coverage area, there will be fewer launched RTs than RCC could be, and RTs themselves will be easier to hit with NOC SAMs. And the probability of NW damage by small-sized torpedoes, which nevertheless managed to reach the drop zone, will not be so high because of their obviously worse characteristics compared to full-size torpedoes, as well as due to counteraction of the NW with the help of false targets and anti-torpedoes.

In other words, it is good to shoot missile torpedoes at submarines, but not at diving surface ships capable of actively counteracting them. The enemy will have to organize complex strike of anti-ship missiles, RT, with false targets like ADM-160A MALD, knowingly aware that the RCC is likely to be spent in vain, if such a blow at all will have a chance of success.

In the event that when an NNV dives above the surface, the UAV will remain on the power and control cable, the situation for the enemy will become even more complicated, since the NWN will be able to destroy air targets even after immersion, albeit with less efficiency.

Thus, diving surface ships will have the following advantages:
- the ability to provide continuous monitoring of airspace and the destruction of air targets, as with a classic design NK;
- significant missile ammunition, which allows to isolate the combat area and level the strike potential of the enemy carrier strike groups (AUG);
- increased secrecy, since only the superstructure-mast with reconnaissance and communications equipment will remain on the surface;
- the possibility of further increasing stealth due to the transition to a completely underwater position, and misleading the enemy with false inflatable mast superstructures;
- the possibility of avoiding RCC, due to the immersion of the NOC under water;
- a highly efficient HAS, inherited by the NOC “from inheritance” from the submarine, capable of detecting the submarine and NK of the enemy.

The high protection of NNP from anti-ship missiles can lead to the fact that the most modern low-noise enemy submarines will become the only serious threat to such a ship.

Of course, diving surface ships should not act alone, but as part of a naval strike group (KUG). However, its composition should differ significantly from the KUG based on ships of classical design.

Naval iceberg strike group


The presence of classic-class surface ships as part of the KGG eliminates all the advantages of the NOC, since in the event of an anti-ship missile attack, the NOC will hide under water, and the classic-designed surface ships will take the entire anti-ship missile attack. This leads to the following conclusions:
1. Kug based on the NOC, in addition to the NOC itself, may include only submarines.
2. Kug on the basis of the NOC cannot include surface ships requiring protection - airborne assault forces, aircraft carriers, etc.

In other words, the NSC-based KMG is intended for attack, not defense. Is this a disadvantage? More likely no than yes. As mentioned earlier, in the foreseeable future, Russia is unable to build a fleet capable of "resisting" symmetrically the fleet USA and their allies. Those. we are unlikely to be able to ensure the safety of, for example, landing ships: no matter how many frigates of project 22350 we build, they will be “filled up” with anti-ship missiles and a bomber and / or aircraft from aircraft carriers. We can ensure their safety only if the adversary understands that in the event of a conflict, his losses in warships and auxiliary ships will be incomparably higher, which is why KGB based on the NOC is needed.

The proposed spatially distributed strike surface-submarine KGG type "iceberg" should include the following types of ships and submarines:
- 2 NOCs based on the SSBN project 955A;
- 2 submarines of conditional project 955K;
- 4 multi-purpose submarines.
Additionally, the KUG “iceberg” is attached to 2-4 UAVs with a long flight duration.


Variant of construction of KUG of the iceberg type

The distance between the NOCs, SSBNs and the multi-purpose KGM iceberg submarines of the "iceberg" type will be determined by the possibility of organizing communication and, accordingly, the interaction between the NOCs and the PL. An increase in the communication range can be organized at the expense of NPA-acoustic communication repeaters, in an organizational way - submarine submarine for radio communication with the NOC at certain points in time or in other ways. Currently, methods for long-distance communication between submarines are being developed, one of which, for example, is described in the patent RU2666904C1 "Method for two-way distant resonant EHF / microwave radio communication with an underwater object".

Also, the maximum distance between diving surface ships and submarines as part of the ICG of the “iceberg” type is determined by the ability of NOCs to protect “their” submarines from enemy anti-submarine aircraft and the ability of “their” multipurpose submarines to protect NSCs and SSBNs from enemy submarines. It can be assumed that the distance between ships and submarines of the KUG type “iceberg” will vary in the range from five to forty kilometers


On the surface of the KUG, the iceberg type will look something like this

Functions within the IBM are distributed as follows:
NOCs provide air defense of the area, not allowing the operation of anti-submarine aircraft of the enemy, destroy all types of aircraft and helicopters of the enemy. Upon reaching the frontier of attack, the enemy’s AUGs are destroyed by AWACS aircraft, capable of over-the-horizon guidance of the enemy’s missile launchers to attacking anti-ship missiles.
SSBNs are intended for delivering massive strikes, depending on the task, with cruise missiles at ground targets or anti-ship missiles at enemy ships.
Multipurpose nuclear submarines provide protection for NOCs and SSBNs from enemy multipurpose nuclear submarines.

ICG type iceberg reconnaissance data should be received from reconnaissance satellites, UAVs of long flight duration, as well as using unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned boats and unmanned underwater vehicles deployed from onboard NSCs.


So KUG type "iceberg" will look in the mode of increased stealth or avoidance of impact RCC

conclusions


Is there a future for diving surface ships? The question is complex. There is no doubt that the design and construction of NOCs will not be easy, like any other new technology. Accordingly, the list of countries that can implement such a project is very limited.

The US already dominates the oceans, and only a threat from the rapidly growing fleet of China can prevent them from experimenting. But the fleet parity of the PRC and the United States is unlikely to be reached before 2050. US allies in NATO solve local problems as part of the US Navy, they are ships that can withstand a powerful enemy, to anything.

China might be interested in upsetting the balance, but it seems that for the time being, the PRC engineers can only combine and modify the successes of the design schools of other countries: most of the PRC’s weapons resemble “vinaigrette” from the finalized decisions of the USA, Russia, and European countries. Moreover, in the field of submarines, without which it is impossible to create a combined-cycle gas-compressor station on the basis of the NOC, the PRC's successes are not great: obviously, critical data in this area have not yet been obtained. On the other hand, China can replicate on a large scale what has already been developed, so the extensive development path for China looks more natural.

In the last century, during the Cold War era, original projects often appeared in the USSR: ekranoplanes, deep-sea high-speed submarines and highly automated submarines with a liquid metal reactor, Spiral spacecraft, and much more. By the way, the USA also experimented quite actively during the Cold War. But the USSR is no longer there, and the conventional forces of the Russian Federation pose a minimal threat to the United States, more likely even useful from the point of view of the occasion for budget development.

As for Russia, the Russian Navy hardly manages to maintain the fleet at a minimum level, although there has been recent progress in the serial construction of frigates of project 22350, although strategic and multi-purpose nuclear submarines are being built quickly. On the other hand, the Russian Navy allocates resources for specific projects such as the Poseidon strategic torpedo and special submarines for it. Maybe in the shipbuilding program of the Russian Navy there is a place for diving surface ships? At least, conducting research in this direction will be inexpensive and looks very real, and carrying out work at the outline design level will not take up a lot of resources.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Grandfather 14 May 2020 18: 07 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Maybe in the shipbuilding program of the Russian Navy there is a place for diving surface ships?
    it wasn’t funny at all ... but on the subject, interestingly, futuristically, there is no money ....
    1. Shopping Mall 14 May 2020 22: 25 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      Quote: Dead Day
      Maybe in the shipbuilding program of the Russian Navy there is a place for diving surface ships?
      it wasn’t funny at all ... but on the subject, interestingly, futuristically, there is no money ....


      Let's try to figure it out.

      1 SSBN project 955 (A) costs approximately 700-900 million dollars.

      Let 955NNK based on it be twice as expensive - 1,4-1,8 billion dollars.
      SSR 955K the same 700-900 million. Dollars.
      Well, ICAPL type Ash is expensive in itself - somewhere around 1,4 billion dollars.

      TOTAL, KUG of two NOCs, two SSGNs and four ICAPLs will cost:
      from 1,4 + 1,4 + 0,7 + 0,7 + 1,4 + 1,4 + 1,4 + 1,4 = 9,8 billion dollars.
      up to 1,8 + 1,8 + 0,9 + 0,9 + 1,4+ 1,4+ 1,4+ 1,4 = 11 billion dollars.

      Of these, most of them are ICAPLs, which are needed on their own, will be NOCs or not.
      SSGN 955K, too, will not interfere, because SSGN project 949 is not eternal.

      Those. you need to look and compare in essence only the cost of the NOC.

      1 frigate of the project 22350 costs 300 million dollars. It would be hard to imagine how much the floating targets for the US Navy - destroyers Leader - would cost. Why targets? Because they would have been very expensive, they would have built 3-4 of them (if oil is under 100 rubles), and apart from showing the flag, there would have been no sense from them, and it's cool to have a surface fleet "for show-offs."

      In total, 4 KMUs based on NOCs will cost about $ 40 billion, or maybe less, first of all, if it is possible to reduce the cost of ICAPL. And secondly, if the NOC is not so complicated and its price is not twice that of the SSBN 955A, but, for example, 1,5 times.

      And how much will the US cost developing new types of RCC-RTs that can counteract NOCs?


      All the elements of the KUG based on the NOC can operate autonomously much more successfully than a single surface ship of classical design. PL on their own affairs, as they do now, and the NOC as a raider will be much more tenacious than 22350 / "Leader" / "Peter the Great", etc. Although in the composition of the KUG, the effectiveness will certainly be higher.

      I repeat, everything depends on the survival of ships before a massive strike by RCC. Imagine that a war is going on. Not a crush between the US and the Russian Federation in Syria, but a real conflict when we sink each other's ships. Nuclear weapons out of brackets. I’m not sure that if the US Navy begins to sink our fleet, the government will launch a nuclear strike against the United States, knowing about the "answer". We need a fleet, and in general the armed forces that are able to "hold the blow", to survive in conditions of quantitative superiority of the enemy.
      1. bk0010 14 May 2020 23: 53 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Why do you imagine that diving will protect you from something? Your diving ship is visible and audible (due to radar) to the entire ocean. The fact that he dives will not save him if the enemy knows about his existence. The atomic ship (otherwise it will dive to the depth of the snorkel, which was pointed back in World War II) - means expensive. Replacing warheads for parts of missiles with a torpedo is much cheaper than building one such ship. Reluctance to change your head? It’s not a question: ordinary deck planes went right after the missiles, they would bomb the diving ships with ordinary or anti-submarine bombs. And in general: RCC is a state problem, we relied on them. They were going to throw our ships with atomic bombs from the cabriolet.
        1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 08: 03 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Quote: bk0010
          Why do you imagine that diving will protect you from something? Your diving ship is visible and audible (due to radar) to the entire ocean.


          So are surface ships, too.

          Quote: bk0010
          The fact that he dives will not save him if the enemy knows about his existence.


          To know about existence is one thing, and to know the exact location for guiding anti-ship missiles or missile torpedoes is another. PLO aviation can look for submarines because nothing is threatening it. Try to find a semi-submerged ship from a distance of 200-400 kilometers.

          And the radar turns on and off according to the situation. Considering that long-range UAVs should be attached to NSC-based KMGs, they may well play the role of AWACS at the initial stage.

          Quote: bk0010
          The atomic ship (otherwise it will dive to the depth of the snorkel, which was pointed back in World War II) - means expensive. Replacing warheads for parts of missiles with a torpedo is much cheaper than building one such ship. Reluctance to change your head?


          Not reluctance, but impossible. Differences in the characteristics of anti-ship missiles and missile torpedoes are indicated in the article.

          Quote: bk0010
          It’s not a question: ordinary deck planes went right after the missiles, they would bomb the diving ships with ordinary or anti-submarine bombs.


          Ordinary aircraft still need to find it, i.e. there should be a PLO plane that will give target designation. And if the NOC emerges back? And if the NOC will strike at planes that are much more noticeable than anti-ship missiles, especially taking into account heavy bombs or rocket torpedoes, using target designation from a UAV on a cable? Given the ammunition load of the NOC, many pilots will go sailing.

          Quote: bk0010
          And in general: RCC is a state problem, we relied on them. They were going to throw our ships with atomic bombs from the cabriolet.


          It was under the pea king. Who now has tactical atomic bombs deployed on carriers?
          1. Kalmar 15 May 2020 08: 30 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: AVM
            And if the NOC will strike at planes that are much more noticeable than anti-ship missiles, especially taking into account heavy bombs or rocket torpedoes, using target designation from a UAV on a cable?

            What will prevent the enemy from removing the UAV from the game with the help of long-range missiles in advance? He, the UAV, will obviously be quite large (you can’t make a decent radar small) and bright.
            1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 09: 20 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: Kalmar
              Quote: AVM
              And if the NOC will strike at planes that are much more noticeable than anti-ship missiles, especially taking into account heavy bombs or rocket torpedoes, using target designation from a UAV on a cable?

              What will prevent the enemy from removing the UAV from the game with the help of long-range missiles in advance? He, the UAV, will obviously be quite large (you can’t make a decent radar small) and bright.


              Not so big - it needs to be placed in a cube with a face of the order of two meters, + elements of stealth technology. To bring him down, you have to go up to 100 km minimum, but rather 50, and there you can get missiles on board.
              1. Kalmar 15 May 2020 09: 28 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: AVM
                Not so big - it needs to be placed in a cube with a face of about two meters

                Does it fit in? After all, it is necessary there, it turns out, to push a sufficiently powerful radar (if we want to track planes / missiles from 100 km), engines, fuel supply.
                1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 09: 56 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: Kalmar
                  Quote: AVM
                  Not so big - it needs to be placed in a cube with a face of about two meters

                  Does it fit in? After all, it is necessary there, it turns out, to push a sufficiently powerful radar (if we want to track planes / missiles from 100 km), engines, fuel supply.


                  UAV on a cable, power by cable with electricity. ZhUK-A type radars lead 280 kg. Perhaps it will turn out to hide part of the equipment in the submarine’s hull, and only the AFAR canvas should be removed to the UAV.
          2. bk0010 15 May 2020 09: 21 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: AVM
            So are surface ships, too.
            And they do not rely on secrecy. And they will have self-defense systems that are disabled when you dive.
            Quote: AVM
            Try to find a semi-submerged ship from a distance of 200-400 kilometers.
            Remember the Second World War, convoys, escort aircraft carriers. When did the efficiency of fascist boats drop sharply? When there were decks with a radar that even detected a periscope or snorkel. Already.
            Quote: AVM
            Not reluctance, but impossible. Differences in the characteristics of anti-ship missiles and missile torpedoes are indicated in the article.
            Not impossible, not done. I do not see physical obstacles.
            Quote: AVM
            Ordinary aircraft still need to find it, i.e. there should be a PLO plane that will give target designation. And if the NOC emerges back? And if the NOC will strike at planes that are much more noticeable than anti-ship missiles, especially taking into account heavy bombs or rocket torpedoes, using target designation from a UAV on a cable? Given the ammunition load of the NOC, many pilots will go sailing.
            Here on the UAV on the cable, and they will go. Surfacing under the blow is extremely harmful: as long as they come up, while the radars are heated, while the water from the launchers is merged, they will already fly into them.
            Quote: AVM
            It was under the pea king. Who now has tactical atomic bombs deployed on carriers?
            START will end in February, deployed again.
            1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 09: 48 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: bk0010
              Quote: AVM
              So are surface ships, too.
              And they do not rely on secrecy. And they will have self-defense systems that are disabled when you dive.
              Quote: AVM
              Try to find a semi-submerged ship from a distance of 200-400 kilometers.
              Remember the Second World War, convoys, escort aircraft carriers. When did the efficiency of fascist boats drop sharply? When there were decks with a radar that even detected a periscope or snorkel. Already.


              Because the submarines then had to approach a few kilometers to the target, and they had no air defense.

              Quote: bk0010
              Quote: AVM
              Not reluctance, but impossible. Differences in the characteristics of anti-ship missiles and missile torpedoes are indicated in the article.

              Not impossible, not done. I do not see physical obstacles.


              Physical obstacles - the dimensions and mass of torpedoes that need to be delivered to the target, which weigh a ton and several meters long, cannot be thrust into the dimensions of the RCC warheads. And we are increasing the RCC - all tactical carrier planes fall off, on bombers there will be 4 times less.

              Quote: bk0010
              Quote: AVM
              Ordinary aircraft still need to find it, i.e. there should be a PLO plane that will give target designation. And if the NOC emerges back? And if the NOC will strike at planes that are much more noticeable than anti-ship missiles, especially taking into account heavy bombs or rocket torpedoes, using target designation from a UAV on a cable? Given the ammunition load of the NOC, many pilots will go sailing.

              Here on the UAV on the cable, and they will go. Surfacing under the blow is extremely harmful: as long as they come up, while the radars are heated, while the water from the launchers is merged, they will already fly into them.


              RCC on the UAV will not be visited. For them and the NK, the interference is a difficult goal, and here is a compact maneuvering object (who prevents the UAV from performing automatic maneuvers within the limits of the cable-cable selection?).

              The radar turns on instantly. It is not necessary to drain the water from the launchers. The launch of the missile launcher should be from under the water layer, when only the mast sticks out, as the anti-ship missiles and launch vehicles are now launching, only the depth will be only 2-3 meters. Sub-float above the waterline for launch-landing UAV or BEC only.
              1. bk0010 15 May 2020 21: 50 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: AVM
                Because the submarines then had to approach a few kilometers to the target, and they had no air defense.
                I’m talking about the fact that on the sticking parts your diving ship will be noticed without problems.
                Quote: AVM
                Physical obstacles - the dimensions and mass of torpedoes that need to be delivered to the target, which weigh a ton and several meters long, cannot be thrust into the dimensions of the RCC warheads.
                What a ton? The NK-package weighs less than 400 kg, and yet he himself needs to saw it and look for it, no one will drop it 200 meters from the target.
                Quote: AVM
                RCC on the UAV will not be visited. For them and the NK, the interference is a difficult goal, and here is a compact maneuvering object (who prevents the UAV from performing automatic maneuvers within the limits of the cable-cable selection?).
                Which spins around the target. The area is defined - let the missiles go there, they will conduct additional exploration on the spot.
                Quote: AVM
                The radar turns on instantly. It is not necessary to drain the water from the launchers. The launch of the missile launcher should be from under the water layer, when only the mast sticks out, as the anti-ship missiles and launch vehicles are now launching, only the depth will be only 2-3 meters. Sub-float above the waterline for launch-landing UAV or BEC only.
                Even the radio station does not turn on instantly, but that’s okay. That is, you must still have a special missile with an underwater start. Moreover, cheap self-defense missiles ...
                1. Shopping Mall 18 May 2020 11: 00 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Quote: AVM
                  Because the submarines then had to approach a few kilometers to the target, and they had no air defense.
                  I’m talking about the fact that on the sticking parts your diving ship will be noticed without problems.


                  “No problem” is a very vague concept. From what distance will they discover, by what means, from what distance are they classified? In any case, all these distances will be a multiple of the detection range of the surface ship of the classic layout. Do not forget, we contrast the NOCs to surface ships, and not to submarines.

                  Quote: bk0010
                  Quote: AVM
                  Physical obstacles - the dimensions and mass of torpedoes that need to be delivered to the target, which weigh a ton and several meters long, cannot be thrust into the dimensions of the RCC warheads.
                  What a ton? The NK-package weighs less than 400 kg, and yet he himself needs to saw it and look for it, no one will drop it 200 meters from the target.


                  So this is a 3,2 meter long torpedo. And the range is only 20 km. How to shove it in the RCC? And nobody will risk carriers approaching 20 km to the target with air defense;

                  Quote: bk0010
                  Quote: AVM
                  RCC on the UAV will not be visited. For them and the NK, the interference is a difficult goal, and here is a compact maneuvering object (who prevents the UAV from performing automatic maneuvers within the limits of the cable-cable selection?).
                  Which spins around the target. The area is defined - let the missiles go there, they will conduct additional exploration on the spot.


                  With a massive impact of RCC, the NOC should dive. Only inflatable false targets and clouds of curtains will be able to investigate RCC.

                  Quote: bk0010
                  Quote: AVM
                  The radar turns on instantly. It is not necessary to drain the water from the launchers. The launch of the missile launcher should be from under the water layer, when only the mast sticks out, as the anti-ship missiles and launch vehicles are now launching, only the depth will be only 2-3 meters. Sub-float above the waterline for launch-landing UAV or BEC only.
                  Even the radio station does not turn on instantly, but that’s okay.


                  Modern ones are quite included. Maybe the “instant” is not the right word, but they should turn on for about 1 minute. Moreover, we are not talking about a cold start - the equipment can be turned on, but not work on radiation.

                  Quote: bk0010
                  That is, you must still have a special missile with an underwater start. Moreover, cheap self-defense missiles ...


                  Where did you see cheap active missiles now? The cost of missiles will be higher than the cost of missiles for Poliment-Redoubt, taking into account improvements for release from under water. And this is a proven technology that is used, for example, in Caliber.
                  1. bk0010 18 May 2020 14: 19 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    “No problem” is a very vague concept. From what distance will they discover, by what means, from what distance are they classified? In any case, all these distances will be a multiple of the detection range of the surface ship of the classic layout. Do not forget, we contrast the NOCs to surface ships, and not to submarines.
                    Kilometers with 400 means of radio reconnaissance, kilometers with 200 radar.
                    Quote: AVM
                    So this is a 3,2 meter long torpedo. And the range is only 20 km. How to shove it in the RCC? And nobody will risk carriers approaching 20 km to the target with air defense;
                    They will make it shorter: she does not need to swim far. And induced from 20 km, too.
                    Quote: AVM
                    With a massive impact of RCC, the NOC should dive. Only inflatable false targets and clouds of curtains will be able to investigate RCC.
                    RCC for the NOC can discard the buoy, make a circle or two and hit right on target. Or maybe just a torpedo, she herself will find the victim.
                    Quote: AVM
                    Where did you see cheap active missiles now?
                    That is, you still need self-defense missiles with active heads ... Useless then with diving? In the presence of self-defense missiles with an active head, they can be launched in batches.
          3. vVvAD 16 May 2020 08: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Try to find a semi-submerged ship from a distance of 200-400 kilometers.

            Intelligence satellites to help. At such a depth (up to 30 m), the ship will be perfectly visible both from space and from PLO aircraft. But if from PLO planes it will be visible from a distance inside the NOC air defense zone, then the satellites will simply direct PLO planes that will bombard the NLP with bombs.
            1. Shopping Mall 17 May 2020 21: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: vVvAD
              Try to find a semi-submerged ship from a distance of 200-400 kilometers.

              Intelligence satellites to help. At such a depth (up to 30 m), the ship will be perfectly visible both from space and from PLO aircraft. But if from PLO planes it will be visible from a distance inside the NOC air defense zone, then the satellites will simply direct PLO planes that will bombard the NLP with bombs.


              Then back to the detection of surface ships. . then they have no prospects at all, right? Do the satellites see them, are anti-ship missiles aimed without the use of other means of intelligence?

              To repel 50 anti-ship missiles not a single surface ship is capable of. Here, purely in theory, the probability of 1-2 anti-ship missiles will slip through air defense. Then it turns out that in the surface fleet there is no sense at all?

              And if there is, what is worse than NOC? Its greater resistance to RCC? I’m not saying that NOCs cannot be detected and destroyed, I just assume that it will be much more difficult to do this, compared to classical type NKs.
              1. bk0010 17 May 2020 23: 31 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: AVM
                And if there is, what is worse than NOC?
                The trouble is that everyone is worse. Starting from the price, continuing problems with operation, shooting, speed (NK is optimized for surface movement, nuclear submarines - for underwater, and how to sharpen this?), Etc. And it is protected from RCC until it has been made. If they do, there will be a special anti-ship missile system to defeat the NOC. Vaughn - Harpoon was made to defeat our submarines to launch nuclear submarines, what is better than NNK? Or Komsomolets - at the time of its construction, the states did not have a torpedo that could get it at maximum depths of immersion. Ours built - they modified their torpedoes.
              2. vVvAD 21 May 2020 23: 42 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Firstly, the conversation is not about surface ships, but about semi-submerged or shallowly submerged ships.
                Secondly, wrong. Because surface ships do not need to dive. Their regular antennas will a priori have a larger area and a radio horizon due to the large placement height. Secondly, they can lift a helicopter or an aircraft (in the case of an aircraft carrier) AWACS, and not a container UAV, the power of the equipment of which is strictly limited by the mass and size parameters of the missile in the launch shaft. It is possible to place layered anti-aircraft missiles with missiles of large, medium and small radius, coupled with ZAK, which minimizes the chances of breaking through the air defense of KUG or AUG. We, after all, are not reasoning about a separate goal in a spherical vacuum, right? Even 1-2 erupted missiles hardly affect the combat effectiveness of the warrant as a whole.
                In the pre-cosmic era, NOCs could make sense. Cons of NOCs do not give them a chance to survive on the modern battlefield: neither powerful high-placed radars, nor sensible AWACS, nor layered air defense. And, as noted by other commentators, it will cost quite a bit. And for what is all the fuss? Cheaper, simpler (in terms of design) and more efficient is reverse blockage, hiding antennas, stealth coverage and other measures to ensure stealth.
                1. ProkletyiPirat 22 May 2020 15: 21 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: vVvAD
                  Cheaper, simpler (in terms of design) and more efficient is reverse blockage, hiding antennas, stealth coverage and other measures to ensure stealth.

                  All this also doesn’t make sense. The radar itself is anti-aircraft, that above-water and that it’s surveillance is already a unmasking factor, so initially there is no point in “hiding” the ship. Even in terms of a pure attack, such ships are disadvantageous because submarines perform the same tasks much more efficiently.

                  PMSM in the next decades, there will generally be a tendency to abandon the "defense ships" no matter the corvettes, destroyers, frigates or cruisers, this trend is already not so noticeable. PMSM will be more actively developed by underwater shock, surface multi-functional large-sized vessels and aircraft-like aircraft with VVTPZ (VTOL), as well as various unmanned, remote and aviation systems with reference to these three elements. For example, instead of minesweepers, there will be robotic complexes based on the UDC or land base and air delivered over a distance of thousands of kilometers from the base point. In terms of price-effectiveness, this combination will be more profitable than what it is now.
                  1. vVvAD 22 May 2020 21: 41 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Of course - when it is turned on. But there are also means of RTR, which are sometimes enough in the presence of external target designation from DRLO means. Then a short-term guidance session and again silence, missile defense maneuvers, etc. This is how corrected weapons, missiles, helicopters, etc. work. And it’s effective: the time of direction finding and counteraction by RTR’s own means is limited by the short duration of the enemy’s light exposure session. Or turn on your viewing and guidance tools, and you yourself are at a glance at the attackers. Therefore, while it is possible, the game of cat and mouse continues. And without any diving.
                    As for the trend: you do not quite correctly understand the purpose of "defense ships". Their main goal is the control of water areas (if we are talking about BMZ ships, then yes: mainly in order to protect the adjacent water areas, and if DMZ - then the range of tasks performed is greatly expanding). And countering the threats that arise when this goal is achieved, such as: submarines, KUG, naval aviation, mines, etc.
                    There is a trend towards unification and modularity of the fleet. What you are talking about, firstly, is not a short-term matter, and secondly, any station wagon will solve every specific problem worse than a specialist and will be less flexible in it. Although yes - it will have a different kind of flexibility - changing specialties for a specific task. And there are already such ones - so far so-so. The problem is also that the large carrier of several (by the number of) platforms is primarily a large target, which will require security ships (narrow specialists) - the price of the multifunctionality of this carrier itself.
                    Read the article "Defective aircraft carriers and their price for society" and comments on it, and I hope it will become clear to you why such universal ships at the current level of technological development are utopia.
                    1. ProkletyiPirat 22 May 2020 23: 04 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: vVvAD
                      But there are also means of RTR, which are sometimes enough in the presence of external target designation from DRLO means.

                      From the fact that you transfer the threat from one object (ship) to another object (LA-DRLO), the essence of my statement does not change. In any case, this is pointless because it immediately deprives the effect of surprise. Yes, and LA-u need to be based somewhere, and this is a strategic deprivation of surprise either in the form of an AUG exit or in the form of creating bases.
                      Quote: vVvAD
                      secondly, any station wagon will solve each specific problem worse than a specialist and will be less flexible in it.

                      You know, in modern society there are a lot of well-established mental parasitic errors that everyone considers to be the truth in the first instance and does not even try to critically analyze.

                      For example, this "the less detail the higher the reliability", you’ve probably heard, and everything seems to be very reasonable, BUT, here you are an engineer, take two parts and fasten them with a bolt and nut, according to the statement, if you add more details, then the reliability of the connection will deteriorate, here you as an engineer add two lock washers with antennae that hold a nut and a bolt from spontaneous unwinding during vibration of parts, that is, you double the number of parts, in theory reliability decreases, but in practice increases. This is actually a fallacy. (In practice, there are many more such examples, but I'm too lazy to recall them)

                      In the case of "universal / multifunctional / modular" technologies, there are exactly the same misconceptions caused by not knowing and / or misunderstanding some points (not only the average person has them, but also the developers). For example, in the above example with a minesweeper, replace the drone-minesweeper with a reusable buoy with a HAS and throw thousands of such buoys at a distance of thousands of kilometers from the baseline. As a result, several LA-VTA and several UAV communications can control the zone within a radius of a thousand km from the base point, and even in real time. In order to achieve the same on the basis of frigates with PLO helicopters, you will need hundreds of ships, which will be orders of magnitude more expensive. But this methodology for solving the problem of PLO has its advantages, disadvantages and problems., and not understanding the basis of technology is very easy to screw up everything. For example, if you don’t know anything and don’t understand about asynchronous-synchronous packet information transfer, about information encoding (not to be confused with encryption!) About spherical-linear communication systems and much more, then you can easily fool yourself with populist slogans in the “EW everything” style. drown out, "and simply ignore any arguments about the stupidity of such slogans.
                      1. vVvAD 24 May 2020 12: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        How restless you are, Sergey!
                        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
                        not understanding the basis of technology is very easy to screw up

                        You correctly noted it. And this is true regardless of modularity or specialization. BUT: for ships of various purposes there are various conflicting requirements not only for the payload, which can be changed, but even for the size, shape and materials of the hull. A simple example: a small brisk minesweeper of the Alexandrite project with several BECs and AUVs can operate relatively safely inside the mined water area and cross them, which gives much greater application flexibility (non-magnetic body, dispersal of the platforms onto several small carriers). Whereas a large UDC loaded with a breakthrough of BEC and AUV, even having undergone the demagnetization procedure (not cheap, if at all feasible, for such a giant) will still be risky to send through unmined waters, and its loss will be fatal from the point of view of ensuring the operation than 1- 2 "Alexandrites".
                        Or, for example, UDC has great demands on the volume of holds, which does not allow making their contours sufficient for the development of high speed. Which automatically excludes for them actions as part of high-speed KUG, not to mention specialization, for example, in an aircraft carrier or an arsenal ship.
                        From the fact that you transfer the threat from one object (ship) to another object (LA-DRLO), the essence of my statement does not change. In any case, this is pointless because it immediately deprives the effect of surprise. Yes, and LA-u need to be based somewhere, and this is a strategic deprivation of surprise either in the form of an AUG exit or in the form of creating bases.

                        Is changing. The ship is much larger, slower and in a number of parameters a simple target than an aircraft or UAV. And to destroy a means of guidance and reconnaissance is not the same thing as to destroy the carrier of these UAVs, aircraft and anti-ship missiles. And the effect of surprise is not deprived for the following reason: If an aircraft or UAV is detected by a missile defense system, and not by aviation, then he himself has already discovered this missile defense system. Yes, KUG will bring air defense systems to combat readiness. But, firstly, this does not happen instantly, but by the time it is detected, they can already be approached at a low altitude of the IOS. Secondly, the KUG may repel the IOS attack, but the carriers have not even been found. And there will be no time to look for them corny - you need to reflect the raid. Oh, they, too, will not sit idly by, waiting until they are discovered and destroyed by retaliation.
  2. Pvi1206 14 May 2020 18: 16 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    the next stage in the development of the fleet is a flying submarine? ...
    1. The comment was deleted.
  3. Doccor18 14 May 2020 18: 19 New
    • 17
    • 0
    +17
    Actually pl with a mast. All the difficulties pl + to hell with all the secrecy ... An ambiguous prospect.
    1. Cyril G ... 14 May 2020 18: 25 New
      • 13
      • 1
      +12
      The idea organically combines the shortcomings of the nuclear submarine and the surface ship ... In principle, there is nothing new in the idea - Surkuf can help us all ...
    2. Shopping Mall 14 May 2020 21: 55 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Doccor18
      Actually pl with a mast. All the difficulties pl + to hell with all the secrecy ... An ambiguous prospect.


      The whole question is how to ensure the survival of surface ships when an adversary strikes several hundred anti-ship missiles? Not a single air defense system will be repelled.

      Suppose we build 50 frigates of project 22350 (which is unlikely), form 5 KUGs of 10 ships each, the United States will be able to rivet 5000 LRASM anti-ship missiles (and they’re about to order so much), or even more, and 500 anti-ship missiles fight off no matter how you need to spin.
      1. bk0010 14 May 2020 23: 54 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: AVM
        The whole question is how to ensure the survival of surface ships when an adversary strikes several hundred anti-ship missiles? Not a single air defense system will be repelled.
        This problem was solved on the S-75: special ammunition.
        1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 08: 05 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: bk0010
          Quote: AVM
          The whole question is how to ensure the survival of surface ships when an adversary strikes several hundred anti-ship missiles? Not a single air defense system will be repelled.
          This problem was solved on the S-75: special ammunition.


          There are no special munitions deployed at the air defense systems, anti-ship missiles, and missile defense systems. Their use will mark the beginning of a nuclear war.

          If there is only one answer to all questions - nuclear weapons, then do we need powerful conventional forces? Barmaley need to drive completely different troops - counterguerrilla. The United States took this path, but refused when China began to grow, and we recovered a little.
          1. bk0010 15 May 2020 09: 22 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: AVM
            Their use will mark the beginning of a nuclear war.
            Well, yes, and launching hundreds of CDs is a trifle.
            1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 09: 41 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: bk0010
              Quote: AVM
              Their use will mark the beginning of a nuclear war.
              Well, yes, and launching hundreds of CDs is a trifle.


              Of course, the border between conventional and nuclear war, in the event of aggravation of the conflict, is very thin, but it is. You can’t rely solely on nuclear weapons, otherwise everything loses its meaning - we build only strategic nuclear forces.

              Imagine the situation in Syria.

              The United States is shooting down our plane, we are closing the skies of Syria, they are ignoring, we are shooting down a few of their planes, they are attacking our bases in Syria, they are sinking all of our NK in the region. Starting a nuclear war?
              1. Cyril G ... 15 May 2020 10: 49 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Of course, ships of the 6th fleet must use nuclear weapons. Then we agree. Negotiating from the provision did not respond or did not cause damage - wrong. Damage must be very serious. Americans call this step cleverly. Escalation for de-escalation.
                If someone thinks that the Americans will exchange 6 fleets for themselves, they’re mistaken. Well, they’ll come up with an electorate, something more sophisticated, like the Chelyabinsk race car, which entered along a non-standard path and exploded over the AUG. And by the way, I’m now recalling an episode from the Stargate series. There the Goaulds attacked the AUG, and the press wrote about the meteor attack.
                1. Shopping Mall 17 May 2020 22: 06 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Cyril G ...
                  Of course, ships of the 6th fleet must use nuclear weapons. Then we agree. Negotiating from the provision did not respond or did not cause damage - wrong. Damage must be very serious. Americans call this step cleverly. Escalation for de-escalation.
                  If someone thinks that the Americans will exchange 6 fleets for themselves, they’re mistaken. Well, they’ll come up with an electorate, something more sophisticated, like the Chelyabinsk race car, which entered along a non-standard path and exploded over the AUG. And by the way, I’m now recalling an episode from the Stargate series. There the Goaulds attacked the AUG, and the press wrote about the meteor attack.


                  I am not against TNWs at all, but the political consequences will be catastrophic. Even the USSR would receive enormous damage from isolation, but in Russia there would simply be tin - poverty, lack of drugs, a drop in the technological level. It will be a mixture of North Korea and Venezuela.

                  But let's get away from the police. We sunk the 6th fleet. After that, the United States systematically sank all of our surface ships with anti-ship missiles with B-1B, what will we do, let them launch nuclear weapons at ground bases?

                  We need an effective conventional weapon of both a strategic and tactical level. Otherwise, we will look like a scumbag, who in any situation waves a nuclear bomb, like North Korea mentioned. Why did the USSR not rely only on nuclear weapons, but actively developed conventional forces?
              2. bk0010 15 May 2020 21: 40 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The United States is shooting down our plane, we are closing the skies of Syria, they are ignoring, we are shooting down a few of their planes, they are attacking our bases in Syria, they are sinking all of our NK in the region. Starting a nuclear war?
                I spoke about the defeat of a group of cruise missiles by special ammunition. You are talking about escalating conflict. Several different levels.
                1. Shopping Mall 17 May 2020 21: 59 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: bk0010
                  The United States is shooting down our plane, we are closing the skies of Syria, they are ignoring, we are shooting down a few of their planes, they are attacking our bases in Syria, they are sinking all of our NK in the region. Starting a nuclear war?
                  I spoke about the defeat of a group of cruise missiles by special ammunition. You are talking about escalating conflict. Several different levels.


                  One of the advantages of modern anti-ship missiles is the ability to simultaneously attack from different directions. Imagine that NK reflects an attack of anti-ship missiles from 360 degrees. This is how many SBN will you apply 5-10? Can you imagine what EM hell will be around such a ship? If the RCC is launched in a wave with an interval of 20 minutes, then the second wave will not encounter any resistance at all, since so many UBN bombings will destroy all ship radars.
                  1. bk0010 17 May 2020 23: 23 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    What is the second wave after launching hundreds of CR? Where will they get them from? Why wait until the KR surround the ship, why not slap while they go in a heap?
      2. KPblC 15 May 2020 00: 53 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        Not like!
        If you hit several HUNDRED RCCs on you, then the earth will be glassy to you.
        I propose further fantasy on the topic of how to protect the marching column of motorized infantry from a massive strike of the RZSO with cassettes.
        1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 09: 52 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: KPblC
          Not like!
          If you hit several HUNDRED RCCs on you, then the earth will be glassy to you.


          Imagine, Stalin at the beginning of the war says, "If you allowed an attack on you by several thousand tanks, then to hell with you, you’re to blame, I’ll go to surrender."

          How to prevent it?

          Quote: KPblC
          Not like!
          I propose further fantasy on the topic of how to protect the marching column of motorized infantry from a massive strike of the RZSO with cassettes.


          So they protect. Only need to shoot down before ejecting cassettes.

          To do this, there are air defense systems like TOR and Shell, Israel makes the Iron Dome. Laser weapons are being developed.

          It is not easy, but they are working on it. And, unfortunately, motorized infantry cannot quickly bury themselves underground.
      3. Kalmar 15 May 2020 08: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: AVM
        The whole question is how to ensure the survival of surface ships when an adversary strikes several hundred anti-ship missiles? Not a single air defense system will be repelled.

        Some are inclined to believe that modern electronic warfare systems can be even more effective than SAM systems in protecting against RCC. And if these funds are placed, say, on an UAV, what do you begin to "lead" the attacking missiles ahead of time, at a great distance from the attacked ship? So a few hundred missiles (in reality, a hundred and a half, I think so) can turn into quite a moderate amount.
        1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 09: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Kalmar
          Quote: AVM
          The whole question is how to ensure the survival of surface ships when an adversary strikes several hundred anti-ship missiles? Not a single air defense system will be repelled.

          Some are inclined to believe that modern electronic warfare systems can be even more effective than SAM systems in protecting against RCC. And if these funds are placed, say, on an UAV, what do you begin to "lead" the attacking missiles ahead of time, at a great distance from the attacked ship? So a few hundred missiles (in reality, a hundred and a half, I think so) can turn into quite a moderate amount.


          The problem is that the United States on the new LRASM anti-ship missiles, in addition to the radar, is also putting optoelectronic guidance and additional target search.

          And yes, a false target or a source of interference from a UAV can be made.
          1. Kalmar 15 May 2020 15: 52 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: AVM
            The problem is that the United States on the new LRASM anti-ship missiles, in addition to the radar, is also putting optoelectronic guidance and additional target search.

            Optoelectronic, in theory, can also be clogged with interference. Say a laser light. Plus, the optical seeker has all sorts of nuances in difficult weather conditions. In general, there is still the opportunity to kick out. Although, I do not argue, all this is rather speculative.
            1. Shopping Mall 17 May 2020 22: 10 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Kalmar
              Quote: AVM
              The problem is that the United States on the new LRASM anti-ship missiles, in addition to the radar, is also putting optoelectronic guidance and additional target search.

              Optoelectronic, in theory, can also be clogged with interference. Say a laser light. Plus, the optical seeker has all sorts of nuances in difficult weather conditions. In general, there is still the opportunity to kick out. Although, I do not argue, all this is rather speculative.



              Yeah, this is an important point. I write a lot and hard about laser weapons, but the comments on it are mostly skeptical too. However, this does not reduce my confidence in its effectiveness.

              On guidance in the radar range. If we admit that the GOS radar station is so easy to interfere and put all anti-ship missiles off course, then we must admit that our doctrine of confronting the US fleet and their henchmen must be immediately thrown into the trash, since ALL of our anti-ship missiles are guided only by the radar guidance.
              1. Kalmar 18 May 2020 12: 03 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: AVM
                If you admit that the radar seeker is so easy to interfere and knock all RCC off course

                I'm not talking about "easy", but this is also a serious factor, although, as I said, there is little evidence. On the one hand, manufacturers of modern anti-ship missiles always note the high noise immunity of their products. On the other hand, it has already been noted somewhere that since the mid-70s not a single ship covered by electronic warfare has managed to hit RCC, but there have been attempts. On the third hand, the anti-ship missiles participating in these episodes were clearly not at the forefront of science and technology. And finally, if it really turns out somehow to form a volley directly into several hundred missiles, then we can hope that some of them will still hit the target, even if by accident. Something like this.
          2. bk0010 15 May 2020 21: 55 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: AVM
            The problem is that the United States on the new LRASM anti-ship missiles, in addition to the radar, is also putting optoelectronic guidance and additional target search.
            Not a problem: on a more or less large ship there is a chemist, and he has the opportunity to launch a tricky mechanism that will release fountains of water from a pile of ship points. They did this crap for degassing, but it turned out that it perfectly erodes the infrared signature of the ship to complete discrimination. Nothing was said about the visible spectrum, but I see no reason why something should be different from IR. With a working irrigation system, the rocket simply does not recognize the ship.
            1. Cyril G ... 15 May 2020 22: 24 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              USVZ is a universal water protection system ..
            2. Shopping Mall 17 May 2020 22: 13 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: bk0010
              Quote: AVM
              The problem is that the United States on the new LRASM anti-ship missiles, in addition to the radar, is also putting optoelectronic guidance and additional target search.
              Not a problem: on a more or less large ship there is a chemist, and he has the opportunity to launch a tricky mechanism that will release fountains of water from a pile of ship points. They did this crap for degassing, but it turned out that it perfectly erodes the infrared signature of the ship to complete discrimination. Nothing was said about the visible spectrum, but I see no reason why something should be different from IR. With a working irrigation system, the rocket simply does not recognize the ship.


              Then, in general, the question arises about the effectiveness of RCC. Do they work or what? Maybe then it’s time for us to return to the battleships?
              1. bk0010 17 May 2020 23: 24 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                RCCs are effective, induced by radars (they have a water curtain almost on the drum).
  4. Pavel57 14 May 2020 18: 31 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Curious concept. Whoever implements it first will receive certain advantages in some scenarios.
  5. Shopping Mall 14 May 2020 18: 44 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    In addition to the article:

    Mast Options:

    Option 1 with retractable center mast. Presumably in this embodiment, it is easier to ensure the tightness of the structure and resistance to immersion.
    Option 2 of a fixed superstructure mast, if possible, to ensure the tightness of a partially radio-transparent structure to a depth of about 50 meters.

    Options for placing a UAV in the mine:
    1. srelock 14 May 2020 21: 20 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      An electric UAV on a “rope” will be very limited in visibility / guidance because of the very small payload. The altitude of 100-200 meters does not make the weather, due to the effect of the surface distribution of the river waves, low-flying objects are already quite far visible.

      It is also not clear why to deprive the submarine of its main advantage - stealth, screwing the "snorkel mast" for firing at aircraft. If the surface ship provides the opportunity to dive, then it will have a very small buoyancy, low seaworthiness and not a large payload.
      1. Shopping Mall 14 May 2020 21: 50 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Quote: srelock
        An electric UAV on a “rope” will be very limited in visibility / guidance because of the very small payload. The altitude of 100-200 meters does not make the weather, due to the effect of the surface distribution of the river waves, low-flying objects are already quite far visible.


        How far will the invisible anti-ship missiles be visible from the mast on the order of 15 meters? And there is also excitement at sea, range can be reduced. UAVs at 100 meters will not interfere with any waves.

        In addition, the UAV “on the rope” can illuminate the situation when evading the NOC from RCC.

        Quote: srelock
        It is also not clear why to deprive the submarine of its main advantage - stealth, screwing the "snorkel mast" for firing at aircraft.


        To work on enemy aircraft. Without control of the airspace, the submarines will be doomed.
        1. srelock 14 May 2020 23: 53 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: AVM
          How far will the invisible anti-ship missiles be visible from the mast on the order of 15 meters? And there is also excitement at sea, range can be reduced. UAVs at 100 meters will not interfere with any waves.
          If we are talking about modern ship complexes, it is several times farther than a rocket can do, taking into account the excitement.
          Quote: AVM
          In addition, the UAV “on the rope” can illuminate the situation when evading the NOC from RCC. To work on enemy aircraft. Without control of the airspace, the submarines will be doomed.
          You need to understand that aviation does not "plow" the ocean 24/7, but is used to search in specific areas for a limited time or for purposes previously discovered by something / someone, i.e. the boat either did everything already and now its task is to dump it, or it didn’t, but it was discovered and also dumps. But the boat will be doomed at the moment when it decides to try to bring down the plane, absolutely indicating its "friends" its location.
          1. Ka-52 15 May 2020 05: 23 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            You need to understand that aviation does not "plow" the ocean 24/7, but is used to search in specific areas for a limited time or for purposes previously discovered by something / someone,

            so write as if you are sure of the ease of detecting even a large order, even with modern radio intelligence.
            1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 08: 08 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Ka-52
              You need to understand that aviation does not "plow" the ocean 24/7, but is used to search in specific areas for a limited time or for purposes previously discovered by something / someone,

              so write as if you are sure of the ease of detecting even a large order, even with modern radio intelligence.


              Polar opinions are often expressed here. When they talk about the US AUG, we cannot bombard its anti-ship missiles, because it "is easily lost in the oceans." But if our submarine sticks out the periscope, then it will be destroyed in about 10 seconds.
              1. bk0010 15 May 2020 09: 04 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: AVM
                When they talk about the USA AUG, we can’t fire at its anti-ship missiles, because it is “easily lost in the oceans.” But if our submarine sticks out the periscope, it will be destroyed in about 10 seconds.
                Because our submarine solves the TsU problem on its own (hence, it is close to the AUG), while the AUG reconnaissance is carried out by a DRLO aircraft hundreds of kilometers from an aircraft carrier.
                1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 09: 21 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: bk0010
                  Quote: AVM
                  When they talk about the USA AUG, we can’t fire at its anti-ship missiles, because it is “easily lost in the oceans.” But if our submarine sticks out the periscope, it will be destroyed in about 10 seconds.
                  Because our submarine solves the TsU problem on its own (hence, it is close to the AUG), while the AUG reconnaissance is carried out by a DRLO aircraft hundreds of kilometers from an aircraft carrier.


                  Our NOC must receive a control center from a long-range UAV and satellites. Own funds - an extreme option.
                  1. bk0010 15 May 2020 09: 24 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: AVM
                    Our NOC must receive
                    The topic talked about "as is" and not "as it should"
          2. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 08: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: srelock
            Quote: AVM
            How far will the invisible anti-ship missiles be visible from the mast on the order of 15 meters? And there is also excitement at sea, range can be reduced. UAVs at 100 meters will not interfere with any waves.


            If we are talking about modern ship complexes, it is several times farther than a rocket can do, taking into account the excitement.


            What does the rocket have to do with it? Target designation is given to them first, and they themselves are induced only at the final site.

            "At times" it certainly sounds good, but there is the concept of radio visibility
            Radar Horizon Calculator and Radar Direct Vision Range Calculator
            https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/ru-RU/calculator/radar-horizon/

            If it doesn’t complicate, are there any links to the effects indicated by you? This is not sarcasm.

            Quote: srelock
            Quote: AVM
            In addition, the UAV “on the rope” can illuminate the situation when evading the NOC from RCC. To work on enemy aircraft. Without control of the airspace, the submarines will be doomed.
            You need to understand that aviation does not "plow" the ocean 24/7, but is used to search in specific areas for a limited time or for purposes previously discovered by something / someone, i.e. the boat either did everything already and now its task is to dump it, or it didn’t, but it was discovered and also dumps. But the boat will be doomed at the moment when it decides to try to bring down the plane, absolutely indicating its "friends" its location.


            So NOC is not really a submarine. according to your logic, surface ships then it makes no sense to exist at all? They will also find an end to it.

            Indeed, in terms of defense, the NOC has everything that a conventional surface ship + still have the opportunity to dive from anti-ship missiles.
            1. srelock 16 May 2020 00: 01 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: AVM
              What does the rocket have to do with it? ... If it does not complicate, are there any links to the effects you have indicated?
              It was about a rocket. The effect you are interested in is called tropospheric refraction, products can be seen, for example, at the Salyut or Typhoon Scientific Production Enterprise, but not everything is there.
              Quote: AVM
              So NOC is not really a submarine. according to your logic, surface ships then it makes no sense to exist at all? They will also find an end to it.
              Indeed, in terms of defense, the NOC has everything that a conventional surface ship + still have the opportunity to dive from anti-ship missiles.
              In my opinion, you did not understand the essence of my criticism.
              You proposed a ship close in design to the submarines of the times of the extreme world. Such vessels, even modern ones, are equally "weak" both under and above water in comparison with specialized NK and PL. If you compare the group of your hybrids and the same group from PL and NK with the same basic characteristics, it turns out that the latter float further, faster and longer, take more payloads, see and hear better, hide better, too, etc. .
              1. Shopping Mall 17 May 2020 22: 25 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: srelock

                You proposed a ship close in design to the submarines of the times of the extreme world. Such vessels, even modern ones, are equally "weak" both under and above water in comparison with specialized NK and PL. If you compare the group of your hybrids and the same group from PL and NK with the same basic characteristics, it turns out that the latter float further, faster and longer, take more payloads, see and hear better, hide better, too, etc. .


                At the core is an atomic submarine, so certainly not the Second World ...

                - range swimming conditionally not limited;
                - the speed is comparable;
                - NK similar displacement drags a lot of what does not require NOCs, for example, ZRPK. And what is the use of the payload if it is drowned by anti-ship missiles?
                - NK are better not to hide, it is physically impossible. No design of contours will not allow to disguise the case as much as its immersion under water.
                - they see and hear - perhaps only due to the height of the mast, but given that we do not need to reflect the impact of the RCC, but rather hide from them, this is not so critical.
                1. srelock 19 May 2020 02: 10 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: AVM
                  At the core is an atomic submarine, so certainly not the Second World ...
                  - range swimming conditionally not limited;
                  - the speed is comparable; ...
                  The power plant does not matter. Count your ship and you will understand your mistake.
                  Quote: AVM
                  - NK are better not to hide, it is physically impossible. No design of contours will not allow to disguise the case as much as its immersion under water.
                  - they see and hear - perhaps only due to the height of the mast, but given that we do not need to reflect the impact of the RCC, but rather hide from them, this is not so critical.
                  Here you are also mistaken, but this topic is much ^ much more extensive. I would recommend you ask yourself why this (not young) idea has so far been implemented only on single, special ships and boats of Colombian collective farmers?
                  1. Shopping Mall 19 May 2020 08: 37 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: srelock
                    Quote: AVM
                    At the core is an atomic submarine, so certainly not the Second World ...
                    - range swimming conditionally not limited;
                    - the speed is comparable; ...
                    The power plant does not matter. Count your ship and you will understand your mistake.
                    Quote: AVM
                    - NK are better not to hide, it is physically impossible. No design of contours will not allow to disguise the case as much as its immersion under water.
                    - they see and hear - perhaps only due to the height of the mast, but given that we do not need to reflect the impact of the RCC, but rather hide from them, this is not so critical.
                    Here you are also mistaken, but this topic is much ^ much more extensive. I would recommend you ask yourself why this (not young) idea has so far been implemented only on single, special ships and boats of Colombian collective farmers?


                    Most likely there are, as always, several factors.
                    - expediency. When you dominate the oceans there is no reason to go on adventures (this is about the USA);
                    - complexity - of course such a development is only possible for advanced design schools;
                    - Independence of the design school - if most of the NATO allies are firmly on American technical solutions, then it is difficult to expect original projects from them. France, which is relatively independent, and at the same time has a design school, and which is ready to experiment - diving ships, air defense systems for submarines, can be used as a reverse example. However, their capabilities are limited.
                    - maturity of technology - durable radiolucent composites, powerful high-speed electric drives, conformal small-sized and powerful radars with AFAR, thermal imagers, laser weapons, missiles with ARLGSN. It is enough that there is only one detail - missiles with ARLGSN and IKGSN, and from the NOC there will be no use. Now such technologies have appeared.
                    1. srelock 19 May 2020 15: 11 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: AVM
                      Most likely there are, as always, several factors.
                      - expediency ...
                      - complexity ...
                      - independence of the design school ...
                      - the maturity of technology ...

                      If you are interested in the topic and you are going to write articles on it in the future, then you just need to design your ship. Enclosures with basic loads, designed for strength and stability, will be enough, power can be estimated for similar cases. It’s not difficult, you just have to work hard.
        2. Vladimir_2U 15 May 2020 03: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: AVM
          UAVs at 100 meters will not interfere with any waves.
          There is no wave, but weather conditions can still interfere. Plus, more precisely minus and bold: we’ll raise the p-horizon, this is very good, but what will be the capabilities of the UAV radar? If the UAV is a consumable, albeit an expensive one, then how will it detect a stealth missile at an acceptable range? And if the radar is powerful and sensitive, then the UAV goes into a completely different, very different, price category and becomes indispensable and very vulnerable (even the release and reception in perfect weather has risks) as an element of the ship’s weaponry.
          The reason for such attention to project 955A is that it is quite modern, well-developed and is being built in a large series, which will simplify the development and reduce the cost of solutions based on it.
          The development and calculations for the installation of a SEALED, which means heavy mast-cutting, volumes and devices for storing, releasing and receiving all kinds of BPA, both flying and floating (shafts are suitable only for disposable ones), should be at least airtight and containers can not do without it mention of the possibility of at least some kind of repair. This is the first thing that comes to mind, in addition to the devices you mentioned such as tanks and other things, but there is also a cherry! How will tightness and pressure resistance be ensured at the depth of extensive AFAR canvases ?! The answer is very, very expensive! So you are incredibly optimistic about simplifying development and lowering costs.
          Can RCC defeat a target underwater? In its present form, no. Equipping the RCC with a depth-bomb type warhead will also do little, since the NOC is a moving target, capable of changing course and speed, and cannot predict the movement of the NOC under water
          In the existing form, there is no, but there is experience and considerable experience in creating cluster warheads with self-aiming submunitions, an approximate application scenario: approach of missiles with active buoy cartridges to the detection area, shooting buoys, activation, detection, at least approximate, guidance of missiles from cash registers on contacts . Warhead, reset the set! self-aiming subB., (specially designed, of course) and covering at least a small part of a rather considerable upper correction of the NOC. Of course, SBBs are cumulative, the hole is small, but for a NOC super-saturated with equipment, and even from above, it is very problematic.
          The article is interesting, the idea is interesting but very controversial.
          1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 09: 15 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Quote: AVM
            UAVs at 100 meters will not interfere with any waves.
            There is no wave, but weather conditions can still interfere. Plus, more precisely minus and bold: we’ll raise the p-horizon, this is very good, but what will be the capabilities of the UAV radar?


            It's hard to say, now they are developing radars for UAVs weighing 50-60 kg. The weight of the ZhUK-A radar (with AFAR) 280 kg is a full-fledged radar with more than 1000 emitters-receivers. Perhaps, only a part of the radar can be carried out on the UAV by removing the other part (signal processing) in the submarine hull.

            In the worst case, only an OLS with a thermal imager can be placed on an UAV.

            For me, the UAV's task of detecting RCC is secondary, although important. More important is the ability to defeat aircraft after a dive, to prevent the enemy from working with PLO aircraft.

            But RCC too. Even if the UAV does not greatly increase its range, it can give an understanding of the completion of the missile threat so that the NOC can again sail up and deploy a full-fledged radar.


            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            If the UAV is a consumable, albeit an expensive one, then how will it detect a stealth missile at an acceptable range? And if the radar is powerful and sensitive, then the UAV goes into a completely different, very different, price category and becomes indispensable and very vulnerable (even the release and reception in perfect weather has risks) as an element of the ship’s weaponry.


            With a proven scheme, there are no greater risks than taking off a PLO helicopter. This is not an aircraft-type UAV that sits on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Quadcopter-type UAV landing will be easier to ensure, even taking into account pitching.

            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Quote: AVM
            The reason for such attention to project 955A is that it is quite modern, well-developed and is being built in a large series, which will simplify the development and reduce the cost of solutions based on it.

            The development and calculations for the installation of a SEALED, which means heavy mast-cutting, volumes and devices for storing, releasing and receiving all kinds of BPA, both flying and floating (shafts are suitable only for disposable ones), should be at least airtight and containers can not do without it mention of the possibility of at least some kind of repair. This is the first thing that comes to mind, in addition to the devices you mentioned such as tanks and other things, but there is also a cherry! How will tightness and pressure resistance be ensured at the depth of extensive AFAR canvases ?! The answer is very, very expensive! So you are incredibly optimistic about simplifying development and lowering costs.


            We limit the depth of the NWC to 50 meters, a maximum of 100, and not like the original SSBN 600 meters.

            I will not be surprised that up to 50 meters the mast can be made of composite radio-transparent materials. Moreover, they want to build submarines themselves from composites, with a normal depth of immersion, but so far the technology has “not reached”. In an alternative embodiment, the radar simply extends from the cabin of increased dimension, as I cited in the figure above, and in the surface position. There will generally be no depth restrictions.

            The weight of one radar web should be about 500 kg. They need at least three (for a 360-degree view). Plus OLS and different antennas. Those. we need to take out two tons to a height of 15 meters.

            And yes, the UAV on the cable. With a receiving device, this is still about two tons. But in general, I am inclined that on the mast it’s not worth arranging the UAV landing platform, it is better to allocate a separate compartment for this.

            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            Quote: AVM
            Can RCC defeat a target underwater? In its present form, no. Equipping the RCC with a depth-bomb type warhead will also do little, since the NOC is a moving target, capable of changing course and speed, and cannot predict the movement of the NOC under water


            In the existing form, there is no, but there is experience and considerable experience in creating cluster warheads with self-aiming submunitions, an approximate application scenario: approach of missiles with active buoy cartridges to the detection area, shooting buoys, activation, detection, at least approximate, guidance of missiles from cash registers on contacts . Warhead, reset the set! self-aiming subB., (specially designed, of course) and covering at least a small part of a rather considerable upper correction of the NOC. Of course, SBBs are cumulative, the hole is small, but for a NOC super-saturated with equipment, and even from above, it is very problematic.


            Hydroacoustic buoys can be abandoned, but someone needs to receive and process information from them, and the RCCs themselves will not be able to cope with this. It’s one thing if the PLO plane above them with a powerful computer is different, and another thing when the processor is 200 kilometers away. Here, buoy transmitters are needed more powerful.

            And on the cassettes, too, must be considered how many will be required? What are the sizes, what area can be covered and with what probability.

            PMSM all this will be more complicated than just an attack by RCC. And do not forget about setting the curtains. The possibility of electronic warfare, knocking down the orientation of the carriers of buoys in space, false surface and underwater targets.

            And finally, to force the enemy (or rather all potential opponents) to radically change weapons and tactics is already a victory.

            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            The article is interesting, the idea is interesting but very controversial.


            In any case, thanks for your opinion.
            1. Vladimir_2U 15 May 2020 09: 34 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quote: AVM
              More important is the ability to defeat aircraft after a dive, to prevent the enemy from working with PLO aircraft.
              Usually these are heavy vehicles, they will be able to carry long-range RTs and launch them from inaccessible distances.
              Quote: AVM
              Perhaps, only a part of the radar can be carried out on the UAV by removing the other part (signal processing) in the submarine hull.
              The principle of diversity radar? Unexpectedly, but in an underwater position, she will not be able to work, most likely.
              Quote: AVM
              With a proven scheme, there are no greater risks than taking off a PLO helicopter. This is not an aircraft-type UAV that sits on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Quadcopter-type UAV landing will be easier to ensure, even taking into account pitching.
              But there are restrictions on the weather, what kind of quadrocopters they are there.
              Quote: AVM
              We limit the depth of the NWC to 50 meters, a maximum of 100, and not like the original SSBN 600 meters.
              This of course, of course I did not mean the working depths of ordinary boats.
              Quote: AVM
              The weight of one radar web should be about 500 kg. They need at least three (for a 360-degree view). Plus OLS and different antennas. Those. we need to take out two tons to a height of 15 meters.
              This is a strong understatement, all this should be rigidly fixed relative to each other, plus access for repair in the case of a mast, or a sealed cover for a retractable option.
              Quote: AVM
              Hydroacoustic buoys can be abandoned, but someone must receive and process information from them; the RCCs themselves will not be able to cope with this.
              Do not underestimate the capabilities of modern computer technology, the flocking principle for the mass raid of anti-ship missiles has long been worked out, which prevents the brain from being re-trained to work with RSL.
              Quote: AVM
              And on the cassettes, too, must be considered how many will be required? What are the sizes, what area can be covered and with what probability
              Yes, but the principle of "sowing the area" is quite functional.
              Quote: AVM
              And finally, to force the enemy (or rather all potential opponents) to radically change weapons and tactics is a victory
              What is the economic value of this victory? It is unlikely that we will talk about dozens of such NOCs for Russia, and in the case of units this is another “wunderwafer”
              Thanks again for the article, I wish you success.
              1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 10: 25 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Quote: AVM
                More important is the ability to defeat aircraft after a dive, to prevent the enemy from working with PLO aircraft.


                Usually these are heavy vehicles, they will be able to carry long-range RTs and launch them from inaccessible distances.


                The range of existing missile torpedoes is not more than 50 kilometers. Having made the enemy drag RT instead of anti-ship missiles, we will already win, because we can:
                - shoot down carriers that are at 500 km and at 50;
                - there are no tactical aircraft, the rest carry less ammunition, i.e. there will be not 200-400 missiles in a salvo, but for example 40-50.
                - RTs themselves are heavier, do not maneuver, it’s easier to shoot down;
                - You can miss the torpedo drop zone;
                - torpedoes from the composition of the Republic of Tajikistan can be shot down by torpedoes or distracted by false targets.

                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Quote: AVM
                Perhaps, only a part of the radar can be carried out on the UAV by removing the other part (signal processing) in the submarine hull.


                The principle of diversity radar? Unexpectedly, but in an underwater position, she will not be able to work, most likely.


                It depends on what is meant by the word diversity. On the UAV, we leave only the transmitting / receiving canvas, and all signal processing equipment on the submarine. We transmit data via cable (optical?).

                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Quote: AVM
                With a proven scheme, there are no greater risks than taking off a PLO helicopter. This is not an aircraft-type UAV that sits on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Quadcopter-type UAV landing will be easier to ensure, even taking into account pitching.


                But there are restrictions on the weather, what kind of quadrocopters they are there.


                Well, everything has limitations, even deck carrier aircraft carrier.

                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Quote: AVM
                We limit the depth of the NWC to 50 meters, a maximum of 100, and not like the original SSBN 600 meters.


                This of course, of course I did not mean the working depths of ordinary boats.

                Quote: AVM
                The weight of one radar web should be about 500 kg. They need at least three (for a 360-degree view). Plus OLS and different antennas. Those. we need to take out two tons to a height of 15 meters.


                This is a strong understatement, all this should be rigidly fixed relative to each other, plus access for repair in the case of a mast, or a sealed cover for a retractable option.


                It may be an understatement, but the SSBN is a "floating high-rise building," I think it is quite realistic to make several tons higher.

                We do not lift the cover of the sealed version - we leave it on the case, like in the mines of ICBMs.

                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Quote: AVM
                Hydroacoustic buoys can be abandoned, but someone must receive and process information from them; the RCCs themselves will not be able to cope with this.


                Do not underestimate the capabilities of modern computer technology, the flocking principle for the mass raid of anti-ship missiles has long been worked out, which prevents the brain from being re-trained to work with RSL.


                Even the flocking principle of RCC strike is still a big question, it seems to work, but in a real battle, with the use of electronic warfare and the defeat of part of the RCC, no one checked. With acoustics it will be even more difficult - the natural sounds of the sea, artificial noise.

                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Quote: AVM
                And finally, to force the enemy (or rather all potential opponents) to radically change weapons and tactics is a victory


                What is the economic value of this victory? It is unlikely that we will talk about dozens of such NOCs for Russia, and in the case of units this is another “wunderwafer”


                Somewhere in the comments, I made an approximate calculation that for the formation of four CGMs, 2 NOCs, 2 SSGNs and 4 MCAPLs each require about 40 billion dollars, 10 billion dollars for CGM.

                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Thanks again for the article, I wish you success.


                Mutually, thanks for the informative comments.
    2. ProkletyiPirat 15 May 2020 21: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: AVM
      The whole question is how to ensure the survival of surface ships when an adversary strikes several hundred anti-ship missiles? Not a single air defense system will be repelled.
      ....
      In addition to the article: Mast Options:

      Your desire to solve this most complicated problem is commendable, but your thoughts have not been worked out even on the basis of the ru-zone Internet. For this topic has been raised more than once on the marine forums and rolled into the holy-holivars there, but even they are enough to break your ideas to smithereens.

      I myself faced with one of these craps as "delirious musings" thought and brainstorming from different angles and came to the conclusion that the best option is to replace the central sections of the submarine with two-pass along the port and starboard side, and in the center there is a large space for modules, SLBM / KP \ radar \ special equipment \ ..., where the radar will be advanced up and then open down additional outrigger supports in special grooves. So the size of the radar will be the largest and highest. Plus, these will be standard mass-produced submarines without your engineering and conceptual and analytical errors (from problems with movement and stability to the development of counter-weapons based on hybrid anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles).

      If to speak not at the level "delirious musings" but seriously, such a submarine will not give a single gram of anti-aircraft defense / guard because naval air defense / missile defense is based on AWACS aircraft operating at the maximum distance and, therefore, without the “submarine carrier” your idea is meaningless, and the submarine carrier is impossible due to purely technical flaws. And the only application in the context of "PL-PVO \ PRO" is harm in the form of guerrilla attacks, and for this it is enough that I described in the previous paragraph or what is already there.
      1. Shopping Mall 17 May 2020 22: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: ProkletyiPirat
        Quote: AVM
        The whole question is how to ensure the survival of surface ships when an adversary strikes several hundred anti-ship missiles? Not a single air defense system will be repelled.
        ....
        In addition to the article: Mast Options:

        Your desire to solve this most complicated problem is commendable, but your thoughts have not been worked out even on the basis of the ru-zone Internet. For this topic has been raised more than once on the marine forums and rolled into the holy-holivars there, but even they are enough to break your ideas to smithereens.

        I myself faced with one of these craps as "delirious musings" thought and brainstorming from different angles and came to the conclusion that the best option is to replace the central sections of the submarine with two-pass along the port and starboard side, and in the center there is a large space for modules, SLBM / KP \ radar \ special equipment \ ..., where the radar will be advanced up and then open down additional outrigger supports in special grooves. So the size of the radar will be the largest and highest. Plus, these will be standard mass-produced submarines without your engineering and conceptual and analytical errors (from problems with movement and stability to the development of counter-weapons based on hybrid anti-ship missiles and anti-ship missiles).

        If to speak not at the level "delirious musings" but seriously, such a submarine will not give a single gram of anti-aircraft defense / guard because naval air defense / missile defense is based on AWACS aircraft operating at the maximum distance and, therefore, without the “submarine carrier” your idea is meaningless, and the submarine carrier is impossible due to purely technical flaws. And the only application in the context of "PL-PVO \ PRO" is harm in the form of guerrilla attacks, and for this it is enough that I described in the previous paragraph or what is already there.


        What you are talking about is closer to the one discussed in the article:
        Atomic Multifunctional Submarine Cruiser: Asymmetrical Response to the West
        https://topwar.ru/139618-atomnyy-mnogofunkcionalnyy-podvodnyy-kreyser-asimmetrichnyy-otvet.html
  6. Undecim 14 May 2020 18: 51 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    On the one hand, it could be said that Ostap (the author) suffered in the direction of the sea "death star", but on the other - China has been working on such concepts, semi-submersible, since 2011, and in two versions: a ship - an arsenal to accompany and protection of aircraft carrier formations and strike "semi-underwater" cruiser. The latter is similar to the option described by the author of the article.

    Moreover, R&D work is carried out at the level of research institutes, and Bohai Shipbuilding threatens to soon test the prototype.
    1. tihonmarine 14 May 2020 19: 47 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Undecim
      China similar concepts, semi-submersible, has been working since 2011

      But these will be created in a few years. No wonder Denikin said, "In the depths of China, the new Genghis Khan is ripening."
  7. Lopatov 14 May 2020 18: 57 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The idea is good.
    But I'm afraid it's too expensive.
  8. malyvalv 14 May 2020 19: 22 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    But what about the demonstration of the flag and the power of the fleet? Submarines are somehow frivolous.
    Whether it’s Kuzya + Petya. They don’t have to hide from anyone. They themselves will find whom you want.
    1. abrakadabre 14 May 2020 20: 34 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      But what about the demonstration of the flag and the power of the fleet?
      If near the desired place something of dimension 941 “Shark” or more pops up and even raises a small flagpole on a flagpole, then most will go by itself. So such a scandal will cope with a demonstration of the flag with a bang. But with target functions, it’s more likely to be. As with combat stability.
    2. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 10: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: malyvalv
      But what about the demonstration of the flag and the power of the fleet? Submarines are somehow frivolous.
      Whether it’s Kuzya + Petya. They don’t have to hide from anyone. They themselves will find whom you want.


      If we could build at least 4 Kuzi and be guarded by 12 Petes, then you don’t have to bathe, this is quite a parity with the USA, even with their threefold superiority ...
  9. tihonmarine 14 May 2020 19: 44 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    What an inventive and evil creation "Man" is. What he just does not invent for the destruction of his own kind. Therefore, I love animals so much for the fact that they cannot create weapons.
    1. Gato 15 May 2020 02: 43 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Such is the bum. There are two options: either be evil and inventive, or good and tasty. Well, or like in my favorite spaghetti western: "..there are two types of people - those who have a revolver loaded, and those who dig"
  10. kamui91 14 May 2020 19: 52 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    A good idea - in the sense of sawing through it will be possible a lot.
    I think the admirals would be thrilled.
    1. abrakadabre 14 May 2020 20: 35 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: kamui91
      A good idea - in the sense of sawing through it will be possible a lot.
      I think the admirals would be thrilled.
      I don’t know about admirals. More likely to cry. But shipbuilders and designers yes.
  11. Taoist 14 May 2020 20: 19 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All this has already passed ... in all these projects there is one aspect - price. And not even built - the price of operation and maintenance thereof. That is why such projects were curtailed.
  12. Gray-haired Zinnik 14 May 2020 21: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Would that fit?
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. voyaka uh 15 May 2020 00: 30 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    With this idea, I support the author.
    Something like this will certainly appear in the near future.
    1. Avior 15 May 2020 01: 10 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      To concentrate all the capabilities of the ship on observation at one point?
      1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 09: 59 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Avior
        To concentrate all the capabilities of the ship on observation at one point?


        And what about other modern NKs? All radar canvases on one mast. It used to be full of them, but by necessity, there were no unified solutions.
        1. Avior 15 May 2020 10: 52 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          But not so compact
          Any damage will lead to flooding and failure
      2. voyaka uh 15 May 2020 10: 25 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        The radar "on the string" will look funny. But soon get used to it.
        And such a balloon can be duplicated. Or deliver to ship to
        helicopter as a spare part.
        But the tower with the radar can not be duplicated.
        1. Avior 15 May 2020 10: 50 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          If it were so simple, such on a string would have stood on all NKs for a long time
        2. Cyril G ... 15 May 2020 10: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1


          And what's so funny, everything is new, it’s a well-forgotten old.
          1. Avior 15 May 2020 13: 24 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            And if you add balls, you can even fly up like an Olympic bear

            Well this is not radar
  15. Nikolaevich I 15 May 2020 00: 31 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Mdaaa ... it is a pity that V. Vysotsky did not live up to Mitrofanov! That would be glad, old man! Didn’t he regret that "We didn’t make a scandal - the leader didn’t get enough of us! There aren’t enough violent people here and there are no leaders!" ? Well, on the pages of VO violent enough, as this article confirms! Only here is the abbreviation NNK-dry! In the commentary to the previous article, I already proposed the name “monitor”, but “was not understood”! I won’t say that I inflamed with my feelings for the sim "concept ... since it has such flaws that you can just add enough paraffin to give the iceberg a convincing appearance as a radar superstructure of this NOC (monitor)! But there is reason to take part in in this riot, despite Volodya’s warning: “He broke all brains into pieces, he crept all the convolutions ... and the rope officials injected us a second injection!” ... And let it be, as in the song: “But the orderlies came rushing ... and we were fixed. Those who were especially striking, were screwed to the backs of the beds ... "but we still visk emsya essentially ... and vice versa in the case and just like that!
  16. Avior 15 May 2020 01: 00 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Submarine at shallow depth is detected visually
    So, the radar on the mast should work without turning off, otherwise it will be detected purely
    Visually.
    And drowned by a cast-iron depth bomb in two counts.
    When the radar is operating, this mast will glow very far.
    Why shoot at it with anti-ship missiles?
    On it you need to stand the PRR, all of its surveillance equipment, in the mast, once hit, and immediately all disabled.
    Then the ship is helpless, send the helicopter and finish as you want.
    The buoyancy margin is small, a relatively small charge is enough
    1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 10: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Avior
      Submarine at shallow depth is detected visually
      So, the radar on the mast should work without turning off, otherwise it will be detected purely
      Visually.
      And drowned by a cast-iron depth bomb in two counts.


      From what distance? There are also OLS and thermal imagers. With a cast-iron bomb in no way could you get it. And there may also be radars on UAVs with a long flight duration, which can accompany the LAG “in shifts” with their ability to patrol for 24-48 hours.

      Quote: Avior

      When the radar is operating, this mast will glow very far.
      Why shoot at it with anti-ship missiles?
      On it you need to stand the PRR, all of its surveillance equipment, in the mast, once hit, and immediately all disabled.
      Then the ship is helpless, send the helicopter and finish as you want.


      The PRR has a shorter range, fly from a great height - it’s easier to shoot down both the PRR and their carrier, these are not low-altitude anti-ship missiles. And you can also dive from them.

      Quote: Avior

      The buoyancy margin is small, a relatively small charge is enough


      Wow, it’s less for submarines, if you do not take into account Project 941 with its 40%, which is already approaching surface ships.
  17. Sahalinets 15 May 2020 05: 36 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The proposed ship combines all the shortcomings of the submarine and NK, but not one of their advantages.
  18. Angelo Provolone 15 May 2020 07: 18 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    NNK combines the disadvantages of NK and PL
    1. Cyril G ... 15 May 2020 07: 46 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The only reasonable grain here is that you need to think about providing anti-aircraft defense, and as far as I remember, work is underway. Here with the rest there.
      1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 10: 27 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Cyril G ...
        The only reasonable grain here is that you need to think about providing anti-aircraft defense, and as far as I remember, work is underway. Here with the rest there.


        There was an article about this: At the border of two media. The evolution of promising submarines in conditions of increased probability of their detection by the enemy

        https://topwar.ru/170634-na-granice-dvuh-sred-jevoljucija-perspektivnyh-podvodnyh-lodok-v-uslovijah-povyshennoj-verojatnosti-ih-obnaruzhenija-protivnikom.html
  19. Ros 56 15 May 2020 07: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    They have one advantage, initially they are not visually visible, but taking into account the development of the enemy’s detection technology for tens and hundreds of kilometers, it will simply come to naught, but surface ships still have the advantage of using high-speed weapons such as artillery and missiles, unlike torpedo and rockets from under the water. This is one on one, without taking into account all other factors.
    1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 10: 08 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Ros 56
      They have one advantage, initially they are not visually visible, but taking into account the development of the technology for detecting the enemy for tens and hundreds of kilometers, it will simply come to naught,

      So a purely surface ship will be discovered even further.

      Quote: Ros 56
      But surface ships still have the advantage of using high-speed weapons such as artillery and missiles, in contrast to the launch of torpedoes and missiles from under water. This is one on one, without taking into account all other factors.


      What are you going to do with artillery? And the launch of anti-ship missiles or missiles from the air-craft from a depth of 2-3 meters in time is no different from the launch of a surface ship from a water-craft.
  20. voyaka uh 15 May 2020 10: 46 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I like the English Dreadnought-2050 project.
    Flat trimaran without add-ons. Everything moves out from the inside.
    And the radar rises on a cable-cable.
    Diving a semi-submerged ship make technically much
    more difficult. To dive, you need ballast tanks. And a fortified case.
    It will be much more expensive than the Dreadnought-2050.
    1. Avior 15 May 2020 13: 37 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      On the nanotube smile
      According to the engineers, the ship provides torpedoes at speeds up to 560 km / h, a rail gun, a holographic command post, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) armed with a laser instead of masts. For the manufacture of the Dreadnought 2050 hull, instead of steel, it is planned to use transparent acrylic of increased strength, and the UAV will hover above the ship, attached using nanotubes. The ship is planned to be used for reconnaissance, and if necessary - to eliminate close targets with a powerful laser. The UAV, if necessary, can be produced directly on board the Dreadnought 2050, using 3D printing.

      good
  21. Taoist 15 May 2020 11: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The trouble with all such “projections” is that conditional combat effectiveness is estimated by “tabular data” and the “economy of the issue” is not calculated at all. If you do not take into account the hypothetical scenario of a global nuclear war (dead anyway), then all other combat missions have their own definable price. Unfortunately, the proposed option with all its “technical aesthetics” does not fit into this framework. For all these combat missions are solved much cheaper using classic solutions. And most importantly, with much lower operating and infrastructure costs.
    So "son, this is fantastic" (c)
    1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 12: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      The trouble with all such “projections” is that conditional combat effectiveness is estimated by “tabular data” and the “economy of the issue” is not calculated at all. If you do not take into account the hypothetical scenario of a global nuclear war (dead anyway), then all other combat missions have their own definable price. Unfortunately, the proposed option with all its “technical aesthetics” does not fit into this framework. For all these combat missions are solved much cheaper using classic solutions. And most importantly, with much lower operating and infrastructure costs.
      So "son, this is fantastic" (c)


      The problem is that all that you said is nothing more than a set of words - what tasks and how are they solved? Where does the information about infrastructure and operating costs come from?

      No examples or comparisons.

      It is easy to say that it’s completely concrete numbers that “does not fit into this framework” without giving any argument.
      1. Avior 15 May 2020 13: 40 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Given the fact that anti-aircraft missile launchers do not exist in nature, like radars on a rope, it’s difficult to calculate the real costs smile
      2. Taoist 15 May 2020 18: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I understand that it’s insulting (they say such an idea disappears), but this topic is dealt with a hundred times ... I even gave you a reference to very old books ... Do you want me to rewrite in detail and point by point the eleventh time that have already passed several times?
        To get started (before projecting) try to answer a few simple questions:
        1) What combat tasks does the proposed type of ship solve
        2) What existing types of ships solve a similar range of problems.
        3) How much does the construction and operation of the proposed type of ship cost?
        4) The efficiency coefficient of the proposed ship in relation to the existing types (price \ cost of operation \ combat capabilities)
        5) Will a change in coastal infrastructure be required to maintain and maintain the proposed type of ship.
        6) Existing operational limitations (navigation, weather, resource)

        Answer these questions for yourself and you will understand that "everything has already been stolen to us" (c) and semi-submerged vessels starting from the "water armored seat" adm. Makarova is just one of the dead end calculated and rejected ways.
        1. Shopping Mall 17 May 2020 22: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          I understand that it’s insulting (they say such an idea disappears), but this topic is dealt with a hundred times ... I even gave you a reference to very old books ... Do you want me to rewrite in detail and point by point the eleventh time that have already passed several times?
          To get started (before projecting) try to answer a few simple questions:


          Почему нет?

          Quote: Taoist
          1) What combat tasks does the proposed type of ship solve


          Counteraction to quantitatively superior enemy KUG and AUG. High combat resistance to attacks by existing types of anti-ship missiles.

          Quote: Taoist
          2) What existing types of ships solve a similar range of problems.


          None. The existing surface ship groupings are only targets for an adversary who has more ASG / ASG / ASR carriers. In the existing reality, the United States can melt the fleets of all the rest of the world. I offer an asymmetric solution.

          Quote: Taoist
          3) How much does the construction and operation of the proposed type of ship cost?
          4) The efficiency coefficient of the proposed ship in relation to the existing types (price \ cost of operation \ combat capabilities)


          Do you really think that this can be known at the concept level? I didn’t offer to curtail all the shipbuilding programs of the Russian Federation in favor of the NOC, but, in my opinion, there are no obstacles to scientific research or outline design. We already have half a dozen outline designs of aircraft carriers that will never be built.

          Quote: Taoist
          5) Will a change in coastal infrastructure be required to maintain and maintain the proposed type of ship.


          No, the same as for the SSBN project 955 (A).

          Quote: Taoist
          6) Existing operational limitations (navigation, weather, resource)


          For this we need a more serious study of the project.

          Quote: Taoist
          Answer these questions for yourself and you will understand that "everything has already been stolen to us" (c) and semi-submerged vessels starting from the "water armored seat" adm. Makarova is just one of the dead end calculated and rejected ways.


          The comments have already given a link that the PRC is actively developing ships of this type at the R&D level. It would not have been necessary later to tell on the Star how we invented the NOC, citing Khrushchev's diving boat as an example. Such is the fate of the losers, not to boast about the achievements of the present, but to talk endlessly about the achievements of the past.
          1. Taoist 18 May 2020 12: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Ok, now we look:
            If we are talking about countering the AUG and trying to compare in the number of carriers, what advantage does a similar ship have over a strike submarine? And if for example we consider re-equipment of the SSBN for the vertical start of the same "Caliber"? While the cost of construction and maintenance is relatively the same and is based on existing ships.
            Despite the fact that there are already drones launched from torpedo tubes and air defense systems. At the same time, a full-fledged submarine retains the ability to maneuver in depth and, accordingly, is much less vulnerable.
            What is the advantage and need to divert resources?
            Despite the fact that (I didn’t accidentally ask about restrictions), the operation of such vessels requires deep-sea harbors and the infrastructure of submarines - and we don’t have many of them. Such ships will not be able to base in a regular port.
            An example of China? Well, everything is relative - in any case, China has 1 fleet and only 1 marine theater ... Moreover, the ocean. Again, it is far from a fact that these developments will end at least with something real. In any case, China is actively building precisely aircraft carriers and launching frigates and destroyers in dozens of water ... It can afford and dig in the other direction ... We have not yet resolved the issue of defense of the near sea zone. There are no resources or shipbuilding capacities ... Damn, we are proud that we built a supertanker from "imported components" which is less than what the USSR built in series ... Therefore, IMHO, I would not have sprayed on exotic with a very controversial economy ... If that’s The “tablet” from the AUG has also been known for a long time - two TU 22M3 regiments.
            1. Shopping Mall 18 May 2020 14: 36 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Taoist
              Ok, now we look:
              If we are talking about countering the AUG and trying to compare in the number of carriers, what advantage does a similar ship have over a strike submarine?


              That controls the airspace over the water area. NOC should not replace nuclear submarines; it should supplement them.

              Quote: Taoist
              And if for example we consider re-equipment of the SSBN for the vertical start of the same "Caliber"? While the cost of construction and maintenance is relatively the same and is based on existing ships.


              Considered. Nuclear submarines - carriers of cruise missiles: reality and prospects https://topwar.ru/153714-atomnye-podvodnye-lodki-nositeli-krylatyh-raket-realnost-i-perspektivy.html
              This is one of the elements of the CNG based on NOC.

              Quote: Taoist
              Despite the fact that there are already drones launched from torpedo tubes and air defense systems. At the same time, a full-fledged submarine retains the ability to maneuver in depth and, accordingly, is much less vulnerable.


              Well, all this is still relatively arbitrary.

              And all this was also considered in different ways:
              Nuclear-powered multipurpose submarine cruiser: asymmetric response to the West https://topwar.ru/139618-atomnyy-mnogofunkcionalnyy-podvodnyy-kreyser-asimmetrichnyy-otvet.html
              Nuclear-powered multipurpose submarine cruiser: a paradigm shift https://topwar.ru/143629-atomnyy-mnogofunkcionalnyy-podvodnyy-kreyser-kak-smena-paradigmy.html
              At the border of two environments. The evolution of promising submarines in conditions of increased likelihood of their detection by the enemy html

              Quote: Taoist
              What is the advantage and need to divert resources?


              The submarines are not adapted for permanent location on the border of two media, there is no high mast for the radar. Without this, air cannot be controlled.

              A submarine with an air defense system can protect itself from airplanes, no more. I considered AMFPK as a raider who works alone or as a pair against an opponent’s ACG. He needs an air defense system to knock out AWACS aircraft, which many times reinforce the protection of anti-aircraft missiles from anti-ship missiles.

              NSC-based CGM should be able to create an A2AD zone.

              Quote: Taoist
              Despite the fact that (I didn’t accidentally ask about restrictions), the operation of such vessels requires deep-sea harbors and the infrastructure of submarines - and we don’t have many of them. Such ships will not be able to base in a regular port.


              The USSR had hundreds of submarines of comparable displacement. You can’t cut piers just like that, you can restore it. I considered the need for 8 NOCs, this is not so much. Where submarines can be based, there will be NOCs. Do not forget, at the heart of the NPC RPKSN. They should float above the waterline when the ballast tanks are fully purged.

              Quote: Taoist
              An example of China? Well, everything is relative - in any case, China has 1 fleet and only 1 marine theater ... Moreover, the ocean. Again, it is far from a fact that these developments will end at least with something real. In any case, China is actively building precisely aircraft carriers and launching frigates and destroyers in dozens of water ... It can afford and dig in the other direction ... We have not yet resolved the issue of defense of the near sea zone. There are no resources or shipbuilding capacities ... Damn we are proud that we assembled a supertanker from "imported components" which is less than what the USSR built in series ...


              So I do not urge to drop everything and build one NOC. This is a concept; PMSM has the right to life. And to evaluate it on the damage of research or conceptual design is quite realistic.


              Quote: Taoist
              Therefore, IMHO, I would not have scattered myself on exotics with a very controversial economy ... For that matter, the “pill” from AUG is also known for a long time - two regiments TU 22M3.


              Without the suppression of AWACS aircraft, the effectiveness of such a pill will be in question.
              1. Taoist 18 May 2020 19: 57 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Suppression of AWACS is in part even simpler ... Aiming at an actively emitting large-sized and low-maneuverable target ...
                1. ProkletyiPirat 19 May 2020 19: 55 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  The LA-DRLO suppression is "simpler" only in theory, in practice such devices on the one hand can be armed / covered with guided anti-missiles and counter-attack means, and on the other hand, work not alone but as a group. In terms of suppression, if we sort in descending order of “resistance to suppression”, we get: LA-AWACS, ground / surface moving, stationary. At LA-DRLO, the main disadvantages will be the detection range, recognition accuracy and accuracy of target designation relative to the location point, but this is compensated by the ability to move in space and exit at the right angles. The same hockey in the AUG is protected at the tactical and strategic level of organizing the interaction of the AUG and not at the technological level.
                  1. Taoist 19 May 2020 20: 12 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    This is certainly true ... but here we are a little about something else ... Is it easier to disable the "eyes of the air group"? Trying to bring to it, albeit partially but at a surface target (speed however), or shy away on approach with 300 km of DVB missiles? Two Tu 22 regiments are still cheaper ... but missiles in a salvo carry more ... And they themselves are much less vulnerable ... intercepting targets whose speeds are comparable to interceptors is not an easy task ...
                    1. ProkletyiPirat 19 May 2020 22: 05 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Well here (the destruction of LA-DRLOs covering AUGs), depending on the combat scenario and the conditions of the theater of operations, either DVB or UAV-DVB or submarines with anti-aircraft torpedo missiles or different hybrids of these three options will be effective. There are small exceptions with super-long-range air defense missiles such as s-400 \ s-500, etc. but even there they essentially use land-based DVB missiles.
                      But in any case, this is not particularly necessary for the destruction of AUGs, because destruction is based on the stealth of the launcher and the mass of means of attack (RCC), this is either the stealth of submarines under water, or the stealth of wheeled launchers in the forest / city or the secret low-altitude relief envelope passing the submarine .
                      Another thing, or rather, the most important nuance in the attendant advantages affecting the economy and geopolitics. NOCs have such advantages or not at all or they are much more profitable to implement in another embodiment.
    2. voyaka uh 15 May 2020 14: 30 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      "So" son, this is fantastic "(c)" ///
      ----
      This thing also seemed crazy fiction.
      At the level of medieval sketches of Leonardo da Vinci.
      But crazy English gentlemen were not afraid of ridicule fellow
      1. Taoist 15 May 2020 18: 12 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The "British gentlemen" have a very peculiar sense of humor ... and a technical school ... That is why their "brands" have remained a dead end in tank building ... Once again, I emphasize that simple idea that far from everything that makes it possible to embody the level of iron production and technology is a really effective fighting vehicle ... The history of technology is full of oddities.
        1. voyaka uh 15 May 2020 19: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Others and such were not! And NO technical school.
          "Marks" were the first tanks in the world.
          Moreover, massively used in battles.
          And overturned the course of the war.
          Therefore, do not laugh at the Dreadnought-2050 smile
          1. bk0010 15 May 2020 22: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: voyaka uh
            And overturned the course of the war.
            No. The tank played in World War II, but not in the first. The tanks didn’t overcome the positional deadlock, but the attack aircraft.
          2. Taoist 16 May 2020 20: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            You have a bad history ... the first tanks did not overturn anything and even tactical successes were insignificant ... The fact that the British foolishly and having the technical ability to riveted a couple of hundred wretched tins does not say anything about their technical school ... only about the production possibilities and the economy ... The same "All-Terrain Vehicle" by Porokhovshchikov was much more perfect and most likely more effective in battle ... but it was not the designer’s fault that the country did not have the technical ability to massively implement his ideas in iron and steel. So excuse me - if I see technical illiteracy, it remains ridiculous no matter what “circulation” it is embodied in. .
            1. voyaka uh 16 May 2020 20: 35 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              "only about the possibilities of production and the economy" ///
              ----
              Production and economics are derived from the availability of technical schools.
              1. Taoist 16 May 2020 21: 04 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                There is no direct connection between them. The British Empire was the richest - and therefore could afford to spend resources even on frankly failed projects. Quite the contrary, when you can put 1 of your own on a bayonet of a potential adversary you are not very concerned about inventing a machine gun ...
                1. voyaka uh 16 May 2020 21: 30 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  "when you can put 1 of your own on a bayonet of a potential adversary" ///
                  ----
                  This is the Russian version. Large country - large population.
                  The British have always been the opposite. Their expeditionary
                  the hulls were small in number. Therefore, they are machine guns
                  (Maxim) applied the first and again in large quantities.
                  And 1-pound pom-pom quick-firing guns.

                  "The British Empire was the richest" ////
                  ----
                  Why did you become like that? smile again: industry, technical schools.
                  Hence: machine tools, battleships, guns, rifles.
                  1. Taoist 16 May 2020 22: 38 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    To put it mildly, not so ... You have a bad history ... Almost the same as with the economy.
                    Ask at your leisure how many “Brown Bes” were kept in service ... And to whom, in fact, Hiram Maxim was the first to sell the license ...
                    Wealth is not worth it ... either. The principles of building colonial empires have not changed. Papuans really do not need to drive a lot of troops ... So if you do not understand then replace the “bayonets” with “keels” ... And remember what happened to the “vaunted” British equipment in a collision with a really advanced engineering school ... for example, German. ..
                    1. voyaka uh 17 May 2020 00: 00 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      "with" vaunted "British technology in a collision
                      with a really advanced engineering school ...
                      for example German ... "///
                      -----
                      It depends where ...
                      1) at sea, the British defeated the German surface fleet
                      pretty easy, but the submarines were busy for a long time.
                      2) in the "Battle of England" in 1940, the British defeated the Luftwaffe.
                      True, they themselves suffered heavy losses. Hitler decided with chagrin
                      recoup on the USSR. And got in.
                      3) the British infantry was no worse than the German. A marksmen arrows
                      - much better. In battles in Africa in infantry skirmishes
                      the British usually prevailed.
                      4) the undoubted advantage of Germany was only in the armored forces.
                      1. Taoist 17 May 2020 17: 28 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        1) World War I - Jutland. Compare the loss? Yes, Britain won due to the fact that it was stupidly able to set twice the tonnage. The Second World War is even funnier, from the prospect of colliding with a Bismarck-like British, it’s just fine .... While the ratio of surface ships in general was almost 1 to 5 ...
                        2) In the “Battle for Britain”, the British did not defeat the Luftwaffe - they only thwarted the German air attack while they fought over their territory, with a constant numerical advantage of having a radar guidance system. And then, in general, they were on the verge of defeat - it only saved that the main backlash fighter categorically lacked the range to conduct any kind of active air battle over Britain.
                        3) I do not compare the personal characteristics of the infantry (no one can refuse British courage) but organizationally Rommel drove this infantry with pissed rags ... Elementary - how many and what kind of machine guns were in the British infantry squad?
                        Mortars? Other means of fire support?
                        All this despite the fact that the Germans always fought with significantly fewer troops ...
                        So "learn materiel" - it is useful.
  22. alstr 15 May 2020 12: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    My opinion is that a semi-submersible ship is NOT NEEDED, because he loses the advantages of submarines and does not acquire the advantages of surface ships. Those. complexity increases and benefits are minimal.

    If you think in this direction, it will be more efficient to use submarines. Those. there is a big sub. It hides many different autonomous modules (in fact drones). If necessary, the module is undocked from the submarine and performs its task.

    Those. the result should be a kind of transformer.

    And filling with autonomous modules can be different. And they will not so unmask the PL-uterus. There is only a question of communication.
  23. Avior 15 May 2020 13: 47 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    By the way, on the use of conventional anti-ship missiles
    Any RCC attacking from a hill, like a harpoon for example, is suitable.
    Corresponding software with delayed blasting after getting into water- and anti-ship missiles will explode under the mast.
    Submersible buoyancy, by definition, is negative, any minor damage is enough to drown.
    1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 14: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Avior
      By the way, the use of conventional anti-ship missiles against this ship
      Any RCC attacking from a hill, like a harpoon for example, is suitable.
      Corresponding software with delayed blasting after getting into water- and anti-ship missiles will explode under the mast.
      Submersible buoyancy, by definition, is negative, any minor damage is enough to drown.


      When attacking RCC, the NOC must completely go under water, unless of course it / them (RCC) could not be brought down. And after that, the RCC will not have the exact coordinates of the target for the attack. At what distance does a warhead of 500 kg damage the housing of the NOC? For a time of two to four minutes (the time of the arrival of the RCC after detection), the NOC at a speed of 15 to 30 knots will change its location at a distance of 1 to 4 kilometers.

      By the way, this also applies to the proposal to sow NOCs with cluster bombs. It will not be possible to change the course radically, but even when the NOC moves forward-sideways, it will be approximately necessary to cover an area from 1 km2 to 32 km2, and each subsequent minute the distance will increase (and the area is squared).

      Even if a UAV is launched on the cable, it is not a pointer, since it can shift to the side, within the cable length, and will most likely give the RCC a false target designation.

      And they won’t see RCC an electric drone, because their GOS is not optimized for such a task.
      1. Avior 15 May 2020 14: 55 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        We are talking about a mast with radar
        UAV - at best for detection.
        Judging by the set of missiles, it is supposed to shoot at RCC at a distance of less than 10 km
        And how much do you think you need to dive?
        1. Shopping Mall 15 May 2020 16: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Avior
          We are talking about a mast with radar
          UAV - at best for detection.
          Judging by the set of missiles, it is supposed to shoot at RCC at a distance of less than 10 km


          In a set of missiles at all ranges, including up to 400 km. The restriction is more likely to be based on the minimum range (if there is no LO), but this is not important, since the passage of anti-ship missiles at the border of 10 km is a guaranteed immersion. In general, spending missiles makes sense only if RCC 3-4 pieces, if more, it is easier to dive.

          Quote: Avior
          We are talking about a mast with radar
          And how much do you think you need to dive?


          For NOCs, it should be less than 1 minute. Moreover, unlike the pop-up submarine, the NOC is actually already "submerged". He just needs to increase the depth of immersion by 20-50 meters. It was not for nothing that I wrote about pumps of increased power + diving at speed is performed by planes.

          At a distance of 10-20 km, RCCs will lose NWs immediately after turning off the radar (if they have a passive guidance mode), and then the mast dimensions on the surface will begin to rapidly decrease.

          Can RCC even hit a target the size of a fishing boat? Do not forget about the clouds of metallized aerosol.

          And I proposed inflatable masts as false targets. It’s almost impossible to make an “inflatable” ship, and the mast - a pyramid with a height of 10-20 meters with a weighting material inside, PMSM is quite real. They can be folded in the UVP caliber, and place them in place of six pieces of RCC / KR.
  24. Wasilii 15 May 2020 19: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Bullshit. The author completely contradicts all the realities of shipbuilding. Most likely he simply does not know them. Surprisingly, I did not remember the electromagnetic gun. For a complete set.
  25. The comment was deleted.
  26. Voltsky 15 May 2020 22: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    the author not only writes nonsense and movers set up ... only for the question of why his 80% of articles do not suffer from adequacy ...
    1. Shopping Mall 17 May 2020 15: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Voletsky
      the author not only writes nonsense and movers set up ... only for the question of why his 80% of articles do not suffer from adequacy ...


      I did not see your post, and I did not contact the moderators.

      And for those who use expressions such as "nonsense" and "adequacy" it is better to look in the mirror more often. If you disagree with something, then this does not mean that it is wrong. Once the first tank was "delirium" and inadequacy, and after several decades this "delirium" rolled out the floor of the world.

      Here in the comments there are enough people who disagree with my opinion, but who defend their argument, who are interesting to communicate with. In the end, who's stopping you, write a balanced and reasonable article that will be interesting to read, refuting my suggestions.
      1. Voltsky 17 May 2020 16: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Минусы.

        1. The radar as a radiation source unmasks any object, therefore the entire bonus from immersion disappears.
        2. The load on the mast during movement.
        3. objects under water can be detected by displaced water.
        4. The launch of any rocket from under water unmasks any submarine.
        5. Special housing requirements.
        6. Special requirements for armament (launch from under water, including SAM)
        7. Inability to install a number of defense systems - ZRPK.
        8. Problems with carrier-based aircraft (airtight hangar) project cost increase.
        9. Due to the specificity of the contours - increased noise.
        10. It is inferior in performance characteristics to both surface ships and submarines.

        No pluses found.

        Everyone just needs a UAV-DLRO + frigate + DEPL (apl)
        1. ProkletyiPirat 17 May 2020 18: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Voletsky
          Минусы.
          .
          No pluses found.

          I agree with you the pros are dumb but the minuses are dohren BUT
          Quote: Voletsky
          Everyone just needs a UAV-DLRO + frigate + DEPL (apl)

          UAVs-AWACS are unable to provide detection and target designation of air targets, especially air flying ones, only manned aircraft or UAVs with wired communication can do this, but the latter are unnecessary due to obviously weaker performance characteristics. You yourself can see this if you read the following topics
          1) asynchronous-synchronous packet data transfer and methods for breaking and compressing information (for example, how the Internet protocol works from the point of view of the programmer)
          2) coding-modulation of information in a common (wireless) channel (for example, Wi-Fi and bluetooth operation in general and the use of bit masks in digital-to-analog-digital conversion (searching in the ADC for not bits but bit masks))
          3) complexes of spherical-linear communication (there the sensor array (antennas) is divided into groups having different spatial orientations and isolation among themselves (for radio signals I have not seen but there are so-called directional-line microphones and speakers in acoustics))
          If you don’t go into details, the communication of the aircraft <=> the ship cannot be jammed, but you can reduce the speed and synchronization of data transmission in the case of PLA-DRLO, people can configure the TTX of the information transfer system, but the UAV has this possibility or not at all or by many orders of magnitude. .
          1. Voltsky 18 May 2020 10: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I'm talking about an optical communication channel, as it were, the transmission of data along the beam; another wireless jammer I don't know
        2. Shopping Mall 17 May 2020 20: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Voletsky
          Минусы.

          1. The radar as a radiation source unmasks any object


          The radar also unmasks any surface ship, but without a radar it is not possible to control airspace.

          Quote: Voletsky
          therefore, all the dive bonus disappears.


          The dive bonus is the ability to dive from RCC. Do not shoot them down while spending missiles. Not a single surface ship will recapture 50 anti-ship missiles, and the NOC will simply hide from them under water for the duration of the strike - for 20-30 minutes maximum.

          Quote: Voletsky
          2. The load on the mast when driving.


          It should be designed for this. The previous article gave an example of a British project submarine that should go at 30 knots under the snorkel on turbines.

          Quote: Voletsky

          3. objects under water can be detected by displaced water.
          4. The launch of any rocket from under water unmasks any submarine.


          Less noticeable for NOCs is secondary compared with the ability to evade RCC. Nevertheless, it will take place. In any case, displaced water and launching a rocket from under water unmask the NOC less than the surface ship unmasks itself by the very fact that it is surface.

          The NOC is not a replacement for a PC, it is a replacement for a part of surface ships to form a KGM, sharpened to withstand a superior number of KGG and AUG of the enemy.

          Quote: Voletsky
          5. Special housing requirements.


          - it is necessary to optimize the contours for near-surface conditions, but this is solvable;
          + strength requirements are lower than for submarines, since the latter have an immersion depth of up to 600 meters, and for NOCs up to 100 meters.

          Quote: Voletsky
          6. Special requirements for armament (launch from under water, including SAM)


          This is not a problem; they are launched from under water both from the UVP and from torpedo tubes.

          Quote: Voletsky
          7. Inability to install a number of defense systems - ZRPK.


          They are not needed. The NOC does not need the last frontier of defense against RCC, it just dives from them. In addition, rapid-firing guns look spectacular, but their effectiveness against modern ammunition is in question. In Syria, Shells shot down many missile targets, but not a single gun.

          30-mm automatic guns: sunset or a new stage of development?
          https://topwar.ru/154649-zakat-jery-30-mm-avtomaticheskih-pushek-ili-novyj-jetap-razvitija.html

          Quote: Voletsky
          8. Problems with carrier-based aircraft (airtight hangar) project cost increase.


          The same cover as the SLBM mines. The use of UAVs on a submarine has been discussed for a long time, one way or another they will appear on a submarine, regardless of whether the NWC appears or not.

          Quote: Voletsky
          9. Due to the specificity of the contours - increased noise.


          No more than any large surface ship.

          Quote: Voletsky
          10. It is inferior in performance characteristics to both surface ships and submarines.

          No pluses found.

          Everyone just needs a UAV-DLRO + frigate + DEPL (apl)


          In a previous article, I described the capabilities of the United States to deliver a massive RCC strike of 200-400 missiles. How many frigates do you need to withstand such a blow? Even nuclear weapons are a big question, since the very first nuclear explosion will disable all the electronics of the defender, or seriously worsen the jamming stop in the radar range. And the enemy will strike a new blow from a safe distance.
          1. Voltsky 17 May 2020 22: 10 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: AVM
            The dive bonus is the ability to dive from RCC. Not

            it’s easier to make a rocket that can plunge ... upst, there are already such :)
            1. Shopping Mall 17 May 2020 22: 11 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Voletsky
              Quote: AVM
              The dive bonus is the ability to dive from RCC. Not

              it’s easier to make a rocket that can plunge ... upst, there are already such :)


              With a range of 25-50 km, against 500-1000 in RCC. Rocket torpedoes are called.
              1. Voltsky 17 May 2020 22: 15 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                well, there will be a bit more rockets, and they will fly on, or they will fly in the airplane compartment :) price - quality, this concept is dead-born. For the price of this ship; You can launch the spaceship on duty with a payload.
                1. Shopping Mall 17 May 2020 22: 20 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Voletsky
                  well, there will be a bit more rockets, and they will fly on, or they will fly in the airplane compartment :) price - quality, this concept is dead-born. For the price of this ship; You can launch the spaceship on duty with a payload.


                  If it will be necessary to make their range comparable to anti-ship missiles, then tactical aircraft will no longer lift them, and B-1B bombers will take 4 times less. In the compartment of the aircraft - carriers are substituted, but nobody wants to let them into the air defense zone, they may not return.

                  And why should NOC be prohibitively expensive? In fact, this is a basic project with a sealed superstructure from frigate 22350 (conditionally), while the lack of the need to dive for 600 meters greatly reduces the design requirements of the original submarine, which should compensate for the installation of various thrusters / compensating devices.
                  1. Voltsky 17 May 2020 22: 27 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    it’s easier to modify the existing submarines to the possibility of super-fast diving, and stick radar, if you really need to
  27. Observer2014 16 May 2020 00: 08 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: AVM
    I’m not sure that if the US Navy begins to sink our fleet, the government will launch a nuclear strike against the United States, knowing about the "answer". We need a fleet, and in general the armed forces that are able to "hold the blow", to survive in conditions of quantitative superiority of the enemy.

    Well said. yes I would say very much. Are the navy ready to make sacrifices in the form of a salary? Well, are the navy themselves ready to sacrifice themselves literally and in material terms? That's how the naval say yes. And their salary will be equal to the average for the country. That's only then! We will be literally the whole country! .. yes wink Until then ... We’ll see that garbage on a string in such lightly fool Articles.Aha?
  28. Andrey.AN 17 May 2020 11: 33 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Maybe it wouldn’t hurt to set aside a couple of shafts under Vityaz-type air defense systems in Korea, another for this AWACS on the wire and a cabin for the post.
  29. nikon7717 17 May 2020 11: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The author has done a great job. Thank you very much for this and plus. Any new unrecognized idea is hard on the road.
    Comments are in the comments. Thank you all for this. One head is good two are better.
  30. Interdum_silentium_volo 18 May 2020 21: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The main problem is the work at the junction of the two environments. How to deal with air targets?! Install radars, have air defense (missile) missiles ......... but how will these systems work from underwater mode?!?! In case of a raid To go under water means to let the plane with a torpedo or even easier to use a depth bomb. That is, you need the opportunity not only to go under water, but also to snarl from under the water!
    Do not leave when flying under water, this means not having any advantages before what is already today. There will only be stealth, and dubious.
    The main enemy will be submarines that will be stealth, and it is easy to drown with torpedoes, and continue to hear.
    Without anti-torpedoes, without air defense that can shoot out from under the water ............... this is a dubious story.
    1. Shopping Mall 19 May 2020 08: 09 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Interdum_silentium_volo
      The main problem is the work at the junction of the two environments. How to deal with air targets?! Install radars, have air defense (missile) missiles ......... but how will these systems work from underwater mode?!?! In case of a raid To go under water means to let the plane with a torpedo or even easier to use a depth bomb. That is, you need the opportunity not only to go under water, but also to snarl from under the water!
      Do not leave when flying under water, this means not having any advantages before what is already today. There will only be stealth, and dubious.
      The main enemy will be submarines that will be stealth, and it is easy to drown with torpedoes, and continue to hear.
      Without anti-torpedoes, without air defense that can shoot out from under the water ............... this is a dubious story.


      So actually everything is described. The presence of anti-torpedoes is mandatory, they are indicated in the ammunition. A PLO plane is not the most difficult goal, and a large one, therefore it can be detected by UAVs on a cable even with optical reconnaissance equipment. The launch of missiles from under water is implied.

      And from the enemy’s submarines, NOCs should cover “their” multi-purpose submarines from the KUG.
      1. Andrey.AN 19 May 2020 12: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, it’s not a problem, of course, and it’s much cheaper to assemble everything in packs for mines, the launch and reverse loading of the UAV was a bit confusing at first, but there’s nothing complicated either, this float is stabilized by a cable if the load is not at the bottom and the cable is pulled. Even nothing really needs to be developed. But they’ll lie it here they will be the first to do it, although the Russian Federation has an advantage in air defense systems, but Americans have more suitable boats, in addition to being patriots, they add patriots to the Tomahawks, the point is to create such subtle threats to airspace, which is debatable.
      2. Interdum_silentium_volo 19 May 2020 20: 09 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        A PLO plane is not the most difficult goal, and a large one, therefore it can be detected by UAVs on a cable even with optical reconnaissance equipment.

        This is a very optimistic view. Provided that the optical stations determine aircraft up to 40 km in a narrow sector! I am silent about the lack of a radar for UAVs so far, with rare exceptions, but these exceptions have nothing to do with the UAVs you described.
        So we need an optical station by no means alone to give a wide field, in which there will still be blind spots. And the important question of anti-aircraft missiles, which redoubt doesn’t work, is that he needs radar illumination. And that means only active optical GOS , and how many such systems do we have?!?! with a medium-long radius.
        1. Shopping Mall 20 May 2020 09: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Interdum_silentium_volo
          A PLO plane is not the most difficult goal, and a large one, therefore it can be detected by UAVs on a cable even with optical reconnaissance equipment.

          This is a very optimistic view. Provided that optical stations determine aircraft up to 40 km in a narrow sector!


          It depends on what OLS capabilities we have now. On the F-35 OLS, a torch of a ballistic missile engine is detected for 1000 kilometers. Of course, this is a ballistic missile, but 1000 kilometers ...

          Already a plane PLO for 50 km, she will notice.

          Quote: Interdum_silentium_volo
          I am silent about the absence of a UAV radar so far, with rare exceptions, but these exceptions have nothing to do with the UAV described by you.


          They are developing. Recently, there was an article on the VO: Russian small-sized radars against drones
          https://topwar.ru/168684-razrabotka-otechestvennyh-malogabaritnyh-rls.html

          In general, we are talking about UAVs with electric motors on the power / control cable. Of course, we don’t have them, but this does not mean that this is an extremely complex technology. I considered UAVs for air defense in the article:
          Ensuring the work of the air defense system on low-flying targets without involving Air Force aviation
          https://topwar.ru/157292-obespechenie-raboty-zrk-po-nizkoletjaschim-celjam-bez-privlechenija-aviacii-vvs.html

          Quote: Interdum_silentium_volo
          So we need an optical station by no means alone to give a wide field, in which there will still be blind spots. And the important question of anti-aircraft missiles, which redoubt doesn’t work, is that he needs radar illumination. And that means only active optical GOS , and how many such systems do we have?!?! with a medium-long radius.


          Redoubt just relies on missiles with ARLGSN and IKGSN. They do not need backlighting, only target designation, and it can also be issued by OLS.
          1. Interdum_silentium_volo 21 May 2020 19: 40 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The redoubt has an IKGSN only on a 9m100 short-range missile, this is up to 40 km with an optimistic version! That is, at the supposed line of opportunity for the optical station. Not to mention the fact that the Redoubt cannot fire from under water!
            By the way, this is already a distance of the possibility of torpedoing a given ship, for today. And as soon as such ships appear they will certainly increase, and there will be a situation where attackers can shoot a ship without entering the return fire zone. Which, to put it mildly, is not very good.
            So without solving complex key points, this idea is a failure. You need to learn to shoot from under water, and if you teach to shoot from under water, then why such a monster when there is a submarine.
            And to learn to shoot from under water is only possible with a solution to external target designation, which means creating a flock of UAVs with backlight reconnaissance equipment, and the possibility of a long continuous flight.
            Again, having created the UAV you are talking about, which incidentally appeared in the Military Acceptance program of the technopolis Era. And if it can become a full-fledged reconnaissance and target designation station, it is better to install it on multi-purpose submarines, which will expand their capabilities, and will be done already an existing and understandable platform.
  31. Ua3qhp 17 June 2020 16: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the eighties of the last century there was a book “Ships and Shipping of the Future”, there such ships were called semi-submerged. So, it is not necessary to invent new terms. Their advantage was considered to be significantly lower water resistance during movement than conventional surface ships.