Military Review

China and the USA: the catamarans race begins!

68
China and the USA: the catamarans race begins!

Stephen Stashwick, maritime expert for The Diplomat, believes the new approach to anti-submarine defense, which is now being implemented in the United States and China, is a step forward.


What's the point? The point is in approaching the problem. The problem is Russian and Chinese submarines (Chinese project 094, Russian in the range) equipped with both ballistic and nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Nothing else can frighten the United States today.

Potential enemy submarines simply need to be tracked on the outskirts of zones from where they can effectively strike, leaving the Americans no time to respond.

Accordingly, a country that thinks about its security in terms of maritime boundaries is simply obliged to have an anti-submarine fleet.

We (for the sake of comparison) had a whole class of ships for this purpose.


We are talking about BOD, large anti-submarine ships. These were ships of the ocean zone, in terms of armament and equipment at that time, absolutely suitable in order to find a submarine and give it a headache in full.

Why "were"? Well, yes, the BOD of project 1755 is still in service, but the youngest is 30 years old, and about the equipment - and generally a separate conversation.

And the BOD of Project 1155.1 - and in general, something like a cross between a destroyer and a cruiser turned out. And he could pile on a cruiser under the coincidence of circumstances, and drive a boat. We had and still have ships capable of searching and reconnaissance, but it is worth discussing them separately (MANPADS and SZRK).

But today our neighbors have something completely different in their plans. Similar to our SZRK, but highly specialized: the search and detection of submarines. Our "Meridians" are ships with more capabilities, but what the Americans have planned can be called a sonar reconnaissance ship, since it is focused only on working on submarines.

So, the United States is starting to develop a project for a new generation of ships, the main task of which will be the fight against enemy submarines. And the first of these ships will have to enter service in 2025.

Well, when the Americans need it badly, their timing is okay. How about quality is a separate conversation, but a sonar reconnaissance vessel is still not an aircraft carrier.


Many research vessels are working for the safety of the United States, the main task of which is to tow behind a sonar station, capable of tracking submarines very well.

Since the 70s of the last century in service fleet The United States has T-AGOS type sonar reconnaissance ships (KGAR). These are vessels with a displacement of 3100 tons and a cruising speed of 9,6 knots. The hull is of a catamaran type, which significantly reduces the noise of this ship and stability in waves. KGAR do not have their own weapons, but can carry anti-submarine helicopters on board. Their main weapon - towed antenna of the "SURTASS" type and active low-frequency sonar.


The sonar system for early detection of submarines consists of two components: an active LFA antenna and a passive SURTASS. The main component of the system is SURTASS. During operation, the antenna is submerged in water to a depth of 150 to 450 meters and is towed by a vessel at a speed of 3-4 knots. And under such conditions, the analytical complex KGAR begins to hear submarines within a radius of 350 km.

In 2025, the US Navy KGAR flotilla of five ships will use up its resource and the ships will have to be changed. We are talking about a series of similar, but more modern ships of six or even seven units.


The US military is seriously concerned about China, which is increasing its submarine presence in the western Pacific. In 2020 alone, two more Project 094 submarines with ballistic missiles on board were deployed. Plus, the news that work on a new Chinese JL-2025 missile, which can have a range of up to 3 kilometers and is intended for the new boats of the 12 project, will be completed by 000, did not add optimism.

In general, such a range makes it easy to hit targets in the center of the United States from the Philippine Sea, for example. And that's really a cause for concern.

Therefore, it is completely logical that the American naval forces are vitally interested in the appearance of new ships for early detection and tracking of submarines. In addition, it is much cheaper to drive small ships across the entire Pacific Ocean (as well as to build) than the same frigates and destroyers.

So the year 2025 may well be marked by a new round of confrontation between the American and Chinese fleets in the Pacific Ocean.

By the way, you shouldn't discount Japan. The Japanese fleet today is one of the fastest growing fleets. And given the constant friction with the Chinese, whose submarines are systematically trying their teeth on the Japanese anti-submarine defense (and not without success, by the way), it is not surprising that in March this year Japan put into operation its first new ocean observation ship.

Currently, Japan already has three modern hydroacoustic reconnaissance and tracking ships. The Americans are generous with the Japanese, so the Japanese ships also carry SURTASS. The Japanese fleet is the only fleet in the world, except, of course, the American one, which is armed with an American complex.

And - also a catamaran ...


Japanese KGAR "Hibiki"

However, in fairness it is worth looking at the Chinese coast. And what about the Chinese in terms of detection?

And the Chinese are all right. Realizing that advanced detection and tracking systems provide very significant advantages, China put its specialists in charge of developing its own KGAR fleet. And today the Chinese Navy has three such ships. And several more are under construction at the shipyards.


Chinese ships are also made using catamaran technology. Combined with a diesel-electric propulsion system, such ships represent a very difficult target for submarines, since they are extremely quiet ships in acoustics. And directional stability gives the stability that is so necessary for hydrographic surveying and research using sonar and other acoustic equipment. And, of course, to determine the location of submarines.

The Chinese ship has an undeniable resemblance to the reconnaissance ships of the US Navy, which only confirms the parallel development of the Chinese and Americans. The images of the Chinese ships on the decks do not show any signs of the deployment of observation complexes, but this does not mean that they are not there. Of course have.


It would be interesting to compare the characteristics of ships and their equipment, but alas, data (especially Chinese) are still unrealistic to find.

The United States views its advanced and low-noise submarines as its main advantage over its potential adversary, China. And they definitely attract their Japanese satellites to work against the Chinese fleet.

However, it becomes clear that in the near future the Pacific Ocean will become an arena of confrontation between submarines and ships hunting them with renewed vigor. Like during the Cold War, when American and Soviet ships were working against each other. Only now there will be Chinese on one side, and Americans and Japanese on the other.


5 American ships and 3 Japanese (plus new American ones, which were discussed at the beginning) against 3 Chinese ones (and a certain number is definitely being built) will make the Pacific Ocean not the most convenient place for submarines.

Based on:
https://thediplomat.com/2020/07/us-navy-begins-design-evaluation-for-new-sub-tracking-ships
https://thediplomat.com/2017/06/photos-reveal-possible-new-chinese-sub-tracking-surveillance-ship
Author:
68 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Angelo Provolone
    Angelo Provolone 4 August 2020 05: 54 New
    +1
    understandably. to carry such pribluda you need a ship with minimal pitching.
    1. Ilshat
      Ilshat 4 August 2020 06: 41 New
      0
      Not obvious.
      What does it affect?
      The catamaran, I think, was chosen for reasons of minimum noise.
    2. Denimax
      Denimax 4 August 2020 10: 41 New
      +6
      The catamaran design is like a girder crane, which makes it more convenient to raise and lower such an overall antenna.
    3. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 4 August 2020 11: 47 New
      +2
      Quote: Angelo Provolone
      understandably. to carry such pribluda you need a ship with minimal pitching.

      The minimum noise level is achieved due to the removal of equipment above the water surface + small contact area between the body and water.
  2. andrewkor
    andrewkor 4 August 2020 06: 00 New
    -8
    In my opinion, an amateur to track the launch and movement of the Poisedon is not possible, what would it be?
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 4 August 2020 06: 17 New
      -1
      Yes figs with this Poseidon, when the Americans attack us with their nuclear forces, there is no particularly strong value, we will detonate 4000 nuclear weapons on our territory or deliver them to the Americans
      1. donavi49
        donavi49 4 August 2020 08: 06 New
        -1
        Question. Now horror stories from the 70-80s are very harshly beaten by models calculated on supercomputers. It turned out that it was all very overrated.

        Well, I mean, billions and civilization will die. But there will be no direct global and insurmountable cataclysms, no new Permian extinction. With people, it will be more likely to play a fallout suddenly + the remaining city-states / states.
        1. Sergey_G_M
          Sergey_G_M 4 August 2020 08: 20 New
          +3
          Ha-Ha-Ha !!
          Horror stories, overrated, only billions will die. Not only everyone will be able to look into the next day, only 99,8% of people will die, but no people - the population. But you and I know, we will survive, you and I are "smarter" "smarter".
          I don't even know what to tell you, come on, finish with a fallout, the place in the bunker is not rubber)))
          1. donavi49
            donavi49 4 August 2020 08: 35 New
            +4
            Well, you wrote - to blow it up at home, but what will happen in America from this, it's scary to imagine. According to the current models, which are calculated on modern supercomputers (and not on supercomputers of the 70s, with the power of a Chinese phone for $ 60), it will be bad where it was blown up. It will be bad where there are smoky clouds, and not for a day or a month, but for half a year. But in America, only climatic will knock + general factors.

            That is, a horror story will blow up everything in our mines - this is a senseless and merciless suicide according to the current models. For Murika will not only survive, preserve civilization, but will finally and irrevocably become a hegemon.

            In total, up to 2/3 of the population will survive, but many will die due to world changes (including social ones, especially in the destroyed zones). Also, life expectancy will sharply decrease, mortality will increase, and that's all.
            1. Sergey_G_M
              Sergey_G_M 4 August 2020 08: 55 New
              -3
              Damn it! Mathematics turns out to depend on the number of processor cores (you need to use the words super more, in the 70s they did not use "super", probably in vain), in general, let's take a china phone made in 2045 and it will calculate something fundamentally different from the calculations of the 1970s, but it there will be "super" or "super-duper" in the same place the frequency of the processor, memory, and so on differently, after all, will the truth count? do not care about mathematics - who needs it.

              Tough confrontation between the United States and Russia in which the United States wins? What? You have already screwed up without mathematics and supercomputers; at the level of banal logic, China wins in such a confrontation.
              1. donavi49
                donavi49 4 August 2020 09: 09 New
                +3
                There is a model - the cooler the computer, the more data you can put into the model and see what happens. Previously, it was necessary to simplify a lot, now it is possible to take into account a bunch of factors (for example, earlier all these fire-vortices were calculated by an areal model, but now by an individual model). Therefore, the model became more believable. This is not only about nuclear war, but also all sorts of changes in ocean currents in ordinary life, for example, the actual melting of glaciers, the release of methane from ocean sediments, etc. Models from the 80s and current ones are strikingly different.

                You wrote not about a tough confrontation, but about:
                4000 nuclear weapons on its territory


                I just pointed out that from this, the Americans will die only if laughing, according to the current models. Global catastrophic changes, as predicted in the 70s, will not happen now, and there will not be a large margin.

                In a large-scale nuclear war, with the current arsenals, the primary survival rate is up to 2/3 of the population. However, in the first 10 years, there will be a strong negative growth in the world population, perhaps about 55-60% of the current high, 10 years after the war.
                1. Sergey_G_M
                  Sergey_G_M 4 August 2020 09: 27 New
                  +1
                  Damn fucking, persuaded, mathematically, the Americans will not die out, civilization will collapse, people are degrading, and so all the rules, a good plot - I would bang!
                  1. Ilshat
                    Ilshat 4 August 2020 11: 40 New
                    -1
                    Nothing degrades, it's crap.
                    The "nuclear winter" horror stories were based not on the consequences of explosions, but on massive firesallegedly capable of producing a lot finely dispersed soot - this is important, the most important point!
                    The finer the particles, the longer they settle.
                    There is no confirmation of this yet.
                    That there will be some kind of special soot, and not the most common.
                    And there are not so many flammable materials.
                    The direct consequences of explosions, radiation contamination of global effects will not have, this was understandable in the 70s and now too.
            2. garri-lin
              garri-lin 4 August 2020 20: 21 New
              0
              You are not considering the main factor. What will the undermining be. There is such a thing as a "dirty bomb". And if Russia as a "Dead Hand" hits the Arctic Ocean, in places with a large number of volcanoes (Kamchatka) and does it with Dirty Bombs, then it will be uncomfortable to live on earth. Volcanoes will have a greenhouse effect. The ice contaminated with radiation will melt. Hana to the ocean.
          2. Kruglov
            Kruglov 4 August 2020 17: 34 New
            +2
            And the living will envy the dead ...
  3. Sergey_G_M
    Sergey_G_M 4 August 2020 06: 39 New
    0
    The US military is seriously concerned about China, which is increasing its submarine presence in the western Pacific. In 2020 alone, two more Project 094 submarines with ballistic missiles on board were deployed. Plus, the news that work on a new Chinese JL-2025 missile, which can have a range of up to 3 kilometers and is intended for the new boats of the 12 project, will be completed by 000, did not add optimism.

    In general, such a range makes it easy to hit targets in the center of the United States from the Philippine Sea, for example. And that's really a cause for concern.

    What's this? Is this funny? Instead of going out to the operational space in the Pacific Ocean, Chinese submarines will pinch in the Filipino skerries? No, gentlemen, Americans do not be fooled.The Chinese are already much closer to you)))
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 4 August 2020 07: 28 New
      0
      The Chinese are already much closer to you)))

      -the refusal of a \ carriers took place. Shoigu is right - he doesn't build aircraft carriers ..
      The United States is solving problems of primary importance, pampering with the superiority of the United States over the whole world is over
  4. Errr
    Errr 4 August 2020 06: 48 New
    10
    From the article:
    The hull is of a catamaran type, which significantly reduces the noise of this ship and stability in waves.
    In general, stability in this case does not decrease, but quite the opposite. smile
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 4 August 2020 07: 39 New
      -3
      Come on, these are such trifles!
      The author of the article easily and naturally at the beginning of the article talks about the BOD 1155.1
      And the BOD of Project 1755.1 - and in general, something like a cross between a destroyer and a cruiser turned out. And he could pile on a cruiser under the coincidence of circumstances, and drive a boat. We had and still have ships capable of searching and reconnaissance, but it is worth discussing them separately (MANPADS and SZRK).

      But today our neighbors have something completely different in their plans. Similar to our SZRK, but highly specialized: the search and detection of submarines. Our "Meridians" are ships with more capabilities, but what the Americans have planned can be called a sonar reconnaissance ship, since it is focused only on working on submarines.

      Well, what's the point in these pelvis, to indicate their presence in the region?
      Even for the demonstration of the flag, not very much, when BOD 1155.1 comes to the port, you can immediately see a battleship, and these catamarans are not solid.
    2. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 4 August 2020 21: 29 New
      +1
      "Generally, stability in this case does not decrease, but quite the opposite."
      Yes, I was not much surprised either. Apparently it meant stability.
      The only thing that immediately raises questions is, why did people suddenly decide that the maranny circuit can reduce the noise?!.
      Well, why? And suddenly.
      If you start to climb into the jungle, then in theory it can even increase the noise due to the resonance of the float body.
      1. Errr
        Errr 4 August 2020 22: 03 New
        0
        Among the seaworthiness of a vessel, the concept of stability is completely absent. smile
        Resonate the hulls of the catamarans considered in the article are not capable of due to the presence of bulkheads in them.
        Catamarans are "quiet" ships, apparently solely because they have hulls with a small waterline [narrow, shallow draft].
        1. Petrol cutter
          Petrol cutter 5 August 2020 19: 49 New
          0
          Where is this information from ?! But what about the concept of exchange rate stability? Ship / ship ...
          What does the bulkhead have to do with it? They are apparently attached to the set through shock absorbers ...
          What does the area of ​​the waterline have to do with it? What's the connection?
          You just opened my eyes to shipbuilding and physical phenomena in the water.
          1. Errr
            Errr 5 August 2020 20: 53 New
            +1
            1. You are right about having a concept exchange rate stability (course stability)... This concept really exists among other seaworthiness. Instead of just sustainability, the concept applicable to structures located on a solid foundation, in relation to ships supported by a liquid, the term is used stability.
            2. Bulkheads in the housings will not allow the latter to resonate due to their damping of acoustic waves; Regardless of the method of attachment to the body, any inner wall is an obstacle to their propagation, and resonance cannot be obtained in any way. Take a close look at at least the guitar deck and everything will become more or less clear. smile This thing only resonates because it's as empty as a drum.
            3. Waterline area ... what Here, apparently, it is better to read, well, let's say this: "A vessel with a small waterline area (SMW) without formulas and graphs" at http://www.barque.ru/shipbuilding/1987/vessel_with_small_area_waterline... It seems to be not confusingly stated. winked
            There is, however, one more article at https://flotprom.ru/publications/science/hull/multihullships/1/
            There's literally the following:
            REDUCING THE VISIBILITY OF THE MCC (MULTI-HULL SHIPS) IS PROVIDED:
            REDUCING THE INTENSITY OF THE WAVE FIELD through bodies generating smaller waves and - or their favorable interaction;
            REDUCED REFLECTIVE ABILITY free part due to a more monolithic free part with sloped sides, as well as (conventional) absorbent covers;
            REDUCING UNDERWATER LOW AND HIGH FREQUENCY RADIATION through effective use of pulling low-noise propellers and the possibility of placing the EU in the above-water part;
            REDUCING THERMAL RADIATION due to the placement of the gas exhaust between the housings and additional measures for its cooling.
            1. Petrol cutter
              Petrol cutter 5 August 2020 21: 22 New
              -1
              You are talking about radiation. I am talking about mechanical vibrations of operating ship mechanisms inevitably transmitting the same vibrations to the hull. After all, they are all births rigidly fixed on it. After all, it is probably not for nothing that the "silence" mode is introduced on the attacked submarine? .. What do you think?
              1. Errr
                Errr 7 August 2020 05: 57 New
                0
                It looks like this American (like T-AGOS)
                rests on a pair of "quiet" diesel-electric submarines lol , but only now their diesel generators were taken out to the surface of the catamaran. There, from the transmission, obviously, only shafts from electric motors to propellers.
                You can view this photo in a larger size at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/US_Navy_070913-N-2638R-004_Military_Sealift_Command_%28MSC%29_ocean_surveillance_ship_USNS_Effective_%28T-AGOS_21%29_sits_in_dry_dock_at_Commander_Fleet_Activities_Yokosuka.jpg
  5. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 4 August 2020 07: 11 New
    +4
    What kind of BOD 1755? laughing
  6. Avior
    Avior 4 August 2020 07: 13 New
    +4
    ... BOD project 1755 and now in service

    Author-correct, 1155
    1. Flamberg
      Flamberg 4 August 2020 07: 24 New
      +1
      Noticed an error
      Select the text and press Ctrl + Enter
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Avior
        Avior 4 August 2020 07: 28 New
        +2
        It is inconvenient to do it on the phone
      3. Sahalinets
        Sahalinets 4 August 2020 16: 17 New
        -1
        Yes, I already sent it to the moderators.
  7. Avior
    Avior 4 August 2020 07: 23 New
    +3
    Such ships can be used in a zone free of NK and enemy aircraft, it is reconnaissance, not combat.
    Or in a peaceful period.
    Threat is not entirely clear, is there not enough space on the Americans for a helicopter?
    The Japanese have something with a margin.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 5 August 2020 09: 35 New
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      Such ships can be used in a zone free of NK and enemy aircraft, it is reconnaissance, not combat.

      Simply put, this is an analogue of an AWACS aircraft, but only for the aquatic environment. Slow, unarmed, but very dangerous. And the tactics are the same - to crawl in the depths of the controlled territory and to illuminate the situation.
      Why compare it with 1155 is unclear. We planned a similar "dove of peace" - underwater lighting ship in the hull of the trawler, the main armament of which was GAS (part integrated anti-submarine system within the framework of R&D "Argus", usually referred to in connection with "Khalzan"). But Gorshkov covered up the project, stating
      I don't need such a ship that stands and waits for it to be drowned!
  8. mmaxx
    mmaxx 4 August 2020 07: 42 New
    +4
    It is strange to hear that low noise is inherent in a catamaran. Its speed is small, but there is still excitement from it. And in bad weather, the waves should beat well between the hulls. Including acoustics on the ears.
    Rather, you just need a stable platform
    1. Sergey_G_M
      Sergey_G_M 4 August 2020 08: 03 New
      +5
      This is not a ship or a vessel, it looks more like a raft. Have you been doing winter fishing? This is what it is - to sit by the hole:
      The sonar system for early detection of submarines consists of two components: an active LFA antenna and a passive SURTASS. The main component of the system is SURTASS. During operation, the antenna is submerged in water to a depth of 150 to 450 meters and is towed by a vessel at a speed of 3-4 knots. And under such conditions, the analytical complex KGAR begins to hear submarines within a radius of 350 km.

      If you need to crawl, then:
      Chinese ships are also made using catamaran technology. Combined with a diesel-electric propulsion system, such ships represent a very difficult target for submarines, since they are extremely quiet ships in acoustics.

      Hence the low noise level.
      These are not combat ships, except for hydroacoustic, they have nothing, why the author dragged it to the article BOD 1155 is not clear. Under the USSR, such ships were called peaceful cartographic))
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 4 August 2020 22: 34 New
      0
      low noise is inherent in it because at the same speed it will form a wave less, and to achieve the same speed it needs a lower engine power than a single-hull ship
    3. Seaflame
      Seaflame 25 August 2020 02: 47 New
      0
      Well, there is a towed antenna, it will be hundreds of meters away from the noise of its carrier, so it won't hit anyone in the ears.
  9. K-50
    K-50 4 August 2020 08: 12 New
    +2
    The bow shape of the Chinese and Ping Dos ships is very strange, in my opinion. One gets the impression that they, the ships, were created for action only in calm weather and rather strong excitement is contraindicated for them.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 4 August 2020 13: 23 New
      +1
      the seaworthiness of catamarans is an order of magnitude higher than that of single-hull ships, a catmaran allows you to reduce fuel consumption by a third at the same speed and allows you to increase the speed of the ship by several times with the corresponding displacement and propeller power for a similar single-hull ship. comfortable conditions with a low displacement of the ship, an order of magnitude larger deck area, that is, space for a helicopter and other equipment. Catamarans and trimaran are the future!
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 4 August 2020 13: 26 New
        0
        the safety of the catamaran is an order of magnitude higher, it is almost square, it does not need to cut the wave, which is very important if the engine fails at sea in a storm ...
      2. mmaxx
        mmaxx 4 August 2020 15: 45 New
        +1
        In terms of seaworthiness, everything is not so simple. On a large wave, it can hammer in waves. The conditions for the occurrence and compensation of the roll in catamarans is a complicated thing. This is most likely corrected by active sedation. Although for such systems to work, speed is needed, which is not in the characteristics. Okay, let it be a very good system that can work at low moves.
        A constant problem with catamarans is the impact of waves on the bridge.
        The speed simply cannot be an order of magnitude more. To do this, the hulls must be spaced, made narrow and provide more power. And there can be no order (10 times?). There is none of this. And there is a large wetted surface. This is 90 percent. resistance on the moves he walks.
        This is clearly a self-propelled platform.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 4 August 2020 22: 18 New
          0
          . the wetted surface has almost no effect at all, it can be neglected at speeds above 7 knots, when Frud comes into play .. and the wave resistance .... Well, of course, long elongated hulls, otherwise why a catamaran? ....
          Quote: mmaxx
          On a large wave, it can hammer in waves.
          on a big wave, any ship will be hollow in waves ...
          Quote: mmaxx
          The conditions for the occurrence and compensation of the roll in catamarans is a complicated thing.
          not so complicated, in general, everything in the world becomes complicated for the layman and simple for the one who figured it out, and stability is generally a very simple formula
          Quote: mmaxx
          This is most likely corrected by active sedation.
          I am sure that the active calming used in monohulls was not needed here ...
          Quote: mmaxx
          A constant problem with catamarans is the impact of waves on the bridge.
          what is it more than waves hitting the tank? ... your opus is a set of false stereotypes .... have you ever walked 45 50 knots? ... take a look ... https: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0_ (% D0% BA% D0% BE% D1% 80% D0% B0% D0% B1% D0% BB% D1% 8C)
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 4 August 2020 22: 48 New
            0
            55 knots! give Bora and Sivuch
            1. mmaxx
              mmaxx 5 August 2020 01: 34 New
              0
              Look at them and this shit
          2. mmaxx
            mmaxx 5 August 2020 01: 41 New
            0
            You fundamentally do not understand the process of pitching and stability of a monohull ship and a catamaran. When you are like kata and draw pictures for yourself with vectors of forces, then let's talk. And do not rub in that this ship will give 55 knots. It is not possible to design a vessel under 55 knots in advance. And this thing up to 55 in general has nothing to overclock. Only a nuclear explosion. Then it will develop when it will fall wink
            We have the "Commune". Catamaran. 55 knots do not go, even burst laughing wink
            1. The comment was deleted.
  10. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 4 August 2020 10: 03 New
    +1
    Projects 1155 and 1155.1. Correct the text, please.
  11. Foxnova
    Foxnova 4 August 2020 10: 15 New
    +1
    1155 and 1155.1 please fix
  12. Operator
    Operator 4 August 2020 10: 32 New
    +4
    In wartime, floating hydroacoustic underwater surveillance systems are suicide bombers: their active signals at a low frequency in the range from 100 to 300 Hertz are audible for 1000 km, so the enemy will drown these floating craft in the first place.

    The detection range of objects by floating FOSS, depending on hydrography, is on average 350 km, but the classification of targets as nuclear submarines is only 150 km. The accuracy of determining the coordinates of targets is 5 angular degrees, i.e. several tens of kilometers at the maximum range.

    Tracking enemy nuclear submarines is the task of floating FOSS only in peacetime, in wartime they are all intended to be included in their own AUG and KUG.

    The maximum target detection / classification range of 350/150 km applies only to nuclear submarines with a displacement of at least 10000 tons, the detection / classification range of diesel submarines with a displacement of 1000 tons falls by one order of magnitude, and Poseidon-type NPVs with a displacement of 40 tons - by two orders of magnitude.
    1. Operator
      Operator 4 August 2020 11: 52 New
      -1
      Addition: the maximum frequency of generation of radiation by the transmitting antenna LFA is 60 seconds - therefore, taking into account the speed of sound propagation in water of 1,5 km / s, the maximum detection range of underwater targets in the American floating craft SOPO in active mode is only 90 km (and not 350 km as in passive mode using only the SURTASS receiving antenna).

      At the same time, the range of sound direction finding of an operating LFA using a nuclear submarine sonar is about 1000 km, which is equal to the Zircon range with a flight time of 6 minutes.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 4 August 2020 14: 50 New
        +1
        MK: this is LIE
        LFA prototype in 1985. "highlighted" ALL "barentsuha" up to the Goose Bank
        1. K298rtm
          K298rtm 4 August 2020 20: 59 New
          +1
          I somehow missed it (either at sea or on vacation). It is possible in more detail (link), if not difficult. Thank you in advance.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 5 August 2020 09: 36 New
            0
            Write to Maxim.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 4 August 2020 14: 48 New
      +1
      Klimov asked to convey

      , the detection / classification range of diesel submarines with a displacement of 1000 tons drops by one order,


      MK:
      LIE, moreover, an ILLITERATE lie
      Have you heard anything about the sonar equation? ;)

      Operator of a Poseidon-type NPV with a displacement of 40 tons - by two orders of magnitude.


      MK: Once again, it's a LIE!
      Dyusha "modestly forgot" to "take into account" the sonar visibility of the powerful turbulent "tail" of the "Status"
  13. Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 4 August 2020 19: 50 New
    0
    I would advise you not to order by the number of letters, I myself dabbled in copying once, only ruined everything, although it rolled out, about pipes, corners and a schiller, I wrote too much, I was going less, but clearer.
  14. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 4 August 2020 20: 06 New
    -1
    DED peer DED.
    However, I wonder. When you have diesel engines and other generators threshing ... You will shake at least a traditional case, even a float one. My big suspicions. We will hardly see a big difference.
    The speech was about some diesel / electric installations.
    Maybe it will work according to the "diesel" system? .. In the search mode, the ship goes on batteries and electric motors? .. But, no matter how far across the ocean you find it ... Too little information ...
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 4 August 2020 22: 39 New
      0
      Didn't you know that the smaller the motor, the quieter it is? economy of the catamaran and results in less noise
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 5 August 2020 01: 44 New
        +1
        At low speeds and a monohull vessel, the resistance is lower. Because of less wetted surface. It will not be more economical.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 5 August 2020 07: 36 New
          0
          Quote: mmaxx
          At low moves

          Do they smile at you with these small moves? this is a military vessel, and in general resistance to motion due to the wetted surface, at any speed this is minuscule, Reynolds works in pipelines, and at sea it can be neglected, study the Froude number better
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 5 August 2020 09: 25 New
            +1
            Quote: vladimir1155
            Do they smile at you with these small moves?

            So if this is a GPBA tug, then for it the main moves are small. He will not rush across the ocean, dragging a tail one and a half kilometers long. smile
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 5 August 2020 10: 14 New
              0
              in general, resistance to movement due to the wetted surface, at any speed it is minuscule,
          2. mmaxx
            mmaxx 5 August 2020 14: 21 New
            0
            Finally, read the characteristics of this steamer. And it will become clear that he is up to 55 knots, like the moon. Any barge will go for this speed.
            Or have you heard that something is military, so they decided that it is 55 nodes at once and ready?
            Remember, no scheme of a ship, ship, or anything, is neither seaworthy, nor fast, nor stable in itself. It is used for a specific purpose. And then the vessel is given the necessary characteristics.
      2. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 5 August 2020 20: 08 New
        0
        "Didn't you know that the smaller the motor, the quieter it is? the economy of the catamaran and leads to its less noise"
        How did you decide that there is a small motor?
        To move such a bandura on the surface of the sea, there will be a very non-children's diesel engine, and moreover, it must be assumed, more than one. The motor from the Zhiguli usually does not roll in our hopeless business.
        And besides the power plant, there will be diesel / generators (continuously) and a bunch of smaller motors. Pumps, vacuum cleaners, fans and other canoes. All this machinery creates audible noise and vibration. Which is transmitted far enough through the water.
        I read the comments, except for a few adequate ones - the rest of the ship in the picture apparently only saw ...
  15. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 4 August 2020 20: 16 New
    0
    Judging by the photo. To be honest, the steamers are not striking in size.
    Hence the question arises, what is their seaworthiness and autonomy in terms of operation in the ocean? ...
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 4 August 2020 22: 40 New
      0
      it is 3-4 times higher than that of a monohull of a similar displacement
    2. Mooh
      Mooh 5 August 2020 00: 25 New
      +1
      They don't really need it. With a heavy antenna in fresh weather, you still can't do much work, and you can refuel and change the crew at sea. Such things do not go alone on anyone. Too defenseless and stuffed with secrets.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 5 August 2020 16: 40 New
        +4
        They walk alone. Guard ships themselves make noise and interfere with work.
        But they walk in the depths of their strength, and not on the front lines.
        And infa is now immediately transmitted via satellites to Poseidons and
        at AUG
      2. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 5 August 2020 21: 36 New
        +1
        "They don't really need it. With a heavy antenna in fresh weather, you still can't work much, but you can refuel and change the crew at sea."
        Miracles however. Why then are they needed at all?
        Just as long as there is fresh weather / refueling and a change of crew, Soviet submarines (which don't give a damn about all this under water) and will cross all permitted boundaries and bother you.
        And then they completely unbelted and zhahnut at the enemy ...
        1. Mooh
          Mooh 5 August 2020 22: 53 New
          0
          Why then are they needed at all?

          They supplement stationary systems in peacetime, in wartime they provide anti-aircraft missiles of a ship formation, or deploy in the directions of a possible breakthrough of enemy boats. Probably, seaworthiness and autonomy correspond to the customer's requirements, therefore, deployment in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk was not initially envisaged.
  16. Old26
    Old26 9 August 2020 14: 40 New
    0
    Quote: andrewkor
    In my opinion, an amateur to track the launch and movement of the Poisedon is not possible, what would it be?

    Uh-huh. This means that under good circumstances the boats will hear at a distance of 350 km at a speed of 10 knots, and the Poseidon roaring across the ocean going at a speed of 100 knots cannot be tracked. Write more ...

    Quote: Sergey_G_M
    only 99,8% of people will die,

    Even in those years when the total number of nuclear warheads in the world was in the region of 70 thousand, even then there was NEVER talk about the death of 99,8% of the population. For none of the nuclear powers being in their right mind would not begin to iron out the same Africa with nuclear charges. And the population there is multiplying - God forbid

    Quote: Sergey_G_M
    Damn fucking, persuaded, mathematically, the Americans will not die out, civilization will collapse, people are degrading, and so all the rules, a good plot - I would bang!

    Babakhni. It is desirable to have a small charge in your basement. Maybe then it will become clear that others will suffer from this to a minimum. And comrade donavi49 right. The current models are more accurate than those calculated in the 70s. They don't even talk about the "nuclear winter", because with more accurate models it became clear that the cataclysm that was predicted in the 70s


    Quote: garri-lin
    You are not considering the main factor. What will the undermining be. There is such a thing as a "dirty bomb". And if Russia as a "Dead Hand" hits the Arctic Ocean, in places with a large number of volcanoes (Kamchatka) and does it with Dirty Bombs, then it will be uncomfortable to live on earth. Volcanoes will have a greenhouse effect. The ice contaminated with radiation will melt. Hana to the ocean.

    The first question. What do you mean by the term "dirty" bomb. For some consider the three-stage device dirty, others - a radiological bomb.

    Second question. Excuse me, but the "Dead Hand" is not meant to be smacking in the Arctic Ocean or Kamchatka. It is only a means of communicating an order. And "Sirena" does not care what kind of protection is introduced into the missiles. But what will be introduced into the PZ missiles with the Arctic Ocean or Kamchatka is BSK (bullshit)

    The third question. Do you have any idea theoretically how many "dirty" bombs you need to put in the Arctic Ocean to melt all this mass of ice? This is not even adventurism, but sorry D.

    The fourth question. Are you sure that the explosion in Kamchatka will initiate volcanoes? Or try to get into the mouth? So KVO is not enough ... And no one in the world knows what megatonnage is needed to wake up not just one volcano, but several dozen. Even the explosion of Krakatoa did not give a greenhouse effect, and there it was, oh, what a

    Quote: Sergey_G_M
    Well, what's the point in these pelvis, to indicate their presence in the region?
    Even for the demonstration of the flag, not very much, when BOD 1155.1 comes to the port, you can immediately see a battleship, and these catamarans are not solid.

    So let's build battleships with a displacement of that kind of thousand to 200 tons of displacement. These will no longer look like pelvis. What you need. For the vessel to perform its functions or be watched. If the latter, then only battleships and aircraft carriers will look good. The rest are a trifle compared to them.