Military Review

The effectiveness of the air defense of the naval strike group

130

First article in the series: “The problem of increasing the effectiveness of air defense. Air defense of a single ship "... An explanation of the purpose of the series and responses to reader comments on the first article are provided in the appendix at the end of this article.


As an example, we will choose a group of ships, consisting of three frigates sailing in the open sea. The choice of frigates is explained by the fact that there are simply no modern destroyers in Russia, and corvettes operate in the near zone and are not required to provide serious air defense. To organize all-round defense, the ships are lined up in a triangle with sides of 1-2 km.

Next, we will consider the main methods of defense of the IBM.

1. Using a complex of electronic countermeasures (KREP)


Suppose that a reconnaissance plane is trying to locate the KUG and reveal its composition. To prevent the reconnaissance from opening the composition of the group, it is necessary to suppress its on-board radar (on-board radar) using KREP.

1.1. Suppression of the reconnaissance radar


If a single reconnaissance aircraft flies at an altitude of 7-10 km, then he comes out of the horizon at ranges of 350-400 km. If the ships do not turn on the interference, then the ship, in principle, can be detected at such ranges, if it is not made using stealth technology. On the other hand, the echo signal reflected from the target at such ranges is still so small that it is enough for ships to turn on even a small interference, the scout will not find the target and he will have to fly closer. However, due to the fact that the scout does not know the specific type of ships and the range of their air defense systems, he will not approach the ships at a distance of less than 150-200 km. At such ranges, the signal reflected from the target will increase significantly, and the ships will have to include a much more powerful jammer. Nevertheless, if all three ships turn on noise interference, then an angular sector 5-7 degrees wide will appear on the scout radar indicator, which will be clogged with interference. In these conditions, the reconnaissance officer will not be able to determine even the approximate range to the sources of interference. The only thing that the scout will be able to report to the command post is that there are enemy ships somewhere in this corner sector.

In wartime, a pair of fighter-bombers (IB) can act as scouts. They have an advantage over a specialized reconnaissance officer in that they can approach enemy ships at a shorter distance, since the probability of hitting a pair of information security is much less than a slow-moving aircraft. The most important advantage of a pair is that by observing interference sources from two different directions, they can locate each one separately. In this case, it becomes possible to determine the approximate distance to sources of interference. Therefore, a pair of IB can produce target designation for launching anti-ship missiles.

To counteract such a pair of KUG, first of all, with the help of a shipborne radar, it is necessary to determine that the IS can really track the KUG, that is, the distance between the IS along the front is at least 3-5 km. Further, the tactics of jamming must change. In order for the IS pair to be unable to count the number of ships, only one of them, usually the most powerful, should emit interference. If IS, like a single reconnaissance officer, do not approach a distance of less than 150 km, then the interference power is usually sufficient. But if IS fly further, then the result is determined by the visibility of the ships, which is measured by the effective reflecting surface (EOC). Ships of stealth technology with image intensifier tube 10-100 sq. M. will remain unnoticed, and Soviet-built ships with image intensifier tubes 1000-5000 sq. m. will be opened. Unfortunately, even in the project 20380 corvettes stealth technology was not used. In the following projects, it was introduced only partially. We never made it to the invisibility of the destroyer Zamvolt.

To hide ships of high visibility, one has to abandon the use of noise interference, although it is good in that it creates an illumination on the radar indicator at all ranges. Instead of noise, imitation interference is used, which concentrates the interference power only in separate points in space, that is, instead of continuous noise of average power, the enemy will receive separate high-power pulses at separate points along the range. These interference create false marks of targets, which will be located at the azimuth that coincides with the azimuth of the KREP, but the ranges to false marks will be the same as the KREP will emit them. The task of KREP is to hide the presence of other ships in the group, despite the fact that its own radar azimuth will reveal. If the KREP receives accurate data on the range from the IS to the protected ship, then it can emit a false mark at a range that coincides with the true range to this ship. Thus, the IS radar will simultaneously receive two marks: a true and a much more powerful false mark, located at an azimuth that coincides with the KREP azimuth. If the radar station receives many false marks, it will not be able to distinguish the mark of the protected ship among them.

These algorithms are complex and require the coordination of radar and electronic warfare of several ships.

The fact that in Russia the ships are produced in units of pieces and are equipped with equipment from different manufacturers, casts doubt on the fact that such an agreement was made.

1.2. The use of KREP to repel the attack of the anti-ship missiles


The methods for suppressing the RGSN for various classes of anti-ship missiles are similar, therefore, further we will consider the disruption of the attack of a subsonic anti-ship missile (DPKR).

Suppose that the frigate's surveillance radar detected a salvo from 4-6 DPKR. The ammunition load of the frigate's long-range missiles is very limited and is designed to repel attacks from aircraft. Therefore, when the DPKR comes out from under the horizon at a distance of about 20 km with the radar homing head (RGSN) turned on, it is necessary to try to disrupt the RCC guidance by suppressing its RGSN.

1.2.1. RGSN design (special point for those interested)


The CWGS antenna should transmit and receive signals well in the direction where the target is intended. This angular sector is called the main lobe of the antenna and is usually 5-7 degrees wide. It is desirable that in all other directions of radiation and reception of signals and interference there would be no at all. But due to the design features of the antenna, a small level of radiation and reception remains. This area is called the sidelobe area. In this area, the received interference will be attenuated 50-100 times in comparison with the same interference received by the main lobe.

In order for the interference to suppress the target signal, it must have a power not less than the signal power. Therefore, if the interference and the target signal of the same power are in the main lobe, the signal will be suppressed by the interference, and if the interference is in the side lobes, the interference will be suppressed. Therefore, the jammer located in the side lobes must emit power 50-100 times greater than in the main lobe. The sum of the main and side lobes forms the antenna directional pattern (BOTTOM).

Anti-missile systems of previous generations had a mechanical beam scanning drive and formed the same main beam of the beam pattern for both transmission and reception. A target or obstacle can be tracked only if it is in the main lobe and not in the side lobes.

The newest RGSN DPKR "Harpoon" (USA) has an antenna with an active phased antenna array (AFAR). This antenna has one beam for radiation, but for reception, in addition to the main beam pattern, it can form 2 additional beam patterns, offset from the main beam pattern to the left and right. The main DND works for reception and transmission in the same way as the mechanical one, but has electronic scanning. Additional BOTTOMS are designed to suppress interference and work only for reception. As a result, if the interference acts in the region of the side lobes of the main beam pattern, it will be tracked by the additional beam pattern. In addition, the interference compensator built into the RGSN will suppress such interference by 20-30 times.

As a result, we find that the interference received along the side lobes in the mechanical antenna will be attenuated by 50-100 times due to the attenuation in the side lobes, and in the AFAR by the same 50-100 times and in the compensator by another 20-30 times, which significantly improves the noise immunity of the RGSN S AFAR.

Replacing the mechanical antenna with AFAR will require a complete rework of the RGSN. It is impossible to predict when this work will be done in Russia.

1.2.2. Group suppression of RGSN (special point for those interested)


Ships can detect the appearance of the DPKR immediately after its exit from the horizon using the KREP by the radiation of its RGSN. At ranges of about 15 km, the DPKR can also be detected using the radar, but only if the radar has a very narrow beam in elevation - less than 1 degree, or has a significant transmitter power reserve (see paragraph 2 of the annex). The antenna must be installed at a height of more than 20 m.

At ranges of the order of 20 km, the radiation of the main lobe of the RGSN will block the entire CUG. Then, to maximize the expansion of the interference zone, the noise interference is emitted by the two outer ships. If 2 interferences enter the main lobe of the RGSN simultaneously, then the RGSN is directed to the energy center between them. As you approach the KUG, at distances of 8-12 km, the ships begin to be detected separately. Then, in order for the RGSN not to be guided to one of the sources of interference, the CREP that falls into the zone of the side lobes of the RGSN begins to operate, and the others are turned off. At ranges of more than 8 km, the power of the KREP should be sufficient, but when approaching a distance of 3-4 km, the KREP switches from the emission of noise interference to the imitation one. For this, the KREP must receive from the radar the exact values ​​of the range from the anti-ship missile system to both protected ships. Accordingly, false markings should be located at ranges that coincide with the ranges of ships. Then the RGSN, having received a more powerful signal from the side lobe, will not receive any signals from this range.

If the RGSN detects that there are no targets or sources of interference in the direction in which it is flying, it will switch to the target search mode and, scanning with a beam, will stumble upon the emitting CREP with its main lobe. At this moment, the RGSN will be able to track the KREP radiation. To prevent direction finding, this KREP is turned off, and the KREP of the ship that fell into the zone of the side lobes of the RGSN is turned on. With this tactic, the RGSN never receives either the target mark or the KREP bearing, and misses. As a result, it turns out that each anti-ship missile system KREPs of the KUG must be exposed to powerful interference acting on the side lobes of the RGSN, and according to an individual program associated with the current position of the RGSN beam. When no more than 2-3 anti-ship missiles are attacked, then such interaction can be organized, but when a dozen anti-ship missiles are attacked, failures will begin.

Conclusion: when detecting a massive attack, it is necessary to use disposable and decoy targets.

1.2.3. Using additional opportunities for disinformation RGSN


Disposable jamming transmitters can be used to protect stealthy ships. The task of these transmitters is to receive RGSN pulses and retransmit them back. Thus, the transmitter sends a false echo, reflected from a non-existent target. It is possible to ensure retargeting of the RCC to this target if you hide all true marks. To do this, at the moment when the anti-ship missile system flies to a distance of about 5 km, the transmitter is fired to the side of the ship at 400-600 m. Before the firing, the KREPs of all ships include noise interference. Then the RGSN gets a whole area clogged with interference, and is forced to start a new scan. At the edge of the jamming zone, it will find a false mark, which it will accept as true and retarget it. The disadvantage of this method is that the transmitter power is low and it will not be able to imitate old ships with high visibility.

More powerful interference can be emitted by placing the transmitter on the balloon, but the balloon is not positioned where required, but on the leeward side. This means you need something like a quadcopter.

Towed false reflectors on rafts are even more effective. 2-3 rafts with four 1 m corner reflectors installed on them will provide an imitation of a large ship with an image intensifier tube of thousands of square meters. The rafts can be located both in the center of the KUG and on the side. Hiding true targets in this situation is provided by KREPs.

All this confusion will have to be managed from the center of defense of the KUG, but something has not been heard about such works in Russia.

The volume of the article does not allow us to consider optical and IR GOS.

2. Destruction of anti-ship missiles by missiles


The task of using missiles, on the one hand, is easier than the task of using KREP, since the results of the launch immediately become clear. On the other hand, the small ammunition load of the anti-aircraft guided missiles forces them to take care of each of them. The mass, dimensions and cost of short-range missiles (MD) are significantly less than long-range missiles (DB). Therefore, it is advisable to use anti-missile missiles MD, provided that it is possible to ensure a high probability of hitting anti-ship missiles. Based on the capabilities of the radar to detect low-altitude targets, it is desirable to ensure the value of the far border of the MD SAM engagement zone of 12 km. This air defense tactic is also determined by the capabilities of the enemy. For example, Argentina in the Falklands War had only 6 anti-ship missiles and therefore they used anti-ship missiles one by one. The United States has 7 thousand Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and they can use volleys of more than 10 pieces.

2.1. Evaluation of the effectiveness of various air defense systems MD


The most advanced is the American shipborne SAM MD RAM, which is also supplied to the US allies. On the Arleigh Burke destroyers, RAM operates under the control of the Aegis air defense system radar, which ensures its all-weather use. The GOS SAM has 2 channels: a passive radio channel, guided by the radiation of the RGSN RCC, and infrared (IR), which is guided by the thermal radiation of the RCC. The air defense missile system is multi-channel, since each missile defense system is guided independently and may not use control from the radar. The launch range of 10 km is close to optimal. The maximum available overload of 50 g missiles allows you to intercept even intensively maneuvering anti-ship missiles.

The air defense missile system was developed 40 years ago for the task of destroying the Soviet SPKR, and it is not obliged to work on the GPKR. The high speed of the GPCR allows it to make maneuvers with high intensity and with a large amplitude of lateral deviations without significant loss of speed. If such a maneuver begins after the missile defense has flown a significant distance, then the energy of the missile defense system may simply not be enough to approach the new trajectory of the GPCR. In this case, the air defense missile system will be forced to immediately launch a package of 4 missiles in 4 different directions (with a square around the trajectory of the GPCR). Then, for any GPCR maneuver, one of the missiles will intercept it.

Unfortunately, the Russian MD air defense systems cannot boast of such qualities. SAM "Kortik" was also developed 40 years ago, but under the concept of a cheap "headless" missile, directed by the command method. Its millimeter-wave radar does not provide guidance in adverse weather conditions, and the missile defense system has a range of only 8 km. Due to the use of a radar with a mechanical antenna, the air defense system is single-channel.

SAM "Broadsword" is a modernization of the SAM "Kortik", carried out due to the fact that the standard radar "Kortika" did not provide the required accuracy and targeting range. Replacing the radar with an IR sight increased the accuracy, but the detection range in adverse weather conditions even decreased.

SAM "Gibka" uses SAM "Igla" and detects the DPKR at too small ranges, and the SPKR cannot hit because of its high speed.

An acceptable range of destruction could have been provided by the Pantsir-ME air defense system, only fragmentary information has been published on it. The first copy of the air defense missile system this year was installed at the "Odintsovo" MRK.

Its advantages are the launch range increased to 20 km and multichannel: simultaneously 4 missiles are aimed at 4 targets. Unfortunately, some shortcomings of the "Kortik" remained. SAM remained headless. Apparently, the authority of General Designer Shepunov is so great that his statement half a century ago (“I don’t shoot with radars!”) Still prevails.

With command guidance, the radar measures the difference in angles to the target and to the missile defense system and corrects the direction of flight of the missile defense system. Radar Guidance has 2 ranges: high-precision millimeter and mid-range centimeter ranges. With the existing antenna sizes, the angular error should be 1 milliradian, that is, the lateral miss is equal to one thousandth of the range. This means that at a distance of 20 km, the miss will be 20 m. When firing at large aircraft, this accuracy may be enough, but when firing at anti-ship missiles, such an error is unacceptable. The situation will worsen even if the target maneuvers. To detect a maneuver, the radar must follow the trajectory for 1-2 seconds. During this time, the DPKR with an overload of 1 g will shift by 5-20 m. Only when the range is reduced to 3-5 km will the error decrease so much that the anti-ship missile can be intercepted. Millimeter-wave meteorological stability is very low. In fog or even light rain, the detection range drops significantly. The accuracy of the centimeter range will provide guidance at a distance of no more than 5-7 km. Modern electronics makes it possible to obtain small-sized GOS. Even an uncooled IR seeker could significantly improve the probability of interception.

2.2. The tactics of using the air defense missile system MD


In the KUG, the main (most protected) ship is selected, that is, the one on which there is the best MD air defense missile system with the largest stock of missiles or is in the safest situation. For example, located farther than others from the RCC. It is he who should emit RGSN interference. Thus, the main ship causes an attack on itself. For each attacking anti-ship missile, its own main ship can be assigned.

It is desirable that the ship is chosen as the main one, to which the anti-ship missile flies not from the side, but from the bow or stern. Then the probability of hitting the ship will decrease, and the effectiveness of the use of anti-aircraft guns will increase.

Other ships can support the main one, informing it about the flight altitude of the anti-ship missile system or even firing at it. For example, the air defense missile system "Gibka" can successfully hit the DPKR in pursuit.

To defeat the DPKR at the far border of the launch zone, you can first launch one MD missile defense system, evaluate the results of the first launch and, if necessary, make a second. Only if a third is required, then a pair of missiles is launched.

To defeat the SPKR, missiles must be launched in pairs at once.

GPCR can only affect the RAM SAM. Due to the use of the command method of targeting the missiles, the Russian air defense missile systems MD cannot hit the GPCR, since the command method does not allow hitting the maneuvering target due to the long reaction delay.

2.3. Comparison of ZRKBD designs


In the 1960s, the United States declared the need to repel the massive attacks of the Soviet aviation, for which they will need to develop an air defense system, the radar of which could instantly switch the beam in any direction, that is, the radar must use a phased array antenna (PAR). The US Army developed the Patriot air defense system, but the sailors declared that they needed a much more powerful air defense system, and began to develop the Aegis. The basis of the air defense missile system was a multifunctional (MF) radar, which had 4 passive HEADLIGHTS, providing all-round visibility.

(Note. Radars with passive HEADLIGHTS have one powerful transmitter, the signal of which is routed to each point of the antenna strip and radiated through passive phase shifters installed at these points. By changing the phase of the phase shifters, you can almost instantly change the direction of the radar beam. Active HEADLIGHT has no common transmitter, and a micro-transmitter is installed at each point of the web.)

The MF radar tube transmitter had an exceptionally high pulse power and provided high noise immunity. The MF radar operated in a meteorological-resistant 10-cm wavelength range, while homing missiles used a semi-active RGSN that did not have their own transmitter. A separate 3-cm range radar was used to illuminate targets. The use of this range allows the RGSN to have a narrow beam and aim at the illuminated target with high accuracy, but the 3-cm range has a low meteorological resistance. In conditions of dense clouds, it provides a missile guidance range of up to 150 km, and even less in the rain.

MF radar provided an overview of space, and target tracking, and guidance of missiles and control units for radar illumination.

The upgraded version of the air defense missile system has both radars with active HEADLIGHTS: MF radar 10-cm and high-precision guidance radar 3-cm ranges, replacing the radar illumination. SAMs have active RGSN. For air defense, the Standard SM6 missile defense system is used with a launch range of 250 km, and for missile defense - SM3 with a range of 500 km. If it is necessary to launch missiles at such ranges in difficult weather conditions, then the MF radar is guided on the marching segment, and an active RGSN at the end.

AFARs have low visibility, which is important for stealth ships. The power of the AFAR MF radar is sufficient to detect ballistic missiles at very large distances.

In the USSR, they did not develop a special shipborne air defense system, but modified the S-300. The S-3f 300-cm range guidance radar, like the S-300, had only one passive HEADLIGHT, rotated to a given sector. The width of the electronic scanning sector was about 100 degrees, that is, the radar was intended only for tracking targets in this sector and targeting missiles. The central control center of this radar was issued by a surveillance radar with a mechanically rotated antenna. Surveillance radar is significantly inferior to the MF, since it scans the entire space evenly, and the MF selects the main directions and sends most of the energy there. The S-300f guidance radar transmitter had significantly less power than the Aegis. While the missiles had a launch range of up to 100 km, the power difference did not play a major role, but the emergence of a new generation of missiles with an increased range also increased the requirements for the radar.

The interference immunity of the guidance radar was provided due to a very narrow beam - less than 1 degree, and compensators for interference that came along the side lobes. The compensators worked poorly and in a difficult jamming environment they were simply not turned on.

SAM BD had a range of 100 km and weighed 1,8 tons.

The modernized S-350 air defense system has been significantly improved. Instead of one swivel headlamp, 4 fixed ones were installed and provided all-round visibility, but the range remained the same, 3 cm. The 9M96E2 SAM used has a range of up to 150 km, despite the fact that the mass has decreased to 500 kg. In adverse weather conditions, the ability to track a target at ranges over 150 km depends on the image intensifier of the target. According to the information security of the F-35, the power is clearly not enough. Then the target will have to be accompanied by a surveillance radar, which has both the worst accuracy and the worst noise immunity. The rest of the information was not published, but judging by the fact that a similar passive PAR was used, there were no significant changes.

From the above, it is clear that Aegis outperforms the S-300f in all respects, but its cost ($ 300 million) cannot suit us. We will offer alternative solutions.

2.4. The tactics of using the air defense missile system DB [/ h3]
[h5] 2.4.1. Tactics of using ZURBD to defeat RCC


SAM BD should be used only for firing at the most important targets: supersonic and hypersonic anti-ship missiles (SPKR and GPKR) and also information security. The DPKR must be hit by the MD SAM. SPKR can be struck on the march section, at ranges of 100-150 km. For this, the surveillance radar must detect the SPKR at ranges of 250-300 km. Not every radar is capable of detecting a small target at such ranges. Therefore, it is often necessary to conduct a joint scan with all three radars. If a 9M96E2 missile defense system is launched by the command method at a distance of 10-20 km from the SPKR, then it will most likely aim at the SPKR.

When flying on a marching section with an altitude of 40-50 km, the GPCR cannot be affected, but with a decrease to an altitude of 20-30 km, the probability of targeting missiles sharply increases. At lower altitudes, the GPCR can begin to maneuver, and the likelihood of defeat will somewhat decrease. Consequently, the first meeting of the GPKR and the missile defense missile system should occur at a distance of 40-70 km. If the first missile defense system does not hit the GPKR, then another pair is launched.

2.4.2. The tactics of attacking the enemy's KUG by the IS group


The defeat of IB is a more difficult task, since they operate under the cover of interference. SAM "Aegis" is in a preferable situation, since the Soviet IS of the Su-27 family had an image intensifier twice as large as that of their prototype F-15. Therefore, the Su-27, flying at a cruising altitude of 10 km, will be detected immediately after leaving the horizon at a distance of 400 km. To prevent Aegis from detecting targets, our information security must apply CREP. Since Russia has no jammers, it will be necessary to use individual IS KREPs. Given the low power of the KREP, it will be dangerous to approach closer than 200 km. To launch the anti-ship missile system on the external control center, you can also use such a border, believing that the anti-ship missiles will figure it out on the spot, but to open the composition of the KUG you will have to fly further. The destroyers "Arleigh Burke" are equipped with CREPs of record capacity, so you need to fly 50 km to the KUG. It is easiest to start descending before leaving the horizon, dropping all the time below the horizon to a height of 40-50 m.

The IS pilots realize that a maximum of 15 seconds after the exit on them will be the first launch of the missile defense system. To disrupt a missile defense attack, it is necessary to have a pair of IS, the distance between which does not exceed 1 km.

If, at a distance of 50 km, IS radars are suppressed by interference, then it is necessary with the help of KREP to reconnoiter the coordinates of the working ship radars. For an accurate determination, it is necessary that the distance between KREPs be at least 5-10 km, which means that a second pair of ISs will be needed.

To launch the anti-ship missile system, the target distribution of the explored sources of interference and radar is carried out, and after the launch of the anti-ship missile system, the information security systems intensively deploy and go beyond the horizon.

For launching from ranges of about 50 km, the launch of a pair of SPKR X-31, one with an active one, and the other with an anti-radar RGSN, is especially effective.

2.4.3. The tactics of using the air defense missile system of the DB to defeat the IB F-35


The concept of using IS against the KUG does not at all provide for the entry of IS into the zone of coverage of the MD SAM system, and at ranges of more than 20 km, the outcome of the confrontation is determined by the ability of the SAM radar to overcome interference. Jammers operating from safe zones cannot effectively hide the attacking IS, since the director's duty zone is far - beyond the radius of destruction of the air defense missile system. There are no directors operating in the IS systems even in the USA. Therefore, the secrecy of the IS is determined by the ratio of the power of the KREP and the image intensifier of the target. The IB F-15 has an image intensifier tube = 3-4 square meters, and the image intensifier tube F-35 is classified and cannot be measured using the radar, since additional reflectors are installed on the F-35 in peacetime, increasing the image intensifier tube several times. Most experts estimate the IIT = 0,1 sq. M.

The power of our surveillance radars is much inferior to the Aegis MF radar, so even without interference it will hardly be possible to detect the F-35 further than 100 km. When KREP is turned on, the F-35 mark is not detected at all, but only the direction to the source of interference is visible. Then you will have to transmit the target detection to the guidance radar, directing its beam for 1-3 seconds in the direction of the interference. If the raid is massive, then it will not be possible to serve all directions of interference in this mode.

There is also a more expensive method for determining the range of the source of interference: the missile defense missile system is launched to a great height in the direction of the interference, and the RGSN from above receives the interference signal and retransmits it to the radar. The radar beam is also directed at the interference and receives it. Reception of one signal from two points and its direction finding allows you to determine the position of the interference. But not every SAM is capable of relaying the signal.

If 2-3 interference is simultaneously hitting the beams of the RGSN and the radar, then they will be tracked each separately.

For the first time, the retransmission line was used in the Patriot air defense system. In the USSR, the task was simplified and only a single source of interference began to be found. If there were several sources in the beam, then it was not possible to determine their number and coordinates.

So, the main problem when aiming the S-350 missile defense system on the F-35 will be the ability of the 9M96E2 missile defense system to relay the signal. Information about this is not published. The small size of the diameter of the body of the missile defense system makes the RGSN beam wide, and several interference is very likely to hit it.

3. findings


The effectiveness of a group AA defense is significantly higher than that of a single ship.

To organize all-round defense, the KUG must have at least three ships.

The effectiveness of the group air defense is determined by the algorithms for the interaction of the KREP radar and the perfection of the missile defense system.

The high-quality organization of air defense and the sufficiency of ammunition ensure the defeat of all types of anti-ship missiles.

The most pressing problems of the Russian Navy:
- the lack of destroyers does not make it possible to provide the KUG and the main ship with sufficient ammunition and powerful KREP;
- the lack of frigates of the "Admiral Gorshkov" type does not allow to operate in the ocean;
- the shortcomings of the short-range air defense system does not allow to reliably reflect the salvo of many anti-ship missiles;
- the lack of unmanned helicopters with a sea surface survey radar capable of giving target designation for launching their own anti-ship missiles;
- the lack of a unified concept of the Navy, allowing the formation of a unified range of radars for ships of various classes;
- the lack of powerful MF radars that solve the problems of air defense and missile defense;
- insufficient implementation of stealth technology.

application


Explanation of questions on the first article.

On the purpose of publishing the series.

The author believes that the position of the Navy has reached such a critical level that it is necessary to conduct a broad exchange of views on this issue. The VO website has repeatedly expressed the opinion that the GPV 2011-2020 program has been disrupted. For example, frigates 22350 instead of 8 were built 2, the destroyer was never designed - it seems that there is no engine. Someone offers to buy an engine from the Chinese. The figures for the ships built over the year look beautiful, but nowhere is it indicated that there are almost no large ships among them. Soon we will start reporting on the launch of another motor boat, but there is no reaction to this on the website.

The question arises: if we have not provided the quantity, then is it time to think about quality? To stay ahead of the competition, you need to get rid of defects. Specific proposals are required. The brainstorming method suggests not to reject any ideas out of the box. Even the project of a long-range combat sailing ship proposed by someone, although cheerful, can be discussed.

The author does not claim to be broad in his horizons and to the inviolability of his statements. Most of the given quantitative estimates are his personal opinion. But if you do not expose yourself to criticism, then the boredom on the site will not be overcome.

The comments on the article showed that this approach is justified: the discussion was active.

Reader opinion

“I worked on a ship's radar, and on it the low-flying target (NLC) is not visible. You find it in the last seconds. A radar is an expensive toy. Only optics can save you. "

Explanation. The NLC problem is the main one for shipborne radars. The reader did not indicate which of the radars did not cope with the task, and in fact not every radar is obliged to do this. Only radar stations with a very narrow beam, no more than 0,5 degrees, are able to detect the NLC immediately after leaving the horizon. Radars S300f and "Kortik" are the closest to this requirement. The difficulty of detection is that the NLC appears from the horizon at very small elevation angles - hundredths of a degree. At such angles, the sea surface becomes mirror-like, and two echoes arrive at the radar receiver at once - from the true target and from its mirror image. The mirror signal comes in antiphase to the main one and thus extinguishes the main signal. As a result, the received power can decrease 10-100 times. If the radar beam is narrow, then by raising it above the horizon by a fraction of the beam width, it is possible to significantly weaken the mirror signal, and it will cease to extinguish the main signal. If the radar beam is wider than 1 degree, then it can detect the NLC only due to the large power reserve of the transmitter, when the signal can be received even after cancellation.

Optical systems are good only in good weather conditions, they do not work in rain and fog. If there is no radar station on the ship, then the enemy will happily wait for fog.

Opinion on the state-owned enterprise "Zircon"

"Why" Zircon "can not be started up in NLC mode? If you pass the marching section at subsonic sound and accelerate to 70 M at a distance of 8 km, then you can approach the target at an altitude of 3-5 m. "

Explanation. Only those anti-ship missiles that have a ramjet engine should be called hyper- or supersonic. Its advantages: simple, cheap, lightweight and economical. The absence of a turbine leads to the fact that air is supplied to the combustion chamber by air intakes, which work well only in a narrow range of speeds. The ramjet should not fly at either 8 M or 2 M, and there is nothing to say about subsonic.

Even in the USSR, they developed two-stage anti-ship missiles, for example, the Moskit, but did not get good results. The same is with the "Caliber", the subsonic 3M14 flies 2500 km, and the two-stage 3M54 - 280. The two-stage "Zircon" will be even heavier.

The GPKR will not be able to fly at a height of 5 m, since the shock wave will raise a cloud of spray, which can be easily detected by the radar, and the sound - by sonar. The altitude will have to be increased to 15 m, and the radar detection range will increase to 30-35 km.

View

"It is possible to direct the Zircon GPCR from satellites, optics or a laser locator."

Explanation. You cannot place a multi-ton telescope or laser on a satellite, so we will not talk about observation from a geostationary orbit. Low-altitude satellites from an altitude of 200-300 km can detect something in good weather. But the satellites themselves in wartime can be destroyed, the SM3 SAM must cope with this. In addition, the United States developed a special projectile (it seems, ASAD), launched from the F-15 IS to destroy low-altitude satellites, and the X-37 anti-satellite has already been tested.

The optics can be masked with fumes or aerosols. Even at such altitudes, the satellites gradually slow down and burn out. It is too expensive to have many satellites, and with the available number, the surface is surveyed once every few hours.

Over-the-horizon radars also do not provide a control center, since their accuracy is low, and in wartime they can be suppressed by interference.

A-50 AWACS aircraft could issue a control center, but they will only fly accompanied by a pair of IS, that is, no further than 1000 km from the airfield. They will not fly closer than 250 km to Aegis, and at such long ranges the radar will be jammed.

Conclusion: the control center problem has not yet been resolved.

Common opinion

"When the precise guidance of the Zircons on the AUG cannot be ensured, then it is best to use a special charge of 50 kt, which is quite enough to leave only fragments of the AUG."

Explanation of the author. Here the question is no longer a military one, but a psychological one. I would like to pull the tiger's mustache. The goat Timur butted the tiger Cupid and survived. He was treated at the veterinary hospital. Well, we ... Want to admire the vitrified desert in the place of Moscow? A nuclear strike on such a strategic target as the AUG will mean only one thing for the Americans: the third (and last) world war has begun.

Let's play further in conventional wars, let the lovers of special charges talk on special sites.

The issue of combating AUG is central to our Navy. The third article will be devoted to him.
Author:
Articles from this series:
The problem of increasing the effectiveness of air defense. AA defense of a single ship
130 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 25 September 2020 06: 00
    -9
    Lavras of Klimov do not give the author peace ...

    The Fe-15 is not a prototype of the Su-27. And in general, to paraphrase the classics, a smart face (an abundance of abbreviations) is not a sign of intelligence (the scientific nature of the article).
    Here the question is no longer a military one, but a psychological one.
    ... I would rather say - psychopathic. "Pulling the cat by the mustache" is the last thing, to kick it in the ass, so that it doesn't shit, that's the thing.
    Do you want to admire the vitrified desert in the place of Moscow?
    Well! We will save on paving stones, and we will help our western comrades save money!
  2. tlauicol
    tlauicol 25 September 2020 06: 26
    +5
    thanks to the author for the interesting information.
    Allow me another question: how do the WGSN and RGSN RCC behave in conditions of poor visibility, and which of them is preferable?
    1. aagor
      27 September 2020 17: 25
      0
      Electromagnetic radiation is conventionally divided into three classes: radio, infrared and optical. Everything is determined by the wavelength; decimeter, centimeter and millimeter wavelengths are used in radar. In IR heads from 1 micron to 10 microns, in optics less than 1 micron. Meteorological formations (rain, fog) are droplets close to a ball. For an electromagnetic wave, these droplets are an obstacle, which it partially flows around or partially scatters. As well as for sea waves, the flow around an obstacle is determined by the ratio of the wavelength and the size of the obstacle. If the wavelength is much longer than the length of the obstacle, then the wave flows around it practically without deforming, if the wavelength is shorter, then it is scattered in all directions. Therefore, decimeter waves pass through the rain freely, centimeter waves - more or less, and millimeter, IR and optics - bad. In addition, the radiation energy is partially spent on heating the drops with the same effect - the shorter the wavelength, the greater the absorption. Therefore, in the fog, the RGSN of the cm-range sees for tens of kilometers, mm-range for units of km, IR for 1 km, and optics for a few meters. Approximately the same occurs in dust storms. But the shorter the wavelength, the more detailed it is possible to see the target. Author
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 27 September 2020 17: 45
        0
        thank you for the educational program hi it turns out that in the Baltic it is better to have RBS than NSM))
  3. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 25 September 2020 06: 46
    +1
    A very long and too highly specialized article. He mastered somewhere in the fifth part, then moved on to conclusions.
    But they amazed me!
    It turns out that three ships are better than one!
    Fuck! Probably, I am also an analyst - I always thought that three rubles is better than one!
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 25 September 2020 08: 14
      +2
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Very long and too highly specialized article

      And if Skomorokhov wrote the article, what would your comment look like?
      1. The leader of the Redskins
        The leader of the Redskins 25 September 2020 09: 54
        -4
        Similar. I only have a bad perception of one current author - Kharaluzhny. He has 90 percent "everything is bad, but in Ukraine it is even worse" ... I treat the rest as objectively as possible.
        How would you comment on Skomorokhov?
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 25 September 2020 11: 20
          -2
          Quote: Leader of the Redskins
          How would you comment on Skomorokhov?

          How can one comment on fiction? Just a fictional story!
          Quote: Leader of the Redskins
          even worse in Ukraine

          But how really?
          1. The leader of the Redskins
            The leader of the Redskins 25 September 2020 11: 36
            -3
            It depends on what. I communicate with my father and acquaintances. The problems are the same as ours - salaries, prices, utilities. But people live. They work, give birth and raise children.
            To say unequivocally that it is worse is impossible.
    2. Glory1974
      Glory1974 25 September 2020 11: 15
      +4
      It turns out that three ships are better than one!
      To go nuts!

      In fact, this is not a fact, and here one can argue with the author.
      If there is a single control system, then 3 is better than 1.
      But there is no such system! Therefore, the ships will fight together, but separately. All three can simultaneously fire at one target, and the other two targets will be without fire at all.
    3. Krasnodar
      Krasnodar 25 September 2020 16: 49
      +2
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      A very long and too highly specialized article. He mastered somewhere in the fifth part, then moved on to conclusions.
      But they amazed me!
      It turns out that three ships are better than one!
      Fuck! Probably, I am also an analyst - I always thought that three rubles is better than one!

      And sho, is it worse? laughing
    4. ancient
      ancient 25 September 2020 17: 51
      +4
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      To go nuts!

      And I'm the same ... it turns out there is a new criterion for determining the range to the target is ..... "fly up ... closer - closer" wassat
  4. rocket757
    rocket757 25 September 2020 06: 58
    +2
    Do you want to admire the vitrified desert in the place of Moscow?

    There will be more than one such glazed places ... it is obvious that they will be on opposite sides of the ocean.
    So far, at least some, if not sanity, then a sense of self-preservation in serious guys remains, such prospects are somewhat optional ..... required.
    And now for everything else - Conflicts of low intensity can be ignored !!! Between the vigorous powers, all this can easily slide to ... it's clear to what.
    The technical aspects of the defense of ships, while there is no particular sense to consider, we have been marking time for too long and it is NOT POSSIBLE to fix everything quickly !!! all the more not the fact that everything is enough to fix it at all .... incl. quality, reasonable, country management !!!
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 25 September 2020 09: 24
      -5
      Quote: rocket757
      incl. quality, reasonable, country management !!!

      Enough. They reset to zero.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 25 September 2020 09: 37
        -1
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        Enough. They reset to zero.

        This is, YET, assumption, one of the options.
        Boom to see .... although, in principle, nothing will change, neither this way nor the other.
  5. Undecim
    Undecim 25 September 2020 07: 58
    10
    The question to the author is why only airplanes are considered in the issue of detecting an IBM. But what about the groupings of the space surveillance system - satellites for optical, optical-electronic and radar surveillance? Or did the author knock them all down and neutralize?
    1. Aag
      Aag 25 September 2020 08: 41
      +1
      Quote: Undecim
      The question to the author is why only airplanes are considered in the issue of detecting an IBM. But what about the groupings of the space surveillance system - satellites for optical, optical-electronic and radar surveillance? Or did the author knock them all down and neutralize?

      The author expressed his opinion on this matter:
      "Explanation. You cannot place a multi-ton telescope or laser on a satellite, so we will not talk about observation from a geostationary orbit. Low-altitude satellites from an altitude of 200-300 km can detect something in good weather. But the satellites themselves can be destroyed in wartime, SAM SM3 has to cope with this. In addition, the US developed a special projectile (it seems, ASAD), launched from the F-15 IS to destroy low-altitude satellites, and the X-37 anti-satellite has already been tested ... "
      1. Undecim
        Undecim 25 September 2020 09: 12
        +8
        The indicated opinion of the author shows that he is, to put it mildly, not very competent in the matter of satellites.
        In addition, what kind of ship grouping is he considering - Russian or American?
        1. Aag
          Aag 25 September 2020 10: 01
          +3
          Perhaps. Therefore (IMHO), the author offers a discussion ... True, I doubt that competent experts in satellite capabilities in relation to the topic of the article will share their knowledge here.
          As far as I understand, we cannot create a full-fledged KUG. A hypothetical, promising one is proposed for discussion ...
      2. Vlad.by
        Vlad.by 25 September 2020 12: 54
        -3
        Great! This Aegis turns out to be from all diseases. The Arley group passed and that's it, there are no satellites in space and all the planes were shot down!
        The author did not mention the probabilistic nature of hitting targets. The fact that the probability of hitting SM3 by satellites is currently no higher than 15-20%, how is it? In aviation, it will not be better, if not worse, well, if you do not consider, of course, advertising results obtained in polygon conditions.
        Our situation is fundamentally no better, but ...
        Let there be no AFARs on our ships, but the radar stations are much larger and all work at different frequencies. So the probability of target detection is at least higher.
        And how it will be with defeat, let's see
        There is something to shoot and the saturation of ships with the latest air defense systems is proceeding at a good pace.
        Well, about RCC, we are still really ahead of the rest of the planet. And we don't seem to be going to stop.
        I am against the war, but the knife of the guillotine, I believe, must necessarily hang over any unwashed "exclusive" neck that tries to look into our window.
        So, for every fireman!
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 25 September 2020 13: 35
          +4
          Quote: Vlad.by
          Let there be no AFARs on our ships, but the radar stations are much larger and all work at different frequencies. So the probability of target detection is at least higher.
          And how it will be with defeat, let's see
          There is something to shoot and the saturation of ships with the latest air defense systems is proceeding at a good pace.

          Reliance on shipborne radar and shipborne air defense systems has one fatal drawback - the radio horizon. For targets on PMV, any air defense system works poorly and not far away - because its radar sees them only at a distance of 25-30 km.
          While the adversary has a radar circling at an altitude of several kilometers, which on PMV sees much further than the ship's. And instead of the radar of the air defense missile system - the radar of fighters, for which the radio horizon is also much further.
          1. common man
            common man 25 September 2020 14: 08
            +2
            Quote: Alexey RA
            While the adversary has a radar circling at an altitude of several kilometers, which on PMV sees much further than the ship's.

            When defending our territories, we can also use the A-50, flying under the cover of our air defense. And a war at sea far from its shores is, in any case, lethal for our Navy.
            In general, a high-altitude AWACS aircraft is probably needed.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 25 September 2020 17: 00
              +3
              Quote: man in the street
              When defending our territories, we can also use the A-50 flying under the cover of our air defense.

              If the Air Force gives them to solve naval tasks.
              I would rather believe that at the first stage of the war, aviation will be taken away from the fleet for solving tasks on land. Fortunately, there was a precedent.
              1. common man
                common man 25 September 2020 19: 21
                0
                Quote: Alexey RA
                If the Air Force gives them to solve naval tasks.

                Well, you can also say that in the event of a war, electricity will be cut off at all naval bases. For not paying. Fortunately, there were precedents in the 90s.
                Seriously though, the fleet should have its own AWACS aviation (not necessarily carrier-based). Sharpened primarily for anti-ship work.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  timokhin-aa 26 September 2020 22: 46
                  +1
                  You do not understand. The question of whether to take anything from the fleet today is decided by the lieutenant general at the head of the Military District. Tanker or paratrooper.
                  The only exception is the Northern Fleet, where the opposite is true until the General Staff gets into the situation.
                  We do not have a sane system of commanding forces in the theater of operations, we have an archaic system in the form of military districts. And what they decide on the war in peacetime is better not to think.
            2. aagor
              27 September 2020 17: 35
              0
              The author proposed a high-altitude AWACS of the Ministry of Defense, undertook to provide a detection range for IS of 900 km, but the Ministry of Defense is not interested in such proposals. Author
        2. Bez 310
          Bez 310 25 September 2020 14: 33
          -1
          Quote: Vlad.by
          Well, about RCC, we are still really ahead of the rest

          What kind of RCC are you talking about?
          Maybe you can give at least the names of these RCCs, or even
          launch range with aiming method?
          I'd like to be proud!
          1. Vlad.by
            Vlad.by 25 September 2020 18: 47
            0
            Be proud of at least Granite and Onyx.
            Group intelligence and flock management.
            Personally, this is more than enough for you!
            Although, I'm sure that they got a shovel, and the fan has not yet burned out.
            Good luck sketching. Don't sweat, it's autumn outside, catch a cold ...
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 25 September 2020 18: 56
              -3
              Quote: Vlad.by
              Granite and Onyx.
              Group intelligence and flock management

              Have you picked up the headlines?
              How about the launch range and aiming method?
              Who will issue the CU? How?
              1. Vlad.by
                Vlad.by 25 September 2020 19: 06
                -4
                Although the names have heard such)))
                There are quite enough funds for issuing a control center in 1500-2000 km from our shores. And then we don't need it yet. From aviation to ZGRLS.
                A 300-500 km of anti-ship missiles flight will be behind the eyes of those who come close.
                For the remaining impudent people, the X-32, X-35, etc. will be enough ...
                Quickly nose into the training manual!
                Look for new arguments.
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 25 September 2020 19: 17
                  +1
                  Quote: Vlad.by
                  funds are sufficient for issuing control centers at 1500-2000 km from our shores.

                  We simply do not have such funds.

                  I got it all - you just don't know what it is
                  CU, and how they should be issued.
                  Don't answer, I don't need your slogans,
                  I thought that you know something about these
                  questions. I was wrong, sorry ...
                  1. Vlad.by
                    Vlad.by 26 September 2020 12: 57
                    -1
                    ))) funny troll. On the case, apparently, there is nothing. Immediately with aplomb, but in mud)))
                    Cheap excuse!
                    I knew what CU was as a young lieutenant after graduating from the MIZRU in 1982. With a Gold Medal at the Faculty of ACS, by the way. Curious, where did you hear something about the control center?
                    So you can shove your opinion, which is not interesting to me, to yourself, somewhere between your legs.
                    1. Bez 310
                      Bez 310 26 September 2020 14: 20
                      -1
                      No need to discuss the personality of the commentator
                      or praise yourself, try
                      just answer the topic.
                      So how are you going to issue the RCC TCC?
                      1. Vlad.by
                        Vlad.by 26 September 2020 15: 29
                        0
                        The CU is issued not by the RCC, but by the divisional control system. Actually, a guidance command with coordinates is issued to the rocket, after a decision is made from the OMS
                        Over-the-horizon stations, of which there are already enough, and there will be even more, VKP based on the Il-38, Tu-142, A-50U, and any fighter starting with the Su-30 and newer, can be the source of the primary for the control center.
                        There is more than enough time for order detection and safe departure when searching at altitudes above 8000.
                        In addition, there are already the first satellites for global radio intelligence.
                        Well, data from passive radio intelligence stations such as Vega, Valery and even Kolchuga are quite enough for the Central Control Center.
                        Their range of 600-1000 km is more than enough to protect our coast.
                        As well as accuracy for targeting a group of Onyx anti-ship missiles (with one missile acting as a reconnaissance and spotter)
                        The carriers of the anti-ship missiles proper, capable of reaching the launch line of 500-600 km (the range of our Onyx is much greater than the Indian Brahmos, we are generally silent about Granite, and there are not so many of them left, nothing really is known about Zircon) from the enemy KUG more than enough. In our coastal seas, these are corvettes, frigates, Varshavyanka. And a sufficient number of aircraft capable of carrying the X-32 and X-35 to the launch line.
                        And then, let the enemy's head hurt how to brush off a star attack.
                        Naturally, all this is not somewhere in the center of the world's oceans, but 1,5-3,0 thousand kilometers from our shores.
                        Further, our capabilities are not enough, but now this is not necessary. And the same AUG, sailing more than 1500 km from our shores, are not dangerous to us.
                        And let's close the topic, if the "sworn friends" were sure of their own safety, they would graze in herds near our shores, as it was in the 90s and early 2000s.
                      2. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 26 September 2020 15: 56
                        -3
                        What a mess in your head ...
                        Yes, it's time to stop.
                        But so, for information:
                        - in the troops there is not a single aircraft capable of using the X-32;
                        - anti-submarine aircraft Il-38 and Tu-142 cannot issue CU, due to lack of the necessary equipment;
                        - the A-50 aircraft is useless in issues of issuing the anti-ship missile center for the same reason;
                        - ...
                        In general, we have huge problems with the destruction of the enemy's AUG.

                        Although, there is one tried and tested way - to throw hats.
                      3. Vlad.by
                        Vlad.by 26 September 2020 18: 37
                        -1
                        So yes, porridge. Buckwheat.
                        And yes, the modernized Novellas do not have search radars and, moreover, no means of transmitting digital information. Not to mention the A-50. These are generally deaf-blind-mute.
                        We have no carriers of the X-32. And they themselves are not there either.

                        https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2018-08/1533572737_tu-22m3-1.jpg

                        And in general, Katz has long offered to surrender ...
                      4. Bez 310
                        Bez 310 26 September 2020 18: 51
                        -2
                        I will not argue with you, because you are not an expert
                        neither in missile carriers, nor in anti-submarine. And about
                        You have only read A-50 on the Internet.
                        I thought that you knew something new in matters of CU,
                        I wanted to learn something, but I failed.
                        I know a thing or two about missile carriers and anti-submarines
                        and even about attempts to use the A-50 for
                        aiming the strike forces of the MPA on enemy ships.
                        In general, sorry ...
                  2. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 27 September 2020 01: 16
                    +3
                    The CU is issued not by the RCC, but by the divisional control system.


                    And the battery is not issued? laughing
                    And then what if we only have a battery, what can we not give out to it?
                    laughing laughing
                    A salvo of the RCC DIVISION I would watch, by the way laughing

                    Over-the-horizon stations, of which there are already enough, and there will be even more, VKP based on the Il-38, Tu-142, A-50U, and any fighter starting with the Su-30 and newer, can be the source of the primary for the control center.
                    There is more than enough time for order detection and safe departure when searching at altitudes above 8000.


                    The person you are arguing with is what he did in his life - he flew out to search for American aircraft carriers, to designate a strike, he saw "partners" both through the sight and through the window, and from what point of experience do you broadcast?

                    As well as accuracy for targeting a group of Onyx anti-ship missiles (with one missile acting as a reconnaissance and spotter)


                    And who told you that the Onyx anti-ship missile system can do this?

                    And a sufficient number of aircraft capable of carrying the X-32 and X-35 to the launch line.


                    And is the launch line of the X-35, subject to a strike on an aircraft carrier, is it inside the AMG air defense zone or outside?

                    The Kh-32, by the way, has not been put into service and is not being produced.

                    Further, our capabilities are not enough, but now this is not necessary. And the same AUG, sailing more than 1500 km from our shores, are not dangerous to us.


                    Why aren't they dangerous?

                    And let's close the topic, if the "sworn friends" were sure of their own safety, they would graze in herds near our shores, as it was in the 90s and early 2000s.


                    They graze in herds and are not afraid of anyone.
                    https://vz.ru/society/2020/9/11/1059474.html
                    See the date.
                  3. Andrey.AN
                    Andrey.AN 20 November 2020 02: 23
                    0
                    You can also tell Kadychnikov like that, if he was a fucker invented a combat system, if he himself was never a fighter. Or Mendeleev, what he is inventing vodara, he is drunk for me, he does not fit a candle. Or Kalashnikov, where he climbs, son of a bitch, he did not fight at all, did not really hold weapons in his hands. Fresh influences just from strangers come, with a clean look.
                  4. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 20 November 2020 02: 29
                    0
                    This is not an argument in this case.
                  5. Andrey.AN
                    Andrey.AN 20 November 2020 02: 58
                    0
                    And why did you not like the fact that our over-the-horizon stations see the entire water area for thousands of kilometers and direct the command post to targets and threats, along with other reconnaissance means, so that they did not direct experienced pilots from the command post to these purposes?
                  6. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 20 November 2020 11: 50
                    0
                    Those, ZGRLS for thousands of kilometers see only air targets, and surface targets cannot.
                  7. Lirik R
                    Lirik R 21 November 2020 21: 23
                    0
                    And surface targets carry air targets, and they are just visible)
                  8. Lirik R
                    Lirik R 24 November 2020 01: 17
                    0
                    Alexander, do not write more about over-the-horizon radars. It's not yours.
  • ban
    ban 25 September 2020 08: 21
    +7
    Jammers operating from safe areas cannot effectively hide attacking information security

    A small clarification: in the United States, on the basis of standard information security, specialized electronic warfare aircraft are created, operating from battle formations. The Navy has the "Growler" program, the Air Force has the "Wild Weasle".
    They carry not only electronic warfare systems, but also PRR.
  • pmkemcity
    pmkemcity 25 September 2020 08: 34
    0
    Quote: rocket757
    The technical aspects of the defense of ships, while there is no special point to consider

    By the way there are no ships.
    1. Aag
      Aag 25 September 2020 08: 55
      +5
      Quote: pmkemcity
      Quote: rocket757
      The technical aspects of the defense of ships, while there is no special point to consider

      By the way there are no ships.

      It seems that the article stipulates this point - there are few ships, not the ones that are required ... I think first you need to decide on the tasks, the concept of using the fleet. Accordingly, there will be requirements for ships, tactics of use, techniques, etc.
      In the meantime, we have what we have - the IPC did not see the refrigerator (that, it seems, did not interfere ...) There are doubts about the ability to detect submarines ...
      The article is difficult to read, and with disappointing conclusions. I cannot judge the author's competence, not special. But, thanks to the author anyway! First of all, for being indifferent. hi
      1. pmkemcity
        pmkemcity 25 September 2020 10: 06
        +3
        Quote from Lenin: “The circle of these revolutionaries is narrow. They are terribly far from the people.
        "
        Quote: AAG
        I can't judge the author's competence

        The author began to "theorize" on "ideal" models, but got lost on particulars. After Gagarin's flight, the world became small, and a duel of KUGgs-AUGs of opposing sides from a distance of 3000 km (Come together! Ha-ha!) Is impossible even in theory. All the more so for "our" reality - four fleets, more precisely, eight theaters. And each theater of military operations will have its own unique scenario of confrontation.
        With the banana republic, to which we are moving by leaps and bounds, the United States does not stand on ceremony, but simply loads air defense above the roof, and not so much the number in one strike, as the number of strikes themselves, each of which will fall on an increasingly weakened defense. The modern economic potential of Russia, and indeed of any country, is not able to quickly compensate for the loss of both destroyed and damaged air defense systems and spent materiel (missiles and equipment resources). Building a defense against the means of attack is a deliberately losing scenario. Real confrontation can only be imposed by destroying the carriers (including the "carriers of the carriers"), and, of course, by striking the "decision-making centers". However, this is a completely different story.
        Regarding the current state of naval radio-electronic warfare, the author will have to be disappointed - at the moment there is no possibility of coordinated in time and space actions of the motley ships of the Russian Navy. The air defense of the formation is built in echelon (if possible) and the appointment of separate sectors for ships.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 25 September 2020 08: 43
    0
    What was that?
    It seems that at the beginning they took the OBK as a conditional goal in
    as part of 3 frigates of the Russian Navy, and at the end began
    to resolve the issue of overcoming the air defense AUG of the US Navy.
    Author, tie it up already ...
  • Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 25 September 2020 08: 47
    +7
    Take it and take notes. Thank you for the article.
    The presence of AFAR on Harpoons, although it was predictable, somehow surprised me. The vast majority can continue to believe in invincibility, and I am increasingly worried about the feeling of doom.
    1. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 25 September 2020 09: 31
      -9
      Quote: Earthshaker
      and I'm more and more worried about the feeling of doom

      They say diazepine drugs help, alprazolam, for example laughing
    2. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity 25 September 2020 10: 20
      +2
      Quote: Earthshaker
      The presence of AFAR on the Harpoons, although it was predictable, somehow surprised me

      Here the author, of course, bent a little ...
  • Kostya Lavinyukov
    Kostya Lavinyukov 25 September 2020 09: 10
    +4
    The question to the author is why the use of passive interference has not been considered.
    1. aagor
      27 September 2020 17: 44
      0
      See section 1.2.3. and the first article in the series. Author
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 25 September 2020 10: 03
    -4
    respected Andrey Gorbachevsky raises a very relevant topic and examines it thoroughly .... unfortunately, the conclusion is that surface ships are outdated, shock weapons are ahead of the development of defense (air defense). In the conditions of the Russian Federation with its number of ships, when the specified kug from one cruiser and three armored submarines is practically the whole oceanic surface fleet of the Russian Federation ..... the only way out is a complete rejection of the DMZ in wartime, all surface ships are used only in BMZ under an umbrella coastal aviation and coastal missiles. It is necessary to develop coastal aviation, submarines, to release only such surface ships that are needed in the BMZ (minesweepers, corvettes-frigates are flat). To abandon the UDK, not to build new battleships and cruisers with destroyers. Rather, sell Kuzya to India-China, and use the proceeds to build coastal aviation, minesweepers and submarines. Less patriots lagged behind reality.
    1. ban
      ban 25 September 2020 10: 52
      +3
      Vladimir, aren't you tired yet?
      We are not yet a banana republic and, thank God, not a 404.
      Overseas interests are and will be, therefore, DMZ ships are needed, incl. and aircraft carriers. Another issue is quantity.
      History teaches that the fleet should be. balanced.
      As for the basic aviation, submarines, small ships - so who is against?
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 26 September 2020 10: 36
        -1
        Quote: ban
        As for the basic aviation, submarines, small ships - so who is against?

        thanks! about 404, I support, but with certain reservations, international financial industrial groups affiliated with the US Federal Reserve and its private owners control all world trade, production, the media (which are all totally shareware and unprofitable) and politicians (which they all buy). Their lobbyists stand in the corridors of parliaments (the lobby is in the English corridor) and instruct deputies and senators how to vote, including in the Russian Federation. For example, now Senator Klishas and Krasheninnikov are pushing in Russia a French juvenile law on the extrajudicial removal of children from their parents within 24 hours. Since 1992, Russia is a colony like any banana republic, the fact that we do not grow bananas but have oil changes little, half of the RF budget revenues are sent through sovereign funds to the United States, this is a slavish tribute to the owner. Even more money is sent to the same jurisdiction through offshore companies; the largest factories in the territory of the Russian Federation belong to the same international financial and industrial groups. The fact that Putin is not yet giving up a controlling stake in Gazprom and Rosneft is a matter of time, and the United States is working on this issue. We even have a special native tax on Russians, it is paid only by citizens of the Russian Federation and Russia pays it to the Americans in the form of a VAT refund in millions of dollars. Russia is even prohibited from issuing national currency, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation is subordinate to the US Federal Reserve directly bypassing the parliament and the president with the government. And the government fulfills all the requirements of the IMF (read the US Federal Reserve).
        What tasks in the DMZ are you talking about? The fact that you are lagging behind the reality that happened 28 years ago? And why? why people in Russia, under the shouts of "everyone will have a Mercedes," destroyed their country? Why did it happen twice in 404, that is, they didn't learn anything? and now Belarusians are doing the same as zombies? I know this, because I know the technology of manipulating consciousness, and I think one of the weaknesses of a person is the lack of logical thinking, the thinking of the majority is slogan (Kuzya is cool!) And vain (our Kuzya!), Mosaic, the majority is not able to tie their knowledge together. You have no idea that the military budget of the Russian Federation is a certain amount that has an inextensible size? And what are the costs of the useless Kuzya and the construction of militarily senseless UDC, these are not built submarine aircraft, minesweepers, missiles? That the closure of two docks for five eight years for the sake of rebuilding them under the one and only Kuzya, is the cessation of ship repairs for five to 8 years, and as a result, for example, the cancellation of 5 nuclear submarines that have not undergone repairs and three BODs? Kharlamov and Chabanenko are already scrapped, Levchenko is questionable ... you and your like-minded people have an idea of ​​Kuza who will go somewhere, and what will show there, this is an empty fantasy .. But the reality is that the ship requires daily expenses, but the trip requires various supplies, personnel, fuel, outposts, food supply, ammunition, weather at sea, .. understand Kuzya will not be able to go anywhere, because all this simply does not exist. And the Russian Federation has no tasks in the DMZ, except to be American mercenaries in their interests to shed Russian blood in their banana republics. You need to defend the country, save it from occupation, and not climb into Africa ... when your house is on fire.
        1. ban
          ban 26 September 2020 12: 13
          0
          I wrote a detailed answer, but it hung and did not boot (.
          Therefore, thesis - the budget is not rubber, I agree, but if you remove numerous parasites from it, then there will be enough money for everything.
          Any budget now is a feeding trough, the entire state order system is sharpened for this, so we have what we have - at the output we get 10-20% of the spent. The rest is stolen.
          We do not forget about the sawing projects of all kinds of wunderwaves, about yachts that surpass the Navy in total displacement, etc. Themselves at the beginning, they painted everything perfectly.
          Therefore, regardless of whether we sell the Kuzya or not, the nuclear powered submarines and armament ships will be scrapped, and we will not build any planes, minesweepers, submarines, missiles beyond what is being built now, alas. But we will finally lose our carrier-based aircraft.
          It's a little gloomy, of course, but somehow it all comes out.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 25 September 2020 11: 31
      -4
      Quote: vladimir1155
      Less patriots lagged behind reality.

      Yes, they are not behind realities, but from your stream of fantasies! wink
    3. alstr
      alstr 25 September 2020 12: 40
      +3
      The picture was painted gloomy.
      In fact, the fleet must be rebuilt.
      The fleet cannot be built at once. This is a time and a big investment.
      My opinion that you need to go in order:
      1. Build a fleet for the protection of water areas (this includes not only and several ships' personnel, but also coastal defense complexes, air defense bases, naval aviation, etc. Bases should be put in order in the end).

      What does it have to do with priorities.
      As already mentioned here, it is necessary to completely restore the ASW system and mine forces (both minesweepers and directors).
      This is first and foremost.
      Also, put in order naval aviation, as the cheapest strike and defensive force (the cost of an aircraft is less than the cost of any boat - well, almost any).
      Pay attention to unmanned systems in all environments. As well as the creation of a network of surface and underwater lighting sensors.

      2. And only after having dealt with point 1, proceed to the construction of SEPARATE KUGS (with or without aircraft carriers - this will already show).

      And you don't have to sell anything. Let them serve and demonstrate the flag while there are no new IBM.

      We must have defense forces that ONLY do this.

      If we start simultaneously trying to build everything at once, then we will not get anything (which we actually observe).

      And I would also like to remind you that the Soviet fleet was created more than one decade after the war. And while the fleet was led by one person for almost 30 years (I'm talking about Gorshkov). I mean, the planning horizons for building a fleet are decades.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 25 September 2020 13: 27
        0
        Quote: alstr
        Also, put in order naval aviation, as the cheapest strike and defensive force (the cost of an aircraft is less than the cost of any boat - well, almost any).

        With a basic civilian model. In our case, the cost and timing of the creation of the PLO aircraft will need to include R&D on the creation of a completely domestic aircraft.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 25 September 2020 22: 55
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          to include R&D on the creation of a completely domestic aircraft.

          the decision has already been made to use the be200 PLO, domestic and even hydro, and the be10 is undergoing modernization
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 26 September 2020 07: 05
            -2
            Quote: vladimir1155
            the decision has already been made to use the BE200 PLO, domestic and even hydro,

            So far there are practically no real developments on the Be-200PLO,
            and "hydro" does not provide any advantages. It looks like another
            an attempt to "cut the money" for R&D.
            We need our breakout Poseidon, and they will try to push through
            the outdated Novella in an amphibious plane that has nowhere to go.
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 26 September 2020 09: 42
              0
              Quote: Bez 310
              So far there are practically no real developments on the Be-200PLO,
              and "hydro" does not give any advantages
              there is a plane, it is mass-produced, "hydro" can save lives, sometimes there are accidents at sea and the possibility of landing on water is a plus, for example, if it saves the life of only one crew, and will you be a member of this crew? As for Novella, I don’t know, and therefore I’m not going to say that she’s set how it works, but based on the modernization of the Be 12, I conclude that the equipment exists and can be produced ... "The Russian Ministry of Defense intends to modernize the fleet of Be- 2019, the Department of Information and Mass Communications of the military department reported on Thursday. "It is planned to modernize the Be-12 amphibious aircraft with new anti-submarine complexes - this will increase their combat effectiveness and successfully carry out missions for their intended purpose," the message says. RIA Novosti 12 .31.07.2019
              Source: http://nevskii-bastion.ru/be-12/ VTS "NEVSKY BASTION" AVKarpenko
              1. Bez 310
                Bez 310 26 September 2020 09: 47
                -1
                Quote: vladimir1155
                hydro can save lives

                We are talking about the PLO variant, not the PSO.
                Novella is a complex of anti-submarine
                equipment that is installed on
                modernized Il-38N. The complex itself
                outdated at the development stage, unfortunately.
              2. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 28 September 2020 15: 24
                0
                Quote: vladimir1155
                there is a plane, it is mass-produced

                Oh yes ... the Taganrog series is known to everyone.
                Be-200 for the Ministry of Emergency Situations - delivery delay for five years.
                Be-200 for Moscow Region - the contract was terminated by court due to a missed deadline, then signed again for the same aircraft, but with new terms.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                sometimes there are accidents at sea and the possibility of landing on water is a plus, for example, if it saves the life of only one crew, and you will be a member of this crew?

                Accidents at sea usually happen when a seaplane cannot land on the water. Plus, landing and taking off hydro outside the airfield is still a hemorrhoid.
                And most importantly, the amphibious capabilities of the PLO aircraft (not ACC, namely PLO) take away the volume and weight of the payload. This is the extra weight of an empty vehicle, due to which the radius, the number and weight of the combat load, the composition and weight of the equipment are consumed. Suffice it to recall that the seaplane normally sits "on its belly", moreover, exactly in the place where the doors of the armament compartment are located on a normal PLO aircraft.
                Quote: vladimir1155
                The Russian Defense Ministry intends to modernize the fleet of Be-2019 anti-submarine amphibious aircraft in 12

                Will we take the engines again from Boguslaev through third hands?
                The modernization of the Be-12 is from the "dug up a stewardess" series. smile
                1. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 28 September 2020 17: 08
                  +2
                  https://uacrussia.ru/ru/aircraft/lineup/special/be-200/ вот какой прекрасный самолет лучший в мире, чего вы его критикуете? а насчет сроков... дайте денег закажите не пару в пять лет, а два десятка каждые три года и они начнут выпекаться как горячие пирожки, пойдет серия, а не единица
                  1. Alexey RA
                    Alexey RA 28 September 2020 17: 23
                    0
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    what is the best plane in the world, why are you criticizing it?

                    It's easy to be the best composer in a small group of like-minded musicians. Little credit for being the most eccentric among eccentric architects. It is not so difficult to be the first in the Islington group of non-existential abstractionists, working with wool, gravel, copper wire and sugar glaze (assuming that such a group exists). To be the most incomprehensible among the poets known for their nebula does not mean to be called a classic. Let you be the only creator of a museum built in the shape of a corkscrew. He may be the best of his kind, but he is also the worst, he is also average.
                    © S.N. Parkinson
                    And we criticize him because this amphibian carries on itself a heap of iron, unnecessary for the main task - the search for submarines. Iron, instead of which there could be fuel, weapons, equipment. And iron, which she will never need - for even the hydro aerodromes for basing the Be-200 according to the project additionally have ordinary concrete runways.
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    give money order not a couple in five years, but two dozen every three years

                    They gave me money. Ordered:
                    - in 2011 - six aircraft for three years with a delivery rate of 1 aircraft per quarter;
                    - in 2013 - six aircraft for three years.
                    Result:
                    - for the first order - five years delay;
                    - on the second order - cancellation and new order of only three cars.
                    1. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 28 September 2020 17: 46
                      +1
                      as henry ford used to say, and as lavrenty palych thought, cadres decide everything, replace the leading cadres and the planes will fly
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 28 September 2020 14: 30
            0
            Quote: vladimir1155
            a decision has already been made to use a be200 PLO, a domestic

            Whose engines? wink
            Quote: vladimir1155
            and even hydro,

            That is, the weight return is worse than that of a normal Paks-based PLO aircraft.
    4. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 26 September 2020 22: 25
      -2
      Less people from reality just.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 28 September 2020 17: 53
        +2
        here it is reality, only the cost of one small repair of an outdated unnecessary Kuzi 65 billion rubles, https://world.segodnya.ua/world/basnoslovnaya-summa-stala-izvestna-stoimost-remonta-avianosca-admiral-kuznecov-985679.html in the production of nuclear submarines Borey 23 billion rubles. .so without taking into account the fire and the fall of cranes from the dock, we REALLY lost! three nuclear submarines Borey A !!!! who would effectively protect us from aggression ... this is the price of the loud-minded Uryapatriots who minus me in their empty and harmful vanity, ready to jump over the Pamirs and step on Kailash, and all for the sake of the longest and most majestic, but useless Kuzi
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 28 September 2020 18: 36
          0
          Stop lugging garbage here. Borey is more than 50 yards per unit, while all the enemy's SSBNs will be carried out in a couple of days if it is not interfered with.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 28 September 2020 19: 53
            +1
            so why are they unexpectedly for the Amerrs and even the Swedes emerging here and there? that you do not converge, AV in your opinion is so hiding that it will reach the Faroese border? and the nuclear submarine, on the other hand, is so easy to find.? ..... well, dear Alexander, you have more than 50 lards, and Wikipedia and google write differently, sorry I believe them more, although I know that their CIA writes ...
            Submarines of the 955 Northwind Project
            Submarines of project 955 "Borey" (955A "Borey-A")
            Ultimate immersion depth 480 m
            Autonomy of swimming 90 days
            Crew 107 people (including 55 officers)
            The cost of $ 433 million, 23 billion rubles
            24 more lines

            Submarines of project 955 "Borey" - Wikipedia
  • Operator
    Operator 25 September 2020 10: 19
    +1
    Hypersonic missiles can only homing at a target using an inertial guidance system, since they fly in a cloud of plasma. The ISN with 360 seconds of flight (range ~ 1000 km) has a CEP of the order of 360 meters and, accordingly, to destroy a ship requires the use of a special warhead with a capacity of at least 250 Ktn. As part of the air defense / missile defense systems of potential adversaries of the Russian Federation, there are currently no anti-aircraft missiles with an altitude reach of 40 km (high-altitude cruise flight echelon of the GKR "Zircon") and the ability to intercept a diving maneuvering target at a speed of 10 M.

    The AFAR radar is resistant to any electronic countermeasures, since it can form zero sensitivity in the direction of the jammer. False targets in the form of inflatable rafts with corner reflectors are not effective in the millimeter range of radio waves, in which the RGSN with the AFAR of a supersonic / subsonic cruise missile operates in the radio imaging mode of the target contour when approaching at a distance of 30-40 km.

    Well, in conclusion: the fig goat has a button accordion - that is, the ship's air defense / missile defense anti-aircraft missiles with a range of more than 10 km, when any anti-ship missiles (except for hypersonic ones) are perfectly knocked out in the near zone by cheap anti-aircraft mini-missiles with a semi-active RGSN like American MNTK or Russian "Nails "?
    1. Glory1974
      Glory1974 25 September 2020 11: 19
      0
      Any anti-ship missiles (with the exception of hypersonic ones) are perfectly knocked out in the near zone by cheap anti-aircraft mini-missiles with a semi-active RGSN such as American MNTK or Russian "Nails"?

      I have not heard about the perfectly confused anti-ship missiles. Can be more?
      1. Operator
        Operator 25 September 2020 11: 38
        -3
        MNTK and "Nails" shoot down a 120-mm mine - to shoot down a flying telegraph pole (ASM) for them like two fingers on the asphalt.
        1. ban
          ban 25 September 2020 11: 44
          +3
          What about the wreckage and debris of this telegraph pole? MRK "Monsoon", 87 years old, have you heard?
          1. Operator
            Operator 25 September 2020 12: 40
            -5
            What kind of wreckage can fly 10 km?
            1. ban
              ban 25 September 2020 15: 17
              +2
              Do you believe that "nails" will knock down a "telegraph pole" 10 km away? Oh well...
              I gave an example above. There, "Wasp" and 57-mm art also worked on a subsonic target and ...?
              1. Operator
                Operator 25 September 2020 15: 28
                0
                Unlike the Osa fragmentation warhead and the MNTK / Nails 57-mm fragmentation projectile, they are designed for a direct hit on the target and the kinetic effect on it with an armor-piercing core - in any case, they pierce the thick-walled body of 120-mm mines.
                1. ban
                  ban 25 September 2020 16: 07
                  +6
                  Are you aware that, for example, the anti-ship missiles Granite and Basalt are armored? And in any case, how much a multi-ton colossus will fly by inertia, even if it gets into it?
                  This is if the anti-ship missile flies directly to the installation. And if you need to cover the transport, for example?
                  What is the parameter of nails? Towards zero?
                  I personally was not particularly interested in this topic, but here people correctly wrote to you that a mine is the simplest target. Before World War II, everyone also thought that a dive bomber had no chance against an anti-aircraft machine gun, but in practice it turned out more often than not.
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 25 September 2020 17: 52
                    -2
                    The PKR Granite / Basalt has splinterproof armor. In addition, on a collision course, the relative speed of the MNTK / Nail armor-piercing core when meeting with a target will be at least 1,5 km / s - quite enough to break through even 200-mm tank armor.
                    1. ban
                      ban 25 September 2020 18: 53
                      +1
                      But they are not put on ships. And they don't seem to be accepted into service. So there are reasons?
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 25 September 2020 19: 29
                        +1
                        The reasons are not known to me.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
        2. Serg4545
          Serg4545 25 September 2020 13: 14
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          MNTK and "Nails" shoot down a 120-mm mine - to shoot down a flying telegraph pole (ASM) for them like two fingers on the asphalt.

          For your information, knocking down a mine is easier than ever.
          After the mine reaches the highest point of its trajectory, its speed drops to almost zero.
          Theoretically, if at this point at this moment there is a person (well, for example, in a balloon, and the mine will fly past the gondola, at arm's length), then this person can safely take the mine. As calmly as if he lifted her from the ground.
          Of course, this is purely theoretical. Just to show you how simple targeting a mortar shell is.
          It is the simplicity of shooting down that explains the fact that many air defense systems and newfangled lasers show their "class" on mines. For example, artillery shells are much more difficult to shoot down. Therefore, they are practically not used as targets. In order not to spoil beautiful statistics with blunders)
          1. Operator
            Operator 25 September 2020 13: 45
            -6
            The MNTK / Nails anti-aircraft missiles are equipped with a passive RLGSN, a self-guided missile system for reflected radiation from a ground-based radar. The closer the missile launcher will fly to the anti-ship missile, the more accurately the first one will homing on the second one. And the overload capacity of the first will suppress all the "gimmicks and jumps" (maneuvers) of the second, since no aerodynamic aircraft can match the maneuverability of a rocket aircraft.
        3. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 25 September 2020 13: 25
          +4
          Quote: Operator
          MNTK and "Nails" shoot down a 120-mm mine - to shoot down a flying telegraph pole (ASM) for them like two fingers on the asphalt.

          That is, a mine flying along a predictable ballistic trajectory (with elevation angles of 30-60 degrees), and an anti-ship missile maneuvering on PMA (elevation angles up to negative) are tasks of the same order of complexity? wink
          1. Operator
            Operator 25 September 2020 13: 35
            -7
            And sho, does the anti-ship missile system especially maneuver, starting from the 10 km line to the target? laughing

            MNTK / Nails doesn't care about all the anti-aircraft missile maneuvers, since the overload capacity of anti-aircraft missiles in units of G is a multiple of the overload capacity of the anti-aircraft missile glider.
            1. Serg4545
              Serg4545 25 September 2020 14: 38
              +4
              Quote: Operator
              MNTK / Nails doesn't care about all the anti-aircraft missile maneuvers, since the overload capacity of anti-aircraft missiles in units of G is a multiple of the overload capacity of the anti-aircraft missile glider.

              You simply are not aware of all the nuances, which, however, radically change the whole alignment.
              Well, for example, in the same article it is indicated that the radar detects changes in the trajectory of an aircraft / rocket only after 1-2 seconds.
              Further, the missile defense system receives data on the new target course. Then a new trajectory is calculated for the missile defense system to intercept the anti-ship missile system. Then the automatic missile launcher makes calculations how much it is necessary to change the position of the rudders in order to enter a new trajectory. The position of the rudders changes (this also does not happen instantly). Then it takes more time for the rudders in the new position to overcome the inertia of the missile defense system and bring it to the desired trajectory.
              Do you see how many missiles you need to make? All these activities will take at least 1,5-2 seconds. But the SAM was initially 1-2 seconds late.
              Thus, the missile defense system will respond to anti-ship missile maneuvers with a delay of 3,5 - 4 seconds.
              It's a lot of time. The total speed of convergence of missiles and anti-ship missiles can easily be 1-2 km per second.
              And if the anti-ship missile system will make at least a primitive "snake", then the hit of missiles, to put it mildly, is unlikely.
              And the overload capacity of the SAM will not help her in any way.
              1. Operator
                Operator 25 September 2020 15: 23
                -5
                You are inattentive - I have already said that MNTK / Nails are equipped with a semi-active RGSN, which uses the radiation from the ship's radar reflected from the target. The processing speed of the received reflected radiation by the CIUS ZR processor is millionths of a second.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 25 September 2020 17: 04
                  +1
                  Quote: Operator
                  You are inattentive - I already said that MNTK / Nails are equipped with a semi-active RGSN, which uses the radiation from the ship's radar reflected from the target.

                  I wrote about the angles for a reason.
                  On a mine flying in the clear sky - PARLGSN will work normally. But we have an anti-ship missile going above the waves, and a radar illumination, which may be above the target. How will a missile defense system with PARLGSN work on a target against a background of waves?
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 25 September 2020 17: 53
                    -4
                    In the millimeter range - 100%.
                    1. Alexey RA
                      Alexey RA 28 September 2020 15: 38
                      +1
                      Quote: Operator
                      In the millimeter range - 100%.

                      In dry, calm weather. And the rest of the time ... Are there not enough problems with the radar station of the sea "Pantsir"?
                      1. Operator
                        Operator 28 September 2020 19: 20
                        0
                        The PARLSN rocket processor solves all problems.
    2. pmkemcity
      pmkemcity 25 September 2020 12: 11
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      Well, in conclusion: the fig goat has a button accordion - that is, the ship's air defense / missile defense anti-aircraft missiles with a range of more than 10 km, when any anti-ship missiles (except for hypersonic ones) are perfectly knocked out in the near zone by cheap anti-aircraft mini-missiles with a semi-active RGSN like American MNTK or Russian "Nails "?

      Here I disagree with you! A warship often protects not itself, but several transports that can only be covered with "collective" air defense systems (Fort and Hurricane).
      1. Operator
        Operator 25 September 2020 12: 42
        0
        The MNTK multi-charge launcher is a 1x1x1 m cube; the radar is transported on a Hummer, ie. this air defense system can be installed on any transport ship.
        1. pmkemcity
          pmkemcity 25 September 2020 13: 13
          0
          Quote: Operator
          The MNTK multi-charge launcher is a 1x1x1 m cube; the radar is transported on a Hummer, ie. this air defense system can be installed on any transport ship.

          Is that for transportation. Too much has to grow together to work.
    3. Serg4545
      Serg4545 25 September 2020 13: 58
      +3
      Quote: Operator
      ISN with 360 seconds of flight (range ~ 1000 km) has a CEP of about 360 meters


      What are you talking about !?
      The accuracy of the ITS depends only on the TIME of the flight. The flight distance does not matter.
      If the ISN accuracy in 6 minutes really would have been 360 meters of CEP, then when flying for 60 minutes, the CEP should be at least 3,5 km.
      However, the accuracy of subsonic long-range missiles with ISN, which are in flight for 60 minutes or more, is only tens of meters of KVO.
      Thus, your information is very different from reality.
      1. Operator
        Operator 25 September 2020 14: 21
        +2
        Accuracy of several meters for cruise missiles is ensured by turning on the onboard terrain recognition system (by comparing the picture with an electronic map) in the last leg of the cruise missile. And to the reference points on the coast of the Kyrgyz Republic, launched from sea carriers and controlled over the sea using an inertial SN, after a cruise flight for one or two hours, they really approach with an accuracy of several kilometers.

        The most advanced modern solid-state gyroscopes provide an accuracy of 0,1 meters in 1 second or 36 meters in 360 seconds (which is also not enough to defeat an anti-ship missile ship with a conventional warhead), but, as far as I know, they are not yet installed on the CD.
  • Aag
    Aag 25 September 2020 10: 38
    +7
    "On the purpose of publishing the series.

    The author believes that the position of the Navy has reached such a critical level that it is necessary to conduct a broad exchange of views on this issue. "
    I count that the author has achieved the goal, the exchange of opinions has begun! What is especially pleasant, there are informative and interesting ones. hi
  • ban
    ban 25 September 2020 11: 53
    +1
    You can't place a multi-ton telescope or laser on a satellite

    But the radar or RTR is quite
  • iouris
    iouris 25 September 2020 12: 50
    -1
    In this case, efficiency is a criterion that takes into account the costs of achieving the goal, and the goal is to prevent the enemy from inflicting damage that reduces the combat capabilities of the group below a level sufficient to complete the combat mission. In the case of a single ship - 100% protection.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 25 September 2020 13: 56
    +4
    The AFAR radar is resistant to any electronic countermeasures, since it can form zero sensitivity in the direction of the jammer.

    The verbiage of a dropout. If there is an antenna with a receiver (as an element of a phased array) and the interference falls into their passband, the effect on the processing of the receiving signal will be! The question is in the difference in energy potentials: kilowatts of radiation from the jammer and sensitivity in millivolts of the receiving path of the radar at the distance between them ...
  • Romka47
    Romka47 25 September 2020 14: 06
    0
    I almost (cut out by censorship) while trying to put it all in my head, probably too difficult for me ... for now. But the road will be mastered by the walking one. Further, the conclusions and the application are already available to the average mind and here I agree with the author. But for now, I'll listen to more about what people in the topic are talking about.
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 25 September 2020 15: 16
    +1
    Do you want to admire the vitrified desert in the place of Moscow? A nuclear strike against such a strategic target as the AUG will mean only one thing for the Americans: the third (and last) world war has begun.

    And in the US, for one AUG, will they risk glazing their cities?
    In order for the interference to suppress the target signal, it must have a power not less than the signal power.

    The same power of the reflected signal from the target and the interference means a large difference in the power of the emitters of the two signals.
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 25 September 2020 17: 39
    -3
    The weapon of the general designer Shipunov, and not Shepunov, as the author wrote, has repeatedly proved its high efficiency. But how effective the author's inferences are is still a big question)))
  • Serg4545
    Serg4545 25 September 2020 18: 15
    +2
    Quote: Operator
    You are inattentive - I have already said that MNTK / Nails are equipped with a semi-active RGSN, which uses the radiation of the ship's radar reflected from the target. The processing speed of the received reflected radiation by the CIUS ZR processor is millionths of a second

    You are inattentive.
    It doesn't matter which radar and who uses whom)
    It's just that when the RCC changes course, in ANY case it will take 1-2 seconds to see it. The anti-ship missile system must fly at least a small segment along the new trajectory so that an outside observer can notice the change in trajectory.
    In addition, even if the electronics work instantly, it will not change much. Changing the position of the rudders does not take a millionth of a second, but much more time. Overcoming inertia and entering a new trajectory also takes TIME.
    Watch a video of maneuvering missiles. When they describe a loop, in order to change the trajectory, they spend not thousandths or tenths of a second on it. There is a countdown of full-weight seconds.
    So in any case, the missile defense system will respond with a delay to anti-ship missile maneuvers of a few seconds.
  • SergioPetrov
    SergioPetrov 25 September 2020 20: 42
    +2
    it must have a power no less than the signal power.

    Not quite so: the power of the jamming signal must be greater than the power of the reflected signal of the rocket launcher from the ship's hull. Plus, not only power is important, but also the operating range of electronic warfare equipment - it must exceed that of offensive equipment.
  • SergioPetrov
    SergioPetrov 25 September 2020 20: 49
    0

    Record-breaking CREPs installed on destroyers "Arlee Burke"

    LOL what?
    1. Avior
      Avior 26 September 2020 06: 15
      +1
      Apparently, we are talking about the AN / SLQ-32 electronic warfare system. (Complex of electronic countermeasures - KREP).
      Indeed, high power, up to a megawatt, phased array and short response time - 1-2 seconds, as they say.
      1. SergioPetrov
        SergioPetrov 29 September 2020 16: 19
        -1
        Electronic warfare AN / SLQ-32

        Somewhat stale and there are very serious nuances depending on the version: V1 / V2 do not have any suppression abilities at all. V4 This is the same version of V3 only for capital, V5 is V3 for small things (1987)
        Subsequently, versions V1 were raised to V2, and V2 was raised to V3. How all this sometimes works, you can recall the off reaction of amers in the story with Donald Cook
        1. Avior
          Avior 29 September 2020 16: 35
          +1
          The destroyers have a full version.
          What's the reaction with Cook?
          1. SergioPetrov
            SergioPetrov 29 September 2020 16: 45
            -1
            You are all lying, nothing was the first sign of what was and was approximately the same as the enemies (we are).
            The complex of protection against electronic warfare equipment on Cook that year was a 50 cm by 50 cm cube installed in the late 90s when the roofing felts were launched in the early 2000s after Iraq. Maybe against the Iraqi junk of the 60s and 70s it will do, but definitely not against modern opponents.

            (AN / SPY-1 Power 6 MW)
            AN / SLQ-32(V) 2Electronic Warfare
            1. Avior
              Avior 29 September 2020 17: 11
              +1
              And what kind of a complex of protection against electronic warfare means?
              What is this anyway?
              And what was there? What do you have in mind?
              Are you talking about this parody letter from your beloved Mary, which was inflated on TV as a supposedly real letter?
              http://www.fondsk.ru/news/2014/04/17/etot-prokljatyj-russkij-metallolom-27063.html
              It was obvious initially that it was a parody.
              Yes, no one hid it like
            2. Avior
              Avior 29 September 2020 17: 31
              +1
              By the way, where did you get the idea that version 2 is there? The destroyers are equipped with version 3.
              https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-specs.htm
              Cook is the second series destroyer.
              Version two was on Perry, but even there they upgraded to version 5, with active jamming after the Stark incident
              1. SergioPetrov
                SergioPetrov 1 October 2020 01: 06
                -1
                For starters, ddg-51 is not Donald Cook

                Secondly, have you read this?
                Subsequently, versions V1 were raised to V2, and V2 was raised to V3.


                Third Cook launched in 1998


                And fourthly, what exactly does V3 provide and why they were going to change it.

                AN / SLQ-32 (V) 3 adds Electronic Attack [EA] jamming capability against the targeting and ASM terminal guidance radars.



                In 1996, a program called the Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System (AIEWS) was begun to develop a replacement for the SLQ-32.

                Designated the AN / SLY-2, AIEWS reached the prototype stage by 1999,

                but funding was withdrawn in April 2002 due to ballooning costs and constant delays in the projects development. It has since been replaced with Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP), which will replace the existing SLQ-32 hardware and technology in an evolutionary fashion. As of September 2013 SEWIP Block 2 upgrades were first installed on Burke-class destroyers in 2014, with full-rate production scheduled for mid-2015. Block 2 improved detection capabilities; better jamming is planned from 2017, but the 2013 sequestration cuts may push this date back a year
                1. Avior
                  Avior 1 October 2020 06: 59
                  -1
                  Follow the link - the specification for all ships of the Arly Beru class, look at it more closely, there version 3 is on all ships of this type of all series, and no other options
                  Ddg-51 is Arlie Burke himself, the first in the series.

                  Version B1 was put on small ships, B2 on frigates and old destroyers, which have been gone for a long time, the Americans wrote them off a long time ago, after it was converted into version B5 - this is a simplified version of B3, B4 - on aircraft carriers and other large ships, in fact it is a double B3, and c3 - on Arleigh Burke.
                  In your quote about Sevip Block 2, this classification has nothing to do with it, it is a program for the modern renewal of the Berkov electronic warfare station.
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 25 September 2020 22: 30
    -1
    Tema "russkogo AEGIS" systemi Poliment-Redut netronuta.
  • Crabong
    Crabong 26 September 2020 05: 54
    0
    ... The choice of frigates is explained by the fact that there are simply no modern destroyers in Russia, and corvettes operate in the near zone and are not required to provide serious air defense.

    What nonsense? How does the esm differ from the frigate in modern conditions? And corvettes may well be an air defense echelon.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 26 September 2020 11: 02
      0
      Quote: Krabong
      And corvettes may well be an air defense echelon.

      corvettes, and frigates, too, cannot be an air defense echelon, they have very limited self-defense air defense, they need the support of coastal aviation and effective coastal air defense systems. Even the air defense of a lone cruiser (the Russian Federation has one per ocean) is not echeloned and limited, it is vulnerable. And Kuzya is generally defenseless, his air defense is weaker than a frigate.
      1. Crabong
        Crabong 26 September 2020 12: 33
        -1
        And that from a corvette from MANPADS it is impossible to shoot down a subsonic CD (example)? Or is the AK-630 something that doesn't count? There is also a radar station ...
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 26 September 2020 21: 00
          0
          depending on what you mean by the echelon, the planes were shot down with a pistol and with a rifle
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 28 September 2020 15: 25
    0
    Interesting article.
    In my opinion, the problem of recognizing interference coming through the side lobes can be solved very simply. But let the experts argue.
    In my opinion, again, such as stated in the answer to someone:
    The mirror signal comes in antiphase to the main one and thus extinguishes the main signal.
    - this cannot be. The simplest sine and cosine calculations show that in general there should not be complete suppression under any reasonable conditions.
    1. aagor
      28 September 2020 22: 47
      0
      Taking into account the curvature of the earth, almost complete extinction of rays occurs at ranges of more than 10 km. Tested on a mathematical model. Author
      1. Falcon5555
        Falcon5555 29 September 2020 02: 04
        0
        Doubtful. You are the first to declare this, that is, from whom I personally hear it. If this effect of "beam suppression" is, it must depend on heights, frequencies, and many other conditions and change with them. The effect cannot be one hundred percent. I suspect that he does not exist at all, that is, he could be, but they get rid of him.
        1. aagor
          1 October 2020 23: 45
          0
          The effect is described in many scientific
          articles. There are even graphs of the detection range, that is, at what ranges the direct and mirror signals are mutually attenuated, and at what ranges they add up. Complete cancellation does not occur only because the mirror signal is usually somewhat less than the direct one. Author
  • Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 2 October 2020 22: 54
    0

    GPCR can only affect the RAM SAM.

    Can not.
    In general, the author's message is still the same: Americans are geniuses and good fellows, Russian miserable nonentities. How do they still exist? ..
  • Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 20 November 2020 02: 40
    +1
    In general, for a group setting of radio interference, two ships are sufficient, capable of arranging a stereo source wandering between them. And so, if there are Migi with Daggers, submarines with Granites, Tu-22 with X-32, ..., Satellite reconnaissance, over-the-horizon radars, submarines, residents in the Pentagon, other reconnaissance. means, then you can argue on a corvette on a narrow path with AUG and other air bases, not to mention individual aircraft.
  • TatarinSSSR
    TatarinSSSR 24 November 2020 13: 56
    -1
    The article contains many interesting things, except for one thing - everything that Russia has can be suppressed by interference ... This is in the opinion of the author. Well then, that's it. Basta. Kapets. Are we giving up? Does it make sense then in general to have an army and a navy if the interference suppresses everything?