Military Review

Sea warfare for beginners. Sea battle

312

Today, there are a number of postulates regarding the conduct of war at sea, from which the secondary role of surface ships in the destruction of other surface ships follows. So, in Western countries, the basic point of view has been adopted that submarines and aviation... In countries whose main naval theaters are located immediately beyond the territorial waters, some importance is also attached to missile boats and small corvettes, which are considered as means of strikes against surface ships.


The main players in the world (except Russia, and, apparently, China) consider battles between large surface ships, in principle, possible, but secondary in comparison with their other tasks (providing anti-submarine defense and air defense of ship formations).

In Russia, the ability of surface ships to fight with their own kind is given much more importance.


Project 22350 frigates are carriers of the world's most powerful anti-ship missile arsenal. Both quantitatively and qualitatively. Another would be to provide target designation ...

Who is right?

At first glance, the West.

First, indeed, nothing can compare in destructive power to a massive airstrike. And modern nuclear submarines pose a huge danger to surface ships.

But at the same time, he speaks against these arguments история.

So, in the entire history of mankind after 1945, only two diesel-electric and one nuclear submarine destroyed one ship each in a real war.

In 1971, the Pakistani diesel-electric submarine "Hangor" sank the Indian frigate "Kukri". And in 1982 - the famous attack by the Concaror nuclear submarine of the British Navy against the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano took place. In 2010, an alleged North Korean submarine sank the South Korean corvette Cheonan.

All.

But the battles between surface ships and the destruction of surface forces by surface forces were much greater - at times.

Since the destruction of the Israeli Navy destroyer Eilat by Egyptian Navy missile boats in 1967. And then 1971 - the Indo-Pakistani war. 1973 - Arab-Israeli. 1974 - battles for the Paracel Islands. 80s - tanker war in the Persian Gulf. And at the end of the Cold War - Operation Praying Mantis, in which one of the Iranian ships ("Joshan") was destroyed by a missile attack by American ships. Another ship ("Sahand") - a joint attack by a rocket ship and a carrier-based attack aircraft. And also the Chinese operation on the Spratly Islands in 1988.

The number of warships and boats (together) killed in these battles is in the tens.

In 2008, the first combat use of the Russian Navy against a foreign state was also, in a sense, a sea battle - a missile strike on Georgian boats. None of them were destroyed. But at least their attack on the Russian convoy was thwarted, the boats were driven into the base, where they were destroyed by the paratroopers.

Thus, the historical experience of recent decades suggests that naval combat between surface forces not only has not lost its relevance, but remains the main task of surface ships.

Even in conditions when it is possible to use strike aircraft, the role of surface ships remains critical.

You can read about how the basic strike aircraft and surface forces interact with each other, and what role surface ships play in this interaction, you can read in the article “Naval Warfare for Beginners. Interaction between ships and strike aircraft ".

But today we are talking about a "clean" naval battle, without aviation.

Is it real?

Historical experience suggests that yes.

Moreover, the almost complete absence of aircraft carriers in our navy simply condemns the Russian Navy to the prospect of dealing with the enemy with the help of missile ships, at least in some cases.

And this is not some kind of fantasy.

The events of 1973 in the Mediterranean show that sometimes this is even possible against an aircraft carrier fleet. In addition, successful training attacks by missile ships against aircraft carriers took place in the west.

On the other hand, only the United States has significant aircraft carrier forces in the world. All our other potential adversaries are either just like us (that is, they cannot count on serious air power far from their shores), or even weaker.

This means that outside the combat radius of the base aircraft, we will be in the same position with them. And our (and their) main force will be the ships.

Today the Navy is present in the Mediterranean Sea, ensuring the security of our group in Syria and communications with this country. Preparing for the deployment of PMTO in Sudan, relying on which our ships will be able to be present in the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf.

With any aggravation of relations with many countries in these regions, the battle with their ships will easily become a reality. The same can easily happen in the Baltic (see article “Is the Baltic Fleet a former fleet? Not!").


Project 20380 corvettes are the backbone of the forces in the Baltic, and they have already fled to the Red Sea.

And in the case of the Persian Gulf, Arabian and Red Seas, ships are guaranteed to have to fight on their own. In the Mediterranean, too, to a large extent.

Initial position


Let us analyze the situation in which detachments of warships or single ships find themselves in isolation from the "coast" and the opportunities that it gives. Or they are simply forced to act on their own for a while.

Around conditionally (we remember about the curvature of the planet's surface, right?) A flat surface without shelters, relief, etc. The detection range of anything that does not emit is equal to the visual range. You can turn on the radar, and then it will increase to the direct radio line of sight. But this automatically means that the ship is unmasking itself. And the enemy's radio-technical reconnaissance, in the best case, will establish the fact of the presence of a ship (or ships), and in the worst case, it will reveal the coordinates and parameters of the target's movement within a certain period of time with an accuracy sufficient for a missile strike.

At the same time, it is impossible to establish precisely whether a ship or a detachment of ships has been detected by the enemy or not yet.

The situation will be further complicated by the fact that the enemy has satellite reconnaissance (if any). Of course, the bands in which satellites can detect something, and the time of their flight is approximately known. And this makes it possible to evade detection. How such things are specifically done, using the example of a real satellite constellation, is shown in the article “Sea warfare for beginners. We take the aircraft carrier to strike ".

Any ship (or squad of ships) can act in the same way. But one must understand that this is in any case a limiting factor - there is always a zone that cannot be entered at one time or another. And this narrows the freedom of maneuver.

In this situation, it is necessary, first, to quickly find the enemy. Secondly, do not get caught on the way "in the eye" of any merchant ship, otherwise the "merchant" can "light up" the ship. Third, do it without radiating.

Then you need to successfully attack first. And all this time to remain invisible to the enemy.

Moreover, ideally, even after an enemy attack, it is necessary not to show him your location.

Thus, initially the commander of a ship (or a detachment of ships), who began an operation to search for and destroy the enemy at sea, must resolve the issue of covert detection of the enemy and covert access to the missile launch line.

At this moment, he will do what the Soviet commanders demanded from the forces entrusted to them from the very moment the anti-ship missiles appeared in service with the Navy - he will win the fight for the first salvo.

Then he needs to keep stealth right after the volley. And at the same time evaluate the results of the blow. Then - a quick retreat so that the enemy's reinforcements would not find him.

Evading detection


When looking for an enemy, all factors must be taken into account.

Thus, the orbits of enemy reconnaissance satellites are known. Knowing this, you can use them and evade detection, without going into those places that will soon come under observation from space.

Although the ship operates autonomously, it can receive intelligence reports in any case. In this regard, it is very important to include ships in the network of mutual information exchange (IZOI) in the theater of operations.

But even without this very important step, some important information can be transmitted to the ships. So, it is possible to give the ship commander notifications about takeoffs of the enemy's base patrol or reconnaissance aircraft from airfields. This information allows, knowing the flight technical characteristics of enemy aircraft, to predict the time at which a reconnaissance aircraft may be in the same area as the ship.

What to do in this case?

In some situations, you just need to be ready to jam the aircraft. And bring him down as quickly as possible, if he were discovered.

In others, be prepared to "pretend to be a tanker." Sail like a merchant ship in their usual courses and at their usual speed.

For example, the commander of a ship is planning a dash through an area where, in his opinion, the danger of enemy air reconnaissance is high. In this case, we are talking about an area with intensive fishing. Suppose it is known that the enemy does not have optoelectronic surveillance systems that allow visual identification of a target at night on aircraft used for reconnaissance over the sea.

Then it is logical to cross the area at night, using the fishermen who are fishing, as a cover - at the time of fishing, they usually have AIS terminals turned off (so as not to show the "fishing" places to competitors). Their navigation radars will not be able to identify the ship. Accordingly, if in the dark the ship is somewhere near the fishermen, then air reconnaissance will not be able to distinguish it from a fishing vessel.

It also helps to hide from observation traffic in the stream of merchant ships. True, more serious precautions are already needed here. If only because the AIS of the "traders" is basically turned on. And a radio contrast target without signals from this system can attract unnecessary attention.

During the day, you need to keep a distance that excludes visual identification from merchant ships. But, with all the difficulties, such a way of hiding is nevertheless possible.

Checking civil "traffic" is a chore. Air reconnaissance will have to visually identify each target. First of all, this is long. Secondly, this can be neglected due to the lack of aviation forces. Thirdly, it makes it possible to suddenly shoot down the scouts and restore stealth.

Submarines are a problem - the submarine sonar system can easily distinguish a warship from a merchant ship at a fairly large distance.

But, firstly, not always. Secondly, sometimes it is possible to neutralize the enemy's submarine forces in advance, at the very beginning of the conflict. Thirdly, the boat will not always be able to attack the ship itself. In this case, it will give "to the shore" only the coordinates, course and speed of the target, so that it is re-detected from the shore (for example, by aircraft) and struck. Fourth, this data may be so inaccurate that it cannot be used. And fifthly, there may simply not be boats in the theater of operations.

That is, the ship commander has time.

He can, for example, knowing that the enemy takes two hours from the moment the ship is discovered to the rise of large aviation forces, and having data on the flight time from each airbase in the region, try to periodically change course so that the aircraft that took off to the calculated target location (for terminology - see article “Sea warfare for beginners. Targeting problem "), found nothing there. Then there will be a search operation. And this is time again.

And, in general, there are chances to leave. And then come back if necessary.

Let's give a real example of the withdrawal of a ship's compound from under a conventional airstrike. American aircraft carrier formation from under the blow of the Soviet naval missile-carrying aviation:

It was a shock.

The results of radio direction showed that the newly formed aircraft carrier strike force (Enterprise and Midway), consisting of more than 30 ships, maneuvers 300 miles southeast of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and conducts carrier-based aircraft flights at a distance of 150 km from our coast.

Urgent report to the Main Headquarters of the Navy.

Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union S.G. Gorshkov makes a decision immediately. Urgently send the Patrol escort ship, three Project 671 RTM multipurpose nuclear submarines to monitor the AUS, organize continuous aerial reconnaissance, bring all the Pacific Fleet's naval missile aircraft to full readiness, establish close cooperation with the air defense system in the Far East, bring into full combat readiness of all parts and ships of the Pacific Fleet reconnaissance.

In response to such aggressive actions of the Americans, prepare the air division of the naval missile-carrying aviation for departure in readiness, on Monday to designate an air-missile strike on the aircraft carrier formation.

At the same time, multipurpose nuclear submarines with cruise missiles were also preparing to strike.

September 13, Monday. The Pacific Fleet reconnaissance will have to find the location of the AUS and direct the air division of the naval missile-carrying aviation.

But at this time, a radio silence mode was introduced on the ships of the US aircraft carrier. All radar stations are turned off.

We are carefully studying the data of the optoelectronic space reconnaissance. There is no reliable data on the whereabouts of aircraft carriers.

Nevertheless, the departure of the MRA aviation from Kamchatka took place. To an empty space.

Only a day later, on Tuesday, 14 of September, we learn from the data of the air defense posts in the Kuril Islands that the carrier-based strike force is maneuvering east of the island of Paramushir (the Kuril Islands), conducting flights of carrier-based aircraft.
Rear Admiral V.A. Karev "Unknown Soviet Pearl Harbor"

As you can see, if you know how the enemy is acting, then you can evade detection.

The fact that it was the aircraft carrier formation that was "dodged" by the Americans from the strike should not be confusing - during such "breaks" they do not fly. And in the same way, the missile ships could leave, without aircraft carriers.

An analysis of how aviation evasion from detection was carried out during exercises in the western fleets can be found in the article “How can a rocket ship sink an aircraft carrier?” A few examples".

One way or another, the possibility of a covert passage of a ship (or ships) to the designated area is real.

Naturally, the "coast" must provide all the necessary information support, conduct an operation somewhere to misinform the enemy, push him to transfer aviation to other directions, distract by other forces, and so on.

On the ship itself, a specially assigned group of officers or even a headquarters specially formed for this task should deal with issues of evading detection. It also implies how well sailors should know aviation, its capabilities and tactics.

In such operations, Western ships have one important advantage - they are now equipped with a civilian navigation radar. Its radiation is indistinguishable from that of civilian ships - commercial or fishing. But at the same time, the same Thales even worked out target designation for anti-aircraft missile systems according to the NGRLS data.

It is technically possible for Russia to equip naval ships with such non-radar systems that can be adjusted to the radiation of civilian stations. This is vital.

There is one more side to the question.

Even if the enemy received "contact", then confuse his reconnaissance, being in the range of his missile weapons, in conditions when the enemy has information about the position of our ship (or ships), you can.

Let's give an example.

In 1972, the Pacific Fleet held an electronic countermeasures exercise according to the plan of the Navy's REP service - a sea battle between a brigade of missile ships and a brigade of artillery ships using Crab jamming stations, and artillery ships - only passive jamming projectiles.

As a result, the firing of artillery ships created such a complex jamming situation with only passive interference that the sides could understand it only half an hour after reaching the range of using weapons against each other.

This must be taken into account and used - even if you are discovered, it is not the end.

But we must act quickly.


All of the above should by no means be understood as a recommendation to climb under the shore on surface ships. For example, Norway. During the ongoing military conflict in which she participates against us together with NATO allies.

This is for situations where the enemy's forces are as limited as ours. For example, the military operations of our ships against the Japanese somewhere in the vicinity of the Strait of Malacca or the Persian Gulf. Or against the Turkish - in the Red Sea. That is, where both sides are in relatively equal position. And they cannot "throw on the scales" all the power of their Armed Forces in general and aviation in particular. They fight with what they have with them.

Covert detection of the enemy


Except for the occasional exits of the ships of the warring parties at a distance of mutual detection, the enemy will have to be looked for. And to seek in such a way as to remain unnoticed.

The information from reconnaissance that will come to the ship may contain some information about the enemy, sometimes inaccurate, sometimes outdated, sometimes accurate and up-to-date, but insufficient for the use of weapons. Any such information will narrow down your search areas. But in any case, the ship (or ships) will have to search for the enemy by their own means.

It will narrow the search areas and the radio reconnaissance (radio interception) post on the ship. But, again, it will only narrow it down. Ideally, it will indicate some kind of landmark (narrowness, island, etc.), next to which the enemy is now located. But you still can't do without searching.

The most important of the search tools is electronic intelligence. The RTR facilities on board the ships make it possible to detect the operation of the radar stations of enemy ships hundreds of kilometers away. Naturally, if the enemy turns them on. They also detect the work of "civilian" navigation radars. And this gives the commander a chance not to "collide" suddenly with a ship carrying such a radar too.

Let's give an example of such work from the book cap. 1st rank reserve Yuri Nikolaevich Romanov “Combat miles. Chronicle of the life of the destroyer "Battle":

“We discovered at the Sword station the operation of the radio equipment of an American destroyer. In order to maintain combat readiness and practice the ship's combat crew, the first mate announced a training alert for a simulated missile strike by the main complex.

After performing a series of maneuvers, creating a "base" for determining the distance and determining that the target was within reach, while continuing to maintain stealth, not including additional radio equipment for radiation, they inflicted a simulated missile strike with two P-100 missiles.

When carrying out a missile attack, a complex of all measures was fully worked out according to the classical scheme of a missile strike schedule. And the overheated crew was shaken from the nap caused by the heat.

Visually, the adversary was not detected or identified, and they did not strive for this, following strictly according to the transition plan.

The radio-technical search station MP-401S repeatedly discovered the operation of the radar station of the American carrier-based AWACS "Hawkeye" aircraft beyond the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, at the exit to the Indian Ocean.

Obviously, from the AVM "Constellation", which, according to intelligence reports from the 8th OPESK, regularly arriving at the "Boevoy", is on combat training in the Arabian Sea.

Passive means of search and reconnaissance help out a lot. This is our trump card. Allowing to remain invisible, they "highlight" the surrounding situation, warn about the approach of air attack means, missile danger, the presence of enemy ships, eliminating civilian targets.

The cassettes of the stations' memory blocks contain the data of all existing radio equipment of the ships and aircraft of the potential enemy.

And when the operator of the Mech station reports that he is observing the operation of an air detection station of an English frigate or a navigation radar of a civilian ship, reporting its parameters, then this is so ... "


Destroyer project 956 "Combat"

The operation of enemy radars is also detected by radars in passive radar mode, without radiation.

This is what draws attention to itself.

After performing a series of maneuvers, creating a "base" for determining the distance.

That is, having “caught” the enemy radar radiation, the ship took measurements from several points in order to accurately determine the area of ​​the probable target location (OVMC) and “narrow” it down to a size smaller than the target capture sector of the anti-ship missile seeker.

With these methods, RTR really makes it possible to detect an emitting target.

But what if the adversary is smart and also walks exactly without emitting?

Then there is no choice but to use naval aviation.

In this case, it is necessary to resolve the following issues.

When using a UAV, it is necessary to ensure the secrecy of its control over the radio channel - complete. Otherwise, instead of information about the enemy, his missile salvo will arrive "from somewhere from there." Such stealth, for example, is provided by highly directional satellite dishes on ships and "drones". Other methods are less reliable.


Eagle is not suitable for the needs of the Navy, but so far there is only one on the ships.

For the helicopter, it is necessary to take off and fly in radio silence mode.

And in the case of a helicopter, and in the case of a UAV, it is necessary to move the aircraft or a group of them away from the carrier ship at an extremely low altitude for a long distance, guaranteed to be greater than the width of the capture swath of the enemy's anti-ship missiles. Ideally, much more.

Target ships may not be very far away. And the ascent of the helicopter with a climb near the ship can immediately detect the carrier ship when the radar for detecting air targets is turned on. The helicopter needs to fly a long distance. Then make a lift, simulating takeoff from a false position. So that the enemy, who was able to detect an aerial target or the radiation of a helicopter radar, would send a volley to the wrong place. Moreover, it is so wrong that even an LRASM-type missile, without hitting any target and going on a secondary search, would not find anything. But such a volley already unmasks the enemy.

The search performance of a helicopter is many times higher than that of a ship. This means that the pair "helicopter-ship" is also higher than that of the ship.

A helicopter is an essential element of a ship's combat power. Moreover, it should be a universal naval helicopter, combining an anti-submarine vehicle, a reconnaissance aircraft and an anti-ship cruise missile carrier. And ideally, it is also capable of working with its own radar when the ship repels a missile or air strike, ensuring the firing of the ship's air defense system at targets outside the target designation radius. And also capable of using air-to-air missiles to destroy enemy helicopters, its UAVs and other air targets. It must also carry an electronic warfare system capable of protecting both itself and the ship.

There is nothing supernatural about such a helicopter. Moreover, the presence of such a machine is vital if we are really preparing to fight, and not just go to parades. The importance of helicopters in naval warfare - article “Air fighters over the ocean waves. On the role of helicopters in the war at sea "... There are also very vivid examples of the combat use of helicopters against ships, already as a strike weapon.


Launch of AGM-119 Penguin anti-ship missiles from the deck anti-submarine (and in fact - marine multipurpose) helicopter SH-60 Sea Hawk of the US Navy

Westland Lynx British Navy - These helicopters became the "scourge" of the Iraqi Navy in 1991.

All this implies a requirement for the ship - the number of helicopters on it should be as large as possible. Naturally, not to the detriment of the main function. Examples of ships carrying an increased number of helicopters in comparison with the generally accepted number are the Japanese "helicopter destroyers" of the "Haruna" types and their further development - "Shirane". These ships not only carried three helicopters, but also ensured the simultaneous takeoff of two of them.


EM "Kurama", type "Shirane". Another helicopter in the hangar.

Thus, the second means of searching for targets and reconnaissance, along with RTR, is naval aviation, both manned and unmanned.

In the special case, when ships are fighting in the coastal zone, within the beat. the radius of base aircraft (aircraft or helicopters, it does not matter), base aircraft can and should also be involved in reconnaissance in the interests of surface forces. Especially if small ships operate without their own aircraft.

Sea warfare for beginners. Sea battle
Ships and aircraft should act together whenever possible

In the future, it is possible to create disposable reconnaissance aircraft launched from vertical launch facilities. The use of such means can unmask the ship. But, nevertheless, they can be indispensable in some cases.


One of the options for using missile technology to obtain target data and develop target designation.

But now the goal has been achieved - the enemy has been detected, his movement parameters are determined, the real place of the target is established and calculated ahead of time, starting from the movement parameters. The fight for the first salvo is de facto won, you need to attack.

But there are a lot of nuances here too.

Helicopter strike


Whenever possible, you must try to give the target to aviation.

Aviation is the dominant force in naval warfare. And this fully applies to specialized sea helicopters. Modern ships are equipped with vertical launch rocket launchers, we have 3C-14 of various modifications, and the Americans have Mk.41.

Their specificity is that they cannot be recharged at sea.

At sea, launchers of the Uranus missile complex can be reloaded, but only if there is a floating crane and a stock of missiles in transport and launch containers. In their absence - nothing.

In contrast to shipboard launchers, a helicopter can consume missiles from the vault of aircraft weapons (AAS), which can be freely delivered to the deck for suspension.

It should be borne in mind that sooner or later such a situation may develop when it will be impossible to use a helicopter (for example, it has just landed). And the ship will have to fire its missiles. They should not be spent for this emergency.

The second reason is that the helicopter can strike farther than the ship. This does not apply to all ships. But, for example, it applies to the corvettes of the project 20380.

The corvettes have the Uranus missile system as an offensive weapon. With missiles, basically identical to the aviation anti-ship missiles X-35, which theoretically can be carried by a helicopter. In such conditions, when hitting a long range, the combat radius of the helicopter is added to the range of the anti-ship missile system.


Launch of X-35 anti-ship missiles from the Ka-27 helicopter. Unfortunately, these works were not developed further.

Most importantly, a helicopter strike is much less likely to unmask the ship.

There is one more factor - the problem of the “rocket slide”.

"Rocket slide"


Most anti-ship missiles, starting from a ship, even with a completely low-altitude flight profile, first make a "slide". This applies to both the 3M54 Caliber anti-ship missile and the Uran anti-ship missile (to a lesser extent, true). For the Americans, this also applies to the "Harpoon", and to any anti-ship missiles launched from vertical launchers.



"Hill". Above - the frigate "Admiral Essen", below - the ships of the Caspian flotilla. Rockets - 3M14 "Caliber" in both cases. But the anti-ship 3M54 is almost the same. The height of the "slide" is significantly more than 100 meters.


But the strike scheme of the American Harpoon anti-ship missile system is the same.

Hypersonic missiles stand apart, which rise to a height of tens of kilometers and from there go to the target with a decrease. For the latest Zircon launches, for example, this altitude was 28 kilometers. If the Americans someday have the same missiles, they will also have the same flight profile.

Hypersonic missiles have obvious advantages. But the fact that they unmask the place from which the carrier launches them is their big minus. However, this is a topic for a separate analysis.

How serious is the “rocket slide problem”?

We consider.

Let's say our ship is carrying out a missile strike with 3M54 missiles on an enemy ship 60 kilometers away. A little later we will return to why such a small distance. For now, let's just count.

Let's say the ships have the same antenna height - 35 meters above sea level. Then the range of direct radio visibility, at which one ship could detect another - 48,8 km. And between them - 100. Let's say the attacked ship comes with the included radar for detecting air targets. And so we found it, by its radiation.

Let's say our rocket makes a "slide" 100 meters from deck level or 120 above sea level. Then, the range of direct radio visibility of the target ship on our launching rocket is just 60 kilometers. That is, the enemy can establish both the fact of the attack and the place from which it is being conducted. And, accordingly, he will have time, before our salvo approaches him, to send his own to us - and we want to avoid this!

Of course, when hitting a long range (for the same 100 kilometers, for example), nothing like this will happen - the distance is too great. But you should never underestimate your opponent. It is quite possible that he has another ship in his group, which we did not find and which is much closer to us.


"Hill". In the diagram, the green line is the lower edge of the direct line of sight of the attacked ship in the place where the attacker is. The red line is the missile launch trajectory.

Another example.

Let's say that the enemy is also looking for us with the help of a helicopter, and he is 10 km from his ship, in the direction opposite to that in which our attacking ship is located at an altitude of 300 meters. Then this helicopter will notice the launch of missiles, although our ship will be out of its direct radio line of sight.

Are there any missiles for which the “roller coaster” problem is not so acute?

There is. This is Onyx.

We look at how this rocket is launched (from ships - the same thing).


Photo (launch from submarine "Severodvinsk").


As you can see, her "slide" is minimized. And it’s not just that. Onyxes are preferable from the point of view of a stealthy salvo at the enemy.

Apparently, there are no powerful missiles in the world that are better suited for combat, in terms of launch stealth, than Onyx.

Naturally, we are talking about launching along a completely low-altitude trajectory. Their "slide" is much lower than that of the 3M54 Caliber. And it remains only to regret that the same Project 11356 frigates do not have these missiles in the ammunition load.

Thus, due to the "slide" in some cases, the enemy can receive a warning about the attack, and data about the location of the attacking ship.

And this is also a reason to use anti-ship missile helicopters in an attack whenever possible.

But sometimes it won't work. And then you have to attack yourself.

Ship missile strike


If the commander of the attacking ship properly ensured the secrecy of the missile strike and won the fight for the first salvo, then his second most important task is not to cause a missile strike on himself already in the course of the battle.

Another challenge is the need to send missiles exactly to the targets that need to be hit. Theoretically, if the composition of the detachment of enemy warships and their formation is revealed, if the ships in the order are identified, if there is a technical possibility to program the anti-ship missiles to attack specific targets in the order, then the missiles will hit the designated targets.

In practice, such an idyll is almost unattainable. Something is always known inaccurately, there are no real radar "portraits" of at least some of the targets. Yes, and some types of missiles simply do not provide for target selection, capturing either the very first one that hits the seeker, or the most radio-contrast one.

When attacking targets with helicopters, this problem also exists.

But at least there it is possible to launch from such a course that, at least in theory, will lead the rocket to the desired target. For example, a "star" raid by a troika of helicopters armed with anti-ship missiles will most likely lead to the fact that even primitive seeker missiles will capture exactly three different targets. And if the air defense of enemy ships is not something significant, then you can act that way. In addition, against some ships, helicopters can simply launch their missiles, observing the target using the radar.

The ship does not have such an opportunity. Therefore, it is necessary to approach strike planning with the following criteria.

1. The angles of rotation of anti-ship missiles after launch are set in such a way that the salvo on the target does not come from the side of the attacking ship. If the range to the attacked target is too short, and the enemy sees a "slide", then this requirement is not essential. But if not, then the volley should come to the target not from those courses that "lead" to the attacking ship.


The diagram shows options for outputting a salvo to a target. The yellow circle is the radio horizon for low-flying targets. The courses of the approaching missiles prevent the attacked side from understanding where the attacking ship is. It is also clear why it is not worth shooting at the maximum range of anti-ship missiles in a straight line.

2. If the missiles used cannot recognize targets or the target data is not accurate enough (for example, it is known that this is a detachment of warships, the number is clear, but not all are classified), then it is necessary to "spread" the salvo in several directions in order to capture the GOS RCC hit different parts of the enemy's order. Otherwise, all the missiles will simply aim at one or two targets, and the rest will remain unfired.

A salvo of missiles must be "bred" in such a way that the missiles approach the target more or less simultaneously, with a small salvo range, and not sequentially as they are launched. However, this is widely known, as well as the fact that the overlap of the radar fields of the missile seeker along the front of the salvo should be ensured, then the probability of hitting the target is higher.

The most important conclusion follows from this - it will be possible to shoot at extreme distances very rarely or impossible at all. The missile, which is "taken" to the target "bypassing", will fly a much greater distance than the distance between the attacking ship and the attacked one. So, if you shoot the Onyx anti-ship missile system at a target at a distance of about 100 km, then when the salvo is launched at the target from different directions, the Onyxes will fly a distance very close to their maximum flight range.

3. An estimate of the number of a salvo is determined on the basis of what capabilities the enemy has to repel a strike. What principles are applied in assessing the required number of missiles in a salvo is described in the article “The reality of missile salvos. A little about military superiority "... There are also simplified (in its original version) salvo equations (without taking into account the probabilities of the occurrence of each event - a successful launch of the anti-ship missile system, its technical serviceability and the risks of under-reaching the target, the probability of intercepting anti-aircraft missiles by enemy anti-aircraft missiles, etc.) and explained their meaning.

Currently, a more complex mathematical apparatus is used to assess the success of a salvo, which takes into account both the salvo nature of missile combat and all these probabilities.

One caveat must be made here.

The guidance documents of the Navy require that a salvo be carried out when the probability of successful destruction of targets is high enough.

At the same time, American assessments of real clashes with the use of anti-ship missiles indicate the following - the repeated modeling of missile attacks that actually took place during the tanker war in the Persian Gulf suggests that missile attacks against targets with weak air defense turned out to be successful in conditions when the probability of hitting a target ( calculated for the situation immediately before the attack, which later turned out to be successful), on average, turned out to be equal to 0,68.

We will not draw any special conclusions from this. We will limit ourselves only to the assumption that, perhaps, something in the domestic approaches needs to be revised.

As a result, if everything worked out, then the enemy, who had previously just suspected that he was not alone here, discovers the approach of several missile salvos from different courses. And he will have to wage a difficult struggle for survival, the outcome of which will be unpredictable even for ships with the AEGIS system. For what, for example, the Turkish Navy is armed with, on the contrary, it is quite predictable.

However, one must understand that the enemy can do all the same. Moreover, unlike the Russian Navy, our “opponents” already have helicopters with anti-ship missiles. There is also combat experience, the analysis of which is available to all countries friendly to Great Britain.

There are some special cases of naval combat, which need to be discussed separately.

Praying Mantis Lessons or Elevator Stabbing


On April 18, 1988, the US Navy conducted an operation in the Persian Gulf, codenamed Mantis.


Operation Praying Mantis is the last missile battle in the XNUMXth century.

We will not give its details, they are easily found on the Internet.

We are interested in the battle between the Iranian corvette Joshan and a detachment of American ships consisting of the missile cruiser USS Wainwright, the frigate USS Simpson and the frigate USS Bagley.

It is clear that the corvette was doomed, although it was he who launched the first missile. However, this is not the question. And in how this ship was destroyed.

The frigate Simpson hit the corvette with two SM-1 anti-aircraft missiles, and the cruiser with one SM-1ER. At the same time, the third ship, the frigate Bagley, fired the Harpoon anti-ship missile system at the corvette. But due to the destruction of the superstructure of the GOS corvette, the anti-ship missiles were unable to capture the target and passed by.

Note that the Persian Gulf is a zone of intensive shipping, with a huge number of merchant ships and, more importantly, warships from different countries. Going past the goal of the RPC in such conditions could have done things. But nothing happened.


A drawing by an American artist of a missile attack on Joshan. Author: Tom Freeman. Source: Proceedings

What is important for us is the fact that an anti-ship missile attacking a target in horizontal flight can miss a target with a low height of the hull and superstructure above the water.

Remember this.

This is very important because there are things that are much worse than an "alien" anti-ship missile on board - it is its own anti-ship missile into neutral, with heavy losses, for example, on a cruise liner.


In another battle, the destroyer USS Joseph Strauss, together with the A-6 carrier-based attack aircraft, struck and destroyed the Iranian frigate Sahand, which was the first success of the Harpoon launched from a surface ship in this operation.


A drawing by an American artist - a missile attack on the Sahand. Author: Tom Freeman. Source: Proceedings

The conclusions that the Americans made from this operation are as follows (what is listed is what relates to the conduct of a naval battle):

1. In conditions with intensive civil shipping, it is extremely important, if not necessary, visual (!) Identification of the target before the attack.

2. The presence of any aircraft (even helicopters, even aircraft) is vital for reconnaissance and target designation.

3. In combat at a distance of visibility, it is preferable to use anti-aircraft missiles. The statistics of SM-1 missiles in that operation are 100% hits on the target. The statistics of the launched Harpoons is only 50%, although the effect of the Harpoon hit is many times more powerful.

These are important details.

Everything described above about the battle of surface ships or their units refers to the situation of battle at relatively long distances, when the opponents do not see each other at all. And I must say that such a scenario is basic.

But in the case when the battle takes place in a water area with a small area, when there are a lot of neutral targets (including military ones) around, the distances are reduced.

If the enemy uses small ships and boats with a low silhouette, then it is much more preferable to use anti-aircraft missiles against them, rather than anti-ship missiles. In addition, there are serious reasons to believe that anti-aircraft missiles are preferable when attacking large enemy surface ships - their destructive power when hitting unarmored ships is very high, and the flight time is several times shorter. In addition, anti-aircraft missiles are much more difficult to shoot down, even if the enemy was preparing to repel a strike.

The combination of the difficulties in identifying and classifying targets and how serious the damage inflicted by NK anti-aircraft missiles led the Americans to abandon the deployment of the Harpoon anti-ship missiles on the new destroyers.

We certainly shouldn't do that.

But it is necessary to remember that it is SAM that are more effective in a number of conditions.

Analysis of a naval battle off the coast of Abkhazia on August 10, 2008


Let us analyze (taking into account all of the above) a sea battle between Georgian boats and Russian ships guarding the Caesar Kunnikov large landing craft and the Saratov large landing craft on the way to the Abkhazian coast.

The official version is available on the Internet. As well as descriptions of the oddities of this event.

So, it is known for sure that not one of the Georgian missile boats was sunk during the battle - they were all destroyed by the paratroopers of the legendary 45th special forces regiment of the Airborne Forces. When it became clear, a version arose that the patrol ship "Gantiadi", armed with a 23-mm anti-aircraft gun and several machine guns, a former fishing seiner, was sunk in the battle.


Patrol ship "Kodori", the same type (it is not clear whether sunk or not) "Gantiadi".

It is known for sure that the Mirage missile launcher actually used the P-120 Malakhit anti-ship missile system. This is evidenced by the state of the starboard launcher upon returning to the base.


MRK "Mirage" after the battle.

The fact that fragments of the P-120 anti-ship missiles hit the board of the "Lotos-1" dry cargo ship is fully aligned with this statement. The P-120 is equipped with self-destruction equipment (ASL), which detonates a missile when a target is missed. According to the description, what the crew of the dry cargo ship is saying is fully consistent with how the ASL works.


Fragment of the wing tip of the P-120 anti-ship missile system on board the "Lotos-1" dry cargo ship.

Thus, we can safely say that the RCC "slipped over the target", whatever this target was.

Since everything that the Georgian Navy could put out to sea was distinguished by a low height above the waterline, it is logical to assume that at least one P-120 repeated the "Harpoon's feat" during an American attempt to attack an Iranian corvette with this missile (in fact, also a boat with a displacement of 265 tons).

This again makes us think about the damage to third parties.

In that war, part of the American leadership actively sought to bomb the Roki tunnel, and, consequently, on the Russian troops. An attack on a neutral ship with fatalities could lead to the fact that the point of view of the American "hawks" would prevail. Anyone can imagine the political consequences.

What else do we see in this battle?

Faced with the fact that the anti-ship missile system did not hit the target (and it didn’t hit, it was impossible not to understand), the crews of the ships used anti-aircraft missiles of the Osa air defense system. The success of this application is still controversial among the public.
Another important point is that our ships were sailing with the included radars. In principle, this cannot be considered a mistake in this particular case - the situational awareness of the Georgian Navy was provided by coastal radars, it was pointless to hide.

At the same time, if these radars were destroyed in advance (for example, by the aviation of the Russian Air Force) and if the crews of Georgian boats had the opportunity to detect the radars of Russian ships, then the issue of maintaining secrecy during the transition could become very acute. Some of the Georgian units could well send their anti-ship missiles from a long enough distance to go unnoticed.

In a sense, ours were lucky. And not only the fleet.

The non-use of aviation for reconnaissance in the interests of the convoy is also noteworthy. This is a traditional vice of the Russian fleet, which has not been eliminated to this day. Which no one is going to get rid of. And which can be very expensive in the end.

What could be the worst case scenario?

Georgian boats, having joined the civilian traffic (he was there), would have moved at a slow speed to the connection at the point from which the Russian detachment could have been attacked. By detecting the radar radiation of Russian ships and not standing out from the civil flow of ships until the very last moment, they could undertake a synchronous rapid exit to the missile launch line. Launch on converging courses from different points outside the direct radio line of sight of our ships and retreat at maximum speed.

What should have happened?

Generally speaking, they should have been destroyed by the Air Force at the base. But if this had not happened, then the detachment of warships should have had at least aerial reconnaissance. In this case, at least, the risk of an impact on the BDK would be removed - the ships could turn away, along with the minesweepers. And the battle with boats would be accepted by the IPC and MRK, not connected with the need to protect the landing ships and having superiority in situational awareness over the Georgians. The attack could have been better planned. Perhaps they could have destroyed someone.

Questions also arise about our approaches to weapons.

In the past, the P-120 normally hit small target vessels and shields. There was no reason to believe that she would miss the target. But after this war, it would be necessary to draw some conclusions in terms of strikes against small targets with a low height above the waterline. It is better to attack such targets with the help of rockets coming in on the target from above. This is evidenced by both our experience and the American one. Moreover, the experience of real military operations.

To what extent this problem has been resolved today is an open question.

Most likely, it could be solved at the level of modernization of the GOS, even of old missiles. Perhaps someday some commentary from the side of the Navy will be given on this topic.

Well, the actions of the Russian Navy in the war with Georgia clearly indicate that the foreign (American) experience in the combat training of our forces was not taken into account even when there was someone to study and analyze it. And that was deeply wrong.

Now (after the Serdyukov-Makarov reform) there is no structure in the Navy responsible for the analysis of foreign combat experience. There is simply no one to draw conclusions from it.

Reflecting an enemy volley


What happens if the enemy is still able to fire a return salvo before the destruction of his ship (s)?

This cannot be ruled out in any way.

People are fighting. And, as experience shows, some of them fight better than others. In addition, there is a very important, but absolutely not predictable factor of luck.

Taking into account the realistic distances for a ship that searches for a target on its own, this means that it is impossible to escape "from under a salvo" by moving and maneuvering. The ship (or ships) will have to repulse this blow using its SAM and jamming stations.

There are, however, several possibilities that can dramatically increase the chances of repelling such a blow.

First, as already mentioned, a modern naval helicopter must provide its radar with target designation for a shipborne air defense system at a distance greater than that of a shipborne radar. This allows you to push back the line of interception of the enemy anti-ship missiles.

Secondly, helicopters must have their own jamming station and air-to-air missiles. Of course, UR explosives still need to get into a small stealth missile such as NSM or LRASM. And it will not be easy to get into "Harpoon". But when you have nothing to lose, why not give it a try? Moreover, it is possible to work out the defeat of anti-ship missiles on our "harpoon-like" target missiles RM-24.

But even in the worst case, when the explosive missiles are not guided, and the interference does not work (for NSM this will be so), there is guidance for the air defense system.

There is one more thing.

Missiles from a radar seeker, the same "Harpoons" and many others can be confused by false targets.

In a simple version, a ship that has received a warning about an attack (for example, because of the enemy's “missile slide”) can throw inflatable corner reflectors into the water and retreat at a maximum speed in such a way that the inflatable LC would remain on the estimated combat path of incoming enemy missiles between ship and missiles. Then, if the enemy has anti-ship missiles without the possibility of target selection, then the volley will hit false targets.


Corner reflector on the deck of the missile cruiser pr. 1164 of the Russian Navy.

An even more interesting feature is the quick release of an unmanned boat with automatically inflating corner reflectors into the water.

Such a boat can be controlled by exposing it to the attack of enemy missiles. The combination of such a boat and the means of electronic warfare can give good chances to divert the salvo from the ship, even without using the air defense system. But in reality, of course, there will be a combination between the use of decoys, helicopters, electronic warfare systems and ship-based air defense systems.

This requires a high combat capability of these systems, and the training of personnel in the task of repelling a missile strike against real targets. And the availability of all the necessary means (BEC, decoys, helicopters) with the appropriate performance characteristics.

Battle to destroy


What if an exchange of volleys took place, the sides inflicted losses on each other in ships and helicopters, used up their anti-ship missiles, but did not achieve complete destruction of the opposing side?

In theory, there could be different options here.

The commanders of both detachments will make decisions in accordance with the orders and conditions given to them earlier. And it cannot be ruled out that it will be necessary to go to the end - both in accordance with orders and in accordance with the situation.

Then the opponents will have no choice but to draw closer to the range of using first anti-aircraft missiles, then artillery.

At this point, the skill of the commanders and the training of crews will be the decisive factor. So, in order to gain an advantage in conditions when the parties find themselves at the range of using missiles almost simultaneously, it will be necessary to very competently use electronic warfare means, so that, when actually "face to face" with the enemy, does not allow him to use weapons. And most of this opportunity to realize.

It will be even more difficult to reach the artillery fire distance. And here it is important to achieve an advantage in ammunition - NATO has at its disposal various types of guided and homing projectiles with a caliber of 127 mm, which can fire at a distance of 60 kilometers or more, provided there is data on the target.

On the other hand, such calibers are generally not used on frigate-class ships. This is done only by us and the Japanese.

The rapprochement must be planned extremely carefully. Considering everything: from possible assessments of the situation by the enemy, which one must try to predict, to the time of day.

The return fire of enemy artillery can be ten times more accurate and deadly.


Ship artillery has not lost its importance until now. In the photo - the destroyer pr. 956 from 130-mm art. AK-130 units

Also, finding yourself in a disadvantageous situation, you need to be able to break away from the enemy, going for rapprochement.

For this, it is extremely important that the ships that may find themselves in such a situation, the speed allows them to make a separation from the enemy. Today, the global trend is to reduce the maximum speed of ships. The only country that consistently fights for every knot and tries to secure superiority in the speed of its new ships over any enemy is Japan.

The rest of the countries have clearly lost their understanding of the importance of speed. And they may have to pay dearly for it.

In general, it should be noted that speed is critical for taking a position that is advantageous for a volley and for breaking away from the enemy.

Conclusion


Despite the fact that the most destructive means of warfare at sea is aviation, and nuclear submarines are called the second most important in the leading fleets, the risks of surface ships having to fight each other have not diminished.

At the same time, the combat experience of the second half of the twentieth century suggests that the probability of surface forces entering into battle with each other is significantly higher than the probability of a battle between a submarine and surface ships. Given these facts, it is necessary to consider the possibility of a battle between surface ships - real.

Fundamental to success in battle for a surface ship (or a detachment of warships) is, firstly, winning the fight for the first salvo. Second, the execution of this volley covertly for the enemy, with a minimum "slide" or launching missiles from a distance at which it cannot be detected, and launching missiles to the target from such courses that will not show the enemy the real bearing to the attacking ship.

This requires careful reconnaissance of the target, for which, in addition to means of electronic intelligence, combat helicopters and UAVs become fundamentally important. Therefore, the ships of the future must have a stronger air group compared to what is happening today. Even two helicopters is not enough, it is desirable to have at least 3-4. It is apparently impossible to place a larger number on a rocket ship without prejudice to its other characteristics. At the same time, helicopters should not be anti-submarine, but multi-purpose (including anti-submarine), with the possibility of using, inter alia, for engaging air targets.


UR "Air-to-Air" AIM-9L Sidewinder on the deck helicopter of the US Marine Corps AH-1Z Viper. Other helicopters can also use such weapons.

It is necessary to ensure the movement of the ship with zero electromagnetic radiation.

It is also necessary to equip ships with a civilian navigation radar, which could be used for camouflage purposes. Or an alternative - you need a radar with the ability to adjust for civilians.

In all cases, if it is possible to attack the enemy with aircraft (helicopters), you need to attack him with aircraft.

In the coastal zone, using ships and boats that do not carry aircraft on board, it is necessary to ensure the use of aircraft from the coast, at least for reconnaissance.
In the future, it is necessary to create disposable reconnaissance and target designation means launched from the ship's standard missile launchers.

To repel an enemy missile strike, it is necessary to expand the possibilities for the use of false targets, including those towed by unmanned boats, for which it should be possible to quickly launch (or even drop) boats into the water with corner reflectors ready for immediate use.

Warships must have at least a slight superiority in full speed over any potential enemy. As a last resort - not to give in.

All these actions should be practiced during exercises in a situation as close as possible to a combat one.

It is necessary to take all measures to prevent damage to third parties, up to the use of other tactical schemes, with a reduction in firing distances and accurate identification of each target.

This is something like a sea battle in the XNUMXst century.

And our Navy needs to be ready for such actions.
Author:
Photos used:
RF Ministry of Defense, US Navy, Proceedings
312 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 24 March 2021 18: 14
    -21%
    Half an article just screams about shock ekranoplanes instead of missile boats and RTOs!

    It will be even more difficult to reach the artillery fire distance. And here it is important to achieve an advantage in ammunition - NATO has at its disposal various types of guided and homing projectiles with a caliber of 127 mm, which can fire at a distance of 60 kilometers or more, provided there is data on the target.
    And here is a direct indication of the need for a naval coalition!
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 March 2021 18: 34
      +22
      How to ensure the basing of helicopters on an ekranoplan?

      And here is a direct indication of the need for a naval coalition!


      No, this is a need for guided and homing projectiles.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 25 March 2021 03: 12
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        How to ensure the basing of helicopters on an ekranoplan?
        Yes, just like on missile boats and small missile ships, no way!

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        No, this is a need for guided and homing projectiles
        152 mm there are already at least laser-guided shells, for 130 there are none, well, the superiority in explosives and firing range is twofold.
        1. timokhin-aa
          25 March 2021 19: 39
          +4
          Yes, just like on missile boats and small missile ships, no way!


          They are working near the coast, and we are here about the Persian Gulf!

          152 mm there are already at least laser-guided shells, for 130 there are none, well, the superiority in explosives and firing range is twofold.


          We have a lot of ships under 100 and 130 mm, and under 152 and there are no projects, so standard calibers should be a priority.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 03: 35
            -2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            They are working near the coast, and we are here about the Persian Gulf!
            This is of course yes, but for example the same "Lun" in two hours the entire bay will slip along and five times across, but about camouflage in traffic, of course, yes.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            We have a lot of ships under 100 and 130 mm, and under 152 and there are no projects, so standard calibers should be a priority.

            Yes, then yes, but the Coalition will allow, in the long term, to resolve this issue. (In my opinion, of course). Briefly why: relatively low weight, even in comparison with the A-192; overwhelming superiority in range and significant power at the target even with a conventional projectile, unification with the Armed Forces and, most importantly, an ultimatum - special warheads.
            1. timokhin-aa
              26 March 2021 11: 45
              0
              This is of course yes, but for example the same "Lun" in two hours the entire bay will slip along and five times across


              How will he get there?

              As for the gun - I am not against large calibers, but there are also disadvantages.
            2. Sergey Sfiedu
              Sergey Sfiedu 27 March 2021 21: 03
              +2
              This is of course yes, but for example the same "Lun" in two hours the entire bay will slip along and five times across, but about camouflage in traffic, of course, yes.
              - and the Su-24 is three to four times faster. An attack ekranoplan is not at all a "good missile boat", an attack ekranoplan is a "bad airplane".
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 28 March 2021 09: 24
                0
                Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                Su-24 is three to four times faster. An attack ekranoplan is not at all a "good missile boat", an attack ekranoplan is a "bad airplane".
                The EP is a very fast rocket ship, it had the same strike capabilities as the counterpart of the Mirage-class MRK.
                Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
                and the Su-24 is three to four times faster
                Can the Su-24 lift six 4-ton anti-ship missiles? Or can the Su-24 hang out with 6-point excitement in an arbitrary area of ​​the sea for 5 days? "Lun" in a semi-experimental form could do all this.
      2. ramzay21
        ramzay21 25 March 2021 08: 22
        +7
        Thanks to Alexander for the wonderful articles. You are doing the right thing. I wish you success!
      3. abc_alex
        abc_alex 28 March 2021 01: 45
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        How to ensure the basing of helicopters on an ekranoplan?

        It's not needed. If you do not an ekranoplan, but an ekranoplan. At the Alekseev Design Bureau today there are projects of machines that continue the concept of "Orlyonok". That is, they are capable of taking off from the screen to an altitude of more than a kilometer and carrying out a normal flight like an airplane. For this, wings of a more complex design, including biplanes, are used.
        And from a height of a kilometer, you can carry out reconnaissance and launch.
        But such universalism is not needed.
        The advantage of ekranos is that they have an unattainable speed for ships, and unattainable for aircraft carrying capacity.
        The authors paid a lot of attention to the anti-ship missile carrier helicopters. But the trouble is, even Kamov's new Ka-52 attack helicopter can carry no more than 2,8 tons of weapons. And it's distributed across 6 suspension nodes. 4 knots - 2 tons. I guess it's a ton on each pylon. This means that 2 anti-ship missiles of the X-35 class are standard, theoretically maybe three. This is a short-range subsonic missile. What do you think, what is the probability of such a missile hitting a ship with modern air defense / missile defense? I think not great. Especially as a single or even a couple. A massive helicopter strike is a matter of specialized helicopter-carrying ships. Perhaps, with a certain modernization, the KA-52 will be able to carry 4 missiles, but the problem of a short range will remain.
        Helicopters will not even be able to carry the anti-ship missiles of the Caliber. I'm not talking about Onyx. Well, maybe one.

        In general, it is strange that even constantly speaking about the rapid entry into the affected area, the quickest exit from it, active maneuvering, the importance of speed, the authors of the article remain within the framework of the old concepts of the fleet. After all, the conclusion suggests itself: the missile-carrying fleet needs a high-speed carrier of heavy anti-ship missiles, capable of independently choosing a position for attack and extremely quickly leaving the launch site even before the missiles of the first salvo enter the enemy's radar detection zone. But all the same, over and over again the "ship-and-plane" scheme is recreated instead of the "ship-to-plane" scheme. Why? Is it really not clear that for the first strike, it is for the first salvo that the ekranos are almost ideal? Yes, they have no place in a squadron battle. But for an attack from "unexpected" azimuths, only the Tu-22M3 and Tu-90 can compete with them.
        And I remind you that Lun carried 6 naval Mosquito missiles. This is 24 tons of combat load. Or, in fact, 3 sides of the Tu-22M. The eaglet had a cargo capacity of 28 tons. It is quite enough to accommodate 6 Onyx anti-ship missiles in the naval version. This is the load of 6 Su-30 aircraft or 3 SU-34 aircraft in a hypothetical naval version. At the same time, the ground-effect vehicle has one indisputable advantage - it does not need a carrier ship. He is almost a ship himself.
        If you say: a seaplane, I will answer that the payload of the Be-200 is 5 tons. Even its "heavy prototype" A-40 is 6,5 tons.
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 25 March 2021 12: 20
      +5
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Half an article just screams about shock ekranoplanes instead of missile boats and RTOs!

      Uh-huh ... especially in terms of disguise as civilian traffic and generally low visibility and difficult identifiability. smile
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 25 March 2021 12: 40
        -2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Uh-huh ... especially in terms of disguise as civilian traffic and generally low visibility and difficult identifiability
        No, in terms of a covert exit to the line and a quick withdrawal.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 March 2021 12: 20
          +2
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          No, in terms of a covert exit to the line and a quick withdrawal.

          Tales about the secret exit to the line of the ekranoplan can only be told to our Navy. Admirals whose own AWACS vehicles and round-the-clock patrols of deck and / or base aircraft over the ship group / in a given area can only dream of. And for which aviation is generally somewhere between the "unwanted and interfering part of the fleet" and "aliens".
          For a normal Navy, the detection of a target the size of an MRK and moving at a speed of 400-600 km / h is not a problem.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 14: 35
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Tales about the secret exit to the line of the ekranoplan can only be told to our Navy. Admirals whose own AWACS vehicles and round-the-clock patrols of deck and / or base aircraft over the ship group / in a given area can only dream of.
            Well, this is not a big fairy tale than a secret exit to the line under the guise of civilian traffic.

            Quote: Alexey RA
            For a normal Navy, the detection of a target the size of an MRK and moving at a speed of 400-600 km / h is not a problem.
            Perhaps, just why is the detection of simple RTOs or something else a problem? But the speed will allow you to suddenly reach the line of attack, and then interception before launch and destruction during withdrawal can become a problem. But I do not call for replacing surface ships with ekranoplanes, but MRK completely.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 26 March 2021 16: 36
              +1
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Perhaps, just why is the detection of simple RTOs or something else a problem?

              Because RTOs can disguise themselves as a civilian ship for a certain time. The Libyan MRK was classified as a ship only after the radar was turned on.
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              But the speed will allow you to suddenly reach the line of attack, and then interception before launch and destruction during withdrawal can become a problem.

              The air defense (and ekranoplanes are air targets) of the Yankee ship groups was calculated on the basis of countering the supersonic Tu-22 / 22MZ with heavy anti-ship missiles DD. And we are trying, instead of Tupolevs, to attack with subsonic ekranoplanes, and even with a multiple of higher RCS. smile
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 27 March 2021 07: 16
                -2
                Quote: Alexey RA
                Because RTOs can disguise themselves as a civilian ship for a certain time. The Libyan MRK was classified as a ship only after the radar was turned on.
                I correctly understood that without radar and in the absence of visual contact, RTOs are indistinguishable from a civilian ship, for some time? Then why can't the EP be disguised like that? I hope you don’t think that the EP has only two modes of movement: stop and flight on the screen.
                Quote: Alexey RA
                The air defense (and ekranoplanes are air targets) of the Yankee ship groups was calculated based on the counteraction of the supersonic Tu-22 / 22MZ with heavy anti-ship missiles DD. And we are trying instead of "Tupolev" to attack with subsonic ekranoplanes, and even with a multiple of higher EPR
                If an anti-aircraft missile system can be fired at the "Lun" type EP, then this does not yet turn it into an air target, no need to invent it, so the Iranian and Georgian boats can also be recorded as air targets. And yet, what kind of Yankee ship group is capable of withstanding attack aircraft with heavy anti-ship missiles? Have you forgotten anything about the type of aircraft carrier in this group? And the Tu-22, as it was supposed to attack this group, was it not after reconnaissance with the same Tu, only in a reconnaissance version? Then why would you refuse such a small thing as reconnaissance by special means to shock ekranoplanes? This is voluntarism, demagoguery and generally apolitical!
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 27 March 2021 10: 35
                  +2
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Then why would you deny such a small thing as reconnaissance by special means to shock ekranoplanes? This is voluntarism, demagoguery and generally apolitical!

                  From the fact that this is complete stupidity and a waste of money, if only because the ekranoplan itself cannot fly without a radar, which means it will instantly be opened by satellite or air reconnaissance of the enemy.
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 27 March 2021 13: 39
                    -2
                    Quote: ccsr
                    Since this is complete stupidity and a waste of money, if only because the ekranoplan itself cannot fly without a radar,
                    Firstly, in clear weather, visibility to the horizon, which already allows a lot, secondly there are IR devices such as LANTIRN or FLIR or what analogues we have, thirdly, the radar power is different and fourthly read the article there is about civilian radars.
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 27 March 2021 15: 23
                      +1
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      Firstly, in clear weather, visibility to the horizon, which already allows a lot,

                      At a speed of 400 -500 km / h, if you see something beyond the horizon, then even the yacht will not have time to dodge.
                      .
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      secondly, there are IR devices such as LANTIRN or FLIR

                      Only ekranoplanes do not have brakes in order to at least slow down the speed and avoid a collision, even if you hang a dozen radar and infrared devices on it.
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      read the article there is about civilian radars.

                      If you are already talking about radars, then such a radar should at least 50-100 kilometers ahead to look at the surface situation, and then it is not a fact that it will notice wooden yachts. And to do this, such an ekranoplan must have a radar above sea level at least fifty meters. And how will you put it all together on the ekranoplan?
                      1. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 27 March 2021 15: 37
                        -2
                        Quote: ccsr
                        At a speed of 400 -500 km / h, if you see something beyond the horizon, then even the yacht will not have time to dodge.
                        20 km at a speed of 400 km / h are overcome in 3 minutes, you need to be a moron or blind so that nothing can be done during this time. And at 500 km it takes 2,5 minutes, the degree of debbilism is a little less, but still a lot is needed.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        Only ekranoplanes do not have brakes in order to at least slow down the speed and avoid a collision, even if you hang a dozen radar and infrared devices on it.
                        The fact that you do not know anything about the ED and the "brakes" on them is not at all a reason not to understand about the possibility of MANEUVERING to the left or to the right, according to the circumstances, without any brakes.


                        Quote: ccsr
                        If you are already talking about radars, then such a radar should at least 50-100 kilometers ahead to look at the surface situation
                        Am I talking about radars? Read the article and do not attribute too much to me.
                      2. ccsr
                        ccsr 27 March 2021 15: 56
                        0
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        20 km at a speed of 400 km / h are overcome in 3 minutes, you need to be a moron or blind so that nothing can be done during this time.

                        Only fat, stupid people do not know that the horizon beyond 7-10 km is not visible.
                        For example, from the height of the average human height (1,75 m), the distance to the horizon is 4,7 km.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        about the possibility of maneuvering to the left or to the right, according to the circumstances, without any brakes.

                        The ability to "maneuver" is especially noticeable when, at a landing speed of 200-300 km / h, aircraft periodically collide with other aircraft, birds or buildings, and at the same time they have a much better horizon view than an ekranoplan.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Am I talking about radars?

                        And who wrote it:
                        in the third, the power of the radars is different

                        By the way, will flocks of seabirds also have time to dodge an ekranoplan flying at such a speed?
                      3. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 27 March 2021 16: 15
                        -2
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Only fat, stupid people do not know that the horizon beyond 7-10 km is not visible.
                        Well, well, we reduce the response time to 1,5-1,2 minutes, even a fat (fat or something?) Stupid person will have time to react. But a smarter man knows that the distance of the horizon depends on the height of the observation point, though for some reason you did not remember this, do you know what? Well, objects towering above the horizon are visible beyond the horizon.


                        Quote: ccsr
                        For example, from the height of the average human height (1,75 m), the distance to the horizon is 4,7 km.
                        You confused the submarine with the ekranoplan in any way? EP Lun flies at an altitude of 1 to 5 meters and the height of the hull is at least eight meters, count the horizon in his case, do not consider it a work.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        The ability to "maneuver" is especially noticeable when, at a landing speed of 200-300 km / h, planes periodically collide with other planes, birds or buildings, while their view of the horizon is much better than that of an ekranoplan.
                        Not only does the landing speed exclude at least some vigorous maneuvering, but you do not seem to understand this, but also the birds are small, and they are not visible on the horizon (check your head by the way). As for buildings, this is a real problem, a problem with your intelligence, buildings are either deliberately rammed, or touched due to non-compliance with takeoff and landing modes, or when rolling out of the runway. A frankly complete stupid example with buildings, as well as with birds and the landing mode in general, however.


                        Quote: ccsr
                        And who wrote it:
                        in the third, the power of the radars is different
                        Is this a five-word story including an excuse?
                      4. ccsr
                        ccsr 27 March 2021 17: 17
                        0
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        do not take it for work.

                        Without any calculations, it is clear that on sea routes with a large number of ships and in rough seas, the ekranoplan is unsuitable for combat missions, which is why the military abandoned this once and for all.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        so also the birds are small, and they are not visible on the horizon (check your head by the way).

                        And the flocks of seagulls or cormorants are also not very large, but they will ditch the ekranoplan even faster than the birds at the airfield, because at least they are scared away there, but it is impossible to do this in the sea.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        A frankly complete stupid example with buildings, as well as with birds and landing mode in general, however.

                        Your inadequacy in the assessment of ekranoplanes was assessed by military experts, who put an end to these developments back in Soviet times, who immediately understood what problems would arise with ekranoplanes during operation and performance of combat missions. But you can continue to push your fantasies about this technique, which is unlikely to be adopted, to the gullible public.
                      5. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 27 March 2021 17: 47
                        -3
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Without any calculations, it is clear that on sea routes with a large number of ships and in rough seas, the ekranoplan is unsuitable for combat missions, which is why the military abandoned this once and for all.
                        Why were they so shy to count, the figure does not confirm your stupidity? Refused "military" for the same reason as "space" from "Energia-Buran" and "Mir" and "naval" from aircraft carriers and VTOL aircraft, due to the destruction of the Union, so nonsense about the refusal is not necessary.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        And the flocks of seagulls or cormorants are also not very large, but they will ditch the ekranoplan even faster than the birds at the airfield, because at least they are scared away there, but it is impossible to do this in the sea.
                        Clearly, in terms of maneuverability, your stupidity did not pass, the birds came to the rescue, on the other hand. During long-term flights on KM, Eaglets and Luna, no one remembered or complained about problems with birds. Bring at least something about the birds and large EP, except for fairy tales.

                        Quote: ccsr
                        Your inadequacy in the assessment of ekranoplanes was assessed by military experts, who put an end to these developments back in Soviet times, who immediately understood what problems would arise with ekranoplanes during operation and performance of combat missions
                        Repeat in nonsense. I repeat in my refutation:
                        Refused "military" for the same reason as "space" from "Energia-Buran" and "Mir" and "naval" from aircraft carriers and VTOL aircraft, due to the destruction of the Union, so nonsense about the refusal is not necessary.
                      6. ccsr
                        ccsr 27 March 2021 18: 05
                        0
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Why were they so shy to count, the figure does not confirm your stupidity?

                        Why should I consider what is already clear to any literate person - what kind of visibility at sea are you bawling about, if even on a sunny day the sea haze drastically reduces the visibility horizon, and you can't do without radar. By the way, its range in the sea-air environment is also reduced due to water vapor - learn materiel.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Refused "military" for the same reason as "space" from "Energia-Buran"

                        The military was immediately against this project, because saw its inferiority for military purposes. But crooks from industry imposed on Ustinov this project useless for military purposes, which was not needed even by civilian space. And only amateurs like you blatantly lie that it was allegedly done in the interests of the military.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        and "Mira"

                        This is generally a disgusting lie, because they had no military relationship with Mir - after Almaz, the military was not interested in the fate of such projects.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        and "naval" from aircraft carriers

                        And the military refused from the aircraft carriers - it's just that they don't write about it officially yet, so as not to tease geese like you.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        due to the destruction of the Union, so nonsense about the refusal is not necessary.

                        Complete nonsense, because the latest developments in missile technology with maneuvering warheads just indicate that a less costly, but more effective way of developing our weapons has been chosen.
                        So save the pathos for various laymen - you are too ridiculous for me to take you seriously.
                      7. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 27 March 2021 18: 25
                        -3
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Why should I consider what is already clear to any literate person - what kind of visibility at sea are you bawling about, if even on a sunny day the sea haze drastically reduces the visibility horizon, and you can't do without radar. By the way, its range in the sea-air environment is also reduced due to water vapor - learn materiel.
                        Stupidity is miserable, like you, visibility at sea in normal weather with 100 cables quietly allows you to detect ships, only such as you deny the obvious. About radar stupidity utterly, well, reduces, so what, at times or what? The radio horizon does this in general radically, and now what?

                        Quote: ccsr
                        The military was immediately against this project, because saw its inferiority for military purposes. But crooks from industry imposed on Ustinov this project useless for military purposes, which was not needed even by civilian space. And only amateurs like you are blatantly lying that it was allegedly in the interests of the military madeabout.
                        You stupid nonsense, give me where I wrote it. Well, insanity about the uselessness of Energy is just insanity, and it has nothing to do with your sink in terms of maneuverability and visibility of the ekranopalan, like all your other stupidity.

                        Are there any other complaints about the maneuverability and visibility of the ekranoplan? If not, go wherever you want.
                      8. ccsr
                        ccsr 27 March 2021 18: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Poor stupidity, like you, visibility at sea in normal weather from 100

                        This is 18 km - lying as always, because the curvature of the earth will not allow it to be done if the observer is at a height of 10 meters from the surface of the water. There are such water vapor that the haze will not allow you to see anything at all.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        About radar stupidity utterly, well, reduces, so what, at times or what?

                        The "expert" swam, it immediately became clear that he had never dealt with these issues, and when he was pointed out, he began to dodge.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Well, insanity about the uselessness of Energy is just insanity

                        This is not insanity, this is the truth of military life, an ordinary reserve, about which you have too primitive ideas.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Are there any other complaints about the maneuverability and visibility of the ekranoplan?

                        Nafig the military does not need it, no matter how you fluff the feathers here - it turned out to be an unnecessary project, and this is a fact.
                      9. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 27 March 2021 19: 24
                        -2
                        Quote: ccsr
                        This is 18 km - lying as always, because the curvature of the earth will not allow it to be done if the observer is at a height of 10 meters from the surface of the water. There are such water vapor that the haze will not allow you to see anything at all.
                        What are the couples that you fence:
                        Spee ”at 6.18 opened fire with semi-armor-piercing shells from main battery guns from a distance over 90 kbt according to the just-seceded Exeter.
                        The fight was fired from such a distance. You are not even a dilettante, you are simply nothing!

                        Quote: ccsr
                        About radar stupidity utterly, well, reduces, so what, at times or what?
                        The "expert" swam, it immediately became clear that he had never dealt with these issues, and when he was pointed out, he began to dodge.
                        And what am I to grovel in response to a debility claim? No humidity and haze will prevent the radar from reaching the 40 km radio horizon near the EP.


                        Quote: ccsr
                        This is not insanity, this is the truth of military life, an ordinary reserve, about which you have too primitive ideas.
                        Ahaha, a connoisseur of military life, Signor Vice-General, you have such a title, right?

                        Quote: ccsr
                        Nafig the military does not need it, no matter how you fluff the feathers here - it turned out to be an unnecessary project, and this is a fact.
                        And, this nonsense has already been sorted out. What to lead to her

                        Are there any other complaints about the maneuverability and visibility of the ekranoplan? If not, go wherever you want.
                      10. ccsr
                        ccsr 27 March 2021 22: 53
                        0
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        What are the couples that you fence:

                        Have you ever traveled to the sea from your village? It seems that you have never seen the sea in your life, which is why you do not know what haze is.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        The fight was fired from such a distance. You are not even a dilettante, you are simply nothing!

                        This does not mean anything - it was just lucky that the weather was good. Will you always provide such weather for the ekranoplan? At night, how about visual visibility?
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        No humidity and haze will prevent the radar from reaching the 40 km radio horizon near the EP.

                        Lies - such a radar should be raised high above the ekranoplan, and this is not provided for.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And, this nonsense has already been sorted out. What to lead to her

                        Fools may have sorted it out, but their opinion is not interesting.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        Are there any other complaints about the maneuverability and visibility of the ekranoplan?

                        This is an obstacle to their adoption, but amateurs do not understand this.
                      11. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 28 March 2021 09: 11
                        -1
                        Quote: ccsr
                        This is an obstacle to their adoption, but amateurs do not understand this.
                        You don't know anything about EP, but puff up without the slightest numbers.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Lies - such a radar should be raised high above the ekranoplan, and this is not provided for.
                        You don't know anything about EP, but puff up without the slightest numbers.
                        Quote: ccsr
                        Fools may have sorted it out, but their opinion is not interesting.

                        Well, I'm not fooled by this stupidity of yours.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And, this nonsense has already been sorted out. What to lead to her
  • Sergey Sfiedu
    Sergey Sfiedu 27 March 2021 21: 12
    +2
    I hope you don’t think that the EP has only two modes of movement: stop and flight on the screen.

    Almost yes. For they have no seaworthiness and strength, and sailing on the sea, like a ship, he can only with an almost complete absence of excitement.
    1. abc_alex
      abc_alex 28 March 2021 02: 03
      +1
      Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
      I hope you don’t think that the EP has only two modes of movement: stop and flight on the screen.

      Almost yes. For they have no seaworthiness and strength, and sailing on the sea, like a ship, he can only with an almost complete absence of excitement.

      Practically and ships do not sail at sea with a big wave. And your opponent hinted that in addition to the "on-screen" mode, modern ekranos have quite an airplane mode, flying at an altitude of more than a kilometer (Eaglet flew up to 2 km, theoretically it could up to 10, but there is no practical confirmation). Also, all ekranoplanes and ground-effect vehicles have a planing mode, after all, these are constructively flying boats. In addition, with the task at hand, no one bothers to provide the ekranolit and the classic ship's course, you need a drive from the engine.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 28 March 2021 09: 15
        -1
        Quote: abc_alex
        And your opponent hinted that in addition to the "on-screen" mode, modern ekranolots have quite an airplane mode for themselves, flying at an altitude of more than a kilometer

        No, I did not hint at all, if you are about me, "Lun" did not fly, maybe he did no more flights.

        Quote: abc_alex
        Also, all ekranoplanes and ground-effect vehicles have a planing mode, after all, these are constructively flying boats. In addition, with the task at hand, no one bothers to provide the ekranolit and the classic ship course, you need an engine drive.
        There is a mode, but the EP, especially the Lun is not a flying boat, in terms of layout it is definitely not.

        Quote: abc_alex
        In addition, with the task at hand, no one bothers to provide the ekranoljet and the classic ship course, you need an engine drive.
        Almost like this, in addition to the APU, Lun has a separate compartment for generators, so that it is quite possible to organize electric propulsion.
        1. abc_alex
          abc_alex 29 March 2021 01: 33
          0
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          No, I did not hint at all, if you are about me, "Lun" did not fly, maybe he did no more flights.

          Lun is an ekranoplan. And I specifically wrote about ekranolots. Flew "Eaglet".

          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          There is a mode, but the EP, especially the Lun is not a flying boat, in terms of layout it is definitely not.

          And what is he then?
        2. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 29 March 2021 03: 34
          +1
          Quote: abc_alex
          Lun is an ekranoplan. And I specifically wrote about ekranolots. Flew "Eaglet".
          Not really, you wrote it like this:
          Quote: abc_alex
          And your opponent hintedthat modern ekranolets, in addition to the "on-screen" mode, have quite an airplane mode
          But these are trifles, not for the sake of sracha, but for clarification. laughing


          Quote: abc_alex
          There is a mode, but the EP, especially the Lun is not a flying boat, there is definitely no layout in terms of layout.
          And what is he then?
          According to the classification, something like ekranoplan is a vessel of a special design with ultra-high relative speeds in the main operation mode, Specifically, Lun was defined in the register something like this, now I can not find it. And in terms of construction, you will not find a single flying boatlow-wingnot to mention the engines and durability.
        3. abc_alex
          abc_alex 31 March 2021 02: 08
          0
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          According to the classification, something like an ekranoplan is a vessel of a special design, possessing ultra-high relative speeds in the main operation mode, specifically Lun was defined in the register something like this, now I cannot find it. And in terms of design, you won't find a single low-wing flying boat, let alone engines and durability.

          But the description is:
          A flying boat is a seaplane with a fixed wing and hull that allows it to land on water, which usually does not have a landing gear that allows it to operate on land. It differs from a floating aircraft in that it uses a specially designed fuselage that can float to provide the aircraft with buoyancy.

          That is, Lun is a flying boat and it turns out? But I do not know how it is entered into the register, so thank you for clarification.
        4. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 31 March 2021 03: 05
          0
          Quote: abc_alex
          That is, Lun is a flying boat and it turns out?

          No. I have given you a clear wording, t. approved by the highest. ))) Well, I myself consider the EP Lun not to be an airplane, this is a ship, I already wrote about the thickness of the working skin, the heavy weight of Ruslan An-124 in the most critical places it is thinner, 9 against 12 mm, and in the rest just foil 0.5 against 4 mm at Lun.
        5. abc_alex
          abc_alex April 1 2021 01: 10
          +1
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Quote: abc_alex
          That is, Lun is a flying boat and it turns out?

          No. I have given you a clear wording, t. approved by the highest. ))) Well, I myself consider the EP Lun not to be an airplane, this is a ship, I already wrote about the thickness of the working skin, the heavy weight of Ruslan An-124 in the most critical places it is thinner, 9 against 12 mm, and in the rest just foil 0.5 against 4 mm at Lun.


          Thanks I'll know.
        6. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U April 1 2021 03: 13
          +1
          Quote: abc_alex
          Thanks I'll know.

          Please, I am writing an article about EP with comparisons and other things, from there and from the materials of the figure. It is clear that according to the materials of the Internet, but so far no articles of such a plan have come across.
        7. abc_alex
          abc_alex April 4 2021 00: 48
          +1
          Hope to read.
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 28 March 2021 09: 18
    0
    Quote: Sergey Sfyedu
    Almost yes. For they have no seaworthiness and strength, and sailing on the sea, like a ship, he can only with an almost complete absence of excitement.
    The "Lunya" has a working casing with a thickness of 4 mm to 12 mm (and this is no longer a sheet, it is a plate), and the possibility of take-off at 3-meter waves is 6 points of excitement. Well, the architecture of the balancing trimaran, you know what I mean?
  • Alexandra
    Alexandra April 24 2021 20: 08
    0
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    I correctly understood that without radar and in the absence of visual contact, RTOs are indistinguishable from a civilian ship, for some time? Then why can't the EP be disguised like that?


    The ekranoplan will sneak up on the enemy in displacement mode? :)

    If an anti-aircraft missile system can be fired at the "Lun" type of electronic device, then this does not yet turn it into an air target


    The problem of an ekranoplan is that it has to be built using aviation technologies and materials. As a result, the cost of construction and operation of the ekranoplan is aviation. In the near, and in general, even in the far sea zone, there is nothing better than a multipurpose fighter to combat surface targets - which for itself can receive target designation and is able to stand up for itself in air combat. One of the smart things our admirals are doing is purchasing heavy multipurpose Su-30SM fighters for the Russian Navy. It's a pity the admirals buy them a little. And so the four of real Su-30SM with Kh-31AD / Kh-31PD missiles today covers what in cost and in terms of impact efficiency any conceivable MRK or rocket-carrying ekranoplan. Although, of course, the aircraft already requires modernization, and it needs newer air-to-ship / air-to-radar missiles.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U April 25 2021 05: 51
      0
      Quote: AlexanderA
      The ekranoplan will sneak up on the enemy in displacement mode? :)
      Well, and the RTOs are not at full speed, at 38 knots, they rush into the attack. They retreat after launch, yes, at full speed, hiding behind interference, in any case, there were such tactical developments.

      Quote: AlexanderA
      The problem of an ekranoplan is that it has to be built using aviation technologies and materials. As a result, the cost of construction and operation of the ekranoplan is aviation.
      Nonsense, "Lun" and "Eaglets" from the ship's duralumin were WELDED, the most expensive TVM aviation engines were, and those on the "Eaglets" were definitely powered off after the flyers.

      Quote: AlexanderA
      And so the four of real Su-30SM with Kh-31AD / Kh-31PD missiles today covers what in cost and in terms of impact efficiency any conceivable MRK or rocket-carrying ekranoplan.
      This is if they have target designation and the airfield was not taken to hell for them. RTOs are capable of over-the-horizon reconnaissance by passive means. And Lun had such an opportunity according to the time of creation, of course.

      Quote: AlexanderA
      In the near, and in general, even in the far sea zone, there is nothing better than a multipurpose fighter to combat surface targets - which can receive target designation for itself and is able to stand up for itself in air combat.
      Very funny.
      1. Alexandra
        Alexandra April 25 2021 08: 41
        0
        Nonsense, "Lun" and "Eaglets" from the ship's duralumin were WELDED, the most expensive TVM aviation engines were, and those on the "Eaglets" were definitely powered off after the flyers.


        I have to disappoint, they will not buy rocket launchers. From the experience of "Lunei" and "Eaglets" we figured out how much they cost and what their capabilities are.

        Very funny.


        https://iz.ru/1154899/anton-lavrov-roman-kretcul/sukhogo-mesto-noveishie-istrebiteli-postupiat-v-morskuiu-aviatciiu

        "Dry" place: the latest fighters will go to the naval aviation
        Izvestia learned the details of the contract for the purchase of Su-30SM2 combat vehicles
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U April 25 2021 09: 46
          0
          Quote: AlexanderA
          From the experience of "Lunei" and "Eaglets" we figured out how much they cost and what their capabilities are.
          They were stupidly merged, like the "Buran" and "Energia" were merged, the way AV "Tbilisi" and Yak-141 were merged, and what a hell of a lot they did.
          Quote: AlexanderA
          "Dry" place: the latest fighters will go to the naval aviation
          Izvestia learned the details of the contract for the purchase of Su-30SM2 combat vehicles
          Buying is not funny, buying is good, this is funny:
          Quote: AlexanderA
          In the near, and in general, even in the far sea zone, there is nothing better than a multipurpose fighter to combat surface targets.
        2. Alexandra
          Alexandra April 25 2021 11: 15
          0
          "The leadership of the Navy finally abandoned the program for the development of shock CEP for reasons of both financial and military nature. The fact is that, according to a number of experts, the shock CEP will operate in conditions of sufficiently strong opposition, and its defensive capabilities and speed were at the level of a slow-moving aircraft, which most likely will not be able to ensure its survival at a sufficiently large size. However, in those tasks where the level of resistance is small and high speed is required, CEPs can be quite effective, for example, in transport and rescue operations. "

          Lack of understanding that a multipurpose fighter with air-to-ship and air-to-air missiles, unlike the Lunya, is capable not only of surviving in the face of enemy air opposition to our attacks on his ships, but also of successfully shooting down enemy deck planes and helicopters are not funny, sad. Well, at least the domestic admirals finally realized that the Navy's MA would have to fight its way to the enemy's surface targets in any case, and they buy Su-30SM and Su-30SM2 multipurpose fighters capable of independently defending themselves, and not Su-34 and Su- 34M, which themselves need air cover by fighter aircraft.
        3. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U April 25 2021 15: 43
          0
          Quote: AlexanderA
          the shock CEP will operate under conditions of sufficiently strong opposition, and its defensive capabilities and speed were at the level of a slow-moving aircraft, which most likely will not be able to ensure its survival at a sufficiently large size.
          However, RTOs with the same near-zero air defense capabilities continue to be built.

          Quote: AlexanderA
          Lack of understanding that a multipurpose fighter with air-to-ship and air-to-air missiles, unlike the Lunya, is capable not only of surviving in the face of enemy air opposition to our attacks on his ships, but also of successfully shooting down enemy deck planes and helicopters are not funny, sad.
          The ekranoplan is not a competitor to aircraft, but to small missile ships and missile boats.

          Quote: AlexanderA
          In any case, the MA of the Navy will have to fight its way to the enemy's surface targets,
          It's funny what a fight with suspended anti-ship missiles?
        4. Alexandra
          Alexandra April 25 2021 22: 55
          0
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          However, RTOs with the same near-zero air defense capabilities continue to be built.

          Well, not all at once.
          The ekranoplan is not a competitor to aircraft, but to small missile ships and missile boats.

          Which (MRK and RCA) are not really needed by the Russian Navy.
          It's funny what a fight with suspended anti-ship missiles?

          Long-range missile aerial combat.
          "The main type of modern air combat is a long-range all-aspect group
          an air battle in which at least 2 to 4 fighters participate on one side.
          The outcome of ranged air combat depends on the characteristics of the weapon and on the characteristics
          airborne radar stations (BRLS), which are often the main
          source of information about the air situation, and will largely be determined by
          the quality and timeliness of information about the air enemy. For a fighter
          the task of detecting air targets (VTS) is primary and significantly affects
          the outcome of the upcoming air battle. Therefore, to gain an advantage in
          the upcoming air battle requires superiority in detection range and
          the use of weapons. "
        5. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U April 26 2021 03: 17
          0
          Quote: AlexanderA
          Which (MRK and RCA) are not really needed by the Russian Navy.
          In the ocean, maybe, but not in small theaters and island ridges, plus export potential.

          Quote: AlexanderA
          The main type of modern air combat is a long-range all-aspect group
          aerial combat in which at least 2 to 4 fighters participate on one side
          Only it is poorly combined with suspended anti-ship missiles, the same Onyx weighs three tons, and a PTB, because a distant ocean zone is assumed, and we have few tankers (few). But not the point, EP is not a competitor to aircraft, just like aircraft are not a competitor to small rocket ships.
        6. Alexandra
          Alexandra April 26 2021 16: 21
          0
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          In the ocean, maybe, but not in small theaters and island ridges, plus export potential

          https://vpk-news.ru/articles/9105
          "Now almost all experts recognize the low efficiency of the RCA. Therefore, only patrol boats (PSA) are being developed in the BOKHR. There are no plans to build combat boats (BKA) for the Navy. At the same time, a project 12418 RCA for Turkmenistan and Vietnam is being built for export.
          Only it is poorly combined with suspended anti-ship missiles, the same Onyx weighs three tons, and PTB

          Onyx is obsolete.
          https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3016213.html
          "According to reports, the GZUR is a missile with a speed of M = 6 and a range of 1500 km when flying along an altitude profile. The missile is 6 m long and weighs about 1500 kg. As you can understand, the missile has a primarily anti-ship purpose."

          But even at a time when Onyx was only planning to develop the absence of air-to-air missiles on air carriers, the ON missile was a mistake.

          https://nvo.ng.ru/forces/2007-05-25/3_avia.html
          "The issue of the combat stability of aviation was solved by the massive use of electronic warfare. For example, from the MRA air regiments, the 1st squadron was an electronic warfare squadron. The effectiveness of electronic warfare against air-to-air missile systems with radar guidance was quite high, against naval air defense systems - much lower Unfortunately, there were no active means of defense (guided air-to-air missiles with radar and thermal guidance, airborne radars that ensure their use) on MRA aircraft, which cannot be explained by reasonable reasons. "
  • timokhin-aa
    25 March 2021 19: 40
    +2
    And the transition to the Red Sea from the Baltic to military service
    1. timokhin-aa
      25 March 2021 19: 40
      +2
      Where to go to the Strait of Malacca?
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 04: 08
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Where to go to the Strait of Malacca?

        To Sokolniki wink Towards the Indian Ocean, I guess. At least the rate of retreat is on the side of the EA, but where and how quickly can NKs be able to retreat? After the strike, the air reconnaissance will definitely not chew snot.
        1. timokhin-aa
          26 March 2021 11: 47
          0
          Will the enemy have aerial reconnaissance there? The Japanese, for example?

          And WHERE will the ekranoplan depart? the ship then with a tanker and escapes around the world.
          Suppose the frigates of the Northern Fleet may well fight in the Indian Ocean relying on the PMTO Tartus and floating, and the ekranoplan?
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 14: 41
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Suppose the frigates of the Northern Fleet may well fight in the Indian Ocean relying on the PMTO Tartus and floating, and the ekranoplan?

            It’s strange, but what prevents the EP from relying on Tartus as well? And operate within a radius of 600-1000 km? And relying on floating on and on? EP is a ship, not an airplane, the only thing that he needs is not diesel fuel but kerosene, well, so helicopters need kerosene.

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Will the enemy have aerial reconnaissance there? The Japanese, for example?
            I did not understand this, but where do you think the surface ships will go? And why is the absence of a-reconnaissance worse for EP than for NK?
            1. timokhin-aa
              26 March 2021 14: 56
              +3
              Are you kidding me? An ekranoplan cannot be in a given area for several days as a ship. A 1000 km radius for an armed aerodynamic object means the need for a range of 3000 - 3100 km and this without maneuvering, when hitting a thrust.
              Do you know a lot of ekranoplanes with such a range?

              Well, calculate the search performance for the EKR and a pair of turntables and the ship, it is considered as the width of the swath multiplied by the speed, the swath is taken as the range of direct radio visibility from a given height (for the corbal, the height of the antennas, for the EKR and helicopters - the flight altitude).

              And yes - how to transfer an ekranoplan from Tartus to the Red Sea.
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 15: 08
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                An ekranoplan cannot be in a given area for several days as a ship.

                Why such confidence? The "Lunya", a semi-experimental EP, has an autonomy of 5 (five) days and a cruising range of 2000-2500 km, is it in the air that should it be these 5 days?

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Do you know a lot of ekranoplanes with such a range?
                Unfortunately, there are no combat EPs now.

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Well, count the search performance for EKR and a pair of turntables and a ship
                EP can be used to call this very ship, as an arsenal, consider this possibility. Reconnaissance pilots, by the way with EP, will also allow the laws of nature to launch

                Quote: timokhin-aa
                And yes - how to transfer an ekranoplan from Tartus to the Red Sea.
                It’s strange, but how the rest of the ships go, either by Suez or bypassing, but with a rendezvous for bunkering.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  26 March 2021 16: 50
                  +3
                  semi-experimental EP, autonomy is declared in 5 (five) days and a cruising range of 2000-2500 km, is it in the air that should it be these 5 days?


                  On a wave of 8 meters high, it will stay for 5 days, but where else?

                  EP can be used to call this very ship, as an arsenal, consider this possibility.


                  The frigate 22350 of the second series will have 24 shock and 32 anti-aircraft missiles.
                  What other ekranoplan arsenal do you need?

                  Or maybe....

                  Let's.
                  We have a Russian-Turkish war going on for a week now. The situation in the Black Sea and Mediterranean theater of operations is in favor of the Russian Federation, Turkey will obviously lose, but does not want to capitulate yet.



                  The red oval is the area where the combat mission is to be completed. In this zone is a detachment of warships of the Turkish Navy, which five days ago seized two tankers belonging to Russian shipowners and drove them to Qatar. Later, Qatar freed them, but the flights became unprofitable, and intelligence believes that now the Turks will sink our ships.

                  We have a PMTO in Port Sudan, the distance to it is indicated on the map. According to osnaz, the Turks are still east of the Persian Gulf.
                  Iran and Iraq have denied the right to use their airspace for aerial reconnaissance, but secretly reported that there are no Turkish ships in the gulf itself.
                  Saudi Arabia secretly reported that Turkish ships did not approach its shores, but did not want to provide assistance with aerial reconnaissance, for fear of complications with the United States and Great Britain.

                  Russia has no airbases in the region, the commander of the Turkish detachment skillfully evades satellite reconnaissance, apparently receiving data on the orbits of satellites from the Americans.

                  The US Navy does not intervene in the conflict.

                  The task is to carry out the transition to the indicated area, find and destroy a detachment of Turkish ships. Ensure, if necessary, the safety of ships owned by Russian owners.

                  Now tell me how to do it all with an ekranoplan.
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 20: 09
                    -1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    The task is to carry out the transition to the specified area, find and destroy detachment of Turkish ships... .... Now tell me how to do it all with ekranoplan.
                    Those. you demand the accomplishment of this task by the forces of one warship with a displacement of less than 400 tons ?! Fantastic problems allow you to apply fantastic solutions, don't you?
                    Gone up!
                    VE "Lun-Novik" makes a 7 (seven) hour transition to the eastern end of the Horn of Africa (2000-2200 km) at a rendezvous with the ships of the anti-pirate watch of the Navy, where for 4 hours it received fuel from helicopters of the watch's air group, after which it continued the transition and 4 hours later, at a distance of 600 km from the proposed area of ​​the Turkish ships' location, he drifted with the remaining fuel for 1000 km.

                    During the drift, on a light wave of 1, -1,5 m, the crew refilled wing fuel tanks with electric pumps from the soft tanks located in the EF hold, taking into account the alignment (typical solution for this type of EF) with electric pumps for 3 hours. Then, having entered the cruising screen mode at a speed of 300 km / h, he continued the transition to the area.
                    An hour later, the EP lifted from the docking station located on the stabilizer a tethered electric multicopter AWACS and RER to a height of about 300 m. PU in the direction of the signal of triple-use stealth UAVs for optical reconnaissance and radio reconnaissance.
                    The UAVs, following the formation of a straight wedge at a distance of 10 km from each other and at an altitude of 1 km, reached the range of confident detection of the AWACS radar and were detected and then identified, but as shock ones. The dramatically increased radio exchange between the helicopter and the ships made it possible to take the bearing and the distance to the ships, and the included radar guidance systems of the ship's air defense systems and the type of ships. At a distance of 250 km from the VC and 50 from the UAV, missiles were launched and the UAVs were shot down. However, the next three additional reconnaissance UAVs launched at an interval of 5 minutes at low altitude were turned towards the bearing and approached a range of confident optical detection and identification of 20 km and transmitting the data began to climb with simultaneous jamming of the air defense system.
                    Shortly before that, 6 Onyx-type anti-ship missiles were launched away from the targets, followed by a turn from the modified UKSK, and then, based on the results of additional reconnaissance and launch of 6 more anti-ship missiles, already on the target. After launch, the EP, having 4 anti-ship missiles and two UAVs in reserve, again came out on the screen, having previously landed the multicopter, and began a bypass maneuver outside the radio visibility of the AWACS helicopter, developing full speed.
                    Two groups of anti-ship missiles, entering from two sides, distributed four frigates and, having lost 3 missiles on approach, hit three frigates, sinking two of them, the UAVs were also shot down. The airborne AWACS helicopter was directed towards the intended place of missile launch, namely between the flight paths of the missiles, however, in 15 minutes, the EA left the place of the second launch by more than 120 km and was not detected.
                    Having taken place and the course of the detachment of ships of the EP, again reducing the speed to planing, launched the remaining UAVs with a flight task similar to the second three and finding with their help only two ships on the surface, one of them on fire and without moving, the EP fired the remaining four anti-ship missiles at intact ship. Then, having waited in the drift for the development of the fuel helicopter, the EA set off on a rendezvous course having a cruising speed of 300 km / h, again raising the multicopter but already turning on the AWACS radar antenna. After one mark was found on the surface, it was decided to retreat back, with the remaining fuel for 1000 km, to meet the ships of the anti-piracy watch.
                    Something like this
                    And by the way, all the technologies are real and are applied and can be easily used on an electric generator, either in terms of size or in terms of energy consumption.
                    Now solve the same problem with any number of ships from the same basing point, in the same 24 hours!
                  2. timokhin-aa
                    26 March 2021 20: 54
                    -1
                    Those. you demand that this task be accomplished by the forces of one warship with a displacement of less than 400 tons ?!


                    No, you again did not understand anything. I just asked you to describe how an ekranoplan can help in this task. There is no need to conjecture anything for me.

                    Fantastic problems allow you to apply fantastic solutions, don't you?


                    I can't find the reason - see above.

                    for the rest - the ekranoplane cannot have so much fuel, this is a tanker.

                    With the rest of the magazine Murzilka.
                    The sea is not empty, there will be about 400-500 transport ships in the region, and you will have to fly between them. To intercept a highly directional satellite signal (the Turks work this way), you need to place your antenna between the receiver and transmitter, and this is just one of the inconsistencies.

                    You write nonsense, you do not even understand how all these things are done even at the everyday level.
                  3. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 21: 03
                    -2
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    for the rest - the ekranoplane cannot have so much fuel, this is a tanker.
                    You are an expert on ekranoplanes of the Kaptsov level.
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    The sea is not empty, there will be about 400-500 transport ships in the region, and you will have to fly between them.
                    The three-hundred-kilometer course allows this, as does the maneuverability on it. And the area with a radius of 250 km has an area of ​​almost 200 km.

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    To intercept a highly directional satellite signal (the Turks work this way), you need to place your antenna between the receiver and transmitter, and this is just one of the inconsistencies.
                    The AWACS helicopter works via satellite ?!

                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    You write nonsense, you do not even understand how all these things are done even at the everyday level.
                    Well, yes, at the household level, naval combat, of course. By the way, I don't see your solution to my problem.
                  4. timokhin-aa
                    26 March 2021 21: 50
                    0
                    You are an expert on ekranoplanes of the Kaptsov level.


                    It's not for you to write that.

                    The three-hundred-kilometer course allows this, as does the maneuverability on it.


                    And take an estimate of the range of direct radio visibility, and calculate how much time for an EKR at 300 km / h to maneuver?

                    The AWACS helicopter works via satellite ?!


                    The Turks, strictly speaking, do not have AWACS helicopters, but in general even Bayraktars are controlled through highly directional satellite dishes, so ...

                    By the way, I don't see your solution to my problem.


                    The ships cannot solve it in 24 hours.
                    But ekranoplanes cannot be solved at all, for how much.
                2. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 27 March 2021 07: 47
                  0
                  I apologize, although for what, but I will answer this comment again:
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  No, you again did not understand anything. I just asked you to describe how an ekranoplan can help in this task. There is no need to conjecture anything for me.
                  Let's not juggle, because:
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  The task is to carry out the transition to the indicated area, find and destroy a detachment of Turkish ships. Ensure, if necessary, the safety of ships owned by Russian owners.
                  Now tell me how to do it all with the help of an ekranoplan.
                  The task is clearly set for the ekranoplane! Not to ships with the support of EP, as you are trying to imagine. So what a fantastic challenge! Moreover, everything that I described in the proposed solution to the problem is in the hardware, at one level or another.


                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  for the rest - the ekranoplane cannot have so much fuel, this is a tanker.
                  Again I insist that this is Kaptsov's level! Because for EP "Lun", semi-experimental, with monstrous aerodynamics and overload, the specified range is 2000 km! And you do not know this, or you pretend that you do not know.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  And take an estimate of the range of direct radio visibility, and calculate how much time for an EKR at 300 km / h to maneuver?
                  The level is higher than that of Kaptsov, of course, but not by much: direct radio visibility of 20 km with a radius of a full turn with a roll of 15 degrees 2,61 km, not a 45 degree turn, not a 90 turn, but a 180 degree turn. Believe me, Alexander, I learned a lot about EP from open sources.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  The Turks, strictly speaking, do not have AWACS helicopters, but in general even Bayraktars are controlled through highly directional satellite dishes, so ..
                  Let me not believe that inter-ship communication in the detachment is carried out via satellite. And without AWACS, UAVs can conduct reconnaissance with impunity and the alleged tethered UAV AWACS and RER can be safely used in active mode with a radio horizon of at least 100 km.

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  You write nonsense, you do not even understand how all these things are done even at the everyday level.
                  You are trying to refute it with poor knowledge of the characteristics of EP and idle reflections.
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 03: 39
    -1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    And the transition to the Red Sea from the Baltic to military service
    ?
    Why do you think that an EP with seaworthiness on a wave of at least as that of an RTO will not master such a transition? And what are the problems with bunkering, or do we have no tankers? Plus, there are still methods, but more on that later.
    1. timokhin-aa
      26 March 2021 11: 47
      0
      Why do you think that an EP with seaworthiness on a wave of at least as that of an RTO will not master such a transition?


      I'm not a fetishist, sorry.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 14: 42
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Why do you think that an EP with seaworthiness on a wave of at least as that of an RTO will not master such a transition?

        I'm not a fetishist, sorry.
        Those. do you deny the physical possibility of the transition of the proposed EP from the Baltic to the Red Sea?
        1. timokhin-aa
          26 March 2021 14: 59
          0
          Yes, absolutely. EKR will not survive the Vizcay passage.
          And there won't be enough fuel for him, even for a third of the way. And the Danish straits are not clear how to pass, there the traffic is like on the road. And all are slow.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 15: 15
            -1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            EKR will not survive the Vizcay passage.

            Is there always excitement from 6 points? It is unlikely.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And there won't be enough fuel for him, even for a third of the way.
            Bunkering was denied, of course.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And the Danish straits are not clear how to pass, there the traffic is like on the road. And all are slow.
            ES "Lun", even in its initial, semi-experimental state, calmly planed at least at a 2-meter wavelength, without specifying the range, but certainly not on all engines.
            1. timokhin-aa
              26 March 2021 16: 52
              0
              Is there always excitement from 6 points? It is unlikely.


              Often.

              Bunkering was denied, of course.


              Should we drive a tanker there? Blimey!
              But how is it that such a fast ekranoplan will be tied to the transition of the tanker or what?
              So what is the gain, the ship, it turns out, will complete the transition with the same speed!
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 17: 51
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                But how is it that such a fast ekranoplan will be tied to the transition of the tanker or what?
                You write about the navy without knowing the concept of "rendezvous" ?!

                Rendezvous - appointment in advance (collection) of ships or formations of ships in a certain area of ​​the sea (ocean) at a specified time (for example, meeting a ship with a supply vessel), indicating approach courses and measures for mutual identification.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  26 March 2021 19: 58
                  -2
                  You write about the navy without knowing the concept of "rendezvous" ?!


                  Vladimir, show off your colleagues in the sandbox. Moreover, the tukt rendezvous is not a rendezvous - if we take the tanker out to the area, then the operation to ferry the ekranoplan will take as much time as it takes to move the tanker.

                  Rendezvous, it is assigned under other circumstances, if something.

                  And yes - answer the beat. an example with a map, otherwise you somehow technically merged.
                2. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 20: 24
                  -2
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Moreover, the tukt rendezvous is not a rendezvous - if we take the tanker out to the area, then the operation to ferry the ekranoplan will take as much time as it takes to move the tanker.
                  You will decide, you already have an operation, but in general there was a transition.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  So what is the gain, the ship, it turns out, will complete the transition with the same speed!


                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Rendezvous, it is assigned under other circumstances, if something.
                  I gave you a clear definition, I can repeat:
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  Rendezvous - appointment in advance (collection) of ships or formations of ships in a specific area of ​​the sea (ocean) at a specified time (for example, ship-to-ship meeting), indicating courses of approach and measures for mutual recognition.

                  And if you dispute this, then your analyst raises natural doubts.



                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  And yes - answer the beat. an example with a map, otherwise you somehow technically merged.
                  And now your adequacy as a commentator is in doubt!
                  I threw off the answer to your problem, after only 4 hours, there is a counter-problem in it, can you answer it.
                3. timokhin-aa
                  26 March 2021 20: 47
                  0
                  And if you dispute this, then your analyst raises natural doubts.


                  You just did not understand the meaning of what you read.
                4. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 26 March 2021 20: 54
                  -2
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  You just did not understand the meaning of what you read.

                  You are simply challenging the obvious.
                5. timokhin-aa
                  26 March 2021 21: 52
                  -2
                  I just understand how it is in reality.
                  You think in stamps, like a computer on punched cards.
                  You cannot imagine the discussed processes.
                6. abc_alex
                  abc_alex 28 March 2021 03: 13
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  You cannot imagine the discussed processes.

                  Alexander, I beg your pardon, but you do not have a very good idea of ​​what, speak up and actively adjust the solution to the answer.
                  I have already told you and will repeat: Lun was yesterday even for Alekseev himself. Eaglet - this is the prototype of which it makes sense to talk. Ekranolet. The device is capable of flying steadily outside the zone of the ground effect. From the point of view of certification, Orlyonok is a type B apparatus - that is, it is capable of lifting to a height of more than 150 meters. But I personally talked with the pilot of Orlyonok, who lifted him to a height of about a kilometer and flew on it at this height.
                  Therefore, your schemes, I beg your pardon, are not correct initially. Rather, not the circuits themselves, but the logic of solving the problem.
                  To start with, this is:
                  In this zone is a detachment of warships of the Turkish Navy, which five days ago seized two tankers belonging to Russian shipowners and drove them to Qatar. Later, Qatar freed them, but flights became unprofitable, and intelligence believes that now Turks will sink our ships.

                  Reason for striking Turkish ships in the Black Sea. And I assure you, a massive raid on the Turkish Black Sea bases will resolve the issue with Turkish ships in the Gulf much faster than the transition of the ship group.
                  Next, you start the classic "tricky assumptions" For example, you assume by definition that there will be someone from Port Saud to go out into the bay. That is, there is already a large ship group there. Not only one frigate to go to the Gulf of the Turk to fight. And this is a stretch in itself.
                  Next, you introduce a ban on aviation along the entire coast. Well, why don't you then impose a ban on ships leaving the base in Sudan? Or to block the Babelmandeb Strait? If there are enemies around, then why only for aviation, and not for the fleet?

                  But okay, let's accept your assumptions. You immediately raise the question of fuel. It is logical. BUT why are you calling:
                  Should we drive a tanker there? Blimey!

                  But are you aware that ship formations also accompany tankers? For example, state-of-the-art Arlie Burke, too, would not be able to solve your problem without a tanker. You get over 3600 km one way. So the shtatovtsa has a maximum cruising range of 6000, so he will also have to "drive the tanker". And, not one, I think. And destroyers of project 956 "Sarych" will not solve this problem without a tanker. And frigates with corvettes too. Now there are no ships without YSU, which could drive back and forth to 3600 km and drive a Turk there.
                  So your task

                  The task is to carry out the transition to the indicated area, find and destroy a detachment of Turkish ships. Ensure, if necessary, the safety of ships owned by Russian owners.

                  It will be necessary to decide first of all by tankers, and only then by warships.
                  Now further, the Eaglet had practical range - 1500 km. Practical, this is EMNIP there, throw a bomb there and back. That is, its ferry range is about 3000 km, and if the tanker is placed somewhere in the area of ​​Socotra Island, the range will be enough for it with one refueling. Which is not much different from the ship group. The practical range of the Moon is 2000 km. One gas station "before there" is enough for him. BUT Lun is not considered.

                  I just asked you to describe how an ekranoplan can help in this task.

                  Speed. Great speed for a ship. Such that any maneuvers of ships for a ground vehicle are equivalent to standing still. If we assume that there is a tanker half way, then the ekranolit will reach the area you specified in a maximum of 2 hours. The ships will spank there for a week. Arriving at the place, the ekranolet can take off to a height of 3-100 kilometers and conduct radio reconnaissance of the onboard radar. If you give it a synthetic aperture side-view APA, the result will be 50%. And then everything will depend on the actions of the enemy, and the immediate task. It can continue to observe while lying in a drift, waiting for the main ship or ground-based group. Or maybe once or twice pass over the decks at a height of XNUMX meters. For awareness.

                  And the Danish straits are not clear how to pass, there the traffic is like on the road. And all are slow.

                  You again forget about the third coordinate. Above, at an altitude of 2-3 kilometers.

                  if we take the tanker out to the area, then the operation to ferry the ekranoplan will take as much time as it takes to move the tanker.

                  Aerial refueling vehicle. There are refueling planes. Why not be a ground vehicle? For example, the Eaglet in the tanker version could well have filled the same Eaglet to the eyeballs. Again, even though it is difficult, what prevents you from refueling the ekranolet from a refueling plane?

                  So what is the gain, the ship, it turns out, will complete the transition with the same speed!

                  How did you do it? Even if the Ekroanolet waits three days for the tanker to travel 1500 km, the remaining 1500 it will pass 10 times faster than the ship.
                7. ccsr
                  ccsr 28 March 2021 11: 20
                  +1
                  Quote: abc_alex
                  Reason for striking Turkish ships in the Black Sea. And I assure you, a massive raid on the Turkish Black Sea bases will resolve the issue with Turkish ships in the Gulf much faster than the transition of the ship group.

                  Why complicate things so much in matters of the conflict with Turkey, if it will simply be enough to bring the nuclear power plant we have built into emergency mode and make it a new Chernobyl in the resort area?
                  It is possible to act more gently - to prohibit our tourists from visiting their resorts, and everything will be solved in the best possible way at once.
                8. timokhin-aa
                  28 March 2021 20: 09
                  0
                  Eaglet - this is the prototype of which it makes sense to talk. Ekranolet. The device is capable of flying steadily outside the zone of the ground effect. From the point of view of certification, Orlyonok is a type B apparatus - that is, it is capable of lifting to a height of more than 150 meters. But I personally talked with the pilot of Orlyonok, who lifted him to a height of about a kilometer and flew on it at this height.


                  Yes, I am aware of this jump. This is just an example AGAINST ekranoplanes. Well, compare the Eaglet with its counterparts in terms of carrying capacity among aircraft.
                  At the same range that the Eaglets flew, this is in the An-12 transport aircraft, and in the Tu-22M3 bomber aircraft
                  Is there a difference in efficiency?
                9. abc_alex
                  abc_alex 29 March 2021 01: 49
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa

                  Yes, I am aware of this jump. This is just an example AGAINST ekranoplanes. Well, compare the Eaglet with its counterparts in terms of carrying capacity among aircraft.
                  At the same range that the Eaglets flew, this is in the An-12 transport aircraft, and in the Tu-22M3 bomber aircraft
                  Is there a difference in efficiency?

                  Not a jump. Flight. The eaglet did not jump, it flew. That is, he spent a considerable amount of time in the air. Tens of minutes. In piloting it was difficult, but not more difficult than a heavy WW2 aircraft. This is explained by the fact that he had avionics from a pine forest.
                  Say "range" but forget about capacity. The eaglet transported a troop of 200 soldiers. And An-12 is not more than 90.
                  The Tu-22M can take on board no more than three X-22 missiles, while the Eaglet, in theory, could carry six Onyx-class missiles.
                  Moreover, airplanes have an altitude problem. Their remarkable characteristics are evident at an altitude of many kilometers. And at this height, they are visible to radars for many kilometers. On the other hand, the impact ekranolet is hidden by the radio horizon almost the entire route, that is, its combat effectiveness seems to be higher. Yes, the plane will fly farther and faster, but at the same time it will light up on the radar and carry fewer missiles. At the same time, I emphasize, the ekranolets are armed with ship-borne anti-ship missiles, and for the Tu-22M, a special aviation one is required. Moreover, it is unique.
                10. timokhin-aa
                  29 March 2021 10: 37
                  -1

                  Not a jump. Flight. The eaglet did not jump, it flew. That is, he spent a considerable amount of time in the air. Tens of minutes. In piloting it was difficult, but not more difficult than a heavy WW2 aircraft. This is explained by the fact that he had avionics from a pine forest.


                  I know how he flew, no need to tell me fairy tales.

                  For the rest - make a screen with Google maps. Draw a war on it with ekranoplanes and airplanes. Even a person without knowledge will be clear.
                11. abc_alex
                  abc_alex 31 March 2021 02: 04
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  I know how he flew, no need to tell me fairy tales.

                  Where did you get the data? I spoke with the pilot of the Eaglet. And you?

                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  For the rest - make a screen with Google maps. Draw a war on it with ekranoplanes and airplanes. Even a person without knowledge will be clear.

                  I have drawn these circles on the map many times. Useless. YOU stubbornly do not want to understand that airplanes are not opposed to ekranolets. And their interaction is much more natural than that of airplanes and ships. Exactly together, not instead.
                  For example, long-range aircraft can launch fire on the enemy's warrant at the limit of range, attacking the edge ships of the order, destroying AWACS aircraft with special missiles, attacking tankers and auxiliary vessels. When entering the zone of action of ground-effect vehicles, the first massive missile strike is carried out, jointly by airplanes and ground-effect vehicles. To get the desired 100 missiles in a salvo, 50 Tu-22Ms (Su-34 if the distance is about 600 km) or 100 Su-30 are required. And only 16 hypothetical Eaglet-class impact ekranoliters.
                  And this is at a distance of more than 1000 km from the coast. From carriers that are able to leave the launch point almost instantly and in those 30-60 minutes until the subsonic missile reaches the launch point from the mine, go to hundreds kilometers. That is, in the logic of the article, the attack will be almost perfect.
                  And there may be more than one such attack. When the KUG comes to meet the enemy, the flying missile carriers can strike together with it, but from azimuths that are inconvenient for the enemy.
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 28 March 2021 01: 51
    0
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    Half an article just screams about shock ekranoplanes instead of missile boats and RTOs!

    Uh-huh ... especially in terms of disguise as civilian traffic and generally low visibility and difficult identifiability. smile


    And for carriers at such a speed, it ceases to be a problem. This is for a ship whose speed is comparable to the Zhiguli "penny", it is fundamentally important to calculate the rendezvous point with the enemy and stick to course. And for a carrier with a speed of 500 km / h it is not at all necessary to hide at all. Since it is in principle unrealistic to predict where the connections are going.
    Moreover, if the cars pass at an altitude of 2-3 kilometers.
  • Mooh
    Mooh 24 March 2021 18: 21
    -5
    I have not read it yet, but I already approve. There will be something to do in the evening. The article is certainly informative, this author has no others and pluralism in comments is guaranteed.
    1. Mooh
      Mooh 25 March 2021 01: 17
      +2
      I read it. The article is excellent. There is something to think about at your leisure.
      The first thought that came up was why helicopters and not VTOLs? The industry does not produce either one or the other. The development cost is comparable, and the helicopter will always be slower.
      The second thought - in such a concept, a swarm of small cheap ships with a low altitude above the water surface will have a clear advantage, but how can we cram electronic warfare RTR air defense systems and 4 helicopters into them? This is not less than 10.000 tons. It turns out it is necessary to form a group of a helicopter carrier and a large number of RTOs. This group must be protected from aircraft and submarines. Again, it turns out that destroyers are needed. So what? Coming to Zamvolt? Stealth destroyer is our everything?
      The third thought is that a potential adversary, if we talk about the main one, can afford to walk with the radars turned on and under the AWACS umbrella, but we never dreamed of how a blind man was told to fight a blind man, but what to do with a sighted person? Again to build stealth destroyers?
      It turns out that a fork of solutions is either aviki in a large series or mass stealth. Otherwise, we will not pull.
      Something the article did not gain resonance, the wild srach was expecting in comments, but he is almost absent. Or do the trolls only work in the morning?
      1. timokhin-aa
        25 March 2021 19: 45
        +2
        The first thought that came up was why helicopters and not VTOLs? The industry does not produce either one or the other. The development cost is comparable, and the helicopter will always be slower.


        Well, in the fuselage of the Ka-27, a normal naval helicopter is doing quite well. He can also fight with submarines, and the conditions for basing are much simpler.

        A VTOL aircraft is only up to the first production aircraft of about 60 billion and 20 years of time.

        The second thought - in such a concept, a swarm of small cheap ships with a low altitude above the water surface will have a clear advantage, but how can we cram electronic warfare RTR air defense systems and 4 helicopters into them?


        Not at all, but this is a technique for the near zone, you cannot send a boat to a distant one, in oceanic areas they generally cannot use weapons because of the rolling.

        The third thought is that a potential adversary, if we talk about the main one, can afford to walk with the radars on and under the AWACS umbrella


        This is only the USA, the war with the USA is a separate issue

        First, a relatively massive stealth. We'll see there.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 26 March 2021 13: 06
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Not at all, but this is a technique for the near zone, you cannot send a boat to a distant one, in oceanic areas they generally cannot use weapons because of the rolling.

          The boat ... even EM has problems in the DMZ. YT has a great video: "DDG-105 takes a nose-dive"taken from the CVN-74.
          In the background - poor DDG-105 "Dewey" is intensively cosplaying the submarine, diving into the waves with his nose and taking water on the deck right up to the superstructure. On the forward deck, on the CVN-74 "John C. Stennis" deck, people are standing quietly and filming this action. Moreover, judging by the people on the deck, AB practically does not pump.
          1. timokhin-aa
            26 March 2021 14: 52
            0
            I have seen, but this is an open ocean. This is, so to speak, a far-out zone.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 24 March 2021 18: 36
    +1
    respected Alexander Timokhin made many assumptions, ... but in general, of course, there is a possibility of a battle between surface ships, no one denies. But even in Timokhin's schemes, it is clear that surface ships should be small no more than 3000 tons, and still the main strike role remains with the submarine and coastal aviation, whatever one may say, and the surface ships have the main purpose of the PLO of the coastal zone, and only as an option shock capabilities and air defense, rather in self-defense and not strike capabilities
    1. timokhin-aa
      25 March 2021 19: 46
      +1
      Well, what kind of coastal aviation do we have in the Persian Gulf? And in the Arabian Sea?
      3000 tons is a small frigate with corresponding restrictions on the use of weapons in waves.

      To be on the safe side, there are no conceptions of the creation of the Navy with the main principle "just to prevent the displacement of 3000 tons from exceeding, and even though the grass does not grow there" does not and cannot be.
      1. Pamir
        Pamir 25 March 2021 21: 32
        +1
        Alexander, I agree, but another type of surface high-speed striker is not taken into account, although it is in the red book, but for our inland seas (Baltic, Black-Mediterranean) they are probably NOT useless. In general, there have been no discussions about them, partisans for a long time. on an air cushion of pr.1239 "Sivuch", "Bora" and "Samum"? Are they like in combat terms? It is a pity that there are only two of them. It seems that they were not even repaired during the service life.
        1. timokhin-aa
          25 March 2021 23: 49
          +1
          These are very expensive ships and very problematic to operate. For that kind of money, the ship should be multipurpose.
          Therefore, they stopped building.
          1. abc_alex
            abc_alex 29 March 2021 01: 53
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            These are very expensive ships and very problematic to operate. For that kind of money, the ship should be multipurpose.
            Therefore, they stopped building.

            I don't think that's why. These ships were designed to patrol the ship's group on the transition. These are the guards who drive away unwanted guests from the warrant. For this, they have such a speed.
            But, as you understand, if there are no ocean exits of ship groups, then there is no need to protect them. That's why they don't
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 27 March 2021 17: 08
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, what kind of coastal aviation do we have in the Persian Gulf? And in the Arabian Sea?

        Well, what are our interests in the Persian Gulf or the Arabian Sea? only pirates, and if the war is of one interest, quickly evacuate from there,
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 March 2021 17: 39
          0
          Is it not an interest to cut off the fuel supply to the enemy?
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 27 March 2021 17: 49
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Is it not an interest to cut off the fuel supply to the enemy?

            what are you talking about?
            1. timokhin-aa
              27 March 2021 18: 37
              -1
              I'm talking about the Persian Gulf of course
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 27 March 2021 18: 59
                +2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I'm talking about the Persian Gulf

                go down to earth and estimate how many forces and funds will be needed to control the Persian Gulf, they are not available in all of Russia
                1. timokhin-aa
                  27 March 2021 20: 35
                  -1
                  A very strange statement for a naval officer. Even for a mechanic.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 27 March 2021 21: 40
                    +1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    naval officer. Even for a mechanic.

                    Well, I’m the one who can imagine how much fuel is needed for the squadron. a string of tankers, there are not so many of them ... and also provisions and ammunition ..... the Syrian express will seem like flowers, and there are no ships for the squadron, who will guard their shores according to your opinion? ..... ships come and go, but you always want to eat .....
                    What products and in what quantities should be on the menu of employees of various types of troops is regulated by the RF Government Decree No. 946 "On food supply for military personnel." For example, a combined-arms ration includes 150 milliliters of milk per day, and a flight ration - 250. Pilots are also given cottage cheese, sour cream (30 grams of each product), chocolate (15 grams), fresh fruit (200 grams) and, in addition to beef , poultry meat (100 grams). In addition to meat, fish, dairy products, vegetables and fruits, the submariners' menu includes salmon caviar (5 grams) and dry red wine (100 milliliters).
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      28 March 2021 20: 05
                      -1
                      Vladimir, you were carried away to the wrong steppe.
                      Saudi Arabia is able to fill several Aframaxes a day. There are not many ships to turn around.
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 20: 16
                        +1
                        clinical case? are you going to fight on the side of Saudi Arabia against Iran? .... the dream of amers with Russian hands to rake in the heat .... and we will send cargo 200 by sea? Alexander carried you in the wrong place, but the main thing is that our fleet does not carry you in the wrong place tongue
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        28 March 2021 23: 01
                        0
                        What has Iran to do with it? You are not a naval officer, Vladimir, you are crazy. Anyone would understand at least a bit in the subject how communications in the Persian Gulf are connected, oil, the number of tankers that can leave the Gulf in a day, and our potential opponents - everything.
                        This is elementary and does not require any explanation?
                  2. The comment was deleted.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 24 March 2021 18: 50
    +8
    Alexander, in general, I think that such battles can take place, for example, our patrol ships, even in the Sea of ​​Azov, can eventually be attacked by the same missiles from the coast of the Ukrainian Royna, with the support of combat boats and patrol ships of the Ukrainian Navy. Now dissenters will "swoop down" on me, but the reality is that we need to wait and prepare for such military provocations, at least in the Sea of ​​Azov, because the militias did not take Mariupol away from the Nazis, we did not return the Sea of ​​Azov under our full control, but in vain!
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 26 March 2021 12: 06
      +2
      Quote: Thrifty
      our patrol ships, even in the Sea of ​​Azov, can eventually be attacked with the same missiles from the coast of the uk-royna, with the support of combat boats and patrol vessels of the uk-royna navy.

      We have experience on 08.08.08 and it was not in vain for Putin, although I still don’t understand why we didn’t strike a single blow at Tbilisi and stopped halfway. In Ukraine, they are not completely frostbitten, and they perfectly understand that any strike on our ship will lead to the complete destruction of all their naval bases with cruise and operational-tactical missiles. I don’t know how the General Staff is looking at this now, but I can assume that they have identified the goals long ago, and all that remains is to enter the data and give the command to start. Or maybe just give a start command ...
      1. max702
        max702 26 March 2021 12: 30
        +2
        And what prevents you from doing the same actions with ports any the enemy who organizes a "sea battle" against our any ships? And very quickly, if earlier the memory of missile blocks was very limited, now the blocks contain the profiles of ALL warships, which prevents you from entering the coordinates of all possible targets, how many megabytes will it take?
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 26 March 2021 13: 11
          +2
          Quote: max702
          And what prevents to do the same actions with the ports of any enemy who organizes a "sea battle" against any of our ships?

          I think this was done fifty years ago for our strategic nuclear forces. And for operational-level missiles as needed, but technically there are no problems.

          Quote: max702
          Now the blocks contain the profiles of ALL warships, which prevents you from entering the coordinates of all possible targets, how many megabytes will it take?

          The point, as I understand it, is not in memory, but in determining the location of an object in real time. But those that are in the bases will not have time to leave them - that's for sure.
          1. max702
            max702 26 March 2021 13: 23
            +3
            Well, then yes, I just mean that now everything will be very fast, and not as the author of the article and the grunts are preparing for what earlier. And since the enemy understands this, then all these "sea battles" do not make sense as such, some minor conflict at sea will not lead to total defeat, and will be localized by other means. But no one will organize something really threatening, respectively, and all this naval nonsense, not only financed, but also will not be considered seriously, but give pennies to the boats, otherwise everything is lost and there is the main meaning of this type of articles ..
            What I consider to be an obvious work for the enemy, because with the financing of THIS, there will be no resources left for really important projects.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 26 March 2021 13: 55
              +4
              Quote: max702
              Well, then yes, I just mean that now everything will be very fast, and not as the author of the article and the grunts are preparing for what earlier.

              They are forty years behind life - they are just militant amateurs who have decided that it will be exactly the way they dream, so their chatter cannot be taken seriously.
              Quote: max702
              And since the enemy has an understanding of this, then all these "sea battles" do not make sense as such,

              They are beaten with boards in our territorial waters, and this will all end in the worst case. And at best, they will immediately give a tear as soon as our warship begins to move towards them, or they will hit them with electronic warfare forces from an aircraft.

              Quote: max702
              But no one will organize something really threatening, and accordingly, all this naval nonsense, not only financed, but also will not be considered seriously, but give pennies to the ships, otherwise everything will be lost and there is the main meaning of this type of article ..

              You have noticed everything absolutely correctly. Okay, figs with them and their fantasies, but it's bad that these figures are posing as "patriots" of Russia, and this will end badly, tk. they will do their best to propagandize a new naval arms race, and we will not be able to pull it off. But some ignorant people will believe them, blaming the current military leaders, who understand what we need to do now.
              Quote: max702
              What I consider to be an obvious work for the enemy, because with the financing of THIS, there will be no resources left for really important projects.

              I think so too, and I think they feed on this propaganda.
            2. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 27 March 2021 21: 58
              +3
              Quote: max702
              and the really important projects will have no resources left.

              there are almost no minesweepers, there are no PLO aircraft, nuclear submarines are rare and small, and there is still not enough S400, TOR Buk, shells, etc., there are just few aircraft of all kinds ... and at this time, talk about the cost of the aircraft carrier in the entire air defense of the country. or battleship = destroyer .. this is the height of stupidity ...
        2. timokhin-aa
          26 March 2021 16: 59
          -3
          And what prevents to do the same actions with the ports of any enemy who organizes a "sea battle" against any of our ships?


          And if we do not need to arrange a cemetery out of the enemy's country?
          Or do you need to seize the ports intact, for example, to unload your troops?
          What if we ourselves need to attack first?
          And if we have already done this with the ports of the port in the morning, but damn the ships in the sea have not melted everything? And they get in the way, do not allow the landing? Or to transfer reinforcements to your territory?

          I was always amazed at how guys with one gyrus are sure that they are right, I would also like to be able to do this, but not at such a price.

          And yes, print the nickname of your dialogue partner ccsr in Russian, you will understand something about what kind of people you like-minded people and, accordingly, look at yourself a little differently.
          1. max702
            max702 28 March 2021 10: 01
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Or do you need to seize the ports intact, for example, to unload your troops?

            Yes, when you have such nonsense, then stop talking? What are the ports? What are the landing forces? Do you live in a parallel universe and do you have dozens of equal opponents on the planet earth? On our planet, in our reality, there are two adequate forces: WE and NATO with grunts, China is also bursting here and that's it! and In which port are you going to land and capture? Norfolk? Hamburg? Pearl Harbor, San Diego? Or maybe Portsmouth or Marseille? Or are we going to trample in Australia or capture Brazil? Why do we need this? You set REAL goals and objectives, and do not indulge in wet fantasies! It has already been written with NATO more than once that we can compete only by using strategic nuclear forces, and from the very beginning of the conflict we will otherwise lose and no castling in the Navy's program will save us from defeat! Our resources are 146 million of 1.5 billion, and the gap in technological potential is even greater! How many non-freezing ports do we have, and how many do they have? And with similar shipyards? Or maybe, in addition to the Navy, the enemy also has the task of protecting the largest territory with the longest land border? Why do we need these games in ships when the enemy will know that any attack will be followed by complete and inevitable destruction? I repeat, on the ocean, you cannot take and drown someone's ship, the guilty ones will be found right away. This is not somewhere in the desert or in Africa to cut out a sales office or shoot tourists, at sea it’s just a casus belli! And no one there will let the enemy get away with it! That's why 70 years at sea ram weapons of heroes .. When it comes to you it is not clear, or really GDP should be burned to hell with the port or the enemy's military base in nuclear fire so that it is clear there will be no jokes! What do you say after that? And everything goes to this ... tie up pouring water on the enemy's mill by lobbying idiotic decisions on the Russian Navy, in the Russian Ministry of Defense, thank God, not such traitors sit and perfectly understand all the idiocy of butting on the Navy in conventional weapons ..
            Timokhin, you are an enemy, a provocateur and a traitor who, under the guise of caring for the Russian Navy, promotes nonsense that will reduce the combat effectiveness of the Russian army ..
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 28 March 2021 11: 23
              +2
              Quote: max702
              Yes, when you have such nonsense, stop talking? What are the ports? What are the landing forces? Do you live in a parallel universe and do you have dozens of equal opponents on the planet earth?

              Judging by the fertility of Timokhin and Klimov, for another ten years we are doomed to listen to this nonsense - apparently until they finally retire or the sponsor stops paying them line by line.
              Timokhin, you are an enemy, a provocateur and a traitor who, under the guise of caring for the Russian Navy, promotes nonsense that will reduce the combat effectiveness of the Russian army ..

              Everything is just that.
            2. timokhin-aa
              28 March 2021 20: 13
              0
              In which port are you going to land and capture? Norfolk? Hamburg? Pearl Harbor, San Diego? Or maybe Portsmouth or Marseille?


              Will Yuzhno-Kurilsk go?

              Why do we need these games in ships when the enemy will know that any attack will be followed by complete and inevitable destruction?


              Well, that will not actually follow. There are a lot of places from where SSBNs penetrate our Strategic Missile Forces divisions faster than a command for a retaliatory strike passes through the combat control networks.
              At the time, there was even a term such as "disruption of a nuclear missile strike from ocean directions" and this task was never solved by the Strategic Missile Forces, but completely different forces.

              You can't take the ocean and drown someone's ship, the guilty ones will be found right away


              What's with Cheonan? Did you find the guilty boat or are you just guessing?
              And with Kursk?
              1. max702
                max702 31 March 2021 17: 47
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                There are a lot of places from where SSBNs penetrate our Strategic Missile Forces divisions faster than a command for a counter-strike passes through the combat control networks.
                At the time, there was even a term such as "disruption of a nuclear missile strike from ocean directions" and this task was never solved by the Strategic Missile Forces, but completely different forces.

                What? This is where the SSBN can destroy the Strategic Missile Forces divisions near Novosibirsk or Orenburg? Yes, so that the early warning system, air defense, and others will not notice it? In our (and not your parallel) universe, this is not possible. The times "these" have long passed in the courtyard not of the 80s of the twentieth century, but of the 30s of the 21st ..
                For "Kursk" we were paid a virus in the form of writing off debts and issuing loans, plus numerous political concessions, and it was from this that the revival of present-day Russia began, according to Cheonan everything is very muddy, because there the Yankees could be noted in an easy way .. And by the way, everything you said is just and proves the uselessness of surface ships, because no one in the database used them, except perhaps only in the form of a victim. But it is you who are desperately slipping this trash into our Navy in your graphomania ..
                1. timokhin-aa
                  31 March 2021 18: 24
                  +1
                  What? This is where the SSBN can destroy the Strategic Missile Forces divisions near Novosibirsk or Orenburg? So that the early warning system, air defense, and others will not notice it? In our (and not your parallel) universe, this is not possible.


                  No, just in our universe, everything is covered as it should.

                  By March 60, three American SSBNs were deployed in the Mediterranean to attack the 27th Missile Division and Engels Air Base. Four more - to strike at the remaining formations of the XNUMXth Guards Missile Army from the Barents Sea. The distance from where to Yoshkar-Ola, Teikovo and Kozelsk was much less than from Mediterranean to Svetly and Engels.

                  Two more SSBNs from Barentsukha were supposed to work for the 42nd division in Svobodny. Three - for the Orenburg divisions. The need to fire at four missiles was compensated by the fact that several boats fired at any target. And the spread of blocks along the course and combat path was seriously compensated by high-precision fuses on the W76-2 warhead. In no case did the flight time of the salvo exceed 10 minutes. And when the 27th Missile Army (Teikovo, Yoshkar-Ola, Kozelsk) was hit, it was even less.

                  Calculations showed that the Russians were seriously (at least five minutes) late in giving the command to retaliate.

                  The rest of the SSBNs were concentrated in the Pacific Ocean. There is a launch corridor in which (when missiles are launched from the Gulf of Alaska) they pass below the radar field of Russian early warning radars. When launched a little "to the side", they still fall into this field. But it's too late.

                  When hitting the formations of the 33rd Guards Missile Army (Irkutsk, Gvardeisky, Solnechny, Sibirskiy), the time between the entry of warheads into the radar field and their detonation was less than five minutes ...


                  With pictures here - https://topwar.ru/180741-udar-ob-realnost-ili-pro-flot-tu-160-i-cenu-chelovecheskih-oshibok.html

                  Just in case, I know the time for the start command to go back to the mid-nineties, now it's a little faster. For two or three minutes.

                  And by the way, all that you said just proves the uselessness of surface ships, because they were not used by anyone in the database, except perhaps only in the form of a victim.


                  Half of the text of the article is about the use of NK in hostilities. Not as a sacrifice.
                  What are you doing with your eyes?

                  But there was also a precedent "ships versus airplanes", which was not included in the article. it is about something else, but in general it took place - the Falklands.
                  1. max702
                    max702 31 March 2021 19: 00
                    0
                    Leave the affairs of bygone days, guns are not cleaned with bricks! The naval officers can write whatever they want and the rank and salary are needed, how do you imagine in Orenburg they worked with missiles and no one noticed them? 10 minutes of flight? Calculations showed that the Russians were seriously (at least five minutes) late in giving the command to retaliate. Calculations .. No need to refer to the sources of the enemy, you still quote the Ukrainian media or the Minister of Defense, silos will shoot at any enemy in the know and the peaceful sky above our heads is a confirmation of this ..
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      31 March 2021 19: 38
                      +1
                      Leave the affairs of bygone days, guns are not cleaned with bricks!


                      The scenario described is somewhere between 2028-2030, the US Navy will receive the necessary capabilities just then, and thanks to guys like you in the highest echelons of power, nothing will remain from the Navy by these years.

                      How do you imagine you used rockets in Orenburg and no one noticed them?


                      I am not saying that the blow will not be noticed. I say something completely different, with your eyes, start working with the organ to which they send nerve impulses. Put the letters into words CORRECTLY.

                      10 minutes of flight?


                      7-8

                      ... Calculations .. No need to refer to the sources of the enemy


                      I do not refer to any sources of the enemy, I only took a picture of the launch corridor from the enemy, but checked it against our fields of the early warning missile system, something like this is the case - the rest is a banal comparison of the flight time of an SLBM with the time of the launch command.

                      Silos are fired at any


                      They do not have time, they thought it many times.
                      Don't you understand why Putin grabbed a superweapon in 2018, why were these "messages" to partners like "we go to heaven, and they all die"? Not clear yet?
                      They are there in the Kremlin KNOW what is on the way.
                      And they cannot fundamentally resolve the issue for organizational reasons - the Supreme Command have fooled their heads with superweapons, the Ministry of Defense is a narcissistic PR man who was not even given a "nuclear briefcase", and the rest of the decision makers like you are leaders with the same heads.
                      Those who are "in the subject" are removed from management.
                      1. max702
                        max702 31 March 2021 20: 19
                        0
                        Who counted your partners in silos? You cannot have any information about the time of the launch command, but only assumptions and an obviously disinformation plan. So far, all cartoons are becoming more and more reality, but the toys of partners are more and more toys F-35 and Zumwalt send you fiery greetings, like the US missile defense system with MLRS Patriot .. With something more technologically advanced, quite sad sadness .. I remember me here three years old ago one rubbed in that in a couple of years the Chinese would seize Siberia .. So you are the same sofa cushion ...
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        31 March 2021 20: 43
                        0
                        Who counted your partners in silos? You cannot have any information about the time of the start command.


                        Are you familiar with the details of my biography? What a twist.

                        While all cartoons somehow become reality more and more


                        Well, let's discuss, for example, Poseidon.
                        What do we have with the predicted date of the arrival of the first item in ammunition load?

                        So you are the same sofa cushion ...


                        Speak for yourself.
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 24 March 2021 18: 59
    +3
    Articles are becoming more and more voluminous, and therefore difficult to read.
    1. Eldorado
      Eldorado 24 March 2021 19: 17
      +3
      Yes, I think so too. The author needs to break the article into several parts and highlight a number of points in more detail (Pearl Harbor 1982, fight 2008)
      1. WHAT IS
        WHAT IS 24 March 2021 19: 46
        +9
        The fight of the eighth year is understandable, but Pearl Harbor is for a separate article.
    2. timokhin-aa
      24 March 2021 23: 43
      +8
      I congratulate you on the last day of navigational service.
      The article is smaller than others in the series. At least a little bit, but less.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 25 March 2021 07: 40
        +8
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        happy day of navigational service

        Thank you.
        And everyone lies about Pearl Harbor, including the admiral.
        But the essence of this does not change - the reconnaissance of the Pacific Fleet was not able to locate the enemy in time, and the Pacific Fleet could not simulate striking the AUS.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 25 March 2021 10: 45
          +3
          Quote: Bez 310
          And everyone lies about Pearl Harbor, including the admiral.

          I agree with this conclusion.
          Quote: Bez 310
          But the essence of this does not change - the reconnaissance of the Pacific Fleet could not find the enemy in time,

          Quite right, and Karev is personally to blame, tk. did not assess the situation correctly, because he should have been immediately told that the AUG went into radio silence and that the primary reconnaissance object was lost. But Timokhin is not able to understand this, so he sculpts a hunchback that almost the third world war should have begun because of this.
          Quote: Bez 310
          and the Pacific Fleet was unable to simulate the strike at the AUS.

          I think they did not even intensify reconnaissance when this AUG approached our shores, otherwise there would be no such puncture - this is excluded with reinforcement.
          1. timokhin-aa
            25 March 2021 11: 25
            -3
            Quite right, and Karev is personally to blame, tk. did not assess the situation correctly, because he should have been immediately told that the AUG went into radio silence and that the primary reconnaissance object was lost.


            Prapor, what was wrong there?
            Karev is lying, but in something completely different, and there is no need to speculate and talk nonsense.

            I think they did not even intensify reconnaissance when this AUG approached our shores, otherwise there would be no such puncture - this is excluded with reinforcement.


            You don't have to think. At least for you.
      2. Alien From
        Alien From 25 March 2021 16: 00
        +3
        Thanks to the author, I reread it three times, as not a pro in maritime affairs, it is very interesting hi
  • A. Privalov
    A. Privalov 24 March 2021 19: 24
    +4
    It is not entirely clear to me how some rather large craft can hide from satellite observation. Modern satellites have a fairly high speed (they fly around the earth 15 times in 24 hours) and scan a fairly wide swath. Where
    will the ship disappear in the middle of the sea in 90 minutes since the last flyby? Will it step aside about 40 kilometers?
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 24 March 2021 19: 34
      -1
      Halts hi in fact, as an option, disguise, from a warship to an auxiliary, or even into a vehicle with observance of radio silence. Yes, and it is also possible to step aside, because 90 minutes is a long period of time! !!
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 24 March 2021 20: 59
        +2
        Quote: Thrifty
        Yes, and it is also possible to step aside, because 90 minutes is a long period of time! !!

        So the satellite does not fly alone, and such objects are conducted not only by satellite reconnaissance, but also by the coastal units of the naval osnaz. Moreover, there is the possibility of opening satellite communication lines, and even decrypting messages, which the Zvezda system has been doing for fifty years, including in the Far East. So the tales about how they lost the aircraft carrier are told to justify their mistakes, because it was the fault of the intelligence chief, who believed that everything would be hushed up.
      2. A. Privalov
        A. Privalov 24 March 2021 21: 41
        +4
        Quote: Thrifty
        Yes, and it is also possible to step aside, because 90 minutes is a long period of time! !!

        An old "Eros" in 2008, worked a lot of time in the military, then was engaged in filming and observation in favor of socio-economic projects. So, its standard working swath is 190 km. It can be expanded up to 380.
        A ship at sea has nowhere to go, alas. hi
      3. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 27 March 2021 21: 45
        +1
        Quote: Thrifty
        camouflage, from a warship to an auxiliary, or even into a vehicle with observance of radio silence.

        well, in person, that it is not an aircraft carrier, it is only an MRK that can pretend to be someone, and that is unlikely, and AB will definitely not lose like a cruiser
    2. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 24 March 2021 20: 15
      +1
      Well, let's say it can move 80 km away.
    3. Avior
      Avior 24 March 2021 23: 10
      +6
      The satellite is not capable of taking photographs of the same location every hour and a half. Rather, once a day. During this time, the ship will leave the watchband - the orbits of the satellites are predictable.
      The viewable bar depends on the image resolution. At higher resolutions, the bandwidth is not very wide.
      In addition, there is a large list of various restrictions and conventions.
      1. For a satellite, passive radio-technical reconnaissance - their band is just wide - radio silence mode and equipment unification. It is impossible to determine the type of ship by the operating navigation radar, in the radio silence mode, in general, its presence.
      2. Optical satellites - so no one canceled the night and the clouds. To obtain a high resolution of images, a rather narrow strip is required, in addition, the usual smoke screen will hide the type of ship - whether it is an aircraft carrier or a minesweeper - or even the fact of its presence - the satellite will see clouds and fog.
      3. Satellites with radars - in reality, there are only low-power satellites due to lack of energy on board, with a nuclear reactor there are no such satellites for a long time, and solar batteries have limited capabilities.
      which means that satellite radars, if necessary, are suppressed by electronic warfare methods. Their orbit is low, in case of war, they are available for defeat, and the strip is also not very large if the mapping mode is on. Without it, it is difficult to determine the type of target.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 25 March 2021 10: 35
        +1
        "The satellite is not capable of taking photographs of the same place every hour and a half." ////
        ----
        Why?
        This is exactly how low-flying reconnaissance satellites take pictures. Every 2 hours, approx.
        In this "hole" and try to carry out all the secret events.
        1. Avior
          Avior 25 March 2021 11: 34
          0
          It depends on the satellite path. In general, it can be very complex in shape.
          https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Трасса_орбиты
          In the general case, it does not repeat at every turn.
          For example, if the path is a multiple of a sidereal day, then the satellite will hit the same location approximately once a day.
        2. arkadiyssk
          arkadiyssk 26 March 2021 09: 21
          0
          Because the satellite either hangs in the MTR orbit and is constantly powered by solar panels, but then it does not pass one place twice in any way, or it makes turns having half the way in the shade without the possibility of recharging the batteries. Yes, and the capabilities of the satellite's radar are not fabulous, but are limited by energy - even the ISS has a 180 kW power engineer with huge panels, so a 20 kW satellite has a maximum of this for scanning and transmitting information and others. Of course, space is the pinnacle of technology, but everything rests on energy, rightly people said here - scanning a maximum of 100-200 km of a strip and even not continuous - in pieces. This is to talk about the fact that now, for example, we will bring out the Pion radar satellite and we will see everything in the oceans ...
    4. timokhin-aa
      24 March 2021 23: 17
      +5
      https://topwar.ru/176082-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-vyvodim-avianosec-na-udar.html
      An example of the passage of a ship through the zone of real control of a real satellite constellation unnoticed has been analyzed.
      1. A. Privalov
        A. Privalov 25 March 2021 05: 39
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        https://topwar.ru/176082-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-vyvodim-avianosec-na-udar.html
        An example of the passage of a ship through the zone of real control of a real satellite constellation unnoticed has been analyzed.

        Thank. I somehow missed this article at the time. Very curious and informative. hi
    5. ramzay21
      ramzay21 25 March 2021 08: 39
      -1
      And how many times per day will it fly over the same place? Let me remind you that the length of the equator is 44000 km, removing a strip of 200 km in one flight, it needs to make 220 turns around the earth in order to remove everything. If he makes 15 turns around the earth per day, then he removes a strip 3000 km wide out of 44000. Moreover, he removes this strip once per span.
      1. timokhin-aa
        25 March 2021 11: 26
        +6
        The people do not understand, people think that the satellite is flying over the same place.
  • ares1988
    ares1988 24 March 2021 19: 52
    0
    Thanks to the author for the article. Could you please tell me about the following point, which is not clear to me from the article: can the RTR means placed on the ship detect the radiating elements of the enemy ship, if they are located below the radio horizon? Logically I assume that it is not. But, you never know: maybe they learned to use some kind of effects such as refraction or reflection of a radio signal from the ionosphere.
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 24 March 2021 20: 12
      -3
      As it were, the term ___ horizon- implies that there is no "visibility" behind it.
      It all depends on the wavelength, from which this radio horizon will change / move away.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 24 March 2021 20: 36
        +5
        Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
        It all depends on the wavelength, from which this radio horizon will change / move away.

        Let me tell you a secret, the theoretical range of the radio horizon depends only on the antenna height, nothing else. Formula: D = 4.12 √H, where H is the antenna height.


        But the propagation of radio waves depends on a large number of factors, there are over-the-horizon radars, more often in the decameter range. Which, under certain conditions, can spread beyond the radio horizon. But they will not determine the exact location and cannot serve as target designation. They can only to warn about a possible problem.
        1. Rlptrt
          Rlptrt 24 March 2021 22: 04
          +7
          Yes sir. It is a pity that 99% of those who consider themselves specialists cannot understand that over-the-horizon radars cannot give out directional indications in principle. The ionosphere is unstable, the angle and location of the reflection are not determined.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 25 March 2021 10: 54
            -1
            Quote: Rlptrt
            Yes sir. It is a pity that 99% of those who consider themselves specialists cannot understand that over-the-horizon radars cannot give out directional indications in principle.

            That's right, this method is not suitable for precise targeting. But all the primary goals of the Americans are predetermined, therefore, if need be, it is possible to get by only by the very fact of the launch in order to strike without additional data.
            Quote: Rlptrt
            The ionosphere is unstable, the angle and location of the reflection are not determined.

            This can be dealt with by geographically dispersed stations, which will give more accurate coordinates, but still with a large error, which is why they are used only for detection.
            1. Rlptrt
              Rlptrt 25 March 2021 18: 48
              +1
              1.
              therefore, if necessary, it is possible to manage only by the very fact of the launch in order to strike a blow without additional data.

              What blow to strike? For the enemy? Likewise, our goals are largely predetermined by us. But you cannot strike at its launched missiles that are about to arrive. And you cannot strike at maneuverable targets - AUG, SSBN. Milking this requires a lot of satellites and a lot of reconnaissance and strike aircraft.
              2.
              This can be fought with geographically dispersed stations,

              You can't. Error per error gives the squared error. Roughly speaking, we do not know from which ionized cloud the beam of one radar was reflected and we multiply it by ignorance from which one the beam of the other was reflected. Diversity only increases the likelihood of detecting a launch.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 25 March 2021 19: 12
                +2
                Quote: Rlptrt
                But you cannot strike at its launched missiles that are about to arrive.

                No one sets such tasks - the main goals of the place of the greatest density of the enemy's population, its large cities and control centers.
                Quote: Rlptrt
                And you cannot strike at maneuverable targets - AUG, SSBN.

                AUG is not at all a strategic threat to our territory, unlike SSBNs, so they should not be placed on the same level. It is practically difficult and too costly to detect SSBNs and destroy them with long-range missiles, which is why we rely on air defense-missile defense systems to cover the main industrial regions of the country.
                The fact that here some figures are planning naval battles is not because of great intelligence - we in the USSR could not create a fleet for this, and even now we will not create even more so. And this is not necessary - we have always had a stake on the Strategic Missile Forces, as a guarantor of our security, and now nothing has changed.
                Quote: Rlptrt
                You can't. Error per error gives the squared error.

                Do you know anything about the Circle system?
                Quote: Rlptrt
                Roughly speaking, we do not know from which ionized cloud the beam of one radar was reflected and we multiply

                Radar beams are not reflected from the ionosphere if they are not in the meter range.
                Quote: Rlptrt
                Diversity only increases the likelihood of detecting a launch.

                Not only - also the reliability of the entire system.
                1. Rlptrt
                  Rlptrt 25 March 2021 21: 19
                  -2
                  Radar beams are not reflected from the ionosphere if they are not in the meter range.

                  Do you have any idea about radar? How do you think over-the-horizon radars work?
                  As for the importance of AUG and naval combat, though I am a BCH-2. but still marine. Therefore, I consider further debate to be meaningless.
                2. ramzay21
                  ramzay21 26 March 2021 01: 46
                  -1
                  AUG is generally not a strategic threat to our territory, unlike SSBNs, so they should not be placed on the same level. Finding SSBNs and destroying them is practically difficult and too costly.

                  SSBNs are destroyed by an enemy nuclear submarine carrying out covert tracking. For example, Virginia or Sea Wolfe is attached to our SSBNs when leaving the base and carries out tracking. In the event of an attempt to launch missiles, the Virginia nuclear submarine sinks our SSBNs with torpedoes, along with missiles.
                  With AUG, the situation is different. The composition of the AUG is unknown, and most likely it includes one or two SSBNs. With PLO and air defense at the AUG, things are not at all like that of a single SSBN. And in order to start looking for SSBNs, you must first destroy the AUG, which will take time and will give the SSBNs the opportunity to perform their task without hindrance and guaranteed.
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 26 March 2021 11: 57
                    +1
                    Quote: ramzay21
                    SSBNs are destroyed by an enemy nuclear submarine carrying out covert tracking. For example, Virginia or Sea Wolfe is attached to our SSBNs when leaving the base and carries out tracking.

                    First, they lose our submarines in the same way during tracking, and the submariners themselves have repeatedly cited this as an example.
                    Secondly, it is possible to suppress the means of detecting our nuclear submarines both with the help of powerful sources of acoustic interference and with the use of false targets. I don't know at what level it is now, but in the eighties it was already reported in some closed newsletters.
                    So it is not necessary to bury our submarine fleet ahead of time - even if half of the SSBNs on duty complete the assigned task, this can be considered a huge success.

                    Quote: ramzay21
                    With AUG, the situation is different.

                    Everything is hopeless there - they cannot be hidden from reconnaissance systems, which means that even an unintended nuclear strike with several warheads will put most ships out of action for a long time.
                    Quote: ramzay21
                    And in order to start looking for SSBNs, you must first destroy the AUG, which will take time and will give the SSBNs the opportunity to perform their task without hindrance and guaranteed.

                    Who gave you such a "theory"? Everything will be much easier, because now only the time standard plays a role, so there simply will not be time for some troubles with AUG, and everything will end much faster than you might think.
                    1. ramzay21
                      ramzay21 27 March 2021 01: 41
                      -1
                      First, they lose our submarines in the same way during tracking, and the submariners themselves have repeatedly cited this as an example.

                      They can lose, but for this they have Poseidons, capable of detecting submarines by alternative methods, and which are not affected by the low noise of the 4th generation of nuclear submarines. So, alas, our SSBN has not a lot of chances to remain without prosecution.
                      Everything is hopeless there - they cannot be hidden from reconnaissance systems, which means that even an unintended nuclear strike with several warheads will put most ships out of action for a long time.

                      What intelligence systems cannot be hidden from them? We do not have air reconnaissance, which detected targets during the Soviet era, and is the basis for reconnaissance and target designation in all the navies of the world. What will you look for AUG in the Persian Gulf, for example? Or do you think you stuck two antennas in Vladivostok, launched two satellites, which once a week fly over the same place on Earth and that's it, we supposedly have reconnaissance?
                      Stop giving wishful thinking.
                      1. ccsr
                        ccsr 27 March 2021 10: 29
                        +1
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        They can lose, but for this they have Poseidons, capable of detecting submarines by alternative methods, and which are not affected by the low noise of the 4th generation of nuclear submarines. So, alas, our SSBN has not a lot of chances to remain without prosecution.

                        Are you sure you know all the ways to avoid persecution, including the use of technical means against alternative methods?
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        So, alas, our SSBN has not a lot of chances to remain without prosecution.

                        If this were so, then the whole world would not demonstrate the emergence of three missile carriers from under the ice. I don't think the Americans tracked them with an accuracy of even a few kilometers.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        We do not have air reconnaissance, which detected targets during the Soviet era, and is the basis for reconnaissance and target designation in all the navies of the world.

                        If we do not have them in the Navy, this does not mean that they are generally absent in the Aerospace Forces and the Ground Forces. Moreover, drones have appeared, which are used for aerial reconnaissance, so not everything is as gloomy as you think.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        What will you look for AUG in the Persian Gulf, for example?

                        Satellite reconnaissance and coastal units osnaz.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        Or do you think you stuck two antennas in Vladivostok, launched two satellites, which once a week fly over the same place on Earth and that's it, we supposedly have reconnaissance?

                        You have a too primitive idea of ​​reconnaissance, but let me remind you that there has always been an exchange of information between the branches and branches of the armed forces and with the central authorities.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        Stop giving wishful thinking.

                        This is what happened twenty years ago, if you understand anything about it:
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                      3. ramzay21
                        ramzay21 27 March 2021 20: 48
                        -1
                        Are you sure you know all the ways to avoid persecution, including the use of technical means against alternative methods?

                        And what means can a submarine submarine use against that? that she can't detect, I mean the Poseidon PLO plane?
                        If this were so, then the whole world would not demonstrate the emergence of three missile carriers from under the ice. I don't think the Americans tracked them with an accuracy of even a few kilometers.

                        We are all right with ostentation, but this does not mean that the American boats should have surfaced along with our boats, it means they had other orders.
                        If this were so, then the whole world would not demonstrate the emergence of three missile carriers from under the ice. I don't think the Americans tracked them with an accuracy of even a few kilometers.

                        If we do not have them in the Navy, this does not mean that they are generally absent in the Aerospace Forces and the Ground Forces. Moreover, drones have appeared, which are used for aerial reconnaissance, so not everything is as gloomy as you think.

                        4 AWACS A50U aircraft is of course a great force, but they are not enough for the Aerospace Forces themselves. We do not have reconnaissance drones with acceptable characteristics in our units either. Compared to several air regiments, for example, at the Pacific Fleet, now there is no air reconnaissance at all, at least there is no one to give the order to take off and detect targets, there is no one at all.
                        Satellite reconnaissance and coastal units osnaz.

                        Well, yes, the ZGRLS in the Vladivostok area and two satellites control the entire world ocean. The Americans, on the other hand, we can assemble such systems from their electronics that we do not need 100 PLO aircraft and the same amount of AWACS we have a magic ZGRLS.
                        How can two satellites control the world's oceans? One optical reconnaissance satellite per flight, according to the most optimistic assumptions, captures a strip of 200 km, making 15 orbits per day, it captures a strip of 3000 km out of 44000 km along the equator. That is, one satellite will fly over the same place in two weeks. A constellation of four hundred satellites is needed to fly over one location within an hour. And if it is night or cloudy, then everything, the whole grouping is useless. Passive RTR satellites are also useless if the enemy is in radio silence. The satellites of the active RTR, capable of detecting something, again if the enemy does not take countermeasures, had a nuclear reactor on board.

                        You have a too primitive idea of ​​reconnaissance, but let me remind you that there has always been an exchange of information between the branches and branches of the armed forces and with the central authorities.

                        You can exchange anything, but if there is no reconnaissance means, and our Navy does not have them, then there is nothing to exchange. At parades and on TV, you can show and tell anything you want, only it has nothing to do with reality, whether you like it or not.
                      4. ccsr
                        ccsr 27 March 2021 23: 01
                        0
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        And what means can a submarine submarine use against that? that she can't detect, I mean the Poseidon PLO plane?

                        And the Poseidons fly over all the oceans 24 hours a day?
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        We are all right with ostentation, but this does not mean that the American boats should have surfaced along with our boats, it means they had other orders.

                        Well, why didn't Poseidon show up there with journalists on board, since they track our nuclear submarines so easily and would show photos before us?

                        Quote: ramzay21
                        That is, one satellite will fly over the same place in two weeks.

                        Who told you such nonsense? You do not seem to be at all aware of our orbital constellation, including those satellites that have a dual purpose. Moreover, we can intercept information from other people's satellites - you are clearly not in the subject.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        You can exchange anything, but if there is no reconnaissance means, and our Navy does not have them, then there is nothing to exchange.

                        Your mantra is tiresome, but believe that what you write is not true.
                      5. ramzay21
                        ramzay21 28 March 2021 03: 58
                        -1
                        Well, why didn't Poseidon show up there with journalists on board, since they track our nuclear submarines so easily and would show photos before us?

                        Why should they? Everything works for them, ours, too, did not show their capabilities under the USSR. And what does Poseidon have to do with it? I talked about the nuclear submarines tracking our SSBNs, and this is exactly what our naval forces recognize.
                        Who told you such nonsense? You do not seem to be at all aware of our orbital constellation, including those satellites that have a dual purpose. Moreover, we can intercept information from other people's satellites - you are clearly not in the subject.

                        Do you disagree with the length of the equator or the width of the coverage of the optical reconnaissance cameras? Do you think that we have four hundred satellites capable of carrying out optical reconnaissance? How are you going to intercept the information, since you are in the subject?
                        Your mantra is tiresome, but believe that what you write is not true.

                        Do you essentially have something to say?
                      6. ccsr
                        ccsr 28 March 2021 10: 51
                        +1
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        Why do they need it?

                        Then, as our submariners had to surface among the NATO ships in order to show a naked woman - there was such a case in the Soviet Navy.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        I talked about the nuclear submarines tracking our SSBNs,

                        Well, where is the information that they were there?
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        Do you disagree with the length of the equator or the width of the coverage of the optical reconnaissance cameras?

                        Unlike you, I saw genuine satellite negatives of the seventies, so there is no need to tell me anything about it, especially since I had to participate in flight tests of the first Soviet optoelectronic reconnaissance systems. And I have an idea that the pictures can be recognized even by the shadow, knowing the shooting time and the coordinates of the object.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        How are you going to intercept the information, since you are in the subject?

                        Read here, there is only one object written
                        In the deaf forests of Latvia, not far from the place where the multicolored waters of the Baltic and the Gulf of Riga meet, there is a unique man-made object, which during the times of the USSR was completely classified and was absent on any maps. And for good reason ...

                        https://topwar.ru/82188-nerazgadannaya-tayna-sovetskoy-razvedki.html
                      7. ramzay21
                        ramzay21 29 March 2021 07: 48
                        -1
                        Then, as our submariners had to surface among the NATO ships in order to show a naked woman - there was such a case in the Soviet Navy.

                        They were in control of the situation and so why should they show it. Moreover, the emergence of our SSBNs did not give any practical advantages, except for stupid propaganda. Such a technique immediately unmasks SSBNs, and they have the task of covert patrolling.
                        Unlike you, I saw genuine satellite negatives of the seventies, so there is no need to tell me anything about it, especially since I had to participate in flight tests of the first Soviet optoelectronic reconnaissance systems. And I have an idea that the pictures can be recognized even by the shadow, knowing the shooting time and the coordinates of the object.

                        I saw that too, so what? The area of ​​the Earth has decreased or we have four hundred satellites? Are you trying to beat the laws of physics or geography?
                      8. ccsr
                        ccsr 29 March 2021 12: 15
                        0
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        They were in control of the situation and so why should they show it.

                        Those. no one knows, except our sailors, whether the Americans were there or not. Ours are silent, the Americans are silent, I suspect that the Yankees were a little afraid to go to that area.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        except for stupid propaganda, the emergence of our SSBNs did not give.

                        So now this is much more important than the real benefits of such a resurrection - for an information war, this is what is needed.
                        Quote: ramzay21

                        I saw that too, so what? The area of ​​the Earth has decreased or we have four hundred satellites?

                        And what do we need to track the American fleet in real time, even if it is in the southern hemisphere or at docks in America?
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        Are you trying to beat the laws of physics or geography?

                        We are not interested in the whole Earth - Antarctica and South America with Australia for sure. Your thought about 400 satellites is certainly tempting, but really we would have 200 and we will be happy in the near future.
                      9. ramzay21
                        ramzay21 April 1 2021 10: 25
                        -1
                        Those. no one knows, except our sailors, whether the Americans were there or not. Ours are silent, the Americans are silent, I suspect that the Yankees were a little afraid to go to that area.

                        Not the fact that ours know. The boats of the 4th generation are too quiet, and ours may not be able to detect Virginia reaching up to 20 knots.
                        So now this is much more important than the real benefits of such a resurrection - for an information war, this is what is needed.

                        For us now, yes. And the strong have nothing to shout about their strength, those who need it and so know.
                        And what do we need to track the American fleet in real time, even if it is in the southern hemisphere or at docks in America?

                        And that the satellites began to fly like an airplane, around the place that you need?
                        We are not interested in the whole Earth - Antarctica and South America with Australia for sure. Your thought about 400 satellites is certainly tempting, but really we would have 200 and we will be happy in the near future.

                        The satellite flies in a certain orbit, and whether you like it or not, it cannot fly only over the oceans and over the places that interest you. The satellite will fly over the entire Earth. And even according to optimistic estimates, to shoot a strip 200 km wide in one span of 44000 km, in a day it will take off a strip 3000 km wide, and will fly once every two weeks the place that you need, and will send you a picture of this place that you saw ... 1 satellites will provide images of a certain overlapping square once an hour. But other difficulties arise there. How to take pictures at night and over cloudy skies? Despite the fact that such a group will cost unthinkable and not real money for us, and no one in the world has such a group.
                      10. ccsr
                        ccsr April 1 2021 12: 38
                        0
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        And that the satellites began to fly like an airplane, around the place that you need?

                        They fly several times, and moreover, the side swath can reach hundreds of kilometers. And do not forget that there is no need to search for ships on land - this seriously reduces the detection range. In addition, there are satellites in elliptical orbits, and they can survey the area of ​​interest for much longer during the period of one revolution.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        , and will fly once every two weeks the place that you need,

                        This is an incorrect calculation, if only because more than one satellite is used, and moreover, for example, electronic reconnaissance satellites can capture not 200 km, but an order of magnitude more, depending on the orbit.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        How to take pictures at night and over cloudy skies?

                        The infrared range allows you to do this. And why do you need so many pictures if the grouping is tracked by several parameters?
                      11. ramzay21
                        ramzay21 April 1 2021 20: 26
                        -1
                        They fly several times, and moreover, the side swath can reach hundreds of kilometers.

                        Again. According to optimistic estimates of normal quality, the image is 200 km wide, although not with a side view.
                        And do not forget that there is no need to search for ships on land - this seriously reduces the detection range.

                        The satellite flies along a trajectory, it cannot fly only over the sea, it flies around the planet Earth. The satellite may not take pictures of land and areas of the ocean that are not of interest to you, but it cannot but fly over them, these are the laws of physics. How does this reduce the detection bandwidth?
                        This is an incorrect calculation, if only because more than one satellite is used, and moreover, for example, electronic reconnaissance satellites can capture not 200 km, but an order of magnitude more, depending on the orbit.

                        Do you want to refute the laws of physics or reality?
                        We are now talking about optical reconnaissance satellites. RTR satellites are a different topic.
                        The infrared range allows you to do this.

                        So far, only Americans have such solutions and this is not the infrared range, and it does not imply such a width of coverage.
                        And why do you need so many pictures if the grouping is tracked by several parameters?

                        And how are you going to track, for example, an AUG or a destroyer, if they do not tell you the coordinates and course, and moreover are trying to evade your satellites?
                      12. ccsr
                        ccsr April 1 2021 22: 17
                        0
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        Again. According to optimistic estimates of normal quality, the image is 200 km wide, although not with a side view.

                        You don't seem to understand that the images are not the most important element in order to determine the location of a group of enemy ships.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        How does this reduce the detection bandwidth?

                        This affects the satellite resource in the first place. And the detection range depends on what kind of reconnaissance is being carried out - detailed or survey.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        We are now talking about optical reconnaissance satellites.

                        With what joy should everyone be guided by them and ignore others?
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        So far, only Americans have such solutions and this is not the infrared range,

                        This is a lie - we already had IR cameras on Yantar-4KS in the eighties.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        And how are you going to track, for example, an AUG or a destroyer, if they do not tell you the coordinates and course, and moreover are trying to evade your satellites?

                        And they are not obliged to report on their actions to their headquarters and make aviation flights? You probably do not know how the radio-technical coastal structures of the fleet reconnaissance work, since you only speculate on satellites.
                      13. ramzay21
                        ramzay21 April 3 2021 00: 23
                        -1
                        You don't seem to understand that the images are not the most important element in order to determine the location of a group of enemy ships.

                        You yourself are talking about satellite systems. Optical reconnaissance is a variety of them. I think we figured out the need to have four hundred optical reconnaissance satellites in order to be able to monitor the squares we need at least every hour?
                        With what joy should everyone be guided by them and ignore others?

                        Are you talking about RTR satellites now? Passive RTR satellites are useless. AUG or a single destroyer will easily imitate a tanker or dry cargo ship. For adequate coverage of these satellites, less is needed, since they will have a coverage band of 400-500 kilometers, but still not less than two hundred. Again, a lot of money going nowhere. Satellites of active RTR are certainly needed, but for a dense coverage they need, again, more than two hundred, this is a huge amount of money.
                        This is a lie - we already had IR cameras on Yantar-4KS in the eighties.

                        And what was their reach and what did they find?
                        And they are not obliged to report on their actions to their headquarters and make aviation flights? You probably do not know how the radio-technical coastal structures of the fleet reconnaissance work, since you only speculate on satellites.

                        From the shore, you will not trace any communications with the headquarters or aviation flights in the Persian Gulf, do not come up with it.
                        You spoke about satellite reconnaissance, I told you about the absence of aviation reconnaissance in the fleet, and, as a consequence, intelligence in general.
                      14. ccsr
                        ccsr April 3 2021 18: 18
                        0
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        I think we figured out the need to have four hundred optical reconnaissance satellites in order to be able to monitor the squares we need at least every hour?

                        I'm not going to comment on this nonsense. Don't tell me that I take your calculations seriously.

                        Quote: ramzay21
                        Are you talking about RTR satellites now? Passive RTR satellites are useless. AUG or a single destroyer will easily imitate a tanker or dry cargo ship.

                        Even the radar station of an aircraft carrier works the same as that of a tanker?
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        From the shore, you will not trace any communications with the headquarters or aviation flights in the Persian Gulf, do not come up with it.

                        If they work in the HF range, then they work lightly. And satellite lines can be intercepted from the coast. And even VHF radio communications are intercepted by RTR satellites, so that everything can be tracked from the coast even in the Persian Gulf, you are simply not in the subject.
                      15. ramzay21
                        ramzay21 April 3 2021 20: 50
                        -1
                        I'm not going to comment on this nonsense. Don't tell me that I take your calculations seriously.

                        Do you disagree with the equator length or coverage width?
                        Even the radar station of an aircraft carrier works the same as that of a tanker?

                        And that the RTR satellite can detect radar stations operating in passive mode?
                        If they work in the HF range, then they work lightly. And satellite lines can be intercepted from the coast. And even VHF radio communications are intercepted by RTR satellites, so that everything can be tracked from the coast even in the Persian Gulf, you are simply not in the subject.

                        You shouldn't count on the fact that they are backward fools, they have advanced communications and electronic warfare, and they will not play giveaway.
                      16. ccsr
                        ccsr April 3 2021 22: 20
                        0
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        Do you disagree with the equator length or coverage width?

                        And what does this have to do with it, if you have primitive ideas about conducting satellite reconnaissance?
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        And that the RTR satellite can detect radar stations operating in passive mode?

                        It is impossible to move on a warship without a working radar, if only because some terrorists would not attack the ship from a light aircraft or a small ship.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        You shouldn't count on the fact that they are backward fools, they have advanced communications and electronic warfare, and they will not play giveaway.

                        No, they are not fools, but some of our people fantasize, having no idea how all this happens in real life. Well, since they have advanced communications, how do they manage without electromagnetic radiation in the ocean?
                      17. ramzay21
                        ramzay21 April 3 2021 22: 37
                        -1
                        And what does this have to do with it, if you have primitive ideas about conducting satellite reconnaissance?

                        You have primitive ideas. You cannot understand how a satellite, making 15 orbits per day and taking off a 200 km wide strip in one pass, or an RTR satellite, which takes readings from a strip even 500 km wide, capture everything that happens on a width of 44000 km?
                        It is impossible to move on a warship without a working radar, if only because some terrorists would not attack the ship from a light aircraft or a small ship.

                        And what do you think modern radars do not work in passive mode?
                        No, they are not fools, but some of our people fantasize, having no idea how all this happens in real life. Well, since they have advanced communications, how do they manage without electromagnetic radiation in the ocean?

                        People like you are fantasizing about the ability to detect targets of one radar station thousands of kilometers away, emitting signals from the 60s. They also came up with stealth technologies, which we are also trying to implement, but they use communication as in the times of the Second World War.
                      18. ccsr
                        ccsr April 4 2021 09: 49
                        0
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        And what do you think modern radars do not work in passive mode?

                        On a warship, there are several of them and of different types, and they constantly work on the voyage.
                        Quote: ramzay21
                        They also came up with stealth technologies, which we are also trying to implement, but they use communication as in the times of the Second World War.

                        And why did you write this nonsense for what, and what does stealth technology have to do with it, if communication systems cannot do without electromagnetic radiation at sea?
                        Even Dudayev was destroyed, having figured out his location during a conversation on a satellite phone, and you are all talking nonsense here ...
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 27 March 2021 17: 36
      +2
      Quote: 2534M
      the main detection range of the US and NATO was LOW FREQUENCY
      and in it, in principle, it is impossible at the proper level high-quality imitation

      You're lying Klimov - generators of low-frequency signals could be thrown out in different places, and much closer to the enemy's hydroacoustic stations than our submarines.
      You yourself wrote that this question was being worked out even before the war:
      In 1930, in Germany, a commission headed by the famous Soviet scientist (and former commander of the submarine) A.I. Berg purchased sound direction finders for the first domestic submarines. By 1932, on the basis of the received German noise direction finders (SHPS, noise direction finding station), the first domestic SHPS "Mercury" and "Mars" were developed. However, problems with their quality led to further purchases of German sound direction finders in the 30s (only in 1936 - 50 sets). We cannot agree with the opinion about "good knowledge" of German hydroacoustic stations (GAS): if according to formal technical characteristics our "Mars" were really similar to the German GHG, then in real combat capabilities they were simply incomparable.
      The Allies, having received German noise direction finders (for the first time on the U-1942 submarine captured in May 570), were shocked by their high combat capabilities, and the key factor here was a set of measures to ensure their high noise immunity and sensitivity - just the fact that was largely overlooked by us.

      Those. this question has been known for a long time, and I have no doubt that it is being dealt with. But how relevant this was shown by the emergence of three of our submarines from under the ice - tell us how NATO ships or planes could prevent them from doing this, and who prevented them from launching. And where their direction finders were at that time and how they reacted - tell us about your fantasies.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. ccsr
      ccsr 27 March 2021 18: 36
      +2
      Quote: 2534M
      with a probability of "four nines" the whole event was monitored by the US Navy and NATO PLC

      Are you Klimov reporting from the headquarters of the US Navy?
      What did you provide four nines, besides your own language?
      Quote: 2534M
      TORPEDS
      EASILY

      So give the specific names of the US submarines that were in that area at the time of surfacing, so that they would not call you a jerk.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  • Nestor Vlakhovski
    Nestor Vlakhovski 24 March 2021 22: 14
    -5
    Now try to answer yourself how the radio horizon differs from the geometric horizon, the formula for which you wrote.
    Besides, "radiating elements" are not only radars.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 24 March 2021 22: 29
      +3
      Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
      try to answer yourself how the radio horizon differs from the geometric horizon

      I don't have to try. This is my knowledge. Do not shame on what you are trying to be clever about this is the very basis of radio physics and you do not understand it at all.
      Simplified formula for determining the range of the visible horizon: d = 3.57 √h
      1. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski 24 March 2021 22: 40
        -8
        A person who has no idea about the difference between the radio horizon and the geometric horizon is trying to show off his knowledge in radio physics. Hand face. Your formula is not correct because it will give the same result for radiation with different frequencies.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 24 March 2021 22: 44
          -1
          Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
          it will give the same result for radiation with different frequencies.

          Naturally. The radio horizon is wavelength independent. Prove otherwise.
          1. Nestor Vlakhovski
            Nestor Vlakhovski 24 March 2021 22: 46
            -1
            A "radio horizon that does not depend on wavelength" is just a horizon. Geometric, mathematical horizon.
            It is the account of diffusion that adds the prefix "radio", giving at least some meaning to this term.
            For different frequencies, the radio horizon will be different, for long waves on planet Earth there is no radio horizon at all.
            1. OgnennyiKotik
              OgnennyiKotik 24 March 2021 23: 40
              0
              Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
              long waves on planet Earth have no radio horizon at all.

              Naturally, the radio horizon refers only to the VHF band.
              Once again, what is the formula for the dependence of the radio horizon on frequency? What is the dependence, namely the radio horizon, and not the range of propagation of the radio wave, on the frequency?
  • timokhin-aa
    24 March 2021 22: 57
    +5
    It all depends on the wavelength

    And whether waves of this length have refraction in the atmosphere wink
  • Avior
    Avior 24 March 2021 23: 18
    +1
    Formally, you are right, but in practice the existing and actually used radars are close to the VHF range, for them the calculation formula is approximately D = 4.12 √H, as indicated below.
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 24 March 2021 23: 23
      -1
      The person above asked about electronic intelligence, and this is not only radar, but also communications.
      1. Avior
        Avior 24 March 2021 23: 43
        +3
        In communication outside the VHF range, another problem is possible - it is difficult to determine the approximate range of the transmitter, and it can be thousands of kilometers due to reflection from the ionosphere, or hundreds, there is no point in talking about the radio horizon at all.
        On HF, for example, depending on the conditions of the passage of radio waves, you can hear a working radio transmitter from another ocean, and at the same time you will not be able to determine anything except the direction. When I was a radio amateur in my younger years, I have repeatedly encountered excellent signal transmission from ultra-long-distance stations.
        hi
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 25 March 2021 11: 04
          +2
          Quote: Avior
          On HF, for example, depending on the conditions for the passage of radio waves, you can hear a working radio transmitter from another ocean, and at the same time you will not be able to determine anything except the direction.

          You are greatly mistaken - the entire radio intelligence system, since pre-war times, has used the method of territorial diversity reception, by which it was possible to roughly understand where the transmitter was operating, and moreover, to locate it with a known margin of error in the HF and MW bands. In the radio divisions osnaz were already in service with radio direction finders in these ranges.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 24 March 2021 21: 20
    +3
    Quote: ares1988
    Can the RTR means placed on the ship detect the radiating elements of the enemy ship, if they are located below the radio horizon? Logically I assume that it is not. But, you never know: maybe they learned to use some kind of effects such as refraction or reflection of a radio signal from the ionosphere.

    Everything is much simpler than it might seem. All radars have long been studied and classified by electronic intelligence, both by the type of signals used, and by the power and period of rotation or swing of the antennas. A huge number of civil aviation aircraft with a large reflective surface are constantly flying in the sky, which re-reflect this signal in many directions. It is by such a re-reflected signal that the RTR means can quite accurately determine where the radar is operating and whose it is, especially if the observation will be carried out from several ships.
  • timokhin-aa
    24 March 2021 22: 48
    +4
    It is refraction.
    Radio waves actually spread very far, but there is no sense for the radar - they simply will not return to the antenna from some distances.
    In general, in the search engine for the query "refraction of radio waves" there is a lot of everything, and if you set the wavelength ...

    As a result, the range at which the wave can be detected by a ship with an RTR or radar station operating in pass mode differs from the range of direct radio visibility, sometimes several times
    1. Avior
      Avior 24 March 2021 23: 44
      +2
      Under normal conditions, the VHF range is not very well reflected from the ionosphere.
      1. timokhin-aa
        24 March 2021 23: 47
        +1
        This is often enough.
        1. Avior
          Avior 25 March 2021 00: 25
          +1
          Yes, ultra-long transmission can also be on VHF, but there are also many nuances.
          1. It is impossible to determine the distance. Maybe 100 km, maybe 1500.
          2. The conditions for ultra-long transmission on VHF can often be predicted.
          3.With a directional antenna, it is difficult to receive the enemy signal
          4 good transmission of not forever frequencies in VHF
          5 directional antennas for satellite communications allow communication to be carried out unnoticed
          6, the question arises of being in hostile waters with the radar turned off. Maybe the enemy found you a long time ago and is attacking?
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 25 March 2021 01: 16
            0
            Quote: Avior
            but there are also many nuances

            There are a lot of nuances in the whole topic of electronic warfare. That's what she is fighting for. In the simplest situations, you still need to try to determine the source of the signal, and if there is opposition, it is orders of magnitude more difficult. And there are no magic buttons, there is a lot of work by highly qualified specialists.
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 25 March 2021 11: 11
            +2
            Quote: Avior
            5 directional antennas for satellite communications allow communication to be carried out unnoticed

            Don't count on this too much, because all satellite military communication channels have been tracked for a long time:
            The Zvezda system included 11 radio interception and strategic electronic reconnaissance stations located in the USSR and 4 foreign stations, Lourdes (Cuba), Cam Ranh Bay (Vietnam), Rangoon (Burma) and a station in Mongolia.

            The KGB of the USSR also had similar equipment, but in smaller numbers and worked according to its tasks.
            Quote: Avior
            6, the question arises of being in hostile waters with the radar turned off. Maybe the enemy found you a long time ago and is attacking?

            Moreover, they themselves thus reduce their combat readiness, and will not be able to prevent the attack of ships with cruise missiles in this mode.
  • Krasnodar
    Krasnodar 24 March 2021 19: 52
    +4
    A lot of letters ... and everything is interesting and readable in one breath!
    Thanks to the author good
  • Rlptrt
    Rlptrt 24 March 2021 19: 54
    0
    In any case, there must be ships! But we do not have them and, judging by the obsianovka, they are not expected. And it is not at all because a Star with a Star-reducer cannot rivet a power plant for a normal ship. But because the country's leadership does not need a fleet. They have money and children there, over the hill. So you won't have to fight with those small ships that imitate the construction of the fleet: they are not combat-resistant. And if the enemy comes close to the distance between the DBK and Buyanov, then there will be nothing to fight with.
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski 24 March 2021 20: 10
      -5
      But because the country's leadership does not need a fleet. They have money and children there, over the hill.
      So Putin is the fear and horror of NATO, or an agent of NATO, you will finally decide for yourself there in the fool.
      And if the enemy
      What is the enemy? Those whom you named as a friend above? SHUE?
  • Nestor Vlakhovski
    Nestor Vlakhovski 24 March 2021 20: 06
    -13%
    "You are fighting in the wrong direction, Timokhin."
    How many years they vainly proved the same to him, and so the sailor decided to change his shoes in flight.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 March 2021 22: 54
      +8
      Who, what and where proved to me (do not offer voices in my head)?

      and so the sailor decided to change his shoes in flight.


      This is when I was against the ships in the navy?
      1. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski 24 March 2021 23: 01
        -6
        Who, what and where proved to me
        It was you who, like a foil at your mouth, proved the importance of ships, as the main striking force of the fleet and even the country, sinking for the construction of mega-cruisers-rocket launchers with hundreds of launch cells.
        And now they have substantiated that there are enough self-defense anti-ship missiles on duty, like "uranium". That, in general, is what they do all over the world.
        This is when I was against the ships in the navy?
        "I look in the book - I see a fig"
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 March 2021 23: 09
          +7
          It was you who, like a fox at your mouth, were proving the importance of ships as the main striking force of the fleet.


          Where I proved their necessity in principle. This is a bit different.

          burned for the construction of mega-cruisers-rocket launchers with hundreds of launch cells.


          I asked without voices in my head.

          And now they have substantiated that there are enough self-defense anti-ship missiles on duty, like "uranium".


          But this article is not!

          Can you call an ambulance?
          1. Nestor Vlakhovski
            Nestor Vlakhovski 24 March 2021 23: 18
            -7
            burned for the construction of mega-cruisers-rocket launchers with hundreds of launch cells.


            I asked without voices in my head.
            So you finally renounce your past statements? Well, at least some progress ...
            But this article is not!
            Well, of course not, with arguments and examples you proved that ships can only meet by chance, and here there are enough modest harpoon-uraniums for the eyes. By God, it's not onyx to shoot at 200-300 ton boats.
            What else I can argue with is the role of large-caliber artillery on a modern ship. Now this weapon is more psychological, to scare the captains of all cattle carriers and self-propelled barges, in whom the sight of a large cannon will discourage any desire to arrange provocations.
            Similar to air cannons on modern strike aircraft.
            1. timokhin-aa
              24 March 2021 23: 23
              +8
              So you finally renounce your past statements?


              From what? I didn't have the beliefs that you attribute to me

              Well, of course not, with arguments and examples, you proved that ships can only meet by chance


              No, this is not what the article says

              What else I can argue with is the role of large-caliber artillery on a modern ship. Now this weapon is more psychological, to scare the captains of all cattle carriers and self-propelled barges, in whom the sight of a large cannon will discourage any desire to arrange provocations.


              It has not yet turned out that both opponents have electronic warfare and air defense so effective that they repulsed / deflected anti-ship missiles volleys, with the use of most of the air defense missile systems, and did not inflict damage to each other.

              Well, little things there, such as support for the amphibious assault, shooting motorboats with martyrs, etc.

              Similar to air cannons on modern strike aircraft.]


              BRRRRT!
              laughing
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 25 March 2021 12: 27
                +3
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                It has not yet turned out that both opponents have electronic warfare and air defense so effective that they repulsed / deflected anti-ship missiles volleys, with the use of most of the air defense missile systems, and did not inflict damage to each other.

                I observe the target visually, I can work it out with a cannon, I cannot use missiles. © MiG-31, which intercepted the Tu-95MS during exercises in 1986. smile
  • Flashpoint
    Flashpoint 24 March 2021 20: 34
    +1
    Exciting reading material. And again - thanks to the Author!
    Regarding the helicopter strike: how risky is this tactic of using rotorcraft?
    Before the first enemy fighter?
    Are the techniques for covering helicopters described somewhere for such a case? There is also an obvious shortage of cover from the Russian Air Force, we have a disparity in the number of fighters ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 March 2021 22: 49
      +3
      The article contains a link to another article about helicopters, where the question is disclosed.
      1. Flashpoint
        Flashpoint 24 March 2021 22: 56
        0
        Yes, I saw and remember even that article, I read it earlier. The concepts of "covering your own naval air defense" and "hiding behind the relief" are very vague. And yes, we rarely put air-to-air on helicopters, we rarely practice covering specialized aircraft with fighters or air-to-air helicopters in this case.
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 March 2021 23: 13
          +2
          Briefly - a helicopter can often detect a surface target from a distance from which it cannot yet use it on its air defense system. A helicopter can already start up anti-ship missiles. It does not work for the same "Arleigh Burke", but the light did not converge on the USA.
          A helicopter hovering over water at low altitude is a very heavy target for aviation. Helicopters dodge the UR VV much easier than fighters.
          If the helicopter has long-range missile defense missiles, this is also a very dangerous target for aviation.

          Well, an article about the NK battle, without aircraft.
          1. Boa kaa
            Boa kaa 25 March 2021 02: 41
            +7
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Well, an article about the NK battle, without aircraft.

            AA, greetings! hi
            Thank you for the article, of course. Although a lot of controversial and controversial ... and still it's better than nothing.
            Now, as usual - to our rams!
            1. Corvettes, they, brother, are different. In general, they were invented for PLO tasks at the OBK / DesO crossing by sea. For example, 11540 carries a vertuna and has a waterfall. In the Atlantic, they took a submarine (presumably a French woman in the BP training ground) at 50 km and, according to his data, "waterfalls" ... According to the results of the BS - 5 points.
            2. If we are talking about a modern MB, then we cannot go away from the trend of equipping NK with small-sized UAVs ... And this, whatever one may say, though small, but still - aviation!
            3. NDTs are included in a single system of "battle area" - the infosphere from all VII. This is space, and the coast, and its own NK and RZK and its own RTR means ... and aviation, and the MMF ships ... There is a BIUS, there is a KBR, there is a CIC and a reconnaissance officer, possibly officers of the PS. "What else do you want the devil?" - as Ivan Vasilyevich said in the famous film! What, nafig HQ !? still for "evading detection" ???
            4. Disguise as fishermen and transport? It was only Arabs / Jews who could arrange Mediterranean ones in their laundry ... Ams do not have boats, they have solid machines, so they operate solidly: the machine worked for Iranian frigates in a machine gun, immediately after turning on the firing radar on the ID - Harpoon on board !
            5. AA, you are too flat about considering the possibilities of modern GOS RCC. And they are all 2-channel! There are both IR / UV and passive and TLV / Optic - channels. Therefore, it is very difficult to deceive her. And no corner reflector, not towed, but simply dropped, passes the Doppler effect test of the anti-ship missile system.
            6. RCCs have become "smart". Starting with our 3M55, in which 2 on-board computers organize a swarm attack, ending with AGM-158C ... And the old GBU-84 mod. "E" is also not a bastard ...
            7. About the slide at the start of the anti-ship missile system. Those photos that you brought in the article are the trajectory of the strategic 3M14 along the barmaley in the SAR !!! And not 3M54, which are somewhat more modest - about 60m ... But in the latter it is even lower.
            8. An example with AUS at the Pacific Fleet in 1982. Clean water breech exploration. In the era of ZG radar (surface wave), this is, in principle, not possible. Moreover, I already once wrote that according to the data of such a radar station, a missile strike was being conducted in the Caspian Flotilla.
            9. Going out to the attack according to the data of passive means (elementary - cruise-bearing!) By a single RTO is already a thing of the past. Now the bearing base is made up of the RCUG ships, which in principle excludes the maneuvering of the previous plan ... And all this is in radio silence. With the possibility of CC from the spacecraft in real time.
            10. Ams have SM-6, which is already hypersonic and can hit surface targets at a distance of up to 600 km (in principle). Yes, this is an expensive prodigy for shooting at spacecraft, but if it is pressed, it can also deafen NK ... Therefore, there is something to work on for our ship's missile defense / air defense.
            Here is a brief summary of what I had for you, dear AA, to reproach ... before going to bed. laughing
            1. timokhin-aa
              25 March 2021 20: 37
              +1
              1. Corvettes, they, brother, are different. In general, they were invented for PLO tasks at the OBK / DesO crossing by sea. For example, 11540 carries a vertuna and has a waterfall. In the Atlantic, they took a submarine (presumably a French woman in the BP training ground) at 50 km and, according to his data, "waterfalls" ... According to the results of the BS - 5 points.


              11540 is not a corvette, and all of the above does not in any way negate the fact that 20380 can be used in the fight against enemy surface forces.

              If we are talking about a modern MB, then we cannot go away from the trend of equipping NK with small-sized UAVs.


              I wrote about it. but we need a UAV with a radar and a VZOI system, with the ability to determine the MPC of detected surface targets.

              NDTs are included in a single system of "battle areas" - the infosphere from all VII. This is space, and the coast, and its own NK and RZK and its own means of RTR ... and aviation, and the ships of the MMF.


              And where is it all?

              "What else do you want the devil?" - as Ivan Vasilyevich said in the famous film! What, nafig HQ !? still for "evading detection" ???


              who will plot the course based on the zones in which enemy aircraft may find themselves, taking into account what osnaz learns, taking into account the tactics of enemy aircraft? And if the scout was not shot down, let him go? Where to run, what to do? Will the commander take it out? We need individual people who will do exactly this, taking into account all the existing threats.
              I do not claim to be 100% correct, but will continue to adhere to this opinion until proven otherwise.

              6. RCCs have become "smart". Starting with our 3M55, in which 2 on-board computers organize a swarm attack, ending with AGM-158C ... And the old GBU-84 mod. "E" is also not a bastard ...


              Well, we will not fight with ourselves, but I have doubts about the mind of the same Japanese anti-ship missiles.

              ... About the slide at the start of the anti-ship missile system. Those photos that you brought in the article are the trajectory of the strategic 3M14 along the barmaley in the SAR !!! And not 3M54, which are somewhat more modest - about 60m ... But in the latter it is even lower.


              This is, to put it mildly, unreliable information. The 54th car takes off VERY high.

              Going out to the attack according to the data of passive means (elementary - cruise-bearing!) By a single RTO is already in the past. Now the base of direction finding is made up of RKUG ships, which in principle excludes maneuvering of the previous plan ... And all this is in radio silence. With the possibility of CC from the spacecraft in real time.


              I repeat the question - where is it all? RTOs are at least really there. And yes, a satellite network with 24/7 coverage with radar stations on the spacecraft, which is also capable of issuing a control center, is unaffordable even for the United States, whatever the enthusiasts would say.

              The AMS have the SM-6, which is already hypersonic and can hit surface targets at a distance of up to 600 km (in principle).


              As Stanislavsky used to say - I don’t believe! Let them start from the beginning. while the rekrod is 215 km, they talk in a whisper on the sidelines of reaching 300-400 km as some kind of future, well, the problems when shooting at such a distance will be the same for Americans as we do.

              Although it is necessary to learn how to shoot down such goals, yes. And this is not the most difficult target that we have to learn to shoot down.

              Here is a little bit of what I had for you, dear A.A., to reproach ... before going to bed.


              Ага.
              laughing
              1. Boa kaa
                Boa kaa 26 March 2021 00: 11
                +3
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                11540 not a corvette
                Yes, this is skr, a rank 2 ship. Undaunted was "naked", without anti-ship missiles. But "Ya. Wise" got a sled for the waist with the X-35 ...
                20380 can be used in the fight against enemy surface forces.
                Of course they can. There will be problems only with the launch distance of the Uranus (if they do not re-equip it with something serious). Close combat is good in boxing, but not at sea ...
                we need a UAV with a radar and a VZOI system, with the ability to determine the MPC of detected surface targets.
                Such UAVs are not a shipborne one, but a coastal version. Painfully they will be heavy if everything that you have listed on them is loaded. NK needs lungs and a lot. To have enough for the hike ...
                And where is it all?
                Where, where ... From a perspective beyond the event horizon! bully
                who will plot the course based on the zones
                Precisely "shtühlmann", at worst - an auto-stacker. Because in battle, all maneuvering is on maneuverable tablets and cards. And then the "crayfish necks" begin with discrepancies up to ... XXX!
                Where to run, what to do? Will the commander take it out?
                He has a CIC and a scent with intuition, and experience of service, with snot smeared on the "running bridge", sleepless nights and nerves wrapped around a fist, lips bitten in blood ... Did you think they just become commanders !?
                We need individual people who will do just that ...
                Apparently you, San-Sanych, did not encounter the naval ghouls from the Criminal Code of the fleet! You come to them with the best intentions in improving the ship's service ... They listen to you with a half-smile, nod in agreement with their heads ... and at the end they calmly say: - “No question. Instead of whom do you want to introduce a new position? Where is the compensation? Instead of whom to introduce a new position !? " - And everything ... finita la comedy!
                I will continue to adhere to this opinion,
                Well, who's against it? The main thing is that it exists. And right or not - that's the tenth thing ...
                As Stanislavsky used to say - I don’t believe!
                But there is another expression: - "Believe me, people!" This was the name of the Soviet film based on the novel by Y. German "One Year". laughing
                1. ccsr
                  ccsr 26 March 2021 12: 33
                  0
                  Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                  They listen to you with a half-smile, nod in agreement with their heads ... and at the end they calmly say: - “No question. Instead of whom do you want to introduce a new position? Where is the compensation? - And everything ... finita la comedy!

                  It is in vain that you say this about them, because they are limited to the number of personnel up to each serviceman inclusive, and do not have the right to change anything, they can only change positions, and even then they look to ensure that the total salary payment does not exceed the permissible when they change "awl for soap".
                  You are not the only one who faced this - this law has existed for all the armed forces since Soviet times, and the mobilists cannot do anything about it, because the military budget is now being approved in the Duma and are adopting the force of law. That is why they do not have the right to call on a single superfluous person (create a new position), in addition to what is specified in the law.
                  As they joked in my time, the main person in the army is the financier - it is the budget that determines the framework for all the military wants. And we have some "progressive journalists" like Timokhin, for which only the military is not accused, although it is clear that you cannot jump above the budget, and their desire to build an ocean-going fleet goes beyond common sense, because more important structures of the fleet will have to be cut.
                  1. Boa kaa
                    Boa kaa 26 March 2021 16: 16
                    +2
                    Sergey, I welcome you! hi
                    You're right... basically. On Persistent, when he was visited by the Supreme Commander, the BF com reported one crap, with which they suffered for 5 years. VVP turned to Ivanov and asked: - "What, and nothing can be done?" Then they went, and I did not hear the rest of the conversation. But literally a couple of days later, a Caudle from the fleet management company came running and "worked so fruitfully" that a month later a justification and change came to our staff. We signed the justification and sent it back, and took the change into account and filed it in the case, to the SDK. AHA.
                    About mobilists. They planned 1 / 4-5 years to "screw up" their sorcerers and make suggestions. But they work with states 01. And we are poking around the world ... We already need it now. Then someone clever transferred the constant readiness units to 01. and we forgot about the assigned l / s, the path in the GVK was overgrown, because C2H5-OH was no longer irrigated ...
                    Quote: ccsr
                    it is the budget that determines the framework for all the military's wishes.
                    But leave this lyrics for the gullible. If you have heard a thread about the Ministry of Medium Machine Building, you will understand. If you only guess, then keep silent. Well, if ... then you can argue. Under capitalism, it has become more difficult to hide, but there is a variation on the theme of PRICE, proactive R&D and other crap. So, the Titanic did not take over the entire iceberg!
                    Quote: ccsr
                    the desire to build an ocean-going fleet is beyond common sense, because more important fleet structures will have to be reduced.

                    But from here, "pozhsta" ... in more detail!
                    1. Why the OCEAN fleet does not fit into your mind? Or have our "partner" moved to permanent residence in EUROPA with Asia, and his Navy does not threaten us with anything? Therefore, the "rocket boats of the Genius Headquarters" will meet and sweep him right on the Volga!
                    2. And what other "structures of the FLEET" are bothering you .. So much so that you are ready to let them in for "compensation"?
                    - Submarine forces? So they only get out of the intensive care unit.
                    - Surface ships? Well, this is sepuko in the best tradition of bushido!
                    - BRAV? so they just started to move ...
                    - MRA - destroyed by the efforts of famous reformers ...
                    - MP? there is also not a lot.
                    - CPU parts? -- unrealistic!
                    So "what" are you, sir, suggesting "cut-cut"?
                    (Really headquarters !? or hospitals? With sanatoriums?)
                    Therefore - not a test! laughing
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 26 March 2021 19: 10
                      +1
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      On the Persistent, when he was visited by the Supreme Commander, the BF com reported one crap, with which they suffered for 5 years. VVP turned to Ivanov and asked: - "what, and nothing can be done?"

                      This is an exception to the rule - they got a kick from the Supreme, so they decided immediately, all this is familiar. I don't know if you saw the time when wives complained to Gorbachev at Baikonur that their husbands sweat a lot in long-sleeved shirts, they have to wash them constantly, and immediately introduced a short sleeve. The same thing happened with you, but this is still not the rule.

                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      About mobilists. They routinely "screw up" their sorcerers for 1 / 4-5 years and make suggestions.

                      In addition to planned measures, if the position is not occupied for two years, it is automatically reduced - in my time it was so. Yes, and then there was a problem with the staff members, so they worked normally.But on the other hand, thanks to the mobilists and personnel officers, some officers received ranks higher than their current position, by temporarily reshuffling them to higher positions.
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      But leave this lyrics for the gullible. If you have heard something about the Ministry of Medium Machine Building, you will understand.

                      Do not confuse the cost of purchasing weapons and the cost of maintaining the armed forces - they are completely different things, and the financial discipline here is different. An increase in the cost of weapons is allowed, but the costs of maintaining military personnel during the year cannot be changed.
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      But from here, "pozhsta" ... in more detail!
                      1. Why the OCEAN fleet does not fit into your mind?

                      I will answer with a simple phrase - it will be destroyed in the first thirty minutes, and only SSBNs are able to somehow survive in the first minutes and launch. All other arguments about the battles of surface ships are only Timokhin's conjectures, and nothing more.
                      Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
                      So "what" are you, sir, suggesting "cut-cut"?
                      (Really headquarters !? or hospitals? With sanatoriums?)
                      Therefore - not a test!

                      If you really want to know, then in my opinion it is possible to reduce naval aviation in the Black Sea Fleet and BF, and transfer their functions to the Aerospace Forces aviation, because these are too small theaters of operation, and duplication here can be eliminated by using different types of missiles. But on the other hand, I believe that each warship should have a helicopter, which means that the staff should be taken from the army aviation and transferred to the naval aviation.
                      As for other structures, it is necessary to resolve the issue with the Marine Corps and Airborne Forces - why there is duplication, which means you can choose one thing. As for surface ships, they can be reduced on the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Sea Fleet, leaving only a small number of small ships, tk. we have the ability to hit the enemy at distances of up to 5 thousand km with missiles from the shore (air), which means that ships in these seas as a platform for missiles are simply absurd.
                      In general, this is a big question, and it is unlikely that anything will depend on our opinion - I know that for sure. So all this will be at the level of kitchen conversations.
                      And the last case with the Suez Canal showed that our fleet will simply queue up and will not move anywhere - so what world ocean do you dream of?
  • Anzhey V.
    Anzhey V. 24 March 2021 20: 35
    +5
    Very interesting stuff, thanks!

    However, I cannot fail to note the assumptions associated with diminishing the role of aviation - modern war at sea is simply not possible without the participation of aircraft in it, even if the opponents do not have aircraft carriers.

    The main problem of the modern Russian fleet lies precisely in this plane - naval aviation is absent as a class, and the vast Soviet experience in this area has simply been forgotten, if not worse, completely lost.

    The USSR paid a lot of attention to both air reconnaissance of the sea space and the deployment of RTR ships - I would say that any discussion about exchanges of rocket salvos should start with this topic.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 March 2021 22: 50
      +4
      Well, now we have virtually no aerial reconnaissance.
      And somewhere in the Arabian Sea it will not be. Like many potential opponents.
      1. Anzhey V.
        Anzhey V. 24 March 2021 23: 54
        +3
        I don’t want to fall into denial, like most commentators, but I dare say that any naval battles in the Middle East will not do without the participation of aircraft.

        Yes, we may not have them - but given that the region is crammed with American bases and their allies, any clashes in it will not take place without their intervention - at least transmit intelligence information and "monitor" our ships (hello, Falklands !) they will become exactly daily and in real time, and even more so if the opponents are the Japanese. Yes, even the devil is bald - it's hard to imagine who the Americans might prefer us to (unless we start fighting with North Korea, and that's not a fact).
        1. timokhin-aa
          25 March 2021 11: 30
          +1
          any naval battles in the Middle East will not do without the participation of aircraft.


          Well, we'll catch on with the Turks, and where did they get their aviation in the Red Sea? In addition, there may be a situation when aviation does not have time, or the weather does not allow flying.
          1. Anzhey V.
            Anzhey V. 25 March 2021 12: 08
            +4
            Alexander, well, unscientific fiction, after all.

            There Saudi Arabia, in which the American military is slightly less than the Saudis themselves. Even if the Turks are not allowed to transfer their aircraft there, they will be guaranteed real-time intelligence.

            And there are enough RTR and RLO reconnaissance equipment without aviation.

            Further, the Turks already have Anadolu and in the foreseeable future they will have Trakaya, which are going to be turned into UAV carriers. And they will turn it - and very soon, because deck drones they make on the basis of "Anok" and "Bayraktar".

            Announced 50-55 UAVs on board - this is already a good groundwork for aerial reconnaissance. I will not judge how suitable they are for strikes on NK, but given how the Turks fell in love with the concept of "a large drone carries a small drone", even the destruction of the conditional "Bayraktar", which came into contact with our conditional frigate, will not guarantee that our the ship will go away from tracking.
            1. timokhin-aa
              25 March 2021 12: 41
              +1
              There Saudi Arabia, in which the American military is slightly less than the Saudis themselves. Even if the Turks are not allowed to transfer their aircraft there, they will be guaranteed real-time intelligence.


              Are you aware of relations between Turkey and Saudi Arabia? They would rather give us an airbase for a while than the Turks.

              Further, the Turks already have Anadolu and in the foreseeable future they will have Trakaya, which are going to be turned into UAV carriers. And they will turn it - and very soon, because deck drones they make on the basis of "Anok" and "Bayraktar".


              And what can these buzzers do to the ship? It's not an F-18 with a Harpoon even once.
              1. Anzhey V.
                Anzhey V. 25 March 2021 12: 45
                +3
                They would rather give us an airbase for a while than the Turks.


                It was about the Americans, not the Saudis, whose permission the United States does not need.

                And what can these buzzers do to the ship?


                Detect
                1. timokhin-aa
                  25 March 2021 14: 28
                  +1
                  It was about the Americans, not the Saudis, whose permission the United States does not need.


                  It is a big mistake to think so - the flight through the airspace of the CA is controlled by the CA itself.

                  Detect


                  Even this is questionable - a powerful radar is needed, because it is necessary not only to detect intact, but also to identify it.
                  And this is radiation.
                  The central control radius of the new frigates 22350 is much more than 100 km. That is, according to Bayraktar, they will work from such a distance at which he does not see anything else.
                  1. Anzhey V.
                    Anzhey V. 25 March 2021 14: 48
                    +2
                    It is a big mistake to think so - the flight through the airspace of the CA is controlled by the CA itself.


                    Again, the Americans have enough ground-based radio and radar reconnaissance equipment there.

                    Although the option that the Saudis will close the airspace for the planes of the allies, which are based on their territory ... I will be mild in terms and say that it is somewhat doubtful.

                    Even this is questionable


                    The composition of the armament and onboard electronics of the Turkish deck ships is still unknown. However, I think it is naive to hope that the Ottomans will not work out this issue in order to use the UAV at least as naval intelligence officers.

                    Of course, it is theoretically possible to find a situation in which we really get a "clean" sea battle without the participation of aviation - but this is mostly pure fantasy.
                    1. ccsr
                      ccsr 25 March 2021 18: 03
                      +1
                      Quote: Anjay V.
                      Of course, it is theoretically possible to find a situation in which we really get a "clean" sea battle without the participation of aviation - but this is mostly pure fantasy.

                      Only dreamers like Timokhin can really count on this. I think that a battle between naval aviation planes in some dubious border situation is more realistic, and even then without the involvement of the naval group and the main part of the armed forces of these countries. Those. it would rather be judged as a border incident, in the same way as the Chinese did by landing an American reconnaissance aircraft on their territory:
                      The American EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft, which took off from the Kadena airbase in Okinawa (Japan), made a planned flight over southern China. According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, 10 km from the Chinese island of Hainan (not far from Vietnam), the American spy plane abruptly changed direction and hit a nearby Chinese fighter with its nose and left wing. As a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said, as a result, the Chinese plane crashed and the search for the crew is currently underway. According to the American side, the US plane was attacked by Chinese fighters. In general, according to representatives of the US Navy, EP-3 was in international airspace, and Chinese fighters did not even force it to land. namely, they attacked.
                    2. timokhin-aa
                      25 March 2021 19: 26
                      +1
                      We're talking about aviation and not about RTR? The United States is not a fact that it will participate in the conflict. And if they quietly help the enemy, then I can not count the plane, and even when there is no satellite over the region, Saudi Arabia opposes us in Syria but on our side in Libya, plus they know that the Houthis may not only have Iranian missiles. You are greatly simplifying the use of Saudi territory against us.

                      Pure naval combat in the second half of the last century was much more often than not pure. And in this century he was alone.

                      This is a reason to think?
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 27 March 2021 22: 30
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Are you aware of relations between Turkey and Saudi Arabia?

                in general, a big dump is planned there, the West wants to set some Muslims on others and clear a place there ... I don't understand why Russia should get into this mess, all the more, we are not invited and it's good, nothing will get early, even if Syria is cleaned up, it will be for a long time , and shoulder the burden of pulling chestnuts out of the fire in the Middle East ... the height of idiocy
                1. timokhin-aa
                  28 March 2021 20: 07
                  -1
                  The petrodollar is the backbone of the US strength. take it away and this country will be blown away by possibilities to the level of a couple of Great Britain.
                  So we'll have to interfere, or we'll regret it later.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 28 March 2021 20: 27
                    +1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    The petrodollar is the backbone of the US strength.

                    profound delusion, unacceptable for a journalist ... a complete lack of understanding of the world economy and the essence of things ... the basis of the US military force is its Air Force and the Navy ... The basis of the US economic dominance is issued by unsecured dollars and forcing the whole world to use exclusively dollars, with the ban on the emission of national currencies (including the Central Bank of the Russian Federation does not have the right to issue freely rubles, but is obliged to issue not a free independent currency, but a simulacrum of several cents lying in the accounts of the Central Bank, that is, the ruble is dependent on the dollar, subordinated to the dollar). The United States prints trillions of dollars and inflation from this all over the world and in the Russian Federation too ... and in what assets these dollars are invested does not really matter, it can be Shell, Generl Motors, Microsoft, Nornickel, Russian aluminum, all this has long belonged to institutional investors, they had 100 years to buy everything ... and not only petrodollars ... you were 100 years behind life ... the Titanic sank already then, and with its sinking the world changed, but you did not know ... how it would sink and your favorite aircraft carrier
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      28 March 2021 23: 03
                      0
                      The basis of the economic dominance of the United States is the issuance of unsecured dollars and forcing the whole world to use exclusively dollars.


                      Well, what am I talking about? The question is that coercion is never carried out only by military methods.
                      And the lion's share of the dollar turnover is provided by the petrodollar system.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 24 March 2021 20: 49
    -6
    Author:
    Alexander Timokhin
    The main players in the world (except Russia, and, apparently, China) consider battles between large surface ships, in principle, possible, but secondary in comparison with their other tasks (providing anti-submarine defense and air defense of ship formations).

    In Russia, the ability of surface ships to fight with their own kind is given much more importance.

    Timokhin, as always, contradicts himself in two sentences, stating that except for Russia battles between surface ships are considered by the main players, i.e. we do not adhere to these views. And at the same time, in another sentence, he assures that Russia attaches much more importance to the battles of surface ships.
    But the point is not even this absurdity, but the fact that Timokhin modestly keeps silent about those who think so and imagining themselves to be a great naval commander, decided that the entire leadership of the Navy adheres to his views. Whoever thinks so, Timokhin will never tell you, because besides him and Klimov, there is hardly a sane person who will seriously believe in the naval battles of surface ships of Russia and the United States (or China), which supposedly will decide something in the war between these two states ...
    But today we are talking about a "clean" naval battle, without aviation.
    Is it real?
    Historical experience suggests that yes.
    Moreover, the almost complete absence of aircraft carriers in our fleet simply dooms the Russian Navy to the prospect of dealing with the enemy with the help of missile ships, at least in some cases.
    And this is not some kind of fantasy.

    This is not even science fiction, but just paramilitary chatter, which is inherent in the journalist Timokhin, and who has not served in the army for a day, and all his knowledge about the interaction of troops is simply ridiculous, which is why such stupidity is born.
    But at this time, a radio silence mode was introduced on the ships of the US aircraft carrier. All radar stations are turned off.
    We are carefully studying the data of the optoelectronic space reconnaissance. There is no reliable data on the whereabouts of aircraft carriers.
    Nevertheless, the departure of the MRA aviation from Kamchatka took place. To an empty space.
    Only a day later, on Tuesday September 14, we learn from data from air defense posts on the Kuril Islands that the carrier strike force is maneuvering east of Paramushir Island (Kuril Islands), conducting carrier-based aircraft flights.
    Rear Admiral V.A. Karev "Unknown Soviet Pearl Harbor"

    This episode, told by Karev, best of all shows what a lousy intelligence chief was at the Pacific Fleet, if he did not even bother to turn to the commander of the air defense of the Far East Defense Forces to help him and, according to the latest data from the air defense radio technical brigade, sent his reconnaissance plane to the area for detection AUG. He didn’t want to rip his ass off in Vladivostok and fly to the district headquarters in Khabarovsk, where he would be helped - he thought he was too big a boss or thought he would carry him. And now he makes himself a hero, the same to me the savior of the Fatherland ...
    And Timokhin is trying to prove something with this example - in general, a kindergarten, and no more.
    1. smaug78
      smaug78 24 March 2021 21: 08
      0
      Again the head of the warehouse got aroused laughing laughing
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 25 March 2021 08: 54
        +4
        Quote: smaug78
        Again the head of the warehouse got aroused

        Spring...
    2. timokhin-aa
      24 March 2021 22: 53
      +4
      Prapor, I repeat - where I would be and what I did is none of your business.

      Read carefully, do not speculate for the author.

      so that they would help him and, according to the latest data from the air defense radio engineering brigade, send their reconnaissance aircraft to the area to detect the AUG.


      Well, why would that be, huh? The Air Force also worked there looking for Midway. Prapor, do not get involved in questions in which you are not in the tooth with your foot.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 25 March 2021 10: 36
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, why would that be, huh?

        And from the fact that normal intelligence chiefs never shy away from personal communication with the same intelligence chiefs of other types and branches of the armed forces, and moreover, they try to have among their friends those who in the Main Headquarters of the Navy are responsible not only for operational intelligence, but also strategic ... When Karev managed to do it, the lost AUG was quickly found for him in the General Staff of the Navy, he simply "forgot" to tell about it.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The Air Force also worked there looking for Midway.

        Stop lying, because the main work on tracking the air situation was carried out by the country's air defense forces and radio-technical units of the air defense of the Far Eastern defense and the district's reconnaissance. So in these structures there is more information about carrier-based aircraft in the near zone, but you have no idea about this, so you are lying primitively.
        1. timokhin-aa
          25 March 2021 11: 33
          0
          Stoned, why are you making up something that you have no idea about?

          When Karev did it, he quickly found the lost AUG in the General Staff of the Navy


          And they found it in the General Staff. But it's too late. And the General Staff of the Navy got the AMG hit by the "Legend", everyone screwed up there, not only Karev, but Karev, I repeat, is shielding himself, but he is not lying about what you are writing about.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 25 March 2021 12: 06
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And they found it in the General Staff. But it's too late.

            How do you know that it's too late if they set the task of monitoring the Pacific Fleet's exercises?

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And the General Staff of the Navy siphoned off the AMG hit under the "Legend", they all screwed up there,

            You're lying, because you don't know that the ground complex could be under maintenance (or even out of order), and Karev did not bother to take this into account.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            and Karev, I repeat, shields himself,

            I don’t need to repeat this, I know it without you.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            but he's not lying about what you are writing about.

            You yourself screwed up with this episode, and you sculpt it to the place and out of place, although everything is clear there, and completely in the wrong key, as you present it.
            But you continue to pose as a "sea wolf", some will believe it ...
          2. ramzay21
            ramzay21 28 March 2021 20: 34
            -1
            And they found it in the General Staff. But it's too late. And the General Staff of the Navy got the AMG hit by the "Legend", everyone screwed up there, not only Karev, but Karev, I repeat, is shielding himself, but he is not lying about what you are writing about.

            Alexander, can you tell us more about this? This is a very interesting episode, what do you think happened there?
            1. timokhin-aa
              28 March 2021 23: 10
              +1
              The point is that satellite reconnaissance found one of the AUG, and then part of the American forces fell under the Legend. But neither the General Staff of the Navy, nor the General Staff could realize this information. She reached the district and Air Force units late, which and when it came to TOP is still a closed question.

              The prapor babbles here that "they found everything in the GRU at once," but he is silent that it is too late, that later they lost again, that the Americans had air reconnaissance of the Air Force no worse than the reconnaissance of the Pacific Fleet, and so on.

              In short, they were detected, but it would not have been possible to strike at these detections, the enemy broke away and escaped observation.
              They were finally found when they began to work as aviation 300 km from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, but there was no way to hide it.

              Then they lost again, the flight of the MRA was in an empty place, and finally they were taken under observation near the Kuriles, when the air defense officers spotted them. There a guard was assigned to them.
              1. ramzay21
                ramzay21 29 March 2021 08: 14
                -1
                Thank you, Alexander! It turns out that Karev is basically still right.
                Why are you clinging? You still will not convince him.
                1. timokhin-aa
                  29 March 2021 10: 40
                  0
                  Karev is mostly right, but he is blatantly lying about something. For example, the fact that the scouts on the Tu-16 did not identify the type of fighters, this was impossible in principle, moreover, according to American data, the alarm in the USSR at that moment was raised.
                  What other structures of the AUG Midway discovered, but due to inconsistency between the departments, this information was not implemented, he also does not write.
                  But in every possible way he otmazyvayutsya osnaz
              2. ccsr
                ccsr 29 March 2021 12: 43
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The point is that satellite reconnaissance found one of the AUG, and then part of the American forces fell under the Legend. But neither the General Staff of the Navy, nor the General Staff could realize this information.

                You're lying, as always Timokhin - the General Staff does not work on the "Legend", it is a surveillance satellite, and the Navy is responsible for retrieving information from it, and not the GRU General Staff.
                .
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                She reached the district and Air Force units late, which and when it came to TOP is still a closed question.

                Again, a lie - the General Staff of the Navy may not share information at all on their facilities, they do not have such a duty to other types of armed forces.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                The prapor babbles here that "they found everything in the GRU at once," but he is silent that it is too late, that later they lost again, that the Americans had air reconnaissance of the Air Force no worse than the reconnaissance of the Pacific Fleet, and so on.

                Again Timokhin's blatant lies - the GRU General Staff is engaged in the priority objects of strategic intelligence, and the AUG is not among them, because the General Staff of the Navy is responsible for this. That is why, until an application was received from the General Staff of the Navy, the GRU General Staff did not deal with this grouping at all - teach the materiel to a journalist, and do not hang people on the ears.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                In short, they were detected, but it would not have been possible to strike at these detections, the enemy broke away and escaped observation.

                So it was the naval ones who did it, and Timokhin is lying that the GRU General Staff allegedly lost this grouping.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                They were finally found when they began to work as aviation 300 km from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, but there was no way to hide it.

                Some minor air defense post on the island revealed the flights of this group, and naval intelligence with a whole admiral missed it for several days, and presents this as a strategic threat. Timokhin specially dragged this episode forty years ago, and is still speculating on it, as if he is proving something in his crazy ideas about the future of the ocean-going fleet.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Then they lost again, the flight of the MRA was in an empty place, and finally they were taken under observation near the Kuriles, when the air defense officers spotted them.

                Again, a lie, because there is no data from the air defense on the loss of this group, and they could not have lost aircraft carriers at all all this time, tracking it with their country's air defense planes. And Karev, to justify his helplessness, decided to lie, and said that the AUG allegedly found the air defense post only after the aircraft took off, although he did not provide any data from the air defense and intelligence directorate of the Far East Military District.
    3. KKND
      KKND 25 March 2021 12: 37
      +2
      Quote: ccsr
      This is not even science fiction, but just paramilitary chatter, which is inherent in the journalist Timokhin, and who has not served in the army for a day, and all his knowledge about the interaction of troops is simply ridiculous, which is why such stupidity is born.

      Will the criticism be more specific? On business?
      Quote: ccsr

      Timokhin, as always, contradicts himself in two sentences, stating that besides Russia, battles between surface ships are considered by the main players, i.e. we do not adhere to these views.

      Here he spoke without contradiction.
      I've been on the site for a long time and have been watching you for a long time. So I want to tell you that you are one of the main sources of misinformation on the site in the comments. Are you a paid troll?
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 25 March 2021 13: 00
        -3
        Quote: KKND
        I've been on the site for a long time and have been watching you for a long time.

        Hopefully not on the salary of the State Department?
        Quote: KKND
        So I want to tell you that you are one of the main sources of misinformation on the site in the comments.

        Specify more specifically - I speak on various topics, many of my conclusions find support among professionals.
        Quote: KKND
        Are you a paid troll?

        Judge by yourself? I will disappoint you - this is just a hobby, but it is surprising why people like you believe in the nonsense that Timokhin is talking about. I assume that you, like Timokhin, do not have any military education, which is why you are so fond of fantasy on military topics.
        Quote: KKND
        Will the criticism be more specific? On business?

        Will be. For example Timokhin states:
        Moreover, the almost complete absence of aircraft carriers in our fleet simply dooms the Russian Navy to the prospect of dealing with the enemy with the help of missile ships, at least in some cases.
        And this is not some kind of fantasy.

        So I will disappoint you, because 70-80% of the enemy's fleet will be destroyed in the first 30 minutes of the start of the war, because they will not have time to leave the bases. And those several surface groups of American ships that will be on the voyage will no longer pose any threat to us - they will also receive a nuclear strike, or at worst they will be so far away that they will not pose a threat to us. It is unnecessary to chew on you that if we decide on a preemptive nuclear strike, then in order not to unmask the preparations for it, no one will withdraw the fleet from the bases in advance, which means they will suffer a heroic death at the berths from the retaliatory strike of the Americans.
        And with whom and what you and Timokhin are going to fight in the vastness of the world's oceans - I would like to know from both of you in more detail, since you think you are "experts".
        1. KKND
          KKND 25 March 2021 13: 20
          -1
          Quote: ccsr
          So I will disappoint you, because 70-80% of the enemy's fleet will be destroyed in the first 30 minutes of the start of the war, because they will not have time to leave the bases. And those several surface groups of American ships that will be on the voyage will no longer pose any threat to us - they will also receive a nuclear strike, or at worst they will be so far away that they will not pose a threat to us. It is unnecessary to chew on you that if we decide on a preemptive nuclear strike, then in order not to unmask the preparations for it, no one will withdraw the fleet from the bases in advance, which means they will suffer a heroic death at the berths from the retaliatory strike of the Americans.

          This is the main source of misinformation. The myth of the omnipotence of nuclear weapons. In 70 in the arsenals of the USSR there were from 50000 to 70000 nuclear charges (including tactical ones). the enemy had many targets to strike. And then in the USSR and the USA, bomb shelters were built, exercises were carried out, i.e. it was supposed to wage a war in such conditions and somehow win or at least not surrender. Now there are an order of magnitude less nuclear warheads than they have and we are not talking about the destruction of troops, population, infrastructure at the same time. You will need to choose goals. Now the arsenals are balancing on the fact that no one wants unacceptable damage to themselves, but if this damage is done, the war will be already to the bitter end.
          And you overwrite fairy tales about the fact that we will "bend" all nuclear weapons in an hour. And all the time. These are the tales that trolls love to justify the reduction in spending on conventional weapons: "Well, we will completely destroy them with nuclear weapons !!! 1111".
          Reception is called giving away need for virtue.
          Another fairy tale about "the accumulated arsenals of nuclear weapons are capable of destroying all life on Earth several times !!! 111" tell how teachers at school to schoolchildren. lol
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 25 March 2021 13: 51
            -2
            Quote: KKND
            In 70 in the arsenals of the USSR there were from 50000 to 70000 nuclear charges (including tactical ones). the enemy had many targets to strike.

            Why do you immediately start with lies?

            Quote: KKND
            And then in the USSR and the USA, bomb shelters were built, exercises were carried out, i.e. it was supposed to wage a war in such conditions and somehow win or at least not surrender.

            This program was closed back in the sixties, when they stopped building specialized bomb shelters under houses in cities.
            Quote: KKND
            And you overwrite fairy tales about the fact that we will "bend" all nuclear weapons in an hour.

            You are simply not in the subject, that is why you do not know the standards for a retaliatory nuclear strike by SNF duty officers.
            Quote: KKND
            "Well, we will completely destroy them with nuclear weapons !!!

            But this is really so, and Putin said especially for you that we would find ourselves in paradise, and your American friends would simply die.
            Quote: KKND
            Another fairy tale about "the accumulated arsenals of nuclear weapons are capable of destroying all life on Earth several times !!! 111" tell how teachers at school to schoolchildren.

            Recently, the frost has done in Texas without bombs something that is not commensurate with what will happen there during a nuclear war. Let me remind you that wells in Kuwait were on fire for almost two years after the first Gulf War, and New Orleans is still not rebuilt after the flood. But you hope that you personally will survive, if, of course, you live in the taiga.
            1. KKND
              KKND 25 March 2021 14: 27
              -1
              Quote: ccsr
              Why do you immediately start with lies?


              Something not really, I lied. From the wiki, the link is about the same order of magnitude. Under the START Treaty, we have only about 1500 strategic nuclear weapons, just like the Americans.
              Quote: ccsr
              This program was closed back in the sixties, when they stopped building specialized bomb shelters under houses in cities.

              Under the ZIL plant there was a huge bomb shelter with machine tools and government communications. It was assumed that all 70000 workers would take refuge and work there. Now they were bombarded with garbage as the plant was demolished. There was also a huge number of bomb shelters that they have that we have.
              Quote: ccsr
              But this is really so, and Putin said especially for you that we would find ourselves in paradise, and your American friends would simply die.

              So specifically answer that all 329 million Americans will die immediately from nuclear weapons? from only 1500 charges? yourself is not funny?
              Quote: ccsr
              Recently, the frost has done in Texas without bombs something that is not commensurate with what will happen there during a nuclear war.

              Here you are doing this and stir up panic in front of nuclear weapons. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people live at the site of the explosions. And here you are dealing with disinformation and panic in front of nuclear weapons as a paid Kremlin troll. YAO is a terrible thing, but it's magic.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 25 March 2021 17: 53
                +1
                Quote: KKND
                Something not really, I lied.

                Doesn't twice mean much? And your data is not from our sources, so there is no need to dodge.
                Quote: KKND
                Under the ZIL plant there was a huge bomb shelter with machine tools and government communications. It was assumed that all 70000 workers would take refuge and work there.

                Were you there, did you work yourself, or did someone tell you? How can people work there if all power plants and transmission lines are destroyed?
                Quote: KKND
                So specifically answer that all 329 million Americans will die immediately from nuclear weapons?

                Not all and not all at once, but 90 percent will definitely die within a few days or weeks. In peacetime, they cannot put out fires in California for weeks, and after a nuclear strike, all forests in the United States and all cities will burn.
                Quote: KKND
                In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people live at the site of the explosions.

                So there was a small charge, and nevertheless many people died:
                During World War II, at 6am on August 1945, 8.15, an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan by a US B-29 Enola Gay bomber. About 140 people died in the blast and died over the following months. Three days later, when the United States dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, about 000 people were killed.


                Quote: KKND
                And here you are dealing with disinformation and panic in front of nuclear weapons as a paid Kremlin troll.

                Calm down the verbiage - I am a realist, and you are simply illiterate in this matter, which is why you do not know anything about the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. How much does the State Department pay you to instill "fearlessness" in people before a nuclear strike?
        2. timokhin-aa
          25 March 2021 14: 30
          +2
          Specify more specifically - I speak on various topics, many of my conclusions find support among professionals.


          I just fall off my feet. And where is this support among professionals? Are they the same top secret types with a magic TV that shows every American aircraft carrier?
          1. KKND
            KKND 25 March 2021 18: 35
            -1
            Alexander, maybe you missed it, I would like to hear what you think about our ZGRLS on ships? How many have read your articles nowhere about them mentioned like.
            1. timokhin-aa
              25 March 2021 19: 14
              +2
              Answered below
  • Mark kalendarov
    Mark kalendarov 24 March 2021 21: 08
    +3
    Great stuff.
    I read everything.
    I ask you to assign me the rank of cap-once and give command of a small corvette.
    I can't pull a big one - the volume of the article doesn't allow ...
    1. Thrifty
      Thrifty 24 March 2021 21: 17
      +2
      Mark, consider yourself a vice admiral, as you build an aircraft carrier, you will have lol good
  • bk0010
    bk0010 24 March 2021 21: 16
    0
    I disagree on two points. 1) In the absence of a big war, surface ships are most often at war, yes, but in the event of a big war, everything can change. More precisely, it is not worth replacing machine guns with knives in the army just because now more people are being killed with knives. It is impossible to abandon the development of nuclear submarines and MPA, although ships can solve more problems.
    2) You cannot fit into a naval helicopter the solution of reconnaissance-target designation tasks and PLO and anti-ship missiles at the same time. No, it might fit into the Mi-26, but how can you stuff it into a corvette? IMHO, you can make replaceable modules, but they will turn out to be expensive, possibly more expensive than the helicopter itself.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 March 2021 22: 55
      +3
      2) You cannot fit into a naval helicopter the solution of reconnaissance-target designation tasks and PLO and anti-ship missiles at the same time.


      Easily. And on that guard, which in the photo starts up the X-35, it was all.
  • Darkness
    Darkness 24 March 2021 22: 46
    0
    What a sheet! I can imagine how Gorshkov rejoiced - a real chance to test his fleet in action.
  • Usher
    Usher 24 March 2021 22: 48
    0
    Quote: A. Privalov
    Quote: Thrifty
    Yes, and it is also possible to step aside, because 90 minutes is a long period of time! !!

    An old "Eros" in 2008, worked a lot of time in the military, then was engaged in filming and observation in favor of socio-economic projects. So, its standard working swath is 190 km. It can be expanded up to 380.
    A ship at sea has nowhere to go, alas. hi

    The weather can be different, cloudy and all that.
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 March 2021 23: 15
      +2
      From the passage of the ship through the control area of ​​the real satellite constellation.
      https://topwar.ru/176082-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-vyvodim-avianosec-na-udar.html
      1. Usher
        Usher 24 March 2021 23: 33
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        From the passage of the ship through the control area of ​​the real satellite constellation.
        https://topwar.ru/176082-morskaja-vojna-dlja-nachinajuschih-vyvodim-avianosec-na-udar.html

        I read this. Interestingly, mattresses used such commonplace tricks. What a wonder. Here it is, the harsh reality.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 25 March 2021 11: 30
          -1
          Quote: Usher
          Here it is, the harsh reality.

          There are a lot of lies in that article, and I will not even comment on everything, but the fact that Timokhin does not know how to use the over-the-horizon radar system to determine the launch of missiles is quite obvious from his drawing. This journalist does not even understand that different frequencies of the HF range are reflected in different ways from the ionosphere, and therefore, with the simplest frequency change within seconds, you can get different jumps, and, accordingly, "see" everything that happens in a given sector. On this principle, more than sixty years ago, FIELD stations of reciprocating-oblique sounding already worked, but the journalist is still in captivity of his fantasies and therefore simply sells nonsense to the gullible public.
          1. timokhin-aa
            25 March 2021 12: 45
            +1
            This journalist does not even understand that different frequencies of the HF range are reflected in different ways from the ionosphere, and therefore, with the simplest frequency change within seconds, you can get different jumps, and, accordingly, "see" everything that happens in a given sector.


            How does this contradict what is written in the article?
  • dgonni
    dgonni 25 March 2021 00: 00
    -2
    Respect!
    But these are the wars of the past!
    No offense!
    Considering the minimization of satellites and the ability to launch them into orbits in batches?
    Plastic drones the size of a bicycle and able to hang in the air for 12 hours?
    So, without space and drones, the prospects are sad.
    In 5 years, helicopters will not fly and solve target designation problems!
    There will be swarms of small drones. This is where everything goes.
    There will be a constellation of satellites, small but many. And covering the colossal spaces.
    P.S. mh-17 shot down over Donbas! Dutchmen, Malaysians and those interested were shown evidence of mattress space exploration. Secret, but everyone understood everything!
    That bish at the moment is something that is already like that. What spares the darkness of the bands in real time!
    There will be more!
    In general, everything is outlined here sadly
    1. Flashpoint
      Flashpoint 25 March 2021 01: 27
      +1
      “I don’t know what kind of weapon the third world war will be fought with, but the fourth - with sticks and stones.” - Albert Einstein

      Get ready :)
  • Avior
    Avior 25 March 2021 00: 00
    +2
    The article is interesting, but large in volume.
    Very big. :))
    Better two or three.
    so commenting is only possible in chunks
    1. The possibility of camouflaging in civilian traffic is not as easy as it seems.
    In the event of an aggravation of the situation, the enemy will certainly monitor the publicly available sea traffic and accordingly register the tracks of ships - in this way, a civilian vessel suddenly appearing in the middle of the ocean will arouse, to put it mildly, suspicion.
    As well as the one that will initially come out of the enemy's military port. Therefore, it is not necessary to check everything, some are enough.
    2. The high capabilities of aviation at sea are beyond doubt, which is why there is now a boom in UDC and light aircraft carriers. and most serious opponents have or are acquiring them right now.
    3. Regarding naval battles "without aircraft", one can give an example from the Iranian-Iraqi war.
    Operation Morvarid. Two Iranian missile boats have blocked two Iraqi ports.
    A group of Iranian boats of various types left for the release of the blockade, two of which the Iranians drowned with Harpoons, but in response the Iraqis drowned the Iranian boat near the port of Al Faw.
    And then two Iranian Phantoms urgently summoned by the Iranians flew to the battlefield and in less than five minutes staged a massacre, depriving the Iraqi fleet of seven boats.
    1. timokhin-aa
      25 March 2021 12: 45
      +1
      3. Regarding naval battles "without aircraft", one can give an example from the Iranian-Iraqi war.


      But this is ANOTHER example. This is an example of a battle with aviation.
  • bandabas
    bandabas 25 March 2021 00: 20
    -2
    Huge article. A large set of phrases. Tom Clancy is resting. hi
  • Denis Rumyanny
    Denis Rumyanny 25 March 2021 01: 53
    +4
    For some reason, the topic of sea mines was bypassed. But in wartime or threatened times, no one will chase 1,5 Gorshkov or 2,5 Grigorovich. Catching fleas in the sea. Stupidly close the straits by laying mines from planes. Fast, cheap, efficient. Berks, if needed, are only as missile defense or air defense.
    1. timokhin-aa
      25 March 2021 12: 46
      -2
      How can Turkey or Japan mine the waters east of the Strait of Hormuz?
  • looker-on
    looker-on 25 March 2021 03: 47
    +4
    Quote: Denis Rumyanny
    For some reason, the topic of sea mines was bypassed. But in wartime or threatened times, no one will chase 1,5 Gorshkov or 2,5 Grigorovich. Catching fleas in the sea. Stupidly close the straits by laying mines from planes. Fast, cheap, efficient. Berks, if needed, are only as missile defense or air defense.

    1. In addition, the enemy knows all our "admissible". And his strength is 10 times more (NATO). So that they can "admit." We do not have such opportunities.
    2. Even if, according to Article 1, our ship pretends to be a tanker ... even if it releases everything that is at the enemy. Yes, figs with him, will sink the aircraft carrier ... it does not change anything. Nothing.
    3. I see only a potentially naval confrontation with Turkey or Japan (in the foreseeable). But looking at the fleet of Turkey or Japan = the blind understand that the battle in the vacuum "ship-to-ship" will be lost by Russia (Alas
    1. timokhin-aa
      25 March 2021 11: 36
      +3
      2. Even if, according to Article 1, our ship pretends to be a tanker ... even if it releases everything that is at the enemy. Yes, figs with him, will sink the aircraft carrier ... it does not change anything. Nothing.


      It can change EVERYTHING.

      The destroyed enemy frigate may turn out to be just that ship, without which the enemy could not ensure 100% coverage of the PLO line, and did not catch the Borei with missiles in the end.
    2. Xscorpion
      Xscorpion 25 March 2021 12: 40
      -1
      Quote: looker-on
      Quote: Denis Rumyanny
      For some reason, the topic of sea mines was bypassed. But in wartime or threatened times, no one will chase 1,5 Gorshkov or 2,5 Grigorovich. Catching fleas in the sea. Stupidly close the straits by laying mines from planes. Fast, cheap, efficient. Berks, if needed, are only as missile defense or air defense.

      1. In addition, the enemy knows all our "admissible". And his strength is 10 times more (NATO). So that they can "admit." We do not have such opportunities.
      2. Even if, according to Article 1, our ship pretends to be a tanker ... even if it releases everything that is at the enemy. Yes, figs with him, will sink the aircraft carrier ... it does not change anything. Nothing.
      3. I see only a potentially naval confrontation with Turkey or Japan (in the foreseeable). But looking at the fleet of Turkey or Japan = the blind understand that the battle in the vacuum "ship-to-ship" will be lost by Russia (Alas

      Well, what is the ratio? How many ships does Turkey have in the Black Sea? I may surprise you, but apart from border boats they have nothing there, since they perfectly understand that any ship in the Black Sea will be destroyed in a few minutes from coastal missile systems RF. So they can only harm us off the coast of Syria. But at this time the entire Turkish territory will be under attack from missiles from the air and sea. And what about Japan? They have a defensive fleet with good anti-aircraft defense and air defense. They have nothing to attack from the sea, They have no tomahawks. All northern Japanese ports and naval bases are under the gun of our Bastions. They cannot do anything to our fleet, let alone the coast. But we cover a decent part of the territory of Japan with ships and aircraft from our territorial waters and our airspace.
      1. Denis Rumyanny
        Denis Rumyanny 25 March 2021 14: 50
        0
        The reasoning of schoolchildren in the toilet, and what kind of radio is there in the director's car, and my "Karpaty" will make the director's "Volga", and if a brick in the head, and from a hill with a passing wind on 92 gasoline, etc. etc.
        And the "director" 20 years ago built Aegis on Earth, sea and space. And he continues to build. It never even occurs to him to put Donald Cook against Gorshkov. Why did he build a global missile defense system for 20 years? Why bases in Poland and Romania and Japan and around the world? Will the letter match ... sorry, rockets, with the "miracle moped on 92 gasoline" Grigorovich in the Strait of Hormuz? And why bases in Kuwait, UAE?
        The Western mentality is different, different means and possibilities. They will let the fleet last, to clean up what is left after long-range aviation and UAVs.
        1. timokhin-aa
          26 March 2021 11: 51
          +1
          All this is partially true only in the event of a war against the United States. But firstly, everything is not reduced to her, and secondly, even she can go wrong, as the enemy wants, and not as you described.
  • Ruslan
    Ruslan 25 March 2021 04: 53
    +4
    how tired the whiners, "the article is large, cut it into 2-3, a lot of bookf, did not master it, it is poorly perceived." Why did you read it then? the lettering on the air freshener is short and straightforward, read them, twitter generation. they also write about it for some reason.
    Thanks to the author for the article.
  • Ivan Maksimovich
    Ivan Maksimovich 25 March 2021 05: 06
    +3
    Thank you so much for the article! There are two questions for the author: will there be a sequel to the "Naval War for Beginners" series? and (off-topic) do Soviet-built ships have the ability to use anti-submarine missiles Answer through torpedo tubes of 533 mm caliber, as submarines with the Caliber-PL complex do? Thank!
    1. timokhin-aa
      25 March 2021 11: 35
      +3
      There are two questions for the author: will there be a sequel to the "Naval War for Beginners" series?


      Be.

      Do Soviet-built ships have the ability to use anti-submarine missiles? Answer through torpedo tubes of 533 mm caliber


      No, you need to put the RTPU, as it is on "Peter the Great" or project 11540
  • certero
    certero 25 March 2021 11: 34
    +1
    Quote: A. Privalov
    It is not entirely clear to me how a rather large floating craft can hide from satellite observation.

    Google the area of ​​the world's oceans and then this question will disappear from you right away.
  • KKND
    KKND 25 March 2021 12: 33
    -1
    Around conditionally (we remember about the curvature of the planet's surface, right?) A flat surface without shelters, relief, etc. The detection range of anything that does not emit is equal to the visual range. You can turn on the radar, and then it will increase to the direct radio line of sight.

    But what about the over-the-horizon radars that were used on the ancient Komar missile boats and provided up to 60 km or more advanced ZGRLS MRK pr. 1234 with a range of up to 120 km? Why don't you mention in your articles the presence of ZGRLS on our ships?
    it was a shock.

    The results of radio direction showed that the newly formed aircraft carrier strike force (Enterprise and Midway), consisting of more than 30 ships, maneuvers 300 miles southeast of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky and conducts carrier-based aircraft flights at a distance of 150 km from our coast.

    Radio direction finding does not give distance, but only azimuth and elevation, and that is very rough.
    Then it is not very clear how to use the RTR station to take bearings, let alone triangulate the over-the-horizon signals, could you explain this point in more detail?
    1. timokhin-aa
      25 March 2021 19: 10
      +2
      The RTOs were equipped with the Titanit radar, they gave long detection ranges in passive mode and only for emitting objects.

      According to the quote you quoted, I am not its author, I can only assume that the bearings were taken from different points.
  • DMi
    DMi 25 March 2021 13: 16
    +3
    A useful educational program for me.
    It's funny that adults have already forgotten how to read texts in which there are more than five paragraphs. I thought that the "many bukaf" syndrome was typical only for teenagers.
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 25 March 2021 14: 11
    +2
    As always, great article!
    Timokhin does not have bad articles.
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 25 March 2021 14: 14
    -1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    How can Turkey or Japan mine the waters east of the Strait of Hormuz?

    We will have to do this in order to block the US fleet in Bahrain and oil supplies from Arabia. And for this we need a capable naval aviation in Kaspiysk.
    1. timokhin-aa
      25 March 2021 19: 11
      +2
      Iran will not miss
      1. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 26 March 2021 15: 27
        -1
        During a big war, it makes no sense to ask Iran's permission to fly when the question arises about our life and death.
        1. timokhin-aa
          26 March 2021 19: 55
          +2
          Well, you can calculate the Iranian air defense forces, the number of interceptor fighters, the range of ballistic missiles, and estimate the consequences of such a player entering the war AGAINST us.
          1. Aleksandr1971
            Aleksandr1971 26 March 2021 22: 35
            -2
            Most likely you are right.

            But just like the United States will not break through Iran to the Caspian during a big war when we deploy diesel SSBNs with ICBMs against the United States in the Caspian.

            I have said 100 times that the Caspian is an ideal place for our naval ICBMs. But no one enters into discussion with me. Apparently there are no counterarguments.

            Maybe NATO anti-aircraft missile planes will break through to the Caspian through Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan. But only: 1) our SSBNs in the Caspian will have time to shoot by that moment - this is the main thing; 2) NATO PLO aircraft will have to break through to the Caspian with large fighter cover in order not to be shot on the way.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 27 March 2021 10: 40
              0
              Quote: Aleksandr1971
              I have said 100 times that the Caspian is an ideal place for our naval ICBMs.

              Why maintain ICBMs in the Caspian Sea, if we have for this purpose provided for the mines of the Strategic Missile Forces, which are much cheaper, and even closer to the territory of the United States?
            2. timokhin-aa
              27 March 2021 10: 40
              0
              The range of SLBMs from the Caspian will not be enough, boats cannot be used from there for anything other than a retaliatory strike, and generally speaking, everything is not reduced to it.
  • Darkesstcat
    Darkesstcat 25 March 2021 14: 14
    0
    The question may be a bit stupid, but do ships have trap systems for deflecting missiles like on airplanes?
    1. timokhin-aa
      25 March 2021 14: 31
      +2
      Yes, at least google PC-10, there are a lot of photos of the complex in the internet
      1. Darkesstcat
        Darkesstcat 25 March 2021 14: 35
        0
        Thank you looked.
        1. timokhin-aa
          25 March 2021 14: 47
          +2
          These are passive traps. There are active emitting systems with antennas.
          The most "charged" one is NULKA, it is the only one that works autonomously from the ship.
          Also a very interesting thing.
          But at the same time, many anti-ship missiles have a jamming aiming mode, which is almost never written about in advertising.
          What is stronger is unknown.
          1. Darkesstcat
            Darkesstcat 25 March 2021 15: 10
            0
            There was a similar system in one book. Only there it was a machine Fully emitting the radiation of a large ship, although the pilots were considered suicide bombers.
          2. Avior
            Avior 25 March 2021 17: 33
            +1
            Active jamming systems are different
            Nulka puts a diverting hindrance
  • Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 25 March 2021 17: 50
    0
    So, in the entire history of mankind after 1945, only two diesel-electric and one nuclear submarine destroyed one ship each in a real war.

    Almost all boats and their attacks on surface ships after 1945. 100% efficiency. If more boats were used, more drowned ships could be hit.
    1. timokhin-aa
      25 March 2021 18: 09
      +3
      There were more attempts. The Argentines tried to use submarines. But there is also another matter - why did surface ships turn out to be used often, and submarines rarely?
  • Novichek)
    Novichek) 25 March 2021 18: 08
    +2
    Powerful article! Quite a reasonable alignment, it's a pity "at the headquarters" will not appreciate ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      25 March 2021 19: 12
      +2
      They will not appreciate there if only helicopters, and so this is the basics of domestic tactics.
  • Normal ok
    Normal ok 25 March 2021 19: 16
    +2
    I have been reading your articles for a very long time: it is really clear that "it is insulting for the State."
  • Irrigant
    Irrigant 26 March 2021 01: 21
    +2
    Hello, thanks for your articles, as a civilian sailor it is interesting for me to read about the work of my military colleagues.

    You mentioned helicopters in your article, and it's a pity that anti-ship missiles are not allowed from the Ka-27. What do you think about the Ka-52K Katran? Like the newest helicopter convertible into a naval version. Maybe it is suitable as a reconnaissance strike at sea, and in some modifications and anti-submarine?
    1. timokhin-aa
      26 March 2021 11: 49
      +2
      What do you think about the Ka-52K Katran? Like the newest helicopter convertible into a naval version. Maybe it is suitable as a reconnaissance strike at sea, and in some modifications and anti-submarine?


      It will do, and the helicopter is good, but on a rocket ship there are 1-2 places in the hangar, but you also need an PLO, and you can lift a person from the water into an anti-submarine vessel, if you press it, but into an assault helicopter?

      As for the PLO helicopter, I don't know, I was told that it would be possible to create such a machine, but I doubt the requirements are too different.
  • g1v2
    g1v2 27 March 2021 02: 51
    +1
    In the 2008 battle, Georgia's missile boats simply did not participate, as did the Navy in general. As far as I remember, there were 5 Coast Guard boats, which belong to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and therefore the Georgian Ministry of Defense did not result in their losses. Plus a survey boat, which was the main target. Coast Guard boats distracted attention from him, apparently so that he could lift the American buoy from the bottom. And apparently the hydrograph Mirage sank all the same, disrupting the entire operation of the Gabunis. And there is evidence that another of the Coast Guard boats was seriously damaged by an anti-aircraft missile. As far as I remember, these boats did not even shoot, but maneuvered, diverting attention from the hydrograph. And the missile boats mentioned by the author were quietly blown up by our intelligence in Poti.
    1. timokhin-aa
      27 March 2021 10: 42
      -1
      This version appeared precisely after it turned out that all the missile boats were sunk in the port.
      And she still does not have much confirmation.
      Mirage may have sunk the hydrograph, but this does not change the conclusions from the article.
      1. g1v2
        g1v2 27 March 2021 20: 17
        +1
        They talked about her right away, but she was not heroic and therefore they pushed her in, and the patriotic public by default believed that the battle could only be with the boats of the Gabunistan Ministry of Defense. request And again, from the point of view of public relations, the sinking of an unarmed hydrograph, although a military one is not so profitable from the point of view of public relations. Again, they say that the damaged Coast Guard boat later also sank, but again, this is not a heroic victory - to sink a small Coast Guard patrol boat. Although the goal was fulfilled. Plus, these boats probably didn't fire, they just maneuvered. That’s all about the battle with the missile boats of the Gabunistan Defense Ministry. request
        In any case, this is also a sea battle with the enemy and, in my opinion, it makes no sense to embellish it.
        And I didn't really understand the conclusion. That surface ships are likely to have to fight each other? Depends on the theater of operations and the forces of the parties on it. For the Anglo-Saxons and their surface fleet, it is much more dangerous - enemy submarines on communications, for example. And in the Baltic, due to the shallow depths and the presence of serious anti-submarine weapons on the sides, the parties will not play a special role. Everywhere in different ways. request
        That having helicopters is good and right? Well, the same corvettes are built taking into account the basing of the turntables on them. Only you can't place a lot of them - for this you need ships that are more sharpened for them. Again, different turntables are needed. For corvettes, first of all - plots, large-scale combat ships - transport and combat, helicopter carriers - a bunch of transport and shock. request
        1. timokhin-aa
          27 March 2021 20: 36
          0
          Well, an article about this is + an explanation of some of the basics for popularizing purposes.
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 27 March 2021 15: 40
    -2
    Quote: ccsr
    Quote: Aleksandr1971
    I have said 100 times that the Caspian is an ideal place for our naval ICBMs.

    Why maintain ICBMs in the Caspian Sea, if we have for this purpose provided for the mines of the Strategic Missile Forces, which are much cheaper, and even closer to the territory of the United States?


    Then, that in the area of ​​combat duty the SSBN is gradually moving. And for mine ICBMs, the location of the foe has long been known. And with the first preemptive strike, mine ICBMs can be destroyed if only because the Kremlin will not have time to make a decision on a retaliatory strike due to its long thinking, or due to its death.

    And to drown SSBNs located in the Caspian - it will take too long for the amers. To do this, it is necessary to send PLO aviation from the Mediterranean Sea to the Caspian Sea, and even cover it with fighters. And for fighters, the combat radius does not reach from the Mediterranean to the Caspian. Therefore, the US PLO aircraft will fly to the Caspian without cover (more precisely, it will not fly without cover at all).

    Even when our mine ICBMs are destroyed by amers, and our SSBNs in the oceans are also destroyed by amers, SSBNs in the Caspian will remain intact long enough to strike back at the West.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 27 March 2021 23: 12
      0
      Quote: Aleksandr1971
      Then, that in the area of ​​combat duty SSBN is gradually moving. And for mine ICBMs, the location of the foe has long been known.

      And what follows from this? All American cities are not moving anywhere either - we will get missiles from the mines with our eyes closed.
      Quote: Aleksandr1971
      if only because the Kremlin will not have time to make a decision on a retaliatory strike due to long-thinking, or due to its death.

      If there are traitors, then no SSBNs will save us, wherever they are - Gorbachev as an example for you.
      Quote: Aleksandr1971
      Therefore, the US PLO aircraft will fly to the Caspian without cover (more precisely, it will not fly without cover at all).

      Have you considered the option of hitting them with ballistic missiles?
      Quote: Aleksandr1971
      Even when our mine ICBMs are destroyed by amers,

      Why should they destroy empty mines - you will be able to explain?
      Quote: Aleksandr1971
      then SSBNs in the Caspian will remain intact long enough to strike back at the West.

      We can also deliver a preemptive strike without SSBNs by the Strategic Missile Forces - we did not consider this option?
      1. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 28 March 2021 09: 33
        -1
        ccsr (ccsr), good. I will answer.

        1. Cities certainly don't move. But in order to destroy them with silo ICBMs, it is necessary that the Kremlin or, in the event of its death, another governing body would give the order to launch these silo ICBMs. Every minute counts, and the decision is most likely made collectively by persons who are far from each other. Therefore, there is a great risk that the mine ICBMs will not have time to receive the order to start and will be destroyed in the mines.

        Moreover, our SSBNs in the ocean will also be sunk by a preemptive strike without a declaration of war. During the Soviet era, our SSBNs were protected by surface, underwater and air cover. And now there is no cover.

        In this case, only SSBNs in the Caspian will survive after Russia receives the first nuclear salvo, if we manage to deploy them there before the war. And these SSBNs will survive after the first strike on Russia for a long time - hours and most likely whole days, or even will not be destroyed at all, since they will no longer be a valuable target. Of course, they will have time to shoot and may even be loaded with new missiles again if there is a supply of SLBMs left.

        2. The option of destroying our SSBNs in the Caspian with ballistic missiles will be ineffective and will not lead to the destruction of SSBNs because an underwater nuclear explosion is an explosion in an environment 1000 times heavier than air. Therefore, the radius of destruction by an underwater explosion will be extremely small.

        Even surface nuclear explosions in the United States have shown that warships can remain combat-ready for a long time (albeit irradiated). At the same time, the main effect of the explosion on the ships fell on the surface part due to the better penetration of damaging factors through the air.

        By the way, nuclear explosions in the United States took place in the depths of the warrant of decommissioned ships. And in order to hit a ballistic missile close to a moving SSBN, you must have a guided ballistic missile (which the United States does not have) and you must have a target designation system, which, due to geography, the United States also lacks in the Caspian.

        Otherwise, US ballistic missiles will fly into the Caspian Sea as "white light" and there will be some excitement on the water. Not tens of megatons, they will gurgle the water there.

        Therefore, the US will not hit the Caspian with ballistic missiles, just as they will not send their ASW aircraft into the Caspian waters.

        3. Americans will not shoot on empty mines. They will act like Hitler in 1941 and like Japan in 1904 - first strike a nuclear strike and then declare war. So our mine ICBMs will die in the mines.

        However, another option is possible - we will be the first to deliver a nuclear strike against the West, and then we will declare war. Then our mines will become empty. Think for yourself - how likely it is.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 28 March 2021 11: 12
          0
          Quote: Aleksandr1971
          it is necessary that the Kremlin or, in the event of its death, another governing body give the order to launch these silo ICBMs. Every minute counts, and the decision is most likely made collectively by persons who are far from each other. Therefore, there is a great risk that the mine ICBMs will not have time to receive the order to start and will be destroyed in the mines.

          This was all decided back in the eighties in the USSR:
          "Nuclear suitcase" was created during the USSR under the direction of N. A. Devyatin and V. S. Semenikhin. The Kazbek system was put on alert already in 1983.

          So don't worry - everything will take less than ten minutes.
          Quote: Aleksandr1971
          Therefore, there is a great risk that the mine ICBMs will not have time to receive the order to start and will be destroyed in the mines.

          There is no such risk, because preparations for the evacuation of senior US officials will be difficult to hide, and Washington does not have the same missile defense as Moscow does.
          Quote: Aleksandr1971
          At the same time, our SSBNs in the ocean will also be sunk by a preemptive strike without a declaration of war.

          So our main means of defeating the enemy is the Strategic Missile Forces. Well, the casualties among the naval forces, as well as among the rest of the country's population, are only a consequence of the war - no one promised that the SSBN crews would be able to sit out under the water column.
          Quote: Aleksandr1971
          2. The option of destroying our SSBNs in the Caspian with ballistic missiles will be ineffective and will not lead to the destruction of SSBNs because

          Leave this fantasizing for alternatives - it is generally nonsense to place anything in the Caspian Sea, except for surface ships with cruise missiles.
          Quote: Aleksandr1971
          ... And in order to hit a ballistic missile near a moving SSBN, you need to have a guided ballistic missile (which the United States does not have)

          Multiple launch rocket systems were created a long time ago, and are used along with barreled artillery. What prevents the release of several nuclear charges at the supposed location of enemy ships, if they only threaten our main area? By the way, where should they be located to pose a greater danger than US ballistic missiles?
          Quote: Aleksandr1971
          Therefore, the US will not hit the Caspian with ballistic missiles, just as they will not send their ASW aircraft into the Caspian waters.

          Of course they won't - there are no goals for them. And no one will send PLO aviation there either - the Americans have no visionaries, there realists serve in the armed forces.

          Quote: Aleksandr1971
          3. Americans will not shoot on empty mines. They will act like Hitler in 1941 and like Japan in 1904 - first strike a nuclear strike and then declare war.

          And we will sit and clap our ears, this is probably the scenario you have already identified for us? Do not count on this - in return they will receive all the power of our strategic nuclear forces, so the example of Hitler for the current situation is simply ridiculous.
          Quote: Aleksandr1971
          However, another option is possible - we will be the first to deliver a nuclear strike against the West, and then we will declare war. Then our mines will become empty. Think for yourself - how likely it is.

          Finally, it dawned on you how we would react to their preparation for an attack on us. One mistake you have is that no one will be able to announce anything to anyone.
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey 28 March 2021 10: 59
      -1
      [quote = ccsr] [
      This is politically unreasonable and a sudden counter-force strike will not work, which means counter-value, and this will only anger the enemy and he will start a war of destruction ...
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 27 March 2021 15: 50
    -2
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The range of SLBMs from the Caspian will not be enough, boats cannot be used from there for anything other than a retaliatory strike, and generally speaking, everything is not reduced to it.


    SSBNs, in principle, are of little use for anything other than retaliation.

    But here are some counterarguments:

    1) Do you think that the "princes", after the SLBMs have been shot, and miraculously survived, will suddenly start hunting for enemy submarines on transoceanic routes? You don’t believe it yourself.

    2) As for the range of SLBMs, it is quite possible to put suborbital SLBMs on the Caspian SSBNs. There are none yet, but there were in the 70s. It is possible to restore production. And START-3 does not prohibit suborbital ICBMs.

    3) SLBMs on the Caspian SSBNs can also be installed with simple Bulavas against Europe and targets in the Middle East.

    4) SSBNs in the Caspian Sea are invulnerable in the short term to a direct attack by NATO forces. And therefore, such SSBNs will surely have time to shoot with their SLBMs.

    5) The depth of the Caspian Sea was suitable for SSBNs.

    5) SSBNs in the Caspian will be an order of magnitude cheaper than ocean SSBNs since a) anti-torpedo protection is not needed; b) no nuclear power plant is needed; c) no need for cover in the form of aviation, navy and submarine; d) when designing and building SSBNs in the Caspian, it is possible to weaken the measures to reduce the physical fields - this will reduce the cost of production.
    1. timokhin-aa
      28 March 2021 20: 26
      0
      SSBNs, in principle, are of little use for anything other than retaliation.


      No, they are still very good for the first strike, just with a number of conditions.

      There were no global SLBMs, there were only mine ICBMs. R-36rb.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 27 March 2021 17: 12
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    3000 tons is a small frigate with corresponding restrictions on the use of weapons in waves.

    cite the limitation of ASW assets by excitement and the dependence of this limitation on the displacement of the ship, otherwise your statement is groundless ... you did not notice that the limitation on the displacement of about 3000 tons is based on the postulate that all surface ships have the main task of ASW of the coastal zone, and what is their the more the better, which means that a decrease in displacement allows for the same budget to have more of them in number and provide PLO in large areas
  • Aleksandr1971
    Aleksandr1971 29 March 2021 16: 34
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    SSBNs, in principle, are of little use for anything other than retaliation.


    No, they are still very good for the first strike, just with a number of conditions.

    There were no global SLBMs, there were only mine ICBMs. R-36rb.


    Well, global SLBMs can and should be built. Technologies are available.
    And for Europe and "Bulava" will fit.

    But the main thing is that SSBNs in the Caspian Sea are invulnerable to NATO.
  • Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok April 7 2021 15: 57
    0
    some kind of graphomania
  • Vasily Balandin
    Vasily Balandin April 13 2021 22: 25
    0
    Here's a beautiful article, smart words, a lot of special terms ... But after reading about the fight with Georgian boats in 2008, you begin to understand that the author of the article is an ordinary fiction writer and graphomaniac, and the informational value of this article is at the level of Suvorov-Rezun's writings.
    The author read something about the naval battle with the Georgians, looked at something on the zomboyaschik, thought up the rest. For the beauty of the picture, he added drama to the text. And here you are - "Served to eat." The dish is ready for discerning consumers.
    According to the author, then:
    1. The Russian Black Sea Fleet in 2008 had no intelligence at all. The command of the fleet did not even realize that the Georgians had no anti-ship missiles at all.
    2. The commanders of Russian ships have ceased to demand a thorough knowledge of a potential enemy in a theater of operations. Going out to sea, the commanders of the ships did not even imagine what kind of enemy they might face at sea.
    3. The commanders of Russian ships were banned from using the tactical guidance. At least the Mirage commander did not know how to deal with the enemy boats.
    4. In general, it is not clear what tasks the commander of the Mirage was solving in this battle and what goals he pursued.
    In general, after the shameful clash with the Georgians, what kind of confrontation with the US AUG can be said at all?
  • yehat2
    yehat2 25 May 2021 13: 38
    0
    Prepares for the deployment of the AMTO in Sudan, relying on
    is no longer preparing - according to the latest news, in Sudan they completely refused not only to build a base, but even in the presence of ships near the borders.
  • Valery Che.
    Valery Che. 10 June 2021 20: 02
    0
    In my opinion, before discussing the topic of the battle of surface ships against the Russian fleet, one must first determine the likely opponents in case of a conflict at sea, dividing them into at least three classes: 1 small types of Georgia, Ukraine, the Baltic countries, Bulgaria, Romania. 2 Medium types of Turkey, Norway, Germany, Denmark. 3 Strong Types of England, France, USA, Japan. Or somehow differently define plus determine the likely situations in which this can happen at different maritime theaters. And lumping together examples of various historical situations is somehow not very correct, because technology and weapons, especially electronics, do not stand still.