Military Review

Surface ships: promising designs against anti-ship missiles

60

USS Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Cole is transported to a repair site by a semi-submersible after a suicide attack in a motorboat with explosives


In articles Surface ships: repel an anti-ship missile strike и Surface ships: evade anti-ship missiles we examined ways to ensure the protection of promising surface ships (NK) from anti-ship missiles.

The question arises whether the measures considered in the article are sufficient to ensure the survival of surface ships in the conditions of their continuous or quasi-continuous tracking by enemy reconnaissance means and the possibility of delivering massive strikes of anti-ship missiles?

Another solution could be the use of specific designs of surface ships, which until now have not received significant distribution in the construction of naval fleet (Navy). We are talking about the so-called diving surface ships (NOC) and semi-submersible vessels. The former have not received development at the present time. However, quite a few projects of this type of vessels have appeared recently. The second ones are actively used in civil shipbuilding to solve specific transport problems.

We have previously reviewed the completed projects and concepts of promising NOCs, as well as semi-submersible transport vessels in the article "On the Border of Two Environments". Diving ships: history and perspectives.

Why, in general, are projects of such ships needed?

The task is one - to increase the survival rate when delivering massive strikes of anti-ship missiles, but the methods of its solution are somewhat different. If a diving surface ship, in principle, is able to avoid an anti-ship missile strike by submerging under water, then an increase in the survival rate of a semi-submersible ship should be ensured by significantly reducing the optical and radar signature of the ship. This is coupled with the use of active defense systems - anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM), laser weapons (LO), electromagnetic (EMP) ammunition, electronic warfare (EW), decoys and means of setting protective curtains, should provide a significant decrease in the likelihood of hitting an anti-ship missile ship.

Diving surface ship


The concept of a promising NOC was previously discussed in detail in the article At the border of two environments. Diving surface ship 2025: concept and tactics of application... Despite the skepticism of many about the possibility of the appearance of such a class of ships, it should be noted that their projects appear in different countries with enviable regularity. In addition to the projects mentioned in the above articles, we can recall the recently published project of the submerging patrol ship of the Central Design Bureau (CDB) of marine technology "Rubin". It is unlikely that this ship has a future; nevertheless, the very fact is important that, contrary to the opinion of skeptics, projects of this type of ships periodically appear, including in Russia.


The concept of a submersible patrol ship CDB "Rubin"

While the Rubin Central Design Bureau is developing a small ship with a displacement of about 1000 tons, the Chinese corporation Bohai Shipbuilding Heavy Industrial is developing much larger diving and submersible vessels with a displacement of about 20 tons, armed with hundreds of cruise and anti-ship missiles.

Work on the NOC has been going on since 2011, the Chinese are working on several concepts. Some are more visually reminiscent of submarines. And their design appears to be based on the design of submarines. The contours of other concepts are more reminiscent of the contours of "classic" surface ships. It is possible that in the process of elaborating the project, the appearance of the Chinese NOCs will undergo significant changes.


The concept of a combat NOC of the Chinese corporation Bohai Shipbuilding Heavy Industrial, made in the format of a submarine


NOC concept of the Chinese corporation Bohai Shipbuilding Heavy Industrial, made in the contours of a "classic" surface ship

In the above article “On the border of two environments. Diving Surface Ship 2025: Concept and Application Tactics " also considered the possibility of using existing projects of nuclear submarines (PLA) as a basis for the creation of NOCs. However, you should not take this as a dogma, it is quite possible that greater efficiency will be obtained during the construction of a completely new structure, taking into account all the features of the operation of this type of ships.


NOC concept based on the project 955A strategic missile submarine cruiser (SSBN)

In the comments to the article on the NOC concept, it was indicated that the NOC would combine the disadvantages of both surface ships and submarines. This is partly true, but NOC will combine the advantages of both types.

Recently, including on the pages of the VO, the topic of the low stability of Russian submarines from the enemy's anti-submarine defense, primarily from aviation anti-submarine defense (PLO). In part, the problem of countering ASW aircraft can be solved by the submarines themselves, by equipping them with air defense systems capable of operating from periscope depth.

This issue was previously addressed in the article At the border of two environments. The evolution of promising submarines in conditions of increased probability of their detection by the enemy... The US Naval Forces (Navy) and at all plan to equip multipurpose Virginia-class submarines with laser weapons for defense against ASW aircraft, but for them this problem is far from being in the first place. At the same time, the submarines will use the air defense system, most likely, as a means of self-defense in response to the actions of the submarine aircraft. They will not be able to ensure continuous control of the airspace, which means that ASW aviation will always have a certain initiative.

It is assumed that in order to increase the combat stability of the submarine forces, they should be covered by the surface fleet, which impedes the actions of anti-submarine aviation. However, at the same time, the survival of the surface ships themselves of the classical design is questionable in the context of the potentially exponential development of space reconnaissance vehicles, super-high-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), unmanned surface ships (BNCs) and autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles (AUVs).

At the same time, a diving surface ship, in contrast to a submarine with an air defense missile system, will constantly monitor the sky in the reach zone, using the possibility of diving only to evade an anti-ship missile attack or in the case of implementation of certain tactical scenarios. And its visibility, in comparison with the "classic" NDTs, will be much lower by default, even if the latest technologies are widely used to reduce the visibility. For NOC, only the "superstructure" will "shine", while for the classic NK "superstructure + hull". And this means a much lower probability of hitting anti-ship missiles, especially in the conditions of the use of electronic warfare equipment, decoys and the setting of protective curtains. Moreover, in the case of using the NOC sentinel UAVs powered by an electric cable, the possibility of firing at air targets will partially remain even after the NOC is submerged.


The use of UAVs powered by an electric cable will increase the detection range of low-flying targets and ensure the possibility of air defense missile systems operation against air targets when the NOC is submerged.

The disadvantages of NOCs include a lower buoyancy margin compared to "classic" NDTs, as well as potentially greater vulnerability to damage due to the dense layout of the compartments. It is also unlikely that the NOC will be able to accommodate a full-size manned helicopter (s), which can partly be compensated for by the widespread use of UAVs, BNKs and AUVs of various types.

Semi-submersible vessels


Unlike an NOC, a semi-submersible vessel does not completely sink under the water - its deckhouse and some other superstructure elements are always on the surface. While diving ships still mainly exist in the form of concepts and prototypes, semi-submersible ships are actively used to transport bulky cargo. Their displacement can exceed 70 tons, and their length is several hundred meters.


Semi-submersible vessels are actively used for the transportation of oversized cargo

The use of semi-submersible vessels for military purposes is also being considered. In particular, at the Army-2016 forum, the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT) presented concepts and layouts of an ice-class semi-submersible nuclear missile carrier, a missile-icebreaker cruiser, an amphibious assault ship, an icebreaking tanker and an icebreaking vessel capable of forming passages in ice more than 120 meters. The hulls of these ships are completely under water in normal mode, and only the superstructure, made with the use of signature reduction technologies, rises above the water.

It is stated that the proposed schemes of semi-submerged ships are more resistant to rolling, as well as less resistance to the movement of the ship, especially in conditions of increased sea waves.


Semi-submersible vessel concepts developed by MIPT


Models of semi-submersible vessels developed by MIPT

Although the concepts proposed by MIPT are likely to remain in the form of images and mock-ups, it can be assumed that preliminary calculations were performed to confirm their feasibility.

A semi-submersible ship can potentially already be equipped with a hangar for a full-size manned helicopter capable of solving ASW and early-range radar detection (AWACS) tasks. A hangar for a helicopter (helicopters) can be implemented as a sealed version, in which case the semi-submersible ship must float up to release the helicopter, or the upper part of the hangar will constantly rise above the water, and the helicopter will rise to launch on a lift.

Compared to a diving surface ship, a semi-submersible ship will not be able to evade anti-ship missiles by immersion, but its buoyancy and survivability will be much higher. The presence of ballast tanks used to change the draft of a semi-submerged ship will allow it to equalize the roll and trim in the event of damage and flooding of part of the compartments, thereby preserving controllability and the possibility of using weapons.

In addition to long, medium and short-range anti-aircraft missiles (SAMs), placed in universal vertical launchers (UVPU), on semi-submersible ships, short-range air defense systems of the American RIM-116 type can be installed, placed in sealed containers on lifting and mast devices ( PMU).

Surface ships: promising designs against anti-ship missiles
Compact short-range air defense systems of the RIM-116 type can be placed in container design on the lifting and mast devices of semi-submersible ships

Increase vitality


The disadvantage of diving and semi-submersible ships is the less usable space available for placing weapons, crew and ship systems due to the presence of ballast tanks. However, this may be a very reasonable price to pay for increasing the protection against massive attacks by anti-ship missiles.

One of the ways to free up space is the widespread use of automation to reduce the size of the crew. This may raise two questions: who will maintain the ship's equipment and how will this affect the fight for the ship's survivability?

Earlier in articles (Unmanned surface ships: the threat from the West и Unmanned surface ships: a threat from the East) we considered promising unmanned vessels developed by the leading countries of the world. In addition to being used as autonomous platforms and as slave ships, BNK will give their developers another important advantage.

The problem of the BNK is the creation of ship systems capable of operating trouble-free for a long time without maintenance. Having gained experience in creating highly reliable equipment for BNK, shipbuilding companies will certainly transfer it to "manned" ships, which will reduce the crew without risking the technical condition of the ship.

The use of augmented reality systems for diagnostics and repair of ship systems will significantly increase the efficiency of the crew without increasing its number.


Augmented reality systems greatly simplify diagnostics and repair of complex equipment

Automated systems, such as automatic fire extinguishing systems, compartment sealing systems, including automatic pressurized doors, and means of filling the compartments with positively buoyant foaming hardening material, will also help in the fight for survivability. For the automatic analysis of the state of the ship and the use of automatic damage control systems, promising computer systems based on neural networks, trained by playing various battle scenarios in virtual models, can be used. Damage information will come from hundreds of sensors and CCTV cameras located in the compartments and in the equipment of the ship.

The increase in survivability will be facilitated by the transition to the maximum use of electric drives instead of hydraulic and pneumatic systems.

To provide power and control to all of the above systems, protected and multiple-redundant power and data lines will be required, located in such a way that damage to any part of the ship will in no way disrupt the operation of most of the network. For example, in aviation, three- and four-fold redundancy of control channels has long been used.

All measures to improve survivability discussed above can be applied not only on NOCs and semi-submersible vessels, but also on ships and submarines of classical design.

Cost issues


In the comments to the article At the border of two environments. Diving surface ship 2025: concept and tactics of application the issue of the value of NOCs has been raised repeatedly. Of course, it is impossible to answer this question without carrying out at least scientific research work (R&D). And the final cost will become known only after the development work (ROC).

It can be assumed that in modern warships, a significant part of the price is the cost of their electronic filling and installed weapon systems, power plants and engines (if electric propulsion is used). In this case, the type of the ship's hull no longer plays a decisive role. The only thing that can significantly affect the increase in the final cost of a promising ship is the payment for R&D, which will then be distributed to serial products. For example, for B-2 bombers worth over $ 1 billion, R&D fees add about $ 1 billion more to the car. But here it is already a question of building weapons in a large series. Otherwise, any new type of weapon will have this problem.

Thus, in order to exclude unjustified financial costs, it is necessary to assess the prospects of the concept at the research stage, after which it is already necessary to make a decision on freezing the project or on its transition to the R&D stage with the subsequent serial construction of products.

It can be assumed that the serially produced diving surface ships or semi-submersible warships will be comparable in cost to surface ships and submarines of comparable displacement.

So why are diving and semi-submersible ships all the same?


Why did the author return to the topic of diving and semi-submersible ships again? All for the same reason. The combination of advanced reconnaissance means, including the space segment, high-altitude and super-high-altitude UAVs, BNK and AUV, as well as long-range anti-ship missiles on air carriers, allow the enemy to concentrate such a detachment of forces that is guaranteed to be able to penetrate the air defense of a single ship, KUG or AUG.

At the same time, an NOC or a semi-submersible ship will be an order of magnitude more difficult target for an anti-ship missile than a surface ship of a "classic" design.

In the comments to the article At the border of two environments. Diving surface ship 2025: concept and tactics of application it was said that such a ship can be attacked with modified anti-ship missiles, making a "slide" and hitting NOCs under water, as well as rocket torpedoes. Let's take a look at both options.

RCC with a "slide". Technically, such a modification of the anti-ship missile system can be implemented without problems. But how effective will it be? Much is said about the fact that even the most modern anti-ship missiles can be difficult to get into the NK in the conditions of the active use of electronic warfare equipment, setting up false targets and protective curtains. What then will happen in the situation with NOCs or semi-submersible ships?

For an NOC or a semi-submersible ship, the physical dimensions of the superstructures protruding above the water are an order of magnitude smaller than the hull with the superstructure of the "classic" NK. At the same time, the NOC can completely hide under water, leaving only the UAV on an electric cable, which in turn can shift to the side - the anti-ship missile will only strike at the predicted coordinates of the NOC. NNK and a semi-submersible ship can actively shoot back missiles, and a semi-submersible ship can also use a short-range air defense system.


What target of the anti-ship missile system will be easier to capture with the seeker (GOS)?

On the basis of unmanned escort ships, it is possible to deploy false targets, which do not differ at all from the NOC in a semi-submerged state or from the superstructures of a semi-submersible ship sticking out from under the water.


Which superstructure is real, which is false?

Based on the foregoing, it can be argued that the probability of hitting an NOC or a semi-submersible ship by "diving" anti-ship missiles will be much lower than that of a surface ship of a "classic" design with conventional anti-ship missiles.

As for the rocket torpedo (RT), everything is even more complicated here. Let's take for comparison the newest anti-ship missile LRASM and the rocket-torpedo RUM-139 VLA / 91RE1. The range of the LRASM anti-ship missile system is, according to various sources, 500-900 kilometers, which allows the carriers to launch it without entering the ship's air defense zone. The range of the RT RUM-139 VLA is only 28 kilometers, the Russian RT 91RE1 is 50 kilometers. Moreover, they move along a ballistic trajectory, that is, it is an ideal target for an air defense system.


Comparison of the firing range of anti-ship missiles and rocket torpedoes

Moreover, in the final section, the torpedo is dropped by parachute, and even outdated air defense systems can cope with this goal. In other words, rocket torpedoes are good for destroying submarines that are unable to intercept them in the flight phase, and a surface ship, NOC or submersible ship can effectively intercept them in the middle and final flight phases.

But interception of RT is not the most important thing. Much more interesting is that at a distance of 50 kilometers, the air defense system can shoot down the carriers themselves. And this significantly complicates the organization of a massive air raid using rocket torpedoes on the KUG, implemented on the basis of NOCs or semi-submersible ships.

Is it possible to significantly increase the RT range?

Yes, but at the same time their dimensions will be comparable to the dimensions of the Granit anti-ship missiles. And on a bomber they will not fit 24-36 pieces, like anti-ship missiles, but 4-6, since they will not fit into the internal compartments, and not all external holders will be able to carry them. You can completely forget about tactical aircraft.


The dimensions of the torpedoes - the warheads of the RT, do not allow achieving a combination of long range and compact dimensions of rocket torpedoes. Well, there is no way to "stick" even a small-sized torpedo into a relatively compact anti-ship missile

As a result, the number of rocket torpedoes in a salvo will be sharply reduced. And the increase in size will make them an even easier target for air defense systems. The possibility of abandoning the parachute in the final section is also questionable - the torpedo will simply fall apart from hitting the surface of the water.

In addition to the fact that the RT must enter the area where the NOC or the semi-submersible ship is located, and at the same time not be shot down on the ballistic flight or parachute descent, the torpedo itself must then find and hit the target. And at this stage, it can also be counteracted. What we will talk about in the next article.
Author:
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Commissar77
    Commissar77 8 May 2021 06: 34
    +5
    All this is very difficult to implement in practice, but the article is informative, I read it with interest, thanks to the author, I look forward to continuing.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 8 May 2021 12: 51
      -1

      While the Rubin Central Design Bureau is developing a small ship with a displacement of about 1000 tons, the Chinese corporation Bohai Shipbuilding Heavy Industrial is developing much larger diving and submersible vessels with a displacement of about 20 tons, armed with hundreds of cruise and anti-ship missiles.
      if the "ruby" develops, then the children of my grandchildren may and will see this miracle ... the "projections" are wonderful ... but they themselves are not able to cope with the urgent problems of the fleet ... no money, but you hold on ... your division. ..
  2. Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A 8 May 2021 06: 35
    +2
    Against such semi-submerged, the enemy will use semi-flying ekranoplanes, with a good load and operational response, and will put a bunch of Captors in the detection area, not counting the use of other listed means. With all the desire, against low-flying targets, it will not be possible to establish air defense comparable to a surface ship on semi-drowned ones.
    1. Shopping Mall
      8 May 2021 11: 28
      +2
      Quote: Yuri V.A.
      Against such semi-submerged, the enemy will use semi-flying ekranoplanes, with a good load and prompt response,


      It makes no sense, planes are more efficient. The ekranoplanes have a limitation on "seaworthiness".

      Quote: Yuri V.A.
      and put a bunch of Captors in the area of ​​discovery,


      This can be done against conventional NKs, in addition to the RCC. But if he exposes them far from the submerged ships - 100 km or more, then it is not a fact that they will meet. And if closer, then the carriers can be shot down, like the Captors themselves at the stage of production, ie. everything that has been said about missile-torpedoes applies to them.

      Quote: Yuri V.A.
      With all the desire, against low-flying targets, it will not be possible to establish air defense comparable to a surface ship on semi-drowned ones.


      Why? All modern air defense systems with a vertical launch of air defense systems can be installed, only for air defense systems it is necessary to provide a start from under the water, but for a depth of about 5 meters it should be easy, and air defense systems for short-range defense of the RIM-116 type can be raised on a mast, this is also a simple technology. Control center from a radar station on a superstructure that does not submerge (we are talking about semi-submersible vessels).
      1. Yuri V.A
        Yuri V.A 8 May 2021 12: 35
        +2
        The issue is not so much in the use of anti-aircraft missiles as in the placement of antenna posts at a high altitude, as, for example, on the British type 45. Again, if the ship will submerge only at the moment of evading anti-aircraft missiles, then how long will it take, especially for 20 000 tons of the Chinese project, because even a subsonic low-flying rocket will make half a hundred miles in three minutes.
        Previously, I came across information that Zamvolt is able to change the draft, maybe, together with the shape of the hull and electronic warfare means, this will be enough to disrupt missile guidance.
        1. Shopping Mall
          8 May 2021 13: 01
          +1
          Quote: Yuri V.A.
          The issue is not so much in the use of anti-aircraft missiles, as in the placement of antenna posts at high altitudes, as, for example, on the British type 45.


          The superstructure can be quite high (on a semi-submersible ship), even if the height of type 45 will not work, but after all, ArlieBerk somehow lives, and you can get their height, in fact, 5-10 meters will be added to the usual height of the superstructure. + UAV AWACS on a cable.

          Quote: Yuri V.A.
          Again, if the ship will submerge only at the moment of evading the anti-ship missile system, then how long will it take, especially for the 20 tons of the Chinese project, because even a subsonic low-flying rocket will do half a hundred miles in three minutes.


          If a massive anti-ship missile attack is detected at a distance of 20-40 km, the NOC will have 2-3 minutes to submerge - it needs 10-25 meters down. In addition, it is already less vulnerable, since only the superstructure sticks out. And the state of a semi-submersible ship does not change, for it an abnormal position is a complete ascent, for example, in case of serious damage.

          Quote: Yuri V.A.
          Previously, I came across information that Zamvolt is able to change the draft, maybe, together with the shape of the hull and electronic warfare means, this will be enough to disrupt missile guidance.


          I hear it for the first time, but it would be interesting if such an option would be implemented - it would somehow justify their cosmic cost.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 9 May 2021 12: 55
            0
            "I hear it for the first time, but it would be interesting ..." ///
            ----
            The Sumvolts have a shallow draft so they can get closer to the coast
            (it was planned as an artillery cruiser, which failed).
            But he cannot change the draft.
            Stealth and electronic warfare - that is.
      2. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 11 May 2021 09: 03
        +2
        Quote: AVM
        The ekranoplanes have a limitation on seaworthiness.

        The "Lun" type aircraft had a take-off limit of 5 points, a landing of 6 points, this is 3 and 3,5 meters of excitement, the screen mode meant a flight from 1 to 5 and with less efficiency up to 10 m. The limitation on seaworthiness was far-fetched. But this is so, purely for information.
      3. Winnie76
        Winnie76 13 May 2021 00: 19
        0
        Quote: AVM
        All modern air defense systems with a vertical launch of air defense systems can be installed, only for air defense systems it is necessary to provide a start from under the water, but for a depth of about 5 meters this should be easy,

        If the storage of the missile defense system is dry, it means that before starting to open the hood, it must be filled with water. The product is thin-walled, therefore smooth and even. So far, everything will be filled in and it will end.
  3. Serpet
    Serpet 8 May 2021 06: 59
    +19
    An interesting design - an icebreaker "from below". Rather, an ice cutter.
  4. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 8 May 2021 07: 36
    +6
    Paaadumaee! There is nothing to frighten us, "veterans" with various gibberish ... that is, abbreviations (!), I want to say! Anyone there, NOC ... PPP! The new is the well-forgotten old! What is PPS (semi-submersible vessel)? Yes, it's almost a monitor (!) ... just not a liquid crystal, but a marine ... although there were river ones too! They appeared in the middle of the 19th century!



    1. spech
      spech 8 May 2021 08: 01
      +6
      Kaptsov with battleships is not enough.
      1. Shopping Mall
        8 May 2021 11: 33
        +1
        Quote: spech
        Kaptsov with battleships is not enough.


        Me too, in many respects I agree with him, in fact, he offered (as I understand it) the same message - an increase in armor would not allow light anti-ship missiles to penetrate the hull and would require heavy anti-ship missiles, which you cannot put on much, you cannot hang them on tactical aircraft. The only question is in comparing the thickness of the armor and the "armor penetration" of the anti-ship missiles. For example, the same LRASM are quite compact, but their warheads are quite powerful.

        I propose a slightly different principle - not a decrease in the probability of being hit by a hit, but a decrease in the probability of a hit by radically minimizing the signature.
  5. 501Legion
    501Legion 8 May 2021 07: 45
    0
    Thanks for the article. It is interesting to read the whole cycle
  6. Doccor18
    Doccor18 8 May 2021 08: 10
    +3
    Thanks to Andrey for the article.
    It is hard to believe in the development of "diving" projects, but "semi-submersible" concepts are more interesting. Still, the decent height of the side of modern destroyers / frigates (and even unarmored) is the weakness of modern warships.
  7. jonht
    jonht 8 May 2021 08: 11
    +5
    Hmm, well, let's start with the fact that having protected from anti-ship missiles, your project is vulnerable to the most common TORPED and DEEP BOMBS. Well, for the speed of the attack, we can use missile-torpedoes of the "waterfall" type. Having received a breakdown, your submarine will be forced to sail, but here it will be found by an anti-ship missile. As I understand it, in order to reduce the cost and mass scale, the project will not have the same systems and structural strengths as full-fledged submarines. Therefore, the immersion depth will be up to 50 meters, maximum 100, although 100 meters is already a serious pressure and therefore the cost of those. systems. Therefore, up to 50 m this is the chapel of your PPK. There will be no acoustic noise reduction systems, they are expensive and take up useful volume on an already sufficiently loaded ship. Irrational contours (there is no such universal that would be here and there, you need to choose either this or that) will not allow you to realize not surface, not underwater high speed.
    As a result, there will be a useless submarine and no surface ship. And the cost of the same UKPS for submarines is more expensive than for NK. So there are hardly any real benefits from the PPK.
    But this is my opinion, I think the divers explains more.
    1. Shopping Mall
      8 May 2021 11: 40
      +5
      Quote: jonht
      Hmm, well, let's start with the fact that after being protected from anti-ship missiles, your project is vulnerable to the most common TORPEDs and DEEP BOMBS. Well, for the speed of the attack, we can use missile-torpedoes of the "waterfall" type.


      How will you throw depth charges on a ship with powerful air defense? This is suicide. In about missile-torpedoes at the end of the article, there is a visual comparison of the range, they are much easier to shoot down than anti-ship missiles, and they are much more difficult to hit. On anti-torpedo weapons in the next article - this is another line of defense.


      Quote: jonht
      Having received a breakdown, your submarine will be forced to sail, but here it will be found by an anti-ship missile.


      Like any surface ship or any submarine.


      Quote: jonht
      As I understand it, in order to reduce the cost and mass scale, the project will not have the same systems and structural strengths as full-fledged submarines. Therefore, the immersion depth will be up to 50 meters, maximum 100, although 100 meters is already a serious pressure and therefore the cost of those. systems. Therefore, up to 50 m this is the chapel of your PPK.


      If we are talking about the NOC, then for him "diving" is only a short-term regime, to hide from the RCC. Great depth is not required here. The design of the hull should be different from the submarine - keep the depth less (up to 50 meters maximum), but higher buoyancy and resistance to damage.

      Quote: jonht
      There will be no acoustic noise reduction systems, they are expensive and take up useful volume on an already sufficiently loaded ship. Irrational contours (there is no such universal that would be here and there, you need to choose either this or that) will not allow you to realize not surface, not underwater high speed.


      Both noise and contours must be optimized for the near-surface water layer.

      Quote: jonht
      As a result, there will be a useless submarine and no surface ship.


      The reasons for this are discussed in detail in the article.

      Quote: jonht
      And the cost of the same UKPS for submarines is more expensive than for NK.


      Are there any links to the cost? Or at least approximate data? In addition, for an NOC or a semi-submersible ship, they will be easier than for a submarine - there is no need to maintain extreme pressures.
      1. Katanikotael
        Katanikotael 8 May 2021 17: 36
        +1
        The design of the hull should be different from the submarine - keep the depth less (up to 50 meters maximum), but higher buoyancy and resistance to damage.

        An armored battleship is easier to make than a PPK to protect from a close underwater explosion, it's not just that all concepts are similar to submarines. There are either aluminum NKs with a bunch of everything or submarines with ... nothing.
      2. alstr
        alstr 9 May 2021 14: 32
        +1
        I would also like to add:
        1. All ASW assets have a limited radius.
        2. Now all ASW assets are usually used only by ASW aircraft. And these are those cows (Orions and Poseidons). You can shoot them down quite easily. Plus, this usually does not require a very high altitude, which makes it possible to use cheaper air defense systems.
        3. If we talk about anti-ship missiles, then it is required to conduct additional research and put new versions of anti-ship missiles into service. It is quite costly and expensive. And it will take enough time.
        As for the PRK, in view of the limited volume, weight and electricity, the PRK's ability to detect a target under water will be severely limited.
        4. It should be noted. that now 90% of threats to the ship are means of AIR attack (all kinds of missiles that are launched from aircraft and ships). Torpedo and mine threats are currently an order of magnitude lower than an air strike simply because of the number of one and the other. Submarines - dozens, Airplanes - thousands. And if you take into account the helicopters, then there will be a completely bleak picture.
  8. Thrifty
    Thrifty 8 May 2021 08: 18
    +6
    Andrey, the Chinese can go through the forest! We have these. .... not comrades at all, parosites living nearby and preparing to invade our lands! They broke into Gidropribor's servers, and then sent a letter to the Rubin CDB management with a malicious attachment (Trojan) and tried to download classified information about Rubin's work!
  9. riwas
    riwas 8 May 2021 08: 55
    +5
    Water is an incompressible liquid and less explosives are needed to destroy a semi-submerged ship.
    1. Shopping Mall
      10 May 2021 11: 52
      0
      Quote: riwas
      Water is an incompressible liquid and less explosives are needed to destroy a semi-submerged ship.


      I tried to find data on at what distance how many explosives, for example, will destroy the submarine's hull (at shallow depth), but I did not find it, if there are any links, I will be grateful.

      Somewhere I saw information that all the same, for a reliable defeat, a direct hit is required, moreover, preferably with penetration into the case (deceleration of the fuse), but this is for anti-ship missiles.

      In addition, water, of course, will partially transfer the energy of the explosion, but it will also slow down and cool the debris that can cause fires on the surface (even if an anti-ship missile warhead is detonated a hundred meters away).

      For torpedoes, the optimal detonation distance is 2-3 meters under the bottom, which is no longer so easy to implement for anti-ship missiles. And the question is, how does the increase in distance - 5-7-9 meters, etc., then affect? How will this affect when an explosion is not under, but over a semi-submersible ship?

      In addition, the liquid was also used as an element of protection:

      In addition, in some projects, the compartments adjacent to the armor belt were filled with tanks with oil, sea or fresh water. The fluid in the tanks absorbs or dissipates the explosion energy of warheads and projectiles. In other cases, as illustrated in the King George V and Tirpitz cross-sectional drawing, the enclosing bays were left empty, allowing the blast wave to partially dissipate, while the subsequent “liquid” layers of protection absorb any debris and disperse the detonation energy across wider area, structural bulkheads prevent leaks from these compartments.
  10. CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 8 May 2021 09: 38
    +2
    It has been hitting for a long time. American Civil War Monitor.
    1. Shopping Mall
      10 May 2021 11: 36
      +1
      Quote: CastroRuiz
      It has been hitting for a long time. American Civil War Monitor.


      History often spirals hi
  11. Basarev
    Basarev 8 May 2021 09: 53
    +1
    A UAV with a cable is pampering. We just cannot provide the proper autonomy, so we have to be sophisticated, for the amusement of all normal countries.
    1. Shopping Mall
      8 May 2021 11: 41
      +3
      Quote: Basarev
      A UAV with a cable is pampering. We just cannot provide the proper autonomy, so we have to be sophisticated, for the amusement of all normal countries.


      No, this is a 24/365 air watch capability. Such drones are being developed by all the leading countries of the world, this was discussed in previous materials. They have different tasks with autonomous drones.
      1. Basarev
        Basarev 8 May 2021 11: 43
        0
        Isn't it easier to just have more drones on board and arrange shifts?
        1. Shopping Mall
          8 May 2021 11: 50
          +1
          Quote: Basarev
          Isn't it easier to just have more drones on board and arrange shifts?


          Perhaps, but PMSM is difficult, you also need to power the radar station constantly.
  12. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 8 May 2021 09: 55
    +8
    The author is clearly convinced of the "almost invulnerability" of diving spikes! It is necessary to somehow "convince" him that there is an armor-piercing magnum for every trend bulletproof vest! The author's confidence that whoever will find a "semi-submerged" figurine ship is akin to the confidence of a child who has plunged his butt into the water that no one will find him in the bath now! "Mass" production of NOCs will cause "mass" development of "specific" weapons and means of detecting such "miracle Yudo" ships!
    It should now be said about the non-acoustic methods of detecting a submarine, which came into use in American aviation in the early nineties. The submarine is not completely secretive even under water - it, moving through the water column, pushes this water apart with its hull. The fluid is incompressible, and movement in its thickness of a large object generates ripple effects on the surface of the water, different and in large numbers.
    These effects can be used not only against submarines ... but also against NOCs and PPKs!
    Such effects include, for example, detection by radar of disturbances in water masses or electromagnetic anomalies that are formed when a ship (for example, "turning" a mass of water with a propeller) generates currents for a short time (ions are charges, and the ordered movement of charges Is an electric current). The Americans first encountered this in 1944, when radars for controlling the firing of naval guns in good working order showed marks on an empty spot in the sea. Soon the Americans established that every time there was a submarine under this place ... Well, why not be there NOC , PPK?

    In the USSR, this effect became known in the early sixties. The calculation of the radar station on the shore found that our submarine, which was tracked using radar for training purposes, remained visible on the radar screen even after the dive - it was just that the radar “guided” not the boat itself, but its “trail” on the surface! , both in the USSR and in the USA! They went further, equipping "cunning" radars with powerful computers and "cartographers"! Thus, with the help of a radar equipped with cool bells and whistles, you can determine the true place of the hull of the "diving" ship, by the "ionization" of the water, the presence of a powerful engine ... and thus guess what is in this place: NOC or "dummy"!
    The author guesses correctly that against the NOC it is possible to use anti-ship missiles, making a "hill" in front of the target! But why should the anti-ship missile warhead collapse when it gets into the water? Why does the Author rely only on a parachute? (From the author, a parachute is bad; because warheads are then easy to shoot down!) For a long time, for example, concrete-piercing ammunition has existed, which are capable, without collapsing, go deep, even into rocky ground to a decent depth! Also, in the USA they can drop, for example, torpedoes from Poseidons without parachutes ... with the help of the HAAWS "product"

    If you can torpedo; then the last stage of anti-ship missiles too ... supersonic type on the "last mile" of anti-ship missiles from the Club family!
    You can use a "doublet shot", that is, fire a missile with a sonar diving unit, which will "outline" the NOC's body with sonar and give instructions over the radio channel of a special warhead in a solid case .. In general, of course, it is not harmful to dream (!), But no matter how much you shout "sugar" will not become sweeter in your mouth! hi
    1. agond
      agond 8 May 2021 10: 52
      0
      A military semi-submersible ship is like a tightrope walker with a machine gun ...,
    2. Shopping Mall
      8 May 2021 11: 54
      -1
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      The author is clearly convinced of the "almost invulnerability" of diving thorns! ...


      Not convinced of invulnerability, but convinced of a significant increase in survivability.

      I know everything that you have written about non-acoustic detection methods, but this requires a systematic search by aircraft of an ASW in the specified area, how can this be done in the conditions of an NOC air defense or a semi-submersible ship?

      I am not saying that an NOC or a semi-submersible ship cannot be detected, I am arguing that it will be more difficult to target an RCC in the "last mile".

      A warhead anti-ship missile parachute is not required, but by excluding the possibility of accurate detection of the position of the hull - semi-submerged or submerged, electronic warfare means, decoys and protective curtains, as well as the inadmissibility of the possibility of PLO aircraft operation (using air defense missile systems), we will radically reduce the likelihood of damage in the final section.

      The logic is simple - if now it is constantly said that anti-ship missiles can be ineffective in conditions of electronic warfare and protective curtains, then how much more difficult will it be to look for a semi-submerged ship?

      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      If you can torpedo; then the last stage of anti-ship missiles too ... supersonic type on the "last mile" of anti-ship missiles from the Club family!


      There is one, about it at the end of the article - the range is small, parachute descent, ballistic trajectory.

      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      You can use a "doublet shot"; that is, fire a missile with a sonar diving unit, which will "outline" the NOC's hull with sonar and give instructions on the radio channel of a special warhead in a sturdy case


      Too many "nodes" need to be docked. In the conditions of electronic warfare and other things. The complexity of the attack will increase by an order of magnitude, or even two, which is required.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 8 May 2021 15: 16
        +1
        Thanks for answering! I have something to object to you ... but, unfortunately, now I can not do it due to lack of time! Excuse me ... I will answer, but it will happen a little later ... hi
      2. dauria
        dauria 8 May 2021 15: 17
        +2
        Not convinced of invulnerability, but convinced of a significant increase in survivability.


        RCC will make a hole above the waterline. May create a fire. But they knew how to deal with this since the times of the Russian-Japanese. The battleships received dozens of hits from 12-inch shells. And they sailed. But what will happen to the "hole" in a semi-submerged state. ? One hole at the level of the waterline was enough to turn the ship into a slow-moving target, struggling to stay afloat.
        And do not count on the stupidity of modern anti-ship missiles. The radar seeker is not the only one on the promising. At the final section, the video picture will also turn on, and even in the entire range from IR to UV. With Einstein's brains and the speed of locust reflexes. They will find an approximate area - here it is no longer necessary to hide, but to snap back and attack. Otherwise, they will be annoyed.
        1. Shopping Mall
          9 May 2021 12: 58
          -1
          Quote: dauria
          Not convinced of invulnerability, but convinced of a significant increase in survivability.


          RCC will make a hole above the waterline. May create a fire. But they knew how to deal with this since the times of the Russian-Japanese. The battleships received dozens of hits from 12-inch shells. And they sailed. But what will happen to the "hole" in a semi-submerged state. ? One hole at the level of the waterline was enough to turn the ship into a slow-moving target, struggling to stay afloat.
          And do not count on the stupidity of modern anti-ship missiles. The radar seeker is not the only one on the promising. At the final section, the video picture will also turn on, and even in the entire range from IR to UV. With Einstein's brains and the speed of locust reflexes. They will find an approximate area - here it is no longer necessary to hide, but to snap back and attack. Otherwise, they will be annoyed.


          But against the "video picture" you need a powerful laser, which was mentioned in the previous article. It is difficult to shoot down an anti-ship missile with a laser, but it is much easier to irreversibly blind the optical guidance channels. With a LO power of the order of 150-300-500 kW, it will take seconds (namely, the United States wants to reach this power), transferring the beam from anti-ship missiles to anti-ship missiles in a fraction of a second.

          Neither the NOC nor, especially the semi-submerged ship, hide, but reduce the probability of hitting by reducing the physical fields for the missile seeker, while there is active self-defense with all types of air defense systems, electronic warfare, decoys and protective curtains.
          1. dauria
            dauria 9 May 2021 22: 15
            +1
            at the same time, there is an active self-defense with all types of air defense systems, electronic warfare,

            And then you will glow like a Christmas tree. The Argentinean "Superettandar" from the ancient "Exocet" with an extremely small hill will not even have to do to find you in the area and let you aim. He will see you, but you will only see a rocket approaching. At least one, yes. And here you will regret that the hole is not in the superstructure, but tons of water per second are poured into the hole, taking all the systems out of work.
            Better to adapt your semi-submerged oil or LNG to haul under the ice of the Northern Sea Route. You don't need icebreakers, and the speed will be higher with the same power plant - there is no wave component of resistance. wink
            1. Shopping Mall
              10 May 2021 00: 02
              0
              Quote: dauria
              at the same time, there is an active self-defense with all types of air defense systems, electronic warfare,

              And then you will glow like a Christmas tree. The Argentinean "Superettandar" from the ancient "Exocet" with an extremely small hill will not even have to do to find you in the area and let you aim. He will see you, but you will only see a rocket approaching. At least one, yes. And here you will regret that the hole is not in the superstructure, but tons of water per second are poured into the hole, taking all the systems out of work.
              Better to adapt your semi-submerged oil or LNG to haul under the ice of the Northern Sea Route. You don't need icebreakers, and the speed will be higher with the same power plant - there is no wave component of resistance. wink


              You confuse "roughly know where" and "exactly get there". The ancient "Exocet" has a chance only if the NK is the same ancient, with the ancient air defense systems and electronic warfare.

              Etander at low altitude (20 meters) will notice the air defense system radar from 37 km, from the UAV AWACS much further. ASM "Exocet" at a height of 5 meters from about 27 km

              And even if the "Exocet" anti-ship missile system, in theory, falls into the superstructure above the water, and not into the underwater hull, since this anti-ship missile is not trained to "dive".

              But even this is unlikely, since there is a chance to see an inconspicuous superstructure of a semi-submersible NK in the conditions of setting up electronic warfare equipment, curtains, decoys, etc. RCC type "Exocet" does not have much.
              1. dauria
                dauria 10 May 2021 02: 15
                0
                because the chances of seeing an inconspicuous superstructure

                Stop you ... "inconspicuous". One 9cm locator canvas will be 3 meters. Fancy a ball fairing? Plus, you need to raise it by 4,15 for the sum of the roots of the heights. If 10m radar + 10m target
                - there will be only 26 km of radio horizon. Means it is necessary higher.
                So much for the unobtrusive watchtower.
                And it won't be an Exocet of forty years ago. By the time you build your ship, the rockets will be able to make small talk in Hebrew and Latin.
                Can't you yourself see that you have "successfully" combined the disadvantages of the submarine and the surface ship, and not the merits?
                1. Shopping Mall
                  10 May 2021 11: 33
                  0
                  Quote: dauria
                  because the chances of seeing an inconspicuous superstructure

                  Stop you ... "inconspicuous". One 9cm locator canvas will be 3 meters. Fancy a ball fairing? Plus, you need to raise it by 4,15 for the sum of the roots of the heights. If 10m radar + 10m target
                  - there will be only 26 km of radio horizon. Means it is necessary higher.


                  Why is a fairing ball? Three-quadrangular superstructure with flat AFAR panels, with optimal angles of inclination to reduce visibility. The height of the superstructure above the water is about 20 meters.

                  Quote: dauria
                  So much for the unobtrusive watchtower.


                  In any case, the RCS of a semi-submersible ship will be an order of magnitude or two less than that of any of the most inconspicuous NK of the classical design, since the latter has both a superstructure and a hull.

                  Quote: dauria
                  And it won't be an Exocet of forty years ago. By the time you build your ship, the rockets will be able to make small talk in Hebrew and Latin.


                  Then what are the chances of classic surface ships?

                  Quote: dauria
                  Can't you yourself see that you have "successfully" combined the disadvantages of the submarine and the surface ship, and not the merits?


                  Which ones? List everything so that I can answer reasonably?

                  Not only I am interested in this issue, if you have seen, then in a series of articles about this type of ships, concept developments are being carried out in different countries, of different sizes and purposes. And what is slow, so the Armed Forces, and especially the navy, are extremely conservative. Until "the roast cock bites." Now, if, in the event of a serious mess, it turns out that NKs of a classic design are knocked out by opponents from each other by aviation and anti-ship missiles, so that neither one nor the other surface fleet will have, and after that, the PLO aircraft with impunity clears the depths from the submarine, then you look and Air defense systems on submarines will appear, and new solutions in the field of surface fleet.
  13. Undecim
    Undecim 8 May 2021 11: 08
    +7
    We are talking about the so-called diving surface ships (NOC) and semi-submersible vessels.

    This is clearly not enough. But what about the torpedo threat?
    The ship must be not only diving, but also taking off (NVZNK). There was a threat in the form of anti-ship missiles - dived. The enemy used torpedoes - took off, missed the torpedoes and dived again.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 8 May 2021 11: 32
      +1
      Quote: Undecim
      The ship must be not only diving, but also taking off (NVZNK). There was a threat in the form of anti-ship missiles - dived. The enemy used torpedoes - took off, missed the torpedoes and dived again.

      And what? I like it! "Cool" picture! Where did you get it ? I wanted to offer "something" myself; but from the "suitable" came across only this ...

      It only remains to imagine that this platform can not only fly; but also to swim, and "half-submerge" ...!
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 8 May 2021 14: 21
        +2
        Think flat, comrades. Space has been forgotten. :))
  14. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 8 May 2021 12: 32
    +2
    In itself, such a fleet building is an extremely expensive business, because an order of magnitude greater reliability of structures will be required, probably strength, redesigning full or partial significant mass of portable weapons, several times greater technical equipment of the ship will be required, due to the reduction of the crew and extensive automation - this in turn will somewhat raise the request for the characteristics of the control system, that is, it will also have to be deeply redesigned or re-created.
    I am not in any way a specialist in the fleet, I just try to analyze all the critical moments ..
    Greater build density and dependence on automation, as far as I understand, can make such a ship less tolerant to the amount of non-critical damage.
    In the case of fully submerged ships, the means of detecting submarines will work as efficiently - most likely as with submarines of previous generations. So the invisibility of such ships will be quite relative.
    A likely response to the appearance of such ships will be the appearance of more massed anti-ship missiles with MIRVs of one design or another, the general meaning of which will be to inflict a guaranteed amount of damage that impedes the proper functioning of the ship on the border of 2 environments (you can draw an analogy with depth charges)

    In general, the idea is quite interesting, but rather it is narrowly niche - a potential raiding ship built according to such a scheme would be quite effective.
  15. Bez 310
    Bez 310 8 May 2021 15: 09
    -1
    Again "Visiting the Fairy Tale"?
  16. K-50
    K-50 8 May 2021 17: 13
    +3
    Complete nonsense with diving and semi-diving. Nothing but the rise in price and complication of technology does not carry.
  17. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 8 May 2021 18: 41
    +1
    "We are talking about the so-called diving surface ships (NOC) and semi-submersible vessels. The former have not received so far
    Diving NK is a submarine of the Second World War.
    Why should I degrade so much, referring to today? ...
    1. Shopping Mall
      9 May 2021 12: 54
      0
      Quote: Benzorez
      "We are talking about the so-called diving surface ships (NOC) and semi-submersible vessels. The former have not received so far
      Diving NK is a submarine of the Second World War.
      Why should I degrade so much, referring to today? ...


      No, during WWII these were just under-submarines, and the NOC should almost always be in a semi-submerged state, "diving" in the event of a massive anti-ship missile attack.
  18. garri-lin
    garri-lin 8 May 2021 19: 15
    +1
    And what about the seaworthiness of such ships? Constantly in the near-surface layer. The calmness of the depth will not be there. And you won't be able to cut the waves either. The contours are not the same. There should be problems with seaworthiness and the use of weapons in waves.
    1. Shopping Mall
      9 May 2021 12: 53
      0
      Quote: garri-lin
      And what about the seaworthiness of such ships? Constantly in the near-surface layer. The calmness of the depth will not be there. And you won't be able to cut the waves either. The contours are not the same. There should be problems with seaworthiness and the use of weapons in waves.


      The article presents the concepts of MIPT, they seem to have just counted the wave drag, and argue that the rolling resistance of semi-submerged vessels is even higher.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 9 May 2021 19: 44
        +1
        For ships of large displacement, this is possible and will be so. But for a patrolman / corvette / frigate up to 5 tons, I doubt it. It will be entirely in the upper, movable layer of water, and it should be swept away strongly enough.
        1. Shopping Mall
          9 May 2021 20: 22
          0
          Quote: garri-lin
          For ships of large displacement, this is possible and will be so. But for a patrolman / corvette / frigate up to 5 tons, I doubt it. It will be entirely in the upper, movable layer of water, and it should be swept away strongly enough.


          So I'm just talking about ships with a displacement of about 8-15 tons ... Something like the destroyer class.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 9 May 2021 20: 52
            +1
            So I misunderstood the entire article. Sori. Holidays are valid.
  19. Operator
    Operator 8 May 2021 19: 36
    -3
    An anti-ship missile with a 300-ktn warhead is absolutely on the drum, which floating craft to heat - surface or semi-submersible (the latter is even preferable for applying a water hammer).

    2-ktn MCSAPL with FMC is our everything.
  20. Aleksandr97
    Aleksandr97 8 May 2021 20: 28
    0
    Electromagnetic shields are more promising !!!! tongue
    Well, or for now, layered air defense for missiles that can be shot down and false targets + electronic warfare for hyper missiles that are not yet shot down ... by missiles, but when solving technical problems they will be shot down by lasers. All the "NEW" ideas have already been in the "Star Wars" ...
  21. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 9 May 2021 12: 59
    +1
    Semi-submerged ships with retractable telescopic radar masts.
    This, I think, will appear.
  22. foxhound
    foxhound 9 May 2021 16: 50
    0
    A subtle ship, that is. Turned on the radars - lost stealth. Turned off - went blind.
    A semi-submersible is almost as vulnerable as a normal one. In the brain of the anti-ship missile system there are all the silhouettes of the ships of a potential enemy, by the protruding superstructures it will determine where the "body" is and will flop about there. Even without a direct hit, an explosion of 200-300 kg of explosives under water will cause very serious damage. But there is also YABCh.
    A diving, and even able to dive in a short time, it seems to me, will be almost like a full-fledged submarine at the price and complexity. The effectiveness of the UAV radar will be much, much worse than shipborne ones, unless this UAV is the size of a house. And what kind of radars will be on the UAV? For example, the "Pyotr Veliky" radar equipment REB / EW includes 16 stations of three types.
  23. mmaxx
    mmaxx 9 May 2021 18: 05
    +1
    It seems to me that a semi-submerged ship is already a semi-sunken ship.
    A combination of the disadvantages of surface and submarine ships.
  24. fomin
    fomin 9 May 2021 18: 54
    0
    As in a fairy tale "gave birth to a tspritsa on the night of either a son or a daughter" the speed of movement of these semi-submarines will be like that of a pleasure boat, of course it can be increased in different ways, but then the ships will cost like a nuclear boat, and they will be vulnerable to torpedo attack of the same submarines, and from above they will be crushed by aircraft two environments - two problems and threats.
    1. Shopping Mall
      10 May 2021 00: 05
      0
      Quote: fomin
      As in the fairy tale "gave birth to a tspritsa on the night of either a son or a daughter" the speed of movement of these semi-submarines will be like that of a pleasure boat, of course it can be increased in different ways, but then the ships will cost like a nuclear boat,


      https://topwar.ru/171111-na-granice-dvuh-sred-nyrjajuschie-korabli-istorija-i-perspektivy.html

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


      Quote: fomin
      and they will be vulnerable to torpedo attacks from the same submarines, and from above they will be crushed by aircraft from two environments - two problems and threats.


      More about this in the next article.
  25. Tambov-there is god
    Tambov-there is god 17 May 2021 18: 27
    0
    The fact that a modern warship incapacitates (sinks) a rubber boat with hundreds of kilograms of explosives is a shame for modern shipbuilders.
  26. Glad
    Glad 22 May 2021 18: 39
    0
    I remember, in the days of foggy youth, I had to read an article in "Technology - Youth" about a contraption called a submarine plane ... It was interesting.
    About diving and other "amphibians". For civilian courts, perhaps. For warships ... Nuuu ... I don't know. The brain revolves: "If we submerge, then we will submerge. And here's how to float back." Okay ... This is the lyrics.
    By survivability... At first glance, everything is fine, everything is fine. Vitality has grown to sky-high heights. It seems to be ... And ... And if the accident is in a semi-submerged position? The valve is stuck there, or what? Sailor Pupkin didn’t close the hatch? Oh yes! It's all automatic. Okay. The sailor is great, but after the next storm, the geometry of the valves has changed, or what else to attack ...
    Further. Surface ship - it will remain afloat when hit by an Exocet or Harpoon anti-ship missile. Even the boat. At least for a while. The crew will have enough time to evacuate. There were precedents. And how will a "semi-drowned man" feel in an explosion on his body not 100 - 150, but 5 - 10 kg of explosive? How will it be with survivability? BB. Just a scrap if it enters the body. Without explosives, but at high speed. For NK these are seeds, but for "diving" how? Anyone have time to evacuate?
    By time... Will there be enough time from the moment a threat is detected to the moment the submerged position is accepted?
    Air defense... With this, NK is clear. Here is the case, here are the superstructures. Here on these gizmos are the means of detection, here are the means of air defense, here are the means of electronic warfare, etc. And at the "dive" like "He sank, and a couple of" spitzes "stick out of the water on which everything is stuck together: detection, air defense and electronic warfare. Will it work, if anything? The dimensions will be against. They will want to be small, small. How about their performance characteristics at the same time? Will they be able to ensure the density of fire, the range of destruction, the density of interference? in place of the 100-kg warhead, attach 20 kg, and fill the vacant space with electronics, which will provide reliable detuning from interference from electronic warfare equipment, which has greatly "dried out" on their "spitz".
    For RCC... Let's assume that the enemy is smart. Having learned that we were building "dives" the enemy took, and changed the usual warheads to cluster ones. The anti-ship missile system makes a slide over the intended location of the target, and then the cassette opens up and several dozen submunitions smoothly flies into the water on parachutes to shoot down which is simply not possible, both due to the smallness and due to their number ...
    And so on and so forth.
    But the idea is interesting. Promising. It makes sense to do research.