Military Review

Surface ships: anti-torpedo defense systems

36

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 (ASM). Torpedo armament poses no less, but in some ways a greater threat to NK. At the same time, it poses the maximum threat to diving surface ships and semi-submerged ships.


This threat must be combated, and there are many applicable and promising methods of protection against torpedo weapons.

False targets


As with anti-ship missiles, torpedoes can be distracted by decoys. False targets can be different - thrown with the help of special launchers and fired from torpedo tubes, drifting, self-propelled and towed.

One of the most advanced and multifunctional systems of this type is the ATDS (Advanced Torpedo Defense System) developed by Raphael, which includes a towed sonar station (GAS) for detecting torpedoes, ATC-1 / ATC-2 towed modules, throwable torpedo destroyers Torbuster, decoys Scutter, Subscut and Lescut.

Surface ships: anti-torpedo defense systems
Towed Trap ATC-1 (Acoustic Torpedo Countermeasures)


From left to right: Torbuster self-propelled destroyer, Scutter self-propelled simulator, Subscut and Lescut drifting jammers

In a number of articles published both on the Military Review and on other resources, it is said about the insufficient effectiveness of the decoys in service with the Naval fleet (Navy) RF. Obviously, decoy anti-torpedo targets are much more complex products than traps designed to distract RCC, which in the simplest version can be an inflatable corner reflector. In addition, when aiming torpedoes using telecontrol via fiber optic cable, its ability to recognize false targets will be much higher. However, this applies only to torpedoes launched from submarines - rocket-torpedoes cannot have such an opportunity.

Laser weapons


Seemingly laser weapon and anti-torpedo missions are not compatible? However, not all so simple. There is the so-called light-hydraulic effect of Prokhorov / Askaryan / Shipulo - the phenomenon of the appearance of a hydraulic shock pulse when a light beam of a quantum generator is absorbed inside a liquid.

In an experiment conducted by Prokhorov, Askaryan and Shipulo in 1963, water tinted with copper sulfate was irradiated with a powerful beam of a pulsed ruby ​​laser. Upon reaching a certain radiation intensity, the formation of bubbles began, and then the liquid boiled. If the beam was focused near the surface of a body immersed in water, explosive boiling took place and shock waves propagated, which led to damage to solid surfaces - up to the destruction of the cuvette and the ejection of liquid to a height of up to 1 meter.

The light-hydraulic effect can be used to generate sounds at a distance, away from the ship. Laser generation makes it possible to construct an effective broadband sound source with a frequency range of the emitted acoustic signal from hundreds of hertz to hundreds of megahertz.

How can this effect be used in the interests of the Navy?

Two possible directions of use can be assumed. The first is the creation of a false acoustic target away from the surface ship. Moreover, by moving the laser beam over the surface, such a "virtual" false target can be made movable.

The second direction is the use of laser radiation as one or more external sources of active illumination for hydroacoustic stations (GAS). In this case, both the efficiency of the GAS can be increased, and the unmasking of the NC can be reduced due to the removal of the radiation source away from the NC.


Diagram of field experiments on recording acoustic signals generated by laser radiation from the board of a research vessel and received by sensitive hydrophones

The use of the light-hydraulic effect on submarines (submarines) may be impossible or very difficult, since the boiling of water will begin immediately at the point of exit of the beam. However, the options for implementing the output of the laser beam through a mobile autonomous device connected to the submarine with an electric and fiber-optic cable can potentially be considered (the fiber will be used to transmit laser radiation).

On diving surface ships or submerged ships, laser radiation can be output through optical fiber to the top of the superstructure, located above the water, just like on nuclear submarines Virginia it is planned to output laser radiation through the periscope to destroy air targets from the periscope depth.

Anti-torpedoes


A promising and effective means of countering a torpedo attack are anti-torpedoes (anti-torpedoes). In part, these include the previously mentioned Torbuster self-propelled simulator-destroyer from the Raphael company ATDS PTZ.

In Russia, the PAKET-E / NK complex has been created and is being installed on new surface ships. The PAKET-E / NK complex includes a specialized GAS, an automated control system, launchers and small-sized 324 mm torpedoes in anti-submarine (MTT) and anti-torpedo (AT) versions, placed in transport and launch containers (TPK).


Operation of the "Packet-E / NK" complex and a small-sized anti-torpedo

The range of AT counter-torpedoes is 100-800 meters, the immersion depth is up to 800 meters, the speed is up to 25 meters per second (50 knots), the warhead weight is 80 kilograms. The launcher of the PACKET-E / NK complex can be either fixed or rotary, in two-, four- and eight-container versions.

Rocket Launchers


There is and is still used such anti-torpedo / anti-submarine weapons as rocket launchers. Large surface ships of the Russian fleet are equipped with the UDAV-1M anti-torpedo ship defense rocket system (RKPTZ), designed to defeat or deflect torpedoes attacking the ship. The complex can also be used to destroy submarines, submarine sabotage forces and assets.


Launcher RKPTZ "UDAV-1M"

It can be assumed that rocket launchers can be effective as a means for deploying (throwing) self-propelled imitators-destroyers, self-propelled simulators, drifting jammers or anti-torpedoes. At the same time, their effectiveness as a means of destroying modern torpedoes with unguided ammunition can be questioned (high ammunition consumption with a low probability of defeat).

Short-range anti-torpedo defense systems


For the destruction of anti-ship missiles at short range, the NK uses anti-aircraft artillery systems (ZAK), which use automatic rapid-fire cannons with a caliber of 20-45 mm. At the moment, their anti-missile effectiveness is often questioned, in connection with which there is a tendency to abandon the ZAK in favor of short-range anti-aircraft missile systems (SAM), such as the American RIM-116.

At the same time, on the basis of small-caliber automatic rapid-fire cannons, effective means of short-range anti-torpedo defense (AT) can potentially be implemented. The key element of such a complex will be promising small-caliber projectiles with a cavitating tip, which can effectively overcome the air / water cut and travel a significant distance under water without losing kinetic energy and significant deviation of the trajectory of movement.


Cavitating munitions can cross the air / water border without ricochet and significant deviation from the trajectory

Currently, the Norwegian company DSG Technology occupies a leading position in this area. DSG Technology specialists have created a range of 5,56 to 40 mm ammunition. In the context of solving the problems of anti-torpedo defense, ammunition with a caliber of 30 mm is of greatest interest, which, according to experts, can ensure the defeat of torpedoes at a distance of up to 200-250 meters.


DSG Technology Cavitating Ammunition Nomenclature


Characteristics of cavitating ammunition caliber 20-30 mm by DSG Technology

For submarines, diving surface ships and semi-submersible vessels, submarine ZAK can potentially be developed by analogy with underwater submachine guns for combat swimmers (semi-submersible ships can also accommodate ordinary lightweight ZAK, on ​​a wheelhouse protruding above the water).

The operation of underwater ZAK can potentially "clog" the noise generated by the GAS, making it difficult to target both the ZAK themselves and the launched anti-torpedoes. However, it is possible that in the process of testing it is possible to remove the parameters of the noise produced by the underwater ZAK in order to filter them out by the GAS equipment. In addition, the work of submarine ZAK can be carried out at short intervals, in a state of "extreme necessity", when the enemy's torpedoes have already passed other lines of anti-torpedo defense.

To increase the efficiency of detecting and destroying enemy torpedoes at short range, promising laser radars - lidars - can be considered.

Lidar


The lidar is based on the reflection of optical radiation from an opaque body. Lidars can form a two- or three-dimensional picture of the surrounding space, analyze the parameters of a transparent medium through which optical radiation passes, and determine the distance and speed of objects.


The scheme of the lidar

The lidar sweep can be formed both mechanically - by rotating the source of optical radiation, the output of fiber optics or mirrors, and using a phased antenna array. Radiation in the green or blue-green region of the spectrum has the best permeability to water. Currently, the leading position is held by laser radiation with a length of 532 nm, which can be generated with a sufficiently high efficiency by diode-pumped solid-state lasers.


Carlson Merlin shipborne lidar for marine imaging with a range of up to 250 meters

The leader in lidar-based underwater vision systems is Kaman, which has been developing such systems since 1989. If initially the range of lidars was limited to a few tens of meters, now it is already hundreds of meters. Kaman also proposed using lidars to control torpedoes via an optical channel.

Presumably, part of Kaman's work on naval issues may be classified, in connection with which there may already be quite effective lidars in the arsenal of a potential enemy.

China is currently developing a space system designed to detect and recognize enemy submarines from space using lidar. Presumably, such developments are underway in Russia. US NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) are funding projects aimed at solving the problem of detecting submarines at a depth of 180 meters below the surface of the water.


Improving lidars will allow them to play an important role in solving anti-submarine and anti-torpedo missions

It can be assumed that the integration of promising lidars into anti-torpedo defenses will significantly increase the likelihood of detecting enemy torpedoes and hitting them with anti-torpedo weapons.

The use of lidars will make it possible to implement anti-aircraft defense systems for short-range defense not only on the basis of cavitating ammunition, but also on the basis of small-sized high-precision anti-torpedoes. In some ways, this will be the equivalent of active protection complexes (KAZ) used on tanks.

Anti-torpedo complexes of active protection


Detection of enemy torpedoes with the help of a lidar will ensure the guidance of small-sized anti-torpedoes at them with high accuracy. A promising anti-torpedo KAZ will include a launcher, lidar and small-sized anti-torpedoes, controlled via fiber optic cable.


Images of the anti-missile aviation unit from the Northrop Grumman patent - the anti-torpedo KAZ can be implemented in approximately the same format

The anti-torpedo KAZ can presumably have a range of up to 500 meters. The range of lidars required for accurate targeting of anti-torpedoes currently reaches about 200-300 meters. The laser beam is able to cover a greater distance, but the reflected signal is scattered much more. By placing the receiver in the homing head (GOS) of the anti-torpedo, an algorithm can be implemented when the anti-torpedo is launched towards the enemy torpedo according to the primary data received from the GAS, and as the anti-torpedo approaches the enemy torpedo, the reflected laser radiation of the lidar installed on the carrier will be to be caught by the anti-torpedo seeker and processed by the KAZ equipment in order to correct the anti-torpedo trajectory.

Thus, the combined use of anti-torpedoes (up to 1000-2000 meters), anti-torpedo KAZ (up to 400-500 meters) and anti-torpedo defense ZAK (up to 200-250 meters) will ensure the consistent defeat of enemy torpedoes at a distance of several tens of meters to several kilometers. with overlapping of affected areas by different complexes.

ANPA


Autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles (AUVs) can play an important role in anti-torpedo defense. Depending on the tasks being solved, the AUV can be completely autonomous or be supplied with power and controlled from the carrier - a surface ship, a surface diving ship, a semi-submerged ship or a submarine (led by AUV).

AUVs can perform the function of an advanced hydroacoustic patrol, act as a carrier of lidar and anti-torpedoes (to expand the zone of destruction of enemy torpedoes), and solve mine-action missions. Small-sized slave AUVs can be created, the task of which will be to accompany the carrier and protect it from enemy torpedoes by approaching and self-detonating at the meeting point.


AUV "Vityaz" and "Amulet-2" SKB "Rubin"

conclusions


A significant number of different anti-torpedo defense systems exist and are being developed, potentially capable of making it as difficult as possible to defeat surface ships, surface diving ships, semi-submerged ships and submarines from being hit by torpedo weapons.

Protection of ships from torpedo weapons is especially important for surface diving ships and semi-submerged ships, the attack of which by anti-ship missiles is difficult, and against which missile-torpedoes and torpedoes launched from submarines will be mainly used.

In general, taking into account the significant progress in the development of space and aviation reconnaissance assets, as well as reconnaissance unmanned surface ships and autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles, the likelihood of surface ships and submarines to be detected and attacked by superior enemy forces significantly increases.

Based on this, active defense means that can effectively resist massive attacks with anti-ship missiles and torpedo weapons come to the fore in the development of the Navy..
Author:
Photos used:
integral-russia.ru, bastion-karpenko.ru
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Thrifty
    Thrifty 17 May 2021 04: 49
    +1
    Andrei hi and what semi-submerged ships are currently in service with anyone? Your articles are informative, it is clear that you understand the technique, but you submit the information in a concise manner, without reviewing the means of destruction - counteraction of anti-torpedo systems - complexes! hi
    1. Shopping Mall
      17 May 2021 10: 26
      +3
      Quote: Thrifty
      Andrei hi and what semi-submerged ships are currently in service with anyone?


      So far, only projects. The most ambitious are in the PRC. The fleet is very conservative - it takes too long to build everything, it is too expensive, the price of an error is too high, so new concepts take a long time and hard to make their way. Usually, unfortunately, the catalyst for the emergence of new technology and concepts is war ...

      Quote: Thrifty
      Your articles are informative, it is clear that you understand the technique, but you submit information in a concise manner, without reviewing means of destruction - countering anti-torpedo systems - complexes! hi


      Let's get to the means of destruction, everything does not work out at once hi
      1. Anachoret
        Anachoret 17 May 2021 11: 06
        +2
        The current state of the Russian Navy is such that it is necessary to bring the already developed pennants to the required number in the shortest possible time and, if possible, to reduce this "confusion" without any intelligible tasks that the military shipbuilding suffers from. It turns out, in fact, the funds are actively spent, but clearly not in the interests of the state's defense capability.
        And submersible and semi-submersible projects are a distant and not entirely justified prospect, like the Mercury corvettes.
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 17 May 2021 15: 48
          +1
          It turns out, in fact, the funds are being actively spent, but clearly not in the interests of the state's defense capability. They are spent as needed, but within the means - the Russian fleet in the distant ocean zones will not fight tomorrow or the day after tomorrow or in the most distant future; therefore, seismic funds go to ships up to the frigate corvette and landing ships within the middle zone, large mass ships will be simple a sinker for the country's budget - being constantly at the berths.
          1. Anachoret
            Anachoret 17 May 2021 16: 55
            +2
            If you delve a little into the custom-made method of production, the cost of the fleet is not that beyond its means, but not according to its intended purpose.
            Construction is carried out with the participation of credit institutions and many shipyards tied to the defense order, for some reason, work with planned losses, which are periodically written off. And then they talk about why the technical modernization of some shipyards somewhere in the Far East is not being carried out, which could fulfill orders with lower budgets. But they are pumped up with money by the St. Petersburg shipyard, for example.
            When a corvette is under construction for 7-8 years or a frigate, one can talk a lot about its future combat power and the feasibility of investing "according to opportunities." And, in the meantime, the bankers will pinch off from 30 to 50% of its cost in favor of the "starving" children of officials and the bankers themselves precisely because of such long production times.
            And games in projects such as Corvette Mercury, 22160, and you can cite a few more examples - this, pure water, sabotage the country's defense.
            I did not write about increasing construction budgets, but about conducting an audit of order fulfillment. Although, if everyone who is needed is in the share - everyone is happy with everything. You can even build submarines with a project deadline of 30 years))
      2. Machito
        Machito 18 May 2021 00: 36
        0
        I read it with pleasure.
        I love science fiction.
        You ran at a gallop across Europe, without details. Well, yes, it's Klimov and Timokhin who write footcloth articles, you get tired of reading. And you have one or two and you're done. Please write in more detail and with links.
        The innovative topics that you bring up are very interesting and promising. hi
  2. Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A 17 May 2021 04: 57
    +1
    Yes, AUVs can greatly facilitate the life of ships, if it turns out to constantly accompany a group with a 20-node passage along the perimeter and at the same time control the situation.
  3. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 17 May 2021 05: 00
    -1
    And all these tricks are completely unnecessary for an ekranoplan, for example, an anti-submarine one.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 17 May 2021 11: 18
      +3
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      And all these tricks are completely unnecessary for an ekranoplan, for example, an anti-submarine one.

      Of course not needed - the good old "Phoenix" is enough for him. smile
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 17 May 2021 11: 30
        -3
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Of course not needed - the good old "Phoenix" is enough for him

        Which chokes on interference at times. Or fired back by cannons. Or are you talking about some kind of torpedo?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 17 May 2021 12: 21
          +3
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Which chokes on interference at times.

          If we can protect a target the size of an RTO with interference, then why do we need an ekranoplan?
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          Or fired back by cannons.

          What cannons? Do you have a cannon that can disintegrate a half-ton rocket diving at a target at 5M - and at the same time getting on an ekranoplan? wink
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 17 May 2021 17: 08
            +1
            Quote: Alexey RA
            If we can protect a target the size of an RTO with interference, then why do we need an ekranoplan?
            At least MRK, at least an PLO corvette can change the patrol area at a speed of 450-500 km / h, thereby evading a strike, including aviation and certainly from helicopters? And yes, but what about torpedoes? Can even an MRK or a small PLO ship evade them?

            Quote: Alexey RA
            What cannons? Do you have a cannon that can disintegrate a half-ton rocket diving at a target at 5M - and at the same time getting on an ekranoplan?
            So you write as if it was half a ton of cast steel, and not 60 kg of warhead in a four-meter duralumin, unprotected shell, which, moreover, cannot be maneuvered? And why not get on the "Lun" ES that the AK-630 (3800 kg), that the AK-630M-2 (3800 kg), not to mention the AK-306 (1100 kg), if there are real 8 * 23 mm barrels not enough.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 17 May 2021 17: 43
              +1
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              And why not get on the "Lun" ES that the AK-630 (3800 kg), that the AK-630M-2 (3800 kg), not to mention the AK-306 (1100 kg), if there are real 8 * 23 mm barrels not enough.

              As far as I understand, the installation will levitate in the ekranoplan without the impact of recoil on its structure. And SUAO is not required for it either. smile
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              At least MRK, at least an PLO corvette can change the patrol area at a speed of 450-500 km / h, thereby evading a strike, including aviation and certainly from helicopters?

              Is the ekranoplan capable of patrolling for a time comparable to the patrol time of an RTO or an PLO corvette?
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 17 May 2021 17: 58
                +1
                Quote: Alexey RA
                As far as I understand, the installation will levitate in the ekranoplan without the impact of recoil on its structure. And SUAO is not required for it either.
                Well, after all, neither the MiG-27 on the GSh-6-30A, nor the A-10 on the GAU-8 / A complained, so why would a 300-ton EP from this caliber die? And what about the SUAO, the UKU-9K-502-II which the Lun was armed with allowed firing in automatic mode with target designation from the Krypton sight radar, at least on the Il-76M / MD and Tu-95MS.

                Quote: Alexey RA
                And the ekranoplan is capable of patrolling for a time comparable to the patrol time of an MRK or an PLO corvette
                5 days of autonomy with a range of 2000 km at max speed and 3100 at cruising say YES!
  4. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 17 May 2021 07: 38
    +3
    , Ndaaaa ...! Andrey has set a "task"! Used in the article "material" from the Internet, which I also selected, but with a slightly different purpose ...! In particular, the use (prospects of using ...) laser systems for detecting submarines under water, the use of lasers for targeting torpedoes and gravitational ammunition, for communication ... Now, if you "oppose" Andrei, you need to rethink the available information! recourse
    1. jonht
      jonht 17 May 2021 09: 46
      +2
      Hello, it will be very interesting to read and find out your vision of the situation.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 17 May 2021 15: 41
        +2
        The situation is not easy! At the present time, I only have enough time during the day to sit down at my computer in snatches, read the text of the article fluently and write a comment in the "light genre"! To write a "serious" comment to match Mitrofanov's wonderful article, much more time is needed! (It is necessary to re-read at least briefly the articles on the necessary topic to "refresh" the memory, choose the "theses" (the necessary fragments), build them into a single concept expressing my opinion ...) Now is the evening and there is an opportunity to relax ... but soon the night is ... soon I have a "hang up", for tomorrow to get up early ... I still have a "favor" to Mitrofanov ... a comment on his response to my "notes" to the previous article ... I have not had time yet! Considering that Andrei has repeatedly written on similar topics, there is hope next time to "attach" to his article and today's failed comment ... Something like that! hi
  5. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 17 May 2021 11: 20
    +1
    Isn't it easier to build ships with good armor below the waterline? At the same time, stability will improve.
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 17 May 2021 11: 35
      +3
      Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
      Isn't it easier to build ships with good armor below the waterline? At the same time, stability will improve.

      What's the point? The cost will increase, but against a torpedo it will still not save from 250-750 GK. centuries, even the protection of battleships from torpedoes did not save ...
      1. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 17 May 2021 11: 40
        0
        Quote: Doccor18
        What's the point? The cost will increase, but against a torpedo it will still not save from 250-750 GK. centuries, even the protection of battleships from torpedoes did not save ...

        Now the booking has advanced much further, look at the tank armor, ships do not have the same weight limit as tanks. More precisely, there is, but not so critical. Now there is composite armor, uranium, etc.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 17 May 2021 11: 49
          +2
          Quote: Lt. Air Force stock
          Now the booking has advanced much further ... Now there is composite armor, uranium, etc.
          I agree with you in everything. The armored ships of the Navy will be much more effective during the war than their aluminum-composite brothers. However, booking will drag the displacement along with it and affect the cost. And this is on condition that they are already "as if made of gold" ...
    2. jonht
      jonht 17 May 2021 22: 55
      0
      Everything is much simpler and thought out for a long time, although it is also not 100% protection, double sides and bottom with a reinforced longitudinal-transverse set of stringers and frames. With the placement of fuel, drinking water and other secondary things in this space.
  6. Xlor
    Xlor 17 May 2021 11: 33
    -1
    Hmm, for some reason I always believed that a torpedo against surface ships is an outdated weapon. Something like a bow and arrow or a flintlock ...
    1. Shopping Mall
      17 May 2021 12: 37
      +5
      Quote: Xlor
      Hmm, for some reason I always believed that a torpedo against surface ships is an outdated weapon. Something like a bow and arrow or a flintlock ...


      On the contrary, a torpedo for a ship is much more dangerous than an anti-ship missile. Where a dozen anti-ship missiles are required, one or two torpedoes may be enough.

      The advantage of the anti-ship missiles is that they can be "poured" a lot by aviation.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 17 May 2021 15: 52
        -1
        Hypersonic anti-ship missiles are much more dangerous than conventional anti-ship missiles, and how anti-ship MRBMs appear, it seems like in China something similar has been done, all ships will turn out to be easy targets and no missile defense system will save them from being hit by the platform crisis the shield has long lost to the sword.
      2. demiurg
        demiurg 17 May 2021 16: 55
        +2
        Simple task. Reconnaissance detected the target 500 km from the airfield / port.

        Consider a spherical situation in a vacuum. Both aviation and submarines are ready to take off, waiting for signals. The air regiment can be in the anti-ship missile launch zone in five hours. And simply by the number of anti-ship missiles to crush the air defense. And after launch, regardless of the result, dump without loss.
        If the submarine does not want to thunder across the ocean, it will be in the torpedo launch zone in 30-40 hours at best. If the target detects the launch of a torpedo, then there is a considerable chance that the submarine cannot be knocked down.
        1. Baron pardus
          Baron pardus 17 May 2021 17: 58
          +1
          One problem with your plan. Modern CDs do not need to approach the shores of "countries with an insufficient amount of democracy and LGBT rights" for 500 km. Block 3 tomahawks safely fly at 1200 + KM.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 17 May 2021 23: 07
            +1
            The Tomahawks have a subsonic speed, even with a ZUSHka, you can shoot down with a target designation of the radar on which they will glow over the smooth surface of the sea surface.
      3. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter 17 May 2021 17: 14
        +2
        "On the contrary, a torpedo for a ship is much more dangerous than an anti-ship missile system. Where a dozen anti-ship missiles are required, one or two torpedoes may be enough."
        Goat is understandable. Torpedo - hits below the waterline. Accordingly, the sadness happens to be very great. This is if you get escho into the steamer.
        This is if your submarine is not detected when entering the position.
        Well, the cherry on the cake! If you manage to get away from the surface ships after launching the torpedoes.
        Which will fiercely iron you with depth charges and other "heating". hi
  7. S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 17 May 2021 11: 35
    +1
    Detection and destruction of their carriers at long ranges seems to be a more effective way of dealing with torpedoes. The main problem in the Russian Navy is the lack of appropriate submarines.
  8. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 17 May 2021 17: 03
    +2
    I can't understand ... What kind of semi / submersible / diving ships is there a sluggish conversation about?
    Where did you see them? What are their names?
    In the fleets of famous countries. In addition to Brazil, or wherever there is else, they will carry the drug somewhere ..
  9. Baron pardus
    Baron pardus 17 May 2021 17: 54
    +3
    It seems to me that the author is not entirely right in understating the capabilities of RBU against torpedoes. The RBU salvo covers a fairly large area; a direct hit on the torpedo is not needed. A close explosion of even one 114kg missile is sufficient to break through the torpedo body and damage control and guidance systems. The torpedo itself is not an anti-ship missile flying at 900 km / h +. Both the time and the system to fire a salvo more than in the case of an anti-ship missile strike, of course, with the timely detection of a torpedo. Moreover, torpedoes do not reach the ship at a depth of 500m. And bombs from RBU sink deeply into the water, there is no need to waste time. And a depth charge when bursting creates a sickly hydrostatic shock wave, which breaks through not like the torpedo body - the submarine's hull, with a sufficiently close gap. In the Soviet Navy, they practiced the destruction of an enemy torpedo with a RBU salvo. A cousin served in the Navy, he said that knowing the course of the torpedo (to your ship), its speed and location (which is calculated by the acoustician), it is not difficult to guess where the torpedo will find itself in that period of time necessary for a salvo from RBU to arrive at the same point. But he served in the late 70s, in the Baltic.

    By the way, at one time I read in the magazine "Foreign Military Review", in the 80s about the project of intercepting anti-ship missiles with unguided rockets of 4.5-5 inches. The project was British, the very idea was to reduce the cost of missile defense as much as possible. And that even a salvo of such NURSs is much cheaper than one SAM. The idea itself was based on the fact that a warhead of 20 kg of explosives + a rod fragmentation warhead does not need to hit the anti-ship missile system, or even fly a foot away from it. The article said that a salvo of 4-6 such NURSs, with timely detection of anti-ship missiles, would create an obstacle on the anti-ship missile trajectory of a blast wave and fragments, through which not a single anti-ship missile would fly. It was discussed that such a PU would be cheaper than the Falanx volcano cannon. Two options were discussed, a radar or laser fuse on the NURS itself, or a remote fuse where the distance is programmed when the NURS is launched directly.

    As for the semi-submerged ships, this is just nonsense. Neither fish nor fowl. Neither a submarine nor a surface ship are vulnerable to both anti-submarine weapons and anti-ship weapons. On sonars, such a miracle Yudo will appear like a Christmas tree. Moreover. Such ideas, despite all their coolness in Japanese anime, are extremely vulnerable ... A close explosion of an aerial bomb will affect such a ship as a depth charge, (since most of the hull is under water, and will receive a much greater hydrostatic shock, and the buoyancy of such ships, unlike surface ships, no, since most of them are already under water.This is your "semi-submerged" ship, nothing more than an extremely noisy submarine that cannot dive deep ... And it cannot operate in shallow water either.

    This nonsense, diving missile boat has already passed under Khrushchev. They say that we will quickly swim up to the aircraft carrier like a missile boat, we will fire a salvo, we will dive near and sail away like a submarine ... The Americans even designed a diving fighter by EMNIP ... Science and Life, or in Youth Technology. There was a project of a Japanese ship, which looked like a nuclear submarine in which the wheelhouse was like a capsule on a huge fin, and there was only a wheelhouse above the water. All the shortcomings of this miracle of Yuda were discussed there ... Unfortunately, during my move to the USA, I had to part with my huge collection of scientific and pop magazines.

    There is no need to reinvent the wheel. All these projects were done in the 50s-80s, and came to the conclusion that they combine more disadvantages than advantages.
    1. Shopping Mall
      17 May 2021 18: 57
      +1
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      There is no need to reinvent the wheel. All these projects were done in the 50s-80s, and came to the conclusion that they combine more disadvantages than advantages.


      The previous article talks about modern projects, Russian and Chinese.
      1. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus 17 May 2021 19: 19
        0
        There is nothing new in these projects. They even look like that Japanese project from the 70s. These are still super noisy submarines that are not capable of deep diving and have an insignificant buoyancy margin compared to surface ships.
        1. Shopping Mall
          18 May 2021 18: 01
          0
          Quote: Baron Pardus
          They even look like that Japanese project from the 70s.


          What kind of project?

          Quote: Baron Pardus
          They are still super noisy PLs.


          Why should they be "super noisy"? More noisy than a regular surface ship or submarine at shallow water? Those same Virginias are optimized for action in shallow water.

          Quote: Baron Pardus
          who are not able to dive deeply


          A diving ship does not need this, for it "diving" is just a way to reduce the likelihood of an anti-ship missile hitting it. A semi-submersible vessel does not sink at all.

          Quote: Baron Pardus
          have an insignificant buoyancy margin in comparison with surface ships.


          How to design. They will have a variable buoyancy reserve, and due to this, they will be able to compensate for the roll, possibly also pitching.

          The buoyancy margin for surface ships: for tankers 10-25%, for dry cargo ships 30-50%, for icebreakers 80-90%, and for passenger ships 80-100% (flot.com).

          The buoyancy reserve of Project 941 SSBNs is more than 40%. And we do not need to dive to 400-500 meters - a maximum of 50, or even less.

          Proceeding from this, a semi-submersible ship can have a buoyancy margin at the "classic" level, and a diving one at the level of 60-70% of the parameters of a surface ship.

          Would you say that water is "ballast"? In part, yes, but on battleships it was used as an element of armor protection. What prevents the use of ballast tanks as "water armor" in an NOC or semi-submersible project.

          For an emergency ascent, in case of severe damage, all (or part) of the ballast tanks are purged, and the NOC / semi-submersible vessel will be almost with the same buoyancy as the NK. Moreover, ascend from 10-15 meters.
  10. xASPIDx
    xASPIDx 21 July 2021 15: 34
    0
    I'm wondering how the torpedo is protected from the effects of the amy? Can anyone enlighten?