Military Review

There is no more secrecy: submarines of the usual kind are doomed

448
There is no more secrecy: submarines of the usual kind are doomed
The submarine, which found itself in the zone of operation of the Western anti-submarine forces, is almost guaranteed to be destroyed. Source: Raytheon


The main tactical property of submarines is stealth. However, in modern conditions, this can be provided for submarines only through the interaction and support of other forces (including ships and aviation). Independently submarines against a deployed modern anti-submarine warfare system are doomed.

There is a harmful superstition that allegedly submarines can become the backbone of the Navy, the most important means of warfare, and all other forces are purely auxiliary. The most extremist point of view says that it is enough to have a large submarine fleet and some coastal defense forces, consisting of corvettes and minesweepers, and supposedly this is enough for us.

De facto, it is this extremist theory that is being embodied in the real (actually implemented) plans of the Navy.

And, unfortunately, politicians and decision-makers, by the time they get "into power", already have a set of beliefs formed in our country largely by the unbridled PR of the underwater fleet.

Boats, alas, are not just ineffective. In modern conditions, they are practically helpless without strong surface forces and aviation. Moreover, they, apparently, will have to change a lot. Just so as not to disappear. To understand this, let's take a look at the evolution of anti-submarine warfare systems in the past years.

But first, it is worth remembering the time when submarines could really become the decisive means of victory in the war.

When submarines almost won the war: conclusions and consequences for the USSR Navy


The U-boats came close to being the decisive instrument of victory only once.

Such an episode was really in stories... In 1917, when the actions of German submarines on communications put England on the brink of starvation and military defeat. However, the “peak moment” of such a threat was localized, later overcome, and not so much by technical as by organizational measures (primarily by the introduction of a convoy system).

However, these temporary and partial successes of the German submarines were extolled by the so-called "young school" of the RKKF in the early 30s. (which was the reason for the massive construction of submarines), and without an objective consideration of the capabilities of anti-submarine forces (in fact, the times were such that it was simply dangerous to object, the "old school" of the RKKF was liquidated, including physically).

The next entry into the subject of mass construction of submarines was after the Great Patriotic War. But then it was part of a large shipbuilding program (including surface), the development and presence of a powerful naval aviation.

The meaning of the massive construction of submarines then was: yes, they could not interrupt the Atlantic communications, but to ensure the defeat of the very first (and critical for the United States and NATO) military convoys - quite. That is, our 613 and 611 projects were a kind of "anvil" for the "tank hammer" of the USSR. Given the huge lag at that moment in strategic weapons (and especially delivery vehicles), the decision was quite logical. At the same time, it must be emphasized that then there was no significant bias towards the construction of submarines (that is, what they received today) against the background of the general military budget (and the costs of the Navy in it).

In principle, the decisions on the development of the Navy, made by the highest military-political leadership of the USSR in 1955 in the Crimea, were generally logical (the possibility of building several light aircraft carriers was still being considered).

But then "the party policy began to exert a direct influence on the range of the hydroacoustic means."

The ideological cliché "aircraft carrier is a weapon of aggression" for many years blocked the creation of a balanced fleet in our country.

More details about this in the article by M. Klimov "Once again about the myths of post-war shipbuilding".

The same ideological clichés about the allegedly "absolute secrecy" of the PL, about "black holes", etc. still influence and determine our military-technical policy.

The already cited phrase (from an article by A.M. Vasiliev, Head of the Advanced Design Department of the Central Research Institute of Krylov), Deputy Chief of the USSR Navy, Admiral Novoselov, is worthy of repeated repetition:

... At the meeting, he did not give the floor to the head of the institute, who was eager to tell about experiments to detect the surfaced trace of a submarine using a radar ... Much later, at the end of 1989, he asked him why he dismissed this question. To this Fyodor Ivanovich replied: "I know about this effect, it is impossible to protect oneself from such detection, so why upset our submariners"?

And today the position of the “underwater lobby” resembles “an ostrich sticking its head in the sand” and does not want to see the capabilities of modern anti-submarine weapons (with simply colossal material costs for our submarine, moreover, at the expense of “crushing” other and really critical defense issues). Opportunities that de facto have already called into question submarines in their traditional appearance and models of use.

Acoustics: from noise direction finding to low-frequency illumination


Ships could detect submarines using the first sonars (with an operating frequency of tens of kHz) even before World War II. But this required finding the anti-submarine ship very close to the boat.

A certain breakthrough in the late 50s - early 60s was the "low-frequency sonars" with an operating frequency of the order of several kHz, the detection range of which, in favorable hydrological conditions, could reach several tens of kilometers.

In the case of nuclear submarines, secretly leaving their bases and moving on unpredictable courses to the combat service area, which also evade contact with surface ships, this was ineffective.

But in this case, passive noise direction finding in a low frequency range (up to infrasound) became a breakthrough - acoustic waves from a noisy submarine diverged over huge distances, especially when it turned out to be near the axis of the underwater sound channel.

The record range of detecting a nuclear submarine from its own noise by a bottom hydrophone exceeds 6000 kilometers. But an important point - here we are talking about our own unmasking acoustic signs of the PL-target, they were detected and passively.

For many years, the US Navy's anti-submarine warfare system was based on the SOSUS (SOund SUrveillance System).


Approximate coverage of the SOSUS system based on open data in the Western press. Points - underwater stations, a zone in a horizontal strip - coverage of base patrol aircraft with Orion aircraft, a zone in a vertical strip - theoretical limits of the detection range of a submarine system

I must say that the USSR Navy slightly "played along" with the Americans, without wanting to - not knowing about the capabilities of their detection systems, the command set the submarines leaving for combat service in the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean too high speeds during the transition, which, accordingly, generated very high level of discrete components of underwater noise (DS USS) of our submarines.

As a result, base patrol aircraft (BPA) were sent to the area where our submarine (tracked by SOSUS) was located, which clarified the contact or only then transferred the contact either to the American submarine or to the surface forces. In the waters adjacent to the USSR, not covered by the SOSUS detection zone, NATO and Japanese submarines (including the US Navy submarines) operated. And this is not episodic (as in the Soviet Navy). It was precisely a permanent system.

However, sometimes the surface forces worked themselves.

Below is an example from the combat service of the SSBN K-258 in the Pacific Ocean in 1985 - it can be seen that the American surface combat groups (NBG, translation of the American term Surface Action Group - SAG) went exactly to the "undetectable" boat and gave it a full heat ... Fragment:

Further easier ... Raised on a tip from the SOSUS BPA ZP USA (base patrol aircraft of the west coast of the USA) takes us for F ...?!
And we find out THIS at the most inopportune moment, when our "Yalda" (the head part of the lifting-mast device) of the ROS "Saiga" at KU = 40 deg. to the starting position ... We dive ... YALDA ... TATTED ... How the cover of the mine was closed ... even the mechanics did not understand !!!

Well, okay ... It was not so, on the second day we break away from the foe, diving under one transport, and then changing it to another oncoming one, paddling in the opposite direction.

We sighed deeply with cutoff air ... And we decided to float up, fill the VD air through PVP (air intake under water), and at the same time look around ... at the periscope, ... how did the assistant, my former one, go from the combat to the navigator's intercom same navigator cap. 3rd rank Alexander Sholokhov, asks a backfill question: "... Navigator, is it far from the coast?" ... I, without hesitation: "Miles 400 to Hawaii, well, 600 miles to the US ZP." Question number 2: "... And what does a VESSEL TOWED and REDUCED WITH MANEUVERABILITY do in the middle of the ocean?"

... So the 28-day struggle began, read "war", RPKSN k-258 with two KPUGs (8 NK) equipped with AN / BQQ-14 (-17) GAS to provide ship helicopters, UAVs and support vessels. This was the FIRST US Navy's use of the TAKTASS system at the Pacific Fleet in the course of the "operation to oust the USSR Navy RPKSN from their combat patrol areas."

Rest here.

It can be seen that SOSUS had sufficient efficiency to target the target boat with a UAV. In the course of a real war, this would be the end. But it was a cold war. And as a result, the Americans gave the surface watermen to "frolic".

However, there were antidotes against those old systems. By the end of the 70s, the Americans were searching primarily for discrete components of the USB. The latter together formed the so-called "hydroacoustic portrait" (HAP) - a characteristic set of discrete frequencies characteristic of each particular boat. The GAP was unique and each boat had its own. This made it possible not only to determine the type (project) of the boat, but also to understand which of them specifically came under observation.

Accordingly, the solution was, firstly, to reduce the noise, moving in small optimal moves, and most importantly - masking in the near-surface layers. And secondly, to change the "portrait" of the boat before an important operation, having worked with mechanisms that give characteristic "discrete". As a result, the computer analyzing the spectrum of the acoustic background of the World Ocean did not extract characteristic sets of frequencies from it. And he could not notify about the presence of the boat, although there were technogenic "discretes" in the spectrum.

This, alas, was done by individual proactive commanders, not by the "system."

This is how K-492 Dudko in 1982 was able to covertly penetrate the Juan de Fuca Bay, near the Bangor naval base.

The persistent work of Soviet engineers led to the fact that the UPSh of submarines was significantly reduced. In the first half of the 80s, it became clear to the Americans that the days when it was possible to rely only on noise direction finding in detection were numbered. Soviet boats became quieter, the Soviet commanders' knowledge of the enemy's capabilities grew. There were, of course, failures of the Atrina type. But there were also operations, from which our future "partners" were thrown into a fever. Maybe someday they will tell us about them.

But one way or another, the United States needed to respond to future challenges, when the noise level of Soviet submarines would drop almost to the natural background of the ocean, and there would be no “discrete”.

The answer was the use of such a principle as low-frequency illumination in underwater lighting systems (here, the technical groundwork of the US Navy on multi-position, optimally distributed systems in the search area, for example, the GAS of a surface ship and the RGAB of a helicopter, became extremely useful).


1990 year. "The process has begun."

First, about the physics of the process.

As you know, the lower the frequency (the longer the wavelength), the further the signal propagates and the less it attenuates. In the case of active sonar, the factor of internal reflections from submarine structural elements begins to play an important role (which is especially acute for double-hull submarines typical of the Russian Navy).

An important point - noisiness is absolutely not important - a low-frequency wave will "illuminate" even an acoustically "dead" object.


What is actually required of a submarine hunter?

Immerse a low-frequency emitter in water, "give a wave", and then receive the waves reflected from different objects with your antenna. Taking into account the optimal low-frequency range, it is necessary to use GPBA, a flexible extended acoustic antenna, as the most effective antenna for such a scheme.

It was this method of detecting submarines that became the main one in the US Navy and in all countries allied to the Americans.

The use of special hydroacoustic reconnaissance vessels with very powerful emitters provides a range of "illumination" from the Norwegian Sea of ​​almost the entire Barents Sea (with the reception of the reflected signal from the GAK PLA or RGAB aviation), and the USSR Navy first encountered this back in the mid-80s (SGAR with NCHI examined the head "barracuda" with Vice-Admiral Chernov, heading for a deep dive in the Norwegian Sea).


A single surface ship with a GPBA and a low-frequency emitter (of lower power), as well as a pair of anti-submarine helicopters, is capable of completely "illuminating" a strip many tens of kilometers wide. And if there is a boat in it, then it will be immediately detected at any noise level.


On the issue of the detection range and "illumination" of modern LF BUGAS

But this is its own GPBA. The "illuminated boat" gives a secondary wave IN ALL directions - and if there is some tactical unit on the side opposite to the hunter ship that can detect the reflected wave (submarine or helicopter), then the width of the strip in which any underwater target is detected, from tens of kilometers turns into hundreds. The worst part is that on the opposite side there might just be a buoy dropped from a patrol plane.

Shoot anti-ship missiles at the "illumination" source? What if it is just a dropped buoy or a helicopter?


A vivid example of the compactness of modern low-frequency OGAS and their ranges in favorable conditions (the scale of operation reaches 60 miles - 111 km!)

You can read about the details of this search method in the article Anti-submarine defense: ships against submarines. Hydroacoustics" in section “Fourth generation. Post-Cold War "... In it, the question is disclosed from a technical point of view, but ranges are important to us now.

In order to understand how much NATO members have progressed, it is worth giving an example. At the end of the 80s, the USSR was able to create GPBA applicable on warships. Using such an antenna, the Centaur hydroacoustic complex was created, which, as an experiment, was installed on the GS-31 experimental ship of the Northern Fleet. The results are described in the article Anti-submarine defense: ships against submarines. Hydroacoustics". We will only announce here that the detection range of quiet western submarines, including quiet diesel-electric Norwegian "Uly", was hundreds of kilometers.

But this complex did not have "illumination", just a good antenna and computational potential. The systems that any British frigate has today are significantly superior to those carried by the GS-31. And in terms of the presence of the emitter, and in terms of signal processing, and the antenna is better there.

An example of the work of a single ship is shown in the video. First, the British frigate lowers the GPBA into the water, by the way, at a very good speed. A drop-down low-frequency driver is then released with automatic depth control. With the help of this equipment, the ship "takes contact" - a submarine, judging by the radio exchange, with a helicopter taking off, 12 miles (22 kilometers) from the ship.

The GPBA definitely does not give a place and, apparently, the best anti-submarine helicopter in the world - "Merlin", is sent there. The crew decides to carry out additional search for the target with the help of its lowered GAS, also low frequency. Its illumination power is low, and the target boat does not try to dodge - it simply does not know that it is being "highlighted". And the helicopter pilots, having determined the elements of the target's movement (course, speed, depth) and having worked out the data for aiming, attack the boat with a torpedo (the "Merlin" can have up to four of them).


But most importantly, they know how to turn any of their tactical units into an element of a multi-positional system, each part of which works in conjunction with all the others.

The principle of its operation is shown in the figure.


This is all, however, part of the problem.

Non-acoustics: from magnetometers to radar detection


In addition to acoustic detection methods, non-acoustic ones are playing an increasingly important role. The main problem of submarines here is aviation. The following picture takes place with aviation.

Once upon a time, during the Battle of the Atlantic, the main means of searching for submarines by American and British patrol aircraft was radar - German boats, before the invention of the snorkel, were forced to move on the surface.

Nevertheless, the need to detect submerged boats also existed. And even during the Second World War, the first aircraft equipped with a magnetometer appeared in the US Navy - patrol airships. From these aircraft, magnetometers migrated to aircraft.

After the Second World War, when the Soviet diesel-electric submarines already had RPD devices (diesel engine operation under water), the magnetometer became one of the main tools of the American patrol aircraft. For a long time, patrol flying boats Martin P5M Marlin flew in search of Soviet submarines on their long 10-12 hour flights, literally weeding the ocean expanses with a magnetometer, the detection range of which in those years was calculated in hundreds of meters.

The Marlin could also detect radar devices with radar, but the range of such detection did not exceed 10 miles. And only having found the submarine with the help of a radar or magnetometer, the crew of the "Marlin" used radio acoustic buoys. A little later, explosive sound sources (VIZs) were added to the acoustic means, which "illuminated" the target boat with a shock (low-frequency) wave. This increased the detection range of the boat by the buoys. Diesel exhaust gas detectors were added to the non-acoustical means, which made it possible to detect diesel operation.

In the 70s, already onboard the Orions, the first infrared detection systems appeared.

The mid-seventies also marked a turning point in the development of radar-based non-acoustic detection systems. Both the USSR and the USA in the 70s finally came to the conclusion that it is technically possible to detect a submarine under water, based on the anomalies it forms on the water surface, using radar. For some time, the USSR was ahead of the United States, but then the enemy took the lead. The Americans consistently and purposefully mastered the radar search. Their first detection of a submarine in a submerged position by the SEASAT satellite from space was carried out back in 1978. And the aviation received serial complexes capable of working in this way in the early 90s, after the end of the Cold War.


Hunter and victim - "Orion" and Soviet submarine pr. 671RTM

It is strange, but in our country outside the circles of "narrow specialists" who, of course, know everything, some strange "unwillingness to believe in the inevitable" is still in progress. And this is not only despite the fact that the USSR itself massively and successfully carried out such experiments, but also despite the fact that today the "Chinese comrades" themselves are massively conducting such experiments and publish many open works on this topic.

A couple of illustrations. In both cases, the Chinese launched an ellipsoid under water and then watched what kind of waves it generates on the surface.


"Kelvin excitation" or, in our opinion, "ship waves" on the water surface from an ellipsoid moving at a depth of 20 meters, with velocities and Froude numbers a - 6 m / s and 0,19; b - 9 m / s and 0,29; s - 15 m / s and 0,48; d - 20 m / s and 0,64.
Source: Wake Features of Moving Submerged Bodies and Motion State Inversion of Submarines, FUDUO XUE, WEIQI JIN, SU QIU, AND JIE YANG
MOE Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Imaging Technology and System, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China, Corresponding author: Weiqi Jin ([email protected])


"Kelvin excitation" or, in our opinion, "ship waves" on the water surface from an ellipsoid moving at a constant speed of 12 m / s (Froude number - 0,38), at the following depths: a - 6 m, b - 10 m , s - 20 m and d - 30 m.
Source: Wake Features of Moving Submerged Bodies and Motion State Inversion of Submarines, FUDUO XUE, WEIQI JIN, SU QIU, AND JIE YANG
MOE Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Imaging Technology and System, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China, Corresponding author: Weiqi Jin ([email protected])

All of this is detected by the radar.

Not only that - here's a slightly earlier chart of ripple effects from Americans. The question arises - why did they study these effects? And then.


The fact that a submerged submarine generates waves on the surface has been known to the Americans since 1944, to us since the sixties. It would be naive to think that no one will take advantage of this effect to detect submarines. And they took advantage of it.

By the way, an example "from the other side." From the memoirs of Admiral John Woodward, commander of the British forces during the war for the Falklands:

“However, we had to solve an additional problem - the Bourdwood Bank problem. It is a large, fairly shallow ocean area that comes close to the edge of the South American continental shelf.

It stretches for more than two hundred miles from east to west, passing one hundred miles south of East Falkland, where it is about sixty miles wide from north to south. Further south, the Atlantic is more than two miles deep, but around the Falkland Islands and off the coast of the continent, the seabed rises to the continental shelf to a depth of about three hundred feet. On the bank, the ocean is about one hundred and fifty feet deep.

This shallow water is accurately mapped, but it can be deadly for a submerged submarine, which seeks to keep up with a cruiser cruising in shallow water at a speed of more than twenty-five knots. A submarine needs to sail at least two hundred feet to maintain this speed to avoid a clear trail of "moving fish" coming to the surface. At a depth of one hundred feet, where they had to cross the shallow water, they would leave a clear trail. "

Yes, here we are talking about twenty-five nodes. Well, the wave on the surface at such a speed can be seen even with the eyes. The speed will be less, it will be visible only with the help of the radar. And it is not always possible to go to the depth. The British could not, we in our Arctic basically also have nowhere to go - the seas are shallow.

Now the approximate algorithm of the BPA operation is as follows. On "tip-off" from other types of reconnaissance (for example, bottom hydrophones, surface ships or satellite reconnaissance, or RTR detected a connection, etc.), the UUV receives a point where contact was detected or lost. Further, an assessment is made of how far and in which direction the target can go during the flight time of the patrol aircraft. Based on this, the search area is assigned. Then the plane takes off for the area.

And then everything is simple. Both Orion and Poseidon can detect characteristic surface anomalies using their radar at a distance of tens of kilometers from themselves in any direction. The search performance of the aircraft is very high. Then simply dropping a pair of buoys to clarify the classification and determine the elements of target movement (EDC - course, speed, depth) And from the very first turn, a torpedo is dropped on the target.

At the same time, the UAV, of course, can survey the designated areas without preliminary information about the submarines there.

Today, unmanned aerial vehicles with a long flight duration are powerfully included in the PLO system of the West. Their massive use allows for continuous coverage of truly gigantic areas in the oceans. The effect "boat in the sea, fly on glass" becomes global.

And this, of course, is not all.

Although the passive hydrophones of the old SOSUS system (later IUSS) were mostly mothballed, due to the decrease in the noise level of our submarines, the bottom systems not only did not disappear, but received a new development.

Underwater bottom lighting systems in our time


We are talking about rapidly deployable (from submarines and aircraft) systems. Their key problem in the past has been classification. At SOSUS, the task was carried out onshore, which required expensive high-tech cables from antennas to onshore centers.

An example of an autonomous deployable detector is our buoy MGS-407. However, targets were detected in the medium frequency range, and the classification was the most primitive - by exceeding the threshold level. Accordingly, the detection ranges of such buoys were very small.

The use of low frequencies (and the DS of the “target portrait”) led not only to a sharp increase in cost, but also to the need to download actually secret intelligence data, which, provided they were exposed in enemy waters, was a direct prerequisite for their disclosure to the enemy.

Switching from passive detection to "backlighting" has solved this problem. The minimum information is loaded into the "brain" of the floated buoy, which ensures only operation (synchronization) with the "illumination".

Thus, the enemy was able to deploy a fixed detection network near our bases. And, moreover, integrating them with mines deployed in the same place (for example - Hammerhead is not a Poseidon killer, he is a host killer).

These are the components of the theater anti-submarine warfare system, organized according to American standards. Whether we have a separate conflict with Japan or Turkey, the United States, even without participating in the war against us directly (as, most likely, it will), will provide any of our adversaries with all available information about the underwater situation in the theater of operations. And somewhere the boat will be "quietly" sunk, if then everything can be denied.
It is worth considering a real and recent example of how this works.

Search for the "disappeared" Russian diesel-electric submarine pr. 6363 in the Mediterranean in March 2021


In the third decade of March 2021, Russian media began to appear en masse news about the successful separation from tracking diesel-electric submarines of project 6363 in the Mediterranean Sea. Let's quote the publication "Lenta.Ru":

As the interlocutor of the agency said, the anti-submarine forces of the North Atlantic Alliance have been trying to find the Russian submarine for a week. However, as it became known, they still have not been able to do this, despite the "great opportunities" in the Mediterranean. “They used large forces to search for the Russian submarine, but to no avail. This means that in conditions of hostilities they are at gunpoint, which annoys them very much, ”the source explained.

Admiral Viktor Kravchenko, who served as Chief of the Main Staff of the Russian Navy in 1998-2005, explained the situation by the fact that the Varshavyanka submarines are among the quietest in the world. “Well, let them look. She just justifies her noiselessness ... These individuals operate secretly, ”he said.

Well, now let's return from the blissful hurray-patriotic messages into reality.
The figure below shows the departure track of the US Navy's anti-submarine Poseidon in search of this Varshavyanka. We do not pay attention to the inscription on top, the person who wrote it does not understand what he sees.


What is interesting for us in this case?

First, in all cases, the Poseidons, many hundreds of kilometers before our boat, already had an accurate bearing to it. That is, the Americans just knew where she was now. This could be for various reasons. For example, they were brought up for a search immediately after the loss of contact by other forces. Or after our boat swam up for communication, and it was discovered by someone (for example, RTR). Maybe the boat got into the range of some kind of bottom FOSS systems, or under low-frequency illumination from some of the ships: it doesn't matter whether it is American or Israeli. That is, in any case, the place where the boat is is known with some error in advance.

The most interesting thing further - in one of the drawings you can see that when approaching the place where the boat is located, the Poseidon simply made a turn in its direction. If this plane could only use acoustic means, then this would not have happened. The Americans, having arrived in the area where the submarine is located, could not have reached it so easily. They would have to work buoys, put up barriers, and only then figure out where the boat is real. The course that the plane would fly over the area where the submarine was located would be different. And then they just turned on her and that's it. How? Yes, they just saw the place under which it is.

The saddest thing is the circles that the Poseidons are describing over our Warsaw. This is not a search, no. This is a flight over a field of buoys placed above the boat, through which the Americans wrote off her "portrait", including its discrete components. Now, the detection range of this particular submarine by any NATO tactical unit that is simply technically capable of detecting submarines has increased significantly. Moreover, due to the full compatibility of all equipment and software of aircraft, ships and submarines, the data about the boat could immediately be uploaded to the computers of the surface ships of the United States and allies participating in the operation to find the boat, and a little later this information got into all the navies of the countries NATO.

Most likely, the aviation "kept contact" until it was possible to transfer it to their submarine or surface ships. This explains the loitering of successive planes.

Breakthrough attempt


For the final disclosure of the topic, we will show how difficult it will be for our submarine or a group of submarines to break through the anti-submarine warfare system deployed in the theater of operations, using the example of the Northern Fleet.

In reality, the NATO PLO line began from our bases back in the 80s. There is a well-known example of Norwegian submarines, still old "Cobbens", who carried out combat services by lying on the ground near our bases (where they could only be hit by naval minesweepers with high-frequency GAS and RBU, but even then - only from "pistol distances").

Next came the positions of the US Navy submarines, and SOSUS and BPA aircraft began in the Norwegian Sea.

Few? However, if we add "lighting", and the first fact of its use was recorded back in the mid-80s, then the low noise factor of the new nuclear submarines of the Navy is simply "zeroed out."

To this we add the capabilities of the enemy's anti-aircraft missile radar and the shallow depths of the Barents Sea, which make it extremely difficult for the covert deployment of our nuclear-powered submarines in the face of countering aircraft (and satellites) with special radars.

In such conditions, it would be difficult for a balanced fleet to ensure the deployment of its submarines, let alone unbalanced with a "roll" towards the submarine.

Imagine, however, a similar situation.

So, we have an underflot of OVR forces (minesweepers, small corvettes), larger corvettes capable of searching for submarines at a great distance from the coast, fighter aircraft are on duty at airfields to cover ships on request, there is also strike aircraft capable in theory strike at surface ships. But we do not have "floating targets" - aircraft carriers, attack missile ships of the far sea zone.

What will be the first outcome? The first result will be this: beyond the detection range of over-the-horizon radars, enemy surface forces will operate freely. This also applies to ships performing anti-submarine missions and protecting them from an air strike from missile ships. In this case, the enemy will be forced to fear only an air strike from the shore. But we will first need to find his ships, which do not enter the flight paths of our satellites, and the reconnaissance aircraft are immediately shot down. This is roughly what it will look like.


At the same time, minesweepers do not help, they are simply destroyed from the air by deck aircraft flying at low altitude, starting from an aircraft carrier east of the North Cape, somewhere in the fjords, where we cannot find it without our fleet (and hypothetical missile-carrying aircraft from the "ground" nowhere do not fly), nor, accordingly, destroy. As a result, the boats come under numerous blows several miles from the coast, and the enemy does not let go of them again.

Let's look at roughly the difference in conditions when “there is a heavy fleet.


Here our "heavy" forces are and operate. In the black circle - the zone of contested domination - there our frigates, BODs, cruisers and, in the correct version, aircraft carriers, together with anti-submarine and strike (assault or missile-carrying) aviation from the "ground" are conducting a counter battle with the enemy, providing a zone of domination in their rear and the ability for boats to turn around in theater.

Now the enemy cannot use hydroacoustic reconnaissance ships as freely as before. They will be searched for and destroyed. The enemy will not be able to conduct anti-submarine warfare on a systemic basis in the Barents Sea at all. In Norwegian - it can only by overcoming the opposition of the Navy. Of course, minesweepers with modern (including high-frequency) GAS and NSA, capable not only of detecting mines, but also enemy bottom hydrophones, would be very useful. Unfortunately, they do not exist today (including none in the Northern Fleet with the main group of NSNF). But the fact is that we need not only them and corvettes with basic aircraft.

Results


All of the above does not mean that submarines are outdated as a type of ship. But they will have to change (more on this in subsequent articles). Today, anti-submarine defense in the West has accomplished the same revolution as during the Battle of the Atlantic - if not more significant. But our submarines have not changed commensurately (having actually remained at the level of the end of the Cold War).

There is an opinion that the new submarine is "nonsense", because in the west they continue to build submarines. However, there is no modern PLO against them. (our PLO is pathetic, wretched and outdated a long time ago). The Chinese threat is still underestimated. And most importantly, their submarines have already begun to evolve into a "new submarine war": these are both low-noise and ultra-long-range torpedoes (because the designation of a missile launch against an ASW of a modern enemy zeroes out the submarine's secrecy), new means of communication that ensure the "inclusion of a submarine, air defense system into the network" ...


The Chinese project of a satellite with a powerful laser, capable of detecting from orbit violations of the "thin layer structure" of the vertical water column, caused by the movement of the submarine at a depth of 500 meters. One example of the Chinese approach to naval warfare in the XNUMXst century. The American helicopter analogue of this is the allegedly "anti-mine" complex RAMICS

We can no longer build submarines in accordance with traditional approaches and hope that they have a chance not even to complete the task, but simply to survive.

Unfortunately, the Russian Navy and the Ministry of Defense have embarked on a policy of deliberate denial of reality. - like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand, or a child covering his face with his palms and thinking that no one sees him either. After all, everything was clear even before the first bookmark of "Borea" or "Ash-M". Not wanting and not being able to change according to the requirements of the situation, the Navy preferred to pretend that he was "in the house."

But reality is ruthless. No submarine fleet simply can survive when faced with an integrated Western-style ASW. No wonder the former Commander-in-Chief Vysotsky said that without an aircraft carrier, all submarines of the Northern Fleet would be destroyed in 48 hours. I must say that he was still optimistic about things - "Kuznetsov" can only temporarily disperse the basic patrol aircraft over a small area. And nothing more. This, of course, is necessary and useful, but wars are not won in this way.

In fact, today, in order to deploy your submarine forces, you first need to destroy the enemy surface forces in the theater of operations and destroy his FOSS. But this is, in fact, a victory in the war. And so, one wonders, why then podlav?

It sounds funny, but today it is sometimes easier to hide "Nakhimov" than "Severodvinsk". The latter "lights up" the fact of his presence in the theater of operations even before the enemy detects him. "Nakhimov", on the other hand, must not fall under the satellite and be ready to deal with aerial reconnaissance, which is theoretically not difficult with his air defense system - how these things are done is shown in the article “Sea warfare for beginners. Putting the aircraft carrier on strike... Our ships may well act in a similar way, even though they are not aircraft carriers.

And "Ash" does not do that - to give thirty knots to slip through the observation strip of a satellite capable of detecting the same "Kelvin Wedge" on the surface, the submarine cannot without loss of stealth. It is also impossible to go to a depth where sounds spread over a huge range, and it is also impossible to hide from radar detection. After all, this is also a loss of secrecy in terms of "acoustics" And being in a couple of hundred kilometers from a detachment of enemy warships is like becoming a "fly on glass", and with any, even the lowest USS, even at the level of the natural background. Low-frequency illumination does not care about the noise level of the "illuminated object."


Change in the PL visibility over the years for the primary hydroacoustic field and the visibility for the secondary field (low-frequency illumination).

In such conditions, the ideas of some would-be theoreticians that it is possible to “bet on submarine”, that surface forces can be reduced to some coastal defense forces made of corvettes and minesweepers, and that combat missions to be solved by submarines are nonsense on the verge of crime, in which only two parties can be really interested: our enemies and local businessmen who are ready to make money even at the cost of damage to the country's defense capability. By the way, the American agents of influence on the Internet in the 2000s, it was for all-submarine navy for Russia that they actively, as they say, “drowned”, and, judging by the events taking place now, they were not unsuccessful.

And the idea that, in the words of one author, “only on submarines and you can go to the ocean without hindrance” is just a bad anecdote.

Submarines cannot be the backbone of a fleet. In the future, they will be a niche tool designed to solve specific problems in some specific conditions. And even for that, they will have to change in the same way that aviation changed after the massive proliferation of anti-aircraft missile systems.

And any ideas that with current submarines and without powerful surface forces and naval aviation it is possible to solve some problems in the ocean, in the conditions they are somewhere between nonsense and deliberate betrayal.
Author:
448 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. rocket757
    rocket757 21 May 2021 15: 10
    +24
    Any class of military equipment can approach the line when their use becomes ineffective, without a radical change in characteristics! A fundamental change in the tactics of application.
    That's not news.
    The question is, what, in our armed forces, in headquarters, in the high command, they do not understand this ???
    As you can not believe in this, not small children sitting there.
    1. New Year day
      New Year day 21 May 2021 15: 20
      +5
      Quote: rocket757
      Any class of military equipment can approach the line when their use becomes ineffective, without a radical change in characteristics!

      So it was with the "wolves of Doenitz". After the triumph of 41-43. and the subsequent application of measures by the allies, to a complete defeat. In spite of developing the XII type (if I'm not mistaken), but time is running out. The winners took advantage of the results of the German developments. And so in a spiral
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 21 May 2021 15: 29
        +7
        Modern electronics, ubiquitous automation, computerization, bear fruit EVERYWHERE! In means, methods, electronic intelligence, control, this is very noticeable.
        The technique created earlier, during the period when the control functions were led by a person, with the help of technical means and methods that improve precisely his capabilities, began to lose in many respects to a "dumb piece of iron" that is becoming smarter, faster, more sensitive, more mobile, etc.
        It means it's time to change the technique or radically change the characteristics.
        The normal process of evolution ... although in the military sphere, it is just terribly dangerous
        1. New Year day
          New Year day 21 May 2021 15: 32
          +4
          Quote: rocket757
          control functions were led by a person, with the help of technical means and methods that improve his capabilities, he began to lose in many ways

          Agree that without a "person" - it's dumb! In my opinion, the best is still their symbiosis
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 21 May 2021 15: 39
            +3
            Dumb ... this is already scary!
            But, in many areas, the speed of information processing, the need to make a team decision quickly and unambiguously, is so important !!! that this function will be entrusted to "stupid pieces of iron" !!! And this is not far off.
            Blocks, restrictions are invented, they will be forced, but it will happen anyway.
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 21 May 2021 16: 15
              -5
              winked Well, for a breakthrough, you can build drones-bogus, Borei-K, as well as drones-air defense .. let's say we take an underwater drone, the size of the Amur-950, place on it anti-submarine aircraft detection tools and an anti-aircraft version of Caliber 3M-54E .. And that's all .. anti-submarine helicopters and airplanes get sad .. and if they drown .. then the drone .. it's not a pity
              1. timokhin-aa
                21 May 2021 17: 23
                +8
                And that's all .. anti-submarine helicopters and airplanes get sad .. and if they drown .. then the drone .. it's not a pity


                How to aim? Air defense equipment should be on submarines, but they will not become a panacea.
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 21 May 2021 17: 27
                  +7
                  the ambush principle .. the anti-submariners must throw off the buoys .. and then either a reaction to the buoy itself. or we put a blende buoy, drive the drone to the side by 50 km .. and on the signal to reset the buoy, launch an anti-aircraft missile .. and the principle itself is already Germans They described it for a long time - the rocket begins to fly along the snail and, due to the radar and the optical station, it looks for a patroller. When detected, it aims, approaches and launches the second stage ... and no patroller leaves from Mach 2,5
                  1. Intruder
                    Intruder 21 May 2021 20: 46
                    +1
                    and no patroller leaves from Mach 2,5
                    he won't get away from 1,2 M ... he just won't have time, even if he finds this rocket ... wink
                2. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 21 May 2021 17: 29
                  +8
                  laughing by the way ... if we can't hide the submarine in silence, then we need to hide it in the noise due to trickery ... and if at least 10% of them will be drones with missiles ... then patrol aircraft just won't let you look for submarines .. .it turns out that the apl will have "teeth" in the form of drones with missiles and tricks .. yes, expensive pleasure .. but for a division of 10 drones per fleet + 100 tricks for 10 years it is quite possible to do, but a program is needed
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    21 May 2021 17: 42
                    +6
                    In my opinion, you have not quite figured out the physical side of the process.
                    1. rocket757
                      rocket757 21 May 2021 18: 17
                      +3
                      If you disguise a submarine as a whale, for example !!!
                      But this is not possible.
                      Disguise itself as an unknown animal ... so it will definitely be considered a threat and will be hammered by an adult !!! and then, perhaps, they will begin to find out what it was?
                      Disguise, knock off the trail, using classical devices ... just not in a continuous, saturated field of control and with a large number of monitoring devices, objects, systems!
                      It should be understood that modern, automated detection / control systems, in terms of efficiency, will replace many people, professionals !!!
                      Discovery is followed by .... miscellaneous things may follow.
                    2. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 21 May 2021 18: 20
                      +1
                      laughing I am aware that I do not quite understand) .. but it seems to me to create drones with anti-aircraft missiles is easier and cheaper and faster than building 10 aircraft carriers with kugs to ensure the deployment and cover of the submarines .. the key problem of boats is that they cannot answer on the threat from the air ... and a two-stage cruise missile with an anti-aircraft main missile can very well ensure destruction ... by the way ... a decoy drone can provide primary target designation, if equipped with an optical station like on fighters ..
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        21 May 2021 19: 06
                        +9
                        We don't need 10 AUG. We just don't need AUG.
                        We need aircraft carriers, but not AUG.

                        For the rest. A submarine can have air defense (and should), but it must be OTHER submarines, not the same as now.

                        And they still cannot be the backbone of the fleet, and your drones will be ineffective.
                      2. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 21 May 2021 19: 35
                        +4
                        winked I already wrote about uniform development, in the concept that I described in more detail: the future belongs to drones with AI elements ... therefore, to ensure the stability of submarines, in addition to equipping them with air defense systems themselves, I would advise creating drones with decoys and anti-aircraft missiles ... for the basis can be taken the same Amur-950, from which even now, when the project is finalized, a drone with weapons can be made ... The same Americans are already working on the creation of an unmanned sea and air component ... I certainly do not deny that ours will do on the basis of the same Altius anti-submarine drone, and maybe they will also make a sea drone search engine .. but playing from defense is a direct path to loss ..
                      3. Dilettante grandfather
                        Dilettante grandfather 21 May 2021 20: 12
                        +6
                        The aircraft carrier itself is a big target. He cannot go to sea without cover by other ships. So exactly a group of ships, with an aircraft carrier, is required. Not just an aircraft carrier.
                      4. sabakina
                        sabakina 21 May 2021 21: 05
                        -1
                        Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
                        The aircraft carrier itself is a big target. He cannot go to sea without cover by other ships. So exactly a group of ships, with an aircraft carrier, is required. Not just an aircraft carrier.

                      5. timokhin-aa
                        21 May 2021 23: 46
                        +3
                        You just do not understand that a detachment or a formation of ships, which includes an aircraft carrier or aircraft carriers, is not necessarily an AUG.
                      6. Dilettante grandfather
                        Dilettante grandfather 22 May 2021 08: 24
                        +6
                        I understand perfectly well that this is not a strike group, but, nevertheless, this is not one aircraft carrier, but a group of ships. Including the supply vessel (s). Anti-submarine ships, anti-missile defense ships, nothing without them. Therefore, if you build an aircraft carrier, you should design and build escort ships. Namely - to develop and build, simultaneously with the aircraft carrier. They must correspond in armament to the moment when the aircraft carrier goes to sea.
                    3. bayard
                      bayard 22 May 2021 00: 28
                      +8
                      Quote: Grandfather is an amateur
                      So exactly a group of ships, with an aircraft carrier, is required. Not just an aircraft carrier.

                      We are talking about the aircraft carrier Air Defense / PLO. Of course, with escort ships. But this group cannot be called AUG (aircraft carrier strike group), because it is not an aircraft carrier strike. It will rather be APG - aircraft carrier anti-submarine group:
                      - one AV air defense \ PLO,
                      - two frigates of project 22350,
                      - two BOD pr. 1155.
                      As a reinforcement, a URO cruiser with a long-range air defense missile system and long-range anti-ship missiles can (and is desirable).

                      And AB in this case will not need an atomic monster of 80 - 000 tons of VI, but a gas turbine AB of moderate (100 - 000 tons) VI. With 40 - 000 fighters and 50 - 000 aircraft or 20 AWACS helicopters. And also up to 24 PLO helicopters (as it was on our "Krechet").
                  2. sabakina
                    sabakina 21 May 2021 20: 56
                    -7
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    We don't need 10 AUG. We just don't need AUG. We need aircraft carriers, but not AUG.

                    Alexander, so I would like our submarines to go like the Pioneer submarine from the movie you know. One melted the ice, repelled a missile-boat attack .... In general, you need to drink less and eat more. wink
                  3. timokhin-aa
                    21 May 2021 23: 35
                    +9
                    So don't drink. Well, or write comments on the sober.
                  4. ver_
                    ver_ 22 May 2021 15: 52
                    0
                    ... and not read Soviet newspapers ...
            2. Romario_Argo
              Romario_Argo 22 May 2021 14: 19
              +2
              the problem is not about anything if you look from the other side
              if you put air defense systems on our nuclear submarines and diesel-electric submarines
              SAM with ARGSN from Buk 3M317M and Reduta 9M96E2, with a range of 75 and 150 km
              2 variants of execution
              1) TPK: SAM + radar buoy with coil (cable)
              2) 2 TPK in 2 TA: 1 with SAM; 2 - buoy with active radar
              1 option
              a) pre-firing a buoy with a radar
              b) before a TPK shot from a missile defense system from depths of up to 200 meters
              surfacing of TPK and vertical launch of missiles with illumination from a buoy
              the subsequent inclusion of the ARGSN SAM and the defeat of the target
              2 option
              in peacetime, it is enough just to shoot the buoy - to irradiate the targets
              and PLO planes or helicopters will leave the zone on their own
        2. srelock
          srelock 21 May 2021 21: 51
          -8
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Unfortunately, the Russian Navy and the Ministry of Defense have embarked on a policy of deliberate denial of reality ...
          «Whoever calls his name is what he is called» wink
          1. timokhin-aa
            21 May 2021 23: 36
            +4
            But essentially there is something to argue?
            1. srelock
              srelock 22 May 2021 00: 23
              -3
              Do you really need it, "reality" will not collapse?
              1. timokhin-aa
                22 May 2021 01: 31
                +3
                What is written in the article is reality. But what your brain can give out, I would look. Medicine is my hobby.
              2. srelock
                srelock 22 May 2021 22: 45
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                ... Medicine is my hobby.
                I noticed laughing
      2. Aleksandr1971
        Aleksandr1971 23 May 2021 13: 51
        0
        Of course, I am already tired of you, Alexander, with my question, because I ask it somehow for the fifth time, and even once wrote to you in a personal message.

        But since
        1) you have never answered it (although of course you are not obliged to answer);
        2) in all articles about the subframe, draw the reader's attention to the full vulnerability of our subframe,
        all the same, I will ask you the same question again:

        "Why not place diesel SSBNs in the Caspian Sea, say 5-6 units, which will be invulnerable to the enemy's ASW forces? Of course, there is no shipyard yet, but it can be built. For such an SSBN, there is still no corresponding SLBM, but it can be created, for the land prototype R-36orb was created back in 1968. But the enemy will have nothing to answer to such SSBNs even in the distant future. "
        1. Dmitry Chelyabinsk
          Dmitry Chelyabinsk 25 May 2021 09: 49
          +3
          Hello, Alexander. Let me express my thoughts on the Caspian Sea, and not only on it.
          I guess an orbital rocket is overkill. "Sineva", with its range of 11500 km, will reach almost any point in the United States from the center of the Caspian.
          Now the cons:
          - political complications are possible. For example, SSBNs in the Caspian Sea contradict paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea dated August 12, 2018 (although it has not yet entered into force). According to this clause, the activities of the Parties in the Caspian Sea will be carried out on the basis of the principle of using the Caspian Sea for peaceful purposes.
          - for today, for basing SSBNs of dimensions both project 667A-667BDRM (draft up to 8,8 m) and 877/636 (draft 6,2 m), there are no suitable bases. The Makhachkala port can become such after the planned dredging works with bringing the draft at the two existing oil berths to 7,15 m. only 2022 boats of dimension pr. 4.
          The KVFl base under construction in Kaspiysk also accepts maximum ships of the project 11661 with a draft of up to 5,5 m. Taking into account the periodic fluctuations in the level of the Caspian, it is not very reliable.
          - the deployment of nuclear weapons in the North Caucasus ... Of course, now it is not the 90s, in the Caucasus we are relatively peaceful, the warheads will be in the ZATO, where the marine regiment is already stationed, but still.
          - diesel RPKSN. As I understand it: leaving the base on the surface, moving to the duty area under the snorkel, patrolling on electric movement. With regard to pr. 636, this means surfacing every 4-5 days and "hitting the charge". It seems to be not particularly a minus, but not a plus either.
          - You said about the lack of a shipyard (although it is possible to deliver from Nizhny Novgorod or further in a special dock along the Volga). I will add the lack of ship repair.
          - 4 or even 6 boats is a maximum of 2 SSBNs in combat service with 2 crews. Taking into account that these will only be boats of the dimension of project 636, the SLBM should be placed in the wheelhouse enclosure, as on the project 629. The wheelhouse of project 636 is 12-13 meters long, part of the length must be left for retractable devices. The diameter of the same "Sineva" is 1,9 m. These are 3-5 RSM-54 missiles, that is, 12-20 warheads. In total, no more than 40 warheads are on duty. A 10-block warhead will not work - the range is insufficient.

          I propose to pay attention to the closed basin of the White Sea, and to a lesser extent - to the Penzhinskaya Bay of the Okhotsk.
          I see the following benefits:
          - water areas are available for classic, already existing SSBNs
          - it is possible to close access to foreign submarines and NKs, there is no anti-submarine aircraft
          - the area of ​​the White Sea with depths of more than 100 meters - up to 20 thousand square meters. km. In the Penzhinskaya Bay, 5-7 thousand square meters are available for patrolling at the periscope depth. km.
          It is impossible to cover them with the number of warheads deployed under START-3 or even a slightly larger one.
          - all trajectories of SLBMs starting from the White Sea at any point in the United States lie east of North Cape. When shooting at California from the White Sea, the track runs in the east of the Kola Peninsula.
          - all booster sections of SLBMs, starting from the White Sea at any point in the United States, end over the Kola Peninsula. When shooting at California, the section of the Bulava's dispersal ends approximately over Gremikha, when shooting at Washington - south of Murmansk.
          - when firing from Penzhinskaya Bay, all trajectories lie over Chukotka, any section of dispersal and disengagement of warheads is over Russian territory
          - it is important that in both of these areas, our SSBNs were already on a trial basis in the 80s. That is, there is a practical confirmation of the possibility of their use.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 25 May 2021 12: 41
            +2
            Quote: Dmitry Chelyabinsk
            I guess an orbital rocket is overkill. "Sineva", with its range of 11500 km, will reach almost any point in the United States from the center of the Caspian.

            Explain only one thing - why keep a submarine in the Caspian, if units of the Strategic Missile Forces can do the same, but at a lower cost?
            The existence of SSBNs in the future is justified only by the fact that they can approach close to American territory, which reduces the flight time, and the ability to launch from a point unknown to the enemy, which reduces the likelihood of our warheads being hit by enemy missile defense systems.
            Everything else in SSBNs is costly, ruinous and unreliable, even from the point of view of controlling nuclear submarines in preparation for a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike. So the number of forces and means of the submarine fleet, behind which I see the future, will be determined only from stealth and flight time - this is what any military professional who wants to understand our strategy for the first half of the 21st century should proceed from. Although in Soviet times the General Staff was led by Gorshkov, only because these parameters allowed us to keep the Americans by their genitals - they really understood what the launch of even one Typhoon meant for them.
            So forget about the Caspian Sea - this is all from the realm of fantasy.
            1. Konnick
              Konnick 25 May 2021 12: 47
              +2
              Explain only one thing - why keep a submarine in the Caspian, if units of the Strategic Missile Forces can do the same, but at a lower cost?

              Stealth and mobility, in contrast to silos and missiles on the wheeled chassis of the Strategic Missile Forces. You can even let a couple of them on Ladoga. There are no enemy submarines, no anti-submarine aircraft, the boat is twice cheaper, blunder.
            2. VasYok
              VasYok 30 May 2021 23: 47
              0
              the boat is twice cheaper

              Why do you need a boat if the Caspian already has bottom-based Skif missiles? Even cheaper, however.
            3. Konnick
              Konnick 31 May 2021 02: 11
              0
              Why do you need a boat if the Caspian already has bottom-based Skif missiles? Even cheaper, however.

              It is not and will not be.
  • Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 22 May 2021 08: 19
    0
    Quote: Barberry25
    take an underwater drone

    Drone? belay Use a more appropriate name for a UAV? Well well!
    Quote: Barberry25
    anti-submarine aircraft detection equipment

    What means? Is that ... a big secret?
    Quote: Barberry25
    anti-aircraft version of Caliber 3M-54E ..

    Yoksel-moxel! Shoot yourself and not live! This is what a wild imagination you must have! There has already been proposed for the submarine SAM S-500! People! What will be cooler ... SAM S-500 or "anti-aircraft version of Caliber 3M-54E"? belay
    Quote: Barberry25
    if they drown ... then the drone ... it's not a pity

    An unmanned submarine under 1000 tons of displacement is a trifle loss? What is this ... "country" quadrocopter for "six thousand"? Well well!
  • Intruder
    Intruder 21 May 2021 20: 43
    -1
    Agree that without a "person" - it's dumb! In my opinion, the best is still their symbiosis
    so far, it's just scary and there is no trust, but this will pass over the years. and symbiosis, again many problems - with the notorious "human factor" !?
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 21 May 2021 18: 15
    -11%
    It is necessary to create combat supersonic seaplanes capable of carrying anti-ship missiles sea mines missiles air air long flight range refueling system - instead of Tu 22M3, no surface ship will be safe, and even more so anti-submarine aircraft and all enemy surface defense will be covered with a copper basin. A similar project was in the 60s, but then it did not receive a continuation in view of the technological complexity, it is now quite feasible, and most importantly it will be much cheaper than destroyers of cruisers and aircraft carriers for hundreds of billions and trillions of rubles, as well as in service and maintenance.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 20: 05
      +10
      It is necessary to create combat supersonic seaplanes


      And why are you not satisfied with supersonic combat aircraft without the "hydro" prefix? laughing
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 21 May 2021 21: 08
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        It is necessary to create combat supersonic seaplanes


        And why are you not satisfied with supersonic combat aircraft without the "hydro" prefix? laughing

        After 3 MV there will be nowhere to sit. Airfields will evaporate. And the water will evaporate.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 May 2021 23: 37
          +5
          Not. The high contracting parties do not have so many warheads.
          And there is ice near the coast in winter.
        2. moody
          moody 22 May 2021 00: 20
          0
          There are no airfields. There is no water. Where can the poor seaplane sit down?
          1. Silon Selenov
            Silon Selenov 22 May 2021 14: 38
            -2
            * "There are no airfields. There is no water ..."

            = Gena, don't "morose" ...
            Due to the active (!!) melting of continental ice in Greenland and Antarctica, -

            - "Water, water - water is everywhere! ..."

            From the Soviet song "How to see off the steamers".
            1. moody
              moody 22 May 2021 15: 05
              0
              What am I ...

              After 3 MV there will be nowhere to sit. Airfields will evaporate. And the water will evaporate.


              Shaw wrote, then we comment.
              So there will still be water? Well then, seaplanes are just to the point.
        3. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 22 May 2021 08: 24
          -2
          Quote: sabakina
          After 3 MV there will be nowhere to sit. Airfields will evaporate. And the water will evaporate.

          belay ??? It seems that you "forever" memorized the army "instruction": "In case of a nuclear outbreak, lie down on the ground and throw the machine gun aside so that the red-hot metal does not burn your hands!" ... winked
          1. Essex62
            Essex62 22 May 2021 22: 59
            +1
            Not so. So that the molten metal does not drip onto the new breech boots. To the foreman, your hands are on the percussion instrument. laughing
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 21 May 2021 21: 21
        -6
        The ability to take off both from airfields and from the water and land on the water.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 May 2021 23: 37
          0
          Why do you need to sit on the water?
          1. moody
            moody 22 May 2021 00: 29
            +1
            Well, refuel, load new ammunition and go back to battle. Only in this place you need to deliver all the supplies, so that they do not find them. So you need a seaplane supply with the ability to dive. Well this is such a scope for creativity! bully
            1. timokhin-aa
              22 May 2021 01: 32
              0
              Hang cruise missiles on the water? Duc it is necessary floating dock. And underwater!
              1. moody
                moody 22 May 2021 13: 03
                0
                Well, for example, in the A-57 project, the Bartini RCC was placed on top. See the picture below.
                As for the bomb armament, the A-57 had a calculation for one large "superbomb", which, most likely, was not supposed to be suspended afloat in the conditions of a forward base. If necessary, I suppose that they would have come to a variant of the upper hatch of the bomb compartment, where you can load with a conventional crane. Underwater, of course.
          2. Galleon
            Galleon 22 May 2021 12: 18
            +1
            Yes, so that after landing, he could neither steal nor watch over: it is elementary to leave the plane, nor to load fuel and ammunition. A person does not understand that seaplanes are separate berths, hangars, coastal services and a lot of everything that is not even in sight now. And the fact that takeoff and landing are possible up to 2-3 points of excitement, in contrast to the usual all-weather ones.
    2. bayard
      bayard 22 May 2021 00: 48
      +11
      Quote: Vadim237
      It is necessary to create combat supersonic hydro

      Yes, you are full, you don't need to create anything. Everything that could have been created over the past 15 - 20 years ... has not been successfully created, not built, not deployed.
      On the contrary, the Naval Aviation was deliberately destroyed, including the Naval Missile-Carrier. Fighter regiments to cover bases - the cat cried. There are simply no anti-submarine aircraft ... but what we have are rather patrolmen with very weak airborne equipment. They are more for appearance than good.
      Anti-submarine helicopters ... their effectiveness ...
      Why do you need supersonic hydro-fighters and hydro-missile carriers? At one time, Bartini dreamed about it ... but it was a VERY long time. And the Americans in the 50s - 60s experimented with this ... And categorically refused such a whim. It's not like planting a seaplane on a quiet lake ... the sea, it WURSES.
      Let the planes take off from airfields and decks of aircraft carriers. If necessary, refuel in the air. And they sit down too - on a hard deck with an aerofinisher or a native airfield.
      There is no need to invent a "wunderwaffe", everything has long been invented and tested by many years of practice ... with the elimination of the identified errors.
      But we rarely look for obvious and proven ways.
      We all try to fill the tooth through the anus.

      They will not have time to build anything, let alone ... "create".
      You will have to fight with what you have.
      And I'm afraid soon.
      1. moody
        moody 22 May 2021 13: 27
        +1
        It's not a seaplane to plant on a quiet lake ... the sea, it WURLES.


        "The teams from TsAGI and TsIAM are involved in the work on the strategic A-57. The modes of take-off from the water and the possibility of its long stay afloat were investigated. ... The A-57 was supposed to carry the equipment necessary for autonomous operation in the ocean or on the Arctic ice floe : there was the necessary skipper equipment, a through passage along the entire boat, a latrine for the crew. All operations for the priority maintenance of the bomber were carried out within the wing contours and vertical tail, that is, the aircraft could be serviced afloat. "

        https://testpilot.ru/russia/bartini/a/57/
    3. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 22 May 2021 08: 59
      +1
      Quote: Vadim237
      It is necessary to create combat supersonic seaplanes

      Duc, "created" already! Which do you prefer? Nuclear M-60M?

      Ali non-nuclear M-70?

      Or maybe you are a fan of Bartini's earlier projects: A-55; A-57?
      1. bayard
        bayard 22 May 2021 13: 41
        +1
        This was all until they learned how to refuel in the air.
        There, Myasishchev experimented with a nuclear rocket engine ... But everything turned out to be much simpler - refueling in the air ... sometimes multiple.
    4. Silon Selenov
      Silon Selenov 22 May 2021 14: 33
      +2
      * "Combat Supersonic HYDRAplanes ..."

      = Oh !! A new word in shipbuilding!.
      Academician Alexey Nikolaevich Krylov and Robert Ludwigovich Bartini -
      just "resting" ...
  • antivirus
    antivirus 21 May 2021 19: 05
    +1
    Conclusion: only 10 pieces of AB of 100 VI each with 000mm armor everywhere from keel to klotik will save the fathers of Russian democracy.

    well, anti-torpedoes will also help

    and it's time to tie up with the fleet - a waste of money (as Kudrin was right) - all into space ...
  • Intruder
    Intruder 21 May 2021 20: 41
    +1
    when the control functions were led by a person, with the help of technical means and methods that improve precisely his capabilities, he began to lose in many respects to a "stupid piece of iron", which is becoming smarter, faster, more sensitive, more mobile, etc.
    Maybe a live operator has simply become the "weakest element" in the complex of modern means, but so far they cannot decide and get rid of this "weak" ..., to increase efficiency and nothing more !?
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 21 May 2021 22: 15
      +1
      They will create AI, come up with rules, laws, prohibitions and ... and then I don't know if anyone is ready to give up the possibility of making the final decision to a "stupid piece of iron" ???
      Time will tell.
  • tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 21 May 2021 17: 51
    +1
    Quote: Silvestr
    After the triumph of 41-43. and the subsequent application of measures by the allies, to a complete defeat.

    Of the 86 boats of the "Atlantic flock", only three survived. In 1944, the Kriegsmarine collapsed.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 22 May 2021 12: 22
      +4
      Quote: tihonmarine
      Of the 86 boats of the "Atlantic flock", only three survived. In 1944, the Kriegsmarine collapsed.

      In general, if to be objective, the collapse of the Kriegsmarine occurred from the defeat of the German ground forces on the Eastern Front, when Germany had neither the forces nor the means to restore losses. This is what affects the curtailment of the submarine building program, and not their ineffective use. If we analyze the blockade of Great Britain in the first half of 1942, we can say that the German submarine fleet coped with the task. In general, if Hitler had not started an adventurous war against the USSR in 1941, he would have concentrated all his efforts on the conquest of Great Britain, I am sure that in a couple of years he would have brought the Britons to their knees, and no Lend-Lease would have saved them.
  • dauria
    dauria 21 May 2021 23: 56
    +4
    In spite of developing the XII type (if I'm not mistaken)


    XXI (large) and XXIII (coastal). But they too would have been cornered.
    Even if Hitler had "Varshavyanka" - the result would have been the same.
    The air force and the surface fleet must cover the "Achilles' heels" of the boats. In general, from the second world two interesting conclusions - the fleet should be the same and balanced for both opponents. And the second, the most amazing one - no nafig fleet is needed to win the war on the mainland.

    What do we expect from boats? That they will launch ICBMs. The only advantage was that the coordinates of the "launch shaft" were unknown, unlike the ground one. Once this has disappeared, it is necessary to pull the boat out onto land, let it float (ride) on the ground in our territory. And the dignity of the boat with ICBMs is preserved, and figs will give target designation to it, even if you know. - for a flight time of 30 minutes, the railway train easily gets out of the shock. After all, there are no intercontinental missiles with a seeker yet and are not expected.
    1. moody
      moody 22 May 2021 15: 16
      +1
      for a flight time of 30 minutes of the railway train, the train easily comes out of the shock. After all, there are no intercontinental missiles with a seeker yet and are not expected.


      But the enemy probably has a railroad map. But you won't be able to turn the steering wheel of the locomotive and drive in and disguise yourself in the nearest grove. And why do you think that the only real weapon against a rocket train is an ICBM?
      1. dauria
        dauria 22 May 2021 21: 16
        +2
        And why do you think that the only real weapon against a rocket train is an ICBM?


        First, there is no need to turn off anywhere. It's easy to move on a variable schedule even if the line is only 50 km long. 5 km for 100 kt is a miss. There won't even be a shock wave, so cotton.
        So let the enemy guess where the train will be in 30 minutes by the time his missile arrives. It's clear ?
        And second - what, besides an ICBM, can reach the Urals with impunity in 30 minutes? And for a longer time, the composition will have time to shoot. Moreover, it is somehow easier to shoot from the ground than from under water or even more so to break ice.

        Well, if you like submarines - take off your pants and build a normal surface fleet for them, equal to the American and Chinese.
        1. moody
          moody 23 May 2021 14: 55
          +2
          First, there is no need to turn off anywhere. It's easy to move on a variable schedule even if the line is only 50 km long. 5 km for 100 kt is a miss. There won't even be a shock wave, so cotton.
          So let the enemy guess where the train will be in 30 minutes by the time his missile arrives. It's clear ?


          Let us suppose. Rocket Trident 2, 8 W88 warheads of 475 kT. The radius of destruction for 500 kT is 3,9 km. Since a warhead of lower power, we will take 3 km to take into account the CEP. If it is possible to lay warheads evenly along the route, then the zone covered by one missile will be 48 km. The question is, will they spare one missile for a train with three missiles (how many there will be, another question) or not?
          And this is only one of the options for defeat. If we assume that we are talking about the first strike of the enemy, and the trains are guaranteed to be tracked and their position is known at the time of the start of the strike, then to disable them, not only a nuclear warhead can be used, but also aviation ammunition, a drone, a sabotage group. Cover is possible from all these threats, but within a certain area. So and for a train, as for a submarine, the movement area is limited to a certain area, outside of which the vulnerability increases sharply. It remains to compare which is easier to destroy, submerged submarine or train.

          Well, if you like submarines - take off your pants and build a normal surface fleet for them, equal to the American and Chinese.


          I like it! And so are the aircraft carriers. Both cruisers and minesweepers. And tanks, and guns, and planes. Only all my pants, along with socks, shirts and other linen, are not enough for one latrine for a submarine. And the helmsmen of real financial flows do not know about you and me, and they do not appreciate our genius. Alas!
          1. dauria
            dauria 23 May 2021 16: 44
            +1
            It remains to compare which is easier to destroy, submerged submarine or train.

            If you know where the boat is, then there's nothing to talk about. Even a vigorous loaf is not needed. Well, or tactical "unaccountable" to the treaty.
            And with the train, how easy it is for you - everything is known, bugs are all around and saboteurs ... laughing And the intelligence is asleep. Not. it is an exchange of a nuclear missile for a nuclear one, and the exchange is not 100% guaranteed for the United States. And the number of heads was calculated by the START treaty,
            Otherwise, it would be painful to just fight the aircraft carriers - spotted and launched a rocket with a bunch of heads into the intended area.
            No wonder the United States first of all asked Gorbachev to eliminate the very topic of trains and refuel the Tu-22m with a bar. It is difficult to fight the first, and the second is a bone in the throat for AUG.
            1. moody
              moody 23 May 2021 21: 35
              0
              If you know where the boat is, then there's nothing to talk about. Even a vigorous loaf is not needed. Well, or tactical "unaccountable" to the treaty.
              And with the train, as you have it is simple - everything is known, bugs around and saboteurs ... laughing And the intelligence is asleep.


              Well, it was not me who set the initial conditions:

              The only advantage was that the coordinates of the "launch shaft" were unknown, unlike the ground one. Once this is gone, we need to pull the boat out onto land, let it float (ride) on the ground in our territory.


              In addition, I do not share your optimism about the drowning of the sub. If we consider the finding of a single boat not in the open ocean under the unpunished influence of the enemy's ASW, but in its own guarded positional area, then its chances of survival increase dramatically. As well as, however, the chances of a train undercover. But then there are more threats to the train, and it has less room to maneuver. Only a special anti-submarine weapon acts against the submarine under water, and the train can be damaged by both an aircraft missile and, for example, ATGMs of modest American tourists interested in the architecture of Yekaterinburg's cathedrals. For some reason, it seems to me that such tourists now have more opportunities to move around the country than in the days of Gorbachev.
              About sleeping reconnaissance, bugs and saboteurs. Quite recently, there was a parade to mark the anniversary of the victory in the most terrible war for our country. How did this war begin? I am not trying to denigrate either intelligence or the leadership of that bygone power, on the fragments of which we live. I am simply stating that a catastrophe happened, the consequences of which could be dealt with with incredible efforts and blood. Is there complete confidence that this will not happen again now, with the worst initial conditions?

              Not. it is an exchange of a nuclear missile for a nuclear one, and the exchange is not 100% guaranteed for the United States.


              We are, of course, discussing a hypothetical train, but as far as I remember, the prototype had 3 missiles. So, not everything is so simple.

              Otherwise, it would be painful to just fight the aircraft carriers - spotted and launched a rocket with a bunch of heads into the intended area.


              And here the difference in the movement of the ship from the train just appears. Covering the area of ​​a square is always more difficult than a line inscribed in it.
  • Santa Fe
    Santa Fe 23 May 2021 09: 10
    0
    After the triumph of 41-43. and the subsequent application of measures by the allies to complete defeat

    How easy it is to throw words yeah

    You cannot confirm this only with facts.

    The ps / submarine forces of the Kriegsmarine could not be defeated. But the actions of 1000 submarines were irrelevant for the Allied merchant and navy.
    1. Glory1974
      Glory1974 27 May 2021 10: 24
      0
      The ps / submarine forces of the Kriegsmarine could not be defeated. But the actions of 1000 submarines were irrelevant for the Allied merchant and navy.

      Out of 1000 boats, 900 were lost, 90% of the losses. The task has not been completed. What can you call it, if not a rout?
      1. Santa Fe
        Santa Fe 27 May 2021 18: 54
        0
        721 submarines were lost at sea

        Glory, you believe it is possible to make 3587 military campaigns

        Sink 3083 vehicles with a total tonnage of 14,5 million tons

        And 123 warships, incl. 2 battleships, 7 aircraft carriers, 9 cruisers and 63 destroyers

        And at the same time DO NOT HAVE ANY LOSS?

        Defeat - when they beat, not allowing to strike back. Here, the boats performed tasks and drowned everyone in a row. Another question is that, strategically, for the Anglo-Saxons, these actions of the Kriegsmarines did not affect anything.
        1. Glory1974
          Glory1974 28 May 2021 08: 45
          0
          Oleg, I don’t know how the criteria of victory and defeat are considered in naval military science, but the groundmen have such criteria.
          1. The number of losses incurred.
          25% - significant, combat effectiveness is preserved if the headquarters survived.
          50% - critical, limited capable if there is a headquarters.
          75% - the troops are defeated, incapable of combat.
          2. the criterion fulfilled or did not fulfill the task - the main one.
          The troops can be defeated, but at the same time he completed the task (one can say Pyrrhic victory), which means the losses are not in vain.
          In the case of submarines. Undoubtedly inflicted losses on the enemy. Significant? Maybe, but the goal was not achieved. The enemy fleet fulfilled its task, ensured the delivery of cargoes by sea transport.
          Conclusion: according to the criterion for completing the task, the task has not been completed.
          according to the criterion of incurred losses 72,1% - defeat with loss of ammunition.
          1. Santa Fe
            Santa Fe 28 May 2021 09: 42
            0
            You misinterpret events

            700+ boats were not lost during one battle... It was a six-year war with a continuous increase in intensity. Every year the Germans had more submarines in service than in the previous year. And they could continue to fight after May 45. They still had everything for this - hundreds of even more advanced submarines than at the beginning of the war (the Kriegsmarines began emnip with fifty boats)
            ... Only this was not needed for a long time. The war was over on earth
  • credo
    credo 21 May 2021 15: 29
    +2
    Yes, the authors of the article went their separate ways.
    And if we consider at the initial stage the issue of using Poseidons to destroy the naval bases of a potential enemy and only then using submarines, if the need arises.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 21 May 2021 15: 32
      -3
      Poseidon isn't stealthy either! Although in such a relatively compact, fast, highly specialized device, it is possible to implement an algorithm for overcoming the existing defense.
      I think our constructors know what to do.
      1. credo
        credo 21 May 2021 15: 40
        +2
        Quote: rocket757
        Poseidon isn't stealthy either! Although in such a relatively compact, fast, highly specialized device, it is possible to implement an algorithm for overcoming the existing defense.
        I think our constructors know what to do.

        As far as I understand, the main advantage of the Poseidon is speed, maneuverability and the ability to walk at depths inaccessible to submarines, which neither AUG nor submarines of any country in the world can boast of.
        Even having discovered the course of this product from the enemy, the main task will be the ability and speed of its neutralization.
        Are there such neutralizers against Poseidon?
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 21 May 2021 15: 45
          +10
          Will the enemy not sit and wait? They will look for methods of counteraction.
          So far, no one has invented an absolute weapon ...
          1. credo
            credo 21 May 2021 15: 51
            +5
            Quote: rocket757
            Will the enemy not sit and wait? They will look for methods of counteraction.
            So far, no one has invented an absolute weapon ...

            It turns out that the submarines, taking into account the developing detection systems, become not a weapon of the frontline, but of the rear, and their main task can be reduced to a weapon of retaliation - to lie down and wait for the moment when the whole world turns into dust in order to strike rays of glory "to the winner.
            1. rocket757
              rocket757 21 May 2021 15: 56
              +5
              Also an option ... but this is a variant of the apocalypse!
              Although, bearing in mind this option, some will think, is it worth going to it?
            2. timokhin-aa
              21 May 2021 20: 39
              +3
              In general, there is a way to preserve the offensive capabilities of submarines. But more about that sometime next time.
              1. rocket757
                rocket757 21 May 2021 22: 22
                +1
                Methods that is ... will develop. How much it will all cost is not an idle question.
                Just an assumption ... no one wants / cannot fundamentally change anything as long as there is a conviction / hope that the element of vigorous containment has not exhausted itself.
                After all, there are no obvious prerequisites that someone has ceased to be afraid of a colossally destructive response from any nuclear power when it is tried for strength.
        2. timokhin-aa
          21 May 2021 17: 44
          0
          There are also bulk.
          Read the articles on the links that I drank for you.
          1. Essex62
            Essex62 22 May 2021 23: 16
            0
            No, no and NO. If only those steers, all this, the steering wheel will be taken away. That is not possible, in principle. If it were otherwise, Russia was already in ruins in the 90s. Completely helpless, except for the ability to cook from the heart in the habitats of the puppeteers.
      2. mark1
        mark1 21 May 2021 19: 43
        -10%
        Our GUGI will suit everyone with a boogie-woogie ... Hydrophones SUSUS at the root! To instruct stations - sources of acoustic interference and other harmful garbage. It will be fun.
    2. New Year day
      New Year day 21 May 2021 15: 51
      -4
      Quote: credo
      And if we consider at the initial stage the issue of using Poseidons to destroy naval bases

      "Poseidon" - as a local impact, probably, and good. But after its application, the war ceases to be local and everything is used
      1. credo
        credo 21 May 2021 15: 56
        +8
        Quote: Silvestr
        Quote: credo
        And if we consider at the initial stage the issue of using Poseidons to destroy naval bases

        "Poseidon" - as a local impact, probably, and good. But after its application, the war ceases to be local and everything is used

        Here I can only say in the words of V.V. Putin - "... Yes, for humanity it will be a global catastrophe, for the world there will be a global catastrophe, but as a citizen of Russia, as the head of the Russian state, I want to ask the question: why do we need such a world if there is no Russia? ..."
        1. Sychev Vitalii
          Sychev Vitalii 24 May 2021 09: 18
          -3
          and what, isn't the world going to cost Russia? may well ...
      2. D16
        D16 21 May 2021 21: 35
        -5
        But after its application, the war ceases to be local and everything is used

        Why do you think so? A small non-accidental tsunami provoked by an underwater explosion, the port is gone, but all the satellites are silent, the strategic nuclear forces do not take off, who will take the responsibility to arrange a global badabum and cease to exist together?
    3. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 25
      +2
      Have already considered
      Time
      https://topwar.ru/176056-esche-raz-o-spa-posejdon-status-6.html
      Two
      https://topwar.ru/155207-statusnyj-tupik.html
      Three
      https://topwar.ru/176056-esche-raz-o-spa-posejdon-status-6.html
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Intruder
      Intruder 21 May 2021 20: 49
      +1
      And if we consider at the initial stage the issue of using Poseidons to destroy the naval bases of a potential enemy and only then the use of submarines
      who will be found when the "Belgorod" leaves the base !? Yes, and they themselves are not so quiet devices, if you carefully read about their onboard installations ... there it does not smell stealthily in acoustic terms ...
    6. lucul
      lucul 21 May 2021 21: 15
      +3
      Yes, the authors of the article went their separate ways.

      Have you noticed too? )))
      At first there were articles on how difficult it is to detect AUG in the ocean, but now articles have been sent - what turns out to be a submarine in the ocean
      it turns out to be simpler to find, this is not an aircraft carrier))))
      And then they hung all the ears)))
      1. geniy
        geniy 21 May 2021 22: 30
        +1
        lucul (Vitaliy) Today, 21:15
        Thank God at least one reasonable comment. Apparently all the other readers of the military obscenity only yesterday learned to add a syllable from letters, but they will not be able to understand the meaning of the texts for a long time. But this is amazing - at first these same authors argue that there is no way to find an aircraft carrier group in the ocean, but a submarine is easy!
        1. Intruder
          Intruder 21 May 2021 23: 27
          -2
          at first, the same authors argue that there is no way to find an aircraft carrier group in the ocean
          yep, maybe some authors simply regulated interest on AUG topics, for other interested forces / organizations, but now, somehow it turned out, but about orbitals, so the news is not fresh, now even different commerce companies sell reviews of remote sensing of the ocean surface ... , and the latest exercises with different complexes of drones at sea, somehow uncomfortably proves that less and less freedom for the submarine remains .., the "puddle" is narrowed extremely !!!
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 22 May 2021 12: 37
            -3
            Quote: Intruder
            and the last exercises with different drone complexes at sea, somehow uncomfortably proves that less and less freedom for the submarine remains .., the "puddle" is narrowed extremely !!!

            More recently, our Israeli "analysts" laughed at the Qassams and praised the "iron dome" claiming that it would protect them. As it turned out, at least a thousand Qassams were not shot down (about a third of those released) and, luckily for the Israelis, they did not carry weapons of mass destruction.
            So the forecast about the "puddle" is fundamentally wrong - in the event of a massive well-planned strike, it is the proximity of our missile-carrying submarines to the US territory that will allow us to weaken the retaliatory strike, which means that all the costs of the submarine fleet will pay off. Of course, not to the detriment of our main component of the Strategic Nuclear Forces - the Strategic Missile Forces.
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 22 May 2021 12: 30
          +3
          Quote: geniy
          But this is amazing - at first these same authors argue that there is no way to find an aircraft carrier group in the ocean, but a submarine is easy!

          I have been ignoring such pearls of this sweet couple for a long time - they simply cannot be taken seriously, because what they utter does not fit either with the experience of past years, and even more so with what awaits us in the future. In my opinion, they work out the material, not thinking that they are ridiculed by those who served - the main thing for them is that they pay hard currency for it.
          It is obvious to any sane person that detecting an underwater target is much more problematic than any surface ship, but our "theoreticians" Timokhin and Klimov are ready to jump out of their pants, proving the opposite. The flag is in their hands, and the wind is ...
          1. geniy
            geniy 22 May 2021 13: 05
            +7
            I have been ignoring such pearls of this sweet couple for a long time - they simply cannot be taken seriously, because what they utter does not fit either with the experience of past years, and even more so with what awaits us in the future.

            Well, personally, I am not as strict as you towards Timokhin and Klimov - now I cannot recall specifically from a huge set of their articles, but I remember many moments in which I completely agreed with them. BUT, on the other hand, the theme of the so-called "WINDOWS" is just a sensation! My hands are just itching to write a huge devastating article about this. But time is sorely lacking, and the moderators will probably not miss the article. So I am short. The fact is that the effect of a moving body on the aquatic environment, as far as I remember, decreases approximately to the third degree, depending on the distance. Therefore, if we take the same body (a submarine, and then an aircraft carrier for comparison), then PL going in the periscope position - for example, at 5 m of its waterline from the surface and compare the wave height that it will create when moving at a maximum depth of travel, for example, 500 m then as you can see the difference is 100 times. Now we raise it to the 3rd power and we get that the difference in wave height that will be created by the PL going at the maximum depth - the wave on the surface will be about a MILLION TIMES LESS THAN 1000000) !!! BUT that's not all!
            The fact is that the height of the wave depends very much on the speed of the vessel - also about 3 degrees. You remember that the destroyer Novik washed away the children on the shore with its wave at high speed. But at a low speed of low-noise 5 knots - compared with the maximum 30 knots - the difference is 6 times, and we raise it to the 3rd power - we get that the wave height at low-noise speed is about 216 times. And now we compare the submarine going in the periscope position with the maximum speed and the submarine going at the maximum depth with low noise speed - the difference in wave height they have is simply monstrously large - in TWO SIXTEEN MILLION TIMES (216000000) !!! That is, it means that it is really possible to detect a submarine going in the periscope position with the maximum speed along the height of the wave created by it. But it is IMPOSSIBLE to DETECT a submarine going at great depths with low noise speed.
            And also - if you take an aircraft carrier - then the height of its wave is about 1 meter, while the aircraft carrier itself rises 60 meters above the water. And it means that everyone should understand that the surface target is easily detected without taking into account their excitement! And any surface target is much easier to detect than a submarine. Thus, I completely disagree with Timokhin and Klimov that the submarines are doomed. But on the other hand, I implicitly agree with them that the architecture of submarines can be greatly improved and their stealth can be brought to stunning levels, that their noise will be less than the natural noise of the sea, and the absorption of sound waves will completely nullify the enemy hydroacoustics, even at long waves.
            1. ccsr
              ccsr 22 May 2021 14: 33
              +2
              Quote: geniy
              Thus, I completely disagree with Timokhin and Klimov that the submarines are doomed.

              I will not consider the aquatic environment as an element subject to fluctuations, and by which it is possible to determine the movement of an object - this is my topic. But there are laws of physics that allow intelligence technology to locate a large mass of iron over a water surface much more accurately and faster than is possible with submarines. Everything else is secondary, which is why the future of our Navy belongs to the submarine fleet. Those who do not understand this will be delusional that it is forgivable for little-informed people. But those who deliberately, like Timokhin and Klimov, mislead people about the AUG and other surface ships deserve ridicule and condemnation, although it is clear that they are not doing it unselfishly.
      2. timokhin-aa
        21 May 2021 23: 34
        +5
        Not bad for a guy who can't do arithmetic.
  • Anachoret
    Anachoret 21 May 2021 15: 38
    +4
    Quote: rocket757
    The question is, what, in our armed forces, in headquarters, in the high command, they do not understand this ???
    As you can not believe in this, not small children sitting there.


    if you take the entire shipbuilding program, with super-duper submarines and corvettes with dubious combat effectiveness)
    one gets the impression that they are sure at the top that they will not have to fight in any way, and even if they have to, it will not be soon)
    as they say, it will drip on another head
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 21 May 2021 15: 42
      +1
      Maybe so ... while the prevailing opinion is that no one will dare to fight against a vigorous power, so Schaub is serious ...
      In general, who knows what they think. We are not being informed about that.
      1. Anachoret
        Anachoret 21 May 2021 15: 50
        +6
        in the light of the applications of the Minister of Defense of Japan and their budget increase) and other "partners" near our borders) there may well be non-nuclear provocations in the next 5-7 years, and you need to be ready for this now and work out counter-actions)
        the operation in Ukraine in 13-14 was fully described in the book of Tom Clancy and published back in May 13th year. and NATO forces reacted by redeploying troops directly according to the book scenario, and not according to events, which indicates that such provocations have been prepared for years) therefore, one can understand where the enemy will move in the next such attacks)
        and if in a couple of years the Japanese armed forces "climb up to protect" the abstract fishermen at the kunashir, will a nuclear strike on Okinawa come in response? )) most likely that not) but everything will be arranged this way, it is already clear now
        1. rocket757
          rocket757 21 May 2021 15: 54
          +5
          Study, preparation, training is our everything ... however, they have the same thing!
          Also re-equipment with new, advanced technology.
          For those who can, this is what happens.
        2. Lair
          Lair 21 May 2021 19: 16
          +7
          Quite right. But the Russian society does not understand that the Russian Navy is not ready for a possible clash with Japan. And for some reason, a significant part of commentators on VO are confident that the Russian Federation will deliver a preemptive nuclear strike against Japan ... As for the Navy's submarine rate, Dönitz immediately comes to mind with his maniacal conviction that a war at sea can be won by submarines. I remember how the rate of the German Navy on submarines ended, but a significant part of the commentators on VO do not remember.
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 21 May 2021 22: 06
            +1
            Quote: Lair
            ... And for some reason, a significant part of the commentators on VO are confident that the Russian Federation will deliver a preemptive nuclear strike against Japan.

            What other options are / can be considered?
            The Far East, in our country, is not the most densely populated territory and it will have to be defended as we can, and not as we will be told .... by the way, this is also recorded in the military doctrine of state defense. And what, someone will dare to check?
            In general, some kind of fortune-telling. You will not check, you will not know.
        3. Intruder
          Intruder 21 May 2021 20: 53
          -2
          that such provocations have been prepared for years), therefore, one can understand where the enemy will move in the next such attacks)
          Any special projects are prepared over the years, and not in a month "on the knee" ... laughing
          and if in a couple of years the Japanese armed forces "climb up to protect" the abstract fishermen at the kunashir, will a nuclear strike on Okinawa come in response? )) most likely that not) but everything will be arranged this way, it is already clear now
          And who will be able to order the use of nuclear weapons against the civilians of Okinawa !? There, in those state institutions - maniacs, somehow they are not allowed on the threshold ... belay
        4. bk0010
          bk0010 21 May 2021 20: 58
          +3
          Quote: Anchorite
          the operation in Ukraine in 13-14 was fully described in the book by Tom Clancy and published back in May 13
          Read Gleb Bobrov "The Age of the Dead", written in 2007, published in 2008. Then there was a big hit on Russia from Ukraine for this book, but suddenly it turned out that the writer was from Ukraine.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 21 May 2021 18: 24
      -1
      "One gets the impression that the top is confident that they will not have to fight anyway, and even if they have to, it will not be soon" So Russia will not fight with anyone at sea - and with Russia the same, even in the most distant future, the ships have long lost to missiles as well as tanks with all armored vehicles with cumulative shells, no matter how much you stuff them with various EW air defense missile defense systems and dynamic protection with KAZ, this will only reduce the likelihood of their destruction no more.
      1. bayard
        bayard 22 May 2021 01: 25
        +5
        Quote: Vadim237
        ships lost to missiles long ago

        And how many of these missiles do we have?
        I dare to just be curious - how many of them (missiles) carriers do we have?
        Count the ships of the US, NATO and Japanese fleets ...
        At least somehow to mitigate the existing imbalance of threats and our capabilities, the development of aviation could. Including Marine, reconnaissance, AWACS ...
        Could ...
        But it cannot.
        Did not develop.
        Not built. Not trained.
        Because I didn't want to.
        Not "could not," namely, I did not want to.
    3. bayard
      bayard 22 May 2021 01: 17
      +4
      Quote: Anchorite
      if you take the entire shipbuilding program, with super-duper submarines and corvettes with dubious combat effectiveness)
      one gets the impression that they are sure at the top that they will not have to fight in any way, and even if they have to, it will not be soon)

      And in this way, they often betray the Motherland.
      Too much has been done to undermine the real combat readiness and combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces in general, and the Navy in particular.
  • Civil
    Civil 21 May 2021 15: 54
    +3
    A swarm of unmanned submarines with AI elements - back in 1992, Western models were described and described in detail in Science and Life.
    But there is no money. Alas. And there is no time for R&D on this topic. However, there are Coy what answers such as "Belogorie". Asymmetric - going into depths over 500 m.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 21 May 2021 16: 03
      0
      Overcoming coastal zones, shallower, as a rule, is also not an easy task.
      However, these are all variants of the apocalypse ... it is better not to guess, but to bear in mind.
    2. Snail N9
      Snail N9 21 May 2021 17: 20
      -1
      About what I wrote: small PLs are our everything. And they sculpt monsters that look beautiful on paper and in parades ...
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 21 May 2021 17: 33
        +1
        Large boat, large platform to accommodate more impact equipment.
        1. Intruder
          Intruder 21 May 2021 20: 57
          0
          Large boat, large platform to accommodate more impact equipment.
          and it makes noise all over the World and leaves a trace on the surface, the width of a football stadium, plus its cost with this same amount of striking means, in comparison with the cost of the "opposite" side, such as: one PLO aircraft, or an PLO turntable with 4 torpedoes and went to the bottom !?
          1. rocket757
            rocket757 21 May 2021 22: 10
            +2
            The options are different and they all require excessive costs .... i.e. the inevitable dispossession of the fat bellys, and everyone else will have to press on to the fullest.
            A dubious prospect, no one will go for it.
            1. Intruder
              Intruder 21 May 2021 23: 32
              0
              those. the inevitable dispossession of the fat bellys, and everyone else will have to press on to the fullest.
              Well, this just suggests that large carriers must somehow be protected from BPA and other sea flying squirrels, earlier the article was already about airborne anti-aircraft complexes for submarines in AO, here you have to look closely, or rather something already do it for the future, otherwise, as in this article ..., everything is not so rosy, especially with acoustic illumination and radar on the surface from air carriers, and there is no longer the "main weapon" - stealth for submarines of different types ...
        2. bayard
          bayard 22 May 2021 01: 41
          +2
          Noisy, vulnerable, defenseless ...
          The SSGN is good as part of a strong order of surface ships (like its missile reinforcement and one of the tools / elements of an ASW), but not in any way as an independent, autonomous strike force. The same "Ash" will not slip through the lines of the PLO unnoticed. And its value, as an autonomous means, is being on duty under the enemy's coast to strike at its coastal and basic infrastructure. But he will not be able to do this for the objective reasons described in the article.
          But we not only do not build MAPL, but also do not design ...
          Why
          We even have a Soviet-built MPS for 10 - 15 years in the queue for repair (!) ... not modernization, but REPAIR (!!!) they kept it ... just just started ... repairing ... slowly .. As if reluctantly ... Almost the entire composition of pr 971 and so 945 is out of order.
          And what to fight now?
          How to protect "Boreas"? With Dolphins?
          Stupidity?
          Greed?
          Incompetence?
          At all times, IT was called quite differently.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 26 May 2021 19: 06
            0
            Quote: bayard
            And what to fight now?
            How to protect "Boreas"? With Dolphins?
            Stupidity?
            Greed?
            Incompetence?
            At all times, IT was called quite differently.

            And how does our strategic aviation, without any cover, enter the combat patrol area, where, under certain conditions, enemy fighters can fly?
            Moreover, control over their flight is carried out by the Americans in real time, and we cannot hide them in any way, even in radio silence.
            And that our pilots of strategic nuclear forces should not fly over the ocean at all, but only over their own territory?
            In general, there is no need to drive a wave - submariners have a great chance to remain unnoticed or to break away from the pursuit, which means that all your conclusions about greed and a broken penny are not worth a penny.
            There is a harsh reality, and it provides not only for the loss of civilians during the war with our main opponents, but also for the destruction of part of our armed forces. Or do you dream of sitting out somewhere in the skerries? It will not work - it is not for nothing that submariners are the most honorable and highly paid profession in our armed forces, and people going to serve in the submarine fleet know very well that they have very little chance of surviving a war, even in comparison with the civilian population. So forget about guarding SSBNs - any guards just unmask their campaign, and this is understood by those who really assess the capabilities of American intelligence.
      2. Vasia
        Vasia 21 May 2021 20: 43
        +1
        About what I wrote: small PLs are our everything. And they sculpt monsters that look beautiful on paper and in parades ...

        How do you imagine diesel-electric submarines with intercontinental ballistic missiles? And to get lost in the oceans at the same time) fool
    3. Galleon
      Galleon 22 May 2021 12: 35
      +3
      Quote: Civil
      Asymmetric - going into depths over 500 m.

      Not so simple. If you wrote not this phrase of yours, but the phrase "going into the depths under the layer of the jump", it would explain that you are in the subject and propose to renew the scientific fleet to monitor the hydrology of the oceans in the interests of the military fleet. Stationary hydrophones of the SOSUS system stand at depths of up to 600-800 meters, the new hydroacoustics can also sink under this notorious layer of the jump - in the video, this is exactly what a huge drum with a cable is for. The authors have posed a very serious problem, and it also needs to be answered very seriously and thoughtfully. Perhaps, by changing the submarine propeller from a propeller to a fin propeller, they are horizontal and vertical and are quite effective for the underwater environment. But how do you avoid low-frequency illumination? How to bypass radar detection? You have to think ...
  • knn54
    knn54 21 May 2021 16: 02
    -3
    I agree with the author that an integrated approach is needed: false targets, interference (emitters to disable sensors / buoys), destruction of ASW aircraft.
    And the Poseidons.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 21 May 2021 16: 05
      +2
      The author is right, not right, he also cannot take into account everything at once.
      Aspects, problems, above the roof, incl. and the economic opportunities of the state.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 21 May 2021 17: 04
    0
    Alexander, Maxim hi But have you tried to create a device for scattering or distorting the signal from the GAS? Indeed, any active signal can be suppressed or scattered by an oncoming signal, in a narrow radiation mode, similar to the emitter of the enemy's purity, thereby creating at least temporarily a "safe corridor" for the submarine.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 27
      +5
      This is how the GPA means do it. But the problem is in the signal parameters - in order to give a "long" wave both from the boat you need a source like a boat and there are many such problems
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 21 May 2021 17: 48
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        This is how the GPA means do it. But the problem is in the signal parameters - in order to give a "long" wave both from the boat you need a source like a boat and there are many such problems
        And if we consider as a solution, partial by itself, the directors of long-wave interference - surface ships? Is the fleet full of all sorts of reconnaissance ships, hydrographs and so on, is there anything else in the military? As I understand it, you can catch up with a long wave VERY from afar, but if it is more noisy from several sources? At the same time, I do not think that the effect of the diversity radar can occur.
      2. Thrifty
        Thrifty 21 May 2021 18: 31
        0
        Alexander, and the option of installing the supplier of the signal-emitter is fragmentary, three or four contours along the entire length of the submarine, retractable when the boat is submerged, will not work? The power of the reactor for a pulse, even a long one and will be enough in a series, after the pulse, the antennas are pushed into the body of the submarine.
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 21 May 2021 23: 08
    +1
    Thanks to the dear Maxim Klimov and Alexander Timokhin, for the long promised article, first of all, here I see a lot of facts and technical information, not emotions! this is progress! secondly, thanks for raising the most pressing issue of the security of the Barents Sea, now the authors have more (Thank God) stopped stammering about Africa and returned to our penates, the issue of strengthening the protection of nuclear submarine bases was raised by me repeatedly and unswervingly by the respected Sergei Shoigu himself, but admirals they decided it formally by the bureaucracy, transferring the Lad there, but a cardinal decision is needed, the reduction of the fleets of the Baltic Caspian and the Sea of ​​Japan to several pennants of the third rank, and the transfer of the existing ships of the first second rank to the Northern Fleet, it is also necessary to take some of the ships from the Black Sea Fleet, it is clear that Moscow and all 11356 should be in the north, they are too big for the Black Sea Fleet, and the Black Sea Fleet is enough to reinforce Tatarstan and Dagestan with corvettes.
    The entire article of the respected A Timokhin and M Klimov is proof of the need to strengthen the Federation Council and urgent. The authors proceed from the situation of total enemy control of the Barents Sea, the unpunished walking there of enemy ASW frigates, helicopters and low-speed NATO ASW aircraft, this is unacceptable! for this situation should be judged by the General Staff of the Navy! and there is nothing to argue if the enemy can track the submarine directly from the base. then despite the defectiveness of the means of his PLO, he will amaze her. Now on the Northern Fleet there are a couple of PLO cruisers, a couple of fr, and a pair of BODs. Strengthening at the expense of the seas will give 5 more frigates, 4 BODs and two cruisers PLO, 5 PLO corvettes. This is if you do not strengthen Kamchatka, although in my opinion it is necessary to create conditions there for the submarine to enter the ocean, because it is better to have two arms than one, then the Northern Fleet will receive a cruiser for 4 bpc and a couple of cruisers less.
    Now, in essence of the article, the authors honestly admitted that there is no nuclear submarine to be found in the ocean. The United States is forced to develop new methods The second fact: the search for a wake requires the submarine to move at a depth of 20 meters and quickly, also tell me to raise the periscope, or better to surface! The third fact: the magnetometric method allows you to identify a boat only in a narrow area of ​​the sea, and the ocean is large. the fourth fact: NATO managed to lose submarines even in the shallow Mediterranean Sea stuffed with means of control! It is all the more difficult by an order of magnitude to find nuclear submarines in the ocean. An essential search method is underwater radar, radar and other modern methods in general are widely used against nuclear submarines, surface ships, aircraft, tanks, etc. It is clear that finding a nuclear submarine is an order of magnitude more difficult than an unnecessary aircraft carrier or a bulky cruiser, and the plane is also visible on the enemy's radars, it is clear that there are methods of counteracting enemy radars, flashing. false targets, electronic warfare and other methods, the nuclear submarine should also use them, Thanks to the authors for reminding the need to develop nuclear submarines, improve them, create methods to counter their detection, nuclear submarines need to be developed and improved because this is the most important and necessary part of the fleet. and surface ships are only means of ensuring the safe exit of nuclear submarines from bases. Moreover, no one needs any, there are rusty troughs of aircraft carriers without goals and objectives and without money for their construction.
    Timokhin and Klimov are also considering means of searching for submarines by advertising brochures of the manufacturer, and means of finding unnecessary aircraft carriers by search errors ... do not believe the advertisements! Klimov himself gave an example when tests are carried out for show, in idealized conditions, do not think that the Americans who managed to convince everyone without flying to the moon that they were flying, these Americans of course claim that they have invented a miracle weapon and all boats are visible, because they want to cut successfully budgets and they this (rubbed point, wishful thinking, frank linden) can do better than Russians .. in ideal conditions you can find a submarine if you know the search square, if it's calm, if it is on the surface, and no one bothers to look for it, .. here in the village of Strelno (where I live with our president of the country) a New Year's garland was stolen from the club, the thief was filmed by a surveillance camera ... and what is visible? that the man in the jacket ... and that's it! they never found him ... and this was in the presence of a camera, camera operators on duty, guards, and within walking distance of means of detention, on land ... what can I say about an ocean thousands of kilometers in size, where it is storming where chests get in the way, blue whales swim .... I ask respected M Klimov and A Timokhin to give more accurate performance characteristics of the nuclear submarine search means, for example, the width of the search strip, the speed of the search aircraft, ship, shoulder (whether the PLO aircraft will reach the middle of the ocean), restrictions search by weather, combat stability in the Barents Sea, means of countering electronic warfare ... otherwise this is again not a business conversation, but only slogans ...
    It is gratifying that the authors casually mentioned 1144, apparently they finally agreed that the aircraft carrier is unnecessary, unrealistic and useless, ... yes, 1144 is clearly more useful than AB because it is cheaper, not so constrained by dimensions, cheaper to maintain, and can perform the functions of a reinforced PLO frigate in the coastal zone of the Barents Sea.
    In general, the carriers are completely defeated, by our indisputable arguments, scattered to the corners, fell silent, sat in silence in a trench from where they quietly viciously minus, and their leaders now refer to 1144 in order to save face.
    your turn!
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 22 May 2021 13: 01
      0
      Quote: vladimir1155
      for this situation should be judged by the General Staff of the Navy! and

      I completely agree with your conclusions, especially regarding the fact that advertising materials are very different from real conditions, and therefore only those who have no real experience behind them can refer to them as the ultimate truth.
      About your words
      for this situation should be judged by the General Staff of the Navy!
      I will note that the situation should be assessed not only from the side of the opposition of our opponents, but also taking into account the leapfrog that was for many years in the Ministry of Defense and when no one really knew what awaited the fleet in the future. This is where all the troubles that have followed the fleet since the beginning of the XNUMXs, which began after the sinking of the Kursk. Now, as I understand it, a strategic decision in favor of the submarine fleet has been made, which means that there is no need to drive horses, but you just need to systematically increase the power of the submarine fleet, and not engage in useless projects like the construction of aircraft carriers or missile cruisers - this is all yesterday. This is how I see the future of our Navy, in contrast to the projectors Timokhin and Klimov.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 May 2021 16: 02
        -1
        Quote: ccsr
        Now, as I understand it, a strategic decision in favor of the submarine fleet has been made, which means that there is no need to drive horses, but you just need to systematically increase the power of the submarine fleet, and not engage in useless projects like the construction of aircraft carriers or missile cruisers - this is all yesterday. This is how I see the future of our Navy, in contrast to the projectors Timokhin and Klimov.

        absolutely agree with you
    2. Scharnhorst
      Scharnhorst 22 May 2021 21: 50
      +2
      I wanted to ask the authors of the article, but I will ask you, because the authors as "Orthodox Muslims" truly believe, among other things, in the need for aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy, and you sarcastically gloat "in Ukrainian" about the impossibility of their implementation in reality.
      What is this mysterious radar on American patrolmen that can detect surface waves from a submarine going deep against the background of natural sea waves? Radiation range, continuous or pulsed, signal modulation, method of surface inspection, the principle of processing the reflected signal, the very principle of sorting the information wave from the submarine from natural similar ones, how to deal with wave interference, how do prevailing currents, wind directions, depths and nearest shores affect? Why is the locator only on patrolmen and absent on anti-submarine helicopters, carrier-based aircraft, global high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft? Why is it still quite problematic to determine the coordinates of significantly more contrasting moving and stationary targets against the background of a stationary earth's surface and relief, which have already been digitized many times, with the "unconditional success" of the search for submarines based on a secondary feature against the background of a far from static ocean surface?
      Why the appearance of low-frequency illumination should put an end to the use of submarines, as at one time the appearance of missiles almost canceled out the development of aviation and artillery. It seems to me that the generation and reception of low-frequency sound radiation in an aquatic environment is no less problematic, as is the work with an ultra-long range of the electromagnetic spectrum in airspace. Imagining the dimensions of a low-frequency illuminator and a towed receiving antenna on a ship, it is difficult to imagine something comparable when placed on an anti-submarine helicopter. The principle of using spaced radar has not found widespread use in air defense, I think the same fate awaits this principle in PLO. Where are the graphs of the attenuation of low-frequency waves in the aquatic environment in comparison with other frequencies used in hydroacoustics? How does the protective coating of the submarine affect the re-reflection of low-frequency signals? What prevents a submarine from launching an anti-ship missile or a torpedo along the detection bearing of the LF illumination carrier or bypassing it while outside the guaranteed detection zone?
      And experts will certainly be able to ask more serious uncomfortable questions about the considered detection methods.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 May 2021 22: 11
        +1
        Quote: Scharnhorst
        Why the emergence of low-frequency illumination should put an end to the use of submarines

        thanks for the question, personally I am not an expert in radar, I served as a mechanic, then as a science, and was a programmer engaged in politics, in general, I lived a long life, ... my experience shows that even in the hardware in the engine, an experienced specialist does not find the cause of the malfunction the first time, all the more in numbers, there are many factors and accidents, therefore, in my purely personal opinion, low-frequency illumination is just a scam for cutting money, while it can be workable, but under certain conditions, such is life in general, everything works under certain conditions, and the main thing is that it is impossible to illuminate the entire ocean with a low frequency, for sure the method has a certain limited search range and a number of conditions and restrictions, limited range first of all, There is a lot of noise in the ocean, and it is not always possible to find what you need in the noise, the problem is that the oceans are very well big and deep, and find there a submarine that a needle in a haystack,

        on the other hand, this method can be dangerous for submarines, always after the appearance of a particular technology, the antidote does not appear immediately, but usually it is found, so you need to pay attention to this method, study it and take measures to disavow it.

        that's what I think, if anyone knows more, let's listen
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 May 2021 22: 25
        +1
        Quote: Scharnhorst
        What is this mysterious radar on American patrolmen that is able to detect surface waves from a submarine going deep in the background of the natural roughness of the sea?

        this is definitely nonsense, a boat going slowly under water at a depth does not leave traces, and the sea is so random and crowded that nothing will be found there, ... in calm and if the boat is at periscope depth, maybe it will work
      3. timokhin-aa
        24 May 2021 22: 33
        -1
        M. Klimov's answer:

        I wanted to ask the authors of the article ... What is this mysterious radar on American patrolmen that is able to detect surface waves from a submarine going at a depth against the background of natural sea waves? Radiation range, continuous or pulsed, signal modulation,


        Disrespectful, the radar station is DIFFERENT. But taking into account the fact that the boats were "caught" not only with the "Initiatives", but also with the "Thunderstorm" (!!!), the question is, as it were, obvious.

        Why is it still quite problematic to determine the coordinates of significantly more contrasting moving and stationary targets against the background of a stationary earth's surface and relief, which have already been digitized many times?


        A short word RELIEF, and HARD (RIGID) terrain

        Why the appearance of low-frequency illumination should put an end to the use of submarines,


        But this is YOUR personal trash, and there is no need to attribute it to the authors.

        Imagining the dimensions of a low-frequency illuminator and a towed receiving antenna on a ship, it is difficult to imagine something comparable when placed on an anti-submarine helicopter.

        How are you with vision? In the article, one of these (moreover, massive) OGAS is given
        BUGAS is similar in parameters on the Egyptian "Hainan" (in fact, another BO of our project 122)


        The principle of using spaced radar has not found widespread use in air defense, I think the same fate awaits this principle in PLO.


        UUUUU how everything is started ... Do you have Google on coupons?

        How does the protective coating of the submarine affect the re-reflection of low-frequency signals?

        NO
        At these frequencies, it does not work at all.


        What prevents a submarine from launching an anti-ship missile or a torpedo along the detection bearing of the LF illumination carrier or bypassing it while outside the guaranteed detection zone?

        Aviation RSAB?

        And experts will certainly be able to ask more serious uncomfortable questions about the considered detection methods.


        Specialists are beating the alarm about the implementation of all this in the Russian Navy
        1. Scharnhorst
          Scharnhorst 25 May 2021 15: 12
          -1
          As expected, apart from rudeness at the level of a red mullet merchant and broadband broadcasting of idiocy, the authors can no longer be achieved. Inconvenient questions are easier to drown in links to previous nonsense on similar topics or quotes taken out of the context of authorities with wide stripes.
          But this is its own GPBA. The "illuminated boat" gives a secondary wave IN ALL directions - and if there is some tactical unit on the side opposite to the hunter ship that can detect the reflected wave (submarine or helicopter), then the width of the strip in which any underwater target is detected, from tens of kilometers turns into hundreds. The worst part is that on the opposite side there might just be a buoy dropped from a patrol plane.

          Realizing the virtual reality of the author's subservience to the "power" of a potential adversary, I propose to translate this masterpiece of the victory of technology over real meaning in the form of a dissertation and defend myself in one of the Anglo-Saxon universities ...
          Loud and prolonged applause turning into a standing ovation!
  • Subtext
    Subtext 22 May 2021 13: 22
    0
    They write (in articles, comments) that Klimov served on boats for 10 years, especially Romanians, i.e. a priori a perspective frame. The question is why he is cap. 3 p. (submariner!). Maybe these 10 years: 5 years - the system, 5 - on boats? Oh well ...
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 22 May 2021 17: 54
      0
      Quote: Subtext
      They write (in articles, comments) that Klimov served on boats for 10 years, especially Romanians,

      I learned with great interest the version of the origin of the word "Romanian" in the Navy:

      https://maxpark.com/community/4169/content/2812419

      Here are some of the few versions living in the Navy about the origin of the name of our profession. And after all, the concept lives on and no reforms and changes in signs can change it. I can’t refrain from giving the opinion of a submarine chemist who later became a famous writer:
      "There is an opinion that mine officers are a navy brat with idiotic jokes. They can insert a detonator in the cat's ass, set it on fire and wait until it explodes (detonator, of course). There is a suspicion that mine officers are what cites fatherlessness. Miner is a bitch udder, in short. Sorry felt the vile tribe in the distance. "
      A. Pokrovsky, "Sorry"

      Let them talk. We know that everyone on the ship is working only to bring us to a given point, from where we can fire our torpedoes and proudly report:

      -Torpedoes out, no comments! "

      Happy holiday to all of us, Romanians, on our day ...

      Yes, you can't deny naval humor, which cannot be said about the brains of some of them ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 23 May 2021 16: 19
          -1
          Quote: 617
          I'm not from Lenkom.

          I know that you graduated from the circus school, so do not worry.
          Quote: 617
          And you squeal because I drove you with a pug many times on your nonsense

          Yes, I somehow do not care how you imagine yourself, but even the naval ones do not have a very high opinion of your abilities. So how long have you served in the Armed Forces, do not hesitate to tell me.
    2. Alceers
      Alceers 22 May 2021 19: 45
      0
      He served when between ranks the terms were at the leith a year, senior two and three at the clt. By the end of the first contract after college, k3r was just recruited. But he was already busy with letters to Sportloto and to the commander-in-chief, instead of writing off the zhbp and zhte, that is why he did not go higher. Well, his quarrelsomeness is phenomenal .. according to reviews in life he behaves the same way as to extract in the comments
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 23 May 2021 10: 27
        0
        Quote: Alceers
        But he was already busy with letters to Sportloto and the commander-in-chief, instead of writing off the bailout and zhte, and therefore did not go higher.

        I have no doubt about this, as well as the fact that it was quarrelsomeness that caused him to be sent to the reserve. As I understand it, there was nothing serious in his ideas, that's why they got rid of him with formal replies - this is a real assessment of his activities.
        I don't know if you remember one of the tragedies with a naval officer in Moscow, when he was convicted for throwing the child out of jealousy, but he was invited to a military research institute precisely because he was a very competent specialist in military equipment. Real clever girls are always noticed in the troops and are drawn either to research institutes or to educational institutions for teaching work - I know this from some of my colleagues.
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 23 May 2021 11: 04
          +1
          Quote: ccsr
          Real clever girls are always noticed in the troops and pulled either in research institutes or in educational institutions for teaching

          Apparently, we had different "troops" ...
          In my "troops" the following "formula for success" was known - "Stop being clever! Are you the smartest? !!" I have no doubt that nothing has changed now, as far as I know, not only connections are important now, but also the amount of money.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 23 May 2021 15: 39
            0
            Quote: Bez 310
            Apparently, we had different "troops" ...

            I don’t think - I started to serve in the Soviet Army, so I have an idea of ​​who moved where, for many years of service I’ve seen enough.
            Quote: Bez 310
            And in research institutes and universities, not the "smartest", but the most crafty ones got to.

            Only a small percentage of the thieves got there, and even then, if there are no brains, then you will not write a thesis, which means that progress will stall. Although I do not deny that someone got there clearly not for their own abilities.
            Quote: Bez 310
            As far as I know, not only connections are important now, but also the amount of money.

            Those who have a lot of money will not go to serve in the army, even in a military research institute - I know that for sure.
            1. Bez 310
              Bez 310 23 May 2021 15: 47
              -2
              Quote: ccsr
              I started to serve in the Soviet Army

              In general, I disagree with you, but I will not argue, it makes no sense.
        2. The comment was deleted.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 23 May 2021 16: 14
            0
            Quote: 617
            I have no doubt that

            Well, finally, Klimov drew a picture, otherwise he shuffled like a naughty cat, and did not make a single comment to justify his horror stories, forcing his jacket to puff.
            1. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. timokhin-aa
        24 May 2021 22: 27
        -2
        Answer from Klimov:

        navigator, what did you finish? Lenkom?
        Have you ever been taught ARITHMETICS?
        We believe:
        tbsp + 1year
        drop l-t +2
        cap. 3 rank +3
        = 6
        first contract 5 years
        Or don't you know how to count up to 5?

        Well, his quarrelsomeness is phenomenal .. according to reviews in life he behaves the same way as to extract in the comments


        Who is this, this "tongue fluttered"? -


        And he did not remember why the crew officers refused him an invitation to the "retreat"? And they came only because the new commander asked.
        He did not remember how he was PASSED on "Zvezda"?
        By the way, this is incl. it was written about him:
        This is the front side of the medal, but there is a reverse. Repair "Omsk" objectively went on the brink of trouble. Unfortunately, a number of Navy officials in that situation did not behave in the most dignified manner.
        https://vpk-news.ru/articles/24907
        But Klimov "for some reason" bent the "Star" (by the way, despite the pressure and the command - "do you understand where you are and where" Zvezda "?!?!? (Literally)).
        By the way, he acted "quite correctly." But VERY HARD.
        But the furs with the builder had to be pulled;)
  • Silon Selenov
    Silon Selenov 22 May 2021 14: 29
    0
    * "in our armed forces, in the headquarters, the high command do not understand this ???
    Somehow I can’t believe this, it’s not small children sitting there ... "

    = It would be better if "small children" were sitting THERE.
    And there - the Chubais, Smerdyukovs, Nabiullins, Colonels Zakhearchenko and others
    "ardent patriots of Russia" ...
  • Maz
    Maz 23 May 2021 16: 49
    0
    And why did the authors of NN highlight such an important thing as warm, normal and cold layers of water in the ocean. Upon entering these layers, the properties of water change greatly. Or do you think that the maximum diving depth depends on the performance characteristics of the boat? Fuck, the properties of the layers of water in the seas and oceans, the layers are cleared, studied, marked, have a constant structure, properties and data on them are classified. And no Poseidon can identify a boat in a cold layer, but a boat can see and hear hundreds of miles from itself .. And so on and so on.
  • Slavik rusin
    Slavik rusin 24 May 2021 02: 48
    -3
    What can our leaders understand? And what can they really oppose to the enemy? In Russia, there really is no industry except for the military men castrated by the same Putin. There is not even a bearing production. Van destroyed everything long ago. So today there is not even a topic for conversation. And yet. A single salvo of only 2 US destroyers surpasses that of the entire Black Sea Fleet. And the US has 69 against our 20. So much the worse for us that they have the combat readiness of the fleet and other things is 60-70% of the available equipment, and we rarely have more than 30%. This is for aircraft and so on.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 24 May 2021 09: 15
      0
      Quote: Slavik Rusin
      ... There is not even a bearing production
      Weird, where does my neighbor go every morning? I naively believed that the plant, bearings to do .... and he, probably, just runs away from his wife every morning, Schaub did not saw, how much in vain.
  • Alexander Koshkin
    Alexander Koshkin 12 July 2021 13: 09
    0
    Alas, there are effective managers of their pockets! Serdyukov alone did so much that it will take many years to restore combat effectiveness!
  • New Year day
    New Year day 21 May 2021 15: 11
    +3
    Very interesting! Dialectics in action - any action gives rise to opposition and there is no limit to perfection!
    Thanks for the analysis of the topic "on cogs".
    1. SERGE ANT
      SERGE ANT 21 May 2021 15: 29
      +10
      any action creates opposition
      The fight between shell and armor, this music will be eternal. I think that the future belongs to unmanned aerial vehicles, 21 however ..
  • Asad
    Asad 21 May 2021 15: 12
    +8
    I read the article, I realized that everything is bad again. And there is no money to be good.
    1. New Year day
      New Year day 21 May 2021 15: 23
      +5
      Quote: ASAD
      And there is no money to make it good.

      Thoughts and ideas are more valuable than money if used wisely. Money can be lost, screwed up, but the thought cannot be killed
      1. Gardener91
        Gardener91 21 May 2021 15: 30
        +3
        Quote: Silvestr
        Thoughts and ideas are more valuable than money if used wisely. Money can be lost, screwed up, but the thought cannot be killed

        Bomb! Took note. (no irony, honestly ...)
        1. New Year day
          New Year day 21 May 2021 15: 33
          +4
          Quote: Gardener91
          Bomb! Took note. (no irony, honestly

          Much obliged
          hi
      2. tihonmarine
        tihonmarine 21 May 2021 17: 55
        +1
        Quote: Silvestr
        Money can be lost, screwed up, but the thought cannot be killed

        I remember a quote from the movie "I am your thought, but you cannot kill a thought."
      3. bk0010
        bk0010 21 May 2021 20: 59
        0
        Quote: Silvestr
        but the thought cannot be killed
        And carriers of thought - you can.
    2. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 27
      -2
      You do not understand anything.
  • Gardener91
    Gardener91 21 May 2021 15: 24
    +5
    In a modern war, the victory will be won by the one who is more jam-resistant by detection, warning and guidance systems, where there are tactical types of weapons in local conflicts. In other words, RER, RER, RED wins as electronic warfare in general. This applies to all types of submarines.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 28
      +2
      Well, tell us how to break through the enemy's PLS with this all.
      1. Gardener91
        Gardener91 21 May 2021 18: 08
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Well, tell us how to break through the enemy's PLS with this all.

        In a complex and with full interaction of their funds. I will refer)) https://topwar.ru/163705-stroim-flot-zony-jekspansii.html
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 May 2021 19: 04
          +4
          Well, this is the question - first we need to have surface forces and aircraft in order to "expand". And in our country, there is a floatation to the detriment of everything else.
          1. Gardener91
            Gardener91 21 May 2021 19: 38
            -3
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And in our country there is a floatation

            Sub-fusion is one of the main (so far) carriers of nuclear weapons, hence the "vaporization".
            1. timokhin-aa
              21 May 2021 20: 38
              +2
              Are you talking about Ash?
              1. The comment was deleted.
            2. bayard
              bayard 22 May 2021 02: 04
              0
              Quote: Gardener91
              Submarine is one of the main (so far) carriers of nuclear weapons

              At the same time - the most defenseless:
              - you can't fight off aviation ... and don't even see,
              - from surface ships - too,
              - there is no protection from torpedoes.
              - the boundaries of the PLO are not to be overcome.
              - in the event of a surprise attack, from 2/3 to 3/4 submarines will be destroyed in the bases, and on those 2 - 3 - 4 submarines that will be in the sea will be launched several dozen submarines and diesel-electric submarines, submarines aviation and surface forces of the enemy ... For most of them an hour at the time of impact, these MAPLs and diesel-electric submarines of the enemy will already be at gunpoint ...
              And on what have the colossal military budget funds been spent and continue to be spent?
              To fiction.
              1. Gardener91
                Gardener91 22 May 2021 09: 38
                0
                Quote: bayard
                And on what have the colossal military budget funds been spent and continue to be spent?
                To fiction.

                Did you read my first comment? And yet, yes, the scenario you described does not leave any living creature a chance to stay on Earth.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 22 May 2021 12: 17
                  +3
                  Quote: Gardener91
                  And yet, yes, the scenario you described does not leave any living creature a chance to stay on Earth.

                  Do not exaggerate the possibilities of today's nuclear potentials. This is not the 80s for you, when the USSR had 1750 ICBMs alone in service. , while not light "Poplar" and "Yarsy", but quite a R-36 in all modifications, up to the "Voevoda", and UR-100 in all its variety, including the six-headed Stiletto.
                  There were also heavy "Well done" about ten mobile-based heads (both ground-based and underground mobile-based).
                  And their heads were ... heavy. Not the current fly swatter.
                  And then the USSR had 950 ballistic missiles of different classes on SSBNs. And the heads of those missiles were ... heavy too.
                  Caliber always matters.
                  There were also thermonuclear bombs of several tens of megatons.
                  And the monoblock R-36s carried a 25 Mt warhead. ... and their orbital versions are 20 Mt.
                  And before the INF Treaty, we had just the darkness of the MRBM with heads of 5 Mt. - they were waiting for gifts for Europe. Five of these MRBMs were enough to bring England out of the state of war.
                  And there were also sea bombs with a capacity of 2 - 4 "Kuz'kina's mother" each.

                  And then the opposing side had a lot of things.
                  True, they had noticeably fewer missiles:
                  - ICBMs total 1050 pcs. ,
                  - SLBM - 600 pcs.
                  - strategic bombers - 700 pcs.
                  , but there were more strategic bombers. And those bombers carried very heavy thermonuclear bombs (2 pieces each), or KR - up to 24 pieces. everyone .
                  And there were also torpedoes, mines, tactical nuclear weapons in all their diversity, cruise missiles of all types with nuclear warheads.

                  And where is all this "wealth" now?
                  He's gone.
                  The USSR and the United States only had from 10 to 17 thousand warheads on strategic carriers, EACH. And they were HEAVY warheads.
                  And now ?
                  How powerful is the most powerful warhead?
                  And what is the power of most of them?
                  The former nuclear power has become a fly swatter. From which "nuclear winter" will not come, radioactive fallout will be moderate. And there are EXTREMELY of them today.
                  I'm talking about the number of strategic nuclear weapons.
                  How much did the United States and the Russian Federation allow themselves?
                  No more than 700 carriers (the Russian Federation currently has less than 600), and no more than 1550 warheads on them.
                  This is 10 times less in quantity, and an order of magnitude LOWER in power of each remaining warhead.
                  There was a DISARMAMENT.
                  By using our full strategic potential in the first strike, we will not be able to destroy all of the US infrastructure. And if these strikes are aimed mainly at military targets, then at least 50% of the population will survive ... and most likely 70 - 75 percent.
                  We simply do not have enough nuclear weapons for everything we need.
                  And this is only about the United States.
                  But there are also their NATO allies, with whom we also need to do something.
                  A lot of them .
                  There are also many targets on their territory.
                  There are also nuclear powers among them.
                  And countries like Canada and Australia are also at intercontinental range ...
                  And with American bases around the world, what are we going to do?
                  And there are about 1000 of them. And even if only half of it represents some meaning for us ... but this is half of a thousand ...
                  Size ALWAYS matters. And the size of the nuclear arsenal comes first.
                  This world is harsh and does not tolerate sentimentality.
                  China no longer intends to limit itself in the size of such an arsenal, and its first task today is to bring the number of warheads on strategic carriers to 1000 units.
                  And it will happen very quickly.
                  England also decided to increase its strategic potential by 1,5 times.

                  Shall we disarm further?

                  And with the potential we and the United States have, we will not destroy the world.
                  But we will kill ourselves.
                  We and the USA.
                  And the whole world will immediately fall into the pocket of China.
                  And they are waiting for it.
                  They are working on it.
                  And our nuclear potential (aggregate) has fallen, compared to the end of the 80s, at least 100 times. By aggregate power.
                  In the United States, perhaps even stronger.
                  1. Gardener91
                    Gardener91 22 May 2021 12: 24
                    -2
                    Quote: bayard
                    By using our full strategic potential in the first strike, we will not be able to destroy all of the US infrastructure. And if these strikes are aimed mainly at military targets, then at least 50% of the population will survive ... and most likely 70 - 75 percent.

                    Don't be cynical! Is this really not enough, after all, if nuclear weapons are used from one of the sides, the rest will remain on the sidelines while waiting for their kaput and the "road to Hell"?
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 22 May 2021 12: 45
                      +4
                      The analysis and planning of a nuclear war is generally a cynical matter. There is only a mathematical calculation and an assessment of the reality of threats. A threat is only considered significant when:
                      a) this threat is capable of causing irreparable / unacceptable damage,
                      b) the threatening party is really ready and capable of causing this damage in a critical situation.
                      Until the end of the 80s, we (the USSR and the USA) kept each other in good shape and were confident in the ability and determination of each.
                      And now ?
                      And if the global elites are READY to sacrifice the United States for the sake of destroying the inconvenient obstacle in the form of the Russian Federation?
                      Look what they went to to prevent Trump from running for a second term ... They hardly burned the country down in a civil war.
                      And this shows how great is the value of the United States to them at the moment.
                      The world has become global.
                      And for the balance of power in the global world, it is necessary to be able to create a threat on a global scale.
                      Not virtual, but guaranteed to be real.
                      1. Gardener91
                        Gardener91 22 May 2021 12: 51
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        And for the balance of power in the global world, it is necessary to be able to create a threat on a global scale.
                        Not virtual, but guaranteed to be real.

                        I agree with you completely, alas, there is space. But this is for now. I wonder where the world ruling elite, in the event of a global atomic catastrophe, will find a place for itself in this World? Don't "THEY" understand, or is everything under "control"?
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 22 May 2021 12: 58
                        +5
                        Quote: Gardener91
                        I wonder where the world ruling elite, in the event of a global atomic catastrophe, will find a place for itself in this World?

                        For example in New Zealand.
                        Australia.
                        South America.
                        Finally in Antarctica.
                        The war, if anything, will be limited mainly to the Northern Hemisphere, and the air masses of the hemispheres do not mix with each other. So there will be little radioactive fallout in SP.
                        They will sit out in underground cities with comfort and go out into the "new wonderful world".
                        "New civilization" can begin to build in the same Australia.
                        But there remains the "China factor", which has been nurtured so vigorously in recent decades.
                      3. Gardener91
                        Gardener91 22 May 2021 16: 39
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        They will sit out in underground cities with comfort and go out into the "new wonderful world".

                        Well, for now, this is conspiracy, and then who knows where and who is digging which bunker (pit) to whom. One thing is clear: almost the entire "civilized" world has taken up arms against the Russian Federation, or part of it is showing imaginary restraint. I think the price of the issue is Russian resources and territories, where China is dreaming of a tidbit.
                      4. bayard
                        bayard 22 May 2021 18: 26
                        +1
                        China has its own dreams, but it then expects to stand aside while the United States and the Russian Federation nullify each other.
                        Quote: Gardener91
                        Well, while this is conspiracy,

                        Yah ?
                        Even this has become a conspiracy? lol
                      5. Gardener91
                        Gardener91 22 May 2021 19: 19
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        Yah ?
                        Even this has become a conspiracy?

                        I did not mean the dreams of China, only how who and where can sit out with the subsequent exit to "new wonderful world".
                      6. bayard
                        bayard 22 May 2021 20: 43
                        +1
                        Yes, it is enough for you, in the United States for a long time and actively sell apartments in the "shelters of Armageddon" not even for members of the elite. There were even films and reports from those and from the place of their construction (even at a depth of 1 km.).
                        These are commonplace things, they have not surprised anyone for a long time. request
  • bk0010
    bk0010 21 May 2021 21: 01
    -1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Well, tell us how to break through the enemy's PLS with this all.
    We boil the ocean at the right points with nuclear explosions. Hydrology is changing, stationary means and deployed mobile ones fail.
    1. Gardener91
      Gardener91 21 May 2021 22: 01
      -1
      Quote: bk0010
      We boil the ocean at the right points with nuclear explosions.

      Well, probably for these techniques (?), The Poseidon platform is being created.
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 21 May 2021 22: 04
        -1
        Quote: Gardener91
        Well, probably for these techniques (?), The Poseidon platform is being created.
        What do you mean, it was in the days of the USSR that the FIPR were going to break through.
        1. Gardener91
          Gardener91 21 May 2021 22: 07
          -1
          Quote: bk0010
          What do you mean, it was in the days of the USSR that the FIPR were going to break through.

          Yes, there was somehow a topic, it was discussed, but they did not come to a consensus, there is too little information in open sources.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 22 May 2021 13: 10
            -2
            Quote: Gardener91
            Yes, there was somehow a topic, it was discussed, but they did not come to a consensus, there is too little information in open sources.

            Due to the development of automation tools for collecting and processing intelligence and improving the control system of our strategic nuclear forces, including the secrecy of control, back in the Soviet Army they came to the conclusion that a future war would be fleeting. Therefore, all forces should be directed at a preemptive massive strike against our main enemies, and not bother with the creation of weapons that will not be used in a short-term war. Well, the collapse of the USSR led to the fact that we were simply not able to maintain such an army, which is why we had to reduce many weapons, including naval ones. All the current groans of Timokhin and Klimov come from the fact that they still do not understand that Russia is far from the USSR, and therefore it is high time for them to roll up their lips, even if they are well paid for such propaganda.
            1. timokhin-aa
              24 May 2021 22: 26
              +1
              Therefore, all forces must be directed to a preemptive massive strike against our main opponents.


              Have a snack, hey!
              On whom are you going to deliver a preemptive nuclear strike? In Turkey? Japan, Ukraine?
              And when?
              Is tomorrow okay, for example?
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 25 May 2021 12: 28
                -2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                On whom are you going to deliver a preemptive nuclear strike? In Turkey? Japan, Ukraine?

                Relax, smart guy - we have only two countries related to "our main opponents", and all the others that you list are only the consequences of your illiteracy in military affairs.
  • tihonmarine
    tihonmarine 21 May 2021 17: 57
    +1
    Quote: Gardener91
    In other words, RER, RER, RED wins as electronic warfare in general.

    And it's easier - the latest technology.
  • Sergey39
    Sergey39 21 May 2021 15: 26
    +3
    The conclusion of the authors comes down to one thing - the urgent need for the construction of the AUG.
    1. Pavel73
      Pavel73 21 May 2021 17: 02
      +7
      ... and the destruction of the Russian economy by ruining it with the unbearable costs of creating these whoppers. Everyone who stands up for aircraft carriers should remember the history of the ships: Izmail, Soviet Union, Kronstadt, Stalingrad and Ulyanovsk. Recall what was started each time, and how each time ended. A powerful ocean-going aircraft carrier fleet is a defeat for the Russian economy.
      1. timokhin-aa
        21 May 2021 17: 29
        +4
        It is necessary to count many hundreds of billions on incapable Yaseni-M does not ruin anyone and does not cause any negative emotions in you.
        Why is it interesting?
        1. Pavel73
          Pavel73 21 May 2021 17: 45
          +1
          And how many of them, Ash? And how much is needed to create an AUG? In whose fighting efficiency there are no less doubts.
          1. timokhin-aa
            21 May 2021 18: 59
            +1
            And what raises doubts about the combat effectiveness of the surface forces?
            The number of planted Ash M is available on the Internet. Multiply by one hundred billion apiece and you get the value of this set of targets.
            1. Intruder
              Intruder 21 May 2021 21: 01
              -3
              Multiply by one hundred billion apiece and you get the value of this set of targets.
              However, the targets are very expensive ... drinks Maybe it was easier, it was to Mars ... a Russian drone (ordered in Japan or China) to send, to buy the launch itself, as the Arabs did last year, here the prestige and PR is colossal for the country ...? And so, the figure is huge, but the sense of the real ... a little !!! crying
            2. bistrov.
              bistrov. 23 May 2021 13: 13
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              the cost of this set of targets.

              Oh how! It turns out that the pinnacle of human technology development is just a set of targets. Aren't floating airfields that stand like 10 submarines a target?
          2. Lannan Shi
            Lannan Shi 21 May 2021 19: 15
            0
            Quote: Pavel73
            And how many of them, Ash?

            And simple and M, and existing and under construction - like nine pieces.
            Quote: Pavel73
            And how much is needed to create an AUG?

            If we take the American experience, where 1 SSGN stands in the area of ​​a quarter of an aircraft carrier, or as 4-5 ships of the warrant, then we have already pushed one AUG under the water. And now we are successfully pushing the second one. This is about the fact that we have no money for aircraft carriers.
            1. Pavel73
              Pavel73 21 May 2021 22: 48
              +3
              This is about the fact that, given the purely geographical and incorrigible division of our fleets (which played a fatal role in the Russo-Japanese war), we need at least four AUGs, two for both of our ocean fleets. Now we remember how much needs to be created for these fleets from scratch (even, for example, such a trifle as a carrier-based AWACS aircraft and a carrier-based tanker aircraft, nonsense, right?), And Ash will not seem so ruin. At least we don't make them from scratch.
              1. Lannan Shi
                Lannan Shi 21 May 2021 23: 28
                +2
                Quote: Pavel73
                and Ash trees will not seem so ruinous. At least we don't make them from scratch.

                Well, also an argument. Approximately the same category as - we have little money, so we will not make tanks, machine guns too, and we don’t need RPGs, we will only produce S-400s, it’s too painful for us to produce them well.
                In the 20th century, it was proved to us three times, in practice, that the fleet must first of all be balanced. And in the Second World War it was so at all that even many, many, many submarines were by no means a panacea, and they could not replace a full-fledged fleet. AND??? Are regular rake races a national idea of ​​Russia? Which is better, ten ash trees that will melt without problems, or 5, but capable of fully interacting with surface forces?
                1. Petrol cutter
                  Petrol cutter 22 May 2021 19: 43
                  -1
                  Unfortunately, nobody knows. What will be better in the next war.
                  Maybe Ash. Or maybe Karakurt?! ..
                  That business is so ...
                  Nobody knows...
                  Until the war happens, no one knows! ...
                  1. Petrol cutter
                    Petrol cutter 22 May 2021 21: 05
                    0
                    After all, take at least the grandmasters of comrade Karpov in the confrontation with comrade Kasparov ...
                    Who would have thought that it would turn out like this!
                    And, what is typical, I was rooting for Kasparov.
                    My God, how wrong I was ...!
                    Better, I would be rooting for Korchnoi ...
            2. bayard
              bayard 22 May 2021 02: 47
              -1
              Quote: Lannan Shi
              If we take the American experience, where 1 SSGN in the area of ​​a quarter of an aircraft carrier is

              In our case, AV air defense / PLO VI 45 - 000 tons is sufficient, not nuclear (gas turbines or gas-steam turbine pairs), with catapults and aircraft / helicopters AWACS. The cost of this will be about 50 - 000 billion dollars. (for Varan, the industry generally asked for $ 2-2,5 billion), and this is two "Ash" maximum.
              We don't need aircraft carriers like the "white elephants" - one each in the navy. We need an efficient balanced grouping. And this is 6 (six) AB Air Defense / PLO - 3 pcs. for each fleet (Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet). With escort ships, air wings and basic infrastructure.
              We cannot do with lesser forces, but all this "wealth" is worth no more than 10% of the state money-box (RF gold reserves) of our beloved fatherland.
              Within 15 - 17 years.
              If you build AB at two shipyards at the same time. With all escort ships, planes, airfields, piers, boiler houses, power plants, barracks, workshops. That is, with all the minced meat.
              To understand whether the Russian Federation has money for this, it is enough to remember that last year the government "saved" 1 TRILLION rubles on development and social spending.
              It was a trillion from the BUDGET.
              In one year.
              And this "savings" in one year = one third of the required amount for the entire aircraft carrier program in 17 years!
              And at the same time, last year (as well as the previous ones) the budget was PROFITABLE.
              Therefore, if you wish, you would not have to look into the egg-box. It is necessary to spend only 3 billion dollars a year (200-250 billion rubles) for 15-17 years.
              At the same time, all this money would flow into the Russian Economy, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, reviving the economy as a whole and returning through taxes (along trade chains and wages) back to the budget, passing through all the pores of commodity-money relations.
              This amount (3 billion dollars per year) can be obtained from just one income from the export duty on exported grain ...
              Do you think they do not understand?
              But they don't.
              And if they start with the construction of nuclear power plants of 80-000 tons, they will not receive any ships (neither in the required quantity, nor on time), and Zvezda's plans for the construction of tankers and gas carriers will be thwarted. "Star" will not pull such an order. Another 100 - 000 years ... will not pull.
    2. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 28
      0
      No need to juggle.
  • bistrov.
    bistrov. 21 May 2021 15: 27
    -3
    Either there is no protection from American torpedoes, frigates and corvettes are ineffective, you need to build cruisers and destroyers ... now Russian submarines are bad ...
    1. Machito
      Machito 21 May 2021 16: 32
      +9
      Why then do you read articles on VO? See the Military Acceptance: everything is fine there, beautiful marquise. The authors are versed in this topic.
    2. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 29
      +5
      Yes, experts.
      Who are you?
      1. Artyom Karagodin
        Artyom Karagodin 21 May 2021 20: 34
        +4
        And in our country, in principle, the word "expert" has turned into a curse word. Immediately there will be a bunch of skeptics who think that if someone claims something very inconvenient for perception, this is an attempt to "be smart". At the same time, people with a similar way of thinking for some reason throw their caps into the air after the "reasoning" of some Vorontsov.

        Why? Because, alas, they are not able to think about difficult things, and to believe someone who will bring them a "golden dream" is so easy. There is no need to think, doubt, seek, learn. To do this, you need to be able to admit to yourself that you are not so smart and do not know as much as you really are.
      2. bistrov.
        bistrov. 22 May 2021 13: 22
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Yes, experts.

        I remember, not so long ago, a similar article on VO, where the author argued that there was no salvation from American torpedoes to Russian ships, and, allegedly, they had better torpedoes, and they train more often, but ours do not do it at all, and, in general .. .., everything, well, oh-very bad ....! Didn't you, by any chance, write?
        I decided to delve into this in more detail, asked a very respected practitioner K. Dushenov a question and it turned out that everything is exactly the opposite: our torpedoes are at the same level, and training among the personnel is carried out regularly, and there is such a remedy for enemy torpedoes as anti-torpedo, then imitators, with which all Russian military vessels are equipped, including submarines ...

        As for your article, where you prove that Russian submarines will certainly be found and destroyed, I can hardly believe, sorry, with difficulty, although, I agree, you did a good job here, probably shoveled a whole mountain of waste paper, just how much they stamped, I already read tired of ..., from the first lines it became clear what you are driving at ...

        Discover the secret, how do you manage to push such voluminous articles? I tried a couple of times to write about what I am well versed in, and got a twist from the gate: the material, you know, is blurry, and the sources are dubious, and the volume is large, and the topic is irrelevant. But it turns out to be urgent to throw mud at our Russian army and navy and the military-political leadership of Russia. Therefore, topics about fake palaces and the personality cult of the Russian president appear here.

        Yes, somehow your research does not dance with reality, only recently, in the Mediterranean Sea, the "highly equipped" NATO fleet could not detect a Russian submarine, a couple of years ago, the Russian SSBN came close to the shores of the United States and was there for a long time, and the Swedes they have been looking for a Russian submarine for many years now and nothing ..., I agree, the latter is more likely from a series of jokes, but, and you will agree, even they do not appear from scratch, there is some grain of truth in them ...
        So I do not think that you are more experienced and more knowledgeable than General of the Army Gerasimov, who directs the General Staff and determines the strategic and military-technical policy of the Russian army.
        1. Artyom Karagodin
          Artyom Karagodin 23 May 2021 01: 36
          +1
          asked a question to the highly respected practitioner Dushenov K.


          Dushenov, who claims in his famous film, for which, by the way, and the term got it, that the Jews are to blame for everything? You would also ask Fomenko for comments.
          1. bistrov.
            bistrov. 23 May 2021 10: 16
            -2
            Quote: Artyom Karagodin
            that the Jews are to blame for everything?

            Maybe not in everything, but in many ways, in particular in the squandering of Russian lands and Russian resources under the USSR, they practically destroyed Christianity as a spiritual system, replacing it with European Satanism and much more ...
            That is, Dushenov is right in many respects, he may be too keen on religion, but this does not in any way affect special, practical knowledge.
            1. Artyom Karagodin
              Artyom Karagodin 23 May 2021 10: 38
              0
              Ooh ... I have no more questions.
            2. timokhin-aa
              24 May 2021 22: 22
              -2
              Hahaha. Wow, Dushenov's example.

              I quote a letter from yesterday:

              Thank you for yesterday's flock on Topvor. There one character mentioned K. Dushenov. Attesting him as a practitioner of anti-submarine. Let me explain. K. Dushenov studied at the VVMU named after Frunze, at the PLO faculty. In the spring of 1982, not long before graduation, he built relations in the company in such a way that he had to be urgently transferred to VVMUPP them. Lenkom, at the mine and torpedo faculty.

              There, a couple of weeks later, he chipped off the number. I took it without asking, a new robe from a fellow student, put it on. Without erasing the branding with the owner's name. When asked about such a trick, he answered boorishly. The class meeting decided to expel him from the ranks of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, with subsequent departure for civilian life.

              The command of the school and the political department intervened. Kostya was defended. He studied perfectly, had fluent English, was well prepared physically. Leningrad TV came to shoot at the graduation ceremony of Kostya.

              Kostya got to Zapadnaya Litsa, in the 1st flotilla. A year later he received a medal for military merit, allegedly for mastering new technology, which the commander of the torpedo group did not smell. In 1985 Kostya wrote a letter to Gorbachev, putting his party card in an envelope. He was immediately dismissed. .Okay, managed to avoid examination in Durkee.

              He grew a gorgeous beard and got a job as a guard in the Hermitage. There he turned on the soil of great power, with a sharp bias towards extreme anti-Semitism. After the child was cured of oncology, he gave a vow to convert to Orthodoxy. Which he did. He became the personal secretary of the local metropolitan, collaborated in the editorial office of Orthodox Russia. For anti-Semitism he received a solid term. Then several years of exile in the Kingissep region. An anti-submariner is such a practitioner. I sincerely wish you further creative success. Best wishes to Maxim.


              Well, yes, Dushenov is still KBCH-3, respectively, his outpouring is not the delirium of a stoned eccentric, but a deliberate deception of the Flock. laughing
              But what to do? Money is needed!
              laughing laughing
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 25 May 2021 12: 52
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Hahaha. Wow, Dushenov's example.

                I quote a letter from yesterday:

                But this answer to Klimov's letter, from which I just laughed, do not dare to quote:



                Where does Klimov, a "generalist" specialist, also have a craving for litigation?
  • honda
    honda 21 May 2021 15: 27
    +1
    Thank you. Very interesting and informative
  • flicker
    flicker 21 May 2021 15: 30
    -4
    Well, actually, the Internet is large and content on this topic could have been copied and pasted even more.
    ---
    The impression that the dilettante did it all.
    1. New Year day
      New Year day 21 May 2021 15: 35
      -1
      Quote: flicker
      The impression that the dilettante did it all.

      Forward! Smash to smithereens - truth is born in a dispute
      1. Vsevolod
        Vsevolod 21 May 2021 16: 20
        -1
        Argue with the flat-earth proponent.
    2. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 30
      0
      The impression is that for you all this is a Chinese letter.
      1. flicker
        flicker 21 May 2021 18: 43
        -1
        The impression is that for you all this is a Chinese letter.

        Yes, even Japanese, it does not affect the process that she describes.
        Often authors formulate their own delusions, then ascribe them to others, and then begin to smash these "delusions" (once again, their delusions!), Which is called into dust.
        For example, at the beginning you "voice" a strange thesis
        There is a harmful superstition that allegedly submarines can become the backbone of the Navy, the most important means of warfare, and all other forces are purely auxiliary.

        further attributed to his leadership of the Ministry of Defense, after which you begin to arrange an all-sesensk pogrom.
        ---
        This "harmful superstition" is just what I hear from you.
        ---
        Talk about the war, and everything is locked up in the fleet (albeit on the underwater one).
        But we have missile forces, aviation, missile defense, air defense, etc.
    3. Lair
      Lair 21 May 2021 19: 22
      +1
      Quote: flicker
      Well, actually, the Internet is large and content on this topic could have been copied and pasted even more.
      ---
      The impression that the dilettante did it all.

      Actually, the article was written by a naval officer who served in submarines for 10 years.
      1. timokhin-aa
        21 May 2021 20: 37
        +1
        Including. There are two authors.
        1. Lair
          Lair 21 May 2021 20: 56
          +2
          Alexander, sorry if you hurt me without mentioning you as the author of the article. Such comments are simply annoying when they write "that an amateur wrote an article", forgetting that the article was written by a professional submariner as well. Thanks for the interesting article.
          1. Alceers
            Alceers 22 May 2021 22: 56
            +1
            Uh-huh. Above the commander of the warhead. those. the maximum of the officer of the watch who did not rise. The main achievement that he so trumps is that the briefcase was carried by one former military leader. Are there many interesting company commanders, at least a regiment commander, will teach him how to fight? Without passing either VMA or VAGSH?
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. timokhin-aa
              24 May 2021 22: 12
              0
              Answer from Klimov:

              In terms of my level of both tactical and operational training, there were no questions, incl. ex Head of the Department of OI VA GSh Golosova R.A. Incl. with his "blessing" took place, the answer to which was


              I didn’t carry any "portfolios" to Suchkov, but for many years I really worked with him on a number of issues. And for those who knew Suchkov, this is the best recommendation.
              And now questions to you (you have to answer for your "waving a long tongue"), why did not Monsieur Konashenkov dare to show the removal of the torpedo from under the ice? Huh? Sing birdie don't be ashamed



              What I developed - how to do it CORRECTLY.
              And not the PORP that was made on "Umka".
              This is the first.
              And secondly, persons "twisting their fingers at their temples" should have done it with a SCREWDRIVER - YOURSELF. Maybe it would have been screwed up to the point that before WALKING and RUNNING it wouldn’t be too big to at least read the technical descriptions and the operating instructions of the products.
              1. Alceers
                Alceers 24 May 2021 23: 31
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Answer from Klimov

                The answer is not correct. Should have started with the following phrase, please excuse me for my harsh and thoughtless words addressed to you. I undertake not to do so in the future. I was wrong in attributing other people's intentions to you.
                And let him ask Shibaev and not Konashenkov about the torpedo. Coriphan. I think he will remember him as a specialist as he rummaged in his office
            3. timokhin-aa
              24 May 2021 22: 15
              -1
              But on the merits of the question, you cannot argue anything. Let me simplify your task - Klimov did not reach the submarine commander, and I am not a submariner at all.
              Let's start from this thesis, you will dispute the main idea of ​​the article - that in a collision with an anti-submarine organized and equipped according to NATO standards, your submarines will be destroyed "dry."
              With the composition of the Federation Council, which is now and will be with current approaches in 10 years
              Have something to argue?
              1. Alceers
                Alceers 24 May 2021 23: 40
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                After all, you cannot object to the essence of the question. let's

                Hmm, and I wasn’t going to ... And it seemed like I didn’t even mind. So even a broken clock twice a day shows the time correctly) and yours does not seem to be a clock) I just have a deeply antipathetic manner of communication with your co-author, and therefore I don’t want to communicate with him. So, little by little troll. And he makes me all frank)))) but what the hell is it to me if he quarreled with almost all of his sources ...? That and look at the stage will go ...
      2. flicker
        flicker 22 May 2021 23: 12
        0
        Actually, the article was written by a naval officer
        And?
        And that there are no bad officers?
        If you think that "no", then carefully re-read "the naval officer who served 10 years on submarines"
        ---
        The "officer of the Navy" criticizes not you and me, but the OFFICERS of the Navy still serving and much older in the rank of "officer of the Navy" - the author.
        ---
        Those. it's not me who DISCREDIT the officers of the Navy, but a former "officer of the Navy"
        if you haven't noticed
    4. timokhin-aa
      24 May 2021 22: 16
      -1
      Well, write down how it really is, huh?
      Only you can't.
  • Anzhey V.
    Anzhey V. 21 May 2021 15: 38
    +8
    Good article, thanks
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 30
      +1
      So what about "building Ash trees at a fast pace"?
      1. Anzhey V.
        Anzhey V. 21 May 2021 18: 34
        0
        So what about "building Ash trees at a fast pace"?


        If you are this to me, then I never offered to rivet submarines at all)
    2. husband
      husband 21 May 2021 18: 55
      +7
      The authors have done a lot of analytical work, arguing their point of view. It is a pity that there is little gratitude to them in the comments. I really liked the article, there would be more of them on VO. Thanks to the authors.

      But what to do is to change the attitude towards remuneration of engineers and technicians at defense enterprises and the salaries of teachers of leading technical universities. Raising it every 5 times for key areas. And now the associate professor of Baumanki receives 50-70 tr, and the labor teacher in a Moscow school is 110 tr. (average salary for 2020).

      It is necessary to change the policy of squeezing the dissatisfied out of the country - technical education includes critical thinking, without it you cannot create anything. Under Nicholas 1 they have already received for this. And yet history has taught nothing.

      It is necessary to continue the technical re-equipment of enterprises. Agree on all political issues and get out of sanctions. These political issues are the essence of the problem. Stalin's industry and the Chinese miracle were created on the basis of American and European technologies. Oranges will not be born from an aspen; an atomic bomb should not be expected from an illiterate peasant. Education and technology are the key to solving the issues mentioned in the article.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 21 May 2021 16: 11
    +2
    well .. submarines as the basis of the fleet .. this is from the section that "rockets are better than guns" ... everything must always be balanced
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 31
      -1
      We also need to explain this to our leaders.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 21 May 2021 17: 31
        -2
        soldier and when was there logic in my life?
        1. Vasia
          Vasia 21 May 2021 20: 57
          0
          soldier and when was there logic in mo?

          Here's the question, so the question belay When a coalition of dozens of "super-developed democracies" fought against IS in Syria, IS grew by leaps and bounds. And as the Ministry of Defense "without logic" went down, so the IS subsided, and the coalition set its tail between its legs.
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 21 May 2021 21: 58
            0
            lol I'm talking about something else .. I'm talking about "who served in the army, he does not laugh in the circus" ..
            1. Vasia
              Vasia 21 May 2021 22: 20
              0
              lol I'm talking about something else .. I'm talking about "who served in the army, he does not laugh in the circus" ..

              You can’t argue here), although it’s not as "fun" as before, but it is in the soul of our guys. Here the Ministry of Defense will want to, but it will not be able to stop it)
              But the fact that the MO is progressing is difficult to argue. Do not compare the same first Chechen and Syrian.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 21 May 2021 16: 18
    +1
    In the conditions of such high-quality and echeloned reconnaissance, a variant of counteraction and assistance to my forces, I see a stake on cheap and technological "tricks" with a backlog of modernization, which, in the event of a pre-conflict, will trite the enemy's information channels on a wide front. This is essentially the same tactic used by ballistic missile warhead simulators. Good enough tricks can overload a well-coordinated system, turning it into a situational trash for a while.
    The second option for countermeasures I see is a line of unobtrusive UAVs with air-to-air or air-to-surface missiles, mass-produced in areas of the required breakthrough in an already conflict period - with the task of eliminating any enemy air anti-submarine forces (or surface). Treating these UAVs as cheap, mass-produced, and non-overloaded with features can help increase the "cost of entry" for the adversary's high-tech products.
    The third option is to reorient the submarine concept - by reducing its crew, probably size-cost, and including at the expense of its secretive qualities - while increasing its autonomy. The task of such a submarine will be a long stay at the bottom in remote points of the world ocean, from the side of secondary and tertiary directions for a potential enemy.

    We observe analogies in the fight against layered systems in the situation with the confrontation of missiles and missile defense - overloading objects, unpredictable trajectories, etc.
    The success of our Armed Forces in the defense of the country is directly in my opinion related to the expansion of robotization, given our vast spaces and weak dem. potential in the coming decades, we must take one of the leading positions in the world in computing systems, robotics, microelectronics. Only by relying on such complexes in defense will we be able to raise the "entry price" to sufficient values ​​to discourage the enemy.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 31
      -1
      I see a stake on cheap and technologically advanced "bogus" with a backlog of modernization, which in the event of a pre-conflict will trite the enemy's information channels on a wide front.


      This is not technically feasible.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 21 May 2021 18: 07
        0
        Why? The multi-level scheme described by you always rests on a well-functioning algorithm of actions - one of the elements of the scheme (a detection station, for example) has caught the noise - other links of the chain are turned on, increasing the number of man-machine hours to process the received piece of data.
        I argue by analogy with the already used technologies of trickery - such as inflatable dummies or simulating aerodynamic characteristics or EPR trickle for ballistic missiles. All this, in one way or another, is a fairly budgetary way to overload one of the stages of a well-functioning detection scheme - and force the enemy to act outside the well-oiled scheme or according to a less well-oiled scheme.
        We are not interested in hammering the whole variety of detection methods, we are interested in the possibility of breaking the algorithm in an hour X. What exactly is unrealizable - towed or self-propelled tricks with a noise generator? Ejected noisy objects whose task is to work for several hours?
        Obsolete torpedoes could possibly be converted or partially used for these purposes.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 May 2021 19: 02
          0
          You need a snag that is identical to the boat in terms of secondary acoustic characteristics, and for this it must have the same hull. Well, about the same.
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 21 May 2021 21: 05
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            You need a snag that is identical to the boat in terms of secondary acoustic characteristics, and for this it must have the same hull. Well, about the same.
            Not the same housing, but the same echo characteristics. Make an active snag, yes, most likely long, but thin, like a towed antenna.
            1. timokhin-aa
              21 May 2021 23: 39
              +1
              1. We must know what signal to give so that the enemy confuses him with the submarine, not knowing exactly where he will receive it, or not knowing where he is at all.
              2. We must exclude the illumination of our submarines with this false signal.
              3. We must have money for this.
              I will not say that this is impossible, but the question is really very difficult.
          2. Vasia
            Vasia 21 May 2021 21: 22
            -1
            You need a snag that is identical to the boat in terms of secondary acoustic characteristics, and for this it must have the same hull. Well, about the same.

            Any read "acoustic portrait" can be reproduced, for this you do not need to have the geometric parameters of the boat. As for reproduction of any noise, it is not required to possess any parameters of its source, except for the linear dimensions dictated by the wavelength (frequency), which is determined by the parameters of the source (receiver).
            Could you clarify your bold statement:
            In the case of active sonar, the factor of internal reflections from submarine structural elements begins to play an important role (which is especially acute for double-hull submarines typical of the Russian Navy).

            Internal reflections, or rather multiple reflections, contribute only to the attenuation of waves due to the loss of energy due to multiple reflections (not to mention the direction of the reflections).
            1. timokhin-aa
              21 May 2021 23: 40
              -1
              For a high long / low frequency wave, this works very differently.
              1. Vasia
                Vasia 21 May 2021 23: 55
                +2
                For a high long / low frequency wave, this works very differently.

                Don't be angry about sarcasm. I can imagine how waves, regardless of length, are repeatedly re-reflected in all directions in the interbody space with its contents, gaining strength and breaking out in the direction of the source with greater force than the primary reflection from the light body)))
              2. DED_peer_DED
                DED_peer_DED 22 May 2021 20: 09
                -1
                A long time ago there have been head phones extinguishing external interference. There are the same windows, etc.
                Any signal, simple or complex, can be played back and sent back in antiphase (according to the power parameters of those and other signals, it will be lower ...). If such a scheme is very energy-consuming and mass-sized, for example, on an airplane, then for a nuclear submarine, I think it is quite possible. Moreover, at the point where the submarine itself is located, due to the large (relatively) distances to the station that irradiates it, the level of the scanning signal will not be so great. Therefore, I think there will be no problems to repeat it in antiphase and send it back according to power parameters.
                What "ambushes" can be in the implementation of this system at first glance.
                Let's think about it.
                - Sufficient speed of the computer on the nuclear submarine, which processes this signal and forms a counter-signal, which also calculates the direction of the scanning signal relative to the submarine hull, the density of this signal and its distribution over the submarine hull (perhaps this is superfluous, you need to know exactly the low-frequency search technology itself) ...
                - A system of receiving and emitting counter-signal antenna devices installed from all angles in the submarine hull.
                - Possibly large dimensions of these antennas and their effect on strength, streamlining, low noise ...
                - The difference in the size of the enemy emitters and the boat's emitters (I think that here it is possible, albeit with difficulty, but to cope with the problem due to the greater input power, in principle, not very and large due to the large distances to the enemy).
                Other technical problems are also possible.
                This system should be only one part of the solution to the problem of submarine secrecy.
                This point of view is the point of view of an electronics engineer - a computer engineer, so ... sorry comrades. fool
                1. timokhin-aa
                  24 May 2021 22: 08
                  -2
                  A long time ago there have been head phones extinguishing external interference. There are the same windows, etc.
                  Any signal, simple or complex, can be reproduced and sent back in antiphase (in terms of the power parameters of those and other signals, it will be lower ...).


                  This does not work with low frequencies, so it is technically possible to extinguish only high frequencies, and such things are being worked on.
                  But with low frequencies in any way.
                  1. DED_peer_DED
                    DED_peer_DED 25 May 2021 02: 25
                    +1
                    A long time ago there have been head phones extinguishing external interference. There are the same windows, etc.

                    It doesn't work with low frequencies,

                    Ага.
                    Headphones are not low frequencies, but high frequencies. Yeah.
                    The shaking of glass in windows generally occurs at a frequency of UNITS HERZ!
                    But the authors do not know this.
                    Can you give you the frequency separation in the ranges from 0 hertz to UHF?
                    Or will you find it yourself in Google?
            2. Galleon
              Galleon 22 May 2021 12: 46
              0
              Quote: Vasia
              Any read "acoustic portrait" can be reproduced

              It's like recording a song at a concert in a dictaphone and then giving it to a friend to listen to. Only those "friends" who are experts about "listening" will not be led.
          3. Barberry25
            Barberry25 21 May 2021 21: 37
            0
            well, all this will be cheaper than a full-fledged appl ..
    2. Avior
      Avior 22 May 2021 00: 49
      -1
      good tricks can overload a well-coordinated system

      but can they?
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 22 May 2021 01: 07
        +2
        I proceed from the fact that there are not so many options for responding to a certain signal, taking into account the environment of a potential adversary, and they all imply ACTIVE actions or a complex of active actions. Even if the signal is fuzzy or dubious, unlike the same missile defense system, it will not be possible to remotely work it out much better with the help of information from several radars, etc. The enemy will have to take some kind of active action or pass a pass - given the enormous potential danger of even one missed "strategist", the enemy will most likely choose the option of active actions - namely, one or another degree of deeper study. In the event of receiving fraudulent signals in several areas at once, this will mean potentially some large-scale preparation-maneuvers, and it will logically cause large-scale counter-activity in the area of ​​interest. In both cases, factors of coincidence and lack of information will be interpreted more as confirmation of activity than as its absence - this is the essence of human nature. In the event of even a single confirmation of the movements of some real forces behind the "trick" will naturally cause a maximum natural reaction.

        The psychology of Americans is the psychology of wealthy burghers who are used to controlling everything. Signals of incomplete control of the situation cause them a paranoid storm with a hypertrophied exit - this is how they behaved during the Cuban missile crisis, when they found missiles in Cuba, for example. Having created in them the illusion of incompleteness of control, one can reflexively control their actions to one degree or another. After all, you never know that He knows what you know? :) This is the whole joke of any deceptive tactics.
        1. Avior
          Avior 22 May 2021 01: 49
          -2
          If we are not aware of the capabilities of the enemy's system to analyze incoming information, then it is difficult to understand whether our simulators will overload this system or not?
          1. Knell wardenheart
            Knell wardenheart 22 May 2021 02: 59
            0
            And again, it's much easier to check it out on location than to check out aeroballistic trickery for the ICBM. Prototype-testing-fixation of the reaction of the potential enemy and the algorithm of his actions.
            As for the scale, I agree on something, the ability to overload will be difficult to calculate, purely empirically, perhaps. But the efficiency of the principle can be calculated, it seems to me. There would be a desire. After all, the Germans, too, vryatli could imagine in a nightmare how the allies would tear up their anti-aircraft with the help of penny corner reflectors and aluminum foil in BB2. However, it worked.
            1. Avior
              Avior 22 May 2021 09: 59
              0
              I wrote specifically about the ability to reboot the system.
              good tricks can overload a well-coordinated system

              but can they?
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 22 May 2021 13: 16
            0
            Quote: Avior
            If we are not aware of the capabilities of the enemy's system to analyze incoming information, then it is difficult to understand whether our simulators will overload this system or not?

            And what prevents us from receiving secret reports from the Americans on the analysis of incoming information and the reliability of their conclusions by means of agents or using technical means of intelligence? Of course, we will not be presented with this on a silver platter, but we need to work in this direction and then the fear will disappear.
            1. timokhin-aa
              24 May 2021 22: 05
              -1
              Why do you need all this? You have a magic TV, in which you saw all the American aircraft carriers. Look at it again there all the information and you will find.
  • Vsevolod
    Vsevolod 21 May 2021 16: 19
    -5
    Bullshit. Verbose, pseudoscientific bullshit.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 32
      +4
      Is it enough to refute the brains?
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Gado
      Gado 21 May 2021 18: 47
      -6
      I will say even more. When the time of total nuclear war comes, no one will even think about intercepting submarines, especially since space satellites will be the number one targets. Well the authors have fantasized.
      1. timokhin-aa
        21 May 2021 19: 10
        +1
        Enlighten

        https://topwar.ru/177721-jadernaja-illjuzija-zasteklit-protivnika-ne-poluchitsja.html
        1. Gado
          Gado 21 May 2021 21: 00
          -1
          Thank you, enlightened. The fact that somewhere someone assumes something is yes. And I would say - it would be better for us not to come to a nuclear war in order to see how it will be live.
          1. timokhin-aa
            21 May 2021 23: 41
            +2
            Better not to get there, yes.
            But even after the complete exhaustion of strategic nuclear charges, there will still be tens of millions of survivors, there will be what and who to fight for.
      2. ccsr
        ccsr 21 May 2021 20: 12
        +1
        Quote: Gado
        I will say even more. When the time of total nuclear war comes, no one will even think about intercepting submarines, especially since space satellites will be the number one targets. Well the authors have fantasized.

        And this is unlikely, because the main thing will be to deliver a massive surprise nuclear strike, and not to bother with satellites, ships, but to hit the main areas of the United States, where the industrial and human resources of the Americans are concentrated.
        Any other actions will only unmask our plan, which means that in no case should the Americans be allowed to reveal our preparations for a massive nuclear strike.
        By the way, the current war in Israel showed in a simplified version a future nuclear war. And it became clear that the Israeli missile defense system was powerless against the massive launch of Palestinian home-grown missile technology. If we assume that some of them would carry weapons of mass destruction, in the form of chemical or bacteriological ammunition, then no one would have been able to predict the result of this war.
        That is why all the dancing about the fleet, without taking into account the power of our Strategic Missile Forces, is only evidence of the paid order to the authors of the article in the interests of those who are waiting for the division of the naval part of the military budget. There is no need to expect anything serious from this "sweet couple" - they reek of the conjuncture a mile away ...
        1. Lair
          Lair 21 May 2021 20: 52
          +3
          Quote: ccsr
          And this is unlikely, because the main thing will be to deliver a massive surprise nuclear strike, and not to bother with satellites, ships, but to hit the main areas of the United States, where the industrial and human resources of the Americans are concentrated.

          And if the war is not with the United States, but with Japan for the Kuril Islands or with Turkey for the Crimea. Will you also deliver a massive nuclear strike? Here, just like in any other theater of military operations, a fleet will be needed, which the Russian Federation almost does not have.
          1. ccsr
            ccsr 21 May 2021 21: 10
            -1
            Quote: Lair
            And if the war is not with the United States, but with Japan for the Kuril Islands or with Turkey for the Crimea.

            First, study the Japan-US Treaty and NATO's constituent documents, and then you will understand that without the decision of the Americans, no one will dare to lift a finger towards Russia, because then the Americans will simply refuse to fight for them:
            Art.5
            .... provide assistance to a Contracting Party subjected to, or to Contracting Parties subjected to such an attack, by the immediate implementation of such individual or joint action, which it considers necessary, including the use of armed force in order to restore and subsequently maintain the security of the North Atlantic region.

            The key word "considers it necessary" - can you explain its meaning?
            The Americans are not stupid enough to start a nuclear war with us over some Aboriginal people - it has always been that way.
            Quote: Lair
            Will you also deliver a massive nuclear strike?

            Necessarily - on the American bases in Japan and Turkey, and the Americans know about it. Their nuclear weapons are stored there, and they are among the primary targets.
            Quote: Lair
            Here, just like in no other theater of military operations, a fleet will be needed, which the Russian Federation almost does not have.

            Our Strategic Missile Forces are needed there, and everything else is a figment of the imagination of Timokhin and Co.
            1. timokhin-aa
              21 May 2021 23: 44
              +1
              Prapor, you were given the introduction "we are not at war with the United States." Why are you going to attack the US IF THERE IS NO WAR?

              Oh yeah, I forgot who I'm talking to laughing
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 22 May 2021 12: 09
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Oh yeah, I forgot who I'm talking to

                You yourself communicate with voices from the universe - this has long been noticed. But I had no idea that this could be done on a paid basis.
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                you were given the introduction "we are not at war with the United States."

                Who gave you such an introductory visionary if this country is in a military alliance with the United States?
                1. timokhin-aa
                  24 May 2021 21: 59
                  0
                  Who gave you such an introductory visionary if this country is in a military alliance with the United States?

                  When Argentina attacked Britain, the latter was allied with the United States.
                  I'll tell you one secret, patient - if a country in alliance with the United States has got into a fornicator, it does not mean at all that the Americans will run to harness for it.
                  You certainly won't understand this
                  1. ccsr
                    ccsr 25 May 2021 12: 24
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    When Argentina attacked Britain, the latter was allied with the United States.

                    And what did this have to do with the war with the USSR? Maybe it's enough to fantasize, "theorist", or do you think that Argentina was obliged to declare war on the United States, since they were in NATO?
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    if a country in alliance with the United States got into a fornicator,

                    Do not fill yourself up, pathetic verbiage - you are simply ridiculous in your conclusions, especially when it comes to the two superpowers, where the leaders of both countries correctly assess the power of each other, unlike you.
            2. DED_peer_DED
              DED_peer_DED 22 May 2021 20: 24
              -1
              Necessarily - on the American bases in Japan and Turkey, and the Americans know about it. Their nuclear weapons are stored there, and they are among the primary targets.

              But I am not sure that at the time of the outbreak of the war between Russia and Turkey, there will still be foreign bases in the latter. Everything goes to the opposite and everyone will be interested.
              To use nuclear weapons against Turkey, especially, I think no one will.
              1. ccsr
                ccsr 23 May 2021 10: 08
                0
                Quote: DED_peer_DED

                But I am not sure that at the time of the outbreak of the war between Russia and Turkey, the latter will still have foreign bases.

                One can only guess about this.
                Quote: DED_peer_DED
                To use nuclear weapons against Turkey, especially, I think no one will.

                As long as Turkey is in NATO, this will be fraught with consequences for us, because we do not know how realistically the Americans will protect them. But if we hypothetically assume that Israel will use nuclear weapons against Turkey, then it is not a fact that the United States will start a war against the Israelis, even though they are not NATO members. So Erdogan is not in vain eager to join the nuclear club - I think that as soon as they have their own nuclear weapons, they will send NATO away, because they will be able to defend themselves. In this light, it is precisely their rapprochement with Russia that takes place, right down to the purchase of our weapons and the construction of a nuclear power plant in order to start training their personnel in this area.
    3. Borri
      Borri 22 May 2021 19: 15
      -1
      Vsevolod
      Bullshit. Verbose, pseudoscientific bullshit.


      You are not right. The meaning has been known for a long time. The logic is there.
      The article repeats the previous ones, all the same pictures and statements.
      The only thing one of the authors succeeded in was learning from a colleague
      insult and humiliate readers who came to visit him.
      In this, progress is evident.
      1. DED_peer_DED
        DED_peer_DED 22 May 2021 20: 37
        -1
        The article repeats the previous ones, all the same pictures and statements.

        The article shows a mannered departure in the narrowness of the topic and an attempt to make such an example out of readers:
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 May 2021 21: 55
          -2
          No, some readers have an attempt to hide in a house.
          1. DED_peer_DED
            DED_peer_DED 25 May 2021 02: 20
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            No, some readers have an attempt to hide in a house

            And some writers have an attempt to put on blinkers "horses", because they are only as annoying background to the articles of writers.
      2. timokhin-aa
        24 May 2021 21: 57
        -1
        Wow. Do you apply to a thread where no one insulted you and write this?

        insult and humiliate readers who came to visit him.


        Have you lost the coast, citizen?
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 21 May 2021 16: 27
    0
    However, these temporary and partial successes of the German submarines were exalted the so-called "young school" of the RKKF in the early 30s. (which became the reason for the massive construction of submarines), and without objective accounting of the capabilities of anti-submarine forces
    Why write nonsense? The successes were real. But their theater of operations in the 1910s was different from ours in the 1940s.Objective accounting of the capabilities of anti-submarine forces it is the pearl of strategic thinking for decades to come. Interestingly, what was globally new in ASW by 1940, besides aerial reconnaissance and bombing (so they were PMA)? fool
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 33
      0
      It is interesting what globally new emerged in PLO by 1940,


      Hydroacoustics

      except for aerial reconnaissance and bombing (so they were PMA)?


      And there were radars on the planes and the first buoys had already appeared and homing at the airborne torpedoes.
      Surely!
      1. Mavrikiy
        Mavrikiy 22 May 2021 04: 32
        -1
        However, these temporary and partial successes of the German submarines were extolled by the so-called "Young school" RKKF in the early 30s. (which was the reason for the massive construction of submarines), and without objectively taking into account the capabilities of anti-submarine forces
        fool fool The presence of means of counteraction does not cancel the means of attack, but leads to its improvement. RKKF? The US Navy, Japan, Italy ....... Yes, we built the most submarines on the eve of the war and did not get such impressive results from their use as the USA, Germany, Japan. So the point is not in the development of anti-submarines, but in the theater of the battalion and in the ability to build modern submarines during the war .. fool Our submarines did not suffer from airborne radars and homing aircraft torpedoes.
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And the radar stations on the planes were
        Even if you really want to, you shouldn't write nonsense. Even VICKI laughs:
        Research into the possibility of using radar on board aircraft began in the mid-1930s in the UK. A prototype radar was first tested in 1937 on an Avro Anson aircraft, demonstrating a range of up to 3 miles on ships in the ocean. The first serial airborne radar “AI Mk. IV "[en] appeared in July 1940
        There was no possibility of accounting for PLO, and the prospects for development ... ... are vague, because they are secret. request
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 May 2021 21: 54
          -3
          Cheto you cleverly move away from the topic, then with the First World War or the early thirties ("young school") nothing new, then the radar is not an innovation, because in 1937 they already experimented with them.

          You have already decided.

          Here is your thesis, from which it all started:

          Interestingly, what was globally new in the ASW by 1940, except for aerial reconnaissance and bombing (as they were PMA)?


          From it and make a start, even with the times of the "young school" compare the Anglo-American PLO, even with the times of WWI.
  • val43
    val43 21 May 2021 16: 32
    0
    Quote: credo
    Are there such neutralizers against Poseidon?

    Are there "Poseidons"?
    1. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 22 May 2021 20: 41
      -1

      At least in ancient Greek mythologywere.
  • Niko
    Niko 21 May 2021 16: 41
    0
    But what comments were on VO after the "news" about the loss of pl in the Mediterranean ... how much pathos ... patriotic ecstasy ... And the truth is not interesting to the majority.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 21 May 2021 18: 31
      -6
      What the author described on this matter is his reflections and guesses no more.
      1. Niko
        Niko 22 May 2021 09: 12
        +3
        Quote: Vadim237
        What the author described on this matter is his reflections and guesses no more.

        But the one who wrote the "news" about this, and even more so those who happily rushed to comment, making global conclusions, received information directly from the NATO headquarters
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 21 May 2021 16: 43
    +10
    Again a huge article, and even on Friday afternoon. The posting of the article was done tactically illiterate, one might say - sabotage.
    And in fact, the article itself can be said very briefly - everything that is described in the article has long been known to literate people, and we can counteract this high-tech complex of enemy ASW in only one way - by placing our SSBNs in the so-called "bastions", which we will defend with the last bit of strength.
    There is no point in discussing the state of affairs in our submarine forces, and the forces to ensure them, the point is not at all about the availability of money for R&D and the implementation of the results, the point is in a system that is very beneficial to a certain circle of people.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 36
      +3
      The posting of the article was done tactically illiterate, one might say - sabotage.


      The article was posted on Monday, this was delayed by the administration.

      and there is only one way we can counter this high-tech complex of enemy anti-aircraft missiles - by placing our SSBNs in the so-called "bastions", which we will defend with the last bit of strength.


      But why do we need "Ash"? That's the question.
      And besides, in the article, the very question of the defense of the routes of transition to PH
      Including due to falling off on super-duper submarines "Ash".
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 21 May 2021 18: 01
        +5
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        the administration was pulling it.

        I understand this, hence the question - deliberately the article was posted at this particular time, or "did it happen"?
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        But why do we need "Ash"?

        Maybe it's not "us" at all?
        Although, everything, apparently, is much simpler, what was done, and now they will justify the extreme need for just such a boat.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 May 2021 19: 01
          -1
          Although, everything, apparently, is much simpler, what was done, and now they will justify the extreme need for just such a boat.


          No, a lot of money was cut into this and a lot of promising projects were crushed for the sake of this.
    2. Lair
      Lair 21 May 2021 19: 24
      -1
      Quote: Bez 310
      Again a huge article, and even on Friday afternoon. The posting of the article was done tactically illiterate, one might say - sabotage.
      And in fact, the article itself can be said very briefly - everything that is described in the article has long been known to literate people, and we can counteract this high-tech complex of enemy ASW in only one way - by placing our SSBNs in the so-called "bastions", which we will defend with the last bit of strength.
      There is no point in discussing the state of affairs in our submarine forces, and the forces to ensure them, the point is not at all about the availability of money for R&D and the implementation of the results, the point is in a system that is very beneficial to a certain circle of people.

      Unfortunately, you are right. Under the current government, nothing can be changed.
    3. Vasia
      Vasia 21 May 2021 21: 27
      -1
      the point is in a system that is very beneficial to a certain circle of people.

      They could have written: "Putin is to blame."
      Do not blame, of course, your case, I just advised.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 21 May 2021 22: 00
        +3
        Quote: Vasia
        "Putin is to blame"

        This is a difficult question...
        1. Vasia
          Vasia 21 May 2021 22: 08
          0
          This is a difficult question...

          Plyusanu, a very correct answer.
    4. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 22 May 2021 20: 54
      -1
      which is very beneficial to a certain circle of people.




      "My men, because of a drunk ..." (c)
      Yah...
  • Xlor
    Xlor 21 May 2021 16: 45
    -2
    For a submarine, the main thing is to get away from pursuit when leaving the base. If she manages to hide from anti-submarine forces, then finding her in the ocean is almost impossible ...
    1. Bez 310
      Bez 310 21 May 2021 16: 48
      +7
      Quote: Xlor
      finding it in the ocean is almost impossible ...

      Did you have to search for a submarine, or, as they say, "on your own"?
      1. Xlor
        Xlor 21 May 2021 16: 51
        -9
        I have already said that it is impossible to find her in the ocean.
        Provided that she broke away from the anti-submarine forces at the exit from the base
        1. Bez 310
          Bez 310 21 May 2021 16: 52
          +8
          Quote: Xlor
          it is impossible to find it in the ocean.

          I will repeat the question - "did you have to search for a submarine, or, as they say," are you talking about? "
          1. Xlor
            Xlor 21 May 2021 17: 01
            -6
            In order to test the force of gravity, it is not at all necessary to jump from the 12th floor. To do this, you just need to open a physics textbook. If you have been searching for submarines in the ocean, I would love to hear from you. I'm just running out for some beer and popcorn. You've probably discovered something new? wink
            1. timokhin-aa
              21 May 2021 17: 37
              +3
              You are communicating with the person who was looking for these submarines. He gently tries to hint to you that you are very much mistaken, but does not reach you.
              1. Xlor
                Xlor 21 May 2021 17: 54
                -5
                Perhaps the "person who was looking for these submarines" will explain to me how it can be found in the ocean? To me, a "very mistaken person", only one way comes to mind - to put an anti-submarine ship on every square mile, but I'm afraid that even ten annual budgets will not be enough for such a method ...
                1. Bez 310
                  Bez 310 21 May 2021 17: 57
                  +2
                  Quote: Xlor
                  will explain how it can be found in the ocean?

                  No, I will not explain, you do not need to know this.
                  1. Xlor
                    Xlor 21 May 2021 17: 59
                    -3
                    Something like this is the answer I expected from you winked
                    1. bk0010
                      bk0010 21 May 2021 21: 10
                      +2
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      You are communicating with the person who was looking for these submarines.
                      There is no need to ask such people for details on their topic, they may get in trouble, even if he tells things that were previously published. therefore
                      Quote: Bez 310
                      No, I will not explain, you do not need to know this.
                      sounds logical (well, except for the "you don't need to know" part).
                2. timokhin-aa
                  21 May 2021 19: 00
                  +3
                  Perhaps the "person who was looking for these submarines" will explain to me how it can be found in the ocean?


                  The whole article is about it.
              2. The comment was deleted.
            2. Borri
              Borri 23 May 2021 06: 44
              -1
              Quote: Xlor
              you don't have to jump from the 12th floor.

              Can I jump off the first one and check? smile
              1. Xlor
                Xlor 23 May 2021 07: 54
                -2
                If you do not know how to use your upper head for its intended purpose, then you can use the lower one. Jump laughing
          2. Niko
            Niko 21 May 2021 17: 46
            +1
            Quote: Bez 310
            Quote: Xlor
            it is impossible to find it in the ocean.

            I will repeat the question - "did you have to search for a submarine, or, as they say," are you talking about? "

            Yes, the person did not read, and apparently does not want to
    2. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 21 May 2021 18: 01
      0
      Quote: Xlor
      For a submarine, the main thing is to get away from pursuit when leaving the base.

      The boat did not have time to drop the last mooring lines, and the "well-wishers" have already reported to the US Navy.
  • sergo1914
    sergo1914 21 May 2021 17: 04
    -1
    ... In such conditions, the ideas of some would-be theoreticians that it is possible to "bet on the submarine", that the surface forces can be reduced to some coastal defense forces ... are nonsense on the verge of a crime, in which only two parties can really be interested : our enemies and local businessmen from the industry, ready to make money even at the cost of damage to the country's defense.


    By the way, the American agents of influence on the Internet in the 2000s, it was for all-submarine navy for Russia that they actively, as they say, “drowned”, and, judging by the events taking place now, not without success.


    Clear. There are only enemies around. Everyone who is not behind the aircraft carriers - to the wall. PL - Intrigues of Russophobes, liberal podnikov. All who are against aircraft carriers are overwhelmed.
    Is it somehow treated?
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 37
      0
      Essentially mind please.
      What do we have with the ability to act against the enemy's anti-submarine forces.
      Can you tell me?
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 21 May 2021 17: 39
        -2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Essentially mind please.
        What do we have with the ability to act against the enemy's anti-submarine forces.
        Can you tell me?


        Why dilute a purely technical article with this nonsense? What are these lyrical digressions?
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 May 2021 17: 41
          +1
          Can you give an example of agents of influence? Well google Andrey Bely, "Sliding stop". This sabotage of consequences for decades will come back to haunt.
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 21 May 2021 18: 44
        -4
        What do we have with the ability to act against the anti-submarine forces of the enemy. Air defense and air force in the form of air defense systems and fighters - enemy anti-aircraft missile systems and fighters will fly 400 kilometers from the coastline as they will be aware if they enter the affected area will be shot down with a probability of 99% with ships the same thing - the Dagger is already in service soon to him and Bastions will fit with Zircons - launchers with Onyxes are the same and, apparently, the control and guidance system is unified. One hell our fleet will not fight far from the borders - there is nothing to fight for there. Therefore, oversized cruiser destroyers and aircraft carriers with the accompanying super-expensive crap Russia do not need nafig.
        1. timokhin-aa
          22 May 2021 01: 35
          +1
          Sometimes it seems to me that you are not real.
      3. DED_peer_DED
        DED_peer_DED 22 May 2021 21: 04
        -1
        So I'm wondering, here is the submarine to hide from observation, will it not work?



        Oh, right here? Especially at the top right?

        1. Sychev Vitalii
          Sychev Vitalii 24 May 2021 20: 04
          -2
          alas, you can't hide here and there ...
  • Crabong
    Crabong 21 May 2021 17: 17
    +4
    All of these detection methods are far from absolute. And such a panic should not be arranged AT ALL. "Highlighting" a submarine with a long wave is not the most accurate technique. The results give little with the required accuracy, like a magnetometer, which generally shows the "general temperature in the hospital". And it is possible to "map" the sea surface in order to identify the emerging wake if the hydrology is favorable. What emerged trace and in what operating modes can the radar and avionics be able to "see" and process it when, for example, a wind wave of 2-3 points, currents, temperature changes in the water column, etc.?
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 17: 39
      0
      ... "Highlighting" a submarine with a long wave is not the most accurate technique.


      And accuracy is not needed, even if the area is determined with an error of 50 km, then anti-submarine aircraft are simply sent there, but they will find and hit everything they need.

      What emerged trace and in what operating modes can the radar and avionics be able to "see" and process it when, for example, a wind wave of 2-3 points, currents, temperature changes in the water column, etc.?


      At 4-5 points, problems begin. But only at "Non-Tradition".
      So we still have to live to see them.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 21 May 2021 17: 58
    -2
    "Firstly, in all cases, the Poseidons, many hundreds of kilometers before our boat, already had an accurate bearing to it. That is, the Americans just knew where it is now. This could be for various reasons. For example, they were brought up for a search right away. after the loss of contact by other forces.Or after our boat floated up for communication, and it was discovered by someone (for example, RTR) .Maybe the boat got into the range of some kind of bottom FOSS systems, or under low-frequency illumination from some one of the ships, whether American or Israeli, it does not matter. That is, in any case, the place where the boat is, is known with some error in advance.

    The most interesting thing further - in one of the drawings you can see that when approaching the place where the boat is located, the Poseidon simply made a turn in its direction. If this plane could only use acoustic means, then this would not have happened. The Americans, having arrived in the area where the submarine is located, could not have reached it so easily. They would have to work buoys, put up barriers, and only then figure out where the boat is real. The course that the plane would fly over the area where the submarine was located would be different. And then they just turned on her and that's it. How? Yes, they just saw the place under which it is.

    The saddest thing is the circles that the Poseidons are describing over our Warsaw. This is not a search, no. This is a flight over a field of buoys placed above the boat, through which the Americans wrote off her "portrait", including its discrete components. Now, the detection range of this particular submarine by any NATO tactical unit that is simply technically capable of detecting submarines has increased significantly. Moreover, due to the full compatibility of all equipment and software of aircraft, ships and submarines, the data about the boat could immediately be uploaded to the computers of the surface ships of the United States and allies participating in the operation to find the boat, and a little later this information got into all the navies of the countries NATO.

    Most likely, the aviation "kept contact" until it was possible to transfer it to their submarine or surface ships. This explains the loitering of successive ones. "- Pure author's gag in the style of" I think "" I think "," Maybe "and so on.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 19: 08
      0
      Well, write how it is there with NATO anti-submarine forces.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 21 May 2021 21: 25
        -1
        Even if all their anti-submarine forces release, which is already doubtful, and half of the directions will not cover too large an area of ​​the oceans.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 May 2021 23: 30
          +1
          And they do not need to cover the area, but the EXTENSION. Borders.
          And it is measured in hundreds of kilometers.
          Clear?
  • Xlor
    Xlor 21 May 2021 18: 05
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    And accuracy is not needed, even if the area is determined with an error of 50 km, then anti-submarine aircraft are simply sent there, but they will find and hit everything they need.

    Have you ever wondered why submarine bases are located in the Far North, just in those areas where pack ice drifts? The Kola Peninsula, Kamchatka, Alaska and Orkney ... These are just the most "convenient" places for anti-submarine aircraft. And hydroacoustic stations too ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 19: 07
      +2
      Kamchatka has been forgotten.
      The distance of passage to the edge of pack ice was forgotten.
      The enemy's presence of a huge fleet of multipurpose submarines was forgotten.
      You don't write.
      You read.
    2. SVD68
      SVD68 21 May 2021 20: 52
      +2
      Quote: Xlor
      Have you ever wondered why submarine bases are located in the Far North, just in those areas where pack ice drifts?

      You're generalizing too much. There is a sense for SSBNs in pack ice, but only for them, since their targets are outside the sea - on land. But what to do under the pack ice for Ash and Antey, Varshavyanka and Ladam?
    3. Alceers
      Alceers 22 May 2021 23: 04
      0
      Quote: Xlor
      pack ice drifting? Kola Peninsula

      Understand first what pack ice is and you will immediately understand what you are writing nonsense
      1. Borri
        Borri 23 May 2021 06: 49
        0
        He heard enough songs .... "Steel eyes under the black cap ..."
        Even I know on land that there are many types of ice ...
        As in "Overhaul" - Senators, Mr. Unterzer, - Storozhuk replied briskly.
        - What senators? ... grabbed the word, was delighted ... "
  • Operator
    Operator 21 May 2021 19: 21
    -5
    The article is a disinformation Russophobic educational activity, unambiguously.

    On the subject:
    1. Deployment of nuclear attack submarines of the Russian Federation will be carried out in a special period (before, and not during TMV) on the deep-water borders of the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, where they will arrive under the keel of merchant ships in the pre-war period.
    2. The distance of noise direction finding of a modern attack nuclear submarine with a displacement of 10 ktn at low speed in a deep-water section is 10 km, the distance of magnetometric detection is 500 meters, the distance of laser scanning of water is 100 meters, the distance of radar detection of a wake wave from a nuclear submarine moving at a depth of 200 meters or more , on the water surface of the ocean - 0 meters.
    3. The only way to detect nuclear submarines in the above case is a powerful low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination from a specialized carrier vessel. At the moment, there is 1 (one) such vessel in the US Navy, the reason is simple as a nail - during the hostilities, such vessels take a bearing for several thousand kilometers and are destroyed with the help of the GCR in a few minutes.
    4. If you re-equip the submarine forces of the Russian Navy on 1-ktn attack nuclear submarines, then the distance of their detection at the deep ocean boundary with the help of a low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination vessel will be a distance of no more than 100 km, which will require the US Navy to create a fleet of such vessels in an amount exceeding the fleet combat ships.
    5. The detection distance of 40-ton NPA "Poseidon" at low speed at a depth of 300 meters or more using low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination is no more than 1 (one) km. The detection distance of the Poseidon UVS without a move at the bottom position using low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination is 0 (zero) meters.

    Conclusion:
    - it is necessary to carry out a complete rearmament of the submarine forces of the Russian Navy from "Ash" and "Boreyev" to 1-ktn nuclear submarine "Laika" with GKR "Zircon" to strike targets on the enemy's territory with an approach time of within 10 minutes, as well as on UFO "Poseidon" with 100-Mtn thermonuclear charges for inflicting unacceptable damage to the enemy to a depth of 700 km from the coast (in terms of radioactive contamination of the area).
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 20: 20
      +1
      they will arrive under the keel of merchant ships in the pre-war period.


      From a direct participant in the events:

      Back in 1985, I could not understand: WHY our submarine in the Pacific Ocean goes under the screws of civil 10 transport at the speed of 15 nodes (28 km per hour with a displacement in 5500 tone) and right to the speed in 5 nodes before the session. And above us "Orion-P3". At first I thought that this was the result of the operation of the US Navy low-frequency BPU buoys, which were in service with the BPA (Orion-P3c). But then there were other cases that disproved my opinion. And this is all in the sea, where ANYBODY will not help.
      ... Amerikosy "see" our submarines everywhere ...


      Cap-1 S. Roslyakov, commander of the nuclear submarine division.

      I didn’t finish reading the rest of the nonsense, and it’s clear that you won’t write anything adequate.

      Minus set.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 21 May 2021 23: 32
      +2
      Quote: Operator
      The article is a disinformation Russophobic educational activity, unambiguously.

      On the subject:
      1. Deployment of nuclear attack submarines of the Russian Federation will be carried out in a special period (before, and not during TMV) on the deep-water borders of the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, where they will arrive under the keel of merchant ships in the pre-war period.
      2. The distance of noise direction finding of a modern attack nuclear submarine with a displacement of 10 ktn at low speed in a deep-water section is 10 km, the distance of magnetometric detection is 500 meters, the distance of laser scanning of water is 100 meters, the distance of radar detection of a wake wave from a nuclear submarine moving at a depth of 200 meters or more , on the water surface of the ocean - 0 meters.
      3. The only way to detect nuclear submarines in the above case is a powerful low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination from a specialized carrier vessel. At the moment, there is 1 (one) such vessel in the US Navy, the reason is simple as a nail - during the hostilities, such vessels take a bearing for several thousand kilometers and are destroyed with the help of the GCR in a few minutes.
      4. If you re-equip the submarine forces of the Russian Navy on 1-ktn attack nuclear submarines, then the distance of their detection at the deep ocean boundary with the help of a low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination vessel will be a distance of no more than 100 km, which will require the US Navy to create a fleet of such vessels in an amount exceeding the fleet combat ships.
      5. The detection distance of 40-ton NPA "Poseidon" at low speed at a depth of 300 meters or more using low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination is no more than 1 (one) km. The detection distance of the Poseidon UVS without a move at the bottom position using low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination is 0 (zero) meters.

      Conclusion:
      - it is necessary to carry out a complete rearmament of the submarine forces of the Russian Navy from "Ash" and "Boreyev" to 1-ktn nuclear submarine "Laika" with GKR "Zircon" to strike targets on the enemy's territory with an approach time of within 10 minutes, as well as on UFO "Poseidon" with 100-Mtn thermonuclear charges for inflicting unacceptable damage to the enemy to a depth of 700 km from the coast (in terms of radioactive contamination of the area).

      quite right! But in terms of business figures (and how modest the search strip for anti-aircraft weapons is compared to the width of the ocean), what cannot be achieved from aircraft carriers, the withdrawal of the ocean is large and it is impossible even for the Americans to cover it with anti-aircraft weapons. with their advertised means, I will add, it is unrealistic to equip oceans with underwater sonars where depths are measured in kilometers, and the nuclear submarine is capable of firing at a distance from the coastal shelf! curtain!
    3. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 28 May 2021 12: 00
      0
      Quote: Operator
      The deployment of nuclear attack submarines of the Russian Federation will be carried out in a special period

      Will they give us time for this?
      1. Operator
        Operator 30 May 2021 17: 51
        -1
        A special period - it is special for two parties. Plus, the operational readiness factor is laid exclusively in peacetime - with the help of advanced training of military personnel, reliability of equipment and a developed coastal repair base.
        Those. the advance deployment of submarines on the lines of a nuclear missile strike depends on completely different factors than those brought by the disinformers.
  • ccsr
    ccsr 21 May 2021 19: 42
    -1
    From the title of the article, I immediately understood who the authors were - and I was not mistaken ...
    I am reading another pearl of the authors from their results:
    But reality is ruthless. No submarine fleet simply can survive when faced with an integrated Western-style ASW. No wonder the former Commander-in-Chief Vysotsky said that without an aircraft carrier, all submarines of the Northern Fleet would be destroyed in 48 hours.

    I can't even imagine on what basis Vysotsky decided that the war would go on for 48 hours, but this obviously will not add credibility to him among military professionals.
    Well, the "brilliant" conclusion
    All of the above does not mean that submarines are outdated as a type of ship. But they will have to change (more on this in subsequent articles).
    made me laugh once again - all military equipment changes over time, this is the dialectic of the development of any weapons, which the authors have too primitive notion about, since they take credit for this conclusion, believing that they discovered America.
    The office writes, apparently the next tranche came up ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 20: 13
      0
      I can't even imagine on what basis Vysotsky decided that the war would go on for 48 hours, but this obviously will not add credibility to him among military professionals.


      Gygy, ensign, give an example of a "military professional" who would take your side at least in some way.
      Do not offer roommates.
      1. DED_peer_DED
        DED_peer_DED 22 May 2021 21: 25
        +1
        Gygy, ensign, give an example of a "military professional" who would take your side at least in some way.
        Do not offer roommates.

        So I think, how old can the person who wrote this answer be?
        And how much more could he "take on board ..." under this condition?
        Apparently such "shots" are not in vain to find each other. Along the wake stream.
        1. Borri
          Borri 23 May 2021 23: 33
          +2
          Who knows how old ...
          This is ugly anyway.
          I don’t know how the Americans kept everything on the sergeants, but in the Soviet army it was very
          much was held up by the ensigns.
          And tales about chests were invented by those gouges that warrant officers "built".
          By the way, what was the title of the second author of the article?
        2. timokhin-aa
          24 May 2021 21: 48
          0
          How else can you communicate with this individual? A person takes advantage of the fact that we do not practice compulsory medical examination and happily crap on the Internet.
          Pay attention to his nickname - type it in Russian.
          Do you know why he did that? He enjoys the fact that he shows normal people like a dick, but they do not understand it.
          HE scoffs at people like you who take him for normal.
          From all forums where users can somehow influence who is there, he was expelled in disgrace.
          Here at VO is democracy, but to kick this creature when you meet is the duty of any decent person.
          1. DED_peer_DED
            DED_peer_DED 25 May 2021 02: 05
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            HE scoffs at people like you who take him for normal.

            So, it's not about us. And in your words.
            You cannot be like those whom you do not respect.
            About the Truth is later.
          2. ccsr
            ccsr 25 May 2021 13: 06
            -1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            HE scoffs at people like you who take him for normal.

            Don't lie, Timokhin - I only scoff at people like you with verbiage who understand military affairs as a famous character in oranges.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            From all forums where users can somehow influence who is there, he was expelled in disgrace.

            You are lying Timokhin, as always - they were expelled from some forums, and it is precisely those where ignoramuses like you are trying to lie about what they have no idea about. What nickname are you hiding under at the airbase - tell me, do not be shy. By the way, Klimov was also banned there, so your protege is not listed there, because they consider him crazy there - I myself read the comments on his texts.
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Here at VO is democracy, but to kick this creature when you meet is the duty of any decent person.

            Just do not class yourself as decent - you are just a liar and work out other people's grants here, and other members of the VO forum have reminded you of this more than once.
            When they stop paying, will you also disseminate your theories, or will you change the disc?
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 21 May 2021 23: 25
      -1
      Quote: ccsr
      all military equipment changes over time, this is the dialectic of the development of any weapons, about which the authors have too primitive an idea, since they take credit for this conclusion, believing that they discovered America.
      The office writes, apparently the next tranche came up ...

      I support, of course, it is obvious to everyone that it is necessary to improve those systems that are efficient and promising (nuclear submarines, coastal aviation, Strategic Missile Forces, Air Defense), and at the same time there is absolutely no need to develop dead-end branches like an aircraft carrier or battleship under the guise of a destroyer
  • Xlor
    Xlor 21 May 2021 19: 44
    -2
    Quote: timokhin-aa

    Forgotten the distance to the edge of the pack ice

    It is in order to shorten this very distance of passage to the pack ice that bases are being deployed in the North.
    In addition, you are in the heat of the keyboard craving, you have forgotten about surface ships, aviation and submarines, which provide the combat stability of submarines precisely during the transition to these very areas of pack ice and ... even further.
    Let me remind you that these very ice, to which the submarine strives so strongly, going on alert, rub against each other so that they can be heard even with the naked ear. I heard it myself. Through a hat with earflaps ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 20: 12
      +1
      It is in order to shorten this very distance of passage to the pack ice that bases are being deployed in the North.


      And how did it help? Is it dashing to measure the distance from the bases to the ice?

      In addition, you are in the heat of the keyboard craving, you have forgotten about surface ships, aviation and submarines, which provide the combat stability of submarines precisely during the transition to these very areas of pack ice and ... even further.


      It is you who dirty the keyboard and pollute the Internet with your delirium.
      You do not want to calculate the NKs capable of ensuring the transfer of submarines? Do you know how many of them the same Northern Fleet has received over the past ten years?
      The question is that we have to deal with it - we have a defense ministry going down on submarines, but what you write about is a bolt.
      And any normal person knows about it.
      In a sense, not the same as you.

      I will also remind you that these very ice, to which the SP strives so strongly,


      GAKs of boats and ships cut off these noises for decades.

      Once again, don't write anything. You are clearly insane and have no idea of ​​the subject of discussion. No need to embarrass yourself. Better read what competent people write here.
  • orcinus
    orcinus 21 May 2021 22: 34
    +3
    Here I like Timokhin's articles for their detailed analysis, and most importantly, factual! Unlike zadolbovshih cheers-patriots, who all week scribbled opuses (subtly hints - the name Roman). But, judging by the comments to the previous articles, most of us want to answer "by pressing a button" so that the miracle rocket will be carried away to the supporter. Seriously though, the most important thing that I took from Timokhin's articles is that there is no "plan". There is jet propulsion along the well-established engineering and tactical groundwork of the late 80s.
  • Vladimir Lenin
    Vladimir Lenin 21 May 2021 22: 46
    -4
    You can endlessly look at three things. How the water flows, how the fire burns, and how amateurs try to prove what a great power really needs a fleet! wassat
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 21 May 2021 23: 09
    -3
    Thanks to the dear Maxim Klimov and Alexander Timokhin, for the long promised article, first of all, here I see a lot of facts and technical information, not emotions! this is progress! secondly, thanks for raising the most pressing issue of the security of the Barents Sea, now the authors have more (Thank God) stopped stammering about Africa and returned to our penates, the issue of strengthening the protection of nuclear submarine bases was raised by me repeatedly and unswervingly by the respected Sergei Shoigu himself, but admirals they decided it formally by the bureaucracy, transferring the Lad there, but a cardinal decision is needed, the reduction of the fleets of the Baltic Caspian and the Sea of ​​Japan to several pennants of the third rank, and the transfer of the existing ships of the first second rank to the Northern Fleet, it is also necessary to take some of the ships from the Black Sea Fleet, it is clear that Moscow and all 11356 should be in the north, they are too big for the Black Sea Fleet, and the Black Sea Fleet is enough to reinforce Tatarstan and Dagestan with corvettes.
    The entire article of the respected A Timokhin and M Klimov is proof of the need to strengthen the Federation Council and urgent. The authors proceed from the situation of total enemy control of the Barents Sea, the unpunished walking there of enemy ASW frigates, helicopters and low-speed NATO ASW aircraft, this is unacceptable! for this situation should be judged by the General Staff of the Navy! and there is nothing to argue if the enemy can track the submarine directly from the base. then despite the defectiveness of the means of his PLO, he will amaze her. Now on the Northern Fleet there are a couple of PLO cruisers, a couple of fr, and a pair of BODs. Strengthening at the expense of the seas will give 5 more frigates, 4 BODs and two cruisers PLO, 5 PLO corvettes. This is if you do not strengthen Kamchatka, although in my opinion it is necessary to create conditions there for the submarine to enter the ocean, because it is better to have two arms than one, then the Northern Fleet will receive a cruiser for 4 bpc and a couple of cruisers less.
    Now, in essence of the article, the authors honestly admitted that there is no nuclear submarine to be found in the ocean. The United States is forced to develop new methods The second fact: the search for a wake requires the submarine to move at a depth of 20 meters and quickly, also tell me to raise the periscope, or better to surface! The third fact: the magnetometric method allows you to identify a boat only in a narrow area of ​​the sea, and the ocean is large. the fourth fact: NATO managed to lose submarines even in the shallow Mediterranean Sea stuffed with means of control! It is all the more difficult by an order of magnitude to find nuclear submarines in the ocean. An essential search method is underwater radar, radar and other modern methods in general are widely used against nuclear submarines, surface ships, aircraft, tanks, etc. It is clear that finding a nuclear submarine is an order of magnitude more difficult than an unnecessary aircraft carrier or a bulky cruiser, and the plane is also visible on the enemy's radars, it is clear that there are methods of counteracting enemy radars, flashing. false targets, electronic warfare and other methods, the nuclear submarine should also use them, Thanks to the authors for reminding the need to develop nuclear submarines, improve them, create methods to counter their detection, nuclear submarines need to be developed and improved because this is the most important and necessary part of the fleet. and surface ships are only means of ensuring the safe exit of nuclear submarines from bases. Moreover, no one needs any, there are rusty troughs of aircraft carriers without goals and objectives and without money for their construction.
    Timokhin and Klimov are also considering means of searching for submarines by advertising brochures of the manufacturer, and means of finding unnecessary aircraft carriers by search errors ... do not believe the advertisements! Klimov himself gave an example when tests are carried out for show, in idealized conditions, do not think that the Americans who managed to convince everyone without flying to the moon that they were flying, these Americans of course claim that they have invented a miracle weapon and all boats are visible, because they want to cut successfully budgets and they this (rubbed point, wishful thinking, frank linden) can do better than Russians .. in ideal conditions you can find a submarine if you know the search square, if it's calm, if it is on the surface, and no one bothers to look for it, .. here in the village of Strelno (where I live with our president of the country) a New Year's garland was stolen from the club, the thief was filmed by a surveillance camera ... and what is visible? that the man in the jacket ... and that's it! they never found him ... and this was in the presence of a camera, camera operators on duty, guards, and within walking distance of means of detention, on land ... what can I say about an ocean thousands of kilometers in size, where it is storming where chests get in the way, blue whales swim .... I ask respected M Klimov and A Timokhin to give more accurate performance characteristics of the nuclear submarine search means, for example, the width of the search strip, the speed of the search aircraft, ship, shoulder (whether the PLO aircraft will reach the middle of the ocean), restrictions search by weather, combat stability in the Barents Sea, means of countering electronic warfare ... otherwise this is again not a business conversation, but only slogans ...
    It is gratifying that the authors casually mentioned 1144, apparently they finally agreed that the aircraft carrier is unnecessary, unrealistic and useless, ... yes, 1144 is clearly more useful than AB because it is cheaper, not so constrained by dimensions, cheaper to maintain, and can perform the functions of a reinforced PLO frigate in the coastal zone of the Barents Sea.
    In general, the carriers are completely defeated, by our indisputable arguments, scattered to the corners, fell silent, sat in silence in a trench from where they quietly viciously minus, and their leaders now refer to 1144 in order to save face.
    your turn!
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 May 2021 23: 29
      +1
      Vladimir, are you really healthy? I will not review all this commentary, and I will not compare it with what you carried before, but your ability to turn away from inconvenient facts cannot be uncommented.

      I ask the respected M Klimov and A Timokhin to more accurately give the performance characteristics of the nuclear submarine search tools, for example, the width of the search bar,


      The article is written and pictures are drawn.

      search aircraft speed


      Vladimir, don't you know how fast the planes fly? It's not serious. In the search area, there is a flight at a cruising speed, during the search for the P-8 it is reduced only to drop buoys, it also works non-acoustically at cruising speed, Orion also has a cruising flight, a search speed of 330 km / h.
      Did you serve in the navy or not?

      , ship,


      Oh no no no! You are a mechanic since 1155. Do you remember at what speed he could carry the BUGAS?
      Vladimir, how are you?

      shoulder (will the PLO aircraft reach the middle of the ocean),


      There is a map in the article, be careful.

      weather restrictions, combat stability in the Barents Sea,


      And what could spoil it in the Barents Sea?

      means of countering electronic warfare ... otherwise this is again not a business conversation, but only slogans ...


      In my opinion, you have wagging from inconvenient facts.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 21 May 2021 23: 40
        -2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And what could spoil it in the Barents Sea?

        the state of NATO anti-aircraft missile defense systems can be severely damaged up to sinking, with the help of the coastal aviation of the Russian Navy. TTX PLO was brought to you by a respected specialist whom I trust, re-read smart people, increase your overall development by this
        Quote: Operator

        On the subject:
        1. Deployment of nuclear attack submarines of the Russian Federation will be carried out in a special period (before, and not during TMV) on the deep-water borders of the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, where they will arrive under the keel of merchant ships in the pre-war period.
        2. The distance of noise direction finding of a modern attack nuclear submarine with a displacement of 10 ktn at low speed in a deep-water section is 10 km, the distance of magnetometric detection is 500 meters, the distance of laser scanning of water is 100 meters, the distance of radar detection of a wake wave from a nuclear submarine moving at a depth of 200 meters or more , on the water surface of the ocean - 0 meters.
        3. The only way to detect nuclear submarines in the above case is a powerful low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination from a specialized carrier vessel. At the moment, there is 1 (one) such vessel in the US Navy, the reason is simple as a nail - during the hostilities, such vessels take a bearing for several thousand kilometers and are destroyed with the help of the GCR in a few minutes.
        4. If you re-equip the submarine forces of the Russian Navy on 1-ktn attack nuclear submarines, then the distance of their detection at the deep ocean boundary with the help of a low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination vessel will be a distance of no more than 100 km, which will require the US Navy to create a fleet of such vessels in an amount exceeding the fleet combat ships.
        5. The detection distance of 40-ton NPA "Poseidon" at low speed at a depth of 300 meters or more using low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination is no more than 1 (one) km. The detection distance of the Poseidon UVS without a move at the bottom position using low-frequency hydroacoustic illumination is 0 (zero) meters.

        Conclusion:
        - it is necessary to carry out a complete rearmament of the submarine forces of the Russian Navy from "Ash" and "Boreyev" to 1-ktn nuclear submarine "Laika" with GKR "Zircon" to strike targets on the enemy's territory with an approach time of within 10 minutes, as well as on UFO "Poseidon" with 100-Mtn thermonuclear charges for inflicting unacceptable damage to the enemy to a depth of 700 km from the coast (in terms of radioactive contamination of the area).
        1. timokhin-aa
          22 May 2021 01: 28
          +1
          Andryusha is a patient of a specialized medical institution, not a specialist.
          As for coastal aviation, I have already asked you to calculate the flight time, but apparently, you have already gone so far that you cannot even enter the calculator.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 22 May 2021 07: 38
            +2
            I counted and voiced you for a long time .... the flight time turned out to be 18 minutes ...... do you have memory gaps? and in general, you (in your delusional hallucinations of a pink pony) all smart people are either patients of a medical institution, or warrant officers, or raving in your (deeply mistaken) opinion, ... maybe the problem is in you ...
      2. DED_peer_DED
        DED_peer_DED 22 May 2021 21: 40
        +3


        Especially this "Funny Picture" impressed me.


        The size of the spacecraft next to the submarine. By the height of its flight. By the power of the "Lazarus Beam".
        By the "breadth of its thickness". By its "direct hit" in the wake of this particular boat. According to the depth of thought of the satellite and the capabilities of its (satellite) to predict the position of a particular submarine in the seas and oceans with an accuracy of fractions of a millimeter and direct this magic "ray of truth" to it with powers in orbit (at best) in the region of tens of watts in a short pulse, and not in a ray. According to the "mind" and abilities of the satellite to pierce the atmosphere, cloudiness, water evaporation from the surface of the sea with its lousy ray ... Etc - so on.
        "Citizens .... this is some kind of circus ...." (c)
        1. timokhin-aa
          24 May 2021 21: 39
          -2
          From Klimov:

          This is not a "funny picture" but a very specific topic.
          And the beam does not need to get into the wake, because the absorption is too great (at a large depth). Its task is to determine the disturbances in the water strata faculty caused by the movement (being in the thickness or on the ground) of the object, which manifests itself up to the surface.
          1. DED_peer_DED
            DED_peer_DED 25 May 2021 02: 16
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            This is not a "funny picture" but a very specific topic.
            And the beam does not need to get into the wake, because the absorption is too great (at a large depth). Its task is to determine the disturbances in the water strata faculty caused by the movement (being in the thickness or on the ground) of the object, which manifests itself up to the surface.


            Logic De Hypnosis?
            You are trying to answer logical thoughts with a set of letters. However, this is not equivalent.
            And the beam does not need to fall into the wake

            Of course not. Fuck he gets there without knowing in advance the exact location of the given PL.
            something speculative, oversimplified, far from reality ◆… since the I-485 rejection is a spherical horse in a vacuum, which many have heard about, but no one has seen, it is difficult to verify. ◆ Everything that you have written is a "spherical horse in a vacuum" and has nothing to do with real life.

            Swabbing, chattering and trying to convince the other side of your thoughtfulness with passes of hands and tongue.
            "All this would be funny if it weren't so sad ..." - Sir.
  • Drugov
    Drugov 22 May 2021 00: 31
    0
    I am frankly sick of this "war" for and against the heavy fleet. It is absolutely obvious to everyone that having the most advanced army and navy is great and necessary, BUT none of these debaters have answered the two main questions arising from each other, where to get the money and where to get the normal leadership of the state ??????? ?????
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 May 2021 01: 26
      +3
      Money is easily taken by cutting ineffective programs.
      For example, a halving of the Ash series would give a second aircraft carrier, the refusal to continue the sawmills of types 22160, 20386, 21631, Poseidon would give money for the normal repair of Kuznetsov, the revival of trawling forces and the modernization of old submarines to an operational level, etc. ...
      1. Drugov
        Drugov 22 May 2021 01: 32
        -2
        Start thinking with the second question. To paraphrase - while there is Putin, all your (our) dreams of a strong navy and a correct economy are just dirty paper or, in this case, a keyboard.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 22 May 2021 07: 51
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Money is easy to take

        nonsense! then why do people work? and even more delusional, for the sake of a delusional idea to abandon the necessary effective programs!
        1. moody
          moody 22 May 2021 15: 59
          0
          nonsense! then why do people work? and even more delusional, for the sake of a delusional idea to abandon the necessary effective programs!


          You have no idea how effective it is!

          "Until today (the author's spelling), not one corvette-class warship was capable of autonomously acting at the level of an aircraft carrier strike group."

          https://topwar.ru/91585-korvety-pr-22160-malozametnye-patrulnye-korabli-s-vozmozhnostyami-esminca-vsled-za-soobrazitelnym.html

          Another half dozen 22160 and America nervously smokes on the sidelines!

          Really crazy idea.
          Some kind of minesweepers, and how many "Calibers" are on them? What, not at all? Nonsense, definitely.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 22 May 2021 07: 49
      +1
      Quote: Drugov
      "war" for the heavy fleet and against. It is absolutely obvious to everyone that having the most advanced army and navy is wonderful and necessary, BUT none of these debaters have answered the two main questions arising from each other, where to get the money and where to get the normal leadership of the state

      in general, it is true, but this holivar is watched with interest in the General Staff of the Navy, in the USA and China, there are now meeting experts on this issue, experts are invited ... the holivar was a success for the whole world, but the answer is simple and has long been given, there is no money, budget of the Russian Federation for Aircraft carriers and will not, ...... As for the country's leadership ... every nation has the government that deserves, how they think and live, they rejected the Truth of God, did not give a damn about patriotism, for the sake of lentil soup in the form European panties were sold and betrayed the country, everything acquired by generations was spent, but preferred Czech beer and Hollywood, and serve American money and ideas as slaves ... who is not God's slave is a slave to money, and those who print them, and the US Federal Reserve Board prints them , the people are slaves to the US Federal Reserve and their private owners ... amen
      1. Drugov
        Drugov 22 May 2021 07: 55
        -1
        Why is it so interesting that the Russian people are so guilty that for so many centuries they have the government they deserve?
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 22 May 2021 08: 03
          -1
          He said: I am jealous for the Lord, the God of hosts, for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, they have destroyed thy altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; I was left alone, but they are looking for my soul to take it away.
          3 Kings 19:14 - 3 Kings 19:14: https://bible.by/verse/11/19/14/

          In fact, many churches and monasteries were destroyed during these years. The number of temples destroyed is fairly easy to calculate. In 1914, there were a total of 54 churches, 174 chapels, 25 monasteries. It turns out that there were 593 sacred buildings in total. In 1025, only 80792 temples and 1987 monasteries remained. A total of 6893 sacred sites remain. It means that 15 objects were destroyed. But most of the sacred objects were converted into other structures (houses of culture, museums, apartments).

          The twentieth century for the Orthodox Church was a period of monstrous trials, misfortunes and troubles that befell the believers and the clergy. Here you can find detailed information about the destroyed or adapted for other purposes monasteries and temples by regions and cities during the Soviet era. From 1917 to 1987, a terrible campaign was carried out to destroy the objects of religious worship - churches. And how many churches were destroyed (blown up or dismantled) during these years is very difficult to establish.

          For seventy years of Soviet power, a very large number of sacred structures were destroyed and destroyed. This is indicated by official sources. In the one thousand nine hundred and fourteenth year the Russian Empire officially numbered fifty-four thousand one hundred seventy-four Orthodox churches, twenty-five thousand five hundred ninety-three chapels, one thousand twenty-five monasteries.

          May 30. INTERFAX.RU - In Russia, more than four thousand churches are in an emergency or ruined state, Vladimir Legoyda, head of the Synodal Department for Church Relations with Society and the Media, told reporters.
          1. Drugov
            Drugov 22 May 2021 08: 10
            +3
            That is, the "damned commies" are to blame for the fact that we now have such a leadership? Well, let's say, and what should we do with all these tsars and Herods who used to bless the Russian people with God's blessing? How to deal with them? The catch phrase - you just have to suffer a little and everything will work out, has been repeated for many centuries, but nothing has worked out!
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 22 May 2021 08: 19
              -5
              Quote: Drugov
              That is, the "damned commies" are to blame for the fact that we now have such a leadership? Let us suppose

              not true, no need to blame the communists (all the more it is not clear who and what they are different communist Stalin is one thing, and the executioner Trotsky is also a communist) it was not Stalin who wrote anonymous letters and imprisoned people, it was not Stalin who fled from the Germans and surrendered in platoons until they realized that it is pointless to skimp, ... it was not Stalin who spat on churches and drank vodka. It was not Trotsky and Lenin who staged a revolution, it was organized by the generals and ministers under the approval of the people, you know ... it is not Putin who buys and serves drugs, vodka, it is not Putin who watches Hollywood bullshit, it is not Putin who draws slander on the fences of churches, the people do it ... Hear, heavens, and listen, earth, because the Lord says: I raised and exalted sons, and they rebelled against Me.
              Deu 32, 6
              3 The ox knows its owner, and the donkey knows its master's manger; but Israel does not know [Me], My people do not understand.
              Is 30, 9 Is 57, 3 Dan 9, 5
              4 Alas, sinful people, a people burdened with iniquity, a tribe of evildoers, sons of perdition! Forsaken the Lord, despised the Holy One of Israel - turned back.
              Jer 2:30 Jer 4:19
              5 What else to beat you, who continue their stubbornness? The whole head is full of ulcers, and the whole heart is exhausted.
              Deu 28, 35
              6 From the sole of his foot to the crown of his head he has no healthy place: ulcers, spots, festering wounds, uncleaned and untied and not softened with oil.
              Deut 28: 51-52 Is 5: 5
              7 Your land is desolate; your cities are burnt with fire; your fields are devoured by strangers in your eyes; everything was empty, as after being ruined by strangers.
              8 And the daughter of Zion was left like a tent in a vineyard, like a hut in a vegetable garden, like a besieged city.
              Lamentations 3, 22 Rom 9, 29 Gen 19, 24 Jer 23, 14
              9 If the Lord of hosts had not left us a small remnant, we would have been the same as Sodom, we would have become like Gomorrah.
              10 Hear the word of the Lord, princes of Sodom; listen to the law of our God, people of Gomorrah!
              Proverbs 15, 8 Is 66, 3 Jer 6, 20 Am 5, 21-22
              11 Why do I need the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord. I am satiated with the burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fattened cattle, and I do not want the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
              Jer 7
              12 When you come to appear before Me, who requires you to trample My courts?
              Proverbs 21:27
              13 Bear no more vain gifts: smoking is disgusting to me; New moons and Saturdays, festive gatherings I can not stand: lawlessness - and celebration!
              14 Your new moons and your feasts my soul hates; they are a burden to me; It's hard for me to carry them.
              Proverbs 1, 28 Jer 14, 12 Eze 8, 18 Micah 3, 4 Is 59, 3
              15 And when you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; and when you multiply your prayers, I do not hear: your hands are full of blood.
              Ps 33 15 Pet 1:3
              16 Wash yourself, be clean; remove your evil deeds from my eyes; stop doing evil;
              Ps 81, 4
              17 learn to do good, seek righteousness, save the oppressed, protect the orphan, stand up for the widow.
              Is 41, 1 Is 43, 25 Is 44, 22
              18 Then come and let us judge, says the Lord. If your sins be as crimson, I will whiten you as snow; if they are red like purple, I will whiten like a wave.
              Leo 25, 18
              19 If you will and obey, you will eat the good things of the earth;
              20 But if you deny and persist, the sword will devour you: for the mouth of the Lord speaks.
              Mt 23: 34-35, 37
              21 How the faithful city, full of justice, has become a harlot! Truth dwelled in her, and now - murderers.
              Jer 6:30 Eze 22:18
              22 Your silver has become ashes, your wine has been spoiled by water;
              Hos 9, 15 Ex 22, 22 Jer 5, 28 Zach 7, 10
              23 Thy princes are transgressors of the law and accomplices of thieves; they all love gifts and chase bribery; do not protect orphans, and the widow's case does not reach them.
              Deu 28, 63
              24 Therefore says the Lord, the Lord of hosts, the mighty one of Israel: oh, I will satisfy myself over my adversaries, and will avenge my enemies!
              Is 1:22 Mal 3: 2-3
              25 And I will turn my hand on you, and, as in alkali, I will cleanse the impurity from you, and I will separate from you all that is leaden;
              Jer 33
              26 And again I will supply you with judges, as before, and counselors, as at the beginning; then they will say about you: "the city of truth, the faithful capital."
              27 Zion will be saved by justice, and her sons who are converted - by righteousness;
              Job 31: 3 Ps 1: 6
              28 But to all apostates and sinners it will be destruction, and those who have forsaken the Lord will be destroyed.
              1. Drugov
                Drugov 22 May 2021 08: 36
                +4
                Trying hard to grasp the meaning in your overloaded posts. Do I understand correctly that people mean all this time they are to blame for everything? That is, the egg is to blame that the chicken laid it down like that, so you can do it? That the fish comes out rotting from the tail and not from the head? And what if everyone read Jewish fairy tales three times a day, then the people would live happily ever after?
                1. Dmitry Chelyabinsk
                  Dmitry Chelyabinsk 22 May 2021 10: 34
                  +1
                  Vladimir probably did not mean "read", but "lived according to the principles indicated there."

                  And if we talk about modernity, then we have democracy - what was "demolished" is what we got. The people are now "the head", but from the rotten head and the derivatives (power) are the same. In the end, everyone came out of the people.
                  1. Drugov
                    Drugov 22 May 2021 11: 28
                    0
                    Excuse me, but is it possible an example of a state or a people who live according to such or similar principles in chocolate? With regard to the "head" role of the people, then I strongly disagree. The people "hawala" what they feed them, they are fragmented, divided, fooled. He was chopped into pieces and scattered in different directions, so that he could never gather into a single whole and pretend to be a head. Divide and rule here is the postulate embodied in life by 1000 percent. How can you blame people for wanting to live better, but they are constantly deceived and repeatedly returned to the feudal serf level of existence?
                    However, we are quite far from the essence, and I repeat that under Putin there is no money for the fleet and many other vital projects and will not be.
                    1. Dmitry Chelyabinsk
                      Dmitry Chelyabinsk 22 May 2021 12: 35
                      +1
                      The problem is that if you take people from the people and put them in power, won't they behave in the same way as the current "heads"? Putin, Yeltsin (and most other people in power) were not born and raised in palaces. The people give birth to such people, with those convictions by which the people themselves live (for example, "if you don't, you can't live"). Therefore, this government deserves.
                      I agree, we came off.
                      1. Drugov
                        Drugov 22 May 2021 12: 58
                        +3
                        As an example, we have the USSR, in which social elevators worked exactly like this, people from the very, that is not the deepest people became at the head and did not act like the present. Not all of them, of course, and not always, but in the overwhelming majority they really, honestly and disinterestedly served their homeland. Let's, as it is fashionable to say now, let's start with ourselves, here you are, it turns out, according to your words, would you also act like these after receiving a position? I understand that you will say that one in the field is not a warrior and that the system of such loners going against the tide will swallow and will not notice. But this is a chance to change this rotten paradigm and that in the whole country we cannot find a couple of hundred thousand people who want and can do it? I am sure that there are many more of them and it is theoretically possible to do this, but that very head of the hydra will make every effort to prevent this from happening.
                      2. Dmitry Chelyabinsk
                        Dmitry Chelyabinsk 22 May 2021 13: 23
                        +1
                        The USSR is a good example of what Vladimir wrote about. For 70 years, he has put forward the people who ruined it. The Russian empire held out for 300 years.
                        Yes, I started with myself. Not "nay .. yu". Even the state. For example, I have the opportunity not to pay taxes, but I pay them in full. Because I want, including the fleet))
                        Do not despair. As one respected person said, "The course of history, perhaps, does not depend on us. But it depends on us what place we take in it."
                      3. Drugov
                        Drugov 22 May 2021 15: 33
                        +5
                        And yet you must agree that the USSR was a unique project and in its 70 years it has survived and created so much that it will take your breath away. And his social guarantees are just a standard for any developed society. I do not despair, but I am looking for contacts with honest and decent people in order to still try to influence the course of history. Thank you and good luck.
                    2. Vladimir1155
                      Vladimir1155 22 May 2021 15: 57
                      0
                      Quote: Drugov
                      As an example, we have the USSR, in which social elevators worked exactly like this, people from the very, that is not the deepest people became at the head and did not act like the present. Not all of them, of course, and not always, but the overwhelming majority of them truly, honestly and disinterestedly served their homeland.

                      what are you for the USSR? it was a very short period in the USSR, it began in 1933-37 and ended in 1953, it all depended on the kind and just tsar who built this country on the ruins of the empire, got the country in ruins, with scoundrels in power, in hunger and theft and sabotage, embezzlement and betrayal, but gave the people the constitution of a pension, education, health care, eliminated unemployment, built an army and a navy ... and why? because the people repented of the atrocities of the revolution, and hated the Trotsky
                    3. Drugov
                      Drugov 22 May 2021 16: 14
                      +1
                      You are thinking strangely. In the period indicated by you, the people suffered from the hardest shocks starting from the famine years, continuing with repressions and finally a terrible war. What is it that the Russian-Soviet people repented with their blood, millions of innocent victims ??? Sorry, but this is sheer nonsense.
                      Yes, and social elevators after the death of Stalin quite worked for themselves, for example my parents and millions of Soviet citizens who have achieved career growth and state awards and solutions to their living conditions. And we, children of 70, lived in a happy and carefree childhood until the arrival of the Tagged Countryman.
            2. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 22 May 2021 15: 48
              0
              Quote: Dmitry Chelyabinsk
              The people are now "the head", but from the rotten head and the derivatives (power) are the same.

              for example, the people simply do not vote at all, do not go to elections, and all the votes of those who were absent from the elections go to United Russia
          2. DED_peer_DED
            DED_peer_DED 22 May 2021 22: 03
            +1
            Trying hard to grasp the meaning in your overloaded posts. Do I understand correctly that people mean all this time they are to blame for everything? That is, the egg is to blame that the chicken laid it down like that, so you can do it? That the fish comes out rotting from the tail and not from the head? And what if everyone read Jewish fairy tales three times a day, then the people would live happily ever after?


            The egg can be boiled. The egg can be fried with an onion. You can hatch an egg lovingly, and then teach and love a chicken grown from it, growing a shift for yourself.
            Man is not an egg. But he is also born as a kind of animal, not knowing "it is allowed or not" and does not know why this or that "is allowed or not."
            It is the environment (small, large and global) that makes a child out of a child with a capital letter.
            And what kind of "environment" is it now?
            Even if the "small" environment is a family and is good, righteous, good, then the "large environment" is deceitful, evil and unrighteous in principle.
            How can a Human be raised under such external conditions of lies and deceit? Only by instilling in a person faith in the Highest Justice, the Highest Judgment and Truth.
            There is no other Truth on Earth except this one. Everywhere lies, hypocrisy and vanity of worries of people, tearing them away from the knowledge of the Truth.
            1. Drugov
              Drugov 28 May 2021 18: 44
              0
              I have already asked a question in this thread, and now, if I may ask you, give an example of at least one society in the known cycle of a Human's life, where, describing you, the situation of raising an individual existed? Well, at least approximately! Here, personally, nothing like this comes to my mind, except for ... the USSR. An absolutely atheistic country, which at the same time tried with all its might to educate a Man in fact on the biblical commandments.
  • Basarev
    Basarev 22 May 2021 01: 10
    -1
    Is it too late? In my opinion, even at the end of the war, it became clear: the Allies seized absolute supremacy in the air and ocean and they can no longer be pulled out. I think it would be more correct not to go to the ocean at all, but to build an indestructible coastal defense - right down to monitors, if necessary.
  • Radio operator and engineer
    Radio operator and engineer 22 May 2021 07: 39
    +1
    Thanks for the interesting article!
    Unfortunately, the economy does not allow pulling everything at once. Officials, whether in the Ministry of Defense, think in their own logic. Sometimes harmful.
    The problem of our overcoming the Antlantic ASW and immediately after leaving the bases has always been acute. As I understand it, while the boat is not at depths of about 500 meters, it is almost 100% detectable. What the author actually proves. If we are not able to make powerful cover orders, then the answer should be asymmetric. The only (almost) thing that is clearly progressing is the electronic warfare and electronic warfare systems. I dare to think that this is where you need to work. The towed antenna of the GUS should be automatically tuned to the low-frequency response of illumination and target designation. I am sure that the work is in progress, because this is the only tool that is always ready for use. Any "tricks" only delay time. In low frequency fields, the picture is especially complex. There are many third-party factors. We need a powerful information processing unit on board. To create a semblance of aeronautical AFAR antennas for multi-stream and multi-frequency emissions is a difficult task. Most likely the entire hull of the boat should become this antenna. I see no other way than a radio engineer.
    1. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 22 May 2021 22: 08
      0
      Quote: Radio operator and engineer
      I see no other way than a radio engineer.

      Regardless of you, the above supported your idea, somewhat in its own way.
      I think that they also think about it "at the level".
  • Andrey1978
    Andrey1978 22 May 2021 08: 39
    0
    Greetings to all. Explain, please, everything is clear with dpl, they found the target, destroyed it. And with the apl? Found, took on escort, and then what? Let's say they torpedoed, God forbid, of course, the explosion of the reactor ... And the irradiation of the entire search engine team is guaranteed, plus you can forget about this place for 300 years. Recently I read that the Norwegians monitor the Komsomolets area and at a depth of km, the background radiation is very high.
    1. Shopping Mall
      Shopping Mall 22 May 2021 10: 17
      +2
      Quote: Andrey1978
      ..., the explosion of the reactor ... And the irradiation of the entire team of search engines is guaranteed, plus you can forget about this place for 300 years. Recently I read that the Norwegians monitor the Komsomolets area and at a depth of km, the background radiation is very high.


      There will be nothing for them. The sea will become obscured, yes, but it is unlikely to be a nuclear explosion - more likely an ordinary one, with the release of radioactive substances (like the so-called "dirty bomb").

      Ships, PLO aircraft and other submarines will not be affected. But then you shouldn't catch seafood there ...
    2. DED_peer_DED
      DED_peer_DED 22 May 2021 22: 17
      +3
      If there is no direct hit into the compartment with the reactor, then, as in the case, for example, with the Kursk, in most cases the protection against the uncontrollability of the reactor should work and the graphite rods for jamming the nuclear reaction should go down.
      I think that the reactor protection is designed to constantly receive signals about the presence of controllability from the boat's technical control center. As soon as the signals disappear, the reactor protection is automatically triggered. Some kind of "Dead Hand".
      Of course, in the case of direct destruction of the reactor by a rapid external impact, this will not help from the sputtering of radiation materials. But there should not be an explosion, even just a thermal one.
  • Max PV
    Max PV 22 May 2021 08: 54
    0
    The article is correct and sensible, the approach is wrong. As usual, a lonely spherical submarine (tank, plane, ship) in a vacuum against all NATO - it is clear that it has no chance. It is quite possible to exclude the same anti-submarine aircraft from the game by inflicting missile strikes on home airfields that are within the reach of the "Caliber", since the Orion's radius of action, taking into account patrolling, is less than the range of the CD, and all bases are known and their number is not prohibitive. Yes, there is a problem of an insufficient number of missiles, since at least a hundred of them are needed to destroy an air base, but it can be solved. PLO helicopters, I am still convinced, are best carried out with the help of anti-ship missiles converted to engage air targets. I don't see what hinders the introduction of the same X-35 into the software of the search and attack mode for low-flying air targets, and shoot it through the TA in a pop-up capsule, launching after a certain time, and flying with a search along a given course. And the fact that the speed is transonic is nonsense - the targets have many times less. Ships PLO, of course, sink. Yes, here, too, the problem is that one boat will not endure everyone, which means that the interaction of boats is needed, and preferably other forces of the fleet, base aviation, long-range aviation, MFA and Strategic Missile Forces (the last three for strikes on bases). And, finally, all sorts of SOSUS and other stationary GAS should be started to process in peacetime: to identify the exact location of their sensors, cable power and communication lines, ground infrastructure, to lay down remotely controlled landmines (including nuclear ones) at some distance from them by submarines , PDSS, from passing ships. In the event of the outbreak of hostilities, launch missile strikes on key elements of the coastal infrastructure, and disable underwater components with previously laid charges, bombardment of the installation sites of underwater components with depth charges and the use of PDSS and special equipment - remotely controlled underwater drones, bottom trawls, elongated charges like land elongated demining charges, etc.
    1. agond
      agond 22 May 2021 11: 40
      +1
      Yes indeed, our submarine forces are very vulnerable, at the pier, at the exit from the base, on the way to the designated area, absolutely everywhere, and the degree of risk has long gone beyond any reasonable limits, while those who make decisions in our state are either silent the problem, or they don't even know about it, and maybe what they are waiting for, but the problem does not disappear, and the problem lies in the size of our submarines. means that if we persistently built and continue to build huge boats like the great Fyodor, fools, then naturally their enemies will quickly detect and drown them, by the way, the construction of bad Fyodors is a long, bad, costly process,
      Conclusion, the reason should be that the size of the boats should be drastically reduced, including by abandoning the double-hull design.
    2. Galleon
      Galleon 22 May 2021 13: 45
      +1
      Quote: Max PV
      the approach is wrong. As usual, a lonely spherical sub in a vacuum against all of NATO

      And in our Navy, this is how it works as a whole - with single ships, of course, the wrong approach. But where can one gain strength for the correct approach and make this correct approach the mode of operation of the fleet? You wouldn't count a frigate with a tug and supply transport as a connection. A connection off the coast of Syria? - Does it solve a single combat mission?
      Quote: Max PV
      it is quite possible to exclude anti-submarine aircraft from the game by inflicting missile strikes on home airfields that are within the reach of the "Caliber"

      Do you know how many airfields the Air Force of Norway has? More than a dozen: Trondheim, Bodø, Orlanda, Lakselv, Andøya, Evenes, Rigge, Florø, Gardermoen, Bardufoss - these are those that I found offhand. And how many airfields does the Russian Federation have in the entire Arctic zone, for the entire 22600 km of its border? - 14. How many calibers are needed to disable the aerodrome (concrete-piercing non-existent warheads should not be offered))? With what outfit of forces and in what time frame do you intend to implement your plan?
      But you should have asked yourself all these questions, comrade.
  • Vlad_20
    Vlad_20 22 May 2021 10: 14
    +1
    Against all this, false targets must be used - both autonomous and placed on fish and other marine animals.
    1. Azimuth
      Azimuth 22 May 2021 12: 45
      0
      Proceed from the fact that the NAS has been detected or can be detected within a certain time. In the Barez Sea, this is unacceptable and it is necessary to counteract by destroying, blocking reconnaissance means and carriers of weapons. There won't be enough money for the ocean.
  • Dmitry Chelyabinsk
    Dmitry Chelyabinsk 22 May 2021 10: 45
    +2
    Good day! Alexander, Maxim, thank you very much for the article!

    I have long wanted to speak for Borei. I think it's about time. Although, this question was raised here before me.
    White Sea. More precisely, its southwestern part is the Basin (21,8 thousand sq. Km) and the Kandalaksha Bay (6,5 thousand sq. Km). 2/3 of them are water areas with depths of more than 100 meters.
    And the most important thing is that ANYONE will not be there except Boreyev. Neither BPA, nor PL, nor NK.
    And no surface squadrons are needed for cover. At a minimum - minesweepers and IPC, close the throat. Yes, even to pull the anti-submarine net in Gorla, like the Germans in the Gulf of Finland.

    We tried at least twice - in the 80s for six months they went there first "Murena" pr. 667B, then "Akula" pr. 941.

    Why don't we use it?
    1. timokhin-aa
      24 May 2021 21: 38
      0
      Klimov:

      According to the recollections of Nachopera SF Lebedko, after the development of these areas, Gorshkov gave orders to have them as a reserve for the war, but not to use them constantly in everyday conditions.
      At the same time, the Americans well understood the factor and capabilities of the White Sea.
      1. Dmitry Chelyabinsk
        Dmitry Chelyabinsk 25 May 2021 10: 39
        0
        Thank you!
        Apparently, there were economic reasons (trawl fishing, etc.).
  • Vlad_20
    Vlad_20 22 May 2021 11: 05
    +2
    In the 80s, the MiG-701 interceptor with a range of ~ 10000 km was developed. 58 tons takeoff weight, 12 tons of combat load in the inner compartment. It was supposed to carry 3 passive phased antenna arrays that could simultaneously detect and track 40 targets at a distance of up to 420 kilometers. Armed with ultra-long-range air-to-air missiles KS-172. That would be a real threat to the Poseidons!
  • Dmitry Valentinovich
    Dmitry Valentinovich 22 May 2021 14: 27
    -1
    N-yes ... It is regrettable and scary ... What surprised most of all was the use of long-wave sonar ... if you build everything systematically, then the lack of resolution is not a problem
    But there are also super-resolution algorithms. And now Russia cannot afford to "raise" such a complex anti-submarine defense system. We can only hope for trains to carry strategic missiles (
    1. agond
      agond 22 May 2021 15: 48
      0
      From the theory of wave reflection, it is known that if the wavelength noticeably exceeds the size of the object, then the wave reflection will be very weak, which means that at the same frequency of the emitter, the boat (length 150m si hull diameter 13-15m) is detected far away, and the detection range of the boat three times smaller (30m long with a body diameter of 3m), will not shrink by a factor of ten, but dozens of times, or will be invisible at all.
  • Freedim
    Freedim 22 May 2021 17: 37
    +3
    Russia is traditionally strong in the field of electronic warfare. Do we have something (acting or in the project) to multiply enemy electronics by zero (buoys, there are some stationary locators ... and it would be nice for planes to arrive) without affecting our own? .. If you can't hide from the eyes - the eyes can be gouged out. Anyway, if there is an alert signal, then it can be influenced, as well as the device giving it.
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 22 May 2021 18: 17
      +2
      Quote: FreeDIM
      If it is impossible to hide from the eyes, then the eyes can be gouged out. Anyway, if there is an alert signal, then it can be influenced, as well as the device giving it.

      You suggest only one of the possible countermeasures. But there is, for example, another way to develop such a counteraction - to make the entire detection system work falsely, and then the Yankees will be tortured to look for our nuclear submarines. Everyone understands that the enemy detection system uses satellite communication channels, which means that opening these communication channels and suppressing them during a threatened period will seriously undermine the operation of the enemy's anti-submarine system.
      So there are several areas of work to ensure the safety of our nuclear submarines, and I think there are people in the fleet who are seriously engaged in this, and do not distribute articles with dubious content to VO, as Timokhin and Co. does.
      1. timokhin-aa
        24 May 2021 21: 36
        -2
        From Klimov:

        another way of developing such a counteraction is to make the entire detection system work falsely, and then the Yankees will be tortured to look for our nuclear submarines. Everyone understands that the enemy detection system uses satellite communication channels, which means that opening these communication channels and suppressing them during a threatened period will seriously undermine the operation of the enemy's anti-submarine system.

        MK:
        Ensign, I will open the "eerie military secret" for you. The fact that you were drunkenly told the prapor about the "autopsy" in practice is COMPLETELY different from the ACHINEA that you are carrying.

        The meaning of the word "autopsy" in successful reconnaissance measures ensured the receipt of sufficient and complete information on the enemy ("to open the grouping ... of the radio network ..."). In order to make it "falsely work" through PROTECTED communication channels, you need to "split" their encryption system (and before that "enter traffic"), which with modern methods of protection against modern communication networks is practically unrealistic
        1. ccsr
          ccsr 25 May 2021 12: 20
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          In order to make it "falsely work" through PROTECTED communication channels, you need to "split" their encryption system (and before that "enter traffic"),

          You are just an amateur in these matters - for this they use an imitation of the characteristics of an object, which can be reproduced from another ship, for example, a surface ship.
          And there is no need to open protected channels, they are simply crushed by means of high-power electronic warfare - teach materiel, verbiage.
  • Olgerd Gediminovich
    Olgerd Gediminovich 22 May 2021 17: 51
    0
    The domestic military-industrial complex is characterized by asymmetric responses to external challenges. Primarily for economic reasons - so as not to spend tons of money, which, in fact, do not exist.
    Brainstorming, foreign intelligence, general staff analysts or just a talented designer with extraordinary thinking sometimes solve a problem that brings the progress of our weapons to a new level.
    I will not go deep into history. A few examples. I'll start with Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleev in the 19th century, who promptly solved the problem of the production of smokeless gunpowder.
    Among the contemporaries, we can mention the collective of the Institute of Hydromechanics of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR under the leadership of Academician Logvinovich and their "Shkval". Where are they Western counterparts? The stolen Barracuda doesn't really shine.
    Or such an example. Gryazev and Shipunov "slightly" upgraded the M61 scheme. As a result, GSh-6-30 does not require an external drive for operation. Everything works due to the powder gases discharged from the barrels. No hefty electric motor, no hydraulics, no pneumatics. The cost of the product is, accordingly, much less. And weight saving for the carrier ship or aircraft.
    It's the same about submarines. If you can't make them invisible, you can go the other way. On the example of ICBMs. A modern missile is split into several warheads. The deployment unit brings the warheads on course along individual trajectories. Most of them are false. The characteristics of dummy warheads for radars are ideally identical to combat ones. Why not do something similar for submarines. Like this: the submarine, after entering the combat course, releases tens / hundreds of false targets with individual courses. And let the enemy's radar / sonar stations puzzle over which of the underwater targets is real and which is imitation. To complicate the task of analysis, all false targets have different characteristics, and ideally they generally change over time (for the submarine itself, too). The idea is free. I do not pretend to be original.
    1. Alceers
      Alceers 22 May 2021 21: 16
      +1
      Quote: Olgerd Gediminovich
      The idea is free

      And stupid ... For a simulator of pl, capable of deceiving a complex plane, is, in terms of cost and complexity, another pl. So can you have it right away?
      1. Olgerd Gediminovich
        Olgerd Gediminovich 23 May 2021 14: 39
        0
        Well, if you really understand, the idea is not mine.
        Everything is from nature. On the example of cephalopods. In case of danger, the squid (or cuttlefish, or octopus) "shoots off" a false target - a shell similar in shape to a mollusk. The squid itself makes a sharp maneuver - usually it leaves at an angle to the side and hides. The predator grabs the imitation and envelopes itself in a thick cloud of ink filling its shell. The urge to persecute usually disappears after that.
        It seems difficult to blame nature for being stupid.
        But this is only one of the options.
        Another asymmetric option for an example. If you can't keep secrecy. Jamming. For sonar - a buoy (a network of buoys) or a torpedo with emitters in the required range. For radars, another surprise is bombs with a charge of chopped foil. The examples, of course, are simplified and quite ancient Greek. Modern design bureaus are armed with ideas and better in this area.
    2. Andrey sh
      Andrey sh 23 May 2021 11: 20
      0
      But the Shkval's range of action is not very ... And guidance via an optical cable is easily available up to 40-50 km. So the option is quiet and unobtrusive with control from a boat, in some situations it completely outplayes a fast and noisy torpedo for 20 km ...
      1. Olgerd Gediminovich
        Olgerd Gediminovich 23 May 2021 14: 40
        0
        I do not argue.
        Each target has its own weapon.
  • Big_Stick
    Big_Stick 22 May 2021 18: 34
    -1
    Divide and rule! - this is the rule that should be used by designers of means of delivery of weapons of retaliation to the borders of a potential enemy in the conditions of total direction finding of nuclear submarines according to the previously obtained seamless "self-portraits" when passing through the barrier belts of the submarine.
    From this point of view, why not apply in the depths of the sea the principles of delivering ICBM carriers to the desired launch points, similar to delivery on the ground by train trains, with unpredictable division and, accordingly, with unknown magnetic, wave, noise-acoustic and other markers used by the enemy in direction finding?
    The assembly of such a "train" should take place in the submerged state of the "cars", and the "locomotive" must pull the "trainer" to the beginning of the boundary of the PLO belt. The length of the "composition" is a variable quantity. Then the "wagons" must-can move away and run "quietly" to the place of combat duty of the DB on their own. "Portrait" of such a "trailer" - it will be difficult for the time being to identify the foe, because he is unknown to him in advance.
    At the end of the period of stay at the base station, the "wagons" should independently group themselves in an agreed place, where there is a possibility of using a ship's convoy for their protection, and should be picked up by a "steam locomotive" to return to the base of deployment.
  • Alexeitch
    Alexeitch 22 May 2021 18: 54
    -3
    A very competent article by a specialist. For a long time there has been talk about all our boats being spotted. And in case of war, they will be destroyed immediately! And our billions are thumping into this disastrous business.
    1. Spider
      Spider 24 May 2021 03: 36
      0
      No, not bad. Boats are the best form of fighting a superior enemy. Although, there is an even more effective one - these are mines. But with the mine and with us, things are much worse than with the boats ...)))
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 22 May 2021 19: 00
    -3
    The article is certainly tasty and interesting.
    But I visited one question.
    And, it never occurred to anyone to use the PL-for their direct purpose?
    That is, the destruction of the enemy's steamers, which provide him (the enemy) with everything necessary for waging a war?
    1. Spider
      Spider 24 May 2021 03: 32
      0
      To do this, multipurpose boats must break through to communications through anti-submarine lines ... And there they are just waiting for them)))
  • Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 22 May 2021 19: 28
    0