Start from under the water. New concept of submarine ballistic missile launcher

36

Schematic of a launcher with a rocket, graphics from the patent

A number of methods of basing and deploying ballistic missiles are known. Some of them have been successfully brought to mass exploitation, while others have not been able to move beyond proposals and preliminary projects. In particular, the idea of ​​a stationary underwater complex underwater basing has not received much development. However, it still attracts the attention of inventors - and new similar projects appear. Another patent for this design was issued a few weeks ago.

New development


The original design of the submarine launcher is secured by the patent RU 2748503 "Method for controlling the flight of a combat missile", issued at the end of May. Its author is Yuri Iosifovich Polevoy, an employee of the Samara Transport University. He already holds more than 200 patents for various inventions, incl. in the field of small arms and missiles.



The patent proposes an unusual way of placing a combat missile, which has several advantages over those known and used. The author of the project promises to reduce the cost of manufacturing the launcher; it also achieves the removal of the launch lines to a minimum distance from potential targets, which reduces the flight time. In addition, the claimed ability to provide camouflage and high stability of the complex.

Along with the unusual launcher, a new launch and flight technique is proposed. These measures should ensure a breakthrough of the enemy's anti-missile defenses, designed to intercept "conventional" ballistic targets.

Original design


An unusual submarine launcher (the patent uses the name of a missile launcher - PUR) is made in the form of a fully autonomous complex that has all the necessary systems and means to enter a given area, be on duty and launch a rocket.

Start from under the water. New concept of submarine ballistic missile launcher
Principles of deployment of RPS, graphics from the patent

The basis of such a PUR is a ring starting table with the necessary units inside. It contains the control systems, propulsion system, etc. On top of the table are four cylinders that act as ballast tanks. A place for a rocket is provided in the center. Also, the PUR should be equipped with a radio station for receiving target designations and launch commands.

The inventor proposes an original ballast system that ensures the presence of the PUR under water and ascent to the working depth. Instead of traditional ballast tanks, the use of several vertical cylinders is envisaged inside the hull. The upper end of such a unit is made open, and inside it there is a movable piston. The movement of the piston is provided by the supply of compressed air to the closed part of the cylinder. Accordingly, a constant access of seawater is provided to the open volume.

In order to camouflage and increase stability, the PUR communication complex is equipped with a removable pop-up antenna. It should rise to the surface during communication sessions according to the established schedule. It is also possible to operate on a call from the command post. In all cases, a secure radio channel must be used.

For use as part of the new complex, a quasi-ballistic missile capable of "deceiving" enemy missile defense is recommended. In the initial phase of the flight, it should be directed to a false target, misleading the defense system. Then there is a retargeting and a corresponding change in trajectory.

Work principles


Polevoy's PUR designs are proposed to be secretly placed in the optimal area. The position of the complex should be at a minimum distance from the enemy's territory in a place protected from enemy surveillance equipment. It is proposed to be on duty at depths from 100 to 300 m. During regular communication sessions, the autonomous complex must receive the necessary information and orders.


Loading the R-29RMU2.1 rocket onto a standard carrier - a submarine. Photo GRTs im. Makeeva

Upon receipt of the command to launch, the PUR should ascend to the specified depth. This process is carried out by filling the closed volume of the ballast cylinders with compressed air; In this case, the movable piston must displace water from the open part. After ascent to a depth of 100 m or less, the unit can launch a rocket.

The missile's flight to the target is carried out along a programmed trajectory with correction using satellite navigation. It also provides for a breakthrough of the enemy's defense due to maneuver and departure from a predictable trajectory. The PUR, having completed the launch, returns to the depth.

Advantages and disadvantages


It should be recalled that in the past, in our country and abroad, different versions of an autonomous submarine / pop-up launcher for ballistic missiles have been repeatedly proposed. However, such projects have found application only in the field of development work: submersible stands are used to test new missiles. But the rocket is on alert only with a carrier submarine.

The concept of the launcher from the patent RU 2748503, as well as a number of other similar developments, has both advantages and disadvantages. At the same time, the latter can be fatal and neutralize all strengths. As a result, one should not expect that Yu. Polevoy's invention will be of interest to naval design bureaus or the navy.

The main advantage of the patented PUR is the relative simplicity and low cost of the design. Such an installation is more compact and lighter than a missile submarine. In addition, stationary accommodation and the absence of a crew should greatly simplify operation. At the same time, the PUR of the proposed appearance carries only one missile, and a whole set of such products is needed to fully replace the submarine. Their installation in positions is also not simple. As a result, the economic benefit becomes questionable.


Submarine launch of the Bulava SLBM. Photo of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

The fighting qualities of a strategic missile submarine are determined mainly by its stealth and mobility. Detecting and neutralizing such a target is a very difficult task for the enemy's defense. In this context, SDI has several disadvantages. First of all, it needs to find a safe area near the enemy's territory, which in itself turns out to be a difficult task. In addition, a fixed installation will turn out to be a fairly easy target for the enemy's anti-submarine defense - its identification at the stage of deployment or during duty is only a matter of time.

Finally, the appearance and placement of PURs in positions will certainly cause a negative reaction from a potential adversary. The specifics of such a complex and the peculiarities of its deployment will give rise to accusations of aggressive intentions.In this regard, the PUR loses to submarines, which are a more effective deterrent and at the same time can remain at a great distance from their targets without attracting undue political attention.

Looking for solutions


Obviously, the original design of the submarine launcher will remain in the form of a patent, and an interesting idea will not receive any development. This invention is not the first in its category, and besides, it has no fundamental advantages over analogues or over complexes of familiar classes.

However, in inventive activity, incl. in the field of arms, there is nothing wrong. For the main development processes weapons and military equipment are now responsible for large scientific and design organizations, while the role of individual inventors has been reduced to the maximum. However, their proposals can also find practical application and help general development processes. Of course, in the presence of clear advantages and benefits, which is not always the case.
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    15 June 2021 04: 11
    The original design of the submarine launcher is secured by the patent RU 2748503 "Method for controlling the flight of a combat missile", issued at the end of May. Its author is Yuri Iosifovich Polevoy, an employee of the Samara Transport University. He already holds more than 200 patents for various inventions, incl. in the field of small arms and missiles.
    As I understand it, you can not bother with the construction of at least models and prototypes, just turn on the delusional generator? For example, a handle instead of a forend for an AK but not from the bottom, but from the side. What? Whoever will do it, and here's a patent, pay bablishki)))
    1. +9
      15 June 2021 04: 30
      "Cylinders with pistons acting as ballast tanks" ...
      What is the novelty? The fact that the ballast (seawater) is displaced by the same VVD as in the submarine tanks, only not directly, but by means of a piston (which, by the way, due to prolonged contact with sea water, can "stick" to the walls of the tank cylinder )?
    2. 0
      15 June 2021 06: 00
      We have always had enough nuggets! And here it is necessary or not necessary - the main thing is the work of human thought!
      1. +1
        15 June 2021 07: 08
        Quote: Finches
        We have always had enough nuggets! And here it is necessary or not necessary - the main thing is the work of human thought!

        Here (screen) is also an invention that claims to be some kind of novelty - a container for carrying a banana ...
        On what basis did this proposal receive a patent?

        Obviously because no one has proposed anything like this before, in view of its complete absurdity Yes

        But nonetheless - patent ...



        PS: What if a banana gets the wrong curvature ??? what
        1. 0
          15 June 2021 07: 12
          Well, I wouldn't have such an idea! laughing This is lovely!
          1. 0
            15 June 2021 07: 17
            Quote: Finches
            Well, I wouldn't have such an idea! laughing This is lovely!


            The main thing is that you do not have the "lovely" thought presented in the screenshot below Yes

            1. +2
              15 June 2021 07: 19
              This is the know-how for politicians from the satellite countries: the Baltic states, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Poland and further down the list when they meet the owners or go to the Washington Regional Committee for a thrashing! laughing
          2. +2
            15 June 2021 16: 50
            And you have no idea how useful it is. You know what happens to the poor unprotected banana in the kid's backpack
        2. 0
          15 June 2021 07: 25
          Is this a banana container? More like some other product. Or is it a dual-use product?
    3. +1
      15 June 2021 10: 16
      Quote: Usher
      As I understand it, you can not bother with the construction of at least models and prototypes, just turn on the delusional generator?

      This "delusional generator" was included on February 9, 1959 in OKB-586.
      The missile containers were supposed to be deployed from submarines at the seabed at depths of up to 150 m, similar to anchor mines. The launch of missiles from containers should have been made with a delay of 2,5-4 hours, which made it difficult to detect the submarine - the carrier.

      Quote: Usher
      For example, a handle instead of a forend for an AK but not from the bottom, but from the side. What? Whoever will do it, but here's a patent, pay money)))

      Not everything is as simple as we would like.
      This use of the missile system made it difficult for the design teams to complete the task, primarily due to the need to stabilize the container in the firing plane и conducting autonomous prelaunch preparation.
      Read at http://bastion-karpenko.ru/d-7-tpk/ The quotes and illustrations are from there. smile
      1. +1
        15 June 2021 23: 04
        Quote: Herrr
        Quote: Usher
        As I understand it, you can not bother with the construction of at least models and prototypes, just turn on the delusional generator?

        This "delusional generator" was included on February 9, 1959 in OKB-586.
        The missile containers were supposed to be deployed from submarines at the seabed at depths of up to 150 m, similar to anchor mines. The launch of missiles from containers should have been made with a delay of 2,5-4 hours, which made it difficult to detect the submarine - the carrier.

        Quote: Usher
        For example, a handle instead of a forend for an AK but not from the bottom, but from the side. What? Whoever will do it, but here's a patent, pay money)))

        Not everything is as simple as we would like.
        This use of the missile system made it difficult for the design teams to complete the task, primarily due to the need to stabilize the container in the firing plane и conducting autonomous prelaunch preparation.
        Read at http://bastion-karpenko.ru/d-7-tpk/ The quotes and illustrations are from there. smile

        It's not about the concept itself. And the fact that some kind of person can just come up with something from the bulldozer, even without conducting experiments. Did the hero of the article conduct real tests, or was it just theoretical conclusions?
        1. +1
          16 June 2021 11: 20
          Sorry for not understanding you correctly. hi
          Of course, the case considered in the article is a very immodest project of an obviously ambitious person who has never had direct contact not only with underwater firing systems, but also, as far as I could understand in the process of knowing his personality, in general with rocket technology as such.
          This system would be effective only if a missile with a thermonuclear warhead was used in it, but according to the "Treaty banning the deployment of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction on the bottom of seas and oceans and in their bowels", approved by Resolution No. 2660 XXV-th session of the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 7, 1970 and signed by the USSR on February 11, 1971, the Russian Federation, as the successor state of the USSR, has no right to use such installations outside its territorial waters (12-mile zone).
  2. +1
    15 June 2021 06: 07
    Anichea ... Not even nonsense ...
  3. 0
    15 June 2021 07: 26
    And why the piston? Close off the top and the holes for the water outlet from the bottom. Easier. Cheaper more reliable.
    Well, they will put on duty a couple of dozen of them. Well, Americans will not find it for 30 years. Then what?
    It is necessary to extract. Again, so that the Americans would not notice. Moreover, for such a period of time, it will grow with shells (or whatever). And what kind of metal is needed for such operating conditions?
    1. +2
      15 June 2021 08: 01
      The given diagrams of a launcher with a rocket, graphics from the patent Fig. 1 and FIG. 2 are extremely dull and stupid ... I don't want to look at the contents of the patent.
    2. +1
      15 June 2021 08: 01
      Quote: Monar
      And why the piston?


      Quote: Monar
      for such a period of time, shells (or whatever else) will grow


      The piston, just so that it is tightly jammed due to the inevitable fouling of marine microorganisms on the inner walls of the tank-cylinder.
      Already proceeding from this factor, this is an "invention" - sludge and slag.
      And proceeding from the fact that all the "novelty" of the project comes down to just this detail, there is simply nothing to talk about request

      What fool just issued this patent?
      1. +1
        15 June 2021 09: 02
        When a patent is granted, such a category as "implementation is possible and expedient" is not taken into account. Only patent novelty.
        And this is the correct principle. About 150 years ago, the idea of ​​the same cellular connection was also twisted with a finger at the temple.
        1. 0
          15 June 2021 09: 13
          Quote: Monar
          About 150 years ago, the idea of ​​the same cellular connection was also twisted with a finger at the temple.

          I doubt that 150 years ago there was an application for an invention in the field of cellular communications (or even its concept), and in addition, the base stations of the cellular network are not susceptible to fouling of marine microorganisms, corrals, algae and molluscs.
          1. 0
            15 June 2021 10: 47
            What's the difference between a honeycomb or a third handle in a frying pan? Separating stupidity from ingenious invention is not the function of the patent office.
  4. 0
    15 June 2021 08: 54
    Uncle clearly came across information about the "sea" launches of the FAU. So, nothing new, except for the electronic filling in the spirit of modernity ...
  5. 0
    15 June 2021 10: 35
    Guys, if this was nonsense, the Americans would not have prohibited such an underwater launch with treaties. And the disadvantages of being detected by the enemy go away if such installations are placed in our waters: the Caspian Sea, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Only in this case a full-fledged ICBM is needed.
    1. 0
      15 June 2021 11: 16
      And then how will such an installation differ from a simple mine? Opponent requirements, in particular, protection from the effects of the external environment and absolute defenselessness against the destructive effect of underwater explosions?
  6. +1
    15 June 2021 12: 58
    The idea is interesting and not devoid of reasonableness. But there is also a number of fundamentally unacceptable moments for its implementation. In neutral waters or in an exclusive economic zone, there is no guarantee that this device with nuclear warheads will not be dragged away by some cunning people - and it will be difficult to notice such a loss (taking into account the necessary requirements for the secrecy of such a complex and the peculiarities of communication in the aquatic environment).
    It will be quite possible to find such a device by chance, since there are enough civilian ships and good civilian echolocation technology in the world. There is always chance. But this is part of the threat that belongs to what we call "international terrorism" - and what if the special services of some state, possessing incomparably large resources, are engaged in a similar topic? They will be able to organize the abduction of this sample with the subsequent study of its technologies or even the creation of some kind of provocation with its help.
    And how can this be prevented? Provide touch protection for such a device against theft? A civilian ship is sailing by - the launcher with nuclear warheads self-destruct? This is a precedent in neutral waters. And if this is not a civilian ship, but a special vessel with an underwater drone and some EMP gadgets? It can cut down the filling of the PU and take it away calmly.
    All this, with certain amendments, can happen in the case of placing such devices in their waters, because, as far as I heard, there were precedents for connecting the Americans to our underwater communications.
    All this is a problem even at first glance - although the PRINCIPLE of such a device itself is rather curious.
    1. 0
      15 June 2021 14: 25
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      The idea is interesting and not devoid of reasonableness BUT


      The idea is great. Even the threat of such use. can force a potential adversary to negotiate. But the dive should be up to 2 km. Containers can be scattered by both a submarine and a research or commercial vessel (disguised as them). It is almost impossible to trace their routes, and even more so the places of bookmarks. Moreover, you can throw a bunch of fake (false) installations. and everything is at the side of a potential enemy. The main thing here is to start, to do it (to really show the existence of such a complex, to carry out tests) and to lay down several installations (even at first false).
      I think it won't take much time to start negotiations on limiting nuclear weapons delivery vehicles to 5 thousand km. A very good way to remove American nuclear weapons from under our noses.
      1. +2
        15 June 2021 18: 20
        The idea will be excellent if the container with the rocket lies in the Atlantic at depths of up to 5.5 km there it is unlikely to be found, and the signal to start is given from the repeater boat or the transmitter is thrown into the area with the container, if the cavity of the container and liquid-propellant rocket is filled with liquid, then it must withstand pressure up to 6 km, by the way Mir devices withstood the pressure of 6.5 km.
        1. 0
          15 June 2021 20: 24
          Quote: agond
          if the cavity of the container


          There, the pressure is critical not for the hull (it can be significantly increased), but for the displacement of water from the tanks for ascent. In principle, the principle of a bathyscaphe is possible here (for an emergency ascent, it throws off solid ballast, and does not displace water.)
          Quote: agond
          .
          6 km

          It is possible and so (probably better), but the energy consumption will be significant during periodic (hammered in the program) ascent during control.
          In general, the main thing here is to deal with this problem, so much so that the likely enemy would find out about it (better after testing). I think this is a good psychological pressure on the "partners" - they say, remove the bases with nuclear weapons around our country, otherwise megaton "goodies" will appear around yours.
  7. +1
    15 June 2021 19: 40
    What the hell are pistons ??? !!! What is the launcher ??? !!! Has the author of the patent thought well what will happen to his "table" when the rocket stops pressing on him due to the jet thrust? I think that it will acquire positive buoyancy and lose stability, since without pumps, with the help of "magic" pistons, it will not be possible to differentiate the platform at the moment of launch !!! The question is, what will happen to the ballistic missile when it smashes against this "PU" a couple of times ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Just like that, chtoli, are the designers of water carriers assigned the title of academicians? And about the underwater currents, the author of the "invention" heard? Will this PU with dynamic or anchor positioning be at the moment of surfacing?
    Sincerely
    1. +1
      15 June 2021 21: 04
      Quote: nobody75
      There, the pressure is critical not for the hull (it can be significantly increased), but for displacing water from the tanks for ascent.

      The most critical (in addition to withdrawing from the treaty on the non-placement of nuclear weapons at the bottom of the seas and oceans in neutral waters) will be the transfer of the command to the start, therefore, as an option, you can put such containers in your territorial waters near the coast, maybe even in the low tide, so on at least it's easier to maintain. and larger missiles can be used. however, there is a problem of ice in winter.
      1. 0
        15 June 2021 21: 15
        If you have a desire, conduct an experiment! Fill in a shallow bowl of water so that the plastic glass placed on the bottom does not flood with water. tie a rope to the plumb line, and place the plumb line in a glass. Raise the plumb line slowly ... What happens to the glass? How many times did the plumb line hit the walls? Is it possible to solve the problem of maintaining the depth of the launcher when the rocket leaves? Sure you may! Only PU in size, displacement and basic systems will differ little from the missile submarine cruiser!
        Sincerely
        1. +1
          15 June 2021 21: 38
          Imagine the picture, with a vertical ascent from 1 km, the container will pick up a speed of 2-3 m / s, possibly more, that is, with a buoyancy margin of 10%, it will jump out of the water by at least half a hull by inertia, and then there is a mortar launch, by the way. such a thing is "underwater sail" in this case, the brake, that is, even a light container will not be able to quickly sink back
          1. +1
            15 June 2021 21: 48
            That's exactly what will pop up !!! And not quite vertical !!! What will happen to the rocket?
            Sincerely
  8. 0
    15 June 2021 21: 27
    The description of this invention is interesting. Of course, I could propose a few more similar "inventions" on the fly, but I will not prompt the author. He is either a little of that, or something else. He has a bunch of other "inventions" of this kind. Why did this site take on this? Let's discuss torsion fields more. sad
    1. 0
      15 June 2021 22: 34
      Quote: nobody75
      That's exactly what will pop up !!! And not quite vertical !!! What will happen to the rocket?

      If the center of gravity of the container is noticeably displaced to one end (down), it has no choice but to jump out strictly vertically "along a plumb line"
    2. 0
      16 June 2021 00: 06
      The description of this invention is interesting ... but I will not prompt the author.
      PS: By "description" I meant the patent itself, and by "author" - the author of the invention, Polevoy. But "Ryabov Kirill" is also, as always, in its role: "both advantages and disadvantages" - and other verbal cotton wool. sad
  9. 0
    16 June 2021 15: 47
    Treaty banning the placement of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction at the bottom of the seas and oceans and in its depths
    [Seabed Treaty]
    Adopted by Resolution 2660 (XXV) of the UN General Assembly on December 7, 1970
    1. 0
      16 June 2021 16: 51
      Fundamental issue on contracts,
      until when should the terms of the agreements be observed and when can and even should it be withdrawn from the agreement unilaterally?
      answer
      any agreement must be observed until the moment of significant violation by the other party of the balance of interests. then the contract turns into a meaningless burden.
      Regarding the seabed contract, there is a clause in it
      Article 1 paragraph 1
      1. The States Parties to this Treaty undertake not to establish or place on the seabed and oceans and in its bowels beyond the outer limit of the seabed zone, as defined in Article II, any nuclear weapon or any other types of weapons of mass destruction. ..
      Article II
      For the purposes of this Treaty, the outer limit of the seabed zone referred to in Article I shall coincide with the twelve-mile outer limit of the zone defined in Part II of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone signed at Geneva on April 29, 1958, and is counted in accordance with the provisions of Section II of part I of this Convention and international law.
      that is, within a 12 mile zone, the contract allows accommodation,