The aircraft carrier is not the first in line. We need to solve the problems of the fleet as a whole

In a previous article “Another 5 kopecks for the discussion about aircraft carriers. AUG or MRA? " there was a discussion about how to solve the main tasks of the Russian Navy. According to the author's estimates, it turned out that the construction of one AUG for the Pacific Fleet and one for the Northern Fleet would cost a total of at least 1,5 trillion rubles, including the price of air wings of 60 aircraft each. However, these AUGs may not perform the entire set of tasks. It is dangerous for them to go to the far sea zone (DMZ) to confront the US AUG, since the Americans will easily put up their 2-3 against one of our AUG. In other cases, our AUG can solve all the standard tasks of an aircraft carrier.

The MPA construction program turned out to be cheaper. The cost of 50 Tu-160m2 and 10 AWACS A-100 will be 0,9 trillion rubles, but the capabilities of the MRA are much less. Due to the increased visibility of the Tu-160 airframe, they cannot attack the US AUG in the DMZ due to the impossibility of giving a control center for anti-ship missiles. The Tu-160 is capable of attacking the KUG in the DMZ, but only from a long range - 450 km. Aegis air defense missile systems will not be allowed to approach a shorter range with their SM6 missiles, and from 450 km it will not be possible to open the KUG composition due to the REP KUG. The accuracy of the control center will be low, and a significant part of the anti-ship missile system will aim at decoys. It is possible to significantly improve the quality of the control center for the KUG if you use a pair of spaced A-100 AWACS.

In BMZ (500-mile zone), it makes no sense to use either AUG or MRA. The most effective tasks are solved by tactical aviation... To attack the AUG aviation will need the help of two AWACS. KUG can be attacked without the help of AWACS (see previous article).

As a result, we find ourselves almost at a dead end - AUG can solve some problems, but they are very expensive. MRA is cheaper, but due to the obsolescence of the Tu-160m2 airframe, it can do little.

Both AUG and MPA do not fulfill their tasks in full for the same reason - there is no money. Two AUG is not enough, and for the MRA it is necessary to develop a new aircraft, and not to reproduce the Tu-160 / Tu-22m3 - its technical backwardness.

The only way out is to limit the scope of the Navy's tasks. It's time to stop dreaming about dashing actions in the Persian Gulf, bases in Cam Ranh and Sudan, campaigns in Cuba and Venezuela ...

It's time to wake up and see what our surface fleet has sunk to.

1. Brief assessment of the capabilities of the air defense systems of ships under construction today

In the United States, the Aegis air defense system simultaneously solves both air defense and missile defense tasks. We do not have a destroyer, not even its Leader project. Therefore, it makes no sense to talk about solving the problem of ABM KUG.

During the period of GPV 2011–2020, only 2 more or less decent ships were built - frigates 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov". The stealth technology was not observed in them, but the S-350 air defense system, although it does not have an AFAR, but also with passive PARs allows it to reflect medium-intensity raids. Other ships - frigate 11356 and corvette 20380 - do not solve such problems either. They are designed as if on purpose so that they could not be overlooked even by a completely blinded anti-ship missile system. 11356 is especially monstrous - it is good that the Indians did not require a modern ship. Their air defense system is equipped with a bunch of single-channel target illumination radars and is 40 years behind the current level.

Corvette 20380 was initially equipped with an ugly air defense system with "Furke" radar. Now they promise to deliver the Zaslon radar. If it is brought to the requirements of the TTZ, then the desired quality of the air defense system will turn out, but the visibility of the corvette itself cannot be avoided. Only a small part of the anti-ship missiles will fly past 20380 and fall into traps, and the ammunition load of the anti-aircraft missiles is very small. The price of the Zaslon has not been announced, but if the Zaslon radar has the same characteristics as the MF radar, then, according to rough estimates, the Zaslon price will exceed 6 billion rubles. So the declared advantage of the 20380 - cheapness - is quickly disappearing.

There is often an opinion that 11356 and 20380 should not solve air defense problems. And what should they decide - to show the flag? Let the experts say: can they effectively solve at least the PLO tasks, and name how much of the area they are able to control? Wouldn't it be better to construct a UAV with a magnetometer, thermal imager and airborne radar instead of them?

Auxiliary air defense systems have not been developed either.

There are no UAV jammers, passive jamming is reduced to obsolete clouds of dipoles. There are no A-100 AWACS planes either. Even if a dozen A-100s appear, they will hardly be able to maintain round-the-clock support of the KUG. The flight time of the A-100 is only 10 hours, so the fleet counting on his duty at the DMZ is not necessary.

We also do not have small helicopter UAVs of AWACS that would allow detecting anti-ship missiles at ranges of at least 100 km from the ship.

As a result, we come to a sad conclusion: in the coming years, our fleet will be able to operate only where no one attacks it, for example, in Syria. If there is a conflict with Turkey, as a NATO member, then we will not get to Tartus either through the Bosphorus or through Gibraltar. It will not be possible to supply Khmeimim by air for a long time.

The situation in the Pacific is even worse. There we are inferior not only to the United States and China, but also to Japan.

Of course, we can operate in BMZ under the cover of our aviation. Some experts say that it is enough for us to protect our shores. For some reason, such a way out does not reassure. The BMZ neighbors are not our allies, but we want to go to the DMZ at least.

2. Searching for a way out

If we continue to build flag demonstrators, then the use of the fleet will be reduced to the patrol service. It is time to admit that it is impossible for us to build a fleet according to the American, Chinese or Japanese model - they don’t give money. It is impossible to modernize existing projects to bring them up to modern requirements.

A lot of money was invested in "Admiral Nakhimov", but it did not become a ship of even moderate visibility. Strengthening its air defense is ensured not only by improving the air defense system, but also mainly by placing a huge ammunition load of the air defense missile system. Of course, this can be done on a ship of 25 thousand tons, but where to get money for such ammunition on other ships and where to place it? Wouldn't it be better to build a full-fledged destroyer instead of modernizing the 30-year-old Nakhimov?

The only opportunity remains is to open new R&D projects for the development of new ships of all classes. They must combine high combat effectiveness with a moderate cost. It is impossible to demand from them the ability to act in the ocean against US AUGs, it is enough to win against AUGs in BMZ, and against KUGs and in DMZ. The dubious joy of winning a war somewhere in the Falklands will be left to others.

Naturally, the development of new ships will have to reduce the cost of building existing projects. The mortgaged ships must be completed, but then only prototypes of the new series must be laid. Then, by 2035, you can get a new fleet for real tasks. If significant funds are not allocated for R&D, then we will lag behind more and more. At the same time, at the parades on the day of the Navy, congratulations on the remarkable successes in the construction of the fleet will sound more and more optimistic.

Without taking the liberty of judging the appearance of promising ships as a whole, further we will consider only the problem of air defense and obtaining a central control unit for anti-ship missiles.

3. Lack of control center is a critical problem of our fleet

In the previous article it was indicated that in cases where there is no exact control center, then in conditions of interference, the anti-ship missiles will be able to independently find the target only by accidentally stumbling upon it.

The development of electronic warfare, the emergence of small UAVs for jammers and towed decoys, leave the anti-ship missiles with little chance of reaching the true target. Even if an IR channel is also introduced into the GOS of the anti-ship missile system, but the radio trap is located at a distance of several kilometers away from the ship, the IR channel will still not detect the target. In addition, ship lasers can disable optics, etc. Therefore, the problem of an accurate control system is the main one for assessing the effectiveness of launching anti-ship missiles. Of course, one can dream that all anti-ship missiles of the salvo will be combined into a group with artificial intelligence. They tried to carry out such developments in the USSR, but now they do not even hear about them.

The most powerful radar stations are possessed by AWACS aircraft, but we will most likely have only a dozen A-100s. The Il-76 carrier chosen for them is extremely unsuccessful precisely for AWACS (see "The concept of an unmanned aircraft for early warning radar"). The cost of AWACS is very high, probably at least 15 billion rubles. High fuel consumption (over 6 t / h) is associated with a large take-off weight of 190 t and an overly wide fuselage. At the same time, the working conditions of the operators inside the transport vehicle are much more difficult than in the passenger Boeing-707 AWACS. The high position of the stabilizer on the keel significantly impairs the operation of the radar in the tail sector of the view. These shortcomings will not allow to count on the fact that the A-100 will be produced in a large series, will be competitive in the world market and will be constantly operated in the interests of the Navy.

The combined-arms high-altitude UAV-RLO proposed by the author is built using the technology of radiating skin, that is, it does not have a "mushroom". The mass of such an AWACS is 45 tons, which is 4 times less than the A-100, and the watch time - 20 hours allows it to be on duty at a distance of up to 2500 km.

The detection range of the fighter-bomber (IS) is 900 km, and the detection range of the ship to the horizon range is 500 km. These ranges are 1,5 times greater than those of the A-100. The moderate prime cost of a serial AWACS of 5 billion rubles and low fuel consumption - less than 1,5 t / h - make it possible to make it massive and operate on a regular basis. Export deliveries will compensate for the cost of R&D.

For aircraft carriers, it is proposed to develop a high-altitude shipborne AWACS with a mass of 6 tons with a detection range of both aircraft and ships - 500 km with a duty time of 10 hours (see "Concept of a shipborne AWACS unmanned aircraft ..."). This AWACS is designed not only to detect air and sea targets, but also to control the actions of shipborne UAVs and precise missile guidance.

The third, smallest version of AWACS, is located on a UAV helicopter and is designed to protect conventional ships. Radar with AFAR provides a detection range of IS 150-200 km, ships - 250 km. The weight of the UAV is about 1 ton.

Thus, the combined arms and aircraft carrier AWACS can provide a control center for anti-ship missiles in almost all cases.

High-altitude AWACS can detect KUG from a range of up to 500 km, without fear of being hit by Aegis air defense missile systems SM6. If the area where the KUG is roughly known from the satellites, then, assuming that the maximum combat radius of the combined-arms AWACS will be 4500 km, the KUG can be detected at distances of up to 5000 km from the airfield.

To ensure the fight against interference, it is necessary to have a pair of AWACS separated by hundreds of kilometers. If the KUG does not comply with the radio silence mode, then a pair of AWACS will be able to use RTR to determine the exact bearing to the operating radar and roughly estimate its range. This will be enough to highlight the coordinates of the radar carrier ship among the false marks.

When reconnaissance of the AUG for AWACS, 4–8 IS escorts will be required, which will ensure the AWACS exit to the line of 500 km. If we assume that the maximum radius of the accompanying IS is 1000 km, then the maximum range of the control center according to the AUG will be 1500 km from the airfield. To increase the range, you will have to refuel the IB.

The advantage of AWACS over IS reconnaissance is also that the shipborne REB systems are designed to suppress IS radars, which operate in the 3-centimeter wavelength range. AWACS operate in longer wavelength ranges, and their ships can only suppress them with the help of electronic devices installed on aircraft, which create an order of magnitude less power.

If it is necessary to obtain a control center by AUG, and there are no AWACS, then it is possible to use IS from a range of 450-500 km. However, the IS radar at such large distances will be completely suppressed by interference, and the control center will only indicate the coordinates of the interference spot. CU for KUG IS can be received from a range of 150 km, and its accuracy will be much higher than from 450 km.

4. The need to develop a new air defense system for ships

Possibilities of reducing the cost of ships are largely determined by measures to reduce the cost of the air defense complex, consisting of air defense missile systems and KREP. For example, on the destroyer Arleigh Burke, the cost of the air defense complex is estimated at 25% of the total cost of the destroyer, that is, it is close to the cost of the hull. But the effectiveness of air defense, in turn, depends on the visibility of the ship. Visibility affects both the number of attacks, and the effectiveness of the REB, and the effectiveness of the radio silence mode.

The contribution of UAVs to air defense is also great. The opinion that it is necessary to have one universal helicopter that would provide both its own air defense, and the ship's air defense, and the KUG's PLO, and could carry an anti-ship missile, seems unscientific fantasy. The Ka-27 helicopter weighing 11 tons has a very weak FHA radar, which is not capable of solving air defense missions. Theoretically, it can solve PLO tasks provided that the magnetometer is suspended, but the Kh-35 anti-ship missile system can only carry one. The very short flight time - less than 3 hours - does not allow even the PLO problem to be fully solved. Its main drawback is that only one Ka-27 can be placed on the ship.

If a universal UAV with a mass of about 1 ton was developed, on which it would be possible to place replaceable AWACS / KREP / magnetometer modules, then 3-5 UAVs could be placed on the ship and provide round-the-clock watch in the air.

4.1. Decreased visibility of ships

Currently, we have a ship, the hull of which is approaching the requirements of the Stealth technology, this is the corvette 20386 hull. In it, the superstructure needs to be altered - to remove the triangular cuts at the corners of the superstructure, due to which the radar antennas were displaced downwards, that is, it is required to restore its four-sided shape. To save money, the superstructure should be made of steel. It should be recalled that in order to combat low-altitude aircraft detecting the ship, it is important to make the upper part of the superstructure unobtrusive. It is necessary to remove all protruding structures and even more so not to place the AK-630 ZAK there. Even the glass of the bridge should be made according to the model of an aircraft cockpit - with a metal spraying on the inside. The walls of the turret must be tilted inward, not less than the tilt of the superstructure. It is important to cover the edges of the superstructure, gun turret and, in general, all protruding parts on the deck, for example, handrails and their racks, with radio-absorbing material.

It is advisable to make the angle reflector of sea waves on the bow 20386 lower and lower it, in case of detection of radiation from an enemy radar located in the front hemisphere.

A shipborne radar must have 4 fixed AFARs. Passive HEADLIGHTS, such as the HEADLIGHTS at 22350, have a greater EPR than the AFAR, since at the moment the beam is directed to the enemy's IS, all phase shifters are phased towards the IS and, as it were, turn the PAA plane towards IS, that is, they create a large EPR in this direction. Mechanical antennas, for example, at the Pantsir-M guidance radar, are especially bad.

Corvette 20386 has a displacement of 3600 tons, that is, it should be considered, rather, a frigate. For service in BMZ, we need corvettes, cheap to operate, no more than 2000 tons. Their shape should be the same as 20386, but the Stealth measures on the smaller ship should be even stricter, since their air defense systems are weaker.

It is not uncommon for a KUG to observe the radio silence mode and switch to passive methods of detecting enemy radiation. To determine the distance to the enemy, it is required to process his signals received by ships separated by several kilometers. This requires a covert intra-group communication line. It can be accomplished by transmitting messages over a narrow AFAR beam of one MF radar to the AFAR of a neighboring ship. Even at distances of up to 30 km, to transmit information at a speed of 1 Mbps, less than 1 mW of power is required. Consequently, the enemy simply will not hear such a transmission.

The disadvantage of the complete stealth mode is that the enemy, having received the control center from the satellite, can organize a stealth raid, which can only be detected by an active radar. However, the included radar is the most unmasking factor of the ship.

We will offer the most natural, although not the simplest, way out: an AWACS UAV should be emitted from a distance, and the signal reflected from targets must be received together: both the AWACS radar and the shipborne MF radar.

The parameters given in this section are approximate and require clarification by aircraft designers.

Suppose that on the above-mentioned shipborne UAV weighing 1000–1200 kg, a replaceable module is installed, which has a radar with AFAR measuring 1,4 * 0,7 m with a module mass of 130–150 kg. The cost of the module is estimated at 200 million rubles. The operating frequency range should coincide with the range of the ship's MF radar. AFAR is installed on a horizontal rotatable axis and simultaneously serves only one of the side sectors with a width of 120 °.

Let's consider a specific example of AWACS application. Let the KUG, consisting of three corvettes, carrying three UAVs, go to the DMZ. To illuminate the air and surface situation, one UAV is lifted from each corvette and scattered in an equilateral triangle at a distance of 60–80 km from the KUG. At the end point of the route, they should be at an altitude of 3-4 km. Then they can hover and move parallel to the KUG, or they can operate in a more economical mode in terms of fuel consumption - synchronously fly around a circle of a given radius at a speed of 100–150 km / h. Each of the AWACS scans its sector with a width of 120 °, and if the AWACS hovers, then the sector is fixed in space, and if the AWACS moves in a circle, then the sector rotates with it.

The AWACS detects targets that are below the horizon for the shipborne MF radar, and the AWACS detects targets above the horizon together with the MF radar of all three ships at the same time. Since three AWACS irradiate the entire 360 ​​°, then each MF radar must also view the entire circular area, albeit in a passive mode. Consequently, each of the three MF radars will simultaneously use all of its 4 AFARs. As a result, the detection zone of low-altitude IS and ships will have a radius of 230 km, and for targets above the horizon - 350 km. Determining bearings of targets above the horizon, jointly with three MF radars, will increase the accuracy by 3 times. The immunity to interference will become almost complete.

If a licensed aviation diesel RED-03 is installed on the UAV, then the fuel consumption will be only 80 kg / h and the duration of duty of 5 hours is fully ensured. Consequently, two UAVs from each corvette will provide round-the-clock watch. The remaining third UAV can be used for PLO.

5. Reducing the cost of shipborne air defense systems

Note. The parameters of the air defense missile system are associated with the class of the ship, and there is confusion with the names of the classes. They want to call a ship 7000 tons a frigate, and a destroyer, at least in the USSR - 5000 tons.Since here we are talking about the concept of completely new ships, we will accept the following classification: MRK / MPK - 1000 tons, corvette - 2000 tons, frigate - 4000 tons, destroyer - 8000 tons.

The general principle of reducing the cost of the air defense complex is to abandon the use of several specialized radars in favor of one, unified for all classes of ships, multifunctional (MF). In addition, it is necessary to use cheaper missiles. This is possible, given the increased guidance accuracy provided by the MF radar. The requirements for the GOS SAM are then significantly reduced.

5.1. Reducing the cost of the MF radar (special point for those interested)

Currently, only one shipborne radar is equipped with AFAR - the Zaslon radar. Neither its detection range nor its cost is published. Therefore, we have to compare the cost of the MF radar and the Zaslon radar: as if the Zaslon radar had the same detection range as the corvette MF radar - 300 km by IS. Then the cost of the Zaslon radar, consisting of a surveillance radar and a guidance radar, excluding the cost of KREP, may exceed 3,5 billion rubles.

The design of the MF radar is discussed in the article "Possibilities for improving the air defense of corvettes". The essence of the proposal is based on the following radar provisions:

- The target detection range is determined by the transmitter power and the area of ​​the receiving antenna, but does not depend on the shape of the antenna.

- The detection range does not depend on the area of ​​the transmitting antenna. The dimensions of the transmitting antenna should be such that the resulting radar beam does not exceed the width of the specified radar coverage area.

- The accuracy of determining the angular coordinates, on the contrary, depends on the shape of the antenna, namely: on its maximum horizontal and vertical dimensions. The narrower the radar beam is obtained, the smaller the angle measurement error.

- The cost of AFAR is determined by the number of transceiver modules (TPM) in the AFAR. PPMs are installed with a step equal to half the wavelength. Therefore, the number of PPM in the AFAR of a given area turns out to be inversely proportional to the square of the wavelength.

- It is impossible to significantly increase the wavelength used by the MF radar. First, the size of the antenna can grow so much that the AFAR cannot fit on the superstructure. Secondly, the longer the wavelength, the more radio waves are squeezed up from the sea surface, and the detection range of low-altitude targets is significantly reduced.

For the unified MF radar, the selected wavelength range is 5,5 cm. The AFAR radar for ships of any class is made up of unified sublattices - "clusters", measuring 0,22 * 0,22 m and containing 64 PPMs each.

The most difficult task of air defense is the defeat of low-altitude anti-ship missiles. Therefore, the AFAR beam should be narrower vertically than horizontally in order to reduce the reception of signals reflected from the sea. Therefore, the height of the APAR must be greater than the width.

AFAR consists of three main parts. To irradiate targets in the center of the AFAR, there are clusters containing PPMs in the form of a traditional AFAR - a rectangle with cut corners.

Figures 1 - 3 show the location of clusters in AFAR designed for light, medium and heavy ships - MRK / MPK, corvette / frigate and destroyer / aircraft carrier. The transceiver clusters of these APARs are highlighted in orange.

Fig. 1

Ris.2

Ris.3

We will assume that the superstructures of these classes of ships allow the installation of AFAR centers at altitudes of 15, 20 and 25 m.
During the reception of the signal reflected from the target, clusters containing purely receiving modules (PRM) are added to the clusters containing PPM. PRM clusters are grouped into two narrow "beams", forming a cross together with PPM-clusters. The cross shape is optimal for working on airplanes, however, the specific dimensions of the superstructure may force the use of a different arrangement of the rungs. For example, if a destroyer has almost the entire superstructure occupied by the missile defense radar antenna. Then for the MF radar it is necessary to arrange the crossbars in the form of the letter “G” (Fig. 4).

Ris.4

5.2 MF radar characteristics
The table shows estimates of the parameters of the MF radar for three classes of ships. When assessing the cost of the radar, it was assumed that a single PRM costs $ 700, and a PPM - $ 1000.

The width of the beams of the receiving beams is about 4 times smaller than the beam of the transmitting part. Therefore, to cover the entire area of ​​the transmitting beam, the receiving crossbar must simultaneously form a fan of four receiving beams shifted relative to each other by the beam width. The azimuth of the target is measured with a horizontal bar, and the elevation is measured with a vertical bar. Since the target simultaneously hits only one of the horizontal beams of the horizontal fan and one of the vertical ones, the equivalent width of the receiving beam is determined by the size of the intersection zone of the horizontal and vertical beams. For example, the equivalent receiving beam for a corvette has a width of 1 * 0,75 °.

Warning: The table shows the detection range of low-altitude anti-ship missiles. Many authors believe that the detection range can be calculated using the radio horizon range formula:

Drg = 4,12 * (root of h1 + root of h2)

This is not true.

Drg, on the contrary, determines at what distance the target will not be guaranteed to be detected, regardless of any radar power. The authors here do not take into account the phenomenon of "squeezing" the radar beam upward by the sea surface. Accurate range calculation is difficult and requires consideration of the vertical radar beam width, radar wavelength, and transmitter power.

Therefore, the actual detection range turns out to be 1,5–2 times less than Dgr. The error turns out to be the greater, the longer the radar wavelength and the lower the target flight altitude. It is also necessary to remember that in cases where the target is at a distance equal to Dobn, it is possible to measure only the target's range and azimuth. An estimate of the height of the target can be obtained at ranges that are two times less than the Dobn. Therefore, a missile defense system with a seeker is much better than a radar in measuring the height of an anti-ship missile.

In a specific example with the Zaslon radar, releasing the beam will result in its 10-centimeter surveillance radar detecting anti-ship missiles at ranges that are 1,2-1,3 times less than those indicated in the table for the MF radar. Then, to detect anti-ship missiles, "Zaslon" will have to use a 3,3-cm missile guidance radar. The advantages of such a radar should include the fact that it will ensure the detection of anti-ship missiles at ranges 1,1 times greater than the tabulated ones.

The disadvantage of the 3,3 cm range is that it uses the enemy's IS radar. Modern radars with AFAR are designed to be used as jammers of enormous power. Such directors are capable of suppressing the Zaslon's guidance radar not only along the main beam of the radar, but also along the side lobes. Moreover, the re-reflection of the interference signal from the sea surface creates an illuminated lunar-type track on the surface. Then the interference comes from different angular directions, which sharply worsens the capabilities of the interference compensators in the radar. The enemy does not have powerful directors working in the 5,5-cm range of the MF radar.

5.3. Reducing the cost of ammunition SAM

According to the cost / efficiency criterion, it is best to destroy anti-ship missiles with short-range missiles (MD) at ranges of no more than 10 km. Despite the fact that MD SAMs can fly 1,5-2 times further, this should not be done, since the probability of hitting the target of one SAM will decrease.

Subsonic anti-ship missiles fly at altitudes of 3-5 m. MF radar can reliably measure their azimuth and range immediately after detection, but the exact value of their height is very difficult to measure due to signal reflections from the sea surface. Only MD missiles with 9M100 seeker can successfully aim themselves at a distance of 10 km. For "headless" missiles, the launch range should be reduced to 5 km. This reduction in range should not be of concern. In the event of a miss with the first missile defense system, re-launching another pair of missiles is quite real. At a distance of 2-3 km, the miss will be less than a meter, even if the target maneuvers with an overload of 3 g.

Supersonic anti-ship missiles fly at altitudes of about 10 m and can maneuver with an overload of up to 10 g. The required guidance accuracy is ensured at ranges of 7 km. Non-maneuvering anti-ship missiles can also be hit at a distance of 10 km.

Despite the seemingly small launch range of missiles, the reflection of massive raids is quite possible. MF radar is capable of simultaneously aiming up to 20 MD missiles. In such cases, it is necessary to provide a start-up rate of at least one start-up per second.

To provide a large ammunition load of missiles on small ships, the Pantsir-M missiles are best suited, especially if they are modified and a simple IR seeker is installed. The launcher can be placed, for example, on the roof of the gun turret. To ensure the ability to quickly launch missiles both forward and towards both sides, the TPK missiles should be positioned in three directions, located at an angle of 90 °.

To combat IS, it is necessary to use the 9M96E2 missile defense system, which will not allow the enemy's IS to fly up to a distance of less than 100 km, open jamming conditions, determine the exact coordinates of the ship, launch gliding bombs at it, etc. Medium-range missiles turn out to be ineffective, since they cost almost the same as the DB missiles, and they cannot prevent the approach of IS.

The number of air defense missiles can be quite small, for example, 2 - for RTOs, 4 - for a corvette, 8 - for a frigate, 16 - for a destroyer. That is, anti-missile guided missiles should mainly play the role of a "scarer" for information security.

6. Methods for suppressing over-the-horizon radars

The methods of REB and the organization of passive decoys were described in the previous article. Here we will only point out that it is possible to fight against over-the-horizon systems for detecting ships of the Mineral-M type.

It should be borne in mind that an active over-the-horizon radar does not always work, but only in such weather when a "drive waveguide" is formed above the surface, that is, when the horizontal beam of this radar follows the sea surface. It is suppressed in the same way as a conventional radar.

A passive over-the-horizon radar receives a signal from an enemy radar located beyond the horizon, due to the fact that the radar probe beam is scattered on random irregularities that arise in the troposphere. Naturally, the scattered beam has negligible power and is received only due to the high sensitivity of the passive radar.

For such a radar, you can create false targets by launching a balloon to an altitude of 5–8 km. A disposable radar signal simulator is suspended under the ball, the power of which is units of W. The simulator is launched when the wind blows the ball tens of kilometers away from the ship, and the ball is in the line of sight of the passive radar. To simplify, instead of the simulator, you can hang the signal repeater of the ship's radar. When the repeater is irradiated, the power of the ship's radar should be reduced by tens of thousands of times, that is, the passive radar will not detect the radiation of the ship's radar.

7. findings

- The development of the surface fleet has reached a dead end. Further construction of "flag demonstrators" will lead to the fact that the fleet will not be able to operate even on the outer border of the BMZ.

- With negligible modern funding for R&D, it is possible to develop new ships only by reducing the construction of the current series.

- Contrary to popular belief, the fleet after the commissioning of the next generation of ships is quite capable of carrying out its air defense in the DMZ.

- The opinion about the need to replace the fleet with MPA is groundless. Tu-160m2, as the only candidate for participation in the MPA, is outdated and will not be able to carry out raids on either the AUG or the KUG. The development of a new PAK DA aircraft will cost the price of a new aircraft carrier, and each bomber will cost the price of a frigate.

- When designing new ships, the customer is obliged to monitor compliance with the requirements of the Stealth technology.

- Reducing the cost of the air defense system is achieved due to the use of only one MF radar on the ship. The AFAR of this radar operates in the 5,5 cm range. The AFARs for ships of different classes are unified and differ only in size.

- The cost of the MF radar is 3 times less than the cost of the Zaslon radar with the same parameters. The benefit is achieved by making an AFAR in the shape of a cross.

- Reducing the cost of ammunition for the SAM is due to the abandonment of expensive SAMs in favor of MD SAMs and increasing the accuracy of their guidance using the MF radar.

- It is necessary to abandon the heavy Ka-27 helicopter and develop a UAV helicopter weighing 1–1,2 tons with a replaceable composition of equipment.

- To improve the efficiency of the REB, lightweight UAVs and inflatable corner reflectors should be developed.

Comments

[Yaroslav Zhigulin]

SAM Aegis can not read further

[Lara Croft]

Quote: Yaroslav Zhigulin

SAM Aegis no need to read further

Do not be mischievous. In general, the article is useful to read, but they do not like such articles here .... a lot of negativity ...

[Yaroslav Zhigulin]

Let's call that 160 a fighter in our articles.
A t80 destroyer
Not well, but what

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Lara Croft

In general, the article is useful to read, but they do not like such articles here.

In general, yes, but there are absurdities, there are ...

The launcher can be placed, for example, on the roof of the gun turret.

The author does not seem to have seen modern gun turrets, or I have seen and forgot.

[dorz]

The article can be confidently renamed: "The people who do not want to feed their army will feed someone else's." We are leading us by leaps and bounds to this final.

[Barberry25]

this article is more suitable for AlterHistory

[Artyom Karagodin]

It's not about the negative. The author is mistaken that the fleet does not have enough money. They allocated enough money there to form a truly strong fleet (see article by Andrey Kolobov), which would at least very seriously complicate the task of attacking us from sea directions, or even simply guarantee the failure of such plans. It's just that instead of using them effectively, they preferred to cut them on all sorts of 22160, 20386, etc. etc. As a result, we have what we have.

You need to put things in order, and hard and fast! And after that, step by step, to solve the accumulated problems. First, to protect our strategists at the exit from the bases, to provide full-fledged mine protection, then to solve problems in the distant sea and ocean zones. Only these tasks need to be formulated normally, and not reduced to general phrases such as "displaying the flag and defending the borders." If we are talking about protecting the shores, then you need to understand what forces need to be done, how and where these forces should act, and further down the list. With careful processing of these tasks during the exercise.

PS Well, "Aegis" as an air defense system is also strong.

[Ryusei]

First ... then ... then, do you really think that we will be given time for these first and then, right?

[huntsman650]

Mercedes, of course worse than Lada)))

[Machito]

I really thought that Klimov or Timokhin wrote the article. Too much pain about the fate of the fleet and factual material. The article is a bold plus.

[Eldorado]

Bold minus article. There is a lot of pain about the fate of the fleet, but the ways to solve it are sheer surrealism and utopianism.

[bayard]

The author is a specialist in radar, so almost everything other than her ... can be called the gaze of an outsider.
Hypertrophied thrust towards ... stealth of ships ... Practice has already shown that this does not greatly affect the visibility of the ship for the GOS. Just a ship, this is a very large iron contraption, with a bunch of antenna blades, communication antennas, portholes and other surface anomalies. Therefore, you should not dwell on this, otherwise an iron a la "Zumwalt" will come out.
We need to build ships of the main classes, in series, and on those technologies that are available to us.
And to clearly distribute the range of tasks for ships of the class from the corvette and below - they cannot be universal by definition, because it will turn out to be super-expensive, ineffective and not numerous ... a misunderstanding.
BMZ ships must have a clear specialization:
- anti-submarine - with moderate air defense capabilities, but excellent GAK, PLUR, torpedoes and depth charges,
- shock - with a powerful anti-ship missile complex, target designation means, moderate air defense,
- sentries - to protect the water area, monitor enemy ships in BMZ, synergy in armament (reasonable balance).
It is more reasonable to choose Pantsir-M as an air defense system for BMZ ships, as a single air defense system for this entire class of ships. Its capabilities will be enough for them, and if necessary, support will always be provided by basic aviation.
Frigates ...
22350 is the best we have at the moment. But a lot of 12 pcs. I think it can be considered sufficient.
Why
Suboptimal speed indicators - low economic speed. And the maximum speed of 29 knots cannot be called sufficient. Optimal for such a ship would be a power plant, consisting of 2 sustainer turbines M-75 (7500 l / s) + 2 afterburners M-90FR. With the possibility of adding their torque on the gearbox at full stroke. Max. the speed in this case would be about 32 knots. And the economic move is about 18 knots.
You can also consider another composition of the power plant for this type of ship - on four of the same type M-70FRU, 14 l / s each. The maximum speed would have increased by a little, but the cruising speed would have exceeded 000 knots. On such a power plant, it is desirable to have a gearbox with torque distribution from each of the main turbines to both shafts.
Project 22350M needs to be put into production as soon as possible. It is this type of ships that should become the main workhorse of the DM and OZ, and its power plant on 2 M-70FRU and 2 M-90FR looks just optimal.
The 22350M series should be launched in blocks (tnrminalogy of the American fleet, in our case, you can use the word - sub-series). In the first block, the 22350M has the same radar as in the 22350, but its air defense system has been doubled. The number of CD in UKSK 48 - 64 pcs.
Where does the number 64 come from?
From doubling the ammo spacecraft of frigate 22350.1 - 32 pieces (two rows of two UKSK)
In two rows of four UKSK.
Isn't it overkill, someone might ask?
Not . This is the ammunition load for a normal destroyer VI 8000 tons. And in this case you should not cut yourself off in anything - this is a ship of the oceanic zone and must have sufficient ammunition.
Moreover, from 8 to 16 cells will be occupied by the PLUR "Answer".
And be sure to have two helicopter submarines in the hangar.
The second unit may already have a new radar - of greater power, range and performance. And this may already be a radar-based radar with AFAR based on the radar modules truncated by the number of S-500 radar modules (which are now also equipped with S-400 divisions).
If such a radar station appears on Block-2, then long-range missiles from Fort-M \ S-400 may appear in the arsenal of its missiles. Which will have to be installed in large cells of the UKSK. 8 - 16 long-range missiles on such a ship in DM and OZ will not be superfluous. And it is precisely for their placement without much damage to the strike capabilities that 64 cells will be useful to us, starting from the first block of this series of ships. Their self-defense capabilities should grow starting with the second sub-series ("Block-2").
If, for the needs of the Navy, ships of a higher class are needed, then there is nothing difficult - we already have everything for this.
The cruiser ("super destroyer") VI 12 - 000 t. Can be built on a power plant of 14 turbines M-000FR \ FRU (4 l / s each), with a radar built on 90 canvases from S- 27 (multifunctional - detection, target designation), with ammunition missiles of different ranges up to 500 pcs. , with ten UKSK for the Kyrgyz Republic for different purposes.
If necessary, the full VI can be increased to 16 tons, the power of the power plant will be quite enough for a cruising speed of 000 knots and a maximum speed of at least 20 knots (up to 30 knots).
You can cost them in St. Petersburg, on a double slipway, which is now being completed.
After completing the icebreaker series, it will be possible to build on others of a suitable size.
and destroyers 22350M can be built on people from stocks in St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad, where the BOD 1155 and destroyers of the "Sarych" type were previously built.
If you wish, you can slightly expand the production sites of the Kerch "Zaliv" and build along with the UDC.
I would like to involve the Far East "Zvezda" in such tasks, but in the near future there are enough civil orders there beyond measure.
I will not talk about aircraft carriers, I have already written enough about this.


And Russia HAS money for all this.
There is no WILL.
And also the mind and conscience.

[darkesstcat]

Whoa whoa whoa no need to weave a conscience where it never was (.

[Barberry25]

You can safely forget about the Star - this plant was built specifically for private orders and no one will risk investments for the sake of sanctions. You have a good idea, but it needs to be supplemented: you need to build new engine factories to get series for ships up to 500 tons, up to 1, up to 500 tons, up to 2 tons and up to 500 tons. You also need to build a completely new shipyard. a plant with sheds for laying down destroyers and aircraft carriers, so that you can transfer the construction of some of the ships there while other shipyards are being modernized ... Well, the series needs 4 + 500 ... When something massive and proven is being built and a series of advanced ships is launched for the future, in order to get new advanced ships in the future ... for example, we have laid down 9 Varshavyanka and 000 Lada, they are brought to mind, when the Varshavyanka finish building, there should already be a ready-made new DP for the series ... Well, for BMZ Super Karakurt with UVP and PLO are needed and as an option to expand the construction of a light MPK with a displacement of 3-1 tons a la project 6/2

[bayard]

Quote: Barberry25

..Well, for BMZ SuperKarakurt with UVP and PLO are needed and, as an option, to deploy the construction of a light MPK with a displacement of 300-500 tons a la project 0250/12300

Yes, as an MPC it would be wiser to build ships on the basis of "Karakurt" in VI of about 1500 tons, and the power plant for it to take ready-made from Project 20380 on 4 Kolomna diesel engines. The power of the power plant will be enough to accelerate up to 30 knots, the motors and the gearbox have been worked out by the industry. Moreover, the use of low-speed diesel engines is preferable for the ship's submarine - less noise. 8 PLUR in UKSK, "Packet-NK" with good ammunition, "Pantsir-M" as an air defense system, a keel and towed GAS (at the main rate when working on BUGAS), a cannon, machine guns, a boat.
All .
A helicopter hangar is not needed, but you can make a helipad for temporary basing, landing for refueling.

Quote: Barberry25

You have a good idea, but it needs to be supplemented: you need to build new engine factories

Better to expand the capacity available. It is always easier and faster to attach a new workshop than to build a new production from scratch. There is Rybinsk, there is "Star-Reducer", there is Kolomna.
It's just that shipbuilding programs need to be made up for the long term, so that contractors are sure that the Ministry of Defense does not pester them with tricky orders, but this is the prospect of producing the same type of product for many years.

Quote: Barberry25

You also need to build a completely new shipyard with sheds for laying down destroyers and aircraft carriers, so that you can transfer the construction of some ships there while other shipyards are being modernized ..

Can you imagine how long this "new plant" will take?
The example with the Far East "Zvezda" will clearly demonstrate this to you.
A covered boathouse for the construction of destroyers up to 200 m long (for two construction sites), being completed in St. Petersburg. Both the Kaliningrad Yantar and St. Petersburg are capable of building ships of the 22350M class and dimension (up to 8000 t. VI) at the same capacities that 22350 are currently under construction. You just need to load these capacities with orders, provide power plant ships under construction and bring the pace of construction to the global standards. Build in a large series of ships of the same type, introducing all the innovations within the framework of the next blocks (sub-series).
It is another matter that some capacities in the Baltic Sea may not be enough for us. It would be nice to organize construction in the Crimea as well - at one time "Zaliv" built several patrol boats pr.1135 and the production facilities there allow.
Destroyer-class ships were also built in the Far East, but now the Amur Shipyard is just emerging from a coma, having established the construction of corvettes 20380, and there are enough orders for it. It would be nice to have a shipyard in Primorye, because the needs of the Pacific Fleet would be better met on the spot ... But so far we have only the capacity for ship repair there.
It would be nice to get a production site near Bolshoy Kamen for the construction of frigate / destroyer class ships, within the framework of a single shipbuilding cluster.
Well, practice itself shows that when placing orders, the Navy and the Ministry of Defense have already come to the realization that it is necessary to build in series / sub-series multiples of 3 ships, for the possibility of organizing rhythmic and uninterrupted services.

[Barberry25]

200-250 billion, but it will allow us to close the problem of building destroyers / udk / aircraft carriers, because in fact we have nowhere to build them ... either we build frigates or destroyers ... and in the most optimal case, we will receive 2 in 3-4 years, which is not acceptable .. by the way .. it's interesting, you say that building a la Zvezda is expensive and you immediately propose to build new sites throughout the country ... which, as it were, will automatically make the production of ships very problematic in the future .. About construction .. there is an opinion that Since we have a wild plug in the construction of large ships, it means we need to close small ones ... well, Kazakhstan ordered boats with a displacement of 250 tons, if I’m not mistaken, there were almost no engines from the trucks, so there should be no problems with this. .that's how to make an IPC in the same format and rivet simple IPCs of 5-6 pieces per year at a production rate of 1,5 years from the force of the laying ...

[bayard]

Quote: Barberry25

, you say that it is expensive to build a la Zvezda and immediately propose to build new sites throughout the country.

To build a new "Star" is not just expensive, but LONG. Therefore, I propose to revive the existing capacities and expand them.
So the "Zaliv" has free slipways, on which it would be possible in the future to build ships of the frigate / destroyer class, without prejudice to the construction of large ships such as UDC and "light / medium aircraft carrier".
Near the "Zvezda" in Bolshoy Kamen, it is possible to build capacities for the construction of medium-class warships within the framework of a single shipbuilding cluster. Using general logistics, contractors, infrastructure.
The Pacific Fleet needs its own shipbuilding capacities, because we will not satisfy all needs only with European shipyards. And the Pacific Fleet is far from Europe ...
And the plug is exclusively in the propulsion systems. Which seems to be "wide open" after all. Turbines are already in series production and the delay is only in the pace of creating gearboxes.
At the same time, the gear production has been completely re-equipped with a machine park and the capacity should be enough to meet all (!) Needs of the domestic shipbuilding industry.
And here it is important not to pull these powers into different fantasies such as 20386 and other nonsense.
All currently available capacities should be focused on the production of power plants for 22350, which are waiting for their "fiery hearts" on the stocks, and on the development of power plants for 22350M!
Now they are working on a power plant for the UDC, according to some reports, this power plant will be performed on 4 M-70FRU. If such a power plant really appears, then in the future it can also be used for an updated series of frigates (the same 22350.1, but with a new power plant, high cruising and maximum speed).
And the Military Prosecutor's Office and the Investigative Committee should deal with the pests lobbying this freak 20386. As well as the FSB for treason, sabotage and undermining the country's defense.

Quote: Barberry25

.here and make the IPC in the same format

We don't need PLO boats. They cannot place either weapons or means of detection, the seaworthiness of such troughs is also disgusting.
We need an MPC on the basis of the enlarged up to 1500 tons "Karakurt". which the PRLUR "Answer" is capable of carrying, and "Packet-NK", and BUGAS, and the "Pantsir" type air defense missile system.

[Barberry25]

The Crimean plant will be reanimated anyway, but forget about the Far Eastern Star, forget it, there will be no cluster, no one will throw out several billion dollars of investments to the wind ... that's what all moored by 20386 ... one ship, as if there is a series of 20 ships ) and yes .. no one is lobbying 20386 already, it's enough to remember Klimov). Regarding PLO boats, what is the situation? ships of 2 tons per year, and they, in principle, will be able to carry the package-nk, shell-m, but without UVP, for 500 years with a guarantee we cover the need of the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet for PLO, taking into account corvettes and Karakurt ..

[bayard]

Quote: Barberry25

without any problems it will be able to deliver stably 2 ships of 500 tons per year, and they, in principle, will be able to carry a package-nk, shell-m, but without UVP, in 10 years with a guarantee we will cover the need of the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet for PLO, taking into account corvettes and Karakurt ...

Do you know what excitement happens at the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet?
An PLO ship of this displacement should not be equipped with the "Shell", but with the "Flexible" or simply an anti-aircraft machine gun - it is so small and insignificant.
And what kind of GAK can this animal be able to carry?
And is the "Paket-NK" enough to combat submarines whose torpedoes reach 50 km away?
Who do you think will win in a duel situation, a 500-ton AI boat with an inferior SAC and "Packet", or a submarine with a full-fledged SAC and a torpedo range of 50 km?
PLUR "Answer" just give an advantage, if not in the range of destruction of an underwater target, then in the speed of destruction of this target in a duel situation. At the same time, it would be nice to have anti-torpedoes in the "Package" arsenal. And already for this you need a full-fledged GAC, which cannot be put on a small boat.
Therefore, I believe that the IPC should be in VI of the order of 1500 tons, with all the necessary hydroacoustic and anti-submarine weapons, sufficient seaworthiness to work in the near zone and moderate air defense, in the capacity of which "Pantsir-M" is just right.
Such corvettes will be two times cheaper than 20380 etc. and it will be possible to build them in sufficient quantities without bothering with the problems of an idle super-expensive air defense.

Quote: Barberry25

.that is that all by 20386 moored then .. one ship,

If it was only about one thing, and even an experienced one ... but the fact is that even after the official and public rebuff of the High Command, the USC management continues to insist on its serial construction, strenuously promoting "innovation", "modularity" and other delights this "ocean zone corvette" ... for the price of a frigate.
They are also a continuation of the 22160 series, continuing to lobby, imposing new supplies of this engineering miscarriage.
If the work on the power plant of this re-corvette (20386) did not disrupt the plans for mass production and deliveries of the power plant for frigates 22350 (and there are the same turbines and re-converter elements), who would have remembered this misunderstanding. But all these dances are exactly DISRUPTING the supply of the power plant to the frigates standing on the stocks.

Quote: Barberry25

Forget the star, there will be no cluster,

Well, how is that?
How can it not be a cluster, if it is precisely created by the efforts of Rosneft and NOVATEK? Not only the shipyard itself (with the super prefix), but also all related enterprises, including the metallurgical plant in the neighboring bay to meet all the needs for rolled metal and castings.
Therefore, the creation of nearby facilities for the construction of warships for the Pacific Fleet asks for itself, when you can use the infrastructure and logistics of the superyard without diverting it to non-core military orders directly.
There is already a shipyard nearby, where submarines are being repaired and modernized, so such production will not interfere in the future.
For the Amur plant will hardly be able to build something larger than a corvette. And the withdrawal of ready-made ships along the Amur in transport docks ... cannot be called convenient.
but these are, of course, tasks for the future.

[Barberry25]

1) a submarine that begins to actively fight against the MPK will automatically give itself out, which will lead to its destruction.
2) IPC karakurt is a good thing, though there is a minus ... at the moment it is NOT ... there is a model that was shown a couple of years ago ... and that's all ... even if we assume that tomorrow they will decide to lay down, then first they will lay down 1 ship, then They will build and refine for 5 years, and then they will only lay the series, which we will receive in another 10 years, in fact, only 15 years later, in theory, we will begin to solve the PLO problem, provided that the PLO boat can be laid down similarly quickly, only it will be built in 2 years and in 4 years we will be able to issue a series of 2-3 boats per year, and not in 15 years, in theory, 5-6 ships, and then on condition that the same ASZ has mastered a series of karakurt, which there are huge doubts about.
3) The situation is such that, thanks to the Navy and shipyards, the serial production of the proa, and in the best case, will take 10-15 years to somehow patch up the holes and get a sane number of ships. Not to mention "karakurt will be half the price of a corvette" ... And who told you about this? The composition of the weapons in it will be identical, the only thing that will not be a helicopter, so the price tag will be about the same ... and yes, it is possible for 2021 to refer to USC that they are preparing a series of 20386 ..

[bayard]

1) If a submarine starts fighting a surface ship at a distance of 50 km, and the ship is armed only with a "Package" with a range of 20 km, then it will be just a target.
And unrequited.
If the ship has the "Answer" PLUR and the corresponding GAK, then even if the submarine fires first, the ship will have time to fire the PLUR and perform an evasive maneuver and / or intercept the torpedo with an anti-torpedo.
moreover, the submarine by the time the torpedo approaches the ship will have already been destroyed.
2)

Quote: Barberry25

) IPC karakurt is a good thing, though there is a minus .. at the moment it is NOT.

A decent number of Karakurt have already been built, but most of them are still waiting for engines from the "Zvezda-Reducer" - high-speed diesel engines with a monstrous number of cylinders ... Again, the motor curse.
I propose to install at the "Superkarakurt" power plant from 20380 out of 4 Kolomna low-speed diesel engines, which are mass-produced. In the larger building of the MPK VI 1500 t, such a power plant will stand quite confidently and provide the required 30-knot speed with much less noise.
The same "Pella" can build the MPK, "Karakurt" she designed and built in record time even for Soviet times. And if not for the disruption in the supply of engines, "Karakurt" would be baked like pies. She bakes, only they stand at the pier without engines. Google yourself, it will be interesting.
So we are not talking about any 5 - 10 - 15 years, the project of such a ship has already been proposed and even a model was demonstrated.
"Pella" builds quickly and efficiently, it has its own (!) Capacities, the project can be prepared in a year and a half, all the components for energy, weapons and avionics are available and are mass-produced.
3)

Quote: Barberry25

Not to mention "karakurt will be twice as cheap as a corvette" ... And who told you about this?

I tell you this.
Firstly, VI is 1,5 times less than that of 20380. And this is not only the amount of metal and welded work, but also the number (volume) of general ship systems - a direct proportion.
Secondly, it will not have such a cumbersome subtle GAS (the dimensions will not allow it), but it will be able to deploy the best BUGAS we have on board, which is more efficient in the search mode and is not affected by the ship's own noises.
Thirdly, this IPC will not have such a cumbersome and expensive air defense system and radar, which amount to at least 1/3 of the cost of the entire ship (1/3 of the cost of the 20385 covet!). And the Pantsir-M air defense system with everything attached (general purpose radar) will cost 8 times (possibly 9, because we must also take into account the cost of the launchers for the missiles and the missiles themselves).
Fourthly, it will not have a hangar and everything else for a helicopter. But there will be a helipad for his landing.
As you can see, even the simplest extrapolation shows that the ship will be at least 2 times cheaper than 20380 and 2,5 times cheaper than 20385.
And you can build such ships in almost all suitable shipyards.
Since Pella has its own production facilities, the launch of the series will in no way affect the production of ships at other shipyards. And at those shipyards where they have experience in the construction of the Karakurt MRK (and this is the Zaliv Shipyard, the Amur Shipyard, Zelenodolsk), they can easily start building these MPCs and quickly saturate the fleet with anti-submarine BMZs.

Quote: Barberry25

..and yes, it is possible for 2021 to refer to the USC that they are preparing a series of 20386 ..

Look for yourself, this statement was just the other day, shortly after the categorical rebuke of the Main Command of the Navy. And precisely as a response to this rebuke.

And also such ships can become a platform for patrol ships BMZ, with a simplified composition of weapons and therefore even cheaper. But high-speed and seaworthy enough.
At least this was the case with the IPC pr. 1124. Here they are in need of such ships.

[Artyom Karagodin]

The case when the comment came out much more literate than the publication to which it is attached))).

[Alexey RA]

Quote: bayard

It is more reasonable to choose Pantsir-M as an air defense system for BMZ ships, as a single air defense system for this entire class of ships. His capabilities will be enough for them

Have you already solved the problem of radar blinding by water dust at the "Pantsir"?

[bayard]

This is a millimeter-wave radar problem and you really have to do something about it. In any case, for a marine air defense system, the radio frequency range should be selected taking into account this factor (signal extinction in the near-surface layer - water dust, fog, low cloudiness, rain).
I think it will be necessary for "Pantsir-M" to make a new version of the radar with a suitable frequency range. And return to centimeters.

[Galleon]

Thanks to the author for a well thought out article on serious naval issues. An interesting proposal for the unification of the radar for various types of ships, very interesting. The proposal and classification of UAVs and AWACS is appropriate and timely.
Of course, a fleet without AWACS, without a developed central control system and without air cover in modern warfare is nothing. Experience teaches us that the army will not share this air cover, they need aviation themselves. Therefore, for all my love for ships, at present I consider it the first for each fleet in the air division for actions in the BMZ, incl. for aircraft rescue operations. Airplanes come first, and then boats. These are modern realities. And of course, these aircraft are needed for AWACS, for electronic warfare, for strikes, and for anti-aircraft missiles. So we will solve the problems in BMZ. The ships won't decide.

[Bez 310]

Quote: Galleon

first for each fleet by air division

I approve of your decision!
What aircraft will we form the division from?

[Galleon]

Quote: Bez 310

What aircraft will we form the division from?

You might as well have asked me the plan for the composition of the symphony. Well, they would have expressed themselves right away, why this polite? I will only say how I understand the structure of such a division:
1 shock regiments. The type of aircraft is determined by three most important parameters: - the largest combat radius, the ability to carry anti-ship missiles and the ability to carry long-range air defense systems in the mode of covering AWACS and electronic warfare.
2. A regiment of diverse forces: AWACS and EW. In fact, a communications satellite should be fastened to this shelf.
4. PLO regiment.
5. Refueling squadron, PSS squadron - seaplanes and helicopters.
6. A squadron to and fro: transport workers, someone like the Yak-40 headquarters to take to check or to Moscow to drive, something from small aircraft for courier work, etc.
Anyone will call you this: even a surface waterman like me, even a submariner, even a tanker.

[Bez 310]

Quote: Galleon

long-range missile carrying capability

And what is "ZR"?

[Galleon]

SAM without K. Air-to-air missiles according to you, according to our anti-aircraft missiles.

[smaug78]

In your opinion - where is it? At the grandmother's in the village?

[Marachuh]

The author's surname seems to hint ... In short: they don’t give money, but they spent a lot of money on Nakhimov. Tu-160 rubbish, frigates and corvettes - rubbish. We urgently need to build Stealth, it will save us all! But it is not exactly...

[Ross xnumx]

The aircraft carrier is not the first in line. We need to solve the problems of the fleet as a whole

Is there a single fleet? Perhaps, there are real breakthroughs in some important for the ECONOMY industry, thanks to which something is produced in Russia that will be “analogous to”? Just do not need about combat icebreakers and the exclusive assembly of "Aurus" ...
Most likely, the country has lost 30 years of history. We have ceased to grow in population. This is scary. This is the degradation of society, which should be protected by the fleet, the army, for which planes fly and trains run ... And who and why will this fleet be in demand?

 Show / Hide text

I read in the comments: "For twenty years, Putin has raised China from its knees ..." It became unpleasant from such statements, but when I looked at the indexation of pensions of military pensioners for 2021, the questions: "Why not from January 1, but from October 1 ? " “Why, given the announced inflation rate of 4,7-5,2%, the increase is 3,7%,” they have disappeared by themselves.

Military pensions:
Cash allowances will be indexed by 3,7% in 2021. The federal budget provided for an additional 9,3 billion rubles to increase the pension provision.
It should be noted that usually the indexation percentage was determined equal to the level of forecast inflation in the current year. At the same time, according to forecasts of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, inflation in 2021 may reach 4,7-5,2%. Why the decision was made to index military pensions at a lower percentage, only by 3,7%, remains open to question.
Moreover, this value is also incomparable with the inflation of the previous 2020. According to Rosstat, the consumer price index in 2020 was 1,049, that is, prices increased by 4,9%.

Therefore, there is no faith in the best. Sorry, but when the pension is $ 275, it becomes clear how ordinary Russians live in Russia.

[Luty]

Pensioners are a burden on the budget. So the care for them is appropriate.

[Barberry25]

oh yeah ... bad Putin ... I wonder when "in the best years" half of the military pensioners with machine guns guarded the stalls quietly ... apparently then there was a super life? Razderbanili, And now you are telling that Putin did not appoint you a pension of 1 bucks .. I remind you for those who have a memory like a fish: the CIA report- "By the middle of the 000s, Russia must cease to exist" ...

[antivirus]

We have ceased to grow in population. This is scary. This is the degradation of society, which must be protected

- ++++++ .. is the only and main result of the development of the country and society
!!!!!! "face to eternity" !!!
.. after 50 years - emptiness. the end of Russian history. and the fleet is not needed now with such a demographic.
the rest are small candy wrappers in the reporting buh.

[BAI]

Finally, a sane look. No missions, no fleet. All Russia can do now is to protect the coastal zone. And as the incident with Defender showed, we can only successfully counter Ukraine.

[sprototype]

Textbooks to read the same vpadlu?
If completely on your fingers:
1) radiation for transmission only by the central canvas of the cross will give an inversely proportional decrease in the size of the expansion of the directional pattern and the drop in the energy of the reflected signal is a multiple of the square of the difference in the span of the central canvas and the canvas with the dimensions of the span of the full cross
2) a narrow directional diagram for reception at the "cross" will be only in the direction strictly along the normal to the center of this cross. If the direction to the target deviates from the normal, there will be a complete ass, in the limit at the most unsuccessful angles the diagram will in fact be equal to the diagram of the radiating center of the "cross" - with no corresponding accuracy and KU of the antenna.

For more details, read textbooks on electrodynamics and radio wave propagation, antenna feeder devices and radar. Once at the institute, these courses were taught to me for 6 semesters. Don't expect simple answers - follow them to the author and the boy Rostik.

[vl903]

Quote: sprototype

Textbooks to read the same vpadlu?
If completely on your fingers:
1) radiation for transmission only by the central canvas of the cross will give an inversely proportional decrease in the size of the expansion of the directional pattern and the drop in the energy of the reflected signal is a multiple of the square of the difference in the span of the central canvas and the canvas with the dimensions of the span of the full cross
2) a narrow directional diagram for reception at the "cross" will be only in the direction strictly along the normal to the center of this cross. If the direction to the target deviates from the normal, there will be a complete ass, in the limit at the most unsuccessful angles the diagram will in fact be equal to the diagram of the radiating center of the "cross" - with no corresponding accuracy and KU of the antenna.

For more details, read textbooks on electrodynamics and radio wave propagation, antenna feeder devices and radar. Once at the institute, these courses were taught to me for 6 semesters. Don't expect simple answers - follow them to the author and the boy Rostik.

Thank you! forum topics and useful that we share the nuances of knowledge in different areas. everyone cannot know everything.
Does your comment apply to all types of radars or only to AFAR?

[Eug]

Thank you, otherwise I was already going to ask a question about the reason for the absence of "cruciform" radars with AFAR at the ships of the fleets of other countries.

[aagor]

I usually just ignore boorish comments, but here is a particularly outstanding case, I have to answer. Especially for such “specialists”, the article contains the basic provisions of radar, which justify the choice of the shape of the cross for AFAR. But the commentator did not want to understand the article and began to intimidate the reader with references to the mythical need to study electrodynamics textbooks in order to calculate such a simple quantity as the range of a radar.
Already in the first semester, students are explained that the target detection range in a given frame of view is almost independent of the beam width of the emitting antenna. But the receiving antenna should have as large an area as possible, i.e. narrow beam - then the entire width of the transmitting beam will have to be covered by many receiving beams. Only AFAR can simultaneously form a whole “fan” of receiving beams spaced apart from each other by the beam width.
The target tracking accuracy, in contrast to the detection range, depends on the areas of the receiving and transmitting antennas. In order to prevent loss of accuracy when using a small transmitting antenna, the size of the crossbeams of the receiving cross is specially increased to values ​​unusual for missile guidance radars.
Scanning the transmitting beam with narrow receiving beams is not at all difficult in any position of the beam, and no ... there is no such thing.
The shape of the cross has been known for 70 years already. We have used Czech-made course glide radars. They had two independent antennas in the form of narrow elongated ellipses.
The proposed shape in the form of a cross is explained by the only reason - to reduce the price of APAR by 2-4 times without loss of quality.
Readers shouldn't be afraid of radar. Almost everything can be explained “on the fingers”.

[Vladimir1155]

I didn’t understand everything, I’m not a radio engineer, to summarize, the time of surface ships is gone, how can you not hide, you are visible and vulnerable, so it’s pointless to bet on surface ships, to have several PLO frigates (ten each) on the oceans, and many IPC and minesweepers to guard around nuclear submarine bases. and in closed sea areas .... The future belongs to submarines. Regarding the problems of aviation, it needs to be solved anyway, it cannot be avoided, and drones and modern long-range and front-line and AWACS aircraft are needed ... I do not quite agree with the vulnerability of the TU160, in general, all this stealth technology seems to me = deception, make it invisible the plane is simply unrealistic (like an imperceptible corvette), you need to open up the capabilities of missiles and electronic warfare equipment ... in general, the experience of Donbass, for example, has shown that aviation is becoming a thing of the past, and like the surface ships left, and the cavalry left earlier, everyone is now hiding and working disguising themselves, they hit with rockets and immediately into the bushes. In this vein, the future at sea is obvious for submarines in passive interaction with satellites.

[vl903]

any forces must be balanced, without gaps and correspond to the development of technology. now it is impossible to abandon either the air, or the space, or the surface or the underwater component due to the minu-materialization of electronics and a jump-like increase in the properties of processors, sensors, etc. unmanned technologies, artificial intelligence, guidance and homing systems in all ranges are coming out ahead. But gaps in the types of forces should not be allowed. This weak point will be hit right away. now submarines without aircraft and air defense ships will be destroyed in the first seconds of the conflict all

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: vl903

submarines without aircraft and air defense ships will be destroyed in the first seconds of the conflict, all

nonsense, I do not agree, prove it! Submarines are secretive and do not need escort away from their bases

[Lara Croft]

Quote: vladimir1155

nonsense, I do not agree, prove it!

And the point is to prove if you

I didn't understand everything, I'm not a radio engineer

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Lara Croft

prove if

well, it is clear that you have no proof, Larochka, and into the bushes, but under a plausible pretext ... you make a good face when you play badly ......, it’s hard to prove it to you! oh weak!

[vl903]

submarines have long been seen and detected from space on anti-submarine lines and are located by ASW aircraft with active buoys. and immediately from the base they sail with American submarines-fighters on the tail, if our PLO ships and PLO aviation did not drive them away. in short, our submarines without the same Kuznetsov, there is no chance of a serious mess. even if they are hiding, they will begin to look for them with active and powerful mobile and stationary means in a blatant manner. and there will be nothing to destroy the insolent people from our boats.
and the cavalry did not go anywhere - the horse was replaced by a motor and now it is motorized infantry and tanks.

[Ivanushka Ivanov]

This is another extreme. You, dear man, are the victim of American bullying. In that case, why all this dance with "noisy", "coatings"? Damn they see. Only, for some reason, if a boat sinks, they cannot find it for months. It is clear that the sunken boat is "silent", and nevertheless ... the "cosmic eye" must know where it was last seen. A 400m water layer is more than good protection. And if a modern boat at this depth goes slowly (not even necessarily under the ice), it becomes virtually invisible. If the Americans say they see, they are lying.
Space is good. That is, you think that the boat is visible from space at a depth of 300-400m. Wow, so why the hell is all this fuss, if the invisible eye sees everything from space? Perhaps the time will come (perhaps very soon) when the entire globe will be surveyed from space online - a dense network of connected satellites. And then only "long" rockets will be needed, which will be guided along changing coordinates. But this is about visible goals. Again, submarines are relevant in this context.
Here is now actively discussing the possibility of a ship to see another ship. Some funny figures are given: from 50 to 200 km. And this is for surface ships. It turns out that not everything is so smooth?

Ships are certainly needed. But, if you build a ship, then it should be good. For a very expensive toy is a ship, even the smallest one. If a ship is blind, short-handed, does not know how to defend itself and is slow, such a ship is worth a penny. And it makes no sense to build such indecency. Then the planes will really come in handy. Including for the protection of submarines.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Ivanushka Ivanov

If a ship is blind, short-handed, does not know how to defend itself and is slow, such a ship is worth a penny. And it makes no sense to build such indecency. Then the planes will really come in handy. Including for the protection of submarines.

everything is correct, but the dumb = stupid members of the totalitarian destructive sect of aircraft carriers have a collapse of logic, they are talking about the impossibility of targeting a surface ship at 200 km, but they are about the invisibility of an aircraft carrier, along with the imaginary visibility of nuclear submarines in the ocean thousands of kilometers in size and at a depth of 100 300 m .... it is clear that the means of searching for submarines is still more limited than the means of searching for surface ships that are banally visible from satellites ..
http://roe.ru/catalog/voenno-morskoy-flot/korabelnye-radioelektronnye-sistemy/mgk-400/

MGK-400
Modernized sonar complex for submarines MGK-400EM
appointment

The MGK-400EM hydroacoustic complex is designed to illuminate the underwater and surface conditions in order to ensure the submarine's operations in a submerged position and the use of weapons by it.

Tasks

MGK-400EM is installed on non-nuclear submarines and performs the following tasks:

search, detection and direction finding of submarines, surface ships and torpedoes by their noise emission in the sound and low-frequency ranges;
а

In the acoustic antennas of the complex, new compositions of piezoceramics and electro-acoustic transducers of improved design are used

Main characteristics
Noise finding
Space overview
Detection range:
Submarine with a noise level of 0,05 Pa / Hz 16 km
NK with noise 10 Pa / Hz 100 km

total search radius of detection of submarines using modern equipment 16 km Karl !!!!!, for reference the size of the Pacific Ocean
The Pacific Ocean stretches approximately 15,8 thousand km from north to south and 19,5 thousand km from east to west. Area with seas - 178,684 million km², ...
Average depth: 3984 m
Maximum depth: 10 m
Area: 178 km²
Volume: 710 360 000 km³

[vl903]

the ocean does not need to be rummaged all over. Take the boat for escort right at our base - there is nothing to drive off the Russian fighter's hat capers. if it comes off then you will find it at the stationary buoy. and there is no one to help her

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: vl903

take the boat for escort right from our base

thank you for understanding the obvious truth that the boat cannot be found in the ocean, finally ... about the bases, no one argues there it can be found, the duty of the Russian Federation to ensure the safety of nuclear submarines within a radius of 500-1000 km from the base for which underwater tracking systems are needed, aircraft and IPC with PLO frigates

[vl903]

Quote: vladimir1155

Quote: vl903

take the boat for escort right from our base

thank you for understanding the obvious truth that the boat cannot be found in the ocean, finally ... about the bases, no one argues there it can be found, the duty of the Russian Federation to ensure the safety of nuclear submarines within a radius of 500-1000 km from the base for which underwater tracking systems are needed, aircraft and IPC with PLO frigates

the boat is hard to find, but possible. therefore it is necessary to provide her with cover and the ability to disguise herself from the base to the point of launching the missiles.

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: vl903

the boat is hard to find, but possible. therefore, it is necessary to provide her with cover and the ability to disguise herself from the base to the point of missile launch

Do not understand? it seems clear that it cannot be found in the ocean, and the point of launching missiles in the ocean, for example, under the ice where your rusty kuzya will not reach, or in the middle of a quiet, or 2000 km from the American coast ... understand the cover of a boat in 1000 - 2000 km about your base and covering it up to the point of missile launch (8000 km from the base) is not the same thing!

Well, a simple example, if you have 1000 rubles in your pocket, this does not mean that you have 8000 rubles in your pocket .... if you need 1000 rubles to buy something, you won’t pay 8000 rubles? or give all the same 8000? And you will also overpay for the delivery of 1000000 because you will need an aircraft carrier to deliver this item of yours worth only 1000 rubles? and the thing cost only about 1000? .....

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: vl903

provide her with cover and the ability to disguise herself from the base

internal contradiction, if it is disguised (for example, go to the depths in the ocean and slowly follow a broken course), then the cover only interferes with unmasking, because surface ships are flawed by their inability to disguise, and if you cover it, then probably where it can logically be found, that is, within a radius 500-1000 km from its base, and not where it can disguise itself, but disguise is its most important property in fact

[Ivanushka Ivanov]

Everything is correct. Our fleet is sailing at a speed of 20 knots. Borei goes to 30. Naturally, the boat must move from the place of deployment into deep waters and ice at maximum speed. This is not to mention the point: cover equipment must match.
In total, we get: either Borey crawls along with his retinue, thereby giving the enemy additional time for deliberation and maneuver; or the retinue goes far ahead, and the mother comes out much later, and then it turns out a "tasty" window for the adversary - to get in between - by the way, this is a classic situation ...

[vl903]

if the boat goes at 30 knots, it can be shot at once. the sense from it is the same. but if she was able to slip away, they would immediately start looking for her by active methods. and they will find, we have few boats and they are all under control. the surface component does not allow the enemy to greyhound in the area. the boat has a chance

[Ivanushka Ivanov]

It's probably a little more complicated there. The exit itself cannot be classified as a devil. Even on escort vessels, not to mention some indirect moments. The speed, in theory, should decrease with immersion. But you need to go to the maximum and go as far as possible (to the ice). Even to prevent the underwater tails from sticking. In my opinion, this is obvious.

[vl903]

Quote: Ivanushka Ivanov

It's probably a little more complicated there. The exit itself cannot be classified as a devil. Even on escort vessels, not to mention some indirect factors. The speed, in theory, should decrease with immersion. But you need to go to the maximum and go as far as possible (to the ice). Even to prevent the underwater tails from sticking. In my opinion, this is obvious.

and there is no chain of fighter boats waiting for you on the ice?
you still need a moment of separation from the "tail" and then a quiet zone from an active search so far only under the ice. and we already have more than 300 boats. what are our chances?

[Ivanushka Ivanov]

Persecution mania is a good friend for a strategist, but everything should be in moderation and with calculation. They will not have enough boats to stand with such a chain. 30 knots for long distance, I don't know if they even have such killer boats. That is, with the right choice of direction, it is actually guaranteed that you can get away from the tails. If you stumble upon it. But we have comrades who look at such accidents and do not allow them. And there who knows.

[vl903]

Quote: Ivanushka Ivanov

Persecution mania is a good friend for a strategist, but everything should be in moderation and with calculation. They will not have enough boats to stand with such a chain. 30 knots for long distance, I don't know if they even have such killer boats. That is, with the right choice of direction, it is actually guaranteed that you can get away from the tails. If you stumble upon it. But we have comrades who look at such accidents and do not allow them. And there who knows.

that's exactly what we missed in 1941. We would have scattered everyone with one left))))

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: Ivanushka Ivanov

They will not have enough boats to stand with such a chain.

it is obvious that if the radius of the search for Borey by the Russian boats is 5 km, then the perimeter of the zone of control of our forces at the base of 1000 km is necessary, the Americans need to have at least 600 hunters. despite the fact that we must have Ash and the submarine to punch a hole in their order ... we need an anti-submarine aircraft, underwater tracking systems, in general, nuclear submarines have chances and high

[Alexey RA]

Quote: vladimir1155

it is clear that the means of searching for submarines is still more limited than the means of searching for surface ships that are banally visible from satellites ..
http://roe.ru/catalog/voenno-morskoy-flot/korabelnye-radioelektronnye-sistemy/mgk-400/

MGK-400
Modernized sonar complex for submarines MGK-400EM
(...)
Detection range:
Submarine with a noise level of 0,05 Pa / Hz 16 km
NK with noise 10 Pa / Hz 100 km

He-he-he ... so this is a GAK for "diesel" pr. 636 and 877.
Submarines in the ocean will look for completely different ships. For example, the carriers of the GPBA are SURTASS. USN just recently ordered a new series of these "underwater avacs".
Moreover, they will work with low-frequency illumination.

[Vladimir1155]

I did not find a single submarine on satellite maps ... but https://www.armscontrol.ru/subs/detection/rus/ng102594.htm it turns out Boreas are visible on ... 5 km in total! Well, realize the guaranteed detection ranges of underwater targets in a shallow sea up to 50-70 km, according to Klimov ... it's still not possible to find nuclear submarines in the ocean https://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2007-01-12/6_ushi.html

[vl903]

we need ships and aircraft and planes. balanced and sensible. a recent incident showed that the Americans can see our boats at depth. therefore, both coatings and hydro-streamlining are important, they complicate the task of the enemy. But to give up planes or ships, this is from a series of unnecessary tanks or manned helicopters or artillery in modern war - like missiles and drones will replace everything for us

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: vl903

submarines have long been visible from space

I haven't read such nonsense for a long time ... show a submarine outside the base on a google map .... and your favorite Kuzya is here why is he attached? he goes after the submarine and drives everyone away from it, right?

[vl903]

from space they look not at the boat, but behind its trail. not found - they will spot on the anti-submarine stationary line. will come off - they will find active buoys that the plane will throw. Kuzya drives away enemy planes and PLO ships from the square of the sea and helps to chase enemy boats

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: vl903

from space they look not at the boat but behind its trail

nonsense again! footprints on a shallow shelf, and even then under a heap of conditions, and we are here about the ocean and a depth of 100-200 meters + Kuzya? when and whom did he drive away? Proofs in the studio! .... what nonsense, but Kuzya is a weak figure in need of protection, defenseless ..... as Richelieu said https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGNjH2ni1vI

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: vl903

spotted at the anti-submarine stationary line

firstly, this is a line on the coastal shelf, and the boat does not have to go there, the missile range allows you to fire missiles not at the very coast of the enemy ... you contradict yourself, then they take the boat for escort right at the base, about you it turns out to be the enemy's coast do not come up? So, in the end, can we track American boats right at the exit from bases on stationary anti-submarine lines, or not?

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: vl903

Kuzya drives away enemy planes and PLO ships from the square of the sea and helps to chase enemy boats

what drives away with a whip or what? and how do you think he helps to drive enemy boats and to whom does he help? list the weapons required for this, and prove in general the combat stability of this trough in the ocean, it is itself a defenseless goal, whom will it protect?

[vl903]

Quote: vladimir1155

Quote: vl903

Kuzya drives away enemy planes and PLO ships from the square of the sea and helps to chase enemy boats

what drives away with a whip or what? and how do you think he helps to drive enemy boats and to whom does he help? list the weapons required for this, and prove in general the combat stability of this trough in the ocean, it is itself a defenseless goal, whom will it protect?

this is reasoning from a series of the tank's uselessness or its absolute power. competent application with support will give a plus. illiterate - losses and moral superiority of the enemy. So Kuzya in the right place with the support of surface, underwater (although we do not have the strength for this) will give us a plus planes and it seems helicopters at the point of launching missiles or on the route of submarines. if you send him alone, then yes, everyone will laugh

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: vl903

So Kuzya in the right place with the support of surface, underwater (although we do not have the strength for this) will give us a plus planes and it seems helicopters at the point of launching missiles or on the route of submarines. if you send him alone, then yes, everyone will laugh

thank you for an adequate understanding that Kuzya needs protection, and that it is not, and most likely will not be in the next 30 years, logical conclusion = Kuzya cannot accompany the boats (and they don’t need to unmask them), Total the best that can do Kuzya = to be an ASW coastal frigate, close to a nuclear submarine base but with enhanced protection and capabilities compared to a frigate .... isn't it too expensive? can make a couple of Gorshkovs instead of him and forget this incomprehensible ship, in terms of tasks and capabilities, sell it and make twenty frigates? or 50 TU160, or 10 Boreyev?

[vl903]

Quote: vladimir1155

Quote: vl903

So Kuzya in the right place with the support of surface, underwater (although we do not have the strength for this) will give us a plus planes and it seems helicopters at the point of launching missiles or on the route of submarines. if you send him alone, then yes, everyone will laugh

thank you for an adequate understanding that Kuzya needs protection, and that it is not, and most likely will not be in the next 30 years, logical conclusion = Kuzya cannot accompany the boats (and they don’t need to unmask them), Total the best that can do Kuzya = to be an ASW coastal frigate, close to a nuclear submarine base but with enhanced protection and capabilities compared to a frigate .... isn't it too expensive? can make a couple of Gorshkovs instead of him and forget this incomprehensible ship, in terms of tasks and capabilities, sell it and make twenty frigates? or 50 TU160, or 10 Boreyev?

Here we must consider that we really can afford it now. No hats.
Kuzya was a normal stage ship for the USSR. The transition from helicopter carriers to large nuclear aircraft carriers for a specific task - to strengthen our surface and submarine groupings. It was necessary to learn how to use such forces. to raise pilots. test planes. We are now like a monkey and glasses - if you give us at least an American nuclear aircraft carrier, we will screw it up. and vice versa, the Chinese would find use for Kuze with pleasure

[Vladimir1155]

Quote: vl903

We are now like a monkey and glasses - if you give us at least an American nuclear aircraft carrier, we will screw it up. and vice versa, the Chinese would find use for Kuze with pleasure

I agree, and by the way, this is the title of the article, now there are huge urgent defense tasks and they are more important than Kuzi, who turns out to be the fifth wheel in the cart

[Yaroslav Zhigulin]

They are designed as if on purpose so that they could not be overlooked even by a completely blinded anti-ship missile system.

The development of electronic warfare, the emergence of small UAVs for jammers and towed decoys, leave the anti-ship missiles with little chance of reaching the true target. Even if an infrared channel is also introduced into the GOS of the anti-ship missile system.

It's so hot it's cold

[Demadred]

What is written in the article, paragraph 5.1 (radar cross) is beyond good and evil. What is the author's wicked idea. Since everything is abundantly seasoned with terms and calculations, an unprepared, unintelligent reader inspires confidence. One thing pleases this will never be done, even if someone who reads and believes comes to real developers, they will laugh indulgently for a long time)). I'll try to explain on my fingers / empirically what's the matter. I will compare the "cross" (what the author suggests) with the original screen. It is proposed to reduce the area of ​​emitting PPMs, this leads to the fact that the radiation power will proportionally decrease (if each individual module emits a certain power, then if there are less of them, then the total power is less). A smaller area of ​​the radiation web in relation to the barrier leads to an expansion of the beam in the directional pattern, conventionally, radiation is scattered more in space without reaching the target. Ideally, they always strive to get the narrowest possible beam, the needle. Empirically, conventionally, this can be represented as how many times less the area of ​​the canvas is as much as the area of ​​the RCS of the desired target at the same range. But let's not forget that at this stage we lost the signal reflected from the target twice, which means that the RCS area at a given range increased even more: 1 less power per radiation, 2 wider directional pattern. All this was only about radiation, now let's analyze the signal reception. And at the reception of the signal reflected from the target we have the notorious cross. Again, we have radiation pattern losses (directivity, antenna gain). Imperially, this can be represented as a point at the barrier (well, or an ellipse in a plane, but the point will not be the point for difference channels either) and a line at the cross radar. Again, instead of a needle, we have some kind of screwdriver. You can put a dot in a notebook and draw a line next to it, by how much more ink it took, the directional diagram is as much worse and by the same number of times we again lost targets in the EPR, the longer the line is, the longer the outgrowth of the cesto-shaped radar in relation to the width of the barrier. As a result, we lose on radiation, on reception we lose, and this is if you do not take into account a bunch of other disadvantages, such as greater vulnerability to electronic warfare. We spread the radiation over the space and emitted less, and when receiving what was left of the signal, we poorly amplify the antenna, since the reception is with a wide beam. In general, such a radar would require targets with an EPR of thousands of square meters, and it would be too early for the adversaries to switch to stealth. And one more empirical method, if you look at literally all AFAR in the world, including the promising ones, they are all like twins, brothers in shape differ little from the barrier, only the height and width vary, if necessary.

[Eug]

I am not at all an expert on radiation patterns and radiation power drop, but two points were confused in the article - as far as I understand, there is a constant struggle to increase the number of PPMs in the AFAR to improve the characteristics of this (and here a reduction is proposed) and - really to the idea of ​​a "cross" no one in the world, except the author of the article, has thought of it? If so, then it turns out that no one is interested in reducing the cost of AFAR ... Could this be - I doubt, the bassoons think oh how great ...

[sprototype]

Quote: aagor

Already in the first semester, students are explained that the target detection range in a given frame of view is almost independent of the beam width of the emitting antenna.

Wow! "About how many wonderful discoveries the spirit of enlightenment is preparing for us" (c)
In what university is it, firstly, in the first semester, they study radar, and secondly, they say such nonsense?

Quote: aagor

The shape of the cross has been known for 70 years already. We have used Czech-made course glide radars. They had two independent antennas in the form of narrow elongated ellipses.

Yeah ... it was hard to illustrate the complete misunderstanding. Bravo!

[Admiral Hood]

>> Their air defense system is equipped with a bunch of single-channel target illumination radars and is 40 years behind the current level.

How many years is Aegis behind, which also has single-channel target illumination radars?

>> Corvette 20380 was initially equipped with an ugly air defense system with a "Furke" radar.

With "Furke" just everything is in order, the very idea of ​​putting a zonal air defense system on the corvette is strange. It looks like these are phantom pains for the Soviet superfleet.

>> Now they promise to deliver the Zaslon radar.

RLK "Zaslon" is an even more muddy solution, smelling of loot sawing.

[huntsman650]

They build for a long time and a little. Frigates, only one) passed, zrk, brought to mind? Have you solved the issue with the engines?

[LSI_72]

Afftor for soap. It is unclear for what audience the article was written. This is an unscientific magazine. And then only AUG, FLS. COOL. BRUTE. BRAGA. etc.

[Alexey RA]

Their air defense system is equipped with a bunch of single-channel target illumination radars and is 40 years behind the current level.

Seriously?
40 years ago is 1981. Back then, USN didn't even have a tick.

But when the first "Tika" was delivered to the Navy in 1983, it was equipped with ... four of the same Target illumination radar - AN / SPG-62.
And even 30 years ago, in 1991, when the first Burke was delivered to the fleet, there were three Target illumination radar - AN / SPG-62.

[Ryusei]

This is not the first article about this.

[Ryusei]

This is a mixture of common knowledge and delusions born of mushrooms and cocaine.

[agond]

It turns out that everything is expensive and difficult with radar, and it is not destiny to raise the antenna with an unmanned electric helicopter and power it by cable from the ship, and let it hang at an altitude of 100-150m even though the entire trip, broke down to raise a spare

[Viktor Sergeev]

Wow, you found a cool nonsense. Can you imagine the weight of the radar itself, plus the cable for feeding the helicopter and transmitting information? And what is the interface between the radar hanging in the sky and the system inside the ship? And finally, think about what it is for a helicopter to hang in one place, how difficult it is, especially over water, what is the energy consumption, what should be the power and weight of the electric motor and your electric helicopter will turn into a fool weighing at least Mi8, or with a weak radar with a range less than that of a shipborne one.

[Sergey Pavlov]

A similar idea, but instead of a helicopter, a semi-rigid airship filled with hydrogen / helium and electric motors with propellers. How do you like Viktor Sergeev?

[Viktor Sergeev]

Let's proceed from the axiom: Russia does not need to try to create a fleet capable of fighting the US fleet, this is, firstly, not possible purely economically, and secondly, in the event of a war, everything will be decided by the ICBM, not the fleet.
Russia needs a fleet capable of gouging any fleet of a non-nuclear power, which is in the sphere of Russia's attention, and aircraft carriers are simply superfluous here.
What's the point in comparing destroyers, corvettes, etc. USA and Russia? Any ship on both sides in the event of a collision in the World Cup (for example, with Turkey) will be sunk almost instantly, by us or by them, it does not matter, and it will be sunk by aviation and ground anti-ship missiles. The World Cup is a puddle, a trap for the fleet, like the Baltic. In the Mediterranean Sea, we are generally a target, but such that if you shoot at it, the shooter will burn in a nuclear flame and everyone knows it.
Conclusion: stop dreaming about the fight against AUG and spend a lot of money on creating a monster that nobody needs, let the United States tear the navel and spend hundreds of billions on maintaining its fleet, which hasn't done a single significant action recently, as a result, American money goes down the drain , which is what we need.

[agond]

Quote: Victor Sergeev

electric motor and your electric helicopter will turn into a fool weighing at least Mi8,

If you are confused by an electric helicopter (although a "network" helicopter is not a battery-powered one), you can use an ordinary one, but with a hose for supplying fuel from the ship, and then the antenna raised by 100-150m is a completely different thing, it will have more opportunities even with much less power and then a tethered helicopter should complement the ship's radar

[Viktor Sergeev]

One hour of helicopter operation costs several hundred thousand rubles. Do you want to ruin the country? Flying at low altitude in hovering mode for a helicopter is very difficult, fuel consumption is enormous, the life of the helicopter is also not too high, and the size of the helicopter (with a non-electric engine) increases and the Mi26 will be needed here (the radar needs a circular, very powerful, plus data processing system).

[agond]

Does a conventional radar station do without a data processing system?
about the size, the Irbis-type radar is not so big (diameter 90 cm), although you can / use smaller radars, we are not talking about plates like AWACS with the IL-76, and then an unmanned helicopter on a leash needs a very small one

[Viktor Sergeev]

Irbis is a directional radar, low power, a small number of tracked targets, a rather small angle of the scanned space, for a fighter that's the same, but not for a ship. The ship needs an all-round radar, it is either rotating under a helicopter, or four radars in all directions, or over wine, but the latter option will allow you to work at a maximum of 20 kilometers. All variants of utopia, just something similar to AWACS, can be 2 times less, which will reduce the range to at least 200 km with a large number of tracked targets.

[berserc]

Due to the huge number of abbreviations, it reads like Morse code. You know something, you think of something, you skip the rest, so as not to become like connoisseurs with a minute to think. As a result, part of the text is not about anything.

[serezhasoldatow]

Author ... nonsense is easier to carry than a log. What are you doing here? Ordering weapons and military equipment to the department !!!

[1Alexey]

Quote: serezhasoldatow

Author ... nonsense is easier to carry than a log.

I agree! Some kind of delusional article from a pro-Western defeatist (or simply from a representative of the 5th column).

It is even impossible to disassemble here - nonsense in every line!

[iv.victor]

The particulars discussed here are interesting, but, in my opinion, have nothing to do with our realities. To solve the main task of the authorities, and this is self-preservation, the fleet is not needed. We need Rosgvardia.