Military Review

"Find the submarine!"

75

True anti-submarine surface sailors have always understood

that without interaction with anti-submarine aviation they
only carriers of long-term detection equipment for submarines,
and the weapons were only suitable for self-defense.


The topic of the search for submarines (submarines) has already been considered by the author (an anti-submarine officer by education and upbringing, who has experience of successful contacts with foreign submarines (IPL)) in a number of articles, for example:

MIC "Submarines for Slaughter" and its full version - on the Courage website
"Sea battle in the offices"
“Timid hope. Does the domestic naval aviation have a future??
"Naval aviation - from a tailspin to revival"
Anti-submarine defense: ships against submarines. Weapons and tactics "
Anti-submarine defense: ships against submarines. Hydroacoustics".

The purpose of this article is to once again emphasize the key issues on the topic, to give a brief analysis of the situation (of course, taking into account the relevant regime restrictions), primarily from the angle of the state of the anti-submarine forces of the Navy and the necessary measures to bring them into a real combat-ready state. Moreover, the situation is very difficult for us, the lag behind modern foreign navies is very significant, and the situation requires "tough posing of questions" and emergency measures, and a certain "public response" here will be extremely useful and appropriate.

Passive detection


The main tactical property of submarines is stealth, previously - primarily in terms of noise (primary hydroacoustic field - PGAP). The steady tendency to reduce the noise level of submarines in the last generation brought them (at low-noise strokes) to the level of PGAP, close to the background values ​​for many seas and oceans:

Compiled on the basis of data from publications of a prominent Russian specialist V.N. Parkhomenko

It can be seen that the maximum PL noise falls on the low-frequency regions of the spectrum (which, in addition, is the most informative frequency range), for operation in which a significant aperture (size) of the antenna is required. This has become one of the key factors in the widespread use and application of GPBA (flexible extended towed antennas).


At the same time, the low-frequency region also accounts for the maximum background noise. This requires good processing to separate the useful signal from the target against the background of interference.

This factor was key, which formed a largely negative attitude towards GPBA in the Russian Navy - the first of them had poor processing and, in addition, made extremely high demands on the service personnel (despite the fact that often the GPBA subsystem in the crews was not provided even a three-shift watch). Nevertheless, with skillful use, even the early domestic GPBA "gave results" (alas, then radically different from the phenomenal success of Western GPBA in our submarines).

Good processing came around the turn of the 90s, but then literally on piece samples of GAS with GPBA (for example, "Centaur"). In the modern publications of Okeanpribor specialists, then (80s of the XX century) the low rates of implementation of effective digital processing are estimated with extreme regret (in fact, the modernization of the first GPBA on the scale of the Navy was practically disrupted).

This was superimposed on a sharp decrease in the noise level of new submarines at the end of the 80s - up to almost complete "licking" at low-noise moves of their characteristic discrete (I emphasize - practically, but not complete). Moreover, this problem concerned not only the USSR Navy, but also the United States and NATO Naval Forces (taking into account the significant reduction in the noise level of the new submarines of the USSR Navy).

This trend became clear back in the late 70s, already in the early 80s there were a number of extremely unpleasant for the US Navy "shocks" such as the RTM raid of Commander Dudko to Bangor with successful tracking of the newest, extremely quiet, Ohio SSBN.

Low-frequency active "backlight"


To ensure reliable detection of even the most low-noise submarines, in the mid-80s, the US Navy began active development of low-frequency target illumination, and even then - in real sea conditions and near the coast of the USSR.

They began to write openly about this at the turn of the 90s, but in fact, the work of such search tools began to be recorded by the USSR Navy since the mid-80s (this refers to the question of allegedly "reliable" "open American sources").

Change in the "visibility" (according to PGAP) of submarines of the USSR Navy and means of low-frequency active "illumination" (LFA) of the late 80s - early 90s:


For open publications on the topic of the 90s, a significant amount of technical details should be noted, both on the new GAS itself and on the results of their tests.


Environmentalists also played a role at this moment, actively monitoring the areas of anti-submarine exercises and publishing (then) quite interesting materials (including the spectra of the GAS signals).

However, already at the turn of the 2000s, there was a sharp tightening of the regime in the West. The published materials were not just "lost in details" - in many cases, direct falsifications (disinformation) began in them. The same happened with ecologists.

The first to take the "drill posture" were the American ones (in the materials of which, even atypical for the Americans - roughly, the "heavy hand" of the US regime organs is clearly read). European ecologists also (but a little later) stopped laying out spectra (despite the fact that they still sometimes fight in quite sea battles with the same Japanese whalers).

The incident also had quite technical reasons - if the first GAS LFA (especially SURFASS-LFA) really "thrashed" with hydroacoustic messages of very high power, after which the marine inhabitants began to be thrown onto land en masse (which caused just outrage: both the public and environmentalists ), then the improved LFA GAS solved the problem no longer due to "dull power", but due to processing (including a long, at the level of tens of minutes, accumulation of a useful signal), tactics and a very limited power of "illumination" (up to secretive).

The large power, which had previously killed sea creatures, turned out to be ineffective and practically unnecessary (despite the fact that for "emergency cases" such an opportunity for specialized hydroacoustic reconnaissance vessels of the US Navy remains).

The lesson is very instructive, including for some of our developers, who offer "especially energetic ways" to search for IPL. I emphasize that the author does not deny them, in some cases they are needed (for example, if it is necessary to “specifically explain” to the IPL that it should not be in a certain area, if there are no formal “legal grounds” for “tougher measures”: so to speak, “Create a very uncomfortable environment on board”). But this is already from the category of "extreme", and not everyday work, for which today there are quite effective and neat "tools" that do not attract undue attention.

Returning to the Western means of search, I should say a big thank you to the Central Research Institute of them. Krylova - now KGNTs, for a huge series of "Digests ..." of materials on the foreign special press since the beginning of the 90s. Let me emphasize - just for the series. Alas, after the defeat in 1992 of the magnificent Research Institute "Rumb", information work on foreign innovations in shipbuilding and means of war at sea "sank" very much, and in this situation, "Digests ..." helped in terms of monitoring and analyzing the situation. Systematic work on them made it possible to track the topic, its development from the very beginning of the 90s, and in a number of cases come to significantly different (and correct) inputs than some authors are trying to present to the trap.

In this regard, the termination of the release of "Digest ...", rumors about which are circulating (in connection with the reorganization and "optimization" of the KGNTs), would be "a mistake worse than a crime." Let me emphasize that there is simply no other analogue of such a publication.

Let's open, for example, one of the first issues of "Digest ..." with information from 1991 about RSAB LFA EAS. The most interesting thing is the lower limit of the frequency range of 300 Hz (that is, the MGK-400 SJC simply will not detect its active "illumination"). And this is most likely reliable information. The range of "hundreds of Hz" was very actively used by the US Navy and NATO for active "illumination", including with the RGAB. However, from the beginning of the 2000s, information about this began to be hidden and edited.


The use of low-frequency "illumination" (in the range of hundreds of Hz - units of KHz) ensured reliable detection of even completely noiseless submarines, there are technically no effective means of counteracting the "illumination" at frequencies of units of Hz, and the reflectivity of a submarine is determined practically only by its dimensions.

Multi-position, optimally distributed detection system


The widespread use of multi-position search tools (with mutual overlap of the "shadow" zones of some means by the "illumination" zones of others) made it possible to form extended "zones of continuous acoustic illumination" with guaranteed detection of submarines in them.

The Western anti-submarine defense system is an integrated system where aviation and ship search means are deeply integrated into each other, but it was for aviation that the “anti-submarine revolution” of the 90s of the last century gave the maximum increase in capabilities.

If we briefly systematize the stages (generations) of the development of aviation hydroacoustic means, we get the following table:

Note: CA - spectral analysis, VIZ - explosive sound source, GLU - hydrological conditions, CU - target designation, OGAS - descending hydroacoustic station (helicopters), KPDTS - heading and target movement parameters

For example, if, in the context of a modern deployed anti-submarine warfare system, a missile nuclear submarine fires a salvo of anti-ship missiles (CR), anti-submarine aircraft “rush” to the point of the salvo. Previously, the nuclear submarine could make a high-speed "throw" to "break the distance" with the launch point, followed by a transition to a low-noise mode of movement. At the same time, passive RGAB and old active (medium-frequency) enemy aircraft did not provide reliable "cover" and detection of our submarine, giving it a real chance of escape.

Now, a buoy-LFA will fly to the area of ​​the salvo point, which will "highlight" the most quiet submarine for the ring barrier (significantly increased radius).

In this situation, the probability of a successful evasion of our nuclear submarine after a salvo has sharply decreased.


Let me emphasize that the main trend in the development of western hydroacoustics is the integration of various GASs to ensure multi-position operation of various GASs in the area in a single "network" of search for submarines (for aviation and NDT in the United States, this has been implemented since the first modifications of the AN / SQQ-89 integrated anti-submarine system since the beginning 80s).

Modern shipborne GAS of the US Navy:


At the same time, the key, breakthrough solution in the US Navy was the mutual integration of shipborne (under-keel and towed GAS) and aircraft (buoys, OGAS, other means) search, implemented in the AN / SQQ-89 naval complex anti-submarine system (the first samples of which the US Navy received back in the early 80s).

Yes, on anti-submarine ships of the USSR Navy, the equipment for receiving from buoys was installed, but it was analog, and was not tied to complex signal processing in any way. The exchange of data with helicopters (Ka-27PL) was purely "formal", we did not carry out any transmission of "signal data".

Starting with the AN / SQQ-89A (V) 15 modification, the AN / SQR-19 TACTAS passive GPBA was replaced by the MFTA active-passive GPBA. At the same time, the plans of the US Navy provided for the armament of the MFTA not only for ships, but also for the remote-controlled semi-submersible vehicles RMV, however, for a number of reasons, these plans were thwarted, and this became one of the largest knockdowns of the LCS program (in which the anti-submarine concept of a high-speed, inconspicuous "server »For powerful information sensors such as RMV MFTA and a number of other robotic means).

It is extremely interesting to reduce the operating range of the US Navy's subkeys from 3,5 kHz to 1,5 kHz. The reasons for this are obvious - ensuring joint work with OGAS helicopters, GPBA and buoys.

A key condition for this is the provision of common frequency ranges for the GAS.


The main frequency ranges of multi-position operation of modern Western GAS are:

- 1–2 kHz (ensuring the functioning of almost all new GAS in it),

- hundreds of Hz (aircraft buoys, including LFA and GPBA ships).

Helicopters with new low-frequency (1–2 KHz) low-frequency (XNUMX–XNUMX KHz) GAS systems play an exceptional role in foreign multi-position lighting systems, which provide effective illumination for both RGAB and GAS ships.

Compactness as one of the conditions for the formation of an effective system


The efficiency of a multi-position distributed system depends primarily on the number of elements (sensors) and their optimal distribution. In this case, the requirements for individual elements of the system should be optimized at the level of not an individual element, but the entire search engine.

One of the logical requirements arising from this is a reasonable limitation of the mass and size characteristics of the new search means. The most vivid example of this for modern Western active-passive BUGAS has already been cited, but it is worth reminding ("decision-makers") about it again and again, BUGAS LFASS (close in characteristics to our "Minotaur") on anti-submarine boats Chinese project "Hainan" (in fact, our big hunter of Project 122 "Kronstadt", the development of which began in the years of the Great Patriotic War) of the Egyptian Navy!


In our country, a number of representatives of the so-called military "science" (the latter is in quotation marks) stubbornly prove (including to the leadership) that the creation of a modern anti-submarine ship with effective search means with a displacement of less than 1 tons is allegedly impossible (or even better - 000 , 2,5-3,5 thousand tons).

The creation of container modifications of BUGAS is aimed in the west to provide, if necessary, the mass equipping of ships and vessels with them, such as, for example, BUGAS ATAS-M from Atlas:


Of undoubted interest is the new look of such large-sized (previously) vehicles as towed by GAS specialized hydroacoustic reconnaissance vessels. The new BUGAS SURTASS-E has become very compact and suitable for placement on many ships. Visually from the Shtatsky channel (@shtatsky_ru):

US-flagged offshore vessel HOS Red Rock entered the Mediterranean Sea. The vessel is equipped with a modular containerized sonar reconnaissance system SURTASS-E, designed to search and track submarines.


Satellite image of a vessel with containers of the SURTASS-E system.

Moreover, the development of BUGAS raised the question of the possibility of equipping small displacement boats with them (including unmanned boats - BEC)!


Yes, not everything went easy on this path, one can recall the hard failures in the development of the anti-submarine modification of the semi-submerged vehicle RMV (with BUGAS MFTA) and BEC Draco (with LFR, OGAS and light GPBA), but today technical problems have already been resolved by a number of developers.

A logical question arises - what do we have?

BUGAS "Minotaur", despite some shortcomings, is objectively very good. On the pages of some specialized forums, certain claims were made against it, but here it is important to note that fundamentally everything is in order with the physics of the Minotaur, and a number of problematic issues just need to be fine-tuned (like any complex technical system).

At the same time, until the beginning of the 2010s, work was actively underway on new modifications of the "Minotaur", including light ones, with minimum weight and size characteristics. And this was not a theory, but a very specific practice, for example:


This is "Marine Collection", 2010. An almost forgotten development ...

Why forgotten?

But because the fleet it turned out to be "uninteresting", and the "development of budgetary funds" proceeded according to "monstrous options" such as a container BUGAS in the form factor of a 40-foot container, which cannot be put on anything other than modular "innovative hydrodynamic bastards" of project 22160 (for more details - "Innovative insanity" of patrol ships of project 22160 "):

"Find the submarine!"

There are simply no compact domestic BUGAS that are at all effective, brought to the "letter" level ...

Here it is necessary to note the direction of high-frequency GAS (in fact - OBO - "illumination of the near situation") for conditions of shallow depths, complex bottom topography and targets such as ultra-small submarines.


Formally, we have two of them - "Packet-A" (on frigates of Project 22350) and "Ariadne" (on patrol ships of Project 22160). But this is formal. In fact, the same frigate GAS "Packet-A", despite the fact that it sees well under certain conditions, has a number of very serious shortcomings (its Corvette modification, even more so), and "Ariadne" received a slashed cylindrical antenna, instead of a spherical GAS "Echo Search", on the basis of which it was developed. Unfortunately, the very promising domestic GAS OBO "Echopoisk" was actually buried by the developer himself.

Well, and a completely shameful episode we have - the Kalmar search and survey complex of the Rooks anti-sabotage boats, where a mediocre western multi-beam echo sounder (MLE) was installed as the main search tool. The topic of "Rook" and "Kalmar" will be discussed in detail in one of the upcoming articles (of course, taking into account the corresponding restrictions), but now it is worth noting even that MLE POC is bad, but the very fact that MLE is simply physically incapable of effectively solving tasks of GAS OBO (including search for PDSS) at the physical level.

Having in the industry a lot of promising developments that can become excellent GAS OBO, the Navy, in fact, does not have a single worthy GAS OBO! I repeat, what “is” is inferior even to the samples of the USSR developed in the 60s in terms of a number of relevant parameters.

Swan, crayfish and pike of domestic search aids


The main problem of our surface hydroacoustics is the lag in ideology - the introduction of new multi-position systems (which, in fact, was simply disrupted). One of the main obstacles for this is the diversity of domestic GASs.

Example: BUGAS "Minotaur" and OGAS "Sterlet" can operate in the same range (more precisely, the latter "could", if not for ...). However, there is simply no interest on the part of the Navy in the OGAS "Sterlyad".


A very large drawback of domestic shipborne and aviation GASs is the lack of modern low-frequency helicopter OGASs and, accordingly, the limited capabilities of low-frequency illumination. In practice, this means a significant (more than tenfold) limitation of the real detection ranges of submarines in our GAS in comparison with foreign counterparts.

Despite the fact that domestic defense industry organizations raised the issue of installing a low-frequency OGAS on the Ka-27M, the customer (Naval Aviation) made a "mistake worse than a crime", de facto keeping the old antenna of the high-frequency OGAS "Ros-V" the GUS itself).


As a result, we have:


- the multi-position work of BUGAS ships and OGAS helicopters (which became one of the cornerstones of the new anti-submarine warfare system in the US and NATO OVMS) is impossible (at the physical level);

- detection range of OGAS "Ros-VM" is small (and significantly inferior to all new foreign helicopter LF OGAS);

- “illumination” of the OGAS buoy field is impossible at the “physical level”;

- It is physically possible to "highlight" the BUGAS buoy fields, but it does not make sense, because with the processing of the buoys we have a "full Kema" (if it is censored, but in fact, on this topic, multi-storey boatswain's expressions are requested).

And the wildest thing in this situation is that the domestic hydroacoustics had and still has a very decent technical level. Yes, technically we are lagging behind somewhere (especially in terms of the element base), but not fundamentally and insignificantly. And we do not have any fundamental problems for our fleet to have modern and effective hydroacoustic weapons.

The catastrophic situation that really takes place in the Navy in this area has purely organizational reasons (first of all, the actions and inaction of the relevant officials). The main thing is that our naval aviation and shipbuilders were traveling in completely different, moreover, unbuckled wagons.

Non-acoustic and non-traditional search aids


For obvious reasons, the author does not consider it appropriate to analyze in detail (publicly) works on this topic. Therefore, briefly and most importantly.

First. It works. And they are working on this, for example, in China and the USA:


And what is characteristic, the Chinese drawing is very competent, showing that the laser beam does not have to penetrate to its depth to detect the submarine - because at a much shallower depth (where the laser beam completely penetrates), violations of layer-by-layer stratification (caused by the movement of the submarine) are quite recorded.

It seems that if something hot starts, the Chinese will more than once or twice surprise the US Navy very unpleasantly. At the same time, the US Navy itself is well aware of the topic, and their supposedly anti-mine helicopter laser system RAMICS has too obvious signs of an anti-submarine (laser search channel, and supercavitating cannon projectiles, in addition to old anchor mines, are also capable of hitting modern torpedoes).

From the book by N. Polmar KD Moore “Submarines of the Cold War. Design and construction of American and Soviet submarines "(2004, translated from English by B. F. Dronov - SPb JSC" SPMBM Malachite ", 2011):

Two experienced and knowledgeable Soviet naval officers in 1988 argued that satellite (space) reconnaissance fulfills multiple functions, including the detection of submarines, "and that radar on aircraft and satellites can be used to" detect the wave trail of submarines "(allegations Captain 1st Rank E. Semenov - "On the stability of submarines in an air threat" "Marine Collection" No. 1 of 1988 and the chief of reconnaissance of the Navy, Rear Admiral Yu. Kvyatkovsky - "Current state and prospects for the development of forces and assets for combat submarines" "Military Thought" No. 1 1988).
In 1993, the magazine of the Russian General Staff "Military Thought" (retired Major General M. A. Borshchev "On the military organization of the CIS" No. 3 1993) stated that "all-weather reconnaissance satellites and other types of space support will allow detect surface ships and submarines at any time of the day with a high probability and provide target designation to high-precision arms almost in real time. "


Head of the Department of Advanced Design, Central Research Institute named after V.I. Krylova Andrey Vasiliev recalls the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Navy for Shipbuilding and Armaments Admiral Fyodor Novoselov:

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

Well, that thundered from Lieutenant General Sokerin:


Add from the commander of the TAVKR "Kiev" Captain 1st Rank V. Zvada ("Marine Collection" No. 9 2021):

Combat service 1987 - the period of the most effective use of the aviation complex. From the deck of the ship, 757 aircraft sorties and 1 helicopter sorties were carried out ... For the first time in combat service in the Mediterranean Sea, an unconventional method of detecting a submarine was successfully used using the ship's navigation station and the Ka-27PL helicopter radar station. This was a very promising area of ​​anti-submarine warfare.

Second. The operation of these systems has a number of limitations (the author considers it inappropriate to discuss the details in a public format) and does not provide a reliable independent solution to the problem of detecting submarines and its destruction. However, the optimal complex application of non-acoustic and acoustic search means gives a cumulative effect (figuratively speaking, this is when "1 + 1" is equal not to two, but, say, five).

The third. During the Soviet era, we were significantly ahead of the West in this work. Alas, this is in the past... And one of the factors of deliberate suppression of work on this topic in our country was “why upset our submariners so much” (taking into account the simply colossal development of budgetary funds by our submarine with extremely serious and largely unresolved issues of its secrecy in modern conditions).

This raises a logical question - what about the submarines?

It turns out that they were surrounded by flags like wolves?

Yes, the flags were tightly surrounded, but it's too early to bury. The issue of the subject of submarine stealth in the conditions of modern submarine warfare will be considered separately in one of the upcoming articles (of course, taking into account all the relevant restrictions).

Hydrology is a key factor in the search and requirements for the search system and its elements


The zonal structure of the acoustic field (under most conditions), i.e., the presence of lighting and shadow zones, at the physical level excludes the solution of the problem of searching for submarines by bluntly increasing the power of a limited number of HAS.


And a particularly acute problem for anti-submarine warriors is the first shadow zone, in view of the fact that it is close and submarine, even old torpedoes can be fired from it covertly .


Figuratively speaking, shadow zones are holes in the anti-submarine defense fence, and these holes are normally calculated on the submarine and, accordingly, are used for evasion and attack.

Only a system of optimally distributed sensors (with mutual overlap of shadow zones by light zones) and servers can be effective.


With this in mind, the topic of effective consideration of environmental factors (sound propagation) is becoming one of the cornerstones of anti-submarine warfare. Alas, in the West.

The author had to deal with some simply magnificent works on this topic (according to what the enemy has). However, the main amazement was the way in which they were carried out - very well known for the fact that they were constantly heard by the customer (the Navy and the Ministry of Defense). With one small caveat: realizing that the data obtained as a result of this component of a large work, to put it mildly, question the declared final conclusions (on which the development of large billions of budget funds was actively pursued), the unpleasant information ... was simply removed (why upset the customer, he must be gratified), and it did not receive any widespread distribution (although it is extremely important for those who directly solve problems, especially the ship crew).

Yes, we have a certain groundwork and results. An example is the specialized software ONTOMAP (SPII RAS):


The problem is that the level of these works is simply disproportionate to those in the West. And this is in no way the "fault" of our developers, many of them are trying to get out of their skin in order to get 102% of the maximum possible from the extremely limited resources allocated to this topic. The problem is not in the banal "no money", just money (albeit modest) in the subject matter. The problem is in the general disorganization of our work, in the Brownian movement of various developers, and most importantly, in the absence of an often real orientation towards the result.


Unfortunately, this scheme is true for the West and very limited for us. For example, one of the recent concepts on the topic (for the most vigilant - not closed) completely lost consumer questions in its task - there are sensors and some models, scientific curiosity can be generously rewarded, but how and what to do with the result obtained for practical use was absent completely (although a sensible decision was obvious (since it was simple and effective) - checking the result on the consequences of the use of buoys on long hydroacoustic routes).

We still do real tactical calculations according to the old primitive methods (and it's good if the same CIUS operator is well prepared and can correct the CIUS results with the help of a notebook). New funds tend to remain ashore. Moreover, a number of bosses (usually from the rocketry) do not want to delve into and understand the topic of the distribution environment at all.


There is an interesting episode in the memoirs of the cap. 1st rank retired A. Soldatenkov:

Kuroyedov doubted the calculations of the probability of detecting submarines in the brigade commander's decision (it seemed to him underestimated), but it was I who calculated the probability. I had to give detailed explanations that, in a mobile search, the configuration of the lower boundary of the detection zone of a submarine by subkeeping hydroacoustics has almost no effect on the detection probability, and it can be calculated as an area. And when searching by a ship on a stop (as in the case considered for Project 1124), the lower boundary of the OGAS detection zone has a complex concentric configuration (depending on the hydrology in the search area).
And when the submarine moves at depths close to the lower boundary of the OGAS detection zone, the submarine first appears in the zone, then leaves it, because of which the probability has to be calculated as volumetric, which reduces the calculated value. Vladimir Ivanovich did not put on an intelligent face and say that he already knew about it. He honestly admitted that he had not thought about the complex shape of the lower boundary of the detection zones and approved the calculations.

Let me emphasize that these are not trifles, this is what is one of the cornerstones of anti-submarine warfare in the West!

Summing up


So, what is the essence of the problems of searching for IPL in the Russian Navy?

1. The absence of critically necessary GPBA on the most massive series of new domestic submarines indicates the presence of serious systemic problems with the submarine GAK in general (given their high overall technical level). Taking into account the specifics of the subject matter, a wide public discussion of this is excluded, but the situation with the GPBA clearly hints that there are problems not only for them.

2. Technically, our new BUGAS NKs are not bad (although they are somewhat outdated), but there are very few of them (in the Northern Fleet there are only two (on frigates of project 22350), in the Pacific - 4, on corvettes with extremely weak air defense), and most importantly - not provided multi-position work with aviation.

3. There are simply no small-sized BUGAS in the Navy. The industry's jobs have been abandoned.

4. Low-frequency OGAS - similar.

5. The new GAS OBO Navy have a number of serious shortcomings, in a number of characteristics they are worse than the "Arfa" and "Poligoma-AT" of the times of the USSR. Moreover, for a number of urgent tasks, even the corresponding paths of the ancient MGK-100 developed in the 60s are more effective.

6. Aviation is the best that exists and really works - "Novella" has a number of serious shortcomings and is outdated (modernization and new buoys are needed). The Ka-27M is practically incapable of fighting for its main purpose, it's just some kind of "complete ... Kema."

7. Extremely low level of interaction and coordination between seafarers and pilots.

8. Underestimation of the role and environmental factors in the Navy and Defense Ministry. There are organizational problems here, and sometimes just inadequate (at the level of Plyushkin) penny savings on some extremely effective but cheap search tools (including non-acoustic ones).

And can we do it according to the mind?

Of course, we read Soldatenkov about the best anti-submarine ship of the 2nd generation (for more details on the IPC of project 1124 - in one of the upcoming articles):

The relationship between the detection range and the frequency of hydroacoustic vibrations by that time was no longer in doubt: the lower the frequency, the greater the range. However, in this case, the dimensions of the antennas increased significantly. Thus, in the course of solving a problem with conflicting requirements: to create a low-frequency OGAS in the smallest possible dimensions, the MG-339 appeared. And already from the achieved weight and dimensions and energy consumption, they began to select a suitable carrier for it. The first proposal was to install OGAS on a towed barge ... Already at the stage of pre-draft design, this complex system turned out to be not very cheap. In general, in a non-self-propelled version, this structure would have dubious expediency and would only be a burden. And if you make the system self-propelled, then this is no ship. ... We came not just to an anti-submarine ship with OGAS, but to a high-speed ship with artillery, air defense systems, anti-submarine weapons, two hydroacoustic stations, an abundance of radar stations (four) ...
For the first time, active hydroacoustic means of detecting submarines on a surface ship had a range more than three times the range of anti-submarine torpedoes and one and a half times more than the detection range of surface targets of the navigation radar "Don"! In essence, it turned out what was intended: a surface carrier of long-acting means of detecting long-range submarines with self-defense weapons.

And the real results of work, including in cooperation with aviation:

At the new point, MPK-4 began to work with acoustics in an active mode, and we followed at a speed of 36 knots to our new point of lowering OGAS. The Quartet established contact with the submarine and, through the system of group attacks, guided us to the point of the next lowering of the OGAS. Two PLO IL-38 aircraft appeared on VHF communications, and we began to transfer contact with the IPL from the KPUG AVPUG (aviation anti-submarine strike group). The pilots set up several linear barriers from the RGAB (radio-hydroacoustic buoys), and after 20 minutes the commander of the anti-submarine air group reported on the receipt of contact.
Further, it was no longer our job, because the boat was still audible in the noise direction finding mode, but it had already gone far. AFL aircraft of the Pacific Fleet, after receiving contact from the PLO ships, monitored this American submarine for more than 12 hours ... With the forces of the KPUG from two ships, the time of contact with the IPL was 2 hours 17 minutes. And taking into account the efforts of aviation - almost fifteen hours ... True anti-submarine surface watermen always understood that without interaction with anti-submarine aviation, they were only carriers of long-term means of detecting submarines, and the weapons were only suitable for self-defense.

I will quote again:

... true anti-submarine surface watermen always understood that without interaction with anti-submarine aviation, they were only carriers of long-term means of detecting submarines, and the weapons were suitable only for self-defense.

Taking into account the frankly semi-swooning state of the Naval (anti-submarine) aviation today from the old hardened Soviet anti-submarine - it sounds!

It turns out that we can, when we want, and we work decisively! Yes, it was developed in the 60s! Moreover, there was no helicopter, but there was relatively effective interaction with aviation. A helicopter appeared on the newest 20380, but with its efficiency and PLO capabilities, there was a "complete Kema" (both on the helicopter and on the ship).

What prevents today from thinking, working, conducting tests in the same way as in the 60s?

Yes, at today's technical level there will be significantly different technical solutions than it was in the 60s for the 1124 project, but the issue is not in specific bolts and nuts, but in principle - the rate on the effective solution of problems and the decisive implementation of correct and working ideas and concepts!

Yes, a serious amount of research exercises and special tests are needed. Yes, taking them into account, it is necessary to revise the already ongoing ROC (for example, on Lampreys and Apatit).
Have to do! For events are developing towards a hot version, and with a high probability they will have to fight. Now we are absolutely not ready for this, and urgent measures are needed, including in the anti-submarine direction.
Author:
75 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nafanya from the sofa
    Nafanya from the sofa 17 November 2021 05: 39
    .
    Have to do! For events are developing towards a hot version, and with a high probability they will have to fight. Now we are absolutely not ready for this, and urgent measures are needed, including in the anti-submarine direction.

    If you read this, you will inevitably remember V.S. Vysotsky
    But to the machinations and ravings
    We have networks and ravings -
    And they won’t spoil our masses
    Evil machinations of enemies!
    These are their bad devils
    Muddy the water in the pond
    Churchill came up with it all
    In the eighteenth year!
    We are about explosions, about fires
    We wrote a TASS note ...
    But the orderlies rushed
    And they fixed us.
    1. Andrey Moskvin
      Andrey Moskvin 17 November 2021 09: 13
      +13
      Rather different ...

      If it is true,
      Well, at least by a third,
      One thing remains -
      Just lie down, die.
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 17 November 2021 13: 00
        +3
        Quote: Andrey Moskvin
        Rather different ...

        Rather the third!
        And the eternal battle
        Rest only in our dreams...
        And here's another:
        "There is no such thing for us on the seas,
        which we would not have fulfilled. "
  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 17 November 2021 06: 52
    +25
    The more you read articles of this kind, based on KNOWLEDGE of technical issues, and not on BELIEVE in what they say, the more you understand that we are in a banal ass ... People in a degrading morally changing world refuse to think and take the right steps to solve problems. They just live in the style of "oh well, there will be no war." , because after leaving the inner harbor of the base, the boats have actually already been sentenced in view of the ineffective anti-aircraft defense system.
    Bravo, M. Klimov.Article, as always, plus
    1. Doccor18
      Doccor18 17 November 2021 18: 00
      +7
      Quote: Rurikovich
      The more you read articles of this kind, based on KNOWLEDGE of technical issues ...

      the more amazed you are (to put it mildly) ...
      Torpedoes, counter-torpedoes, anti-mine systems, aircraft and helicopters PLO, GAS, interspecific interaction systems, air-based anti-ship missiles, etc. etc. - problems are everywhere (if not problems ...). How so? Well, they have business in the first place, the development of the budget, but if it breaks out, there will be no budget, no business, and they will definitely not be expected there ... This understanding does not seem to exist.
      1. bayard
        bayard 17 November 2021 23: 08
        +3
        Quote: Doccor18
        Well, they have business in the first place, the development of the budget, but if it breaks out, there will be no budget, no business, and they will definitely not be expected there ... This understanding does not seem to exist.

        It seems that this "misunderstanding" is paid very well, because what is happening cannot be called anything other than sabotage.
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 November 2021 18: 13
      .
      And it will not be because this is the end of the world, not only for us, but also for the enemy with a probability of 100% for both, and the PLO missions in the future will be able to take large NSA in the dimensions of the same Lira submarine armed with the NK GAS package, sonars, video cameras, devices for finding and eliminating mines and to everyone else - why take risks with people and why should the related functionality inflate money to spend huge when they are already in short supply, no matter what they say about cuts.
      "So we have that we have to say the words" our SSBNs at the pier know how to shoot ", because having left the inner harbor of the base, the boats are actually already sentenced in view of the ineffective anti-submarine warfare system." Why would SSBNs leave our territorial waters when they are accompanied by 17 submarines - in the Northern Fleet these are nuclear submarines and diesel submarines, and the strategists themselves have means of protection from attacks and defeat the same torpedoes and anti-torpedoes, the enemy's PLO aircraft cannot fly into the air defense zone will be like enemy ships in the anti-ship missile and surface-based zone of anti-ship missiles - in combat conditions, enemy boats will not poke in because non-suicides alone risk their lives with expensive equipment that will be needed like air in the midst of a global nuclear apocalypse.
      1. Very kind
        Very kind 22 November 2021 12: 23
        -1
        Quote: Vadim237
        "So we have that we have to say the words" our SSBNs at the pier know how to shoot ", because having left the inner harbor of the base, the boats are actually already sentenced in view of the ineffective anti-submarine warfare system." Why would SSBNs leave our territorial waters when they will be accompanied by 17 submarines - in the Northern Fleet these are nuclear submarines and diesel submarines, and the strategists themselves from attacks have means of protection and destruction, the same torpedoes and anti-torpedo aircraft

        fool
        YOU would at least have a snack sometimes lol
  3. Intruder
    Intruder 17 November 2021 07: 23
    +12
    To the author, Thank you so much for the coverage !!! good
    I added your article to my archive, like a number of others in recent years ... hi
  4. Roman Skomorokhov
    Roman Skomorokhov 17 November 2021 07: 37
    +10
    Very informative. Great job. As an unprepared person in this direction, it was very interesting to read.
  5. HefeDMB69
    HefeDMB69 17 November 2021 09: 08
    +12
    “Tell the Emperor that the British do not clean guns with bricks: even if they do not clean them here either, God save it, war, but they are not good for shooting,” Lefty said clearly, crossed himself and died. (with)
  6. Andrey Moskvin
    Andrey Moskvin 17 November 2021 09: 23
    +5
    Why do we have almost everything through the ass ?!
    1. ja-ja-vw
      ja-ja-vw 17 November 2021 12: 44
      +4
      Quote: Andrey Moskvin
      Why do we have almost everything through the ass ?!

      Well, not always "everything", there are also enlightenments.
      perhaps because we (or rather admirals) created a fleet not for war, but for peacetime.
      This is not the first time they have.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  7. gridasov
    gridasov 17 November 2021 09: 53
    +1
    From the article, the main problem emerges quite clearly - this is the lack of methods for working with big data. Even within the framework of specific terminology, the directions and reasons for the technological lag behind a potential adversary are clear. Therefore, I just want to say that they molded, then they blinded. But ! The process is still ongoing.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 17 November 2021 11: 02
      +10
      Quote: gridasov
      the main problem is clearly emerging - this is the lack of methods for working with big data.

      Yes, we have methods.
      We do not have a thumbs.
      The main problem clearly emerges from the article - the incompetence of decision-makers.

      Maybe they are good people, maybe even fighting heroes, but they are simply illiterate in difficult technical matters.
      And taking into account the so-called. "human factor", i.e. personal interest in this or that scenario, so the trouble is doubly terrible.
      1. gridasov
        gridasov 17 November 2021 11: 19
        +8
        You are absolutely right! Therefore, the issues of continuity in the change of generations, the timeliness of the transfer of powers are just as important as any private processes. And nevertheless, I think that, for example, one of the problems of creating aircraft carriers as floating bases with a large number of functions is, for the most part, the absence of methods and ways of creating a dense conglomeration of people. American achievements in this area are very high relative to others. I talk with people from all over the world and nowhere else is there such a disrespectful attitude towards a dialogue partner. Russian-language sites are a complete trash. Therefore, a special thank you
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 17 November 2021 13: 30
        +9
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        the main problem is clearly emerging - the incompetence of decision-makers.

        General Groves and Lavrenty Palych were not atomic physicists. However, with their iron will and organizational skills, they provided nuclear physicists with a solution to the problem of creating AB.
        Admiral Rikover and S.G. Gorshkov were the organizers, so the first created the US nuclear submarine fleet, and the second - the USSR oceanic fleet.
        And for all of them the main thing was - BUSINESS! (Nothing personal - just business!) And the modern "figures" - the development of the budget ...
        Unfortunately, we have PASSIONARIANS who are ready to ascend the scaffold for the sake of the triumph of the cause - only a few, and among them there are even fewer organizers.
        There have always been enough brilliant and gifted people in Russia, but passionate ORGANIZERS - with a gulkin's nose. Yes, and the leaders of large echelons of the highest echelon of power were also not always lucky. And when you were lucky, then things went uphill, the country was "ahead of the whole planet"!
        MIND - PURPOSE - WILL !!! Here are three sources, three ingredients for success with funds, performers, conditions ...
        IMHO.
  8. ramzay21
    ramzay21 17 November 2021 10: 21
    +7
    Great article! Thanks to the author for the work.
  9. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 17 November 2021 11: 40
    +6
    I read it with great pleasure. It's always a good idea to read a professional.
  10. Soldatov V.
    Soldatov V. 17 November 2021 11: 50
    -6
    Interesting article. It can be seen from it that there is no system in anti-submarine defense and there is no attack. In my opinion, these are organizational and technical measures. Organizational is intelligence work in the enemy's headquarters, data mining where, when the enemy boats are on duty, this is scanning any connections with the shore and decoding messages. Technical is the search for boats by anti-submarine ships and aircraft.
    The story of the flight of an American anti-submarine aircraft over the patrol area of ​​our boats and the detection of all of them, in my opinion, shows the presence of an enemy agent in our Navy headquarters. There are no miracles. I still allow half, but not everything. Now it is fashionable to talk about artificial intelligence, so let him practice on this case and identify a spy.
    For the development of PLO, it is necessary to announce competitions in the necessary areas in specialized organizations and simply specialists with a good prize fund soldier
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 17 November 2021 14: 18
      +3
      Quote: V.
      The story of the flight of an American anti-submarine aircraft over the patrol area of ​​our boats and the detection of all of them, in my opinion, shows the presence of an enemy agent in our Navy headquarters. There are no miracles. I still allow half, but not everything.

      Quite the opposite is true.
      No agent in any headquarters can physically know the current position of the boats at any given time. And the locator can.
      1. Soldatov V.
        Soldatov V. 17 November 2021 15: 37
        -3
        Once again I read the story of the lieutenant general and am even more convinced of betrayal or the presence of a spy in the Navy. All ships, whether military or civil, send radiograms at a certain time about their whereabouts and whether everything is in order or not on board. Maybe there was a story like the German Enigma. The dispersal of 10 boats in a water area of ​​at least 500 thousand sq / km and their detection by one plane with the release of one buoy for each boat for a little more than an hour with a broken course at a speed of 300-350 km / h is an anecdote. Either the Americans knew the code or someone knocked on them from our headquarters. soldier
        1. ramzay21
          ramzay21 17 November 2021 20: 52
          +4
          Once again I read the story of the lieutenant general and am even more convinced of betrayal or the presence of a spy in the Navy

          Spies are spies, but there is such a wonderful thing as intelligence. Radio technical reconnaissance easily identifies the crew of the submarine by the movement of mobile phones, where who lives and when they go to sea, so everyone who needs to know about the exit of any nuclear submarine in advance.
          The dispersal of 10 boats in a water area of ​​at least 500 thousand sq / km and their detection by one plane with the release of one buoy for each boat for a little more than an hour with a broken course at a speed of 300-350 km / h is an anecdote.

          American PLO Poseidon aircraft detects submarines by alternative methods, without ejecting buoys. Therefore, the Poseidons detect all submarines, regardless of the noise level, but the crews of the nuclear submarine do not even know about it.
          1. Soldatov V.
            Soldatov V. 18 November 2021 13: 10
            0
            If Poseidon finds all the boats, why are we sending submarines out to sea? Isn't it easier for nuclear-powered ships to shoot from the pier? Or we, at the right time at the "H" hour, destroy all the airbases with the Poseidons, together with England and other countries that have sheltered the Poseidons.
            Maybe now they don't drop buoys with the use of new technologies, or maybe then they covered these technologies with fake buoys.
            How to find out? Arrange a Poseidon disaster off our shores and pick up anti-submarine equipment and study it. It is not necessary to vykobluchivatsya at parades and work in the field and at sea. soldier
            1. AML
              AML 19 November 2021 21: 24
              0
              Previously, it was necessary to drill into the sea and wait for an hour, because the missile range was not enough to reach the enemy's territory. Today, if they press down, they will shoot back from the "pier" - the range will be enough.
    2. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 17 November 2021 14: 22
      0
      Quote: V.
      For the development of PLO, it is necessary to announce competitions in the necessary areas

      And who will determine the need for these areas and determine the winners?
      And all the same people who have now determined their uselessness.
  11. ja-ja-vw
    ja-ja-vw 17 November 2021 13: 24
    +1
    Yes ... Something like this is described in the fiction book Red Storm Rising by writer Tom Clancy.
    They easily and with impunity uncovered the location of our sites and destroyed them.
    And in terms of "invisibility" there is another factor.
    Physical size of a body = directly proportional to the size of the physical fields that this body generates.
    Compare
    project 949A "Antey" (multipurpose!)
    Surface displacement 14 t
    Underwater displacement 23 t
    The greatest length (on KVL) 154 m
    The width of the body naib. 18,2 m

    Average draft
    (on design waterline) 9,2 m
    vs Ohio class SSBN / SSGN
    Surface displacement 16 t
    Underwater displacement 18 t
    The greatest length (on KVL) 170,7 m
    The width of the body naib. 12,8 m

    Average draft
    (on design basis)
    vs vs (multipurpose) Los Angeles class
    Displacement above water 6082-6330 t
    Displacement underwater 6927-7177 t
    Length overall (at design waterline) 109,7 m
    The width of the body naib. 10,1 m

    Average draft (on design waterline) 9,4 m

    You don't need to be a fleet specialist to figure out what will be noisier.
    1. bayard
      bayard 17 November 2021 23: 17
      +4
      Well, you certainly found a comparison here - the Baton 949 project, which is a full-fledged SSGN and its task is to destroy the enemy's AUG and KUG with heavy anti-ship missiles. They would have taken our Pike-B or 945 project for comparison with the Losy, that would have been more correct.
      And one could remember "Lyra" too.
      1. ja-ja-vw
        ja-ja-vw 18 November 2021 19: 09
        -3
        Quote: bayard
        Well, you certainly found a comparison here - "Baton" 949 project

        and that and that multipurpose
        SSGN is the fantasies of our admirals and Gorshkov
        12 anti-ship missiles "Tomahawk", 6-8 anti-ship missiles "Harpoon", 16 torpedoes Mk 48 ADCAP will destroy both Aug and Kug and SSGN.
        "heavy" still need to reach the shooting range. And with such a touch, with such a flat potential enemy, there are few chances (this is my opinion)

        loaf compared with "full-weight"
        Quote: ja-ja-vw
        vs Ohio class SSBN / SSGN
        , which will destroy 24 * Trident II D5, or 154 * BGM-109 "Tomahawk" half a continent.
        Moreover, both the physical dimensions and the level of physical fields are smaller, and significantly
        Quote: bayard
        or 945 project, that would be more correct.

        than?
        40 torpedoes and missiles?
        Only RPK-7 "Wind"?
        1. bayard
          bayard 18 November 2021 20: 09
          +4
          Quote: ja-ja-vw
          and that and that multipurpose

          In the same way, you can call the nuclear-powered missile cruiser "Peter the Great" or "Nakhimov" ... frigates. After all, they also have anti-ship missiles, missiles, PLUR, KRBD, torpedoes, radio-technical weapons and helicopter / helicopters. repeat
          Or not ?
          Of course not .
          "Batons" is precisely the SSGN - a missile submarine cruiser. Of course, after completing the main task (the destruction of the AUG / KUG), having fired off with his anti-ship missiles, he can also start secondary tasks - hunting for enemy submarines and war on communications. but these are precisely the tasks of the second plan. They were created precisely as the IMPACT FORCE OF THE FLEET.
          They could accompany a group of surface ships under water, enhancing the striking power of the KUG, and could act independently. And they are by no means the first strike SSGNs of our Fleet, they also had predecessors.

          Quote: ja-ja-vw
          SSGN is the fantasies of our admirals and Gorshkov

          This is not a fantasy, but a doctrine implemented in hardware - an asymmetric response to US domination at sea. A very reasonable and effective doctrine for its time.
          And the fact that the United States by the 80s found the key to this doctrine does not speak of its uselessness - it provided us with 15 (approximately) years of military parity in the ocean. And the Union would not perish in 1991, after a few years parity would have been restored again - with the appearance in the USSR of new aircraft carriers with horizontal take-off and landing aircraft, as well as the rearmament of the aircraft wings of 4 already existing "Krechetov" on the Yak-141 and AWACS helicopters.
          The enemy's anti-submarine aviation would not behave carelessly and at ease, and our Fleet would receive air cover, air reconnaissance on its own in DM and OZ, with more developed strike forces of the Fleet as a whole.
          Quote: ja-ja-vw
          12 anti-ship missiles "Tomahawk", 6-8 anti-ship missiles "Harpoon", 16 torpedoes Mk 48 ADCAP will destroy both Aug and Kug and SSGN.

          Yes . Only both the Pike-B and the 945 Ave. had even more long-range missile launchers - the Granat - in their ammunition packs. With a range of almost 3 km with nuclear warheads. They were also armed with heavy torpedoes with very good range and characteristics in general - 500 torpedoes, of which 40 were heavy. And instead of part of 12 caliber 28 torpedoes, there could have been "Grenades".
          And "Waterfalls" (PLUR).
          Quote: ja-ja-vw
          loaf compared with "full-weight"
          Quote: ja-ja-vw
          vs Ohio class SSBN / SSGN

          Well, what can you do? We and "Sharks" \ "Typhoons" were even larger. The dimensions dictated the size and weight of the weaponry. As well as a two-hull lineup of our submarines.
          Quote: ja-ja-vw
          Quote: bayard
          or 945 project, that would be more correct.

          than?
          40 torpedoes and missiles?
          Only RPK-7 "Wind"?

          It is very strange to compare modern enemy MPSS and our 30-year-old MPSS ...
          They were VERY good for their time.
          And even now, with proper modernization.
          What prevents to equip them with "Caliber" of different types: KRBD, anti-ship missiles with a supersonic second stage, PLUR "Answer"? Upgrade their SACs to enable low-frequency illumination?
          Our submarines are still, like platforms, faster, dive deeper, and are capable of carrying more / no less weapons.
          And the SSGN is a separate class of submarines, created only by us. And for specific tasks in a global war at sea.
          1. ja-ja-vw
            ja-ja-vw 18 November 2021 20: 31
            -2
            Quote: bayard
            "Batons" is precisely the SSGN - a missile submarine cruiser.

            Cruiser is a class of combat surface ships, the rest is all nonsense.
            Remnants of the dashing 20s of the 20th century.
            SSGN-the same as NKPS, Vikzhedor. When there is nothing to say, we launch the tongue to get lost in 3 pines. TAVRK good
            Quote: bayard
            A very reasonable and effective doctrine for its time.

            this doctrine and the fleet itself (the gathering is not clear what and for what) melted for how much? in 5 years?
            Quote: bayard
            would

            "Die Geschichte kennt kein Wenn" / Karl Hampe
            Quote: bayard
            longer-range CR - "Pomegranate".

            KS-122 their CCCR could master a little less than 100 pieces, and NOT against ships
            Quote: bayard
            The dimensions dictated the size and weight of the weaponry. As well as a two-hull lineup of our submarines

            it is a fact.
            I didn't want to say anything but what I said
            Quote: ja-ja-vw
            Physical size of a body = directly proportional to the size of the physical fields that this body generates.
            Compare

            then. to say that we have achieved the same "silence" as the Americans is simply stupid and harmful
            Quote: bayard
            Very strange to compare

            didn’t I suggest something?
            Quote: bayard
            Would take for comparison with "Elks" our "Pike-B" or 945 project , it would be more correct.

            Didn't please again belay
            Quote: bayard
            And the SSGN is a separate class of submarines, created only by us.

            Yes I remember
            English schoolchild: "Industrial use of elephants", French - "Sexual life of elephants", German - "Elephants - predecessors of tanks", Soviet schoolchild - "USSR - the homeland of elephants."
            1. bayard
              bayard 18 November 2021 22: 03
              +8
              Quote: ja-ja-vw
              this doctrine and the fleet itself (the gathering is not clear what and for what) melted for how much? in 5 years?

              And in how many years will the American fleet disappear if it is deprived of funding? Including pay for officers and sailors? I think the delay of 6 months or more of beggarly salaries already then ... what do you think?
              Much has survived in our country precisely because of the perseverance, patience and faith in the future of Soviet-trained officers. When between shifts they taxied, guarded, worked as electricians to feed families, and for 6 - 9 months did not see money from their native MO ...
              By the 80s, the fleet finally began to become what it should have been - large series of the same type "Saryches" and 1155 were laid, aircraft carriers for normal aircraft, cruisers 1164 instead of continuing the series of monstrous 1144, large series 1135 ...
              The Pike-B, the Baton, and the Shark were actively built, which, despite their monstrous dimension, were a very serious argument.
              Anti-aircraft missile weapons were developed based on new principles (now these principles were saddled by the United States, and then in many respects we were ahead.
              The country and its Fleet were cut off on takeoff. Another 10 years of such rearmament, and we would have drawn full parity in the surface component.
              And in terms of secrecy, "Pike-B" and "Batons" were quite on the level. In any case, "Pike-B" "Elks" were not inferior in stealth then ... But they already had very advanced PLO aircraft and anti-submarine lines of underwater sonars.
              If we completed the construction of our surface component, including aircraft carriers, then in 10+ years we would have 10 aircraft carriers with fully sane air groups, 14 ocean-class missile cruisers and up to fifty destroyers and BODs, which after modernization (during medium repairs) would be all have been modernized into the carriers of "Garnets" and "Onyxes", and since the beginning of the 90s they would have been built in this form at once.
              One look of the updated 1155 was worth it - 64 cells for "Grenades" and "Onyxes", SAM "Calm" and "Dagger", 16 anti-ship missiles X-35, PLUR "Waterfall", with two helicopters and an improved "Polynomial" ...
              There was another version of weapons - 64 cells for "Grenades", 12 (2 x 6) anti-ship missiles "Onyx" in inclined launchers, "Calm", "Dagger", "Waterfall" and the rest.
              Even today, they would be superior to the Burkes of the last sub-series in terms of their strike capabilities, and would be inferior only in air defense.
              If any organism is killed, you cannot blame it for decaying in ... "5 years". Others would have done it faster.
              Quote: ja-ja-vw
              and the fleet itself (a bunch of it is not clear what and for what)

              The USSR had SLBMs in 1988 - 950 units.
              Against 600 in the United States.
              And the total number of submarines was significantly higher than that of the Americans. True, there were many old and outdated ones, the write-off of which was delayed.
              Nevertheless, the American fleet was always more powerful and much better balanced.
              And here not only the possibilities of the economy and different starting positions from the very beginning of the confrontation ... but also EXPERIENCE.
              And infrastructure all over the planet.
              So, "Having lost their head through their hair, they don't cry."
              The USSR had a chance, but the party elite chose to GIVE UP.
              Quote: ja-ja-vw
              KS-122 their CCCR could master a little less than 100 pieces, and NOT against ships

              Only in nuclear version - 2 - 4 pcs. on each Pike-B. But then its (missile) production was just developing. Separately, the same type of CD for ground complexes and similar ones for Aviation were built.
              But at that time we also had Onyx on its way, which was to become (and has become) a new generation anti-ship missile system.
              Quote: ja-ja-vw
              then. to say that we have achieved the same "silence" as the Americans is simply stupid and harmful

              In terms of noise, they were really almost equal then, but they were inferior in the quality of hydroacoustics and the capabilities of other anti-aircraft weapons. On the other hand, the enemy acted in a comprehensive manner, in full cooperation with all anti-aircraft weapons.
              in addition, they installed eavesdropping devices - "clutches) on the underwater communication cables of our fleets, and simply knew about the exits of our ships, submarines, operational plans, commands and orders ... These clutches were discovered later.
              And before that, our sailors were amazed that the Americans congratulated the captains of our ships on the assignment of the next rank before the order was communicated to the "culprit" himself.
              Quote: ja-ja-vw
              "The USSR is the homeland of elephants."

              And it is true !
              And also our elephants are the fastest.
              hi
              1. ja-ja-vw
                ja-ja-vw 19 November 2021 16: 19
                -1
                Quote: bayard
                What do you think ?

                but you can check.
                when to start?
                my opinion: it will hold out for 20 years, but they will not be able to start selling, money for the budget and for supporting the pants, but not through muddy schemes and into the pocket of admirals.
                What is actually visible even (!) In the civilian fleet: BMP and ChMP
                and the military
                According to CIMSEC data, as of 1990, the USSR navy consisted of 657 ships and submarines, while the modern Russian Navy had only 172 units.

                here on one scrap metal it was possible to keep personnel for 10 years
                Quote: bayard
                The country and its Fleet were cut off on takeoff. Another 10 years of such rearmament and we would have drawn full parity in the surface component

                navy and army cut and ruined the economy, just taking off

                Bolivar can not take two

                let alone 4x or 5x ...
                My opinion is that the epic with the take-off of the fleet ended on sailing ships, after the sinking of which in the Crimean War, they never recovered, the lag kept increasing and increasing

                Quote: bayard
                And in terms of secrecy, "Pike-B" and "Batons" were quite on the level. In any case, the Pike-B was not inferior to the Elk in secrecy.

                I don’t remember how Ryazantsev was filming how one of our submarines watched "AUG, KUG or whatever," secretly, for the cap of the hero (or something similar he received), and then he got it from an American with this AUG / KUG where he thickly hinted how he was led
                .
                Quote: bayard
                The USSR had SLBMs in 1988 - 950 units.
                Against 600 in the United States.

                recourse something in 2 years 350 units were missing

                and it doesn't matter how much it was.
                how many mbr in a salvo is important. and whether they will allow you to reach the launch point.
                Quote: bayard
                Only in nuclear version - 2 - 4 pcs.

                in total, less than 100 units were produced. 98 like.
                Quote: bayard
                And before that, our sailors were amazed that the Americans congratulated the captains of our ships on the assignment of the next rank before the order was communicated to the "culprit" himself.

                I wonder how many years have you congratulated? how long did it take?
                1. bayard
                  bayard 19 November 2021 20: 08
                  0
                  Quote: ja-ja-vw
                  but you can check.
                  when to start?

                  Today .
                  A joke.
                  Nearly .
                  Today, all the media are discussing reports that the US military does not have enough food rations - they are malnourished. lol I have already read and heard about it.
                  But the point was that it would be like in the Russian Federation since 1992, and especially in the mid-90s.

                  Quote: ja-ja-vw
                  my opinion: it will hold out for 20 years, but they will not be able to start selling, money for the budget and for supporting the pants, but not through muddy schemes and into the pocket of admirals.

                  Oops ... Are the American admirals any special altruists?
                  Will they cheat themselves in such a sale?
                  Or they will simply write off all the old ships to hell first, and then they will begin to get rid of those that they cannot contain.
                  And American sailors are not as ... unpretentious as our conscripts of the early 90s, who are somehow fed and dressed from old stocks.
                  In the United States, they serve for money, citizenship (migrants) and for the right to free college after the completion of the contract.
                  And if money is not paid, citizenship no longer tempts (due to bankruptcy and the disintegration of the state into its component parts, and no one will pay for training after service ... smile
                  WILL SERVE? bully
                  And they served with us. Both soldiers / sailors and officers.
                  And generals / admirals are different, we did not steal everything, many of them retired and left with a state-owned apartment. I knew such.
                  Quote: ja-ja-vw
                  According to CIMSEC data, as of 1990, the USSR navy consisted of 657 ships and submarines, while the modern Russian Navy had only 172 units.

                  The usual statement. And if you take into account that the USSR Navy had quite a LOT of old ships and submarines, which were not written off for the sake of ... maintaining the numerical strength, or something ... In general, there was so much old stuff that only from 1990 - 91. G. began to write off literally "rare" ships and submarines. Keeping such an amount of old junk on the balance sheet is an impermissible mistake and miscalculation, which is why there was a very considerable cost overrun and the distraction of personnel.
                  Quote: ja-ja-vw
                  here on one scrap metal it was possible to keep personnel for 10 years

                  I do not think that the United States broke up into states, left without funding and control, admirals, would take care of l / s. But about myself - for sure.
                  Quote: ja-ja-vw
                  navy and army cut and ruined the economy, just taking off

                  And what do we see on the chart?
                  That before Gorbachev, the economy of the USSR was growing, and after him collapsed?
                  I don't see any recessions on the graph - steady growth until the early 70s and an approximate stabilization until 1991. And this is a table of the ratio of the economies of the USA and the Republic of Ingushetia / USSR. It's just not clear what was considered after 1991?
                  RF?
                  So it was already a stub of the Union - the former RSFSR.
                  So the table is very incorrect and not indicative. It shows the rise and fall of the ratio of the Russian economy in relation to the United States. It is more convenient and reasonable to compare in absolute terms.
                  Quote: ja-ja-vw
                  My opinion is that the epic with the take-off of the fleet ended on sailing ships, after the sinking of which in the Crimean War, they never recovered, the lag kept increasing and increasing

                  And again we look at the period of the USSR, where the backlog was increasing, especially after 1945, when the USSR was finally able to normally engage in the construction of the fleet. The gap was just steadily narrowing, and in 10 years it would have completely disappeared.
                  Quote: ja-ja-vw
                  I don’t remember how Ryazantsev was filming how one of our submarines watched "AUG, KUG or whatever," secretly, for the cap of the hero (or something similar he received), and then he got it from an American with this AUG / KUG where he thickly hinted how he was led

                  Well, what's wrong with that? And with them holes happened. Although they had PLO better, especially in aviation and bottom sonars.
                  Quote: ja-ja-vw
                  something in 2 years 350 units were missing

                  It depends on what you count. If we count SLBMs, then everything is correct - there were 950 of them on our submarines.
                  But if we count the ICBMs on SSBNs, then the figure will be different, because then we had SSBNs of the first / second generations, with SLBMs with a range of 2000 km. inclusive. And they served off the American coast.
                  Yes, they were heard and led. But this was not particularly hidden, because the decision to return these SSBNs on duty was a response to the deployment of American RSDs in Europe.
                  In fact, their watch was demonstrative.
                  And one of them was encountered by the American MAPL (Los) during Gorbachev's visit to the United States.
                  Together with them, there were 950 SLBMs on our submarines.
                  And this is also potential, whatever one may say - there were warheads of a megaton class.
                  Quote: ja-ja-vw
                  and it doesn't matter how much it was.
                  how many mbr in a salvo is important. and whether they will allow you to reach the launch point.

                  ICBM?
                  The USSR had 1750 land-based ICBMs.
                  The USA has 1050.
                  And if we had almost a third of heavy ICBMs, then the United States had only 50 pieces.
                  And if you take into account that the latest versions of the Stilettos with 6 warheads can not be called light, then the power ratio is even greater.
                  And so they (ground-based ICBMs) would have flown EVERYTHING.
                  But we had noticeably fewer strategic bombers - 150 versus 600 for the United States.
                  But rockets are RELIABLE.
                  Quote: ja-ja-vw
                  in total, less than 100 units were produced. 98 like.

                  Well, why were there more of them then?
                  Where to put if they are ONLY nuclear-powered?
                  On the submarine through the TA? But there are more than 2 - 4 of them on MAPLs and SSGNs and it is not necessary.
                  And the UVP for them was only being developed at that time and there was not a single ship with the UKSK yet.
                  But it was planned!
                  All "Sarychi" (in the course of medium repairs) and 1155 were to undergo modernization.
                  On the "Sarychi" instead of the stern tower, 4 UKSKs for 32 "Granat" missile launchers and 12 "Onyx" anti-ship missiles in inclined launchers were supposed to stand.
                  On 1155 new buildings, 8 UKSK were supposed to stand on 64 CRBD "Granat" + 12 anti-ship missiles "Onyx".
                  On the already built 1155 - instead of the 2nd tower, they could put a slightly smaller number of UKSK, but not less than 4 - 6. And of course Onyx.
                  And to all destroyers, cruisers and BODs - "Waterfalls".
                  But all this had to start from the beginning of the 90s.
                  Quote: ja-ja-vw
                  I wonder how many years have you congratulated? how long did it take?

                  They looked for leaks at the headquarters, but the couplings on the cables themselves were found a little later.
                  1. ja-ja-vw
                    ja-ja-vw 19 November 2021 21: 05
                    -3
                    Quote: bayard
                    Today all the media are discussing

                    our media? well, not surprised. good
                    I just talked to America: I hired 2 Russian boys from the Kuban, got to the USA through Mexico. We arrived there not by Aeroflot, but through third countries.
                    If you read our media, then for $ 15 years they have to give in the face. Directly reminded
                    It's nothing that in Europe they give one fifty kopeck for our ruble - it will be worse if they start giving in the face for our ruble

                    / Mikhail Evgrafovich Saltykov-Shchedrin
                    Quote: bayard
                    Are the American admirals any special altruists?

                    rephrase
                    not every thief grows, but every thief (practically edros)
                    In Russia, in 2016–2017, five generals were convicted of corruption. This statement was made by the chief military prosecutor Valery Petrov.

                    not admirals, but not the essence
                    maybe there is something American similar, if not for a year, even for 10
                    Quote: bayard
                    I don't see any downturns on the chart

                    d (Y) / d (X) = a line is specially drawn there.
                    Quote: bayard
                    It is more convenient and reasonable to compare in absolute terms.

                    well translate. it's not difficult
                    Quote: bayard
                    But if we count the ICBMs on SSBNs, then the figure will be different, because then we had SSBNs of the first / second generations, with SLBMs with a range of 2000 km.

                    belay
                    ICBM there is such a word INTERCONTINENTAL
                    A 2000 km-RSD, although ballistic, it's stupid to call it intercontinental
                    Quote: bayard
                    ICBM?

                    I had submarines.
                    Quote: bayard
                    Well, why were there more of them then?
                    Where to put if they are ONLY nuclear-powered?

                    there was not enough money and technological capabilities
                    high-explosive including (caliber confirmation of this)
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 19 November 2021 23: 26
                      +1
                      Quote: ja-ja-vw
                      our media? well, not surprised.

                      But then they refer to the American, and to the official statement of the Pentagon.
                      The fact is that the salaries of the military have not been raised for a long time, and food prices in the United States have recently increased significantly ... So the military is not eating up. And their family members. Mostly junior ranks of the first terms of service and married.
                      request The usual prose of life.
                      Quote: ja-ja-vw
                      If you read our media, then for $ 15 years they have to give in the face. Directly reminded

                      Well this is the golden dream of some experts from the 00s.
                      There is a Russian proverb to this: "While the fat one dries, the thin one dies."
                      But it dries up. repeat
                      Quote: ja-ja-vw
                      there a line is specially drawn.

                      Yes, indeed, since the beginning of the 70s, the growth of the USSR in the economy has slowed down, and in relation to the United States, it has leveled off. And more military spending in this also played a role. But these were expenses not only for the Navy. The same air defense cost almost 1/3 of the military budget, and it was from the end of the 60s that a powerful qualitative breakthrough was made.
                      And quantitative ... It was not for nothing that the air defense was allocated to a separate branch of the military, with its own aviation. The country is huge, the creation of a continuous radar field was worth something. Moreover, in the border area - at low altitudes. And this is exclusively by ground means.
                      And what about the Strategic Missile Forces, which during this period grew to their colossal size?
                      What was the cost of creating stationary positional areas with silos in remote, sparsely populated areas?
                      The thing is that by the mid-80s, both the air defense and the Strategic Missile Forces were completely rebuilt and deployed on a sufficient and exhaustive scale. Further it would only be to maintain their technical condition and combat readiness. Only the Navy continued to grow physically. And the Air Force was updated.
                      By the end of the 80s, the "Voevoda" and "Well done" were adopted ... 160s, you could safely take some respite and deal with the infrastructure and welfare of the population ...
                      But "new people" came to the Kremlin.
                      And they sold everything.
                      Quote: ja-ja-vw
                      ICBM there is such a word INTERCONTINENTAL
                      A 2000 km-RSD, although ballistic, it's stupid to call it intercontinental

                      The fact is that just at that time - from 1988 to 1990, the Navy decommissioned the first generation SSBNs, including the first series of Vanei-Washington missiles - with the very missiles (2000 km.), And with them the very first , on which there were generally 3 ballistic missiles with a range of almost 500 km. ... oddly enough, they were still in service before that. So, since 1990, only SSBNs with intercontinental missiles have remained in service.
                      Quote: ja-ja-vw
                      there was not enough money and technological capabilities
                      high-explosive including (caliber confirmation of this)

                      Yes, what does the money have to do with it. Marine "Grenades" then simply had nothing to put on massively - they were launched only through the TA submarines of the latest release. Ships - carriers of such KRBDs were just being developed and prepared for bookmarks. So where was the hurry.
                      Exactly the same land-based "Grenades" just began to enter the troops, but immediately the production was curtailed, according to the INF Treaty in Europe.
                      So where to drive them if there is nothing to bet on?
                      So they were preparing a modification for a vertical launch (then there were only inclined launchers), including from a conventional warhead, for mass production in the 90s, with staging on new and modernized ships.
                      They returned to this topic much later and under a different name - "Caliber".
                      1. ja-ja-vw
                        ja-ja-vw 20 November 2021 11: 08
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        But then they refer to the American, and to the official statement of the Pentagon.

                        link prize to the studio
                        Quote: bayard
                        So the military is not eating it. And their family members

                        belay
                        Quote: bayard
                        By the end of the 80s, the "Voevoda" and "Well done" were adopted ... The Tu-160 went into production and the construction of the Tu-22M3 continued (g

                        a rich country has 1 ICBM on its balance sheet, 1 ICBM for submarines, 1 bomb (B61), yes with aviation: they love it a lot, 1 destroyer
                        I mean the type.
                        Poor country with the Gorshkovs: 3-5 ICBMs, 2-4 ICBMs submarines, x- bombs, x-
                        Quote: bayard
                        The fact is that just during that period - from 1988 to 1990.

                        I do not understand why this clarification to me?
                        Quote: bayard
                        Yes, what does the money have to do with it.

                        money, money from the RC-55 "Relief" is the same
                        Quote: bayard
                        So where to drive them if there is nothing to bet on?

                        Well, such a fleet was created by Gorshkov.
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        perhaps because we (or rather admirals) created a fleet not for war, but for peacetime.
                        This is not the first time they have.
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 20 November 2021 12: 46
                        0
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        link prize to the studio

                        Find it yourself, it's kind of like a report by the Chief of Staff to the US Congress - 28% of US military personnel experience problems with a shortage of funds for food, mainly servicemen of the first term of service and family members.
                        I think this report should serve as a justification for increasing the salaries of military personnel, because there are problems with recruiting ... so we have to call on homosexuals, who thus improve their personal lives. smile
                        And they are also malnourished. lol
                        And this is NOT ACCEPTABLE! stop bully
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw

                        a rich country has 1 ICBM on its balance sheet, 1 ICBM for submarines, 1 bomb (B61), yes with aviation: they love it a lot, 1 destroyer
                        I mean the type.

                        You are looking at the present day again, and in the previous post I spoke about the USSR Armed Forces in recent years. Comparison, of course.
                        And the fact that everything is so neglected in the United States is to blame for the "victory in the Cold War", when there was no enemy left on the planet, it was not foreseen in the future and the rolls were relaxed. Now they woke up.
                        The modern Russian Federation is still armed with Soviet-built ICBMs. They are serviceable, meet all modern requirements, the residual resource allows. So why write them off? Will serve and will be written off, incl. in launch vehicles for satellites.
                        After all, the United States has "Minutemans" in service since the beginning of the 70s. Sand is already pouring out of them. And a new one - to replace, they still can't invent.
                        Everyone has their own problems.
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        1 ICBM for submarines

                        And the Russian Federation has two - "Bulava" on the new "Borey" and "Sineva \ Liner" (the latter is just a modification of the first) on old SSBNs, which will be decommissioned within 10 years. And there will be only one "Bulava". request Everything is fine . Moreover, "Sineva" in nothing "Trailent-2" is not inferior, but superior in range.
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        1 bomb (B61)

                        Well, there is nothing to be proud of at all. The bomb is good, but how many of them are left ... it's all the bulkheads of the old ones - from the Cold War.
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        with aviation yes: they love it a lot

                        B-52, B-1B, B-2 (from strategists).
                        The Russian Federation has Tu-95, Tu-160.
                        Tu-22M3 can be ignored, it is not strategic, and the long-range is only for Europe and the MRA.
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        1 destroyer
                        I mean the type.

                        "Zamvolt" why have you forgotten?
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        Poor country with the Gorshkovs: 3-5 ICBMs, 2-4 ICBMs submarines, x- bombs, x-

                        The USSR was not a poor country.
                        And if about the modern Russian Federation, then
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        3-5 ICBMs

                        Soon the Stilettos and Voyevods will be decommissioned, and Topol, Topol-M, Yarsy can generally be considered modifications of one missile - like Minuteman (1-2-3).
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        2-4 ICBM submarines

                        Two, and both are very good. But soon she will be alone.
                        Everything is fine - there is a rearmament work process, when the old samples reach their end of life, and only new ones of the same type remain. request
                        It would be a sin to complain about Russia's missile armament.
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        x- bombs

                        And why is it bad to have enough tools for every occasion?
                        After all, cases are different. smile
                        YABCh for "Onyx" is one thing.
                        And for "Caliber", "Granit", "Dagger" or "Iskander" - it is completely different.
                        In the Russian Federation (and earlier in the USSR), they prefer to hit targets with missiles - this is more reliable. But they did not disdain aerial bombs either. And when needed, they will not disdain. For there are them.
                        And is that bad?
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        Quote: bayard
                        The fact is that just during that period - from 1988 to 1990.

                        I do not understand why this clarification to me?

                        To the understanding that all ballistic missiles on submarines were considered part of the SLBMs of the USSR, and they were different. By the 90th year, all the old ones were written off, only ICBMs remained.
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        money, money from the RC-55 "Relief" is the same

                        What money? The Tu-95 was modernized to fit the relief, the Tu-160 was built (no more than 5 units per year), and the release of CD for them was coordinated with the release of carriers. Moreover, not all carriers were built specifically for this load.
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        Quote: bayard
                        So where to drive them if there is nothing to bet on?

                        Well, such a fleet was created by Gorshkov.

                        What's wrong with Gorshkov's fleet?
                        They would write off old ships, complete new series, modernize those already built - according to plan. And everything would fall into place. Why produce CR with nuclear warheads for inclined launchers and TA, if it was planned to put CR in the UKSK, on ​​which they were working. How we worked on the version of the "Pomegranate" for vertical launch - both from surface ships and from underwater carriers.
                        After all, it was then that the first "Ash" was laid (later it was simply completed), and we were going to rebuild a number of SSBNs into carriers of these CDs.
                        Everything was logical, it just had to be realized in the 90s.
                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        perhaps because we (or rather admirals) created a fleet not for war, but for peacetime.
                        This is not the first time they have.

                        FOR PEACE TIME ??
                        Soviet Navy ??
                        This Fleet was built for an all-out nuclear war.
                        And of course it was a very serious deterrent.
                        In peacetime.
                        And the fact that traitors were brought into power, who surrendered the Country at the peak of its power ... not the fault of the Fleet.
                        And not the fault of the Army.
                        The fault lies entirely with the political leadership.
                      3. ja-ja-vw
                        ja-ja-vw 20 November 2021 13: 07
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        Find it yourself, it's kind of like a report

                        unproductive. I did not use any "Russian media, no links" -as evidence. Why should I look to confirm someone's speculation?
                        No link: it means nightingale droppings (well, that's how I regard it)
                        Quote: bayard
                        And malnourished too

                        Yesterday I learned that two guys (from the Kuban) got a job with an American for $ 28 / hour (they don't even have passports, they were taken away at the Mexican border)
                        Quote: bayard
                        So why write them off?

                        and I'm talking about the USSR.
                        and why was 7 MBR riveted?
                        Quote: bayard
                        The USSR was not a poor country.

                        I graduated from school under Brezhnev, and in 1989 I visited Yugoslavia - no need to hang up noodles for me.
                        Quote: bayard
                        To the understanding that all ballistic missiles on submarines were considered part of the SLBMs of the USSR

                        Once again: WHY DO I WANT THIS?

                        Quote: ja-ja-vw
                        ICBM there is such a word INTERCONTINENTAL
                        A 2000 km-RSD, although ballistic, it's stupid to call it intercontinental

                        Quote: bayard
                        But if count ICBMs on SSBNs , then the figure will be different, because then we had SSBNs of the first / second generations, with SLBMs with a range of 2000 km.


                        Quote: bayard
                        What money?

                        almost 4,5 million of those dollars apiece
                        Quote: bayard
                        What's wrong with Gorshkov's fleet?

                        a fleet for admirals, but not for war / defense.
                        -which cannot reach the operational space (2 necks)
                        -which has nowhere to service
                        -which did not even have enough piers
                        -pl with a terrible accident rate in peacetime
                        -which literally fucked up the entire north of the country
                        -which turned out to be of no use to anyone
                        yes, etc.
                        In a nuclear mess: there he would have disappeared.
                        To realize the frivolity of puffing:
                        production of American ships in WW2 compared to how much the Japanese + Germans sank.
                        Without any stress for the economy, no night shifts, no hunger for the population, etc.
                        Quote: bayard
                        The fault lies entirely with the political leadership.

                        and so our whole history
                      4. bayard
                        bayard 20 November 2021 15: 29
                        0
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] There is no link: it means nightingale droppings (well, I think so) [/ quote]
                        Why are you so not tolerant about blood brothers? Think of Mowgli and the Law of the Jungle.
                        And although Skobeev is from that same "litter", they devoted about half an hour to this topic yesterday, with a demonstration of the recording of a speaker before the Congress and written documents.
                        Well, what's wrong with that? That the military are starving? repeat
                        But the negroes are fed up. bully
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] yesterday I found out that two guys (from the Kuban) for 28 $ / hour got a job with an American (they don't even have passports, they were taken away at the Mexican border) [/ quote]
                        Well, what can you do? request Maybe someone was robbed and running errands ...
                        Maybe they really are malnourished laughing that they rushed through Mexico.
                        But now there is an opportunity to enlist and prove in practice that the US Army feeds satisfyingly. yes
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] and I'm talking about the USSR.
                        and why was it necessary to rivet 7 MBR? [/ quote]
                        And there was someone, where and FOR WHAT.
                        Well, we loved rockets. smile
                        It's easier to fly to America with them than by air ... repeat
                        So they riveted.
                        And they were in no hurry to write off the previous ones until the resource was exhausted - CARE.
                        UR-100 - the answer to 1000 "Minutemans" - a massive light rocket.
                        R-36 and its modifications - the ultimate caliber of 25 MT or 20 MT in orbital design ... or 10 - 14 warheads with a capacity of 1 - 0,75 MT.
                        And P-12, P-14 were in no hurry to write off - they took care of them for Europe. 5 Mt. - this is serious . Only under Gorbach did they begin to write off.
                        And "Well done" who are always ready - for mobile deployment on trains and underground (on mobile rail platforms).
                        And "Pioneers" - which are examples to everyone. Universal soldiers. After the placement of the Pershing and Tomahawks in Europe, Cuba and Nicaragua, they would look very organic ... it's a pity that the authorities were in power.
                        This is our property, we can only be proud of it.
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] I graduated from school under Brezhnev, and in 1989 I visited Yugoslavia - no need to hang up noodles for me. [/ quote]
                        Well, that means about the same age. Did you have a rest in the pionEr camp?
                        How much did the parents pay for the ticket?
                        UNIONS ... yes
                        In the Union, too, it was different:
                        - Volga region \ Trans-Volga region - Oooh ... longing.
                        - The Baltics, Transcaucasia ... and the Ukrainian SSR is beauty. fellow
                        And how could it have become different (in general, it could, but without Khrushch and with the continuation of the previous policy), if immediately after WWII it was necessary for the United States, the British Empire (then not yet disintegrated) and chasing half of Europe in military potential.
                        Otherwise, ANYTHING. request
                        Otherwise - WAR.
                        With a bad outcome for us.
                        Worse, "dear Leonid Ilyich" undermined his health by the mid-70s ... and he was not enough for a breakthrough in the standard of living of the population. True, the social network was built and developed, but ... no one revised the salary tariff scales for decades. And if food and essential goods did not change in price, then the rest ... request every new type of refrigerator, TV, etc. was already more expensive (because they were becoming more complicated and more perfect), but the salary remained the same.
                        And the "elite" were already thinking about something else - they WAIT.
                        And she waited.
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] Quote: bayard
                        To the understanding that all ballistic missiles on submarines were considered part of the SLBMs of the USSR

                        once again: why do i need this? [/ quote]
                        Yes, so that the numbers converge.
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] Quote: bayard
                        What money?

                        almost 4,5 million of those dollars apiece [/ quote]
                        I haven’t heard about this figure, but if suddenly it’s like that, then these are the first samples and it didn’t stop anyone - mass production for surface and submarine ships was being prepared.
                        They switched to the UVP for the Kyrgyz Republic and the US missile defense system before us, in the 90s all this would have been with us. Moreover, in a larger assortment and with a longer range.
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] fleet for admirals, but not for war / defense. [/ quote]
                        It is for the war. Only our Fleet was built "from below", proceeding from the available possibilities.
                        And from GEOGRAPHY.
                        Therefore, the emphasis was first placed on the submarine, and only after reaching the possibilities - the surface fleet of MD and OZ.
                        And first, the tasks of defending their own sea lines were solved. Therefore, there were so many BMZ ships, incl. anti-submarine orientation.
                        And then, on top of this already built, they began to build cruisers and destroyers for the Ocean.
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] -which cannot go to the operational space (2 necks) [/ quote]
                        Yes, we also have continuous "necks" at the Pacific Fleet - GEOGRAPHY. And from her, too, I had to dance.
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] -which has nowhere to serve
                        -which even the piers were not enough [/ quote]
                        yes Yes, this was due to the lack of experience, when the ship repair facilities and naval base did not have time to develop following the rapidly growing numerical strength of the Fleet, and from the bungling of the political leadership, which did not notice these nuances ... As it is now. request
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] -pl with a terrible accident rate in peacetime [/ quote]
                        This is also the cost of rapid growth and inadequate service levels in the databases.
                        But in fact, there were enough accidents in the USA, but they coped with it faster, because the starting capabilities were different.
                        And we have different climatic conditions. All our naval base units are freezing, which complicates operation and maintenance. Also - GEOGRAPHY.
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] -which literally fucked up the entire north of the country [/ quote]
                        Yes, and the Americans fouled up, with more partners - how many times they lost nuclear weapons, the "Ice Worm" in Greenland cost what ... But now in the North they have put things in order - they cleaned up the ancestors.
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] -which turned out to be of no use to anyone [/ quote]
                        And what is this nonsense again?
                        Who is "nobody" if the country that built the Fleet, the Army, and the entire USSR and half of the world was gone overnight?
                        Well, a man DIED (killed), and his property was plundered.
                        And the one who robbed needed a lot. And much more that was ... was NECESSARY so that it would not be.
                        And it was gone.
                        For someone so it was VERY necessary.
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] To realize the frivolity of puffing:
                        production of American ships in WW2 compared to how much the Japanese + Germans sank. [/ quote]
                        For 6 years of the war, the volume of general (aggregate) shipbuilding - 6 million tons of VI.
                        Of these, warships - 1,5 million tons. IN AND .
                        This is more than the entire world for the entire previous period.
                        It is all the more honor that we have almost reached parity with SUCH enemy by the end of the 80s. And if the USSR had lived for another 10-15 years, it would have been as if they had reached parity.
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] Without any stress for the economy, without night shifts, without hunger for the population, etc. [/ quote]
                        And so both MV - the United States earned while the rest were at war.
                        I know all these numbers and indicators.
                        And the conditions in 1945 were VERY different. Some shook their economies during the war and rebuilt the Cyclopean fleet, despite the fact that almost all countries in the world owed them by the end of the war.
                        ... And the country through which the war swept to the Volga and the Caucasus. Round trip .
                        With destroyed cities and villages and lost 28 million people (of which 20 million were civilians).
                        And looking at SUCH starting positions in the confrontation, you still turn your tongue to grimace, "that's how it should be"? Pointing to the example of the United States?
                        They have never fought on their territory.
                        They EARNED in wars.
                        [quote = ja-ja-vw] Quote: bayard
                        The fault lies entirely with the political leadership.
                      5. ja-ja-vw
                        ja-ja-vw 20 November 2021 16: 37
                        -3
                        not readable - dazzling in the eyes
                2. Stepan S
                  Stepan S 22 November 2021 11: 30
                  0
                  According to CIMSEC data, as of 1990, the USSR navy numbered 657

                  I was serving at that time. I will say as a living witness that half, a good half of the ships from this number were practically completely incapable of combat. There are three divisions of ships in the brigade, and two are just buckets, which are dangerous to move away from the pier. Even simply writing off this scrap metal, the number of ships in the fleet would be halved by three times. In conversations, it turned out that few people served, so that there were no serious incidents on the ship, such as fires, or water flowing into the hulls for various reasons. So the number of ships is not yet an indicator, if you do not take into account their condition and combat readiness.
                  1. ja-ja-vw
                    ja-ja-vw 22 November 2021 19: 49
                    +2
                    Quote: Stepan S
                    So the number of ships is not yet an indicator, if you do not take into account their condition and combat readiness.

                    Quote: ja-ja-vw
                    a fleet for admirals, but not for war / defense.
                    -which cannot reach the operational space (2 necks)
                    -which has nowhere to service
                    -which did not even have enough piers
                    -pl with a terrible accident rate in peacetime
                    -which literally fucked up the entire north of the country
                    -which turned out to be of no use to anyone
                    yes, etc.
                    In a nuclear mess: there he would have disappeared.

                    Quote: ja-ja-vw
                    navy and army cut and ruined the economy, just taking off
              2. Serge-667
                Serge-667 24 November 2021 23: 56
                0
                ... KS-122 their CCCR could master a little less than 100 pieces, and NOT against ships ...

                Only in nuclear version - 2 - 4 pcs. on each Pike-B.


                You mixed everything up here.
                There was the S-10 Granat complex - with long-range strategic cruise missiles. These are 667AT eight launchers for 32 3M-10 missiles. (There were only three boats)
                And there is an anti-ship missile 3M-54 with a range ten times shorter, it is natural.
                The USSR "mastered 100 missiles" 3M-10 because there were so many carriers. In fact, this is nonsense, because it is nonsense. At the time when the S-10 was adopted, work on unification into a single universal complex of the CD was already underway.
                The notorious Caliber, which now stands on the Pike, later came out of the "Alpha" and KS-122.
                1. bayard
                  bayard 25 November 2021 01: 01
                  0
                  Quote: Serge-667
                  In fact, this is nonsense, because it is nonsense. At the time when the S-10 was adopted, work on unification into a single universal complex of the CD was already underway.
                  The notorious Caliber, which now stands on the Pike, later came out of the "Alpha" and KS-122.

                  Well, I wrote about it below. Launching through the TA was not quite what was needed, and the appearance of the UVP on US ships indicated the correct way to modernize the new type of CD.
                  Quote: Serge-667
                  These are 667AT eight launchers for 32 3M-10 missiles.

                  But I didn’t know the specifics of the Pear project before, although the name of the project itself came across ... That’s how it’s “raskoryachishsya” without having a vertical launch CD. Indeed, it was possible to shove from 667 to 64 CR of vertical launch into the launch cups of Project 80A, and without such a radical restructuring.
                  Even today, after the completion of the Borei-A series, it is highly desirable to lay another 6 - 8 Borei-K SSGNs - 3 - 4 units each for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet. There will definitely be more sense from them than from "Ash", and at the price they will come out twice as cheap.
                  1. Serge-667
                    Serge-667 25 November 2021 01: 04
                    0
                    That's a funny joke of humor. We were the first to make a boat with long-range strategic cruise missiles. The USA, remaking Ohio under "axes", in fact, is copying us, only more thoroughly.
                    And "Ash" for me is generally a mystery of the century. As for me, the fleet is sorely lacking target boats.
                    They tried to shove everything they could into Ash. It turned out to be a goblin. But not 949 and not Pike.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 25 November 2021 01: 41
                      +1
                      Quote: Serge-667
                      That's a funny joke of humor. We were the first to make a boat with long-range strategic cruise missiles.

                      Here, after all, is zeal - a submarine with a sufficient residual resource not for scrap, but for a "new position". It is a pity that at that time the vertical launch was not yet worked out and it was necessary to cut the hull and make a new compartment. And they lost in the number of missiles from this ... But HOW MANY of such carriers could later be obtained from the decommissioned SSBNs if the Union had not collapsed ... And the Onyxes could later be crammed into them ...
                      Quote: Serge-667
                      And "Ash" for me is generally a mystery of the century. As for me, the fleet is sorely lacking target boats.

                      Even in the late Soviet Union, the Ash was designed as a new type of SSGN - the Onyx carrier, to replace and in addition to Batons. And they began to finish building after 2000 ... And without having a finished MAPL project, they decided to build "Ash" under the MAPL legend ... Although this is a classic and very expensive SSGN.
                      As a result, MAPLs in the Navy were left on the fingers of one hand, and even those old, Soviet-built ones.
                      There was hope for "Husky" - a liquid-metal primary circuit, compact, almost a reincarnation of the famous "Lyra" ... But "Husky" was changed to "Like" - an even more terrible monster than "Ash".
                      If these perverts do not take their minds, and do not take care of an inexpensive, moderate VI MAPL - submarines to fight against enemy submarines, work on communications, hunt for enemy SSBNs and guard their SSBNs, then after 10 - 15 (maximum) MAPLs in our Fleet disappear as a class.
                      And "Ash" by definition will never be in sufficient quantity, because they are MONSTALLY expensive.
                      Like TWO Boreas!
                      Today we would have dried "Pike-B", but at the price of 60 - 70% of "Borey" - that would have worked. And so that a series of 20 - 24 pieces.
                      That would be the case - MAPL at the cost of a corvette and in sufficient quantities.
                      But they even buy diesel-electric submarines in the most ... "cut" in terms of combat capabilities, form. These "Warsaw" ... just some kind of shame.
                      But with what pomp they are handed over to the Fleet ...
                      As if on purpose everything is for EVIL, for HARM, for DAMAGE to the defense capability.
                      1. Serge-667
                        Serge-667 25 November 2021 02: 41
                        +1
                        As a result, MAPLs in the Navy were left on the fingers of one hand, and even those old, Soviet-built ones.

                        Well, it seems that the K-328 is now being finalized according to some super-duper modernized project, and then several more boats for KSF and KTOF are being assembled. The only thing is that at such a rate they will become obsolete even before they enter the repair.
                        If these perverts do not take their minds, and do not attend to an inexpensive, moderate VI MAPL - submarine to fight the enemy submarine ...

                        Absolutely agree. 636 is generally not suitable for these purposes, as well as 677.
                        In fact, at the moment we have nothing really promising. Dead-end branches everywhere.
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 25 November 2021 03: 05
                        +1
                        Quote: Serge-667
                        Well, it seems, the K-328 is now being finalized according to some kind of super-duper modernized project,

                        It was too late to attend to the modernization of 971 Ave., if only 5 years earlier, today several of them would have come out of the modernization in service, and so ... many of those in the queue for repairs simply will not wait. And how long will they serve after modernization? 10 - 15 years old? And the modernization at half the cost of a new one will become ... What did you think about when the boats rotted without repair, and the ship repair enterprises were out of work?
                        We need a new MAPL project - inexpensive, in VI 4000 - 5000 tons, with torpedo weapons (and missile launchers from TA) and mass.
                        But to this day (!) The unfinished MAPL in Komsomolsk-on-Amur is on the slipway!
                        The new, unfinished, fly did not sit ... This is HOW?
                        And just nobody needs it - the extraordinary lightness of being among the modern "elite". They do not need the result, but the process of mastering.
                        And personal participation in this development.
                        And if an official is paid for sabotage, then he will make every effort to ensure that there is no RESULT.
                        He's not.
    2. Very kind
      Very kind 22 November 2021 12: 25
      0
      Quote: ja-ja-vw
      You don't need to be a fleet specialist to figure out what will be noisier.

      boy, "just for reference" - acoustic protection requires VOLUMES
      and the quietest of our 3 generation nuclear submarines at the turn of the 90s is 941
  12. demiurg
    demiurg 17 November 2021 14: 07
    +2
    All the same, how nice it is to read Klimov / Timokhin until he begins to carry the burning truth.
  13. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 17 November 2021 14: 27
    -2
    It is necessary to develop the theme of tiltrotor-drones in Russia, they can be based on ships of the Navy instead of helicopters and used as an anti-submarine system. You can also use tiltrotor drones as AWACS planes, for example, 400 such tiltrotor drones can be allocated to the S-2 regiment, which will greatly expand the radio horizon and increase situational awareness.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 November 2021 18: 20
      -3
      Already the topic of NPA is being developed, and over-the-horizon radars are being created to cover the surface and air conditions in the Arctic Ocean, the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the Pacific Ocean.
  14. Dmitry Chelyabinsk
    Dmitry Chelyabinsk 17 November 2021 14: 48
    +1
    Many thanks to the author for the article.
    After reading, the following question arises: how will the situation develop in the under-ice space of the Arctic, where surface ships and NATO aircraft do not operate?
    Is low-frequency illumination possible there by the forces of the IPL-hunters themselves? Or special IPL "hydroacoustic reconnaissance"?
    A wish and a request to the author - to highlight the issue of modern anti-submarine warfare in the under-ice space (not in terms of the use of torpedoes and SGPD, this issue has already been covered by you, but in terms of ensuring the secrecy of nuclear submarines), because our SSBNs can be used there.
    At one time, E. Myasnikov in his 1994 work "Are Russian missile-carrying submarines at sea Vulnerable? Fundamental limitations of passive acoustics" pointed to the zone of floating ice in the Arctic (between free water and pack ice) as the most favorable for SSBN patrolling ...
    1. Very kind
      Very kind 22 November 2021 12: 28
      -1
      Quote: Dmitry Chelyabinsk
      After reading, the following question arises: how will the situation develop in the under-ice space of the Arctic, where surface ships and NATO aircraft do not operate?

      You can "shine" both from water (SGAR) and from PLA (active-passive GPBA - they have had it since the late 80s)
      + deployable FOSS - they have been practicing this business since the late 80s
  15. CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz 17 November 2021 14: 55
    +1
    Qualitative article by a professional. The author is plus.
  16. tone
    tone 17 November 2021 15: 29
    +1
    Nobody will improve anything. On the contrary, an order will now follow to destroy the remnants.
  17. gregor6549
    gregor6549 17 November 2021 16: 02
    +2
    It's nice, damn it, to read the articles of Klimov and Timokhin, although I do not exclude that they are one and the same person. I am not a specialist in PLO and hydroacoustics, but even my modest knowledge is enough to evaluate the author's knowledge, the logic in presenting the material and consistency in defending my views.
    I will only note a couple of points. The author of the article mentioned NPO Okeanpribor, and somewhere in the mid-80s I happened to visit NPO Okeanpribor in Leningrad and one of its factories Vodtranspribor (by the way, it was this NPO that at one time developed and built a whole family of sonar systems, including for the famous nuclear submarine "Shark").
    At that time, our NPO Agat of the Ministry of Radio Industry was also not one of the last in terms of the development and manufacture of automation systems for military and civilian automated control systems. But the level of technology that I saw then at NPO Okeanpribor, to be honest, pleasantly amazed.
    For example, in those days, multilayer printed circuit boards began to be widely used in radio electronics, which made it possible to provide a high density of mounting microcircuits and other electronic components on them and thereby improve the weight and size characteristics of electronic equipment, which is very important for submarines. But at the same time, multilayer boards had a number of disadvantages, including a large number of standard sizes of these boards, low maintainability, and a fairly decent level of interference created by printed conductors of multilayers.
    So, Vodtranspribor specialists have developed a technology in which many standard sizes of boards were replaced by about a dozen rather large boards with double-sided printing, on which electronic components were automatically installed and which were automatically connected by a thin insulated wire along the shortest path. Those. the board was covered with a web of thin wires, which, if necessary, modifications or changes to the device could be simply cut off and replaced with others. This, in turn, made it possible to get rid of the interference. wires did not run in parallel, and also to give developers and manufacturers of electronic equipment the opportunity to increase the level of automation of the development and manufacture of this equipment. In general, the level of automation of many production processes at the enterprise was very high.
    I no longer mention digital signal processing, which was already quite developed in those years. But this is a separate topic and about it some other time.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. zenion
    zenion 17 November 2021 16: 44
    -4
    Translated from the Caucasian. Once the swan began to feel the pike with cancer, he wanted to drag the cart away. But the tarantass did not succumb to bad company. Translation of Krylov's fable into Caucasian and from Caucasian into Russian.
  20. Sailor
    Sailor 17 November 2021 21: 03
    +2
    I'm not even surprised that in the Navy and in the Armed Forces as a whole, bravado alone, God forbid, real military operations, then the fleet will not go beyond ter. Water, my heart is aching and the third Tsushima is waiting for us. I'm waiting for the cons of Mr. Shapkokids!
    1. agond
      agond 17 November 2021 22: 14
      -1
      Quote: ja-ja-vw
      And in terms of "invisibility" there is another factor.
      Physical size of a body = directly proportional to the size of the physical fields that this body generates.

      Yes, unfortunately, our submarines are too big and, their physical fields directly depend on the underwater displacement (all other things being equal, comparison), and the displacement grows in cubic dependence on the linear dimensions. This is known to everyone from school.
      According to low-frequency illumination, long waves propagate well in the ocean and are well reflected from large objects, and from small objects they are reflected poorly or not at all, and the Kotelnikov theorem tells us the same
      "if the maximum frequency in the signal is equal to or greater than half of the sampling frequency (spectrum aliasing), then there is no way to restore the signal from discrete to analog without distortion," in simple terms, this means that if the wavelength of the "backlight" in meters is greater than the length the boat's hull is twice or more, then problems arise with the separation of the reflected signal, or the smaller the boat, the more difficult it is to detect it with a long-wave location, when the size of the boat is reduced to a certain value, the long-wave location becomes ineffective, that is, a boat 60 m long is an order of magnitude more difficult to "highlight "and find out than a boat with a length of 180m.
      1. Very kind
        Very kind 22 November 2021 12: 25
        -2
        Quote: agond
        , their physical fields directly depend on the underwater displacement (all other conditions being equal)

        no
        moreover - often (for PHAP) the dependence is inverse
    2. zenion
      zenion 22 November 2021 18: 24
      0
      SeamanChF. Don't be scared! It is Hushima, not Husnami, who is waiting for them!
      1. Sailor
        Sailor 23 November 2021 11: 23
        0
        I was not mistaken because of the scared, I feel sorry for the HOLD!
  21. K298rtm
    K298rtm 18 November 2021 10: 03
    0
    [What prevents today from thinking, working, conducting tests in the same way as in the 60s?]
    1. Thanks to the author for the topical article.
    2. In the 60-80s, business was the main thing, but now it is based on money.
    3. And changes in the right direction will begin when others come to control (who have lamented and comprehended, for example, the "Tao of Sea War").
    1. timokhin-aa
      18 November 2021 13: 40
      +1
      who have lamented and comprehended, for example, "Tao of the Sea War"


      Have you read it too? I wonder where this text came from.
      1. K298rtm
        K298rtm 18 November 2021 19: 30
        0
        By some indirect evidence, I assumed that the authors:
        1st option - A. Timokhin and M. Klimov (possibly someone else).
        Option 2 - big fans and supporters of your and Maxim's views on the development of the Navy.
        1. Very kind
          Very kind 22 November 2021 12: 26
          -2
          Quote: K298rtm
          By some indirect evidence, I assumed that the authors:
          1st option - A. Timokhin and M. Klimov (possibly someone else).

          the joke is that I only read it "diagonally" - it was just that there was no time to read it normally
  22. K298rtm
    K298rtm 18 November 2021 10: 13
    0
    [one of the recent concepts on the topic (for the especially vigilant - not closed) completely lost consumer questions in its assignment]
    1. Conscious (in my humble opinion) ignorance of consumers allowed us to make the topic open (and this is the possibility of publishing everywhere and getting finances).
    2. Interested consumers themselves must use the results obtained (let's say - carefully) for applied purposes.
    3. The most important thing is to have someone to evaluate the results obtained and the possibility of their application in the right place.
    1. timokhin-aa
      18 November 2021 12: 05
      +1
      MK:
      1. No, the solution was very simple - "P" on BUYAH (extended routes) - they are unclassified, see a bunch of reports on the tests of civilian scientists with the same RSL-16M
      2. If there is a joint with the buoys - it is done under the acc. iron is easy. And if there is NO "joint" AT ALL? It is stupid that it would NOT be - just so that it would not be possible to control (verify) the results of this "scientific fornication"?
      3. Without practice, it will be "appreciated", so they WILL APPRECIATE :( (I'm not talking about the RESULT, but BABLO)
  23. Radikal
    Radikal 18 November 2021 13: 47
    -3
    Quote: Doccor18
    Quote: Rurikovich
    The more you read articles of this kind, based on KNOWLEDGE of technical issues ...

    the more amazed you are (to put it mildly) ...
    Torpedoes, counter-torpedoes, anti-mine systems, aircraft and helicopters PLO, GAS, interspecific interaction systems, air-based anti-ship missiles, etc. etc. - problems are everywhere (if not problems ...). How so? Well, they have business in the first place, the development of the budget, but if it breaks out, there will be no budget, no business, and they will definitely not be expected there ... This understanding does not seem to exist.

    Apparently "they" know what will not "burst out" .... However, just in case, gold from the country is periodically stored over the hill, just like Nicholas II before the revolution ... sad
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 18 November 2021 16: 23
      -1
      Russia sells gold abroad at market prices - part of the mined, the rest for internal needs goes to gold reserves to industrial banks and so on.
  24. Radikal
    Radikal 18 November 2021 17: 33
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    Russia sells gold abroad at market prices - part of the mined, the rest for internal needs goes to gold reserves to industrial banks and so on.

    Yah?! Is this information from Gokhran? lol sad
  25. svoit
    svoit 18 November 2021 19: 41
    -1
    Quote: Rurikovich
    then the more you understand that we are in a banal ass ...

    As elsewhere, a complex application of forces and means is required, taking into account tactics. After all, the submarine solves some problem not alone, but in cooperation ...
    And PLO is the same, that is, it is enough to disrupt the interaction - there you have holes ...
  26. Kostadinov
    Kostadinov 24 November 2021 16: 22
    0
    The use of low-frequency "illumination" (in the range of hundreds of Hz - units of KHz) ensured reliable detection of even completely noiseless submarines, there are technically no effective means of counteracting the "illumination" at frequencies of units of Hz, and the reflectivity of a submarine is determined practically only by its dimensions.

    1. Hundreds of Hz or units of Hz? The difference is some 100 times.
    2. It will be interesting to look at the systems at frequencies of units of hertz and at the possibility of detecting a submarine at this frequency. If units of hertz give such possibilities why not use frequencies of 0,1 hertz or even better 0,01 hertz? If the speed of sound in water is 1500 m / s, then at a frequency of about 2-3 hertz it is not easy to detect objects 80-100 meters long.
    3. Emitters for active illumination of boats at a frequency of hertz units can be made, but emitters for their active suppression and counteraction is impossible? Something does not converge. Moreover, systems for illumination can be destroyed by all other known methods. The life of radiating systems in a war can be very short.