Military Review

Mine antiques of the Russian fleet

78

Regarding the interest of the Indian side in maritime

bottom mines should be noted that in 2010-2012.
an international competition was announced to organize
co-production in India.
... The Concern's proposals were rejected ...
... In terms of sea bottom mines, the PRC did not show
interest in the proposals of KMPO "Gidropribor".

Yu.V. Novikov
"VTS SSC JSC" Concern "MPO-Gidropribor" with foreign countries "

In a sense, this article is a critical response to an article previously published on the resource on this topic - "Modern Russian sea bottom mines" Kirill Ryabova, a detailed analysis of which, however, does not make much sense, since its erroneous provisions were taken by the author from the unreliable advertising information of the developers themselves. Accordingly, "in vain at the root", you need to deal with the primary sources - the materials of the developers.

At the same time, the topic is such that all the above facts have open links, on the basis of which the author has made a brief analysis of the crisis situation with our mine weapons.

To begin with, I would like to note that the designation of bottom mines with the MDM code does not apply to the Navy of the USSR and the Russian Federation and is typical only for post-Soviet export deliveries (Russia and Kazakhstan, where the main production of mines in the USSR was located).

Moreover, in an effort to confuse someone who is not clear (if our specialists sometimes themselves get confused in these new designations), we have succeeded so much that it makes a lot of sense to give a clear and logical connection of actual mines developed in the USSR with their "new export names."

The following diagram and table of the development of bottom mines is given from the book by R. Gusev (Deputy Head of the Anti-Submarine Weapons Directorate of the USSR and Russian Navy) "Foundations of the miner craft":




The general situation in the subject, where we did not lag far behind (or were at the level) during the Soviet era, today can and should be described with the words "junk" and "antiques".

In fact, what the head organization (Concern Gidropribor) and the “leader of the Zircon” Concern TRV represent about mine weapons today is shame and disgrace - morally outdated junk half a century ago. And this is to put it mildly ...

For example, the current "queen of the podium" of the TRV corporation and Gidropribor, the MShM mine, first appeared at an arms exhibition back in 1968 in the United States.

Only this was an exhibition of "captured weapons" - military equipment that the United States and its allies were able to steal from the USSR and its allies. RM-2 mines (now MShM) were hijacked by the US Navy in 1967 year from near Vladivostok. As they say, "facts on the face" ...

Problem No. 1. The complete absence of invisible bottom mines (both for ourselves and for export)


We have completely (absolutely) no stealth mines widespread in the navies of foreign countries.

A visual comparison of foreign inconspicuous mines with domestic bottom mines:


Domestic hulls have not only high sonar visibility, their characteristic shape ensures high efficiency of automatic classification algorithms, which, in turn, allows to dramatically accelerate the performance of mine action (i.e., identify and destroy our minefields in the shortest possible time).

And this is not some kind of exclusive, subtle mines have become a mass phenomenon since the end of the 80s, including in the navies of third world countries.


Obviously, we did not and do not have any technical problems to have such samples of mine weapons.

The question is exclusively organizational, in fact - in the dimness of responsible officials. As a matter of fact, mine antiques are a special case of half a century of cooling of all our naval underwater weapons (with a few exceptions, such as anti-torpedoes and a few more samples).

A similar gloomy picture was and still is with self-transporting bottom mines. About the mine SMDM (MDS, ed. 2510) from the site allmines.net:

Mine SMDM and mine MDS are one and the same mine according to the documentation 2510. The modernization consisted in adding a third hydrodynamic channel. The apparatus and instrumentation of the 3 is similar to the UDM-2510 or rather the MDM-2. The mine was developed at the Central Research Institute Gidropribor in 1–1973. Serially manufactured (general assembly of mines) at the Machine-Building Plant. V.V. Kuibyshev in the city of Petropavlovsk (the mine section was manufactured at the V.V.Kuibyshev plant, the tail section (from the 1978-53 K torpedo) - at the Kirov plant in the city of Alma-Ata).

The photos below compare our (product 2510E, loading on the Chinese submarine of project 877EKM) and the American Mk67.

With formally similar characteristics, the American sample had a significantly smaller diameter, length (and sonar signature), and most importantly, the ability to take two mines in place of a standard torpedo (i.e., have twice the mine ammunition on the carrier from us and, accordingly, twice as large the possibility of setting minefields).


This issue has already been raised in the author's article on the US Navy's broadband mines - "Hammerhead is not a Poseidon killer, he is a host killer.":

With the compactness, we have turned out "not very". Despite the fact that in terms of performance characteristics MTPK formally "surpassed" Captor, in reality, alas, it was "skillful manipulation of numbers."
For example, the superiority of the MTPK in the depth of setting was "forced" - to somehow use the large dimensions of our mines for good. For 80% of the real tasks of anti-submarine torpedo mines, the depth of the Captor was quite enough. Most importantly, the overall dimensions and weight of our MTPK sharply limited the capabilities of carriers and fleets to install effective minefields, while the Captor had a dimension close to our RM-2G, providing double the ammunition load of mines on submarines (in relation to torpedoes) ...

Speaking of subtle bottom mines, it should be noted that, despite their low visibility, Western mine action forces are able to quite successfully fight them (albeit with a much lower productivity than for conventional mines), which they convincingly demonstrated back in 1991-1992 ... in a mine action in the Persian Gulf.

However, a key factor in this is that the navies of foreign countries are preparing to fight, including with subtle mines (and they have long become a typical target for mine action exercises).

Mine antiques of the Russian fleet

However, this cannot be said about the "valiant navy".

In 1991, we simply refused to participate (in general, it is logical, because, apart from shame, we would have received nothing there).

Now?

Yes, the new ships with ISPUM (Project 12700) "have technical capabilities." It seems to be. For they still need to be able to use. But the shame - how "they can" (in quotes) here, was well shown by the TV channel "Zvezda" in a series of PR films about ISPUM and Project 12700: when a classified "mine-like object" when checked by an underwater vehicle turns out to be ... a sunken ship.

Yes, the President was cheerfully informed about how the lead ship of Project 12700 Obukhov “heroically destroyed German mines” near our dead submarine (which the President was diving to). The problem is that this work could be done not only by any western minesweeper-seeker of the 70s of the last century, but also by the basic minesweepers of the Soviet project 1265 with ancient hydroacoustics (MG-89) and underwater vehicle "Luch-1" (complex KIU- one).

Actually, the picture of a German minefield in the area of ​​the death of one of our submarines from the advertising brochure of JSC "NIIP im. Tikhomirov ”, received not by a specialized search complex, but by a commercial 100 GKts side-scan sonar.


This is a clear example of the extremely low secrecy of old types of mines against modern search engines.

In order to be able to deal with inconspicuous mines, you need not read about them in magazines, but actually fight them. Such mines should be a typical target and be actively used during testing and combat training.

In fact, for today, our "valiant Navy" is simply afraid of subtle mines. And "pose" fleet in this matter should be exhaustively characterized by the word - "cowardice".

Problem No. 2. Catastrophic lag of proximity fuses for bottom mines of the Navy


Even the newest (2021) advertising brochures of the Gidropribor Concern and the "Zircon" leader of the TRV Concern in terms of proximity fuses of mines actually demonstrate the level of the 50-60s of the twentieth century (on the "modern element base"): 3-channel (acoustic, magnetic and hydrodynamic channels) proximity fuse with the most primitive analog processing:


At the same time, in foreign countries, from the end of the 80s, the mass introduction of digital processing means and "portrait features" of targets into the non-contact equipment of mines began.

An example is a page from the 1988 Australian Mine Book:


Already in the late 90s - early 2000s, bottom mines with "smart" digital fuses (or modernization of old mines with new fuses) began to be massively adopted not only in developed countries, but also in such "mighty naval powers" , for example, Pakistan (scan from the KGNC digest based on materials from the foreign press):


How did the parent organization look and react to this by type of activity (Gidropribor)?

And like this (written in the mid-2000s, but still relevant):

The effective use of wideband signals, methods and algorithms for digital information processing in the on-board equipment of the MPO became possible ... when performance / power consumption optimized means of digital processing in real time appeared - signal processors and related elements of submicron technology.
At the same time, insufficient attention is paid to this issue in the domestic electronics industry ... so one of the most modern signal processor in the domestic industry ... although it has a performance comparable to the best foreign samples, it has a significantly higher power consumption .. This circumstance leads to the limited use of domestic components of digital processing in the onboard equipment of marine underwater weapons ... The equipment designed on the basis of a foreign processor will ensure operability within a year, and the equipment designed on the basis of a domestic processor will not work even for one month.

As a matter of fact, the whole setting of fuses for "modern" (in quotes) mines of "Gidropribor" is reduced to the choice of specific channels and settings of the device of urgency and multiplicity, that is, this is what was already in the 50s of the last century:


Well, yes, a "special remote control" has appeared - after all, the XNUMXst century is in the yard.

The most amazing thing is that inappropriate bosses are not ashamed to advertise such rubbish at exhibitions!

For details on the same junk for the Russian Navy, I refer those interested to the cached pages of the government procurement website. Now there is not much on the site itself, but foreign intelligence services undoubtedly managed to remove the relevant detailed information on the mine "relics" (infirmities) of the Russian Navy.

Is it really bad?

Not quite.

Quoted from the article "Prospects for the development of non-contact explosive devices for marine ammunition" (YR Shkolnikov, IP Buslaev JSC "Plant named after Petrovsky"):

Russia has also replenished its arsenal of mine weapons with converted aerial bombs. For these mines, a small-sized NV was created, made in the form of a monoblock, which can also be used to modernize the ammunition of bottom mines.
In its composition, the NV has a three-component magnetic sensor on thin ferrite films, a miniature solid-state silicon pressure sensor, as well as a seismic-acoustic sensor, on which the duty and main seismic channels are implemented, and an onboard microprocessor.
By means of a pressure sensor and a microprocessor, the NV sensitivity is automatically set, and together with the magnetic and seismic sensors, ... the parameters are corrected ...
The pressure sensor also measures the bottom pressure of the ship's hydrodynamic field.
The microprocessor program memory allows reprogramming in accordance with improved algorithms based on new knowledge and data on the physical fields of the object and signal processing methods.

Fuse B3-38 (right) - from the site of JSC "Plant im. Petrovsky ", drawings of mines APDMB - from the advertising brochure of the Research Institute of Balashikha

Things are good?

Alas, not either.

Firstly, this sample took place only because it was not created at all by the "main organization by type of activity" (that is, not in "Gidropribor") - it is the result of the work of the head engineering research institute (Balashikha) and the plant named after Petrovsky (Nizhny Novgorod).

Secondly, the year in the photo of the fuse clearly shows when this work was carried out (and one of the authors of the article, Yu.R. Shkolnikov, has long been dead).

Thirdly, until very recently, carrying the ancient analogue "Gidropribrovskaya" APM equipment around exhibitions hints at the current situation (and the state procurement website - at what junk is in service with the Navy).

PS


Recently, there have been some positive changes in the topic.

However, the problem is that for the real cutting of this Gordian knot, large-scale comprehensive studies of promising issues, both mine weapons and anti-mine weapons, are required.

Let me emphasize that they are complex.

And with this, for a number of organizational reasons, there are serious problems.

As for the technical groundwork, it is, and it is very good, and in a short time can be implemented in the already serial samples of new mine weapons for the fleet.

But - the problem is in the organization of such work ...
Author:
78 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. tone
    tone 5 January 2022 05: 58
    +28
    Indeed, in connection with the multiple superiority of the fleets of NATO, Japan, South Korea over our Navy, it is mine weapons, due to their cheapness, that could become a cheap answer, as in the First World War they managed to clog the Baltic. But alas, I don’t believe in progress and domestic developments. Degradation and no light at the end ... There is no hope!
    1. demiurg
      demiurg 5 January 2022 12: 34
      .
      It will be enough to clog the Baltic with mines produced in 1910. Those with horns and cables. But cheap and simple. And the same mines are enough to create an insurmountable position in the White Sea and Shelekhov Bay for the safe maneuvering of our strategists.

      Klimov has sucked the tragedy out of his thumb. As always, he writes interestingly, informatively, but incorrectly. A correctly posed question should sound something like this:
      - How important is it to the Russian Federation and right now the creation of a modern sea mine, whether it is necessary to divert resources to this, spend money and man-hours. How many such mines are needed, who will carry them, and the purpose of their use.
      1. timokhin-aa
        5 January 2022 14: 53
        +19
        And it doesn’t matter that amers back in 91 took 1 mine in 12 minutes for the massive demining of such barriers? Despite the fact that they worked in peacetime and were in no hurry?

        In addition, we do not need to clog up the Baltic, we need to leave our communications open, and we need to clog the enemy bases and ports.

        You, as usual, in general.
      2. Pashhenko Nikolay
        Pashhenko Nikolay 5 January 2022 19: 18
        +23
        In addition to mines in 1910, it is possible to control the sea from the air with the Ilya Muromets aircraft.
    2. Thrifty
      Thrifty 5 January 2022 12: 57
      +13
      As always, the wrong people go about their business, hence the deplorable results! Thanks to the author for the article, I hope the system will not break and "eat" such a person!
  2. yuriy55
    yuriy55 5 January 2022 06: 36
    +10
    However, the problem is that for the real cutting of this Gordian knot, large-scale comprehensive studies of promising issues, both mine weapons and anti-mine weapons, are required.
    Let me emphasize that they are complex.

    Right. To develop a business, not only theorists are needed, but also application practitioners.
    And in our country, it happens that they don't even see the problem itself and do not want to see ... There is no incentive ...
  3. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 5 January 2022 07: 22
    -7
    Isn't it all that bad with smart mines in our Navy?
    And our specialists again need to catch up with the whole world in this area of ​​technology? what
  4. Usher
    Usher 5 January 2022 07: 26
    -2
    Domestic hulls have not only high sonar visibility, their characteristic shape ensures high efficiency of automatic classification algorithms, which, in turn, allows to dramatically accelerate the performance of mine action (i.e., identify and destroy our minefields in the shortest possible time).
    Something I did not understand the logic. If the shape is uncharacteristic, how will this help the mine from mine action? For the sake of being simple slow down trawling, fence stealth mine? Is it too expensive?
    1. timokhin-aa
      5 January 2022 14: 53
      +10
      Look at Mantoux, there is a photo in the article
      1. Usher
        Usher 6 January 2022 01: 00
        -1
        And what about her? Mine is like a mine. The very logic of the statement put me into a stupor. Uncharacteristic form, how does that help? So and so they will be spent, is it worth the candle? And I do not see any fundamental difference in the form of Manta and just Barrels at the bottom. That the mantu is visible, that the barrel is visible. And the fact that it is overgrown with mud, and the barrel can be filled with silt.
        1. timokhin-aa
          6 January 2022 04: 06
          +1
          Well, look how Manta's form helps. How fast, for example, will it silt up
    2. timokhin-aa
      6 January 2022 14: 29
      +1
      Reply from the author of the article, M. Klimov:

      Something I did not understand the logic. If the shape is uncharacteristic, how will this help the mine from mine action? For the sake of just slowing down the trawling, fence a stealth mine? Is it too expensive?


      The body is a penny. The most expensive thing is non-contact equipment.
      But to stick a modern (and expensive) treatment into an ancient case - really gives off by "hammering in nails with a microscope."
  5. Zufei
    Zufei 5 January 2022 08: 06
    +7
    Quote: yuriy55

    And in our country, it happens that they don't even see the problem itself and do not want to see ... There is no incentive ...

    Exactly. There is no incentive for them))
    From Vicky: Stimulus (Latin stimulus - a stick of an elephant driver or a sharp metal tip on a pole, which is used to drive a buffalo (bull) harnessed to a cart) - a strong incentive moment; an internal or external factor causing a reaction, an action;
  6. Aviator_
    Aviator_ 5 January 2022 08: 38
    +5
    and a commercial 100 GKz side-scan sonar.

    What is this new unit of measurement? Maybe kHz after all?
  7. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 5 January 2022 08: 42
    +3
    And what about the "smart" minefield in the "okey seas"? Who was enthusiastically written about in 2019?
    Smart mines

    The complex "Surface" includes two main elements - the actual sea mines and a special control unit. Mines in their appearance and capabilities are similar to some older products, while the control unit uses the most advanced solutions.

    The mines from the complex are equipped with acoustic and magnetic target sensors, and also carry communication equipment.

    An important feature of "Surface" is the lack of direct communication between target sensors and fuses - the detonation process is controlled by the control unit. The mine is capable of detecting the physical fields of the target and performing its identification by its characteristic features. The presence of a self-learning hardware unit capable of exchanging data with the control unit is mentioned.

    The mine complex control unit is a computer system with elements of artificial intelligence, designed to control the operation of mines. The unit must receive data from ammunition, process it and issue instructions, taking into account the current situation. Due to such opportunities the "Surface" complex forms a "smart" controlled barrier in the water area.
    1. timokhin-aa
      6 January 2022 14: 30
      +1
      Reply from the author of the article, M. Klimov:

      And what about the "smart" minefield in the "okey seas"? Who was enthusiastically written about in 2019?


      YOU "modestly did not notice" that on this topic, in "joyful puppy squealing" you were soaked in ... "lime"!
  8. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 5 January 2022 09: 01
    -9
    "How scary to live!" (actress Litvinova ...) You involuntarily come to this conclusion after reading articles on VO! One way remains to live ... get drunk and forget! Remember how the professor of medicine Preobrazhensky categorically did not recommend reading "Soviet newspapers before dinner"? Do you really have to turn to the now very popular doctor Myasnikov with a request not to strongly recommend Internet visits to the VO site before breakfast, lunch and dinner, so that the readers of the site do not drink in the morning, afternoon, looking at night! Although ... at night, perhaps, it is possible ! To avoid sleepless nights!
  9. Bez 310
    Bez 310 5 January 2022 09: 06
    +13
    The author - Klimov, is recognized at the very beginning of the article by a very specific structure of the article. From the very beginning, without any introduction, the author begins to smash our "mine business", without even explaining to the readers what it is, what mines are and should be, and where it is ... Of course, the article is necessary and interesting, but it is interesting specialists, and ordinary VO readers will react to this article in the usual style - is it really that bad, the author exaggerates, everything is gone, including mine weapons ...
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 5 January 2022 09: 52
      +13
      I am a land person and I know about minefields / mines only from fiction and films.
      But I liked the article. And descriptions, and photos, and the simplest technical analysis (differences and similarities).
      I read it with interest.
    2. lucul
      lucul 5 January 2022 12: 13
      .
      "The author - Klimov, is recognized at the very beginning of the article by a very specific structure of the article. From the very beginning, without any introduction, the author begins to smash our" mine business ", without even explaining to the readers what it is all about"

      Well, Klimov writes only about "dirt". There are no articles with approval. For example, on the new anti-submarine missile system He did not write a word. But he managed to glorify the "torpedo" catastrophe of the Russian fleet.
      I can imagine what kind of articles he would write in 1941)))
      1. timokhin-aa
        5 January 2022 14: 54
        +12
        I can imagine what kind of articles he would write in 1941)))


        So because of the uryakalok in high offices, we are struggling with the 41st, and in the nuclear version.
      2. Bez 310
        Bez 310 5 January 2022 15: 07
        +12
        Quote: lucul
        Well, Klimov writes only about "dirt".

        And rightly so!
        I support him in this!
        1. Machito
          Machito 6 January 2022 18: 32
          +2
          Quote: Bez 310
          Quote: lucul
          Well, Klimov writes only about "dirt".

          And rightly so!
          I support him in this!

          I also support Klimov. I read Maxim's articles in other magazines. As COM said: The most harmful dog is the Spitz (a hint of the Admiralty spire). I think that in the days of Gorshkov, Klimov would have had no time for articles. He would be quickly attached to the real work of arming the fleet. And our admirals-samotopes-hauliers extinguish Klimov wherever possible.
      3. timokhin-aa
        6 January 2022 14: 34
        +1
        Reply from the author of the article, M. Klimov:

        Well, Klimov writes only about "dirt". There are no articles with approval.


        "The pig will find dirt" is about YOU.
        As for the "approvals" - see about AT, 941, 667. However, "Olga ladies of easy virtue" in YOUR face, such "details" are "not interesting" - they were kicked out to work, - that's the "flow" and "pouring"

        For example, on the new anti-submarine missile system He did not write a word.


        Actually, there will be an article on the "Answer" in the near future. HARD and honest.
        Only YOU (on the "Olginsky roadside"))))) do not know ANYTHING about the REALITY.
        1. Machito
          Machito 6 January 2022 18: 33
          +1
          We are waiting for the article.
  10. Doccor18
    Doccor18 5 January 2022 09: 28
    +15
    Again, the same article by Maxim, just as interesting and incredibly sad. Again a disappointing result and the same conclusions
    ... there are serious problems for a number of organizational reasons.

    As for the technical groundwork, it is there, and quite good ...

    What is this? It is always the same: there are technical solutions, there are finances, there are still people, but there is no organization, a clear understanding of the tasks and responsibility for the business. A very iconic pattern of recent decades ...
  11. Zkv_4
    Zkv_4 5 January 2022 10: 07
    -4
    The article is nonsense.
    The author mixed everything into one pile. When did the mtpk and rm-2g become bottom mines ?? How can you compare bottom and anchor mines ?? !!! What is a low-signature bottom mine for? It is possible to make a bottom mine of smaller dimensions, but then more mines are needed for mining. You can also make pellet mines, but how to put them ?? !!! Only from the ship. We have the entire length of sea borders 38000 km !!! There are no so many ships !!! Well, the speed of mining is also important!
    1. timokhin-aa
      6 January 2022 14: 36
      +1
      Reply from the author of the article, M. Klimov:

      The article is nonsense.
      The author mixed everything into one pile. When did the mtpk and rm-2g become bottom mines ??


      They are given as EXAMPLES.
      In this case, the RM-2G on acc. depths (in fact, in the main application, see Lyamin's note that gave a start to this whole direction), it is placed on a very short BOTTOM LINE.

      How can you compare bottom and anchor mines ?? !!!


      More bubbles from the puddle. For the CORRECT formulation of the question is WHAT and according to WHAT CRITERIA.
      Normal GAS MI (mine detecting) “sees” both those and those IMMEDIATELY when searching.

      What is a low-signature bottom mine for?


      IN THE ARTICLE IT IS WRITTEN CLEAR AND IN RUSSIAN
      DU YOU SPIK RUSHEN?

      It is possible to make a bottom mine of smaller dimensions, but then more mines are needed for mining.

      For shallow depths, a large charge is NOT NEEDED.


      You can also make pellet mines, but how to put them ?? !!! Only from the ship.


      NOT ONLY.
      FOR EXAMPLE NPA (AND NOT ONLY)

      We have the entire length of sea borders 38000 km !!! There are no so many ships !!! Well, the speed of mining is also important!


      Yeah. And now we look, for example, that MARASM with mine-dropping devices which VEFE and "promka" "made" on "Duyugon". The phrase "cutting out the tonsils through the anus" in relation to THIS will probably be "COMPLIMENT".
      And so EVERYWHERE in the Navy on mine and anti-mine weapons.
  12. S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 5 January 2022 10: 30
    +7
    The author, as always, is strong in polemical fervor, but not without exaggeration. Sea mines are a specific weapon that is not subject to obsolescence to a small extent. For example, the "mine 1908g" was used incl. in the Korean War in the 1950s. So "antiques" may well be used successfully. There were periods when the samples of sea mines created in Russia were among the best at the world level (the First World War, the period after the Second World War). By the way, in the mines of the RM type, elements of digital signal processing were used even then.
    Where the author is undoubtedly right - the time has come for the creation of a new generation of sea mines, proceeding from both the general trends in the development of the fleet in the current economic realities, and the need and possibility of increasing their characteristics. The development of mine and anti-mine weapons and weapons can only be effective if they are comprehensively created.
    A number of obvious directions of development can be noted:
    -creation of unified samples on the domestic element base with cost minimization in serial production;
    -organization of mass production on the territory of the Russian Federation;
    -Application of new technical solutions to reduce acoustic signature (acoustically transparent materials, variable shape, etc.);
    -improvement of detection and guidance channels (taking into account the fine structure of object fields, increasing the resolution and noise immunity of sonar channels, the possibility of changing parameters during operation, etc.).
    1. timokhin-aa
      6 January 2022 14: 38
      0
      Reply from the author of the article, M. Klimov:

      The author, as always, is strong in polemical fervor, but not without exaggeration. Sea mines are a specific weapon, to a small extent subject to obsolescence.


      Monsieur, I have not forgotten how YOU here "trumped" by communicating with Proshkin))))
      So straight and short - YOU ARE IN A POOL

      For example, the "mine 1908g" was used incl. in the Korean War in the 1950s. So "antiques" may well be used successfully.


      Yes, its counterparts were used in the 80s-90s.
      Only the FACTS are such that our mines 08 and 11 (especially with their Soviet "modern") at the torpedo charges after the Second World War were called WEAK and HARMFUL.
      About the fact that today, with the same RAMICS, the Americans can simply shoot them MASSIVELY from helicopters (and even earlier - NPA PMO simply “grunted” them with cutters - GAS MI perfectly “see” the mines) simply HORONES these mines in a somewhat massive and effective version

      By the way, in the mines of the RM type, elements of digital signal processing were used even then.


      In short - YOU LIE. There is NO digital processing in RM.
    2. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 10 January 2022 11: 21
      -1
      Quote: S. Viktorovich
      For example, the "mine 1908g" was used incl. in the Korean War in the 1950s. So "antiques" may well be used successfully.


      Ways to overcome such mine barriers were decided by the Americans back in 1944:
      Reading Lockwood ("Swamp Them All"):
      Chapter 18

      The day of the crossing of the minefield in the Korea Strait and the breakthrough into the Sea of ​​Japan was approaching. Preparations for this bold and dangerous endeavor, which lasted several months, included a comparative test in San Diego of three types of mine detectors that were in production at the time ... The next morning I went to sea again on the Skate ". We have crossed a mock minefield several times with sonar, which has been widely admired. ... In deep-water and shallow-water areas near San Diego, training minefields were placed. The base contained submarines Flying Fish and Redfin, ready to go to sea, equipped with three types of mine detectors, which were to be tested.

      The next four days were the most interesting of my life. Together with us worked the largest specialists in the field of mine detection, as well as Captain 3rd Rank Pierce, who, using sonar, was the first to force the enemy's minefield and plotted the mine lines on the map. For two whole days we drove the Flying Fish and Redfin through training minefields. The results were excellent almost without exception, although the operating conditions for the sonars were far from ideal. The tests were often interfered with by seaweed. ...

      During one of the submarine's training sessions, I myself sat at the sonar and conducted a search. I was able to get an echo in a loudspeaker and a pulse on the screen from some object, which I classified as a mine. According to experts, the sound was too squeaky for a mine, and they argued that it was just a bunch of seaweed. We passed under this object, and when we surfaced, the "bundle of algae" hanging on the left forward nose rudder turned out to be a training mine. I must say that the specialists at that moment felt unwell.

      During the tests, we learned about the existence of "thermal spots" in seawater, as scientists call them. These are small patches of warm water surrounded by cold and reflective sound waves. This was the first time we encountered such a phenomenon, and I immediately reported it in Guam, adding to the radiogram as a joke: "Build training thermal spots." Imagine my surprise when, when I returned, I actually saw the training "thermal spots" invented by Sieglaff and his subordinates. They fired from a submarine a special composition called "pyllenwerfer", which, like seltzer water, created a huge number of bubbles. The submarine circled around this cloud of bubbles, and within a few minutes the boat's sonars received perfectly clear echoes. We began to constantly use this method to check the actions of mine detectors during a combat campaign.

      Each type of mine detectors had their own supporters, but, In my opinion, the frequency modulation sonar most of all met our requirements. He used a frequency different from the frequency of Japanese sonar stations, which reduced the possibility of detecting his work. This became important when crossing enemy minefields or searching for mines in the area of ​​proposed landing sites. The discovery of a submarine at such a moment could be disastrous for her. I also liked that upon contact with a mine, a characteristic pear-shaped ejection appeared on the sonar screen, and a sound resembling the ringing of a bell was heard in the loudspeaker. Other types of detectors gave only an undefined light emission on the screen without a distinct sound echo.

      The meetings held in Washington after these tests yielded quite satisfactory results. I was able to convince members of the Joint Army and Navy Sequencing Committee that we needed immediate permission for 24 SV-type aircraft detection radars and 24 sonar units that were promised to be delivered to us only in September. What we could not achieve in several months of correspondence was achieved in a few minutes of conversation. ...
      The details of the raid in the Sea of ​​Japan, told to me by the boat commanders and given in official communications, paint an almost fantastic picture {13}. Such a large number of submarines have never crossed a minefield at the same time. And, perhaps, never before has the enemy been so taken by surprise. How great the surprise of the Japanese was can be judged by a report from Tokyo radio, which stated that American submarines were "smuggled in" and, no doubt, dropped from B-29 bombers. Unfortunately for our submarine raiders, shipping in the Sea of ​​Japan was not as busy as we expected. Nevertheless, when after 17 days the "sea devils" left the Sea of ​​Japan, 28 large ships and 16 small ones remained at the bottom of the sea, and 8 were damaged.

      That is, the Americans have long had no problems with overcoming classic minefields.
  13. hohol95
    hohol95 5 January 2022 10: 59
    0
    Where was the last time the mass laying of modern sea mines was fought?
    1. timokhin-aa
      5 January 2022 14: 55
      +8
      In the Persian Gulf in 1991
      1. hohol95
        hohol95 5 January 2022 16: 56
        -2
        Successfully???
        For 30 years "a lot of water has flown under the bridge"!
        And not only in the Russian Navy.
        1. Wildcat
          Wildcat 5 January 2022 19: 05
          +8
          I would not use the word "successfully".
          In this case (1991) 2 ships were blown up by mines - an amphibious assault and a cruiser - and, as you know, the Coalition did not begin to land the assault force, because they did not plan and did not want to, and in general they only frightened Saddam with the amphibious assault (according to the official version).





          As always with the author, "the hardware is good, the rest .... not very good."

          Of course, a certain belief that the money allocated for defense should be spent "wisely", and not on what is obtained in the "take while you give" style, makes the author of the article proud.
          I respect the feelings of faith, and I have already tried to show how it should be using the example of "expedition ships". It is in the "author's reality" that the money of the military budget should be turned into a modern and effective weapon. In "real reality" they turn into "expedition ships", and if it is impossible to turn into yachts and chalets directly, that is, R&D, R&D, long-term construction and repairs (of which the ship can be written off). And in the sun, you can supply products from the 20th century.
          Not that the author did not know this, but he, IMHO, believes that this is not the norm, but a deviation.

          However, the author does not take into account some, so to speak "constants of consciousness" of some very important people. First, there will be no war. Secondly, and with whom to fight, to bomb Londongrad darling or Lazurka, there are all our own? Thirdly, any serious military preparations can be offended and banned, for example, in the EU "who needs" to travel, but it is necessary?

          So what dear people do for a lot of money canyons and Skyfalls - a status thing, irreplaceable for any negotiations - and all sorts of ... interfere with their articles, then they have the wrong mines, then something else is missing ...

          I will try to dear author and explain to everyone how everything actually happens. I'll post the video, so it will be clearer. Let me explain: the one who does not see the torpedo tube from 01.25, that is a Russophobe, an all-consuming one, and so on. Because the torpedo tube is installed and everyone can see it perfectly.
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 5 January 2022 20: 05
            +3
            It turns out that the landing was canceled by the fact that it was not in the plans !!! repeat
            And the minefields exposed by the Iraqi fleet were cleared after. In a quiet and peaceful environment. hi
            Without opposition from Iraqi "Glory" and "Citizen". Figuratively speaking ...
            1. Wildcat
              Wildcat 5 January 2022 20: 12
              +5
              And so it was enough, without Glory and his friend laughing :
              “The mine threat kept the naval warships away from the coastline until the end of the conflict, which was largely the reason that the US Marines never stormed the Kuwaiti coast.
              ...
              Most officials believe that a Marine landing this time, like in 1991, would be just a ruse. Still, capturing Iraq's main port of Basra would be on the wishlist of any commander looking to supply an army at war. "
              In general, "the grapes were green," and the landing? ... I didn't really want to ...
              https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna3071787
              1. hohol95
                hohol95 5 January 2022 20: 40
                +1
                It turns out that sea mines are a "splinter"! To get rid of it, you need to make an effort in accordance with the size of the "splinter".
                Moreover, without clear knowledge of these dimensions (the number of exposed obstacles and their typical composition), there will be a fear of undetected mines.
                And this is a psychological impact on the crews of ships and ships. Extra costs for repeated sweeping work !!!
                As they once said about "Tirpitz" - by its mere existence it gets on the nerves of British admirals.
            2. Wildcat
              Wildcat 5 January 2022 20: 34
              +3
              Something is too much sad. I’ll add some funny pictures about a funny miner, and if he wants, let him add video and text.
              Well, it's fun:

              not mine, from here I took:
              https://mina030.livejournal.com/6749.html?thread=1494
              1. timokhin-aa
                6 January 2022 14: 40
                0
                Answer from M. Klimov:

                Something is too much sad. I'll add some funny pictures about a cheerful miner, Well, it's fun:


                BUNNY, YOU are the BUNNY - if you have fun from such a shame of the Navy (including the inability to ensure the safety of even 1 person of the state).
                NORMAL people are not at all funny from all this ...
                1. Wildcat
                  Wildcat 7 January 2022 00: 25
                  +3
                  Hmm, the answer to M Klimov.
                  It's nothing that, having gone into retirement, you began to call unfamiliar men bunnies. I hope that someone will reciprocate you, but I do not share your predilections. But I do not blame either, I appreciate the author of the articles in you, and not a bunny, so to speak.

                  Well, the fact that cap 3 retired with a mock mine was not handed over to the authorities at the parade - pardon me, well, it's funny. Ships, yachts, budgets that have no analogues in the world float by .... people are looking: is it a layout or not a layout of a mine? ... drip 3 on the shore ...
                  A wonderful picture, isn't it?
                  Can you upload a photo, "Klimov and Mine"? I feel uncomfortable. And I want something good, positive on the holidays.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    8 January 2022 19: 06
                    +4
                    Answer from M. Klimov:

                    Hmm, the answer to M Klimov.
                    It's nothing that, having gone into retirement, you began to call unfamiliar men bunnies.


                    Are YOU really a man? Somehow you look more like a woman.
                    And those whom YOU mean are "by color" and are "by life". And I absolutely don't give a damn about who exactly YOU are referring to, because I do not digest and despise both those and those (and the latter - EVEN WORSE).

                    Well, the fact that cap 3 retired with a mock mine was not handed over to the authorities at the parade - pardon me, well, it's funny. Ships, yachts, budgets that have no analogues in the world float by .... people are looking: is it a layout or not a layout of a mine?


                    1. IN STOCK
                    2. Face on the table, with the links given by YOU
                    https://mina030.livejournal.com/6749.html

                    The fact that there is practically no mine defense (MMP) in the country (and those ships that "are" (including the "newest" Project 12700 with the ISPUM complex) are not capable of fighting a serious enemy, I have repeatedly reported to the Ministry of Defense (report No. UG-18040 dated March 16.03.15 .43460, UG-25.07.2017 of 11977 and a number of others), the Navy (entry 21.11.2014 of 29.08.2018, a number of others), and a number of other organizations ... "The Navy - what happened on August XNUMX, XNUMX at the GVMP


                    Let me explain: a number of other instances are incl. "The cardinal's guards" and "the king's musketeers", and even long before. Because the specified report was the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, acc. specific links and details acc. references are not given in it. As for appeals and details to the RF Ministry of Defense, he wrote in Russian:

                    At the reception of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, they understood everything at once ("the New Year's mood flew away in an instant"), they asked to wait.
                    The man who received it came up 10 minutes later, with a heavy sigh ("yes, everything corresponds" - according to the previous appeals and reports).


                    And I will especially emphasize that if these reports (previous) and appeals had not been, of course, with me, there would have been a completely different result.
                    In fact, they put the Navy and the FSB department in St. Petersburg as extreme, in the latter they first smiled, but when they realized that it was in fact, they suddenly became no laughing matter.
                    Did they communicate with me somehow? How to say ... They were told from me that I was ready to drive up, answer questions. The verbatim answer (conveyed) was:

                    - We were categorically forbidden to meet with him !!!


                    Yes, a year ago, when they tried to "organize" the "case" for me (what they "drew" for me ("rotten St. Petersburg trick") - you can "draw" ANYONE who worked on special topics), the question in the "office" was asked: why is this ( the layout of the mine on GVMP-18) what to do?
                    To which he asked them: as part of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet now [autumn 2020] 11 SSBNs and NOT ONE modern anti-mine ship, NOT ONE anti-mine apparatus, despite the fact that they were in the state defense order (the first of them went to MT -264 and MT-265 Pacific Fleet in support of the "Boreis"), however, they were crossed out, the development group was defeated, the chief designer was fired; accordingly, a logical question arises for themselves (ie, the "office") - what is happening in general?!?!?!
                    Visually, with documents (from purchases of govs):
                    https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2019-04/thumbs/1554568179_54634564.png
                    https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2019-04/1554568205_344543543534.jpg
                    comment -
                    "What's wrong with our minesweepers?"
                    https://topwar.ru/156486-chto-ne-tak-s-nashimi-tralschikami.html

                    It is worth noting that “great interest” was initially shown to “my affairs”, which “abruptly stopped” as soon as the talk about specific VIP accomplices of the scandals happening in the military-industrial complex and the navy (the camera writes something, and then report it ...).

                    "Case"? And it was practically sewn (ready), I very much assume that even the decree for me in my daddy was ready. Only after he heard “operas” from me late in the evening in the “office” (and “ate some validolchik”), the next day he urgently flew to Moscow. With what was heard and written down, because due to the fact that they had already "carefully prepared" in this matter the questions (including the first and foremost) arose already on the "office"

                    Well, and one more quote from this report:
                    We "seem to be conducting" "exercises in the Arctic" ... however, we have never carried out torpedo firing under the ice with homing systems turned on (!!!).
                    The reports did not work
                    But what really "exploded" "at the top" - an article on Topwar "Arctic underwater scandal" https://topwar.ru/156811-arkticheskij-torpednyj-skandal.html
                    Starting with calls to me, literally a few hours after its release, from the Ministry of Defense "Olympus":
                    Is that true ??? And who is lying to us ???

                    And ending with the fact that quite by accident I found out about what kind of "fire in a brothel" the Navy received after it.
                    As a result, "Umka" was carried out, but ... so it would be more correct to call this BORDEL "WEAKS".
                    “Uncle Kolya” of course “bravo reported” to “Uncle Vova”, but in fact… having deceived him (here another, much cruder word would be more accurate).
                    “Village of Konashi”, in spite of falling into a splint, was simply frightened to show WHAT was floating in the hole after this shooting, because that would be “public removal of the pants” of the Navy and the Ministry of Defense.
                    1. Wildcat
                      Wildcat 9 January 2022 01: 15
                      +2
                      Hmm, second answer to M Klimov.
                      You would stop being rude to strangers. And use the capsule less often.

                      Are YOU really a man? Somehow you look more like a woman.
                      And those whom YOU mean are "by color" and are "by life". And I absolutely don't give a damn about who exactly YOU are referring to, because I do not digest and despise both those and those (and the latter - EVEN WORSE).

                      Fu, your unusual, repeated, interest in my person is already starting to get boring. Moreover, you have already begun to fantasize a little, who I have there in your imagination "look like".
                      Take the trouble to control yourself. Or go to another forum. The second time I draw your attention to the fact that I do not share your interest in, hmm, bunnies.
                      Your research in questions
                      "By color" is "by life"
                      are also not interesting, I'm interested in sea mines.

                      1. IN STOCK
                      Well, this radically changes the matter!
                      Perhaps you have an attachment to departmental medical institutions, you can contact there and describe the situation right in the registry:
                      Like, you have mixed feelings towards unfamiliar men - either I call them a BUNNY, then the next day you understand that "I do not digest and I despise both those and those."
                      And yes, do not forget to mention that I am already ready for extreme measures: I once mined the fairway at the Navy parade, in 2018, but with a training mine.
                      You are sure to help.
                      Although the history is disappointing:
                      "persistent delusional ideas that are culturally inadequate, absurd, impossible and / or grandiose in content;
                      “Negative symptoms” (but not caused by depression or pharmacotherapy), usually leading to social exclusion and a decrease in social indicators; symptoms that can be expressed: apathy, speech impoverishment or flattening, inadequate emotional reactions. "

                      Regarding the content of your post.
                      I repeat that I respect you as an author, you have a good, almost exclusive amount of information (although I disagree with some of your conclusions).
                      Regarding your struggles and your willingness at any level to stand up for what you think is right. I also think that this deserves respect, although it is not always effective. But this is probably the right thing to do in your case.
                      And, perhaps, "water wears away the stone" you will achieve something.

                      Well, the fact that your style and behavior do not fit into the "generally accepted framework" is not scary, you seem to have not come close to the "framework of the Code of Administrative Offenses or the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation". The fight against "budget assimilation" is a difficult business, sometimes it requires a strong word.
        2. timokhin-aa
          8 January 2022 19: 07
          +1
          And what has changed for the BEST in the Russian Navy? (Options "for the worse" and "not to offer").
          1. hohol95
            hohol95 8 January 2022 19: 58
            0
            And I'm not "naval"!
            Water is like time to flow ...
            For better or worse ...
            I am not a seer!
  14. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 5 January 2022 11: 35
    +1
    The author is outraged that the Russian Navy has no "subtle" mines; but does not forget to mention that the "Western mine-sweeping forces" have learned to detect and destroy the most ... subtle mines enti! How not to remember the commercial: Why pay more if there is no difference ?! That "old" (torpedo-shaped) mines ... that new "stealthy" mines are successfully detected and destroyed, as the author himself claims! (Western mine action forces are capable of quite successfully fighting them (albeit with a much lower productivity than with conventional mines), which they convincingly demonstrated back in 1991-1992 in a mine action in the Persian Gulf.) In naval warfare, mine weapons are designed not only to destroy enemy ships and submarines, but also to shackle the initiative and maneuvering of the enemy's naval forces! As well as on land ... when they carry out remote mining of the terrain with the help of MLRS not so much to destroy the enemy's armored "armada" as to hinder movement, maneuvering, delay the enemy's motorized troops ...! Speaking of stealth ... 1. according to the author, mines - "truncated cones" on the seabed are quickly covered with silt, marine organisms and become invisible "in nature" (!); and the "cylindrical" ones remain at the bottom as good as new! Bottom silt and marine organisms ignore them! 2. During the period of rapid "civilizational" development of mankind, the bottom of the seas and oceans was covered with numerous "civilizational" junk: ships, submarines, mines, torpedoes, aerial bombs, lost pipes, containers, tractors, cars, machine tools, shot down planes ... to disguise "in nature" the current mine weapon ... And more ...! If in the Russian Navy, according to the author, "one old thing ... antiques ..." "set up the production of" decoys "(mine simulators)? (After all, "inflatable" (and cheap!) Mock-ups of mines filled with water during the installation process, you can take with you and install a "set"! Not a complete ice, of course, but still! Better than nothing!
    1. timokhin-aa
      6 January 2022 14: 52
      0
      Reply from the author of the article, M. Klimov:

      The author is outraged that the Russian Navy has no "subtle" mines; but does not forget to mention that the "Western mine-sweeping forces" have learned to detect and destroy the most ... stealth mines enti! How not to remember the commercial: Why pay more if there is no difference ?!


      MUSIER, DO NOT BREAK STUFF, IT HURTS HER!
      IN THE TEXT CLEARLY AND IN RUSSIAN IS WRITTEN ABOUT A SHARP REDUCTION OF THE POINSKOVOE PRODUCTIVITY OF COUNTER-MINING FORCES!
      DU YOU SPIK RUSHEN?

      In naval warfare, mine weapons are designed not only to destroy enemy ships and submarines, but also to shackle the initiative and maneuvering of the enemy's naval forces! Just like on land


      Well, glory to those hosssspodi ... that the next monsieur once again didn’t add another "but I’m behind the wheel"
      It remains only for this monsieur to inquire about the PRICES (in the cache of government procurement sites) for the same APM ...

      and the "cylindrical" ones remain at the bottom as good as new! Bottom silt and marine organisms ignore them!


      Monsieur, YOU ARE WORTHY, but on the topic - only verbiage from YOU.
      Purely for reference - torpedoes (even small-sized ones) are detected by the "entry" (RIGHT sonar), even lost a couple of TEN YEARS AGO.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 6 January 2022 19: 08
        -1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        DON'T FUCK BOTH, IT HURTS!

        Do not worry so much about your nonsense! She has been flogged so many times on your pages that she is used to and endures the hardships and hardships in your "creativity"!
        1. timokhin-aa
          8 January 2022 19: 03
          +1
          Answer from M. Klimov:

          Monsieur! Try at least once in your life to answer for your nonsense - to provide evidence and proofs.
          Zhdems
          PS However, the fact that YOU in your last post "merged" by yourself from any specifics clearly says that YOU once again stumbled on your tongue (stepped).
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 9 January 2022 23: 49
            -2
            Have you already been born as a boor, or did you bring up a boor in your school years? I didn’t understand what you are asking of me; but if I don’t respond, then that’s it. I think this is nonsense, nonsense, not deserving of my attention ... it is deeply "violet" to me, it does not matter ...
  15. Max PV
    Max PV 5 January 2022 12: 34
    +6
    Klimov as usual in his repertoire. Yes, the article contains some sensible remarks, in particular, about the decrease in the visibility of bottom mines or the absence of cyyorovy selection of targets by signature in domestic mines. But there is also an obvious distortion of the facts and so beloved by many a topic with the issuance of decisions caused by factors that are not obvious to the average person for stupidity, tyranny, retrograde and embezzlement. For example, the cylindrical shape of the body of bottom mines is not due to the fact that the designers are so stupid, but from the method of setting through the submarine TA, with the task of minimizing the volume with a sufficient charge. Take, for example, the same "Mantu", this is a thing with a diameter of 980mm, a height of 440mm and having a charge of only 234kg, while our charge contains about a ton. That is, you cannot put it on a submarine, it is almost useless against warships deeper than 30m. Vaughn, I met information, as far as true, I will not say that during the "Desert Storm" an American cruiser of the "Ticonderoga" class was blown up on two of these, receiving essentially minor damage (beating of one propeller shaft and a jammed steering wheel). And the same thing with self-propelled mines. As if, yes, the characteristics are close, but the American Mk67 also has a warhead of 234kg, and ours has about half a ton, and ours, in fact, has a conversion of an obsolete torpedo, and the American is a specialized product, which is more expensive anyway. And, finally, the same Americans for some reason also adopted the MK67Improved, too, with comparable characteristics and warhead weight, but with a caliber of 533mm and a length of almost a full-fledged 5,8m Western standard torpedo. And the mention of some kind of processors with dozens of times more power consumption generally smells of biasedness. Where did they find such samples? In addition, in 9 cases out of 10, such a problem is solved by switching to a less productive processor, which in the case of sea mines, as for me, is not critical, and in addition can be compensated for by software optimization.
    I also completely agree with the statement about the ease of finding mines with modern means - why, then, even in European seas, are mines from the times of WWII still found?
    And finally, the statement that analog technology is supposedly the last century, and everything should be computerized, digital and very smart, I think, is not entirely true. Yes, digital technology is universal, its creation does not require special frills from designers like implementing algorithms and logic directly in the hardware, but simply arranging input-output converters, processor and memory, but analog technology also has advantages, especially when you need to work with limited the number of signals (2-3 in this case), for one or several clearly defined tasks, and not even be inferior in this to digital. This is, first of all, several orders of magnitude fewer components required for the same task. And of course, the size of electronic components is somewhere, but in sea mines, this is the last thing worth paying attention to, since the entire fuse is an insignificant part of the ammunition in terms of volume, everything else is given in the world to explosives. And, yes, you shouldn't think that explosives in the west are some kind of special, the same multicomponent blasting agents based on TNT, RDX, ammonium nitrate and / or aluminum powder, giving an explosion energy (which is the main one in DM) from 5-6,2 MJ / kg, depending on the composition. Despite the fact that TNT has 4,2 MJ / kg, and the most modern explosives have about 7, and they are so expensive that their waste on equipping mines is excluded.
    1. ycuce234-san
      ycuce234-san 5 January 2022 16: 22
      0
      Quote: Max PV
      everything else is given in the world to explosives

      There is always a place in life for healthy technical creativity, feat and struggle of minds.
      It is more profitable to come up with something like that, fundamentally new, in demand and enter the market with it.
      For example, remotely controlled anti-aircraft and anti-missile mines with a chemical laser. Now it is more important to be able to fight at sea not ships but foreign aircraft.
    2. timokhin-aa
      6 January 2022 14: 45
      +1
      Reply from the author of the article, M. Klimov:

      Klimov as usual in his repertoire. Yes, the article contains sensible remarks ... But there is also a clear distortion of the facts and so beloved by many a topic with the issuance of decisions caused by factors that are not obvious to the average person for stupidity, tyranny, retrograde and embezzlement. For example, the cylindrical shape of the body of bottom mines is not due to the fact that the designers are so stupid, but from the method of setting through the TA submarine


      Monsieur LIE and juggling here at YOU.
      Yes, some of the mines are placed through the TA, some by planes. Therefore, in the west, there are also PART of the mines "simple" (including for detonators), and the reason for this I previously described in detail. The question is, what do they HAVE for the NECESSARY cases, and LOW-SPECIFY, and "smart" mines. We don't have them AT ALL. TOTAL ZERO. "ZIROU"

      with the task of minimizing the volume when the charge is sufficient. Take, for example, the same "Mantu", this is a thing with a diameter of 980 mm, a height of 440 mm and having a charge of only 234 kg, while our charge contains about a ton.


      LIES
      Moreover, it is an arrogant and obvious lie, see the text of the article, Gusev's table - “our analogue” of “Manta” - UDM-500 - a charge of about 200 kg !!!

      Kakby, yes, the characteristics are close, but the American Mk67 also has a warhead of 234kg, and ours has about half a ton,


      LIE, about 300 - see the same Gusev table
      At the same time, a powerful charge is not needed for the fairways!
      Roughly - a ton is about 50m

      and ours, in fact, is a conversion of an outdated torpedo, and the American is a specialized product, which is more expensive anyway


      LIES
      Just amers have old torpedoes, and we have MDS - exactly NEW products

      For some reason, the Americans also adopted the MK67Improved, too, with comparable characteristics and weight of the warhead, but with a caliber of 533mm and a length of almost a full-fledged 5,8m Western standard torpedo


      LIES
      This did not go further than paper - this is the first, and the second, and most importantly - the 53 cm self-propelled mine was considered by the Americans as a factor of "surgical" mining not even of the exit fairways, but of internal (and raids), for example, in Kamchatka - blocking not even Avacha Bay, but up to b.Krasheninnikova SEPARATELY.

      and the mention of some kind of processors with dozens of times more power consumption generally smells of biasedness. Where did they find such samples?


      DON'T SHOOT SHOULD HER HURT
      The power consumption of OUR processors is one of the most pressing problems of our special robots and space.

      In addition, in 9 cases out of 10, such a problem is solved by switching to a less productive processor, which in the case of sea mines, as for me, is not critical, and in addition can be compensated for by software optimization


      DON'T SHOOT SHOULD HER HURT
      Mathematics is at the level of the 80s. Elementary. However, the same FFT with the required bit depth and frequency acc. lane requires quite specific (and considerable!) computing resources.

      I also completely agree with the statement about the ease of finding mines with modern means - why, then, even in European seas, are mines from the times of WWII still found?


      Threw in a lot - now they find
      At the same time, 91g. in the Persian Gulf, this is visibility from half a meter and sand, where fading! - and this is an order of magnitude more difficult than the same Baltic.

      And of course, the size of electronic components is already somewhere, but in naval mines, this is the last thing worth paying attention to, since the entire fuse is an insignificant part of the ammunition, everything else is given in the world to explosives.


      Another incompetent SHOOT.
      See on ALLMINES how much we struggled with small-sized magnetic sensors like amerovskoy "distractors" (and this with a large number of "trophies")!

      do not think that explosives in the west are some kind of special, the same multicomponent blasting agents based on TNT, RDX, ammonium nitrate and / or aluminum powder, giving an explosion energy (which is the main one in DM) from 5-6,2 MJ / kg, depending on the composition.


      Monsieur, here YOU also have a LUZH.
      BUT - the subject of the so-called. I am not going to publicly comment on the "new BB", except for the remark that, for good reasons, I have an extremely cautious attitude towards all SUCCESS in this area.
    3. eehnie
      eehnie 6 January 2022 21: 30
      -3
      I see a lot of common sense in your comment from a technical point of view.

      The author of the article does not seem to see how today on sea-based combat platforms:

      1.-) Dynamic projectiles greatly outnumber static charges.

      2.-) Between dynamic projectiles, shelving projectiles (rockets and missiles) strongly dominate fired projectiles.

      3.-) Between dynamic shelving-driven projectiles, guided projectiles greatly prevail over unguided projectiles.

      4.-) Between guided dynamic projectiles with a shelf drive, projectiles that move in the air greatly prevail over projectiles that move in water. Up to the point that the main role and weapons of most modern submarines are associated with missiles that move in the air for a longer time, and even the most modern anti-submarine weapons also make a longer movement through the air. The restrictions imposed by fluid dynamics for movement under water are much stronger than for movement through air.

      Today, Poseidon, which many call an underwater unmanned aerial vehicle, but which by its nature is also an underwater guided shelf dynamic projectile, is the only underwater projectile that can become an element that determines the nature and main armament of any sea-based platform, as we see in project 09851 and variant 09852 of project 949/09852. And this became possible thanks to the introduction of a technologically very important and powerful innovation - a new small nuclear engine.

      Other types of submarine weapons have declined significantly over the past decades and are now secondary weapons. The use of stealth technology will not significantly improve its position for the reasons stated in your comment. Then it is logical to expect that the main investments in development will be directed to the development of areas that today dominate sea-based combat platforms.

      Considering that we have a new Poseidon before us, it is not serious to say that Russia is technologically lagging behind in terms of underwater weapons. The author's complaint does not make sense from a technological point of view.

      (Automatically translated from English. Below is the original commentary in English)

      I see very much common sense in your comment, from a technical point.

      The author of the article seems to fail to see how today, on combat sea-based platforms:

      1.-) The dynamic projectiles are dominating strongly over the static charges.

      2.-) Between the dynamic projectiles, the shelf-propelled projectiles (rockets and missiles) are dominating strongly over the launched projectiles.

      3.-) Between the shelf-propelled dynamic projectiles, the guided projectiles are dominating strongly over the unguided projectiles.

      4.-) Between the guided shelf-propelled dynamic projectiles, the projectiles which movement is in the air are dominating strongly over the projectiles which movement is in the water. Until the point, that the main role and armament of most of the current submarines is related with missles which longer movement is in the air, and even, the most modern anti-submarine armament, also does its longer movement by the air. The limitations imposed by the dynamic of fluids for underwater movement are much stronger than for movement on air.

      Today the Poseidon, that many call underwater unmanned vehicle, but that in nature is also an underwater guided shelf-propelled dynamic projectile, is the alone underwater projectile that is able to become the element that define the nature and the main armament of some sea based platform, like we see with the Project 09851 and the variant 09852 of the Project 949/09852. And it has been possible thanks to the introduction of a technologically very important and powerful innovation, an new small nuclear engine.

      Other types of underwater armament declined significantly in the last decades, and today are secondary armament. The application of stealth technologies will not improve significantly its situation, by the reasons exposed in your comment. Then it is logical to see the main investment on development to move towards the lines that are dominating today on combat sea-based platforms.

      With the new Poseidon in front of us, to say that Russia is technologically delayed in the refered to the underwater armament is not serious. The complain of the author makes no sense from a technological point.
      1. timokhin-aa
        8 January 2022 19: 02
        +2
        Reply from the author of the article, M. Klimov:

        I see a lot of common sense in your comment from a technical point of view.


        YOU are still "celebrating intensely")))

        The author of the article does not seem to see how today on sea-based combat platforms:
        1.-) Dynamic projectiles greatly outnumber static charges.


        If in YOUR divanny))) "mines were canceled", then this does not mean at all that they did so in the world (including in the Navy)

        2.-) Between dynamic projectiles, shelving projectiles (rockets and missiles) strongly dominate fired projectiles.


        “Shelf shells strongly dominate” ... tell me, have you tried a snack?

        3.-) Between dynamic shelving-driven projectiles, guided projectiles greatly prevail over unguided projectiles.


        Nothing, soon Monday, YOU this "juice of the brain" and a jar, and to the clinic))))

        4.-) ... the main role and armament of most modern submarines is associated with missiles ...


        Tell this to the US Navy submarine commanders

        Today, Poseidon, which many call an underwater unmanned aerial vehicle,

        "SEA" is a SAMPLE of how you DO NOT DO ABOUT

        but which by its nature is also an underwater guided shelf dynamic projectile,


        jar - Monday - clinic))))

        is the only underwater projectile capable of becoming an element that determines the nature and main armament of any sea-based platform, as we see in project 09851 and variant 09852 of project 949/09852.


        It’s not even delirium, but delirium in CUBE

        And this became possible thanks to the introduction of a technologically very important and powerful innovation - a new small nuclear engine.


        FACE BY TABLE:

        https://arsenal-otechestva.ru/images/news/2015/11/54534654.PNG

        https://arsenal-otechestva.ru/images/news/2015/11/8765875876.PNG
        In 1976, L. Greiner's book "Hydrodynamics and Power Engineering of Underwater Vehicles" appeared in Russian translation, where it was written in sufficient detail about the technical feasibility of implementation and the advantages of this type of naval underwater weapon ...

        Considering that we have a new Poseidon before us, it is not serious to say that Russia is technologically lagging behind in terms of underwater weapons. The author's complaint does not make sense from a technological point of view.


        You are raving
        1. eehnie
          eehnie 9 January 2022 14: 52
          -1
          It is obvious that small nuclear engines have been at different stages of technical development for decades. The result of all this research has only recently been achieved, and Poseidon is the first use of this technology in weapons. This is a novelty, this is an innovation powerful enough to define the role of Project 09851 and Option 09852 of Project 949/09852, and the first block carrying them is very close to being commissioned. It doesn't matter if it's called an underwater unmanned vehicle or an underwater projectile. This makes Russia the world leader in the field of underwater weapons, contrary to your statements in the article.

          You will not find any other project of a warship or submarine, the role of which is determined by full underwater armament, because even for anti-submarine weapons, missiles, the main stage of movement of which to the target is carried out by air, dominate over traditional torpedoes. These are missiles, even if they are launched from torpedo tubes.
          Or, in other words, if you find one, just one more, of the current projects in the Russian Navy or the United States Navy, if you like, whose main role is determined by full submarine weapons, we can discuss what really is its main armament today.

          Today, full submarine weapons are retained only as secondary weapons. The main reasons for this are the lower speed and range of full-fledged underwater shells. Even technological advances in the creation of fast torpedoes have failed to make them truly competitive with airborne weapons.

          My comment was correct, including technically correct. My comment was automatically translated, but that doesn't mean I can't figure out if you have enough knowledge of Re (Reynolds number), Nu (Nusselt number), Pr (Prandtl number) or other basic fluid mechanics, and if you are fluent the physical meaning of the vector and scalar fields involved; and the physical meaning of the integrations present in the definitions. Your real technical level is not hidden from people like me. Regardless of my primary language. I can see perfectly well if you are an engineer 375-400 credits, if you are an engineer 225-250 credits, or if you are a journalist without any technical knowledge.

          (Automatically translated from English. Below is the original commentary in English)

          It is obvious that small nuclear engines have been under different stages of technical development since decades. The result of all this investigations only succeeded recently, and the Poseidon is the first application of this technology to the armament. It is new, it is an innovation powerfull enough to define the role of the Project 09851 and the variant 09852 of the Project 949/09852, and the first unit carrying them is very near of being commissioned. It does not matter if it is called underwater unmanned vehicle, or underwater projectile. It makes Russia the leader worldwide in underwater armament, against your claims in the article.

          You will not find any other project of combat ship or submarine which role is defined by full underwater armament, because even for anti-submarine armament, missiles which main stage of movement towards the target is done by air are dominating over the traditional torpedoes. They are missiles, even if launched from torpedo tubes.
          Or in other words, if you find one, only one more, of the current projects in the Russian Navy, or in the Navy of the United States if you want, which main role is defined by full underwater armament, we can discuss about which is really its main armament today.

          Today the full underwater armament is conserved only as secondary armament. The main reasons of it are the lower speed and range of the full underwater projectiles. Even the technological improvements to achieve fast torpedoes failed to make them really competitive with the armament which main movement is done by the air.

          My comment was right, including technically right. My comment was authomatically translated, but it does not mean that Im unable to see if you are fluent enough with the Re (Reynolds number), Nu (Nusselt number) the Pr (Prandtl number), or with other basic measures of the fluids mechanic , and if you are fluent with the phisical meaning of the vectorial and scalar fields involved and the phisical meaning of the integrations present in the definitions. Your real technical level is not hidden for people like me. No matter my main language. I can see perfectly if you are an engineer 375-400 credits, if you are an engineer of 225-250 credits, or if you are a journalist without any technical knowledge.
          1. Dmitry V.
            Dmitry V. 10 January 2022 12: 05
            -1
            Quote: eehnie
            what I can't figure out if you have enough knowledge of Re (Reynolds number), Nu (Nusselt number), Pr (Prandtl number) or other basic fluid mechanics


            An engineer, this will not write - this is a schoolboy or a dropout student, can comment on the elementary basics.
            1. eehnie
              eehnie 11 January 2022 01: 12
              -1
              For the engineer, this is the key part:

              and if you are fluent in the physical meaning of the vector and scalar fields involved and the physical meaning of the integrations present in the definitions.


              Too many people try to be experts when they fail at the basics. This is not about reading something and repeating it, but about getting the meaning of what you are reading.

              (Automatically translated from English. Below is the original commentary in English)

              For an engineer, this is the key part:

              and if you are fluent with the phisical meaning of the vectorial and scalar fields involved and the phisical meaning of the integrations present in the definitions


              There is too much people trying to be experts when they fail in the basics. It is not about to read something and repeat it, it is about to understand the meaning of what you are reading.
  16. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 5 January 2022 12: 59
    +9
    We vryatli consider the reality of war seriously because of the long-standing and firmly entrenched hope in the minds of nuclear weapons. Say, we have a bunch of nuclear weapons and no one dares, and if they dare, then there will be no time for mines and all this garbage. While the Americans from the collapse of the USSR reformatted their Armed Forces for effective local wars, we also continued to exist in the paradigm of an all-out super war. Now the specter of a local war is beginning to loom quite tangibly - and I'm primarily about the Japanese claims. Hopefully, in this regard, we have already begun to draw conclusions ..
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 5 January 2022 22: 03
      -3
      There are MShM 2 and self-propelled mines and they are quite enough for the moment.
      1. timokhin-aa
        6 January 2022 14: 47
        0
        There are MShM 2 and self-propelled mines and they are quite enough for the moment.


        YOUR MSHM is the RM-2G 1968, and the self-propelled one is actually “rumbling”, with great noise, the ancient 53-65K torpedo
        1. Vadim237
          Vadim237 6 January 2022 17: 59
          -4
          This is RM-2G 1968., It is possible to show the design specifics of MShM 2 in 2015 - since the 68th 45 years it has gone very doubt that this is the same thing, at least in terms of equipment.
          RM-2 RM-2G
          Length 3850 mm 3900 mm
          Caliber 533 mm 533 mm
          Diameter 534 mm 533 mm
          Weight 860 kg 900 kg
          Explosive weight 200 200 kg
          Depth of the mine laying site up to 450 m up to 900 m
          Range of deepening 150 m MShM 2 Caliber - 533 mm; Length - 3850 mm; Weight - 880 kg; Charge weight - 320 kg; Depth of the installation site: - minimum - 60 m; - maximum - 600 m; Deepening: - minimum - 60 m; - maximum - 300 m. And yes, it makes no sense to make small mines, since they will not cause serious damage to large ships and submarines in view of a weak warhead and there is no point in hiding them, one figs will find them, but they can be made so that these It was impossible to remove the mines and poke around in them - to remove only by self-destruction or directed detonation of naval mines, defensive weapons and the enemy knowing that a minefield has been exposed or a mine has been installed will not meddle in, why risk the ship, the submarine and the crew.
          1. timokhin-aa
            8 January 2022 18: 58
            +2
            Answer from M. Klimov:

            This is RM-2G 1968., It is possible to show the design specifics of MShM 2 in 2015 - since the 68th 45 years it has gone very doubt that this is the same thing, at least in terms of equipment.


            YOUR illiterate "doubts" are worthless.
            And “you can” - buy in a second-hand bookstore the Technical Description of the RM-2G mine and compare it with the MShM prospectus at any salon (IMMS, “Army”) at the TRV stand.
            And yet, - RM-2 is, in fact, a modified KRM Lyamin, which was generally accepted into service in 1955. and was developed according to the "Stalinist assignment" (after Lyamin's letter to the IVS)

            And yes, it makes no sense to make small mines, since they will not cause serious damage to large ships and submarines in view of the weak warhead and there is no point in hiding them


            Monsieur, YOU are absolutely incompetent in these matters.
            DM is the body CONTUSION, which is achieved by PRESSURE in the front of the shock wave AT THE TARGET.
            And this means a simple thing - do not care what warhead is near the mine itself, it is the PRESSURE in the front of the shock wave that WORKS - AT THE TARGET. Those. with an EXCESSIVE LARGE mass of the warhead DM, its energy at shallow depths will be spent not so much on the pressure of the shock front as on the rise of a large mass of water by the sultan on the SIDE OF THE PURPOSE.
            It should be borne in mind that RnvDM (BATTLE channel) is approximately = R defeat, i.e. once again - at shallow depths large warheads are UNUSUABLE - because their energy literally goes "into the air".
            An example of the "optimal dimension" of "shallow mines" is the same "Manta" or our UDM-500 with a warhead weighing less than 300 kg
            1. Dmitry V.
              Dmitry V. 10 January 2022 12: 42
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              YOU are absolutely incompetent in these matters.
              DM is the body CONTUSION, which is achieved by PRESSURE in the front of the shock wave AT THE TARGET.
              And this means a simple thing - do not care what warhead is near the mine itself, it is the PRESSURE in the front of the shock wave that WORKS - AT THE TARGET. Those. with an EXCESSIVELY LARGE mass of the warhead DM, its energy at shallow depths will go not so much for the front pressure

              Alexander - it is useless to teach people who have no idea about hydro-gas dynamics, unaware of the incompressibility of a liquid - do not waste your nerves in vain.
              You are doing a great job - you reveal the true state of affairs, otherwise the moldy staff officers will not tear themselves away from the publication of "victorious releases".
              Unfortunately, the "competence" of the current leadership allows them to hang on to their ears, bringing the situation no longer to the point of absurdity, but to a catastrophic state ...
            2. EMMM
              EMMM 11 January 2022 23: 11
              0
              Sir, you do not own the topic at all. Even within the scope of the LETI or Korabelka naval department.
              The name of the RM-2 mine has one letter "P", which means "reactive". and you put it on a par with torpedoes. In those years, an underwater jet engine could not provide the torpedo with the required range and relatively low visibility. To solve the problems of a deep-sea mine, a dozen seconds were enough, and it hit a surface (or underwater) target at distances of up to 2 km.
          2. EMMM
            EMMM 11 January 2022 23: 01
            0
            Just in case: PM2 can carry a special charge ...
  17. Canis aureus
    Canis aureus 5 January 2022 13: 47
    .
    Klimov slept after the New Year and carries the usual Russophobic all-European game.
    1. timokhin-aa
      5 January 2022 14: 56
      +10
      That is, the requirement to have modern weapons is Russophobia or what? What's wrong with your head, citizen?
      1. Canis aureus
        Canis aureus 7 January 2022 22: 40
        -9
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        That is, the requirement to have modern weapons is Russophobia or what? What's wrong with your head, citizen?

        We have it.
        And what Mr. Klimov is doing is undermining the morale and confidence of the personnel in their weapons.
        1. Cympak
          Cympak 8 January 2022 01: 06
          +2
          And what Mr. Klimov is doing is undermining the morale and confidence of the personnel in their weapons.

          Are you by any chance one of the political officers?
          Shapkozakidstvie, overestimation of their capabilities and underestimation of the enemy have always led to sad consequences, incl. and in our recent history.
          Someone must finally tell the sovereign that "the British do not clean guns with bricks."
        2. timokhin-aa
          8 January 2022 18: 56
          +1
          You may have it, but not in the Navy.
          Or at least name what these effective mines are, at least the name.
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. shinobi
    shinobi 8 January 2022 13: 47
    -1
    Please, both the author of the article and the comments with commentators. Basically, the sea mines considered in the article have not changed for a very long time. The reason is that they are ineffective against warships. In our Navy, the emphasis is on a completely different type of mines, and you will not find about them ( or you will find very little) practically no information in the public domain. The bottom line is a plastic container in which the Flurry is located. That's actually all that is known if we discard myths and rumors.
    1. timokhin-aa
      8 January 2022 18: 55
      +1
      You seem to have medical problems. Shkval has no homing system, none at all. It cannot be applied at depth.
      How to apply it in a mine?
      And of course, there is no material evidence that something like that someone even tried to create.
      You invented this, and medical difficulties pushed you into fiction.
      1. shinobi
        shinobi 9 January 2022 10: 42
        +1
        Have you read the post carefully?
    2. Dmitry V.
      Dmitry V. 10 January 2022 13: 05
      -1
      Quote: shinobi
      The reason is that they are ineffective against warships.


      But they are very suitable for a sea blockade of ports.
      The Americans effectively blocked the navigable fairways of the approaches to the ports of North Vietnam - Operation ("Pocket Money")
      Operation Pocket Money began on the morning of May 8, 1972. Aircraft A-6 and A-7, under the cover of fighters and two cruisers, carried out mining from the air at the main North Vietnamese port of Haiphong. The mines were put on activation after five days, allowing foreign ships to safely leave the harbor. By May 12, in the ports of Haiphong, Kamph, and other American aircraft were exposed 11 thousand sea mines.
      Operation Pocket Money has achieved its goals. The mining of ports has led to significant difficulties in the delivery of military and civilian cargo to North Vietnam., as a result of which the Vietnamese side was forced to sit down at the negotiating table.
      The Vietnamese were not able to find effective methods of mass demining, and therefore achieved the inclusion of a clause in the Paris Agreement on a Ceasefire and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (1973) that demining should be carried out by the American side.

      And how the Soviet specialists cleared mines "by the piece":
      When the minefield, after a pause, again came into a dangerous position, the Chinese, on their counterparts of the Soviet minesweepers of the 264th project, at their own peril and risk, decided to independently start combat trawling. Blindly. Without knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the tactical qualities of someone else's weapon. And, of course, they paid.

      The first matelot, as they say, stepped behind the flags and flew into the air. The crew was killed.
      Be that as it may, our operators were able to accurately establish that the Americans used two types of mines in their strategic operation in the theater of operations: Mk 36 and Mk 52. The Mk 36 mine bomb had a sensitive detonator that triggered a detonation when a diver approached it, even with a Pobeda watch on his arm, only at a distance of half a meter. The Mk 52 bottom mine had a remote control unit for a proximity fuse in the scheme, making the minefield controlled using a cipher charge dropped from a helicopter into a mined bay.

      The search, detection and disarmament of mines planted under water were hampered by the specifics of sea areas. The work was carried out in shallow water, in areas with high ebb and flow, strong currents, high silt and low water transparency. The mine specialists coped with the task.

      The divers rafted the mine lying in the darkness with a hemp rope. The tractor, slowly backing away, turned a dangerous surprise ashore. If in the scheme the mines did not work at a certain depth at the command of the hydrostat self-liquidator, the mine was placed on the table at the disposal of the mine crew with a non-magnetic tool in hand. Obliged to act confidently, carefully and, most importantly, without mistakes. Therefore, each turn of the key in the hands of the operator was transmitted by wire to a concrete bunker for an entry in the disarmament log. To know at what step in the mine the trap could be triggered together with the crew that flew into the air. Tomorrow the process was to continue with another shift. All right. Our shift workers passed on their terrible experience to the Vietnamese.

      Underestimating the mine threat is a big mistake.
  20. Eule
    Eule 10 January 2022 13: 52
    +2
    Compare with the Air Force. The Israeli missile "Python" not only has signatures in its memory, but the processor determines the type of target and the method of attack - to the fighter in the tail, and the AWACS or airliner - to overtake and hit the cockpit towards the bottom, striking the pilots.
    Surely you can stupidly collect a collection of noises from all large ships from different countries of the world, and write it into the processor's memory so that "friends" go over the mine, not noticing it, and she is theirs.
    But - the problem is in the organization of such work ...

    The legislation is ... under other laws, the Navy could simply announce a competition so that any firm or group of enthusiasts could participate. But now the attempt to make a mine detonator in the garage will not end well.
    Until 2009, in the summer, I often wandered through the fields with a metal detector. Therefore, by analogy with the "dubious" signals (which are either a cork, or a button, or a coin), it would be possible to complicate the enemy's search for mines by adopting dozens of their types, from different manufacturers. That there was not one "mine" signal on the device, but dozens of "dubious" ones.
    1. EMMM
      EMMM 11 January 2022 22: 56
      0
      yes, a pedestrian. A speaks of naval weapons.
  21. EMMM
    EMMM 11 January 2022 22: 54
    0
    For especially non-current mines, I explain that bottom mines are divided into a class of shallow water, which the author shows as an object to follow, and deep-water, located below the hydroacoustic jump, so that one can think of sonar visibility in principle. But the fact that from a depth of 450m in 15 seconds. "birdie" will fly out - this is already serious. This is about the old woman RM-2, which is kept in the Gidropribor Museum, which has been produced since the 70s. And what is there today, few people know.
    Simply, in life, I was lucky to visit this museum, which few people know about at all.