Military Review

Submersible Patrol Ship: Necessity or Fantasy?

74

We all know perfectly well that a dolphin and a mermaid, no matter how it was sung in a popular song of past years, are not fish, nor meat, nor anything else. And in general, the union is more than peculiar.


Today we will talk about the development of the Central Design Bureau of Marine Engineering "Rubin". We are talking about the "Guardian", a project of a submersible patrol ship.

It cannot be said that this is a “breakthrough”, “unparalleled”, because the Guardian project is the second project. The first was developed as an export version and no one showed interest in it.

But in stories There are several other similar projects.

One project was called "Dolphin" and was developed during the Khrushchev era, who had the idea of ​​jailing engineers for creating a hybrid of a missile boat and a submarine.

The technologies of that time simply did not allow to build something sane, because the "Dolphin" remained an unrealized project. The designers themselves admitted that the boat turned out to be bad, and the submarine was even worse.

Submersible Patrol Ship: Necessity or Fantasy?

But even before the Dolphin, the project of the M-1939 Bloch submersible torpedo boat, which began in 196 in the special technical bureau of the NKVD at plant No. 400 in Leningrad (yes, Her Majesty Sharaga in action), was almost implemented. The boat began to be built in metal in 1940, at the beginning of World War II, the readiness was 60%, but during the war the boat was damaged by shelling and it was decided not to resume its construction.

And now, after "Flea" and "Dolphin" - "Guardian".

What is the new Rubin project? This is a very unique ship. "Flea" had a displacement of 74 tons. "Dolphin" - 600 tons. "Guardian" displaces 1300 tons of water. The length of the ship is 72 meters. It’s hard to name a boat, the Molniya missile boat was 56 meters long and had a displacement of less than 500 tons. And here it is twice as much.

Armament "Guardian" combined. A small-caliber automatic cannon, which has not yet been announced, but it is clear that this is from 30 to 57 millimeters. Four 324 mm torpedo tubes. Two launchers for anti-ship missiles.

If you think about it, then the "Package-NK" on the ship will look very. A complex capable of working both on surface ships and on submarines with torpedoes is very relevant.

3S14 launchers are our everything. If the launchers are for the Onyx and Caliber - completely. Anything else doesn't make sense.

To top it all off, there are still airtight compartments-hangars in which you can place boats for inspection teams, additional weapons, or unmanned aerial vehicles.

All this is mounted on a fairly stable platform. The so-called wave-piercing stem (almost like the Zamvolt) and the negative obstruction of the sides give the ship additional stability plus reduce radar visibility. Bulb in the nose reduces water resistance and it is very convenient to install a hydroacoustic station in it.

Speed, however, according to the developer, the ship does not shine. The declared 21 knots are very few for a patrol ship. Neither catch up, nor, excuse me, escape.

Rubin claims that the ship is capable of traveling about 4 miles at a speed of 10 knots. If necessary, the range can be further increased.

We think.

In order to make it easier to think, we take for comparison an ordinary patrol ship of project 22160. Corvette. It is closer in size and displacement to the Guardian than any other ship.


Photo: Mil.ru

The displacement of the corvette 22160 is slightly larger - 1500 tons. However, the dynamic performance is much better. The maximum speed is 25 knots. Patrol - 16 knots. Range at 16 knots - 6 miles.

As a walker on the sea, Vasily Bykov looks better than the Guardian. Further, faster, more trouble-free to catch up. 4 knots is, you know, a lot.

The armament of a “clean” corvette is also much more preferable. 76-mm gun mount instead of smaller caliber guns, 8 anti-ship missiles. How much "Guardian" has is not entirely clear. And the corvette has a hangar for a helicopter and, accordingly, a helicopter in this hangar. That Ka-29, that Ka-52 is a serious help for a ship performing patrol functions in the sea zone.

In general, compared to a normal corvette, the Guardian does not look at all.

However, one should not immediately say that the idea of ​​the Rubin designers is stupidity. There is a rational grain in the project, the only question is how to use this ship.

And in general, it is worth noting, by the way, that the development of the "Guard" in the Central Design Bureau of MT "Rubin" was optional. That is, it did not cost the country's budget a single ruble. It is like a digital testing ground for working out ideas that could not be implemented in the past. Times are changing, so that what was beyond the power of shipbuilders in the 50s of the last century, today can be quite feasible.

So, we have a corvette-displacement ship with mixed missile and torpedo armament, capable of submerging under water for an indefinite time and moving there.

We have patrol corvettes of about the same displacement, with stronger armament and faster. We have submarines (the same "Varshavyanka"), which are uniquely designed to operate from under water, large in size and displacement, but slower than this hybrid ship.

And where can we confidently use a ship like the Guardian?

Definitely drawn is not a patrol ship, but something else. The practice of using such a ship is ambush operations in shallow water conditions.

Such a ship can, using its real stealth, monitor ships and ships of the enemy, and attack. Interception is also possible, but here, of course, speed is important.

The ability to move underwater can be used in a variety of ways.

Firstly, to leave the surface when a sudden wave began and wait out the same storm without interrupting patrols - this is interesting.

Secondly, in combat contact with the enemy, diving under water can allow you to escape from missiles or artillery weapons.

Thirdly, covert movement makes it possible to quietly approach enemy ships and vessels. Plus, moving under water unequivocally hides the ship from airborne surveillance. This means that there is the possibility of using it for operations in shallow water, such as laying mines or landing underwater saboteurs.

Place? Such a ship could feel very well in the shallow waters of the Baltic, indented with skerries and replete with islands. Or such ships could feel very good on the same Kuril ridge.

If you look at the drawings of the projects, it becomes clear that the first project of the "Guard" is a submarine, which was given some features of surface ships. The second ship has the distinct structure of a surface ship that has been given the function of a submarine.

In general, if you look again at history, then the first normal combat submarines of the First World War were diving rather than underwater. They spent most of their time on the surface, moving towards the enemy, charging batteries and so on.

Modern technology can significantly increase the stay of boats under water, but above water they are not as fast as under water. Narrow specialization affects. And nuclear submarines and generally under water have a greater speed than on the surface.

So, first of all, the Guardian-2 project should be subject to reflection. The fact that a project of such a ship has been theoretically created that is capable of operating both above and below the surface of the water, first of all, it is worth answering a number of questions.

1. How realistic is the construction of an operating ship according to such a project and its mass production.

2. The cost of the ship. If it will have the price of three submarines, then it is worth thinking about the advisability of working on such a ship in general.

3. Operating conditions. Including the cost of maintaining such ships.

4. Application. There must be a clear understanding of where and in what capacity such a ship can be most effectively used.

Only after all these questions have been answered, does it make sense to say that we have developed another "wonder weapon", naturally "unparalleled in the world."

Yes, indeed, there are no analogues in the world. But it is quite possible that no one simply needs them. There are countries that have achieved very significant success in the development of ships of various classes. But the fact that so far no one is developing and building ships of this class does not mean that we are "ahead of the rest of the planets."

However, it is absolutely not worth saying that the project will not be in demand at all. Personally, I think that the project is the essence.

Today, ships are getting smaller and more and more technology is focused on making ships less visible.

To remove surface ships from the zone of maximum effective destruction is the main task of tomorrow. Why not put it under water? If there is such an opportunity technologically - not the worst option.

Moreover, it really will not be a submarine, but a diving surface ship. An ideal fighter for work from an ambush.

Expressing your opinion in the comments news about the Guardian-2 project, many spoke very critically, not to say negatively.

Let's put it this way: TsKB MT "Rubin" has developed more than one project that was not just successful, but excellent. "Squid", "Antey", "Shark", "Borey" ...

This is an interesting project, created within the walls, where initially, starting from 1901, they knew how to build submarines. So it makes sense to just wait until time shows how interesting and viable this project was.

It is quite possible that a diving patrol ship is not a fantasy, but a reality of tomorrow.
Author:
74 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Aerodrome
    Aerodrome 15 February 2022 05: 22
    +10
    Submersible Patrol Ship: Necessity or Fantasy?
    this is what our fleet needs the least now ...
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 15 February 2022 05: 33
      0
      And what does the fleet need first of all?
      Aircraft carriers?
      Or maybe patrol and reconnaissance aircraft for hunting NATO submarines?
      Helicopter carriers?
      Landing ships?
      There have already been many articles on this topic on VO.
      I'm already lost in all this diversity ... sailors, you already decide what you need at all now.
      1. Aerodrome
        Aerodrome 15 February 2022 05: 56
        +9
        Yes, even if they made a dozen destroyers ...
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 15 February 2022 07: 42
          0
          Quote: Aerodrome
          yes, at least a dozen destroyers were made

          What for?
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 15 February 2022 07: 42
        0
        Quote: Lech from Android.
        sailors, you already decide what you need in general now.

        Frigates and corvettes, and everything else is from the evil one ... that is, from the military-industrial complex !!!
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 18 March 2022 12: 32
          -2
          Quote: Serg65
          Frigates and corvettes

          this sounds very vague.
          we need not just frigates and corvettes, but large-scale ships,
          who will have modern equipment, and not "take what we can."
          And it is also important that there be a quick design and commissioning so that they do not become obsolete even before laying.
          1. Serg65
            Serg65 18 March 2022 14: 00
            +3
            Quote: yehat2
            we need

            Do you work in the planning department?
            Quote: yehat2
            this sounds very vague

            From what? The fleet must be saturated with what we are doing now, and not with what we have fantasies and prospects for!
            What do you dislike about modern frigates and corvettes?
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 18 March 2022 14: 09
              -2
              Quote: Serg65
              The fleet must be saturated with what we are doing now

              Yes? Maybe then you’ll say, what for do we need PLO corvettes with outdated torpedoes, which are already ineffective against NATO submarines?
              What is the point in producing them? And what is the point in the production of frigates with poor air defense or a radar mast?
              or what's the point in a ship that is perfectly designed, but has been on the slipway for 10 years?
              You need to saturate only with useful units. If we cannot make an advanced ship, it is better not to make it at all, but to limit ourselves to patrol and fishing ships.
              Look at the history of the fleet - when there were serious problems with equipping ships for literally everyone, the fleet commissioned attack squadrons of tugs and mail boats, because the fleet needed useful ships, not units for show.
              Quote: Serg65
              Do you work in the planning department?

              stupid personal attack why? What are you trying to prove with this?

              I will give a simple example. Repair of St. Petersburg Ring Road. In the summer, it turns into hell, because the contractors are not told how they should repair. Covering the area and not touching it for 2 months is normal. And if the customer outlined his requirements for the repair procedure, then the Ring Road would not be in terrible traffic jams.
              It is the same in the navy, you need not just "build ships". In order for these very expensive products to be useful, many conditions must be met.
              For example, large-scale production greatly reduces the cost and speed of construction, improves the possibilities of operation and repair, and simplifies the search for and correction of errors and shortcomings.
              1. Serg65
                Serg65 18 March 2022 14: 25
                +2
                Quote: yehat2
                Maybe then you’ll say, what for us PLO corvettes with outdated torpedoes

                So the ships themselves don't suit you or their torpedoes?
                Yes ... and why did the NK Package not please you ... what is his old age?
                Quote: yehat2
                what is the point in producing frigates with poor air defense or radar mast?

                Ahh, have you read Klimov and Timokhin? So I will upset you .. Air defense is debugged and works fine!
                What is the problem with the radar mast?
                Quote: yehat2
                If we can't make an advanced ship, it's better not to make it at all,

                Agree, this is a personally higher opinion and only you know what it is based on!
                Quote: yehat2
                Look at the history of the fleet

                Do you understand the history of the fleet? ...
                Quote: yehat2
                the fleet commissioned strike squadrons of tugs and mail boats

                what I don’t even have anything to answer to this ... a direct unsurpassed historical fact ... from where did you get this, my friend?
                Quote: yehat2
                stupid personal attack why?

                Well, why immediately attack, just interested in your knowledge of planning!
                Quote: yehat2
                What are you trying to prove with this?

                Yes, you are trying to shove me some kind of shnyaga, and with a smart look!
                hi
                1. yehat2
                  yehat2 18 March 2022 14: 33
                  -1
                  Quote: Serg65
                  NK package did not please

                  the torpedo is not able to catch up with the American submarine, if it detects the launch of the torpedo and starts countermeasures, there are a number of other shortcomings
                  .
                  Quote: Serg65
                  What is the problem with the radar mast?

                  we can do well, but hellishly expensive, or relatively inexpensive, but completely irrelevant in terms of performance characteristics. And you need a good price at a reasonable price.
                  Quote: Serg65
                  just interested in your knowledge of planning

                  There is a specialized education and a lot of experience.
                  Quote: Serg65
                  Do you understand the history of the fleet?

                  I at least study it and the fate of useless ships is clearly visible in it - it's just ballast that interferes with the rearmament of the fleet. So why make them, then maintain and spend huge loot on this? We seem to have enough training ships already.
              2. Serg65
                Serg65 18 March 2022 14: 39
                +3
                Quote: yehat2
                Repair of St. Petersburg Ring Road

                What is needed for the repair of the ring road except for planning?
                It seems to me that the requirements of the customer are negotiated immediately and the contractor fully agrees with these requirements, although he often does not have the opportunity to fulfill these requirements due to a lack of his capacity ... but big money is at stake and the contractor is ready to endure penalties for them! What can the customer do besides imposing penalties? Break the contract? And thereby freeze the repair of the CAD?
                Quote: yehat2
                large-scale production greatly reduces the cost and speed of construction, improves the possibilities of operation and repair, and simplifies the search for and correction of errors and shortcomings.

                So now the series are going on, what's wrong?
                1. yehat2
                  yehat2 18 March 2022 14: 48
                  -3
                  Quote: Serg65
                  So now the series are going on, what's wrong?

                  a series of 3 ships is a handicraft
                  look at series in USA, China, Germany
                  if they make ships, then in dozens and quickly, until they are outdated.
                  an example is a Chinese corvette 056. 2012 ships have been made since 43.
                  2 years after the start of the series, they began to build 056a with PLO functions.
                  Now it is no longer the newest ship, but it gave a very good base for moving on.
                  American example. destroyer arly burke
                  88 pieces have been built since 68, the bulk of them in less than 10 years.
                  If it had been built here, the first one would have been launched in 2000, the second in 2008. As they say, feel the difference.
      3. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 15 February 2022 14: 35
        +2
        Quote: Lech from Android.
        And what does the fleet need first of all?

        Forces and means to fulfill the main task of the fleet: the safe withdrawal of SSBNs from the bases, the safe transition to the position areas and the duty in them ("30 minutes of life in wartime"). For in the next 30 years, 40% of our strategic warheads will be deployed on SLBMs.
        That is, the fleet needs the MPK or PLO, TShch, ICAPL corvettes, coastal aviation. Possibly frigates.
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 18 March 2022 12: 36
          -1
          It seems to me that without a contingent of ships capable of escorting our ships in the ocean, carrying out reconnaissance and demining, too, nowhere.
          but it's more of a 2nd one.
      4. yehat2
        yehat2 18 March 2022 12: 26
        -1
        Quote: Lech from Android.
        And what does the fleet need first of all?

        the fleet first of all needs a basic foundation - each fleet has its own.
        for example, we are very concerned about coastal defense and security, and preferably for sane money. Therefore, patrol submarines are not immediately an option.
        What do we need? We need effective modern large-scale PLO frigates, armed with ASROK and a turntable, for the Arctic and the Pacific Ocean, with some margin of autonomy. We need simple coastal patrol ships, very similar to the American coast guard, and also in large series.
        We need serial (not piece) frigates with a large number of vertical universal containers that can conduct a full-fledged (and not just for show) missile combat - air defense and tactical missiles. Plus, we need a multi-purpose nuclear submarine. This is the minimum for the "muscles of the fleet".
    2. qQQQ
      qQQQ 15 February 2022 14: 29
      +1
      Quote: Aerodrome
      this is what our fleet needs the least now ...

      Yes, it, along the way, is not needed at all, not only by ours, but in general by no fleet. The people realized that the main thing is to make a project and try to get funding for it, and the rest is no longer important.
    3. Vadim Astashkin
      Vadim Astashkin 15 February 2022 20: 30
      0
      I agree. We would have to make normal PLO corvettes or new Gorshkovs. And these boobies are now inventing all sorts of wunderwaffe
  2. Nitarius
    Nitarius 15 February 2022 05: 26
    -2
    The ship is embarrassing) but the plane diving under water)) no! well, I don’t even know))) it’s clear that such splashes are clearly not from a UFO .. but a man-made flying completely earthly device))
    1. Lech from Android.
      Lech from Android. 15 February 2022 05: 43
      0
      Old, now such diving and jumping boats are in fashion.

      I wouldn't mind jumping all the way to Florida on this... popped up somewhere on a sunny beach... oh dreams, dreams.
    2. Aerodrome
      Aerodrome 15 February 2022 05: 57
      +2
      Quote: Nitarius
      it is clear that such splashes are clearly not from a UFO .. but a man-made flying completely earthly device))
      yeah ... it's called "computer graphics" ....
    3. Vladimir61
      Vladimir61 15 February 2022 06: 06
      +3
      It is strange that they keep the focus on their aviation, although in reality, all attention would be on UFOs.
  3. The comment was deleted.
    1. Uncle lee
      Uncle lee 15 February 2022 05: 45
      +2
      Quote: yuriy55
      .UFOs are called.

      Our technologies are still far from UFOs .... But we must strive.
      1. Nitarius
        Nitarius 15 February 2022 10: 50
        0
        How to say)))
      2. yehat2
        yehat2 18 March 2022 12: 29
        -1
        Quote: Uncle Lee
        Our technologies are still far from UFOs

        you take an inflatable boat, you go to Niagara Falls and you get a UFO and a triumph of technology.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 15 February 2022 07: 47
      +1
      Quote: yuriy55
      The speed of the submarine under water is higher

      what And often she walks at full speed?
      Quote: yuriy55
      and (presumably) the speed of the patrol ship is lower.

      And what is the speed of the patrol ship in the submarine search mode?
  4. malyvalv
    malyvalv 15 February 2022 05: 50
    -5
    The idea is good for a patrol scout. And if you equip it with air defense systems, then the survival rate is, as it were, no better than that of the submarines. The main weapon against submarines, as you know, is what flies. And then such a "dive" toothy will turn out.
    But the most important thing is that it will be much cheaper than a full-fledged submarine with not so bad opportunities.
    1. Cosm22
      Cosm22 15 February 2022 12: 04
      +2
      The idea is crazy initially without any reservations.
      Rubin would be better off doing the real thing. And such projects are reminiscent of the actions of my cat when he has nothing to do.
      1. malyvalv
        malyvalv 15 February 2022 14: 33
        -3
        What are the specific objections? Or are you doing your favorite thing with a cat for a couple?
        1. Cosm22
          Cosm22 15 February 2022 14: 42
          +2
          What objections can there be to sheer nonsense?
          In terms of performance characteristics, a product striving for universality will never even come close to the capabilities of an apparatus tailored for specific combat missions. This is the basics of engineering. Therefore, no one has ever seriously engaged in such nonsense. Things did not go further than such projects.
          You can try to combine two completely different classes of ships. But the result will be a misunderstanding, which will lose in terms of functionality to both the surface and underwater versions. So why fence the garden?
          1. malyvalv
            malyvalv 15 February 2022 15: 53
            0
            Why would it be worse? Concrete corvette with the ability to dive. Absolute stealth and not these attempts with the slopes of the sides. RCC will not even be able to aim. And planes and helicopters will be afraid to hunt such a ship.
            The tasks are the same. The question is how to implement it.
          2. Motorist
            Motorist 16 February 2022 00: 33
            0
            Quote: Cosm22
            In terms of performance characteristics, a product striving for universality will never even come close to the capabilities of an apparatus tailored for specific combat missions. This is the basics of engineering.

            That you sho! Do you know that on modern MAN B&W engines, all nuts are tightened to one pressure - there is only one pump, just change the jacks. And some winches go from working mode to self-tensioning just by turning off the pole pairs on the pump motors.

            Yes, the same wrench: he didn’t complain before, but he got into a situation where you constantly need to pull something of different sizes - you don’t run after the keys.

            Many examples can be found. Illiterate engineers came up with.
    2. Passing
      Passing 16 February 2022 22: 57
      0
      Quote: malyvalv
      The idea is good for a patrol scout.

      What is the meaning of a diving "patrol scout"? Who will he scout, pirates? Why hide from them? Let them see and be afraid. Yes, and he will not catch up with anyone, even poachers on a rusty longboat.
      But in the mass impact diving carrier 8 KR / RCC, the meaning would be observed:
      1) Low displacement means a small build cycle, a potentially fiberglass hull (super-technological and bonus radios and magnetic stealth), low cost (in theory) and, as a result, a large circulation of a product with a unique set of qualities.
      2) The ability to hide under water from bad weather gives a unique quality - seaworthiness with a meager displacement. Those. we get an ocean-class missile boat. Which is fundamentally impossible for a traditional scheme.
      3) Moreover, this ocean boat has every chance of being really effective (if the weather is not particularly fierce). Imperceptibly approached the launch point (according to the external control center), surfaced - fired, hid under water from retribution. This scheme looks really working, unlike the unviable Buyans and other missile corvettes.
      4) Air defense is not necessary at all, because the main protection against aviation is stealth and a layer of water above the wheelhouse. And the chance that aviation will catch on the ascent is minimal, and weak (cheap) air defense will not protect against anything, but strong is painfully expensive, and here the main thing is cheapness for the purpose of real mass character. Even if a few are sunk by PLURs, the loss is small, the remaining dozens will complete the task and leave unpunished.
      1. malyvalv
        malyvalv 17 February 2022 03: 14
        0
        For example, there is a task to get as close as possible to the enemy's naval base in wartime. The question is, who can come closer to the submarine if the base is covered by naval aviation? Or a surface ship that glows on radar tens of kilometers away? Or here is such a diving scout who is not afraid of planes and helicopters.
        They shot down the plane and left. To shoot down Orions or helicopters, no super air defense is required. A day later again. Aviation will either end soon or will be afraid to fly. Even if they arrange a round-up with ordinary corvettes, that is, with something to answer.
        1. Passing
          Passing 18 February 2022 13: 17
          0
          Forget about combat swimmers at enemy bases, this is no longer relevant, side-scan sonar and sonars are already a routine, they see through any bay in the highest resolution.
          As a means of delivering saboteurs to the "wild" enemy coast, it is quite vital. But, this task is not to say that it is a priority for the fleet or the army, and not even the second stage. And, this task is solved by any universal submarine, so is it worth building an innovative project for the sake of a couple of boats in each of the fleets?
          Quote: malyvalv
          To shoot down Orions or helicopters, no super air defense is required.

          Shooting down a helicopter can also be a problem, for example for Gibka. Those. we need a full-fledged air defense system with a serious anti-jamming radar, i.e. at least an analogue of the Shell. And this is already 10-20 million dollars. To get Orion, you can’t get by with the Shell, you need Polyment-Redoubt. And this is already a price several times higher. And the displacement will grow sharply (and do not forget about people and premises).
          In addition, all these intentions to clear the sky with the help of a diving air defense battery are simply not viable - after shooting down an enemy aircraft, no dive will save us, a PLUR will fly in (namely, all these easily vulnerable targets will fly there), and we are finished. And we will not be able to answer the ship that launched the PLUR, because we do not know where it is. And he already knows.
          As an option, install a HAC (including a towed antenna), install anti-torpedoes (all this is still a big plus for displacement and price), and fight off an attack (a single one, zero chances from a connection of ships). And it seems to make some sense. But, imperceptibly, instead of a compact, and therefore inconspicuous, cheap, and therefore massive, boat, we get a huge, and therefore noticeable (at times), expensive (as if not an order of magnitude, and even many times more expensive than a surface ship comparable in armament), which means a single one in the fleet, a monster that is stupidly a pity to throw into battle, because if they drown, it will be a natural undermining of the combat power of the fleet (the ship is expensive and well armed, which means it will eat away a place in the fleet from a couple of frigates).
          In addition, during a war lasting several years, it will be impossible to quickly restore the loss, because the cycle of building large ships is measured in years.
          1. malyvalv
            malyvalv 18 February 2022 17: 16
            0
            PLUR will arrive? And what about air defense? And how does the corvette that launched the PLUR know exactly where such a ship is. No, in what square this happened, he will be aware. But not more.
            It will not be so easy to fight a diving corvette in a semi-submersible state. RCC can hardly catch a target. Everything else that flies goes astray. If you send a normal corvette to fight it, it can run into a reciprocal anti-ship missile.
            The only option to deal with this configuration is another submarine. Corvettes and naval aviation are no good.
            1. Passing
              Passing 18 February 2022 18: 46
              0
              Air defense does not work underwater. Or do you mean that a diving corvette should, on the surface, fight off aircraft and destroyers with the help of air defense? Give an example of what kind of small ship is capable of solving this problem. Then we can broadcast it to a diving corvette. Until then, it's just fantasy.
              If we consider a more realistic scheme, it surfaced / surfaced - fired at the planes, dived, and went in an unknown direction, then everything is bad here too - the PLUR flies for several tens of seconds, for which the diving corvette, God forbid, will only have time to sink, and the torpedo has a GOS, which, after falling into the water, is looking for a circular target. The end is inevitable.
              Quote: malyvalv
              And how does the corvette that launched the PLUR know exactly where such a ship is

              Orion/Poseidon has a radar. If our corvette is on the surface, if Orion / Poseidon is so close that Redoubt hits it, and if the corvette is not the coolest stealth, then its coordinates will be immediately known. And this is not to mention that a working radar itself produces a corvette, even if there is even an expensive AFAR and LPI mode (by the way, does it happen on NK?). I don’t know how Orion / Poseidon is with network centrism, but logically he is obliged to support it. This means that the exact, up to a meter, coordinates will be known to all enemy ships.
              The destroyers have AGES, which detects everything much cooler than any corvette. And if our corvette is some kind of unrealistic stealth, then it’s not a problem to detect the approximate coordinates of the launch of missiles at a helicopter. Then a torpedo flies in, looking for a target in a square ...
              1. Passing
                Passing 18 February 2022 18: 54
                0
                And in general, the problem here is not only the high cost of cool air defense for a corvette, but the fact that even on a surface corvette you can’t really put a tight system, you can’t put it massively. Those. not the miserable 8 UKKS cells, but enough to fight off a destroyer, or an attack air group. And for a diving corvette, it’s even worse in this regard, it has a payload percentage of displacement much less than that of a surface ship
                Those. stuffed to the eyeballs with weapons, a diving corvette is not possible in principle within the framework of existing weapons systems. Those. it will be a diving frigate. Or a destroyer. With a space price.
                1. malyvalv
                  malyvalv 19 February 2022 04: 59
                  0
                  The PLUR flies for several tens of seconds, during which the diving corvette, God forbid, will only have time to sink, and the torpedo has a seeker, which, after entering the water, searches for a circular target. The end is inevitable.

                  Why is it a few tens of seconds? Hypersonic or what? Actually depends on the distance. At the dive, anti-torpedoes should also be in service. Even small ones purely for defense. And diving is not necessary at all if it is easier to shoot down.

                  if Orion/Poseidon is that close

                  And he will have to fly up very close to find only a small dive cabin with a small rotating AFAR canvas sticking out. SAM can also be launched from under water. Floating is not required.

                  stuffed to the eyeballs with weapons, a diving corvette is not possible in principle within the framework of existing weapons systems.


                  No need to stuff him. Several missiles from aircraft, several anti-ship missiles from corvettes and several anti-torpedoes from all sorts of anti-torpedoes if you can’t shoot down while flying. He's a scout, not a striker after all. Revealed the enemy situation and go back.
                  1. Passing
                    Passing 19 February 2022 15: 40
                    0
                    Quote: malyvalv
                    Why is it a few tens of seconds?

                    Existing PLURs are generally subsonic, just a range of either 30 or 40 km. 30 km will fly conditionally 100 seconds. Our boat at a speed of 21 knots will leave during this time (no diving time!) to a maximum of 1000 meters. The range of the active seeker torpedo on the submarine is 2000-3000 meters. Everything is extremely obvious.
                    Quote: malyvalv
                    And he will have to fly up very close to find only a small dive cabin

                    "Little diving cabin" is actually a huge fool with EPR much more than any stealth aircraft. Due to the fact that the aircraft is always parallel to the radar scanning plane (i.e., the cross section is minimal), and the cabin is almost always (except for rare counter-dongon courses) perpendicular, i.e. EPR will be tens of meters. And no bevels that deflect radiation will solve this problem, because the radio wave is not reflected like light from a mirror - something is reflected specularly, something is reflected "diffusely". Even from fiberglass, even from water. Radio-absorbing materials are also not a panacea, there are no materials that would absorb everything, some will still be scattered.
                    Actually, it is precisely for this reason that there are no completely invisible stealth aircraft. And the modern radar completely sees them starting from 50-100 km. And the cabin with a huge EPR (compared to a stealth aircraft) will be spotted, as it were, not hundreds of kilometers away.
                    And I will remind you once again that the included radar of the ship itself is like a turned on beacon in the night. Even with the LPI mode enabled, the detection range of the enabled radar will drop several times for the PFAR, and for the AFAR it is still worse for masking.
                    Quote: malyvalv
                    Several missiles from aircraft, several anti-ship missiles from corvettes and several anti-torpedoes from all sorts of anti-torpedoes if you can’t shoot down while flying.

                    No one will launch a single corvette to fight our boat, it will always be a connection of ships, and these will not be corvettes, but destroyers. And a corvette against a destroyer is not an option at all, purely in terms of ammunition. Plus, if we are talking about the Americans, it will all be under the cover of aviation, even off our coasts, not to mention the protection of our bases. "A few of this, a few of that" is enough to confront one thing - either a corvette against a corvette, or a corvette against a link of attack aircraft (although I would put strikers on the link here, there is little chance for a corvette against aviation, at least in terms of missiles ammunition). In total - against the Americans, the corvette (even the connection) loses 100% in any situation. Against some Turkey, it can and will be good.
                    Quote: malyvalv
                    He's a scout, not a striker after all.

                    I just don’t understand what he should “reconnoiter” with? What's the point?
                    1. malyvalv
                      malyvalv 20 February 2022 05: 20
                      0
                      range is either 30 or 40 km.

                      This means that the corvette needs to approach at least 30-40 km. Well let it fit. And the square where the dive is supposedly located will be much wider 2-3 km. One PLUR will not get off. The square will have to be sown with PLURs.
                      "Little diving cabin" is actually a huge fool with EPR much more than any stealth aircraft.


                      An aircraft with a sea target cannot be compared. Finding something against the background of the sea is much more difficult than in the open air due to reflections.

                      No one will launch a single corvette to fight our boat, it will always be a connection of ships, and these will not be corvettes, but destroyers.


                      Oh how great!. A whole escort and even destroyers for one "dive". And if there are 2 of them. Send another connection to capture? Great idea!
  5. parusnik
    parusnik 15 February 2022 05: 56
    +2
    A hybrid is a hybrid, nature has not created an analogue ... smile
  6. Andrey Moskvin
    Andrey Moskvin 15 February 2022 06: 11
    +6
    We invent, then we puzzle over what to do with it. Ekranoplanes did not enlighten?
  7. Andy
    Andy 15 February 2022 07: 17
    +2
    This is stupidity and sabotage
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 15 February 2022 07: 48
      +3
      Quote: Andy
      This is stupidity and sabotage

      simple desire to make money.
      1. Aag
        Aag 15 February 2022 08: 29
        0
        Quote: Serg65
        Quote: Andy
        This is stupidity and sabotage

        simple desire to make money.

        Not ordinary, - hypertrophied.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 15 February 2022 08: 41
          +2
          Quote: AAG
          Not ordinary, - hypertrophied.

          schemes of the Soviet military-industrial complex are more alive than all the living! Nothing in the world changes!
          1. Aag
            Aag 15 February 2022 08: 45
            -1
            Quote: Serg65
            Quote: AAG
            Not ordinary, - hypertrophied.

            schemes of the Soviet military-industrial complex are more alive than all the living! Nothing in the world changes!

            In terms of the quantity and quality of successfully solved tasks, the Soviet military-industrial complex was far ahead. The current one is still modernizing ...
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 15 February 2022 08: 52
              +4
              Quote: AAG
              In terms of quantity and quality of successfully solved tasks, the Soviet military-industrial complex was far ahead

              I'm not talking about this, but about how the military-industrial complex, with the help of Ustinov, knocked out huge money from the USSR budget for enchanting projects and for unnecessary weapons!
              Quote: AAG
              The current one is still modernizing ...

              The Soviet military-industrial complex for 45 years did not know the shocks that the current one experienced .... and the technology is getting more and more complicated every year ..
              1. Terran ghost
                Terran ghost 15 February 2022 11: 42
                +3
                how the military-industrial complex, with the help of Ustinov, knocked out huge money from the USSR budget for enchanting projects and unnecessary weapons

                Well, this, alas, is a direct and inevitable result of the fact that in practice in the USSR, instead of democratic centralism, a system of centralism was built opposite, authoritarian-bureaucratic. There was simply no one to say "no" to the "military-industrial lobby" and its exorbitant appetites, sometimes by the way with completely stupid justifications ("factories should be loaded with orders no matter what"). The result is exorbitant military spending, which turned into a noose on the throat of the economy of the Soviet Union and prepared for its final collapse.
                Moreover, one must understand that the appetites of the military department and the military-industrial complex are exorbitant ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE (in all countries of the world). It never happens that the generals say "no, we have enough weapons and we don't need to do more yet." These appetites can only be limited by external political will, in the form of the need to justify and coordinate military spending during debates in a parliament consisting of representatives elected by the people.
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 15 February 2022 14: 53
                  0
                  Quote: Terran Ghost
                  Well, this, alas, is a direct and inevitable result of the fact that in practice in the USSR, instead of democratic centralism, a system of centralism was built opposite, authoritarian-bureaucratic. There was simply no one to say "no" to the "military-industrial lobby" and its exorbitant appetites, sometimes by the way with completely stupid justifications ("factories should be loaded with orders no matter what").

                  The funny thing is that the opponents of the USSR had the same problem: their military-industrial complex merged tightly with politicians (the military regularly went into business, but the rotation of politics-business-politics was generally the norm). So over the ocean say "no" to the "military-industrial lobby" and its exorbitant appetites there was practically no one - no one wanted to lose such a feeder. The foreign military-industrial complex could saw in the same way for years and decades advanced weapons programs without any real way out - suffice it to recall the legendary series of programs for creating new generation small arms.
                  Quote: Terran Ghost
                  These appetites can only be limited by external political will, in the form of the need to justify and coordinate military spending during debates in a parliament consisting of representatives elected by the people.

                  I can see directly how the electorate working for the defense industry votes for candidates who promise them cuts in military spending. smile
                  1. Terran ghost
                    Terran ghost 15 February 2022 15: 51
                    -1
                    their military-industrial complex has tightly merged with politicians (the military regularly went into business, but the rotation of politics-business-politics was generally the norm). So there was practically no one across the ocean to say "no" to the "military-industrial lobby" and its exorbitant appetites - no one wanted to lose such a feeder.

                    Specifically, in the United States, the lobbying of the military-industrial complex is indeed extremely strong, yes, a fact (but it is in the United States, for example, that of Great Britain and France after the end of the Cold War, the military budget steadily falls short of the MINIMUM by the standards of the NATO military-political bloc of 2 percent of the GDP of the respective countries).
                    But even in the United States, the military-industrial lobby, although strong, is far from omnipotent. Against the backdrop of the end of the Cold War in 1990, many advanced weapons programs went under the knife (the construction of 20 submarines of the Seawulf project (only 3 were built), 130 B-2 Stealth strategic bombers (all built 20), the development of the BZHRK "Peacekeeper Rail Garrison", a deep modernization of the M1A1 Abrams tank, which included, in particular, a new uninhabited remote-controlled turret placed in the tank's hull).
                    the legendary series of new generation small arms programs

                    Well, the development of infantry weapons carried in the hands is relatively cheap compared to high-tech expensive weapon systems. That is why the same Germany, as a result, sawed a "stone flower" in the form of a G-20 rifle chambered for a caseless cartridge for 11 years, before coming to the conclusion in the early 1990s that the "cuckoo clock" turned out to be worthless rubbish, the flaws of which cannot be corrected .
              2. Aag
                Aag 15 February 2022 14: 02
                +1
                "... and technology is getting more and more complicated every year .."
                This is how technology evolves...
  8. SVD68
    SVD68 15 February 2022 07: 57
    +4
    The French failed to hand over their SMX-25 project to anyone. Now Rubin is making the same mistake.

    Such hybrids combine not so much the advantages of surface ships and submarines (they fall short of the advantages), but rather the disadvantages caused by opposite requirements. Lowered and surface, and underwater course. Underarmament and the impossibility of using the main weapon from a hidden position.
  9. Yaroslav Zhigulin
    Yaroslav Zhigulin 15 February 2022 08: 19
    0
    Firstly, to leave the surface when a sudden wave began and wait out the same storm without interrupting patrols - this is interesting.


    The storm at shallow depths does not end
  10. Flooding
    Flooding 15 February 2022 08: 24
    +1
    Roman, project 22160 can optionally carry anti-ship missiles, in a container design.
    But then will he have the opportunity to take a helicopter on deck?
  11. Maks1995
    Maks1995 15 February 2022 08: 51
    +1
    Another project for PR in social networks, such as Chkchen buggies or a super-fast helicopter with wings from the Mirage.

    Submarine connections with a surface ship were abandoned even before WW2, as it was expensive, non-functional, and inconvenient. It will lose to both in terms of performance characteristics.
  12. Per se.
    Per se. 15 February 2022 09: 04
    +1
    It is quite possible that a diving patrol ship is not a fantasy, but a reality of tomorrow.

    Maybe not tomorrow, but yesterday?

    The water armored destroyer of Javetsky ... As the Russian engineer-historian Golov later noted, "I had to admit the uselessness of this flotilla to protect the coast due to their main drawback - an insignificant speed, which, even under the most favorable conditions, rarely went beyond 3 knots "(5,5 km / h)".
    And now, undersubmarine, undership, here is either transport for drug lords, or curtsy to the budget ...
  13. Undecim
    Undecim 15 February 2022 09: 23
    +9
    And where can we confidently use a ship like the Guardian?

    But what is there to think, in the same place where all similar "watercraft" are used today.

    Colombian bandas Criminales Emergentes will be happy to lease.
  14. Maxim Burmistrov
    Maxim Burmistrov 15 February 2022 11: 29
    0
    Before the revolution, at the very beginning of the century, similar developments were also carried out in Russia. Drzewiecki's water armored destroyer project. According to the idea of ​​the author, the ship was sinking, so that only the cabin and pipes, artillery protruded from the water. For artillery up to 6 inches, the submerged part of the ship became invulnerable, but the speed and armament were lower than those of conventional destroyers, and it represented a good target for torpedoes. Built a compartment. The cruiser Aurora fired at him. We made sure that 2 meters of water, a kind of armor and 6 inch shells, are not afraid of a destroyer. And the project was curtailed, believing that either a destroyer or a submarine was better, since the secrecy of the ship would be insufficient, and the torpieraquablinde had no chance in a battle against a destroyer. Dzhevetsky had already put 50 into service with Russia! Submarines with pedal drive. There was no sense from them, except for his considerable gesheft and spending budget money. In general, this creation of Rubin is such a hopelessness. The managers of this office are looking for how to get the next order. Perhaps a ride. On Okra, niokra get money and pile another torpieraquablinde. Then, having spent the money that is enough to build several corvettes, admit that the idea is worthless, therefore it is not used anywhere in the world, since such a hybrid has many more disadvantages than advantages.
  15. Operator
    Operator 15 February 2022 11: 54
    -4
    Why this exoticism of a hundred years ago, when all "submarines" were diving and armed with large-caliber artillery pieces? Now they are driving nuclear submarines and submarines with batteries, the capacity of which is increasing by leaps and bounds (judging by electric vehicles).

    The other day, in the Kuril region, another epic failure of surface ships was demonstrated during exercises (!) To counter enemy submarines - and it’s not a lack of weapons: if the submarine entered the Sea of ​​​​Okhotsk under water, then the ice situation there simply would not allow it is elementary for ships to sail (see the video of the passage of the La Perouse Strait).

    The sooner we stop wasting funds on surface anti-submarine ships and begin the formation of coastal hydroacoustic and aviation quantum-magnetic means for detecting submarines, the better.

    Corvettes and other NKs are needed in small doses only to demonstrate the flag. Only low-tonnage / low-noise submarines with the Zirkon GKR and NPA with 100-Mt warheads should operate off the enemy coast to achieve, respectively, a small flight time and a small submarine time to the target within 10 minutes.
  16. Simple
    Simple 15 February 2022 12: 42
    +2
    Firstly, to leave the surface when a sudden wave began and wait out the same storm without interrupting patrols - this is interesting.


    With a five-meter wave, this ship should dive fifty meters.





    Permission to pass the English Channel in a submerged position was not initially.
    But with a five-meter wave, it is useless to dive in the English Channel - because of the excitement about the bottom, it’s so robust to “attach”

    "Adventures" to watch from the 26th minute.
  17. ALARI
    ALARI 15 February 2022 12: 48
    0
    Something reminds me of the silhouette and dimensions (judging by the helicopter on deck), this boat? No way criticized here "Zamvolt", how so?
  18. T.A.V.
    T.A.V. 15 February 2022 13: 54
    +1
    As for me - funderwafer. There will be no sense from this development.
  19. g1v2
    g1v2 15 February 2022 14: 04
    +2
    It is clear that now this is not a timely project. We need to massively build ships of already mastered projects and classes and not be distracted by side effects. But in general, as a concept for the future, the idea is interesting. For example, for the new generation of MRK. Reduce their visibility by the possibility of going under water. Stealth alternative. So that enemy ships suitable for attacking the coast will notice our RTOs as late as possible. If this gives them more opportunities to get close to attack, then the idea is interesting. Again, for many small countries that do not have the ability to maintain a submarine fleet, the idea is also useful. And even for some large countries. For example for Iran. All their large ships, the states and the Saudis, if anything, will be sunk at the very beginning of the war. What remains is weakly armed enough to pose a danger to oil convoys and their guards in the Persian Gulf. And such a submersible corvette can hide and get much closer both in the Persian Gulf itself and in the Indian Ocean. If you arm it with 8 uksk, it will be biting. But of course, without exact performance characteristics and specifics about the project, one can only speculate. But in my opinion, the idea has potential. Primarily for export. And just like an RTO, and not like a patrolman. soldier
  20. sen
    sen 15 February 2022 14: 38
    +1
    Submersible Patrol Ship: Necessity or Fantasy?

    Competition. We have to offer something new.
    For example, on the twelfth of February, the new multi-purpose patrol ship Giovanni delle Bande Nere was launched at the Fincantieri shipyard in Riva Trigoso.
    https://naked-science.ru/article/tech/v-italii-spustili-na-vodu

    Artillery 1 × Oto Melara 127 mm Vulcano with Automated Ammunition Handling System (AAHS)

    Anti-aircraft artillery 1 × Oto Melara 76 mm Strales Sovraponte Anti-aircraft gun
    2 × Oto Melara Oerlikon KBA B06, remote mounting

    Missiles PPA Full: 8 × Teseo\Otomat Mk-2/E anti-ship and land attack missiles
    PPA Light+ and Light: FFBNW 8 × Teseo\Otomat Mk-2/E anti-ship and land attack missiles
    PPA Full and Light+: 2 x 8-cell DCNS SYLVER A70 VLS for 16 Aster 15 and 30 or Scalp Naval missiles[10]
    PPA Light: FFBNW for 2 x 8-cell DCNS SYLVER A70 VLS for 16 Aster 15 and 30 or Scalp Naval missiles

    Anti-submarine armament PPA Full: 2 x WASS single launcher for NSP 533 mm torpedoes
    2 x triple WASS B-515/3 launcher for Black Arrow 324 mm torpedoes
    PPA Light+ and Light: FFBNW 2 x triple WASS B-515/3 launcher for Black Arrow 324 mm torpedoes

    Mine-torpedo armament 2 × 2 323-mm TA Mk.32 Mod.9 with Mk.46 Mod.5 torpedoes

    Aviation group 2 × SH90 or 1 × AW101
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Патрульные_корабли_ближней_морской_зоны_типа_«Паоло_Эмилио_Таон_ди_Ревель»
  21. Tomcat_Tomcat
    Tomcat_Tomcat 15 February 2022 16: 46
    0
    Submersible Patrol Ship: Necessity or Fantasy?

    In order to determine whether such a diving "Russian Zamvolt" is needed, one should decide on the place of this ship in the fleet, what tasks and on what theater of operations will it have to perform?

    For Colombian smugglers, semi-submersible boats are probably needed. They allow you to have a chance to quickly and covertly "leak" through the forces of the Coast Guard. I don’t understand the tasks for this ship in the Russian Navy. Patrol ship? And why should he hide, from whom? Escort - such a ship also does not need to dive under water. A diving ship could prove itself as a raider - but in the same capacity, a submarine is no worse, and even preferable.

    Moreover, when a hedgehog and a snake are crossed, the technique of different elements, as a rule, does not come out with anything good. The resulting hybrid has the disadvantages of both one and the other type of technology, and they almost always outweigh the acquired advantages.

    From a technical point of view, of course, the task is interesting, but in terms of practical application for the armed forces ... I don’t know. Perhaps, like a pleasure ship, to ride tourists, at the same time allowing you to admire the coral reefs?
  22. evgen1221
    evgen1221 15 February 2022 19: 02
    0
    Another project on the table. Where is the domestic AI, components, operators, and so on, without which this is unrealizable. As everything will be, then do it.
  23. Dkuznecov
    Dkuznecov 15 February 2022 23: 16
    0
    As long as there is no competition
    any performer is ready to work "for the process".
    Because sales generate income.

    As soon as a competitor appears,
    scheme will change from "process"
    method to "resultant".

    Our competition is completely destroyed,
    so budget funds are "sawed"
    "process" way.

    My opinion.
  24. Andrey Krasnopoyas
    Andrey Krasnopoyas 16 February 2022 00: 29
    0
    No one removed responsibility from the sailors for maritime borders. For this, some kind of diesel-electric submarine is needed before, at least in the Northern Fleet. of the last century. Norwegians with "Belluna" raise a howl when our nuclear-powered ship appears in the Barents and Norwegian Seas at the turn of the North Cape - Bear. "Maryatta" unfortunately fixes all exits to the line.
  25. Vladimir Gordeev
    Vladimir Gordeev 16 February 2022 10: 46
    0
    Well, if you use it for MTR, have a pair on each of the fleets ....
  26. grumbler
    grumbler 19 February 2022 08: 22
    0
    There was such a ship - it was called classic diesel-electric submarine of the 1910s-1940s model, "diving submarine".
    It basically floated on the surface, which affected the contours (but on the surface these vessels were thrown hoo, which made the crews very tired). It tracked down targets, plunging to periscope depth. And it completely went under the water for an attack and in order to break away from the hunting ships and its worst enemy at the end of WWII - aviation.

    The question is - is it necessary, having very advanced submarines (including small non-nuclear submarines with anaerobic power plants), seaworthy surface ships and developed naval aviation, to return to the concepts of a hundred years ago? What has fundamentally changed in technology and tactics that it will come to life again?
    It seems to me, on the contrary, that the means of observation have been further developed. The emergence of unmanned aerial, floating and underwater vehicles and the concept of "swarms / shoals" have a much stronger influence on the tactics of use.

    For me, for such purposes, a combination of a carrier ship (NK, PL) and unmanned vehicles launched from it is much more interesting. In the case of a carrier submarine, the launch of the UAV can be carried out both from the surface position - directly from the vertical launch silos of the submarine (unified for launching missiles, torpedoes, etc.). And from a submerged position - launching from self-floating containers, torpedo carriers, or even a certain 2-medium UAV will be used, capable of emerging from under water and returning under water. They can be launched from vertical launch silos of submarines, from torpedo tubes (most likely, these concepts will soon merge - there will be a unified "launch tube", where the appropriate adapter will be installed on the base - torpedo, rocket, for mines and containers, for hydroacoustic equipment).
  27. fiv
    fiv 21 March 2022 13: 56
    0
    as a rule, any combination is worse than a specialized something. Since we have serious opponents, we cannot do things that are average in terms of efficiency. Unless you make them in tens of thousands and drown them in the fairways so that the enemy does not pass. Give software and watchdogs separately! Unparalleled!
  28. navycat777
    navycat777 27 March 2022 18: 44
    0
    Exceptionally crazy idea. A wrecking variant similar to project 22160. The subship is incapable of combat, but absorbs the resource due to problems with gearboxes and engines. As a result, the much-needed warships for the fleet are moving to the right. At this dangerous moment, it is necessary to give a series, pieces, and as quickly and cheaply as possible!
  29. Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 12 2022 17: 29
    -1
    22160 add the ability to dive - there will be no price for such a ship.