Anti-aircraft guns that won't fire into the sky against torpedoes for beggars
Rockets are, of course, good. It's unpleasant for ships, it's deadly for planes, it hurts cities. A missile today is an excellent means of attack and a good means of defense, since only a missile can shoot down a missile. Mainly because of speed and small size.
The rocket has marine relatives. These are torpedo missiles, they are generally a separate conversation and just torpedoes. All in all, story developed normally: rockets in the air, torpedoes underwater, a hybrid of rockets and torpedoes in both environments.
And now we have unforeseen scenario drones- kamikaze or single-use unmanned aerial vehicles. And literally over the past few years, these devices have evolved very much and from reconnaissance they have become quite shock.
This applied to air UAVs, but if you can hang a couple of VOG-type grenades on a completely civilian copter, then why are the devices that float on the water surface worse? Moreover, they can simply be made more and cram more explosives?
Actually, this is what was done.
But let's see what is a maritime drone at its core? This is just a boat, with a decent gasoline engine that allows you to sail far and fast (relatively, of course), a control system on a satellite channel and, in fact, a valuable load of explosives with some kind of detonator.
I must say that the idea itself is not new, it was implemented by our ancestors back in the 30s of the last century, creating a small submarine of the APSS project and G-5 radio-controlled torpedo boats. Germans, Italians - all were later. But the idea of controlling a boat with an explosive charge has been around for a long time, it’s just that the controls were not quite suitable for such tasks.
And besides, boats stuffed with explosives had only one advantage: a lot of explosives could be laid. This mainly made sense when undermining bridges, for everything else, torpedoes served perfectly.
Now it is worth saying a few words about torpedoes.
The torpedo has also evolved over the past hundred years and from a deadly blank, capable of simply walking in a straight line or describing circulation, has turned into a remotely controlled weapon or even independently searching for a target using hydrophones or sonars.
In principle, the torpedo is still the most difficult naval weapon to detect. She goes under water, you can only hear her, but this is also a problem, because the torpedoes are getting quieter. Yes, difficulties with the carrier, because it is either a submarine or a ship. Torpedo bombers died out as a class a long time ago, although during the Second World War they had just a huge number of sunken ships.
So yes, surface ship or submarine. Any of these carriers can launch a torpedo into an enemy ship. Modern torpedoes can be used both against surface ships and submarines, fortunately, the cruising range and immersion depth allow.
You can even say that basically torpedoes are intended for submarines, the ship is quite good and the missiles come in.
Let's look at the drone and the torpedo, placing them side by side. Drone - Ukrainian "Mikola-3", caught near Sevastopol, we will take our USET-80 torpedo, as the most serving in our navy.
"Mikola" is lighter, only about a ton. USET-80 weighs about two, but everything is clear here, movement in a dense aquatic environment is forcing.
The drone has a conventional gasoline engine, while the torpedo has an electric battery. The speed characteristics are approximately equal, for the boat 60 km / h, for the torpedo 45 knots, which in terms of gives almost 70 km / h. The range of the torpedo is up to 18 km, the boat can be at sea as long as the fuel supply allows, it is stated up to 60 hours.
The combat component is also approximately the same: a boat can take up to 200 kg of explosives, a torpedo has 300 kg. The torpedo is guided by itself, the boat must be guided manually.
The cost of the boat is approximately more than 16 million rubles, the cost of USET-80 is 30 million rubles.
In general, as you can see, the comparison is not in favor of an unmanned boat. It is more visible, more vulnerable (more on that below), it seems to have more autonomy, but as soon as we remember the autonomy of a submarine, it becomes sad.
In general, such a marine drone is a torpedo for the poor.
Yes, they were used by all sorts of bearded guys on ships, and just here lies the answer to the most important question: if a marine drone is worse than a torpedo, then why is it used?
That is why they use it because torpedoes cannot be used! Well, where, tell me, do the bearded men in the Persian Gulf or off the coast of Sudan have ships and submarines?
By the way, the same applies to the Ukrainians.
"Ivan Khurs" and "Priazovye" were attacked by such controlled boats precisely because the Ukrainians have nowhere to launch a torpedo! There is not a single ship left in the Ukrainian Navy capable of taking torpedoes on board and launching them! No one!
The casket opens very simply. Not a single torpedo tube remained for the entire Ukrainian navy. That's why kamikaze sea drones, fortunately, they exist.
And here, no matter how comical it may look, it's time to talk about protection against guided under-torpedoes, because for all their wretchedness, they pose a real threat to ships. Especially for those who are not armed in such a way as to repulse these units.
And it is not easy to defend against a floating guided mine. The fact is that somehow such a threat as a five-meter floating explosive carrier assembled in a garage from absolutely civilian components was not even foreseen.
Let's think about how to neutralize such a threat carrier as a low-lying in the water, controlled at a great distance apparatus.
1. Rockets. I think the result will be satisfactory, but nothing more. Anti-ship missiles are simply stupid to use, the target is small.
Anti-aircraft missiles are more interesting as an option, but there are doubts that the IR-GOS will clearly capture a small engine. Air defense missiles hit air kamikaze drones, but it will be more difficult to do this at sea due to the fact that there is no such temperature difference as at altitude. Although here, too, there may be different conditions.
2. Artillery guns.
It's a pointless and merciless thing: to hit a 76-130-mm gun even with radar guidance at such a target as a five-meter boat. The rate of fire will not allow covering a vessel dancing on the waves at a more or less working distance, and then a “dead zone” begins with such guns.
3. Air defense artillery.
Here it is more interesting. Barrels that have guidance from the radar, with a higher rate of fire, so they can definitely become an obstacle in the way of a drone boat. It was not in vain that Russian ships fought back with the help of MTPU, a naval pedestal machine gun mount with a 14,5 mm Vladimirov machine gun.
MTPU is guided completely manually, however, according to the radar, so the defeat of suicide boats indicates a very high level of training of Russian sailors, the installation does not have a high rate of fire, so the accuracy of the calculation is very important here. And one bullet is enough for the drone to spread the giblets over the water surface.
And if, instead of a manually operated MTPU, we have a similar installation with servo drives or hydraulics, and besides, it’s more rapid-fire ... You can even make a 12,7 mm caliber, a 14,5x114 mm cartridge is clearly redundant for a plastic boat with a motor.
4. Electronic warfare.
Here, in theory, everything is gorgeous. On these Mikols, you can easily see the Starlink terminal, which you can light up easily and simply, and the drone can simply turn into a boat with explosives. In general, it is interesting, in the event of jamming, how the processes will go, the Mikola will turn into an unguided torpedo or simply start blowing bubbles on the spot.
But there is a downside. The electronic warfare station weighs a lot and not every ship can be installed on it. So, in fact, I cut off the connection between the drone and the operator and hello, catch the boat and take it apart for parts, nothing will happen. But the trouble is, yes, it's easier to put machine guns than antennas and all other electronic giblets.
Of course, for any type of weaponry, radar equipment and thermal imagers are needed. The latter are very useful at night, they will complement the radar in the process of detecting low-sided trouble carriers.
The result is some kind of “Back to the Future”, during the Second World War, when by its second half large ships massively abandoned catapults with seaplanes and torpedo tubes and put small-caliber anti-aircraft guns wherever possible. Well, at least that's what the Americans and the British did, taught by Japanese and German pilots.
Shall we take a little excursion into history? It is small, but impressive.
Take the American Fletcher-class destroyer.
Built in a huge series of 175 ships and plowed the whole war in a way that many never dreamed of. There, in terms of anti-aircraft weapons, there were many experiments worthy of a separate article, but by 1943 they settled down on this set: 5 twin 40-mm Bofors and 7 single-barreled 20-mm Oerlikons. That is, 10 40mm barrels and 7 20mm barrels.
Now let's look at our destroyer leader "Tashkent".
The ship is larger than the Fletcher (4000 tons of total military equipment versus 3000 for the American) was armed with a twin 76-mm turret, 6 37-mm anti-aircraft guns and 6 12,7-mm machine guns.
There is a difference, right? No, the Fletchers too aviation drowned, 4 destroyers were sunk during the entire war with bombs and aerial torpedoes, and 6 kamikazes were sunk only in the battle for Okinawa! And in total, the Fletchers account for 1 Japanese battleship, 10 destroyers, 21 submarines and a bunch of other ships. Own American losses of "Fletchers" during the war - 18 destroyers.
But here it is not worth comparing the number of Japanese aircraft, because "Tashkent" in its battle, where it received heavy damage for the first time, could not fight off THREE aircraft that bombed from a height of about 4000 meters. But they were tough pilots who knew how to accurately place bombs.
But the second raid, after which the ship ended up in its last repair, where it was finished off, happened after the air defense was strengthened during the first repair. And "Tashkent" was hollowed out all day, making more than 90 sorties. Yes, the leader was damaged, but he got to the base, and three downed planes are three downed planes. By those standards, a lot.
And all they did was replace the useless 45-mm anti-aircraft guns with machine guns.
This historical digression shows one thing: the more trunks look into the sky, the easier it is for the ship to live. The next appearance of remotely controlled suicide boats, and they are not drones, but remotely controlled boats, requires some revision of the entire concept of ship defense.
Of course, MTPU has already shown some effectiveness, but alas, this is a very big dependence on the shooter, his skills and abilities. Remotely controlled (preferably by a computer according to radar data) weapon stations with stabilized guidance, controlled according to data from shipborne radars - this will be a very serious barrier to homemade explosives.
But do not forget about the number of trunks. It is clear that suddenly hundreds of machine guns will not come out of nowhere, the trunks of which will bristle the ships of the Black Sea Fleet, but in addition to the MTPU 3-4 "Korda" - this is very decent. Moreover, at least one such machine gun must be equipped with a thermal imager.
Of course, it is difficult to take and equip all ships with combat modules, but we know how to get out. By the way, "Berezhok" would be great, it has everything, both sights and a stabilizer, it would only be necessary to remove the grenade launcher - and a wonderful module that can find a place on the ship.
But this does not negate the increase in the number of trunks on board.
Here is the simplest example: "Ivan Khurs" was attacked at the exit from the straits. And if this happens directly in the strait? In a narrow place filled with a large number of civilian boats, some of which may turn out to be somewhat different from what they really are?
Yes, who said that "Mikola-4" will not look like an ordinary boat with an awning? Easy! And the crews on duty will not have much time to "buy" the suddenly appeared enemy.
The alignment is as follows: the command of the Black Sea Fleet simply needs to develop a concept for anti-sabotage combat on ships that may be in the area of action of Ukrainian remote-controlled suicide boats. And the best solution may be to simply increase the heavy machine guns on board the ship, coupled with trained crew from among the Marines of the fleet.
And "torpedoes for the poor" will not be terrible. Of course, provided that the radar operators also do not feel relaxed behind the consoles.
So the call to give ships anti-aircraft guns that will look down is not so stupid as it might seem at first glance.
Information