Extreme measures are needed to protect surface ships from attacks by unmanned kamikaze boats

The video recording of the destruction of a ship by Ukrainian unmanned boats (UUK) - kamikazes, published on February 1 of this year on the Telegram channel "Rybar", as well as in a number of other sources, once again forces us to return to the discussion of the threat posed by UUK kamikazes and to consider measures , allowing you to protect Navy surface ships from them Fleet (Navy) of Russia.

BEC-kamikaze

We have already spoken about the threat posed by BEC kamikazes more than once, including in the material dated May 8, 2023 “With the delay of the NMD, the destruction of the ships of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy by Ukrainian naval drones is just a matter of time”, as well as in the material dated June 4, 2023 “The attack on the Ivan Khurs and the American exercises Millennium Challenge 2002 as an example of future threats for which not a single fleet in the world is yet ready.”.

In turn, measures to protect stationary objects and ships stationed at naval bases (NAB) from BEC kamikazes were discussed in the material “The Kerch barrier will protect the Crimean bridge from Ukrainian terrorist attacks from water and from under water”.

Recently, such a concept as “a torpedo for the poor” has become attached to the BEC-kamikaze - this is not entirely true, or rather, not at all, because no one calls FPV-drones “The poor man's ATGM” (ATGM is an anti-tank guided missile) because FPV drones can do things that ATGMs can't and vice versa. So the BEC-kamikaze is a new, independent type of weapon.

A few years ago, few could have imagined how dangerous weapons will become BEC kamikazes. Image "Telegram" channel "Two Majors"

A torpedo needs a carrier; a torpedo cannot travel hundreds or even thousands of kilometers on its own; it cannot be used to search for and recognize targets. But a torpedo does not require what a BEC kamikaze needs, namely: high-speed satellite data transmission networks, ensuring the use of BEC kamikazes at a great distance from the base/launch point.

By the way, this is why the author has doubts about the construction of such boats by Russian industry, or more precisely, it is possible to build boats, but where can you get a domestic analogue of Starlink? And without such a high-speed global communication network, the range of use of Russian BEC kamikazes will be greatly limited.

The only thing that can be proposed is the creation of BEC-kamikazes from components of Western countries and the use of their own high-speed satellite data transmission networks for reconnaissance and sabotage activities, striking their own ships and infrastructure, which we previously discussed in the material dated September 17, 2023 of the year “The destruction of British Navy warships by unidentified unmanned boats is a signal to all NATO countries.”.

In the meantime, it is urgently necessary to increase the security of Russian surface ships from enemy BEC-kamikaze attacks, which is quite realistic.

Bristling with fire

Currently, to protect surface ships, among other things, large-caliber machine guns are used on machine guns, but their number is clearly insufficient. If you look at the experience of World War II, when surface ships had to fight off dozens of Japanese kamikaze planes rushing at them, it immediately becomes clear why these ships had so many anti-aircraft artillery guns of various calibers.

The situation with BEC-kamikazes differs little; in modern realities, they also need to be thinned out with dense fire from high-speed machine guns and automatic cannons. At the same time, 30 mm automatic cannons are quite bulky, so you can’t put many of them on a ship, although there are exceptions.

30 mm automatic cannon on a machine

In any case, the development of compact 30-mm automatic guns and weapon modules based on them is a matter of perspective, but we already have large-caliber machine guns, they are quite good, and weapon modules based on them can be quite compact, therefore, on a ship there can be many of them.

How many?

Several dozen, for example, even on such a small surface ship as a Project 12411 missile boat, there may well be a dozen of them on board.

Suggested installation points for heavy machine guns, and yes, they will limit the work of standard weapons, at least when the shooters are at the machine guns, but this is quite normal, since standard weapons from BEC-kamikazes, apparently, do not help much

The weapons module based on a large-caliber machine gun must include a machine that provides convenient transfer and aiming of the machine gun at the target, an attachment system for the shooter (some kind of belts attached to the deck) and means for aiming at the target and aiming.

It can be assumed that the best results will be shown by powerful flashlights - the light from each such flashlight will not only allow the shooter to detect targets, but will also give additional visibility to his neighbors, since the glare from the body of the BEC-kamikaze can be at an angle, and it will be better visible to a neighbor rather than to the owner of the lantern/spotlight. In the end, the same searchlights were perfectly used back in the First and Second World Wars, and even now the Ukrainian Armed Forces are actively using them to detect our kamikaze UAVs.

In addition, the searchlights will blind the thermal imagers and video cameras of BEC-kamikazes, and by adding technical solutions to the searchlights, it is possible to increase both the likelihood of detecting enemy BEC-kamikazes and guarantee the disabling of their optical reconnaissance means.

The machine must provide limitation of pointing angles so that as a result of rolling or close explosions the shooter does not crush his neighbors; it is also necessary to provide a quick-removable cover that protects the machine gun from the effects of water splashes and salt fog in the stowed position.

Of course, ideally ships should be equipped with remotely controlled weapon modules (RUMVO) – in this case, the operators will be located inside the ship, which will increase their survivability and create comfortable conditions for combat work, but making such changes to the design of the ship will require much more time.

By the way, a compromise option between 12,7 mm machine guns and 30 mm automatic cannons could well be ZU-23-2 “sparks”, however, in any case they should be combined with machine gun points, since the dimensions of the ZU-23-2 are also rather large – you can’t install as many of them as you can install 12,7 mm machine guns on a machine.

Various modifications of ZU-23-2. Image by Vitaly V. Kuzmin

Anti-torpedo nets

The first anti-torpedo nets were tested back in 1874 - 150 (!) years ago. Since then, they have either become widespread or disappeared, when peaceful life made it possible to forget about simple but effective solutions to preserve the life of the ship.

Basically, anti-torpedo nets were used while ships were moored, but in our time nothing prevents them from being installed in such a way that the ship could move with them, albeit at a lower speed; after all, it is better to go at a speed of 10 knots than to sink at speed one meter per second.

To nets and visors on tanks many were also skeptical, however now they are beginning to spread throughout the world, where armored vehicles have to survive not in exercises, but during real combat clashes using FPV drones, and BEC kamikazes are in many ways the equivalent of FPV drones.

I wonder what comments there would have been if the author had proposed something similar to protect armored vehicles 5 years ago?

FPV Drones

It’s even strange that this solution is still not used to protect Russian ships. It would seem that on land FPV drones are used not only in hundreds, but in thousands - tens of thousands. A couple hundred FPV drones on a surface ship and half a dozen operators will be capable of a lot. Separately, it is necessary to mention the enemy’s lack of electronic warfare (EW) means; of course, something could potentially be placed on one of the attacking BEC-kamikazes, but it is unlikely that such EW means will be effective.

A BEC kamikaze has virtually no chance of either detecting an FPV drone attack or evading it

Yes, the ship itself can potentially use electronic warfare equipment, but, firstly, windows in the jamming zone can be left for its FPV drones, and secondly, there are ways to make FPV drones absolutely invulnerable to interference (although this leads to certain limitations of their capabilities), thirdly, apparently, electronic warfare systems do not guarantee protection against BEC kamikazes (and it is quite possible to bypass electronic warfare systems for BEC kamikazes, but here we will not help the enemy).

You can increase the likelihood of detecting a BEC kamikaze attacking a ship using a reconnaissance UAV of a quadcopter (octacopter/hexacopter) type, while the reconnaissance UAV can receive power and control commands via cable, which will allow it to stay in the air for hours and accompany the ship. Several thermal imagers directed in different directions will provide all-round visibility.

Conclusions

All of the above can be implemented relatively quickly and inexpensively, especially the deployment of FPV drones and heavy machine guns with flashlights/searchlights on turrets on surface ships. If we continue to slow down, then soon the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy will be similar to the Ukrainian one, that is, it will not exist.

And yes, finally shoot down at least one American strategic reconnaissance UAV Global Hawk, with the help of which the Ukrainian Armed Forces/GUR plan their attacks. Here, some morally unstable people claim that after this the third world war could begin - come to your senses, Iran shot down the Global Hawk (a modification of the MQ-4C Triton for the US Navy) and what happened? It's nothing.

The more impudent we become, the further we go, the weaker the pressure from the NATO countries will be - now they are becoming more impudent because we allow them all this. And if we start shooting down their UAVs and sinking their ships (albeit with the wrong hands), then they will calm down - the Baltic mongrels will shut their mouths, Poland will quiet down, the countries of Western Europe will call for the “voice of reason”, and the United States will urgently have urgent matters in a completely different part Sveta.

In the meantime, we need to give surface combatants a chance to hold out for at least some more time, until a large-scale conflict at sea shows that all existing concepts for their construction are hopelessly outdated.

Comments

[Stas157]

. Yes, finally shoot down at least one American strategic reconnaissance UAV Global Hawk, with the help of the intelligence data of which the Armed Forces of Ukraine/GUR plan their attacks.

We are not Americans! We can't cross the red line!

[Civil]

A very sensible article, I assume that these solutions are suitable for target air defense, especially near the rear.

[SKVichyakow]

The conclusions in the article are correct. Another problem is that large-caliber machine guns or guns do not have gyro-stabilization, which makes it easier to aim at a target and hit it. There used to be an expression - expensive, I don’t know what they say now. But the rate of destruction would increase significantly, which would make it possible to fight several drones on the water. And with aerial drones, the latest version of the Pantsir, only without the cannon component, only a missile one.

[Netl]

IMHO, the problem is that the conclusions were drawn against the current bookmakers.
But they are actively developing. And one of the promising directions is an attack on the final section in an underwater position. Against which most of the proposed proposals may be ineffective.

[SKVichyakow]

For these purposes, hydroacoustics and diving projectiles are used, but already adapted for these purposes. Like on the latest modification of the Pantsir - missiles reduced for these purposes.

[Netl]

Hydroacoustics are used for these purposes.

It is difficult to use hydroacoustics against high-speed, highly maneuverable targets attacking from different sides.
And at one time, diving projectiles were abandoned due to unreliability and small depth of impact.

And the author’s main idea is how you can try to solve the ammunition problem relatively quickly with the help of ready-made weapons. And the combination of the above, in order to work against underwater ammunition, will have to be practically reinvented, with unguaranteed success.

[SKVichyakow]

There are anti-torpedoes for these purposes. What to invent?

[ramzay21]

All this is good and correct. But this is the second year of the Northern Military District, and Black Sea Fleet ships are being attacked from the air and sea. Do you think our dead people covered all the bays of the Black Sea Fleet with booms? And you want these same dying people to think about how to actually protect ships?

[SKVichyakow]

I don’t think about what those who no longer have a place in the Armed Forces are thinking about, I can guess. We hear what they are doing from the reports. By old age, the gyrus straightens and becomes straight. They have completely different thoughts. Biden is a clear example of this.

[alexoff]

This is the weapon of last resort, then we can come up with something with cartridges so that we can normally hit at least 20 meters deep. But for good reason, we need high-altitude reconnaissance officers like the Orion-Bayraktar, who would monitor the situation a little further than 300 meters from the ship. And there are already a lot of options for what to do

[cormorant]

At close range, if it dives, it must be destroyed on the approaches. If he dives far, then the big question is how he will search for the ship when it maneuvers. They are being videotaped by an operator. Let them at least improve the reconnaissance means. Drones must hover constantly. If heavy drones are needed, then let heavy drones from the shore fly out and monitor. The Orions are vulnerable above the NWO zone, let them at least track the BECs. Machine guns and as many as possible, now. Let them come up with any expensive and stationary gadgets, electronic warfare, any kind of countermeasures. But that will come later. There is an urgent need to do something now.

[bug120560]

Compare the cost of a drone and the cost of a Pantsir missile
All over the world, systems based on small-caliber artillery with programmable remote detonation ammunition and electronic detection and guidance systems are being produced to combat drones. Unfortunately, we are still far behind the West in electronics, and electronics are precisely the means of detection and targeting.

[fif21]

Quote: Civil

Very sensible article

But as always there are nuances. Weapons for shooting at a target, but where are the weapons (ammunition) for shooting at areas? Roughness of the water surface, rocking of the ship (if not calm) do not contribute to aimed shooting. Passive means of protection where? Networks are a thing of the past. The future, in my opinion, lies in the creation of floating devices, retractable from both sides, capable of lowering the cellular protection to the depth of the underwater part of the craft, and raising the cellular protection to the height of the side. The ship is in the middle, with retractable reflectors on the sides with raising and lowering cellular protection devices. (Trimaran)

[savage3000]

What about getting into a brown one?

[Vladimir_2U]

Here, the gentlemen admirals, their hands (or whatever else is between their ears) don’t get around to the simplest things, but the author writes about extreme things...
Well, anti-torpedo nets on a missile boat, unfortunately, are of little use - mainly due to the small margin of stability, plus you need to put up and remove all this beauty with your hands, and there are not a lot of hands on boats and MRKs either.

[ycuce234-san]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

plus all this beauty needs to be installed - you need to remove your hands

It is possible to attach a stationary network to anchor barrels, not simple ones, but electrified ones. When voltage is applied through the bottom cable, the winch in the pressurized housing of each barrel pulls the barrel to the bottom by the anchor cable, and when the voltage is removed, the barrel itself floats up. And such barriers need at least two lines or more. With the current level of capabilities, such simple barriers can be quickly manufactured.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: ycuce234-san

It is possible to attach a stationary network to anchor barrels, not simple ones, but electrified ones.

So this means that the boat is in the base, and the base is already covered with boom net barriers. "Ivanovets", for example, was not at the base but at the mouth, i.e. at sea.

[ycuce234-san]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

So this means that the boat is in the base

On fast ships, the current generation of maritime drones pose little threat. But it is necessary to complicate access to risers and other critical places with mobile networks, even if such places are located outside ports and bases. For example, several of these submersible nets could be placed across the mouth and then it would be very difficult for the drone to get inside, to the targets.

[fif21]

Quote: ycuce234-san

It is possible to attach a stationary net to anchor barrels

And if so ? And the “gandolas” on the right and on the left should be equipped with hydraulics capable of raising and lowering (either in the air or in the water) cellular protection.

[ycuce234-san]

Quote: fif21

And the “gandolas” on the right and left should be equipped with hydraulics capable of raising and lowering (either in the air or in the water) cellular protection.

This requires serious, expensive and time-consuming alterations in the design of ships. Anchor barrels with a winch do not require this.
In addition, barrels and protective dinghies and barges can be easily and quickly made from cheap reinforced concrete, which is resistant to explosions.
During tests, a vessel with a displacement of 300 tons withstood the explosion of 100 kg of dynamite installed under water at a depth of 10 m close to the hull of the vessel). At the same time, no one adapted the structure itself specifically for explosions - it was an ordinary cargo ship.
Similar unmanned concrete vessels controlled remotely can remain on duty at sea for a long time and sink detected drones with rams - it is difficult for pilots to hit them from the air and it is dangerous for ships with crews to approach them.

[fif21]

Quote: ycuce234-san

This requires serious, expensive and time-consuming alterations in the design of ships. Anchor barrels with a winch do not require this.

There is no particular need to change anything in the design of ships. It is only necessary to provide for the fastening of AUTONOMOUS side platforms to the ship, and two connectors, one for power, the second for control. Side platforms can be made composite (depending on the length of the ship) and seaworthy, which is much more effective than protection when parked on “barrels”.

[ussuri]

That thought sort of inspires other ideas, such as a ship being protected by two or more very long and narrow semi-submersible defensive drones that can protect both flanks of the ship by placing itself between the ship and the kamikazee boats. Roughly 1 meter in diameter, and 15 meters or more in length. This pair of defensive drones rides along its ship anytime it is out at sea. It could even drag a chain of buoys behind it, that could cover additional trailing length.

[fif21]

Looks like it's time to take out a patent! Otherwise, again, like radio, you will steal cellular communications from us and declare it your invention.

[Victor Leningradets]

The most suitable system for setting up anti-torpedo nets is a bomb launcher equipped with UP-3 type missiles, which, before entering the water, fire an anti-torpedo net with deployable gas floats along the beam to the trajectory. A salvo of several UP will completely block the dangerous direction. It is best to sink a BEC with large shrapnel, covering the attack area.
It didn’t work against airplanes, but it should work against BEC.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

The system for setting up anti-torpedo nets is a bomb launcher equipped with UP-3 type missiles, which, before entering the water, fire an anti-torpedo net with deployable gas floats along the beam to the trajectory.

But this network is not an obstacle for planing boats... And 40 node BECs are just like that.

[Simple]

Quote: Victor Leningradets

It is best to sink a BEC with large shrapnel, covering the attack area.

In order to set a goal to sink, you need to know the reserve of buoyancy. I think the first priority is to immobilize the BEC.
And for this you need just a quantity and not a mass of destructive elements.

[moreman78]

The coolest thing is where the author will find as many as 20 machine gunners (10 per side) on a missile boat (or MPK)! Will he send half of the crew to the machine guns, after TRAINING THEM AND CONDUCTING REGULAR TRAININGS?

[alexoff]

And this is how you can do it on a flying fortress, where the machine guns are controlled remotely. Then, of course, there were 2 nm microchips in the forties and other unattainable technologies, but something similar can probably be made now

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from alexoff

Then, of course, there were 2 nm microchips in the forties and other unattainable technologies, but something similar can probably be made now

Both then and now, for remote control you still need a shooter - one per module, well, for two modules - where to get that? Not considering that you need to take modules somewhere.

[alexoff]

And in order to manage the module, you need to study mathematics at the university for 5 years, then complete graduate school and doctoral studies? You can't shout - to the guns! And who was closest there (except for the captain, the radio operator and the person watching the radar) rushed to the nearest control panel, about 30 of whom were scattered in different places? I won’t even talk about the lost technologies from the Tu-4/B-29, where super-powerful quantum nanocomputers allowed one shooter to shoot from several installations and switch from one to another. I understand that there is total impotence, there are no connections, everything is in an imaginary bunker, you can’t even twist the turrets from the Brdm-2, let alone find cameras with motors, not to mention people, but at least think about the inaccessible technical solutions possible?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from alexoff

the nearest remote control, of which there were about 30 scattered

On MRKs, MPKs and just small ships? You're delusional... even without taking into account the power and control wiring, there won't be any room for remote controls, given the density of the internal layout.

Quote from alexoff

I won’t even talk about the lost technologies from the Tu-4/B-29, where super-powerful quantum nanocomputers allowed one shooter to shoot from several installations and switch from one to another.

Well, don't talk. Because on the “Ivanovets” the control system controlled, remotely, all three guns, and the sighting column, also remotely, controlled both AK-630s.
But, it’s quite possible to add a couple of three, in the Republic of Kazakhstan, for larger ones.

[alexoff]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

On MRKs, MPKs and just small ships? You're delusional... even without taking into account the power and control wiring, there won't be any room for remote controls, given the density of the internal layout.

Do you really need a fighter cockpit with cables as thick as your arm, and not a folding laptop with a joystick in the wall?

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Well, don't talk. Because on the “Ivanovets” the control system controlled, remotely, all three guns, and the sighting column, also remotely, controlled both AK-630s.
But, it’s quite possible to add a couple of three, in the Republic of Kazakhstan, for larger ones.

but for some reason not all three fired

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from alexoff

Do you really need a fighter cockpit with cables as thick as your arm, and not a folding laptop with a joystick in the wall?

Well, after all, firstly, even simple army laptops are thicker and larger than sophisticated civilian ones, secondly, the joysticks need to be attached to something, and this is a stand, thirdly, all this is shock-resistant, and fourthly, the wiring must be carried out from the generators to the turrets and between the turrets and remote controls. In short, 30 turrets on small ships is nonsense.

Quote from alexoff

but for some reason not all three fired

The sad thing is that the column does not have a night sight, only on the fire control system. Accordingly, there is only one channel for three speakers. This is the problem.

[alexoff]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Well, after all, firstly, even simple army laptops are thicker and larger than sophisticated civilian ones, secondly, the joysticks need to be attached to something, and this is a stand, thirdly, all this is shock-resistant, and fourthly, the wiring must be carried out from the generators to the turrets and between the turrets and remote controls.

Well, it’s clear, there’s no end to the work, we need as much money as for the repair of Admiral Nakhimov

Quote: Vladimir_2U

In short, 30 turrets on small ships is nonsense.

8 pieces will cover everything possible

In general, the Americans analyzed their losses and then found the best combat formations so that one bomber would cover the other. And if we had a sane naval command, then the ships would sail in order, covering each other from missiles and boats, or would stand on a well-protected base, also camouflaged with blue-gray panels so that they could not be seen from space. And not like antelopes in the savannah, one gape, ran somewhere from the herd, and then the hyenas fell on it.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The sad thing is that the column does not have a night sight, only on the fire control system. Accordingly, there is only one channel for three speakers. This is the problem.

If only we had effective managers (not the ones we have, but what it initially means) who could figure out that a high-quality hunting night sight costs as much as a fifth of a lancet, that is, it costs nothing at all compared to a ship.

[Vladimir_2U]

In general, you have nothing but slogans and cliches for your soul. You are like Solovyov, only with a different focus.

[alexoff]

Well, that is, other people’s defense tactics are slogans, and apparently the passivity of the fleet is also. Does the boss know better?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from alexoff

Well, that is, other people’s defense tactics are slogans, and apparently the passivity of the fleet is also.

What tactics, you slogans were lightly sprinkled with pieces of military-oriented phrases.

[alexoff]

Is this some kind of universal comment that you can write about anything you don’t like?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from alexoff

Is this some kind of universal comment that you can write about anything you don’t like?

Well, you have a set of stamps.

[cast iron]

In Ivanovets, in fact, the control system did not manage anything. Apparently the ability to control something is only on paper and in fantasies. They fired from a machine gun almost from their hands while standing. 21st century, computers, missiles... Why didn’t either AK176 or AK630 fire at boats? Maybe because they are not suited for this? And if so, then why did the cheerful Soviet designers place as many as three units of useless bullshit on the RTOs?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: cast iron

Why didn’t either the AK176 or AK630 fire at the boats?

What can you prove to the blind and stupid?

[cast iron]

Are you talking about the commander of the Russian Navy?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: cast iron

Are you talking about the commander of the Russian Navy?

No, I’m talking about someone who is unable to see the signs of an AK-630 in the video

[cast iron]

Are you able to discern the complete collapse of the Russian Black Sea Fleet? Today the large landing ship Caesar Kunikov was sunk. There, too, not a single cannon fired. Idiots have a lot of questions. But you don’t have any questions along the way. Everything is fine...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: cast iron

Are you able to discern the complete collapse of the Russian Black Sea Fleet? Today the large landing ship Caesar Kunikov was sunk. There, too, not a single cannon fired.

Who is linking organizational failure to the effectiveness of a particular type of weapon? That's right, blind and stupid...

[alstr]

I would look in a slightly different direction.
Use floats instead of nets, turning ships into Trimarans.
This is of course expensive, but in this way the speed will be lost less and the main problem areas (sides) will be protected. and they will most likely be able to withstand more hits.

Plus, it will be possible to install the same machine-gun points on the floats, albeit remote ones.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: alstr

Use floats instead of nets, turning ships into Trimarans.

Do you mean already built ships?! This is a utopia.

Quote: alstr

This is of course expensive, but in this way the speed will be lost less and the main problem areas (sides) will be protected. and they will most likely be able to withstand more hits.

More, less, the floats will not cover the entire side, if the trimaran is balanced, if the trimaran is three-hulled, then getting into the outer hull is also fraught. In the end, the trimaran is not immune from fire and rocket explosions, as on Ivanovets.

[fif21]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Do you mean already built ships?! This is a utopia.

If the “design thought” is not friendly to you, this does not give you the right to label it.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

More, less, the floats will not cover the entire side,

Floats can be placed along the side. But they can be retractable, and have devices for installing protection, both at the top and at the bottom. Turn on your brain, turn off your emotions.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: fif21

Floats can be placed along the side. But they can be retractable, and have devices for installing protection, both at the top and at the bottom. Turn on your brain, turn off your emotions.

Yes, if this is a “design idea” then that’s it... The brain is not turned on at all. because the floats across the side are nonsense, what kind of “devices for installing protection, both at the top and at the bottom”, what they will all have and how much energy for the drive, your “design thought” is not at all concerned about this, because how You can worry about something that doesn't exist.

[fif21]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

The brain is not turned on at all. because floats across the side are nonsense,

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Floats can be placed along the side

My condolences . You not only don't think well, but you also don't know how to read.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: fif21

Floats can be placed along the side.

This “you can... ...lengthwise” means that you looked from side to side. Not to mention other nonsense.

Quote: fif21

My condolences . You not only don't think well, but you also don't know how to read.

[alstr]

Precisely for the built ships. Just something like rocker arms across the body that will be attached to the floats.
Full board floats.
Here you just need to set the correct contours and calculate the actual fastening. Moreover, make the float sectional so that its parts can be easily changed.
The purpose of such a float is not to improve / worsen the seaworthiness of the ship - but not to allow the BEC to explode on the side itself. After all, an explosion directly at the side and 5 meters away are two big differences. Naturally, they will not solve the issue of protection from other threats. Although, with proper resourcefulness, they can be used for protection against torpedoes.

But by the way, for small ships such floats can help increase stability in rough seas.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: alstr

Precisely for the built ships. Just something like rocker arms across the body that will be attached to the floats.

These are farms. On small ships they can only be placed in front of superstructures and behind them.

Quote: alstr

Full board floats.
Here you just need to set the correct contours and calculate the actual fastening.

full-length floats already make any contours meaningless. Just by wave impedance. Further, in order to maintain the reasonable width and, accordingly, the length of the trusses, the floats must be sufficiently close to the full body, and this immediately gives rise to wave interference, and interference resistance is added to the wave resistance. That's it, the ship sails slowly, sadly and not far, because the engines are the same, the fuel supply is the same, and the resistance is possibly several times higher.

Quote: alstr

But by the way, for small ships such floats can help increase stability in rough seas.

Undoubtedly, but for this, the trimaran must be designed initially and, in any case, the floats are much shorter and with a smaller draft of the main hull.

[Dutchman Michel]

Is it really impossible for a BEC to be detected and then destroyed by the same means as a torpedo?

[DoctorRandom]

It is possible, lone BECs are identified in a timely manner and destroyed by aircraft. If the BECs missed and they managed to get to the ships of the Black Sea Fleet, then they also fought off attacks many times, even the worthless ships of Project 22160 successfully fought off, but then it coincided that a missile boat straight from the last century with the appropriate weapons and equipment was under attack. equipment. He didn't stand a chance.

[cast iron]

MRK, standardly armed with 3 USELESS artillery systems! It was necessary to come up with this way - to allocate space for 2 units of AK630 and for an entire AK176 autocannon, and at the same time make them completely useless? They only take up space and weight.

[Vita vko]

First of all, it is necessary to remove the influence of the human factor from the ship’s defense system as much as possible. Too much responsibility for survivability falls on the ordinary sailor and DUMVO will definitely not solve this problem. There must be strict algorithms for automatic recognition and destruction of targets. Moreover, the commander, under his own responsibility, should only have the right to cancel the decision of the ACS or BIUS, as this is done in the air defense/missile defense system.

[Polite Moose]

Quote: Vita VKO

First of all, it is necessary to remove the influence of the human factor from the ship’s defense system as much as possible. Too much responsibility for survivability falls on the ordinary sailor

This human factor is most pronounced in the form of crew size. It can be on a cruiser or an electric vehicle and you can organize a round-the-clock watch for 20+ firing points. How can this be done on small displacement ships?

[Eug]

As I understand it, it’s impossible to “blind” either Starlink or the reconnaissance UAVs? The author’s proposals, in my opinion, are hardly acceptable, especially if the BECs have a mode of transition to movement with slight depth (2 kilometers to the target or more, but without a serious loss of range)) and reaching the surface approximately 50 meters from the attacked object.

[DoctorRandom]

What and how are you going to mold hundreds of Starlink satellites?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote from DoctorRandom

What and how are you going to mold hundreds of Starlink satellites?

At one time, an area of ​​several hundred square kilometers is served by no more than three satellites. They can be crushed by directed interference.

[Eug]

And once there was talk about “substituting” GPS coordinates for “partner” ships.

[solar]

Spoofing is called and used quite widely. But the problem is that a serious receiver is able to detect such false satellite signals and exclude them when calculating the location.

[jdiver]

And that from a short distance and from the height of a ship’s mast from top to bottom it is impossible to pour through a directional antenna with a sufficiently powerful signal to clog the connection with the satellite of this pelvis? There is energy on the ship, the design of the jammer and antenna should not be difficult. Weld the turret on each side higher above the water and connect cables with electrical power. even without remote control with screens and joysticks, but in case of a fire, quickly so that in the event of an alarm, a person would turn this turret with an antenna, pointing it at the attacking boats. And let the machine guns finish off the boat with lost communication with the operator. Where is the complexity in this scheme?

[DoctorRandom]

Can you first find out for what purpose missile boats exist in the Black Sea Fleet in principle? What purposes do they serve? Well, besides being a target for Ukrainian BECs.

[Aerodrome]

it seems that, at least on the Black Sea, there will be no fleets soon. only "drones". Now we're stuck in the cracks, so what next?

[Sergei_Bely]

What purposes do they serve? Well, besides being a target for Ukrainian BECs.

The Black Sea is a graveyard for ships of any country, taking into account the capabilities of anti-ship missile systems of developed countries and especially submersible kamikaze drones.

So we are waiting for our military industry to create unmanned small drone destroyer ships. But judging by our aircraft industry, this will happen in 50 years.

[alexoff]

What does the Black Sea Fleet actually do in the Northern Military District? It seems to me that any randomly selected Su-34 pilot did more than the entire Black Sea Fleet combined.

[alexmach]

Well, actually, in the Black Sea Fleet, among other things, there are also Marines. For example, they took part in the capture of Mariupol, and in general they are very well trained fighters.

[alexoff]

Marines from all fleets participated and are participating in the Northern Military District, but let’s not talk about the participation of the Pacific Fleet in the Northern Military District, since Kamchatka marines were sent there? They are probably not given commands by admirals, they are probably under the leadership of other headquarters, the ground ones. And the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet is only engaged in inept attempts to preserve the entrusted property in the form of ships, they don’t know what else to do with them

[Prokop_Pork]

Tsarist Russia had its own Gatlings. Where did it all go...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

Tsarist Russia had its own Gatlings. Where did it all go...

Yeah, which were driven by rotating the handle, like a meat grinder...

[Prokop_Pork]

Since then, electrical engineering colleges have happened.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

Since then, electrical engineering colleges have happened.

Only this is no longer Tsarist Russia. Because the AK-630 YakB and other General Staff were not created under the Tsar.

[Prokop_Pork]

And how is their service? Did you shoot a lot of drones?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

And how is their service? Did you shoot a lot of drones?

Have many drones been shot at by the Tsars or any other Gatlings?

[Prokop_Pork]

Drones - here they are, but where are the Gatlings? The Red Sea does not count.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

Drones - here they are, but where are the Gatlings? The Red Sea does not count.

In my opinion, you are stupid... Because the AK-630 is the main 30 mm gun of the Russian fleet, this is the Soviet Gatling... Not knowing the simplest things is like ugh.

[Prokop_Pork]

That is, it turned out to be a useless thing. Need to think.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

That is, it turned out to be a useless thing. Need to think.

You are clearly stupid, you don’t know that the AK-630 has a rotating block of barrels, that it is the main small-caliber gun, and that several drone attacks have already been repelled by Black Sea Fleet ships, which means that the AK-630 has destroyed drones.

[Prokop_Pork]

But what about the previous doubts that they had shot something? I was completely confused.
And in this note they are not seen point-blank at all.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

But what about the previous doubts that they had shot something? I was completely confused.
And in this note they are not seen point-blank at all.

At the same time, automatic guns of 30 mm caliber are quite bulky, so you can’t put a lot of them on the ship

[Prokop_Pork]

Here's the thing - it turns out that we need to expand the family. Well, I see that the enemies there don’t have any kind of miniguns.
It turns out that the remnants of a highly developed civilization are no longer enough.

[Glory1974]

and the AK-630 has destroyed drones

The video does not show the AK-630 being fired. But on the Ivanovets there were 2 of them.
Maybe they can’t see where to shoot in the dark?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: glory1974

The video does not show the AK-630 being fired. But on the Ivanovets there were 2 of them.

Firstly, they post the videos, respectively, they post what they deem necessary, but they definitely won’t post the destruction of their drones, and secondly, specifically “Ivanovets” fired, and in the video at the very beginning there are characteristic bursts, large, frequent and heaped, then there is a sign of work in the form flare just in time for a short burst. I discussed this briefly in the article, it is awaiting moderation.
Well, there are two AUs, but there is only one night TV channel... The sighting column is purely daytime.
And there were at least two attacks before Ivanovets, without losses on our part.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

and in the video at the very beginning there are characteristic bursts, large, frequent and heaped, then there is a sign of work in the form of flare just in time for a short burst.

There were no major surges there. Something small was shooting, it didn’t even look like a large-caliber one. It looks like the crew fought back with personal weapons.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Saxahorse

There were no major surges there. Something small was shooting, it didn’t even look like a large-caliber one.

At the very beginning the videos were very different from the subsequent ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ6UZwtC4Bw

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

At the very beginning the videos were very different from the subsequent ones.

Yes, maybe you're right. Plus a characteristic light at 43 seconds. similar to the AK630 line. The truth is nowhere. It’s interesting that these pieces were not in the TG; a more stripped-down version was posted.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Saxahorse

Plus a characteristic light at 43 seconds. similar to the AK630 line. The truth is nowhere.

You noticed it, I'm glad. But to nowhere is debatable, because there was more than one wave, and behind the BEC that took off the line there were definitely more fire ships far away. Because the explosion of the missiles occurred after this burst, and was filmed very far away.

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

and behind the BEC, which took off the line, there were definitely more fire ships far away

It's hard to judge, the recording is jerky and the episodes are sometimes rearranged. However, the AK630's response still seems slow. If there are several targets, it should turn faster. In theory.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Saxahorse

If there are several targets, it should turn faster. In theory.

It looks like they were caught there with their pants down, the ship did not have time to give full speed, the AK-176 was clearly not put into action, so the control system was also launched at the last moment, most likely. The RK is not new; it took a lot of time to warm up even a serviceable and new control system.

[cast iron]

And how much has the useless AK630 won against boats? There Ivanovets didn’t fire a single shot from them. The same as with AK176. They just take up space.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: cast iron

And how much has the useless AK630 won against boats? There Ivanovets didn’t fire a single shot from them. The same as with AK176. They just take up space.

What can you prove to a blind idiot...

[cast iron]

What needs to be proven here? The result is obvious. Neither the AK176 nor the two AK630 units could do anything with radio-controlled boats. Instead, they fired at the boats from some kind of small arms. "Wonderful" result. For all the money. All that's left to do is figure out who the idiot is?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: cast iron

What needs to be proven here? The result is obvious. Neither the AK176 nor the two AK630 units could do anything with radio-controlled boats. Instead, they fired at the boats from some kind of small arms.

The idiot is the one who cannot see the signs of the AK-630 in the video. And an even greater idiot is the one who is sure that not a single BEC was destroyed, just because the hackers didn’t show it.
And a successful group attack on a single boat, albeit large, but far from new and not even fully operational, is not an indicator of the ineffectiveness of a particular weapon. And only an idiot would not be able to not understand this.

[cast iron]

Today, dill sank the large landing ship Caesar Kunikov. Are you able to see at least something behind the curtains of your patriotism? On the BDK, 2 autocannon turrets were silent. What is this connected with? Apparently with the excellent work of the control system and coordinated actions of the crew.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: cast iron

On the BDK, 2 autocannon turrets were silent. What is this connected with? Apparently with the excellent work of the control system and coordinated actions of the crew.

Who do you need to be in order to intertwine organizational love with the effectiveness of a particular type of weapon? As I already wrote: A blind idiot."

[cast iron]

The problem is complex. Including outdated systems for detecting and controlling artillery systems, stuck in the 1970s of the 20th century. Only now they sank the MRK, and tonight it’s exactly the same with the BDK. Soon the Black Sea Fleet will have no ships left.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: cast iron

The problem is complex. Including outdated systems for detecting and controlling artillery systems, stuck in the 1970s of the 20th century.

For this I don’t even feel sorry for the plus.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

Tsarist Russia had its own Gatlings. Where did it all go...

But it didn’t go anywhere. Everything is there - from GShG-7,62 to AO-18 30 mm caliber.
It’s just that the author approached the problem from the wrong side - the point is not insufficient armament of individual ships, but in the disappearance of the structure responsible for the defense of bases.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Alexey RA

but in the disappearance of the structure responsible for the defense of bases.

Maybe so, but specifically “Ivanovets” was attacked at the entrance to the mouth, i.e. in the sea...

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Maybe so, but specifically “Ivanovets” was attacked at the entrance to the mouth, i.e. in the sea...

So the OVR is responsible for both the water area and the closest approaches to the base.
The problem is that all that remained from the OVR were horns and legs - ships and boats that remember dear Mikhail Sergeevich (or even Leonid Ilyich), stationary detection means of approximately the same period, and a few modern boats, suitable only for combating PDSS slowly crawling under water, and not with BEC.

[Prokop_Pork]

What's on paper isn't much use. The article clearly shows what is available.

[cast iron]

Don’t you see the problem that the MRK and BDK are blind? Ships of the late 80s cannot detect and destroy surface boats with standard artillery! What does it mean?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: cast iron

Don’t you see the problem that the MRK and BDK are blind? Ships of the late 80s cannot detect and destroy surface boats with standard artillery! What does it mean?

I see. And I wrote about it below. Ships of the 80s can engage in the fight against BEC - their weapons are quite enough to destroy a target. But only if there is external detection and target designation.

Quote: Alexey RA

The problem is not that the ships do not carry enough weapons to protect against BEC. The problem is that they are not doing their own thing. With the same BEC, the problem is not defeat - the “blowtorch” of the RCA in the near zone will blow it into atoms. The problem is target detection - how can an RKA, designed to work on enemy ships, detect a stealth boat? And what kind of garden vegetable should he even do this in one person?

The security of bases should be systematic, and not the work of individual patrol ships, which alone can only serve as targets. If the RKA is stationed in a roadstead, then it can easily fight the BEC, provided that there is an external control center (like an air defense system operating according to RTV data). If the BEC is hardly noticeable for the radar, then there is also the GAS. There are night electro-optics - ground, ship and air - thermal imagers and image intensifiers.

The main question is who will give the control center.

For ships in the water area of ​​the base, the control center should provide OVR. That's why she needs to be revived.

[Sergei_Bely]

The author is wrong that an analogue of Starlink is needed for combat naval drones of the Russian Federation.
We need a submersible kamikaze boat with AI, trained for warships, for example Britain.
Then the boat itself will choose a target and destroy it itself.

And our fleet needs small ships with turrets, which are equipped with night and infrared vision priors with AI.
All successful attacks were carried out at night, when it is difficult for a sailor to notice anything. And I don't care about time. He neither sleeps nor eats and always keeps a combat watch.
The only thing that is required is to develop a combat AI based on hardware produced in the Russian Federation - and here is a question for our IT sector and our industry.

[Prokop_Pork]

The next stage, I’ll even tell you what it will look like: on the approach, the drone will release a swarm of airborne kamikazes with AI, and they will strike the key components of the ship. Then it’s the turn of the fireships.

[Ross xnumx]

By the way, this is why the author has doubts about the construction of such boats by Russian industry, or more precisely, it is possible to build boats, but where can you get a domestic analogue of Starlink? And without such a high-speed global communication network, the range of use of Russian BEC kamikazes will be greatly limited.

From here we need to draw the right conclusion and neutralize this Starlink network. The engineers were positioning something there - it’s time to check it out!

Conclusions

I support everything and agree with everything.
I don’t even want to listen to arguments against active confrontation. Tired of these sentimental politicians:

[Soldatov V.]

In principle, we have the means to combat enemy BEC. From his navigational practice on the river, the locator draws both the coastline and the water surface with objects floating on it, even shows a semi-recessed log with a protruding end the size of a human head. On all warships, a locator is usually present with the ability to aim weapons. Plus, there are ships with anti-submarine, anti-torpedo echo sounders and RBU-6000 installations. It’s not worth talking about aerial UAVs. These ships can patrol dangerous waters in front of ports and bays.

[wladimirjankov]

These ships can patrol dangerous waters in front of ports and bays.

But this is definitely not an RTO with a mosquito anti-ship missile.

[S.Z.]

You cannot rely on the “bulging eye of the sea,” that is, the human factor. Radar + sonar + hydrophone + automatically guided anti-torpedoes.

Machine guns and other Gatling guns will work against semi-submerged boats, but it is obvious that the next step will be an underwater drone, which can no longer be reached with a machine gun. You need to be one step ahead.

However, perhaps the problem is not urgent, since the ships may run out before protection against drones appears.

[Dedok]

I wonder what comments there would have been if the author had proposed something similar to protect armored vehicles 5 years ago?

when we started doing this about 10 years ago - we were here, laughing out loud

[Dedok]

Weapons module based on a heavy machine gun...

again the same rake (egg or chicken): now we need to discuss what cartridges should be used against BEC - what damaging properties they should have
and only then is it a machine gun or cannon

of what is in service now is, of course, a cannon, but it will be more expensive than a machine gun
then the question of automatic shooting,
ship control system question

[Adrey]

Quote: Dedok

Now we need to discuss what cartridges should be used against BEC - what damaging properties they should have

Quote: Dedok

then the question of automatic shooting,
ship control system question

Just “with a point to the opposite”.
On one fake video (which I did not watch, but I certainly condemn ) it is clearly visible that it is reflecting an AK-630 attack, the splashes from the shells are visible. The first hit is in the stern, in order to deprive the target of movement (logically), the stern sector covers as many as 2 (!) "metal cutting" and without success
In the future, the “main caliber” of the AK-176 is visible, deployed “in a traveling manner.” Apparently the installation did not take part in the battle at all. Unfit for combat? Does the fire control system not allow firing based on data from the OELS coupled with a thermal imager? Is there no OELS on the ship at all?
So the control system comes first in order to ensure the successful use of existing weapons, everything else comes later

[VohaAhov]

Hello Andrei. I looked at your diagram of a missile boat covered in machine guns. To be honest, I laughed. The crew of the boat is 35-40 people. Where to place at least 18 more to work with machine guns? Now imagine that the boat is firing missiles. Of the 18 machine gun mounts, a dozen will fly overboard. In my amateurish opinion, we need a remote-controlled, stabilized machine gun mount with an optical guidance system and a thermal imaging channel. Caliber 12,7 or 14,5 mm. For this boat, 4 such installations will be enough. Such systems have already been developed, they are shown at exhibitions, but our naval commanders stubbornly refuse to see them and install them on our ships. And they place it according to some residual principle. There was even a DShK in the photo somewhere.

[Glory1974]

history develops in a spiral, we see this with our own eyes.
Firebrands have been known for a long time. In the 19th century, mine boats appeared, small boats with pole mines, which were supposed to approach the target under attack almost closely and detonate it. Then self-propelled mines appeared, and their carriers were torpedo boats and submarines. Now the same thing is appearing at a new technological level.
But we also know the answer. It must be replicated at a new technological level. And the solution, as usual, is complex. This includes mine-resistant artillery, bomb throwers, and detection equipment.
By the way, rocket launchers are used on land. Maybe it was necessary to install them on ships where they are not provided for by the state?

[Pravodel]

...shoot down... finally at least one American strategic reconnaissance UAV Global Hawk....

This is the most valuable thing and finally requires fulfillment!...

[vovochkarzhevsky]

What kind of schoolchildren's fantasies are on the site?
Protection against BEC is in fact simpler than protection against torpedoes, and is carried out on the same principles.
Both the shipborne AK-630 and AK-630-2 cope well with it.



It's all a matter of stupid organization and execution.
But when management is appointed not on the basis of professional and business qualities, but on the basis of personal devotion, we have what we have.

[Xnumx vis]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Both the shipborne AK-630 and AK-630-2 cope well with it.

The rate of fire is amazing. The consumption of BC is amazing. But how many b.p. in the arsenal of the Republic of Kazakhstan Ivanovets, for example, these AK 600? and will there be enough ammunition for these AKs to repel an attack by ten BECs at such a rate of fire?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

The rate of fire is amazing. The consumption of BC is amazing. But how many b.p. in the arsenal of the Republic of Kazakhstan Ivanovets, for example, these AK 600? and will there be enough ammunition for these AKs to repel an attack by ten BECs at such a rate of fire?

There are 4000 ammunition shells there. No one sits there in a continuous line. Automation does the cutoff, plus it corrects the guidance. So it can easily cope with a dozen, the main thing is that the staff has brains, otherwise nothing will help.

[Alexandra]

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ob-effektivnosti-korabelnyh-artilleriyskih-ustanovok-pri-otrazhenii-protivokorabelnyh-raket

"...the answer to the question about the low efficiency of the existing domestic artillery complex AK - 630M is in a completely different plane. To find the answer, let's compare the construction of the AK - 630M and "Goalkeeper" complexes. In the AK - 630M complex, the pitching measurement system, the gun mount and the system The MR-123 MTK 201 fire control system is designed as four independent posts and placed on different seats (Fig. 2).In the Goalkeeper complex, the gun mount and fire control system are designed as one combat post with one seat (Fig. 3) ". Separate placement of the gun mount and control system in the AK-630M leads to large firing errors due to the inability to take into account the deformation of the ship's hull and inaccuracy of parallax correction between posts. Firing errors reach 6 mrad instead of 2 mrad in the "Goalkeeper" complex. 20-mm complex " Vulcan - Phalanx" is also made according to a single-post scheme."

[vovochkarzhevsky]

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ob-effektivnosti-korabelnyh-artilleriyskih-ustanovok-pri-otrazhenii-protivokorabelnyh-raket

The article is so-so.
Firstly, this is still more of a problem for the operators, or rather their lack of qualifications, or negligence.
Secondly, the AK-630’s dimensions allow it to be installed in places where nothing else can be squeezed in.

[Alexandra]

When the associated “Band” “Gibka-M630” appears next to each AK-6 on the stand, it will be possible to say that something is wrong with the operators.

You can see how it looks on the Uprava-Kord paper machine in this photo:

[vovochkarzhevsky]

When the associated “Band” “Gibka-M630” appears next to each AK-6 on the stand, it will be possible to say that something is wrong with the operators.

You are not right. This is a purely common opinion that placing the radar directly on the installation increases accuracy. It all depends on the capabilities of the equipment itself.
Well, comparing calibers 12,7 and 30 mm is stupid.

[Alexandra]

You are not right. This is a purely common opinion that placing the radar directly on the installation increases accuracy.

You formulated it inaccurately. You should have written that Candidate of Technical Sciences, Chief Designer, Head of Department of JSC Instrument Design Bureau named after. Academician A.G. Shipunova" A.V. Zhukov was wrong in expressing in his article "On the effectiveness of naval artillery installations in repelling anti-ship attacks" common opinion:

"Only a single-post artillery complex with a 30-mm installation and a full-size all-weather control system - radar and optical-electronic (heat-television) - will ensure high efficiency of the nearest line of naval air defense."

The Gibka-M6 KUV is not equipped with its own radar. This is an optical-electronic complex with television, thermal imaging, laser rangefinder, as well as a laser beam control channel UR 9M120-1.

Since BEC-kamikazes are not equipped with radar guidance systems, the absence of its own radar in the Gibka-M6 KUV cannot be considered a critical drawback, while the cost and weight-dimensional parameters of the KUV are significantly reduced.

http://journal.almaz-antey.ru/jour/article/view/713

Well, comparing calibers 12,7 and 30 mm is stupid.

I gave you an example of a located next with a remotely controlled combat module, but separately from it the OLS, which ensures sufficient shooting accuracy at small targets even with a 14,5 mm machine gun, but you don’t seem to understand. It is clear to the engineer that it is difficult today to place the search and sighting module directly on the rotating part of the AK-630 AU. The AK-630 was not originally designed for this.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

You formulated it inaccurately. You should have written that Candidate of Technical Sciences, Chief Designer, Head of Department of JSC Instrument Design Bureau named after. Academician A.G. Shipunova" A.V. Zhukov was wrong in expressing the philistine opinion in his article “On the effectiveness of naval artillery installations in repelling anti-ship attacks”:

This is exactly how academics can be mistaken, or pass off white as black when they need to push their product.
When pointing, taking into account the distance between the radar antenna and the tower is not a task for modern electronics. But it really requires shooting and adjustment, which is impossible without experienced personnel.
In addition, the single-station scheme has its disadvantages. The higher the caliber, the higher the level of recoil and vibration, which does not have a very beneficial effect on the equipment. And again the size of the dimensions.

[Alexandra]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

This is exactly how academics can be mistaken, or pass off white as black when they need to push their product.

You called my opinion that only a single-post artillery system ensures high efficiency of the nearest line of naval air defense. In fact, this is the opinion of the chief designer of JSC Instrument Design Bureau named after. Academician A.G. Shipunova" A.V. Zhukova.

This opinion is supported by its design today by all foreign shipborne anti-aircraft artillery systems (ZAK) and anti-boat guns.

Thus, your subsequent statement “academics may be mistaken” should even be strengthened by stating that all modern developers of anti-aircraft artillery systems, including the chief designer of the Tula KBP that once developed the AK-630, Ph.D. A.V. Zhukov, today they are mistaken.

When pointing, taking into account the distance between the radar antenna and the tower is not a task for modern electronics. But it really requires shooting and adjustment, which is impossible without experienced personnel.

Although perhaps I missed something and you will now give an example of a modern, multi-post shipborne anti-aircraft or anti-boat artillery system, rich in electronics, whose total circular firing error is about 2 mrad, and not about 6 mrad, like the AK-630, i.e. comparable to the total circular error of firing of single-post artillery systems for the specified purpose.

Do you know such an artillery complex? If not, then can we already conclude that all the world’s navies today have problems with personnel?

In addition, the single-station scheme has its disadvantages. The higher the caliber, the higher the level of recoil and vibration

It is for this reason that, as a solution to the problem of shooting errors of the AK-630, the modern machine-gun machine-gun machine gun "Uprava-Kord" was presented, existing in both a single-post version and a two-post version, where the post with the OLS is as close as possible to the module turret.

[cast iron]

The rate of fire is variable. There's another problem there. The Navy still has not paid for the same AK630 with modern fire control systems and surveillance, detection and targeting systems. World War II level...

[Dedok]

Quote: Adrey

Quote: Dedok

Now we need to discuss what cartridges should be used against BEC - what damaging properties they should have

Quote: Dedok

then the question of automatic shooting,
ship control system question

Just “with a point to the opposite”.
On one fake video (which I did not watch, but I certainly condemn ) it is clearly visible that it is reflecting an AK-630 attack, the splashes from the shells are visible. The first hit is in the stern, in order to deprive the target of movement (logically), the stern sector covers as many as 2 (!) "metal cutting" and without success
In the future, the “main caliber” of the AK-176 is visible, deployed “in a traveling manner.” Apparently the installation did not take part in the battle at all. Unfit for combat? Does the fire control system not allow firing based on data from the OELS coupled with a thermal imager? Is there no OELS on the ship at all?
So the control system comes first in order to ensure the successful use of existing weapons, everything else comes later

That's what I wrote about!
How does a simple hunting cartridge differ from a military cartridge?
you need not just “piercing” the target, but defeating it

[Alexey RA]

The problem is not that the ships do not carry enough weapons to protect against BEC. The problem is that they are not doing their own thing. With the same BEC, the problem is not defeat - the “blowtorch” of the RCA in the near zone will blow it into atoms. The problem is target detection - how can an RKA, designed to work on enemy ships, detect a stealth boat? And what kind of garden vegetable should he even do this in one person?

The security of bases should be systematic, and not the work of individual patrol ships, which alone can only serve as targets. If the RKA is stationed in a roadstead, then it can easily fight the BEC, provided that there is an external control center (like an air defense system operating according to RTV data). If the BEC is hardly noticeable for the radar, then there is also the GAS. There are night electro-optics - ground, ship and air - thermal imagers and image intensifiers.

The main question is who will give the control center. The security of the bases, or rather the water area, has been the responsibility of the OVR all its life with its main control unit, MPK and boats, detection equipment and boom net barriers. The OVR was designed for PLO and PMO. And it kept the approaches to the bases under control, being that same system - ship, coastal and aviation radars and sonar are looking for the enemy, and then the “active forces” are given a command center - “in such and such a square is a probable target.”

The problem is that the active naval forces of the OVR are practically dead. Through the efforts of Commander-in-Chief Chirkov, the OVR was deprived of the MPC, and the pace of construction of new technical units is known to everyone. That is why non-core forces are involved in protecting the bases. And in such a situation, it is necessary to strengthen not the ships involved, but the OVR - by giving it the means to detect BEC.

It’s like with a sniper - he’s dangerous until he’s visible. If the position is exposed, then the sniper and ordinary motorized riflemen will be killed with standard weapons.

[alexoff]

Of course, I don’t understand it, but it seems to me that around Crimea they could have installed some kind of sonar somewhere under the water a long time ago. Well, or power the hydroacoustic buoys from land. Otherwise, I’ve heard that some countries are aware of what’s going on in entire oceans, but in ours it’s just a passageway, we only notice it under the nose of the ship. Tomorrow saboteurs will sail on crew boats to the deserted beach, we won’t even know it

[Dekabrist]

Mitrofanovism is felt from the first lines. And the proposal to use satellite networks of the “West” is generally congenial.

[Proctologist]

Alas, here is the classic "shield and sword". By strengthening protection against one threat (unmanned boats), you sacrifice protection against another. Slowed down - received an air strike, for example. They don’t like this word here, but the best solution was would EW. Which is not the case, I understand. But there are still no coordinated swarms of drones - when one operator controls the swarm, freely switching between drones, and the rest act according to a tracking algorithm, and the loss of any drone is simply a loss of an equal % of firepower, but not control.

I think that the entire concept of defense at sea in the second half of the twentieth century was built on the principles of strikes “rarely, but accurately.” Dodge 1-2 missiles at any given time. And we see 6 boats, guided individually and as a team! And there are no restrictions on increasing their number, except the economy. So putting 20 machine guns on a boat is also economics...

[Maks1995]

Reminds me of waving my fists after a fight.
They wrote somewhere nearby that the Americans, after the attacks by fireboats in the south, immediately sharply strengthened the small-caliber defense of the ships. And they didn’t miss it.
Well, we will also be strengthened. just remember that “fire ships” are ancient times. They were abandoned in favor of torpedoes and missiles once upon a time...

[rytik32]

Detection tools needed:
1. Starlink signal direction finders.
2. Quadcopters.
3. Observers.
We need camouflage properties: smoke screens, preferably remotely, with grants.
We need means of destruction: machine guns, fpv drones

[Kmon]

They will not shoot down for the same reason why they do not supply missiles to the Houthis: the risk of escalation. Of course, TMV will not start because of this, but... for example, we have very vulnerable sea cargo transportation (many tankers), what if some Somali pirates become more active? Or Ukraine will suddenly develop missiles that can reach the Kremlin. Iran is not afraid because it simply has nothing to lose; there will be no direct invasion, and he is not afraid of anything else.

[Victor Leningradets]

but...for example, we have very vulnerable sea transportation

If there is a threat, it will definitely be implemented by our partners, despite our exemplary or even unexampled behavior. Patience always have

[Kmon]

And how is it, for example, they sank a lot of Soviet ships carrying weapons to the Vietnamese to kill Americans? There are certain limits to the game that are respected by both sides. As long as the other side complies with them.

[Kostadinov]

Why will they use only FPV against BEC, and not the well-known ATGM or MANPADS?
Another possibility is KAZ (like tanks) with bomb launchers from anti-submarine bombs or barrages from anti-boat mines.
If these BEC radars cannot be detected, sonars can be used. Finally, these BEKs can be destroyed by other mini or micro BEKs, much smaller and cheaper (20-30 kg), which will be accompanied by surface ships.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Alexey RA

The problem is not that the ships do not carry enough weapons to protect against BEC. The problem is that they are not doing their own thing. With the same BEC, the problem is not defeat - the “blowtorch” of the RCA in the near zone will blow it into atoms. The problem is target detection - how can an RKA, designed to work on enemy ships, detect a stealth boat? And what kind of garden vegetable should he even do this in one person?

Why is the American destroyer URO forced to fight off the Houthi BEC kamikazes? After all, this is probably not a task for a guided missile destroyer? Or a task after the anti-boat 25 mm AU Mark 38 and 12,7 mm M2HB machine guns were installed on American destroyers at the beginning of the century?

It’s unpleasant when you have to perform unusual tasks - say, fend off attacks from anti-ship missiles, or unmanned boats. It’s especially unpleasant if you can’t fight back.

You don’t know why the domestic Project 21980 anti-sabotage boat has one 14,5 mm manually aimed machine gun on an MTPU pedestal mount, while the American Mark VI patrol boat usually has two 25 mm Mark 38 anti-boat guns, as well as several 12,7 mm and 7,62 .XNUMX mm machine guns, partly as part of remotely controlled combat modules, partly on manually aimed machines?



Which boat do you think has a better chance of fighting off an attack from a dozen BEC-kamikazes, the domestic Project 21980 boat, or the American Mark VI boat?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: AlexanderA

Why is the American destroyer URO forced to fight off the Houthi BEC kamikazes?

Because he's minding his own business.
In low-intensity conflicts, work off the enemy’s coast should be carried out by frigates, corvettes and littoral ships. And EM URO is to support this little thing from the second echelon and solve naval tasks - air defense, anti-aircraft defense and work along the shore.
But the USN fell in love with its frigates in a naval way. He simply doesn’t have any Corvettes. And littoral tanks, in the form in which they were sold to the fleet, are only a means of pumping money from the Navy budget into the pockets of shareholders of contractor firms (who said “project 22160”? )
So we have to send tanks into the city without cover "Burkey" under the enemy's BEC.

But in general we are talking about something else. After all, our RKA was attacked not at sea off foreign shores, but in the water area of ​​the base. In the very area where he himself was supposed to be covered and targeted by a very specific structure - OVR. Which, it seems, was simply ignored due to her lack of formality.

Quote: AlexanderA

You don’t know why the domestic Project 21980 anti-sabotage boat has one 14,5 mm manually aimed machine gun on an MTPU pedestal mount, while the American Mark VI patrol boat usually has two 25 mm Mark 38 anti-boat guns, as well as several 12,7 mm and 7,62 .XNUMX mm machine guns, partly as part of remotely controlled combat modules, partly on manually aimed machines?

That’s why we still have the only non-radar fire control device for the AK-630, which is this miracle:

A conventional sighting column with a ring sight and a pair of Eyeball Mk.1 as a means of target detection and tracking.

[Alexandra]

Quote: Alexey RA

Because he's minding his own business.

The American URO destroyer may not be doing its job, but it is doing it successfully. The question is, why do American Navy ships manage to successfully mind “other than their own business”? Maybe because the US Navy has switched to building universal ships for many decades, and we are still dismantling the legacy of the Soviet Navy, which relied on specialized ships?

In low-intensity conflicts, work off the enemy’s coast should be carried out by frigates, corvettes and littoral ships.

I referred to a video of American Mark VI patrol boats. Video filmed at the base in... Bahrain. This is how it turns out that American Mark VI patrol boats are engaged in work off the enemy’s coast (in the Persian Gulf) on the other side of the globe from the United States, but we cannot send Project 21980 boats to fight the enemy’s BEC even on the approaches to Sevastopol, because anti-boat weapons on these boats (by the way, their displacement is twice as high as that of the American Mark VI boats) there is only one 14,5 mm machine gun on a stand with manual aiming?

And littoral tanks in the form in which they were sold to the fleet are only a means of pumping money from the Navy budget into the pockets of shareholders of contractor firms (who said “project 22160”? smile)

I completely agree, the LCS project is a huge mistake by the US Navy. Instead of this mistake, Constellation-class frigates have already been ordered. But if you take the modern projects of surface combat ships and boats of the Russian Navy, there is an error upon an error. Whatever the modern threat, the Russian Navy was not ready to fight it.

That’s why we still have the only non-radar fire control device for the AK-630, which is this miracle. A conventional sighting column with a ring sight and a pair of Eyeball Mk.1 as a means of target detection and tracking.

“We have the means...” the cat Matroskin. As is known, within the framework of the GPV-2020, the Navy was the type of aircraft for which the most funds were allocated. The fact that such a “ball” did not appear behind each AK-630M or AK-630M-2 gun, who is to blame?

Maybe the commander of the Navy should appoint a combat combined arms general, as was the case with the Aerospace Forces not so long ago, in order to break the 170-year tradition of our permanent unpreparedness for modern war at sea?

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Alexey RA

Because he's minding his own business.

Why did you decide that? US destroyers do not primarily protect themselves; they are engaged in intercepting missiles and drones flying to Israel and other ships traveling through the Red Sea. What corvette, let alone a littoral ship, has the ability to fire anti-aircraft missiles at two to three hundred kilometers?

Last week information leaked that some destroyer used the Phalanx against a drone for the first time, i.e. the first time the drone came close enough. And so the fleet does exactly what it is supposed to do - maintain supremacy at sea.

By the way, this week two Houthi BECs were discovered and destroyed. What’s typical is that they discovered reconnaissance drones near the shore, and immediately blew up without waiting for them to get closer.

Stupid question - what are our reconnaissance and attack drones doing over the Black Sea? Are they there?

[Murphy]

For some reason, no one remembered such a thing as a sonobuoy. It is necessary to secretly install a sufficient number of buoys in order to organize a long-range detection line. The same principle applies to close-range detection. As for the defense of ships, the main burden should be borne by automation. Reaction time and accuracy are a must.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from Murphy.

For some reason, no one remembered such a thing as a sonobuoy.

Because this thing is disposable. And darling. It is used extremely carefully even for submarine work.

Quote from Murphy.

It is necessary to secretly install a sufficient number of buoys in order to organize a long-range detection line. The same principle applies to close-range detection.

Isn’t it easier to restore stationary hydroacoustic detection means? Our main problem now is how to survive in the base and near it.

[agond]

It seems that if the machine gun boat proposed by the author starts firing with the entire side of its 8 machine gun points, then the splashes from the mass of bullets hitting the water will greatly complicate aiming and adjusting the fire.

[Alexandra]

If this is shooting at a single target from stabilized remote combat modules with range measurements using laser rangefinders, then it doesn’t matter that adjustment to the splash will be difficult.

[Cats]

I read the comments - the main ideas are physical resistance to BEC. From the article:

But a torpedo does not require what a BEC kamikaze needs, namely: high-speed satellite data transmission networks, ensuring the use of BEC kamikazes at a great distance from the base point/launch.

. I’m certainly not an expert, but isn’t it easier, instead of a bunch of additional weapons and accompanying detection and guidance systems, to install an adequate electronic warfare system on ships?

[wladimirjankov]

Extreme measures are needed to protect surface ships from attacks by unmanned kamikaze boats

These measures of the Black Sea Fleet and not only it needed to be taken at the beginning, and even better before the Northern Military District, and not two years later, when the enemies began to attack our bases with these kamikazes and sink our ships, which were not protected from them in any way. After all, the Nazis did not acquire these naval drones today or even yesterday. And you don’t have to be a visionary or a great strategist to understand how the enemy is going to use such drones.
Our naval commanders, even now, when the roasted rooster has repeatedly begun to peck at them in one place (sinking ships and attacking naval bases), have done little to find opposition and reliably protect our ships, boats and bases from attacks by these drones. And if there are no effective means of protection against them, why should such ships go to sea at all from their moorings in the bases, as happened recently with the MRK, which at night, following an order, left the bay into the sea and was immediately attacked and sunk by several kamikazes, according to apparently they were waiting for him there in ambush. The video shot by these Nazi drones shows how helpless our ship is in front of them. He defended himself and unsuccessfully defended himself against them only with machine-gun fire. I’m very sorry for the crew of this boat, but what could they do in this situation. It is completely unclear why and where it was necessary to send an MRK to sea at night, armed with mosquito anti-ship missiles, a small-caliber cannon in the bow, which for some reason was not used during the battle, and possibly several machine guns. The RTO was simply not prepared to fight these Bandera weapons. Hence the sad result.

[cast iron]

They built an excellent RTO. Which is not suitable for anything. It simply does not reach the launch range of the URO destroyer. And it's also useless against boats. Either the standard artillery has long since rusted and broken down, or the fire control system can only do something on paper. But in reality, everything is done manually and only by eye during the day...

[Saxahorse]

As has already been correctly written above, the article contains the naked “Mitrofanovshchina”

Why do you need another 20 machine guns if both six-barreled guns and the bow turret were silent throughout the battle? Even one AK630 is enough to cover the sea for 4 kilometers. What got in the way? Broke? (both at once??) Problem with SUAO? Didn't see the enemy until the last moment? It is impossible to offer without at least some clear information.

By the way. We also haven’t seen any official information about the death of the Ivanovets MRK, maybe we’re discussing a fake drawn by a neural network.

[Glagol1]

Actual question. Or rather the problem. I agree with the author, 23 and 30 mm are too bulky, 12,7 (and possibly 14,5) mm is what is needed. The weapon is not expensive, does not take up much space or weight, and sailors know how to shoot. Moreover, everything must be armed with machine guns - from border ships to frigates and large landing ships. In addition, 12,7 mm also enhances the air defense of ships against the same drones, but this time airborne. The issue with underwater drones remains open. It’s not at all clear how to beat them off.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Glagol1

The weapon is not expensive, does not take up much space or weight, and sailors know how to shoot.

What will happen to these sailors when the drones are ARMED? A banal 20 mm cannon or a 30 mm automatic grenade launcher. Just shooting forward. On the decks of our ships, where the sailors stand at full height?
There will be a bloody mess.

[Ivanov IV]

"Extreme measures are needed to protect surface ships"....
The best defense is ATTACK.
Extreme measures are needed to LIBERATE the Odessa and Nikolaev regions.
And this is the SOLUTION to all problems.....

[agond]

Quote: Glagol1

The issue with underwater drones remains open. It’s not at all clear how to beat them off.

The same open question is how to guide an underwater drone

[uyry]

For some reason, the article discusses the actions of the last protection of the boat. I'm not a sailor, please correct me if I have anything. It is known about 4 launch sites for these unmanned fireships, why are the exits from these ports not mined? Why are minefields with variable passage configurations not installed on the possible trajectories of such vehicles? Where are the underwater enemy warning sensors? Is all this really worth an exorbitant amount of money? If the launch is carried out from civilian ships, why aren’t they put on the same course? Each fireship has a subversive electronic device; on land they have learned how to influence them, but not on water? Why didn’t the boat use smoke and give full reverse? Someone can explain, otherwise in the article, whistle everyone to the top, drones, machine guns, spotlights, kill everyone. Where can you recruit people on such boats, but you have to be on duty all the time? And this boat is designed for completely different tasks.

[abc_alex]

extreme measures to protect surface ships from attacks by unmanned kamikaze boats

Extreme?
Disperse half of the "ship's design bureaus" with kicks. And look east. They know a lot about extreme sports. When the Chinese need a simple and cheap fire weapon for the sea, they take a BARGE, put land-based weapons on it and do the WORK.




But they don’t walk around proudly with their noses in the air from the awareness of their own oh-so-rich naval traditions. The author apparently slept for the last 30 years and does not know that compact automated firing modules are not “a thing of the future” but already ready-made solutions. They are on the BMP-3. And BMD-4. You just need to finally wake up from naval snobbery and expensive whistle-blowing gadgets that are unique but for some reason don’t shoot anywhere, and use what ALREADY WORKS. In hundreds, if not thousands of copies.
Once again: take a dozen barges. If you need it urgently, then simply drive the BMP-3 onto the decks. Lite along the sides. Take it out to sea a couple of kilometers, creating a curtain in front of the base point.
And in the future, on the basis of EXISTING components and assemblies, create mobilization fighter boats. They don’t need incredible seaworthiness - kamikaze BCs don’t go to sea in a force 4 storm. And a cruising range of tens of kilometers is also not needed; they will never have to leave the base.
The main caliber is the T-90 turret, the auxiliary caliber is the Bakhcha BM. As a means of air defense - Bending. The motor for the boat can be taken from either a BMP-3 or a tank. And make dozens of such boats according to a single project at different factories.

[Kostadinov]

Why is the American destroyer URO forced to fight off the Houthi BEC kamikazes? After all, this is probably not a task for a guided missile destroyer?

American destroyers defended themselves very well against radio-controlled and suicide-controlled boats and torpedoes in World War II. Their losses were insignificant then.

[Sedoy]

And without such a high-speed global communication network, the range of use of Russian BEC kamikazes will be greatly limited.

What the hell is the range within the Black Sea?
There it is enough to install a network along the coast and keep “aerial probes/drones” repeaters over the water area. In general, from the military point of view, the “network” should be deployed on a local theater of operations and not depend on global communications...
Another thing is that even this is not there...

[ussuri]

Any ship of significant size should really carry one rotorcraft at least, that can provide a little additional firepower against such unmanned kamikazee boats, as well as maybe much more importantly, an EW pod that can be directed on such swarms to disable their satellite communications ( without interfering too much on the systems of the ship it is trying to protect).

If a ship does not have such rotorcraft that is ready to launch within a minute, it should be escorted by aviation patrol nearby.

An L-39 even is enough to carry an EW pod, and to respond to an area nearby within a few minutes.

[Pavel73]

The ships must be equipped with observation posts with night vision devices and combat crews with anti-tank systems of the same Kornet type, also equipped with thermal imaging sights. Moreover, the number of ATGMs should be proportional to the displacement of the protected ship. The larger the ship, the more BEC will be thrown at it. A maneuvering BEC resembles a maneuvering armored fighting vehicle or a tank, therefore both the fighting methods and the weapons used should be similar. And we must remember that the enemy does not stand still either. We should expect the appearance of BECs with ATGMs and UAVs on board, semi-submersible BECs armed with torpedoes, as well as unmanned submarines. Machine guns are not enough against such prodigies.
In fact, there is nothing particularly new here: mine and then torpedo boats have been widely used since the 19th century. Today's difference is only in remote control, but the essence has not changed: an unobtrusive mosquito fleet.

[storm]

The Navy and the Defense Ministry have long had all the weapons to combat naval drones; they just lack the will of the leadership to introduce them en masse on warships.
Remote combat modules Uprava-Kord-12,7 mm with a thermal imaging sight, 2-4 pcs. on board will ensure the destruction of drones at a range of up to 1,5 km.
Anti-sabotage automatic grenade launchers DP-65 provide automatic detection and destruction in a 400m zone.
It is very surprising that the AK-630, which at a distance of up to 4 km should create a continuous destruction zone, showed almost no performance...
Most likely the main reason is the lack of modern optoelectronic target detection systems.

[staer-62]

There is such a method. This method will remove all questions about defense because there will be no attack. But this will require courage, I would say courage, in making political decisions that will be independent of the opinions of the elite consisting of ready-made traitors to the Motherland or of potential all these 110 billionaires and millionaires, all this trash that has assets in the West, and this is the entire bohemia of Russia. It is necessary to make a decision to launch a nuclear strike on all European capitals as a warning. It is not necessary to bridge networks, but nuclear warheads on an industrial scale.

[volgast1970]

Really - cheap and cheerful!!! and it’s true!!! It’s high time to kill at least one nlobal hack.

[dmitry_2]

Machine guns must be automated to track targets.
The experience of a simple shotgun and a military one shows that shrapnel is also worth considering.

[the same doctor]

To protect against kamikaze boats, two KPVTs are enough: at the bow and stern of the ship.
.
Extraordinary measures are needed in the field of politics: declaring the Black Sea a prohibited zone. Without guidance from American drones and launches from pseudo-peaceful bulk carriers, unmanned cargo ships are safe.
.
If we cannot make robotic guidance with KPVT, then extraordinary measures are needed in organizing the design bureau and protecting copyrights.