Robot offensive on the Black Sea - how to fight in a new way

123
Robot offensive on the Black Sea - how to fight in a new way

On September 29, 2017, the Saudi frigate Al Madinah of the French F2000 project was attacked by three remote-controlled exploding boats of the Yemeni Houthis, one of which reached the target and seriously damaged the frigate.

This case can be considered the first successful use of a new type weapons – unmanned boats (UEC) as fire ships.



Small fireships have been used for hundreds of years to burn or blow up enemy ships when they come close to them. They were used, for example, by the British against the Spanish Great Armada and by Russian sailors in the Battle of Chesme, where a fire (and explosion) caused by one of the four fire ships used became key in the defeat of the Turkish squadron.

Human-controlled exploding boats have become a new level of this type of weapon. The Italians were the first to successfully use them on March 26, 1941, damaging the British heavy cruiser York and sinking the tanker Pericles. Such boats were used en masse by the Japanese during the final stage of the Pacific War in 1945. For example, on February 15, 1945, Japanese boats defeated the light forces of the American fleet, sinking four 250-ton gunboats supporting the landings in the Philippines.

The main defense against this kind of attack was the massive equipping of American ships with 12,7-mm Browning machine guns, installed directly on the sides of the ships and without dead zones.

However, in this case, the best defense is an attack, and most of the boats (and the Japanese made about 9 of them!) were destroyed at their bases or during transportation by sea, even before participating in their first and only suicidal attack. Total losses of the American fleet from Japanese exploding kamikaze boats: 000 ships sunk and 6 damaged.

The main target of Japanese kamikaze boats is American military transports, landing ships ensuring the landing of ground forces, the attack time is night. In general, little has changed since then; if we look at the statistics of losses of the Black Sea Fleet from Ukrainian boats, we will see exactly the same picture - mainly night attacks on large landing ships and large landing ships.

True, boats have now changed significantly. Yes, the warhead remained the same - two to three hundred kilograms of explosives, but now they are controlled not by a suicide pilot sitting on a boat, but by an operator via a satellite channel using thermal imaging optics, now this is a BEC - an unmanned boat.

This is what a hangar with Ukrainian kamikaze boats “Magura” looks like - small, unnoticeable on radar drones with high range.


Several dozen such boats have already been used in the Black Sea, and even though most of the boats were shot down by the Russian aviation, naval artillery and machine guns, unfortunately, were those who found their target.

What can be opposed to the new generation of disposable but cheap BEC kamikazes?

If there are less than a dozen of them, the boats are not bad; they are shot with machine guns “the old fashioned way.” But remember, Japan was able to produce tens of thousands of such boats... What will help repel such a threat?

First of all, of course, machine guns. But we don’t have human-controlled ones, thousands of machine gunners sitting on the sides of all Russian ships. But remotely controlled modules with 12,7 mm “Kord” from Uralvagonzavod – “Okhotnik”, the marine version of which is called “Narwhal”, are successfully produced, including for export, and used in the air defense system.


A module with a stabilized machine gun, good optics and a thermal imager increases the range of effective fire, and therefore much fewer such machine guns will be needed to hit targets.

Robots must fight robots!


Next, we need to increase the detection distance by equipping all ships with modern optical-electronic stations with a thermal imaging channel. Have you noticed that attacks by Ukrainian boats are much more successful on old Soviet ships that do not have modern optical stations?

But it is best to go to sea with a loitering UAV of an airplane or tiltrotor type “above the mast.” Such drones fly for dozens of hours and will be able to provide continuous visibility around the ship for many kilometers.

“But where should we base them?” – perhaps you ask.

The UAV can take off from a catapult installed on the ship, and land on land; it can use ships with a runway for landing, for example, Project 22160 patrol ships or Project 22460 border ships, which can accompany ships and convoy vessels that do not have runways. Aircraft-type UAVs of the "Orlan" type landed quite well on frigates and patrol ships using the "grid" method; tiltrotors can land on runways normally.

Well, we found a boat at sea - how to destroy it at a long distance? Don't launch an anti-ship missile! Raise a helicopter? No, drones come to the rescue again!

The new generation of Lancet loitering ammunition can be launched even without a catapult - from quadruple launch containers. Such an installation can be installed on any ship – up to the small “Rook”, thus obtaining a means of destroying BEC with a radius of tens of kilometers.

It turns out that by intelligently using remote-controlled weapons against enemy kamikazes, the threat of unmanned exploding boats can be reduced to a minimum.

All you need to do is understand that the world has changed, the old methods of war no longer work, and new ones are needed. We hope the Navy leadership can understand this.

С robots Robots fight more effectively!
123 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    17 February 2024 04: 43
    I think that ships should be treated as during war. Previously, numerous submarines scurried across the sea - the ships did not sail one at a time, they formed convoys and covered each other. How did American flying fortresses fly? In a checkerboard pattern, cross-covering each other with machine guns, while most of the crew fired back at enemy fighters. And most importantly, the bombers and ships were either in protected ports or were carrying out a combat mission. They weren't just messing around. The MRK and BDK obviously did not do anything necessary for the North Military District, they were outside the ports. Just imagine that the military forces will post a video of them covering a Ka-52 standing in a field with artillery, which landed without any breakdowns. We will all be very surprised, how did this happen? Well, there was probably a reason for the landing? But no one asks what the lone large landing ship was doing in dangerous waters.

    In terms of protection, there should be something like hydroacoustic stations in the sea near our ports; the Americans once blocked the Atlantic with such systems, 60 years ago. And the Belarusian hunter drone is well suited for catching boats; it can fly for 5-6 hours and has a large-caliber machine gun. 20-30 km from the ship he can shoot at more than a dozen boats.
    1. +6
      17 February 2024 06: 38
      In the article I tried to highlight those types of weapons that already exist and are widely used. We also have and are producing unmanned helicopters with weapons, for example, Termit with S-8L guided missiles, but their production is just beginning.

      And "Orlan" and "Lancet" can be installed on ships right now, they have already been tested from sea carriers and are being produced in the thousands, just like remote-controlled modules with "Kord"s.
      1. +4
        17 February 2024 10: 19
        Quote: keleg
        And "Orlan" and "Lancet" can be installed on ships right now, they have already been tested from sea carriers

        That's right. Regardless of you, I came to the same conclusions, only you, unlike me, wrote the article laughing.
        "Orlan" on stream, launched from a catapult which does not take up much space on the ship. It will at least make it possible to detect BEC at a distance of 15-20 km from the ship, both when stationary and while moving. The presence of two devices provides continuous monitoring. Netting at the stern is also not a “know-how” for a long time.
        But discovering it does not mean giving the control center for the ship’s means of destruction. The simplest option is again either a Lancet or a banal FPV drone, which can go to the target area, independently reconnoiter it and destroy it.
        Next, we need to increase the detection distance by equipping all ships with modern optical-electronic stations with a thermal imaging channel.

        Here everything is not so simple. “Greenhouse” is certainly better than “night light” or just “visual”, but... BEC most likely does not provide the bright contrast spot that thermal imager users are accustomed to; it will probably just be a silhouette.
        The hull of a boat remaining in water for a long time acquires ambient temperature. Mix hot exhaust gases with water through the propeller hub, just like in imported outboard motors. Waste water from the cooling system goes there. Sheathe the engine with 20 cm of polystyrene foam. I don’t think they didn’t think of this before. As a result, the BEC apparently does not provide a bright spot and it is not so easy to automate the targeting of the DUMB to it.
        1. +4
          17 February 2024 11: 06
          But the BEC still mixes the water when moving, the temperature of the water on the surface and even half a meter deep is different. Accordingly, a good thermal imager can notice the wake. Well, again - modern ships, such as RZK or patrol ships, with developed optical detection means, fought off the BEC much better than Soviet dinosaurs, designed mainly for guidance using radars.
          One can cautiously conclude that ECOs are not useful.
          1. 0
            17 February 2024 11: 09
            Quote: keleg
            One can cautiously conclude that ECOs are not useful.

            And I didn’t claim this. It’s just that the picture will be very different from the one that the hunter is used to seeing in the “greenhouse” while sitting on a tower for wild boars. AND Automatic detection and targeting of such a target will be difficult.
            In general - “foreware drones” laughing
            1. 0
              17 February 2024 18: 36
              You are looking for a problem where there shouldn't be one. Perhaps you are right and it has already been created and appeared, but it should be different. Machine-gun RBMs must be able to be controlled by the operator and manually aimed, right down to the folding seat and pedals. That is, for a machine gunner in manual mode, a sight and a stabilizer should be enough. Almost all early models of DBMs had the ability to be manually controlled.
              In any case, the remote operator may not need the fire control system.
              1. +1
                17 February 2024 22: 09
                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                You are looking for a problem where there shouldn't be one.

                You never know what shouldn't happen in life, but it does.
                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                Machine gun dubm must have

                The issue is not the availability of weapons. The RKA and BDK had both AK-630 and AK-176, and others, apparently. What is the result?
                In order: the problem is detection - target designation and only then defeat. Yes, I forgot to add the main thing - problem in the organization! When a BDK anchors in an unprotected open roadstead at night.
              2. 0
                17 February 2024 22: 34
                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                Machine-gun RBMs must have the ability to be controlled by the operator and manually aimed, right down to the folding seat and pedals. That is, for a machine gunner in manual mode, a sight and a stabilizer should be enough. Almost all early models of DBMs had the ability to be manually controlled.

                What will this give you? Put a machine gunner in a chair and he will stare at you at sea 24/7? In 8 hours his tower will be torn off. Will you put 6 machine guns on board and a 4 to 4 watch? How long will they last, not to mention increasing the crew by 24 people?
                If the BEC is not noticed before launching an attack at a distance of, say, 2 km (a very good distance, by the way, even for a heavy machine gun), at a speed of 80 km/h, taking into account acceleration, it will be at your side in 2 (!) minutes.
                So what is more important, DUMB or timely detection?
                1. -1
                  17 February 2024 22: 41
                  You're like a fighter tilting at windmills! Did I somewhere deny the need for timely detection? But there is something wrong with the ship's guns, since they do not participate in repelling attacks.
                  And I’m not even going to discuss the pearls about the need to sit behind machine guns around the clock.
                  Is 2 (!) minutes serious? In collisions on land, if not fractions of seconds, then seconds decide. Is 30 seconds or a minute not enough to hit a boat or several boats? 10-15 seconds for each target, quite an average rate of fire.
                  1. 0
                    17 February 2024 22: 46
                    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                    But there is something wrong with the ship's guns, since they do not participate in repelling attacks.

                    The OMS does not allow it.
                    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                    Is 2 (!) minutes serious?

                    I turned this down, of course. 3 minutes. 60 km/h - 1 km/min.
                    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                    In collisions on land, if not fractions of seconds, then seconds decide. Is 30 seconds or a minute not enough to hit a boat or several boats?

                    Either your fighter stands at the machine gun all the time, or when an alarm occurs he must run to it, unsheath it, cock it, aim it at the target and open fire. You have 3 minutes to do everything about everything.
              3. 0
                18 February 2024 15: 49
                The vessel should have a couple of eight stabilized four-barreled “shiki” or something similar, depending on the size of the vessel. A hit from even one 23mm shell will not be in vain for the BEC. Well, of course, we can’t do without maritime aerial drones.
              4. -1
                19 February 2024 09: 52
                Quote:"
                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                Machine-gun RBMs must be able to be controlled by the operator and manually aimed, right down to the folding seat and pedals.

                The pedals are the most important thing. :)
      2. +1
        17 February 2024 15: 41
        Quote: keleg
        ... ....."Orlan" ........

        This name was the name of the hero of Sergei Snegov’s trilogy “People like Gods,” a cyborg from the Destroyer civilization, who was one of the first to go over to the side of the People...
        Harry Garrison wrote in War on the Robots, Stanislaw Lem wrote in Peace on Earth, and Paul Anderson wrote about how robots are gradually displacing humans from warfare.
        And in the story "Battle" the author of the story describes how in the battle with the forces of evil am Instead of People, they fought... all of them, robots! And we won! Cyber ​​reconnaissance, foot soldiers,
        tanks, planes and even cavalry!!! And it was them that God took to Paradise, having previously repaired them with one touch of his finger.
        Of course, this is a story in the spirit of sarcasm. And the comment too.
      3. +8
        17 February 2024 17: 08
        The Black Sea Fleet feels like it is in another time or even on another planet; at the front, the fighters risk much more, but they are constantly coming up with something. Screens, camouflage, protection from improvised means such as logs or bricks, they themselves are thrown onto quadrics, send requests to volunteers, modify tactics in response to the actions of the enemy. Combat missions are completed and losses are minimized. The fleet withdrew from the Northern Military District, but the losses remained as they were. Mavics with a thermal imager can see at 5-7 km, is there at least one ship like that? There is no confirmation. If only they had metal beds welded along the waterline, well, at least there would be a feeling that they are from our planet, and not aliens from the past.
      4. +1
        19 February 2024 12: 39
        Quote: keleg
        "Orlan" and "Lancet" can be installed on ships right now, they have already been tested from sea carriers and are being produced in the thousands, just like remote-controlled modules with "Kord"s.

        In 2022, we so diligently reported on the start of mass production of Orion strike UAVs as part of the Pacer complex. It is clear that above and beyond the LBS there is now nothing in sight for them except imminent death... And above the sea?? Why are they not used? Why haven't control and screening echelons been created with their help? They are armed with laser-guided ATGMs! They have a decent radius and loitering time. Here is the remedy available right now against such drones. Equip it with a thermal imager and good optics, a laser target designator and a pair of ATGMs (if you don’t need any more).
        Will you need a lot of them?
        So they were going to release them in the hundreds. Moreover, it is necessary to cover mainly the bases. And at sea on the route, if there is a surplus resource (such UAVs) and it is possible to organize relaying or organize control via satellite. Why isn't this used?
        And why is the Global Hawk still flying, and our Il-76 is shot down by the English crew of the Patriot over our territory?
        Ships and vessels really need to be armed with machine guns, but such boats must first be detected in a timely manner. Because when attacked by a “wolf pack”, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the ship to fight back. We need UAV duty forces with constant duty in the air over the sea and the possibility of immediate destruction. Since they exist, they must be used.
        1. +1
          20 February 2024 07: 00
          Yes, there was news that the Pacers were entering service at the Russian World Cup in 24. Alas, it’s slow - our fleet is leisurely.
          1. 0
            20 February 2024 10: 17
            Quote: keleg
            There was news that the Pacers were entering service at the Russian World Cup in 24. Alas, it’s slow - our fleet is leisurely.

            Maybe with the new commander he will start to move.
            Or maybe there is no sufficiently powerful night optics.
            But I don’t see any other way to ensure that detection, control and destruction means are constantly on duty in the air. Machine guns are the last line, which breaks through during a massive attack. And the cost of any sunken ship or vessel will pay for any number of attack naval drones involved for this purpose. The problem must be solved systematically.
            1. 0
              20 February 2024 11: 23
              After all, large UAVs are a target over the sea; they will be caught from enemy fighters with air-to-air missiles. Yes, you can play this game with two people, but you can get the Pacer over the sea. It seems to me more promising to use Orlan-type UAVs; they can patrol for almost a day.
              1. +1
                20 February 2024 12: 56
                Quote: keleg
                they will be caught from enemy fighters with air-to-air missiles.

                To do this, enemy fighters must first take off (and this is already a risk, because the A-50U does not sleep, like ground-based RTVs), then get closer to the “Orion” at a distance of 100 km (in real life even less), and this is the time to enter zone of control of our air defense, including the duty forces of the IA, and then capture the target and hit it with a very expensive missile with an AGSN. I remind you that the engagement range of the AIM-120 and R-27M is given for ideal interception conditions: the oncoming course of the target and the interceptor, the speed of approach 1,5-2M, interception altitude 10 m. For all other cases, the destruction range is seriously lower. That is, to reach the launch line of the RVV SD, the Sumerian fighter is guaranteed to enter the zone of control and destruction of our means. If it sneaks up on it in WWII, then the range of its missiles will be reduced even more. The Orions should patrol mainly along the South Coast, on the approaches to our bases, ports and other coastal targets and on the approaches to the Crimean Bridge. It should also be kept in mind that that they can be launched from civil courts of any foreign jurisdiction. And Ukrainian Armed Forces aviation will only be able to operate in the north-west of Crimea.
                And it’s high time to start destroying US reconnaissance UAVs over the World Cup in anonymous mode. Like "shot down by a UFO".
                Quote: keleg
                It is more promising to attract UAVs of the Orlan type; they can patrol for almost a day.

                These are light UAVs with weak optics and no combat load. "Orion" is capable of not only observing, but also striking. Hang in the air longer and move further away. A repeater (or satellite channel) will be required, but this will require just another Orion.
            2. 0
              21 February 2024 20: 09
              What can be resolved? The ships' crews include conscript sailors, and they serve for a whole year. It’s interesting that during this time they manage to teach them anything other than laying out beds and cleaning the latrine? Until there is a decision at the level of the Ministry of Defense on the combat training of troops, we will not have a full-fledged combat-ready army or a combat-ready fleet. And again we learn to fight by fighting.
              1. +1
                21 February 2024 20: 49
                When my father was young, he served in the Army for 3 years, and in the Navy for 5 years. Both the Army and the Navy then had more than PROFESSIONAL personnel. With the service life decreasing to 2 and 3 years, respectively, the quality of the l/s dropped very seriously. And when they began to serve for 1 year... The army simply disappeared. That is why ONLY contract soldiers fight and operate complex equipment. And the same-age men in the Navy during Yeltsin’s time destroyed so many ships... with crooked hands and untrained brains that I very much doubt that today there is at least one conscript on the ships of the Russian Navy. Except maybe the Marines and Coastal Services.
                We must return to conscription service for a period of 3 years, and on a competitive basis. Then the quality of human resources will be the highest, and the reserves will be perfectly prepared, and contract soldiers in the Army will be needed only for the most critical technical specialties.
                And since not everyone will have to serve in such a service, those awarded such an honor should be given the right for the state. to obtain a higher education after service with a free choice of university. And a scholarship! And the right to enter the civil service. Service should become a privilege. And for those who have not served, the path to power should be tightly closed.
                1. 0
                  21 February 2024 21: 27
                  Quote: bayard
                  It is necessary to return to conscription service for a period of 3 years, and on a competitive basis

                  Conscription service on a competitive basis? How is that? Explain your point.
                  1. 0
                    21 February 2024 22: 01
                    Very simple . Let's say 150 thousand young people should be drafted, and 600 thousand who have reached conscription age and passed a medical examination. Here's a competition for you. And since service in the Army is now (if it exists) a social elevator with a lot of benefits and privileges after service, this will add even more flavor to this competition (for the right to serve).
                    But for this, the Country must be ruled by KSHATRIYAS, and not by traders and “untouchables” (outcasts).
    2. 0
      17 February 2024 19: 50
      Quote from alexoff
      The MRK and BDK obviously did not do anything necessary for the North Military District, they were outside the ports.

      The point is that, as it turns out, large landing craft were used to ensure the transportation of equipment and ammunition.
      And tanks, and ammunition, and other types of weapons...
      And the fact that alone, well, we have such fleet sailors, in the leadership of the already lost Black Sea Fleet. During the SVO period, we lost more than 20 ships. From a country about which, a year ago, every patriot here argued that it has no fleet, no anti-ship missiles, no aviation.
      This is how a country that has nothing destroyed the Black Sea Fleet.
      1. +2
        17 February 2024 23: 25
        Quote: SovAr238A
        The point is that, as it turns out, large landing craft were used to ensure the transportation of equipment and ammunition.

        I have a hard time imagining from which point to which large landing craft can transport equipment and ammunition. Like, from somewhere, say, from Izhevsk they are transported by rail to Novorossiysk, there they unload it onto a large landing ship, it sails to Sevastopol, there they load it onto the railroad or trucks and transport it to the Kherson region? Well, seven miles is not a hook, of course, although it seems to me that more can be placed on an ordinary barge, or you can not unload it from a train, but pull it straight to Crimea, they say trains go there too.
        Quote: SovAr238A
        From a country about which, a year ago, every patriot here argued that it has no fleet, no anti-ship missiles, no aviation.
        This is how a country that has nothing destroyed the Black Sea Fleet.

        I think they achieved the same thing with pole mines on crew boats. To fight like that, you can lose to a non-existent enemy, fools learn from their mistakes, it feels like some kind of meningoencephalitis at the fleet headquarters, they don’t even come to their senses. Well, or this is some kind of agreement, our government has noticed a plan to exchange our shame for some goodies for them personally.
        1. 0
          17 February 2024 23: 51
          Quote from alexoff
          alexoff

          Quote from alexoff
          I have a hard time imagining from which point to which large landing craft can transport equipment and ammunition.

          According to the previous BDK, which was allegedly sunk by a missile in Feodosia (fake information that cannot be trusted), Ukrainian sources wrote that it brought a cargo of weapons from Iran (fake information that cannot be trusted).
          1. 0
            17 February 2024 23: 59
            But Iran does not have any ports on the Black Sea, and the BDK could not sail to Iran. And the BDK stood in a place where it was expensive to unload drones. Drones were generally transported on the Il-76, much faster than toiling around with ships. Most likely there was a ammunition kit for naval artillery there.
            1. 0
              18 February 2024 00: 00
              Quote from alexoff
              But Iran does not have any ports on the Black Sea, and the BDK could not sail to Iran.

              Volga-Don Canal.
              1. +1
                18 February 2024 00: 05
                The BDK will not sail there. Well, in principle, if you want, you can invent a lot of crap, but for sure there is data on who swam where and what kind of debris was then lying around the surrounding area. The ship stayed in Feodosia for at least two weeks before the sinking. The Vsushniki and Il-76 carried missiles from the S300, and last year in the Crimea they defeated a crowd of Iranian officers, who and where - a secret, victory, the geraniums apparently stopped flying. And they wrote an article about the assassination attempts on Zelensky on the wiki, of course, without any invoice. I’m generally silent about girls with pigtails
                1. +1
                  18 February 2024 00: 12
                  Quote from alexoff
                  The BDK will not sail there.

                  From Wikipedia:
                  The movement of vessels with a carrying capacity of up to 7 thousand tons is allowed.
                  1. 0
                    18 February 2024 01: 51
                    Well, that’s it, they proved it, the large landing craft ply the Volga-Don Canal to Iran and back, it passed under all the bridges with its superstructure. And the authorities are hiding the fact that the BDK has never been seen there. Although I think the BDK was transported there by a bunch of helicopters, a thousand Mi-8s were picked up and delivered directly to the Caspian Sea. Wikipedia has nothing against it?
              2. KCA
                0
                18 February 2024 07: 51
                What is Volgo-Don like? Navigation will open in April, I don’t know how it is with the locks on the Volga-Don, we have them on the canal. In Moscow, the lower gate of gateway No. 1 is generally open in the absence of navigation
              3. 0
                18 February 2024 15: 59
                Actually, there is container shipping, when everything is loaded and reloaded by cranes, and not by farting steam with the help of free sailors and soldiers. And container cargo for the nth HF must be completed a thousand kilometers away and in no Novorossiysk - Sevastopol it should not be completed and sorted, but delivered directly closer to the LBS.
                1. +1
                  18 February 2024 16: 36
                  Quote: Alexey Lantukh
                  Actually, there is container shipping, when everything is loaded and reloaded by cranes, and not by farting steam with the help of free sailors and soldiers. And container cargo for the nth HF must be completed a thousand kilometers away and in no Novorossiysk - Sevastopol it should not be completed and sorted, but delivered directly closer to the LBS.

                  The idea has long been expressed that logistics should be taken away from the Moscow Region and outsourced to some Magnit. It would be cheaper and smarter.

                  In any case, no normal logistician would carry explosive cargo on a large landing craft.
    3. +1
      18 February 2024 10: 22
      Quote from alexoff
      I think that ships should be treated as during war. Previously, numerous submarines scurried across the sea - the ships did not sail one at a time, they formed convoys and covered each other.

      Yes you are right. The Allies defeated the German wolf packs solely through organization.
      The death of Ivanovets and Caesar Kunikov was due solely to the negligence of the command. Both ships were motionless on the open sea. From Odessa to the place of death of Caesar Kunikov there are more than 400 kilometers. Those. a broken ship, without guards or escort, “cuckooed” on the open sea all day....
      If the ship were moving at least in tow, without knowing its exact route, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to direct drones at it.
      Regarding machine guns, helicopters, etc. Ivanovets was immediately attacked by 12 drones from several sides. Most were destroyed. Next time the Ukrainians will send 20...30 drones. How many machine guns should you have on board?
      1. 0
        18 February 2024 12: 07
        It is necessary to have reconnaissance of the water area; a couple of Mi-28s would shoot at 50 of these unmanned boats. They sailed from Odessa for several hours, and the distance of a machine-gun shot to the large landing ship was only a few tens of seconds.
        1. 0
          18 February 2024 12: 45
          Quote from alexoff
          They sailed from Odessa for several hours,

          The drones have a cruising speed of 20 knots. They sailed for at least half a day.
          Quote from alexoff
          and the distance of a machine gun shot to the large landing ship is only a few tens of seconds

          Too bad to watch the video? They have new tactics. They swim as unnoticed as possible at low speed.
          Quote from alexoff
          a pair of Mi-28s would shoot at 50 of these unmanned boats.

          Again, there was a helicopter in the video, but neither it nor the crew noticed anything. Apparently there were no night vision devices.
          1. 0
            18 February 2024 14: 43
            Quote: ism_ek
            Too bad to watch the video? They have new tactics. They swim as unnoticed as possible at low speed.

            I understand that for the last half a kilometer she was rushing at full speed. It seems to me that it would be difficult to hit a boat further into the water with a machine gun.
            Quote: ism_ek
            Again, there was a helicopter in the video, but neither it nor the crew noticed anything. Apparently there were no night vision devices.

            The necessary observation instruments were missing. There is no control of the water space. There is no electronic intelligence that would notice that someone from a bunch of drones is transmitting a signal to the satellites. There is no human intelligence that would raise the ranks and the entire crew would pour out onto the deck with all the firearms they could. At the same time, normal helicopters would have been raised in advance. Our fleet is like a rhinoceros - it sees nothing, hears nothing, it only knows how to hit in the forehead and get hit in the side. I’m sure that some Turks would raise bayraktars and find all these boats 50 kilometers from the enemy shore, and then finish shooting them. And the Americans would still be looking for men with suspicious boats near the shore.
  2. -5
    17 February 2024 06: 39
    We should not ooh and ahh, but create our own semi-submersible type BECs and use as intended.
    All BECs have a control system using satellites or guidance drones. There will be no control - all these robots will become ordinary floats. Let engineers and designers decide how to do this.
    The satellite navigation system was created in the USA. Let them suffer the costs the hard way. Let them show how AUGs can fight a thousand (for example) BECs.
    1. 0
      17 February 2024 19: 52
      Quote: ROSS 42
      We should not ooh and ahh, but create our own semi-submersible type BECs and use as intended.
      All BECs have a control system using satellites or guidance drones. There will be no control - all these robots will become ordinary floats. Let engineers and designers decide how to do this.
      The satellite navigation system was created in the USA. Let them suffer the costs the hard way. Let them show how AUGs can fight a thousand (for example) BECs.

      Write a million, what’s there?
      Your messages in recent years have already said so much that you can safely write billions.
  3. +2
    17 February 2024 07: 28
    As a non-sailor, I have the following question for the author, as well as for respected commentators. How does a BEC differ in noise from a torpedo? After all, the method of detecting a torpedo attacking a ship is based on the old-fashioned method of WWI, i.e. torpedo detection in noise direction finding modes and using active sonar. Why can a torpedo be detected, but there is such a dance around the BEC with a tambourine? A plus to the author and the article!
    1. +2
      17 February 2024 11: 11
      Not all ships have hydroacoustic stations, alas. A torpedo is launched from a submarine, which is expensive in itself - after an attack, even a successful one, hunters will flock to it and try to kill it. BEC does not have such a problem; its use is much cheaper than the combination of “submarine plus torpedoes”. Therefore, to counteract BEC using hydroacoustics, a restructuring of the entire hydroacoustic search system is necessary.
      1. -1
        17 February 2024 11: 16
        Quote: keleg
        therefore, to counteract BEC using hydroacoustics, a restructuring of the entire hydroacoustic search system is needed

        Are there any noises? Eat! Is there a visual trace? Eat! What needs to be rebuilt here? In addition, it always seemed to me that every ship has its own hydroacoustics. This has been happening since WWI, when every British ship had ASDIC installed by default.
        1. +2
          17 February 2024 12: 08
          No, not everyone. In the fleet, only submarine hunter ships (MPK) and frigates have hydroacoustics. Well, and among patrol officers, but its characteristics are classified there and it is unknown whether it is suitable against BEC.
          1. 0
            17 February 2024 19: 24
            There are also hydroacoustic buoys, but they must not only be scattered, but also collected. And there should be a ban on the passage of small vessels in dangerous areas.
            1. 0
              17 February 2024 22: 47
              Why do you need to collect buoys? Question from an amateur.
              1. 0
                17 February 2024 22: 59
                Their food is running low. They are expensive and the enemy should not get them.
            2. +1
              17 February 2024 23: 35
              What is needed is not some kind of buoy that works for a couple of days, but normal hydroacoustic stations around the ports and other ground-based noise direction finder sensors. The Chinese are building their great underwater wall so that they know what is happening thousands of kilometers from the coast, but in our country until a dozen boats sail to the ship, no one will notice
              1. 0
                18 February 2024 00: 07
                Quote from alexoff
                The Chinese are building their great underwater wall to know what is happening thousands of kilometers from the coast.

                We also built, in the Barents Sea. There was fake information that it was damaged in 2016. The cable was not buried in the bottom, and the fishermen allegedly tore it with their trawls. And supposedly, at least until 2019, no one bothered to restore this cable. What happened then - I don’t know; I haven’t seen any more messages on this topic.
        2. +1
          17 February 2024 15: 11
          This has been happening since WWI, when every British ship had ASDIC installed by default.

          The British tested their first ASDIC, Type 112, in 1920 on the cruiser HMS Antrim. Serial production began in 1922.
          1. +1
            17 February 2024 17: 59
            Quote: Dekabrist
            The British tested their first ASDIC, Type 112, in 1920

            The most primitive sonar (not yet ASDIC) in its still infancy detected a German submarine in March 1918 when an echo was received from the submarine at a distance of approximately 500 meters. For British maritime history, this is the same as for us Gagarin's flight into space. ASDIC (in America it was called SONAR) is just an acronym that appeared at the time you indicated, i.e. an ordinary sonar operating on the principle of capturing a reflected acoustic signal from an object
            1. 0
              17 February 2024 19: 37
              ASDIC (in America it was called SONAR), just an abbreviation that appeared at the time you indicated

              It's not "just" an acronym, but an acronym that stands for active sonar. The first was developed in 1912 in the USA, but workable samples appeared only in 1918 in France and Britain. Active sonar (ASDIC) was not used during World War I.
              And the German submarine was discovered using an echo sounder, that is, a passive sonar that detects not a reflected sound signal, but the sound emitted by an object. But it was not ASDIC, which is why I wrote my comment.
              Echo sounders were actually used during the First World War, and quite widely on British, French and American ships. In the RN alone, more than 1200 ships and vessels were equipped with them. Their effectiveness was extremely low; during the entire war, the detection of four boats was confirmed.
              As for March 1918, the receipt of a reflected signal from a submarine at a distance of 500 yards did occur, only this epoch-making event occurred during the British experiments in the development of ASDIC and the submarine was British.
              1. +1
                17 February 2024 20: 20
                Quote: Dekabrist
                It's not "just" an acronym, but an acronym that stands for active sonar

                This abbreviation is just a text overlay on an existing sonar. It is a sonar, not an echo sounder. Something like a woman who put a lot of makeup on her face, but whatever wrinkles she had, she stayed with them wink
                Quote: Dekabrist
                And the German submarine was discovered using an echo sounder, that is, a passive sonar that picks up not a reflected sound signal, but the sound emitted by an object

                An echo sounder is just poor, allowing you to only determine what there is something underneath us. He does not know how to determine the most important thing: neither distance, nor, in my opinion, depth. And only after the introduction into the fleet, towards the end of the First WW, of a device capable of capturing the reflected acoustic signal, and therefore knowing that not just someone there below us, and to know the distance and depth to the enemy submarine, the German naval command began to scratch their heads
                Quote: Dekabrist
                Regarding March 1918

                On this date, not a British, but a real German submarine was sunk! This March date of 1918 is also significant because the General Staff began talking about the decline of the submarine as a class of naval weapon and that in this war the submarine was finally defeated. And these conversations about the fact that submarines are the weapon of the poor continued until the very beginning of the Battle of the Atlantic. But then, when Britain began to massively lose tonnage, talk of victory over submarines somehow died down wink
                1. +1
                  17 February 2024 22: 47
                  Are you reading the comments? Apparently - no.
      2. 0
        17 February 2024 16: 20
        Quote: keleg
        A torpedo is launched from a submarine, which itself is expensive

        What is the range of the backing? Is it not launched from a carrier?
        1. 0
          17 February 2024 19: 55
          Quote from Kartograph
          Quote: keleg
          A torpedo is launched from a submarine, which itself is expensive

          What is the range of the backing? Is it not launched from a carrier?

          800 km range of the fifth Magura
      3. 0
        17 February 2024 17: 53
        Quote: keleg
        To counteract BEC using hydroacoustics, a restructuring of the entire hydroacoustic search system is required.

        Let's start with the fact that the BDK doesn't even have OGAS. There is a station for searching for combat swimmers, but it is low-power and has a single hydrophone.
        Secondly, the BECs have a boat motor, which is low-noise at low speeds (in sneaking mode), and after a jerk and launching an attack, the GAS simply does not have time to issue a control center for the weapon. Again, in the ShP mode we will only get the bearing, well, approximately the distance. Where to shoot will be roughly clear, but how far is the question.
        There seems to be only one way out - you cannot leave ships at anchor in an unprotected roadstead or in a tactical nuclear force, if there is no PKO/PPDO system and Grachat patrols with periodic grenade throwing on an irregular schedule.
    2. +2
      17 February 2024 12: 47
      Quote: Dutchman Michel
      How does a BEC differ in noise from a torpedo?

      After launch, the torpedo is in full swing (depending on the speed setting set before launch on board the boat) and “squeals” loudly. I can’t tell you whether modern torpedoes controlled by wire now have a change of travel mode, but I think it should come in handy.
      The BEC can sneak up at low speeds that minimize the wake, breakers and acoustic signature, launching an attack at full speed in the final segment. You'll hear well, but it's too late request
      And as correctly noted above, not all ships have GAS.
      1. 0
        17 February 2024 14: 36
        Quote: Adrey
        not all ships have GAS

        Ships do not go to sea alone; there must be a ship equipped with hydroacoustics
        1. +5
          17 February 2024 15: 13
          Quote: Dutchman Michel
          Ships do not go to sea alone; there must be a ship equipped with hydroacoustics

          Yah?!
    3. 0
      17 February 2024 17: 13
      The torpedo would not have been discovered either. Then in 2022 the navy learned that the enemies had anti-ship missiles. That was a surprise! In the 21st century and RCC! The Americans somehow catch smugglers in their submarines in the middle of the sea, but here it turns out that you can sail to Crimea on boats and they will notice you only a couple of hundred meters from the ship
      1. 0
        17 February 2024 22: 50
        What capabilities does the US Coast Guard use to search for such boats?
        (in the crew version) - we do not know.

        But the United States will have more technical and IT capabilities than Russia on the Black Sea.
        A separate topic is human intelligence.
        1. +2
          17 February 2024 23: 38
          Quote: Simple
          But the United States will have more technical and IT capabilities than Russia on the Black Sea.
          A separate topic is human intelligence.

          Apparently they also have more opportunities in the Black Sea than we do. I’m not at all sure that we have any reconnaissance there at all other than air defense radars
          1. 0
            17 February 2024 23: 47
            It logically follows from this that without comprehensive provision of a ship with protection from modern threats, which goes beyond the port pier will be, at the very least, negligence for all participants in this decision.
            1. 0
              18 February 2024 00: 01
              I think the most logical thing to do is to create a naval PMC, where they would recruit motivated fighters and smart commanders, and then call them instead of admirals, who should be checked to see if there is any collusion with the enemy
              1. 0
                18 February 2024 00: 09
                After one story with a well-known PMC, even the new commander of the KChF fleet will be against it. In principle, the fleet still exists, the tasks will be set, which means the capabilities will be given, without PMCs. Otherwise, it will no longer be a fleet, but a farce.
                1. +3
                  18 February 2024 01: 46
                  Quote: Simple
                  In principle, the fleet still exists, the tasks will be set, which means the capabilities will be given, without PMCs.

                  So the point is not in PMCs, but in the fact that it is necessary to build a hierarchy from scratch. One and the same fighter under the leadership of a mediocrity or a military genius are two different fighters. As I understand it, in 2022 the Black Sea Fleet gave up, that they couldn’t do anything and haven’t demanded anything since then. Now it has become clear that they are ballast and can give nothing more than shame. I think if admirals are forced to go to sea on entrusted ships, they might wake up from their hibernation and begin to use their brains.
  4. -2
    17 February 2024 08: 14
    It’s a good idea. But it’s difficult to create something like this overnight. If you don’t succeed in one direction, you need to choose another. The experience of two Patriotic Wars shows that it is necessary to work behind enemy lines. This is exactly how Ataman Platov worked all the way to Paris. General Dovator. Bystry a breakthrough, inflicting losses, and a quick retreat. Now such a role can be performed by light tanks or infantry fighting vehicles. A variety of actions will help in many military affairs.
    1. 0
      17 February 2024 16: 21
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      A quick breakthrough, inflicting losses, and a quick retreat. Now such a role can be performed by light tanks or infantry fighting vehicles

      Everything there is mined, and there are drones flying
    2. +1
      17 February 2024 18: 09
      Quote: Nikolay Malyugin
      Now such a role can be performed by light tanks or infantry fighting vehicles. A variety of actions will help in many military affairs.

      Cavalry, of course, is good... And tanks too... But for the former there was a machine gun, and for the latter there is an ATGM or, at worst, an RPG.
      Therefore, aviation, missile forces and, presumably, DRGs are now working in the rear of the adversary...
      In general, it would be nice if Ukrainian “partisans” of a pro-Russian orientation also made their contribution to the fight against Ukrainian fascist-nationalists. Well, they provided intelligence information, carried out sabotage on a railway, set fire to a warehouse or oil depot...
      For some reason, trains are derailing here, warehouses are burning, fires have become more frequent for some reason... And all this “happens by itself” by heaven’s permission... No. Aha!
      1. 0
        17 February 2024 19: 49
        “In general, it would be nice if Ukrainian “partisans” of a pro-Russian orientation also made their contribution to the fight against Ukrainian fascist nationalists. Well, they provided intelligence, carried out sabotage on a railway, set fire to a warehouse or oil depot...”
        Ideology...
        They have it, no matter what, but we don’t. “Everything is according to plan,” but no one knows where this “plan” is.
        Therefore, no “partisans” can appear there, even in principle...
        1. +1
          20 February 2024 14: 31
          Quote: Vladimir-TTT
          Therefore, no “partisans” can appear there, even in principle...

          You are completely mistaken, however!
          "On the night of February 18, underground fighters in Lviv cut out the guards at the plant located on Antonovicha Street with knives. Then they doused the facility with gasoline and burned it to the ground. The burned plant produced 5 thousand drones a month for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, including "Furies" and " Leleki." They will never go to the front again."
          Before this, there was a message that a train with 155 mm shells was derailed. They won't get to the front either. They won't kill our guys.
          So, all is not lost. There are also followers of Taras Bulba and Bogdan Khmelnitsky in/in Ukraine!
      2. 0
        20 February 2024 13: 58
        Do such partisan detachments exist?
  5. +3
    17 February 2024 08: 33
    The author, of course, raised the right topic. But such a case is impossible that the captain of the first rank Gena Janissary then took away all the worthy ones with him, and only the likeness of the captain of the third rank Ivanov remained in the Black Sea Fleet, well, who is a pubic bone, they just “did not change the oath.” And so - a resort, warmth, a beach, a vegetable garden, parquet floors, balls and a happy mother-in-law. By the way, in such a time cap. 3 “pubic bones” are already admirals, the main thing here is that they will present themselves with dignity at the main parade at the mouth of the Neva...
    It is obvious that the Black Sea Fleet needs a global personnel shake-up. It can be assumed that until this happens, all ideas and effective solutions to combat naval robots will come from other Russian fleets. Why ? I’m saying that Gena Janissary took away all the worthy and loyal people in other Russian fleets from the Black Sea Fleet..
    1. +9
      17 February 2024 09: 29
      There have never been people like Gena Janissary in the Black Sea Fleet. Such people did not survive there and there was no advancement for them. The parquet Black Sea admirals were only suitable for parades and organizing leisure activities for Moscow inspectors, and for reports on how well they were doing and how great they were. Third-generation Black Sea residents are the most vile stratum that determined the weather in the fleet. The positions were scheduled many years in advance for children, husbands of their daughters and other worthy candidates for leading positions.
    2. +3
      17 February 2024 11: 16
      Personnel changes are beyond the competence of the author of the article. But the author would like to make sure that a broad discussion about methods of combating robots at sea makes it difficult for those who ignore the issues of robotization of war to be “admirals.”
  6. +4
    17 February 2024 08: 57
    The author is right that you need to be able to THINK and make decisions on time. What can a “parquet” general or even a non-general do? Right! “Lick” in the right place in time! This is where we need to start with “general general cleaning of the parquet floors!” Personnel decide everything. But personnel are trained, able and willing to think, and object to the opinion of the “authoritative boss” if they consider it correct. And... those who know that for a reasoned objection they will receive “nothing” except encouragement...
    1. +1
      17 February 2024 11: 27
      In peacetime, the job of the army and navy is to scare the enemy cheaply. Cheap both in terms of money and in terms of personnel losses - real military training destroys iron and does not eliminate the risk to people, and therefore losses.
      In the military, the enemy must be effectively destroyed.
      These are completely different problems and they are solved by different people. That’s why even good parquet generals are ineffective in wartime. They are all trying to save property and not take risks, not realizing that this only leads to loss of initiative and increased losses from enemy fire.
      But this is why military generals are too expensive in times of peace - they turn the country into a military camp and stop development, we also went through this in history.
      Each has its time and place. The fleet has not fought for a very long time, that’s why this is the situation now. The opponents have seasoned Anglo-Saxon Mormans as consultants.
      There is time to learn, although there is not much of it left.
      1. -1
        17 February 2024 18: 05
        But the Anglo-Saxons themselves did not fight at sea during WWII.
        1. 0
          17 February 2024 18: 53
          They fought with Argentina over the Falklands.
          1. 0
            17 February 2024 19: 27
            I forgot yes. But it was still 40 years ago.
        2. 0
          19 February 2024 07: 41
          During Desert Storm, the Americans and the British destroyed the Iraqi fleet, and they did a lot of mine clearance in the Persian Gulf.
          The fleet actively participated in supporting ground operations in Iraq, Libya, and Vietnam.
  7. 0
    17 February 2024 09: 33
    Historical experience - anti-torpedo nets for battleships. http://ser-sarajkin.narod2.ru/ALL_OUT/MoIsSbo/BullivRu/BullivRu001.htm They put nets on ground vehicles, but poorly on ships? It is clear that there are a lot of shortcomings, but as a palliative
    1. 0
      17 February 2024 11: 28
      For large ships of the BDK type, a solution is possible. True, we have almost none left for the World Cup.
      However, if there are attacks from transports, it can be seriously useful.
  8. +2
    17 February 2024 09: 44
    On September 29, 2017, the Saudi frigate Al Madinah of the French F2000 project was attacked by three remote-controlled exploding boats of the Yemeni Houthis, one of which reached the target and seriously damaged the frigate.
    This case can be considered the first successful use of a new type of weapon - unmanned boats (BEC) as fire ships.

    Author, you are wrong. First use case exactly BEC was much earlier.
    October 28, 1917 - an FL boat attacked the Erebus monitor. On this day, the Erebus was 40 miles from the Belgian port of Ostend. The FL-12 boat carried 230 kg of explosives. It went out to sea at 13:20 and was first controlled by wire from the shore for 25 minutes, and then the plane took control of the boat, which directed it to the monitor at 14:18. FL-12 hit the Erebus almost in the very middle of the side.
    The monitor was not helped by a good anti-mine battery of 8/1X102 mm guns, but was saved by good armor and developed anti-torpedo boules.
    1. +1
      17 February 2024 11: 13
      Thanks for the info. True, this is the case when the exception confirms the rule - BEC-kamikazes were not used for a long hundred years after that, the guidance system turned out to be too complex.
      1. 0
        17 February 2024 12: 31
        Quote: keleg
        Thanks for the info. True, this is the case when the exception confirms the rule - BEC-kamikazes were not used for a long hundred years after that,

        In the 1930s, our country actively tried to develop this direction, but as now, the element base did not allow us to achieve anything intelligible. So yes
        Quote: keleg
        too complex guidance system
      2. +1
        17 February 2024 17: 22
        So they won’t take root in this form even now, have the Houthis sunk many ships since then? I think there was a surprise then, but immediately after that conclusions were drawn. It’s like with torpedo boats and then missile boats. It quickly becomes clear that if the fleet does not sleep, then all this is sunk without serious problems, ships do not sail one at a time, and aviation targets all sorts of daredevils. What is happening at the Black Sea Fleet goes beyond the unreasonable and is approaching, if not betrayal, then sabotage
  9. +1
    17 February 2024 09: 48
    Among the masses, not only at the top, but also at the bottom, it is common... "waiters" are common. Like, yes, there are problems, but just have a little more patience, and soon everything will be as before. Eat, shit, steal.
    Will not be. Seven skinny cows devoured seven fat ones, and more and more are crawling out from under the water.
  10. +3
    17 February 2024 11: 14
    Don't shoot an amateur. He asks as best he can.

    Can drones be powered by wire? 2-3 km of cable through which the drone is powered - is this possible? Indeed, with this option, drones can hang and watch not even for days, but for months.
    I know about the weight of the cable and the strong wind. Calculate - lack of education.
    1. +5
      17 February 2024 12: 11
      Yes, you can. To reduce losses in the wires, high voltage is used. For land-based drones, this doesn’t really work; they are easily interrupted by shrapnel and get tangled in trees, but in the navy it can be interesting.
      1. 0
        17 February 2024 23: 07
        It is even better to use alternating current for this purpose.
        A hybrid of an airship and a quadcopter. But it shouldn’t be designed to be expensive - it should be a consumable. To begin with, simply install the search equipment on high superstructures or (if compatibility allows) on antenna masts.
  11. 0
    17 February 2024 12: 13
    And what's new here? What is a kamikaze UAV? This is a budget cruise missile, and with the worst performance characteristics. The same goes for the BEC, a very bad torpedo. Although it is understandable, it is cheaper than Shkval in terms of costs.
    In short, to fight in a “new” way in the current realities, these are three desires:
    - the desire of the leadership to minimize material costs (soldiers, they are free);
    - the desire of industrialists to produce those weapons where the difference between costs and profits is maximum ("legal" budget allocation);
    - the desire of the average person to fight remotely, without taking his butt off the sofa, which is why he accepts fairy tales about UAVs with a bang (however, if the average person is mobilized and, instead of the UAV control bunker, is planted in a trench with a machine gun, his opinion about air support will immediately change).
    1. +3
      17 February 2024 12: 18
      The low speed of the UAV allows human-optical guidance, which provides opportunities inaccessible to the Kyrgyz Republic, such as additional target reconnaissance. Also, the low price makes it possible to massage.
      1. 0
        17 February 2024 12: 21
        The low speed of the UAV allows human-optical guidance, which provides opportunities inaccessible to the Kyrgyz Republic, such as additional target reconnaissance. Also, the low price makes it possible to massage.


        Are you seriously? But I was directing supersonic Assault and didn’t know. Moreover, he assessed their flight speed as very slow. lol
        1. +2
          17 February 2024 15: 41
          Did you fly right around the target and select the desired projection to strike?
          1. -1
            17 February 2024 15: 47
            Did you fly right around the target and select the desired projection to strike?


            The right projection for Sturm? laughing
            1. 0
              17 February 2024 15: 55
              For many purposes this is a perfectly valid question. Kamikaze UAVs carry out reconnaissance and do target designation and distribution themselves.
              For the Kyrgyz Republic, target designation in almost all cases is external.
              1. -1
                17 February 2024 16: 12
                For many purposes this is a perfectly valid question. Kamikaze UAVs carry out reconnaissance and do target designation and distribution themselves.
                For the Kyrgyz Republic, target designation in almost all cases is external.

                Young man, do you have at least a rough idea of ​​the organization of combat operations at the tactical level? And also about the place and role of army aviation in these?
                Or do you draw your judgments from computer games?
                1. -1
                  19 February 2024 07: 43
                  Oh, it’s difficult to use the concept of “young man” for me, I’m all gray already :-)
                  1. 0
                    19 February 2024 10: 24
                    Oh, it’s difficult to use the concept of “young man” for me, I’m all gray already :-)


                    Why then are you arguing, like a schoolboy?
      2. +1
        17 February 2024 18: 35
        Quote: keleg
        The low speed of the UAV allows human-optical guidance, which provides opportunities inaccessible to the Kyrgyz Republic, such as additional target reconnaissance. Also, the low price makes it possible to massage.

        Colleague, you are not in the navy, so you can be forgiven for this misconception.
        1. back in the shaggy Soviet times, our anti-ship missiles (P-500-700-800-1000) flew in a “flock” with massive impact on the MC with strong air defense. At the same time, one of them is along the trajectory of the B-14, illuminating the target area from above, distributing targets among the anti-ship missiles of the salvo and giving them a control center.
        2. The Amers have their unkilled long-lived anti-ship missiles AGM/RGM-84 of the latest fashions. Not only do they fly 260 km, but they can also loiter in the target area, and come in for a second attack after a miss! (Your deeds are wonderful, Lord!) And targets are distinguished better than any human eye, both in TLV mode in low light with multiple ZOOM, and by IR/UV signature...
        So, soon we will have an AFAR, and we will look at the pilots’ photos after the RVV DB flies under his canopy. laughing
  12. +2
    17 February 2024 12: 33
    Everything that is needed to protect against BEC was invented earlier. BEC is not visible on radar? But the GUS can hear it and attack it with the RBU-6000 (12000) like a regular torpedo. The BEC can be stopped by anti-torpedo nets. Everything has been there for a long time. Which does not cancel the measures proposed by the author. I would only replace the UAV with an ATGM: the UAV flies too slowly. If the ship does not have these means, then this means that it must be covered by those who have these means. Electronic warfare could also be useful: the control signal near the ship can be jammed or distorted in any way.
  13. +1
    17 February 2024 13: 35
    The respected author has once again raised a painful topic.
    There is a recent article in Opinions, “Don't be torn to pieces by the pack.” It would seem that the experience of incompetent combat use of the Republic of Kazakhstan will become a clear and tragic lesson on how not to fight at sea. But after 2 weeks we received “Central Committee”.
    The problem of combating BeK is complex, but it must begin, to put it mildly, with the “devastation in the minds” of the planners of the Black Sea Fleet, those who approve the proposed solutions and implement them. Looks like we've finally started.
    Berdyansk, RKR "Moscow", damage to the BDK on the roadstead of Novorossiysk, defense of the Sevastopol Bay, Feodosia, RK "Ivanovets" and finally "Central Committee" - well, we can finally do something about the "rakes". I’m not criticizing, but it’s a shame for the fleet with the glorious traditions of admirals F.F. Ushakova, P.S. Nakhimov, the brig "Mercury", the leader of "Tashkent" and others.
    We do not resolve personnel issues, but with proper use of NK, even with the available funds, it is possible to avoid senseless losses of people and ships.
    1. -1
      17 February 2024 16: 13
      The question is, how is this done correctly? Most of the ships were damaged while moored, so the questions are not for the naval commanders, but for those who are responsible for the defense of the mooring sites. It is clear that sending the RK and BDK on a solo cruise is not correct; in fact, these ships are floating platforms and their ability to defend both from the air and from the sea is limited. Those ships that have such capabilities successfully repel BEC attacks.
  14. 0
    17 February 2024 14: 54
    Using an anti-torpedo network or BSZ (boom-net barrier).
    We need to decide in what conditions and why to use them.
    If it is to block the entrance to the PB, GB of the fleet, provided there are multiple rows, then this is a good and effective solution.
    If it is to protect the NK on the roadstead, then the solution is so-so.
    PTS began to be used en masse with the advent of torpedoes. Shots (15-20 m long rods) fell out from the side of the ship and a net was hung on them. It is necessary to take into account the low power of the warhead torpedoes of those times.
    How can this be implemented now and at what distance from the NK should the circular BSZ be placed? This is not an idle question; blowing up the first BeK will destroy the BSZ and provide a breakthrough for the rest. Detonation of 200 kg of explosives (in the equivalent of TNT or MS 350 kg) will create a hydrodynamic shock and it is not a fact that at a short installation distance the BSZ will withstand the hull or outboard fittings.
    We count for a radius of 200 m from the center - the length is 1400 m. But in reality it is more due to the size of the ship itself. Even though the net is made of nylon, buoys are needed to maintain it above the surface. Imagine this whole bunch for 1,5 km. They installed it using, as they say, “good maritime practice.” And after some time, the ship and the BSZ drifted, and at different speeds due to the windage. Anchor both the ship and the BSZ? Then it will be "good seamanship" with the help of "some mother".
    An alternative to this circus.
    Until the emergence of effective means of combating the BeK, if there is an urgent need, and there are serious doubts about this, plan the transitions of existing NKs in the daytime with military guards and the involvement of aviation.
    Parking at night only at a protected roadstead (base).
  15. BAI
    +1
    17 February 2024 15: 11
    All these boats are remote-controlled, i.e. controlled by the operator. The operator must see the situation - i.e. The boat MUST HAVE optics - a camera, etc.
    Hence the means of destruction - a laser optical destroyer. Means that automatically detect and destroy optics have long been developed, adopted for service and banned as inhumane weapons - they can damage a sniper’s eye. Those. You can kill a sniper, but you cannot damage a sniper’s eyes.
    Those. the water drone will be blinded, and the wave will knock it off course. Moreover, the laser pointed at the target and hit it, no considerations for speed, pitch, wind, etc.
    1. 0
      17 February 2024 19: 02
      Still, the main problem seems to be timely detection. You can hit with whatever you can find, be it with cluster or guided munitions if the drone is far away, or with direct fire if the drone is nearby.
  16. +1
    17 February 2024 19: 02
    But it is best to go to sea with a loitering UAV of an airplane or tiltrotor type “above the mast.” Such drones fly for dozens of hours and will be able to provide continuous visibility around the ship for many kilometers.

    And maybe It's better to have a drone above the mast, literally - rising vertically, with direct cable connection and power from the ship. This is more reliable, and the enemy will not be able to time an attack to coincide with the shift of flying drones. And this change can be detected by scanning the airwaves.
    1. +1
      17 February 2024 19: 33
      I also think that a tethered drone will be useful, just like a balloon. But the ship's superstructures themselves are quite high, the problem is that, as it turned out, it is necessary to keep a watch.
      1. 0
        17 February 2024 19: 38
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        The ship's superstructures themselves are quite high.

        The extra hundreds of meters will greatly expand your horizons. If you look at the wake, the viewing angle is also important. Then, theoretically, the drone will be able to provide target designation to machine guns.
        1. 0
          17 February 2024 19: 41
          They managed to see the periscopes of submarines before, but here the drone boat and it is not noticed at point-blank range. At night there are rocket launchers, and on land there are mines and lighting shells.
          1. +1
            17 February 2024 19: 45
            Yes, it’s clear that a watch is needed, but in the 21st century it’s time to hand it over to machine vision and AI. The person in routine observation is the weak link. The body is not designed for monotonous tasks.
            1. 0
              17 February 2024 19: 57
              To begin with, I would just go through the “organisms” and personalities, the old fashioned way, but not without using modern means. If the ship was towed and not protected, how did the enemy know this? Why weren’t the crew given thermal imagers and additional machine gun turrets installed? If there were no thermal imagers, why weren't searchlights and flare guns used? There are a lot of questions for counterintelligence.
              1. 0
                17 February 2024 20: 10
                Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                If the ship was towed and not protected, how did the enemy know this?

                It’s not for nothing that American reconnaissance assets fly there before every strike. And if the ship was towed, then most likely they wanted to put it in order first, and only then arm it. As for thermal imagers, I have never heard of fundraising for the Black Sea Fleet. Men don’t ask, so that means there’s no special need. Here questions should arise not from counterintelligence, but from the Navy command to the Black Sea Fleet commanders.
                1. +1
                  17 February 2024 20: 16
                  Inaction and negligence are also types of misconduct.
        2. +2
          17 February 2024 23: 38
          Quote from cpls22
          The extra hundreds of meters will greatly expand your horizons.


          I apologize in advance for getting into a dispute.

          But an expanded horizon of coverage by detection means implies effective processing of information, i.e. selection, not by itself through the eyes of the operator, but by automation, which weeds out everything unnecessary.
          1. +2
            18 February 2024 00: 22
            Yes, we need to connect AI to this, or as they used to say - machine vision.
            Here the problem arises of translating information about the found target into coordinates for target designation. At least in the form of a firing sector. But this can be solved, in my opinion.
  17. 0
    17 February 2024 20: 31
    What can be opposed to the new generation of disposable but cheap BEC kamikazes?

    What is the problem? A stabilized platform and six ATGMs with sequential launch. Warhead something like MON200. These troughs are mostly made of plastic. And you don’t have to use expensive Cornets. The cheaper "Metis" will do just fine.
  18. 0
    17 February 2024 22: 06
    I think everything has been worked out; you just need to follow the combat regulations, and not hope for chance
    What will party leaders say about this? I can't hear them for some reason
  19. +1
    17 February 2024 22: 54
    It is clear that the function of detecting BEC cannot be assigned only to the crews of the attacked ships. Obviously, there must be a system for detecting BEC by various means, from reconnaissance to monitoring using satellites. Also, we should probably strive to create a radar field in the area of ​​operation of the BEC by various means.
  20. 0
    20 February 2024 06: 32
    Quote from alexoff
    They sailed from Odessa for several hours

    Will we be very surprised if we find out that they did not sail from Odessa?
  21. 0
    24 February 2024 19: 17
    Autonomous boats themselves are dangerous weapons.
    But it becomes truly deadly in Ukrainian hands after pairing with American reconnaissance UAVs (for example, Reaper).

    In Crimea, they note a clear dependence, confirmed by attacks from the Ukrokriegsmarine:
    if an American Reaper is circling nearby, expect to be hit by Nazi autonomous boats.

    But Reapers don't knock down.
    Why?