Drones can't defeat ships

262
Drones can't defeat ships

In February, Western satellites detected unusual activity associated with the Askold MCR. The ship was placed in dry dock at the Zaliv shipyard, its hull was surrounded by scaffolding, and a roof was erected over the rig. It is possible that a decision was made to restore the RTO.

The small rocket ship "Askold" (project 22800 "Karakurt") was damaged in November last year. The MRK was located at the quay wall of the Zaliv plant when it was struck by Storm Shadow cruise missiles.




But it was not the missile launches that became the main cause for concern.

After the complete defeat of the Ukrainian Navy, the nationalists managed to adapt to the conditions of the Black Sea and switch to tactics using small unmanned vehicles.

Marine kamikazes - coming from nowhere and disappearing into the night sea, among the splashes of falling shells.

Attacks drones cause wide resonance. There are demands to immediately take all measures and punish those responsible. Adding fuel to the fire, various experts claim that the concept of “big ships” is a thing of the past. They reign supreme at sea drones.

The enemy attacks ships without even having his own military fleet!

In what follows, we will refrain from a detailed analysis of the characteristics of BEC. And we will not evaluate the effectiveness of the protective equipment that the ships of the Russian Navy are equipped with.

The high threat level from maritime drones has one simple explanation.


Look at the geographical map. The western coast of Crimea (Saki, Evpatoria, Donuzlav) is located 200 km from the coast controlled by the Kyiv regime.

The English Channel is wide in most places!

This distance is four times less than the width of the Sea of ​​Japan. After all, from Vladivostok to Tokyo in a straight line is over a thousand kilometers.

The route by sea from Sevastopol to Odessa will be half as long as the route from Astrakhan to Baku.

Most naval battles do not remember such “ridiculous” distances.

You can give a completely absurd example - imagine if the Japanese were preparing an attack on Pearl Harbor while on one of the Hawaiian islands.

Even the most eastern part of Crimea (Kerch Peninsula) is only 550–600 km away from the coast occupied by Ukrainian nationalists. Approximately the same distance separates the base in Novorossiysk.

With the beginning of SVO our Black Sea Fleet found itself locked in an extremely limited water area.

It is necessary to repeat once again that, contrary to popular belief, the Black Sea Fleet was not “locked in bases.” The problem is that all combat patrol areas of ships in the Black Sea (as well as their bases) are located at a short distance from the enemy’s coast. At a distance that even the smallest boats and jet skis loaded with explosives can overcome.

A naval drone, unmanned aerial vehicle or BEC is not a warship


Seaworthiness. Energy. Capabilities of means for target detection.

Incomparable scale!

Will “Magura” be able to stay on a given course with waves of at least 5 points (wind up to 10 m/s, wave height 2–2,5 meters)?

How much can a drone's thermal imager, located almost at water level, see?

You've probably noticed that almost all videos of drone attacks lack intense excitement. In most cases, the sea surface is only covered with a slight swell, as if military operations are taking place somewhere on a lake.


There is no secret here - BECs of such small sizes cannot operate in difficult weather conditions. The first storm along the way will lead to the disappearance of the Ukrainian “squadron”. In a matter of hours (minutes), the sea elements will scatter and absorb the drones like wood chips.

Two simple conclusions follow from this.

"Magur" and "marichki" will never be able to replace large warships.

Operate on sea lanes, independently search for targets, withstand changing weather conditions and natural disasters.

BECs cannot survive more than a couple of days in coastal waters. There is not even talk about the far sea zone here.

The author is not a retrograde and fully admits that in the future all ships will switch to automatic control. But these combat vehicles will be nothing like Ukrainian boats. These will be ships of a new generation, not inferior in size to corvettes and frigates.


Experimental uncrewed ship of the Chinese Navy

The only thing the Ukrainian “wunderwaffe” can do is cover a couple of hundred miles in good weather. And attack ships whose location was known in advance.

Unfortunately, due to the small size of the theater of operations, this set of qualities turned out to be enough to cause a lot of problems for the Black Sea Fleet.

The short distance allows the power steering of Ukraine improvise plan your one-day operations. With an average marching speed of 40 km/h (such characteristics are given for Magura V5 drones), the journey from Odessa to the outer roadstead of Sevastopol takes them less than 8 hours. Launched in the afternoon, they could end up off the Crimean coast by midnight.

A journey of several hours does not require frequent updates of intelligence data. “Night guests” do not rush around the sea in search of targets, but follow directly to the area where Western satellites and NATO reconnaissance aircraft recorded the presence of Black Sea Fleet ships in the morning.
No long-term weather forecasts are required. A short passage by sea eliminates most questions about the reliability of the mechanical parts and equipment of the drone.

The simplicity of the task allows one to avoid complex decisions; unmanned boats have literally become consumables. Studying news Recently, you can pay attention to the increase in the number of drones involved in each attack.


The enemy does not need to ensure great autonomy and place significant fuel reserves on board. All BEC models turned out to be extremely small in size, with their sides barely protruding above the surface of the water. This technical feature also plays into the hands of the enemy. The smaller the drone, the more difficult it is to detect it at the time of attack.

The key to all technical features and tactical techniques is one single circumstance. Distance to the coast of Crimea.

How to protect yourself from the threat?


As an example, combat catamarans of the Shahid Soleimani type of the Iranian Navy, where controlled cannon turrets are located in hidden niches above the waterline. This solution provides better control over the most vulnerable, aft area of ​​the ship.

According to the public and experts, it is precisely such techniques that can guarantee the protection of ships from Ukrainian BEC.


On the other hand, the problem of protecting Black Sea Fleet ships is clearly not on a technical level. This is pure geography, a factor that cannot be ignored.

We have no right to give advice to designers or demand that they increase the number of turrets and combat posts on the upper deck.

All advisers should be reminded of the ancient truth - if you put 8 guns on a ship armed with 10 guns according to the project, then only 6 will be able to fire from them.

All available measures have been taken since the first attacks on the ships. This is evidenced by successful interception of dozens Ukrainian maritime drones over the past year. Everything indicates that the ships of the Black Sea Fleet have sufficient weapons to counter the BEC.

In May 2023, the reconnaissance ship (communications vessel) Ivan Khurs successfully repelled an attack by three unmanned boats.

An attempt to attack a Russian ship took place in the economic zone of Turkey, 140 km north of the Bosphorus Strait (for those who don’t know, the route by sea from Odessa to the Turkish Bosphorus is closer than to Kerch).

In July, August and September, the patrol ship Sergei Kotov repelled attacks involving naval drones three times. During the September attack, five BEC units were destroyed at once using standard weapons.

During the fourth attempt, the Ukrainian side allocated 15 drones to participate in the operation. The enemy was detected in a timely manner, the crew of the Sergei Kotov began an evasive maneuver and opened heavy fire on the targets. Unfortunately, it was not possible to repel such a massive attack.

Let everyone draw their own conclusions from these events.

Historical examples


First story – about how dangerous it is to base ships in close proximity to the enemy.

...Brest turned out to be a bad place. Enemy airfields were at arm's length - even by the standards of the slow-moving Blenheims, which flew this distance in less than one hour.

The naval base in Brest was not considered suitable for basing large surface ships. The twins Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, along with the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen, ended up there by chance. Having frolicked on communications in the Atlantic, they hurried to take refuge on the French coast.

The British turned Brest into a bombing range aviation. During the stay of the Kriegsmarine heavy ships, over 2 kilotons of bombs fell on the base!

It was difficult to blame the Germans for poor organization and insufficient measures to protect the ship's personnel. The Messerschmitts, raised on alarm, were buzzing, and the air was shaken by volleys of anti-aircraft batteries. They tried to disperse the ships and hid them in secret parking lots outside the base. As a result of the continuous attacks, all three combat units were eventually damaged.

German sailors decided on a desperate breakthrough across the English Channel (Operation Cerberus). The path through minefields and the risk of meeting with the home fleet was preferable to standing under incessant night raids.

Brest was located only 220 km from the coast of England. Although at that time the British did not yet have either naval drones or Storm Shadow missiles...

Second story serves as an answer to the question - how could a threat to our ships arise in the absence of a fleet in Ukraine.

This fact is presented by the enemy as a mockery. But in fact it sounds like the most senseless accusation against the Black Sea Fleet.

We are not in the 18th century. Whenever ships find themselves in the range of aviation (as well as coastal missile systems, sea and air drones), they are exposed to threat.

During the Great Patriotic War, the Germans did not have a single warship larger than an assault boat on the Black Sea. Due to the limited size of the water area, in this theater there was no need to use specific naval weapons (for example, only occasional torpedo bomber missions were noted).

Land-based front-line aviation was used to solve all problems.

The cruiser Chervona Ukraine, the leader Tashkent, the loss of the leader Kharkov and two destroyers off the coast of Yalta in 1943 - each of these cases was the result of a raid by Stuka dive bombers.

Land-based Stukas were among the deadliest enemies at sea. For example, in one May 1941 they managed to sink a British cruiser and 8 destroyers off the coast of Crete. And damage the aircraft carrier Formidable.

A more recent example The situation described was the Falklands conflict (1982).

British ships remained invisible and invulnerable while sailing on the open ocean. But as soon as they approached the shore, a shower of bombs fell on them. 19 pennants of the squadron were damaged. And six had to remain forever in the South Atlantic.

The fury of the Argentine Air Force began to fade over time. But on the last day of the conflict, the destroyer Glamorgan came under a missile attack from the shore.

These historical examples will suffice.

The extreme remoteness of the combat zone, as well as the extremely close proximity to the enemy, in both cases poses many problems.

The most reliable way to protect the ships and infrastructure of the Black Sea Fleet would be to completely liberate the coast and deprive Ukraine of access to the sea.

262 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    13 March 2024 05: 19
    Oleg hi I’m glad to see you on the site again! The problem of protecting ships is also a technical one, the same 10 guns can be placed so that all guns will participate in protecting the ship from drones. Taking into account the fact that there will be attacks on the ship from both sides. The ticket is about protection, but the main thing, first of all, is to quickly detect enemy drones yourself. Counter-drones should be used as protection against drones. Do you remember in Soviet times they often drove radio-controlled scooters across bodies of water? What’s stopping you from taking such a scooter as a basis and actually increasing it in size so that it can autonomously walk fifty miles? Place on it, in addition to the simplest merging equipment, tens of kilometers of explosives and use it to attack enemy drones! Our ship comes out surrounded by a dozen of these scooters, next to it is the carrier ship of these scooters with a couple of dozen of them on board, and the scooter operators monitor the water area through UAVs. After all, a scooter only needs to cover a maximum of a couple of kilometers at the highest possible speed in order to hit an enemy hydrodrone.
    1. +3
      13 March 2024 06: 48
      It is quite possible that the analogy of World War 1 using the example of the “mosquito fleet” of Italy and the Austro-Hungarian Kriegsmarine is more suitable for this confrontation between the heavy fleet and the small fleet.
      1. +69
        13 March 2024 08: 45
        The author is talking nonsense with the sole purpose of shielding and justifying criminals and saboteurs, some of whom ordered stupid and uncombatable ships like Project 22160 armed with one cannon or the Buyan-M MRK armed only with launchers of Calibers capable ONLY of strikes on the coast, other criminals were imprisoned in these troughs crews and sent to slaughter.

        Is it possible to do something so that these troughs can perform at least some combat missions, at least against a country without a fleet? The patrol ships need to be equipped with a TorM air defense system module, then they will be able to somehow fight off threats from the air. If you equip each such ship with two dozen large-caliber Kord machine guns with thermal imaging sights and secure them, plus determine the firing sector for each shooter and practice them in exercises, then BECs in any quantity will cease to be a problem.
        Have the naval command and the Black Sea Fleet command in particular done any of the above in two years of air defense forces and more than a year of BEC attacks? No, the command of the fleet and the Black Sea Fleet did nothing, and this is called the specific word sabotage, for which there was an adequate article in normal times with capital punishment and confiscation of property.
        What will happen if the Ukrainian Armed Forces start launching underwater drones against our fleet? Are there ships in the Black Sea Fleet capable of fighting the threat from under water? But the Black Sea Fleet does not have modern means of combat. There are three frigates 11356 with a truncated PLO even in comparison with the same ships for the Indian Navy, and there are ancient MPK 1124 Albatross with lamp equipment.... that's it! Oh yes, there are also Il-38 PLO aircraft, there are even ones with Novella, but there are few of them. Of course, it was possible to at least buy them from India, which is decommissioning these aircraft and switching to modern anti-aircraft aircraft, purchasing them from the Americans, but the dying carpenters did not think about this. And this has not yet touched upon the topic of modern sea mines, against which our fleet has nothing at all.

        And there are examples of competent actions against the same BECs, for example, the Americans successfully and without losses repulse attacks by BECs and attacks by UAVs and attacks by Houthi anti-ship missiles, simply because their admirals ordered warships capable of fighting, reacted in time to the emergence of new threats and trained the crews fight ships and not walk in formation singing and polishing the rails
        1. +32
          13 March 2024 09: 11
          After your comment, there is no point in objecting to the Author himself. hi
          1. +32
            13 March 2024 09: 26
            After your comment, there is no point in objecting to the Author himself.

            Thank you! hi
            But you still need to write, the saboteurs and their creatures trying to save money must see that we are not a herd of brainless sheep and understand what is happening and why. Maybe this is how our leadership will start doing something.
            1. +11
              13 March 2024 20: 43
              After your comment, there is no point in objecting to the Author himself.

              Thank you! hi
              But you still need to write, the saboteurs and their creatures trying to save money must see that we are not a herd of brainless sheep and understand what is happening and why. Maybe this is how our leadership will start doing something.
              Alas, I’m afraid it won’t start, because sabotage is everywhere: in the economy, in healthcare, in education, in culture - it’s a complete anus everywhere. I won’t say anything about the armed forces and the navy, the smart ones already know that. But at the top - everything is according to plan. Skomorokhov’s article about civil aircraft construction has just come out, and you, dear forum members, think we’re doing well in something else? The current so-called The elite don’t need the development of the country, and besides, they don’t know how to do anything. Thieves can only steal, but cannot create something.
            2. +1
              15 March 2024 11: 33
              But you still need to write,


              Definitely a must! Otherwise there will be no changes for the better
              will. Only after an emergency (or a series of emergency situations) those who received
              proper resonance.

              I’m sure there are literate and intelligent people in the Navy and Army
              officers who know how to fight the enemy and do analysis
              fights But they fight with the dying and the degenerals
              do not know how. Removing a large epaulette can only be done more
              high shoulder straps And reports from ship commanders to the top
              there certainly were. Remembering my service I can imagine
              a typical report from a combat officer roughly like this
              situations:

              Fulfilling the task, he accepted the battle.. During the battle, having three
              knocked off/destroyed one fighter's tarpaulin boot.. I think
              it is extremely necessary to add two tarpaulins on the sides,
              two aft and provide personnel...
              provide this.. install this..
              I request you to immediately take the following measures to...
              Commander so-and-so.. rank.. name.. signature.. date.

              In response (not in writing, of course) from the top flew
              following:

              Who is the smartest one there? He that you have an oath
              didn't you? Despite the hardships and hardships, I must...
              Fight back with one kirzach for three... They built you to be smarter..
              Confiscate the report.. Slap the commander.. Length of service up to
              next rank to be suspended for up to...

              We had an officer for such cases (it was peacetime)
              specially sharpened for squeezing out from dying and
              degenerates of necessary solutions. Such reports were carried
              to him. You have a report, rewrite it as necessary so that they give it to you,
              and I'll sign it.

              And another report was flying.
              Fulfilling the task, I took up the fight.. The personnel entrusted to me,
              showing heroism and courage... having one tarpaulin boot
              for three.. showing restraint and ingenuity.. in difficult
              conditions.. recaptured/destroyed..
              I propose to reward such and such fighters... to encourage such and such...
              In addition, I consider it necessary to issue in the near future
              for consideration the issue of retrofitting the ship with something...
              place additional weapons there... Then we reduce the risks
              such and such.. and we will do it with valor..

              Having received such a report, he died, kissing this report passionately,
              rushes to the higher one withering away, these are the kind of fighters I have!
              Having one boot for three... I am asking for an incentive
              (and don’t forget about me).. We should still give them a couple more
              boot. Attach whatever is requested to the sides and stern.
              Otherwise, you never know what will happen.. We might get hit in the head..

              But this is in my time of peace. And now it looks like we need to enter
              article for sabotage.
              Maybe you don't need a student? You must Fedya, you must! am
        2. +10
          13 March 2024 09: 13
          I agree with you on 100%.
          In the raid on Tendra, the Ukrainians used inflatable boats, each with 2 heavy machine guns. And there are six machine guns on the cover boat! I'm afraid that if these boats had met our patrol ship, another embarrassment would have occurred.
          The air defense systems were installed on patrol ships, on the helicopter deck, and then removed. Probably for the better. Aerial drones do not attack. Otherwise, the air defense missile system would have been mediocrely sunk.
        3. +16
          13 March 2024 09: 22
          Moreover, naval drones continue to be produced and attacked precisely because the enemy has intelligence data from the weak armament of ships and that retrofitting activities are not being carried out. That is, the enemy knows that the cannons down at the drones do not fire well, and they did not install large-caliber machine guns and did not issue binoculars, and therefore sends the drones to attack.
          1. 0
            13 March 2024 18: 52
            Didn't you have binoculars? Or maybe the cartridges were stolen? I can't believe it.
        4. +18
          13 March 2024 09: 26
          The author drew a lot of letters about everything in the world, but he could not substantiate the statement made in the title of the article!
        5. +10
          13 March 2024 10: 44
          Quote: ramzay21
          or Buyan-M MRKs armed only with launching Calibers capable ONLY of strikes along the coast

          So the Buyany were ordered specifically as mobile SLCM launchers. Let me remind you that at that time the INF Treaty was in force, according to which ground-based missiles with a range like the 3M14 were prohibited. So they made a river carrier for the Kyrgyz Republic, which could be transported along inland waterways. And who had to work under the protection of the shore.
          Another thing is that continuing their construction on the eve of the exit from the INF Treaty and after it is a mistake.
          And yes, on the Buyans, with their displacement of less than 1000 tons, they were able to install a ZAK and close the aft sector - unlike the twice larger 22160.

          Quote: ramzay21
          The patrol ships need to be equipped with a TorM air defense system module, then they will be able to somehow fight off threats from the air.

          Somehow is the right word. Our only air defense missile system module is the Tor ABM, the ammunition capacity of which is 8 missiles. This is enough to hit 4 targets. Then everything goes to the base for reloading.
          The reason is simple - this module was designed for sushi with its TPM. And it had to work as part of an air defense system, the neighboring elements of which would cover its sector during reloading.
          And the shipborne air defense system "Tor-MF" with 4-6 launcher modules, 1-2 radar modules and a set of guidance/control equipment remained an initiative development of "Kupol".
          Quote: ramzay21
          Oh yes, there are also Il-38 PLO aircraft, there are even ones with Novella, but there are few of them.

          8 pieces. For 4 fleets. Unmodernized IL-38s can’t even be considered - they won’t be seen or heard by underwater BECs.
          1. +14
            13 March 2024 11: 21
            So the Buyany were ordered specifically as mobile SLCM launchers. Let me remind you that at that time the INF Treaty was in force, according to which ground-based launchers of the Kyrgyz Republic were prohibited.

            The fleet that our dying carpenters built is now being sunk with impunity by a country without a fleet, don’t you know why?
            But I know! Because the RTO is a highly specialized and essentially stupid ship. But if the fleet were controlled by competent admirals who bear personal responsibility for their decisions, then they would not order useless small missiles, but slightly increasing the size to 1300-1400 tons and the cost would order a PLO corvette with the same UKSK for 8 cells, GAK, Pantsir- M and a couple of Packets, having looked at what happened with the destroyer Cole, would have strengthened this with several modules with automatic cannons and fixed heavy machine guns with thermal imagers. If the Black Sea Fleet now had at least a couple of brigades of 6 such corvettes instead of MRKs and patrol troughs, plus even 3 frigates 11356 with normal anti-aircraft defense and plus competent command of the Black Sea Fleet and these ships, the enemy would be afraid to approach their shore, much less let the BECs in.
            So they made a river carrier for the Kyrgyz Republic, which could be transported along inland waterways.

            All our rivers are covered with ice for almost six months, and where should the RTO be located at this time? At sea with enemy submarines and aircraft with anti-ship missiles or to be a target in the base, but with Calibers? If only to hang out in the Caspian Sea.
            And who had to work under the protection of the shore.

            The Northern Military District has already demonstrated “coast protection”, and from cheap BECs!
            Somehow is the right word. Our only air defense missile system module is the Tor ABM, the ammunition capacity of which is 8 missiles. This is enough to hit 4 targets. Then everything goes to the base for reloading.

            There are no other options anyway. 22160 is a crime in which someone made money and did not answer, and someone gave their life for it.
            8 pieces. For 4 fleets. Unmodernized IL-38s can’t even be considered - they won’t be seen or heard by underwater BECs.

            That's what I'm talking about. But they could at least buy the Il-38N from the Indians for the Black Sea Fleet!
            1. +4
              13 March 2024 13: 10
              Quote: ramzay21
              But I know! Because the RTO is a highly specialized and essentially stupid ship.

              The modern RTO was the only means of circumventing the INF Treaty. He was useful. True, only during the period of validity of the Treaty.
              Quote: ramzay21
              But if the fleet were controlled by competent admirals who bear personal responsibility for their decisions, then they would not order useless small missiles, but slightly increasing the size to 1300-1400 tons and the cost would order a PLO corvette with the same UKSK for 8 cells, GAK, Pantsir- M and a couple of Packages

              Oh yeah...
              The Commander-in-Chief does not see any prospects in the creation of ships previously designated as “Corvette OVR”. One of the main tasks of the OVR is to ensure the protection and defense of naval forces in the areas of naval bases and in the territories adjacent to them. This task is now carried out by coastal surveillance equipment, stationary hydroacoustic stations... Instead, it is planned to create patrol ships.
              © GC Chirkov Navy.
              And, having ordered patrol officers, this commander-in-chief moved to the chair of the chief adviser to the president of USC JSC for military shipbuilding.
              The only question about the OVR corvette is where to get the engines? For 2013 it will be either MTU or Nikolaev. Because Kolomna reports that it took eight years to work on the Steregushchy power plant - things ended up in fires.
              Quote: ramzay21
              The Northern Military District has already demonstrated “coast protection”, and from cheap BECs!

              And here the questions are not for the RTO, but for the killed OVR and MA of the Navy.
              Until 2019, the Navy and the Armed Forces as a whole needed RTOs as the only missile carriers that could be produced on time and in series.
        6. +12
          13 March 2024 10: 52
          ramzay21 - to my deepest regret, I am more than sure that no conclusions have been drawn, and we will continue to lose pseudo-warships!
          1. +10
            13 March 2024 11: 38
            Thrifty, unfortunately, and so far there is no light at the end of the tunnel, even after the removal of Evmenov. One dying-off carpenter is replaced by another equally dying-off order-bearer! And this stupid attraction can last a long time, fortunately we have enough dead people. And there is no one to command the fleet!
          2. +4
            13 March 2024 15: 35
            The conclusions seem to be: no ships, no problems. But the shoulder straps and salary will remain.
        7. +4
          13 March 2024 12: 18
          Americans successfully and without losses repulse BEC attacks

          Did the Houthis use swarms of 15 BEC?
          1. +1
            15 March 2024 22: 42
            Quote from: ln_ln
            Americans successfully and without losses repulse BEC attacks

            Did the Houthis use swarms of 15 BEC?

            Andrey, excuse me, but do you think it will be easier to repel a combined attack by BEK, UAVs, anti-ship missiles and ballistic anti-ship missiles? And if the patrol “Kotov” had at least 10 Cordov on stands with thermal cameras or even with ordinary third-generation night vision devices, then “Kotov” would most likely have fought back. And on a patrol ship there is more than enough space for pedestals. He has practically no weapons!!!
        8. +8
          13 March 2024 15: 26
          The author talks nonsense for the sole purpose of shield and justify criminals and saboteurs, some of which ordered stupid and uncombatable ships like Project 22160 armed with one cannon or the Buyan-M MRK armed only with launchers of Calibers capable ONLY of attacks on the coast, other criminals put the crews in these troughs and sent them to slaughter.


          even if these “people” are not criminals and saboteurs - they are guilty of what is happening - they have accepted responsibility for the fleet, for the sailors, but it turns out that they are ready to receive a salary, but not to answer
        9. -3
          14 March 2024 11: 17
          Ramzay21
          ...And what will happen...

          Your crying Yaroslavna, the search for the guilty and the rich palette of possible punishments, in this and the previous series of comments, hysteria on the topic “what will happen...” - are disgusting with the lack of CURRENT constructive advice. You mixed, from buckwheat to hay, an assortment of amateurish ideas about the need for punishment.

          I repeat, ships must move on an unpredictable, pseudo-random course at night, and not alone. At high speed. Changing this high-speed course at the same time, which will create additional uncertainty and breakers from pursuing BECs, when changing course at high speed, with an increased probability of detection. I will repeat what I wrote earlier: LIFE IS MOVEMENT. As for the wasted engine life and fuel, this is secondary to the issue of the ship’s survival.

          Group movement of ships increases the likelihood of hitting BECs.

          According to your symbol, you were related as an officer to the USSR Navy. As a radio engineer, I served as a corporal of the ORNR at the Shilok battery, in the 12th Guards MSP, Kaliningrad Region, 71-72. With all due respect, it’s not for me to remind you that whining never leads to positive changes, and whining from an officer is defeatism.
          1. 0
            14 March 2024 11: 35
            With all due respect, let’s exhale, calm down and ask “what is BEC in the development of weapons and military equipment?”

            And this is a type of torpedo - that is, it is a moving mine, a well-known, effective naval weapon for a century. This is what “some kind of BEC” is - a historically deadly weapon...

            How do ships resist torpedo danger? - that’s right, they “loop”, change course, release traps. And they don’t stand at roadsteads at night predictably “saving engine life and fuel.”

            Ships must move at night, along a pseudo-random course (which changes from night to night), abruptly changing course, thereby provoking the BEC to change course, thereby causing the appearance of breakers from the BEC, making it easier to recognize BECs…. “Life is movement,” someone said. If you want to live, save your ship... tank, self-propelled guns and the list goes on - MOVE UNPREDICTABLE.

            They wrote here that they say the AWACS will detect it, take a photo, and so on. What is the use of this data that changes unpredictably from minute to minute!!!

            And all the talk about what to do with the fleet, who to imprison, etc. - Russia is at war!!! There is no need to fantasize!!! What we have is what we fight with. And yes, the Mosin three-line was an obsolete weapon in 1941, with the rare exception of sniper versions. But for his loss they were judged to the fullest extent!!! The same applies to patrol ships - this is what it is - you have been entrusted to command and serve - THINK, TRY, FIGHT - BUT SAVE for the sake of all saints and saints.
            1. +1
              14 March 2024 12: 49
              Yeah, move like this every night, changing course, and in 3-4 months you will completely kill your motor life. Think before you write anything.
            2. +2
              14 March 2024 13: 12
              And this is a type of torpedo - that is, it is a moving mine, a well-known, effective naval weapon for a century. This is what “some kind of BEC” is - a historically deadly weapon...

              You don’t know the essence of the question, because a Chinese hydro scooter with a plastic body attached, a small charge and a satellite terminal with a speed of 40 km per hour cannot even handle a hundred-year-old torpedo. Unlike torpedoes, BECs are easily detected and destroyed even by small arms.
              And all the talk about what to do with the fleet, who to imprison, etc. - Russia is at war!!! There is no need to fantasize!!! What we have is what we fight with.

              Russia is not at war, but in the Northern Military District, that’s it. Justifying crimes is also a crime, that's two. Take a pistol and hit a tank with it, show how to fight before advising others to do the same, that’s three.
              1. 0
                Yesterday, 09: 11
                A Chinese hydro scooter with a stuck-on plastic body, a small charge and a satellite terminal at a speed of 40 km per hour is not even comparable to a hundred-year-old torpedo.

                That's right, the person doesn't know.
                This was all known, even not particularly gifted technical students could do it for 10 years, student demonstration projects on BEC 10 years ago are known.
                Electronics there cost 2-5 thousand rubles. Well, maximum 15tr, + drives/motors. There are a lot of control codes in the public domain. By the way, it is more difficult to control an aerial drone (from the point of view of code and algorithms) (there are three axes), a sea drone is easier, and a land drone is the simplest.
            3. +1
              15 March 2024 03: 00
              This is a type of torpedo

              Do not mislead people. Even with my leftovers
              knowledge from attending for 2 years naval
              departments at the institute (trained reserve submariners) -
              these are completely different things.
              It’s not at all difficult to find on the Internet the design of a torpedo from the times
              the decline of the USSR. And 10 minutes is enough to understand the degree
              differences.
              And here, on VO, someone has already chewed it out very well for everyone
              the difference between a real combat torpedo and a drone. hi
          2. +2
            14 March 2024 13: 02
            Your crying Yaroslavna, the search for those to blame and the rich palette of possible punishments, in this and the previous series of comments, hysteria on the topic “what will happen...” - are disgusting with the lack of CURRENT constructive advice.

            It is immediately obvious that you have not read what I wrote above, including proposals known to everyone, even those not in the navy, but who can think with their heads. For you, I am ready to repeat the booms of all bases, the installation of at least Kord positions at the entrances to the bases, and preferably a 23-mm ZSU with thermal imaging sights, a ban on the parking of ships and vessels outside the bases, especially at the base station, the transfer of at least five thermal imagers to each ship , at least 20 Kord machine guns with heaters, installing them on the ship, assigning shooters and defining firing sectors, and practicing during exercises how to repel BEC attacks in poor visibility conditions.
            I repeat, ships must move on an unpredictable, pseudo-random course at night, and not alone. At high speed.

            At what speed are you planning to move on trough 22160? It has the speed of a cargo ship!
            Group movement of ships increases the likelihood of hitting BECs.

            How can we understand you if you make
            I repeat, ships must move on an unpredictable, pseudo-random course at night, and not alone.

            According to your symbol, you were related as an officer to the USSR Navy.

            I took the oath into the USSR Navy.
          3. 0
            15 March 2024 02: 29
            abruptly changing course, thereby provoking the BEC to change course, thereby causing the appearance of breakers from the BEC, making it easier to recognize BECs

            OK then. I took a notebook in a box. One cell = 10 km.
            Let the drone be 10 cells (100 km) from the target. The target is gone
            the initial given point, well, let it be 20 km (2 cells).
            The target is maneuvering. The drone changes course. It turns out a triangle
            with an angle of 9 degrees. Drone deviation by 9 degrees. Do you think
            will lead to breakers and its detection?

            How much I play with the child with boats, noticeable
            You can get a breaker only by turning it into a good turn.

            After an hour of chaotic maneuvering, it seems to me, it will become
            it is clear that the target is simply dangling in one square, with
            minimum angle of deviation from the drone.

            In my opinion, this does not solve the problem of long-range detection of the drone.

            When you enter into battle, then, probably, row at all
            shoulder blades. It will be more difficult for the enemy.
            The ship is not a car - it instantly does not obey the steering wheel. No.
        10. -1
          15 March 2024 07: 53
          Firstly, the Houthis did not make more than one drone attack, but all the time they fired missiles at Yankov ships, and one military ship was also damaged, and there was a review here and how it was damaged, and what’s the point of buying old equipment from India, what kind of nonsense does this person write a bunch of nonsense and there are no specifics and that’s all they happily like him for this, but another one offers something specifically like an anti-drone, he doesn’t have anything, guys, do you even think it can be offered here, for example, for kings who use booms for oil, just modify it a little according to the principle of throwing it into the water and it instantly opens and of course is a little larger in height such a boat is a drone, there’s no way it won’t slip through, and if it hits such a boom, the boat will bounce off, which means there won’t be any damage
        11. 0
          18 March 2024 08: 07
          Green grapes! Krylov started the fable.
        12. 0
          April 13 2024 10: 11
          The author immediately turned his article into nonsense with the phrase:
          And we will not begin to evaluate the effectiveness of the protective equipment that the ships of the Russian Navy are equipped with.
      2. +7
        13 March 2024 10: 23
        Quote: Civil
        It is quite possible that the analogy of World War 1 using the example of the “mosquito fleet” of Italy and the Austro-Hungarian Kriegsmarine is more suitable for this confrontation between the heavy fleet and the small fleet.

        Why go so far? At the Black Sea theater of operations in 1878, it was clearly demonstrated what the mosquito fleet could do with ships at anchor. Mine boats against Turkish ships. The Turks were saved only by the technical imperfections of the boats themselves and their demolition charges.
    2. -8
      13 March 2024 08: 39
      We should have just taken Odessa.
      But for this, you must choose a Russian, not a clown.
    3. +7
      13 March 2024 10: 29
      counter-drones are also possible. But the main thing is the TIMELY detection of these drones. The fact that in such a small theater of operations the Navy command for 30 years has not installed sensors and sonars integrated into a single warning network - for this all the commanders of the Black Sea Fleet of this time should be demoted! Early warning, coupled with fast small boats with nets, small guns or high-velocity machine guns with night vision devices, is 100% protection for a large fleet at minimal cost, less than the cost of one sunken patrol boat! Small fireships - counteraction from a small battle fleet!
      1. +3
        13 March 2024 16: 10
        Absolutely agree. One thing is not clear: HOW it is possible to design, create and produce all these countless series of MRKs, corvettes, etc. WITHOUT cannon and machine gun weapons on the sides, stern, on the forecastle?!? How and with what will they fight off the landing of the DRG (etc.) on them?! Calibers?! Having installed the long-existing (by the way, superior to their US counterparts!) Baikals (2-3 on each side), make a regular (trained!!!) warhead with combat duty ROUND THE CLOCK - these BECs would make the flaps fly! (I recommend watching the video from shooting of Lake Baikal for those who don’t know) + boom barriers (multi-row) - this is not a problem at all in parking areas and does not cost billions!!!
  2. +27
    13 March 2024 05: 20
    this set of qualities turned out to be enough to cause a lot of problems for the Black Sea Fleet.
    And this set is the lack of initiative and lack of professionalism of the Black Sea Fleet leadership.

    We have no right to give advice to designers or demand that they increase the number of turrets and combat posts on the upper deck.
    Of course, because this is the right and responsibility of the leadership of the fleet, but, see above.

    All advisers should be reminded of the ancient truth - if you put 8 guns on a ship armed with 10 guns according to the project, then only 6 will be able to fire from them.
    What years is this rule? Armored? But what about aircraft carrier times and their dozens of anti-aircraft guns without a project on any scow?

    The enemy was detected in a timely manner, the crew of the Sergei Kotov began an evasive maneuver and opened heavy fire on the targets.
    What squall? Of what? From a bow cannon that could not fire due to the dead zone in the stern and two machine guns? And what evasive maneuver? From zero speed he still had to accelerate to his 50 km/h, but he didn’t have time.

    All three sunken ships did not have their own hydroacoustics and stood idle at night, and even during a combat alert and in view of an enemy UAV (not Ukrainian).

    The author is right that large ships have a future, that the seaworthiness of Backovs is not particularly good, but that geography is to blame, the author is completely wrong.
    1. +9
      13 March 2024 05: 23
      Have you thought about underwater drones? but they are developing, and they don’t care about the roughness of the sea in points.
      1. +4
        13 March 2024 05: 32
        Quote: Aerodrome
        Have you thought about underwater drones? but they are developing, and they don’t care about the roughness of the sea in points.

        Don’t you know about torpedoes? With a range of a hundred to one and a half kilometers and a speed of about a hundred.
        1. +1
          13 March 2024 12: 49
          the feeling that we are building the wrong ships
          without armor, without torpedo protection
          on MRK pr 22800 with a displacement of under 1000 tons, 100 mm armor will NOT fit
          this is + 350 tons
          1. +2
            13 March 2024 16: 42
            Quote: Romario_Argo
            the feeling that we are building the wrong ships
            without armor, without torpedo protection
            on MRK pr 22800 with a displacement of under 1000 tons, 100 mm armor will NOT fit

            Not the same at all. It’s time to put small ships on the “screen” long ago.
      2. 0
        13 March 2024 06: 49
        Have you thought about underwater drones?

        A drone is a remote-controlled device. Radio communication under water is impossible, you will have to drag the cable along 300 km ;)

        There are no drones capable of independently navigating underwater and finding targets. This requires advanced AI like the Terminator

        What Ukraine has are surface drones with the ability to dive at the moment of attack
        1. +8
          13 March 2024 07: 41
          Quote: Santa Fe
          There are no drones capable of independently navigating underwater and finding targets.
          I don’t know whether such drones exist or not, but it’s not difficult to create a drone that has its own target search algorithm. To do this, you just need well-written software. Then you won't need either wireless or wired control.
        2. BAI
          +3
          13 March 2024 08: 48
          What about Poseidons?
          1. +2
            13 March 2024 08: 51
            What about Poseidons?

            They don't hunt for ships
          2. +11
            13 March 2024 09: 30
            What about Poseidons?

            Saw it into metal and forget it like a bad dream, directing the money to what the army and navy really need.
            1. -1
              13 March 2024 16: 36
              Well, well, well, my friend, you got carried away! Poseidon has other tasks, other uses and goals. So you will refuse a simple Kalash
              1. +1
                13 March 2024 16: 42
                And Kalash (I mean the AK-47 and ITS modernization!) has advantages - not a single M-16 (and its children), not a single Ar-14-15 (and its children) stand close, take my word for it , because I had the honor to shoot ALL of the above (at one time)...
                1. 0
                  14 March 2024 01: 56
                  Can you go into more detail, point by point, about the advantages of one platform over another, without loud populist phrases?
              2. +2
                14 March 2024 06: 45
                Well, well, well, my friend, you got carried away! Poseidon has other tasks, other uses and goals. So you will refuse a simple Kalash

                Poseidon’s tasks are to be a component of the naval forces of nuclear deterrence, and with its own, very complex and expensive carriers. Does Poseidon give an advantage over SSBNs? No, it doesn't. The Poseidon carrier is created on the basis of third-generation boats, which simplifies the detection of its MAPL and has huge dimensions, which simplifies its detection by Poseidon ASW aircraft. And considering that ALL of our bases are without protection of the water area, that is, under the control of MAPL and PLO aviation of a potential enemy, the carrier of Poseidon will be destroyed immediately after the attempt to launch this very Poseidon. But even if a miracle happens and it is possible to launch this very Poseidon, then its path will lie in the narrow places of the entrance to the Atlantic, where there is a rich and modern anti-aircraft defense and there it will be definitely destroyed, it will quickly be discovered by Poseidon anti-aircraft aircraft or URO or MAPL destroyers and destroyed by torpedoes .
                Hence the conclusion. Poseidon is a very expensive and useless attraction, on which huge amounts of money were wasted, which could have been used to develop an inexpensive anti-aircraft corvette and produce them in a series of fifty pieces and at least provide reliable cover for leaving the bases and deploying SSBNs to the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet.
                Klimov and Maksimov wrote in detail about the uselessness of the expensive Poseidon attraction, who, unlike the dying people who ruined the Black Sea Fleet, turned out to be right in many respects.
                1. +1
                  14 March 2024 09: 35
                  From the very beginning, I didn’t understand why Poseidon needed a special carrier in the form of a nuclear submarine, which would be discovered before it had time to send at least one device. After all, if this “Poseidon” is characterized as the last argument in a retaliatory strike, then why launch them necessarily from nuclear submarines, and not make several coastal launchers, even false ones.... Go and find out where they will launch it from or where it is at a specific time.
                  Maybe it’s enough just to bring him to the water’s edge and send him along a given route? Or does it still have a limited range of action and must be pulled closer to the target?
                  1. 0
                    15 March 2024 07: 45
                    Taking into account the fact that NATO has been building ASW boundaries for decades and has made significant progress in ASW, no Poseidon will simply reach American shores, this was understood in the USSR, therefore this Soviet development remained a development that had no prospects.
                    Unfortunately, the level of literacy of the country's current leaders is significantly inferior to the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, which was called a nursing home, but even they realized that it would be more difficult for an underwater torpedo of enormous size to break through the then and even more promising NATO anti-aircraft missile system than a missile fired by an SSBN, especially an SSBN located under the ice, therefore The USSR built 6 giant SSBNs Akula/Typhoon designed for operations in the North, capable of breaking through ice with a wheelhouse. Washington really feared them and ordered Putin to eliminate them, which Putin happily did. The USSR was also developing the Borei SSBN with the Bark missile, capable of breaking through ice, and all Akula/Typhoon SSBNs had to undergo modernization for the Bark along with medium repairs. And such Borey, together with the Shark/Typhoon as carriers of the Bark, posed a real threat to NATO and NATO did everything so that the Bark, which had already begun to fly, was closed, which Yeltsin and then Putin happily did, launching the Bulava instead of the Bark, and setting up carriers unable to carry the Bark and destroying the carriers capable of carrying Bark.
                    But no one is afraid of Putin’s Poseidon, just like the Mace, that’s why they even supported their construction, because this will show Putin’s scammer that something is being done on the one hand, and on the other hand, money, time and resources are wasted on something that is not a threat to NATO.
                    1. +1
                      15 March 2024 15: 37
                      ramzay21 (Vasily), don’t go too far. I respect your critical view of things, but you yourself probably understand that no ASW system, even when it was deployed in the Atlantic and near the Pacific coast of the United States, was a guarantee against the penetration of our boats into strike positions. And if the strike is delivered from the waters of our Northern seas. the Arctic Ocean or the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, where SOSUS did not cover anything, then it is not worth burying our nuclear submarines like that.
                      I also know quite a bit about Bark, I always try to keep an eye on such things. Therefore, I know the whole story of its development and why it did not reach the fleets. Yes, the Bark could break through ice no thicker than half a meter, and even after such a hit on the ice, the guarantees of its flawless flight to the target were sharply reduced. And I doubt that anyone would take such risks in a real combat situation.
                      Why, if special charges have been developed for this purpose to break the ice before the start. And our nuclear submarines with Bulava missiles are equipped with such charges.
                      1. 0
                        15 March 2024 16: 07
                        If you simply said that we are still not catching up with the United States in creating a solid-fuel rocket for nuclear submarines, I would agree and support. Yes, we are not catching up yet!
                        But it’s somehow impossible to praise “Bark” in comparison with “Bulava”. After all, "Bark" was never truly created. Not a single successful launch and the project was closed! And its cyclopean dimensions with a height of 16 meters are simply absurd and a dead end. You know that the Akula nuclear submarine was made so huge not because of a good life or a competent design solution. Namely, due to our inability to make a TTR that would be comparable to Trident-2 in height. Look at our ugly humpbacked 667 BRDM nuclear submarines with liquid rockets and compare them with the streamlined hulls of US nuclear submarines. And thanks to the Bulava, in terms of the design of nuclear submarine hulls, we have caught up and in some ways surpassed the Americans. Yes, we are inferior in range to the Bulava by 1-2 thousand km. "Trident", but we reach all targets no matter what.
        3. +12
          13 March 2024 09: 02
          There are no drones capable of independently navigating underwater and finding targets. This requires advanced AI like the Terminator

          Homing torpedoes have existed for many decades; for a long time there have been self-propelled mines that are activated if the noise of the propellers of a passing ship coincides with the pattern embedded in it. And do you think that in our time it is impossible to create an unmanned underwater vehicle capable of moving to a given point and destroying passing ships by the noise of its propellers?
          And the worst thing is that thanks to our rafters, our fleet has nothing to fight this threat with.
          1. 0
            13 March 2024 16: 23
            Dear, read (above) about boom barriers (multi-row and multi-level) - NOT ONE TORPEDO will pass, especially a drone.
        4. +1
          13 March 2024 13: 18
          Quote: Santa Fe
          A drone is a remote-controlled device. Radio communication under water is impossible, you will have to drag the cable along 300 km ;)

          It is enough to bring the antenna on the pylon to the surface. And, say, a GPS antenna can even be towed on a cable - this is enough to reach the attack area.
    2. -1
      13 March 2024 06: 22
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      And this set is the lack of initiative and lack of professionalism of the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet
      In no case do I want to defend the admirals of the Black Sea Fleet, but we must admit that this war is new, the likes of which have never happened before. This is a war of drones and electronics, which neither generals nor admirals were taught in academies. Sooner or later, an antidote to drones will be found, but for now.....
      1. +18
        13 March 2024 09: 14
        This is a war of drones and electronics, which neither generals nor admirals were taught in academies.

        At the end of the 80s in the USSR there were about a thousand Tu-143 and Tu-142 jet UAVs, the Americans already used attack UAVs in 2000, in 2008 in Georgia ours suffered losses due to the fact that the Georgians had UAVs and ours are not there, since 2014, the LDPR NM actively used UAVs of various types, in 2006, a boat with suicide bombers attacked the American destroyer Cowell, all over the world, advanced armies have been researching and putting into operation UAVs, swarms of UAVs, sea surface and underwater drones, since the 80s The Americans have IJIS and standards for systems of closed channels for information exchange.
        And only our untrained dying carpenters and degenerals do not understand what is happening around, and therefore even after TWO years of military training, our UAV operators are listed as mortar loaders, because there is NO position of UAV operator in the unit staff and there is no such VUS. How many years must the air force pass and how many of our soldiers must die for the degenerals to finally include a UAV operator in the staffing list of the air force units?
        1. +2
          13 March 2024 10: 47
          Quote: ramzay21
          How many years must the Air Defense Forces pass and how many of our soldiers must die for the degenerals to finally include a UAV operator in the staffing list of the VUS units?
          Yes, it seems like military schools have already started training for this
          1. +6
            13 March 2024 11: 25
            Yes, it seems like military schools have already started training for this

            Which schools? We still don’t even have a VUS like this as a UAV operator, not to mention individual units, platoons or companies with trained officers. On the LBS, UAV operators are listed as shooters or mortar loaders, or maybe as a signalman or orderly!
            1. +3
              13 March 2024 11: 45
              Quote: ramzay21
              Which schools?
              Zhukovsky Air Force Academy. Faculty of Unmanned Aviation
              1. +3
                14 March 2024 07: 47
                There they train operators for large UAVs like the Outpost or the Pacer, which are rare in their own right on the front end.
                And I’m talking about UAV operators who should be in all warring units, these are operators of FPV drones and quadrics with drops, as well as specialists in countering enemy drones. But there are no such positions in the staff of a battalion, company or platoon and there is no such military service, although the need for them is much higher than for machine gunners or riflemen. Separate companies and platoons of UAVs should have been created long ago, which over time can be assigned to specific units. But no one from the Moscow Region does this, no one cares.
          2. 0
            13 March 2024 20: 31
            The military school of drone pilots has been operating for a year now...
      2. +5
        13 March 2024 09: 28
        What kind of drone war is this? If additional machine guns are not installed and there are no thermal imagers with night vision devices, then having intelligence data, the enemy sends the most primitive drones.
    3. -5
      13 March 2024 06: 29
      lack of initiative and lack of professionalism of the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet.

      Take all ships to the Sea of ​​Azov or towards Sochi?

      And not show your nose in the Black Sea while Ukrainian Armed Forces still remain on the coast?
      But what about aircraft carrier times and their dozens of anti-aircraft guns without a project on any scow?

      You probably mean 20 mm Oerlikon autocannons

      They were useless. 20 rounds per shot down plane (round per bird parameter - from the US Navy report of that time), suggests that the hit was accidental, and the Oerlikon fire was more of a distracting nature. All the same, Japanese planes were not drones, but there were live pilots inside

      And many many other aspects. For example, the effective range of the Oerlikon was less than the range at which aircraft dropped torpedoes. Or the inability to stop a falling kamikaze - this required three times the caliber

      Regarding the question of the number of guns - real anti-aircraft guns, 127 mm universal installations, the number remained almost unchanged. There was nowhere to install such systems; they required a lot of space. Such guns required complex PUAZO and centralized fire control means, without which everyone would be dead ballast

      The same applies to the famous Bofors - twin and quadruple 40 mm, the number of such installations was moderate, it is also a heavy system that requires a lot of space and POISO. At the same time, it is not the most effective - emnip or 4000 or 9000 rounds per 1 downed aircraft.
      1. +13
        13 March 2024 07: 09
        Quote: Santa Fe
        You probably mean 20 mm Oerlikon autocannons

        I mean ALL anti-aircraft guns were urgently delivered to ships not as part of the main project. I wrote the machines just out of habit.

        Quote: Santa Fe
        They were useless. 20 rounds per shot down plane (round per bird parameter - from the US Navy report of that time), suggests that the hit was accidental, and the Oerlikon fire was more of a distracting nature. All the same, Japanese planes were not drones, but there were live pilots inside
        And the allies spent 25 rounds of ammunition on one killed - is the rifle gun useless? Yes, the mere fact that an attack by fighters on some minesweepers became dangerous was worth the cost of 000 rounds. But now stabilized modules are placed on the stand without much effort. So there is no argument about the “uselessness” of even 20mm, not to mention 000, 20 and 25 mm.


        Quote: Santa Fe
        lack of initiative and lack of professionalism of the leadership of the Black Sea Fleet.
        Take all ships to the Sea of ​​Azov or towards Sochi?
        And not show your nose in the Black Sea while Ukrainian Armed Forces still remain on the coast?
        Sorry, but more than a year passed from the moment the BeKs appeared at sea until the first one was sunk, and it’s not that the ships were not reinforced with firepower, hello “heavy fire”, basic measures were not taken, such as prohibiting overnight stays outside booms, studying jamming control of the BACs, and even normal exercises to repel an attack with available means did not seem to have been carried out, judging by the fuss and continuous shooting with tracers, without signs of target designation, from the large landing craft.
        Not to mention countering enemy UAVs.
        1. -4
          13 March 2024 07: 23
          ALL anti-aircraft guns were urgently delivered to ships outside the framework of the main project.

          The number of large-caliber anti-aircraft guns (those that could do anything) remained virtually unchanged

          Guns with such capabilities required too much space + the difficulty of coordinating their fire
          killed, the allies spent 25 rounds of ammunition - the rifle is useless?

          This is normal for infantry battles

          For a ship's air defense, it is unacceptable to spend 20 rounds on 000 downed aircraft. That’s why they abandoned the MZA on ships, until the advent of the six-barreled Ak-1 and phalanxes in the 630-70s, with homing
          1. +8
            13 March 2024 09: 20
            For a ship's air defense, it is unacceptable to spend 20 rounds on 000 downed aircraft. That’s why they abandoned MZA on ships,

            But what about the armament of convoy transport ships?
            One smart admiral asked:
            - “How many shells were spent during the convoy to repel attacks?”
            - Several thousand.
            - How many planes were shot down?
            - No one.
            He ordered all the machine guns to be removed as a useless burden. Several transports did not arrive from the next convoy and were sunk by planes.
            The machine guns not only hit the target, but also do not allow the aircraft to aim calmly, thereby disrupting its attack.
            1. +1
              13 March 2024 10: 41
              One smart admiral asked:
              - “How many shells were spent during the convoy to repel attacks?”

              Without specifying specific dates and facts, this is a simple story
              Machine guns not only hit the target, but also prevent the plane from aiming calmly

              1. Did the 152 anti-aircraft guns on board help Yamato?

              2. Only 76 and 127 mm anti-aircraft guns played a role, with centralized control based on radar data, and by the end of the war - with shells that exploded when flying near the aircraft (radar fuse)

              3. All MZA disappeared from ships after the war, before the advent of six-barreled auto-guided guns, and even those turned out to be not so good and now progress is moving in the other direction
              1. 0
                14 March 2024 10: 01
                Without specifying specific dates and facts, this is a simple story

                Maybe it’s a story, but in fact it’s true. It’s one thing to attack a sheep that won’t fight back. And it’s a completely different matter to aim a plane, flying through a cloud of tracers, expecting a hit every second. This clearly affects accuracy.
                Did Yamato's 152 anti-aircraft guns on board help?

                A crowd of hyenas are knocking down a lion. This is also a story, of course, but it reflects the real approach.
                Only 76 and 127 mm anti-aircraft guns played a role, with centralized control based on radar data, and by the end of the war - with shells that exploded when flying near the aircraft (radar fuse)

                They also didn’t play a special role.
          2. +7
            13 March 2024 09: 24
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The number of large-caliber anti-aircraft guns (those that could do anything) remained virtually unchanged
            But it jumped sharply in military (who could afford it) and post-war projects.

            Quote: Santa Fe
            For a ship's air defense, it is unacceptable to spend 20 rounds on 000 downed aircraft. That’s why they abandoned the MZA on ships, until the advent of the six-barreled Ak-1 and phalanxes in the 630-70s, with homing
            It's funny to read about "unacceptable". It is unacceptable to lose ships because they are toothless.
            One must not “forget” that for every one shot down, there were also those who were shot down and refused to attack (not all samurai) and who shot/dropped inaccurately. Well, they refused mainly due to the advent of air defense systems, and after the Falklands they both refused and accepted back, even in rifle caliber.
            1. -2
              13 March 2024 10: 48
              But it jumped sharply in military (who could afford it) and post-war projects.

              No.

              There was no space on the ships to accommodate N-number of large anti-aircraft guns, only instead of guns of a different caliber (for example, instead of anti-mine caliber towers)

              After the war, the United States did not build ships for 10 years, then immediately the missile era

              In the USSR they built at least something to support industry. The post-war projects themselves were not combat-ready (if the A-4 Skyzok attack aircraft so famously unraveled the British squadron in 1982, what did they do with Soviet cruisers and destroyers in the early 50s?)
              1. 0
                13 March 2024 10: 59
                Quote: Santa Fe
                There was no space on the ships to accommodate N-number of large anti-aircraft guns, only instead of guns of a different caliber (for example, instead of anti-mine caliber towers)

                What is this if not a sharp increase in the number of guns FOR?

                Quote: Santa Fe
                After the war, the United States did not build ships for 10 years, then immediately switched to missiles
                AND? Maybe because it was built during the war?

                Quote: Santa Fe
                In the USSR they built at least something to support industry.
                And also restore and increase the composition.

                Quote: Santa Fe
                The post-war projects themselves were not combat-ready (if the A-4 Skyzok attack aircraft so famously unraveled the British squadron in 1982, what did they do with Soviet cruisers and destroyers in the early 50s?)
                What, until now? What would the Tu-16 have done with the KSShch with the Americans built before 55?
                In general, this is so, excuses that geography cannot justify the loss of the Black Sea Fleet.
                1. 0
                  13 March 2024 11: 16
                  What is this if not a sharp increase in the number of guns FOR?

                  The number of large guns on the ship has not changed. The choice between anti-aircraft guns or secondary guns
                  AND? Maybe because it was built during the war?

                  Who cares. We are interested in the fact that ships according to new projects have not been built for 10 years, and therefore it will not be possible to count and compare the number of anti-aircraft guns
                  What would the Tu-16 have done with the KSShch with the Americans built before 55?

                  There were already other opponents for the Tu-16KS

                  Projects of the war years were won back in due time
                  1. 0
                    13 March 2024 11: 32
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    The number of large guns on the ship has not changed. The choice between anti-aircraft guns or secondary guns
                    But the composition, purpose and number of barrels in installations have changed dramatically, and we are talking about the speed of making changes to projects. Because:
                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    We have no right to give advice to designers or demand that they increase the number of turrets and combat posts on the upper deck.



                    Quote: Santa Fe
                    We are interested in the fact that ships according to new projects have not been built for 10 years, and therefore it will not be possible to count and compare the number of anti-aircraft guns
                    Not interested, because the Soviets built it.

                    Quote: Santa Fe

                    There were already other opponents for the Tu-16KS
                    Then why bring in Skyhawks? And by the way, it was after their raids, and not Mirages and Exocets, that they began to hastily install everything, even machine guns.
                    1. 0
                      14 March 2024 07: 44
                      and we are talking about the speed of making changes to projects.

                      No, the conversation started with your statement
                      Quote: Vladimir_2U
                      What years is this rule? Armored? But what about aircraft carrier times and their dozens of anti-aircraft guns without a project?

                      As it turned out, this is the rule of all artillery ships. The number of large guns did not change

                      Small machines were installed without a design, and their purpose was appropriate. They bet out of desperation. Then they completely refused to keep hundreds of people on the upper deck to shoot somewhere in the sky
                      Then why bring in Skyhawks?

                      The Falklands showed live what anti-aircraft guns cost against aircraft of the 1950s. This is precisely the level of air defense that was present in post-war Soviet projects. And the enemy is still the same Skyhawks and Company. If the British were butchered in 1982, it is clear what would have happened to the Soviet cruisers and destroyers

                      The USSR built ships according to pre-war designs, which were obviously outdated, in order to support industry
                      They began to hastily install everything, even machine guns.

                      They didn’t install anything, the war ended after 2 months

                      About shooting rifles at airplanes - funny episodes out of despair
                      1. 0
                        14 March 2024 08: 46
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        No, the conversation started with your statement
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        What years is this rule? Armored? But what about aircraft carrier times and their dozens of anti-aircraft guns without a project?


                        The conversation started with your statement
                        We have no right to give advice to designers or demand that they increase the number of turrets and combat posts on the upper deck.

                        which you just tried to justify with words about guns not working without a project.

                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        Small machines were installed without a design, and their purpose was appropriate.
                        You ignore the obvious, not even considering installation experience on small ships.
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        One must not “forget” that for every one shot down, there were also those who were shot down and refused to attack (not all samurai) and who shot/dropped inaccurately.

                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And the Germans also shot at unarmed ships from Messers, but the twin DShK on the TK noticeably reduced their agility. Again, we are talking about the confrontation with BeKams, with which the Black Sea Fleet command practically did not fight.


                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        The Falklands showed live what anti-aircraft guns cost against aircraft of the 1950s.
                        Extremely average, because English, air defense systems, not anti-aircraft guns, you are confusing something. By the way, the top-mast bombing that you write about would have looked interesting against the intense close-in air defense of Soviet ships in the early 50s.


                        Quote: Santa Fe

                        They didn’t install anything, the war ended after 2 months
                        Judging by the alternative reality from your comment - the defeat of the British? laughing
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        If they butchered the British in 1982




                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        About shooting rifles at airplanes - funny episodes out of despair
                        Because there were no air defense guns, dear Oleg! Well, can you find footage of the 80s of the Queen’s sailors at any anti-aircraft trifle yourself, or should I bother?

                        In general, your attempts to justify the losses of the Black Sea Fleet by criticizing the WWII experience and geographical location, and not by the lack of a sane reaction from the leadership, look unconvincing.
                      2. 0
                        14 March 2024 09: 43
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        The conversation started with your statement

                        Go back and read your first comment
                        And the Germans also shot unarmed ships from Messers

                        The Messers did not shoot large warships. They were bombed and torpedoes were thrown - from a range at which a manually aimed 20 mm Oerlikon would be useless.

                        Then you talked about barrage non-targeted fire, forgetting that it is even more useless against a drone; the operator is always safe. And indiscriminate firing from many machine guns will only confuse the shooters
                        By the way, the top-mast bombing that you write about would have looked interesting against the intense close-in air defense of Soviet ships in the early 50s.

                        Well, look at the composition of the ships' weapons. Four analogues of the Bofors on the destroyer Project 56. That’s all.

                        Project 56 is the mid-50s. The earlier Project 41 had even weaker air defense

                        And the Yankees at that time did not have 28 Skyhawks, like Argentina

                        in 1982, the British air defense systems did not complete the task, the planes flew over the ships as if at home - they did not notice the work of the short-range anti-aircraft guns at all

                        Photos attached
                        and not the lack of a sane reaction from management

                        There is a war
                        There is no war without losses
                        Drones have already attacked dozens of times, resulting in the sinking of three ships in a year.


                        Why emotions and attempts to pretend that this cannot happen. While only the enemy can suffer losses, there should be none at all on our side. Kindergarten
                      3. 0
                        14 March 2024 10: 04
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        Then you talked about barrage non-targeted fire, forgetting that it is even more useless against a drone; the operator is always safe.

                        I didn’t write this, firstly, and secondly, confusing an airplane with a speed of 350-600 km/h maneuvering in three planes and a boat with a speed of 40-60 km/h on the surface of the sea is not a good indicator. However, it fits into your unconvincing attempts to justify the losses of the Black Sea Fleet by criticism of the WWII experience and geographical location, and not by the lack of a sane reaction from the leadership
                        And your chattering about ships of the 50s and Skyhawks will not help here.
                      4. 0
                        14 March 2024 10: 34
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        I didn't write that

                        Wrote
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        One must not “forget” that for every one shot down, there were also those who were shot down and refused to attack (not all samurai) and who shot/dropped inaccurately.

                        This is exactly the barrage fire

                        And despite the colorful descriptions, there was little benefit from it. Especially among primitive Oerlikons
                        an airplane with a speed of 350-600 km/h maneuvering in three planes and a boat with a speed of 40-60 km/h on the surface of the sea is a so-so indicator

                        For some reason you are comparing them, I didn’t write that
                        chattering about ships of the 50s and Skyhawks will not help here.

                        Topics we discussed in order:
                        - Anti-aircraft weapons of ships of post-war projects
                        - the real effectiveness of such means - against aircraft of the 1950s, based on the experience of the Falklands (anti-aircraft guns and MZA were available on all ships, used, zero effectiveness)

                        Enough has already been said about the Black Sea Fleet and there is no desire to return to this topic
                      5. 0
                        14 March 2024 10: 58
                        Quote: Santa Fe

                        This is exactly the barrage fire

                        There is no need to invent, especially in light of
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        Then you talked about the barrier
                        aimless
                        the fire,

                        Why is this a non-targeted fire? It may be inaccurate, but why is it a non-targeted fire? Especially from small ships, but with damaged ones that missed and refused to attack?!


                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        an airplane with a speed of 350-600 km/h maneuvering in three planes and a boat with a speed of 40-60 km/h on the surface of the sea is a so-so indicator

                        For some reason you are comparing them, I didn’t write that
                        Of course, you didn’t write, your task is to distract as much as possible from the idea of ​​​​installing command posts and APs on small ships to fight drones. That's all.
                        And you miraculously steer away from the topic of small ships with this trick.
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        And the Germans also shot unarmed ships from Messers
                        The Messers did not shoot large warships. They were bombed and torpedoes were thrown - from a range at which a manually aimed 20 mm Oerlikon would be useless.

                        Since when did TC become a large ship?!
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        And the Germans also shot at unarmed ships from Messers, but the twin DShK on the TK noticeably reduced their agility.



                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        Topics we discussed in order:
                        - Anti-aircraft weapons of ships of post-war projects
                        - the real effectiveness of such means - against aircraft of the 1950s, based on the experience of the Falklands (anti-aircraft guns and MZA were available on all ships, used, zero effectiveness)

                        Enough has already been said about the Black Sea Fleet and there is no desire to return to this topic
                        What anti-aircraft guns, besides 114, were shot down at the beginning of the Falklands conflict? 20K per ship for the unhappy couple?
                        Moreover, in the case of Ardent, it was the 20s that at least depicted something.
                        Well, having the topic of BeKi’s article talk about the effectiveness of small-caliber artillery as an anti-aircraft weapon - this is chattering!
                      6. 0
                        14 March 2024 11: 50
                        Well and so, by the way:
                        With the outbreak of the Pacific War, production was increased dramatically and a total of 124735 Oerlikon guns were manufactured in the United States before production ceased in 1945. This weapon proved to be very popular in the navy due to its ease of maintenance and good rate of fire. The Oerlikons replaced the ineffective 0,50" (1,27 cm) Brownings on US ships and became the primary anti-aircraft gun of the United States Navy until the 40 mm Bofors became available in large numbers throughout 1943.
                        In the period from December 1941 to September 1944, 32% of all Japanese aircraft shot down by fleet anti-aircraft guns were attributed to this weapon, and the largest number - 48,3% - in the second half of 1942.
            2. 0
              13 March 2024 15: 40
              In fact, the Oerlikons could ONLY shoot down an aircraft leaving the attack. So there is no REAL protection for the ship from them. And they were installed only to calm the team - since it shoots loudly, it means we are not drowning yet.
              Oerlikons provided protection for small ships from attack aircraft, since even the onboard weapons of aircraft operating at short distances were dangerous for them.
              1. +2
                13 March 2024 16: 50
                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                In fact, the Oerlikons could ONLY shoot down an aircraft leaving the attack.

                Do you think the loss of the aircraft, and most importantly the crew, does not in any way affect the enemy’s combat effectiveness? Well:
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                One must not “forget” that for every one shot down, there were also those who were shot down and refused to attack (not all samurai) and who shot/dropped inaccurately.


                Quote: Victor Leningradets
                Oerlikons provided protection for small ships from attack aircraft, since even the onboard weapons of aircraft operating at short distances were dangerous for them.

                That's right... And the Germans also shot at unarmed ships from Messers, but the twin DShK on the TK noticeably reduced their agility. Again, we are talking about the confrontation with BeKams, with which the Black Sea Fleet command practically did not fight.
        2. BAI
          +2
          13 March 2024 08: 50
          And the allies spent 25 rounds of ammunition on one killed -

          And for one Vietnamese - already 300
      2. +8
        13 March 2024 09: 48
        Take all ships to the Sea of ​​Azov or towards Sochi?

        And not show your nose in the Black Sea while Ukrainian Armed Forces still remain on the coast?

        Firstly, appoint those who are capable of commanding the fleet, it is possible to appoint the captain of one of the ships who competently organized the service on his ship
        Secondly, increase the combat effectiveness of the Black Sea Fleet by installing 22160 Kort machine guns with thermal imaging sights on each trough 20 and MRK, plus equipping each ship with another ten thermal imagers for observers, plus installing a TorM air defense missile system on each 22160
        Thirdly, during exercises, practice repelling a BEC attack in conditions of poor visibility at full speed and ship maneuvering techniques to avoid BEC attacks.
        Fourthly, strengthen ALL entrances to the bases with booms and security posts, arming them with 23-mm self-propelled guns with good thermal imaging sights, and establish security for the water area of ​​the bases
        Fifthly, prohibit ships and vessels from parking outside the bases, especially from anchoring at the base station.
        Sixth, ensure air patrolling of adjacent water areas of bases and routes of ships and vessels in a 24/7 mode, using UAVs with thermal imagers.
        Seventh, introduce into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation the article sabotage and treason against the Motherland with VMN and confiscation of the property of officials who committed these crimes and initiate cases under this article against Evmenov, Sokolov, Osipov and those who ordered and accepted troughs 22160
      3. +1
        13 March 2024 11: 04
        Quote: Santa Fe
        They were useless. 20 rounds per shot down plane (round per bird parameter - from the US Navy report of that time), suggests that the hit was accidental, and the Oerlikon fire was more of a distracting nature.

        To be precise, based on the experience of the battles near the Solomon Islands, 20-mm guns were unable to hit dive bombers before the bombs were dropped. The maximum that is possible is to scare off morally unstable pilots and shoot down vehicles that are leaving after the combat load is dropped.
        But what praises were sung there by the 40-mm artillery gun with its SUAO - “the most necessary anti-aircraft gun.” smile
        However, if you remember that the 20-mm guns were just a replacement for the Brownings in the role of the last frontier, you couldn’t expect much from them. Just very large anti-aircraft machine gun.
      4. 0
        13 March 2024 11: 57
        The author and those arguing on this forum thread forget about the most important thing: “Why do we need a fleet?” Now, if you answer this question in terms of the current situation as applied to a specific theater (for example, the Black Sea), then it immediately becomes clear what kind of fleet is needed here, and whether it is needed at all. And if necessary, then what units should it consist of? The fleet in the form that it existed in the 20th century can no longer exist due to the changed political situation, the development of various new means of destruction and defense, and because the cost of weapons has increased by an order of magnitude, as well as the decreased capabilities of our economy.
        1. 0
          15 March 2024 08: 01
          The author and those arguing on this forum thread forget about the most important thing: “Why do we need a fleet?”

          A fleet is needed for war at sea, and a well-organized fleet solves many problems.
          For example, if the Black Sea Fleet were properly built and had a brigade of 6 frigates 22350, three brigades of 6 anti-aircraft frigates each, one brigade of Lada submarines, a couple of brigades of modern minesweepers, and the fleet itself had at least a couple of UDCs and transferred them to the Black Sea Fleet along with strengthening the fleet with a brigade 22350 frigates, then such a fleet would easily establish a blockade and a no-fly zone a hundred kilometers deep into the coast together with MA, minesweepers would make passages under the cover of the fleet, and the BDK and UDC would land troops near Odessa and, under the cover of the fleet, would surround and take the entire Odessa region with access to the border with Transnistria.
          A fleet is not needed only by those leaders who lack the intelligence to figure out how to manage a fleet; for those who are completely fine in their heads, a fleet is needed, but not like ours, of course.
      5. +1
        13 March 2024 13: 23
        Quote: Santa Fe
        You probably mean 20 mm Oerlikon autocannons
        They were useless.

        In the first three years of the war, they shot down about 30 percent of Japanese aircraft out of all those shot down by naval air defense. Not completely useless.
      6. +1
        13 March 2024 20: 35
        “4000 or 9000 shots per 1 downed plane” is a very good result!
    4. +1
      13 March 2024 10: 58
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      But what about aircraft carrier times and their dozens of anti-aircraft guns without a project on any scow?

      And exactly the same. The effectiveness of air defense is determined not by the number of air defenses, but by its control system. It is for this, by the way, that the IJN is often criticized, for which the increase in the number of 25-mm barrels on ships was not accompanied by a corresponding increase in the number of air defense directors - formally the MZA is a cloud, and normal data for firing even on an AB can only be given for 6-8 targets. On the other side of the Yankee front, each twin or quad 40mm mount had a separate director. About the 127/38 station wagon, the commander of Big E directly wrote that without an automatic control system it is only suitable for firing at horizontal bombers at medium altitudes.
      1. 0
        13 March 2024 11: 14
        Quote: Alexey RA
        And exactly the same. The effectiveness of air defense is determined not by the number of air defenses, but by its control system.

        If there is a lack of fire performance, the control system will simply allow you to hold out longer. And on small ships, the MZA and its numerical growth, even with individual control, justified itself by the fact that it did not allow fighters to attack with impunity.
        Well, we are actually talking about confrontation with BeKams, which the riflemen clearly cannot cope with.
    5. 0
      13 March 2024 15: 39
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      And this set is the lack of initiative and lack of professionalism of the Black Sea Fleet leadership.

      Let's not forget the fact that the navy can get its paws from the enemy merchant fleet.
      1. 0
        13 March 2024 16: 44
        Quote from alexoff
        Let's not forget the fact that the navy can get its paws from the enemy merchant fleet.

        Where to spend it?! Although the feeling (instinct) of greed may outweigh common sense...
        1. +1
          13 March 2024 16: 57
          And wives and children spend it, I think they will find somewhere
  3. The comment was deleted.
    1. +6
      13 March 2024 05: 58
      Quote: bya965
      I propose to revive the torpedo protection of the hull, as on the battleships of World War I.

      Protection like that of battleships also means size like that of battleships, but where do small ships of that size come from? Only detection, active protection and speed.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
    2. -1
      13 March 2024 06: 18
      English onboard system underwater of protection

      For what

      The BEC does not bury itself in the water, but is detonated on the surface, near the ship’s hull. Need protection on the surface

      To destroy the British cruisers, the Italians had to use sinking mines - the boat broke in half upon contact with the target. For what? Apparently the experts of the “black prince” Borghese suspected something. That an explosion of 500 kg of explosives next to the waist armor of a cruiser (76...102 mm thick) will not be as effective as we would like

      You can trust or not believe the calculations of the Italians, but this is how their system worked
      1. 0
        13 March 2024 06: 34
        Oleg, tell us about booking ships of 450-4500 tons Yes . And they will be able to use the Italian system for stationary ships. And much earlier than the appearance of armor in the fleet
        1. 0
          13 March 2024 06: 38
          on the reservation of ships 450-4500 tons

          An interesting topic about passive protection for a 4500 ton frigate

          Differentiated 50-100 mm protection for deck and freeboard. Increase in displacement by a couple thousand. tons is not a problem. The value of the filling and protection of the ammunition is worth it, the cost of the hull and metal itself is usually less than a quarter of the cost of a warship, for large destroyers - 5-10%

          An example of such a ship (4-5 thousand tons) is the fastest and most advanced cruiser of its time "Dupy-de-Lom", which had continuous side protection of 100 mm.
          1. +1
            13 March 2024 06: 53
            This is the one who served half-heartedly for five years, and then they didn’t know where to send him? What for ? Before, the submersible part would be attached to the magura, or even just a mother-in-law.
            The Americans came to a different conclusion after Cole. But not about the armor. And we haven’t missed a single drone yet
            1. +1
              13 March 2024 07: 43
              This is the one who served half-heartedly for five years, and then they didn’t know where to send him?

              The cruiser had problems with mechanisms, 19th century, after all. The project itself had a balanced set of qualities, without any extreme, loss of speed and overload

              We are interested in his protection scheme. De Loma's example shows the possibility of creating highly protected ships with a modern frigate
              And we haven’t missed a single drone yet

              Are they attacked daily by maguras?
              1. +2
                13 March 2024 08: 14
                Well, apart from the stability problem...

                "Create ships"? Oleg, even the Americans and Chinese don’t bother with this.
                What should we do? Now. Right now. Create armored ships? Is 30 years until the first one enough or should we move it to the right?
                The last time in the Red Sea they were attacked by 32 drones, including several surface ones
                1. 0
                  13 March 2024 08: 21
                  What should we do? Now

                  Study the theory of probability, if you fly drones every night they will sooner or later reach the goal
                  The last time they were attacked by 32 drones, including some surface

                  And what is this example about?

                  Do the Houthis have a daily update on the location of ships over the horizon?
                  1. 0
                    13 March 2024 08: 51
                    Actually, I, and other readers, were hoping to find the answer in your article. To the question: what to do? Right now, not yesterday or 30 years from now
                    1. +1
                      13 March 2024 09: 33
                      There have already been a dozen articles on this topic. They provide in sufficient detail possible methods of reconnaissance, fire destruction, protection and evasion from the threat.
                      Only the most obvious is missing.
                    2. -1
                      13 March 2024 10: 51
                      Actually, I, and other readers, were hoping to find the answer in your article.

                      Everyone already knows everything, all the answers. If you don't change anything, there will be losses. So far the rate is approximately 1 ship per month.

                      And additional guns will not solve anything here; the enemy is also not sitting still and is using more and more sea drones
                      1. 0
                        13 March 2024 10: 59
                        Quote: Santa Fe
                        Actually, I, and other readers, were hoping to find the answer in your article.

                        Everyone already knows everything, all the answers. If you don't change anything, there will be losses. So far the rate is approximately 1 ship per month.

                        And additional guns will not solve anything here; the enemy is also not sitting still and is using more and more sea drones

                        ??? request recourse ???
                  2. +3
                    13 March 2024 09: 17
                    Do the Houthis have a daily update on the location of ships over the horizon?

                    Hello please...have we forgotten about Iran?
      2. 0
        13 March 2024 09: 40
        One can argue endlessly about ship protection systems, but if you look at historical experience it will immediately become clear that there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Ever since the appearance of the first torpedoes, ships in moorings have been covered with paravanes (mine protection nets) from the side to the keel.
        Organizing an active defense against BEC is also not a big problem, placing machine guns on the sides, with a maximum caliber of 12,7 mm. It is quite possible to install a machine gun on a rotating base, which also doubles as a seat for the shooter (similar to a rotating seat for a pianist). Such protection will only work under the conditions when: the shooter knows how to shoot at a moving target and has an appropriate all-weather day/night sighting system that combines an observation device, a sight, a range finder (with the function of measuring angular velocity) and a ballistic calculator. If anyone thinks that such sights are fantastic, calm down, there are plenty of such sights even on the civilian market. Anyone who hunts at night knows what I mean.
        1. 0
          13 March 2024 15: 47
          The paravan in the parking lot is not operational. Anti-mine nets - not effective against high-speed boats or against swarms.
          1. 0
            14 March 2024 11: 25
            "The parked paravan is inoperative. Mine nets are not effective against high-speed boats or against swarms."
            I wonder what evidence this conclusion is based on. For your information, the paravan is primarily a parking protection.
            1. 0
              14 March 2024 11: 44
              The paravan moves the mine with a cable to the tripper due to the hydrodynamic force generated when towing a streamlined buoy with an installed wing.
              In a parking lot it doesn't work at all.
              High-speed kamikaze boats, due to kinetic energy, when meeting an anti-torpedo net, pierce it with a warhead, which, by inertia, falls either into the side or under the bottom of the ship.
              1. 0
                14 March 2024 12: 02
                You are probably confusing the concepts of paravan - a net and paravan - a device for cutting the cables of anchor mines. Actually, I meant: English. paravane, from lat. parare - “to protect, protect” (parry).
                1. 0
                  14 March 2024 13: 33
                  I'm not confusing anything!
                  Take a look at the explanatory maritime dictionary or Wikipedia, all the meanings of this word are listed there. Sea paravanes were relevant against anchor mines, but with the advent of non-contact mines, they lost their importance.
                  Anti-mine nets were inserted on the ship's side guns. Later - minesweepers around the parking lot. They practically cannot protect against modern destructive weapons.
                  1. 0
                    22 March 2024 09: 29
                    A device for combating anchor mines is called a trawl. But let’s leave aside the concept, why do you think with such confidence that the deployed net is not able to cover the ship? Why do you think with such confidence that a light boat will be able to break through the established network? During the Second World War, it was the German network barrier that practically blocked the action of the submarines of the Baltic Fleet. And it was this fence that was the reason for the death of most boats in 41 - 43.
      3. The comment was deleted.
    3. KCA
      0
      13 March 2024 10: 08
      American side protection is the best, but not against a motor boat; at the pier, the destroyer Cole received a hole in the side of about 10x10 m, miraculously above the waterline, from ordinary Houthis, carriers of sneakers and AKs
      1. The comment was deleted.
  4. +2
    13 March 2024 05: 29
    Will “Magura” be able to stay on a given course with waves of at least 5 points (wind up to 10 m/s, wave height 2–2,5 meters)?

    This problem can easily be solved by delivering drones underwater using submarines.
    This method of routing the movement of enemy combat assets is much more dangerous.
    A submarine can arrive in a given area unnoticed, lie low and wait for good weather and a favorable moment to release a swarm of underwater and surface drones with AI.
    How to defend against a surprise attack in this case?
    The Americans already have samples of drones that are simultaneously capable of moving both in the sea environment and in the air... so far, all of this is in the early stages of development... but what will happen next... where will this evolution of drones lead?
    1. 0
      13 March 2024 15: 55
      Why should a submarine wait for anything? She can do things even in bad weather. And all sorts of sea mines that release terpeds were invented a long time ago. The best way to combat this is by sinking submarines
  5. +3
    13 March 2024 05: 31
    The author began to argue appallingly.
    We were building a coastal fleet. And for the World Cup, and for the Mediterranean, and the Red...
    And here - for now in Okiyan... Inaccessible to the Air Force. Argentina is a great aviation power, of course. +sea.

    Should I just mute the satellites to cause the back-up to fail? Near the Crimea.
    Practice until trmv.
    Cover the ship with a cap of interference. This is not a fleet: neither air defense nor air defense. Who is responsible for skirt failures?
    And not a single German naval mine with 41 g surfaced near Norfolk (?) and Plymouth. In response to Kotov. We're partners
  6. +5
    13 March 2024 05: 56
    “The most reliable way to protect the ships and infrastructure of the Black Sea Fleet would be the complete liberation of the coast and depriving Ukraine of access to the sea.”

    I think this is the best decision. And in general, the destruction of all of Ukraine would not be superfluous.
    1. +1
      13 March 2024 09: 35
      But this is a common task, unattainable by the Navy and Marine Corps alone. The fleet at this stage should at least stop suffering such offensive losses.
  7. +3
    13 March 2024 06: 02
    , the problem of protecting Black Sea Fleet ships is clearly not on a technical level. This is pure geography

    The problem is not “geography”, but carelessness. Since we suffered the main losses in the places where the ships were based and moored, where there were enough booms and net barriers to protect them.
    Good morning everyone!
    1. +3
      13 March 2024 06: 35
      On an external roadstead, networks and bonds do not last long. That's why they don't put it
      1. +3
        13 March 2024 09: 23
        I heard a similar version about Armata. It is very expensive, so they don’t send it to SVO.
        1. -1
          13 March 2024 09: 36
          Quote: glory1974
          I heard a similar version about Armata. It is very expensive, so they don’t send it to SVO.

          Specifically, Armata is redundant, and a couple of dozen will not solve anything. Much like with Leo and Abrams.
          1. +1
            13 March 2024 10: 41
            and how many backs decided? How many Hymars decided and completely changed everything?
            1. -1
              13 March 2024 11: 05
              Quote: glory1974
              and how many backs decided? How many Hymars decided and completely changed everything?

              There were a hundred tanks, if not more, and they didn’t even sink half of the total losses. And khimar for fifty dollars, they just changed EVERYTHING, maybe we’ll remember the other artillery? And what did they change with 20 or how many Leos, Abramovs and Chelovs?
              1. 0
                14 March 2024 10: 12
                There were a hundred tanks, if not more, and they didn’t even sink half of the total losses.

                15 units were used in one battle. We achieved our goals. The ship was sunk. There are no losses. The task was completed. Conclusion: 15 backs decided the outcome of the battle.
                khimar for fifty dollars, they just changed EVERYTHING, maybe we’ll remember the other artillery?

                Himari changed:
                1. The concentration of artillery on a battery-by-battery basis was cancelled.
                2. We moved more than a dozen of our warehouses to the front line, which completely changed logistics.
                3. Inflicted a number of large losses on concentrated personnel, which they have not yet learned how to deal with.
                4. Repeatedly hit important targets at a distance of up to 100 km deep behind the line of contact.
                This is without other artillery.
                that they changed 20 or how many Leos, Abramovs and Chelovs there are?

                When we see that tanks do not travel alone, but carry out a concentrated attack, at least as part of a battalion, then we will understand.
                1. 0
                  14 March 2024 10: 25
                  Quote: glory1974
                  15 units were used in one battle. We achieved our goals. The ship was sunk. There are no losses. The task was completed. Conclusion: 15 backs decided the outcome of the battle.

                  Three ships - 45 pieces, minimum. Plus attacks with damaged but not sunk ships, plus repulsed attacks at sea, plus those thrown ashore and drowned on their own. So a hundred is a very modest estimate.

                  Quote: glory1974
                  Himari changed:
                  1. The concentration of artillery on a battery-by-battery basis was cancelled.
                  2. We moved more than a dozen of our warehouses to the front line, which completely changed logistics.
                  3. Inflicted a number of large losses on concentrated personnel, which they have not yet learned how to deal with.
                  4. Repeatedly hit important targets at a distance of up to 100 km deep behind the line of contact.

                  All this, except for a range of 100 km, is a merit of increasingly long-range artillery with accurate shells, NATO satellite reconnaissance and partly UAVs with powerful optics, and finally, the complete disregard by the “father-commanders” not even of experience, but of the regulations of the 80s!!! not to mention the XNUMXs and XNUMXs regarding measures to counter precision weapons.
                  Well, changing everything means changing the course of the war. What's up with this?


                  Quote: glory1974
                  When we see that tanks do not travel alone, but carry out a concentrated attack, at least as part of a battalion, then we will understand.
                  Are you one of these “father commanders”? So ignore the experience...
                  1. 0
                    14 March 2024 10: 57
                    Three ships - 45 pieces, minimum.

                    This is a consumable, it is ammunition like a torpedo or a shell. Even if you spent a hundred, what difference does it make? New weapons, no means to counteract, ships are sinking, commanders are changing. Is there really no result according to you?
                    All this, except for a range of 100 km, is the merit of the growing long-range artillery

                    I wrote everything related to Himars. Artillery is a separate conversation. Further, what you write about reconnaissance, UAVs, regulations, also has an indirect relation to the khimars.
                    Are you one of these “father commanders”? So ignore the experience.

                    A familiar tactic, get personal. In my opinion, you are the one who tried to cover the Starlink antennas with metal basins in order to disrupt the connection.
                    Has the need to achieve numerical, fire and other superiority for victory been abolished by some experience?
                    1. 0
                      14 March 2024 11: 14
                      Quote: glory1974
                      Are you one of these “father commanders”? So ignore the experience.

                      A familiar tactic, get personal.

                      What does this have to do with tactics? You ignore the experience, the living and accessible experience of the SVO. When they don’t even send more than a couple of tanks into the attack, but they try not to concentrate them at the front line, with your battalion.

                      Quote: glory1974
                      In my opinion, you are the one who tried to cover the Starlink antennas with metal basins in order to disrupt the connection.
                      And you are the one who has not mastered elementary physics, clearly. laughing


                      Quote: glory1974
                      Further, what you write about reconnaissance, UAVs, regulations, also has an indirect relation to the khimars.
                      And with this it is clear that Himari, on the inspiration of the crew commander, is beaten, without reconnaissance or anything else, and the formation of troops within the range of enemy fire weapons is directly prescribed in the regulations. In general, physics and logic are the same...

                      Quote: glory1974
                      This is a consumable, it is ammunition like a torpedo or a shell. Even if you spent a hundred, what difference does it make?
                      That's the only thing I agree with.

                      However, what does “Almaty” have to do with it?
                      1. 0
                        14 March 2024 11: 49
                        In general, the conversation began with whether some weapons in small quantities could change something on the battlefield.
                        I gave you examples. Did you agree with them or not? With backs, I see that yes. Himarsami too.
                        Tanks used by a company or higher are used, you deny this.
                        Experience tells you that the correct tactic is to send 10 people and one vehicle on an assault, so as not to create a concentration. Right?
  8. +2
    13 March 2024 06: 15
    As has already been written on this topic, “everything has already been invented before us.” Anti-torpedo nets were used to the fullest on World War I ships. Anyone interested can find on the Internet what it is and how it was attached and put into combat.
    A more elegant solution is to use the same quadcopters with an OLS-type module from our fighters. Although it does not provide a complete guarantee of timely detection of fireships, as another line of defense for a ship at anchor or roadstead it is still better than nothing, and if its observation point above the ship is at least at an altitude of 1000 meters, then the detection zone for fireships will be not hundreds of meters.
    And the protection must still be comprehensive. hi
    As they say, “The best remedy against enemy aircraft is our tanks at their airfields.”
    1. +1
      13 March 2024 16: 06
      Maviks have a normal thermal imager, in it you can see how the grass sways in the wind and the waves run across the sea. The boat will be even more noticeable
      1. 0
        14 March 2024 02: 50
        The distance is important here, and the OLS from the same Su-35 sees, according to various sources, 50-100 km, and has several different channels. just the weight, is there a quadcopter of ours with such a carrying capacity and even at the required height? hi
        1. 0
          14 March 2024 10: 29
          Why waste time on trifles? You need to either attach a James Webb IR telescope to the Mavic and see everything a thousand kilometers away, or forget it and do nothing, let the sailor look through binoculars from the mast. We do not accept any half measures!
  9. +3
    13 March 2024 06: 15
    where there were sufficient booms and nets to protect them.

    This is not enough... a couple of drones can be thrown forward to undermine the networks, and then the rest of the drones will pass through the gap.
  10. +4
    13 March 2024 06: 26
    Rodless bomb launcher. It is possible and stock. Cheap and primitive, since we don’t even have normal turrets and are not expected to have them on ships. Not to mention reconnaissance and naval aviation
  11. 0
    13 March 2024 06: 39
    In this case I agree with Oleg Yes
    There is a problem and it needs to be solved. And “Kotov” lost to numbers...
    1. +7
      13 March 2024 07: 04
      If, as they write above, Kotov “stood at night without a move,” then he lost due to the stupidity of the command, and not due to numbers.
    2. +5
      13 March 2024 08: 05
      Quote: Rurikovich
      There is a problem and it needs to be solved. And “Kotov” lost to numbers...
      It is strange that these 15 backs were not spotted somewhere else in the Odessa area and were not destroyed by aircraft in the process of crossing to the Crimean Bridge
      1. +6
        13 March 2024 09: 20
        The fact of the matter is that these BECs were spotted 235 km from the coast of Crimea on the afternoon of March 4, although they were discovered by our civilian ships, who warned their civilian colleagues about suspicious boats similar to BECs heading towards Crimea and that they must be careful, but the Ministry of Defense and the Russian Navy did not take advantage of this information... and as a result we have a sunken ship
      2. +6
        13 March 2024 09: 26
        The funny thing is that these backs were spotted by civilian sailors. There is a video in telegram channels.
        In broad daylight they walk in the wake of a column. The civilian radar detected them from a distance of 3 miles, visual contact was about 1 mile. They reported through their channels. It is not clear whether the information reached the military. But in any case, the radar sees these backs, which means there can be no surprise attack.
        1. +1
          13 March 2024 16: 08
          Apparently the information reached the military and they decided to send the poorly protected ship to stand near the port at night.
      3. +1
        13 March 2024 21: 55
        [quoteIt’s strange that these 15 backs weren’t spotted somewhere else in the Odessa area and weren’t destroyed by aircraft][/quote]
        This is the root of the problem and the main reason for the death of our ships and the loss of any initiative of the Black Sea Fleet. This fleet does not seem to have the technical ability to control and monitor the waters of the Black Sea and the coastal zone of Ukraine around the clock, unlike NATO countries. Our enemies, thanks to their modern UAVs, AWACS, reconnaissance aircraft and satellites, constantly located over the sea and near our coast, know everything about our every movement and intentions, but we do not, like blind kittens, especially at night. And the result is obvious. From the change of admirals, commanders-in-chief, installation of turrets with machine guns and thermal imagers on ships, etc., little will change. And if the Black Sea Fleet does not continue to have the technical ability to receive information online about the situation at sea, to know what is happening in the ports and bases of enemies, about the deployment of their BEC, ships, their route, course and coordinates, then I am afraid of sunken ships it will only increase. Because it is extremely difficult or even impossible for even the most heavily armed ship to fight off a dozen or more BECs at night. Especially when they, unnoticed by anyone or anything, approached the stern or side a hundred meters away. Only ships with a good GAK or ship-based UAVs with thermal imagers will have a chance to conduct day and night patrols and detect drones at least 3-5 miles away in order to have a head start, prepare, call for aviation, help from other ships, or hide in the base behind booms barriers.
  12. 0
    13 March 2024 06: 56
    A more recent example of the situation described was the Falklands conflict (1982).

    The British could use cheap drones to endlessly and inexpensively blockade an island on the other side of the globe, without the slightest risk to their capital ships.
    To do this, they would need airborne systems of long-range maritime drones capable of fighting ships and aircraft anywhere in the ocean. As a last resort, they could deliver them to the island and launch from there. But they didn’t have drones then, and that’s why they had to pay with their crew ships.
    1. 0
      13 March 2024 07: 36
      The British could cheap drones unlimited and not expensive

      To do this, they would need airborne systems of long-range naval drones landing on the water.

      laughing
  13. +4
    13 March 2024 07: 01
    "After all, he is a better opponent,
    You will fall, but he does not finish,
    You stab me in the back and don’t expect an answer.
    There is no escape for an intellectual from himself.”
    The point in this case is not in Ukraine. England is attacking our ships under the flag of Ukraine. And until we respond to England, the Naglobrites will attack our ships. And the drones are controlled via American satellites. And until we respond via satellites, they will be controlled. And our pipelines will explode. And St. Petersburg will be attacked by drones “from Ukraine”.
  14. +4
    13 March 2024 07: 48
    and why is “Admiral Makarov” on the title page of the article and the Ukrainian BEC which goes somewhere FROM him? and on the topic, no barriers will withstand several BECs in a row, for me, the only real thing is a robotic air defense + anti-BEC system like the American Mark 15 Phalanx, which itself, and without the participation of a person and his eyes, will beat them, including and at night..against submerged people you need a GAC, but again - will the person have time to give commands against the group? and the GAK is normal - this is already for a large ship, which means you can’t really protect corvettes and smaller ones, just like transport ones - they should not be allowed to be in unprotected places and without movement, at least .. all this is also not a guarantee, but in most cases - it would help.. and powerful armor of the hull on the same Kotov? and what will happen?
    1. 0
      13 March 2024 07: 54
      American Mark 15 Phalanx, which itself, and without the participation of a person and his eyes, will beat them

      Then she will destroy both her own and others, all the ships nearby, navigation buoys, and she will also get along the shore

      Phalanxes are always disabled, activated only during exercises and at the moment of attack, if they have time

      Otherwise, who will risk shoulder straps and pay compensation for another downed Boeing?
      1. +2
        13 March 2024 07: 59
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Then she will destroy both her own and others, all the ships nearby, navigation buoys, and she will also get along the shore

        Well, I think modern fire control systems are quite easy and without any problems, they can be configured specifically for “surface, small, high-speed, approaching targets... don’t touch the rest”, this won’t particularly affect the speed of “thinking”... and right in the database or normal conditions, it’s clear that do not include... and “Phalanx” I meant the direction of development, and not its exact copy..
        1. +1
          13 March 2024 08: 16
          Well, I think modern control systems are quite easy and can be configured

          Well, we’ll find out right away how they do it. When will there be robots on ships as smart as chatGPT 6
          1. 0
            13 March 2024 10: 35
            Quote: Santa Fe
            Well, we’ll find out right away how they do it. When will there be robots on ships as smart as chatGPT 6

            Well, I think this is not so soon, with AI the crew won’t be particularly needed... but the same Teslas - even on the roads they drive among cars and follow traffic rules, I think it’s more complicated than just an algorithm for selecting targets by speed/size/direction , which can even be written in BASIC... this is not AI, but a normal radar with a good control program - for BECs it will be enough... others are non-fantastic, relatively inexpensive compared to installing the same SAC with everything else, and can solve the problem qualitatively , For example. in the “Kotov” situation, it doesn’t come to mind..
        2. +3
          13 March 2024 11: 12
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          Well, I think modern fire control systems are quite possible and without any problems, they can be configured specifically for “surface, small, high-speed, approaching targets... don’t touch the rest”

          This is the Black Sea coast. There are civilian targets that fit these restrictions - like dirt. And you know our people - they pick mushrooms at the shooting range right during the shooting and sunbathe at the Marine Corps training ground.
          1. +1
            13 March 2024 11: 39
            Quote: Alexey RA
            This is the Black Sea coast. There are civilian targets that fit these restrictions - like dirt. And you know our people - they pick mushrooms at the shooting range right during the shooting and sunbathe at the Marine Corps training ground.

            Well, why take extremes? Has a ship ever been defeated in such a place during the day? as an exception, precisely when a warship is parked near the beach, during the day, among jet skis, etc. - the system doesn’t have to be turned on... and in the sea you can set a range of no more than 150-200 m, for example... and there are usually no small targets near a warship awaiting a possible attack by the BEC at sea, as if there were others except the BEC.. a radar from such a distance will completely determine whether it is a small target or a cargo ship... you can additionally use the optical channel in the end - this is no longer science fiction...
          2. +4
            13 March 2024 13: 45
            Quote: Alexey RA
            This is the Black Sea coast. There are civilian targets that fit these restrictions - like dirt.

            This is an argument from the same series that “if you put a KAZ on a tank, it will beat its infantry.” No one bothers to provide for setting the operating mode of the automatic control system for a specific situation. Like, shoot on the starboard side, but not on the port side.

            It is even possible to provide a mode when the system locks on a target, but does not open fire, but transmits the image to the operator on duty, who gives (or does not give) permission to fire.

            And then, it will be enough just once, when the defense system automatically smashes into mincemeat an amateur who likes to drive hydropower next to warships, so that such amateurs will be gone for a long time.
  15. +3
    13 March 2024 07: 50
    Yes, everything has already happened! We remember the Russian-Turkish war of 77-78. Makarov, still a lieutenant then.
    As for the geographical factor, the author, by the way, is absolutely right.
    Now on the fight against drones. The main thing, in my opinion, is timely detection, and they can be killed from anything.
    1. +4
      13 March 2024 09: 29
      As for the geographical factor, the author, by the way, is absolutely right.

      And I’m wondering why aerial drones will either fly around the airfield near Saratov, or blow up the Lukoil plant near Nizhny Novgorod.
      However, the geographical factor request
      1. 0
        13 March 2024 09: 43
        In Ryazan they already hit an oil warehouse.
  16. +4
    13 March 2024 07: 51
    Quote: SVD68
    And until we answer England,

    “I would like a saber, a horse, and in the line of fire!”
  17. +5
    13 March 2024 07: 59
    Admirals at one time believed that the plane was not capable of harming the ship. The same thing is happening now in the minds about BEC.

    The first planes, indeed, barely stayed in the air, but several years of development - and the plane became the main enemy of the ship.

    They said the same thing about submarines - and then Hog, Cressy and Abukir happened.

    The author gives historical examples very selectively. For example, speaking about the Falklands conflict, the Author does not say that Argentina had only 5 modern Exocet missiles and about the same number of Super-etandars, their carriers, and they operated very effectively within the range of the carriers. By the way, as far as I remember, Glamorgan was sunk by the same Exocet from Super-Etandar. The missiles are gone, the successes are gone.

    BEC will develop. There is nothing stopping us from making the BEC underwater, autonomous, AI-controlled, and seaworthy. UAVs travel hundreds of kilometers and find their targets - what prevents UAVs from being made the same? Unless there is no need.

    Nothing prevents you from making BECs - carriers of BECs. Or deliver them to submarines - there are plenty of options.

    It is clear that in the open ocean the BEC is unlikely to chase the enemy, but our surface fleet is designed to operate near the coast, its numbers do not allow it to operate far from the coast, and there is no point. Therefore, the BEC will pose a danger to our fleet.

    But the author seems to have pronounced the verdict of the Black Sea Fleet.
    1. +2
      13 March 2024 13: 51
      By the way, as far as I remember, Glamorgan was sunk by the same Exocet from Super-Etandar.

      Glamorgan was not sunk, but only damaged in the area of ​​the helicopter hangar. The Exocet missile was not fired from aircraft, but was fired from a launcher removed from the destroyer (not only Superetandars, but also Argentine destroyers were armed with Exocets).
      They got caught because of the carelessness of the commander and the team of Glamorgan - having discovered the missile, they decided that it was an artillery shell (they did not know that the Argentines had coastal anti-ship missile launchers) and would not reach them, so they did not announce the alarm, and when they discovered the error, they fired off the traps It was too late.
      ...The first doubts arose when the “projectile” exceeded the firing range of the Argentine 155-mm L33 howitzers, but the fact that it was an anti-ship missile was fully realized only after it became visible to the naked eye in the form of a threatening fiery spot against a dark background sky.....
      1. +1
        13 March 2024 14: 47
        Thanks for the clarification. In any case, the Exocets were very effective in that war, especially considering their small numbers.
  18. +3
    13 March 2024 08: 00
    Most naval battles do not remember such “ridiculous” distances.
    The Houthis have comparable distances, but not even close to such success
    1. +1
      13 March 2024 08: 15
      The Houthis do not have over-the-horizon targeting. Where are the ships on the high seas? where are they going? no information

      The boat itself will not find anything on the open sea
      1. +1
        13 March 2024 08: 43
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The Houthis do not have over-the-horizon targeting. Where are the ships on the high seas? where are they going? no information

        The boat itself will not find anything on the open sea
        How do they aim missiles and UAVs?
        1. 0
          13 March 2024 08: 48
          How do they aim missiles and UAVs?

          One-time promotions

          The UAV can see many times further than a boat and can search for targets. but in itself slow, noticeable over the sea, and vulnerable
      2. +7
        13 March 2024 09: 15
        Come on. They not only know where they are moving, but also distinguish them by their affiliation. And the width of the strait in the narrowest part is 30 km, the usual width of the strait is 40 km. What kind of “over-the-horizon guidance” is this?
    2. +4
      13 March 2024 08: 27
      The Houthis have comparable distances, but not even close to such success

      So, these BECs are probably guided by American or British satellites and aircraft.
  19. +2
    13 March 2024 08: 36
    We should not come up with additional artillery mounts, but take Odessa and the problem of drones will disappear by itself.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. BAI
    +6
    13 March 2024 08: 45
    Some kind of thin excuses. There is a geographical zone that was given initially. There are old conditions, new ones have appeared. But the Black Sea Fleet, as always, is not ready for war.
    Just as in 41 he stood in the bases, having lost the sea to the Germans, so he stands now, having lost the war at sea.
    1. -2
      13 March 2024 13: 54
      Quote: BAI
      How in 41 I stood in the bases, losing the sea to the Germans

      In '41, he lost the sea to German aviation. Which our aviation could not cope with.

      Quote: BAI
      having lost the war at sea hoh.lam

      This is nonsense, no need to flog it. When the Ukrainians board our tankers and bulk carriers in the middle of the World Cup and take them to Odessa to be gutted, and even shell our ports and coastal cities from the sea, then it will be possible to say that the war at sea is lost. But this is still a long way off.
  22. +4
    13 March 2024 09: 07
    The western coast of Crimea (Saki, Evpatoria, Donuzlav) is located 200 km from the coast controlled by the Kyiv regime.

    The author forgot to write which, for example, Black Fleet ships were sunk by drones in Yevpatoria?
    Not to mention the fact that he poorly understands the size of the Black Sea. The median line from Varna to Adler is only 960 km.
  23. +3
    13 March 2024 09: 18
    For some reason, none of the authors, here or here, refers to the experience of using, and exercises, destroyers and torpedo boats in WW1 and WW2. (or rocket later)
    But these BECs are very reminiscent of torpedo boats, reduced in size due to new technologies.
    Stealth, small size, no protection, relatively high speed, high damage if lucky.

    And the results of the actions and exercises of those times - torpedo boats (destroyers) are effective precisely when they operate competently in a flock (smoke, dispersal, cover, etc.) Alone - on the contrary.

    As a result, the emphasis is on the iron part.
    1. +3
      13 March 2024 13: 21
      Quote: Max1995
      For some reason, none of the authors, here or here, refers to the experience of using, and exercises, destroyers and torpedo boats in WW1 and WW2. (or rocket later)

      Because everyone wants simple solutions. Like, let’s make a wunderwaffe, hung on the sides of the DBM, and let it cut out all the BECs. Or a swarm of small BECs - destroyers of enemy BECs.

      And if we analyze the counteraction to mine and torpedo boats in two wars, there will be no simple solutions. And you will have to delve into the wilds of the system, called OVR - to the entire depth, from the advanced detection line to the BSZ and duty equipment in the harbor itself. Detection, classification, target designation, defeat, communication-communication-communication, order of forces, etc. And most importantly - a normal control center, holding a picture of the water area of ​​the base and collecting information from all sources. So that it won’t be like the last time, when civilian BEC was discovered, but the fleet was not aware.
      1. +1
        13 March 2024 14: 13
        Drones were seen on both Tsezar Kunnikov and Kotov. There was enough time for their defeat. The power of the available firepower was not enough. And when torpedo boats appear, they will be noticeably larger and easier to detect.
        Without heavy machine guns and automatic grenade launchers there is no way to fight back and they must be deployed.
        1. 0
          13 March 2024 15: 43
          Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
          Drones were seen on both Tsezar Kunnikov and Kotov. There was enough time for their defeat. The power of the available firepower was not enough.

          BDK should not be involved in the destruction of BEC. If the BEC reached the anchored ships, this means that the OVR failed in its task.
          So the main problem is not the under-equipped ships. The problem is that those who should not be engaged in the fight against BEC are engaged in it.
          With the same success you can rearm SSBNs and PGRKs - let them protect themselves from BEC and UAVs.
          1. -1
            13 March 2024 15: 53
            As they say, living is good, but living well is even better.
            I've already heard that ships should be unarmed. Not for the first time.
            There is no need to mount machine guns for 12,7 mm machine guns and install the machine guns themselves on them? No binoculars?
            As I see it, you don’t change your beliefs, under any circumstances.
            1. 0
              13 March 2024 21: 09
              This is all a little different.
              Remember how, for example, they decided to fight destroyers in WW1.
              1) anti-mine caliber on ships. 2) Spotlights. 3) Surveillance AROSTATS, where possible, and reconnaissance seaplanes.. 4) nets and mine protection kits. and 5! ) the appearance of destroyer hunters - destroyers. (something like that, I don’t remember verbatim)
              all of this has analogues now.

              In fact, almost any UAV will fly faster and see more than a BEC.
              1. +1
                13 March 2024 21: 28
                Why is everyone here trying to act as admirals or immediately as fleet commanders? Do you have balloons in stock, can you go to the warehouse and get them? Maybe you have ready-made seaplanes? And are your ships equipped for setting nets? Machine guns are no good for him!
                First, urgent measures are carried out, such as the installation of machine gun mounts and the issuance of thermal imaging binoculars. Trainings are being carried out. All this can be done in two or three days.
                Then you need to start thinking like an admiral, ordering airships, seaplanes and machine gun-cannon installations with gyro-stabilization. There is nothing in sufficient quantity and it will not appear with the wave of a magic wand.
                So far, what is happening looks more like betrayal and connivance with the enemy.
                To the people on the forum! Give one an escort for each large landing ship, promote unarmed ships, give the other airships from the warehouse.
            2. +1
              13 March 2024 21: 54
              What does this have to do with it!? The person explains to you that the fight against enemy BECs is a comprehensive approach, as is the case everywhere and in everything. No one is against equipping ships with additional small arms for self-defense... but this will not solve the problem, it is only strengthening the last line of defense, the ship itself! What Alexey RA proposes is work on the entire OVR system, with the goal of moving the boundaries of detection and destruction of BEC away from the ships and bases themselves.
              1. 0
                13 March 2024 22: 04
                If there are no heavy machine guns on the dead ships, that means there are those who are against it, and they are wearing shoulder straps with big stars. There are a lot of people who are against it, as it turns out. And this will solve the problem, it will solve it in many ways.
                The same Iranians, installing machine guns on the sides, I believe that without delay they will send to the gallows those who interfere with this.
                What Alexey RA is proposing looks a lot like working for the enemy. It is clear as daylight that there will not be an escort for every BDK. And he demands as an ultimatum that large ships be completely unarmed.
                1. 0
                  13 March 2024 22: 13
                  What Alexey RA is proposing looks a lot like working for the enemy. It is clear as daylight that there will not be an escort for every BDK. And he demands as an ultimatum that large ships be completely unarmed.


                  I repeat to you once again, we are talking about the comprehensive development of the OVR, this is communication and close interaction, managing the loyal forces of the fleet and aviation, pushing back boundaries. Alexey RA is not against rearmament, he focuses on the fact that this is NOT the main problem. Since this is really something that conditional BDKs shouldn’t do! And you are almost classifying him as a traitor to his homeland. Detection of all these BECs should be carried out primarily by aviation (unmanned or manned), all this is detected and mowed down, and if something breaks through, then it will be BECs in a small number, which the same onboard weapons of destruction of ships can cope with in one go. That is, the main essence of all this is the timely detection of danger, and not the means of destruction.
                  1. +1
                    13 March 2024 22: 21
                    The drones detected all three dead ships with sufficient advance notice to destroy them with heavy machine guns. The machine guns themselves were not in abundance or availability. Just as the crews lacked shooting skills.
                    So you both substitute concepts and litter the problem.
                    Ships' onboard equipment is unable to cope with drones. They do not have sufficient declination angles and firing sectors.
                    The aviation you rely on is available in trace quantities and cannot fully help the fleet.
                    1. 0
                      13 March 2024 22: 38
                      The drones detected all three dead ships with sufficient advance notice to destroy them with heavy machine guns. The machine guns themselves were not in abundance or availability. Just as the crews lacked shooting skills.

                      Lord, is anyone really against this!? I told you right away... no, I’m not against it, let them rearm the ships, equip them with sights and so on, let the sailors get their hands on fighting small surface targets! Who is against it? Nobody! How many more times do you need to repeat this? But this is only one of the problems! The solution to which will not solve the general problem! You’re sticking these turrets around... when BECs come out on this ship of yours, let’s say 20-15 of them, how do you have confidence that the crew will be able to hit them all!? You don’t have such confidence, again it’s Russian maybe. You say that the lost ships had a lead, that is, they saw everything. Do you also know what their detection range was? I'm sure not! So...How can we make sure that there are fewer of them at the entrance? Pralna...we need to detect them much earlier and act on them much earlier.
                      So you both substitute concepts and litter the problem.

                      Nobody replaces any concepts... you invented them for yourself, and now you don’t understand what they want to convey to you.
                      The aviation you rely on is available in trace quantities and cannot fully help the fleet.

                      Well, that’s right, aviation and the interaction of naval forces with it also need to be developed, and not just concerned with installing 100500 machine guns on ships.
                      1. 0
                        13 March 2024 22: 42
                        Since there are no machine guns, it means someone is against it. Repeat again?
                      2. 0
                        13 March 2024 22: 47
                        Well, it’s clearly not Alexey RA against it and it’s not his fault that these machine guns weren’t installed... I responded to your comment, which was a response to his)
                        And I just noticed that Alexey is not against what you propose, he just looks at the problem from a broader perspective.
  24. +7
    13 March 2024 09: 22
    BEC does not pretend to be considered ships.
    They - ammunition.
  25. +4
    13 March 2024 09: 36
    experience showed that on the open sea, during the day, the ships fought back against isolated backs.
    The enemy took the next step: attacks at night, in a pack.
    And here we are not ready. There is no detection of backs at night; there is not enough firepower for the entire flock.
    It would seem a logical way out to increase firepower, install night surveillance devices, strengthen the watch, and not drift. Instead, the fleet commander prohibits the installation of additional machine guns and thermal imagers, and orders them to drift at night. Logically, these are not the right actions to put it mildly.
    1. -1
      13 March 2024 15: 15
      Instead, the fleet commander prohibits the installation of additional machine guns and thermal imagers, and orders them to drift at night.

      Well, it doesn’t prohibit, but doesn’t order to install....
      You read more about all sorts of “military correspondents”; they have already written about the change of the commander-in-chief of the Navy and the change of the commander of the Black Sea Fleet.
      1. 0
        14 March 2024 09: 56
        Well, it doesn’t prohibit, but doesn’t order to install..

        That is, he does not take any measures, at a minimum.
  26. 0
    13 March 2024 09: 46
    The author writes in a beautiful style, but about what?

    All advisers should be reminded of the ancient truth - if you put 8 guns on a ship armed with 10 guns according to the project, then only 6 will be able to fire from them.

    The main caliber was not used when repelling BEC attacks. 2 12.7mm machine guns made it possible to fight off 5 BECs. Question: 4-6 machine guns will allow you to fight off a swarm of 10-15 BECs?
    1. -2
      13 March 2024 10: 59
      Question: 4-6 machine guns will allow you to fight off a swarm of 10-15 BECs?

      In turmoil, without a clear distribution of goals, everything will end as before
  27. +2
    13 March 2024 09: 55
    But the drones/unmanned aerial vehicles themselves (and not only naval ones) - with the proper approach and good intelligence data, destroy a separate squadron or even a separate fleet, whose command systematically and systematically makes wrong decisions (and whose military-industrial complex is not able to provide the proper equipment to combat mandrels and timely replenishment of destroyed materiel, and educational institutions of the Ministry of Defense for replenishing manpower with proper qualifications) - are quite capable of destroying as a full-fledged combat (and even more so strike) force in a fairly short period of time.
  28. +1
    13 March 2024 10: 37
    The most reliable way to protect the ships and infrastructure of the Black Sea Fleet would be to completely liberate the coast and deprive Ukraine of access to the sea.


    Why is the Black Sea Fleet needed if for its safety the enemy must be deprived of access to the sea?
    In general, the author’s logic is correct - sea drones are very effective in closed waters, but such a small thing is practically unsuitable for the world’s oceans. But why keep a fleet in the Black Sea if it is shot right through by missiles from more developed countries from the shore and is also passed right through by drones from less developed countries? Army, save us, we want to serve on the Black Sea, because it’s cold on the Arctic Ocean, and Sevastopol is a resort?

    Of course, some workhorses: minesweepers and coast guard boats will be needed even after the end of the Northern Military District, but anything larger will be transferred to the Northern and Pacific fleets (the Baltic fleet, in general, is also locked in the Baltic), and the headquarters and command will be transferred there, where they can show their talents - as taxi drivers and watchmen without a military pension.
    1. -3
      13 March 2024 11: 01
      Why is the Black Sea Fleet needed if for its safety the enemy must be deprived of access to the sea?

      The Black Sea Fleet was not created against Ukraine after all

      It is not the sailors’ fault that in this situation the enemy was opposite, literally on the next shore. And nothing changes for a long time
    2. +1
      13 March 2024 15: 57
      The Black Sea Fleet is needed to conduct landing operations and escort convoys on the Black Sea, as well as counter amphibious operations and escort enemy convoys.
  29. 0
    13 March 2024 10: 45
    Protection from boats may include stringing nets around the ship. We should make unmanned means that would lay out protective nets in the sea. Drones cannot see these networks. Or even some kind of screens so that drones cannot swim close to the ship.
  30. +3
    13 March 2024 10: 45
    The problem of protecting Black Sea Fleet ships is clearly not on a technical level.

    And in what plane does it lie?
    Detection and fire means are required.
    The Iranians installed three-barreled guns on ships.
    And ahead, more underwater drones.
    In the Red Sea, NATO forces are repelling a Houthi attack on ships. And these are not only BECs, but also anti-ship missiles and even anti-ship missiles! Project 22160 Buyan-M has had its balance shifted to enhance strike capabilities. It launched the calibers 2000 km away and no enemy can reach it.
    But the ships of the Black Sea Fleet are almost defenseless against BECs.
    Looking at the ships of Iran. Along the perimeter, machine guns with tanks and BEC are not particularly scary.
    1. +1
      13 March 2024 11: 37
      Quote: dragon772
      The problem of protecting Black Sea Fleet ships is clearly not technical.
      And in what plane does it lie?

      But in fact, in what plane does the answer lie if, on an ordinary boat with a motor, it can approach the drone at 100m and start firing at it, at least from the RPK... but for some reason this is not done.
      1. 0
        13 March 2024 12: 53
        It's not so simple if:
        1. There are a lot of drones.
        2.You don’t have NVGs or TPVs, but spend the night at sea.
        3. Getting into the low silhouette of the BEC, with a little excitement, is not an easy task.
        1. +1
          13 March 2024 14: 18
          Is getting into a plane or helicopter an easy task? With 7,62 mm machine guns they manage to shoot down aerial drones, but here the sea slug is many times larger. Does the pitching interfere? Have you long forgotten how to make settings with stabilization?
          And if it’s night at sea, the searchlights are turned on, rocket launchers are launched, flare mines and shells are fired.
          1. 0
            13 March 2024 15: 01
            Look how many Black Sea Fleet ships are already at the bottom because of BECs. They were shot at with all available weapons, and the result is absolutely not satisfactory to anyone.
            When towing the Kotov by Dobrynya (tug), such tactics were worked out.
            From the tug they illuminate the BEC Mi-8 of the Russian Guard with a spotlight and open fire.
            Of the 15 BECs, 10 were sunk. And 5 hit Kotov, and he is at the bottom. Consider the result yourself.
  31. -1
    13 March 2024 11: 46
    The problem is that all combat patrol areas of ships in the Black Sea (as well as their bases) are located at a short distance from the enemy’s coast.

    Completely and absolutely true. But if it was so necessary, they would create it, although part of the fleet that took this short distance into account. Large ships with powerful weapons will be deployed where they belong - in the North and the Pacific Ocean, and for the Black Sea, the Sea of ​​Azov, the Volga, Dnieper and Danube they will create a fleet of thousands of boats, including beks. Similar to the Soviet Black Sea Fleet at the end of the Second World War but at the modern level.
    The first storm along the way will lead to the disappearance of the Ukrainian “squadron”. In a matter of hours (minutes), the sea elements will scatter and absorb the drones like wood chips.

    Unfortunately, it is impossible to order the sea elements and the squadron of beks found suitable weather. And one cannot help but think that it is impossible to create more seaworthy backs with torpedoes or submersible backs or an ultra-long-range torpedo.
    We have no right to give advice to designers or demand that they increase the number of turrets and combat posts on the upper deck.
    All advisers should be reminded of the ancient truth - if you put 8 guns on a ship armed with 10 guns according to the project, then only 6 will be able to fire from them.

    Designers don’t need advice, but customers can and do need advice; they don’t think in the first place about profits for manufacturers, but about the effective execution of combat missions in specific conditions. There is no need to put 10 guns on one large ship, but make 5 boats with two guns or 10 with one.
    The most reliable way to protect the ships and infrastructure of the Black Sea Fleet would be to completely liberate the coast and deprive Ukraine of access to the sea.

    It is for this task in specific conditions that several large combat and landing ships are in no way suitable, but thousands of minesweeper boats, small hunters, missile, artillery and torpedo boats, including unmanned ones, are just what is needed.
  32. +5
    13 March 2024 11: 58
    Either 11 or 13 ships were lost, God knows how many lives of sailors. And after reading this article, it turns out that geography is to blame for this, they say, and not specific people, and in general everything is going according to plan...
  33. +1
    13 March 2024 12: 16
    Not an expert in these matters. But, following the logic of the author of the article, the Russian Federation must withdraw its large/medium-tonnage combat fleet from the World Cup, because there is no protection from small drones, from words at all, because the “geography” there in the World Cup is so “amazing and rare.” The bottom line is that this is what happens.
  34. +1
    13 March 2024 12: 27
    The extreme remoteness of the combat zone, as well as the extremely close proximity to the enemy, in both cases poses many problems.
    The most reliable way to protect the ships and infrastructure of the Black Sea Fleet would be to completely liberate the coast and deprive Ukraine of access to the sea.

    Who can argue with that? However, the coast cannot be moved away, and Odessa is most likely unlikely to be liberated in the near future. But the drones are already here and the Black Sea Fleet was not ready for them. There are no sufficient reconnaissance means. Sergei Kotov turned out to be unsuitable for the combat fleet - a patrolman. The ship was not equipped with rapid-firing stationary weapons. It’s roughly the same story with Moscow’s sunk anti-ship missiles due to the lack of necessary air defense. What conclusions did the fleet make in two years? Judging by the dismissals of commanders, they are insufficient.
  35. +2
    13 March 2024 13: 14
    The problem is relatively new, so there are no reliable countermeasures yet. What could hit a small-sized BEC? - Explosions of shrapnel shells, infantry mortar mines, everything that is used on land against attacking infantry.
    1. +2
      13 March 2024 13: 20
      Until BEC learns to dive.
      1. -1
        13 March 2024 14: 20
        Then they will drop a depth charge on him.
        1. +1
          13 March 2024 16: 02
          then they will drop a depth charge on him

          Sergey Aleksandrovich!
          Deep space in the base, next to the side?!
          Then the drone can be launched without explosives!
          1. 0
            13 March 2024 16: 05
            So who knew that you were going to allow enemy drones to reach the base and even throw high-power bombs next to the side. wassat
            1. +2
              13 March 2024 16: 11
              Just for fun, Alistair MacLean in his book “Cruiser Willis” had a similar dialogue about a sabotage German submarine that penetrated an English base.
              In fact, the infrared vision of BECs can be blinded by appropriate searchlights, and those blinded can be shot with both machine guns and buckshot/shrapnel.
              1. +1
                13 March 2024 16: 16
                Today they posted an excellent video of shooting at three Ukrainian helicopters. First, some kind of cluster munition arrived, with an air detonation of submunitions; I counted about forty of them. Two helicopters were immobilized, the third was able to fly away. The remaining two were hit by something large and high-precision. In theory, the RBU-6000 bomb launcher can also be supplemented with cluster munitions, which immediately cover a large area.
                1. -2
                  13 March 2024 16: 24
                  I warmly support it, but we need a system for detecting small, low-contrast targets. In general, if you specifically intimidate the specialists, they will do it!
                  1. 0
                    13 March 2024 22: 29
                    How can civilian ships see these drones several kilometers away? Do they have better radars than the military?
        2. 0
          13 March 2024 16: 13
          If a depth charge is dropped on it, it will explode in the most convenient place - under the bottom of the ship. He is not a submarine, he is ammunition.
  36. +2
    13 March 2024 14: 50
    Question . Why was the patrol ship Sergei Kotov, while on combat patrol, not covered by helicopter support, hydroacoustics not working, no support from surface forces, and so on. The same thing happened with the lost landing ship. Why do ships go out on combat operations without cover?
    1. +1
      13 March 2024 15: 47
      Quote: Alexey Koshkarov
      Why was the patrol ship Sergei Kotov, while on combat patrol, not covered by helicopter support?

      Because, as has already been explained, the resource of helicopters is not endless. And the Navy is doing poorly with helicopters.
      Quote: Alexey Koshkarov
      hydroacoustics did not work

      What's the point of that hydroacoustics? 22160 has the only sonar system - anti-sabotage, with a detection range comparable to the visibility range of signalmen.
      Quote: Alexey Koshkarov
      there was no support from surface forces

      Because 22160 itself is considered support - a ship for protecting the water area. In fact, not being one.
  37. -2
    13 March 2024 15: 06
    I am by no means a sea person. But this is obvious and I have written more than once. And at the beginning of SVO and before the beginning.
    The Black Sea is not a place for fleets, but a trap. And it doesn’t matter if the Black Sea Fleet is with five ships of the first rank or if a couple of AUGs come in - they will still sink it. When the entire sky over the sea is shot through air defense, and anti-ship missiles are flying from the shore, no AUG will last.
    BEC, at least for now, can only operate in such waters.

    About BEC. How do you think he even receives a signal from the operator at a distance of 150-200 km?
  38. 0
    13 March 2024 15: 31
    The Black Sea Fleet found itself locked in an extremely limited water area.
    и I was not ready for this, although it would seem that this is not the first time such situations with Russian sailors have happened.. But casteism... and everything that goes with it.
    By the way, everyone was not ready, but everyone overcomes this to varying degrees. But the sailors... It was not for nothing that they were sent to the infantry during the Second World War (and not only) - it “cures” this casteism well, but, unfortunately, only once. For reference, approximately ... is spent on the IMF, but who knows, but in 2015, Russia officially submitted data to the UN, billion rubles: (https://www.rbc.ru/economics/27/07/ 2016/5797ed069a79475ab72f84bb)
    land 582,5
    Navy 700,3
    Air Force 662,4
    Others 958,2
    Total 2903,3

    And where is the return?
    Do not suggest in rhyme, it is not constructive. However, the Air Force is no better, with the same problems, especially evident in September 2022.
    1. 0
      14 March 2024 19: 07
      Well, the Navy includes nuclear submarines, which take the lion's share of the money. ... nuclear submarine, nuclear submarine .... and if it’s a drone, and if it’s a BEC ...
  39. 0
    13 March 2024 15: 58
    We need to build drones like this!
  40. +1
    13 March 2024 16: 19
    They will kill the entire fleet, which means they will have to build everything again.
  41. -1
    13 March 2024 16: 20
    Quote: Alexey Koshkarov
    Question . Why was the patrol ship Sergei Kotov, while on combat patrol, not covered by helicopter support, hydroacoustics not working, no support from surface forces, and so on. The same thing happened with the lost landing ship. Why do ships go out on combat operations without cover?

    That’s exactly why he didn’t even have support on the boats; people could be put on boats and sent on patrols. We need small patrol boats for 4 people. Install optics and locators on these boats. Then we can talk about the safety of the ship.
    1. 0
      13 March 2024 17: 40
      Install optics and locators on these boats.

      What ignorant dreamers you are.
      How to place a locator on a boat that can detect a practically submerged fiberglass hull. Can you imagine how difficult this is?
      1. 0
        13 March 2024 21: 43
        And what, excuse me, is the difference to the sonar - what is the BEC body made of?
      2. 0
        14 March 2024 19: 11
        All the same, marine UAVs must fly with night and day vision, as well as with filtered vision.
  42. +2
    13 March 2024 18: 35
    One question: If “...the journey from Odessa to the outer roadstead of Sevastopol takes them (BEC) less than 8 hours...” why can’t they be detected in advance by all available means? Where are the coast guard and naval aviation of the Black Sea Fleet looking?! hi negative
  43. -2
    13 March 2024 18: 47
    Well done author! Such a calm, balanced analysis with convincing historical examples!!
  44. 0
    13 March 2024 20: 04
    The most reliable way to protect the ships and infrastructure of the Black Sea Fleet would be to completely liberate the coast and deprive Ukraine of access to the sea.

    The Allies solved the problem of the mosquito fleet of the Third Reich with a massive raid on Le Havre. And everything is correct.
  45. -1
    13 March 2024 21: 14
    Here you go! I once wrote that a cruiser had nothing to do in the Black Sea Fleet, so they threw slippers at me. And now out! They wrote an article that large boats are suffering in this puddle)
    1. -1
      14 March 2024 19: 16
      A cruiser is needed only in one case: as part of a numerous guarded landing of ships on Odessa or Nikolaev. The Black Sea from the Crimean Mountains is successfully covered by cruise, operational-tactical and coastal missiles of various types.
  46. 0
    13 March 2024 21: 30
    Quote: Goscha
    The current so-called The elite doesn’t need the development of the country, and besides, they don’t know how to do anything.

    with the development of the country, the current ones will immediately fly out, some to the trash heap, and some to the Butovo training ground, according to their abilities and merits.
  47. -1
    13 March 2024 21: 30
    Author! Explain to me, not a sailor at all.
    Why was there a cruiser in this fleet?
    Why doesn’t this fleet purchase large UAVs for constant monitoring of the water area?
    Why does the Navy order 5-10 ships of one project, and then several more series of different projects, but with the same purpose?
    Why is the Marine Corps, one of the best components of the Russian Armed Forces, often armed with outdated equipment and weapons?
    Why were the aircraft not sent from the settling tanks to the KVR with modernization in a timely manner? Did they just rot? After all, this could have been done instead of part of the ships, for example, 6 patrol ships of Project 22800? We are talking about Be 12 aircraft, of which there was a full-fledged regiment in Taganrog and Ostrov and Arkhangelsk.
    If rafters are so proud of their ships, then why was the Shark removed? After all, the same Dmitry Donskoy (formerly) was repaired several years ago and successfully used the Bulava.
    And such questions may not be asked by a sailor. What if a smart sailor starts asking questions?
    1. 0
      14 March 2024 08: 15
      Why was there a cruiser in this fleet?

      Moscow - was the lead in a series of six cruisers. One of the elements of Admiral Gorshkov’s Big Fleet, alone he was like a white elephant, not suitable for any task

      Laid out about 50 years ago. Remained as a souvenir from the USSR Navy. Over the past 30 years, they forgot how to operate such a ship, they maintained it haphazardly, there were no suitable tasks

      The ship composition of the Russian Navy resembled the South American dreadnought race of the early twentieth century (a historical anecdote based on real events)
      Why does the Navy order 5-10 ships of one project, and then several more series of different projects?

      These are small ships, which are all approximately equal in value, somehow armed without expensive air defense systems. Any shipyard can build such ships and get their piece of the financial pie

      A modern, combat-ready fleet cannot be assembled from this junk (no matter how you try to become a musician, you are not suitable), but who will ask for the money that was allocated and mastered?
      Quite often armed with outdated equipment and weapons?

      Because they lied about rearmament for 20 years, and the people liked it
      We are talking about Be 12 aircraft

      How to use them over the Black Sea, the Patriots will shoot them like chickens
      Why doesn’t this fleet purchase large UAVs for constant monitoring of the water area?

      It’s expensive and they can’t do it, there’s no technology
      then why was Sharks removed?

      The Navy no longer uses 90 ton solid rockets. Already in the 1990s, new technologies appeared that made it possible to greatly reduce the dimensions of missiles with turbojet engines. The only one of the Sharks, the SSBN Dmitry Donskoy was turned into a test bed
      1. 0
        22 March 2024 20: 48
        About the cruiser.
        Those. Wasn’t there enough brainpower to drive him north and create a strike group with him? (For example, a Cruiser, a pair of BODs, 1 BDK, two pairs of MRKs.)
        About Be 12.
        It can be used not only on the Black Sea, but also on the Baltic.
        About Sharks.
        There was a rumor that they would be re-equipped during the KVR with cruise missiles in the amount of 200 each. I understand that the Shark is a very noisy device. Well, let the Shark walk along the mattresses or geyropa along with the same cruiser. Showing the flag, so to speak. And if necessary, they could be useful.
        About different projects.
        So I'm talking about the same thing. Even if the shipyards are different, they are making the same project for RTOs, MPKs, etc.
  48. 0
    13 March 2024 21: 40
    The best defense of Black Sea Fleet ships from BEC attacks will be the capture of the entire Black Sea coastline from Crimea to Romania. Well, or bringing the entire coastal infrastructure of Ukraine into the “Lunar Landscape” state. According to the principle “The best air defense is our tanks at their airfields”
  49. 0
    13 March 2024 22: 27
    [quote]the journey from Odessa to the outer roadstead of Sevastopol takes them less than 8 hours. [quote]
    15 enemy BEC left the base, a third of the day went to our coast, and our Black Sea Fleet, reconnaissance, and coastal services were completely in the dark.
    This is the root of the problem and the main reason for the death of our ships and the loss of any initiative of the Black Sea Fleet. This fleet does not seem to have the technical ability to control and monitor the waters of the Black Sea and the coastal zone of Ukraine around the clock, unlike NATO countries. Our enemies, thanks to their modern UAVs, AWACS, reconnaissance aircraft and satellites, constantly located over the sea and near our coast, know everything about our every movement and intentions, but we do not, like blind kittens, especially at night. And the result is obvious. From the change of admirals, commanders-in-chief, installation of turrets with machine guns and thermal imagers on ships, etc., little will change. And if the Black Sea Fleet continues to not have the technical ability to receive information online about the situation at sea, to know what is happening in the enemy’s ports and bases, about the deployment of their BEC, ships, their route, course and coordinates, then I am afraid of being sunk There will only be more ships. Because it is extremely difficult or even impossible for even the most heavily armed ship to fight off a dozen or more BECs at night. Especially when they, unnoticed by anyone or anything, approached the stern or side a hundred meters away. Only ships with a good GAK or ship-based UAVs with thermal imagers will have a chance to conduct day and night patrols and detect drones at least 3-5 miles away in order to have a head start, prepare, call for aviation, help from other ships, or hide in the base behind booms barriers.
  50. 0
    13 March 2024 23: 32
    The most reliable way to protect the ships and infrastructure of the Black Sea Fleet would be to completely liberate the coast and deprive Ukraine of access to the sea.


    This is a fundamental decision that is far from being implemented. The problem appears to be poor management. Ships that do not have the capabilities to repel an attack end up at sea. Either they must have appropriate weapons, or be accompanied by ships with appropriate weapons, or they must not be at sea.
  51. 0
    14 March 2024 08: 20
    Did Kaptsov really write the article? Why is there nothing about booking ships? Amazing!!! In fact, we also have ships in the Baltic in the same conditions.
  52. -1
    14 March 2024 12: 05
    Moscow - was the lead in a series of six cruisers. One of the elements of Admiral Gorshkov’s Big Fleet, alone he was like a white elephant, not suitable for any task

    It was perfect for what it was made of. It will follow the enemy's AUG in the Mediterranean Sea or in the Indian Ocean near the Persian Gulf in peacetime and destroy it at the beginning of the war. His place was not on the Black Sea, especially since the Northern Military District should not have taken him by surprise.
    And was it used for landing on Snake Island??? It’s good that the Ukrainians didn’t have mines set yet.
  53. 0
    14 March 2024 12: 14
    The author’s conclusion is this: “We can’t do anything, the Black Sea Fleet is in the fire.”
    We cannot cut off the controlled bank of ukrov from Sevastopol and Kerch and roll it back 1000 km, so alas, alas. He proposed to capture Odessa and Nikolaev, I completely agree, but how does this eliminate the problem of distance from Romania and Turkey? There are 400 km, and in the event of a war with NATO, or simply a provocation, they will again sink the ship with their boat...
  54. 0
    14 March 2024 17: 46
    To capture the coast, a large-scale landing is needed. The ships of which will be copied by enemy reconnaissance and will come under attack from anti-ship missiles.
  55. +1
    14 March 2024 17: 54
    Drones can't defeat ships

    The title seems to determine the content of the text. But the author’s thoughts jump in chaotic ricochets from the bones of the skull... In this whole sheet there are only a couple of paragraphs of sane text, and everything else is nonsense and self-contradictions.
    All available measures have been taken since the first attacks on the ships. This is evidenced by the successful interception of dozens of Ukrainian maritime drones over the past year.

    These measures allowed the destruction of two ships in a month?)))
    Did the list of these measures include booms and a ban on the presence of galoshes outside bases at night in general and while drifting in particular? Because there are no real tasks for the fleet.
    On the other hand, the problem of protecting Black Sea Fleet ships is clearly not on a technical level. This is pure geography, a factor that cannot be ignored.

    Seriously?))) But then, from a purely technical level, the ships sank?))) if purely technically there are no problems with destruction?)))
    .... Every statement here is a hand-face.
    The author... as in that joke: “welcome from here” I regret every second spent on this excrement. It's not yours.
  56. +1
    14 March 2024 18: 32
    The most reliable way to protect the ships and infrastructure of the Black Sea Fleet would be to completely liberate the coast and deprive Ukraine of access to the sea. laughing

    So much controversial text and this conclusion? While this problem is unsolvable and judging by the events at the LBS, it will not be solved in the next decade, but the state of the Black Sea Fleet today is catastrophic and it urgently needs to be saved
  57. Uno
    0
    14 March 2024 20: 18
    The author, in short, the drones have already won
  58. +1
    15 March 2024 00: 17
    Another “justifier” of saboteurs, stupid, mediocrity leaders who, through cronyism, were seated in all the key positions in the Russian Navy. You will justify any nasty thing, as long as you don’t criticize the high authorities. For 2 years of the NWO, the pests have done NOTHING to protect the ships. Nothing at all.
  59. 0
    15 March 2024 10: 55
    He proposed to capture Odessa and Nikolaev, I completely agree, but how does this eliminate the problem of distance from Romania and Turkey? There are 400 km, and in the event of a war with NATO, or simply a provocation, they will again sink the ship with their boat...

    The victory of boats over large ships also nullifies NATO’s superiority in these ships for closed seas such as the Black Sea and the Baltic. This is the other side of the Ukrainian-NATO successes at sea.
  60. 0
    15 March 2024 11: 24
    Drones will not be able to defeat ships - yes, but only on the condition that the ships will be commanded by normal officers, and not by these striped “Eurovision finalists”.
  61. 0
    16 March 2024 02: 39
    The problem is that all combat patrol areas of ships in the Black Sea (as well as their bases) are located at a short distance from the enemy’s coast. At a distance that even the smallest boats and jet skis loaded with explosives can overcome.


    Yeah, all that remains is to prove that the drones are launched from the shore. And not from the carrier ship.


    Seaworthiness. Energy. Capabilities of means for target detection. Incomparable scale! Will Magura be able to


    The car makes a SYSTEM error. It perceives the BEC as a carrier ship. But in fact it is ammunition. What the author writes about the characteristics of “magurs” is frankly ridiculous. You can just as well compare the parameters of a torpedo and a destroyer.
    BECs are nothing more than surface torpedoes.

    Accordingly, this phrase is absolutely correct.
    "Magur" and "marichki" will never be able to replace large warships.


    Only here's what's next
    Operate on sea lanes, independently search for targets, withstand changing weather conditions and natural disasters.
    BECs cannot survive more than a couple of days in coastal waters. There’s not even talk about the far sea zone here.


    This is COMPLETELY OBVIOUS. Moreover, no one is demanding this from BEC. Just as no one requires a bullet to carry out patrol duty.

    The only thing the Ukrainian “wunderwaffe” can do is cover a couple of hundred miles in good weather. And attack ships whose location was known in advance.

    That is, to do what they are DESIGNED for. In exactly the same way, a torpedo can only “overcome a couple of hundred miles and attack a ship.” That's it, nothing more.

    We have no right to give advice to designers or demand that they increase the number of turrets and combat posts on the upper deck.

    Why? Who deprived us of this right? If it's OBVIOUS that the designers screwed up? Since when did naval designers become the highest caste of untouchables whose decisions are non-negotiable? Another question is that designers are not obliged to listen to us.


    All advisers should be reminded of the ancient truth - if you put 8 guns on a ship armed with 10 guns according to the project, then only 6 will be able to fire from them.

    Yeah, but if you attach 2 more engines to a plane that is DESIGNED to have 2 engines, it most likely won’t take off. Although during WW2, the US soldiers did not hesitate to stuff LOTS of anti-aircraft guns onto their ships, and they ALL calmly fired. Refuting the “ancient truth” taken by the author from nowhere. :)

    The truth is that we are talking about something else. First of all, it is OBVIOUS that modern ships of the Russian Navy do not have adequate means of protection against high-speed guided surface munitions. Machine gunners on the decks are not a means of self-defense - they are a disgrace to domestic shipbuilding and a sign of the design impotence of domestic design bureaus. I personally have questions about the bow artillery mounts. In particular, why are they not used in ship defense? Why are they needed in this form at all? It is simply RIDICULOUS to talk about any anti-aircraft capabilities of these installations in modern conditions. But for some reason they don’t use anti-ship ones. Why?
    So here it is. We are talking, first of all, about changing the COMBAT EQUIPMENT of ships. ABOUT NEW projects and deep modernization of existing ones. If you put 5 more machine gunners along the sides, there will be no point. We need special means of combating small, high-speed guided fireships.



    During the fourth attempt, the Ukrainian side allocated 15 drones to participate in the operation. The enemy was detected in a timely manner, the crew of the Sergei Kotov began an evasive maneuver and opened heavy fire on the targets. Unfortunately, it was not possible to repel such a massive attack.


    13 ton AK-176 artillery mount with 152 rounds of ammunition. On the bow of this ship. FOR WHAT???? Why does a ship armed with such a complex and expensive artillery system, seeing a swarm of unarmored small boats, not engage them in battle, opening heavy fire from this (as they are trying to convince me is magnificent) gun, capable of firing at a rate of fire of 30, 60 and even 120 rounds per minute, with shells with remote detonation. And he does something frankly ridiculous: he tries to evade 15 high-speed fire ships? Because he is HELPLESS. And the captain knows it. A ship costing more than 100 million dollars is NOT ABLE TO DEFEND ITSELF.


    Historical examples

    If we turn to History, then first of all we should remember not how aviation fought with the fleet. Because, I repeat, a BEC is not a carrier, but an AMMUNITION.
    We need to remember the evolution of torpedo weapons. And understand that now BEC are at the stage of “self-propelled mines”. And the developers check the concept itself, highlight the main and important performance characteristics. As soon as it becomes clear that the scheme works, fire ships will begin to rapidly evolve. They will become faster and more seaworthy. They will acquire on-board weapons and acquire armor. They will be controlled along the entire route. And it is possible that, along with fire ships, we will also see unmanned torpedo bombers. And if our ships continue to be armed with useless guns and desperate sailors with machine guns from WW2, then sooner or later we will simply lose the fleet.



    So, summary. You CANNOT simply justify the loss of ships from BEC. This is a consequence of a COLOSSAL MISTAKE of the developers, who deprived ships of the means of self-defense against such objects. This needs to be acknowledged. And create specialized systems to combat these new ammunition. In addition, it is NECESSARY to eradicate military snobbery and abandon useless specialized ship rattles, which in a real combat situation turn out to be useless, but are expensive and are produced in single copies. It is necessary to install proven military systems on ships. For example, Bakhcha combat modules as onboard turrets. A couple of such firing points on each side, I think, would completely allow the Kotov to repel an attack by 15 BEC.
    1. 0
      16 March 2024 21: 44
      It's good to be a strategist, seeing the battle from afar.
      You. Dear, what are you talking about? What are the mistakes of the developers, if many ships in the Black Sea Fleet were developed when they had never even heard of drones, especially naval ones. It’s good for you, the developers are stupid people, the generals and admirals are stupid, some commentators on VO, like Sergei Yuryevich Belyakov, know and can do everything.
      1. +1
        16 March 2024 23: 15
        That the article published above is strange, to say the least. The very idea in the title is ridiculous. I repeat, the BEC is not a weapon carrier, it is ammunition. Self-propelled mine. And to reassure yourself that this mine cannot carry out patrol duty, well, how can I tell you... Not very smart.
        Just like citing ridiculous historical parallels and fictitious truths about 6 guns. I repeat, when the States needed to protect ships during WW2, they installed literally DOZENS of anti-aircraft guns and they could safely fire.

        Quote: koramax81
        The Black Sea Fleet was developed when they had never even heard of drones, especially naval ones.

        Certainly. That’s why I say: it is urgently necessary to develop projects for the modernization of existing and designed new ships with SPECIALIZED means of destroying BEC. Because this danger will not disappear either tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. This is a new reality, the same as the anti-ship missiles once became. Therefore, ALL existing ships must be adapted taking it into account. And as soon as possible. In addition, we need to think today about creating special means of protecting ships at anchor. Both surface and coastal, including air. The fight against BEC requires comprehensive measures.
        And to equip the ships, it is necessary to use the existing serial fire weapons of the ground forces. Because the ship's... it's kind of a shame.


        Quote: koramax81
        It's good for you, the developers are stupid people, the generals and admirals are stupid,

        Are they geniuses for you? I ask the question again: why doesn’t the patrol ship use an artillery mount in repelling a BEC attack? Why the devil is she on his nose? Where was the captain of the Sergei Kotov thinking when he tried to carry out an “evasion maneuver” from 15 high-speed fireships? Can you explain to me what this might even look like? I have only one answer - the captain simply clearly understood that he was doomed in battle, since he had no weapons on board. But this was combat ship. Worth more than 100 million dollars.

        And the fact that the designers and admirals are not of this world, in my opinion, is completely obvious. Only a frank ..... can make the shipbuilding program dependent on the supply of engines from NATO countries. Or do you think it's brilliant?
    2. +1
      13 May 2024 15: 39
      Quote: abc_alex
      . For example, Bakhcha combat modules as onboard turrets. A couple of such firing points on each side, I think, would completely allow the Kotov to repel an attack by 15 BEC.

      Their effectiveness without new stabilization systems is almost zero in waves. And the declination angle is too small. But I agree that all these improvements are relatively inexpensive. And the caliber needs to be considered; perhaps it’s still better to install a couple of Derivations - there’s more benefit + a couple of remote turrets with a 12,7 machine gun or a 57-mm automatic grenade launcher.
      1. 0
        14 May 2024 01: 45
        I proceed from what is already ready and tested. You can take it and install it, albeit with modifications. Even not the best stabilization systems are better than open deck mounts for machine guns. The caliber can be revised, but do not forget the 100-mm “channel” Bakhchi is not only a projectile. This is an ATGM. And a guidance system with TV and IR channel. For the tasks of combating “small forms” it is quite sufficient. And this is still a guided missile weapon.
        Declination angle up to -6. Developers need to think about this
  62. 0
    16 March 2024 21: 38
    Finally, VO has a good, objective article. Otherwise, I thought that only the know-it-all, all-killer Skomorokh remained.
  63. 0
    19 March 2024 00: 13
    You can dream up. With the advent of increasingly powerful energy sources and more energy-efficient solar panels, ocean-going autonomous drones will appear, controlled both by AI and remotely. They can be either surface or submersible for greater stealth. They can carry both an explosive charge and a small-sized torpedo, or even two. They can simply wait for months, being in strategically significant positions. How it will be, time will tell. But it seems to me that it is not correct to compare drones alone with ships. There is a whole system here, a complex of various detection, communication, and coordination systems. And now all this is coolly tied to advanced electronics, satellite constellations and software. Now everything is visible equally well from satellite constellations, regardless of the size of the water area. And a network of autonomous drones with renewable energy sources scattered across the ocean could, it seems, have the potential to “bite” any fleet in coordination with other weapons.
  64. 0
    19 March 2024 11: 46
    Your article should be called “Everything is fine, don’t worry, the ships will sink - there is no such thing as a war without losses.” Distances need to be understood! What are the distances in the Bab El-Mandeb Strait? And what are the losses of NATO ships?
    The English fireships that sank our ships are controlled via Starlink satellites, most likely by English military personnel - hundreds (or thousands) of kilometers from the battlefield. On our part, counteraction to these fireships begins, at best, one kilometer from the ship or from the shore. Briefly, what is needed to defend ships and bases from fire ships:
    1. Long-range detection. Detection at least 200 km from the target of attack gives us at least 2 hours to destroy them. It is best to use reconnaissance and strike UAVs of the Reaper and Bayraktar class - they fly for a long time, are capable of destroying a detected target immediately, their loss is not as painful as a manned vehicle. When all its own missiles are used up, the UAV can direct aircraft with its laser at the boats it detects, of which there will be more and more over time. All UAVs must have stabilized day and night (including thermal imaging) high-quality optics. It is necessary to ensure continuous continuous surveillance - first of the near approaches to the bases, and as more UAVs arrive - to expand the patrol area.
    A dense network of bottom hydrophones and sonar buoys should be deployed, starting from the approaches to the bases - to the maximum possible radius, this will make it possible to cover the inevitable gaps in the observation of drones and reduce their number.
    2. Countermeasures using electronic warfare. Electronic warfare and electronic warfare balloons should hang above all bases. In case of long-range detection of approaching fire ships, UAVs and helicopters need to be lifted into the air from bases both for destruction and for electronic warfare. Signals from the satellite need and can be pressed from above - and Starlink, GPS and GSM (near the bases), the required interference power is very small.
    3. For the defense of ships and convoys, as well as approaches to bases - within a radius of at least 10 km, continuous round-the-clock air surveillance is needed. The cheapest way to do this is again with a UAV (and of course drums!). Interfacing the UAV target designator with the ship's control system is not a quick task for us, so UAVs are only attack ones (for ships - deck-based!). The number of drones must ensure continuous surveillance within a radius of at least 10 km from the ship or the entire (entire!) convoy - taking into account their periodic landing on the deck to replace batteries or refuel and replenish ammunition. "Orlan" is not suitable for a ship; you need either a quadcopter or a quadcopter-plane capable of landing on the deck.
    Thus, two lines of defense will be built. We must strive to detect and immediately destroy fire ships as far as possible from bases and ships, because it is very difficult to detect them at night from a ship or from a low shore, and the time to destroy those detected is seconds.
    4. And so, if high-speed fire ships, which cannot be jammed by Starlink and GSM signals (which have turned on the homing mode), nevertheless break through to the ship, the onboard weapons are turned on:
    a) Laser/lasers to damage the video matrix of a boat (a regular infantry decision maker burns out the retina of the eye, tested on crows);
    b) Anti-mine guns and heavy machine guns - necessarily stabilized and with day and night (including thermal imaging) optics. Heavy machine guns alone are not enough: the next step in the development of fire ships is obvious - important controls and fuses will be armored. And explosives can be phlegmatized and withstand bullets.
    c) Try in practice the use of spotlights, powerful circular halogen lamps (like on crab fishermen), flares to detect inconspicuous high-speed boats - only in practice can you understand what is better: to see them through a thermal imager (or NVD) or to use artificial lighting.
    d) The ship must have electronic warfare equipment.
    5. All the previous 4 points can be postponed for a long time if one, ONE of the captured fire ships under the Ukrainian flag returns to the country of origin and explodes under a bridge on the Thames or Potomac. Only one.
    In general, the general impression of what is happening is that for many years a huge, beautiful, shiny soap bubble, shimmering with all the colors of the rainbow, was blown in front of us. And then it burst. And we urgently need to take measures, energetic and comprehensive. And these measures have been announced: we will install machine guns! It relieved my heart: it means there is complete order in the fleet, there is nothing to worry about.
  65. 0
    20 March 2024 10: 40
    this set of qualities was enough to cause a lot of problems for the Black Sea Fleet

    A lot? Somehow it looks more like “pretty much,” don’t you think?
  66. 0
    22 March 2024 20: 06
    "Drones can't defeat ships"? Will they be able to sink it? Or is it something else?
  67. 0
    13 May 2024 14: 42
    Need I remind the author that there are US reconnaissance drones operating in the Persian Gulf that can withstand force 7 storms? And I must add that they are sailing. The weather dependence of Ukrainian drones can be easily eliminated.