Military Review

Anti-submarine disability

75
Anti-submarine disabilityTwo problems of the modern naval fleet.


In the newspaper “Independent Military Review” No. 16 of 17 in May, I read an article by Viktor Kuryshev “Underwater, darkness and silence».

Professionally and accessible material presented stirred up the navy community, especially veterans of the submarine fleet. And therefore, in the development and support of the article, I, as a veteran submariner, will continue this theme.

I am writing for ordinary citizens who are not indifferent to the fate of Russia and its Navy, with which Russia is connected, in fact, genetically, because it can exist only as a great maritime power. However, I first of all address the article to the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the hope that its content will be communicated to him, because, despite the specifics, the essence of the issues raised, given their strategic importance, is the sphere of his close attention. In this regard, I would like to hope that the assistants and advisers surrounding the Russian president with a tight ring will not leave him in the invisibility zone of these problems.

I report on the problems of the Navy concerning Russia's ability to defend and protect its national interests at sea.

UNDERWATER MONITORING AND DEFENSE

It is obvious that, without owning the situation in the sea and oceanic areas, where our national interests extend, it is impossible to realize and protect these interests. Of course, this requires a well-established system of lighting the situation at sea, including, naturally and above all, monitoring the underwater environment.

It should be understood that the presence and development of submarine forces presupposes the conduct of anti-submarine warfare, the success of which depends at least on the fulfillment of two mandatory conditions. One of the laws of warfare at sea claims that, all other things being equal, the chance of winning is significantly higher for the side that will find the enemy earlier and further. In order to effectively and successfully counter enemy submarines, the opposing side must have information on the position of these boats in the sea, which is possible only with a special underwater lighting system. All this is the essence of two major problems that have not been resolved in our country so far, since the beginning of work on the creation of the first nuclear submarine in September of the 1952 year.

Russia and its Navy do not have underwater lighting systems (FOSS) for the entire depth of the operational zones of the fleets and around the perimeter of Russia's maritime borders, which is the largest scientific and strategic miscalculation made more than half a century ago and still not resolved, despite to the decree of the President of the Russian Federation from 4 March 2000 of the year to create the Unified State System for Lighting Surface and Underwater Situations (EGSONPO).

Opposition to many executive structures, for a number of reasons interested in disrupting targeted activities to create an EGSONPO, led to the reiterated order of the Russian government to create an EGSONPO in one of the documents signed by Vladimir Putin in December 2010. I would like to believe that this document will be implemented.

Unlike us, the United States, having raised this problem to the rank of strategic, solved it back in the 60 – 80-ies of the last century, creating a stationary underwater observation system - SHSUS, which was increased in the following years by vessels of long-range hydro-acoustic intelligence (DGAR), continuing to develop it in the present.

SEE MORE OWN NOSE

The first problem is aggravated by the second one - our submarines, including the most modern ones, are significantly inferior to US submarines in the main and most important parameter determining stealth, inaccessibility, invulnerability, and therefore combat stability and combat capability, in the detection range, which is confirmed by intelligence , calculations and practice detections. At the same time, our hydroacoustic complexes (GAK) are not capable of reliably classifying targets at extreme detection ranges.

Detection of enemy submarines mounted on anti-submarine aircraft aviation The Navy is also inferior in sonar detection range to similar US anti-submarine aircraft. This leads to the lack of a lighting system for the underwater situation and excludes the possibility of continuous monitoring of the actions of foreign nuclear submarines (PLA), primarily the United States, in the patrol areas of our strategic missile carriers and in the training ranges of navies, as well as in the immediate vicinity of our territorial waters.

There are many examples. Two of the most characteristic of them. In February, the American Button-Rouge submarine, not detected by anyone, penetrates our thermal waters north of Kildin Island and faces the Russian submarine Kostroma, which our press has described in detail. The second incident occurred in August 1992. Not owning the situation and not tracking the movement of two foreign submarines (“Toledo” and “Memphis”) at our combat training grounds, the command center of the Northern Fleet failed to prevent the maneuvering of these submarines in the immediate vicinity of the Kursk submarine.

The reason in both cases was one - we do not have a system for lighting the underwater situation in either the far or the near operational zones of the fleets.
The absence of FOSS does not allow to control the launch lines of cruise missiles (KR) "Tomahawk" (North-Eastern Atlantic, Northern, Norwegian, Barents Sea, Pacific Ocean, Black Sea).

It should also be borne in mind that the Tomahawk CDs are derived from the number of strategic weapons being reduced, but at the same time they have a reserved range of flight to 2,5-3 thousand km and the possibility of installing a nuclear or special warhead instead of the usual high-explosive (reinstallation time - less than 40 minutes) , although with the presence of high-precision satellite maps of the terrain and excellent pointing accuracy, the desired effect of damage is also achieved when using a conventional warhead weighing 200-250 kg. Therefore, the Americans will never include them, as well as the X-37 spaceship, in the lists of weapons being reduced, neither under the START-3 treaty, nor under any other treaty.

The absence of FOSS eliminates the possibility of effective monitoring of the underwater environment in future areas of industrial installations on the continental and island shelves, especially in the Arctic sector of Russia, which is especially important and relevant today in connection with the conclusion of an agreement with the British on the start of development of hydrocarbon deposits.

By analogy with the ecological catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, it is easy to imagine the consequences of such an accident provoked by underwater sabotage forces in the Arctic in the absence of an effective underwater surveillance system.

FIGHTING SERVICE UNDER THE COVER OF PARTNERS

In peacetime, being under control, our submarines are not able to detect the fact of tracking by foreign, primarily American, submarines, which, in turn, operate freely in the near zones of the fleets and even in airfields, since we have no effective means ( FOSS), able to detect their presence.

Those few contacts with low-noise foreign PLA, which we reach at very short distances, are nothing more than detecting alien PLA that record the noise (acoustic portrait) of our submarines in the near zone, where the impact of sea noise is minimal. In the subsequent recording of these noises, they are used to identify the detected boats. In some cases, allowing themselves to be detected at short distances, they reveal the tactics of our boats.

In wartime (during an emergency), our tracked and identified submarines are immediately destroyed. At the same time, the commander of our attacked submarine cannot respond with a counterattack, since it does not have hydroacoustic contact with the attacking submarine.

In bases, our submarines and surface ships are likely to be destroyed by the Tomahawk CD from enemy submarines, whose combat positions we are unable to determine due to our lack of an underwater lighting system.

In such conditions, the anti-submarine support of our strategic submarine missile-carriers is a fiction, self-deception. Our hydroacoustic systems and systems for detecting underwater targets are not capable of detecting low-noise underwater targets at distances that can effectively counteract them, which makes our submarine missile carriers defenseless against the enemy.

Under such circumstances, our new military doctrine, the main provisions of which are based on the current and future state of the three main components - aerospace, land and sea, takes on a truncated appearance, since the maritime component drops out of this triad due to its incapacity, since none from the fleets of Russia is not able to fully solve the tasks of the antisubmarine and anti-sabotage struggle in their operational areas due to low information capabilities in the underwater environment. Moreover, the absence of means and FOSS in the Navy also significantly cuts down the possibilities of solving the urgent problems of aerospace defense today, since the possibilities of dealing with underwater carriers of aerospace attack in the absence of an effective FOSS are close to zero.

There is no need to prove that the outfit of forces from 8 – 10 of undetectable and untraceable foreign submarines with a common Tomahawk KR ammunition over 200 units in wartime can completely constrain the actions of the Northern Fleet and civilian shipping. The enemy’s submarines will be capable of delivering cruise missiles on the most important industrial and life-supporting objects in the European part of Russia, as well as on strategic objects from tactically most advantageous areas. To prevent these actions, the Northern Fleet has neither the necessary forces nor the appropriate means.

In modern conditions it is not necessary to spend a huge amount of ammunition for the complete destruction of the selected objects. Sometimes it is enough to cause minor damage to a specific element of the object in order to cause the functioning of the entire system or infrastructure to fail.
There is no alternative to FOSS, since there are no spacecraft to illuminate the underwater environment. Anti-submarine aircraft without space forces and means of guidance and without upgrading their anti-submarine systems cannot solve this problem.

DO NOT RELAX

The presence of the problems outlined poses a growing threat to national security. Given the enormous length of the maritime borders of Russia, it can be argued that the greatest threat will be represented by sea directions, and above all in the underwater environment. Therefore, it is necessary to solve two strategic tasks: create a system for lighting the underwater situation in the operational zones of fleets and modernize the hydroacoustic facilities of submarines and anti-submarine aviation in order to significantly increase the detection range under water and to achieve superiority in this parameter over submarines of the United States and other states showing increased interest to the capabilities of the submarine forces of the Russian Navy and to the Russian wealth.

Today there are opportunities to solve these problems and fix problems as soon as possible. Low-cost by creating and deploying an underwater lighting system and modernization of hydroacoustic tools and systems is the use of special equipment developed on the basis of digital technology with a unique mathematical software. Modernization of hydroacoustic systems makes the creation of a Unified State System for Lighting Surface and Underwater Situations a reality, and the tasks set by Vladimir Putin are achievable.

Many veterans are convinced that modernizing the hydroacoustic facilities of the Navy cannot be put on a par with such highly worthy tactical level developments like the newest sniper rifle, or an armored personnel carrier, or even a fifth generation aircraft, since the introduction of such equipment will solve two most complicated strategic problems at sea, not resolved so far.

Despite the specifics of development, for such a few projects of a strategic level, priority conditions should be created for inclusion in the state arms program and in the state defense order. Otherwise, waiting in line for a long line of rifles, tanks, boats, fighter jets, these advanced developments run the risk of losing their relevance and importance, since any delay in their implementation will inevitably lead to the loss of the achieved superiority and the strategic lag of the country not only from the leading powers, but also from secondary and secondary states.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2013-06-14/1_submarines.html
75 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Delink
    Delink 17 June 2013 06: 27 New
    11
    The article is correct. We have many problems, and I hope this problem will also be solved if it reaches the first hands of the state.
    1. Sergey_K
      Sergey_K 17 June 2013 14: 26 New
      0
      Gentlemen, such an idea. Try to fill up ...

      We build low-power or, on the contrary, powerful, but less accurate sonars and "sow" them around the waters around our borders. Which will unite in a network and will transmit data about all serious objects under water.
      1. There are power sources.
      2. Sonar itself - an inexpensive device
      3. Antenna. Here there are problems due to the characteristics of the transmission of radio waves under water. But! We make antennas in the form of balls with air and one of them rises to the surface and transmits data. If it is destroyed, the next one begins to work, etc. until you run out.
      4. You can build a whole information network from such devices.
      5. You can make it rebuild and fill in the damaged sectors.
      6. Must be cheaper than torpedoes
      7. You can also screw the explosive charge in case of a large "fish", but I think this is superfluous. Autonomous BAs are needed here.

      From the technical side I do not see obstacles.
      But there are other questions:
      1. Atomic batteries, such as unhealthy.
      2. How will the locals react? For example dolphins.
      3. Money.
    2. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 15: 57 New
      +2
      Yes, the article is correct
  2. TRex
    TRex 17 June 2013 06: 27 New
    11
    Not in the eyebrow, but in the eye. Correctly the author says - "UNDER THE CAP OF PARTNERS"... Only earlier used the term "PROBABLE ENEMY"... But from a change in the places of the terms, the sum does not change. It would be necessary to rip off this "cap" as soon as possible ...
    1. stroporez
      stroporez 17 June 2013 15: 31 New
      +2
      "... NSA monitored Dmitry Medvedev at the G20 summit in London (The Guardian, UK)
      The leaked documents show that the Russian president was under surveillance during his visit, which raises questions about the use of the American base in Britain ... "these are normal" partners ".... ......... if this is friendship, then what is enmity ???????????
      1. wave
        wave 31 July 2019 20: 13 New
        +1
        Why do they need Medvedev?
    2. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 15: 58 New
      +1
      Adversaries they :-)
  3. Orel
    Orel 17 June 2013 06: 32 New
    +1
    I agree with the author of the article. The fleet needs to be developed and maintained if we want to protect our interests far from our borders, but it is also unconditional that the restoration of the fleet’s power will take a very long time, not one or two decades, since much has been irretrievably lost. Now the defense industry complex, in principle, is not yet ready to build ships of the ocean zone and create some kind of global system, there are no personnel, capacities and other things. It takes time and patience for everything to fall into place and work like clockwork.
    1. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 15: 59 New
      +1
      So let's get started!
  4. Semen Semyonitch
    Semen Semyonitch 17 June 2013 06: 45 New
    +1
    But are we able to create a HAC superior to the American?
    1. the polar
      the polar 17 June 2013 07: 21 New
      +6
      Quote: Semen Semenych
      But are we able to create a HAC superior to the American?

      Obliged to create!
      Otherwise, the construction of new submarines and the modernization of existing ones will turn out to be economic diversion and a crime of state scale.
      One must also ask from shy and silent admirals. Or let them refute, or explain who turns the fleet of submarines into a pile of scrap metal.
      1. Volkhov
        Volkhov 17 June 2013 13: 05 New
        +3
        Quote: Polar
        Obliged to create!

        First you need to get away from dogmatism, think a little - for example, open experiments have been carried out for a long time to obtain a neutrino signal from a reactor over 700 km through the ground ...
        A nuclear submarine is not only a valuable noise, but also a bright reactor visible over hundreds of miles and while some will build large ears, others will have neutrino optics and a display with the location of all nuclear submarines and world reactors in real time.
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 17 June 2013 11: 16 New
      +5
      Quote: Semyon Semyonich
      But are we able to create a HAC superior to the American?

      Everything can be created, but the article is not about that. Need fixed underwater lighting systemable to interact with our submarines. They are now forced to act in solitary mode, but we need a SYSTEM
      1. Ross
        Ross 17 June 2013 11: 59 New
        +3
        Quote: Misantrop
        Quote: Semyon Semyonich
        But are we able to create a HAC superior to the American?

        Everything can be created, but the article is not about that. Need fixed underwater lighting systemable to interact with our submarines. They are now forced to act in solitary mode, but we need a SYSTEM


        The amazing myopia of our leadership, since the days of the USSR. They copied all the new Western developments, but they did not create such an important system ....
        1. old man54
          old man54 18 June 2013 22: 48 New
          0
          Quote: Ross
          The amazing myopia of our leadership, since the days of the USSR. They copied all the new Western developments, but they did not create such an important system ....

          I think that everything happened here, not without agents of influence, and maybe direct espionage and blackmail! Too obvious and gross strategic "mistake" is obtained, especially against the background of a good strategic plan for the development of the USSR Armed Forces. For a very long time, I myself could not understand why the union did not create at least such focal systems around the main naval base at least. I do not understand ...
        2. wave
          wave 31 July 2019 17: 10 New
          +1
          Yes, myopia is amazing :-)
    3. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 15: 59 New
      +1
      Of course they can!
    4. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 20: 14 New
      +1
      Of course they can, even two!
  5. Nayhas
    Nayhas 17 June 2013 07: 18 New
    +1
    The author is undoubtedly right, but let’s be realistic, Russia will not be able to create an analogue of SOSUS, it is too expensive, and technically too much. Besides where to have information processing posts? On Svalbard?
    1. the polar
      the polar 17 June 2013 07: 25 New
      16
      Quote: Nayhas
      The author is undoubtedly right, but let’s be realistic, Russia will not be able to create an analogue of SOSUS, it is too expensive, and technically too much.

      It is within our power to build "Olympics" and to export trillions of rubles over the hill is also within our power, but is it beyond our strength to ensure the strategic security of the state?
      And then tries such power to the people?
      1. wave
        wave 31 July 2019 17: 11 New
        +1
        You still don’t know about the bridge :-)
    2. Airman
      Airman 17 June 2013 08: 57 New
      +4
      Quote: Nayhas
      The author is undoubtedly right, but let’s be realistic, Russia will not be able to create an analogue of SOSUS, it is too expensive, and technically too much. Besides where to have information processing posts? On Svalbard?


      If we do not spend money, even very large ones, on creating a system, then we will have to pay hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of ships and submarines. One choice must be made.
      1. wave
        wave 31 July 2019 17: 11 New
        +1
        It is necessary to do :-) it is necessary
    3. Misantrop
      Misantrop 17 June 2013 11: 23 New
      +8
      Quote: Nayhas
      Russia will not be able to create an analogue of SOSUS, it is too expensive, and technically too much
      belay The country is not able to put a few standard HACK along the coast and provide them with food and communication? Even an ordinary shipboard hull mounted on a stationary object without sources of noise and interference in fact has a sensitivity that is an order of magnitude higher than its usual characteristics. Even this temporary measure can dramatically change the situation in the theater. Can't they do it? Pants of any of Serdyukov’s mistresses are more expensive
      1. mirror
        mirror 17 June 2013 12: 19 New
        +2
        It’s not just about the HAC, it’s about the lighting system of the underwater environment. With this, we, unfortunately, lagged behind a long time ago, back in Soviet times. They knew how to make weapons, yes. Automatic control systems have always been a disaster - they did not favor them even in Soviet times, and indeed cybernetics was a corrupt girl of imperialism with us. Admirals did not like these very computers, and generals generally stayed away from them. Now I have to catch up. We must catch up - today defensive ability is determined simply by the quantity of weapons, but by systems. The war is network-centric today.
      2. old man54
        old man54 18 June 2013 22: 52 New
        0
        Quote: Misantrop
        The country is not able to put a few standard HACK along the coast and provide them with food and communication? Even an ordinary shipboard hull mounted on a stationary object without sources of noise and interference in fact has a sensitivity that is an order of magnitude higher than its usual characteristics.

        Why then didn’t they even do this during the USSR? didn't understand the significance? I do not believe! What do you think about this? very interesting opinion of the pros!
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 18 June 2013 23: 26 New
          +2
          Quote: old man54
          Why then didn’t they even do this during the USSR?

          Most likely, they simply did not have time. To control this complex, powerful computer technology is needed, and it was first of all the "perestroika" who broke through to power began to cut it. sad
          If powerful design bureaus and factories with an established cycle already existed in the design of nuclear submarines, then this system had to be created from scratch
          1. old man54
            old man54 19 June 2013 17: 54 New
            0
            Quote: Misantrop
            Most likely, they simply did not have time. To control this complex, powerful computer technology is needed, and it was first of all the "perestroika" who broke through to power began to cut it. sad

            where did not you have time? Won the air defense system of the entire country in the 50s, and nothing, too, from a "blank slate"! Didn't understand the significance? The explosion of the battleship "Novorosiysk" on the roadstead of the main naval base of the Black Sea Fleet Sevastopol did not give such food for thought? Numerous visits of "unidentified" submarines to our naval base and nuclear submarine parking areas have not pushed something to this? The sad breakthrough, namely the breakthrough, did not hit the guys with gilded admiral's shoulder straps with a sledgehammer in the 641 project to Cuba in the 62nd? For me, even a stupid person would already understand this, but ... apparently not without real betrayal, everything is here, tk. such a system would greatly interfere with amers, and they have made a bet on the underwater naval forces in the first place! Well, for the final - the tragedy with "Kursk" is a vivid example of this.: ((
          2. wave
            wave 31 July 2019 17: 05 New
            +1
            Yes, there are few technicians
      3. wave
        wave 31 July 2019 17: 12 New
        +1
        He has one, Vasilyeva.
    4. leon-iv
      leon-iv 17 June 2013 12: 47 New
      0
      The author is undoubtedly right, but let’s be realistic, Russia will not be able to create an analogue of SOSUS, it is too expensive, and technically too much.

      And this is pointless SOSUS since the 80s has been useless in principle. And now modern apl are laying on it.
      1. The comment was deleted.
    5. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 16: 00 New
      +1
      If we take it together, we will build
    6. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 20: 15 New
      +1
      If necessary, do it!
  6. RUSmen
    RUSmen 17 June 2013 07: 44 New
    +4
    I didn’t understand, but how tady our submarines rub under the amers’ nose, there are also examples, let the author justify the Amer’s system for you.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 17 June 2013 10: 59 New
      +4
      I don't know what the author can answer to you, but personally it seemed to me that it was a question of the need to improve our hydroacoustic systems, without which our ships are more "shortsighted" than the enemy. Yes, the Yankees themselves admitted that finding some of our boats is problematic for them, for example, the series 971 nuclear submarine going at 6-9 knots. One of the most recent cases is 2012, Gulf of Mexico. Nevertheless, these are episodes, there is a problem, it is of paramount importance to solve it without complacency.
      1. VVAU
        VVAU 31 July 2019 14: 20 New
        +1
        Do not carry .....
        The Americans are secreting everything about the actions of their submarine fleet.
    2. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 16: 00 New
      +1
      Yes, come on, justify!
    3. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 17: 06 New
      +1
      Justify the author ..... :-)
    4. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 20: 15 New
      +1
      Yes, it’s interesting to steal
  7. Corsair
    Corsair 17 June 2013 08: 03 New
    +2
    Quote from the article:
    DO NOT RELAX

    It is similar to "brush off" the conditions dictated by the current situation - death. Much has already been done to increase the level of combat effectiveness of the Armed Forces, Air Force and Navy, but work is still abyss ...
    1. VVAU
      VVAU 31 July 2019 16: 06 New
      +1
      Yes, there is still a lot of work
  8. Sosed_26
    Sosed_26 17 June 2013 08: 17 New
    -3
    I don’t believe that very much that all of us have only bad things, as the author of the article claims
    1. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 17: 13 New
      +1
      In vain .. the article is good :-)
  9. cartridge
    cartridge 17 June 2013 08: 39 New
    +1
    The author caught up with longing ... Well, don’t cry, Vladimir Yamkov!
    I suppose that the rumors about the death of our anti-submarine defense are greatly exaggerated.
    1. old man54
      old man54 18 June 2013 22: 57 New
      0
      Quote: cartridge
      The author caught up with longing ... Well, don’t cry, Vladimir Yamkov!
      I suppose that the rumors about the death of our anti-submarine defense are greatly exaggerated.

      have you heard about the Kursk nuclear submarine? There was an article, I think you read it a year ago, you are a sensible person, I noticed it. :) Then you will understand whether the fear has caught up with the ator, or is it really so.
      http://topwar.ru/14155-gibel-kurska-tayny-bolshe-net.html
    2. VVAU
      VVAU 31 July 2019 14: 22 New
      +1
      The article "Anti-submarine defense. A view from the USSR"
    3. VVAU
      VVAU 31 July 2019 16: 07 New
      +1
      Aviation is not drowned. :-)
    4. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 20: 16 New
      +1
      Yamkov does not cry :-)
  10. Sosed_26
    Sosed_26 17 June 2013 09: 07 New
    +1
    Well, minus grabbed)))
    1. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 17 June 2013 14: 30 New
      +2
      Do not be surprised. There is a category of people here who believe that someone who thinks differently should receive a "minus". It is the same with those expressing their own, different from the voiced opinion. This is the norm of behavior.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 18 June 2013 00: 24 New
        +2
        Quote: Hedgehog
        There is a category of people here who believe that someone who thinks differently should receive a "minus". It is the same with those expressing their own, different from the voiced opinion.

        According to my observations, the disadvantages are often set when the formulated thought is either frankly provocative or not supported by anything. Or they sculpt it when the arguments end (but this is another category of minus signers)
        1. VVAU
          VVAU 31 July 2019 16: 08 New
          +1
          Cons put everything. Like the pros :-)
    2. wave
      wave 31 July 2019 20: 16 New
      +1
      Well, why is the minus?
  11. valokordin
    valokordin 17 June 2013 09: 35 New
    +2
    Well, it’s not that everything is so bad and started, maybe one of the experts on the forum can confirm or refute what was written.
    1. Igarr
      Igarr 17 June 2013 10: 26 New
      +6
      And it’s bad, and it’s started ... but only because they played with other toys - all kinds of concerns, popcorn, gay parades.
      Who will tell about the real fighting condition.
      The author emphasizes that SOSUS is a good system! And we have in this direction - the horse did not roll.
      Well, the system is good. It was in the 80-90 years of the last century. Our submarines found new holes in it.
      Americans, from wealth, blocked the oceans with sonar buoys. We, from stinginess, are only separate directions. Not from greed - from stinginess !!!
      Now, probably, the development of SOSUS is even better. And our submarine will still find new holes in the Sea Ears.
      Worse than the other is that we are DEADLESS! or Bezukhov. Pierrot.
      Here the author is right. And even, I think, these buoys ... sonar ... are there any? And on what to export them to the production? And when was the last time the Navy pilots did this? And where will the information from them go? Who will handle it?
      So it goes...
    2. Airman
      Airman 17 June 2013 15: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: valokordin
      Well, it’s not that everything is so bad and started, maybe one of the experts on the forum can confirm or refute what was written.


      There are new developments, but in the world of "quick" money it is very difficult for them to break through. We need "green" now, and not in the future, temporary workers rule.
      1. VVAU
        VVAU 31 July 2019 16: 09 New
        +1
        Yes, yes, but we won’t tell you about them :-)
  12. Sosed_26
    Sosed_26 17 June 2013 09: 53 New
    +4
    According to the Marine Doctrine, information support for maritime activities primarily provides for the maintenance and development of global information systems that support maritime activities in Russia, including a unified state system for lighting the surface and underwater conditions created on the basis of forces and means of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation and other interested federal bodies executive power. Thus, the goals of the third stage of the subprogram implementation are the creation of the main elements of a unified state system for lighting the surface and underwater conditions in the exclusive economic zone and on the approach to the state border of the Russian Federation, as well as the creation of the second stage of the Unified Data Center for Oceanographic and Hydrographic Research of the World Ocean, which allows accumulating information to provide reliable information about the state of the marine environment, to increase the accuracy of modern technologies of cartographic production and to provide modern navigation equipment with electronic information.

    To achieve these goals, it is necessary to solve the following tasks:
    construction (reconstruction and modernization) of 4 regional centers of a unified state system of lighting of surface and underwater conditions;
    reconstruction and modernization of 7 coastal integrated observation posts of a unified state system of lighting of surface and underwater conditions;
    construction, reconstruction and technical re-equipment of the functioning facilities of the Unified Data Center for Oceanographic and Hydrographic Research of the World Ocean, the fund of electronic marine navigation charts.

    In accordance with the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 22, 2004 N 249 "On measures to improve the effectiveness of budget expenditures", the indicators for measuring the results of the implementation of programs can reflect both immediate results (provision of services of a certain quality and volume), and final results (the effect of services provided for their recipients).

    Expected End Results

    the implementation of the activities of the subprogram will ensure:
    construction (reconstruction and modernization) of regional centers and coastal integrated observation posts of a unified state system for lighting the surface and underwater conditions, which will allow for constant monitoring of the location and actions of ships and objects in the waters adjacent to the Russian Federation, timely decisions to prevent conflict situations and prevent armed confrontation;
    construction (reconstruction) and technical re-equipment of the functioning facilities of the Unified Data Center for Oceanographic and Hydrographic Research of the World Ocean, the fund of electronic marine navigation charts, which will improve the system of navigation and hydrographic support for marine activities and ensure the development of marine cartographic production

    the subprogram is implemented from 1998 to 2012 in 3 stages:

    Stage I - 1998 - 2002;

    Stage II - 2003 - 2007;

    Stage III - 2008 - 2013
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 17 June 2013 11: 27 New
      +3
      Quote: Sosed_26
      the subprogram is implemented from 1998 to 2012 in 3 stages:

      That's just, I'm afraid that all this remained only on paper ... sad
    2. VVAU
      VVAU 31 July 2019 16: 09 New
      +1
      Communism to the eighties ... swam, we know
  13. Mizhgan
    Mizhgan 17 June 2013 09: 55 New
    +2
    I do not think that our military leaders do not understand the problem described in the article ... Understand, and how. And I’m even sure that, like the American SOSUS, we are already developing it, and in Russia, as you know, they harness for a long time, but go fast (in this case, you have to harness it for a long time without the help of Gorbachev and Yeltsin), then the development of the analogue of SOSUS in Russia will not be inferior , and maybe even surpass the parameters of the American detection system.
    And let's not forget, the regime of secrecy in the development of military innovations ... I would strongly doubt just the disclosure of information that Russia began to develop an analogue of SOSUS. For example, they learned about PAK FA recently, when the plane was rolled out of the factory hangar. But the design team, the father of this aircraft, I think that we will not know soon ...
    Not everything is as bad as it seems. The "doctor" said that the disease had receded and the army was recovering.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 17 June 2013 12: 12 New
      +3
      Quote: Mijgan
      I do not think that our military leaders do not understand the problem described in the article ... Understand, and how.

      Those who understand do not have the right to decide anything. Especially - on financing. Well, and those who decide, it seems, have never even heard of this ... request
    2. mirror
      mirror 17 June 2013 13: 01 New
      +1
      The trouble is that the military leaders did not understand this long before Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Today we see the result. The army may be on the mend, it’s hard to say about the fleet - it is much more complicated than the army. Our SOSUSs, and integrated systems of lighting the situation in the World Ocean, and ACS by forces have long been needed, although something was done here. We competed with the Americans in ships, submarines and their weapons, but did not consider it necessary to do this in control.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 18 June 2013 00: 10 New
        +2
        Quote: Spiegel
        The trouble is that the military leaders did not understand this long before Gorbachev and Yeltsin

        Everything is very simple. Did you not have to communicate with those who were engaged in the selection of personnel in the central apparatus of the USSR Ministry of Defense? Transferring there to serve was actually not too difficult. It was only necessary to write the magic phrase in the report: "I do not pretend to receive service housing." Well, who in the capital could have housing if not the children of those who already served there? This is how the "parquet garrison" was formed ...
    3. VVAU
      VVAU 31 July 2019 16: 10 New
      +1
      The doctor said to the morgue ... :-)
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. fzr1000
    fzr1000 17 June 2013 10: 19 New
    0
    And yet, I would like more information and guarantees in this regard ....
    1. Mizhgan
      Mizhgan 17 June 2013 10: 34 New
      0
      Quote: fzr1000
      And yet, I would like more information and guarantees in this regard ....

      For ordinary inhabitants, no one will give information beyond the norm, and guarantees need to be seen. Nobody releases offensive weapons without a defensive, and vice versa ... This, I would even say, is a law written by all wars over the entire evolution of mankind.
      1. fzr1000
        fzr1000 17 June 2013 15: 56 New
        +2
        The comments of the Seaman present here have already given a rather unsightly picture. I hope that the situation will improve, otherwise .....
      2. VVAU
        VVAU 31 July 2019 16: 11 New
        +1
        Yes it is....
  16. Rus2012
    Rus2012 17 June 2013 10: 47 New
    +4
    Here - http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2013-05-17/1_underwater.html
    follow the link article by Viktor Kuryshev "In the underwater environment, darkness and silence"

    It seems that the data cited by Rear Admiral Yamkov Vladimir Dmitrievich, the data have a place to be ...

    In addition to the specified, I found it on the Internet
    open letter
    The problems of Russian defense at sea.

    Comrade Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation!

    Having exhausted all the possibilities to convey to the responsible officials the concerns of many professional military sailors with rather specific and, at the same time, very urgent problems of Russia's defense capability at sea, I have to personally contact you using the capabilities of the Internet - an open letter.
    Unfortunately, for obvious reasons, I can not state the essence of the problems in an open letter, but I am ready to submit all the necessary documents at your first request.
    29 times I applied to various authorities (the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, the RF Ministry of Defense, the State Duma, the Federation Council, the FSB of the Russian Federation) related to these problems, but my appeals did not cause due interest and concern. All instances, without refuting the facts of the existence of the above problems, limited themselves to unconvincing answers that did not contain any substantiated, reasoned explanations, either reported that these problems did not comply with their regulations, or did not answer at all.
    Repeatedly I turned to the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin and to you, because I am convinced that either you or Vladimir Putin can solve these problems at the present time. However, your assistants and assistants to the Prime Minister, not passing my information to you and the Prime Minister for review, sent it to the authorities, where no one makes any decision. The lower-level officials of these instances, who, due to the specifics of the problems who do not understand their essence, have notified me that the questions raised are not of interest.
    My requests to the heads of the above departments to submit to you my report on the issues raised were also unsuccessful.
    Total. Problems whose solution began successfully in the 80 of the last century with the knowledge and under the general guidance of such highly respected and authoritative leaders as Commanders of the Northern Fleet Admiral of the Fleet Kapitanets I.M., Admiral Gromov F.N., Deputies of the Navy Civil Code Admirals of the Fleet Smirnov N .I., Bondarenko GA, GC Navy Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov SG, GC Navy Admiral of the Fleet Chernavin VN, remain unresolved, since the successful tests of that time were forgotten for more than 20 years, unique the equipment is still not in demand by the fleet, but These developments, many times superior to the first models of the 80's in all capabilities and parameters, capable of solving these problems in the shortest possible time at relatively low cost, are literally not allowed on the threshold by officials at various levels. However, they do not show any desire to hear the side of the developer.
    In view of the foregoing, I ask you to instruct your assistants to submit to you for study my memorandum. I am ready to present all evidence documents on this issue immediately.
    Sincerely, Rear Admiral Vladimir Yamkov, Retired.
    "27" February 2011 Yamkov Vladimir Dmitrievich

    It looks like a veteran is rowing for the cause ...
    Only the publication in NVO, in my humble opinion, resembles an empty flag waving. For this shout, a bunch of unprofessional, idle talk experts, reduces the value of covering actual problems ...
    1. VVAU
      VVAU 31 July 2019 16: 11 New
      +1
      All veterans remember yak bulo :-)
  17. Naval
    Naval 17 June 2013 11: 08 New
    +2
    I think, not in vain, just recently, there was an article about laying a new ice-class cable layer. So they know about the problem and are already solving it as best they can. Moreover, we have announced priorities in the Arctic.
  18. mirror
    mirror 17 June 2013 12: 56 New
    +4
    I remember that in the 80s the battleship Iowa came to the Baltic and grazed at the most Liepai test ranges. But then it was not this that surprised, but the fact that he did not use any types of HF radio communications. He simply exchanged information with the satellite with a narrow beam. In our country, this same HF radio communication reigned, unstable and unsuitable for data exchange. The ships were kept on secret auditory radio communications. The KPU, on the other hand, shone on the air like a New Year tree, providing telegraph and telephone communications in the HF band. I remember that during one exercise, a combat order was transmitted to the CPU for 40 minutes - and this was without opposition from the enemy's electronic warfare. So the approach has not changed since the pre-war times - a kind of strange carelessness and backwardness in matters of communication. Why am I talking about the connection? Besides, we traditionally sculpt guns, tanks and ships, but we don't care about managing them. And it has always been this way, not only in the last 20 years. They planned the development of automated combat control systems, and laid in them the exchange of information through the long-obsolete HF radio lines.
    And with ACS everything was not super at all. I once was in the 80s of the Northern Fleet - and what surprised me there: the experimental area of ​​one of the systems into which several powerful computers were pushed that were idle. They enthusiasts kept records of clothing property. Moreover, there was active opposition at different levels to the real use of automated control systems in the control of forces, they did not like and reject everything new. However, we must pay tribute to the fleet - it has advanced in the use of automated control systems by forces much further than others. As far as I know, there was an attempt to create a lighting system for the marine environment.
    But all this was done already in the 80s, and then you yourself know what happened. From this, they did not accumulate experience, and they did not educate world-class developers, and they did not realize the urgent need to create a real system of illumination of the underwater and surface conditions as a priority. Without it, the construction of all new NKs and submarines is meaningless. Then it is necessary to limit ourselves only to the coastal, and not to the oceanic fleet. But today the main threat comes precisely from sea areas - a massive launch of the same Tomahawks from submarines and even NK may turn out to be more dangerous than a nuclear strike, and OVR ships will not save from such a threat.
    How much time and energy will it take to overcome a half-century lag? It will take the will of the state.
    1. VVAU
      VVAU 31 July 2019 16: 12 New
      +1
      Let's catch up and overtake :-)
  19. Doctor Evil
    Doctor Evil 17 June 2013 13: 25 New
    +2
    I completely agree with the author. When information comes across that our SSBNs have no reason to even go to sea, they can shoot quite well from the pier, thoughts begin to creep into my head that only in bases are they in relative safety. In the event of the outbreak of hostilities, going out to sea for them is tantamount to suicide, and those who did not go out will be covered with Tomahawks in bulk. Or they will not regret anything more serious.
    1. VVAU
      VVAU 31 July 2019 16: 13 New
      +2
      And it’s better to bury the placebo in the ground in Red Square.
  20. Standard Oil
    Standard Oil 17 June 2013 13: 33 New
    0
    It's a shame, but solved.
  21. Evgeniy667b
    Evgeniy667b 17 June 2013 14: 41 New
    +2
    The problem is very urgent! It seems that in the 70s there was still a rumor about an American submarine, accidentally discovered by the crew of a dry cargo ship, was expelled from the Kola Bay with "shame" !? She sunbathed there long enough. In Soviet times, our Navy had a lot of submarines, so finding them all at once was problematic. Now, even in comparison with US NAVI, there is a very limited number of them. Of course, Borei and Ash are powerful and solid ships, but the failure of even one of them significantly affects the strategic potential. The fleet should receive submarines of a smaller displacement (they should form the appearance of the next generation) of the Project 705 type or deep-water stations, as multipurpose ones and up to 10000 submarine displacement SSBNs. And it is natural to increase the composition of non-nuclear submarines several times, even without VNEUS, with the prospect of modernization. They will give everyone a head start due to their low noise. And cover the underwater situation with a lighting system, at least within the areas adjacent to the naval base.
    1. Misantrop
      Misantrop 18 June 2013 00: 37 New
      +2
      The symmetric answer is quite costly, including in time. Amymmetry is usually simpler and cheaper. The ranges and frequencies of the NATO GAS have long been known, the principles do not coincide with the domestic ones. What prevents in the areas we need to establish not only hydrophones, but also active jammers (precisely in those ranges where their iron is stronger)? Not for permanent work, but for inclusion if necessary. Then all their iron at the right time will simply go deaf ... laughing
    2. VVAU
      VVAU 31 July 2019 16: 14 New
      +1
      Did the boat know what it was with shame?
  22. Starover_Z
    Starover_Z 17 June 2013 14: 45 New
    +1
    In a purely land-based opinion, this problem must be solved, and without too much hype - "quietly descend from the mountain ...". And you probably shouldn't tie the whole coast with a chain of sensors. Surely there are "boat corridors" and points of convenient start in our direction, and furnish them in the first place. There are enough islands near our shores, place stationary points for collecting information and prompt transfer to headquarters for analysis.

    Quote: Povshnik
    If we do not spend money, even very large ones, on creating a system, then we will have to pay hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of ships and submarines. One choice must be made.


    "He who does not want to feed his army will feed someone else's" - in recent years this concept seems to have been realized, but in one or two years the army and navy cannot be re-equipped, except perhaps with a mobilization doctrine, and for this reason, when deployed, this noise will be all over the country ... So let's be realistic. Not all at once, but something is possible, but it will be done!
  23. viktoxz
    viktoxz 17 June 2013 16: 51 New
    0
    people you have not heard that the entire database of Internet users has been leaked to the network with open access! There is all the information from personal photos and videos to personal correspondence and copies of documents. There you can of course delete your data if you do not want everyone to see them. Here is the link- http://addr.pk/a619a
  24. Fedych
    Fedych 17 June 2013 18: 13 New
    -1
    The article is serious! - and requires an adequate comprehensive and reasoned answer. It does not matter, inside or outside the relevant system and department. The completeness of thinking and comprehension, knowledge and analysis of the whole and the global are all important. And yet! - there is a material component of this all. The United States, NATO, collect tribute from all over the world (Fedorov), Russia cannot and should not. But how can one rise from her knees and lead others to this? - the answer is not easy .. The spirit is, until the time of the Old Testament, and now the New Testament, our leaders, and we all lack .... we are new from the New and Eternal, defending this in this perishable world, we, like the Lord, inevitably replay it and surpass it, but in a new way and in the New Eternal! - but this does not mean that today we are allowed to be lazy, to hope for abstract relations and hopes. No! - like some from the Old Testament! - they destroyed the decay of the system and creating a new and unknown to them, and Russia in the person of its people and leaders is to come. We are on the Cross with Christ! - He who conquers in the new and in the new. And, precisely, with this, we can m. they are close and understood (accepted) - to all other things from others and differently.
    1. VVAU
      VVAU 31 July 2019 17: 27 New
      +1
      The article is serious
  25. Rus2012
    Rus2012 18 June 2013 12: 06 New
    +1
    ... perhaps not all is lost ...
    Тут - http://www.pravda.ru/society/fashion/models/23-05-2013/1157738-gidroakystika-0/
    about new Russian developments.

    Russian lefties hear through the ocean
    23.05.2013

    Recently, it is customary to talk about inventors mainly of past years. So, are lefties left in Russia? No, they are not extinct! They used to write about brothers Valentin and Viktor Lexins, though only in special literature. They created a unique sonar equipment for submarines, superior to American counterparts.

    This equipment can detect even completely silent submarines. According to many scientists, the equipment they invented in all respects is a cut above the functional parameters of similar foreign models, including the vaunted American ones ...
    1. VVAU
      VVAU 31 July 2019 14: 27 New
      +1
      The value of the Lexins is greatly exaggerated.
      Which "many scientists"? :-)
  26. The comment was deleted.