Military Review

Is there a torpedo more dangerous "Squall"?

123



At the turn of the 1960-70s in the Soviet Union, experimental designs appeared on the subject of heavy torpedoes leading along the wake of enemy ships.
At about the same time, when asked by the war correspondent: “How are you going to protect aircraft carriers from Russian super-torpedoes?” One of the senior US Navy representatives gave a simple and concise answer: “Let's put a cruiser in the wake of every aircraft carrier”.

Thus, the Yankees recognized the absolute vulnerability of carrier groups to the Soviet torpedo weapons and they chose from two evils the best, in their opinion, option: use their own cruiser as a “human shield”.

Actually, the US Navy didn’t have much to choose from - 11-65 76-mm 650-meter ammunition, better known as the “Soviet thick torpedo”, did not leave the American sailors any choice. This is the inevitable death. A dexterous and long “hand”, which allowed to hold by the throat the fleet of a “probable enemy”.

The Soviet Navy prepared a “farewell surprise” for the enemy - two alternative finals of the sea battle: get half a ton of TNT on board and fall into the bottomless sea abyss, tumbling and choking in the cold water, or find a quick death in a thermonuclear flame (half “long torpedoes”) "Was equipped with SACh).

The phenomenon of torpedo weapons

Every time, addressing the theme of the confrontation between the Navy of the USSR and the US Navy, the authors and participants of the discussions for some reason forget that in addition to the existence of anti-ship cruise missiles, in a naval war there is another specific means - a mine-torpedo weapon (Combat Part-3 according to the organization Navy).

Modern torpedoes are no less (and more) dangerous that supersonic anti-ship missiles are primarily due to their increased secrecy and powerful warhead, 2-3 times the mass of warheads of anti-ship missiles. Torpedo is less dependent on weather conditions and can be used in conditions of strong waves and heavy wind gusts. In addition, it is much more difficult for an attack torpedo to destroy or "knock off course" by jamming - despite all efforts to counter torpedo weapons, the designers regularly propose new guidance schemes that devalue all previous efforts to create "anti-torpedo" barriers.

In contrast to damage caused by the RCC, where such problems as “extinguishing fires” and “fighting for survivability” are still relevant, the encounter with a torpedo poses the unhappy sailors a simple question: where are the rescue rafts and inflatable vests? - ships of the “destroyer” or “cruiser” class are simply broken in half from the explosion of conventional torpedoes.

Is there a torpedo more dangerous "Squall"?

Decommissioned Australian frigate destroyed with a torpedo Mark.48 (weight of warhead - 295 kg)

The reason for the terrible destructive action of a torpedo is obvious - water is an incompressible medium, and all the energy of the explosion is directed into the body. Damage in the underwater part does not bode well for the seamen and usually results in a quick ship wreck.
Finally, a torpedo is the main weapon of submarines, and this makes it a particularly dangerous means of naval combat.

Russian response

During the Cold War, a very absurd and ambiguous situation developed at sea. American Navy, thanks to the deck aviation and a perfect air defense system, he managed to create an exceptional in its strength marine defense system, which made American squadrons practically invulnerable to air attack weapons.

The Russians entered the best traditions of Sun Tzu. The ancient Chinese treatise “The Art of War” says: go to the place where you are least waiting, attack where you are the worst prepared. Indeed, why "climb on the forks" of deck fighters and modern anti-aircraft systems, if you can hit from under the water?

In this case, AUG loses its main trump card - it makes absolutely no difference to submarines how many interceptors and long-range radar detection aircraft are on the decks of the Nimitsev. And the use of torpedo weapons will avoid meeting with the menacing systems of the air defense system.


Multipurpose nuclear-powered project 671РТМ (К)

The Yankees appreciated Russian humor and began frantically looking for means to prevent underwater attacks. Something they succeeded in - by the beginning of the 1970-s, it became clear that the torpedo attack of the AUG with the available means poses a deadly risk. The Yankees organized a continuous PLO zone within an 20 radius of miles from a carrier warrant, where the main role was assigned to the subard sonar of escort ships and ASROC anti-submarine torpedoes. The detection range of the most modern American sonar AN / SQS-53 was up to 10 miles in active mode (line of sight); in passive mode to 20-30 miles. The firing range of the ASROC complex did not exceed 9 kilometers.

“Dead Sectors” under the ship bottoms reliably covered multipurpose nuclear submarines, and somewhere far in the ocean, tens of miles from a marching squadron, anti-helicopter helicopters and specialized Viking and Orion aircraft were continuously searching.


Sailors from the aircraft carrier "George Bush" are letting the AN / SLQ-25 Nixie towed anti-torpedo trap overboard

In addition, the Americans took decisive measures to counter the released torpedoes: behind the stern of each ship, the float of the AN / SLQ-15 Nixie towed noise trap “hung out”, which made the use of torpedoes with passive aiming at the sound of propellers of enemy ships ineffective.

Analyzing the situation, the Soviet sailors rightly reasoned that the chance of being detected by anti-submarine aircraft is relatively small - any AUG, convoy or squad of warships are unlikely to be able to constantly keep more 8-10 vehicles in the air. Too little to control tens of thousands of square kilometers of adjacent water space.

The main thing - "not to catch the eye" sonars escort cruisers and nuclear submarines of the US Navy. In this case, it is necessary to release torpedoes from a distance of at least 40 ... 50 kilometers (≈20 ... 30 nautical miles). There were no problems with the detection and target designation - the roar of propellers of large ship joints was clearly heard over a hundred kilometers.


Heavy torpedo 65-76 "Kit". Length - 11,3 m. Diameter - 650 mm. Weight - 4,5 tons. Speed ​​- 50 knots (sometimes indicated before 70 knots.). The stroke range is 50 km on 50 nodes or 100 km on 35 nodes. The mass of the warhead - 557 kg. Guidance is carried out on the wake

Having decided on the choice of weapons, the sailors turned for help to representatives of the industry and were quite surprised by the answer received. It turned out that the Soviet military industrial complex acted on preemption and led the development of "long-range" torpedoes since the 1958 of the year. Of course, special capabilities required special technical solutions - the dimensions of the super-torpedo went beyond the usual torpedo tubes of 533 mm. At the same time, the achieved speed, firing range and weight of the warhead led the sailors to indescribable delight.

In the hands of the Soviet Navy was the most powerful underwater weapons ever created by man.

65-76 "Whale"

... The 11-meter "arrow" rushes through the water, scanning the sonar space for the presence of discontinuities and turbulence of the aquatic environment. These twists are nothing more than a wake track — water perturbations remaining behind the stern of a ship in motion. One of the main unmasking factors, the “standing wave” is distinguishable even many hours after the passage of large marine equipment.

"Thick torpedo" can not be deceived using AN / SLQ-25 Nixie or knock off course using dumped traps - hellish underwater tracker does not pay attention to noise and interference - it responds only to the wake of the ship. A few minutes later, a soulless robot will bring 557 kilograms of TNT to American sailors as a gift.



The crews of American ships are confused: on the sonar screens a terrible illumination flashed and shone - a high-speed, small-sized target. Until the last moment, it remains unclear: who will get the "main prize"? There is nothing for Americans to shoot a torpedo - there are no weapons on ships of the US Navy, similar to our RBU-6000. It is useless to use universal artillery - the “thick torpedo” reaching the depth of 15 meters, is difficult to detect on the surface. Small Mk.46 anti-submarine torpedoes are flying into the water - it's late! too long reaction time, homing head Mk.46 do not have time to capture the target.


Torpedo Shot Mk.46

Here, on an aircraft carrier, they figure out what needs to be done - the command “Stop the car!” Full back! ”, But the 100 000-ton ship continues to creep forward stubbornly, leaving a traitorous stern trail astern.
The deafening roar of the explosion, and the escort cruiser Belknap disappears behind the stern of the aircraft carrier. A new firework flashes on the left traverse - the second explosion tore apart the Knox frigate. They understand with horror on the aircraft carrier, they are next!

At this time, the next two torpedoes, the submarine, reload their vehicles and send a new gift to the Yankees to the doomed compound. A total of ammunition "Barracuda" twelve super-ammunition. One by one, the boat shoots “thick torpedoes” from a distance of fifty kilometers, watching the Yankee ships rushing over the surface of the ocean. The boat itself is invulnerable for means of PLO aircraft carrier group - they are separated 50 kilometers.

Task completed!

The position of American sailors was complicated by the fact that "thick torpedoes" were part of the 60 ammunition atomic icebreakers of the Soviet Navy.

The carriers were multi-purpose submarines of the 671 RT and RTM (K), 945 and 971 projects. Also, super-torpedoes were equipped with “loaves” of the 949 project (yes, dear reader, in addition to the P-700 missiles, the “loaf” could stun a “likely opponent” with a dozen 65-76 “Keith” torpedoes). Each of the above submarines had two or four torpedo tubes of caliber 650 mm, ammunition ranged from 8 to 12 "thick torpedoes" (of course, not counting the usual ammunition caliber 533 mm).


The location of the 8 torpedo tubes in the nose of the multipurpose submarine Ave 971 (code "Pike-B")

There was a “fat torpedo” and twin brother - torpedo 65-73 (as follows from the index, was created a few years earlier, in 1973 year). Solid drive and fire!
In contrast to the "intellectual" 65-76, the predecessor was the usual "kuzka's mother" for the destruction of all living and nonliving in its path. 65-73 were generally indifferent to external interference - the torpedo was traveling in a straight line towards the enemy, guided by the data of the inertial system. Until the 20-kiloton warhead fired at the calculated point of the route. Anyone who was within 1000 meters could safely return to Norfolk and get up for a long-term repair to the dock. Even if the ship did not sink, a close nuclear explosion pulled out the external radioelectronic equipment and antenna devices with the “meat”, broke the superstructure and crippled the launchers - it was possible to forget about the performance of any task.

In short, the Pentagon had a lot to think about.

Torpedo killer

That is what the legendary 65-76 is called after the tragic events of August 2000. The official version says that the spontaneous explosion of the “thick torpedo” caused the death of the Kursk submarine K-141. At first glance, the version at least deserves attention: the 65-76 torpedo is not a child’s rattle at all. This is a dangerous weapon, the treatment of which requires special skills.


Torpedo Thruster 65-76

One of the "weak points" of the torpedo was its propeller - an impressive range of fire was achieved using a propeller for hydrogen peroxide. And this means gigantic pressures, violently reacting components and the potential possibility of an involuntary reaction of an explosive nature. As an argument, supporters of the version of the explosion of the "thick torpedo" lead to the fact that all the "civilized" countries of the world refused to torpedoes for hydrogen peroxide. Sometimes from the lips of “democratically-minded specialists” one can hear such an absurd statement, allegedly a “beggar scoop” created a torpedo on a peroxide-hydrogen mixture only from a desire to “save” (of course, the “experts” did not bother to look at the Internet and at least briefly familiarize themselves with the TTH and history the appearance of "fat torpedoes").

Nevertheless, the majority of seamen, who are familiar with this torpedo system, question the official point of view. There are two reasons for this.

Without going into details of strict instructions and instructions for storing, loading and firing "thick torpedoes", naval experts note that the reliability of the system was very high (as far as high reliability of modern combat torpedoes can be). 65-76 had a dozen fuses and a serious “foolproof” - it was necessary to take some completely inadequate actions to activate the components of the torpedo fuel mixture.

For a quarter of a century of operating this system on the 60 nuclear submarines of the USSR Navy, there were no difficulties or problems with the operation of this weapon.

The second argument sounds no less serious - who and how determined that the “fat torpedo” became the culprit for the death of the boat? After all, the torpedo compartment of the "Kursk" was cut off and destroyed at the bottom of the subversive charges. Why do you need to saw off the nose? I am afraid that we will not know the answer soon.

With regard to the statement of the global rejection of hydrogen peroxide torpedoes, this is also a fallacy. Developed in 1984, the Swedish heavy torpedo Tr613, working on a mixture of hydrogen peroxide and ethanol, is still in service with the Swedish Navy and the Norwegian Navy. And no problems!

Forgotten hero

In the same year, when the dead Kursk sank to the bottom of the Barents Sea, a major espionage scandal broke out in Russia involving the theft of state secrets - a certain US citizen Edmond Pope tried to secretly acquire documentation on the Squall underwater rocket-torpedo. So the Russian public learned about the existence of underwater weapons capable of developing underwater speed of 200 + nodes (370 km / h). The average people liked the high-speed underwater system so much that any mention of the Squall rocket-torpedo in the media causes a lesser flurry of admiring responses and joyful confessions of love to this “miracle weapon”, which, of course, does not have any analogues.

The Squall high-speed missile torpedo is a cheap rattle compared to the 65-76 “Soviet thick torpedo”. The glory of "Squall" is undeserved - the torpedo is completely useless as a weapon, and its combat value tends to a round zero.


Underwater missile "Flurry". The thing is interesting, but completely useless.

Unlike the 65-76, which hits 50 or more kilometers, the firing range of the Squall does not exceed 7 km (the new version is 13 km). Little, very little. In modern naval combat, reaching such a distance is an extremely difficult and risky task. The combat part of the rocket torpedo is lighter almost 3 times. But the main “snag” in this whole story - “Squall”, due to its high speed, is an unguided weapon, and the probability of its hitting even the weakly maneuvering target is close to 0%, especially considering that the “Squall” attack is devoid of any secrecy. It is easy to detect an underwater missile going on a combat course - and no matter how fast the Squall is, the ship will have time to change course and depart a considerable distance from the calculated aiming point while it is overcoming 10 km. It is not difficult to imagine what will happen in this case with the submarine that launched the Squall - the distinct trail of rocket-torpedoes will clearly indicate the location of the submarine.

In a word, the Squall miracle weapon is another fruit of journalistic fantasies and philistine imagination. At the same time, the Real Hero - “the Soviet thick torpedo”, at the mere mention of which the knees of the NATO sailors were trembling at the NATO sailors, was undeservedly slandered and buried under the weight of the past years.

In connection with the disaster of the submarine "Kursk" it was decided to remove the torpedo 65-76 "Kit" from the arsenal of the Russian Navy. A very dubious and unjustified decision, certainly made not without a hint from our "Western partners." Now no "Flurry" will not replace the lost combat capabilities of submarines.

Author:
123 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Professor
    Professor 20 June 2013 07: 37 New
    16
    The article is correct, just does not meet the title. According to the author, any torpedo is more dangerous than a “Flurry”. request
  2. Sanamana
    Sanamana 20 June 2013 07: 52 New
    17
    Damn, aren't you really? Those years smell of state treason. Although not only those ...
    1. anip
      anip 20 June 2013 19: 28 New
      10
      Quote: Sanamana
      Damn, aren't you really? Those years smell of state treason. Although not only those ...

      Yes, we have from the time of the hunchbacked and still have one betrayal of those in power.
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 20 July 2013 14: 10 New
        +1
        Take it earlier. Dear Leonid Ilyich ...
        1. Oleg14774
          Oleg14774 15 August 2013 18: 14 New
          +5
          Quote: Andrey77
          Take it earlier. Dear Leonid Ilyich ...

          What about Khrushchev !?
  3. shurup
    shurup 20 June 2013 08: 11 New
    15
    A flurry of nuclear warheads installed instead of Whale warheads will leave time for the crossover of the AUG crews.
  4. Venguard
    Venguard 20 June 2013 08: 17 New
    24
    I’ll wait until the submariners come, as the author of “Flurry” lowered dashingly
    1. fartfraer
      fartfraer 20 June 2013 09: 02 New
      +5
      I agree, although I did not serve in the Navy, I suspect that it is necessary to change the course of a large ship in more than 1-1,5 minutes (well, in the sense of something coordinated), and the submariners aren’t stupid. with a fan "(well, somehow).
      we will wait for submariners for "consultations")))
      py.s. I read that a ship with a displacement of 40 tons needs at least 000 km at a speed of 1,5 knots to stop (during emergency braking), I think the maneuvers there are not much like drift
      1. Santa Fe
        20 June 2013 09: 33 New
        +3
        Quote: fartfraer
        py.s. I read that a ship with a displacement of 40 tons needs at least 000 km at a speed of 1,5 knots to stop

        This is a good result for such a giant.

        For example, the circulation radius of North Caroline (WWII battleship) was 650 meters
        Quote: fartfraer
        that a large time ship needs to change course more than 1-1,5 minutes

        Maneuvers the British destroyer of the Dering type (hull length 152 m, total displacement 8000 tons)
        1. polite people 2
          polite people 2 12 March 2014 22: 47 New
          0
          you're not lying
        2. polite people 2
          polite people 2 12 March 2014 22: 47 New
          0
          you're not lying
      2. volgro
        volgro 26 December 2014 23: 58 New
        -1
        Previously, there was an article that Flurry had a nuclear warhead and special precision was not needed. It was necessary to know the approximate location of the enemy.
        1. Lycan
          Lycan 9 November 2017 16: 03 New
          0
          Quote: volgro
          The flurry had a nuclear warhead

          What's the point? 13 km ... Either increase the range or the small stock is small.
          Flurry: 210kg warhead from 2700kg total. weight
          Kit: 557kg warhead out of 4450kg total weight
          Total - about half of the warhead "Kit". Well there will be a radius of 500m of uprooted electronics. Maybe justified (put on a Flurry of YaBCh) ....
    2. vjhbc
      vjhbc 20 June 2013 20: 48 New
      +5
      this is the weapon of last hope, this boat’s code has been discovered and it’s already guaranteed that the reactor will be overheated and try to bend as close to the AUG as possible and then throw barrels at the pistol range or kill them with SSBNs when our hunter practically rests on their screw and the protection of our SSBN before the attack maneuver frantic Ivan and a fan of squalls
      Quote: Venguard
      I’ll wait until the submariners come, as the author of “Flurry” lowered dashingly
      1. sir.jonn
        sir.jonn 1 August 2013 19: 49 New
        +2
        During my urgency at RTMK, the commander spoke about the possibility of launching a barrage only at maximum range for non-maneuverable or static targets, he never even hinted at the use of these bullets with a conventional warhead.
  5. tlauicol
    tlauicol 20 June 2013 08: 47 New
    19
    while the torpedo will pass 50 km, the ship will also pass 20 - 30 km depending on speed. those. in any case, the boat must cross the border of the PLO. Then, one Whale weighs as much as three Mk-48s, which is almost 900 kg of explosives, and it is more difficult to repel a salvo of three torpedoes
    Article is good
    1. ka5280
      ka5280 8 September 2013 05: 25 New
      +1
      Mach order speed depends on max. the speed of the slowest ship / ship, if I'm wrong, please correct. And the supply vessels in the AUG max. speed does not exceed 15-17 knots.
      1. igorka357
        igorka357 22 June 2016 18: 02 New
        +1
        In a stowed position, yes, when attacking an order, combat maneuvering and dodging a torpedo attack, they will think of supply vessels last of all .. and maybe they won’t at all! The main aircraft carrier!
  6. Kars
    Kars 20 June 2013 08: 48 New
    10
    Thank you interesting.

    Still about a fabulous armor-piercing torpedo with a copper burning rim from the muddy water (dock movie) told.
    1. fartfraer
      fartfraer 20 June 2013 09: 07 New
      -2
      well, there it was about uranium, if I’m not mistaken. it’s strange that you don’t question a torpedo that can go under water faster than a helicopter in the air, but here a torpedo with a “burning” warhead and a depleted uranium stuffing causes strange associations with a fairy tale Is this technically impossible? say shells of the kind do (for tanks, for example), but do you know something that does not allow the use of this technology in torpedoes?
      1. tlauicol
        tlauicol 20 June 2013 09: 21 New
        16
        what for do expensive torpedo neat hole in the right place when a simple charge will tear the boat in half? cumulative uranium torpedo - noodles on the ears
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 22 June 2016 18: 05 New
          0
          C'mon, have you heard anything about the two sturdy Shark hulls? Fuck you tear it apart ... but getting into the torpedo compartment and detonating the cruiser will definitely destroy! Perhaps the Americans also developed a new torpedo under our SSBN!
      2. Kars
        Kars 20 June 2013 11: 22 New
        +4
        Quote: fartfraer
        shells like this do (for tanks, for example)

        The speed of the BPS is much higher than even the speed of the Flurry, I’m not talking about its lateral load.
        1. svp67
          svp67 20 June 2013 11: 36 New
          0
          Quote: Kars
          I'm not talking

          ... about design and weight ...
          1. Santa Fe
            20 June 2013 16: 04 New
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            ... about design and weight ...

            mass is an argument
            construction is unlikely. a thin-walled tube with a “soft filler” is not an all-metal ingot of durable metal
            1. Nick
              Nick 20 June 2013 19: 37 New
              +1
              Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
              mass is an argument
              construction is unlikely. thin-walled pipe with soft filler

              The soft filler tears hard ..
              1. Santa Fe
                21 June 2013 02: 07 New
                +1
                Quote: Nick
                The soft filler tears hard ..

                Nonsense and offtopic.
                Did you understand what you said? And why?
      3. crying
        crying 18 December 2014 11: 36 New
        +1
        torpedoes with nuclear and atomic warheads have been abandoned for several reasons and for a long time, but the speed underwater is greater than the speed of a helicopter in the air - it's quite a reality ....
  7. Ramses_IV
    Ramses_IV 20 June 2013 09: 05 New
    +4
    Flurry, due to its high speed, is an uncontrollable weapon, and the probability of it falling even into a weakly maneuvering target is close to 0%, especially considering that the Flurry attack is devoid of any stealth.


    The author forgot to say that the “Flurry” lacks GOS, apparently due to the presence of a device for spraying the gas mixture in the bow. And it is precisely the absence of the GOS, and not the speed of the rocket, that makes it an uncontrollable weapon. Article +, it was interesting to learn about the "Whale".
    1. Santa Fe
      20 June 2013 09: 25 New
      +1
      Quote: Ramses_IV
      the “Flurry” lacks GOS, obviously due to the presence of a device for spraying the gas mixture in the bow. And it is precisely the lack of GOS, not rocket speed

      You confuse the cause with the effect
      The cunning nose of the rocket torpedo is a consequence of high speed and a means to ensure high speed
    2. desava
      desava 10 September 2013 06: 46 New
      +1
      Quote: Ramses_IV
      And it is the absence of a seeker, and not the speed of the rocket, that makes it an uncontrollable weapon

      They are fundamentally wrong! It is speed, or rather its consequence - noise makes homing impossible. When moving in water at such a speed, no acoustic station will hear anything but its own rumble!
      1. crying
        crying 18 December 2014 11: 37 New
        0
        looking at what frequencies to make noise :)
        1. arnar114
          arnar114 30 July 2017 18: 32 New
          +1
          You need to understand that the speed of the “Flurry” is provided by the gas cavity in which the rocket moves. The cavern creates a special nozzle in the bow of the torpedo. This device requires a huge amount of gas, and therefore fuel. Installing a GOS on this type of torpedo is meaningless - at the boundary of two gas-water media, the signal is lost.
    3. igorka357
      igorka357 22 June 2016 18: 11 New
      0
      Kozma Prutkov or whatever .. "look at the root" why the device in the nose of the torpedo, for speed..GOSN nowhere to put! What we have at the exit, it was the speed that made the "barrage" not controlled weapons!
  8. Pamir210
    Pamir210 20 June 2013 09: 22 New
    0
    We somehow forgot that the PLO of the connection is provided, including a fairly numerous aviation component.
    So everything is not so unpunished. Although it was interesting to read.
    1. Santa Fe
      20 June 2013 09: 36 New
      +2
      The construction of the British AUG, the 1970s
    2. igorka357
      igorka357 22 June 2016 18: 13 New
      0
      Something Russophobe Klensi "Red Storm" reminded .. God ...))
  9. Pacifist
    Pacifist 20 June 2013 09: 36 New
    10
    The article is interesting, controversial, but interesting ... with one unquestionable question ... who removed effective weapons and with whose help ... it clearly smacks of state treason ... although other bureaucratic stupidity is worse than treason ...
    1. crying
      crying 18 December 2014 11: 38 New
      0
      common people will never know)
  10. Tuzik
    Tuzik 20 June 2013 09: 51 New
    13
    the flurry cannot be made controllable, if there is even a small torpedo dodge at a speed of more than 200 mph, the cavitation cocoon will be distorted and the torpedo will simply break.
    1. Locksmith
      Locksmith 20 June 2013 13: 13 New
      +2
      Quote: Tuzik
      a flurry cannot be made manageable
      In the photo “Flurry” the governing body is clearly visible - somehow does it keep the trajectory under water? And how do you think the Germans made a controlled copy of the flurry? Everything is possible, only it is necessary to approach this issue in a “technical” way, a flurry has been invented long ago, years have passed, new solutions to previously unsolvable problems have appeared, so soon we will probably see a “thick” torpedo in a new reincarnation and a flurry with control, for some kind of horseradish We built a LiPo plant in the north of the country and on the Internet you can buy batteries from .. torpedoes, which means there are torpedoes for this battery.
      1. dustycat
        dustycat 21 June 2013 21: 29 New
        +2
        Just sticking out to the side of the bubble of the SGB hydroantenna, just gas rudders and taxiing is not 20-30 degrees, but only 5-8.
        This is what offhand suggests itself.
        But short range still comes out.
        And this is an incurable minus.
        1. de_Torquemada
          de_Torquemada 30 June 2013 04: 44 New
          0
          Read what cavitation is, what it leads to and maybe you yourself will understand that you wrote nonsense
    2. Evrepid
      Evrepid 20 June 2013 16: 24 New
      0
      An interesting statement.
      It was believed earlier that it was impossible to move with such speed.
      I think it’s more correct to say that turning at large angles is critical.
      Correct me where I am wrong
      1. crying
        crying 18 December 2014 11: 40 New
        0
        Moving under water faster than the speed of sound in air is easy, but faster than the speed of sound in water is a much more difficult task, the impossibility of which is more logical to speak))
    3. xmike
      xmike 27 June 2013 12: 15 New
      0
      Maybe it is the "distortion" of the cocoon that she steers;)
  11. Mhpv
    Mhpv 20 June 2013 10: 00 New
    +3
    This article is a huge plus! I think that these two products can only complement each other but not interchange in any way, and everything is correctly said in the article about the “thick” and the “Flurry”.
    The fact that an explosion of a thick torpedo occurred on the Kursk still does not have a basis for this version, because then they dropped this torpedo, and that they just didn’t do it, but nothing of the kind happened to describe it well. “Kursk. 10 years later.” Yes, and Oleg clearly indicated that the nose was destroyed later, although it should have been destroyed during the explosion.
    The film "A submarine in troubled waters", another masterpiece of the West like we all had was bad in the Navy and in general in Russia, and therefore Russia should not have such weapons, and that’s all, but the truth is that minimum.
    Oleg is also a plus for, as they now like to call, urapatriotizm. So we must live. You watch the film of the Discovery damn company "Submarines. Sharks of Steel" as there the Americans admire their boats and are ready to destroy everyone and everything (of course the Russians), how they are well served on boats, unlike the Russians. They will at least sail but destroy a Russian boat, so the one that’s on Discovery’s television isn’t just that in life it’s the propaganda channel of the Americans.
    And about the "Flurry" here is a short video:
  12. alex20081308
    alex20081308 20 June 2013 10: 26 New
    47
    As a specialist in mine-torpedo weapons (VVMUPP named after Leninsky Komsomol, the department of mine-torpedo weapons, later the commander of a rocket-torpedo group on a 971 project), I can say that torpedo 65-76 is anochroism and completely useless in the fight against AUG. Calculations show that for the sinking of an aircraft carrier, it takes about 10-12 such torpedoes to hit. What is a torpedo guidance from a distance of about 50 km, in the conditions of active anti-aircraft defense, when it is not equipped with remote control, ask experts. At such distances, shooting errors are very large. The production of shooting data is difficult. Accordingly, target designation for a torpedo will be worked out with big errors. As for the speed of the torpedo at 70 km per hour, an overkill. But with regard to the complexity of the operation and the complexity of preparing for firing, there is such a thing. It was not in vain that during my time on the submarine from 1993 to 2003 I did not hear that the firing of this torpedo was practiced in a practical version. With the exception of = Kursk =. So praise to this torpedo is undeserved. And as for the = squall = I agree completely. Only the article does not say that = flurry = was created exclusively for firing nuclear warheads. And here the accuracy of the hit did not make much sense. But the question of whether our carrier will survive after a nuclear explosion remains open. But in any case, the exchange of ICLS for an aircraft carrier makes sense. I do not touch on moral aspects here. I think from a wartime perspective.
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 20 June 2013 12: 08 New
      +8
      Why drown an aircraft carrier?
      Passing along the wake trail, the torpedo hits straight into the propellers, or directly into the stern, which causes it to lose speed and turn the aircraft carrier into a tin can.
      Also, why do you forget that aircraft carriers are nuclear? They have reactors that, in which case, they themselves can safely bury the entire AUG. It is clear that there is protection and all that, but when the torpedo tears off half of the "w ... p", it seems that no protection circuit will help.
      1. alex20081308
        alex20081308 20 June 2013 15: 44 New
        +5
        Believe me, not a single torpedo is capable of making sure that at least a thermal explosion of the reactor occurs. As for going through the COP, you still have to go into it. Well, and then she flounders not under the screws. The algorithm is different. I will not spread. But it will explode under the bottom closer to one or the other side. Well, there will be a hole, they will straighten it in 15 minutes, and this will happen automatically with the waterproof bulkheads shutting down. And the carrier will go further.
        1. GHG
          GHG 20 June 2013 19: 45 New
          +1
          For any aircraft carrier will be disabled, and it will take him not a month or three to repair. For any, many auxiliary mechanisms, damage to pipelines and cable routes will be torn off the foundations, detonation of a part of the defense base is theoretically possible. The reactor protection will work, and this loss of progress. In their case, it is the inability to raise their aircraft with a full load of fuel and ammunition. Unfortunately, I haven’t found the anti-torpedo reservation scheme of Nimets AB anywhere.
          1. alex20081308
            alex20081308 20 June 2013 22: 40 New
            +1
            Yes, the fact of the matter is that with a high degree of probability for him it will be like a bullet in the ass for an elephant ....
          2. bddrus
            bddrus 23 June 2013 21: 47 New
            -1
            how the loss of progress will prevent the raising of aircraft with full ammunition? if slower is harder to take off? what's the connection
            1. GHG
              GHG 26 June 2013 00: 20 New
              +2
              And you did not know that the favorable conditions for takeoff are the presence of oncoming air flows and the presence of full speed at the AB?
              It is more profitable to take off against the wind.
              To launch aircraft, the aircraft carrier goes FULLY AGAINST the wind.This allows you to create the BEST lift force. At the same time, the total speed of the aircraft carrier, wind and catapults allows you to start heavy vehicles. from its own speed, wind and ship speeds, providing a reduction in landing speed.
              1. Alex
                Alex 12 September 2013 21: 56 New
                +5
                I add that the launch of aircraft is carried out using STEAM catapults. Today it is the most advanced launch system, providing the maximum speed of lifting aircraft. During WWII, the selection of steam to the catapults during the mass departure was so significant that the AB often lost its course almost to a complete stop. It was the colossal steam production of nuclear power plants in accordance with the notorious unlimited autonomy that provided them with a place on the AV. Any disruption in the operation of the reactors will lead to a loss of power (this is at best, in the case of uncontrolled growth, you yourself know what is happening) and productivity with all the corresponding consequences.
                Modern AV is a rather complex and interconnected thing, how it behaves in the case of one or two explosions of such power, I think no one knows, and to draw analogies, extrapolating survivability and reaction to damage to the AV period of the 40's, it seems to me, not absolutely correct.
        2. dustycat
          dustycat 21 June 2013 21: 47 New
          +1
          Not a fact.
          A water hammer is capable of severely damaging and tearing off aggregates and mechanisms from the foundations without which the ship is just a barge.
          And not always self-propelled.
        3. Misantrop
          Misantrop 21 June 2013 22: 04 New
          +3
          Quote: alex20081308
          Believe me, not a single torpedo is capable of making sure that at least a thermal explosion of the reactor occurs.

          This is yes, if the torpedo is not nuclear. But, to ditch the aircraft carrier, a nuclear explosion is not needed. Above the head, the destruction of the cooling circuit is enough. In the best case, the aircraft carrier will turn into an iron, since ALL backup energy sources will be used to output the main installation (and not the fact that it’s enough). Well, at worst ... Fukushima remember? They also failed to provide cooling facilities ... lol
        4. xtur
          xtur 15 July 2013 18: 24 New
          0
          > at least a thermal explosion of the reactor

          thermal explosion the aircraft carrier itself will carry it, and maybe even nearby ships.
        5. ka5280
          ka5280 10 September 2013 04: 56 New
          +2
          In any scenario, the undermining of 800 kg of TNT next to the rotor-propeller group, which will not go unnoticed by AB. Outboard pipelines of 100 pounds will flow due to water hammer. With electronics and electro-automation problems will begin. In general and generally in the engine room, trouble will be present.
          And again, why should AV be drowned, it must be disabled, estimate how much resources the mattress will spend on bringing AB to the repair shop and repairing it.
        6. igorka357
          igorka357 22 June 2016 18: 23 New
          0
          Che something like everything is just specialist for you, six hundred kilograms underneath banged, and you have fifteen minutes and you're done .. then we’ll run on full steam! Are you not an expert on other issues a ..))?
  13. Nayhas
    Nayhas 20 June 2013 10: 54 New
    12
    Oleg, without emotions you can’t smile ... At the expense of the danger of torpedoes. This is undoubtedly a dangerous weapon, but intercepting is not so difficult. It is difficult to sneak up on the AUG (if it was discussed), in addition to the carrier-based aircraft carrier there are anti-submarine helicopters on each of the accompanying combat aircraft (two in some), which together with the nuclear submarines form the basis of the AAG submarine. The opening of the torpedo tube and the launch of the torpedo engine will be detected by acoustics, in addition, the working torpedo engine is quite noisy and is detected at a great distance. Even if you do not take the speed of the ship’s warrant, then from the launch of the torpedo 65-76 from a maximum distance of 50 km. about 30 minutes will pass before hitting the target, this is enough to release a couple of torpedoes that will destroy the attacking torpedo. So your statement that the American sailors are squabbling from our torpedoes is somewhat exaggerated. No more than ours from the American.
    PS: in the photo collage you presented, the SPECIAL torpedo action is shown in which the warhead does not explode when it hits the ship’s hull like conventional torpedoes, but when it passes under the keel of the ship in the midship region.
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 20 June 2013 12: 14 New
      +2
      And how difficult is it to hear a torpedo in the wake?
      As I understand it, acoustic bacchanalia is happening there and it is difficult to isolate a frontally approaching object. IMHO
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas 20 June 2013 12: 47 New
        +2
        Towed GAS noise of screws and carrier mechanisms is not a hindrance, and the submarine (from the AUG escort) GAS will be more powerful ...
        1. Aleks49
          Aleks49 29 October 2013 16: 11 New
          0
          Towed GAS creates problems in maneuvering and does not provide an opportunity to accelerate the course. Not everything is fine with this.
        2. crying
          crying 18 December 2014 11: 44 New
          0
          and the frequency range in which the torpedo may make noise, again, may not coincide, and filter out - just spit
      2. alex20081308
        alex20081308 20 June 2013 18: 06 New
        +3
        The fact is that the concept of a torpedo in a wake jet is somewhat vague. it is there about 50 percent of the time. Why-I will not spread. But the remaining 50 percent of the time it goes beyond the wake.
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 22 June 2016 18: 33 New
          0
          Well, again ... I said so ... but why I won’t say it, since it’s a secret ..)) have you taken too much into yourself, or into yourself? Anachronism withdrawn from service and you all play conspiracies! And 50 % of the time it is from what distance ..))?
    2. Delta
      Delta 20 June 2013 13: 01 New
      +3
      Quote: Nayhas
      in the photo collage you showed, the SPECIAL torpedo action in which the warhead does not explode when hit in the ship’s hull like conventional torpedoes, but when passing under the keel of the ship in the midship region.


      What kind of special torpedo? all MK-48 explode, passing 5-8 meters from the ship. They have a contact-contact fuse. Those. may explode both from contact with the ship and passing nearby
    3. Aleks49
      Aleks49 29 October 2013 16: 03 New
      +2
      What is the difficulty? AUG itself will run into a hidden boat. Now about the very powerful anti-submarine defense of the AUG. They all (AUG ships) are moving at high speed. At the same time, they are noisy, so even active agents lose their effectiveness very much. Silence is also needed to catch the reflected signal. Secondly, they cannot all simultaneously work in active mode since interfere with each other. The threat to boats is only helicopters with hydrophones. But imagine how many helicopters you need to have in order to cover the area occupied by the AUG. Actual actions of a submarine against AUG clearly show that AUG does not have effective protection. The submarine may be at a disadvantage either by the coincidence of circumstances or by illiterate actions of the submarine crew. At a depth of 250-300 m. The submarine will calmly enter any AUG. By the way, helicopters are also ineffective in this case. They cannot immerse hydrophones at such a depth. AUG is an effective weapon against peaceful ships, to create naval blockades and for active military operations against coastal countries with a small territory. In other words, offensive weapons against militarily weak countries with a very strong dependence of the economy on shipping. In the global war, they will be among the first to be destroyed. Secondly, aircraft carriers are very much attached to their bases, oddly enough. In the event of damage to an aircraft carrier, a situation of impossibility of receiving raised planes may arise. Where do they sit then? And the aircraft carrier itself, having lost its course, is simply a tin can. He does not even have a sufficiently strong air defense. Air defense is located on escort ships. AUG maneuverability is almost nonexistent. What maneuverability can be said for a group of ships. They also need to somehow coordinate their actions so that the connection does not break up. And you can’t destroy your inadvertently. The inefficiency of aircraft carriers against well-armed countries showed the war in Vietnam. The state, stretched along the coastline, was able to effectively resist the AUGs and strategic aviation. Moreover, the Americans could not conduct a single landing operation with the use of AUG against North Vietnam. Landings of sabotage groups were suppressed within 2 hours. Americans could not organize large landings. These are the realities of the true effectiveness of AUG. The Vietnamese did not have any naval forces defended themselves only with air defense systems and mobile anti-sabotage units. Of course, Vietnam’s weapons were not obsolete from us.
  14. Dimy4
    Dimy4 20 June 2013 10: 55 New
    +3
    By the way, about the spy scandal. This documentation to the Americans, almost the consent of EBN was given, but they did not have time to die. And Uncle Vova slammed this little company in time.
    1. SASCHAmIXEEW
      SASCHAmIXEEW 20 August 2013 14: 35 New
      +1
      I wish I would have slammed all the rest !!! Starting from the environment ....
  15. _KM_
    _KM_ 20 June 2013 11: 18 New
    -2
    In general, the situation with torpedoes and anti-torpedo protection resembles the classic army wisdom - for every tricky one ... there is always ... with a screw. In addition, 50 km is a very short distance, and the submarine will not be able to hang on the tail of the AUG for a long time. And in the event of a threat of the outbreak of conflict, it will be preventively sank. It is not for nothing that in the USSR they began to develop anti-ship missiles with a long range. For example, "granite" and "amethyst".
    1. Aleks49
      Aleks49 29 October 2013 16: 36 New
      +1
      The submarine can be on the tail of the AUG as long as necessary. In order to destroy it, you first need to detect and catch in sight. Talking amers that they know the whereabouts of Russian boats is just talking to justify to the taxpayer an expensive and inefficient PLO system. More often than not, they “know” the location of the boats from their agents. But it can be the same diso. Our intelligence creates the appearance that they (the Americans) are really very well trained. About 4 US ships were operating against our 180 diesel engines in the Caribbean crisis. They managed to block only one boat due to a malfunction. This is the true "efficiency" of both ships and aircraft (base) and AUG. Since then, the efficiency of submarines has increased significantly due to the great depths of immersion, speed and unlimited swimming, and everything that dangles on the surface remains at the same level. Systems "Granite" and "Amethyst" increased the range of weapons of submarines for the guaranteed destruction of NK. Now boats can shoot NK from great distances.
  16. _KM_
    _KM_ 20 June 2013 11: 26 New
    0
    About the flurry. If it is impossible to place the detection devices in the head part, maybe try them in the tail or some towed antenna?
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 20 June 2013 12: 53 New
      0
      The Americans are just working on an analogue of Flurry, only controllable.
      1. Andrey77
        Andrey77 20 July 2013 14: 14 New
        +1
        And flying ... Do not give the link, as I understand it.
  17. Delta
    Delta 20 June 2013 11: 39 New
    16
    "One of the main unmasking factors, the" standing wave "is visible even many hours after the passage of large marine equipment." it remains only to understand where the author’s information about "many hours". This is not ironic (just in case)


    "65-76 had a dozen fuses ..." straight a dozen? why not two dozen? well, so that Pikul rejoices at the successor
    In general, the article is - as always: aircraft carriers - feces, you give the nuclear submarines and nothing more. As one of the members of the forum put it well in the subject a couple of days ago about Kaptsov:

    nerd.su Yesterday, 18:17 ↑
    Quote: MG42
    That's the trouble shy from side to side >> in the article one >> why Russia fleet?
    Yes, he asks a question, but does not answer. The message is this: as long as Russia has a strategic nuclear forces, no one will touch it; aircraft carriers are ruinous, landing ships ruinous, if you recall earlier, and ekranoplanes are ruinous. And the projection of force using surface ships is fiction. Like, conclude, Russian people, since you have the strategic nuclear forces, nobody will touch you, so reduce the army and navy, leave the internal troops and a couple of planes to guard the territorial waters. At first I thought a lad from the Washington regional committee. But now I think this is a new kind of troll after crossing with a graphomaniac - it throws in provocative articles so that there is where to frolic in the comments
    But he writes interestingly, with tragic pathos and rhetorical questions.
    Do not take these opuses to heart. But it’s also impossible to be completely silent, and then suddenly someone will think that we really have enough police ...
    1. Santa Fe
      20 June 2013 18: 12 New
      +5
      Quote: Delta
      it remains only to understand where the author got information about "many hours". This is not ironic (just in case)

      under favorable conditions (lack of strong currents and external disturbances) the trace from large-capacity ships is visible for more than a day
      1. alex20081308
        alex20081308 20 June 2013 18: 17 New
        +5
        There is a clear formula for the KS standing time. Of course, for space sources of detection, it can be measured for many hours, but for a homing system of a torpedo this time is much shorter.
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 22 June 2016 18: 39 New
          0
          And why .. Again you will not be distributed, I guessed ..))?
      2. Delta
        Delta 20 June 2013 18: 18 New
        +1
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        under favorable conditions (lack of strong currents and external disturbances) the trace from large-capacity ships is visible for more than a day


        Yes, I would be glad to believe. Where does the information come from? own observations? and what does it mean to "see"? visually?
        1. dustycat
          dustycat 21 June 2013 21: 00 New
          +3
          Many times he himself saw on the Volga - even in very windy weather, the trail from the barges lasts for hours. In calm and even longer. And in the Baltic and Black Seas I observed the same phenomenon.
          And it is visual.
          And this is only the foamy path from the wake.
          It’s worth noting that the Americans are not just setting up thermal imagers to search for vessels in the CS (including submarines).
          The thermal tail of the agitated water is very long visible and deep.
          1. El13
            El13 21 June 2013 21: 59 New
            +3
            And if you still consider the disturbed plankton - then you can already measure for days ... But this is not for the torpedo :)
      3. Aleks49
        Aleks49 29 October 2013 17: 46 New
        0
        Not even from large-tonnage long visible. But from the submarine, if the wake stream did not come to the surface, it is not very visible.
      4. st.lt
        st.lt 22 November 2013 21: 37 New
        0
        nonsense, in the open sea (ocean), and even after the passage of several ships, you’ll see the horseradish, there it was-aug or MAERSK
    2. bddrus
      bddrus 23 June 2013 21: 54 New
      -1
      You’re right, you’re reading the forums for a long time and I realized that if things are not going well in any area, it’s only because the main experts on the forums have gone ...
    3. Aleks49
      Aleks49 29 October 2013 17: 35 New
      0
      You have a strange way of being responsible for your opponent yourself. Especially about the standing wave, they were very “convinced”. In addition to elementary physics, one must also understand the technique of how and where this physics is applied. Where are those systems that detect standing waves of "large marine equipment" in the marine environment? Your exuberant fantasy, HOWEVER.
  18. Taoist
    Taoist 20 June 2013 13: 20 New
    +6
    As usual, when praises of one thing or another are sung, the uncomplicated circumstance that any weapon does not exist and cannot be used "on its own" is overlooked. Unique in their “intelligence” and striking power, “Granites” require external target designation, “Thick torpedoes” have limitations in distance and difficulty in target selection. Etc. etc. It is always worth remembering that “wunderwaffles” do not exist in principle, and advantages in some performance characteristics are always fraught with shortcomings in others. Weapons are, first of all, a complex that includes, in addition to purely technical, also “human components” - and with this, for the past quarter century, it has been very uneasy with us. Perhaps the price of the death of Kursk is a "loose nut" or an error of a torpedo untrained in the required volume. Actually, the performance characteristics of weapons are not related. And the question "who or what was appointed guilty" again lies exclusively in the plane of the human factor.
  19. Marconi41
    Marconi41 20 June 2013 14: 03 New
    +3
    At one time, in Kamchatka, a couple of 1135 and 1135M handed over task K together (I was still a conscript). After the launch of the torpedo, she aimed at the next ship in the wake of the wake. So the "neighbor" easily evaded the torpedo, although the distance to it was trifling. I deliberately do not mention the name of the ships, who in the know. And ways to evade such torpedoes MASS! The secrecy of launching a torpedo also causes a smile; any trained acoustics can detect its launch. But I don’t know about the Flurry, the speed is enormous (while the acoustics will report to the commander and he will evaluate the situation a lot of time will pass).
  20. SIT
    SIT 20 June 2013 14: 23 New
    11
    I want to object to the effectiveness of the submarine as a whole and stand up for the Flurry. I do not know how it is now, but in the USSR huge resources were allocated for the study of the oceans. In the USA, these are still existing programs. One of these Soviet programs was the Cutting program. Vessels of various departments, ranging from hydrographs and hydrometry to fish finders, performed measurements over a network of points with given coordinates in different seasons of the year through certain water areas of the ocean. The main component of the measurements was temperature and salinity over the entire depth of the section. These parameters make it possible to calculate the density and therefore the speed of sound in water. In the United States and Canada, a system of stationary and drifting automatic buoys was used for these purposes. With the accumulation of an array of such data and a certain typification of situations, especially in the area of ​​frontal zones, it is possible to construct the propagation fields of acoustic waves in a given water area. The idea is this. Stations transmitters send packets of acoustic waves of a certain frequency. Receiver stations accept these packets. If during the reception of waves some distortions are detected, such as from the envelope of an obstacle not noted earlier, then the approximate location of this obstacle is calculated. This area is immediately contoured by Neptune and Orion acoustic buoys. In the absence of patrol aircraft in the immediate vicinity, such buoys can even be delivered to the area with cruise missiles just in a matter of minutes. After this, the boat is no longer leave. It simply will not be released from ticks until complete destruction.
    Flurry torpedoes need not be based on submarines or NK. They can be placed in submarine containers in narrow places and on banks in the area of ​​the intended movement of enemy ships. Activation in combat mode and the inclusion of a calculator for firing is carried out by a radio signal to a completely invisible receiver located on the shore, which already gives an acoustic signal to the container. Such a container can be delivered and installed unnoticed by any small fishing utensils with a feed slip for trawling. Tow closer to the shore and can be installed using the means used by underwater sabotage groups. Detecting such a PDSS container will not be easy, as will have to bluntly rummage around apt. km of coastal zone and shallows. If, for example, Iranians who stuttered about their torpedo-like Flurry installed something similar in the Strait of Hormuz, then no AUGs could enter the Persian Gulf. Even the destroyers will not have time to evade maneuvers, not to mention the aircraft carrier.
    1. Acoustic
      Acoustic 20 June 2013 15: 31 New
      +3
      To determine the signal changes it is necessary: ​​to have synchronous transmitter-receiver pairs; continuous monitoring of hydrology (the temperature gradient changes
      during the day, or even hours), secrecy of observation with sufficient operational coverage. Too expensive.
      1. SIT
        SIT 20 June 2013 17: 46 New
        +5
        Quote: Acoustic
        have synchronous transmitter-receiver pairs

        Already stand from the 90s.
        Quote: Acoustic
        continuous monitoring of hydrology (the temperature gradient changes throughout the day, or even hours),

        Below thermogalocline practically does not change. Above changes slightly with the passage of severe storms. Exception frontal zones. There may be fluctuations in the synoptic and tidal periods, but such fronts in the ocean are located in areas of the western boundary currents such as the Gulf Stream and Kuroshio. These areas are already blocked by existing means of PLO. Monitoring of temperature and even salinity of the surface layer is now established from satellites. The distribution of these characteristics with depth is modeled on 3-dimensional models according to the boundary conditions coming from moored buoys and the surface from a satellite. The grid spacing of models from the 80s was 6 miles. On modern computers, you can reproduce how much you need. Operational coverage of the water area inside the polygon Aleuts, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Hokkaido. In the North Atlantic, passing the undetected line Northcap - Bear - Svalbard is already a big success. In the Arctic, not only our joint ventures were frozen into ice. The ice cap will not protect against anything now. Rather, the opposite. And in the Canadian sector, you can’t even touch impudent active sensors for foreign territory.
        1. Acoustic
          Acoustic 21 June 2013 10: 52 New
          0
          Do not be smart. Got knowledge and close ................
        2. Acoustic
          Acoustic 21 June 2013 13: 08 New
          +1
          No offense! Desk research is one thing. Try to really find a cluster of fish. PL just smokes)))) For many years in this subject
        3. yousha1980
          yousha1980 April 24 2017 00: 05 New
          0
          If there is electronic warfare, then a fight with the enemy’s acoustic equipment is also possible.
    2. Marconi41
      Marconi41 20 June 2013 17: 28 New
      +1
      Could it be easier to use them as (already forgotten) reactive pop-up mines? At shallow depths, they will be a very effective weapon! Although the developers know better. During the Second World War until the 42nd year, all torpedoes were uncontrolled, and how many German submariners launched to the bottom ...
      1. Santa Fe
        20 June 2013 18: 00 New
        0
        Quote: Marconi41
        During the Second World War until the 42nd year, all torpedoes were uncontrolled, and how many German submariners launched to the bottom ...

        They fired from very short ranges - usually less than 1 mile
    3. Aleks49
      Aleks49 29 October 2013 18: 55 New
      +3
      You have transferred the study of the seas and oceans from a theoretical plane to a fantastic one. Can you imagine what resources you need to use to be able to calculate an object in depth in this way? Having fantasized, you yourself thought up for others, specialists, how and what they will apply. What is the oceans for you? Bathroom in your own apartment? With a flurry, they also fantasized. Without any Flurry, you can set mines and not a single ship will dare to poke in there. Trawling will take a lot of time. And to destroy a minesweeper so that it does not trawl is much simpler than to fight against missile-carrying frigates. Detecting and neutralizing a guided anchor mine is a very difficult task. A flurry is a duel rocket. Do not invent horseradish here. He discovered the target and immediately banged on the bearing without any calculations.
  21. Acoustic
    Acoustic 20 June 2013 15: 08 New
    +4
    A torpedo, as an underwater combat shell, is intended for use in water. And only in it))
    In the aquatic environment, the main source of information is low-frequency vibrations (so-called sound)
    Water weakly accepts oscillations of other sources (attenuation is large. ADD for communication)
    And the most unpleasant thing for the propagation of sound in water is the gas-water boundary layer.
    Here is the problem with the guidance of high-speed torpedoes.
    For the curious: the so-called "acoustic snake" is used to direct an ordinary torpedo.
    The torpedo using the built-in HOOK finds the wake and then --- buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum!
    And fuses can work on different physical fields (magnetic, acoustic, gravitational, etc.) Well, a torpedo will never hit a ship under the propeller. Complete nonsense and guidance will not allow
  22. Suvorov000
    Suvorov000 20 June 2013 16: 30 New
    +2
    In general, the Moreman came and put all the points over and)))
  23. akmoa781
    akmoa781 20 June 2013 17: 19 New
    +1
    It seems to me that the refusal of the Russian Navy to use "thick torpedoes" is just to calm the nerves of our worst friends "from that shore", but in fact the torpedo rests quietly on the shelves in the submarine compartments of our fleet and is waiting in the wings. Whatever our admirals and our current presidents may be, and whatever they say about them, I know one thing they can’t be called fools. Do not forget about the same armored train that stands on the siding.
  24. mithridate
    mithridate 20 June 2013 17: 37 New
    +2
    Pobol would have such weapons to fear the mattress covers and others like them
  25. Know-nothing
    Know-nothing 20 June 2013 19: 56 New
    0
    How true is this statement?
    There were no problems with detection and target designation - the roar of the screws of large ship formations was clearly audible over a hundred kilometers.
    1. alex20081308
      alex20081308 20 June 2013 22: 38 New
      0
      Absolutely wrong
  26. nnz226
    nnz226 20 June 2013 21: 06 New
    +6
    The “Flurry” was supposed to be used by the MSC all his life, and those few minutes after the “hearing” the Flurry, the AUG crews could devote to prayer. An explosion in a torpedo tube of a torpedo balloon with hydrogen peroxide could destroy the gun itself, but cause the detonation of all ammunition in the first compartment ???? As the hero of the cartoon said: "Do not tell my horseshoes!" This is about the version of the death of the Kursk. In order for the torpedo to detonate, you have to make so much “effort”, and here, as in Hollywood: it puffed and everything started to explode! Rave!
    1. MURANO
      MURANO 23 June 2013 19: 42 New
      -2
      Quote: nnz226
      An explosion in a torpedo tube of a torpedo balloon with hydrogen peroxide could destroy the gun itself, but cause the detonation of all ammunition in the first compartment ???? In the words of the cartoon hero: "Do not tell my horseshoes!

      Have you investigated? How many field experiments? smile
      According to the system, guidance on the wake trail. Not the best scheme. One of the minuses, very much reduces the firing range.
  27. Horde
    Horde 20 June 2013 22: 10 New
    +4
    In a word, the “Flurry” miracle weapon is another fruit of journalistic fantasies and philistine imagination


    sweet once again got a finger while the sky laughing A COMPOSITE TORPEDA with a marching stage for launching from a distance has already been created, the head part is just a squall 7 km from the target, the missile overcomes less than in MINUTE. Already there are projects with THREE squalls on one carrier. The Germans have little chance.
    1. viktorR
      viktorR 21 June 2013 11: 36 New
      +1
      Oh, can you give more details? The truth is very interesting, share a reference!
      1. Horde
        Horde 21 June 2013 17: 41 New
        +1
        Quote: viktorR
        Oh, can you give more details? The truth is very interesting, share a reference!


        alas, information at the rumor level with a certainty of more than half the probability is generally trustworthy. You understand the BIG SECRET.
    2. SASCHAmIXEEW
      SASCHAmIXEEW 20 July 2013 15: 24 New
      +1
      As soon as I read about Shkval, I immediately thought that it wasn’t necessary to deliver it, but it was possible to use a homing torpedo, it turned out to be thought of without me !!!
  28. crambol
    crambol 20 June 2013 22: 36 New
    +3
    Quote: Delta
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    under favorable conditions (lack of strong currents and external disturbances) the trace from large-capacity ships is visible for more than a day

    Yes, I would be glad to believe. Where does the information come from? own observations? and what does it mean to "see"? visually?

    Instrumentally and even visually, my friend! In the Atlantic, I personally observed more than once in fairly calm weather! Against the background of capillary waves, a trace, as if poured with oil, is clearly visible on the water. There are no capillary waves. Naturally, instrument indexing is more reliable.
    1. Delta
      Delta 20 June 2013 22: 46 New
      +1
      Quote: crambol
      Naturally, instrument indexing is more reliable.

      Yes, I asked that, it seems like the Tukan station determined the wake trace of an hour after 3, no more. Of course there were rumors about the day, but I personally did not see evidence of this
  29. I think so
    I think so 21 June 2013 00: 18 New
    +8
    In fact, there are a lot of defenses against the described torpedo (not "Flurry") ...
    1. Anti-torpedo.
    2. Changing course and obfuscating the wake trail
    3. Throwing a banal fishing net into the wake trail.
    So, the torpedo "Kit" is not very dangerous for the AUG, and even more so if it is used from a maximum distance.

    But the "Flurry" the author somewhat humiliated.
    A "flurry" of solid weapons equipped with a nuclear warhead. In addition, the potential "Flurry" has not yet been used. If you create a combined torpedo the first stage, which is the engine from the "Kit", and the three - "Flurry" then all the pluses of both torpedoes are connected.
    1. Kars
      Kars 21 June 2013 10: 47 New
      +1
      Quote: I think so
      A "flurry" of solid weapons equipped with a nuclear warhead.

      The torpedo barrage is super, the only question remains is whether the carrier can approach the distance of its launch?
    2. dustycat
      dustycat 21 June 2013 21: 18 New
      +1
      If you raise the Flurry range to 20-30 miles, then it will already be nice, but for now this weapon is either for the MHF, or for torpedo boats, or other kamikazes.
      But modern RCCs have reduced the meaning of TC to zero.
      To make the Flurry maneuvering due to four hydrophones sticking out of the bubble - just slightly strain the brain - it begs itself.
      Of course, twists of 120 degrees for her (and even more than 10g) - without destroying the bubble are unrealistic, but to steer and 2-6 degrees is enough.
      With all this in mind - we will get one and only one Whale-sized torpedo - it’s just that the power ratio will be no less needed, but more fun.
      1. Aleks49
        Aleks49 29 October 2013 19: 09 New
        +2
        How easy, dear, you are building projects here. You to Jules Verne would be consultants. More interesting adventures would turn out.
  30. fisherman
    fisherman 21 June 2013 06: 24 New
    +3
    interesting article, first of all - with comments

    I don’t know how our submarine will be in the vicinity of the AUG, but if it is guarded, and the crew is ready for self-sacrifice, and if a Flurry with SBN, then it will blow AUG
    1. Andrey77
      Andrey77 20 July 2013 14: 16 New
      -1
      Then he will carry one ship from the AUG. Most likely an escort destroyer. There is no need to build illusions.
      1. Aleks49
        Aleks49 29 October 2013 19: 13 New
        0
        Comrade Major knows everything. And crocodiles fly very low. They are caught with net ...
  31. Acoustic
    Acoustic 21 June 2013 11: 14 New
    +2
    Quote: alex20081308
    The fact is that the concept of a torpedo in a wake jet is somewhat vague. it is there about 50 percent of the time. Why-I will not spread. But the remaining 50 percent of the time it goes beyond the wake.

    Tricky, respect !!! Methods of guidance torpedoes were developed by the Germans back in 1939
    1. Acoustic
      Acoustic 21 June 2013 11: 32 New
      0
      Do not answer to anyone! Well done! Everyone writes about the concept of management. You just had to learn.)))))))))))))))))
  32. Dimka off
    Dimka off 23 June 2013 15: 17 New
    +2
    torpedo Kit is good, but removed from service. Is there any worthy replacement for her? that is the question.
  33. saha6052
    saha6052 2 July 2013 04: 54 New
    +4
    “To make the Flurry maneuver due to four hydrophones sticking out of the bubble - just slightly strain the brain - it begs itself.” - a wonderful maxim- “Lightly strain the brain.” A thin, but very accurate torpedo is negligence and stupidity - “thick” and no less accurate, following the wake of alternative civilization and catching up with a traditional torpedo named “Reaction”! The Reaction has weapons of absolute defeat — the Super-complex “Corruption.” Battlefield_Souls of people, not underwater or airborne elements. It’s ridiculous to read about fighting methods when absent Tvii Development Paradigms, Doctrines of Defense-why and with whom to fight, if nothing belongs to the Country-Country? As Brzezinski says, we even privatized the Kremlin! -This is a torpedo, and what are you discussing, the seaman? -Brains must be strained, says person.
  34. varov14
    varov14 17 July 2013 12: 31 New
    +2
    The usual betrayal, it's time to get used to it.
  35. xomaNN
    xomaNN 9 September 2013 16: 53 New
    +2
    Directly spruce on my soul a graduate of PF LKI these praises of torpedoeswink I had to deal with work just in the first submarine compartment with some equipment of modern fuel dispensers. And the TA increased in comparison with the standard 533mm inspired respect! So the St. Petersburg "Gidropribor" still some trick of the adversaries will prepare.
  36. Alex
    Alex 12 September 2013 22: 17 New
    +4
    As always with Kaptsov’s articles: not so much text as comments. Thanks to all participants of the forum, I learned a lot of new and interesting hi
    1. shvindin2012
      shvindin2012 11 October 2013 22: 50 New
      -3
      Even this thick torpedo Whale will not be able to hit the new American destroyers of the latest generation Zumwalt. It is specially created taking into account a significant reduction in the wake of the sea, as well as the radio-reflective surface on the surface of the water. It has an interesting shape, dissecting the waves.
      1. Aleks49
        Aleks49 29 October 2013 19: 27 New
        +4
        If you sink it, you get a submarine in positional position. If drowned, then the submarine in position or the recessed submarine. It was possible to build sheds with missiles on top of our old nuclear submarines. The same thing would happen. But in general, the idea is copied from the cruiser Aurora.
      2. Ivan 1980
        Ivan 1980 26 November 2018 17: 28 New
        0
        new American last-generation destroyers Zumwalt
        It really is almost impossible to hit him, it’s hard to drown what almost doesn’t leave the repair docks
  37. Pyrotechnician
    Pyrotechnician April 22 2014 20: 21 New
    +1
    Yes, I feel sorry for the torpedo, but about Kursk, see the documentary of the French journalist about the secret of the death of the Kursk submarine.
  38. Comrade
    Comrade April 21 2017 01: 34 New
    +1
    I can’t talk about the “Flurry” range. Yes, and it’s unlikely that you and I will find out about this, before a new torpedo replaces it.
    The fact is that the “Flurry” is SUPERSONIC, while from the torpedo that the author so praised, the sound of the echo of the signal will have time to reflect and arrive on the ship, about ten times, if not more. The computer will easily calculate its trajectory for firing deep bombs.
    And the “Flurry” is ahead of the sound of the echo of the echo sounder, several times, in other words, the operator behind the screen, she won’t even see why the Americans and NATO are so panicking.
    This is a radar radio signal, it has the speed of light, but the echo sounder has a sound signal. But the radar does not see through the water - the signal is reflected from the water and the water itself passes it poorly.
    1. yousha1980
      yousha1980 April 24 2017 00: 26 New
      +1
      A flurry, albeit a quick torpedo, is not a supersonic one. It is about 100 m / s. This is three times lower than the speed of sound in air. Sound in water travels much faster than in air.
      1. Comrade
        Comrade 11 May 2017 03: 16 New
        +1
        According to telecasts on the Zvezda TV channel (owned by the Russian Ministry of Defense) - supersonic.
        1. The comment was deleted.
  39. kluges
    kluges April 17 2018 05: 06 New
    0
    You do not need to be seven spans in your forehead to understand that to defeat a ship, and even more so an unguided torpedo, it must be equipped with a powerful warhead (read special warheads). Entering the PLO zone is certainly not a camilpho, but there were cases that our submarines surfaced almost in the warrant of American AUG. :), so 10km is dangerous but not deadly. And a minute and a half, from the moment the Flurry is launched until the moment when the surface fleet of "our partners" turns into an underwater fleet, at best it’s enough only for prayer. And everything that hangs in the air is no longer up to the search for submarines, they would have to find a landing place.
  40. Calabi Yau
    Calabi Yau April 29 2018 12: 06 New
    0
    Quote: fartfraer
    well, there it was about uranium, if I’m not mistaken. it’s strange that you don’t question a torpedo that can go under water faster than a helicopter in the air, but here a torpedo with a “burning” warhead and a depleted uranium stuffing causes strange associations with a fairy tale Is this technically impossible? say shells of this kind do (for tanks, for example), but do you know something that does not allow the use of this technology in torpedoes?


    Do you really think that the BOPs open the armor of tanks because the uranium core of the projectile is in a supercritical state and pierces steel with its temperature like a hot oil knife?
  41. Andrei Nikolaevich
    Andrei Nikolaevich 18 December 2018 20: 56 New
    0
    After all, there are smart people. To invent such crap.