Military Review

The secret weapon off the coast of Syria. How Russian sailors listen to the US Navy ships

220
The secret weapon off the coast of Syria. How Russian sailors listen to the US Navy ships



- Mr. President, we will have to rename the 6 fleet to 5.
- Yes Yes. I understood.
Again urgent call.
- Sorry, Mr. President. Now in 4.


Wherever they go, they are followed. The destroyers "Gravely" (Gravely), "Barry" (Barry), "Mahan" (Mahan), "Remedzh" (Ramage) and "Stout" (Stout) never for a second fall out of the attention of our sailors - not a single action of the Navy The United States does not go unnoticed by the ships of the Russian squadron off the coast of Syria.

Unique domestic equipment allows you to "see through" the Sixth Fleet through and through - the Russian Navy’s ships are able not only to record the launch of Tomahawk cruise missiles, but even determine the start of preparations for their launch. All radio communications and satellite communication lines, the operation of detection equipment, electronic warfare and combat information systems of all ships of the Sixth fleet under our control, Russian sailors have a clear idea of ​​the situation on board American destroyers and are able to predict in advance the actions of a “potential enemy” in changing the characteristics of electromagnetic fields.

The task is completely non-trivial.



Among the orgy of the buzz and cod from the work of many radio electronic means of ships of the US Navy, combined combat information management system "Aegis":

- Multifunctional radar AN / SPY-1;
- station identification "friend or foe" AN / UPX-29;
- a set of technical means LAMPS III, allowing to integrate the helicopter into the anti-submarine defense system of the ship;
- automated subsystem for troubleshooting and localization of malfunctions on board the ship Mk545;
- the automated subsystem SWG-1 for controlling the fire control of the Harpoon missile;
- Mk86 automated artillery fire control subsystem;
- automated MK99 anti-aircraft fire control subsystem;
- automated anti-submarine control subsystem weapons Mk116;

as well as AN / SPS-64 and AN / SPS-67 navigation radars, AN / SPG-62 target illumination radar, AN / SQQ-89 hydroacoustic complex equipment, Phalanx self-defense systems, LINK-4A communications equipment, LINK 11, LINK 16,

Russian sailors should FIX THE MAIN THING - the moment of switching on the SWG-3 subsystem blocks.

At that instant, the missile control panel in the Aegis destroyer BIC will flash and pulsate with blood-red fire, computers and data lines will come to life - the latest instructions and coordinates of the launch site will flow to the homing heads of the Tomahawk cruise missiles.


SWG-1 panel for control of Harpoon anti-ship missiles

Strictly speaking, the SWG-3 system is only an intermediate link - the flight routes and targets for the Tomahawks are chosen in advance, ashore, in specialized training centers for flight missions in Norfolk and Camp Smith (Hawaii). The ship’s equipment only allows you to load ready-made digital relief maps along the flight route that are necessary for the operation of the TERCOM navigation system, as well as a “photograph” of the target for the DGisMek optical guidance system in the final part of the trajectory. Damn it, “Ax” works like a cheap killer from a second-rate Hollywood action movie!

In addition, kamikaze robots need information about the starting point coordinates - otherwise the inertial system gyroscopes will not be able to bring Tomahawk to the area of ​​the first correction over the enemy’s coast (TERCOM relief is useless when flying over the sea - water is the same everywhere). All these data enter the GOS cruise missile directly at the starting point.


SLCM "Tomahawk" comes out of the bow DUP Mk41 destroyer USS Farragut (DDG-99)

The activation of the SWG-3 electronic units, accompanied by the inclusion and final verification of the Mk41 launchers, gives grounds for an unequivocal conclusion: inside the destroyer of the US Navy, preparations began to launch the Tomahawks. The war will begin in the coming hours!

But how to determine this critical moment? How to penetrate the impregnable citadel of the "Crusaders and World Zionism" and inspect the most secret places on the US Navy ship, which even many of its crew members do not have access to?

Deaf walls of the boards without a single window. Underdeck launchers, hidden from the eye of an outsider. Located in the depths of the ship combat information center. The stationary phased AN / SPY-1 radar antennas ... external inspection of the Aegis destroyer will do nothing, but the electromagnetic waves, moving at 300 000 km / sec, will penetrate beyond the walls of the deaf and “unleash” all the secrets of the US Navy.

But let me! After all, the Russian Federation currently does not have radio-electronic intelligence centers in the Middle East, similar to the recently closed REC Lourdes in Cuba or the Echelon global radio-spying network owned by the US National Security Agency.
The answer is simple: electronic interception systems are located directly aboard Russian ships, vigilantly guarding the coast of Syria.

S.S.V. Funny Death of the Enemy

В stories naval wars, there are many examples where battles were won due to high-quality intelligence work. Knowledge is power! The information obtained by intelligence is one of the most important aspects of strategy and tactics; it provides an opportunity to reveal concrete plans and types of threats from the enemy in advance.
Systematic observation and tracking of potential enemy forces in peacetime is one of the main conditions for efficiency and ensuring high combat readiness of the modern navy.

The development of radio electronic equipment, radio communications and radars in the navy has necessitated constant monitoring of enemy ships not only in the visible, but also in the radio wave range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Radio interception of communication channels at all frequencies. Telemetric intelligence - you need to be aware of all the weapon novelties of the “potential enemy”. Radiotechnical Intelligence - determination of the belonging and characteristics of radio emission sources on board enemy ships. Measurements of physical fields, compilation of acoustic and electromagnetic "portraits" of ships and submarines.

Extremely important and responsible work, which determines the efficiency of the entire Navy.

Specialized reconnaissance ships exist in many fleets of the world, but this class has received special development in our country. Hiding behind the unassuming designation of the CER (communications vessel), reconnaissance ships (RZK) became one of the main arguments of the USSR Navy. Cheap, numerous and ubiquitous - a hundred large and small sea spies who flooded the oceans, did not leave the "probable enemy" a chance to be alone. Not a single step of the American fleet could not go unnoticed from the gaze of the Soviet commander in chief.


A helicopter from the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier is inspecting the Kuril CW-208 reconnaissance ship. Pacific, 2005 year.

The simplest improvisations on the basis of outdated destroyers, trawlers and transport ships — the “knights of cloak and dagger” did not need super speed and super-weapons, their security was ensured by the political and military might of the Soviet Union. To attack such a “pelvis” would be to put the world on the brink of nuclear war. The only thing that the Americans could have done in such a situation was to attack the CER with oaths or stupid jokes:

The American crews were very condescending to the attention of these “floating craft” and made fun of clumsy “spies” more than once.
Once in May 1967 in the Mediterranean, such a "fisherman" tried to get closer to an aircraft carrier. F-8 immediately rose from its deck, which made an approach to the “target” and ... released a brake flap, from the niche of which rolls of toilet paper fell on a Soviet ship! ..

- from www.airwar.ru

Unlike real 007 agents, domestic maritime intelligence officers did not use stealth technology and other spy devices - indeed, why all efforts to reduce visibility, if the “probable enemy” is literally a couple of steps away - he can wave his hand from the deck.

Hiding behind the Soviet flag, small unarmed CERs boldly approached carrier-assault groups, nuclear cruisers and squadrons of US Navy destroyers — the Yankees only gnashed their teeth from anger, but according to accepted international rules they could not even make diplomatic claims. The observation takes place in neutral waters - the Russian ship has the right to be where it pleases. Attempting to break away from the annoying guest, having developed the 30-node move, was deliberately doomed to failure - after a few hours of a furious race, the next “communication vessel” arose right on the course.


The K-324 submarine wrapped the secret American TASS antenna on the propeller and lost its turn. Of course, CER-506 Nakhodka was the first to arrive at the scene of the incident - a small reconnaissance aircraft drove 10 of the US Navy for 24 hours trying to get the remains of a secret antenna from the water. In the background - USS Peterson (DD-969). Sargasso Sea, 1983 year

In addition to the function of the repeater and the station of electronic reconnaissance, domestic CERs solved the tasks of controlling the sea communications, recording all movements of the ships of the “likely enemy”. A flock of CERs for weeks accompanied the American carrier-based groups — one could arbitrarily make fun of small “spies” and throw toilet paper into them, but in the event of the start of real hostilities, CERs could simply “hand over” the Yankees into the hands of warships of the Soviet Navy, transferring the coordinates of the American squadrons on strike cruisers and submarines.

The little scout will inevitably die the death of the brave, but the retribution will be fierce - in a short time Soviet missiles will fly into a given square and kill everything they meet on their way. The Yankees will not have time to run far away anyway - the data transmitted by the CER before death will be relevant for several more hours.

It was a sentence to the "elusive" and "invulnerable" AUG - the Soviet fleet, thanks to its numerous communications vessels, reliably "held a gun at the temple" of the US Navy.


CER-535 "Karelia" tightly "stuck" to the atomic cruiser "Texas", 1988 year

A lot of time naval scouts spent near the US Navy and NATO test sites, carefully watching the shooting and launching of missiles. Each new ship of the “probable enemy” came under close attention of the CER - having approached an extremely short distance, our sailors set about a careful study of the next masterpiece of American design thought - the Lega escort cruiser, California atomic, Egis Ticonderoga cruiser ....

Electromagnetic fields were measured, the sensitive equipment of the Prokhlada electronic intelligence complex began to identify sources of electromagnetic radiation on board a foreign ship.
We knew literally everything about them!

... As time went on, the fleet changed irreversibly. Nowadays, domestic CERs are noticeably sounded in size. There is no trace left of the vulgar appearance of the converted ore carriers, tugboats and trawlers - modern Russian Navy intelligence officers of the specialized building turned into graceful ships with even more impressive capabilities of their radio engineering complex.

The presence of such ships off the coast of Syria quite a bit "strains" our Western friends:

In the Mediterranean Sea there are two Russian reconnaissance ships, filled with the latest electronic equipment. Russian RZK fix not only missile launches of any type, but even the preparation of the Tomahawks for launch, which is conducted inside the ship.

- Lt. Col. US Air Force retired, military analyst Rick Francona, a statement made on CNN live

Indeed, in a situation of possible military intervention by the United States in the internal affairs of Syria, this situation threatens the failure of the entire operation - the Yankees will lose before they make the first move. Russian sailors will instantly detect the process of preparing for the launch of "Tomahawks" on US Navy ships and report this "upstairs". Obviously, these data will fall on the table of the Syrian military command earlier than the commander of Aegis-destroyer inserts the key into the launch pad of the cruise missiles.

Surely many of you have speculated about the direct impact on the homing head of American missiles - a powerful microwave pulse that can damage the fragile rocket electronics of a false radio command for self-destruction (the newest RGM-109E Tactical Tomahawk could reprogram in flight) or something like that ...

The author does not have such information, but one cannot doubt the ingenuity of the Russian Kulibins. It is possible that there is such an option.


Deck drone UAV X-47B

In this regard, the situation with the US Navy unmanned aerial vehicles seems to be curious - how will the Russian Navy's electronic reconnaissance ship influence the actions of American UAVs? The answer seems obvious - an attempt to “attack” the CERs with toilet rolls from the X-47B drone strike drone will end badly for the Yankees - the super-plane will suddenly go out of control of the operators and gently “land” on the water. Just as it happened with the American drone drone RQ-170 "Sentinel" in the airspace of Iran (according to one of the versions, the Iranians "landed" RQ-170 with the help of the Russian electronic warfare complex "Avtobaz").

But who knows - what if the same equipment is installed on board domestic CERs?


The launch of a large reconnaissance ship "Yuri Ivanov".
St. Petersburg, Northern Shipyard, September 30 2013 of the year

The head communication vessel of the 18280 project, designed to counter the naval component of the US missile defense system. Full displacement - 4260 tons. Crew - 120 man. Cruising range - 8000 miles at speed 16 nodes. According to the plan, the second ship of this project - "Ivan Hurs" - will be laid on November 14 2013.


CER-520 "Meridian"



Combat Information Center (BIC) Ajis-destroyer





Loading a Tomahawk Container in a Mk41 Launcher Cell



Aegis Destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)


The article used materials from the book The Naval Institute for World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998. Posted by: Norman Friedman
Author:
220 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Trailer
    Trailer 7 October 2013 09: 28
    -118 qualifying.
    Well, well, two new ships against 100 enemy destroyers.
    1. Ivan79
      Ivan79 7 October 2013 10: 03
      80
      In order to intercept radio waves and measure the intensity of electromagnetic fields, it is not necessary to attach to each destroyer in a communication vessel. This is not air defense ... smile
      1. Anatolich
        Anatolich 8 October 2013 13: 16
        16
        But it would be nice if our communications ships blow up missiles before launch, because if they can give a command for self-destruction, it can be done before launch, and there is no aggressor am
        1. aviator_IAS
          aviator_IAS 9 October 2013 23: 50
          23
          Quote: Anatolich
          But it would be nice if our communications ships to explode rockets before launch, because if they can give a command for self-destruction, it can be done before launch once there is no aggressor am


          Or our programmers will slightly modify the Ax flight program to return to the launch site. And the tomahawk will turn into a boomerang laughing
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 9 October 2013 23: 55
            -15 qualifying.
            Or our programmers will slightly modify the Ax flight program to return to the launch site. And the tomahawk will turn into a boomerang




            Highly skilled programmers went to write programs in the country, the producer Toporov. And the weak ones ran to mow from urgent service to the so-called sedimentation tanks - scientific companies.
            1. fzr1000
              fzr1000 10 October 2013 17: 22
              +3
              What will you be from?
              1. gunnerminer
                gunnerminer 10 October 2013 18: 18
                -8
                What will you be from?





                Why do you need to know such details?
                1. vezunchik
                  vezunchik 13 October 2013 18: 59
                  +1
                  THERE IS HERE FROM AN ANGLE TO PURGE WHERE QUIET ...
              2. Andrey57
                Andrey57 10 October 2013 20: 57
                +4
                gannerminer is one of those who "grind with their tongues - do not drag stones."
            2. Sadikoff
              Sadikoff 10 October 2013 20: 44
              +2
              Well, right, it’s better for us to write these programs in order to know how to finish them as it should, under the same boomerang. CBR is not asleep.
            3. fktrcfylh.h09
              fktrcfylh.h09 11 October 2013 10: 34
              +4
              do not you think that in every ten programmers who ran across there are at least 2-3 full-time GRUs?
              1. gunnerminer
                gunnerminer 11 October 2013 22: 14
                0
                Quote: fktrcfylh.h09
                do not you think that in every ten programmers who ran across there are at least 2-3 full-time GRUs?





                Most likely abnormal. The staff in Solntsevo, in the analytical center, are glued reports.
          2. Nick
            Nick 11 October 2013 23: 20
            +1
            Quote: aviator_IAS
            And the tomahawk will turn into a boomerang

            Well yes. Like "Hello to American Indians from Australian Aborigines ..." wink
      2. APASUS
        APASUS 12 October 2013 21: 45
        +1
        Quote: Ivan79
        In order to intercept radio waves and measure the intensity of electromagnetic fields, it is not necessary to attach to each destroyer in a communication vessel. This is not air defense ...

        Yes, of course, but to make a conclusion about the smallest bursts of the magnetic field from a distance of 10 miles or from the near Moscow region. Not for nothing that our Mariata vessel always creeps behind our vessels in the Barents Sea
    2. AVV
      AVV 7 October 2013 10: 15
      43
      Two of these new reconnaissance vessels are replaced by about a dozen old models, and in the Mediterranean this is quite enough. Moreover, in Tartus there are also ground reconnaissance equipment, and there are such elements on every warship !!! And radars like Voronezh from the territory of Russia help our intelligence very much !!!
      1. Aryan
        Aryan 7 October 2013 10: 34
        25
        maybe Americans and reluctance nykatstsa?
        impudent person who considers himself strong
        the toilet door does not close and does not drain the water behind it hi

        we had one such in kindergarten ...
        1. Prapor-527
          Prapor-527 7 October 2013 12: 20
          +8
          Of course not hunting, but I have to belay
        2. rJIiOK
          rJIiOK 7 October 2013 16: 26
          11
          Rather, it does not work nykatstsa. They have few options for secrecy: pigeon mail, or a liaison officer with a paper envelope)
          1. fktrcfylh.h09
            fktrcfylh.h09 11 October 2013 10: 36
            +3
            which can hit the road to Moscow - right now everyone knows that Moscow does not give out))))
      2. Simon
        Simon 7 October 2013 18: 04
        +6
        The main thing is any step of American ships is known to our intelligence. laughing good It turns out that having such a mass of ships, they can not do anything, tied hand and foot.
        1. faraon
          faraon 7 October 2013 19: 21
          -12 qualifying.
          And to Amer, respectively, every step of the Russian Navy, or you think there are fools who do not look forward, Then why do all this brow see hear, if everyone knows about each other, and there’s nothing to spend folk money on these outdated obsolete plav means.
          In my opinion, the future lies with the submarine fleet and high space technologies. Russia urgently needs to establish the production of modern submarines.
          1. 31231
            31231 7 October 2013 21: 58
            10
            Do you care about the national funds of which state, if not a secret ?!
            1. faraon
              faraon 7 October 2013 22: 04
              0
              Russian, since we are all from the USSR
          2. poquello
            poquello 7 October 2013 23: 30
            +7
            Quote: faraon
            And to Amer, respectively, every step of the Russian Navy, or you think there are fools who do not look forward, Then why do all this brow see hear, if everyone knows about each other, and there’s nothing to spend folk money on these outdated obsolete plav means.

            Sorry I can’t hear about the ability of the current and ultramodern to defend against our obsolete and obsolete. As I understand it, the ultramodern do not know how to do this, because suddenly the ultramodern puffed up when the second cruiser came closer, on which the thing actually ended.
            1. faraon
              faraon 8 October 2013 00: 50
              +6
              Regrettably, it will have to be written, but the Russian country was unable to send a full-fledged marine grouping to the Mediterranean Sea. The collapse of the USSR is still haunted by the Russian fleet. Yes, I hope you know about it myself, so I sent everything that could be sent. What to indicate your presence, including 5 -6 BDK. And the cruiser came up so you understand that he didn’t play a special role, and the alignment of forces was not in Russian’s favor. This is what was under water the number one question that was the deterrent for the United States and Russia. In the modern war, at sea and on land, the main role is played by the submarine fleet. And not the floating arodromes, cruisers, and other vessels of the last century. That's why I say that funds should not be invested into these tricked troughs, and a modern submarine fleet.
              1. poquello
                poquello 8 October 2013 01: 17
                +3
                Quote: faraon
                You understand that he did not actually play a special role, and the alignment of forces was not directly in Russia's favor. But what was under water is the number one issue that was a deterrent to the United States and Russia. In the modern war at sea and on on land, the main role is played by the submarine fleet. and not by the floating arodromes, cruisers, and other vessels of the last century. That's why I say that funds should not be invested in these sophisticated troughs, but a modern submarine fleet.

                IMHO, while Moscow was alone, there was destruction by the first sudden strike, and two cruisers to be extinguished without an answer at the same time is another question. That the joker goes under water of course, but there is not enough space.
                Armored volcanoes do not fit into a modern submarine fleet, and it is not known how it will calibrate itself.
              2. Sirs
                Sirs 8 October 2013 03: 16
                +8
                What is true is true !!! from any country it did not sound that the Russian fleet was weakened. The Russian fleet will be strong in the balance of submarines and surface ships.
                PS I respect our sailors, their health and their families.
              3. carbofo
                carbofo 8 October 2013 15: 19
                +6
                Quote: faraon
                faraon

                Ride your only patrol boat along the border and don't fool adults with your ideas about the ocean fleet.
                We have it for hundreds of years, and you?
                1. faraon
                  faraon 8 October 2013 19: 32
                  +1
                  Yes, it is unnecessary to Israel, now there are already five submarines will be the sixth and everyone will be able to carry nuclear weapons. Yes, and the state we have 8 hours by bus from north to south, and an hour from west to east. We do not need these bells and whistles. We do not aspire to the world gigemons in which you write us all the time. That is why we do not need parades, but patrol border boats are enough. But as for the submarine fleet, even small Israel understands that this is a weapon in the next war. And for Russia, God himself ordered with its water borders to have a modern advanced submarine fleet
                  1. carbofo
                    carbofo 9 October 2013 00: 22
                    +4
                    Quote: faraon
                    .And for Russia, God himself ordered with its water borders to have a modern advanced submarine fleet

                    Optionally, we have no need to stagger across the seas straining everyone with our exclusivity.
                    And by the way, unlike the Americans, many of our relatively rare campaigns of submarines and ships changed geopolitics much more dramatically than stripes with their huge fleet.
                    To be able to use what you have.

                    As for your huge country :), we in Moscow in 8 hours will not always pass that!

                    You do not need strong surface ships because Eilat has already proved that it is a useless expensive toy that is quickly drowned.
                    And submarines are needed only because, apart from the Russians and a few whales, nobody really knows how to catch them, which ensures their high combat stability and the protection of the coast from surface ships of the Arabs.
                    We have enough ships to prevent anyone from descending, and new ones are being built, in any case you are far from us.
                    And about the water lines, we have a considerable number of coastal complexes that are closer than 300 km will not let anyone ship or missiles or planes.
                    Name at least one ode to the country except China and the minke whales, which has such capabilities.
                    Your iron domes :) Well, let's see when a couple of hundreds of OTP are strewed at you with at least one jamming transmitter in each, there is reason to believe that you will immediately run out of toilet paper or diapers of your choice.
                    1. faraon
                      faraon 9 October 2013 02: 25
                      -8
                      Well, as there is no need to stagger, Judging by the comments above, everything that could tear itself away from the mooring wall was brought to the Mediterranean Sea to the shores of Syria.
                      And again, that Russia could oppose the United States, which only had 62 destroyers in its waters, I’m not talking about aircraft carriers and other types of ships. Read the earlier articles on this topic on the forum and it will become clear to you. Here you don’t have to be a great strategist to Do not see the advantage of the enemy.
                      Yes, it’s definitely not possible to drive through Moscow in 8 hours, but answer the question what does Moscow produce and export (I mean the region, and not all of Russia)? If Russia purchases Israeli UAV production technologies, agricultural technologies, medical supplies and their production, just not listed. Export from Israel to Russia is 4.5 billion dollars.
                      I wrote above that the needs of Israel do not require large, strong surface ships, they simply do not need anything. The emphasis is on the submarine fleet.
                      And no one is actually trying to chase after Russia, the Americans are constantly bred for you by the money you invest in the military-industrial complex, instead of developing fundamental science that will bring its devidents beyond the long-term perspective.
                      As for the iron domes, I agree that this is so pure a toy for fighting rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip. But I personally saw how Russian specialists were enthusiastic about this toy. (From the small you can always do more) And it’s not necessary to have 300,400,500 complexes. So what about toilet paper and diapers do not need so not beautiful.
                      Dear I have a request for you, take your comments more seriously. Here, on the forum, not all delitants are here.
                      1. carbofo
                        carbofo 9 October 2013 10: 16
                        +6
                        Quote: faraon
                        faraon

                        We have more borders and several fleets, it makes no sense to pull out all the ships to Syria, just a few who bite, so to speak for the projection of force, no one will go to a direct confrontation, but enough from these provocations.
                        Yes, our group is small, but remember the Battle of Kaliakria, a ratio of about 1 to 1.5-2 and nevertheless, the losses to the Turkish fleet are minimal.
                        We practically did not deal with UAVs, and you are world leaders in this topic, why not buy to see what it is and what it eats with.
                        We have a tradition of making fundamental discoveries on the knee, and as for the military-industrial complex, we have similar difficulties with you, living surrounded by enemies.
                        A toy is a toy, and the system is potentially interesting; any specialist will study it curiously as an opportunity turns up.
                        I never take correspondence seriously, I have never had the chance to be a philologist, so the words are relatively depersonalized, and I do not always know the true meaning of the words, this is called the difference between the terminological and vocabulary, and their manner of presentation is somewhat peculiar to me.
                      2. Sandov
                        Sandov 10 October 2013 14: 57
                        +8
                        Pharaoh.

                        And again, that Russia could oppose the United States, which had only 62 destroyers in the water area

                        Willpower and fortitude. And also the desire to prevent war.
                      3. Andrey57
                        Andrey57 10 October 2013 21: 29
                        +5
                        What could Russia oppose to all these, as you put it, 62 mattress ships, was quite intelligibly voiced by Shoigu, our Minister of Defense, saying that one should not "accidentally" fall into Russian ships - there will be an ecological disaster. "And this means tactical nuclear weapons. how the mattress AUG moves, one charge is quite enough. And when at the end of last year "Moskva" left for Mediterranean, something the entire 6th Fleet immediately rolled out of the eastern part of Mediterranean, probably due to the fact that the cruiser and the multipurpose boats accompanying him posed no danger for the mattress mats fellow
                        As for your Hets complexes, they are useless against Iskander, because what trajectory they fly they fly in each specific situation, even the creators do not know, because it changes unpredictably
                      4. abrakadabre
                        abrakadabre 11 October 2013 09: 32
                        +6
                        What Russia could oppose to all these, as you put it, 62 mattress ships, was quite intelligibly voiced by Shoigu, our Minister of Defense, saying that one should not "accidentally" get into Russian ships - there will be an ecological disaster. "
                        He also had to add that, in view of the tense situation in the region there, ship commanders were given carte blanche to respond to the situation with all the means available on board without restrictions and loss of time for coordination with the command.
                        Yes, they will consider us scumbags. But they already consider us like that. But beware of provoking.
                  2. DJEIN8
                    DJEIN8 9 October 2013 03: 42
                    -12 qualifying.
                    carbofo 00:22
                    Calm down ..... child with colonel (laughter) epaulets .....
                    Do not disgrace and do not disgrace .......
                    1. carbofo
                      carbofo 9 October 2013 10: 19
                      +6
                      Quote: DJEIN8
                      Calm down ..... child with colonel (laughter) epaulets .....
                      Do not disgrace and do not disgrace .......

                      I’m already gray-haired, as it were, so by age I do not pull on your statement.
                      And the views of hmm, they are all different, as is the manner of communication, so you hurried to assign status.
                2. 528Obrp
                  528Obrp 9 October 2013 03: 02
                  +1
                  Quote: faraon
                  Yes, it is unnecessary to Israel, now there are already five submarines will be the sixth and everyone will be able to carry nuclear weapons. Yes, and the state we have 8 hours by bus from north to south, and an hour from west to east. We do not need these bells and whistles.


                  Why are Israel submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons? God forbid what avarushka for more serious and from
                  Quote: faraon
                  8 hours bus ride with

                  a handful of ashes will remain. I really think that no one for Israel in Seriously will not intervene. States, and even more so Europe.
        2. 528Obrp
          528Obrp 8 October 2013 02: 29
          +5
          Quote: faraon
          And to Amers, respectively, every step of the Russian Navy, or you think there are fools who do not look forward, Then why do all this eyebrows see, if everyone knows about each other

          No, of course not fools. But the catch is that knowing what we know, they are in the role of an experimental rabbit and can not do anything about it. But we are standing aside and knowing that they know about us, we transfer what we know where we need to. After all, what they know cannot influence the situation in any way.
        3. Sandov
          Sandov 10 October 2013 14: 07
          +2
          Pharaoh.
          Well, we least think about amers, and the submarine fleet needs to be restored, here you are right.
        4. Sadikoff
          Sadikoff 10 October 2013 20: 46
          +1
          And this is also normal, having heard commands, for example, about the readiness of the stragetes, knowing Putin’s firm confidence to go all the way, they won’t go further. We look at the situation with Syria.
        5. RussianRu
          RussianRu 14 October 2013 11: 55
          0
          spend folk money on these outdated and technically obsolete melt funds.
          In my opinion, the future lies with the submarine fleet and high space technologies. Russia urgently needs to establish the production of modern submarines.

          Don't worry, modern submarine cruisers are and will be. Only the question: "Two in one or even three in one" will be able to effectively perform combat missions. A little it can, a little different can. But in general, nifiga. There should be separate divisions of means for different purposes. Attack, defense and tracking. Then everyone will effectively carry out their tasks. The surface craft will become obsolete when mankind ceases to move by land and sea. And as long as we still walk on land, ships will be relevant.
    3. Andrey57
      Andrey57 10 October 2013 21: 09
      +2
      The station in Armavir detected the launches of 2 missiles from a mattress ship in Mediterranean towards Syria after 20 seconds. after the start. And the newest reconnaissance ships of Russia have the ability to cut off all types of navigation systems used by mattress mats in the army and navy, in addition, the newest reconnaissance ship is packed with much more equipment than it is in the Avtobaza complex, with which the Iranians planted a drone, and since planted, so they easily took over control. So it is quite possible that in the presence of two SSV ships it does not make sense at all to throw axes - all the same, they will not reach the target laughing
  2. nikolaxp
    nikolaxp 7 October 2013 10: 43
    16
    Why waste time on trifles, if they have already started trolling, then it is necessary to the maximum, they would write at once "two rubber boats against 100000 AUG and enemy battleships" wassat
    1. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z 8 October 2013 00: 47
      +4
      And what, Latvia could show at the military parade of 2012 2 coast guard vessels (in the form of rubber boats on a trailer behind trucks) and say that now no violator of the sea border will leave them! laughing
      1. Quiet
        Quiet 8 October 2013 02: 02
        +2
        And what, Latvia could show at the military parade of 2012 2 coast guard vessels

        It's like an old joke. "Why the elusive Joe" ?? "And nobody needs him nafig" - Latvia, Russia (an extra mouth for the economy) is also useless. Well, the "rulers" simply stir up horror on their people, and even on the EU to beg for money ... fool lol
      2. the47th
        the47th 9 October 2013 14: 56
        0
        Only yesterday showed the parade of the Latvian Armed Forces to familiar military men, they laughed for a long time.
  3. Cynic
    Cynic 7 October 2013 12: 46
    18
    Knowledge is the key to success
    And _ He who is warned is armed.
    Sorry for the banal truths.
    For our Navy!
    drinks
  4. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 7 October 2013 13: 41
    -43 qualifying.
    Well, well, two new ships against 100 enemy destroyers.




    + 100!
    1. angarchanin
      angarchanin 7 October 2013 16: 37
      39
      You can mock as much as you like about the possibility of our two SSVs in the Mediterranean, but here is the recent information about the detection of the launch of two missiles with the launch coordinates, the direction of flight and the area where the missiles fell after their "self-destruction," amers where both convincingly speaks in favor of these TCOs.
    2. Fin
      Fin 7 October 2013 17: 27
      +9
      Quote: gunnerminer
      Well, well, two new ships against 100 enemy destroyers.

      Each fleet has 4-5 units.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 7 October 2013 19: 43
        +1
        Each fleet has 4-5 units.




        The combat readiness of reconnaissance ships is not determined by the number of their units. First of all, the level of training of the crews, Special Forces Command, the availability of modern equipment, the training of the headquarters for the connection of these ships, and the speed of intelligence.
    3. carbofo
      carbofo 9 October 2013 00: 30
      +1
      Quote: gunnerminer
      Well, well, two new ships against 100 enemy destroyers.

      No one knows for sure what kind of vessels these are, besides what tasks they perform.
      And the fact that they are able to give guidance on 100 destroyers at once, firstly makes them number 1 targets in any situation, and secondly they will have time to do their job.
      Well, it doesn’t hurt us to know what and where these 100 destroyers do, this often informs our services about the intentions of the destroyers.
      I can only imagine the rabies of the mercenary ship commanders, who cannot do anything without the all-seeing eye of the Russian General Staff.
      Incidentally, the submarine commander who was unable to break away from our Alpha for 48 hours, as far as I remember, was demoted at least.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 9 October 2013 11: 31
        +2
        Incidentally, the submarine commander who was unable to break away from our Alpha for 48 hours, as far as I remember, was demoted at least.





        And where is this Alpha? It’s cut, and the case is sold by crooks. Something the all-seeing eye of the General Staff of the Russian Federation did not see the preparation of attacks on Syrian objects in January, May, July 2013, did not reveal the change of weapon carriers before delivering these attacks, has not yet determined It’s the type of ammunition and carrier. For 100 destroyers, comprehensive reconnaissance is needed. There is no comprehensive reconnaissance, and it won’t appear soon. The long-suffering Legend cannot be tortured, there are no and never will be airborne reconnaissance aircraft in the area, air defense systems are equipped with complexes of the 80s of the last century. OSNAZ groups on board warships are well-known to all. OSNAZ group commanders were appointed senior officers of the General Intelligence Directorate of the Naval Forces of the Navy, groups and changes of operators were not worked out, they did not conduct exercises and trainings to work in conditions of the enemy using all the electronic warfare equipment. handed over, the Operational Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was not checked. So you will tell tales to simpletons.
        1. carbofo
          carbofo 9 October 2013 15: 08
          +1
          I somehow do not say anything, and I don’t tell tales.
          My opinion is exclusively IMHO, and in the presumptive form, I do not know, like most, the capabilities of ships of this class, but the fact that they have quite serious capabilities is beyond doubt.
          As we see minke whales are also preoccupied, even if they are Zulu dances, but they also bring considerable effect.
          Often during the war, entire operations were delayed even on the assumption that they were uncovered.
          1. faraon
            faraon 9 October 2013 15: 36
            -1
            For comparison, the Turkish Navy surpasses the Russian Black Sea Fleet by 4 times. Only in recent years they have spent on the re-equipment of the fleet alone - 27 billion dollars - count somewhere 10-12 aircraft carriers of Wikramadity cruisers :))
            1 cruiser, 1 bpk, 3 frigates (watchman,) 4 corvettes (RTOs), 2 dpl and several boats of Russia are confronted by:
            18 submarines, 20 frigates, 8 corvettes and other trifles. With more than half - new ...
            Germans and Americans armed them, more than half were built on their own Turkish shipyards.
            What do you respect, you say on these statistics, or will continue to claim that we don’t need it. That the two cruisers decided the whole Syrian company. And Russia won the war. Diplomats led by Lavrov, yes, the fleet of leash demonstrated its inconsistency. And it is very unfortunate, because from a great sea power with military glory turned into a secondary state. And one plant in Severodvinsk does not solve anything, it is necessary to begin production of new modern ships, the restoration of the submarine fleet. Well, then at the forum you can argue about the invincibility of the Russian army and fleet.
            I get the impression that YOU are from that cohort of officials who deliberately put the entire Russian fleet to needles, ruined the entire shipbuilding industry, and now they are enlisted in the patriots of Russia. They have already learned how to cut money going to restore former power, the Army and the Navy
            1. gunnerminer
              gunnerminer 9 October 2013 15: 38
              +2
              I get the impression that YOU are from that cohort of officials who deliberately put the entire Russian fleet to needles, ruined the entire shipbuilding industry, and now they are enlisted in the patriots of Russia. They have already learned how to cut money going to restore former power, the Army and the Navy


              +10! That's right.
            2. carbofo
              carbofo 10 October 2013 10: 43
              +1
              Uh, we have the entire budget of MO 50 with something of billions, and the Turks spent only 2/3 on the fleet, a controversial example.
              No, I do not belong to the government, and even more so to the military-industrial complex, I think that with me the technology would go to the wax all the time.
              There is simply no person who can force everyone to do business.
              But there are a lot of people around who do not want to do anything and at the same time ride like cheese in butter.
              I believe you are no exception.
            3. Sandov
              Sandov 10 October 2013 15: 07
              +1
              Pharaoh.
              As you can see from your words, everyone is actively preparing for a big war. It is sad. No people can calm down.
    4. an_ursus
      an_ursus 12 October 2013 12: 35
      0
      And one warrior in the field ... You are not one of ours, you will not understand ...
  5. Vittt
    Vittt 7 October 2013 14: 34
    0
    Most likely you wanted to say that despite the comprehensive detection of all "Tomahawks" (and there are at least 72 of them on each destroyer), Russian ships will not have enough ammunition and active electronic warfare capabilities).
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 7 October 2013 16: 32
      +9
      Quote: Vittt
      Russian ships will not have enough ammunition and active electronic warfare capabilities)

      And why did you actually decide that they have just such a task?
      Our naval and ground command can be blamed in many respects, but they are not noticed in clinical idiocy (attempts to start a World War).
      And more
      Quote: Vittt
      all Tomahawks (and there are at least 72 of them on each destroyer

      Again where are the firewood from?
      The standard armament kit for the airborne destroyers of the destroyers of the first two sub-series consists of 74 RIM-66 SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles, 8 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 8 RUM-139 VL-Asroc anti-submarine missiles in a multi-purpose version or 56 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 34 missiles RIM-66 SM-2 and RUM-139 VL-Asroc in the shock version [36].
  6. Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 7 October 2013 14: 44
    11
    Quote: Karavan
    Well, well, two new ships against 100 enemy destroyers.


    The whole nuclear triad, and not two unarmed ships ...
  7. 0255
    0255 7 October 2013 15: 33
    18
    Well, well, two new ships against 100 enemy destroyers.

    Nevertheless, Obama does not risk attacking Syria. So there’s nothing to run into two new ships.
    1. Ruslan_F38
      Ruslan_F38 7 October 2013 15: 57
      +4
      It was a sentence to the "elusive" and "invulnerable" AUG - the Soviet fleet, thanks to its numerous communications vessels, reliably "held a gun at the temple" of the US Navy.
      - and apparently still holds.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. 755962
        755962 7 October 2013 20: 36
        +3
        The only thing the Americans could do in such a situation was to attack the CERs with curses or stupid jokes:

        Eka is unseen ...
    2. Ivan Kalinovich
      Ivan Kalinovich 7 October 2013 23: 58
      0
      gunnerminer correct you: not a ship, but two new ships !!!
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 8 October 2013 00: 32
        -2
        gunnerminer correct you: not a ship, but two new ships !!!




        The quote is not mine. I can imagine the difference between the ship and the ship.
  8. 2sila
    2sila 8 October 2013 00: 52
    +1
    That's not true.
    Destroyers total 62.
    type "Arleigh Burke" - 62 DDG-51 "Arleigh Burke" (Arleigh Burke), 1991
    DDG-52 “Barry”, 1992
    DDG-53 John Paul Jones, 1993
    DDG-54 Curtis Wilbur, 1994
    DDG-55 “Stout”, 1994
    DDG-56 John S. McCain, 1994
    DDG-57 “Mitcher”, 1994
    DDG-58 Laboon, 1995
    DDG-59 Russell, 1995
    DDG-60 Paul Hamilton, 1995
    DDG-61 Ramage, 1995
    DDG-62 Fitzgerald, 1995
    DDG-63 “Stethem”, 1995
    DDG-64 “Carney”, 1996
    DDG-65 Benfold, 1996
    DDG-66 Gonzalez, 1996
    DDG-67 Cole, 1996
    DDG-68 The Sullivans, 1997
    DDG-69 “Milius”, 1996
    DDG-70 "Hopper" (Hopper), 1997
    DDG-71 “Ross” (Ross), 1997
    DDG-72 "Mahan" (Mahan), 1998
    DDG-73 "Speaker" (Decatur), 1998
    DDG-74 “McFaul”, 1998
    DDG-75 Donald Cook, 1998
    DDG-76 Higgins, 1999
    DDG-77 O'Kane, 1999
    DDG-78 "Porter" (Porter), 1999
    DDG-79 Oscar Austin, 2000
    DDG-80 Roosevelt, 2000
    DDG-81 Winston S. Churchill, 2001
    DDG-82 “Lassen”, 2001
    DDG-83 Howard, 2001
    DDG-84 Bulkeley, 2001
    DDG-85 McCampbell, 2002
    DDG-86 “Shoup”, 2002
    DDG-87 “Mason” (Mason), 2003
    DDG-88 “Preble”, 2002
    DDG-89 “Mustin”, 2003
    DDG-90 Chaffee, 2003
    DDG-91 “Pinckney”, 2004
    DDG-92 “Momsen”, 2004
    DDG-93 Chung-Hoon, 2004
    DDG-94 “Nitze”, 2005
    DDG-95 James E. Williams, 2004
    DDG-96 Bainbridge, 2005
    DDG-97 Halsey, 2005
    DDG-98 Forrest Sherman, 2006
    DDG-99 “Ferregat” (Farragut), 2006
    DDG-100 Kidd, 2007
    DDG-101 Gridley, 2007
    DDG-102 Sampson, 2007
    DDG-103 “Trakstan” (Truxtun), 2009
    DDG-104 “Erase” (Sterett), 2008
    DDG-105 Dewey, 2010
    DDG-106 Stockdale (Stockdale, 2009
    DDG-107 Gravely, 2010
    DDG-108 Wayne E. Meyer, 2009
    DDG-109 Dunham, 2010
    DDG-110 William P. Lawrence, 2011
    DDG-111 Spruance, 2011
    DDG-112 Michael Murphy, 2012
  9. Heccrbq .2
    Heccrbq .2 9 October 2013 23: 58
    -1
    Ek, how friendly you were, they don’t worry, the author is a professional oh oh, in the sense of a storyteller!
    1. Santa Fe
      10 October 2013 01: 04
      +3
      Quote: Heccrbq .2
      Well, don’t worry, the author is a professional oh oh, in the sense of a storyteller!

      author just retold CNN broadcast
      The Yankees themselves admitted this:
      Russia has sent ships to the Mediterranean that could give Syria advance notice by monitoring US ships... More from CNN at http://www.cnn.com/

  10. Sandov
    Sandov 10 October 2013 14: 04
    0
    Maybe in vain they threw out Old. Let the Americans not know about it.
  11. sergey123
    sergey123 10 October 2013 18: 12
    0
    where did you see 100 destroyers off the coast of Syria
  12. shinobi
    shinobi 11 October 2013 07: 37
    0
    Actually, one thing is enough. The second for safety, you never know what. Even during the time of the union, such boats had over-the-horizon observation devices and were able to conduct up to 150-300 objects.
  13. Interface
    Interface 12 October 2013 14: 30
    0
    Comrade, yes you are a recognized genius of logic, I look)))
    A connected vessel against warships put ... pfff
  • Zhenya
    Zhenya 7 October 2013 09: 31
    27
    Good photo selection. The courage of our sailors not to occupy.
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 7 October 2013 15: 41
      +9
      Good photo selection. The courage of our sailors not to occupy.





      Excellent photo selection. Photographs, and their number, cannot be measured. Besides courage, you need a high level of combat training of sailors of all categories. Including the headquarters of the group, the ability to control even such insignificant forces in a combat situation. The author focuses on photography and science description of some tactical methods and methods of reconnaissance. The author does not write anything about the readiness of naval combat crews for the ability to implement intelligence.
      1. Firstvanguard
        Firstvanguard 8 October 2013 09: 43
        0
        In addition to courage, a high level of combat training of sailors of all categories is needed, including the headquarters of the group, the ability to control even such insignificant forces in a combat situation.

        Does anyone dispute this?
        The author does not write anything about the readiness of naval combat crews on the ability to implement intelligence.

        Gee, if he had said this, provided that he knew this, some uncles with some crusts would have begun to show interest in his personality. bully
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 8 October 2013 18: 48
          0
          Gee, if he had said this, provided that he knew this, some uncles with some crusts would have begun to show interest in his personality. bully


          Uncles with some crusts have the task of fighting Alyoshka Navalny and his comrades. The author has no idea about the readiness of naval combat crews, including what ship naval crews are and what tasks he solves.
      2. Cynic
        Cynic 8 October 2013 11: 03
        +4
        Quote: gunnerminer
        The author does not write anything about the readiness of naval combat crews on the ability to implement intelligence.

        At the root is not the correct formulation of the question.
        Why would reconnaissance ship engage in a clash?
        Intelligence
        AUG preparation for launching a missile strike has been recorded.
        Staff
        AUG destroy.
        Response
        AUG destroyed. We continue the observation.

        Somewhere like that?
        laughing
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 8 October 2013 11: 40
          0
          Is the implementation of intelligence necessarily a battle with the use of naval weapons? Fighting is conducted only by missiles, mines, torpedoes and other types of naval weapons? And only in wartime? Read carefully all the branches of the post. Thoughtfully.
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 8 October 2013 18: 55
            +4
            Quote: gunnerminer
            Read carefully all the branches of the post. Thoughtfully.

            All ?
            Comment actually about what you specifically said
            Quote: gunnerminer
            The author does not write anything about the readiness of naval combat crews on the ability to implement intelligence.

            By the way, naval combat calculations do not use intelligence, they use target designations received from the ship's CIUS.
            This is, by the way.
            1. gunnerminer
              gunnerminer 8 October 2013 19: 08
              0
              By the way, naval combat calculations do not use intelligence, they use target designations received from the ship's CIUS.
              This is, by the way.


              Yes, only BIUS? Who so restricts the KBR and the commander of the ship and the commander of the connection?
        2. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 8 October 2013 18: 49
          -1
          Somewhere like that?




          In the cartoon about Malchish Kibalchish exactly.
  • sven27
    sven27 7 October 2013 09: 44
    15
    An excellent article, full of patriotism and pride in our Navy, but it lacks objectivity. I would like to ask the author if he knows how many combat-ready SSV ships are left in our Navy? I think not a lot ... One of the new ones was recently launched in St. Petersburg. Project 18280 communications vessel "Yuri Ivanov".
    1. 222222
      222222 7 October 2013 10: 13
      +7
      except patriotism is far from reality .. the old ships .SSV Black Sea Fleet decommissioned .. some kids work ... new ones just appear. ..far sighting is not visible ...
      1. eplewke
        eplewke 7 October 2013 10: 39
        17
        Give us some time ... And everything will be ... And long trips and new ships ...
        1. 222222
          222222 7 October 2013 12: 09
          +5
          ..in the campaign, the main thing is people -professionals .. yes their fanaticism and their head .. yes and the equipment did not interfere with the new one.
          1. Muadipus
            Muadipus 7 October 2013 13: 20
            +4
            Given the speed with which we build ships. Universities have time to prepare personnel.
        2. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 7 October 2013 13: 47
          0
          Give us some time ... And everything will be ... And long trips and new ships ...





          It has long been given, but OSK (United Shipbuilding Corporation) cannot take it.
    2. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 7 October 2013 13: 45
      +6
      An excellent article, full of patriotism and pride in our Navy, but it lacks objectivity. I would like to ask the author if he knows how many combat-ready SSV ships are left in our Navy? I think not a lot ... One of the new ones was recently launched in St. Petersburg. Project 18280 communications vessel "Yuri Ivanov".



      Yuriy Ivanov’s BRZK will be completed at least a year at the factory’s wall. How the assembled complexes will work will be a big question. Then, putting into the line and handing over the tasks. Before sending it to the combat service, this DBK will be at least a year and a half, under the most favorable circumstances.
    3. aleks
      aleks 7 October 2013 14: 43
      +5
      The new ones are only being built, but the old ones, casually called tugboats and other, are soundly working to this day.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 8 October 2013 00: 39
        0
        The new ones are only being built, but the old ones, casually called tugboats and other, are soundly working to this day.




        How do you assess the quality factor of a warship or reconnaissance? Have you read it somewhere? Trousers or shoes can be good quality. Ships are combat-ready.
  • borisjdin1957
    borisjdin1957 7 October 2013 10: 03
    21
    from the Don.
    The author pleased and made it possible to be happy for the country in which I lived! It remains that I would be happy and proud of the country in which I live! And also our sailors, who at all times remain heroes of our time!
    1. ansons
      ansons 7 October 2013 18: 56
      +6
      Proud of the country (homeland) at the dawn of its greatness, easily. She is proud when they try to wipe her feet about her, this is the lot of true patriots.
      1. carbofo
        carbofo 9 October 2013 15: 18
        +1
        I understand that we are not doing well, but I have no choice - I am Russian, I love my Motherland, and there is no other way.

        Two dung worms, dad and son, crawl out of a pile of shit.
        The son asks: "Dad, dad, what is so bright and round up there?"
        Daddy-worm: "This is the sun, son."
        Son again: "Dad, and around the sun, what is blue beautiful?"
        Dad: "This is heaven, son."
        Son again: "Dad, what's the green fluffy downstairs?"
        Dad: "It's grass."
        Son: "Dad, if everything is so beautiful around, why are we living in shit?"
        Dad: "Because - this is our HOMELAND, son."

        So if someone has read to the end, look what is happening in the world, take our word for it all nishtyak.
        There is a complete priest, with very few exceptions, so do not dream like it is good, think that everything is more than normal with us.
  • cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 7 October 2013 10: 11
    +5
    Well, guano, these tomahawks, in the case of a big war - useless iron.
    targets for the Tomahawks are selected in advance, ashore, at specialized mission training centers in Norfolk and Camp Smith

    as well as a "photograph" of the target for the optical guidance system "Dzhismek" on the final section of the trajectory

    In addition, kamikaze robots need information on the coordinates of the starting point
    1. Langeo
      Langeo 7 October 2013 10: 33
      +7
      But what’s wrong? Tomahawk is a weapon against motionless targets. How should he work differently?
      1. Rink
        Rink 7 October 2013 12: 18
        +8
        Quote: Langeo
        But what’s wrong? Tomahawk is a weapon against motionless targets. How should he work differently?

        And not even just for shooting at fixed targets ...
        This is a weapon for "punishing" an obviously weaker adversary who is unable to respond and / or counteract.

        In the case of a "notch" with an approximately equal enemy, they are suitable only for delivering a surprise strike first, for a surprise attack.
        It is from such a scenario that our radio intelligence reconciles.
        1. Muadipus
          Muadipus 7 October 2013 13: 45
          0
          So in the case of a large batch, the reconnaissance means will be the first targets for the axes. without "eyes and ears" war is not war. But in peacetime, when there are even hints of the rules of conduct for CERs, that's the thing.
        2. Santa Fe
          7 October 2013 15: 02
          +2
          Quote: Skating rink
          This is a weapon for "punishing" an obviously weaker adversary who is unable to respond and / or counteract.

          You write nonsense

          The low-flying kamikaze killer is specially designed to suppress air defense (radar, air defense systems) and the most important targets (power plants, command centers, air bases, radio towers) on enemy territory.

          It is impossible to imagine a better tool for laying corridors in the air defense system and disorganizing the forces of the enemy, which has modern air defense systems. If you do this with aviation, Ossetia-08.08.08 will repeat, where rodents knocked down 4 Russian aircraft (despite the fact that they had only one 3D radar 36Д6-M and one SAM Buk)

          And for overweight Papuans like Grenada, "who have no opportunity to respond and / or counteract" - $ 2 million, the missile is useless
          Enough Ganship AC-103 with 105 mm howitzer on board.

          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 7 October 2013 15: 30
            -9
            It is impossible to imagine a better tool for laying corridors in the air defense system and disorganizing the forces of the enemy, which has modern air defense systems. If you do this with aviation, Ossetia-08.08.08 will repeat, where rodents knocked down 4 Russian aircraft (despite the fact that they had only one 3D radar 36Д6-M and one SAM Buk)


            +100! At the same time, the Tu-22M3-MR was shot down, designed to conduct reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and ensure an air defense breakthrough.
            1. Rusich51
              Rusich51 10 October 2013 17: 32
              0
              gunnerminer
              They were not shot down by rodents, Ukrainians no matter how bitter.
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 10 October 2013 18: 43
                +1
                Quote: Rusich51
                They were not shot down by rodents, by Ukrainians

                This is the second layer of cover for using Israeli Python rockets and Spider installations!
                They were captured when the brave Georgians, throwing equipment, draped from our army.
            2. Cynic
              Cynic 10 October 2013 18: 38
              +1
              Quote: gunneъrminer
              where rodents knocked down 4 Russian aircraft

              At least 4, but not 5, 7 or 14 ?! Well, not 80 ... 90 as Mishiko stated.
              Quote: gunnerminer
              they only had one 3D36-M 6D radar and one Buk air defense system

              Mdya
              And to clarify that the new Ukrainian radar blocked the zone from the Black Sea to the Caspian, we will keep silent. Not to mention his work in conjunction with civilians (5 + 4 network).
              And one disconnected Buk, already takes envy to the skilled rocketeers.
              We are silently silently silent about the wasps that existed in Georgia, because officially our people do not express suspicion of their guilt.
              Talk about the Spider Pythons stolen from the suckers of Israel (after all, Israel officially denied the existence of such supplies, and that means they were stolen from these suckers!)!
          2. 31231
            31231 7 October 2013 22: 12
            +3
            And from what height does Ganship work ?! MANPADS get it ?! Not?!
            1. gunnerminer
              gunnerminer 8 October 2013 00: 42
              +3
              And from what height does Ganship work ?! MANPADS get it ?! Not?!




              Ganship is used where there is no one to use MANPADS or there are no conditions for successful effective use of MANPADS.
            2. Santa Fe
              8 October 2013 01: 20
              +4
              Quote: 31231
              And from what height does Ganship work ?! Get MANPADS?

              They have their own niche of application. Beat those who have nothing more serious than Berdanoks and AKMs



              If the Papuans have MANPADS, the A-10 and the simple and numerous F-16s will be used
              BUT NO SLCM "TOMAGAVK" - weapons for other purposes
              1. gunnerminer
                gunnerminer 8 October 2013 18: 54
                -2
                Ganships have several tasks, ways and methods of application. It depends on the assigned outfit of the security forces and the operational situation, time of year. One of the secondary tasks is the destruction of the demoralized remnants of the enemy military units. It is very suitable for the middle zone of the Russian Federation and the steppe regions of Kazakhstan. Especially in winter.
              2. Rusich51
                Rusich51 12 October 2013 10: 47
                0
                I wonder if there is something like ganship in Russia.
                I think this would not hurt us either. Watch the Americans arm themselves, sow death everywhere.
        3. Wedmak
          Wedmak 7 October 2013 16: 55
          +4
          This is a weapon for "punishing" an obviously weaker adversary who is unable to respond and / or counteract.

          Partly true.
          In the case of a "notch" with an approximately equal enemy, they are suitable only for delivering a surprise strike first, for a surprise attack.

          And then, only a massive start. Such an adversary will easily crush a couple of dozen axes. But when their 50-100 flies, for a dozen goals, from different sides (on only one submarine (a converted strategist) they can be downloaded to 160 !!!), then it’s worth reckoning with them.
      2. Santa Fe
        7 October 2013 14: 47
        +3
        Quote: Langeo
        Tomahawk is a weapon against motionless targets

        Yes now!
        Quote: Langeo
        How should he work differently?

        Dozens of modifications for different media, warheads and types of GOS

        Here, for example, BGM-109B TASM - anti-ship version of the Ax, was in service with the US Navy in the late 80s - early 2000s. Instead of TERCOM, it was guided by the AN / DSQ-28 RLGSN from the Harpoon anti-ship missile

        Modern modification BGM-109 Block IV TMMM (Tomahawk Multi-Mode Missile) - according to some reports, it was supposed to hit moving land and sea targets (for this, in addition to optical sensors, it had a radar detection system)



        As far as I know, Block IV TMMM did not go into the series - its capabilities were redundant. Instead went Block IV TLAM-E, better known as Tactical Tomahawk. The missile is cheapened and lightened as much as possible, the firing range is increased, a new GOS is used, in addition to the TERCOM, it’s possible to use GPS guidance, the missile has treated a satellite communications UHF station - this allows the ship’s operators to control the missile’s parameters, take into account its condition / fuel balance / damage - and redirect it to any of the 15 pre-selected goals.

        + the ability to point on GPS (drove the coordinates from Google Maps and you're done wink )
        + the possibility of prolonged barrage over the battlefield in anticipation of a suitable target

        unsure about aiming at moving targets ... although how relevant are such tasks to ship cruise missiles? Their mission is to knock out radars, radio stations, command centers, warehouses and hangars of military bases. Destroy tanks - here you need other weapons
  • pahom54
    pahom54 7 October 2013 10: 26
    12
    The article is a plus, since it proudly talks about the former intelligence power of the Soviet Navy and directly indicates that Russia has every chance of returning this power. Evidence of this is the launch of the BIG reconnaissance ship, and not the small pelvis, as mentioned above. This is only the first swallow ...
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 7 October 2013 13: 48
      -4
      Yuriy Ivanov’s BRZK will be completed at least a year at the factory’s wall. How the assembled complexes will work will be a big question. Then, putting into the line and handing over the tasks. Before sending it to the combat service, this DBK will be at least a year and a half, under the most favorable circumstances.
  • roial
    roial 7 October 2013 10: 28
    -13 qualifying.
    Quote: cth; fyn
    Well, guano, these tomahawks, in the case of a big war - useless iron.


    Well, how can I say - we don’t have that either.
    If we are not mistaken in our radar guidance, in the absence of reconnaissance and target designation equipment, our commanders will shoot missiles at the area of ​​the alleged location of the enemy, and there, like God will send, the missile will find a target or not.
    1. Langeo
      Langeo 7 October 2013 10: 52
      +7
      Take a look.

      http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D5-55
      1. Andriuha077
        Andriuha077 7 October 2013 13: 43
        13
        http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/raduga/kh/55/kh55.htm
        X-55 / RKV-500 (AS-15 "Kent")
        strategic cruise missile
        The idea of ​​creating subsonic small-sized strategic cruise missiles that fly around the terrain at low altitude belongs to our country. Four years before the start of work in the USA (1975), MKB "Raduga" addressed the government with such an initiative proposal.
    2. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 7 October 2013 15: 35
      -7
      If we are not mistaken in our radar guidance, in the absence of reconnaissance and target designation equipment, our commanders will shoot missiles at the area of ​​the alleged location of the enemy, and there, like God will send, the missile will find a target or not.



      +100! It is possible to use rocket weapons in such an extravagant way, but such a weapon consumption requires many times its stocks, as well as a significant increase in the number of carriers.
      1. Santa Fe
        7 October 2013 15: 50
        +4
        Quote: gunnerminer
        If we are not mistaken in our radar guidance, in the absence of reconnaissance and target designation equipment, our commanders will shoot missiles at the area of ​​the alleged enemy location

        in general, this is the only way to aim anti-ship missiles (there are no other landmarks at sea, GPS is too unreliable. Usually an inertial is used, after a certain time the radar seeker will turn on. Otherwise, nothing)

        For ground targets - precision weapons (SLCMs and air-based) need precise coordinates or description of the target

        just to grow old SLCM cost $ 2 million for areal purposes - utter nonsense. Usually this method is called "carpet bombing" and is carried out by aviation using ordinary free-fall bombs (however, it has not been used for 10 years already)
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 7 October 2013 16: 26
          +2
          just to grow old SLCM cost $ 2 million for areal purposes - utter nonsense. Usually this method is called "carpet bombing" and is carried out by aviation using ordinary free-fall bombs (however, it has not been used for 10 years already)


          To conduct carpet bombing, at least a Tu-22M3 or Tu-160 aviation division is needed, with appropriate fighter and electronic warfare coverage, with flying tankers. A maximum of two Tu-22M3 squadrons and three Tu-160s can fly into the air.
  • mirag2
    mirag2 7 October 2013 10: 34
    +9
    At that very moment of transferring the latest data to the "Tomahawk" homing head, our hackers must knock down the configuration of these very heads.
    -I'm talking about why we need hackers in the army-there was a conversation about this.
    And to the fact that this is the most important component of our time.
    1. niksup
      niksup 7 October 2013 11: 09
      +6
      it is much more interesting not to "knock down the setting", but to reconfigure by specifying the coordinates of the "landing" point at some important point for the attacking side.
      1. Nitup
        Nitup 7 October 2013 11: 39
        +6
        Quote: niksup
        it is much more interesting not to "knock down the setting", but to reconfigure by specifying the coordinates of the "landing" point at some important point for the attacking side.

        If possible, indicate the starting point as the goal)
        1. poquello
          poquello 8 October 2013 00: 00
          +1
          Quote: Nitup
          Quote: niksup
          it is much more interesting not to "knock down the setting", but to reconfigure by specifying the coordinates of the "landing" point at some important point for the attacking side.

          If possible, indicate the starting point as the goal)

          It’s better to go to the starting point at the time of launch and do not need to reprogram.
      2. angarchanin
        angarchanin 7 October 2013 16: 45
        +3
        The command to return to the starting point: both the attack time of the hackers is shorter (the starting point is already in the program), and "... the horse runs faster to his native stable"
      3. ansons
        ansons 7 October 2013 19: 00
        +1
        For example, in a launcher, given a "tomahawk" smile
  • kostya_a
    kostya_a 7 October 2013 11: 02
    +6
    Quote: roial
    Well, how can I say - we don’t have that either.

    Che is not there then? Yes, C-10 "Grenade" - sea-based and X-55 Air-based on strategic bombers. Not in as many as "friends" have!
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 7 October 2013 15: 57
      +1
      Che is not there then? Yes, C-10 "Grenade" - sea-based and X-55 Air-based on strategic bombers. Not in as many as "friends" have!



      How many indicated missiles are you, at least in the third degree of readiness, to be delivered to carriers? Who and where will they be prepared? During the 2007-2012 reform, thousands of positions of ensigns and warrant officers were reduced, these were the calculation groups for the preparation of the specified weapons In addition, thousands of contract soldiers were kicked out to a citizen. Missiles are not prepared to be delivered to carriers on their own, Vekselberg, Ponomarev, Chubais have not yet collected the Skolkovo nanorobots. Who will issue target designations to the Grenades and X-55? Unfinished Legend?
  • gregor6549
    gregor6549 7 October 2013 11: 04
    -2
    Who is watching whom and better is a big question and it is unlikely that the answer to this question can be resolved in favor of the Russian Navy at this stage. All the same, in terms of modern electronics, "kibenimatics" and the corresponding information infrastructure, Russia's lag behind the United States is still more than serious and this gap is still widening. So the commissioning of a couple of three more new reconnaissance vessels i.e. new "hardware" with essentially old electronics is unlikely to change anything. There is no need to talk about what was built during the Soviet era.
    1. Nitup
      Nitup 7 October 2013 11: 41
      +8
      Quote: gregor6549
      Who is watching whom and better is a big question and it is unlikely that the answer to this question can be resolved in favor of the Russian Navy at this stage. All the same, in terms of modern electronics, "kibenimatics" and the corresponding information infrastructure, Russia's lag behind the United States is still more than serious and this gap is still widening. So the commissioning of a couple of three more new reconnaissance vessels i.e. new "hardware" with essentially old electronics is unlikely to change anything. There is no need to talk about what was built during the Soviet era.

      Well, our electronics do not stand still. Otherwise, it makes no sense to simply build inefficient military equipment.
    2. ansons
      ansons 7 October 2013 19: 05
      +8
      Have you felt the filling (electronics) of the ship "Yuri Ivanov"? That would argue this.
      1. faraon
        faraon 9 October 2013 02: 33
        +1
        Yes, no one felt it, but it would be better that this filling would be on all ships, and not on one "Yur.Ivanov". That is why we have to argue because the gap in the electronic industry is not in favor of Russia.
  • Max otto
    Max otto 7 October 2013 11: 34
    11
    Put a plus sign, photos, information, everything is interesting. But pathos rolls over, write a little calmer.
    Unique domestic equipment allows you to "shine through" the Sixth Fleet through and through ...

    The General Staff of the Navy does not accidentally collect sailor fluorography in order to monitor pulmonary diseases in the sixth US fleet? laughing
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 7 October 2013 16: 57
      +2
      Well, you have to somehow help your "friends". Let’s throw fluorography at least. winked
  • Nitup
    Nitup 7 October 2013 11: 56
    0
    By the way, who knows whether it is planned to install X-101 missiles on the new Yasen-class nuclear submarines?
    1. Wedmak
      Wedmak 7 October 2013 16: 58
      +2
      It seems that such information slipped. Moreover, the X-102, too, supposedly can be in the ammunition.
      1. Nitup
        Nitup 7 October 2013 17: 23
        0
        Quote: Wedmak
        It seems that such information slipped. Moreover, the X-102, too, supposedly can be in the ammunition.

        Well, the X-102 is already a nuclear strategic missile falling under START-3
        1. Wedmak
          Wedmak 8 October 2013 11: 18
          0
          Well, after all, they CAN, not the fact that they will. wink
          Only it can hardly be called strategic. More likely tactical.
  • shark
    shark 7 October 2013 12: 01
    +1
    It is necessary to restore the fleet of the ubiquitous fishermen)) At one time, I almost got the distribution on the BRZK. But the putsch changed everything a little. And with the union, really, these steamers disappeared in the seas for years.
  • Professor
    Professor 7 October 2013 12: 09
    -2
    The title of the article is missing: "Hurray, comrades." Minus her from me. negative

    All radio communications and satellite communication lines, the operation of detection equipment, electronic warfare and combat information systems of all the ships of the Sixth Fleet are under our control - Russian sailors have a clear idea of ​​the situation on board American destroyers and are able to predict in advance the actions of a “potential enemy” in changing the characteristics of electromagnetic fields.

    This desire is not true. Although, if by "control" he means to know about the availability of such means, then he is right. I was especially amused about satellite communication lines and about "all" ships of the Sixth Fleet.

    The task is completely non-trivial.

    Not nontrivial, but even theoretically impossible.

    Strictly speaking, the SWG-3 system is just an intermediate link - flight routes and targets for the Tomahawks are selected in advance, on the shore, in specialized mission preparation centers in Norfolk and Camp Smith (Hawaii).

    Not certainly in that way. The flight mission for the rocket is loaded directly on board the steamer. Previously, this whole process took forever, but now it takes only minutes. Now most of the trajectory of the CD uses satellite navigation, closer to the target, scanning the terrain and immediately in front of the target optical images of the target. There are also exceptions. Nevertheless, only the last two methods contain a large amount of information, but the "bus width" today is already the same as 20 years ago.

    In addition, kamikaze robots need information on the coordinates of the starting point - otherwise gyroscopes of the inertial system will not be able to bring the Tomahawk to the area of ​​the first correction over the enemy’s coastline (the terrain TERCOM is useless when flying over the sea - the water is the same everywhere).

    All in one pile and gyroscopes and tercom and coordinates. When launching the CR, it determines its coordinates by satellite and there is no need to hammer them on a ship or submarine.
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 7 October 2013 14: 15
      0
      This desire is not true. Although, if by "control" he means to know about the availability of such means, then he is right. I was especially amused about satellite communication lines and about "all" ships of the Sixth Fleet.


      Professor, thanks for the thoughtful comment. There should be objectivity, especially in defense matters.
      1. Professor
        Professor 7 October 2013 14: 23
        +4
        Quote: gunnerminer
        Professor, thanks for the thoughtful comment. There should be objectivity, especially in defense matters.

        No problem. Moreover, the shortcomings I have described do not have nationality. Physics is international. The bourgeois also face the same "wiretapping" problems.
    2. Santa Fe
      7 October 2013 14: 20
      +3
      Quote: Professor
      Strictly speaking, the SWG-3 system is just an intermediate link - flight routes and targets for the Tomahawks are selected in advance, on the shore, in specialized mission preparation centers in Norfolk and Camp Smith (Hawaii).

      Not certainly in that way. The missile flight mission is loaded directly on board the ship. Previously, this whole process took eternity, now a matter of minutes.

      What is not so?
      Flight missions for Axes are still being prepared on the shore
      Quote: Professor
      Exceptions happen

      Of course it does.
      The latest version of the Tactical Tomahawk has the ability to prepare a flight mission directly on board the ship!
      "preparation", in this case, boils down to driving in the coordinates of the intended target (GPS) - when approaching, the DSMAC and the rocket's TV cameras will turn on - the operators will determine whether it is worth attacking the selected target.

      Emergency Call Version
      Quote: Professor
      . When launching the CR, it determines its coordinates by satellite and there is no need to hammer them on a ship or submarine.

      Modern have already learned. Although the coordinates are still driven
      1. Professor
        Professor 7 October 2013 14: 33
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        What is not so?
        Flight missions for Axes are still being prepared on the shore

        Philosophically, yes. All decisions on the use of such CDs are made ashore at the Pentagon, and not by a captain. The flight mission can and in most cases is loaded on a parachute.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Although the coordinates are still driven

        You will read and get the impression that "driving in coordinates" is like interrupting the numbers on a stolen Bamer, and judging by the author, this process takes almost all the energy of the reactor and emits such electromagnetic radiation that the scouts whip it at the other end of the Mediterranean. Loading coordinates takes a split second and is absolutely groundless for prying eyes, ear, nose and ...
        1. Santa Fe
          7 October 2013 15: 16
          +6
          Quote: Professor
          The flight mission can and in most cases is loaded on a parachute.

          But who argues with this.
          A flight mission is loaded on a steamboat if a flash drive with a flight mission is delivered from Camp Smith

          They cannot determine the goals and calculate the route on the destroyer on their own - they don’t have the necessary data (satellite images, intelligence data), nor computing power, nor software, nor any people competent in these matters.

          Flight mission is being developed on the shore
          Quote: Professor
          and emits such electromagnetic radiation that scouts cut it on the other end of the Mediterranean. Loading coordinates takes a split second and is absolutely non-earthy for the prying eye, ear, nose and ...

          I do not argue about the speed of the buses and data lines of the SWG-3 system
          But in order to contact the Ax loaded in the Mk.41 cell, you need to enable these blocks

          Power Required by 61-Cell VLS Launcher
          440 Vac 60 Hz 3 phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 kW
          115 Vac 60 Hz 1 phase (lighting). . . . .. . . . . 8 kW
          115 Vac 60 Hz 3 phase (backup power for 400 Vac) ... 10 kW
          115 Vac 60 Hz 1 phase (launch control unit). . . . . 5 kW
          115 Vac 400 Hz 3 phase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 kW
    3. Wedmak
      Wedmak 7 October 2013 17: 07
      0
      Now most of the trajectory of the Kyrgyz Republic uses satellite navigation

      And not inertial? Indeed, along the way, GPS can also be jammed ...
      When launching the CR, it determines its coordinates by satellite and there is no need to hammer them on a ship or submarine.

      Fortunately, the chips are small and cheap, you can put it in any pan and it will work. But if GPS jamming is not performed.
      1. Professor
        Professor 7 October 2013 20: 17
        -2
        Quote: Wedmak
        And not inertial? Indeed, along the way, GPS can also be jammed ...

        I don’t even mention the inertial; it is, by definition, standing there.

        Quote: Wedmak
        But if GPS jamming is not performed.

        This is not a simple matter, but in the missile launch area it is not feasible.
        EW troops lose GPS fight
        1. 528Obrp
          528Obrp 7 October 2013 20: 28
          +5
          Not serious. The GPS signal is jammed like an ordinary radio signal. Invalid article. They tried not to drown out the signal, but to replace it, and this is far from the same thing.
          Any signal is muffled, absolutely any, and the rest is a fairy tale. The input circuit is overloaded beyond the dynamic range and it does not matter what frequency the receiving circuit is tuned to. The danger of such a method can also be ours.
          1. Professor
            Professor 7 October 2013 20: 56
            0
            Quote: 528Obrp
            Any signal is muffled, absolutely any, and the rest is a fairy tale

            Tell us the story of how to drown an antenna with a controlled radiation pattern from the ground?
            1. 528Obrp
              528Obrp 7 October 2013 21: 14
              +2
              draw the radiation pattern of this device and you will understand everything. In order to drown it is necessary to exceed the signal level at the entrance to the high-frequency energy sewage system, and for this it is enough to get on any side lobe. If this plate is with a rotating emitter (located in the focal plane of the plate) then it has horseradish side lobes. Draw three points (a triangle) and place in the middle of this airplane and khan to it.
              1. Professor
                Professor 7 October 2013 21: 40
                0
                The so-called Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna (CRPA) uses software to synthesize narrow beams directed towards the intended location of the GPS satellites, leaving the antenna "blind" in all other directions. The most advanced antenna designs of this type produce so-called "zeros" in the antenna pattern aimed at sources of interference to further suppress their influence.
                Please, give at least one example where such an antenna would be drowned.
                1. 528Obrp
                  528Obrp 8 October 2013 01: 03
                  +1
                  Quote: Professor
                  The so-called Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna (CRPA) synthesizes narrow beams using software


                  Well, you’re talking about HEADLIGHTS or AFAR, the second device is quite rare, this is an array of elements each of which is a small antenna. And physically, they all come under the influence of an interference signal (AFAR is by the way the most vulnerable), these antennas have such a design - there are a lot of elements that are not covered by anything, a lot of feeders. And in the photo - an ordinary plate (maybe an altimeter, maybe an airborne radar)
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 8 October 2013 08: 11
                    0
                    Quote: 528Obrp
                    And in the photo - an ordinary plate (maybe an altimeter, maybe an airborne radar)

                    Altimeter and airborne radar pointing up? IMHO communication with the satellite.
                    1. 528Obrp
                      528Obrp 9 October 2013 02: 44
                      0
                      Quote: Professor
                      Altimeter and airborne radar pointing up?

                      Service location.
                      Descent of cruise cruise missiles off course, pitch before self-destruction - Yugoslavia, Iraq. No one will tell you directly about this, especially the Americans. Everything else is a fairy tale.

                      But in the picture you can clearly see the object beyond the limits of the reflector (plate) - this is the most sensitive and most vulnerable part of the antenna, it then creates holes in the radiation pattern.
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 9 October 2013 09: 16
                        0
                        Quote: 528Obrp
                        Service location.

                        Actually, this is a UAV and judging by the picture, the plate is not able to turn down. Altimeters are placed on the bottom bulbs.
                      2. 528Obrp
                        528Obrp 9 October 2013 09: 37
                        0
                        And in my opinion the hinged part is clearly visible (below is the feeder). The directivity pattern of such antennas is rather narrow (the viewing sector is small) and it is impossible to accommodate 3 satellites at the same time.
                      3. Professor
                        Professor 9 October 2013 09: 50
                        +1
                        IMHO this is a communication antenna, but the principle is obvious.
                      4. 528Obrp
                        528Obrp 9 October 2013 10: 11
                        0
                        Quote: Professor
                        IMHO this is a communication antenna, but the principle is obvious

                        Perhaps a communication antenna, perhaps an airborne radar. The emitter and the receiving part are located in the focal plane of the antenna and are not shielded by anything, the antenna is vulnerable both from the side of the plane in which the reflector is located, and from 10 degrees to the back ..... It is killed immediately when a pulse hits the antenna target or silences it for a certain time when falling into the side lobe. I think this is how Iran works. About the interception of control I have big doubts and the substitution of GPS is the same ... but not so bad
                      5. Professor
                        Professor 9 October 2013 10: 52
                        0
                        Quote: 528Obrp
                        Perhaps a communication antenna, perhaps an airborne radar.

                        Airborne radar is not located in this part of the UAV. What will she scan there?

                        Everything can be drowned out, but this is far from a trivial matter both for the Iranians and even more so.
  • Cynic
    Cynic 7 October 2013 20: 31
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    Quote: Wedmak
    But if GPS jamming is not performed.
    This is not a simple matter, but in the missile launch area it is not feasible.
    EW troops lose GPS fight

    Oh, dear professor ?!
    One of the results of 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX is that the yusov GPS grid offset equipment was captured. Why jam, if you can just cheat. Not the special warhead is the Kyrgyz Republic.
    wink
    1. Professor
      Professor 7 October 2013 20: 57
      0
      Quote: Cynic
      One of the results of 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX is that the yusov GPS grid offset equipment was captured. Why jam, if you can just cheat. Not the special warhead is the Kyrgyz Republic.

      I appreciate your humor. Americans did not give Mishiko a satellite? wink
      1. Cynic
        Cynic 8 October 2013 11: 16
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        I appreciate your humor.

        So not in the know. It was always strange with great reverence for your ability to be always in the know.
        “The GPS system was rounded up several times by the US military during military operations or large-scale exercises,” Alexander Zubakhin, head of the press service of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Russian Scientific Research Institute of Space Instrumentation,” told Gazeta.ru.

        And for information
        back in 1997, the domestic enterprise Aviaconversion developed a portable jammer to suppress GPS receivers. As experts said, the interference emitted by the transmitter introduces a malfunction in the coordinate measurement process. The range of such a device was 150 km.

        hi
        1. Professor
          Professor 8 October 2013 11: 33
          0
          Quote: Cynic
          So not in the know

          In the course, that's why I appreciate your humor. the system is "rounded off" by the Americans for a civilian open signal. For the encrypted one, it is not "rounded". They seized a receiver of an encrypted signal from the Georgians, which has long been useless. It would be foolish to assume that anyone designs a mobile receiver and hopes that it will never fall into the hands of the enemy and leave "big secrets" there.
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 8 October 2013 11: 53
            0
            Quote: Professor
            I know

            I appreciate that ease and grace with which you change the subject.
            Quote: Professor
            the system is "rounded off" by the Americans for a civilian open signal.

            It is very doubtful that ours used a closed signal. wink
            GLONASS _ A-U-U-U !!!
            1. Professor
              Professor 8 October 2013 11: 57
              0
              Quote: Cynic
              It is very doubtful that ours used a closed signal.

              Only the lazy did not write about how and what they used there. By the way, the news about the "rounding off" came from there.
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 8 October 2013 12: 08
                +2
                Dear professor, we kind of talk about the possibility of GPS distortion. And the fact that this is possible, especially to its owner, is not in doubt.
                But the possibility of this by others, I think this is a vulture
        2. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 8 October 2013 11: 45
          +1
          This transmitter of interference didn’t help with the use of cruise missiles by the coalition forces; they did not suppress or distort the reception of GPS signals; neither Air Conversion nor Mr. Zubakhin trumpeted the failure of this transmitter’s tests. In Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria.
      2. Wedmak
        Wedmak 8 October 2013 11: 21
        0
        And what about the satellite? It seems to me that replacing the satellite signal (a la another satellite) is quite easy to do. Especially owning technology.
        1. Professor
          Professor 8 October 2013 11: 35
          0
          Quote: Wedmak
          And what about the satellite? It seems to me that replacing the satellite signal (a la another satellite) is quite easy to do. Especially owning technology.

          Easy enough? Almost impossible.
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 8 October 2013 11: 48
            +1
            Answered above. When delivering attacks by the coalition forces on Syrian targets in January, May, and July, this transmitter did not help. Besides the transmitter, it was necessary to use well-developed techniques for its combat use by the electronic warfare crews.
            1. Cynic
              Cynic 8 October 2013 11: 57
              +1
              Quote: gunnerminer
              Therefore it is an agitation transmitter.

              If you do not know something, then this does not mean that this is not.
              The most interesting _ And what actually touched you so much in this information about the possibility of interference / distortion of GPS signals?
              Something personal?
              1. gunnerminer
                gunnerminer 8 October 2013 12: 04
                0
                If you do not know something, then this does not mean that this is not.
                The most interesting _ And what actually touched you so much in this information about the possibility of interference / distortion of GPS signals?



                How can I be hurt by what is missing. The distorting transmitter was supposedly invented in 1997. If it is of any defense value, then why haven’t it been tested, used, trained specialists in its service and combat use in training centers and VSC? What am I I know or I don’t know, this is my personal business. An agitation transmitter in the style of done by Nasru.
                1. Cynic
                  Cynic 8 October 2013 12: 18
                  +1
                  Quote: gunnerminer
                  If it is of any defense value, then why it was not tested, not used, not ...

                  Hmm.
                  Judging by the nickname’s flag, you are from Russia, and according to your comments, from anywhere but not from it.
                  For me, the date is 1997, it says a lot.
                  There is a joke
                  Who served in the army does not laugh at the circus.
                  So you tell me why, of all the possible paths of development of our state, the most, hmm, you generally understood.
                  In general, it is amazing how our country got out of a friendly embrace.
                2. gunnerminer
                  gunnerminer 8 October 2013 19: 04
                  -1
                  Judging by the nickname’s flag, you are from Russia, and according to your comments, from anywhere but not from it



                  What does this have to do with the topic of the post?
                3. Cynic
                  Cynic 8 October 2013 19: 13
                  +3
                  Quote: gunnerminer
                  What does this have to do with the topic of the post?

                  No
                  To the content, direct.
                4. gunnerminer
                  gunnerminer 8 October 2013 19: 22
                  -1
                  No
                  To the content, direct.



                  Not a fan of offtopic. Weapons are being discussed (for some reason the author wrote weapons) of the Navy of the Russian Federation Navy. Not my humble person who is not interested in anyone
      3. 528Obrp
        528Obrp 9 October 2013 06: 55
        0
        And which, so to speak, coalition delivered strikes?
        What weapon?
        If these are Israeli strikes from the territory of another state, then what GPS
        can we talk? Or am I missing something?
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 9 October 2013 11: 35
          +1
          And which, so to speak, coalition delivered strikes?
          What weapon?
          If these are Israeli strikes from the territory of another state, then what GPS
          can we talk? Or am I missing something?



          The coalition is the countries of NATO, Israel, friendly Arab countries on the territory of which NATO and Israel have the right to deploy their Navy, Air Force (Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco, Qatar, Jordan). You have missed a lot.
          1. 528Obrp
            528Obrp 9 October 2013 12: 09
            0
            more details, please
            Israel and ... or Israel without and
            From the territory of which "friendly-democratized" countries?
            Quote: gunnerminer
            have the right to deploy their Navy, Air Force
            and they have the right to strike from the territory of these countries? For example, the Black Sea Fleet strikes from a base in Sevastopol - how is it? Or are you on the drum?
            Our fleet came up and ........... Obama backed up, and the rhetoric of Israel changed very strange things happened, the one who considered himself exceptional turned out to be a nose in this very sight in front of everyone, and he did not stumble - helped. What happened ??? And the fleet is by Gomel’s nothing by Amerov’s standards. But something really happened, what an exceptional person. very scared. Everything else rhetoric makes no sense. Our fleet won this battle.
          2. Professor
            Professor 9 October 2013 12: 43
            0
            Quote: 528Obrp
            Obama back up and rhetoric of Israel changed very strange things happened

            We’ll leave Obama alone, but what rhetoric are you talking about?
          3. 528Obrp
            528Obrp 9 October 2013 12: 50
            0
            Ches word
            [quote = professor] nor want to bother with this issue. inosmi.ru, mignews.ru, etc. Before and after. With all due respect.
          4. Professor
            Professor 9 October 2013 13: 41
            +1
            Come on, come on. It is not the rhetoric that has changed. The news just changed. Before they said how America will strike Syria, and now Assad is disarming. The news and "rhetoric" of the civil war has not changed at all.
      4. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 9 October 2013 13: 23
        +1
        Our fleet won this battle.




        How could the Russian Navy win the battle? Coalition ships left the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea? Fighting in Syria ceased? Coalition reconnaissance and sabotage groups (NATO, Israel, Arab friendly countries) ceased operations in Syria and evacuated? Even if the coalition’s surface ships leave , the remaining submarines and coalition air forces can deliver massive strikes, but the remnants of the Russian group’s already extended resource are coming to an end. Spare parts for forty-year and thirty-year ships are missing. The result of the battle is sky-ready because of the lack of ship repair capabilities of the Russian Navy.
      5. 528Obrp
        528Obrp 9 October 2013 13: 34
        +1
        Think narrowly. Very narrow.
        1. NATO’s coalition is divided over the issue of a strike on Syria.
        2. Full win in the eight (one failed seven).
        3. Obama is almost one in twenty.
        4. There is no blow to Syria.
        5. Russia has achieved what it wanted - THIS IS BASIC.
        6. Obama’s total political defeat is very humiliating.

        And you wanted babahalo. Very stupid, very.
        Think broader, treat people more simply (it seems a famous character said so)
        PS
        Russia got what it wanted. The fleet played a very serious role in this (what exactly there did not even fantasize about), the Americans and the Israelis did not get anything in this matter. Result on the face. Everything else is chatter and verbiage.
      6. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 9 October 2013 13: 41
        0
        1. NATO’s coalition is divided over the issue of a strike on Syria.
        2. Full win in the eight (one failed seven).
        3. Obama is almost one in twenty.
        4. There is no blow to Syria.
        5. Russia has achieved what it wanted - THIS IS BASIC.
        6. Obama’s total political defeat is very humiliating.


        1. Forces to strike enough and individual members of the coalition
        2. Not seriously.
        3. Not serious and controversial. A separate topic for discussion.
        4. I haven’t achieved it. As long as it contributes to the disarmament of its only ally, who daily loses his defense potential in battles with opposition forces.
        5. Instead of Obama there will be another President. He will draw conclusions from what has happened. Russia will be managed by the former group of St. Petersburg.
      7. 528Obrp
        528Obrp 9 October 2013 13: 55
        +1
        Quote: gunnerminer
        4. I haven’t achieved it. As long as it contributes to the disarmament of its only ally, who daily loses his defense potential in battles with opposition forces.

        Just achieved. The potential is constantly replenished from different angles.
        Quote: gunnerminer
        1. Forces to strike enough and individual members of the coalition
        So what???? Where is he this blow?
        Quote: gunnerminer
        2. Not seriously.
        Come on, better remember what kind of resolution it was adopted.
        Quote: gunnerminer
        3. Not serious and controversial. A separate topic for discussion.
        well, yes, it’s very frivolous for Obama, with his status - he was softly sent and that’s all.

        Quote: gunnerminer
        5. Instead of Obama there will be another President. He will draw conclusions from what has happened. Russia will be managed by the former group of St. Petersburg.
        This is already comical. Another uncle will come and show how.
    2. Professor
      Professor 9 October 2013 13: 58
      0
      Quote: 528Obrp
      Russia got what it wanted

      And what exactly did she get and what did she want? The attack on Syria is postponed, Assad gets rid of the only trump card - WMD, he will get rid of WMD and America will be even easier to hammer on Syria. By the way, the war in Syria did not stop, Assad did not win, the economy has already died, the army suffers losses in manpower and equipment. Assad has not gained more legitimacy. What is the victory?
    3. 528Obrp
      528Obrp 9 October 2013 14: 08
      0
      Quote: Professor
      And what exactly did she get and what did she want?

      And you do not know what Russia wanted? Wow....
      Quote: Professor
      America will be even easier to fuck in Syria

      But just the opposite. This will put the United States down in the eyes of the so-called "world community." There will be no causal relationship.
      In general, what are you talking about if you are not aware of what Russia has sought and achieved? Somehow we need to study the issue. Mdaaa.
    4. Professor
      Professor 9 October 2013 14: 20
      0
      Quote: 528Obrp
      And you do not know what Russia wanted? Wow....

      You already enlighten. wink

      Quote: 528Obrp
      But just the opposite. This will put the United States down in the eyes of the so-called "world community." There will be no causal relationship.

      120 thousand dead, 2 million refugees in the eyes of the world community will justify any military action against Assad. The benefit of WMD he will no longer be ...
    5. 528Obrp
      528Obrp 9 October 2013 14: 29
      0
      Well, the verbiage went further from GPS to "heart eaters". Who gave these cattle weapons?
      I do not want to offtopic further. Obama in the shit? Fact! No shelling? Fact!
      Geneva 2 will be? Yes!
      And in all this is not a small merit of the "small fleet" of the Russian Federation
      I’m not going to offtopic anymore. See you.
      PS
      I'm new here. And honestly - nice to meet you.
    6. Professor
      Professor 9 October 2013 14: 44
      0
      Quote: 528Obrp
      I do not want to offtopic further. Obama in the shit? Fact! No shelling? Fact!

      Let's finish this topic. Putin helped Obama as they say "to get down from the tree." Obama drew a red line beyond which, having crossed, Assad was supposed to get in the brain. Assad crossed over and Obama pretended not to notice. When Assad crossed it once again and Obama was "softly" told, he could no longer lose face. However, he did not want to climb into Syria any more. Iraq and Afgan are enough for him to complete hemorrhoids, but "the boy said, the boy did it." And here is a lifeline from Russia. Assad is disarming and he need not be bombed. However, no one interferes with financing the opposition, arming it and seeking its overthrow. Moreover, Assad was given a draconian timeline for disarmament. So, the war is going on, the sanctions have not been lifted, Assad was obliged to disarm, his arsenal is being publicly cut, the country is in ruins, the end and edge of the war is not in sight and ... is this a victory for Russia and Obama in shit? Do not read Soviet newspapers before meals.
    7. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 9 October 2013 14: 59
      -1
      So, the war is on, the sanctions were not lifted, Assad was ordered to disarm, he’s publicly cutting his arsenal, the country is in ruins, the war is not visible end and end and ... is this a victory for Russia and Obama in shit? Do not read Soviet newspapers before eating.


      +100! That's right. Besides reading newspapers, sometimes you need to think about it. Especially about the amusing squadron of the Russian Federation.
  • ioann1
    ioann1 10 October 2013 14: 03
    0
    May Israel give thanks to God for not wanting to destroy the Holy Land. And it is your national behavior to provoke everyone around and achieve your goal. But I assure you, we’ll get to Shlyafman (in direct and figurative) soon, he doesn’t have to run long!
  • Professor
    Professor 7 October 2013 12: 09
    +1
    Fixed phased antennas of the AN / SPY-1 radar ... an external inspection of the Aegis destroyer will not do anything, but electromagnetic waves moving at a speed of 300 km / second penetrate the boundaries of blank walls and “blunder” all the secrets of the US Navy.

    I will extinguish the author with a Faraday cage, about which the adversaries do not know anything, with metal sides and bulkheads called the walls here (confused with drywall?) And the signal magnitude inversely proportional to the fourth degree. In short, the scout will need to moor (and I’m not sure what will help) to intercept these electromagnetic waves. But this is not enough, they still need to be identified and (adobe) decrypted. Shitty business ...

    In this regard, the situation with the US Navy unmanned aerial vehicles seems to be curious - how will the Russian Navy's electronic reconnaissance ship influence the actions of American UAVs? The answer seems obvious - an attempt to “attack” the CERs with toilet rolls from the X-47B drone strike drone will end badly for the Yankees - the super-plane will suddenly go out of control of the operators and gently “land” on the water. Just as it happened with the American drone drone RQ-170 "Sentinel" in the airspace of Iran (according to one of the versions, the Iranians "landed" RQ-170 with the help of the Russian electronic warfare complex "Avtobaz").

    The author continues to fantasize. Let him first tell how he will jam from the Carpool or from the ship (only pioneers say about control interception before they start to visit the air circles) antennas with a controlled radiation pattern and then we will talk about Iran, etc.
    1. Santa Fe
      7 October 2013 14: 24
      +5
      Quote: Professor
      metal sides and bulkheads called walls here (confused with drywall?)

      I didn’t know that Burke had an armored belt



      Plasterboard walls of the destroyer USS Porter after a collision with a tanker (Gulf of Hormuz, 2012)
      1. Professor
        Professor 7 October 2013 14: 26
        -2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        I didn’t know that Burke had an armored belt

        Where did you see the word armored belt in my comment? Does he have metal sides or will you argue with that?
        1. Santa Fe
          7 October 2013 15: 21
          +4
          Quote: Professor
          Does he have metal sides or will you argue with that?

          Thin as tin

          Actually, everything here is extremely obvious in the photo of the damaged Porter. How seriously can you screen email? magnetic waves are such a "tin" request
          Quote: Professor
          In short, the scout will need to moor (and I’m not sure what will help) in order to intercept these electromagnetic waves

          And there is
          1. postman
            postman 7 October 2013 16: 19
            +4
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            Thin as tin


            If the radio signal has to pass through walls, partitions, garage doors, car sheet steel or roof (ceiling), then the radius of action decreases. The following examples demonstrate the permeability of various building materials.


            The angle at which radio waves pass through obstacles, has of great importance for the range of the transmitter.

            and as the finale (apofigism):


            Used (for answer) materials:
            1.KX-UDS124 installation manual recourse
            2. Metal construction. In 3 t. T.Z. Steel structures
            tion of aluminum alloys. Reconstruction, inspection, strengthening and use
            torture of structures of buildings and structures. (Designer Handbook) /
            Under the total. ed. deserved builder of the Russian Federation, laureate of the state. Prizes of the USSR V.V. Kuznetsova
            (TsNIIproektstalkonstruktsiya im.N.P. Melnikova) - M.: Publishing House ASV, 1999
            3. Aviation systems of radio control. Volume 1,2,3. WITH
            Author: Merkulov V.I. and Co Year of publication: 2004

            Conclusion: comrade. with "pogonyalov" Professor-RIGHT, in the best case, it is possible to remove the fluctuations of U when the load changes.
    2. Genry
      Genry 7 October 2013 15: 15
      +4
      Quote: Professor
      I will extinguish the author with a Faraday cage, about which the adversaries do not know anything, with metal sides and bulkheads called the walls here (confused with drywall?) And the signal magnitude inversely proportional to the fourth degree.

      Where is the nonsense about the fourth degree. It has long been known among radio operators (radio specialties) that the decrease in tension in the near zone of the emitter is close to the square and then linearly. Electromagnetic waves are not completely absorbed by any Faraday lattices, they are only attenuated and re-emitted in another spectrum (nothing is perfect in this world).
      Only by bringing it up to "white noise" can information be hidden, then the ship will turn into a luminous tree (in an electromagnetic field) with a frantic consumption of energy.
      1. postman
        postman 7 October 2013 17: 13
        +1
        Quote: Genry
        Where is the nonsense about the fourth degree

        well just messed up with the basic radar equation
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/e/3/de3de26d7e7d49e77c7ec4eaf88f8ae1.png
        monostatic radar
        http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/b/1/6b1424601daef95eeef503895d59046b.png
        Remove (accept = 1) the distance (inverse) from the target to the receiver (reflected)
        get SQUARE
        inverse square law - valid FOR ALL EMVs of course
        Quote: Genry
        Electromagnetic waves are not completely absorbed by any Faraday lattices, they are only attenuated and re-emitted in another spectrum (nothing is perfect in this world).

        in the high-frequency region, the action of such a screen is based on the reflection of electromagnetic waves from the surface of the screen and the attenuation of high-frequency energy in its thickness due to thermal losses due to eddy currents.
        WHICH INFU CAN BE REMOVED AT THIS?
        1. 528Obrp
          528Obrp 7 October 2013 18: 02
          +1
          Quote: Postman
          in the high-frequency region, the action of such a screen is based on the reflection of electromagnetic waves from the surface of the screen and the attenuation of high-frequency energy in its thickness due to thermal losses due to eddy currents.
          WHICH INFU CAN BE REMOVED AT THIS?


          But have you heard about the skin effect? And when does this high-frequency radiation deep in the conductor work? By the way, any screen is essentially a waveguide and far from ideal.
          1. postman
            postman 7 October 2013 18: 30
            -1
            Quote: 528Obrp
            But have you heard about the skin effect?

            heard something
            Quote: 528Obrp
            By the way, any screen is essentially a waveguide and far from ideal.

            and who argues.
            ONLY HERE TO REMOVE INFU, as the respected author writes, UNREAL
            Well, unless you get in close contact, like L.I. Brezhnev and Honecker ....
            Yes, and even took off, then what?
            I will give you telemetry from Lacros, let's say (and ours intercept it) = And?
            1. 528Obrp
              528Obrp 7 October 2013 18: 51
              +2
              If you heard about the skin effect and eddy currents, you should know that when the current changes, the magnetic field of the conductor changes, i.e. an electric field is created. Its energy is rather weak in low-current circuits but very high in the output stages of electronic devices. That is, the issue of detecting these emissions is a matter of the signal-to-noise ratio of the receiving path and its sensitivity. And as they say, a technical issue. In the world there is nothing perfect even screens. Everything in the world has its own electromagnetic noise, even pure water and it makes noise (the NMR effect, that is, the noise creates the spin of the proton and it FIXES !. Moreover, the number of protons, that is, the composition of the substance, is uniquely determined. Magnetic nuclear tomography method. .m. noise in excess of small values ​​is fixed without problems of radio physics. I think they record much lower powers than the radiation power of radio equipment.
            2. 528Obrp
              528Obrp 7 October 2013 19: 12
              +3
              Quote: Postman
              I will give you telemetry from Lacros, let's say (and ours intercept it) = And?

              And absolutely nothing. Chinese letter.

              Here you need statistics. Correspondence of a certain spectrum of the signal to the event on the observed ship. A set of such correspondences is already something. Studying the electronic magnetic situation on a ship without reference to events will produce absolutely nothing.
              A simple example: a power jump of a power plant by 300 kW was detected, the signal power at the 3rd harmonic of the mains frequency increased - it is tied to the event the control system of the refrigeration unit was turned on (well, this is an example :))
              1. postman
                postman 7 October 2013 19: 37
                0
                Quote: 528Obrp
                And absolutely nothing. Chinese letter.

                But the author proves the opposite, our Navy hear the rumbling of the bellies of the operators in the CI
                Quote: 528Obrp
                Here you need statistics.

                I am afraid that with the processing of the received data and the receipt of at least some significant information:
                -Have to observe for years
                -Cray CS300 (well, or any of these: http://top50.supercomputers.ru/?page=rating)
                will work for a year and a half.
                do you need such a "fresh meat"?
                1. 528Obrp
                  528Obrp 7 October 2013 19: 48
                  +1
                  I think that everything is not so dull. The operation of the main mechanisms and drives is not very difficult to determine. And, I think this is already a completed stage. In addition, the systems are unified and this makes the task easier. I think the e-magn. there is already an atmosphere for preparing missile launches (not at the level of command transmission of course, but at the level of operation of drives, etc., which consumes a lot of energy.
      2. Professor
        Professor 7 October 2013 20: 22
        0
        Quote: Genry
        Where is the nonsense about the fourth degree.

        The source of this radiation is not directed, but quite the opposite. So consider what will be the power or intensity (not tension). In short, board to board must go to smell it. By the way, scouts walk like that.
        1. postman
          postman 7 October 2013 21: 06
          +1
          Quote: Professor
          So consider what will be the power

          back to the squared distance- UNIVERSALLY!
          You messed up with the basic radar equation - there back 4th degree
          There, reflection and back
          In our case, only from there
          1. Professor
            Professor 7 October 2013 21: 41
            0
            Quote: Postman
            You messed up with the basic radar equation - there back 4th degree

            Yes, even though it’s a square, you still need to go side to side.
            1. postman
              postman 7 October 2013 21: 54
              0
              Quote: Professor
              Yes, even though it’s a square, you still need to go side to side.

              I wrote how Leonid Ilyich and Honecker need "close" bodily contact
              ============
              Well, what's the point?
    3. Wedmak
      Wedmak 7 October 2013 17: 13
      +1
      In short, the scout will need to moor (and I’m not sure what will help) to intercept these electromagnetic waves.

      And why do you think the scouts are shrouded in such a forest of antennas, feeders and other electrical heresies? It seems to me that these devices are able to read surges of electricity from pressing keys on the keyboard a kilometer from them.
      Let him first tell how he will jam from the Carpool or from the steamboat (only pioneers say about control interception before they start to visit the air circles) antennas with a controlled radiation pattern

      Is there a directional diagram there? Where did you see the UAV focus plate? A plate on the ground only works up to the radio horizon. Again, clogging the air with noise at the frequency of the transmitting signal is not so difficult. Even if the signal is at a varying frequency.
      1. Professor
        Professor 7 October 2013 20: 25
        +1
        Quote: Wedmak
        Where did you see the UAV focus plate?


        And now let the respected author tell how he will jam her.
        1. postman
          postman 7 October 2013 21: 42
          +3
          Quote: Professor

          And now let the respected author tell how he will jam her.

          ==============================
          He DOESN'T KNOW, but everything is done simply
          1. place a sheet of roofing iron directly above the UAV (for example, working migrant workers will keep it)
          2.Put it (UAV) in the hopper
          3.Place over it (UAV) IL-76
          4. destroy the satellite constellation
          5. from the Navy ship to create a RI field of such power that in a radius of 300 km everything will stop working ... only a failure: you need a 2nd LNPP, you need to come up with an emitter, and on the carrier personnel will get eggs in trousers in a cool and baked brain in a bone shell
          ===
          something like
          ---------------------------------------
          although in the photo this is for communication with the spacecraft and La, the author then suggested something else: block the communication channel with the ground (surface) object, and these antennas are in the wings (if I'm not mistaken)
          1. poquello
            poquello 8 October 2013 00: 53
            +2
            Quote: Postman
            Quote: Professor

            And now let the respected author tell how he will jam her.

            ==============================
            He DOESN'T KNOW, but everything is done simply
            .....
            3.Place over it (UAV) IL-76

            According to amateurish guess
            - airship cheaper, sprayer more extensive
            1. postman
              postman 8 October 2013 01: 56
              0
              Quote: poquello
              - airship cheaper, sprayer more extensive

              it remains to find the UAV ....
          2. 528Obrp
            528Obrp 9 October 2013 03: 31
            0
            Specify at Iran, we can share. And on the plate in the photo, see above
  • Russ69
    Russ69 7 October 2013 12: 16
    +3
    Quote: Max Otto
    But pathos rolls over, write a little calmer.

    Perhaps I agree, pathos is a bit much, not everything is so easy actually. Americans, too, are not fools; they create jammers and other systems. But the fact that Russia is building two new ships is encouraging. Yes, and modernization of the old, whatever it is, but passes. Judging by the MO, in terms of electronic warfare
    shifts are going in the positive direction, at sea in the Navy, in the Ground Forces. At the beginning of the year, four Rubella-4s were commissioned, probably still under construction.
    I would like more and immediately, but the process is not fast and not cheap ...
  • vorobey
    vorobey 7 October 2013 12: 22
    +8
    Good day to all.

    Oleg personally. I haven’t read your articles for a long time. Let it give a cheer echo or not an echo. start an article and do not like one of the more knowledgeable.

    But as the American proverb says, it’s a fact on the face. And two racquets were spotted and, unknowingly, they didn’t reach. And the armada off the coast against our little ships still did not trample. So smoke without fire still does not happen. And most importantly, like a rooster's scoring tone changed.
    1. Santa Fe
      7 October 2013 17: 10
      +3
      Good to see Sperow!
      Quote: vorobey
      And two racquets were spotted and, unknowingly, they didn’t reach.

      Rocket missiles spotted SPRN station in the territory of the Russian Federation

      Radar of the missile attack warning system "Voronezh" from Armavir
      He sees targets over the horizon, in the upper atmosphere and near space. Range (declared) ~ 8 thousand km. Straight Cheops Pyramid




      Coverage area of ​​Russian SPRN

      Quote: vorobey
      And most importantly, like a rooster's scoring tone changed.

      Nobody wants to be next
      1. postman
        postman 7 October 2013 18: 34
        0
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Rocket missiles spotted SPRN station in the territory of the Russian Federation

        Radar of the missile attack warning system "Voronezh" from Armavir

        Do you believe in this nonsense?
        What was there?
        With the F-15 (or F-16) a simulator of the BR was launched (based on the V-V missile)
        The Israelis tried (or intercepted) with their "racket"

        All this was within 15 km of altitude, scanty EPR (and bodies), minuscule faecl of RD
        WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did I spot the SPR ????
        Which (Russian) is not directed there
        Huh?
        1. Santa Fe
          7 October 2013 18: 42
          +1
          Quote: Postman
          Do you believe in this nonsense?

          At least this task of SPRN is to see everything above the horizon
          Quote: Postman
          With the F-15 (or F-16) a simulator of the BR was launched (based on the V-V missile)

          why did they launch it?
          I especially did not delve into this story
          Quote: Postman
          WHAT, WHEN, and HOW did I spot the SPR ????

          And then who?
          There is a message on the Internet, from the Ministry of Defense
          1. Professor
            Professor 7 October 2013 20: 34
            0
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            why did they launch it?
            I especially did not delve into this story

            Israel Tests a new Target Missile Simulating Iranian Shihab 3 Missiles

          2. postman
            postman 7 October 2013 21: 16
            +1
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            At least this task of SPRN is to see everything above the horizon

            Let's not exaggerate: Sparrow - FIG will see
            WILL SEE START ICBMs, the same I compared the finger and the RAM
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            I especially did not delve into this story

            but already see genosse professor gave a link ...
            And in fact, it is necessary to follow the blathering of quite authoritative people
            http://topwar.ru/33759-sila-ubezhdeniya.html#comment-id-1531438
            see paragraph 3
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            There is a message on the Internet, from the Ministry of Defense

            V_R_U_T !!!
            They saw the Chelyabinsk meteorite, accompanied, warned, and ... AND COURSE COULD INTERCEPT (how could it be difficult to pronounce it with the Russian language surname Arzhuzhurbeli?) If it (which in brackets) had not been fired ahead of time
    2. michajlo
      michajlo 7 October 2013 20: 04
      +1
      Hello dear!

      Your remark is to my liking. You're right. Even if today we still do not know much, but the result is good and the combination is not the one that our American "friends / mentors" hoped for.
  • kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 7 October 2013 12: 29
    +4
    Quote: Karavan
    Well, well, two new ships against 100 enemy destroyers.

    Well, they won’t fight with the Yankees, and there’s no reason for Amers to touch the ships under the flag of Russia! And they know their business! Glory to sailors - Russian scouts!
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 7 October 2013 12: 43
    0
    The author does not have such information, but doubt in the ingenuity of Russian kulibins don't have to. It is possible that there is such an option.
    The phrase is a little indigestible.
    It would be better to write "in the ingenuity of OUR Kulibins"
    And so, I liked the article.
  • alekseinew
    alekseinew 7 October 2013 12: 57
    0
    I remember the film "Virus" where civilian sailors found our reconnaissance ship, which was attacked by some kind of virus from the depths of space, it is clear that this is fantastic, but in the film this unremarkable ship was stuffed to the eyeballs and not only with tracking systems
  • pl675
    pl675 7 October 2013 13: 00
    -2
    nonsense with Komsomol enthusiasm.
  • Admiral 013
    Admiral 013 7 October 2013 13: 15
    +3
    Since the Cold War, this is a tradition, we follow them, they follow us.
  • pl675
    pl675 7 October 2013 13: 24
    +2
    Quote: Admiral 013
    Since the Cold War, this is a tradition, we follow them, they follow us.


    here without question - tracking is an integral part in any situation.
    the article has a lot of enthusiasm, bust.
    we do not "hear" or "see" enough to squeal with happiness.
    1. 528Obrp
      528Obrp 9 October 2013 04: 28
      0
      Not true! We ALREADY see and ALREADY hear. We are no longer blind or deaf - after complete darkness! This is an occasion
      Quote: pl675
      to scream with happiness.
  • ed65b
    ed65b 7 October 2013 13: 35
    +3
    commentators. everyone everyone knows, especially friends from the promised land. once new ships are launched, not with spyglasses, specialists are sitting there. It means what and how to collect the Old. It means that they collect Americanos. Frankota probably knows what he is saying. I believe that they see another bummer of Jews and Americans with missile launches that confirms this.
    1. Professor
      Professor 7 October 2013 13: 43
      +4
      Quote: ed65b
      I believe that they see another bummer of Jews and Americans with missile launches that confirms this.

      Interested in a bummer? No one made a secret from these tests. Israel has never warned anyone before, and has now not warned anyone. And judging by the information from the local media, the tests by this sparrow were successful.
      1. matross
        matross 7 October 2013 15: 57
        +4
        Quote: Professor
        judging by information from local media, the tests of this sparrow were successful.

        In your media any bummer will become a triumph!
        But the rackets, oops !, didn’t fly! bully
        1. Professor
          Professor 7 October 2013 20: 36
          0
          Quote: matRoss
          But the rackets, oops !, didn’t fly!

          Where did these imitators have to fly and who shot them in your way? wink
          1. matross
            matross 8 October 2013 00: 47
            +2
            Not shot down, but neutralized. War, it seems, has not yet been declared. And yours, it’s clear, for the layman everything was successful, without question, it was intended. The main thing, believe. lol
      2. Cynic
        Cynic 7 October 2013 16: 58
        0
        Quote: Professor
        No one made the secret of these trials

        It’s just that nobody said anything to anyone before the start, and after the start they paused, there’s no wrong, did not confirm information about launches _ Like we don’t know anything.
        Quote: Professor
        judging by information from local media, the tests of this sparrow were successful.

        And this information can be voiced here?
        And what has been laid out so far, except Rjunemagu does not cause any other reaction.
        Our only talk about two ballistic goals and that's it!
        It is a pity to them to give an analysis of the trajectories _ Type from where and where the BC flew. Well, it’s not serious to take rumors about BC missile launches: from a submarine / Israeli fighter, from a French destroyer, from ...
        If our observation stations can detect missile launches from aircraft ...
        1. Professor
          Professor 7 October 2013 20: 38
          -1
          Quote: Cynic
          And this information can be voiced here?

          Hebrew link not saved
          Israel Tests a new Target Missile Simulating Iranian Shihab 3 Missiles
          Israel's missile defense organization (IMDO) and the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) completed today a successful flight test of the Silver Sparrow, the latest, most advanced version of the Sparrow target missile family. The test, conducted at the Israeli test range over the Eastern Mediterranean Sea was the first test flight of the new missile.
        2. postman
          postman 7 October 2013 21: 52
          0
          Quote: Cynic
          It is a pity to them to give an analysis of the trajectories _ Type from where and where the BC flew. Well, it’s not serious to take rumors about BC missile launches: from a submarine / Israeli fighter, from a French destroyer, from ...


          everything is "issued", everything is "published"


          Quote: Cynic
          If our observation stations can detect missile launches from aircraft ...

          etttt (in my opinion) is not real
          1. Cynic
            Cynic 8 October 2013 11: 46
            0
            Quote: Postman
            etttt (in my opinion) is not real

            Yes me too Doubts take . But according to the official version
            First, a missile was launched from an airplane, and then an Israeli missile launched it.
            See the original material at http://www.interfax.ru/world/txt.asp?id=326758

            That new SPRN in Armavir is can !
            1. postman
              postman 8 October 2013 17: 30
              0
              Quote: Cynic
              But according to the official version

              Do not believe them, Interfax, this is not TASS.
              And Sparrow is not MINIMENT (3)
              Though despise me, it’s hard to believe.
              Why does the notorious station "close-up" not see Israeli attacks on Syria?
              Libya attack?

              Well and so on.
              Moreover, the RF option does not cover this zone (well, there is no ICBM there, it makes no sense to check this space)
              1. Cynic
                Cynic 8 October 2013 18: 41
                +1
                Quote: Postman
                Though despise me, hard to believe

                belay
                You have little faith, but for me there is such a spreading cranberry that then they will tell it as an anecdote!
                And most likely Yusov’s ears stick out, the Israelis more carefully prepare the cover legend if things go wrong.
                And Yusovtsy did not allow the possibility of failure, but here such a bummer. I had to crush an ally, and so in the Middle East he enjoys the fame of reckless.
                Only a reckless, but not a clinical idiot who, sitting on a barrel of gunpowder, will play with matches.
      3. Cynic
        Cynic 8 October 2013 11: 30
        0
        Quote: Professor
        Israel has never warned anyone before, and has now not warned anyone.

        It certainly is
        "Under the 1989 Treaty, the United States and Russia notify each other about ICBM launches from submarines. Everything has been worked out here, and the parties comply with this Treaty. There is a" gentlemen's "agreement to warn on a routine basis about meteorological missile launches, since they cannot be distinguished from combat, and the launch of such missiles could lead to a nuclear incident. As for target missiles, no notifications are made, since their launches should be unexpected for the tested missile defense systems. "
        See the original material at http://www.interfax.ru/world/txt.asp?id=326758,
        1. postman
          postman 8 October 2013 17: 26
          0
          Quote: Cynic
          on launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles from submarines

          The key here is the "MBR" (and not only with SSBNs but also mine and mobile)
  • 528Obrp
    528Obrp 7 October 2013 13: 50
    0
    Good day to all. Something caught my eye an article (two years ago):

    http://www.mignews.com/news/technology/cis/100908_230357_62716.html

    I wonder what the current state of this device is.
    1. Andriuha077
      Andriuha077 7 October 2013 13: 53
      0
      This is something from Kapitsa and Sakharov 60's
      They were excellent.
      That's just how it is news in our years.
  • 528Obrp
    528Obrp 7 October 2013 13: 59
    +1
    Quote: Andriuha077
    That's just how this news is in our years.


    I think in power and transmission capability (directional). EM. Sakharov’s bomb is not a directed thing (as far as I understand) and, in principle, the formation of E.M. impulse.
    1. Andriuha077
      Andriuha077 7 October 2013 16: 42
      +2
      For directivity, you need microwaves, all this was done already then.
      The 90s include "successes" in selling technology to just anyone, incl. opponents.
      See google.com/images?q=ranets-e+on+exhibition+in+in Australia
      1. 528Obrp
        528Obrp 7 October 2013 17: 22
        +2
        Well, here is the answer to the question of how Iran knocks down UAVs, and maybe to the question of Israeli missiles "targets"
  • Ezhaak
    Ezhaak 7 October 2013 14: 01
    +2
    All radio communications and satellite communication lines, the operation of detection equipment, electronic warfare and combat information systems of all ships of the Sixth Fleet under our control

    There is every reason to believe that the Americans are similarly tracking Russian ships. But, with its capabilities!
  • 528Obrp
    528Obrp 7 October 2013 14: 52
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    The author continues to fantasize. Let him first tell how he will jam from the Carpool or from the ship (only pioneers say about control interception before they start to visit the air circles) antennas with a controlled radiation pattern and then we will talk about Iran, etc.


    Any antenna has a power feeder and a signal (in the case of AFAR there are much more. These are the most vulnerable places of any transceiver device. In addition, the antenna elements are affected by an EM pulse from any direction. The protection of these circuits has its own response and recovery time. The protection works on the principle of multi-stage damping of the induced electromagnetic voltage (i.e., bypasses the input circuits). It is impulse until it is destroyed. As soon as it is destroyed, the system stops receiving or transmitting signals (input / output circuits are shunted) i.e. They arrived, and don’t confuse the working frequency signals with an EM pulse, it’s like a microwave - it will destroy any circuit tuned to any frequency.
    1. Ezhaak
      Ezhaak 7 October 2013 17: 46
      +5
      Starting such conversations, this should also be taken into account:
  • postman
    postman 7 October 2013 15: 34
    +1
    Quote: Author
    Unique domestic equipment allows you to “see through” the Sixth Fleet through and through - the Russian Navy’s ships are able not only to record the launch of Tomahawk cruise missiles, but even determine the start of preparations for their launch

    Dreamer!!! But the photos are good .:
    Poor Americans, they probably don’t realize that they have such opportunities MORE
    -Naval Security Group Command and SIGINT loafers
    - as kimcheneroids captured USS Pueblo (AGER-2), so the Americans forgot about them
    -UKUSA .. and what a bite?
    -USS Parche (SSN-683) and USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23)?
    co-workers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, United States Antarctic Program, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Florida Institute of Oceanography, United States Environmental Protection Agency,United States Navy and Others: RV Neil Armstrong (AGOR-2014) will be launched in 27
    Having such an instrument, Americans can probably (according to Oleg’s conception) EVEN FAT in the Kremlin to listen
    ?
    By the way, any missile defense cruiser (such as Arly), a reconnaissance ship itself, recall:
    "Silent", "Protective", "Fiery", "Faithful", "Fearless", "Dangerous", "Swift" and "Whirlwind".

    By the way, Oleg, but the US Navy has something similar (A52 Oste):

    ?
  • postman
    postman 7 October 2013 15: 34
    +1
    Quote: Author
    Unique domestic equipment allows you to “see through” the Sixth Fleet through and through - the Russian Navy’s ships are able not only to record the launch of Tomahawk cruise missiles, but even determine the start of preparations for their launch

    Dreamer!!! But the photos are good .:
    Poor Americans, they probably don’t realize that they have such opportunities MORE
    -Naval Security Group Command and SIGINT loafers
    - as kimcheneroids captured USS Pueblo (AGER-2), so the Americans forgot about them
    -UKUSA .. and what a bite?
    -USS Parche (SSN-683) and USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23)?
    co-workers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, United States Antarctic Program, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Florida Institute of Oceanography, United States Environmental Protection Agency,United States Navy and Others: RV Neil Armstrong (AGOR-2014) will be launched in 27
    Having such an instrument, Americans can probably (according to Oleg’s conception) EVEN FAT in the Kremlin to listen
    ?
    By the way, any missile defense cruiser (such as Arly), a reconnaissance ship itself, recall:
    "Silent", "Protective", "Fiery", "Faithful", "Fearless", "Dangerous", "Swift" and "Whirlwind".

    By the way, Oleg, but the US Navy has something similar (A52 Oste):

    ?
    1. Santa Fe
      7 October 2013 16: 12
      +2
      Quote: Postman
      Dreamer!!!

      To get hooded! This is not what I came up with:

      Interview with analyst R. Francona on CNN:

      Published on Sep 2, 2013
      Russia has sent ships to the Mediterranean that could give Syria advance notice by monitoring US ships.
      Quote: Postman
      the USS Pueblo kimchenyroids (AGER-2) took over, and the Americans forgot about them

      Well, I completely forgot about him
      Quote: Postman
      -UKUSA .. and what a bite?

      Something familiar ... Train?
      Quote: Postman
      -USS Parche (SSN-683) and USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23)?

      Interesting, it is possible in more detail
      Quote: Postman
      "Silent", "Protective", "Fiery", "Faithful", "Fearless", "Dangerous", "Swift" and "Whirlwind".

      31 project? RTR ships based on obsolete 30 bis destroyers
      Quote: Postman
      the US Navy has something similar (A52 Oste):

      German

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice ... (I saw this book under an armored cap in Washington)
      1. postman
        postman 7 October 2013 16: 43
        +2
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Interview with analyst R. Francona on CNN:

        Yes ... yes, what the hell is this: a retired colonel, I didn’t even look at any military branches ...
        neighing about his babble, and turned it off, and you took advantage.
        It is NECESSARY to use only reliable sources:
        "TASS is authorized to declare"
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Well, I completely forgot about him

        but in vain! The basis of the national services of radar intelligence of the DPRK and Vietnam, well, ours also made the appropriate conclusions.
        Can you find the same "peaceful" Vietnamese ship "research of the Morray and Okians"?


        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Something familiar ... Train?

        "five eyes" (FVEY), or rather not even UKUSA but AUSCANNZUKUS.
        Admiral Arly Burke ground successfully in 1960 with USN and Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten
        Echelon is a consequence, and for the media the name
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Interesting, it is possible in more detail

        how do you imagine it? This is ARTICLE !!!!!
        ....
        (full with pages per page)
        http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_5/ussjimmycarter.html

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        based on obsolete destroyers 30 bis

        Sometimes a well-forgotten old is better than a new one.

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        German

        No one claimed otherwise. The question was about another
        another German "peace" explorer okiyana


        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        saw this book under an armored cap in Washington

        the rich have their own problems, I know.
        1. Santa Fe
          7 October 2013 20: 40
          0
          Quote: Postman
          and the U.S. Navy has something similar (A52 Oste):

          but what about Liberty? wink

          or maybe an SBX radar?


          Quote: Postman
          USS Parche (SSN-683) and USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23)?

          read it. About Carter learned for the first time what he is fond of

          But what does this have to do with ELINT and SIGINT?
          They are ordinary oceanographers - something to quietly communize, put a bug on an underwater cable, etc. - as their great ancestors Halibat and SeaWolfe
          Quote: Postman
          and the U.S. Navy has something similar (A52 Oste):
          1. postman
            postman 7 October 2013 21: 24
            0
            but what about "Liberty"? [/ quote]
            This is to the professor, as I understand it.
            Professor explain pliz point of view of the Israeli public on liberty in general and on insinuations with the possible execution by Israelis of 1000 (or several thousand) captured Egyptians.
            (I will be grateful)


            [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] or maybe the SBX radar? [/ quote] -may be so


            [quote = SWEET_SIXTEEN] But what does this have to do with ELINT and SIGINT? [/ quote]
            Sherry Sontaga and Christopher Drew "The Bluff of the Blind: The Untold Story of American Underwater Espionage"
            did you read everything that happened before 1987, and then?
            kakk vpendyuryli poor 31 m insert before the cabin that she already refused to swim.
            And what's in there? (in the inset) - there are ELINT and SIGINT (moreover, with)
            1. Santa Fe
              7 October 2013 21: 27
              0
              Quote: Postman
              And what's in there? (in the inset) - there are ELINT and SIGINT (moreover, with)

              What for???

              There is a lock chamber and diving equipment there.
              1. postman
                postman 7 October 2013 21: 48
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                but what about Liberty?

                I will answer with a quote from the GDP: "It drowned"
              2. postman
                postman 7 October 2013 21: 59
                0
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                There is a lock chamber and diving equipment there.

                strange such a lock camera:


                http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/ssn-683.htm

                The "research and development" function of the extended hull includes intelligence gathering and underwater salvage.
  • Clueless
    Clueless 7 October 2013 15: 55
    0
    Suicide bombers, of course, on these ships, and most importantly the crew knows about it, but they keep the service, well done
  • Dmitry Zurn
    Dmitry Zurn 7 October 2013 16: 28
    0
    Gentlemen, very optimistic and patriotic, positive and joyful, even pleasant. However, it would be much more pleasant to feel and know that there are two more boats of the 949а-project under water, in addition to two SSVs. I would be somehow calmer and my pride would be more justified. Although, of course, the RK "Moscow" walks alongside, but somehow, I would like more, otherwise it is rather weak with combat stability. Sincerely.
  • Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 7 October 2013 16: 43
    0
    How much is it possible to recognize the electronic background of secret equipment inside a metal vessel? It is clear that all the same, the e / m radiation is leaking, traces, but to identify them? If Che, well done.
    1. 528Obrp
      528Obrp 7 October 2013 17: 02
      +4
      Really, and even very much. Sea water is not a perfect ground. And shielding is good with good ground. There are several ways. The most common is listening to the airwaves with further filtering and signal transformation (for example, Fourier analysis, transforming fields up or down, measuring gradients and attenuation, etc.) And then statistics, statistics, and more statistics. Another way to measure potentials in sea water is that any power plant or energy consumer has ground points, they provide an induced potential in sea water with information about the current consumed, and contain electromagnetic noise from operating equipment. Judging by the given consumption capacities, the potential runoff is very large. In general, any equipment makes noise and this issue is covered in articles on electromagnetic compatibility. In general, a very striking example - the electromagnetic background of the starry sky has been studied for a very long time and successfully
      1. Asan Ata
        Asan Ata 8 October 2013 00: 24
        0
        Thank you, really happy!
  • clidon
    clidon 7 October 2013 16: 51
    +5
    Good article for raising morale ... In real life, things are much worse. Even in the days of the USSR, without nuclear weapons, they did not even think to deal with the American fleet, because it was practically useless, they tried to do at least something to equalize the chances. The "fishing" fleet really served as such ersatz means. Of course, no one seriously assumed that these ships would be able to fully provide coverage of the situation, but they could reduce the enemy's search area. In addition, they could, which is even more important, reveal the preparation of the enemy for action. For the rest, reconnaissance and target designation was assigned to the aviation component (primarily the Tu-95RTs), later there was an unsuccessful attempt to create a space segment.
  • varov14
    varov14 7 October 2013 16: 54
    +1
    As I understand it, each ship has its own electromagnetic characteristics. Great, the picture was taken, for sure the military ships are paddling along a certain route. Sowing these routes in a square-nesting way with certain "seeds" and in the future harvest even for radio reconnaissance - much less ships will be needed, and no one sees, even directly with scrap metal.
    1. clidon
      clidon 7 October 2013 17: 21
      0
      They do not spank along a specific route, but along hundreds of such routes. In wartime, hundreds of thousands. Some kind of reconnaissance containers can be rather easily installed in the coastal strip, but, unfortunately, for the most part these are terrorists (and by no means near the "routes"), where it is impossible to enter without asking. Installation at the bottom is associated with rather big expenses, it is cheaper to keep scouts than to build such "frontiers". Not to mention the "square-nested" methods. )
      1. Santa Fe
        7 October 2013 17: 35
        +3
        Quote: varov14
        Sow these routes in a square-nested manner with specific "seeds"

        This is similar to the SOSUS system for tracking the submarines of the Soviet Navy - a network of hydrophones at the bottom of the oceans
        Quote: clidon
        Some kind of reconnaissance containers can be quite easily installed in the coastal strip, but, unfortunately, for the most part these are tervodes

        Something similar was done by USS Halibut, which installed eavesdropping bugs on cables in the White and Okhotsk Seas and regularly went to "shoot" information for 10 years.

        Until one day she damaged the cable and burned down - an urgently called diving party of the USSR Navy checked the cable. Found, neutralized (it was mined!) And removed the special device. Autonomous reconnaissance container powered by a radioisotope RTG



        USS Halibut Special Purpose Nuclear Submarine (SSN-587)
        1. clidon
          clidon 7 October 2013 17: 47
          +1
          SOSUS is not a "square-nest" network, but a "boundary" system. )
          And of course, reconnaissance containers and the fight against the same SOSUS systems, the lot of GRU since ancient times.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN 7 October 2013 17: 48
    0
    Very optimistic article. Even if the current capabilities of the Russian Navy's reconnaissance ships allow you to fulfill the tasks by half - GOOD FELLOWS! And NATO ships have really quieted down near the Syrian coast am
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • 1c-inform-city
    1c-inform-city 7 October 2013 18: 55
    0
    Quote: Cynic
    The standard armament kit for the airborne destroyers of the destroyers of the first two sub-series consists of 74 RIM-66 SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles, 8 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 8 RUM-139 VL-Asroc anti-submarine missiles in a multi-purpose version or 56 BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 34 missiles RIM-66 SM-2 and RUM-139 VL-Asroc in the shock version [36].

    1. ASROC missile is anti-submarine and inferior even to our old Bell (even in
    last modification)
    2. The tomahawk cannot perform anti-ship functions (this is a ship land rocket)
    3. Anti-aircraft missiles can hit ships, but the radius and power are small.
  • ruslan207
    ruslan207 7 October 2013 19: 23
    0
    Probably, American specialists did not hesitate to listen to Russian ships
    1. 528Obrp
      528Obrp 7 October 2013 19: 32
      +3
      So not only our boats, but also telephones from the whole world, and other people's letters revered the same well-known fact
  • Grigorich 1962
    Grigorich 1962 7 October 2013 20: 13
    +1
    In different years of his service he visited both "Nakhodka" and "Meridian" ..... nice to remember
  • MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 7 October 2013 20: 26
    +3
    Our intelligence (especially technical) has always been especially classified ..) And no one knows what and how .. (and in the 90s, not all traitors surrendered ..)
  • saag
    saag 7 October 2013 22: 30
    0
    Do Tomahawk receive antenna - dish? How interesting, if a 100-watt signal at a frequency of about one and a half gigahertz falls on top (well, an aircraft with a hanging container with a white noise generator or something like that hangs in the air), this case focuses on the LNA (low-noise device in the antenna focus) and then what will happen?
    1. 528Obrp
      528Obrp 8 October 2013 02: 11
      +1
      Quote: saag
      100 watts signal
      hitting the receiving path

      Will kill the equipment almost immediately. the power that the receiving systems operate is thousands of times less.
    2. Professor
      Professor 8 October 2013 08: 13
      +1
      Quote: saag
      well, an aircraft with a hanging container with a white noise generator or something like that hangs in the air

      When we learn to hang such devices where the UAV flies, then we'll talk.
      1. 528Obrp
        528Obrp 9 October 2013 03: 53
        0
        maybe it’s not necessary to hang
        http://www.mignews.com/news/technology/cis/100908_230357_62716.html

        In general, funny sources of information: forums, all sorts of wikis, links, etc. these sources can be analyzed and conclusions made only of a PROBABILITY character - at the level of rumor analysis by the type of grandmother in the yard said. GUESTINE LAW NOBODY CANCELED gentlemen. You can only record events:
        Missile launch was? Yes there was. Silence and denial of this event was. Yes! Forced confession was? From the side of the Amer and the Israelites together? Yes! Yes it was! Missiles Fell? Yes have fallen! Flew towards Syria? Yes!

        And then, taking into account the situation at that time, I (personally) draw the following conclusion - there was an action on the part of the Amers and the Israelis that did not lead to the result they did not expect because of the work of our radar. And I detected the launches by 100%, since the announcement of the launches was made much later. We will learn all that really happened much later and from someone's memoirs. Those "facts" that were cited I personally can cook up in two or three hours.
        1. atalef
          atalef 9 October 2013 07: 00
          +1
          And then, taking into account the situation at that time, I (personally) draw the following conclusion - there was an action on the part of the Amers and the Israelis that did not lead to the result they did not expect because of the work of our radar. And I detected the launches by 100%, since the announcement of the launches was made much later. We will learn all that really happened much later and from someone's memoirs. Those "facts" that were cited I personally can cook up in two or three hours.

          I have a question on the final conclusion. What goals did they pursue and how did the radar image affect these goals (probably in your second how the missiles were detected by the Russian radar) Do you think everyone grabbed their heads and launched self-destruction?
          Or maybe there was no conspiracy? Everything is simpler, they are not obliged to report launches (and they have never been reported), there were ordinary test launches and the fact of their detection could in no way affect their trajectory. Especially in such a limited period of time.
          1. 528Obrp
            528Obrp 9 October 2013 07: 34
            0
            That is the whole trick of the lack of information. Then my conclusions (personal) will go far from the fact that they are correct, but so far that they are not correct.

            Let's say there was a launch in the region ready for an explosion. This launch was detected and interpreted as an ICBM launch. Let’s say the Syrians recorded this launch (although according to rumors they didn’t fix it, but this was said by the grandmother in the yard). Missiles fly to Syria
            the Syrians’s hands are untied - a retaliatory strike with chemical weapons. The provocation succeeded from Syria dust. The consequences of using chemical weapons are ignored. It just didn’t work out. Therefore, they have so long neglected launches. Notice, I did not say where the strike of the Syrians would be directed - it does not matter.

            If this were not a provocation and the launch was a test, then why mumble and lie, and then express your VERSION. Namely VERSION IMHO
            1. atalef
              atalef 9 October 2013 13: 05
              +1
              Quote: 528Obrp
              That is the whole trick of the lack of information. Then my conclusions (personal) will go far from the fact that they are correct, but so far that they are not correct
              .

              Let's say there was a launch in the region ready for an explosion. This launch was detected and interpreted as an ICBM launch.

              Well, firstly - in a region ready for an explosion - how is it? Well. secondly (as a person positioning himself as an officer) Bother to translate ICBMs - what is it and what could it do on the way to Syria, which is 300 km round

              . Let’s say the Syrians recorded this launch (although according to rumors they didn’t fix it, but this was said by the grandmother in the yard). Missiles fly to Syria
              Syrians' hands are untied - retaliation by chemical weapons

              Well, they didn’t fix it in the first ones, and secondly, if they did, then what? So far, the missiles have not exploded in Syria about any retaliatory strike can not. Howling and speaking, and even if they let Syria go, then why hide it, or do you think they would have torn so quietly and no one would have noticed?


              m. The provocation succeeded dust from Syria. Consequences of using chemical weapons are ignored

              dust from one or two rockets?

              .
              It just didn’t work out. Therefore, they have so long neglected launches. Notice, I did not say where the strike of the Syrians would be directed - it does not matter.

              What didn’t work out? Has Russia spotted launches? Which seemed to have been sent to attack Syria, and after 5 minutes (no more) if they had exploded in Syria, they would not have been spotted (Syrians) By the way, what is the provocation


              If this were not a provocation and the launch was a test, then why mumble and lie, and then express your VERSION. Namely VERSION IMHO

              Yes, no one mumbled, on the same day we had info about launches in order to test the prr system (Hets - 3)
        2. atalef
          atalef 9 October 2013 16: 16
          0
          Missile launch was? Yes there was

          Was and what? None of this interest would have been done if Russia had not made a fuss (except for the sake of noise) to what end, and they certainly would not have reached Syria. It was not intended for that, otherwise I even read the comments here, the deputy headquarters, that they almost threatened Russia. You already figure out where the lights flew. To Syria, Russia, or wherever you read it, because rockets seem to be like flying birds where they wanted to fly, they changed the route along the road, they sat down and rested
          Silence and denial of this event was.

          was not there, I already read our press
          pay attention to the beginning of becoming TODAY, so who and when was silent and denied
          Israel conducted missile tests in conjunction with the United States
          03.09.2013/148916872/XNUMX Igor N. KiselevXNUMX
          Tags: Israel, Syria, rockets

          Israel today conducted joint launches of the Yakor target missile with the United States in the Mediterranean Sea. These targets are designed to test missile defense systems, an Israeli Defense Ministry spokesman said.

          According to him, the launch of ballistic missiles in the Mediterranean was
          It was carried out in the course of joint exercises with the United States to practice the actions of the Israeli missile defense system "Hetz-2". The first missile target "Yakor" for practicing the actions of the "Hets-2" system was launched at 09:15 local time / 10:15 Moscow time /, the Israeli Defense Ministry said.

          Earlier on Tuesday, the Russian Defense Ministry was informed that the Russian missile attack warning system in Armavir at 10:16 Moscow time recorded the start of two ballistic targets in the Mediterranean Sea. "The flight path of these targets passed from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea in the direction of the eastern Mediterranean coast," the ministry said.


          And then, given the situation at that time, I (personally) draw the following conclusion - there was an action on the part of the Amer and the Israelis that did not lead to a result for which they did not count on because of the work of our radar.

          it’s like, damn missiles were launched, that they would probably quietly fall in Syria (God forbid no one heard), but they were discovered and blown them up in disgrace in the air. A kind of silent missile saboteurs
          Those "facts" that were cited I personally can cook up in two or three hours.

          well cooked up
  • stankomi
    stankomi 8 October 2013 00: 15
    +1
    IN THE GAME MACHINES ARE CUT.)))
  • Snoop
    Snoop 8 October 2013 00: 59
    +1
    All negotiations ... oh well ... usually the most important negotiations, even radiotelephone conversations are conducted along a secure line ... pig you hear what there.
  • Shadowcat
    Shadowcat 8 October 2013 02: 06
    +2
    - Vanya, aren't you tired of playing with a drone? The Americans are already sick of crying over the radio and asking to return tsatska!
    - Wait a minute, another circle ...
  • VladimS
    VladimS 8 October 2013 05: 08
    +1
    It is regrettable to write this, but it will be necessary, the Russian country could not send a full-fledged marine grouping to the Mediterranean

    Why so much trouble? I could not. Was it really necessary? Someone was going to fight with amers?
    Intelligence, delivered what was required by Syria. Well, they covered a bit. More and not required.
    Assaulting warships is tantamount to declaring war! It is not necessary for them, for the interests of others ... it is not at all interesting.
    Or was it necessary to drive out the entire fleet of all fleets in order to demonstrate the presence of ..?
    1. faraon
      faraon 8 October 2013 09: 49
      0
      It’s not a matter of sorrow, but because, due to the stupidity of officials, they ruined the shipbuilding industry, many ships put up needles and deliberately reduced the defense of the Russian Navy. The conversation was about this. versus 68 American it is a drop in the Mediterranean. In case of global conflict.
      1. Silkway0026
        Silkway0026 8 October 2013 22: 49
        +1
        Quote: faraon
        In case of global conflict.


        in this case, the number of ships in the local or global theater of operations will not matter. "Perimeter" will turn on - and bye bye, we will reincarnate on other planets
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 8 October 2013 23: 22
          0
          in this case, the number of ships in the local or global theater of operations will not matter. "Perimeter" will turn on - and bye bye, we will reincarnate on other planets




          Something often goes wild about the fabulous -Perimeter- flashed on the network. Who will turn it on? Against whom? Why? Very -Perimeter- helps combat readiness to increase? Tales for pre-conscription youth with primary education and draft dodgers.
  • saag
    saag 8 October 2013 06: 13
    0
    Quote: 528Obrp
    It will kill the equipment almost immediately. the power that the receiving systems operate is thousands of times less.

    yes, somewhere at the picovatt level
  • barbiturate
    barbiturate 8 October 2013 11: 45
    -2
    about interception of control of the RQ-170, too, I strongly doubt, if you read the experts and reflect on their words, then the answer "no interception" - 99,9% for instance

    The situation is commented on by the chief designer of the Stroy-P reconnaissance complex with the Bee UAV, and the chief designer of the Novik - XXI Century NPK Nikolay Chistyakov:

    - The communication channel, of course, is a vulnerable thing, but with the current level of technology, it is impossible to take control, in my opinion. Unless everything is arranged for the Americans quite stupidly. Mute, so that it ceases to be controlled, or you can get a picture from the device yourself. Take control - almost none. The fact is that if the channel is encoded, picking up a key to it is extremely difficult. I think that the UAV got into trouble, and the Iranians attribute this to their credit. As for the transfer of the device to our specialists, there is nothing there that we would not already know.

    There are many thoughts of specialists with the same conclusions on the Internet. And you can try to drown out or try to transmit false data under the guise of a GPS system, the Americans themselves write about it and the developments show, but take control ...

    I have no doubt about the interception of signals from American ships, there is no need for decryption there, a station with such parameters has started up - they launched such a system - there will be a launch of such missiles. Some kind of radiation, indignation, fields will always be there, they have already written about seawater as an imperfect earthing switch and the thickness of the sides, etc. + preparation for launch is always accompanied by increased activity on the ship, and specialists will immediately realize that they are going to launch rockets to strike on the shore (and who else can destroyers launch on the coast of Syria and what other type of missiles does amers have to strike on the shore? )))