Blow out of the water. How strong are American AUG?

This week a popular article by the shipbuilding engineer A. Nikolsky appeared on the Internet “The Russian fleet goes under water,” in which the author carefully explained why the carrier strike group is the most effective form of organizing modern fleet and why American destroyers are capable of shooting down hundreds of anti-ship missiles at a time, and the Aegis combat information system has no analogues in the world.

This article, being a response to A. Nikolsky, does not set a goal for someone to embroil, insult or prove the ultimate truth. Just considered a number of logical paradoxes from the previous article and given an interpretation of the situation from a different point of view.

The most effective means of deterring carrier-based strike groupings (AUG) by the cost-effectiveness criterion is APRC. It is on these arguments, legs and there is a colossus, crushing any carrier-based encroachments in the Russian fleet. But is it not clay feet?

Not. The legs of the Russian fleet of high-strength austenitic steel AK-32 with a yield strength of 100 kgf / mm2.

Multipurpose nuclear submarine K-560 "Severodvinsk" (pr. 885 "Ash")

Air defense AUG at the beginning of the 80-s could knock down the 70-120 Granit or X-22 missiles, depending on the tactical situation.

Damnation seize my soul!
This is which of the American AUG at the beginning of the 80-s had a chance to fight off a flock of Soviet missiles 120? Who is there to take dozens of flying granites, amethysts, malachites and X-22?

Is the fearless cruiser Belknap with the only bow-type launcher for launching the Terriers and the Standerd-2?

Or, perhaps, the destroyer Spryuans, which had a single 8-charging launcher with short-range missiles and therefore classified by the US Navy as DD (instead of DDG, as the air defense ships were designated)?

The frigate "Oliver H. Perry" with "one-armed bandit" Mk.13 and "castrated" radar AN / SPS-49 (V) 2 without side lobes suppression? THROUGH THIS SUPERGER?

When the Yankees detected the inclusion of the sighting radar of the Iraqi Mirage - all illusions were scattered, the frigate began to prepare to repel the attack. The direction of the threat was known to within one degree. In reserve, the Yankees had a minute before the launch of the rocket and a couple more minutes to destroy the flying anti-ship missiles. The newest warship of the US Navy, which was in full combat readiness in the combat zone (Persian Gulf, 1988 year). As can be seen in the photograph, the frigate USS Stark successfully shot down both subsonic RCC "Exochet". And then the Yankees drank a glass of coffee and shot down another 10 of Soviet anti-ship missiles "Amethyst"
This is war, comrades. Laugh there is not enough. 37 sailors gave their lives in the struggle for the ideals of freedom and independence. The bodies of two have not found

Anti-submarine frigates "Knox"? Rocket destroyers "Farragut" and "Charles F. Adams", built early 60's? Yes, these clowns and five of us alone, "Granite" will not be shot down.

The huge nuclear "Long Beach" as of the beginning of the 80's stood at the docks of Puget Sound, for many years of repair and modernization.

The only ones who could pose a threat to the Granite pack are four Virginia-class nuclear-powered cruisers and four Kidd-class destroyers. Total 8 ships to the entire world ocean!
However, their bulky beam MU.26 launchers did not differ in high rate of fire, while the AN / SPG-60 based SLA made it possible to bombard targets with EPR = 1 square. a meter at a distance as much in 10 miles.

Do you think a lot of "Granites" will kill this superman?
Director with manual guidance of the LMS Mk.115 of the SiSperrow anti-aircraft complex, aircraft carrier "D. Eisenhower", 1981 year

The first Ajidis cruiser Tikonderoga was born only in the 1983 year, but instead of the UKP MK.41, it still had outdated Mk.26. And the Ajis military information system itself was notable for its remarkable intelligence and ingenuity - in 1988, the cruiser Vincennes slammed the Iranian passenger Airbus, identifying it as a fighter.

Typical AUG of those years, even in ideal conditions of the landfill, with the massive use of air defense missile systems and EW equipment, could not knock and divert even the 1 / 3 declared amount of Soviet missiles 70-120 from the course.

At a time when the Soviet Navy, using a combination of several SSGNs and diesel engines with the Kyrgyz Republic, could provide quite a weighty volley from hundreds of anti-ship missiles, filling them with the entire American warrant. Aircraft carrier destroyers
auxiliary ships and high-speed supply vehicles ...

A pair of dozens of broken through "Amethysts", P-6, "Malachites", "Granites" and so on. "Cobblestones" will be enough for everyone.

Here they are, "knocks":

Missile cruiser "Belknap"

Frigate USS Simpson type "Oliver H. Perry"

Start SM-1MR c "one-armed bandit" frigate type "Perry"

The destroyer of the Spruence type and the frigate of the Knox type are full oaks in terms of air defense. Two "Siperrow" for two

Atomic cruisers "Virginia" and "South Caroline". Particularly impressive is the "South Caroline" with the "one-armed bandit" Mk.13. In essence, this is an enlarged Perry frigate, with all the ensuing consequences.

Prepare a rocket for battle! 120 Soviet RCCs are flying at us!

At the end of the 70s, it became clear to the leadership of the USSR Navy that it is impossible to guarantee the exit of several APRKs to a distance of 50-60 from AUG

What can I add here ... It’s impossible to guarantee anything in our life. But submarines, a priori, are the most secretive and dangerous sea adversary - for 100 years from the moment of their appearance, no means have been found of effectively counteracting the underwater threat.

American boats brazenly listened to Soviet communication cables in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk and the White Sea - where water and air were buzzing from ships and aviation Navy of the USSR. British boats cut off sonars behind the stern of Soviet anti-submarine ships (Operation Waitress, 1982). Russian boats suddenly surfaced in the middle of NATO anti-submarine training areas and wound on the screw the antennas of secret sonar stations in the middle of the US Navy's guarded landfills.

Millions of square kilometers of sea surface, salt water column - who can predict exactly where the invisible underwater killer is hiding at the moment?

All successes in the detection of submarines - no more than an accident. In 2005, an elderly Swedish Gotland-type naval submarine on the Joint Task Force Exercise 06-2 exercises was able to penetrate the AUG warrant, led by the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, undetected inside. The Yankees were so excited about what happened that for two years they leased a Swedish submarine, trying to understand how this underwater plague could pass through all the cordons and lines of the PLO.
We have no “Gotland”, but there are “Varshavyanka”. These "black holes" of the oceans. And you say it is impossible, 50-60 is miles ...

These are the funny jerseys worn by the sailors of the Valrus submarine of the Nider Netherlands. At the international exercises JTFEX-99, they managed to take pictures of the American AUG ships near 9 and leave unnoticed. In real combat, this meant the loss of at least one US Navy ship from a small diesel-electric submarine, which is a good result.

"Onyxes" will go at low altitude. Then "Aegis" will find them at a distance of 35-32 minus 2 km - the dead zone for "Standards-2"

How was the 32-35 km value obtained?
The earth is round, the radio waves emitted by the AN / SPY-1 radar propagate in a straight line. Where is the conditional horizon line, because of which Onyx will suddenly appear? And behind it the second, third, fourth rocket ... The range of the horizon (radio horizon) is calculated using the well-known formula:

The installation height of the AN / SPY-1 antenna arrays on the Orly Burke is just 15 meters above the waterline. This is considered an indecently low result and a major flaw in the supersweeper.

The detection range depends on the profile of the flight of the rocket. Accurate data on domestic missiles are classified, so we will choose a neutral example - the famous American anti-ship missile "Harpoon".

"Harpoon" flies in the direction of the target at a height of 15 meters, guided by the data of radio altimeter and INS. The radar head of the rocket confidently seizes a destroyer / frigate class target from a distance of 10 km - then, the Harpoon sharply drops to a height of 2-5 m above sea level and lies on the combat course. Already when approaching the target, a cunning rocket performs a “slide” and hurts the enemy into the deck or superstructure.

The basic one weapons The 885 Pr Yaben submarines should be made of the Kaliber missile complex (and not the obsolete Onyxes that A. Nikolsky took in his calculations). If you build a calculation based on open data on the Caliber (march 15-20 m altitude), the rocket and the Burke radar will, at best, detect each other when the rocket rises above the radio horizon - at this moment Caliber "Will be at a distance of about 30 km from the side of the destroyer.

Next, there will be a separation of the main stage of the rocket with the warhead, with its subsequent transition to the PRC and acceleration to three speeds of sound. The task of the destroyer becomes more complicated - will the AN / SPY-1 radar succeed in effectively tracking such a fast small target? While it will not be one - in the ammunition submarine "Ash" includes 24 KR complex "Caliber".

Intercept "Calibers" to be RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missle.
Lightweight ESSM is specially designed to replace the heavy “Standerd-2” for intercepting modern anti-ship missiles - gas-dynamic control surfaces, short wings extended along the body, less inertia. Speed ​​up to Xnumx. Maneuvering with overload up to 4g is allowed. The maximum interception distance is 50 km. Minimum - 50 km. Vertical launch, storage - 1,5 missiles in a single cell UVP.

Of particular interest is the time of the reaction of "Aegis" to the threat - how much time will pass from the moment of detection of the flying Caliber before the first ESSM antimissile will leave the launcher.
How long will it take for the destroyer computers and radars to determine the parameters of the speed low-altitude target, take it to escort and output the data to the monitors of the combat information center?
After how many seconds the duty officer BIC, dropping a glass of coffee on the floor, recheck the information and give the command to repel a rocket attack?
How long will it take to prepare for the launch of an ESSM rocket (opening the lid of the CIP, turning on the on-board computer, promotion of the INS gyroscopes)?
Next, the rocket with a buzz will rise up a few tens of meters and turn in the air towards the target. Time has gone ...

Suppose that the experienced and disciplined crew of the destroyer "Berk" will spend exactly 10 seconds on all movements - this corresponds to the time during which you read the previous paragraph. During this time, the "Caliber" combat stage, moving at a speed of> 800 m / s, will approach the destroyer at a distance of 20 km.
The American destroyer has 25 seconds left.

And there are a lot of rockets - after all, a boat can shoot in a salvo with another boat ... (or someone is seriously convinced that to intercept the most powerful squadron of 10 warships of the US Navy — an aircraft carrier, destroyers and frigates belonging to the AUG, ship)?

About "Aegis" we have little to write, but in vain. I'll have to fill the gap a bit

I agree. Let's fill this "gap"

The Aegis complex has two radars: SPY-1 (general detection and “rough” targeting) and SPG-62 (final targeting) ... Hence, the striking “multi-channel”, theoretically, to 100 of the targets being fired.

"Aegis" even in theory is not able to provide simultaneous firing of hundreds of air targets.
The AN / SPY-1 multi-function radar is capable of programming autopilots up to 18 of anti-aircraft missiles on the flight path and simultaneously firing aerial targets to 3 - according to the number of AN / SPG-62 radar.

The reality turned out to be even worse - the Orly Burke radars are grouped as follows:
- course angles covers one radar;
- protect the stern two;
- in an ideal situation, strictly perpendicular to the side of the destroyer, all three SPG-62 can participate in repelling an air attack.

As a result, “Burke” in the real battle of the entire 1-2 guidance channel for anti-aircraft missiles when attacking from one direction. The duration of the “illumination” of the target, which is necessary for missile guidance - 1-2 seconds. The probability of destroying a single missile target is considered to be within 0,6 ... 0,7.

Further, while IGIS "Aegis" receives confirmation of the destruction of the target, while transmitting a new task to SPG-62, the radar will turn around and direct the beam to the indicated sky sector (in SPG-62, the azimuth and elevation change occurs mechanically - the rotation speed of the 72 platform / sec).

It would seem that five to ten seconds for the whole process ... but, this is at that critical moment when the destroyer crew has less than half a minute left! And above the surface of the gray ocean, almost cutting off the tops of the waves, three or four dozen supersonic rockets rush.

Onyx will cover this distance in 37 seconds, and Arly Burk will release 69 Standards-2 during this time.

Launching 69 anti-aircraft missiles with semi-active guidance in 37 seconds, with all 18 guidance channels available (and 1-2 at the final stage of the flight), without taking into account the reaction time of the complex, this is simply an affront to common sense.

If the attack is made from a distance of 100 km, that is, at a low altitude, and from one direction, then only Arly Burka's 3 can take part in the attack. In this case, the escort ships shoot down the Onyx 156. But this scenario is unlikely.

Of course unlikely. Considering all of the above ...

As time went on, Aegis improved, in 90, he learned to beat Mosquitoes and X-15, and in 2000, he reached out to space, becoming the world's first naval air defense / missile defense complex.

"Aegis" can be improved in anything except the interception of low-flying targets. American sailors are facing obstacles in the form of fundamental laws of nature - the AN / SPY-1 radar operates in the decimeter range (S) - it is ideal for detecting targets at high altitudes and in the atmospheric space, but it doesn’t distinguish small-sized missiles flying against the background of water (horizon search).
The Yankees raped the radar software several times, blocked the interference and increased the number of beams in the selection of moving targets (Doppler shift), but they did not succeed in achieving acceptable results in the scanning mode of the horizon with a narrowly directed beam suppressing side lobes.

Dear author, who asserted that Aegis had learned to hit targets like the Mosquito (the 90M speed, 2,9 meters altitude) as far as 10, could you give specific evidence of such miracles and references to tests of the US Navy?

Test launch of the Kyrgyz Republic "Caliber" from the K-560 "Severodvinsk" submarine

And while "Aegis" reigns in splendid isolation and beats every imaginable record of longevity

Excuse me, but what about the European PAAMS? Or Japanese ATECS? On British, French, Italian and Japanese destroyers, radars with active phased arrays, operating in the S and X bands, have long been installed to control the airspace at long and near distances. Even 10 years of developed European countries have adopted a family of Aster anti-aircraft missiles with active homing heads (they do not need shipborne radar to "highlight" the target).

4 April 2012 on the missile test site of the French General Armaments Agency (Direction générale de l'armement) near the island of -le-du-Levant near Toulon, the frigate of the French Navy Forbin, equipped with the PAAMS, made a successful interception of the low-altitude supersonic target. Drone GQM-163A Coyote, flying at a speed of 2,5M at an altitude of less than 6 meters above the crests of the waves!

As for the American "Aegis", it is ... long outdated

To overcome the "Aegis", you need 10M, but also to maneuver during the attack, otherwise "Standard-3" will hit the target on 10M.

And here RIM-161 Standard Missile 3?
The three-stage interceptor missile, the 3 Standard, is NOT INTENDED to destroy aerodynamic and ballistic targets in the Earth’s atmosphere. Her path - low near-earth orbits - everything that is above the Karman line. The Kinetic Warhead "Standerd 3" is a suborbital space probe with its own engine - it is completely useless to use such weapons against anti-ship missiles.

So, we have crushed the first leg - the weak combat stability of an aircraft carrier.

First, not an aircraft carrier, but a naval air defense system consisting of five powerful anti-aircraft platforms - Aegis-destroyers of the Orly Burk type.
Secondly, we really crushed it.

PS

About how many hits of the Caliber missiles will be required for the guaranteed destruction of the aircraft carrier and how great the cost of the Nimitz is compared to domestic submarine cruisers will be described in another article.

Approximately so remembered the frigate USS Stark homing missile "Exochet"

Comments

[Samy]

Uhh ... now I'm calm.

[Canep]

Well done, the author put everything on the shelves. There is one more thing after the launch of the first wave of interceptor missiles and the destruction of several of our missiles, the radio horizon for a few seconds will be illuminated by missile debris, and it takes some time to identify the next targets, and a 1 second delay is a reduction in the distance by 800 meters. I think they will have time to release no more than two waves of interceptor missiles. that is, each destroyer will shoot down no more than 10 "boulders". The entire AUG is unlikely to shoot down 50 missiles. The rest will destroy the AUG. And this is if no one will shoot nuclear weapons.

In my opinion, the ACG is only suitable for exporting democracy to underdeveloped countries.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Canep

And this is if no one will shoot nuclear weapons.

And in sunny good not stormy weather ... :))))

[DimychDV]

And if the commanders on both sides are not parquet.

[sonik-007]

As for stormy weather - RCCs also lose from such weather - they will fly not at 2-5 meters, but at 15

[Nayhas]

Quote: Canep

The author well done put everything on the shelves.

Yeah, the second series in action. Where else to take hundreds of Caliber ... We have one Severodvinsk ave. 885 and that one has not been commissioned so far.

Quote: Canep

The entire AUG is unlikely to hit 50 missiles. The rest will destroy AUG

You probably take your breath away from what you write? Why 50, not 48 or 52?

[Magellan]

Quote: Nayhas

We have one Severodvinsk pr.885 and that one has not been commissioned so far.

In its current state, the Russian Navy is not combat-ready. It is impossible to fight augs with a single boat

The calculation for the future. Having the nth amount of funds and the prospect of naval clashes with the United States - how to spend these funds more profitably.

[Nayhas]

Quote: Magellan

The calculation for the future. Having the nth amount of funds and the prospect of naval clashes with the United States - how to spend these funds more profitably.

I wrote about the perspective below.

[Good Ukraine]

Quote: Magellan

In its current state, the Russian Navy is not combat-ready. It is impossible to fight augs with a single boat

I will answer you this way - Perhaps.
The author of this article "+"
Regarding the previous article "The Russian fleet goes under water" - "delirium of a sick imagination." I had no desire to comment at all.

I will write in brief:
1. The author wrote that about 80 interceptors will meet missiles from the aircraft carrier at the same time. - An aircraft carrier has about 120 flights per day at best. This is 5 flights per hour. As I understand it, the author’s planes fly forever near an aircraft carrier. I’ll clarify. Some part of the wing is engaged in the horizon and the other part is trying to deal with the underwater environment.
2. Regarding the required number of hits in an aircraft carrier. - I will answer this way. For guaranteed destruction of an aircraft carrier, 8–9 hits of missiles with a conventional charge or 1-2 with nuclear warheads (nuclear munitions) are sufficient, and direct shelling is not necessary when shelling a nuclear warhead. But complete destruction is not necessary. The aircraft carrier will be disabled if the runway or equipment providing take-off and landing is damaged (even partial or insignificant). And this is the bend of the deck or roll-trim of the ship. Also, with a penetrating explosion or explosion of nuclear warheads near the ship, the mover (power plant) is disrupted from the foundation. And what can one do without it? Aircraft carrier will become a floating graveyard of aircraft. Therefore, to incapacitate an aircraft carrier as a combat unit, 2-3 hits are enough, and in some cases even one successful hit. Yes, it can then be repaired someday. But this is when it is all over.

Therefore, I called the article "The Russian fleet goes under water", called delirium. And so for each item.
As far as I remember throughout history, the US AUG never approached the SLAVA-class cruisers at a distance of anti-ship missiles. They were just afraid. And there are 16 of these missiles on cruisers.
There are 32 of them at Severodvinsk. Make a conclusion yourself.
I will not give lectures to the "shipbuilder" about the hydrology of the sea. Let him read the memoirs of the submariners, when they rubbed the submarine cabinets about the bottom of aircraft carriers.
I would also like to remind the "all-propals" that apart from anti-ship missiles on "Severodvinsk" there are also several dozen torpedoes and rocket-torpedoes.

Conclusion; When used properly, with experience and practice, Ash can lay the bottom of the whole AUG. And if there is a couple of Varshavyanks with him, then they can also hide.

DO NOT DRAW DARK PICTURES FROM A FARROW.

[Pajamas]

Quote: Dobryak Ukraine

The author wrote that about 80 interceptors will simultaneously meet missiles from the aircraft carrier.

prove where the author wrote this?

Consider the first component. From 2006, the aircraft wing of the American aircraft carrier includes up to the 60 F / A-18E “Super Hornet”, performing equally well the role of attack aircraft and fighter. AUG can constantly hide behind four locking F / A-18E. Each Super Hornet carries AIM-10 AMRAAM 120 missiles and is capable of shooting down Onyxes 5 – 6. Total: AUG air patrol will knock down Onyx 22.

It's great to write henna and then expose it.

[Good Ukraine]

Quote: Pajama

Total: AUG air patrol will bring down 22 Onyx.

Well, you yourself have answered the question. - "how much anti-ship missile is needed to destroy the AUG"
Considering that there are 32 of them on Yasen. Provided that your dreams of shooting down 4 missiles with 22 aircraft come true (and I have no desire to explain to you how the aircraft carrier is guarded by sectors and directions), then 10 of them will remain. Even if the missiles are shot down from each direction by one enemy ships, then 5 pieces will break through to the targets. (3 pcs for an aircraft carrier and one for a couple of "sweet" Berks.) And torpedoes and rocket torpedoes will clear the horizon.
In general, read the literature. It has long been estimated that from 16 to 18 anti-ship missiles issued simultaneously are necessary and sufficient for the destruction of the entire AUG. And the author wrote 150 RCC (it’s easier to fall asleep with peas)
The main question is who has the "white pieces" and the white ones who are not visible.

[Pajamas]

Quote: Dobryak Ukraine

(and I have no desire to explain to you how the aircraft carrier is guarded by sectors and directions), then 10 pieces will remain. Even if the missiles are shot down from each direction by one enemy ships, then 5 pieces will break through to the targets. (3 pieces for an aircraft carrier and one for a couple of "sweet" Berks.) And torpedoes and rocket torpedoes will clear the horizon.
In general, read the literature. It has long been estimated that from 16 to 18 anti-ship missiles issued simultaneously are necessary and sufficient for the destruction of the entire AUG. And the author wrote 150 RCC (it’s easier to fall asleep with peas) laughing
The main question is who has the "white pieces" and the white ones who are not visible.

You again answer unanswered questions, leave your explanations to yourself, you have a desire, you have no desire, I don’t care about your romantic period. You accused the author of what he did not write, you were pointed out to this and nothing more. Nobody forces you to shoot, you either admit a mistake or not.

[Good Ukraine]

Quote: Pajama

You accused the author of what he did not write, you were pointed out to this and nothing more. Nobody forces you to shoot, you either admit a mistake or not.

For those who understand tightly:
I have read the article "The Russian fleet goes under water" just enough to understand that this is complete nonsense. And this happened very quickly. Obviously, the author has nothing to do with the Navy, but nevertheless gives extensive "conclusions". In the Black Sea Fleet we called it "Ptichkin's book with pictures."
I understand when information is presented with some errors, but when the whole article consists of sheer nonsense and speculation, this is too much.
And once again I want to thank the author of this article, who, although not completely (all the material regarding the struggle of submarines with AUGs, cannot be described as part of a regular article), but nevertheless more clearly and clearly explained the balance of power.

[Imigrantt]

Maybe you are so dear and so pedantic that you will tell us something more specific! One can see very much you know in this area, and you understand a lot in weapons systems !!!!! Share the road do not be shy! Prove to us that you are an armament specialist! Or just a hookmaker ??? !!!

[jjj]

The most detailed answers to such questions are given at Lubyanka

[Basarev]

And at the same time, it should be remembered that in addition to the Ashes, there are also Boreas - they don’t need to get close to the noses - the ICBMs launched from Borea can sink the nose with one shot, while Borea does not even need to leave the raid

[Goldmitro]

<<< Good Ukraine.
DO NOT DRAW DARK PICTURES WITH CRUSHES >>>.
Absolutely right, everything is painted! For centuries, there has been a struggle of attack and defense means, and if in ancient times they still talked about impenetrability and unsinkability, today today means of attack are definitely gaining the upper hand and we can only talk about survivability! If effective means of defeating AUG already exist today, one can imagine how powerful and effective they will be by the 20s and 30s of this century, when Russia, in the case of such a decision and investing a tremendous amount of money, will have a new AUG. Indeed, the creation of new anti-ship funds requires much less money and time. So AUG are obsolete monsters of the period of global hegemony of the West! In the fight against the enemy armed with the latest anti-ship means, and they are not as expensive as the AUG and even a small state can acquire them, and even more so, in a clash with a powerful enemy, the AUG has no chance of survival! So there is no need for illusions, Russia was late with the construction of the AUG and now it is HOPELESS to spend enormous funds on their construction!
It is much more promising to invest in the creation of new submarines and anti-ship means!

[Good Ukraine]

Quote: Goldmitro

So AUG are obsolete monsters of the period of global hegemony of the West!

Dmitry, thanks! And then dreamers appeared to build airdrome cities, without even having a dozen corvettes. I think that the development plan of the Russian Navy, if there are no disruptions in the time schedule, is going right.
Yes, once it will be necessary to demonstrate itself. But now you need to have something that is guaranteed to give back in the teeth in such a way as to discourage any adversary from getting involved in a fight. And for this you need more submarines. Let these submarines seem to them around every corner.

[Very old]

Caps, do not throw. What's next? Need a suggestion

[bif]

Yeah, the second series in action. Where else to take hundreds of Caliber ... We have one Severodvinsk ave. 885 and that one has not been commissioned so far.

but why did you run into 885 pr ... and PKR Caliber ... there are also Anteys with Granites / Onyxes ... Even in the 80's, the Granite developers calculated for the military that a salvo from 6-8 is enough to destroy most of the AUG Granitov, precisely these figures formed the basis of the military’s calculations ... It is no coincidence that there are 24 pieces on Anthei, and 12 pieces on the Kuze

[andrey777]

[quote = Nayhas] We have one Severodvinsk pr.885 and that one has not been commissioned so far.
Then drapanuli from Syria, having seen our naval formations, apparently know the Yankees that they will receive by bread if something.

[AVV]

Yes, what they can do is to bomb Papua Guinea from a distance of 1000 km with tomahawks, and from such a distance so as not to suffer from coconuts by local aborigines from the valiant American fleet! The author completely destroyed the arguments of the previous scribbler !!!

[Basarev]

I don’t know what about the Nimitsevs, but the bearers like Admiral Kuznetsov are designed to ensure the combat stability of submarine formations. It’s no secret that aviation is the main enemy of the boats, and that’s why only the bearer can protect the boats with his deck-mounted air wing.

[Su24]

Yes, they just argue about destroyers. Aegis can intercept 100 missiles, Aegis can not intercept 100 missiles. And these gentlemen think that the AUG constantly keeps in the air the AWACS aircraft and air patrol fighters, and in this case the detection range of the anti-ship missiles and intercepts will certainly be more than 30 km. Also, no one takes into account the EW factor.

[Geisenberg]

I thought the next song of fame for the American naval car will begin ...

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

[recruit6666]

TELL ME why the Americans want to fight us? they can buy everything for dollars anyway !!!
I am more concerned about the power of the Chinese fleet and army! compared to him, we seem like pygmies (if we do not take into account the nuclear triad) Can we resist them?
the author would write about it! It would be interesting!!!!

[Bashkaus]

TELL ME why the Americans want to fight us? they can buy everything for dollars anyway !!! Tell me, how many dollars do you value your mother and father? How much does your wife cost, and how many children? If you take everything in bulk, will you provide a discount?

[Starina_hank]

The Chinese can also not be afraid! Firstly, they are our friends, and secondly, they will all be moving to us slowly soon.

[Pamir210]

Quote: Starina_Hank

They are our friends

and where did this friendship manifest? in damask?
about the Yankees, you can say that they were friends .. about the Chinese, alas, no

[Boa kaa]

Quote: recrut6666

compared to him, we seem like pygmies (if we do not take into account the nuclear triad)

Oh sir! You are not original: At that time M. Thatcher called the USSR Upper Volta with a nuclear bomb. But in order to create this bomb and its means of delivery overseas, you need to have science, technology, industry, their personnel and a skilled working class. Yes, while we are 5 the economy of the world, but everything is ahead. And we also have aircraft capable of destroying USA. Therefore, the states are afraid of us and are trying to put us in the brackets in the confrontation with China. I have not yet observed a similar attitude to pygmies from the side of the star-striped.

[zennon]

At one time, M. Thatcher called the USSR the Upper Volta with a nuclear bomb. But in order to create this bomb and its means of delivery overseas, you need to have science, technology, industry, their personnel and a skilled working class.

I would like to clarify something. Yes, I called it. The trouble is that we and they put different meanings in this concept. It seems insulting to compare us with blacks, but in fact she wrote about something else. Going beyond the MKAD for 100 km, and look around. Broken roads, which cannot be called such. Let's say directions. Poor pimped houses, which our officials call houses. Old women drag water from columns on rocker arms. There are a lot of things ... Believe me, I’m bitter to write all this, but it’s indeed. Thatcher said this in the 80s, when up to 40% of our country's GDP went to the defense industry under various articles, 30% of the bread was baked from imported grain, and
at the same time, the economy was simply planted on an oil pipe. Believe me, none of the politicians over the hill needs to prove that Russia has exceptional scientific and technical potential, a well-educated people, a powerful engineering school. No! The thing is, having all this we were highly The poor, and we still maintain this poverty in many ways now. That's what Thatcher had in mind.
A plus article!

[Xroft]

That's why we need to develop the submarine fleet and the Orlans, and not dream of creating a copy of the Nimetsev (and pump huge funds there)

[GSH-18]

Yeah! Two engineers argued ... It turned out three opinions!
But even an unexperienced teapot, one thing is clear in our fleet for about 20 years, like stagnation (since perestroika times). And the amers have all this time, modernization and the introduction of any novia into the fleet. So the respected author of the article, with all due respect to your calculations, etc. You are unwittingly cunning. And so, article +, for informational content

[Setrac]

Quote: GSH-18

And the amers have all this time, modernization and the introduction of any novia into the fleet.

Well, you know, during the Second World War, Americans also built battleships, but the result!

[Pajamas]

Quote: Setrac

Well, you know, during the Second World War, Americans also built battleships, but the result!

Have you really lost the war?

I do not like America, but to listen to you, they eat children so straight, and we are strange of the highest justice, they respect their police and consider it an honor to serve in it, and we have the largest number of police officers per capita, this is probably from an excess of honesty and honor , so that she would not disappear through the police stations "pickle". "

[papik09]

Yeah, the Americans won the Second World War.
Ball! You are a dunce. They did not lose, but they did not win. America, at the expense of World War II, has raised its economy.

[Setrac]

Quote: Pajama

Have you really lost the war?

Won, but not battleships.

Quote: Pajama

so right they eat children

They kill children, rape them, but I don’t know there, maybe they eat.

Quote: Pajama

and we have the largest number of policemen per capita

Not the biggest, but Russia is in the lead. However, I remind you that terrorists are sent to Russia, saboteurs are sent to Russia, economic criminals, ideologists of the information war are sent, and financial and commercial expansion is being conducted against Russia. A demographic war is being waged against Russia.

[Pajamas]

Quote: Setrac

Not the biggest, but Russia is in the lead. However, I remind you that terrorists are sent to Russia, saboteurs are sent to Russia, economic criminals, ideologists of the information war are sent, and financial and commercial expansion is being conducted against Russia. A demographic war is being waged against Russia.

Immediately I apologize for the complex sentences, Saturday thoughts, rest.

You yourself are not funny? How long have the police been fighting saboteurs? Whoever can Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania sends economic criminals to us, the budget is spent on training, or our citizens are recruited in Turkey and Egypt, they are poisoned with money and rock and roll, you are sure that Serdyukov is EXTENDANT, mayors and officials polled in Langli, and that means I understand you correctly under the tasks that you indicated it is necessary to increase the staff of the teaching staff and public relations, that is, the number of saboteurs, criminals, provocateurs, and, moreover, sent, is so great that you need to deal with them by raids, probably under your invention the number of investigators to increase in the prosecutor's office.

And the trade expansion is that they do evil to us with quality products? You saw officials on a domestic car. I don’t know which PARADISE you live in, but here’s a case from my personal experience - One of Saturday October evenings, someone from the Highly intellectual compatriots broke a glass of 5 door of the not expensive second-hand crossover with a stone, a rare and therefore expensive part. I called the outfit, made a protocol, I signed a statement. After 6 days, they called me and asked to write, think about it, a counter statement, motivating this by the fact that they wouldn’t find the guilty anyway, but they would be rinsed for disclosure indicators, it all depends on the pieces of paper.

You definitely need to have an External enemy to put up with the wretchedness of inner existence.

[volkodav]

pizama YOU are macaque fate and life offended by illiterate people izasyafkanaya, Sorry thoughts Sunday (beer) Do you even know the nominal strength of the faculty or DPS, or maybe UUP? If you don’t taste it then don’t spoil then the air button press loser

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Setrac

Won, but not battleships.

Win without battleships would be more difficult.
It was they who provided art support in the 78 landing operations of the Pacific Theater. they fired so that not a single tree was left on Kwajalein, and the marines bursting into the islands found only 50 deaf and deranged Japanese from the island’s thousandth garrison

Quote: Setrac

Not the biggest, but Russia is the leader

The most

[volkodav]

lie, divide 146 ml. people per 300t. people

[Andrey Yuryevich]

http://vpk.name/news/73366_kartonnyii_shit_amerikanskogo_flota.html-вот тоже интересно про "иджис"

[Siberian German]

and I honestly didn’t take a steam bath for every child prodigy there is granite or basalt

[Owl]

It is not necessary to engage in "tug of war" and "wrestling" with an opponent who is known to be stronger, a good shooter can compete with the strongest boxer. As an example: in China, ballistic missiles are designed to combat AUG. If maneuvering nuclear warheads with individual guidance accompanied by false targets "fall down" on the AUG, then no "Aegis" will cope and will then have to deal with ecological maintenance of the ocean.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Eagle Owl

If maneuvering nuclear warheads with individual guidance accompanied by false targets "fall down" on the AUG, then no "Aegis" will cope and will then have to deal with ecological maintenance of the ocean.

Even if non-nuclear BBs, but quite ordinary high-explosive or depleted uranium, which the Yankers love so much ... :)))

[Kolovrat77]

Please explain, I do not know how depleted uranium is used, other than armor-piercing scrap to destroy BTT.

[Canep]

It can still be dumped in a repository for nuclear waste. After uranium enrichment, a lot of uranium-238 remains for nuclear power plants, it is heavy and strong enough to use sub-caliber shells as the core, ours have the same developments in case of war, but ours use safe tungsten for armor-piercing cores.

[Black Colonel]

"... ours use safe tungsten for armor-piercing cores ..."
Onishchenko managed to check in here too!

[Setrac]

Quote: Canep

uranium-xnumx

Uranium may come in handy in the future, let’s make shells of gold, also heavy material.

[papik09]

Alas, hardness does not fit ....

[Ascetic]

Quote: Rus2012

Even if non-nuclear BBs, but quite ordinary high-explosive or depleted uranium, which the Yankers love so much ... :)))

Even in the old shaggy years, Makeev’s design bureau developed the D-5 missile system with ballistic missile R-27K (K-ship) based on the traditional R-27. Then there was the D-13 complex with the R-33 BKR. In the first case, the BKR was abandoned in favor of sea- and air-launched cruise missiles. Although flight tests were carried out (10 out of 11 were successful) and there was even one submarine of Project 667A "Navaga" with a ship-based version of missiles, it was true that it never entered service for seven years from 1975 to 1982, being in trial operation. The BKR R-33 was hacked to death because it fell under the START restrictions as a strategic missile and not an anti-ship missile.
In general, China is actively developing this topic now and it has a PKF DF-21D. as well as Iran. which in 2011. conducted successful tests of Khalij Fars coastal-based Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region (Gulf). The missile hit the target surface precisely, and last year there were reports that the Fatah11 was developed based on the Chinese DF-110A and it hit a moving surface target.

[Onyx]

Quote: Ascetic

In general, China is now actively developing this topic.

Yes, and we should develop this direction. Although, who knows, maybe they are already sawing something. Moreover, we have the technology of maneuvering warheads. That's just how they have guidance on moving targets?

[Ascetic]

Quote: Onyx

That's just how they have guidance on moving targets?

For a nuclear charge, high accuracy of guidance is not so important. The R-33 used a combined guidance system (active-passive). as an option there was still two-stage guidance on the target - - in the extra-atmospheric and atmospheric parts of the flight. First, after the target was captured by the side antenna system (detection range of up to 800 km), it was envisaged to correct the flight path by restarting the second-stage engine. At the second stage, after the target was captured by the nasal antenna, the head part had to be aimed at the target already in the atmosphere.
You can read more about these missiles at the Bastion link
Yes, I forgot about the "weaving" UR-100, too, there was an anti-ship missile version with placement
in coastal silos

[Onyx]

Quote: Ascetic

For a nuclear charge, high pointing accuracy is not so important.

This is certainly true. But I mean anti-ship ballistic missiles with a range of about 1000 km in non-nuclear equipment

[Ascetic]

Quote: Onyx

This is certainly true. But I mean anti-ship ballistic missiles with a range of about 1000 km in non-nuclear equipment

Well then, you can’t do without additional external target designation

[Kolya]

If the enemy knows clearly that the aggression with the use of AUG will be strictly used nuclear weapons to repel, then there will be peace and grace. You need to be decisive so that everyone knows that "we will beat off our hands."

[GSH-18]

Quote: Eagle Owl

Ballistic missiles are designed to combat AUG in China. If maneuvering nuclear warheads with individual guidance accompanied by false targets "fall down" on the AUG, then no "Aegis" will cope and will then have to deal with ecological maintenance of the ocean.

Very resourceful! By AUG with nuclear missiles (and AUG type will come and substitute). True, amers have more nuclear weapons than the Chinese. And in this case, we have to deal with environmental services and China!

[Baron Wrangell]

I read it in one go!
Even in the presence of little-known and unfamiliar terms, it is written interestingly and informatively!
And the conclusion was that such a flock of our missiles will break any fleet!
So more missiles are cheap and effective!

[Arberes]

Quote: Baron Wrangel

I read it in one go!

You are right, it reads really very exciting! I, too, have long been tormented by the question, how many missiles are needed to destroy (flooding) such a colossus as an aircraft carrier? My question is of course a little silly? Indeed, this can only be truly ascertained in a real combat collision! But disputes over a sufficient number of missiles that hit the ship awaken my imagination !!!
Hello Oleg, dear Thank you for your fascinating work! I will wait for your article on a sufficient number of missiles for an aircraft carrier!

[Canep]

I am pretty sure both they and we have already had a computer simulation of this collision, but I think the results are classified.

[vthrehbq]

Not really ... in 90 years the United States conducted exercises in the Persian Gulf. Is it possible to destroy aircraft carriers from the ground .. a theoretical country (such as Syria) and an American carrier fleet (3 aircraft carriers + defense ships) the result is sad for the United States. There were enough 20 missiles for aircraft carriers + I don’t remember exactly on the guard ships. Total destruction of aircraft carriers !!!

[Boa kaa]

Quote: vthrehbq

It was enough 20 missiles for aircraft carriers + I do not remember exactly on the guard ships. Total destruction of aircraft carriers !!!

Maybe the missiles are now different, but at the time, the VMA calculated for its time (1982g) that 80-8 would reach the target from the salvo in the 10 anti-ship missiles, which was enough to guarantee the AVM was knocked out of service. Everything was taken into account, up to% sky-ready for RCC technical reasons.

[Arberes]

Quote: Canep

I am pretty sure both they and we have already had a computer simulation of this collision, but I think the results are classified.

Good afternoon, dear Canep
Surely, something was done in this regard! But how to put into the computer the coefficient of coherence and training of the crew, teams to fight for the survivability of the ship ???
Or is it also somehow miscalculating?

[Canep]

In my opinion, this can be ignored altogether, if the struggle for survivability has begun, then the ship has already received a hit. And perhaps not one, with the advent of some kind of critical roll, the ship, I think, will be completely not combat ready. I think an aircraft carrier needs a roll of 3-5 degrees so that the planes stop taking off and lands.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Canep

I think the aircraft carrier has enough roll at 3-5 degrees so that the planes stop taking off and lands.

Probably so. But the commander of the EM warhead will straighten the ship and he will again raise and receive the aircraft. In addition, it is necessary to hit the AVU below the waterline, and this is within the power of TO, and the "Caliber" (Club) mainly strikes the side of the target, penetrating beyond the constructive protection. So counting on a good fire.

[papik09]

"So counting on a good fire."
This is not bad either. As in preference on a minuscule 1 trick.

[Firstvanguard]

Aircraft carrier, this is a huge barge stuffed with vigorous reactors, jet kerosene, and thuja heaping ammunition for an aircraft wing. I think the calculation for a fire is not unfounded

[unclevad]

Even if the missiles do not completely destroy the aircraft carrier, they will surely put it out of action for a long time. A combat mission is disrupted, it will take a lot of time and resources to restore it.
Many thanks to the author, otherwise these Aegis got their heads uninitiated.

[DimYang]

Three hits of anti-ship missiles "Granite". Five anti-ship missiles "Caliber". Out of 50 missiles, this will happen with a 99% probability.

[Viktorych]

Enough of one rocket fired as they say the famous D. McCain. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal
Well, an article about the brave warrior http://dbelyaev.ru/the-story-of-john-mccain-5184.html

[Elm]

Give Mac "crack for president!

[Onyx]

Quote: Baron Wrangell

I read it in one go!
Even in the presence of little-known and unfamiliar terms, it is written interestingly and informatively!
And the conclusion was that such a flock of our missiles will break any fleet!
So more missiles are cheap and effective!

There are plans to increase the number of cruise missiles in the armed forces by the 20th year by 30 times to the present. If today we have at least 400-500 cruise missiles, then by the 20th year there should be 12000-15000, which is not enough in itself.

[Good Ukraine]

Quote: Baron Wrangel

And the conclusion was that such a flock of our missiles will break any fleet! So more missiles are cheap and effective!

I think that Shoigo also had this in mind when he promised by 2020 to increase the number of missiles in the RF Armed Forces by 30 times.

[GSH-18]

Quote: Baron Wrangel

I read it in one go!
Even in the presence of little-known and unfamiliar terms, it is written interestingly and informatively!
And the conclusion was that such a flock of our missiles will break any fleet!
So more missiles are cheap and effective!

Reading the article, one can draw a conclusion about the overwhelming superiority over the amers of our fleet (to hell with it that there are no aircraft carriers when the amers have 11 pieces!), Anti-ship missiles, and sea doctrine. Dear author, you are either not familiar with the real state of affairs in our fleet (no, I won’t say that everything is very bad), or you wishful thinking here, scattering in the descriptions of the technical characteristics and sprinkling with formulas, and not paying attention to the number, combat readiness and degree of modernization.
We still have a lot to do to make our fleet rise to the level of at least the Soviet fleet after the "happy 90s"!
I really want this to happen as soon as possible!

[papik09]

"... and not paying attention to the number, combat readiness and the degree of modernization." In two words, you want to say, "Looks young".
So on this topic a joke:
The fox (5 years old), the wolf (2 years old) and the teddy bear (3 months old) are sitting in the pit. Caught a hunter. They sit for a day, two ... They want to ... The fox offered to eat the youngest (young). The fox and the wolf named their age (5 years and 2 years). To which the bear replied: "And even though I am 3 months old, I will use 3,14 pounds of such that my appetite will disappear!"
Here, somewhere in the case of the Fleet.

[GSH-18]

Quote: papik09

"... and not paying attention to the number, combat readiness and the degree of modernization." In two words, you want to say, "Looks young".
So on this topic a joke:
The fox (5 years old), the wolf (2 years old) and the teddy bear (3 months old) are sitting in the pit.

I want to say that he does not look serious. And the jokes here are inappropriate, because it smells like stupid bravado and hatred. I am aware that the Uriah patriots aren’t sick of me right now, nevertheless, I affirm that the presence of an aircraft carrier (carrier-based aircraft) as part of a ship’s compound gives the compound great tactical capabilities, both in delivering a strike and in my own defense in comparison with the usual ship formation (we don’t take into account the apl, since we have them as well as the Amers, the Amers have more of them). For some reason, the article considers only the defense of the AUG. But in fact, this is what happens: the P-500 range of 550 km, the P-1000 700 km is the RCC of our missile cruisers. Range of carrier-based aviation 800km! That is, our cruisers, even before approaching the salvo range, anti-ship missiles will already be attacked by carrier-based aircraft! What can you talk about here? NPS in the absence of target designation are useless. The author of the article apparently did not think about it. In addition, the AUG shipload group also has missiles for salvo at enemy naval formations, and most importantly, it will have target designation from carrier-based AWACS. The article has a lot of mistakes, you can go on. For healthy people, this is enough. The Russian fleet should have 3-4 aircraft carriers, at least. Only then can it be considered that not only the maritime border at the castle, but also geopolitical interests are protected. And they, as you know, extend far beyond the borders of our homeland!

[papik09]

"And the conclusion was made by such a flock of our missiles will explode any fleet!"
I will add: "How Tuzik gauze panties!"

[Pajamas]

You don’t have rockets, you would have more caps and hat-throwers. The enemy must be respected.

[gladysheff2010]

Here you are and respect the enemy, and we either scare him away or beat him!

[Know-nothing]

article by shipbuilding engineer A. Nikolsky

This is another Nikolsky, a journalist (but authoritative). Shipbuilder - Nikolsky Vladislav Ivanovich.

[Human]

It would be interesting to see at least in the teachings how all this interacts. So far, as far as I remember, Americans hardly hit even their own training missiles. And what will happen in a real battle when there is no right to make a mistake?

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Humen

It would be interesting to see, even in exercises, how all this interacts.

In the operation to defeat the AUG, the most difficult thing is precisely organizing the interaction of diverse fleet forces located at different distances, in different environments: in the air, under water, on the coast, in the sea "from above". The essence of the organization is not to simultaneously press the "Start" button, but to track the target, discretely receiving the EDC and its place, to achieve a simultaneous approach of the RCC to the AUG launched from different distances, bearings and positions of the carriers (from under water, from the air, NK, coast). Trust me: it's incredibly difficult! And to do this, you need to train, preferably at sea, from the position of tracking a real target with a weapon.

[DPN]

Quote: Humen

And what will happen in a real battle when there is no right to make a mistake?

Eternal winter will come on Earth and we will no longer be on it. So it’s better to look at the teachings. If in the year 61 there were no fools, then even more so they won’t exist, we still want to live.

[makarov]

The author convincingly "kicked the teeth" with the "competence specialist".

[Yun Klob]

Thanks to the author. Encouraged.

[Alexey]

1) The author cannot understand in any way that "Aegis" is not radars, but CIUS with an open architecture.
2) Joint attack of 2's and more submarines from stealth mode, how is it? How to coordinate their actions?
3) Any variant of a missile attack must be provided with target designation. It can be internal or external. It is supposed to use Granite from the outside (range - up to 550 km). From what is external? Tu-95rts? And he will be allowed to hang next to the AUG? (Space not to mention, in the event of a US-Russia conflict, satellites will disappear quickly)

[leon-iv]

1) The author cannot understand in any way that "Aegis" is not radars, but CIUS with an open architecture.

The bius of the warrant and what changes it says here about the work sequence.

How to coordinate their actions?

Consistent does not mean second per second. For example, first one oversaturates the firing channels, for example, by detonating the SBN at ranges of 15-20 km, and then a salvo of main missiles. Etc.

3) Any variant of a missile attack must be provided with target designation.

And why should the nuclear submarines with its stealth give a salvo from 400 km? And what interferes with 100? Who will spot her and what? As modern submarines are VERY secretive sho our sho amerskie.

[Alexey]

Quote: leon-iv

The bius of the warrant and what changes it says here about the work sequence.

There is a lot about what is being said, including the fact that Aegis is outdated. This is after savoring the disadvantages of the radar.

Quote: leon-iv

Consistent does not mean second per second. For example, first one oversaturates the firing channels, for example, by detonating the SBN at ranges of 15-20 km, and then a salvo of main missiles. Etc.

If MFN is mentioned, then the conversation on the use of MFN can be ended. Nuclear war is already a completely different conversation.

Quote: leon-iv

And why should the nuclear submarines with its stealth give a salvo from 400 km? And what interferes with 100? Who will spot her and what? As modern submarines are VERY secretive sho our sho amerskie.

And why then on the nuclear submarine missiles "Granit"? (Project 949). And from 100 km PLO AUG interferes. Here number 1 among the interference is aviation. Both the carrier's own anti-submarine aircraft and the order helicopters abundantly shower the ocean in front of the AUG with sonar buoys. The radius of the PLO order can be hundreds of kilometers.
It should be added that the US AUG includes a multipurpose nuclear submarine as standard, it just does not really "shine". This is also a PLO element.

[leon-iv]

There is a lot about what is being said, including the fact that Aegis is outdated. This is after savoring the disadvantages of the radar.

Aegis was originally vicious. You can not combine radar.

Nuclear war is already a completely different conversation.

Yeah, that's why all this is spheroconin.

The radius of the PLO order can be hundreds of kilometers.
It should be added that the US AUG includes a multipurpose nuclear submarine as standard, it just does not really "shine". This is also a PLO element.

about submarines, I, as in the know, we also have a standard trailer. Modern sonar systems can detect submarines at ranges of no more than 3 km, and even if there are ideal conditions. YES and the submarines are not fools either. The era of roaring cows ended back in the 80s. Sosus was not needed even then.

[Alexey]

"Aegis was originally vicious. You can't mix radars."

Combining radars is a solution in a specific ship project. BIUS "Aegis" has nothing to do with it. Stop producing inadequacy.

"Modern hydroacoustic equipment can detect submarines at ranges of no more than 3 km, and even if there are ideal conditions. YES, they are not fools either. The era of roaring cows ended in the 80s. Sosus was not needed then."

Not so. Much depends on speed, at 30 knots everyone is roaring cows. And the detection range - the value even for the same device fluctuates in sooooo large limits. We shouldn't forget about aviation. In case of a real danger for the AUG, the buoys will not save money. "sneaking up" will become much more difficult than in peacetime.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Alex

Much depends on speed, on 30 nodes everything is roaring cows

And from the depth of the course. The deeper, the higher the swing. low noise. And this is the speed of pursuit of the AUG. But aircraft carriers will sail at a speed not lower than 20-25 knots. Therefore, in order not to fall out of the POP, the boat is forced to make "jumps", causing a decrease in stealth. At 30 knots - all blind and deaf.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Alex

If MFN is mentioned, then the conversation on the use of MFN can be ended. Nuclear war is already a completely different conversation.

SBN - not necessarily nuclear, m. High power EMP

[Rus2012]

Quote: Alex

Here, No. 1 among the obstacles is aviation. Both the aircraft’s own anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters warrantly shower the ocean in front of the AUG with sonar buoys. The radius of the PLO order can be hundreds of kilometers.

Here about this you, all Ameromanians, forget - they are very good. bad or do not work at all in stormy non-flying weather for carrier-based aviation!

[stjrm]

[quote = Rus2012] [quote = Aleksey]
Here about this you, all Ameromanians, forget - they are very good. bad, or do not work at all in stormy non-flying weather for carrier-based aircraft! [/ quote]

As practice shows, carrier-based aircraft can take off and land even in stormy weather. Well, at least it was observed during a storm of 6-7 points. But the storm is a storm of strife, precipitation and so on.

[Rus2012]

Quote: stjrm

carrier-based aircraft can take off and land even in stormy weather. Well, at least observed during a storm in 6-7 points

You want to say better than land based?

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Rus2012

You want to say better than land based?

Yes, because it does not have strict restrictions on the direction and strength of the wind. AVU always goes with its nose on the wave (wind) when the aircraft is lifting (landing). There is a wind rose near the coastal airfield. The strength and direction of the crosswind can interrupt flights.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: stjrm

Well, at least they observed during the storm in 6-7 points. But the storm is a storm of strife, precipitation and so on.

Oh oh During the war ... well, maybe. And in peacetime - up to 5 points.

[Alexey]

Ameroman? I AM? Stupidly hang it without knowing the interlocutor. Your logic seems to match your words.

[Misantrop]

Quote: Alex

The radius of the PLO order can be hundreds of kilometers.

"Can" and "compose" are very different concepts. How many thousand tons of buoys does the AUG carry with it in order to "sow everything around it? For an aircraft carrier standing on the" stop "- nothing, but in motion?

Quote: Alex

It should be added that the US AUG includes a multipurpose nuclear submarine as standard, it just does not really "shine". This is also a PLO element.

There are usually two "elk" in the order, which did not prevent the "animals" from getting there, as if in their own pocket, unnoticed

Quote: Alex

And why then on the nuclear submarine missiles "Granit"?

And in what year was it developed?

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Misantrop

How many thousand tons of buoys does the AUG carry with it in order to "sow everything around it? For an aircraft carrier standing on the" stop "- nothing, but in motion?

Misantrop, I welcome you! Two words on the topic.
In the far zone of the PLO, aviation searches for boats with a magnetometer, radiometer, and other non-contact means of detecting them. Upon receipt of a contact, RGABs are used, which confirm the presence of a submarine. Next are the RSAB barriers: covering, cutting off, etc. The last stage - buoys with control center. According to them, weapons are being used. Or they call and direct their PLO ships to the submarine (PLO Division - 3-4 "Orly Berkov"). However, sadness.
And when over you, though frail, but there is an air cover (umbrella), then AV PLO's tail between his legs and is more worried about his own skin, and not about the search for "damned Russians". She leaves the area, calling for an air patrol, etc. In general, something like that.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Alex

It is supposed to use Granite from the outside (range - to 550 km).

Why is it actually external? It is enough to hit at close range, from a distance of 50-100 km, when their own GAS show the direction, and the "wolf pack" of Granites, itself line up in a battle order ...

[I do not care]

2) Joint attack of 2's and more submarines from stealth mode, how is it? How to coordinate their actions?
in World War II, the Germans had "wolf packs" of 2 pl, jointly tore apart convoys of allies
65 years have passed, but has it become a little worse?

[stjrm]

Quote: me by

2) Joint attack of 2's and more submarines from stealth mode, how is it? How to coordinate their actions?

Map! In our case, it’s marine. And there are various types of communication ...
Each submarine is assigned a task and operates in its area. On the road or the expected direction of such areas is not one. You can leave the area only by order of the Fleet CP, on the occupation of a new RDO there.
And there is also a mission for a campaign, where everything is spelled out in detail. And the commander, receiving the task for the campaign, develops his decisions, which are also approved before going to sea.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: stjrm

Map! In our case, it’s marine.

Do not fantasize! On our forum, we can speak with confidence only about what I personally did. Take an example from a colleague of Ascetic and you will be invincible!
To get started, deal with the CU PL system when organizing a database. Well, then about the "mission for the campaign", the "decision" of the Commander and his approval. (It's good that they didn't remember about preliminary laying!) Sorry!

[Alexey]

Quote: me by

2) Joint attack of 2's and more submarines from stealth mode, how is it? How to coordinate their actions?
in World War II, the Germans had "wolf packs" of 2 pl, jointly tore apart convoys of allies
65 years have passed, but has it become a little worse?

Wolf packs operated at night from the POSITION position on a large concentration of transports in the warrant. Exactly so, the attack is from the POSITION, in case of pursuit, retreat into the underwater.

[JIaIIoTb]

Quote: Alex

(Space not to mention, in case of US-Russia conflict, satellites will disappear quickly

Here you are right, the satellites will definitely disappear, including the American, European .... in general, everything.
Can you really think that having made a rocket no one bothered about target designation for it? Just think about American missiles without target designation? Or in your eyes only we go. You? And the rest are all geniuses and necessarily such idiots for their idiocy must be punished?
However, having the Russian flag next to the nickname, it is strange to hear that Russian engineers and designers are full of junk. I won’t continue further. I’ll turn to individuals.

[Ascetic]

Quote: JIaIIoTb

However, having the Russian flag next to the nickname, it is strange to hear that Russian engineers and designers are full of junk. I won’t continue further. I’ll turn to individuals.

I advise everyone to read a fairly competent article with figures and facts Killer of ships or breakthrough of the ship's air defense of a potential enemy with Mosquito missiles
In particular, it examines in detail the scheme for constructing the air defense of the ship using the example of the American destroyer of the "Arleigh Burke" type and the work of the air defense to intercept the anti-ship missile "Moskit". As a result, it is concluded that the missile and artillery air defense systems that are in service with the ships of a potential enemy are currently NOT ABLE TO INTERCEPT the 3M80 / 3M82 supersonic cruise missile of the Moskit anti-ship complex. This is without taking into account the capabilities of electronic warfare, of course. But one electronic warfare without an effective air defense / missile defense system to resist Russian anti-ship missiles is suicide.

The US naval forces have made repeated attempts to acquire Mosquito missiles to work out forms and methods of counteraction. They even talked about a contract for the supply of about a hundred missiles to the United States, but these plans were not destined to come true. Nevertheless, the United States has managed to acquire Kh-31 aircraft cruise missiles, which fly at a speed close to that of the Mosquito. In addition, the US Navy received the GQM-163A supersonic targets, which are being used to counter the 3M80 / 3M82 missiles. The test results show that the issue of protecting ships from supersonic cruise missiles remains open.

[poquello]

Somehow, phrases like granite, for example, about granite, do not reach lovers of bourgeois technology.
"According to the experience of combat and operational training of the Navy, it is almost impossible to shoot down such a missile."
Still posing in a single row of mosquitoes to harpoons, although the harpoons were not lying nearby.

[Alexey]

That's why so much nonsense to write about junk engineers, etc.?
I did not say this, these are your fantasies. The target designation problem for our Navy is not new.
And the root of this problem is the views on the construction of the Navy of the then political and military leadership formed by the Oleg Kaptsovs of that time. They say "a rocket is better than an airplane", "an aircraft carrier is a weapon of aggression." let's build missiles instead of airplanes. So they built it, and the engineers worked just fine, only the missiles, as it turned out, did not abolish aviation, but supplemented it. At the same time, there was an obvious bias in the construction of the fleet. And target designation, it was assigned for lack of the best on the Tu-95rts, or the Ka-25ts helicopter. True, this intelligence could only live in peacetime. The navy was as tender as naval aviation, and now it is needed.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Alex

let's build rockets instead of airplanes.

A little bit wrong, dear colleague! No need to juggle!
The country could not ECONOMICALLY pull both YES and Strategic Missile Forces. Moreover, in the Strategic Missile Forces, preference was given to ICBMs rather than KMR (Lavochkin cruise intercontinental missiles).
Left or YES-received a symmetrical answer. The ICBM turned out to be a truly "magic knight's move", which shocked and awe the Yankees, from which they still have not recovered. Indeed, their territory is under a guaranteed blow, which they do not like!
Moreover, it should be taken into account that the most competent and trained personnel from the Air Force and Navy, as well as from other genera, also went into the formation of the Strategic Missile Forces.
Now peering at those times, the correctness of such a step becomes obvious. For some reason, everyone forgets how much staff and money they spent on national air defense on the basis of the radar network and winged Bomarks. Which at one moment turned out to be outdated and yesterday against the background of even P-7 and P-16 beginning 60xx ...
And so, there will be RSD, RDD anti-ship-aircraft carriers will go to the dump of history ...
Here -
http://topwar.ru/23459-nebesnyy-schit-chuzhoy-otchizny-voennaya-politika-sverhde
rzhav-v-dni-karibskogo-krizisa.html
about the Bomarkov effect

[Ascetic]

Quote: Rus2012

Moreover, it should be taken into account that the most competent and trained personnel from the Air Force and Navy, as well as from other genera, also went into the formation of the Strategic Missile Forces.

Confirmed / Father graduated with honors from VMU im. Frunze in 1962. and was immediately assigned to the Strategic Missile Forces, Skoljeo then did not write reports to transfer to the fleet and remained. And the "Troechniki" went to the fleet, which is true at that time Khrushch strenuously reduced along with the Air Force.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: JIaIIoTb

Here you are right: the satellites will definitely disappear, including the American, European ones .... in general, everything.

You are right, but it seems that the satellite constellation of the satellite will be replenished. Previously, it was even intended to launch a military space station in an endangered period. But that was in the days of IT. As of now, I don’t know.

[stjrm]

Quote: Alex

2) Joint attack of 2's and more submarines from stealth mode, how is it? How to coordinate their actions?
3) Any variant of a missile attack must be provided with target designation. It can be internal or external. It is supposed to use Granite from the outside (range - up to 550 km). From what is external? Tu-95rts? And he will be allowed to hang next to the AUG? (Space not to mention, in the event of a US-Russia conflict, satellites will disappear quickly)

Alexey, in 1983, RTM !! from the 45th division (Kamchatka), he discovered and pursued not only the AUG, but also the AUS. Successfully breaking through both the far PLO zone and the near one. There are photographs taken through a re-search of aircraft carriers, aircraft carriers replenishing supplies on the go, guarding destroyers. Yes, of course they were discovered, as many as two times.
Only in the first time, the discovery of our submarine did not even allow us to obtain sufficient data for its attack, and in the second time, such data was received ... But within 2 !!! hours after the detection and transfer of contact of coastal anti-submarine aircraft.
And now for the fun part. By the time it was discovered, the submarine was in the position of using weapons: in the first case, about four hours !, and in the second, EIGHT hours !!!
It should be borne in mind that in a combat situation a submarine will not emerge under the periscope to document a breakthrough, it will not give any RDO to the KP fleet.
It’s just corny to use a weapon, maybe not just for the same purpose. From such distances just do not miss. And he will dump ....
In general, they will work comprehensively in AUG, including aviation. And there will be more than one boat .... From different directions and distances ...
But in order to achieve all this, you need to go to sea a lot, study a lot, practice "attacks" and actual breakthroughs of the PLO lines as often as possible.
Yes, by the way, all this happened in the area of ​​one of the areas covered by the notorious SOSUS. Which never heard a damn thing.

[Alexey]

It is not worthwhile to draw conclusions on this extraordinary case that took place in PEACE time. In order to succeed, not in a separate battle, but in a war at sea, you need a balanced fleet in which there will be a place and aviation, as a key factor in sea supremacy. Coastal aviation without a ship is defective and unable to cover the ship’s connection.
The main outline of the author - the opposition of one class of ships to another is vicious in essence and harmful to the future of the Russian fleet. Alas.

The case, for some reason described in detail by you, is well known. SOSUS has nothing to do with it; it is in the North Atlantic, and not in the South Pacific.

[stjrm]

And this is not about the southern part of the Pacific, this is the region of the Aleutian Islands.
This is by no means an EXCLUSIVE case.
Success in the war consists of success in individual battles.
And I do not deny it at all, but rather say that the AUG will be attacked by diverse forces, including without fail.
A key factor in aviation for dominance at sea is a moot point.
I did not quite understand what occasion you were talking about, but by the way ... there were a lot of them.
There are described, and how many are not described ....
The fight against AUG is a very difficult task. No one claims that it’s time to spit.
But the article itself is good, plus to it. And for information, and for clarity, and for the mood.
Hat-making is bad. But you should not be afraid.

[volkodav]

ring for tactlessness, and does the change from peacetime to wartime change constant readiness units? As mentioned above, the AUG is not capable of constantly throwing tons of buoys, and the standard means of PLO work both in peacetime and in wartime

[I do not care]

here I am about the same. Not 44 year, the work of several submarines on the same goal is not fiction since the middle of the last century.

[saturn.mmm]

Quote: Alex

(Space not to mention, in case of US-Russia conflict, satellites will disappear quickly

Maybe explain where and how they will disappear, the photo is clickable.
PSOleg K. thanks for the article, it was very interesting.

[GSH-18]

Quote: Alex

1) The author cannot understand in any way that "Aegis" is not radars, but CIUS with an open architecture.
2) Joint attack of 2's and more submarines from stealth mode, how is it? How to coordinate their actions?
3) Any variant of a missile attack must be provided with target designation. It can be internal or external. It is supposed to use Granite from the outside (range - up to 550 km). From what is external? Tu-95rts? And he will be allowed to hang next to the AUG? (Space not to mention, in the event of a US-Russia conflict, satellites will disappear)

Absolutely sound koment. I agree 100%

[saturn.mmm]

Quote: GSH-18

Absolutely sound koment. I agree 100%

I also generally agree only about the satellites is incomprehensible.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Alex

Joint attack of 2's and more submarines from stealth mode, how is it? How to coordinate their actions?

An anti-aircraft carrier order of the plRK is being built, usually a circular one. In the center - AUG. Each submarine is assigned a mobile region of the OP, determined by the sector (bearing and distance), is rigidly attached to the GL target and which moves with it. There are several options for organizing a strike on AUG. As a rule, at the borders. The bottom line: the fleet’s control gear in unacknowledged mode gives the control center (RDO) about the probable (averaged) place of the control tower. Each commander (Kabardino-Balkaria-r) calculates D to the target, the time of the RCC flight to the target, the time of the arrival of the AVU at the strike line. And according to the calculation (the time the AVU arrives at the turn and the flight time of the RCC), it organizes a volley at which the AVU and RCC must simultaneously be at one point, going to it at different speeds.
There may be an order to strike at T as soon as possible. It is simpler here: according to the time of obsolescence of the data on the target, it develops P *, D firing. The bottom line: by the time the RCC approaches the target, it should fall into the circle (ellipse) of the probable location of C. Next - GOS (usually multi-channel). It is used when the main blow is delivered by other forces (MRA, Strategic Rocket Forces, Brav, NK), and volleys with anti-aircraft systems distract, weaken the air defense / missile defense of the AUG. Well and so on.

[GSH-18]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

An anti-aircraft carrier order of the plRK is being built, usually a circular one. In the center - AUG

This is only in case if it is possible to detect the AUG before it detects our cruisers and nuclear submarines, which is very, very doubtful thanks to the planes of the aircraft carrier’s drill! And before you begin to build a battle formation (since distance and the lack of target designation will not allow you to shoot anti-ship missiles) you will be subjected to massive airstrikes from carrier-based aircraft covered by jamming airplanes! Until 25! wing aircraft (only one aircraft carrier) can carry 2 Harpoons. The result is obvious: at least the attack on the aircraft carrier will be thwarted (while the AUG cruisers have not yet taken part in the battle!).
The article "hit from under the water" is a profanation and shapkozakidatelstvo hails from Soviet times (but then the USSR had something to respond to the sea with amers' AUG, which we do not have now), "thanks" to which we now do not have a single aircraft carrier at all! And we also do not have experience in building and using these serious ships, which we now oh, how we lack!
Read here http://warfiles.ru/show-40051-veroyatnost-porazheniya-nol.html
very intelligible and without unnecessary formulas!

[Boa kaa]

Quote: GSH-18

if he succeeds in detecting the AUG before he discovers our cruisers and nuclear submarines ... And before you start building a battle formation (since distance and the absence of target designation will not allow you to shoot anti-ship missiles right away) you will be subjected to massive airstrikes from carrier-based aircraft covered by jamming airplanes!

A few words on the subject control pl at sea... Gesha, submarines in the sea are controlled from the command post of the Northern Fleet (Pacific Fleet), or the Central Command Center of the Navy. The curtains and single submarines, by order from the command post, are shifted to the lane of probable movement of the AUG. So it is the task of the operators of the control headquarters to lead the bull terriers to the robber trail. Communication - one-way, quit-free, on SDV. RDO is received without surfacing (as a rule, the boat "floats up" or releases an antenna), so that AWACS planes and fighters go past the ticket office. This is the first thing.
In-2's, the submarine in 3-4 times hears NK more than he does. Roughly: on D = 100 miles AUG will be heard. Next, the EDC, the time of Ts arrival at the strike line will be specified, a volley will be calculated and formed.
With NK it is more difficult: it is problematic to fight off Aviation and harpoons without an "umbrella". Therefore, the fleet needs AVU, and not to capture Popuasia.
The Navy Group of Companies on the basis of the VMA annually holds command and staff games. Subjects are different. At one time, one of the topics was devoted to the problem of combating the enemy's AMG. A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of naval combat was carried out with the aim of destroying an enemy aircraft carrier in three ways:
• Aircraft carrier is struck by a missile defense and MRA;
• the same forces act jointly with the TAKR aircraft, striking together with them;
• strikes are made by PLRK and MRA, and carrier-based aviation solves the tasks of covering these forces from counteraction by anti-submarine and fighter aircraft of the enemy.
The data obtained showed that in the second option, the increase in the efficiency of solving the problem (compared to the first) will be only a few percent, and in the third, the efficiency of solving the problem increases by 30-50% (depending on the tactical situation) and, which is also important, the possible losses of striking forces are reduced, on average, by one third. "
Therefore, the absence of aircraft carriers does not mean that the fleet does not need them. Simply, the country cannot yet have them in the fleet for a number of reasons, which were mentioned above.
Understanding this, the leadership of the Navy issued a request for the creation of special submarine formations to combat the AUS. In the 1985 year, anti-aircraft-armored divisions of the PLRK were formed (10-th at the Pacific Fleet, Rybachy settlement; 11-th at the Northern Fleet, Zaozersk). Their base in the 2000's was made by pl.949 and 949А. Weapons tracking of at least 2's APKRRK was established for each AVU. Then it got harder.

[GSH-18]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

A few words on the management of the Pl at sea.

Thank you for the valuable (informative) koment.
There are only a couple of points: “Curtains and single submarines, by order of the CP, are shifted to the zone of probable AUG movement.” The enemy, aware of such tactics, will no doubt put ahead of the main core of the AUG reconnaissance special vessel and aviation. Do not forget about the high probability of counterattack by the AUG multi-purpose submarines. I agree with you, the boat hears beyond the NK, however, even after a salvo from the middle-near defense zone of the AUG, it is practically a guaranteed corpse. At the same time, there is no one-hundred-percent guarantee of the destruction of an aircraft carrier by its missiles (there is too much variation in the probabilities of the outcome of this situation due to the powerful anti-aircraft missile defense).
Further: “A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of naval combat was carried out with the aim of destroying an enemy aircraft carrier in three ways:
• Aircraft carrier is struck by a missile defense and MRA;
• the same forces act together with TAKR aviation, striking along with them; ”
The use of TAXR, I'm sorry, causes a smile. The average Amer aircraft carrier is 100 aircraft of different classes. Russian TAKR on average 45 pieces. Its purpose is to become a sacrifice ?? (It is also necessary to remember that we do not have atomic TACR autonomy for 45 days in total).
Further: “Therefore, the absence of aircraft carriers does not mean that the fleet does not need them. It’s just that the country cannot yet have them in the fleet for a number of reasons mentioned above. ”
It's nice to hear that, and here I fully agree with you!
Due to the wide operational and tactical capabilities of the ACG is used as a real demonstration of power in the region of influence by the Americans. Because of their absence, the Russian Federation suffers greatly from foreign policy (that’s why it is such a flawed “soft power policy”, since we don’t have another one now!) If it weren’t for our commander in chief, there would be only one name left from Syria. And this would be due to the lack of a balanced fleet. We still can’t get away from this (China and India are already building, they have aircraft carriers, carrier cruisers). God forbid that in the 20th year the active phase of the construction of the first (and not the last) Russian aircraft carrier began!

[Boa kaa]

Quote: GSH-18

The adversary ... without a doubt will put ahead of the main core of the AUG reconnaissance special vessel and aviation. Do not forget about the high probability of counterattack by the AUG multi-purpose submarines.

Nice to chat with a smart person. But, to the point.
The commander of the AUG (Brigadier Rear Admiral), assessing the degree of threat (the route is divided into sections of transition, separately - RBD) to his AUG, determines for each section the main threat and its magnitude. To fend off it, he allocates a detachment of forces from the group, asks for help from BPA aircraft, etc. Therefore, along the route of the AUG passage, our PLPL are looking for "Orions" (far zone of PLO - up to 200M) (now "Neptune"), Los Angeles (up to 100M), "Vikings" were used (in 2003 they were written off), with the task of finding and destroying PLARKI. In addition, as a rule, there are 2 KPUGs with their own helicopters. Breaking through such an ASW system is an extremely difficult task. Therefore, the submarine commanders in peacetime are given the title of Hero of Russia (k1r G. Lyachin). Hydroacoustic observation vessels, as a rule, are on duty at the PLO line, where there are no stationary hydroacoustic observation systems.

Quote: GSH-18

the boat hears beyond the NK, however, even after a salvo from the middle-near defense zone of the AUG, it is practically a guaranteed corpse.

Well, if you don't have an Elk hanging on your tail, and then there is a chance of escaping. And even if you have an Elk, not everything is so simple. The boat fires a salvo, then there is a post-salvo maneuvering on the basis that you are detected, possibly attacked. There are many evasion techniques. For example: going under the jump layer with the cover of the Pl with a wake jet, with the setting of the GPE curtain, using a self-propelled submarine simulator (as a rule, to divert torpedoes). The purpose of the maneuver: to disrupt the tracking or get out of the detection area of ​​the torpedo seeker. It all depends on the experience, skill, luck and luck of the commander. Therefore, he is "the first after God." Well, if you screw it up and do not leave the search strip, then the submarine takes a fight with a breakthrough of the PLC formation. Pl tries to disguise itself with the noise of other ships. At this moment, as submariner # 2, GSS Grishchenko told us, "there are no atheists."

Quote: GSH-18

The use of TAXR, I apologize, causes a smile ...
May God grant that in the 20 year the active phase of the construction of the first (and not the last) Russian aircraft carrier begins!

The research was carried out "on the available strength." After them, very serious conclusions were made, right up to the laying of normal AVUs at the point of Ulyanovsk. I believe they have not lost their relevance to this day.
PS Now you understand why in Nazi Germany (even in taverns) everyone got up and stood up and greeted Doenitz's pets when they entered. Yu.A. Gagarin, after visiting the nuclear submarine 1fl SF, called the submariners heroes that no one knows about. So, "when in the bath you meet a small man with a bald head pulled into his shoulders out of habit, a round belly and crooked legs - bow to him: in front of you - - submariner! "(attributed to S. S. Kostin)

[GSH-18]

Quote: Boa constrictor KAA

Now you understand why in Nazi Germany (even in taverns) everyone got up and stood up and greeted Doenitz's pets when they entered. Yu.A. Gagarin, after visiting the nuclear submarine 1fl SF, called the submariners heroes that no one knows about. So, "when in the bath you meet a small man with a bald head pulled into his shoulders out of habit, a round belly and crooked legs - bow to him: in front of you - - submariner! "(attributed to S. S. Kostin)

Always had a deep respect for the diving mark. Thanks to their service, the adversary does not dare to impudent behavior near our water areas. A low bow to them and 7 feet under the keel.

[stjrm]

"... Realizing this, the leadership of the Navy came out with a petition to create special submarine formations to combat the AUS. In 1985, anti-aircraft divisions of the submarine were formed (10th at the Pacific Fleet, Rybachy; 11th at Northern Fleet, Zaozersk). Their basis in the 2000s was pl of pr.949 and 949A. For each AVU, at least 2 APKRRK weapons were monitored. Then it became harder. "

I’ll correct you a little, Dear KAA ...

In fact, the 10th division was formed back in 1967, then it included "clamshells" of 675 pr., From the mid-70s the division began to receive PP pr.670 from the Northern Fleet. Indeed, in 1985, when several ships of pr.671RTM entered the division, and three tactical groups were formed (1-muRTM and one 670ke), it began to be called anti-aircraft.
And the first "loaf" came to Kamchatka in 1990, in the fall. I remember well how we moored to the extreme pier (at that time it was the 12th) with the left side, and the starboard side was the "baton". This was the first one to come from the North.

[volkodav]

The ship is defeated by a powerful kinetic blow (at a speed of 2700 km / h in the final section of the trajectory, the rocket, after consuming part of the fuel, has a flight weight of about 2000 kg), an explosion of a high-explosive warhead and burning of fuel residues. An analysis of experimental, training and control-serial firing of missiles without a combat charge (with recording equipment on board and a special dye certifying that the missile hit the target or place of impact in the sea) shows that the missile pierces the target ship through and the remaining fuel remaining in the compartments of the target ship after the destruction of the fuel tanks of the rocket, cause a strong fire. Shooting with a high-explosive warhead shows that the explosion of the warhead caused the ship severe mechanical damage, with a rupture of the side, internal bulkheads, which entails ignition over a large area, which certainly destroys the ship.
During the armed conflict for the possession of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) between Argentina and Great Britain, the British destroyer "Sheffield" was hit by a cruise missile "Exocet" and sank after a while, despite the fact that the warhead on the missile did not explode - it was enough to disable the destroyer create a fire center on board with the remnants of rocket fuel.
here's all the prowlers, and how great America is the answer is that sometimes one "old" and "decrepit" missile is enough

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Alex

From what is external? Tu-95rts?

From multipurpose submarines, coastal centers of RTR, and aviation in the area of ​​target. As a rule, the lane of the target is given. Additional exploration can be carried out by own means. But it depends on hydrology and so on. There are others in the wake of the track.

[rassom]

low-flying targets can "illuminate" AWACS aircraft

[Alexey]

Shhh, you can't mention it! The logic of the article collapses, this is one of its bases! And the fact that the aircraft carriers are bullshit, the author "proved" earlier in other articles.

[Magellan]

Quote: rassom

low-flying targets can "illuminate" AWACS aircraft

OH REALLY??

A similar algorithm may be implemented on the promising E-2D Advanced Hawkeye - which the US Navy does not yet have in combat units. Secondly, it is too unlikely that one little Hokai with his only radar could simultaneously detect and highlight several targets. At a distance of many tens of kilometers (where will he get the necessary power)? How to coordinate the work of an air defense system and a plane flying in a hundred kilometers? Ooooh, there are such problems of those. character, it is better to wait in April 2015, when the Yankees should receive the first production batch of Standard-6 with ARLGSN

[Nayhas]

Quote: Magellan

A similar algorithm may be implemented on the promising E-2D Advanced Hawkeye - which the US Navy does not yet have in combat units

(Norfolk, Va., July 30, 2010) - The first Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) built E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft to enter the US Navy fleet was "welcomed home" on Thursday in a ceremony held at Norfolk Naval Air Station in Virginia.
Pay attention to the date, July 30, 2010, for three years already as the first E-2D was transferred to the Navy. Of course, they did not change all the machines, but production is ongoing. 75 cars ordered.

Quote: Magellan

Secondly, it is too unlikely that one little Hokai with his only radar could simultaneously detect and highlight several targets. At a distance of many tens of kilometers (where he will take the necessary power)

Pay attention to the Hokai radar. He has no problems finding low-flying targets. If our A-50 could have it back in the 80s, then do you really think they are worse?

Quote: Magellan

How to coordinate the work of an air defense system and an airplane flying in a hundred kilometers? Ooooh, there are such problems of those. character

Link16

[postman]

Quote: Magellan

A similar algorithm may be implemented on a promising

Come on heresy carry that
Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye
since 1978 AN / APS-120/125 radar (capable of detecting low-altitude air targets against the background of the earth's surface (including against the background of mountains), water)with an improved radar data processing system, a new Lytton L-304 digital computer was introduced into the airborne complex.

From December 1976 (starting at the 35th production E-2C) began to install the AN / APS-125 radar, which made it possible to detect up to 9000 air targets from a height of 800 m at a distance of up to 480 km and direct fighters at 40 targets simultaneously;

E-2C: Lockheed Martin Ocean, CC observation radar, CN [Ex General Electric Corporation] AN / APS-138 radar since 1984;

AN / APS-139 since 1988

E-2C +: Lockheed Martin Ocean, Central Observation Radar, Central Observatory [Ex General Electric Corporation] AN / APS-145 Radar since 1991
145th allows to increase the detection range of air targets of the class "bomber" by 40% - up to 680 km. Advanced computers and software can detect up to 2000 targets.

All: AN / ALR-73 and Passive Detection System, IFF
the old (!) AN / ALR-59 allows you to pinpoint radiation sources, determine their location and identify by the spectrum of the signal at a distance, approximately twice as long as the range of detection of air targets radar AN / APS-120.

Quote: Magellan

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye which the US Navy does not yet have

Hawkeye 2000 is not enough for you ??? Need AN / APY-9 with satellite data transfer capability?

The first E-2D was delivered to the U.S. Navy in July 2010, with operations scheduled to begin in October 2014, after testing with EMALS
BETHPAGE, NY, July 20, 2013. Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE: NOC) won a $ 113.7 million US Navy advance acquisition contract for long lead materials and related support for five full-rate production lot 2 E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft.
http://www.northropgrumman.com/protectthehawkeye/

[postman]

Quote: Magellan

How to coordinate the work of an air defense system and an airplane flying in a hundred kilometers? Ooooh, there are such problems of those. character

For a long time everything has been decided LINK-4A (air ship) -11 and -14 (ship / ship)

more than 20 computers of types AN / UYK-7 and -20, as well as a number of devices for storing information on magnetic disks (tapes) and data input-output. The main indicators characterizing OMVK are given below.
The number of devices (instruments) in OMVK - 840 units
The total number of computer processors is 39 units
The total total speed of the computer OMVK electronic computer, opera / s 8,67x106
Number of cables for various purposes 4900 units
The number of combat software math software 18 units
The total capacity of battle programs, 106x32-bit words - 1,2
Total capacity of supporting programs, 106x32 bit words
Database capacity on magnetic disks, 106x32-bit words
Number of digital interfaces 55 units
The number of protocols of machine exchange 6 units
The main components (subsystems) of the Aegis multifunctional weapon system
1 - helicopter subsystem LEMPS;
2 - equipment of the helicopters subsystem LEMPS MKZ;
3 - radar detection of air (AN / SPS-49) and surface (AN / SPS-55) targets;
4 - identification station <friend or foe> AN / UPX-29;
5 - subsystem EW AN / SLQ-32 (v);
6 - navigation equipment;
7-hydroacoustic stations (AN / SQS-53 and SQR-19 or SQQ-89);
8-terminal equipment of a digital radio link (LINK-11);
9 - automated command and control subsystem (Mk1);
10 is an automated subsystem of coordinated control of ship weapons complexes (Мk1);
11 - radar control unit with PAR (AN / SPY-1);
12 - antenna and transceiver part of the multifunction radar (AN / SPY-1);
13 - automated testing subsystem for the operation, search and localization of faults (Mk545);
14 - information display subsystem;
15 - radio equipment;
16 - digital radio link terminals (LINK-4A);
17 - launcher of the passive jamming subsystem <Super R60K> (MkZ6);
18 - the automated subsystem of artillery fire control (Mk86);
19 - automated fire control subsystem of the Aegis air defense missile system (Mk99);
20 - launchers for ship HP, SAM and PLUR (Mk26 or UVP Mk41);
21 - automated subsystem of fire control KR "Tomahawk";
22 - automated fire control subsystem PKR "Harpoon";
23 - anti-aircraft artillery complex "Volcano-phalanx" (Mk15);
24 - an automated anti-submarine weapon fire control subsystem (Mk116)

[Magellan]

Quote: Postman

Everything has been decided for a long time LINK-4A (air ship)

And what
In reality, there is an algorithm for matching Aegis and E-2, allowing you to use E-2 instead of SPG-62 ??

[Denis_469]

In reality, America has long been around.

[postman]

Quote: Denis_469

America has been around for a long time.

it’s good to carry a bullshit ..
found American love (reserve officer SA)

[postman]

Quote: Magellan

In reality, there is an algorithm for matching Aegis and E-2, allowing you to use E-2 instead of SPG-62 ??

LINK-4A (air ship) (Replaced Link 16)

Link-16 has the ability to form multiple nets. The Link-16 system has 128 numbers used to designate particular nets (00-127). Net number 127 is reserved to indicate a stacked net. A stacked net is formed by setting up the time slots so that they have the same set, initial slot number, and recurrence rate. When the system is initialized, the use of net number 127 indicates a stacked net is to be used and the operator can then specify locally which net to use for operations. Figure 5-5 illustrates the concept of a stacked net used for air control. Net 1 is a group of aircraft controlled by the ship, while Net 3 is a group of aircraft controlled by an E-2. If the E-2 requires additional aircraft, the ship can direct the aircraft under its control to the E-2. As the aircraft approaches the E-2, the pilot can switch to Net 3 and immediately become an active participant in the new net. Even though the operator has several nets available to monitor or use, a single terminal can transmit or receive on only one of them for each time slot. Stacked nets are possible because the frequency- hopping pattern is different for each net. Examples of stacked nets are voice nets and control nets.

Link-4A uses the time-division multiplexingprinciple with a command-and-response protocol toenable the operator to control multiple aircraftindependently on the same frequency. Link-4Amessages sent to the controlled aircraft are referred toas V series messages and messages received from the control called R series messages.

[AlNikolaich]

Quote: Postman

For a long time everything has been decided LINK-4A (air ship) -11 and -14 (ship / ship)

more than 20 computers of types AN / UYK-7 and -20, as well as a number of devices for storing information on magnetic disks (tapes) and input-output data. The main indicators characterizing OMVK are given below ........

And all this garbage is interconnected by wireless and wired interfaces, CAN-buses, input-output devices, translators and others ... The speed of such a system will be in seconds (and not picoseconds and microseconds)! And if the system also freezes? (normal for digital systems!).
And Zumwalt, as it was made public, will work under Linux in general! In short, full of fun! Joy for EW employees!

[postman]

Quote: AlNikolaich

paired wireless

inside the wired ship
ship-ship, ship-LA-ship = radio.
so what?
about 299 000 km / s, what seconds? micro, at best

restoration of target tracking in the lower part of the hemisphere is already underway first second а updating of the entire system-wide databank of maintenance is carried out in 18-20 s.

Quote: AlNikolaich

And if the system also freezes?

Why?
I repeat: it can freeze in case of approaching TWO absolutely identical attacking targets, with an equal degree of threat (2 granites, at the same distance, at the same speed) ...
But is this possible?

Quote: AlNikolaich

in general under Linux will work!

So what? Linux normal OS.

Quote: AlNikolaich

Joy for EW employees!

Yes, do not exaggerate the value of electronic warfare !!!
I’ll explain you the operator of the electronic warfare station (LA), located 100km from the target
(fly, stand - it doesn’t matter)
Command to attack, turn on the equipment!
And?
what should be the power of the source (well, how do you know how intense the radiation intensity falls), what would damage the attacked object, drown it out?
In this case, the source of EMP (point) on your board, under LJ you can say

[Magellan]

Quote: Postman

detect up to 800 air targets at a distance of up to 480 km and direct fighters at 40 targets simultaneously;

Clear with that

How will we highlight it?

[postman]

Quote: Magellan

How will we highlight it?

attacking RCC?
Nothing seems to have changed (in the sense of physical principles)

http://digilander.libero.it/humboldt/pdf/ANAPS-145.pdf

[stjrm]

Quote: Alex

Shhh, you can't mention it! The logic of the article collapses, this is one of its bases! And the fact that the aircraft carriers are bullshit, the author "proved" earlier in other articles.

No, the aircraft carrier is a serious thing and the AUG is not a simple nut. But the devil is not so terrible as he is painted ... And the Yankees, the Yankees love show-offs, but sailors are good.
And AUG is good to attack when the weather is bad, the storm is .... difficult, and sometimes dangerous to storm a group, ships storm alone. There is no single system. All schemes for the construction of AUG are for smooth water. How often in the North Atlantic, the Barents Sea, the Bering Sea, especially in the autumn-winter period, have you seen relatively smooth water? In case of a storm of points 7, the aircraft carrier will remain without close protection. Checked.

[Alexey]

In fact, there is a weather forecast and the planning of the operation will take into account the probability of a storm. At 7 points, and from aviation, there is little sense. In the case of force majeure, AUG simply will not be substituted and having a good move will try to be where the danger of attack is minimal.

[stjrm]

Quote: Alex

.... AUG simply will not be substituted and having a good move will try to be where the danger of attack is minimal.

And where in the sea is the danger of attack minimal?
Considering that AUG is "grazed" both at the exits from the base and at the stage of the formation of this very AUG.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: stjrm

at the stage of the formation of this very AUG.

Well - "mareman"! And where did the material go, and where will the uranium be at this time?

[stjrm]

Colleague, I’m not actually a fan and in the tactics of using this weapon with submarines, technical details, it’s really not a dock. Seeing that you gave a detailed comment there about building an order to strike at AUG, I see that you probably know more than me. This is good to know. At least I will know who to ask about what I know, but maybe not quite.
And the fact that he fumbled, well, yes.
You, if that, correct, do not be shy.

[Rus2012]

Quote: rassom

low-flying targets can "illuminate" AWACS aircraft

is it against the background of water? :)))))))))))))))

[postman]

Quote: Rus2012

is it against the background of water? :)))))))))))))))

Your logic is strange ...
Against the background of the surface of the Earth (earth), they MAY! (With relief, firewood, that is, trees, communications, etc.)
But against the background of water, for some reason, why not?
reference
AN / APS-120 radar since 1968 (capable of detecting low-altitude air targets against the background of the earth's surface (including against the background of mountains), the water surface) + Substation AN / ALR-59
Since December 1976 (starting with the 35th serial E-2C), they began to install AN / APS-125 radars, which made it possible to detect up to 9000 air targets from a height of 800 m at a distance of up to 480 km and direct fighters at 40 targets simultaneously; analog on-board computers were replaced by Litton L-304 digital computers.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Postman

AN / APS-120 radar with 1968 g. (Capable of detecting low-altitude air targets against the background of the water surface)

Prove it!
And explain how this happens against the background of radar reflection from sea waves ...

[postman]

Quote: Rus2012

Prove it!

manual of this radar or tests, or read.
here they are all (enemies):
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/jetds/an-apr2aps.html

Quote: Rus2012

And explain how this happens against the background of radar reflection from sea waves ...

A radar reflection on the background of the Earth does not occur?
Oh .... Poor Su-34, Su-24, Poor Pershing 1 and Pershing 2, poor fellow RCC (with radar seeker) ... / the list is not complete)

ALSO ALL POOR (and unhappy) Americans, British and Germans of the 2 MV period:




there is still such a joke:
Modern radars are capable of detecting retractable submarine devices even against a background of disturbance from excitement 2 ÷ 3 score. Thus, radar detector heads are detected by radar at distances of 12 ÷ 15 miles, periscopes at distances of 4 ÷ 5 miles, and radio direction finders and radio intelligence antennas are at 1 ÷ 2 miles
and horror:
The plane discovers even submarines, even under water
Dependence of the detection radius on the submarine immersion depth. The aircraft detects the boat at the surface (dashed lines), but does not detect the boat at depth (for h <h ', we have R> R')

[Rus2012]

Quote: Postman

Quote: Rus2012

Prove it!

manual of this radar or tests, or read.
here they are all (enemies):
http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/jetds/an-apr2aps.html

Quote: Rus2012

And explain how this happens against the background of radar reflection from sea waves ...

A radar reflection on the background of the Earth does not occur?
Oh .... Poor Su-34, Su-24, Poor Pershing 1 and Pershing 2, poor fellow RCC (with radar seeker) ... / the list is not complete)

ALSO ALL POOR (and unhappy) Americans, British and Germans of the 2 MV period:




there is still such a joke:
Modern radars are capable of detecting retractable submarine devices even against a background of disturbance from excitement 2 ÷ 3 score. Thus, radar detector heads are detected by radar at distances of 12 ÷ 15 miles, periscopes at distances of 4 ÷ 5 miles, and radio direction finders and radio intelligence antennas are at 1 ÷ 2 miles
and horror:
The plane discovers even submarines, even under water
Dependence of the detection radius on the submarine immersion depth. The aircraft detects the boat at the surface (dashed lines), but does not detect the boat at depth (for h <h ', we have R> R')

Do not confuse one with the other and the third ...
You were simply asked to prove the possible detection distance of a missile launcher flying at 2-10m from the water level (crest of waves or "ripples"), and from an E-2 aircraft!
Just KR type Granite, just with E-2

And as for the submarines and their retractable devices, everything is simple -

[postman]

Quote: Rus2012

You were asked to simply prove possible

Well, I’ll ask the next time that they’ll let me go to the E-2 and take off my mobile, how they will work out the targets.
LET'S GRAPHOR OF GRANDFATHER OKAMA USE:
1. Perisk snorkel on the background

Quote: Rus2012

crest of waves or "ripples

spotted?
EPR snorkel / periscope need to bring?
SHOULDER AND WHY NOT WITH E-2(with his marvelous radar) (Replay):

Quote: Postman

retractable submarine devices even on background noise from the excitement of 2 ÷ 3 points. So, the heads of the RDP are detected by radar at distances 12 ÷ 15 milesperiscopes at distances 4 ÷ 5 miles, and direction finders and radio intelligence antennas on ÷ 1 2 miles

You will not argue that all this jalabud EPR SIGNIFICANTLY YEARS "Granite"(EVEN TOGETHER TAKE IT, I even think from 5 submarines)?
And you will also argue that all this chalabuda is BELOW than the "granite" flies (15-20m)?
2.EPR GRANITE = or more EPR MIG-21
MIG-21 flying on PMV E-2 will detect (despite ripples, agitation and other turbidity of water) Km for 200-300? (It all depends on the own height E-2)
3. read the radar manual, it’s there, well, I can’t put the manual here

Eins, Zwei und Drei = sehen wir Polizei ,,, humor, of course, it’s a joke to prove that it is NOT NECESSARY, you just have to put your brains out ... you can go around the table.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Postman

Quote: Rus2012

You were asked to simply prove possible

Well, I’ll ask the next time that they’ll let me go to the E-2 and take off my mobile, how they will work out the targets.

Ehhh, respectable, respectful ...

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I'm right, funny

They asked a specific question - can the E-2 detect CR, instead of the answer “YES, NO, I don’t know,” there’s a whole page of empty flood ...

Yes sss ...
)))))))))))))))))

The answer, by the way, is simple - practically NO.

Because -
the water surface, especially the sea salty one, is an electrodynamic 3 dimensional medium, against which it is very difficult to detect an object moving in another medium (in the air).
Sea waves, or turbulent "ripples" in fact for many frequencies are dynamic corner reflectors-scatterers.



Even the RV-MV (low altitude radio altimeters) for the same reason, the use at sea is very difficult.



If for Mig-31 the task of detecting RS against the background of the earth (almost a static surface, if there is no rain, snow, sand or snow storm) is solved, then against the background of water surfaces it is very difficult.



I don’t even want to go down to discuss the EPR of the Kyrgyz Republic and retractable devices and the possibility of detecting them radar ... For these are different tasks. At least the fact that the VU are in a different environment and its EPR strongly depends on the height of the extension, the speed of the submarine relative to the water (breakers from the VU) ...

See photo above

All that you bring, dear, as a rule, can be classified as the arguments of a scholar, who, as you know, knows everything and at the same time, is nothing about the subject of the dispute ...

At the same time, it is impossible to show the flexibility of the mind, compare knowledge, analyze and synthesize the answer.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Postman

Dependence of the detection radius on the submersion depth of the submarine.

Hump ​​Bernoulli?
What should be the accuracy of measurement and sensitivity

[postman]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

What should be the accuracy of measurement and sensitivity

The whales are direction finding.
Is it enough?

[Santa Fe]

At what depth?

[postman]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

At what depth?

And what was I bearing?
Non-acoustic methods for detecting submarines Effective systems for detecting submarines based on non-acoustic methods
Tom STEFANIC

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Postman

And what was I bearing?

If on the periscope I’m not at all surprised

[Magellan]

Quote: Postman

Against the background of the surface of the Earth (earth), they MAY! (With relief, firewood, that is, trees, communications, etc.)
But against the background of water, for some reason, why not?

vaf mentioned that the Barrier (or someone there) sees worse against the background of water

[postman]

Quote: Magellan

vaf mentioned that Barrier

NU Serega is unlikely to have a General Electric Corporation AN / APS-145 in the cockpit, although who knows (Seregu), they can learn a lot of things in Rostov-on-Don (read at least D. Koretsky)
Well, as far as I remember, the Zhuk-33 was supposed to be on the Su-27, then the Zhuk-M radar, on the MiG-29K / KUB the same

MODES:
"AIR-AIR"
Range Detection
- in free space
- against the background of the earth (sea)
Maintenance of single goals;
Tracking 20 goals while maintaining a view of the space and attack simultaneously 4 goals;
Close maneuverable battle (Vertical, In the indicator field, Sight, Fixed beam, Rotary);
Helicopter detection and attack;
Recognizing target types and numbers
"AIR-SURFACE"
Mapping
- real beam
- Doppler beam narrowing
- focused synthesized aperture of the antenna;
Zoom in and freeze maps;
Maintenance of 2 goals;
Overview of the sea surface;
Detection of moving land and sea targets, their tracking;
Range measurement to the earth;
Media speed measurement;
Information support for low-altitude flight.

[Rus2012]

Quote: Magellan

vaf mentioned that the Barrier (or someone there) sees worse against the background of water

what are we talking about!
but cho on the water is excellent!
a photo -

[mark1]

The author examines the situation in a somewhat simplified version, in fact it looks like a fight between nuclear submarines (at least 3 units), which reached the launch line of the KR (600-120 km), with the Aegis system.
But first, at this distance, especially 120 km, you need to somehow get out, for some reason the main weapon of the AUG - aviation, is not taken into account. AUG has a powerful PLO, the front line of which has been laid out for hundreds of kilometers. In addition to missiles, there is also a sufficient number of aircraft for intercepting missiles and their carriers and all this is controlled from AWACS aircraft, which detect the launch of missiles from under water almost instantly and immediately give target designation to the barrage group. About the air carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic, I am generally silent - the detection range of hundreds of kilometers ...
In addition, long-range missiles of the Kyrgyz Republic still have problems with target designation.

[leon-iv]

AUG has a powerful PLO, the front line of which has been laid out for hundreds of kilometers.

but modern submarines are very secretive. Later I will lay out the data.

who detect the launch of the KR from under the water almost instantly and immediately give out target designation to the barrage group.

no, not instantly, because the hokai radar is airborne. Such are the laws of radar.

About the air carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic, I am generally silent - the detection range of hundreds of kilometers ...

here, not everything is so clear-cut. The carriers will be covered by interference, and the BKO is very serious.
BUT in fact AUG will bring down from their shores immediately all and AB and PL and NK with SBCH. So again spheroconin.

[mark1]

Quote: leon-iv

but modern submarines are very secretive. Later I will lay out the data.

The submarines are of course very secretive, but when you can lock in and the active mode can not be used from him

Quote: leon-iv

In a hokai, the radar is airborne. Such are the laws of radar.

The Hokaya radar also works against low-speed ground and low-flying targets against the background of a complex underlying surface.

Quote: leon-iv

The carriers will be hiding behind the interference, and their BKO is very serious.

Well, it will already be mutual. The power of the EW AUG electronic warfare systems is very high, and the MRA pilots of the USSR will always confirm this.
In which case, it will be difficult for both sides, the most skilled will win, but the losses from the attackers will be great almost always.

[leon-iv]

The submarines are of course very secretive, but when you can lock in and the active mode can not be used from him

Well, it’s too late to drink Borjomi, the submarine BK has already released and there is no time for asroks.

The Hokaya radar also works against low-speed ground and low-flying targets against the background of a complex underlying surface.

no radar on the surface of the sea is very different from the air. Only the extreme hokai became more or less able to see in the surface of the water. Such is the mudflow.

In which case, it will be difficult for both sides, the most skilled will win, but the losses from the attackers will be great almost always.

Hmm why or do you think the missile carriers will go without cover? Moreover, now we have Su-30s that are also quite good at sea. Everything will be there and AWACS and U and ground complexes and submarines. And in the sea distance AUG is not dangerous for our country.

[mark1]

Quote: leon-iv

The submarines are of course very secretive, but when you can lock in and the active mode can not be used from him

Well, it’s too late to drink Borjomi, the submarine BK has already released and there is no time for asroks.

I had in mind the active mode of operation of GAS in buoys

Quote: leon-iv

no radar on the surface of the sea is very different from the air. Extreme hokai only
became more or less able to see in the surface of the water. Such is the mudflow.

I do not know where you got the data on "Hockey" - I use open source. It is said absolutely unambiguously to work on the water underlying surface, and at the "extreme", as you say, work with any complex underlying surface.

Quote: leon-iv

And in the sea distance AUG is not dangerous for our country.

On our shores AUG is not dangerous to us, it will quickly drown. And it is dangerous for our naval groups in the Mediterranean theater, the areas of the Strait of Hormuz, the Atlantic, the Indian and Pacific Oceans

[ed65b]

Have you forgotten how ours surfaced in the middle of a warrant for transferring the patient to the hospital?

[mark1]

Well, there was such a case, probably a few more similar ones can be found. And there are statistics on how many of our nuclear submarines were discovered and conditionally destroyed while trying to detect and accompany the AUG? It is not for nothing that our submariners are given a "Hero" for successful cases.

[ed65b]

Quote: mark1

Well, there was such a case, probably a few more similar ones can be found. And there are statistics on how many of our nuclear submarines were discovered and conditionally destroyed while trying to detect and accompany the AUG? It is not for nothing that our submariners are given a "Hero" for successful cases.

Correctly not in vain. and if they give it means there is an opportunity to come up and drown. And the comparison of the cost of losses of personnel and "iron" will be in the direction of the submarine that used.

[mark1]

Quote: ed65b

it means there is an opportunity to approach and sink

Well, there is an opportunity to approach and sink, and there is an opportunity to approach and sink. What is our life? !! not even a game - turkey!
Make bets, gentlemen!

[stjrm]

Actually, when performing a combat mission, absolutely everything is aimed at its implementation ....
And even if it becomes clear that there are only a couple of options, but they do not give guarantees or simply openly lead to death, THESE OPTIONS WILL BE CHOSEN.

[stjrm]

Quote: mark1

Well, there was such a case, probably a few more similar ones can be found. And there are statistics on how many of our nuclear submarines were discovered and conditionally destroyed while trying to detect and accompany the AUG? It is not for nothing that our submariners are given a "Hero" for successful cases.

Well, about the "hero" you bent, but received orders .... sometimes. And sometimes they will win instead of awards, yes.

[Rus2012]

Quote: mark1

The main weapon of the AUG is aviation.

And in non-flying weather, how are we going to be?

[mark1]

Quote: Rus2012

And in non-flying weather, how are we going to be?

Then, probably, kirdyk, one hope for Aegis. But if they also freeze into the ice in high latitudes ... there will be just "birthday hearts"

[stjrm]

Quote: mark1

........
But first, at this distance, especially 120 km, you need to somehow get out, for some reason the main weapon of the AUG - aviation, is not taken into account. AUG has a powerful PLO, the front line of which has been laid out for hundreds of kilometers. In addition to missiles, there is also a sufficient number of aircraft for intercepting missiles and their carriers and all this is controlled from AWACS aircraft, which detect the launch of missiles from under water almost instantly and immediately give target designation to the barrage group. About the air carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic, I am generally silent - the detection range of hundreds of kilometers ...
In addition, long-range missiles of the Kyrgyz Republic still have problems with target designation.

AUG has a powerful PLO system, yes. They broke through the current more than once or twice. Even Hokka was seen at the periscope (surfaced under the periscope to give RDO) ....
They were discovered, went under the aircraft carrier, and then in general ... not far.
Only by the time Hokkay saw it, they could already use their weapons repeatedly .... And before the main goal was 2 miles no more ...

[mark1]

For stjrm You, as I understand it, served on the Premier League. Share, if not a secret - when, which boat (at least type) and in what capacity did you have the honor of being there?

[pl675]

Quote: mark1

For stjrm You, as I understand it, served on the Premier League. Share, if not a secret - when, which boat (at least type) and in what capacity did you have the honor of being there?

miles 2 no more - this is not the way to say it.
there is such a unit - cables.
ohh, yes there is the whole kament "smiling"

[mark1]

Quote: pl675

ohh, yes there is the whole kament "smiling"

In Soviet times, I came across such a type.
Sits at the headquarters after a labor "pisarchuk" day and writes a letter to his "beloved" as he lays down from a broken armored personnel carrier from a machine gun and the molten armor drips over the collar ...
Although it may not be right, I thought badly about the person - then shame and shame on me.

[pl675]

and we will not think badly.
/ on observing mode /

[stjrm]

Quote: pl675

/ on observing mode /

Watch how you will: well, in the sense of in the Silk mode or give a parcel?
This is me, the reflected signal can be quite strong.

[stjrm]

Quote: mark1

Quote: pl675

ohh, yes there is the whole kament "smiling"

In Soviet times, I came across such a type.
Sits in the headquarters ......

So what, after a hard day, they’ve also been heading for the headquarters; there’s nowhere else to go to the gallery?

[family tree]

Quote: pl675

2 miles no more - they don’t say that.
there is such a unit - cables.

AND? Cable - 1/10 mile. There is such a unit meter, but long distances .
- Yes bullshit, 3700m, not more.
Sounds funny.
ps Measuring distances in pickets (100m) is often used on the railway, but kilometers, even have not yet been canceled.

[pl675]

Quote: perepilka

Quote: pl675

2 miles no more - they don’t say that.
there is such a unit - cables.

AND? Cable - 1/10 mile. There is such a unit meter, but long distances .
- Yes bullshit, 3700m, not more.
Sounds funny.
ps Measuring distances in pickets (100m) is often used on the railway, but kilometers, even have not yet been canceled.

if we are talking about how they are talking or not talking, then in the context, the distance should be indicated in cable.
not in miles / kilometers / leagues / arshins.
I don’t know how to wait.
in marine terms min mastered.

[stjrm]

Quote: pl675

Quote: perepilka

Quote: pl675

2 miles no more - they don’t say that.
there is such a unit - cables.

AND? Cable - 1/10 mile. There is such a unit meter, but long distances .
- Yes bullshit, 3700m, not more.
Sounds funny.
ps Measuring distances in pickets (100m) is often used on the railway, but kilometers, even have not yet been canceled.

if we are talking about how they are talking or not talking, then in the context, the distance should be indicated in cable.
not in miles / kilometers / leagues / arshins.
I don’t know how to wait.
in marine terms min mastered.

What are you saying? Yes, I'll see you are a sailor. You call a wall a bulkhead at home, a ceiling is a ceiling ... In the car, did the navigator translate into cable cables?
Maybe you build a family in the morning to raise the flag?
I understand, it's not sugar to serve on a "folding bed",
Do not be angry.

[stjrm]

Rocking chair, left the old man ...
In general, when I get acquainted, I like to know with whom.
Not very angry?

[pl675]

comrade "first mate", I had great doubts.
I apologize, I do not want to think badly about people, but your kamenty just make you doubt your competence.
and yes, on the yacht that I fly, everything is in miles and feet.
and yet - "poke" your cook in the galley, advising him to cook the cabbage soup correctly, I don't need it. we didn't graze geese.
if you're really a start-up, I’ll apologize for the capslock. I promise.

[stjrm]

Quote: pl675

comrade "first mate", I had great doubts.
I apologize, I do not want to think badly about people, but your kamenty just make you doubt your competence.
and yes, on the yacht that I fly, everything is in miles and feet.
and yet - "poke" your cook in the galley, advising him to cook the cabbage soup correctly, I don't need it. we didn't graze geese.
if you're really a start-up, I’ll apologize for the capslock. I promise.

That is why it is so .... At first the person gets nasty a little, and then "You and I didn't graze geese" ....
Actually, I doubt you and absolutely do not owe anything .....
I grew up on boats. The first time he went to sea at the age of 16 in 1976, on submarine 641 (commander Golovan Alexander Ivanovich) of project 182 of a separate submarine brigade (Kamchatka B. Bichevinka) with the permission of Rear Admiral Betz brigade commander Valentin Ivanovich. They served with my father even when Betz was ZKD in Rybach. Actually in 1966, I got to Kamchatka.
In 1982 he graduated from VVMUPP. Distributed in Kamchatka into the 25th division. In 1988 he graduated from 6 woks of the Navy.
A neighbor on the entrance to Rybach was Vitya Bondarenko, one of the best commanders of the 45th division.
Captain 2 ranks, stock naturally.
12 autonomous units, 2 outputs to the NK In the PLPL support group.
Yes, I had a car at one time, "trophy", American, so everything is in miles too ...
Do not doubt MY competence, doubt your ...
A photo for you as a keepsake. This is my second autonomy. And by the way, this photo was awarded for excellent naval training and passing tests for independent maintenance of the VO watch. By the position of the then and should not have.

[pl675]

COMRADE STARP, ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES.
I was not rude, re-read kamenty, well, there were doubts - they passed.
I never thought that a person with such a past, in discussing this topic, would allow expressions like "two miles" and "we dived under an aircraft carrier."
sorry generously.
however, I will verify the information.

[stjrm]

Considering all that your ear hurts, how can you say the built-up crew, and that’s exactly what it says, given that the sailors WALK into the sea ....
And then, not all are so straightforward and "sea wolves", in a conversation where there are people not quite close to the fleet it is better to use expressions, albeit not correct, but more understandable for everyone. And to laugh that someone does not know that on the boat Katerina is not a woman at all, we will always have time.
And etA, you do not add or change words, in a word be careful. This is not advice - this is a wish.

[pl675]

I will consider.
agreed.

[stjrm]

I got shoulder straps with a dagger from his hands.
Which commanded cap. 1 rank Smirnov.

[Misantrop]

Quote: stjrm

Distributed in Kamchatka into the 25th division.

I was in it in March 83rd at the experience. In the crew of Chefonov

[Asan Ata]

The collision of the concept of universal radar and specialized missiles ended in victory for the latter.

[leon-iv]

The author forgets one caveat is AWACS Hokai them on the AB type Nimitz-re pieces. AUG can constantly keep 2-3 pieces in the air with cover. That makes it possible to see in advance and prepare data for shooting. And short distances are more serious.

[Magellan]

Quote: leon-iv

AUG can constantly keep 2-3 pieces in the air with cover. What gives an opportunity in advance to see and prepare data for firing

Stark had almost 3 minutes and 2 subsonic anti-ship missiles

Prepared a lot

[leon-iv]

you must understand that the situations are different.

[favn]

I just want to add to the above that the conditions for intercepting targets will also not be ideal. We add the effects of electronic warfare, the possible blocking of satellite navigation, the effects of atmospheric phenomena, false targets, the HUMAN factor, etc. etc....

[Magellan]

Quote: favn

that the conditions for intercepting targets will also not be ideal.

GOS Caliber will see Nimitz even in 7-point storm
But how will Aegis act in such a situation?

[ran nearby]

most likely nothing.
When the Argentines drowned Sheffield, the excitement was about 5 points. A polar fox flew to Sheffield in the form of an UNEXPECTED exoset. And nothing. Fire, death of sailors, crew evacuation. and as a result, the burnt-out hull drowned. And all of this is ONE little exoset.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: Magellan

GOS Caliber will see Nimitz even in 7-point storm

Alas, the limitations of the use of the sea ball for the submarine - 5 points. The aviation option is possible, but here are the guard ships and Aegis. Again, surprise will not work.

[tlauicol]

Oh, my "Morzhik" posted :))

in general, everything is correct, except for the "Stark": at 09min the radar of the aircraft was detected, 30% of the crew were on the ground, a Battle Alert was announced, at 10min there was already a hit, the captain climbed onto the bridge (from where he left shortly before) - a minute or less. Or do you think the captain went to the bridge for three minutes on the alert? No, well, maybe his stomach was twisting :))

[sevtrash]

The Americans control the base of the submarines, when leaving, they will tail their submarine or a drone robot (which they seem to already have?), Plus detection and counteraction boundaries (airplanes, ships, submarines) thousands of kilometers from the ACG that still need to be passed.
The author would have estimated how many submarines will be able to get to the AUG and whether at all. Well, and as they said above, AWACS planes hang over the AUG, for some reason the author does not consider aviation anymore?

[Magellan]

Quote: sevtrash

The Americans control the base of the submarines, at the exit they will put their submarine or the drone robot on the tail

And then what is the meaning of the vaunted AUG?

$ 20 billion - but no one to ask. All the work was done by submarines))))))

[ed65b]

Well, ours have been sitting in the Gulf of Mexico for about a month, they also controlled it. So for every tricky ass there is a x .. with a thread.

[pl675]

Quote: ed65b

Well, ours have been sitting in the Gulf of Mexico for about a month, they also controlled it. So for every tricky ass there is a x .. with a thread.

month? whence such terms?
if even so / I doubt it / - then in the open information it was apl "pike b" - we have one or two of them and the calculation is over.
- Today is the most "non-explosive" of nuclear-powered ships.

[stjrm]

Quote: sevtrash

The Americans control the base of the submarines, when leaving, they will tail their submarine or a drone robot (which they seem to already have?), Plus detection and counteraction boundaries (airplanes, ships, submarines) thousands of kilometers from the ACG that still need to be passed.
The author would have estimated how many submarines will be able to get to the AUG and whether at all. Well, and as they said above, AWACS planes hang over the AUG, for some reason the author does not consider aviation anymore?

Listen to you so it's just time to give up ....
In order to put someone on the tail, but to stay there, you must first find and at the same time carefully see if you have anyone on the tail either.
How much will it get? Yes, as much as necessary ....
Incidentally, in the event of the loss of one or two guard ships (and this will inevitably happen), the task of the ACG will be unambiguously adjusted. And perhaps it will lead to the departure of the AUG. After all, the task is that the AUG is not protecting itself, but delivering aviation to strike either by a ship’s constellation or to strike at coastal targets. If you managed to disrupt some kind of enemy plan, then this already has some success. Since he will have to adjust the remaining plans ....
In general, an aircraft carrier is an expensive thing ....

[sevtrash]

I read somewhere that when the first time Ash went out to sea accompanied by a tugboat or another ship, then they somehow determined that an American submarine was going and taking pictures under this same escort ship.
A lot of American control options cannot be ruled out. Mole in the General Staff, at the base, a sensor at the pier, a built-in sensor during the construction of the boat, etc. etc. Probably cheaper than keeping satellites over bases and submarines. Although, how many areas where Russian submarines come from? Two or three? And the two are not so far from each other, is it not a problem for one satellite to control them?
For Americans, this control seems to be quite decisive. Maybe one aircraft carrier will be damaged and then in doubt and more.
The result is clear - the fleet must be balanced, but this requires funds more than the Americans and the Chinese do not have anyone.

[Misantrop]

Quote: sevtrash

I read somewhere that when the first time Ash went out to sea accompanied by a tugboat or another ship, then they somehow determined that an American submarine was going and taking pictures under this same escort ship.

Is it in the White Sea with its ridiculous depths? Sorry, but ...

[Boa kaa]

Quote: sevtrash

I read somewhere that when the first time Ash went out to sea accompanied by a tugboat or another ship, then they somehow determined that an American submarine was going and taking pictures under this same escort ship.

There really was a similar case. But it is connected with pr971, which went to the NP for the support ship. This was even told on the box.

[Denis_469]

Rare nonsense. I advise you to read how many boats they have in the sea and where they hang out. And then try to suggest how such a scanty amount of American submarines can oversleep our PLO.

[stjrm]

What rarity is he in?
What advice do you recommend?
And where, by the way, are these very boats hanging out?
And if our PLO slept through them, then how did it become known where they hang out and how many of them? Considering that no country (and we and the Yankees even more so) does not comment on the action and location of their submarines, even if they were discovered explicitly.

If you go out to sea, do not read tyrnet and magazines in the "military" style. Refer to Fleet Intelligence Summaries. The trouble is, they are not published in open sources. Well then, the Izvestia newspaper remains ...

[Denis_469]

Quote: stjrm

Why do you advise reading? And where, by the way, are these very boats hanging out?

Now this is not a secret for anyone. I even publish these data openly: http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-4-0-00000070-000-0-0
Due to natural laziness, I update the data once a week. All the same, more often it is not necessary. Because every week there are only 2-4 events on the American square.

Quote: stjrm

Considering that no country (and we and the Yankees even more so) does not comment on the action and location of their PLPLs, even if they were clearly detected.

There are several ways to determine the presence / absence of submarines in areas and / or bases or elsewhere. It is clear that the information does not appear day in, day out, but the data aging time rarely exceeds 1 week in peacetime. And during the war, to establish the presence / absence of submarines in the area is not a problem at all.

Quote: stjrm

Refer to fleet intelligence reports.

So I actually retype them on my site. Any interested person can find out the most general information in real time about American submarines.

[UVB]

Why all these calculations on the number of missiles needed to ensure the destruction of an aircraft carrier? The main thing is not to sink it, but to disable it. And for this, one successful hit on the flight deck, cluttered, moreover, by airplanes is enough. Or below deck hangar. And then - "A spark will kindle a flame"!

[ed65b]

Quote: UVB

Why all these calculations on the number of missiles needed to ensure the destruction of an aircraft carrier? The main thing is not to sink it, but to disable it. And for this, one successful hit on the flight deck, cluttered, moreover, by airplanes is enough. Or below deck hangar. And then - "A spark will kindle a flame"!

And there is another 100% option. Senator McCain attributed to AUG. He certainly drown.

[Walking]

Come on Oleg, tell people the truth.

[Enjoy]

Quote: sevtrash

The Americans control the base of the submarines, when leaving, they will tail their submarine or a drone robot (which they seem to already have?), Plus detection and counteraction boundaries (airplanes, ships, submarines) thousands of kilometers from the ACG that still need to be passed.
The author would have estimated how many submarines will be able to get to the AUG and whether at all. Well, and as they said above, AWACS planes hang over the AUG, for some reason the author does not consider aviation anymore?

Thousands of kilometers detection boundaries? The perimeter of such a circle with a radius of 1000 km in the open sea will be more than 6000 km. How many US submarines, anti-submarine aircraft, anti-submarine ships complete with AUG? Let 30 in total (idiocy, yes). This is more than 200 km of your perimeter aboard. It is worth slipping through this window and everything, And then, a very, very, very stupid assumption.

Remember the story of how our submarine asked the NATO for help in the exercises - appendicitis was seized from the sailor. Surfaced at my side and hello. And to start up, it’s enough to get close to a hundred kilometers.

[Rus2012]

The Kinetic warhead "Standerd 3" is a suborbital space probe with its own engine - it is completely useless to use such a weapon against RCC.

Let's add: controllability with the energy of which, i.e. the possibility of working out or correcting the calculated "miss" - 3 km per 1000 km ...
Even to destroy the "maneuvering" warhead, coupled with the movement of the carrier, the thrust parameters of which are not regulated, but have individual values ​​of each solid propellant rocket, is unlikely. At the same time, "shoot down" satellites with precisely known orbital parameters or ballistic heads with carriers, of our own production, the parameters of which are more or less known from birth, obviously easier.

[moremansf]

The main task of the US Navy is to ensure supremacy at sea, which required the use of aircraft carriers as multipurpose ones. In addition to attack aircraft and fighters, a detachment of anti-submarine aircraft began to be included in the aircraft carrier's wing. Anti-submarine defense AUG is built to combat submarines with missile and torpedo weapons carriers in threatened directions by zones: short - from surface ships in the bow sectors at a distance of 20-50 cabs and 1-2 helicopters at a distance of 40-60 cabs along the course and stern from an aircraft carrier; far - 1-2 KPUG (75-150 cab) at traverse course angles; Trekker and Orion aircraft to a depth of 200 miles. For the purpose of PLO AUG, multipurpose nuclear submarines can be used in threatened directions. To strengthen anti-submarine defense, attack aircraft carriers are being modernized for a multipurpose version, having on board 16 Trekker aircraft and 10 Sea King helicopters; the total composition of the wing - 96 aircraft, of which combat - 54, anti-submarine - 26, service - 16. The composition of the wing may vary depending on the situation and the tasks to be solved. So, to enhance the shock capabilities of the ship, anti-submarine aircraft can be replaced by shock ones and vice versa.
Excerpt from the book “The Battle of the World Ocean in the Cold and Future Wars” by Fleet Admiral (Ret.) Captain Ivan Matveevich. Of course, the data are outdated (80's), now the AUG PLO has become even more perfect.

[I do not care]

KAB = 186 meters

[windjoker]

1 cable will be 185,2 meters and without any rounding. 1 mile = 1852 meters. Error circles and other calculations are carried out with exact values.

[Mhpv]

Quote: moremansf

The main task of the US Navy is to ensure supremacy at sea, which required the use of aircraft carriers as multipurpose ones.

It should be especially emphasized that the leading role in the implementation of the next US military strategy, and this is reflected in all scenarios of predicted wars, is assigned to the Navy. It is objectively considered that the fleet is the most combat-ready, universal, tenacious type of armed forces, capable of solving strategic tasks not only in the ocean and sea, but also in the coastal areas of land theaters.

Naval forces can be used with constant efficiency both in peacetime and in wartime. Given the current state and the revolutionary concepts of shaping the appearance of ships of the 21st century planned for implementation, the US Navy contains the basis for a constant strategic threat to any region of the world. This is due to the fact that within the reach of high-precision weapons of destruction of the U.S. Navy (at a distance of up to 500 km) about 70% of the world's population live and about 80% of its economic potential and means of state control are concentrated in a special period. For example, if you analyze the region of the Russian North from this point of view, this is 60% of the territory, 8% of the population, 80% of natural resources, 25% of national income, 75% of foreign exchange earnings in the country's budget. The shipbuilding programs of the leading naval powers clearly show a tendency for surface ships to become platforms from which strikes will be delivered deep into the enemy’s territory for the entire length of the operational development of their forces, which inevitably increases the role and importance of fleets both in the overall structure of the armed forces and in the implementation foreign policy of these states.

[Mhpv]

The most important component of the state’s foreign policy is the protection of national interests.

Such national interests of Russia, which its Navy is called upon to defend, include:
- ensuring guaranteed access of the Russian Federation to the resources and spaces of the oceans, the elimination of discriminatory actions against her or her allies by individual states or military-political blocs;
- Prevention of the dominance of any states or military-political blocs in the oceans, which are important for the realization of the national interests of the Russian Federation, especially in the adjacent seas;
- settlement of the existing political international legal problems of using the oceans on favorable terms for Russia;
- consolidation of efforts of states on peaceful development and use of the oceans;
- development and rational use of natural resources of the oceans for the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation;
- the formation and ensuring the effective functioning of marine (river) transport communications;
- ensuring favorable conditions for Russia to participate in the international division of labor in the market of goods and services;
- maintaining the necessary scientific, technical, industrial and personnel potential for naval activities.
In the same context, threats to military security from maritime and oceanic directions must also be noted:
- intensification of the naval activities of the leading naval powers, a change in the ratio of naval forces not in favor of the Russian Federation;
- increasing the combat capabilities of naval forces of leading foreign countries, including the destruction of targets throughout Russia from all strategic directions, deployment of up to 80% of high-precision air attack systems (sea and air-based cruise missiles) on naval carriers;
- limiting the possibility of the Russian Federation accessing the resources and spaces of the oceans, international long-distance maritime communications, especially in the Baltic and Black Seas through economic, political, international legal pressure;
- expanding the scale of unauthorized production of natural marine resources of the country, a sharp increase in foreign influence on the marine activities of Russia;
- the presence of a number of complex international legal issues relating primarily to the legal status of the Caspian, Azov, Black, Barents, Bering and Okhotsk seas, the presence of territorial claims against the Russian Federation by a number of neighboring states.

[stjrm]

Ivan Matveevich led the composition and forces, the methods of constructing the AUG - that's all.
Therefore, it will probably be clearer to you what you have to know, be able to do, what to prepare for and how much it is not easy, and sometimes it is simply not safe for our submariners.
And then many have seen enough of modern rubbish ... went out to sea, plunged and "midshipmen set the tables" (c) (from the kin).

[air wolf]

Solution to the problem: it is necessary to return the torpedoes Kit 65-76 / 65-76A "Long Arm"

[Boa kaa]

Quote: air wolf

it is necessary to return the torpedoes Kit 65-76 / 65-76A "Long Arm"

No problem! that's just what to replace hydrogen peroxide? As they find it, they will immediately return it, although the shaving for this reason at one time refused them.

[air wolf]

There would be a desire, but there is no problem of hydrogen peroxide, in Kursk there was another case that is not customary to talk about.

[moremansf]

The main means of anti-submarine defense (ASW) AUG are anti-submarine aircraft S-3A "Viking". They patrol at a distance of up to 185 km from the aircraft carrier, making shuttle flights from the center of the AUG and back in the direction of the likely appearance of the enemy. The intervals between the approach of each aircraft to the center of the AUG should be 1-2 hours. Each aircraft searches in its sector. The S-3A aircraft is armed with depth charges, torpedoes, mines, up to 2 "Harpoon" anti-ship missiles. Instead of weapons to increase the flight range, two fuel tanks of 1140 L each can be installed under the wing of the aircraft. The search equipment includes: an AN / ASQ-81 magnetic detector, up to 60 radioacoustic buoys (RSB) of the Jezebel, Julie, DIFAR, DIKASS systems, KASS, radar AN / APS-116, IR forward-looking station OR-89 / AA, equipment RTR AN / ALP-76. When tracking submarines, search tools are used in an integrated manner. The main means of detecting submarines are sonar buoys, which the aircraft drops in an amount of 6-8 pieces per hour. The Jezebel system uses directional AN / SSQ-41B passive RSL. This system allows detecting submarines at a range of up to 20 km. The RSL "Julie" system uses explosive sound sources. If a submarine enters the zone of the sound effect of the explosion, then the signal reflected from it will go to the set buoys, and from there to the operator on the plane. The Julie system provides detection of low-noise submarines at a range of up to 8 km. The DIFAR system is used in conditions of strong acoustic interference: in areas of busy shipping, with strong sea waves, and includes passive directional RSL AN / SSQ-53. The acoustic antennas of the buoys of this system have a large diving depth (up to 300 m). The detection range of a submarine with this system is up to 25 km. The RSL AN / SSQ-62 system DIKASS is controlled by radio commands from the aircraft, which allows detecting submarines and determining their location with a smaller number of buoys. The RSL KASS system uses active AN / SSQ-50 buoys non-directional action, activated by command from the aircraft. AN / ASQ-81 magnetic detectors are one of the main non-acoustic means of detecting submarines. They work on the principle of recording the magnetic anomaly created by the submarine's ferromagnetic mass. The detection range of submarines by a magnetic detector is 700-1000 m.

[Magellan]

Quote: moremansf

The main means of anti-submarine defense (ASW) AUG are anti-submarine aircraft S-3A "Viking".

Retired from US Navy in 2003

[moremansf]

I agree ... on that and a dispute !!!

[moremansf]

The main tactical advantage of magnetometers is that they can be used in hydroacoustic counteraction. The AN / AAS-36 infrared station can detect underwater heat radiation from its body and wake. The detection range of the submarine on the wake track is up to 20 km. The AN / APS-115B radar station allows you to detect submarines under the periscope or receiving antenna at a distance of up to 15 km. The AN / ALQ-78 electronic reconnaissance station allows you to detect the submarine, leading radio broadcast, at a distance of 600 km. In addition to aircraft, anti-submarine protection is provided by submarines that are part of the AOG and equipped with sonar stations (GAS). Nuclear submarines advance at 75-165 km in the course from the center of the traveling order, and can detect enemy submarines at a distance of 100 km. To defeat enemy submarines, the SABROK torpedoes and homing torpedoes are used. The AUG near-missile defense forces include helicopters and surface ships. Their main task is to prevent a torpedo attack of enemy submarines. GAS surface ships are used in active mode. Surface ships are located at a distance from each other equal to 1,75 of the range of the GAS, thereby creating a continuous ring of sonar surveillance. Helicopters use an omitted HAS, a magnetic detector, and sonar buoys. The range of detection of submarines by close protection is up to 75 km from the center of the order.
(According to books: N.I. Belavin "Aircraft Carriers", I. Berkut, R. Vasilishin "Brother", publications in the journal "Foreign Military Review", Internet materials).

[moremansf]

A very detailed discussion of this issue is given in the article, see the link Source: http://ruskline.ru/opp/2013/10/03/veroyatnost_dlya_rossijskogo_ubijcy_av
ianoscev_unichtozhit_amerikanskij_avianosec_nol / Konstantin Sivkov, First Vice-President of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems. I put the article of Oleg Kaptsov plus - the topic is really interesting and very informative.

[Dangerous]

I’ve lost count of how many similar articles there were. And everyone wonders why - envy takes some comrades. For example, if we had 5-6 pieces of similar aircraft carriers and support ships, then there would be no ranting about the futility and inferiority of the AUG. Let’s say, Russia is now becoming less or less in order with a nuclear shield, and there are almost no figures on the site who talk about the vulnerability or power of the American nuclear weapons.
Envy is a bad thing ...

[Rus2012]

Quote: Dangerous

envy takes some comrades. Here, for example, we would have 5-6 pieces of similar aircraft carriers and support ships

And here is AUG and envy?
Here will be our DF-21 analogue, or a joint one brought to mind on our weapons (they say it’s being jointly developed) - the vaunted aircraft carriers will forever be a joke!

[I do not care]

Are you serious? Are bad people around you?
Aw, who envy the Yankees ????

[stjrm]

Can you explain why our Navy has full-fledged aircraft carriers, like the Americans?
I haven’t tried so much, I can’t find convincing explanations.
I myself believe that our fleet does not need aircraft carriers.

[Dangerous]

Maybe not needed. I just wrote about what many people want to see in our fleet, including aircraft carriers, and since we don’t have this opportunity, they begin to dig into the American ones, like it's all wunderwales and troughs with corn makers, which are nothing

[stjrm]

Quote: Dangerous

....., then they begin to get to the bottom of the American ones, like it's all the prodigies and troughs with corn kernels, which are nothing

Yes, it is clear that this is far from the case. The aircraft carrier is a very serious ship, and even in a compartment with security ships, this is a serious and formidable force.
By simply knowing the technical characteristics of our and their weapons, having read in magazines and on the websites of all tactical schemes for building orders, there is no victory.
We must learn to fight. Learn at sea, in the actual situation .... Then you can find out what our weaknesses and miscalculations are and whether the adversary is so invulnerable and not criminal. Well, that’s what I think.

[Boa kaa]

Quote: stjrm

I myself believe that our fleet does not need aircraft carriers

All naval commanders thought otherwise. Maybe these statesmen are wrong? VV Chirkov also believes that they are needed.

[stjrm]

Quote: BoA KAA

All naval commanders thought otherwise. Maybe these statesmen are wrong? VV Chirkov also believes that they are needed.

And I, unfortunately, and maybe fortunately, did not reach the Navy Civil Code.

I think that the Navy Civil Code is not only a military leader, but also a political figure. And the desire to have full-fledged aircraft carriers in the Navy may not be dictated by military necessity.
I really sincerely believe that we do not need aircraft carriers. Especially now.
Maybe after 30-40 years.
But why do they need us? Can you explain?

[ed65b]

Article plus. We look forward to continuing.

[ImPerts]

I remembered reading:
"... At the very beginning of the clownery, one old professor from a military university calculated how many bolts and nuts need to be dumped into orbit to quickly curtail the entire racial ... racial program of Star Wars. It turned out that two buckets are enough on two mutually orthogonal trajectories. The idea came to the Americans after the launch of Sputnik. True, the sophisticated s wanted to dump a neat steel shot into space. They did not. That is why all of the above achievements of mankind became possible ... "
So it is here. What is more effective for fighting an imperial attack aircraft? Jedi Laser Sword? Blaster multiplied by Han Solo's reaction? Or a bunch of ewoks with sticks and spears, reinforced with slings and logs?

[ed65b]

December 1980 - nuclear submarine K-201 (project 670) carries out long-term tracking of the AUG, led by the aircraft carrier "Coral Sea".

December 1983 - nuclear submarine K-324 (project 671 RTM) monitors the American frigate McCloy, which is testing the latest TASS underwater observation system with an extended low-wave underwater antenna (this is, like, a cool shnyaga!) as she swam, having wound 400 m of this very long antenna on the screw.

March 1984, nuclear submarine K-314 (project 671) monitors AUG as part of the Kitty Hawk aircraft and 7 escort ships. During the ascent, to clarify the surface situation, a collision occurs in the aircraft carrier (which, of course, does not characterize the work of the acoustics of both our submarine and the American ships very well), as a result of which the feed of our submarine proportioned the bottom of the American aircraft for 40 m, after which all the victims proceeded to their nearest bases for repairs.

On February 29, 1996, on the nuclear submarine of Project 671, the sailor developed peritonitis after removing the appendix. After consulting diplomats, the submarine surfaced, and the patient was evacuated to the coastal hospital by helicopter from the British destroyer Glasgow. The nuance of the situation is that "Glasgow" led a grouping of NATO ships that were conducting anti-submarine exercises in that area, and no one managed to detect the submarine until it surfaced.

Well, and who could stop ours from shooting ships?

[1c-inform-city]

The Aegis system was not designed to protect augs, but to destroy ballistic missiles. It is not designed to work against cruise missiles at all. Standard missiles are sharpened against highly flying targets. Against Mosquito, the Americans have not found anything yet and they themselves admit it. in aviation and near air defense.

[moremansf]

Ultimately, all will be decided by the training of the crew and the determination of command. As they say, who first got up, that and slippers !!! I hope that it will be the Russian fleet !!!!

[Delta]

correctly. Therefore, we will fight with missile boats against atomic cruisers and win. Training and fighting spirit in modern warfare (hypothetical) are far from all. The economic power of the warring parties decides a lot. If back in WWII the States crushed Japan with just that, then what to talk about now ...
According to the article - let's talk about what we have today. And not about what will happen sometime. And it turns out that soon we will have hundreds of noiseless submarines, and the military power and technology of the same States will remain in the same place.

[praetorianec]

The feat of the second. "Aegis" sleeps in a battle post.

Crossing, crossing. Cannons beat in pitch darkness. It is the battleship Missouri on a winter night 24. February 1991 of the year smashes the advance units of the Iraqi army, sending a shell after shell from its monstrous 406 mm guns. Iraqis do not remain in debt - two Hayin-2 anti-ship missiles are flying from the shore to the battleship (Chinese copy of the Soviet Territus anti-aircraft missile system P-15 with increased flight range)



Aegis, your time has come! Aegis, HELP! But the Aegis was idle, blinking stupidly with its bulbs and displays. None of the missile cruisers included in the connection of the US Navy ships reacted to the threat. The position was saved by Her Majesty's Gloucester ship - from an extremely short distance, the British destroyer cut down one Haiin using the Sea Dart air defense system - Iraqi missile wreckage crashed into the water 600 meters from the Missouri side (the first case of successful interception in combat conditions anti-ship missiles using SAM). Realizing that it no longer makes sense to hope for his non-mercile escort, the battleship crew began to shoot dipole reflectors - with their help the second missile was diverted to the side (according to another version, the Khayin-2 anti-ship missile itself fell into the water).

Of course, two anti-ship missiles did not pose a serious threat to the thick-skinned battleship - armor plates 30 cm thick reliably covered the crew and equipment. But the fact that the work of Aegis was carried out by an old destroyer using an anti-aircraft missile system developed in the mid-60s suggests that the ultramodern Aegis corrupted the task. American sailors did not comment on this fact, although a number of experts expressed the opinion that the Aegis cruisers acted in a different square, so they could not find the targets - Iraqi anti-ship missiles flew below their radio horizon. And “Gloucester” was directly in the escort of the battleship “Missouri”, so it came to the aid in a timely manner.

http://topwar.ru/35760-atomnyy-kreyser-petr-velikiy-protiv-sistemy-idzhis.html

[pr 627]

It can be added that in addition to anti-ship missiles, the submarines also have torpedo weapons on board, including those equipped with the "Kuz'ka mother." In addition to submarines, we forgot to mention that missile-carrying naval aviation is used to combat the AUG, but here we need to work on the TU 22M3 I X 32 ...

[10kAzAk01]

....... why exactly are nuclear submarines considered ??? 636.3, which began to be built for the "Caliber", are sharpened, and even the Yankers admit the secrecy of this project, I think it's not a problem for them to approach the launch range ... by 2020, God forbid, they will spank a dozen, and maybe more.

[1c-inform-city]

Onyx and Caliber can also be used with them.

[denson06]

Just yesterday, while reading the article “The Russian fleet goes under water”, I deeply doubted the author’s calculations and conclusions ...
They have already penetrated here .. already here thoughts are being put into people's heads that it is necessary to build bulky, expensive and narrow-profile aircraft carriers and spend state money .. such chips took place in the 70s - 80s .. But here, I'm sure, not all such "simple readers".
Oleg Kaptsov for the huge article "+"

[kapitan281271]

It’s not clear. If the AUG was destroyed so simply, then why did Genady Petrovich Lyachin (blessed memory of him) give the Hero of Russia just for the conditional destruction of the AUG. What goes undeservedly for nothing? On the other hand, examples when submarines went in the AUG order as at home are also enough. AUG can go at a speed of up to 30 knots. Specialists clarify whether the submarine is capable of imperceptibly sonar target monitoring at such a speed?

[10kAzAk01]

I'm not special, but the group does not go in a straight line, but walks in tacks. So a competent commander must calculate the course of the group. And intercept her in the right place. For this, such a speed (30 knots) is not necessary.

[Alexey]

.

Quote: kapitan281271

AUG can go at a speed of up to 30 knots. Specialists clarify whether the submarine is capable of imperceptibly sonar target monitoring at such a speed?

A nuclear submarine at that speed will be quickly detected and destroyed. The real speed of the submarine in the mode of greatest stealth is about 6 knots. In principle, in combat conditions, in the absence of close contact, 12..18 nodal speed is also possible, but with each node the danger of detection increases noticeably. In reality, in combat conditions, the advantage of the AUG over the Premier League in speed is the same as during the Second World War at the AUG over the Pre-Armed Forces.

[pr 627]

http://topwar.ru/33367-plat-k-305-pr-671rtm-slezhenie-za-avianosnoy-mnogocelevoy
-gruppoy-enterprayz-v-aprele-1983-g.html I advise you to familiarize yourself with the capabilities of a substantially outdated nuclear submarine and draw more accurate conclusions.

[stjrm]

And at 30 nodes they themselves will not hear anything, except for the roar of their turbines and turbines of security ships .....

[lucidlook]

For this, in the arsenal of each destroyer and cruiser there is a towed sonar type AN / SQS-19. Voooot such a canoe:



Everything together with all buoys and internal acoustics looks like this:



So 30 nodes for the destroyer in this regard is not a problem.

[Nayhas]

Quote: lucidlook

So 30 nodes for the destroyer in this regard is not a problem.

At such speeds, towed GAS do not work, it will come off ...

[lucidlook]

Quote: Nayhas

At such speeds, towed GAS do not work, it will come off ...

Hmm I have slightly different information:

- What are the deploying / retreiving restrictions for TACTAS?
- Max sea state: 5, Deploying: 5-15 knots, Retrieving: 10-15 knots, No more than a 5 degree rudder angle.

- What are the towing restrictions for TACTAS?
- Max speed of 32 knots, must keep forward motion, max sea state of 6. Ship turns can not exceed 180 degrees.

My translation:

- What are the restrictions on the ejection / return of a towed sonar (TACAS - Tactical Towed Array SONAR)?
- The maximum excitement is 5 points, the speed at the ejection is 5-15 knots, the return is 10-15 knots, not more than 5 degrees, the cable deflection.

- What are the limitations on using a towed sonar (those. when he already in water)?
- Maximum speed 32 knots, maintain continuous movement (not necessarily at maximum speed), the maximum excitement is 6 points, the ship should not deviate more than 180 degrees.

[Nayhas]

Nikolsky, of course, went too far in his article, in the 70s, and in the 80s our nuclear submarines with anti-ship missiles were a headache for the US Navy. Our fleet was numerous, many bases, naval aviation, satellites. In general, it was more difficult for aircraft carriers to hide than it is now. Very interestingly, the hunt for the aircraft carrier Midway was described by Vladimir Anisimovich KAREV, Rear Admiral, retired in the article "FleetEx-82 US Pacific Fleet Exercise (September 82)" dated 1982. on this resource. From the article it is clear that it was given oh, how not easy and not always successful. What can we say about the present time, when there is not even a tenth of those opportunities.

[Mhpv]

The SSBN commander assembled the crew and says:
- Comrades! An order was received to carry out a staff reduction by 10%. So, I read: Alabama, Texas, Michigan, New Jersey, Colorado ...

[Parabelum]

very interesting article, many thanks to the author.

[barbiturate]

the article is interesting, and I would advise the authors Nikolsky and Kaptsov to become realistic. It is realists: Nikolsky operates with some wild number of missiles (hundreds and hundreds) of both attacking augs and downed augs. Kaptsov refuses aug in general at least some ability to any action. I do not consider either amers nor our fools and I see the situation like this.
The Americans, realizing that the main threat of their AUGs are nuclear submarines with anti-ship missiles, are creating a Hokai-Tomcat-Phoenix + weapon system that significantly strengthen the AUG submarines by creating the 688 submarine project (to support the AUGs) and landing the Viking submarine aircraft carrier on the deck The Yankees reacted to the threat. Is it logical?
In response to this, our naval commanders create Project 949 and 949A nuclear submarines with Granite missiles in the eighties, while demanding a Granit flight range of 600 km and a number in the salvo of much more than 8 (as on previous nuclear submarines), as well as the creation of the Legend space targeting system. Rejecting the insanity of the Soviet military and understanding that they know clearly more than mine about the capabilities of the American AUG, and also taking into account the requirement of closing on one AUG two nuclear submarines of Project 949A for the highly probable destruction of the AUG core - an aircraft carrier, I get a very real number of 48 Granite missiles.
Here is the number of missiles that were supposed to make the AUG not operational. Hence the conclusion, the Soviet military, possessing clearly more accurate and reliable information than you and I, assumed that the AOG, guarded by F-14 fighter patrols with Phoenix missiles, would hit 40 missiles no more at best. HERE AND THE NUMBER, 35-40 THE ROCKET IS GRANGE HAS BEEN DAMAGED, THE OTHERS WILL FIND THE CARRIER. It is also necessary to be able to simultaneously launch two missiles in one gulp at a time, otherwise the strike will be smeared in time and zero. Volley firing with 24 missiles from Project 949A boats was not carried out nirazu, and the TsU Legend system generally bent a long time ago, so guess how and what in real life.)
And the Aegis complex ... is not at all sure that it was created to fight the Soviet anti-ship missiles of the underwater launch, Kaptsov is right, it was painfully illogical, it was built to intercept low-flying supersonic targets, it is just right for repelling the Tu-22m3 attack, although who knows exactly?) )
PS Now there is no threat to the amers (and they are absolute realists), therefore there are no PLO aircraft on decks, there are no missile interceptors on decks, just as there is no Soviet power in the sea and space that could monitor the AUG and could punish it.

[Magellan]

Quote: barbiturate

Volley firing with 24 missiles from Project 949A boats was not carried out nirazu, so guess how and what in real life.

From 667BDR produced. Operation "Behemoth-2".
16 40-ton SLBMs with a machine-gun burst - this is not 7 ton Granite.

Yankees off the coast of Libya during the night shot 80+ Tomahawks from the Florida submarine.

So there are any difficulties of those. character should not arise. If you want to seriously fight with AUG - you need training, training, training.
How else?

[barbiturate]

yes in vain you are so sure) every weapon system should be tested. Successful firing of SLBMs does not mean successful firing of anti-ship missiles at all) do not agree?

[Magellan]

Quote: barbiturate

firing RCC) do not agree?

If competitors shoot 80 KR for a couple of hours ... why can't we do this ??

Training

[barbiturate]

I didn’t say that we couldn’t, I said that they didn’t check, but since they didn’t check, who will give 99% that everything will work out in a combat situation?

[tlauicol]

why argue, the conclusions are clear:
1 - no fleet in the world is capable of repelling 120 supersonic anti-ship missiles
2 - no country in the world is capable of launching these 120 anti-ship missiles

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Tlauicol

1 - no fleet in the world is capable of repelling 120 supersonic anti-ship missiles
2 - no country in the world is capable of launching these 120 anti-ship missiles

3. 120 RCC not needed

Enough of a salvo of 50 missiles. 5-10 will break through to the goal - it will be a great result

[GSH-18]

Quote: Magellan

If you want to seriously fight with AUG - you need training, training, training.
How else?

First of all, we need a modern balanced fleet. And not three missile cruisers from different fleets that drive across the oceans, just what! (Peter the Great, Moscow, Varyag). So far, the only way ...

[Ascetic]

Quote: barbiturate

and the TsU Legend system in general has long been bent, so guess how and what in real life.)

Since 2009 the spacecraft MKRTs "Liana" are launched into orbit. Now 2KA will be fully standard in 4KA system in 2015.

[Energet1k_]

Quote: stjrm

And AUG is good to attack when the weather is bad, the storm is .... difficult, and sometimes dangerous to storm a group, ships storm alone. There is no single system. All schemes for the construction of AUG are for smooth water. How often in the North Atlantic, the Barents Sea, the Bering Sea, especially in the autumn-winter period, have you seen relatively smooth water? In case of a storm of points 7, the aircraft carrier will remain without close protection. Checked.

Yes, in a real situation, there are many factors that affect the development of a particular situation. One of which you described, and how quickly and efficiently our troops adapt / use / control them, so does our advantage over the enemy. And in this component, I think we are in front of the whole planet, that we shouldn’t occupy wit!))

[GSH-18]

Quote: Energet1k_

And in this component, I think we are in front of the whole planet, that we shouldn’t occupy wit!))

In addition to being smart, it is better to have a well-balanced modern fleet. By how ingenuity is a rolling factor that depends on the "weather".

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

I believe the respected community will agree that if I'm not the most ardent and consistent supporter of aircraft carriers, then certainly one of them. Nevertheless, I wrote a big and fat minus to A. Nikolsky’s article “The Russian fleet goes under water”. And he even undertook to write a crushing comment - but alas, something became with the server, so I deleted my comment.
And how was it to comment on Nikolsky's article? There, after all, almost every proposal had to be refuted. In general, a 900-page manual "how to install Windows 98" had to be written.
But this article put a plus. Oleg, of course, goes over some places (well, frigates didn’t put them in the AUG), but only a little bit, but in fact - practically everything is right.
Submarines are indeed a great tool for destroying enemy surface ships. Of course, this is not a superweapon - nuclear submarines are limited in their means of searching for the enemy, and they are practically unarmed before the threat from the air - although Oleg quite rightly writes that it is extremely difficult to find a boat in the ocean, but it is still possible.
That is why, in my opinion, the best result will be shown by the use of shock nuclear submarines under the guise of their own aircraft - and, above all, aircraft carriers. Which is capable of clarifying the location of targets for strikes (AWACS, EW / reconnaissance aircraft) and will not allow any anti-submarine aircraft / helicopters to roam where it is not necessary.
Strength is in complexity.

[Nayhas]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Strength is in complexity.

Well, as they say you can’t say better.

[Alexey]

Finally, a balanced comment, taking into account that the various elements of the fleet should complement each other, and not compete.
It just so happened historically that our fleet of aircraft carriers is sparse, but there are many submarines. It seems for this reason that the "patriots" believe that the PL is cool, but the AUG is bullshit.

[GSH-18]

Quote: Alex

It so happened historically that our fleet of aircraft carriers is sparse, but there are a lot of submarines.

Important clarification: Aircraft Carriers 0! And there was a lot of PL! Now the Russian Federation is inferior to amers not only in terms of the number of combat-ready fleet, but also in terms of composition and degree of modernization. In fact, we now have 3! combat-ready missile cruisers (Peter the Great, Moskva, Varyag, not counting multipurpose nuclear submarines, which are also not abundant). And this whole "armada" must resist 11 !!! American AUG (fully equipped) ?????! Are we here discussing the opus from "Visiting the Fairy Tale"? You really need to look at things!

[Santa Fe]

Andrei Chelyabinets again proved himself a sage Lao Tzu

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

That is why, in my opinion, the best result will be shown by the use of shock nuclear submarines under the guise of their own aviation - and first of all - aircraft carrier

If Andrei personally builds the AUG at his own expense - what could be the objection?

To give the United States a symmetrical answer - 10 AUG - the ruble should become the second reserve world currency.

We initially proceed from the inequality of the military-industrial complex of the two countries. Under such conditions, it is preferable to go under water. In addition, I do not see any tactical prospects in front of the lone Russian AUG - geography and geopolitics make its application impossible. While it will go around Scandinavia and cross the Faroe line, it will be eaten 10 times by submarines and the air forces of NATO countries.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

and even before the threat from the air they’re practically unarmed -

I hope this will be fixed in the coming years. Anti-aircraft complex for submarines - IDAS - already exists in reality. Destroying reckless Orions and MH-60R from underwater

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Well, they didn’t put frigates in the AUG

why?

Each of the Navy's 12 existing carrier battle groups was planned to consist of an aircraft carrier; an embarked carrier air wing; cruiser, destroyer, and frigate units; and two nuclear-powered attack submarines.

[Per se.]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

To give the United States a symmetrical answer - 10 AUG - the ruble should become the second reserve world currency.

Why climb into the absolute? Do you believe that the asymmetric answer is for 10 AUG, 10 of our nuclear submarines? The fact that the Russian AUG "While it goes around Scandinavia and crosses the Faroese border, it will be devoured 10 times by submarines and air forces of NATO countries", so these same submarines and air forces of NATO countries will devour our boats, deprived of cover, NATO and the United States are developing not only the surface fleet but also underwater, this is an integrated development approach. The United States and its allies and submarines can build incomparably more, so, and here we will look for an "alternative"? If we admit ourselves to be poor and insignificant, nothing good will come of it, Russia is a strong and rich country enough to have a full-fledged fleet, and it is unthinkable without aviation and its carrier - aircraft carriers. And, no need to distort, there is really little sense from one AUG, as much as the United States has, to nothing, but for the fleet to solve all problems, we can and should have 3-4 AUG.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Andrei Chelyabinets again proved himself a sage Lao Tzu

Yes, I am like this

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

We initially proceed from the inequality of the military-industrial complex of the two countries. Under such conditions, it is preferable to go under water.

Oleg, there has never been a case in history in which palliatives in the form of all kinds of "asymmetric responses" could surpass or at least equalize with a balanced military force. "Asymmetric answer" is a fairy tale for children of primary school age. There is such a word - efficiency. And balanced compounds have a higher rate than "asymmetric" ones. And so a small but balanced fleet is capable of more than a large and unbalanced one. That's the whole story.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Anti-aircraft complex for submarines - IDAS

Submarine will help as a hand-to-hand fight in a modern war. Under certain circumstances, it may be useful, but ...

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

why?

From that would. There was never "Perry" in AUG

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

and frigate units

This is most likely about Destroyer leader guided - i.e. Beyinbridge missile cruisers, etc. which, before 1975, were called missile leaders

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

never happened in history ... could have surpassed, or at least equal, the balanced armed forces

Kriegsmarine submarines. Absolute champions until mid-1943 - tore the British balanced fleet like a heating pad ... until the British, with the support of amers, put 10 PLO ships from planes on one U-bot (tactics "swamp", etc.)

therefore, a small but balanced fleet is capable of more than a large and unbalanced one. That's the whole story

))) The Yankees will set up on the 2 AUG against one Russian with the support of NATO aviation and fleets. That’s the whole story.

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Submarine will help as a hand-to-hand fight in a modern war. Under certain circumstances, it may be useful, but ...

What but? With the help of the HAC, to track the trace of the helicopter propeller at a distance of a mile - and to produce a missile controlled by fiber optic?
There is no need to bring down the hornet. Submarine enemies fly awkwardly and slowly

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

From that would. There was never "Perry" in AUG

There are plenty of photos
Surely they were part of the KKS escort and argued with the Augs, along with the CR and ESM. In any case, the possibilities of esm. "Koontz" is not more than that of the unhappy Perry))

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Submarines Kriegsmarine. Absolute champions -

Safely lost the battle for the Atlantic

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

))) The Yankees will set up on the 2 AUG against one Russian with the support of NATO aviation and fleets. That’s the whole story.

And against our submarine forces - two nuclear submarines against each of our + AUGs from above. AND?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

What but? Using a HOOK to track a trace from a helicopter propeller at a distance of a mile

A helicopter or an airplane is sowing a sea with sonar buoys and the chances of it flying a mile from a nuclear submarine ... let's say, are minimal. And if suddenly this helicopter in the middle of the clear sea suddenly crashes into it, then it will be clear to everyone - there is a submarine. And then she’s definitely a kayuk. Are we changing a single helicopter to one submarine?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

In any case, the possibilities of esm. "Koontz" is not more than that of the unhappy Perry))

Therefore, I write that in this article you have a minimum of drifts And even put a plus - a big, fat little one, and from the heart!

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

Safely lost the battle for the Atlantic

they started to lose from 1943 of the year. look at the power / loss ratio - and don't populism.
The Battle of the Atlantic is not an example of the effectiveness of a balanced fleet. This is an example from the series "seven are not afraid of one"

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And against our submarine forces - two nuclear submarines against each of our + AUGs from above. AND?

This will not be enough. The boat has an absolute advantage over NK due to its stealth.
During WWII, the British needed 10 PLO ships per German pelvis

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

A helicopter or an airplane is sowing a sea with sonar buoys and the chances that it will fly a mile from a nuclear submarine ... let's say, are minimal

The creators of IDAS talk about 20 miles, but how is it in reality ...
Let him throw his buoys wherever he wants. Will the submarine torpedo also be launched from afar?

And imagine how funny it sounds "to sow the sea with buoys")))

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And then she’s definitely a kayuk

Who will be sent there? Is it really a new helicopter))

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

And even put a plus - a big, fat little one, and from the heart!

[barbiturate]

Quote: Energet1k_

Quote: stjrm

And AUG is good to attack when the weather is bad, the storm is .... difficult, and sometimes dangerous to storm a group, ships storm alone. There is no single system. All schemes for the construction of AUG are for smooth water. How often in the North Atlantic, the Barents Sea, the Bering Sea, especially in the autumn-winter period, have you seen relatively smooth water? In case of a storm of points 7, the aircraft carrier will remain without close protection. Checked.

Yes, in a real situation, there are many factors that affect the development of a particular situation. One of which you described, and how quickly and efficiently our troops adapt / use / control them, so does our advantage over the enemy. And in this component, I think we are in front of the whole planet, that we shouldn’t occupy wit!))

With a storm of 7 points and you will not be able to attack anyone, take interest in the restrictions on launching missiles from our ships in a storm, you will find an interesting discovery)

[stjrm]

[quote = barbiturate] [quote = Energet1k _] [quote = stjrm] ..... And in this component, I think we are in front of the planet all that we shouldn’t take bastards!)) [/ quote]

With a storm of 7 points and you can’t attack anyone, take interest in the restrictions on launching missiles from our ships in a storm, you will find an interesting discovery) [/ quote]

But I don’t need to be interested, I already remember a lot, if not all, by heart.
Did I really talk about rockets? I spoke about favorable conditions for tracking and attack. And what weapons to attack in what quantity, you do not worry, the commander will choose. Yes, and do not be so obsessed with open TTX. If NUS will be developed, then you can shoot.

[mountain]

I recalled the case in 1981, a scandal erupted, at low tide in a port in one of the countries of Europe, a signal from the Russian submarine came in. It was a shock to NATO countries. Until now, no one knows what weapons were on that boat. A very funny and instructive case; it was not made public in the USSR. The United States has put forward a demand to publicize this incident in the Russian media. They demanded the following, so that the Pravda newspaper on such a page, such a font, so many stanzas and even the number of letters. And our government in the city of Pravda and where it was indicated and the number of letters and lines corresponded, gave an explanation to the Soviet people, That the navigation equipment was out of order. I personally read it. So what if you could then go to the guarded port, what can you expect today?

[Boa kaa]

Quote: mountain

So what if you could then go to the guarded port, what can you expect today?

Submarine B-363 BF climbed "there" on the surface, carefully avoiding navigational hazards. So this is not an indicator of the underwater elusiveness of our Pls in the Swedish skerries.

[Nayhas]

The author is again in the topic "Aegis Bad", yesterday's topic is in full swing, and a new one is on the way. Okay, there are a few questions.
1. Our nuclear submarine Severodvinsk and two more of its brothers are on board 32 Caliber. Received from an incomprehensible source data on the location of the AUG, course, speed. Judging by the fact that they are moving forward to intercept the time is not peaceful and, accordingly, the AUG is in the state of "Readiness No. 1 (" cocked pistol ")" (no coffee at the post!), Respectively, there is at least one Hawkeye in the air who monitors the airspace, 3-6 Super Hornets to guard the Hawkeye, PLO helicopters whose numbers can vary for everyone, because in addition to the SiHoks of the aircraft carrier, SiHoks and Berks work. And under water two or three nuclear submarines such as LA or Virgin. Will our nuclear submarines be able to break through the ASW and approach 220 km. for launching anti-ship missiles? There is a probability, but not quite high, because in order to catch up with the AUG, our nuclear submarines will have to move at high speed, giving themselves away with noise.
2. Let's say our submarines managed to go unnoticed into the square in which the AUG is probably located and maybe it is 220 km away. from our nuclear submarines at a certain rate. How to check? Indeed, for the time that the nuclear submarines were moving closer to the AUG, it also moved, it could change course and speed. You need to get new data from an unknown source, for this you need to contact him, i.e. Swim up and extend the antenna. This can be noticed by the enemy with the help of PLO helicopters with equipment on board detecting the operation of the radio station and radar to detect retractable devices, respectively, this will be followed by a blow.
3. Let's say everything went well and our submarines received new data and entered the launch distance. Start the launch of anti-ship missiles from the water supply line from underwater. It is impossible to launch all 32 anti-ship missiles at the same time, the launch of the first missile will be detected by the ASU of the enemy nuclear submarine which immediately attacks our submarines with torpedoes. The submarine commander will either have to stop the launch and start taking measures to avoid the impact, releasing false sonar targets and anti-torpedoes, or complete the launch of all anti-ship missiles and die heroically.
4. Suppose nothing prevented our submarines from launching all 96 anti-ship missiles, they fly four waves of 24 each, the speed on the marching section at a speed of 200-250m / s, to achieve the goal they need to fly at such a speed of 200 km., In time it 13,3-16,6 minutes. + Acceleration time, say an average of 15 minutes before the launch of the supersonic second stage. Hokai finding the launch of anti-ship missiles gives target designation to fighters that shoot down 10 anti-ship missiles. Security ships receiving guidance from Hokai launch SM-6 missiles which are at a distance of 100 km. knock down most of the RCC, and at close range SM-2, ESSM and RAM are connected. There are also jamming stations.
As a result, the probability of getting at least one missile into AB is small, the probability of the death of heroic nuclear submarines is vice versa ...
PS: SAM SM-6 mentioned because of the adequacy, because in reality, today the Russian Navy can only set up one submarine, pr.885, while three submarines will be built, the SM-6 will already be an old woman.

[Magellan]

Quote: Nayhas

to achieve the goal they need to fly at such a speed of 200 km

Why the hell so far ??

catch up with the AUG to our submarines will have to move at high speed posing as noises.

What for?
Boats will be dispersed in advance along the coast of Europe - where convoys with reinforcements and military equipment go, under the cover of AUG

US Navy ships will have to break through

[Nayhas]

Quote: Magellan

Why the hell so far ??

Because the closer, the greater the probability of detection, the greater the concentration of anti-aircraft weapons. Paraphrasing you, you can ask a counter question: "And what the hell did the Novator ICB make an anti-ship missile with just such a range? But if you cut it by 100 km, you can noticeably win in size?"

Quote: Magellan

Boats will be dispersed in advance along the coast of Europe - where convoys with reinforcements and military equipment go, under the cover of AUG

ETOGES how many submarines will be required for this? I understand that there may be a situation where the AUG itself will go out to where our nuclear submarines already exist, but it could be different. At sea, 50 km. it's a lot...

[Magellan]

Quote: Nayhas

Because the closer, the greater the probability of detection, the greater the concentration of PLO means

Gotland and Valrus approached point blank

20-30 miles are enough for Varshavyanka

Quote: Nayhas

ETOGES how many submarines will be required for this?

within the limits of reason. Boats are relatively cheap and plentiful.

Quote: Nayhas

I understand that there may be a situation when the AUG itself will go out to where there are already our nuclear submarines

Of course it will. Convoy goes to Rotterdam
Barrier at ports in the Bay of Biscay. Blocking the coast of Jutland and Norway

[Nayhas]

Quote: Magellan

Gotland and Valrus approached point blank

20-30 miles are enough for Varshavyanka

Do not forget that this is all the same NNS with Stirlings, besides the speed at which they are "inaudible" is 4-6 knots, at such a speed the AUG cannot be caught up.

[Delta]

Quote: Magellan

Boats will be dispersed in advance along the coast of Europe - where convoys with reinforcements and military equipment go, under the cover of AUG

Well this is how many submarines you need ..... a sickly veil. Given that then this amount will have to successfully fire their missiles (remember all that one submarine is not enough?). Which state is capable of keeping so many submarines in readiness?

[Magellan]

Quote: Delta

Well, how many submarines do you need

The Yankees built 60 Burke destroyers


Varshavyanka is cheaper than Burka every 3 times. Ash costs as much

[tlauicol]

and the ruble is much cheaper than the dollar?
it remains to catch up with the United States in terms of population, shipyards, military budget and GDP - and more!

[Magellan]

Quote: Tlauicol

and the ruble is much cheaper than the dollar?

do we need 60 boats?

Quote: Tlauicol

it remains to catch up with the United States in terms of population, shipyards, military budget and GDP - and more!

Here, in order to successfully fight in conditions, when the population and shipyards are smaller - and submarines are required

[Delta]

Quote: Magellan

The Yankees built 60 Burke destroyers

so they have them today. Are you talking about ours plans dreams for tomorrow. Why not start talking about realities. Yes, you can gradually expand, deepen, strengthen, but the States will not stand still, as many haters want

[Magellan]

Quote: Delta

Are you talking about our plans for dreams for tomorrow

As far as I understand, this is a hypothetical situation. There are funds - how to spend them more efficiently on the development of the fleet. Conclusions are drawn from the facts about the use of a particular class of ships in our time

[Nayhas]

Quote: Magellan

As far as I understand, this is a hypothetical situation. There are funds - how to spend them more efficiently on the development of the fleet.

Here Andrei from Chelyabinsk has the best answer. Nuclear submarines covered by air.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Nayhas

Nuclear submarines covered by air.

If you are ready to personally donate all your savings to the Navy, I agree.

I personally refuse to pay. Enough 38%

[Nayhas]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

If you are ready to personally donate all your savings to the Navy, I agree.

I personally refuse to pay. Enough 38%

Oleg, God forbid, the Olympics are enough, and there are more than one aircraft carrier in the heads of officials and nobody will refuse them, so to hell with them ...

[vahatak]

In my opinion, the key question is that there are only three boats.

[Denis_469]

Quote: Nayhas

respectively, in the air, at least one Hokai that monitors the airspace, 3-6 Super Hornets for the protection of Hokai

Well, let him watch. Will he interfere with our boats? If so, how and by what?

Quote: Nayhas

PLO helicopters whose numbers can vary in any way, because in addition to the SiHoki aircraft carrier, SiHoki work with Berkov

Well then - let them fly. They can interfere with our boats? If they can, then how and by what? I suggest - the Vikings were decommissioned in the late 1990s, and now the AUG PLO is only helicopters and 150 km of range.

Quote: Nayhas

And under water, two or three submarines of the type LA or Virgin.

This is pure fantasy. Because AUG walks at speeds of 20 knots and higher usually. Boats, in their warrants, sail at the same speed. At these speeds, they are so noisy that they will be detected at the extreme ranges of the use of PLUR from our boats. After that, Hokai, maybe, will be able to see 2-3 of our PLURs arriving at the locations of American squares. And that is not a fact. Because PLURs fly low, and the removal of American planes from an aircraft carrier sometimes reaches 50 miles. When moving as part of an order, American squares will be interrupted by PLURs before they can even find our square.

[Nayhas]

Quote: Denis_469

Well, let him watch. Will he interfere with our boats? If so, how and by what?

Hokai will detect the launch of missiles and will carry out guidance.

Quote: Denis_469

Well then - let them fly. They can interfere with our boats? If they can, then how and by what?

They will be able to, if they find it, but for this there is the RSL and the omitted SAS.

Quote: Denis_469

This is pure fantasy. Because AUG walks at speeds of 20 knots and higher usually. Boats, in their warrants, sail at the same speed. At these speeds, they are so noisy that they will be detected at the extreme ranges of the use of PLUR from our boats.

Nuclear submarines do not go under the hull of an aircraft carrier, but occupy positions at a distance, changing speed. Of course, our submarines can detect them, as in the opposite case. If ours launch an attack on the enemy’s nuclear submarines, they will betray themselves by this, respectively, the task of destroying the ACG will be disrupted.

Quote: Denis_469

When moving as part of an order, American squares will be interrupted by PLURs before they can even find our square.

You are categorically impossible. Even then we can say that putting mines on the path of the AUG they will sink all the enemy’s ships like two fingers ...

[Denis_469]

Quote: Nayhas

Hokai will detect the launch of missiles and will carry out guidance.

Yes, and for God's sake. What is Hokai’s channel for goals? How many operators on board can you recall? How many communication channels does this paraglider have?

Quote: Nayhas

They will be able to, if they find it, but for this there is the RSL and the omitted SAS.

That's just the point that they will not find. The distant PLO zone is 150 km, and the near missile launch zones are 250 km. Between them there is no matter how 100 km of distance. So they’ll hardly find out.

Quote: Nayhas

Nuclear submarines do not go under the hull of an aircraft carrier, but occupy positions at a distance, changing speed.

Do not go under the hull. They occupy positions at a distance and go at the speed of the entire connection. This is real information.

Quote: Nayhas

Even then we can say that putting mines on the path of the AUG they will sink all the enemy’s ships like two fingers ...

Well, it’s necessary. I have been offering this option for a long time on my site, but alas ... I’m not among the cretins and I don’t drink vodka with anyone. Therefore, my proposals are sometimes stolen and given as their own. But no one has stolen this offer or given it out for its development. It is difficult to hide the stolen in this case. On my site I just proposed a submarine project for installing mines in the ocean. Protv AUG would be very helpful. All - not everyone will be drowned, but the crews of the ships will overwhelm the nerves thoroughly. Because to go to the minefield or to the area where you can expect the presence of mines is always high for all crews.

[Nayhas]

Quote: Denis_469

Therefore, my proposals are sometimes stolen and given as their own. But no one has stolen this offer or given it out for its development. It is difficult to hide the stolen in this case. On my site I just proposed a submarine project for installing mines in the ocean. Protv AUG would be very helpful. All - not everyone will be drowned, but the crews of the ships will overwhelm the nerves thoroughly. Because to go to the minefield or to the area where you can expect the presence of mines is always high for all crews.

The idea with a programmable minefield where uninhabited underwater vehicles act as mines is not new as far as I know. There is a question with the radius of detection and power, because not a single device can be on duty for a week. And so yes, an idea that is quite feasible in our time. Good luck in developing it!

[Denis_469]

Quote: Nayhas

The idea with a programmable minefield where uninhabited underwater vehicles act as mines is not new as far as I know. There is a question with the radius of detection and power, because not a single device can be on duty for a week. And so yes, an idea that is quite feasible in our time. Good luck in developing it!

I had a slightly different idea where mines are mines and not uninhabited underwater vehicles.

Вот мой проект: http://sovpl.forum24.ru/?1-4-0-00000006-000-20-0#022

[Nayhas]

Quote: Denis_469

I had a slightly different idea where mines are mines and not uninhabited underwater vehicles.

Thanks, I studied. To maintain a given depth, a mine needs an appropriate system, which requires energy, also to power detection tools. At the same time, you think that the autonomy of this mine should be quite large. Where to get so much energy from? Further. Such a mine will be easy enough to be trawled by an acoustic trawl if you have not conceived a different target recognition system.

[Denis_469]

Quote: Nayhas

Let's say our nuclear submarines managed to go unnoticed into the square in which AUG is probably located and maybe it is 220 km away. from our nuclear submarines at a certain rate. How to check?

And where did the tropospheric target designation stations from our boats go? They were still on the project 675 and allowed the use of anti-ship missiles from the surface position to a clear firing range. A pair of bearing bearings gets the AUG position sufficient for accurate firing at any range within the range of missile firing.

Quote: Nayhas

You need to get new data from an unknown source, for this you need to contact him, i.e. Swim up and extend the antenna. This can be noticed by the enemy with the help of PLO helicopters with equipment on board detecting the operation of the radio station and radar to detect retractable devices, respectively, this will be followed by a blow.

It seems that the United States invented a new physics that allows us to do this when our boat is 300-400 km away from the aircraft carrier. This is something new.

Quote: Nayhas

It is impossible to launch all 32 anti-ship missiles at the same time, the launch of the first missile will be detected by the ASU of the enemy nuclear submarine which immediately attacks our submarines with torpedoes.

Fantastic again. The Americans have no torpedoes capable of passing 300-500 km at any speed.
Further - the speed of American (and any other) torpedoes when firing at long distances is about 30 knots (plus or minus). This means 1 kilometer per minute. When firing at 50 kilometers, "Mk-48" will take about 50 (!) Minutes to reach the target. So it's not as scary as you write.

Quote: Nayhas

Suppose nothing prevented our submarines from launching all 96 anti-ship missiles, they fly four waves of 24 each, the speed on the marching section at a speed of 200-250m / s, to achieve the goal they need to fly at such a speed of 200 km., In time it’s 13,3, 16,6-15 minutes. + Acceleration time, let's say an average of 10 minutes before the launch of the supersonic second stage. Hokai finding the launch of anti-ship missiles gives target designation to fighters that shoot down 6 anti-ship missiles. Security ships receiving guidance from Hokai launch SM-100 missiles which are at a distance of 2 km. knock down most of the RCC, and at close range SM-XNUMX, ESSM and RAM are connected. There are also jamming stations. As a result, the probability of getting at least one missile into AB is small, the probability of the death of heroic nuclear submarines is vice versa ...

It's fantastic what you wrote. If only because the main anti-ship missile system is now Granite (or Granit-2 or Bolide, who knows what kind of missiles are on boats now?). By the way, there are rumors that on the basis of Granite (or Bolide) they will make a hypersonic anti-ship missile system in the development of Zircon. The same big, and maybe even more. Also with armor, electronic warfare systems and artificial intelligence. But the warhead may be 1-1,5 tons instead of the current 750 kg. Well, the speed is 2-3 times higher than that of Granite.

[Nayhas]

Quote: Denis_469

They were still on the project 675 and allowed the use of anti-ship missiles from the surface position to a clear firing range.

Well, of course, you can come up in the hope that the enemy will not detect. That's just the probability of a very low ...

Quote: Denis_469

It seems that the United States invented a new physics that allows us to do this when our boat is 300-400 km away from the aircraft carrier. This is something new.

At such a distance, of course, it is unlikely to be in the vicinity of a PLO helicopter.

Quote: Denis_469

Fantastic again. The Americans have no torpedoes capable of passing 300-500 km at any speed.

And where is the confidence that the enemy nuclear submarine will be 300 km away. from ours? If our submarine operates 220 km. from an enemy aircraft carrier, that is, a probability of 50 km. may be the enemy’s nuclear submarines

Quote: Denis_469

It's fantastic what you wrote. If only because the main anti-ship missiles are now Granite (or Granite-2 or Fireball, who knows what kind of missiles are now in boats?).

Fiction? What is it? That nuclear submarines with "Granites" are in bases without missiles. have expired? What are the Batons going to modernize by changing the RCC? Yes, and in the article, if YOU carefully read the APL pr.885 are mentioned, and they do not have Granites, and even more so your fictional Fireballs. On Project 885, UVP with anti-ship missiles Caliber were installed, eight shahs of 4 missiles each.

[Denis_469]

Quote: Nayhas

Well, of course, you can come up in the hope that the enemy will not detect. That's just the probability of a very low ...

And how will he find them at a distance of 400-500 km?

Quote: Nayhas

At such a distance, of course, it is unlikely to be in the vicinity of a PLO helicopter.

The distant PLO zone is 150 km, the near launch zone is 250 km. Between them, a distance of 100 kilometers.

Quote: Nayhas

If our submarine operates 220 km. from an enemy aircraft carrier, that is, a probability of 50 km. may be the enemy’s nuclear submarines

Yes, and for God's sake. Torpedoes at 50 km to go 50 minutes. The boat will be fired off by all the BC for 10 minutes and will dump. Pre-releasing PLURA on the American square. And the American boat will die before the torpedoes have time to go even halfway. Then torpedoes become upright and to avoid them you only need to go beyond the detection radius of the torpedo SSN. And if there are anti-torpedoes, then it’s just corny to destroy these American torpedoes.

Quote: Nayhas

That nuclear submarines with "Granites" are in bases without missiles. have expired?

Their shelf life has not expired. And they are fully operational.

Quote: Nayhas

What are the Batons going to upgrade by changing the RCC?

They have already been modernized for Granit-2. And it was planned for a longer time under the "Car". But I don't know if I have already done it.

Quote: Nayhas

And in the article, if you carefully read

There is a discussion of how great is the combat stability of the AOG when hit from under water. The fact that the author does not know anything about the presence of Granites and Fireballs does not mean at all that they do not exist.

Quote: Nayhas

the more fictitious are you bolides.

Alas for me - I didn’t come up with fireballs.

[tlauicol]

To launch RCC at 500 km, you must first launch satellites into space! Why do you think the range of our new supersonic anti-ship missiles decreased from 750 to 220km? Space Intelligence Poher
So please come close to the AUG

[Denis_469]

Quote: Tlauicol

To launch RCC at 500 km, you must first launch satellites into space!

And who told you such nonsense? Have you heard anything about Project 675? Well, at least by the edge of the ear? What Makar there were going to apply Progress and Volcano to the maximum range? Have you heard anything about tropospheric target designation stations? Looks like no. They use the effect of tropospheric scattering of radio waves. A range of thousands of kilometers. 2 boats easily take the place of the AUG at such a bearing position. So no rapprochement point blank is needed.

Quote: Tlauicol

Why do you think the range of our new supersonic anti-ship missiles decreased from 750 to 220km?

That's miracles - we sell 300 km of rocket to India, and in our country it has decreased to 220 km. Miracles, and only. Although if this happens suddenly, then it will be absolutely not surprising to me. Because our military and industry is something with something ...

[tlauicol]

in order for your fairy tale to come true, you need RC or AWACS aircraft over the ocean, or at least over Wed. by sea, (and fighter cover) - without them, a myopic boat

[Denis_469]

Quote: Tlauicol

in order for your fairy tale to come true, you need RC or AWACS aircraft over the ocean, or at least over Wed. by sea, (and fighter cover) - without them, a myopic boat

To do this, you just need to have a couple of submarines with tropospheric target designation stations and that's it.

[tlauicol]

yeah, and there shouldn't be anyone else in the ocean except an aircraft carrier - thousands of ships will be in that area, 99,9% of them are civilians

[stjrm]

1. How many hours, days have you tried the "cocked pistol". What is the concentration and reaction of the l / s BP and KP who stood there, who were sitting on this readiness after 8 hours, after 16, after 24 hours? And what about those working on the flight deck?
2. After what time will you need to replenish stocks at such an intensity of flights?
3. Suppose our seas, even the Bering Sea ... sea waves 4-5-XNUMX, snow charges (even in October are not uncommon).
4 Under the aforementioned aviation forces, the PLO was able to overcome not only the far, but also the near zone of the PLO. Why not succeed now?

And all this is not some kind of Ash not accepted for service, but as some here consider, the outdated RTM and Bars.
Yes, they will shoot from much shorter distances.
I would prefer a replenishment moment from the supply vessel. Constrained by maneuver, a lot of strength and attention is focused on the safety of this operation. By the way, one of the Eminians will most likely replenish with the second side. Something like this.

[saturn.mmm]

Quote: Nayhas

marching speed at a speed of 200-250m

Granite minimum speed of approximately 460 m / s
And if the volley will be fired from a distance of 200 km. then the AUG has practically no chances, they will bring down a few but it won’t do the weather. The average speed is 2 M and you have 5 minutes for everything. And when the missiles approach, they will begin to triple to maneuver; moreover, not every weapon will break the armored head of the RCC.

[goody]

Chic article, I look forward to continuing ...

[Peaceful military]

Thanks to the author! Very convincing, although, personally, I had no doubts.

[Mikola]

And Kaptsov, the letter warrior again raged, again AUG threw his hats Well, to defeat this author, it is enough to carefully read his text. Hit on his main weapon pr885 Ash Caliber
1.

The main weapon of the submarines, pr. 885 "Ash" MUST be missiles of the Caliber complex (and not the obsolete Onyx, which A. Nikolsky took in his calculations).

So how many Ash-trees in fact Russia has is NEDOID)))) And Gauges means that it has not yet been created and not brought to mind. ALL the war is over)))))) And destroyers in the composition of the AUG are already there and there are hundreds of them quantity !!!

[Mikola]

I was tempted to write the text several times.
2. Aegis has 16 missiles in a 1 second interval. A computer system allows you to hang up up to 4 missiles on one channel at a time. And not 1 as the author ascribes.
3. ships with Aegis work as part of an aircraft carrier and are integrated among themselves. Let the author himself recount the radio horizon for E-2C)))))))))))))))))) And let the recount volley not from one ship but from the whole AUG. AUG is not one boat)))))))))))
4. The most murderous. Quote - Dear author, claiming that Aegis learned how to hit targets like RCC “Mosquito” back in the 90s (speed 2,9M, flight height 10 meters), could you provide concrete evidence of such miracles and links to tests of the US Navy ?. maybe the author in response will give a link to test the ash-caliber system against AUG ?!))))))
This last argument of the "author" says that the whole article is DEMAGOGY !!!

[Mikola]

Well, I’ll add pepper to the test -So how many Ash-trees in fact Russia has - Nedoden)))) But the Gauges means that it has not been created yet and has not been brought to mind. ALL the war is over)))))) And the destroyers in the composition of the AUG already there are now and there are hundreds of them !!! ......... The real salvo now by AUG by the author is somewhere between zero and a unit of the number of missiles

[beard999]

Quote: Mikola

Gauges means this is something that has not yet been created and brought to mind

Rave. Already "created and brought to mind." IRS "Caliber" is in service with the Navy. Ash was successfully fired by Caliber rockets back in 2012. http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20131008/968574765.html. But besides PLARK pr. 885 / 885M, the Caliber IRS is available on Russian NK equipped with UKRS type 3R-14 - projects 11356R / M, 11661K, 20380, 21631M, 22350, 22385 ... Launches from warships of the Navy with missiles from the Caliber system have already been carried out.
In addition, the "Caliber" can be placed on aircraft carriers, as well as land-based - container and SPU. As part of the NPL armament, the export version of the Caliber-PL IRS, Club-S, is shipped abroad to India, China, Algeria and Vietnam http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/news/zakazannye-vetnamom-podlodki -proekta-636-budut
-osnashhatsya-raketnym-kompleksom-klab-s /. In addition, Indians buy from us frigates of project 1135.6 with Club-N.

Quote: Mikola

destroyers in the composition of the AUG are already there and now there are hundreds of them

"Hundreds" of destroyers are only in your imagination. The US Navy has only 65 destroyers. There are no "hundreds" there, and not close. And directly in the AUG is only 4 EM URO ...
But this, in principle, is not even important. A war with the United States, a conventional weapon, is generally unlikely. In the event of a global war with the United States, against AUG, missiles with SBN will be used. And in this case, even one RCC breaking through to the goal will be enough for the AUG to cease to be combat-ready.

[Mikola]

Without straining (all with Aegis), I’m planning to bring 62 destroyers to 75, plus the Ticonderoga type 21 cruiser, plus the Zumbolds, plus the US allied destroyers. so there are up to hundreds of them. Remind the second when Yasen (Severodvinsk) came into operation?
I remind you that Severodvinsk has been under construction since 1993, the system was already postponed. And I'm writing about the Ash-Caliber complex, and not about other types of ships.

[gispanec]

[And the destroyers in the composition of the AUG are already there now and there are hundreds of them !!! [/ quote]

If BERKOV HUNDREDS there are at least 200pcs, but in fact 60 and not everything is in order at the same time ... then we have dozens of ash trees .... you’re something like our dreamer

[Mikola]

TOPVAR - These complexes plan to rearm the submarines of the Ash project (project 885).
One of the first nuclear submarines of the Yasen project, the Severodvinsk nuclear submarine, will become part of the Russian Navy in 2012. Moved to December 2013 ... but about the number above. Kaptsov did not bite you by accident?)

[saag]

Quote: Nayhas

The author is again in the topic "Aegis Bad", yesterday's topic is in full swing, and a new one is on the way. Okay, there are a few questions.
1. Our nuclear submarine Severodvinsk and two more of its brothers are on board 32 Caliber. Received from an incomprehensible source data on the location of the AUG, course, speed. Judging by the fact that they are moving forward to intercept the time is not peaceful and, accordingly, the AUG is in the state of "Readiness No. 1 (" cocked pistol ")" (no coffee at the post!), Respectively, there is at least one Hawkeye in the air who monitors the airspace, 3-6 Super Hornets to guard the Hawkeye, PLO helicopters whose numbers can vary for everyone, because in addition to the SiHoks of the aircraft carrier, SiHoks and Berks work. And under water two or three nuclear submarines such as LA or Virgin. Will our nuclear submarines be able to break through the ASW and approach 220 km. for launching anti-ship missiles? There is a probability, but not quite high, because in order to catch up with the AUG, our nuclear submarines will have to move at high speed, giving themselves away with noise.
2. Let's say our submarines managed to go unnoticed into the square in which the AUG is probably located and maybe it is 220 km away. from our nuclear submarines at a certain rate. How to check? Indeed, for the time that the nuclear submarines were moving closer to the AUG, it also moved, it could change course and speed. You need to get new data from an unknown source, for this you need to contact him, i.e. Swim up and extend the antenna. This can be noticed by the enemy with the help of PLO helicopters with equipment on board detecting the operation of the radio station and radar to detect retractable devices, respectively, this will be followed by a blow.
3. Let's say everything went well and our submarines received new data and entered the launch distance. Start the launch of anti-ship missiles from the water supply line from underwater. It is impossible to launch all 32 anti-ship missiles at the same time, the launch of the first missile will be detected by the ASU of the enemy nuclear submarine which immediately attacks our submarines with torpedoes. The submarine commander will either have to stop the launch and start taking measures to avoid the impact, releasing false sonar targets and anti-torpedoes, or complete the launch of all anti-ship missiles and die heroically.
4. Suppose nothing prevented our submarines from launching all 96 anti-ship missiles, they fly four waves of 24 each, the speed on the marching section at a speed of 200-250m / s, to achieve the goal they need to fly at such a speed of 200 km., In time it 13,3-16,6 minutes. + Acceleration time, say an average of 15 minutes before the launch of the supersonic second stage. Hokai finding the launch of anti-ship missiles gives target designation to fighters that shoot down 10 anti-ship missiles. Security ships receiving guidance from Hokai launch SM-6 missiles which are at a distance of 100 km. knock down most of the RCC, and at close range SM-2, ESSM and RAM are connected. There are also jamming stations.
As a result, the probability of getting at least one missile into AB is small, the probability of the death of heroic nuclear submarines is vice versa ...
PS: SAM SM-6 mentioned because of the adequacy, because in reality, today the Russian Navy can only set up one submarine, pr.885, while three submarines will be built, the SM-6 will already be an old woman.

Sadness, but here is some kind of abstract theater of operations in the middle of the ocean, and this is unlikely to be, it is rather necessary to consider the coastal zone, and here it’s a completely different picture, here aviation from the mainland can quite support itself

[Nayhas]

Quote: saag

Sadness, but here is some kind of abstract theater of operations in the middle of the ocean, and this is unlikely to be, it is rather necessary to consider the coastal zone, and here it’s a completely different picture, here aviation from the mainland can quite support itself

There can be many variations, and support for coastal aviation and the participation of surface ships. You need to understand that the US Navy will not break into a break to land troops under the cover of AUG. Until the enemy fleet is destroyed, no one will approach the shore. They have the forces and means to destroy enemy naval bases, coastal airfields, command posts and radar, air defense facilities. Tomahawks fly far ...

[1712]

Very interesting article. With facts, figures for "fans" of American superweapons.

[Mikola]

the author has a long-standing mental allergy to Aug. If we add “facts” and “figures” to this author, then the picture is completely different ...

[vahatak]

What is this strange desire to compare the Russian fleet with the American one? The Americans have 10 aircraft carriers, against 1 Russian, 22 cruisers and 60 destroyers, against 6 Russian missile cruisers. When will you come down to earth?

[avg]

For some reason, they are considering almost the entire US fleet, led by the Pentagon, against 1-2 nuclear submarines. Yes, we are not going to attack mattress makers. And if you protect your shores, then the price/quality ratio is clearly on the side of the nuclear submarine. Therefore, until there is a sufficient number of boats, there is no point in building aircraft carriers.
As submariners like to say: “The main submarines are at sea, the rest are targets.” And there is something rational in this.

[Aleks tv]

A very interesting article and everything is said in an accessible language, thank you very much Oleg.

The comments are also on the level.

I asked this question once before, but I would like to repeat it:
.....................
Two “Loaves” are quietly crawling underwater, waiting for the AUG.
The striped ones swam up (that is, “swimming”, like the Yankees).
One Antey fires two salvoes of 12 missiles each. But in each rocket... there are 50-100 small, but very angry and biting bees. Each group of such “bees” has its own leader. Each leader has his own goals.
About 2000 thousand targets will not be shot down by any air defense or missile defense system.
These “insects” ruffle the deck of an aircraft carrier, destroy the Aegis at Arly, jam equipment, break antennas... in general, they frolic to the fullest.
Their task is to blind and deafen defense systems.

Then the second “Antey” calmly fires the same two salvoes of 12 missiles each, but with classic lethal (albeit outdated) Granites.
Kaput. We rejoice at the feast of the shark schools.
....................
How real is THIS? Please comment pros.
I ask you not to throw tomatoes too much, I’m not a naval officer... I’m just very interested in the opinion of marine specialists on this method of sinking an AUG.

[Nayhas]

Quote: Aleks tv

How real is THIS?

The use of decoys is quite doable, but we didn’t have them. For example, the Americans have MALD-type decoys that can simulate both the flight of anti-ship missiles and the flight of a fighter, being small in size and long range, they can drive any air defense system crazy. The same thing would happen with Aegis. It is impossible to carry out selection in a relatively short time; the system will be forced to try to shoot down all targets. Yes, Granitka is huge, but simulating a large target using corner reflectors is much easier than trying to achieve the stealth of the anti-ship missile itself.

[Aleks tv]

Quote: Nayhas

Using decoys is quite doable,

What does this have to do with false targets?
This meant the massive use of small-sized missiles (in the first salvo) with the aim of destroying the “eyes” and “ears” of Aegis.

And, Evgeniy, I’m a little confused... are you, after all, a specialist in what area?
I'M NOT being sarcastic, I'm just asking.
I'm a navy noob.

[Nayhas]

Quote: Aleks tv

This meant the massive use of small-sized missiles (in the first salvo) with the aim of destroying the “eyes” and “ears” of Aegis.

But here it is... It’s just a matter of the launch range of such missiles. The presence of a b/h significantly reduces the fuel supply and thereby the range. I think that false anti-ship missiles will be more useful because they are easier and cheaper to produce. In the dimensions of the same Caliber, it is possible to store and launch about six MALD-type decoys. Those. launching two Calibers + 12 decoys will create a swarm of 14 missiles that will be identified by the ship's air defense as anti-ship missiles, which increases the chances of real anti-ship missiles breaking through to the target.

Quote: Aleks tv

And, Evgeniy, I’m a little confused... are you, after all, a specialist in what area?

This is said loudly. I am a simple amateur who has been in love with weapons since childhood, but was unable to realize my “pathological” passions. Not a small part of my father’s salary was spent on subscribing to a large number of magazines; my library subscription changed frequently, because... quickly filled up, and a trip to a bookstore usually led to a long study in the “foreign literature” section of books in Polish and German with technical content... Now it has become much easier, there is a lot of information on the Internet, everything is accessible... And before, the possibility of one or other techniques had to be invented on the basis of poor photographs and drawings. And of course, when you meet carriers of interesting information in life, you begin to “eviscerate” their memory... In general, accumulated knowledge, the Internet, plus the logic of things...

[Ivan_Ivanov]

Great idea. I thought about it myself. It’s a pity we are not admirals, and we are not admirals.

Enough and one boat has half the ammunition - missiles with mini-drones with simple guidance and half a kilo of explosives. Even if they don’t reach the target, their number will confuse any ship’s air defense system. And if they reach (at least some of them), they will destroy all the radars. And then you can finish it off with regular ones.

[Nayhas]

Quote: Ivan_Ivanov

Great idea. I thought about it myself. It’s a pity we are not admirals, and we are not admirals.

That's not really the point. This is a more technical question. Fitting the necessary equipment into a small rocket so that its range corresponds to the flight of a real anti-ship missile is a rather difficult task. For us, apparently, it is not yet feasible. Especially on the engine. The Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-50 is a dream.

[Ivan_Ivanov]

At the initial stage of the trajectory, they can fly in one rocket, and after 50-70 kilometers (let mathematicians model and calculate), drones would pour out of the “cargo compartment”. Modern developments make it possible to create a miniature drone capable of flying such a distance and being guided by a radio beam emitted by a target.

[Nayhas]

Quote: Ivan_Ivanov

At the initial stage of the trajectory, they can fly in one rocket,

I think that the idea is quite sound and possible to implement. I don’t think there will be many opponents of her...

[pl675]

Let's not forget that the government promised to put nuclear submarines (855 and 955) into production. up to the year 20, 8 sides.
What do we actually have at the end of the 13th year?
- one and a half ships.
I see that they are deceiving, and we are swallowing.

[stjrm]

It’s not that they’re deceiving...But there are problems. As they say, “it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines.”
They may accept strategists into the fleet, but what can they do without weapons? Yes?
The Yasen may be handed over, but with the comments that exist, it is far from a combat “steamer”.

[Clueless]

Great respect to the author, such materials are pleasant to read (very sensibly written, everything is neat), and most importantly useful. There would be more such materials.

[iConst]

I still don’t understand what this article refers to. To 20-30 years ago or to the current situation. It’s somehow unclear or I didn’t read it well.

In any case, the question remains - how foolish are the Americans to approach or allow into the reach/kill zone those enemy weapons that will fire this cloud of missiles?

[saag]

Quote: iConst

In any case, the question remains - how foolish are the Americans to approach or allow into the reach/kill zone those enemy weapons that will fire this cloud of missiles?

They are certainly not fools, but there have been a couple of cases in history, one old, the other newer, the first with K-21, the second with Swedish Gotland, although the second is an exercise, but it is indicative

[MG42]

Yes, these clowns, even five of them, won’t shoot down one Granit.

Drop dead scientific style
Systemic contradictions the author always praises the American army and hates aircraft carriers.. ..what an article on this topic already, when at least one AUG is sunk then we can talk about it being expensive and ineffective, but for now it’s a very effective projection of force..

[Black]

Thanks to the author for the article, and to the Furom residents for their comments.

[lucidlook]

Approximately so remembered the frigate USS Stark homing missile "Exochet"

Let's look at the chronology of events:

20:00 - AWACS aircraft detected a take-off from the Iraqi territory of the Mirage F.1 fighter, which began flying southward.
...
21:03 - The headquarters ship La Salle asked Stark if it was observing an approaching air target, and received an affirmative answer. The plane at that time was 35 miles from the frigate.

For some reason, it seems unlikely to me that the assumption that the AUG will give an hour to be discovered and attacked, that all the time while Russian planes and submarines are clarifying the location of the formation and the type of ships in it, the Americans will sit and peacefully drink coffee. Do not forget that E-2s are constantly patrolling over the group. Well, perhaps it’s worth recalling that after two direct hits from the Exocet anti-ship missiles, the ship reached Bahrain under its own power. Of course, the Exocet is not the Granit, but a frigate is not an aircraft carrier either!

But submarines, a priori, are the most secretive and dangerous naval enemy - in the 100 years since their appearance, no means of effectively countering the underwater threat has been found.

It's a pity that the dead U-Boot captains can't hear you. They didn’t know, they thought that destroyers and anti-submarine aircraft were guaranteed death for them, but that’s how it turns out...

middle-aged Swedish Gotland-class nuclear submarine

Not young, you say? In fact, she was the first submarine of her kind - it was on her that the Stirling engine was first installed, which, among other things, made it possible to significantly reduce noise (vibration) and, in addition, allowed the boat to be under water (emnip) up to 2 weeks

And by the way, “diesel engines”, among other things, are distinguished not only by their small size, which increases their secrecy and allows them to do such tricks, but, unfortunately, limits the autonomy of their use and the time spent under water. You are not going to use them to pursue AUGs throughout the world's oceans, are you?

In addition, your story somehow does not mention the multi-purpose nuclear submarines of the “probable enemy”, which usually operate together with the AUG.

The main weapon of the Project 885 Yasen submarines should be the Caliber missiles (and not the outdated Onyx missiles that A. Nikolsky used in his calculations).

It is not known to what version of Baseline Aegis will be upgraded to by the time “Caliber” replaces everything outdated that it is supposed to replace. So you need to compare what is comparable and what is relevant.

Launching 69 anti-aircraft missiles with semi-active guidance in 37 seconds, with all 18 guidance channels available (and 1-2 at the final stage of the flight), without taking into account the reaction time of the complex, this is simply an affront to common sense.

Everything is not so clear. The Americans have long learned to first fire missiles towards the attacking anti-ship missiles, and only then, when the anti-aircraft missile system is halfway to the target, feed it data into the autopilot. Therefore, these processes do not necessarily have to occur strictly in the sequential order that you have designated for them; the process can proceed in parallel. [...]

[lucidlook]

[...]

During this time, the combat stage of the Caliber, moving at a speed of >800 m/s, will approach the destroyer at a distance of 20 km.
The American destroyer has 25 seconds left.

Somehow you smoothly switched from "Granites" to "Calibers", but oh well. That's not the point. The point is that your scheme completely lacks the air component of Aegis.

Please tell me how you will eliminate E-2D AWACS aircraft? And if you are not going to eliminate them, then what will prevent these aircraft from not only detecting a missile launch from 120 km, not only notifying the warrant ships about this, not only setting up active jamming, but also issuing a control center for weapons?

Thank you.

[Denis_469]

Quote: lucidlook

Please tell me how you will eliminate E-2D AWACS aircraft?

When creating Granit, the original idea was to have a feature such as an anti-knock version of the missile. That is, the same Granite, only aimed at the Hokai radar radiation. What will Hawkeye do when he sees a missile coming at him? That's right - it will turn off its radar and go to great heights. And he will wait until the rocket misses. And since the speeds of the missiles are the same, by the time the Granite approaching it misses, the remaining Granites in the anti-ship version will already be hitting ships. No one knows whether such an option exists in metal, but in the 1970s there was such a project for the Vulcan anti-ship missile system. Especially for boats of project 675MKV. This is to keep Hawkeye out of the way. No one knows whether such a version of the rocket exists in metal. Therefore, it can be assumed that modifications of other anti-ship missiles such as Caliber, Onyx, Uranus or others can be created as anti-honey variants.

[lucidlook]

Quote: Denis_469

No one knows whether such an option exists in metal, but in the 1970s there was such a project

I see. Thanks. Issues of application, as I understand it, are pointless to discuss due to the lack of subject matter.

In theory, I note that the task of destroying a high-altitude high-speed target is not difficult. I believe you understand that everything that rises above a kilometer above sea level is easily detected and shot down even without AWACS aircraft. Separately, I note that the air wing usually includes (and regularly uses) EA-18G "Growler" electronic warfare aircraft, and usually in quantities of more than one at a time. And then who will be shot down? anti-knock missile version ?

[Denis_469]

Quote: lucidlook

And then who will be shot down by the anti-knock version of the missile?

This is how the Hokai dish operates at unique frequencies. If they are hit by electronic warfare from electronic warfare aircraft, then Hokai himself will not see anything. And if you don’t score, then electronic warfare aircraft are of no use at all. Because the missile is aimed at a specific radar operating at specific frequencies.

[lucidlook]

Quote: Denis_469

If they are hit by electronic warfare from electronic warfare aircraft, then Hokai himself will not see anything.

Oh, soooo?.. Can you tell me how the electronic warfare system of aircraft works together with the radars that are installed on these same aircraft? As I understand it, following your logic, we need to assume that at the moment of switching on own electronic warfare means the carrier aircraft goes blind. Do I understand you correctly?

By the way, of course, you are aware of the narrowly targeted radiation of those same electronic warfare equipment, right?

[Nayhas]

Quote: Denis_469

When creating Granit, the original idea was to have a feature such as an anti-knock version of the missile. That is, the same Granite, only aimed at the Hokai radar radiation. What will Hawkeye do when he sees a missile coming at him? That's right - it will turn off its radar and go to great heights. And will wait until the rocket misses

Not true. He will give target designation to the fighters and they will shoot down Granit, which will be not much smaller in size than the MiG-21...

[Denis_469]

Quote: Nayhas

He will give target designation to the fighters and they will shoot down Granit, which will be not much smaller in size than the MiG-21...

For now it will give and will be shot down. Granit's speed is greater than the speed of the F-18. And no one will send a fighter just for the sake of one missile. All of them will be thrown onto the anti-ship missiles going to the ships. And if 1 F-18 is recalled for 1 such missile defense system, it will be even better. Because 1 fighter will work less against anti-ship missiles.

[Nayhas]

Quote: Denis_469

Granit's speed is greater than the speed of the F-18

Not so, but this is not entirely important because no one patrols at supersonic speed. That's why cover fighters are needed to cover Hokai. The trajectory of a hypothetical Granite flying towards Hokai will be obvious and it won’t be difficult to shoot it down, two missiles in one. The fact that this will distract from interception, of course, yes, but not for long. It is important from what distance the launch was made.

[alexbg2]

A bit of a pointless argument. In what case can the United States use its aircraft carrier fleet against Russia? No way!
In a nuclear conflict it is useless and vulnerable.
A local conflict between our country and the United States is impossible, since it will immediately develop into a nuclear one, where there is no place for aircraft carriers.

[Delta]

Quote: alexbg2

In a nuclear conflict it is useless and vulnerable.

in a nuclear conflict, any weapon will become useless.

Quote: alexbg2

A local conflict between our country and the United States is impossible, as it will immediately develop into a nuclear one

Not a fact. Who knows, maybe countries will refrain from using nuclear weapons. After all, they didn’t use it in the Korean War, although it was clear to everyone that it was the USA and the USSR that were fighting.

[Magellan]

Quote: Delta

Not a fact. Who knows, maybe countries will refrain from using nuclear weapons

There is an option that no one will dare to press the button
There are no crazy people in the leadership of great countries. There are stupid, corrupt, unprincipled ones.
But there are definitely no psychos

[Doctorleg]

Quote: Delta

Quote: alexbg2

In a nuclear conflict it is useless and vulnerable.

in a nuclear conflict, any weapon will become useless.

Quote: alexbg2

A local conflict between our country and the United States is impossible, as it will immediately develop into a nuclear one

Not a fact. Who knows, maybe countries will refrain from using nuclear weapons. After all, they didn’t use it in the Korean War, although it was clear to everyone that it was the USA and the USSR that were fighting.

Perhaps if our pilots had attacked aircraft carriers, the conflict would have escalated into a nuclear one. And formally it was not the United States that fought, but the UN forces.

[Rus2012]

Quote: DoctorOleg

Perhaps if our pilots attacked aircraft carriers

In that war, our pilots brought down mostly bombers and a ton of fighters. And they succeeded quite well...

[Rus2012]

Quote: alexbg2

A local conflict between our country and the United States is impossible, since it will immediately develop into a nuclear one, where there is no place for aircraft carriers.

There are figures here who are striving at any cost to create a symmetrical army and navy of Russia. The fact that there is not enough finances, because the states live at the expense of the whole world, does not bother them at all...

[saag]

Quote: alexbg2

Please tell me how you will eliminate E-2D AWACS aircraft?

This is, in theory, the first target for the same Mig-31, unless we are talking about the ocean or, in extreme cases, the Mediterranean Sea

[spirit]

))))) yes that’s for sure!! Aegis is so cool!! so cool! That their AUGs are not suitable for a distance 2x greater than the range of anti-ship missiles (even if they are there only theoretically)! That’s how cool he is)
Aegis would probably say in justification about this:
-I'm too old and rich for this

[rocketman]

The article is good. The funny thing is that it is unlikely that the BIS officer on duty has the right to announce a combat alarm and repulse an attack. He will still report to the commander or whoever is in charge, and this will take time.

[Walker1975]

So I see... many commentators are considering the option: an AUG is coming, a couple of nuclear submarines are chasing them, they are catching up... a salvo... hurray! And what will 1 US multi-purpose submarine do? Why is no one considering the option that the Americans can send 5 of their multi-purpose submarines in such a way that they will be attacked by those Russian submarines that will chase the AUG? Do you think they don’t understand that in the event of a conflict, their AUGs are threatened by nuclear submarines? Why is everything considered without the conditions that the Americans will hunt for them?

[Delta]

Quote: Walker1975

Why is everything considered without the conditions that the Americans will hunt for them?

because we're cool

[stjrm]

[quote=Delta][quote=Walker1975]

because we're cool[/quote]

There were ...

[barbiturate]

Quote: Denis_469

When creating Granit, the original idea was to have a feature such as an anti-knock version of the missile. That is, the same Granite, only aimed at the Hokai radar radiation. What will Hawkeye do when he sees a missile coming at him? That's right - it will turn off its radar and go to great heights. And he will wait until the rocket misses. And since the speeds of the missiles are the same, by the time the Granite approaching it misses, the remaining Granites in the anti-ship version will already be hitting ships. No one knows whether such an option exists in metal, but in the 1970s there was such a project for the Vulcan anti-ship missile system. Especially for boats of project 675MKV. This is to keep Hawkeye out of the way. No one knows whether such a version of the rocket exists in metal. Therefore, it can be assumed that modifications of other anti-ship missiles such as Caliber, Onyx, Uranus or others can be created as anti-honey variants.

This is the first time I’ve heard about Granit’s anti-hockey version)) Are you serious or are you trying to shock the audience with a duck with youthful maximalism? How will this missile be aimed after launch? Many questions arise; Kharm also receives complete data on the target and, in addition, remembers it, but the target is assumed to be stationary!! how a missile without data on a target (and who will give it to a submarine on an air target?) will be aimed from a couple of hundred kilometers (at least) at an air target! in passive mode!!...OOO)) Let's say this (although I will never believe such nonsense)), why would Hawkeye go to low altitudes? Turn off the radar for a long time and that’s it, but it’s better to set a jammer (this is all a crazy and absolutely fantastic situation)), but let’s say))
You also mention some kind of tropospheric reconnaissance and target designation stations on submarines, can you be more specific?
At the same time, before telling such tales about super target designation stations for aug, remember what system and on what principles the USSR built (I’ll give you a tattoo - the Legend was called), why did the USSR build it, why “didn’t the control center choose tropospheric stations)), apparently you didn’t they advised how to place mines on the way of the aug (the war began and Russian mines went to sea... - poetic))

[Denis_469]

Quote: barbiturate

This is the first time I’ve heard about the anti-honey version of Granit))

This is how everything happens for the first time. :)) Are there any contraindications for installing a passive radar homing system on Granite? if so, which ones? In the same way, such a SSN can be installed on any existing anti-ship missile system. Theoretically this is possible. But no one knows how things work in practice (I hope).

Quote: barbiturate

will be aimed from a couple of hundred kilometers (at least) at an air target! in passive mode!!...

So nothing complicated - the Hokai dish shines for those same hundreds of kilometers. So it’s enough to target the plane practically from the launch point. If Hawkeye turns off the dish, it will (possibly) stop aiming, or turn on active radar. Anything that shines can be detected, and therefore can be targeted.

Quote: barbiturate

Let’s say this (although I will never believe such nonsense)), why would Hawkeye go to low altitudes?

Because a rocket can have a standard active radar SSN and can be assisted by a standard thermal one. And high in the sky, a missile system can have a range even greater than that against surface targets.

Quote: barbiturate

You also mention some kind of tropospheric reconnaissance and target designation stations on submarines, can you be more specific?

So where can we go in more detail?
And the Legend - yes, there was. But this was not the only over-the-horizon target designation system.

[Tetros]

I laughed out loud looking at the unfortunate racket in the photo and reading the caption “Prepare the rocket for battle! 120 Soviet anti-ship missiles are flying at us!”

[Dart2027]

The surface and submarine fleets have different tasks.
At the same time, there is such a thing - in our time, ships are mainly engaged in “showdowns based on authority.” In principle, submarines are not suitable for this, because a detected submarine is a suicide bomber. Surface ships are another matter. I am not sure that Orlan will be able to destroy the entire AUG alone, but the very fact of its presence is a very compelling argument that can lead to quite serious consequences. The fleet needs a variety of ships, and there is no universal weapon.

[stjrm]

[quote=Denis_469][quote=stjrm]
[quote=stjrm]Refer to fleet intelligence reports.[/quote]
So I actually reprint them on my website. Anyone can find out the most general information in real time about American submarines.[/quote]

Are you serious now?
I don’t know where you get the data from, but in general the intelligence report is stamped, two zeros. And only a limited number of people have access to it, even from naval intelligence. According to our PLPL....in general, a special article.

[barbiturate]

Quote: Denis_469

This is how everything happens for the first time. :)) Are there any contraindications for installing a passive radar homing system on Granite? if so, which ones? In the same way, such a SSN can be installed on any existing anti-ship missile system. Theoretically this is possible. But no one knows how things work in practice (I hope).

Contraindications?) but how can I tell you...there are many, many of them. Theoretically, of course, it was possible to work out such an option as hitting an air target from under water (it seems to be practically implemented now, although it’s on a completely different scale), but passive radar!! homing head to destroy air! targets hundreds of kilometers from the carrier in the dimensions of the Granit anti-ship missile... If such a missile were made, they would be more proud of it than Granit for destroying ships) This is fantastic.

Quote: Denis_469

So nothing complicated - the Hokai dish shines for those same hundreds of kilometers. So it’s enough to target the plane practically from the launch point. If Hawkeye turns off the dish, it will (possibly) stop aiming, or turn on active radar. Anything that shines can be detected, and therefore can be targeted.

Do you understand that this is the creation of a completely different missile system?) it will turn on active radar) it will be a different missile, it needs to be tested, etc. Hundreds of people would be doing this, and such a rocket would now be known no less than about any other rockets. Unreal)

Quote: Denis_469

Because a rocket can have a standard active radar SSN and can be assisted by a standard thermal one. And high in the sky, a missile system can have a range even greater than that against surface targets.

you should write science fiction) and passive and active and thermal seeker and all while firing hundreds of kilometers from a submarine at an air target) Believe me, this is fantastic)

Quote: Denis_469

So where can we go into more detail? And the Legend - yes, it was. But this was not the only over-the-horizon target designation system.

Tropospheric communication stations are understandable, but tropospheric target designation systems on submarines for pointing missiles at AUG... describe the principle of operation or give me a link, I honestly Googled and didn’t find anything) the design of the submarines for which this system was supposedly made - the 60s, more on boats, no one had heard of such a system, hence the conclusion that there might have been some kind of idea, but it turned out to be unrealizable - utopian, etc.

[Pajamas]

Everyone, not indifferent, no matter gentlemen or comrades.
Congratulations!
"Northern Shipyard" will go for reconstruction, with the aim of being able to carry out the construction of ships of increased tonnage, including aircraft-carrying cruisers.

[Zubr]

Uhhhhhh not the author, but AUTORYUGA! Cool article, read it and enjoyed it. If it were possible to add pluses to the mower, I would. Clear, well-reasoned, and what a great analysis! I always told everyone to learn math! Only with the help of a mathematical apparatus can everything be sorted out like this.

[fzr1000]

Well, you started a holivar here... I read it and savored it.

[Nayhas]

I would like to return to the main issue that worries Oleg so much. I'm talking about his stubborn belief that Aegis does not see the NLC. I have not heard any special arguments about this. Yes, there is information on the Internet that on the first Aegis this was a problem, but on version D this problem was solved. Again, why is it that our three-dimensional radar Fregat-M2EM can see the NLC "anti-ship missiles with an EPR of 0.1 m at an altitude of 5-10m - 15-17 km", but AN/SPY-1D(V) cannot? And that PAR and this one... Or is it again about the mysterious Russian soul?
PS: Oleg regularly talks about the Podkat super radar, which supposedly saves the situation with the NLC, but why the hell is it not being installed on ships now? Why does Oleg openly ignore the presence of the AN/SPS 67(V)3 surface target detection radar on Berki, which according to the description complements the AN/SPY-1D(V) in detecting NLCs?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Nayhas

I'm talking about his stubborn belief that Aegis does not see the NLC. I haven't heard any special arguments about this.

Range, Nayhas. The range is not the same.

No country in the world uses a “universal radar”. Each task has its own wavelength and operating mode. No other way

Quote: Nayhas

our three-dimensional radar Fregat-M2EM can see the NLC "anti-ship missiles with an EPR of 0.1 m at an altitude of 5-10 m - 15-17 km

Vika drives

Quote: Nayhas

Or again it’s about the mysterious Russian soul

It could all be a matter of frequency, but alas
"Fregat-M2EM" operates at frequencies 2-3 GHz (S)

Quote: Nayhas

Oleg regularly talks about the Podkat super radar, which supposedly saves the situation with the NLC, but why the hell is it not being installed on ships now?

What kind of ships are we building?

Quote: Nayhas

AN/SPS 67(V)3 which according to the description complements the AN/SPY-1D(V) in detecting NLC?

))) Where the capabilities of AN/SPY-1 are lacking, the navigation radar has nothing to do (although it operates in the centimeter range)

What is its update rate? What about the Doppler shift? How many low-flying supersonic anti-ship missiles can he detect and take for control?))))

[Nayhas]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Vika drives

Is OJSC NPP Salyut also driving? Across the entire line of phased arrays, they have reliable detection of small, low-flying targets. I admit that for advertising purposes they may lie a little, presenting the characteristics obtained under ideal conditions as constant, but damn it no more.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

What kind of ships are we building?

Oleg, what kind of question is this? Do you want an answer listing the series of ships under construction and completed? Yes, you know without me. There is either a Frigate or a Polyment, i.e. the same phased arrays and all confidently detect low-flying targets such as anti-ship missiles without the help of tackles...

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Where the capabilities of AN/SPY-1 are lacking, the navigation radar has nothing to do (although it operates in the centimeter range)

AN/SPS 67 is not a navigation radar, AN/SPS-64 is a navigation radar.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

What is its update rate? What about the Doppler shift? How many low-flying supersonic anti-ship missiles can he detect and take for control?)

Frequency range G 5,450–5,825 GHz
3 см
Pulse frequency 750, 1200, 2400 Hz
300-1500 Hz
Pulse duration 1,0; 0,25; 0,1 µs
Speed ​​19 rpm
Max. range 104
Peak power 280 kW
Azimuth beam width 1,5°
Beam width at elevation angle 12° (-67(V)1)
31° (-67(V)2,3)
Range 104 km (56.2 nmi)

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Nayhas

Is OJSC NPP Salyut also driving?

Yes. Because the Britons, Franks, Germans and Japanese, and even the Yankees with their SPY-3 are all complete fools

With a data update rate of 2,5 s, there is no point in even trying to intercept supersonic sounds. RCC

Quote: Nayhas

There is either a Frigate or a Polyment, i.e. the same phased arrays and all confidently detect low-flying targets such as anti-ship missiles without the help of tackles...

Furke failed all tests
In the Russian Federation they do not create standards. ships, that’s why they don’t install Podcats and similar radars

Quote: Nayhas

AN/SPS 67 is not a navigation radar, AN/SPS-64 is a navigation radar.

This baby is just a puppy compared to Fourquet or APAR

[Nayhas]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Yes. Because the Britons, Franks, Germans and Japanese, and even the Yankees with their SPY-3 are all complete fools

Oleg, be careful, I knew people who claimed that everyone around is sheep, their ending is always sad...

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

With a data update rate of 2,5 s, there is no point in even trying to intercept supersonic sounds. RCC

The official website of the US Navy indicates two rotation speeds, 15 and 30 rpm. min.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=1275&ct=2
I couldn’t find any data on Podkat, if possible, please provide it. I'll compare.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

In the Russian Federation they do not create standards. ships, that’s why they don’t install Podcats and similar radars

This is unfounded. The tackle is simply no longer needed, it is archaic, its functions can be performed by the phased array.

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

This baby is just a puppy compared to Fourquet or APAR

Undoubtedly, this is not PAR. Just explain, then you assure that a radar with phased array is fundamentally incapable of working according to the NLC and immediately refer to Fourquet and APAR?
How is that? Or SPY-1 cannot work according to NLC because you simply do not want to admit it?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Nayhas

Oleg, be careful

Actually there was irony there

Quote: Nayhas

The tackle is simply no longer needed, it's archaic

It's not about Podkat
It's a matter of special Radar systems for these purposes - Germans, Japanese, Dutch, Britons, Franks, Italians, Americans with Dual Band Radar - all do exactly this.

Quote: Nayhas

Just explain, then you assure that the radar is with phased array

What does PAR have to do with it?
The whole trick is in the range of operation of this phased array. Decimeter ones are ineffective for NLC.

[okroshka79]

Dear Gora! This was all known and announced in all central media of the Soviet Union. Let me remind you, October 27, 1981. The Soviet diesel submarine of the Baltic Fleet "S-363" 613 Ave. sat on the rocks of the coastal shallows near the island of Turumshir, near the Swedish naval base of Karskrona. On September 28.09.81, 21, this was announced on TV at 1904:21 in the “Time” program (without details, of course). Both laughter and sin, a shameful incident, you can’t say anything. There is plenty of material on the Internet. As for the article itself, in spirit it resembles something familiar dating back to XNUMX. If anyone remembers history, they got hit in the teeth by the Japanese, and Tsushima to boot. One good thing is that from some of the comments it is felt that, unlike the author of the article, there are professionals. What still offends me in the articles about the fleet of the respected O. Kaptsov is his terminology, which no one who served in the fleet would allow himself, such as “on the sides of the superstructure”, “at the top of the mast”, “a flock of Granites”, etc. etc. And about the “sloppy appearance of the “Peter”” or about the “dark story of the K-XNUMX attack on the Tirpitz” - these are all quotes from previous “messages” of the author of this article, other than causing indignation among the sailors Maybe it’s time for the author to switch to another type of aircraft?

[MG42]

AWACS aircraft, which are necessarily part of the AUG air wing, provide a very low probability of surprises for the AUG
258 km detection range of missiles, and 580 km of enemy aircraft, combat radius 320 km, patrol 4 hours >>

[chunga-changa]

And I like the author's approach. First, an imaginary naval battle 30 years ago, of course we tear everyone to shreds, then we take a spherical vacuum. In this very vacuum, several ash trees appear out of nowhere and waves of “calibers” rush towards the lonely Aegis destroyer, it is clear that the rest of the AUG escort is inactive, watching with interest how it all ends, the finale is applause. Fascinating and extremely useful.

[MG42]

And another question: why is APOG not being considered? So that the <blow from under the water> does not come out like a catcher and the animal runs...
Usually included carrier-based anti-submarine strike group includes 1 aircraft carrier with an anti-submarine air group on board (up to 40 aircraft and helicopters), 6-8 destroyers, frigates and patrol ships.
The search for submarines can be carried out within a radius of up to 150 miles (278 km) from the aircraft carrier or within a certain water area.

Well, Americans are kind of stupid, as one showman said...

[gawroche]

I remember one. For more than 50 years, American propaganda has been telling the whole world that it is great and invincible. Are they doing it better than Goebbels and what they've been saying all these years? Who did the USA defeat? Only IRAQ even fled Somalia. During the Second World War kamikaze attack, the American navy and aircraft should all congratulate them because they fired at least 100 guns and machine guns, probably at 1000 rounds per minute in the kamikaze plane, but it was not successful. This is a different, more-missile technology, but on the one hand and on the other hand, and now if four attacking missiles managed to beat one, we can talk about great luck or accident. Therefore, until the Americans dare not go against Russia militarily, the Third World War will not happen. Russia will defend world peace

Sorry for the mistakes, Google has delayed translatorom

[doctor.75]

We are waiting for the opponent's response.

[Rustam009]

Quote: Samy

Uhh ... now I'm calm.

I doubt! http://warfiles.ru/show-40051-veroyatnost-porazheniya-nol.html

[USNik]

Nikolsky, having written nonsense called “The Russian fleet is going under water,” exposed himself as a complete clown and a TP who does not know the materiel; on specialized forums they are still laughing and can’t get out from under the table. Thank you very much to Oleg Kaptsov for “our answer to Chamberlain,” written with humor and on topic. Of course, we would like to include aviation with anti-ship missiles in our hypothetical attack on the AUG, for greater reliability. And in general, in such a mess, 100% special warheads will be used, and this immediately puts an end to all the attempts of potential enemies in the field of missile defense...

[vuvarovskiy]

Thanks for the article, very informative!

[Mitrich]

Oleg Kaptsov, as always, got tired of various Soviet editorials from his grandmother’s chest, blew away the dust, pulled out headlines, inserted them at random, diluted them with personal drug-addicted nonsense and there you go - the article for the people is ready.
In short, the article is complete crap, for those interested, here’s a little on the topic http://pakgauz.com/blog/news/67.html

[mountain]

Quote: mountain

I recalled the case in 1981, a scandal erupted, at low tide in a port in one of the countries of Europe, a signal from the Russian submarine came in. It was a shock to NATO countries. Until now, no one knows what weapons were on that boat. A very funny and instructive case; it was not made public in the USSR. The United States has put forward a demand to publicize this incident in the Russian media. They demanded the following, so that the Pravda newspaper on such a page, such a font, so many stanzas and even the number of letters. And our government in the city of Pravda and where it was indicated and the number of letters and lines corresponded, gave an explanation to the Soviet people, That the navigation equipment was out of order. I personally read it. So what if you could then go to the guarded port, what can you expect today?

Did you go on the surface to a guarded port? HA, HA and SoS.... save me, damn it... got lost.

[GSH-18]

Quote: vthrehbq

Not really ... in 90 years the United States conducted exercises in the Persian Gulf. Is it possible to destroy aircraft carriers from the ground .. a theoretical country (such as Syria) and an American carrier fleet (3 aircraft carriers + defense ships) the result is sad for the United States. There were enough 20 missiles for aircraft carriers + I don’t remember exactly on the guard ships. Total destruction of aircraft carriers !!!

Well, you're a dreamer, though!
Aircraft carriers do not approach the target attack waters to pose as a target. They attack first. AUG-aircraft-carrying STRIKE group! And not the defenders

[Santa Fe]

Quote: GSH-18

They attack first.

Yes? And why did they stand in Iraq for six months, clicking their beaks?
We waited until a group of 2600 Coalition Air Force aircraft assembled

During this time, Saddam completely robbed Kuwait and gained a foothold on its territory.

[GSH-18]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Yes? And why did they stand in Iraq for six months, clicking their beaks?

It doesn't matter how long they stood there. Because the victory remained with them, and the combat losses (of the fleet) were disproportionately less than the destroyed Iraqi Armed Forces! Look to the root

[Santa Fe]

Quote: GSH-18

How long they stood there doesn't matter

Figasse. It’s the AUG lovers who love to tell the tale of efficiency and rapid projection of force to any point on Earth

but in fact - zilch. We stood and waited for everyone to gather

Quote: GSH-18

By the way victory remained with them

The victory remained with the Coalition Air Force. 83% of sorties
2600 fighters, bombers and combat support aircraft

See the root

[GSH-18]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The victory remained with the Coalition Air Force. 83% of sorties
2600 fighters, bombers and combat support aircraft

2600 fighters cannot be placed on one aircraft carrier! These fighters participated from NATO countries, what is the problem? the Americans won. Look at the root!

[Santa Fe]

Quote: GSH-18

the Americans won

But what does AUG have to do with it?

[GSH-18]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Quote: GSH-18
the Americans won

But what does AUG have to do with it?

AUG despite the fact that an aircraft-carrying sea formation can close the airspace over any point of the ocean, thereby controlling it and the sea area. It does not require the use (presence) of a ground airfield near the target country, and has high efficiency and security. Also, the number of aircraft carriers driven to the target country is limited only by the number of them on the attacking side. That is, if there are no airfields nearby at all, then the AUG is the only aviation base, which provides it with overwhelming superiority in the theater of operations.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: GSH-18

AUG despite the fact that an aircraft-carrying sea formation can close the airspace over any point of the ocean, thereby controlling it and the sea area

How does this relate to Operation Desert Storm?
AUGs turned out to be useless there

[GSH-18]

You think so??
Quote: “The carrier strike forces operated as part of two carrier strike formations (three carrier strike groups each). The combat mission areas of the AUS were located in the Persian Gulf (Roosevelt, Ranger, Midway) and the northern part of the Red Sea ( "Saratoga", D.F. Kennedy", "America"). On January 23, the seventh aircraft carrier Forrestal arrived in the combat area.

The deck-based attack aircraft A-6E "Intruder" and A-18 "Hornet" took an active part in the hostilities. According to Western military press reports, in the first air strikes on Iraq, carrier-based aircraft for the first time used the Slam general-purpose missile launcher with a range of 120 km."
Full text: http://gazetam.ru/no140401/st02.htm Author: Captain 1st Rank V. STEPANOV,
Candidate of Military Sciences.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: GSH-18

You think so?

Just the facts. Nothing personal

Quote: GSH-18

"The carrier strike forces operated as part of two carrier strike formations (three carrier strike groups each). The combat mission areas of the AUS were located in the Persian Gulf (Roosevelt, Ranger, Midway) and the northern part of the Red Sea (Saratoga ", D.F. Kennedy", "America"). On January 23, the seventh aircraft carrier Forrestal arrived in the combat area.

Sense?

17% of all Coalition flights. The Air Force did all the work for them.

[GSH-18]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Sense?

17% of all Coalition flights. The Air Force did all the work for them.

The aviation group of the multinational forces consisted of about 3400 tactical combat aircraft and more than 2000 army aircraft and helicopters. Deck-based aviation: approximately 700 aircraft (7 aircraft carriers). That is about 13%! And according to your own words, 17% of sorties were carried out, which means more efficient than ground travelers!
I have no goal to break your PATTERN. Those who carefully read my comments and linked articles have long ago understood everything correctly.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: GSH-18

700 aircraft (7 aircraft carriers)

Smaller, much smaller
no more than 60 each.

Quote: GSH-18

-that means more effective than land travelers!

17% of all combat sorties. Their role was minimal.

PS Departures are not everything. It’s a shame to compare the Hornet’s combat load with that of the F-111

[gland]

Bravo author! Great article, it just made my soul smile!

[Berserk]

In 89, during an exercise, one of us entered Bornholm. On the 206M there is a hydrofoil torpedo boat. Our contacts ask for his location. He replies that I’m passing the gate. The division commander asked him openly: “What are the... targets?! Lapin! Upon arrival at the base, your .opa will be red! They will erect a monument to you in the west!!!” The personnel were burned out for about three months. I moved around the unit only at a run after this incident.))))) The funny thing is that the adversary did not react at all to the fact that a warship of a potential enemy was hanging around his fairway. So anything can happen)))

[Mitrich]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Quote: GSH-18

They attack first.

Yes? And why did they stand in Iraq for six months, clicking their beaks?
We waited until a group of 2600 Coalition Air Force aircraft assembled

During this time, Saddam completely robbed Kuwait and gained a foothold on its territory.

So what is the end result? If the United States had attacked Iraq first, they would have been the aggressors, but everything worked out well for them.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Mitrich

So what is the end result?

The air forces of 44 countries smashed Iraq to smithereens

The role of six AUGs turned out to be symbolic - 17% of combat missions. They couldn’t have done anything on their own, so they stood there for six months, waiting for everyone to catch up

[Mitrich]

What's the difference? The result is on the face. By the way, they didn’t wait for anything for six months. And by the way, the departure of carrier-based aircraft was almost immediately after the tomahawk launches. In other words, the planes from the aircraft carriers came in the second wave after the missile strike. The difference is about half an hour.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Mitrich

What's the difference?

Big. AUGs can’t do anything, but they cost the most

Quote: Mitrich

By the way, they didn’t wait for anything for six months

US troop transfer begins in August 1990
Official UN Directive - November 1990
The operation began on January 17, 1991, when the armed forces of 44 countries were deployed to the Persian Gulf

Where is the vaunted efficiency of the AUG? Where is the projection of power? Why wasn't the Iraqi offensive delayed?

In other words, planes from aircraft carriers came in the second wave

The density of strikes reached 1500 sorties per day, for 40 days

Planes from aircraft carriers there didn't mean anything

[GSH-18]

Quote: Mitrich

By the way, they didn’t wait for anything for six months

Support.
In addition, the destruction of the Iraqi Navy is the direct merit of American carrier-based aviation!

[Rus2012]

Rogozin:
Russia does not yet have a need to create aircraft carriers, this is a matter of geopolitics, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told reporters after the ceremony of handing over the Vikramaditya aircraft carrier to the Indian side. “The issue of having an aircraft carrier in the Navy is not a matter of the country’s defense capability, it is a matter of geopolitics,” said D. Rogozin.
According to him, if a decision of this kind is made in Russia, the shipbuilding industry will be ready to build ships of the same or greater tonnage. “We have shown that we can make such ships. But this is a matter of making a political decision,” D. Rogozin emphasized. “So far we have no need for a ship of this class.”
According to the Deputy Prime Minister, projects for the corresponding courts have been developed in Russia and they have been submitted to the government.
Severodvinsk. November 16. INTERFAX.RU
See the original material at http://www.interfax.ru/russia/news.asp?id=341233

IMHO, it’s a competent and balanced decision...

[Mitrich]

Quote: Rus2012

Rogozin:
IMHO, it’s a competent and balanced decision...

I agree, the Voivode urgently needs to start riveting and putting them on the database wherever possible

[Dimka off]

article +
I completely agree. Everyone is running around with this IJIS like it’s a piece of junk. Not so impenetrable super complex.

[Mitrich]

Do you even know what Aegis is? Not from Wikipedia, really?

[MG42]

And I’ll also add the video above >>
Radar long-range surveillance aircraft (RLDN) E-2D Advanced Hawkeye

The E-2D is equipped with Lockheed Martin's AN/APY-9 electronically scanned radar, which provides enhanced search and combat capability as an airborne combat management system.

The E-2D Advance Hawkeye aircraft will eventually replace the carrier-based E-2C Hawkeye RLDN and control aircraft.

While the new aircraft's appearance is similar to that of the E-2C, the systems and capabilities found on the E-2D have been completely redesigned. The aircraft's mushroom-shaped rotating radar antenna radome, developed by L-3 Communications, features continuous scanning capability with a 360° field of view, along with an electronically scanned array antenna. The system allows operators to focus radar on selected areas of interest.

E-2D operators will also have new radar workstations, satellite communications capabilities and other capabilities to provide aircraft with enhanced situational awareness, according to Northrop Grumman.

Another new feature is a modern cockpit with increased glass area and computerized graphic displays (CRT indicators, electronic display system), which replaces the indicators and avionics of the previous generation. One advantage is that pilots can also act as weapons system operators.
http://www.airwar.ru/enc/spy/e2d.html

[Santa Fe]

Quote: MG42

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye radar long-range surveillance aircraft

How will this help in the fight against modern submarine-based missiles?

[MG42]

This means that that picture in the topic with the radio horizon needs to be recalculated
Do you think that stupid Americans haven’t thought of anything?
first you need to get close to the AUG undetected submarine, release the missile launcher just in time and the E-2D will enter..

In the AUG long-range anti-submarine surveillance zone, the search for an underwater enemy is carried out by passive hydroacoustic means of stationary SOSUS systems, aviation, submarines and
surface ships, since the detection range under water
parcels of hydroacoustic stations (GAS) significantly exceeds
its detection range of the boat, and the latter, in advance
Having established the fact of a search, he can evade the security forces and launch an attack on the protected object. Therefore, long-range security forces use hydroacoustic stations and complexes in active
mode only after the boat is detected by passive means for
its classification and clarification of location, most often when
going on the attack.
Anti-submarine protection of AUGs in the far zone is carried out
basic patrol aircraft R-3C Orion. They usually act
as part of long-range anti-submarine protection forces. Usually,
one or two planes. The maximum distance of the R-3C Orion aircraft from the center of the order, determined based on the estimated firing ranges of submarine cruise missiles, can be
200-300 miles (370 - 550 km). Aircraft search for enemy submarines on the bow heading angles on parallel tacks with an offset along the route of the AUG movement or in threatened directions. IN
The R-3C aircraft mainly uses radio sonobuoys (RSB), which it deploys more often, to detect submarines
a total of a series in the form of a cut-off barrier (four - eight RGB) with
at intervals between them of 10-30 miles (1 mile = 1,852 km) parallel or perpendicular to the course of the connection (depending on
direction of probable threat). As a rule, a detected submarine is destroyed using homing anti-submarine torpedoes Mk44, Mk46, Mk50, Stingray, etc. not from a distance
more than 1500 m. Attack from the air, from a short distance is sudden,
which limits the possibility of evasion and use of means
countering submarines.

http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren/aviano_4.htm

The R-3C Orion is an anti-submarine aircraft, but can also carry anti-ship weapons, in particular the Harpoon anti-ship missile. As well as mines, depending on the type (and, accordingly, weight)

[Santa Fe]

Quote: MG42

first you need to get close to the AUG undetected submarine

Valrus, Gotland and Dolphin came close
Warsaw women with "Calibers" need only 30 miles. They will break through. "Black holes"

Quote: MG42

This is where E-2D comes into play...

And what is the probability that the E-2D will be close to the launch site of the missile launcher?
Not 100 miles north/south?

[MG42]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

They will break through.

Written on the water with a pitchfork..

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

And what is the probability that the E-2D will be close to the launch site of the missile launcher?
Not 100 miles north/south?

Yes, even 200 miles does not change the essence of the matter, for its radar it is enough
In addition to the P-3C "Orion" anti-submarine aircraft, anti-submarine helicopters, for example the Sikorsky SH-60B < >
In addition, submarines can expect various surprises from hunters, for example in the video >>

[Santa Fe]

Quote: MG42

Written on the water with a pitchfork..

The Yankees just out of nothing to do, leased Gotland for a year, and then extended the contract for another year

And they urgently adopted the DESI program - diesel-electric submarine initiative
"Orions", SH-60 - apparently not everything is so simple)))

Quote: MG42

Yes, even 200 miles does not change the essence of the matter

CHANGES
how it changes

He will not notice low-flying Caliber against the background of water from 100 miles away. And even at 50 he won’t notice. And the air patrol fighters will need a few minutesto fly to Caliber, detect the target of your own radar and release the AIM-120

Quote: MG42

enough for his radar

What is the probability of detection by the Hokai radar of a low-flying target with ESR = 1 sq. meter against the background of the water surface from a distance of 100 miles?

The Zaslon MiG-31 radar detects such a target at a distance of 10 miles with a probability of 50%.
Even if the Yankees have at least 5 times more powerful and modern radar, carrier-based aircraft will not have time to do anything

[MG42]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

He will not notice low-flying Caliber against the background of water from 100 miles away. And even at 50 he won’t notice.

Do you have the performance characteristics of the latest AN/APY-9 radar?
The submarine will not chase the AUG in a submerged position, therefore the probability of its appearance if it guesses the course of the AUG on a collision course, and there is a distant screen of anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters, all in the posts above they will be brought into active mode when the boat detects itself, in addition to The AUG consists of 1-2 hunter submarines and equipped with hydroacoustic stations (GAS) >> they will not silently watch the execution of their colleagues so the chances are minimal.. Nuclear submarines move 75-165 km along a course from the center of the march order, and can detect submarines enemy at a distance of up to 100 km

Viking S-3A carrier-based anti-submarine patrol aircraft

The base model is equipped with an APS-116 radar located in the nose compartment, as well as an inertial navigation system, an integrated hydrobuoy control system, Doppler radar, radar heading and altitude control systems, a radar warning system and an electronic jamming system. The aircraft shown here is in service with the 21st Anti-Submarine Squadron, based aboard the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy.

S-3 "Viking" of the air squadron VS-35 "Blue Wolves" takes off from a catapult

[Santa Fe]

Quote: MG42

Do you have the performance characteristics of the latest AN/APY-9 radar?

I asked YOU about this. What is the probability of detecting NLC, EPR 1 sq. m., range 100 miles (185 km), target flight altitude 20 m, against the background of water

Yes, even if I saw it - what's the point? Just to shorten the distance to the target and reach the interception line, fighters will need THREE minutes.
By that time, the anti-ship missiles will have already reached Nimitz

Quote: MG42

The submarine will not chase the AUG in a submerged position

No one will chase anyone. The boats will be deployed in advance along the course of the convoy and at ports on the European coast

Quote: MG42

S-3 "Viking" of the air squadron VS-35 "Blue Wolves" takes off from a catapult

The Vikings were retired 11 years ago.

[MG42]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The Vikings were retired 11 years ago.

Withdrawn from service in 2009 year.
http://mirknig.com/2011/04/18/amerikanskiy-palubnyy-protivolodochnyy-samolet-loc

kheed-s-3-viking-2-
chast.html
Obviously the Cold War is over, it’s one thing in peacetime to fly over an AUG and sail up on a submarine, another thing in a state of war

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

No one will chase anyone.

Well, at least we agreed on something...

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The boats will be deployed in advance along the course of the convoy and at ports on the European coast

Well, yes, they will run into the troubles outlined above... I won’t repeat them

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

I asked YOU about this. What is the probability of detecting NLC, EPR 1 sq. m., range 100 miles (185 km), target flight altitude 20 m, against the background of water

How can you determine the probability without knowing the performance characteristics of the American new radar. Don't know..
P/S Thanks for the discussion, but playing with a bang in the patriotic field is not your credo..

[Santa Fe]

Quote: MG42

Obviously the Cold War is over, it’s one thing in peacetime to fly over an AUG and sail up on a submarine, another thing in a state of war

The Yankees obviously knew something when they leased the boat and adopted the DESI initiative

Quote: MG42

Removed from service in 2009.

That's it. What is there to talk about?
If war happens, the Yankees will be left without carrier-based PLO aircraft. They won’t build new cars in a year

Quote: MG42

Well, yes, they will run into the troubles outlined above.

The boat is not a toy either. The secretive underwater killer that sailors have always feared

Quote: MG42

How can you determine the probability without knowing the performance characteristics of the American new radar. Don't know.

Indirect evidence (AWACS Sentry A-50, Zaslon MiG-31) says that the detection range of low-flying missiles against the background of water is small.

Although, I repeat, this doesn’t matter - the fighters still won’t have time to shoot down anyone, they won’t have enough time. Aviation is ineffective against modern submarine-based missiles

[postman]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Although, I repeat, this doesn’t matter - the fighters still won’t have time to shoot down anyone, they won’t have enough time. Aviation is ineffective against modern submarine-based missiles

You are looking at a completely inadequate situation:
"The submarine entered the sandbox and suddenly launched a launch at the AUG with its missile launchers, while the Yankees were drinking coffee and sitting in the latrine"
Come on like this:
- DEFCON 3 (at least)
-someone is patrolling, AWACS is on alert, radars are being flogged
- The anti-ship missile system was launched
DECK FIGHTER begins the hunt for anti-ship missiles in the main line
Any questions?

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Postman

DECK FIGHTER begins the hunt for anti-ship missiles in the main line

He has only 2 minutes to detect and intercept.
And in general, where is the guarantee that a combat air patrol will be nearby, and not 100 miles north/east? And thus, he will snap the entire attack with his beak - you will have to land on the water

[postman]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

Quote: Postman

DECK FIGHTER begins the hunt for anti-ship missiles in the main line

He has only 2 minutes to detect and intercept.

?
why?

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

and not 100 miles north/east?

look that there is an air defense/missile defense, anti-aircraft defense order

[Delta]

Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN

The Yankees just out of nothing to do, leased Gotland for a year, and then extended the contract for another year

Oleg, if you note the practicality of the Americans, then why do they need such useless aircraft carriers?))

[Santa Fe]

Quote: Delta

Oleg, if you note the practicality of the Americans, then why do they need such useless aircraft carriers?

One cannot judge the US Navy one-sidedly. If you take away all the political and economic squabbles, they are tough sailors and know how to make ships, how to fight on them and what a real fleet is

With AB, everything is extremely obvious - both in numbers and in facts.

With Gotland and the DESI initiative (mass invitation to diesel-electric submarine exercises of various countries - Peru, Australia, Israel, the Netherlands) it is just the opposite - there is a clear logical explanation of the threat and the need for such training.

Collins, Dolphin and Valrus broke through the security. I had to take Gotland and study

[barbiturate]

Oleg, everything turns out to be very one-sided for you, do you know the conditions under which diesel-electric submarines broke through the guards of the AUG? From the data given in open sources, one can only understand that the diesel-electric submarines, at the most low-noise speed, approached the AUG standing idle! From this I conclude that the Americans tested their passive systems installed on ships and revealed their insufficient effectiveness against non-nuclear submarines operating at low noise speeds. I can’t imagine how such an AUG boat will intercept it at speed, because when moving under the ECG or Stirling, it is practically an underwater barge with 5 knots.
Underwater lighting systems were not deployed, submarine hunters were not used, active sonar was not used, as were patrol aircraft and helicopters. The Americans simply learned to detect such submarines, namely, to find out in which spectra and fields they are most noticeable, that’s all.

[Santa Fe]

Quote: barbiturate

From the data given in open sources, one can only understand that the diesel-electric submarines, at the most low-noise speed, approached the AUG standing idle!

Where did they read it?

Quote: barbiturate

I can’t imagine how such an AUG boat will intercept it at speed

they will be deployed directly along the course of the convoy covered by the AUG

Quote: barbiturate

is practically an underwater barge with 5 knots of travel.

and is capable of moving for an hour at a speed of 20 knots.

[Mikola]

from the article Nuclear cruiser "Peter the Great" against the Aegis system, I think about Kaptsov ...
Hmm, even the title of the article is funny. The author, as always, compares cows and calves - the multifunctional systems of the Petra and the integrated Aegis system of one ship (????).
Well, first of all, the author claims that Aegis does not have radars against low-flying targets (it’s just a lie in which the author throws hats at the conditional enemy, his favorite technique, by the way). Well, firstly, Izhdis is a system not only for combining data from a ship, but from a squadron!!! Aegis can solve the following combat missions: intercept missile-carrying aircraft at maximum firing range, repel massive anti-ship missile attacks in the middle air defense zone, provide over-the-horizon target designation (OTS) to ships of a formation or group, intercept low-flying and suddenly appearing air targets within the radar horizon . And since ships with Idzhes are always part of the AUG, their radio horizon is very LARGE (there is an E-2C airplane there. Via the LINK-11 line, it is also possible to exchange data with AWACS and E-2C Hawkeye control aircraft , deck-based anti-submarine S-3A and B "Viking" and base patrol R-ZS "Orion", which are equipped with appropriate equipment.). "Peter" doesn't have it!!! What this means is that ships in the AUG will see low-flying targets earlier than Peter. In addition, the author is SPECIFICALLY misleading that ships with Idzhes do not have a radar for low-flying targets, but this is true - in order to increase the frequency of updating data on low-flying CCs and especially when they suddenly appear, for each phased array, an accelerated search mode for targets in the lower part of the hemisphere (angle places from 0 to 4-5°) with a search beam specially dedicated for this purpose. The detection range in this mode does not exceed 80-82 km. The AN/SPY-1 radar is also capable of providing radio command guidance for the Standard-2 missile defense system on the mid-flight portion of the flight path. This makes it possible to use the semi-active missile guidance mode only at the final section of the trajectory. As a result, as the foreign press reports, target illumination radars (AN/SPG-62) can carry out sequential guidance of up to 22 missiles in flight. SECOND, can "Peter" integrate ships of a formation of ships onto itself - the answer is NO!!! Every cm for himself. This author, as ALWAYS, forgot to compare))) Third, the author compares “Peter” with cruisers and destroyers, which were built for completely different purposes than “Peter”. "Peter" was, first of all, supposed to be a killer of aircraft carriers in the AUG. And he forgot to write how many AUG planes can fire missiles (of different types) at the “Peter” - hundreds, but the ENTIRE air defense of the “Peter” can cope with them - the answer is obvious, NO!!! The fight is over))))

The question is, why does this “writer” of fairy tales CONSTANTLY “win” AUG based on elementary lies?!!! Probably to “save” budget money on the construction of full-fledged ships. The strategy of his articles very much fits into the concept of the development of today's Russian fleet, the main strength of which is nuclear submarines, and the surface fleet for statistics. All these articles by the author look like an ORDER from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation or the military-industrial complex of the submarine fleet in the fight for money.

[MG42]

Quote: Mikola

Well, firstly, Izhdis is a system not only for combining data from a ship, but from a squadron!!!

There is also a system CEC Cooperative Engagement Capability? those. collective defense capability...

[Mikola]

from the commentary Nuclear cruiser "Peter the Great" against the Aegis system, I think about Kaptsov's articles (aka SWEET) this is relevant...
Hmm, even the title of the article is funny. The author, as always, compares cows and calves - the multifunctional systems of the Petra and the integrated Aegis system of one ship (????).
Well, first of all, the author claims that Aegis does not have radars against low-flying targets (it’s just a lie in which the author throws hats at the conditional enemy, his favorite technique, by the way). Well, firstly, Izhdis is a system not only for combining data from a ship, but from a squadron!!! Aegis can solve the following combat missions: intercept missile-carrying aircraft at maximum firing range, repel massive anti-ship missile attacks in the middle air defense zone, provide over-the-horizon target designation (OTS) to ships of a formation or group, intercept low-flying and suddenly appearing air targets within the radar horizon . And since ships with Idzhes are always part of the AUG, their radio horizon is very LARGE (there is an E-2C airplane there. Via the LINK-11 line, it is also possible to exchange data with AWACS and E-2C Hawkeye control aircraft , deck-based anti-submarine S-3A and B "Viking" and base patrol R-ZS "Orion", which are equipped with appropriate equipment.). "Peter" doesn't have it!!! What this means is that ships in the AUG will see low-flying targets earlier than Peter. In addition, the author is SPECIFICALLY misleading that ships with Idzhes do not have a radar for low-flying targets, but this is true - in order to increase the frequency of updating data on low-flying CCs and especially when they suddenly appear, for each phased array, an accelerated search mode for targets in the lower part of the hemisphere (angle places from 0 to 4-5°) with a search beam specially dedicated for this purpose. The detection range in this mode does not exceed 80-82 km. The AN/SPY-1 radar is also capable of providing radio command guidance for the Standard-2 missile defense system on the mid-flight portion of the flight path. This makes it possible to use the semi-active missile guidance mode only at the final section of the trajectory. As a result, as the foreign press reports, target illumination radars (AN/SPG-62) can carry out sequential guidance of up to 22 missiles in flight. SECOND, can "Peter" integrate ships of a formation of ships onto itself - the answer is NO!!! Every cm for himself. This author, as ALWAYS, forgot to compare))) Third, the author compares “Peter” with cruisers and destroyers, which were built for completely different purposes than “Peter”. "Peter" was, first of all, supposed to be a killer of aircraft carriers in the AUG. And he forgot to write how many AUG planes can fire missiles (of different types) at the “Peter” - hundreds, but the ENTIRE air defense of the “Peter” can cope with them - the answer is obvious, NO!!! The fight is over))))

The question is, why does this “writer” of fairy tales CONSTANTLY “win” AUG based on elementary lies?!!! Probably to “save” budget money on the construction of full-fledged ships. The strategy of his articles very much fits into the concept of the development of today's Russian fleet, the main strength of which is nuclear submarines, and the surface fleet for statistics. All these articles by the author look like an ORDER from the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation or the military-industrial complex of the submarine fleet in the fight for money.

[sashka]

And the fact that what is visible and audible from the bottom to space with a diameter of 500 km, of course, does not matter.. You still need to penetrate this “pipe”. And this is not a fact that it will work out

[okroshka79]

Dear Mikola! You are 100% right, I completely agree with you. The author of the article has nothing to do with the fleet, as can be seen from all his terminology and primitivism of reasoning. Apparently this is a hobby. And, indeed, the nonsense of his articles is simply annoying. Pluralism in action, however.....

[D_L]

Decent article. I thank the author.