Military Review

On the anti-torpedo protection of Russian submarines

63
20 years of my work (after retirement from military service) in the military-industrial complex, now called "Concern" Marine underwater weapons - Gidropribor ""where I deal with the problems of evaluating the effectiveness of marine underwater weapons, its state and promising areas of development - both domestic and foreign. So, a few words about at least one problem with which he is familiar with firsthand knowledge - about the anti-torpedo defense of our submarines.


As it is known, the main weapon of defeating submarines are anti-submarine and universal torpedoes of the traditionally accepted caliber 533 mm, 324 (400) mm and the newly declared ultra-small caliber 124 mm. Accordingly, torpedo carriers are:
- torpedoes caliber 533 mm - surface ships, submarines, self-propelled launchers of coastal defense systems;
- torpedoes of caliber 324 (400) mm, 124 mm - surface ships, submarines, anti-submarine airplanes and helicopters, missile-torpedo and mine-torpedo anti-submarine complexes, and now also particularly promising robotic BPA (underwater combat vehicles).

On the anti-torpedo protection of Russian submarines


Currently, in countries that are major developers and manufacturers of torpedo weapons (USA, UK, France, Italy, Germany), work is underway to create new and improve existing torpedoes in order to increase the combat effectiveness of their use in all areas of the World Ocean and in coastal shallow areas of the marine operating area.

At the same time, the main efforts of the developers are aimed at the implementation of areas that provide for an increase in the maneuverability and speed of the torpedoes, which at least one and a half times exceed the speed of underwater and surface targets; reduction of the intrinsic acoustic noise of a torpedo weapon and a significant increase in the secrecy of its use throughout the entire range of working depths and speeds a radical increase in the degree of noise immunity of onboard systems and equipment, detection reliability, recognition accuracy and target classification with various signature levels and motion parameters in a complex noise-signal environment and conditions of active hydroacoustic counteraction. The most advanced models of foreign torpedo weapons are the American universal torpedo targets. Mk-xnumx mod. 6, mod. 7 caliber 533 mm with a range of 35 km at speed 55 knots and the French-Italian small anti-submarine torpedo MU-90 Impact 324 mm caliber with a range of up to 25 km at speeds from 29 to 50 knots.

Accordingly, according to the laws of dialectics (unity and struggle of opposites), understanding the increasing threat from torpedo weapons, they develop in all fleets world anti-torpedo protection means (SPTZ) and tactics of their use. The table below can give some idea of ​​the state of PTZ means and systems abroad and the trends of their development. A brief analysis of it shows a clearly defined trend - the massive use of small-sized drifting and self-propelled suppression and imitation devices, the development and creation of anti-torpedoes. There is an integrated approach. Particularly noteworthy is the desire to create a small-sized torpedo-anti-torpedo, as, for example, based on the MU-90 torpedo.



What follows from the above?

For example, the torpedo Mk-48 mod. 6 (mod. 7) allows you to attack an enemy submarine from a position of firing that is unattainable for less advanced torpedoes of retaliatory salvo, especially in the conditions of the massive use of effective PTZ tools. At the same time, the torpedo Mk-48 mod. 6 (mod. 7), without a doubt, will easily overcome the ineffective resistance of single obsolete PTZ tools. Torpedo MU-90 Impact, according to foreign sources, with high efficiency is able to deal with the situation of 10-12 targets, find the true target and hit it with a probability of at least 0,8.

Domestic means PTZ Submarine early development, currently in service with the Russian Navy, in their technical characteristics and methods of use no longer meet modern requirements. That is, unfortunately, the small remaining composition of the domestic submarine fleet is currently not adequately secured with the anti-torpedo protection.

Submarines under construction projects "Ash" и "Borey", whose anniversary on the stocks is approaching the twentieth anniversary, it is proposed to equip with PTZ systems, the technical tasks of which for development were compiled in the Soviet era, in the 80s of the last century. The results of the study of the effectiveness of these tools against modern torpedoes indicate an extremely low probability of non-defeating evading submarines.



It should be borne in mind that domestic submarines, existing and under construction, in typical tactical situations of hostilities in comparison with submarines of a potential enemy, as a rule, are in worse conditions due to a number of circumstances.

First, the range of mutual detection. Reduction factors: noise, lower capabilities of the SJC and, moreover, the initial tactical position. For example, the domestic submarine, fulfilling the task of searching for enemy submarines at the turn of protection of the protected area of ​​hostilities (ZRBD) SSBN or at the turn of interception of the submarine (SSGN) from the Tomahawk type missile defense squadron, maneuvers, as a rule, with courses perpendicular to the course of the enemy submarine i.e. overboard to the right opponent. From the theory of search, confirmed by practice, it is known that the probability of detecting a target is more precisely on the nasal heading angles, and the noise of the object is greater on the traversing heading angles. The consequence is that the enemy attacks first, and even from an inaccessible position! We will be forced to “shoot back”, as a rule, with a reciprocal volley of torpedoes along the bearing to the detected noise of the attacking torpedoes, at least to disrupt the telecontrol. But it’s still not a fact that the enemy’s submarine is located along the bearing of the detected torpedo. On the remote control, a torpedo can be guided, as it were, from “around the corner,” and, for example, either above the “jump” layer, or in the near-surface layer with the active path of the CCH equipment turned off.

Thus, as a result, the combat sustainability of the SSBNs in the ZRBD, one of the components of our deterrent against possible aggression of nuclear forces, and the non-impact of coastal and in the depth of the country strategically important objects are not sufficiently secured.

Secondly, in order to enter combat zones, for example, in the North Atlantic on oceanic theater of operations, domestic submarines will have to overcome deeply layered anti-submarine lines saturated with stationary sonar detection systems, minefields and maneuverable anti-submarine forces (submarines, NK, aviation) If, under the conditions of the hostilities that have begun, it must be assumed that the deployment will be provided with appropriate combat support for other diverse forces, then in the prewar threatened period, the submarines of the first echelon of deployment will be left to their own devices; they will be established reliable tracking (not like in peacetime) maneuverable PLC in readiness for destruction. Consequently, submarines need a sufficiently large supply of small-sized SPTZ in order to be able, when the circumstances are presented, to apply them in a massive way for a confident separation from tracking.

Third, in the event of the need to perform combat missions in oceanic theaters, both in the Atlantic and in the Pacific Ocean, our submarine is the main threat to antisubmarine aircraft operating to induce the underwater situation global acoustic system IUSS ("SOSUS", its latest modifications and maneuverability components, such as "SURTASS" and etc.). Evasion from modern aviation torpedoes, as well as from a torpedo warhead of a mine complex type Mk-60 "Captor", extremely problematic. The defeat time with a probability of at least 0,8 lies within 20-50 seconds, which is significantly less than the response time of the existing and currently developed PTZ facilities, taking into account the time of the situation assessment and decision-making on evasion and the use of PTZ facilities. It follows from this episode that the need for an effective, fast-acting SPTZ, especially for our submarine fleet, is more than urgent.


Preparation of a mine (anti-submarine torpedo container) Mark 60 CAPTOR for loading into a B-52G Stratofortress
Author:
Originator:
http://flot.com/blog/historyofNVMU/6088.php
63 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 December 2013 08: 47
    11
    Very interesting article, thanks.
    It would be scary how interesting it is to learn in more detail (in numbers) about the capabilities of the PTZ submarine ... but even so - it is interesting
    1. uhjpysq1
      uhjpysq1 10 December 2013 11: 34
      +1
      )) spies or something.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 December 2013 13: 41
        +6
        What another. But I will tell you everything as a family. Secret Map in the sole of the left rear felt boot, password - "a flock of polar frogs flies to bomb the Kremlin", and the submarine will be waiting in square 517. laughing
        1. Tartary
          Tartary 10 December 2013 14: 18
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          the password is "a flock of polar frogs is flying to bomb the Kremlin," and the submarine will be waiting in square 517.


          Answer: - three green whistles ...

          The meeting place will be determined through a personal ... lol
  2. Old_kapitan
    Old_kapitan 10 December 2013 09: 15
    14
    After reading it, a double feeling arose: on the one hand, it was kind of interesting, on the other, one got the impression that when meeting an enemy, even "Borey" and "Ash" had only one thing left - to open the Kingston ...
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa 11 December 2013 01: 14
      11
      Quote: Old_Kapitan
      when meeting with the enemy, even "Borey" and "Ash" is left with one thing - to open the Kingston ...

      I think that not everything is so gloomy.
      The article is undoubtedly interesting. But the author is a respected techie, so he does not have any tactical issues at all.
      Yes, there is a PTZ problem, but pr.705A solved this problem in the machine. The officer in charge of the shift commissioned a program to evade an attacking torpedo submarine. But not everyone was so lucky, so sonar jammers and submarine simulators were adopted. For example, in my time, the MG-84 guaranteed to take the PLC and MOT away from the boat. Now the MG-114 is in service. I believe the possibilities are wider than its predecessors. To get in a diving torpedo into a dashboard is almost impossible. Calculation of the first detection and silent attack by self-propelled torpedoes from the TA. But we have a pneumatic and hydraulic vehicle system, less high-speed and long-range torpedoes, they say that they are more noticeable in the acoustic range of submarines. But this is all talk, excluding the type of hydrology in the area, the relative position of the opponents (g / a target profile, i.e. g / a cross section of the submarine body), their location relative to the slam-shut device, sources of masking noise, etc. Much depends on the skill of the commander and the sophistication of the crew, the degree of automation of the processes of applying the COMPLEX of means for self-defense and evading an attack torpedo.
      I will say one thing: if Losy slap a torpedo with D = 10 kbt, then, I am afraid, his PTZ automated path will not have time to react. Today, no one can deny the fact that many KSF submarines had prolonged contact with the adversary’s submarine, while remaining undetected. Moreover, they came to g / a contact according to the data of non-acoustic detection means. Americans, as far as I know, have no such means of detection.
      At NK, the problem of anti-tank missile systems is solved by 2 systems: RC PTZ-1M "Boa" and the small-sized complex anti-submarine and anti-torpedo protection "Package". The first is at the 3-x intercept of a torpedo attacking the ship, and the second is the 324 mm anti-torpedo along the t-de.
      1. Old_kapitan
        Old_kapitan 11 December 2013 06: 45
        +1
        Thank you, comrade. Good answer. But it is a pity that they will not read it (or maybe read it?) Those who took the writings of the retired admiral for the ultimate truth. I wrote from a mobile phone, so I got off with a brief impression. We (on 667Б) also had the GP-MG-84. In addition, in the center of the cap there were a lot of evasion schemes, both with the use of GPA and without it, in real life they themselves had to come off - and come off. And this is not at 705, but at the engine of the SSBN. And to reduce everything to the fact that we do not care, and the adversary has everything ... Epaulets for this need to be torn off.
        Shl. As far as I know, apart from MG-114 "Beryl", a newer complex MG-124 "Beryllium" has also been developed. So not everything is as bad as the "admiral" writes.
        1. Sibiriya
          Sibiriya 11 December 2013 06: 52
          0
          All is correct. There are newer ...
        2. mirag2
          mirag2 11 December 2013 06: 52
          +1
          Well, well, almost reassured.
        3. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 11 December 2013 08: 38
          +2
          Quote: Old_Kapitan
          Thank you, comrade. Good answer. I wrote from a mobile phone, so I got off with a brief impression.

          Hi Valery! There are many alarmists, few endured. Ignorance breeds panic. Our always said: "Don't forget about OMEGA and post-salvo maneuvering." K / a, apparently, forgot - that's the result. I write comments after work, so sometimes I am lazy, sometimes you get tired like a dog Bobik. But when there is panic in the compartments instead of the "silence" regime, the self-respecting SMs should stop this business, otherwise there will be comments like "we don't need the fleet, it's Tsushima anyway."
          1. mine
            mine 13 January 2014 19: 22
            -1
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Ignorance breeds panic. Our always said: "Do not forget about OMEGA and post-salvo maneuvering"

            Do not disgrace ...
        4. mine
          mine 13 January 2014 19: 15
          -1
          Quote: Old_Kapitan
          Thank you, comrade. Good answer. But it is a pity that they will not read it (or maybe read it?) Those who took the writings of the retired admiral for the ultimate truth. I wrote from a mobile phone, so I got off with a brief impression. We (at 667B) also had a GP-MG-84.

          Sorry, but YOU have an illiterate scribble (if only because MG-84 was physically impossible to use with 667B, due to the fact that "beeches" spindle data input, while the MG-84 EKVD).
          As for the author, he is one of the leading domestic experts in the matter.
          I have some differences with him - http://vpk-news.ru/articles/8653
        5. mine
          mine 13 January 2014 19: 34
          -1
          Quote: Old_Kapitan
          Threat. As far as I know

          You don’t know, Monsieur a hamster (it's YOU for the quotation marks in the title of really honored and respected Rear Admiral Lutsky).
          This article is his civic position - an officer and a professional, if that says something to someone.
      2. mine
        mine 13 January 2014 19: 21
        -1
        Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
        But the author is a respected techie, so he does not have any tactical issues at all. Yes, there is a PTZ problem, but pr.705A solved this problem in the machine. The officer in charge of the shift commissioned a program to evade an attacking torpedo submarine.

        A bit of arithmetic for the "tactical expert" belay Boa constrictor kaa
        Having a significant lead in detection, the enemy’s submarine is stealthily approaching a distance ... let's say 15 cab in the aft sector, then a volley
        The speed of the early Mk48 55 bonds + remote control.
        Remind the "accuracy" of the OGS direction finding for the torpedo SSN?
        What the hell was 705 evasion in this situation?
    2. abdrah
      abdrah 11 December 2013 05: 24
      +2
      They say that the submariners have an order "I allow smoking in the compartments" - when there is no Motherland, base, there is nothing and nowhere to return, but the task has already been completed.
    3. mine
      mine 13 January 2014 19: 41
      -1
      In any normal article, the publication of such an article would lead to an immediate investigation and urgent measures to correct the situation. We have ...
  3. Takashi
    Takashi 10 December 2013 09: 51
    +1
    a little more in detail, no way? as well as a very interesting article.
    for example, how are things going with the bourgeoisie, their actions when they discover the pl
  4. avt
    avt 10 December 2013 09: 54
    +7
    Quote: Old_Kapitan
    Reading has a double feeling

    request Well that's okay. Competition "armor" and "shell". Good article + The author raised the topic not catchy, but rather interesting, relevant.
  5. ImPerts
    ImPerts 10 December 2013 10: 05
    +2
    We all live on the legacy of the USSR. Unfortunately, business and the market are not a panacea and the engine of scientific and technological revolution.
  6. Russ69
    Russ69 10 December 2013 10: 26
    +3
    An interesting article on a rare topic, but I would like a comparison. What we have and what they have ...
    1. evgenm55
      evgenm55 10 December 2013 12: 52
      +4
      Yes, the author seems to sort things out - is it not clear that at the moment our boats are powerless against their systems at times. Before they disarmed, contracted, damn it. But, I remember how the dimon flooded and choked during the descent of Borey. even a quantitative superiority will not help - an extra training for Americans. Yes, we don’t have it either - with what rapture they cut us on a staff tip. Now we are building for 15-17 years. We shipped sharks in four. Now, BOREAU cannot take it piece by piece. The shipyards are empty - but we are buying barges from the French. But there are brains, experience, institutions, factories, no political and economic solutions. Or desires? It’s a shame for the Fleet , for our MORYAKOV. And they, in spite of everything, are serving. Here I am proud of them !!!
      1. sledgehammer102
        sledgehammer102 10 December 2013 17: 02
        +8
        Is it not clear that at the moment our boats are powerless against their systems at times. Before disarmed, reduced, damn it


        The author himself writes that he is an active employee of the defense enterprise ... Does the idea of ​​secrecy of the basic materials on the Boreas not torment you? Just like that, a statement on the defenselessness of submarines follows on the online forum.

        With a lag in SPTZ, even quantitative superiority will not help - an extra training for Americans


        And how are things going with them? The article is one-sided, but as BE prompts the thought, they say Amer’s submarines are invulnerable, and we are behind.

        Now we have been building for 15-17 years. Sharks were lowered in four. Now BOREA can not be piece by piece.

        You are aware that the Northwind was not built for 10 years at all, since in 90x there was no money for anything, now they are already in the series, as are the Warsaw

        Shipyards are empty

        Are you sure? Read the "Summary table of the construction of surface combat units for the Russian Navy"
        http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/43684/

        But there are brains, and experience, and institutions, and factories, there is no political and economic solution.

        How many ships are laid down? Have you read the state defense order?
        1. mine
          mine 13 January 2014 19: 36
          0
          Quote: sledgehammer102
          The author himself writes that he is an active employee of the defense enterprise ... Does the idea of ​​secrecy of the basic materials on the Boreas not torment you? Just like that, a statement on the defenselessness of submarines follows on the online forum.

          because before that it was repeatedly written "in the established order"

          by the way, the first article was published in the "Marine Collection" (ie, having passed the censorship)
          1. Alex 1977
            Alex 1977 April 6 2014 10: 48
            0
            Quote: sledgehammer102

            by the way, the first article was published in the "Marine Collection" (ie, having passed the censorship)

            So let's all think it over properly, turn on the heads and draw conclusions.
            This is especially true for those who are more or less in the subject.
            Let's not simplify the work of the guys from Fort Meade.
            And I'm serious now.

            Let us dwell on the fact that everything is bad, our funds are hopelessly outdated, and no measures have yet been taken to rectify the situation, which can lead to disastrous consequences. Let's hope that measures will be taken.
  7. shurup
    shurup 10 December 2013 10: 47
    +3
    A torpedo may turn out to be a flock or a jamb on the sea. Torpedoes can be with nuclear warheads.
    The best medicine is the mass production of submarines, which is just not noticed in Russia. Why? Because the bias has gone towards ground-based strategic nuclear forces.
    1. uhjpysq1
      uhjpysq1 10 December 2013 11: 38
      0
      somewhere here on V.O. article why.type on the wake trail can be found pl.a in the taiga you will not find a damn thing))
  8. rolik
    rolik 10 December 2013 11: 39
    18
    There is one true story, and maybe not true. But the state secret, which, if they are discussing with details, is in very narrow circles.
    We are talking about brothers Valentina and Victor Leksiny. They created a unique sonar equipment for submarines, superior to American counterparts. This equipment can detect even completely silent submarines. According to many scientists, the equipment they invented in all respects is a cut above the functional parameters of similar foreign models, including the vaunted American ones. In the 80s, almost before the collapse of the USSR, the brothers Valentin and Victor Leksiny did the impossible: they overtook the West. Only two researchers did what no one could and cannot do, not one famous institute with thousands of employees. Lexins did not catch up with the Americans and go in the wake of their technology. They simply invented a new method for the acoustic detection of underwater targets.
    And on the basis of domestic electronics, they built equipment that "sees" boats at a distance of not two or three thousand meters, but at a distance of fifteen to 150 kilometers! It all depends on the depth of the sea, the characteristics of its bottom, water and time of year. Compare this with four kilometers for targets such as "Ohio" for the Yankees themselves in 1990 ... The principle of its operation has long been announced in the specialized open press. Many hydroacoustics experts believe that the idea underlying the Leksins' method is generally ingenious: even the quietest and most streamlined boat, some kind of oceanic "black hole", moving in the water column, emits ultra-low-frequency sound waves. After all, she has to wiggle the steering wheels. Once every one to four minutes. It cannot be otherwise: the boat's propeller (roughly speaking, a propeller or a hydro-jet nozzle) is located behind, behind the center of mass of the submarine. Therefore, it is constantly brought in relative to the chosen direction. So the crew has to periodically "earn money" with rudders. Either automatically or manually. But from this a thousand-ton colossus of a boat shakes a huge mass of sea water. And the higher the speed of the submarine, the stronger the vibrations. In this sense, American ultra-silent boats, which move completely silently even at high speed, are extremely vulnerable. Oscillating the water column, the boat spreads waves around itself literally in the seismic range. Lexins were able to distinguish these waves in the sea noise and interference. They applied special signal processing, and on domestic technology. They tested their equipment, according to the specialized press, and in the Barents Sea, where it is relatively shallow, and the bottom is muddy, sound-absorbing. But even here on tests the Leksins' equipment was superior to the western ones!
    That something like this.
    1. Sanamana
      Sanamana 10 December 2013 12: 20
      +4
      Sorry for the incredulity, but the truth is not very similar ... Maybe knowledgeable people express their opinions.
      1. rolik
        rolik 10 December 2013 13: 15
        0
        Quote: Sanamana
        Maybe knowledgeable people express their opinions.

        There are guys who went on boats, but they will say whether or not .... I don’t know.
    2. Argon
      Argon 10 December 2013 13: 42
      0
      Dear rolik, this is of course informative, thanks, but the article discusses a slightly different issue - about the development and equipment of submarines under construction with the "last resort"; a complex that counteracts a specific torpedo launched at a boat when it is detected and identified. The author believes that under existing conditions, this situation has more than 100% probability, and the PTZ funds that we have (even in the form of ROC) were created according to the TTZ of the late 80s.
      1. rolik
        rolik 10 December 2013 16: 01
        +4
        Quote: Argon
        , but the article discusses a slightly different issue - about the development and equipment of submarines under construction "the last resort", a complex counteracting a specific torpedo fired at the boat when it is detected and identified.

        Well, here are the basic requirements for the development of a modern PTZ.
        anti-torpedo protection systems of prospective submarines should have the following properties:
        - the possibility of a comprehensive impact on the search tools and target designation of the enemy to make it difficult to use torpedo weapons;
        - the ability to timely detect enemy torpedoes, classify them and determine the elements of movement;
        - the possibility of a comprehensive impact on the homing system of torpedoes with the aim of suppressing them, disrupting guidance or taking torpedoes from a submarine - the target.
        Where it is said here that the detection system plays an insignificant role. On the contrary, it always was and will be, the first discovered - the first shot. Or, more simply, warned - means armed.
    3. KCC
      KCC 10 December 2013 18: 50
      0
      Here on the forum I met information that this system is already in use with us, and not just in the drawings. The author wrote an informative article, but what about the situation on new submarines and what they are equipped with (and not 20 years ago) is a question.
    4. KCC
      KCC 10 December 2013 18: 50
      +2
      Here on the forum I met information that this system is already in use with us, and not just in the drawings. The author wrote an informative article, but what about the situation on new submarines and what they are equipped with (and not 20 years ago) is a question.
    5. air wolf
      air wolf 10 December 2013 20: 16
      +1
      Yes, read, this is a myth about the prefix "Ritsa", it's all speculation and fantasy, then a swimming whale can run under a submarine.
      1. not good
        not good 11 December 2013 12: 54
        +1
        The equipment described by rolik was tested at the coast station and proved to be very good, having found not only the submarines operating in the area according to the plan, but also the submarines that were making the transition to the plant and which were not notified about. But the beginning of the 90s, apparently and cut off the further adoption of the complex.
  9. Former
    Former 10 December 2013 12: 52
    0
    Quote: Sanamana
    Sorry for the incredulity, but the truth is not very similar ... Maybe knowledgeable people express their opinions.

    No, you are a military secret.
    1. rolik
      rolik 10 December 2013 13: 17
      +1
      Quote: Former
      No, you are a military secret.

      And you, please, refute the very principle of detecting submarines by low-frequency radiation.
      1. SIT
        SIT 10 December 2013 16: 21
        +3
        Quote: rolik
        And you, please, refute the very principle of detecting submarines by low-frequency radiation.

        If the boat moves the rudders once every 3 minutes, then in order to stably filter out vibrations with such a frequency, a train of waves of at least 5, and preferably 30, is needed. Even 5 waves are 15 minutes. The Doppler shift on such a train cannot be determined and therefore the target angle of the target cannot be calculated, as well as speed. In this case, the position of the target must be calculated, as in the place where these fluctuations came from, the goal is no longer there - 3 minutes is not a short time. Another point is the presence of an ocean thermogalocline and seasonal in the seas. There, on the surface section, their low-frequency oscillations, the so-called internal waves and the interface between media of different densities serves as a screen through which such low-frequency oscillations will not pass, because will be absorbed and their energy will be spent on generating waves in the jump layer.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  10. Pajamas
    Pajamas 10 December 2013 13: 44
    -9
    Now, your exit gentlemen, cheers, again, we do not need aircraft carriers, and we can only cope with boats? Aegis is a bad thing, AUG a bunch of junk, well.
    1. vostok68
      vostok68 10 December 2013 15: 25
      +1
      And tell me, have you ever been on military equipment that can fight against the AUG? I was and I know we can destroy AUGs!
      1. vostok68
        vostok68 10 December 2013 15: 45
        +1
        And we had "Aegis", "Legend" was called!
      2. gispanec
        gispanec 10 December 2013 21: 02
        -1
        Quote: vostok68
        I was and I know we can destroy AUGs!

        well ... how what where ... and where were you "ON VOENNAYA EKHNIKA" ... with this phrase you exposed yourself
        1. vostok68
          vostok68 10 December 2013 21: 14
          0
          675 project, 86-89, and have you served as a whistleblower somewhere?
          1. spravochnik
            spravochnik 10 December 2013 23: 54
            0
            Well, laugh. 675 project cannot destroy aug in PRINCIPLE. Since the launch of rockets produces from LIVING provisions.
            1. vostok68
              vostok68 11 December 2013 00: 09
              0
              Did they tell you this on the Internet? do you know anything yourself? about "Basalt", about "Legend"?
              1. spravochnik
                spravochnik 11 December 2013 01: 18
                0
                No, the profession is supposed to. I know about "Basalt" and about "Legend", and about pr.675.
                1. spravochnik
                  spravochnik 11 December 2013 01: 46
                  0
                  You are still very lucky because out of 29 built boats of the series, only 9 units. were in the process of service converted to "Basalts", the rest served with the good old P-6 (however, then 4 more units were modernized for "Volcanoes"). So, if it doesn't make it difficult, tell us about the missile launch cycle. If you know him, you will understand that even in those days, a boat that floats to the surface to use its weapons was guaranteed to be destroyed.
                  1. vostok68
                    vostok68 11 December 2013 03: 42
                    0
                    You are saying everything correctly, but still we should not overestimate the capabilities of the AUG, there were practical exercises to simulate an attack, everything worked out, I am of course talking about those years, now, as far as I know, there is no "Legend"
                    1. spravochnik
                      spravochnik 11 December 2013 11: 43
                      0
                      Much worked for the bosses in the exercises. Just look at the process of launching and guiding missiles from the submarine pr.675 and you will understand that in real life this is possible only under the unlikely combination of many unlikely circumstances. I can simply describe it to scrap, as even the description takes a lot of time, and the process itself ... Yes, in this case, one should not overestimate the capabilities of "Legend". Again, in this case, it does not fundamentally change anything, since is just a system of reconnaissance and preliminary target designation.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. rolik
      rolik 10 December 2013 15: 46
      +3
      [quote = Pajama] Now, your exit gentlemen cheers patriots, again, we do not need aircraft carriers and can only handle the boats? Aegis is bad, AUG a bunch of trash well, well. [/ Quote
      This is not the point, but the fact that this technique is not so much a child prodigy as the mattresses were promoting it. That's all. Therefore, the reason, the people have even come up with a saying:
      - For every sly ass, there is a screw with a twist.
      1. vostok68
        vostok68 10 December 2013 16: 18
        +1
        That's right, "Aegis" and "Legend" - it's like a hoop and a bolt with a mount welded to it!
    4. vostok68
      vostok68 10 December 2013 16: 19
      0
      Answer is what?
  11. gameover_65
    gameover_65 10 December 2013 13: 45
    +3
    what can a person who has been retired for 25 years know about promising PTZ complexes, and even more so about technical tasks issued to specialized institutes?
    and indeed, all that I came across from Lutsky AN, everywhere the praise of Western weapons and an attempt to show how insignificant we are.
  12. rem
    rem 10 December 2013 14: 15
    +2
    Deputy Commander of the 2nd FlPL for armament and repair (05.1981 -09.1987);
    Head of the Management Department of the 24th Central Research Institute of the Ministry of Defense (09.1987-08.1989). [1]

    Dismissed to the reserve in August 1989. [1]
    What can a person know, even though he is Rear Admiral about modern weapons, 24 years have passed since then ...!
    1. Know-nothing
      10 December 2013 14: 52
      +1
      Quote: rem
      What can a person know, even though he is Rear Admiral about modern weapons, 24 years have passed since then ...!

      The first sentence of the article answers your question.
  13. Leshka
    Leshka 10 December 2013 15: 22
    +1
    interesting article god help
  14. Black
    Black 10 December 2013 16: 02
    +1
    This topic has already been raised (I’m talking about the Lexins idea) in the comments, in my opinion Igarr spoke most successfully

    Igarr (2) SU July 9, 2013 12:21 ↑

    Once a specific analysis has begun,
    let me add.
    How many imagine - what is ultra-low frequency SOUND ..
    Water propagates radio waves only in the VLF range - very low frequencies. And that, does not spread - and conducts. Doesn't stop them from passing, simple.
    And here we are talking about sounds. Ultra low frequency.
    The hull of the boat is solid, fixed. When moving, and especially when turning, the mass of water adjacent to the body begins to move. AT ONCE.
    This is it - a pressure jump of 100 meters. 120 meters. 80 meters. Pressure surge - SOUND.
    Water is much denser than air. Conducts sounds much better than air. There are such cunning sound-absorbing channels - I will not go into subtleties - but, the whole ocean is really audible.
    Left:
    - have water pressure sensors;
    - have equipment capable of analyzing micro, nano, pico - pressure values;
    - to spread the sensors to a sufficient distance for direction finding, the base - the so-called;
    - ensure duplication, confirmation and recording of results.

    And just a little - get rid of tankers and rollers on the surface of the sea.
    .
    Easy?


    In addition, even if such means of detection are created, what would prevent, say, from moving the rudders, and making corrections with water cannons, not the main rudders?
    1. rolik
      rolik 10 December 2013 16: 14
      +2
      Quote: Chen
      And just a little - get rid of tankers and rollers on the surface of the sea.

      Well, you don’t need to get rid of tankers and bulk carriers, but just make a filter program to filter out the excess. Well, about the fact that the hull of the boat does not move, it moves (contracts) depending on the depth.
      And where does the movement of the rudders, the hull changes the direction of the whole, and not just the rudders. Accordingly, the mass of water moves as well.
  15. gameover_65
    gameover_65 10 December 2013 16: 16
    +1
    and the most surprising thing is that Comrade (comrade) Rear Admiral retired Lutsky A.N. during the service he was silent about all the shortcomings of our fleet, he was silent about the complete slovenliness and imperfection of warships, he did not fight with this at all. and when I retired I realized that you can earn money on this topic.
    and in all his writings, he is Dartanyan, and that’s it.
    take an interest in his works.
    1. mine
      mine 13 January 2014 19: 39
      -1
      Quote: gameover_65
      and the most surprising thing is that Comrade (comrade) Rear Admiral retired Lutsky A.N. during the service he was silent about all the shortcomings of our fleet, he was silent about the complete slovenliness and imperfection of warships, he did not fight with this at all. and when I retired I realized that you can earn money on this topic.

      lying to the hamster!
      1. He is not retired, but works.
      2. Lutsky always behaved like that, incl. when he was serving in the USSR Navy
  16. SIT
    SIT 10 December 2013 16: 39
    +2
    I don’t know if this method is implemented now, but its development was back in the 70s of the last century. The idea is this. At certain points in the oceans, emitters and receivers of acoustic waves of a given length are installed. Knowing the temperature and salinity information for a given moment in a given water area, one can calculate velocity fields for a given wavelength. The emitters are triggered, the receivers receive the information and the field is being calculated. If at some point the field is distorted, then an obstacle is encountered. Checking the location of their submarines. If there are none in that area, anti-submarine aircraft comes into play. The area is bombarded with passive and active acoustics. The target is identified, coordinates, course, speed are determined, and after that it is constantly on the fly. If an order to destroy is received, then the boat will really only have a few tens of seconds to take any action.
  17. xomaNN
    xomaNN 10 December 2013 17: 48
    +2
    Bravo to the author! As a graduate of the St. Petersburg PF LKI, it was very interesting for me to read, even briefly, about new foreign torpedoes. And new calibers - small ones appeared. In our times, 80s, "Gidropribor" kept its nose in the wind in the development of TO. Perhaps, after the collapse of the 90s, it faded, and the specialists fled to the markets. It is a pity if this direction in Russia has died out. In Ordzhonikidze, near Feodosia, I saw a photo of our abandoned experimental plant ...
  18. I think so
    I think so 10 December 2013 18: 41
    -5
    It is clear from the written article that the naval component of Russia's strategic nuclear forces can be deleted from consideration and considered that it does not exist. And all the warheads registered there simply REDUCE the number of warheads that really threaten the enemy, permitted by treaties and located in mines. Moreover, considering that the Bulava still (already 20 years) cannot fly ... the situation is simply deplorable. The associations come - "Collos on feet of clay". In fact, this is almost the case at the moment.
  19. Kir
    Kir 10 December 2013 18: 45
    +3
    Honestly, I’m not special, but I made some conclusions for myself:
    1 Purely political and state, those responsible for the collapse should be recognized as enemies of the People and without any condescension to bear the deserved punishment.
    2 To develop any even the most barbaric types of weapons, despite all sorts of howls and cries, are all different, because in this case the goal is to protect the Fatherland, not just one hundred percent. but much More justifies the Means.
    3 Introduce the most severe responsibility for publishing, even partial, information for official use, with the exception of strictly dosed information and that under the strictest control, as well as for false and provocative information. and in especially "neglected" cases to punish as enemies of the People.
  20. pr 627
    pr 627 10 December 2013 19: 27
    +2
    Once again, you have to make sure that the process of de-industrialization in the Russian Federation has affected almost all industries. The industry science, which should maintain a high level of technology, has practically degraded. It’s good that there are people left who can at least analyze the current situation.
    1. Kir
      Kir 10 December 2013 19: 33
      +1
      Of course, it is necessary to analyze this, but it is more important that there are people who are ready to take responsibility for industrial policy, and not just it. In general, if those who pointed out the facts of the author’s biography are right, then forgive him as a person does not appear from the best side, and you will agree that it is not good at his posts.
  21. coserg 2012
    coserg 2012 10 December 2013 20: 17
    +3
    Everything is beautifully written. But the question is: Why does our boat go tacks, substituting the sides, and does the enemy’s boat stand and listen? Who is waiting for someone? I'm not a submariner, but something is wrong.
  22. Mista_dj
    Mista_dj 10 December 2013 21: 07
    +6
    Everything is gone, the plaster is removed, the client is leaving ...

    I got the impression that I read half of the article.
    Or - an introduction to the main material.
    I realized that everything is bad with submariners.
    I realized that with bare * ops they walk on the sea.
    And then what !?
    Where are the ideas !? Where are the solutions !? Where (at least) the possibility of an asymmetric answer, edridmadrid !?
    Or let's go to mattresses with cuttings from shovels?
    1. Know-nothing
      10 December 2013 22: 05
      +2
      Well ... this is an excerpt from the 2010 book of the year. GPA tools seem to have begun to be developed, but how successful is the question. This topic is very secret.

      But given that in Soviet times, we did not shine on these issues, but abandoned this topic for 20 years, we won’t have to wait for a miracle sad
  23. Current 72
    Current 72 11 December 2013 03: 29
    +1
    I am not an expert. But I had a question, why this article was published here ??? To show that everything is so bad with us, but everything is okay over the hill, so what. And I think that everything is not so gloomy, as this Admiral General writes. He resigned 20 years ago, and this hour is secrecy , he is much lower than he was at work, although he is an expert, and during this time a lot has changed. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe right, but this is my opinion.
    1. mirag2
      mirag2 11 December 2013 07: 08
      0
      And I am not an expert, 20 years ago he served, and now he is evaluating the effectiveness of devices of the "last chance" for submarines, and now he works in "Gidropribor" - and we have old performance characteristics. That's all. What is there to breed such dregs? something needs to be done, and now. But how can something be tested and put into service without the knowledge of the leading design institute? No newer, so.
    2. Mista_dj
      Mista_dj 11 December 2013 15: 14
      +2
      Quote: Current 72
      But I had a question, why this article was published here ??? Show that everything is so bad here, but everything is okay behind the hill, so what.

      You absolutely accurately expressed my thought!
      Become one-sided, by definition.
      The issue is voiced and that’s it.
      And where is the point in her placement here?
      That we are not doing well in the navy is an open secret.
      Jabber, not an article!
  24. psiho117
    psiho117 11 December 2013 08: 04
    0
    After reading the article, the question immediately arose - why do not we have a Captor analogue? or platforms with several torpedoes \ RCC as a means of coastal defense for example? everything is cheaper than if the submarine will patrol
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 11 December 2013 11: 53
      +1
      Why not? Yes, and for a long time. Before than in the states appeared.
  25. jjj
    jjj 11 December 2013 08: 25
    +4
    It reminds me of a post wandering from forum to forum about how a person worked in a well-known cellular company, and he was fired. And now he will reveal the secrets of how to call for free. In general, there is no need to jumble. Until the Americans fire torpedoes, half of America will be gone
  26. mine
    mine 13 January 2014 19: 11
    -1
    Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
    For example, in my time, the MG-84 was guaranteed to lead the PLC and MOT away from the boat.

    based on what I conclude that no one You personally did not use MG-84 for PTZ (in the vast majority of cases MG-84 was unsuitable for PTZ - for obvious reasons)