Military Review

Useless trash, or oily point in underwater warfare

143
This post I created under the "impression" of articles published on this site "New torpedo to replace the" Squall "," "Is there a torpedo more dangerous than the" Squall "?", "The fastest domestic underwater missile BA-111" Squall "." Apparently, the authors misunderstand the purpose of the Squall rocket-torpedoes, and I want to correct it. I will not bore you with the transfer of technical characteristics, you can easily find them on the Internet, for example, here: http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-473.html. Let's go straight to the point.


Created "Squall" in those years when the Soviet submarines NATO called "stinking cows." After all, they were high-speed, well-armed, but very noisy. NATO already built its submarines according to the recipes of the “stealth” technology (for submarines it is the least noise) and the concept of the “first strike”. Therefore, the Soviet designers needed an asymmetric response. However, to create and build a series of completely new submarines in a short time was impossible, and to write off the old ones all at once would be a criminal waste. It was then that the development of "Squall" began on the proposed promising scheme for its use. 29 November 1977, the complex BA-111 "Flurry" with a jet torpedo M-5 was adopted by the Navy of the USSR)

How does it work?
Starts the engine. It is visible in the photo. These are eight nozzles arranged in a circle. Extend 4 steering. Starting engine - solid fuel. On this engine, the rocket performs the after-start turn, goes to the depth of the flight and accelerates. At the same time, the hydroreactive fuel is ignited, which begins to smolder without water. After the fuel burns out in the starting engine, it is reset and the solid-fuel accelerator of the cruise engine is launched. The rocket begins to accelerate, the rudders of the course reduce the sector of disclosure. The depth of the rocket begins to be controlled by the machine turning the cavernous disc. The rocket picks up speed, the solid fuel booster burns out, and the seawater (through the nozzles) is fed through the hole in the cavernous disc to the smoldering hydroreactive fuel. The fuel burns intensely, it burns only in water. The fuel is pasty and fed by a piston. In the nose of the rocket the checkers of the gas generator are set on fire. Gas from the combustion is supplied under the cups (they are visible in the photo in the very nose of the rocket). This gas is needed to create a solid flow around a rocket, since the cavity formed by the disk for a continuous flow is not enough. Along the way, removed five steps to protect the nuclear charge. The charge has two levels of power that switch depending on the distance. At a distance of 2-5 km there will be a small explosion power, and 5-10 km there will be more power (about why such
difficulties, - further).


Useless trash, or oily point in underwater warfare



Approximate scheme of the battle of the Soviet submarine (USSR submarine) and the American submarine (US submarine):

The Americans, having an advantage in the stealth and quality of the hydroacoustic station (GUS), had a very high probability of being the first (passive GAS mode) to detect the USSR submarine and make the first shot. The wire-driven torpedo had to hit our submarine with high precision, not allowing it to finish targeting the response torpedo. But, having fired a torpedo, the US NPS unmasks itself, the USSR NPS converts its HAS from passive mode to active mode in order to determine the location of the US NPS with high accuracy, while simultaneously launching the nose of the submarine (where the torpedo tubes are located) in the direction of the US torpedo shot . After receiving all the data on the target, the Squall is shot down with the location (coordinates) of the target, that is, the US NPS. After that, the USSR nuclear submarine can perform all actions to evade and counter torpedo attack without any restrictions. Now, the US NPS HUNTER) turns into a game itself, which is also very limited in its freedom of action, since its torpedo hangs on a thin wire, with which it threatens to lose contact with intensive maneuvering and going beyond the speed limits during guidance. Having the advantage in speed, "Squall", quickly approaching the goal, is able to perform simple maneuvers to avoid interception, embedded in the program of its actions. When a given point is reached, a nuclear power supply is undermined, with an underwater explosion that provides almost 100-percent damage to modern submarines within 1 km radius. Even if the US submarine instantly after the shot "Flurry" drops the torpedo pointing and starts to gain high speed to get out of the affected area, there is no guarantee that it will have time to leave or remain intact, not far from the affected area.

"Flurry" wiped out the advantages of the US NPS and their tactics.
Author:
Photos used:
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-473.html
143 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Rus_87
    Rus_87 April 7 2014 09: 01
    +70
    Created "Shkval" in those years when NATO members called Soviet submarines "stinking cows"

    Not "stinking", but generally roaring
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg April 7 2014 10: 27
      +7
      Quote: Rus_87
      Created "Shkval" in those years when NATO members called Soviet submarines "stinking cows"

      Not "stinking", but generally roaring


      It meant the politically incorrect word "perd.ya.schie" apparently ...
      1. rolik
        rolik April 7 2014 18: 41
        +18
        Quote: Geisenberg
        It meant the politically incorrect word "perd.ya.schie" apparently ...

        And, nevertheless, "roaring".
    2. Army1
      Army1 April 7 2014 11: 12
      +14
      Article is a little crooked
      First, SQUALL is not used at great depths, the torpedo is more against NK.
      Secondly, the range is only 13 km, and then on the new modification, again, the submarine is simply unmasking itself. soldier
      Thirdly, there is no GOS. request
      1. sub307
        sub307 April 7 2014 11: 38
        +18
        The article is not just a "curve". The author is not in the subject at all. To hell with her - "stinking cow". The bottom line is that the technologies used in the Republic of Tatarstan "Shkval" are no longer today as "the secret of Polishenel". Americans "Shkval" (ours) got it back in the 90s, it seems through Canada. The Germans have a similar development, like - they call "Barracuda".
        Maybe we already have some kind of "improved Flurry"? Well, God forbid, as they say.
        1. Uncle
          Uncle April 7 2014 13: 12
          +12
          Quote: sub307
          The article is not just a "curve". The author is not in the subject at all.

          Sure, the Stealth submarine is something new. We are talking about noise mainly for detection by the Sosus system. However, in spite of her, our boats seemed to appear even in the Gulf of Mexico. There you have the cows.
          1. Sledgehammer
            April 7 2014 20: 22
            +9
            Yes, Stealth is precisely the technology and it is applicable not only to aircraft.
            However, in spite of her, our boats seemed to appear even in
            Gulf of Mexico.

            I only support, proud of our submariners.
            But the fact is the fact, at that time our submarines were noisier than the American ones.
          2. Nick
            Nick April 7 2014 23: 29
            +4
            Quote: Uncle
            We are talking about noise mainly for detection by the Sosus system. However, in spite of her, our boats seemed to appear even in the Gulf of Mexico. There you have the cows.

            Properly used the features of the propagation of acoustic waves in sea water ...
            1. zarya
              zarya April 9 2014 11: 44
              +1
              Quote: Nick
              Properly used the features of the propagation of acoustic waves in sea water ...


              By the way, this was mentioned in one of the editions of The Shock Force. In general, if you swim at certain depths, then the noise does not spread beyond these depths.
              1. Bersaglieri
                Bersaglieri April 10 2014 19: 04
                0
                Thermocline:

                http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0
                % BD
            2. sergeschern
              sergeschern 7 December 2014 10: 52
              0
              Plus a Japanese super-duper digital milling machine, bought specifically for finishing the PL propellers. The US was hysterical and blamed the Japanese, but. ... .after that we "went" quite silent boats. I'm just old and I remember this whole story (from the coverage in the press).
          3. Aleksey_K
            Aleksey_K April 8 2014 14: 50
            +7
            The author writes: Submarines based on stealth technology (for nuclear submarines this is the least noise). Do you see the quotes? Those. this is an analogy with stealth technology. Our attack submarine fleet was built on the principle: at maximum speed, albeit noisily, break away from the pursuit ships, disappear and deliver a nuclear strike, before you are discovered again. Speed ​​is always noisy, especially in water. The denser the environment, the more noise when driving in it, well, the movers are much more noisy. Slow-speed modes are another matter, and if boats use underwater currents and thermal boundaries, then no one can notice their approach to the shores at depths, neither aircraft, nor seapoids, nor sonar on boats. By the way, the Americans are also sitting at our bases and watching. I will only add that everything in the territorial waters can be drowned with impunity.
          4. serega55
            serega55 April 9 2014 00: 27
            0
            Near New York surfaced ..yes ... there was such a thing, in my opinion in 2012 ... google ... and calmly also left ... in short, the Sosus suction system))))
        2. Sledgehammer
          April 7 2014 20: 17
          +12
          "Barracuda" is more of a myth, it has not been shown anywhere
          and "type" data about it only in the internet.
          I have no doubt that the Americans can repeat the "Shkval" in technical terms,
          but the most secret in it is hydroreactive fuel, not the fact that
          they made it.
          1. postman
            postman April 8 2014 13: 02
            +1
            Quote: Sledgehammer
            but the most secret in it is hydroreactive fuel

            ?
            do not make me laugh
            1. liquid monofuel type Otto-fuel ii (inventor, Dr. Otto Reitlinger)
            2. mix: powder of aluminum and magnesium alloyed with nickel in the following proportions, wt. %: aluminum powder - 90-50; nickel alloyed magnesium powder - 10-50

            3. Fuel compositions based on polybutadiene with terminal hydroxyl groups (HTPB)
            / EFFICIENCY OF ALUMINUM RESPONSE IN FUEL COMPOSITION FOR DIRECT-HYDRAULIC HYDROREACTIVE ENGINES
            H.-T. Juan, M.-S. Zou, S.-Y. Go, J.-J. Jan, J.-K. Lee
            Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China

            ==============
            Problems:
            1. reaction temperature (very high)
            2.controlled cavitation cover of a fast-moving body (stall)
            3.providing a given start vector and control
            1. Aleksey_K
              Aleksey_K April 8 2014 14: 55
              +5
              Do not tell yourself! Better explain why, when everyone knows everything, the Flurry of 1 version has a range of 13 km., And Barracuda 1 km.? Why is our Flurry, even the first, no one can repeat?
              1. postman
                postman April 8 2014 14: 59
                +1
                Quote: Алексей_К
                and Barracuda is 1 km.?

                the weight of the "barracuda" is about 100kg, at the Shkval 2700 kg
                Energy Conclusion is Obvious

                "Barakuda" was conceived as a counter-torpedo (protection of submarines from attacking torpedoes)
              2. atalef
                atalef April 8 2014 15: 17
                -5
                Quote: Алексей_К
                Do not tell yourself! Better explain why, when everyone knows everything, the Flurry of 1 version has a range of 13 km., And Barracuda 1 km.? Why is our Flurry, even the first, no one can repeat?

                Generally, excuse me, nobody needs him.
                The range of one kilometer (as well as 13 km) is ridiculous because torpedo only makes sense with nuclear weapons, because at such speeds, it is practically uncontrollable and this explains the presence of nuclear weapons (even if it does not hit, it will destroy it all the same)
                Who needs it? What wars will be used?
                To date, this torpedo has no prospects.
                1. alicante11
                  alicante11 April 9 2014 04: 07
                  +3
                  Who needs it? What wars will be used?


                  Against the nuclear submarines, as developed. But in which - it’s better to ask you, you are with them carifans.
                  1. yulka2980
                    yulka2980 April 10 2014 07: 25
                    0
                    laughing laid it on both shoulder blades
              3. The comment was deleted.
              4. mine
                mine 18 October 2014 17: 31
                0
                because Flurry is a dead end and insanity
                all the most delicious in supercavitation takes place in small calibers (because it is possible to implement maneuvers and great depths on them) - which is what the West did
        3. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K April 8 2014 14: 18
          +2
          The range of Barracuda is 1000 m., And Flurry is 13 km. It follows that this is just a Flurry interception system. But the Flurry of 2 surpasses, while the experienced Barracuda, in speed - 720 against 400 km / h.
        4. Signaller
          Signaller April 8 2014 15: 10
          +1
          He is not only not in the "topic", he does not know at all why the submarine fleet exists. And he exists to create obstacles ................. In short, to guide the nix on his communications. Total war - here we must remember the German experience of total war with the navy .. We must sit down to study and deduce our rules. sit down quickly. Time is running out. Well, and the nuclear submarine and the Strategists, it is in the rear to direct the nix. like "HALF UNDER ALL THE USA" It won't be weak ..
          1. alicante11
            alicante11 April 9 2014 04: 16
            +3
            In fact, the USSR submarines had three tasks. The first is the application, together with surface ships and long-range aviation, of strikes against amerskiy AUG. These are multipurpose nuclear submarines. The second (which is also the main one) is ensuring the delivery of a retaliatory nuclear strike. For what there were SSBNs and, again, multipurpose nuclear submarines covering them, although at the stage of deployment they could cover both diesel-electric submarines and NK. And only the third - "free hunting of wolf packs" for amerskie transport carrying Yankes to a meat-processing plant in Europe. Taking into account the fact that in the performance of the first task, our nuclear submarines should suffer serious losses, and after ensuring the fulfillment of the second task, there will be no one to be brought to Europe and there is no need to carry it to Europe, it was precisely the "nimble on communications" that was the least important option for our submarine fleet.
            1. Signaller
              Signaller April 16 2014 17: 52
              +1
              Well yes. We will decide everything at once, and immediately we will throw everything at the rockets. Yes, this will not happen. Until atomic bombs are launched against us, we will not do that either. Therefore, it is necessary to heat the transports. And the fact that the doctrine is written is a grandmother for two said. Who read it real. Secret information, however.
        5. The comment was deleted.
        6. gorod24170
          gorod24170 April 8 2014 15: 48
          +3
          It's simple. They have torpedoes, but any analogue in the world gives a maximum of 120km / h, and a barrage of 500. There uncles who come up with, too, probably are not made by bast shoes.
        7. arane
          arane April 8 2014 19: 06
          +8
          The author is in the subject, but at the level of studying information on an Internet. In principle, there is a lot of correctness, but there are just mistakes, and there is a venihret from tactics.
          In essence, the Flurry cannot be called a torpedo in the sense that is embedded in this term. If it’s rude and on the fingers - this is an artillery shell with nuclear warhead (we neglect the principle of movement). To use it, you do not need to transfer the HAC to the asset. Everything is simpler.
          It is impossible to dodge a flurry. If you shoot at an underwater target from the MAXIMUM distance, then the evasion time of the attacked target will be 1.5 min. During this time, the boat, moving at a low noise and starting active evasion (taking into account the reaction time of the crew and circulation) will pass 2-3 cable, i.e. 350-550 meters. THIS IS ON THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF SHOOTING Flurry. In real life, the firing distance will be much less.
          The flurry has flaws, but the main thing is that it only takes place with nuclear warheads, so accuracy is not important, the radius of the destruction ensures the destruction of the target.
          On the other warhead, it does not make sense ..... just do not get ...
          1. Sledgehammer
            April 9 2014 19: 31
            +1
            To use it, you do not need to transfer the HAC to the asset. Everything is simpler.

            So how?
        8. Severe
          Severe April 9 2014 19: 15
          +1
          The research institute gidropribor (St. Petersburg), 6 years ago, came up with a torpedo whose speed is several times higher than the speed of a barrage. I think in 10-15 years a new torpedo will appear !!! wink
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Sledgehammer
        April 7 2014 20: 11
        +8
        Have you read the article? How can it be unmasked, a torpedo has already been fired at it
        from protinik submarine?
      4. maks-101
        maks-101 April 8 2014 13: 35
        0
        the main thing is giving teeth
      5. Signaller
        Signaller April 8 2014 15: 02
        +2
        Who cares???? What torpedo to sink a tanker or dry cargo ship of Americans ???? Explain ???. Submarines not only work with aircraft carriers or cruisers but also drown transports ??? And most importantly, this is their holy duty.
        1. atalef
          atalef April 8 2014 15: 32
          +5
          Quote: Signaller
          Who cares???? What torpedo drown tanker or bulk carrier of the Americans ????

          Do you laugh, do you think that the war with America will reach the phase of nuclear submarine hunting for tankers and dry cargo ships?
          It will end much earlier.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. Assistant
          Assistant April 8 2014 23: 16
          +1
          Who cares????


          Dear knowledgeable people, please correct me if I understand something wrong.

          Submarines not only work with aircraft carriers or cruisers but also drown transports ??? And most importantly, this is their holy duty.


          And it always seemed to me that the tactics of the USSR submarine fleet radically differed from the tactics of the submarine fleet of the same Germany. The Fritz submarines were supposed to attack the merchant ships of the merchant fleet, to engage in battle in warships, to put it mildly, was not their main task.
          Submarines of the USSR were to perform the following tasks:
          1) Submarines with armored personnel carriers were to deliver a nuclear strike on the territory of the enemy and their military bases as part of the concept of mutual guaranteed destruction. Here the task of drowning transports is not visible at all (only if the port falls under the BR). Drowning such a submarine transport - only from the realization of the hopelessness of further life after shooting for the goals of all BRs;
          2) Submarines with PKKR and multi-purpose torpedo-missile submarines were to sink the linear naval forces of the potential enemy’s fleet. Again, the use of ammunition from them against merchant ships is a waste of ammunition in terms of their main use;
          3) Low-noise diesel-electric submarines of the near sea zone were supposed to protect the coastal regions of the USSR from all types of enemy ships. Of course, they had to attack the enemy’s military transports, approaching the Soviet coast for unloading, but let's distinguish between a military transport (assault landing) ship and a merchant marine transport ship. Well, I can’t imagine situations in which the ships of the enemy’s merchant fleet would not be removed from the waters close to the USSR, with signs of a world conflict.

          What torpedo drown tanker or bulk carrier of the Americans ????


          So it seems that tankers or bulk carriers were not among the most likely targets of the Soviet submarines.
          But the submarines, performing 1 and 2 tasks, had a very dangerous opponent: submarine mattresses. Moreover, a single torpedo with an American submarine could disrupt the combat mission of the Soviet submarine by its final and irrevocable destruction. In this case, when the Soviet American submarine attacked the latter, a quick torpedo was launched with a nuclear warhead with the aim, if not to destroy the enemy (they did not accurately determine his position), then at least shoot down his sight and deprive the advantages of the first shot. And then - an underwater game of hide and seek, killer.
          By the way, on topwar there was an article about the offensive weapon of Soviet submarines, which was used if the initiative was owned by the submarine of the USSR, and there they never called "Shkval", but a 650-mm torpedo with nuclear warheads.
          By the way, did the Soviet (does the Russian have the right) submarine carrier of ICBMs have the right to respond to a torpedo attack by launching a Shkval with a nuclear warhead at the attacker before receiving an order to launch an ICBM at the enemy?
          1. mpa945
            mpa945 April 8 2014 23: 33
            +1
            "By the way, did the Soviet (does the Russian have the right) submarine carrier of ICBMs have the right to respond to a torpedo attack by launching a Shkval with nuclear warheads at the attacker before receiving an order to launch an ICBM against the enemy?"
            On the BS (if Flurry on board), not only Mona, but also Nuna
            That is, it is prescribed by the governing documents.
    3. oldstaryi
      oldstaryi April 7 2014 20: 43
      +2
      Not "stinking", but generally roaring


      The exact name of our submarines is roaring cows. But the author, when describing the battle of the Premier League, forgot to indicate that the amers have torpedoes without control by wire. And a flurry speed of 500km \ h .. But the advantages of this torpedo are greatly exaggerated. Since modern Amerov nuclear submarines can attack from a distance of 30-40 km, or even 60-70 .. By torpedo armament, we are far behind the mattresses ...
      1. Sledgehammer
        April 7 2014 21: 08
        +8
        The author made no mistake, torpedoes are controlled by wire.
        Since modern Amerov nuclear submarines can attack from a distance of 30-40 km, or even 60-70 .. By torpedo armament, we are far behind the mattresses ...

        Depending on the purpose. At a distance of 30-40 km to detect a modern submarine, it is unlikely.
        Torpedo launch range may be 100 km, the length of the wire anyway
        limited, somewhere 16-18 km maximum. GOS torpedoes are not so
        perfect to shoot without pointing at such (16-18 km) range.

        But the merits of this torpedo are greatly exaggerated.

        Rather, they are belittled.
        1. atalef
          atalef April 8 2014 15: 21
          -2
          Quote: Sledgehammer
          The author did not mess up, torpedoes are controlled by wire

          A flurry is an uncontrolled torpedo. Shoots in a straight line - in general, suddenly lucky. With an ordinary warhead, it turns into an ancient weapon of the beginning of the Second World War,
      2. Sledgehammer
        April 8 2014 10: 03
        0
        Quote: oldstaryi
        The exact name of our submarines is roaring cows. But the author, when describing the battle of the Premier League, forgot to indicate that the amers have torpedoes without control by wire. And a flurry speed of 500km \ h .. But the advantages of this torpedo are greatly exaggerated. Since modern Amerov nuclear submarines can attack from a distance of 30-40 km, or even 60-70 .. By torpedo armament, we are far behind the mattresses ..

        By the way, I didn’t minus you.
        1. dmitrij.blyuz
          dmitrij.blyuz April 8 2014 10: 13
          +1
          Great article! By the way, what is now to replace the "Shkval"? Link kinte! People are interested, purely civil.
          1. Sledgehammer
            April 8 2014 10: 41
            0
            Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
            By the way, what is now to replace the "Shkval"? Link kinte!

            If only I knew what would now replace the "Flurry".
            As usual silence, secrecy damn it.
          2. Wheel
            Wheel April 8 2014 11: 24
            +1
            Quote: dmitrij.blyuz
            By the way, what is now to replace the "Shkval"?

            No specific information.
            There are rumors about "Shkval-M", "Shkvale-M2", "Shkval-2"
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 21 June 2014 03: 29
              +2
              I heard from the edge of my ear on the Weapon TV channel that there is a change in the flurry ... I don’t know the name, I won’t lie, but the speed there will be up to 1500km and it will be controlled ... experts kind of vaguely explained that this was not a torpedo, it would for air targets, too ... in general, here is such a vinigret ...
  2. Nova
    Nova April 7 2014 09: 02
    +16
    Thank you for the article. I don’t think that the Americans have left everything in the same places in terms of technology, but the Shkval itself, like the people who created it, cause pride and delight.
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg April 7 2014 10: 29
      +6
      Quote: Nova
      Thank you for the article. I don’t think that the Americans have left everything in the same places in terms of technology, but the Shkval itself, like the people who created it, cause pride and delight.


      Something is not particularly noticeable so that in America someone will greatly advance in weapons technology.
      1. rolik
        rolik April 7 2014 18: 42
        +7
        Quote: Geisenberg
        Something is not particularly noticeable so that in America someone will greatly advance in weapons technology.

        Well, what about other technologies, I don't know. Only the "flurry" mattress covers could not be repeated.
        1. postman
          postman April 8 2014 15: 09
          +4
          Quote: rolik
          Only the "flurry" mattress covers could not be repeated.

          They have good torpedoes and so, bet on them, develop supercavitation for another
          SUPERSONIC bullet. In 1997, a team of researchers at the NUWC in Rhode Island demonstrated a completely submerged launch of super-cavitating shells at an initial velocity of 1549 meters per second, which exceeds the speed of sound in water.



          They "follow" a different path:

          The US is developing underwater rotating launch turrets that will be installed below the ship's waterline and capable of firing "kinetic killers" to protect naval ships from torpedoes and mines
          (mine shell)



          =============




          and mover another
        2. gross kaput
          gross kaput 26 November 2014 10: 14
          0
          Again, the "pros" talk about "having no analogues" and "impossible to repeat" weapons samples - if you are such a connoisseur, tell me and they tried to repeat and they did not succeed, or did they still not bother? That's interesting, from your point of view, we could not repeat F117, or did we not bother because we do not need it?
          PS when I read such posts I always remember the anecode about the elusive Joe.
  3. Nitarius
    Nitarius April 7 2014 09: 07
    +8
    I hope it will be so and ON! our minds will think ahead of the curve!
  4. ramsi
    ramsi April 7 2014 09: 07
    +3
    A flurry, of course, is a good thing, but judging by the "extremism" of the ideology, a submarine of its own could fall under the distribution. Here everything would be decided by the quantity ...
    1. Sledgehammer
      April 7 2014 20: 23
      +2
      To do this, and was on the dashboard
      The charge has two power levels, which switch depending on the range. At a distance of 2-5 km there will be a small explosion power, and 5-10 km a large power
  5. cergey51046
    cergey51046 April 7 2014 09: 12
    0
    Such weapons are needed in sufficient quantities.
  6. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk April 7 2014 09: 18
    +7
    Very interesting, thanks!
  7. Fess
    Fess April 7 2014 09: 22
    0
    Interesting! Can someone tell me - the existing agreements on limiting nuclear weapons contain a ban on torpedoes, shells, etc. with a nuclear charge?
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 7 2014 09: 38
      +14
      TNW is not prohibited. But in the 90 years, under a separate agreement, they were unloaded from the sides - for coastal storage.
      In the light of current events, I consider it necessary to return to the ass. Oh, a very effective answer when firing from duty TAs.
    2. Army1
      Army1 April 7 2014 11: 15
      +7
      Quote: Fess
      Interesting! Can someone tell me - the existing agreements on limiting nuclear weapons contain a ban on torpedoes, shells, etc. with a nuclear charge?

      I beg you these contracts to the public, they said, they forgot. The same Americans are in no hurry with their B61s from Europe, although, in their words, we are "a defeated enemy, and a partner and a friend."
  8. Igor39
    Igor39 April 7 2014 09: 31
    +1
    So the "squall" seems to have been removed from the weapons. I read about the German "Barracuda", the Germans say that the characteristics are better than ours.
    1. Sledgehammer
      April 7 2014 20: 25
      +2
      Yes, everyone just reads "Barracuda" but it is not shown anywhere.
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K April 8 2014 14: 58
        +1
        These are still prototypes.
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 21 June 2014 03: 33
      +3
      a flurry of uncontrolled torpedo and its trump card is only speed ... that is, the target simply does not have time to evade it ... Koreans made a smart torpedo, it seems to accelerate to 100 km per hour, but it is homing, and the Amers have something similar with focusing on homing ...
  9. rasputin17
    rasputin17 April 7 2014 09: 34
    +8
    I do not agree with the author about our underwater shipbuilding! We have created 661, 701, 705 projects that nullified the entire NATO aircraft carrier fleet. We had the best submarine fighters in the world and the records set by them are still not broken. True, in a quarter of a century much has been lost, and it is impossible to produce old technologies in certain positions. But I believe that this takes time because we have huge achievements and a desire to implement them.
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 7 2014 09: 42
      +9
      Hu is 701?
      Like 661 in one copy and 705 as a submarine hunter " projects that nullified the entire aircraft carrier fleet of NATO "?
      1. oldstaryi
        oldstaryi April 7 2014 20: 46
        +2
        Hu is 701?
        How 661 in one copy and 705 - a hunter for submarines "projects to nullify the entire aircraft carrier fleet of NATO"?


        Apparently the author was referring to boats of the "Kursk" type with Granites on board .... Well, he used syndexes ...
        1. rasputin17
          rasputin17 April 8 2014 08: 11
          0
          Project "Lyra" came with two versions - early 701 and later 705, now they are in the OFI in Zapadnaya Litsa.
          1. mpa945
            mpa945 April 8 2014 10: 14
            +1
            Dear, where does infa come from?
            Project Lear - 705-Leningrad built and 705k - Severodvinsk.
            701 never existed.
            1. rasputin17
              rasputin17 April 8 2014 10: 35
              0
              From the Western Faces of the 6th KSF Division.
              1. mpa945
                mpa945 April 8 2014 10: 43
                +1
                The 6th KSF division has not existed since 1992; it was transferred to Vidyaevo and merged with 7.
                At least the position of the one you are referring please, pliz?
                1. rasputin17
                  rasputin17 April 8 2014 11: 09
                  +1
                  She was transferred to Ara Guba in 1992 and settled in a nine-story building opposite the 35th division, which was just this year and formed on the basis of the disbanded 50th submarine division, but at this point it was not yet disbanded, possibly later in 94-95 but I didn’t serve then and I won’t argue. Yes, the guys said that the 7th and 6th divisions want to merge, but when at that time it was not clear. Ships came to us with crews and the headquarters still remained in Lytsa.
                  1. mpa945
                    mpa945 April 8 2014 11: 19
                    +1
                    Dear guys do not have posts?
                    I am a graduate of Korfak Dzerzhinka 88 years old. The lieutenant was in the 6th and it was on 705. then 945. He left the job in Vidyaevo in 98.
                    And I assure you, there are many of them.
                    I do not need to tell tales about 701. Okay?
                    1. rasputin17
                      rasputin17 April 8 2014 11: 55
                      +1
                      But from now on about 945 in more detail, what kind of crew?
                      1. mpa945
                        mpa945 April 8 2014 12: 02
                        +1
                        582, later 276
                      2. rasputin17
                        rasputin17 April 8 2014 13: 08
                        0
                        Is this the former "Condor" and later "Pskov"?
                      3. mpa945
                        mpa945 April 8 2014 13: 21
                        0
                        239 - remained Crab
                        276 - Kostram
                        534 - N. Novgorod
                        336 - Pskov
                        The first pair - Barracudas, The second - Condors
            2. rasputin17
              rasputin17 April 8 2014 11: 14
              +1
              And by the way: in the same year the first "loaf" from Kamchatka came to us if you are in the subject. since they wanted to equip the 7th division with them, and in Dvinsk he left the stocks of the head.
  10. rasputin17
    rasputin17 April 8 2014 08: 10
    0
    The Lyra project went in two versions, the first had the code 701.
  • nazgul-ishe
    nazgul-ishe April 7 2014 10: 07
    +5
    To build a "product" for a record and to operate and maintain a serial are completely different things.
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 7 2014 10: 13
      0
      "Building a" product "for a record and operating and maintaining a serial are completely different things."

      Regardless of the "product" Rear has always been "Anti-submarine"
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Sledgehammer
    April 7 2014 20: 27
    0
    "Shkval" was created in 1977 for 25 years.
  • Colorman
    Colorman April 7 2014 09: 51
    +1
    And what are all the torpedoes on the wiring?
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 7 2014 09: 53
      +2
      Not all. But MK48 is yes.
    2. 62 RUS
      62 RUS April 7 2014 11: 25
      -1
      Still would be tied to a rope.
      1. Bersaglieri
        Bersaglieri April 7 2014 23: 28
        +5
        But how to organize a remote control under water with a normal channel capacity? Only by cable. Russian torpedoes TEST, USET and UGST are also controlled.
        Learn physics in general.
  • DNX1970
    DNX1970 April 7 2014 10: 05
    +1
    The process is beautifully described, I want it to correspond to reality.
    1. nnz226
      nnz226 April 7 2014 12: 02
      +11
      Described correctly! "Shkval" was created as a weapon of retaliation, so that the adversary would not be happy that he managed to sneak up and slap the Russian torpedo. Well, or, as the F-1 grenade is considered a hara-kiri of the Russians (a hara-kiri knife for performing the seppuku ritual among the samurai), so is the "Shkval" - for submariners. Again, they could be fired at the entrance to the adversary's naval base, and no one would have had time to twitch there, as the base wave would have carried the entire contents of the bay to the shore.
  • nazgul-ishe
    nazgul-ishe April 7 2014 10: 10
    +1
    KAMIKADZE weapons or bait fishing.
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 7 2014 10: 19
      +4
      And here "KAMIKADZE"?
      The weapon is very effective. All the advantage of mattress covers in the detection range cancels. No wonder friend Elson unloaded from the side at the request of his friends.
      1. nazgul-ishe
        nazgul-ishe April 7 2014 10: 45
        +1
        Or after Kursk.
        1. mpa945
          mpa945 April 7 2014 11: 12
          +2
          Kursk which side? There was definitely no flurry on board.
          1. pv1005
            pv1005 April 7 2014 11: 38
            0
            Did you see it yourself or who told you?
            1. mpa945
              mpa945 April 7 2014 11: 52
              +9
              "Did you see it yourself or who told you?"
              What is it?
              All torpedoes and missile torpedoes from the NBC 7-8 years to Kursk were removed from the ships.
              So yes year 92-93 so unloaded. We were the last in the SF. Personally participated
  • KOSMOS
    KOSMOS April 7 2014 10: 21
    +3
    The article is a plus. I knew that "Shkval" was not a panacea and had difficulties with accuracy, but I did not know about such tactics, thanks!
    1. Sledgehammer
      April 7 2014 20: 30
      +4
      Accuracy is not important, 77 all the same, but with YaZ it is not important.
      1. alicante11
        alicante11 April 9 2014 04: 38
        +1
        Are there any developments to improve accuracy now? I understand that the GOS is absent due to media conflict, or too high speed? Maybe it is possible to take out the GOS on a bar with a fairing in front, maybe a retractable one?
        1. Sledgehammer
          April 9 2014 05: 08
          0
          The speed is too high, wire control is not possible,
          they will not be able to correct the flight, but in a minute of flight time
          the adversary can shift strongly and even if the GOS implements
          it must be long-range; otherwise, a torp-rocket. won't have time
          maneuver on target.
  • Vasia kruger
    Vasia kruger April 7 2014 10: 40
    +2
    Nuclear weapons against submarines ... Cool. I understand applying them against formations, but against a separate submarine ...
    1. Starover_Z
      Starover_Z April 7 2014 11: 20
      +7
      Against a "hunter" boat, yes, cool, but if you have strategic missiles on board, it is better to override than not to complete the task.
      And if the same "Ohio" with its missiles is against you, then there is nothing to choose - to sink unambiguously!
    2. Proud.
      Proud. April 7 2014 13: 04
      +2
      Quote: Vasia Kruger
      Nuclear weapons against submarines ... Cool.

      Against airplanes too.
      1. Vasek
        Vasek April 8 2014 03: 09
        +1
        Quote: Be proud.
        Quote: Vasia Kruger
        Nuclear weapons against submarines ... Cool.

        Against airplanes too.

        Quote: Be proud.
        Quote: Vasia Kruger
        Nuclear weapons against submarines ... Cool.
        Against airplanes too.

        laughing
        But against AUG - just right, foolproof!
        Smoothes out possible "weakness"! soldier
        1. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K April 8 2014 15: 10
          +2
          I repeat for you: This is not cool, but a necessity, because one strike submarine can destroy half a country in a matter of minutes. Maybe you don’t know that in Russia the missile defense with nuclear charges is still in service in air defense? They destroy not only one warhead, but everything that flies up, including false targets, and with real charges.
    3. oldstaryi
      oldstaryi April 7 2014 20: 49
      +1
      Nuclear weapons against submarines ... Cool. I understand applying them against formations, but against a separate submarine ...


      In submariners' jargon, this is a "pistol shot" tactic ....
    4. alleksSalut4507
      alleksSalut4507 April 7 2014 23: 34
      0
      and who is easy?
    5. The comment was deleted.
  • 62 RUS
    62 RUS April 7 2014 11: 19
    +2
    But the Americans have no such weapons today. This is recognized by both specialists and the military.
  • Professor
    Professor April 7 2014 11: 30
    +4
    "Flurry" wiped out the advantages of the US NPS and their tactics.

    1. Exclusively using a nuclear warhead.
    2. The bourgeois also advanced in the development of submarine rockets - Barracuda.

    Having an advantage in speed, "Shkval", quickly approaching the target, is capable of performing simple maneuvers to evade interception, which is included in its program of actions.

    What are the maneuvers? Where does Flurry target designation come from?
    1. projdoha
      projdoha April 7 2014 13: 38
      +3
      2. The bourgeois also advanced in the development of submarine rockets - Barracuda.

      after receiving the sample "squall"
      1. Professor
        Professor April 7 2014 13: 45
        -1
        Quote: projdoha
        after receiving the sample "squall"

        OBS?
        Nevertheless, Western intelligence agencies have repeatedly tried to obtain information about Russian supercavitation weapons. On April 2000, 20, American businessman Edmond Pope was arrested for trying to get the secrets of the FSB Flurry. He faced 8 years in prison, but in the end, after spending only XNUMX months in Lefortovo, he was released by V. Putin's decree "for humanitarian reasons" (he suffered from bone cancer).
        German torpedo-rocket Barracuda
        1. Sledgehammer
          April 7 2014 20: 36
          +1
          German torpedo-rocket Barracuda

          Is that all? Only ducks on the Internet about her and all.
    2. Sledgehammer
      April 7 2014 20: 35
      +1
      What are the maneuvers? Where does Flurry target designation come from?

      Why target designation? Cancer torpedo has already received target designation and goes to
      point using inertial system location.
      Maneuvers on the trajectory, which is not clear.
      1. Professor
        Professor April 7 2014 20: 48
        -1
        Quote: Sledgehammer
        Why target designation? Cancer torpedo has already received target designation and goes to
        point using inertial system location.
        Maneuvers on the trajectory, which is not clear

        All clear. A rocket moves at the speed of light and a submarine for it represents a static target. wassat Now it’s clear why a nuclear warhead is needed.
        1. Sledgehammer
          April 7 2014 20: 52
          +1
          Are you definitely a professor?
          1. Professor
            Professor April 7 2014 21: 03
            0
            Quote: Sledgehammer
            Are you definitely a professor?

            Consider this your answer?
            1. Sledgehammer
              April 7 2014 21: 14
              +1
              Was that a question?
              1. Professor
                Professor April 7 2014 21: 19
                +3
                Quote: Sledgehammer
                Was that a question?

                Yes, it was a question about pearls, how does this torpedo "maneuver" and aimed at the target? Type: Having an advantage in speed, "Shkval", quickly approaching the target, is able to perform simple maneuvers to evade interception, incorporated in its program of actions. So, I repeat the question: Where does Flurry target designation come from?
                1. Sledgehammer
                  April 7 2014 21: 28
                  +2
                  The USSR nuclear submarine transfers its GAS from passive mode to active mode in order to determine the location of the US nuclear submarine with high accuracy

                  Cancer torpedo has already received target designation and goes to
                  point using inertial system location.

                  More questions?
                  1. Professor
                    Professor April 7 2014 21: 38
                    +1
                    Quote: Sledgehammer
                    The cancer torpedo has already received target designation and is heading to the point using an inertial recognition system. location.

                    In Russian, this is called "not guided in any way" and "does not receive target designation", but is released in the direction of the submarine with the hope of being within the radius of destruction of the nuclear charge. You can leave fantasies about maneuvers for the pioneers. At least keep her on a straight line. sad
                    In total, if there is no nuclear conflict, the Flurry is useless. In the event of a nuclear conflict, "no one will go anywhere."
                    1. Sledgehammer
                      April 7 2014 21: 42
                      +1
                      . You can leave fantasies about maneuvers for pioneers.
                      At least to keep it on the line

                      That "Shkval" interferes with the maneuver on the trajectory?
                      It’s hard to stop this flight of your imagination :)

                      In total, if there is no nuclear conflict, the Flurry is useless. In the event of a nuclear conflict, "no one will go anywhere."

                      And they talked about my pearls :)
                      1. Professor
                        Professor April 7 2014 21: 54
                        +1
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        That "Shkval" interferes with the maneuver on the trajectory?

                        Materiel, dear, materiel. I can explain it on my fingers, but I can send it to the source (did you read them before writing the article?)
                        http://hydromech.com.ua/rus/tsg/accomp1.htm
                        http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/phy596/Articles/StealthTechnology/WarpD
                        riveUnderwater.pdf


                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        And they talked about my pearls :)

                        I repeat specifically for you: in the event of a nuclear conflict, you can dry the oars or pray (who believes in anything). I hope this is not necessary to explain?
                      2. Sledgehammer
                        April 7 2014 22: 01
                        +2
                        Materiel, dear, materiel. I can explain it on my fingers, but I can send it to the source (did you read them before writing the article?)
                        http://hydromech.com.ua/rus/tsg/accomp1.htm
                        http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/phy596/Articles/StealthTechnology/WarpD

                        riveUnderwater.pdf

                        Everything is clear, then it was just a chatter smile
                        I have not heard anything significant, however, as always.

                        I repeat specifically for you: in the event of a nuclear conflict, you can dry the oars or pray (who believes in anything). I hope this is not necessary to explain?

                        With the start of a nuclear war, nuclear submarines will continue to perform missions for a long time,
                        put by hand, this is to the pearl :)

                        "no one is going anywhere."
                      3. Professor
                        Professor April 7 2014 22: 09
                        -1
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        Everything is clear, then it was just a chatter
                        I have not heard anything significant, however, as always.

                        Troll? Oh well... wassat
                        You didn’t bother to read my links (you don’t have your own)? Do you immediately explain about the instability of the cavity or read about it yourself? Hint what happens to a torpedo if any part of it comes out of the cavity and touches the environment at cruising speed?
                        Squall makes noises not from a good life, but from despair.

                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        With the start of a nuclear war, nuclear submarines will continue to perform missions for a long time,
                        put by hand, this is to the pearl :)

                        May I ask a personal question? You yourself served in what regiment? I guess, but I would like confirmation.
                      4. Sledgehammer
                        April 7 2014 22: 20
                        +5
                        You didn’t bother to read my links (you don’t have your own)?

                        I read it. But you probably didn’t, otherwise you would not have asked below
                        following questions.
                        Hint what happens to a torpedo if any part of it comes out of the cavity and touches the environment at cruising speed?


                        Quotes from your own links.
                        "The modes of stable motion of a body in a supercavern were theoretically investigated and experimentally confirmed, when the body periodically glides along the walls of the cavity or is stabilized by aerodynamic and spray forces in the presence of a single point of contact of the body with water on the cavitator."

                        Do you immediately explain about the instability of the cavity or read about it yourself?


                        "-In the direction of research into artificial cavitation, special schemes of distributed blowing and closing of caverns were developed, which made it possible to reduce the hydrodynamic resistance of bodies and the cost of gas for blowing an artificial supercavern. The introduction of these developments, when creating the Shkval underwater rocket, was awarded state awards in 1978. (Logvinovich G.V., Buivol V.N., Savchenko Yu.N.)
                        - Management of supercavitation flow - is a prerequisite for the use of supercavitation on moving objects.

                        In this direction, the regularities of the change in the parameters of ventilated super caverns from the amount of blowing when closing the cavity on bodies of different geometry and possible ways of stabilizing such caverns under conditions of a stationary flow regime were studied. A number of types of cavitators with adjustable values ​​of drag coefficients and lift force have been developed, which make it possible to control the cavity regardless of the cavitation number and cavitation mode (ventilated or natural steam). Due to its high-speed performance, this method of cavity control is applied under conditions of a non-stationary flow regime. The regularities of controlling the shape of the cross-sections of the cavity by changing the geometry of the cavitation edge of the cavitator (Savchenko Yu.N., Vlasenko Yu.D.) have been experimentally studied. "
                      5. Professor
                        Professor April 7 2014 22: 29
                        -1
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        I read it. But you probably didn’t, otherwise you would not have asked below
                        following questions.

                        Well, thank God. Better later than never. At least some contact with the materiel happened to you, otherwise it turns out that I’m the only one who shifts a lot of material when writing articles.

                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        The modes of stable motion of a body in a supercavern were theoretically investigated and experimentally confirmed, when the body periodically glides along the walls of the cavity or is stabilized using aerodynamic and spray forces in the presence of a single point of contact of the body with water on the cavitator. "

                        I explain that only in one kidney there is contact with water along the front axial line. Therefore, there are no maneuvers.

                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        "-In the direction of research on artificial ...

                        I explain this too. When it comes to "control", they do not mean "maneuvering", but only the control of the cavity (sectional shape, closure, etc.), in other words, the cavity efficiency.

                        Continue educational program? wink
                      6. Sledgehammer
                        April 7 2014 22: 45
                        +4
                        And I watch "At least some contact with the materiel" you still have no way smile
                        I explain that only in one kidney there is contact with water along the front axial line. Therefore, there are no maneuvers.

                        I didn’t ask you to notice that you would explain to me. smile
                        It is in the nasal device that the change is carried out
                        the angle of the cavitator, that is, its plane. Move to shares
                        degrees and vectors of application of forces will change
                        displacement. wink


                        What else do you need to explain? wink
                      7. Professor
                        Professor April 7 2014 22: 48
                        -4
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        . Move to shares
                        degrees and vectors of application of forces will change
                        displacement.

                        A link confirming this pearl to the studio.
                      8. Sledgehammer
                        April 7 2014 22: 50
                        +3
                        A link confirming this pearl to the studio.

                        This is elementary, learn physics smile
                      9. Professor
                        Professor April 7 2014 22: 52
                        -5
                        Quote: Sledgehammer
                        A link confirming this pearl to the studio.

                        This is elementary, learn physics smile

                        That is, it is a figment of your imagination? All clear. I do not feed trolls. Good night. hi
                      10. Sledgehammer
                        April 7 2014 22: 55
                        +2
                        That is, it is a figment of your imagination?

                        No it's a physics school course smile .

                        I do not feed trolls


                        I am by the way too hi laughing
                2. postman
                  postman April 8 2014 13: 27
                  +2
                  Quote: Sledgehammer
                  Move to shares
                  degrees and vectors of application of forces will change
                  bias


                  ONLY for changing the depth of the trajectory (changing it by changing the buoyancy at such a speed ... unrealistically slow)

                  BY COURSE (yaw) - NOT MANAGED
                  ===
                  However, this is also fidno according to the photo
                  =====================
                  In the horizontal plane (yaw) Flurry (1 in any case) - Out of control
                  Your statement
                  Quote: Sledgehammer
                  "Flurry", quickly approaching the target, able to perform simple maneuvers to evade interceptionlaid down in the program of his actions.

                  WRONG
                  No maneuvers (except for changing the depth, moreover, insignificant only for EXIT to the depth of the target) he cannot perform, all the more "evasion maneuvers from interception"
                  / What would "evade" you need to know "" that you are being intercepted (at least)
                3. Wheel
                  Wheel April 8 2014 13: 58
                  +2
                  Quote: Postman
                  He cannot perform any maneuvers (except for changing the depth, moreover, insignificant only for EXIT to the depth of the target), all the more "evasion maneuvers from interception"

                  There is no need for the squall to go "to the depth of the target", such a task was not even posed. By depth, it is brought to the "running depth" at the beginning of the trajectory, then goes in a straight line, without deviating anywhere)
                  The entire control system is sharpened to maintain a given course (azimuth, distance), i.e. small, constantly arising deviations are worked out, nothing more.
                4. postman
                  postman April 8 2014 14: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: Wheel
                  There is no need for the squall to leave "

                  maybe, probably forgotten in over 20 years.
                  But that's not the point.
                  Prowling along the course, the squall DOES NOT "DO" (that is, the trajectory does not change in the horizontal plane), about any
                  Quote: Author
                  to avoid interception
                  speech can not be
                5. Sledgehammer
                  April 8 2014 16: 38
                  0
                  Quote: Postman
                  There can be no author to avoid speech interception

                  This is only your opinion, no more.
                6. postman
                  postman April 8 2014 17: 23
                  0
                  Quote: Sledgehammer
                  This is only your opinion, no more.

                  the stump is clear, I’m not reposting someone’s article thoughtlessly
                  But the opinion confirmed by education (though E1.4 is not my specialty, my e1.1)
                7. arane
                  arane April 8 2014 19: 52
                  +1
                  Yes everything is correct. And to argue about the TTX of something and operate on the INTERNET links ..... you smile at me.
                  The source in this case is those. documentation!
                8. Sledgehammer
                  April 8 2014 21: 09
                  0
                  mindlessly

                  You only comment on that smile , for which they fought ....
            2. Wheel
              Wheel April 8 2014 20: 29
              0
              Quote: Postman
              Prowling along the course the squall DOES NOT "DO" (that is, in the horizontal plane the trajectory does not change)

              So I am about the same.
              The horizontal and vertical trajectories do not change after reaching the combat course, but only stabilize.
              Quote: Postman
              there can be no talk of evasion of interception

              Naturally.
        2. Sledgehammer
          April 8 2014 16: 35
          0
          However, this is also fidno according to the photo

          And where in the photo is this visible?
          What would "dodge" you need to know "that you are being intercepted

          This is done through programming the path type, where does the "need to know"?
        3. postman
          postman April 8 2014 17: 26
          +1
          Quote: Sledgehammer
          And where in the photo is this visible?

          "your" photo, see below: articulated suspension (and drives), allows you to change the position of the washer only along one axis (to influence the roll), just as without straining on the trajectory in the horizontal plane, the effect of such a scheme is NOT TO BE PERFORMED
          Quote: Sledgehammer
          This is done through the programming of the path view.

          1.How can I program a maneuver to evade the striking element in advance?
          2. How and how does the Shkval "find out" that he was issued by the Central Command, and that he is being attacked?
        4. Sledgehammer
          April 8 2014 17: 58
          0
          And where in the photo is this visible?
          "your" photo, see bottom: articulated suspension (and drives), allows you to change the position of the washer in one axis only (to influence the roll).

          Roll deviation of the plane of symmetry from the local vertical to the earth's surface.

          1.How can I program a maneuver to evade the striking element in advance?
          2. How and how does the Shkval "find out" that he was issued by the Central Command, and that he is being attacked?

          "capable of performing simple maneuvers to evade the interception, laid down in program his actions "
        5. postman
          postman April 8 2014 18: 14
          0
          Quote: Sledgehammer
          Roll deviation

          no need to vomit, WATCH essno(as I wrote before)just distracted, working day though.
          Do not be like MANDATED, do not take aside, to the point SEE in the photo.
          What else do you need? or the courage is not enough to admit your .. mmm, well, incompetence, let’s say so?
        6. Sledgehammer
          April 8 2014 18: 20
          0
          no need to choke

          Who is this vomiting?

          Do not be like MANDATED, do not take aside, to the essence SEE in the photo.
          What else do you need? or the courage is not enough to admit your .. mmm, well, incompetence, let’s say so?

          Are you an adequate person?
          And in what it I am not incompetent.
        7. postman
          postman April 8 2014 18: 55
          0
          Quote: Sledgehammer
          Who is this vomiting?

          picture and explanation (to me) about the roll, impressed
          Quote: Sledgehammer
          And in what it I am not incompetent.

          in the subject, as an example below +
          Quote: Sledgehammer And where in the photo is it visible? [/ Quote
          [/ comment-show]
  • postman
    postman April 8 2014 13: 14
    +2
    Quote: Professor
    only in one kidney goes

    Oleg not in one.
    Frontal yes -1
    +
    forage "petals (what the author drew / named in the photo Steering wheels) provide "self-centering" in the cavity 1 + 4
  • Professor
    Professor April 8 2014 13: 38
    -2
    Quote: Postman
    Oleg is not in one.

    Flurry developers claim that in one request
    The modes of steady body motion in a supercavity, when the body periodically glides along the walls of the cavity or is stabilized by aerodynamic and spray forces in the presence of a single point of contact of the body with water on the cavitator, have been theoretically investigated and experimentally confirmed (Savchenko Yu.N., Semenenko V.N. Vlasenko Yu.D., Putilin S.I.)
  • postman
    postman April 8 2014 14: 05
    0
    Quote: Professor
    Flurry developers claim that in one

    Maybe I forgot something, and E1.4 was not my specialty, but it seems to me that it is not correctly stated here (or set out for theory)
    1. The point of contact with the external environment is one (disk) - it is the point of application of force (friction)
    2. Gliding is water movement in which an object is kept on the surface only due to the high-speed pressure of the water, that is, it glides along the water surface = so that this term is not applicable
    Any "gliding" / "fluctuation" or rather, it is possible ONLY relative to this point (1)
    3. An ideally symmetric part (product) has not yet been created and will not be created, and the movement (demolition) is like, along the body (torpedoes) there is friction anyway, uneven.
    The result will demolish, somersault, destroy
    Conclusion: we need a self-sustaining factor (very high speeds and a little reaction time)
    IMHO: 1 point is small, you need the most stable figure (pyramid) of points of application of forces and a system with negative feedback
    1 + 4
  • Professor
    Professor April 8 2014 14: 16
    -1
    Quote: Postman
    IMHO: 1 point is small, you need the most stable figure (pyramid) of points of application of forces and a system with negative feedback

    IMHO there should not be any points of contact at all, in this experiment throwing a heated ball into warm water:
  • postman
    postman April 8 2014 14: 53
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    there should be no touch points at all

    Well, this does not apply to Flurry: cavitation washer, for initiating a cavitation plume (local decrease in pressure in the liquid, with an increase in its speed)
    Quote: Professor
    throwing a heated ball

    Key HEATED (270grS) !!.
    liquid boiling point and there is one nz of cavitation examples

    The same thing (a high speed of immersion of a metal ball) I will get if I sharply lower the pressure of the OS above the surface of the liquid and provided that the ball gets into the flow of pop-up bubbles, well, or when passing an acoustic wave of high intensity during a half-period of rarefaction.

    =======
    in this case, the example (of self-stabilization) is not very relevant, because the ball falls in a gravitational field (gravity), strictly vertically. A Flurry "floats" -Horizontal, in this case the force of gravity does not stabilize the rectilinear movement, but VERSAIL: it mows it !!! (perpendicular to the trajectory)
    Let the young man try to shoot with a heated ball (and not heated) in the water column HORIZONTAL... he will be surprised unspeakably
    Yes, and Flurry, still not a sphere
  • postman
    postman April 8 2014 15: 26
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    Flurry developers claim that in one

    still i'm right
    About two-thirds of the length back from the nose, there are four petals at an angle to the body. Although they resemble loose fins, these spring-loaded skids actually support the torpeb in the cavitation bubble, acting on the rear of the torpedo, allowing it to bounce off the inner surface of the cavity. Western experts believe that the Flurry is actually slowly "precessing" around the circumference of the resonator, repeatedly ricocheting with petals from the walls of the cavity.
    About two thirds of the way back from the nose are four spring-out cylinders angled toward the stern. Although they loosely resemble fins, these spring-tensioned skids actually support the aft end of the torpedo by allowing it to bounce off the inner cavity surface. Western experts believe that the Shkval actually "precesses" slowly around the cavity's circumference, repeatedly ricocheting off the walls as it makes its way through the water.
    / CIA report belay
  • Sledgehammer
    April 7 2014 22: 22
    +1
    Me too beg do not bother me with your own without reasoned guesses and what else happens with you
    laughing
  • Professor
    Professor April 7 2014 22: 33
    0
    Quote: Sledgehammer
    Me too beg do not bother me with your own without reasoned guesses and what else happens with you
    laughing

    You would at least one link confirming your words posted. In any language, even in Chinese. And then all the fantasies, but fantasies. Hurry, I’ll stop feeding you soon.

    PS
    So which regiment served? bully
  • Sledgehammer
    April 7 2014 22: 48
    +1
    Hurry, I’ll stop feeding you soon.

    And who asked you? laughing
  • alleksSalut4507
    alleksSalut4507 April 7 2014 23: 53
    +1
    do not be offended by the opponent. he just has an itch on something .. and, for some reason.
  • Sledgehammer
    April 8 2014 00: 06
    0
    do not be offended by the opponent. he just has an itch on something .. and, for some reason.

    So about the provocateur are you talking to yourself :)
    Someone has an itch, but not for sure :)
  • mpa945
    mpa945 April 7 2014 21: 59
    +2
    No matter how it is induced, it is called in Russian DIRECT. The Flurry is inertial.
    1. Sledgehammer
      April 7 2014 22: 25
      +1
      DIRECT

      No, the jump is easy to intercept.
      Developed "Shkval" not id. You laughing
  • alleksSalut4507
    alleksSalut4507 April 7 2014 23: 38
    0
    you are a provocateur.
    1. Sledgehammer
      April 7 2014 23: 50
      0
      Are you me The provocateur on what?
  • Sledgehammer
    April 7 2014 21: 32
    0
    Read the article carefully, everything is written there, I'm not going to
    to look for extracts for you from the essence of it.
    1. Professor
      Professor April 7 2014 21: 41
      0
      Quote: Sledgehammer
      Read the article carefully, everything is written there, I'm not going to
      to look for extracts for you from the essence of it.

      Thank you for not sending to Google. Now everything is clear. hi
      1. Sledgehammer
        April 7 2014 21: 50
        +1
        Thank you for not sending to Google. Now everything is clear.

        It's my pleasure . hi
  • nod739
    nod739 April 7 2014 11: 34
    0
    Quote: Geisenberg
    not politically correct word "per.d.y.shchie"

    and what is politically incorrect ?? Is anyone offended? usually offended by the truth)))
    ... not literary rather

    and regarding the article ... I remember that the radius of the barrage is about 10 km, maybe 20
    very convenient for straits and bays, but in the open sea at such distances are not always suitable
    and enemy torpedoes are not all on the wires, and moreover, for a long time
    but a flurry is power, we have it, they haven’t)))
  • Asan Ata
    Asan Ata April 7 2014 11: 41
    +1
    There were two factories in Alma-Ata - Kirovsky and Gidromash, which produced torpedoes. Now it is already in the past, the factories have finished. I wonder if it was they who made the Flurry?
  • Rus_87
    Rus_87 April 7 2014 12: 52
    +1
    Quote: Asan Ata
    There were two factories in Alma-Ata - Kirovsky and Gidromash, which produced torpedoes. Now it is already in the past, the factories have finished. I wonder if it was they who made the Flurry?

    As for the Kirov plant, you got excited http://www.mzk.kz/26/
    PS
    And squalls in my opinion somewhere in Kyrgyzstan did ...
    1. SIT
      SIT April 7 2014 13: 24
      +3
      Quote: Rus_87
      And squalls in my opinion somewhere in Kyrgyzstan did ...

      Not done, but tested. On Issyk Kul. There even urgent guys served in the fleet at an altitude of 1500m above sea level)))
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. postman
      postman April 8 2014 14: 20
      0
      Quote: Rus_87
      And squalls in my opinion somewhere in Kyrgyzstan did ...

      NPP "Region", Kazan together with the Leningrad shipyard No. 196 "Sudomekh"
    4. Asan Ata
      Asan Ata April 9 2014 01: 03
      0
      I spread it with my hands. hi Well, at least Kirovsky survived.
  • -Patriot-
    -Patriot- April 7 2014 13: 41
    0
    Yes, Shkval is unbeatable!
  • navigator
    navigator April 7 2014 15: 12
    +2
    a barrage of weapons is interesting, but incomplete. The combat use is extremely doubtful. the depth of fire is 25 meters, i.e. it should float up. the chance to measure the distance to the enemy pl active path path is small. and by the way, the base wave is a radioactive aerosol. she sweeps nothing
    1. Vladislav64
      Vladislav64 April 7 2014 15: 36
      +2
      If the author of "Sledgehammer" is not MM, then the article is pure plagiarism. See comments from MM to the article "VA-111 Shkval M-5" at: http://my.mail.ru/community/zonawar.ru/4E1BAC751D9DE14.html
      And Flurry’s effectiveness is really nightmarish. It is good that the military understood this on time. The most recent commentary on the article is from KBCh-3, who shot this thing.
      1. little man
        little man April 7 2014 15: 50
        +1
        the link is not correct, through registration on a mojmir.
        Is it possible without this garbage?
      2. Sledgehammer
        April 7 2014 20: 55
        +1
        The author of "Sledgehammer" and MM M are one person :)
      3. Sledgehammer
        April 7 2014 23: 23
        0
        Generally an interesting case with you :),
        Registration Date: April 7 2014 15: 16
        Last Visited: April 7 2014 21: 54

        All comments are only in my article, which for some reason
        detained for a day, I had to write to administrators because of this
        letter. Accident or not?
    2. oldstaryi
      oldstaryi April 7 2014 20: 52
      0
      a barrage of weapons is interesting, but incomplete. The combat use is extremely doubtful. the depth of fire is 25 meters, i.e. it should float up. the chance to measure the distance to the enemy pl active path path is small. and by the way, the base wave is a radioactive aerosol. she sweeps nothing


      And this is the whole style of MIT's work. 20 years bathed, ate a lot of money, and as a result ... wassat
  • cerbuk6155
    cerbuk6155 April 7 2014 16: 10
    +1
    Quote: Rus_87
    Created "Shkval" in those years when NATO members called Soviet submarines "stinking cows"

    Not "stinking", but generally roaring

    No matter how they called them, they could not fall asleep for a single day without sleeping pills. soldier
  • Vladislav64
    Vladislav64 April 7 2014 16: 14
    +3
    Quote: man
    the link is not correct, through registration on a mojmir.
    Is it possible without this garbage?

    The postings are large, I did not want to bring them without special need. But since there are problems, please. A comment from a certain MM, similar in content to the article under discussion, was posted at the indicated address on 05-03-2012. I don’t see the point of bringing it, almost all there is 1: 1.
    Opinion on the Flurry from KBCh-3, with which I agree, is lower.
    «04-05-2012 Hello!
    Well, firstly, VA-111 is the secret name of the Shkval missile. In the sources, "For official use, you should write" M5. "This is not a torpedo, but according to the classification of weapons it is listed as an underwater high-speed anti-submarine missile of the" water-to-water "class. Now removed from service, so you can write about it. more than 10 years have passed since my dismissal from the service, so I cannot remember anything legally secret.
    During my service on the nuclear submarine 671РТМ of the project in the Northern Fleet, I happened to shoot this rocket 4 times. According to the Rules for Using the Northern Fleet Polygons (PIP-91) in the Northern Fleet, this missile is fired at only in the 28th firing range in Motovsky Bay. The aiming point is located on Cape Pikshuev. At the end point of the trajectory, the rocket flies out of the water and breaks into a stone cape.
    The complex is called VA-100. The complex includes the VA-111 rocket itself, the Automatic Control and Test Mobile Station (AKIPS-125), the ATT-2-1000 power converter, which produces a gyro acceleration voltage of 40V 1000Hz in normal preparation mode and 54V 1000Hz in forced mode. The converter is located on the submarine on the upper deck of the 2nd compartment, AKIPS-125 is located at the missile base, or at the mobile technical position (PTP). AKIPS-125 is a KAMAZ vehicle with the equipment in the box ".
    To be continued.
    1. Vladislav64
      Vladislav64 April 7 2014 16: 15
      +3
      The VA-111 missile is unique in its design, but not from a tactical point of view. Yes, it has no analogues in the world. The CIA has had drawings of the missile for a long time, but they cannot make it. The most secret in the rocket is the chemical composition of the hydroreactive fuel and the hydrostatic-inertial control system. It is hydrostatic, not inertial, as the author writes. The rocket has pressure sensors in the air cavity, a pressure sensor in the static pressure belt, information from which is processed by a secret algorithm and control signals are generated to the pneumatic machines of the rudders and the cavernous disk. Our scientists have created this mathematics of rudder control, and no one can repeat it. On tests with our enemies, the rocket cannot stay at a given depth of flight and now and then either sticks into the ground or flies into the air. Gyroscopes and accelerometers in the rocket are also available and work in tandem with the hydrostatic system. Let me remind you that the control system of all missiles of the "water-air-water" class, that SUBROSK, that our "Wind" "Aquarius" "Waterfall" "Whirlwind" is purely inertial.
      No homing system at such a speed of 200 knots will work, therefore the charge in the rocket is only nuclear. It is assumed that aiming errors will block the radius of damage from the epicenter of the explosion. From a tactical point of view, the missile is very uncomfortable. The angle of the post-launch turn is very small, it is necessary to turn the muzzle towards the target. The depth of fire is narrowly limited to 25 + -5m, and for a boat this is a dangerous depth, you can easily touch some ship located in the shadow zone of the hull by cutting. Then, during prelaunch preparation, during the acceleration of gyroscopes, it is necessary to keep the boat in the same course with a trim of 0 + -0,5 degrees until the rocket starts. So the rocket is arranged, the gyroscopes accelerate in the plane of the boat and at what differential you launch it, such a pitch the rocket will hold for the marching flight path. If the pitch is more than 1 degree, the air cavity will be washed off by the oncoming flow of water and there will not be a continuous flow around the cavern body. The missile will not pick up the required speed and the emergency mode of the missile’s flight will work.
      To be continued.
      1. Vladislav64
        Vladislav64 April 7 2014 16: 16
        +4
        Now about working on the trajectory. After starting, the starting motor is started. In the photo, it is visible, it is eight nozzles located in a circle, and 4 steering wheels are extended. The starting engine is solid fuel. On this engine, the rocket performs a post-launch turn, reaches the depth of flight and accelerates. At the same time, a hydroreactive fuel is ignited, which begins to smolder without water. The rocket's steering wheels are sharp as knives. In the photo, the steering wheels are in an extended position, well, where the men are. After the fuel burns out of the starting engine, the pressure in the engine drops and the solid-fuel accelerator of the main engine starts. At the same time, the rocket drops the starting engine from the ogival part; it comes off like a donut from the hub. This extends the nozzle of the main engine. The solid-propellant engine is running, the rocket begins to accelerate, while the rudders are folded. The depth rudders are retracted completely, and the rudders are partially removed, leaving a sector of 20 degrees. In depth, the rocket begins to be controlled by a machine for turning the cavernous disk. The rocket picks up speed, the solid propellant booster burns out and through the hole in the cavernous disk seawater is fed through the nozzles to the glowing hydroreactive fuel. Fuel ignites intensively, it burns only in water. The fuel is pasty and is supplied by a piston. So, the rocket flies to the aiming point. The cavern flows around the hull. In the nose of the rocket, the checkers of the blowing gas generator are set on fire. The combustion gas is fed under the cups (they can be seen in the photo in the very nose of the rocket). This gas is necessary to create a continuous flow around the rocket, since the cavity formed by the disk is not enough for a continuous flow. On the way, five stages of nuclear charge protection are removed. The charge has two power levels, which are switched depending on the range. At a distance of 2-5 km, there will be a low explosion power, and 5-10 km, a high power. The power of a nuclear explosion is regulated by the intensity of the neutron beam at the moment of activation. In the final section of the trajectory, the rocket performs the maneuver that was assigned to it during prelaunch preparation. If we shoot at a submarine - the "deepening" maneuver. If on a surface ship or an aircraft - "surfacing". In this case, the rocket fully extends the rudders and translates them into the desired position. The rocket either goes deep or flies into the air. Then an explosion occurs. As you can see, the maximum flight range is 10 km. by ocean standards, that's nothing. No one will let you get this distance. A conventional torpedo is more practical and cheaper from this point of view. The torpedo has a range of 40-50km and has a homing system. So this rocket is not that good. Now about the price. I wrote off the fired missiles and in the act of writing off I was given a price. So, in those years when the Zhiguli cost 5 thousand rubles, the SET-65 torpedo cost 68 thousand rubles, and the Shkval rocket cost 180 thousand rubles. Please note that I fired a training rocket, where instead of a nuclear warhead there was a mass-dimensional model. So add the cost of a nuclear charge to the cost of the rocket.
        1. Sledgehammer
          April 7 2014 20: 40
          +2
          And if you compare with the cost of a nuclear submarine, it’s not significant :)
        2. Pilat2009
          Pilat2009 April 7 2014 20: 46
          +3
          Quote: Vladislav64
          So add to the cost of the rocket the cost of a nuclear charge. "

          DO NOT SAVE ON DEFENSE
          By the way, our products are much cheaper than Western ones.
      2. Marine One
        Marine One April 7 2014 21: 29
        0
        Some kind of mixture of not very competent misinformation with real information. What stools is it designed for?
        "All the drawings are there," there is no fuel composition. Uh-huh. All the CIA laughed.

        Quote: Vladislav64
        Our scientists created this steering wheel math, and no one can repeat it.

        It's just ridiculous about the inability to repeat the math of control.

        As a result, it turns out that they have created an interesting, but completely unpromising and unnecessarily difficult to use "wunderwaffe". A potential adversary, having studied the received documentation, came to the conclusion that it makes no sense to repeat the development, since and conventional torpedoes do a pretty good job.

        The question is backfill, and we ourselves why did we remove this miracle from the armament, since it is so unique?
        1. krpmlws
          krpmlws April 8 2014 03: 46
          0
          Quote: Marine One
          Some kind of mixture of not very competent misinformation with real information. What stools is it designed for?
          "All the drawings are there," there is no fuel composition. Uh-huh. All the CIA laughed.

          Quote: Vladislav64
          Our scientists created this steering wheel math, and no one can repeat it.

          It's just ridiculous about the inability to repeat the math of control.

          As a result, it turns out that they have created an interesting, but completely unpromising and unnecessarily difficult to use "wunderwaffe". A potential adversary, having studied the received documentation, came to the conclusion that it makes no sense to repeat the development, since and conventional torpedoes do a pretty good job.

          The question is backfill, and we ourselves why did we remove this miracle from the armament, since it is so unique?

          Already created the next generation rocket (there is somewhere about that).
          1. mpa945
            mpa945 April 8 2014 08: 35
            +1
            And espionage scandals on this topic prove that everything has worked out for a long time and there are no problems. True?
            Answer to backfill ...
            How many years did RTMK carry ballast 2 because of Humpback? But how many were BDRM without main weapons? And why? And do not remember Bakatin?

            A lot of our rulers have done good.

            But science and engineers are scum. Therefore, everything is removed from service.
      3. postman
        postman April 8 2014 13: 55
        0
        Quote: Vladislav64
        The CIA has long had a rocket blueprint, but cannot make it

        I recall about:
        German, American and Japanese anti-submarine bombs 2 MVusing the super-cavitation effect, the task: quickly and in a straight line to reach the opponent’s square
        Quote: Vladislav64
        The secret to the rocket is the chemical composition of hydroreactive fuel

        heap (liquid, paty, powder)
        Note:On the German submarines "MV, submarine guns (" Pillenwerfer ") were installed, firing special chemical shells. Carbon dioxide compounds with which such shells were fired, falling into sea water, entered into a violent chemical reaction with her, as a result of which a mass of water was formed, filled with a huge amount of gas bubbles.
        Quote: Vladislav64
        hydrostatic inertial control system

        ?
        -Gyroscope invented Johann Bonenberger in 1802 (or maybe Bonenberger, Poisson believed
        - In 1832, the American Walter R. Johnson invented a gyroscope with a rotating disk
        - The prototype of the modern gyrocompass was first created by Hermann Anschütz-Kempfe (patented in 1908) - For the orientation of the submarine (travel to the North Pole), an American engineer E. Sperry (patented in 1911) soon built a similar device
        - The idea of ​​determining the location of an object by double integration over time of the projections of the acceleration vector measured on board was patented by Reinhard Vussov in 1905.
        -inertial systems of geometric type (American and Russian inventors M. Kerry (1903) and V.V. Alekseev (1911))

        What are the problems?
        Let me remind you that SINS were not the first to implement
  • Leshka
    Leshka April 7 2014 18: 35
    +1
    a flurry can be modernized and it will turn out like this good thing
  • nod739
    nod739 April 7 2014 19: 51
    +1
    Quote: Vladislav64
    .......... Zhiguli .... cost 5 thousand rubles torpedo SET-65 cost 68 thousand rubles, and the rocket "Shkval" 180 thousand rubles. Please note that I fired a training rocket, where instead of a nuclear warhead there was a mass-dimensional model. So add the cost of a nuclear charge to the cost of the rocket.

    well, everything - all secrets
    lol
  • saag
    saag April 7 2014 20: 30
    0
    for a submariner, you need everything to be "without noise and dust", and with this rocket-torpedo, noise and noise for the whole district, you need an autonomous unmanned carrier for it or make it like a kind of mine
  • Indifferent
    Indifferent April 7 2014 21: 25
    +2
    Rocket Shkval "matters only with an atomic charge. In the event of a nuclear-free conflict, it is useless.
    As for who let whom and where, I’m sure that a smart experienced commander is quite capable of going under an aircraft carrier when he has no idea about it. This is luck! Who is lucky, like Marinesco, and who is not.
    I had to go to AUG warrants when several ships went with an aircraft carrier, a submarine and anti-submarine helicopters hung. And they didn’t have a clue that our boat was right under them. They are also noisy and not sickly! This is the experience and skill of the commander. His personal tactical developments.
    1. Professor
      Professor April 7 2014 21: 29
      +2
      Quote: indifferent
      I had to go to AUG warrants when several ships went with an aircraft carrier, a submarine and anti-submarine helicopters hung. And they didn’t have a clue that our boat was right under them.

      Cool story. good
      1. stalkerwalker
        stalkerwalker April 7 2014 21: 45
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        Quote: indifferent
        I had to go to AUG warrants when several ships went with an aircraft carrier, a submarine and anti-submarine helicopters hung. And they didn’t have a clue that our boat was right under them.
        Cool story

        Well, it's you in vain ...
        The former commander of BCH-1 taught at the VMK, who participated in the campaign through Franz Josef Land, then around Greenland, with access to communications. And everything is underwater. Many people not only from the Russian submarine know about this campaign "through the newspaper".
        PS
        Here, on the site, your double appeared ... with a strange hairstyle ... laughing
  • mpa945
    mpa945 April 7 2014 21: 42
    +5
    The topic gathered writers.
    Nobody wants to read.
    Again. Please read carefully.

    A flurry has long been created. Realities: The enemy has an overwhelming advantage in detection distance. Accordingly, it has the ability to first use weapons.
    It is in response to the use of weapons by the enemy that the Flurry is intended for.
    Our boat has already been discovered. We are not talking about any loss of secrecy due to the use of the Flurry. This is an answer, and very effective.

    In difference from the training shooting given by Kom. БЧ-3., In the conditions of the main event or in a threatened period, firing is conducted from duty TAs. Everything is already untwisted, data entry is automatic. I assure you, the sound of an enemy shot, the course of the enemy torpedoes is heard very well.
    You can, of course, apply GPA tools, if any. And wait for luck. (A war is already underway)
    And you can ... 3 minutes to prepare ... or ... and after 3 minutes how ...
    But not only that. Imagine what the supersonat will hear, except for the cavitation cavity, and how he will lead over the wires when across the horizon ...
    Submarine nuclear warheads ... Imagine, submarines are designed precisely for this. There is even such a thing as a safe radius, the explosion of a specific nuclear warhead outside of which should not lead to the destruction of the hull.
    By the way, 180 thousand is a lot? Even a plane or helicopter, which is also well audible, costs much more.

    Now about the shortcomings. The so-called, with a light hand Korotich.
    Short range. There is some. But in a duel situation with submarines, the firing range is not many times greater.
    The accuracy is not enough. No GOS. Surprise, but there is no contact fuse. Flurry does not need to hit. The amazing effect is by no means an aerosol cloud. Referred to KBh3 training shooting at 28 training ground. Believe me, when shooting a simple combat torpedo at Pikshuev metro station, from a maximum distance, impressions are off-scale. And here is the YBP ...
    Shallow start depth. That is yes. But on the 1st generation, restrictions on the depth of launch were complex. Initially, I think, given the development time of Flurry, there was a calculation. I do not think that remaking the parameter for modern realities is an impossible task.

    And about the Barracuda. Professor, how can you talk about the superiority of the product, with a range of 10 or more times shorter and with a charge of 10 kg of TNT? Are you serious. And even if Barracuda gets into the Flurry, the chain reaction will definitely not start? And a kilometer distance from the "meeting point" to the foe will be enough to survive?

    Yes Flurry is not surpassed. Opponents. But, I believe that he should be surpassed to return to the arsenal of submarines. I think this is doable.
    1. Sledgehammer
      April 7 2014 21: 55
      +2
      Everything is so, if I could put 100 pluses :)
    2. Professor
      Professor April 7 2014 21: 59
      -1
      Quote: mpa945
      And about Barracuda. Professor, how can we talk about the superiority of the product, with a range of application 10 times or more less and with a charge of 10 kg of TNT? IN

      Barakuda's targets are propeller torpedoes and Shkvali, not submarines. She doesn't need TNT at all.

      Quote: mpa945
      And even if Barracuda gets into the Flurry, the chain reaction will definitely not start?

      If it were so easy to "start" a chain reaction, then 40, 50 countries would already have nuclear weapons.
      1. Sledgehammer
        April 7 2014 22: 07
        0
        Barakuda's targets are propeller torpedoes and Shkvali, not submarines. She doesn't need TNT at all.

        That will be shown in reality "Barracuda" then and
        We will say what it is for :)
        In the meantime, "Shkval" exists and is offered for export.
        1. Professor
          Professor April 7 2014 22: 15
          0
          Quote: Sledgehammer
          That will be shown in reality "Barracuda" then and
          We will say what it is for :)

          Something I missed, where and when was the "Flurry in reality" demonstrated? If at the training ground, then the Barracuda was shown there. fellow

          Quote: mpa945
          That is, you compare ballistic missile and anti-aircraft. What is superiority?

          1. Each of them has its own task.
          2. I didn’t talk about the advantages, but if you insist, then the Barracuda EMNIP has more speed, maneuverability and finally it is aimed at the target.

          Quote: mpa945
          Barracuda hit the Flurry. How will the central government stop?

          The chain reaction has not yet begun. What to stop? request
          1. mpa945
            mpa945 April 7 2014 22: 33
            0
            I’ll tell you more than that: Any anti-aircraft missile in speed and maneuverability exceeds not only the BR but also the Kr. But she does not become the best BR or KR.
            Making a small little thing with such parameters is IMHO. Make anti-submarine ...
            A chain reaction will begin later. Let the adversary from this become easier.
            1. Professor
              Professor April 7 2014 22: 41
              0
              Quote: mpa945
              I’ll tell you more than that: Any anti-aircraft missile in speed and maneuverability exceeds not only the BR but also the Kr. But she does not become the best BR or KR.

              Where did I write about "better"? Faster, yes. More agile.

              Quote: mpa945
              Making a small little thing with such parameters is IMHO. Make anti-submarine ...

              Which of the Flurry is anti-submarine is clear and true. Without a nuclear charge, it is generally none. Otherwise, she would have stood on each boat as the main torpedo. laughing

              Quote: mpa945
              A chain reaction will begin later. Let the adversary from this become easier.

              When the chain reaction begins, the apocalypse will come and besides Africa, all sorts of islands, and maybe part of South America, nothing will remain.
              1. mpa945
                mpa945 April 7 2014 22: 45
                +1
                Removed by urgent request. And yes, it was on every submarine from combat-ready ones. And it is with SBN.
                If weapons were used for me, what do I care about Africa or Israel? The war has already begun.
          2. Sledgehammer
            April 8 2014 05: 54
            0
            If at the training ground, then Barracuda was also shown there.

            Where? Imagine at least one link with a photo.
            Flurry was shown in reality ...

            I indicated the link in the article, a photo and not one is available.
      2. mpa945
        mpa945 April 7 2014 22: 07
        +1
        That is, you compare ballistic missile and anti-aircraft. What is superiority?

        We are not talking about third countries ...
        Barracuda hit the Flurry. How will the central government stop?
      3. Wheel
        Wheel April 8 2014 04: 22
        +3
        Quote: Professor
        Barakuda's targets are propeller torpedoes and Shkvali, not submarines. She doesn't need TNT at all.

        Respected Professor, allow me to interfere with your discussion to an existing amateur. smile
        Of course, I understand that "Barracuda" is the essence of "Made in not Russia" and, by definition, this is already enough to overwhelm some kind of "Shkval" even without TNT. laughing
        However, my modest knowledge of hydrodynamics allows me to doubt such a categorical statement. The meaning is simple, like the Soviet 3 rubles with one piece of paper - for a fatal outcome, the meeting of the German super-product and the Soviet-Russian misunderstanding must occur strictly along the axis of movement, otherwise the product of the gloomy Teutonic genius will inevitably be thrown far from the path of the movement of a much heavier Russian ashtray, which will not even notice that something flashed next to him.
        Here, even the ultramodern and sophisticated fiber-optic gyroscope of the German miracle weapon is powerless to do anything due to the banal inertia of all gyroscopes without exception.
        The naked physics, which you can’t argue against ... sad
        The 10 kg warhead also looks frivolous against the background of hypothetical vis-a-vis speeds and the environment in which the alleged rendezvous takes place. Let me remind you that water has a nasty property to actively resist compression.
        Well, the finishing touch:
        According to unconfirmed reports, the total weight of Barracuda is 110 kg, length 2300 mm, caliber 160 mm, explosive mass 10 kg, range of 1000 m
        (quote from your article, however, this article literally wanders around the Internet without changes for a couple of years)
        So, hypothetically, let’s say that the Russian misunderstanding didn’t break its 150 kt thread somewhere a couple of kilometers to the goal, the question is: how long does the prodigy have to prove their effectiveness?
        Answer: no more than 4 seconds, it is during these seconds that the "Shkval" crawls 1 km.
        Now you are still sure that "Barracuda" is effective against Soviet junk?

        PS. It is a pity that I can hardly wait for an answer, I read the article too late.
        1. mpa945
          mpa945 April 8 2014 08: 22
          +2
          A professor will never recognize that a leaflet and reality are two different things.
          There are many things that contradict the laws of physics and common sense. But it is not important. The main thing they can also!

          With figures more precisely. 200 km / h at a distance of 10 km - 1/20 hours = 3 minutes. for all ten kilometers.
          1. Wheel
            Wheel April 8 2014 09: 57
            +1
            Quote: mpa945
            With figures more precisely. 200 km / h at a distance of 10 km - 1/20 hours = 3 minutes. for all ten kilometers.

            Thank you, I got a little confused with the numbers after a few immoderate consumption of glasses of tea. hi

            Only the speed is not 200 km / h, but 200 knots = 370 km / h = 102 m / s.
            The declared range of Barracuda in all articles, as a carbon copy is not 10 km, but only 1000 m = 1 km, i.e. the desired km Flurry passes in 10 seconds, and not in 4.
            But this is not so fundamental.
            1. mpa945
              mpa945 April 8 2014 10: 04
              +1
              We will use the data given in the discussion. All the same, the topic is clearly not without a "stamp". If we are wrong, then reality is only better ...
              1. Wheel
                Wheel April 8 2014 11: 15
                +1
                Quote: mpa945
                We will use the data given in the discussion. All the same, the topic is clearly not without a "stamp". If we are wrong, then reality is only better ...

                So I used exactly the data from the discussion. wink
          2. Professor
            Professor April 8 2014 11: 32
            +1
            A professor will never recognize that a leaflet and reality are two different things.

            I always admit my mistakes. Nevertheless, the Flurry and Barracuda are equally real, both except for which they were not used at the training grounds, did not participate in the battle.
        2. Professor
          Professor April 8 2014 11: 30
          0
          Of course, I understand that "Barracuda" is the essence of "Made in not Russia" and, by definition, this is already enough to overwhelm some kind of "Shkval" even without TNT.

          To "overwhelm" a rocket-torpedo (Soviet or bourgeois), you just need to break the cavity. For this, there is no need for explosives and the kinetic energy of the torpedo itself (even with a static interceptor) will be enough.

          However, my modest knowledge of hydrodynamics allows me to doubt such a categorical statement. The meaning is simple, like the Soviet 3 rubles with one piece of paper - for a fatal outcome, the meeting of the German super-product and the Soviet-Russian misunderstanding must occur strictly along the axis of movement, otherwise the product of the gloomy Teutonic genius will inevitably be thrown far from the path of the movement of a much heavier Russian ashtray, which will not even notice that something flashed next to him.

          I omit emotions about the "German superproduct and the Soviet-Russian misunderstanding" since we are discussing the materiel and only it. I repeat, when the missile-torpedo meets an obstacle, the cavern will be broken and, accordingly, the torpedo will not float anywhere else. This cavern is so capricious and unstable that even an increase in the ambient pressure by several atmospheres leads to its breakdown. Hence such terrible restrictions on the depth of application. And here is a meeting with a solid body.

          The naked physics, which you can’t argue against ...

          That's it. Break the cavity and the interception is completed.

          So, hypothetically, let’s say that the Russian misunderstanding didn’t break its 150 kt thread somewhere a couple of kilometers to the goal, the question is: how long does the prodigy have to prove their effectiveness?
          Answer: no more than 4 seconds, it is during these seconds that the "Shkval" crawls 1 km

          The answer is correct only if you do not run Barakuda ahead of schedule.

          Now you are still sure that "Barracuda" is effective against Soviet junk?

          The fact that "Soviet junk" is effective exclusively with a nuclear warhead, I hope no one will argue? Concerning the Barracuda, wait and see. hi
          1. mpa945
            mpa945 April 8 2014 11: 48
            +1
            Dear Professor!
            Barracuda can destroy a gas cavity at a distance from the target squall not more than 1000m. It cannot stop the attack of the NBC. A kilometer from undermining TNW would be enough for an adversary only to meet a very thick northern furry animal.
            Thus, Barracuda (which is a missile and not a submarine) is complete nonsense, but a Flurry with NBC, like weapon of retaliation - steers.
            1. Professor
              Professor April 8 2014 11: 51
              0
              Quote: mpa945
              Barracuda can destroy a gas cavity at a distance from the target squall not more than 1000m. It cannot stop the attack of the NBC. A kilometer from undermining TNW would be enough for an adversary only to meet a very thick northern furry animal.

              I will not discuss the use of nuclear weapons in principle - science fiction is my hobby. hi
              1. mpa945
                mpa945 April 8 2014 11: 58
                +1
                If weapons are used against me, I will not think about the ideas of humanism. I use nuclear weapons, by the way tactical, I am not against civilians in Yugoslavia, but against an armed enemy. the first to use his weapon against me.
                Will you talk about the limits of the necessary defense?
                There are no limits. And nehu ...
                By the way, these actions are prescribed by the naval guidance documents.
                Such is the "science fiction"
                1. Pilat2009
                  Pilat2009 April 8 2014 16: 51
                  0
                  Quote: mpa945
                  Will you talk about the limits of the necessary defense?

                  Quote: mpa945
                  By the way, these actions are prescribed by the naval guidance documents.

                  Tell this to the Kursk crew and admirals
                  1. mpa945
                    mpa945 April 9 2014 00: 28
                    0
                    Do you really think that the admirals did not read the governing documents and do not know their requirements?
                    What about Kursk?
          2. Wheel
            Wheel April 9 2014 00: 13
            +1
            Quote: Professor
            To "overwhelm" a rocket-torpedo (Soviet or bourgeois), you just need to break the cavity. For this, there is no need for explosives and the kinetic energy of the torpedo itself (even with a static interceptor) will be enough.

            I agree that it is enough to break the cavern, but this is not at all an easy task, as it might seem.
            I'll try to explain.
            It is practically impossible to penetrate the cavity from the outside, because the boundary layer acts as a very peculiar armor, at the same time dense, viscous and slippery (this is on the fingers). Almost the only chance is a strictly axial impact, then, yes, not only the cavity, but the structure itself will be destroyed.
            Quote: Professor
            I repeat, when a missile torpedo encounters an obstacle, the cavity will be broken and, accordingly, the torpedo will not float anywhere else. This cavern is so capricious and unstable that even an increase in environmental pressure by several atmospheres leads to its disruption. Hence, such terrible restrictions on the depth of application. And here is a meeting with a solid body.
            You somewhat confuse red with hot.
            Yes, I do not argue that Shkval has strict requirements for launching, which, incidentally, also applies to Barracuda, but after the cavern is installed, it is not at all easy to destroy it. Short-term pressure drops are not terrible for her (cavity), and small solids are not terrible either.
            By the way, "Barracuda" for "Shkval" is precisely a small solid body.

            Quote: Professor
            The answer is correct only if you do not run Barakuda ahead of schedule.

            So it was the lead time that was meant.
            True, it is not 4 seconds, but 10, but this is not important.
            Quote: Professor
            The fact that "Soviet junk" is effective exclusively with a nuclear warhead, I hope no one will argue?

            Of course it won't.
            With a conventional warhead against the submarine "Shkval" is completely ineffective.
            1. Professor
              Professor April 9 2014 09: 42
              0
              Quote: Wheel
              It is practically impossible to penetrate the cavity from the outside, because the boundary layer acts as a very peculiar armor, at the same time dense, viscous and slippery (this is on the fingers).

              Is a gas bubble armor? Lord, who am I crucifying to? fool
  • kelevra
    kelevra April 7 2014 21: 47
    +1
    Terrible cigar!
  • Sergei75
    Sergei75 April 7 2014 22: 09
    0
    The squall seems to have been removed after the Kursk story? In which, like, the "bad" M48 participated? But then the question was whether to write off everything on the Flurry, or "hello" the third world ... Or am I mistaken?
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 7 2014 22: 19
      +1
      In the official version of the Kursk tragedy, a thick peroxide torpedo appears. There were no squalls on board; the investigation did not discuss them. Or for you all torpedoes Flurry?
      Then it means they all retired? Oh my god, what do submariners do then?
  • Alex_T
    Alex_T April 7 2014 22: 39
    +1
    Quote: Professor
    "Flurry" wiped out the advantages of the US NPS and their tactics.


    Having an advantage in speed, "Shkval", quickly approaching the target, is capable of performing simple maneuvers to evade interception, which is included in its program of actions.

    What are the maneuvers? Where does Flurry target designation come from?

    It was also embarrassing at first, probably the author had in mind the possibility of the Flurry moving to the calculated meeting point (detonation) not only by a straight route, which could be implemented by an inertial guidance system, without external target designation.
    1. Sledgehammer
      April 7 2014 23: 06
      +1
      Quote: Alex_T
      It was also embarrassing at first, probably the author had in mind the possibility of the Flurry moving to the calculated meeting point (detonation) not only by a straight route, which could be implemented by an inertial guidance system, without external target designation.


      That is what the author had in mind. It didn’t mean at all
      that "Flurry" writes crazy pretzels, this
      he is not able to do, the disruption of the cavity is not inevitable.
  • krasstar
    krasstar April 7 2014 23: 04
    +1
    The author correctly outlined the topic. It can only be said easier, as the teachers-LAST HOPES OF THE SOVIET UNDERGROUND used to say about this weapon in the USSR Higher Military Schools. No one else in the world has such a hope
  • Alexander (L)
    Alexander (L) April 7 2014 23: 13
    +1
    Huge ATP to the release. The information is very interesting.
  • AlexAl
    AlexAl April 7 2014 23: 59
    -3
    Ooooo oooooh, the next Internet troll tells everyone its nightly emissions about the Flurry rocket torpedo. This Troll having seen in the internet the same troll sings made a discovery, and now it is turning gray in the ears of everyone about its worldview. So, my dear Troll, let it be known to you that there are a great many options for the execution of the hammer, and anyone (even any) of the many options can beat off a finger (any). So, my dear Troll (author of this opus), the Flurry torpedo is just a tool. And like any tool, it requires proper handling, so as not to beat off your fingers or something more serious.

    P.S. Play with the world in your computer games.
    1. AlexAl
      AlexAl April 8 2014 00: 14
      0
      What can I see that my lines reached the consumer.
      1. mpa945
        mpa945 April 8 2014 01: 49
        0
        Past. Minus from me for "immodesty"
        1. AlexAl
          AlexAl April 8 2014 07: 56
          0
          We are even?
          To criticize a technique (tool) under the impression is strong, cool and most importantly professional.
          1. mpa945
            mpa945 April 8 2014 08: 11
            +1
            You did not confuse?

            Touches the position of the critics. Okay Professor, his flag says it all. But the rest?

            Yes, Flurry has flaws. But would it be better without him?
            We lag behind the enemy not only in detection distance, torpedo armament. We are behind the GPA. Let's deprive our submariners of the last argument? Who, our submariners or adversary will say thanks?
            1. AlexAl
              AlexAl April 8 2014 11: 07
              0
              I have not confused anything. It is simply necessary to develop new things, including torpedoes and much more. It's just that the following headlines infuriate me: "I created this post under the" impression "of the articles published on this site," and then the crap of what was done poured in.
              To write a couple of pages of text about how bad things will not be difficult, but to explain to the designers of the system, for which they muddle his years of work, and when the designer fulfills the will of the customer designed in the form of TTX - this will be more difficult however.
              So I wrote about trolls.

              And the hammer example clearly and lucidly explains that each tool has its own purpose and conditions of use. And here you do not need lyrics and impressions of what you read.
              1. mpa945
                mpa945 April 8 2014 11: 11
                0
                "further poured out obosralovka of what had been done."

                and a quote from the author of the article, confirming the "ob-eranie" will not give?
                1. AlexAl
                  AlexAl April 8 2014 11: 35
                  0
                  Yes, here you are: "Useless trash, or a fat point in a submarine war."
                  1. mpa945
                    mpa945 April 8 2014 11: 50
                    0
                    Have you tried to read the article itself?
                    The opponents of the author are screaming weapons.
                    1. AlexAl
                      AlexAl April 8 2014 13: 57
                      0
                      I read it.

                      The title initially and unambiguously says "Useless trash". Further in the text there is a retelling of the performance characteristics, after which the promise: "(about why such difficulties - further)", after the pictures no further follows and a new paragraph describes one of the options for use and sailed "Flurry" wiped out the advantages of the US NPS and their tactics..

                      Excuse me, but I studied at the USSR school and we were taught in Russian how to draw up the text. And in such a style as the author, my son, at the age of 9, draws up homework assignments.

                      And where to see the author's analysis in this text? Moreover, “I created this post under the“ impression ”of the articles published on this site,” led to an unambiguous conclusion on my part.
                      1. mpa945
                        mpa945 April 8 2014 14: 35
                        0
                        That is, you are not essentially but personally to the author.
                        Sorry to intervene.
                      2. AlexAl
                        AlexAl April 8 2014 14: 54
                        0
                        But the creature is not.

                        There are no claims to you at all, as in the rest and to the others too.
  • Ruskiye
    Ruskiye April 8 2014 01: 16
    0
    The disadvantages of the German "Barracuda":

    "Due to the tremendous speed (200 knots), the torpedo produces strong noise and vibration, which unmasks the submarine. The short launch range unmasks the submarine, which negatively affects the survivability. The maximum depth of travel does not allow hitting submarines at great depths. The specific impulse of a ramjet jet engine in 2,5-3 times higher than that of known rocket engines, which can cause damage to the sonar of the submarine, in addition, the bow of the torpedo does not allow installing a homing head on it - outboard water enters through the bow. Low probability of hitting a target with a conventional warhead and without GOS. "

    If the Flurry has similar flaws, the torpedo is dangerous for the boat itself.
    1. mpa945
      mpa945 April 8 2014 01: 51
      +1
      Disadvantages of Barracuda to the Professor.
    2. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 April 8 2014 17: 04
      0
      Quote: Ruskiye
      makes a lot of noise and vibration, which unmasks the submarine

      If I understood correctly, barracuda is a torpedo torch, which means it is being released to intercept the already-launched Shkval. What kind of unmasking can be discussed? Save as you can ... The same applies to:
      Short-range launch unmasks the submarine
      Maximum travel depth does not allow submarines to be hit at great depths

      regarding GOS: A distinctive feature of the Barracuda rocket is the control according to the inertial system created using fiber-optic gyroscopes and an automatic homing system, the antenna array of which is placed in a conical fairing, which also acts as a rocket steering device

      The Barracuda is faster, more maneuverable and more accurate than the Flurry and, thanks to its unique homing system, it is capable of intercepting the Flurry and other high-speed torpedoes.
      1. Wheel
        Wheel April 8 2014 21: 40
        +1
        Quote: Pilat2009
        regarding GOS: A distinctive feature of the Barracuda rocket is the control according to the inertial system created using fiber-optic gyroscopes and an automatic homing system, the antenna array of which is placed in a conical fairing, which also acts as a rocket steering device

        I’ll tell you a secret: A barrage is also controlled by an inertial system, only on the basis of an ordinary mechanical gyroscope, which is absolutely not important, because a gyroscope is also a gyroscope in Africa.
        As for the antenna array, what can this antenna catch underwater? Or did an unknown German genius find a range in which radar is possible under water?
        Quote: Pilat2009
        The Barracuda is faster, more maneuverable and more accurate than the Flurry and, thanks to its unique homing system, it is capable of intercepting the Flurry and other high-speed torpedoes.

        Perhaps faster, perhaps more maneuverable, any guidance system raises serious doubts, as well as the possibility of intercepting the Shkval.

        In any case, "Barracuda" is still a "chicken in the nest", because after 2005 it was no longer shown.
  • Atash
    Atash April 8 2014 08: 02
    0
    As far as I understand, stealth technology has not made any revolution in aviation - there is still no real "invisibility", there are losses in conventional aviation characteristics. The same, I think, with submarines, more PR about low noise. Also reminds of hoaxes about shale gas, greenhouse effect, etc., by the way.
    Noisy, quiet, and the submarine is the submarine. Even some old diesel engine (although they are just less noisy) under a certain set of circumstances always has a chance to get close to any ultra-modern aircraft carrier. This is the main property of submarines.
    After all, "Shkval" is a defensive weapon. No one would dare to shoot at the submarine with the Shkval.

    Quote: Professor
    if there is no nuclear conflict, then a Flurry is useless. In the event of a nuclear conflict


    As long as there is nuclear weapons, any conflict between the United States and Russia is nuclear. If they start fighting, then the use of nuclear weapons will not be discussed. Nuclear weapons kept the peace during the Cold War, which is why it was cold.
    And now they know that Russia will not be the first to use nuclear weapons, so the war is on the way. They can only put rockets near Kiev and that’s all - you can raise your paws to the top.
    1. Sledgehammer
      April 8 2014 08: 13
      0
      As far as I understand, stealth technology has not made any revolution in aviation - there is still no real "invisibility" ... The same, I think, with submarines, more PR about low noise ...

      This is not PR at all, you shouldn’t be so.
      Even some old diesel engine (although they are just less noisy) under a certain set of circumstances always has a chance to get close to any ultra-modern aircraft carrier. This is the main property of submarines.

      There is a video tutorial for such cases, "Raise the periscope"
      called.
  • Everest2014
    Everest2014 April 8 2014 10: 10
    0
    the Americans through China seized the "squall" and released its analogue hung with guidance sensors. RF with the modernization of the "squall" in the office "Dagdizel" broke off. More details at the link http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/news/view/81019/
    1. Wheel
      Wheel April 8 2014 12: 57
      +2
      Quote: everest2014
      the Americans through China seized the "squall" and released its analogue hung with guidance sensors. RF with the modernization of the "squall" in the office "Dagdizel" broke off.

      Hmm, where are the woods coming from?
      This is me about mattresses through China. wassat
      You need to think with your head that China will not merge such a little thing with a striped one, because Nuna himself cannot resist the very striped ones.
      it, tkskzt, time.
      Two will be much funnier about the sensors and the operator.
      You can hang the unit with super-super-sensors from nose to tail, but there will be less sense from them than from a goat of milk.
      This I mean that no one has canceled even the school physics course.

      Even if we distract from the gas cavity, optical sensors are useless by definition due to the absorption of light by some water.
      Acoustic sensors will go crazy with their own engine noise, and in addition, remember that the torpedo is dripping in a gas cocoon, which completely shields all the acoustics.
      Radio under water has the specificity that it is possible to use only long and extra-long waves (this, again, with distraction from the gas cavity), i.e., radar is impossible.
      Two exotic types remain, such as magnetic and gravitational, but they, unfortunately, have a very negative attitude to the vibrations that this type of torpedo missiles has - mama don’t cry, which, however, gives some chance to use homing. True, the cost of these sensors in vibration-proof design, perhaps, will be comparable with the cost of the rest of the iron.

      As for the connection with the "operator", it is, of course, possible through the mediation of God or any other supernatural force, the main thing is to agree on cooperation.

      Something like that...
  • Ivan_Ivanov
    Ivan_Ivanov April 8 2014 11: 30
    +1
    .
    Yes, you damn fucking geniuses!

    And I thought that because of its noisiness, small radius and lack of the ability to accurately point, the Flurry is useless. It turns out I was wrong!
    .
    1. Patriot.ru.
      Patriot.ru. April 8 2014 12: 56
      +1
      So it was and will be happiness to you.
  • Wheel
    Wheel April 8 2014 13: 18
    +2
    I would like to add another 5 kopecks to the discussion.
    It may seem surprising, but for this type of weapon no homing systems are needed, in principle, a fairly inertial system.
    150 ct (7,5 Hiroshim, if that), those that exploded at a distance of several kilometers are guaranteed to destroy any submarine, or drive it to the maximum depth.
    Nobody paid attention to the fact that the "Shkval" is just under the surface of the water (according to various sources, at a depth of 5 to 40m, and 5m seems to be more reliable, given the nuances with an increase in the density of water with depth and the dependence of the speed of the rocket-torpedo on the properties of the environment), and the enemy's boat can be at any depth.
    Let those who have dealt with this weapon correct me, but it seems to me that when using it, the depth at which it was necessary to "make legs" had to be stipulated and it should not be more than 40 and not less than 25 m. Otherwise, you can get seriously affected by damaging factors own weapons.
  • SS68SS
    SS68SS April 8 2014 14: 01
    +2
    Good machine. As long as Russia has such, not a single western face snoops wink
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN April 8 2014 14: 33
    +2
    And a good asymmetric response in a submarine war turned out winked And the discussion is interesting and stormy.
  • Signaller
    Signaller April 8 2014 14: 41
    +1
    Friends. I read your opuses and am surprised. We are at war with whom and what. ??? With the enemy or specifically, aircraft carriers, corvettes, nuclear submarines, anti-submarine ships, boats. ??? Big mistake - very big - We are at war with the entire fleet of the enemy. There are armed ships there, but there are also transports carrying cargo, etc. etc. The submarine sinks not only aircraft carriers, but all other enemy watercraft. Torpedoes are the same weapon. even USEP-80 or SET-65 and Sapfir and Voyevoda stations for transports - behind the eyes. And what did the German Submariners do at sea ???? They drowned the entire fleet of the enemy and allies, TOTAL, So we need to go to this. And then the aircraft carriers ???? Yes, God bless them, we will find justice, and the transports must be drowned ALL without pity. Otherwise, victory cannot be obtained. In this perspective, and think experts. Will Flurry fit ?? I think for the eyes.
  • Signaller
    Signaller April 8 2014 14: 52
    0
    Add-for fear. If a big booze begins, then all the oncoming ships will have to be drowned in the sea. ALL. Oceans of the sea, ships, can’t be counted. How many torpedoes, submarines and everything else ??? Sea. This is what we must count on. And the aircraft carriers, there are only two dozen of them. Total war at sea is our motto should be-a priori. Any submarine will do. Even with obsolete torpedo tubes. And novye-Last squeak ??? Here they let them work against aircraft carriers.
    1. Pilat2009
      Pilat2009 April 8 2014 19: 42
      0
      Quote: Signaller
      If a big booze begins, then all the oncoming ships will have to be drowned in the sea. ALL.

      Ships of potential allies and neutrals too?
      It was the crazy behavior of the Germans in the 1st and 2nd wars that prompted the Amers to intervene in the war
      Quote: Signaller
      Any submarine will do here

      How many of them do we have, considering the frank trash? The autonomy of the average diesel engine is 30-45 days, to get into communications it needs to overcome the boundaries of the PLO, periodically pop up and recharge. At the current level of tracking, this is a kapets. Already by the end of the 2nd world boat, they completely lost to the PLO forces
  • Sledgehammer
    April 8 2014 16: 59
    0
    I will quote from the link I indicated from the article:

    The control and guidance system is an autonomous inertial, the homing system is absent. Controls in the direction and depth of travel - retractable hydrodynamic rudders. The control system was developed by I.M.Safronov and I.S. Kurbatov.

    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-473.html.

    According to unconfirmed reports, the jet torpedo can move according to the program laid down before launch, performing a maneuver in the direction.

    From there too. The question is, if the nasal disc allows you to CHANGE the depth, that is
    direction movement, what prevents him from doing horizontal maneuver?
    Nothing bothers
    1. postman
      postman April 8 2014 17: 06
      +1
      Quote: Sledgehammer
      , what prevents him from doing a horizontal maneuver?

      ITS DESIGN !! (we look closely at the blue - drives ONLY for "maneuver" in the vertical plane, along the roll)
      According to the roll, it is required to COMPENSATE the action of gravitational forces (gravity), or rather not to change, but to compensate
      Maneuvering in the horizontal plane is impossible purely physically (structurally), and is NOT NECESSARY, since there are no GOSs or devices that detect the target and receive the control gear from an external device.
      1. Sledgehammer
        April 8 2014 17: 29
        0
        Quote: Postman
        Quote: Sledgehammer
        , what prevents him from doing a horizontal maneuver?

        According to the roll, it is required to COMPENSATE the action of gravitational forces (gravity), or rather not to change, but to compensate

        And when you change to vert. planes the effect of gravitational forces (gravity) is not necessary to change (compensate)?

        Maneuver in the horizontal plane is impossible physically (structurally)

        You already decide physically or structurally.
        1. postman
          postman April 8 2014 19: 26
          0
          Quote: Sledgehammer
          change (compensate) is not necessary?

          what the puck does (except for the initiation of cavitation)
          Quote: Sledgehammer
          You already decide physically or structurally.

          ?
          The design of the squall is not provided, therefore, PHYSICALLY a maneuver in the horizontal plane, he cannot perform, the squall is not guided bullet blam



          / does not rotate /
          1. Sledgehammer
            April 8 2014 21: 04
            0
            COMPENSATE the action of gravitational forces (gravity)

            Gravity is not relevant in a liquid in this case either.
            Compensation for a change in buoyancy, including dynamic (+ or - force),
            Yes, but as a result of changes in the force application vector, (cavitator disk) for axial displacement.
            The design of the squall is not provided, therefore, PHYSICALLY a maneuver in the horizontal plane, he cannot perform

            Rudders course on that.
  • Sledgehammer
    April 8 2014 23: 10
    +1
    To summarize.
    1. "Shkval" is capable of maneuvering vertically. plane,
    at what with large angles. Solid
    disc deflection angles in the bow device, which is just for
    taxiing is unnecessary.




    2. "Shkval" is capable of maneuvering in horiz. plane.
    All the arguments presented in the opposite are reduced to similar
    interpretations:

    "About two thirds of the length back of the nose are four petals.
    at an angle to the hull. Although they resemble loose fins, these
    the spring-loaded skids actually support the torpedo in the cavitation bubble, acting on the back of the torpedo, allowing it to bounce
    from the inner surface of the cavity. Western experts believe that Flurry
    actually slowly "precesses" around the resonator circumference,
    repeatedly ricocheting petals off the walls of the cavity. "

    But at the same time, the torpedo course fluctuated not only in the vertical plane,
    as well as in the horizontal plane, and unpredictably and only
    compensation in vert. plane cavern-forming disk situation
    with sustainability it is not possible to solve.
    Not to mention the drums
    loads on the body in case of "ricocheting" from the walls of the cavity.

    The most likely seems to me the use of rudders
    with some "wetted" surface preventing the formation of
    any significant fluctuations. Moreover, regulation
    rudder movements allow you to change the path
    torpedoes in the mountains. plane by changing the area "wetted"
    surface, that is, stole. or decrease. flow resistance.

    (of course, within the limits that will not allow the cavity to break)
  • Asan Ata
    Asan Ata April 9 2014 08: 28
    +2
    A flurry caused a flurry of discussions, thanks. This info can be sorted out, very interesting and leads to all sorts of ideas. Thank. drinks
  • Jager
    Jager April 9 2014 11: 19
    +2
    Diluted holivar hellish! soldier
    But for this and thanks - I learned a lot about the principle of operation of this torpedo.
  • O. BENDER
    O. BENDER April 21 2014 17: 35
    0
    Obsolete torpedo, at 13km no one will let, except Somali pirates.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • serovoleg2013
    serovoleg2013 29 October 2014 18: 37
    0
    Let's be honest that we are bad with new torpedoes! Our boats still carry Soviet "cigars", but there is no new or promising weapons yet! At least nothing leaked to the media! One hope that there is something secret! am