Military Review

TVD one actor

40
The US submarine fleet feels superior even off our shores.

The Russian Navy does not have effective stationary and positional systems for monitoring underwater conditions, especially in the far sea zone, and also lacks maneuverable anti-submarine forces. But the US Navy, having such, were able to track our submarines in most of the ocean and sea theaters.

Fighting submarines of a potential enemy is one of the key areas of activity of the Russian Navy. It consists of solving a number of important tasks. In wartime, the first of these is the destruction of enemy nuclear-powered submarines with ballistic missiles (SSBNs). The second is to ensure the protection of their strategic missile submarines (SSBN) from enemy submarines. In connection with the equipping of multi-purpose submarines of foreign states with strategic long-range strategic missiles in nuclear and conventional equipment with the onset of hostilities, their destruction in areas of use of missiles and on deployment routes is necessary. The most important task remains the destruction of submarines in the areas of their combat use against the formations of surface ships of the Russian Navy, as well as sea and ocean communications. No one will cancel the fight against enemy submarines in the operational zones of naval bases and bases. Finally, it is necessary to solve the whole range of tasks of the direct anti-submarine security of the formations of surface ships, transport and other ships, as well as our submarines, both on deployment routes (zones of sea and ocean communications) and in combat areas.

In peacetime, the main anti-submarine missions are reconnaissance. First of all, it is the identification of areas of combat patrols, the detection of SSBNs of foreign states, primarily American ones, and their tracking, as well as the definition of a system for the operational support of their activities. Another important task of our fleet in peacetime is the identification of areas of combat use of enemy multipurpose submarines. This is important for organizing their destruction with the outbreak of war and ensuring the combat stability of our strategic missile carriers, as well as submarines of other classes and formations of surface ships that are not related to the solution of anti-submarine missions.

Potentially, the submarines of those states that are part of the blocks competing with Russia, having certain claims to our country, as well as their allies, can be objects of anti-submarine actions of our Navy. These are primarily NATO countries, as well as US allies in the Pacific, primarily Japan. The total submarine fleet of these countries has about 20 SSBNs and more 150 units of multi-purpose nuclear and non-nuclear submarines.

Underwater hordes

The 14 American Ohio-class SSBNs pose the greatest threat. Despite its venerable age, these are quite modern warships with decent electronic weapons (especially AN / BQQ-5) and very low noise, surpassing the rest of the submarines of the Western world by this indicator. Having Trident-2 missiles with a range of about 12 000 kilometers, these submarines solve the problem of creating a nuclear missile threat to Russia, operating near its coast. Their probable combat patrol areas are located, judging by the materials of the open press and analysis of the geography of possible combat areas, in the northwestern Atlantic and northeastern Pacific. Most likely, they will operate in areas controlled by the SOSUS system. Although its individual stations are currently mothballed, with the start of hostilities, they will also be activated. Airspace over combat patrol areas and on routes will probably be controlled by AWACS aircraft. Protection of these ships, as it can be assumed, will be built on the zonal principle with priority of anti-submarine and anti-aircraft defense. The total area of ​​possible combat patrol areas on each of the ocean theaters will exceed 300 or even 500 thousands of square miles.

TVD one actorOf the multipurpose nuclear submarines, the main threat to Russia will also be American. Today it is the Los Angeles-type 44, the Sivulf 3 and the Virginia 11. In the future, the number of the first can be reduced to 22, and the third - to increase to 22 – 23 units. Possessing the Tomahawk type 12 KR, they are capable of delivering strikes to the depth of 1000 kilometers from the coast with rockets in conventional equipment, and in nuclear weapons - up to 2000 kilometers and more. The presence of missile weapons (in addition to Tomahawks, these ships have 4 – 8 PKR “Harpoon” launched from torpedo tubes) and effective long-range Mk-48 long-range torpedoes make these boats a very dangerous enemy for the surface forces of the Russian fleet. The areas of their military mission in actions against Russia will obviously be the Norwegian, Barents and Kara, Bering, Okhotsk and Japan seas, as well as the eastern part of the Pacific Ocean adjacent to Japan. The total area of ​​the combat use areas of American multipurpose submarines (based on an analysis of their tasks and geophysical features) can be estimated in the Barents and Kara Seas in 120 – 180 thousand square miles, in the Norwegian - in 200 – 250 thousand, in the Bering - in 120 –170 thousand, in Okhotsk - 80 – 100 thousand, in Japanese - 60 – 70 thousand and up to 250 thousand square miles in the above-mentioned part of the Pacific Ocean.

British and French multipurpose submarines can be used in the sea zone of the Atlantic Ocean against Russia. However, their combat capabilities are significantly inferior to their American counterparts, both in terms of secrecy, and in search and shock capabilities.

In the Barents, Kara, and Okhotsk seas, these submarine forces will operate outside the zones of effective support for ground-based reconnaissance systems (primarily SOSUS) and other forces of their naval forces. In other areas that are to some extent controlled by the SOSUS system and the air defense radar field, they will obviously work in close cooperation with other branches of their fleets and types of armed forces that can effectively counteract the anti-submarine forces of our Navy.

We are in vests, but we are few


What can oppose our fleet to a possible underwater enemy? First of all, these are the multipurpose PLN of the 885 project, the 11 PLN of the 971 project and four PLA of the 945 and 945 projects. Four submarines of the 671РТМК project are considered obsolete and their withdrawal from the Navy is planned in the near future. Therefore, their consideration does not make sense. The newest multipurpose submarine of the 885 project possesses the highest capabilities to combat enemy boats. Of the 16 modern submarines, the 12 are part of the Northern Fleet, and the rest are in the Pacific. However, not all of these ships will be involved in solving anti-submarine missions. Part of the forces must be allocated for actions in the composition of the groups of shock forces to defeat large enemy surface formations - at least two (or even three) on each of the fleets. The submarine of the 885 project is unlikely to be involved in solving anti-submarine missions, given its high combat value as a strike ship.

The NPL in our fleet consists of 20 units, the main part of which (16) are the ships of the 877 project, which fully meet modern requirements. Of these, the Pacific Fleet includes 8 units, the Northern - 7, the Black Sea - 3 and the Baltic - 2. Presumably all of them will be used to solve antisubmarine tasks in the system of defense of the SSBN, the basing areas of naval forces and sea communications in the areas adjacent to our coast.

Up to three (in the long term, up to eight) corvettes of the 20380 project, near the 25 IPC of the 1124 project and its modifications, can be attracted from the surface ships to solve anti-submarine tasks in the near-sea zone. In the offshore zone, it is possible to use no more than four BODs of the 1155 project (1155.1) and two or three frigates of the 22350 project to combat submarines. Of these, four corvettes and three IPCs are on the Baltic Fleet, eight are on the Black Sea, two are on BOD and six are on the Black Sea, and two are on PPC and eight are on IPC.

Of the marine aviation In the Northern Fleet, three Tu-142M aircraft and about 10 Il-38 aircraft will be able to fight against an underwater enemy, about 20 ship-based Ka-27 PLO helicopters will solve the tasks of defending an aircraft carrier. The Pacific Fleet consists of seven or eight Tu-142Ms, up to 10 Il-38 and about 20 Ka-27pl. Only Tu-142M aircraft and modernized Il-38N aircraft are capable of independently searching for modern low-noise submarines in remote areas. In the coastal zone - Ka-27 helicopters using OGAS.

Pin Tactics


What can be done by the available forces in the fight against underwater danger? First, let us pay attention to the most serious threat - the SSBNs of the likely enemy, primarily the American ones. To combat them, the Federation Council can deploy three Tu-142M aircraft and a maximum of six to seven submarines of 971 and 945 projects. At the same time, daily performance of no more than one or two Tu-142М aircraft departures when staying in the search area within two to three hours. If we take into account that American SSBNs, as a rule, operate in the SOSUS observation zone, despite the significantly reduced detection range of our new SSNs with this system, if zone maneuver forces exist in areas of maneuverable zones (especially the base patrol aviation), their long stay in the search area ultimately lead to the detection and removal of SSBNs from their area of ​​operations. Based on this, even in peacetime, within a few days of searching actions, the whole group will be able to detect at least one SSBN out of four or five who are on patrol with a probability of no more than five percent. In wartime, aviation is simply excluded — the SSBN maneuvering area is controlled by the AWACS and anti-submarine aircraft will be destroyed by the IA forces even before approaching the search area. And our submarines will have to act under the conditions of powerful opposition from the forces of the zonal submarine missiles. Under these conditions, in the first six to seven days of combat, practically all the submarines assigned to search will be destroyed, and the probability of hitting at least one SSBN will not exceed two to three percent. In the Pacific, the situation is similar. That is, our fleet is absolutely incapable of solving the task of fighting against SSBNs. So, it is generally inappropriate to allocate power to this task.

So what can be done with multipurpose PLA of a potential enemy? If we consider the areas of the far sea zone, controlled by the SOSUS system and other means of the zone PLO and air defense (these are the Norwegian, Bering, Sea of ​​Japan and Pacific regions adjacent to Japan from the east), then just like in the situation with SSBNs, practically nothing.

In the areas of the Barents, Kara, and Okhotsk seas outside the 150 – 200-mile zone from the coast, the possibility of fighting enemy enemy submarines increases significantly. Here, the main tasks of the anti-submarine forces will be the destruction of the submarines in the launch areas of the KFBD on our ground targets. Based on the disposable resource, it is possible to create a grouping of anti-submarine forces on the SF as part of two or three PLNs of the 971 project (945), three Tu-142Ms and one RPGT of two BODs of the 1155 project operating with the support of five to eight IL-38. The search capabilities of such a group in peacetime provide detection within three to five days of the order of one or two American submarines from several deployed in the area. Judging by the open data, the group will be able to track them for up to four or five hours (at least, that’s how, according to the media, our anti-submarine forces conducted the American submarine detected in the 2013 year near our territorial waters). Accordingly, with the outbreak of hostilities, the probability of destroying at least one of the enemy's PLA deployed in this area will not exceed 10 – 15 percent. The main part of the existing KDB in the usual equipment of US submarines will be consumed during the first day or two during the air offensive operation. During this time, the grouping of our anti-submarine forces will be able to destroy no more than one submarine of the 8 – 10 deployed in the area.

That is, our anti-submarine forces will not be able to prevent a missile strike on our territory from enemy submarines. In general, over the course of 4 – 5 days, such a group will destroy one or two enemy SSNs (10 – 25%), losing up to half of its ship structure and almost losing its combat capability. That is, the task of defeating the enemy group will not be solved.

In the 150 – 200-mile zone, it is possible to increase the number of anti-submarine forces to a level where they can, albeit to a very limited extent, solve the tasks of fighting enemy submarines. In this case, the losses can be very significant. After 10 – 12 days of warfare, they are likely to lose their fighting ability. From the analysis it follows that at the present time our Navy is unable to combat the underwater threat with the necessary efficiency. The main reason for this is the lack of effective stationary and positional systems for monitoring underwater conditions, especially in the far sea zone, as well as the lack of maneuverable anti-submarine forces. With such, the US Navy has the ability to effectively control the submarines of our fleet in most of the ocean and sea theaters.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/26082
40 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Magic archer
    Magic archer 19 July 2015 06: 03
    +11
    I would note on my own that in addition to American boats, on the NATO side there will also be English and French apls. And it cannot be said that they are much inferior to our or US boats. Especially in terms of armament. English women have the same 2 Trident in mines as Ohio . So in quantitative terms we are far behind .... unfortunately ...
    1. Shick
      Shick 21 July 2015 06: 48
      -4
      Apparently not so bad .. it would be all so sad we would not be there anymore
  2. passerby1
    passerby1 19 July 2015 06: 14
    +20
    In my opinion, the main task of the Russian Navy, including the PLO forces, is to cover patrol zones of domestic SSBNs, and not to search for American SSBNs across the oceans. For this, the strength of our fleet is clearly not enough.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 19 July 2015 22: 49
      +3
      Quote: passerby1
      In my opinion, the main task of the Russian Navy, including the PLO forces, is to cover patrol zones of domestic SSBNs, and not to search for American SSBNs across the oceans
      Covering your SSBNs throughout the world's oceans is not much easier than looking for American boats in it. The topic of stationary tracking systems for the waters of the Arctic has already been raised, it is possible that Russia can turn the water area from the Kola Peninsula to Chukotka into a "Russian sea", with the total domination of our fleet. For actions under the shell of the Arctic ice, boats of the "Akula" class were created at one time, but our "partners" appreciated the idea better than our leadership and first of all tried to destroy these boats with our own hands. The waters of the Arctic are perhaps the only place where you can now fully cover the deployment of our SSBNs. Watching boats under the Arctic ice excludes their tracking by the surface fleet and enemy aircraft. To combat enemy hunter boats, the Arctic needs its own passive and active tracking system, its own cover boats. Another trump card of our fleet may be missile "diesels", which the United States does not build at all. With the equipment of VNEU boats, you can get a relatively inexpensive, quiet boat capable of delivering cruise missiles to the Pacific or Atlantic coast of the United States, where the density of cities, shipyards and ports is high. For the United States, such boats are more difficult targets than atomic ones; a strike with nuclear cruise missiles guarantees "unacceptable damage" to the US territory, makes missile boats with VNEU a deterrent weapon.
    2. Akuzenka
      Akuzenka 20 July 2015 13: 17
      +2
      And why try to catch up with the enemy quantitatively? Yes, there are more and submarine defense is steeper. It is necessary to increase our capabilities qualitatively. And in the event of war .... it will be all the same how many thousand miles their patrol zone WAS more. They will have nowhere to return.
      1. Dikson
        Dikson 20 July 2015 22: 17
        0
        yes there’s no talk about the quantity .. The largest submarine fleet, u .. North Korea, if the cho .. - felts 78, felts 80 boats .. only they are practically diesel from the 2nd world ..
  3. alekc73
    alekc73 19 July 2015 07: 43
    +4
    You need to cover the near sea zone. For this you need stationary systems, planes and helicopters in the right quantities and of course IPC.
  4. andrei.yandex
    andrei.yandex 19 July 2015 08: 27
    +5
    The opinion of a captain of the first rank, who had not served in the General Staff for a long time, is always useful to read, especially a person who is fully developed.
    1. Denis_469
      Denis_469 19 July 2015 10: 04
      0
      This once again shows the level of mental development of our military.
  5. The comment was deleted.
    1. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 19 July 2015 11: 41
      +6
      Quote: rudolff
      I usually don’t take analytics seriously,

      The situation at the moment is worse than the author described, from the nuclear submarine pr.971, only three heads are on the move. number 822,833,835, the rest are under repair or are waiting for repair, someone is on lease and someone sawed.
      At sea, Americans currently have nothing to oppose seriously.
      One good news with "Lazarev" has decided to be modernized like "Nakhimov".
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. saturn.mmm
          saturn.mmm 19 July 2015 16: 47
          +5
          Quote: rudolff
          then the situation is not just bad, it ... is on the verge of a foul.

          The authorities seemed to have roused themselves, they took the 971st to Zvezdochka, they ran Sevmash, but suddenly the leadership changes or they make up with the Americans again and they screw everything up.
          The Americans have been carrying out projects since the forties of the last century, and leadership changes somehow do not affect this, probably in Russia it is necessary to create a defense system in which the leaders of the state could not significantly change anything.
          1. norman-70
            norman-70 19 July 2015 19: 03
            +2
            The ECONOMY needs to rise not to be the RAW MATERIAL APPENDIX of the West, and now climb under China in the Hope that the Celestial Empire will protect! It will not protect, the United States and NATO as a whole, the Russian OLIGARCHIC authorities intend to DEMONIZE to sit in power until EVERYTHING is sold!
  6. Denis_469
    Denis_469 19 July 2015 09: 32
    +11
    What nonsense. American submarines practically do not go to our coast either in the Pacific Fleet or in the Northern Fleet. There is a suspicion that each of their boats is discovered with guarantee. I understand that Sivkov is far from knowledge of the American boats BS, only now I describe them constantly. And they clearly show which boat and where it goes. Article is complete nonsense.

    But the United States does not now have the ability to track Russian submarines in general. The recent case when a Russian submarine surfaced at San Diego, and its commander called the American headquarters by satellite phone and suggested that the Americans look for a very specific example of this American helplessness. And after all they searched. And did not find. Our boat watched an American on a training trip from Pearl Harbor and entering San Diego.
    There was a chic search by the Americans. But not found. Although they threw all the forces that were at hand to find the insolent. And when they didn’t find it, they said that it was the newest Russian project 885 pl. There are none at the Pacific Fleet so far. There was an older boat. Nevertheless, they did not find it.

    But the question of the destruction of American submarines is, in principle, not worthwhile, since the deployment of American subplots clearly shows that in the SF and Pacific Fleet all American submarines are detected in a timely manner. Because the Americans stopped going to our coast. There are only single outputs.
    1. Dikson
      Dikson 19 July 2015 14: 23
      +3
      October 31, 1983 Sargasso Sea. К -324, USS Peterson and SSV506 Nakhodka between them

      Anything happens ..
    2. peresmehsnik
      peresmehsnik 19 July 2015 15: 01
      +9
      Quote: Denis_469
      But the question of the destruction of American submarines is, in principle, not worthwhile, since the deployment of American subplots clearly shows that in the SF and Pacific Fleet all American submarines are detected in a timely manner.
      It’s also worth it. The task of ICAPL during an air-ground operation or BSU is to launch SLCM (Tomahawks) attacks on strategic nuclear forces and other strategic targets of the Russian Federation with a range of approximately 1500 km. And to prevent such attacks can only be destroyed or driven away (not allowing) these boats abroad using their missiles.
      1. Denis_469
        Denis_469 19 July 2015 19: 08
        +1
        Quote: peresmehsnik
        It’s also worth it. The task of ICAPL during an air-ground operation or BSU is to launch SLCM (Tomahawks) attacks on strategic nuclear forces and other strategic targets of the Russian Federation with a range of approximately 1500 km. And to prevent such attacks can only be destroyed or driven away (not allowing) these boats abroad using their missiles.

        Not only by destroying submarines. When the Tomahawks take off they communicate with the satellites. And America's satellite tracking stations are seeing skyrocketing traffic. Then, as the missiles fly, they constantly request their coordinates from the satellites. And according to the work of the military regime of satellites, the flight of missiles is tracked. And finally, when the missiles arrive at the targets, they are covered by electronic warfare systems and no satellites are visible. Because the rockets fly in all directions. This is not to mention the fact that air defense "Tomahawks" (any) shoot down elementary.

        Well, plus to this, American boats will not go to the areas where they are waiting. They will want to live. In peacetime, they established that they are seen in the Barents Sea. And during the war they won’t go there. Just because they want to live corny. And launches will be carried out from the Norwegian Sea. And not from the Barents. And with Pacific Fleet it is similar. No one will go to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk or to the coast of Kamchatka. If they shoot, then from afar, from where the missiles come from at least an hour of flight, or even all 2 hours.
    3. Sibiriya
      Sibiriya 19 July 2015 17: 50
      +4
      Yes, I agree, an article in the style of everything was gone chef.
      There was never in the fleet that there was no counteraction to probable threats and there would not be
      1. akribos
        akribos 19 July 2015 20: 21
        +1
        Do you think otherwise? To our regret, this is so. Sincerely.
  7. Vadim237
    Vadim237 19 July 2015 10: 35
    +7
    In the confrontation of our fleet in the Pacific Ocean against the American, it will end for us with a complete suture.
  8. Dikson
    Dikson 19 July 2015 11: 06
    +13
    I don’t quite understand the comrades who write, for example,
    Quote: Vadim237
    All American PLs are detected in a timely manner. Because the Americans stopped going to our coast
    , with the words of some kind of Brad .. Tell me, why bother "Ohio" with its Trident range of 12 km, climb into our coastal waters? To see with binoculars where to shoot? Absolute stupidity is sometimes written ... Given the obvious numerical superiority and the current state of our anti-submarine forces, there is no need to talk about any control over the movement of the American submarine fleet. Low bow to our shipbuilders and submariners for the fact that they manage to lead this pack by the nose ...
    1. Denis_469
      Denis_469 19 July 2015 11: 28
      +1
      Quote: Dikson
      Tell me, why bother "Ohio" with its Tridents with a range of 12 km, to climb into our coastal waters?

      Really why. Ohio and do not climb into our waters. Climb others. Not a strategist who.

      Quote: Dikson
      With the obvious superiority in numbers and the current state of our anti-submarine forces, there is no need to talk about any control over the movement of the American submarine fleet.

      In our waters it is necessary. The truth is not in all. That is why they asked themselves the question of restoring the Mi-14PL. Since in the Barents Sea you can follow American and other boats. And let's say it is impossible in the Laptev, Kara or Pechora seas. Our PLO forces are not there.
      1. shtanko.49
        shtanko.49 19 July 2015 13: 27
        +1
        They climb into our waters to test the possibility of bombarding us with "axes".
        1. Denis_469
          Denis_469 19 July 2015 13: 56
          0
          Judging by their exits, the check does not work here.
      2. Dikson
        Dikson 19 July 2015 14: 08
        +5
        Good. You have listed offhand our three seas. How many magical blue Mi-14PL do you think is needed to provide cover for these seas? Three regiment, six? This is an unrealistic task to organize such a database. Even if you release one helicopter from the factory per month .. Another system is needed here. And she was ... Oh, how did Vadim237 become Denis_469?
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Dikson
          Dikson 19 July 2015 16: 50
          +6
          And also, the northern seas have been covered with ice for a long time in the year, what will helicopters do at this time, drill holes for ice fishing? We need a network of hydrophone stations on the islands of the Arctic Ocean. Stationary. Permanent And then there are already enough dreamers who are going to cover ALL of our Arctic with one S-300 division ... They would pick up a compass, but measure it, HOW MUCH complexes are needed to just block the north .. Purely in theory, the same axes along the Ob Yenisei, at a height of about ten meters, the devil can fly far deeper into the country .. And I doubt that it will be so easy to notice and render harmless ..
          1. Denis_469
            Denis_469 19 July 2015 19: 11
            -2
            Quote: Dikson
            And I doubt that it will be so easy to notice and neutralize ..

            You shouldn't doubt it. Each Tomohawk, when it flies, requests American navigation satellites. And from them you can see how many missiles and where they are flying. And how soon they will arrive. And as soon as they spotted, the work of the electronic warfare troops will begin. Their job is to drown out satellites and disorient missiles.
        3. Denis_469
          Denis_469 19 July 2015 19: 09
          0
          One can not fix it. It's right. But at least something is better than nothing at all.

          And Denis_469 as he was, and remained.
  9. Tigr
    Tigr 19 July 2015 11: 53
    0
    Based on this, even in peacetime, in a few days of search actions, the entire group will be able to detect at least one SSBN out of four or five patrols with a probability of no more than five percent.

    Based on what Mr. Sivkov has written, it is decidedly impossible to calculate the probability of this event. Most likely, Mr. Sivkov sucked these numbers from ... a finger to give pseudoscience to his article.
  10. TsUS-Air Force
    TsUS-Air Force 19 July 2015 12: 21
    0
    runoff every time show that we build as much as we build, put into service, WHERE THIS IS ALL !!!
    1. Sivan
      Sivan 19 July 2015 22: 47
      +1
      This is Sivkov, he always lost everything, Putin leaked.
  11. Bagnyuk
    Bagnyuk 19 July 2015 12: 34
    -2
    some scribe ... but is this happening? it's scary to read ...
  12. VSkilled
    VSkilled 19 July 2015 12: 52
    +1
    And I, frankly, do not really understand why "chase" the Amerzian nuclear submarines in neutral waters.

    Well, suppose (God forbid, of course) the Americans received the order to "smack". We will not find out about this until they "shmalnut", because the communication channels are closed.

    Moreover, you can "shmalnut" very from afar.

    And, when already - "shmalnut", then there will be no big sense in their drowning - their bases all alone will cease to exist.

    No, no one says that information about the location of enemy nuclear submarines is superfluous, but you can spend crazy loot on building a global tracking network only if you have a machine for printing world currency.

    And, then, I'm not sure that this "network" cannot be misled: put your buoy with a tape recorder next to the sonar enemy buoy and broadcast the noise recording of your nuclear submarine, which at that moment will be located in a completely different place ...
  13. Lt. Air Force stock
    Lt. Air Force stock 19 July 2015 13: 48
    +2
    The error in the Los Angeles article is now 38 (+1 is used as a training).
  14. smoke break
    smoke break 19 July 2015 16: 03
    +9
    It's a shame, annoying and, unfortunately, true. Yes, now, our anti-submarine forces are in a deplorable state, we cannot provide NSNF, both on the transition and on the routes, even in the internally recognized Sea of ​​Okhotsk. I will say more, and give a private, but illustrative example, in Serdyukovskoe time (be it wrong) 182 submarine brigade (diesel 877) was disbanded, and the remnants were relocated from b. Krasheninnikov in b. M. Ulysses. Well, now, 677bdrs and 955 "boreas" when deployed from b. There is simply no one to provide Krasheninnikov with (I am silent about the 10th, who knows, he understood what I mean)! NO! We leave, as in the palm of your hand, and opposite Avachinskaya - 1,2 American submarines (Elk or Wolf).
    Amazing base b. Pavlovsky (where the famous 4 FLAPL was based) was simply abandoned. But the command of the Pacific Fleet "stuck" into Vladivostok and accumulated all its forces in this bag (Ulysses, B. Z. Rog). All admirals and naval commanders think about comfortable living (snow pad) in the capital of the region and about their position on the ship's embankment (the building of the Pacific Fleet headquarters), but do not care about the defense ...
    Sorry, the cry of the soul ...
    It is disgusting to watch what happens, sorry, very sorry ....
    1. Dikson
      Dikson 19 July 2015 16: 38
      +3
      I think the situation in the Northern Fleet is very similar .. ((
      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Denis_469
      Denis_469 19 July 2015 19: 14
      0
      Quote: smoke break
      It is disgusting to watch what happens, sorry, very sorry ....

      And the military themselves are to blame for this. It is enough to talk with them to understand that 2 military men will have 3 opinions. And everyone will be the opposite. Sorry, but seriously take the views of the military can only those who did not communicate with them.
      For example, I can say that the author of the article, Sivkov, is a captain of rank 1 and served in the General Staff. So it can still be attributed to the smart military. Others know even less.

      How can you listen to these?
  15. uge.garik
    uge.garik 19 July 2015 18: 09
    0
    If it is possible to "split the ball" in "zero-origin" - the number of an unmonitored enemy is somehow not more deadly ...
  16. TOR2
    TOR2 19 July 2015 19: 31
    +1
    The main reason for this is the lack of effective stationary and positional systems for monitoring the underwater situation, especially in the far sea zone, as well as the lack of maneuverable anti-submarine forces.

    If about stationary systems, then where s and how many need to deploy such systems. Why not use the ekranoplan with the corresponding equipment as a mobile monitoring station.
    We discussed a lot of innovations in the field of electronic warfare on land, water is also a rather interesting environment for such systems.
    As one of the naval officers joked: "if combat swimmers are approaching your ship, and there is not much to answer, use an electric fishing rod. Anything that comes up at the same time goes into fish soup, something that will not work for the soup for a report."
    If there is a threat - you need to look for a decent answer.
  17. former
    former 19 July 2015 20: 57
    +5
    I read VO for a long time, I write for the first time. I could not resist. The topic is a little bit familiar. The author of the article made two obvious mistakes,
    which should not be allowed at all. Ohio, not BQQ 5 but BQQ 6. The difference is small, but nonetheless.
    The second is about the polar seas teeming with American nuclear submarines of all stripes. Well, this is not entirely true, or rather, quite untrue.
    Of course, there are a lot of them in the Barents, but only until the pre-war period. In other seas, everything is somewhat more complicated for them.
    The axes are of course not bad missiles, but for the C 300 the target is working (light) and for the Shell it is just a favorite (naturally in the affected area). On the whole, I agree with Denis469. There are a lot of problems, but they have not yet reached the point of "everything is gone."
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 July 2015 14: 26
      +3
      The locations of the air defense batteries are known.
      KR do not fly in a straight line, and these batteries simply go around.
      There is hope for fighter aircraft to intercept the Kyrgyz Republic if
      information about their route will be transmitted quickly.
  18. strannik1985
    strannik1985 20 July 2015 09: 02
    +1
    Quote: Denis_469
    Quote: Dikson
    And I doubt that it will be so easy to notice and neutralize ..

    You shouldn't doubt it. Each Tomohawk, when it flies, requests American navigation satellites. And from them you can see how many missiles and where they are flying. And how soon they will arrive. And as soon as they spotted, the work of the electronic warfare troops will begin. Their job is to drown out satellites and disorient missiles.

    Uh ... ANN, TERCOM, DSMAK?
    1. Denis_469
      Denis_469 20 July 2015 11: 19
      0
      This is all nonsense. Combat use showed that without GPS, a QUO is at best 1,5-2 kilometers. Maximum 300 kilometers.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 20 July 2015 13: 26
        0
        Can you find out your source?
        1. Denis_469
          Denis_469 20 July 2015 14: 40
          0
          The results of the combat use of American Tomahawk cruise missiles. Together with their application, they are posted on my website. Which boat released when and how much. By whom and with what result.
  19. alex20081308
    alex20081308 20 July 2015 11: 27
    +1
    I liked the article, although I have been in reserve for many years, I have been tracking everything related to the fleet. What confuses me now. Two years ago, winning reports about 955 and 855 every day in all the media. Caught up with, surpassed, the most powerful and the best, and so on. For about a year now, the media has been quiet about our new boats. And already this gives reason to think that not everything is smooth in = Danish kingdom =.
    1. Denis_469
      Denis_469 20 July 2015 14: 41
      0
      Now the boats have gone - therefore, it makes no sense once again to tell the population that they are building new boats. When they were built, they said. Now the series have begun - people themselves see them. Therefore there is nothing to say.
  20. strannik1985
    strannik1985 20 July 2015 15: 37
    0
    Quote: Denis_469
    The results of the combat use of American Tomahawk cruise missiles. Together with their application, they are posted on my website. Which boat released when and how much. By whom and with what result.

    Website Sovpl.wap24.ru?
    Article: "Features of the combat use of the Tomahawk CD from submarines"?
    I did not see in this article a list of sources, where did you get this information?
    1. Denis_469
      Denis_469 20 July 2015 16: 12
      0
      Quote: strannik1985
      Website Sovpl.wap24.ru?

      sovpl.forum24.ru

      Quote: strannik1985
      Article: "Features of the combat use of the Tomahawk CD from submarines"?

      This is a cumulative article. Summarizing. For each boat, it is indicated separately in the topics dedicated to individual submarines.

      Quote: strannik1985
      I did not see in this article a list of sources, where did you get this information?

      Information from the USA. How else could I find out who and how many missiles fired and by whom? And I myself am the primary source. Since the first person to collect information about the fighting of American and English submarines using cruise missiles.

      On my site, in addition to American boats, there are English boats and their launches of cruise missiles.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 20 July 2015 18: 43
        0
        There are no sources of information on the links in this article.
        How did you get the source and information somewhere? "From USA"? Are you serious?
        1. Denis_469
          Denis_469 20 July 2015 19: 01
          0
          Quote: strannik1985
          "From USA"? Are you serious?

          Yes, seriously. The original source has no primary sources. You need to know this. And if you think that was not so, then point out factual errors, and not those that you do not like something there.

          All data is obtained from the USA. You can check it yourself. If you can.
  21. strannik1985
    strannik1985 20 July 2015 19: 59
    -2
    Quote: Denis_469
    Quote: strannik1985
    "From USA"? Are you serious?

    Yes, seriously. The original source has no primary sources. You need to know this. And if you think that was not so, then point out factual errors, and not those that you do not like something there.

    All data is obtained from the USA. You can check it yourself. If you can.

    Are you seriously claiming KVO Tomahawk 1,5-2 km based on information from your own finger?
    Thank . I have no more questions.
    1. Denis_469
      Denis_469 20 July 2015 21: 42
      0
      No - I affirm this based on data from missile hits. But you sucked from your finger that the Tomahawks have high accuracy. No need to suck your fingers. It is only necessary to work with information and look for sources.
  22. former
    former 20 July 2015 23: 19
    +1
    In the event of hostilities, the satellite constellation and navigation systems will live for minutes, then they will end.
    The effective range of the kr will fall by an order of magnitude (or maybe two). How kr will focus on the terrain. Visually?
    Radar? By stars? At a distance of a couple of thousand km. Reliable ways never existed. Without target illumination and without
    without observations (or whatever it is called ... corrections in place?) it will fly into the field or into the forest. It’s good if only two kilometers past. Now about circumventing the air defense zones. Who knows all about the deployment of air defense systems? Even the commander of the air defense regiment will find out about the place of their deployment from the order. Where they will order there and go, and these orders are unlikely to be from the phishington. And how it will bypass the air defense zones in the SF if all objects are closed by them. There will have to break through. With wild losses. KR and carriers.