With great interest I read the article “Fleet without ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse. The material is in many respects consonant with personal feelings about what is happening with the domestic navy, but at the same time it contains something that has never been heard of before, namely, a new way of identifying and tracking submarines:
"… a technology that allows aircraft to carry out a radar search for submarines in a submerged (underwater) position according to the disturbances of the surface environment generated by them during movement (the radar detects, as it were," traces "on the surface of the water, which are left by a submarine going in the depths).
Of course, it became very interesting to figure out what was at stake, since the author of the article, respected Alexander Timokhin, not only described the phenomenon, but also gave a fairly wide evidence base, with links to sources, including those in English.
So, we have the thesis:
“Putting all the above together, we have to admit that the ability to detect a submarine using radar and optoelectronic monitoring the surface of water or ice is a reality. And this reality, unfortunately, is completely denied by the modern domestic naval strategy."
Let us study the sources on the basis of which the distinguished A. Timokhin formulated this thesis. So, the first is the report "A RADAR METHOD FOR THE DETECTION OF SUBMERGED SUBMARINES", published in 1975. The author of this article downloaded and diligently translated the English text, as far as he could (alas, the level of English proficiency is "reading with a dictionary", so mistakes are possible). In short, the essence of the report is as follows:
1. Since the Second World War, and especially, during 1959-1968. recorded multiple cases of detection by radar of submarines following in a submerged position. Almost all types of American submarines that existed at that time were found at depths of up to 700 feet (213.5 m).
2. Although in some cases it was possible to control the movement of the submarine for a rather long time (up to 2 hours), but in general this effect was not constant. That is, it could be observed at some point, and then not observed: they could detect the submarine, immediately lose it and not be able to restore contact, even knowing the position of the submarine.
3. And now - the strangest, and very unusual. The fact is that the radar did not detect a submarine at all - this is impossible, the radar does not work under water. We can assume that the radar detects some kind of footprints above the submarine on the surface of the sea … nothing like that! Radar detects disturbances in airspace 1000-2000 feet (300-600 m) above sea level! It sounds completely delusional (which the author of the report himself admits) but, nevertheless, has been repeatedly confirmed by observations.
In order to avoid misunderstandings with the translation, I will quote a fragment of the report in English:
“It is hard to imagine how a submerged submarine can give rise to an effect one or two thousand feet above the surface. It is indeed understandable why there might be skepticism. Nevertheless, it is an experimental observation reported on many occasions."
Then the author of the report points out that in the United States they could not come up with a theory that could substantiate such a phenomenon and tries to explain what, in his opinion, is still happening. Having considered various "sources" that, at least theoretically, could lead to such a phenomenon (heat trace, the influence of magnetic fields, etc.), the author comes to the following conclusion.
The radar sees some kind of "air turbulence", and it is formed like this. It is known that the air layer near sea water is saturated with water vapor and is in constant motion (convection). A large underwater body, which is a submarine, exerts pressure on the water in which it moves, including upward (that is, the boat, as it were, "pushes" the water column, "pushing" the water in different directions). This pressure creates an underwater wave, also directed upwards, which, reaching the surface layer of water, changes it relative to its natural state (in the report, this effect is called the "Bernoulli Hump"). And these changes provoke the direction of convective air movement and ultimately create the very air turbulences that the radar detects.
The author points out that work in this direction in the United States was curtailed, and believes that this was done in vain, because the indicated effect, which allows observing submarines, although it does not occur on an ongoing basis, is nevertheless observed quite regularly. And the absence of a theory why this is happening is not a reason to stop working in this direction. It is interesting that the report ends with a classic horror story: Russian BODs are equipped with very powerful radars, stronger than those used by the United States to monitor submarines, which means that they probably figured everything out a long time ago and …
Thus, we can summarize: according to American data and in certain circumstances, a submarine in a submerged position can be detected using a radar. But … I must say that the Americans took the underwater threat very seriously. The memory of the "Doenitz boys" was still fresh, and the Soviet fleet in the 50s and 60s was built mainly underwater.
Still, the Americans are closing the project. This can only say one thing - despite many precedents at that time, the detection of submarines with the help of radar did not reach the level of technology, that is, something that could give stable results when searching for enemy submarines. At the same time, there is no information that the Americans have resumed work in this direction. That is, we have a report in which the author considers it necessary to resume work on this project, but there is no evidence that his opinion was listened to.
The next argument in favor of the fact that the Americans not only resumed work on radar methods for detecting submarines, but also achieved complete success in them, is the story of Lieutenant General V. N. Sokerin, a former aviation commander of the Air Force and Air Defense of the Baltic Fleet.
Without quoting it in full, let us briefly recall the essence: in 1988, the Northern Fleet conducted exercises, during which 6 nuclear and 4 diesel submarines were deployed at sea. At the same time, each of them received its own sea area, where it was supposed to be, however, within a given area (and they were quite extensive), the commander himself determined where his submarine was. In other words, until the end of the maneuvers, no one, including the command of the fleet, could know the exact location of the deployed ships. And then the patrol "Orion" of our "sworn friends" appeared - he passed over the areas of submarine deployment on a strange, "broken" route. And when the officers of the fleet compared the maneuvering of our submarines, then:
“… Having put on the map the route of“movement”of“Orion”I made an unambiguous conclusion that all ten“turning”points of its actual track were absolutely exactly above the actual place (at the time of flight) of all 10 (!) Boats. Those. the first time in 1 hour and 5 minutes, the second - in 1 hour and 7 minutes, one plane "covered" all 10 squares."
What would you like to say about this? Just a couple of words about the person who told us this: Viktor Nikolaevich Sokerin, Honored Military Pilot of Russia, commanded the Air Force and Air Defense of the Baltic Fleet in 2000-2004.and … he left this post, like the ranks of our armed forces, writing a report "on his own", in protest against the collapse of the naval (and not only) aviation of the Russian Federation. But he was "in sight", "in good standing" with our powers that be. I think it makes no sense to explain that no matter how bad a particular branch of the army is, its senior officers always have the opportunity to provide themselves with a comfortable and comfortable existence. All that matters - somewhere to keep silent diplomatically, somewhere to cheerfully report what is expected from you … Yes, only Viktor Nikolaevich was a man of a completely different kind, one of those for whom the business he deals with above all else. I recommend reading his collection of poems - yes, not Pushkin's syllable, but how much love it has for the sky and airplanes … And also - V. N. Sokerin served in the north for a long time and was friends with Timur Avtandilovich Apakidze.
Of course, the author of this article wanted to know in more detail what V. N. Sokerin on submarine detection by radar. And then the oddities began. The fact is that the respected A. Timokhin writes that V. N. Sokerin was taken from the article "What to ask Ash" by M. Klimov, but … the problem is that they are not there. The author of the article, Maxim Klimov, mentions the discovery of 10 Soviet submarines, but without any reference to the respected V. N. Sokerina. Well, let's look.
Google reported that these lines are found in the article “Anti-submarine warfare. View from SSSR , published by Alexander Sergeevich Semenov.
“There was direct evidence that the US Navy had gone much further in developing 'unconventional' search methods. I will cite the testimony of the commander of the naval aviation of the Baltic Fleet ….
In confirmation of his words, A. S. Semenov gives an interesting screenshot
I would like to note the following. The reliability of this screenshot does not raise the slightest doubt. It is well known that V. N. Sokerin, after leaving the reserve, did not shy away from the Internet at all, by the way, there is his material on VO), he was also most likely present on the AVIAFORUM website, from where, in fact, this screenshot was taken. Alas, to date, the discussion thread in which this comment by V. N. Sokerin is in the archive, so it is impossible to get to him "from the Internet". However, one of the forum administrators was kind enough to confirm the existence of this comment.
And here the author of this article found himself in a very ambiguous position. On the one hand, the words of Viktor Nikolaevich do not require any confirmation or proof - they themselves are proof. On the other hand … If this had been said in an interview, or stated in an article, there could have been no options. But a replica on the Internet, especially taken out of context, is still a little different. When communicating on such forums “for their own people”, people can joke, tell stories, etc., without thinking that someone will then “defend a scientific dissertation” in their words. Again, much has become clearer, it would have been possible to read the entire thread of the forum, but alas, it is not. And you won't be able to ask Viktor Nikolaevich - he left this forum many years ago.
But what else needs to be specially noted - when reading the words of V. N. Sokerin, we still do not see direct confirmation that the radar method for detecting enemy submarines was brought to a result in the United States. Dear V. N. Sokerin only talks about the fact that Orion detected the location of our submarines with high accuracy, and he himself is not the primary source of information (speaks from the words of an unnamed officer) and makes the assumption that perhaps this is a consequence of the "Window" theme that ours abandoned, and the Americans promoted.
But remember that, in addition to hydroacoustic, there are also other methods for determining the location of submarines. One of them is magnetometric, aimed at detecting anomalies in the Earth's magnetic field, which are created by such a large object as a submarine. Or, for example, infrared (which, by the way, in no case should be confused with radar) - the fact is that a nuclear submarine uses water as a coolant, which is then dumped overboard, having, of course, a higher temperature than the sea or ocean surrounding the boat. And it can be tracked. Of course, this method is only suitable for detecting nuclear submarines, but over time - who knows? After all, a submarine moves in the water column, "pushing" the water away from itself with a propeller or a water cannon, and in any case, this is friction. And friction, as you know, raises the temperature of the body, and, in principle, the wake is probably even a little bit warmer than the surrounding water. The only question is the "sensitivity" of observation devices.
That is, strictly speaking, the fact that the Americans spotted our submarines (which, in fact, is what V. N. Sokerin is talking about) does not yet indicate the triumph of the radar method for detecting submarines - perhaps the Americans used some other, earlier existing method, improving it.
By the way, what kind of "Window" theme is this? Let's try to figure it out on the basis of the same article “Anti-submarine warfare. View from the S. S. S. R. " A. S. Semenov, especially since the respected A. Timokhin in his article “presents him as:
"One of the" fathers "of the" Window "theme, an anti-submarine pilot from the Pacific Fleet"
The principle of operation of "Windows" A. S. Semenov describes it as follows:
“… With the help of the airborne radar… to find the same zones of disturbances, called“Standing wave”. With some experience and radar tuning, they looked like concentric circles, several tens of kilometers in diameter with a boat in the center of this circle … An attempt to apply this method on the Il-38, Tu-142 did not have much success. It was clear that for such a purpose it was necessary to develop a radar of the corresponding frequency range."
Let us immediately draw your attention to the fact that by its principle of operation, the "Window" is fundamentally different from what the Americans were going to use. They were going to look for an "air trail", and we have - sea, some concentric waves … or not? The fact is that when describing the work of "Windows" by A. S. Semenov points out: “A brief description of the principle. From the story "Non-Tradition" ".
What kind of "Non-Tradition" is this? And this is the story of the same A. S. Semenova. So what, the reader will say, can not the author take a description from his own "early" work? Of course, maybe this is normal, if only it were not for one "but". Genre of the story. Simply by opening the page of A. S. Semenov on samizdat, read (specially highlighted in red)
Fantasy. No, it is clear that "A fairy tale is a lie, but there is a hint in it, a lesson for good fellows," the work itself is based on the fact that the author is a hit "into himself", that is, he returns to himself young in all the splendor of his life experience over the years of service and creates an alternative reality. Often in such works a lot of what really existed is revealed … But the problem is that we can only guess which of what is said in the story is true, and which is fiction. And that is to say - the work is not written in the simplest language, it, so to speak, is intended rather “for our own and for our own,” that is, for those who are familiar with the hardships of the sea service, and who, apparently, are easily capable of separate truth from fiction.
In general, A. S. Semyonov is a person who obviously knows, but what he wrote … it turns out that it may be “so, not quite so, or even not at all so”. But in this case, is there any point in referring to his work?
And also, when reading his “Anti-submarine warfare. A View from SSSR ", which is positioned by the author precisely as an article, and not as a literary and fantastic work, this is what hit the eye. A. S. Semenov, describing the state of our submarine forces (in short, according to A. S. Semenov - the darkness is complete, the Americans controlled us at every step and at any moment could take for soft spots), refers to Vice Admiral Valery Dmitrievich Ryazantsev, the author of the book "In wake formation for death." At the same time, A. S. Semenov characterizes Valery Dmitrievich as an extremely competent person.
So the whole point is that V. D. Ryazantsev in 2014 wrote an article with an extremely "telling" title: "Once again about sea tales and sailors-storytellers", in which, among other things, he paid attention to "Window". According to him, the very beginning of work on this topic was a form of fraud and a falsification of facts that during the intermediate tests the commanders of ships and aircraft received the order: "Blood from the nose, but the research results must be positive", and that all this was done in order to obtain funding, and then:
“I would like to ask today those who have squandered huge sums of money:“Where is the new technology that would allow the detection of foreign squares? Where is the plane or helicopter on which this equipment is installed? There are no planes, no helicopters, no equipment. And there is no money. The "Window" theme turned out to be a soap bubble, "Potemkin village", a dummy."
However, A. S. Semenov does not mention, although his article “Anti-submarine warfare. View from the S. S. S. R. " was posted on "Samizdat" much later than the material of the vice admiral. However, the author is not at all going to reproach A. S. Semenov in deliberately concealing information - after all, he was not obliged to read all the works of V. D. Ryazantsev and could well have just skipped this article of his.
And this is what we get. An "alarm" sounds - the submarines of the Fatherland are in danger, the Americans are using a new method of radar detection of underwater submarines, they can see everyone! However, when you begin to understand all this in detail, it turns out that the rationale for the "alarm" is:
1. Report born in 1975, from which it follows that work in this direction was once closed in the United States, and it is completely unclear whether they were resumed based on the results of the report;
2. Forum replica of a very respected person;
3. And, finally, a work written in the fantasy genre "alternative history".
Here the question arises - is this basis sufficient for announcing an "alarm"? Let everyone reading these lines decide this for themselves.
And one more thing - under-ice detection of submarines. Here the respected A. Timokhin refers to the words of “another naval officer, an experienced anti-submarine, the commander of an anti-submarine ship, captain of the first rank A. E. Soldatenkov . All this is true - dear A. E. Soldatenkov indeed published his memoirs “Admiral's routes (or flashings of memory and information from the outside), but … we have to state that A. Timokhin quoted A. Ye. Soldatenkov is not entirely correct.
The bottom line is that the acquaintance of A. E. Soldatenkov actually observed a certain ellipse around the place where the submarine soon surfaced. Moreover, such ellipses were recorded by the radar before (outside the ice), but for a long time no one associated them with submarines, considering them to be just interference. Then they tied them up, already using radar reconnaissance satellites: "So, for example, in the region of Cuba in the Caribbean Sea, an American submarine was detected by a satellite by the ring effect."
Generally speaking, all of the above correlates perfectly with the data of the report "A RADAR METHOD FOR THE DETECTION OF SUBMERGED SUBMARINES" - similar formations were observed there as well. But then A. E. Soldatenkov is trying to explain the nature of this phenomenon … or, rather, he is just playing the reader.
“When the submarine moves in a submerged position, the specified immersion depth is held by horizontal rudders, which are controlled by the boatswain or autopilot. The accuracy of maintaining the set depth of travel is within ± 5 meters. That is, a gigantic mass of metal (from 6,000 to 33,800 tons) oscillates vertically in depth, and its gravitational field also oscillates along with the mass. Part of the gravitational field of the hull of the submarine ship, with the intensity recorded by the measuring devices, comes out to the surface of the water, to the border of two media - water and air. This part of the gravitational field, at some identical level of its intensity, enters into resonant interaction with the near-surface layers of sea water and air."
For those who, due to the current troubles, completely forgot the physics course, we recall that the gravitational field is a fundamental physical field through which gravitational interaction between all material bodies is carried out. Moreover, the essence of this interaction lies in the fact that the force of gravitational attraction between two points is directly proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them. That is, all objects of the world are in the gravitational field - not only "surface layers of sea water" interact with the same submarine, but also the Sun, Jupiter and Alpha Centauri, just the force of their interaction is negligible. But "a part of the gravitational field sticking out above the surface of the water" is, generally speaking, a physical and mathematical nonsense.
Of course, one could assume that the respected E. A. Soldatenkov simply did not quite correctly formulate his idea, and the "gravitational field of the boat" is understood as the distance from it, at which its gravitational attraction is able to appreciably influence some particles of air and water. But even in this case, his further explanation of this phenomenon does not look entirely scientific, and allows one to suspect the respected author of … let's say, one of the favorite sea sports: "etching tales" by gullible civilians.
But what is important is that A. E. Soldatenkov prefaces his scientific calculations with the words "Regarding all of the above, I dare to suggest the following." That is, he directly writes that his words are nothing more than his personal hypothesis. At the same time, A. Timokhin's quote looks like A. E. Soldatenkov is absolutely sure, and does not feel the slightest doubt in his words.
But the biggest question is not even that. As we said earlier, the respected A. Timokhin in his article "A Fleet Without Ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse" made two key statements: First, that modern technologies allow detecting submarines submerged and even under ice. - that the existence of such opportunities is completely ignored by us.
So, to confirm the first thesis, A. Timokhin quotes a fragment of one of the chapters of the book by A. E. Soldatenkov. But for some reason he completely “forgets” to quote another fragment of the same chapter, in which A. E. Soldatenkov suggests … that this method of detecting submarines is being used by the Russian Navy! We quote:
“But there are indirect signs that the polarization method of detecting submarines has made its way into life. So, for example, the hydroacoustic complex of the heavy nuclear cruiser "Peter the Great" (for all its perfection) could not provide full coverage of the underwater situation during the tragic events with the "Kursk" submarine, nevertheless, he had it. Moreover, one of the officers of the press center of the General Staff of the Navy said openly that the underwater situation at the crash site was being monitored by radar. This could be taken for incompetence or a slip of the tongue of a former political worker, but the officer told the truth, just no one believed in it. In addition, nowhere in the open press is there any mention of work in the field of the polarization method for detecting submarines. And this happens in two cases: the first, when no one is dealing with this problem at all, the second, when significant progress has been made and the topic has been classified. Another sign. The outbound cruise of the heavy nuclear cruiser "Peter the Great" around the world to the Far East to participate in the Pacific Fleet exercises without escort ships. It seems to be a big imprudence for the only ship of this class on the planet. But no, the BIP (or CIC) of the cruiser knew ALL the situation around the ship: surface, underwater, air, space and would hardly have allowed himself to offend. Another indirect sign: when communicating with the media in interviews with high naval commanders, tragic notes ceased to sound at the mention of an underwater threat from a potential adversary, and before they were already straining from the consciousness of their own powerlessness. Plus the loss of interest in anti-submarine surface ships and the reduction of OVR brigades in all fleets. Plus the resumption of long-range aviation flights around the borders of the Russian Federation. After all, hundreds of tons of aviation kerosene are burned not only for training pilots”.
It turns out badly: where the words of the respected A. E. Soldatenkov confirm the theses of the author of the article “Fleet without ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse”, they are not only quoted, but also presented to readers as a given (while AE Soldatenkov himself presents only a personal hypothesis). And in cases where the opinion of A. E. Soldatenkov comes into conflict with the opinion of A. Timokhin, then what, it turns out, will be hindered for clarity?
Well, what conclusion would you like to draw from all this? And no - at the disposal of the author there are no facts that would confirm or refute the assumptions of the respected A. Timokhin. And, despite all the criticism shown above, the evidence base on which the article “Fleet without ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse”, it may well turn out that its main postulates are still absolutely correct.
The personal opinion of the author of this article, which he does not impose on anyone, is as follows. Most likely, a method of detecting submarines in a submerged position using radar does exist. But it, like other methods of detecting submarines (magnetometric, hydroacoustic, thermal, and now, according to some sources, some kind of "chemical" is also patented), is not a guarantee of the detection and destruction of submarines, although it can work under certain circumstances - like all of the above methods. In other words, it is quite possible, and even more than likely, that it will be even more difficult for submariners now, but, nevertheless, submarines as a class of warships have not at all lost their combat significance.
This point of view is indirectly confirmed by the following considerations. For example, at the end of the 20th century, the United States actually invented a method that allows detecting submarines with an efficiency close to 100%. But in this case, the very concept of American nuclear submarines, implying the ability to independently act in conditions of a strong enemy anti-submarine warfare, loses its meaning. Why, then, are the Americans stepping up the pace of commissioning their newest Virginias? After all, it is quite obvious that sooner or later potential opponents of the United States will also learn this method and will be able to identify American nuclear submarines operating near bases.
In such a case, it would be logical to expect the creation of some completely new type of submarines, and maybe even abandoning them altogether, or at least slowing down the programs for building new nuclear submarines - but nothing of the kind is happening. And, most likely, this indicates that with the methods of searching for submarines in a submerged position with radar means, everything is not so simple.
But in any case, we need to clearly understand that the submarine is not at all a self-sufficient means of fighting at sea. With the illusion that by developing one type of naval armed forces, it is possible to solve the tasks of the Navy as a whole, one should say goodbye as soon as possible. The submarine, with all its advantages, is not a wunderwaffe, and submariners can only inflict damage on the enemy in close cooperation with surface ships, land-based and deck-based naval aircraft and in the presence of a developed system of naval reconnaissance and target designation - over-the-horizon radars, spy satellites, networks of underwater sonar stations and others, and so on.
And in this with the author of the article “Fleet without ships. The Russian Navy is on the verge of collapse”by A. Timokhin, we should unconditionally agree.
