|
|
|
Poslao: 14 Mar 2012 16:19
|
offline
- Pridružio: 21 Jan 2012
- Poruke: 532
|
Pitanje dal' ce sad Indusi hteti Amur kad je Ruska Mornarica odbila Ladu.
Koliko su Amur i Lada slicni? Cini mi se da je Amur dosta manji.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poslao: 17 Mar 2012 09:13
|
offline
- rade012
- Moderator u penziji
- Pridružio: 26 Dec 2005
- Poruke: 4710
|
Podmornica Sarov, jedina u klasi. Služi za opitovanja oružja i sistema. Pomalo tajnovita.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poslao: 17 Mar 2012 10:23
|
offline
- vrabac
- Legendarni građanin
- Pridružio: 30 Dec 2010
- Poruke: 4963
|
Irkustsk.
Nije u ovom trenutku moguće pogoditi brod na 2000 km prtubrodskom raketom, osim ako nije usidren u luci ili ispred nje.
Tako da to ograničnje u izvozu na 300 km domet kojemu podležu razne ruske protubrodske rakte ne znači uvek da one imaju mnogo puta veći domet u ruskoj uptrebi.
Inačica koju si spomenu je za gađanjenepokretnih ciljeva i u biti je klasična krstareća raketa.
Njena protubrotska inačica zaista u izvozu ima manji domet od 300 km ali to nikako ne znači da je ona koja se koristi u ruskom naouružanju sa dometom od 2000 km. Naprotiv domet jeste veći ali teško da je izašao iz okvira granica 400 -550 km, lično moja procena je da je domet sadašnjih operativnih raketa 350 km, a u razvoju je vrlo verovatno od 550 km.
Na takvim daljinama se javlja jedan vrlo veliki problem: kako odrediti položaj broda?
Čak i uslovima ekvatorskih superrefrakcija brodskiradari u izuzetnim , ekstremno malobrojnimslučjevima dostižu 250 km dometa, ali čak i u toj superrefrakciji prosek je 150 km. A takvih uslova je malo. Normalno je da imaš svega 65 km dometa brod na brod a u lošim uslovima, kakvih po severnim morima ima stalno doemti padaju na neverovatno malih 35 - 40 km.
I pored sve sile najboljih satelita i brodskih AWACS-a amerikanci su svoj protubrodski Tomahavk držali na ledu skoro 20 godina. Pre neki dan sma pročitao mislim baš naovom forumu (svaka čast ko je objavio) da je u Kaliforniji PRVI PUT skrenuta putanja tokom leta tako što je zemaljsko (u praksi brodsko) komandno mesto PREKO SATELITA promenilo kurs rakete u terminlanoj fazi jedno 200 km pre mete.
Ali čak i taj uspeh nije dovoljan. On je dobar za gađanje stacionarnih ciljeva pa rešiš da gađaš sekundarni cilj tokom leta ili jednostavno dobiješ preciznije koordinate cilja ili bilo šta...a zbog čega želiš da je pošalješ na drugo mesto.
Stvrani problem broda u kretanju po otvorenom moru je još gori. Brod plovi 20 do 30 čvorova a to mu može doseći dakle i nešto preko 50 km na čas. Raketi tog tipa treba uz pripremu ze lansiraneje 8 000 sekundi da dospe do njega na 2000 km a to je ciglo dvi ure i više. Brodica ode preko 100km odmesta na kome se nalazi. Autonomne radrske glave u samim raketama koje vode na završnoj fazi, barem sa sadašnjim gabaritima ovih raketa (to važi i za američke Šjekirice) ne mogu lako da zahvate brod koji se pomerio od predviđene tačke preko 80 ili preko 100 km. Jednostavno ti se može desti da ga preletiš ili da je odmakao u suprotnom pravcu a ni sa uglovima od 90 stepeni nije bolje, ovakvi radari nemaju veliki domet i veliki ugao zahvata.
DAKLE MORAŠ OBEZBSDITI RAKETI DA NA TAČKU U KOJOJ UKLJUČUJE SOPSTVENI INTERNI NAVODILAČKI RADAR BUDE U TAKVOJ POZICIJI DA ONA ZAHVATI SIGURNO BROD KOJI JE U MEĐUVREMENU PROMENIO SVOJU POZICIJU MOŽdA JAKO DALEKO VAN UGLA ZAHVATA NAVODILAČKOG TERMINALNOG RADARA U RAKETI.
Pre svega postaje jasno da je potrebno stalno praćenje cilja odnosno gađanog broda. To se može izvesti istina na mnog načina ali ni jedan nije idealan i kopatibilan sa tako dalekim dometima od 2000 km za protubrodske sisteme.
Primerice, ruski i američki maritimni izviđači dalekog dometa mogu to da urade, ali su oni ko divlje guske, na otvorenom moru pojuriće ih i uništiti američki F-18 (na severu Su-33) a američke ako priđu ka ruskim obalama smlatiće MiG-31 bez da neko stigne da ga spase. Sa AWACS-ima je potpuno isto ako ne i gore.
Ostaju dakle sateliti. a koliko god bio brojan, i složen satelitski sustav oko Zemlje nije još uvek u stanju da locira cilj jedan put pa da ga onda duže vremena prati pa da prense promenu koodinata da bi tek onda mesto s koga je raketa ispaljena ili neko drugo koje je nadležno za let rakete PREKO DRUGOG satelita komandovalo promenu putanje leta u odnosu na prvobitnu da bi se na toj terminlanoj fazi uspešno izvršilo uključenje i zahvat navodilačkog radara same rakete.
Budućnosti ide ka tome samo je TRENUTNO to nemoguće ni Amerima a kamoli Rusima.
Zato rakete koje se koriste (milim na te novje tipove) kao protubrosdki sitemi i dalje imaju najveći domet od oko 600 km pa čak i na tim dometima imaju manju verovtanoću nalaženja cilja nego stari gigantski ruski projektili Granit i stariji koji su upravo iz tih problema i razvijeni sa onako velikim brzinama leta, bezmalo dvaput i više većim od svih sadašnjih protubrodskih raketa. No oni polako odolaze u istoriju, mada ne baš odmah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poslao: 17 Mar 2012 15:36
|
offline
- Pridružio: 18 Jan 2012
- Poruke: 55
|
vrabac ::Pre svega postaje jasno da je potrebno stalno praćenje cilja odnosno gađanog broda. To se može izvesti istina na mnog načina ali ni jedan nije idealan i kopatibilan sa tako dalekim dometima od 2000 km za protubrodske sisteme.
Primerice, ruski i američki maritimni izviđači dalekog dometa mogu to da urade, ali su oni ko divlje guske, na otvorenom moru pojuriće ih i uništiti američki F-18 (na severu Su-33) a američke ako priđu ka ruskim obalama smlatiće MiG-31 bez da neko stigne da ga spase. Sa AWACS-ima je potpuno isto ako ne i gore.
Ostaju dakle sateliti. a koliko god bio brojan, i složen satelitski sustav oko Zemlje nije još uvek u stanju da locira cilj jedan put pa da ga onda duže vremena prati pa da prense promenu koodinata da bi tek onda mesto s koga je raketa ispaljena ili neko drugo koje je nadležno za let rakete PREKO DRUGOG satelita komandovalo promenu putanje leta u odnosu na prvobitnu da bi se na toj terminlanoj fazi uspešno izvršilo uključenje i zahvat navodilačkog radara same rakete.Postoji jedan PB sistem, jako JAKO star i "prica"  da je do 400km isao "solo", a do 1000km uz pomoc Ka-28, ili MiG-29UB (sa nekom "malom modifikacijom"...). Sama raketa je bila nivoa 1 mach. "Prica" ide da smo mi imali par komada toga i da to radi (provereno kaze "prica"). Eto nije bas 2000km, ali nije ni kod Rusa, a nije ni od skoro... 
Super tekst kolega, samo ne bih bio sklon da garantujem da nije do oko 2000km kod Rusova... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poslao: 17 Mar 2012 21:22
|
offline
- Pridružio: 12 Jan 2011
- Poruke: 1557
|
rade012 ::Podmornica Sarov, jedina u klasi. Služi za opitovanja oružja i sistema. Pomalo tajnovita.
kažu da je izuzetno tajnovita i da se o njoj skoro ništa nezna u smislu da mali broj ljudi uopšte zna čemu služe proširenja na bokovima, Pa apreko novih vidova propulzije i kretanja podmornica ispod vode
sve u svemu na ruskom sajtu kažu da je vrlo "Sekretno" plovilo u pitanju.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poslao: 19 Mar 2012 19:15
|
offline
- Gavrilo Milentijević
- Komandir stanice milicije Gornje Polje
- Pridružio: 12 Feb 2005
- Poruke: 35616
- Gde živiš: ovalni kabinet
|
Detalji oko požara koji se desio decembra 2011 na podmornici Jekaterinburg...
Citat:More details on the Ekaterinburg fire
February 13, 2012 by Dmitry Gorenburg
In the last week, there have been two very interesting reports with additional information on the fire that seriously damaged the Ekaterinburg strategic nuclear submarine back in December. All the reports seem to agree that the submarine’s nuclear missiles and torpedoes had not been offloaded prior to the start of the repair, which meant that there had been a serious risk of a torpedo explosion while the fire burned.
But let’s start at the beginning. The reports indicate that the submarine came to Rosliakovo for a routine inspection, during which it was decided that damage to a cowling that covers the submarine’s sonar. This covering had been damaged either when the submarine was docking, or earlier in the summer or fall, depending on the report. In order to fix the cowling, an opening was made in the outer hull. The fire began during the repair (at 3:45pm Moscow time on December 29) as the result of sparks igniting wooden scaffolding. From the scaffolding, the fire spread to the rubber soundproofing covering that is located between the outer and inner hull. This covering supposedly becomes flammable only at very high temperatures, but once on fire it is very difficult to extinguish. The fire spread in the space between the two hulls, a location that is narrow and filled with various equipment, factors that increased the difficulty of fighting the fire. Three hours after the fire began, flames continued to shoot up to a height of 15-20 meters.
Those in charge at the site early on had the idea to submerge the floating dock in which the submarine was located, but the process was complicated by the presence of the Admiral Kulakov destroyer in the same dock. If the dock was submerged too far, the interior of the ship would be flooded. The Kommersant article that discusses this issue does not really address the question of how this was resolved, though it implies that the dock was partially submerged so that seawater could reach the submarine and extinguish the fire without rising so high as to flood the Kulakov. Afterwards, the fire was mostly brought under control, though it was not fully extinguished until 6:20pm on December 30, almost 27 hours after it began.
Numerous sources agree that both the submarine’s nuclear missiles and its torpedoes had not been offloaded prior to the inspection. The reports indicate that regulations do not require that the missiles be offloaded in this circumstance, but that the torpedoes should be. According to Novaia Gazeta, the base commander allowed the Ekaterinburg to enter the dock without offloading the torpedoes. Kommersant notes that this happens fairly frequently in order to avoid delays.
The torpedoes were located in the first compartment, only 40 meters from the fire. Here’s a picture of the front of the submarine:
The crew quickly realized the danger that extreme heat just on the other side of the inner hull might cause the torpedoes to explode. Since the hydraulic systems for torpedo removal were not functioning, they risked their lives to manually remove the torpedoes from the first compartment. According to Novaia Gazeta, three torpedoes were removed in this way. Had the torpedoes exploded, dozens of crew and firefighters would have been killed. Depending on the number of torpedoes affected, the authors of the Kommersant article raise the possibility that the explosion could have destroyed the floating dock and the Admiral Kulakov and might have led to radioactive contamination from the nuclear missiles or the two nuclear reactors onboard. I have no way of judging how serious that threat was, but whether or not it was real, a torpedo explosion would have certainly led to panic not just in Roslyakovo but also in the nearby cities of Severomorsk and Murmansk, which have a total population of almost 400,000 people. You can see the locations on the map below, from the Kommersant article.
Finally, let me turn to the consequences for the future of the submarine. This topic is addressed extensively in the Novaia Gazeta article. The good news is that according to Dmitry Rogozin the repairs will cost only 500 million rubles — half of the initially announced estimate. The article goes on to argue, however, that it is unlikely that the submarine will be able to submerge to significant depths in the future because the high temperatures sustained by the inner hull in the front section of the submarine may have compromised its strength. The author says that unless the entire front compartment is replaced, the submarine will only be able to submerge to limited depths without risking the lives of its crew.
I am sure that the Ekaterinburg’s first cruise after the repairs are completed will receive a great deal of attention. Given the potential consequences of a problem, hopefully no one will be cutting any corners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
