Some military sentences..

I am deeply interested in Russian warfare...but the language is in Russian ...& thus I joined this I suppose ONLY russian language support forum..
Here it Goes.

В воспоминаниях советских подводников – ветеранов Холодной войны достаточно часто приводятся примеры прорыва противолодочных рубежей американских АУГ на дизель-электрических подводных лодках (ДЭПЛ), «на поколение отстающих» от американских атомных авианосцев. При этом ДЭПЛ «умудрялись» оставаться незамеченными американцами и успешно проводить учебные торпедные атаки… Нам, например, представляется «весьма сложным» превентивное обнаружение надводным кораблем или группой противолодочных вертолетов атомной подводной лодки, например класса «Акула» (Akula class, поставляемая индийскому флоту) на океанской акватории. Американский опыт использования авианосных ударных групп (АУГ) подсказывает нам включение в их состав многоцелевой атомной подводной лодки, перспективы обретения которой для китайского флота в обозримом будущем пока сомнительны…

the bold part is confusing...

In the memoirs of Soviet submarines - the Cold War veterans often are examples of breakthrough anti-American Frontier AUG on diesel-electric submarines (SSK), lagging a generation "of U.S. nuclear aircraft carriers. In this case, SSK "managed" to remain undetected by the Americans and successfully carry out training torpedo attacks ... We are, for example, is "very complicated" preventive detection of surface ships, or a group of anti-submarine helicopters, nuclear submarines, such as class "Shark» (Akula class, supplied by the Indian Navy) on the ocean waters. The American experience with carrier strike groups (AUG) tells us of including a multipurpose nuclear submarine, the prospects for finding a Chinese fleet in the foreseeable future, while uncertain ...


I know AUG is CSG group; but what the author is saying?? Is he referring to some historical event where Russian navy breached some sort off American security line...i can find this in WIKI

The author is saying that oldscool diesel-electric sovietic submarines not once managed to get thru the line that was controlled by modern American atomic aircraft carriers, being unnoticed. And, then conducted trainings with torpedos launching in the security area

Thnx for replying...

Quote:

---

And, then conducted trainings with torpedos launching in the security area

---

what do you mean by that ??
In this case, SSK "managed" to remain undetected by the Americans and successfully carry out training torpedo attacks ..
this rather shows that they WERE able to breach US lines??

I don't think so. Actually it's saying that they managed to cross lines unnoticed but it was the case of fortune. And no one knows what it whould be if the real war starts. Generally it's the wide known fact that SSK could move silently. The process is quite complicated : at first they floated up, on the long distance from enemy, because the diesel engine can work only on the surface (it needs air to burn diesel fuel). They charged batteries on the surface and came on the distance of visibility - then they drowned and went on going on the electricity from batteries. When they could be discovered by acoustics, they simply stop the engines and move silently by flows or by inertion. It is several momoires from submariners, and I think that americans can show off with similar facts.

see what the author further says...
The American experience with carrier strike groups (AUG) tells us of including a multipurpose nuclear submarine,

this means you are right that they were unable to breach that line guarded by US nuclear subs...but I am afraid still I can't understand his mentioning of
successfully carry out training torpedo attacks.
Plz do reply

There are no words about nuclear subs in the memoirs of veterans. They say only about a nuclear aircraft carrier. Further the author discuss modern military conditions, that they should add to aircraft carriers a multipurpose submarine to discover enemies more effectively.
Successfully carry out TRAINING torpedo attacks means that it was just successful military exersises and maneuvers in the guarded area but not the real attacks.

ok thx man very very thnx.
If you could plz do pay a visit here...
Pakistan Defence Forum

ok this is from the topic about MiG not winning the MMRCA India share of modern aeroplanes...
The following para needs attention:

Это, в общем, ничего, что ни тот ни другой из претендентов до сих пор не имеет в серийном производстве того, что Россия и США выкатывают по первому требованию, например тех же самых радаров с АФАР. Судя по всему, и Париж, и Лондон что-то пообещали Дели, причем довольно много и убедительно. Как нетрудно догадаться, продать несуществующую пока вещь удается только за дополнительные уступки.

The bold part is confusing:
This, in general, anything that neither one nor the other of the candidates are still not in mass production that Russia and the U.S. are rolling out at short notice, for example, the same radar with AFAR. Apparently, and Paris and London that have pledged Delhi, and quite a lot and convincingly. As you might guess, sell non-existent until the thing can only further concessions.


The author signifies that only Russia/US has the mass-production capability with respect to RADARS...but what he says about London/Paris I can't get?

put the previous posts in here, it is the case of a context I think

Now it is about Solid versus Liquid propelled ICBMs....
и: Но у Соломонова есть и другой аргумент. Твердотопливные ракеты лучше проходят систему ПРО противника. В то же время жидкостные делают это хуже, а значит, высока вероятность их перехвата...

Ефремов: Как панацею от всех пэрэошных дел они выдвигают аргумент о так называемой короткой траектории полета твердотопливных ракет. То есть машина стартует быстрее. Быстрее достигает области разведения блоков, что затрудняет ее обнаружение и перехват. Надо сказать, что все не так однозначно. Разница между "коротким" и "длинным" (как у жидкостных ракет) участками траектории не так уж и велика. Здесь важно не столько время разведения, сколько возможность маневрирования. Этот показатель у жидкостных ракет несоизмеримо выше, чем у твердотопливных. Надо учитывать и то обстоятельство, что если будет создана действительно работающая система ПРО, то разведение по так называемой технологии "автобусом" 6-10 блоков будет осуществляться за очень короткое время. Не в варианте группового "рассыпания" блоков, о чем говорит Юрий Соломонов, а тем самым "автобусом" с развозом по несколько иному алгоритму выбора целей на территории противника.

Соломонов против "автобуса". Он уверен, что будущее за блоками с индивидуальным наведением. Это значит, что у каждого из них будет своя система управления. В определенный момент они как бы разбегаются в разные стороны по принципу толпы, что затрудняет их перехват, и после этого уже летят каждый к намеченной цели. Это означает, что каждый из них должен иметь свою высокоточную систему управления, чтобы не потерять точность, если она нужна. Иметь собственную двигательную установку с запасом топлива. К каждому еще нужен и набор технических средств преодоления ПРО.

"Автобус" - он для всех блоков общий, гибкий: система наведения, топливо, средства преодоления ПРО. Стоит вспомнить, что предложенный Соломоновым вариант когда-то, на заре нашей юности, в 60-х годах, был рассмотрен и отклонен. Отклонен потому, что он требует в полтора раза больше затрат по массе, да еще и влечет за собой потерю гибкости в преодолении противоракетной обороны. Такое решение можно реализовать только на ракетах с большим забрасываемым весом, то есть тяжелых жидкостных. Именно тех, с которыми так упорно борются наши "твердотопливники".

As usual the bold parts...

News: But Solomon has another argument. Solid rocket better pass defense system of the enemy. At the same time, liquid make it worse, and therefore has a high probability of intercept ...

Herbert: As a panacea for all possible cases they put forward an argument about the so-called short flight path of solid propellant missiles. That is, the machine starts quickly. Quickly reaches the area of breeding units, making it difficult to detect and intercept. I must say that things are not so simple. The difference between "short" and "long" (as in the liquid propellant), the trajectory is not so great. It is important not so much time farming as an opportunity to maneuver. This rate of liquid propellant disproportionately higher than that of solid. We must take into account the fact that if it really created a working missile defense system, the breeding of so-called technology "bus" 6.10 blocks will be carried out in a very short time. Not in the version of the group "spillage" of blocks, as evidenced by Yuri Solomon, and thus the "bus" delivers with a somewhat different algorithm, the selection of targets in enemy territory.

Solomon vs. "bus". He was confident that the future for blocks with individual guidance. This means that they each will have its own control system. At some point, they seemed to scatter in different directions on the principle of the crowd, making them difficult to intercept, and then have everyone fly to the target. This means that each must have its high-precision control system, so as not to lose accuracy when you need it. Have its own propulsion system with its fuel tank. To everyone else is needed and a set of technical means to overcome missile defenses.

"The Bus" - it is for all blocks of a common, flexible: guidance system, fuel and means to overcome missile defenses. It is worth remembering that the proposed Solomon option sometime in the early days of our youth in the 60's, was considered and rejected. Rejected because it requires a half times greater than the cost of mass, but also entails the loss of flexibility to overcome missile defenses. Such a solution can be realized only in rockets with a large throw- weight that is heavy liquid. Namely those with whom we are fighting so hard, "tverdotoplivniki.
________________________
Quickly reaches the area of breeding units,: as far as I know the area of breeding blocks is he referring to exo-atmosphere
It is important not so much time farming as an opportunity to maneuver: Is author saying that not only boosting time but also manoeuvring capability too is important

Solomon vs. "bus". He: Is this idea if independently guided warheads (~blocks) is given by Solomonov? Why 'vs' is written

"tverdotoplivniki. No speculations...frm my side.

WhiteKnight where are you comrade/...

helooo sir anyone...

Is author saying that not only boosting time but also manoeuvring capability too is important

Answer: Manoeuvring capability is of most importance here. Even more important than boosting time.

Solomon vs. "bus". He: Is this idea if independently guided warheads (~blocks) is given by Solomonov? Why 'vs' is written

Answer: Solomonov is sure that the future belongs to independently guided warheads as opposed to 'bus' method. Solomon vs. "bus" = here Solomonov is against 'bus' technique. (meaning, i think, he is pro-independently guided). Not clear who the developer or inventor is.

"tverdotoplivniki. No speculations...frm my side.

Answer: It's from "твёрдое топливо" = solid fuel. Твердотопливник = something using solid fuel (in this case rockets)

PS: It seems to me there are some errors in the English version.

nightcrawler: I think it would help if you were more specific about what you want to know. Do you want a translation? Or do you want a comment about an excerpt from a text? Please, ask in 1-2 simple sentences and we'll be happy to help you.
So far, it looks like you've been just looking for a correct translation, haven't you?