Military Review

Whoever has a fleet, he owns the sea

38



Out of the depths of the ages and waters, the outlines of Victory appear.

In the name of His Majesty ... the ship of the line ... in the name of military victories ... isolated from the treasury 61 136 fnl. Sterling.

According to modern experts, in the 18th century, the creation of an 104-gun sailboat was equivalent to building an atomic aircraft carrier (1% of the military budget of a superpower).

At the time of Admiral Lazarev, mentor Nakhimov and Kornilov, a three-point battleship with rigging and armament cost 2,5 million rubles. bills (estimate 1836 g.). The smaller double-deck LC is 1,8 million. Despite the fact that the ships were built by slaves, serfs, assigned to state-owned factories. For completeness: in the middle of the XIX century. The annual military budget of the Russian Empire exceeded 300 million rubles.

Turn down the next page.

Launched in 1938, the heavy cruiser Prince Eugen cost the Germans 109 million Reichsmarks.

The cost of another Teutonic engineering masterpiece, the battleship Bismarck, was 196,8 million rm.

Aha Feel trick? In past centuries, the cost of ships was strictly correlated with their size. And suddenly in the twentieth century, this dependence was broken.

In comparison with the battleship "Prince" seems to be a fragile toy. Three times smaller displacement, combat qualities are not comparable. However, the difference in their value is much less great than the differences in combat capabilities. The most powerful ship of the Atlantic was more expensive than the very mediocre cruiser 1,8 just times.

The reason for the amazing situation?

Means of detection and control of fire. Exact mechanics, optics, radio engineering, analog devices and computing devices. High art!

The aiming complexes and combat control devices interacted with tracking systems and unique drives capable of moving multi-ton gun designs with precision of the surgeon's hands.

Despite the differences in parameters, the systems described above were performed on a single, highly sophisticated technical level. And it was they who largely determined the cost of building a cruiser and battleship. The guns themselves, a dead array of armor and thousands of tons of hull structures could not fundamentally change the situation. As a result, 14-th. the cruiser of serial construction cost the budget as half of the 40-th. ton "Bismarck".

* * *

Nowadays the situation on navy became truly unique.

The epic with the French “Mistral” flew in the amount of one billion euros. Let me remind you that this was the cost of TWO helicopter carriers, taking into account Russian-made communication systems installed on them (50 million euros, according to media reports). Also among the indirect costs were the preparation of future bases and the training of crews.

Let's remember what “Mistral” is. They are scornfully called “barges”, but honestly, where have you seen such barges?

Six seats for helicopter take-off and landing operations. Two 30-ton lifts. Fuel fittings for refueling aircraft. Equipped hangar. Indoor pool and gates to exit 4 landing boats. Cargo deck with ramps for tanks and wheeled vehicles. A hospital with modern (and expensive) equipment. Team “amphitheater” with communications. Kubrick and cabins to accommodate 400 marines - with all amenities, including gyms. There is also a galley and cold stores for food for five thousand people.

200-meter helicopter carrier with a standard displacement of 16 500 tons. (with a full load and a dock-filled chamber, the displacement of the Mistral exceeds 30 thousand tons, although in this case it is not considered).

Two giant UDC. 2 x 16,5 = 33 thousands of tons of hull structures and modern equipment.

For the same cost (~ € 1 billion) you can buy ... one modern air defense frigate, having a standard displacement of about 5 th. Tons.

Whoever has a fleet, he owns the sea

"Mistral" and HMS Argyll, similar in size to the frigate air defense "Horizon"


In other words, the unit cost of building one ton of the frigate “Horizon” is six times higher than that of the landing helicopter carrier.

In practice, the comparison of the “unit cost” of one ton of frigates and UDC is not used anywhere. Being absolutely correct from the point of view of mathematics, it bears no more sense than the calculation of the proportions of an ideal sandwich.

All those involved in the rearmament of the Navy know that modern frigates and destroyers are more complicated and more expensive than any ships that even surpass them.

That is why the developed and affluent countries that build aircraft carriers for export (for example, Spain with its famous Navantia) are unable to build a horizon-level frigate on their own.

Although what is “Horizon”?

A joint French-Italian project that is simplified version British destroyer “Daring”. That one - yes, a masterpiece. What is its main radar with AFAR capable of viewing a bird from a distance of 100 km? He is able not only to look, but also to transfer commands to fired missiles. On board the destroyer, there is a mass of various jokes, for example, a second, “long-sighted” radar capable of seeing satellites in space orbit.

The rockets will find the target on their own, even if it managed to disappear over the horizon.

That's why the price of “Dering” (above one billion, but already pounds). Plus a couple of hundred million ammunition.

Appearance and dimensions are almost identical to “Horizon”.

Peculiarities of classification will be left out. The frigate is not because it has three masts with straight sails. Beautiful word outlived its era. Now it is a rocket ship of the ocean zone. Floating battery air defense missile defense, the British called it a destroyer, the French - a frigate. Although with the same success could be called a brig.



Here are a couple of interesting examples.

Incredibly, the cost of the hull of the American destroyer is 5% of the total cost of the ship.

And at the unit cost of construction, the destroyer ton is twice the cost of one ton of a giant nuclear aircraft carrier, with all its reactors, control systems and 100-meter catapults.

Japanese helicopter carrier "Izumo", which caused a stir in the APR. Almost a quarter of a kilometer in length, the standard displacement 19,5 thousand tons. The cost of construction amounted to 1,2 billion (in US dollars).

For comparison: the cost of building a modest destroyer "Akizuki" (2010) amounted to almost 900 million (the same USD).



The destroyer turned out really modest - just 5000 tons of standard displacement; with limited ammunition. Unlike “Derring”, there are not enough stars from the sky: “Akizuki” was created to cover its “elder brothers” - big Aegis destroyers, copies of the American “Burkows”. And in this role is quite good: the destroyer is equipped with an impressive range of radio equipment, including the main radar FCS-3A with eight active antennas. Instantly respond to the appearance of a threat in the near zone. Because of the high cost.



As for the Izumo light helicopter carrier, it is, with a small difference in size, significantly more expensive than the French Mistral. If specifically - twice.

The reason lies in the presence of a set of detection tools. As on the destroyer, it is equipped with a full range of facilities, including a sonar and a radar with AFAR. Strictly speaking, the “trimmed” version of the OPS-50, which is not capable of directing missiles (which it does not have), is installed on Izumo, however, taking into account the cost of such options, the cost of the helicopter carrier also exceeded $ 1 billion.

What will be the Russian response to “Akizuki” and “Izumo”?

In the near future, the hopes of the Russian Navy are linked to the series of frigates of the 22350 Ave. (the head ship is Admiral Gorshkov) and the Polyment-Redut ship-based air defense system.

The basis of the complex is a multi-purpose radar “Polyment”, consisting of four phased antenna arrays fixed on a tower-like superstructure of the frigate. Plus an unknown type detection station, hidden under the fairing at the top of the superstructure.



There is also a compromise version of the Redut air defense missile system to arm the new corvettes of the 20380 Ave. (20385). Where, instead of the “Poliment” radar, the 5P27 “Furke” radar is used to detect and target missiles.

Very well, you say. What is the price of these solutions?



Six years ago, according to official data from the Severnaya Verf, the construction cost of the corvette reached 600 million dollars.

So much money for the ship with a displacement of 2000 tons? What surprises you, the size of the ship itself have little value! A complex of radio equipment of this corvette can be envied by many destroyers.

As for the larger (4000) and much stronger armed frigate (powerful Polimer radar, 32 cells for anti-aircraft missiles instead of 12-16 on the corvette, not counting the strike weapons), at the end of the “zero” Gorshkov cost was estimated at third of the cost of the destroyer “Zamvolt”.



That is why the domestic USK is ready to perform any task of our military, except for the construction of frigate / destroyer class ships.

All sorts of boats, MAKs and rescuers are baked like pies, it is important that reconnaissance ships float to the water, the black silhouettes of submarines glide. But as for the small frigate, this is a question for tens of billions of rubles.

The problem is (and what to hide, then?), That with the existing level of corruption, you can eventually complete the construction of any ship, turning the “long-term construction” into a profitable business.

Anyone other than an air defense ship. A ship whose capabilities are similar to black magic. Get a bullet in a flying bullet! Pierce the space with your own rays hundreds and thousands of kilometers and bring interceptors on the plane / satellite / missile warhead.

The development of such a destroyer and first of all his weapons, will require the involvement of hundreds of research teams from all over the country.

Without proper concentration of efforts and restrictions on personal enrichment of the responsible persons, it is impossible to build such a masterpiece.

Marine Guard

As we could see in the examples given, any comparison of fleets in terms of the number of pennants and the total tonnage (!) Of ships would give a fundamentally wrong idea about the capabilities of the Navy of a particular country.

The differences between the carriers of the zonal air defense systems and the ships of other classes are too great. A fleet possessing such equipment goes beyond the traditional limits, turning into a kind of sea space forces.

The 21 February 2008 of the SM-3 rocket was launched from the Lake Erie cruiser in the Pacific Ocean and three minutes after the launch, the reconnaissance satellite USA-247 at an altitude of 193 27 km / h was struck.


4 April 2012 of the French horizon-class frigate on the rocket test site near the island of дуle-du-Levant near Toulon intercepted the GQM-163A Coyote supersonic low-altitude target flying at a speed of 1 km / s at an altitude of less than 6 meters above sea surface (which no easier than knocking down a satellite — too little time).


For the same reason, all reflections on the “mosquito fleet” and the construction of rocket boats instead of the “excessively expensive” destroyers and frigates seem naive.

Nine women cannot bear a child in a month just as nine RTCs with “Calibres” will not replace one frigate at sea.

Why do ships need such a strong air defense?

90% of all naval attacks over the past half century have occurred with the use of airborne attacks. Without anti-aircraft systems at the current level of development aviation and missile weapons when meeting with an enemy slightly more advanced than ISIS, the ship will be torn to pieces in seconds.

Of course, one can hope for EW funds (as if they are cheaper!). But this does not negate the need for the physical destruction of the threat. Indeed, besides the destroyer itself, tankers and ships of the convoy, which should be carried out through a dangerous area, can be located nearby. Finally, the target can be an enemy reconnaissance satellite in Earth orbit.

Why are these systems so fantastic?

The author does not deny the significant corruption component of these projects. War is a profitable business, under the secrecy you can hide any theft, tragedy and error, the covert struggle of elites and the defense of fake dissertations.

Still, the technical level of these devices is proud of the modern technology. Designed and assembled into a manual array of thousands of receiving and transmitting elements, megawatt radiation power, millions of lines of program code. All this is capable of working outside the walls of sterile laboratories, in storm conditions of the open sea. With full integration into the complex of other radio equipment and ship weapons.


One of the four antennas of the radar SPY-1






The sonars and multi-kilometer towed antennas capable of detecting mines in the water column at a distance of ten miles from the ship are no simpler than the underwater lighting system.

In this case we are talking about piece products - unique systems that are not used anywhere else, except for high-ranking warships and yachts of the oligarchs.

Author:
38 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. Razvedka_Boem
    Razvedka_Boem 17 February 2017 06: 51
    +6
    On April 4, 2012, at a rocket range near the island of Ile do Levant near Toulon, a French Navy Horizon-type frigate intercepted a GQM-163A Coyote supersonic low-altitude target, flying at a speed of 1 km / s at an altitude of less than 6 meters above the sea surface

    I doubt the declared speed at such a height. In addition, even at a lower speed, there will be a noticeable mark behind the water raised by the turbulence of the air.
    In the USA, they somehow wanted to create a supersonic missile, which was supposed to cause destruction by a shock wave when flying at low altitude, but in the end they refused.
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 17 February 2017 10: 06
      +4
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem

      In the USA, they somehow wanted to create a supersonic missile, which was supposed to cause destruction by a shock wave when flying at low altitude, but in the end they refused.

      What's this. in the USSR, at one time, an airplane was designed, which was supposed to work on this principle.
      1. saturn.mmm
        saturn.mmm 17 February 2017 11: 18
        +4
        Quote: spravochnik
        What's this. in the USSR, at one time, an airplane was designed, which was supposed to work on this principle.

        M-25 "Infernal Mower"
        1. Looking for
          Looking for 28 December 2017 15: 32
          -1
          You dryuchat.a you draw pictures so ugly names come up.
    2. opus
      opus 17 February 2017 12: 09
      +8
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      I doubt the declared speed at such a height.

      The author slightly deceived (in speed) 880 m / s, but he did not undercut the height of 4,8 meters


      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      In addition, even at a lower speed, there will be a noticeable mark behind the water raised by the turbulence of the air.



      There is nothing to do with the sound barrier (and the supersonic barrier too: laughing
      this is the Prandtl-Gloert effect.
      Then, after the shots from the tank gun (s), a plowed field would remain
      (you can immediately plant potatoes) and the infantry (one's own) would be mowed in sheaves

      Note: The initial velocity of the projectile is 1420 m / s, but already at 2000m / s
      Quote: Razvedka_Boem
      In the USA, they somehow wanted to create a supersonic missile, which was supposed to cause destruction by a shock wave when flying at low altitude, but in the end they refused

      A very dubious and low-effective method of defeat:
      1. First, accelerate the object to V by spending Ek = m * V ^ 2 / 2
      2. To lose such power on the resistance of the medium (10-15%) (or in energy, then take the integral over time)

      3. Lose on the impact of the shock wave on the object (-10% more)
      Effectively .. but exaggerated

      For the movie will do
      Quote: spravochnik
      What's this. in the USSR, at one time, an airplane was designed, which was supposed to work on this principle.

      Mythbusters conducted an experiment on this subject, flew on the FA-18 with supersonic sounds at altitudes up to 60 m. The maximum they found was broken windows.
      1. Razvedka_Boem
        Razvedka_Boem 17 February 2017 15: 25
        +4
        Therefore, they did not begin to make such weapons, striking a shock wave. For the first time I learned about it from the book of Freeman Dyson "Weapons and Hope", where it was mentioned in passing.
        By the way, I recommend a rather interesting book.
        Py.Sy. Thank you for the detailed comment, although I expected that the footprint on the water from this rocket would be more noticeable.
    3. VadimL
      VadimL 17 February 2017 16: 21
      0
      The declared speed at this height is quite possible. Our Onyxes fly at 0,7 km / s at an altitude of 10 m. (According to official data)
      1. opus
        opus 17 February 2017 17: 12
        +1
        Quote: VadimL
        The declared speed at this height is quite possible. Our Onyxes fly at 0,7 km / s at an altitude of 10 m. (According to official data)


        GQM-163A Coyote is not "Onyx", which is midship, that is by mass, that is by power ratio
        created on the basis of the Soviet aviation tactical missile type X-31 "air-to-surface" -AS-17 Krypton (Krypton)

  2. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 17 February 2017 06: 53
    +11
    Daring is a masterpiece laughing ...
    Masterpieces hang in the Louvre or the Tretyakov Gallery, and this is a bunch of iron wink The German "masterpiece" "Bismarck" rested at the bottom, the Japanese "masterpieces" "Yamato" and "Musashi" in the same place. Maybe enough epithets are scattered? lol
    Corruption component what Oleg, she is SO GREAT that no one can even imagine. While the world - cut the cabbage drinks But money depreciates according to the laws of the modern market so much (the Fed stamps candy wrappers diligently) that they get such amounts. Bubble. The real value when linked to gold is many times less. Because "Oh God, it costs a billion green belay"and the broads while swooning looks funny. laughing
    We can’t build in fact destroyer frigates ... Kaptsov, is this the analyst of National Interest said? wassat Personally, my opinion is whether you are at the head of the state, a patriot who nationalizes what the liberals are taking away, remove this disgrace, which is called the "market economy", and normal ships are built at normal rates, and clubs are not bought and yachts are built tongue
    hi
    1. Santa Fe
      17 February 2017 07: 51
      +12
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Masterpieces hang in the Louvre or the Tretyakov Gallery, and this is a bunch of iron

      Masterpiece (fr. chef-d'œuvre - “higher work”, “crown of labor”) - a unique, unsurpassed creation, the highest achievement of art, skill or something else. Masterpieces are often called works of art and architecture, less often - science and technology.

      The scale of these structures, coupled with their complexity and the amount of labor invested in them - it shocks no less than the Tretyakov Gallery and the Egyptian pyramids



      Ship and captain. Queen Mary 2


      HMS Dragon
      Quote: Rurikovich
      But the money is depreciated according to the laws of the modern market so much (the Fed stamps candy wrappers assiduously)

      Only salaries for some reason do not grow
      Quote: Rurikovich
      Liberals are dragging away, remove this disgrace, which is called "market economy"

      First you need to at least know who is a liberal and who is a patriot

      The basis of liberalism is the inviolability of private property. Who has the most private property in Russia is the liberal. Siloviki, oligarchs, generals of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, colonels Zakharchenko, Kadyrovs and so on. will protect their private property to the last. They are the "liberal party", and not some journalists, writers and economists, activists

      And notice how cleverly the authorities have made the substitution of concepts.
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 17 February 2017 19: 56
        +3
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        Ship and captain. Queen Mary 2


        HMS Dragon

        Oleg, have you changed the photo of Zamvolta to Daring over the lamp? wink laughing Masterpieces - “less often than science and technology” cannot be, for they rust faster than real canvases by artists and architects. Agree - buildings and paintings exist more than dishes (stored SPECIALLY not counted) bully
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        And notice how cleverly the authorities have made the substitution of concepts.

        Here I am with you (note, with a capital letter hi ) I agree. For zarcharchenki, etc., can defend their own under weak power ... Under I.V. this is impossible. Because the Georgian was the PATRIOT OF HIS HOMELAND - USSR fellow
        K.Marx "Capital" When withdrawing money abroad, salaries a priori cannot grow. request


        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        First you need to at least know who is a liberal and who is a patriot

        The liberal is for himself through others, a patriot, who for the common through himself fellow
        1. Svarog51
          Svarog51 19 February 2017 13: 39
          +10
          Here are the words of Gleb Zheglov truly prophetic: [media = https: //my.mail.ru/mail/figa-v
          ama / video / _myvideo / 27.html]
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 17 February 2017 11: 26
      +7
      Quote: Rurikovich
      remove this disgrace, which is called the "market economy" - and normal ships will be built at normal rates, and not swag clubs and yachts will be built

      So the bourgeoisie built ships at a normal pace (Virginia, Arly Burke, etc.) and the yachts do not bother them, maybe something is wrong with us? Socialism was so old for us, after all, no one has conquered us. Pearls like lost in the cold war? Why did you lose? What did we miss?
      1. Rurikovich
        Rurikovich 17 February 2017 19: 45
        +2
        Quote: saturn.mmm
        So the bourgeoisie built ships at a normal pace

        So uburzhuev capitalism is capitalism, not a parody wink tongue
  3. spech
    spech 17 February 2017 07: 20
    +4
    After the first sentence, the question about the author of the article no longer arises laughing
    PS you, the head of the book to write ©
    1. spravochnik
      spravochnik 17 February 2017 10: 12
      +5
      We are finally convinced of this, having read it to the middle. Absolutely empty article (pathos presentation of common truths) with an uprooted syllable. The author suffers from graphomania.
  4. demiurg
    demiurg 17 February 2017 08: 28
    +3
    And I liked it :))
    Than on Alistair Macklin?
    Treat the article as prose, not as a technical description, and everything will fall into place.
  5. Fei_Wong
    Fei_Wong 17 February 2017 08: 28
    +4
    Well, of course, Kaptsov. Recognizable from the very first lines of style.
    And immediately juggling that in which the author does not fumble too much (sailing fleet). Drop dead stories of the Green Elephant level: we equate a large cannon battleship with an atomic aircraft carrier purely economically (after all, 1% of the budget for construction!). And I don’t care that even strategic tasks (not to mention tactical opportunities) of those at that time differed radically. Well, okay, the author is not the first time to "compare" sour with warm. And these "stunning" money comparisons that haunt us almost to the very end. Most of which are generally invalid, because the global world economy then simply did not exist, and it was only possible to compare all these thousands and millions of Reichsmarks, rubles, pounds and dollars. Yes, and the "slaves." E-mine, here it would be necessary to insert a classic facespalm from Star Trek, but I'm too lazy. And the topic is not at all interesting. Maybe Andrei the countryman will say something, he is more interested in it.
    Not the most successful article by Kaptsov, as in my opinion. Although it is encouraging that some progress has finally been noticed from the departure of the concept of "armored cruisers", which will only save Russia.
    1. Santa Fe
      17 February 2017 09: 11
      +8
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      we equate a large gun-ship of the line to a nuclear aircraft carrier purely economically (after all, 1% of the budget is for building!).

      Fact is fact

      Victory construction - 1% of the annual military budget. Nowadays the same expenses mean the construction of AB
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      And pofigu that even strategic objectives

      Do not care, because it was about something else
      this is something you perekinilo, I do not know why
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      . Yes, and "slaves"

      The next step in the approval of the powerlessness of the serfs was the "Code of State of the People in the State", published in 1833 year. There it was declared master's right to punish yard people and peasants, to dispose of their personal lives, including the right to allow or prohibit marriage. The landowner was declared the owner of all peasant property.
      Quote: Fei_Wong
      the global world economy then simply did not exist, and compare all these thousands and millions of Reichsmarks, rubles, pounds and dollars

      On the example of ships 1836 g. shows the dependence of cost and size. The larger - the more expensive

      On the example of Bismarck and Eugen shows a situation where the dimensions do not affect the cost

      On the example of Mistral and Horizon - the situation of our time, the destroyer is more expensive several times

      And where is the global economy?

      The cost of the legendary Victory - 61136 fnl. - an interesting fact that I wanted to share with everyone, successfully laid down the epigraph to the article
      1. Fei_Wong
        Fei_Wong 17 February 2017 12: 56
        +5
        The facts are different. Mark Twain also said that there are three types of lies: lies, big lies, and statistics. For example: according to statistics, people wearing larger shoes are better at math. It - fact, Yes. Iron fact. But why then did the clowns with their dimensionless shoes not become mass Nobel laureates? But if you think and figure it out - it's all the same! The older a person, the more educated he is (as a rule). Children (with their small legs and shoes) still cannot normally in matan! Well, adolescents in knowledge of mathematics will succumb to any adult assistant professor. And, it would seem, such an indisputable fact, wah ...
        About the "slaves." Again, study history. It is advisable, not from textbooks (especially modern ones). The BEST artisans, the elite from the elites gathered for the construction. And they were by no means slaves. They paid them then - God forbid other artisans to make money like that at that time. Moreover, these workers were removed from the assets of the landlords and transferred to the care of the state (what is the difference between the Soviet "mailboxes", by the way? And in "closed cities" people lived much better and more comfortable ... and to this day. I have since than to compare, at your side - Snezhinsk).
        Victory construction - 1% of the annual military budget. Nowadays the same expenses mean the construction of AB

        I emphasize once again: it is IMPOSSIBLE to compare the ships of those times and ships of the times of the present purely from the position of the attendants swollen for the construction. A good example: the brig "Mercury", fighting off and humiliating two Turkish battleships. Well, they were not the most powerful in the Turkish fleet, but nonetheless. So, based on purely monetary costs, we will also consider then that a corvette at present can neutralize two, albeit light, but aircraft carriers in one snout? This is me about the previously expressed comparison of strategic objectives and tactical capabilities of the technical ships and current ships. The big boat with guns remains just a boat with guns. Two smaller (and much cheaper) similar boats with guns will be more than worthy of competition to this mastodon, and with the captains skill on both sides, they will drown him without problems. For all that was then - these are boats with guns (and, well, fire-engines, of course). The aircraft carrier, on the other hand, is a completely different class with fundamentally different capabilities, weapons, and tasks, and comparing linear sailing ships with them only by the money spent on building it is utter stupidity. For there were then no other types of ships, other than "boats with guns." What a large ship was able to do, they were also able to smaller ones, albeit worse (and sometimes even better - with the advent of bombing guns, the placement of which on the upper decks of battleships was technically difficult, but if they were only on the lower, they were nothing to combat did not differ from the lighter ones, having much larger dimensions, lower speed and maneuverability).
        And where is the global economy?

        "With it." In this case, write separately.
        The global economy here while dumping a pile of old numbers and lots of zeros onto the reader, and one after another, from all the major countries that were seriously engaged in shipbuilding, is completely pointless (and each country had its own national currency course towards the only authority then - gold stock). The reader simply has nothing to compare. But at the same time here is this very global economy. When to evaluate any undertaking, GDP and any project can be in the same "parrots" for the whole world - bucks. A small question: for example, who knows that the most expensive film ever made (well, albeit a mini-series) is not some Avatars or Lord of the Rings, but our War and Peace Bondarchuk? Fortunately, the father, and not the current mediocrity-son. But to adequately assess its value precisely in your way is impossible. They evaluated it (and the wiki confirms this) only from the standpoint of the world economy, albeit with estimates, but roughly "converting" all the costs to the "green parrots" - plus taking into account inflation, essno. But the men didn’t know! Those. we. With the same USSR. But the bourgeois is still still in ignorance (except for those who cared and counted the strangers - that is, ours - money).
        In the end, I note that I did not express criticism about modern ship realities - here you are still adequate and "waves breaking by a rapid jack" (c) Lyapis Trubetskoy there is none.
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 17 February 2017 14: 06
          0
          For all that was then - these are boats with guns (and, well, fire-engines, of course). The aircraft carrier is a completely different class with fundamentally different capabilities, weapons and the task
          a joke from the hero
          Aircraft carrier price = trough + avia wing + everything that is stuffed into it. Is it more than a destroyer? problem solving without full equipment cannot be achieved. Remove the radar from the destroyers and there will be an empty trough
          if 2 thousand tons of a destroyer, without filling, weapons compare with an aircraft carrier 40 or 100 thousand tons, who is more expensive? will the equality of two empty troughs, without weapons?
          once a year to plunge into the hole and know about the trough as "thief’s milk"
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 17 February 2017 13: 58
      0
      Well, okay, the author is not the first time to "compare" sour with warm
      I am not a sea wolf (and not a hare).
      we need the means of control of Eurasia + their support from the okiyan sea.
      all other %% and lotions of corvettes are for you, breathing sea dust.
  6. Medium
    Medium 17 February 2017 10: 38
    +5
    When comparing the cost of construction, it is necessary to take into account such a factor as financialization. There is such a criterion for the functioning of the economy, which is characterized by the predominance of financial transactions in the general structure of domestic, and especially international relations, and the subordination of the real sector of the economy to the financial one.
    And if in the era of sailing battleships financial capital served the real sector of the economy, now, as the classics say, "moneylenders have managed to" crush "enterprises of the real sector of the economy (industrial capital) for themselves in a fairly short time, turn them into market (exchange) objects ) speculation, receive not only the loan interest, but also most of the total surplus value created in the production sector. "
    For example, in the United States over the past 50 years, the share of manufacturing in GDP has more than halved (from 25% to 12%), while the share of the financial sector has doubled (from 3,7% to 8,4%). Over the same period, the share of revenues in the US manufacturing industry fell by more than two-thirds (from 49% to 15%), and the share of financial sector revenues in total revenues doubled (from 17% to 35%).
    The second significant difference is the Golden Anchor.
    On August 15, 1971, US President Richard Nixon, speaking on television, announced the complete abolition of the gold security for the dollar, closing the so-called "golden window", thus the United States withdrew from the Gold Standard system. This event went down in history as Nixon Shock. The Bretton Woods system in 1978 was replaced by Jamaican. Therefore, the construction of a sailing battleship was paid for with money, provided with real material values, the number of which is of course limited, and for today's frigates - with unsecured pieces of paper, the number of which is not limited by anything.
    Therefore, the price calculation of different periods is a difficult question. As one of the methods - according to the gold equivalent, that is, according to the ratio of the cost of a troy ounce of gold in the compared periods. There are other methods.
    So Kaptsov has a lot of work to do.
  7. Kenneth
    Kenneth 17 February 2017 12: 47
    0
    Well done Oleg. All the more interesting article. And a new style of presentation. Did not recognize ;)
  8. Comrade Stalin
    Comrade Stalin 17 February 2017 12: 55
    +2
    Yeah!
    At the time of Admiral Lazarev, mentor Nakhimov and Kornilov, a three-point battleship with rigging and armament cost 2,5 million rubles. bills (estimate 1836 g.). The smaller double-deck LC is 1,8 million. Despite the fact that the ships were built by slaves, serfs, assigned to state-owned factories. For completeness: in the middle of the XIX century. The annual military budget of the Russian Empire exceeded 300 million rubles.

    I don’t understand why RI needed a fleet at all? Did Russia have overseas possessions? That is why the battleships of Russia were needed, in which all lands could be reached by land without crossing the seas and oceans anywhere? Peter I conquered Ingermanland, where Peter now stands, without any fleet. Catherine II also conquered Crimea without a fleet. Russian explorers discovered and annexed Kamchatka, Sakhalin, Alaska, too, without the support of the fleet. What can I say! In ALL wars, the fleet did not bring any benefit. In the war with Charles XII, he was defeated near Poltava thousands of kilometers from the Swedish fleet in the Baltic, the Fleet also played absolutely no role in the Crimean War, it was shamefully flooded in front of Balaklava because of uselessness (Sinop does not need to be mentioned, anyway this victory is nothing decided in this war), in the REV, the tsarist fleet was shamefully beaten by the Japanese. Alaska, the ONLY overseas territory, was sold without war! During WWII and WWII, the fleet also played almost no role! All three centuries of experience have shown us that Russia’s fleet is not needed in large numbers, only coastguard ships and strategic containment submarines are needed. The fleet all three hundred years only sucked and sucked money from the budget, really without any benefit!
    The cost of another Teutonic engineering masterpiece, the battleship Bismarck, was 196,8 million rm.

    The cost of the Tiger tank was 250 thousand marks, that is, with the money spent on the Bismarck, almost 800 Tiger tanks could be made, despite the fact that about 1450 pieces were produced. I wonder how long the Germans would have lasted with the extra 800 Tigers? T-4 cost 103 thousand marks, it was possible to produce almost 2000 pieces of T-4. In total, 8700 pieces of such tanks were produced.
    1. Medium
      Medium 17 February 2017 13: 47
      +2
      You are extremely one-sidedly looking at the question.
      Historically, a fleet of about five hundred years has been considered as the most effective and universal foreign policy instrument of almost any state that has access to the sea or, especially, the ocean. And if you, as a state, aspire to a serious role in international politics, then you must meet the criteria.
      The navy is a power element of foreign policy and an important means of ensuring national security, and the commercial (civilian) navy is an economic tool that protects national economic interests in the external arena.
      As soon as one of the fleets - military or commercial - the influence of the state - the owner of the fleet in the international arena weakens, and a gap appears in the system of its military or economic security. If both components, both the navy and the civilian are in decline, then the position of this state in international political and economic relations is literally collapsing, and its security system is unable to withstand external and even internal challenges.
      The length of the sea borders of the Russian Empire in 1914 was 46 miles
      (49 km). Let me remind you that according to the latest data, the length of the equator is 360,4 km.
      As confirmation, we consider the era of Catherine II. If you carefully examine the issue, you come to the conclusion that the fleet for the Empress became no less (if not more) important than the army, a foreign policy instrument. Dominance in the Black, Baltic and Mediterranean Seas, and at times and in individual points of the Atlantic Ocean (the vicinity of Lisbon, Cape Nord-Cap) provided the country with such positions in international relations that could serve as the fundamental foundation of Russian diplomacy.
      So, to deny the fact that both Imperial Russia, and the Soviet Union, and modern Russia over the past few centuries have certainly been included in a limited number of world powers whose greatness and prosperity were most directly - as they say directly proportional - related to the development of national military and commercial fleets is a moot point.
      Currently, the length of the sea borders of Russia exceeds 37 thousand km, while the length of the land border is less than 21 thousand km.
      In this case, two directions should be taken into account.
      The northern direction, where the Arctic Ocean is located, the long sea border is still “covered” by Arctic ice, but due to forecasts of the rapid melting of the latter and the presence in the Arctic of both explored and still hidden mineral reserves, it becomes extremely important to ensure national - military and economic - security of Russia.
      The eastern direction, where Russia has a huge coast, which is literally open to the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean.
      1. Comrade Stalin
        Comrade Stalin 17 February 2017 14: 11
        0
        Currently, the length of the sea borders of Russia exceeds 37 thousand km, while the length of the land border is less than 21 thousand km.

        Yes? But just how many tens of thousands of kilometers of them are the Arctic coast frozen in the ice, where not a single normal elf has reached? There was one adventurer, the pocket battleship Scheer, and he decided to prudently dump back into the blessed warm seas, describing in the report the 45-mm Dixon guns as 6-inch concrete batteries.
        but in view of the forecasts of the rapid melting of the latter and the presence in the Arctic of both explored and still hidden mineral reserves from us, it acquires extremely high significance for ensuring the national - military and economic - security of Russia.

        Where do you see "climate warming"? In my memory there was no colder winter in Moscow! So that the snow falls in October and does not melt !!! This has never happened! And how many times had to take the car for repair because of the prominent oil seals ... I have never had such a quantity.
        The eastern direction, where Russia has a huge coast, which is literally open to the vast expanses of the Pacific Ocean.

        Yeah, the coast of Chukotka, Kamchatka, Kolyma and Amur, is just the dream of American settlers, accustomed to the warm California climate :)))). For your information, in the Far East we have no one to fight with. China and North Korea, if not allies, then at least neutrals. The South Caucasus and Japan are US carriers, but nothing more than aircraft carriers, especially Koreans and Japanese hate each other. Over the next 100 years, he will not fight with Far East Russia with anyone.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 17 February 2017 17: 45
          +2
          Quote: Comrade_Stalin
          There was one adventurer, the pocket battleship Scheer, and he decided to prudently dump back into the blessed warm seas, describing in the report the 45-mm Dixon guns as 6-inch concrete batteries.

          Quite the opposite: the Sheer commander Meendsen-Bolken described the 152-mm guns firing at him as a 130-mm coastal battery. smile
          Dickson’s 130-mm and 45-mm coastal guns were removed at the time of the Sheer’s arrival and were preparing for shipment to Novaya Zemlya. It was possible to bring into combat readiness only the materiel of battery No. 569, 2 army 152 mm guns, prepared for loading. 10/30.
          Moreover, this battery had to be fired directly from the pier - there was no time and means to deliver the guns to the position. It’s a paradox, but it saved the battery in many ways - from the point of view of professionals, it was necessary to look for guns in this position last. smile
          Taking into account the shooting conditions and the preparation of the battery’s l / s (which, moreover, had to be completed with mobilized local personnel), we can assume that the battery performed its task “well”: Meendsen-Bolken was forced to abandon the landing, limited himself to shelling the port from medium distances and try to quickly get out of the probable sector of shelling of Soviet guns.
      2. KaPToC
        KaPToC 18 February 2017 01: 11
        0
        Quote: Medium
        You are extremely one-sidedly looking at the question.

        Russia has four separate fleets and there is no way to combine them into one in case of war.
        1. Medium
          Medium 18 February 2017 01: 18
          +2
          I characterized the fleet as an instrument of the country's foreign policy.
          You ask a question related to the OPERATIONAL DEPLOYMENT of the aircraft, that is, the part of the strategic deployment of the aircraft, aimed at creating operational groupings of troops (fleet forces) in the theater of operations, strategic and operational directions.
          You do not find that these are different questions?
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 18 February 2017 02: 18
            0
            Quote: Medium
            You do not find that these are different questions?

            By no means, this is one and the same question, you suggest that we use a deliberately weaker tool - this is the path to defeat.
        2. Vadim237
          Vadim237 18 February 2017 14: 50
          0
          The Black Sea and Caspian can be connected, as well as the Baltic and the North.
          1. KaPToC
            KaPToC 18 February 2017 16: 37
            +1
            Quote: Vadim237
            Black Sea and Caspian can be connected

            Theoretically, part of the Caspian flotilla can be distilled to the Black Sea, but not vice versa.
            Quote: Vadim237
            as well as the Baltic and North.

            It is necessary to combine the North with the Pacific - because these are our main fleets.
  9. itvs
    itvs 17 February 2017 14: 18
    0
    Oleg ! In my opinion, your best article on the military-industrial complex of Sweden. They tried to spread rot in the comments, but the article is really interesting. Significant pathos was present, but in a homeopathic dose and like a pinch of pepper in a dish, emphasizes its taste, so there he emphasized the meaning of the article.
    A series about armor and battleships is generally the imperishable VO. Comments on articles can be re-read repeatedly. And although in the comments to these articles I called them technical-historical-masturbation, I set the advantages of the article, since it was really bright, caused a storm of discussions and positive emotions.
    But in this article - generally a void.
    rating and number of comments speaks for itself
    Ahead of the holidays ...., relax, gain strength, and delight readers with something bright in their corporate identity. The topic of armor is not yet closed. Here's the storyline: they refused the reservation because of the boom in motorization. Well, just not enough metal for the battleships. And the one who first returns the armor will break out into the world leaders of the Navy
    Good luck in your work !!!
  10. bk0010
    bk0010 19 February 2017 01: 03
    +1
    From the article I conclude: it is necessary to hammer on all sorts of corvettes and frigates and rivet destroyers. Money will come out almost the same, and autonomy and seaworthiness will provide much greater opportunities. Is the conclusion correct?
  11. Wolka
    Wolka 23 February 2017 14: 16
    0
    with all this, it’s time for women to join the army and navy, there are women in Russian villages. for example why "Prince Pozharsky" and not why not "Catherine the Great" or say "Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya", etc.
  12. Real stalinist
    Real stalinist 26 February 2017 21: 08
    0
    Kaptsov in his repertoire - mnogoabukaff niachem! :)
  13. Looking for
    Looking for 28 December 2017 15: 45
    -1
    Quote: Comrade_Stalin
    Over the next 100 years, he will not fight with Far East Russia with anyone.

    What are you writing nonsense. The conflict in Damansky that did not teach anything?