Military Review

Large ships and shipbuilding industry

Current Naval Development Plans fleet provide for the construction of a large number of warships, submarines and auxiliary vessels of various types. The ultimate goal of all these works is to radically update the Navy with the most serious consequences for the country's defense. A number of tasks are solved without any problems, but new ambitious programs may face special challenges.

At the moment, all the major shipbuilding enterprises of Russia are engaged in fulfilling a mass of orders involving the construction of warships of various classes. According to the results of these works, the Russian Navy should receive dozens of frigates, corvettes, patrol ships, landing ships, rocket ships and boats, etc. By launching the operation of all these ships, the fleet will increase its combat potential in the coastal and marine zones.

Despite all the obvious advantages and expected results, the current shipbuilding programs have a specific feature. All ships under construction are of medium size and displacement. Thus, the displacement of the newest ships rarely exceeds 5 thousand tons. For comparison, the 1164 “Atlant” missile cruisers have a displacement of more than 11 thousand tons, while the 1144 “Orlan” heavy nuclear missile cruisers have this parameter greater than the 27 thousand tons. So large and heavy warships of great interest to surface forces of the Navy in recent years have not been laid and not built.

However, the command and industry have not forgotten about such construction, and already have certain plans for this. Currently, several new projects are being developed for large surface ships for various purposes. In the case of their successful implementation at the disposal of the Navy, new combat units with the highest characteristics and capabilities will appear. At the same time, some new projects will make it possible to supplement and then replace some of the existing ships, while others will lead to a noticeable increase in the potential of individual formations.

Perhaps the most interesting and daring promising project in the field of large ships is the creation of a new aircraft carrier. Currently, the Russian Navy has only one ship of this class, which is considered insufficient. For years, there has been a discussion on the possibility of developing and building a new aircraft carrier, but real work has been regularly postponed and has not yet begun. However, recent statements by officials allow them to look into the future with cautious optimism: a new aircraft carrier project may emerge as part of the new State Weapons Program, designed for the 2018-2025 years.

As far as we know, the military department has not yet determined the desired appearance of the future aircraft carrier and has not issued a technical task. Nevertheless, the industry, trying to predict the future actions of the customer, is already offering its projects. Thus, over the past few years, the Krylov State Research Center (KGNTs) has been demonstrating at exhibitions the materials on the 23000E multi-purpose aircraft carrier project. At the same time, the project has not yet received official approval and retains the status of a preliminary proposal.

KGNTS specialists suggest building a ship with a length of 330 m and a maximum width (along the flight deck) 85 m. The full displacement of such an aircraft carrier will reach 95 kt. of them. It is proposed to use various weapons for self-defense. The type of the main power plant will depend on the wishes of the customer: options developed using the boiler-turbine and nuclear systems.

The second bold project in the field of large warships is a destroyer of the type "23560" or "Leader". Work on this topic started a few years ago; Back in 2013, the Severnoye design bureau presented a preliminary draft version. At the end of August, 2017 appeared reports, according to which the Ministry of Defense approved the draft design of 23560. Earlier it was reported that the construction of the head "Leader" could begin as early as 2018, with the transfer to the customer in 2022.

A characteristic feature of the 23560 project is the large size of the ship: in terms of size and weight, this destroyer will be superior to some existing cruisers. The total length of the “Leader”, according to open data, will reach 200 m with a width of up to 20 m. Displacement is set at the level of 18 thousand tons. The ship can receive a nuclear power plant. A significant number of modern and advanced weapons will be on board.

The basis of the 23560 destroyer armament complex should be a universal vertical launcher with several dozen cells for different types of missiles. It is assumed that it will be equipped with rockets of the Caliber family, as well as Onyx and Zircon products. Similarly, air defense can be organized. It is also expected to use large-caliber artillery guns and torpedo tubes.

A few years ago, Russia lost the opportunity to replenish the military composition of the Navy amphibious helicopter-carrying docking ships of the Mistral type, built in France. Nevertheless, the need to modernize the amphibious fleet remained, and soon its own draft DVKD was created. Nevsky Design Bureau created a project with the code "Surf". From the point of view of the general concept, this project is similar to the French one, but it has a number of characteristic differences.

The Surf project proposes the construction of a ship with a length of about 200 m and a width of more than 30 m, equipped with a large flight deck and bulk cargo holds. The ship's displacement will reach 24 thousand tons. Due to its size, the ship will be able to take on board up to 500 paratroopers or up to fifty combat vehicles. AT aviation the group will include up to a dozen transport and combat helicopters. The stern dock camera will allow landing with boats. The armament complex of the ship is calculated to solve the problems of self-defense; shock systems are not provided.

Construction of large new ships is a very difficult task. First of all, such difficulties are connected with construction technologies. In addition, a serious problem may be the search for suitable production capacity corresponding to the dimensions of the future ship. Unfortunately, a significant part of the shops and slipways of Russian shipyards cannot be used in the new program due to insufficient size. However, Russian shipbuilding has large platforms.

First of all, it is necessary to mention the workshops of the Sevmash plant. It is in Severodvinsk that Shop No. XXUMX is located, which is the largest facility of its kind in the country and one of the largest in the world. It has dimensions 55х430 m. Shop No. 130 with the same width has a length of 50 m. These workshops are currently used for the construction of submarines, each of which can simultaneously assemble several massive structures. It is easy to see that the dimensions of workshops No.365 and No.50 not only meet the requirements of promising projects “Leader”, “Surf”, etc., but also cover them with a large margin.

The capabilities of other shipyards do not yet allow to carry out orders by the type of future destroyers or amphibious ships. Nevertheless, there are already plans to modernize existing enterprises, as a result of which they will receive new opportunities. Thus, over the next few years it is planned to upgrade the equipment of the Severnaya Verf plant in St. Petersburg. As part of this modernization, the plant will receive an indoor slipway with a new slipway. According to the available data, such an assembly site will allow building and launching ships of displacement up to 25 thousand tons.

Earlier it was reported about the possibility of upgrading the Admiralty Shipyards plant, as well as the construction of a new large dry dock in Kronstadt. However, this program was abandoned for a long time, and the St. Petersburg company did not receive a significant increase in production capacity.

To date, the modernization of the Far Eastern Zvezda plant (Bolshoy Kamen, Primorsky Krai) has been launched. According to the results of the three stages of construction, which should be completed in the twenties, the new shipbuilding complex will become the largest Russian enterprise of its kind. The workshops, boathouses and docks of the complex will allow building ships with a displacement of up to 350 ths. Tons. In addition, the company will be able to produce offshore platforms and other special equipment.

Opportunities "Stars" after the upgrade will meet the requirements of new projects in the field of military shipbuilding. Nevertheless, there are certain factors that do not allow to consider this enterprise as a site for the construction of aircraft carriers, DVKD or destroyers. The fact is that the complex "Star" is now regarded as a civilian shipyard, which will carry out only commercial orders. As a result, the size of production areas that are of interest to the military is a response to the existing needs of potential customers. In addition, the specific location of the plant can seriously hamper work with related enterprises, mainly located in other regions.

Despite certain difficulties, the potential of the Russian industry already allows the construction of large ships. On the basis of known data, very optimistic conclusions can be drawn and it can be assumed that to start the construction of a “Leader” or “Surf” only the finished project and the corresponding financing are necessary. There are no serious difficulties with production capacities, which in principle do not allow building such ships. However, it is necessary to take into account the existing load of enterprises, in connection with which a significant part of the existing sites are already occupied by the engineering under construction.

It is also necessary to recognize that such optimism can be extended only to destroyers and landing ships. In the context of the development of the carrier fleet, such assessments may be premature. The construction of the 23000 project ship with a displacement of the order of 95 thousand tons is an extremely difficult task, including in the context of the capabilities of the available sites. Perhaps in the foreseeable future, such problems will be solved, but such work will be associated with a lot of difficulties.

In general, new projects for the construction of large warships, markedly different from those currently under construction, face the same typical problems. The limited financial capabilities of the armed forces, as well as the presence of several priority projects, make it impossible to quickly lay down the Leader destroyers and the Priboy DVKD, not to mention a promising aircraft carrier. In addition, the start of construction of new types of lead ships is postponed due to the lack of ready-made projects.

The current state of some domestic shipbuilding enterprises may be a cause for concern. At the same time, some of the existing problems are already being solved, and in addition, several programs have been launched to modernize certain factories. It should be noted that some projects for refurbishing plants only provide for the replacement of outdated equipment, while other programs offer the construction of completely new production facilities.

Currently, a number of domestic shipyards carry out orders for the construction of various combat ships of various classes. In the future, such construction will continue, but the structure of the portfolio of orders may change. The construction of large-capacity ships of promising projects that can have the most noticeable impact on the potential of the Navy will be present in the new state weapons programs. Implementation of such plans is associated with certain problems, but they are already finding a solution. The required work will not be simple and fast, but still will give the desired result.

On the materials of the sites:
Photos used:
Wikimeia commons

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:

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. svp67
    svp67 16 October 2017 07: 36
    As long as people in our country are ruled by ala, the Kudrinsky school, we won’t have big ships ...
    1. maxim947
      maxim947 16 October 2017 11: 25
      Those. the only problem is the presence of Kudrin and his school? And the problems indicated in the article are fiction?
      The breakdown of cooperation, the destruction of enterprises that manufactured separate systems and components - is also not a problem?
      And here is Kudrin? what nonsense.
      1. svp67
        svp67 16 October 2017 11: 45
        Quote: maxim947
        And here is Kudrin? what nonsense.

        Despite the fact that thanks to this "outstanding economist" NO KOPEYKI was allocated for the modernization of production, which was precisely due to this
        Quote: maxim947
        The breakdown of cooperation, the destruction of enterprises that manufactured individual systems and components

        And now they DO NOT WANT to allocate money for this, although the update process is already running and now stopping it will ruin everything
        1. maxim947
          maxim947 16 October 2017 14: 17
          I mean, personally, Kudrin’s guilt is extremely insignificant against the background of the rest of the complex of problems.
          1. Inok10
            Inok10 17 October 2017 00: 01
            Quote: maxim947
            I mean, personally, Kudrin’s guilt is extremely insignificant against the background of the rest of the complex of problems.

            ... it’s not the point at all ... the fact that the heirs of the “Twentieth Congress of the CPSU” shout is no different from the shouts on the Kiev Maidan “To Gilyaka” ... they are the USSR COUNTRY! Sent to Gilyak, under their own strict guidance, and now they ask, and then what for us? ... let’s leave them, their destiny is already clear ... well, it’s necessary to disassemble shipbuilding, I always read Kirill Ryabov’s articles with thoughtfulness, objectivity, not bias ... but this is the topic of shipbuilding, obviously not Kirill .. . "Sevmashzavod" does not fit the construction of surface ships of large displacement, despite the capabilities of workshops No. 50 and 55 ... well, the maximum form a hull ... and then where to finish building? ... 9 months WINTER! CL zone! ... so his competence is the nuclear submarine, boathouse, withdrawal from boathouse, launching of the finished product! ... Strategic and Multipurpose ... nor any surface! ... otherwise the price of the surface ship will be "worth its weight in gold" ... with regards to the building "Star" there is still "grandma for two said" ... we do not have another shipyard with such capabilities ... "of the 61st Communard "remained in Nikolaev in Ukraine ..." Baltic Plant "does not count, he is under the icebreakers ... and there will still be a few years ... that Kirill missed ... Crimea ... "Sevastopol Marine Plant" and the Kerch "Bay" ... on the last built the world's only nuclear icebreaking bulk carrier Sevmorput in 1988 66 188 displacement tone ... 230m. length and 32 m. width ... naturally, the aircraft carrier he will not pull, but the destroyers can rivet like hot cakes:
            Dock complex
            Dry dock is one of the most important components of the Gulf’s production facilities and provides construction 2-3 ships to 70 DWT per year.

            The main parameters of the dry dock:

            Dock chamber length - 354,2 m
            Dock chamber width - 60,0 m
            Depth of water in the chamber - 11,0 m
            Linear load on the bottom: in the area of ​​the axis of the dock - 400 t / m, at the side walls - 200t / m

            Crane equipment of the complex:
            gantry crane - 2 pcs. 320 t each
            gantry crane - 5 pcs. 80 t
            allows you to form the hull of ships from large sections and blocks weighing up to 600 tons

            ... a, "Sevastopol Marine Plant" can perfectly build in two docks 22350 M ...
            Geographically, the plant is located on two sites: the main one is “South” and “Inkerman” with a total area of ​​53 hectares. The presence of two dry docks, specialized workshops for the repair of the hull, the manufacture of hull structures, ship equipment, systems and pipelines, creates the conditions for the repair, docking, re-equipment and modernization of ships and vessels of various classes and purposes.

            Completion and mooring tests are carried out at outfitting embankments equipped with all necessary communications.

            Dry docks allow dock repairs of ships and vessels up to 165 and 145 meters long, respectively, up to 22 meters wide, with a draft of up to 9 meters and a deadweight of up to 18 thousand tons. Repair at outfitting embankments allows you to put ships and vessels up to 300 m long and deadweight up to 150 thousand tons.
            ... hi
        2. Yarhann
          Yarhann 16 October 2017 17: 49
          what nonsense have you written here - the construction of ships is a state order of the Moscow Region and there is the main Shoigu. The cost of building ships will include the technical re-equipment of enterprises and the training of personnel who will build the ships and the repair and modernization of shipyards - the customer pays for everything - simply because these shipyards have not fallen to anyone except the Moscow Region. Why is everything done so slowly, everything is trite for decades after the collapse of the USSR were destroyed by underfunding both production and personnel - restoration of all this is not fast. Moreover, this is not only a matter of the physical construction of the ship as a pelvis, but the problem of combining all ship systems into a single combat system. I hope it’s not worth explaining that no one will build a ship such as an eagle or a Moscow cruiser simply because it is already an outdated vehicle and all combat systems must be new and they must all work in a single system. And now, when the loot of the MoD is allocated, it will be redistributed across all the chains of producers and it will also not be fast.
          The problems now are precisely what would adjust the entire system from allocating dough to receiving the final product in the agreed time frame - while this system is stalling - a lot needs to be restored often because of the shortage of highly qualified specialists - because ships and construction with delay are especially complex like frigates - not all contractors have time to develop and create the necessary complexes in time.
          Because a large ship such as a destroyer or cruiser, and especially a heavy cruiser or aircraft carrier, now there is no point in building - it will be unfinished. That's when the loot-end product system will work on time like clockwork then orders from the Moscow Region for more serious ships will go - and you should not drag people from other ministries here.
          It’s just not necessary to forget that the Ministry of Defense also reports on the cost of the dough at the costs of the dibs and should show the result, and if there is none, no one will give them the dough anymore
          1. saturn.mmm
            saturn.mmm 16 October 2017 18: 19
            Quote: Yarhann
            Because a large ship such as a destroyer or cruiser, and especially a heavy cruiser or aircraft carrier, now there is no point in building - it will be unfinished. That's when the loot-end product system will work on time like clockwork then orders from the Moscow Region for more serious ships will go - and you should not drag people from other ministries here.
            It’s just not necessary to forget that the Ministry of Defense also reports on the cost of the dough at the costs of the dibs and should show the result, and if there is none, no one will give them the dough anymore

            There was an opinion that everyone is interested in a long-term construction, while the Ministry of Finance transfers money for six months, the money goes through banks, then they go to the Moscow region, there they transfer it to the contractor for half a year, the contractor also takes care of half a year, then the turn of subcontractors takes place, one movement of finances takes 3 years before someone starts to do something.
            1. Yarhann
              Yarhann 16 October 2017 21: 31
              I pointed out that there is no problem with the construction of the pelvis — the problem is precisely in the creation of the combat system of the ship, that is, all its electronic components and weapons control system and everything else. Many systems are not in serial use anywhere (they simply do not have a place on smaller ships) and they need to be re-created since the combat systems from ships like Orlan are already archaic and this is the main problem. Let's say the project of the ship and the performance characteristics can be drawn and even laid down and begin to build a pelvis - but damn what will be its meaning if there is no combat information computer system under it due to the fact that there is no intelligible radar complex and a radio intelligence complex and the question immediately arises again armaments either screw the old rigged proven and change the control system or create a new one with an open interface, so to speak, which can be screwed onto ships of any tonnage, as we always did. That is, in essence, having created such a system and reconnaissance and weapon systems subordinate to it, we will build a new ship, or rather a new fleet.
              Why do you think we have an SSBN and multi-purpose submarines and they bake like patties - all just a submarine is an autonomous combat unit with the only means of detection is a sonar system and weapons for attacking a torpedo or rocket - that is, it not only works in a limited environment - only submarine so she still does not interact with other ships, I'm not talking about a limited range of weapons on board the boat. That is, in terms of the innovation of combat control systems, retrograde submarines - rather, weapons, like torpedoes or missiles, play a big new role there. And in ships it is precisely the weapon and reconnaissance complexes that are the most important and their development and debugging is the most important and complex process.
              Well, and of course unforgivable nonsense, such as cooperation with Ukraine on the delivery of gas turbine engines to their ships - you can not be dependent on a country that is not an ally.
              That is, I see the main gag now these are combat systems and ship complexes and power plants.
              And throw the pelvis down, it’s completely laid down, it doesn’t matter - as long as the whole body kit doesn’t make sense, it’s not even worth starting to build - it’s like with Su 57 - the glider itself made the plane flies well and has good flight characteristics but damn the whole reconnaissance and weaponry complex to finish and finish .
              YES and with the same armature, everything is the same - the machine itself was made, but where to enter this machine how to arm it and what tactics of use is not clear - because the armata is essentially a tank of the future for conducting network-centric wars and it fits into such an application, and everything else is damn wooden.
              That is, for the time being, the main problem is precisely the transition to the digital, so to speak - that is, in some directions everything is good somewhere worse, but work is ongoing. With large ships, the biggest problem so far is precisely because it was given that nothing was built and there are no these most modern systems for such ships. BUT you need to understand one thing: as soon as the first ship with a similar system appears, the rest will be built much faster, I think that it’s better to finish the entire complex better, and then deploy them to large ships.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 17 October 2017 19: 50
                no matter how much they’ve gone over the number, anyway, any Russian surface ship of the Russian Federation is a suicide bomber because they are few by definition, and the Amers have dozens and hundreds, and the leader or av is all the more suicide bomber, so it’s better to submarine, she’s the only warrior in the field, this is her advantage
                1. Yarhann
                  Yarhann 17 October 2017 23: 19
                  dear man, you will familiarize yourself with the doctrine of the Russian Federation and the USA - then all questions will disappear why we have such a fleet and the US has several times more.
                  For a simple understanding, Americans consider the entire oceans as a road to their colony countries and to guarantee the supply of resources from these colonies, the oggs must control the logistics routes - in this case, all US logistics are the oceans.
                  There is no world logistics in the Russian Federation - the Russian Federation does not have overseas colonies, there are not even more serious trading partners across the ocean that would be very worried about this very ocean logistics - that is, I mean that even in the event of a full-scale military conflict, the Americans will not be able to disrupt our military logistics in oceans - it simply is not there. But we can violate it for them, which is why in the USSR there was such a large submarine fleet - the best way to disrupt logistics trade routes.
                  Well, to protect the coastal waters, what is there even now is quite enough. I just can’t say how it deals with naval aviation, what is based on land - as for me it is the most effective means of protection in modern realities - and it has already shown itself effectively in many conflicts against naval targets.
                  Here you know more everything depends on what foreign policy will be and whether large ships in the far zone are needed at all.
                  Because it was possible to destroy the enemy’s AUG as under the USSR, and now it is guaranteed to happen - all the means are available. But to conduct military operations as Americans off the other coasts - yes, for these purposes, we essentially have no strengths - the same Admiral Kuznetsov - is rather weak in terms of the number of sorties per day relative to American aircraft carriers - that is, with the support of land operations, it is very risky to rely on our one aircraft carrier - he simply will not pull out all the tasks assigned to him.
                  In general, the most reasonable option for such operations should have been ships of the Mistral type with the guards, but here we were severely broken off. NU have nothing to think for themselves about the construction of such ships, but they are needed - the mattresses also have them.
                  And yes, I forgot to add in the conditions of a full-scale war, no one will fight with these AUGs with conventional ammunition - only nuclear weapons. AUGs are guaranteed to be destroyed, well, unless those AUGs are somewhere far away and yes they will survive. Do not forget that the matter is not in the number of ships themselves but in the number of warrants themselves - the Americans do not just have a bunch of ships, the Americans have 10 AUGs which each consist of a certain list of surface and underwater ships - and they go in packs. That is, roughly speaking, the Americans have 10 ships that are potentially dangerous for us, the rest is the protection of these 10 ships. SSBN, I do not take into account they and we and they separately roam from everyone.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 18 October 2017 22: 21
                    in general, I agree only that vile udk is more useless than Kuzi, and simply not needed
        3. Setrac
          Setrac 17 October 2017 11: 34
          Quote: svp67
          Despite the fact that thanks to this "outstanding economist" NO KOPEYKI was allocated for the modernization of production, which was precisely due to this

          Production remained abroad, what are you going to modernize? Are you going to modernize Ukraine? Or maybe the Baltic states? Maybe Poland?
        4. shahor
          shahor 27 January 2018 18: 06
          In a well-functioning economy, a private producer himself seeks funds for development. An example is General Dynamics (USA). $ 2 billion for the modernization of the shipyard for the construction of new Virginia BL.5, in anticipation of new orders.
      2. Juborg
        Juborg 16 October 2017 16: 28
        Are you apparently sleeping or raving maxim947? For almost a quarter century, how the activity of kudrin-like in the country has been realized.
        1. maxim947
          maxim947 16 October 2017 16: 33
          Rave - no. Maybe you jammed? It’s just too simple an excuse - Kudrin is to blame for everything, everything has fallen apart before Kudrin, and now, he hasn’t been there for a long time - but we can’t collect it. And besides Kudrin there are enough asshole.
      3. Rostislav
        Rostislav 16 October 2017 22: 43
        Despite the fact that the USSR economy has collapsed, now this camarilla is carefully inhibiting the revival. Under any pretext, they don’t give money to the real sector. Save the bank - please., And so on a new production so no. The same long money is needed. It is more profitable to speculate on short-term money on the exchange.
        1. maxim947
          maxim947 16 October 2017 23: 07
          Visit the site more often. Made with us, you will be pleasantly surprised. A lot of things are being done. Of course, more is needed, but not all at once.
    2. saturn.mmm
      saturn.mmm 16 October 2017 18: 11
      Quote: svp67
      As long as people in our country are ruled by ala, the Kudrinsky school, we won’t have big ships ...

      The West is to blame for everything Putin and in Russia Kudrin. Kudrin has been out of business for almost 10 years.
    3. exo
      exo 16 October 2017 22: 24
      Undoubtedly, Kudrin is to blame. And GDP, just a saint. For 20 years, he didn’t do any damn thing. And he came, in the wake of these curls. That's really a shame.
      While they are in power, these people, we will read these headings:
      "The latest raid tugboat accepted into the Baltic Fleet"
      1. maxim947
        maxim947 16 October 2017 23: 03
        Cry and it will become easier. By the way, 20 years ago they didn’t even make tugboats, now they’ll lower them in dozens a year. The same can be said about airplanes and much more.
      2. Soho
        Soho 17 October 2017 08: 32
        For 20 years, not a damn did

        your training manual is out of date, order a fresh one. Why turn VO into a stupid political profanity?
  2. tchoni
    tchoni 16 October 2017 08: 28
    Until interests in the country appear in our country, we won’t have large ships)))
  3. cedar
    cedar 16 October 2017 08: 34
    Quote: svp67
    As long as people in our country are ruled by ala, the Kudrinsky school, we won’t have big ships ...

    Thank God, in Russia there are people who are not even frizzy, otherwise only 15 million slaves left by the planters to work on their oil and gas plantations would have remained long ago. Therefore, Russia and the Russian Navy have a Big Future, but it will not be easy.
  4. Kudrevkn
    Kudrevkn 16 October 2017 09: 43
    In modern Russia, the same choice as Hitler's Germany: what is better to build - large-tonnage NK or submarines? Hitler would later correctly declare that “if by the beginning of the war I would have not had 57 boats, but 570 (as now), then I would have put the Allies on their knees ..."? Yes, the Fleet must be balanced and motley, but effective in combat !!
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 16 October 2017 15: 51
      Quote: KudrevKN
      Hitler would later correctly declare that “if by the beginning of the war I would have not had 57 boats, but 570 (as now), then I would have put the Allies on their knees ..."?

      Heh heh heh ... first alternative error In his best. smile
      If the Reich had started building submarines right from 1934 (otherwise, 570 submarines would not have been built by 1939 ... however, they could not be built anyway), then, first of all, it would have clearly designated its future adversary - Britain. And this means that the remilitarization of the Rhine region may not go the same way as in real life.
      Secondly, even if Britain does not enter into land affairs in Europe, their Lordship program will necessarily be adjusted to the naval program. That is, instead of ships, escortmen will be ordered to counter the linear forces of the Reich in the Atlantic. Fortunately, Britain has already had the basic project and technologies for the mass construction of cheap PLO ships from the time of the WWII. Unless add addik, radar and huff-duff (as in real life).
      And given that the "flower" is three times cheaper than the "seven" - the Reich is "overwhelmed with buildings."
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 16 October 2017 16: 59
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Hehe hehe ... the first alternative error in all its glory.

      2. Kudrevkn
        Kudrevkn 28 October 2017 14: 05
        Alexei! And how many submarines were built by Germany from 1939 to 1945?
  5. da Vinci
    da Vinci 16 October 2017 09: 58
    According to the threats that will arise already in the near future in connection with the country's environment with a missile defense system, first of all, it is necessary to have submarines with ballistic and cruise missiles of long range + ships (boats) ensuring their combat protection. There is no point in building huge ships like Leader, it’s better to have several smaller arsenal ships. what
  6. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 16 October 2017 10: 16
    Give wishful thinking. While the production capacities of the Russian Federation cannot establish the construction of large-tonnage warships, it is a fact! Small and medium-sized vessels - yes .... but it takes time, financing and capacity to build the same "Leader", but with us, with time, experience and financing it’s a bit tight ...
    1. Vita vko
      Vita vko 16 October 2017 11: 44
      Quote: Alexey-74
      experience and financing a little tight ...

      But is there any sense in building such large ships at the current level of development of weapons? You can still agree with the concept of an aircraft carrier and a helicopter carrier, because during long-term operations, the low cost of outboard weapons may be more advantageous than the use of cruise missiles and long-range strike UAVs. But this is rather an exception to the rule when the fight against terrorism is not even conducted in neighboring countries. In all other cases, large vessels are primarily large and very vulnerable targets.
  7. Anton Yu
    Anton Yu 16 October 2017 10: 17
    They cannot build a destroyer of 8000 tons, but they want to build 18000 tons.
  8. Serg65
    Serg65 16 October 2017 10: 38
    A number of tasks are solved without any problems, but new ambitious programs may face special challenges.

    Dear Cyril, you have touched on the interesting topic of updating our fleet, but excuse me, the old collective farmer, presented it one-sidedly!
    The shipbuilder is the last link in the construction of the ship, that is, in my opinion, on the collective farm, you will not collect puzzles without one picture. Under the Union, 667 enterprises across the country participated in the construction of the largest series of RPKSN pr.1944! In the 91 year, 1300 of them became the property of the Russian Federation, 550 went to Ukraine, 83 of Belarus, 5 to Kazakhstan, 4 of Armenia, 3 of Moldova and to 2 of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and God forbid that at least one third of the 1944 plant, design bureau and closed institute remained !!! Are you pouring tears about shipyards, which shipyards are Cyril? To build a Leader type EM, you still have to spend a lot of money on factories subcontractors that produce products from the halyard to the special connector in 9K96-2!
    Now about the urgency of large ships in the Russian Navy!
    Quote: svp67
    As long as people in our country are ruled by ala, the Kudrinsky school, we won’t have big ships ...

    Here is the opinion of the majority of "worried about the Navy", but how correct is it? To understand who is right, who is to blame, let us trust history and take a look at 50 years ago. USSR Navy of the end of the 60 of the last century. Under the slogans “Catch up with and overtake” and “Our answer to Chamberlain”, the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, under pressure from a member of the CPSU Central Committee in charge of the defense industry, makes a decision on the commencement of work and the subsequent construction of the ships of the giants pr.1144, 1143, 941 and 903. As a result of this decision, the USSR Navy found itself practically without RKR pr. 1164, EM 956, APC pr. 1155 and especially pr. 1155.1. The production of the so-called submarine fleet, pr.971, was delayed;
    So is it worth my friends to step on the same rake ???
    1. shahor
      shahor 27 January 2018 18: 26
      Can anyone explain to the amateur (to me) why huge Peter the Great is needed at all? In a special period, he seems to have to operate in the Atlantic. How will he get there? Rounding the Scandinavian peninsula? Past the RCC positions and areas of aviation? And the adversary's fleets? And is the USA AUG around the corner in the northwest? Life to him. in my opinion (along with the ancient Kulakov) about 15 minutes. Or will he break through and come to the Atlantic all full of holes and with empty cellars?
  9. viktorch
    viktorch 16 October 2017 11: 16
    can immediately design a promising icebreaker-aircraft carrier-destroyer with a displacement of 300 tons, we will build a model and we will be PR across all channels.

    to build a leader in submarine assembly shops is five; the author of the article is familiar with the topic. (it's sarcasm)
  10. faiver
    faiver 16 October 2017 11: 21
    Wishlist and opportunity are two different things ....
    and with our capabilities it’s deaf — now any government contracts are at least 30% of the money “left”, in our country we are ready to pay officials and security officials 100 a thousand a month, but we are not ready to pay the techies an adequate salary, in most enterprises the managers are “effective” managers "and an accountant, so you shouldn’t expect anything good from ...
  11. xomaNN
    xomaNN 16 October 2017 12: 50
    On the one hand, the absence in the construction of NK with a displacement of more than 5 thousand tons , objectively due to the lack of necessary equipment for shipyards of military shipbuilding (large docks, cranes, etc.) is bad recourse
    And on the other hand, if we don’t get bumps on the construction of modern 3-5-ton corvette frigates, we do not get long-term construction projects frozen on the slipways, with constant alterations, lack of supplies of subcontractors, etc. .. And, accordingly, sent into “black holes” many "lard". And not rubles, but cu belay
    1. viktorch
      viktorch 16 October 2017 14: 01
      Chinese shipyards look, there are commercial military order build easy.
      it’s not a snap business, but the presence of heavy and not very mechanical engineering enterprises.

      stuffing lumps - this is when the Bedouins came from sugar, did not see the sea, and built a shipyard.
      and we do not have stuffing shocks - but shameful fails, collapsed shipbuilding.
  12. Curious
    Curious 16 October 2017 14: 16
    It would be nice if the author really, for starters, characterized the shipbuilding industry of Russia at the present time. Its current salient features:
     lack of an effective model for managing the industry and individual enterprises, continued
    corporate conflicts;
     lack of investment and prolonged stagnation of production, lack of significant incentives for
    introduction of innovations;
     a high level of physical and moral depreciation of fixed assets;
     outdated technological and design solutions;
     lack of qualified engineering, workers and management personnel; low labor productivity;
     use of administrative resources, rather than competitive mechanisms, to receive orders; significant
    level of corruption, especially in the field of state defense orders;
     emphasis on the production of military products and low competitiveness in the field of civil shipbuilding;
     less favorable, in comparison with foreign shipyards, conditions for financing the construction of ships, lack of effective production lending schemes;
     high level of tax and customs burden, inefficiency and corruption of customs authorities;
     low quality of domestic component parts and products, instability of their supplies, degradation
    domestic enterprises producing components and equipment, which leads to the need
    large purchases of equipment abroad;
     negative consequences of Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO);
    Рыв disruption of the planned deadlines for the completion of projects for the construction of new large shipyards;
     reduction of budget financing in connection with the accession of Crimea and the introduction of this step
    economic sanctions.
    But there is also a merchant fleet, which is also not in brilliant condition. So aircraft carriers are from the realm of fantasy.
    1. rruvim
      rruvim 16 October 2017 17: 59
      I agree with only the first two points. As for fixed assets do not agree. There are enough engineering personnel, even too much (you have to apply to Brigade posts, which was actually in the Union). That's really a problem with components, and for this, the USC was created. But how many leaders have changed in the leadership of the USC over the past few years? And all the "left" for the "incomprehensible" business. The question is only in the general leadership, but in the "places" there are people-specialists, and there are enough capacities.
    2. Deck
      Deck 16 October 2017 19: 25
      Exceptionally correct and reasonable description of problems. I would also add the bureaucracy of all actions in the state. structures and in the MO especially. The battle of creators with parasites is not in favor of the first
  13. rruvim
    rruvim 16 October 2017 17: 51
    Full "La la la"! In the USSR there were no problems in the construction of large ships. Yes, and now they are not. I am sure! It’s just that USC and Moscow Oblast cannot agree among themselves on what anyone needs.
    1. Sharansky
      Sharansky 16 October 2017 22: 41
      OK, no problem. There, in the next news, the latest tugboat cheerfully cheers. And that means there is a future!
      1. rruvim
        rruvim 16 October 2017 22: 56
        Another boat for the "representative needs" of the Navy.
  14. Sonet
    Sonet 16 October 2017 19: 03
    Not a single sizable large warship has been built in the 17 years of the Putin era, and there is no reason to believe that something will change dramatically after 2018, when Putin will again become president.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 17 October 2017 10: 15
      Quote: Sonet
      For 17 years of the Putin era, not a single sane large warship was built.

      Amendment - major surface warship.
    2. viktorch
      viktorch 17 October 2017 17: 07
      we have a normal "banana republic" with an occupying government of oligarchs who have integrated into the "global market", and the economy is degrading in the corresponding direction,
      what do you want the darkest fingerprint to abolish very specific economic laws?
      Well, firstly it doesn’t happen, and secondly, the manager who starts digging for the owners of the company is usually fired and according to how he was among the hard workers there, they’ll put the other up and also take into account the current situation, so that the hard workers would seriously think that the manager was then it solves and protects them supposedly before the mistresses.

      so take it easy, relax the rolls, and enjoy the theatrical performance: building one super-weapon with a full hold of earflaps and a catapult.
      although my opinion is, in the end, they will abandon the leader in favor of a pair of corvettes - a la modern RK for beggars.
  15. senima56
    senima56 16 October 2017 19: 37
    The author did not mention the Bay factory in Kerch. There is a huge dry dock, where in the "Soviet times" our largest tankers of the Crimea type were built, with a displacement of more than 100 thousand tons!
  16. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 17 October 2017 19: 38
    how many times have we told you that large surface warships of Russia are not needed ... and all the same, there are pests who want to deprive us of nuclear submarines, ICBMs, aircraft, and air defense for the sake of these unnecessary vessels
  17. Div Divich
    Div Divich 18 October 2017 14: 48
    Russia has an aircraft carrier, in Syria it was not effective.
    After this, the question arises whether it is better to develop aviation than to build aircraft carriers ...
  18. Greenwood
    Greenwood 10 December 2017 12: 06
    Shipyard them. 61st Communard. Ukraine, Nikolaev