Military Review

Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 7. Small rocket

97
In the previous article, we touched a little on the state of the "mosquito" forces of our fleet on the example of small anti-submarine ships and were forced to state that this class in the Russian Navy was not renewed and developed. As we said earlier, the Russian Navy included 99 MPKs with a displacement of 320 to 830 tons, and by the end of 2015, 27 units remained in the system, built in the 80s of the last century, which also soon have to “retire” moreover, their capabilities against 4th generation submarines are extremely doubtful. But they are not building new IPCs: the creation of ships of this class has been stopped, apparently in the expectation that corvettes will fulfill their role. Which, alas, due to their small numbers, of course, will not be able to solve the tasks of the Soviet TFR and the IPC at least to some extent.


Well, now let's look at the shock component of the “mosquito” forces - small rocket ships (MRK) and boats (RK). In order not to traumatize the psyche, let us not recall how many MRK and RK served under the Soviet flag, but take 1 for December 2015 as a starting point and list only those ships that were laid back in the USSR.

RSC 1239 "Sivuch" - 2 units.



Unique hovercraft of a skeg type, ie, in fact, catamarans with two narrow hulls and a wide deck. Speed ​​- 55 nodes (interestingly, the site of the Zelenodolsk plant indicated “about 45 ties”. A typo?), Weapons - 8 PKR “Mosquito”, SAM “Osa-M”, one 76-mm AK-176 installation and two 30- mm AK-630. In addition to impressive speed, they have quite acceptable seaworthiness: RTOs of this type can apply their weapon with waves of 5 points at a speed of 30-40 nodes and in a displacement position - up to 8 points inclusive.

Laid in the USSR in the 80s, completed in the Russian Federation in 1997-1999, so it can be expected that ships of this type will serve 15-20 for many more years. And that's great. The resumption of the creation of ships of this type is hardly rational, since their cost is probably very, very high (specific hull, super-powered power plant), but those that have already been built should be kept in the Russian Navy as long as possible, making repairs and upgrades in a timely manner.

RSC 1234.1 “Gadfly” (according to NATO classification) - 12 units



Having a standard 610 tonnage, these ships had highly developed and balanced weapons, including two built-in launchers for Malachite anti-ship missiles P-120, one Osa-MA air defense missile system, 76-mm artillery, and 30 -mm "cutting". The speed of the MRC of this project also inspired respect - 35 nodes, despite the fact that rocket weapons could be used in waves of up to 5 points.

These ships were laid in the period from 1975 to 1989, and those of them that still remained in the ranks, joined the ranks of the fleet in the period from 1979 to 1992. Accordingly, today their age ranges from 26 to 40 years, and the 9 "Gadfly" has not yet crossed the thirty-year milestone. Based on this, it can be assumed that there is a technical possibility to keep them in the fleet within a decade. Another question is whether to do this?

The fact is that the main weapon of the IRC, PKR P-120 “Malachite”, was developed in the 60-s of the last century, and even at the time of the collapse of the USSR it was far from the peak of technical progress. Its maximum flight range was 150 km, speed (according to various data) 0,9-1 M, flight altitude on the flight section - 60 m. The unique advantages of the rocket were mixed homing (the active radar homing unit was supplemented with an infrared sensor "Bust") and a very powerful 800 -kg warhead, but today this RCC is completely obsolete. At the same time, upgrading nearly thirty-year-old ships for new missiles no longer makes much sense, so their further presence in the fleet will have more decorative than practical functions.

MRK project 1234.7 "Nakat" - 1 units.



The same IRC "Gadfly", but instead of six P-120 "Malachite" carried 12 (!) P-800 "Onyx". Probably was an experienced ship, today removed from the fleet. According to some information, it was written off as early as 2012, but the reference book of S.S. Berezhnova, on whom the author of the article is oriented, counts him at the end of 2015 as part of the Navy, so all the same, Nakat falls into our list.

RTOs of the 11661 and 11661М “Tatarstan” project - 2 units.



Ships of this type were created as a replacement for small anti-submarine ships of the 1124 project, but, being laid in the 1990-1991. already completed in the Russian Federation as a guard (and rocket) ships. Tatarstan had a standard 1 560 tonnage, 28 speed, armed with eight Uran rocket launchers, Osa-MA SAM, one 76-mm artillery unit, two 30-mm AK-630 and the same KNVT 14,5 machine guns. Dagestan had the same characteristics, but instead of Uran, it received eight Calibrovs, and instead of metalcutters, ZAK Palash. "Tatarstan" was commissioned in 2003 g, "Dagestan" - in 2012, both ships serve in the Caspian flotilla.

1241.1 project rocket boats (1241-М) “Lightning” - 18 units.



The main missile boat of the Russian Navy. The standard displacement is 392 t, 42 nodes, four supersonic P-270 Mosquito, 76-mm AK-176 and two 30-mm AK-630. On one of the boats ("The Tempest") instead of two "metal cutters" is installed ZAK "Palash". The bulk of these boats were commissioned in 1988-1992, one - in 1994 g, and "Chuvashia", incorporated in 1991 g - even in 2000 g. Accordingly, the age of 16 rocket boats is 26-30 years, thanks to the equipment of anti-ship missiles "Mosquito" ships still retain their relevance and, apparently, can be saved in the fleet still 7-10 years. The nineteenth ship of this type is also part of the Russian Navy, but the launchers for the Mosquitoes have been dismantled from it, which would make it wrong to count it in rocket boats.

RC project 12411 (1241-T) - 4 units

Ignore insignificant nuances. It turned out this way: in the USSR a rocket boat was developed for the newest supersonic Moskit missiles, but the anti-ship missiles were somewhat delayed, which is why the first series of Lightning was armed with old Termites with the same artillery. The ships were commissioned in 1984-1986, today they are from 32 to 34 years, and their main armament lost its combat significance in the 80s of the last century. It is senseless to upgrade these ships because of their age, and to keep them in the navy too, so we should expect them to be written off in the next 5 years.

RK 1241.7 "Shuya" project - 1 units



It was commissioned in 1985 of the “Molniya” of the first series with “Termites”, but with dismantled “metalcutters” and installed instead of them the “Dirk” CRAFT, which later was also dismantled. Obviously, this ship in the coming 5 years awaits withdrawal from the fleet.

RK 206 MR project - 2 units

Small (233 t) hydrofoil boats. 42 node, Termite 2, 76-mm gun mount and one AK-630 machine gun. Both boats were commissioned in 1983 g, they are now 35 years old and both are obvious candidates for cancellation in the very near future.

Thus, from the “Soviet legacy” as of December 1, 2015 in the Russian Navy were 44 small rocket ships and missile boats, of which 22 had real combat value, including two "Sivucha" and 18 "Lightning", armed with anti-ship missiles "Mosquito", as well as two Caspian "Tatarstan". However, until the 2025 g the bulk of these ships may well remain in service - today Nakat has dropped out of the fleet, and it should be expected that 7 boats armed with Termit missiles will soon follow him, but the rest may well serve up to 2025 and beyond.

Perhaps that is why HPV 2011-2020's. did not envisage the massive construction of shock "mosquito" forces - it was supposed to put into operation only a few ships of the 21631 "Buyan-M" project. These ships are an enlarged and “rocketized” version of the small artillery ship of the 21630 project. With a displacement of 949 T, “Buyan-M” is capable of developing 25 units, its armament is made up of a UKKS with 8 cells capable of using the Caliber missile family, 100-mm AU-190 and 30-mm AK-630-2 Duet and ЗРК Ghibka-R with 9M39 Igla missiles.



But, given the low speed and the fact that “Buyan-M” refers to ships of the “river-sea” class, it can hardly be considered as a replacement for small missile ships and boats oriented towards striking at enemy naval groups in our near sea zone . Most likely, Buyan-M is simply a “cover” for Caliber cruise missiles (not anti-ship!). As you know, ground-based deployment of short-range (500-1 km) and medium-range (000-1 km) cruise missiles is prohibited by the INF Treaty of December 000, 5, however, the armed forces of the United States and the Russian Federation certainly need such ammunition. The Americans compensated for the absence of such missiles by deploying a sea-based Tomahawk missile launcher, but we did not have such an opportunity after the death of the USSR fleet. In this situation, the transformation of our "Caliber" into "river deployment" missiles is a logical and non-violating international treaty step. The system of river channels of the Russian Federation allows you to move Buyan-M between the Caspian, Black and Baltic Seas, on the rivers these ships can be reliably covered by ground-based air defense systems and aviation, and they can launch missiles from anywhere in the route.

Probably, if absolutely necessary, “Buyany-M” is able to act even at sea, having received the anti-ship version “Caliber”, but obviously this is not their profile. The same “hints” their composition of radar weapons, but we'll talk about this a little later.

The real restoration of the “mosquito” fleet can be considered the construction of a series of small rocket ships of the 22800 “Karakurt” project. These are small, highly specialized strike ships, the full displacement of which does not reach 800 t. As the power plant, three diesel engines M-507D-1 produced by PJSC "Zvezda" are used, power 8 000 hp each - together they tell Karakurt speed around 30 nodes. The main armament of the ship is UKSK on 8 cells for Caliber / Onyx missiles, X-NUMX-mm artillery mounts AK-76MA and A-Pantsir-ME, as well as two 176-mm Kord machineguns. On the first two ships of the series, instead of the "Shell," two 12,7-mm AK-30 were installed.



In a number of sources, it is indicated that, in addition to the "cutters", MRKs are equipped with MANPADS, but here, apparently, this is not about "Bending", but simply about conventional MANPADS (a pipe on the shoulder).

The radar armament of the 22800 project emphasizes its shock, anti-ship orientation. On the "Karakurt" is installed radar general detection "Mineral-M", the possibilities of which are extremely large for the ship, whose displacement "does not reach" even to 1 000 t.

In addition to the usual for radar of this type of detection and tracking of surface and air targets, Mineral-M is able to carry out:

1) automated reception, processing and display of information on the surface situation, coming from compatible complexes deployed on ground vehicles or tactical group ships, from external sources (command control systems, remote observation posts located on ships, helicopters and other aircraft), using external radio communications;

2) receiving, processing and displaying information on the surface situation received from the ship’s sources of information: combat information and control systems, radar stations, navigation stations, sonar systems;

3) management of joint combat operations of tactical group ships.

In other words, Mineral-M is terribly network-centric: it can receive (and obviously provide) information to a group of disparate forces, implementing the principle “sees one - see everything”, and can act as a focal point, but this is not all advantages of this complex. The fact is that Mineral-M can work not only in the active, but also in the passive mode, not radiating anything on its own, but detecting and determining the location of the enemy from his radiation. At the same time, depending on the radiation range, the detection range of radar systems ranges from 80 to 450 km. In the active mode, the Mineral-M radar is capable of over-the-horizon target designation; the target detection range, the size of a destroyer, reaches 250 km. Here, of course, it should be noted that the "over-the-horizon" mode of operation of the radar station is not always possible and depends on the state of the atmosphere. Given the 250 km range, for example, are possible only under the condition of over-refraction. However, the usefulness of this radar operating mode for a carrier of long-range anti-ship missiles cannot be overestimated. In general, it can be stated that such a radar would look very nice even on a much larger ship.

But on the "Buyane-M" is placed the radar MR-352 "Positive", which is (as the author was able to understand, not an expert in the field of radar) general-purpose radar in the traditional sense of these words, i.e. without numerous “buns” - over-the-horizon target designation, etc. That is, "Positive" provides coverage of the air and surface situation at a distance of 128 km, and is not intended to control weapons. In principle, “Positive” can give target designation both for missiles and for artillery firing, but it does not do it as well as specialized radars, because it is still a side function for it. The absence of a radar like “Mineral-M” on the “Buyan-M” just suggests that this IRA is not considered by the fleet management as a means of naval combat.

The rates of construction of the “mosquito” fleet for the Russian Navy are quite impressive, and far exceed the plans of the SAPs for the 2011-2020. Starting with 2010, 10 of MRCs of the Buyan-M type were laid, and another two contract was signed. Five ships of this type were part of the fleet in 2015-2017gg, while the duration of the construction is about three years. To put it mildly, this is not a good indicator for serial ships of less than 1 000 tonnes, especially serial ones, but in any case there is no doubt that the other five, the last of which, “Grad”, will be part of the fleet before 2020.

As for Karakurts, their first pair was laid in December of 2015 g, both were launched in 2017 g, their delivery to the fleet is planned for 2018 g and, in principle, these terms are realistic. In total, nine Karakurts are currently being built (7 on Pella and 2 on Zelenodolsk Plant), the tenth tab is being prepared, and another contract has been signed for three. Total - thirteen ships of the project 22800, but it is expected to conclude a contract with the Amur Shipbuilding Plant for another six ships of this type. Accordingly, it can be expected that before 2020 g, nine Karakurts will be included in the Russian Navy, and before 2025 g they will become at least 19, and this will not be decided on the further construction of RTOs of this type.

In general, it can be said that the construction of “Buyanov-M” the Russian Federation secured absolute superiority in the Caspian Sea and to a certain extent strengthened the arsenal of long-range precision weapons of the domestic armed forces, but to speak of “Buyanah-M” as a means of anti-ship combat , according to the author, it is still impossible.

But even without the “Buyans”, the extensive construction of “Karakurts”, in general, guarantees the reproduction of domestic mosquito forces. As we said above, a critical, “landslide” point for them will come in 7-10 years, when the service lives of the Molniya-type missile boats will come close to the 40 years and need to be removed from the fleet. Other RTOs and missile boats, with the exception of Samum, Bora, Tatarstan and Dagestan, will need to be written off even earlier, thus reducing the inheritance of the USSR to 2025-2028 by an order of magnitude (from 44 as of 01.12.2015 to 4 units).

However, if the contract for the construction of six ships of the 22800 project for the Pacific Fleet is concluded, 19 "Karakurt" will replace the 18 "Lightning", and other missile boats and Ovod-type MRKs have virtually no combat value today extreme obsolete weapons. Thus, we can say that reducing the number of our ISCs and SCs will not lead to a drop in their level of combat capability. On the contrary, due to the fact that ships with the most modern missile weapons will be put into operation (it should not be forgotten that the mythical “Zircon” can be used from standard DPS for “Onyx” and “Caliber”), we should talk about empowering the shock components of our "mosquito" fleet. In addition, with the entry into service of "Karakurtov" "mosquito fleet" will acquire the ability to strike long-range cruise missiles at the enemy's land infrastructure - as it was done in Syria.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to predict how many "Karakurts" will be laid down in the coming years on the new LG of 2018-2025. Here, perhaps, both the increase in the series to 25-30 ships, and the rejection of their further construction, limiting the series of 13 ships. However, there are at least 2 reasons why we should expect the construction of Pacific "Karakurt".

First, after the demonstration of the capabilities of the Caspian flotilla to defeat targets in Syria, the country's leadership should look at small rocket ships favorably. Secondly, the admirals of our Navy, having a monstrous failure on surface ships, in the absence of frigates and corvettes, will obviously be happy to strengthen the fleet at least with "Karakurt".

Accordingly, the future of our “mosquito” fleet doesn’t seem to cause concern ... However, the author of this article will risk raising another question, which for many will look like a real sedition

Does Russia really need a naval shock "mosquito" fleet?

To begin, we will try to deal with the cost of these ships. The easiest way to determine the value of "Buyanov-M". As printed RIA "News":

“The contract between the Defense Ministry and Zelenodolsk Shipbuilding Plant signed at the Army-2016 forum amounts to 27 billion rubles and provides for the construction of three ships of the Buyan-M class, the plant’s general director Renat Mistakhov told RIA Novosti.”


Accordingly, one ship project 21631 worth 9 billion rubles.

In many publications it is indicated that the price of one “Karakurt” is 2 billion rubles. However, in most cases, as a source of this information indicate the assessment of the Deputy Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, Andrei Frolov. Unfortunately, the author was unable to find documents that would confirm the validity of this assessment. On the other hand, a number of sources give completely different numbers. So, for example, Sergey Verevkin, executive director of a separate division of the Leningrad shipbuilding plant “Pella”, stated that:

"The cost of such ships is three times less than the frigate."


And even if we take the cheapest domestic frigate (11356 project) at pre-crisis prices - it is 18 billion rubles, respectively, Karakurt, according to S. Verevkin’s statement, it costs at least 6 billion rubles. This seems to be also confirmed by reports that Pella transferred an order for the construction of a single Karakurt to the Feodosia Shipyard “More”, and the cost of the contract will be 5-6 billion rubles, but the question is that the amount is not exact - The news refers to the opinion of unnamed experts.

But what if S. Verevkin did not mean the frigate of the “admiral” series of the 11356 project, but the newest 22350 “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov”?

After all, the number in 6 billion rubles. for one "Karakurt" raises great doubts. Yes, the “Buyan-M” is somewhat larger than the 22800 project ship, but at the same time, the “Karakurt” carries much more complicated and, therefore, expensive armament (the Pantsir-ME system and equipment (the Mineral-M radar)) “Buyane-M” was implemented a water jet, which is probably more expensive than the classic one, but on the whole it should be expected that “Karakurt” should be no less, and even more than “Buyana-M”.

The main utility of the "Buyana-M" is that it is a mobile launcher for long-range cruise missiles. But you should take into account that 9 billion rubles. for such mobility look overly expensive. But there are other options: for example ... the very container installations of the Caliber, about which so many copies were broken at one time.



According to people unfamiliar with the sea, these containers are Uberwanderwaffe, which is easy to hide on the deck of an oceanic container ship, and in the event of a war, quickly “multiply by zero” the US AUG. We will not disappoint anyone, recalling that an armed merchant ship that does not carry the naval flag of any country is pirated, with all the ensuing consequences for himself and his crew, but simply recall that River container ship "sailing itself somewhere in the middle of the Volga, no one will ever press charges of piracy. In order to comply with the INF Treaty of the Russian Federation, it will suffice to include several “auxiliary river cruisers” in the fleet, but in the event of a real aggravation of relations with NATO, such containers can be placed on any suitable river vessels.

Moreover. Because in the event that a real collision with the United States and NATO looms on the horizon, then no one will pay attention to the treaties, and in this case, who prevents to install a container with missiles ... say, by train? Or even like this:



Thus, we can state that the task of saturating the domestic armed forces with cruise missiles with a range from 500 to 5 500 km may well be solved without the participation of Buyanov-M. In order to provide us with absolute superiority in the Caspian, in addition to the existing ships, Buyan-M's 4-5 would be enough, and they would not necessarily have been armed with Calibers - to defeat boats that form the basis of other Caspian fleets, " Uranus is more than sufficient. Price issue? The rejection of 5-6 "Buyanov-M" would allow the Russian Navy to finance the purchase of a naval aviation regiment (talking about Su-35, costing about 2 billion rubles in the same 2016g), which, in the opinion of the author of this article, would be fleet much more useful.

With "Karakurtami" is also not all clear. The fact is that rocket boats appeared as a means of fighting enemy surface forces in the coastal zone, but today it is very difficult to imagine enemy surface ships near our coast. Given the extreme danger that aviation poses to modern ships, a carrier strike force is capable of “looking at the light” to us, but it also makes no sense to come closer than a few hundred kilometers to our coastline. But to send in the sea the connection of "Karakurts" against AUG is akin to suicide: if история sea ​​battles teach us something, so only the extremely low stability of small rocket ships (corvettes and rocket boats) to the means of air attack. Suffice it to recall, for example, the defeat of the Iraqi fleet in the Iran-Iraq war, when two Iranian F-4 "Phantom" almost for five minutes let torpedoes and a missile boat of the Iraqi Navy to the bottom, and even 4 rocket boats damaged - although they did not specialized anti-ship weapons. Yes, our ships of the 2 project are equipped with “Armor-ME”, this is a very serious weapon, but it should be borne in mind that the ship with a displacement of less than 22800 t is an extremely unstable platform for such equipment.

In addition, sadly, but "Karakurt" do not have sufficient speed for the dashing "cavalry" attacks. For them, indicate the speed of "about 30 nodes", and this is quite a bit, especially if we recall that during the excitement small ships lose much speed. In other words, in the conditions of the Far East, our "Karakurt" will obviously be slow-moving than, say, Arly Burk - the maximum speed of the 32 node, but in conditions of excitement it loses it much less than small ships of the 22800 project.

Of course, besides global, there are also local conflicts, but the fact is that for them the power of "Karakurts" is excessive. For example, in the well-known episode of the collision of a detachment of surface ships of the Russian Black Sea fleet with Georgian boats, the use of the Gauge anti-ship missiles would be completely unjustified. It may be an exaggeration to state that all five Georgian boats were cheaper than one such rocket, but ...

According to the author, in a full-scale conflict with NATO, “Karakurt” can only be used as a mobile missile battery of coastal defense, with which it is possible to cover relatively quickly objects that are threatened with an attack from the sea. But in this capacity, they almost lose to vehicle complexes in terms of speed of movement, besides this, the ground complex is easier to mask. In general, and here we have to admit that the regiment of modern fighter-bombers would be much more useful for the fleet than the Karakurt 6, and in terms of cost, they appear to be quite comparable.

Nevertheless, the author assumes that in the future we are waiting for news about the increase in the production of "Karakurts". For the reason that the number of surface ships of our Navy, capable of going to sea, is decreasing from year to year, and the industry continues to disrupt every conceivable time frame for the construction of new ships - from a corvette and above. And if the first ships of the 22800 project are commissioned on schedule (which confirms our ability to build them relatively quickly), then there will be new orders. Not because “Karakurt” is a vundervaffe or a panacea, but because at least some surface ships are still needed to the fleet.
Author:
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. arturpraetor
    arturpraetor 13 February 2018 15: 35
    +3
    In order not to injure the psyche, we will not recall how many RTOs and RK served under the Soviet flag

    But if you still remember this in the comments?
  2. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
    Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 13 February 2018 16: 10
    +10
    The construction of 2 missile boats of the 12418 project for the Black Sea Fleet and the Caspian Flotilla at Vympel Shipyard is underway. Armament 8 "Uranium", AK-176MA and 2 AK-630M.


    These cases are used
    1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
      Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 13 February 2018 16: 15
      +3
      It will look like this:
    2. avt
      avt 13 February 2018 16: 41
      +2
      Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
      2 project 12418 missile boats for the Black Sea Fleet and the Caspian Flotilla are being built at Vympel Shipyard.

      I believe that this modernization of export buildings will result in an answer to
      and 9 "Gadfly" have not yet crossed the thirty-year milestone. Based on this, it can be assumed that there is a technical possibility to keep them in the fleet for another decade. Another question is, should this be done?
      Somehow I began to doubt that there, "Uranus" will put ....
      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 13 February 2018 16: 49
        +5
        MRC "Calm" (Black Sea Fleet) - 39 years
        RTO Iceberg (SF) - 38 years
        RTO Smerch (Pacific Fleet) - 33 of the year
        MRK Mirage (Black Sea Fleet) - 31 year
        RTO "Hoarfrost" (Pacific Fleet) - 30 years
        RTO "Dawn" (SF) - 29 years
        RTO Moroz (Pacific Fleet), RTO Zyb and RTO Geyser (BF) - 28 years
        RTO "Passat" (BF) - 27 years
        RTO Liven (BF) and RTO Razliv (Pacific Fleet) - 26 years
        Perhaps everything will be limited to the modernization of only RTO RTOs, for which Karakurt has not yet begun to build. The Pacific Fleet’s small missile ship Smerch is already undergoing modernization with the replacement of Malakhit missile launcher with Uran missile launcher
    3. alexmach
      alexmach 13 February 2018 23: 35
      +3
      Armament 8 "Uranus"

      8 or is it all 16? How was the Vietnam project built? True, those in the photo seem to have a wider structure.
      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 14 February 2018 07: 56
        0
        Quote: alexmach
        8 or is it all 16? How was the Vietnam project built?

        There will be 8 "Uranus". And the Vietnamese project has a different add-on.
  3. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 13 February 2018 16: 15
    +5
    The surface fleet needs to be reduced and much, if you recall, almost the entire surface fleet of the USSR was nonsense, letting the USSR economy go to the bottom and ruining the country, unfortunately, along with the wise admiral Amelko, who advocated for the development of submarines, there was also official Gorshkov .... Of course, absolutely it’s impossible without a fleet, in the sea areas there should be no large NKs, all of them, and even Dagestan, and the Guardian must be transferred to the oceans, and replaced with karakurt and buoys, the stopping of new NKs except minesweepers, but the submarines need to be built continuously and accelerated and pace
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 February 2018 17: 38
      +27
      Quote: vladimir1155
      The surface fleet needs to be reduced and much, if you recall, almost the entire surface fleet of the USSR was nonsense, sinking the USSR economy and destroying the country, unfortunately, along with the wise admiral Amelko ratovashim for the development of submarines, there was also an official Gorshkov

      Yeah ... and then it will turn out like with Cuba: ships with cargoes go “naked”, surface ships and base adversary base patrols scamper over to the submarines with a hiccup - there is nothing to counteract them.
      The one-sided development of the fleet with an emphasis on submarines ends with the boats starting to kill right at the bases. Admiral Doenitz confirms.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 13 February 2018 20: 57
        0
        for a convoy in Cuba there are a couple of cruisers, not so often convoys go to Cuba to contain 333 ships ... ... four frigates per ocean fleet are enough, and there are still aug of two tanks and ave, a small group. and of course, submarines need a lot
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 14 February 2018 09: 57
          +5
          Quote: vladimir1155
          enough four frigates per ocean fleet

          As I understand it, the fleet does not need to provide the PLO of positional areas of the SSBNs.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          and there is still aug from two tarq and av

          Without an escort, this is not an AUG, but a target.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          and of course, submarines need a lot

          What for? To defend the coast within range of a base aircraft? For beyond this radius, the submarine has an invulnerable enemy for it - the base patrol anti-submarine aircraft.
      2. Serg65
        Serg65 14 February 2018 09: 17
        +6
        Alexey welcome! hi
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Admiral Doenitz confirms.

        am Admiral Doenitz is not a decree for us !!!!
        what I correctly said, Vladimir1155 ???
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 14 February 2018 09: 14
      +7
      Quote: vladimir1155
      Surface fleet needs to be reduced

      what I have a feeling, my friend Vladimir, that you have a specific draft in your body!
      Quote: vladimir1155
      if you remember

      laughing Remember!
      Quote: vladimir1155
      almost the entire surface fleet of the ussr was nonsense, sinking the economy of the ussr and destroying the country,

      wassat Nah, better not remember, your version is sooooo far from the truth and it's unclear what it is based on!
      Quote: vladimir1155
      Along with the wise admiral Amelko Ratovash for the development of submarines, there was also an official Gorshkov

      what I wonder why Gorshkov didn’t please you?
      Quote: vladimir1155
      large marine areas should not be in marine areas

      Those. should large-scale NK bases be located immediately in a hawk? Did I understand correctly?
      Quote: vladimir1155
      Dagestan, and the Guardian must be transferred to the oceans

      And these two are aware that they have become LARGE NK ??
      1. Rader
        Rader 14 February 2018 17: 12
        +3
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Dagestan, and the Guardian must be transferred to the oceans
        And these two are aware that they have become LARGE NK ??

        Well you give! They would also ask: "Many submarines, how many? 100, 200, or more than a thousand?" wink This is not so with a person.
        Well, Andrey, as usual, outlined everything in an accessible form. I think that this series of articles most fully and truthfully shows the situation that has developed today in the Navy. Yes, and conclusions are made, at least logical. Thank you, Chelyabinsk Moreman hi
  4. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 13 February 2018 16: 18
    0
    The surface fleet needs to be reduced and much, if you recall, almost the entire surface fleet of the USSR was nonsense, letting the USSR economy go to the bottom and ruining the country, unfortunately, along with the wise admiral Amelko, who advocated for the development of submarines, there was also official Gorshkov .... Of course, absolutely it’s impossible without a fleet, in the sea areas there should be no large NKs, all of them, and even Dagestan, and the Guardian must be transferred to the oceans, and replaced with karakurt and buoys, the stopping of new NKs except minesweepers, but the submarines need to be built continuously and accelerated and the rate of ...... on a pair of top three brawlers Osawa in the Baltic Sea and the Caspian Sea, and the rest on the Black Sea Fleet and ocean fleet
    1. Sailor
      Sailor 13 February 2018 17: 19
      +3
      Of course, large NKs are redundant for mine closed (cruisers destroyers frigates BOD and SKRs), but they need to be built no less than submarines and nuclear submarines, first they ensure the stability of submarines, the search for alien submarines and support for landing, and no one canceled the demonstration of the flag. I consider your comment, to put it mildly, not “far-sighted." It is good that Kuznetsov and Gorshkov were.
      1. prodi
        prodi 13 February 2018 17: 49
        +4
        yes, with the fleet, everything is somehow ambiguous: it would seem that the main task is to cover up their submarines and fight against enemy ones? Cover is unequivocal, but with the effectiveness of the struggle, the question is. Transport protection is not relevant at all, because we are unlikely to have a new Lend-Lease. Landing operations - in homeopathic doses. Demonstration of the flag, border protection - well, yes. If you play from defense, the main ones are submarines and aircraft
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 14 February 2018 14: 43
          +6
          Quote: prodi
          Transport protection is not relevant at all, because we are unlikely to have a new Lend-Lease

          what Purely hypothetically .......
          The Kerch bridge is destroyed, the anti-Russian coalition troops storm the digging, all the hopes for transports, but before the war, admiral prodi canceled the construction of frigates and destroyers! Therefore, the transports left without cover were destroyed! The situation of 1,07-12,07 of 1942 of the year was repeated!
          How do you like this scenario?
          1. prodi
            prodi 14 February 2018 15: 16
            0
            and the adversary with rapture drowns defenseless transports with torpedoes from submarines and shoots from airplanes on a shaver - so what?
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 14 February 2018 18: 48
              +6
              Quote: prodi
              and the adversary with rapture drowns defenseless transports with torpedoes from submarines and shoots from airplanes on a shaver - so what?

              soldier That's right, Comrade Admiral! Exactly!
              1. prodi
                prodi 14 February 2018 19: 54
                0
                the length of the bridge is about 18 km, well, let 40 in a circle. Yes, it will never be so, except in the case between Ukraine and Romania with Bulgaria together
                1. Serg65
                  Serg65 14 February 2018 20: 26
                  +5
                  Quote: prodi
                  Yes, never will it be so

                  Oh, do not step on the rake of the warlords of the pre-war 30's!
                  Who taught history at your school?
                  1. prodi
                    prodi 14 February 2018 20: 59
                    0
                    the commanders of the 30s thought in terms of the 1st world and civil. Thank God, (and thanks to the commies) we are now playing in a different league. I think that even in the case of Kaliningrad, the question of the use of nuclear weapons will be resolved in 2-3 days, a maximum of a week (although this is already an obvious enumeration of the terms)
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 14 February 2018 23: 22
            +1
            Well, you give, are the destroyers really so necessary in the Sea of ​​Azov, have you measured its depth? and that transports cannot cross it without destroyers? ....... you forgot about aviation and coastal assets capable of protecting such convoys
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 15 February 2018 06: 40
              +5
              Quote: vladimir1155
              Well, you give, are the destroyers really so necessary in the Sea of ​​Azov

              belay Someone spoke about the Sea of ​​Azov?
              Quote: vladimir1155
              that transports cannot cross it without destroyers?

              You, my friend, where are you going to ship transports?
              Quote: vladimir1155
              you forgot about aviation and coastal means capable of protecting such convoys

              lol Well, I understand, our opponent is stupid! I bombed the bridge, but I completely forgot about the airdromes because of my stupidity what
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 15 February 2018 09: 25
                0
                I understand that transports, this is a ferry to Kerch, can still be loaded at the mouth of the Don, well, if the enemy is not stupid, then your destroyers will be bombed before airports and airfields, especially since part of the airfields are far from the front line
  5. seos
    seos 13 February 2018 16: 34
    +3
    If we recall the adoption of littoral warships in the United States, our "lightning bolts" are quite combat and remote ... all the more, they can be upgraded to use x-35 missiles ... (of course it is not known how worn out the engines are and whether it can be extended terms of their operation)
  6. Dart2027
    Dart2027 13 February 2018 16: 58
    +1
    Not because the Karakurts are a prodigy or panacea, but because the fleet still needs at least some surface ships.

    At one time, there was a statement by Chirkov that they were ordered instead of frigates 11356, who were without turbines.
    https://topwar.ru/78127-malye-raketnye-korabli-pr
    oekta-22800-zamenyat-fregaty-proekta-11356.html
  7. sivuch
    sivuch 13 February 2018 17: 16
    +3
    Speed ​​- 55 knots (it is interesting that “about 45 knots” is indicated on the site of the Zelenodolsk plant. Typo?)
    Not necessary . As far as I heard (since I was neither an engine nor a designer), there was enough power to reach 55 nodes. But the strength of the hull caused concern.
    Once Leonid Vitoldych threatened to force the entire Black Sea with these steamboats.
    1. tchoni
      tchoni 13 February 2018 20: 53
      +1
      Quote: sivuch
      Not necessary . As far as I heard (since I was neither an engine nor a designer), there was enough power to reach 55 nodes. But the strength of the hull caused concern.

      Here. A friend, an employee at the Black Sea Fleet, said that any collision with floating debris for these ships ends with a repair dock.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 14 February 2018 10: 56
        +4
        Quote: tchoni
        A friend, an employee at the Black Sea Fleet, said that any collision with floating debris for these ships ends with a repair dock.

        Karakurt and the Black Sea? what hmmm ....
        and a lot of floating garbage in the Black Sea?
  8. Lexus
    Lexus 13 February 2018 17: 49
    0
    Andrei hi
    Continue to cut it alive. In the segment of RTOs, it turns out that everything is not so “sad”, at least something.
    1. ZVO
      ZVO 13 February 2018 18: 44
      0
      Quote: lexus
      Andrei hi
      In the segment of RTOs, it turns out that everything is not so “sad”, at least something.


      The member is large, but the erection function is impaired ...
      Remember that old joke, about a nurse who, seeing the patient’s penis for amputation of the same penis, demanded to keep it, let the legs be cut off, saying that I would carry it on my hands with such dimensions ...
      Here it is the same ...
  9. tchoni
    tchoni 13 February 2018 18: 49
    +5
    I want to remind the author who claims that
    but today it’s very difficult to imagine enemy surface ships near our coast.
    that in the Black Sea on a PERMANENT ROTARY BASIS NATO destroyers are on duty. The same destroyer of the “Arly Burke” class is a hundred axes (as a crazy loading option). And this is more than the “calibers” of all our calibronos in that region)))
    And the construction of "karakurt" will continue because we have Syria. And views of the Mediterranean. And, if in the Black Sea we can get along with aviation and coastal complexes, then what do you order to do in the Mediterranean? But there, for a second, the US 6th Fleet hangs out on an ongoing basis. And this is a combined air division, coupled with a strategic missile (given the axes on board the destroyers and cruisers), and covered, in fact, by the air defense regiment. One consolidated aviation regiment in Khmeimim will not be enough. Need a marine component. But she, in fact, is not. And, as the author rightly points out, we are not able to build it at whatever active pace. There are kids "karakurt". I won’t be surprised if in the near future we hear about its anti-submarine version
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 February 2018 19: 05
      +13
      Quote: tchoni
      that NATO destroyers are on duty on a PERMANENT ROTARY BASIS on the Black Sea

      And let yourself on duty. If God forbid, the world begins to slide into conflict, they will be blown away from there by the wind, not even suicides.
      Quote: tchoni
      And the construction of "karakurt" will continue because we have Syria

      Just send boats less than 800 of full displacement there - this is trash, waste and sodomy
      Quote: tchoni
      But there, for a second, the US Navy hangs out 6 on an ongoing basis. And this is a combined air division, coupled with a strategic missile (given the axes on board the destroyers and cruisers), and covered, in fact, by the air defense regiment.

      What we can’t resist neither with Karakurt nor without them is completely different forces.
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 13 February 2018 19: 08
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And let yourself on duty. If God forbid, the world begins to slide into conflict, they will be blown away from there by the wind, not even suicides.




        A bold assumption ... they throw a khibiny
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          14 February 2018 00: 13
          +7
          Quote: Town Hall
          A bold assumption ...

          Are you here again? If you are unable to understand that a single NATO ship at the World Cup in case of war is a corpse, well, I’m not your doctor
          1. Town Hall
            Town Hall 14 February 2018 09: 10
            +4
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            If you are unable to understand that a single NATO ship at the World Cup in case of war is a corpse, well, I’m not your doctor



            Self-medicate. 3 Black Sea countries-NATO members. But for some reason, a NATO ship must be single for sure. From where the poor NATO has more ... they barely barely scratch 1 against the powerful rusty pelvis of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation. Yes, and he will run away ... for hats are a terrible weapon. Yes, and how not to support the NATO admirals of the theory of such a powerful strategist from the VO forum ... it will not be a bad boy ... so the only NATO ship will escape. where will it go
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 14 February 2018 10: 10
              +7
              I really hope that your strategy - to get more ships into the closed sea, shooting completely from the shore - will be accepted as the main one in NATO. smile
              What can NATO ships do in the World Cup such that they cannot do from the Aegean or, in extreme cases, the Sea of ​​Marmara?
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                14 February 2018 10: 44
                +11
                Quote: Alexey RA
                I really hope that your strategy - to get more ships into the closed sea, shooting completely from the shore - will be accepted as the main one in NATO

                Me too :)))) Unfortunately for us, there are no crazy people in NATO command - this is not a VO forum laughing
                1. Alexey RA
                  Alexey RA 14 February 2018 10: 46
                  +4
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  Unfortunately for us, there are no crazy people on the NATO command - this is not a VO forum

                  Hitler’s headquarters are all malacholny. © smile
              2. Town Hall
                Town Hall 14 February 2018 13: 13
                +2
                try to get a job as a naval strategist at the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. with a Chelyabinsk colleague, on a voluntary basis.


                They’re all shot from the shore. They’re shot not from the sea, but a basin of water practically. Moreover, it’s shot only from the Russian coast. They’re not shot back. Therefore, the Black Sea Fleet needs bases and so on, and NATO doesn’t shoot.) Kutuzov and Ushakov, cho ...


                Py.Sy.-a mighty Cher.Flot where will run away if something happens? .. or are they immortal?)
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  14 February 2018 13: 26
                  +7
                  For a person unable to fold 2 + 2 explain on the fingers.
                  The Americans can calmly shoot through all the World Cup and the territories beyond it from the Mediterranean - Tomahawks allow. Those. they can easily deploy the same AUS near Izmir and hammer from there on deck aircraft and missiles, while they themselves will be behind an anti-air barrier named Turkey with its bunch of radars, F-16 and other joys of life - i.e. , you can say, with God in ... in the bosom.
                  Instead, you offer them to go to the World Cup, and there is under the blows of missiles and our aviation, which in this case does not need to get under Turkish air defense. And this despite the fact that there is not a single task for which it would be worth climbing into the World Cup before the conflict - all they need to do they will do from behind Turkey.
                  Question - why goat button accordion, if it is already so fun?
                  The answer - the problem is only that some members of the “NATO witnesses” sect explode their brains at the thought that there are places where NATO ships should not go. But the United States has no brain problems, and they won’t go to the World Cup before the conflict begins.
                  1. Town Hall
                    Town Hall 14 February 2018 13: 41
                    +2
                    Try to show the math on your fingers to the Russian Ministry of Defense. Either despite the similar dangers, for some reason they consider it necessary to keep the fleet there and even, here miracles, strengthen them with new ships if possible. Or they and the rest of the Black Sea countries holding fleets there and not considering them a priori useless dead are idiots .... either use your fingers for other purposes.



                    And why are 2-3 mobile launchers of the Kyrgyz Republic bad in the form of destroyers under the cover of NATO aviation, air defense, radar, etc. that can make a massive strike at the coastal and naval structures of the Black Sea Fleet from a pistol range, which does not leave an opportunity for an adequate reaction? .. . Why do they need to "run away" already in the Mediterranean
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      14 February 2018 14: 47
                      +3
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      Try to show the math on the fingers to the Russian Ministry of Defense. For all that, despite similar dangers, for some reason they consider it necessary to keep the fleet there and even, here miracles, strengthen them with new ships if possible.

                      The fleet is just one of the reasons why the NATO destroyers have nothing to do in the World Cup.
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      And why are the 2-3 mobile launchers of the Kyrgyz Republic bad in the form of destroyers under the cover of NATO aviation, air defense, radar, etc. that can make a massive attack on the coastal and naval structures of the Black Sea Fleet from a pistol range?

                      laughing fool What other pistol distance? The US will be able to provide cover for destroyers (and even that is far from absolute) only if they stand next to the coast of Turkey. Where is the "pistol" distance there? :) Or, do you think the United States has a magic wand that can hang a regiment of fighter aircraft directly off the coast of Crimea? laughing
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      Or they and the rest of the Black Sea countries, holding fleets there and not considering them a priori useless dead, are idiots ..

                      Nah, they're not, of course. Only now, the very fleet of Turkey, if something happens, will send only submarines to our shores, and surface ships will not crawl out of the bases without any special need, unless to cover cabotage. They just don’t need to do this, they have a surface fleet for other tasks
                      Quote: Town Hall
                      why do they need to "run away" already in the Mediterranean

                      They do not run away from anywhere, because in the World Cup they are essentially not present - one EM for demonstration, and even then it is not constant
                      1. Town Hall
                        Town Hall 14 February 2018 15: 06
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        The fleet is just one of the reasons why the NATO destroyers have nothing to do in the World Cup.




                        How is this to be understood? ... the Black Sea is contraindicated to the NATO fleet for the Black Sea Fleet will sink them all with one left?)) .. another bold statement .....



                        For the rest of the points ... And what exactly are you going to shoot through the Black Sea through and through? ... what types of weapons are these? ... what will you fire at the destroyer located, say, 250 km from the Crimea? .. to suppress the Khibiny so that the reports would be written sailors?)


                        The only real danger for the destroyer is aviation. But he has his own air defense, his own aviation above his head, URO frigates nearby. And a dozen other anti-ship missiles strike at those 2-3 airfields in Crimea. After that, take out all the Crimean infrastructure with impunity.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        14 February 2018 16: 59
                        +6
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        What is that supposed to mean?.

                        As written
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        I’m shelling a destroyer located, say, km in 250 from the Crimea, will you ?.

                        wassat Tryndets just :))))
                        About such associations as the 11-I team of the BRAV Black Sea Fleet heard? And about the 15-th brigade BRAV Black Sea Fleet? Which are armed with 2 DBK "Ball" and 3 - "Bastion"? Which combined volley is enough to knock out a full-fledged AUG, and not a miserable destroyer? I didn’t say a word about the shock capabilities of the Black Sea Fleet ships.
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        The only real danger is the destroyer aviation, but for that it has its own air defense, its own aviation overhead

                        What? What is his “own aviation” in 250 km from Crimea? Who will provide it, where? Where can one find in NATO such a dota that will try to provide constant cover for two dozen combat aircraft (less - it makes no sense) almost to the limit of the combat radius? Do you even understand that all your Turkish aviation will have to deal with this nonsense?
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        and a strike by dozens of other anti-ship missiles at those 2-3 airfields

                        Go read how much Kyrgyzstan needed the United States to knock out the Syrian air base, comedian
                        Quote: Town Hall
                        then take out with impunity the whole Crimean infrastructure

                        Those. even if we accept the nonsense that 10 (!) anti-ship missiles (!!) will knock out all 2-3 (in fact, only military 9, and if they are deployed, they will also be deployed on civilians), then the rest of the Russian airfields on the Black Sea coast, apparently self-sawing out of solidarity, right?
                        Town Hall, tie up with hard drugs
                2. Vladimir1155
                  Vladimir1155 14 February 2018 23: 28
                  0
                  respect respect! brilliant! and incomprehensible! this is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote that large NKs, and even such as the Stereguschiy and Dagestan, are not needed in marine waters, because they will be immediately assured of destruction from the coast! why do okolomorskie bloggers want destroyers so much! for the "protection of convoys in the Sea of ​​Azov"
          2. Serg65
            Serg65 14 February 2018 10: 59
            +7
            Welcome Andrew! hi
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Are you here again?

            laughing This is your karma !!!!
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              14 February 2018 13: 27
              +5
              Quote: Serg65
              This is your karma !!!!

              laughing Exactly :))))) Something I did wrong before the Almighty laughing
              On the other hand, with such karmic retribution in this life, to be me a playboy billionaire in the next laughing
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 13 February 2018 20: 48
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And let yourself on duty. If God forbid, the world begins to slide into conflict, they will be blown away from there by the wind, not even suicides.

        Or, on the contrary, it will be added ... And at the airfields of an independent Hohland you see something the same will be written)))
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Just send boats less than 800 of full displacement there - this is trash, waste and sodomy
        Why is this? My friends on a yacht less than fifty tons at one time from the Baltic to the Black Sea and back around Europe regularly scurried around, drove tourists, enjoyed. Already in the 800 ton parakhodik any better. It's not just about displacement.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          14 February 2018 00: 12
          +8
          Quote: tchoni
          Why is this? My friends on a yacht less than fifty tons at one time from the Baltic to the Black Sea and back around Europe regularly scurried around, rolled tourists, enjoyed

          That's right :))) Having previously looked at all the necessary weather forecasts along the coast, and where not along - there so that in advance in the season and without storms. And if something is not right - to the port. On a warship, disgusting, this will not work.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 14 February 2018 23: 30
            0
            true but 35 tons is not 800, with 800 tons you can walk well very often despite the weather
        2. Serg65
          Serg65 14 February 2018 11: 26
          +7
          Quote: tchoni
          I have friends

          what How many friends do you have associated with the sea ????
          I have an offer that will save your and our time! You immediately write who, where and what went from your friends! Please displacement below 100 tone not to mention !!!
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 14 February 2018 12: 06
            +4
            Quote: Serg65
            I have an offer that will save your and our time! You immediately write who, where and what went from your friends! Please displacement below 100 tone not to mention !!!

            Hehe hehe ... I remembered the Tsushima forum. There, in a discussion of alternative options for using Russian submarines in the REV and generally the seaworthiness of small ships, good people suggested arranging for a supporter of a submarine expedition from Vladivostok to Japan a practical exit to the Gulf of Finland. In the fall. On the 615th project. The most humanists proposed this supporter, just in case, to be tied to the fence. smile
            1. Serg65
              Serg65 14 February 2018 12: 32
              +6
              Quote: Alexey RA
              The most humanists proposed this supporter, just in case, to be tied to the fence.

              belay Nifigase humanists !!!! bully Moreover, the similarity of Dolphin, Cats, Kets and Lighters is precisely in the speed of ignition, and here people are tied to a piece of iron with a rope !!!
          2. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 14 February 2018 23: 31
            0
            why not mention below 1000 tons, for example Grachenok is also a combat unit
      3. mvg
        mvg 13 February 2018 22: 12
        0
        And let yourself on duty. If God forbid, the world begins to slide into conflict, they will be blown away from there by the wind, not even suicides.

        And who will “blow off” the aircraft carrier, a couple of cruisers and destroyers. Plus the French and Germans. And, most importantly, what? A pair of submarines and rooster?
        1. Every
          Every 13 February 2018 23: 02
          +3
          Quote: mvg

          And who will “blow off” the aircraft carrier, a couple of cruisers and destroyers. Plus the French and Germans. And, most importantly, what? A pair of submarines and rooster?


          And who will let him go there? Turks?
          In peacetime, aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines cannot enter the Black Sea at all.
          And if in non-peaceful time, then the aircraft carrier can be attacked by the Russian Aerospace Forces, for example, during the passage through Istanbul.
          And this is fighting in the middle of the largest city in Turkey.
          Do Turks need it at all?
          And coast complexes can blow off a couple - the top three cruisers and destroyers. The same "Bastion".
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          14 February 2018 00: 10
          +6
          Actually, it was a question of destroyers in the Black Sea, they did not herd herds there, and the AUG was not born there.
          Quote: mvg
          And, most importantly, what? A pair of submarines and rooster?

          wassat What? !! What are nuclear submarines at the World Cup? What are the Petruchs?
          1. mvg
            mvg 14 February 2018 01: 34
            0
            I talked about the Mediterranean and the 6th Fleet. I looked through it. I know about the status of the World Cup.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              14 February 2018 11: 23
              +3
              Quote: mvg
              I talked about the Mediterranean and the 6 fleet.

              Of course, no one will blow them away, but this is exactly the Middle-earth, not the World Cup. And it was about the ships that go into the World Cup
          2. Sling cutter
            Sling cutter 14 February 2018 01: 44
            +7
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Actually, it was a question of destroyers in the Black Sea, they did not herd herds there, and the AUG was not born there.
            Quote: mvg
            And, most importantly, what? A pair of submarines and rooster?

            wassat What? !! What are nuclear submarines at the World Cup? What are the Petruchs?

            Andrew, you respect! and I’m dancing from my opponents, they don’t even need a globe, the earth is flat, on three pillars, as a support for turtles and elephants, but J. Bruno still needs to be burned! fellow
            1. mvg
              mvg 14 February 2018 11: 19
              +1
              I agree with Bruno and the whales. But the base of the 6th fleet is still Middle-earth. No one in the black pool will fight the ships. It is only Russia that thinks that Moscow and 1155 should be kept there. The frigates are crowded there. Maximum 22380 and 636.6. And aviation, based in the Crimea. And NATO with Incirlik F-15E and AGM-158 shoots black up and down. Just like any duty Burke with axes.
          3. mvg
            mvg 14 February 2018 02: 01
            +1
            A series of articles is cool. I do not agree with the conclusions. No offense.
  10. Every
    Every 13 February 2018 20: 57
    +1
    The fact that Buyan-M is more like floating launchers for the Kyrgyz Republic has been clear for a long time. Auxiliary weapons are not impressive (especially in terms of air defense). The ship itself has a slight draft, but with such a displacement it is not necessary to talk about seaworthiness.
    It is clear that such floating launchers are not the cheapest pleasure; ground-based launchers are much cheaper.
    BUT LOW, the contract is still valid.
    But here with “Karakurt” a generally incomprehensible situation.
    The armament and it is not very bad (the variant with the Carapace) and balanced (powerful, but at the same time there is nothing superfluous) But for its effective use it is corny enough for its size (too light, it will rise almost vertically with strong excitement) .
    So how to use it in the open sea?
    1. Petrol cutter
      Petrol cutter 13 February 2018 21: 48
      +5
      I can’t speak for the rest of the fleet. I won’t lie. But on the Black Sea Fleet, he can cover a sufficient number of enemy cities from the pier. Such a squiggle. Thanks to our rocket scientists. Marine battles are not expected. A ship is a stupid platform for launching what anyone needs to launch. No one is going to attack him on the Tirpitz. Although it is now possible.
      1. Every
        Every 13 February 2018 22: 33
        0
        Quote: Benzorez
        But on the Black Sea Fleet, he can cover a sufficient number of enemy cities from the pier. Such a squiggle. Thanks to our rocket scientists. Marine battles are not expected. A ship is a stupid platform for launching what anyone needs to launch. No one is going to attack him on the Tirpitz.

        So the fact of the matter is that our MOs can easily give the order to go to Tirpitz, pah ......., to the Mediterranean, to the shores of Syria and there are storms there.
        During the 5th Mediterranean squadron, ships of this class were also sent to the Mediterranean Sea, And according to the participants, they were most afraid of the state of the missiles during the storm.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 14 February 2018 11: 48
          +6
          Quote: Every
          ships of this class were also sent to the Mediterranean Sea, And according to the participants, they were most afraid of the state of the rockets during the storm.

          Those ships operated mainly at Johnson, 15 and 55's anchor points, i.e. in areas most not affected by storms, and in the winter went to Sevastopol.
    2. Serg65
      Serg65 14 February 2018 11: 28
      +6
      Quote: Every
      So how to use it in the open sea?

      what And who is going to use it in the open sea?
      1. Every
        Every 14 February 2018 15: 42
        0
        How is that? Our "gifted specialists" from the Moscow Region.
        Moreover, they have already sent and are sending: Russian RTOs will remain off the coast of Syria until the end of September
        https://topwar.ru/99771-rossiyskie-mrk-ostanutsya
        -u-beregov-sirii-do-konca-sentyabrya.html
        Although on good things, project 11356 frigates are needed there. And these frigates, our dolts ......, I apologize for the "smart" and "far-sighted" theoreticians who are going to sell to India.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 14 February 2018 18: 56
          +6
          Quote: Every
          our dolby ......, I apologize for the "smart" and "visionary" theorists are going to sell to India.

          what In your face, the MO has lost the most talented military theorist of all time and peoples, and this is sad recourse
          Quote: Every
          Our "gifted specialists" from MO

          Forgive them for God's sake, it was not from evil that they did so! request
          1. Every
            Every 14 February 2018 22: 52
            0
            Quote: Serg65

            Forgive them for God's sake, it was not from evil that they did so! request


            Never. No. Let them burn in hell.
  11. Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter 13 February 2018 21: 11
    +3
    ". So, for example, Sergey Verevkin, the executive director of the separate division of the Leningrad shipyard Pella, argued that:
    "The cost of such ships is three times less than the frigate." "
    Well, firstly, the North-West Sea for twenty hours, fifty-six minutes of today, is building three RTOs at pr.22800. Secondly, T.Verevkin positions and even focuses the attention of production workers on the fact that these ships will carry ammunition from special warheads. In light of this, his statements that it would be more difficult to drown three steamers than one would seem quite logical to me. Considering the moment that Comrade Verevkin seems to be a naval former comrade, I think he understands what he is broadcasting.
  12. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 13 February 2018 22: 57
    +3
    But they are not building new IPCs: the creation of ships of this class has been discontinued, apparently with the expectation that corvettes will fulfill their role. Which, alas, due to their small numbers, of course, will not be able to solve the tasks of the Soviet TFR and the IPC at least to some extent.

    Well, at least there is a project ...

    Displacement is 1300 tons, length 75 meters, width - about 13 meters. Main power plant: 1 x diesel or diesel with electric motion or 1 x diesel-gas turbine.
    Armament: 1 x AK-176MA AU of 76 mm caliber (152 rounds) or 1 x AK-306 AU of 30 mm caliber (500 shots), 1 x 3M-47 "Bend" turret (20 missile ammunition). Anti-submarine: 1 x MPTK “Package-E / NK” (2 x launchers, 8 x torpedoes) or 1 x RPK-8E complex (1 x RBU-6000, 48 x 90R anti-submarine missiles and RSL-60 depth charges), 1 x unmanned aerial system "Horizon-AIR-S-100" (2 x UAV).


    Comment by bmpd. In the above image, the composition of the ship’s armament is characterized by the presence of the Broadsword anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex and two twin-tube 533-mm torpedo tubes.

    In general, with the exception of the “modern” architecture, the anti-submarine capabilities of this ship seem to be little different from those of the old MPC project 1124M.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1744165.html
  13. doktorkurgan
    doktorkurgan 13 February 2018 23: 05
    +3
    RTOs, carriers of "Malachite", in principle, can be upgraded without problems with anti-ship missiles "Uranus". Algerian modernized ...
  14. xomaNN
    xomaNN 13 February 2018 23: 05
    0
    Still, with the NK of small displacement, the business grew. Sudprom is not so bad. And there are several shipyards, besides the well-known ones, the same "Pella" in the Leningrad region rivets the ships properly. And Crimean factories are easier to build small inter-regional missile systems and so on. download
  15. alexmach
    alexmach 13 February 2018 23: 22
    +2
    Thanks for the next article.
    Question about Gadgets and Lightning. It seems that information about their rearmament to Uranus recently ran through.
  16. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 14 February 2018 06: 32
    +1
    I already wrote that because of the inability to build on the one hand, the lack of technology on the other, and the keen desire to have "a lot" for little money, the USSR, before the Second World War, built a huge "mosquito fleet", which in real combat operations, against modern the enemy’s armed forces, could not inflict any significant losses on him, nor could he protect himself. Now, it seems, again "stepping on the same rake" .....
    1. Serg65
      Serg65 14 February 2018 11: 51
      +6
      Quote: Monster_Fat
      who in real hostilities, against the modern armed forces of the enemy, could not inflict any significant losses on him, nor could he defend himself

      But at the same time he carried the greatest combat load and had the longest time in the company! what Paradox?
    2. Every
      Every 14 February 2018 15: 51
      +1
      The USSR, before the Second World War, built a huge "mosquito fleet", which in real hostilities, against the modern armed forces of the enemy, could not cause him any significant losses, and also could not defend itself.


      Well, not really like that. The Baltic Fleet, at the beginning of the Second World War, was quite strong. Alone, he might not have defeated the Kringsmarine, but he could also attack him with the naval forces of the fleet, the Germans were careful. They simply locked it in the Gulf of Finland, by installing minefields and tried to destroy it from the air.
  17. Valery Saitov
    Valery Saitov 14 February 2018 08: 38
    +2
    In general, even here we have to admit that a regiment of modern fighter-bombers would be much more useful to the fleet than 6 Karakurts, and in terms of cost they, apparently, are quite comparable.)))
    It depends on the tasks of the state to defend or attack.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 February 2018 11: 20
      +4
      Quote: Valery Saitov
      It depends on the tasks of the state to defend or attack.

      Here I did not understand a little. In essence, both will decide whether something similar happens.
  18. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 14 February 2018 12: 03
    +1
    Hello Andrey! I am reading your entire series of articles on our fleet with great interest. I agree with something, with something - no. There is heated debate in the comments. The result is truth, or something similar to the truth.
    If you do not mind, then I will make my little additions.
    Project 1161K - according to classification, this is not a small missile ship, but just a ROCKET SHIP and it is worth taking it beyond the scope of this article, because in terms of displacement and armament, he is most likely a corvette, or small TFR.
    Judging by the open press, then all RTOs project 1234.1 will undergo modernization with the replacement of the main missile system with Uran rocket launcher. At the Pacific Fleet, one ship is already undergoing such modernization (RTO "Smerch"). His test and delivery is planned for this year. This year they promised to begin the modernization of one RTO from the Black Sea Fleet.
    They have already indicated in the comments, but I repeat that two RCAs of project 1241.8 are under construction at the Nevsky Shipyard. The first is scheduled for commissioning this 2018, and the second is scheduled for 2019.
    RCA project 1241.7 write off while they will. Information has passed that it is planned to carry out tests of the SPAR "Shell" on it and re-equipment has already begun.
    RCA project 206MR all decommissioned (well, except for one Ukrainian)
    According to some sources, not Mineral, but the same Positive, was installed on the RTOs of project 22800. Plus, there will be 2 radar arrays on the mast (for some reason only two are directed to the front hemisphere)
    On the Amur Shipyard, not 6, but only 4 RTOs of project 22800 will be built. This was announced by comrade Borisov.
    And the rest seems to be all right.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 February 2018 17: 34
      +2
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Hello Andrey!

      Good afternoon! And I apologize that I didn’t answer you a letter - I read it, wanted to answer, they distracted me and .... then completely jumped out of my head repeat
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Project 1161K - according to classification, this is not a small missile ship, but just a ROCKET SHIP

      Well, yes, but I didn’t get into the corvettes, but by appointment ... in general, I agree with you, he somehow doesn’t fit into the classification
      Quote: VohaAhov
      RCA project 206MR all decommissioned

      On December 1, the 15th was still
      Quote: VohaAhov
      According to some sources, not Mineral, but the same Positive, was installed on the RTOs of project 22800.

      According to what data? I have not encountered, I will be grateful for the "tip"
  19. Ivanchester
    Ivanchester 14 February 2018 14: 44
    +1
    Andrei, hello!

    Thank you for this cycle, and for this article in particular!

    Regarding the question posed by you closer to its end:
    Does Russia really need a naval shock "mosquito" fleet?
    , in your opinion, the presence at the end of the 80's. Was a large number of such ships in the Soviet Navy also a mistake? Or have some circumstances changed in which they have to act?
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 February 2018 17: 37
      +1
      Quote: Ivanchester
      Andrei, hello!

      And good evening to you!
      Quote: Ivanchester
      What do you think, the presence in the late 80's. Was a large number of such ships in the Soviet Navy also a mistake?

      I suppose not quite. Here, after all, the thing is this - numerous NATO fleets, huge armies, the need to support the coastal flanks and, apparently, the tough confrontation between the light forces of the fleets in the coastal zone. Whether they were needed right now, in the quantity in which they were built, is a question, but some (and rather big) quantity was clearly needed. Well, today, as you noticed
      Quote: Ivanchester
      Or some circumstances have changed significantly
  20. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 14 February 2018 18: 18
    0
    [quote = VohaAkhov] According to some sources, according to some sources, the MRC of project 22800 does not have Mineral, but the same Positive. [/ quote]
    According to what data? I did not come across, I will be grateful for the "tip" [/ quote]
    http://russianships.info/boevye/22800.htm
    It seems that the site is solid and should not be deceived, although in some sources it is indicated "Mineral"
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 14 February 2018 18: 22
      +1
      Quote: VohaAhov
      It seems the site is solid and should not be deceived

      Of course, when
  21. Town Hall
    Town Hall 15 February 2018 17: 13
    +1
    Andrey from Chelyabinsk,



    Nda. Everything is sadder than I thought ..... before you wrote nonsense, would you be interested in the range of entih PCB BAL and others ... at the same time using a map to measure the distance from the airports in Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania to the destroyer located in 300 km from the Crimea .. for incapacitation for 2-3 hours of the airfield 10 PKR for take-off, control room and radar will be more than enough. And then it’s quietly in ruin as in Syria.


    Do not write such stupid frank things anymore. Complete disappointment ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      15 February 2018 17: 59
      +3
      Quote: Town Hall
      Nda. Everything is sadder than I thought ..... before you wrote nonsense, would you be interested in the range of entih PCB BAL and others ....

      That is, you have not mastered the firing range.
      And why am I not surprised?
      1. Town Hall
        Town Hall 15 February 2018 18: 15
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Quote: Town Hall
        Nda. Everything is sadder than I thought ..... before you wrote nonsense, would you be interested in the range of entih PCB BAL and others ....

        That is, you have not mastered the firing range.
        And why am I not surprised?



        Performance characteristics


        Range: 120 km with X-35 missile and X-35U 260 km




        I mastered it ... and you don’t really. Are you going to cover the entire Black Sea with missiles with a range of 120 km .... the truth, shout through the paragraph that the Black Sea is so huge that it is impossible to provide air cover for the squadron from the coastal airfield. They have a radius of less than 120 km ) ...


        Decide on geography and mathematics. Although I would be on my fingers
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 15 February 2018 21: 49
          +1
          The distance from Cape Sarych to Cape Keremp on the Anatolian coast of Turkey is 142 nautical miles (≈263 km). That is, even the Ball completely covers the entire Black Sea, and the Bastion even more so, the enemy has similar means. Conclusion: It is not advisable for Russia to have NK in the Black Baltic and Caspian Sea, limiting it to a small number of third-rank ships, minesweepers, boats, and dapels. ..... and then some of the "strategists" were going to make Leader super destroyers and hide them in the Sea of ​​Azov to cover the Kerch crossing
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 15 February 2018 21: 53
            0
            The main tactical and technical characteristics of the PRK:

            Flight range: along a combined path - up to 300 km, along a mixed path - up to 120 km.

            RCC flight altitude: on the marching section - up to 14 meters, on the final section of the trajectory - 000-10 meters.

            Maximum flight speed of anti-ship missiles: 750 m / s.

            Missile mass: launch - 3000 kg, with TPN - 3900 kg.

            TPS dimensions: length - 8900 mm, diameter 720 mm.

            The mass of the warhead - 200 kg.

            Control system: inertial navigation system, radio altimeter, homing radar head.

            Starting and starting stage: solid fuel.

            Marching engine: type - direct-flow engine, fuel - kerosene T-6.

            In November 2016, the Bastion coastal missile systems were used to destroy ground targets in Syria, which was the first in the history of combat use of the complex against ground targets.

            Material prepared on the basis of RIA Novosti information and open sources



            RIA Novosti https://ria.ru/spravka/20161122/1481898868.html
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 15 February 2018 21: 59
        0
        Currently, there are three options for the Iskander missile system:

        Iskander-M for the Russian Army, a missile launcher for two missiles 9M723, 9M723-1, 9M723-1F or 9M723-1K (NATO classification SS-26 STONE) with a maximum flight range of up to 500 km;
        Iskander-K, a missile system for launching cruise missiles, such as the R-500, with a maximum flight range of up to 2 km .;
        Iskander-E, an export version of the missile system for the 9M723E missile (NATO classification SS-26 STONE B) with a maximum flight range of not more than 280 km and meeting the requirements of the missile technology control regime (MTCR).

        The Iskander missile system was adopted by the Russian army in 2006.

        Experts express the view that the combined use of two brothers - Iskander-M and Iskander-K give a synergistic effect, which none of the existing missile defense systems can counteract.
  22. Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 22 February 2018 01: 49
    +1
    What is a METAL CUTTER ???. The author, did you serve in the Navy? There is no such thing there, it’s the sofas and the Experts came up with. In the Navy, they were always called fly swatters. Trust me, I’ve been engaged in them for several years.
  23. dgonni
    dgonni 23 February 2018 18: 03
    -1
    The author in vain focuses on the speed of the ship. In modern conditions, the speed of 45 knots and 25 knots in fact are equivalent. For a violet rocket, to get at a distance of 100 km or 110 km into a boat. Torpedo boats therefore died. Their missile heirs, but were also sharpened to deliver missiles to the launch zone. In fact, without OWN! RTO radar fields are food for big brothers.