Worse than a crime. Construction of the corvettes project 20386 - error

383
Worse than a crime. Construction of the corvettes project 20386 - error


28 October 2016 of the year on the stocks of PJSC "Severnaya Verf" was laid the ship of the project 20386 with the name "Daring". Representatives of the shipbuilding industry paint this ship as incredibly innovative, unobtrusive and under construction using the latest technologies. Representatives of the Navy echo them and argue that the fleet will order ten such ships. Production of the corvettes of the 20380 and 20385 projects will be discontinued after the completion of the ships already laid.



This decision reveals a catastrophic problem that threatens to significantly undermine the combat capability of the Navy and, as a result, the defense capability of the country as a whole. At the moment, in the Russian Navy there is a huge variety of types of ships, with minimal unification between them. For example, among small missile ships there are ships of project 1234.1, which are replaced by two types of ships - 21631 and 22800. And there are anti-submarine ships of project 1124, corvettes of project 20380 both in order and in construction, corvettes of project 20385 and now here are 20386. The last representative of the "mosquito fleet"The Russian Federation are the project 22160 patrol ships under construction.

There is no reason to talk about disagreement among large-class ships, among them there is a real “zoo”, ranging from TFR “Sharp”, launched in 1967, to various frigates of the 11356 and 22350 projects being built at the same time. In this case, the latter, apparently, will again be built in a small series, becoming the basis for some new project, now known as 22350M. Similarly, ocean ships of the 1 rank are still Soviet-built or bookmarks are also not happy with the unification.

All this creates a lot of difficulties in supplying the ships with spare parts, in repairs, in the training of officers and midshipmen. It is not hard to guess that, from a financial point of view, it is more profitable to have a spare part of one type in stock rather than ten non-interchangeable analogues. For comparison, the US Navy has one type of destroyer (class "Arleigh Burke"), one type of cruiser (class "Ticonderoga"). Aircraft carriers are mainly of the Nimitz class, which are replaced by the Ford class, universal landing craft of the Wasp class, which are replaced by the America class, etc. Moreover, these ships are very much unified with each other.

For example, on all heavy ships with a gas-turbine power plant, the same type of turbine is used - General Electric LM2500 in different versions. On helicopters and in ship torpedo tubes the same torpedo is used, etc.

The class of LCS ships is a little out of line, but this stillborn project is unlikely to be developed, as well as an experiment with destroyers of the Zumwalt type. Such unification leads to lower costs for the operation of ships, and for their repair, and for conducting combat operations and exercises, and, of course, for the training of personnel and its interchangeability - a torpedo from one destroyer without problems will serve on the other exactly the same whereas the officer who transferred from the TFR of the 1135 project to the frigate of the 11356 project must be retrained. At the very least, its retraining will mean a temporary decrease in the ship’s combat capability and often additional costs.

Started in the middle of the 2000-s, the naval renewal program could very well lead the seafarers to uniformity. Instead, the fleet began to be saturated with ships of various classes that were not unified with each other. And it is believed that this is not just.

Any design bureau, including shipbuilding, is interested in constant loading of project activities paid from the state budget. If the Navy receives one or two types of surface ships, once having paid the cost of R & D, included in the price of the first series under construction, the Navy will only pay for upgrades and technical support, if they are needed. As a result, having created, for example, a corvette, the KB in the future, it only accompanies and modernizes this project, which is incomparably financially beneficial to the cost of developing a new ship. But if we succeeded in lobbying for the quick replacement of a new class of ships with some more new ones, then the financial receipts and incomes of the design bureaus turn out to be much larger than with some modernization work.

Thus, if it is right and beneficial for the Navy to have standardized ships, then for design organizations it is advantageous to design and build many different classes of ships to perform the same tasks, ideally - one by one. It is also profitable for the industry, because it allows to give work to literally everyone - ships are different and the systems should be different on them, which means that Kolomna and Rybinsk will work on engines, for example. And with other systems, everything will be the same.

The termination of the further construction of ships of the 20380 / 20385 project and the start of the construction of ships of the 20386 project looks exactly like the implementation of such a scheme.



This has a dramatic negative effect on the combat effectiveness of the Navy, because simultaneously with the start of construction of the 20386 project ships, the construction of the 20380 corvettes of the 20385 project and the XNUMX corvettes that are partly unified with them, for which the Navy has a lot of tasks, stops. As a result, the previous ships were built in insufficient quantities, but a new class of more expensive ships is being built, for which, as will be shown below, there are no tasks.

It is quite possible that the decision to launch this project was made not at all for the sake of strengthening the Navy. It is necessary to understand what reasons contributed to the fact that the 20386 project received such a development - it is quite possible that we are talking about the banal “pumping” of design organizations and industrial enterprises with new orders that the Navy itself is not so necessary. In order to be convinced of this, it is necessary to turn to a comparison of this ship with its predecessors still under construction, the development of which was brought about by its appearance.

First, the key feature of the 20386 project ship is its huge price. Currently, the figure in 30 billion rubles is known. And meanwhile, the shipbuilding industry has never met the agreed price of the contract, which means that even without other conditions this price is likely to increase. Thus, the ship is equipped with modular weapons, which will also cost money, and will require special storage conditions on shore, separate personnel for each module, which, if not used, will simply live on naval bases, receiving food and allowance. Unfortunately, no one considers this money, and the sum for the entire service life of the ship will be considerable. It is not difficult to guess that in the end, with the expansion of coastal infrastructure, the price of the ship can reach 35 billions. Is it a lot or a little?

This is the price of two corvettes project 20380. Thus, with the money that the fleet wants to spend on ten ships of the 20386 project, it is possible to build twenty ships of the 20380 project. And this will allow to replace all the rapidly aging obsolete small anti-submarine ships of the 1124 project, of which there are even more 20 units in the ranks of the Navy. Today, these ships are vital to cover the combat duty areas of ballistic-missile submarines (SSBNs), which are a critical component of the Nuclear Determination Force (SNF), and in the case of a “missed” nuclear strike from the US (which cannot be ruled out) These submarines will be the only means of retaliation against the United States, since the other components of the SNF will not survive the massive missile attack. However, instead of the second series of twenty ships of the 20380 or 20385 project, the Navy wants to build ten ships of the 20386 project, which, of course, will not be able to perform those tasks that can be performed by twenty ships with similar capabilities.

The second drawback of the 20386 project is its weaponry. Less modules with removable weaponsThe 20386 project ship is armed almost as much as the twice as cheap 20380 Corvette. The differences are as follows: he has more anti-aircraft missile launchers on the 4 and at the same time there is no towed sonar station available on 20380 and 20385 projects, which can be installed as a removable module. Is it worth doing for this new ship? Of course, it is possible to install on this ship a module with cruise missiles "Caliber", but when it is installed, the possibility of basing a helicopter on the ship disappears!



But it is anti-submarine aviation, including helicopters, is the most dangerous enemy for submarines. It turns out that the fleet command, where the ships of the project 20386 will be based, will be forced to choose between offensive missile and anti-submarine weapons. With a helicopter on board, the Project 20386 ship is almost identical in design to the Project 20380 Corvette at twice the price. In the variant with the modular launcher of the Kyrgyz Republic "Caliber", this ship receives offensive capabilities that the project 20380 corvette does not have, but at the cost of losing the ability to effectively fight submarines.

Even worse, the armament of the new ship looks like in comparison with the 20385 corvettes. This ship has identical to the 20386 project anti-aircraft armament, high-tech integrated mast with radar, universal ship-shooting complex 3С14 for eight Caliber and Onyx cruise missiles, or anti-submarine missile torpedoes. With all this heavy weapons, the ship carries a helicopter. And the commander of the formation, or the commander of the organization to which the ship is subordinate, does not have to choose between its anti-submarine and strike capabilities. At the same time, the 20385 corvette is also cheaper than the 20386 project by at least a third. The situation with the 20386 project looks even more absurd due to the fact that earlier, in the 2013 year, the Navy abandoned the 20385 project corvettes because of their high prices.

It turns out that at least a third more expensive ship with the weakest weaponry is suitable for the fleet, but a cheaper and well-armed one is not suitable? But this is absurd. If it is so critical for the Navy to have the ability to replace the helicopter with a container PU of the Kyrgyz Republic, then you can also put it on the deck of the 20380 corvette by placing control equipment in the helicopter hangar. The same, but twice cheaper.

The third minus of the new ship is the fact that it is of a new type and its unification with other ships of the 2 rank. Instead of diesel engines of the Kolomna Plant, this ship has a gas-turbine power plant with electric propulsion. This is an innovative system, and its maintenance and repair will require retraining of personnel, the formation of stocks of spare parts and accessories, as well as at first will lead to unnecessarily long repairs and maintenance errors. The ship is equipped with a new architecture for the Russian Navy radar, and this will entail problems similar to those with the new GEM. Why is all this necessary?

The fourth problem that the construction of a new ship entails is that it is being built in a single copy, others have not yet been laid down and the contracts for them have not been signed. The seriality of ships is a necessary condition in order to reduce the cost of their production and eliminate the "childhood diseases" that are inevitable for each new technically complex product.

Now the construction program for corvettes of 20380 / 20385 projects has been stopped. Those ships of projects 20380 and 20385, which have already been laid, will be completed, but new ones will not be laid. Instead of them, a single “Daring” is being built, and yet this is the loss of a priceless irreplaceable resource - time. The only resource that will never be returned or replenished. In addition, if the construction of similar-type corvettes of the 20380 and 20385 projects would continue, then it would be possible to use her example to improve the organization of the production process at the shipyards in order to finally start building ships in a reasonable time. For example, the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser Kiev was built in five and a half years — faster than Russia is building small corvettes now. But it was the first Soviet aircraft carrier and one of the most high-tech and sophisticated ships in the world at that time. Regular launches of new projects make it difficult to debug production management at shipyards, and the start of work on the 20386 project also does not contribute to this debugging. Similarly, the termination of orders for ship diesel engines at the Kolomna Plant does not allow the plant to bring these engines to the required level of reliability.

The fifth drawback, and it is very significant, is the very concept of modularity. It is worth recalling that the US Navy, who originally planned to get modular weapons on LCS class ships, failed the idea with the modules. But their experience in naval construction is truly immense. The module has to be stored in special conditions, it is necessary to keep personnel under each module, and, of course, going out to sea with the module, the ship loses its versatility until the next module replacement. All this led the Americans to the idea of ​​the inferiority of modular ships. Is there any reason to believe that we will succeed otherwise? Not. And a comparison of the combat capabilities of the 20385 Corvette and the 20386 project ship already now shows this perfectly.

Are there any advantages in abandoning the already proven and familiar corvettes of the 20380 project (and improved 20385) in favor of the new ship? At first glance, the ship project 20386 has a lot of advantages. It is more seaworthy thanks to more perfect hull lines. He has a greater range. He has a more advanced radar, a fundamentally new type for Russia. It has a significantly reduced ESR. It can operate in the far sea zone according to the conditions of habitability, seaworthiness and range. But why all this?

For the far sea zone in Russia, the 22350 frigates are being built, the most powerful ships of this class in the world, which have absolutely incomparable capabilities with the 20386 project. For the ocean zone need even larger ships with even more powerful weapons.

For the near sea zone, as a replacement for the 1124 IPC project, the 20386 project ships are completely redundant - to perform combat missions in this zone do not need such a range as theirs, you do not need to have modularity, but you need to have a lower price, and the maximum possible anti-submarine capabilities for this price.

In fact, the ship of the project 20386, although it is called the word "corvette", but in terms of its displacement, seaworthiness and range, this is a frigate. And most importantly - it is a frigate and at a price too, and at the same time it is armed at the level of a corvette! Calling this ship a corvette, as the developers and the Navy do, is wrong; it is not. It is simply a complex, high-tech, expensive and weakly armed frigate. If a group of two frigates of the 22350 project theoretically has a chance to fight off a squadron raid (14-16 vehicles) of deck F / A-18 fighter planes armed with a pair of anti-ship or anti-radar missiles each, then a pair of 20386 project ships have no such possibility even in theory. So what tasks will this ship perform in the far sea zone? Why does he need a long range? Maybe it would be worthwhile to build such ships (or at least one such ship) in order to test the concept of modularity in practice? But even if we discard all the facts that speak about the inferiority of modularity in relation to a large ship, now a whole series of patrol ships of the 22160 project are being built. All the pros and cons of modular weapons can be checked on them. On these ships, at least, replaceable modules with weapons do not interfere with the use of a helicopter, and for the ships themselves there is a real task in the fight against piracy. At the same time, they are much cheaper than any corvette or underfrigate.

Ultimately, for this very expensive (for its combat capabilities) and complex ship, in a war with a strong adversary, there will simply be no tasks that would justify its price and complexity, but the construction program of such ships disrupts the construction of simpler, cheaper and more needed corvettes. Which, in the case of the project 20385, also have more powerful weapons.

In order to assess the damage that the project 20386 does to the state, one must also take into account the factor of military exports. The corvette of project 20380 is not ideal, of course, but it has every chance of becoming a de facto standard in the global shipbuilding industry, as before it became the de facto standards in small arms cartridge 7,62x39 and Kalashnikov assault rifle, among tanks T-55 tank, among the heavy infantry weapons anti-aircraft gun ZU-23, etc.

The ship can be equipped with foreign weapons, including rocket, and can also carry a foreign helicopter on board. Structurally, it is possible to install foreign diesel engines on the ship. Moreover, even now it is quite competitive in price in comparison with the corvettes produced in Western countries, and surpasses them in armament. Moreover, for part of the poor, but ambitious states, this ship could become an ersatz frigate performing combat missions in the fight against enemy surface ships, submarines and aircraft. Russia could sell licenses for the production of various versions of this ship, one country for Exoset missiles, another for Chinese missiles, possibly under the arms of the NATO standard, with different artillery systems, radar stations, etc. This would make the corvette as widespread in the world as the aforementioned weapons systems manufactured in the USSR turned out to be.

Such a ship could well be interested in at least Iran, Algeria and Brazil have already shown interest in it. But now this ship has a reputation for a project that its creators themselves refused. Continuation of the serial production of 20380 and 20385 corvettes would improve their export prospects, and very seriously. At the same time, the export prospects of the 20386 ship are very vague - it is unlikely that fleets counting every cent will be ordered by an expensive frigate armed as a corvette, and which cannot use modular weapons and a helicopter at the same time and, moreover, there is no possibility of adaptation. under the desired engine model and familiar weapons.

The final argument against building ships of the 20386 project is technical risk. It is not so easy to create a weapon system from components that have never been built or used before (radar, electric propulsion), while ensuring its reliability and reliability. Most likely, commissioning the 20386 project ship will take more than one year.

So what's the point in building such a ship? Why is it needed?

From the beginning of this project, only Almaz Central Metallurgical Bureau and shipbuilding systems manufacturers win, the Navy loses, and with it the whole country!

Unfortunately, the command of the Navy, apparently, is in the wake of the industry, which means that the Supreme Commander should intervene in the situation. It is necessary to immediately resume production of the corvettes of the project 20380 or 20385. Ideally, 20385, since the fleet is ready to give a lot of money for the 2 rank ship. It is necessary to build 20 of such ships and replace with them the rapidly becoming obsolete small anti-submarine ships of the 1124 project, bringing the latter into reserve (those that still have a resource). The number of built corvettes should ensure full protection of combat patrol areas (together with basic anti-submarine aircraft and fighter aircraft) SSBNs without engaging ships of other classes in the task of protecting the water area. On this large series of ships, it is necessary to finally work out the issues of production planning in the shipbuilding area and related companies, and finally learn how to build ships in a reasonable time. The repeatability of the processes during the construction of a series of unified corvettes will make it possible to perform several attempts at debugging each stage of construction.

Of course, the corvette of the 20380 project is not perfect, however, it is already being upgraded. The ships received the "Redoubt" air defense system, the ships "Retivy" and "Strict", judging by the images on the mortgage boards, will receive an integrated mast, similar to that installed on the 20385 project. Of course, they need to be improved further - to increase the reliability of the engines, increase the torpedo armament ammunition, change the anti-aircraft AK-630M anti-aircraft installation that is inadequate to existing threats for something more effective, start using 100-mm artillery ammunition capable of fighting air targets. But such a modernization is a normal and correct path for the development of a family of warships, significantly more correct than dubious and expensive experiments.

In the end, later, on the next generations of these corvettes, you can try out electric propulsion, and on future frigates and destroyers to use the technological groundwork obtained during the design of the 20386 project ship.

Production of the 20386 project ships must be stopped and henceforth will not be considered for its resumption. As was shown above, the technical innovations used in this ship do not justify themselves for the tasks that the Corvette class ship must perform.

What to do with the already partially built hull? The ideal option, and he is the most "budget" - cut it into metal. Sadly, sometimes such decisions have to be made. AT stories The Navy has a similar negative experience - the construction of the 1123.3 project's anti-submarine cruiser of the 1143 project was stopped, it was dismantled on the stocks, and the Kiev of the XNUMX project was laid in its place. Time has shown the absolute correctness of this tough decision.

As an option, this ship can be completed as an experimental and educational at the same time, for testing electronic equipment, a fundamentally new main power plant, for testing innovative hull lines and evaluating the real value of low-visibility in the radar wavelength range. In addition to the above tasks, it can be used as a training (internal volumes allow you to place a large number of students), and for training helicopter pilots to search for a ship at sea, boarding a ship and flying from it. It may be worth doing with a simplified and abbreviated set of weapons on this ship, since it will not be combat.

The third option, the worst of the permissible, is to build a full-fledged warship in accordance with the project, but in a single copy and simultaneously restarting the construction program (and, preferably, further modernization) of 20380 and / or 20385 corvettes.

The refusal to build tested and studied corvettes of 20380 / 20385 projects in favor of building only ten underfrigates of the 20386 project is completely unacceptable and should be revised.

Best the enemy of the good. Even if we discard the shortcomings of the 20386 project, then its price and technical complexity in comparison with the ships of the 20380 and 20385 projects fully correspond to the above statement. The decision to abandon the corvettes of the 20380 and 20385 projects in favor of the 20386 project was such an error that is worse than a crime. This error needs to be fixed.

It is necessary to cancel the construction program of ten ships of the 20386 project, cancel the decision to stop the production of 20380 and 20385 corvettes and resume their production in at least 20-25 units in addition to the ships already planted, and replace them with 1124 anti-submarine ships.


On a photo - models of corvettes of projects 20380 and 20385. Green color marked PU Reduc "Redut", red - offensive missile weapons.


In modern foreign policy conditions, neither doubtful experiments with combat capability nor delay are acceptable. Unfortunately, the 20386 project combines both, and should be canceled.
383 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +31
    13 March 2018 06: 21
    "It is seaworthy due to more perfect contours of the hull. It has a longer range. It has a more advanced radar, a type fundamentally new for Russia. It has a significantly reduced EPR. It can operate in the far sea zone according to habitability, seaworthiness and range. But why all this? "Why why? That would be respected, and accordingly feared. Although I agree with the author, unification should be in the fleet.
    1. +24
      13 March 2018 06: 30
      Of course, it is possible to install a Caliber cruise missile module on this ship, but when it is installed, the ability to base a helicopter on a ship disappears!

      This is a kind of "modularity" of weapons. When under combat missions, the configuration of military equipment is built
      There is no dispute about unification, it is necessary. This is a headache from the USSR
      1. +15
        13 March 2018 07: 54
        Explanatory article. Unification is not a lot, one of the main requirements when carrying out weapons design is not small; therefore, the requirements of the provisions and GOSTs are banal, and the general customer should monitor this, and this is a specialized institute under the Ministry of Defense developing TK.
        1. +15
          13 March 2018 10: 04
          Quote: maxim947
          Explanatory article

          what Controversial opinion!
          Quote: maxim947
          Unification is not a lot, one of the main requirements when performing weapons design is not small, therefore the requirements of the provisions and GOSTs are not corny

          what Is it possible somewhere to look at GOST for unification?
          1. +2
            13 March 2018 10: 24
            Anywhere this is chipboard.
            Do you doubt it?
            1. +5
              13 March 2018 10: 27
              Quote: maxim947
              Do you doubt it?

              Of course, vague doubts gnaw me!
              Quote: maxim947
              it's chipboard

              Do you have access?
              1. +7
                13 March 2018 13: 13
                Not access, but admission))) For a chipboard, a special admission is not required, just official necessity is enough.
                And why are you having any doubts? Do you think that when creating models of weapons and military equipment do not need to take into account issues of unification? Or you can rephrase it - it's silly not to do it. And believe me - unification is like a separate section in the design.
                1. +8
                  13 March 2018 13: 28
                  Quote: maxim947
                  And why are you having any doubts?

                  Doubts I have on the interpretation of the article !!!!!
                  Quote: maxim947
                  Do you think that when creating models of weapons and military equipment there is no need to take into account issues of unification?

                  Specifically, in 20386, what is UNunification? In armament? In RTR? In a helicopter? In what?
                  Quote: maxim947
                  believe me - unification is like a separate section in the design.

                  I believe and even very much, because KTU on 30-encore, on Kuznetsovo are almost the same with a small degree of modernization!
                  1. +7
                    13 March 2018 13: 58
                    Good. Then explain - why so many projects?
                    The author absolutely clearly noticed - the matter as always is in the money that the design bureaus knock out for additional design. This is again a private opinion which can and should be controversial))
                    1. +22
                      13 March 2018 14: 08
                      Quote: maxim947
                      Then explain - why so many projects?

                      20380 has already outlived itself at the moment (the situation is changing annually), 20385 lost German diesel engines due to sanctions, but acquired Kolomenskie cars with a very bad reputation, and the diesel engine was knocked down, so 20386 appeared!
                      Quote: maxim947
                      The author absolutely clearly noticed

                      laughing The author showed you the tip of the iceberg with a very clear political position with an eye on the previous election and more !!!! You have an irresistible desire to see cuts and corruption everywhere, and the Author played on this, with which I congratulate you hi
                      1. +2
                        13 March 2018 15: 47
                        You have an irresistible desire to see cuts and corruption everywhere, and the Author played on this, with which I congratulate you

                        Nothing like this! I never thought and don’t think so, just with the frequent change of the commander-in-chief of the Navy, etc. leapfrog of some projects went on, the Moscow region constantly changed its requirements, sometimes justified in view of the violation of cooperation, and sometimes not,
                      2. +10
                        13 March 2018 15: 57
                        Quote: Serg65
                        20380 has already outlived itself at the moment (the situation changes annually)

                        The whole problem 20380 is uranium instead of calibers. This issue is being addressed by modernization.
                        Quote: Serg65
                        20385 because of the sanctions, he lost a German diesel engine, but acquired a Kolomenskoye diesel engine with a very bad reputation, and his diesel engine was knocked down, so 20386 appeared!

                        So it is necessary to solve the issue with Kolomna diesels. And do not change them for GTA which are needed on frigates.
                        Quote: Serg65
                        irresistible desire to see cuts and corruption everywhere

                        So the entire construction of the Navy can be described in this way. Sorry, but the construction of corvettes and frigates for 15, 17 years at the cost of a solid cruiser. Laying mutants of type 20386 gtu and electronics at the level of the destroyer, the price is the same at the exit useless vessel.
                    2. +7
                      13 March 2018 15: 53
                      For example, we settled on one project, decided that it was better, and subsequently, during operation, design flaws were revealed. Having several projects, the risk of staying with a broken trough is significantly reduced. Examples of this are fighter aircraft from the time of the World War II, as well as the school of tank building, several design bureaus worked in both directions at once, creating healthy competition, which ultimately benefited the whole country.
                      1. +2
                        13 March 2018 17: 11
                        Quote: Chim_kent
                        Examples of this are fighter aircraft from the time of the World War II, as well as a school of tank building, several design bureaus worked in both directions at once, creating healthy competition, which ultimately benefited the whole country.

                        Very bad examples. And on planes and tanks.
                        If there were other people in the leadership of the NKAP (People’s Commissariat of the Aviation Industry), it is possible that the Red Army would have had completely different aircraft in 1941.
                        There were also many different zigzags with tanks, the T-34 survived almost by accident, Stalin's entourage failed to convince him to kill the T-34 in favor of the T-126.
                      2. +1
                        13 March 2018 18: 18
                        School of tank design? Well, look at the photos of T-64 naturally torn to pieces in the Donbas - no vitality even against the background of T-72.
                        There is no excuse for the zoo, and a fully proven ship (20380) cannot lead the Navy to a broken trough, and design flaws on corvettes are already slowly eliminated, and they are not fatal there.
                      3. +1
                        13 March 2018 20: 53
                        Quote: Chim_kent
                        Having several projects, the risk of staying with a broken trough is significantly reduced.

                        On the contrary. Whether there will be any shortcomings is still unknown, and the fact that the operation of various projects will cause terrible confusion in the maintenance is a fact.
                        Well, one project is easier to upgrade.
                      4. 412
                        +2
                        14 March 2018 22: 06
                        Do not confuse the USSR with the Russian Federation, financial production and scientific capabilities are not comparable.
                        Therefore, almost all projects in the Russian Federation are essentially a budget cut, the more expensive the better. In a country, there can be no other way to win capital in a priori, since the main ideology is "get rich" - like, no difference. Remind the "famous armature"?
                      5. +1
                        16 March 2018 23: 44
                        Quote: Chim_kent
                        Having several projects, the risk of staying with a broken trough is significantly reduced.

                        As an example, you can give bullshit American destroyers and cruisers. When making a bet on the Mk41 cell, they did not guess.
                    3. -2
                      23 August 2018 16: 27
                      Makhim947.- All the "cry of Yaroslavna" articles about ONE (experimental) corvette under construction (under-frigate, as to whom) to overcome the created several "bottlenecks" in today's shipbuilding. Because of the inconsistency, that the school of shipbuilding and the shipbuilding enterprises were covered with a "copper basin" for more than twenty years of collapse, and the new managers and the restored military-industrial complex have not yet matured to the level, and the descent of ships "from the stocks" is needed today; and we have an example of a new building of the sadly mentioned large landing craft "Ivan Gren". To summarize: "childhood diseases of leftism, or rather liberalism," must be overcome, in the midst of mountains of various kinds of crap infested with liberals, like corruption, incompetence, looting and destruction of production bases, etc. ...
                  2. +1
                    13 March 2018 15: 53
                    Quote: Serg65
                    Specifically, in 20386, what is UNunification? In armament? In RTR? In a helicopter? In what?

                    Quote: Serg65
                    I believe and even very much, because KTU on 30-encore, on Kuznetsovo are almost the same with a small degree of modernization!

                    The fact that in 20386 there is a gas turbine instead of a diesel engine. GTU is vital for the construction of frigates. On the corvette they are redundant and again, in the condition of their shortage, it is incorrect to put on the corvette.
                    1. +2
                      14 March 2018 20: 04
                      or maybe just installing a gas turbine will allow you to deploy production and lower the price as a whole? Well, this is in addition to the strange statement that "gas turbine is redundant"
                      1. -1
                        15 March 2018 06: 34
                        Turbines are more expensive than diesel engines. And the final price of the ship shows well what can be saved there.
                  3. +1
                    15 March 2018 11: 56
                    It would be nice if you wrote a refutation article, otherwise for me, as an ordinary layman, this article looks pretty convincing.
          2. +7
            13 March 2018 10: 35
            The point is, in general, not in unification and not in modularity ... these characteristics were indicated as flaws 20386 - the main problem is the price equal to the price of a modern frigate with insignificant combat characteristics ...
            1. +13
              13 March 2018 10: 53
              Quote: seos
              20386 - main problem priceequal to the price of a modern frigate with insignificant combat characteristics

              This your main problem has been leveled for years through 6-7.
              Quote: seos
              with insignificant combat characteristics ...

              I somehow did not notice the insignificant combat characteristics!
              1. +3
                13 March 2018 11: 17
                And what characteristics did you notice? For a ship for 30 billions?
                1. +9
                  13 March 2018 11: 25
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  What characteristics did you notice? For a ship for 30 billion?

                  laughing Yes, it just does not fly
                  1. +5
                    13 March 2018 11: 49
                    Clearly, you're just a cheap troll.
                    1. +8
                      13 March 2018 11: 51
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      you are just a cheap troll.

                      laughing You don’t have enough money to pay my trolling!
                  2. 0
                    13 March 2018 20: 54
                    Quote: Serg65
                    Yes, it just does not fly

                    That is, in principle, agree?
                    1. +1
                      14 March 2018 08: 55
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      That is, in principle, agree?

                      I agree with what?
                      1. 0
                        14 March 2018 21: 19
                        Quote: Serg65
                        I agree with what?

                        Quote: seos
                        20386 - the main problem is the price equal to the price of a modern frigate with insignificant combat characteristics ...
                2. 0
                  14 March 2018 20: 03
                  and who said that the same 20385 is NOT worth 35 billion rubles?
                  1. -1
                    15 March 2018 06: 36
                    near 20 it stands.

                    Judge for yourself. 20380 - 17 yards, this is from the reports of the enterprises of the storiteli already pulled out.
                    On 20385 they added 4 missiles and put instead of X-35 UKKS 3 with 14 and more advanced radar mast.
                    Well, how much can it cost? UKKS, for example 400 000 000 rub. worth it.
                    1. 0
                      24 March 2018 16: 42
                      Everything rests on assumptions, not real prices, since 20386 were laid, then 20385 has real problems
                      1. 0
                        25 March 2018 11: 27
                        The fighters said in plain text that they didn’t like the price of 20385, and that’s why the project would be closed. And three years later, laid 20386 for 29,6 yard.
              2. +1
                13 March 2018 13: 17
                Quote: Serg65
                I somehow did not notice the insignificant combat characteristics!


                and how many times do you need to re-read the article?
                1. +5
                  13 March 2018 13: 18
                  Quote: Artek
                  and how many times do you need to re-read the article?

                  To your displeasure, once was enough wink
          3. +3
            13 March 2018 13: 14
            Quote: Serg65
            Quote: maxim947
            Explanatory article

            what Controversial opinion!
            Quote: maxim947
            Unification is not a lot, one of the main requirements when performing weapons design is not small, therefore the requirements of the provisions and GOSTs are not corny

            what Is it possible somewhere to look at GOST for unification?


            a couple of LSD tablets and you will dream of any guest even on unification.
            1. +6
              13 March 2018 13: 20
              Quote: Artek
              a couple of LSD tablets and you will dream of any guest even on unification.

              what Do you often consume? Although what am I talking about? This is also so noticeable .....
          4. +23
            13 March 2018 14: 14
            The article is controversial. Project 20386, if everything goes according to plan, will be a completely new word in shipbuilding.
            Point by point:
            - The author of IMHO proceeds from an absolutely erroneous concept that one class of Soviet ships should replace another class of Russian ones. At the same time, the development of weapons (for example, laser weapons, electronic warfare, etc.), new tasks, tactics and methods of using modern fleet ships are simply ignored.
            - Recently, many sources (for example Karpenko) instead of the X-35 indicate UKKS. And most likely it will be a new UKKS with an expanded list of missiles.
            - Electric movement (incomplete, as on 20386 is done) is absolutely necessary. Another EMNIP in January at VO was an article on the development of a "nuclear battery" in container sizes (100KW, 300KW, and 1MW). And in the Address, the GDP demonstrated what a laser weapon looks like and said that it is getting ready to enter service. The installation of such a “battery”, together with the latest armament innovations, can make 20386 an excellent escort for 1144.2.
            - The versatility of supply is important. Therefore, each fleet will have one type of corvette. In addition to m. Black Sea Fleet.
            Having no reliable information about the goals, objectives, armament and final shape of the ship, the Author simply shakes the air in the style of "everything was lost." IMHO. hi
            1. +3
              13 March 2018 17: 26
              Quote: Alex777
              - The author of IMHO proceeds from an absolutely erroneous concept that one class of Soviet ships should replace another class of Russian ones. At the same time, the development of weapons (for example, laser weapons, electronic warfare, etc.), new tasks, tactics and methods of using modern fleet ships are simply ignored.

              Think right, comrade. Throw out all kinds of crap such as guns, rockets and gas turbines from 20386. In exchange, put a new electronic warfare, laser and "nuclear battery".
              It will cost some 600 billion per unit, and it can be used to protect the base, anchored in the raid.
              1. +3
                14 March 2018 18: 27
                Oh oh oh... bully Why are you going to throw it all away? Is it yours? No - leave it in place. And missiles and guns do not bother anyone there. And the electronic warhead there is the one that is needed.
                Just think: the president showed a laser? Showed? What did the troops already say? He said.
                But he didn’t say where to the troops. But I assure you that conscripts will not serve them, and carrying such things through the forests also makes no sense.
                bully
                1. 0
                  14 March 2018 22: 28
                  Quote: Alex777
                  Just think: the president showed a laser? Showed? What did the troops already say? He said.

                  Just think, want to install new weapons on the ship? Then decide instead what it will be installed on - the ship has no orphan space and reserve for tonnage.
          5. +5
            13 March 2018 19: 05
            Project 20386 has a key feature, this is the reduction of EPR due to the use of composite materials in the superstructure. In modern conditions, the EPR is a key indicator in ensuring the survivability and effectiveness of combat use. Therefore, the author’s argument about saving is extremely inconclusive. Obviously, this is associated with a slight increase in the cost of construction. All the same, the cost of technological equipment for creating composite forms is much higher than the cost of iron and a welding machine. But if then the project 20386 goes into series, then the savings on metal and installation speed will certainly be significant. It is a pity that the author forgets about this significant factor. Moreover, links to unification are also absolutely irrelevant here, because in all major systems, there will be practically nothing new to be developed for project 20386. He, like his predecessors, will be equipped with standard weapons systems with planned modifications as the development of improved options.
            1. +2
              14 March 2018 08: 20
              But is metal already worth more than high-quality composites?
              For some reason, in all areas, both military and civilian, glass and carbon fiber are used only on "premium" products.
          6. +1
            17 March 2018 01: 32
            GOST 23945.0-80 Unification of products. Basic Provisions (as Amended by N 1)
        2. +15
          13 March 2018 10: 58
          Equipment unification is useful for serial orders, no doubt. 10 cases - this is a small-scale order. Taking into account the period of their construction, guaranteed they will differ in their filling - this is not an infantry machine gun! The author’s hysteria is not very justified, compare in price with a project of twenty years ago ?!
          1. +3
            13 March 2018 11: 15
            Quote: engenius
            10 enclosures are a small batch order

            1 is under construction, 1 is cutting metal, 9 is planned to sign a total 11 contract, and no one knows where the curve will take it!
          2. +14
            13 March 2018 11: 20
            Hysterics? This is not hysterical, it is outrage that the government is going to throw about 350 billion rubles into the wind, buying ships that are too weak for the far sea zone and too expensive and difficult for the near.
            1. +9
              13 March 2018 11: 26
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              This is not hysteria, this is indignation

              Drink valerian and turn on the series
            2. +1
              16 March 2018 21: 08
              the far sea zone needs a completely different fleet, not corvettes. And another question - what tasks will he solve there? Or do we want to impose our will around the world? The near sea zone is vital for the country's defense. And in this very near sea zone we must be stronger than potential opponents. The construction of small ships with serious strike weapons is just what is needed to prevent the enemy from approaching our shores. It is strange that you do not understand this. Once again, Russia is a continental country, not a maritime one. Therefore, its doctrine is focused on the ground forces, and not on the fleet. It is better to have a hundred corvettes with anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons than a couple of AUGs. The battle with the Great Armada proved that small ships can be better than large ones. Especially nowadays.
              1. +1
                16 March 2018 21: 52
                Read the marine doctrine of the Russian Federation.
              2. 0
                20 March 2018 08: 07
                Quote: chingachguc
                Or do we want to impose our will around the world?
                Exactly!
                Quote: chingachguc
                The construction of small ships with serious strike weapons is just what is needed to prevent the enemy from approaching our shores. It’s strange that you don’t understand this.
                First, they will chop off access to our allies, and then they will take care of ourselves! It’s strange that you don’t understand this.!
                Quote: chingachguc
                Once again, Russia is a continental country, not a maritime one.
                Once again: Russia has allies on different continents! Like interests. You don’t seem to understand this ... or ... you want to convince us that "Russia is a regional country"? So the Russians do not agree with this statement!
                Quote: chingachguc
                Therefore, its doctrine is focused on the ground forces, and not on the fleet.
                You did not seem to notice that the main enemy was formed behind us in a puddle. Yes, of course, we have a maritime border with it, but don’t you think that they will attack from there?
                Quote: chingachguc
                It is better to have a hundred corvettes with anti-ship and anti-submarine weapons than a couple of AUGs.
                That's just AUG is better to catch away from the coast!
                1. +5
                  20 March 2018 13: 51
                  Russia is precisely a regional power. My question is: how can Russia, for example, project its strength in Latin America, or in Southeast Asia? We are not, but the USA can. And where are our allies worth protecting? Where do we have vital interests there, such as, for example, in Belarus and Ukraine? Do not make me laugh. In the military doctrine of Russia, the defense of the territory and sovereignty of the country is in first place. And our Navy must fulfill this task first of all. Until this task has been completed (and it has not been fully completed), one cannot even stutter about any other tasks. Very limited resources of the country should be directed to solving these problems, and not to some chimeras out there. But the task is simple: off its shores, the fleet must neutralize any threat.
                  1. +1
                    20 March 2018 15: 03
                    Quote: chingachguc
                    Russia is precisely a regional power.
                    Yeah! All according to the training manual signed by Obama from some sort of hut.
                    Quote: chingachguc
                    And where are our allies worth protecting?
                    First of all, we have interests that we are obliged to protect (in Syria and Iraq, for example)
                    Quote: chingachguc
                    In the military doctrine of Russia, the defense of the territory and sovereignty of the country is in first place.
                    The order of tasks is their importance, but to abandon some, focusing on others, is nonsense!
                    It’s like the screeching of heaps and babies: "feed retirees first, and then military"
                    Quote: Marine Doctrine of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020
                    The goals of the national maritime policy are to realize and protect the interests of the Russian Federation in the World Ocean and to strengthen the position of the Russian Federation among the leading maritime powers.
                    This is enough to indicate that you are mistaken.
                    1. +2
                      20 March 2018 15: 34
                      Simargl aka Andrei, you seem to be a victim of propaganda, but you need to look at the world with clear eyes - only such a view gives an objective picture. Russia has 2,5% of world GDP, and with such a share, Russia simply cannot be a world power. Russia does not have such economic interests in Cuba and Vietnam to fight over them. In the Middle East, Russia has the main interest - the fight against Islamic fundamentalism, and all other goals are concomitant, they seem to be a bonus. Well, because of the weakness of our economy, we cannot even turn Turkey to our side, we cannot tie it to our market in such a way that Turkey becomes our faithful ally. And we can offer the Arabs nothing but weapons and bread (for now). And China can. And the states can. Developing the country's economic potential (primarily industrial) is the path that can really make Russia a key global player. Then money will appear on the ocean fleet.
                      1. +7
                        20 March 2018 15: 46
                        Quote: chingachguc
                        Russia has 2,5% of world GDP, and with such a share, Russia simply cannot be a world power

                        Check out the comparison.
                        There, by the way, the shares of the service sector in GDP are indicated quite clearly for themselves.
                      2. +2
                        20 March 2018 16: 21
                        Quote: chingachguc
                        you are like a victim of propaganda
                        You are sure?
                        Quote: chingachguc
                        one must look at the world with clear eyes - only such a view gives an objective picture.
                        Correctly! And also from different sides and compare the facts! You, I see, can do it badly.
                        Quote: chingachguc
                        Russia has 2,5% of world GDP, and with such a share, Russia simply cannot be a world power.
                        Was it Obama from some barracks who said letting in a stingy tear?
                        Quote: chingachguc
                        Russia does not have such economic interests in Cuba and Vietnam to fight over them.
                        For that is, in Syria, Iraq, Venezuela, Nicaragua. However, you need to be able to show strength for any interests, otherwise you will be squeezed out from everywhere: first from the most profitable directions, and then from the rest, but how to start bending we will lose sovereignty.
                        Quote: chingachguc
                        In the Middle East, Russia has the main interest - the fight against Islamic fundamentalism, and all other goals are concomitant, they seem to be a bonus
                        You want a consequence with a reason to swap places! The reason fundamentalism appeared there is minerals and the pipe! If there were no economic interests there, they would live their own lives!
                        But someone didn’t like that they were not “friends” with them.
                        Quote: chingachguc
                        Well, because of the weakness of our economy, we cannot even turn Turkey to our side
                        Like BE ... Turkey itself has a completely normal economy, at the level of developed countries! It’s not possible to talk to her like a satellite - out there, even snarls sometimes in the USA. And you need to consider that Turkey is very strongly tied to NATO.
                        Quote: chingachguc
                        And we can offer the Arabs nothing but weapons and bread
                        In fact, we can offer everything except exotic fruits!
                        How will we protect our investments and merchants?
                        Quote: chingachguc
                        Developing the country's economic potential (primarily industrial) is the path that can really make Russia a key global player.
                        Only here we cannot develop it without the possibility of protecting interests - they won’t give it easy!
                        We have two ways to increase potential: increase the population by a factor of 5, or trade with countries that have, in total, a population of a billion (possibly less, but with more developed ones) and more. There are no other ways. At what not only with us, but also with our sworn friends! Sales markets and sources of minerals are over! For them, and there is a war (not always cold, please note!).
                        You need to be able to protect not only the territory, but also the interests! Our "partners" practically do not need to protect the territory, but they know how to protect interests very well, and therefore they can spend as much as they want!
                  2. 0
                    31 July 2019 19: 28
                    Yes, this is a "strong statement" that Russia is a regional power, not a global one. It is strange that other countries, including the United States, do not know about this and they have to reckon with Russia, with its might of the armed forces. You would have announced louder there at your leisure.
          3. +6
            13 March 2018 16: 23
            I’m at VO, as a commentator - it’s quite right now ... but! there are articles that are called "cheers_patriots", there are articles from the evil one - to write so that it’s, and there, according to the comments and Ability of reaction, put another jelly, but it’s thicker, but still water, but there’s also this one! - in the presence of more or less awareness, an explicit vector according to the type: "yes to ... is it necessary? !!!"
            Maybe the venerable author will tell you - on which (paper, cardboard, plywood, for example, Raptor boats) full-scale mock-ups to work out ideas, functionality, performance (in time and various conditions)? I will not continue the questionnaire - it makes no sense! because unification with ships of outdated series complete nonsense !!! The establishment of logistics, the development of even a small coastal fleet, will also cost more than in 1970 ...
            [quote = Alex777: "Having no reliable information about the goals, objectives, weapons and the final appearance of the ship, the author simply shakes the air in the style of" everything was lost ""
            plus to the above - the experimental base (single order) and most likely not only for existing weapons and power plant ... something like that, chtoli ...
        3. +1
          13 March 2018 20: 16
          What to do with an already partially built hull? The ideal option, and it’s the most "budget" - cut it into metal.
          The author overdid it. First, the author writes that they are building for a long time, but here the building is ready and offers to cut it. It is very similar to a custom article lobbying the construction in the interests of certain enterprises. Although the projects 20380 and 20385 I also like more.
      2. +9
        13 March 2018 11: 37
        For such a modularity of the authors should be put to the wall. On the boat of the 22160 project, the modules and the helicopter could be combined, and 1500 tons of it all.

        All tasks of a 2 rank warship in wartime are limited to zones where there is a fighter cover. And this coastal waters.

        So for coastal waters there are more useful two ships with some restrictions on seaworthiness than one, with the same or weaker armament, but twice as expensive, and with the ability to go on open seas unnecessary in war.
      3. +14
        13 March 2018 12: 39
        Quote: Chertt
        under combat missions, the configuration of military equipment is built
        With "modularity" rushed V.V. Chirkov. I wanted cheap and cheerful, i.e. "formidable" ... The idea was simple to disgrace, as with a computer with an open architecture: hook on a new block - and get a new quality. Therefore, everything that was possible was shoved into this project: patrolling and guarding the pipe, accompanied by tankers in the piracy zone, here you and UKNK 3M14 under Caliber Onyx and K *. Well, of course, and air defense through the bow "Redoubt", and anti-aircraft defense with the Minotaur-M and 2x4 PK "Pack-NK" in addition to the Ka-27 / 29, etc. And all this stuffed into the 2,5 thousand tons of displacement ... did not work, so W = 3400т. The crew of all 80 people ...
        And for all this pleasure - 20 billion wooden. Not sickly, frankly.
        But here is what attracts me to this “mini Zumvolte”:
        - you can put on board a powerful missile defense / air defense of the type of wetted C-400 / 500 - and plug the missile-dangerous direction, following the example of the Yankees;
        - you need to strike at missile defense bases in Europe - ship Caliber or Zircon - and go!
        - you need to plug the boundary of the PLO - we add a couple of helicopters and a bunch of UAVs of the Horizon type and go to the line, sow the strip of probable adversary movement.
        Not enough 10 ones are a fact. But for now, we are doing what we can. And according to the combat capabilities of the “torpedo” of WWII times, it could calmly deal with the Japanese battleship in the Tsushima battle ... Although the displacement is very different.
        IMHO.
        1. +2
          13 March 2018 13: 19
          To accompany tankers, simple, cheap, also modular and more or less successful patrol ships of the 22160 project are being built.
          Everything else is not about the 20386 project, there is no UKS, there are not enough anti-aircraft missiles like any corvette - 16 pcs.
          In the PLO, the old 20385 has many times more features at a lower price.
          1. +3
            13 March 2018 14: 25
            On 22160 self-defense air defense. For free, he doesn’t need a tanker.
            Generally for other purposes, a boat. hi
            1. 0
              13 March 2018 15: 03
              Are you reading a thread that is commenting?
              1. +1
                14 March 2018 19: 11
                Once you do not understand, I repeat:
                A tanker first needs air defense protection. 22160 will not give it.
                UKKS on 20386 - will be,
                Air defense on the nose 20386 - for 9M100 missiles, and there will be 64 of them. hi
                1. +1
                  14 March 2018 21: 20
                  Quote: Alex777
                  A tanker first needs air defense protection.

                  From the pirates?
                2. 0
                  15 March 2018 06: 37
                  Re-read the first comment, comrade there fantasizes on protecting the tanker from PIRATES.

                  Do you understand? Read what you comment.
                  The air defense of the 20385 is exactly the same as that of the 20386, the price is lower by at least a third.
          2. +5
            13 March 2018 20: 41
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Everything else is not about the 20386 project, there is no UKS, there are not enough anti-aircraft missiles like any corvette - 16 pcs.

            Colleague, you at least read something around the topic ... Well, for example, at least this: http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-887.html
            in the armament section, the first line ...
            UKKS complex 3C-14 "Caliber-NK" with missiles "Caliber" and "Onyx", 1 x 8 PUVP

            This site can be trusted, it is not a Gridasov balobok. Yes
            1. -1
              14 March 2018 07: 17
              I saw both the drawings and models of this ship. There is no UKSC, it is armed with X-35 missiles.
              "Kalib" there is placed only in the container module, mounted on a helicopter lift.
              There is a picture in the article.

              And UKKS stands on the 20385 project - just on the one that was hacked for the sake of the 20386 criticized here.
            2. 0
              15 March 2018 14: 18
              http://russianships.info/today/
              Here is a no less interesting site
        2. +4
          13 March 2018 16: 35
          Again - having assembled a squadron of the same type but differently equipped (this is already a matter of unifying the supply-blanks) of combat units capable of performing a set of actions from attack to covering the attackers, the “gauge” one will be closed “s-500th” and a pair of anti-submarine will fall , you can solve almost any problem of an isolated group! At the same time (as happens in a war) having lost one or two, we do not lose the opportunity to replace the module and create another group ... maybe I'm wrong about that ... though ...
          1. +1
            13 March 2018 18: 22
            So what you wrote is just a bunch of almost the same type of corvettes of 20380 and 20385 projects. But not a mutant, who needs to go to the base, in order to replace the helicopter with UHSA, and even from the DMZ.
            1. +1
              16 March 2018 23: 49
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              But not a mutant who needs to go to the base to replace the helicopter with UKKS, and even from DMZ.

              What do you want? Modular ships for any rearm will be at the base.
              1. +1
                17 March 2018 13: 16
                And now the question - why this hemorrhoids, when you can do without him? And cheaper?
                1. +1
                  17 March 2018 13: 20
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  And now the question - why this hemorrhoids, when you can do without him? And cheaper?

                  To quickly increase the required number of ships of the desired type.
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  And cheaper?

                  Where is cheaper? Cheaper ships are obsolete projects, regardless of specialization.
      4. 0
        14 March 2018 19: 57
        We need to recall the ships of the Soviet period, when huge vessels with a displacement of 8 tons could perfectly fight the enemy’s submarines, but the enemy’s surface ships were already weak)
      5. +2
        15 March 2018 21: 08
        Respected Chertt, problems with unification were in times of the Russian Empire. And if the difference for the Black Sea and Baltic projects can still be understood, then how can one explain the diversity, for example, in the Baltic “novices”? Russian and German turbines initially did not fit them for parts. Even screw calculations were done almost every time individually. And in all this I see some kind of genetic Russian trait multiplied by the machinations of enemies.
      6. 0
        20 October 2018 01: 53
        Finally, a reasonable grain. The first ship of the project 20386, dubbed the "Daring" is the corvette of the future. It is a kind of intermediate class between a patrol ship and a full-fledged frigate. As a result, although the “Daring” ship formally belongs to the class of corvettes, in its characteristics it looks more like a full-fledged destroyer.
    2. +5
      13 March 2018 23: 21
      Here the main question to which no one can give an answer ... FOR WHAT WE NEED FOR THE FLEET ...
      And without answering the MAIN question, we will continue to manufacture expensive toys ..
      1. +1
        14 March 2018 07: 20
        In order of priority:

        1. Nuclear deterrence
        2. Ensuring nuclear deterrence (corvettes, underwater warning, demining of harbors, naval air defense systems, PLO aircraft, etc.)
        3. Defense of the country against attacks from the sea (including the hunt for enemy SSBNs in the ocean)
        4. Provision of military transport (Syria)
        5. Army support in the war (landing)
        6. Non-nuclear deterrence
        7. The projection of force abroad, the application of counterstrikes to the enemy from the sea.
      2. 0
        20 October 2018 02: 06
        This question was answered by Peter 1. It's amazing that you still don't know the answer. The idea of ​​Russia as a "land power" for which the navy is of secondary importance is based on a misunderstanding of Russia's geopolitical position as a trans-mainland power created by an aquatic civilization. And the assertion that the use of the fleet for Russia was allegedly proved by military history is based on a misunderstanding. More precisely, on two misunderstandings associated with ignorance of the general military and naval history and with a non-systemic, selective perception of Russian military history. I do not think that you have any idea about this if you are tormented by such a question. You should look at the map of Russia. The total length of the state border of Russia is 60 km, including land (on the mainland) - 932 km (of which river and lake - 22 km, land proper - 125 km), and sea - 7616 km
    3. +1
      14 March 2018 20: 15
      But unification should not concern the newest and the most perfect, and not that which is already outdated ...
  2. +8
    13 March 2018 06: 21
    the appetites of the "military" officials are growing, they need to be fed, because it looks like a typical development of the military budget ...
    1. +9
      13 March 2018 06: 37
      Ships cannot quantitatively increase production; therefore, new types are riveted for proper nutrition. And beautiful INNOVATION and money.
      1. +11
        13 March 2018 09: 57
        Quote: andr327
        Shipbuilders cannot increase production quantitatively, so new types are riveted for proper nutrition

        am To shoot, to shoot all shipbuilders to a single fen !!!! !!!! and to collect new Yes
        1. 0
          13 March 2018 10: 36
          The same problem of unification in armored cars .... the same shoot everyone? wassat
          1. +9
            13 March 2018 10: 56
            Quote: seos
            The same problem of unification in armored cars .... the same shoot everyone?

            bully Of course! And put the general designer ..... well, at least here you are! Can you handle it?
            1. +2
              13 March 2018 10: 59
              Okay, persuaded ... all for your sake ...
        2. 0
          15 March 2018 18: 36
          Quote: Serg65
          To shoot, to shoot all shipbuilders to a fucking damn thing !!!!.

          generally negligent shipbuilders-drown ..... usually in the hole ....
      2. -1
        13 March 2018 11: 21
        Why can not quantify? Instead of the "Daring" project, you would have put the 20385 project - that's your amount. And preferably three or five, good places.
        1. +7
          13 March 2018 14: 29
          Are you on the SF, in the winter, at sea went out on a 2500t boat? I guess not.
          And at 20385 there were supposed to be German diesels. Where are they? There are none of them. hi
          1. +7
            13 March 2018 14: 36
            Quote: Alex777
            You are on the SF, in winter

            laughing He has a sofa with no ice belt and limited seaworthiness!
          2. +1
            13 March 2018 15: 06
            How do you think the IPN of the 1124 project is used at the SF? And they are there, and they perform tasks precisely at sea. With a displacement of 900 tons, if that.
            1. 0
              14 March 2018 18: 21
              It's time to change this situation. There is nothing good in it. hi
              1. 0
                15 March 2018 18: 10
                That is, you pereobulsya and now you have no doubt that on the ship in 2500 tons you can go to sea, right?

                20380 is a change of situation.
                1. +1
                  28 March 2018 12: 51
                  It is possible on the longboat. Only what tasks do you solve other than fishing? hi
                  1. 0
                    28 March 2018 21: 24
                    Well, the corvette is far from being caught fish from the depths.
          3. +1
            13 March 2018 16: 42
            And here is the main reason (probably) why this project is launched!
            Counter-question to the authors of the phrase: Date five, but three! How much do you know of the carrier ships on which the Sineva was tested? ... and from those not sunken? ... and from the cheaper ones? ... (if only because of the loss of trained personnel and combat! Stuffing, except for the experimental one)
    2. +6
      13 March 2018 08: 20
      Do not want to feed your army - you will feed someone else's
      1. jjj
        +2
        13 March 2018 10: 23
        When building a fleet, you need to imagine what it will be like in half a century. Or continue to keep watch on each mechanism? In fact, what is being built may not be needed by anyone in fifteen years
      2. +2
        13 March 2018 10: 37
        Here we are not talking about feed for the army, but about corruption and lobbying for interests ..
        1. +5
          13 March 2018 10: 58
          Quote: seos
          Here we are not talking about feed for the army, but about corruption and lobbying for interests ..

          Any specific facts? Surname? Rollback amounts?
          1. +2
            13 March 2018 11: 05
            The fact is that 3 years ago, representatives of the Moscow Region discussed the inconsistency of the cost of the corvette 20385 with its characteristics ... in terms of cost it was comparable to the frigate of project 11356 (those that are without engines now) and then the rejection of these corvettes was clearly argued ... It is visible someone sold this project and the next 20386 ..
            It’s clear that this is not evidence, but the situation clearly smells bad than something ...
            1. +4
              13 March 2018 11: 24
              Even worse, the military refused 20385 on 2013 because it is expensive, and three years later, on 2016, 20386 was laid, which is weaker in armament and a third more expensive.
            2. +10
              13 March 2018 11: 24
              Quote: seos
              Seen someone sold this project

              In my opinion, the sailors themselves were selling themselves, they are completely impressed by the cruising range, autonomy, quite reliable power plant, the composition of the armament and the very ....... modularity wink ! To have in KUG a couple of three PLO ships, three or four strike ships, and all this in one project !!! It is quite normal unification !!!
              Quote: seos
              it smells bad ...

              laughing There are two options ... figure out where the smell is or put on a gas mask wink
              1. 0
                13 March 2018 23: 03
                Bravo! You are clearly in shock. Burning is not childish.
          2. 0
            14 March 2018 08: 27
            Specific facts - all experimental weapons programs.
            Surnames - the entire commanding structure of the MO.
            Amounts - 10% of the cost of the program. And these are not kickbacks, but the official share in financing (there was evidence that the share increased to 15%, but we will consider it to a minimum).
      3. +1
        13 March 2018 11: 27
        Quote: sergei_55
        Do not want to feed your army - you will feed someone else's

        Toonko spotted ....
    3. +1
      13 March 2018 17: 42
      Quote: Volka
      the appetites of "military" officials are growing, they need to be fed,

      at all times the navy from "under the spitz" wanted much more than necessary. All this reminds me of the sunset times of RI (1900-1905), when at the Pacific Fleet there was such a variety of ships (and from the power plant to the guns, the first ship of the series was radically different from the subsequent ones) that they were "diva" ...
      1. +1
        13 March 2018 18: 22
        And the final will be the same, by the way.
  3. +13
    13 March 2018 07: 23
    Wow, how much the author has scribbled, but did not write the most important thing: what kind of fee did you receive for this article? How tired of me everywhere are these custom-made articles paid by financial tycoons that promote my own. Yours is always better, because money is going into your pocket, but what is produced by another enterprise must be denigrated.
    Unfortunately, at the moment they are building what they can, and with new, deeply damp systems you can tumbling endlessly and even be left without ships that the country currently needs as air.
    1. avt
      +10
      13 March 2018 08: 49
      Quote: Lynx33
      Wow, how much the author has scribbled, but did not write the most important

      Yeah - What was that?
      Quote: oracul
      What was the goal of the author?

      what Probably hysteria about unification. Or unify hysteria. And the main thing
      The ideal option, and it’s the most "budget" - cut it into metal.
      1. +6
        13 March 2018 09: 00
        Quote: avt
        Probably hysteria about unification. Or unify the tantrum

        laughing good
      2. +7
        13 March 2018 10: 09
        hi Greetings to the Great White Shark!
        Quote: avt
        Probably hysteria about unification. Or unify hysteria. And the main thing

        laughing Well, finally, you are back in the image of the Great Cynic familiar to everyone !!! And then lately it seemed to me that someone under your nickname in VO is indulging recourse
        1. avt
          +5
          13 March 2018 10: 51
          Quote: Serg65
          time it seemed to me that someone under your nickname in VO is indulging

          hi Yes, I tranglukuyu time impostors! bully The topics were serious, well, about China, there is no point in hooling around bully or some kind of education comes up, like today about the Ice Campaign and Schastny.
          1. +4
            13 March 2018 10: 59
            Quote: avt
            as today about the Ice campaign and Schastny.

            laughing Read-s, read-s!
            1. avt
              +2
              13 March 2018 14: 18
              Quote: Serg65
              Read-s, read-s!

              It's a shame that no one really painted this trip thoughtfully, without exaltation, taking into account the political realities of the time. And there it was so coolly involved, such passions were boiling, and from a technical point of view, in those conditions, on that material and technical base, it was really a feat.
              1. +3
                13 March 2018 15: 00
                Quote: avt
                It's a shame that no one really painted

                I agree, in those days a lot of interesting things were when you start to understand and go nuts how much different from what I knew before! Take the Kronstadt rebellion, if not for Raskolnikov, how many people were left alive or the 26 Baku commissars — the real story is radically different from the official one!
        2. +3
          14 March 2018 06: 46
          You can also call me a Tsynik, but I will give you a simple example: pick up articles of 2, 3 years ago about electronic warfare equipment and read about their topics. Everywhere weep and groan that Russia has lagged behind the rest of the world in this area for centuries. And suddenly, lo and behold !! A variety of electronic warfare began to enter the troops and we are already ahead of the rest. What was it? I will answer: the usual paid articles of financially interested businessmen who control the production of these very systems. Those. the authors of these misinforming statues deliberately caused a stir in the media in order to indirectly put pressure on officials determining the state order. This article is from the same area.
      3. +5
        13 March 2018 11: 42
        Quote: avt
        Probably hysteria about unification. Or unify hysteria. And the main thing

        So I came to this conclusion. The phrase especially woke me
        The ideal option, and it’s the most "budget" - cut it into metal. Regrettably, sometimes such decisions have to be made.

        Well, exactly Budyonny with Chapai in one bottle.
    2. +2
      13 March 2018 10: 40
      These three projects are of one design bureau, and this design bureau and the plant will not lose anything if they build 20386 corvette 20385 for the place, while 20385 has an advantage in armament and is more universal ... at a price 2 times cheaper sad
      1. -1
        13 March 2018 11: 25
        But Almaz Central Design Bureau great warms hands on the new project.
    3. 0
      13 March 2018 16: 48
      Five pluses !!! BUT!!!
      As someone said above: "To the wall ..." and, in my opinion, it is clear that the author of the article will head this list! at least should.
  4. +1
    13 March 2018 07: 35
    And in general, I believe that at the moment it is necessary to build not fancy ships, but cheap barges, on the decks of which containers with gauges are welded and one or two universal carapace for self-defense.
    1. +10
      13 March 2018 10: 11
      Quote: Lynx33
      at the moment, it’s not necessary to build sophisticated ships, but cheap barges, on the decks of which containers with gauges are welded and one or two universal shells for self-defense.

      laughing Why protect them, my friend ??? Fill the holds with foam and figs who will drown your barges !!! wink
      1. +6
        13 March 2018 13: 36
        Quote: Serg65
        Fill the holds with foam and figs who will drown your barges !!!

        By the way, if there is polystyrene foam, why are there any other barges?
        1. +5
          13 March 2018 13: 57
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          By the way, if there is polystyrene foam, why are there any other barges?

          what It’s problematic to put Caliber on polystyrene!
          1. 0
            13 March 2018 14: 50
            Quote: Serg65
            and polystyrene Gauges is problematic to put!

            And on the barges, then, is it possible? laughing hi
      2. +2
        13 March 2018 16: 50
        laughing laughing laughing good drinks Well, yes you do !!! Serg65
      3. 0
        14 March 2018 22: 31
        Quote: Serg65
        Fill the holds with foam and figs who will drown your barges !!!

        Why burn them if they burn themselves?
    2. +1
      13 March 2018 10: 42
      The Chinese use artificial islands for these purposes ...
  5. +1
    13 March 2018 07: 39
    What was the goal of the author? Solve problems to help resolve them. For this, publishing on the Internet is not suitable. To cast doubt on the project is closer, especially since there is a call to cancel it. And finally, a legal way to bring to interested parties some technical and tactical data about the object of interest to them. In addition, it is not excluded, on the contrary, encouraged to connect real experts to the discussion. The buzz for analysts.
    1. +6
      13 March 2018 10: 12
      Quote: oracul
      What was the goal of the author?

      But such
      Quote: avt
      Probably hysteria about unification. Or unify the tantrum

      wink
  6. 0
    13 March 2018 08: 04
    Well, in the USA they don’t understand that with 35 they didn’t quite succeed. But they have the opportunity to sell it voluntarily and forcibly to the whole world. It's not cheap to sell like that. So why not rivet it?
    Are our shipbuilders dumber? Come on. Only now they will sell to our Navy, well, the difference is only in scale.
    1. 0
      14 March 2018 08: 45
      Quote: groks
      Well, in the USA they don’t understand that with 35 they didn’t quite succeed. But they have the opportunity to sell it voluntarily and forcibly to the whole world. It's not cheap to sell like that. So why not rivet it?

      And what didn’t work out? In fact, in a series of 3 different aircraft - a light fighter-bomber, supersonic SKVP (the only serial in the world) and a multi-purpose deck. Maybe not a child prodigy, but a very good plane.
      Forced no one is selling - all program participants fit into it voluntarily, because they knew that the development themselves would not be pulled. Maybe some Indians are forced to buy? No, they themselves beg. The French and Germans did not want to, now they are trying to catch up with everyone - they decided to develop their own 5th generation fighter.
      About “not cheap” is generally ridiculous - at the end of 2017, the F-35A costs $ 80 million. At the level of 4th generation fighters. The cost of a flight hour is at the F-16 level.
      1. 0
        14 March 2018 10: 35
        It seems to 85 just going to shake. But the fact is that he is not fully completed, i.e. it turns out that all buyers will work as testers. For free. Conceptually, this is a global war plane and is not very applicable in local conflicts. Those. practically - show off is more expensive than real application.
        And of course voluntarily. Like the Afghans on the M-16 voluntarily.
        1. 0
          14 March 2018 13: 01
          85 is the top grade. The program manager announced about 80-85 million.
          Only deck option C has not been finalized.
          A and B reached operational readiness. In our country, this is called adoption. And these options are already coming to foreign customers.
          And why is it not applicable in local conflicts? Can’t throw bombs like the F-16, or launch rockets? He can do everything, and a little more.
          I don’t know how M-16s are for Afghans, but the same petty Europeans are actively debating whether to buy or not. And they may well refuse. Not so much they funded the program (with the exception of the UK, which really wanted the vertical and developed an engine for it).
          1. +1
            14 March 2018 14: 25
            Yes, everything is fine, but they often swear at the tricks of a very complex automation. And sometimes it’s not very difficult to buck.
            He has a bias precisely in the version of global war. For 99% of the possible (!) Databases, neither the stealth, nor the superradar, nor the super-automaton, stuck anywhere. But over-maneuverability at low speeds - may be in demand even tomorrow. Those. our 57 seems to be more practical. But they still buy 35.
            1. 0
              14 March 2018 15: 10
              Any new product may have jambs. But the status of adoption into service indicates that they are not critical. One of the serial ones, it’s already flown over 1000+ hours. More than all the Black Sea Fleet aviation in 2017.
              And what is this bias? The plane solves its tasks. And the "excessive" features do not interfere, but may come in handy in the future. Who knows what threats will be in 20-30 years? Can terrorists get modern aviation? Or will it be necessary to fight China? And in minor conflicts, the enemy has air defense, see recent events in Syria.
              Super-maneuverability is needed only to counter a serious air enemy in close air combat. That is, also for global war (well, and for spectacular performances at an air show). And it will not be needed if the enemy cannot detect the plane before it is destroyed.
              1. +1
                14 March 2018 15: 55
                In 20 already 6-7-8 generation will be. In Syria, the devil knows what’s going on. If it is true that the Syrians got the Israeli 35, then this is such a failure that there is nowhere else. The project can be scrapped.
                Over-maneuverability in a battle with the same apparatus, it’s like a pistol at a rocket launcher, probably. Or a tanker. But come low, make a “cobra”, shoot a group of partisans from the top point and go further on the ultra-small, and go under 90 gr. at the rate.
                1. 0
                  15 March 2018 08: 16
                  Quote: groks
                  In 20 already, 6-7-8 generation will be

                  Will not be. More than 20 years have gone into the development of the 5th generation, the sixth will take about 50 years, if you rely on the stated criteria, and some generally unsolvable on existing technologies. And count how many years the fourth generation has been in operation? The fifth will serve even longer.
                  Quote: groks
                  If it is true that the Syrians got the Israeli 35, then this is such a failure that there is nowhere else. The project can be scrapped.

                  Yes, there was no such thing. It’s just that air defense shot at someone there. And even if shot down, what is the failure? F-117s were also shot down, but its relative effectiveness in Iraq and Yugoslavia is much higher than that of others.
                  Quote: groks
                  But come low, make a “cobra”, shoot a group of partisans from the top point and go further on the ultra-small, and go under 90 gr. at the rate.

                  Aim and fire in fractions of a second while the target is in the range of the weapon? Fantasy.
                  1. +1
                    15 March 2018 08: 23
                    Why for shares? Yes, even from a standing plane.
                    1. 0
                      15 March 2018 08: 24
                      For how long, in your opinion, can a plane hover motionless, nose down, engines up?
                      1. 0
                        15 March 2018 09: 43
                        And why do we need the Bell, Cobra, Leaf, ...? How are the elements of air combat? So at such heights and speeds it does not happen.
                  2. +1
                    16 March 2018 04: 32
                    Quote: Snakebyte
                    F-117s were also shot down, but its relative effectiveness in Iraq and Yugoslavia is much higher than that of others.

                    And so the F117 was removed from service although everything else flies. And the F-22 has done little.
                    Not a single subspecies of the unfinished F35 in the USA has been adopted yet. And most likely only the F35A will be adopted.
                    1. +2
                      16 March 2018 04: 54
                      35 = e made its first sortie (who shot it in Syria?), And it is in full operational readiness. Do not make tales ... And look at the demand indicators for the product, preferably without yelling about the dictates of the states (Zakharova is enough). Does Russia have a squadron of combat-ready Su 57? No, that's what it is about. Shitting is easier than producing something real and new ... Although no, it’s even easier to promise it (a couple of prototypes can be included in the presidential speech).
                      1. 0
                        16 March 2018 05: 05
                        Whose 35th and according to whose "data"? Demand plummeted. The dictatorship of the states is enough, Macaron an hour later began to contradict his own government. The cries of a citizen of May indicating where the queen should go and where not, will end when Abramovich sells the Chelsea to the Chinese or Vietnamese for a ruble and a yellow star comes to your British football.
                      2. 0
                        16 March 2018 08: 57
                        Shahno
                        What do you argue with this pseudo-patriot that the Su-25 cannot distinguish from the MiG-25? How does he know the equality between their operational readiness and the adoption by us?
                      3. 0
                        17 March 2018 04: 22
                        Shahno
                        something delayed news
                        Snakebyte - A real citizen of Russia and the US pomp burned on the "Svidomo" 7000 ceiling for the Su-25, and now thinking up excuses for himself, is furious. laughing
  7. +4
    13 March 2018 08: 58
    as the other components of the strategic nuclear forces are not likely to survive a massive missile strike


    That's nonsense. There are hundreds of missiles all over the country, and submarines are good if 2 is at sea.

    If it is so critical for the Navy to be able to replace a helicopter with a container launcher of the Kyrgyz Republic


    If absolutely in a good way, then no cruise missiles on boats are needed at all. A barge with hundreds of launchers off the coast of Crimea will be cheaper and more practical, especially at terrible ranges of these missiles.

    Ships must operate at sea, while the tasks of strategic shelling should be completely transferred to the Air Force and missile forces.

    For example, the Kiev heavy carrier cruiser was built in five and a half years - faster than Russia is now building small corvettes.


    It would be better if they did not even begin to design this trough, like the Yak-38, but it’s good when the state has money without an account.

    among the tanks the T-55 tank


    T-55 was 2 times cheaper than the T-72, but only the years to the 80s ended with its advantages. 10 MJ, the draft of the new tanks of that time would still have been difficult for the project to have, even though they had won back in Afghanistan, even the RPG-7 were in short supply from the spirits. The bottom line is that when the T-54 design was brought to its logical end, the units were already more serious, both with us and with NATO.
    1. +5
      13 March 2018 13: 37
      Quote: EvilLion
      That's nonsense. There are hundreds of missiles all over the country, and submarines are good if 2 is at sea.

      On SSBN more than 40% of all strategic nuclear forces, if anything
  8. +2
    13 March 2018 09: 09
    In fact, 20386 is, of course, a bad option, but 20380 and 20385 are almost the same stupid.
    1. +6
      13 March 2018 10: 17
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      In fact, 20386 is, of course, a bad option.

      hi Welcome Andrew!
      Two factors that suit me in this project are the range of 5000 miles and the autonomy of 30 days! These two factors cover all imaginary and non-imaginary flaws!
      1. 0
        13 March 2018 13: 38
        Good day to you too! hi
        Quote: Serg65
        Two factors that suit me in this project are the range of 5000 miles and the autonomy of 30 days!

        that's how it is, but 30 billion !!!
        1. +4
          13 March 2018 13: 59
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          that's how it is, but 30 billion !!!

          Well, this is how to argue about the need for SU-57, if there is a cheaper SU - 35 laughing
          1. +1
            13 March 2018 14: 15
            Well, Su-57 surpasses Su-35 in its combat capabilities, and 20386 surpasses 20380 only in that the ship of the second rank is not needed, and when performing tasks in the near sea zone their capabilities are the same, just the price of 20386 is twice as high.
          2. +3
            13 March 2018 14: 51
            Quote: Serg65
            Well, this is how to argue about the need for SU-57, if there is a cheaper SU - 35

            Nope. This is to the question that we need normal control / protection ships of the water area, and not a prodigy at the price of a missile cruiser :)))
            1. -1
              13 March 2018 15: 08
              Well, what do you dislike about 20380 in this capacity? Everything in it is at a minimum, if you drop the displacement down, then you need to remove the helicopter, if you remove the Redut, then accidentally missed by Orion or Poseidon aircraft will have nothing to throw.
              RCC there is at a minimum, and the ammunition of the "Package" would generally increase.
              Minimum ship.
            2. +6
              14 March 2018 08: 51
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              Nope. This is to the question that we need normal control / protection ships of the water area, and not a prodigy at the price of a missile cruiser :)))

              smile Andrey, you’re a production financier, so let's look at this issue from a production point of view!
              Let's say .....
              The plant received a delicious order for helical gears. The director calls you to himself and asks a question ... Andrei Nikolayevich, let's ponder how to deceive fate? There are two options; the first one is expensive, buy a waterjet cutting machine, the second one is cheaper, take the 3 machine for half the price of the waterjet, put 3 shifts to the workers' machines, and put 3 gas cutters for metal cutting.
              You and the director are inclined towards a cheaper option, but Andrei Nikolayevich is also a financier to calculate the risks once again and Andrei Nikolayevich starts adding labor costs, depreciation, machine productivity, metal losses, energy consumption, additional production areas to the price of cheap machines to her surprise, she concludes that waterjet is more profitable wassat
              Now we project the same thing on the ship projects of interest to us. bully
              20386 is 1,8 times more expensive than 20385 Yes .
              The patrol area of ​​the anti-aircraft defense is supposedly located 20 miles from the guarded object. Three 20386's is 90 billion + 240 people They can be in the patrol area, taking into account maneuvering +/- 25 days.
              Three 20385's is 51 billion + 270 people They may be in the region +/- 10 days.
              Total 20385's we need for 25-day patrol arithmetically 7,5 ships, and this is 110 billion. + 2000 people. + Their salary!
              Exaggerated of course, well, somewhere like that! hi
              1. +1
                14 March 2018 15: 33
                Exactly. As one of the moments. But more importantly, the seaworthiness of the 386th will block everything else. The 380-385th simply will not be able to carry out a combat mission where it is performed by the 386th. It is under the conditions of seaworthiness.
                1. -1
                  15 March 2018 06: 40
                  And they need to go where they have restrictions on seaworthiness? There, as it were, you can run into an AUG, if that.
                  Corvette - ship near the sea zone. Dop.Morekhodnost and range on it make sense only if it is free for the state, and does not lead to a doubling of the cost of the ship, with the same weaponry.
        2. +3
          13 March 2018 20: 19
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          that's how it is, but 30 billion !!!

          Well, the Cheeky project 20386 costs a little more than 29 lard ... at the same time ..
          Thus, from these data it follows that the contract value of the Retivy corvette (serial number 1007) of the project 20380 is (excluding VAT) 17,24476 billion rubles, of the same type corridor Strogiy (serial number 1008) of the project 20380 - 17,32976 billion rub.

          And yet, not 2 times, but a little more than one and a half times, but ...
          I think we should take into account the bookmark year and the exchange rate at that time. Let's say the head 20380th Stereguschiy was laid in 2001, and launched in 2008, that is, before the crises, sanctions, etc. ... but the corvettes of 20385 were laid in 12 and 13 and the course was different. Well, about 20386, which was laid down in 2016 and there is nothing to say. We add to this the notorious import substitution, we add new weapons and additional weapons to this, plus we do not forget that this is the main corvette in the series ... and the price of 20386 then does not seem so extortionate. But this is my opinion.
    2. +2
      13 March 2018 10: 44
      And I remember that it was precisely about project 20385 that it was said that it was a corvette at the price of a frigate .... only frigates were covered because of the crested engines ..
      1. +3
        13 March 2018 13: 39
        Quote: seos
        that's just frigates because of the crested engines covered ..

        Well, carpet covers - at the refusal of Germany to supply us diesel engines. On Kolomenskie .... far will not go
    3. +1
      13 March 2018 11: 29
      But cheaper by half. We have more than twenty "Albatros" in the Navy, they are not eternal. 20380 is much better as a replacement than 20386.
      20385 has UVP, in which PLUR are placed, together with the helicopter it turns out a slaughter antisubmarine complex, which, if it lacks something, then the ammunition package of the “Package” complex. But it is just solved.
      As a result, for the near zone at the ship GAS and "Package", for the far helicopter and PLUR.
      20386 will be unable to work that way.
      1. +1
        13 March 2018 13: 41
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        We have more than twenty “Albatrosses” in the Navy, they are not eternal. 20380 is much better suited for replacement than 20386.

        These are ships of different classes. I'm not talking about the fact that the corvette, but about the fact that neither in size nor in the nomenclature of weapons 20380 well, that's not Albatross at all.
        But the Albatrosses ... yes, I need to change
        1. -1
          13 March 2018 14: 18
          Not an Albatross, but quite a replacement, anti-submarine capabilities are higher, there is a helicopter, and on the 20385 there is also a PLUR.
  9. +5
    13 March 2018 09: 45
    the question is simple - when will we build normal ships? "Fast" - I do not mention, this is not for us
    1. +6
      13 March 2018 10: 19
      Quote: Silvestr
      the question is simple - when will we build normal ships?

      smile Here we will select Grudinin for president and immediately begin to build!
      Yes, by the way, what do you think is a "normal ship"?
      1. 0
        13 March 2018 10: 43
        Quote: Serg65
        Yes, by the way, what do you think is a "normal ship"?

        and so I read and myself think what a "normal ship?" And then it’s bad, and then it’s bad, but this is terrible. For me, the most normal was the Crimean Komsomolets BDK. And Filchenkov, according to living conditions, is even better
        1. +2
          13 March 2018 11: 08
          Quote: Silvestr
          For me, the most normal was the Crimean Komsomolets BDK.

          Are you related to the 39-th DiMDS?
          Quote: Silvestr
          And Filchenkov, according to living conditions, is even better

          Well, the Aligators were originally ordered by the MMF as bulk carriers, hence the living conditions!
          1. +1
            13 March 2018 12: 30
            197. It has long been. a long time ago
            1. +2
              13 March 2018 12: 42
              197? good drinks
              Quote: Silvestr
              That was a long time ago

              If not a secret for how long?
              1. +2
                13 March 2018 14: 02
                1982 year. The commander of "Komsomolets" is Captain 2nd rank Gram, the first officer is Captain-Lieutenant Kurenkov. Maybe they heard something, sincere people were, especially a start-up. After Komsomolets we were transferred to Filya. “Filya” stood on the right, on the left- “Yamal”.
                1. +6
                  13 March 2018 14: 30
                  Quote: Silvestr
                  Maybe they heard something

                  Unfortunately, no, I crossed with Komsomolets during the evacuation of the naval base of Poti.
                  I apologize for all the attacks in your direction and drinks for those who are at sea !!!!!
                  1. +2
                    13 March 2018 17: 24
                    accepted. it happens hi
  10. +5
    13 March 2018 09: 55
    what What an interesting article !!! An interesting article is that almost every paragraph ends with an exclamation
    Why is it needed?

    And starting to read the second half of the article, you experience deja vu ..... in my opinion, I read the same thing in the first half of the article what !
    The author fulfills the order because the person, at least a little bit familiar with the naval theme, didn’t write such nonsense, well, at least this
    in this way, the construction of the 1123.3 project anti-submarine cruiser was stopped, it was dismantled on a slipway, and the Kiev Kiev project of the 1143 project was laid in its place

    From the article, I understood only one thing ... The Russian Navy does not need new corvettes, because old ones are the best option for sailors! At the same time, military sailors are somehow dull, well, how can you not understand that, NEW IS ALWAYS WORSE OLD ??? !!! recourse
    1. +1
      13 March 2018 10: 47
      And the fact that this corvette stands as a modern, high-tech frigate 22350 (which they really can’t bring to mind fool ) does not bother you?
      1. +3
        13 March 2018 11: 12
        My friend, you do not knock hard on your smart head, it hurts after all!
        Cool you, ask yourself the question yourself and answer
        Quote: seos
        And the fact that this corvette stands as a modern, high-tech frigate 22350

        and the answer
        Quote: seos
        which really can’t be brought to mind

        good
        Quote: seos
        Doesn't it bother you?

        No, it doesn’t bother! And you, I understand, only the price confuses?
        What side are you to the fleet?
        1. +4
          13 March 2018 11: 19
          Ha, if you even knew a little bit about modern Russian shipbuilding, you would know that the problems of frigate 22350 are associated with the Polyment-Redut (radar and air defense system) sheaf, while the same inactive system is put on corvette 20386 ....
          So in the end we have 2 projects, of the same price category, with non-working air defense systems, but one of them is a frigate and the other is a corvette ..
          Moreover, they are trying to push the frigate-destroyer level detection station into the corvette ...
          1. +2
            13 March 2018 11: 50
            Quote: seos
            Ha, if only you had a little - little understanding of modern Russian shipbuilding

            what But where are we, the collective farmers!
            Quote: seos
            You would know that the problems of the 22350 frigate are related to the Poliment-Redut (radar and air defense) system, while the same inactive system is installed on the 20386 corvette.

            I'm sorry, but 20385 what is it?
            Quote: seos
            So in the end we have an 2 project, of one price category,

            You’ve got enough eco!
            Who at 20385 GEM? German diesel. which does not shine for us, but Kolomna still needs to be taught to work! At 20386 GEM- combined gas turbine engine of domestic production! Here’s the diesel engine, and your 20385 got it!
          2. -1
            13 March 2018 11: 55
            There Radar "Barrier", and not "Polyment", most likely quite working, as made on the basis of grids from the MiG-31.
            Here it will just work.
            But it would be better to make a mast with canvases of this radar, and would put it on normal corvettes, and maybe on frigates.
  11. +2
    13 March 2018 11: 08
    One gets the impression of ordering the article with the rear crews. It’s hard !!! For when it is withdrawn from the fleet ... and the Chinese will be moved and will not offend themselves.
    1. +2
      13 March 2018 11: 28
      Quote: Sergey Koryagin
      The impression of ordering an article
      You can put it shorter. Do not be mistaken.
  12. +2
    13 March 2018 11: 27
    The biggest mistake is to judge something based on incomplete information. It is obvious that Russia is currently implementing a large-scale program for introducing supernova weapons, including on new physical principles. Obviously, electric propulsion on this ship provides powerful sources of electric power of the megawatt class. And weapons based on new physical principles may well be powered from these available sources. So no need to hysteria. If the fleet is delighted, then there are reasons for that ....

    Another option is that this corvette is a surface carrier of one of the Status-6 options. A compartment for modular weapons allows this. Underwater drone announced.
    1. +2
      13 March 2018 11: 53
      Directly megawatt? Why not gigaavatnogo? Gigavatnogo the cooler sounds.

      There are two turbines, more power than they give, do not apply to the electric motor, physics will not allow)))).

      6 status is a torpedo, they can not take off, and the hatches for modular weapons from this ship in the deck.

      Well, the rest of the same series.
      1. +5
        13 March 2018 12: 04
        Do not be clever without data. In addition to two afterburner turbines, the corvette has electric motors of economical running. Which are powered by electric generators. This is an electrical system of a megawatt class. Namely, it is 4,4 MW. Based on this system, weapons can be powered on new physical principles up to and including the strategic class ....

        In other words, the option of powering weapons based on new physical principles is possible, when the movement on a combat course is carried out on afterburner turbines, and the weapon is powered in battle from electric generators.

        Regarding an underwater drone, it can be lowered into the water by various complex power drives, which are announced as a feature of this type of ship.
  13. +3
    13 March 2018 11: 29
    Quote: Serg65
    Quote: Lynx33
    at the moment, it’s not necessary to build sophisticated ships, but cheap barges, on the decks of which containers with gauges are welded and one or two universal shells for self-defense.

    laughing Why protect them, my friend ??? Fill the holds with foam and figs who will drown your barges !!! wink

    Yes! Yes Yes Yes! Sheathed the tractor with a steel sheet - why not a tank !!!!
    1. +4
      13 March 2018 15: 54
      Quote: Serge Gorely
      Yes! Yes Yes Yes! Sheathed the tractor with a steel sheet - why not a tank !!!!

      Marvin Himeyer's precepts are true! smile
  14. +6
    13 March 2018 12: 38
    In fact, unification in the navy is a mythical affair. As well, and modularity.
    The fact is that during the life of the ship (and this is 30-40 years), all ship systems are outdated more than once.
    Which, in principle, happened throughout the 20th century. And what will happen in this century (especially if our confrontation with the United States continues to intensify, which unfortunately is more than likely).

    The same Burke - they seem to be one project, but all the same different. About the same power plant - recently there was news that their USA can no longer contain - too gluttonous.

    In addition to the unification itself, it must be understood that having built a series of 20-30 ships, we will have only two-thirds in service, because the remaining third will be in repairs and upgrades. And in the best case, we will have a third of the ships in the new versions, a third in the repair and a third in the old versions.

    And here we must clearly understand that for such complex systems to a greater extent than unification, it is necessary (as it is fashionable to call it) planning the product life cycle. Those. for simple reasons, we need to understand conditionally) that for the first 5-10 years the ship gets up only for prevention, then the first modernization, then another 5 years of operation, then the second modernization, etc. Then, after about 40 years, the hull is already dilapidated and the ship must be decommissioned.
    What does planning give. Firstly, the approximate loading of shipyards. Here, by the way, a large goat will come out in the form that our industry will not be able to provide repair of ships with the given schedules and the current state of shipyards
    Secondly, it provides reference points for the development and production of new ship systems (weapons, powerplant, control systems, etc.). here is hello to production - but can it provide all this?
    Thirdly, it will also give approximate financial needs.
    Fourthly, modularity will come in handy here. By which it is necessary to understand not the flexibility of weapons, but a fan of projects unified among themselves, i.e. relatively speaking - this is a platform that, through minor changes, can be turned into various types of ships. But to exchange rockets on the pier for a helicopter (roughly) at the same time we will not succeed.
    Those. something like this works in a car building. In the same Renault, where on one chassis V0 various cars were built from small cars to four-wheel drive SUVs. But at the same time, these are different cars, although some of the spare parts are suitable for different models.

    Why am I doing this. By and large, all current projects of our industry are already outdated. And this obsolescence is associated with the rapid development of drones on the one hand (here you can convey greetings to Putin with his underwater drones), and on the other hand, the development of hypersonic weapons. If you think a little and extrapolate the development, then in the next decade strike drones in carrier-based aircraft (already on the way, as they say), underwater drones (and also drums) will be adopted, and hyper weapons will appear in all developed countries. At the same time, the ship will always have a limited amount of air defense equipment, which will ALWAYS be inferior to a salvo of anti-ship missiles and torpedoes (by the way, lately everyone has somehow switched to air defense, but they forgot about torpedoes, but with the advent of strategic torpedoes, everything can change).
    Plus we take a tendency to automate processes on the ship.
    From this we can assume that it will be necessary to create vehicles for drones in the far zone, which will create a safety zone in the air and under water, and the ship itself will be the carrier of heavy strike weapons and a command center.
    It is quite possible to create the Trimaran Ship, where the central part will be the control ship, and the lateral parts are detachable drones, which can operate autonomously.

    Those. there are many options and there is something to think about.
    1. +1
      13 March 2018 13: 30
      Here only a corvette is a ship of the near sea zone, and to make of it a frigate nonsense and nonsense. For the far sea zone, there is already 22350 with its arsenal of 32 SAM and 16 attack missiles. He and air defense at times more powerful.

      And we need to change the Albatrosses to something.
      1. +3
        13 March 2018 14: 09
        Chatter again. This corvette was voiced by the designers as a corvette with the seaworthiness of a frigate, i.e. with special contours and so on. Which, together with the range, makes it a frigate in terms of functions, meaning modular weapons. Nevertheless, having the fuel economy of a corvette. That in the absence of an extensive network of bases around the world - it is very important from the point of view of supply.

        The line of corvette frigate of 3000-7000 tons, respectively, was announced. And the destroyer under 15000 tons. Everything is logical.

        In addition, the intention was announced to complete the 20380-20385 line of 6 corvettes per fleet.

        20386 is a distant zone. In terms of seaworthiness and range, in terms of armament (taking into account modularity), this is a frigate. On economy - a corvette. Everything is logical and effective.
        1. +2
          13 March 2018 15: 12
          Enough of this nonsense to throw.

          Here it is:
          Which, together with the cruising range, makes it a frigate in function, meaning modular armament. Having nevertheless profitability of a corvette on fuel. That in the absence of an extensive network of bases around the world is very important from the point of view of supply.


          Complete nonsense, any TFR has a range above the minimum at 1000 miles, and the ability to act in a real war in a DMZ is determined by the strength of the ship’s air defense, and not only by its seaworthiness.
          And then the four of the Hornets will drown this vundervaflu, it will be funny.

          >>> The line of corvette-frigate 3000-7000 tons was announced, respectively. And a destroyer under 15000 tons. Everything is logical. <<

          Yeah, logical, only 6500 tons is already a destroyer, and 10 000 is a cruiser. Logical voices in your head, you will not say anything.

          Well, yet who replace the IPC 1124? What ship?
          1. +2
            13 March 2018 15: 38
            Bullshit is your prerogative. You are forgotten.
            Give me at least one CKR project with a range of "on 1000 miles" more than that of 20386 Ave. This is the first.

            The second one. Today, the power of air defense is a complex characteristic. Including the capabilities of electronic warfare. Modern electronic warfare systems such as Kraukha, Lever, if you imagine their soiled versions, is an almost absolute guarantee against any conventional missile weapons and even against satellites. And if you imagine that this ship will have megawatt-class lasers (which is possible, in principle, see the power options above), it will be able to attack both satellites, and even SDRLO or Poseidons. Suffice it to recall how a Terra megawatt-power laser system disrupted equipment in orbit ...

            So again, not fully knowing the capabilities of this corvette, it is impossible to judge the capabilities of its air defense. I am sure that air defense will be most powerful for corvettes, and indeed for many frigates.

            Regarding the four Hornets. With modern EW systems on a ship, this is impossible. With a probability of 99% they will be destroyed.

            Yes, logical. You, apparently, are not aware that the VI of modern frigates has long settled in the region of 7000 tons. The same frigates FREMM. Learn the materiel. And the destroyers of the Zumvolta - 15000 tons. Therefore, the logic is visible in a clear breakdown by displacement.

            1124 is out of place here, since the fleet needs corvettes in the far zone.

            Turn on your head if there is one ...
            1. +2
              13 March 2018 18: 31
              Give me at least one CKR project with a range of "on 1000 miles" more than that of 20386 Ave. This is the first.


              Will 11356 go? You really got banned in Google, right?

              Regarding the four Hornets. With modern EW systems on a ship, this is impossible. With a probability of 99% they will be destroyed.


              At Hornet line launch RCC in 50 km for the radio horizon of this vundrevfli. Further we consider - the Four of the Hornets, this is the 16 RCC "Harpoon". Suppose 20386 can dump them with its 16-ZUR (which is almost unreal, but suddenly). Then he will have to go through the resetting of 4's guided bombs from a height at which he cannot reach the target.
              These are all basic things.

              Behind this, I propose to end this insane discussion, dream further about galactic destroyers with lasers and ryilgans, or whatever else you have in your head ...
              1. +1
                13 March 2018 18: 38
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Will 11356 go? You really got banned in Google, right?

                Yes, you are just a clown, I see ... See for yourself. The corvette 20386 is 150 miles longer than 11356. 11356 has more than 1000 miles than 20386. The corvette in this case has a longer range than the frigate of the previous generation. Like a normal frigate, the range of our super corvette))

                As for the Khornets, I’m not even commenting on your nonsense. To the garden.
        2. 0
          19 March 2018 07: 35
          correctly askme says - this is an economical corvette with the combat capabilities of a frigate! also the requirements of maximum invisibility also impose restrictions on displacement. best warship in the world!
  15. +2
    13 March 2018 13: 30
    By unification, the author is disingenuous, in my opinion. First of all, unification should be based on the means of production, then on units and systems. Hull unification is of little significance here and in any case depends on the class of the ship.
    And in units and assemblies we are moving towards unification in big steps. The number of types of missile and artillery systems in the fleet is decreasing. The number of types of power units is also reduced. The number of types of on-board computing systems is also reduced.
    1. -1
      13 March 2018 14: 20
      Well, the 20380 and 20386 have a different body, a power plant, a radar, all the hydraulics, the body, and screws.

      The same - PU ZRK, gun, missiles X-35.

      Something doesn't seem like big steps.
  16. 0
    13 March 2018 13: 33
    To the waste of state funds - smear forehead with green stuff!
    1. +5
      13 March 2018 14: 16
      at first idiots ...
  17. +1
    13 March 2018 13: 42
    It’s strange to read all this. Unification is a good thing, but after all, life dictates new conditions every year, and the characteristics of different TVDs are changing. And if practice shows that some project ceases to meet any requirements (and the “partners” launch dozens of new projects on the water every year), then what's the point of clinging to a project that meets the requirements of 30 years ago? Yes, he has some kind of unification, but in unification this unification will not play any role, and new systems are shoved into the old buildings only theoretically. In practice, it may turn out that the costs of upgrading an old project can be comparable to creating a new project.
    And taking into account how large our country is, it can be assumed that unification is more important not within the whole country, but within individual fleets. Because they have different tasks, weapons systems too. I do not exclude the possibility that as the Navy replenishes with new units, a new redistribution of existing ships between the fleets will begin. Old ones will be written off, new ones will already have a more or less narrowed list of weapons and propulsion systems.
    1. +1
      13 March 2018 14: 24
      We need to change not only the Pervorangi, but also small anti-submarine ships.
      The 20380 and 20385 corvettes may well replace all the IPCs, while simultaneously increasing the power of our PLO. At the same time, they are essentially unified, and the process of "merging" these projects is underway.
      The 20386 project can do the same thing as the 20380, but is twice as expensive, and all its bells and whistles in the near sea zone are useless, and in the long-run this ship will not be able to act in a combat situation.
      1. +5
        13 March 2018 14: 44
        It is not for us to judge how useful or useless bells and whistles are. Especially in terms of information systems, communications and radar. In addition, there is the concept of service life and the possibility of further modernization. When my father graduated from the naval school in Kronstadt, he expected to immediately get into the crew. And this was the time of unified artillery cruisers. And then all these ships began to be cut right on the stocks. New weapons, the first missiles. And there was no time for unification. Armament was replaced every five years. More powerful, farther, more reliable, etc. Each missile has its own launch and its own guidance system. And therefore, large series of ships became impossible. While they are designing, while they are setting up production, while they are putting down the first ten, everything is out of date and has become no longer relevant. Read the history of our shipbuilding - how many units were planned for each series of units and how many were actually built. If we lived strictly according to unification, we still put steam engines on ships.
        1. 0
          13 March 2018 15: 13
          It was a different era. Now the pace of progress is very different, the same radar "Barrier" on the project 20386 is the technology of the end of 70-x.
          1. +4
            13 March 2018 16: 01
            In fact, the pace of progress is still quite fast. It’s just that it’s not so noticeable outside, because goes mostly to improve existing systems (electronic warfare, anti-ship missiles, air defense, etc.)

            I will give just an example. S-300. The calculator on the first options until the end of the 90s weighed several tons and occupied a cabinet 2m * 3m * 1m. And in terms of performance it was comparable to Sinclair (whoever doesn’t remember such a computer was). Now the same computer on a modern base weighs orders of magnitude less and takes orders of magnitude smaller volumes. This kind of movement is quite a lot.

            Yes, you don’t even have to go far. Such a small question: Did everyone realize what changes the announced torpedo of intercontinental range brings with it? What are the possible uses?
            But in fact it can become a modern "Dreadnought", i.e. to change the composition of the fleet radically (well, at least from the point of view that the ships again faced the threat of a torpedo strike, since the range of the torpedo is now comparable to anti-ship missiles, and the anti-aircraft torpedo protection has been decreasing recently).
            1. 0
              13 March 2018 18: 36
              I will illustrate eality and fantasy with your example.

              As you know, a huge nuclear torpedo was conceived under Comrade Stalin. One of the main factors for abandoning this torpedo was the fact that from the 55 of the then strategically important US Navy, the torpedo could only be fired in 2.
              It is this argument of Admiral Kuznetsov that became critical for the cessation of work on the mega-champion.

              Now the situation is different, and in the form in which it is made, it is needed as a means of deterrence. But you have to understand that this weapon, due to the same factors that acted in 50, is a means for killing civilians, and for this reason it will be used only after your and my deaths, not earlier.
              We will all be dead when she shies. And, in fact, this is what they are doing; this is the last greeting from us to an exceptional nation.

              And all this has nothing to do with the rational expenditure of money on ships of the near-sea zone.
              1. 0
                14 March 2018 01: 15
                Here you are not quite right.,
                Here the question is not even in the warhead, but in a compact nuclear reactor.

                Further, having a rich imagination, you can do a bunch of things that will not be fatal in themselves, but will help destroy the grouping of ships.
                The simplest thing is to create a drone that operates under the program patrols a given area. If an enemy group is detected (for example, along the acoustic track, as well as a number of other parameters), it pops up and transmits a packet with target designation data.
                And all the greetings of the AUG - the launch of the same Onyxes, Granites, Daggers and what else will be there with us.
                And the destruction of such a drone is difficult due to its dimensionality and declared speed.

                And this is just an option lying on the surface. Besides the actual nuclear torpedo.
                Yes, there’s just one opportunity to get a torpedo from under the water at the bottom immediately raises the question of the need to include PLO ships and many in the AUG. At the same time, do not forget about air defense. And if you take into account that you need to leave space on anti-ship missiles and strike missiles, then the costs of maintaining one AUG immediately fly into heaven.

                And here it turns out that it would be nice to have carriers of all sorts of such things with us. Moreover, for the near zone, and for the far. But actually they are not.
                Therefore, in principle, everything now is not suitable, i.e. outdated. And it would be nice to design new lines of ships that will take into account new types of weapons and will be able to carry them.
                From this point of view, the construction of any series of existing projects is harm.
                But from the point of view of the state of the fleet - at least something needs to be built to replace the departing Soviet legacy. Those. it turns out that all current ships will be scrapped in 15-20 years, because become outdated completely.
                1. +1
                  14 March 2018 07: 21
                  The carriers of such devices have already been assigned to the substrate. The surface ship is too vulnerable to make such a bet on it.
      2. 0
        13 March 2018 15: 16
        Corvette project 20385 yes for the money how much Frigate pr 22350 costs, this is cut am
        1. -1
          13 March 2018 18: 38
          You are confusing something. The frigate 22350 is not really appreciated right now, R & D hangs on its price, and with them it costs so much that it is impossible to say out loud. Here we build 15 ships, then everything will look decent, but it seems that the fleet is again going to make the 4 ship, and then saw the 22350M. Or how is he there ...
  18. +1
    13 March 2018 14: 26
    Leave to read! Https: //navy-korabel.livejournal.com/185610.html
    #comments and https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/173847.html, here by the way, at a good price, look
  19. +7
    13 March 2018 14: 51
    The admiral will always want a large and advanced club, the supplier will want everything the same, interchangeable, and much that others will want!
    The struggle of hoteliers, concepts and industrialists! This has always been and will continue! Progress, however, I would like to see, all this is within the limits of the reasonable and possible, because all this is very expensive!
  20. 0
    13 March 2018 15: 02
    Of course, it hurts and offends when the new technology karamultuk in the inertia-free flow of target designation turns. All coastal defense, only feed needed. But you still described a great job. with info concepts.
  21. 0
    13 March 2018 15: 07
    The more options there are for combat ships and their configurations, the less is NATO's ability to pick up tactics to combat them and generally understand who it is dealing with in case of modularity until it is too late! and on the other hand, invisible forces NATO to constantly keep reconnaissance aircraft in the air, which is unprofitable, as well as increase their number - and this is already an economic war, because in wartime reconnaissance aircraft will become the easiest target ... unmanned reconnaissance aircraft to support breakthrough aircraft on the front line and in the rear have not yet created
    1. +2
      13 March 2018 18: 39
      NATO has one tactic on all types of ships - to deploy as many anti-ship missiles on airplanes in order to overload the ship's air defense.
      And by the way, nothing else is needed.
      1. 0
        16 March 2018 23: 18
        on a cruiser and a small missile ship so NATO will not work
        1. +1
          17 March 2018 14: 11
          Are you aware that the deck aircraft of the US Navy sank the most rocket ships of Soviet construction exactly like that?
          At least the sinking of the Libyan IRA 1234 by Intruders in 1986 can be recalled.
          1. 0
            19 March 2018 07: 44
            yes it was a Soviet-era missile ship, but not Russian — they can’t be sunk by 10-20 cruise missiles anymore, it’s all about the combined power of protective equipment — they always go in a group with their modern electronic warfare and air defense systems, it’s too expensive to completely discharge shock weapons an aircraft carrier on some trifle
            1. 0
              19 March 2018 13: 11
              Well, they will throw not three Intruders, but 14 Hornets. Or 16.
              Just in case - only 16 missiles, even if each missile hits the target, there are still as many anti-ship missiles, and the bombs on which the EW have no effect at all.
  22. 0
    13 March 2018 15: 12
    To the author of the article, Alexander Timokhin: with such an analysis, contact the General Staff, the Navy Commander, and the Supreme. Otherwise, all this is just a lot of words, and posturing.
    1. 0
      13 March 2018 15: 14
      Which navy fool we have a navy!
      1. +4
        13 March 2018 15: 51
        Quote: Alexander War
        Which navy fool we have a navy!

        Here on such trifles spies scorch. smile
    2. 0
      13 March 2018 18: 41
      I confess to you that this article, the preparation of exactly appeal to the Supreme. Today I’ll post it, slightly edited, on a couple of sites with high traffic, ask good people to publish on blogs, and one day later, the treatment of the revised stylistics will go to the Presidential Administration addressed to the Supreme Commander. And by the way, I'm not working on this all alone.
  23. +4
    13 March 2018 15: 24
    Honestly, a strange impression was left after reading.
    Some kind of straight-hearted crying_ston ...
    Not once, not a sailor, but it has long been driven in, if they howl, cry and moan, not everything is so clearly bad, most likely they have bypassed someone, well, they have squeezed ...
    1. +2
      13 March 2018 15: 56
      This is constantly, there is nothing to be surprised ... they all want some bread and butter!
      There are enough examples in our history, however, in any tsuzu too!
  24. 0
    13 March 2018 16: 01
    So they squander folk money, and rotenbergs and co-operatives are also sawing quietly ... In short, you need to change something - elections are coming soon, you need to think for whom to vote for, who for whom?) wink
  25. +2
    13 March 2018 16: 24
    Very controversial article. Better to do a lot and the old?
    1. +1
      13 March 2018 18: 43
      Why is old? Kolomna's diesel engines are three times younger than the Amerika top turbine; on the newly laid corvettes, there is an absolutely new set of radio-electronic equipment, including an electronic mast, the Pack-NK, this is the most high-tech torpedo system in the world, 100-mm projectiles are on the way and the guns are included in the air defense system .. ..
      20380 corvettes are very modern warships.
      A criticized 20386 carries exactly the same set of weapons.
  26. +1
    13 March 2018 16: 34
    When you write chaotically and with repetitions, a sound grain of thought is lost. feel
    Thus, with the money that the fleet wants to spend on ten ships of project 20386, you can build twenty ships of project 20380.

    The second drawback of project 20386 is its armament. Excluding modules with interchangeable weapons, the project 20386 ship is armed almost as much as the twice cheaper project 20380 corvette.

    In fact, the project 20386 ship, although it is called the word “corvette”, is a frigate in terms of its displacement, seaworthiness and cruising range. And most importantly - this is a frigate and at a price too, but he is armed at the same time at the corvette level!

    1. There was a desire for a revival of the ocean fleet.
    2. One of the moments of realization of this was the desire to build a fleet without attracting attention (otherwise the stones under the braids, the sticks in the wheels)
    3. We build frigates, we declare to everyone "These are corvettes!" And everyone believes.
    4. And in the morning everyone will get up, and we have 10 brand new frigates (nobody monitors the construction of modules) feel
    1. 0
      13 March 2018 18: 44
      Only they are very bad, the weakest frigates in the world.
    2. +1
      13 March 2018 23: 36
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      4. And in the morning everyone will get up, and we have 10 brand new frigates (nobody monitors the construction of modules)

      With the condition that they woke up after 20 years! And not frigates, but "underfrigates" at the price of frigates with modules, which the "partner" country refused to use after trying to use them! In my opinion, everything is clear and sensible, not repetitions, but arguments in favor of one or another issue.
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      It is possible that the decision to launch this project was not made at all for the sake of strengthening the Navy.

      In my opinion, IMHO, one of the key phrases in motivating the bookmarks of this project.
  27. +2
    13 March 2018 17: 01
    The article is sensible, do not fall into any fools and the author does not ache. But I can’t agree on one thing, remember how we lost tenders over and over again. The reason is that the equipment is not in service. Well, now if you’ve already begun to build, then you just need to plow, plow, and not work, and everything will work out. You need to decide who needs to do what is enough for the capitalist approach to the country's security. stop Well, this is not acceptable to us, although here, too, there are exceptions. Yes
  28. +5
    13 March 2018 18: 13
    And I would not have been so unfounded in the accusations. The first thing to note is that the ships are unified not according to hull and frames, but according to modular units of equipment and weapons. And in this matter, everything is in order. By the way, the numerous modifications of weapons are not so numerous. The guns have not changed for decades, the power plants have only just begun to be produced in domestic factories, only the lazy one does not talk about calibers. Soon they will be put on boats. It seems to me that the article does not particularly have fundamental knowledge in this area, but is designed to arouse the minds of Russians.
    1. +1
      13 March 2018 18: 44
      In the event of a military conflict, all of these ships can quickly sink to the bottom. With the current global communications system, they can’t hide. Only spend money on expensive devices ...
      1. +2
        13 March 2018 22: 43
        "Sergey Enoktaev ↑
        Today, 18: 44
        In the event of a military conflict, all of these ships can quickly sink to the bottom. With the current global communications system, they can’t hide. Only waste money on expensive devices ... "
        In the event of a conflict, any absolutely boat is capable of quickly dropping the edge to the bottom. It is a fact. Therefore, I offer conclusions on the need for certain ships to do the same for professionals.
      2. +1
        14 March 2018 07: 27
        Quote: Sergey Enoktaev
        In the event of a military conflict, all of these ships can quickly sink to the bottom. With the current global communications system, they can’t hide. Only spend money on expensive devices ...

        Like ArlyBerk, you need to plant more anti-ship missiles on board in order to drown him or greatly puzzle the crew by saving their asses ?!
        In addition, ArliBerkov has a sufficient size to make it difficult to miss.
        In the event of a mess, even Missouri or Ford will have no more than half an hour of combat time.
        The power of weapons is very large.
    2. +1
      13 March 2018 18: 45
      PU ZRK, PKR, artillery installation and torpedoes on the 20380 and 20386 are the same. Everything else, including the GEM - is absolutely different.
    3. +3
      13 March 2018 22: 33
      “By the way, the number of weapon modifications isn’t that numerous. The guns haven’t been changing for decades, the power plants have only just started to be produced at domestic factories, only the lazy one doesn’t talk about the Caliber. Soon they’ll put them on boats. this area, and so, is designed to excite the minds of Russians. "
      Totally agree with you.
  29. +1
    13 March 2018 19: 07
    I completely agree with the author. From such an improvement, only the design bureau wins; improvements are always made to each drawing paid-received. For the production of SUCH hemorrhoids, coordinate all changes with the customer by the suppliers, alterations cost additional financial and time costs. The lead ship should be one ship out of a dozen (operating time can reduce the transfer time to the fleet). And so KB in chocolate - see how we realize financial receipts (always when it comes to).
    1. +2
      14 March 2018 07: 22
      And where do the developments come from?
      On paper any developments for three five-year periods.
      But when checking in metal, they get out such problems with unification as in 20386.
      Therefore, in fact, this pocket frigate was born with all the sores.
      Another issue is the justification of its price.
      Here is the work for the revision committee - what the hell is this price and why use small-scale samples, dear a priori ?!
      But cutting a lot of mind is not necessary. This is taught in the workplace in a week.
  30. +6
    13 March 2018 19: 30
    I agree with the author in one unification in the fleet, and perhaps it should be in the army. I remember the glorious “Albatrosses” in Kamchatka (P. Zavoyko) there was an assistant there on one of them in the early 80s, a miracle of karablik. at that time, but they have been in the ranks for 40 years. Naturally, a replacement is required, only it should be thought out, it is important to choose the best and options, and for this you need to decide on your own naval doctrine (and here again the question of unification will become!), We still can not decide which fleet we need, we have not finished building the surface “mosquito” fleet, we don’t know the concept of building an ocean and hot heads
    1. +1
      14 March 2018 12: 58
      "We" are you talking about? About VO divisions of trolls or about those who don’t even keep track of the most important documents of the fleet, while appearing to be involved in it ??

      The construction of the fleet is now being carried out in accordance with the recently adopted new naval doctrine. Learn first. Because your criticism is unfair. The new naval doctrine indicates which fleet Russia needs. And from this directly follows the fleet composition that is needed and which will be built. To criticize the construction program of the fleet without bothering to read this document is pure insanity and / or trolling.
  31. +3
    13 March 2018 19: 39
    I continue: “Hotheads”, despite the unprecedented prices and construction time of ships of rank 2-3, are trying to make them ships of the ocean zone. For what ? we can defend our shores and, if necessary, strike with caliber against adversaries from our coastal waters. The issue of laying the Leader is still not resolved in high circles, there is no turbine or a suitable nuclear power plant, I’m already talking about the prospect of an aircraft carrier I do not speak . In general, the article turned out to be very interesting, but to decide what to build and how many unfortunately will not be sailors.
    1. +2
      14 March 2018 11: 21
      Protecting your shores - now the power of coastal systems has increased greatly, ships of the size of pr. 20380 designed purely for this purpose are already redundant. Gauges can also be launched from a container ship if desired - if you actually shoot from the pier, what's the difference?
      Do not kick much if anything. Honestly, I'm a layman. But I think that perhaps another breakthrough is being prepared, as with Vanguard. And then it will be clear - what exactly is pr.20386 for. Have you ever thought?
      1. 0
        17 March 2018 15: 59
        there is no redundancy on its shores. On its shores, Russia should be stronger than any potential adversary, and only when this issue is resolved is it worth considering whether we need an ocean fleet or not.
        1. +1
          17 March 2018 20: 30
          Quote: chingachguc
          Off its shores, Russia must be stronger than any potential adversary.

          So, the way it is given the coastal missile systems and diesel submarines. And this direction continues to be further strengthened.
          The situation with the ocean fleet is worse; Leader-type destroyers were not even included in the long-term weapons program until 2028. Although I agree that in our time the emphasis should be on the submarine fleet.
          1. 0
            17 March 2018 21: 54
            I believe there should be strategic nuclear submarines, and this issue is not discussed at all, it is a matter of nuclear parity. And there must be a strong coastal defense capable of protecting maritime communications between the Far East and the European part. The sea blockade is not so critical for us, since, in principle, the Russian economy is self-sufficient, and besides, there is always China. It is important that the Far East is not cut off from the rest. It is important to maintain internal river communications in order, including in order to be able to dramatically increase the grouping of ships in a dangerous direction, and also to eliminate such a danger as blocking fleets at their bases (which happened to us many times). This, of course, is a defensive strategy, but they always dance from the stove. In the open sea, we cannot compete with NATO. You need to understand the limits of your capabilities. But if it is possible to put into operation torpedoes with nuclear engines capable of conducting combat duty at enemy naval bases for months and taking enemy ships on the open sea for escort, then the situation will also change dramatically in the open sea.
  32. +1
    13 March 2018 20: 28
    Where are our heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers ??? After all, everything that is being built now ... these are canned jars ... simply feluccas ...
    1. +3
      13 March 2018 21: 41
      That is the right question! Where are the cruiser aircraft carriers ?! Here is the cornerstone and the Achilles heel of our defense.
      1. +1
        17 March 2018 16: 01
        where did you get the idea that aircraft-carrying cruisers are a means of defense? This is a means of attack! and a tin can like a shock corvette might well drown an aircraft carrier.
        1. +1
          17 March 2018 20: 52
          In fact, aircraft-carrying cruisers can be used for both defense and attack. An operation in Syria is the defense of Syria (Syria itself did not attack anyone).
          Regarding the ease of drowning an aircraft carrier with a corvette, you exaggerated a little: during the war, an aircraft carrier will not allow an enemy corvette to approach the distance of a missile shot (aircraft will be shot from afar). But the submarine can easily drown an aircraft carrier.
          In my opinion, in the event of a war between two equal strong rivals (such as the Russian Federation and the USA), aircraft carriers will be meaningless. They (aircraft carriers) are good for fighting weaker opponents (such as ISIS), which are at a considerable distance (for example, helping allies).
          1. +1
            17 March 2018 21: 40
            the corvette is a small-sized target, in addition there are many corvettes, there are few aircraft carriers, and the corvettes have 1000 roads, and the aircraft carrier has one. Thousands of factors, such as the weather, can influence sea battle. In addition, the corvette acts on its shores, and houses and walls help: secluded bays, minefields, electronic warfare, AWACS. Somehow, exercises were conducted between the American aircraft carrier and four English frigates, armed only with “exosets”. Following the battle, the aircraft carrier was sunk. The British attacked from different angles. One of the frigates was able to get 20 (!) Miles away and launch their missiles. In any case, of course, there will be no “pure” battle between the AOG and small ships. Shock corvettes are just one of the components of coastal defense.
          2. -1
            19 March 2018 13: 19
            Quote: 1Alexey
            They (aircraft carriers) are good for fighting weaker opponents (such as ISIS), which are at a considerable distance (for example, helping allies).


            Carriers won the war at sea in WWII.

            Quote: 1Alexey
            But the submarine can easily drown an aircraft carrier

            But who will let her go? Gas helicopters and anti-submarine defense aircraft with sonar buoys + several submarines in guard.
            1. -1
              19 March 2018 22: 47
              Quote: DimerVladimer
              But who will let her go? Gas helicopters and anti-submarine defense aircraft with sonar buoys + several submarines in guard.

              Ours warned the Americans in advance that our submarine like Varshavyanka should pass Gibraltar at such a date in order to join the Mediterranean squadron (crossing from the Baltic Sea).
              After that, the American AUG including aviation, and submarines, and surface ships intensely sought to detect this submarine. But she still went unnoticed (!) Into the eastern Mediterranean and from there fired a volley of hummingbirds at ISIS.
              And if she wanted, she could have hit the American aircraft carrier!
        2. 0
          19 March 2018 13: 13
          Quote: chingachguc
          where did you get the idea that aircraft-carrying cruisers are a means of defense? This is a means of attack! and a tin can like a shock corvette might well drown an aircraft carrier.


          Who will let him in range, who will give target designation?
          1. 0
            20 March 2018 00: 00
            your will, that you have direct faith in the infallibility of an aircraft carrier. As if not people, but tin soldiers are fighting. But the Falkdend War is a wild mess of mutual mistakes. And if the Hermes aircraft carrier did not have time to fire dipole reflectors, it would have received an exoset aboard. But it was not the air group that attacked him, but one unfortunate skyhawk!
            1. +1
              20 March 2018 00: 07
              Argenina began the war, armed with six (!) Pieces of exosets. And these same exosets almost all found their victims. And several more English ships got hit (what a disgrace!) With conventional air bombs from the Second World War.
  33. +3
    13 March 2018 21: 08
    Sasha do not write more such nonsense, do not. :)))
  34. +2
    13 March 2018 21: 36
    "In the current foreign policy conditions, neither dubious experiments with combat effectiveness nor delay are acceptable. Unfortunately, project 20386 combines both of them and should be canceled.
    Posted by Alexander Timokhin "
    Alexander Timokhin, and who are you? In terms of what are you doing in this life?
  35. 0
    13 March 2018 21: 40
    Many thanks to Alexander for the article! I am absolutely not versed in ships, but thanks to the author, I had no questions about reading and I am absolutely aware of his concern about the current state of affairs related to the development and construction of ships in the Russian Federation. Now it remains to monitor the development of events, maybe even now the command will undertake something sensible ?! Interestingly, they at least make a digest of adjutants based on press materials? smile
  36. +5
    13 March 2018 22: 29
    I admit honestly not a sailor)
    But according to the article, there are several slippery points:
    1. Why does the author have such a doubt in the intelligence of sailors? Why does he think that you cannot teach one team to work on different modules? Damn the bear can be taught to ride a bike, and here the sailors!) They are smarter than the bear))
    2. Why build 3 highly specialized ships if you can build one that is superior in running quality to its predecessors? Isn't that saving?
    3. Why did the author decide that the modules for this project are not suitable for ships of other projects? In my opinion, the concept of modular ships is interesting because it will allow (if implemented correctly) to install modules on ships of different types. Maybe the author knows something? So let him share)
  37. +1
    14 March 2018 00: 04
    in general, it’s true, you just don’t need to cut them, you can release them in the form of a worked-out modification 385. In general, the problem is outdated, the fleet will no longer lay corvettes of these types. Karakurt will be actively built, and for the Gorshkov Oceans (and without an increase in displacement), most likely in series, which is what the author calls for, I agree with him.
    1. +1
      14 March 2018 07: 27
      Need a submarine hunter in the near sea zone. Karakurt here by, they do not have GUS. The pots are another class ship.
  38. 0
    14 March 2018 06: 06
    Captain Pushkin,
    So you yourself have confirmed the correct operation of several KBs at once, if there weren’t T34, you would have had to fight at t26.
  39. +3
    14 March 2018 07: 10
    Quote: Captain Pushkin

    Very bad examples. And on planes and tanks.

    More than successful.
    Quote: Captain Pushkin
    If there were other people in the leadership of the NKAP (People’s Commissariat of the Aviation Industry), it is possible that the Red Army would have had completely different aircraft in 1941.

    There simply would not be any aircraft.
    The planes were those that could allow the production culture and the level of mastered and proven technologies, while in the field of jet design the USSR advanced the farthest back in 1938.
    But there were not enough heat-resistant steel grades for turbine blades and no such aircraft appeared.
    Defective pistons and connecting rods accepted by military acceptance are still found in boxes at the edge of former field airfields.

    Quote: Captain Pushkin
    There were also many different zigzags with tanks, the T-34 survived almost by accident, Stalin's entourage failed to convince him to kill the T-34 in favor of the T-126.

    The T-126 also, purely for technological reasons, had no chance to appear in the series - the technology did not mature.
    There was no motor, no materials.
    But let’s imagine that all the development would hang only on KB LKZ.
    So what? And there would be nothing but HF and BT.
    And the T-126 would not have appeared at that time, in those technologies.
    He has appeared. In the form of T50. But only then. After the war ended for which he was preparing.
    But a T34 made based on existing technologies based on A32-A34 aggregates was proposed.
    And no notorious "Stalin's entourage" could do anything in principle.
    Because technology and production culture were what they were.
    T34 simply had no competitors in the USSR.

    So it is with these projects.
    The 20380 project is morally obsolete. You can of course finish it as T126 and lick, but that's all. Dead end.
    The 20385 project cannot be done because there are no engines, and the Kolomna software does not move to eliminate shoals and improve technologies and production culture - they say they will not choke.
    Despite the fact that due to the elimination of other production of heavy diesel engines, there are no competitors.
    But these shoals are already sick of it!
    And then the ship gas turbine engine was blinded on the basis of the PD16 gas generator, which in general just gives a very unexpected unification of the units. With naval aviation, the truth.
    The modularity of the same Yankees did not abandon, but simply think it out.
    Looking for solutions.
    The same Chinese have a quite good project of the modular carrier on the basis of a small bulk carrier.
    The whole world is working on the modularity of warships and why should we lag behind ?!
    So then successfully catch up losing the market?
    Why corvettes with long range and autonomy ??
    And what, will we continue to rinse the flags in our inland seas and make “tilka to myself” ships ??!
    And there is a demand for such corvettes. In the same Latin America.
    And here are the options. Build them there, or distill ready from our shipyards.
    I like the option of building them here more so that the workers pay more taxes to the treasury from their salaries and can buy more high-quality goods for themselves. If only because here the financial flows are easier to track than the rotation of finance somewhere in foreign banks, and even under the threat of blocking them there according to the Anglo-Saxons.
    It’s just that we need to make developers, production workers, and ministers move.
    The benefit of the article is that it is the same accelerating pindule that makes you think and do.
    But it is necessary to build 20386. Although according to the unification plan it needs to be further developed.
    Why they are doing so far only one and no more than 10.
    Especially 3-4 are already ready to buy. If construction is not dragged out to impossibility as often happens.
    Here the question again is to organize responsibility for the timing and culture of production.
    1. +1
      14 March 2018 07: 35
      The 20380 project is morally obsolete. You can of course finish it as T126 and lick, but that's all. Dead end.


      Can you find a more powerful corvette in the world? And explain what kind of weapon there is specifically outdated? And what equipment?

      The 20385 project cannot be done because there are no engines, and the Kolomna software does not move to eliminate shoals and improve technologies and production culture - they say they will not choke.


      Well, on this and need to work - on diesel, etc. And do not indulge in adventures.

      The modularity of the same Yankees did not abandon, but simply think it out.
      Looking for solutions.
      The same Chinese have a quite good project of the modular carrier on the basis of a small bulk carrier.
      The whole world is working on the modularity of warships and why should we lag behind ?!
      So then successfully catch up losing the market?


      There are 6 ships of the 22160 project, so they would train on them. There, the placement of the module is more successful, and the price of the experiment is several times lower, and the ships themselves are needed for a real task.

      Well, yes, the Americans still really covered this topic.

      And there is a demand for such corvettes. In the same Latin America.
      And here are the options. Build them there, or distill ready from our shipyards.
      I like the option of building them here more so that the workers pay more taxes to the treasury from their salaries and can buy more high-quality goods for themselves. If only because here the financial flows are easier to track than the rotation of finance somewhere in foreign banks, and even under the threat of blocking them there according to the Anglo-Saxons.


      The demand was for 20380, Brazil and Algeria were going to take it, but as soon as 20386 was invented, the buyers for 20380 did not immediately go away.

      And no one will buy a frigate, which stands as a frigate, but no one will buy weapons, as a corvette, do not hope.

      And creating a weapon is not to think about the market.
  40. +1
    14 March 2018 07: 32
    maxim947,
    Quote: maxim947
    just with the frequent change of the commander-in-chief of the Navy

    And this, my friend, greetings from 90's! In those days, promising officers from the fleet and from the army left in batches, so now we have what we have!
    Quote: maxim947
    MO constantly changed its requirements, sometimes justified in view of the violation of cooperation, and sometimes not,

    MO zero and MO since 2010 years, these are two big differences! At the end of the 90's, the “Guardian” was the height of desire, then they realized that it’s not important with living, the diesel engines are constantly breaking down, they decided to improve the project laughing here God himself ordered some weapons to be changed, 20385 appeared! But the "Thundering" ran into sanctions, the question arose ..... we put on the 20385 domestic diesel engines (which at this moment is not comme il faut) or go the other way!
  41. +1
    14 March 2018 08: 12
    So what's the point in building such a ship? Why is it needed?

    From the beginning of this project, only Almaz Central Metallurgical Bureau and shipbuilding systems manufacturers win, the Navy loses, and with it the whole country!

    From the beginning of this project wins ... Ministry of Defense.
    The trick is that in 2007 the system of financing weapons programs changed.
    Prior to this, each branch of the army financed both development programs and mass-production programs for arms and military equipment related to it. And it had 10% of the cost. Then a reasonable idea arose - to carry out all financing through a single customer represented by the Moscow Region. But, the armed forces did not want to lose their 10%.
    As a result, they did it “as always” - they divided financial flows. The Ministry of Defense received control and experimental development, and the Armed Forces - serial production programs.
    As a result, the Ministry of Defense is trying to increase the number of developments of new weapons and military equipment. As you know, even the construction of a prototype is several times more expensive than a serial product, and it still needs to be designed and tested. Maternal aircraft also benefit - a small series is more expensive. Only the defense capability of the state is the loser, but the generals and admirals do not care about that - in the near future, war is not expected.
    Until this system is changed, we will receive a bunch of different types of products in small batches.
  42. +2
    14 March 2018 08: 30
    So go to the USA and praise their fleet. And leave ours alone. It’s not for you to judge which is better and which is worse. -clean ordering, on the eve of the elections. Better remember that not long ago, from the Russian Navy there was only one name. Enough to turn everything Russian. Do not like to look.
    1. 0
      14 March 2018 08: 46
      All VO must stick this post on his forehead. For every link to this VO on the Web. So that people know where they are going and what it is actually called ...
    2. 0
      14 March 2018 10: 51
      Corvettes 20380 and 20385 are not Russian?
      1. +1
        14 March 2018 12: 51
        And the fleet is not only ships, but also sailors, the command staff of the fleet. Yapping at the commanders, at their policy in the construction of the fleet, yapping without knowing everything, yapping categorically and frantically, you are trying to destroy the fleet. Because water sharpens a stone. But the strength is not enough)) However, it is necessary to give lips periodically.
        1. 0
          15 March 2018 06: 42
          Well, you are yapping here for now. Now you have to fly lasers into space with a corvette, then you want to send it to the ocean - just to make it endorse a budget that is dangerous for the country.
          1. 0
            19 March 2018 07: 51
            "Then you have lasers" - and how are you overseas?
  43. 0
    14 March 2018 08: 58
    Welcome to State capitalism, and in its very wild form. Salvage wins ...
  44. +5
    14 March 2018 08: 59
    The admiralty aims at the ocean zone without reliably covering its shores and ports. The fact that he feeds the designers at the expense of the exploiters is half the trouble, but the fact that he is losing the most valuable time now is a misfortune, a strategic mistake that is worse than a crime, which many agree with the author. RKKF in the 30s swung at the construction of cruisers and even battleships - we remember their sad shares. But lost on this mountain of funds, resources and time, and then thousands of people. But our stubborn admiralty and bearish amateurs again put the country on the same brink of failure. Although, according to pre-war logic, they should make long series of RTOs with Caliber that the fleets already mastered by the fleets, in the process of modernizing their electronic filling of the PLO, air defense and missile defense. All the same, the adversary’s fleets will be smashed not by surface ships, but by the airborne forces and the submarine fleet, and there is nothing to rely on semi-corvettes semi-frigates of the “ocean zone with improved habitability”. And in the submarine fleet, the main emphasis should be placed on long series of mini-submarines and anaerobic diesel-electric submarines capable of transferring along inland waterways, i.e. essentially a river-sea class.
    1. 0
      14 March 2018 19: 09
      In general, I agree, just don’t scold Stalin, they didn’t build a single battleship under NEPM, but mass-produced submarines and torpedo boats, by 1941 the Russian Navy had three battleships and four light cruisers (including Aurora), still king’s bookmarks, still there were destroyers of the Novik type, also royal and which were essentially a small ship. Stalin sent Kuznetsov with his idea of ​​building Linkorov, and one Linkor was decommissioned before the war, did not give money for repairs
  45. +4
    14 March 2018 09: 19
    Here's the concept of using a surface fleet where to read something to understand the need of the Russian Navy in the number and types of ships. And then, judging by projects like "Leader" with nuclear power plants or aircraft carriers, show-offs and ambitions are more than common sense. As far as I understand, taking into account the economy and politics of the Russian Federation, the following is logical. Given the confrontation with NATO, first of all, it is necessary to ensure the reliability of the duty and deployment of the SSBN. In the marine zone (areas south-east of Kunashir for Pacific Fleet, southwest of Iceland for Northern Fleet, approximately 3500 km from bases in Vladivostok (for surface) + in PPKamch-m (for nuclear submarines) and Murmansk, respectively) cover group 2 frigates pr 11356 or 22350 (if it goes into series, depending on which of these projects is better) to keep the NATO anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters at a long distance from the Russian SSBN. there are at least 2 such groups at Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet - 2 on duty, 2 on the way to / from the base or in the repair and during the shift of personnel. + support ship + tanker. For BF and SF 2 frigates. Given NATO’s superiority in the air in the Baltic and the Black Sea (ABB from Turkey, where airplanes can be additionally deployed), it’s more logical for the frigates of the Russian Federation to act in the cover zone of the ground aviation of the Russian Federation. Fight with NK and PL - carriers of the Kyrgyz Republic, keep them at the greatest distance from our shores, but with guaranteed aviation support for reliable air defense in conditions, I repeat, of NATO superiority in the air. Total, at least 12 frigates of type 11356 or 22350. There is no sense in releasing corvettes far into the sea again, due to NATO’s superiority in air and water. The main thing is a powerful anti-aircraft missile and air defense and anti-aircraft defense (533 mm torpedoes and missiles of the same type as on the BOD pr 1155, to protect the submarines and missile defense systems of the Russian Federation on all fleets from submarines and enemy aircraft + a helicopter with submarine detection means. For the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet it is necessary with greater seaworthiness and cruising range, for the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet with greater air defense, since there are many NATO ground bases nearby. This will unify the hulls, engines, most of the electronics. It is necessary to work on diesels in principle, since there are enough of them for the coastal zone, and even more uniformly the loading of plants + efficiency compared to gas turbines. To demonstrate the flag in peacetime, corvettes can be in conjunction with a tanker (which will refuel in wartime to reduce attachment to ports), so a long range for corvettes is far from the main thing. RTOs provide protection of corvettes and submarines from the enemy’s NK. Seaworthiness is more important than range (including refueling at sea from a tanker), especially for Pacific Fleet. Gas as the size will allow. Patrol boats - seaworthiness, speed, autonomy. 30 mm gun for poachers, MANPADS. Patrol boats are primarily seaworthiness, autonomy (they need a diesel engine in the first stage, GTU on them is excessive and the range with GTU is less). Helicopter for rescue operations at sea and the detection of submarines. Therefore, it makes no sense to put a powerful GAS (so that it does not burden and spoil the speed due to a large bulb). Carapace-S - guns for poachers and pirates (in case of duty in pirate areas), antiaircraft guns from a likely enemy. RBU. TA 2 * 2 533 mm. MANPADS. That is, in the far ocean there is no point in meddling and planning for mega destroyers and aircraft carriers. To demonstrate the flag and protect the merchant fleet from pirates, they are redundant.
    1. +1
      14 March 2018 10: 35
      Forgot to add immediately. To cover the SSBN in case of hostilities, so that they strike ICBMs 2 frigates are enough. Frigates can be equipped with MANPADS. Mega Leader-class destroyers and aircraft carriers of the Russian Federation far from their bases and ground aviation cover in the event of a military conflict have a close chance of returning to the base, especially at the Northern Fleet (NATO airbases in Velbr-i and Norway on the way of returning the Northern Fleet ships NATO’s ammunition will be replenished at the base, and there will be no army to replenish the SF ships, Japan’s airbases will block the approaches to Vladivostok, and at the approaches to the PKKamch’s NATO will have the strength to deploy a powerful AUG at the border or outside the Russian coastal aviation radius) .
      1. +1
        14 March 2018 10: 55
        In fairness, the 2 frigate is very small, here is a swarm of corvettes in the number of two brigades for each area of ​​SSBNs, this would be the norm.
        Actually, the article is just about having them.
      2. 0
        14 March 2018 11: 31
        To ensure the time necessary for the SSBN to strike an ICBM in the event of hostilities, 2 frigates are enough. In the Leader mega-destroyer and the aircraft carrier, the chances are equal to zero in the event of a military conflict - airbases in Great Britain, Norway, Japan will allow US and NATO countries to replenish their ammunition and not miss the coastal aircraft of the Russian Federation to the RF Tax Code. Corvette + tanker groups are enough to demonstrate the flag, protect merchant and fishing vessels. The need for corvettes and RTOs (25% on the base, 75% on duty or on the way between the base and the duty area). Corvettes Pacific Fleet 16. 4 in Japan, 4 in Okhotsk, 4 near Kamchatka, 4 South of Vietnam or Indonesia, from Vladivostok about 4700 km by Yandex. map). Black Sea Fleet 14. 4 Offshore, 10 Syria, Gulf of Aden, Iran (approximately 8800 from Sevastopol), Gibraltar (approximately 3900). BF 14. 4 Offshore. 10 Cuba and Venezuela (approximately 8800 from Kaliningrad via the Kiel Canal) + English Channel 1300 km. SF 8 offshore. Total 52. + ships for the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet can be made in the version for service in a hot climate (28 ships). RTOs, armament is more important than range, therefore, for the coastal zone. Pacific Fleet 12, Black Sea Fleet 4 BF 4 SF 8. Total 28. Sufficient batch numbers to debug production, speed up and reduce its cost due to mass production. Enormous areas in the area of ​​operations of the Pacific Fleet are not enough money to control the forces of NK against submarines. Therefore, the protection of ports, approaches to them, marine supply routes of remote regions of the Far East.
        1. +1
          14 March 2018 11: 59
          To ensure the time necessary for the SSBN to strike an ICBM in the event of hostilities, 2 frigates are enough. In the Leader mega-destroyer and the aircraft carrier, the chances are equal to zero in the event of a military conflict - airbases in Great Britain, Norway, Japan will allow US and NATO countries to replenish their ammunition and not miss the coastal aircraft of the Russian Federation to the RF Tax Code. Corvette + tanker groups are enough to demonstrate the flag, protect merchant and fishing vessels. The need for corvettes and RTOs (25% on the base, 75% on duty or on the way between the base and the duty area, after / minimum option). Corvettes Pacific Fleet 16/12. 4/4 in Japan, 4/4 in Okhotsk, 4/4 in Kamchatka, 4/0 South of Vietnam or Indonesia, from Vladivostok about 4700 km by Yandex. map). Black Sea Fleet 14/10. 4/4 Offshore, 10/6 Syria, Gulf of Aden, Iran (approximately 8800 from Sevastopol), Gibraltar (approximately 3900) / Syria + Iran. BF 14/10. 4/4 Off the coast. 10 / 6Cuba and Venezuela (approximately 8800 from Kaliningrad via the Kiel Canal) + English Channel 1300 km / Cuba + Venezuela. SF 8/8 offshore. Total 52/40. + ships for the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet can be made in the version for service in a hot climate (28/20 ships). RTOs, armament is more important than range, therefore, for the coastal zone. Pacific Fleet 12/6 (to protect Vlad-ka, Yuzhno-Kurilsk, PPKamch-go, under the guise of coastal aviation, from the AUG), Black Sea Fleet 4/2. BF 4/2, SF 8/4 (Murmansk). Total 28/14. A sufficient number of series to debug production, speed up and reduce its cost due to mass. Enormous areas in the area of ​​operations of the Pacific Fleet are not enough money to control the forces of NK against submarines. Therefore, the protection of ports, approaches to them, marine supply routes of remote regions of the Far East.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. 0
          14 March 2018 12: 58
          Didn’t click on something, sent an unfinished comment, sorry
      3. +1
        15 March 2018 19: 31
        Quote: 89536931581
        To cover the SSBN in case of hostilities, so that they strike ICBMs 2 frigates are enough.

        laughing fool wassat not 4 whaleboats with slingshots .... and from where are you so smart appear on the VO?
    2. +2
      14 March 2018 19: 11
      that's right, only frigates are not needed on the bf, it shoots right through from the coast
  46. +1
    14 March 2018 12: 55
    Landing ships are needed to capture coastal territories in Norway and Japan + landing saboteurs, whose main task is to disrupt the operation of air bases in northern Norway and Hokkaido Island + sabotage on the naval base and in the port of Tromso and Hokkaido. Therefore, the main thing for landing ships for all fleets is the capacity + presence of air defense of the near zone (optimally anti-aircraft missile systems for suppressing the coastal parts of the enemy and protecting against anti-ship missiles) + RBU. BTR + helicopters of two types: fire support and transportation of personnel. + equipment to launch UAVs. Tanks in the mountainous terrain of northern Norway and Hokkaido are useless. The main thing is the speed of landing saboteurs and combat swimmers. Armored personnel carriers are needed for fire support when capturing and holding the coast. Further sabotage at air bases. The task of the landing ship at this stage is the technical support of helicopters and UAVs and small submarines for combat swimmers. Air defense cover: optimal - by all NKs of the frigate and corvette type, which are at the SF bases at the moment, the minimum is frigate + 2 corvettes + ground aviation (in any version). Landing ships are needed to capture coastal territories in Norway and Japan + landing saboteurs (preferably by helicopter inland), whose main task is to disrupt the operation of air bases in northern Norway and Hokkaido + sabotage on the naval base and in the port of Tromsø. Therefore, the main thing for landing ships for all fleets is the capacity + presence of air defense of the near zone (optimally anti-aircraft missile systems for suppressing the coastal parts of the enemy and protecting against anti-ship missiles) + RBU. BTR (although when landing saboteurs with helicopters deep into the territory they are hardly needed) + two types of helicopters: fire support and transportation of personnel. + equipment for launching UAVs (reconnaissance and strike). Tanks in the mountainous terrain of northern Norway and Hokkaido are useless. The main thing is the speed of landing saboteurs and combat swimmers. Armored personnel carriers are needed for fire support when capturing and holding the coast. Further sabotage at air bases. The task of the landing ship at this stage is the technical support of helicopters and UAVs and small submarines for combat swimmers (refueling, replenishment of ammunition). Air defense cover frigate or 2 corvettes + ground aviation. For the Baltic Fleet and Black Sea Fleet, the most realistic is the landing of saboteurs from small submarines for sabotage at the ports of Gdansk, Gdynia and Istanbul. Basic requirements - stealth. Landing with tanks and armored personnel carriers in the Klaipeda + area in the Vistula and Gdansk bays in the event of a ground attack on Kaliningrad. The most suitable: tank landing hovercraft with air defense systems, MANPADS, RBU (in case of an attack from aircraft by torpedoes). The same boats for landing in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions to capture ports, so that there were no supply bases for saboteurs. Large landing ships are needed to supply the Kaliningrad region and Crimea, MANPADS + RBU + ZRAK. Therefore, the capacity and carrying capacity (the ability to transport tanks) + is more important than range. For trips of the type to Syria, landing ships must have a refueling device on the go, + a tanker and a supply vessel (capacity is more important than unloading speed, in case of conflict they are used to supply Kalin-da and Crimea, d.b. MANPADS + RBU). For Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet - helicopter carriers.
  47. 0
    14 March 2018 14: 34
    Really, what a horror! The enemy does not know what surprises to expect from such a diverse, but very similar fleet. This is criminal, but bring everything in line, 2-3 models of ships strictly unified in terms of capabilities, no more!
    1. -1
      15 March 2018 06: 45
      The composition of weapons and equipment on the 20386 is well known to the enemy, this ship will not make any surprises to him.
  48. 0
    14 March 2018 15: 29
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Good day to you too! hi
    Quote: Serg65
    Two factors that suit me in this project are the range of 5000 miles and the autonomy of 30 days!

    that's how it is, but 30 billion !!!


    Only half a yard bucks. I do not think that foreign counterparts are cheaper.

    In general, the contributors of such articles are always on top, they hear a jingle, but don’t know where it is. All ships have different tasks. And to discuss what such a ship will do at sea or somewhere else, they get it at the level of five-year-old children in the sandbox. If you consider yourself smarter than the designers or command of the Navy, then do you do horseradish on the site? They would go to work as intended, I’m sure that with such a deep knowledge of the purpose of the ships and the fleet, they will take you with arms and legs laughing
    But seriously, the fact that there is no unification is even a big plus. Well, the states understand, you see a destroyer type target on the radar, it’s immediately clear that Burke. And here, you see a corvette type target, and you’ll guess what the hell ship and what kind of armament on it until you come closer.
  49. 0
    14 March 2018 19: 54
    It's funny to read when prices are compared, although the author has no idea how much the ships cost.
    1. 0
      15 March 2018 06: 46
      20380 - 17,3 billion
      20386 - 29,6 billion
      This if not round off.

      The article prices are written, by the way.
      1. 0
        24 March 2018 16: 41
        The assumption is written in the article, and doesn’t it seem strange to buy a frigate that can not oppose anything to other enemy ships? Do not consider Uranus an effective tool, then you need to compare it with 20385, and there’s no exact price for it
  50. 0
    14 March 2018 19: 55
    Absolutely stupid article ... why build new ships with a new radar, low ESR and a modular design, when you can build a well-developed boat in 1943 ?!
    The troops can also be retrained ... the comparison with the T-55 and ZSU-23 is especially clear ... they can also be released by the thousands, and then, like the Iraqi army, it’s good to suck in battles with the modern army.
    1. 0
      15 March 2018 06: 48
      The 20385 Corvette, which was saved by this saw, is also a completely newest ship for both weapons and electronics. It is also more powerful in armament than cutting.
  51. +2
    14 March 2018 20: 12
    Regarding the “diversity” of ships that are now being built: everything is simple, several types of ships cover important areas, due to the difficulties in deploying production for our shipbuilders.. The task is to obtain modern combat capabilities in the future without losing defense capability now and in the near future. .Example: the British happily built as many as TWO aircraft carriers, and the entire current fleet is under repair. Regarding 20386, the feature is MODULARITY.. there are two types of tasks: defensive and offensive. For defensive purposes, this type of ship performs anti-submarine functions, if attack is necessary, it is equipped with vertical launchers in containers that can launch either calibers or zircons with onyxes.. About “20385 is cheaper”, you and I don’t know its real cost and capabilities, so it’s difficult to say that it’s cooler than 20386, I personally saw the article from 2013, where the admirals were dissatisfied with the 20385 because of its high price and weak capabilities .. Regarding “it is redundant” .. the same thing was said about the 57 mm anti-tank gun in 1940-1941, when Grabin introduced it
    1. 0
      15 March 2018 06: 50
      The article talks about modularity, plus there is the US experience with this very modularity.

      Quote: Boris Chernikov
      When used defensively, this type of ship performs anti-submarine functions; if an attack is necessary, it is equipped with vertical launchers in containers that will launch any caliber, even zircons with onyxes..


      And 20385 can do the same thing without modules and is 9,6 billion cheaper.
  52. 412
    +2
    14 March 2018 22: 14
    Quote: Alex777
    Oh oh oh... bully Why are you going to throw it all away? Is it yours? No - leave it in place. And missiles and guns do not bother anyone there. And the electronic warhead there is the one that is needed.
    Just think: the president showed a laser? Showed? What did the troops already say? He said.
    But he didn’t say where to the troops. But I assure you that conscripts will not serve them, and carrying such things through the forests also makes no sense.
    bully

    The President has said a lot of things in 18 years, so what?
    Where are the millions of jobs, the herds of Armata tanks and much more that was promised?
  53. 0
    14 March 2018 22: 45
    The closer the elections are, the more screams everything has disappeared feel
  54. +1
    15 March 2018 00: 58
    The author is clearly an unrecognized military expert. So many times I have stumbled over the fact that it would be better to purchase the previous and subsequent projects than 10 new ones. This corvette with the characteristics of a frigate is intended for service in the far sea zone, partly even in the ocean, when 20380/20385 projects in the middle sea zone. Couldn’t the author have thought that this corvette could be paired with the same one? One will be with a module for "Caliber" and the second with a helicopter hangar? And it doesn’t have 12 launchers for air defense systems, but 16, like 20385
    1. 0
      15 March 2018 06: 53
      This corvette with the characteristics of a frigate is intended for service in the distant sea zone, partly even oceanic,


      Under Comrade Stalin, such an idea could have earned you a fortune, and this was absolutely correct.

      Couldn’t the author have thought that this corvette could be paired with the same one? One will be with a module for "Caliber" and the second with a helicopter hangar? And it doesn’t have 12 launchers for air defense systems, but 16, like 20385


      Why all this acrobatics when the 10 billion cheaper 20385 can simultaneously carry Calibers and a helicopter?
      1. 0
        15 March 2018 18: 26
        This ship is designed using stealth technology, its visibility is several times lower than that of 20380/20385, if I’m not mistaken, its hull and superstructure are made of composite materials, they are stronger than metal ones, do not rust and emit less radiation from them, mines are safe for it in such case. + Modularity for different conditions! If counteraction to submarines is required, we take an anti-submarine helicopter; if we need to go against ships, we take “Caliber”! Moreover, this is not “Vasily Bykov” without missiles... It has standard X-35U
  55. 0
    15 March 2018 01: 01
    Algeria didn’t buy it, probably because the Redoubt doesn’t work as it should. When 20385 with Zaslon appears (and then 20380 with it) and starts shooting down, then we can talk about export. Let them decide for themselves which ones they want to buy 20380,85,86. Regarding the useless air defense 20386 against the Harpuns, why don’t you talk about the 9M100 missile defense system (it will also appear), if they are loaded with 64 missile defense systems (as on the 1155), and it also has a seeker. If they put a Caliber UVP in the center, it will be good.
    1. 0
      15 March 2018 06: 55
      The air defense is unusable not because of the missiles, but because of how many there are.
      You won’t be able to fight with such air defense in the DMZ.

      The 9M100 is a close-range zone, where the air defense system will have seconds to shoot a wave of missiles; it won’t have time, and the ammunition won’t help.

      It was not the Redoubt that was offered to Algeria.
  56. +1
    15 March 2018 01: 10
    Delirium of a fusel mare. I didn't even read it to the end. This is how fleets have been formed at all times. What is a "major series of ships"? 10-15 ships of the same type is practically the ceiling. The service life of a ship is 20 - 50 years. Even ships of the same type, but laid down at different times, have significant design differences. Moreover, they are so significant that upgrading previous ships in the series to new ones is not always possible. This applies to modern fleets.
    Sorry, in the old days, when wooden ships were in use, almost EVERY ship was built with noticeable differences from all previous ones (not counting boats).
  57. +1
    15 March 2018 06: 19
    Dart2027,
    Dear Dart2027, all that glitters is not gold! I hope my answer to Andrey from Chelyabinsk on this topic will satisfy you?
    Quote: Serg65
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Nope. This is to the question that we need normal control / protection ships of the water area, and not a prodigy at the price of a missile cruiser :)))

    smile Andrey, you’re a production financier, so let's look at this issue from a production point of view!
    Let's say .....
    The plant received a delicious order for helical gears. The director calls you to himself and asks a question ... Andrei Nikolayevich, let's ponder how to deceive fate? There are two options; the first one is expensive, buy a waterjet cutting machine, the second one is cheaper, take the 3 machine for half the price of the waterjet, put 3 shifts to the workers' machines, and put 3 gas cutters for metal cutting.
    You and the director are inclined towards a cheaper option, but Andrei Nikolayevich is also a financier to calculate the risks once again and Andrei Nikolayevich starts adding labor costs, depreciation, machine productivity, metal losses, energy consumption, additional production areas to the price of cheap machines to her surprise, she concludes that waterjet is more profitable wassat
    Now we project the same thing on the ship projects of interest to us. bully
    20386 is 1,8 times more expensive than 20385 Yes .
    The patrol area of ​​the anti-aircraft defense is supposedly located 20 miles from the guarded object. Three 20386's is 90 billion + 240 people They can be in the patrol area, taking into account maneuvering +/- 25 days.
    Three 20385's is 51 billion + 270 people They may be in the region +/- 10 days.
    Total 20385's we need for 25-day patrol arithmetically 7,5 ships, and this is 110 billion. + 2000 people. + Their salary!
    Exaggerated of course, well, somewhere like that! hi

    20385 is, in principle, a good boat, if not for its power plant!!!!
    hi
  58. 0
    15 March 2018 11: 53
    If I listen to you, it turns out that BOD 1155 needs to be scrapped. Because Their missile defense systems aim two radars at four targets without covering the entire 360 ​​degrees. And 20385 and 86 will have all-round protection, and the radar seeker increases the likelihood of hitting a target. I wrote about the 9M100 because... you insist on a small BC (and it will turn out normal), but this does not mean that they will be alone. There will be, for example, 8 - 9M96 and 32 - 9M100.
    Apparently, each corvette is created for its own theater of operations. For the Baltic Fleet, 20380 distances are enough, not great, but the Pacific Fleet needs at least something. But the Northern Fleet needs a more seaworthy one with greater autonomy, and the Black Sea Fleet will probably go (instead of 11356) for Tartus.
    1. 0
      15 March 2018 13: 40
      The BOD, in the absence of other ships, will be destroyed by one plane with one bomb.
      20385 this is my choice, if anything.
      But not 20386.
  59. 0
    15 March 2018 11: 59
    Quote: groks
    And why do we need the Bell, Cobra, Leaf, ...? How are the elements of air combat? So at such heights and speeds it does not happen.

    I would say that they are only needed for spectacular performances at air shows. But the lifetime Heroes of Russia claim that they provide enormous advantages in battle. Apparently, they only have battles at such altitudes and speeds.
    1. 0
      16 March 2018 04: 00
      And you would screw up again. The battle occurs with a loss of speed, and then height.
      Many of them are still lifetime GSS.
      Quote: Snakebyte
      But the lifetime Heroes of Russia claim that they provide enormous advantages in battle.

      But weren’t the recently killed heroes of Russia actually carrying this stone?
      1. +1
        16 March 2018 10: 04
        Quote: Pingo
        But weren’t the recently killed heroes of Russia actually carrying this stone?

        No, this is about lifetime Heroes. Test pilots.
        In the USA, after Vietnam, the highest state award “for life” was awarded only once! once. Although there were military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Somalia, etc. And dozens of new aircraft were tested.
        In Russia from 1992 to 2010 - 85! testers - Heroes. Yet not a single one! a new aircraft, which completed testing and entered service by mid-2010. Maximum, superficial modernization of samples from the times of the USSR and testing of export samples at public expense (so let them give the title of Hero of India, Algeria or Malaysia).
        For comparison, from 1948 to 1990 - 122 testers - Hero of the Soviet Union, 9 of them posthumously. At the same time, several dozen new types of aircraft have been tested and put into service, not counting serious modifications.
        Also, 85 is the number of titles of Hero of the Soviet Union awarded during the entire (!) war in Afghanistan (!), including infantry, special forces, pilots..., of which 28 were posthumous.
        Just like that. 85 lifetime Heroes without accomplished Feats and achievements for the country.
      2. 0
        16 March 2018 10: 14
        Quote: Pingo
        And you would screw up again. The battle occurs with a loss of speed, and then height.

        Since the Second World War it has been known that if you lose energy (speed and altitude) you will lose. For super-maneuverability, the speed has to be reduced, otherwise the pilot will be crushed by overloads.
        1. +1
          17 March 2018 03: 50
          Without slowing down, this is not a close maneuverable battle, but a series of attacks on an enemy who cannot develop the same speed.
          Don’t try to make excuses, it’s just that the common man has just broken through you again, as it did with “Status” and others. And he continues to tear up in a base manner, especially about “Heroes of India, Algeria or Malaysia.”
          In public, your favorite F-22 with UVB is trying to repeat something during an air show at minimum speed, whereas the Su-27 without UVT can do it at medium speed in a real battle.
  60. +3
    15 March 2018 18: 05
    I consider this article provocative and harmful (and I would not be surprised if it later turns out to have “Western” owners).
    Our Navy now needs corvettes of the 20386 type.
    Because It is quite obvious that these corvettes are intended primarily to participate in the AUG. And as part of the AUG, the corvette does not need an anti-submarine helicopter, because they have enough of their own anti-submarine aircraft on the aircraft carrier and other escort ships (frigates, destroyers and cruisers), but the AUG will not only be accompanied by corvettes!
    But in this case, it (the corvette) may just need strike capabilities, as well as improved radar, air defense (for additional assistance to other escort ships), seaworthiness, increased cruising range and reduced EPR.

    During the same periods when the AUG will not be used, these corvettes can be used to patrol our vast northern borders from enemy submarines. Then they will replace the attack missiles with an anti-submarine helicopter! Because strike missiles will not be in demand there (you can’t shoot at ice).

    Thus, this is the optimal amount of armament for a corvette to participate in the AUG.

    Export orders are carried out under separate contracts for the types of weapons required by Customers and have no relation to internal orders of the Ministry of Defense.
    1. +1
      16 March 2018 05: 14
      I can’t agree with you) If the 386th project is included in the AUG, it will be its helicopter PLO and air defense that will be the main functions. The thing is that the frigates of a typical AUG are occupied precisely by PLO orders. And usually they are located along the perimeter in the AUG combat order, including 45 degrees to the right and left ahead along the course of the aircraft carrier, at a distance of up to 50 miles, i.e. precisely on those courses from which an attack by enemy attack nuclear submarines on an aircraft carrier is most likely. This is almost the maximum duty range of an aircraft carrier’s PLO helicopters (100 km from the AB - several hours of duty for an ASW helicopter). So corvettes are nowhere without their own helicopters. PLO is the main thing for such AUG corvettes.

      The strike elements of the AUG are aircraft and destroyers, as well as strike nuclear submarines.
      1. 0
        17 March 2018 09: 07
        So I wrote that the AUG’s ASW will be provided by both the anti-submarine aircraft of the aircraft carrier and the anti-submarine helicopters of other ships as part of the AUG: frigates, destroyers and cruisers (the cruiser alone already has several helicopters).
        There will not be many corvettes in the AUG, 1-2, and the rest will be more powerful ships with helicopters.
        Therefore, the series of such corvettes will most likely be limited.
      2. 0
        17 March 2018 10: 18
        Quote: askme
        The strike elements of the AUG are aircraft and destroyers, as well as strike nuclear submarines.

        Why are there suddenly such restrictions for destroyers?!
        Destroyers and anti-aircraft defense provide this; they have helicopters for this purpose.
        And the strike capabilities of destroyers are associated with the same missiles (for example, Caliber) that are installed on cruisers, frigates, and corvettes. So all these ships provide the strike capabilities of the AUG.
  61. +1
    15 March 2018 20: 10
    Who is Alexander Timokhin? The article smells like an order.
  62. +1
    15 March 2018 23: 58
    gallville,
    Quote: Dart2027
    Well, one project is easier to upgrade.

    And isn’t Project 20386 that same modernization? And please explain, how can you modernize individual ships and maintain unification with the rest of the ships of the outdated version?
    1. 0
      16 March 2018 07: 20
      Project 20386 has a different hull, superstructure, power plant, hydraulics, electronics and radar. It's just a different ship.

      How to upgrade?

      Well, they will install an integrated mast on the “Retivoy” and “Strogoy”, and the foremast behind the funnel will be removed. As a result, an order of magnitude more efficient radar, an increase in the power of air defense, a lighter design, a reduction in the labor intensity of maintenance (no need to clean the foremast from soot) Quite an example of modernization without a serious loss of unification (the mast will then be installed on all ships of the project)
  63. +1
    16 March 2018 01: 04
    A very controversial article.
    It is of course stupid to argue with the fact that unification is a good thing and heterogeneity is a problem. Here the author is 100% right.
    But did it ever occur to him that more and more new types of ships are being built solely because the existing types turn out to be ineffective in solving a certain type of problem, but it is still necessary to solve these problems? They did not pay attention to the fact that 20380(5) are being built exclusively for the needs of two fleets. Didn't you think that their use in Arctic conditions is difficult due to their less seaworthiness? And what about the fact that the engine is the Achilles heel of both of these projects, especially 20385?

    What a strange idea that 20386 could accommodate either a helicopter or a missile system? In my opinion, the below-deck space at the stern is quite extensive and you can place both in it.
    1. 0
      16 March 2018 07: 30
      Didn't you think that their use in Arctic conditions is difficult due to their less seaworthiness?


      The waves in the coastal waters of the Arctic are not difficult, allowing IPC 1124 to operate - even now. And their seaworthiness is worse than that of 20380, but it is quite enough. And the corvette doesn’t need to go further, it’s not his job.

      Quote: alexmach
      And what about the fact that the engine is the Achilles heel of both of these projects, especially 20385?


      To bring to fruition an engine, which in a large series is much simpler than a future power plant with electric propulsion, which no one has ever built. In addition, we already have 7 corvettes 20380 in service, and if you go by the news about them over the past couple of years, then the problems with the engines have been solved. More power is needed, but you can also do the opposite - lighten the ships, which has already been done on the Retivoy and Strogoy ones under construction.

      What a strange idea that 20386 could accommodate either a helicopter or a missile system? In my opinion, the below-deck space at the stern is quite extensive and you can place both in it.


      According to the design documentation, the container with the Caliber missile launcher is installed on a helicopter lift under the doors of the below-deck hangar. Further towards the stern there is a compartment with fire control devices for the cruise missile and a couple of boats, behind it is the sonar, and that’s it, the ship is over. There is no room there for Caliber and a helicopter at the same time.
      I specifically found a photo from the presentation of the project and posted it in the article.
      1. 0
        16 March 2018 09: 21
        The waves in the coastal waters of the Arctic are not difficult, allowing IPC 1124 to operate - even now. And their seaworthiness is worse than that of 20380, but it is quite enough. And the corvette doesn’t need to go further, it’s not his job.

        And what are the dimensions of this very Arctic, just if you look at the map? How many fleet bases are there in this Arctic? There will definitely be enough unseaworthy ships to cover all strategic areas. After all, in addition to the Albatrosses, the Northern Fleet also has the Udalye BOD, and they will also need a change, albeit not so urgently.
        Bring to completion an engine that in a large series is much simpler than a future power plant with electric propulsion, which no one has ever built

        There is a rational element to this. An engine already in use, albeit in a small series, must be brought to the required characteristics. In addition, the termination of construction of 20380 is most likely a mistake... But where did the information about the termination come from? 6 units still need to be completed for the Pacific Fleet.

        Further about the Albatrosses - 20380 is never a replacement for the Albotross; in terms of its ability to detect submarines, it is perhaps superior to them, but in terms of its ability to hit them... It does not have any long-range anti-submarine weapons, not counting the aircraft torpedo. A helicopter is a great advantage, but the small amount of fuel for a helicopter practically ties 20380 to tankers and home ports...
        The extremely dense layout reduces the modernization potential - nothing new can be installed on these ships.
        20385 on Kolomna diesel engines was rumored to be too slow.
        Well, as for the reliability of these diesel engines - there were recently victorious reports regarding the completion of a three-month diesel repair at Gorshkov.
        It seems to me that the construction of more and more new types of ships indicates, first of all, the unresolved problems of older types. It would be nice, of course, to stamp “Arleigh Burke” like the Americans, but it doesn’t work out...
        According to the CD

        Are you sure you have access to the CD?
        I specifically found a photo from the presentation of the project and posted it in the article

        Still, a presentation is not exactly a design document; there may be mistakes there.
        "Caliber" is installed on a helicopter lift under the doors of the below-deck hangar.

        Or it extends onto this lift from the rear compartment using the yellow crane beam shown in the same presentation...
        Although I agree that keeping a helicopter below deck and using the same doors to both retrieve the helicopter and install additional equipment is a strange idea.
        1. 0
          16 March 2018 13: 05
          And what are the dimensions of this very Arctic, just if you look at the map? How many fleet bases are there in this Arctic? There will definitely be enough unseaworthy ships to cover all strategic areas. After all, in addition to the Albatrosses, the Northern Fleet also has the Udalye BOD, and they will also need a change, albeit not so urgently.


          Well, in the same Arctic, at least replace 1124. But BOD is rank 1, that’s a separate issue. IMHO, you need to change to 22350.

          He doesn’t have any long-range anti-submarine weapons, not counting the aircraft torpedo. A helicopter is a great advantage, but the small amount of fuel for a helicopter practically ties 20380 to tankers and home ports...


          Well, at 20 km along submarine 20380 it can fire. The helicopter has weapons of destruction.
          I agree that the NK Package is not a completely comprehensive argument. But the fact is that 20386 has the same NK Package. There's nothing else there.

          And 20385 has a PLUR launched from the UVP. And this is the solution to all issues. A helicopter and a shipborne sonar for search, anti-submarine missiles for hitting submarines further than 20 km, a package for the near zone.

          And again, I am in favor of replacing the Package with something longer-ranged and faster-charging, but this does not mean at all that the ship needs to be changed.

          Still, a presentation is not exactly a design document; there may be mistakes there.
          "Caliber" is installed on a helicopter lift under the doors of the below-deck hangar.
          Or it extends onto this lift from the rear compartment using the yellow crane beam shown in the same presentation...

          Yes, this is one of the options. And when the chief designer was asked where the helicopter would go if it were necessary to fire a caliber, he replied that the helicopter would fly away.

          Idiot answer in my opinion.
          1. +1
            16 March 2018 23: 34
            And when the chief designer was asked where the helicopter would go if it were necessary to shoot with a caliber, he replied that the helicopter would fly away

            Yes, it sounds kind of strange, is it really either a helicopter or a caliber. Then it’s really not entirely clear why such modularity is needed at all.
            1. 0
              17 March 2018 04: 14
              Taking into account the fact that a helicopter (preferably two) is always needed at sea, it’s clear why
              expensive vise made by faberge
              1. 0
                17 March 2018 10: 25
                Well, among the advantages of this ship, it can be noted that in the room below the plume you can place 2 helicopters + it seems to me that there is more space for their maintenance. But the ship also needs a long anti-submarine arm.

                Maybe this strange answer assumed that the ship is equipped only with anti-submarine missiles of the Kallibr family, and when using them, the helicopter will most likely be engaged in patrolling or searching for a submarine that is being fired at... But this is some kind of very limited concept.
                1. 0
                  18 March 2018 06: 15
                  there it was more likely meant that it was either a PLR or a helicopter.
                  1. 0
                    26 March 2018 23: 06
                    To me, an amateur, this idea seems very strange.
          2. 0
            17 March 2018 10: 32
            Idiot answer in my opinion.

            On the other hand, I’m looking at your favorite 20385 specifically at the placement of missiles on it. Does this mean that when the helicopter is rolled out onto the deck, shooting the Zur is impossible? Have they arrived at an almost equally limited solution here?
            1. -1
              17 March 2018 13: 21
              It’s possible, you just need to roll the helicopter back a meter further. Missiles in the UVP have a pneumatic ejection; neither the helicopter nor people will be harmed during launch.
              But on 20386, according to rumors, you need to turn the cannon back in order to launch a rocket from the cells, from the side of the superstructure.
              But I don’t know that for sure.
  64. 0
    16 March 2018 05: 21
    Pingo,
    According to the IDF... Combat-ready squadron F 35 adir in the number of 9 units at the Nevatim base. In the next XNUMX hours, part of the squadron was officially deployed to the database. I hope the press service will report...
  65. 0
    16 March 2018 10: 12
    Pingo,
    Whose 35th and according to whose “data”? Demand has dropped significantly

    Has demand dropped? Oh well. What's in the recent news? Which aren't from local talking heads?
    https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract-V
    iew / Article / 1465477 /
    In accordance with the $1,46 billion agreement entered into on March 13, 2018 under Base Contract N00019-17-C-0001, the company will purchase materials and long-lead components necessary for the production and delivery of the F-35 Lightning II fighter jets. in the technical person of initial functional readiness: 145 units as part of the 13th series (for 3 branches of the US military, countries participating in the F-35 program and foreign governments under the Foreign Military Sales program), as well as 69 units as part of 14 - series (for countries participating in the F-35 program and foreign governments under the Foreign Military Sales program). The work should be completed by the end of December 2018. The agreement is funded on a shared basis by: US Air Force 24%, USMC 11%, US Navy 3%, F-35 program countries 44% and foreign governments under the Foreign Military Sales program 18%. All financial resources provided for in the agreement are transferred to the contractor upon signing it.

    Oh how the demand has fallen. Another 200+ pieces were ordered, a little less than what is already available.
    1. 0
      17 March 2018 04: 16
      And at the beginning, saying how many of them were planned? With pomp, by 2008 after which d.b. release completed.
  66. +1
    16 March 2018 21: 37
    The unification is very good, but we must understand that we have different theaters of operations and different conditions. There are shallow waters in the Caspian Sea, and ice and storms in the north. Personally, I like the idea of ​​modularity. With minimal effort we get exactly what is needed in this particular situation. And yes, no one canceled specialization. PLO ships will cope better with submarines, and ships with strike weapons and stealth technology will cope with AUG. In the near sea zone we must be stronger than any potential enemy; this is vital for the security of the country. And therefore, expensive ships of the 3rd rank are justified. These ships must fight enemy strike forces on an equal footing and defeat them.
    1. 0
      16 March 2018 22: 39
      absolutely right, common sense has triumphed, the article is one-sided and does not operate in terms of strategy and tactics, these ships are ideal after the first wave - the destruction of satellites and aircraft carriers, in these conditions invisible ships become queens of the seas
      1. +1
        17 March 2018 00: 26
        Now lethal weapons can be placed in small volumes. Previously, in order to sink a dreadnought, another dreadnought was needed. Large ships are needed only because they have greater autonomy. But if such a large ship comes into contact with three attack corvettes attacking from different directions, its chances will be low. As for aircraft carriers, they are a super-expensive toy, good only for crushing countries like Iraq. On enemy shores with powerful anti-ship defenses, this is primarily a tasty target. Once upon a time, aircraft carriers served to gain supremacy at sea. And now the field needs to be cleared for them using other means. And the question arises: what are they for if they cannot win the war on their own?
        1. 0
          17 March 2018 01: 28
          Aircraft carriers will never approach the shores with powerful anti-ship defense. The range of carrier-based strike aircraft of American aircraft carriers is 1000-1500 km. Plus the range of the missiles they launch. The range of coastal anti-ship missile defense is up to 400 km. So don't be smart.
        2. 0
          17 March 2018 09: 19
          Quote: chingachguc
          Once upon a time, aircraft carriers served to gain supremacy at sea. And now the field needs to be cleared for them using other means. And the question arises: what are they for if they cannot win the war on their own?

          Where did you get the idea that in our time aircraft carriers cannot serve to gain supremacy at sea; after all, aircraft can also carry anti-ship missiles. The result is a greater range of destruction of enemy ships compared to missiles placed on ships.
          1. +2
            17 March 2018 11: 00
            an aircraft carrier (or a group of aircraft carriers) approaching a foreign shore will be attacked from the sea, from the air and from under water with a very high probability of being sunk. This is a point of augmentation of forces, while the aircraft carrier itself has hundreds of targets. The damage that an AUG can inflict on the enemy is not comparable to the damage that can be inflicted on him. It is not even suitable for a blockade - it is too expensive and ineffective. The Americans have so many aircraft carriers also because they have a lot of satellites around the world and a lot of military bases. If this is not the case, then building an aircraft carrier is even more pointless. Well, maybe China and India can somehow butt heads with the help of aircraft carriers at sea, but for example, aircraft carriers are useless against Russia, just as Russia itself does not need them. Kuznetsov's campaign to Syria showed this. Expensive and ineffective. Everything that carrier-based aircraft did - all this could be done by planes with Khmeimim without noise and dust. And further. During World War II, one of the advantages of an aircraft carrier was its stealth. Now this secrecy is very difficult to ensure for obvious reasons.
            1. 0
              17 March 2018 13: 02
              We may not always have conditions like this time in Syria, when we have our bases there. We must count on the general case.
              Imagine a situation where ISIS, before our intervention, would have managed to capture all of Syria, except for, say, the government quarter of the capital (Damascus).
              In order to organize our base in Syria then, it would have been necessary to first recapture at least part of the territory (while simultaneously defending the Syrian government).
              But for these tasks an aircraft carrier is desirable.
              1. +1
                17 March 2018 14: 57
                There is no need to go on long trips at all if there is no one to rely on. An operation, even without counteraction at sea, can last for years, and an AUG in a combat zone will operate for a month at most. And then a break for six months. Can you imagine how many aircraft carriers you need to have to ensure constant duty? The war in Syria has highlighted the main problem of the fleet - not the lack of aircraft carriers, but the catastrophic shortage of transports and escort ships. When the Turks close the straits, we’ll have to go through Gibraltar... then we’ll fight...
                1. -1
                  17 March 2018 15: 11
                  Quote: chingachguc
                  An AUG in a combat zone will operate for a month at most.

                  Why did you decide that AUG cannot work for more than a month?
                  The fact that our “Admiral Kuznetsov” spent little time in Syria is because there was no need for it there. He actually went there for combat exercises. And if necessary, he would continue to work there.
                  Aircraft carriers significantly expand the state’s ability to respond to emerging situations in different parts of the world.
                2. 0
                  17 March 2018 15: 21
                  Quote: chingachguc
                  When the Turks close the straits, we’ll have to go through Gibraltar... then we’ll fight...

                  When the Turks tried to do this in the 1970s, our Minister of Foreign Affairs Gromyko A.A. stated when meeting with American journalists that “for passage into the Mediterranean, the USSR Black Sea Fleet will need only a couple of salvos of missiles. As a result of this, in addition to the Bosphorus, two more passages in the Mediterranean will appear, but, alas, there will be no Istanbul. After these words, Turkey will never again raised the issue of closing the Bosphorus to USSR warships."
  67. 0
    16 March 2018 23: 32
    Modularity makes further modernization many times cheaper, so project 20386 is an evolution, if not a revolution
  68. +2
    17 March 2018 01: 25
    "...and a container launcher can be placed on the deck, placing the equipment in a helicopter hangar..." Author, did he fall out of an oak tree?))) And the centering of the ship, and the seaworthiness with such an installation, and the influence of wind and pitching, and the radar visibility after all? What is this, some kind of barge? A lot of letters and indignation, author, and all just for the sake of preserving the construction of the original series of projects 20380 and 20385, lobbied for several years ago. The modular design of warships is the necessary future. This is a reduction in costs in the future. But converting industry to it is an expense. And this must be understood, and not crowed.
    1. +1
      17 March 2018 14: 25
      Don’t try to act like a smart person, it won’t work anyway. I answer this:
      What about the centering of the ship, and seaworthiness with such an installation, and the effects of wind and pitching, and radar signature in the end?


      Installing a container on the deck will affect alignment and seaworthiness in the same way as rolling a helicopter out of the hangar onto it. Radar visibility is unimportant; in a war, you still won’t be able to go beyond the range of coastal fighters, and none of the corvettes have insufficient air defense.
      The modular design of warships is the necessary future.

      The Americans screwed with it, and not at all because they are stupid “like Zadornov.” Modularity has a bunch of restrictions on its application and is always a half-measure. The same 20386 with a rocket module carries 4 "Caliber" at the cost of losing the helicopter. A 20385 - 8 pcs. with a helicopter.
      1. 0
        19 March 2018 08: 07
        the prospects now are as follows - in the near future, in place of a module with one helicopter, there will be 2 UAVs with exactly the same capabilities, but with greater range and autonomy, and replacing these modules is a matter of one day. in addition, 20386 can simultaneously fire 8 missiles.
  69. +2
    17 March 2018 14: 20
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    And the corvette doesn’t need to go further, it’s not his job.

    This depends on the adopted concept of use of the Navy.
    According to the modern concept, which involves a large number of small but muscular ships, corvettes should not be limited only to coastal waters!
  70. 0
    17 March 2018 20: 12
    What can I say ..
    I have never been a seaman, although I once had to put on a cap borrowed by a sidekick for a frown in the company of the same wearers of blue and white stripes in the park... the spiritual and physical suffering was painfully severe...
    Well, it happened, it happened.. Mia kulpa..
    But as our Hymnist said, all kinds of mothers are important, all kinds of mothers are needed...
    But just because we are all sputtering here, nothing will change.
    They will lobby in the same way for the sake of kickbacks, and in the same way they will anti-lobby, for the sake of the same kickbacks, only in their direction.
    Well, who will be the last?
    That's right... Innocent guys, even in stripes, even with crabs on their foreheads. Well, we are with you and together with Russia.
    No, don’t think about it... I don’t do election campaigning, especially since it’s generally prohibited.
    It’s just that against the backdrop of what happened in the True Sea Power, seditious thoughts appeared in my mind.
    Well, if, based on the ability of our Guarantor for multi-move vehicles, we assume a trace. situevina;
    Point 1. There is an unnecessary corrupt horse on a certain island.
    2. If you carefully reset it to zero, well, not “too carefully,” but loudly enough, then what can you get?
    3. Quite natural and righteous anger from someone whom our racial people secretly do not like, but in reality, even tomorrow they are ready to open a crime no matter what.
    4. Quite natural actions and sanctions and actions from the injured party.
    5. Appropriate (but absolutely unexpected, but so desired, especially by jingoistic patriots from VO, sharp movements of the Russian Foreign Ministry), especially after the vociferous enumeration of the prodigies of Made in Russia.
    Here I will allow a small digression before they start throwing bricks at me, kissing me, or simply twirling their finger at my temple.
    I’m not a commie, not a Navalnyon, not a Sterninist, not a Putinist, and in general I’m not for anyone from those whom this crazy world is trying to push on me.
    But let's get back to the topic...
    And now comes point 6
    6. Mass hysteria that the Russian Federation has finally found the strength in itself, and delivered, or rather showed, all this international crap that Russia doesn’t slurp up cabbage soup... And that it has a bigger size...
    7. And here, unexpectedly, against this very patriotic background, people’s love and trust in Big Brother flares up, and no matter health care, salaries, pensions and oligarchs with their yachts and planes with dogs on board... And even the shameful 146 % Churova..Where there! You give 1460%+100pizot...
    And here it is FINAL!!! 18.03.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX.....
    And the next day you will have to wake up...Or rather at 00.00.01 19.03.2018/XNUMX/XNUMX....
    Because, bitch, the VAZ in the yard has returned to its original state again.
    The dress turned back into bills for housing and communal services.
    Well, what about the prince...?!
    What about the prince?
    The prince remained in his place...
    Only the fairy has a 6-year vacation for overtime, and the Prince doesn’t need any of us.
  71. The comment was deleted.
  72. The comment was deleted.
  73. 0
    18 March 2018 11: 57
    Unification is the most important problem of those that the Design Bureau, TsKB and Gospriemka must overcome. It is very important to build a box with a gas propulsion unit, which can be filled with various fillings for different purposes, ensuring survivability, seaworthiness, and the ability to perform the tasks assigned to the fleet quickly and efficiently. As an example, the BOD “Chabanenko”, “Kharlamov”, “Severomorsk”... Apparently, we currently do not have such a thing in the life of the state. Unification and standardization have been practically destroyed for the sake of industry and design bureaus.
    For a basic example, just look at what KamAZ, Ural, and UAZ vehicles are built from year after year. In order to provide spare parts for ONE military unit equipped with automobile equipment of different years of manufacture, you must have knowledge of each model of equipment for each year of manufacture. And so, on the same KamAZ model there can be completely different types of axles, gearboxes, electrical equipment and engine body kits are very different.
    Disparity in the supply of troops = a direct threat to the troops in the event of real hostilities.
    1. 0
      19 March 2018 06: 37
      That you “Westerners” all agreed on the same thing, that “the navy needs one standard and to hell with modularity, they say it’s expensive” - they never saved in the navy, the introduced standard of the Armata platform is what is necessary for unification, which in the navy and through there will never be a million years. There are no words for what is happening now in the troops and navy, very smart people are doing it, all that remains is to be proud and think about how to help the Fatherland and people with their deeds. Modularity is a pandora's box for NATO; it is unknown whether an attacker or a defender is passing by, and upgrading a ship takes a minimum of time - just change the module and get back into service.
  74. 0
    19 March 2018 07: 42
    We have too many universities from the USSR based on the design of ships, aircraft, etc. but they all want not only bread and butter, they also want caviar, so they knock out money for themselves to design something of their own without coordination with time and necessity. They have sorted out the planes so far, but not the ships and tanks.
    1. 0
      19 March 2018 08: 12
      Yes, I don’t believe that our industrialists can betray their homeland for the sake of “caviar” - they didn’t leave for the USA in the 90s like many, and now they are creating breakthrough products, the analogues of which will not be available for another 20 years.
    2. 0
      19 March 2018 09: 48
      Quote: Valery Saitov
      We've sorted out the planes so far, but not the ships and tanks.
      - In terms of?
  75. 0
    19 March 2018 13: 02
    Likewise, the cessation of orders for ship diesel engines at the Kolomensky Plant does not allow the plant to bring these engines to the required level of reliability.

    The engine must be brought to the required level of reliability on a bench on the scale of a test vessel, and not on military equipment.
  76. 0
    19 March 2018 13: 10
    The author is clearly disingenuous!
    Unification (everything in one bottle) is immediately unnecessary and harmful!

    Roughly speaking, if scouts are escorting a convoy of equipment, then they go for an infantry fighting vehicle, but if they are going after a tongue, why do they need an infantry fighting vehicle?
    1. 0
      19 March 2018 13: 23
      You’re asking the wrong question - why do they need three different infantry fighting vehicles with the same armament and protection to accompany the convoy? To fuck the deputy tech?
  77. +1
    19 March 2018 22: 55
    Good article, many thanks to the author
    You read it and it’s like deja vu - some sentences are directly quoted from P.K. Khudyakov about the brainless construction of a collection of ships of different calibers using public money. If anyone remembers this - a professor at the Imperial Moscow Technical School, the analytical work "The Path to Tsushima", 1908...
    Then the “Russian officers” also notably rattled their weapons clang, proud of the “newest ships” and “the latest technological achievements,” ruining tens of thousands of men and hundreds of millions of men’s money (that is, trillions in today’s money).
    Thanks to the author and continue to work. Sincerely....
  78. 0
    20 March 2018 13: 21
    Quote: yakisam
    Good article, many thanks to the author
    You read it and it’s like deja vu - some sentences are directly quoted from P.K. Khudyakov about the brainless construction of a collection of ships of different calibers using public money. If anyone remembers this - a professor at the Imperial Moscow Technical School, the analytical work "The Path to Tsushima", 1908...
    Then the “Russian officers” also notably rattled their weapons clang, proud of the “newest ships” and “the latest technological achievements,” ruining tens of thousands of men and hundreds of millions of men’s money (that is, trillions in today’s money).
    Thanks to the author and continue to work. Sincerely....

    A very dubious comment, even if it was true, but this is the price of freedom. And honestly, to hell with unification and millions, the main thing is that NATO is afraid of the landing of the peoples of Russia.
  79. +2
    20 March 2018 14: 01
    Quote: Simargl
    You did not seem to notice that the main enemy was formed behind us in a puddle. Yes, of course, we have a maritime border with it, but don’t you think that they will attack from there?


    That's right, but we are not going to occupy the States... Or are we? And the maritime border with the United States in the Bering Strait deserves the closest attention. It is here that it is easiest to sever the sea communications of the Far East with the European part. And here, on a limited scale, the occupation of part of Alaska is advisable. Just like the northern part of Norway (the Norwegians joined NATO and created a mortal threat for themselves in the person of Russia, they would sit neutral and no one would touch them), the Baltic states (the same). And all this is part of a defensive strategy.
  80. +1
    20 March 2018 15: 50
    Quote: Simargl
    This alone is enough to indicate that you are mistaken.

    You can write anything, the paper will bear it. You can write that we will soon fly to the moon... but in practice - poof. Even in Syria the situation is very precarious. Syria is simply cut off from all communications with Russia. Well, how long will we stay there - even without shelling and war? When Turkey is in the CSTO, and not in NATO, then we can talk about the strength of our positions in Syria.
  81. The comment was deleted.
  82. The comment was deleted.
  83. 0
    21 March 2018 14: 20
    Based on the fact that the construction of warships depends on whether you like it or not, whether there will be a bonus or not, I think that more money can be made: put all design offices under strict state control, identify everyone who wants to build only their own type of ships, send to build clearings and railways in Kolyma, conduct a global audit among designers, identify talents, set tasks and, like under Stalin, send them to sharashkas to work for a hat of crackers!! I am sure that in a few years our ships will be interchangeable, inexpensive and the best in the world!! Like the T-34 tank, which had no equal!!!
  84. 0
    21 March 2018 21: 31
    Quote: Vladimir Chiyanov
    Based on the fact that the construction of warships depends on whether you like it or not, whether there will be a bonus or not, I think that more money can be made: put all design offices under strict state control, identify everyone who wants to build only their own type of ships, send to build clearings and railways in Kolyma, conduct a global audit among designers, identify talents, set tasks and, like under Stalin, send them to sharashkas to work for a hat of crackers!! I am sure that in a few years our ships will be interchangeable, inexpensive and the best in the world!! Like the T-34 tank, which had no equal!!!

    there are so many words about the primitive T-34, Stalin and Kolyma, now you can’t win with a shovel, but only with weapons worth tens of billions of rubles.
  85. 0
    21 March 2018 23: 33
    In general, building corvettes is a mistake. Destroyers are needed, destroyers!!!
    1. +1
      22 March 2018 11: 33
      given the current state of the economy, this is a fairy tale. Or the building is in 1 copy.
  86. +1
    22 March 2018 02: 26
    There is one more problem that the author for some reason did not write about: management.
    Ships usually operate as part of a formation. And if they are of the same type, it is much easier and more efficient to control them than a hodgepodge of different types of ships. I mean combat control.
    The destructiveness of this approach was shown by the Russo-Japanese War. Both in the 1st Pacific Squadron and in the 2nd, different types of ships took part in squadron battles. They put everything in the battle line - from Retvizan and Suvorov, to Pobeda, Sysoy and BBO Senyavin. The result is known.
    Not only officers serving on new projects will have to retrain. Staffs, formation commanders and fleet commanders will also have to retrain. And take into account the performance characteristics of new ships in your calculations.
  87. The comment was deleted.
  88. +1
    23 March 2018 07: 23
    -
    Quote: pacific
    Russo-Japanese War

    In the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese fleet showed itself to be a complete amateur, ruining its entire fleet against several Russians. A motley fleet is the key to victory when the enemy is not able to take into account all the combat nuances of our ships, their attack tactics and the number of possible maneuvers.
  89. +1
    23 March 2018 09: 48
    Quote: chingachguc
    Simargl aka Andrei, you seem to be a victim of propaganda, but you need to look at the world with clear eyes - only such a view gives an objective picture. Russia has 2,5% of world GDP, and with such a share, Russia simply cannot be a world power. Russia does not have such economic interests in Cuba and Vietnam to fight over them. In the Middle East, Russia has the main interest - the fight against Islamic fundamentalism, and all other goals are concomitant, they seem to be a bonus. Well, because of the weakness of our economy, we cannot even turn Turkey to our side, we cannot tie it to our market in such a way that Turkey becomes our faithful ally. And we can offer the Arabs nothing but weapons and bread (for now). And China can. And the states can. Developing the country's economic potential (primarily industrial) is the path that can really make Russia a key global player. Then money will appear on the ocean fleet.

    I absolutely agree that to be cool in the external arena it’s not enough to talk about new armaments that need to be brought in, we must show economic strength with economic reasons, and if we have GDP growth far from that of a developing country, then we need to think and do something, if war economy is a 50% victory, Germany lost in the second war because the economy did not endure a long war. Novelties, new, and industry capable of producing the right amount and with the right quality is a separate issue.
  90. 0
    24 March 2018 16: 39
    timokhin-aa,
    Taking into account the cost of producing several types of engines, it will be cheaper
  91. 0
    25 March 2018 20: 57
    Quote: Boris Chernikov
    timokhin-aa,
    Taking into account the cost of producing several types of engines, it will be cheaper

    But in engines we definitely need a single standard, because... the engine has a single indicator and graph - the speed of knots on fuel consumption, the same perfect engine can be installed on both a missile boat and a missile cruiser, the only question is quantity, i.e. in modularity
  92. The comment was deleted.
  93. 0
    30 March 2018 07: 51
    Quote: Mikhail Starikov
    A good and wonderful example of unification is our automobile industry! This is who we should follow as an example, in the VAZ2101 and VAZ2107 you can change everything: the engine, chassis, electrics, even the seats and steering wheel are interchangeable! Although the difference in the years of manufacture is about half a century. The article is correct, it is necessary to send designers from AvtoVAZ, it is better to send AZLK to projects of Navy ships, and then oars could be supplied from one boat to another. A VERY necessary and correct article about the future of the Russian fleet.

    The future of the fleet was already laid out in plans several years ago, and here we are writing comments from our bell tower on the topic: “What kind of sheep would allow an auto mechanic to build an invisible ship.”
  94. 0
    29 August 2018 19: 23
    Personal opinion. There is a rational grain in the article, but the general thing is somehow not readable, it turned out like everything is lost - we are all going to die. New technologies are being mastered; if they are not mastered, then in a year or two, problems will begin to emerge from all the cracks.
  95. 0
    31 August 2018 12: 36
    The production of Project 20386 ships must be stopped and its resumption should not be considered in the future.

    vice versa (!)
    quickly complete Project 20356 - test all systems and implement them on Project 22350M and subsequent ship projects (!)
  96. 0
    18 November 2018 21: 36
    [quote][/It is necessary to cancel the program for the construction of ten ships of Project 20386, cancel the decision to stop the production of corvettes of Projects 20380 and 20385 and resume their production in an amount of at least 20-25 units in addition to the ships already laid down, and replace them partially or completely with small anti-submarine ships of project 1124.quote] Or maybe it’s still better to replace Project 1124 with boats of Project 11661-K (Dagestan type)? Firstly, they have full-fledged 533 mm TA for normal ASW (and not “Package”), and secondly, part of the VPU can carry 91RE1 or 91RE2 anti-submarine missiles. In addition, the cost of building 11661-K and 20380, it seems to me, will not be in favor of the latter.
  97. 0
    21 December 2018 18: 43
    The article and the comments are just crap.
  98. 0
    19 February 2019 12: 35
    I had read. It’s strange why this article came out to me again.
  99. 0
    26 June 2019 15: 10
    Half of the article by afffter Timokhin was sucked out of something and thrown at the fan. There must be unification, and there is, in the types of engines, mechanics, electronic parts and weapons. Various ships are still of old construction, 70% of them. And nothing new at all. Russia's near coastal zone is very large and complex. This zone faces many more challenges than any other country, including and the USA. For example, the brawler behaves very well when solving various problems, incl. in shallow inland waters. They were modernized to Karakurt. Project 20380 ships have performed well as escort ships. Projects 20380, 20385, 20386 are essentially the same thing. Project 20386 ships are of a modular type; depending on the task, they can be equipped with various weapons from calibers to uranium. Of course, the Russian Navy has great financial difficulties, but the ships are being built surprisingly very well and are being modernized. It is obvious that they are working on this. For a very long period of the Gorbochev-Yeltsin era, this did not happen at all. The fleet was dying. A lot still needs to be done, but to say indiscriminately that the construction of ships designed to solve various problems is a mistake based on something unclear, to put it mildly.
  100. 0
    4 October 2019 01: 45
    I agree with the author. 20386 is a very expensive, weak and worthless ship, instead of which any ship would be good from corvettes 20380,20385 to frigates like 11356,22350...
    1. 0
      30 November 2022 17: 28
      Why did you decide that? The ship has strike weapons, in addition to Uranus, also Caliber.