Military Review

Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Frigates

82
In the article that is being brought to your attention, we will consider the state and prospects for the development of this, in general, a new class for our sailors of the ships, like a frigate.


In connection with the fact that frigates were not listed in the Navy of the USSR, the assignment of ships of Soviet construction to this class is entirely on the conscience of the author. Of all the ships that were laid in the USSR and were in the Russian Navy as of 1 December 2015 g, theoretically, the frigates of the 11540 project, the last “singing frigate” of the 61 “Sharp” project, could also be attributed to frigates, and also maybe the patrol ships of the 1135 and 1135М Ladny and Pytlivy projects. However, "Sharp-witted" we have already considered in the article devoted to destroyers, and we talked about the TFR of the 1135 project in the section of corvettes. Accordingly, there are only:

SKR of the 11540 project - 2 unit.



Standard displacement - 3 590 t, speed - 30 bonds, armament: 4 * 8 PU ZRK "Dagger", 2 * 4 PU UU anti-ship missile "Uran" (not on "Fearless"), 2 * 3 PU UL "Vodopad-O-Fnad-F") 1 RBU-6000, 1 * 1 100-mm AU AK-100, 2 SIGN "Dirk", hangar for the 1-th Ka-27 helicopter.

In total, three such ships were laid: Fearless, Yaroslav the Wise, and Fog, but the latter was not commissioned, and in 2016 g it was decided to dispose of the unfinished hull. The only difference between the Fearless and Yaroslav the Wise, as far as the author is aware, was the absence of the Uranus PKR launchers on the first one (although the author doesn’t know how to control these missiles).

In fact, if in the Soviet navy and there were ships that could be called frigates, so this project 11540 is. The fact is that the project was originally created as a “response” to numerous frigates of Western countries - the performance characteristics of all modern frigates at that time were analyzed, the best of them was selected (it turned out to be the German frigate “Bremen”) and then the Zelenodolsk Design Bureau got the task to design “such but it’s only better ”- this is how the project 11540 turned out. By the way, to classify project 11540, the 1st Navy Institute proposed introducing a new class“ frigate ”into the official“ Table of Ranks ”of the Russian fleet, but S. G. Gorshkov thought it was unnecessary.

Probably, the commander-in-chief was right after all, because to some extent Fearless continued the line of development of the TFR of the 1135 project, but still with a large bias towards universality. Without a doubt, the air defense system built on the “Daggers”, one 100-mm AU and two SIGNS “Dirk” is much stronger than the “Osa” air defense system and a pair of 76-mm gun mounts. In addition, on the ships of the 11540 project, strike weapons were provided in the form of eight URAN anti-ship missiles, which was completely absent from the 1135 project (the ability of Rastrub-B to fire at ships is still a palliative). In addition, on the “Fearless” type ships, something appeared that was so lacking in the 1135 project - a hangar and a helipad.

Payment for the helicopter and versatility was the increase in displacement by 755 tons and the known weakening of anti-submarine weapons. On the one hand, due to the installation of a more modern and powerful GKM-365 Zvezda-М1 (and helicopter) search capabilities of the Fearless, they improved significantly, but instead of four PLUR, eight torpedo tubes, and two bomb bombets, the ship received six PLUR “ Waterfall-NK "and one bomb.

Such a replacement does not look equivalent. First, the lack of 533-mm torpedoes deprives the ship of a very powerful anti-submarine weapons just at those distances at which his SJC is able to detect enemy SPs. Of course, instead of the PLUR part, the Fearless can use torpedoes, but even in this case the PLUR and torpedoes general ammunition has been halved, which, in general, is not very encouraging. And secondly, the author of this article met with the opinion that in Vodopad-NK there is one very significant drawback, in comparison with other launch systems for PLUR.

The fact is that the same “Rastrub-B” works like this - after a launch, a PLUR flies “on a rocket”, that is, from the moment of exiting the launcher to “arriving” at the point where the enemy PLUR is in the air. At the same time, PLUR “Vodopada-NK” is thrown into the sea, like a torpedo, rocket engines start when PLUR is in the water, ammunition “emerges” and then follows the target like PLUR “Rastruba”. It seems to be - what's the difference, but the nuance is that, unlike the “dry” start, “Rastruba”, the “wet” start, PLUR “Waterfall-NK” produces a lot of noise and the HSC of the submarine is perfectly audible. Thus, the crew of a nearby submarine (and the PLUR “Vodopad-NK” range - up to 50 km) understood that it was attacked and could start responding (maneuvering, launching false targets, etc.). How fair is such a claim to “Waterfall-NK” the author cannot say (not a professional), but such an opinion exists.

But in general, the concept of ships of the project 11540 looks very successful - unless, of course, we consider them as a means of naval struggle in the near sea zone. Moderate displacement (and price) allow for large-scale construction. Good anti-aircraft capabilities make this type of ship a useful tool for ensuring the combat stability of our SSBNs in their deployment areas - in cooperation with anti-submarine aviation and MAPL and DEPL, of course. Air defense is unable to repulse the massive raid of modern aviation - well, even missile cruisers are powerless against such raids. But these ships may well protect themselves from the attack of one or two planes, helicopters or cruise missiles, which makes it possible to use them where massive raids are not expected, but an air threat still exists. The striking capabilities of the ships of Project 11540 are not amazing, but eight “Urani” are a completely ultimatum argument in a “dispute” with corvettes or missile boats, and it is simply pointless to assign the task of fighting aircraft carrier groups to ships of such a small displacement. The ships of Project 11540 turned out to be very successful, and we can only regret that only the Undaunted and Yaroslav the Wise replenished the composition of our fleet.

Thus, as of December 1 2015, we had two ships of the frigate class, laid down during the USSR, all the other ships of this class embarked on the stocks already in the Russian Federation.

Frigates project 11356 - 3 units



Standard displacement - 3 620 t, speed - 30 knots armament: UKSK "Caliber-NK" on 8 missiles, SAM "Calm-1" PU on 24 missiles, 2 * 2 533-mm torpedo launchers, RBU-6000, 1 * 1 100-mm gun mount A-190, 2 * 6 30 AK-630.

These ships are a direct continuation of the line of very successful domestic TFR project 1135, developed by the Northern Design Bureau (Northern PKB), or rather, its modifications 1135.1 "Nerey." It was like this - the KGB of the USSR wanted to get a sentry to protect the maritime borders of the Soviet Union, and the TFR of the 1135 project was chosen. As a result of the upgrade, the launch PLUR was removed, and in its place was placed the 100-mm artillery system. Aft 76-mm guns were also removed, their place was taken by the hangar and the helipad.

Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Frigates


In the future, as the basis for the design of a frigate capable of operating in the ocean, the Northern PKB used exactly Nerei. This frigate was originally intended for export, India liked it, as a result, the fleet of our strategic partner was replenished with six frigates of the Talwar type.



And here the mysteries begin. It seems that frigates of the Talvar type have gained quite decent opportunities in terms of searching for enemy submarines - the under-ground gas prop APSOH and towed SSN-137. Why "like"? According to some information, the towed GUS was not installed on these ships, there is only a place to accommodate SSN-137. And if it is the “other data” that is correct, then, given the fairly average, today, capabilities of the underbody GAS APSOH, the anti-submarine capabilities of the Talvarov are very small. As the main armament, the Talvara carry the Club missiles (Caliber) on the 8, but it is not known whether the customers purchased torpedoes for them, or whether the Indians are targeting exclusively the strike version.

On the whole, there is a feeling that the Talvaras made a departure from the anti-submarine ship to the strike frigate with a strong air defense system, which is provided by one beam complex “Calm-1” and two MCP “Kashtan”, representing the export version of the Code “Kortik”. In combination with the 8 "Caliber" or "Brahmos" the Indians turned out to be a very formidable fighter.

But - for India, because Pakistan is its main enemy at sea, the largest surface ships of which - the frigates of the 21 and 22P types are inferior to the Thalwaram in the aggregate of combat qualities. At the same time, the relatively weak anti-submarine weapons of Indian ships (not the best GUS and 2 * 2 torpedo tubes with ammunition in 16 are very ancient torpedoes SET-65E and the RBU-6000 bomber) are to a certain extent compensated by the fact that the basis of Pakistan’s submarine fleet Diesel submarines rather elderly French project "Agosta". Although everything is unclear here - Indian frigates will serve for more than one decade, while Pakistan was going to acquire much more sophisticated German submarines of the 212A type ... The situation with opposition to the Chinese fleet is somewhat more complicated, but in general the Talvara are quite capable against the background of Chinese destroyers and China has not yet acquired a powerful frigate, and a powerful carrier-based deck aircraft capable of effectively destroying surface ships of any class, and it is not known when he will succeed.

At the same time, the capabilities of Talvarov for the tasks of the Russian Navy cannot be considered sufficient. Extremely important anti-submarine function came out "cut off", and the shock capabilities and air defense do not allow to count on success in confrontation with the AUG of "sworn friends".

The construction of these ships for the Russian Navy was not supposed, but then, when it became clear that the fleet replenishment rates for the 20380 corvettes and the 22350 frigates are extremely far from the expected ones, it was decided to build a series of six such ships to replenish the Baltic and Black Sea fleets - for the 3 ship to each. But then it was decided that all six ships of this project will go to the Black Sea fleet.

Of course, it was not too good to build two different types of frigates for our fleet at the same time (along with the ships of the 22350 project), but the advantages of this solution clearly outweighed the minuses - the developed Talvarov construction technology seemed to guarantee their timely entry into service. I must say that we simply could not reproduce the Talvara for the Russian Navy - export Indian frigates were partially equipped with foreign equipment, which we had to replace with domestic ones, therefore the “Indian” project in any case was subject to revision. And finally, we have an opportunity to create a ship that can not only support, but even increase the glory of its “ancestor” - the TFR of the 1135 project. Unlike the Indians, who received a series of universal ships, focused primarily on the shock functionality and air defense, we needed a universal frigate, whose main "chip" was to be anti-submarine warfare. Alas ... did not work. By and large, the 11356 project is a development of the 90 of the last century, and is not at the cutting edge of scientific and technological progress today. Well, it was all the more important to pay the closest attention to the armament and equipment of the ship, if possible improving it and increasing, thereby, the combat capabilities of the domestic frigate. Instead, it seems, the savings have prevailed "a smaller number, cheaper price."

As a result, the domestic ships of the “admiral series” (all the 11356 frigates received the names of the admirals of the Russian fleet) received, it seems, the weakest GAS of all modern surface ships of the Russian Federation (who has it, of course) - MGC-335M-03, which Opportunities were even inferior to the “Talvarov” GAS APSOH, but they did not receive the towed GUS at all. With such equipment, even the possibilities of countering the German-built Turkish boats (type 209) look somewhat doubtful, and even trying to discover the latest atomic American and non-nuclear European submarines in the Mediterranean ...

There is an opinion that the USKS for the Caliber missiles of the 11356 frigates cannot use missile-torpedoes, but it is most likely erroneous. But to use "Onyxes", "admirals" seems really incapable, therefore, there is a question about promising hypersonic missiles. PLUR of the “Caliber” family “admiral series”, most likely, can carry, but is there much point in this if there is such a weak GUS? The main problem of the "adolescent" "admirals" of the 1135 project is the presence of a "long arm" in the form of "Rasrub-B", in the absence of a "keen eye", i.e. some long-range hydroacoustic complex. And now, after so many years, we are almost as much reproducing this problem in the domestic frigates of the 11356 project.

The installation of the outdated GAK could be understood if something more modern was missing, but by 2010 r we already had new complexes like Zarya-2 and Zarya-3, installed on 20380 corvettes and 22350 frigates, respectively, and representing the next generation of hydroacoustic stations. Or were you afraid that “Zarya” was not yet brought up to standard (if they were not brought at that time)? But at least who prevented to deliver a towed "Vignette"? The only thing that somewhat mitigates this situation is the presence of a helicopter, but in general, the anti-submarine capabilities of the 11356 frigates are obviously disappointing.

Air defense. Here, too, not everything is simple. On the one hand, many lovers of the navy exhaled with relief when they saw a vertical launch system instead of a morally outdated one-launch anti-aircraft missile. But the ammunition remained the same - 24 missiles, so the gain was only in the speed of their launch (which, no doubt, is very important). At the same time, instead of the DIRECT "Dirk", or at least ZAK "Palash", which should have been expected, the frigate received only a couple of "metal cutters" AK-630М. And this is also completely incomprehensible.

On the one hand, yes, indeed, the Kortik anti-aircraft missile and artillery complex was criticized for not having time to shoot out machine guns that were not shot down by anti-aircraft guided missiles, therefore the opinion that the AK-630 and LAW "Dagger" is better than the DIRECT "Dirk". But on the frigates of the project 11356 there is no "Dagger"! The basis of the ship’s air defense is the “Calm-1” medium-range air defense missile system, but these are still slightly different complexes and their tasks are also different. In principle, the Dirk "Dirk" (and on later ships, if you dream, "Pantsir-M") in their capabilities would very organically complement the air defense system "Shtil-1". Therefore, the placement of our AK-630М instead of the SPECT, from the point of view of the author, can only be explained by petty economy.

In general, despite all of the above, the 11356 frigates of the project turned out to be quite good ships and, of course, became the long-awaited completion for the Russian Navy. But it is very disappointing that because of the completely inappropriate, “three-gross” economy in armaments and equipment, they do not fully reveal the potential inherent in them.

As is known, three ships of this type were accepted into the Russian Navy: the Admiral Grigorovich, Admiral Essen and Admiral Makarov, while the other three did not have time to get the turbines produced in Ukraine before the coup d'état that occurred in it, and now will not receive. To this day, the fate of these three ships remains unclear. Nevertheless, bmpd blog reported in June 2017 that it was decided to finish building the 11356 frigates with domestic gas turbines. I must say that the new power plant has its pros and cons.

The fact is that in the original project the use of two gas-turbine units M7H1 with power 30 450 hp was assumed. each. The М7Н1 unit consisted of two gas turbine units (GTU) - one, hp 8 450. for the economic course and the second, "afterburner", power 22 000 hp for full speed. Thus, in two “economic” turbines, the frigate developed the power of the 16 900 hp, and the total power was 60 900 hp

Now, according to the bmpd blog, the ships are planning to install two gas turbine units, each of which consists of two GTU M70FRU, having the same power 14 000 hp. Thus, the economic move will be carried out at the power of 28 000 turbines HP. ., and full speed - with 56 000 hp. What can be said about this? The maximum speed of the frigates doesn’t “slacken” much, but the economic rate will increase - however, no doubt, the range with Russian GTUs will fall - the high power of the two M70FRU will lead to increased fuel consumption. Anyway, the completion of the second three frigates 11356 for the Russian Navy can only be welcomed. It remains to hope that since the three unfinished ships of this project will still be redesigned, then there will be a place for them both for the Pantsirey-M and for the newest hydroacoustic complexes, although of course this is crazy optimism. A long break in construction, new engines and the adaptation of ships to them obviously lead to an increase in the cost of construction of frigates, and in this regard, we should not expect additional costs for improving weapons, but full savings.

Frigates project 22350 - 0 units.



Displacement - 4 500 t, speed - 30 knots, armament - 2 * 8 OHR missile family "Caliber" / "Onyx», 4 * 8 OHR SAM "Redoute», 2 * 4 324-mm torpedo tubes "Pack-NK" , 1 * 1 130-mm AU A-192M, 2 ZAK "Palash".

History the creation of the frigates of this project has been described many times and there is no point in repeating it once again. We note only that the project 22350 for some time considered the command of the fleet as the main ship of the ocean zone, designed to replace destroyers and large anti-submarine ships of the USSR. The fallacy of this concept stemmed from the hope of getting a cheap universal oceanic ship in the dimensions of a frigate, which, alas, is impossible.

At the beginning of 2000, the Northern PKB created the 21956 project, which is a destroyer with a total displacement of around 9 000 (the standard displacement is not reported, but by analogy with the same Admiral Chabanenko, it can be assumed that it was at the level of 7 500). The ship was to receive weapons from the 16 anti-ship missiles or other Caliber family missiles and 48 Launch Fort-M SAM systems, as well as eight 533-mm torpedo tubes (with the ability to launch the Caliber PLE launch vehicle), a single or double-barreled 130 -mm art installation, two DIRECT "Dirk" and a hangar for two helicopters.



Of course, it was impossible to “shove” such weapons into the “frigate” standard displacement in 4 500 t, I had to make sacrifices. Despite the use of a much lighter and more compact Redut air defense system, the number of launchers was reduced to 32. Formally, the 22350 frigate carries the same strike armament, the 16 launch missiles for the Caliber / Onyx family, but in practice this is not the case, because the frigate had to abandon 533-mm torpedo tubes in favor of the 324-mm “Package- NK.

I must say that the "Package-NK" is a very serious weapon system, but still its torpedoes are primarily anti-torpedo ammunition. It can also be used to defeat a submarine, but against it it is a “last chance” weapon, i.e. in the event that an enemy submarine was suddenly discovered several kilometers from the ship. With all the advantages of the Paket-NK ammunition, their range and speed are, of course, completely incompatible with “full-fledged” 533-mm torpedoes.

As a result, in order to be able to effectively operate against enemy submarines, the frigate of the 22350 project will have to take part of its 16 mines to take up missile-torpedoes, but the destroyer of the 21956 project? Having "large-caliber" torpedoes and without it remained a formidable opponent for a submarine.

But perhaps the most important advantage of the 21956 destroyer over the 22350 frigate is its seaworthiness and cruising range - the destroyer is able to travel almost 18,5 times more on 1,5 nodes of an economic course than the 14 frigate. According to these possibilities, the destroyer of the 21956 project is quite comparable to the American Arly Berk. This means, for example, that the destroyer 21956 is capable of escorting the moving AUG - the atomic aircraft carrier, of course, can break away from our destroyer, but then it needs to abandon its guard. But the frigate project 22350 is incapable of this. In addition, in peacetime, the policy of the Russian Federation requires ensuring the presence of its warships in order to demonstrate the flag in various regions of the world’s ocean, and the destroyer for this (due to its large size and autonomy) is adapted, of course, better than the frigate. And this is not to mention the fact that the destroyer of the 21956 project provided for a gas-gas turbine power plant without the use of diesel engines, which are very capricious for domestic manufacturers.

Nevertheless, with all of the above, the 22350 frigates of the project would be a welcome addition, because today the fleet desperately needs ships of all classes. Unfortunately, the head "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov", laid out by 1 February 2006 g, after 12 (!) Years of construction is still out of order. It is well known that he had long been a part of the Russian Navy if it were not for the problems with the Poliment-Redut system (which is a symbiosis of the Polimer radar and the Redut system).

As it is known, the Redut air defense missile system is the “armored” version of the Vityaz C-350, a medium-range anti-aircraft missile system that uses, among other things, missiles with an active homing head. Both of these complexes were supposed to go to the troops and the fleet a long time ago, they waited for the same Vityaz in 2012 g, but alas ... It seemed that in the second half of 2017 g, the “light at the end of the tunnel” did appear: according to the concern’s general designer Pavel Sozinov's Almaz-Antey Aerospace Defense, the Vityaz C-350 state tests should finally be completed in 2017. And in 2018, it was about to be “promoted” for export.

Alas, 2017 r is already behind, and C-350 has not completed state tests. It is clear that its maritime version, Redut, is even more complicated, therefore ... On February 3, 2018 Mr. USC President Alexei Rakhmanov told reporters, literally, the following:

“The commission finished its work, which dealt with the reasons for unsuccessful launches. All the main technical improvements that need to be done have been identified, but colleagues also need time later, I believe that this may be a couple of months - probably before mid-late March, in order to conduct the necessary test firing. After that, I believe, the next round of state tests will be scheduled. ”


The USC President also expressed the hope that the “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov” would be commissioned before the end of 2018. Alas, there are certain doubts, and the matter is not only in the Redut system or the Polarmar radar. According to a highly respected resource flotprom.ru, Kolomna diesel engines “installed” at the “Gorshkovo” “distinguished themselves” - one of them broke 23 December 2017, repair work is carried out directly in the engine room. Separate parts of the engine are sent to Kolomna to conduct an audit and repair, and, if necessary, a replacement. It is also to be sent to the factory details of the crankshaft. According to the sources, it is still not necessary to completely "take out" the diesel from the ship, cutting the side, but ... well, we will hope for the best.

Of course, sooner or later, the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov will still be commissioned - not in 2018, but in 2019 g, but with subsequent ships of the series the situation is more complicated - due to Ukraine’s refusal to supply us with gas turbine units left without new ships. For some reason, in a country that speaks about the creation of high-tech industries, and which was going to build dozens of corvettes and frigates, no one bothered to create high-quality diesel engines and its own gas turbine production. The fleet knew the “wisdom” of this decision in full - now work on creating its own gas turbines is in full swing, but their production will be very limited in the coming years.

According to the HPN 2011-2020, the 6 frigates of the 11356 project and the 8 frigates of the 22350 project were to be part of the fleet; in fact, we have only 2018 frigates of the 3 project in 11356 g. With the highest probability, the remaining 3 of the ship of the “admiral” series will be commissioned during the HPV 2018-2025. As for the Gorshkovs, the 4 of May 2016 of Mr. S.K. Shoigu said that by 2025 the fleet should receive 6 of such ships, but, apparently, the plans changed again. The fact is that at present four ships of this type are in different stages of construction and completion - in fact, the Gorshkov itself, and three more frigates laid down in 2009, 2012 and 2013, respectively. More ships of this type were not laid, and there are no rumors about their imminent start of construction.

But there was information about a certain "Super-Gorshkov", or the frigate of the project 22305M. It seems that the leadership of the country and the fleet has abandoned attempts to “ram the nevi” into a minimum displacement, and the only thing that is known about the new project is that it will be significantly larger than the frigates currently under construction. The total displacement of the "Gorshkovs" is indicated in 5 400 t., While the same indicator for the 22350М project should be ... and then the intrigue begins. According to the first data on the 22350M project, its full displacement will be 1,1 thousand tons more than that of the Gorshkov and will be 6 500 tons. Later, information appeared that the total displacement of the new ship will be from 6 500 tons. A in the summer of 8, the deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy for armaments, Vice Admiral Viktor Bursuk, at the International Maritime Defense Show in St. Petersburg, stated that the displacement of the 000М frigate would be "around 2017 22350 tons". Thus, we see that the 8M project is gradually developing in the direction of growth to the size of a full-fledged destroyer.

In the network there is a photo in which (perhaps!) The model of the “Super-Gorshkov” is demonstrated.



Judging by the proportions, this ship is comparable in size to the destroyer of the 21956 project, which we discussed above. A minute of glory - that the ship like the destroyer of the 21956 project suits our fleet much better than the small-sized frigates of the 22350 project, we wrote in detail in August 2016 g in the article “Shipbuilding program of the Russian Navy, or Very Bad Premonition (part of 3)” and the author I am very glad that the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation eventually came to the same conclusions.

Nevertheless, the situation for the next ten to fifteen years remains extremely depressing. Because on 1 December 2015 r we had 19 destroyers and 2 frigates of another Soviet bookmark, including:
BOD project 1155 and 1155.1 - 9 units;
Destroyers of the project 956 - 8 units;
BOD project 1134B - 1 units;
TFR of the 01090 project (in the past - BOD of the 61 project) - 1 units;
SKR of the 11540 project - 2 unit.

And all in all, the 21 ship, of which the 2030 BOD of the 7 project, the Admiral Chabanenko of the 1155 project and 1155.1 of the TFR of the 2 project, which we described at the beginning of the article, will remain at 11540 g at best. At the same time, up to 2025 g and taking into account the set in 2016-2018. At best, we will get the 6 frigates of the 11356 project and the 4 frigate of the 22350 project. It seems to be not so bad - if you just forget that the frigates of the “admiral” series are absolutely no match for a destroyer or anti-submarine ship, but only descendants of the 1135 patrol ships, that is, ships of a lower class than Soviet BOD and destroyers, and consider them as some kind of full replacement can not be. And if you forget about the unreliable Kolomna diesel frigates of the 22350 project ...

And what about the newest frigates of the project 22350M? Generally speaking, it is they who will have to become those ships that can replace today's BOD and destroyers, but ... To date, none of these ships have been contracted, i.e. There are no contracts for their construction. Worse, even the 22350 project itself, in general, does not exist. And in order to finally understand what stage the works on the 22350M project are now in, we quote the press service of the United Shipbuilding Corporation from 3 July 2017. From their words:

"preliminary study of the appearance of the frigate of the 22350M project. The Defense Ministry has not yet approved the appearance of the ship, which means that certain characteristics, including the displacement and also the composition of the GEM, have not yet been defined."


That is, in fact, in the middle of last year, it is not that the project, but even the technical task for the project was not formed. And when all this will be, and when the first frigates (in fact, destroyers) of the 22350M project will stand on the stocks, it is completely unknown.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future
Russian Navy. A sad look to the future (part of 2)
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 3. "Ash" and "Husky"
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 4. "Halibut" and "Lada"
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 5. Specialty boats and this weird EGSONPO
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 6. Corvettes
Russian Navy. Sad look into the future. Part of 7. Small rocket
Russian Navy. A sad look into the future: a mine-catastrophe
Russian Navy. A sad look into the future: domestic destroyers
82 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kleber
    Kleber 13 March 2018 15: 06
    0
    And why is the word "frigate" annoying so uncle?
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 13 March 2018 15: 37
      13
      Thanks again to the author Andrei from Chelyabinsk hi I don’t know why, but after his articles, even when the numbers are sad, my “look into the future” does not become sad. On the contrary, a feeling of progressive development is created.
      1. arshavets
        arshavets 13 March 2018 16: 39
        15
        And what is it ("progressive development") that you see? If within the framework of the already inactive GPV-2020 (i.e., by 2021) the fleet will receive (and at best) four frigates 22350 less than planned and widely advertised, then do you consider this an occasion for optimism? So our Vkh.Glk. in May last year, he summed up the execution of the "May decrees": not executed, but there is a positive trend (quote). Do you take the example of GDP? So, according to project 22350, neither America nor the ruin didn’t crap us, everyone had to do it themselves.

        Let’s the author of the article, running ahead of us now, tell (in his unprofessional opinion, of course) how many of the 103 ships of our fleet are modern today? And how much can they really get by 2021? Well, that is, in the framework of GPV-2020?

        I can recommend the article “Glance” dated 27.02.2018. Signed by a shipbuilding engineer. By a professional. "An attempt to quickly upgrade old Soviet ships failed." This is about how they planned to update all surface ships of the main classes and a bunch of atomarines, and now hell when I wait.
        1. Chertt
          Chertt 13 March 2018 17: 09
          +1
          Quote: arshavets
          Let the author of the article now, looking ahead a lot, say (in his unprofessional opinion, of course) how many of the 103 ships of our fleet are modern today? And how much can really get by 2021

          There are few modern ones, and by 2021 we will get few. Could do more, even with our small budget.
          I read the article you recommended. The reasons for the failures are very intelligently analyzed. But Alexander Shishkin ends his article on the positive
      2. avt
        avt 13 March 2018 16: 47
        +4
        Quote: Chertt
        Thanks again to the author Andrei from Chelyabinsk

        Well, yes, a fairly accurate analysis of the state of affairs. Well, it can be ... although I do not insist, it would be worthwhile to emphasize that instead of corvettes, it would be worthwhile to order 11356 then and at least already have ten that could work before Super Gorshkova "because the 22350 campaign is preparing to break the record, Grena," but already as the release of the series. Again 22350M I'm afraid it might turn out like a frigate overgrower, or a destroyer request The chicken is in the nest and 22350M respectively in the chicken .... well, you will be waist-high wassat That is, in its class it will repeat the epic of corvettes from ,, Diamond. " request Regarding the capabilities of the PLO .... well, the solution is real only in equipment 22160, since it’s in the series and ... if there is space for equipment and weapons.
        1. Chertt
          Chertt 13 March 2018 17: 13
          +1
          Quote: avt
          it would be worth emphasizing that instead of corvettes it would be worth while ordering 11356 and at least ten would have already had

          Ktozh knew that the non-brothers would lay such a "national animal" for us. Although after reading your thoughts wink I agree. The military-industrial complex had to be transferred for a long time, completely to domestic components
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          13 March 2018 17: 31
          +3
          Quote: avt
          Well, it can be ... although I do not insist, it would be worthwhile to emphasize that instead of corvettes, it would be worth while ordering 11356

          I have talked about this so many times ..... But who will listen to me?
          1. Cat
            Cat 13 March 2018 20: 53
            0
            Thank you so much Andrey.
            Let me ask you a question, is the continuation planned?
            hi
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              14 March 2018 06: 54
              0
              Greetings, dear Kitty!
              Next week
          2. DarkMatter
            DarkMatter 14 March 2018 02: 57
            0
            Welcome hi
            In general, there is a feeling that in the Talvars there was a departure from the anti-submarine ship to the strike frigate with strong air defense, which is provided by one Shtil-1 gantry complex and two Kashtan air defense systems

            Let me disagree a bit =) I think in the 21st century, beam defense is an anachronism. Although Dirks and give great reliability, but it is far from strong air defense. And the reaction time is now more important than the number of missiles. I did not have time to shoot and shoot down - the remaining ammunition will not come in handy.
            But about our 11356 I completely agree and I’m tired of metal cutting everywhere and everywhere. It seems that they save on everything wherever possible, homeless equipment is a standard option. The only justification for such actions was that they really wanted to build the ships purely for the time, like plugs, and therefore did not want to invest too much.
            Nevertheless, I hope that there will be modern weapons on new projects, Karakurt give us such hope, apparently.
            By the way, about the remaining three, it’s very strange to see a six-month “news” about the completion for us. Since then, already with the heels of the news was all different. The latter recently that still sell them. So either describe the latter, or even state that not a damn thing is clear laughing
            I don’t even want to write anything about 22350, you owe it to the debt of the author, but I already got fed up with this story. Every week, people poured information from holes to holes from empty to empty, if I may say so. Would rather be in operation!
            The Super-Gorshkovs are such a distant prospect that I don’t even know when they will be built in 2-3 pieces, the Hyper-Gorshkovs will probably start a new series, because these will already be obsolete wassat
            P.S. Thank you very much for the cycle, will there be a sequel? Maritime Aviation maybe? IL-38, Tu-142 and so on. Still an inextricable part, I think.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              14 March 2018 07: 03
              0
              Quote: DarkMatter
              I think in the 21st century, beam defense is an anachronism

              In general - yes, but it works ...
              Quote: DarkMatter
              By the way, about the remaining three, it’s very strange to see a six-month “news” about the completion for us. Since then, already with the heels of the news was all different

              The fact is that not one news about the sale of 11356 to India was confirmed, and it did not come from any sources. We talked about building another series of Talvars for India, but nowhere has it been officially announced that these are from our 11356 bloggers' speculations.
              At the same time, information about the modification of turbines for 11356 (M70FRU) seems to be from quite decent sources. And if they began to adapt these turbines for 11356 - it means they will definitely finish building for themselves. IMHO, of course.
              Quote: DarkMatter
              P.S. Thank you very much for the cycle, will there be a sequel? Maritime Aviation maybe? IL-38, Tu-142 and so on. Still an inextricable part, I think.

              I’ll try, but it’s more difficult. In principle, the surface cruiser and the aircraft carrier were left to me, and then ...
              1. DarkMatter
                DarkMatter 14 March 2018 16: 59
                0
                In general - yes, but it works ...

                Then our claims regarding metal cutting are not true - they work repeat
                But in general, when there is no particular threat, this is indeed so, but when you are between 2 lights (of which it’s clear), it’s not a good idea. I think the Indians themselves understand everything and the fleet will be strengthened.
                The fact is that not one news about the sale of 11356 to India was confirmed, and it did not come from any sources.

                I do not argue. But now it’s such a situation that the official highest ranks of the fleet have become even more unclear what sources. Seven Fridays a week, one says one thing, the other a week later another and sit, think laughing
                In principle, and surface I was left missile cruisers and aircraft carrier

                Well, thank God, otherwise there should be no inscription to continue, I was scared wassat drinks
                Something was mistakenly thought about what was about them, then we will wait another))
        3. bayard
          bayard 13 March 2018 23: 24
          +1
          The Chinese press reported that "Pacific Fleet staff officers are interested in building frigates in the shipyards of China ..". This refers to the order of up to 20 buildings with power plants and other equipment of choice, followed by retrofitting in Russia. Maybe this is a way out to be intercepted until all ship competencies are restored to their shipbuilders? The pace of construction of the Chinese serial frigates is truly Stakhanov’s - not a couple of our long-term construction, the main thing is that there are no problems with gas turbines.
          Now, the permission of the PRC government to build frigates for the Russian Navy is allegedly being coordinated, but this is based on materials from the Chinese press.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            14 March 2018 07: 04
            0
            Quote: bayard
            The Chinese press reported that "Pacific Fleet staff officers are interested in building frigates in the shipyards of China ..".

            I read in translation. Wet dreams of the Chinese. Approximately, it was stated that "since 100500 ships are being built in the Celestial Empire a year, Russian officers cannot but show interest in our equipment, which means ...."
  2. turbris
    turbris 13 March 2018 15: 17
    0
    I don’t know what the author is annoying, but to me his sad look is absolutely not interesting. Still, it’s better to be interested in the situation with the fleet in specialists, and not in sad lovers of Google.
    1. Kleber
      Kleber 13 March 2018 15: 45
      11
      Bravo .... but besides NATO Google, do you know more search engines?
    2. arshavets
      arshavets 13 March 2018 16: 41
      +2
      I agree. For example, Konstantin Sivkov. Sadness will only increase. If you master his texts, he gives more numbers.
      1. faiver
        faiver 13 March 2018 19: 57
        0
        most importantly it has odds bully
      2. DarkMatter
        DarkMatter 14 March 2018 03: 05
        +2
        Sivkov is a great example of an expert who teaches aviation to fly (they are stupid, you see), and the submariners turn out to be wrong, as well as tankers and cosmonauts on holidays can throw a couple of tips.
        Very smart person, apparently bully
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 March 2018 17: 32
      +6
      Quote: turbris
      Still, it’s better to be interested in specialists with the situation in the fleet.

      Ask for example mina. You will learn at the same time what a big boatswain bend
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 13 March 2018 18: 22
        +6
        Greetings! hi
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Ask for example mina.

        Well, you so right away, with a trump card.
        You still suggest asking uv. mina questions on the relationship between the fleet and industry in terms of the development of mine-sweeping forces and torpedo weapons ... I'm afraid there will not be limited to a big bend. smile
  3. Rakovor
    Rakovor 13 March 2018 16: 34
    17
    Quote: turbris
    I don’t know what the author is annoying, but to me his sad look is absolutely not interesting. Still, it’s better to be interested in the situation with the fleet in specialists, and not in sad lovers of Google.

    And what, after the utterances of the "specialists" Will we add frigates and corvettes?))
    1. arshavets
      arshavets 13 March 2018 16: 47
      11
      This commentator triggers a psychological defense mechanism: my mother recently told me one big feature of the domestic bureaucracy (she has a lot of experience with her) - everyone loves winning reports, no one likes to think about problems. Although my personal experience in the private sector tells me the same thing. People are the same everywhere. Including TV viewers. And lower internet users. Kvasnaya cheers-patriotism, he does not oblige to anything, he does not need to be critical of his own. Very comfortably.
  4. Sevastiec
    Sevastiec 13 March 2018 16: 49
    0
    Andrei, I’m certainly an amateur, but in the light of the latest news from GDP, and specifically, regarding the Kyrgyz Republic with a supercompact nuclear reactor, should we expect ship-based nuclear power plants, even for ships with a small displacement? Well, at least starting with frigates? No, I understand that I'm a romantic, but suddenly? No rumors go? ..
    1. arshavets
      arshavets 13 March 2018 17: 12
      0
      No money, you hold on there!
      Excuse me, are you talking about the Leader type destroyer project?
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      13 March 2018 17: 35
      +8
      Quote: Sevastiec
      about the KR with a supercompact nuclear reactor, should we expect shipboard nuclear power plants, even for ships with a small displacement? Well, at least starting with frigates?

      Honestly, I don’t expect missiles with a nuclear reactor, let alone frigates with nuclear power plants ... In principle, nothing is impossible if it is possible to create a compact and CHEAP Reactor. Then - yes, but there are no such rumors
      1. alstr
        alstr 14 March 2018 11: 55
        0
        Already succeeded. See Putin's presentation. Two products use a compact nuclear reactor there.
        The question remains of pairing and biological protection.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          14 March 2018 13: 59
          0
          Quote: alstr
          Already succeeded. See Putin's presentation.

          And where is even half a word about the cost of the product?
          1. alstr
            alstr 14 March 2018 14: 46
            0
            For starters, what is meant by the word "CHEAP"?

            And so here is a fairly simple logic. If you create a DISPOSABLE thing with a reactor, then it is clearly RELATIVELY cheap. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              14 March 2018 17: 06
              0
              Quote: alstr
              And so here is a fairly simple logic. If you create a DISPOSABLE thing with a reactor, then it is clearly RELATIVELY cheap. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

              And who told you that the deployment of nuclear cruise missiles makes sense? :)))) the order was - they did it, despite the fact that they did not make a nuclear reactor, but a nuclear engine, as I understand it, the difference is significant there. But how much it costs and whether these missiles will be deployed (especially since so far it was only about the success of testing the engine, and not the rocket as a whole) is unknown.
              But in general, ANY miniaturization is more expensive.
              1. alstr
                alstr 14 March 2018 17: 53
                0
                Well, the meaning is. Just because to neutralize them, NATO will have to spend a lot more money than the cost of even just 100 missiles.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  15 March 2018 00: 35
                  +2
                  Quote: alstr
                  Well, the meaning is

                  very bold statement
                  Quote: alstr
                  Just because to neutralize them, NATO will have to spend a lot more money than even just 100 missiles.

                  One question - why? :)))))
                  Today we have the good old Satans, who, strangely enough, are not killed by any missile defense. The entire American missile defense system could be able to intercept one or two missiles, and that is mainly because they know where it will fly from. Sarmatian resolves this issue radically, because from now on warheads can fly from anywhere.
                  The rest of the heresy with underwater vehicles and nuclear missiles is simply not needed - the task of delivering warheads to the territory of the United States and NATO countries is easier and cheaper with conventional ICBMs.
                  1. alstr
                    alstr 15 March 2018 10: 14
                    0
                    The point is to force the US and NATO to spend money, i.e. crank up what they did not catch the USSR. Indeed, to create a continuous circular air defense field, the United States will have to spend a lot of money and spend a lot on maintaining this system.

                    And about military expediency, it’s stealth. ICBM launch is monitored, as launch areas are limited and, in principle, well known (well, you still need to look a little for submarines). But with the KR missiles launched, for example, from the Urals, or nuclear torpedoes launched by the carrier ship, it is much more difficult to track. And if the launch of the Kyrgyz Republic can still be tracked somehow (which also requires appropriate means), then you can track the hell out of launching a nuclear torpedo.
                    1. Crossbill
                      Crossbill 15 March 2018 10: 27
                      0
                      Funny ... Joker, however, you are notable ....
                    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      15 March 2018 10: 39
                      0
                      Quote: alstr
                      The meaning of making the US and NATO spend money

                      Let them spend trying to protect the territory of the USA and NATO from Sarmat, what problems?
                      Quote: alstr
                      ICBM launch is monitored, as launch areas are limited and, in principle, well known (well, you still need to look a little for submarines). But with the KR missiles launched, for example, from the Urals, or nuclear torpedoes launched by the carrier ship, it is much more difficult to track.

                      Secrecy makes some sense only in a preemptive strike, and in this case, the US ICBM mines and their SSBNs are hardly reachable for us, because in the US radar space any missile (at least three winged) will be detected instantly, and everything is already clear - Armageddon has begun. The opposite is also true - we do not need to be afraid of the Tomahawks for the same reasons
                      1. alstr
                        alstr 15 March 2018 11: 59
                        0
                        1. one does not interfere with the other. The more they spend, the better.
                        2. In order to ensure a continuous radar field at an altitude of 15 m for the same US, it will be necessary to put a locator almost every 100 km (if more often).
                        There was already an article about the state of US air defense: https://topwar.ru/31354-protivovozdushnaya-oboron
                        a-ssha.html

                        It says that the USA REFUSED ground-based air defense on its territory and reduced everything. Those. the Air Force must fight all threats, which is problematic in principle. Yes, and shooting from an airplane in the Kyrgyz Republic, which flies with an envelope of relief, is another activity.

                        Yes, and they themselves admit that they have problems (quoted from the article)
                        "According to representatives of the US military command, the current airspace control system makes it possible to monitor all movements of large aircraft, responding to any change in route, especially when approaching restricted areas. It is worth noting that there are hundreds of such deviations."

                        Those. it is quite possible to find holes for Raman scattering if it has no range limitation.

                        I’ll tell you a big secret - we don’t have a continuous radar field (and there wasn’t even in the USSR). In addition, compared with the USA, the situation with the field is even worse in our country, because we do not have widely developed private aviation (in the USA 90% of dual-use radars).

                        We have a slightly different situation. At the moment, we are tracking launches of the Kyrgyz Republic over-the-horizon radars that have certain dead zones, i.e. they cannot determine launches at close range. Plus there are range limitations. But since if they cover the entire range of possible launches (taking into account the performance characteristics), then we track the launches of the KR of NATO, but we can not track the launch of the KR from the territory of the USA (but not Alaska).

                        Therefore, with the instant detection that we have that in the US there are big problems. And then, in addition to detecting, it is also necessary to destroy it.
  5. chingachguc
    chingachguc 13 March 2018 17: 01
    0
    all the torment of our fleet stems from the undermined industry. It must be understood that the restoration of industrial potential is a task of more than one year. I hope, nevertheless, domestic industry will recover. The picture is visible - from simple to complex. From small ships to large ones. In this sense, I am an optimist.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 13 March 2018 18: 42
      +1
      Quote: chingachguc
      all the torment of our fleet stems from the undermined industry. It must be understood that the restoration of industrial potential is a task of more than one year.

      The fleet’s problem is no longer in disrupted industry, but in the collapse of the USSR. There has never been the same full cycle production of ship gas-turbine engines in Russia - from the Soviet times there was one plant in Nikolaev, with which we collaborated until 2014, collecting engines together. And then they began hastily building their full-cycle plant, at a pace "grab bags - the station leaves!"It should be noted - we were able and in time: they passed the test bench, the experienced gas turbine engine had been done for a year now.
      But at Prospect 941, the Ukrainian part of the SLBM production chain died - and the water carriers were left without missiles. But the “Bark” of that time Russia did not stretch.
    2. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 13 March 2018 22: 40
      +3
      Quote: chingachguc
      I hope, nevertheless, domestic industry will recover.

      Nobody even plans to restore it. But of course you can hope ..
  6. Scaffold
    Scaffold 13 March 2018 18: 41
    +9
    All the time, my native stubborn and stupid unwillingness to develop ONE project and start it in a normal series amazes me. For some reason, our national way is considered to be the construction of a series of one and a half units for 99 different projects at the same time. crying
    1. arturpraetor
      arturpraetor 13 March 2018 19: 22
      +3
      It’s all the fault of the eternal desire to try out several solutions, to use all the innovations accumulated over the past year or two, to put as many buns as possible into the smallest possible cases - and all this for as little money as possible. Moreover, this story is almost as much as the Russian fleet in principle - sailing is still fine, but as the era of steam iron and steel ships arrived, so the processing of projects on the slipway became the norm. After the REV, it seems to have abandoned this practice, but after 1917, they returned to it again. And so still ...
      1. VlK
        VlK 13 March 2018 20: 51
        +2
        this is probably because you always need "yesterday", but in a hurry nothing can work out well in principle.
      2. Alex_59
        Alex_59 14 March 2018 07: 19
        0
        Quote: arturpraetor
        but after 1917, they returned to her again.

        There was one period when this practice was not - these are the 50 years. True, there was another problem - the ideal powerful ships of the last war (68 bis, 30 bis and 613) were built with a real powerful series.
        Later, by the way, with seriality it was also normal, right up to the end of the Union, albeit not with a Stalinist scale.
        1. arturpraetor
          arturpraetor 14 March 2018 11: 13
          0
          Later, by the way, with seriality it was also normal, right up to the end of the Union, albeit not with a Stalinist scale.

          For small ships - yes rather than no, but larger ships .... cruisers - almost all for individual projects, because noticeable differences from each other, even within the framework of seemingly one series, often met "local features" on ships of the same series ... Of course, the unification was much greater than before or now, and the fleet was larger - in such cases, unification and simplification is an inevitable thing. Actually, unification and universalization, IMHO, is an inevitable phenomenon if you want to build a really large fleet.
          1. chingachguc
            chingachguc 17 March 2018 01: 23
            +1
            if you look at the history of any ship, you can see that there is constantly something being redone and modernized ... constantly. So the same ship at the beginning of its journey and in the declining years can be very different
            1. arturpraetor
              arturpraetor 17 March 2018 01: 38
              0
              It is one thing to upgrade the ship during the service (and another question is how much to upgrade), it is another thing to seriously remodel the project during the construction process, including changing already built elements and squeezing more and more filling into already clogged internal volumes. In other states, in which military shipbuilding is financed more or less normally and with extensive production and operational experience, they try to refuse such alterations in every possible way, resorting to them only in the most extreme case. In Russia, such alterations ... Well, not ordinary, but they are more common. And this can be said a tradition. Of the main legislators of naval fashion - Germany, Britain, the United States - not a single country has so often worked on the 100500 times of the original drawing of the ship, preferring to build what was planned and make changes to the ships of new series. Similarly, for some time the French were fond of, plus the Americans before their decisive exit to the ocean in large ships (until the 1890's), but refused over time, because, as a rule, nothing good came out of such alterations during the construction process, yes and the Americans there had their own atmosphere in such cases (under the guise of completing or modernizing old buildings from the government of the pacifist isolationists, money was poured out for at least some modern ships, which were essentially not modernization, but completely new ships).
    2. faiver
      faiver 13 March 2018 20: 01
      0
      Komsomol hardening - first we create difficulties for ourselves, then heroically overcome them laughing
  7. faiver
    faiver 13 March 2018 20: 02
    +1
    to the author as always good
  8. Alexander War
    Alexander War 13 March 2018 20: 22
    +1
    Our fleet needs Project 21956 destroyers, though I would add that there would be 16 and 32 cells, 16 with calibers and 16 with Onyx and 3 Armor-M, one in the bow and 2 on the sides!
  9. Alexander War
    Alexander War 13 March 2018 20: 29
    +1
    Judging by the news, a trio of frigates pr 11356 will go to the Hindus, I will express my opinion, for the place of 3 frigates pr 11356 it is necessary to build for the Black Sea Fleet 3 frigates pr 22356 there by the way air defense Calm -1 with 36 missiles, though what I in theory thought that 8 Caliber rockets and 8 Onyx missiles on pr 22350
    1. otstoy
      otstoy 13 March 2018 21: 43
      +2
      Name at least one adopted 22350 or at least the timing of its adoption.
  10. Destroyermen
    Destroyermen 13 March 2018 21: 36
    +3
    Dear colleague, the real need for 533-mm torpedoes for anti-submarine defense confuses me ... With all desire, but what really do they occupy a niche? They do not replace PLUR anyway; lead torpedo duels with a submarine to a surface ship is generally contraindicated.
  11. otstoy
    otstoy 13 March 2018 21: 40
    0
    Both living Petrel should be considered frigates if they were assigned SKR pr. 11540 and 11356. According to the PLRK, GAS and AU they are stronger than the Hawks. And it’s not a fact that “Curious” with “Ladny” will be written off in the next decade, even if “/ Smart” still walk and walk.
  12. domnich
    domnich 13 March 2018 22: 48
    +2
    How much do I manage to track the situation with frigates ...

    Series Ave. 11356 limited to three frigates "Adm. Grigorovich" (manager No. 01357), "Adm. Essen" (manager No. 01358) and "Adm. Makarov" (manager No. 01359). Launched frigates (factory number 01360, 01361, 01362) are likely to be designed by the Indian Navy with Ukrainian-made gas turbines (direct delivery to India). Domestic gas turbines are not provided for this project and the series of these ships for the Russian Navy is limited to 3 units.

    Domestic GTU M90FR will be installed on frigates pr. 22350 “Adm. Golovko” (head number 923, laid down 01.02.12) and “Adm. Fleet of the Soviet Union Isakov” (head number 924, laid down 14.11.13) - the 2 and 3 ships of this project.
  13. Tests
    Tests 13 March 2018 23: 30
    +5
    About the collapse of the Union, as one of the reasons for the murder of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry in the engineering industry of the Russian Federation, they noted correctly. But the question immediately arises: over the past years, what has been done to change the situation? One answer comes to mind: they blinded the miraculous, marvelous, marvelous, USC. And that’s all ... I already wrote that they ruined science, education (from vocational schools to universities), at the OSK level, the state of design and production of significant components and mechanisms was not analyzed (I mentioned more than once about turbines in the comments) and based on this analysis did not adjust their design and production. Import substitution has slightly changed the situation ... USC has still not been able to establish a maneuver by forces and means between enterprises, especially when the delivery deadlines are shifted to the right. Perhaps because they were appointed to leadership posts, as often happens, ours and ours. And how do you ask them for failures in work? The brightest example is Roman Trotsenko.
    Not so long ago, in the comments, fellow countrymen tried to convince me that we must respect the age when you need to think about the soul, using the example of Mr. Kalistratov. Dear, tell everyone how the monolithic house 61 on the street bursts. Oktyabrskaya in Severodvinsk, built for Zvyozdochka workers. Workers received the keys to the apartments, but they don’t let them in the house for rough finishing of the apartments, as it turned out instead of piles 21 meters long, builders used piles 7-8 meters long on the alluvial sand. The capital construction department of Zvyozdochka, which carried out supervision, in my opinion, it’s time to clean up the prosecutor’s office. The guys are not paid bad salaries, they just don’t do their job - it’s called in the language of criminal law negligence. And who made the choice of the contractor - the magpies are cracking - the director of Zvyozdochka Kalistratov Nikolay Yakovlevich.
    And one more thing about which they did not remember today: theft and corruption in the Russian Navy. With what pleasure they destroyed the military acceptance system for 15-20 years. Years 4 or 5 in total, as they grabbed their heads in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, changed their minds and began to revive the military acceptance.
    Dear Alexey RA. I heard that one of the reasons that the Bark was closed was the desire to drown Makeevka Muscovites-heating engineers. They received sufficient funding "blowing in the ears" to the Minister and the Chief of the General Staff: "This is our cow and we milk it" ...
    At Sevmash, many argue that the director will soon leave for promotion to Moscow. Otherwise, to answer to the Supreme Commander-in-Chief for failure to meet the deadlines for the submarine and Admiral Nakhimov, the Supreme was and will be the Supreme, in March, in April. So, shipbuilding and ship repair in Russia are waiting for a lot of interesting things ... There will be no more ships, the Sokolsky shipyard, instead of landing boats of the admiral governor of the sea, launches the sea under the name of a communications boat ...
    1. alstr
      alstr 14 March 2018 12: 09
      0
      I don’t know where, but in St. Petersburg in the 90s, Korabelka was one of the few universities where most students (if not all) were painted between the factories of St. Petersburg. So with the formation of the shipbuilders managed to slip through almost without loss. All thanks to civilian orders and the management of the plants, which was able to secure a personnel reserve.

      And as for the analysis, the question here was in the statement of the problem. As far as I know, but before 14 g there was no question of transferring the production of all components and at any cost. From here legs grow.
  14. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 13 March 2018 23: 41
    +1
    there is evidence that they have already concluded a crontract with India for 11356, that is, the Russian Federation will no longer receive them. According to the super potty, most likely there will be absolutely nothing but idle talk, because the Russian Navy does not need it, it’s an destroyer, it has no tasks. At the same time, the laying of new Gorshkovs was suspended, it is logical until it is better to solve the problems of the head sample; it’s better to wait, on the other hand, there is a clear overabundance of destroyers of BOD cruisers in the fleet. on the other hand, it is logical to release them to replace the BOD, that is, by 2030. Why does the author consider that the frigate’s seaworthiness is worse than the destroyer, while the argument is not seaworthiness, but the cruising range, the cruising range is determined by the presence of an escort tanker, and the seaworthiness is high, etc. The frigate’s seaworthiness is sufficient for oceans.
    1. Crossbill
      Crossbill 14 March 2018 04: 11
      +1
      An obvious overabundance of cruisers, destroyers, BOD? Announce the entire list, please (c) .. Well, what is there in overabundance ...
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 14 March 2018 11: 16
        0
        Surface ships, in principle, in abundance. This, ahem, colleague in a neighboring topic argued that large surface ships since the time of Peter the Great are outdated, and in modern conditions - surface ships in principle. So if the number of frigates, cruisers, destroyers, BOD is greater than 0 - it means their oversupply laughing
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 14 March 2018 18: 50
          0
          I didn’t say anything about the frigates, you yourself came up with
          1. arturpraetor
            arturpraetor 14 March 2018 18: 52
            0
            And about the galleys last time, I also came up with, yes)
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 17 March 2018 10: 04
              0
              about galleys, you’ve come up with it all, but I just all argued smashed all your conclusions
              1. arturpraetor
                arturpraetor 17 March 2018 10: 25
                0
                Yeah, in your imagination you smashed to smithereens) And about the galleys you were the first to mention - they say, even under Peter the Great they were better than frigates and battleships on any theater. And when I began to clarify how this was done, you abruptly jumped on the submarines and that I was the first to start about them. If your spin like a snake in a pan is "reasonably smashed to smithereens," then I don’t even know ...
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 14 March 2018 18: 55
        0
        Russia doesn’t have enough submarines, dapels, minesweepers, and large NKs are just targets, especially if the enemy has an order of magnitude more, and they don’t have tasks, all NK tasks are successfully performed by frigates, minesweepers and small NKs, and don't need much
        1. Crossbill
          Crossbill 15 March 2018 03: 12
          +1
          Yeah, yeah .. And frigates, minesweepers and all sorts of other small NKs are wunderwaffles not visible to the adversary .. The same targets will only sink faster and will not cause any damage ..
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 15 March 2018 14: 01
            0
            small ships and minesweepers operate under the cover of coastal assets and coastal aviation, while frigates are intended for specific operations of anti-pirate escorts in peacetime, and in case of war also work under the cover of bergovoy means,
            1. Vladimir1155
              Vladimir1155 15 March 2018 14: 02
              0
              and by the way, small ships and minesweepers are really less noticeable than Em and KR
              1. Crossbill
                Crossbill 16 March 2018 08: 28
                0
                Dear Vladimir, the fact that currently no normal surface ships of the ocean zone are being built in Russia is not a brilliant plan, but simply the lack of opportunities to build such ships .. Alas ...
            2. Crossbill
              Crossbill 16 March 2018 08: 35
              +1
              Heh..And then small ships are needed if these tasks are performed by coastal weapons and aviation without problems? The minesweeper is too specialized a ship .. Of course, I could be very mistaken, but it seemed to me that the frigate is primarily a PLO ship .. .If you already take small ships, then in order to protect the VRs you need to rivet something like MPK besides minesweepers. For some reason, we have RTOs hrenachat packs ((((
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 17 March 2018 09: 57
                0
                I fully support, I think that MRKs are made for Europe, the limitations of the INF can be circumvented, or maybe they just sold this project and stamp it, without much thought, Of course, the IPC and Minesweepers are more important than the MRK, if you follow the doctrine of the small coastal surface fleet, the IPC can compete underwater stationary tracking systems for submarines are more reliable than IPC. then the minesweeper will remain the only necessary NK, of course, the fleet needs several frigates to participate in Syria, for anti-piracy, and for control of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. TARK will be part of the fleet until 2040-2050, they will cope with these limited tasks,
  15. Borik
    Borik 13 March 2018 23: 48
    +3
    Quote: otstoy
    Name at least one adopted 22350 or at least the timing of its adoption.


    The first half of two thousandths.
  16. exo
    exo 14 March 2018 13: 55
    0
    Navy stepson. In addition, SSBN, of course. To wait for improvements, while there is no reason. The point is not in money, but in lost competencies.
  17. mkpda
    mkpda 14 March 2018 14: 03
    0
    I read and once again I am convinced that attempts to save money by limiting the displacement lead only to the opposite results. We must more often remind the domestic history of our military and politicians (one project 7 worth what!).
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      14 March 2018 17: 07
      +2
      Quote: mkpda
      It is necessary to remind domestic history more often

      And not only domestic. But in general, the only lesson in history is that people do not remember its lessons
      1. arturpraetor
        arturpraetor 14 March 2018 17: 13
        +2
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        But in general, the only lesson in history is that people do not remember its lessons

        Largely because they do not like to remember these lessons, or for the sake of the ruling elite, the story was rewritten. And due to silence, reinterpretation, or an incorrect interpretation, the conclusions will be drawn incorrectly, or not at all. Although you can talk on this topic for a long time ... And the "boatswain bend" will seem like a cultural speech crying
  18. Tests
    Tests 14 March 2018 21: 51
    0
    Dear alstr, maybe in St. Petersburg there are no problems with personnel, but in Severodvinsk and almost throughout the country, they are in Zvyozdochka branches. For many years there have been no young metallurgists, chemists in rubber, adhesives, paints at Sevmash; young specialists from universities in Omsk, Tomsk, and Novosibirsk almost do not go. It has become a little better with specialists from Nizhny Novgorod in recent years. The target men from Voenmekh and LETI do not want to return to the city; by hook or by crook, they remain in St. Petersburg. Welders and assemblers in Zelenodolsk receive almost the same amount as at Sevmash, a difference of 5 rubles. per month, but milk, vegetables and fruits are natural in Tatarstan, their prices are almost ridiculous, eggs and meat are the freshest. Yes, it’s clear that in Severodvinsk there is an additional 000-day vacation, and, so far, the trip takes about 24 times years paid and pension earlier. But a communal apartment more expensive in Severodvinsk is more substantial, and a private house in Tatarstan with a gas boiler, with its own water from the well, by the standards of Severodvinsk, can be bought for a penny.
    In the mid-90s, Lithuanians came to Sevmash, only they set up the equipment, as they did it in the USSR, until recently that equipment went to the seas on several orders. Yes, and “Losharika” could pass a few months earlier. Here are just part of the equipment for him made in glorious Soviet Moldova. In the mid-90s, she was simply plundered at Sevmash. And the future Honorary Citizen of the city and the most honored prosecutor of the city of Podgorny did everything to prevent a criminal case on this fact. What then did the factory workers and the navy not understand that without the very equipment, but made in the Russian Federation, the Losharik would not be allowed to go into the seas? Therefore, I allow myself to disagree with you that until 2014 the task for the defense industry was not set to do everything ourselves.
    And the capital construction department of Sevmash didn’t hear how you got into a puddle last year. Those clever men asked for money from the federal budget for research and shore protection work on the right bank of the Nizhnyaya Kudma river near house No. 7 along the Kudma river embankment. To which they reasonably replied from Moscow: “Guys, you paved an asphalt road 9 meters from the crumbling sandy shore around a 9-story building, the wall of which is 15 meters from that crumbling shore. You first built the house, and then only saw that its river it is washed several times a day by the ebb and flow, and it rubs it with ice both in the fall during freezing and in the spring during ice drift. The house was populated, and now you have decided to conduct research? Keep us for fools? " Workers of Sevmash settled on the mortgage, pay the first 3 years, and took it for 10-25 years (depending on age). And the shore crumbles every day. And the experts selected the construction site of the Sevmash capital construction department ... It's sad ... Maybe it wasn’t necessary to leave such a department in the structure of the shipbuilding giant? The department of preschool institutions was multiplied by 0 by Sevmash, passing kindergartens to the city of Severodvinsk, and the pioneer camp of my childhood Severny Artek, which opposite the Emetsk, the homeland of the poet Nikolai Rubtsov, on the right bank of the Northern Dvina, was transferred to the Arkhangelsk region.
  19. AREOPAG23
    AREOPAG23 15 March 2018 22: 47
    +1
    I liked the article, the author sensibly decomposed the existing problems, it’s nice to read an honest article without hatred, only by truly analyzing the situation can you find the right way to solve it.
  20. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 17 March 2018 02: 03
    0
    Quote: Kleber
    And why is the word "frigate" annoying so uncle?


    Well, firstly, because he does not know that the classification of ships goes both according to displacement, for example corvettes, frigates, battleships, etc., and according to their purpose, for example, guard watch, destroyers (destroyers), anti-submarine, aircraft carrier, landing, etc. .d.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      17 March 2018 10: 37
      +1
      Quote: Xscorpion
      Well, firstly, because he does not know that the classification of ships is like displacement, for example, corvettes, frigates, battleships

      hand face.
  21. Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl April 13 2018 16: 31
    0
    It seems to me that the project of the ship 11540, it is urgent to finalize (revise or if you want to modernize), in particular, replace the drums of the near dagger with 36 VPU Shtil-1, and the Kortik air defense with more modern 2-3 module "Shell-M". Instead of the URN rocket launcher complex, install 16 VPU UKS 3S-14 for the use of Caliber / Onyx / Zircon. And then to establish large-scale production with the capacities of the Kaliningrad "Amber" and the Kerch "Gulf", in a series of at least 13 units of such TFR.
  22. 3danimal
    3danimal 17 October 2020 13: 08
    0
    With all the shortcomings in comparison with frigates pr 22350, pr 11356 are cheaper (!) And more combat-ready than still "raw" corvettes 20385.
    Instead of "Pantsir-M" or "Kashtan", Dagger + "Russian Falanx" would look better (AK-630M with its own radar, which seems to have been hindered by the ZRAK hobby).
    Ideally, add a second container with UKSC cells. That would allow to have enough PLUR, except for KR and RCC.
    The cost would be somewhat old, but it's better than building helpless RTOs.
  23. 3danimal
    3danimal 17 October 2020 16: 02
    0
    but they are just descendants of patrol ships of Project 1135, that is, these are ships of a class lower than the Soviet BODs and destroyers, and they cannot be considered as a full-fledged replacement.

    In terms of air defense and strike capabilities (according to tabular characteristics), they are superior. In fact ... AND PLO - in question (analogue / worse).
    On a good note, the following ship should have been made:
    Hull of about 7-8 thousand tons with a displacement;
    AU A-192, TA 1x5 533 mm;
    2 containers UKSK (PLUR as a "far hand");
    good gus;
    SAM Shtil-1 + Dagger + 3x AK-630m + (with its own radar);
    Range 8000 miles;
    gas turbine power plant COGOG.
    The result would be a completely "technological" frigate destroyer.