Military Review

About the comparative value of Russian and American warships, or "Arly Burke" against our corvettes

225
In this article we will try to deal with the comparative cost of building warships in the Russian Federation and the United States using the example of the 20380 and 20386 corvettes, as well as the latest version of the American destroyers Arly Burk - the IIA + series, which the Americans started to build on after as it was decided to abandon the further production of the Zamvolt destroyers.


Let's start with the domestic ships, for which we use the bmpd blog information, which, in turn, gathered them from the annual report of PJSC Shipbuilding Plant Severnaya Verf (St. Petersburg) for 2016 a year. The 1007 order is a corvette of the 20380 project "Ardent", the order of 1008 - the corvette of the same project "Strict", but the "Brash", built on the project 20386, takes place in the document as "Order 1009".

About the comparative value of Russian and American warships, or "Arly Burke" against our corvettes


So, we see that the estimated cost of the "Reactive" is 17 244 760 thousand rubles., "Strict" on 85 thousand rubles. more expensive, but the "Bold" is an astronomical 29 080 759 thousand rubles. That 1,68 times more than the "strict". It seems to be a stunning difference ... but let's take a closer look at it.

The first thing that catches the eye is the difference in the “age” of the ships, because both 20380 corvettes were contracted under the 2014 State Defense Order, but the “Daring” corvette within 20386. The total difference between orders is 2016. , and this is quite significant in view of domestic inflation, which in the period 2-2014. was just colossal. According to Rosstat, in 2015 g, inflation was 2014%, and in 11,36 g - 2015%. Thus, the rise in prices from 12,91 January 1 g to 2014 January 1 g amounted to unbelievable 2016%.

Let us take as a basis the cost of the “Strict” corvette, since it is closer in its terms of construction (delivery in 2021 g) to “Daring” (2022 g) than “Retive” (2020 g). In 2014, the ship cost a little more than 17,3 billion rubles, but if we convert it to 2016 prices, then, taking inflation into account, its value will be 21 789 951,55 rubles. That is, in comparable prices, the cost of the corvettes of the project 20380 and 20386 differ not in 1,68, but only in 1,33 times. Anyway a lot? Well, let's take it further.

Let us ask ourselves the question - how correct is the price in 17,2-17,3 billion rubles. for corvettes project 20380? It seems to be strange to ask about this, but in fact, with a high degree of probability, these figures are lower than the real price of the corvettes. The fact is that the pricing for military products is calculated using the good old-fashioned cost method: that is, the company first "incites" the planned costs of creating the product, "winds" on it the allowed rate of profit of the Russian Defense Ministry and coordinates the resulting cost estimates with representatives of the Ministry of Defense. And in several instances, each of which seeks to reduce something in the presented calculation (otherwise they will think that people do not work!).

But the price is finally agreed, the contract is approved and concluded. However, if the product has a long (long-term) production time or many products are ordered to be produced within a few years, then the RF Ministry of Defense has an “excellent” way to optimize its costs. It looks like this.

The fact is that the prices of materials that are accepted in the calculations, enterprises are obliged to confirm the primary documents showing that they actually buy materials for such a price. That is, at the time of the calculation of the pricing of materials in it is quite adequate, but, of course, in the case of a long-term construction of the ship (especially a series of ships) over time, these same prices will increase - inflation. So, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, of course, will allow the enterprise to increase the cost and price of the product, taking into account the increase in the price of materials for its production ... but not by the sum of the actual costs caused by the increase in prices, but only by the official inflation rate. Strangely enough, for some reason all the time it turns out that the cost of raw materials and materials grow in price much faster than the official inflation figures. That is, to put it simply, suppliers raise the price for materials by 7%, and a representative of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation says: “I'm sorry, dear, I understand your difficulties, but the official statistical bodies are sure that inflation on this type of materials is only 5%, but Who am I against Rosstat? Here on 5% I will allow you to raise the cost of these materials in the next product, and the rest is your problem. ” And it turns out that the company is forced to pay the specified 2% of the difference in the cost of materials from its own pocket.

Therefore, it turns out that for the first product (if the costs of its production are planned well, and the production workers didn’t disrupt the output), the company will receive the profit laid down by the law, but for the next ones it will not, because the real cost will be higher than that Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. Worse, it may well turn out that the enterprise will produce the last products almost at a loss. So the corny "Strict" is the sixth ship of this type for the manufacturer ("Severnaya Verf") and it can be assumed that the price tag in 17,3 billion rubles. not quite correct, and that an honest recalculation of the cost estimate would have given a substantially higher price for this corvette. This means that the price of the ship, adjusted for inflation, may turn out to be more than the 21,8 billion rubles we have calculated.

But that's not all. The fact is that comparing the cost of "Strict" and "Daring" directly ... is not that it is not entirely correct, but, quite frankly, completely incorrect, and the point is this. The Strict is a serial ship of the 20380 project, while the Daring is the lead (and possibly the only) ship of the 20386 project. What is the difference? In the cost of manufacturing equipment and pre-production.


Figure Corvette Project 20386


During the construction of a ship under a new project, often the manufacturing enterprise is required to seriously upgrade its fixed assets, purchase some new equipment, rework old ones, etc. which he does not need to fulfill current orders and will be operated only in the manufacture of a new ship. In this case, such costs are fully included in the cost of products for which these costs are incurred. And so it turns out that the cost of producing the 20380 project corvettes carried out by the Northern Shipyard was distributed to at least 6 contracted ships (“Guarding”, “Smart”, “Boyky”, “Resistant”, “Retivy” and “Strict "), Which this enterprise built and is building, but the costs of preparing for the production of 20386 corvettes have completely" boomed "into the cost of the lead ship - after all, no other 20386 corvettes have been ordered! And, it must be said that there are quite a few constructive differences between 20386 and 20380, so it is quite possible that the cost of a head corvette of this type has greatly increased due to preparation for its production. Of course, if the construction of ships of the 20386 project is continued, then they will be much cheaper - once the costs of pre-production are completely “laid out” in the first ship of the series, then they will not fall into the cost of serial corvettes.

Of course, we cannot know exactly what amounts for the above needs were included in the price of “Daring” and how correct the price of 2014 g is for “Strict”. And even if they knew, this information is no longer for open press - but it is more or less reasonable to assume that if the Northern Shipyard would have ordered equal series of corvettes of the 20386 and 20380 projects, subject to simultaneous construction, then the cost of a serial ship of the type “Daring” would exceed that of the serial ship of the 20380 project by no means by 33%, but by 25 percent, but maybe less.

That is, we can justifiably assume that the cost of the corvettes of the 20386 project is not at all 68%, but only a quarter higher than 20380. But what do we get for this extra money spent?


Corvette Project 20380


Quite a lot.

First, the corvette 20386 is a much larger ship, its full displacement reaches 3 400 (according to other data - 3 500) t. That is, it is almost a third larger than the corvettes of the project 20380. The size advantage gives the ship an advantage in seaworthiness and autonomy: for example, the 20380 project corvette has a 3 500 range for miles on 14 nodes, and the 20386 project corvette is 5 000 miles, and although the economic speed of Daring, unfortunately, is unknown, apparently no lower than Strict.

Secondly, this is a new type of power plant. As you know, project 20380 corvettes are equipped with diesels, and, since the whole world normal ship diesels (we are talking about surface ships, not submarines) are obtained, perhaps, only from Germans and Finns, it was supposed to put German MTU diesels on corvettes. However, then the era of sanctions came, and the Germans refused to supply them to us, so that the Russian Ministry of Defense had no choice but to use the import-substituting products of the Kolomensky Zavod. And the Kolomna plant, it must be said, is unique in terms of ship diesel engines. The fact is that this plant has already promised 107 (one hundred and seven!) Years to give the fleet normal diesel engine: for the first time, he swore that he would deliver efficient engines of this type for battle cruisers of the Izmail type in January 1911. Alas, to this day his words remain words. More recently, by the way, the diesel engine of this honored manufacturer on the frigate "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov" broke down - it was okay to even fix it without dismantling and cutting the side. And the corvettes on these diesels without tugs in the sea is better not to let go - does it matter? In addition, it should be noted that, even putting aside the issues of reliability, a pure diesel power plant raises big questions on the ship, one of the most important functions of which is anti-submarine defense. Still, a diesel engine is a fairly noisy engine.

So, the corvettes of the 20380 project received a diesel power plant with 23 320 HP power. Well, the 20386 corvette has a fundamentally different power plant, which is based on two gas turbine engines M90FR with a total power of 55 000 hp, that is, more than twice as many as the corvettes of the 20380 project. It must be said that these engines are being installed today on the 20350 frigates, in Russia their production is mastered by the ODK-Saturn, that is, on this issue the 20386 corvettes do not depend on foreign suppliers or on the Kolomna plant, but I must say that the school gas turbine engines, inherited from the USSR is extremely strong - this is the type of marine engines that we get very well.

But what is interesting is that for the economic course, the 20386 Corvette of the project uses electric motors, which, in matters of capturing enemy submarines, look much more preferable than diesel engines. Thus, there is no doubt that the “Daring” power plant is much better suited to the domestic ship of the corvette class - it is safer, more powerful and, most likely, quieter than a diesel one. Well, do not forget that the corvette of the 20380 project has a maximum speed of 27 nodes, while the 20386 project has 30 nodes, this is also a significant advantage.

Thirdly, the composition of the 20386 corvette armament is significantly "more interesting" than that of the 20380 project counterparts. Most of the publications indicate that the "main caliber" of the newest corvette is represented by two quadruple UCR robots, and most likely this and Yes, some other sources (for example, Military Russia) indicate the presence of more powerful and, of course, more expensive Caliber family rockets. Perhaps this is still an erroneous opinion, and the Daring one hosts the 8 PKR “Uranus” "(This is exactly the opinion of the author of this article), but also in this case, its strike armament is in no way inferior to the 20380 project corvettes carrying the same UNANs 8, since the Gauges have appeared on them since the 20385 modification, and it already has a completely different price tag.

The ship's air defense system is represented by 2 * 8 launchers of the Redoubt (16 PU) air defense system against a dozen PU on corvettes of the 20380 project and a pair of six-barrel “metal cutters” AK-630М.

The other weapons of the “Bold” also correspond to what was installed on the 20380 project corvettes - a single-barreled 100-mm artillery mount (apparently, the “Bold” received an improved version of what was put on the “Stereguschie”) and two four-tube torpedo small-sized torpedo tubes “ Package-NK ", which, basically," sharpened "on opposition to enemy torpedoes, but on occasion can" work out "and the submarine.

I foresee the bewilderment of a respected reader - what is so interesting about the armament of the 20386 corvettes, if it is almost the same with ships of the “Guarding” type? Surely four additional missile launchers for Redut missiles are so important?

In fact, there is a difference, and it is enormous, except that it consists not in the number of barrels or missiles, but in the fire control systems.

We have already said many times that the “guardians” took the wrong path. For ships with a displacement of one (or two, the second - instead of the Ak-630M pair), the SIGNATURE, like the Pantsir-M, would be more than sufficient protection against an air attack, but where there! Give us all the battleships in the displacement of the ship's boat, so that after the “Watchman” the ships began to install the Redut air defense system. All would be nothing if it were not for the peculiarities of its missiles - to control the shooting, the Redoubt needs a Polyment radar, which was supposed to work in conjunction with the Redoubt, and which, apparently, has not been brought to this day, despite the fact that the first ship with the "Polymente", the lead frigate of the 22350 "Gorshkov" project was nevertheless adopted by the fleet.

But it was absolutely impossible to put the “Polyment” on a corvette, so we went the other way, deciding to train the Reduta standard-made radar of the General Review “Furke-2” to control the Missiles. Naturally, nothing sensible from the “union” of a modern air defense system with a weak general overview radar could not have turned out and, as far as the author knows, directing missiles to AGSN “Furke” never learned (except in range, absolutely ideal conditions). The only way to effectively use this SAM system in combat is possible only when used for targeting the Puma artillery SMS, which seems to be able to send missiles in difficult jamming conditions, but due to its artillery specifics, creates a number of restrictions on the use of SAM "Redoubt". In other words, they installed an air defense system on 20380 corvettes, the capabilities of which simply cannot be realized by the existing radar equipment.

In contrast to the 20380 project, “Daring” instead of “Furke” received a qualitatively different system - the multifunctional radar system (MF RLC) “Zaslon”, using radar with phased array. At the same time, it looks more like the American AN / SPY-1 (fixed grilles), but the principle of operation more closely resembles the British “Daring” - due to the combination of radars operating in the decimeter and millimeter ranges, the IFC ZLK Zaslon can perfectly control both high and low flying aerial targets. This complex can conduct not only active, but also passive search in a non-emitting mode - in this case, Barrier is able to detect and track more than 100 targets at a distance of up to 300 km. The complex is able to put active radar interference and manages passive interference, and in addition, it is able to issue target designation not only to the missile, but also to the artillery of the ship - nothing like that, of course, “Furke-2” did not know how. In other words, MF RLC Zaslon provides a qualitative superiority in the management of the corvette’s armament, which ensures a significant increase in the combat potential of the Daring in comparison with the corvettes of the 20380 project.

Although the author can not boast of absolutely reliable information, but according to some sources, the sonar equipment of the 20386 corvettes of the project also surpasses that which is installed on the “Guarding” and ships of the same type, and the same applies to the REP and EW facilities. Also, apparently, the “Daring” is more automated than the corvettes of the 20380 project - the number of the crew of the latter is 99 people, and on the “Daring” - only 80 people.

Thus, we can state that for 20-25% increase in value (hardly more) we get a ship, which in its reliability, seaworthiness, combat potential significantly exceeds the corvettes of the 20380 project. On a scale of "cost / efficiency" "Daring", apparently, have an advantage. Based on the above, the author of this article is inclined to suppose that four “Brash” are capable of doing much more than five “Guardians” in battle, and at a price they will be quite equivalent. Therefore, it is not necessary to see in the corvettes of the 20386 project any kind of “mistake”, “cut”, “budget deriban”, and so on. Rather, the construction of “Daring” is a kind of safety net in case “Polyment-Redoubt” will not be brought to mind and the frigates of the 22350 project will not justify the hopes placed on them - well, and the fact that 20380 project corvettes obviously did not justify those, today perhaps no longer requires additional evidence.

That is, in the event of the failure of the Gorshkov construction program, the fleet management remains, literally, at the bottom of the trough. The 20380 and 20385 projects are unsuccessful, the “Admiral” 11356 series frigates are, in principle, reliable and could be good if they were equipped with modern equipment (which, alas, is not present). But there are no power plants for them in the Russian Federation, so building frigates of the 11356 project serially for our fleet will fail. And if at the same time the frigates of the 22350 project turn out to be a “paper tiger”, then the fleet will literally have nothing to build. And here, like a little devil from a snuff box, the 20386 corvette suddenly appears - having an intermediate displacement between the corvette and the frigate, it is capable, in principle, of performing the functions of both, working on the power plants mastered in the Russian Federation. Instead of a non-working "Polymente", it is quite sane, although it is much inferior to it in characteristics "Barrier", which nevertheless allows you to effectively use short and medium-range missiles, well, and probably cheaper ... On the one hand, the ship seems to be “ neither a candle of God nor a devil of a poker ”, but on the other hand it could well become an analogue of the 1135 TFR, which had a similar displacement and was deservedly considered the“ working horse ”of the Soviet fleet, and that’s what we need today.

In general, the corvette of the 20386 project is very similar to such straw, which is spread where you can slip, and besides, at the same time, also a "testing ground" for working out the idea of ​​electric propulsion - it’s not that we had no ships that went to electricity, but on military surface ships it was not used.

Well, now let's try to compare its cost with the cost of the newest Arly Burk type IIA + destroyers.


The destroyer "John Finn" - the lead ship series IIA +


Just in 2016, when the corvette of the 20386 “Daring” project was laid, the Americans allocated funds for the construction of two ships of this type with a total amount of 3 470,1 million dollars or 1 735,05 million dollars per ship. The lead destroyer of the IIA + series, according to some data, cost the US $ 2,2 billion (but this is not certain). However, the comparison of the “Daring”, the lead ship of the 20386 corvettes series, is not entirely correct with both.

In theory, we should compare our lead ship with the lead American, but this will not be a correct comparison. The fact is that, according to the practice adopted in the USA, the cost of the lead ship is “invested” not only in the costs of preparing for production (like ours), but also a substantial part of the R & D costs associated with the creation of this ship. At the same time, such works are financed and paid separately by the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation. That is, according to our defense order scheme, the Ministry of Defense first orders research, pays for it, and studies the result — if it is unsatisfactory, the Ministry of Defense either continues to fund research “until the bitter end”, or pays the contractor for the work actually completed and finishes the topic. Well, if the result is positive - then the order for the head and serial "products" should be, but R & D is not included in their cost - why, if they are carried out and paid for separately? So it turns out that it is impossible to compare the cost of the “Daring” with the head destroyer of the IIA + series, because the cost of the American ship is R & D, which are not taken into account in the cost of our ship. On the other hand, it is also incorrect to compare the cost of the “Daring” with the cost of a serial destroyer, because in our ship the costs of pre-production are taken into account, while in the US it is not. And what to do?

To begin with, we will determine the value of the “Daring” in US dollars. There are two methods for this. If we use the current dollar rate at 2016 g (in July it was 64,34 rubles / dollar), then we will see that the cost of the 20386 head corvette is almost 452 million dollars. That is, if a foreign customer had appeared at Severnaya Verf for this corvette, then the company would have received exactly the same revenue and profit as from the construction of “Daring” for the RF Ministry of Defense, selling this corvette at the price of 452 million dollars, for example, of the same India.

Obviously, the comparison of the “price tag” of a domestic ship even with the serial “Arly Burk” is extremely beneficial for the domestic manufacturer, because as of the 2016 g, one serial “Arly” of the IIA + series stands almost like 4 head corvettes of the 20386 project.

But in order to evaluate the effectiveness of our economy, it makes sense to use not the dollar exchange rate, but the dollar rate at purchasing power parity (PPP). What it is?

The fact is that the exchange rate of the dollar is largely a speculative figure, depending on the conjuncture in the market, supply and demand for currency, etc. But the dollar exchange rate for PPP is formed differently. A certain set of goods and services is selected. It is then estimated for how many dollars they can be bought in the USA, and for how much a similar set can be bought for rubles in the Russian Federation. The ratio of these amounts will be the dollar / ruble rate at PPP.

The easiest way to determine exchange rates for PPP is the so-called “Big Mac Index”.



In this case, only one type of product is compared - the very big Mac produced by McDonald's. So, in 2016 g in the Russian Federation, a big mac cost 114 rubles, in the USA - a 4,93 dollar, respectively, the dollar exchange rate at PPP was 23,12 rubles / dollar. These figures are taken from the weekly The Economist, which publishes the Big Mac Index on the Internet as well - you can see this by going through this link.

State statistical services determine PPP indices with much more complicated calculations that can be made only at the end of the year (the “Big Mac Index” is calculated by The Economist magazine on a weekly basis). Oddly enough, according to national statistics in 2016, the dollar rate is not too different from the Big Mac Index and is 23,67 rubles / dollar. Official data of federal statistics of the Russian Federation on the rates of currency PPP by year can be viewed here.

Here, however, a respected reader, who closely follows the publication of “VO” devoted to the fleet, may have a question, because in his recent article “It's time to learn from the enemy” the respected A. Timokhin brought a completely different exchange rate of the dollar at PPP - about 9,3 rubles ./dollar. Alas, a mistake has crept in here with a respected author - such a course (9,27 rub / dollar) really existed, but ... in 2002, and it, of course, has long been outdated and cannot be used to compare the cost of military equipment produced in 2016. Exchange rates for PPP change annually, and of course, it is necessary to apply the current rates, and not those that once existed.

So, according to our statistics, and “adopting” the dollar rate at PPN 23,67 rubles / dollar, then we get the cost of the 20386 head corvette at 1 228,6 million dollars, that is, the serial destroyer of the Arly Berk type , standing, as we said above, 1 735,05 million, more expensive than our head corvette by about 41%. However, in reality, the ratio is more profitable for our ship, because, as we have said, it is incorrect to compare a serial American ship with our lead ship.

And what will happen if we compare the serial corvette of the 20380 project with the serial “Arly Burke”? As we have said, the cost of the sixth corvette of this series, contracted in 2014 (“Strict”), was 17 329 760 rubles, taking into account inflation, that is, in 2016 prices, this will be 21 789 951,55 rubles. that is, at the dollar rate at PPN 23,67 rubles / dollar, the value of the “Strict” in dollars will be 920 572,52 dollars.



Thus, the cost of a serial "Arly" is 1,88 cost of a serial corvette of the project 20380. And if our assumption that the cost of a serial corvette of the 20386 project on 20-25 exceeds the cost of a serial ship of the 20380 project is true (and most likely the way it is), the American destroyer will be more expensive than the serial “Daring” 1,51-1,57 times. Or, roughly speaking, for the resources that Americans spend on Arly Burk on 2, we can either build an 3 corvette of the 20386 project, save some money, or build an 3 corvette of the 20386 project and bring the fourth building to about 80% of readiness .

However, we have to admit that neither the 3 “Daring” or the 4 “Strict” in their combat capabilities and alongside stood in two destroyers of the type “Arly Burk” of the IIA + series. And this suggests that we are not rationally using our resources, since on the “cost-effectiveness” scale, American ships obviously outperform ours. But the problem here is not that our shipbuilding works inefficiently, but in the depravity of the concept of building the surface forces of the domestic fleet.

The fact is that in the cost of a modern ship a large proportion is occupied by weapons and combat systems. In the case of Arly Berkov, it turns out that the cost of a ship (hull with add-ons and equipment) is approximately 35% of its total cost, the cost of an information system is 20%, and the cost of weapons and equipment for it is the rest of 45%. And now we will try to imagine how much a corvette, similar to the “Daring”, would cost if the Americans took over its construction.

When we are trying to shove into the corvette a nomenclature of destroyer weapons (medium-range air defense systems, anti-ship missiles, torpedoes, artillery, rapid-fire "metal-cutting", helicopter, etc.) we are forced to install a BIUS equivalent to the destroyer. Total - 20% of the cost of the destroyer will be worth the BIUS corvette.

The hull will be almost three times smaller. But in this case, a threefold reduction in size does not provide a threefold reduction in cost - for example, the power of the Arly Burk power plant exceeds the power of the Daring one less than twice, and, moreover, the need to “maximize” the maximum of weapons to the minimum of space will entail additional expenses (we simplify the hull - we spend more expensive materials), so we will be happy if the corvette hull with the equipment costs us half the cost of the destroyer. Total - 17,5% destroyer cost.

Armament. Suppose we miraculously managed to stuff a third of the destroyer’s armament into the ship, which is one more feat - as we have said above, the hull is three times smaller, and the EC is twofold, and the same will apply to many others. units and assemblies, that is, designing a ship three times smaller than a destroyer, we can’t expect that its payload will be only three times smaller - rather, it will be less than four to five times less. But let's say we managed to cram a third into the corvette weapons The destroyer is 15% of its value.

And here is the result. In the best case, we get a ship that carries a third of the destroyer's weapons ... for 62,5%, that is, almost two thirds of its value. And if someone wants to accuse us of bias, then let him compare the corresponding indicators of the American LCS with the American Arly Berks of the last series (according to a rough estimate, the author of this article is littoral kombat spike, if 15% of Berk’s combat effectiveness , but at the same time - 40% of its value).

In other words, the domestic bet on “supercorvets” and “superfrigates” is completely unjustified economically. If instead we designed and built a light PLO ship (within 2 000 t full displacement, a good sonar complex, 533-mm torpedoes as the main weapon, a helicopter, a SPARK for self-defense), which would be very cheap and extremely important for to ensure the safety of our SSBNs, and the gas turbine destroyer-station wagon (“Redut” air defense missile system or C-400 rifle, UKKS for Kalibr / Onyx / Zircon missiles, etc.) with a total displacement of the order of 8 thousand tons - there would be no sense in example more than from a bunch of “corvette about KTA 20380 - frigate project 22350 ».
Author:
225 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. KCA
    KCA 24 November 2018 06: 11 New
    -5
    I somehow do not understand ship engines, but with what fright diesel is noisier than a gas turbine? Higher shaft revolutions, more vibration, why does the GDU suddenly make less noise?
    1. kepmor
      kepmor 24 November 2018 07: 17 New
      +12
      compare the noise from a lawn mower and a domestic vacuum cleaner ... somewhere + \ - ... the diesel rumbles ... the turbine sings ...
      the old man MPK 1124 was generally powered by the DGN-300 (suspended) when searching for the submarine ... the acoustic field of the ship decreased significantly ... exhaust into the air, and into the water ... vibration to the superstructure, and not to the bottom ...
      1. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 24 November 2018 12: 33 New
        -2
        Quote: kepmor
        vibration in the superstructure, but not in the bottom ...

        ??? We must assume that your IPC add-in was not "connected" with the 1124 case! laughing
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa 25 November 2018 15: 03 New
          -2
          Quote: BoA KAA
          Quote: kepmor
          vibration in the superstructure, but not in the bottom ...

          ??? We must assume that your IPC add-in was not "connected" with the 1124 case!

          I see that you have problems not only with physics, but also with humor!
          Sadly, it seems that the naval people ... lol
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 26 November 2018 21: 33 New
            0
            KKSF, Fleet Admiral Popov, also had problems with humor, as did his immediate superiors.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 24 November 2018 12: 15 New
      +3
      because the fuel in the gas turbine burns uninterruptedly from the nozzle, and in piston engines it explodes with a certain frequency, so the planes fly without silencers
    3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2018 14: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: KCA
      I somehow do not understand ship engines, but with what fright diesel is noisier than a gas turbine?

      Unfortunately, I cannot explain the physics of this process. But diesel is very noisy - as far as I know, the noisiest type of ship engine
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo 24 November 2018 14: 46 New
        +11
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Unfortunately, I cannot explain the physics of this process. But diesel is very noisy - as far as I know, the noisiest type of ship engine

        Physics is easy. Explosive combustion of a fuel-air mixture in cylinders and rapid reciprocating motion of large masses (pistons with connecting rods) vs uniform burning and rotation of a balanced turbine rotor.
        1. Fan-fan
          Fan-fan 25 November 2018 12: 04 New
          0
          That's right, ICE vibrations are difficult to minimize.
          But, people, you left the main topic - why is the policy and planning for the construction of surface ships with us not effective?
      2. frog
        frog 24 November 2018 20: 58 New
        +3
        As bee already commented. But balancing the turbine is much simpler .... There is a common bike, which seems to be not quite a bike))) That on the Novika turbine a cent on the edge was on the move. Somehow I don’t really imagine this picture on a diesel engine, even if I just put it .... Although the same 3D6 was brought to phenomenal parameters in terms of noise and vibration, but about the coin on it on the go, even bad -)))))
      3. venik
        venik 25 November 2018 01: 07 New
        +8
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Unfortunately, I cannot explain the physics of this process.

        =========
        Yes and no need !!! You are not a physicist! For you - it's ALREADY DONE! (Narak-zempo, vladimir1155, kepmor (Alexey), and your humble servant - "added") !!
        You have another mistake "crept in": The fact is that the Americans, starting with the "spruces" - the forerunner of the "Arly Burkov"), have mastered the construction of destroyer-class ships - in the "conveyor" way, which allows not only to CHEAP production significantly but also very seriously reduce construction time. We have a similar technology (for ships of large tonnage) was (as far as I know) only at the "Black Sea Shipbuilding Plant" in Nikolaev ... request In the remaining factories, ships of the Corvette class and above are built “the old fashioned way”. And this means that from the moment of laying to the launching into the water - the slipway - is BUSY !!! And as you know, the smaller the hull, the faster you can launch the ship into the water and start building the next one !!!! Given the CATASTROPHIC shortage of shipbuilding capacities in the Russian Federation (do not forget that huge shipbuilding capacities remained in Ukraine, and with the Baltic states too, something went away), the decision to focus on building ships relatively short displacement seems not so stupid .... request In the final analysis, it’s not ONLY the battle ships that need to be built .....
    4. Simargl
      Simargl 24 November 2018 21: 31 New
      +3
      Quote: KCA
      I somehow do not understand ship engines, but with what fright diesel is noisier than a gas turbine?
      Here physics needed to be taught, not skipped. Even with the same installation noise in dB, higher frequencies propagate worse, resonant phenomena in the housing are less.
    5. venik
      venik 25 November 2018 00: 21 New
      +11
      Quote: KCA
      I somehow do not understand ship engines

      =======
      Here in IT you are absolutely right !!!! Unfortunately, the rest:
      Quote: KCA
      Higher shaft revolutions, more vibration, why does the GDU suddenly make less noise?

      ========
      DEEPLY WRONG !!!
      And with "what suddenly" ?? Yes, with the fact that both types of engines (gas turbine engines and diesel engines (for example, an internal combustion engine) use completely different principles:
      In a diesel engine, torque results from explosive (not an explosion, namely explosive!) combustion of the air-fuel mixture in the cylinders (which in itself creates an enormous noise!) through the piston rod is transmitted to the crankshaft (i.e., the longitudinal (relative to the "axis" of the engine) crankshaft rotates due to the "transverse" shock loads (from the piston rods), which leads to an exceptionally STRONG "transverse" vibration, which is "superimposed" on the crankshaft’s own vibration !.
      In a gas turbine engine, unlike a diesel engine, the torque is created by blowing obliquely positioned blades with a stream of gases resulting from monotonous combustion of the air-fuel mixture !!!
      Do not believe ?? Well, remove the plug and resonator from your car and start the engine ... Then you will hear HOW it actually works!
      PS Once upon a time, during the "urgent" I got to the exercises, where I personally saw the T-80 "on the go" (in those days, few knew "what kind of beast" and whether it exists "in nature" or so - fairy tales about "turbine tanks" ..... Oh, and they scared us !!! They appeared almost silent !!! That is, not quite silent - some kind of rumble (they thought somewhere far away, the plane flies over the landfill .. .) and suddenly Hop! About 150-200 meters behind the hill, 3 pieces jump out one after another !!! Yes, at a decent speed! This is despite the fact that diesel T-72s can be heard for several kilometers !!!
  2. Tu-16
    Tu-16 24 November 2018 07: 01 New
    +12
    So, we see that the estimated cost of the "Zealous" is 17 244 760 rubles., "Strict" for 85 thousand rubles. more expensive, but the “Daring” costs astronomical 29 rubles.
    . Correct the cost. The price in the table is indicated in thousands of rubles, that is, three orders of magnitude more. Such a ship cannot cost like a small apartment in the capital or a hypercar.
    1. SOF
      SOF 24 November 2018 08: 06 New
      +3
      Quote: Tu-16
      Correct the cost

      ... here, here ... in the report we are talking about billions ....
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2018 14: 17 New
      +2
      Quote: Tu-16
      Correct the cost.

      Yes, thanks, I will write to the moderators
  3. Simeonov
    Simeonov 24 November 2018 07: 01 New
    +2
    Andrei, after this offer .... "Of course, we cannot know what exactly the amounts for the above needs were included in the price of the“ Daring ”and how correct the price of 2014 g for“ Strict ”is.
    Well, you know.
    And with pricing, yes. Under the USSR, defense expenditures were spent on civilian enterprises and were not included in the total budget. From memory, 18 billion defense (rubles), the United States 80 billion (dollars) were put up. At the same time, they declared parity. In fact, 77 billion rubles. This is about 3% of GDP .......... (V. Shlykov "What destroyed the Soviet Union? General Staff and the economy" / Military Bulletin, No. 8-8, 9.)
    As an example. On the 2nd fl. Pl. Was listed in the crew of the boat V. Tretyak. That is, a double salary and 240 Kamchatka rubles. All together, 800-900 rubles (five salaries of hard workers on the mainland). But someone did the work for him while he wasted the pucks. Well, the idea is clear.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2018 14: 20 New
      0
      Quote: Simeonov
      Andrei, after this offer .... "Of course, we cannot know what exactly the amounts for the above needs were included in the price of the“ Daring ”and how correct the price of 2014 g for“ Strict ”is.
      Well, you know.

      I don’t understand :)))) There is a fact - there is this difference, although it is unclear how large.
      1. Simeonov
        Simeonov 24 November 2018 14: 57 New
        0
        If Yes, then Yes ... And if the magnitude of the difference is unknown, then I would have written the amount tentatively, ranging from and to.
        Do not pay attention ... I find fault)))
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2018 15: 27 New
          +1
          Quote: Simeonov
          If Yes, then Yes ... And if the magnitude of the difference is unknown, then I would have written the amount tentatively, ranging from and to.

          I wrote just that, albeit in other words :)
    2. Simargl
      Simargl 24 November 2018 21: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Simeonov
      But someone did the work for him while he wasted the pucks. Well, the idea is clear.
      For that, now the team of our cloven-legged receives a salary as the crew of an aircraft carrier. Do not think that Admiral Kuznetsov is more like Ford.
      Yes, the idea is clear.
  4. jonht
    jonht 24 November 2018 08: 17 New
    +1
    I agree that the destroyers are both better and more efficient, but the terms of construction .... Therefore, the calculation was for the quick construction of corvettes and frigates, but alas, there is a complete flight .... But the fleet needs to be updated.
  5. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 24 November 2018 08: 59 New
    +11
    Alas, Andrey Nikolaevich hi , but the realities of today's Russia are orders of magnitude different from the capabilities of the USSR request
    And we all know that a station wagon will always lose to a specialist. But since it is impossible to build specialized ships in the right quantities due to economic and managerial realities according to the Western model, it means you have to build a single class of "super universal" instead of specialized strike ships and specialized PLO ships (convincing yourself that there isn’t such a thing in the West and we are again ahead of the rest) and separately a fleet of yachts for the capitalist fathers yes
    Alas... crying
    I completely agree with you on the assessment
    In other words, the domestic bet on “super-corvettes” and “super-frigates” is completely not economically justified.

    yes hi
  6. faiver
    faiver 24 November 2018 09: 38 New
    +5
    the author, as always, well done, although it is regrettable to read this ...
  7. Xazarin
    Xazarin 24 November 2018 10: 05 New
    +3
    Dear Andrey, it is still more correct to compare the cost with a Freedom type corvette. Rummaged a bit and this is the result. $ 480 million, which is about the same as ours if taken at the exchange rate and more than half the price if PPP. Which leads to bad thoughts about the extent of cuts.
    1. Vladimir Postnikov
      Vladimir Postnikov 24 November 2018 11: 45 New
      -1
      Quote: Xazarin
      more correctly compare the cost with a Freedom-type corvette. Rummaged a bit and this is the result. 480 million dollars, which is approximately the same as ours if taken at the exchange rate and more than half the price if PPP

      Either your phrase is incorrect or you made a mistake. From your text you can understand that the Freedom corvette is “like ours”, or it is half as much cheaper as “ours”, when compared with the Purchasing Power Parity.
      1. Xazarin
        Xazarin 24 November 2018 12: 40 New
        +3
        All right, you understand. Commas did not set sleep awake. Freedom class corvette worth $ 480 million. The cost of "Strict" at the teaching staff is approximately $ 920 million.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 24 November 2018 14: 17 New
          +13
          Quote: Xazarin
          Freedom class corvette worth $ 480 million

          Compare LCS with a normal ship is not quite true. It is now quite obvious that the LCS appeared as a result of an accident when the Americans conducted the satanic rite: instead of the next instructions on how to harm Russia, they evoked the spirit of the USSR Ministry of Industry, which forced them to build two completely different ships of the same class at the same time. At the same time, neither one nor the other could initially perform the functions for which they were ordered, as a result of which, during the construction of the series, both LCS were also pretty much sawn over by a grinder.

          However, now the Americans have come to their senses and are answering exactly the question that interests the author - what can be built at half the price of Burke in the size of a frigate. The answer is promised already in the 19 year. I think it will be interesting.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            24 November 2018 15: 38 New
            +4
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            However, now the Americans have come to their senses and are answering exactly the question that interests the author - what can be built at half the price of Burke in the size of a frigate. The answer is promised already in the 19 year. I think it will be interesting.

            I look forward to it myself :)))) As for me, something sensible should be born
            1. venik
              venik 25 November 2018 01: 49 New
              +2
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I look forward to it myself :)))) As for me, something sensible should be born

              ========
              Is not a fact!!! It’s easy that some kind of "rgenetic deviation"like"LCS-2" request
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2018 14: 25 New
      +4
      Quote: Xazarin
      Dear Andrey, it is still more correct to compare the cost with a Freedom type corvette.

      Completely incorrect - too different ships. Freedom is an almost unarmed walker. You look at his weapons (taking into account the fact that the module is not included in the price of the ship)
      Quote: Xazarin
      Rummaged a bit and this is the result. 480 million dollars

      This figure has long been outdated; in 2017, 2 1 million dollars were allocated for the construction of 598,9 littoral
      1. Xazarin
        Xazarin 24 November 2018 15: 09 New
        0
        The Navy requested funds for the purchase of three LCS to the 2016 budget of the fiscal year. According to the Navy, their total cost was 1 437 million dollars (average 479 million per unit)

        As for the figures you quoted, this is for Independence, but I’m definitely not sure.

        The bottom line is that I completely agree with you, we need workhorses 2000 - 2500 tonnage cheap and numerous. Project 20380/386, in my amateurish opinion, is excessive for solving the tasks assigned to them.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2018 15: 29 New
          0
          Quote: Xazarin
          The Navy requested funds for the purchase of three LCS to the 2016 budget of the fiscal year. According to the Navy, their total cost was 1 437 million dollars (average 479 million per unit)

          In fact, expenses amounted to 1 816,7 million, dollars :)))) I have GAO for 2018 before my eyes :)))
          1. Xazarin
            Xazarin 24 November 2018 15: 35 New
            +2
            Oh, they can’t stand the arms race)) I’m silent on this, so as not to interfere with the specialists)). Sincerely.
        2. venik
          venik 25 November 2018 02: 22 New
          +3
          Quote: Xazarin
          I completely agree with you, we need workhorses 2000 - 2500 tonnage cheap and numerous.

          ========
          Do not understand??? Or I didn’t understand Andrey’s article correctly or you! In my opinion, the Author was just ABOUT ANOTHER talk - that according to the criterion "efficiency / cost", ships of the class "destroyer" are significantly superior to "corvettes" ??? Am I reading something wrong ??? Correct, please!
          Now - about the displacement .... 2 tons, 000 or 2 .... The question is NOT IN THIS !!! And in TECHNOLOGY and combat EFFICIENCY !!!! Well, of course, in the Military Doctrine and Geopolitical interests !!! For example, the States have Globalist manners, and in their waters they have opponents NO. (Well, not Canada with Mexico) .... And therefore, they have been in their composition for more than a dozen years fighting there weren’t anything smaller than the “frigate” ships (I don’t take into account the Coast Guard and 4 missile boats of the Pegasus type) .....
          Russia has a different Doctrine, different tasks, a different geography and other "neighbors" .... Accordingly, small relatively inexpensive (both in construction and most importantly in OPERATION!) "Workhorses" are in DEMAND !!!
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 25 November 2018 11: 21 New
      0
      Quote: Xazarin
      Dear Andrey, it is still more correct to compare the cost with a Freedom type corvette.

      In terms of combat potential, this freedome is a patroller and not a warship.
  8. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 24 November 2018 12: 21 New
    +2
    Even if you imagine that the Russian Navy corvettes are superior to the Airlie Bourke class destroyers in all respects, the American destroyers and their crews will be crushed by the arithmetic number, and the speed of restoration of combat readiness, ammunition and other types of logistics support. The most important American crews are provided with a single information field and air intelligence.Russian crews do not have the ability to quickly interact with airborne reconnaissance of the MA of the Russian Federation, due to its extremely small size.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 25 November 2018 11: 24 New
      +2
      Quote: gunnerminer
      Even if you imagine that the Russian Navy corvettes are superior to the Airlie Burke class destroyers in all respects, the American destroyers and their crews will be crushed by an arithmetic number

      The fact is that "uraniums" are no better than "harpoons" and given the more powerful air defense of "Arly Berkov" - for each "burke" you need several "guards."
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 26 November 2018 21: 31 New
        0
        - The fact is that “uraniums” are no better than “harpoons” -

        There is no reason to think otherwise. In addition, uranium carriers are worse by an order of magnitude provided by reconnaissance and external sources of target designation. Alone, Urley Burke will not be sent to the main event.
  9. D..B.
    D..B. 24 November 2018 12: 32 New
    +4
    Thank you, an interesting comparison of the cost of the project 20380 and 20386 corvettes. You can add to the above that 20386 is not a corvette, but a frigate with a displacement of 3500 tons. And these arguments fully confirm the rejection of the construction of expensive and weak in all respects 20380. Regarding the construction of universal corvettes with a displacement of 2000 and destroyers of 8000 tons, let's cast aside illusions and dreams, there is no money to repair the BOD, the repair deadlines are up to 7 years, and you want new destroyers URO in the same displacement. All these are impossible dreams. Therefore, the most optimal option for today is the construction of frigates of the project 22350 and IPC on the basis of the Karakurt MRK. They will find the second money for sure, but the first one is a huge problem.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2018 15: 26 New
      +7
      Quote: D..B.
      Regarding the construction of universal corvettes with 2000 displacement and 8000 tons of destroyers, let's cast aside illusions and dreams, there is no money to repair the BOD, the repair time is up to 7 years, and you want new URO destroyers in the same displacement.

      And what are the problems? :)))) Are we building 22350? We are building. And they are out of the fleet due to problems with the latest weapons. But the destroyer in 8 000 could have a total displacement of at least C-300, and it would have been more expensive than the frigate 22350 percent on 30
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 25 November 2018 08: 23 New
        0
        - We are building. And they are out of the fleet due to problems with the latest weapons. -

        An indicator of the lack of prospects for the availability of the required combat readiness. Unfinished even in the second line is not entered. Since it does not represent combat value.
  10. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 24 November 2018 12: 39 New
    +6
    An interesting article by Andrei about currency parity continues our long-standing dispute about aircraft carriers .... super expensive. Let's start with the conclusion, In military affairs, not everything is decided by the economy, the corvette is more convenient and the recent disaster with PD 50 has shown this. It’s easier to repair the corvette by the wall, tow it, and find a bay for it. Well, to fight .... as it is not sad, the ship can be lost, and the loss of a corvette is not a loss of a battleship., And you can’t be in an destroyer in three places at once, for example, you won’t be able to search for submarines, but three corvettes can. For example, an armored train is economically more profitable than ten tanks, but small tanks make it. Let's go back to parity, I agree, the exchange rate is speculative, but not everything can be calculated at the price of a hamburger, a hamburger on the domestic market and to a significant extent without conducting export-import operations, all of their own, at domestic prices. A ship also includes imported Chinese components, for example, and what is export, metals. Metals are more expensive in our country than in the USA, because when exporting, they will return VAT, 20 percent, and domestic buyers pay an additional 20 percent ... Moreover, all duties are canceled and it’s more profitable to sell metal to America than ours, suppliers should receive at least income from selling to your own than to importers. That is, the cost of metal to domestic shipyards should not be considered at parity, but at the rate and add another 20 percent from the top, as thanks to Chubais who made Russia an American colony. On the other hand, the costs of the Americans are false. the entire US economy is deceitful, planned unprofitable, living off the bad loans of the Fed.
    If I had access to a loan at 0.05 percent per annum and without having to return it to the bank, then I could draw any figure of the cost of the destroyer, and draw such that no one would accuse me that the destroyer is too expensive. I have the opportunity to chat on the Internet because in 1991 I took a Sberbank loan of 50 thousand full-weight Soviet rubles at 0.5 percent, invested in goods at Soviet low prices .... then they turned into 1992 million in 50, ... and it turned out that credit debt is negligible .... and what about those who take such loans continuously?
  11. gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 24 November 2018 12: 40 New
    -2
    - which would be very cheap and extremely important for ensuring the safety of our SSBNs, and a gas turbine destroyer-universal (Redut air defense system or S-400 wetted, UKKS for missiles of the Caliber / Onyx / Zircon families, etc. .) with a total displacement of about 8 thousand tons - it would not be more sense than from the ligament “corvette of project 20380 - frigate of project 22350”. -

    You can only dream about it. The maximum that shipbuilders can provide is corvettes and a little RTOs. Without clear prospects.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2018 14: 26 New
      +4
      Quote: gunnerminer
      The maximum that shipbuilders can provide is corvettes and a little RTOs. Without clear prospects.

      This is a very erroneous opinion.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 24 November 2018 14: 42 New
        -2
        Destroyers do not build. Housings of frigates without GTU. Housings of MRK without diesel engines, and not only. Zircon is not ready even for preliminary tests. No gas-turbine destroyers were laid. Regardless of anyone's opinion.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2018 15: 32 New
          +7
          Quote: gunnerminer
          Destroyers do not build. Housings frigates without gas turbines. Housings MRK without diesel engines, and not only.

          Building a building? We are building. GTA in a few years mastered production? They mastered it, and before the Ukrainian coup, Kharkov could be ordered. Is there a caliber? There is.
          Quote: gunnerminer
          No gas-turbine destroyers were laid, regardless of one's opinion.

          Ordered frigates, what is the difference? :)))) What, is it difficult to install 2, but 3 GTZA? :))) Or initially ask to design a more powerful one?
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 24 November 2018 16: 50 New
            -2
            -GTA mastered production in a few years? Mastered, and -

            If they had mastered it, the frigates would act continuously for the customer.

            - Are we building hulls? We are building

            This is not an end in itself; it is only an element of construction.

            Is there a caliber? There is. -

            In limited quantities. Without the possibility of targeting from external sources, MRKC or UAVs of a heavy type. Ammunition is produced for the Caliber complex at tea and milk rates. Not enough even for the formation of current stocks, not to mention operational ones. And this is only for the Caspian flotilla and KChF! For these ammunition no PRTB or at least a pair of floating bases.

            -Frigates ordered, what is the difference?: -

            For the Civil Code of the Russian Navy, what is needed is not news of the availability of orders, but a technically ready ship.

            -What is difficult to install, not 2, but 3 GTZA? :))) -

            For November 2018 neither one nor the other.

            -Or originally ask to design a more powerful? -

            The project should be embodied in iron, if it is a real project. Apparently, the management of USC is trying to soberly assess the limited capabilities of its enterprises.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              24 November 2018 17: 56 New
              +2
              Quote: gunnerminer
              If they had mastered it, the frigates would act continuously for the customer.

              Do not confuse God's gift with fried eggs. But in general, the gas turbine engine for the last two frigates of the 22350 project, Admiral Golovko and Admiral Isakov, is ready https://flotprom.ru/2018/%D0%A1%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5% 1% D80% BD% D0% B0% D0% 1F% D8% 0% D92% B0% D5% 1% D80% 1% D84% 1CXN
              Quote: gunnerminer
              In limited quantities. Without the possibility of targeting from external sources, MRKC or UAVs of a heavy type. Ammunition for the Caliber complex is produced at tea and milk rates. Not enough even for the formation of current stocks, not to mention operational ones.

              Delirium
              Quote: gunnerminer
              For the Civil Code of the Russian Navy, what is needed is not news of the availability of orders, but a technically ready ship.

              And for this it is necessary to put technically-ready equipment on it, so I’m talking about C-300
              Quote: gunnerminer
              For November 2018 neither one nor the other.

              (grimacing) let's go without non-erotic fantasies. If you do not follow the news, do not pass it off as the actual state of affairs.
              1. gunnerminer
                gunnerminer 24 November 2018 18: 43 New
                -4
                -But in general, the gas turbine engine for the last two frigates of project 22350, Admiral Golovko and Admiral Isakov, are ready -

                They will be ready when they go to the main event.

                -Rave-

                The low productivity of the Novator plant is a sad reality. Therefore, they stopped using the ammunition of the Caliber complex on the Syrian bridgehead. Eliminate comments and replenish supplies.

                -so that's why I'm talking about S-300-

                There, not only S-300 is required. Readiness is assessed comprehensively. Including structures, coastal and marine.

                -news, do not pass this off as the actual state of affairs.

                The combat readiness is not assessed by news.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  24 November 2018 19: 15 New
                  +4
                  Quote: gunnerminer
                  They will be ready when they go to the main event.

                  They are ALREADY ready and installed on ships, no need to play with words.
                  Quote: gunnerminer
                  The low productivity of the Novator plant is a sad reality. Therefore, they stopped using the ammunition of the Caliber complex on the Syrian bridgehead

                  Enchanting nonsense. They in 2017 r in the first half of the year they riveted 60 pieces per quarter. And in Syria they are not used for the simple reason that they should have been used there only for advertising purposes, or within combat training, which implies product launches.
                  Quote: gunnerminer
                  The combat readiness is not assessed by news.

                  It is on the news from relevant sources. And not according to your fantasies
                  1. bnm.99
                    bnm.99 24 November 2018 19: 24 New
                    +5
                    Dear Andrey from Chelyabinsk, do not feed the lying troll.
                  2. gunnerminer
                    gunnerminer 25 November 2018 08: 05 New
                    -1
                    -and installed on ships, no need to play with words .-

                    A ship and combat readiness or sky-readiness. If some equipment or mechanisms are not set up, then the ship is not combat ready. These are the requirements of the Navy's combat charter of any country. Roughly speaking, it is impossible to be a little pregnant.

                    - They in 2017 in the first half of the year they riveted 60 pieces per quarter. -

                    This is a scanty amount. The shortage is not evident, due to the complete absence of RTOs at the main operational units of the KSF and KTOF. It is unlikely that RTOs will appear on these fleets in the next five years. They are not used at the Syrian bridgehead due to unsettled marks, extremely limited reserves, and the inability to use they are operational. In view of the wretched intelligence. The protianik against whom these subsonic munitions were trying to use does not have air defense, electronic warfare equipment, but it’s mobile and has excellent intelligence, with excellent combat control.
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 25 November 2018 11: 35 New
                      0
                      Quote: gunnerminer
                      then the ship is not combat ready. These are the requirements of the Navy's Combat Charter of any country. Roughly speaking, it is impossible to be a little pregnant.

                      A ship cannot be pregnant in principle, but can there be such a great human being as you knock it up? It will be a funny sight ...
                      1. gunnerminer
                        gunnerminer 25 November 2018 23: 17 New
                        0
                        The combat readiness of the ships is evaluated. The assessment of the combat readiness of a ship is a particular. For admission according to the BP Course. A ship cannot be completely combat-ready. This is even a sensible conscript year-old.
                      2. Setrac
                        Setrac 26 November 2018 08: 11 New
                        0
                        Quote: gunnerminer
                        A ship cannot be completely combat-ready. This is even a sensible conscript.

                        Your conscript is wrong. Any techie understands that there is a “working” condition of the equipment, but there is a “working" one. And a warship may not be entirely combat-ready - when it does not have all the systems in working condition, you can call the systems — warhead — as a sailor — the essence of this will not change.
                      3. gunnerminer
                        gunnerminer 26 November 2018 17: 09 New
                        0
                        -condition of technology, but there is a "workable". -

                        The level of combat readiness of ships and formations is estimated not by techies. and naval command of various levels. According to the requirements of quite specific documents that I have listed. They do not mention the opinion of techies.
              2. gunnerminer
                gunnerminer 25 November 2018 08: 21 New
                0
                -And in Syria they are not used for the simple reason-

                I recommend that you clarify with your sources the regular way of using subsonic guided munitions. According to the PRS (Rules of the Missile Service) and the Combat Training Course of surface ships, as well as the Tactical Guide of surface ships, volleys are formed in bulk, at least 20 units in each, sequential. Is it enough to provide three or four volleys of RTOs of the Caspian flotilla, for unprotected air defense and electronic warfare facilities, to stationary objects. That’s why American specialists deploy Tomahawks in maxim yvozmozhnyh no numbers on submarines and surface nositelyah.Chtoby maximize the probability of unacceptable damage to targets.
              3. Nehist
                Nehist 25 November 2018 11: 04 New
                0
                Gg Andrey do not tell me !!! The combat readiness is clearly assessed not by the news, but - for units (ships) on combat duty (military service) - readiness for immediate completion of assigned combat missions.
                1. gunnerminer
                  gunnerminer 25 November 2018 23: 14 New
                  0
                  Andrei’s sources weren’t read, even on the diagonal. The BP course of surface clabbles. Because of the combat readiness of the ships, their representations are extravagant. The combat readiness is estimated by the connection, including.
                2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  26 November 2018 08: 43 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Nehist
                  Gg Andrey do not tell me !!!

                  Alexander, if you get into someone else’s conversation, at least read it completely
                  It was about the fact that my opponent does not know that we have already done all the gas turbine engine for the laid-down 22350 frigates. And then the Gunnerminer left the game with the words "yes, I said that they are not ready, and if they are ready, they are still not ready, because the frigates are not yet on the move."
                  And here you are with your "truth-womb"
                  Quote: Nehist
                  ! Readiness is judged clearly not from the news

                  Thank you, Captain. Evidence, how can I have breakfast without your help? laughing
                  1. gunnerminer
                    gunnerminer 26 November 2018 17: 07 New
                    0
                    -It was about the fact that my opponent does not know that we have already done all the gas turbine engine for the laid frigates 22350.-

                    Only one could get out, and the one with limited air defense.
    2. goose
      goose 25 November 2018 17: 01 New
      0
      Quote: gunnerminer
      Destroyers do not build. Kopusy frigates without gas turbines.

      I don’t understand why our ships are without GTU? Saturn produces gas turbine engines with a capacity of 150 thousand hp weighing 58 tons. This unit will be enough for any ship up to 8 thousand tons of displacement, no sky-high 35-40 knots. Let it go at a speed of 27-30 knots. Few? put two, and there will be 35 knots. Why pay for heavy diesel engines, we have enough of our manufacturers.
      It is a state crime to buy more and worse. There are compact about 11-13 thousand hp. Put 2-4, if not enough. IMHO enough existing products to put in a ship up to 30000 tons. Just give money for expansion, as is the case with the Klimovsk plant, and in 3-5 years there will be a large series, and the budget will save money in the country.
  • gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 24 November 2018 12: 43 New
    -3
    - However, in fact, the ratio is more advantageous for our ship, -

    The combat readiness of surface-ship formations will not increase this advantageous ratio in any way. If even this ratio should be handed over to the unit commander and his headquarters. to the director of the shipbuilding plant, the head of the GUER, they shrug.
  • gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 24 November 2018 12: 46 New
    -4
    - The official data of the federal statistics of the Russian Federation on PPP exchange rates by years can be found here. -

    Even if the NATO exchange rates collapse, and the owners of their factories begin mass deliveries of the most advanced equipment to the Russian shipyards and shipbuilding companies, the process of increasing the construction of orders for the Russian Navy will take thirty years. Due to the time spent on training, recruiting specialists of all categories, and crew training new buildings.
  • Vladimir Postnikov
    Vladimir Postnikov 24 November 2018 12: 50 New
    +4
    Exchange rates at PPPs change annually, and of course, it is necessary to apply the current rates, and not those that existed once before.
    Dear Andrey, I'm sorry, but "PPP exchange rates do not exist in nature." There is parity of the purchasing power of the ruble against the dollar. This is a necessary, but very conditional degree of comparison. Moreover, it works in only one direction. The dollar, in this case, is an unchanging benchmark. In vain you tried to "add" PPS here. I understand what you are trying to say, but in this case this is not entirely correct.
    Yes, we need cost optimization based on opportunities, one of which is GDP (or PPP GDP). But comparing the price of ships with PPP is not worth it. A waste of time.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 24 November 2018 13: 56 New
      +4
      Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
      Dear Andrey, I'm sorry, but "PPP exchange rates do not exist in nature." There is parity of the purchasing power of the ruble against the dollar. This is a necessary, but very conditional degree of comparison. Moreover, it works in only one direction. The dollar, in this case, is an unchanging benchmark

      There have already been several discussions with Andrei on this topic. For example, the PPP idea assumes that the conditional average “car” in Russia costs, say, 694 thousand rubles, and the same conditional “car” in the USA should cost 694/23 = $ 30K. We look at the statistics, and we see that everything is so. The most popular car in Russia - Kia Rio, - and in America - Ford F150 - are just that much.

      But, as they say, there is a nuance. Kia Rio - never a Ford F150. And if you play with numbers and classification, then how would you not run into Tesla3 - the American Lada West.

      Nevertheless, Andrei remains in his opinion.
      1. Vladimir Postnikov
        Vladimir Postnikov 24 November 2018 14: 12 New
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Kia Rio - never a Ford F150.

        Techies are familiar with inertial reference systems. For them, there is no difficulty in understanding the difference between different inertial systems. In this case, the same thing. If we take the dollar "reference system", and in this dollar reference system we create a separate closed system with a parity dollar, then the rules in this reference system will not apply to the base dollar. This, if you will, is also a theory of relativity. Take a look above at the comment on my comment.
        Freedom class corvette cost 480 million $. The cost of "Strict" PPP is approximately 920 million $.
        No comment.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2018 15: 33 New
          +2
          Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
          Take a look above at the comment on my comment.

          Why look? :))) It’s completely erroneous, the price is much higher. In 2016, g was higher than 600 million dollars. I’m not saying that the littoral spike is practically unarmed
          1. Vladimir Postnikov
            Vladimir Postnikov 24 November 2018 19: 31 New
            +2
            Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
            Why look? :))) It’s completely erroneous, the price is much higher.

            You, as I see, do not even acknowledge your mistake. You (and you, as I understand it, are not the only ones) enter the PPP / GDP ratio ratio for all products. But you, at the same time, do not even realize what GDP is. GDP is a macroeconomic indicator reflecting the market value of all final goods and services. It reflects the market value (!!!), and not the use value, and not the value, as you mentioned below, of the resources spent on the product. Market !!! And all goods and services! When you try to multiply the market value of Russian ships on the international market by this coefficient, you get nothing but meaningless numbers. China's PPP GDP is about the same proportion as its GDP at current prices, about the same as Russia. Here is a link for you, compare: http://chius.ru
            What now? The cost of Chinese ships will also be determined by this ridiculous technique that you are trying to protect here?
            Please think again and consult with a competent economist.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              25 November 2018 09: 07 New
              +1
              Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
              When you try to multiply the market value of Russian ships on the international market by this coefficient

              Vladimir, what are you talking about? :)))) What is the other market value on the international market? :))) Would you get off the rostrum and figure it out yourself before you even teach me a little.
              The cost of corvettes in the article is their cost price + the established profit rate of the RF Ministry of Defense. That is, this is not close to market value, and even more so - on the international market. You do not understand the difference between the price for the Moscow Region determined by the costly method and the market value determined by the supply and demand ratios? :)))) Explain? :)))
              Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
              China's PPP GDP is about the same proportion as its GDP at current prices, about the same as Russia.

              So what?
              Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
              The cost of Chinese ships will also be determined by this ridiculous technique that you are trying to protect here?

              Конечно.
              Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
              Please think again and consult with a competent economist.

              For a second, you’re talking with the Director of Finance and Economics, who during his work pulled city-forming enterprises from the full ass of 2, not counting smaller ones :)))
              1. Vladimir Postnikov
                Vladimir Postnikov 25 November 2018 16: 28 New
                -1
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Vladimir, what are you talking about? :)))) What is the other market value on the international market? :))) Would you get off the rostrum and figure it out yourself before you even teach me a little.
                The cost of corvettes in the article is their cost price + the established profit rate of the RF Ministry of Defense. That is, this is not close to market value, and even more so - on the international market. You do not understand the difference between the price for the Moscow Region determined by the costly method and the market value determined by the supply and demand ratios? :)))) Explain? :)))

                Andrew, I see that you are confused, and began, sorry, to loop "like a hare." The fact that there is one international market, I tried to explain to you. And in this market prices in dollars or other "hard" currencies are valid, which have unconditional conversion with the dollar, and not in your "PPP dollars". There are markets that are somewhat isolated from the global market. Examples of these markets are Russia and China. It is this certain isolation of them and the mismatch between the domestic prices of some goods and international market prices that make it impossible to correctly compare prices. Who did you write the following for?
                The cost of corvettes in the article is their cost price + the established profit rate of the RF Ministry of Defense. That is, this is not close to market value, and even more so - on the international market.
                For me? I know that. Is this about that? Not about that. It is about comparing the cost of a Russian product produced in an isolated system with the cost of a product produced in a world market system. This is you comparing the cost of a Russian ship and an American, not me. The only question is what you are comparing incorrectly. And when I pointed you to this, and tried to explain your mistake, you started (what you started).
                Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                China's PPP GDP is about the same proportion as its GDP at current prices, about the same as Russia.
                So what?
                Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                The cost of Chinese ships will also be determined by this ridiculous technique that you are trying to protect here?
                Конечно.
                Yes, now, "as an honest man," you will have to compare the cost of Chinese ships with the cost of American ships according to your method. Not funny? I am laughing. Because the cost of ships is determined primarily by technology, and labor productivity (which is partly related to technology, and partly to the organization and culture of production), the cost of raw materials in the international and Chinese markets, respectively, not to mention other less significant parameters. And with a similar difference between GDP at current prices (US dollars) and PPP GDP in China and Russia according to your comparison method, the result should be approximately the same. Yes, the problem is that in the shipbuilding and labor productivity technologies in shipyards, Russia and China are nowhere near today. And these are the main indicators in the issue of the cost of ships.
                Once again, it is incorrect to compare the cost of the ships of the USA and Russia through your arbitrary purchasing power parity coefficient.
                For a second, you’re talking with the Director of Finance and Economics, who during his work pulled city-forming enterprises from the full ass of 2, not counting smaller ones :)))

                These are the arguments in the dispute that kill me on the spot. This is for you to Doctor of Technical Sciences D, Rogozin, who raised the Russian defense industry from his knees. This argument of yours did not impress me.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  26 November 2018 08: 38 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                  Andrew, I see that you are confused, and began, sorry, to loop "like a hare"

                  Do not write nonsense, I will answer you your words. You confuse the cost of the cost method with the market price, and I "loop"? wassat Come to yourself.
                  Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                  The fact that there is one international market, I tried to explain to you.

                  I know this much better than you.
                  Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                  There are markets that are somewhat isolated from the global market. Examples of these markets are Russia and China. It is this certain isolation of them and the mismatch between the domestic prices of some goods and the prices of the international market that make it impossible to correctly compare prices.

                  This is the most complete pseudo-economic nonsense, you just do not understand what you are writing about. PPP in general is NOT connected with "some isolation".
                  There are two completely different things. The first is the existing economic system of a single country with its level of salaries, etc. And the second one is the exchange rates of its currency, which, by and large, are affected only by the difference in export / import volumes and jumps in world prices for imported / exported goods. These two things affect each other extremely indirectly and are almost not interconnected, which is why a comparison of exchange rates does not say anything about the effectiveness of the economy, it can only be compared by PPP
                  Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                  It is about comparing the cost of a Russian product produced in an isolated system with the cost of a product produced in a world market system.

                  Even greater nonsense, since the Russian Federation is no isolated system.
                  Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                  Yes, now, "as an honest man," you will have to compare the cost of Chinese ships with the cost of American ships according to your method.

                  Yes. So what? Does this upset you? I can’t even say that I'm sad
                  Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                  Once again, it is incorrect to compare the cost of the ships of the USA and Russia through your arbitrary purchasing power parity coefficient.

                  I can only repeat once again that you own the economy very poorly :)))
                  Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                  These are the arguments in the dispute that kill me on the spot. This is for you to Doctor of Technical Sciences D, Rogozin, who raised the Russian defense industry from his knees. This argument of yours did not impress me.

                  And I was not going to impress you. Did you offer me a talk with a knowledgeable economist? So, I’m a knowledgeable economist who graduated from a university, at that time listed in the 10-ke the best in the country and whose knowledge was tested by practice :)))) And I brought this fact to your attention. And if you are after that, instead of asking yourself the question "Am I right?" and at least listen to what your opponent says, continue to peck your ... Well, please :)))) Continue to portray a boy in short pants, who will teach an adult uncle about how to love an aunt from the sandbox :)))) )) We have a free country :) hi
                  1. Vladimir Postnikov
                    Vladimir Postnikov 26 November 2018 15: 11 New
                    0
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Do not write nonsense, I will answer you your words. You confuse the cost of the cost method with the market price, and I "loop"? wassat Come to yourself.

                    Do not write nonsense.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    I know this much better than you.

                    Come to yourself. I already mentioned to you that such arguments from the field of "who has longer" do not impress me, especially since there is no way to verify this.
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    There are two completely different things. The first is the existing economic system of a single country with its level of salaries, etc. And the second one is the exchange rates of its currency, which, by and large, are affected only by the difference in export / import volumes and jumps in world prices for imported / exported goods. These two things affect each other extremely indirectly and are almost not interconnected, which is why a comparison of exchange rates does not say anything about the effectiveness of the economy, it can only be compared by PPP

                    We loop again? What does all this have to do with your comparative cost of ships with PPP? Please note that in my very first comment here, addressed to you, I mentioned the following:
                    There is parity of the purchasing power of the ruble against the dollar. This is a necessary, but very conditional degree of comparison. Moreover, it works in only one direction. The dollar, in this case, is an unchanging benchmark. In vain you tried to "add" PPS here.
                    Once again, PPP is a necessary, but very conditional degree, degree of comparison. So far, nothing has been invented to compare the GDP of different countries and economies. But, comparing the cost of ships according to your methodology "PPP coefficient is stupid, which I demonstrated using the example of Russia, China, and the USA. And you admitted that you will apply your method to comparing some kind of cost of Chinese ships with the real cost of ships USA. You explain this, but don’t tell me that you know something better than me. Something you know better than me, like all other people. But the conversation is not about anything, but about your specific comparison method through "Your PPP ratio. "
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                    Once again, it is incorrect to compare the cost of the ships of the USA and Russia through your arbitrary purchasing power parity coefficient.
                    I can only repeat once again that you own the economy very poorly :)))

                    Another argument?
                    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                    So, I’m a knowledgeable economist who graduated from the university, at that time listed in the 10-ke the best in the country and whose knowledge was tested by practice :))))

                    I didn’t graduate from universities. I am a graduate of the Voenmech Institute of the 1978 of the year. There were no ratings then, but the quality of education in it was then considered good. This is not an argument. It is, a polite answer, since you introduced yourself.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      27 November 2018 16: 23 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                      What does all this have to do with your comparative cost of ships with PPP?

                      Vladimir, the most direct. You could not explain why PPP does not suit you for comparing the cost of building warships. You rush from one extreme to another, then talking about market values ​​in international markets, then about China. And when I try to explain to you what you are mistaken in each specific case, you tell me that I loop :))) Well, if I loop, then strictly after you :))))
                      Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                      But, comparing the cost of ships according to your methodology "PPP coefficient is stupid, which I demonstrated on the example of Russia, China, and the USA

                      So you have not demonstrated anything. You were horrified: "Are you also going to compare the ships of the USA and China through the faculty?" I replied: "Yes! Because it is right." It is clear to explain what does not suit you here. You could not. Well, maybe I didn’t understand your sinful explanation :)))))
                      We're watching.
                      The cost of Chinese ships is unknown to me. But there is such a link https://army-news.ru/2017/06/kitaj-gotovitsya-shturmovat-okean/
                      it mentions that their newest destroyer, 055, costs 5-6 billion yuan. We look at the Big Mac index on 2018 g 3,72 yuan per dollar. In total, it turns out that Chinese esm costs about 1,3-1,6 billion dollars in teaching staff, which, in principle, is slightly lower than the price of Arly Burke. But the 055 is larger, carries more weapons. That is, in general, it can be diagnosed that the construction of Chinese warships is somewhat less expensive than in the United States, that is, the Chinese are more effective than the Americans in this matter. Well, so in this amazing thing, the Americans are buying a huge number of manufactured goods today in China
                      What did you find wrong here? :) Try the numbers, please
                      1. Vladimir Postnikov
                        Vladimir Postnikov 27 November 2018 23: 08 New
                        0
                        As I see it, passions calmed down a bit. Which is very useful for mutual understanding.
                        So, "Do you want numbers? I have them."
                        From the very beginning I tried to explain to you that a correct comparison can only be in one system and in the same units of measurement. This article of yours is entitled "On the Comparative Cost of Russian and American Warships ...".
                        In short, we correctly quote:
                        So, according to our statistics, and “adopt” the dollar exchange rate at PPP 23,67 rub / dollar., Then we will get the cost of the head corvette of the 20386 project at the level of 1 228,6 million dollars, that is, a serial destroyer of the “Arly Burke” type , worth, as we said above, 1 735,05 million dollars, more than our head corvette by about 41%.
                        About the difference of systems later, but for now about the units of measurement. You compare the cost of the 20386 project corvette in the amount of 1 228,6 million dollars and the value of Arly Burke in the amount of 1 735,05 million dollars. For such a comparison, at the entrance exams in physics at the institute, I would immediately get a deuce and an engineer from me would not it turned out, and I would have to go to the unpopular then Engineering and Economics Institute. If Arly Burke costs 1735,05 million dollars, then the corvette of the 20386 project costs 1228,6 million anything, but not American dollars. You wrote earlier in the article that the cost of the head corvette of the 20386 project is almost 452 million dollars at the exchange rate. It is at this price that it is correct to compare with the cost of Arly Burke, since this is a comparison in one system and in the same units. In this case, the unit of comparison is US dollars. And you compare products in different units, and this is obvious.
                        Further, even understanding what you wanted to show, then, from the point of view of mathematics, you made another mistake. The underestimation of the ruble, with the “PPP 23,67 rub / dollar” and the 64,34 rub / dollar exchange rate you mentioned, is approximately 35,7%. If the ruble is underestimated, you should rather multiply the 0,357 coefficient by 452 million dollars at the exchange rate, but you should not divide this amount by this coefficient. Comparing by analogy with the Big Mac, you make the ruble almost three times overvalued against the dollar. The Economist will not understand you.
                        However, I do not understand why to do this? Do you want to show that the production of ships in Russia is less productive and more expensive in terms of resources than in the USA? Yes. But for this one does not need to take such an indicator as the undervaluation of the ruble against the dollar. It does not work in the opposite direction (I mentioned this to you). If you calculated the average temperature in a hospital and the average temperature in an ordinary residential building, then you can determine how much the first is higher than the second. And now what to do with this average temperature in the hospital? As soon as the resident of a residential building rises to this value, then immediately put him in the hospital?
                        As for my example regarding China:
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So you have not demonstrated anything. You were horrified: "Are you also going to compare the ships of the USA and China through the faculty?" I replied: "Yes! Because it is right."
                        Our currency is underestimated, they are also approximately underestimated. What is this talking about? That we have the same type of ships have approximately the same value. I doubt. I gave you the link http://chius.ru. Look there, how many ships in a million BRT were built by China, Russia, and the United States in 2016. Ships are not ships, I know. This is just for information on the status of their shipbuilding industry. We are not near China. They make ships cheaper and faster than us. And it should be compared at the market price, especially since the GDP is also calculated in market prices.
                        And at the same time, by the way:
                        In other words, the domestic bet on “super-corvettes” and “super-frigates” is completely not economically justified.
                        Talking about optimizing the construction of ships makes sense when the country's capabilities are comparable to what a likely adversary has. The resources of the Russian Federation and NATO countries are not comparable. Here other selection criteria obviously apply.
                      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        28 November 2018 08: 19 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                        If Arly Burke costs 1735,05 million dollars, then the corvette of the 20386 project costs 1228,6 million anything, but not American dollars

                        It is in American dollars that I compare :))))) Converting the ruble value of the corvette into dollars at a certain rate.
                        The whole question is that for some reason you think the determination of the dollar exchange rate in foreign exchange trading (that is, the exchange rate of the ruble against the dollar) is the only correct one. And this is not so, because in essence, the exchange rate is just ONE OF the methods for determining the comparable value of the ruble and the dollar. It is neither better nor worse, it exists and an exchange of dollars for rubles is made on it.
                        From the point of view of economic theory, the exchange rate of the ruble is a rate that meets the interests of both the buyer and seller of the currency. But it does not at all testify to the purchasing power of a currency, these are different and unrelated things.
                        Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                        You wrote earlier in the article that the cost of the head corvette of the 20386 project is almost 452 million dollars at the exchange rate. It is at this price that it is correct to compare with the cost of Arly Burke, since this is a comparison in one system and in the same units. In this case, the unit of comparison is US dollars. And you compare products in different units, and this is obvious.

                        In no case is this a comparison in units. I will try to explain this with no example. So, we take two people - an American and a Russian, each of whom went somewhere into the forest and came across an apple tree there. Under it are apples. Both Russian and American collected a kilogram of apples (of the same size and quality). Obviously, both have done the same job with the same efficiency.
                        Now let's try to translate this into money. A kilo of apples in an American supermarket (genetically modified, cheap) will cost 2,2 dollars per kilogram (organic, that is, normal apples will cost a lot more). In a Russian store (only yesterday bought) cheap seasonal apples - 65 rub. That is, the cost of the product that the American and Russian received as a result of exactly the same work - 2,2 dollars and 65 rubles. Translating rubles into dollars at the exchange rate (today it is 67 / rub dollars), we get that the Russian created the product on 97 cents, that is, it worked 2,27 times less efficiently than the American wassat
                        Now we take the Big Mac index - it is 23,59 rubles / dollars (the latest site data for July is 2018 g) It turns out that the Russian made products for 2,76 dollars. That is, it turns out that it worked about 25% more efficiently than the American.
                        As you can see, the assessment in the faculty gives a much more accurate assessment of the effectiveness of the Russian and American.
                        And now I will try to explain to you the mistake that you make in economic theory and which leads you to the wrong conclusions.
                        If our task would be to compare international market prices for the destroyer and the corvette, then, of course, we should use the exchange rate. But I do not compare prices, but the cost of production! And the cost is a completely different matter. If the market price is a derivative of supply and demand, then value is the cost incurred by the manufacturer in the manufacture of the product. At the same time, we do not have the value of either Arly Burke or our corvettes, but we understand that the acquisition price of both was considered an expensive method, that is, it is non-market (it did not arise as a result of a compromise between solvent demand and the supply of several manufacturers). In other words, the acquisition price of corvettes and destroyers is their cost price + agreed rate of return - the latter is capable of giving approximately 10% error, hardly more, but rather less.
                        In our example, it turns out like this. In fact, the Russian, having collected a kilogram of apples, received products for 65 rubles, which he can then exchange for 97 cents, an American - for 2,2 dollars, which he can exchange (if he wants) for 147,4 rubles. That is, having done exactly the same job, they will receive a completely different product price and this is an objective reality.
                        So if we want to determine the market prices of the product, then we need to take the exchange rate. But if we try to determine its value, that is, the costs are not its production - PPP
                      3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        28 November 2018 08: 56 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In no case is this a comparison in units.

                        In different, of course :)))))
                      4. Vladimir Postnikov
                        Vladimir Postnikov 28 November 2018 12: 28 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        In no case is this a comparison in units.

                        In different, of course :)))))

                        Comparison cannot be made in different units. Comparison is always carried out only in one units and in one system (in this case, either in the United States or Russia). Even if different economies are compared with different currencies. Do not tell me about the PPP GDP. I repeat this constantly, that if someone does not like the comparison of the PPP GDP (and the dynamics of this indicator over the past twenty years is very alarming for Russia), then let them offer another fairer comparison system, and they are guaranteed a Nobel Prize.
                        But, I repeat again, it is impossible to make the indicator of "average temperature in a hospital" a criterion for placing a person in a hospital. You can’t apply the Big Mac index to specific products. A generalized indicator of GDP is the production of a wide variety of goods at a wide variety of market prices. And if we are talking about shipbuilding, then the situation in this industry in Russia is rather deplorable. And labor productivity there is very low in comparison with China and the United States. And labor productivity in shipbuilding in China today is very high. And the Big Mac index (underestimation of the Chinese currency) does not reflect this at all.
                      5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                        29 November 2018 08: 06 New
                        0
                        Vladimir, I understand correctly that the arguments have ended and the slogans have begun?
                        There is a ruble to dollar exchange rate. It can be defined in different ways. One technique is exchange trading. The other is PPP.
                        Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
                        But, I repeat again, it is impossible to make the indicator of "average temperature in a hospital" a criterion for placing a person in a hospital.

                        So the exchange rate is exactly the same “hospital average” as the faculty. Well, think at least for a second, we had a double rate drop in a month — what, the Russian economy doubled its efficiency in a month, or what? :))))
                      6. Vladimir Postnikov
                        Vladimir Postnikov 29 November 2018 15: 53 New
                        0
                        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                        So the exchange rate is exactly the same “hospital average” as the faculty. Well, think at least for a second, we had a double rate drop in a month — what, the Russian economy doubled its efficiency in a month, or what? :))))

                        Let's finish, Andrew. This is not an argument. An argument is an argument. What is the argument about the depreciation? What does he relate to? Who are you arguing with?
                        The state of the economy is judged by various indicators. The most significant is such a macroeconomic indicator as GDP at current prices. It is calculated, as a rule, for a year. And here are the monthly changes in the rate back and forth? And for the year, exchange rate changes are taken into account, because the US dollar is taken as the base (reference system). The ruble may collapse against the dollar. And Russia's GDP at current prices will collapse. But this does not mean that the economy collapsed. And this was also one of the reasons for the introduction of another macroeconomic indicator - PPP GDP. Why are you writing about the exchange rate if I haven’t touched it anywhere?
                        PPP GDP gives an idea of ​​the general state of the economy, but this indicator cannot be used for deductive inferences, as you allow yourself to do.
                        In terms of logic, PPP GDP (like the Big Mac coefficient) is an inference based on incomplete induction. And this means that it is not reliable, but probabilistic. And this means that from this probabilistic hypothesis it is impossible to make reliable deductive inferences. And on the example of the state of Chinese, Russian, and American shipbuilding, I tried to show you this. You refuse to acknowledge that in your primitive recalculations through the ratio of GDP to PPP GDP, you equate Russian and Chinese shipbuilding, while elevating the American one. In reality, this is not so.
                        So, by the way: where I gave the "numbers", I accidentally made a mistake. I wanted to get better. And then he decided: Why? I decided to wait. Do you notice her? Are you trying to understand what I'm saying? Did not notice. So even you are not trying to realize my arguments. Alas!
                        That was my last comment here.
  • Avior
    Avior 24 November 2018 14: 57 New
    +1
    why? Andrey compares how much real, not nominal, resource is spent on creating a ship.
    1. Vladimir Postnikov
      Vladimir Postnikov 24 November 2018 18: 14 New
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      why? Andrey compares how much real, not nominal, resource is spent on creating a ship.

      Because it is really spent in rubles, and not in the ephemeral "PPP dollars."
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    24 November 2018 15: 23 New
    +1
    Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
    Dear Andrey, I'm sorry, but "PPP exchange rates do not exist in nature." There is parity of the purchasing power of the ruble against the dollar.

    I wonder what then measures "The Economist"? :)))))))
    Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
    But comparing the price of ships with PPP is not worth it. A waste of time.

    It’s worth it, since this is perhaps the only correct indicator of the comparative cost of resources
    1. Vladimir Postnikov
      Vladimir Postnikov 24 November 2018 18: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      I wonder what then measures "The Economist"? :)))))))
      Is this an argument? Not funny. Something more serious, please, for example, a link to a specific article.
      Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
      It’s worth it, since this is perhaps the only correct indicator of the comparative cost of resources
      Who told you that? The cost of a modern ship mixed different market prices. World market prices mixed with Russian market prices. This applies not only to components, but also to such a “resource” as metal, which is the largest in any ship, and which is traded in Russia at practically world prices (except at a small discount). In Russia, only labor resources are definitely cheaper. Ships cannot be compared by the Big Mac index, because the Big Mac has all its resources, native.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 24 November 2018 18: 44 New
        -2
        - World market prices mixed with the prices of the Russian market -

        This is to at least a piece, pull the corvettes to the American destroyers.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        24 November 2018 19: 22 New
        0
        Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
        Is this an argument? Not funny. Something more serious, please, for example, a link to a specific article.

        The article has a link to the Big Mac Index, where PPP is calculated annually for all major currencies. What else do you want?
        Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
        Who told you that? The cost of a modern ship mixed different market prices. World market prices mixed with Russian market prices.

        Yeah. And all this is more or less adequately compared only in PPP, which is much more accurate than the ruble converted to dollars at the current rate
        Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
        This applies not only to components, but also to such a “resource” as metal, which in any ship is the most

        And which does not amount to 30% of the cost of the ship. And the price difference of which is taken into account in PPP
        Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
        In Russia, only labor resources are definitely cheaper.

        Have you visited the store for a long time? Have you bought gasoline for a long time? :))) Have you paid for the apartment for a long time? :))))
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 24 November 2018 19: 48 New
          +2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Have you visited the store for a long time?

          In the lead, the last time about 3 months ago, on a bill on Thursday, sort of. Lidl is cheaper (except Switzerland, I haven’t been in Norway, I won’t lie). Often much.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Have you bought gasoline for a long time?

          In Europe, it is expensive due to taxes. In the United States it’s about like in Russia.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          Have you been paying for an apartment for a long time?

          This is a difficult topic. Most of the Russian apartments in the West seem to be social housing for the poor. Houses in a subarbene are like in the new Riga plus or minus. And the monthly payments in the cottage village are quite comparable, especially if you count with the mortgage.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 25 November 2018 11: 44 New
            0
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Houses in a subarbene are like in the new Riga plus or minus. And the monthly payments in the cottage village are quite comparable, especially if you count with the mortgage.

            You are comparing the incomparable. Houses in Russia are much more capital construction - than in the west. Some Western "houses" in Russia are generally not considered real estate. With the walls of their drywall, you will not survive the Russian winter.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 25 November 2018 23: 45 New
              +2
              Quote: Setrac
              With the walls of their drywall, you will not survive the Russian winter.

              https://vivaeurope.ru/toeurope/pereesd-finlandia/kak-strojat-doma
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 26 November 2018 08: 07 New
                0
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                https://vivaeurope.ru/toeurope/pereesd-finlandia/kak-strojat-doma

                The price of a house, normal brick, capital - in the Russian outback is even less. But you are comparing the Finnish version of the "viper" with the center of Moscow.
                And yes - in the link you provided, pay attention to the quadrature of the "houses" being sold. Do you want to live in a "house" of 30 square meters of area?
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 26 November 2018 10: 59 New
                  0
                  Quote: Setrac
                  And yes - in the link you provided, pay attention to the quadrature of the sold "houses"

                  I specifically responded to your claims to "drywall". As for the topic of the share of housing in the teaching staff with which we started, you can see the cost (rent / mortgage + communal) of the Soviet-built panels in Moscow and Berlin, say.
                  By Moscow standards, the price of 500 euros / month for a big odnushka is quite moderate.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 26 November 2018 11: 02 New
                    0
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    I specifically responded to your claims to "drywall".

                    However, Finland - almost Russia in terms of climate, it was about the "prosperous and prosperous" US. And the fact that according to your link - a house from boards and plywood - is not even from a round log, some sort of crap for a huge amount, just a barn for cows by our standards, albeit a beautiful barn with a European-quality repair.
                    1. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 26 November 2018 11: 31 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Setrac
                      just a cow shed by our standards

                      Finns live in barns, and Russians live in solid capital houses. OK, let it be.
                      Quote: Setrac
                      it was about the "prosperous and prosperous" US

                      Somewhere plywood, somewhere stone. In cities, the bulk of the value of a home is space, not box. You lead to the fact that in Russia more quality construction, or what?
                    2. Setrac
                      Setrac 26 November 2018 11: 35 New
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Do you lead to the fact that Russia has better construction, or what?

                      This is not about quality, it is possible to establish with a capital construction. Houses in Russia are more fundamental than in other countries, and this is not an advantage but a real necessity. It's amazing how with such great demands on our buildings they cost so little, Russians are the best builders.
                    3. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 26 November 2018 13: 42 New
                      0
                      Quote: Setrac
                      It's amazing how with such great demands on our buildings they cost so little, Russians are the best builders.

                      Judging by this phrase, you yourself did not even have to deal with repairs yourself.
                    4. Setrac
                      Setrac 26 November 2018 14: 31 New
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Judging by this phrase, you yourself did not even have to deal with repairs yourself.

                      Apparently you have sharp jumps in IQ, since you decided to discuss me? With my father, I built my house with my own hands, and we are both not builders at all.
                      And you don’t need to be a professional builder to understand that a brick wall will be several times more expensive than a wall from boards, like a Finnish house in the link you provided.
                    5. Cherry Nine
                      Cherry Nine 26 November 2018 14: 53 New
                      0
                      Quote: Setrac
                      I built my own house with my father

                      Congratulations.
                      Quote: Setrac
                      they cost so little to our buildings, Russians are the best builders.

                      Hmm ...
                    6. Setrac
                      Setrac 26 November 2018 15: 06 New
                      0
                      Quote: Cherry Nine
                      Hmm ...

                      But I'm not a builder ... tongue
  • CentDo
    CentDo 26 November 2018 13: 28 New
    +1
    Most Russian apartments in the West seem social housing for the poor

    Interestingly, all residents of the "West" agree with this? I had a chance to visit the houses of half a dozen well-off Germans (in West Berlin, so they were not built according to Soviet designs), and their apartments compared to my typical dvushka (in a house built in the mid-80s) are nothing but wretched cells . Moreover, they consider their apartments to be good and spacious. There’s nowhere to put a normal table in the kitchen, and I don’t even want to talk about the size of their “bathroom”.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 26 November 2018 13: 50 New
      0
      Quote: CentDo
      Interestingly, all residents of the "West" agree with this?

      You are right, I should have put it more precisely.

      Compared to conditional American "housing" (suburbs) - apartments are not quoted. (Let me remind you that initially it was a matter of comparing the “rent for an apartment” in the USA and in Russia). Just like apartments lose compared to a modern cottage in Russia. On the other hand, I, for example, will not live in a cottage, regardless of financial aspects.

      Compared to the format adopted in European cities, the footage is more or less close.
  • Vladimir Postnikov
    Vladimir Postnikov 24 November 2018 19: 56 New
    0
    I answered you above. There are big poppies, and about the comparison "in the faculty."
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Have you visited the store for a long time? Have you bought gasoline for a long time? :))) Have you paid for the apartment for a long time? :))))

    You’ve already touched the “social network”. What does it have to do with metal and component prices? Gasoline is here only because it is directly related to the "social network". All this is more to the cost of labor. They are also therefore cheaper in Russia.
  • sabotage
    sabotage 25 November 2018 01: 27 New
    +1
    Quote: Vladimir Postnikov
    This applies not only to components, but also to such a “resource” as metal, which is the largest in any ship and which is traded in Russia at practically world prices (except at a small discount)

    Bad metal with a discount. Good at 3 prices. A rare hire at the price of gold.
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 24 November 2018 13: 52 New
    +2
    Hello Andrey! You raised a very interesting topic. Very interesting comparisons and very unexpected ones (especially the Bik Mac index). I read it, thought it over, read it more closely, and analyzed it. Everything seems to be correct, but there are small flaws to which I would like to draw attention:
    1. The installation of German diesel engines was never planned on the corvettes of project 20380. Initially, there were Kolomenskoye. The Germans wanted to put on the project 20385. The result is an "ambush" from the Germans and the installation of their diesels.
    2. MF RLC "Barrier" is installed on corvettes of project 20385 and 4 corvettes of project 20380 "Retivy", "Strict", "Aldar Tsydenzhapov" and "Loud" (for more details on the photo, see https: // navy- korabel.livejournal.com/185610.html). So the “Daring” advantage in this part of the characteristics does not have. There are even opinions that the canvases on the “Daring” are too far apart and there are problems with the transfer of information from one dense antenna to another.
    3. The issue of the daring displacement remains open. Basically they write about the figure of 3400 tons. But there is evidence that shows a standard displacement of 2430 tons. The length of the “Daring” is indicated at 109 meters, when like that of the “Guardian” - 104,5, and that of the “Thundering” - 115,1. True, questions may arise (and they arise) about what lengths are we talking about, on overhead lines or maximum?
    4. Out of armament, the advantage of the “Daring” over the “Retive” is at 4 PUs for the Redut air defense system, and over the “Thundering" one (advantage) it does not exist at all. On the contrary, UKSK Caliber is more universal than a pure Uran-U air defense system. Plus "Daring" can be put for installation in the aft part of the hull of boats BK-10 ??
    5. The “Daring” anti-submarine capabilities are worse than those of the project 20380 and 20385 corvettes. Yes, the ability to move under electric motors is a positive element in the search for submarines. The towed antennas are the same for all projects (Vignette or Minotaur), but they saved on the undergrowth GAS on the Derzkoy and installed the good, albeit digitized MGK-335 Platinum with a detection range of 10-12 km. On the "Watching" and "Thundering" are GAS "Dawn-2" with a range of 20-25 km. I would like to add that the Platinum was adopted back in 1975 and was installed on ships of projects 61M, 1135.1, 1124, 956, 1164, etc.
    6. The concept of storing a helicopter below deck is somewhat controversial. Firstly, it is complicated. Secondly, it takes up more space than a simple helicopter basing in the hangar on the deck. Under deck space could be used more rationally.
    7. A lot of controversy in the forums was about the installation of the airborne air defense missile system "Redut" before the artillery installation. This is the most flooded part of the ship. When the complex is complicated, firing from the AU is complicated. Opinions were expressed that they should be interchanged (AU and PU SAM).
    8. The artillery armament of the ship (76 mm AU AK-176MA) is weaker than that of project 20380 and 20385 corvettes (100 mm AU A-190)
    Well, as a result. Andrei You say that the “Daring” is better than the “Zealous” and “Thundering”. However, the 8 preceding paragraphs indicate the opposite (and this I do not say as an expert in naval affairs, but simply as an amateur and an amateur). The only advantage of the “Daring” is its power plant. By the way, they promised to lay the second ship of project 20386 in October-November 2018, they even said that it would be called "Capable"? However, November ends, but there is no bookmark. Sam "Daring" to build, too, in no hurry. For 2 years, they even managed not to make the hull, and only bottom sections are assembled.
    Big people in an interview said that the armament program until 2027 laid the construction of as many as 3 (three) serial ships of this type.
    My opinion is that of the ships of the 20380-85-86 line, the most successful project is 20385. If you make the “Daring” experimental ship. To test the EU on it and install it on project 20385, then the resulting ship will be the most “ideal” corvette that needs to be launched in a large series. By the way, project 20385 is superior to frigates of project 11356 (this is a separate topic for discussion). The only plus of the latter is better seaworthiness and autonomy.
    Andrei, you’ll excuse me, I deviated a little from the main topic of the article and I “got it” (tapped) one more, but I really wanted to express my opinion.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2018 15: 18 New
      +3
      Quote: VohaAhov
      Everything seems to be correct, but there are small flaws

      Let's understand :)))
      Quote: VohaAhov
      The installation of German diesel engines was never planned on the corvettes of the 20380 project. Initially, there were Kolomenskoye.

      In some ancient years, yes. As soon as the fleet received the Guardian with 16D49 diesels (in 2008 g) and tried what it was, they rushed to buy foreign ones and in the GPN 2011-2020 it was supposed, as far as I know, to build corvettes with German diesels.
      Quote: VohaAhov
      MF RLC "Barrier" is installed on the corvettes of the 20385 project and 4-ex corvettes of the 20380 project "Retivy", "Strict", "Aldar Tsydenzhapov" and "Loud"

      Read your link carefully :)))) Keywords
      the very first information flashed in the Leninets annual report for 2012, where the STC’s priority areas include work on “manufacturing four AFAR-20385 kits for orders of the 20385 project (orders 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008)

      Here are just orders 1007 and 1008 still began to build on the project 20380, so that there is no "Barrier" on them.
      Quote: VohaAhov
      There are even opinions that the canvases on the “Daring” are too far apart and there are problems with the transfer of information from one dense antenna to another.

      Yes, but what are they based on? The ship has not yet been built.
      Quote: VohaAhov
      The issue of the daring displacement remains open. Basically they write about the figure in 3400 tons. But there is data that shows the standard displacement in 2430 tons.

      No discrepancies, because 3400 t is not the standard, but the full displacement of the 20386. The full displacement of 20380 corvettes is 2200 t, the standard displacement is of the order of 1800 t.
      Quote: VohaAhov
      From armament, the advantage of the “Daring” over the “Retive” at the 4 PU of the Redut air defense system, and over the “Thundering" one (advantage), does not exist at all.

      Yes, but Thundering is 20385 and it costs MUCH more expensive than 20380. The cost of 20385 caused a riot of admirals in their time, who said that they did not need a corvette for such a price. There is no exact data on this subject, but it was indicated that 20385 is equal in value to the frigate 11356.
      Quote: VohaAhov
      The “Daring” anti-submarine capabilities are worse than those of the 20380 and 20385 project corvettes.

      ??
      Quote: VohaAhov
      The towed antennas are the same for all projects (Vignette or Minotaur), but they saved on the underhand GAS on the Derzkoy and installed the good, albeit digitized MGK-335 Platinum with a detection range of 10-12 km. On the "Watching" and "Thundering" are GAS "Dawn-2" with a range of 20-25 km.

      Let's clarify :))) On 20386 there is the latest GAS Minotaur-ISPN-M2, which acts as an integrator of sonar reconnaissance equipment and uses a modified podkin antenna from Platinum. This is not HOOK Platinum :))))
      Quote: VohaAhov
      A somewhat controversial concept is the storage of a helicopter below deck.

      Very controversial, I agree.
      Quote: VohaAhov
      A lot of controversy in the forums was about the installation of the airborne air defense missile system "Redut" before the artillery installation. This is the most flooded part of the ship. When the complex is complicated, firing from the AU is complicated.

      Regarding floodability - but is there any evidence that this affects Redoot's firing of rockets? :) Regarding the artillery system - yes, I agree, but it's hard to say how critical this problem is. Generally speaking, machine guns taught to shoot through an airplane propeller a long time ago, but here the task is, perhaps, simpler.
      Quote: VohaAhov
      The artillery armament of the ship (76 mm AU AK-176MA) is weaker

      On 20386, it is still weaving A-190-01
      1. VohaAhov
        VohaAhov 24 November 2018 17: 06 New
        +1
        You almost convinced me, but:
        - Concerning AFAs on 4 corvettes, etc. 20380, we’ll figure it out a bit later, in the 2019 year, when the “Retive” and “Aldar” will be launched;
        “Can a total displacement of a small corvette differ from the standard by almost 1000 tons.” For example, in the “Perfect” article - 2150 tons, normal - 2257 tons, and the full - 2364 tons, i.e. 214 tons more, but not 1000;
        - the cost of the “Thundering” is certainly greater than the pr. 20380, you can’t argue with this, especially since it’s the head one, but will it be more expensive than the “Daring” ?;
        - And according to the CEO, is Vignette + Platinum better than the same Vignette + Dawn? Moreover, mainly ships use a sodder-powered gas rather than a towed one.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          24 November 2018 18: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: VohaAhov
          - Concerning AFAs on 4 corvettes, etc. 20380, we’ll figure it out a bit later, in the 2019 year, when the “Retive” and “Aldar” will be launched;

          Nope. We’ll figure it out when they let Strict, because in theory there can be a Barrier on the Retive, but we don’t know how much the Retive costs crying
          Quote: VohaAhov
          How could a full displacement on a small corvette differ from the standard by almost 1000 tons. For example, the “Perfect” article has 2150 tons, the normal one has 2257 tons, and the full one has 2364 tons, i.e. more on 214 tons

          The figure in 2150 t standard displacement is incorrect
          Quote: VohaAhov
          the cost of “Thundering” is certainly greater than that of 20380, you can’t argue with this, especially since it’s the head one, but will it be more expensive than the “Daring” ?;

          Not excluded. EMNIP when there was talk about the high cost of 20385, their cost and 20380 were related either to 18,5 / 14, or to 18 / 12 in general, the difference is severe. While 20385 is a very unimportant ship.
          Quote: VohaAhov
          And according to the CEO, is Vignette + Platinum better than the same Vignette + Dawn.

          The ISPUM Minotaur is not a “vignette + platinum” :)))))
          1. VohaAhov
            VohaAhov 24 November 2018 19: 52 New
            0
            There is one photo from "Perfect"
  • Avior
    Avior 24 November 2018 14: 18 New
    +1
    The article is excellent, you can immediately see who the author is, but probably it was necessary to compare comparable warships, or at least similar ones.
    The same Formidable 1,6 billion for 6 pieces, or the Dutch.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2018 15: 37 New
      0
      Quote: Avior
      The article is excellent, you can immediately see who the author is, but probably it was necessary to compare comparable warships, or at least similar ones.

      Thank you Sergey! Unfortunately, there are no analogues of our corvettes in the USA, but you are right, of course
  • gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 24 November 2018 14: 47 New
    -1
    -We ask ourselves the question - how correct is the price of 17,2-17,3 billion rubles. for project 20380 corvettes? -

    As the problems of shipbuilders increase, and the shift in the construction time for even such small boats as corvettes shifts further, this issue will be of more and more interest to the Accounts Chamber and law enforcement agencies.

    -That is, in the event of the failure of the Gorshkov construction program, fleet management remains, literally, with a broken trough-

    This economic subject will have not only naval command.
  • gunnerminer
    gunnerminer 24 November 2018 14: 52 New
    +2
    -The fact is that in the cost of a modern ship a huge share is occupied by weapons and combat systems-

    There is also the cost of maintaining the technical readiness of the ship. The longer the repair in the dock lasts, the more expensive the repair.

    The rear system of the Russian Navy and the United States Navy are in different conditions. The command of the United States Navy has the ability to receive technical assistance almost anywhere in the World Ocean or at the base, port of any country, with rare exceptions. What can be said about the Russian Navy.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2018 15: 34 New
      0
      Quote: gunnerminer
      There is also the cost of maintaining the technical readiness of the ship. The longer the repair in the dock lasts, the more expensive the repair.

      We are talking about the cost of construction, and not about the cost of the life cycle.
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 24 November 2018 16: 43 New
        +2
        Even if the costs of corvettes or RTOs are several orders of magnitude lower than the cost of production by Urley Birkov, the American leadership will not refuse to build destroyers in favor of building a mosquito fleet. Voluntarily they will not consciously reduce the striking potential of the fleet. Aviation and the fleet they have the main striking force .As the US Navy Minister Lehman once said, in response to the news of the upcoming reduction of the USSR Navy, you can completely burn your fleet. We will not even touch the old minesweeper.
  • Е2 - Е4
    Е2 - Е4 24 November 2018 15: 19 New
    -2
    You also need to add here the salary working in shipyards in the USA and the Russian Federation. It is clear that the salary in the United States will be an order of magnitude higher than in the Russian Federation. With this in mind, it may turn out that the ship in the Russian Federation at a price will be higher, with significantly worse performance
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      24 November 2018 15: 36 New
      -1
      Quote: Е2 - Е4
      You also need to add here the salary working in shipyards in the USA and the Russian Federation.

      No need, PPP equalizes
      Quote: Е2 - Е4
      Z / p working at shipyards in the USA and the Russian Federation. It is clear that the salary in the United States will be an order of magnitude higher than in the Russian Federation

      It will not, this time. The second need not be compared to SALARY, but COSTS for the payment of salaries because Americans have more automated production, but fewer workers. But robots, you know, also cost money, so you need to evaluate in a complex, and not tearing out individual indicators
  • Djusha
    Djusha 24 November 2018 15: 29 New
    0
    nothing in a hundred years has changed in the pricing of ships
    as large ships were cheaper per ton of displacement, they remained

    The Oslyabya squadron battleship (laid down in 1895, entered service in 1903) is a cruiser armadillo, a rank II armadillo, aka battleship squadron, belonging to the Peresvet type, although it had a number of differences. Built on the New Admiralty. The cost of construction is 1.198.731 pounds, or 83 pounds per ton. A comparison will be given below.

    The Diana armored cruiser (laid down in 1897, entered service in 1901) is the head cruiser of the Goddess series. It had a significant number of 75-mm anti-mine weapons, large size and moderate speed. Built on the Galerny island. The cost of construction is 643.434 pounds, or 96 pounds per ton. The much larger British cruiser Diadem had a unit cost of 53 pounds per ton, but excluding weapons. A comparable size German cruiser Victoria Louise cost the treasury 92 pounds per ton. The slightly lighter French Juren de la Gravière had a unit cost of 85 pounds per ton. The same type of Aurora, built at the New Admiralty, cost 93 pounds per ton.
  • basy66
    basy66 24 November 2018 16: 05 New
    -1
    I don’t know what’s more expensive, but we have 8 calibers (in the picture 16) they have up to 96 missiles, range and displacement and, accordingly, twice as much seaworthiness, I’m completely silent about the number. and why are they on their shores?
  • dgonni
    dgonni 24 November 2018 16: 48 New
    0
    Well, let's say this! MTU diesel engines are not very noisy. But very economical. For comparison, I would put the author at the same time and respect and a minute. Well, you cannot compare the incomparable. The frigate and destroyer will never converge in efficiency and versatility. The question is mainly to the generals who develop the concept of building a fleet. What industry has worked out and produces. Essno if the series is small then the cost of the unit is growing. In fact, since the time of the union there is no single concept and is not expected. Neither in terms of weapons, nor in terms of hulls, nor in terms of energy installations, the USSR and Russia do not have at least some thread of an intelligible series of ships that would allow them to intelligently operate! 956e destroyers stupidly sent to the scrap at the time of design. For boilers are thermally loaded, and require non-acidic care. However, sensible officers were always scooped up by submariners, and taking into account the number of personnel of low age, forced the commander of the BS-5 and his officers to live permanently on the iron. Although, as with the kuzey, it was proposed to put gas turbines immediately and not bother. But it did not grow together. The intelligent destroyer became chained to the wall and in fact a useless ship. Those who still go to the seas? Ask for the commanders and command of the warhead-5. Mazutov in one word. There, the boilers stupidly did not manage to gasp after the delivery, but as a rule they did not allow the unprepared ship to enter the linear forces.
    P.S. Physically, 20-30 frigates pr 20380 will have a greater headache for NATO than 1-5 20386. Let them be an order of magnitude stronger.
    P.S.2 For turbines! In fact, there are currently no turbines or gearboxes. And probably not yet 3-5 years. What is sad!
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 24 November 2018 17: 14 New
      -1
      - However, the submariners always raked sensible officers, -

      Not at all, the natives of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan and Azerbaijan mainly came to KSF and KTOF diesel boats. They could hardly explain on the subject of simple domestic issues. It’s good if they were after rural vocational schools. Especially by the mid-80s. In the hold, minders, torpedoes. It was a rare success to distribute after dipping, for example, Frunze VVMU, to get to boats, after writing a report in the name of the Navy Civil Code. Fleet personnel units and formations, in no way affect the movement from surface to base Nicky could not.
      1. dgonni
        dgonni 24 November 2018 18: 20 New
        -2
        I didn’t write for horned ones or if it’s better for Romanians and not for maslopups!
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 24 November 2018 18: 46 New
          0
          Stories about jumping masses of officers from surface ships to submarines, for coastal naive individuals.
  • Jack O'Neill
    Jack O'Neill 24 November 2018 17: 14 New
    0
    Well, this is to myself, to be honest.
    Destroyers and Corvettes, classes are somewhat different. Burke is more toothy, more big-eyed, in other words, a destroyer. Not Enterprise, of course, but ...
    So you can get to Versus "Minesweeper vs Gerald Ford."
    But on the other hand, destroyers (new, especially a la Burke - not), and the closest to them are corvettes. Those. and there’s nothing to compare with, but I want to compare ...
    1. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 25 November 2018 00: 20 New
      -6
      The destroyer Arly Burke is a defenseless trough in 10 kilotons in front of our supersonic and hypersonic anti-ship missiles
      1. gunnerminer
        gunnerminer 25 November 2018 23: 11 New
        0
        Especially in front of paper hypersonic.
        1. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo 26 November 2018 13: 31 New
          0
          US senators and admirals of the US Navy themselves have long recognized that the destroyers Arly Burke are defenseless against group launches of the P-800 Onyx and P-700 Granite. The simulation was carried out by the US Navy off the coast of Norway, the blow was delivered by 32 P-800 or 72 P-700 from a distance of 300 km.
          The result is fatal for the US Navy AUG.
          Annihilated would be: AUG in full force: 1 aircraft carrier, 2 cruiser Ticonderoga, 6 destroyers Arly Burke
          * minus 10% US Navy
          1. gunnerminer
            gunnerminer 26 November 2018 17: 03 New
            0
            - defenseless against group launches of P-800 Onyx and P-700 Granite. -

            There is nothing to provide such a set of volley, listed ammunition.

            -Modeling was carried out by the US Navy off the coast of Norway, the strike was 32 P-800 or 72 P-700 from a distance of 300 km. -

            Without simulating resistance to the carriers of Onyx and Granites. KSF in such a condition that such salvos can only be imitated during the KShVI (command-staff war games).
  • Phoenix
    Phoenix 24 November 2018 19: 14 New
    -1
    The author did not take into account that corvettes move along the great rivers of the Russian Federation to a great depth over the continent in fact. A strategic advantage for a defensive war that cannot be overestimated.
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 24 November 2018 22: 01 New
      +5
      20380 has no draft on the 7,5 bulbs, and in height it does not pass under the Alexander Bridge in Syzran. Fairy tales do not tell.
    2. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 25 November 2018 23: 10 New
      0
      -The author did not take into account that corvettes move along the great rivers of the Russian Federation to a great depth -

      There is winter on the territory of the Russian Federation, and the rivers freeze. Neither corvettes, nor RTOs, in combat-ready form, have moved yet. Only in a disassembled form from Zelenolodsk.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        26 November 2018 09: 35 New
        0
        Quote: gunnerminer
        There is winter on the territory of the Russian Federation, and the rivers freeze

        Yeah. Volga, for example, from about December to March, sometimes in April. And military operations, as you know, usually begin in the summer
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 26 November 2018 17: 00 New
          0
          - so you know they usually start in the summer-

          But they can continue year-round. What the naval infrastructure of the Russian Navy is not ready for, including the use of inland waterways.
    3. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 26 November 2018 21: 28 New
      -2
      A strategic advantage for a defensive war that cannot be overestimated.

      With decrepit river navigation infrastructure this will not help the speed of movement.
  • Romario_Argo
    Romario_Argo 24 November 2018 20: 05 New
    -8
    neither the 4 "Strict" in terms of combat capabilities and stood near in two destroyers of the "Arly Burke" type IIA +

    I liked this line the most
    after the volley of Anthea 949AM or Ashen 855 from 72 and 32 Onyxes, not just 2 Burka, but the entire AUG of the US High Command will lie at the bottom of the sea in a disassembled state
    * And our corvettes have completely different tasks, and do not compare them here in Berks
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 26 November 2018 21: 27 New
      -2
      -after a volley of Antey 949AM or Ashen 855 out of 72 and 32 Onyxes, n-

      The golden dream of the conscript 949AM has nothing to provide access to the line of salvo. Ash K-560 rumbles with a broken line of the shaft to the whole Barents Sea. It will be spotted even at the farthest lines and thwarted the attack. It is good if the crew does not suffer.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 26 November 2018 22: 23 New
        +1
        Quote: gunnerminer
        Golden dream of the draftee. 949AM there is nothing to provide access to the line of volley.

        You just dream of the weakness of enemy fleets.
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 27 November 2018 03: 52 New
          0
          The KTOF case is especially disastrous. The main tool for PLO. The obsolete Varshavyanki will be at best, if only they can be built.
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 24 November 2018 21: 18 New
    +4
    Ref 20386

    For starters, look at this article here - https://topwar.ru/137547-huzhe-chem-prestuplenie-stroitelstvo-korvetov-proekta-20386-oshibka.html

    With repost on different resources she has a million views, beginning. shipbuilding Vice-Admiral Bursuk to her even gave a formal reply, like all is not so.
    But everything is so.

    Next, here is the error:

    and the “Daring” is the lead (and possibly the only) ship of the 20386 project. What is the difference? In the cost of manufacturing equipment and pre-production.


    Not only, the case is still in the research and development work on this project. They are there the darkness is simple, and everything is of secondary importance for combat effectiveness, but they were worth the money - to wind up. Therefore, 29,6 yard.

    But the joke is that this price is already out of date - inflation needs to be added, and it will be necessary to add more, because the project has timed away to the right - there is no way to make the 6РП gearbox, as a result, the ship just did not build these two years in the middle of November, before this, the mortgage section simply stood.
    When no one knows the GSU for this trough, they are now suggesting that, perhaps, by 2020, but the contractor that manufactures the gearbox - Zvezda-Reduktor is now on his knee, and the mastered models of gearboxes are done one by one over the years, and 6РП they are only just painted. In reality, if the ship is launched, then in 2025-2027, and over the years inflation will also have to be included in the price. The fixed price for the state defense order will not work here 100%.

    Plus modules. Plus, the infrastructure for their storage ashore, plus the personnel, its own for each module, it is in today's prices will eventually come out somewhere in 35 yards, without taking into account the other components of the more expensive life cycle compared to 20380.

    Further, so as not to produce entities, quote:
    The forecast on the ship - the project will not soar up so much that it will be worse simply impossible. It is made "on the verge". Under a certain amount of excitement, the tank will cut through the tank and the wave will roll through the covers of Redut. In combat, when the body receives damage, deformations are possible, leading to loss of tightness of the covers of the launch pits, which can lead to their filling with water. Well, at least the ice will wash off. Although, with some negative combinations of weather and wave height, an icing effect can be obtained with icing - it is on this ship.
    The gun will not be used in the air defense system, since before it are located PU launcher
    Some comrades assume that the huge composite superstructure will “play”, which will make the need for the alignment of the radar antennas permanent, and this will fail to be realized. And yet, yes - and do, and fail. They will go from the factory to the landfill with 22350. A helicopter lift will sometimes break - at the most inopportune moment, as usual, and it is good if the “scissors” are designed so that they cannot jam, especially in an intermediate position. Then you can simply lower the helicopter under its weight back into the hangar. Or just not to raise it. It will be worse if the lift cannot be raised, and the helicopter will be on deck at this moment. In the beginning storm, for example. However, a helicopter inside such a hangar, from which it cannot be rolled out, should it happen that will bring no less joy. In case of fire, for example. Together with the unconditionally flammable liquid in the high pressure hydraulic actuator working on the lift. We will believe that somewhere in the region of an innovative high-tech hydraulic system there is something that can autonomously begin to extinguish a fire. The crew is shortened, based on the automation of the struggle for survivability. And that the hangar covers will not pereklinyat from a dozen 76-mm projectiles from some "Oto Melara" who flew into the deck. Ship something combat, not a cruise.
    And yes, if the hangar covers have to be opened under a tropical downpour, everything is also provided there - pumps, pumping out, wiring with waterproofing ...
    Why in the rain, and even in the tropical? Well, “Gauges” shoot from the hangar, coming out occasionally in the DMZ. And there once - rain. DMZ is something from us or to the Atlantic, or to the south. And there, it happens.
    And yes, no 29,6 yards. The terms will crawl, as usual, and with them the prices. For reference, Arleigh Burke on PPP costs less than 20386. Even now, before the delivery of the order went far in time "right." So it's better not to count on 2022, not to fly, and on 29,6 yards too.
    And this is even if the designers did not miss anything. The ship has essentially hollow aft. In order to level it, the designers made the superstructure of the ship clearly in the center, shifted the gun as far back as possible ... But the weight of the stern is changing. In the minimum version, there are only a couple of boats. At the maximum - plus some container, tons for five, towed by the power on a solid frame, and 12-ton helicopter. On the other hand, when all the missiles are shot, but with the stern loaded, something can change too. It seems the difference is small, but what if the whole thing is not carefully calculated, and the ship at the end of completion will receive a constant trim? The Germans did it. However, I have already cursed it. This is most likely not going to be, a very small variable mass, compared with the displacement.
    Moreover, the modular towed gas is unlikely to once someone will remove. Would you leave the sea without her? To war? Vooot ...

    The only good news is that Putin will still be in power when everything becomes obvious, and will be able to appreciate this tent on his afterburner. Although, maybe it still can not finish.


    Regarding better seaworthiness than 20380 - it starts from 5,5 points approximately, before that, the speed on the wave is the same, only 20380 floods less.
    But on 5.5 points neither 20380 nor 20386 will be able to use weapons, both of them will be thrown like chips.

    Regarding GAK, the towed GAS (removable) is better on the 20386, but the built-in hook-on is worse than on the 20380.
    Well, that is worse ... with an external woofer, the "backlight" is better, and without it, what is, what is not, without a difference, can hardly hear something on the 1 / 5 of the range of modern torpedo, not further.
    This is just a target in fact, not a ship.

    He was born as a cut for research and development. For this, and started. This topic was rear-admiral Zakharov, the GK of this disgrace and the Almaz Central Securities and Design Bureau, with the help of one influential person, whose name I will not voice here. People in the subject say that an influential man is warming his hands, and I think that this is a foreign saboteur in the highest echelons of power, there are many signs of this. Anyway...

    With a very high probability, this ship will never be completed. Now the task of those who stood next to this scam is to reach the deadline, when Putin will resign, and there the cat is already out of the house, the mice are going. Grandmas mastered, the body quietly thrown from the stocks, after a few years will be cut.

    It may, however, fail, and then the end of both Zakharov and Shlyakhtenko. Because the program of updating the BMZ ships was killed by this very project. And he once - and did not take off.

    Shlyakhtenko has already “twitched his legs,” he recently called for a renewal of the 20380 series, but there is no way back, and if so, dragging himself on “after Putin” is the only chance for all these people. Because otherwise the end of the diamond, and them. And I would like their influential patron, too, although the probability here is not very high ...
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      25 November 2018 09: 24 New
      -1
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      For starters, look at this article here - https://topwar.ru/137547-huzhe-chem-prestuplenie-stroitelstvo-korvetov-proekta-20386-oshibka.html

      I do not agree with her. To put it mildly.
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      Not only, the case is still in the research and development work on this project. They are there the darkness is simple, and everything is of secondary importance for combat effectiveness, but they were worth the money - to wind up. Therefore, 29,6 yard.

      The first error, moreover, is the one I described in the article. Money for research is NOT included in the price of the product. Never.
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      But the joke is that this price is already out of date - inflation must be added

      We are not terrified of 30 yards per corvette, but we are comparing the price of two corvettes of different projects. And for this they must be reduced to a single denominator, that is, reduced to the prices of one year. I did this, but you managed to compare the prices of 20380 for 2014 and the price of 20386 for 2016, although there is more than 25% of inflation between them. In addition, you have compared the price of the SERIAL ship with the HEAD.
      The conclusion is that either you frankly do not understand what you are trying to compare, or you deliberately mislead readers.
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      Plus modules. Plus infrastructure for storage on shore

      False, because the modules are separate, but they give the ship additional combat capabilities. I compare 20386 and 20380 without modules, that is, without the superiority that they give and without their cost. It is correct.
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      Further, so as not to produce entities, quote:

      It was built either on guesses and assumptions, such as a ship "cutting through a wave" (yes, with it it would be different from 20380 in this respect) and the inability to use a gun and a missile at the same time. Of course, there is a sound grain in terms of the hangar, but this will not be enough.
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      Regarding GAK, the towed GAS (removable) is better on the 20386, but the built-in hook-on is worse than on the 20380.

      Nowhere is it said that on 20386 - platinum. It is just said that HAC uses an upgraded antenna from it
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 25 November 2018 09: 50 New
        0
        R & D is not included in the price, but the state pays for it before, but all OCR are included, because the lead ship itself is included in OCD.

        At prices - for a rough comparison, it will go, if only because the cost of the head for the serial does not fall as much as you write - a huge construction time and inflation during this time will have their say.

        In addition, we must proceed from the fact that the Daring will not have sisterships. By that time, when he is (if) surrendered, we will already live in another era, with another President, Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, etc.
        And this means that all project costs will remain hanging on this ship.

        You. By the way, you can take and calculate everything relatively accurately, make your own subjective (only honest - in your understanding) inflation forecast up to 2027 of the year (they will not pass before the Daring), and compare. The order of numbers will differ approximately as I wrote. If not worse.

        Let me remind you modestly that the formation of the hull of this shed began this November.

        It is not true, because the modules are separate, but they give the ship additional combat capabilities.

        True, because for other ships they are not applicable. Daring with his contours will go to the Pacific Fleet or Federation Council. 22160 with their compartments for moduleon armament - on the Black Sea Fleet or BF.
        Accordingly, the costs of modules on other ships cannot be scattered - if the Federation Council receives them, then they will lie there, they will not carry them from the fleet to the fleet.
        Therefore, plus.

        And the main question - why was this necessary? It was much more reasonable to force work on the DSNXX on Kolomna and rework 500 for new diesel engines. There, at least, there is PLUR and Calibers and a helicopter - SIMULTANEOUSLY, without playing with the replacement of a helicopter with a module.

        Constructed either by guesswork and assumptions, such as a "wave-cutting" ship (yes, he would be different in this respect from 20380)


        And still cutting through. There is an article by Shlyakhtenko and Zakharov about this, Bursuk said the same thing at the bookmark ceremony, the video is googling online.

        and the inability to use a cannon and missiles at the same time.


        Well, if the gun will not shoot forward, but at the target from the side, then it will be possible. And right on the course - well, how do you imagine it yourself? Projectiles and rockets in meters from each other that they will fly? Or will there be an automatic gun suspending gun shooting during a rocket launch? So Harpoon can be caught.

        Nowhere is it said that platinum is on 20386.


        Yeah. Nowhere. But you can think yourself a bit. The antenna in any case sets the range that the HOOK "hears". Platinum antenna can catch the low-frequency signal. But he has to come from somewhere. So need the backlight.
        Daring has places for boats.
        If you shove a BEC with a low-frequency emitter into it, then it seems like it is a victory

        And if not, the antenna will "slaughter" any complex. Although modernized, although not.

        Was it worth the fuss for that?

        And we still do not consider this life cycle of the “corvette” with two GTEs. And do not compare with diesel. And costs razunifikatsii.
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          26 November 2018 07: 46 New
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          R & D is not included in the price, but the state pays for it before, but all OCR are included, because the lead ship itself is included in OCD.

          Not. This would be possible only if a separate unit produced during the development work (and not mass production) would be delivered to the ship. But in this case, it would work differently.
          The manufacturer receives an order from the Ministry of Defense for the R&D as part of the 20386 project corvette, for example ... well, no matter what. The deluge system valve, abbreviated GVA At the same time, if under the terms of the contract, the enterprise must provide a working model of GVA, then it will be like this - the company conducts design and development work, makes a sample, transfers it to the Ministry of Defense. MO - pays.
          Then, when the northern shipyard approves the price for the construction of the corvette, the Moscow Region tells him - throw away the costs of acquiring the GVA from the cost, we will transfer it to you from our stocks.
          That is, it was paid separately and the manufacturer will not get into the cost of the contract with the shipyard.
          But generally, this usually doesn’t happen - product items obtained during OCD during testing lose their life and go to scrap
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          At prices - for a rough comparison, it will go, if only because the cost of the head for the serial does not fall as much as you write - a huge construction time and inflation during this time will have their say.

          Inflation in this case has nothing to do with it. We are Strict going to receive in 2021, do you think inflation has no effect on him? :))))
          The point is that it makes sense to remember inflation only if the construction time of 20386 is UNSCHEDULED to exceed the construction time of 20380. If it is planned, then inflation is already “sewn up” in the calculation and price. Forecast, of course, but still.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          In addition, we must proceed from the fact that the Daring will not have sisterships.

          I would not rush into this statement. We do not have such miracles :)))))
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          You. By the way, you can take and calculate everything relatively accurately, make your own subjective (only honest - in your understanding) inflation forecast up to 2027 of the year (they will not pass before the Daring), and compare. The order of numbers will differ approximately as I wrote. If not worse.

          I am sorry, but so far the opinion that the Daring will be built for 11 years is just your opinion. And yes, you are right, if they build it so much, then inflation will say its word. This, by the way, is one of the reasons why you can not compare the lead and serial ships. But serial Daring ones will be built on time quite comparable to 20380 and the influence of inflation will equalize.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          True, because for other ships they are not applicable.

          From the module, it looks like there will be trawling equipment, which in addition will stand on minesweepers or a pair of rubber boats for landing :)))) I repeat, modular weapons expand the capabilities of 20386 compared to 20380, so you should not ignore the increase in combat capabilities but remember the cost of the modules. Which, by the way, may not be at all.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          It was much more reasonable to force work on DS500 in Kolomna

          Since the 1911 of the year they have been forcing, forcing, and they are not forcing. And 20385 is a dream of reason that the fleet does not need from the word "completely"
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Bursuk spoke about the same thing at the bookmarking ceremony, the video is google on the network.

          Googled, here’s the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVZcGq6To Bursuk doesn’t say anything like that, the correspondent says :))))))
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Or will there be an assault rifle that stops the firing of a gun during a rocket launch?

          :))))) In fact, the cannon fires in short bursts, even from the Kalash to plant cartridges with horns is not recommended :)))))))))
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Was it worth the fuss for that?

          I think that against modern submarines that Dawn, that Platinum is not very, and all hope for a towed antenna. And now we have a new complex, with a good towed antenna, which can do more than on the 20380, and the “platinum-based” antenna is an addition that is acceptable in size.
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          And we still do not consider this life cycle of the “corvette” with two GTEs. And do not compare with diesel. And costs razunifikatsii.

          Yeah. And we don’t think of KOH either :)))))) Which is for Kolomna diesels ....
  • Tektor
    Tektor 24 November 2018 23: 09 New
    -2
    Dushenov in his Thursday issue said that the Amerzians recognized our Daring Project 20386 as an example for themselves. Those. They considered the combination of its capabilities exemplary for its class of ships. At the same time, the Shtatovs erred in their concept of the modular design of littoral ships.
    1. kepmor
      kepmor 25 November 2018 12: 36 New
      +1
      you would listen less to the bone-blessed ...
  • Sergej1972
    Sergej1972 24 November 2018 23: 52 New
    +1
    What conclusion have I come, amateur? There is no need to take the materials posted on the resource too seriously and do not need to seriously evaluate the state of our armed forces. Indeed, to be honest, these are mainly materials written by enthusiastic, but still amateurs.
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 25 November 2018 03: 15 New
    0
    Really surprised by the article. Andrei, didn’t you write that 20386 is a terrible mistake? And now you begin to praise him ...
    Well, about the electric movement. It has two advantages:
    1. Low noise at SMALL moves.
    2. High maneuverability.
    But there are many more shortcomings!
    1. Lower profitability due to double conversion.
    2. More weight and volume.
    3. Noticeably higher cost.
    4. Well, and what is especially sad - already at medium speed the noise of the ship is no lower than that of conventional turbines ...
    As for the reasoning “in general,” the main trouble is, as always, in our heads, and at the highest level. Why we don’t really know the fleet in the Kremlin, the Defense Ministry and the fleet’s leadership also don’t really understand, that’s where all these strange gestures come from ... Compounded by the well-known problems with the collapse of production and corruption.
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 25 November 2018 07: 55 New
      +1
      - Why do not we really know the fleet in the Kremlin, the Defense Ministry and the fleet’s leadership also don’t really understand, that’s where all these strange movements from here ... -

      Accurate and concise!
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      26 November 2018 07: 00 New
      0
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Really surprised by the article. Andrei, didn’t you write that 20386 is a terrible mistake?

      Timokhin :))))) More precisely - so, I wrote negatively about him in the 2016, when there was no information about it and it was known only about the below-deck hangar (a dream of reason, I agree) and modular weapons were declared, and that was all. Then I gave him a much more positive review https://topwar.ru/134750-voennyy-flot-rossii-grustnyy-vzglyad-v-buduschee-chast-6-korvety.html
  • NordUral
    NordUral 25 November 2018 10: 59 New
    +1
    I read and only one thing is clear - our fleet is only on paper.
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 25 November 2018 23: 08 New
      0
      Not quite yet, but strive harder.
  • Romanenko
    Romanenko 25 November 2018 12: 00 New
    0
    It is completely pointless to compare the cost of American weapons with their counterparts around the world. And absolutely nothing to disassemble the ships on a gadget when comparing. As long as the dollar is the world currency - Americans are completely indifferent to how much their ships and planes cost, this whole “banquet” is paid for by the whole world that uses dollars, and the Americans simply print them.
    Any ship, tank, plane or rifle paid for by Germany, Turkey, Vietnam, China, Serbia, Latvia, etc. t. etc., including from our pocket.
    In addition, the states still additionally withdraw money from the "allies", imposing their weapons on them, so that high prices are beneficial to them for any reason.
  • Astronaut
    Astronaut 25 November 2018 12: 22 New
    +1
    Something I did not understand how to compare a corvette with a destroyer?
  • Operator
    Operator 25 November 2018 13: 05 New
    -6
    Another opus from the series "chef, u have disappeared, the plaster is removed."

    Russia does not need to have surface ships larger than a corvette in 1000 tons with a displacement with self-defense weapons (guns, short-range anti-aircraft missiles and anti-torpedoes). All other issues at sea are resolved by strike submarines, Poseidons, VKS, anti-ship ballistic missile systems and Zagrels container.

    And yes: tying PPPs to pricing is a masterpiece of a journalistic approach to the economy laughing
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 25 November 2018 23: 07 New
      +1
      - "Poseidons", VKS, anti-ship BRDS and ZGRLS "Container" .-

      Fiction is unscientific.
      1. Operator
        Operator 26 November 2018 13: 28 New
        0
        Change the training manual - yours from the British Integration Initiative is already lit bully
        1. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 26 November 2018 16: 57 New
          +1
          ZGRLS to determine the elements of the movement of the target is not intended.
          1. Operator
            Operator 26 November 2018 17: 20 New
            0
            Quote: gunnerminer
            not intended

            Yes, yes - the decameter radar is no longer able to determine the azimuth (with an accuracy of 1 degrees) and the range (with an accuracy of 1 km) of surface ships on the sea surface with a frequency of once per second laughing

            PS In addition to changing the British training manual, study the dictionary of the Russian language.
            1. gunnerminer
              gunnerminer 26 November 2018 21: 24 New
              -1
              surface ships laughing at the sea

              Someone needs to brush up on a high school physics course.
            2. Avior
              Avior 27 November 2018 01: 44 New
              0
              what does decameter have to do with it?
              most importantly, ZGRLS and their problems
              1. Operator
                Operator 27 November 2018 09: 01 New
                0
                ZGRLS works on decameter waves.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 28 November 2018 00: 22 New
                  0
                  ZGRLS problems not because on decameter ones, but because ZGRLS
                  1. Operator
                    Operator 28 November 2018 16: 19 New
                    0
                    ZAGLS “Container” has no problems in determining the azimuth and range (with sufficient accuracy for homing an anti-aircraft or anti-ship missile when approaching a target at a distance from 20 to 40 km) with a single-jump detection of a target of the type KP at a distance of up to 3000 km and two-jump detection of a target like Corvette / launch vehicle at a distance of 6000 km. The dead zone is 1000 km.
  • Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl 25 November 2018 13: 31 New
    0
    Whatever you say, but to read Andrei’s articles, with attempts at a systematic and comprehensive (although of course everything in this life is relative) analysis, it’s interesting, and this is a fact! True, if he was comparing Arly Burke, then it would probably be more correct to compare him with 22350 (because of the new ships being built in Russia), he is closer to the destroyer than a corvette ?! But for me personally, it would be much more interesting to compare the cost of building our projects like 22160, 20380, 20385, 11661-K, since it subjectively seems to me that the last project (from those already mastered by industry for production in metal) would be most suitable for the systematic replacement of the IPC 1124 and 1131 surviving their century. Of 20386, it would probably be worth taking his promising power plant, just testing it on pr 11356 R / M, just on the remaining three ships in Kaliningrad, and if she (this power plant) suddenly “sings” there, then the Pacific Fleet has a chance to get relatively new frigates DMZ.
  • ser56
    ser56 25 November 2018 16: 22 New
    +1
    "(within 2 tons of full displacement, a good sonar system, 000 mm torpedoes as the main weapon, a helicopter, SPRAK for self-defense), which would be very cheap and extremely important for ensuring the safety of our SSBNs,"
    Soviet and Russian experience shows that a good hull will not put a displacement of less than 3-4 kt ... repeat
    But a ship of such a displacement also needs something anti-ship - at least Uranus ... It turns out Bold ... based on your own logic, which is hard to disagree with ... request Yes, and serves / acts on ships in 2kt at theaters such as the North Pacific Fleet or Northern Fleet, where our SSBNs are based, not very ...
    "gas turbine destroyer-universal (Redut air defense missile system or S-400 wetted, UKKS for missiles of the Caliber / Onyx / Zircon families, etc.) with a total displacement of about 8 thousand tons - it would be no use as an example, more "and here you are absolutely right - frigates in 5ct are not particularly required for us - they are ineffective ... Although you can’t enter the indicated in 8ct you get something like 1164 bully
    I’ll add on my own - for the Baltic, Black Sea Fleet, and the south of the Pacific Fleet, we need a mass corvette a la Tatarstan / Dagestan ... and there are - but missile gunboats are being built - ships of one salvo, again the sad Soviet experience of the mosquito fleet is being broadcast ... request
  • seamen
    seamen 25 November 2018 17: 40 New
    -2
    Dear Andrey from Chelyabinsk, I have a question for you: 1) Did you even serve in the Navy?
    since you are probably a notable economist, this is certainly great, but you don’t know the concept of naval combat, I’ll try to explain it on my fingers. For the Americans, all ships were built on the principle of projecting force onto land, so all of their ships are in principle sharpened to drag their huge power to foreign shores and bring it down there, they are not suitable for war with our ships, not one of their tomahawks poses a threat to our ships defending their "harpoons" is yesterday against our uraniums. But the Caribbean against their ships can be used since they not only work on the ground but also on ships.
    Three, the accuracy of hitting their tomahawks is 2 or even 3 in 1 target (look at the reports on Syria) and it becomes clear that their 64 launchers are all the ammunition that they can spend on attack and defense. if all this is divided by the efficiency that I described, it turns out 21-32 missiles (this is both defense and attack) they simply do not have another for such a huge displacement.
    now it’s ours to take the project 20380 from him 8 launchers of “uranium” 8 UKKS caliber, 1 SAM “Kortik-M” (32 SAM, 3000 rounds) First and subsequent serial: 12 cells (3 modules of 4 cells) SAM “Redut” ( 12 SAM 9M96M, 9M96E or 48 SAM 9M100) I no longer take into account anti-submarine weapons and a helicopter, and all in 2000 tons of displacement is pushed (impressive !!!) so that it will count how many missiles are carried by our cove and their "vaunted" frigate.
    third, the fact that a diesel engine or a turbine makes a louder noise does of course affect it, but at a shock distance you don’t care who hits you with a diesel engine or a ship with a turbine, and the range of our caliber in the marine version is 300 km.
    and in conclusion, I want to say that the Americans failed all their shipbuilding programs with Zamvolt and that they don’t build Arly Burke from a good life, and most importantly their ships are already living their age if you look at the average age of their Arly Burkov is about 30 years, and this means that already in the middle of the next decade they will have to write off more than half of their ships. and our husbands in pagons know what they are doing, they saturate our fleet, which is also not young, bringing small arms to the name of the ship in order to establish all the chains for the further construction of ocean ships.
    PS And lastly, the calculation of bigmak or even the conversion to dollars is not correct, since it has its own GDP and it is much higher than the American one. and indeed, our weapons are one of the best for a reason half the world in our line up
    1. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 26 November 2018 01: 28 New
      -1
      expensive seamen 20380 only “uraniums”, and I’m far from the idea that they are much more dangerous than “alien” pkr “harpoon”, and as an anti-submarine defense, in my opinion, the argument is very controversial, because this weapon is anti-ship. Also there are no full-fledged 533 mm torpedo tubes. It is for this reason that I personally believe that project 20380 is the most “toothless” (for the qualities of ensuring PLO in the deployment zone of the SSBN declared to it). There probably (depending on the theater of possible hostilities) it would be more practical to supply replacement aging and withdrawn from the IPC fleet pr.1124 and 1131, or 20385 corvettes (yes they are more expensive than 20380, but their VPU will allow to carry part of the ammunition PLUR missiles 91RE1 or 91RE2, in the absence of 533 mm SLT, the destruction range of which is about 50 km.), Or ships pr 11661-K, such as "Dagestan" (of course it would not hurt the latter to add the Pantsyr-M ZRAK). Yes, the air defense capabilities, the last of the projects I have mentioned, are probably weaker than those of Project 20385, but this is if they teach him to really clearly work in conjunction with the Redut air defense system and the planned IFC Zaslon, since project 20380 (i.e. his predecessor, clearly demonstrated that the “Redut” air defense systems with the “Furke-2” do not really “understand each other.” In other words, the corvette 20380 seems to have a good medium-range air defense system, but it’s not entirely clear how to give it If, indeed, through the artillery control system "Puma", then he is unlikely to be effective and distances of more than 25-40 km (that is, the potential of medium-range missiles is in question) ??? At the same time, it seems to me intuitively that the price of 20380 and 20385 is several times higher than 11661-K, although to ensure PLO in BMZ, what would the last of the named, lose to the previous two ???
      1. seamen
        seamen 26 November 2018 16: 15 New
        -1
        Dear Nemchina, Vladimir corvettes were built as a weapon in the face-to-face battle against an equal enemy, that is, surface ships, but only projects 1164/1144 / promising destroyers of the Leader type and even these could not be pulled against it, against boats and everything else. ships and in missile weapons they lose to us, and for credibility, listen to Dushenov K.Yu. You’ll call a war on YouTube on YouTube, he’ll bring everything convincingly with all the video materials and reports of the Pentagon generals and you’ll understand everything
      2. seamen
        seamen 26 November 2018 18: 15 New
        -1
        look, I think it will be interesting to you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlnT2BGJrQU
    2. Avior
      Avior 26 November 2018 01: 57 New
      -1
      funny to read. are you specially registered people have fun?
      Arly Burke is the best multipurpose destroyer to date.
      Air defense, missile defense, strikes on the shore, do just fine.
      The American concept of warfare suggests that aircraft will act against ships, so there is much less risk, and much higher efficiency.
      for self-defense against ships, Arly Berkov has supersonic SM-6 and low-visibility LRASMs, but this is in extreme cases, they have plenty of aviation.
      everything else, to be honest, is also stupid.
      You know how the Tomahawk guidance system differs from Caliber.
      Do you know the real combat effectiveness of anti-ship missiles against a warship?
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 26 November 2018 08: 19 New
        0
        Quote: Avior
        The American concept of warfare suggests that aircraft will act against ships, so there is much less risk

        Americans are forced to accept such a concept not from a good life. They built themselves a huge fleet with MK41 cells, but could not make normal RCC for her - the cell is too small. In and it turns out that their fleet can all but one - to fight with other fleets - they can only by numerical advantage and huge losses.
        1. Avior
          Avior 27 November 2018 00: 19 New
          -1
          yeah. For Tomahawk, with its half-ton warhead and range of 1600 km, normal, for RCC small.
          even funnier write something.
          They do not want to risk ships - anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft missiles as supersonic anti-ship missiles they use only for self-defense or against an obviously weak enemy.
          Now, however, there were LRASM, which can be shot from afar.
          And for any strong enemy, they have aviation, including on aircraft carriers.
          A very robust approach for those who have aircraft carriers.
          1. Setrac
            Setrac 27 November 2018 11: 37 New
            0
            Quote: Avior
            yeah. For Tomahawk, with its half-ton warhead and range of 1600 km, normal, for RCC small.

            Exactly - small. Tomahawk weighs a ton - one and a half, depending on the modification, "Onyx" - three tons.
            Quote: Avior
            They do not want to risk ships

            They have no choice - since there is no RCC.
            Quote: Avior
            Now, however, there were LRASM, which can be shot from afar.

            The same sneakers - only on the side. A subsonic missile that is not capable of breaking through modern air defense. In addition, the Americans have the same problems as ours with target designation at long ranges. Only Russia has finally decided this issue, the Americans have to go this way from the beginning.
            1. Avior
              Avior 27 November 2018 14: 13 New
              -1
              Exactly - small. Tomahawk weighs a ton - one and a half, depending on the modification, "Onyx" - three tons.

              So what? The GQM-163 Coyote target weighs 600 kg.
              or the SM-6 missile weighs 1 tons and flies 5 km, while the 360M9 missile weighs 83 tons and flies 2,3-100 km. What `s next?
              And by the way, Onyx is some kind of prodigy?
              A lot of Americans melted?
              They have no choice - since there is no RCC.

              They have aircraft carriers and air bases around the world, they do not need to substitute and compose a wunderwaffe.
              A subsonic missile that is not capable of breaking through modern air defense.

              It is inconspicuous, with a system to search for targets and without a unmasking vulnerable radar seeker.
              In addition, the Americans have the same problems as ours with target designation at long ranges. Only Russia has finally decided this issue, the Americans have to go this way from the beginning.

              I will tell you a secret - everything is exactly the opposite.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 27 November 2018 16: 35 New
                0
                Quote: Avior
                I will tell you a secret - everything is exactly the opposite.

                Therefore, do Americans invent all these perversions with yawing and finding a target? You misunderstand something.
                Quote: Avior
                And then?

                That's the problem. You just don’t know elementary physics. And then, to accommodate the rocket in a small cell, the Americans need to sacrifice something, in this case speed. LASM subsonic is not from a good life.
                Quote: Avior
                They have aircraft carriers and air bases around the world, they do not need to substitute and compose a wunderwaffe.

                This will not help them in a battle with an enemy who has more advanced missiles.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 27 November 2018 22: 12 New
                  -1
                  that you misunderstand something.
                  if you let go of anti-ship missiles in the direction of the enemy-warship, then the result, as a rule, will be zero, no matter what child prodigy — you did not have a rocket.
                  It’s easy to hit missiles at the training grounds, but in reality the probability of defeating a combat-ready modern combat ship is practically zero.
                  You can get there only if the ship is in non-ready state, or by a civilian ship.
                  In the Doomsday War, Arabs fired more than 50 missiles at the Israelis according to instructions from Soviet friends, and they never hit. Similarly, the Argentines in the Falkland War.
                  And with supersonic over-horizon problems even more.
                  Americans solve such problems with the help of aviation.
                  Aviation attacks comprehensively.
                  It provides reconnaissance, additional reconnaissance just before the strike, so that the strike does not fall on any random vessel with empty ammunition consumption, provides surprise, massive and stellar strike, which dramatically reduces the ship’s electronic warfare capabilities - the main way of the ship’s self-defense, provide electronic warfare to suppress the ship’s radar, as well as an assessment of the results of the strike and clarification of the need for a second one.
                  It uses a variety of ammunition- anti-radarocacin, guided bombs with various types of guidance, and anti-ship missiles, among other ammunition.
                  The effectiveness of the strike is provided not by prodigy rockets, but by an integrated approach.
                  And if necessary, the ability to repeat quickly enough.
                  1. Setrac
                    Setrac 27 November 2018 23: 01 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Avior
                    if you let go of anti-ship missiles in the direction of the enemy-warship, then the result, as a rule, will be zero, no matter what child prodigy — you did not have a rocket.

                    Quote: Avior
                    Aviation attacks comprehensively.

                    You revised the American Westerns, when no one can get into the hero, but he himself never misses.
                    The US Navy cannot be defeated with one missile, but what prevents you from using missiles comprehensively? Religion does not allow?
                    Northern Fleet salvo for example 132 long-range supersonic heavy anti-ship missiles.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 27 November 2018 23: 12 New
                      -1
                      sense?
                      on electronic warfare will be gone at best. As it has been to this day in all known military operations.
                      At worst, carriers will melt before they detect an adversary.
                      For none of what I have listed, shipboard missiles cannot do.
                      and your volley will fly anywhere, but not to the chosen target, after which it remains to go for advice to Katz, who knows what he is offering.
                      not to mention the fact that first you need to collect the carriers at a distance of impact, it will take a long time and all this time they will be under attack from aviation.
                      a separate topic is the discovery of the enemy, by the way.
                      for starters, you try to look for at least one case when the anti-ship missile system was able to get into a combat-ready modern combat ship in a real combat situation - then you will understand the whole depth of the problem.
                      1. Setrac
                        Setrac 28 November 2018 19: 39 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Avior
                        your salvo will fly anywhere

                        Quote: Avior
                        separate topic- enemy detection

                        We don’t have to look for anyone, the American fleet will come to our shores itself. They are aggressors and not us. You are considering a hypothetical horse in a vacuum - a pointless exercise. If the US and Russian fleets converge in battle, it will not be “somewhere out there,” but off our coast.
                        Quote: Avior
                        For none of what I have listed, shipboard missiles cannot do.

                        here it is necessary to clarify - American anti-ship missiles cannot do, Russian anti-ship missiles can do a lot of things.
                        Quote: Avior
                        for starters, you try to look for at least one case when the anti-ship missile system was able to get into a combat-ready modern combat ship in a real combat situation - then you will understand the whole depth of the problem.

                        There is no problem here - they hit and will fall. There are many examples. The problem is that the Americans have not fought with an equal or similar enemy for a long time, hence the illusions of their own power and the incorrect development of the fleet.
                      2. Avior
                        Avior 30 November 2018 00: 31 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Setrac
                        If the US and Russian fleets converge in battle, it will not be “somewhere out there,” but off our coast.

                        this will not happen, they don’t need it, they won’t come close — why?
                        American anti-ship missiles cannot do, Russian anti-ship missiles can do a lot of things.

                        none of the above they can
                        hit and will hit. There are many examples.

                        try to find at least one - understand the depth of your misconceptions
    3. seamen
      seamen 26 November 2018 16: 16 New
      -1
      I’d better not say anything if you’re such a sailor
      1. Avior
        Avior 27 November 2018 00: 42 New
        -1
        The cruiser Aurora saw the ships in the parade in St. Petersburg last year saw. Well, now an expert on the Russo-Japanese war, revolution and the modern Russian fleet?
        I think it’s difficult for you to argue, because you simply repeat the words of others.
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        27 November 2018 04: 44 New
        0
        Quote: seamen
        I would better keep silent

        And it is right:)))
    4. seamen
      seamen 26 November 2018 16: 22 New
      -1
      I’d better not say anything if you’re such a sailor
    5. seamen
      seamen 26 November 2018 17: 25 New
      -1
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlnT2BGJrQU посмотри
      1. Avior
        Avior 27 November 2018 00: 30 New
        -1
        my good advice to you, do not look at this nonsense. Now I understand where that nonsense comes from in your post. hi
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    26 November 2018 06: 54 New
    0
    Quote: seamen
    but you don’t know the concept of sea battle, I’ll try to explain it on my fingers

    It is impossible to explain what you have no idea.
    1. seamen
      seamen 26 November 2018 16: 19 New
      -3
      look at the YouTube channel "day tv" Dushenov K.Yu and ask him all these questions, he will answer you with figures, calculations and video materials, maybe then you will understand, and it’s useless to explain to people who did not serve in the fleet
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        27 November 2018 06: 22 New
        +2
        Quote: seamen
        look at the YouTube channel "day tv" Dushenova K.Yu and ask him all these questions

        Maybe read Pioneer truth? :)))))
        Quote: seamen
        and it’s useless to explain to people who did not serve in the Navy

        Nonsense, from the word "complete." A professional differs from an amateur in that he is able to understand, logically, “on fingers”, explain to the latter his delusions. When you try to do this, you pile one absurdity into another, which clearly indicate that you know regrettably little about the same fleet of the USSR. Therefore, do not boast of the "naval past." Something tells me that if you served in the Navy, then ... well, let's say, you were very far from the issues discussed
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 26 November 2018 01: 54 New
    -2
    The article is delusional. The whole is built on some assumptions and Wiki.
    1. gunnerminer
      gunnerminer 26 November 2018 21: 23 New
      -1
      For an article that does not delve into the details of the coastal, it’s fine.
  • Tashkent citizen
    Tashkent citizen 26 November 2018 08: 27 New
    -1
    To the author for the future:
    More recently, by the way, the diesel engine of this honored manufacturer on the frigate “Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov” broke down - well, at least mend succeeded without dismantling and cutting the side.

    They repair their clothes, repair everything else.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      26 November 2018 09: 30 New
      +1
      Quote: Tashkent
      They repair their clothes, repair everything else.

      In this case, the word "repair" emphasized the low quality of the work of the Kolomna plant (associative chain: repair - shoemakers)
      1. seamen
        seamen 26 November 2018 17: 31 New
        -2
        look it will be interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlnT2BGJrQU
  • Eremin AB
    Eremin AB 26 November 2018 12: 53 New
    +2
    Comparing a corvette with a destroyer is not something that is not correct but simply cynical. and in terms of combat capabilities and maritime corvette, this is the maximum defender of the coastal zone, port security and patrol no more. and the destroyer is an ocean ship with all the consequences. Well, if we compare it in terms of displacement. how much they spend on 1 thousand tons of displacement and how much we are. and add more construction dates. building corvettes for 7-8 years is a crime.
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 26 November 2018 15: 46 New
      -1
      This article was written by a man who calls the AK 630 "metal cutting." That is, a person who is extremely far from the fleet, never went on a ship at sea, never participated in surrendering and completing missions. The author of this opus, if he had fallen into a fighting post the station — was very much surprised — how do the characteristics of the real products differ with those that he read on Wikipedia. How can two completely different approaches to the formation of the fleet be compared? A little higher, seamen tried to explain to the author the difference in the principles of using the US and Russian fleets (and in the past of the USSR) . The U.S. Navy's mission is to drag a huge pile of various weapons to the shores of the adversary and bomb everything to a single hair dryer, destroying all who will get in your way along the way. In this case, the U.S. Navy can immediately take part in several local conflicts at a time.The task of the USSR fleet, and then Russia, to protect the submarine’s exit from their places of origin, for following boats to patrol areas. That is why the USSR did not build aircraft carriers for a long time because of the need. The country practically did not participate in local conflicts, but to protect its borders ordinary ships were enough for her. And only in the 70s they began building TAKRs, which again were not pure aircraft carriers, but mainly solved the problems of detecting and destroying submarines.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        26 November 2018 16: 13 New
        +1
        Quote: Dimon19661
        How can two completely different approaches to the formation of the fleet be compared?

        In fact, the article compares not the approaches to the formation of the fleet, but the cost of two warships. When you understand the difference between a warship and the approach to forming a fleet, it may make sense to discuss with you on this topic further.
        Quote: Dimon19661
        The task of the USSR fleet, and then Russia, is to protect the submarine’s exit from their places of origin in order to follow boats to patrol areas. That is why the USSR did not build aircraft carriers for a long time due to unnecessary

        Well, of course, the output of the nuclear submarines in the Atlantic is one left. They left the Barents Islands, jokingly hacked SOSUS, laughed at the patrol Orions - and forward, bypassing Britain (fleet of His Majesty? No, I did not hear). Why are aircraft carriers needed here? A motor boat is enough.
        Quote: Dimon19661
        And only in the 70-ies began the construction of TAKRs, which, again, were not pure aircraft carriers, but mainly solved the tasks of detecting and destroying submarines.

        Study at your leisure the history of aircraft carrier design in the USSR. If it’s very difficult to read books, read my article https://topwar.ru/84313-korabli-armageddona-tyazhelye-avianesuschie-kreysera-proekta-1143.html everything is much shorter and more understandable there.
        1. Dimon19661
          Dimon19661 26 November 2018 17: 47 New
          -1
          1. And who told you that the nuclear submarines will go to the Atlantic ???
          2. Unlike you, I don’t know from books, but I went to them a lot, performed tasks, and I know very well what tasks they were and why. And read your next “masterpiece” -volta ...
          Hmm ....
          1. Avior
            Avior 27 November 2018 00: 33 New
            -1
            it’s clear what tasks. Kuznetsov could not become an aircraft carrier ....
            1. gunnerminer
              gunnerminer 27 November 2018 03: 49 New
              0
              The last combat service of the TAVKR crew and its air groups showed how the capabilities of the command extend and what other reserves are available in the field of combat training. Without enemy influence, they lost 20% of the aircraft, were unable to quickly restore the technical readiness of the BC-6 command. MAPL for providing TAVKR PLO along the entire route of the transition, and the area of ​​the main event. A noticeable shortage of flight personnel and technicians.
          2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            27 November 2018 04: 40 New
            +1
            Quote: Dimon19661
            And who told you that the submarines will go to the Atlantic ???

            laughing fool
            My friend, yes you troll me extremely thickly :)))) Study at your leisure the underwater doctrine of the USSR Navy and do not disgrace yourself.
            Quote: Dimon19661
            And-read your next "masterpiece" -volta ...

            Fired. You are free, expert
            1. Dimon19661
              Dimon19661 27 November 2018 10: 24 New
              -2
              I repeat once again, it’s ridiculous to read your opus, you are a land sailor))).
              And you do not like criticism, however.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                27 November 2018 16: 01 New
                +3
                Quote: Dimon19661
                And you do not like criticism, however.

                I like criticism when it’s on business. And moreover, I am one of the few authors on VO (and not only VO) who, in the presence of constructive criticism, publish work on errors, a refutation of erroneous theses that I expressed in articles earlier.
                But illiterate criticism - yes, I do not like it.
                Quote: Dimon19661
                I repeat to you again - it’s funny to read your opus

                Well, laugh, laughter prolongs life. When it comes to what to say on the case, we ask you for favors, but do not inflate the cheeks with naval service. I had to get reviews of my articles from fleet officers in rank up to rear admiral inclusive and there was nothing particularly devastating in them :)))
                1. arturpraetor
                  arturpraetor 27 November 2018 16: 03 New
                  0
                  Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                  I had to receive reviews of my articles from navy officers on rear admiral inclusive, and nothing particularly devastating was contained in them :)))

                  Could you give more details about this? And then it became already interesting hi
                2. Dimon19661
                  Dimon19661 27 November 2018 17: 38 New
                  -2
                  Go to the military registration and enlistment office, sign a contract, serve. You will see the fleet from the inside, and not from the sofa — your opinion will change greatly. Illiterate criticism, say, metal cutting was strong ..... have you ever been to a ship’s combat post? Or do you have experience in controlling weapons and technical means ??? Did you fulfill any tasks, went to exercises ??? Even not interesting right ....
        2. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 26 November 2018 21: 21 New
          0
          -Well, of course, the output of the nuclear submarines in the Atlantic is one left-

          Just the same. K-560 rumbles over the whole Barents Sea. Because of the GTZA and the broken line of the shaft. The command doesn’t let it out in peacetime either. Two units of the 971A project are barely enough to provide the PLO of the remaining submarines. Due to the complete and final absence of the sea reconnaissance aircraft, just a few combat-ready Il-38Ns and a pair of Tu-142Ms, one KPUG of the far zone for the entire KSF, you can tell about the exits or breakthroughs of the nuclear submarines to the inmates of Norway and Canada. They will believe.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            27 November 2018 04: 42 New
            0
            Quote: gunnerminer
            In view of the complete and final absence of naval reconnaissance aircraft, just a few combat-ready Il-38Н and a pair of Tu-142М, one long-range KPAG for the entire KSF, you can tell about the exits or breakthroughs of nuclear-powered submarines in Norway and Canada.

            Murad, have nature given you so little that you are not even able to understand that we are talking about the times of the USSR? laughing
        3. gunnerminer
          gunnerminer 26 November 2018 21: 22 New
          0
          -read books, read my article -

          The fighting is not planned according to the articles, for a wide range of coastal civil readers.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            27 November 2018 06: 17 New
            +1
            Quote: gunnerminer
            Fighting is not planned by article

            And in the article there is no purpose to plan military operations. Articles generally have slightly different tasks, try to somehow comprehend this at your leisure
      2. seamen
        seamen 26 November 2018 16: 20 New
        -1
        agree with you
        1. Dimon19661
          Dimon19661 27 November 2018 01: 16 New
          0
          The article does not make any sense at all - the author does not understand and does not know that the true construction budget, the military and the country's budget are a state secret. Information in open sources is very approximate. And not accurate.
          1. Avior
            Avior 27 November 2018 01: 41 New
            -1
            Yes, he didn’t count very accurately ... why?
      3. Avior
        Avior 27 November 2018 00: 38 New
        -1
        -protect the exit of the nuclear submarines from their places of departure, for the passage of boats to the patrol areas.

        in peacetime and during war - two big differences.
        for wizards will arrive in blue helicopters and airplanes and will not allow to protect the nuclear submarines.
  • abc_alex
    abc_alex 27 November 2018 02: 01 New
    +1
    And the Kolomna plant, it must be said, is unique in terms of ship diesel engines. The fact is that this plant has been promising to give the fleet a normal diesel engine for 107 (one hundred and seven!) Years: for the first time he swore that he would supply efficient engines of this type for battle cruisers of the Izmail type in January 1911. Alas, to this day his words remain words. More recently, by the way, the diesel engine of this honored manufacturer on the frigate "Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov" broke down - it was okay to even fix it without dismantling and cutting the side. And the corvettes on these diesels without tugs in the sea is better not to let go - does it matter what?


    Did the Kolomna plant ever specialize in ship diesels? Here diesels for DPL - yes, that's his topic. And his main business is diesel locomotives and diesel engines for them. Marine topics have always been optional. Saying that he always PROMISES something to the fleet is just an insult to a very deserved enterprise. This fleet from time to time rolls over to the factory with square eyes and tries to get power plants from it here and now.
    But when the plant turns to the fleet for money for R&D of the new power plant, the naval authorities squeamishly turn their noses and declare that they will buy from the Germans. And then he wonders why this diesel engine is not working well? Maybe because they are diesel? :) And are they designed for other modes of operation? :)

    And at your own expense to design and make a separate power plant for the fleet, and even lick it for years under the current conditions, is a lot of honor. Given the insignificant volume of the order and the extreme and stupid stinginess of the military, this is completely interesting to no one. With their craving for a freebie, let them say thanks that there is at least that. Energy and Transmashholding did not allow the plant to bend in the 90s - 2000s and paid for the development of a new diesel engine. And these, if you are not smart enough to pay Russian designers and engineers their own future, let them go to sea with at least three tugboats for each ship or even go around with caps on the market, maybe the Chinese will give them an extremely reliable diesel engine.

    This thoughtless criticism sometimes surprises ... The plant barely survived, throughout the 90s and 2000s it worked 3 hours a day and three days a week. Something admirals at this time did not come to the factory with an order for a new power unit. And when they gave TK to the ship’s design bureaus, they also did not lay down the mandatory domestic unit in it. Why did the “aircraft” attend to the creation of a motor-building corporation for themselves, but the “shipbuilders” did not? Did the crown interfere? Or didn’t they have the brains to understand that once Ukraine didn’t calm down, and Europe, having received the lever of influence on our defense industry, would certainly use it? And now there is nothing to blame for the mirror, if the mug is crooked. How much money was invested in the development of diesel engines for ships, so much was received.
    1. Dimon19661
      Dimon19661 27 November 2018 02: 57 New
      0
      Plyusan. It’s easy to cheat, but it’s easier, especially since it is extremely distant from the fleet.
    2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      27 November 2018 04: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: abc_alex
      Saying that he always PROMISES something to the fleet is just an insult to a very deserved enterprise.

      I brought the time of the first promise - 1911, it is a historical fact. Where are the diesels, brother? :)))))))
      Quote: abc_alex
      But when the plant turns to the fleet for money for R&D of the new power plant, the naval authorities squeamishly turn their noses and declare that they will buy from the Germans.

      What in the days of the USSR too? :)))
      Quote: abc_alex
      The plant barely survived, all 90 and 2000 worked on 3 hours a day

      Oh, come on, tell tales - there were orders from Russian Railways, these are solid contracts. Many plants at that time had nothing of the kind.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 27 November 2018 16: 54 New
        +1
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        I brought the time of the first promise - 1911, it is a historical fact. Where are the diesels, brother? :)))))))


        Are you from here or something?
        Such a strange “diesel optimism” occurred also due to the fact that MTK had information that “the Kolomna plant is finishing production of such a [engine] with a capacity of 1000 hp. per cylinder. " The black humor of the situation is that today, almost 108 years after the events described, the Kolomensky Zavod did not master the production of reliable diesel engines for surface combat ships (which, in fact, was the reason for ordering diesel engines for ships being built under the GPV 2011-2020 in Germany, MTU).


        First, where is the promise?
        Secondly, I repeat again: the Kolomna plant does not specialize in marine diesels. The author of this opus, apparently, is not aware that marine diesels and diesel locomotives are somewhat not the same thing. Both Kolomzavod’s diesel and power diesel engines have been working for years without problems for more than half a century.

        There is no "black humor" here. There is a fact of bias and ignorance of the author. Kolomensky Zavod was the first in Russia to master the production of diesel engines. And from 1904-1905. plant diesels are used both in factories, and in pipeline transport and at power plants. In 1905, the Kolomna plant issued the first marine diesel power plant. And he began to mass-produce these products for the merchant and navy. The company's products were awarded the highest awards at six international exhibitions, thus gaining international recognition. Kolomensky Zavod became the leading Russian shipbuilding company.
        In 1908, by order of the Ministry of the Sea, 16 four-cylinder diesel engines with a capacity of 259 hp were built. for gunboats of the Flurry type, which were built at the Baltic Shipyard for the Amur Flotilla. Until 1917, Kolomzavod built 64 motor ships of its own design with diesel engines with a total capacity of 44 hp.
        So that the author and you would understand the issue. Before.

        But since the 20s Kolomzavod has been moving away from ship-related issues and is returning to the railway. But you are interested in "where are the diesels"?
        They stood in almost all Soviet submarines built before the 1941 year.
        37D, dimension 39/45, was released in a series of 1250 pieces, including for submarines of projects 611, 613, 633, 641 and 629.
        Today in operation on ships and vessels of 39 projects are more than 700 engines of the Kolomensky Zavod of 25 modifications.

        Of course, motors developed in the 50-60s or even in the 80s are outdated today. And do you think the naval invested in the development of a new engine?
        But if the Kolomna plant is so bad, maybe the navy has other suppliers in Russia?

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        What in the days of the USSR too? :)))


        Ask the navy on the forum, learn a lot. Kolomzavod provided the submarine fleet in the first place. And do not confuse the times of the USSR today. Then the plant worked in 2-3 shifts of 5000 people each. The territory of the plant is so large that the bus went there. The military order was made by one workshop. And R&D on the "military" subject was paid in full.

        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Oh, come on, tell tales - there were orders from Russian Railways, these are solid contracts. Many plants at that time had nothing of the kind.


        Where did you read this? I then observe the plant with my own eyes :) A firm order from Russian Railways appeared only in the late 90s and not by itself, but was sold by the plant as part of the rolling stock remotorization. I note that the Moremans did not care about the remotorization of their ships and ships at all.
        Until recently, the plant was of no interest to anyone except Transmashholding at all. Here for him and the power engineers who invested in new motor and production, the plant is working. And the naval ones, as I said, how much they paid, they got so much.
        1. Dimon19661
          Dimon19661 27 November 2018 17: 44 New
          -2
          The author firmly believes in sources like Wikipedia, for example, he never had any relation to any military equipment, he read something there, he heard from someone ...
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            28 November 2018 10: 23 New
            +2
            Quote: Dimon19661
            The author firmly believes in sources such as Wikipedia

            My friend you rave
            Quote: Dimon19661
            At the same time, he never had any relation to any military equipment

            Yeah, I have never worked in the military-industrial complex :) :))))))))))) And I don’t have access to state secrets :))))))) Tell me something else about me :)
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          28 November 2018 10: 23 New
          +2
          Quote: abc_alex
          Are you from here or something?

          No, of course, this is me from the monograph of L.A. Kuznetsova about the "Ishmaels"
          Quote: abc_alex
          First, where is the promise?

          And who misinformed MTK about the most powerful diesels that the Kolomensky plant is about to “finish"? Or, in your opinion, dreamers who thought up something there themselves? I hasten to disappoint - they could get information about diesels ONLY from the management or owners of the Kolomensky plant.
          Quote: abc_alex
          The author of this opus,

          Which is me too yes
          Quote: abc_alex
          apparently, not aware that marine diesels and diesel are somewhat not the same thing.

          You know, your desire to sculpt labels is already very tired. You say my words are full
          Quote: abc_alex
          bias and ignorance

          Good. At the same time, the article describes the situation on diesels with words.
          since all over the world normal ship diesels (we are talking about surface ships, not about submarines) are obtained, perhaps, only from Germans and Finns

          And you write to me here
          Quote: abc_alex
          But you are interested in "where are the diesels"?
          They stood in almost all Soviet submarines built before the 1941 year.

          That begs the question why are you telling me about diesel engines for submarines when it comes to diesel engines for surface ships? You do not understand the difference between a surface ship and a submarine?
          Quote: abc_alex
          Until 1917, Kolomzavod built the 64 motor ship of its own design with diesel engines with a total capacity of 44 475 hp.

          What does the ship have to do with it, I wonder? :))) The average diesel power is less than 700 hp to the ship. For warships - no relation
          Quote: abc_alex
          But if the Kolomna plant is so bad, maybe the navy has other suppliers in Russia?

          Does this make the Kolomna plant something better?
          Quote: abc_alex
          Where did you read this? I then observe the plant with my own eyes :)

          Yes, simple logic - except for Kolomna, almost no one could deal with diesel repair, the Russian Railways' own forces were weak in this regard. And, of course, the purchase of diesel engines for the new rolling stock continued even in the 90 years, you supplied them, no one else.
          I only beg, do not tell me fairy tales - I worked in the structure of the zheldorremmash
          That is, you had an order - maybe not enough, maybe small, but it was. And in many factories, everything fell apart.
          1. Dimon19661
            Dimon19661 28 November 2018 10: 28 New
            0
            author-And the Shvets, and the reaper, and the dude on the pipe lol
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              28 November 2018 11: 51 New
              +1
              Quote: Dimon19661
              author-And the Shvets, and the reaper, and the dude on the pipe

              Envy silently :))))
              1. Dimon19661
                Dimon19661 28 November 2018 17: 38 New
                0
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                Quote: Dimon19661
                author-And the Shvets, and the reaper, and the dude on the pipe

                Envy silently :))))

                What ???
  • Wildcat
    Wildcat 2 December 2018 18: 43 New
    0
    Sorry, but I just can not resist wassat
    “In the best case, we will get a ship carrying a third of the destroyer's weapons ... for 62,5%, that is, almost two-thirds of its cost. And if someone wants to blame us for bias, let him compare the corresponding indicators of American LCS with American the same “Arly Berkami” of the last series (according to a rough estimate, the author of this article, “littoral battalion ship spike” has good if 15% of the combat effectiveness of “Berka”, but at the same time - 40% of its cost). " - the author is simply not familiar with all sources (a million apologies winked )!
    Even today, even on the topwar site, there is a link to the article "The new US missile destroyer Thomas Hadner is doomed against the armament of the Russian Federation" (https://politexpert.net/131661-novyi-raketnyi-esminec-ssha-tomas-khadner-obrechen- protiv-vooruzheniya-rf? utm_source = warfiles.ru) From this source, with reference to an interview with Tsargrad TV Channel fellow you can easily find out that:
    1. "Chairman of the All-Russian Fleet Support Movement (DPF), Mikhail Nenashev, said that Russian sailors are trained in conditions as close as possible to combat conditions. For example, during the approach of American ships in the waters where Russia has its positions.
    Russian Aerospace Forces, fleet, coastal units "feel the Americans" repeat and look for their weaknesses repeat repeat . The most important thing they find repeat repeat repeat . For example, an Arly Burke class ship of the Donald Cook URO had previously flown over Russian military aircraft twice when it entered the Black and Baltic Seas. The Russian Aerospace Forces managed to knock down Aegis. That is, for the Russian Navy it’s not very difficult to disable the main means of protecting aircraft carrier and other naval formations from anti-ship missiles "
    2. "A military expert, Captain 1st Rank Vasily Dandykin said in an interview with the news agency that today the Russian Navy is armed with powerful anti-ship missiles that can overcome naval missile defense systems: Onyx, Caliber, and in the future there will be hypersonic Zircons." The Americans will only be able to counteract the system for launching the SM-6, but few are built and not all ships are equipped.Therefore, sinking the vaunted Arly Burke is not an impossible task. rye Americans themselves are called "black holes". "
    3. And "last bat notes sheet" fellow "Doctor of Military and Technical Sciences, Captain 1st Rank Konstantin Sivkov, in an interview with Free Press reporters, explained that American ships, including the Burke destroyers, could be drowned by aircraft maneuvers belay X-32 missiles. Two dozen of such jet munitions can sink a whole aircraft carrier warrant with a probability of 85%. It is important that the missiles can launch the Tu-22M3 from a distance of 1000 kilometers, that is, without entering the enemy’s air defense and missile defense zone. The interception of X-32 missile defense systems with SM-6 will depend on the source of target designation. If the carrier ship itself induces, then the chances of shooting down range from 0,05 to 0,08. If AWACS or other marine yes unit, then the odds drop to 0,01-0,02. The probability is even worse if a satellite constellation directs missiles what .
    Thus, an expert assessment allows us to conclude that, although American ships are excellent combat units, Russia has effective countermeasures that turn the USAG and destroyers into “cans” to be sent to the bottom, multiplying all their advantages by 0. ... "
    Phew, shared, feel better recourse (directly had to share repeat ) ... Followed the link - and there Nenashev, Dandykin, Sivkov and the Tsargrad channel - and it seems that it hit the eye right in the face! crying
  • Andrey Shmelev
    Andrey Shmelev 15 January 2019 08: 51 New
    +1
    In other words, the domestic bet on “super-corvettes” and “super-frigates” is completely not economically justified. Well done - plus
    BUT with the Big Mac index - somehow from the wrong area. Maybe it’s better to look at the cost at least or kW / h)
  • tigoda
    tigoda 17 February 2019 20: 27 New
    0
    According to the "Big Mac Index" I rate the article at "0+". A ship with a displacement of 9000 tons (such as the destroyer ArlyBerk) will always be 4 times more expensive than a corvette with a displacement of 2220 tons. The country spends 15% of the budget on defense out of a people's pocket. It's a lot. The people do not need expensive ships.
  • Victor Dubrovsky
    Victor Dubrovsky 16 June 2019 15: 29 New
    0
    "... for the economic course, the corvette of project 20386 uses electric motors ..." What is it, powered by batteries? Monstrous capacity and mass? And if not, then which primary engines are required, diesels or gas turbines?