New ships to be! Good news from the Navy

255
Incredibly, it happened. Today we have good newsconcerning the Navy. And not just good, but very good.

MOSCOW, April 9. / TASS /. Two frigates of project 22350 and two large landing ships of project 11711 for the Navy fleet Russia will be laid April 23 at the shipyards in St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad. This was announced on Tuesday by the head of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergey Shoigu.
"April 23 will be laying the ships of the far sea zone - two 22350 frigates at the Severnaya Verf shipyard in St. Petersburg and two large landing ships of the 11711 project at the Yantar shipyard in Kaliningrad," he said at a conference call at the military department.





Frigate project 22350


Intensive rumors about the laying of new frigates of the 22350 project have been around for a long time, since autumn. Others also walked: that part of the ships would have an increased number of vertical launch installations for missiles. And if the second so far remains unconfirmed information, the first has just received official confirmation, as they say, “from the very top”.

I must say that this decision is more than just a decision to build a couple more ships. And more than knocking out money from the budget for the construction of another pair of ships.

This is a sign that a negative trend in naval shipbuilding, when more or less adequate projects were cut one after another for the sake of ephemeral phantoms, is possible (not a fact, but now it can be!)

A year ago, the situation looked different. On the agenda was a project now known as 22350M - a large ship with a fully gas-turbine power plant, surpassing 22350 both in size and displacement, and in number weapons on board and electronic weapons. He, in principle, is now on the agenda.

But a year ago, the approach was considered correct to nail a series of old ships right after they decided to build new ones.

Earlier in the article “It's time to learn from the enemy”, the approaches that Americans practice in their naval construction were dismantled. And from the point of view of their approaches, which led to the emergence of the strongest naval forces in the world, our approach is to stop building the “resulting” series and passively wait for readiness for laying a new one — the wrong one. So it is impossible to build a powerful fleet, it can only be built by acting on the contrary. But in the Navy stubbornly continued to stand on his.

Of course, with 22350 it was not easy. Did not work anti-aircraft missile system. It was not possible to build a national plant GEM instead of Ukrainian. And there were also hundreds of smaller-scale flaws, all together making the ship’s operation impossible. But as soon as it became clear that the air defense system would still be brought, and the production of power plants in Russia was fully established, then from the point of view of the correct approach to naval construction, the only right decision was to continue the bookmarks of the 22350 frigates until the 22350M project is ready for laying, and only then it was necessary to refuse them.

In the "intermediate" version - to build at least a full-fledged brigade of six ships. This would also be, in general, a perfectly sound decision, and that is why it was almost impossible to believe in it.

But it eventually happened. A couple of new frigates will be laid very soon - April 23 of this year.

What is "dead in the forest"? How did it happen that the Ministry of Defense and the Navy suddenly took the right path? It is difficult to judge this, but perhaps we still know about it once.

22350 project. Far from perfect. The reason for this is that it represents an attempt to "shove" into the body of the frigate - essentially an escort ship - weapons and armaments, typical of, rather, a destroyer. As a result, the fleet received a ship that has a disproportionately powerful weapon for the frigate, powerful air defense, but only one helicopter (for actions against this submarines is not enough), an insufficient set of anti-submarine weapons (there is no RBU, the Package-NK complex is unsuccessfully implemented) too small range of economic progress, and too low its speed.

But it must be understood that, at a certain point, domestic shipbuilding has no choice left, which means that the navy does not have it either. Since Russia lost (temporarily) the ability to build large warships, it was necessary to "push" such a ship into the frigate.

And it turned out, though not perfectly, and not optimally, but it’s quite good. Whatever imbalances have occurred in the project 22350, and this is a very strong warship, capable of fighting with surface forces, and with aviation, and with the shore, and to a limited extent - with submarines.

And this is a turn to a normal approach - instead of waiting for a “crane in the sky,” Russia firmly holds a “bird in hand” ... but does not retreat from trying to grab a crane.

As soon as the series goes 22350M, bookmarks 22350 can be stopped. By that time, it is necessary to still comprehend the need for a massive, simple and cheap ship of the far sea zone, in the TFR of the XXI century, which will be simpler and cheaper than 22350, preferably at times, but so far all this is not there, we must continue to build 22350. And the fact that such a decision prevailed is a very good sign for our fleet. Frankly, it was expected to be completely different ...

The construction of two new BDK 11711 should also be considered positive news. At present, Russian BDK are actively working on the delivery of military supplies to the Syrian Arab Republic within the framework of the so-called “Syrian express”. This operation has already cost the landing craft a large share of their resource. Ships wear out intensively and will soon require massive repairs. At the same time, the main BDK of the Russian Navy, the 775 project is a ship of Polish construction, it is difficult to repair it in our conditions, and there is no production cooperation on these ships in Poland.

As a result, their intensive depreciation on the Novorossiysk-Tartus line will soon lead to a collapse in the number of already insufficient landing forces, and the possibility of "bringing back to life" all the existing ships most likely will not.

In such conditions, 11711 becomes the only option - no matter how bad this ship is (and it is bad!), The alternative option is “Fleet without ships”. And, fortunately, the healthy forces won here too.


BDK project 11711


11711 is a problem ship. It has irrational hull lines, which does not allow the full potential of the power plant to be realized on the ship. He is not conceptually dooduman on the one hand, and weak as a “paratrooper” on the other. Helicopters are extremely unsuccessfully located on it, and a small runway does not allow them to be placed simultaneously. But this is our only landing ship that can be laid and built "here and now." And here it is necessary to repeat history with frigates and build, build, build. Of course, this is a half-measure, we need a new concept of a naval assault in principle, and under it a new ship, but it’s better than nothing.

In addition to the news, the Minister of Defense said something else:

"Simultaneously, the Northern Shipyard will dock large blocks of the corvette hull of the 20386 project. It will receive its name in honor of the military brig of the Russian fleet Mercury, whose feat in May will be 190 years old," the minister added.
He clarified that the frigates, landing ships and the frigate "are planned to be added to the Navy before 2025 of the year."


We will analyze in more detail.

The author in his time was the initiator of the campaign to bring to the clear water of this project. For an example, you can read the article “Worse than a crime. Construction of the corvettes project 20386 - error "), or a new material, written in collaboration with the captain of the third rank in the reserve MA. Klimov, - article “Corvette 20386. Continuation of the scam ». Shortly after the release of the last of them, “from above”, rumors were heard about the ongoing deep processing of this project and the replacement of the chief designer. Well, this will not make the project truly useful, but maybe it will become at least realizable ...

There is also an interesting moment with the name of the underfrigate under construction. Initially, he was given the name "Daring". It was under this name that the ship was laid, and that was what it was on its mortgage board.

However, as is known, the mess has recently begun in the Navy with the renaming of ships. Thus, the series of small rocket ships of the 22800 project, with the names of the Bad Weather Division, was renamed into small towns, for example, the Uragan MRK, the lead ship of the series, was renamed Mytishchi. The newly restored Main Military-Political Directorate of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation headed by General Kartapolov, acting with the connivance of the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy Admiral Korolev, stands behind these renaming.

Now, the political leaders got to the “Bold”. The press service of the "Severnaya Verf" has already confirmed the fact of renaming the ship, about which reports today FLOTPROM.

Attention is drawn to the time frame for building the hull. Head 20386 was laid in October 2016, and began to build in November 2018. For two years, the mortgage section was somewhere lying around. Dock all sections of the hull promise on the same day, when they will be laid two new frigates - 23 April.

This is, in general, a depressing pace, although perhaps the Northern Shipyard will be able to accelerate somewhat.

But the most important news related to the “Bold” is “Mercury”, in another. When the project was just launched, it was planned to start building the second such ship in 2018. It did not happen then, and now it did not happen now, and this absence of an event is also an event in some sense, and also strictly good. Such is the news is obtained.

Reporting the laying of four new ships, Sergei Shoigu left room for intrigue. The fact is that the laying of new ships for the Navy this year was announced by V.V. Putin in a message to the Federal Assembly. And said V.V. Putin is about five ships. And it will be laid until four.

What will be the latest news from the series? Which ship will be laid fifth this year? A little later, we, of course, will find out, and this too, the President in such a situation would not rush to words. One can only hope that this will be some kind of ship useful for the Navy, and not a “second run” on the rake, in which the bookmarks of the second 20386 can be seen. However, this option is becoming less and less likely.

Anyway, a ray of light in a dark kingdom flashed. For the first time in many years, the Ministry of Defense made the right and smart decision, which runs counter to all the cumulative "experience." This is certainly a very good news that many have been waiting for.

The best for a very long period. Let's hope she was not the last.
255 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    April 10 2019 05: 25
    Somewhere behind the monitor, millions of farts exploded from the "non-brothers" of our smaller laughing ... The Ukrainians cannot even maintain one frigate "Getman Sagaidachny", let alone build a new one, but "damned ....." will begin to build as many as 4 ships of this class.
    1. +11
      April 10 2019 06: 12
      Do not be like illiterate, out of 4 ships, 2 frigates and 2 BDKs will be laid on slipways. So 2 frigates will be under construction.
    2. +12
      April 10 2019 06: 12
      a ray of light in the dark kingdom flashed
      A very optimistic article ... It remains to wait for the implementation of plans into reality.
      1. +20
        April 10 2019 07: 51
        Quote from Uncle Lee
        It remains to wait for the implementation of plans into reality.

        I think we'll wait. Completed project. The same turbines for frigates 22350 were made in Rybinsk from the very beginning. Saturn made turbines, Kolomna made diesel engines, then it was sent to Zorya, which added its own reducer and gas generator, tested the assembled unit at its stand and sent it to St. Petersburg. It was necessary to substitute import not so much for the turbine, but for the Ukrainian gearbox, which is part of the DSTU. The turbine has been made today, the stand has been built. With gearboxes, the ass is still, the first pair is half-assembled and understaffed. All P055 parts are subcontracted. Probably the state-owned Zvezda-Reductor (90% of the shares owned by the state) will not make money. Subcontractors missed delivery times for parts. The first pair of P055 is being collected slowly. Assembling P055, laying the gears.
        1. +16
          April 10 2019 07: 57
          Assembling P055 on the "Star-Reducer". "Saturn" put the curator on "Star-Reducer" to control the process.

          1. -6
            April 10 2019 20: 52
            With such CIA commentators and spies it is not necessary ...
      2. -2
        April 12 2019 01: 36
        Quote from Uncle Lee
        A very optimistic article ... It remains to wait for the implementation of plans into reality.

        But Timokhin still threw shit at the article.
      3. 0
        April 14 2019 21: 40
        It remains to wait for the implementation of plans into reality.


        A couple of little things for our ministry of defense. Op, and in DCBF New cruiser URO
    3. -6
      April 10 2019 06: 34
      the names are interesting. division of "bad weather" - of course, "admiral's" series is not a question ... but "mercury"? chemical element? god of trade? planet? what will it be? "space" series, "chemical"? "divine"? what
      1. +22
        April 10 2019 06: 56
        According to the tradition of our Navy to give the ships the names of the ships that left a noticeable mark in history, he "Mercury" will not be in the "series", but as if by itself in honor of the brig (sailboat) "Mercury", who emerged victorious in a battle with two Turkish battleships (sailboats ). And most likely it will also be one representative of pr. 20386 without continuing the series.
      2. +2
        April 10 2019 07: 05
        Mercury https://masterok.livejournal.com/991120.html
      3. +9
        April 10 2019 07: 41
        Quote: Aerodrome
        and "mercury"? chemical element? god of trade? planet? what will it be?

        "You think smartly .. (c) Liquidation." wink
        Maybe a "historical" series of small but famous ships. In the history of the Russian fleet, there are enough of them.
      4. +6
        April 10 2019 08: 09
        Quote: Aerodrome
        and "mercury"? chemical element?

        This is one of the naval traditions! You do not understand this ... unfortunately!
        1. +9
          April 10 2019 13: 06
          Still, "Memory of Mercury" is a tradition. In my opinion "Mercury" was called auxiliary ships, but "Memory of Mercury" - combat ships. Even by the imperial decision.
          1. +2
            April 10 2019 13: 32
            Well, actually, yes, there were 3 pieces of "Memory of Mercury" in the RIF, and exactly "Mercury" - one, if my memory serves me. Although to me, "Memory of Mercury" sounds worse.
            1. +4
              April 10 2019 15: 22
              Quote: CTABEP
              it is "Mercury" - one, if my memory serves me

              Changes, there were two such ships!
            2. +1
              April 12 2019 00: 12
              Quote: CTABEP
              "Memory of Mercury" sounds worse.

              Well, if it's a tradition, then nothing can be done. There was also the battleship "Memory of Azov", named after "Azov". Yes
          2. +6
            April 10 2019 15: 21
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Yet the "Memory of Mercury" tradition

            Do you think that I do not know about this? But the brig "Mercury" itself got its name in honor of the famous Baltic boat, which bore the first name "Mercury"!
            1. +7
              April 10 2019 18: 36
              It was simply by imperial decree that it was necessary to have a warship Mercury's Memory at all times, and this is tradition. And Mercury called all sorts of hydrographs.

              Now there is a fact that the political administration and the Main Committee confused two traditions. However, for the fleet, where the Commander-in-Chief believes that Admiral Makarov died at Tsushima, this is not surprising.
              1. +3
                April 11 2019 07: 35
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Just by imperial decree it was at all times to have a warship in memory of Mercury

                My dear friend, according to the same imperial decree, when decommissioning an obsolete ship, it was prescribed to give a name to a new ship with the raising of the guard flag of its predecessor. This tradition was violated by the independents in 1917, and then the violation of the tradition was reinforced, as one local lady from Holland says, by the enemies of the communists, giving the former "In Memory of Mercury" the name of an international. For 43 long years the memory of Mercury was struck out of the fleet, everything that Gorshkov could snatch from the "enemies of the communists" became the GISU of the 860th project! This is about ...
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Any hydrographs called Mercury

                Now on
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Now the fact is clear that the political administration and the commander-in-chief have mixed up two traditions

                This is your personal opinion and it is based on your arrogance and desire to appear more than you really are!
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Commander-in-Chief believes that Admiral Makarov died under Tsushima

                Is there proof of your words?
                1. 0
                  April 11 2019 13: 26
                  Is there proof of your words?


                  Alas, there is. But I will show you to him only under the promise not to make a clowning in the comments to my articles laughing
                  1. +5
                    April 11 2019 13: 29
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    But I will show you it only under the promise not to clown in the comments to my articles

                    No, I can’t understand this! Because I can’t stand the falsity, especially the fleet concerned!
                    hi
                    1. 0
                      April 11 2019 13: 45
                      That is, you refuse to get evidence?

                      Well, okay, have to endure your grimaces. Hold





                      Look for the original paper yourself.
                      1. +2
                        April 11 2019 13: 58
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        have to endure your tricks

                        My dear friend, Alexander, if you are categorical about your falsifications and I don’t go in the circle of your admirers .... then let it be grimaces, I’m totally out of it!
                        Quote: timokhin-aa
                        Hold

                        laughing Alexander, are you sure that this data was written by Korolev, and not a chorus girl? "Under the general editorship" does not mean that he himself wrote, approved the general theses, the responsible people did not check ....... ie. your next insinuation wink
                      2. +2
                        April 11 2019 14: 01
                        So it is possible to dispute the signed GK documents - such as I did not see what I signed, or the signature is fake.
                      3. +1
                        April 11 2019 14: 02
                        i totally fi on it!


                        Well, that talked. laughing
                        Mutually, Sergey. hi
          3. +2
            April 11 2019 07: 41
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            In my opinion "Mercury" was called auxiliary ships

            Oh my God! In that case, at least read Vicki, Mr. "Fleet Specialist"!
      5. 0
        April 10 2019 17: 05
        Read books before writing your own and maybe next time you change your mind about writing something ........
    4. -2
      April 10 2019 07: 04
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      Somewhere near the "non-brothers"

      This is unlikely, and not important. Here are the star-striped comrades - they rather suspected an unpleasant tendency.
      1. +10
        April 10 2019 07: 11
        Quote: alma
        Here are the star-striped comrades - they rather suspected an unpleasant tendency.

        And what will two frigates and two BDKs do to them? Right, nothing! It is ridiculous to compare the US and Russian fleets, the US fleet is 10 times stronger than the Russian fleet.
        1. 0
          April 10 2019 07: 48
          And what will two frigates and two BDKs do to them? Right, nothing! It is ridiculous to compare the US and Russian fleets, the US fleet is 10 times stronger than the Russian fleet.
          Ships can make them dirty, they may not succeed, but how correctly a person noticed this is an unpleasant tendency for FSHs. And now the scale is one, and then since this trend, it can become an order of magnitude larger. Wait and see. The fact that all this is positive, for us, has no doubt.
          1. +28
            April 10 2019 08: 39
            An unpleasant tendency for the USA is the 15 of destroyers of 64 and 112 heavy missiles under construction in Shanghai. This is annoying. 052D - by 23 the year will be half as much as Berkov. Only half.

            And the first CATOBAR aircraft carrier - which will break the monopoly of the USA and France into this type.
            1. +2
              April 10 2019 09: 05
              An unpleasant tendency for the USA is 15 destroyers being built and under construction with dimensions of 64 and 112 heavy missiles in Shanghai for 112 missiles, and here are the Americans and Arly Burke wants 3 series they have 48 cells according to the plan - in the bow and 80 - in the stern it’s interesting for the rocket to them rattlers
        2. -7
          April 10 2019 08: 16
          Well, they told you clearly, this is only the beginning of the process of rebuilding the Russian Navy, the main thing is that this process has begun and is irreversible.
          1. +11
            April 10 2019 12: 11
            Quote: sgrabik
            the main thing is that this process has begun and it is irreversible.

            What is this statement based on?
            But only on this ?!
            Quote: sgrabik
            they told you clearly, this is just the beginning of the process of rebuilding the Russian Navy

            "Holy simplicity"!
        3. -2
          April 10 2019 08: 37
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          And what will two frigates and two BDKs do to them?

          For example, an on-time airborne assault of the Russian Ministry of Defense can frustrate another coup in the Americans in some important country for Russia. Support the ally in time. Yes, a lot of good and useful things can be done with relatively small forces.
        4. -10
          April 10 2019 09: 12
          US fleet times 10 stronger than Russian fleet

          in which place (?)
          for air defense cruisers and destroyers URO USA, the approach of low-flying anti-ship missiles 3M55 Onyx is a critical situation (!)
          approach even 1-th anti-ship missiles 3М22 Zircon - it's just the finish (!!!)
          1. +15
            April 10 2019 13: 07
            And if already with a hat, and in general.
          2. -2
            April 10 2019 18: 11
            + 5 vs. - 11. straight some American fascist (!)
            * they probably have children's toys in the form of the Ticonderoga cruiser for games in the bathroom - nostalgia
        5. -20
          April 10 2019 10: 26
          With the advent of hypersonic anti-ship missiles, the strongest US fleet will turn into expensive scrap metal for shooting at a shooting range. Let them continue to build large ships with billions of dollars in investments each, and Russia will modernize the MiG 31 and possibly Su 34 under Daggers and Zircons, and also build warships of small and medium displacement.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
          2. -1
            April 10 2019 18: 17
            Hold on, Vadim, we will support you, here in VO there is a battle every day, and in each article (!)
            And along the way we lose: + 2 / -14
            * but it pleases that in real life, if it comes to it, then all the Berks and Ticonderogs will go to the bottom !!!
        6. +1
          April 10 2019 11: 22
          Everything here is also complicated ... If they concentrate their fleet somewhere, they will begin to tear in other places. This fleet of them is scattered around the world. They also have a lot of enemies.
          1. -8
            April 10 2019 17: 52
            The US Navy is targeted at Aboriginal people and only at attacks on land targets subsonic KR Tomahawk
            all their RCC subsonic Harpoon - 280 km., JASSM-A - 360 km., JASSM-ER - 980 km.
            for our Sea SAMs, Shell, Dagger, Dagger, Fort, Redoubt, Uranus, Calm-1 - regular targets in automatic mode (!)
            1. +1
              April 11 2019 13: 28
              And from the caplet they can be directly blown up in the police department.
            2. 0
              April 12 2019 00: 24
              uranium - pcr like
              1. 0
                April 12 2019 10: 28
                uranium - pcr like

                typo
                - subsonic RCC X-35 Uranus
                - Destroyers Ave. 956 Sarych have air defense missile system Hurricane - soiled Buk
        7. -2
          April 12 2019 01: 47
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Quote: alma
          Here are the star-striped comrades - they rather suspected an unpleasant tendency.

          And what will two frigates and two BDKs do to them? Right, nothing! It is ridiculous to compare the US and Russian fleets, the US fleet is 10 times stronger than the Russian fleet.

          What are you talking about? The US fleet is built offshore. Russian to protect the coast. So, as they fought in the XlX century, squadron squadrons are not fighting now.
  2. +18
    April 10 2019 05: 38
    The news with the frigates is great. Our surface fleet is decreasing so fast that the new ships needed yesterday.
    However, I note to the author that it is impossible to derive the function of the ship from the formal name mechanically. It was their frigates that developed as escort ships to protect convoys from our submarines, mainly. But what will our frigates escort? For me it’s such a good, universal project. A clean PLO ship should be built much less and it should act in conjunction with base helicopters off its coast.
    1. +18
      April 10 2019 06: 14
      one cannot mechanically derive a ship function from a formal name

      This is especially true of modern projects - weapons are really shoved into the destroyer, and they call it a corvette. But our ships from the time of the USSR, and so were stuffed with weapons under the hat, sometimes to the detriment of the convenience of the crew.
      I’m waiting impatiently for Nakhimov, that’s where the gunsmiths turn around.
    2. +2
      April 10 2019 07: 20
      Quote: Sahalinets
      A clean PLO ship should be built much less and it should act in conjunction with base helicopters off its coast

      That's right, this has already been discussed - in PLO, pr. 20380 is most suitable. It would only be expensive for mass, to simplify (remove the shock function)
      1. +4
        April 10 2019 07: 46
        Quote: alma
        Only it is a little expensive for mass, would simplify (remove the shock function)

        you just need 2 options 20380: 1- PLO-PVO, and the second: shock-air defense. Build in proportion to 2 pieces of the first option - one ship of the second!
        1. +3
          April 10 2019 08: 04
          Quote: Tiksi-3
          you just need 2 options 20380: 1- PLO-PVO, and the second: shock-air defense. Build in proportion to 2 pieces of the first option - one ship of the second!

          As an option - it is possible so. The main thing is to saturate the fleet with ships debugged in production
          1. +2
            April 10 2019 08: 13
            Quote: alma
            The main thing is to saturate the fleet with ships debugged in production

            for each fleet you need 10 PLO-AIR +5 Shock-Air Defense (20380) ...... + by 10 22350 (SF-TOF) and 4 to the Baltic and the Black Sea Fleet ..... well, and 22800 for 10 pieces for each of the fleets, and the buoys returned to the Caspian flotilla. So it would be a little optimistic
            1. +1
              April 10 2019 10: 18
              Quote: Tiksi-3
              and the buoys return to the Caspian flotilla

              Etc. 21361 -7 in the ranks, 5 under construction. How many for CF
              1. +2
                April 10 2019 11: 21
                Quote: Siberia 75
                How many for CF

                their seaworthiness for the Black Sea Fleet is bad ....
                1. +1
                  April 10 2019 12: 20
                  Quote: Tiksi-3
                  their seaworthiness for the Black Sea Fleet is bad ..

                  Yes, much has been written about this. But still "Buyans" are constantly in the Mediterranean Sea, making decent crossings, and nothing, serve
                  1. +4
                    April 10 2019 12: 32
                    Quote: Siberia 75
                    and nothing serve

                    zaz (the same humpbacked one can get from Chita to Sochi and nothing .... a car .... do you know at what sea level the use of its weapons is limited? ... no? ... tady oh
                  2. +3
                    April 10 2019 14: 20
                    This is before the first battle, with any resistance from the enemy. When the storm is six points to them the end. Etc.
                    1. 0
                      16 June 2019 18: 05
                      why should Buyan crawl into the storm and, moreover, 6 points! in such a storm and a cruiser, if the robust cap does not climb. The storm must be waited in the port or any bay!
                      1. -1
                        17 June 2019 09: 22
                        And if caught in the sea?
      2. +5
        April 10 2019 07: 58
        Quote: alma
        Only it is a little expensive for mass, would simplify (remove the shock function)

        Nothing like this. UKSK Caliber is not only an anti-ship, but also an anti-submarine weapon. It was necessary from the very beginning to build corvettes with it, and not with Uranus, and then charge it as needed - "a slight movement of the hand" and the corvette becomes an analogue of the BOD project 1155, whose GK is Rastrub-B.
        1. +1
          April 10 2019 08: 19
          Quote: Dart2027
          Nothing like this. UKSK Caliber is not only anti-ship, but also anti-submarine weapon. It was necessary from the very beginning to build corvettes with him

          Nobody is against UKKS, only behind... Perhaps I was wrong about the "shock function". But the project needs to be made cheaper.
          1. +5
            April 10 2019 08: 39
            The problem with the corvettes is precisely with the HACK, it is weak on them, and therefore little effective.
            1. D16
              0
              April 10 2019 11: 38
              At 20380 is our best hack of what can be placed on a ship of such a displacement.
            2. 0
              April 10 2019 14: 26
              Well then, why then try to shove the stationary undergrowth GAS into the corvette? It is necessary to complete with a sonar of variable depth and towed gus.
          2. +11
            April 10 2019 09: 38
            Quote: alma
            Perhaps I was wrong about the "shock function". But the project needs to be made cheaper.

            =========
            As world experience shows - the BEST way to reduce the cost (including a combat ship) is a MASS construction using the EXHAUSTED technology! wink
          3. +1
            April 10 2019 10: 19
            Quote: alma
            But you need to reduce the cost of the project.

            Necessary but
            Quote: venik
            As world experience shows - the BEST way to reduce the cost (including a combat ship) is a MASS construction using the EXHAUSTED technology!
            So.
        2. D16
          0
          April 10 2019 11: 41
          In armament, yes. What is the use of weapons without autonomy and seaworthiness?
          1. 0
            April 10 2019 13: 35
            Quote: D16
            What is the use of weapons without autonomy and seaworthiness?

            And I suggest sending them across the Atlantic? Corvettes are ships of the near sea zone.
            1. D16
              -1
              April 10 2019 14: 21
              1155 are destined to walk across the Atlantic. In the near sea zone, it is redundant. Previously, BMZ cost Albatrosses.
              1. 0
                April 10 2019 14: 41
                Quote: D16
                In the near sea zone, it is redundant.

                Correctly. To each his own.
                Quote: D16
                Previously, BMZ cost Albatrosses.

                Not only. In BMZ there was (and is) a whole zoo of the IPC and RTOs. All of them need to be replaced with corvettes.
                1. 0
                  April 10 2019 20: 25
                  Quote: Dart2027
                  Not only. In BMZ there was (and is) a whole zoo of the IPC and RTOs. All of them need to be replaced with corvettes.
                  I would vote for pr. 11661-K (E) as it was created for this very purpose. And on the power plant DDA-12000, which has recently been sufficiently "tested and brought to mind" on pr. 20380, it is the "Cheetahs" (11661) that will be relatively inexpensive to build (for serial construction), and much better respond (correspond) in their own way the composition of weapons for PLO functions (OVR)!
                  1. 0
                    April 10 2019 21: 05
                    Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                    I would vote for ave. 11661-K (E)

                    May be. I was not very interested in this project.
      3. 0
        April 10 2019 08: 51
        Quote: alma
        That's right, this has already been discussed - in PLO, pr. 20380 is most suitable.

        Everything is correct. The fleet must come to specialization sooner or later. Well, something like: corvette - escort ship - air defense and anti-aircraft defense functions. It is possible without a helicopter. The frigate is the main shock function - the rest in the form of effective self-defense. The destroyer is a versatile ship that combines the capabilities of the first two. A cruiser is a destroyer multiplied by two. And what type of UDC to provide air support. And no "ships of the near sea zone". Ships should differ in functionality and not in their ability to make long voyages.
        By the way, I want, following the author, to enjoy the bookmark of two BDKs. And I repeat my thought: it’s not the Mistral, but still it is better than nothing.
        1. D16
          0
          April 10 2019 15: 40
          You forgot about the ship of protection of the water area. 20380 is perfect for this role. With its speed and autonomy, it is not a fountain to accompany someone. For this purpose, 20386 are being built now. If you follow your logic, the ideal frigate 11356. But 22350 has more serious opportunities for PLO and air defense. It is unlikely that this is dictated by the requirements of self-defense.
          1. 0
            April 11 2019 08: 13
            Let the corvette work to protect the area. And to make a separate boat for the near sea zone is wasteful in our case.
            Now for 11356. It does not fit into my philosophy at all, for it is more like an overgrown corvette than a frigate.
            And, if you recall some of the articles by the author of this material, then I would prefer to have 12 11356 instead of 1 finished 3 under construction and 2 ordered 22350.
            At the worst, the equipment installed on 11356 can be improved
      4. +1
        April 10 2019 18: 25
        pr. 20380. Only it is expensive for mass, to simplify

        how to build Ash and Borea, so the price is immediately normal - and a series of + 7, + 8 buildings
      5. 0
        April 10 2019 20: 17
        Quote: alma
        That's right, this has already been discussed - in PLO, pr. 20380 is most suitable. It would only be expensive for mass, to simplify (remove the shock function)

        no, he's not only "expensive"but also enough toothless it is for PLO (there is no 533 mm TA, no UKSK) for that is, "incompetent and expensive" Redoubt "?! And just for PLO, due to the balance of its armament composition, the mass production of" Cheetahs "pr. 11661_K (E ), on the same diesel-diesel power plant (DDA-12000). And the Navy would receive at a lower (by 4-5 billion rubles per 1 unit) the construction price of units of new ships more suitable for PLO (for the planned replacement of Albatross "), starting with the Pacific Fleet !!!
    3. 0
      April 10 2019 07: 23
      what are you going to look at your shores ??? with base PLO helicopters? axes what range have ???
      1. 0
        April 10 2019 19: 35
        what are you going to look at your shores ??? with base PLO helicopters? axes what range have ???

        and here on the site the majority has its own purple - purple vision
        * not to be confused with trollingGod forbid
      2. +1
        April 10 2019 21: 07
        Quote: pin_code
        axes what range have

        The farther the launch, the longer the flight time and the easier the missile defense system.
      3. -1
        April 12 2019 01: 57
        Quote: pin_code
        what are you going to look at your shores ??? with base PLO helicopters? axes what range have ???

        There are submarine forces of the fleet.
    4. +5
      April 10 2019 08: 19
      Quote: Sahalinets
      However, I note to the author that it is impossible to derive the function of the ship from the formal name mechanically. It was their frigates that developed as escort ships to protect convoys from our submarines, mainly.

      ========
      good Absolutely agree! For some reason, the author is trying to set the American concept of building a fleet as an example., While forgetting about the different geographical position, different doctrines, geopolitical interests, economic opportunities .....
      The Americans really created the most massive series of frigates "Oliver Perry" - only as ocean-going ESCORT ships intended for the protection of convoys and actions as part of the AUG or large detachments of ships at a great distance from their "native shores".
      We do not have such an opportunity - frigates inevitably have to be "all-rounders", adapted for action, both as part of a small group and alone!
      By the way, the author, in my opinion, evaluating the capabilities of the PLO project 22350 as extremely weak (the helicopter and the "Packet-NK"), for some reason forgot to mention that the "Caliber-NK" system allows the use of PLUR 91R ... its anti-submarine capabilities, it is quite consistent with the same "Oliver Huy Perry", and other foreign "classmates" .....
      1. +3
        April 10 2019 09: 57
        Quote: venik
        The Americans really created the most massive series of frigates "Oliver Perry" - exclusively as ocean-going ESCORT ships designed to protect convoys and operations as part of the AUG

        The range of sea waves and wind strength, at which helicopter flights from the Perry are possible, is relatively narrow due to the size of the ship. British frigates were much more useful, as they are 1,5 times larger.
        Perry is not able to act as part of the AUG, because he has weak information exchange equipment and low speed. This is a good escort ship, but nothing more.
        1. +2
          April 10 2019 10: 44
          Quote: goose
          Perry is not able to act as part of the AUG, because he has weak information exchange equipment and low speed.

          ==========
          Why is it so immediately and "incapable"?

          You can certainly argue that the photo is NOT an aircraft carrier, but some kind of lousy landing helicopter carrier .....
          But there are other photos:

          A yellow circle is highlighted. exactly frigate of "Perry" type, tangible - probably "Perry" (bad resolution) ....
          About - "weak information exchange equipment"I can't say anything - except that on an EM like" Spruens "it was also" not God knows what "in this regard ...
          Well, the speed .... Well, then my friend you and "bent" ... 29 knots maximum (not bad enough for yourself) and 18-20 economic is not enough ???? And what, is AUG faster "run" ????
          The seaworthiness of the "Perry" really turned out to be worsethan expected, but it was planned exactly as an OCEAN escort ship !!!
          1. 0
            April 10 2019 10: 55
            Quote: venik
            The yellow circle marks exactly a Perry-class frigate, tangents - most likely Perry (poor resolution) ....

            There are a lot of such photographs, but he can get on them only in one case - as an escort of supply vessels, because he is not able to act in an organized manner as part of the AUG during active maneuvers. Also, Perry is not able to maintain an adequate course when agitating in fresh weather, and lags behind the AUG ships, even from high-speed supply transports.
            The functions of the AUG long-range PLO are performed by 1-2 submarines, which are regularly included in the AUG.
            There were options for using frigates, and not just Perry, in the Persian Gulf, as long-range vessels, but this is at a time when AUG is not going anywhere.
            And it was 100% casualty in the event of an air attack.
            1. +1
              April 10 2019 14: 29
              Quote: goose
              There are a lot of such photographs, but he can get on them only in one case - as an escort of supply vessels, because he is not able to act in an organized manner as part of the AUG during active maneuvers.

              Dear "Mladá Husa"! I'm NOT going to argue with you! To accompany the AUG - "Perry" was far away not the best option! That's why the Americans gave it up so quickly! And they hastened to "suck" the vassals! But nevertheless, "Perry" was very actively used as an "escotra" AUG in the late 70s and other mid-80s of the last century! (I just remember it!) ....
          2. +1
            April 10 2019 19: 44
            Front red is most likely Spruins or Burke. Otherwise, I agree with you completely. PLO AUG almost entirely lay on Perry and aircraft.
            1. +1
              April 10 2019 20: 57
              Quote: Earthshaker
              Front red likely Spruins or Burke

              =========
              Maybe, maybe .... There even in the original photo with a high resolution - figs you will understand! (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg) - the biggest one I found! That's why I wrote "most likely" ..... But the Yellow circle is EXACTLY "like Perry" .. drinks
              1. +1
                April 10 2019 21: 39
                The front one is exactly Spruins, ATP for the photo. Anyone who scolds the Soviet Navy for its "motley" look at this photo every morning.
          3. 0
            April 10 2019 19: 57
            I can't say anything about the "weak information exchange equipment"

            I can
            as amended, that the US Navy only: URO destroyers Arly Burke, Ticonderoga air defense cruiser
            Aegis ship system hardware response = 8 seconds
            * for example: Radar SPRN Don-2Н = 2,5 seconds
            flight time PRK 3М55 Onyx leaving the radio horizon at 30 km - is 21 sec.
            number of missiles Standard for the destruction of 1 anti-ship missiles Onyx = 4 missiles
            - 8 seconds hardware response
            remaining time for launching missiles = 13 sec. = 5 SAM - acceptable laughing
            2-I RCC Onyx will definitely break the board laughing
            And here, right now, the U.S. Navy’s problems will start
            RCC 3M22 Zircon (soon in service) from a distance of 30 km. - flight time - 9,6 seconds
            Aegis hardware response - 8 sec.
            residual time = 1,6 seconds - TO THE BOTTOM
            1. +2
              April 10 2019 21: 04
              Quote: Romario_Argo
              as amended, that the US Navy only: URO destroyers Arly Burke, Ticonderoga air defense cruiser

              ========
              It is logical! good Simply, "Perry" was built in the 70s - 80s of the last century (operated until the 90s ... (then they began to get rid of them quickly). In those days, in addition to Perry, there were also " Spruerns ", some Kiddos (all EMs) and Ticonderogs." Berks "just started to appear .... By the way, as I remember," Aegis "were then only on" Ticonderogs ".
      2. +1
        April 10 2019 10: 21
        Quote: venik
        For some reason, the author is trying to set the American concept of building a fleet as an example., While forgetting about the different geographical position, different doctrines, geopolitical interests, and economic opportunities

        All of the above does not affect the effectiveness of the system. You can build different types of ships based on different tasks, but the concept of construction from this will not cease to be effective.
        1. +1
          April 10 2019 14: 42
          Quote: Dart2027
          You can build different types of ships based on different tasks, but concept construction from this will not cease to be effective.

          =====
          Sorry, of course, but I can’t understand this maxim of yours ....
          WHAT do you mean by "concept"???
          - WHAT types of ships to build?
          - WHAT requirements should they meet?
          - WHAT should prevail in project development? (Cost, efficiency or "cost / efficiency") ???
          Or something else ??? (Military Doctrine, economic feasibility? Or something else?)
          WHAT EXACTLY??? Please state your idea MORE SPECIFIC!!!
          1. 0
            April 10 2019 14: 51
            Quote: venik
            WHAT EXACTLY??? Please formulate your thought MORE SPECIFIC !!!

            1) Construction of a large series in which all the ships are as identical as possible to each other, instead of throwing from one project to another and constantly making changes within the same series.
            2) The use in construction of only serial products, and all OCD should be completed in advance, instead of constant attempts to create a child prodigy ..
            This is a concept.
            It is equally suitable for the construction of any type of ship - you can build corvettes, you can frigates, you can air defense ships, you can PLO ... These are special cases that depend on the specific situation.
            Separately, it is possible to build separate, non-serial ships exclusively for testing new technologies, but they should not interfere with the construction of serial ships ..
            1. +3
              April 10 2019 16: 31
              Quote: Dart2027
              1) Construction of a large series in which all the ships are as identical as possible to each other, instead of throwing from one project to another

              ======
              good drinks In this plan "sensible", but not meaningless the concept of a "block-modular" scheme has and MUST have a right to exist!
              By a "reasonable" scheme I mean a "universal" platform (WELL worked out!), On which you can (during construction!) Place a variety of weapons!
              At the same time, the "unification" of the "platform" must be MAXIMUM !!! At the same time EXCELLENT fulfilled! drinks
              For this it is NECESSARY (well, this is my personal opinion) - to CLEARLY work out a "platform" that is maximally oriented to the needs of "at least 3 fleets" .. DIFFICULT, BUT - DONE !!!
              It would be ideal to create AT LEAST on 2 fleets shipbuilding capacities, with the "conveyor" method of building ships up to 2.5 thousand tons ... I do not know if there are such in Russia now? During the Soviet era, they were in Kiev ("Lenkuznya" - up to 1 tons) and in Nikolaev ChSZ - up to 000 tons) .... It seems that there is something similar in Baltiysk ... but I won't say for sure !!! request
              "De facto" - you need to WORK carefully 1 (one!) normal project and "charge" it .... Just then the "economy" will come out !!!
              And "throwing from one corner to another" - will not be !!! Although, sometimes, given the geography of the Russian Federation, it becomes clear that creating such a "universal project" will not be easy, but VERY difficult !!!!! request
              1. +1
                April 10 2019 16: 59
                Quote: venik
                In this regard, a "reasonable" and not meaningless concept of a "block-modular" scheme has and MUST have a right to exist!

                Must. In addition to construction, this will greatly simplify repairs and modernization.
            2. +1
              April 10 2019 21: 18
              Quote: Dart2027
              1) The construction of a large series in which all the ships are as identical as possible to each other

              =====
              good drinks
              Quote: Dart2027
              2) Use in construction of only serial products, and all design and development work must be completed in advance

              good drinks Who would argue !!!
              Quote: Dart2027
              This is a concept.

              ========
              This is not a "concept" - it is COMMON SENSE!
              "Concept" is WHAT to build? "Clear pepper" - we need more (than the Americans) ships of the near sea zone - such a geo-political situation .... But we must not forget about the "far ocean zone" either !!!
              1. 0
                April 10 2019 22: 51
                Quote: venik
                This is not a "concept" - it is COMMON SENSE!
                "Concept" is WHAT to build?

                It can be called differently, but under the concept construction I understand exactly that.
                I would say that the question "what to build" is already the issue is not pure shipbuilding, and a combination of a variety of factors, including the geopolitical situation.
      3. -1
        April 10 2019 18: 23
        By the way, the author, in my opinion, evaluating the capabilities of the PLO project 22350 as extremely weak (helicopter and "Packet-NK"), for some reason forgot to mention that the "Caliber-NK" system allows the use of PLUR 91R ... its anti-submarine capabilities, it is quite consistent with the same "Oliver Huy Perry"


        Not as extremely weak, but not strong enough. Generally speaking, Perry on the PLO is doing our ship, he has the following disadvantages - there is no second helicopter, there is no bomb, the PU of the Package is slag and scrap metal (this is the case of all ships, PU must be changed), the location of the PU of the Package is unsuccessful.

        In principle, on 22350M all this can be brought back to normal, and when it goes into series, the PLO frigate can be figured out, cheaper, but with a pronounced antisubmarine component.
        1. 0
          April 10 2019 20: 39
          Quote: timokhin-aa

          By the way, the author, in my opinion, evaluating the capabilities of the PLO project 22350 as extremely weak (helicopter and "Packet-NK"), for some reason forgot to mention that the "Caliber-NK" system allows the use of PLUR 91R ... its anti-submarine capabilities, it is quite consistent with the same "Oliver Huy Perry"


          Not as extremely weak, but not strong enough. Generally speaking, Perry on the PLO is doing our ship, he has the following disadvantages - there is no second helicopter, there is no bomb, the PU of the Package is slag and scrap metal (this is the case of all ships, PU must be changed), the location of the PU of the Package is unsuccessful.


          Or (as an option): - for PLO add full-fledged (double or triple) 533 mm TA, for the possibility of using the "Waterfall" (that is, do not spend part of the UKSK load on PLUR), but use for anti-torpedo protection (as intended) "Package-NK" or replace it with RBU-6000 (if its effectiveness in hitting enemy torpedoes is not lower but higher).
          1. 0
            April 10 2019 21: 39
            Quote: Vl Nemchinov
            but for anti-torpedo protection use (as intended) "Packet-NK" or replace it with RBU-6000 (if its effectiveness in hitting enemy torpedoes is not lower but higher).

            ======
            Well, about the effectiveness of the anti-torpedo protection "Packet-NK" at least (as stated) significantly exceeds the RBU-6000 ....
            Besides, "Packet-NK" uses not only M-15 anti-torpedoes, but also MTT anti-submarine torpedoes (range - up to 20 km, depth - up to 600 m) .... Not so bad !!!
            1. +1
              April 10 2019 21: 58
              Quote: venik
              Besides, "Packet-NK" uses not only M-15 anti-torpedoes, but also MTT anti-submarine torpedoes (range - up to 20 km, depth - up to 600 m) .... Not so bad !!!

              No my friend is bad, very bad. The submarine of the potential enemy will not allow the corvette to reach a distance closer than 35-48 km. This is dictated by the fact that she herself needs this distance to carry out an effective and covert torpedo attack (the same MK-48), and getting closer is to risk revealing herself (and no one will do this in vain), and the speed of modern nuclear submarines of a potential enemy at 30 or more knots, this is quite possible for themselves, not letting the NK come too close. I remember we discussed this topic for a long time with SW. Timokhin, and in the end he found it to be so. Therefore, for an effective PLO, a modern OVR corvette must have either 533 mm TA (for using long-range torpedoes "Physicist / Case" or "Waterfall"; or UKSK for submarine missiles, i.e. be able to attack the detected, for example, using an enemy submarine helicopter at ranges of 40-50 km.). And this is important.
              1. 0
                April 11 2019 08: 54
                30 knots is low noise speed?
                1. 0
                  April 13 2019 00: 22
                  Quote: sivuch
                  30 knots is low noise speed?

                  Please forgive me, but I have a counter-question - did you study in the Soviet system of education?
                  1. 0
                    April 13 2019 10: 38
                    Of course, in those early years it was believed that low-noise speed is a few knots, and at 30 knots or more, any boat rumbles across the world’s oceans and does not hear anything. Yes, it takes time to reach such speed, I don’t remember how much, but not a minute or two.
        2. 0
          April 10 2019 21: 29
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Perry on the PLO our ship is doing

          =========
          More than a controversial statement! The "Perry" from the PLO has only 2x3 324 mm TA and a flying machine (on later versions - 2 lighter helicopters). PLUR - absent, towed and lowered GAS - too! I'm not even talking about RBU - they have long since abandoned them ...
          Well, WHAT does he ask (in the sense of "Perry") can "make Pot" ??? request Maybe explain ???
          1. +1
            April 11 2019 00: 43
            Poor wording on my part Perry Gorshkov does.
    5. +2
      April 10 2019 09: 53
      Quote: Sahalinets
      A clean PLO ship should be built much less and it should act in conjunction with base helicopters off its coast.

      A ship less than 3,5 thousand tons of full displacement feels very uncomfortable in a stormy sea and cannot provide helicopter flights, without which the PLO is sharply weakening, so the dimension is less than 3-4 thousand tons for the Pacific Fleet and SMF theaters. Corvettes have a place only on the BF and Black Sea Fleet.
      1. -3
        April 10 2019 10: 34
        Helicopter PLOs and land can take off in the North and Pacific Fleet when the sea is rough.
        1. +2
          April 10 2019 10: 58
          Quote: Vadim237
          . And this is the best way to cope with PLO underwater drones - the cost is an order of magnitude less than for helicopters and airplanes, and the patrol time is not limited by weather conditions and so on.

          The area of ​​coverage of any underwater equipment is microscopic, in comparison with aviation and helicopters, the reaction time is too long and you can’t put a good GAS on the drone. These are the fatal flaws of drones, so they will never replace flyers, but they are certainly useful in total.
          Well, do not forget about the combat effectiveness of the crew and weapons. On a small pelvis in fresh weather, the crew and most of the weapons are not combat ready.
          1. -1
            April 10 2019 13: 59
            And no one even said that they would be small - enough under 20 meters long and 4 meters wide to put good ASGs, torpedoes, mines and mine clearing systems - using modern production facilities and materials they can be made over 100, smaller even larger - half on combat duty 24 hours a day, for a week or more, and then a shift.
        2. +1
          April 10 2019 13: 14
          And best of all, underwater drones will cope with the PLO - it costs an order of magnitude less than for helicopters and airplanes, and the patrol time is not limited by weather conditions and other things.


          It remains only to make it smarter than man - it is smarter and smarter, underwater war is very difficult.
          1. 0
            April 11 2019 16: 45
            And learn how to control it from a distance.
    6. +2
      April 10 2019 10: 22
      According to the frigates, I agree that we must do what we can’t do to fat, they won’t fight anyway.. And they will carry the flag, and for this they have enough opportunities .. But with the BDK a big question. the project is frankly unsuccessful, and by and large not necessary landing in the coming years is not expected.. So they will use it as a military transport, for this role he is also mildly mildly speaking, but apparently the shipbuilders can’t offer anything else to the fleet .. On the mind, you need to do something like a mistral without problems with a camera for landing boats (there were documentation as they shouted ) but again, just a ship like RO-RO would be much more reasonable

      .Today (in light of the situation in Venezuela) we need transports and escort ships to them, and the nuclear triad of Russia will guarantee their safety from the most important "partners". The ship is not a convoy of trucks that someone destroyed on the way .. with a sea two or three powers are capable of this today, and accordingly the guilty person will be categorically 100% identified after which they will have to explain themselves to the nuclear power .. So the point in laying new ships is for one simple reason the old ones are finally all ..
      1. +4
        April 10 2019 12: 36
        Quote: max702
        According to the frigates, I agree that we must do what we can’t do to fat, they will not fight anyway .. But they will carry the flag, and for this they will have enough opportunities

        Finally, I see a normal pragmatic view of the problem. The starting point of your reasoning is on pseudo-patriotic "Wishlist", but the real state of affairs. In Russia today, and so on "defense" is spent the largest share of GDP (in comparison with China and the United States), despite the fact that this GDP itself is not growing (such a wicked thing). And not only does it not grow, but there are no prerequisites for its growth. But because today's socio-economic policy in Russia is ....!
        Quote: max702
        So the point in laying new ships is for one simple reason the old ones are finally all ..
        This is exactly what the so-called "uryakalka" do not understand. They do not understand that this is not a revival of the fleet, but patching up holes.
        Do not move beds, but .... change!
    7. +1
      April 10 2019 13: 12
      But what will our frigates escort?


      Convoys on the SMP? Vanino-Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky? Peter Kalinigrad?

      For me, so good, versatile project.


      So I'm all for it. Until 22350M is ready. Then I will sharply oppose.
    8. 0
      April 10 2019 20: 07
      A clean PLO ship should be built much less and it should act in conjunction with base helicopters off its coast

      the Navy is working on the MPC project options just for the PLON based on the RTOs, etc. 22800
      Tezhi Gauges only PLURA
      and the number of hulls will only depend on the cost of the ship:
      nasal +/- padded +/- lowering +/- towed
  3. +5
    April 10 2019 05: 46
    In the 30s, we built cruisers and destroyers ... In the 50s, the ocean fleet began to be built, and in the 70s and 80s, aircraft carriers. All living space is on needles, and in 2019 laid 2 frigates and 2 BDK for unsuccessful projects ...
    1. +5
      April 10 2019 06: 26
      22350 is not something that would be "unsuccessful", rather overloaded with weapons, moreover, mostly new. This was a lot of trouble with him. The air defense problem was closed and this is the main thing, the engines for these ships were developed and started to be built, I think the issue with the anti-aircraft defense will also be closed by modernizing the ship in 5-7 years with some kind of unmanned aircraft. Work on them is now underway.
      According to the rank, Cruisers and destroyers belong to the same ship, ships of the 1st rank, or if you want to ships of the ocean zone (far sea), class 2 to the near sea, 3 to the coastal. The main criteria are seaworthiness and sailing range.
      1. 0
        April 10 2019 07: 09
        Eugene, it is better to build frigates pr 22350 according to how it will be with pr 22350 M
        1. +1
          April 10 2019 07: 56
          Well, I don’t argue with that ....
          22350 is intensively processed with a file and one must think they will lick it to a good ship. And if you think about it and correctly calculate, then the UPKS can still be added to it, with a slight extension of the hull by 16-20 meters in seaworthiness it will not lose much, as well as in speed with the same power plants. And after all, he will not need a new bius, everything is also just a bit more missiles.
          1. 0
            April 10 2019 08: 00
            I would add to Pr 22350 another 8 Onyx missiles and 3 Armor -ME for self-defense
            1. 0
              April 10 2019 08: 32
              I think they’ll add universal ones without problems, but the Armor ... Because instead of something, and the bius will have to be changed ...
              1. 0
                April 10 2019 08: 37
                One in the bow and two where the Broadsword
                1. 0
                  April 10 2019 09: 02
                  So vseravno something will have to be removed, if only in the place of a broadsword ...
                  1. +1
                    April 10 2019 09: 07
                    Or slightly lengthen the frigate
      2. +3
        April 10 2019 08: 30
        Quote: jonht
        I think the issue with the PLO will also be closed by modernizing the ship in 5-7 years with some sort of drones.

        ======
        And where did you get the idea that PLO at 22350 is weak ?? up to 16 PRUR 91R2 (UKSK "Caliber-NK", 8 (2x4) TA "Packet-NK", helicopter (it is a pity that only 1), SJSC "Zarya-3" and towed SAS "Vignette-M" .... ..
        You little ???? Well, name at least some modern a frigate whose PLO would be more powerful .....
        1. 0
          April 10 2019 09: 06
          There, they talked about the corvette 20380, and not about the frigates 22350. hi
          It just all happened somehow in one and may not be completely clear.
          And drones will not interfere with frigates. hi
          1. 0
            April 10 2019 09: 24
            What are drones? Horizon?
            1. +1
              April 10 2019 09: 34
              I propose something less there, like Klavisin (the first) in the dimensions of a torpedo with a sonar and the ability to find mines. But vryatli will quickly finish ....
          2. 0
            April 10 2019 09: 59
            Quote: jonht
            There, they talked about the corvette 20380, and not about the frigates 22350.

            =========
            Sorry! "I was wrong, I got excited, I promise to improve, I ask you to give me the opportunity to redeem ...."

            drinks
    2. +2
      April 10 2019 07: 51
      In the 30s, we built cruisers and destroyers ... In the 50s, the ocean fleet began to be built, and in the 70s and 80s, aircraft carriers. All living space is on needles, and in 2019 laid 2 frigates and 2 BDK for unsuccessful projects ...
      It’s good that they will lay it, it’s better than nothing.
      1. 0
        April 10 2019 08: 03
        And here there are no options, either frigates, there are engines, or atomic destroyers there are engines, but there is no finished project ....
        There are projects on corvettes but there are no engines, the Chinese do not count ...
      2. +6
        April 10 2019 08: 47
        In the 30's, there was friendly Italy, less friendly Britain - which at times was seduced by bablishko. Everything was delivered to the fleet this way (yes - because domestic crafts were even worse, for example, read a ten-year saga with torpedoes, and it’s typical that how many designers and pests were sent to improve health in Siberian resorts, the torpedo wasn’t born. And only then, almost Stalin pushed the decision to buy from Italian partners, copy a bolt into a bolt and put into series - this is how the legendary 53-38 was born = today's equivalent is what Onyx / Zircon thread). And again, the first shipbuilding program was a nightmare and a nightmare, the second one is better.
      3. +1
        April 10 2019 23: 20
        To bezryby and broom the plane? :)
        The former commander of the BCH-1 aircraft carrier "Novorossiysk" sadly said that several releases of navigators had never gone out to sea ... Well, let's build it, maybe I can get off the wall ...
  4. +4
    April 10 2019 06: 10
    Taking into account the laying of two more frigates of the project 22350, we get 6 frigates 22350 here the question is which fleets will go what most likely 3 to the Northern Fleet and 3 to the Pacific Plus two more BDK project 11711 good
    1. +1
      April 10 2019 07: 26
      everything is more logical to the North. full team. as an option ... 6 more for Pacific Fleet ...
      1. 0
        April 10 2019 07: 28
        I agree for the brigade of 6 frigates per Northern and Pacific Fleet and 3 each to the Baltic and Black Sea Fleets
        1. +4
          April 10 2019 07: 41
          while on the Baltic Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet they are not needed yet (in general, for now), it is better to saturate the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, the Pacific Fleet is no longer a fleet by and large.
          1. +1
            April 10 2019 07: 45
            Andrei is still at least corvettes coming from the Amur Shipyard, although it’s time to build there
            1. +1
              April 10 2019 21: 00
              Quote: Alexander Galaktionov

              Andrei is still at least corvettes coming from the Amur Shipyard, although it’s time to build there

              no, my dear friend, it is high time there (at the Amur plant) and it is necessary to build the submarines of pr. 971M (which were built there earlier and did not turn out badly for themselves), which are much cheaper by an order of magnitude "Ash-M", but are still quite functional, at least 4 units. And then the Pacific Fleet in fact - "and the king is naked" !! But the expensive 20380 with "not functional - expensive" air defense missile system "Redut", while (of course, completing the construction and transferring to the fleet already begun in construction), even stop laying. Instead, Zelenodolsk and the Zaliv leased by it should establish PLO 11661-K (E) corvettes for the OVR not for the Vietnamese friends, but for their own Navy, and replace the Albatrosses with them. That is, each plant should produce what is more characteristic of it (let's say, according to its specification), and at the same time, as close as possible to the place of duty in the future.
              1. 0
                April 11 2019 09: 09
                Regarding Zelenodoltsy, I agree. When they built a ship with my nickname, it was a comedy of mistakes
                1. 0
                  April 13 2019 00: 15
                  Quote: sivuch

                  Regarding Zelenodoltsy, I agree. When they built a ship with my nickname, it was a comedy of mistakes
                  And here I really want details (specifics). And about the mistakes. And about
                  comedy ?! And the word "steamboat"I confess intrigued me ?!
                  1. 0
                    April 13 2019 10: 46
                    Yes, we, young specialists (although we were specialists), had such dude slang. And the history of the construction of pr.1239 I already outlined somewhere
                    http://forums.airbase.ru/2011/01/t26309_5--raketnye-korabli-na-vozdushnoj-podushke-pr-1239.html
                    Both for speed and stupidity. The Sivuch was taken to build a plant on the other side of the Neva. But the order was given to Zelenodolsk (according to rumors, the chief designer of the project was a classmate of the chief engineer of the plant). a tacit competition, which would make more comments. Therefore, several people sat almost every time in Dolsk, for example, about 10 months. Then the steamer was covered with masking material so that the enemies from outer space would not see what it was and sent along the Volga to Kerch for completion. Since the steamer didn’t pass through the locks, I had to put it on pontoons. On one of the locks I was slightly fucked up. And representatives of design bureaus and Zelenodoltsy were sitting in Kerch. So there’s nothing to be cheap for /
                    And this is a further comment
                    And what's so surprising ... So almost every ship was built and is being built due to weak technical departments at the plants. They sat for years in Yaroslavl, and in Sosnovka, and in Feodosia, and in Zelenoy Dol, and in Kerch, and in Khabarovsk, and in Vladik. According to Almazov projects where only boats were not built ...
                    True, they did not send me to Khabarovsk and Vladik
                    1. 0
                      April 15 2019 13: 59
                      Yes, we had, young professionals (although we were specialists) such dude slang


                      Not only you, and yes, nothing has changed since then. wink
          2. +1
            April 10 2019 12: 19
            Quote: pin_code
            The Pacific Fleet is no longer a fleet by and large.

            Pacific Fleet is slowly turning into a laughing stock. Like in Russian-Japanese.
      2. 0
        April 10 2019 07: 33
        The construction of the Big Fleet https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/201620.html So it is with both hands, but he is very optimistic
        1. +1
          April 10 2019 07: 43
          I agree with you, but I want to believe in the best.
          1. 0
            April 10 2019 07: 49
            I am for corvettes and frigates and submarines! I want to believe, but I have to look at the economy sad Although 19 trillion goes for rearmament
  5. +1
    April 10 2019 06: 13
    On the part of bmpd, we point out that, according to rumors circulating on the web resource forums.airbase.ru, two new frigates of project 22350 will receive the names "Admiral Amelko" and "Admiral Chichagov" Second Admiral is being scolded -Admiral Chichagov
    1. 0
      April 10 2019 07: 27
      and not for nothing ... there is a reason.
      1. +1
        April 10 2019 12: 50
        Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
        The Second Admiral is scolded - Admiral Chichagov

        Quote: pin_code
        and not for nothing ... there is a reason.

        Personally, I don't see anything reprehensible in the name of the new ship. V. Ya. Chichagov at one time "... won victories over superior enemy forces in the Eland (1789), Revel (1790) and Vyborg battles, while taking prisoner many ships, frigates and other ships, more than 5000 soldiers and up to 200 officers , including the Swedish rear admiral. These victories forced the Swedish king Gustav III to an early peace. " Vasily Yakovlevich Chichagov is rightfully included among the first "Catherine's eagles" ... Even on the monument to Catherine the Great he found a place.
  6. -1
    April 10 2019 06: 13
    A short time after the last one was released “from above”, rumors came about the ongoing deep processing of this project and the replacement of the chief designer.

    Do you think someone "at the very top" reads Topwar? ))
    1. +6
      April 10 2019 06: 18
      Yes, how to drink and give out a dedicated employee to oversee this site. )))
    2. +5
      April 10 2019 06: 29
      Given the fact that this resource is the top among specialized sites in the world, then most likely - YES.
    3. +2
      April 10 2019 07: 02
      Resources such as VO "read" not only "at the very top", but also in places where the roads cannot be found on their own, only if you yourself are not "brought up" there on a dull tinted car for a sincere conversation)))
  7. +1
    April 10 2019 06: 37
    In 2014, it was like this on October 21, 2014, 10:07
    Source: The Russian Navy is going to order 12 Leader-class destroyers
    It is estimated that six such ships will be built for the Northern Fleet and six for the Pacific https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/1520956
  8. +1
    April 10 2019 06: 39
    JAN 10, 2018, 09:03 AM Updated 10 Jan 2018, 09:05
    Source: construction of helicopter carriers will begin at Severnaya Verf in 2020 https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4863362
  9. +3
    April 10 2019 07: 09
    Finally, they took up the mind.
  10. +5
    April 10 2019 08: 01
    Cool. The author not only revealed treason in naval engineering, but also stopped it. Actually. Now everything will be as it should. And the ships will plow the oceans.

    There would have been more such disclosures in other areas, such as aviation. Or in science. In medicine and education. Just need to find a good captain of the 3rd rank in co-authors. And we will dance forests and mountains ...
  11. -3
    April 10 2019 08: 21
    We also need destroyers with powerful missile, anti-submarine and anti-aircraft weapons no less, because there is a very good project 23560 "Leader", which was approved by the Russian Ministry of Defense, why can't it be implemented in metal ???
    1. 0
      April 10 2019 08: 36
      project 23560 "Leader" here he is not a destroyer but already a Cruiser A The destroyer is pr 21956 although he can add a little more weapons
    2. 0
      April 10 2019 10: 06
      because it is bad, like the stupid aircraft carrier "storm". A good ship doesn't need so much publicity.
    3. 0
      April 10 2019 10: 25
      Quote: sgrabik
      after all, there is a very good project 23560 "Leader", which was approved by the Russian Ministry of Defense, why can't it be implemented in metal

      Because there is no working draft, but what has been approved is true, drafts.
  12. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      April 10 2019 08: 46
      Well, there are already ready-made projects of the large landing craft "Priboy", "Avalanche", why don't we bring them to their logical conclusion and the construction of ships ??? What is the point of producing projects and not implementing them in the end, because the creation of a project is also a large financial cost.
      1. +3
        April 10 2019 08: 55
        What projects? Can share design documentation?

        Surf is an advance offer (not even a project) from the Nevsky Design Bureau. Sketched on the knee and taken out.
        An avalanche is generally a model, do not take it seriously. This is just a demonstrator of competencies in sticking models from the leading manufacturer of fleet models = Krylovsky Center. There is no serious study there, and in any case, the fleet will not order a mug of modelers.
        1. -1
          April 10 2019 14: 23
          An avalanche is such a wild game that there are no suitable words to describe.
      2. +6
        April 10 2019 12: 24
        Quote: sgrabik
        Well, there are already ready-made projects of the large landing craft "Priboy", "Avalanche", why don't we bring them to their logical conclusion and the construction of ships ???

        Because there are no brains for design and forces for construction. The French with their Mistral pointed us to our place in shipbuilding. That is, they showed that we are a complete zero in the construction of UDC. My option is not to stupid with the design and construction of such ships on their own (anyway, it will take no less than 15 years), but stupidly order and buy a couple of pieces in some kind of Korea or somewhere else. The builders of such ships are now rampant. And they will build it in a year and a half. And it will come out cheaper three times than we will strain ourselves.
    2. +1
      April 10 2019 09: 00
      I would also need to know what they will be adapted for, maybe they are "needed" just how they will be used ...
    3. 0
      April 10 2019 14: 23
      Right now, in the course of import substitution and patriotism. I do not think that after Mistral, someone somewhere will order something.

      So either way or no way. Well, then let it be so.
      1. 0
        April 10 2019 14: 42
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Right now, import substitution and patriotism are in use.

        Everything is simpler - you can order something, but where is the guarantee that we will receive them?
      2. The comment was deleted.
    4. +2
      April 10 2019 15: 04
      Quote from rudolf
      it would be better if several Makassars were ordered in Indonesia

      By the way, a great option. Instead of palm oil, Indonesians could easily pay for fighters with ships. And everyone would be happy.
      1. 0
        April 10 2019 15: 53
        Duroopedia reports to us that the UDC Sevastopol of the Surf project is being prepared for laying in 2020 ... And its performance characteristics correspond to the Avalanche project. It turns out a dual project Surf-Avalanche:
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Универсальные_десантные_корабли_типа_«Прибой»
        And I really like the renaming of Daring in Mercury: the aroma of great traditions is immediately inspired. Glory to the great Fleet!
      2. +1
        April 10 2019 18: 25
        It was thought here - and in fact they can build ships with our equipment and GEM. And yes, barter.

        A good idea.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
  13. -3
    April 10 2019 08: 54
    the news is good, but ambiguous, of course no sperlinkor frigate with the letter M is needed, this is obvious to any sane person, so the continuation of the series of pots fits into common sense, as does the refusal to continue the series of corvettes 80-86. Russia needs one design of a surface ocean ship, it is now and is being mass-produced, the continuation of the series is apparently caused by the decommissioning of 1155, due to merciless operation, moral and physical obsolescence, the experiment to modernize them has apparently not been considered successful ..... Do you still need BDKs ? can instead of a pair of BDK lay 8 Dugong? But this issue is being solved taking into account some data known to the General Staff. I hope the fifth ship laid down in 2019 will be the nuclear submarine!
  14. +2
    April 10 2019 08: 56
    And I congratulate you. When I read your articles, I felt how you were worried. Let it be only the FIRST good news! If only they built it!
  15. 0
    April 10 2019 09: 37
    It seems to me that to replenish the Syrian Express, it would be more preferable not to use a large landing craft, but an amphibious transport dock or UDC. Moreover, it will not be possible to use the BDK for its intended purpose.
    1. 0
      April 10 2019 18: 27
      This is understandable, we just knocked out the resource from the BDK, and we haven’t yet given birth to a normal project, so let it be a couple of Grenov, the ship, to put it mildly, is so-so, but better than nothing.
      1. 0
        April 10 2019 19: 43
        In no case. This is such an incredible guano that you are simply amazed ...
        1. +1
          April 11 2019 13: 14
          The question is that either guano or zero. I understand that this is a bad choice, but we are already in such a situation that we can also rejoice at this.
  16. 0
    April 10 2019 09: 55
    What is "dead in the forest"? How did it happen that the Ministry of Defense and the Navy suddenly embarked on the true path? It’s hard to judge this, but perhaps we will someday find out about it

    Well, most likely brought to some working condition Polyment-Redoubt may still have confidence about the production of engines.
    1. 0
      April 10 2019 18: 28
      The 22350 program and a year ago was too big to fall. And it was clear that through pain and blood, but the ship will be completed. And the gearbox is squeezed out of the Star.
      1. 0
        April 10 2019 22: 47
        I agree. I was sure that there was a squeeze, well, you see, they weren’t just squeezed but ready to produce units in series .. or are sure that they will be ready in the foreseeable future. With what actually all and congratulations.
        Now it remains to deal with the corvettes and with the modernization of the still living first ranks
      2. 0
        April 10 2019 22: 53
        Quote: timokhin-aa

        The 22350 program and a year ago was too big to fall. And it was clear that through pain and blood, but the ship will be completed. And the gearbox is squeezed out of the Star.

        Now the main thing is that, as it is implemented, this really "good news" has a good speed of construction and transfer to the fleet, and not as the first-borns of a series of this project. And for this, even now NPO Saturn and Zvezda-Reductor should probably receive both timely and unflagging state aid and unrelenting (not dormant) control!
  17. -2
    April 10 2019 10: 04
    Something I did not understand the author at all
    Russia has lost (temporarily) the ability to build large warships

    rave! The size of the destroyer level hull is absolutely not a problem - they built a piece for the Mistral or the same Gren.
    The second question - the author says, Gren is not perfect, but you need to build, but emayo - is it really impossible to make adjustments to the project and build an improved project ??? After all, if we build this greenhouse number XXUMX, we will have to suffer for more than a dozen years and not build another one - the money has been spent.
    So where to rush?
    The same with the 22350 series. You can lay it, but you can also make some improvements to the project!
    For example, agree with developers on improving the means of PLO and provide for changes.
    But I honestly don’t understand why you can’t just build a destroyer, even if it’s not an ideal power plant, but it’s normally built. Let him go only 15 knots, but everything else will be NORMAL.
    1. +1
      April 10 2019 10: 29
      Quote: yehat
      but yomayo - is it really impossible to make adjustments to the project and build an improved project

      Already contributed, resulting in a long-term construction.
      “No better, do the same”
      1. 0
        April 10 2019 11: 12
        so there is no need to make radical changes - to slightly improve the contours, re-plan the helipad. Previously, such changes were made on the go and there were no delays, but now some kind of fly elephant is swelling.
        1. +1
          April 10 2019 11: 30
          Quote: yehat
          slightly improve the contours, re-plan the helipad.

          If changes in contours do not lead to changes in the location of the equipment inside, but this is unlikely. If new and not used equipment slowed down with frigates, then from GREN it was constant alterations in the project.
    2. 0
      April 10 2019 14: 25
      rave! The size of the destroyer level hull is absolutely not a problem - they built a piece for the Mistral or the same Gren.


      Yes? And the power plant?

      The second question - the author says, Gren is not perfect, but you need to build, but emayo - is it really impossible to make adjustments to the project and build an improved project ??? After all, if we build this greenhouse number XXUMX, we will have to suffer for more than a dozen years and not build another one - the money has been spent.
      So where to rush?


      I think that this will be done, or has already been done. Problems with Grena bypasses, cable runs, etc. were known for a long time.
      1. 0
        April 10 2019 15: 29
        But what are the problems with cable routes?
        1. 0
          April 10 2019 18: 29
          So paved that he did not demagnetize. I had to return, cut the case, etc.
  18. +3
    April 10 2019 10: 15
    The news is certainly good.
    And now, which will be built faster: 4 ships for the Navy or 15 gas tankers for the future Arctic LNG project (5 tankers delivered in 2022, 2024 and 2025) at the Zvezda shipyard owned by Rosneft in the Far East?
  19. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      April 10 2019 11: 14
      usually, if the leadership wants a fleet, his projects are waiting in line
      and draft and design parameters of the project according to the adjustments made can be released almost every month. The Germans could do this more than 100 years ago, but now we can’t?
      1. +1
        April 10 2019 11: 32
        Quote: yehat
        The Germans could do this more than 100 years ago, and we are now

        Do not confuse the complexity of technology then and now.
        1. +1
          April 10 2019 11: 36
          Do you think the battleship with the most complicated booking scheme is less complicated than the BDK trough?
          1. -1
            April 10 2019 13: 32
            Quote: yehat
            battleship with a complex reservation scheme is less complicated

            Booking is just iron, and modern ships are stuffed with technology, which is the main source of problems.
            1. +2
              April 10 2019 13: 45
              BDK is just a floating barn. there is no equipment there. The equipment is a bit more complicated than a boat
              I was on an excursion to Mistral when he was in St. Petersburg. Stupidly large empty hangar.
              1. +1
                April 10 2019 13: 54
                Quote: yehat
                Stupidly large empty hangar.

                Most of the space is really a hangar, but this is not the whole ship, and the equipment there is still more complicated than a boat.
                1. +1
                  April 10 2019 13: 57
                  that's it, a little more complicated
                  and the battleship, even the ancient one, is much more complicated.
                  the only thing that really impressed me on Mistral was the quality of the speakerphone on the ship - after the wheezing speakers, the metro is shocking.
                  oh yes, there’s a glass door next to the ladder like in a hotel.
                  when I saw this, a little fucked up.
                  1. 0
                    April 10 2019 14: 02
                    Quote: yehat
                    and the battleship, even the ancient one, is much more complicated.

                    That is, the technique of 70-80 years ago is more complicated than the current one? Hmm.
                    Quote: yehat
                    the only thing that really impressed me on Mistral

                    And they let you go anywhere and show all the equipment, moreover, in a disassembled form.
                    1. +1
                      April 10 2019 14: 09
                      we are there except that the captain’s cowards did not see
                      and you shouldn’t be so dismissive of the complexity of the technique of the dreadnought race. One hydraulics is worth it. Ineffective steampunk of course, but this does not cancel the difficulty.
                      1. 0
                        April 10 2019 14: 37
                        Quote: yehat
                        One hydraulics is worth it.

                        Believe me, there are not so many problems with hydraulics. Here is electronics and everything connected with it - yes.
                        Quote: yehat
                        we are there except that the captain’s cowards did not see

                        That is, they gave you to disassemble the command center?
                      2. 0
                        April 10 2019 15: 13
                        to disassemble no, but they showed both the wheelhouse and the actual command center for managing operations.
                      3. 0
                        April 10 2019 15: 16
                        Quote: yehat
                        make out no, but showed and

                        If you look at the control panel from the side, then this does not mean to have an idea of ​​how everything is arranged from the inside.
                      4. 0
                        April 10 2019 15: 18
                        Well, firstly, something is just obvious, and secondly, they showed and told.
                        thirdly, it is simply impossible to show everything.
                        you still ask if gondolas with engines were shown under water.
                      5. 0
                        April 10 2019 15: 32
                        Quote: yehat
                        well firstly, something is just obvious
                        That is unknown.
                        Quote: yehat
                        secondly, they showed and told.
                        What, working drawings and all control algorithms?
                      6. 0
                        April 10 2019 15: 49
                        I didn’t understand how control algorithms are related to the ship
                        we watched the ship
                      7. 0
                        April 10 2019 16: 13
                        Quote: yehat
                        I didn’t understand how control algorithms are related to the ship

                        Do you think that it’s enough to assemble the ship as a designer and it will work? Control algorithms that allow you to combine the management of all equipment - this is such a hemorrhoid that wherever ordinary mechanics are.
                      8. 0
                        April 10 2019 16: 15
                        I understand this no worse than you, but let's say it, a separate topic
                        sent 1000 Chinese programmers and you're done. it’s not really shipbuilding.
                      9. 0
                        April 10 2019 16: 24
                        Quote: yehat
                        but let's say it, a separate topic

                        No, this is just shipbuilding. A ship is not individual parts, but a system that depends on all components. Just now the priorities of complexity and prices have shifted to other parts.
                      10. +1
                        April 10 2019 16: 40
                        ship control systems can be built on the basis of Siemens standard production equipment control modules. This is a very independent work from the design of the ship.
                        OSes can also be written separately.
                        Take the American AEGIS - it stands on several types of ships.
                      11. 0
                        April 10 2019 17: 01
                        Quote: yehat
                        ship control systems can be built

                        Everything is allowed. I'm serious. The question is the time it takes to debug, because it is not enough to write a program, you still need to check its work in practice, that is, launch the ship’s systems. And this is the time.
              2. +1
                April 10 2019 14: 31
                Yeah, you and the command center held, and in the hospital? This is the logistics center of the amphibious operation, and the troops disembark from it and the aircraft operates, in the same place, the AMS, their own turntables on the return raims take out the wounded there, they are also immobilized to be sent to the floating hospital, if necessary - reanimation, and so on. d. In the same stock of logistics. For short distances on it you can immediately throw a regiment.

                This is a very useful ship in fact.
                1. +1
                  April 10 2019 15: 24
                  I was hospitalized there, but in a folded state, I poorly understood its capabilities
                  and I could only guess about the possibilities of transportation by advertising and the size of the premises. The ship will not tell you exactly, but with a height of 18 floors
                  from the flight deck the whole center of St. Petersburg is clearly visible.
            2. +2
              April 11 2019 16: 54
              And the ships of the second world were not crammed with equipment and electronics? Read at least about the centralized fire control systems of the main caliber, air defense. With redundancy KDP. At that level of technology. Inspires respect.
              1. 0
                April 11 2019 17: 24
                Quote: Tavrik
                At that level of technology. Inspires respect.

                That's just the point at that level. You will not compare the computer and the calculator?
                1. 0
                  April 12 2019 12: 08
                  And why not compare? I suspect that a modern office computer at a price no more expensive than a serious electronic calculator from some 80s
                  1. 0
                    April 12 2019 12: 49
                    Quote: alexmach
                    at a price no more than a serious electronic calculator

                    I’m not talking about the price (perhaps I don’t know either), but about the difficulties of installing on a ship and bringing all of this into one system.
    2. 0
      April 10 2019 14: 26
      Well, we have hopelessness, if that. I write - the ship is bad, but better so than nothing.
  20. +5
    April 10 2019 12: 46
    Gren as a BDK is completely slurred, it is difficult to understand the meaning of construction.
    if as a military transport, it is excessively equipped and too expensive, if as a BDK, then it is none.
    1. 0
      April 10 2019 14: 27
      On bezrybe and cancer fish - the logic is this.
  21. 0
    April 10 2019 13: 24
    This is good, but instead of 2 paratroopers, 2 more frigates are better, and ideally - a destroyer
    1. 0
      April 10 2019 13: 46
      not better. the fleet must not only fight
  22. +7
    April 10 2019 13: 29
    Quote: sgrabik
    Well, they told you clearly, this is only the beginning of the process of rebuilding the Russian Navy, the main thing is that this process has begun and is irreversible.

    The statement is very controversial, but okay. The process may have started and is irreversible, but it is extremely slow. Of the frigates 22350 of the "admiral's series" 4 were laid down. In service 1. When the Kasatonov, Golovko, Isakov will enter service - the question remains open. Two more will be laid. One will most likely be called "Admiral Yumashev". So if they build at the same speed as the "Gorshkov" (I hope that all the jambs with radars, missiles and engines are removed and will build faster), then we will not get it soon.

    Quote: Siberia 75
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    And what will two frigates and two BDKs do to them?

    For example, an on-time airborne assault of the Russian Ministry of Defense can frustrate another coup in the Americans in some important country for Russia. Support the ally in time. Yes, a lot of good and useful things can be done with relatively small forces.

    This would be possible when the landing party would have planted 10 pieces. And in fact, the ships will be distributed among the fleets and 3 hundred marines are unlikely to do against almost 2 thousand from the enemy. In addition, their landing will not come alone. And with a very decent escort, including attack and aircraft carriers. Ours is enough to carry out the evacuation of the embassy in a pinch and our civilian specialists, no more

    Quote: Romario_Argo
    in which place (?)
    for air defense cruisers and destroyers URO USA, the approach of low-flying anti-ship missiles 3M55 Onyx is a critical situation (!)
    approach even 1-th anti-ship missiles 3М22 Zircon - it's just the finish (!!!)

    Where, Roman, can you start yelling urya ???? The "low-flying" missile "Onyx" has a launch range of 120 km ... If you want to launch it at the maximum range, it is launched along a high-altitude trajectory. Marching height - 14 KILOMETERS. To say, from what distance they will detect it or will you count it yourself?
    Well, the Zircon is a wunderwaffe, which will fly at an altitude of 40 km. And nothing that the enemy's anti-aircraft missiles reach a speed of 15M versus 9M for the Zircon. which in the final section will decelerate and lose speed, which will become supersonic. So, can we start talking? You are like the same Simferopol (Hypersound), which with one Zircon ammunition from the 941st project dreams of drowning 7-9 AUG completely (aircraft carriers and escort ships), you are going to drown someone with one rocket

    Quote: Vadim237
    With the advent of hypersonic anti-ship missiles, the strongest US fleet will turn into expensive scrap metal for shooting at a shooting range. Let them continue to build large ships with billions of dollars in investments each, and Russia will modernize the MiG 31 and possibly Su 34 under Daggers and Zircons, and also build warships of small and medium displacement.

    How gored these hypersound fans are. Turn on your brains before writing such nonsense.
    Upgrade MIGi-31? Yes, elementary. Nafig are they generally needed in air defense? We will remake them for the carriers of the "Daggers". And nafig replacement for the written off SU-24M. Convert them all to Dagger carriers
    Turn on the brains, who will give you target designation to defeat AUG from a distance of 2000 kilometers? Holy Spirit??? Already everyone drowned in dreams American carriers am
    1. +3
      April 10 2019 13: 55
      Quote: Old26
      Well, the Zircon is a wunderwaffe, which will fly at an altitude of 40 km. And nothing that the enemy's anti-aircraft missiles reach a speed of 15M versus 9M for the Zircon. which in the final section will decelerate and lose speed, which will become supersonic.

      Firstly, it’s nothing, because AIM anti-aircraft missiles (you describe them) are designed for direct hit and on independent tests they NEVER coped with the task even against a larger missile. Recently there was a scandal in Japan on this subject.
      Secondly, 9m is also a supersonic speed, like 2M.
      thirdly, reaction time. Again, the exercises showed that American ships, which regulate their combat readiness by charter, simply do not have time to launch effective countermeasures against the unexpectedly arising PKR.
      Fourth, 15M is the maximum speed, and on take-off it is very unlikely more than 5m.
      You can and still continue, but this is enough about your overly confident post.
      1. +1
        April 10 2019 14: 06
        Quote: yehat
        You can and still continue

        For example, that if the speed of an air defense missile is higher than the speed of the missile that it must intercept, this does not mean that it can intercept it - interception is not a catch-up game.
    2. +2
      April 10 2019 14: 07
      There are more than 200 MiGs in storage - for the interception and those that are now more than enough, there are Su 30, Su 27CM3, Su 35, MiG 29, and also C 300 and C 400, not including army air defense, for interception. If the daggers were put into trial operation, then target designation systems for a range of 2000 kilometers are also available.
      1. 0
        April 10 2019 14: 15
        200 blinks is enough for one military district, but not for the whole country
        besides, part of the blinks are involved in a patrol, part of a scheduled repair, and I would not hope that even 400 would be enough.
        1. 0
          April 10 2019 18: 07
          I have listed, everything that is standing across the country is quite enough to reflect a massive raid, 500ka will appear and A 100 airspace will be completely closed, and after 7 years, the MiG 41 will take off. I liked the new radars
  23. +1
    April 10 2019 13: 32
    Glory to God!
    Pleas are heard)))
    Still, “Moscow” would have returned the course, and resumed laying 20380, especially on Dalniy, and we can say: “there is happiness”!
    And three more 20350 is possible, huh?
    Oh please laughing !
    1. 0
      April 10 2019 21: 39
      Quote: Orkraider
      Still, “Moscow” would have returned the course, and resumed laying 20380, especially on Dalniy, and we can say: “there is happiness”!


      At the expense of “Moscow”, I completely agree with you. and not only gave the move, but also modernized as "Marshal Ustinov". Here - Yes completely !!! But to resume the bookmark 20380 - this is how the author of this article used to say earlier (but with respect to pr.20386) - "worse than a crime!" Count yourself sir, lay down another 10 corvettes of Project 20380 and two 20385, this is to get 10 new "kutsikh castrates" and two over-expensive 20385, instead of 12-13 corvettes of Project 11661-K, (two OVR brigades, by the way) without a remainder ( the difference for the construction of one ship) which in total will be enough for one and a half (or even two frigates 22350) !!!
  24. +1
    April 10 2019 13: 54
    I apologize, I probably missed it - but have they raised the PD-50? found guilty? repaired?
    1. +1
      April 10 2019 14: 28
      Summer will raise. Piecemeal.
  25. -3
    April 10 2019 15: 21
    Yeah, blessed is he who believes. After all the previous promises, there’s nowhere to put the noodles; I can only rejoice for Comrade Timokhin, who sees in all this getting up from your knees "positive shift".
    In total, (with luck) by 2030, a country with a claim to the title of superpower, and a sea border of 40 thousand kilometers, will have at least some navy in the amount of as many as 5 frigates. This is an absolute success, definitely!
    In terms of "grenades", I think, it would be better if they did not exist at all, the ships are not able to adequately solve any problem.
  26. +3
    April 10 2019 17: 12
    Quote: yehat
    because anti-aircraft missiles AIM (you describe them)

    No. AIM missiles are air-to-air missiles. I'm talking about ship-to-air missiles, that is, RIM

    Quote: yehat
    because the AIM anti-aircraft missiles (you describe them) are designed for direct hit and on independent tests they NEVER coped with the task even against a larger missile ..

    What prevents them from upgrading these missiles due to new threats (hypersonic missiles)? Reducing the reach in height and range, and replacing the kinetic interceptor with a fragmentation warhead like at least Mk 125 ???? And then, what does it mean that she failed? Do you seriously think that a missile that has been in service for 15 years has NEVER coped with an interception ??? And these American suckers continue to use it without changing anything in it ???? The fact that there were successful interceptions in the early 2000s is, after all, nothing. The main thing is to believe our media, which say that all tests are rigged .... And when the satellite shot down .... No. it's definitely not her. This is the North Korean anti-satellite missile Eun Solntselikiy that probably shot down a satellite ...

    Quote: yehat
    Secondly, 9m is also a supersonic speed, like 2M ..

    Here before this post there was a higher opinion of you. Then one of us wrote that starting from 7M - this is already the first cosmic speed. Now you have made a world discovery that and (M and 2M are supersonic speeds. Some of the physicists probably after such an assertion turn over in their grave

    Quote: yehat
    thirdly, reaction time. Again, the exercises showed that American ships, which regulate their combat readiness by charter, simply do not have time to launch effective countermeasures against the unexpectedly arising Pkr ..

    I am embarrassed to ask, "How is a suddenly appeared rocket? If a rocket travels a distance of 400 km (Onyx) at a marching altitude of 14 km in more than 9 minutes, how long does it take for the calculations to start the interception procedure? An hour, two , ten? What nonsense
    And if something launches the same Zircon at a distance of 600 km, then it will be visible as soon as it reaches the marching altitude. And that, 3,5 minutes is not enough to intercept. You, according to you, not an air defense system on American ships, but some kind of kindergarten, which will decide for half an hour what to do, whether to intercept or not

    As for the suddenly appeared rocket. So there was a case when a rocket that suddenly appeared re-aimed at the MRK and drowned it. Despite the fact that the missile was generally a subsonic EMNIP

    Quote: yehat
    Fourth, 15M is the maximum speed, and on take-off it is very unlikely more than 5m.
    You can and still continue, but this is enough about your overly confident post.

    And someone believes that 14 km is only the beginning of takeoff ???? Me not. And in principle, what difference does it make, what speed, if the interception is on oncoming or oncoming intersecting courses.
    If you don't like RIM-161, replace it with RIM-174. there, even though the reach is not for the marching height of the "Zircon", but the range is 250 km, fragmentation warhead. even if the speed is 3M

    Quote: Vadim237
    There are more than 200 MiGs in storage - for the interception and those that are now more than enough, there are Su 30, Su 27CM3, Su 35, MiG 29, and also C 300 and C 400, not including army air defense, for interception. If the daggers were put into trial operation, then target designation systems for a range of 2000 kilometers are also available.

    And how many in the ranks ??? In addition, not all interceptions can be carried out on SU-type machines, and even more so on MIG-29 type machines with the same efficiency as on MIG-31.
    The S-300 and S-400 air defense systems may not be considered in the case when the target is out of their reach. Moreover, it is impossible to create a "continuous fence" from S-300 / S-400, especially in the north.
    If the "Daggers" are accepted for experimental combat operation, this does not mean at all that the target designation systems are in place and ready. The Air Force (VKS) has only a very small number of AWACS aircraft, which can give target designation to air carriers. And it is the experimental operation that will show whether it is possible to intercept moving targets with the Daggers or whether it will be able to strike at stationary targets with known coordinates
    1. 0
      April 10 2019 18: 19
      Since the creation of the MiG 31, the radars have stepped far ahead and now Russia has a single integrated air defense system, with which you can distribute any air targets, even on the MiG 29.
  27. 0
    April 10 2019 17: 19
    For more such good news.
  28. +1
    April 10 2019 18: 06
    The president in such a situation would not rush
    - Nooo, I never would)))))
  29. 0
    April 10 2019 19: 27
    "we need a new concept of amphibious assault, in principle, and a new ship for it, but it's better this way than nothing." I just do not understand why to build problem ships. Is it really so difficult to ask the paratroopers themselves what kind of ships they need?
  30. +2
    April 10 2019 19: 30
    Quote: Vadim237
    Since the creation of the MiG 31, the radars have stepped far ahead and now Russia has a single integrated air defense system, with which you can distribute any air targets, even on the MiG 29.

    Do not confuse the integrated air defense system, based on ACS, radar, and the fact that the MIG-29 may be corny unsuitable for interception. And an integrated air defense system is not yet target designation for attack aircraft for 2-3 km from the base
  31. 0
    April 10 2019 20: 47
    6 years !!! obsolete ships are being built, but gren is essentially a universal supply transport as a BDK would not be a bad project 775, of course in the new realities they are cheaper and more suitable for combat landing
  32. 0
    April 10 2019 23: 45
    Great news! I largely agree with the author, except that it is necessary to build a large landing craft of project 11711 for the delivery of goods to Tartus. I believe that for these purposes it is necessary to build support vessels. BDK are also needed, but completely different, a little later and for their own purposes. But all the same, the primary task (after the defense of their own borders) is the revival of the ocean-going fleet, saturation of the fleet with ships of the 1st and 2nd rank. The series of frigates 22350 should be continued even after the laying of 22350M, along the way, modifying its engines and anti-submarine component. To patrol the areas of the near sea zone and periodic trips to the Mediterranean, it is necessary to increase the series of a balanced and very successful (both in terms of armament and cost) corvette of the project 20385, why are only 2 ships of this series planned? With all due respect, "Karakurt" does not have sufficient potential for such raids. In case of a possible confrontation in the Mediterranean Sea, submarine duels will inevitably unfold with the aim of the enemy, and although the Karakurt is presented as a replacement for frigates 11356, it is obvious that they are significantly inferior to them, since they do not carry anti-submarine weapons.
    1. 0
      April 11 2019 06: 54
      Quote: AREOPAG23
      and although “Karakurt” is presented as a replacement for frigates 11356

      Yes, how many times have this phrase been parsed. They are not a substitute for frigates, but are built because the construction of frigates failed, and at least some ships are needed.
  33. 0
    April 11 2019 17: 10
    Quote: yehat
    I was on an excursion to Mistral when he was in St. Petersburg. Stupidly large empty hangar.

    I was too. I paid attention to IP telephony in cockpits. The duty room on the living deck as the reception of the hotel. On our ships, everything reminds of the harsh naval service. They have an office setting in a business center. I don’t know which is better.
  34. +2
    April 11 2019 19: 15
    Now tell me, a citizen of the country and a taxpayer - why do we need to pump crazy money for the construction of ships in the far sea zone? What do we do in the ocean? Aren't we a defensive doctrine? It was the USSR that supported popular democracies around the world to the detriment of its people. Why do we need it now? Isn’t it better to channel this money into developing our territory, creating jobs, medicine, and supporting rural sports schools? Our parents at their own expense pay rent for the premises in the sports school where their children go and buy sports equipment. Why did these frigates and battleships surrender? Are there really few coastal batteries, bastions, ships of the near sea zone to protect their borders?
    1. 0
      April 15 2019 14: 04
      It is impossible to ensure the combat stability of ships in BMZ without a forward detachment of forces in the DMZ.
  35. PPD
    0
    April 12 2019 14: 23
    Currently, Russian BDKs are actively working on the delivery of military supplies to the Syrian Arab Republic under the so-called "Syrian Express." This operation has already cost landing ships a large share of their resource.

    Hence the moral, there is no need to drive expensive BDK where you can get by with new civilian courts. In general, there was little need to drive the BDK. But now, if you're not lucky ...........
  36. 0
    April 21 2019 19: 10
    And what about the article on Kuznetsov’s prospects?