Does the fleet need small rocket ships?

How it all began


In 1965, the Soviet Navy finally formulated the requirements for a new class of ships, which were later assigned the classification of the IRAs (small rocket ship). It was originally planned that the new ship will have the dimension and displacement characteristic of rocket boats, but with better navigability. However, the constant customer requirements to change the design, especially in terms of placing on the ship the six heavy anti-ship missiles P-120 Malachite, led to a significant increase in displacement, which subsequently reached 670 tons, which ultimately required the introduction of a new class of ships.


Since 1967, the construction of the 1234 project ISCs has begun for the Soviet Navy. For its time, these were in many ways unique ships. With a displacement of the western corvette (and very light), they carried unprecedentedly powerful offensive missile weapons, good for their time, the Osa air defense missile system, AK-725 caliber 57 mm caliber.

Does the fleet need small rocket ships?

MRK "Storm" with 57-mm paired gun mount


On the next series of ships, the composition weapons continuously strengthened, a modernized air defense system appeared, instead of the 57-mm artillery, a more powerful single-barreled 76-mm AK-176 appeared. Added 30-mm AK-630M for firing at air targets. The ships had EW facilities and developed radar and electronic equipment for such a small ship.


IRA "Passat". Instead of a paired 57-mm AK-725, 76-mm AK-176 and 30-mm six-barreled AK-630М are installed


The second quality was the "cutter" maximum speed - 35 nodes. This ensured superiority in speed over most surface ships of those years, albeit short-lived.

For its time, it really was a powerful strike tool in the war at sea, and even now it has a high combat potential.

The small size (and visibility) and speed qualities of RTOs allowed them to "work" in the coastal zone, among the islands of various archipelagos, in the fjords of Norway and other similar places, and their only enemy in those years was the shock aviation, which, however, still had to get to them. During peacetime combat missions, RTOs were effectively used during the “weapon tracking”, hanging on the tail of western warships and ship groups. At the same time, the latter were deprived of the opportunity to break away from such tracking. Their high speed allowed them to participate in raiding operations similar to those carried out by the Indian Navy in 1971. In the event of the outbreak of hostilities, the only salvation from the Soviet RTOs would be carrier-based attack aircraft. Where they were not there, the prospects for US and NATO ships would become very vague. At the same time, RTOs were less vulnerable to the then submarines - the high speed of these ships in attack and the expectation of a target “on foot” somewhere under cover of the coast, in bays, fjords, behind cliffs or islets made them a difficult target for submarines of those years. The ships were, among other things, unpretentious to the conditions of basing, their presence could be deployed in any place where there was a pier and the ability to supply at least fuel from the shore for refueling.

The ships repeatedly went to combat service in the Mediterranean and in Vietnam, and, in general, the old epithet given to them (“the gun attached to the temple of imperialism”) was quite correct.

It was especially true in the case of a theoretical nuclear conflict. The western ships of those years could not repel the massive attack of the anti-ship missiles of the P-120 - the newest American cruisers and destroyers had a chance to do this, provided that the salvo was not very dense. In the remaining cases, a small IRA that used anti-ship missiles with a special warhead could inflict very significant losses on the enemy - up to tens of percent of the personnel and ships that were in certain naval forces. One.

Such a debut could not fail to impress, and the USSR continued, as it is called, “to invest” in RTOs. The 1234 series smoothly evolved along the path of weapon reinforcement and REV (from the 1234 project to 1234.1), the final of which was the Nakat MRC of the 1234.7 project, armed with twelve Onyx missiles, built, however, in a single copy.


MRK "Nakat" project 1234.7


Much more sophisticated projects were also created: 1239 with aerostatic air discharge (a type of airbag, today there are two MRKs of this project, Bora and Samum, built on the Black Sea Fleet) and MRKs of the 1240 project on hydrofoils. These ships had a higher speed than the "classic" IRAs.


MRK project 1239 "Sivuch"


But time changed, and with it the approaches to the war at sea had to change. Already in the 80-ies the enemy has adapted.

Sunset of former opportunities


In the course of endless confrontations with the Soviet Navy, the US Navy worked out a tactic of evading tracking.

The Americans also gained a great deal of practical experience in the combat use of the ZSM “Standard” on surface targets at a short distance. This missile made it possible to deliver a truly instantaneous strike on the ship to the pursuer, the time from the moment of its launch to hitting the target did not leave the MRK to have time to counterattack. In theory, any missile defense system can do this, but from the theory, to the method and the rocket with the corrected “children's diseases” repeatedly worked out on the exercises, there is a great distance.

The Americans had extensive data on the performance characteristics and design of many Soviet missiles, and, as a result, effective jamming systems — they often proved to be a more reliable means of defense than the ship’s air defense system. Finally, in the second half of the eighties, there was a massive influx into service of the US Navy BIUS AEGIS, radar with AFAR, and universal Muk.41 guards, which made the defeat of the ship by launching several missiles on it impossible.

But most importantly, the ideology of naval combat itself has changed. The Iranian operation “Pearl”, the Falklands and the battle in Sirte Bay in 1986 showed that in the presence of a real threat, warships will not be “exposed” to attack. Deal with the enemy fleet there will be airplanes armed with anti-ship missiles and submarines.

In the Persian Gulf, the Iraqi “mosquito fleet” was destroyed not by Iranian corvettes, but by “Phantoms”. In the Falklands, not a single ship was sunk by another ship in battle - an atomic submarine working from the British side, with Argentine aviation. During the battle in Sirte Bay, the Libyan ISC was sunk by an air strike (the fact that domestic sources attributed this attack to the URO cruiser was a mistake, it was the deck Intruder). Partly, the clashes in the Persian Gulf on 1988 (Operation Mantis) are knocked out of this series, but even here the course of events is rather “minus” to the concept of a small URO ship - Americans have shown very well what their ships can do with weaker enemy ships on electronic weapons. It is unlikely that IRAs, if they had Iran, would have shown themselves better.

This, of course, does not mean that RTOs have become completely inapplicable. This means that they have lost their former importance in attacking surface ships - no one else was going to expose them to attack in conditions of even a threatened period.

Moreover, the threat level for the ROCs themselves also increased - now any patrol plane could attack them from a safe distance using anti-ship missiles, while submarines had high-speed remote-controlled torpedoes, which could be used to reach the fastest and most maneuverable surface target, except ships on hydrofoil. The appearance of sea-based cruise missiles of the “Tomahawk” type in the USA and “Granat” in the USSR made senseless the idea of ​​a raid - now there is a technical opportunity to hit any naval base from a distance of more than a thousand kilometers.

By the end of the eighties, RTOs turned into a “niche” weapon, applicable in rare circumstances, mainly under the conditions of having a stupid doer who could be attacked by the enemy. They, of course, allowed the traditional tracking of weapons. But during the threatened period, the enemy would withdraw surface forces further into the sea. They allowed to quickly deploy a naval presence anywhere, but the enemy could send submarines there that the RTOs alone could not cope with. They could guard the troop units on the transition - but only from surface ships that a normal enemy would not send to intercept, could support the troops with fire - but badly, the 76-mm gun is not the best tool for this. Their speed meant little against attack aviation, and primitive electronic weapons did not allow them to act against modern large warships of a potential enemy. And so in everything.

According to the mind, in the eighties it was necessary to close the topic, clearly realizing that the main efforts in the BMZ should be aimed at anti-submarine defense, fighting mines and fire support of the landing, which required completely different ships, but as usual, everything turned out to be not so simple.

New IRAs - a child of accidents


Since 2010, the Zelenodolsk Shipbuilding Plant has begun construction of the Buyan-M 21361 series of MRCs. Although these ships were assigned to the same class as the “Gadflies” and “Sivuchi”, in fact they were the product of a completely different concept. In these ships, the Navy "crossed the horror and the hedgehog" - piled it into a non-launching small artillery ship also under the UBCA under eight Caliber cruise missiles.


ISC project 21361


Funny, but the hybrid turned out quite functional. He could solve the problems that the small artillery ship was solving. It could pass from the Caspian to the Black Sea and back (but not to the Baltic - the height does not allow passing under the Alexander Bridge). And he allowed Russia to bypass the restrictions, under which she signed in the INF.

It cannot be said that such a decision was rational. Imported GEM made the ship disproportionately expensive in comparison with its combat potential. The absence of significant air defense systems and the complete absence of the ability to defend against submarines or torpedoes made the ship almost inapplicable in a “big” war, except for the tasks of launching the CD from a safe distance. In fact, for the cost of two such ships could get a much more powerful ship, capable of and fight with submarines, and carry cruise missiles, and interact with the helicopter, if someone had done it. Or you could get an 20380 corvette, which also has incomparable combat potential, with the exception of strikes on the shore, where the superiority was over 21361. And, the ship was not seaworthy. The inter-base transition from the Black Sea to the Baltic was a very difficult test for ships - despite the fact that there was no more than four points during the transition.

Then the “reactive effect” came on - our RTO is non-seaworthy (and who ordered the nautical)? Does he have imported GEM? Weak air defense? Is he expensive? We are doing a new project, nautical, with a domestic GEM, with enhanced air defense and cheaper.


MRK project 22800 "Karakurt"


Thus was born the project 22800 "Karakurt". The ship, which is much closer to the "classic" IRA, rather than 21361. I must say that it was exactly how the “Karakurt” MRC succeeded. He is really fast and seaworthy, and, like his predecessors, he has powerful offensive rocket weapons. Once the ships start to put the PRAZYR MISS, he will also be able, at the very least, to repel air attacks and rocket attacks, even if inflicted by small forces.


This picture shows the CRAFT Pantsir on the ISCs of the 22800 project.


Like 21361, Karakurt can perform the tasks of striking long-range cruise missiles at the coast. Everything seems to be great, but again the question is in the concept - the three of “Karakurts” will easily sink “Tikonderogu”, but who will put “Ticonderog” under their blow? The answer is no one. And what if they push into the enemy's submarine? The speed will not save them, torpedoes are faster, measures to evade torpedoes lacking hydroacoustic vehicles cannot be taken. Namely, enemy submarines will be the first in our near-sea zone. To beat off a massive strike of large aviation forces, the ISC group will not be able to. Namely, aviation will be the next threat after submarines.

So it turns out that anti-submarine ships, and ships capable of protecting them from air strikes, should be attached to the interregional communications centers, otherwise the interregional stations themselves will become the victims of the enemy. And this is already what is called a completely different money.

And all this imposes problems with obtaining engines, which, it seems, will not be solved in the manner envisaged by the project. One should expect gas turbine afterburner to appear in Karakurtakh.

Finally, the last nail in the coffin of the concept of the IRA- "Kalibronostsa." The US exit from the INF Treaty allows Russia to simply deploy long-range cruise missiles in a car chassis. Given the small size of a cruise missile, it does not necessarily have to be an expensive MZKT chassis, standard for the Iskander OTRK. This may be a banal KAMAZ. In such conditions, the construction of IRAs of existing projects finally loses all meaning.

We summarize the


RTOs are a product of a different era in which the sea war was waged by methods other than now. Despite the fact that such ships can be successfully used even now (for example, as part of a shipboard strike group, conducting fast attacks with a way out of the air defense and PLO warrants and returning back), both for naval combat and for strikes using cruise missiles, the need to be armed with such a class of ships is no more. Any demanded function that the IRA can with great benefit to perform now, can be assigned to other, more versatile ships.

Any function that only MRKs are capable of performing is not particularly in demand at the moment, mainly due to the fact that the enemy will not conduct offensive hostilities by surface ships. It will use submarines and aircraft as the main striking force, and carefully guard valuable URO ships from any attack, mainly by deploying them in relatively safe areas of the world’s ocean, in the far sea and oceanic zones, just to prevent us from attacking them means. Including MRK. The range of sea-based cruise missiles carried by URO ships allows them to be used in this way.

There is an argument “for IRAs” in the form of a reference to the battle of the IRA “Mirage” during the war with Georgia in August 2008. But let's understand that the suicidal attack of the Georgian boatmen would also have been repulsed by the 20380 corvette, the 11356 frigate, and indeed almost any surface ship with a well-trained crew, except perhaps the standard 22160 patrol ships (without a modular missile weapon) . Well, it turned out that there were RTOs as “light forces”. And also let us understand that the very fact that Georgian boats sailed into the sea became possible only due to the complete fiasco of domestic military aviation in that war, including the sea one, which should have been involved in ensuring the passage of ships to the coast of Abkhazia. In the correct version, they simply should not have been allowed to approach our ships at a distance of rocket volley.

We are waiting for an era when incompatible things will be demanded of the fleet - to increase combat power without a proportional increase in expenses. This requires not scattering scarce financial resources on highly specialized ships, built essentially for one task - the attack of surface ships, which is unlikely to be in a war with a serious opponent. And cruise missiles and other carriers can be launched - from frigates to cars.

In addition, we expect a demographic failure, which will inevitably affect the recruitment of the Navy, as the percentage of people in society who have personal data that allow them to become commanders of ships is finite. Fewer people - fewer potential commanders, this is soon waiting for us, and this is another reason not to dissipate.

What kind of ships do we need in the near sea zone? This is a very complex issue that requires separate analysis. For now, we will limit ourselves to the fact that it must be ships with excellent anti-submarine capabilities, with at least a satisfactory air defense, with a gun capable of using guided projectiles against air targets, and supporting the landing of troops with fire. Ships capable in one way or another to interact with anti-submarine helicopters (to have a runway and fuel reserves, TSA and RGAB for them, perhaps, plus all this hangar, it does not matter, full, as on 20380 or movable). The tasks that we will face in BMZ will require just such ships, and not MRK. This does not mean that these future ships should not have anti-ship missiles, they are just priorities.

What to do with already constructed RTOs? Naturally, to leave them in the ranks, moreover, they need to be modernized. If you recall by what rules did the Americans build up their naval power under Reaganit is clear that there can be no talk of writing off new and at least relatively efficient ships. You need a lot of warships, at least some. Any warship increases the tension of the enemy's Navy, causes it to waste effort, time and money. Yes, IRAs are conceptually outdated, yes, we no longer need to build ships of this class, but those that are, it is still quite possible to use it properly.

First, you need to upgrade your weapons on the old men of the 1234 project, and on the Sivuchi too. It is necessary to replace the available launchers with oblique launchers from which you can launch Caliber missiles. First, if it still reaches the use of such ships against enemy surface ships, then the Gauges are among their most useful options. Secondly, in the correct version, it is necessary to ensure that all SLCM SLCMs are used for strikes against ground targets. Of course, it is also possible with a car, but the ship has a mobility factor, it allows you to push the launch line very far from the borders of Russia. In the “big” war, this will not play a big role, but in a local conflict somewhere in North Africa the solution will be quite “to the point”. There, in the absence of not only aircraft carriers in the Russian Federation, but also DMZ warships in significant quantities, even the anti-ship capabilities of the IRAs will be in demand. As the fact of the presence of at least some ships.

Is it possible to install such inclined guides on such ships? Installing 12 TPK for a larger than “Caliber”, anti-ship rocket “Onyx” on the Nakat MRC project 1234.7 says yes, quite, and in large quantities. There are also projects of such modernization.

The second direction of modernization should be the equipping of all existing IRAs with anti-torpedo protection based on the M-15 anti-torpedoes, now part of the package “NK-NK”. It is necessary that each MRK be equipped with a small-sized GAS capable of detecting torpedoes going to the ship, and having the opportunity to launch an anti-torpedo through a torpedo, at least from rechargeable TAs, at least from TPK, at least somehow. And the more anti-torpedo ammunition will be the first stage, the better. Naturally, the ships must be equipped with hydroacoustic countermeasures. They will not be able to hunt submarines because of this, but this is not required.


On the issue of size. Small-sized torpedo tube on an Israeli Seagull crewless boat. With a lack of space on the ISC for the anti-torpedo M-15, it will be necessary to develop something the same, especially since the caliber (324 mm) matches


Air defense and electronic warfare systems need to be upgraded, and guided projectiles for firing at air targets should be introduced into the ammunition load.

The option currently proposed for upgrading the interregional stations associated with the installation of a large number of missiles of the Uranus complex on them is not entirely successful. On the one hand, the rocket offered for installation as part of this modernization is very good and costs less than other options. On the other hand, such a modernization limits the functionality of the IRAs to strikes against surface targets and, when a naval version of a missile intended for striking ground targets is entered into service, targets near the coastline. Such modernization makes sense only in the Baltic, where fights between “mosquito fleets” are very likely, as are fights between surface ships and ground-based missile systems. For the rest, the Calibra theater is preferable.

Upgraded MRKs will have to “pull” until the new types of ships are re-equipped with new types of ships, so as not to reduce the strength of the crew. But building new ones is no longer necessary.

The last question is the ships under construction. All of them also need to be upgraded. Those ships that have already been laid, and whose hulls are formed at least by 20%, must be completed. Let even with GEM on the basis of GTD M-70. But those contracts for which no new ships have been laid yet, or where we are talking about just the welded mortgage section, need to be canceled. It is more profitable for the Navy and Defense Ministry to pay a penalty than to spray resources on ships designed for the past era.

Slowly (taking into account the need to maintain the maximum number of warships in the Navy), but surely this class of ships must go to history.
Author:
Photos used:
armedman.ru, Pella, Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Almaz Central Securities and Design Bureau, Elbit Systems / defrost.com
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

221 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. YOUR April 24 2019 04: 45 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    The fleet needs everything, but our focus is only on small ships.
    1. Kote Pan Kokhanka April 24 2019 05: 37 New
      • 14
      • 3
      +11
      Quote: YOUR
      The fleet needs everything, but our focus is only on small ships.

      Rarely, when the best is born from poverty!
      A case in point is when a century ago the poor countries tried to build battleships. In Argentina, an attempt to lay the third battleship led to an uprising in the Navy. In Greece and Spain, Wishlist led to the appearance of even good, but "incomplete"!
      Regards, Kote!
      1. Sahalinets April 24 2019 07: 21 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Argentina at that time was a very rich country. Well, about the uprising in the Navy - you confused it with Brazil ...
        1. Kote Pan Kokhanka April 24 2019 07: 35 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Maybe! Wrote a comment offhand from memory. hi
      2. YOUR April 24 2019 10: 58 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Do you think if a cruiser is being built with us or the Navy aircraft carrier rises?
    2. Ivanchester April 24 2019 10: 15 New
      • 15
      • 1
      +14
      The fleet needs everything


      The fleet first of all needs a clear concept of its application.
      And the ship's crew, which will be able to realize it.
      If we just do “everything” without a clear understanding of why we are actually doing this, then we will disperse our forces and get a near-zero result.
      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich April 24 2019 12: 26 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        As I understand it, the Navy wants to have one ship (or boat) with "Uraniums" in each fleet, which will fire target missiles during exercises. For the CFL and the Black Sea Fleet, the Lightnings are being completed; for the Pacific Fleet they are modernizing the Tornado. Starting from 2015 of the year in Vilyuchinsk, Northeast Regional Center JSC (49 SRZ) began work on the modernization of Smerch MRC of the 12341 project from the 114 OVR brigade. The modernization provides for the replacement of the anti-ship missile launcher of the Malakhit complex (6 anti-ship missile) with the 4 × 4 of the Uranus complex (16 anti-ship missile), as well as the improvement of the OSA-M air defense system control system.
      2. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 14: 00 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Here we finally came to this. To the result.
        1. venik 26 December 2019 16: 35 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          Here we finally came to this. To the result.

          ==========
          Alexander! Before protesting, I ask you not to "throw slippers"! ..... We have already argued (in a "personal") - for which I am grateful, I’ve noticed that you explained to me many things that I did not understand before. " ..
          Well and besides - NOT ONLY “slippers” were thrown at me ....
          But here is the question: “If, for example,“ I ”- I CAN build an Aircraft Carrier, but you CAN’T, but you can build several SMALL ships that CAN this very“ Aircraft Carrier ”, well, if you DO NOT DROP, then at least WITHDRAW building ..... WHAT do you choose ???
          Sincerely, "venik" (aka Vladimir) ....
          1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 18: 28 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            An aircraft carrier, and you CAN’T, but you can build several SMALL ships that CAN this very "aircraft carrier", well, if you DO NOT Drown, then at least disable ... ..... WHAT do you choose ???


            Squadron Su-30SM.
            The submarine.
            Capitalize a couple of destroyers.
            Well, etc.
            1. venik 26 December 2019 19: 08 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Squadron Su-30SM.
              The submarine.
              Capitalize a couple of destroyers.
              Well, etc.

              ==========
              Alexander! Let's go to the PM!
              In fact, this is -OCH-H-CHEN INTERESTING !!! .... But there are - OBJECTIONS !!!
              1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 20: 21 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Write in a personal.
    3. igorka357 April 25 2019 13: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And I also thought about strategic nuclear submarines, but what, isn't it ..))?
  2. sen
    sen April 24 2019 05: 03 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Instead of ZRAK "Shell" is better than "Thor".
    1. donavi49 April 24 2019 08: 37 New
      • 17
      • 2
      +15
      Yes, immediately Polement-Redoubt wink . Which torus should be set?
      1) Normal marine? So it is not produced, it requires a separate installation of a separate antenna post.


      2) Or about that Thor - who was just working out mob actions with 11356? So it won’t take off either. This is still +/- normal on which container ship or com. But on a ship with a complex superstructure - the complex is blind in large sectors. Where the ship can be taken with your bare hands. As a result, you will have to either redo the entire architecture of the ship so that the Torah module is in the most open space, the surrounding add-ons are transparent. Or remodel Tor - disassembling it to the antenna post - which it should be brought to the mast and PU modules - where necessary, but taking into account the combination of location, etc., in general, rewrite the system to a specific location, plus adapt it to pitching. Plus a lot more, eventually a new ship’s air defense system will be released.
      1. Fedorov April 24 2019 09: 37 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        I see a man with his head hi They did not serve an hour in air defense.
      2. Alexey RA April 24 2019 14: 14 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: donavi49
        Or remodel Thor - disassembling it to the antenna post - which it should be brought to the mast and PU modules - wherever necessary, but taking into account the combination of location, etc., in general, rewrite the system to a specific location, plus adapt it to pitching.

        In general, once again it is necessary to make a marine "Dagger" from the army "Thor". smile
  3. Warrior MorePhoto April 24 2019 05: 21 New
    • 17
    • 6
    +11
    Quote: YOUR
    The fleet needs everything, but our focus is only on small ships.


    The emphasis is on dust in the eyes, but in fact there is not a single ship with missile defense.
    Aircraft carriers, helicopter carriers, to hell with them ... although wait, we occupy 1 place in oil production, 1 place in the world in gas export ... something is wrong here.
    1. spektr9 April 24 2019 05: 29 New
      • 18
      • 4
      +14
      although wait, we take 1st place in oil production, 1st place in the world in gas export ... something is wrong here.

      Well, we take the first places in the oligarchs, so that’s why wink
      1. ABM
        ABM 24 May 2019 22: 12 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        not we! in the United States 11,8 million millionaires, we have less than 0,2 million
    2. 5-9
      5-9 April 24 2019 15: 49 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Why do we need missile defense ships? Israel to protect from Iranian infantry Or vice versa?
    3. Lad
      Lad April 24 2019 16: 47 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Oil production is no longer the first place.
    4. igorka357 April 25 2019 13: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well, it’s not frail dust in the form of “Boreev” .. oh, a couple of “Ash” as well .. well, it’s not even dust at all .. it’s a haze ... About gas it’s possible, but where does infa come from about the first place in oil production then .. ))?
  4. jonht April 24 2019 05: 34 New
    • 19
    • 3
    +16
    An interesting article, but there are a few points, in my opinion, bypassed by the author.
    1. These ships (RTOs) still have the main objective of guarding the base of the fleet, but they do this not alone, but with diesel submarines and naval aviation and not only. Yes, I completely agree that the HAC is still needed and needed at least one RBU on these ships if the NK package is not pushed into the hull dimensions.
    2. To escort the landing and transport convoys, only RTOs are not viable for escort; these ships need at least a “leader”, a flagship with a full-fledged communication system, an overview of the air and underwater conditions, and ships of the class from frigate and above can probably claim this role (in our realities, corvettes will do as well).
    And RTOs at the European theater of war have another important point, they are easy to disperse across different bays and harbors during the menacing period. Tracking RTOs is much more difficult, organizing parking and supply on a little or not equipped place is easier, you can move more often, and actually masking is easier.
    I understand that with the help of RTOs, wars cannot be won, but they will not be useless if used correctly.
    1. venik April 24 2019 08: 51 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: jonht
      Yes, I completely agree that the HAC is still needed and needed at least one RBU on these ships if the NK package is not pushed into the hull dimensions.

      ======
      good Of course, it’s better to have a Package-NK (at least 2x2 TA) - this is much more effective! And RBU - also requires space .... Well, the stump is clear! We need an EAC (at least towed) and some sort of towed "rattle" ..... Well, the air defense (or, to be more precise, the ABM) must of course be strengthened! I mean those missile defense systems that are against ballistic missiles, and protection against anti-ship missiles (the main image is "air-based). Putting something" long-range "(like" Polement-Redoubt ") is pointless: there are too many aviation anti-ship missiles, with with a launch range of more than 120 km !!! So everything will have to be fought off from missiles, and not from carriers!
      That's just HOW all this "good" in the displacement of "Buyanov" or "Karakurt" stuffed ??? Obviously - it will not work !!! Something bigger is needed - maybe 1100 - 1200 tons of VI.
      And MRKs are NECESSARY and will be needed for a long time !! Too complicated geography in Russia! In each hole by frigate or BOD - you won’t cram it - it’ll be "unprofitable" !!! drinks
      1. jonht April 24 2019 10: 34 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Coastal air defense can be minimal if you have your own aviation. But at least a bad Huck is very necessary. hi
    2. Alexey RA April 24 2019 14: 20 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: jonht
      1. These ships (RTOs) still have the main objective of guarding the base of the fleet, but they do this not alone, but with diesel submarines and naval aviation and not only.

      The basis of the OVR is not MRK, but IPC. The same eggs, profile view: a small ship focusing on PLO + sufficient for self-defense of air defense.
      Quote: jonht
      And RTOs at the European theater of war have another important point, they are easy to disperse across different bays and harbors during the menacing period. Tracking RTOs is much more difficult, organizing parking and supply on a little or not equipped place is easier, you can move more often, and actually masking is easier.

      As the experience of Libya showed, RTOs are unmasked after the very first inclusion of the radar. As the Libyans did not try to disguise themselves among fishing vessels, but the RTR Yanks burned them the first time.
      1. jonht April 24 2019 14: 54 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        They (RTOs) have the opportunity to work on the targeting from the side, without turning on their radar.
  5. Warrior MorePhoto April 24 2019 05: 44 New
    • 10
    • 12
    -2
    Quote: spektr9
    although wait, we take 1st place in oil production, 1st place in the world in gas export ... something is wrong here.

    Well, we take the first places in the oligarchs, so that’s why wink


    Yeah, people still have tail and mane, and demography is not growing
    1. spektr9 April 24 2019 05: 47 New
      • 13
      • 3
      +10
      Yeah, people still have tail and mane, and demography is not growing

      Quietly, quietly, we don’t want to fly into you for 30000 rubles
      And there are precedents for less https://ria.ru/20190423/1552986172.html?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=desktop
      1. frolov andrey April 28 2019 22: 41 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        There will be more: artificial intelligence will identify and fine. Edros will provide the necessary acts. In general, everyone will be silent. The tension will increase and riot will draw. All power-holders indiscriminately will be taken from malice. In it is necessary (revolution) to the people - no, of course. Am I cool?
  6. Warrior MorePhoto April 24 2019 05: 51 New
    • 26
    • 2
    +24
    Quote: spektr9
    Yeah, people still have tail and mane, and demography is not growing

    Quietly, quietly, we don’t want to fly into you for 30000 rubles
    And there are precedents for less https://ria.ru/20190423/1552986172.html?utm_source=yxnews&utm_medium=desktop


    The deputy was beaten in silence so as not to fall under the law on insulting the authorities
    1. igorka357 April 25 2019 13: 46 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      You would both be blamed for articles on politics, the people are discussing specific models of technology, climbers got out of the stupa ...
  7. Sahalinets April 24 2019 05: 58 New
    • 20
    • 3
    +17
    Here you actually need to dance from the stove, i.e. from the priorities of national defense policy. And all the arguments of local authors usually come down to one thing - how would we destroy the US Navy and the fleets of all American allies at the same time. And this question has a very simple answer - NO!
    In principle, we do not have the resources to solve such problems. And that means setting realistic goals. Obviously, the only reliable means of defense against superior forces is nuclear weapons, which allows you to sleep peacefully even for the insignificant Kim Jong-un. Therefore, the fleet’s primary task is to ensure the stability of SSBNs and it is precisely this that will make it possible to exclude a NATO attack. So the fleet should initially be built specifically for this primary task, and the rest if possible. Well, for the reprisal against 404, there is enough of what is.
    1. Corn April 24 2019 09: 48 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Obviously, the only reliable means of defense against superior forces is nuclear weapons .... Therefore, the fleet's first task is to ensure the stability of SSBNs
      I suggest not bothering with all sorts of SSBNs, but simply burying somewhere in Siberia a thermonuclear charge of 1000+ gigatons of TNT equivalent wassat
      which allows you to sleep peacefully even the insignificant Kim Jong-un.
      Only 2 things save you:
      1) The mighty "brotherly" China
      2) There is nothing to take from him. This is not Iraq or Libya, the bourgeois invader from the occupation of the DPRK will receive nothing but a poor country and 25 million hungry mouths.
      In general, that is why the Kim dynasty kept well afloat until the receipt of atomic weapons. Yes, and Iran without how to cope somehow.
      1. Sahalinets April 24 2019 11: 58 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        It is a pity that they were not aware of your wisdom when they captured Afghanistan. Zero profit, one loss, and for 18 years ...


        Well, Iran is not so easy to defeat. the country is quite solid.
        1. Corn April 24 2019 12: 41 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          In Afghanistan, there is also nothing to capture, so they really did not even try.
          Well, Iran is not so easy to defeat. the country is quite solid.
          a poor, technically backward country that lasted far less than the Saddam of Iraq.
          1. Sahalinets April 24 2019 12: 44 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Yes, right now. This is 80 million people. Do you really think that the Americans will be able to take control of them? Iraq will seem to them paradise ...
            1. Corn April 24 2019 12: 53 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Sahalinets
              Do you really think that the Americans will be able to take control of them?

              No problem. The Americans have much longer bombs than people of any country.
              Iraq will seem to them paradise
              given the simply insignificant losses in the Iraq campaign, this war seemed paradise to them anyway.
              1. Dart2027 April 24 2019 19: 50 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Corn
                given the simply insignificant losses in the Iraq campaign

                Iraqi generals simply bought and the army did not really fight.
                1. igorka357 April 25 2019 13: 49 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  They will also buy Iranian ones, the East is such an East to itself, I would say frankly straightforward ..
                  1. Dart2027 April 25 2019 19: 12 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: igorka357
                    They will also buy Iranian

                    It still hasn’t succeeded, otherwise there would have been no Iran.
              2. CTABEP April 24 2019 20: 01 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Another question is whether the United States will now be able to assemble a millionth strike force, as was the case with Iraq? More precisely, how fast. And to defeat the Iranian army for NATO will not be a problem, but control of the territory after that is another matter.
            2. igorka357 April 25 2019 13: 49 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And they need it, they’ll break the Iranian armed forces from the air, nuclear power plants or whatever they have, a couple of generals will be slapped .. and the end to Iran .. What makes you think that the Americans completely controlled the population of Iraq or Afghanistan ..?
              1. meandr51 April 25 2019 23: 59 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                And so far, neither the DPRK nor Iran has been defeated? From peacefulness?
        2. Nemchinov Vl April 28 2019 12: 43 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Sahalinets
          It is a pity that they were not aware of your wisdom when they captured Afghanistan. Zero profit, one loss, and for 18 years ...


          Control over the territories of Afghanistan, presumably, gives control over 35-45% of world drug trafficking, otherwise it would not be of interest either to England earlier (and many times) or to the USSR (and a significant increase in drug addiction in our country began during the time of the Afghan Company, and a little later aggravated by Gorbachevsky "dry law"), nor subsequently the United States. So, about "... zero profit, some losses ...", you most likely, without thinking, wrote. Not so stupid Americans, what would the money "throw nothing" ?!
  8. Storekeeper April 24 2019 06: 12 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Interesting, informative and in my land opinion is very professional. good
    But Alexander, you have not finished a series of articles about the "Ho Chi Minh Trail" waiting for the third part with a description of ground operations!
    1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 11: 59 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Soon! Wait a few more days.
  9. wooja April 24 2019 06: 17 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    yes they are needed, but I am afraid of the admiral kooky .....
  10. bald April 24 2019 06: 26 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    And then here to argue, RTOs are indisputably needed, but we are pulling with modernizations, until "retirement". We need new, mobile, with the latest weapons. No one has such a length, both external and internal maritime borders.
  11. Nix1986 April 24 2019 06: 32 New
    • 4
    • 4
    0
    Key to us - RTOs are cheap. This overrides the remaining disadvantages.
    1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 11: 59 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      They cannot withstand the threats that now exist.
      1. Nix1986 April 24 2019 18: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The argument is reasonable, but what can we do, over the past 15 years, how many destroyers have been commissioned ?! And how many do they need for all of our maritime theaters? And they need to be renewed not after 5 years, but now, but the grandmothers, the yacht fleet surrounded by the GDP and KO must also be updated. Therefore, it turns out that one thing is necessary, and taking into account all the restrictions, it is enough only for another.
        1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 20: 03 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          By the end of 2022, the number of built corvettes of only the 20380 project (in all its variants) will be equal to 10, plus a pair of 20385.

          For Vietnamese built 4 pcs. 11661E.

          This is in recent years.

          In fact, a diesel corvette on the 11661 body could be built right now - there is everything for it.
          1. Nemchinov Vl April 24 2019 23: 18 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            In fact, a diesel corvette on the 11661E body could be built right now - there is everything for this

            and immediately at least by the forces of two plants (Zelenodolsk and the Gulf rented by it) !!! and there is also the "Sea" in Feodosia side by side (third).
            1. timokhin-aa April 25 2019 14: 25 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Yes, everyone can, this is not a Proton rocket. Simple ship, simple design.
  12. Archon April 24 2019 06: 51 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    the percentage of people in society with personal data that allows them to become ship commanders is finite

    there are people. imperfect system of career guidance and search for useful people. often there are such people, but the conditions do not allow them to realize their potential,
    1. Nestorych April 27 2019 16: 10 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Because scrambling up the insignificance, by all means protecting the chosen heights, no one is interested in finding competent and talented people, they are perceived as a threat to their well-being.
  13. ss-n-22 April 24 2019 07: 50 New
    • 7
    • 4
    +3
    An amazing passion to shove calibers wherever it succeeds and fails. Shoot a subsonic missile at a sea target at 500 + km, even stingy Americans outwitted.
    1. jonht April 24 2019 10: 39 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      RCC based on Kolibra in the final section of the fly with 3M speed, and at a distance of up to 500 km, and not 1500-2500.
      1. ss-n-22 April 24 2019 11: 33 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        "End Site" is a key phrase. This very final section is not explicitly registered, and for the long-known 3M82, for example, in the documentation, apart from the relative trajectory, there is nothing about the exact meters-kilometers of this very final section. It can be both the line of sight and the range when the GOS captured the target, etc. etc. This means that on the marching section of 400 + km the rocket goes at subsonic speed, and this is at least very self-confident for firing at a sea target.
        1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 12: 00 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Not really. When dialing less EPR due to the lack of the front of the jump, which collects a water "shield" of moisture in the air.
          1. ss-n-22 April 24 2019 12: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Even with supersonic fire, anti-ship missiles are fired at a predetermined target location. The lead place of the target becomes obsolete very rapidly. The search for the GOS of the rocket itself does not begin on the march, but almost 30 kilometers from the target in order to mask the rocket, and is conducted in a limited sector. A subsonic missile under our target designation conditions, when the combat use of the P-700 is already in question - how is this to be understood? And about EPR - I saw on ECO the start of 3m82 (P-105), on radar 956 of the Frigate project. The target was lost 15 km from the ship, no shield of moisture at crazy speeds "Mosquito"
            1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 12: 55 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              The caliber hits in the limit on the 375 km in my opinion, and taking into account the use in the real world with civilians, and problems in the control center, I think about a hundred kilometers will be at best.

              From this it follows that the goal will not have time to go far and will fall into the search sector of the GOS.

              On
              The target was lost on 15 km from the ship,


              First of all, the matter is that it was the initial section, accelerators just flew away there, the speed set was not completed by that moment, and secondly

              on the 956 radar of the Fregat project
              1. Dart2027 April 24 2019 19: 51 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Caliber hits in the limit of 375 km in my opinion

                There were tests on which the target was hit at such a distance, but how much it hits is actually not mentioned anywhere.
    2. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 12: 56 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      No one will fire on 500 or 200 km. An example - Americans in theory can let Spear on about 200 km, but used with 40 at best.
      1. ss-n-22 April 24 2019 13: 04 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        This is a bad example. "Harpoon" is a complex of exclusively self-defense; it does not have the task of breaking through the AUG air defense. But we have no such tasks and the further from the warrant with its air defense, the better. Americans have no one to shoot today. They do not consider us as an adversary for naval combat. The sea variation of the tomahawk has been discontinued, the new LRASM is either supersonic or subsonic - no one knows for sure except the wise wikipedia.
        1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 13: 14 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Well, the Americans wanted to solve the problem of the Soviet CUG air defense breakthrough.
          Regarding our tasks, I don’t believe that it is possible to take and crack the AUG defense in one or two attacks.
          LRASM is already in service in the 28-m air wing of the Air Force and it is subsonic.
          1. ss-n-22 April 24 2019 13: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            "Soviet KUG" is when the basis of the Osa-MA air defense system, at best, Fort and, in some places, Hurricane
            ("Storm", "Wave" and other antiquities do not even want to remember)
            For a “wasp”, a harpoon and without supersonic weapons are at the limit of possibilities, have a single-channel target, so in the version of using harpoons the second wave after PRS is quite operational in those days. With aircraft carriers, of course.
            1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 13: 40 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              With aircraft carriers, of course.

              I think that now it will also work out, only it will not have to be packed in one sortie, but in 4-5. The same harpoons. Take out the BOD, then reheat the torpedoes left from the PLA.
  14. K-50 April 24 2019 08: 21 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    the three “Karakurt” will easily sink the “Ticonderoga”, but who will put the “Ticonderoga” under their blow? The answer is no one. And what if they run into an enemy submarine? Speed ​​will not save them, torpedoes are faster, ships devoid of sonar can’t take measures to evade torpedoes. Namely, the enemy’s submarines will be the first in our near sea zone. The MRK group will not be able to repulse the massive strike of large aviation forces. Namely, aviation will be the next threat after submarines.

    Actually, an attack on a warship is the essence of a declaration of war. After that, a missile strike is launched on the territory of the enemy and its military bases, ports and airfields. Nuclear or not depends on the enemy, well, or how the "chip" will fall.
    All. the rest who survive will envy the dead. yes sad
    1. igorka357 April 25 2019 13: 55 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Attack on a warship ..))) But ships, in principle, are not non-combat ..))
  15. rudolff April 24 2019 08: 36 New
    • 15
    • 1
    +14
    For several years now I have been writing here on the site that the construction of a large series of RTOs is a mistake. Such specialized ships can be afforded only by very rich states, which have everything in order with the fleet or the poor, who simply cannot build anything else. For Russia, the presence of RTOs is justified only in the Caspian Sea, and even then ... maybe instead of a pair of Buyanov one Cheetah should have?
    Imagine yourself in the place of the commander of the KChF. How can he neutralize threats from water, from under water and from the air having such a zoo? Buyans, Karakurt, Patrol ..? No way. All hope is only for three frigates, six submarines and those old people of Soviet construction, which are still able to dump off the pier, primarily the IPC.
    The modernization that Timokhin offers is actually a desire to pull these very RTOs to the level of light corvettes, although in the mind these very corvettes needed to be built from the very beginning. Even Cheetahs at first.
    I don’t know why it happened. Perhaps the thought came up to someone upstairs that if the territories of a state hostile to us would be threatened by the Caliber, it would not dare to take any other aggressive actions either on water, or under water, or in the air. In other words, RTOs are a means of non-nuclear deterrence. This is a very strong fallacy. Or maybe sheer stupidity.
    The most offensive is that in our stupidities we love to persist. In continuation of Buyanov went Karakurt, and then patrol, whose mission is generally difficult to comprehend.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Ivanchester April 24 2019 10: 07 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Even Cheetahs at first.

      As I understand it, gas turbines are needed for the production of the Cheetah gas turbines, which Ukraine does not supply to us now.
      So the same problems would arise with them as with 22350 and 11356.
      Or am I wrong?
      1. rudolff April 24 2019 10: 27 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Right At first with Kolomenskoye diesels. Although this will require a design change.
        1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 12: 06 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          It seems there is such a project. They threw out the number to me, but I cannot check for obvious reasons.
      2. Nemchinov Vl April 25 2019 00: 13 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: Ivanchester
        Even Cheetahs at first.

        As I understand it, gas turbines are needed for the production of the Cheetah gas turbines, which Ukraine does not supply to us now.
        So the same problems would arise with them as with 22350 and 11356.
        Or am I wrong?


        Now with GEM for 22350just the problems have already been practically solved (the main problem is the low assembly speed of the Zvezda-Reduktor gearboxes, and the M90FR gas turbine engine and diesel engine are almost no problem). Those. for the normal production of DGTA M55R units: almost everything is already there. It remains to establish a rhythmic release of gearboxes.

        Quote: rudolff
        Right At first with Kolomenskoye diesels. Although this will require a design change.


        As for the GEM for the Cheetahs - 11661-E, so there currently God himself ordered the use of the DDA-12000 power plant, (which they had been polished for a long time on 20380 and 20385, replacing it, which was planned, from the German dv. MTU). And now we look carefully, - (http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-438.html). Oh miracle ... in the descriptions of the possible propulsion system options for the Cheetahs, in paragraphs 3-5, from 2011 it was planned (i.e. options were worked out) also the use of German MTU diesels ?! Once in the future, on the corvette 20385, which failed due to sanctions, the German diesel engine MTU succeeded in replacing the domestic DD-12000 (from Kolomensky engines), which prevents Zelenodoltsy from doing this on "their Cheetahs" (своих because like their project. Zelenodolsky)?!
        And most importantly, 11661-E is much better balanced for anti-aircraft defense in the BMZ in terms of its composition of armaments than 20380/20385 and will be much cheaper.
    3. Nastia makarova April 24 2019 10: 43 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      we are a poor country, therefore only MRK, and we will fight only with countries of Africa such as Ukraine, without submarines and everything else, we will never get parity at sea with America, it’s not even worth spending money
      1. rudolff April 24 2019 10: 59 New
        • 11
        • 0
        +11
        In order to have parity with the Americans, we need to have GDP growth comparable with the Chinese or Indians. And our GDP growth does not even reach the global average. And this means degradation and the road to third world countries.
        1. Nastia makarova April 24 2019 11: 50 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          I completely agree, so at least something is being built, it’s already good
      2. Serg65 April 24 2019 11: 59 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Nastia Makarova
        never get sea parity with america

        And he, madam, why? ..... I'm wildly sorry
        1. Nastia makarova April 24 2019 15: 45 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          An interesting site, an interesting topic of weapons
          1. Serg65 April 25 2019 06: 37 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            My soul, I asked about parity and your desire to get it hi
            1. Nastia makarova April 25 2019 11: 33 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              I do not like American politics, I want to shut up, but the country itself is not bad
              1. meandr51 April 26 2019 00: 09 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Parity is optional for containment. But the DPRK is quite able to keep the United States at a distance with much greater “poverty”. There are asymmetric answers.
    4. Serg65 April 24 2019 11: 47 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      hi Greetings buddy!
      Quote: rudolff
      the construction of a large series of RTOs, this is a mistake

      Rudolph, I won’t tear the vest for RTOs, but I will try to outline this problem.
      The appearance in the ranks of the Navy of both the USSR and the Russian Federation of these ships has an ode to the same history, namely the inability of the military-industrial complex to saturate the fleet with URA ships of higher ranks. RTOs are a real opportunity to quickly, quantitatively and cheaply get an offshore platform armed with cruise missiles. Those. here and now get at least a small but a URO ship, thereby at least somehow patch a hole that arose due to the absence of missile ships at all.
      Quote: rudolff
      Imagine yourself in the place of the commander of KChF

      OK, let's try!
      Quote: rudolff
      All hope only for three frigates, six submarines

      Let's take for example a threatened period. NATO ships entered the Black Sea as part of, say, um. like Arly Burke, a pair of Italian-French frigates like Horizon, and 4 Turkish Anzac and 6 Turkish Perry. NATO Air Forces appear at the airfields of Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, DGD San ​​Diego, San Antonio with a couple of three Burkovs are on a friendly visit in Gölcuk (Turkish naval base), and how is the fleet in this situation? having 3 Petrel and 6 Varshavyanka available?
      In this case, 3 Buyan and 6 of the planned Karakurt (in one salvo of the 72 Caliber), I think, are a good help to the Petrels and Warsaw!
      Quote: rudolff
      RTOs are a means of non-nuclear deterrence. This is a very strong fallacy. Or maybe sheer stupidity.

      Rudolph, it’s not a matter of stupidity, the military-industrial complex could, well, for example, in 10 years, saturate the fleet with frigates, they didn’t bother with these RTOs!
      1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 12: 09 New
        • 6
        • 1
        +5
        Let's take, for example, a threatened period. NATO ships entered the Black Sea in, say, uh. like "Arly Burke", a pair of Italian-French frigates such as "Horizon", and of course Turkish Anzac and Turkish 4 Perry.


        During the threatened period, they will come out from there, Sergey, and will not appear until the aircraft and submarines melt the Black Sea Fleet and until aviation seizes dominance in the air over the entire Black Sea and coastal regions of the Russian Federation.

        Here then there and on water will come, and with absolutely other forces, rather than that you describe.

        And shooting at the Crimean airfields Burke can also come from the Mediterranean, for this you don’t need to enter the Black Sea.
        1. Serg65 April 24 2019 12: 46 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          In a threatened period, they will leave

          Maybe so, maybe not
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          will not appear until aviation and submarines melt the Black Sea Fleet and until aviation seizes air supremacy over the entire Black Sea and coastal regions of the Russian Federation.

          Quote: Serg65
          At the airfields of Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, NATO Air Force appear, In Gölcuk (GVMB Turkey) on a friendly visit are the DDT "San Diego", "San Antonio" with a pair of three "Burkov"

          288 Tomagovkov from the Sea of ​​Marmara will cover Kuban airfields and BRK positions in an hour. 96 Tomogavkov from the coast of Bulgaria will carry out part of the airfields and air defense of the Crimea during the flight time 30 minutes, which will allow the NATO Air Force to join the Bulgarian, Romanian, Moldavian and Ukrainian airfields. By this time, your Mediterranean Tomogawks are also suitable.
          How do you like this Sasha?
          1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 13: 06 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Maybe so, maybe not


            No, Sergey, can not. Because otherwise they may thin out a little, and they know it. Therefore, as an idea, RTOs have become outdated - the enemy has adapted to the fact that one mosquito can arrange for them something like a battle at Kuantan, only without airplanes.

            And now it is not done.

            288 Tomagovkov from the Sea of ​​Marmara will cover Kuban airfields and BRK positions in an hour. 96 Tomogavkov from the coast of Bulgaria will carry out part of the airfields and air defense of the Crimea during the flight time 30 minutes, which will allow the NATO Air Force to join the Bulgarian, Romanian, Moldavian and Ukrainian airfields. By this time, your Mediterranean Tomogawks are also suitable.
            How do you like this Sasha?


            With the amendment that the Tomahawks will be more and they will be “helped” by all sorts of JASSM-ER, something like this will be and it is from other water areas than the Black Sea.

            And in the Black Sea at this moment they will have nothing to do, absolutely.
            1. Serg65 April 24 2019 13: 39 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              No, Sergey, it cannot.

              The Poles, too, agreed with your opinion while glancing at the Schleswig-Holstein training ship, and what came of it?
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              they can thin out slightly

              Of course they can, Burke can sink to the bottom anyway, but it's not for nothing that I added to Burke
              Quote: Serg65
              a pair of Italian-French Horizon-type frigates, well, 4 Turkish Anzac and 6 Turkish Perry.

              Moreover, the right of the first volley will still be for the enemy, but whoever shoots the first, that and slippers!
              1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 13: 42 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                You stubbornly want to substitute the enemy under the hammer in a situation for which RTOs are created - gun tracking, when the enemy launches an instant missile attack.

                Well, now put yourself in the place of the enemy. Would you really act like that?
                1. Serg65 April 24 2019 14: 02 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  in a situation for which RTOs are created - weapon tracking

                  Well, in the first ISCs were not created for tracking weapons! And in general, from where did you draw this nonsense?
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  when the enemy launches missiles, an immediate all-money attack

                  Whoever has time will pay for the banquet!
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Now put yourself in the enemy’s place

                  I have been in this situation more than once, and it was precisely when tracking weapons at the range of the radio horizon!
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Would you really act like that?

                  Alexander, the closer the Tomahawks launchers are to your house, the faster they will fly into your window! An hour and a half will fly from the Mediterranean, and this is TIME, and time is money .... in our case, life. In addition, the Armavir and Sevastopol Voronezh will detect these launches immediately!
                  1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 14: 07 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Well, in the first ISCs were not created for tracking weapons! And in general, from where did you draw this nonsense?


                    From there, for what they really use. Including those who right now serve them and / or command them.

                    And yes -
                    and more than once and precisely when tracking weapons at the range of the radio horizon!

                    laughing

                    Alexander, the closer the Tomahavkov launchers to your home, the faster they will fly into your window! From the Middle Crimson of the Kyrgyz Republic will fly an hour, and this is TIME, and time is money .... in our case, life.


                    And from the Black Sea, they generally can not fly.
                    1. Serg65 April 24 2019 14: 11 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      Including those who right now serve and / or command them.

                      Then what is “gun tracking” in your understanding?
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      And from the Black Sea, they generally can not fly.

                      Religion will not allow? Or do you first want to start 3-th world?
                      1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 14: 50 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Then what is “gun tracking” in your understanding?


                        In my understanding - observation of enemy ships at sea, with the continuous determination of their current coordinates and parameters (elements) of movement with readiness for the immediate use of weapons on them.

                        Of course, you can get to the bottom of such a formulation, but did you ask about my understanding?

                        Religion will not allow? Or do you first want to start 3-th world?


                        This is Mk.41 missile launches 1 rocket in two seconds, and Tomahawk - one at a time in 15.

                        They went first, well, we all went right away.
            2. rudolff April 24 2019 13: 51 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              I agree with Alexander. To drive ships into the bottle of the Black Sea and to establish a naval battle is pointless.
              1. Serg65 April 24 2019 14: 23 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Quote: rudolff
                I agree with Alexander

                what And I, my friend, do not agree! Because these ships are already in the Black Sea and almost on an ongoing basis! And with this you need to either measure yourself or decide what to do. But you, Rudolph, understand that they didn’t come to the Black Sea shores for mamaliga and Ukrainian lard! The NATO ships from 49 began to be visited in the Black Sea, while our kipish started from Bulgaria to Poti, now only Russia’s territory is at our disposal, and everything else is ENEMY!
                Quote: rudolff
                Drive ships into the Black Sea bottle

                Rudolph, and driving entire fleets into the Mediterranean Sea is not meaningless? In the 80's in the Mediterranean warrior was teeming like trawlers on Putin and no one was wondering pointlessly or not pointless, the party ordered the Komsomol replied there!
                1. rudolff April 24 2019 15: 19 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  They will nevertheless try to shoot tomahawks themselves, not exposing themselves to attack. For example, from Marble. From Cherny, only as an exception and from a relatively safe position. From the mooring walls and under the cover of some sort of bulk carriers in Odessa, Nikolaev, Konstanz, Poti. No one will expose their ships to attack by DBK or NK. The current visits of the Berks are more worrying. Even Putin once remarked, while at his residence in Sochi, that "we are now in the strike zone of the Americans of the Kyrgyz Republic." It is unpleasant.
          2. 5-9
            5-9 April 24 2019 15: 54 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            What will they cover there? After all, it is known that 1 KR should be allowed into 33 Syrian barn, only then will there be any sense. And you are airfields ...
        2. Xscorpion April 24 2019 12: 52 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Why did everyone decide that modern RTOs should fight ships? Their task will be to launch a missile strike at NATO bases from their territory. From the same Caspian Sea or from territorial waters or even internal waters under the guise of its air defense and anti-aircraft defense. bases in the Black Sea basin or the Baltic? Or in the Far East? Are there no NATO bases in Iraq or Afghanistan, where will the enemy planes start from? Even in the North, when firing from their territories there will be targets for the Caliber. And about the placement of the Caliber on the land chassis. For the first time, the United States has simply suspended the treaty in order to make concessions from the Russian Federation, and they want to include China, so they are pondering. And secondly, I’m sure that work is underway to create such a ground-based OTRK. It’s just possible that the USA will return tomorrow, and such ground systems will have to be removed from service.
          1. Serg65 April 24 2019 12: 55 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: Xscorpion
            Their task will be to launch a missile strike at NATO bases from their territory

            Most likely this is their main task.
            good
          2. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 13: 06 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Their task will be to launch a missile attack on the NATO bases from their own territory. From the same Caspian Sea or from territorial waters or even inland waters under the cover of its air defense and anti-aircraft defense systems.


            Thanks to Trump this can be done soon from the ground. With KAMAZ chassis.
            1. Xscorpion April 24 2019 13: 21 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              I already wrote that this is not a fact. No one has come out of the agreement. And most likely it will not. They just get their price and want to include China. After 4 months, when the term given by Trump expires, with a probability of 90 percent of it work will resume.
              1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 13: 36 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Even in this case, it is more rational to have UCSS on ships of different classes and submarines. It will be possible to do the same without highly specialized RTOs.
                1. Xscorpion April 24 2019 13: 56 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  This is done here, they install it on almost all ships. And maybe even Boreas will do it under the Kyrgyz Republic, and new frigates / corvettes will be built and submarines, and Nakhimov will be modernized for Caliber. And RTOs will certainly not be superfluous. They are built much faster than corvettes / frigates. And they’re very toothy. We just saturate our fleet with KR carriers, by analogy with the United States. I personally understand the concept of building a fleet. Without leaving the house, deliver hundreds of cruise missiles from all directions. There are enough targets at hand, but YRSs and Bulav for all purposes, it’s not enough if something happens. Yes, and in the event of local conflicts, such ships will come in handy, not only with the United States there may be a conflict with Ukraine, there may be problems and several dozens of missiles on hand will not hinder. In any case, there may be a conflict time. And it’s better to have a few extra rocket launchers on hand now, than after five or ten years, when frigates will be completed and TAKRs will be modernized.
                  1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 14: 04 New
                    • 7
                    • 0
                    +7
                    We just have an extremely urgent task for the BMZ PLO, and if we send the money, we will have to send it to the mine support. These tasks are much more important, especially when you consider that the PLO corvette may also have a UCMS.
                    And antisubmarine aircraft is more important than IRAs, for example.

                    Well, we have no money for a vulnerable one-time ship for one or two tasks.
                2. Serg65 April 24 2019 14: 06 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Can do

                  This is a key phrase! I say again ... the saturation of the fleet with missile corvettes and frigates will complete the history of the RTOs! As they say in the Navy ... in bezba..e and MRK-blonde!
            2. Serg65 April 24 2019 13: 41 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              it can be done soon from the ground. From the KAMAZ chassis.

              This is a grandmother for two said, the Americans have not yet withdrawn from the treaty and they are not as stupid as some of them represent.
              1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 13: 57 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Well, let us have UKSK on all warships, plus submarines, here are your carriers. And it will be little - to put container PU on amphibious boats.
          3. Alexey RA April 24 2019 14: 35 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: Xscorpion
            Why did everyone decide that modern RTOs should fight ships? Their task will be to launch a missile strike at NATO bases from their territory.

            But why build an RTO for this, if the same task is being solved by the army mobile missile launchers of the KRNB - which are much cheaper and less noticeable? Moreover, there are already PUs under these CDs.
            There is no longer an agreement on the INF Treaty, so there is no need to build naval "caliber carriers" - instead, they need to equip army RBRs.
            1. Xscorpion April 24 2019 15: 56 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The contract is still valid. None of it came out. We just suspended it for half a year. It just means that there will be no inspections at this time. After four months, the contract will also be fully operational. on his part, a lot of words, little work. And we, it’s not profitable for them, to withdraw from the contract. They are well aware that the very next day our Iskanders will be able to magically shoot a couple of thousand kilometers, and we perfectly understand that on Americans still have hundreds of Griffins that can be placed in Europe and Japan in a short time, and which can carry special warheads.
      2. rudolff April 24 2019 13: 45 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        Hello Serge! Do I really want a lot? Just corvettes. Not frigates, not destroyers or cruisers, just corvettes! In one and a half or two thousand tons. And even if the problem is a corvette for us, maybe then it’s time to change the sea doctrine and face it? Are we an ocean power? Are we even a sea power? Are we able to have a fleet?
        I have not completely lost hope, and I believe that most of our naval problems are crooked. We could and can build corvettes and their absence, this is the result of cabinet-based fiddling around, not the lack of defense industry capabilities.
        1. Serg65 April 24 2019 14: 39 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: rudolff
          Do I really want a lot?

          Exactly what I want!
          Quote: rudolff
          this is the result of cabinet-based fidgeting, not the lack of defense industry capabilities.

          Tell me, put your hand on my heart, if there hadn’t been a scam with Toshiba, would your “animals” be born? And if they hadn’t appeared, could it have been said that this is not the military-industrial complex, this is cabinet hacking?
          Quote: rudolff
          I believe that most of our naval problems are crooked

          So I do not have illusions about geniuses with spiders on shoulder straps, but one thing is curvature (which, to be honest, is often overlooked), and another thing is the production of sisalman ends (figuratively speaking) lost. And these production should be started from scratch. Yesterday, the laying of frigates for me personally said that most of the production problems have been solved! Therefore to your sore questions
          Quote: rudolff
          Are we an ocean power? Are we even a sea power? Are we able to have a fleet?

          I, my friend, will answer Russia, both ocean and sea power. And we are able to have a fleet!
          Everything will be fine, Rudolph, if of course we succeed in revolutionary movements within the country, and if we do not succeed, then in 10-15 years we will start all over again laughing
          1. rudolff April 24 2019 15: 25 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Serge, but at least we could do Cheetahs?
    5. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 12: 12 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The modernization that Timokhin proposes is actually a wish to tighten these very MRKs to the level of light corvettes, although according to the mind these very corvettes should have been built from the very beginning.


      Well, the corvette from my bell tower should still have some anti-submarine capabilities, but I just want to provide them with some kind of survival, plus for the “Gadfly” to give the opportunity to strike the coast so that instead of one task they could carry out two. And that's it.
      1. rudolff April 24 2019 13: 53 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        I agree.
    6. alexmach April 25 2019 00: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      What is your opinion on the 20380? Will they be able to occupy the IPC niche, or is too small a series too expensive, or not armament?
      1. rudolff April 25 2019 08: 29 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Corvettes are actually designed to solve including the problems of PLO. But you are right, they are expensive and too small a series. But we do not have large series. There would have been more of them if the funds had not been sprayed onto MRCs, Patrol, yacht-shaped communication ships, etc. Price due to their versatility and technical saturation. A cheaper alternative is Cheetahs. Here they could really occupy the IPC niche.
  16. voyaka uh April 24 2019 09: 24 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    In the coastal zone, RTOs will remain relevant.
    After all, they are protected from enemy aircraft by their fighters from the shore.
    And putting EW funds on them is no problem.
    Long-range missiles put on them does not make much sense after
    termination of the agreement on the BRDS. But RCC is still a great solution.
    1. Ivanchester April 24 2019 11: 47 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      But PKR is still an excellent solution.


      But the question remains with target designation for their use ...
      But this is a common problem of all domestic rocket ships.
    2. Serg65 April 24 2019 12: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Long-range missiles put on them does not make much sense after
      termination of the agreement

      From what?
      1. voyaka uh April 24 2019 12: 11 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        From the fact that long-range missiles of the Kyrgyz Republic Caliber is not enough at all:
        destroyers / frigates, nuclear submarines, ground
        launchers (previously prohibited by the contract).
        Someone will be left with empty (or semi-empty launchers).
        Missiles are very expensive, more expensive than ballistic missiles.
        1. Serg65 April 24 2019 12: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          From the fact that long-range missiles are not enough at all

          Gauges in the event of a mess will have value only in the first salvo! You will not be able to recharge in the database.
    3. Xscorpion April 24 2019 16: 04 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Once again) The contract is valid in its entirety, with the exception of mutual inspections. For six months it was suspended altogether. And it will continue to operate with a XNUMX% guarantee. If it is announced at the end of the summer that it will be better to place the Kyrgyz Republic on the ground, not on the MRK.
  17. Vladimir1155 April 24 2019 09: 24 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    where does respected Alexander get information about the low Alexandrovsky bridge (where is it?) and the impassability of the volgobalt for the Buyans? But how was Buyan M transferred to the Baltic from the Caspian? Of course, after exiting from the DFSM, it is necessary to stop the construction of RTOs, and focus on minesweepers and IPC. In my vision, surface ships are generally outdated and for a long time since 1905, RTOs are a small stripped-down frigate, the convoy, patrol functions should be performed by the triple RTOs MPK and a small air defense ship, the main advantage is the ability to transfer GDP. but it’s better to build submarines and coastal aviation.
    1. rudolff April 24 2019 09: 49 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      RTOs Serpukhov and Zeleny Dol, accompanied by a tugboat, were hopping for the Baltic from the Black around Europe.
    2. rudolff April 24 2019 10: 19 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Do you propose to build as many as three underships in return for one full-fledged one? You live richly!
      GDP? What if winter is on the nose? Will you wait for spring navigation? Counting on the fact that the enemy is a complete idiot and would not guess to collapse a couple of bridges, a little hacking down the gateways, which barge to drown on the fairway?
      1. Ivanchester April 24 2019 11: 44 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Offer to build as much as three nedorablya instead of one full?

        If I correctly understood Vladimir 1155, then he, too, speaks of the meaninglessness of RTOs, since to accompany him, two more ships are needed (air defense and air defense).
        Those. his point of view generally coincides with your wink
    3. The comment was deleted.
      1. Alexey RA April 24 2019 14: 42 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        You can go if the radar is removed.

        And "Buyany-M" so on the Volga and spend:
        1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 19: 04 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          And now in the winter under the bombs.)))
          1. max702 April 29 2019 23: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            And now in the winter under the bombs.)))

            And where will the bombs come from? What kind of opponent is this?
  18. AAK
    AAK April 24 2019 09: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I agree with the author that the optimal TMD for RTOs (where their capabilities can be realized, including taking into account the proposed modernization) is the Baltic, Buyan and Bykov only to the Caspian, for other fleets in the niche small displacement ships - corvettes and IPC
    1. rudolff April 24 2019 10: 11 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Just for the Baltic, a powerful grouping of full-fledged corvettes is needed, there you can’t solve anything with these surrogates. In the case of a large hedgehog, everything will be crawling there on water, and under water and in the air. Especially in the air.
  19. Corn April 24 2019 10: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Bravissimo.
    Comrade Timokhin, have you recently stoked for RTOs and how they are needed?
    If you recall the rules by which the Americans increased their naval power under Reagan
    Under Reagan, there simply was no other way for the fleet to grow further. New ships were already baked like hotcakes, and the monstrous military budget was enough for everything. For Russia, this experience is simply not applicable. If we recall the rules by which the Americans increased their naval power under Reagan, it is clear that there can be no question of writing off new and at least relatively combat-ready ships.
    We need a lot of warships, at least some.
    these "many utterly useless warships," with negative combat value (this is not the case with the new RTOs), are devouring limited funds and resources that would be more rational to spend on building something useful.
    1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 12: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Comrade Timokhin, have you recently stoked for RTOs and how they are needed?


      No, not me.
      1. Corn April 24 2019 12: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        So I misunderstood something before hi
  20. tchoni April 24 2019 10: 26 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    What can I say? RTO of the Karakurt project is a patch on the pants of our Navy (patched instead of frigates). Like any patch, it does not replace new pants. The whole deep philosophical sense of building these ships is to be able to quickly build up the shock capabilities of the naval group. And not only in the middle-earth, but in general. Those. to consider such an RTO as an independent combat unit is, to put it mildly, wrong. Even a group of such ships should not be considered as an independent combat unit. But a group of two MRK 22800 + frigate - you can already
    Moreover, this group gets quite solid both shock capabilities and quite good air defense capabilities, with satisfactory anti-aircraft defense. In this case, do not forget that the enemy will attack three goals, instead of one. And given that the frigate’s price can be built from 4 to 10 RTOs (In different sources, the cost of building frigates and RTOs differ, it’s just impossible to say more precisely) the choice is obvious.
    The modernizations proposed by the author with the installation of anti-submarine weapons, serious air defense and other atrebuts of the universal ship will simply reduce the idea of ​​releasing frigate class ships. And, if we develop the topic, and take into account the fact that the shock capabilities of the frigate even of project 22350 are clearly insufficient, then we come to the need to build destroyers in commodity quantities a la arly-berk. And we have neither money, nor technology, nor production capacities for this. Something like this)
    1. rudolff April 24 2019 10: 52 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      "... will reduce the idea to the release of frigate class ships." Why jump over the corvette? To the corvette, yes, they will. Universal warship near sea zone with balanced weapons in the lowest possible displacement. Project 20385 has already been completed, at first it is possible to think about the Cheetah.
      Project 22350 is very good. Normal frigate of the far sea zone.
      Actually, these two projects should become the main projects of the Navy for the foreseeable future. The destroyer is too tough for us and chasing the Americans is pointless.
      1. tchoni April 24 2019 11: 57 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: rudolff
        Why jump over the corvette? To the corvette, yes, they will.

        What for? More precisely, why build a separate ship for the near sea zone? Because of cheapness? - very doubtful. Corvette and frigate in this case, exaggerated, differ in the size of tanks and cellars for provisions. Those. displacement. The price of the hull is not so decisive, the cost of equipment and weapons is decisive, but it turns out the same as that of a corvette, as that of a frigate. Save a penny - lose the ruble? somehow wrong ... Because of the simplicity of the design - so again here the whole composition of equipment and weapons determines, not displacement.
        If we insist on the corvette class, then we need to betray it some special meaning. Say - a corvette is a ship of air defense and anti-aircraft defense, regardless of the zone. And it’s not a near frigate)
      2. tchoni April 24 2019 12: 17 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: rudolff
        Project 22350 is very good. Normal frigate of the far sea zone.

        I absolutely agree, but the appearance of the project with the letter "m" indicates that its shock capabilities are not satisfied. And the letter m is almost a destroyer.
        1. rudolff April 24 2019 13: 59 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Satisfied. It’s just that the Leader will probably remain on paper, so they are trying to pull the frigate into the ocean zone.
          1. tchoni April 24 2019 15: 35 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            Do you seriously think that 16 cruise missiles can be considered serious strike capabilities? Personally, I do not agree with you. Even if they all hit the target and not one was shot down - this is just the equivalent of 16 500 kg caliber bombs. Scary, but not deadly. As one fighter-bomber bombed.
            1. rudolff April 24 2019 15: 54 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              But no longer eight, as in the admiral series for KChF. Plus advanced air defense. Although, I will not argue, doubling launchers under the Kyrgyz Republic seems to be asking for itself. We make a discount that this is still a frigate.
      3. Serg65 April 24 2019 12: 18 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: rudolff
        Why jump over the corvette?

        So just the turn came to 20385, it’s not a bad corvette — which, it seems to me, will cancel the class of RTOs in the future.
        1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 13: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The project is closed. Officially. At least in the form in which it was built - for sure.

          I even posted a letter from the Main Committee here on this topic.
      4. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 19: 09 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        In fairness, it’s not a fact that the future completely turbine 22350 will be more difficult to build than the 22350. The latter has a very difficult technical gearbox, summarizing the speed from a high-speed GTE (disconnected) and a low-speed diesel, and then dividing it all into two shaft lines.
        М7А from marching М70 and afterburning М90 promises to be much easier, both in production and operation, and a fully turbine power plant will move it much faster and further. If two anti-submarine helicopters and a good HOOK are made on it, and if they don’t wake up the REV as on 22350, then such a ship promises to be even more practical than 22350, and easier to operate.
        Though not cheaper.
        The layout of the 22350, too, hoo, not a submarine, of course, but comparable.
        According to the mind, they need to be built only until it turns out to lay the first 22350M, and then it is no longer necessary.
        1. rudolff April 24 2019 20: 12 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Well, God forbid! Since 2014 we have heard about this “M”, while only a preliminary design has been approved. Another year or two on the technical design and work documentation.
    2. Serg65 April 24 2019 12: 14 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: tchoni
      Moreover, this group gets quite solid both shock capabilities and quite good air defense capabilities, with satisfactory anti-aircraft defense

      Have you considered a PLO warrant consisting of a pair of Vasiliev Bykov with the GAS Minotaur-ISPN-M.2 on board and a pair of Karakurt with 91X1 missiles on board?
      1. tchoni April 24 2019 12: 50 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, in general, it’s the same as with what. The whole point of the matter is that the project 22800 is not so much valuable in itself, but as an addition to something.
      2. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 13: 19 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        As Americans would say - a great deal! Instead of the anti-submarine corvette (one), as much as Karakurt, Bykov, the modular GUS, the program of modernization of the CICS in Karakurt for shooting PLUR at an external control center ...

        A miracle is simple, with such an economy we will not go far. Although, the very idea of ​​launching a PLUR from Karakurt on an external control center is a good one. But everything else ...
        1. Serg65 April 24 2019 13: 30 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          The miracle is simple, with such an economy we will not go far

          For especially competent economists interested in the fleet ... and when on each of the 4 fleets corvettes will appear by the number of brigade personnel ???? You personally, Alexander, can say WHEN?
          1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 14: 09 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            ON BF to 2022 approximately.

            On the other fleets - when the money is no longer being poured into hordes of MRKs, patrolmen, communications boats, the Death Stars of the near sea zone of the 20386 project, Poseidons, etc.
            1. Serg65 April 24 2019 14: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              On the other fleets - when the money is no longer being poured into hordes of MRKs, patrolmen, communications boats, the Death Stars of the near sea zone of the 20386 project, Poseidons, etc.

              laughing Shifting Poseidons to the Oral? And without slogans, as I understand it, are you unable to answer? And yes, what do you dislike about “Derse”?
              1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 19: 49 New
                • 7
                • 0
                +7
                Cheeky? He is already Mercury!

                Okay. Do not like if briefly:
                - Price. Somewhere offhand 35-40 yards in 2016 prices. This is an incredible amount for the BMZ ship. It is almost no PLA for the price. This is about two 20380
                - Razunification with other ships. Estimate, war, the combined crew of survivors in the battles, on the X-5 warhead with GTE and partial electric propulsion en masses of people from diesel 20380, including KBCH. AND?
                - Timing - I was sure that he would surrender to the 2027 year (with one clause about which below), but recently the comrades from the Stars-Reducer subtly hinted that it looks like they only have the gearbox ready for 2024. I note that the last 20380 will be handed over to 2022. New ones have not been laid out for a long time; in a year or two, questions will begin on industrial cooperation, if they decide to build them again. The program of updating the BMZ ships failed this miracle.
                - According to GAK - worse than 20380.
                - Weapons - worse than the 20385 with 1,5 times higher price.
                - Technical risks.

                This is where the abyss begins.
                1. The promised reservation is an option that the elastic deformations of the composite superstructure, on which the radar panels are strengthened, cannot be compensated by the software. Then the ship will never be handed over.
                2. The ship is designed without taking into account the need to fight for survivability. As I.G. Zakharov, the Civil Code of this project, the ships will never again have to fight, their task is to demonstrate the flag. Hence, such nuances as restriction of crew access to the stern, high-pressure hydraulic system filled with combustible liquid under the platform, on which the module-caliber PU "Caliber" should be installed and much more.
                3. The combination of a wave-cutting case and forward, on a flat tank of SAM cells, a gun mounted behind the SAM, and as a result, unable to carry out anti-aircraft fire in the battle simultaneously with the SAM, ZAK AK-306, and not 630M directly from the GES ducts.
                4. The tank is flooded, in case of combat damage to the lids of the air defense missile system, the air defense missile system will be overrun there. If there is not a deep burrowing in the wave in winter, there will be a wild icing, which, due to the ship’s design, will not be crushed.
                5. The fact that the ship has a coefficient of new onboard systems that exceeds 70% means that it will never work normally. I know from experience what 65% is (it was not a ship), and yes, it won't.

                As one very informed comrade from the Tula KBP said, this is not for the fleet, but for industrial cooperation, budgets will be mastered there, R & D will be spent, money and bonuses will be received, but there will be no ship itself.

                And now I'm trying to understand everything - why is all this? And I can not ...

                By the way, after the release of my article first, and then another with Klimov and ours, some organizational conclusions were made on the project, and it will be completed in a heavily modified project. Maybe even finish then.

                And yet - the chief of the TsMKB Almaz, A. Shlyakhtenko, since last year began to sink for the renewal of the 20380 series. Why did it happen? I think from the fact that he does not want to go under the hammers. And you have to, when this project is covered with a copper basin.

                In general, you can write about this book.
                1. rudolff April 24 2019 20: 20 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  The 20380/85 series definitely needs to be continued. With such a creak, they brought it, but at least it looked like a ship!
                  1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 21: 38 New
                    • 5
                    • 1
                    +4
                    I see it like this.
                    1. the start of a series of small OCDs to reduce the weight of the 20380, to replace the PU “Package-NK” with a normal three-pipe rechargeable 324-mm TA, to improve the GAK and SGPD, and to implement the correction of the SAM. Plus OCD on an inclined TPK for PLUR instead of "Uranus" (with the possibility of switching back to "Uranus" using a crane or even a floating crane. With the PLUR only 4 pieces will be reconciled). At the same time, contracting and advancing a series of 10-15 of such ships, but without a bookmark, simply with the payment for the manufacture of component parts - DHEU, artillery system, etc.
                    Closer to the end of the ROC - bookmark and quick construction in an already modernized form.

                    2. R & D "Forces BMZ". The task is to distribute the entire set of BMZ tasks between hypothetical light frigates, hypothetical OVR corvettes and something similar to an anti-overgrown anti-submarine boat, I call this idea the “Big Hunter”. That is, a simplified ship that can only fight the submarine (very well), fight off weak attacks from the air (somehow) and shoot a cannon along the coast. Such a ship looks like an ugliness, but we need to save money, and perhaps a bunch of such a “Big Hunter” and light frigates similar to Chinese 054А will be more rational than the breakthrough of the IED corvettes. But this question should be studied precisely, for example, I have the opinion that there is no better. I only know that if we plug the entire BMZ with good powerful corvettes and minesweepers, then we will not have enough money for anything else, but people. The goal of R & D is to understand how we will fight in BMZ.
                    Well, according to its results - the OCD series for new classes of ships, for her refusal to continue 20380 and switch to a new line of BMZ ships, which I don’t know there.

                    Options that I would study:

                    1. Corvette OVR - 100 mm gun, SAM (also do not understand what you need, then you also need research on tactics), UKKS, bulb or podkilnaya GUS with LF-range, towed GUS Minotaur, the possibility of using PLUR, bomb, 324-mm torpedoes and antitrust gun , shop for min. By helicopter - if the hangar fits, well, if not, then either telescopic, or like the Chinese on 056. To do as the Americans disguise the type of the same "Prairie Masker," SGPD in large quantities.

                    2. A light frigate is a ship that can do the same thing as a corvette, but also reach the DMZ - an analogue of the Chinese 054A, also on diesel engines, with a simplified REV / RTV, but with a pair of helicopters and pumped GAK and weapons at the same corvette from n. 1. Prairie Masker, etc.

                    3. Big Hunter - tons of 600-800, 76-mm gun, 1 pcs. Duet, 4 PLUR in inclined rails, bomb-bomb, 324-mm TA. The rest, including air defense missile systems - optional and only "for inexpensive."
                    Low noise due to well-thought-out construction and noise isolation, SGPD. Commander - Senior Lieutenant))))

                    And any combination of them.

                    This is what should be investigated, to understand the most advantageous combination (taking into account episodic operations like Syrian, which will not be very close to us), and build it after 20380. And 20380 at the start of this program to cover.
                    1. rudolff April 24 2019 22: 41 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      Oh, Alexander ... I do not know, maybe you are right, but ... they say that the road to hell is lined with good intentions. Can you imagine if you impose a new concept of BMZ and OVR ships on the mess that is currently underway in the fleet and stir up new projects of light frigates, OVR corvettes and Big Hunters (IPC?)? I repeat, I do not know, maybe you are right, but in my subjective opinion, in order to stop all this chaos, it is necessary to freeze any project expansion of the shipbuilding program for several years. Limit the series, leaving only 20380 corvettes (possibly temporarily Cheetahs) and frigates 22350 (M). All! And in a couple of years, completely rework the entire concept of the fleet, from management and structure to the adoption of a new shipbuilding reinforced concrete program. At the same time, clear out all these Augean stables of the high command. Here, treatment does not help, surgery is needed here.
                      1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 23: 21 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        And in a couple of years, we have to completely rework the entire fleet concept, starting from the management and structure and up to the adoption of a new shipbuilding reinforced concrete program. At the same time to clear all these Augean stables of the Main Committee. There is no treatment here, surgery is needed.


                        Well, I do not offer with the current staff and decision-making system to do it all. This is so to say the perfect option. As it should be from my point of view, and not like now.
                2. Vladimir1155 April 24 2019 21: 30 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  if war, then all NKs, whatever they remain in bases, including Av and the Kyrgyz Republic, at most snuggling up to the base are moving a dozen miles under the protection of coastal aviation ..... then does it really matter what they are? cut not only in production but also in operation it is a floating feeder ..... despite the fact that there is a sharp lack of coastal aviation, submarines and minesweepers ......... if MRCs do not go through GDP, then they generally lose their meaning, then missile boats, anti-aircraft boats, anti-aircraft boats are needed
                  1. max702 April 29 2019 23: 31 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    . Then does it matter what they are?

                    I said the same thing, if decades at sea, the most frequent (and only) weapon with a NATO bloc is bulk it’s absolutely not important what weapons are on the ship, the main thing is that the flag hangs correctly .. If the war with the Papuans then all these pribluds are needed as a camel in the zoo, and if with reputable "partners" then the fleet and the Air Force will not have the slightest significance, for we either surrender, or wave a club with strategic nuclear forces and tactical nuclear weapons with all the proletarian hatred, there are no other options .. So if the fleet is in a big game then everything is amba .. In case of a conflict on the ground or in the air, the options are in view of a rather powerful component (in comparison with fleet) NE and VKS. We cannot bring the fleet to a similar level not theoretically not physically ..
                3. Serg65 April 25 2019 11: 13 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  after my article first came out, and then another with Klimov and mine, some organizational conclusions were made on the project

                  what Hmm, so you work in tandem with Klimov? Well then, Alexander Valerievich, everything is clear to me! If you are drowning the 20386 together, then it makes me think that this corvette really has a place to be in the fleet!
                  hi
                  1. timokhin-aa April 25 2019 11: 31 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    I first started, Klimov, then, on the contrary, was a supporter of the project, which gave rise to completely epic hacks with him.

                    But then he understood the question.

                    Making decisions according to the algorithm “in spite of my mother I’ll freeze my ears” is not a good strategy. And it will be necessary to judge by the results that hide will not work this time.

                    Well, I do not Valerievich)))
  21. fiberboard April 24 2019 11: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Everyone writes his own, I do not understand where the truth is. One praises large ships, the other small ones.
  22. Tektor April 24 2019 12: 10 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Any RTO is valuable in that it is a separate complex goal and is an element of distributed defense. Therefore, they are needed simultaneously in a number of 4 pieces or more, with the obligatory escort of the cruiser. Configuration is an envelope. The cruiser provides anti-aircraft defense and air defense / missile defense, and RTOs must create a complex jamming environment around the connection with their electronic warfare. Then such a CGM can project power on a remote stretch of the open sea and shore.
    1. Ivanchester April 24 2019 12: 22 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Interesting idea. That's just for the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet, we have not a single "live" cruiser. And on the Federation Council and the Pacific Fleet there is no IRA.
    2. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 13: 08 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And here again - and "Virginia".
      1. Ivanchester April 24 2019 13: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Well, our cruisers are almost death stars)
        1144 so generally from the PLO cruiser project has grown - no “Virginia” for him.
        Only here in the ranks of them one, two, three, and miscalculated ... And in the coming years, most likely one will remain altogether.
    3. ser56 April 24 2019 13: 52 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Tektor
      Then such a CGM can project power on a remote stretch of the open sea and shore.

      MRK crews can withstand a long trip? hi
    4. Vladimir1155 April 24 2019 21: 33 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      which cruiser? and for what? where are they going to go with you? what tasks to solve? they are not there, support for the landing, by boats and missile launcher, convoy ... and there are three cruise service left now, and in 7 years there will be one Nakhimov
  23. Anatoly Eremin April 24 2019 13: 30 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    That's who, who was preparing for the last war, is the Americans with their aircraft carriers.
    Here we are to them, as to heaven. )))
    1. ss-n-22 April 24 2019 14: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      This is if we consider the warrant as exclusively the defense of an aircraft carrier, and the aircraft carrier as a kind of wunderwafer of dubious combat purpose. And let’s look differently - this aircraft carrier with its air wing closes cruisers and destroyers with Aegis as an element of the global missile defense. And immediately everything becomes a little different. An order led by an aircraft carrier is a sea-based launch defense tool SM-3.
  24. ser56 April 24 2019 13: 50 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The question always arises - why did you need to squeeze the displacement and build an inter missile system - after all, the main cost is radio electronics and weapons ... request low displacement is poor habitability, range ... would be built in a displacement of 1500 tons, there would be a place for gas and anti-aircraft weapons ... something like 11661 Dagestan ...
    1. timokhin-aa April 24 2019 13: 58 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The point is also in the GEM.
  25. curio April 24 2019 14: 27 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    I agree with the author ... time of narrow-profile ships bpk, mpk .mrk, bdk. (legacy of the Soviet naval doctrine) has passed. And the Georgian events are 08.08. It was a fiasco not only for our aviation but also for the PCR of our fleet, the Georgians were beaten with wasps with malachites; there is a dark history there.
  26. ss-n-22 April 24 2019 14: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: curio
    Georgians were beaten by wasps with malachites; there is its own dark history.

    If not a secret, which one? Well, besides the fact that (for example) the materiel was expected to be out of order, or everyone thought it was in order, and the missiles did not go through prelaunch training due to the deadline for exploitation and decay
    1. curio April 24 2019 15: 20 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Initially, the info went over the Internet. Then I confirmed it with a person who had reliable information at that time .. now I do not remember verbatim ... forgot almost 11 passed ... but the meaning was something like that the wrong conditions of use .... the distance to the Georgians was less than the minimum and their heads weren’t captured (goals) and went on self-liquidation during which they almost drowned the Moldovan or Romanian steamer and therefore had to beat Osami Georgians (in principle, which they did not do badly)
  27. Butovo April 24 2019 15: 26 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    The author should have read for the beginning the "Sea power of the state" Gorshkov. (I don’t remember exactly the name of the book, but somewhere like that. A balanced fleet is described there. And the author turns out to be the same RTO against everyone. Well, if the RTO cover air defense forces, anti-aircraft defense, aircraft on top, electronic warfare on the right, aircraft carrier on the left, underwater submarine In short, an article on the old naval saying: a mighty fleet, Aquarius and KIL e6u went to sea ...
    1. Ivanchester April 24 2019 15: 51 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      You have some kind of porridge from an ax: to support IRAs you need such an outfit that he can solve any task even without IRAs :)
      And the balanced fleet in the book of respected Sergey Georgievich is described so floweryly that it is absolutely impossible to make any concrete conclusions :)
      1. Butovo April 24 2019 19: 36 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Well, why immediately porridge? MRK does not solve the problem on its own, like a tank without infantry. And support is not for RTOs, but it is for support. And when they fired from the Caspian, they were covered from the shore, and if necessary, they would be covered from the air. And S.G. normally written, you need to have a balanced fleet to solve problems according to the approved doctrine. The doctrine is changing, and the composition and tasks of the fleet are changing.
        1. rudolff April 24 2019 20: 28 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          From what shore did they cover them, from Iran? They fired from the southern part of the Caspian. Well, at least they didn’t go to the bottom while getting home.
          1. Butovo April 24 2019 21: 00 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            Yes, from our coast from Dagestan. Have you watched the Caspian globe? Well, a storm is like a storm. You yourself were in a storm? I almost drowned "the dreamer you called me" (c)
            1. rudolff April 24 2019 21: 12 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              As a child, I went to a ship-modeling club and my mother gave me a vest.
              1. Butovo April 24 2019 21: 49 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Here are the goodies.
                Threat. A rhetorical question: Why, then, comment.
          2. alstr April 24 2019 21: 45 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            I don’t see anything terrible at all.
            That's when the ship at 45 degrees in all planes - this is a storm. As well okay. Unpleasant, but not fatal.
            1. rudolff April 24 2019 22: 06 New
              • 5
              • 1
              +4
              How to say. The Buyans have a displacement of less than 1000 tons, seaworthiness for navigation safety is about 5 points, for the use of weapons less than 5. For him, such a storm is dangerous. He just is not designed for such a wave. And this is the Caspian, actually a lake.
              1. rudolff April 24 2019 22: 15 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Here is just an example of Chicker's work with Kuznetsov. The Chicker has a displacement of more than 5 thousand tons, I recall from Buyan less than one thousand. What would happen in such a wave with RTOs?
  28. 5-9
    5-9 April 24 2019 16: 03 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I do not understand the claims. MRK is a drum carrier, incl. anti-ship missiles. The coast, hanging around Cyprus, with 12 Onyxes covers the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea, for example, so that you can’t beat the Tomahawks on the ATS. A cheap and angry carrier of very evil missiles in commercial quantities. Quite the very 2 EMs that were shattered by Shairat could drown.
    Just do not directly perceive the analogy, that he will be alone, the aircraft will drown, as he finds them with his radar.
    In UKKS that Onyx, that Caliber climb - which greatly expands the radius of their action, even with the cancellation of the INF. Imagine that somewhere in the Middle-earth a boat is sailing from the 8th KR with a range of 2600 with YaBCh ...
    1. rudolff April 24 2019 16: 36 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Since the beginning of the 90s, we have an agreement with the Americans that there are no other nuclear weapons on the submarine and NK, except for SLBMs. Propose to cancel? And we will not become sour if the Americans start to change their heads on their tomahawks for special warheads? Given the number of missiles and their carriers.
      1. Butovo April 24 2019 21: 55 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        And now they are creating vigorous low-power charges, with possible installation including on tomahawks. So they will cancel, they are not the first time. By the way, not in the courses I'm talking about this agreement, what is it called?
      2. 5-9
        5-9 April 25 2019 07: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Could you at least name the agreement? I’m not talking about the fact that with the hacked missile defense and INF Treaty it is insignificant.
        They won’t begin to change their heads because they don’t have nuclear heads and there’s nothing special to make of them. This is the only reason for the lack of special warheads in the Kyrgyz Republic, and not some oral contractors.
        1. rudolff April 25 2019 08: 46 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This is not only the head of the Kyrgyz Republic. These are also torpedoes with special warheads, these are air bombs on aircraft carriers. Both we and the Americans have so far complied with this agreement. The last time I saw a Pomegranate on shelves in the very beginning of the 90s, and in the 2000s they were generally disposed of.
    2. Ivanchester April 24 2019 17: 41 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      In the anti-ship version, the Caliber has a much more modest range http://www.rosbalt.ru/russia/2012/06/07/990257.html

      But even on the 300 km, the MRK will not be able to fire without external target designation (its own radio horizon, 20-30 km, not more).

      So no EM, he is not afraid, unfortunately, at least some warhead put on the rocket ...
      1. 5-9
        5-9 April 25 2019 07: 17 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        The detection range of MRK EM and EM MRK are equal (this is when meeting in a spherical vacuum). When a ship of 900 tons is guaranteed to be capable of drowning a cruiser of 9000 tons, it’s just “scary”.

        PS: And the Balls with the Bastions on the mountains only stand? Well, so that the horizon is far away? Yes?
        1. Ivanchester April 25 2019 09: 39 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          1. The Mediterranean is not a vacuum. There is the 6 fleet of the US Navy, which includes the AB with AWACS.

          2. Here is a booklet that schematically depicts how the bastions launchers get the command center.
          http://www.npomash.ru/download/mobile_ru.pdf
          1. 5-9
            5-9 April 25 2019 10: 03 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well here again. A lone RTO in alien seas against two cruisers, AWACS and the Death Star ... that's why RTOs are bad and not needed.
            1. Ivanchester April 25 2019 10: 17 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              So we, in fact, from time to time in the Mediterranean Sea of ​​the strike ships are only RTOs.
              But in general, even the presence of someone from the "Grigorovich" reinforces only the air defense, and the opportunity to attack themselves still does not appear.
              1. 5-9
                5-9 April 25 2019 10: 29 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                So what? How does this negatively characterize RTOs themselves? Or are we at war with the United States?
                1. Ivanchester April 25 2019 11: 37 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quite the very 2 EM that was thrashed by Shairat could have been drowned.


                  I simply point out that your statement above is unfair.
            2. Butovo April 25 2019 13: 14 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              I remember one midshipman (who took part) told me about the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1968, the story of how the British gave Israel a destroyer, and we gave missile boats to Egypt. The Egyptian military reproaches us, they say that they have a large and iron EM, and you have small wooden ones and some kind of winged missiles (the progressive part of humanity did not deal with the Kyrgyz Republic at all, considering them unnecessary). We board our crews on 2 boats and go to the Nile Delta. We catch EM at the target and fire 8 missiles, the first interrupts the EM in half, the second the larger half, and the eighth of the last sailor. They told Israel filed a lawsuit against the USSR for not helping the drowning people. And after this incident, progressive humanity and their Experts realized the usefulness of cruise missiles. All this that I described can now be found on the Internet, but there they describe it a little differently. But I trust eyewitnesses more.
              The conclusion at such theaters: the White Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Baltic, the Black, Eastern Mediterranean RTOs under the guise of coastal aviation, air defense, electronic warfare is a useful and necessary thing to perform, for example, an airborne operation or to move carrier rockets from the coast to increase flight time.
              1. Sasha_rulevoy April 25 2019 19: 07 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Butovo
                MRK under the guise of coastal aviation, air defense, electronic warfare thing useful


                It is true, but not for RTOs, but for a missile boat. Missile boats are in almost all fleets of the world, there is no dispute about them. But the corvette, but not anti-aircraft / anti-ship, but anti-ship, was only in the USSR. But is he needed this? Is it a little expensive? That is the question.
                1. Butovo April 25 2019 22: 11 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  As if the whole "world with us" is not suitable for us. Firstly, only the United States has two maritime theaters; we have six on this day. To have large universal ships in the Caspian, Baltic, and Black is expensive and not necessary. Ships of anti-aircraft defense and air defense, especially in the Caspian, are not logical. Seaworthiness does not allow replacing boats, and Karakurt has a little air defense. Secondly, they can be transferred along inland waterways, for example, from the Caspian to the White Sea. Thirdly, they immediately wanted to build an EM like Gorshkov, push everything at once new and it turned out that they had forgotten how to build large ships and the new was not ready yet, the light of the counterparts of the former had also gone cold. For example, 70-80 nomenclature of marine cables was produced by Berdyansk, where there was almost no factory left, and so on. They remembered that Amber still remembers how to build TFR 1135 (thanks to India, too), but we knew this right away as the first step in sanctioning gas turbines from Ukraine and German diesel engines. So it turned out karakurt, the Soviet ships were old and strained for spare parts, there are also Ukrainian gas turbines there. So we are building what we can, and we are trying to learn how to build a new ocean fleet. And so to argue what we need, we must proceed from what we can. Syria showed that we don’t have landing ships, so to build them we need to modernize the northern shipyard, when they modernize, people need to be taught how to work. And where there are no teachers to take them, and such a matryoshka to infinity.
        2. timokhin-aa April 27 2019 07: 58 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The detection range of the ISC EM and EM IRA are equal


          No, they are not very equal. On the EM radar stand higher, energy is more powerful at times, the computing power of the radar complex is higher at times. The range will differ by tens of miles.
  29. Livonetc April 24 2019 19: 11 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In addition, a demographic failure awaits us,

    Extremely controversial moment.
    They are already working on this in the relevant areas.
    Of course, not everyone likes the main area (to put it mildly :)).
    This is the attraction of migrants of different categories to the country.
  30. Viknt April 24 2019 21: 23 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    A variant of the Great War (with NATO) by small missile ships, this must be invented. A big war is a thermonuclear war, in which a large or small boat does not matter. RTO with all the bells and whistles is almost a corvette. A remake of an MRK is a ship with modular armament in the variants of URO, anti-aircraft defense, anti-aircraft defense, with some anti-submarine weapons in the base at least at the level of self-defense, correspondingly, a GAS is required. With a lot of restrictions on combat use, action only as part of a formation, in close cooperation with other means of struggle at sea. In fact, the Syrian company, they somehow worked. BUT there is something to work on.
  31. LeonidL April 25 2019 03: 00 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    “We need a lot of warships, at least some ones. Any warship increases the enemy’s naval forces, forces them to spend time, money and energy. Yes, RTOs are conceptually outdated, yes, we no longer need to build ships of this class, but those that is, it’s still quite possible to use it ".
    "Air defense and electronic warfare systems need to be updated, and guided missiles for firing at air targets should be introduced into the ammunition of guns."
    “The modernized RTOs will have to be“ pulled ”until the Navy is completely re-equipped with new types of ships, so as not to reduce the number of combat personnel. But you no longer need to build new ones.
    "The last question is the ships under construction. All of them must also be modernized. Those ships that are already laid down, and whose hulls are at least 20% formed, need to be completed. Even if with a power plant based on the M-70 gas turbine engine. But those contracts, for which new ships have not yet been laid down, or where it is a question of just welded mortgage section, it is necessary to cancel. For the Navy and Moscow Region it is more profitable to pay a forfeit than to spray resources on ships invented for the past era. "
    These are just a few controversial and controversial points.
    So do you need more or not? Need for what? For "mosquito fleet battles" or grand sea battles? For AUG defeats or shelling of coastal targets (where and when and why)? And again peremptory instructions from "Admiral-General" Timokhin: you need, must, stop, start! Build ships of the first rank! Do not build ... That build - it does not build. To stop such fleet management - this is, in my order, to begin! ...
    Either Timokhin acts as a specialist in fighter jets, then he positions himself as a military historian, then he is the chief specialist in military shipbuilding, then he is a brilliant admiral strategist. Who are you, Mr. Tim?
    Are there too many directions and orders? Timokhin here - Timokhin there. The ease of judgment is extraordinary. But, again, questions arise - if Mr. Timokhin is such an omnivorous expert on everything and everything, then most likely he is not a professional. If he is so prolific - then when does he have time to earn a living for food? If it is financed, then what is the purpose of the article, the eternal critic, who point blank does not notice the real state of affairs and achievements?
  32. The comment was deleted.
    1. Victor Dubrovsky 2 May 2019 09: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Today, the dimensions of the NK are primarily affected by the required deck area, rather than the mass of weapons. Therefore, the utilization rate by weight of the weapon is small, usually 0.17 - 0.2, only boats have more.
      Therefore, it is time to seriously consider multihull options, one of the features of which is the increased deck area per ton of displacement. In addition, the much higher seaworthiness of ships with a small area of ​​the waterline (KMPV) will allow the effective use of aviation weapons, especially for reconnaissance and target designation (drones).
  33. Vyacheslav April 25 2019 06: 42 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Auto criticizes the project only to small armament in case of collision with a submarine or destroyer. These RTOs, I mean the Karakurt project, have a different purpose. At its core, these are the bastion installations of the complex. Their task is to push the enemy away from the coast as far as possible without leaving under the influence of their own pro. the author himself confirms that not one destroyer will not engage in battle with such an IRA. The fight against submarines is the task of anti-submarine aviation and our submarines. Fighting enemy aircraft is a task for our pro and aviation. but the author apparently really wants to see the capabilities of the destroyer in all the ships.
    1. timokhin-aa April 27 2019 08: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Surface ships will not come to our shore, while the submarine and the aviation of all do not melt.
      The question is - what does a coastal remedy give against ships?
      1. Newone 25 May 2019 02: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        They give exactly what you wrote: until the RTOs are sunk, the enemy’s large surface ships in the area of ​​the RTOs will not poke. Those. there will be no "over-horizon landing" on our territory. And the enemy’s air defense zone will move away - it will become easier to carry out anti-aircraft missiles using airplanes and helicopters.
  34. yehat April 25 2019 12: 06 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    In my opinion, RTOs are simply irreplaceable due to geography.
    you just need to move away from narrow specialization
    different modular configurations can be built on the basis of the same housing
    for example, a passive underwater surveillance ship with towed gas
  35. bone1 April 25 2019 20: 24 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    All these RTO-ships of the coastal zone, where you can’t drive the enemy’s ships with a stick, and it’s easier to let go of the caliber.
  36. Bodipancher April 25 2019 22: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In general, the concept of installing cruise missiles for firing at ground targets on small ships is incomprehensible. It’s easier and cheaper to install on the railway platform, you can easily and quickly transfer from one end of the country to the other based on the situation. And the ammunition for one train can be placed such that no ship could even dream of. In this regard, the geographical position of Russia creates a unique opportunity, and railway routes are laid everywhere. IMHO, the military leadership is trying to repeat after the Americans, but their approach is due to the geographical location of the United States (beyond the puddle).
    1. timokhin-aa April 27 2019 08: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      We have subscribed to the fact that we will not have such weapons, the Americans too. Now Trump suspended the INF Treaty, let's see how it will end, but so far such installations are illegal.

      And we are strictly speaking, it is undesirable to break the INF.
      1. Bodipancher April 27 2019 11: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I think that's why the INF Treaty was imposed on the USSR at the time. The country spends money on the deployment of medium-range and short-range missiles on offshore platforms, which in fact are not objectively necessary.
        1. timokhin-aa April 27 2019 19: 11 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          There it was a vulnerability to "Pershing-2". It really was a pistol at the temple.
          1. Bodipancher April 27 2019 21: 51 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The Pershinges were removed, but the Tomahawks remained on the ships and their number significantly exceeds the number of Pershing deployed in Europe during the Cold War. Exactly the same pistol, American ships are constantly present in the Black, Baltic, and Mediterranean Seas. There are no Russian ships loaded with cruise missiles off the coast of the United States and never have been. The only point in small missile ships is to bypass the INF Treaty and the bypass is expensive and inefficient.
            1. timokhin-aa April 27 2019 22: 08 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              In the case of the Tomahawks, the Americans spoil their speed. While they are flying towards the goal, the commanders can be taken out of the strike, including the Supreme Command, and the armed forces can declare combat alert, and even some parts can be removed from the strike.
              The nuclear powering 2 didn’t give such opportunities, a few minutes and that's it. In fact, the Americans had the possibility of a decapitating strike. Now it is not in that form.

              Yet.
  37. Victor Dubrovsky 2 May 2019 09: 14 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    High speed was rational in the fight against NK, while the range of missiles was severely limited: it made it possible to quickly enter the missile range and quickly get out of the retaliatory strike. With a significant increase in range, this no longer works, the rocket is still faster ...
  38. Horse, people and soul 23 May 2019 19: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If one small missile ship with 8 nuclear "Caliber" theoretically can take out over 2500 kilometers AUG in the port, or all the cities and military bases in such a small country like Estonia, then ...

    ... as an inexpensive platform for such weapons, RTOs definitely deserve attention.
  39. storm 24 May 2019 00: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    You should not refuse from pr. 22800, you need to build on this platform, in addition to the missile defense system, a new small anti-submarine ship (MPK) with a GAS, a helicopter and Package-NK, as well as a small air defense (MK anti-aircraft) ship with a missile-controlled air defense system BUK-M3 ( Calm) or Polement-Redoubt.
    Acting in conjunction, these three small ships combine the functions of a frigate at the price of a corvette.
    Almost all shipyards in the Baltic, in the Crimea and on the Volga can build Karakurt, so this is also a completely “live” option with the reigning mess in the USC.

    Four "three" of Karakurt (MRK + MPK + MK air defense) need to be built for both the Baltic Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet. (24 total)

    To form / restore the Ladoga Flotilla as a reserve for the Baltic Fleet and Northern Fleet on the basis of six or eight URAN MRC pr. 1234 modernized for anti-ship missile systems.

    To form / restore the Azov Flotilla as a reserve of the Black Sea Fleet on the basis of 6 RTOs 21631.

    Three new RTOs 21631 should be transferred to CFL and form a full-fledged brigade of 6 of the same RTOs there.

    SF and Pacific Fleet should receive new frigates, three or four pr. 22350, six units. 22350M and seaworthy corvettes (three or four pr 20386).
  40. Eug
    Eug 8 June 2019 05: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Small ships can be very useful for training large commanders.