Military Review

New 2016 Destroyers of the Year

101
The other day an international economic forum was held in St. Petersburg. Among other topics, it discussed the fate of domestic shipbuilding. Judging by the statements of the responsible persons of this industry, the domestic navy is entering a period of active development and renewal. One of the topics raised in the conversations about the prospects of the Navy were new squadrons of destroyers, which are more and more often spoken about lately.



First of all, it should be said that President of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) R. Trotsenko finally lifted the veil of secrecy over the new project. So far, however, the official has managed a number of common phrases, but even by them the scale of the plans can be seen. So, it was announced that so far it is planned to build only six new destroyers, the first of which will be laid in the 2016 year. With regards to the more remote prospects, Trotsenko said nothing, but there is reason to believe that the six ships will be built before 2020, i.e. within the current state rearmament program. Accordingly, after that very year, the construction of an additional series is possible, maybe even on an updated project.

Regarding the tactical niche that promising destroyers will occupy, there is not much information either. In her regard, the president of the USC applied a rather lengthy formulation: the destroyers will become "reference points of the Russian anti-space defense system." It is not too clear, but the development direction is approximately clear fleet. Obviously, these words need to be understood as the creation of certain systems similar in their purpose to the American Aegis CMS and the SM-2 / SM-3 missile defense systems. The United States has been using its Arleigh Burk destroyers for more than one year to cover missile-hazardous areas. Due to their mobility, these ships can be deployed over a considerable distance in a matter of days. In addition, the very concept of a strategic missile defense ship can improve operational efficiency compared to ground-based systems. It seems that something similar will appear in our country.

It remains only to find out what it is. Of course, at the economic forum, no one from the USC leadership even thought of hanging up drawings and diagrams of a new project or at least voicing technical details. Most likely, the project is not even ready yet. However, various assumptions about its appearance are already emerging. For example, an opinion is expressed regarding the launch of the production of destroyers with guided missile weapons of the 21956 project. This project is quite new - it was first presented to the public in 2007 year - and has several advantages over the available equipment. At the same time, the announced parameters of the 21956 project imply its use in the ocean areas, without which it is difficult to imagine a full-fledged sea-based missile defense system. At the same time, it is often noted that the destroyers of the 21956 project were proposed to be equipped with equipment and weapons developed by the 10-15 years ago, or even more. However, as practice shows, nothing prevents the developer (Northern PKB) from reworking the project and equipping it with modern equipment, rockets, etc.

In addition to new equipment and weapons The updated 21 956 project (if a prospective destroyer will be developed on its basis) can receive a radically new power plant. In the demonstrated version, it had a gas turbine power plant with a capacity in excess of 70 thousands of horsepower. In the spring of this year, the leaders of the United Shipbuilding Corporation announced the successful course of work in the Central Research Institute of them. Academician Krylov. There, in recent years, they have been working on new systems of nuclear power plants of various capacities designed for ships of different classes. Among those mentioned was the destroyer. Obviously, the issue of equipping promising ships with an atomic “engine” is at least seriously considered.

As for the weapons of new ships, its composition may be very different. For the attack of surface targets, for example, can be used anti-ship missiles of the "Caliber" family. Where the big questions are the phrase about the missile missile destinations. The need to attack such specific targets requires special weapons. The first responded to this "News". This edition, referring to a certain source in the defense complex, writes about the possible development of the ship version of the C-500 anti-aircraft missile system. In 2015, the launch of tests of the base version of this air defense system for ground forces is expected. The finished complex will have a long-range missile capable of intercepting ballistic targets. However, the source of "Izvestia" claims that the work on this topic has been delayed to such an extent that the ship version of the C-500 is unlikely to appear before the 2016 year. At the same time, he shared information about the nearly completed draft ship version of the C-400 air defense system. Probably summed up an anonymous source, on the first promising destroyers will be exactly these means of anti-aircraft and missile defense.

We should also note the reaction of the Almaz-Antey concern to the statements of an anonymous source. All in the same "Izvestia" states that the representatives of this organization refused to comment on the rumors about promising destroyers. According to the representative of Almaz-Antey, it is too early to discuss this issue. So even if the development of an air defense / missile defense system for new ships is underway, then no one is going to share its details with the general public.

As you can see, at the moment all the information about the new destroyers is a couple of short and vague phrases, and a lot of assumptions and guesses. Based on the stated construction start date, you can try to guess the time when something more specific will appear in the public domain. Most likely, details regarding the new project will appear as it is being implemented, and the number of its peak News will reach just in time for laying the lead ship. Although, as it sometimes happens, the details may appear earlier, but still not earlier than the end of the design work.


On the materials of the sites:
http://lenta.ru/
http://izvestia.ru/
http://odnako.org/
http://spkb.air.spb.ru/
Author:
101 comment
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. vadimus
    vadimus 28 June 2012 08: 21
    +12
    And we need a strong fleet now! Oh, how you need ..
    1. kapitan_21
      kapitan_21 28 June 2012 09: 13
      +2
      Our fleet is still strong! And it will be even stronger! Don `t doubt! )))
      1. Manager
        Manager 28 June 2012 12: 09
        +14
        Quote: kapitan_21

        Our fleet is still strong!

        No son, it's fantastic)
        Rather, regarding whose fleet our fleet is strong. Regarding the Japanese Imperial or US Navy, we can say nothing. If only the submarines with us are better and almost comparable in quantity. The rest is alas.
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 28 June 2012 13: 35
          +2
          Well, basically
          Quote: Manager
          The rest is alas.
          caused by several factors. The first is the difference in the concepts of combat use. The US Navy was initially sharpened for the purpose of bringing "democracy" to foreign shores. The Navy of the USSR - to oppose the fleet of "democratizers". Land for him was a tertiary task. Hence - the less functional flexibility of the Soviet Navy and the rate on submarines. If your opponent at sea is stronger than you, build a submarine (So, by the way, Germany did). This is not bad in itself, since what is needed is not a "exemplary" fleet, but a fleet sharpened for the implementation of the tasks facing the state. However, the collapse of the USSR also led to the collapse of the fleet. How many first rank ships were decommissioned in the early 90s? How many for the rest of the time have ceased to be combat-ready? A lot of. This hit the surface forces most painfully. Their service is more expensive and more complicated, and the number was not as impressive as that of the submariners. As a result, in terms of surface forces, we came to the problem of imbalance (what remains is in service) of the fleet. And this problem will be solved for a long time. First, the near sea zone, the cover of the Boreyevs, the ABM elements (this is the same place, since it is more likely to support the strategic nuclear forces, and not the "classical Navy"), then counteraction to large fleets, AUG ... and so on.
          You can cut and write off quickly. It is hard and long to restore. But this will have to be done.
          1. Manager
            Manager 28 June 2012 13: 47
            +1
            Quote: Bronis
            rate on submarines.


            On the submarines ...
            Atomic we have 5-10 less. Ordinary a little more. Than the US
            1. VAF
              VAF 28 June 2012 14: 10
              +3
              Quote: Manager
              Atomic we have 5-10 less. Ordinary a little more. Than the US


              If possible, in more detail, please? + drinks
            2. skiff-xnumx
              skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 14: 13
              +4
              Manager,
              On the submarines ...
              Atomic we have 5-10 less. Ordinary a little more. Than the US


              You at least ask yourself a question before you write such nonsense. There are no diesel electric boats at all in the US Navy. They abandoned this concept for a long time. There are only four types of lodak all YaSU. Please list them.
              MPLATRK type “Los Angeles” --42 pcs.
              SSBN type "Ohio" - 18 (4 converted to axes)
              MPLATRK Sivulf type - 3 pcs.
              SSGN type "Virginia" - 7 pieces (under construction to replace "Los Angeles")
              Total consider - 70 pcs.
              True, I do not know how many of them are under repair. But everything is in order.
              List our projects.
              1. Manager
                Manager 28 June 2012 14: 47
                +3
                Quote: skiff-1980
                There are no diesel electric boats at all in the US Navy. They abandoned this concept for a long time.

                Nevertheless, in the hangars they have a bunch of diesel (read somewhere).
                The rest.

                ..RATING OF ATOMIC SUBMARines OF RUSSIA AND THE USA. WHO IS STRONGER?

                The Americans say that in the event of even a nuclear-free war, Russian submarines will be destroyed in 12-15 days. Like, they are all noisy, they are easy to detect and sink even with conventional torpedoes or bombs. Is it a bluff?

                We invited readers to dive into the depths of the oceans. And see: who is stronger under water - American submarines or Russian submarines. And who has more powerful weapons. Today, military expert Colonel Mikhail POLEZHAEV and columnist KP Colonel Viktor BARANETS continue to compare the submarine forces of the two superpowers.

                Who is the most noisy?
                - Mikhail Alexandrovich, how many atomic submarines do Russia and the USA have now?
                “We only consider submarines with ballistic missiles, right?” Russia has only 12 such in the ranks, and the average “age” is 26 years. There are no boats carrying more than 16 missiles. The basis of the Russian fleet is only 6 submarine missile carriers of the Dolphin project (according to NATO classification Delta-IV). The USA has 18 Ohio-type submarines, 4 of which undergo medium repairs and modernization. Each boat carries 24 missiles.

                - The Americans say that in the event of even a nuclear-free war, Russian submarines will be destroyed in 12-15 days. Like, they are all noisy, they are easy to detect and sink even with conventional torpedoes or bombs. Is it a bluff?

                - The most vulnerable submarine makes its noise. Everything is noisy: mechanisms, devices, propellers and water flowing around the boat. The noise of each type of boat is different. He who first heard, discovered, he won. And the one who has lower noise level and more sensitive acoustics will be the first to find. Therefore, one of the main tasks in underwater shipbuilding is to reduce noise. US nuclear submarine development programs are subordinate precisely to achieving superiority in detection range and less noise. And the Americans succeeded in this.
                But the debate about "who is stronger, who is weaker" is theoretical. The correctness of this or that side can only be proved by practice, that is, war (pah-pah!). Now, in peaceful conditions, submarines are closely monitoring each other and determine the characteristics of "opponents". For example, the American submarine such as Los Angeles and the Russian Pike (according to the American classification of Victor III) are approximately equivalent ships. Americans believe that Pike discovers Los Angeles in the deep sea at a distance of 125 miles, and Los Angeles detects Pike at a distance of almost 500 miles.
                - When you talk with Russian submariners, they often tell stories about how the sides of American ships almost scratch their periscopes, and they suspect nothing ...
                - Would you like a story? In the winter of 1996, the Russian embassy in London turned to the British Navy command with a request to help the sailor who underwent surgery aboard the Pike. He developed peritonitis, the treatment of which is possible only in a hospital. The "Pike" surfaced, the Glasgow destroyer approached, his helicopter took the patient and brought him ashore. The British media unanimously expressed bewilderment: while in London negotiations were underway to evacuate the patient, NATO anti-submarine maneuvers were taking place in the North Atlantic, just in the area where the Pike was located. However, the submarine managed to be detected only when it itself surfaced to the surface in order to transfer the unfortunate sailor to the helicopter ...

                - And how do you assess the technical capabilities of those nuclear submarines of the United States and Russia that are currently in operation?
                - The same “Pike” has a very modern “cub” - “Pike-B”. The level of her noise is 4 - 4,5 times lower than the noise of the "mother". Here, Russia even overtook the Americans. The detection range of the Skat-3 sonar complex tripled and almost equaled the US AN / BQQ-5.
                In addition, the new “Pike” has a world-class detection system for detecting submarines and enemy ships on the wake of the track many hours after they have passed.
                On the "Pike" there is a unique tracking system that allows you to read the tracks of enemy boats. On the water!

                - And what is ahead?
                - The basis of the Russian submarine fleet, at least until 2015, will be Squids (which will be replaced by cruisers such as Yuri Dolgoruky) and Dolphins.
                - What does the nuclear fleet cost? Can you name the numbers?
                - The treasury has already spent about a billion dollars on the construction of Dolgoruky. When completed, this figure will grow by several tens of millions. Each "Mace" is also several tens of millions. That is, up to 1,5 billion dollars the cost of the finished "Dolgoruky" will grow for sure.
                We consider further. At the end of last year, 12 nuclear submarine missile cruisers remained in the combat strength in the Northern and Pacific Fleets. There is also Dmitry Donskoy of project 941 (Shark). The price of each such ship is about a billion dollars.

                - What does the US nuclear fleet teach Russia?
                - The United States, as the main superpower in military development, preferred the naval forces and, in the first place, their nuclear missile component, concentrating on nuclear missile submarines up to 65-70% of their nuclear potential. Isn’t it just that? This is another challenge. And he will have to answer. Not to be late ...

                "Bulava" flew successfully
                On September 18, the Dmitry Donskoy strategic missile cruiser conducted another test launch of the Bulava ballistic missile. According to official sources, the flight was successful. According to Igor Dygalo, assistant commander in chief of the Russian Navy, the launch was carried out from an underwater position in the White Sea.

                “The trajectory parameters have been worked out as usual,” said Dygalo. - The training blocks reached the Kura test site, located on the Kamchatka Peninsula, 380 km north of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.
                However, the successful launch of the Bulava does not open the long-awaited road for new submarines in the near future. At the Navy's General Staff building, the KP correspondent was informed that the missile would be adopted only in 2009.

                The data is slightly outdated but overall ....
                1. skiff-xnumx
                  skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 15: 09
                  +2
                  And for a long time they have been standing there. The last DEP in the states was built in 1973. They have expired. And do not believe the yellow press. They will not tell you that.
                  By the way, there are no boats of Project 671RTM (K) "Pike" in our Navy. They wrote off everything on pins and needles. The core of the strategic forces is made up of Project 667BDRM “Dolphin” boats - 6 units with 16 R-29RMU2 and 3 project 667BDR “Kalmar” with 16 R-29R. Moreover, "Squids" are on their last legs, they will soon be written off. As soon as the Boreis are commissioned. And the "Dolphin" boat is of the 2nd generation, and now the 4th is on the water. You see the difference. Typhoons without weapons. And one more scatter article. Under the OSV-3 contract, 10 SSBNs will remain
                  1. 755962
                    755962 28 June 2012 17: 14
                    +2
                    Such ships are needed yesterday. As long as only talk and as mentioned above
                    Most likely, the project is not even ready yet.
                    By the time the project is ready and before the ship is laid down, a lot of "water will leak" and a lot can change. God forbid, not for the worse. It remains to hope for the planned commissioning of nuclear submarines and PLABRs without jambs.
                  2. CARBON
                    CARBON 28 June 2012 20: 52
                    0
                    But how, then about "pikes", it is very tough here in the composition of the Northern Fleet 4 are listed

                    Nuclear submarine B-414 "Daniil Moskovsky"
                    Nuclear submarine B-448 "Tambov"
                    Nuclear submarine B-138 "Obninsk"
                    Nuclear submarine B-388 "Petrozavodsk"
                    Obninsk and Tambov are similar in repair. Now is not the 90s nowhere to roam with a cutter.
                    1. skiff-xnumx
                      skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 22: 01
                      +4
                      Yes, they are listed in the 7th and 11th divisions, but they are only listed. The boats "Obinsk" and "Tanbov" have been under repair since 2006, from which they probably will not leave.
                      B-414 On September 6, 2006, while at the range in the Barents Sea, a fire broke out in the electromechanical compartment of the boat. The emergency protection worked, the reactors stopped, two sailors died from carbon monoxide poisoning, the fire was extinguished and the boat was towed to the base in Vidyaevo with the help of surface vessels. Preparing for disposal. There is no data on Petrozavodsk, but judging by the fact that it has not been in the database for several years already, its fate has probably been decided by Dala Tubaretkina
                2. Nickname
                  Nickname 29 June 2012 00: 36
                  0
                  Well, something like this, in general, the media are zombies.
                  True - she is in the middle and she is alone. So why was Vysotsky removed?
                  That we are naked is not his fault.
                3. Pessimist
                  Pessimist 29 June 2012 20: 42
                  -1
                  Quote: Manager
                  In the Navy's General Staff building, the KP correspondent was informed that the missile would be adopted only in 2009

                  It is already 2012, and it has not yet been put into service ... In October, "the final stage of test launches" is planned. If only they did not continue to "build the fleet", you bastards ... We need the fleet already "YESTERDAY" !!! And then the forecasts for 2016 - 20s look too dubious!
            3. AVV
              AVV 21 December 2013 22: 55
              0
              You need to strive for a strong fleet, and do everything possible and impossible to restore it !!!
      2. Nickname
        Nickname 29 June 2012 00: 21
        0
        And you minute captain
    2. Nickname
      Nickname 29 June 2012 00: 20
      0
      Article plus, and such comments "how we need such a fleet now! Oh, how necessary." minus
    3. Evgeniy1
      Evgeniy1 1 July 2012 13: 12
      0
      It is definitely needed, only there will not be anyone to serve on the built boats (((
  2. Yoshkin Kot
    Yoshkin Kot 28 June 2012 08: 27
    +5
    God forbid! break through! and the nuclear power plant on the destroyer? for which there is no submarine, but a similar displacement are
    1. skiff-xnumx
      skiff-xnumx 29 June 2012 16: 16
      0
      Compare the armament of boats and destroyers. On boats there are no air defense systems, PLO and others. And the classic water-to-water reactor occupies up to 40 percent of the ship's displacement. In addition to aircraft carriers of course. So, without the development of the topic of nuclear weapons with a marine transport system, a balanced destroyer cannot be built.
  3. Trailer
    Trailer 28 June 2012 08: 42
    +1
    "Bye reallyofficial cost a number of common phrases, but also on them the scale of plans is visible. So, it was stated that yet planned build only six new destroyers, the first of which will be laid in the 2016 year. With regards to the more distant prospects of Trotsenko didn't say anything, but there is reason to believethat six ships will be built before the 2020 year, i.e. as part of the current state rearmament program. Accordingly, after that same 2020 year perhaps construction of an additional series, maybe even on the updated project. "

    This is why I love the news about the American navy novelties, because it is for the phrases in the articles "Resolved ... Terms of delivery under the contract ... Commissioned!"
    1. Glenn witcher
      28 June 2012 11: 51
      0
      All the news go on the same pattern. First, announce plans, then clarify, and only at the end about the timing and input.
  4. urzul
    urzul 28 June 2012 09: 10
    0
    The expression that caught the most attention:
    There in recent years they worked on new systems of nuclear power plants of various capacitiesintended for ships of different classes. Among the named was the destroyer. Obviously, the issue of equipping promising ships with an atomic “engine” is at least seriously considered.

    It can be assumed that all the same, the creation of a full-fledged strike group of ships capable of carrying combat duty and moving anywhere in the world is considered.
    1. rumpeljschtizhen
      rumpeljschtizhen 28 June 2012 11: 41
      +2
      .All this has already passed in the states ... created a cruiser with a nuclear power plant ...... operation turned out to be unprofitable and many other factors put an end to this .....
      1. ytqnhfk
        ytqnhfk 28 June 2012 12: 00
        +2
        Amer develop a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean what is right! In space they developed a pen and spent one and a half million bucks, our just wrote in pencil !!!!!
      2. urzul
        urzul 28 June 2012 12: 00
        0
        The states do not have such developments in power plants as ours
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 28 June 2012 12: 05
          +5
          They have bases around the world. Which makes it possible for their ships to call at almost any port. And the ships of the nuclear power plant will not allow me to do this.
        2. viktor_ui
          viktor_ui 28 June 2012 13: 38
          +1
          urzul - for nuclear power plants we put them on and there is a strong suspicion of seeing nuclear power plants in a very compact design in the near future ...
      3. Passing
        Passing 28 June 2012 15: 10
        +1
        Quote: rumpeljschtizhen
        All this was already underway in the states ... they created a cruiser with a nuclear power plant ...... operation turned out to be unprofitable and many other factors put an end to this ...

        I’ll add such a moment - what will happen if a pair of harpoons fly into the atomic destroyer standing at the berth? IMHO, we will be left not only without a destroyer, but also without a naval base.
        1. skiff-xnumx
          skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 16: 32
          +2
          The answer is not correct. The maximum that we get the release of nuclear fuel is not a fact. All negative circumstances must develop in order to receive this. I will not go into details of the design of the reactor and methods of their protection. For nuclear warheads, highly enriched uranium close to the critical mass is needed. Or plutonium. Take an interest if interested
          1. dedroid71
            dedroid71 29 June 2012 11: 16
            +2
            Greetings. I totally agree. The previous commentator is apparently new to physics.
            1. Passing
              Passing 2 July 2012 18: 46
              0
              In smart people, they know physics. You should have listened to what you were told at the OBZh lessons; you wouldn’t say nonsense now.
              I will explain briefly for theoretical physicists - for the organization of the second Chernobyl on the basis of the Navy, it is enough to comply with one single condition - getting Harpoon warhead into the first loop of the reactor.
              1. skiff-xnumx
                skiff-xnumx 2 July 2012 19: 05
                0
                See the protection of the reactor on warships infa is open. There is a whole study, both ours and the state. In Chernobyl, the reactor core was released. And who is talking about a pressurized water reactor. Putting them on a destroyer-class ship is not profitable and not advisable due to their mass-dimensional characteristics. We are talking about LMC reactors. And how to get Harpoon's warhead into the reactor, which is located in the middle of the ship in an armored room, passing all the mechanisms such as a desalter, a steam generator, a turbo-gear unit, etc. Chance 1: 1000. And on OBZH (then military training was called), a teacher (a retired military lieutenant colonel, pilot) said to us, "It makes no sense to lie down in the direction of the nuclear force. You will die anyway, not from a shock wave, but from radiation." I know YAR in the navy not by hearsay.
                1. Passing
                  Passing 3 July 2012 03: 05
                  +1
                  In addition to water-water, there are no other ship reactors. As for liquid metal, these are all projects that have already been five years old at lunch, not a single one has yet been launched.
                  And as for booking and shielding - I doubt that it will help. For example, I read about the battleships of the Second World War, torpedoes of 300 kg did not save even the spaced armor belts against the warheads; a destruction zone of up to 10 meters deep was formed. It is for this reason that modern ships have ceased to book, because all the same, armor does not save from destruction of a hull of a reasonable thickness.
                  1. skiff-xnumx
                    skiff-xnumx 3 July 2012 06: 04
                    0
                    There is. Look at the project 705 "Lyra" My brother is working at the Kurchatov Institute, so for 8 years this reactor has been brought up to logical operation. Apparently, they are close to the end of the work. You are right about booking battleships, but booking is still present on modern ships. Armory stores and important running gears are protected, the most important units are closed by the less important ones. They try to place all important units closer to the waterline. There is less hit percentage. CR hits the deck or side, the torpedo is below the waterline. I repeat, water-cooled reactors on destroyer-class ships are raving. Will kill over 40% displacement.
  5. Sakhalininsk
    Sakhalininsk 28 June 2012 09: 13
    +3
    Rather, rather .. 2016 is just the beginning of construction, it may be too late. Now the fleet is needed, as air is needed.
    1. Civil
      Civil 28 June 2012 10: 08
      +3
      In 2016, while they’ll build it ... for now ... the Japanese will launch their fifth generation aircraft, the Turks will manufacture medium-range missiles
    2. leon-iv
      leon-iv 28 June 2012 12: 06
      0
      Where to build? And who will be?
      1. skiff-xnumx
        skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 12: 49
        0
        I read somewhere that it seems that they are planning at two plants: the Severnaya Verf shipyard and the Baltic Shipyard (where the Eagles built)
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 28 June 2012 13: 12
          0
          Yes, it’s clear the question of where to get the berths?
          They are all busy.
          1. skiff-xnumx
            skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 13: 31
            +3
            At "Severnaya Verf" all tenants of outfitting walls and workshops are being chased in the neck. And the "Baltic Plant" is not loaded with peaceful orders, and at the moment there are no orders from the Navy. The reason is simple, USC, the owner of two shipyards, made a decision when they announced a tender for a project 20380 corvette that Severnaya Verf would build military ships, and Baltic Shipyard - civilian. Then there was no point in scattering the order, since it was planned to build two corvettes with incomprehensible funding. By the way, the Baltic Shipyard is more powerful than Severnaya Verf. But now the time has come to take on our fleet in earnest.
          2. Kaa
            Kaa 28 June 2012 21: 54
            +4
            I do not know how, but Nikolaev shipyards need to be connected. It's a shame (to me personally) that our bonuses with Medvedev did not agree on anything as a result of his visit. Are you afraid that, as a result of integration, the business will lose? Evil is not enough.
            1. skiff-xnumx
              skiff-xnumx 29 June 2012 06: 37
              +1
              Yes, it would be great to connect the Nikolaev shipyards. Only now the situation in Ukraine in the political sense is not very. If Ukraine behaved like Belarus, and did not stagger from the European Union to Russia and vice versa, then there would be orders. See the Black Sea capacities in the Union were the largest. At one time, the media circulated a rumor about the possibility of building project 20380 corvettes in Ukraine, but the country's leadership did not find anything better than to propose their own corvette project and try to insist on their decision. Naturally, the deal did not take place. We must start with the cruiser Ukraine, and then if everything is safe and move on.
            2. dedroid71
              dedroid71 29 June 2012 11: 20
              +2
              Catch + brother
  6. Tirpitz
    Tirpitz 28 June 2012 09: 41
    +3
    So the project will only be worked out? Then it is already necessary to create a marine version of the S-500, but there is still no S-400 marine. I can’t believe that 6 pieces will be built before 2020, we’d have built up some 10 modern frigates.
    1. Trailer
      Trailer 28 June 2012 10: 11
      +1
      Something, yes stand! In extreme cases - we always have Mistral! And they can throw the burden of responsibility for the employment of our military industry!
      1. Bronis
        Bronis 28 June 2012 13: 44
        +2
        Quote: Karavan
        We always have Mistral!

        I read somewhere that the Ministry of Defense planned to equip Mistral with missile weapons. I don’t know what kind of arsenal the ship will turn out there, but it’s rather strange and costly. Plus UDC clearly did not count on such goals. Given that the weapons will have to be embedded on the upper decks, the center of gravity will also be higher, which is not good.
        And we love to load the burden of responsibility. Sometimes they play pin-pong with him ...
    2. Vito
      Vito 28 June 2012 10: 26
      0
      TirpitzHello FRIENDS! Nothing should get better, the main thing is to start! If only a new crisis did not cover! drinks FOR THE Navy!
  7. CC-18a
    CC-18a 28 June 2012 09: 42
    +3
    But will our fleet be able to patrol the coastal zone of the United States? After all, as far as I know, for the missile defense system it is necessary to be closer to the launch site, alas, amers, alas, in the Mediterranean Sea, in general, near the Barents Sea, there are enough ships, but we still don’t (until all four TAKRs are put into operation after modernization )
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 28 June 2012 10: 10
      0
      There is no sense NO for their missiles as well as for our ATU it passes over their territory and there is no sense. But it is possible to provide missile defense and intercept tactical missiles.
      1. Vito
        Vito 28 June 2012 10: 23
        +2
        leon-iv (1). Greetings. The waters of the Mediterranean Sea, a great starting point, for U.S. submarines and their NATO allies. Already in this area, our ships with the latest interceptor missiles simply must be! Yes, and you never know what geopolitical circumstances may arise, I think it's still better to have such a system than to sit without it. drinks
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 28 June 2012 11: 19
          0
          The Mediterranean Sea, a great starting point, for U.S. submarines
          no ballistics would be difficult for ICBMs.
          For all kinds of tomahawks, it’s normal, but it’s not enough, this is the work of air defense.
          Already in this area, our ships with the latest interceptor missiles simply must be!
          As an option but not the key. Everything will rest on the capabilities of the S-500.
          Yes, and you never know what geopolitical circumstances may arise, I think it's still better to have such a system than to sit without it.
          All of this is realized and developed by all the missile defense components.
          1. Vito
            Vito 28 June 2012 11: 51
            +2
            leon-iv (1)
            Quote: leon-iv
            For all kinds of tomahawks, it’s normal, but it’s not enough, this is the work of air defense.

            Air defense is certainly good, but it is easier to destroy from the sea than on land, when the cruise missile begins to go over the terrain.
            Enemy boats, after the first launches should be destroyed by the same destroyers.
            On ballistics, honestly I don’t know how difficult it is, I don’t argue.
            Flight time, HERE is the main factor, the more diverse our missile defense system, the more chances to stay alive!
            1. leon-iv
              leon-iv 28 June 2012 13: 13
              0
              Air defense is certainly good, but it is easier to destroy from the sea than on land, when the cruise missile begins to go over the terrain.
              This is not the work of the S-500
              1. Vito
                Vito 29 June 2012 01: 13
                +1
                leon-iv (1)I came home from work, I apologize for answering so late.
                Quote: leon-iv
                This is not the work of the S-500

                The article does not really say anything about weapons, what capabilities this destroyer will have, it remains only to guess. Maybe there will be S-400 and S-500, and maybe they will put a bald trait. Information is almost zero!
          2. VAF
            VAF 28 June 2012 12: 01
            +1
            Quote: leon-iv
            no ballistics would be difficult for ICBMs.


            No complexity at all !!!


            Quote: leon-iv
            As an option but not the key. Everything will rest on the capabilities of the S-500.


            Here's how to at least feel it, but to see .... acre of winning reports ???

            Then why not the S-800 already ????


            Quote: leon-iv
            All of this is realized and developed by all the missile defense components.


            About this in more detail, please !!!!

            Only about SRRP is not necessary, because. these will be the first targets when striking a missile defense.

            But in general, these stations need to be covered by something ???? But where to get that much ???
            1. leon-iv
              leon-iv 28 June 2012 12: 23
              +1
              No complexity at all !!!
              I wrote in memory after the weekend, unsubscribe in PM why. Familiar right now in the fields on the Topol somewhere in the Teykovsky forests. Emnip but I can confuse there the problem will be with orientation to the top point of the trajectory.
              I’ll also ask Comrade Dancomm.
              Here’s how to at least feel it,
              Almaz Antey is already conducting ZI radar. That's for sure. The design team didn’t come from there to a big strike game in NiNo, but they say they’re rolling it out on a business trip. And given their composition, it becomes clear.
              Especially the base There S-300V. By the way, I heard the same thing about the S-400, but they are going to take the 5th regiment.
              yes to see.
              I think so only on fate for in 3 years at MAX
              About this in more detail, please !!!!
              Putting Voronezh DM and M, I also think for a reason.
              Doping S-300V4
              There is infa at the level of rumors about the modernization of the positions of A-135
              Only about SRRP is not necessary, because. these will be the first targets when striking a missile defense.
              And where will you get so many axes

              Amers compensated for the "combat consumption" of tomahawks for Iraq 2 and Yugoslavia with an order that was realized from 2004 to 2010, where just 2000 units were ordered. Now "Libya" is compensated, so that, among other things being equal, we can assume that the amers have only about 2,5K axes, of which probably only (picking a finger in the nose) two thirds are deployed, and that we have about 1,6K. Which is also not small, although not 100500

              By the way, I once long ago (in 2010) already considered the maximum possible number of deployed axes on all American carriers, I got about 7016 units (URO - 3960 KR, nuclear submarines Virginia + Elk - 560 KR, Ohio submarines - 616 KR, V-52N - 1880)

              And ov also had reductions
              1. Vito
                Vito 28 June 2012 12: 30
                +2
                STATES also do not stand still with their TOMAGAWS and HARPOONS, I have no doubt that new developments are underway and this must be taken into account!
              2. VAF
                VAF 28 June 2012 14: 16
                +1
                Quote: leon-iv
                And where will you get so many axes


                Oh, not convinced, dear, not at all convinced ..... request
                1. leon-iv
                  leon-iv 28 June 2012 14: 29
                  0
                  So you and not the girl to convince and persuade)))
                  I’m more interested in this.
                  Who will replace berks and perry?
                  And discuss spheroconin.
                  A strike on the SPRN is a retaliatory strike of the strategic nuclear forces.
                  Unnoticed, they will not be able to launch and assemble a group.
                  Gather a fleet
                  And most importantly, wait on February 24)))).
                  Let's really approach the threats.
                  1. VAF
                    VAF 28 June 2012 14: 52
                    0
                    Quote: leon-iv
                    A strike on the SPRN is a retaliatory strike of the strategic nuclear forces.


                    Have you ever thought that we can grab a response to a strike from the strategic nuclear forces ???
                    What the ... sorry, baby talk ???

                    Why then were the rodents "forced" to the world ??? They would have smacked once with Poplar and that's it ... uryayayaya, the end of the war and mind you, no losses on our side, but the neighbors ... the neighbors were simply not lucky ... geographically!

                    And why would they imperceptibly collect and group something ??? They do it openly!

                    And the question is to think about what they will come up with to replace their destroyers and frigates, well, at least. to the side which generally doesn’t have such an arsenal, at least not correctly!

                    And I have a very realistic approach to threats ... a real threat comes from the West. somewhere on the way to Gibraaltar, the Turks, I hope, noticed in what area they flew, "checked for lice" the Syrian air defense? If not, take a look at the map, everything will become clear without words.

                    And what do we have ... with a goose ....?

                    And what does it mean .. wait on February 24th? When will pensioners become sober (including me) after the celebration of the Day of the SA and the Navy of an already non-existent state?
                    1. leon-iv
                      leon-iv 28 June 2012 15: 43
                      +1
                      Have you ever thought that we can grab a response to a strike from the strategic nuclear forces ???
                      What the ... sorry, baby talk ???

                      So hey
                      I tell you that to strike with axes of the U.S. Navy on objects SPRN = Strike strategic nuclear forces in the United States
                      They do it openly!
                      Where is their grouping that can simultaneously release at least 400 axes on strategic objects on Russian terrorism.
                      well at least. to the side which generally doesn’t have such an arsenal, at least not correctly!
                      It’s very correct, for knowing the development trends one can prepare countermeasures.
                      And in general, the type of Ships with URO is generally NEW and in the USSR Navy they did not exist the first attempt is pr 956.
                      So it is necessary to learn how to build them and the tactics of application. For example, URO ships would help well in 2008 and UDC?
                      Gibraaltaru, the Turks, I hope, noticed in what area they flew, "checked for lice" Syrian air defense? If not, take a look at the map, everything will become clear without words.
                      I saw I can only say one hundred, our specialists created good air defense and the Syrians are good military.
                      And what does it mean .. wait on February 24th? When will pensioners become sober (including me) after the celebration of the Day of the SA and the Navy of an already non-existent state?
                      Yeah, that bike was in my unit.
                      Tell me, how much does it take to prepare an attack on the RF Armed Forces?
        2. VAF
          VAF 28 June 2012 11: 57
          0
          Quote: Vito
          I think it’s better to have such a system than to sit without it.


          I fully support you, +! But isn't it too ".... a smart thought comes too late ???", like from what year the "leaders" are at the helm?

          A photo in general is a class, for some reason no one reacted or pretended not to notice ????

          It’s more convenient ... they have destroyers and frigates of missile defense and missile defense, and we have ... rooks !!!
          1. Vito
            Vito 28 June 2012 12: 11
            +2
            veteran.air force (1)Hello FRIENDS! Glad to read your mind. About the photo, tired of admiring ALIEN ships, I want to see YOUR relatives!
            At the expense of "late". Well what can I say, better late than never (I apologize for the overwritten phrase). We have a general opinion about the leaders and it is better not to voice it, otherwise everything will be obscene (we are respectable people and cannot afford it).
            We also need rooks, the Fleet is effective when well balanced. HERE with balancing is not very!
            It is a pity to leave OUR friendly ranks, but we must go to work, I will raise the GDP of our HOMELAND.
          2. leon-iv
            leon-iv 28 June 2012 12: 29
            +2
            I fully support you, +! But isn't it too ".... a smart thought comes too late ???", like from what year the "leaders" are at the helm?
            And you never thought about progress. EMNIP for missile defense needs good computing power.
            It’s more convenient ... they have destroyers and frigates of missile defense and missile defense, and we have ... rooks !!!
            And why do you dislike the Grachenok project?
            And we have the task of defeating the US Navy at sea. Even the USSR it was not within the power.
            1. VAF
              VAF 28 June 2012 14: 30
              +1
              Quote: leon-iv
              And why do you dislike the Grachenok project?



              So you yourself answered this question almost ..... the next phrase ....

              And what is Grachok able to withstand the Northern Alliance ??? Or the Turkish fleet, and the Chinese and Japanese, with only one, a rook of a species, will all Kingston themselves open ???

              How can I not think about progress ??? I always think about him only ... but more and more I had to "... on lamps", and I wanted so much and ".... on transistors" !!!

              I can prove the regression of the photo, but again it will be an aviation theme. but here it seems to be marine right now, so ... wait a bit!

              Progress is when they make one to the Indians, and ten to themselves, I understand that when the boats are re-equipped and repaired by the Clubs in the same proportion of 1/10, I understand the same thing when they build the chic Bastion complex, but they don’t take it into service (i.e. K. Do you see it is too expensive, we will get by with Uranus, well, with the old Redoubts), I don’t understand this when the second aircraft carrier, but we give it to the Hindus as a GIFT, but we will re-equip it for $ 1,5 billion, and we will buy 2 $ -th barges (they would have been foreseen .....) and there aren’t them now and there won’t be a very long time ..... this, sorry I don’t understand ....
              but at the same time, at all the tops, we sound behind the Stone Age, file overseas .... and away we go ... it’s over the bumps !!!!

              Correctly, someone said from the members of the forum, forgot about old age, so what the hell kind of a garden to do this and suck out problems visible and not visible ..... immediately apply for NATO membership and that’s all .... and they will come and protect ... and they’ll tidy up their democracy, together with their favorite hamburger and lollipop ???
              1. leon-iv
                leon-iv 28 June 2012 15: 22
                0
                when they construct the chic Bastion complex, but they don’t take it into service
                Already have one second battery will soon be put.
                when they do one to the Hindus, and ten to themselves, I understand that,
                Now they will do only themselves
                All contracts with the Indians were started in the early 2000s when there was no fat
                I don’t understand this when the marketing aircraft carrier, but we give it as a GIFT to the Indians, but for $ 1,5 billion we will re-equip
                Honestly, if it weren't for the training of the pilots, I would have sold them to Kuzyu. But I think you understand that now there are shots that aircraft carriers can cost. Tk from old Gorshkov there is little left.
                And everyone perfectly understands that such ABs are not needed as part of the Russian Navy; such as the former Ulyanovsk are needed only without Granites with expanded air defense.
                and for $ 2 billion we’ll buy 2 barges (they would have been ripped off .....) and there aren’t them now and there won’t be a very long time ..... this, sorry, I don’t understand ....
                And when did the USSR and the Russian Federation build the UDC?
                Here you have a recent example of Libya when niche citizens are captured. Than it is bad to drag the mistral to land the Marines and, with the support of helicopters, free their citizens. And do not drag a pre-carrier + BDK.
                Just Understand the Neocolonial Wars for Resources begin.
                1. VAF
                  VAF 28 June 2012 15: 56
                  +1
                  [quote = leon-iv] Already have one battery, the second will be installed soon. [/ quote]

                  It’s not funny to yourself ??? Although you laugh here, you need to cry .... ONE BATTERY !!!! fellow

                  quote = leon-iv] Now they will only do it for themselves [/ quote]

                  Who said that ??? Always and everywhere at first to uncle and then to himself ... examples? Please-Shell, Indian Boat Clubs, etc.

                  quote = leon-iv] Honestly, if it weren't for the training of the pilots, I would have sold them to Kuzyu [/ quote]

                  But this is in vain .... a ship that has good armament, air cover ... which, by the way, can pick up much more people during the evacuation than you PLAN ONWAY_TO ON THE BARGE, by the way Kuzya and Syria are there, and where are your barges ???

                  [quote = leon-iv] And when did the USSR and the Russian Federation build the UDC? [/ quote]

                  So why do we need them with our concept ??? We had other ships for these purposes, which were better armed and could carry WAGON helicopters.

                  [quote = leon-iv] Than it is bad to drag a mistral [/ quote]

                  That's bad that his stupid just does not exist with us !!! And we, or rather, you continue to play tin soldiers, do not be offended !!!

                  And by the time they can be built and put into operation, then they will not be needed at all, as now in principle !!!


                  [quote = leon-iv] Just Understand The Neocolonial Wars over Resources begin. [/ quote]

                  But how do you want to use the FUTURE acquisition of the Russian Navy in the form of a barge in wars, is this interesting and even very, and even more so in the struggle for resources ???

                  Unless, of course, in the summer and in the Far East, chasing Japanese crabbolans, yes ... for these purposes lol
                  1. leon-iv
                    leon-iv 28 June 2012 16: 35
                    +1
                    It’s not funny to yourself ??? Although you laugh here, you need to cry .... ONE BATTERY !!!!
                    Especially considering what was adopted in 2010 in service, I think this is normally not the main priority.
                    Who said that ??? Always and everywhere at first to uncle and then to himself ... examples? Please-Shell, Indian Boat Clubs, etc.
                    You forget one thing. That interior is different and everything is limited by the possibility of allies.
                    Clubs on boats so what? Caught cockroaches at their expense.
                    At the same time, do not forget that there will be calibers in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation
                    Here is a list of ships under construction
                    Frigates
                    22350
                    11357
                    Corvettes
                    20380
                    20385
                    11661
                    MRK
                    21631


                    But this is in vain .... a ship that has good armament, air cover
                    That's just not right and wrong
                    Neither aircraft carrier nor RK
                    Kuzya and Syria, by the way, are they, and where are your barges ???
                    At the moment, are being built
                    So why do we need them with our concept ??? We had other ships for these purposes, which were better armed and could carry WAGON helicopters.
                    Helicopter carriers 1123 is the only thing that could carry helicopters purely.
                    And aircraft carriers on any occasion to drive it as from stupid. And the same Mistral has 16 drummers.
                    And by the time they can be built and put into operation, then they will not be needed at all, as now in principle !!!

                    And what is war tomorrow?
                    But how do you want to use the FUTURE acquisition of the Russian Navy in the form of a barge in wars, is this interesting and even very, and even more so in the struggle for resources ???
                    Well, for example, in some sort of Zimbabwe help establish a totalitarian regime friendly to us.
                    1. Pessimist
                      Pessimist 29 June 2012 21: 01
                      -1
                      Quote: leon-iv
                      And what is war tomorrow?

                      And what, everyone is firmly convinced that not tomorrow? 41st forget?
                  2. skiff-xnumx
                    skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 16: 55
                    +2
                    veteran.air force [/ So why do we need them with our concept ??? We had other ships for these purposes, which were better armed and the WAGON could carry helicopters.],

                    This is what for example. Do you mean Project 1123 "Condor"? So this is an anti-submarine cruiser The anti-submarine cruisers of the project were intended to combat SSBNs and submarines of a potential enemy in the distant zones of an ASW as part of naval search and strike groups and in cooperation with other ships and anti-submarine aircraft of the Navy. Pay attention to the composition of the groups. And there are only 14 turntables with 12 Ka-25PL 1-PS, 1-TSU. The pilot must know what kind of car. And these projects are not talking about any landing. Armament is also rubbish. Only anti-submarine and anti-aircraft weapons are at altitude. And the non-aircraft carrier is generally different tasks. I don’t remember any more ships with "VAGON" helicopters. UDC needed no dispute. For them, the tasks are like evacuation and cover for the landing. Also just in the group. This was realized in the USSR, but only very late, as with classic aircraft carriers. On account of the tasks of the Mistrals, the doctrine is different. Therefore, there are two (probably four) and not 10-12
                    1. skiff-xnumx
                      skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 17: 06
                      +1
                      project 1123 "Condor"
          3. viktor_ui
            viktor_ui 28 June 2012 13: 44
            +2
            Hello ! Well, about the photo it was immediately noticeable drinks
            1. VAF
              VAF 28 June 2012 14: 35
              +2
              Quote: viktor_ui
              Hello ! Well, about the photo it was immediately noticeable


              Hello buddy! +! This is understandable, but I was waiting for the reaction of the approvers, and they were silent ... only again .. you see what is written .... GOING TO DISCUSS for 2016 ....... we all tear again to rags! !!!
        3. Bronis
          Bronis 28 June 2012 13: 50
          +1
          I support. The situation is developing in such a way that not only the United States can become an adversary. Therefore, interceptor missiles will be useful not only and not so much in "dialogue" with the United States (ours and the Yankees SAS are the largest and so far they will not be able to intercept everything), as in "communication" with smaller "partners".
      2. CC-18a
        CC-18a 28 June 2012 11: 42
        +1
        Well, yes, except that the current will work to intercept tactical missiles to protect the connection of ships, though it will be expensive. Our potential opponents have, after all, the KR’s PK is a harpoon type base, a small low-power rocket which is cheaper than the S-500 rocket, it’s also a bit expensive for tomahawks, and tomahawks on surface moving targets do not work like that ... So there’s already something to protect the ship from the KR’s PK and quite effective.
        In general, what were you going to shoot down, in the water area, with the help of the S-500?
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv 28 June 2012 12: 33
          +2
          PEOPLE write yourself a subcortex
          S-400 For aerodynamic purposes and VERY poorly knocks down Ballistic
          S-500 vice versa

          RCC will bring down the polymer redoubt.
          1. Pessimist
            Pessimist 29 June 2012 21: 05
            -1
            Quote: leon-iv
            S-500 vice versa

            Uncle's drawing on paper ... Have not even decided on the appearance of the system, but you are "on the contrary"!
        2. skiff-xnumx
          skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 13: 00
          +2
          The first modifications of these missiles, known as Tomahawk Block I, were the strategic BGM-109A TLAM-N (eng.Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile - Nuclear) with a thermonuclear warhead and the anti-ship BGM-109B TASM (eng.Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile) with warhead in conventional equipment.
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 28 June 2012 13: 16
            +1
            Well this does not change her flight profile.
            By the way, the amers turned out to be evil buratins themselves, excluding their strategic offensive arms.
            I will explain during the collapse of the USSR we have just begun to seriously engage in sea-based missiles.
            Now with the introduction of universal containers. We can put the same thing on any ship with this container.
            And from Dagestan, it can carry totalitarianism in this radius from the Caspian.
            1. skiff-xnumx
              skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 13: 43
              +1
              You know, I was not interested in Project 11661 and I don’t know what kind of weapons it was, but if, as you say, there are universal containers for the Caliber complex and this complex is fully functional, then it means that you can use the Kh-102 and P missiles from this carrier -800 and 48N6E2. If this is so, then he can carry totalitarianism to the entire region from the pier wall.
              It is necessary to clarify the composition and weapon systems
              1. leon-iv
                leon-iv 28 June 2012 14: 08
                +1
                It is necessary to clarify the composition and weapon systems
                There Caliber is definitely going
                X-102, respectively, can be shoved
                P-800 makes no sense
                There are no antenna posts for 48N6E2. Only from an external command center what exactly can new destroyers do. But again, you need to look at the antenna posts.
                1. skiff-xnumx
                  skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 14: 23
                  +2
                  Now I looked at the performance characteristics. "Caliber" is there exactly as in anti-ship and for firing at ground targets. There are no antenna posts for 48Н6Е2 since there is no need to use such weapons on a ship with a displacement of 2000 tons. For other systems, the question is still open. I will dig further. By the way, the destroyer is not a friend of the corvette
                  1. leon-iv
                    leon-iv 28 June 2012 14: 33
                    0
                    Here I’m talking about
                    PU air defense systems also do not have antennas, they are only carriers.
                    Just if you need to urgently increase the density of air defense near the marine zone, then even a corvette will be suitable as a carrier.
                    By the way, the destroyer corvette is not a friend
                    What is it?
                    1. skiff-xnumx
                      skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 15: 12
                      +2
                      range, seaworthiness, autonomy for provisions and stocks are different. Can only act together in the coastal zone
        3. Bronis
          Bronis 2 July 2012 22: 31
          +1
          The Chinese seem to have muddied an anti-ship ballistic missile (it sounds crazy somehow, but still). And hypersonic missiles are not such a distant prospect. The S-500 can cover precisely from such targets a connection of surface ships, some kind of water area or coastal zone. Against the American anti-ship missiles - definitely "Polyment-Redut", which is being implemented on smaller ships, and on destroyers, probably will be.
  8. AK-74-1
    AK-74-1 28 June 2012 10: 00
    +2
    Given some experience in the field of military-technical cooperation, it can be argued that the bookmarking period is real. From communication with shipbuilders it turns out the following. Most of the capacities are contracted with all sorts of rubbish from small boats and catamarans to offshore platforms and other things. In fact, the state has to re-solve the problem with the owners of the existing shipyards, NW and SRH.
    Good news. I hope for shipbuilders. I would like to see new nuclear submarines, TARK and destroyers, with a nuclear power plant.
  9. Indigo
    Indigo 28 June 2012 10: 02
    +2
    The article is a little meager for information. Here: http://www.odnako.org/blogs/show_19314/ - a more detailed analysis on this issue, including promising weapons.
    The good news is that up to 16g. shipbuilding enterprises will undergo a complete modernization of production and ships in the ocean zone will build an order of magnitude faster. No wonder they bought the Mistrals along with the technological component.
  10. Vito
    Vito 28 June 2012 10: 04
    +2
    Yes, the article certainly has a lot of fog. Atomic E.U. sounds attractive, but advanced countries with a powerful fleet are trying to get by with gas turbine units. The United States put A.E.U on a frigate and destroyer, but they didn’t go beyond single samples! Maybe they do not want to mess with the subsequent disposal? In terms of armament, nothing is known at all. The terms of construction are encouraging, the article indicates that in the period from 2016 to 2020 all six destroyers should be embodied in metal. I THINK that the deadlines are still more or less real, I would have thrown a year or two more, but no matter what, the shipbuilding enterprises begin to come to life. The process is long and painful, but we must go forward and build up the pace. Enough to rush and twitch! It's time to build and the sooner we start, the better!
  11. vostok
    vostok 28 June 2012 10: 12
    -1
    Enough to make plans, we have to get down to business, the war is just around the corner!
  12. passmel41
    passmel41 28 June 2012 10: 42
    0
    Today, one third of Russians do not trust the president and the prime minister. And they’re doing it right.
    Just look: ydn. * Ru / q6 (copy the link without *) - a service that was made by the ministry with their support.
    Here is information about each resident of the Russian Federation, anyone can find detailed information about another person.
    And people don’t even suspect about it.
  13. skiff-xnumx
    skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 11: 05
    +3
    I hasten to congratulate you all. The news is very good. From this news, several conclusions can be drawn:
    1. In Russia, aircraft carriers will still be building. I think 2 pcs. the number of destroyers shows that the AUG will have 2 such ships + 2 for Kuzi
    2. Most likely, the work on the LMT reactor was completed. (The Kurchatov Institute was engaged) Because it makes no sense to put water-cooled reactors on ships of this class.
    3. A BIUS system has been developed which is not inferior to IJIS, since the development of such a system has been ongoing for more than a year, and if you start designing it now, then you will not be in time by 2016

    . (I can not believe that 6 pieces were built before 2020)

    The term of construction of such ships is 3-4 years with timely financing and supplies from subcontractors. As I understand it, they plan to build at 2 plants in the North and Baltic (by the way, one of them has recently received a license to work with nuclear facilities), so when laying, let's say 3 in 2016 and 2 in 2017 and 1 in 2018, you can get the whole series by 2020-2021. But when they are accepted in the Navy remains a mystery
    1. leon-iv
      leon-iv 28 June 2012 11: 20
      0
      . But when they are accepted in the Navy remains a mystery
      Most likely, when the first AB comes out for testing, it’s an escort for them.
      1. skiff-xnumx
        skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 11: 27
        +1
        Kuzyu is said to be modernized in 2017-2020
    2. rumpeljschtizhen
      rumpeljschtizhen 28 June 2012 11: 43
      +1
      .. until all that you skiff-xnumx they said with a pitchfork on the water ... and you forget about the aircraft carriers
      1. skiff-xnumx
        skiff-xnumx 28 June 2012 13: 01
        +2
        But in vain I really want
        1. VAF
          VAF 28 June 2012 14: 56
          +2
          Quote: skiff-1980
          But in vain I really want


          To want is not harmful ..... It is harmful not to want !!!! + drinks
      2. leon-iv
        leon-iv 28 June 2012 13: 17
        0
        Everything will depend on Sevmash.
        Most likely, first they will finish the Avia wing from Mig29K they will try out the methods later and they will send the kuzu for repair.
        1. VAF
          VAF 28 June 2012 14: 57
          +3
          Quote: leon-iv
          they will try out the techniques later and then they will send the kuzu for repair.


          Kuzya, as he came from the campaign, so he already began ... for repairs ... according to the plan until 2017 ... well, but we, you know, have plans to believe ... do not respect yourself!
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 28 June 2012 18: 31
            +1
            Oops on a couple even missed it.
            So they waited for the pots to leave.
            Thanks for the info I will try to see what will be done to him.
  14. MILITARY RF
    MILITARY RF 28 June 2012 11: 15
    0
    news supe .... but I hope that the words .... will turn into business
  15. anchonsha
    anchonsha 28 June 2012 11: 34
    0
    Everything is normal, if you are talking about creating new ships with missile defense systems. This will be a headache for the United States, since the missile defense systems on land we already know where they are based. If only everything was without failures, with timely financing. And this can affect, since the whole world is in crisis due to the fault of the same western shit-democrats ....
  16. Diesel
    Diesel 28 June 2012 13: 18
    +3
    We will have 20 destroyers by the 6th year, the United States 20, the Chinese 40. Everything is very sad crying
  17. Waroc
    Waroc 28 June 2012 19: 22
    +1
    Men, I have a desire to speak out.
    Please note that in the last few months there’s just the ninth wave of reports that by 2016, 2020 ... and so on, we will have built, commissioned, commissioned for years ...
    And where is the information about the revenues that have already occurred (individual successes, as well as non-military equipment (such as automobiles) are not taken into account).
    And I would not like to be misunderstood (the opposition and their ostentatious fussing of various kinds disgust me), but the terms were made public for the future, and there they can be adjusted (usually upward), just forget, and in the end, "We wanted, but we didn’t succeed, ”and it seems that there are no guilty ones, and everything is new again, or rather the old one ...
    1. VAF
      VAF 28 June 2012 22: 24
      +2
      Quote: Waroc
      and in the end, "We wanted to, but we didn’t succeed," and it seems that there are no guilty ones, and everything is again the same, or rather the old one ...


      As you look into the water ... 99,9% will be so, +! drinks
  18. Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 29 June 2012 00: 57
    -1
    I think the next generation destroyers should be at least 12 thousand tons and have nuclear weapons,
    1. skiff-xnumx
      skiff-xnumx 29 June 2012 06: 49
      +1
      That YSU agrees. But where does such a displacement come from. The Arly Burke-class destroyers have a total displacement of 9648 tons in the second series. Although there is a tendency towards an increase in displacement, if 12-15 tons are exceeded, it will already be a cruiser. When using a ZhMT reactor and 10 tons of tons, you can shove weapons superior in performance characteristics and firepower of the cruisers of the Orlan and Atlant projects before the Orlanov modernization.
      1. Mr. Truth
        Mr. Truth 29 June 2012 12: 49
        +2
        skiff-xnumx, in my opinion, cruisers will become a thing of the past, they will be replaced by "hybrids" of destroyers and cruisers.
        1. skiff-xnumx
          skiff-xnumx 29 June 2012 14: 45
          +2
          Mr. Truth, Not sure. Most likely the class of the ship as a cruiser will die out as a battleship. In the case of bringing the nuclear warhead to a reasonable mass-dimensional characteristics, a displacement of 10000 tons will be enough to accommodate so many weapons that it will just not make sense to build large meshes.
  19. 5aa1
    5aa1 29 June 2012 12: 20
    +1
    well, as for the timeline "until 2020" - a no brainer. the state funder program is designed until this year. the program was drawn up correctly, the main thing is that Mr. S. and the company do not twist and put the 10th part in their pocket. Yes.
    purely for reference (state defense order until 2020) I am attaching a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OPmBImx4oA video. if anyone is interested. :)
  20. gen.meleshkin
    gen.meleshkin 29 June 2012 14: 41
    +1
    Indeed, a developing defense industry can become a locomotive of Russian industry and engineering. And advanced weapons will not be superfluous for us.
  21. Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 29 June 2012 15: 26
    +1
    skiff-xnumx, the cruisers "Atlanta" seemed to me not too big targets) Although 10 kilotons is also enough, if such monsters as P-500 and P-1000 are not shoved there.
    1. skiff-xnumx
      skiff-xnumx 29 June 2012 16: 09
      +2
      Mr. Truth, I agree P-500, P-1000 and even P-700 are already yesterday. Although even now it terrifies our "friends", but not much time will pass and it will be possible to frighten only the Papuans with this weapon. By the way, here I carefully looked at the information on the new destroyers and concluded that the emphasis was placed on armament of air defense and missile defense in a bias of strike weapons. So these are escort ships. So there will be a Russian aircraft carrier.
  22. Wolkin
    Wolkin 30 June 2012 05: 10
    0
    The other day in St. Petersburg hosted an international economic forum. Among other topics, it discussed the fate of domestic shipbuilding.

    An interesting turn. I understood this: the whole economic world gathered and discussed our military shipbuilding? To what extent does it interest them? Why not ourselves, but they with us? Our fleet or them?
    Judging by the statements of the responsible persons in this industry, the domestic navy is entering a period of active development and renewal.

    It’s also interesting: he hasn’t set foot yet, he is just entering, judging by the statements.

    Then come the statements of anonymous sources ....
    and the final:

    As you can see, at the moment all the information about the new destroyers is a couple of short and vague phrases, and a lot of assumptions and conjectures. Based on the stated start date of construction, you can try to guess the time when something more specific will appear in the public domain. Most likely, the details regarding the new project will appear as it is implemented, and the number of news reaches its peak just in time for the laying of the lead ship. Although, as it sometimes happens, the details may appear earlier, but still not before the end of the design work.
  23. Mista_dj
    Mista_dj 15 July 2012 16: 01
    +1
    Article - empty - kamenty - rule!
    Learned a lot for yourself new!
    Thanks for the competent posts!