At an angle to the horizon. "Caliber" needs installation for inclined start


"Gauges" will start completely along an inclined path, but so far only from submarines


The advent of the UKSK universal naval firing complex and the 3С14 universal launchers that provide vertical launch of the Caliber family of cruise missiles was a sharp step forward in the potential capabilities of the Russian Navy. Now, during the construction of any warship, it became possible to "fit" into its design a "package" of at least eight vertically mounted missiles. 3С14 launchers can also be set in “blocks” of several units. Thus, Russia received technologies that are largely similar to those due to which the US Navy sharply added power at the turn of the 80's and 90's of the last century.

The creators of this system have the right to be proud of it.

However, another fact should not be hidden behind pride and joy - focusing only on vertical launch installations does not fully reveal the combat potential of the Russian military fleet. Together with 3C14, the Navy “threw out a child with water” - refused a decision allowing the Caliber family of cruise missiles to be deployed not only on new ships, or upgraded by Admiral Nakhimov and Marshal Shaposhnikov TPC missiles, complex and expensive.

We are talking about the inclined launch of cruise missiles, not vertically up, but at an angle to the horizontal. Such a solution would allow the installation of rocket launchers for the Caliber family of missiles on any old ship that has adequate deck reinforcements and provides resistance to heat from the jet exhaust of the rocket launch booster.

Installation, allowing you to run "Gauges" "in a slope" was developed, there is even an index 3С14П, where "P" means "Deck". It could be put on any ship armed with missiles, instead of a regular missile weapons. And with minimal alterations. But alas.

Tilt


Launching a cruise missile is not vertically upward, as our Caliber and American Tomahawks are launching today, but at an angle to the horizontal, “tilting” is more energetically advantageous for a cruise missile. The reason is that a few seconds after the start, additional lifting force already appears on its body, and the appearance of lifting force on the wing occurs immediately after the wings open.

A very important advantage of this method of launching a rocket is a gentle “slide” - a rocket launching “on a slope” does not rise to such a height that the accelerator raises the rocket during vertical launch. This is important because with a vertical launch, an adversary can detect a missile that has risen high enough for its radars to detect it from a great distance - albeit for a matter of seconds. These seconds are enough for the enemy to understand that a missile strike is being struck.


Start with submarine - the trajectory of the rocket is very flat


At an angle to the horizon. "Caliber" needs installation for inclined start

Launch of 3M14 missiles from surface ships - it can be seen that the rocket takes off quite high to go on a horizontal trajectory

Another important feature of such installations is that they allow you to equip anything with cruise missiles. This is confirmed, for example, by the American experience.

The first “Tomahawks” began to arrive at the Navy of the so-called ABL - armored box launcher. Being incomparably lighter than the standard Mk.41 today, ABLs do not require so many volumes under the deck - in fact, they only need power cables and connections to the CIUS. It can be installed on any ship. The Americans, however, they were not just inclined, but also lifting - this provided the possibility of multiple reloading on the ship. But we still do not have space, you can put it stationary.


Mounted on a Virginia-class nuclear missile cruiser, Mk.143 installations


And this is the installation in the already raised position for launching missiles on the ship of the Second World War - battleship "Wisconsin" class "Iowa"

The Americans, having received such a launcher, immediately began to equip it with their "ones" - destroyers "Spruance", nuclear-powered cruisers of the Virginia class and, until a certain moment, the champion of carrying the Tomahawks - battleships of the Iowa class. A little later vertical installations appeared on the Spryuans and Tikonderogs, and then a series of Arly Burke destroyers went on, but it all started with armored boxes on decks.


Starting a Tomahawk cruise missile from an inclined position - the Caliber can fly exactly the same, it would be why

And this lesson from the past, our Navy completely ignores.

Missed Opportunities


There are ships in the under deck of which vertical launch installations are placed. This is, for example, the heavy nuclear missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov. Or BOD project 1155 - we will return to the project of their modernization.

It is less known that the “vertical” 3С14 can stand on the TFR of the 1135 project instead of the standard Metel missile system - then instead of the four old 85P missiles, the ship would receive eight “cells” into which modern 91Р / РТ and КР caliber family missiles could stand "- both the 3M54 anti-ship missile and the 3M14 missile for striking ground targets.

However, such an upgrade makes sense only with the repair of the ship and the extension of its service life by a substantial amount, the possibility of which is not obvious.

But the possibility of installing inclined launching rails (if they were) on the MRK of 1234 "Gadfly" projects is obvious.

Currently, these ships are undergoing modernization repairs, during which, instead of the Malachite missile system with six missiles, the ships receive the Uranus missile system with sixteen.

Such modernization certainly increases their strike potential when attacking surface targets. However, if such ships received “Caliber” instead of “Uranus,” then their strike potential would not have been less, rather, on the contrary, they would have become multiple. But at the same time they would have the opportunity to attack ground targets.

Currently, the total volley of cruise missiles of our entire fleet is absolutely insufficient, in the US Navy the same number of missiles can be launched by a couple of destroyers. At the same time, in Russia there are twelve units of 1234 missile systems of the project, and two units of ships of the 1239 project.

It is difficult to determine how many Caliber family missiles could actually fit on the Gadfly. On the ship of the 1234.7 project “Nakat”, which was used to test the Onyx anti-ship missiles, it was possible to place 12 of such anti-ship missiles. Given the fact that the Caliber family of missiles is smaller, it is safe to say that approximately sixteen of these missiles would have fallen on RTOs.


MRK Nakat with Onyxes

Of course, in the future, such launch vehicles will be replaced by ground launchers. But, firstly, ground control missiles of the Kyrgyz Republic will not be able to attack enemy ships if the enemy substitutes, and secondly, we already have RTOs anyway, why not give them additional capabilities, making the ship more versatile? This is not to spend on new money - the ships have already been built.

Approximately the same “Caliber” could be installed on each of the two X-ray projectiles of 1239 project.

Thus, if pennies on oblique launchers for ships had not been saved at one time, and an accelerated modernization of RTOs had been carried out, now the Navy would have more carriers for cruise missiles on 14, and each of them would carry 16 cruise missiles. Total 224 missiles in salvo.

Similarly, the destroyers of the 956 project could be modernized. These ships, like RTOs, are questionable in concept - they have very powerful artillery weapons combined with powerful anti-ship missiles, but in a small amount - 8 units on board. Air defense, frankly speaking, is moderate in capabilities, and anti-aircraft defense is approximately zero.

The ship, therefore, is not optimal and vulnerable from under the water. Having put here his problematic boiler-turbine power plant, we get a “walking headache”. But, again, as in the case of RTOs, other ships of this class will not be soon, and this one can very well be used for surface attacks, fire support for landing and air defense. Replacing the Moskit anti-ship missiles with Caliber would, firstly, solve the problem of obsolescence of the main offensive weapons for this ship, which, we recognize, exist, secondly, increase its ammunition load, and thirdly, also give it the ability to strike along the coast from a great distance. And here, no ground complex could compete with it. The destroyer is a ship in the ocean zone, armed with the Caliber KR, it could strike almost anywhere on the planet, remaining in the depths of the ocean zone without approaching a dangerous distance to the enemy’s coast.



A somewhat similar example - the old anti-ship missile system on the Indian destroyer "Rajput" of the 61E project was replaced by the anti-ship missile system "Bramos". It can be seen that this is just an inclined farm with TPK. PU for Caliber would be identical

Assuming that the destroyer would have 16 missiles, we get another 32 missiles in salvo on the ships that are in service, and, potentially, if Persistent is repaired, then 16, all 48. Together with the modernized RTOs of two projects - 272 missiles.

But all this pales against the backdrop of the opportunity to rearm the 1164 project missile cruisers. The placement of anti-ship missile launchers on these ships is such that their replacement with vertical launch launchers is completely excluded. But the replacement of sixteen huge launchers of Soviet anti-ship missiles with compact launchers for the Caliber, and perhaps the Onyx (like at the Nakat missile defense system) is quite feasible. It’s hard to immediately imagine how many missiles the cruiser can carry after such an upgrade, but in any case we are talking about many tens of units. And some of them may well be intended for attacks on ground targets.


The missile cruiser of the 1164 project "Moscow". It can be seen that the launchers are simply huge, their Caliber family missiles (and maybe Onyx) would fit in a huge amount

Once again, it’s worthwhile to focus on the fact that everything is technically feasible - the Caliber family missiles can be launched from inclined guides, a transport and launch container has been developed for experimental container launchers, which can become the “base” for the development of TPK with inclined launch. Those ships on which such missiles could "register" and so have inclined launchers, and, accordingly, will withstand the load from the "Caliber". All that is needed is political will and a very small amount of money compared to other military expenditures.

True, there is an expensive option.

Modernization of the BPC “Marshal Shaposhnikov” as a comparative example. As you know, the BOD of the Marshal Shaposhnikov project is currently under modernization. There was a lot of speculation about this modernization at one time, and today it can be said that the “speculators” were largely right. The modernization project really, among other things, provides for the dismantling of one of two artillery installations, instead of which 2 launchers 3С14 will be mounted, eight cruise missiles in each. Regular PU KT-100 PLRK "Trump" has already been dismantled. Instead, they will be mounted PU RK "Uranus".


Inclined PU CT-100 PLRK "Bell". Instead of them there will be PU "Uranus"


The photo shows that the second AK-100 artillery mount was dismantled and "wells" under the 3С14 launcher were already mounted instead


View from above. "Wells" are visible under 3С14

At first glance, the result of the modernization is promised to be good - the ship has 16 “cells” in which there may be PLURs for destroying submarines, and cruise missiles for hitting the ground, there may be other missile weapons.

And the plus to them is also Uranus. The downside is the lost gun.

It’s too early to talk about the price, let’s just say that two 3С14 launchers for this ship by themselves are much more than a billion rubles (including hull operations). The numbers will one day be voiced, while we confine ourselves to the fact that the restructuring of the entire bow of such a ship cannot be cheap.

The problem with our Navy was that there was a much cheaper alternative.

The fact is that it was technically possible to slightly, by a few degrees, change the installation angle of the standard KT-100 launchers, place them instead of the standard 85RU missiles on a pair of TPK with missiles of the Caliber family.




Examples of existing TPK for "Caliber" missiles. Approximately the same, only a longer container is used for the Caliber-NK. And it is precisely such containers that could stand inside the CT-100 instead of the large-sized 85RU PLUR

It would be several times cheaper - neither 3С14 nor cutting the body where they were installed would be needed, the second 100-mm gun would remain in place, only the BIUS would be modified. Moreover, the number of missiles in CT-100 would be the same as that of Shaposhnikov, it would be in 3С-14.

What would be the advantages of such a solution? Firstly, it is many billion rubles cheaper. The total savings on all BODs that will be modernized would be comparable to the cost of building a small ship or ship.

Secondly, the gun remains. BOD project 1155 do not have long-range air defense systems. Their SAM “Dagger”, among other things, has a small reach of the target in height - 6000 meters. AK-100 guns have more than twice the reach in height. And when the ship attacks with bombs from aircraft flying at altitudes of more than 6000 meters, it is the guns that are its only means of air defense. And here the number of trunks is of serious importance. When repulsing a missile attack, an “extra” 100-mm barrel would also be in place.

Third, the timing. A simple modernization, not associated with an extensive cutting of hull structures, would allow to finish all work with the ship much faster. And this is also critical for the Navy.

Someone will object that in this case the ship is deprived of the Uran missile system, the missiles of which should be installed in place of the KT-100 launchers. But closer to the stern of the ship are the CTA-53 torpedo tubes obsolete to the limit and taking up a lot of space. They have no meaning at present. Their dismantling will allow not only to place in the indicated area of ​​the ship the launcher of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Uranus" (with the direction of fire to the side, as on Western ships or corvettes of the 20380 project), but also to install launchers of the "Package" complex with 324-mm torpedoes and anti-torpedoes there. Which is not superfluous for a ship whose task is to fight submarines.


It could be put and RK "Uranus" and PU complex "Package"

Alas, none of this will happen already, at least with Shaposhnikov - for sure, but knowing the policy of the Navy, you can guarantee that it will not happen at all.

Despite the fleet’s indifference to cost savings, it’s worth voicing this problem - it is technically possible to ensure the launch of Caliber family cruise missiles from inclined launchers. Such installations can be mounted on naval ships instead of the standard ones. In the case of the BOD of the 1155 project, as a principle, inclined launchers can in principle be used standard CT-100 launchers with minimal modifications. But nobody in the Navy needs them.

The use of inclined launchers will allow upgrading the mass of ships armed with the Navy, giving them new capabilities, and not expensive. All that is needed is to quickly resume the development of the 3C-14P launcher and bring it to the "series", develop a project to modernize the CT-100 launcher, finalize the Caliber missile launchers for oblique launch, develop new missile software and conduct tests.

There are no fundamental reasons why something in this project could not work out seriously.

Vertical launching installations are good in that they allow you to "pack" more missiles into a given volume than inclined ones, but they are more appropriate on new ships than on old ones, on old ones it makes sense in a few cases. In the rest, both common sense and economic feasibility require a completely different solution.

Financing the Navy in the foreseeable future will be insufficient, and this requires an economical approach to everything. It would be very nice if we would get firepower at a lower cost of money, which our country has so little.
Author:
Photos used:
seaforces.org, Vadim Savitsky / TASS, Press Service of the RF Ministry of Defense, ichtios (forums.airbase.ru), Matvey (Military Review), Agat Concern, Defensetalk.com, Militaryrussia.ru, RIAN
Articles from this series:
Saving import? Mine complex PLUTO for the Russian Navy
Light torpedo tube. We need this weapon, but we don't have it.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Lexus 15 November 2019 18: 09 New
    • 12
    • 33
    -21
    Something always disturbs a bad dancer. There are plenty of places on the ship to accommodate not only the UKKS, but also Reduta. And in vacated niches, you can usefully use it without Caliber.
    1. A good one 15 November 2019 18: 35 New
      • 18
      • 12
      +6
      And you were there, but you touched something there? belay There are very few "places", it’s not for you to ride the boat with the girls, there are communications, a wise guy. yes
      1. Aerodrome 15 November 2019 19: 53 New
        • 21
        • 8
        +13
        At an angle to the horizon. "Caliber" needs installation for inclined start

        Does the article seem "strange" to me alone?
        1. D16
          D16 15 November 2019 20: 12 New
          • 10
          • 0
          +10
          The bottom picture is X-35, not calibers.
          1. Aerodrome 15 November 2019 20: 18 New
            • 4
            • 5
            -1
            Quote: D16
            The bottom picture is X-35, not calibers.

            II.i.i.i. fundamental difference?
            1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 33 New
              • 8
              • 1
              +7
              Well, as if completely different missiles, in everything.
            2. D16
              D16 15 November 2019 22: 05 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              Well, like yes lol . The rocket is two times shorter and three times lighter. It was originally developed for an inclined start. The Caliber family was developed for vertical launchers.
        2. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 16 New
          • 12
          • 11
          +1
          To normal people, normal articles seem strange, to normal people, strange people seem strange.
          1. Aerodrome 15 November 2019 20: 23 New
            • 14
            • 8
            +6
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            To normal people, normal articles seem strange, to normal people, strange people seem strange.

            Bravo Alexander. ! (you will not praise yourself, nobody will praise!) wassat one you are normal ...- conceive!
            1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 33 New
              • 5
              • 5
              0
              Far from alone, look at what people write, for the most part everyone understood everything.
              1. Dante Alighieri 16 November 2019 16: 44 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                I support. More recently explained the same thing in an article by Roman Skomorokhov https://topwar.ru/164431-the-national-interest-prigovoril-rossijskij-flot.html

                In general, after reading the text, one gets the impression that you, Alexander, wrote an entire article just to support my position. There are many points of contact between them. Of course, I understand that this is not so, but sometimes I want to amuse my vanity))))

                True, regarding the modernization of 1155, I do not agree with you a little: I think that the rejection of the second art is the most rational act in the entire project of remaking this ship. Like it or not, well, it is not intended for air defense, in any way, especially if the radar of the SUAO Leo does not replace the Puma, which is more adapted for such tasks. No, of course, we are free to hammer in nails with a microscope, but a hammer is much better for this. So let the fight against bombs and missiles remain the property of the Daggers and AK-630, in my opinion, there are more than enough of them. But to install something more "weighty" in addition to the existing one would not hurt.

                Take at least the same Calm (the carriers of which, albeit in the form of a beam installation, were the twin BOD 1155 - destroyers, etc. 956). For a theoretical study of this issue, I have long been looking for overall indicators of the TPK MS-487, but so far to no avail. Therefore, I am repelled by the length of the 9М317МЭ rocket, which is only 5,18 m., Versus 9,58 m. Height from the ZS-14. As a result, according to my very rough calculations, the installation of this complex would not even require the dismantling of the superstructure that previously existed under the second AK-100 (except for its roof). And as soon as the 16 PU Caliber managed to be pushed into the turret compartment, I believe that we could have equipped these ships with 32 medium-range missiles (provided that the calibers are located in the slopes on the deck, of course).

                Again, do not forget that the BNC 1155 is quite old ships, and such work as integration into the hull of the ЗС-14 is a very time-consuming and costly process, even if we proceed only from the cost of the launcher itself, without taking into account all other work. A reasonable question arises: is it reasonable and cost-effective (these are different concepts) to carry out such a “modernization” if the service life of the ships is planned to be extended by only 10-15 years? But Calmness in this regard, based on the price / quality ratio, looks much more democratic. I'm not talking about the fact that from the turret compartment, even after installing the MS-487 TPK, there will be a little “free” space for expanding the crew’s cockpit, which should, in theory, affect the results of their service for the better (unfortunately, something, what about the comfort of people we always thought last)
                1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 10 New
                  • 4
                  • 1
                  +3
                  Again, do not forget that the 1155 BOD is quite old ships, and such work as integration into the ZS-14 hull is a very time-consuming and costly process, even if we proceed only from the cost of the launch itself, without taking into account all other work. A reasonable question arises: is it reasonable and cost-effective (these are different concepts) to carry out such a “modernization” if the life of the ships is planned to be extended by only 10-15 years? But Calmness in this regard, based on the price / quality ratio, looks much more democratic.


                  This part of your comment is the key - the ships are old, the cable routes are old, any upgrade gets into a lot of money. Therefore, it was necessary to act simply - shove a pair of TPK with “Caliber” in KT-100, throw firewood into the idea of ​​the CTU-53 to the stern, put the Uranium launcher in the place where the crane for loading torpedoes stands and stop.

                  Instead, they scambled for many, many billions. What for? Money nowhere to go? Let them ask me, I’ll tell you where to put them.

                  Why am I standing behind the AK-100 - the trick is that in the caliber 100 - mm you can make a guided anti-aircraft shell. In addition, even now there are old-style anti-aircraft shells for a gun. And although, as you have noticed, the gun is far from ideal as an anti-aircraft gun, they work quite well and the reach in height is completely missile.
                  Yes, the projectile is slow, the chances of getting a speed target from the gun are small, but not zero.
                  And in this case, two barrels turn out to be twice as good as one, because the density of fire will be very important when repelling a blow from the air.
                  Plus, you can update the electronic warfare and increase the number of false targets. Three times.
                  That's enough.
                  .
                  And to invest some crazy billions in these ships is irrational. This applies to the Calm and the modernist "Dagger".
                  1. ser56 19 November 2019 14: 58 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    some crazy billions are irrational

                    but this is from whose point of view .... request
              2. Alexey LK 17 November 2019 05: 18 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                everyone understood everything.

                Well, not quite all. Although thank you for the article, but about the “flatness of the trajectory” ... Isn’t it easier to solve this problem by reprogramming the “powder” thrusters (if such a problem really exists)? I don’t know how significant what you wrote about the lift, but the detection of the enemy’s radar still depends precisely on the height, and not on the slope - and here it’s not obvious that the vertical start somehow loses the slope in this parameter - in any case , judging by your illustrations. winked
        3. alexmach 15 November 2019 21: 22 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Does the article seem "strange" to me alone?

          Yes, to you alone.
        4. Mestny 15 November 2019 22: 47 New
          • 7
          • 13
          -6
          Quote: Aerodrome
          Does the article seem "strange" to me alone?

          No.
          The article is another pulling an owl on a globe.
          For a missile with a range of well, let's say 1000 km. generally it doesn’t care if it starts.
          1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 11 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Excluding the fact that on some ships it can’t be placed otherwise than in an inclined launcher
          2. certero 17 November 2019 16: 29 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Anti-ship calibers range is much less
        5. ver_ 16 November 2019 03: 58 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          ... a campaign of the genre crisis ...
        6. Alex777 23 November 2019 21: 32 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          ... to me alone does the article seem "strange"?

          There is a tendency that those who worry about the fleet are preparing for the wars that were, and the command of the Navy should prepare for what they will be. I hope so. hi
          Regarding the article:
          1. They did not begin to develop inclined launchers (although there is a name with a letter) because they planned to build in quantity ships with a runway.
          2. To return now to this topic with a small number of ships (1155, 1164 we delete immediately), significant funds and years for completion and testing - it makes no sense. While they do, there will be nowhere to bet.
          3. About 1164. If they wanted to put something "light" on them, then 40-48 Onyxes could have been put for a long time. There is everything for this. But they don’t put it - the caliber for the cruiser is small.
          Even Israeli boats conducted exercises to destroy target missiles flying at 2,5M. Yes, the targets did not maneuver. But there are already Asters, and Sea Zeptor which were developed for interception including Onyxes.
          But these systems will be able to stop the Vulcan rocket, with its mass and protection - this is a great mystery.
          4. About the fact that Zircons will be different, for ships larger and smaller - has already been written. It was mentioned that there will be different starting boosters. I can assume that the “light” Zircons are for VPU, and the heavy ones are for inclined PUs.
          5. Everything further stated is purely IMHO. Replacing the Volcanoes with Zircons makes sense.
          6. Replacing the Sockets with Zircons also makes sense. With an inclined PU of course. The fact that such PU is done - we will find out when it will be possible. But PU Uranus on the site of the Sockets look orphaned. And the crane was removed. But there, in place of the crane, 2 of these PU in the subject.
          7. The number of missiles produced annually by the Kyrgyz Republic and RCC for the fleet is small, approximately 100-150 in different years. Therefore, it is necessary to do those that will be most effective.
          I am waiting for the adoption of Zircon. Then much will become clear. wink
    2. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 15 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      In RTOs, everything is especially easy to intermeddle.
      1. Aerodrome 15 November 2019 20: 24 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        In RTOs, everything is especially easy to intermeddle.
        all ??? but what the hell? belay in my opinion, it’s all in the “journalist” .... and it’s getting out.
        1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 34 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          It was an irony, you simply did not understand.
          1. Mestny 15 November 2019 22: 48 New
            • 3
            • 5
            -2
            Yes, we all understood, comrade.
            1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 11 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              You definitely don’t understand anything. "Understanding" is not yours, apparently. Look for comrades elsewhere. In where did you fall here.
      2. Lexus 15 November 2019 20: 50 New
        • 8
        • 11
        -3
        In RTOs, everything is especially easy to intermeddle.

        Alexander, do not be angry. I read your articles with interest. I agree with almost everything. But, inclined PUs are, rather, not from a good life, but from the budget of modernization. If it’s wider, in the superstructure it would be possible to place the Russian response to Aegis, part of the antenna canvases, the largest, and the part responsible for low-flying targets, on the “tower”.
        RTOs are generally both laughter and sin. If not "Caliber", then only fit into the firewalls.
        Regards, Alexey. hi
        1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 21: 15 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          But, inclined PUs are, rather, not from a good life, but from the budget of modernization.


          So this is important! Plus, the terms of modernization.
        2. bk0010 16 November 2019 11: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: lexus
          But, inclined PUs are, rather, not from a good life, but from the budget of modernization.
          Damn, I always believed that launchers are tilted so that the defective rocket does not fall back onto the ship, and they switch to vertical launchers to increase the protection of the missiles by the ship's structures. Why are inclined pu cheaper?
          1. alexmach 16 November 2019 12: 31 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Why are inclined pu cheaper?

            Yes, the hull of an existing ship does not need to be cut. just to replace the old oblique PU with a new one, that’s all ... well, not all of course, but less work with the case.
            1. bk0010 16 November 2019 12: 38 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              And, in this sense ... And I got stuck on the cool electronics, which are in the UVP, but not in the inclined one. I kept thinking - why was she there?
          2. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 12 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Cheaper not so much on their own, as their installation on a modernized ship. Because of the hull work and everything that accompanies them.
    3. ochakow703 16 November 2019 04: 30 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Well, you would have stuck a beer stall there ...
    4. Winnie76 16 November 2019 13: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: lexus
      There are plenty of places on the ship to accommodate not only the UKKS, but also Reduta.

      I wonder how much UKKS will fit on the kayak Taimen-2
  2. Baron wrangel 15 November 2019 18: 16 New
    • 8
    • 4
    +4
    Yes, an inclined launcher would not hurt. The efficiency from the rocket would be greater, and the time of acceleration and arrival to the target is reduced. Let not a lot, but still. In battle, this plays a huge role.
    1. asv363 15 November 2019 19: 25 New
      • 21
      • 3
      +18
      Vertical start-up provides 360 g start. regardless of the course of the ship, an inclined launch, if necessary, to attack the target in the wake will lead to the need to turn the rocket 180 g. This is both time and extra fuel consumption, which is important for RCC.
      1. Vadmir 15 November 2019 19: 49 New
        • 21
        • 1
        +20
        You are absolutely right, there are other advantages of vertical installations - compact placement, less impact on the stability of the ship, since the rocket is buried in the hull.
        But the author, this does not dispute, as I understand it, he writes only about the modernization of old ships that already have inclined launchers of old Soviet missiles.
        1. asv363 15 November 2019 20: 02 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          And I am not against modernization with the help of special TPKs installed at an angle. This statement raised my questions:
          Quote: Baron Wrangel
          The efficiency from the rocket would be greater, and the time of acceleration and arrival to the target is reduced. Let not a lot, but still. In battle, this plays a huge role.
        2. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 23 New
          • 8
          • 1
          +7
          But the author, this does not dispute, as I understand it, he writes only about the modernization of old ships that already have inclined launchers of old Soviet missiles.


          You are absolutely right - that is precisely the point.
          1. Mestny 15 November 2019 22: 49 New
            • 6
            • 4
            +2
            Why then write about efficiency?
      2. Dmitry Potapov 15 November 2019 19: 58 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        You are a plus! I will say more, in the case of a ship passing through the gaps of a minefield, or the danger of shallow, or entering the coverage area of ​​enemy RCC, when a U-turn is impossible, the vertical is a huge plus!
        1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 24 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          There are ships on which the EVP will not get up, for example, the old MRK Ovod.
      3. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 17 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        The nuance is that it is not possible to put UVP on many old ships at all or put it very expensive. And here the inclined PUs would be quite out of place.
        1. DarkMatter 17 November 2019 13: 26 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Welcome hi
          I must say right away that I am for the existence of an inclined PU)))

          Regarding the RTOs, I believe that they chose a fast homeless bundle with Uraniums because a. already did the Vietnamese, b. cheap and cheerful in view of the puffs with the construction of Karakurt.

          But 956 destroyers I think should be left alone. Give them a peaceful life. It is completely not rational to spend one and a half barely alive ruts.

          In Moscow (and other 1164) it might have tasted delicious all this wealth. But as it is correctly noticed, the ships are needed now (and it’s not at all clear what will happen to Moscow), and to put the ship in such modernization for many years is not absolutely necessary. That is, there is no urgent need for blood from the nose. They can also serve with standard weapons. And knowing how long our ships are in modernization, I would have thought twice what it is better to have - more missiles once there or an operating unit.

          On Shaposhnikov it would be possible to have an inclined launcher instead of Uraniums, although they are not bad, not for all purposes to spend expensive missiles. Here, in general, the situation is both good and not bad. I do not see any problems. But shoving Uranus everywhere in the hull makes no sense. This modernization urgently needs something else - air defense. It is with air defense problems, and the number of attacking missiles, of course, I would like to have more, but not critical.

          So by the end it is clear that the idea is good, but it breaks up into harsh reality. Having an inclined PU is better than not having it) However, there is no direct immediate need. Although at MRK I would not mind seeing her. But the decision was made differently and there are reasons for another decision, as I think.
          Something like this fellow
  3. Lexeich 15 November 2019 18: 32 New
    • 3
    • 20
    -17
    The article is about nothing. Vertically. Tilted. The main thing is that the rocket hit the target.
    1. knn54 15 November 2019 18: 50 New
      • 10
      • 5
      +5
      Alexander, let me disagree. The author in one of the paragraphs clearly noted that with a joint volley of ALL ships of the Black Sea Fleet and the Caspian Flotilla is equivalent to a volley of TOTAL two (well, three) American destroyers. But at the same time, the MO stubbornly rivets some kind of "floating batteries" ..
      And to be honest, what can I answer with a volley of thousands (at least) of Tomogavkov plus a hundred or two carrier-based aircraft.
      I warn you right away, “caps” will not help.
      1. A good one 15 November 2019 19: 14 New
        • 10
        • 17
        -7
        Quote: knn54
        And to be honest, what can I answer with a volley of thousands (at least) of Tomogavkov plus a hundred or two carrier-based aircraft.
        I warn you right away, “caps” will not help.

        And the nuclear triad of Russia is a "cap" Buddy? Or a beach hat pulled over your eyes and ears? wink
        1. knn54 15 November 2019 19: 55 New
          • 8
          • 11
          -3
          Viktorovich. This is only the United States. And when others catch up.
          Now about the nuclear triad;
          -TODAY, the nuclear submarines are unlikely to go far from the base. There is no REAL cover. "Blue" is crude.
          -In 2021–2022, the guaranteed 20-year period of safe operation of the Topol and Voevoda complexes ends. .
          And this is YuzhMash. And what's next.
          Aviation, I don’t know.
          So who and what is tense, let me ask.
          1. A good one 15 November 2019 20: 02 New
            • 10
            • 19
            -9
            Man, throw away all the husks that are in your head to the side, don’t upset me, who is assigned the task, they will answer properly, well, I don’t want to educate you in the basics of combat readiness and combat duty. hi
            1. knn54 15 November 2019 20: 09 New
              • 10
              • 6
              +4
              It is still unknown who can enlighten anyone, both in the production plan and about combat duty. Including warranty supervision ..
              Friendly advice, see less videos / cartoons.
              1. A good one 15 November 2019 20: 26 New
                • 9
                • 9
                0
                Quote: knn54
                It is still unknown who can enlighten anyone, both in the production plan and about combat duty. Including warranty supervision ..
                Friendly advice, see less videos / cartoons.

                Then it is unclear what kind of eclipse I found on you, I'm in business, but the young man is ashamed of you. yes
                1. knn54 15 November 2019 20: 51 New
                  • 5
                  • 5
                  0
                  Thank you for the young man born in 1954.
                  Personally, I’m not ashamed of myself; I prefer to see everything not in black and white and in all colors.
                  And LAST, I will not discuss (although there is no USSR, and I am not a citizen of the Russian Federation) "Dead Hand". Believe me, it’s not worth it.
                  1. A good one 15 November 2019 21: 02 New
                    • 6
                    • 6
                    0
                    Man, "hand" is the edge, it’s a pity you didn’t understand me and it’s a pity that you are far from us. No offense hi drinks
                    1. Mestny 15 November 2019 22: 54 New
                      • 6
                      • 10
                      -4
                      The key to this "friend" is that, as he himself writes, he is not a citizen of the Russian Federation.
                      That is, I don’t live in this country myself, I don’t serve in it, I don’t work, what is happening in it now I know from the Internet (that is, I don’t know anything), but I condemn it.
                      There is no place for such anxious guardians for our future.
                      1. D16
                        D16 15 November 2019 23: 05 New
                        • 3
                        • 4
                        -1
                        He also boasts good color perception. And you are all color blinds laughing .
                      2. Nemchinov Vl 17 November 2019 00: 43 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        Quote: Mestny
                        The key to this "friend" is that, as he himself writes, he is not a citizen of the Russian Federation.
                        Well this is not such a drawback. I am also a son and a citizen of the USSR, and not the whole of the Russian Federation ...
                        Quote: Mestny
                        That is, I don’t live in this country, I don’t serve in it, I don’t work,
                        we in the surrounding republics of the Russian Federation, "got the nuts" more than you probably ... But we do not divide into good / bad, or white / black ... In our USSR this was not accepted ... Do not divide you too .. .
                        Quote: D16
                        He also boasts good color perception. And you are all color blinds
                        Well, do not fall into childhood. Do not sort the nation (people), this is stupid.
                        Quote: Mestny
                        There are such anxious guardians for our future.

                        Well, why are you doing this ?! Not worth it right ...
                      3. Fan-fan 17 November 2019 16: 59 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        Their comments smack of terrible nationalism and stupidity, a person does not live in Russia, but the Russian himself is a fan of Russia, and in fact he may be more a patriot of Russia than these living in Russia. But they forbid him to write here on the grounds that he is not a citizen of Russia, THIS IS STUPIDITY.
        2. D16
          D16 15 November 2019 21: 42 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          And when others catch up

          Fundamentally, nothing will change. I doubt that anything will even reach vital objects.
          TODAY, the nuclear submarines are unlikely to go far from the base. There is no REAL cover. "Blue" is crude.

          I didn’t understand what you wanted to say with the whole phrase, but I understood its end:
          "Blue" is raw.

          Such global conclusions against the background of the first failure of the rocket, which has been impeccably armed for 12 years? wassat
          -In 2021–2022, the guaranteed 20-year period of safe operation of the Topol and Voevoda complexes ends. .

          Poplar is changed to Yars. The voivode is liquid, and a change is not far off.
          And this is YuzhMash. And what's next.

          So what? Will SouthMash move to Stockholm arbitration too? wassat
          1. Mestny 15 November 2019 22: 57 New
            • 3
            • 4
            -1
            This writer is from the former Ukraine.
            1. D16
              D16 15 November 2019 23: 12 New
              • 5
              • 2
              +3
              I guessed from the incoherent text and the belief in warranty service by the south -masters of the Voivode and THERE !!!! Poplars! wassat
              Man made the day laughing .
          2. Andrey NM 16 November 2019 11: 57 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: D16
            Such global conclusions against the background of the first failure of the rocket, which has been impeccably armed for 12 years?


            And when was the refusal of “Sineva”? Did we miss something? If we are talking about the last shooting in the exercises, then they shot a rocket from Project 667BDR submarines, a product of the previous generation R-29R (3M-40), and this is not Sineva at all. Moreover, the Sineva, or rather the R-29RM (3M-37) missile and its modifications in service since 1986, is not 12 years old. The modification itself, which is called the "Blue" - maybe. And there is also a Liner. But because of this, the boat is not altered, the complex and mine are the same.
        3. Andrey NM 16 November 2019 11: 47 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Is the "blue" raw? A rocket that has been in operation for more than 30 years and which, for a number of characteristics, is head and shoulders above most "classmates"? Well you give ...
    2. D16
      D16 15 November 2019 21: 06 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      And to be honest, what can I answer with a volley of thousands (at least) of Tomogavkov plus a hundred or two carrier-based aircraft.

      In order for the remnants of this thousand axes to cause unacceptable damage to their carriers, they will have to be dragged into a 12-mile zone. You understand that no one will be indifferent to watching the process. They will not have time to shoot, given the rate of fire of the MK-41. The fact that these ships will receive their share of heat and light I have no doubt whether the contents of the missile silos will be involved in such a situation, I do not know. I would not. They, too, would not be so stupid to sacrifice the fleet.
  4. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 18 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    Comment about nothing. For a rocket to start from a ship, it must fit on it to begin with.
  5. New Year day 15 November 2019 20: 22 New
    • 7
    • 4
    +3
    Quote: Lexeich
    The main thing is that the rocket hit the target.

    the main thing is that the rocket fly.
    1. Mestny 15 November 2019 22: 59 New
      • 1
      • 10
      -9
      This is how someone. The communists also said "the main thing is to start." And how did it end?
  • sabakina 15 November 2019 18: 42 New
    • 10
    • 9
    +1
    I wonder why on Berks did not make inclined launchers? Woah stupid!
    1. A good one 15 November 2019 18: 51 New
      • 10
      • 8
      +2
      If they did, then there would be serious debate about the tilt angles. yes Each has his own approach to solving the problem, especially at the household level. yes
      1. knn54 15 November 2019 19: 00 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Victorovich-ADJUSTABLE.
        1. A good one 15 November 2019 19: 06 New
          • 6
          • 5
          +1
          There is no possibility (in terms of editing), and so the latter would have highlighted fatter. yes
    2. Wiruz 15 November 2019 20: 08 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      No, not stupid. Burke then originally designed for VPU. And our inclined 3С14 was born as an option to replace the old inclined
    3. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 14 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      We carefully read the article before commenting.
      1. Mestny 15 November 2019 23: 00 New
        • 4
        • 9
        -5
        Yes, everything is clear with her.
        We are mainly discussing the author here. Guessing - will write about the Crimean bridge, or not?
    4. SovAr238A 15 November 2019 20: 39 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      Quote: sabakina
      I wonder why on Berks did not make inclined launchers? Woah stupid!

      Maybe because. that a safe (for detecting) "radio horizon" allows the launch accelerator to work ...
    5. Dart2027 15 November 2019 20: 43 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Quote: sabakina
      why on Berks did not make inclined launchers

      Because they were originally built with vertical launchers, and here we are talking about the modernization of the built. These are different things.
  • Thrifty 15 November 2019 19: 20 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Alexander, how many destroyers do we have left? In the ranks of one, but how many of them stand in the crap, pending disposal. .. change the boiler turbine power plant to the same one, created using modern materials and technologies, return the destroyers to service. ...
    1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 19 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Two in the ranks - Admiral Ushakov in the SF and Bystry in the Pacific Fleet, in the Baltic, everyone is threatening to revive the Persistent, but so far the stone flower has not come out. However, it may still be revived.
      1. Vladimir1155 15 November 2019 22: 35 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        will not be revived, they will write off all 956 in the near future
    2. Winnie76 16 November 2019 13: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Thrifty
      change the boiler turbine power installation to the same one created using modern materials and technologies,

      Physics and chemistry of processes, materials practically have not changed. Well, maybe better insulation appeared, more modern automation. In the absence of water treatment, on which the sailors scored, the latest boilers thump at the same speed as the old ones. And conscripts in general should not be allowed to go to the boilers for a cannon shot.
      Quote: Thrifty
      return destroyers in order. ..

      IMHO it is more profitable to build 22350 than to restore 956. Change GEM - this is not a ram sneezed - it costs money
      1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 16 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        And conscripts in general should not be allowed to go to the boilers for a cannon shot.


        Well, you said everything yourself.

        IMHO it is more profitable to build 22350 than to restore 956. Change GEM - this is not a ram sneezed - it costs money


        22350 is half a yard of dollars, if that. And reducers for them are made slowly and sadly.

        And modernization 956 - moderate - a penny. I would do, with all the flaws of this ship.
        1. Winnie76 16 November 2019 21: 31 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          22350 is half a yard of dollars, if that. And reducers for them are made slowly and sadly.

          And modernization 956 - moderate - a penny. I would do, with all the flaws of this ship.

          The last destroyer surrendered in '93. 26 years old is the youngest. This means it is necessary to change all the electronics, partly electrics, radars, gas, rocket weapons, boilers. At the same time, you will have to make holes in the case, cut cable routes, pipelines, then pull it all over again. The gas cutter described it all very colorfully. And then make it all work together. Copecks can not do here, one project will cost as much as a third of Gorshkov. And this cadavre will serve at best 10 years
  • Vadmir 15 November 2019 19: 33 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    But closer to the stern of the ship are the CTA-53 torpedo tubes obsolete to the limit and taking up a lot of space. They have no meaning at present. Their dismantling will allow not only to place in the indicated area of ​​the ship the launcher of the Republic of Kazakhstan “Uranus” (with the direction of fire to the side, as on Western ships or project 20380 corvettes), but also to install launchers of the “Package” complex with 324-mm torpedoes and anti-torpedoes there. Which is not superfluous for a ship whose task is to fight submarines.
    Our standard torpedoes have a caliber of 533mm and they are on many ships and submarines. And the problem is not the CTA-53, but the fact that modern torpedoes are needed. 324mm caliber torpedo has a shorter range. There are no 324mm caliber rockets and no rocket torpedoes either. The bet on the caliber 324mm is justified only on small ships because of their compactness. Yes The package has anti-torpedo properties, but its anti-submarine capabilities are insufficient.
    I believe that modern torpedoes of 533 mm caliber need to be made, and at the same time, provide for launching “Caliber” torpedo tubes for them, including anti-submarine ones, and this will be more useful than installing the “Packet”, there are RBUs ​​against torpedoes.
    1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 22 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      And the problem is not THAT-53, but the fact that modern torpedoes are needed. Torpedo caliber 324mm has a smaller firing range. There are no 324mm caliber rockets and rocket torpedoes either. The bet on the caliber 324mm is justified only on small ships because of their compactness.


      No. A torpedo in the caliber 533 mm, in theory, is needed only because of its range. The mass of explosives in the torpedo 324 mm for the submarine is sufficient.

      But the BOD has PLURA for striking a long distance. This reduces to zero the only plus of the 533-mm torpedoes in front of the 324mm. And the downsides are - hoo.

      In addition, if common sense prevails in our place, instead of the SM-588 launcher, a light torpedo tube will appear for the Package, then it will be possible to reload it directly at sea and fight against boats, use anti-torpedoes in large quantities in the same caliber, etc.

      And THAT is already scrap. And the idea of ​​ship 533 mm torpedoes in general, too.
      1. bk0010 16 November 2019 12: 05 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And the downsides are - hoo.
        And what are the disadvantages? Previously, 533 mm torpedoes were placed on torpedo boats, but now they aren’t even on frigates. Well, before there were no adequate torpedoes, but now that the physicist has finished, why not put a TA? Normal (533-mm) TA will dramatically expand the range of available weapons (and means of counteracting enemy torpedoes), and if you press it, then you can push the Caliber there too.
      2. Nemchinov Vl 17 November 2019 01: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        No. The torpedo in the caliber 533 mm in theory is needed only because of its range.
        or rather
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        But the BOD has PLURA for striking a long distance. This reduces to zero the only plus 533 mm torpedoes in front of 324 mm.
        Oops ...?! SW Alexander, from now on and in detail. After all, you and I wanted a maximum of UKKS cells, not to burden PLO ?! so right ?! There, let there be more space for RCC and KR on the ground (“tactical” so to speak) ... maybe that's why -
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        The torpedo in the caliber 533 mm in theory is needed only because of its range.
        and "Package-NK" is really FARS in terms of PLO (from the word anti-submarine defense in the normal and broad sense of this, from the word - HUNT !!!). Therefore, to say that -
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And THAT is already scrap. And the idea of ​​ship 533 mm torpedoes in general, too.
        although replacing the old installations themselves with torpedoes and a waterfall that can be used as on Peter the Great is not stupid at all, but vice versa.

        In order to repel an enemy torpedo attack, it is possible that the “torpedo” anti-torpedoes are no worse than RBU-6000 (but I haven’t been lucky to find evidence of their comparative effectiveness anywhere under the same conditions?!?!), But why should one ship, two duplicate systems (if about modernization of BOD 1155) ?!
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        if common sense prevails in our place, instead of the SM-588 launcher, a light torpedo launcher will appear for the Package, then it will be possible to reload it directly into the sea and fight against boats,
        Alexander, boats most often (in 95% of cases) will not be allowed to fight against themselves, by means of destruction with a range of 14-18 km. ?! Well, why are you doing this ?! Let's be healthyAs anti-torpedoes, format 324 mm., - is alive and relevant, but as a means of hitting a potential enemy - FARS !!
        1. timokhin-aa 19 November 2019 13: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Oops ...?! SW Alexander, from now on and in detail. After all, you and I wanted a maximum of UKKS cells, not to burden PLO ?! so right ?!


          But why? Let there be PLURs in them, what problems? UKKS it is universal in order to equip "for the task"

          and Package-NK is real FARS in terms of PLO


          No, just a small range. In general, the MTT torpedo is quite normal. Diesel with such TA drive - no problem.

          Alexander, boats most often (in 95% of cases) will not allow fighting against themselves, by means of destruction with a range of 14-18 km.


          Only atomic.

          Let's soundly, like counter-torpedoes, the format 324 mm., Is alive and relevant, and as a means of defeating a potential enemy submarine, - FARS !!


          Not a farce, just applicability is limited. He stood in the strait to a stop, missed his submarine under him and wait for the IPL at the foot - and the atomic can be obtained from 324 mm. There are many situations.
          1. Nemchinov Vl 19 November 2019 18: 51 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Yes it is impossible so just stick the PLUR in the 533 mm TAimpossible. It is necessary another TA, finalization of the CIUS, racks with equipment, cables through the entire ship to be thrown .... if there is a UKKS, where all this has already been done.
            it is clear that it is necessary and the control system will be updated, uv. Alexander, well, honestly, sometimes you make me happy: -
            Quote: Nemchinov Vl
            Oops ...?! SW Alexander, from now on and in detail. After all, you and I wanted a maximum of UKKS cells, not to burden PLO ?! so right ?! There, let there be more space for RCC and KR on the ground (“tactical” so to speak) ... maybe that's why -
            ....
            Quote: Nemchinov Vl
            Replacing the old installations themselves with torpedoes and a waterfall that can be used as on Peter the Great is not stupid at all, but vice versa.
            and now attention is the answer, -
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            But why? Let there be PLURs in them, what problems? UKKS it is universal in order to equip "for the task"

            Quote: timokhin-aa
            and Package-NK is real FARS in terms of PLO


            No, just a small range.
            Yeah !!!, -
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Diesel with such TA drive - no problem.
            ... and then, -
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Alexander, boats most often (in 95% of cases) will not allow fighting against themselves, by means of destruction with a range of 14-18 km.


            Only atomic.
            .well bravo right !!! And later, I was completely melted in tenderness. because as they say -
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Not a farce, just applicability is limited.
            ... thank you for an honest exchange of views / I am not sarcasm /. Thank you for the sincerity erupts, even if you want to contradict .....
            1. timokhin-aa 21 November 2019 13: 38 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              ... well, bravo, right !!! And later, I was completely melted in tenderness. because as they say -


              You do not jerk, but learn how many NAPL can go on a good course on the battery. In the presence of an anti-therapist, it is not a fact that it will turn out to fill up the ship. A ship can have a spinner in the air.

              PLA in an adverse situation will give a breakthrough.

              Diesel is not able to jerk.
    2. Nemchinov Vl 17 November 2019 00: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Vadmir
      I believe that modern torpedoes of 533 mm caliber need to be made, and at the same time, provide for launching “Caliber” torpedo tubes for them, including anti-submarine ones, and this will be more useful than installing the “Packet”, there are RBUs ​​against torpedoes.
      and what to do, there is the UGST, the “Physicist” (according to some sources, it is the “Case”) ... But for the rest, you are absolutely right ... Compare the anti-aircraft defense capabilities of 533 mm torpedoes with a range of 35-45 km., and 324 mm., with a range of 18 km. ... But A. Timokhin’s "trick" is this (probably by orders of industrial representatives). But as an author, I like him, and he covers the topics well and interesting.
      And at 1155 in view of the presence of RBU-6000, is the presence of a “Package” advisable ?! Indeed, it is still not completely clear whose abilities in terms of anti-torpedo protection are higher: “Package-NK” or the old reliable RBU-6000. Nowhere is there comprehensive data on what is more effective in anti-torpedo protection ...
      1. timokhin-aa 19 November 2019 13: 37 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, you can’t just put the PLUR in the 533-mm TA like this, it is impossible. It is necessary another TA, finalization of the CIUS, racks with equipment, cables through the entire ship to be thrown .... if there is a UKKS, where all this has already been done.
  • svoit 15 November 2019 19: 43 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: asv363
    This is both time and extra fuel consumption, which is important for RCC.

    But still, you must agree that if there is an opportunity to fly at a low altitude right away, then why not take advantage of it?
    Quote: Lexeich
    The article is about nothing. The main thing is that the rocket hit the target.

    Have you read the article? But it’s just that with an inclined launch, the chances of hitting a target are higher (since there is less chance of detection and defeat, including of the carrier), and there are more ships for installation
    1. D16
      D16 15 November 2019 21: 57 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Have you read the article? But it’s just that with an inclined launch, the chances of hitting a target are higher

      You first ask the author what he has to do with the development of cruise missiles, and then talk about the likelihood of defeat and detection laughing .
  • Wiruz 15 November 2019 20: 06 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    Perhaps the most important (albeit seemingly frivolous) plus a vertical launcher is the ability to launch missiles comprehensively. Whichever side the target is on - it shot up, and there the rocket itself will already make a turn, the ship does not have to turn around. This is especially true in cases when you need to make an attack in several diametrically opposite directions.
    The article, of course, is good. Just what the author was trying to convey? Why aren't slanted 3С14 put on ships under construction? Read the answer above. Why on ships of the old construction do not install inclined 3С14 instead of old inclined PUs (the same P-500, P-100, P-120, etc.)? The question is good. Only ask it directly to the leadership of the Navy. The same cruiser pr.1164, in this case, could only have 64 UKKS cells in the form of inclined launchers!
    But, alas, against the background of a catastrophic shortage of ships and disruptions in the timing of the arrival of new ones, the Navy leadership more often makes decisions on repairing the old ones, and not on their serious modernization with re-equipment.
    Take the same rocket X-35. The fleet needs such “light” anti-ship missiles, and there’s nothing to argue about. But is it really difficult to work out the possibility of its application from UKKS? Neither the Caliber nor Onyx will fit into the U-U launcher for the X-35. But the X-35 in 3S14 is quite able to fit. Then I wouldn’t have to put a separate launcher under the "small caliber" missiles. Agree, the version of the modernized pr.1155 with 16 UKKS and 16 Uraniums looks good, but with 32 UKKS (even half of which are inclined) is somehow more impressive
    1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 26 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      Why aren't the inclined 3С14 installed on the ships of the old construction instead of the old inclined launchers (the same П-500, П-100, П-120, etc.)? The question is good. Only ask it directly to the leadership of the Navy. The same cruiser pr.1164, in this case, could only have 64 UKKS cells in the form of inclined launchers!


      Well, this is the question I wanted to pull into public space.
  • Seaflame 15 November 2019 20: 10 New
    • 4
    • 5
    -1
    It’s definitely not worth bothering with the ships of old projects, they don’t have much left (when are they built?), And money is always not enough. Better money go to new projects and new ships.
    1. New Year day 15 November 2019 20: 26 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Quote: Seaflame
      Better money go to new projects and new ships.

      if they were built as fast as in China
    2. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 29 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      YES that's not a fact.

      We look at the sharp-witted, who runs from 1967 year. And we have many "stray" ships surrendered after the USSR.
      Of course, a lot of time has been missed, but some of the units make sense to upgrade, especially if it works out inexpensively.
      1. mvg
        mvg 15 November 2019 23: 15 New
        • 3
        • 5
        -2
        There is not a single ship of the first ranks that makes sense to upgrade. Neither 1164, nor 1155, nor 1143. At 1164, everything needs to be changed: air defense, hack, BIUS, and hc. This is a modernization cost, as in 1144 Nakhimov. Those. price tag 2-3 Gorshkovyh. Not to mention that they are 30-35 years old. The same and 1155, everything on it is no longer relevant. Ship 7500tn m Air Defense Dagger, a joke. HOOK is irrelevant, PLUR too. What to save on the ship?
        PS: Alexander, but doesn’t it seem to you that keeping these ships is more expensive than building new ones? No fighting value.
        956 is generally funny. When was the last time they went to the database?
        1. alexmach 16 November 2019 12: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          There is not a single ship of the first ranks that makes sense to upgrade. Neither 1164, nor 1155, nor 1143

          Oh no. Well, here Marshal Ustinov has just come from a thorough repair and modernization .. Obviously, some more time passes. In addition, air defense has recently intensified on it.
          The Varangian seems to have figured as fit for modernization.
        2. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 32 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          You are wrong, and very wrong.

          1164 is a missile cruiser with a very normal long-range air defense system. The polynomial on 1155 is no longer that, but it is too early to write it off, the PLUR is old, but if done as it is written in the article, there will be 91РТ, there are two turntables, which is a very big plus for the PLB, etc.

          You just need WITHOUT FANATISM.

          Moderately upgrade ships so that they represent a combat value before decommissioning. Nobody says that they must be pulled in line before the 2040 year. But while a replacement is being built by them, they must be alert, and this cannot be achieved without modernization.

          956 is generally funny. When was the last time they went to the database?


          in 2015 "Quick" went to India for teachings with the Indians. "Ushakov" last time went to the exercises last year. Both ships in the post. readiness.
          1. mvg
            mvg 16 November 2019 20: 10 New
            • 3
            • 7
            -4
            1164, SAM (Fort X-NUMXP) 300 (75) km. It is not subject to modernization, if set, then a new one. Bongo wrote about this more than once. The height limits of 90 m (most anti-ship missiles) fly much lower. And according to the EPR, the radar will not take Ax IV block for escort.
            GC Volcano with a start from Basalt. The missiles are 30 years old, all deadlines have expired, extended more than once. Easy missile defense, if anything takes off. I read about the modernization of the Varangian. They did nothing. GEM repair, no communication, patched up the hull and cable, radar.
            Where is the replacement of the main weapons? How to fight? Who is he scared of? Crane member and pennant showing. Yes, expanded the admiral's cabin.
            PPS: So what, what are the 2 old Ka-27s that they can? They are the same age as the ship. Suicide bombers. We do not have govogo deck carrier aircraft, and new ways to track submarines. The dzhapan will fly f-35s and shoot Pacific Fleet. Not a single ship with missile defense.
            1155 was originally unilaterally developed, not a Fighter. It’s too late for him to put Caliber. Remaking half ship. And on-line PUs will not help. It is necessary TsU, and at it with it initially trouble is with it.
            956 I do not want to talk. All specialists say that they are not and never will be.
            1345 Gadfly. I studied on whom warhead - 2. This is 60 years. It is better to remake into a fishing schooner. Cheaper and better.
            REPEAT on our ships there is no air defense / missile defense. Easy prey. Scare North Korean fishermen, because even Norwegians are not afraid
            1. timokhin-aa 19 November 2019 13: 46 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              1164, SAM (Fort X-NUMXP) 300 (75) km. It is not subject to modernization, if set, then a new one. Bongo wrote about this more than once. The height limits of 90 m (most anti-ship missiles) fly much lower. And according to the EPR, the radar will not take Ax IV block for escort.
              GC Volcano with a start from Basalt. The 30 missiles are years old, all deadlines have expired, extended more than once. Easy missile defense, if anything takes off. I read about the modernization of the Varangian.


              Counterarguments: 75-90 km is a lot, plus not only Fort, there are Wasps for intercepting missiles coming to the RCC ship that are quite modernizable, guidance of missiles can be carried out from another, modern ship according to VZOI, if it is established, and this can also be solved on this case.

              Regarding Basalts - see article. Everything is written there. And the price is small.

              PPS: So what, what 2 old Ka-27, what can they?


              Helicopters to replace with others in any way?

              In fact, until there are a sufficient number of new ships, it is necessary to combine the capabilities of a few new and old, there is no choice.

              So I also agree that being rich and healthy is better.
          2. Nemchinov Vl 17 November 2019 01: 30 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Both ships in the post. readiness.
            but apparently "formally" ....
            1. timokhin-aa 19 November 2019 13: 41 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Go out into the sea and shoot ...
  • Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 15 November 2019 20: 23 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Excluded from the composition of the Navy in the 2012 year, the MRK Nakat (project 1234.7) at the pier in the Polar ...
    1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 27 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Yeah. It can be seen that the PU is quite simple and inexpensive. Under Caliber would be almost the same.
      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 15 November 2019 20: 56 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        There are not many photographs, I will add the 1164 project missile cruiser.
        1. sivuch 16 November 2019 10: 00 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Informal Name - Fence
        2. Dante Alighieri 16 November 2019 17: 28 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          By the way, regarding 1164, I have a slightly different idea: there is no need to completely abandon the Volcano. In the end, these missiles are not so old, and there are certain reserves. So why completely deprive yourself of such a “tasty” pleasure to shy away from something that 100% would sink (well, or permanently disable) even an aircraft carrier, without causing damage to the environment in the face of uranium isotopes?

          In my humble opinion, it is enough to dismantle the 4 cups from each row and place the inclined Caliber / Onyx PUs in their place. In this way, we also provide the necessary salvo density (especially when it comes to first-wave cruise missiles designed to overload the enemy’s defenses) and its quality both in brisance and in high-explosiveness (when Soviet mastodons flail into the breach organized by modern missiles, guaranteed to send to the bottom of any vessel with a displacement of less than 10 thousand tons)

          But what really causes a lot of thought is the question of how to level the influence of the superstructure when detecting and highlighting the goals of the Fort complex in the frontal projection. Here you need to think, because 1164 has no corny space for placing the second radar like on Petra, and indeed the power elements of the roof of the superstructure are designed for such a weight
          1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 33 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            So why completely deprive yourself of such a “tasty” pleasure to shy away from something that 100% would sink (well or permanently disable) even an aircraft carrier, without causing damage to the environment in the face of uranium isotopes?


            This is too optimistic. Most likely to break through the “Ajis-like” air defense can only be saturation, which means a lot of missiles. Really a lot.
            1. D16
              D16 16 November 2019 19: 26 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Yeah. This Ticonderoge is also probably saturated laughing
              https://shemberlen.livejournal.com/215655.html
              1. timokhin-aa 19 November 2019 13: 49 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                This is one ship, BIUS IJIS - collective defense.
                1. D16
                  D16 19 November 2019 21: 15 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Aegis is engaged in the distribution between the ships of the squadron. If the means of interception are worthless, then do not distribute the target, there is no guarantee. And judging by this Tika, a subsonic target was caught by the add-on. This is not an MRK with a cannon and a wasp, it's a cruiser. lol
                  1. timokhin-aa 21 November 2019 13: 41 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    ANSPY1 has a jamb - it sees well either ultra-low heights or all the others. Considering that the EPR of a subsonic target is low, and selection against the background of waves is difficult, an unprepared shift in the CIC could have sucked.

                    Teachings are also needed in order to identify such gaps.
                    1. D16
                      D16 21 November 2019 21: 31 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      This rocket hit the ship during exercises. On it, everyone, from the commander to the bilge boilers knew what, when and at what altitude it would fly. And this:
                      The EPR of a subsonic target is low, and selection against the background of waves is difficult, an unprepared shift in the CIC could even dry out
                      lame excuses for almighty Aegis lol .
                      1. timokhin-aa 25 November 2019 13: 19 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        On it, everyone, from the commander to the bilge boilers knew what, when and at what altitude it would fly.


                        Did you hold a candle there? They knew EXAMPLE. Then it was approximately superimposed on someone's jamb, maybe as on Stark someone on the toilet fell asleep and overslept a missile attack. To rely on the fact that such excesses will always be silly.
  • Berkut24 15 November 2019 20: 29 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    Inclined installations have one minus. The ship before shooting will have to deploy in the direction of the enemy. And if he goes in the squadron, then such an unexpected pirouette will not pass without a trace for the rest. Thus, all pennants will depend on the actions of the ship, greatly constrained in maneuver. For a long time they went from inclined launchers to air defense, so as not to lose precious seconds in order to turn their teeth to the enemy. Why go back a few dozen years in the navy to get the same inconvenience?
    1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 20: 31 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      The ship before shooting will have to deploy in the direction of the enemy.


      No, it’s not necessary)) The rocket should be pivoted into the head before launch and that’s it.
      1. Berkut24 18 November 2019 11: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Then what difference will there be from a vertical launch? With an inclined path, the energy costs for a turn will be many times greater.
        1. timokhin-aa 19 November 2019 13: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          For the hundredth time - there are ships on which UVP will not land
          1. Berkut24 19 November 2019 16: 21 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Also for the hundredth time. Will not get up "Caliber", there will be something else, more fulfilled. And, in addition, there is experience in reinstalling the structure when they remove one gun mount with the “glass” under it and instead put vertical shafts. Especially relevant for fodder gun mounts, which are almost absent on the last generation of frigates and corvettes.
            1. timokhin-aa 21 November 2019 13: 35 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              What is more worked out?

              And, in addition, there is experience in reinstalling the structure when they remove one gun mount with the “glass” under it and instead put vertical mines


              This is billions. Many billions. Inclined PUs are also needed in order not to do this.
    2. Avior 15 November 2019 20: 59 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      . The ship before firing will have to deploy in the direction of the enemy.

      Not at all necessary. Almost all modern anti-ship missiles are capable of completing a turn on the target after launch, and Gauges are able to perform a turn repeatedly.
    3. g1washntwn 18 November 2019 10: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      To the gas-dynamic belt, it doesn’t matter how the rocket is pushed out of the glass, with proper calculation, it will turn it at least 180 degrees, even when launched from the horizontal, if only there was enough energy for the booster.
      1. timokhin-aa 21 November 2019 13: 36 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        You still haven’t shown me the Virginia robot-hunter, but there too!
        1. g1washntwn 21 November 2019 13: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Your MO has shown it to you a long time ago, but you are still trying to see the mega-torpedo in it.
          1. The comment was deleted.
  • Petrol cutter 15 November 2019 20: 39 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    The article I personally put a plus. For the efforts of the author and the study of the issue. Very informative as always. To broaden your horizons.
    The main point in this matter is the designer in the missile and shipbuilding industries. They interconnect the possibilities of the desired with the real.
    There is the possibility and desire of the download, there will be at least horizontal PUs. No opportunity, will not be this season.
    Here is such a "squiggle."
    “Deck reinforcements” is certainly a good thing, but not so simple from the point of view of those who will actually support them.
    Yes, and as if there is no such thing, reinforcement of the deck. There is a concept, reinforcement of the deck. Those. the thickness of the deck sheets increases, then the reinforcement, respectively, of the deck set, is evidently under this matter, and it can come to the installation of the pilots (if the ship is large enough). Those. "many sorrows" begin to attend. So, "on the move" ...
    1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 21: 12 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      .e. the thickness of the deck sheets increases, then the reinforcement of the deck, respectively, is probably under this matter and it can come to the installation of the pilots (if the steamer is large enough). Those. "many sorrows" begin to attend. So, "on the move" ...


      So all this is already there. The thing is that instead of the old PU, a new one is installed in the same place. With other rockets.
      1. Petrol cutter 15 November 2019 21: 39 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        “So all of this already exists. The point is that instead of the old launcher, a new one is installed in the same place. With other missiles”
        Well, how can I say, there is. We are not a constructor with you. And do not repair the kitchen. For every change in the drawing, design, I personally need the permission of the designer. Amateur performances are not welcome. If only because I can easily tidy then for her.
        1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 22: 05 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          I understand, but here it is not a modernization project that is being written. On the other hand, think for yourself. Here stood the Malachite with a heavy rocket. Instead of its heavy PU, they put a light truss - an inclined PU UKKS. Loads decreased. Stability has grown.

          The designer of calculations confirmed all this. What is the problem?
          1. Petrol cutter 15 November 2019 22: 12 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            "The designer of calculations has confirmed all this. What is the problem, then?"
            Then there are no questions.
            You forgive me already generously. It was here that my brain was taken out for work today, and here I got hooked ...
      2. D16
        D16 15 November 2019 23: 37 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        So all this is already there. The thing is that instead of the old PU, a new one is installed in the same place. With other rockets.

        It remains to agree with Count Potocki (c) an old joke smile . Show you finally a photo of the inclined launcher for 3M14, that would be the subject of discussion.
        1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 36 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          She was not brought to the prototype.
    2. Petrol cutter 15 November 2019 21: 17 New
      • 10
      • 1
      +9
      I don’t even explain a lot to the people (while writing is not too lazy) the point of view of convulsions.
      What is such a plan for remaking a ship? This is a major overhaul in your apartment where you live.
      I mean, I need to remove all the sieges (ideally). Because I will break your apartment, throw out everything that bothers me, devices, systems as well. Remove insulation, wires, etc. Cut the deck, set (there will be a lot of smoke, fire and other hemorrhoids. Then we will put, customize, cut and cook. There will be a lot of smoke, fire and other hemorrhoids. Then we will paint, insulate, pull new wires, etc. Will again a lot of srach, stink and other disgrace.
      Why am I all this? It’s really long and troublesome.
      1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 22: 06 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        This is what they are doing with Shaposhnikov.

        And it was possible figuratively speaking - to unscrew and tighten the bolts.
        1. D16
          D16 15 November 2019 22: 43 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Does a blue tooth steer? wassat
    3. Vladimir1155 15 November 2019 22: 31 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      and stability, respectively, its reserve and survivability ..... this one already puts an end to inclined deck launchers, instead of vertical ones
  • svoit 15 November 2019 20: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    No, it’s not necessary)) The rocket should be pivoted into the head before launch and that’s it.

    Not necessary, only if the turning radius is less than the range to the target. And if more? And there is no way to hit with other means ...
    1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 21: 13 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      RCC at such distances show themselves very poorly. Better SAM or artillery.
  • Avior 15 November 2019 20: 57 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Would such a placement reduce the metacentric height of the ship?
    1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 21: 13 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      If only it would not increase.
      1. Avior 16 November 2019 17: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        When it decreases, the stability of the ship deteriorates
  • Ros 56 15 November 2019 21: 12 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Vertical take-off of missiles makes it possible to fly all 360 degrees, and inclined involves turning the entire hull of the ship toward the target. And in the absence of time during a sudden attack, this is not good, the ship is not a tank, you can’t deploy it in a couple of seconds due to a lot of inertia, and if it is anchored, it is not possible at all.
    1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 22: 07 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      There are ships on which UVP will not get up, there is no place.
      1. D16
        D16 15 November 2019 22: 21 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        To replace such ships, the not-weak series 22800 and 21631 with VPU are being built.
        1. alexmach 15 November 2019 22: 40 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Yeah ... To replace the destroyers and missile cruisers?
          1. D16
            D16 15 November 2019 22: 48 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            No. To replace the project one-two-three-four. Those destroyers did not have long.
            1. alexmach 16 November 2019 00: 18 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              To replace the project one-two-three-four

              It’s not completely clear whether he really needs a change.
              Those destroyers did not have long

              Well, the Chinese are swimming, and in the absence of another fleet, it is possible to save the destroyers. Well, besides them, there is also a BOD, they say with modernization potential, and the cruiser 1164 mentioned in the article. They can’t see any replacement.
              1. D16
                D16 16 November 2019 08: 32 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Well, the Chinese are swimming, and in the absence of another fleet, it is possible to save the destroyers.

                Probably the Chinese did not have color reception points near the bases. The condition of the ships was monitored and repaired in a timely manner, producing spare parts, and not removing them from the already standing sides. Someone wrote that almost a third of the hull had to be changed on Shaposhnikov due to corrosion. If so, I can imagine in what state the remaining 956s are now.
                They can’t see any replacement.

                To increase the size of the hull 22350, making it more seaworthy, increasing the BC along the way is not such a problem. We must begin to develop a new EU. What does the day before yesterday. However, it is not a fact that specially trained people are no longer doing this. smile
                1. alexmach 16 November 2019 12: 27 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Probably the Chinese had no color reception points near the bases

                  Probably. It is difficult, of course, not knowing in detail in what “Sarychi” state it is possible to judge whether they can still be exploited and whether it makes sense to modernize, and yes, they most likely will go to waste. But about BOD, I would still like to believe that they can still be returned to service, and it makes sense to modernize.
                  Increase the size of the hull 22350, making it more seaworthy

                  Eh .. Yes, if they were at least in those buildings that have a “stove” at least once a year and stable for a long time, then you could think about writing off the old first-rank letters, and apparently you would have to pull them to the last. And if it were possible for them to do exactly the budget modernization without rebuilding the buildings to fit the UKKS into them, it would be much easier to pull them. It’s a completely different matter if the UKKS insert is far from the biggest restructuring, if, as you say, one third of the building needs to be rebuilt due to corrosion ...
        2. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This is some kind of narcotic drug. Well, with what fright the trough 21631 has become a replacement for the "Gadfly"? The Gadfly, with all its drawbacks, is a warship. And Buyan-M is a floating battery.

          Karakurt is another matter, but there are no engines for them, and indeed the idea of ​​highly specialized RTOs has outlived itself.

          So there is no need to carry nonsense here.
  • Nikolai 15 November 2019 21: 22 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Different projects have different purposes and tasks - 1st. Caliber - subsonic rocket - 2nd. Missiles in launchers on deck are not protected. BIUS for all projects with Caliber is similar, but is it necessary? Old projects are decommissioned, and everything else is decommissioned along with the ship - where is the economy?
    1. D16
      D16 15 November 2019 22: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Old projects are decommissioned, and everything else is decommissioned along with the ship - where is the economy?

      Nikolai drinks
  • D16
    D16 15 November 2019 21: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Maybe the author should ask the sailors why they did not change the P-1000 to the 3M14 family?
    1. timokhin-aa 15 November 2019 22: 08 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In this case, the task was not set, missiles of the P-1000 complex are new. But sooner or later this question will be raised, as with the Mosquitoes.
      1. D16
        D16 15 November 2019 22: 13 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        1164 is not new for a long time. Write off with the P-1000. Most likely it will not come to replacing the main caliber.
        1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 39 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I completely admit, but this does not mean that it was necessary to do so.
  • Vladimir1155 15 November 2019 22: 25 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    and which ships can be upgraded using inclined launchers? and is Uranus really so badly equipped with those ships that cannot accept the caliber? Let’s count on the fingers, Inquisitive The smart One is so old that it makes no sense to invest in modernization ...... RTOs how long will they last 4-8 years? .. there are only two Varyag and Ustinov, both 30 years and more for the sake of two old ships ? after 1155 the issue has already been resolved and the caliber has been found, and even more so on the TARK it is.
    1. D16
      D16 15 November 2019 22: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You should first ask another question: "Can Caliber family missiles launch from an inclined launcher?" And the rest you are absolutely right.
      1. Vladimir1155 15 November 2019 22: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        yes I agree, this will not be a caliber, but what about the other ..... a volcano, for example, so why reinvent it?
        1. D16
          D16 15 November 2019 22: 53 New
          • 3
          • 3
          0
          This should be asked from the respected author of the article, who does not understand the difference between the continental and island powers and seeks to bring our fleet to parity with the American for Tomahawks. laughing . This sounds especially cool in light of the termination of the INF Treaty.
          1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 50 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Continental powers do not exist, it is a simulacrum invented by the Anglo-Saxons for the Russian Vanek. To not get in the way.
            The concept turned out to be tenacious, since we have a lot of stupid people in society, alas.

            and strives to bring our fleet to par with the American Tomahawks


            I never wrote such a drug addiction.
          2. Vladimir1155 16 November 2019 18: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I agree, the BULAVA is more important to us, and its provision in the form of a submarine of the Air Force DEPL and minesweepers, well, several frigates, corvettes, .... karakurt. All of them have calibers or can, including the old 1155, 1144, as for a couple of outdated and hardly subject to modernization, because of just the inclination of the main weapon, Ustinov 1986 Varyag. 1989 ... then the volcano is so bad that it can make a fuss ? and how much can the resource of these ships be extended for the sake of new weapons? or dear Timokhin wants to revive 956? there one Fast 1986 remained in service, and they do not even plan to repair ....., The tactical and technical characteristics of the Caliber family, which are in service with the Russian Armed Forces, are not known for certain.

            According to reports from 2012, the range of Caliber rockets for sea targets is 375 km, for ground targets - 2600 km [7].

            According to a number of other reports, the 3M14 range is from 2000 km [8] to 2600 km (in thermonuclear combat equipment) [9].

            On March 11, 2016, at the ceremony of raising the St. Andrew’s flag on the frigate Admiral Grigorovich, the commander of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Navy said that this ship had a combat area of ​​800 thousand km² when firing at sea targets, and 7 million km² when firing at ground objects. This indicates the ability of the ship to hit surface targets in a radius of about 500 km, ground - in a radius of about 1500 km (with a non-nuclear warhead). [10].

            On October 19, 2017, speaking in the framework of the discussion at the Valdai Club, the Supreme Commander of the RF Armed Forces, President of Russia V.V. Putin, named the sea range of the Caliber KR at 1400 km [11] ......... now a volcano .....
            Length: 11,7 m
            Diameter: 0,88 m
            Wingspan: 2,6 m
            Starting weight: 7000-8000 kg
            Speed ​​Mach Number (km / h):
            at an altitude: 2,5 (2660 km / h) [specify]
            at the surface: 2 (2460)
            Maximum firing range: up to 700 km [4] [5] with launch accelerators from P-500, for the Marshal Ustinov RKR, after replacing the launchers with heat-resistant ones, up to 1000 km.
            Control System: Inertial + Radar
            Warhead:
            explosive-cumulative: 500 kg (mass of explosives)
            Nuclear: 350 CT
      2. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 43 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Especially for the gifted - the first photo in the article starts obliquely "Caliber".

        Moreover, the test benches for these missiles were two submarines, one 671РТМ, the second 877. And from there they flew exactly to the slope.

        And 3С14П for an inclined start with the NK was quite developed, if the Navy had the desire, these PUs would already be in the metal. But the Navy even agreed to the UVP after the kick weighed on the sailors personally by Putin in 2006, in the end we have what we have. Well, there’s some other stuff on the Internet.
        1. D16
          D16 16 November 2019 18: 58 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well yes. The boat surfaced, drowned the stern ballast tanks, and spat out the rockets from the torpedo tubes. laughing Underwater launch is a completely different story. A rocket flies as autopilot is programmed. This has nothing to do with placing large launchers with heavy missiles on the upper deck. If the Americans were once forced to do so, then it is not a fact that we need it.
    2. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      RTOs how many more will serve 4-8 years?


      10-15 at least

      there are only two Varangians and Ustinov,


      and Moscow. And all the BOD except Shaposhnikov. And two destroyers (potentially three)
      1. Vladimir1155 16 November 2019 19: 28 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        old MRK 10-15 years yet? ...... this is a very optimistic maximum, and not the minimum, do not distort ........ the Moscow cruiser is everything, it is not .......... They decided to equip the BOD with calibers .... .956 in potential, they have problematic boilers, most likely they will write off .... both
  • Old26 15 November 2019 23: 48 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    We are talking about the inclined launch of cruise missiles, not vertically up, but at an angle to the horizontal. Such a solution would allow the installation of rocket launchers for the Caliber family of missiles on any old ship that has adequate deck reinforcements and provides resistance to heat from the jet exhaust of the rocket launch booster.

    And if there are no reinforcements? In any case, such a ship must be modernized. And it is better if on the same old BOD or TAKRakh there will be vertical installations than inclined ones. More fit. But on the old MRC type "Gadfly" in reality, you can put and inclined. But it is necessary without fanaticism. Where it is impossible - put inclined, where it is possible - put vertical

    The Americans, having received such a launcher, immediately began to equip it with their "ones" - destroyers "Spruance", nuclear-powered cruisers of the Virginia class and, until a certain moment, the champion of carrying the Tomahawks - battleships of the Iowa class. A little later vertical installations appeared on the Spryuans and Tikonderogs, and then a series of Arly Burke destroyers went on, but it all started with armored boxes on decks.

    Initially, the Americans did not have MK-41 launchers, so they used inclined ...

    Launching a cruise missile is not vertically upward, as our Caliber and American Tomahawks are launching today, but at an angle to the horizontal, “tilting” is more energetically advantageous for a cruise missile. The reason is that a few seconds after the start, additional lifting force already appears on its body, and the appearance of lifting force on the wing occurs immediately after the wings open

    What is more profitable. A boat missile has smaller dimensions than a ship missile designed for vertical launch. She has a trite bigger starting accelerator, which allows her to quickly reach the starting height. The 3M54 boat missile has a start-up length of 8,22, and the ship missile has 8,9 meters. And the algorithm itself is the same for all missiles. Regardless of the method of launch, the rocket rises to a height of 150 meters, where the main engine is turned on and accelerates it from a speed of 0,6 M (the speed at the time of launching the launch) to a speed of 0,8 M. And then the rocket descends to a height of 10-15 meters and moves on an inertial ...

    Quote: Baron Wrangel
    Yes, an inclined launcher would not hurt. The efficiency from the rocket would be greater, and the time of acceleration and arrival to the target is reduced. Let not a lot, but still. In battle, this plays a huge role.

    And due to what the acceleration and arrival time to the target is reduced? The surface ship missiles have a more powerful start-up and at a height of 150 meters it can "climb" even in as little time as possible. And after shooting they have equal speeds and the same engines. so alas, the argument fails ...

    Quote: asv363
    Vertical start-up provides 360 g start. regardless of the course of the ship, an inclined launch, if necessary, to attack the target in the wake will lead to the need to turn the rocket 180 g. This is both time and extra fuel consumption, which is important for RCC.

    Depending on the location. When launching is perpendicular to the plane of the ship, the turn will be 90 '. It will take a few seconds. In the complete absence of fuel consumption. This will be done during the work of the starter ...

    Quote: svoit
    Not necessary, only if the turning radius is less than the range to the target. And if more? And there is no way to hit with other means ...

    Sorry, but that the battle between the ships will take place within the limits of visual visibility? These are not the battles of the Russo-Japanese War, when the ships sailing in two wake columns were wetting each other ...
    1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And it is better if on the same old BOD or TAKRakh there will be vertical installations than inclined ones. More fit. But on the old MRC type "Gadfly" in reality, you can put and inclined. But it is necessary without fanaticism. Where it is impossible - put inclined, where it is possible - put vertical


      On TAKRah yes, because there is a place under the deck. But the rest are not. Expensive and inefficient. The ships are old, the money in the budget is not particularly, it is necessary to save.

      There are two projects where it makes sense to put in place UVP - 1144 and 1135, the latter when a number of conditions are met.

      On the rest - only inclined.

      What is more profitable. A boat missile has smaller dimensions than a ship missile designed for vertical launch.


      Other things being equal, a slope is energetically more profitable.

      Sorry, but that the battle between the ships will take place within the limits of visual visibility? These are not the battles of the Russo-Japanese War, when the ships sailing in two wake columns were wetting each other ...


      In places of intensive shipping such as Pers. Gulf will be so now. Or in an attack from direct tracking.
  • JD1979 16 November 2019 01: 12 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    it all started with armored boxes on the decks.

    .
    A little later, vertical installations appeared on the Spruences and Ticonderoga, and then a series of destroyers Arly Burke

    .
    And this lesson from the past, our Navy completely ignores.


    That is, you are opposed to the fact that the Russian fleet immediately began to use the UVP, to which the Americans came in the process, and did not start as they were from the boxes on the deck? Maybe you need to reinvent the wheel again?

    Launchers 3C14 can be set and "blocks" of several units. Thus, Russia received technologies that are largely similar to those due to which the US Navy sharply added power at the turn of the 80s and 90s of the last century.

    So you are for the technology that allows the Russian fleet to finally catch up with the American Burke in terms of salvo power? Or we will shove tilted logs everywhere, which, unlike UVP, missiles, if necessary, can not be put, several pieces on board.
    1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 13: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You are trying to read the texts you are commenting on.
      1. JD1979 16 November 2019 16: 27 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        You are trying to read the texts you are commenting on.

        From beginning to end, and you? Maybe that's why I notice such directly opposite semantic messages in your text.
        1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The article directly says that inclined launchers are needed to modernize old ships that UVP either don’t get up at all or stand up for irrationally big money.

          Read carefully.
  • Svat 16 November 2019 04: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In my opinion, the problem is sucked out of my finger ... I think if there was (will) be a need for inclined launchers for the "Caliber" - they would be made (will). But then again, why is the whole article revolving around Caliber !?
    1. alexmach 16 November 2019 12: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      But then again, why is the whole article revolving around Caliber !?

      Because this is a modern commercially available line of sea-based cruise missiles?
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 13: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Yes, they forgot. And in vain!
  • ss-n-22 16 November 2019 08: 40 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    We decided to copy the Americans from their CG - so why dwell on half measures? You need to rivet the clones of the ticonderogen, if there are enough resources. And redraw the old, outgoing iron resource is to please corruption. And what, the "caliber" starts with a marching engine? What a news.
    1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 18: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      We have other tasks, not the same as in the USA.

      And what, the "caliber" starts with a marching engine? What a news.


      It was a counterargument for one eccentric reading from the 1 Central Research Institute, who dropping bricks from his pants proved to me that the “Caliber” would not overpower an inclined start.

      I argued to him that this contradicts both logic and physics, if a rocket masters a vertical launch, then it will master an inclined one in energy. That's what it is about.
  • sivuch 16 November 2019 10: 12 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Actually, I am by no means against inclined launchers, especially against increasing the number of anti-ship missiles on board each individual ship. Comments only 2 -
    firstly, the installation of two AUs at pr.1155 was initially considered a non-optimal mission - the sectors of fire are almost the same, up to 360 degrees - like Beijing, survivability leaves much to be desired - one bomb / NUR / RCC - both AUs will be covered. The only advantage is still better than one trunk.
    The second - on 11442 they put URTPU instead of the standard TAs - why cannot it be done similarly on 11552?
    PS,
    I myself worked in 33 and not in 51 departments, so I reason as an amateur
  • Vladimir_2U 16 November 2019 10: 47 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The article is plus, but annoying is the slavish use of the concept of class instead of type. I also remind you that inclined guides can be placed across the ship's hull.

    “Exosets”, they seem to be, of course, smaller in caliber than “Caliber”, I think it’s easy to scale the solution.
    1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 13: 51 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Inclined launchers are interesting precisely for the modernization of existing ships, therefore they will have to be put in the same place where oblique launchers of old types are
      1. Vladimir_2U 16 November 2019 13: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, but in my opinion PU should be shoved wherever possible.
        1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 19: 00 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Kakby yes, but it is precisely under the Caliber that the PU has a considerable length. It can be put on old ships only in the place of old launchers.

          But Uranus, yes, quite. Plus to the Caliber.
          1. Vladimir_2U 16 November 2019 19: 01 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Exactly, you formulated my vague thought! )))
  • Pavel57 16 November 2019 11: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Why did NAKAT be carved into needles?
    1. alexmach 16 November 2019 12: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      He served his. But that's why they did not accept the inclined installation, at least for Onyx, like the one that was on Nakat's riddle.
      1. Pavel57 18 November 2019 15: 32 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Why they put NAKAT on the old ship, they would choose a newer one, and further it would serve.
        1. alexmach 18 November 2019 15: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Why put NAKAT on an old ship

          M ... in the sense of why? "Roll" is the name of the MRK, the tog of the oldest ship. They put it on him in order to test Onyx for something. But then why didn’t they take them into service ... well, most likely there was no money.
          1. Pavel57 18 November 2019 16: 10 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Talked - they could put on a younger ship, and leave it further in the ranks with Caliber.
            1. alexmach 18 November 2019 18: 03 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Anyway, one ship doesn’t do the weather. If we had carried out a program for re-equipping existing fleet ships, then there would have been an answer to the question in the article, and the caliber would have flown from the inclined launcher as well. And one installation on the old ship, on the new. Kstiti, but on which taco is new?
  • Old26 16 November 2019 13: 13 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: alexmach
    He served his. But that's why they did not accept the inclined installation, at least for Onyx, like the one that was on Nakat's riddle.

    But in principle, even now, one carrier is in operation - the frigate of Project 22350 Gorshkov. Everything else, if any, is only in construction. And apparently there was no money for modernization. In fact, they are just now starting to modernize both the old MRVs of the Gadfly type, and the old BODs too.
    Although the test, after all, at the Nakat ended already in 2002,
    1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 13: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The money for modernization was quite simply spent on another. And not always useful
    2. alexmach 16 November 2019 15: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      building. And apparently there was no money for modernization

      Yes, this is apparently the most obvious reason.
      in principle, even now, one carrier is in operation - the frigate of project 22350 Gorshkov

      Yes, in fact, no, after all, the 11356 frigates, a couple of two missile defense systems, plus the Buyans, plus the Cheetah in the Caspian Sea + Submarines, were still in service.
      1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 19: 01 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Yes, in fact, no, after all, the 11356 frigates, a couple of two missile defense systems, plus the Buyans, plus the Cheetah in the Caspian Sea + Submarines, were still in service.


        They cannot use Onyx.
        1. alexmach 16 November 2019 20: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Hmm .. heard about this somewhere. What's the matter? not in dimensions, but rather in software or electronics.
  • Old26 16 November 2019 14: 17 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    The money for modernization was quite simply spent on another. And not always useful

    Alexander! If, as you say, there was money for modernization but they were spent on something else - this means only one thing - There was NO MONEY FOR MODERNIZATION.

    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Inclined launchers are interesting precisely for the modernization of existing ships, therefore they will have to be put in the same place where oblique launchers of old types are

    Honestly put the slant on the same ex. BOD project 1155 do not see the point. Especially if not a surface modernization with the replacement of weapons is carried out, but a serious modernization with the replacement of radar weapons, with the cutting of superstructures. Then the meaning of the inclined is not visible from the word at all. It’s better to put more vertical launchers, increasing ammunition.
    Well, if you make a superficial upgrade, replacing the anti-submarine weapons of the same Project 1155 ships with the "Caliber", then yes, you can put inclined ones, loading them not only with anti-ship or tactical cruise missiles, but also with the anti-submarine Caliber family
    The whole question is what should be obtained as a result and how much money is there ...
    1. alexmach 16 November 2019 16: 06 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, if you do a superficial modernization,

      Well, it’s about that, so as not to rebuild the entire ship. Another thing, as far as one can call such a modernization, is “superficial.” After all, modernization not only consists in delivering the missiles themselves, but also in the modernization of the cable-route BIOS.
    2. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 19: 02 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Honestly put the slant on the same ex. BOD project 1155 do not see the point. Especially if not a surface modernization with a replacement of weapons is carried out, but a serious modernization with the replacement of radar weapons, with the cutting of superstructures


      And is it meaningful on these ships? They are old, the GEM resource is finite, suppliers of spare parts in Ukraine. In fact of the matter. It was necessary without fanaticism.
      1. Nemchinov Vl 17 November 2019 02: 03 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        And is it meaningful on these ships? They are old, the GEM resource is finite, suppliers of spare parts in Ukraine. In fact of the matter.
        here again the thought begs, - why the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is still in the creation of new marine gas turbine engines, relies only on NPO Saturn, and stubbornly continues not to build other enterprises to create (and produce) a wide range of marine gas turbine engines (in terms of capacity) ?!
  • Old26 16 November 2019 16: 50 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: alexmach
    Yes, in fact, no, after all, the 11356 frigates, a couple of two missile defense systems, plus the Buyans, plus the Cheetah in the Caspian Sea + Submarines, were still in service.

    You are wrong, Alexander!
    Let's figure it out if doubts and contradictions arose. It was about inclined launchers for Onyx anti-ship missiles on surface ships (in the context of the Nakat missile launcher with such launchers). So here. There are indeed frigates of project 11356 in the ranks. Of the nine currently built in service with India, there are 6 units (Indian designation pr.17)
    • Talvar F40 (until 18.06.2003/301/XNUMX Dozorny, plant number XNUMX)
    • Trishul F43, (until June 25.06.2003, 302 Shock, plant number XNUMX)
    • Tabar F44 (until 19.04.2004 SKR-23, manager No. 303),
    • Tag F45, T6 (until 27.04.2012/01354/XNUMX, Head No. XNUMX)
    • Tarkash F50 (until 9.11.2012, Head No. 01355)
    • Trikand F51 (until June 29.06.2013, 01356, Head No. XNUMX)

    These Indian frigates actually carry BrahMos missile launchers. There are no questions. And here are three of our Black Sea frigates of the “Admiral Series” - “Admiral Grigorovich,” “Admiral Essen” and “Admiral Makarov” (plant number No. 01357, 01358, 01359) equipped (at least open sources say this) exclusively with a complex " Caliber-NK "

    Was built TWO ship of the project 11661 "Cheetah": "Tatarstan" (plant number 951) and "Dagestan" (plant number 952). The first was equipped with the Uranus complex, the second with the Caliber-NK complex.

    Further. "Buyan-M". So that we do not talk about the capabilities of these ships to fire, including and Onyx missiles, but so far they are firing exclusively Caliber missiles. Unfortunately, the number of Onyx missiles produced is currently sufficient only to equip the Bastion coastal missile systems with them (see the materials on the last One Day military acceptance, "How many divisional kits were fired and how many missiles were fired at the same time.

    Two RTOs about which there was an article here at VO - they are equipped with the Uranus complex, but not the Onyx. So in fact, only one frigate of the Project 22350 Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Gorshkov, which is currently in operation, is the only ship we have that carries both Caliber and Onyx. At least according to open data
    1. timokhin-aa 16 November 2019 19: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      More Thundering. In the near future, Agile and Kasatonov.
    2. alexmach 16 November 2019 20: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You are wrong, Alexander!

      Very interesting. Yes, I really heard that RTOs can not use Onyx. Well, the fact that they are bought exclusively for DBK is a very serious argument. How interesting is such disgrace to him? Too expensive again? or decided that at sea with a serious opponent of Russia and will not have to fight?
  • Old26 17 November 2019 12: 14 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    More Thundering. In the near future, Agile and Kasatonov.

    Is “Thundering” really already in the fleet? As far as I heard the change is scheduled for December 2019. “Agile” and “Kasatonov” are also not yet in service. And we are talking about those who are already in the ranks ...
  • Scharnhorst 17 November 2019 14: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    “The 1155 projectiles do not have long-range air defense systems. Their“ Dagger ”air defense systems, among other things, have a small reach of the target in height - 6000 meters. AK-100 guns have more than two times greater reach in height. And when the ship attacks with bombs with "airplanes flying at altitudes of more than 6000 meters, precisely guns are his only means of defense. And here the number of barrels is of serious importance"
    Just crying Yaroslavna on armature. A freely falling bomb from an altitude of 6 km will fly to the surface for about 35 seconds. During this time, the ship will be able to circulate. And the bomb itself, even dropped at about sound speed, becomes an ideal target for air defense systems, and small-caliber assault rifles can fuss. And in a vertical installation, anti-aircraft missiles with an active medium-range radar carrier like the NATO Aster-30 can easily fit. And AK-100 on the ships of this project were not considered the main means of air defense because of the low probability of hitting air targets.
  • ser56 19 November 2019 14: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "With all the indifference of the fleet to questions of cost savings"
    but curious - why so? request
  • G. Georgiev 21 November 2019 16: 46 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Requires more Caliber underwater vehicles. When the "Caliber" reaches the figures of the US Tomahawks 5000 pieces.
  • Sckepsis 22 November 2019 06: 59 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Offering AC instead of air defense systems, the author surpassed himself.
  • ss-n-22 22 November 2019 11: 35 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Scharnhorst
    “The 1155 projectiles do not have long-range air defense systems. Their“ Dagger ”air defense systems, among other things, have a small reach of the target in height - 6000 meters. AK-100 guns have more than two times greater reach in height. And when the ship attacks with bombs with "airplanes flying at altitudes of more than 6000 meters, precisely guns are his only means of defense. And here the number of barrels is of serious importance"
    Just crying Yaroslavna on armature. A freely falling bomb from an altitude of 6 km will fly to the surface for about 35 seconds. During this time, the ship will be able to circulate. And the bomb itself, even dropped at about sound speed, becomes an ideal target for air defense systems, and small-caliber assault rifles can fuss. And in a vertical installation, anti-aircraft missiles with an active medium-range radar carrier like the NATO Aster-30 can easily fit. And AK-100 on the ships of this project were not considered the main means of air defense because of the low probability of hitting air targets.


    So artillery of 100-130 mm in the fleet was never considered an objective means of air defense. Especially if you consider the probability of hitting and without looking up from the theory, look at the firing modes in the MP-184. Water curtain, here is the mode of firing at RCC. Before the goal, the course is planted with land mines, with the expectation that the rocket will stick into the water fountain. For high-altitude targets, shells with a radio fuse. Well, colleagues shot down a total of 4 AK-130 towers with one La target of something there, not maneuvering, subsonic.
  • Donald72 12 December 2019 08: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In general, they did it right, walked alongside, became apparent. With such a quantity, even the aircraft carrier’s team must vebber. It’s like a boat, a trifle, but if you spent a ton in each, they will all over again. Do not drown, but for a long repair it is easy.
  • NordOst16 13 December 2019 10: 21 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    How old is this iron? How justified is the modernization of these cases by modern electronics for the use of the Caliber family of caliber and, as some in the comments, offer the Redut air defense system? After all, electronics is almost the most expensive part of the ship. It’s better to learn how to build new buildings while the old people are at least something of themselves
  • Mustached Kok 6 July 2020 23: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Reading the article, a rather obvious thought arose, the main problem of the Navy, the lack of a general plan and strategy for the development of the fleet, thought out at all possible levels. We have too many unit plans for different areas of the fleet. And what is indicated in such articles, interestingly provides food for discussion - but it is also only a discussion of a separate problem, and not plans for global reform!
    PS
    Thanks for the article, very interesting.