Military Review

Hear the market instead of a bell

111

It so happened that two articles that appeared with a fair amount of time played in unison. And it turned out, as it were, both about nuclear powered ships, and about diesel-electric submarines. Thanks to everyone who agrees with the stated point of view, thanks to those who objected objectively. It was really interesting. When the second article in the comments is nice.


But, with your permission, I will continue the topic and even develop it somewhat. To be honest, I like the sound of the marketplace and the viscous funeral ringing of the bell is completely unpleasant.

So, at one time I allowed myself to express the opinion that since we are not able to build aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers (they were BODs in our classification), then there’s nothing ... to tell tales on the forums. And we must build what else we can. That is, nuclear submarines that are capable, if not protect us, then at least of high quality revenge.

And then a moment surfaced (by submarine), which I did not immediately think about. Guilty, correcting myself.

Yes, an atomic submarine just does not catch. The transition of Borea to the Far East through half the world showed this perfectly.

But even such a perfect weapon, like a nuclear submarine, has vulnerabilities. As an example - when moving to a place of basing or vice versa, when leaving it on combat duty. Not for nothing in Soviet times, our "potential" constantly put their boats on duty precisely in the places where our boats were likely to leave.

In general, the boat, which (especially) goes on duty, must be covered, and not just covered, but like that. so that those wishing to track where our missile carrier will go, the head is swollen from problems.


In the past, considerable forces were involved for such an operation (I will not be afraid of the word). Out to sea one strategic submarine was provided by 4 to 8 small anti-submarine ships, 2-3 large anti-submarine ships, several diesel-electric submarines and up to an anti-submarine regiment aviation.

And such a force could well drive all the "observers" away into the sea and enable our ship to calmly break away from everyone who wants to peep and eavesdrop.


It turned out, no matter what they say. One undetected submarine missile carrier is already a lot. And if a few? How can one sleep peacefully in the USA (for example), knowing that somewhere in the ocean there are undetected Russian submarines?

In case of exacerbation - difficult.

Yes, today American boats near our shores have become much smaller, they now have another "potential competitor" appeared, however, they are still locally present.

And here the key is in the presence of anti-submarine forces. And here sadness and longing begin, because the anti-submarine forces in our fleets are an openly wretched sight.

Unfortunately, you cannot say otherwise; the main burden of anti-submarine service in our country navy assigned to the ships of project 1124.


Yes, 50 years ago, they were just beautiful boats. But - alas, FIFTY years ago. Today, the remaining Albatrosses, the freshest of which 1994 of the year of construction, are already a little outdated. And there are not so many of them left, age, alas, is doing its job.

With BOD, large anti-submarine ships are still sadder. Just look at the payroll.


Baltic Fleet BOD - 0, IPC - 6.
Black Sea Fleet. BOD - 0, IPC - 0.
Northern Fleet. BOD - 5 (3 in service, one under repair, one awaiting disposal), IPC - 6.
Pacific Fleet. BOD - 3, IPC - 8.

Yes, there are still new corvettes, we will talk about them in a separate line.

So far, here in the figures is all that remains of the Soviet fleet. So-so inheritance, but this could not be.

From the 12 BOD of the 1155 project in the ranks, thank God, another 6 and one under repair. From the 88 built by the IPC of the 1124 project to the 22 system. But the cancellation is just around the corner, eternal ships do not exist.


So the issue of ensuring the entry and exit of nuclear submarines from bases is a matter of the very near future. The main anti-submarine force of our fleet is old, as I do not know what.

We are not talking about underwater surveillance systems. They say that if they exist, then on paper, or as scrap metal at the bottom. Damaged by "fishermen" in 90.

The third component that I would like to talk about is anti-submarine aviation. Let’s leave the corvettes and frigates for later, simply because not everything is so sad there.

Today, Russian anti-submarine aviation is about the same pain as cruisers and destroyers. That is, it seems to be, on paper, but in reality ...

However, it is easier to evaluate precisely by the numbers.

Aircraft.


Tu-142. Of the more than hundreds of aircraft released, 22 somehow remained in service. One squadron in the Northern and Pacific fleets. The youngest - 1994 year of birth. 25 years ...

By the way, the Indians, who actively used the Tu-142, solemnly carried out their planes to retire in the 2017 ...


IL-38. Of the 65s released in Soviet times (the youngest - 1972 of the year of release), 22 remained in service.


Be-12. Of the 141 aircraft operate on the Black Sea 4 (four). All of them were officially withdrawn from service in the 1992 year and are operated "until the resource is depleted."

That's all with airplanes.

Helicopters More precisely, a helicopter.


Veteran (issued since 1980 year) Ka-27PL. In the ranks of the 63 machines, part (near 20) was upgraded to Ka-27M, all helicopters that will survive to this point will probably be upgraded.

I emphasize very boldly that neither anti-submarine aircraft nor anti-submarine helicopters are produced in Russia. We finish Soviet outfits, carefully patching and tinting.

How functional it is - I do not presume to judge. But the fact that transferring money to develop stupid atomic destroyers and aircraft carriers, which there will be nobody and nothing to guard - is utter stupidity, I hope it will not cause disputes and condemnation.

The preliminary conclusion is very disappointing. We carry the Soviet anti-submarine defense, and when we bring it to the end, we can just relax. Dozens of nuclear destroyers and nuclear aircraft carriers would be launched in the hope that the enemy would not shoot them like ducks, for fear of spoiling the world's oceans.

Well, that’s just what comes to mind, because you can wheeze for a long time about who is cooler, “Ash” or “Virginia”, but the Americans have something to oppose to “Ash”, but with what we will defend ourselves from “Virginia”, I honestly speaking, not entirely clear.

The layout is so-so. 170 of American Orions, though not of the first freshness either, but a figure ... Plus almost 80 of Viking, carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft still serve. In general, also not a fountain, but a little more optimistic than ours.


Well, almost 400 anti-submarine "Sea hawks" from the company "Sikorsky" - there is generally nothing to say. A helicopter is much more dangerous for a submarine than an airplane.

Plus, American planes and helicopters can easily be put together in one fist and tightly close any area of ​​the world's oceans. What does not shine for us from the word "completely." We are here, unfortunately, not even in the position of catching up, we, perhaps, are behind forever.

Well, the inability to produce anti-submarine aircraft and helicopters themselves. No, maybe we can, but for some reason we don’t. There are probably more serious goals, such as forums, international demonstration competitions, where the winner is known in advance and similar atomic destroyers.


In such unpleasant conditions, the right decision would be to build in large quantities modern small, but multi-functional ships that could fight enemy submarines and cover the exit from the bases of their boats.

Strange, but we have such a project. He initially had and has a number of shortcomings, but the ship and with them looks quite good for himself. Yes, we are talking about the ships of the 20380 project. Ships are indeed not without flaws, but there is potential, and most importantly, what is imputed to them in terms of weaknesses.


The main drawback of the project is the impossibility of launching rocket attacks along the coast and equipping with "Caliber". Therefore, they quickly made the 20385 project, in which these “Gauges” already exist.

You know, here is the complete feeling of the commandment "do not make yourself an idol." It is impossible to place the "Caliber" - that's it, you need to landfill.

In reality, the light has already wedged on these "Gauges" ... The whole world will be defeated only because every pontoon can launch them.

But if you look seriously, without caliber hysteria, then 22380 is a very successful and (most important) not very expensive replacement for Albatross. The ship simply asks for a PLO niche, since it was literally stuffed with everything that was needed so that the enemy’s submariners would not get a headache.

If you carefully read the combat set in 22380, it is, of course, much cooler than that of 1124. But this is also natural, between the ships of 30 years.

It is clear that in the short term we most likely cannot afford to develop a new IPC project of the 1124 type. But it would be nice, because something like the BOD of the 1155 project does not shine at all, and it is doubtful that we really need ships of the far ocean zone to solve the above problems.

This is exactly where 22380 / 22385 would be useful. They could easily take on the responsibilities of the BOD and, in the slightest degree, close the hole in the anti-submarine defense.

Why could they? Yes, because for this they need to be built in sufficient quantities. And today, both series of 22380 and 22385 corvettes seem to be all finished, and such ships will no longer be laid.

And instead of them? Instead, the issue of the scandalous 20386 project, which is larger in terms of displacement, much more expensive in terms of money and frankly weaker in armament, has not yet been removed from the agenda.

Much has been said about the stupidity called "the 20386 project", I won’t repeat it. The main thing on this topic is that at a greater cost than the 20380 and 20385 project corvettes, it does not have radical advantages over them like an anti-submarine ship, and the 20385 corvette is also inferior in weaponry.

And if it weren’t inferior - with the location of our fleets, which are completely unable to work together, it is necessary to have as many ships as possible capable of operating against enemy submarines. And for this they should be as cheap as possible, and not more expensive.

Especially annoying is the fact that even potentially anti-submarine corvettes are not ordered from us right now. Yes, the last ships of the 22380 and 22385 projects were laid in the 2016 year, and all, silence.

Meanwhile, the topic is serious. Who, excuse me, will guard / protect from the submarines the Storm mentioned not by night? Coffin type "Leader"? Which displacement is greater than the Peter the Great?

God forbid ...


But the question is who will guard our submarine missile carriers at the entrance and exit - this is the question. Yes, we have them. Yes, these are good and dangerous ships. But who said that generals and admirals gathered from mental hospitals work against us? No, the pros are sitting there too. And it is unlikely that they will continue to sit and wait until our "Ash" and "Borey" come to shock positions and launch everything that is.

On the contrary, they will tear to pieces to prevent this from happening.

In conclusion, this is what happened. If we put aside all the options for huge and useless troughs such as an atomic carrier, an atomic cruiser and an atomic destroyer, it would be much more useful to finally master the production of diesels and turbines for smaller ships.

I understand that today shipboard gas turbine is something for us from the realm of fantasy, but ... You can’t shove the reactor everywhere. Like Caliber.

Our submarine strategic forces definitely need cover to ensure the normal execution of tasks by nuclear submarines. And these are not aircraft carriers and cruisers that can serve as targets for enemy submarines, they are anti-submarine ships that can nullify all the efforts of potential enemy submarines in any area of ​​our control zone.


As a result - fewer stupid projects, more business projects! I would like to hear the market, not the funeral bell in our fleet.
Author:
111 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. jonht
    jonht 28 November 2019 06: 18
    +3
    A small clarification, on all destroyers and cruisers without fail placed PLO, including one or two helicopters. On the BOD they put simply more sophisticated sonars and towed antennas.
    For the replacement of the MPK, it is more expedient to create Karakurt on the basis of the RTO, it is closer in terms of displacement also in other performance characteristics. And there will be more than enough space for the sonar and for torpedoes after the UKPS’s removal.
    1. mark1
      mark1 28 November 2019 08: 27
      +4
      Quote: jonht
      For the replacement of the MPK, it is more expedient to create Karakurt on the basis of the RTO, it is closer in terms of displacement also in other performance characteristics.

      Times go by, requirements change, a helicopter has become a necessity from the category of desirable, so the "Karakurt". not very good for the IPC. Case 22160 is more suitable.
    2. Earthshaker
      Earthshaker 28 November 2019 08: 58
      +8
      Karakurt has such a drawback as a diesel power plant, which in all operating modes creates too much interference with its own GAS. On anti-submarine ships should be gas turbines, or electric motors, or a combined engine of the first two, point. And a modern ship should have a displacement of more than 800 tons, etc. 20380 BMZ optimal anti-submarine ship.
      1. alexmach
        alexmach 28 November 2019 11: 34
        +4
        On anti-submarine ships should be gas turbines, or electric motors, or a combined engine of the first two, point.

        pr. 20380 optimal anti-submarine ship BMZ

        But there, after all, there are neither turbines nor electric propulsion.
    3. Avior
      Avior 28 November 2019 10: 11
      0
      PLO PLO strife
      Polynomial stood only at 1155 and 1144
      On Kuznetsovo there is still
      And at 956 did not fit, which immediately limited the capabilities of the destroyer PLO
    4. Galleon
      Galleon 28 November 2019 10: 14
      +6
      It is a pity that you do not know how many times a year a helicopter is on the deck of a destroyer. I can answer - zero times. Once on state tests, he sat down and that's it. In addition, the destroyer does not have anti-submarine weapons, which can be issued to the Central Command by a PLO helicopter.
      1. kepmor
        kepmor 28 November 2019 12: 06
        +9
        Well, why ... There is nominally a submarine on the 956th ... as many as 2 antediluvian RBU-6000 and 4 pipes for rare SET-65 ...
        just tasks before 956 others were set ...
        yes ... the author stepped on, so he stepped on the very "Achilles' heel" of our fleet at all times - ensuring the combat stability of our fleet strike forces (SSBN and SSGN) during deployment ...
        if in Soviet times, in the presence of colossal forces and means of anti-submarines, it was a problem of problems ... nowadays it is just a "polar fox" in this vital aspect ... and only because of the lack of the same BOD, IPC, submarine and aviation PLO, but also due to the insufficient level of combat and technical capabilities of the detection means, control center, GPD and destruction on them in modern conditions ...
        Well, nowhere has the main scourge of our fleet disappeared - it's technical readiness ...
        1. Galleon
          Galleon 28 November 2019 13: 05
          +3
          Alexey, RBU-1000. And you are right - we need to talk about this, not about the "Leader", and work in this direction.
          I can hardly imagine the development of new modern means of hydroacoustics. Spend years to make 3-5 products later? How much should they cost if you release a piece by piece? But this is a question not only of the finished product, but of many of its elements, especially antennas: hydrophones, emitters. Who will make them? Where to get them? request
          1. kepmor
            kepmor 28 November 2019 13: 38
            +5
            Andrey, right ... 1000 is worth ... hi
            I have no answers to your questions ...
            the paradox of the situation is that we can do air defense radar and radar for all types of missiles ... and in acoustics and radar seekers there is a lag for decades ...
      2. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 29 November 2019 00: 34
        +1
        Quote: Galleon
        In addition, the destroyer does not have anti-submarine weapons, which can be issued to the Central Command by a PLO helicopter.
        it seems that even the pr. 956 "Sarych" had 2 x 2 TA 533 mm. ?! What prevents from using the same UGST or "Physicist" from it ?!
        1. Galleon
          Galleon 29 November 2019 01: 46
          -2
          Quote: Vl Nemchinov
          the project 956 "Sarych" had 2 x 2 TA 533 mm. ?! What prevents from using the same UGST or "Physicist" from it ?!

          All right, two two-pipe. And what prevents you from using the products you have named - do not be angry, I am not a "Romanian" (torpedo-miner), I cannot answer you. Maybe the protocol for entering the control center is already different (if it is there)?
    5. venik
      venik 28 November 2019 15: 53
      +2
      Quote: jonht
      A small clarification, on all destroyers and cruisers without fail placed PLO, including one or two helicopters.

      ==========
      Eugene! And what does this have to do with it?
      Article Skomorokhov there are also more "funny" "pearls": For example:
      - "...Black Sea Fleet. BOD - 0, IPC - 0......"
      And THIS then what ??? :

      MPK "Provorino" (Black Sea Fleet)
      And this?

      IPC "Suzdalets"!
      And there is also "Muromets" ...... AND ALL - 68 OVR brigade !!!
      And after all this - TRUST "opus" Skomorokhov??? Sorry! THIS is not for me! request
      1. Petrograd
        Petrograd 5 December 2019 01: 05
        +1
        Vladimir, there’s no way to complain about you hibut MPK "Suzdalets" hull number 071, the former "Komsomolets of Moldavia" is a wonderful ship, the best, but in the photo "064" -Alexandrovets is also no less "wonderful ship"

        IPC pr 1124m, served on it (071), he is so .. he is the most beautiful
    6. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 29 November 2019 00: 44
      +2
      Quote: jonht
      For the replacement of the MPK, it is more expedient to create Karakurt on the basis of the RTO, it is closer in terms of displacement also in other performance characteristics.
      God forbid !! they will wait another ten to twelve years until the "Zvezda" gives birth (one set per year) of the power plant, for the waiting buildings (as well as those RTOs that have already been contracted and under construction). And then you propose another twelve years, to wait for the same power plant for the reincarnation of "Karakurt-MPK" ?! Not cool ...
      1. jonht
        jonht 29 November 2019 00: 52
        0
        Let's just say on the basis, but this does not mean that he will be licked from Karakurt. When they put GAS there, it’s good if the case remains in size, and Nachik is likely to be different.
  2. Flooding
    Flooding 28 November 2019 06: 23
    0
    Interestingly, anti-submarine torpedo missiles 91RT from the "Caliber" family are launched only from TA?
    Is it possible to run from vertical PU?
    1. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 16: 17
      0
      Let from Gorshkov
      1. Flooding
        Flooding 28 November 2019 16: 22
        -1
        Then the task of equipping corvettes for the PLO problem is completely solvable at the lowest cost.
        1. timokhin-aa
          timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 16: 55
          +4
          Quite. It is only necessary to reach the General Staff and the Commander-in-Chief
        2. Nemchinov Vl
          Nemchinov Vl 29 November 2019 00: 56
          0
          Quote: Flood
          ... the task of equipping corvettes for the PLO problem is completely solvable at the lowest cost.
          yeah. And the simplest, fastest and most economically viable way is project 11661-K (E), at the power plant from 20380 (DDA-12000), with UKSK and TA 533 mm (for UGST), with the same SJSC Zarya, but without expensive "Reduta" (for the air defense of a single corvette, the "Osa-MA" is enough, well, the maxim to "Pantsir-M" can be updated) !! And you don't have to reinvent the wheel. It will be cheaper by about 5 billion than 20380 (for each unit), and more effective for PLO.
  3. The comment was deleted.
    1. Flooding
      Flooding 28 November 2019 08: 12
      +3
      Seguile regole della grammatica della lingua russa
  4. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 28 November 2019 07: 39
    +6
    Interesting, and most importantly, without hysteria! You can’t even believe that this is from Skomorokhov.
    1. The leader of the Redskins
      The leader of the Redskins 28 November 2019 08: 44
      +3
      I agree, the author did not write an article in his usual way. But, like, comments and you will not find ...
  5. rocket757
    rocket757 28 November 2019 07: 50
    +4
    nothing ... on the forums to tell tales.

    On the forums, okay, this is "fabulous territory" !!! But the official statements must contain SPECIFICATIONS, which must be brought to the right person!
    As a result - fewer stupid projects, more business projects! I would like to hear the market, not the funeral bell in our fleet.

    Who is against it.
    However, we have everything!
  6. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov 28 November 2019 07: 53
    +4
    Why does the article say that there is no IPC in the Black Sea Fleet? But what about the 6 ships of Project 1124M: "Kasimov", "Povorino", "Aleksandrovets", "Suzdalets", "Muromets" and "Yeisk"?
    1. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 29 November 2019 01: 06
      0
      Well, there are two options: first - the author was shy, and did not mention them ... second - the author, wanted to mislead the enemies (to create a persistent illusion among them of the defenselessness of the Black Sea Fleet in the area of ​​PLO), and ... again, - ... and did not mention them ... request
  7. novel66
    novel66 28 November 2019 08: 45
    +9
    But the fact that transferring money to develop stupid atomic destroyers and aircraft carriers that there is nobody and nothing to protect is utter stupidity

    wah! What words!!! as if I said !! (or maybe I said that?)
  8. Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 28 November 2019 08: 53
    0
    That's right, thanks for the article. But more cut to God cut. And about minesweepers would not forget. Good minesweepers would come out of Karakurt.
  9. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 28 November 2019 09: 12
    +2
    The topic of aircraft and PLO helicopters is very commercially profitable. Now this is the US monopoly both as a manufacturer of equipment and as a manufacturer of aircraft. Surprisingly, we do not invest in this. At a minimum, the Tu204 / 214 carrier is also MC21 on the way. Others, independent for export from the United States, must be sought again. And the market is decent. Currently, only US allies have such aircraft. And here you can make the filling together.
  10. Wildcat
    Wildcat 28 November 2019 09: 14
    +5
    hi
    An interesting article, a small clarification:
    Plus, almost 80 more Viking, carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft still serve.
    - The Vikings, after the "biggest catastrophe of the 20th century" occurred, have quietly left the service today, having fought in Afghanistan along the way. On decks - only helicopters.
    IMHO.
  11. The comment was deleted.
    1. Glory1974
      Glory1974 28 November 2019 11: 18
      +4
      With a whole gang of small ships, we can finally replace one single corvette! Hooray, comrades! Why not vice versa, why not a brigade with just one corvette?

      Because to capture a submarine, several ships are needed, an appropriate warrant, etc.
      Therefore, one ship brigade will not be able to replace physically.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 17: 10
            0
            https://vz.ru/society/2019/11/25/1009562.html

            They can hear upstairs, a serious newspaper.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Nemchinov Vl
                Nemchinov Vl 30 November 2019 02: 08
                0
                Quote: rudolff
                Failure to continue the series of 80/85 corvettes is akin to crime.
                rather, the refusal to spray funds to nowhere ... if 20385 can still be considered an anti-submarine corvette (but the Frigate’s PRICE !!!), then 20380 is FARS in the PLO area, since there is something to detect (given the HOOK and turntable), but it’s effective attack the boat NOTHING !!! This is at a price tag of already 20 billion?! ?! That was exactly the CRIME - the bloating of the 20380 series !!
                1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
            Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 28 November 2019 17: 17
            +3
            Good afternoon rudolph hi As for the corvettes, they write that the Amur Shipbuilding Plant did not receive on time a part of the Zarya-2 hydroacoustic complex (SAC) intended for installation on the Aldar Tsydenzhapov project 20380 corvette, since Russian hydroacoustic stations cannot do without imported electronic component base ... In order not to use foreign-made modules, they produce their own in Russia, but foreign components are also integrated into them. "Analog devices, as well as Texas Instruments and Maxim Integrated Products make the best ADCs and DACs (analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters) and their components. There is not a single product in Russia that can compete with them. If we want to provide high-quality hydroacoustic communication, we are forced to use these components. "
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 28 November 2019 18: 17
                +2
                This song will be forever. On diesel engines for the fleet today on the website flotprom.ru I read the article "Full Back: Why the Newest Diesel Engines Did Not Get to the Navy". Recently, the media recalled the PM-16 floating technical base of the 2020 project (code Malina), intended for refueling, recharging, supporting and repairing nuclear power plants of nuclear submarines. Intended for the Pacific Fleet. Located in Ukraine at the Black Sea Shipyard.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                    Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 28 November 2019 18: 52
                    +4
                    Let's see if something positive will happen. Today, for moderation, I gave an article on a new dry dock at the 35th shipyard. Probably will be published tomorrow.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. timokhin-aa
                      timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 20: 45
                      -1
                      Drop me a link too, okay?
                      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                        Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 29 November 2019 10: 18
                        0
                        I’ll definitely throw it off, and in the opinions section the site administration postes such publications after editing. Thanks to them for that.
                  2. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 19: 01
                    -1
                    In general, there are positive developments on the Star, just very small.

                    On the other hand, there is Kolomna and here it is possible to receive it with a diesel engine at least hundreds a year, it would be where to put them.

                    And they close the niche of ships with VI 1300-2500 tons
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 20: 44
                        +1
                        It's not all that simple there. Initially, the quality was poor, but so far Kolomna believed in norms. orders from the Navy, they tried to pull it up. As a result, for example "Loud" 20380 at the Pacific Fleet on a pair of diesel engines without tension gave 20 knots instead of 14.
                        Then the "Thundering" 20385 distinguished itself in a similar way, with large and significant dimensions, and with a larger displacement, the same 20 knots on half of the power plant.

                        But after these sets, when they realized in Kolomna that there would be no more special orders, everything again "sagged", because now Kolomna again does not care about the fleet, the fleet will not buy new diesel engines, for export from which Russia itself refused too little chance of shoving, so why try?

                        Initially, Chirkov said that the 20380 series should be brought up to 30 units. 5 grens were planned. Frigates 22350 planned 12.
                        So we consider how many diesel engines it is.

                        And then fornication abruptly began, as if in 2013 the brains of the Commander-in-Chief, the military-industrial commission and all who were in between.
                      2. The comment was deleted.
                    2. Nemchinov Vl
                      Nemchinov Vl 30 November 2019 02: 15
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      In general, there are positive developments on the Star, just very small.
                      yeah, in their essence (content), they remind me of Myagkov's phrase in the movie "Office Romance" - "... we love you deep down ... somewhere sooo deep .." ?!
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      On the other hand, there is Kolomna and here it is possible to receive it with a diesel engine at least hundreds a year, it would be where to put them.
                      ... on - 1166 * (as you deigned to express ourselves in the discussion of one of the articles, earlier ...), in the PLO version (configuration), because as you again subtly noticed, -
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      they close the niche of ships with a VI of 1300-2500 tons
                      ..do not add .. !!!
              2. Nemchinov Vl
                Nemchinov Vl 1 December 2019 11: 39
                0
                Quote: rudolff
                I'm just curious, but how much more will they refer to the lack of a component base, ship engines and Nikolaev shipyards?
                I'm afraid that for a very long time ... After all, about the fact that "Zorya-Mashproekt" will no longer supply gas turbine engines, there was known since 2014, BUT the stake on their full-fledged replacement stubbornly continued to be placed on NPO Saturn. That is, one single enterprise (at that time, it still had practically no great experience in creating sea gas turbine engines !!!). As a result, over the past five years, the industry in fact has only two types of marine gas turbine engines of its own production. Until now, a second enterprise has not been created that could take on another 2-3 types (different in power) of marine GTEs (and gearboxes for them) ?! Five YEARS have passed !!! Nobody thought (OR DIDN'T KNOW ?!) that one enterprise could not, alone, quickly establish a wide range of marine gas turbine engines ?! It seems to me that things are about the same with enterprises (which would be on the territory of the Russian Federation) that could fill the GAP in the niche, serial production of HACs, similar in their performance to "Polino" or "Zvezda-2" ?! As a result, even laying new ships of the BOD / EM class, apparently, simply does not make sense. But even in this (these) critical directions, nothing has changed ?! Over the past 5 years, new businessesthat could fill in these critical products Niches NOT CREATED !!! For the layman, all this does not look logical, but the industry in the form of the defense industry complex (USC), and the customer in the face of the Navy, all this apparently suits, and does not alarm at all ?! New projects are born (exclusively on paper), new spectacular mock-ups appear, they are taken to exhibitions and ... Mock-ups do not need industry that creates new HACs, gas turbine engines, and other elements of large military shipbuilding in metal ... new projects and R&D, this does not interfere at all. Perhaps this is the case ?!
                1. The comment was deleted.
  12. Wildcat
    Wildcat 28 November 2019 09: 19
    +5
    hi
    And more:
    The layout is so-so. 170 American Orions, though not the first freshness either, but the figure ...
    - I can’t say about the number, but Poseidons should be added.
    And if you count, then you need to add allies to the United States, they are not on the sidelines.
    And to us - the CSTO ....
    1. Avior
      Avior 28 November 2019 10: 04
      +5
      With the CSTO, I would not rush to add
      First clarified
    2. Galleon
      Galleon 28 November 2019 10: 11
      +9
      Quote: Wildcat
      And to us - the CSTO ....

      That's for sure. Anti-submarine aircraft can always be pledged in Belarus or Kyrgyzstan laughing
      1. Avior
        Avior 28 November 2019 10: 18
        +3
        On land, I would first clarify whether they would enter the battle with the States if they were not directly affected.
        Recently Rygorovich said something about other people's wars.
  13. Resistance
    Resistance 28 November 2019 09: 49
    -9
    Aftor needs to look at the appendixes of the Navy Charter, to understand the terms "bell" and "bell".
    Otherwise, there are many letters. Nothing new: o (
    1. Galleon
      Galleon 28 November 2019 10: 09
      +14
      Quote: Persistence
      you need to look at the appendices of the Navy Charter, to understand the terms "bell" and "bell".

      But he couldn’t resist reading and writing, to poke into the charter.
      Perhaps the author knew the ship's charter better than you did. After knowing the charter, the author already has the ability to express thoughts and his own artistic language with which he allowed such a wide circle antithesis of the bell with the market. Every sailor knows that three triple blows by a ship's bell at noon local time are called a marketplace, but is that really all that you could comment on in an article? Not much.
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri 28 November 2019 17: 18
        +1
        But he couldn’t resist reading and writing, to poke into the charter.

        Andrey, that’s not the point. For example, I’m not at all an expert on charters in any way, however, the stubborn designation by Roman of the ship of project 20380 is the ship of the project 22380 wassat it hurts my eyes very much. Specially looked at such jambs of about 50 to 50.
      2. Martin
        Martin 29 November 2019 19: 56
        0
        Quote: Galleon
        a bargain is called three triple beats at noon

        Here the author, just did not mess up even once. "... I like the sound of the market ..." He did not write that the market is a bell.
    2. Avior
      Avior 28 November 2019 10: 16
      +1
      Yeah. It is possible without a charter
      GOST 8117-74
      SHIP BELLS. SPECIFICATIONS

      smile
      1. Galleon
        Galleon 28 November 2019 10: 18
        +3
        request Yes, perhaps everyone has their own path to knowledge. smile Have a nice day! hi
        1. Avior
          Avior 28 November 2019 10: 27
          +2
          Article is good
          And the image of contrasting the ship's bell to the funerary is also a good find of the author, symbolic and visual.
          A clarification is purely to increase the general awareness of readers of a specialized resource in terms of terminology
          I am sure that many of your posts learned what market is
          Not all seafarers here
          hi
  14. Operator
    Operator 28 November 2019 09: 55
    -1
    "How can you calmly sleep in the United States (for example), knowing that somewhere in the ocean there are undetected Russian submarines?", - like in the USA you can sleep peacefully, knowing that you are in the ocean discovered Russian submarines laughing

    And the Strategic Missile Forces, "Poseidons" and "Petrel" are like Russian cartoons.
    1. Fan-fan
      Fan-fan 28 November 2019 17: 48
      -1
      Oh, the cheers patriot woke up.
  15. Galleon
    Galleon 28 November 2019 10: 03
    +6
    Thanks to the author for a topical and thoughtful article. It is written what all sailors and people who care about the fleet think about. No one dares to reproach the author for cooling the reality - the article proposes specific measures and there are no negative emotions about the current state of affairs. If only someone upstairs heard this voice.
    1. knn54
      knn54 28 November 2019 10: 16
      +3
      The United States has a Department of the Navy. And in the Russian Federation EVERYTHING is decided by the "land uncles" from the Moscow region,
      1. Galleon
        Galleon 28 November 2019 10: 22
        +6
        Under Stalin, we also had a Ministry of the Navy in the post-war period, the year before 1955. A man tried to look far away. And the "land uncles" need to explain the seriousness of the PLO. There is still no other way out.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 29 November 2019 11: 35
          +1
          Quote: Galleon
          Under Stalin and we had the Ministry of the Navy in the post-war period, until 1955.

          And it’s no use if the final decision on the composition of the fleet was still made by the People's Commissariat of Shipbuilding / Ministry of Sudprom. And whoever did not agree with the Ministry of Justice - that one "left" in resignation.
  16. Avior
    Avior 28 November 2019 10: 03
    +3
    The author forgot from the United States to take into account about a hundred of the latest P8 Poseidon
    And the prospect of increasing their number
  17. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 28 November 2019 10: 48
    +1
    Such an amateurish thought came to me.
    If our industry was able to give birth to an unmanned and difficult-to-detect underwater vehicle, such as Poseidon, then why can't we make a ballistic missile carrier on its basis? And then instead of SSBNs with 20 missiles, which with a high probability will be "led", despite all our efforts, and will be easily destroyed before the missiles are launched, there will be 20 drones with one missile, and the task of identifying and destroying them increases by an order of magnitude.
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 28 November 2019 14: 46
      0
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      And then instead of SSBNs with 20 missiles, which with a high probability will be "guided", despite all our efforts, and easily destroyed before the missiles are launched, there will be 20 drones with one missile,

    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 16: 23
      +3
      If our industry was able to give birth to an unmanned and difficult-to-detect underwater vehicle, such as Poseidon, then why can't we make a ballistic missile carrier on its basis?


      Correctly write this - has not yet been able to create a useless and easily detectable nuclear torpedo of the Poseidon complex (and thank God). That's more accurate.
  18. ccsr
    ccsr 28 November 2019 11: 31
    -1
    Author:
    Roman Skomorokhov
    And such a force could well drive all the "observers" away into the sea and enable our ship to calmly break away from everyone who wants to peep and eavesdrop.

    Sorry, but this is complete garbage, because the author does not know what marine reconnaissance buoys are, which the Americans periodically launched in all directions of movement of our submarines. In the seventies of the last century, for example, it was a structure with a diameter of 1,8 - 2,0 meters and a height of about 20 meters, which had a set of reconnaissance equipment, an autonomous electric power generator (RTG), thrusters for buoy movement in all planes and autonomy up to several years of sailing in any latitude. These buoys were in an upright position, descended to a certain depth, took various information, which, when surfaced, was dumped on reconnaissance satellites. And it was FIFTY years ago, and here you are telling some tales about the separation of our submarines, which, in principle, cannot be if the boat moves. So moderate the ardor about our surface forces, which in your imagination are capable of securing the exit of the boat, they cannot do anything with the intelligence equipment of the Americans, although there were cases when we captured their buoys, but as a rule of a different class.
    Our submarine strategic forces definitely need cover to ensure the normal execution of tasks by nuclear submarines.

    This is fundamentally wrong, because initially the SSBNs were just planned as completely autonomous nuclear powered ships, capable of stealth, without any escort by sea and air ships from the moment they leave until the end of the campaign.
    Based on the fact that they cannot do without a surface component, then why create them at all, because it is easier to place nuclear weapons only on surface ships, which will be much cheaper and safer from the point of view of operation.
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. ccsr
        ccsr 28 November 2019 17: 07
        -1
        Quote: rudolff
        They patrol areas SSBNs are cut in areas of complete domination of their Navy.

        And what does this prove? Only one thing - they have much more money than ours, and no more. What is real in PEACEFUL time you can disrupt the campaign of American submarines in the oceans or outside our territorial waters? Will you attack or how?
        Quote: rudolff
        And from there they don’t even show a nose.

        Because they know what the cost of a missile carrier is and what it needs to be saved in case of an emergency. We are adhering to the same thing, only they have ten times more military budgets than ours, and they can afford it, but we can stay without pants - this we already passed in Soviet times when we had a navy commensurate with the American .
    2. Arkon
      Arkon 28 November 2019 14: 44
      +1
      Quote: ccsr
      Sorry, but this is complete garbage, because the author does not know what marine reconnaissance buoys are, which the Americans periodically launched in all directions of movement of our submarines. In the seventies of the last century, for example, it was a structure with a diameter of 1,8 - 2,0 meters and a height of about 20 meters,


      Everything was, only, they say, at that level and remained. Modern boats of the latest generations the American system can no longer hear. And the Americans have neither money nor opportunities to upgrade it - other concerns are now higher than the roof.

      Meanwhile, the experience of Americans is starting to be used by Russia:
      The Russian Ministry of Defense has begun deploying a unique underwater sonar tracking system that can make entire regions of the oceans “transparent” by detecting all ships, submarines and even low-flying planes and helicopters located there. The unique product, which received the Harmony Index, is based on special underwater robotic systems that exit the submarine and deploy powerful sonar stations at the bottom. Robots transmit the received information to the command control center via satellites. According to experts, some elements of the system have already begun to function, and Harmony will fully work no later than 2020.


      Therefore, in addition to the article: what prevents us from installing this "Harmony" first in our BMZ, and then thinking about the ocean? Maybe then the IPC will be needed less?
      Maybe this is the explanation for the backlog of ships?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Arkon
          Arkon 28 November 2019 14: 59
          -1
          Yes, but "Harmony" is "already" created.
      2. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 16: 26
        0
        Modern boats of the latest generations the American system can no longer hear. And the Americans have neither money nor opportunities to upgrade it - other concerns are now higher than the roof.


        He hears and updates right now, money for OCD (or whatever they have there) has already been allocated, $ 18 million has already been paid.

        Everything is working. Tell tales in kindergarten.
        1. Arkon
          Arkon 28 November 2019 16: 36
          -4
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          $ 18 million has already been paid.


          The amount is serious, of course. On OCD? Cool. I am sure that very soon everything will work. Well, because you said that. You do not tell tales.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 16: 55
            -2
            Google at least something. They do not secret the fact of this program.
            1. Arkon
              Arkon 28 November 2019 18: 34
              0
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              Google at least something.


              Well, google it. SOSUS passive tracking system is mothballed and not used due to reduced efficiency. Replacement is not supposed to be done to her (or I did not find it - drop the link). FOSS active tracking systems are designed to cover the area and require constant updating of emitters (30 days of continuous operation) by
              LCS program surface ships as well as SSGN type submarines
              . Well, for their (American) BMZ, they will do, of course. I do not understand how they are going to control our deployment areas with these systems. Perhaps you explain to me.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 18: 57
                +1
                https://thediplomat.com/2016/11/us-navy-upgrading-undersea-sub-detecting-sensor-network/

                Look for the Deep Reliable Acoustic Path Exploitation System (DRAPES)

                They perfectly control our BMZ from submarines.

                In addition, if suddenly our submarine dives too deeply, then even sensors off the coast of the United States will begin to hear it - enough for low-frequency oscillations from displaced masses of water to reach the so-called. deep sea sound channels.

                The record for detecting a boat in such conditions in range is 6000 kilometers.

                SOSUS was disconnected not because of inefficiency but because of the desire to save money during the period of the decline of Russia. Restarting the problem will not be.
                Well, there everything does not boil down to these two systems.
                1. Arkon
                  Arkon 28 November 2019 19: 56
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Look for the Deep Reliable Acoustic Path Exploitation System (DRAPES)


                  Thanks for the information. I searched. DRAPES itself has not even begun to design, but it is known that:
                  DRAPES resembles a project presented by the Agency for Advanced Defense Research Projects. In 2013, the agency created a prototype of a reliable transformational acoustic system that, like DRAPES, creates a wide observational network that spans the ocean and transmits this information to the base.

                  Work on a contract worth $ 18,8 million will be completed in North Carolina and should be completed by October 2020.
                  https://defensesystems.com/articles/2016/10/31/drape2.aspx

                  Well, that is, at the moment we cross out - there is nothing for the States to follow us from passive and active autonomous tracking systems.

                  They perfectly control our BMZ from submarines.


                  This statement is on your conscience. I only commented on the statement about the "buoys" and suggested that the lack of IPC numbers could be partially replaced by the new "Harmony" autonomous tracking system.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 20: 49
                    -2
                    Well, that is, at the moment we cross out - there is nothing for the States to follow us from passive and active autonomous tracking systems.


                    There are mobile FOSS. So there is something. Their SAR sometimes operate directly in visual visibility from the Kamchatka coast.

                    DRAPES has not been created, it is being created, now they are drawing up a preliminary project, I talked about these expenses, this is only the beginning, the Americans work very quickly in such matters, they have a lot of money, and they have vast experience. In addition, I repeat - SOSUS is in perfect order, just turned off and then not completely. To revive not for long. A couple of months on the strength.

                    that the lack of the number of IPC can be partially replaced by the new autonomous tracking system "Harmony".


                    The attempt to do this has failed. MGK-608 pogkuglite, they were recently installed. But all the cables are chopped off without the possibility of restoration, such as "fishermen" tried. Yeah.
                    1. Arkon
                      Arkon 28 November 2019 21: 01
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      The attempt to do this failed. MGK-608 gag, they were recently set.


                      These are different systems. MGK made Atoll, Almaz-Antey and Malachite are doing Harmony (probably already done). https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2279734.html
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 21: 44
                        -2
                        Do harmony (already done, probably)


                        laughing
                        Sorry, could not resist
                    2. Arkon
                      Arkon 28 November 2019 21: 03
                      0
                      Quote: timokhin-aa
                      To revive not for long. A couple of months on the strength.


                      laughing Sorry, could not resist.
                      1. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 21: 41
                        -1
                        There, some ground parts are simply REDUCED and some systems are disabled. They did not disassemble it, did not break it, etc.
                      2. Arkon
                        Arkon 28 November 2019 21: 48
                        0
                        Well I do not know. They write that it is the hydroacoustic stations that have been mothballed. Moreover, since the beginning of the 15s. 20 - XNUMX years of conservation at sea is a kapets, in my opinion. But let it be "a couple of months". I will not argue. :)
                      3. timokhin-aa
                        timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 23: 04
                        -2
                        Preserved - disabled. They are so that they would stand at sea. They have a lifespan of tens of years, these are huge arrays of antennas.

                        For them, it makes no difference to just work in the water or just stand in it. Maintenance can also be done with a disconnected antenna, as well as scheduled repairs.
        2. ccsr
          ccsr 28 November 2019 17: 33
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          He hears and updates right now, money for OCD (or whatever they have there) has already been allocated, $ 18 million has already been paid.

          Everything is working. Tell tales in kindergarten.

          I don’t even dare to argue - this is exactly the case. Moreover, we are not yet aware of all their developments in this direction - I am sure of this, because our intelligence is far from what it was during the USSR. But I hope, and in time we will find out what they achieved.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 18: 59
            0
            Well, actually we are in the know. Yes, they do not hide too much.
            What only to do with all this is incomprehensible.
      3. ccsr
        ccsr 28 November 2019 17: 27
        +1
        Quote: Arkon
        Everything was, only, they say, at that level and remained.

        I would like to believe in it, but common sense suggests that they did not abandon developments in the field of improving reconnaissance buoys.
        Quote: Arkon
        Modern boats of the latest generations the American system can no longer hear.

        In addition to "audibility", large underwater objects when moving change the properties of the aquatic environment, which can also be detected by reconnaissance equipment. Of course, I do not know at what level they have all this, but out of old habit I think that we must lay down on the worst option for us.
        Quote: Arkon
        Maybe this is the explanation for the backlog of ships?

        I think that now there has been a rethinking in the concept of building the Navy under the influence primarily of the financial factor, and in the new concept the strategic priority will be for the submarine fleet, and in two versions with crew and unmanned. Small-tonnage warships will be used as platforms for the RSMD - this is how I see the future of the fleet, although I can’t say that those who define this concept think so.
  19. ABM
    ABM 28 November 2019 11: 51
    +1
    PLO - if in the near sea zone everything is solved quite simply and clearly, then for the far sea zone everything is just as vague. First, there will soon be no ships left to cover in the DMZ; secondly, due to the increase in the range of ballistic missiles of American SSBNs, their detection by our BODs or frigates is a pointless task. Hence the opportunity to focus only on BMZ, which will resolve the issue with the withdrawal of our SSBNs to positions in the so-called. "coastal bastions". The exit of SSBNs into the open ocean is extremely dangerous because of the 50% (optimistic) risk of destroying a potential enemy's submarine and reducing the potential for a retaliatory strike. Here they shoot from the coast - then into the Atlantic or the Pacific Ocean with torpedoes (there will be little sense from them, of course)
    1. ccsr
      ccsr 2 December 2019 13: 39
      +2
      Quote: ABM
      secondly, in connection with the increase in the range of ballistic missiles of American SSBNs, their detection by the forces of our BOD or frigates is a meaningless task.

      Quite right, but the Americans faced the same problem with respect to our SSBNs, so in this case, organizational measures partially solve the problem of protecting our naval strategic nuclear forces.
      Quote: ABM
      The SSBN’s entry into the open ocean is extremely dangerous because of the 50% (optimistic) risk of destroying a probable enemy’s submarine and reducing the potential for a retaliatory strike.

      But this question requires careful study and modeling, because if the stake is placed on less noisy and hardly detectable submarine missile carriers, then an increase in their number with a slight change in the costs of their creation and maintenance will allow us to guarantee unacceptable damage to the territory of the United States only due to one of branches of our triad. I think that naval military thought will concern itself not only with the secrecy of submarines, but also with the creation of active and passive jamming systems along their route, if this is a technically feasible task, such as in aviation.
  20. Trapperxnumx
    Trapperxnumx 28 November 2019 12: 50
    +1
    Competently. Weighted. On business. Most of all I liked the sensible approach about the normal construction of small, but extremely important ships, and only then ... then ... then you can swing at William, ours, Shakespeare)
  21. Corn
    Corn 28 November 2019 13: 41
    +2
    The content of the first half of the article can be safely projected onto the entire army. Everything is the same.
    ...

    However, a sign has been circulating on this site for a long time, if the author extols the corvettes 20380, 20385 and immediately scolds “the scandalous project 20386, then he’s not a comrade to us at all, but quite a selling cloth that writes for a can of jam and a packet of cookies that he took bad people.
    1. From Siberia we
      From Siberia we 28 November 2019 14: 09
      +2
      About the full Achtung with the conclusion of the submarine was said about 10 years ago. The article forgot to mention the racers with whom the same Achtung. From IPK KPUG as from go .a bullet. and seaworthiness when using a GAS and armament is about 0. KPUG from a BOD can drive off an enemy submarine, Detect is close to 0. But there is a chance thanks to dragonflies (KA-27). Work on submarines after detection is the second question. Though deep bombs. The main thing is not to lose contact. Here towed GAS are also necessary. That on the IPC was not born. (A submarine maneuvers in depth too, going under a layer of the horizon and that’s all, there is no more boat for shipboard GAS.) DEPL thing is not bad, but how many are there? And they will not solve the problem of the SSBN exit.
    2. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa 28 November 2019 16: 26
      -1
      Maybe the other way around?
  22. venik
    venik 28 November 2019 15: 53
    +1
    Quote: jonht
    A small clarification, on all destroyers and cruisers without fail placed PLO, including one or two helicopters.

    ==========
    Eugene! And what does this have to do with it?
    Article Skomorokhov there are also more "funny" "pearls": For example:
    - "...Black Sea Fleet. BOD - 0, IPC - 0......"
    And THIS then what ??? :

    MPK "Provorino" (Black Sea Fleet)
    And this?

    IPC "Suzdalets"!
    And there is also "Muromets" ...... AND ALL - 68 OVR brigade !!!
    And after all this - TRUST the "opuses" of Skomorokhov ??? Sorry! THIS is not for me! request
    1. Martin
      Martin 29 November 2019 19: 46
      +2
      Quote: venik
      - "... Black Sea Fleet. BOD - 0, MPK - 0 ......"
      And THIS then what ??? :

      Yes, I, too, caught hold of zeros.
      Author! If you need to mislead a person, you cannot use "round" numbers. Well, they would have written “thirteen and a half,” no one would have noticed. winked
      But seriously, if you are criticizing, you need to carefully check the arguments. One puncture argument (and he alone? Did not check) crosses out the entire article. For, to check every word is neither an opportunity nor a desire.
  23. The Siberian barber
    The Siberian barber 28 November 2019 20: 24
    0
    The article "not in the eyebrow, but in the eye!"
    I always said: since we have a fair share of SLBMs, the protection of water areas, when deployed, is one of the key! Ignoring this is criminal. And, if memory serves, then practically NOTHING has been done, alas.
    A small question: "Vikings" do they work, yet? I probably gave a blunder, believing that they were written off
  24. xomaNN
    xomaNN 28 November 2019 23: 20
    0
    Returning to the simple folk thought "Trishkin Kaftan" ... Well, it just doesn't work, as in Soviet times, to build several large NKs and nuclear submarines every year, not counting smaller NKs, like the TFR and diesel-electric submarines ... am
    ... It's a pity....
  25. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 28 November 2019 23: 24
    0
    A very important topic was raised by the respected Roman Skomorokhov, and he clearly explains everything, minesweepers and IPCs (corvettes frigates), as well as coastal aviation, are essential for securing a nuclear submarine exit. Firstly, it is necessary to place all these ships and aircraft at the nuclear submarine bases in the oceans, and not on the seas (Kamchatka, not Vladivostok). The BF and CFL should be disbanded altogether, and with the Black Sea Fleet, take all frigates. Secondly, it is necessary to create a project for the PLO aircraft (based on IL 114-300, be 200) and put it into production. As for the corvettes, they decided to make IPC from karakurts, their advantage is a reduced price and the possibility of transferring GDP.
  26. mik193
    mik193 29 November 2019 11: 27
    0
    Article in the very hole! PLO (and PMO) of our naval base in full ass, and we all continue to brandish "Caliber" and "Zircon". The cruise missile carrier will be sunk from under the water at the exit from the base, not allowing to reach the launch point. And what kind of ships are needed ... of course, first of all, the development of project 1124 .... maybe something similar to the Chinese type 056 ... only in what time frame will our industry be born ...
    1. Polinom
      Polinom 11 December 2019 12: 15
      0
      All this rassoling is like talking to Poseidon. A dozen years have been writing about a fat ass and "great again."
      Only the laziest did not write about it. Mina has been writing about this for many years, too?
  27. LastPS
    LastPS 26 December 2019 22: 38
    0
    All articles about the fleet are very sad to read. They do nothing sensible at all, hoping for some reason.
  28. ochakow703
    ochakow703 24 February 2020 15: 45
    0
    I heard the flag was removed from the Azov BPK ... It's a pity the karablics, in my opinion the 1134B were not bad BPKashki.