Military Review

Northern Design Bureau completed the outline design of "Super-Gorshkov"

156
Northern Design Bureau completed the outline design of "Super-Gorshkov"

Head frigate of the 22350 project "Admiral Gorshkov"


The Northern Design Bureau completed the preliminary design of the frigate of the 22350M project - a modified version of the frigates of the 22350 project of the Admiral Gorshkov type. It is reported Mil.Press FlotProm with reference to an informed industry source.

According to the publication, the designers of the Northern Design Bureau completed the preliminary design of the Super-Gorshkov, the work was completed on time. The next stage is the acceptance of work by the relevant commission; this stage will be implemented before the end of the year. It will take from 12 to 18 months to complete the design of the new frigate; the construction of the lead ship of the series will take 4-5 years. According to the source, given the timing of the development of design documentation, the construction can begin no earlier than 2021 of the year. The laying of ships is planned at the Severnaya Verf shipyard.

The beginning of preliminary work on the 22350M project ships in the Northern Design Bureau was announced in September last year, officially the Super-Gorshkov outline design was launched on December 25 of 2018 of the year. Admiral Viktor Chirkov, then the commander in chief of the Russian Navy, announced the possible construction of the modified version frigates in 2014. According to him, the Russian Navy hoped to acquire at least 15 frigates of the base and modified versions.

To date, the 22350M project is known that the ship's displacement will be within 8 thousand tons, the frigate will carry 48 Caliber cruise missiles. Hypersonic Zircons will also be included in the arsenal. It is planned to install a Russian-made power plant.
156 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. seti
    seti 30 November 2019 12: 57
    +25
    As for me, it would be better to continue the construction of frigates of the old series of project 22350 without M. Let me explain - this project already it has been worked out and, as it is manufactured, it is possible to introduce the necessary innovations and modernize it in current repairs. And so again new and this leads to long delays. Again, the question about the power plant .. Is everything smooth with it and how are things going with them? This is the most painful place. Time is running out and such ships are needed today and not tomorrow.
    1. Chaldon48
      Chaldon48 30 November 2019 13: 05
      +9
      Too much has been invested in Ukraine, if they were almost like us! And now everything that was given to her has to be reproduced in Russia. One would like to say, but not a couple of what they gave yesterday to pick up today?
      1. Hunter 2
        Hunter 2 30 November 2019 13: 41
        +34
        This will be the first Rank 1 Battle Surface Ship designed and built in Russia! Since 1989 - they did not launch the ships of the 1st Rank! With 8 thousand tons - I think this is not a Frigate but a full-fledged Destroyer!
        1. Artemiy_2
          Artemiy_2 30 November 2019 14: 55
          +10
          did not launch Ships

          There is such a ship. Chabanenko
          1. Hunter 2
            Hunter 2 30 November 2019 15: 33
            +9
            Quote: Artemiy_2
            did not launch Ships

            There is such a ship. Chabanenko

            Yes, you are right ... I forgot, Admiral Chabanenko - launching in 1992. hi
            1. LiSiCyn
              LiSiCyn 30 November 2019 19: 40
              +26
              Quote: Hunter 2
              This will be the first Rank 1 Battle Surface Ship designed and built in Russia!

              Quote: Hunter 2
              Yes, you are right ... I forgot, Admiral Chabanenko - launching in 1992.

              92nd, it can be said is not Russia. This is still the inertia of the Great Power. Project, bookmark, and construction ...
              1. Hunter 2
                Hunter 2 30 November 2019 20: 18
                +21
                Greetings Stas! hi You are absolutely right! The legacy of the USSR. Chabanenko was founded in 1989, and was screened in the eighties! Therefore, we can safely say that Russia has not designed and built not ONE Surface Ship of the 1st Rank. request hi
      2. lis-ik
        lis-ik 30 November 2019 13: 59
        +12
        Quote: Chaldon48
        One would like to say, but not a couple of what they gave yesterday to pick up today?

        It's high time, but in response there will be cries that they are like "brothers" to us. For me with such "brothers" and enemies are not necessary.
      3. xax
        xax 30 November 2019 23: 58
        +2
        Quote: Chaldon48
        and not a couple of what they gave yesterday to pick up today?

        Ukraine? It's time to take it back, yeah
        1. Grits
          Grits 1 December 2019 03: 03
          0
          Quote: xax
          Ukraine? It's time to take it back, yeah

          Why Ukraine? Only factories. True together with Zaporozhye, Nikolaev, Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov
        2. Atilla
          Atilla 1 December 2019 09: 14
          -4
          With whom are you going to pick up. With Soloviev, Kiselev and Skabeeva. Well let's ahhaha we'll see. Lord, how many insane!
          1. xax
            xax 2 December 2019 00: 09
            +5
            Quote: Atilla
            With whom are you going to pick up ... Well, let's ahhaha, we'll see

            Already looked at the Crimea))
            Liked?

            ahhaha

            Do you have a tantrum?
            1. V.I.F.
              V.I.F. 2 December 2019 00: 15
              +3
              Quote: xax
              Liked?

              It was great. But there is work to do!
      4. bober777
        bober777 1 December 2019 08: 23
        +1
        which way to pick up?
        1. Nikolai Korovin
          Nikolai Korovin 1 December 2019 16: 12
          +2
          Capitalist.
      5. kuz363
        kuz363 2 December 2019 08: 45
        0
        Say thanks to the conspirators of Belovezhskaya Pushcha during the partition of the USSR.
    2. Oleg kubanoid
      Oleg kubanoid 30 November 2019 13: 19
      +1
      most likely they will build both projects .. for ships of the 1st rank are very lacking ..
    3. Lannan Shi
      Lannan Shi 30 November 2019 13: 34
      +13
      Quote: seti
      As for me, it would be better to continue the construction of frigates of the old series of project 22350 without M. I will explain - this project has already been worked out and, as it is manufactured, it is possible to introduce the necessary innovations and modernize it in current repairs.

      Displacement 22350 - 4500 tons. It is technically impossible to cram what is necessary into it. 22350 is not good with air defense. With PLO it is even sadder. Currently 22350 are "coast guarded frigates". Well, or cover with air defense ships and anti-submarine. With whom we are somehow difficult. But an increase in displacement will make it possible to stop the shortcomings of 22350. And get a universal workhorse, the basis of the fleet. Able to work as part of a compound, and self-sufficient alone.
      1. Oleg kubanoid
        Oleg kubanoid 30 November 2019 13: 48
        +5
        at 22350 VI 5400
      2. The comment was deleted.
        1. Lannan Shi
          Lannan Shi 30 November 2019 14: 39
          +3
          Quote: rudolff
          it’s hard to say that Gorshkov has poor air defense

          He has good air defense. Middle range and near. Before the planes say with a harpoon D, the redoubt will not reach.
          1. Corn
            Corn 30 November 2019 15: 00
            +4
            No air defense missile system will reach the planes with "Harpoon" because of the banal "curvature of the earth", therefore, with the air defense system, "Gorshkov" simply has the maximum possible.
            1. Nick
              Nick 1 December 2019 03: 13
              +3
              Quote: Corn
              No air defense system will reach the planes with "Harpoon" because of the banal "curvature of the earth"

              Harpoon Air has a range of 130 km. Not a limit even for the S-300
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 2 December 2019 18: 08
                0
                Quote: Nick
                Harpoon Air has a range of 130 km. Not a limit even for the S-300

                The key word is the horizon.
                Since the 80s of the last century, the typical attack profile of our KGMs by American aviation has been to go small and extremely small 100-150 km from the target and launch anti-ship missiles. At these altitudes, the range of the ship’s air defense systems is about 35-40 km (because the target must see the radar to aim the radar).
                But the RCC with its ARLGSN has no such problems. And the foe's plane with its external control center from the "Hawkeye" also has no problems with access to the launch area.
                1. Nick
                  Nick 4 December 2019 15: 13
                  0
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  But RCC with its ARLGSN have no such problems.

                  The same problem of the radio horizon if it goes at a very low altitude.
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  And the foe's plane with its external control center from the "Hawkeye" also has no problems with access to the launch area.

                  Hokai has a problem. The range of his work, depending on the targets, is from 250 km., And at these ranges he is vulnerable to our soiled air defense systems of the S-300 and S-400 type
          2. Ratmir_Ryazan
            Ratmir_Ryazan 1 December 2019 14: 54
            +1
            He has good air defense. Middle range and near. Before the planes say with a harpoon D, the redoubt will not reach.


            At the range of the "Harpoon" and its analogues, for example, the Kh-35U in 280 km of air defense, not a single ship in the world can reach an aircraft.

            But the air defense of the Project 22350 ship can easily cope with the Harpoon missile even with their massive use.
      3. Ratmir_Ryazan
        Ratmir_Ryazan 30 November 2019 14: 50
        +5
        The 22350 is not good with air defense. With PLO is even sadder.


        In what place is he having trouble with this ?!
      4. Grits
        Grits 1 December 2019 03: 08
        +2
        Quote: Lannan Shi
        Displacement 22350 - 4500 tons. It is technically impossible to cram what is necessary into it. 22350 is not good with air defense. With PLO it is even sadder. Currently 22350 are "coast guarded frigates". Well, or cover with air defense ships and anti-submarine.

        If you rummage around on the Internet, you will find that there is a lot of material about comparing frigates available in the fleets of different countries. And 22350 against their background is rated as the most balanced and the most armed in all major respects.
    4. Doctor
      Doctor 30 November 2019 13: 35
      -8
      As for me, it would be better to continue the construction of frigates of the old series of project 22350 without M.


      Not. The same series is not our way. Our path is every 5 years in a new type, more than the previous one.

      Our surface fleet in 30 years:

      6 frigates 4500 tons - 16 "Calibers".
      4 superfrigates 8000 tons - 48 "Calibers".
      2 super-super-frigates 12 tons (converted 000) - 1164 "Calibers"
      1 superpuperuper frigate 25 tons (converted 000) - 1144 "Calibers"
      1. jekasimf
        jekasimf 30 November 2019 14: 30
        +5
        If there will be unification, with 22350 without M. If they will build at the same shipyards where everything is worked out, then what is the problem?
        1. Doctor
          Doctor 30 November 2019 14: 43
          +1
          If there is a serious unification, with 22350 without M, then what is the problem?


          What degree of unification can there be with an almost double increase in displacement? And at 4? And at 6?
          Imagine 2 ships, one with a displacement of 5 tons, the second with 000. On the first 25, the airborne landing gear, on the second 000. On the first 20 diesel engines 100D2, on the second 10. On the first 49 helicopter, 10-1.
          It makes no sense to shove 5 frigates into one hull; these are all eggs in one basket.
          An increase in displacement is needed to install better weapons, which means that you can forget about unification, with the exception of small things.
          Conversely, the three-gun turret 460/45 from the Yamato cannot be stuck into the cruiser Kirov.
          1. Sergei71
            Sergei71 30 November 2019 18: 24
            -3
            You are arguing here about the naval component, but we must take into account the full power of the ruins of the USSR. And aerodynamically-space and other ... wassat Yes. Mr. Kedmi for the presidency. In extreme cases, instead of sand. wink
          2. Dart2027
            Dart2027 30 November 2019 18: 54
            +1
            Quote: Arzt
            An increase in displacement is needed to install better weapons, which means that you can forget about unification, with the exception of small things.
            Conversely, the three-gun turret 460/45 from the Yamato cannot be stuck into the cruiser Kirov.

            What century do you live in? And what about artillery here? Nowadays, armaments are missiles, and they are the same on the RTOs and on the frigate.
          3. Ratmir_Ryazan
            Ratmir_Ryazan 1 December 2019 14: 42
            +1
            What degree of unification can there be with an almost double increase in displacement? And at 4? And at 6?
            Imagine 2 ships, one with a displacement of 5 tons, the second with 000. On the first 25, the airborne landing gear, on the second 000. On the first 20 diesel engines 100D2, on the second 10. On the first 49 helicopter, 10-1.
            It makes no sense to shove 5 frigates into one hull; these are all eggs in one basket.
            An increase in displacement is needed to install better weapons, which means that you can forget about unification, with the exception of small things.
            Conversely, the three-gun turret 460/45 from the Yamato cannot be stuck into the cruiser Kirov.


            You are wrong in everything !!!

            And do not exaggerate about shoving 5 frigates into one. It is enough to increase the displacement by 50% and place a larger number of missiles.

            The unification of pr.22350 and 22350M is enormous, in fact pr22350M will carry all the same weapon systems, you don’t have to do anything new, don’t have to spend money and wait until you finish and try something from the new systems !!!

            Project 22350M does more for one purpose - to increase the number of guided missiles, because 16 and 24 are still small for a ship in the far sea zone.

            The difference will be insignificant at pr. 22350 and 22350M only in the power plant and I think even here there will be a lot of unification, now on ships they use a whole system of different engines.

            Well, another factor in favor of 22350M - greater displacement - greater survivability of the ship, for example, the same X-35, Neptune, Harpoon anti-ship missiles are designed to destroy a ship with a displacement of 5000 tons, that is, Project 22350M with a displacement of 7000-8000 tons of chances it will survive an order of magnitude longer.
      2. Brenneke
        Brenneke 30 November 2019 14: 46
        -14
        "This is the way." ))) Sawing dough in Russia. No series.
      3. Nikolai Korovin
        Nikolai Korovin 1 December 2019 16: 23
        +2
        Not serious. A ship with a displacement of 4500 tons with severe unrest in the ocean can experience significant difficulties. 8000 tons are much more sustainable in this regard.
      4. The comment was deleted.
        1. kuz363
          kuz363 2 December 2019 08: 48
          +1
          All rush with Caliber, as with a written sack. As if they were deciding something.
          1. Ratmir_Ryazan
            Ratmir_Ryazan 2 December 2019 10: 09
            0
            All rush with Caliber, as with a written sack. As if they were deciding something.


            Gauges solve the problem of destroying targets at a range of 2600 km !!!

            This is what our military likes them.
    5. Vol4ara
      Vol4ara 30 November 2019 13: 39
      -9
      The name is somehow wretched, completely out of tradition
    6. alexmach
      alexmach 30 November 2019 14: 06
      +3
      Again, the question about the power plant .. Is everything smooth with it and how are things going with them?

      In general, you are right, the construction of the 22350 should be continued, but only about the power plant - with it, in my opinion, the 22350 is still not going smoothly. And so it will be until at least the first frigate with a domestic power plant goes to the chassis.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 1 December 2019 01: 39
          +1
          Yeah, how easy it is. When you read about the history of weapons
          - designed
          - made a decision
          - launched in a series
          sounds like one action. And here you observe in real time as soon as the draft design took how much? About a year?
          By the way, note that there are no details about this project and no ...
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. kuz363
              kuz363 2 December 2019 08: 52
              +1
              Still need to add the manufacture of tooling, technology, new materials, staff training ...
              1. The comment was deleted.
      2. kuz363
        kuz363 2 December 2019 08: 49
        0
        How many years does it take to debug a marine engine? In aviation, about 10 years before the elimination of all roughnesses!
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 2 December 2019 09: 46
          0
          Well, here you still need to decide when in general this debugging began. "Admiral Gorshkov" was launched in 2010. And about the installation - at times they wrote that the gearbox in it is very complex.
    7. Dart2027
      Dart2027 30 November 2019 14: 16
      +4
      Quote: seti
      Let me explain - this project has already been worked out and, as it is manufactured, it is possible to introduce the necessary innovations and modernize it in current repairs.

      This is so, but in this case we are talking about a ship of a different rank, 22350 is 2 rank, and 22350M is 1 rank.
    8. Ratmir_Ryazan
      Ratmir_Ryazan 30 November 2019 14: 49
      +3
      As for me it would be better to continue the construction of frigates of the old series of project 22350


      No, not better. The main disadvantage of pr.22350 is the small number of cruise missiles.

      Imagine that the ship will receive the task of destroying the enemy’s air defense systems on land, how many such ships of Project 22350 will be needed to complete such a task, given that a significant part of the missiles will be shot down by the enemy?

      US destroyer released about 60 Tomahawks flew a little more than 10 pieces. And out of 16 Caliber pr. 22350 how many will fly?

      Therefore, we need a ship with the firepower of cruise missiles that is not inferior to the US destroyers, and pr22350M is what we need.

      While building project 22350, the ship project 22350M will be brought to mind and put into series. It should be so.

      Exactly 22350M pr. Will become our main ship for the fleet + in the future we will build nuclear cruisers pr.23560.

      And there you can lay aircraft carriers.

      I would have to add rockets, 48 ​​is not enough, I need to add another couple of UKKS, so that at least 64 Caliber would be on board.
      1. bayard
        bayard 1 December 2019 02: 49
        -1
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        US destroyer released about 60 Tomahawks flew a little more than 10 pieces. And out of 16 Caliber pr. 22350 how many will fly?

        To suppress the enemy's air defense, other missiles can also be used - more difficult to intercept, for example, "Onyx", in the modernized version it has a range of up to 800 km. and it is capable of striking ground targets - it has been tested in Syria, and if you want to for sure, then the Zircon will not regret it (next year it may already be put into service). Yes, and 22350, only the first 4 will have 16 UVPs each, and the next 4 will have 24 each. And it is quite possible that the 22350+ series (with 24 UVP) can be continued further - now slipways are being prepared for their construction in Kaliningrad, it would be foolish to limit the construction of only 8 of these successful ships. And the 22350M are going to be laid in St. Petersburg.
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        in the future we will build nuclear cruisers pr.23560.

        But from this - save Ahura-Mazda, it would be better to have more 22350M, and if the cruiser is unbearable, then sculpt an analogue of the Chinese "project 055" on gas turbines, it would become the development of the ideology of 22350 \ 22350M, it would be several times cheaper than the nuclear number and life cycle cost), would have the same firepower (80 missiles in the UVP) and the time for the construction and development of the industry would take much less.
        Let the submarine fleet be atomic in us, it cannot do without it.
        The Americans, after all, also abandoned nuclear cruisers in favor of the Arleigh Burkes, but they know a lot about the Navy and know how to count money.
        Best regards hi
        1. Grits
          Grits 1 December 2019 03: 25
          +4
          Quote: bayard
          But from this - save Ahura-Mazda, it would be better to have more 22350M, and if the cruiser is unbearable, then sculpt an analogue of the Chinese "project 055" on gas turbines, it would become the development of the ideology of 22350 \ 22350M, it would be several times cheaper than the nuclear number and life cycle cost), would have the same firepower (80 missiles in the UVP) and the time for the construction and development of the industry would take much less.
          Let the submarine fleet be atomic in us, it cannot do without it.
          The Americans, after all, also abandoned nuclear cruisers in favor of the Arleigh Burkes, but they know a lot about the Navy and know how to count money.
          Best regards

          I, who has worked for 9 years on the construction and repair of nuclear submarines, do not understand the categorical hostility and simply the fear of nuclear power plants for surface ships. Why do you offer nuclear power plants only in nuclear submarines? Why is NK worse? When installing them on the NK, you will not need to bother with a bunch of problems that are characteristic of nuclear submarines (for example, noise or overall characteristics). Accordingly, the cost of such nuclear power plants will decrease. In addition, nuclear plants are exactly what we can do very well. Unlike other dviglov. And tankers with tugboats will not have to be dragged along on all trips, as is done now.
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 1 December 2019 10: 06
            +1
            So many specialists for nuclear boilers where to dial? Reluctant to trust him.
            1. Ratmir_Ryazan
              Ratmir_Ryazan 1 December 2019 14: 28
              +1
              So many specialists for nuclear boilers where to dial? Reluctant to trust him.


              In submarine nuclear submarines, specialists are found somewhere, and they will be found on nuclear cruisers.
              1. bk0010
                bk0010 1 December 2019 19: 41
                0
                They will find a cruiser, but here we are talking about overgrown frigates, which should be many
                1. Ratmir_Ryazan
                  Ratmir_Ryazan 2 December 2019 10: 06
                  0
                  They will find a cruiser, but here we are talking about overgrown frigates, which should be many


                  How many? 100 pieces? It is good if we have at least 10 cruisers of Project 23560, this is not a lot and there will be enough specialists to service them, and where we will not have enough.

                  We are building icebreakers with nuclear power plants and nuclear submarines in series and nothing, such a problem does not even arise. These are all trifles. It’s difficult to build a ship.
          2. Ratmir_Ryazan
            Ratmir_Ryazan 1 December 2019 14: 45
            +1
            I, who has worked for 9 years on the construction and repair of nuclear submarines, do not understand the categorical hostility and simply the fear of nuclear power plants for surface ships. Why do you offer nuclear power plants only in nuclear submarines? Why is NK worse? When installing them on the NK, you will not need to bother with a bunch of problems that are characteristic of nuclear submarines (for example, noise or overall characteristics). Accordingly, the cost of such nuclear power plants will decrease. In addition, nuclear plants are exactly what we can do very well. Unlike other dviglov. And tankers with tugboats will not have to be dragged along on all trips, as is done now.


            Support you !!! Excellent comment, especially from a professional.

            And then here many local residents read some kind of nonsense pro-Western and believed that it was cheaper to operate ships in diesel fuel, even if they had a displacement of 20 tons))).

            Another significant advantage of atomic cruisers is that it is possible to make protection from additional armor for a nuclear power plant for a nuclear reactor deep in the cruiser’s body, but a cruiser clogged with diesel fuel will blaze like a torch during a missile hit.
            1. bayard
              bayard 1 December 2019 17: 00
              +2
              I do not share your optimism about this comment. This is the opinion of the shipbuilder. Especially the builder \ repairman of the nuclear submarine, who does not have experience in operating surface ships precisely with nuclear power plants.
              The topic is actually already pretty battered and studied, including on our website has been discussed many times. Read my post below, I hope the situation will clear up for you. In any case, many naval officers and authors who write on the marine subjects of our site agree with me.
              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

              And then here many local inhabitants have read some kind of nonsense pro-Western and believed

              And here you are in vain. In the West, especially in the USA, they would be just happy if instead of building normal ships of the far sea / ocean zone, we would hit on another adventure with "super destroyers" - burned a lot of money, waste a lot of time and bleed the fleet and budget.
              The construction of "Leaders" is beneficial only to the developers and partly to the military-industrial complex, for them it is another budget trough for many years, without responsibility for the actual combat readiness of the fleet, the timeliness of its rearmament and the ability to perform combat missions in the world ocean.
              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

              Another significant advantage of atomic cruisers is that it is possible to make protection from additional armor for a nuclear power plant for a nuclear reactor deep in the cruiser’s body, but a cruiser clogged with diesel fuel will blaze like a torch during a missile hit.

              And here I will not share your optimism. Structural protection of a ship with a displacement of 20 tons is unlikely to protect it from modern anti-ship missiles, and a fire on a ship with a nuclear power plant is much like a terrible fire on an ordinary ship.
              And the fuel tanks of all modern ships are located in the area of ​​the double bottom - much lower than the waterline, just nowhere below, and anything will burn, but the fuel is hardly.
              And yet, look at the ordeal with the repair and modernization of "Admiral Nakhimov", how long the terms have stretched and in what amounts it all dances. This experience turned out to be so overwhelming that plans for the modernization and rearmament of Peter the Great will most likely be revised. Most likely, they will simply do with repairs. Very, very expensive. And for a long time.
              And the country and the navy need normal workhorses and the frigate destroyers 22350M meet these criteria (price-time-quality). Plans for the construction of 12 22350M and 8 units have now been approved. 22350 \ 22350+. So it is unlikely that there will be a place for "Leaders" in the new shipbuilding program, it is better to spend this money on the construction of additional PLO corvettes, minesweepers and support ships.
              And believe me, a salvo of 5 - 6 destroyers 22350M (48 x 5 \ 6 = 240 \ 288 CR in the UVP) is much more than 80 CR on the atomic "Leader". I hope your thirst for "great things" will satisfy.
              Do not take my words for insult or disrespect, but there are a few more specialists on our site than you thought. And they are by no means "pro-Western."
              Sincerely . hi
              1. Ratmir_Ryazan
                Ratmir_Ryazan 1 December 2019 19: 02
                -1
                And here you are in vain. In the West, especially in the USA, they would be just happy if instead of building normal ships of the far sea / ocean zone, we would hit on another adventure with "super destroyers" - burned a lot of money, waste a lot of time and bleed the fleet and budget.


                In the West, we are happy only when we cut and reduce our weapons systems, and not when we build something.

                Tell us, what can be burned a lot of money in project 23560?

                All systems for this project have been tested on Project 22350, Project 23560 will differ from Project 22350 in a large number of weapons, but the same one that is already on ships of smaller displacement or, in the case of air defense, is already in the land version like S-400 / S-500.

                A nuclear power plant has already been tested and is used in Russia on icebreakers; there is no difficulty in putting it on a warship. Moreover, Russia has more experience in this area than anyone else. Russia has built / is building both nuclear submarines and nuclear cruisers and nuclear icebreakers.

                It remains only to develop a draft housing and insert into it as a designer what we already have - weapons and a nuclear engine. All!!! The costs are minimal, and the result will be just stunning !!!

                Project 23560 is the new opportunities of Russia !!! 20 and 30 destroyers pr.22350M will not give such opportunities !!!

                And yet, look at the ordeal with the repair and modernization of "Admiral Nakhimov", how long the terms have stretched and how much it all dances


                Any specific numbers?

                Trying to shove new weapons systems into the old hull by dismantling previously the old ones is not much less expensive and faster than building a new cruiser of a similar displacement according to the finished project. Moreover, this rule works for any country. The problem so far is that we do not have a ready-made project for the new cruiser and the modernization of pr.1144 is a way out that saves time in the first place.

                While the project 23560 is being discussed and finalized, the modernized "Admiral Nakhimov" will also test the weapons systems and will more clearly see Russia's capabilities when using such giants.

                And the country and the fleet need normal workhorses and 22350M frigate-destroyers with these criteria (price-terms-quality) that fully comply


                Here we set up some destroyers pr.22350M, and there will be a task similar to that which is now being carried out in Syria or worse somewhere in the region of Venezuela. How will your destroyers get there and how long will they be able to complete the tasks there? Assume also that no one will refuel your squadron for any money along the way. Could this be ?! Of course it can.

                What will you do? Drag an entire fleet of tankers with you and another convoy of frigates and corvettes for them?

                Come, let's say, and then how? So will the fleet of tankers drive back and forth and burn diesel fuel?

                Now imagine that the fleet there will have to be kept in Syria constantly for years. How much will it all pour out?

                And if there is also a confrontation on the part of the enemy’s forces at sea, it will burn or sink to hell all / part of the tankers, and then what?

                But the atomic project 23560 will not feel such a problem at all !!! In addition, on Project 23560, you can place not only the Polyment-Redut air defense system, but the naval version of the S-400 / S-500 and in fact fit our missile defense system to the very coast of the United States or any other country and no one will object to this. !!!

                And on pr.22350M S-400/500 will not fit in any way.

                Just as aviation needs both Su-35/57 fighters and MiG-31 / interceptors in the future MiG-41, so the fleet needs destroyers and cruisers with a nuclear power plant !!! Because the tasks are different and to solve them it is impossible to make a universal plane / ship. Get either insufficient power or an overexploitation of resources during operation.

                Project 23560 with a nuclear power plant needs Russia !!!
                1. bayard
                  bayard 1 December 2019 21: 28
                  +1
                  Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                  In the West, we are happy only when we cut and reduce our weapons systems, and not when we build something.

                  Tell us, what can be burned a lot of money in project 23560?

                  The cost of the nuclear-powered "Leader" is estimated at about 200 billion rubles. , and the construction period is about 10 years (at least the head one - for sure). During these 10 years, all our destroyers (they are still conditionally combat-ready), cruisers of the 1164 type and most of the BOD 1155 will have time to go out of service. Funds for the construction of new ones will be tied (to a large extent) by the construction of the head "Leader". As a result, when this "Leader" is put into operation, our fleet will be reduced by almost half in terms of pennants. As a result, we will not get the required number of the necessary ships, and at the same time we will get into operation an extremely problematic one, the cost of operating which will also devour a fair share of the annual budget for the Navy. As a result, the combat readiness of the fleet will decrease, and its combat capabilities will shrink.
                  Let's say you have 200 billion rubles. , and you need warships in the ocean zone.
                  1) You - choose the construction of one "Leader" in 10 years for the entire amount.
                  2) I - I choose the construction of the same amount of 6 destroyers 22350M in the same time.

                  After 10 years :
                  - You have a new, not run-in, yet insufficiently mastered by the crew, a combat ship with a nuclear power plant and 80 missile launchers in the air-launched missile system, as well as a powerful naval air defense system with a large ammunition load for missiles.
                  - I have at my disposal 6 destroyers of the project 22350M with the total ammunition load of the Kyrgyz Republic in the UVP - 288 pieces. , and some of these destroyers have in the ammunition of their air defense systems heavier missiles from the S-400, already successfully integrated into their architecture.

                  And here we receive an order to advance by all means to the shores of Venezuela, where by this time we have deployed two military bases on a permanent basis (naval base and air force - planned by 2028, according to the latest leaks and statements).
                  - You are being put forward by all the forces of your only atomic destroyer, while in KUG you just have nothing to take from the warships (you haven’t built new ones, but the old ones have been decommissioned), but at the same time you take along a support ship (water, food, consumables , ammunition) and maybe not one, and a sea tug (without it, how to go far, but if anything, there will be nobody to help next to).
                  - I am going on a campaign with all 6 pennants with support ships, one tanker, and the sea tug can be neglected.

                  Having received the combat mission to ensure the safety of Russian military bases and Russia's economic interests from the sea:
                  - You - deploy your forces in the amount of one (but VERY powerful) pennant and block one of the directions of a possible strike ... you leave the rest to the share of the aircraft and Navy of Venezuela ...
                  - I - put down a curtain of 6 destroyers, in the intervals between some of them I put Venezuelan ships (watchdogs and patrolmen) for more tight control of the low-altitude zone of the advanced front-line air defense. I have enough forces and means to control all the main directions of a possible strike, there is the possibility of maneuver by these forces, and my ship air defense systems have the necessary fire performance and ammunition.

                  If I receive an order to strike at the enemy's naval, coastal or continental forces, I have 288 missiles of all types required for this. And if my forces are assigned ... one or two submarines, say, of the "Ash-M" type, then the weight of my salvo will increase by at least another 40 - 80 CR. If by that time at least one Borei-K class nuclear submarine with 112 missile launchers is in service and it is assigned to this squadron of ships, the salvo force will increase by the corresponding number of missile launchers ... But this is from ... a different budget ...

                  What do you think, if a potential adversary has the opportunity to influence the choice between these two programs, which one will he try to impose on us / push through his agents?
                  The answer, it seems to me, is obvious.
                  After all, among other things, after 10 years after the start of these programs:
                  - Your "Leader" will be a completely fresh and insufficiently mastered ship ...
                  - And my 6 destroyers, even the most recent of the series, will be at least 2 years in service and ready to perform any tasks.

                  And if the Motherland needs a larger ship over time ... no one interferes with the implementation of the project of not a nuclear, but a gas turbine "Leader" with a displacement of "only" 12 tons and 000 air and water supply units for different types of CD. A similar project has already been implemented by China in its 80 project - this is just a copy of our non-nuclear "Leader".
                  hi
                  So let’s drink for the indestructible power and vigilant combat readiness of our Fleet! drinks
                  1. Ratmir_Ryazan
                    Ratmir_Ryazan 2 December 2019 11: 07
                    0
                    The cost of the nuclear-powered "Leader" is estimated at about 200 billion rubles. , and the construction period is about 10 years (at least the head one - for sure).


                    What is your statement based on? Especially in terms of ship value.

                    Let's say you have 200 billion rubles. , and you need warships in the ocean zone.

                    1) You - choose the construction of one "Leader" in 10 years for the entire amount.
                    2) I - I choose the construction of the same amount of 6 destroyers 22350M in the same time.


                    You lifted the price of the cruiser, but the destroyer was underestimated.

                    The cost of the Borey nuclear submarine is 23 billion rubles, the Yasen-M nuclear submarine is under 50 billion rubles, the frigate pr.22350 costs about 35 billion rubles.

                    Why is your cruiser pr.23560 worth 200 billion rubles, and the cost of the destroyer pr.22350M is equal to the current cost of the frigate?

                    The cost of modernizing the TARK "Admiral Nakhimov" was estimated at 50 billion. A number of media outlets write that the cost of modernization has grown to almost 100 billion, but I don't think these figures are correct.

                    The modernization of the TARK "Admiral Nakhimov" is very large-scale, in fact, only the body remains old, everything else is new.

                    In addition, during the modernization, a lot of resources had to be spent on the modernization project and on the dismantling of old equipment. Building a series of new cruisers pr.23560 will not be as expensive as you evaluate. In fact, we already have everything for the construction of the cruiser pr.23560 and a nuclear engine and all weapon systems, it remains only to assemble them.

                    During these 10 years, all our destroyers (they are now conditionally combat-ready), cruisers of the 1164 type and most of the BOD 1155 will have time to go out of service.

                    As a result, when this "Leader" is put into operation, our fleet will be reduced by pennants by almost half.


                    And this is generally stupid. The ships of these projects will not only fail, but on the contrary will become more powerful after repair and modernization.

                    We have ships in service that are more than 100 years old - "Kommuna", the patrol boat "Smetlivy" since 1969 is still in service.

                    The construction of the cruiser pr.23560 does not cancel the construction of the destroyer pr.22560M, that is, the fleet in 10 years will not only save the ships that are currently in service, but will also receive many new ships.

                    No need to panic.
                    1. bayard
                      bayard 2 December 2019 16: 38
                      -1
                      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                      What is your statement based on? Especially in terms of ship value.

                      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan

                      The cost of modernizing the TARK "Admiral Nakhimov" was estimated at 50 billion. A number of media outlets write that the cost of modernization has grown to almost 100 billion, but I don't think these figures are correct.

                      Well, you see, you yourself are a little aware that the cost of modernizing "Nakhimov" has already resulted in 100 billion rubles. and this figure does not seem to be final. And if you consider that the power plant remains the same (repair of the turbo-gear, recharging the reactor), and this is a lot of money. And a number of other systems and units remain too ... The case again. And if we take into account that the future "Leader" is a new ship, whose novelty coefficient simply goes off scale, then the price will just be about 200 billion rubles. ... if not more. At least at the head - for sure.
                      And the timing!
                      They will not be Stakhanov’s either - no one will break firewood on such an innovative project. So 10 years to build it, and no less.
                      These are not my estimates and the figures from the ceiling are not taken.
                      I understand that I want everything at once. And the best - unparalleled. But the best is always the enemy of the good. We need at a reasonable time, for a reasonable price, to re-equip the fleet, saturating it with new ships. In this case, we are talking about ships of the ocean zone.
                      Frigates 22350 have already been more or less developed by industry, tested and built according to an improved (reinforced) design. The 22350M has a minimal novelty coefficient - in fact, it is the same ship with increased ammunition, dimensions, seaworthiness and range. There is a desire to integrate the S-400 missiles into its air defense system. This will require an increase in the power of its radar, so it is better to carry out work on a separately selected ship, and start the series with the proven Polyment-Redoubt. After finishing the new version of the air defense system, put them on the next laid ships.
                      Our shipyards should earn rhythmically and at full strength, only gaining momentum. And for this, ships need to be built in large batches, of the same type, with the maximum unification between related projects.
                      And remember as "Our Father", THE BEST IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD.
                      And the project of the atomic "Leader" does not fit into this concept in any way - it is completely DIFFERENT.
                      Industry cannot be feverish of leaps and bounds of projects; it cannot work effectively in such a regime. She needs stability and consistency.
                      And if we follow the principle of the sequence of projects, then the harmonious chain of sequence looks like this: 22350 - 22350M - non-nuclear "Leader" on gas turbines with a displacement of 12 tons. The industry will pull out such a sequence of projects with a bang. Subcontractors, suppliers, supply chains - everything will work like clockwork, the pace of construction will finally come to normal values, the price of serial products will decrease, the quality will increase, maintenance, operation, supply of spare parts will be simplified, and shipyards and training centers will say "a big human thanks" ...

                      And tell me honestly, why do you (us) need the ATOMIC cruiser \ destroyer? Why is it atomic and why is it IMPOSSIBLE? Do you really think that he will walk alone on the okey-seas?
                      True ?
                      One ?!
                      Or is it still part of the KUG?
                      And what kind of ships will be in this KUG?
                      What kind of power plants should they have?
                      Also nuclear?
                      And if not, which ones?
                      Are gas turbine and diesel?
                      And if so, what is the value of a nuclear installation on ONE of the KUG ships?
                      Even the largest and most powerful?
                      I also understand when a nuclear power plant is put on a huge aircraft carrier - it needs to launch aircraft, provide steam catapults to be fed with steam, to ensure at least 200 launches per day while maintaining maximum speed.
                      But even this one has an atomic aircraft carrier, all escort ships with conventional gas turbine power plants, and supply ships, including tankers, march to them with regular express trains.
                      Soviet "Eagles" were built to escort the aircraft carriers "Ulyanovsk" and were supposed to go "sweet couples" on inter-fleet crossings, where other escort ships were to wait for them at rendezvous points ... For these purposes, the construction of 1144 was justified by the need to carry out combat services in as part of the AUG.
                      It is THIS!
                      WHAT to justify the construction of the atomic "Leader" now ???
                      Need to accompany in the FUTURE the future (!) Nuclear Aircraft Carrier of Russia?
                      And when will this happy time come?
                      And where are we going to build this wonderful aircraft carrier?
                      And we can build it ONLY in Bolshoy Kamen - on the "Star". And by no means soon - by the end of the FUTURE decade.
                      You understand ?
                      Closer to 2030
                      It is precisely to this time that the plans for the POSSIBLE (!) Start of construction of the atomic "Leader" should be attributed.
                      Until 2030, fussing with him is not only useless, but HARMFUL. For industry will be in a fever and wasting money in vain.
                      Until the above date (2030), the programs for the construction of 22350, 22350M (within the framework of the current state defense order for 12 units) will be successfully completed, the fleets will saturate corvettes and minesweepers, landing ships and supply ships, programs for the construction of Borey-M nuclear submarines "and" Ash-M ".
                      ... And then, from the height of the experience gained in the construction of the fleet, having counted all the crowded cones and tasting the fruits of the right decisions ... no one will even think about laying the nuclear cruiser ... After all, at times less money, you can get such same, but much safer, more practical and whose life cycle cost is an order of magnitude lower than that of its atomic twin. hi
                      1. bk0010
                        bk0010 2 December 2019 21: 01
                        0
                        Quote: bayard
                        And if so, what is the value of a nuclear installation on ONE of the KUG ships?
                        Well, actually, the amers have bases around the world, we don’t. Therefore, it was for us that a reactor on an ocean ship would be useful. As for ONE ship, one fleet has one, another one on the second, a couple on the third, and the total is OPESK without range limitations. But I hold the idea that while it’s too early for us to build ships with nuclear power plants, there are more urgent tasks.
                      2. bayard
                        bayard 3 December 2019 00: 58
                        -1
                        You didn't read my post carefully. If there is one nuclear power plant in the KUG, and the rest with conventional ones, then what is the value in its nuclear power plant, if for the cost of one "Leader you can build 5 - 6 destroyers / frigates 22350M?
                        80 KR on one and 240 - 288 KR on the others!
                        And at the same time the ability to be simultaneously in 5-6 different places.
                        The Leader project may become for the Russian Federation a semblance of the American Zumwalt - terribly expensive and it is not clear where to fix it.
                        If after making a decision to build a series of 12 pcs. projects 22350M, someone will have a desire to order 1 - 2 destroyers "Leader", then I will offer this person an alternative - build 6 - 12 more destroyers 22350M with this money. Then the Russian Navy will have, instead of 12 such pennants, as many as 18 or even 24 excellent destroyers, ready to tear the enemies of the fatherland with all their calibers.
                        And let this man try to prove to me my wrong.
          3. bayard
            bayard 1 December 2019 15: 54
            +1
            Quote: Gritsa
            Why do you offer nuclear power plants only in nuclear submarines? Why is NK worse? When installing them on the NK, you will not need to bother with a bunch of problems that are characteristic of nuclear submarines (for example, noise or overall characteristics). Accordingly, the cost of such nuclear power plants will decrease. In addition, nuclear plants are exactly what we can do very well.

            The experience of using nuclear power plants on surface ships cries out for abandoning them. Remember the experience of building and operating cruisers like "Orlan" ("Peter the Great" among them) - their cost was equal to the cost of aircraft carriers "Krechetov", and the cost of operation even exceeded. That is why they were among the first to be withdrawn to the reserve. Look at the timing and cost of repair / modernization of "Admiral Nakhimov" - how to build a new one, with a much smaller residual resource.
            Just divide the sheet of paper into two columns with a vertical line and write down the advantages of the nuclear power plant on the left, and the shortcomings on the right.
            Will we try?
            So, the advantages:
            1) - unlimited cruising range without the need for refueling. I do not specifically write "autonomy", because this concept is much broader. Even the nuclear power plant needs maintenance, and the power plant itself includes not only the reactor, but also turbo-gear units, auxiliary diesel engines and other mechanics / electrics. And it needs to be serviced, repaired, replenished consumables and fluids.
            2) - ... perhaps it is possible to attribute (at the moment) your thesis that we have mastered the nuclear power plants for nuclear submarines and icebreakers well, but look at the experience of building a series of nuclear icebreakers in St. Petersburg and the reasons for the postponement of delivery dates "to the right" ... however, this is already a topic for the second column.
            Disadvantages :
            1) - the reason for the delays in the construction of a new line of icebreakers was the problems with the manufacture and development of turbo gear units. For a long time . There were no problems with the manufacture of reactors. And steam turbines, gearboxes and drives from them, this also applies to nuclear power plants. So this is not all without problems ... But at the moment everything seems to be resolved. But TERMS and PRICE!
            2) - PRICE! About a strand is higher than the classic gas turbine power plant.
            3) - TERMS of manufacturing NPPs are much (!!!) higher than those of power plants on gas turbines. For the construction of a large / mass series, this is VERY important.
            4) - the complexity of operation in the ORDER is higher than that of the power plant in the GTA, which means an order of magnitude higher cost of the life cycle, much higher requirements for the training of maintenance personnel.
            5) - unlimited range does not mean unlimited autonomy. The ship still needs to replenish supplies of water, food, technical fluids and other consumables, change the crew ... just let the sailors and officers from time to time walk on hard ground. And if you still need to replenish supplies, then support ships must still accompany these nuclear powered ships, or periodically meet them at rendezvous points. So why not replenish fuel tanks at the same time? Especially since escort ships will still be with conventional power plants?
            6) - RESTRICTIONS ON ENTRANCE TO PORTS for ships with nuclear power plants. Remember how our "Peter the Great" during his Mediterranean and other voyages had to drop anchor in the roadstead. But these should be ships of the oceanic zone, and they do not have to enter ports in any way. Otherwise, no resource will be enough to hang out on raids (experience of operating "Krechetov" will help you).
            7) - and again about the price. The cost of one "Leader" is estimated ... about 200 billion rubles. But the price of "Gorshkov" is 25-27 billion rubles. Therefore, the price of 22350M will be about 35-40 billion rubles. Do you feel the difference? The cost of one "Leader" can be used to build 5 - 6 destroyers 22350M. You can count the number of missiles on 5 - 6 ships and on one ... nuclear-powered ship, or estimate how many places they can be at the same time and create a threat / perform BZ.
            We are not so rich as to throw ourselves into outright adventures. We need to supply our fleets with modern ships within a reasonable timeframe and for a reasonable price. Project 22350 can provide this. Project Leader - no!
            The "Leader" will be under construction for at least 10 years. Moreover, as the head. During the same time, if we lay 2 hulls 22350M per year and build for 5 years (before delivery to the fleet), then in ten years we will have in service 10 - 12 brand new "Super-Pot" at the price of 2 "Leaders" ...

            And now, having carefully looked at what I have presented to you, think and decide for yourself that it is preferable for the Russian Fleet and the Russian State to have one problematic "Leader" in 10 years, or 10 - 12 "Super-Gorshkovs" instead.
            And at headquarters, it seems, they are inclined towards the choice of the latter.
            hi Sincerely .
            1. Ratmir_Ryazan
              Ratmir_Ryazan 2 December 2019 11: 59
              0
              RESTRICTIONS ON ENTRANCE TO PORTS for ships with nuclear power plants


              The American atomic aircraft carriers somehow solved this problem, they constantly keep their AUGs in different parts of the world. Imagine how much fuel they ate if they were not atomic. Yes, they simply would not be able to keep such aircraft carriers without nuclear power plants constantly in different parts of the world.

              By the way, project 1143 TAVKR "Krechet" in the future was supposed to be with a nuclear power plant. And you often write that the TARK 1144 "Orlan" project is equal in cost to it. Even if it really is, then what's so surprising? The nuclear missile cruiser does not differ much in the striking power of the missile weapon from the aircraft-carrying cruiser, the first has more powerful air defense, the second has an air wing and the infrastructure for it.

              Russia needs an atomic missile cruiser with a powerful air defense / missile defense system and not instead of destroyers with gas turbines, but in addition to them.

              We are not so rich as to rush into frank adventures.


              The construction of the missile cruiser pr.23560 is not a gamble, but now we have enough for Russia and the money for it.

              As a last resort, the reserves of countries today have exceeded $ 540 billion. So even a few missile cruisers will not ruin Russia. In the end, we do not buy them abroad, but build it ourselves, that is, our factories and our engineers and workers will receive this money, they will spend it in our stores buying our goods, the state will refund part of this money in the form of tax.

              Why do you think that maintaining an atomic cruiser is more expensive than a GTU ship of the same power?

              In my opinion, it’s just the opposite, especially during active use.

              For decades, Russia has been operating nuclear submarines and nuclear icebreakers, and there are no problems with this, and we need autonomous ships with an unlimited range.
              1. bayard
                bayard 2 December 2019 20: 19
                -1
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                The American atomic aircraft carriers somehow solved this problem, they constantly keep their AUGs in different parts of the world. Imagine how much fuel they ate if they were not atomic. Yes, they simply would not be able to keep such aircraft carriers without nuclear power plants constantly in different parts of the world.

                Americans have solved many problems for themselves, and for a long time. They have hundreds of bases around the globe and their aircraft carriers call at the ports of their allies, and even then, only at specially agreed upon ones.
                But regarding "could not such aircraft carriers be kept all over the world" if they were not atomic ... Let me remind you of the history of the appearance of their first atomic "Kiti-Hawk". After WWII, the United States had a huge number of steam turbine aircraft carriers - dozens. Some of them were written off or taken to the reserve, but still a lot remained in the ranks. And new ones were built. And were present all over the world. But the Vietnam War showed that these aircraft carriers cannot provide more than 60 - 80 aircraft launches per day. This is because a steam turbine needs superheated steam, and the aircraft carrier must maintain its maximum speed to ensure takeoffs and landings. There were simply not enough boilers for more. And then the Kiti-Hawk appeared, which was able to provide 200 launches per day - an excess of power ... The military rested for a very long time against nuclear boilers on aircraft carriers, but there was a war ... they were gradually losing it ... and it was necessary to lay a series of nuclear aircraft carriers. It was much more expensive. More expensive in everything. But the catapults had to be powered by something.
                But they refused nuclear boilers on surface ships.
                Totally!
                At the same time, having played enough of it at first.
                And in their very rich experience, they became convinced of the ABSOLUTELY futility of this venture (expensive, difficult, labor-intensive, requires specific infrastructure and much more qualified service).
                The cost of a nuclear power plant and the cost of its life cycle is ORDERED than the cost of fuel spent over the entire life cycle of a similar non-nuclear ship.
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                By the way, project 1143 TAVKR "Krechet" in the future was supposed to be with nuclear power

                If you are talking about "Ulyanovsk", then I wrote about it, especially since "Orlan" was built exactly as a partner "Ulyanovsk" in long campaigns.
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                Russia needs an atomic missile cruiser with a powerful air defense / missile defense system and not instead of destroyers with gas turbines, but in addition to them.

                WHAT FOR ?
                Why do you (us) have different types of warships with VARIOUS GEMs ?!
                If they make up a single CGM for solving a certain problem, then ... what is the advantage of a ship with a nuclear power plant over a ship with a gas turbine?
                If they go ONE ORDER ?!
                Will all other KUG ships need periodic refueling, and will a ship with a nuclear power plant just hang around?
                WHAT FOR ?
                Or will he walk alone?
                Where ?
                And how long will it last - to hang out with such a renegade?
                Either all ships of the warrant must be with a nuclear power plant, or all without.
                Otherwise, it is just insanely expensive and bluntly - a harmful toy.
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                The construction of the missile cruiser pr.23560 is not a gamble, but now we have enough for Russia and the money for it.

                Really a lot?
                And the government says that "there is no money."
                A number of current shipbuilding programs have been moved to the right in recent years precisely because of the lack of money.
                Or is the Supreme telling a lie?
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                As a last resort, the reserves of countries today have exceeded $ 540 billion.

                Will the IMF allow you?
                Are you sure?
                But Putin and Medvedev are not allowed request
                This is real life ... Alas.
                All military (and naval) construction is only within the framework of the allocated budget, so we pull our legs on clothes.
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                In the end, we do not buy them abroad, but build it ourselves, that is, our factories and our engineers and workers will receive this money, they will spend it in our stores buying our goods, the state will refund part of this money in the form of tax.

                But this is not a reason to waste money irrationally. 22350M will also be built at our shipyards. In the same 10 years that it will take to build the "Leader", the same (one) slipway, you can build 3 destroyers 22350M, while one more ship will be completed afloat, and another one will complete assembly on the slipway.
                Those. the same capacities, the same people (workers \ engineers \ technologists), the same slipway and even less money ... but a completely different result.
                In addition, why such a condescending attitude towards the project 22350M? This is a warship, equal to the American Arleigh Burke in displacement, armament, seaworthiness, and range.
                And Americans don't want the best. They wanted, of course, but they were very disappointed in the Zumwalt, and after all, even without a nuclear power plant ... And they got rid of nuclear cruisers even earlier and do not want to repeat such experiments.
                Do you think that the United States does not know how to build a fleet?
                They know how.
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                Why do you think that maintaining an atomic cruiser is more expensive than a GTU ship of the same power?

                Archive, statistics, reports ... it is strange why you still do not know about this. Be sure to check out - very instructive.
                The world is not a deserted desert - in any port you can replenish supplies of fuel, food, water. In any case, in the ports of our friendly countries, and there are already many of them again today.

                And the desire to provide the aircraft with "unlimited range" was also at one time - poisoned with poison back in the 60s, but ... they worked out refueling in the air and immediately let everyone go - the issue of range was resolved. In a much cheaper, simpler and safer way.
                And we worked out the refueling of ships in the open sea under the "king of peas".
          4. Bogatyrev
            Bogatyrev 2 December 2019 01: 47
            +1
            On the NK, now the noise is also reduced. Why extra noise - this is the vulnerability of the ship against the submarine.
            As for nuclear reactors - that's right. I am sure that in the future such installations will be much cheaper and more affordable. And the proliferation of energy weapons will make them simply necessary.
        2. Ratmir_Ryazan
          Ratmir_Ryazan 1 December 2019 14: 16
          +1
          But from this - save Ahura-Mazda, it would be better to have more 22350M, and if the cruiser is unbearable, then sculpt an analogue of the Chinese "project 055" on gas turbines, it would become the development of the ideology of 22350 \ 22350M, it would be several times cheaper than the nuclear


          Nonsense!!! A cruiser in a diesel fuel would eat it in huge quantities and the cost of servicing such ships would be several times more expensive than with a similar ship, but with a nuclear power plant, and long trips of such ships would become dependent on places where you could refuel or you would have to go taking a huge number of tankers to protect which would have to use an additional number of ships, which further complicated and increased the cost of the task.

          To say that a ship with a nuclear engine is more expensive to maintain than with a gas turbine engine is to say that TPPs are more economical and more profitable than NPPs. It is nonsense!!!

          There is such a moment that a nuclear engine of a small displacement vessel of type Project 22350M may be redundant and it’s cheaper to put a gas turbine engine on such ships, as well as with icebreakers, where an icebreaker with a gas turbine engine is too large and powerful, moreover, in Russia.

          Remember how many screams and certain difficulties there were in order to refuel our ships to go to Syria. But they could even bend and where would our squadron take fuel then ?!

          A nuclear engine is not only saving on diesel fuel, it has an unlimited sailing range and this is precisely the main advantage of the ships of project 23560 over project 22350M.

          Large ships, and Project 23560 is exactly the same with a displacement almost like that of the cruiser Project 1144 "Peter the Great" and Admiral Nakhimov ", should be equipped with nuclear power plants !!!

          Soon the upgraded ship of project 1144 "Admiral Nakhimov" will enter into operation, then, according to the same project, "Peter the Great" will immediately stand up for repair and modernization - these will essentially be test ships for project 23560.

          Only with a nuclear power plant (which is already being put on nuclear icebreakers) such pr.23560 ships will be able to get the most important advantage both in range and in weapon systems placed on ships, since the large power of the nuclear power plant will make it possible to place powerful radars on such a ship and S-500 systems and a bunch of cruise missiles.

          Ships pr.23560 will be able to project force not only in terms of striking the enemy’s land, but also provide a powerful missile defense and air defense zone in the place where they are.

          It is worth approaching such a ship of the modernized pr.1144 or in the future pr. 23560 to the coast of for example Venezuela and it can immediately control the airspace over most of it, launch reconnaissance UAVs and destroy airfields, bases, warehouses and accumulations of manpower and equipment of any enemy threatening our allies.

          Russia needs corvettes of the project 20380/20385 to protect the near sea zone primarily from submarines and frigates / destroyers of project 22350/22350M for solving tasks far from our shores and we also need cruisers with aircraft carriers with nuclear power plants to to solve problems not only far from the coast, but also not to be dependent on fuel supplies and time spent in the right area.
          1. bayard
            bayard 1 December 2019 18: 38
            +3
            Read at your leisure about the history of the construction and operation of project 1144, it will be very useful for your horizons. Just hammer it into a search engine and read this entertaining story.
            "Eagles" were planned as escort ships for nuclear-powered aircraft carriers of the "Ulyanovsk" type and could go with them in pairs, even without escort ships, in the ocean zone for a long time. But the experience of construction and operation of even one head plant has shown the complexity and high cost of this enterprise. Its cost was simply fantastic, as was the cost of maintenance / operation, so we decided to limit ourselves to a series of 4 such cruisers - to complete the AUG of the future Ulyanovsk, and instead of the rest, the Atlant 1164 project was urgently developed, which was almost not inferior to Orlan. in striking power (16 heavy anti-ship missiles versus 20), but had more than two times less displacement and an order of magnitude lower cost (and the cost of operation too). The project turned out to be very successful and such cruisers were planned for the construction of 10 units. ... but they managed to build only 4, one of which remained in Ukraine ... They were equipped with a unique power plant of 8 turbines. The incandescent gases from the two sustainer turbines went to the steam generator, which powered two steam turbines, which, together with the sustainer ones, provided high energy at an economical run, and very high fuel efficiency (the highest rates even at the moment for the GTA). And four afterburners provided excellent full speed performance.
            The "Eagles" are on a par with the aircraft-carrying cruisers of the "Krechet" type in construction, and even surpassed them in terms of operating cost. Even for the mighty Soviet Union, it was too expensive, besides, restrictions on access to ports for ships and vessels with nuclear power plants made it very difficult and expensive for its combat services ... That is why, after the collapse of the USSR, the first ships that were put into reserve were exactly 1144. And "Gyrfalcons". But 1164 remained in the ranks and are serving to this day. As well as BOD 1155. They managed to keep them even in the most difficult 90s and zero years.
            We are not so rich as to repeat the mistakes (proven and recognized mistakes) of the Soviet Union. The military budget and the budget for the rearmament of the army and navy are limited and it is necessary to approach the plans for building the fleet as rationally and prudently as possible, with an eye on the former — a very rich and instructive experience. And do not repeat the mistakes of the past.
            Unfortunately, under the conditions of victorious capitalism, modern design bureaus and enterprises of the military-industrial complex lobby primarily their commercial interests, and not the interests of the fleet and the Armed Forces as a whole. They are interested in receiving orders for their developments, and the longer these developments and construction last, the more chances to retire without having time to answer for the task entrusted, but at the same time ensuring a warm future. That is why there is lobbying for often unnecessary and directly harmful projects, for the sake of budgetary allocations and the loading of their capacities with anything and as long as possible, without taking into account the interests, in fact, the combat readiness of the fleet, the need for the proposed and the timing of rearmament.
            It is in aggressive lobbying that the reason for the appearance of such awkward projects as the corvette 20386 (not one specialist said a good word about it) and the extremely dubious (and harmful for the fleet and the budget) atomic monster "Leader", the cost of two copies of which is equal to the cost of the entire program 22350M (12 pcs.).
            Today, our fleet needs anti-submarine ships of the near zone (corvettes with the corresponding armament), base and sea minesweepers, support ships, modern nuclear-powered submarines, and landing ships, like air. This is what the money allocated for the rearmament of the fleet should be spent on.
            And if in the end there is a need to build a heavier ship in the oceanic zone, then we can recall the NEATOMIC version of the "destroyer" "Leader". Its displacement was 12 tons with the same armament and equipment. And if you want to look at such a ship in metal right now, please - "destroyer" type 000, a product of the Chinese shipbuilding industry, which has implemented the non-nuclear "Leader" project under its own brand. And at a price such a handsome man will be 055 times cheaper than his atomic namesake. And in operation it is cheaper by ORDER.
            It is time to start thinking sensibly, and spend the budget prudently - with maximum benefit for the Navy and Russia as a whole.
            hi
      2. bk0010
        bk0010 1 December 2019 10: 04
        +2
        Actually, the main drawback of pr.22350 is a small displacement, it is necessary to increase autonomy and stability for the ocean. And the fact that this allows you to increase the number of missiles is generally wonderful.
    9. Adimius38
      Adimius38 30 November 2019 22: 20
      +1
      okay today well then tomorrow what then? if you don’t start designing such ships today, then tomorrow we won’t have a damn. It’s not cool, but the super Gorshkov will significantly surpass 22350 in combat capabilities
    10. venik
      venik 30 November 2019 22: 41
      +2
      Quote: seti
      As for me, it would be better to continue the construction of frigates of the old series of project 22350 without M. I will explain - this project has already been worked out and you can make the necessary innovations and modernize it in current repairs as it is manufactured

      ======
      Well, firstly: It seems like already on the pledged "pots" - there will be not 16, but 24 UKSK "Caliber" ..... In addition, it seems that they are going to improve the UVP "Polyment-Redut" ..... What really it will work out .... Yes, FIG knows! We will eat more "cars" will be more powerful !!!!!
      And therefore I would very much like to see something like destroyers (and 22350-M are just THEY ARE!), no matter how they are called "frigates" !!!!!
    11. bayard
      bayard 1 December 2019 02: 15
      -1
      I have a feeling that the 22350+ series (at 24 UVP) will continue, because the gearbox for them has just been mastered and the first set (2 pcs.) Has been assembled. It would be unreasonable to limit ourselves to 4 sets after so many ordeals. And it also seems to me that the 22350+ series will be continued in Kaliningrad, where they are now preparing places on the slipways for them - at the beginning of next year, the laying of 2 pieces is expected. Apparently they will build in parallel series both 22350+ and 22350M.
      But, as they say, 2021 will show.
    12. Alexander Petrov1
      Alexander Petrov1 1 December 2019 17: 44
      0
      Sorry, but how do you imagine the continuation of the construction of simple Gorshkovy, if there are no Ukrainian engines and you still have to implement and refine the project for our Russian turbines, it’s better to make a competitor in the World Ocean to the Americans and their ubiquitous destroyers in 9000 thousand tons, and in my opinion we this versatile and very powerful (48 Zircons) and relatively inexpensive ($ 500 million) ship is enough and there is no need to spend money on super expensive nuclear cruisers of $ 1,5 billion each with 64 Zircons, the difference in armament is not big, and the price is 3 times more, as they say, "the game is not worth the candle."
    13. silver_roman
      silver_roman 1 December 2019 20: 34
      +1
      22350m will differ in essence only in large displacement and, as a result, in a large number of USCs. and the nomenclature of weapons will be the same. so it should work out quickly, I hope.
      1. Alexander Petrov1
        Alexander Petrov1 2 December 2019 04: 30
        +1
        I agree with you, of course, the construction will not take much longer and more expensive than on a simple Gorshkov, but in the end we will get a relatively inexpensive Ocean Super ship in armament not inferior to the destroyers of the United States and even the expensive atomic Peru Great.
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 2 December 2019 12: 08
          0
          that’s the point. True, unfortunately we will not reach Arly Berkov in armament. They have under 80 UKKS on board and the displacement of the latest versions is more than 13 tons. It is not clear how Polyment-Redut works. I am sure that all the bugs are fixed. I would not compare the ships, but the individual parts: for example, the Aegis radar system and our Poliment. The same HACKs, etc. I hope that the performance characteristics of the same Redoubt correspond to the performance characteristics of the s-000 Vityaz, for in fact the same thing, only a little dumb.
          1. Alexander Petrov1
            Alexander Petrov1 2 December 2019 12: 27
            +1
            silver_roman (Roman) - And on our SuperGorshkov there will be under 150 missiles, and they have 96 missiles, but they only have the advantage that their mines are universal and it’s possible to launch Tamagavki and Anti-aircraft missiles and Aegis anti-missile from one mine, but this is not critical for us, we have something to answer ...
    14. Garris199
      Garris199 2 December 2019 00: 38
      0
      And yet, I think in the design of these two projects there will be a significant share of unification and the construction will go at a fairly pace. Now, if they grabbed for the Leader now, for example, then they would be stuck specifically.
  2. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 30 November 2019 12: 59
    +2
    I understand that this is closer to the destroyer? Long. It’s a pity that everything has been taking so long even in plans and projects!
  3. lucul
    lucul 30 November 2019 13: 01
    0
    Northern Design Bureau completed the outline design of "Super-Gorshkov"

    Good news.
    The only thing left for motor builders is not to pump up with the motor under it ....
    1. Artemiy_2
      Artemiy_2 30 November 2019 13: 07
      +5
      Motor-builders do not let us down. Engines are already created. And as for the gear reducer ...
      Reducers for the third 22350 will go only in December to Rybinsk. Gov Golovko will probably receive in the summer
      One is good. The reducer for the 22350M power plant (it’s called MA7) is easier
      1. seti
        seti 30 November 2019 13: 16
        +9
        They wrote that they were created this is true. But smoothly only on paper. The problem is different. We learned how to create cases for the flow, but power plants are still a sore spot - mattresses with non-brothers hit a sore spot. All the same, for us, in any case, so far this is a piece assembly. Unfortunately. While we are working out and launching a large series, we will leak a lot of water, but we are glad that the production will be localized in Russia.
        1. lucul
          lucul 30 November 2019 13: 33
          +7
          power plants are still a sore spot - mattresses with non-brothers hit a sore spot.

          He wrote earlier - all our engine building (R&D) has been taboo since the days of the USSR. Ie you could rivet tanks / infantry fighting vehicles by tens of thousands, but always with antediluvian engines. After all, it was possible to release smaller equipment, and invest the freed up funds in the R&D of engine building, but they did not. The same GAZ produced cars, even with the Amer engine of the 1920s until 1991 ...
        2. knn54
          knn54 30 November 2019 13: 50
          +2
          Yuzhash, Motor-Sich - these were the enterprises of the UNION MINISTRIES. And the documentation should have remained, unless of course it disappeared through the efforts of Chubais and Co.
          Now many enterprises are either destroyed or in private hands.
          After all, production requires not only drawings, but engineering, workers, machinery, which simply does not exist. China remains, because machines, especially unique ones, are under sanctions.
          And the MAIN THING is the desire of those in power, Of ​​course, it is more profitable for a design bureau to design something new than to engage in bringing to mind the finished one. Other money, terms, in the sense of development. And there is a donkey or an emir ...
          PS In 1945, SMERSH officers found a full package of documents on the T-34. It was quickly established that the leak had come from the People’s Commissariat.
  4. Seaflame
    Seaflame 30 November 2019 13: 10
    +6
    Now it’s not time for fat to saturate the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet with ordinary frigates. At least 6 per fleet at least! And then we’ll build a super Gorshkov.
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 30 November 2019 20: 08
      +1
      If it were to lay a frigate in a year before the introduction of the main Super-Gorshkov, it would have worked out like that. Recently, there were rumors that next year another 2 will be laid ...
      1. bayard
        bayard 1 December 2019 03: 00
        +2
        That's right - this year 2 pcs. 22350+ (at 24 UVP) were laid, and at the beginning of the future two more will be laid, but now in Kaliningrad. So it will be possible to build in two streams - and 22350+ (in Kaliningrad), and 22350M (in St. Petersburg). The main thing is that the power plants do not let us down.
  5. Starper-xnumx
    Starper-xnumx 30 November 2019 13: 16
    -1
    To date, it is known about the 22350M project that the ship's displacement will be within 8 thousand tons, the frigate will carry 48 Kalibr cruise missiles. The arsenal will also include hypersonic Zircons.

    Hurry up men please .. Russia has serious problems ..
    We still have to fight, these do not understand differently .. hi
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 30 November 2019 13: 22
      -1
      Quote: Starper-777
      Fight we still have to , these do not understand otherwise ..

      Malbrooke was going camping
      Eaten sour cabbage soup ...

      lol
    2. lis-ik
      lis-ik 30 November 2019 14: 04
      +2
      Quote: Starper-777
      To date, it is known about the 22350M project that the ship's displacement will be within 8 thousand tons, the frigate will carry 48 Kalibr cruise missiles. The arsenal will also include hypersonic Zircons.

      Hurry up men please .. Russia has serious problems ..
      We still have to fight, these do not understand differently .. hi

      Meehan's tear was welling up, but she didn’t. But the tear in the voice is felt.
      1. Starper-xnumx
        Starper-xnumx 30 November 2019 15: 08
        0
        Quote: lis-ik
        Meehan's tear was welling up, but she didn’t. But the tear in the voice is felt.


        You truly felt my soul .. hi
        So far we have not very much in the Navy .. There is "Losharik" under repair
        But it’s not yet evening gentlemen echidin .. negative
        There behind the fogs .. An answer will be required! And your looted money will turn to dust .. We will do it! hi

        The hand on the button does not flinch ...
    3. Adimius38
      Adimius38 30 November 2019 22: 21
      -3
      hurry up to protect Miller's oil wells))
      1. Pavel57
        Pavel57 1 December 2019 03: 09
        +1
        And who was defended in 1812 or in 1941?
  6. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 30 November 2019 13: 17
    +1
    To date, it is known about the 22350M project that the ship's displacement will be within 8 thousand tons, the frigate will carry 48 Kalibr cruise missiles. The arsenal will also include hypersonic Zircons.

    good fellow I am glad that the words of the song Alla Borisovna:
    You see, there will still be!
    In a hundred times the rails run away,
    Airplanes depart for flights,
    Ships are anchored ...

    To complete the design of the new frigate, it will take from 12 to 18 months, the construction of the lead ship of the series will take 4-5 years ...
    ... they can start building no earlier than 2021. Bookmark ships planned at the "Severnaya Verf"... The Russian Navy hoped to acquire no less than 15 frigates base and modified versions.

    crying No. Not happy, because 20% of state ownership in front of 80% of the others ... And also:
    The shipyard has a unique heated indoor boathouse unique in Northwest Russia with four construction sites (slipways)with a length of 165 and a width of 19,2 m each [10], where construction can be carried out regardless of weather conditions, and a launching complex consisting of a floating dock with a lifting capacity of 10 tons and a transborder, allowing the ship to be lowered from any berth.

    I love the plans (voiced) наших of our leadership a lot ... In a simple pretense you can enjoy a complete set of frigates by 2036-2041 ... There is more than one presidentialsmells like a term, not one billion misused it blows ...
    If people remembered this,
    More likely to think of a miracle,
    Less often people would cry.
    Happiness - what is it? The same bird:
    If you miss it, you won’t catch it.
    And in the cage, he languishes
    It’s also no good
    It's hard with him, understand?

    hi
    1. Andrey Chistyakov
      Andrey Chistyakov 30 November 2019 13: 34
      -1
      "If people remembered this,
      More likely to think of a miracle,
      Less often people would cry.
      Happiness - what is it? The same bird:
      If you miss it, you won’t catch it.
      And in the cage, he languishes
      It’s also no good
      It's hard with him, do you understand? "
      ON THE. Nekrasov. Russian poet.
      "You sing the same song
      You carry the same strap "
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 30 November 2019 13: 53
        +3
        Quote: Andrey Chistyakov
        ON THE. Nekrasov. Russian poet.
        "You sing the same song
        You carry the same strap "

        Any new motives? Maybe they report to you separately, other motives and figures are looming for me. I have no desire to praise what is not ... Nekrasov has a lot of things there, in particular:
        It is a pity only - to live in this wonderful time
        I don’t have to - neither to me, nor to you.
        1. Andrey Chistyakov
          Andrey Chistyakov 30 November 2019 13: 55
          +1
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Quote: Andrey Chistyakov
          ON THE. Nekrasov. Russian poet.
          "You sing the same song
          You carry the same strap "

          Any new motives? Maybe they report to you separately, other motives and figures are looming for me. I have no desire to praise what is not ... Nekrasov has a lot of things there, in particular:
          It is a pity only - to live in this wonderful time
          I don’t have to - neither to me, nor to you.

          I don’t know about you. I will live with your permission yet.
  7. Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 30 November 2019 13: 40
    +8
    They already got their endless upgrades! It’s clear that for designers it’s bread, but for some reason all normal countries are building large series. And then they did not have time to debug the production of the initial project, but a new one was being prepared. Yes, build at least a dozen potted plants, six on the SF and Pacific Fleet! And then soon they will generally be left without ships of the ocean zone.
    1. Vadmir
      Vadmir 30 November 2019 16: 03
      +6
      And then soon they will generally be left without ships of the ocean zone.
      Gorshkov is a ship in the far sea zone. With its range of 4500 miles at 14 knots, it does not reach the ocean. For SF this range is still acceptable. But for Pacific Fleet you need a ship with greater range and autonomy. I hope that the project 22350M not only added missiles.
      1. 1Alexey
        1Alexey 2 December 2019 10: 34
        +1
        Vadmir (Vadim), fully support !!!
        Unfortunately, we often come across that people (not all of them, of course) in the comments do not see the difference between the "Far Sea Zone" and the "Ocean Zone", but the difference is actually significant.

        Etc. The 22350M will be the first "Ocean Zone" surface ship built in Russia.

        And this does not mean that the ships of Project 22350 will stop building - the country needs ships of different sea zones, and construction can be carried out in parallel.
  8. Operator
    Operator 30 November 2019 13: 50
    +7
    At the Northern PKB from gigantomania the roof went back under the Soviet regime laughing
  9. Berkut24
    Berkut24 30 November 2019 13: 54
    -1
    Something tells me that the 22350M may turn out to be a nail in the lid of the Leader's coffin. The fleet is playing for time with "revolutions" and the introduction of new proven solutions turns into a gradual evolution.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 30 November 2019 14: 20
      +2
      Quote: Berkut24
      may be a nail in the lid of the "Leader's" coffin

      The leader made sense in the absence of his turbines, and building nuclear power plants with less than 15000 tons was irrational.
      Quote: Berkut24
      the introduction of new proven solutions turns into a gradual evolution

      But this is good.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa 1 December 2019 12: 56
        +3
        Do we need a Leader? I somehow only have one application model in relation to it is visible, and yes, this is a war with the United States.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa 1 December 2019 17: 03
            +1
            So I do not argue)) And even without nuclear weapons. To find OBK in the ocean is still a challenge even today.

            I have an article justifying the need for the presence of a grouping of powerful and fast warships deployed in the ocean as an "external force" in relation to any theater of operations on which we will be pressed, which will not allow the enemy to normally concentrate efforts.

            If interested - https://topwar.ru/162786-stroim-flot-ataki-slabogo-poteri-silnogo.html

            And for such a Leader would be "in the vein." The question is that this project is very expensive, and it is in this form that it is really needed only for a big war with the United States. The likelihood of which, of course, is, but so to speak is low.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa 1 December 2019 19: 02
                0
                It is being treated. Let's see what GDP will say on December 2-5. I think he should already be boiling.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. timokhin-aa
                    timokhin-aa 3 December 2019 21: 12
                    0
                    A lot of things do not get on the air.

                    The gauges just went to the fleet after Putin’s pendal in 2006. True, instead of modernizing the submarines and existing NKs, the gunboats began to build gunboats with a crooked method.

                    I think there will be certain progress, they simply won’t get into officialdom - officially everything is fine with us and we are the strongest of all, they will not depart from this topic. And behind the scenes there can be a lot of things.

                    The fact is that Putin was publicly revoked this year - he promised five ships on a message to the Federal Assembly, but laid down four and instead of the fifth they tried to crank up a scam with the docking of the sections of Derzky and renaming it Mercury. But he did.

                    I think that this just will not end, I hope at least.

                    How do you, by the way, this -



                    The order number is from "Daring" and the bookmark date is different. And the name is new. I think that the consequences will be, such attempts are too much even for us.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
    3. Vadmir
      Vadmir 30 November 2019 17: 00
      +1
      Something tells me that the 22350M may turn out to be a nail in the lid of the Leader's coffin.
      The leader is actually a cruiser, with the 22350M they are not competitors. We also need cruisers, but we need more destroyers, and even more we need frigates and corvettes. Everything has its time. When and if construction of atomic aircraft carriers begins, the time will come for the Leader, only an atomic cruiser can fully accompany an atomic aircraft carrier.
      1. 1Alexey
        1Alexey 2 December 2019 10: 39
        +1
        But the Leader is not only needed for an aircraft carrier, he would also be suitable as a missile defense ship with a ship S-500.
  10. The comment was deleted.
  11. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 30 November 2019 14: 30
    +2
    50 PUs already seriously!
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 30 November 2019 20: 10
      0
      But mainly based on rumors ..
  12. Lena Petrova
    Lena Petrova 30 November 2019 14: 31
    0
    Quote: lis-ik
    Quote: Chaldon48
    One would like to say, but not a couple of what they gave yesterday to pick up today?

    It's high time, but in response there will be cries that they are like "brothers" to us. For me with such "brothers" and enemies are not necessary.

    There are still a couple of years at such a pace, and there will be nothing to take.
  13. Pavel57
    Pavel57 30 November 2019 14: 39
    -1
    Why PU Caliber? And not a universal PU?
    1. Artemiy_2
      Artemiy_2 30 November 2019 14: 58
      -1
      In the sense? ZS-14 there
      1. Pavel57
        Pavel57 30 November 2019 15: 36
        +1
        From the text -
        To date, it is known about the 22350M project ... ... ..., the frigate will carry 48 Kalibr cruise missiles.
        The phrase is not correct. I think never 48 PU will not forget the whole Caliber.
        1. Artemiy_2
          Artemiy_2 30 November 2019 15: 52
          -1
          Chicane. It seems to be obvious that it can carry 48 caliber rockets
    2. 1Alexey
      1Alexey 2 December 2019 10: 44
      0
      Pavel57 (Gf) November 30, 2019 14:39 p.m.
      Why PU Caliber? And not a universal PU?

      Of course, the PUs will be universal. Lightweight type PUs (which are only for Gauges) are installed only on RTOs.
  14. Every
    Every 30 November 2019 15: 09
    +2
    Damn, as you look at the terms of construction, it becomes sad. (not only the alleged 22350M, but in general everything)
    And the question arises - are they building interstellar spacecraft there?
  15. Usher
    Usher 30 November 2019 15: 14
    -1
    What are they going to build for so long? And why again produce a bunch of different ships, what kind of illness is it? That T-72/80/90 Armata tanks with a bunch of modifications, zero unification, that the Su-30MK / MKI / MKK Su-27M / SM / UB aircraft and the like cluttering. That in the submarine, one squid with pikes can be counted off, not one similar to each other, and in ships the same disgrace. Even in Mi-8 and Mi-17 Tuyev helicopters there are a lot of modifications, even the usual Mi-28 attack helicopter which the cat wept in the army, it’s difficult to build ONE times with A / N modifications !!!! And rivet the desired number, and not having time to build, already immediately rivet some other.
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 30 November 2019 15: 39
      +2
      Ingenious. No modifications. No development. Already started to build the Su-27, and break 40 years.
      They began to build ships with Ukrainian remote control, and build only with it.
      1. Usher
        Usher 1 December 2019 13: 31
        +1
        Did you read what I wrote? I think no.
      2. Usher
        Usher 1 December 2019 13: 32
        +1
        I wrote about 40 years? What are you making up for me? Hello?
  16. Alexey from Perm
    Alexey from Perm 30 November 2019 15: 56
    +3
    But what about the Leader?
    1. Vasyan1971
      Vasyan1971 30 November 2019 16: 10
      -1
      Here, right off the tongue ...
  17. Vasyan1971
    Vasyan1971 30 November 2019 16: 09
    -1
    Is the topic with the Leader postponed or something?
    And then there is nothing more intelligible, except for https://topwar.ru/100258-esmincy-proekta-23560-lider-zachem-kogda-i-skolko.html
    Have not found...
  18. Vadmir
    Vadmir 30 November 2019 16: 14
    +4
    The news, in general, is not bad. The 22350M is rather a light destroyer. But I really hope that the series of the initial project 22350 will be extended and these ships will be built in parallel for this, it is possible, and you need to give all the documentation on Gorshkov to Yantar. Let the North Shipyard build 22350M, and Amber will be able to build the usual 22350. We have not only Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, we also have Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet. And the ocean fleets need not only destroyers. We have a huge deficit in surface ships and the inevitable pause caused by the introduction of a new project needs to be compensated for something, especially since a pause was marked with the laying of corvettes.
  19. ser56
    ser56 30 November 2019 16: 28
    -1
    we continue to build a fleet of samples ... request
  20. bars1
    bars1 30 November 2019 16: 45
    +1
    Quote: ser56
    we continue to build a fleet of samples ...

    No. Project 22350-frigate, project 22350M-destroyer in fact, no matter how officially it was called.
  21. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 30 November 2019 19: 51
    +1
    only after focusing on minesweepers, aircraft and submarines, and solving the problem of anti-aircraft defense, air defense, anti-aircraft defense ........ then only ....., is there a well-developed frigate project, could we make a couple more, well 4 ....... not only that surface ships of the first rank are simply not needed, but they will also drown during the first military campaign in a mine, there are no minesweepers ... and why are they?
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 30 November 2019 20: 52
      +1
      Quote: vladimir1155
      only after focusing on minesweepers

      Project 12700. A series is under construction.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 30 November 2019 22: 12
        0
        fine, since the series will be built in 20 years ... then in 20 years we can discuss the construction of ships for the fleet, but for now the whole navy is not operational and will be so for at least 10 years when at least a couple of dozen minesweepers appear
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 30 November 2019 22: 19
          +1
          Quote: vladimir1155
          great as the series will be built in 20 years

          Why? The series is on, by 2025 they plan to build 12 pennants and there is no reason to doubt that everything will be fine. So in ten years you can count on a couple of dozen.
          Quote: vladimir1155
          then after 20 years, and you can discuss the construction of a fleet of ships

          And get them in 30. It will be too late.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 30 November 2019 22: 31
            0
            fine 12 pennants for 5 fleets ..... a pair for the fleet, that is, in each fleet one ship will become combat-ready, .... only 6 ships ..... so why build new ones? 6 pieces of warships are still available
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 30 November 2019 23: 08
              +1
              Quote: vladimir1155
              fine 12 pennants to 5 fleets
              And the fifth is what?
              Quote: vladimir1155
              a pair for the fleet
              By 2025, the planned series will be built, only no one said that they would not build anything else.
              Quote: vladimir1155
              so why build new ones?
              By the time they are built, the issue with the minesweepers will have already been decided, since the construction time for the frigates will be longer.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 1 December 2019 20: 20
                0
                Quote: Dart2027
                By the time they are built, the issue with the minesweepers will have already been decided, since the construction time for the frigates will be longer.

                where did you get what will be decided? you write 12 pieces each by 2025, which means that by 2025 minesweepers will be operational for 6 warships, and we even have more than 6 submarines, so the rest of the ships will not be able to go to sea in case of wars, and why are they ...? all for recycling, and all sailors for infantry? so far no one has planned to accelerate the construction of minesweepers, so the fleet is gradually becoming a cardboard fool, as it is not ... but certainly no superlinked frigates with 48 USK are needed.
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 2 December 2019 12: 17
                  0
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  then by 2025 minesweepers for 6 warships will be operational

                  Please show me where it says that 2 minesweepers are needed for each tank?
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  where did you get what will be decided?

                  Moreover, they will not be built by 2015.
                  1. Vladimir1155
                    Vladimir1155 3 December 2019 00: 15
                    0
                    Quote: Dart2027
                    Please show me where it says that 2 minesweepers are needed for each tank?

                    it comes from my experience and common sense, the minesweeper can be lost, this is in general a defenseless ship busy with dangerous work and moving slowly, and the access to the sea of ​​a nuclear submarine or 1144 depends on it, naturally the enemy will try to destroy it, mines are insidious ship or its equipment may die from them https://topwar.ru/156486-chto-ne-tak-s-nashimi-tralschikami.html

                    “By 9.5.1945 May 200, the Navy had 679 minesweepers and 255 KATSH. By the end of the war, there were 14 minesweepers and boats-minesweepers in the Black Sea Fleet, of which only 1 could work with electromagnetic trawls and MT-3 contact trawls. , there were 3 BEMTs. The rest of the minesweepers and boats-minesweepers could tow contact trawls. [XNUMX]

                    In August 1944, rough estimates of the likely duration of the PBT were made. However, these calculations are a vivid example of the complete discrepancy between theory and practice. In the North, PBT was mainly completed in 1955 (held for 11 years), but continued to a lesser extent in subsequent years, as a variant of combat training. Even in 2012, the minesweepers of the Kola FRS were engaged in control trawling of bottom mines delivered in 1943 (more than 70 years ago!) By the German submarine U-634 in the Gulf of Ob. In the Baltic, only in April 1965, by a circular from the Chief of the General Staff of the Navy, "the main fairways and areas were opened for navigation and fishing" - trawling was carried out for more than 20 years. "
                    so in the presence of 800 minotral vessels, it took 20 years to clear the fairways, in not very large water areas, you say minesweepers are old, and the mines were also primitive
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 3 December 2019 19: 48
                      0
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      it comes from my experience and common sense

                      That is a private opinion.
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      In the Navy by 9.5.1945, there were 200 minesweepers and 679 KATSCH.

                      Want to build as much? Hmm ...
                      1. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 3 December 2019 22: 07
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        That is a private opinion.

                        and what can you contrast with my private opinion of a specialist besides your private opinion of a non-specialist? calculations of the figure? no? then all your arguments are empty and you are defeated by me like a Swede near Poltava! I consider the minimum for the fleet to be three per submarine (60 tr), three per surface ship of the first rank (6 tr), and two per ship of the second rank (40 tr), and one per pair of ships of the third rank (15 tr) , calculate the arithmetic yourself = 120 tr, .......
                      2. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 4 December 2019 20: 16
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        then all your arguments are empty and you are defeated by me like a Swede near Poltava

                        Do you have any arguments? I can see some numbers taken from my head. Who told you that the nuclear submarine will be 20, not 30? Or that there will be exactly 3 ships of the 30rd rank?
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        and what can you contrast with my private opinion of a specialist besides your private opinion of a non-specialist? calculations of the figure? no?

                        I don’t know what kind of specialist you are, but as a specialist shipbuilder I can say that if you build minesweepers in the quantities you want, then nothing will remain on the rest of the fleet.
                      3. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 4 December 2019 21: 38
                        0
                        it is necessary to stop laying new surface ships and focus on submarines and minesweepers, when the number of minesweepers will be at least 50, you can think about other ships ..... why make ships unable to fight?
                      4. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 4 December 2019 22: 44
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        need to stop laying new surface ships

                        What our partners dream about.
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        why make ships unable to fight

                        MRK crews who attacked terrorists in Syria are not aware of this.
                      5. Vladimir1155
                        Vladimir1155 5 December 2019 11: 38
                        0
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        MRK crews who attacked terrorists in Syria are not aware of this.

                        there are enough warships for Syria, but why more? if, in the event of war, even those RTOs that shot at the terrorists find themselves in jokes because of a mine of danger?
                      6. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 5 December 2019 19: 49
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        there are enough warships for Syria, but why more?

                        And the rest of the fleets we do not need? And it’s not enough for her, considering that there are only three new frigates, and the rest is a trifle, which has nothing to do in the middle earth or is still Soviet-built.
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        will be fun because of a mine of danger?

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        By 2025, the planned series will be built, only no one said that they would not build anything else.

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        By the time they are built, the issue with the minesweepers will have already been decided, since the construction time for the frigates will be longer.
  22. for
    for 30 November 2019 23: 23
    0
    Quote: Chaldon48
    Too much has been invested in Ukraine,

    It was invested in the USSR.
  23. Ax Matt
    Ax Matt 1 December 2019 01: 27
    0
    With 8 thousand tons of displacement, this is already a full-fledged destroyer! Significantly more "Arleigh Burkes". It would be necessary to take into account a full-fledged air defense there. We are sorely lacking such ships in the distant sea, oceanic zone. The more there are in the series, the cheaper they will cost for the country. With them, you can stop the entire coast of Africa and the Persian Gulf. To ensure the smooth passage of our commercial ships. And the ice class would not be bad: soon the Arctic Ocean will become free of permanent ice floating fields. It was then that THEY will appear from the other side ... There will be something to meet.
    1. Garris199
      Garris199 2 December 2019 00: 47
      0
      Berkov has a total displacement of 9500 tons +/- the “super pot” has about 8000 tons, and where is it much larger?
      1. Ax Matt
        Ax Matt 2 December 2019 17: 44
        0
        If standard, then it is. The point here is, what FULL (!) Displacement the "Super-Gorshkov" will have !? "Arlie Burke" has a standard of 7 thousand tons.
  24. Vkd dvk
    Vkd dvk 1 December 2019 11: 30
    0
    Quote: seti
    As for me, it would be better to continue the construction of frigates of the old series of project 22350 without M. Let me explain - this project already it has been worked out and, as it is manufactured, it is possible to introduce the necessary innovations and modernize it in current repairs. And so again new and this leads to long delays. Again, the question about the power plant .. Is everything smooth with it and how are things going with them? This is the most painful place. Time is running out and such ships are needed today and not tomorrow.

    In the USSR, it was customary to talk about MODERNIZATION when the need arises for not significant improvements, but going beyond just factory corrections of errors and inaccuracies found in the production process. Modernization also involves testing under the reduced program, due to changes in some properties introduced into the design and technology.
    Any project becomes morally obsolete at the time of signing a general view drawing. So, to produce something that is already very necessary in some way to fix is ​​a criminal matter.
  25. skipper83
    skipper83 2 December 2019 23: 12
    0
    I correctly understood that the design will take at best 2 years? This is the scale, this is the flight of thought.