Military Review

When saving is dangerous for the ship: the truth about frigates Oliver H. Perry

113

A shroud of sea foam - that's all that this frigate expected when meeting with the enemy.


Last week, my esteemed colleague listed the benefits Oliver Perry and raised it to the standard of the sea weapons. Apparently, many of the ideas implemented during the creation of the Perry needed to be used in the construction of domestic warships.

But were those ideas so useful?

And will there be any benefit from a ship designed with an eye on a foreign frigate from a past era?


You need to stop seeing in Perry a simple, cheap and therefore massive ship.

He did not become mass because he was cheap. And it was cheap not because it was planned to become massive. The logic based on domestic examples does not work in the case of Perry.

Serial construction of frigates (51 for the US Navy) was carried out during the 1977-1989 years. In a similar time, the fleet replenished ... 53 warships of the "cruiser" and "destroyer" classes!

31 "Spruance" and 14 "Ticonderoge" - up to and including 1989. Plus, the “white elephants”, by chance caught under the striped flag of the destroyers "Kidd", the strongest in its class. And the hi-end exotic is the four Virginia nuclear-powered cruisers.


Only modelers can distinguish "Kidd" from "Spruance". The third representative of the family, the cruiser URO "Ticonderoga", was unified with destroyers for most systems

That’s the whole truth about simple and cheap workhorses. If the main part of the Navy really consisted of 4200-ton ships of simplified design, designed according to the methods of "Oliver Perry", such a fleet would be worthless.

In addition to the 53 cruisers and destroyers of new projects, the US Navy included over 20 missile cruisers, Kuntz / Feragat missile destroyers, and other serious equipment of the past decades. As of mid-late 80's, the number of large warships in fact exceeded the number of "cheap and massive" frigates.

Just as in our time the number of built “Berks” is four times higher than the number of smaller LCSs.

Perry frigates came out cheap because they were going to perform a limited range of tasks, behind the backs of their senior colleagues. And they were built by 51, because the Yankees considered it necessary such a number of auxiliary ships.

No one pursued numerical records and mass character.

The choice of “Perry” for the role of a standard in the design of future Russian ships can not cause anything but a smile


Given the role and purpose of the project, further questions to the technical side of the ship disappear. The forced compromises in its design did not come as a surprise to the customer.

With a given displacement at the technological frontier of the 70's, the frigate was obliged to concede in terms of combat capabilities to cruisers and destroyers.

The appearance of "Perry" was chosen not by a computer, but by living people. In their ideas about the frigate as a single-shaft ship with a sharp clipper bow, simple chopped forms of the superstructure and transom stern with a displacement of approx. 4000 tons of Perry creators focused on its predecessors - Knox type anti-submarine frigates. Given these preferences, the computer calculated the exact dimensions and helped to choose the optimal layout of the compartments and mechanisms. But the trends were set by the people themselves with an eye on existing projects of similar sizes.


Perry and Knox

The predecessors, the Knoxes, were created to escort convoys in World War III. Where only Soviet submarines could become the only enemy on the transatlantic routes.

With a tonnage of 4000 tons, the Knox frigate was quite fit for its purpose. Given the volume and complexity of the work ahead, it was a very expensive ship carrying the most sophisticated anti-aircraft equipment of the time.

“Knox” could not do anything else, and until the end of his days did not learn anything.

As for the Perry, its creators used a hull, similar in size to the Knox, to create a ship for everyday service in the conditions of the Cold War, which was to go into local conflict zones, where each detected boat and plane could be the carrier of an anti-ship missile . Where they could shoot from the shore. Where at any moment a battle with the "mosquito forces" of an unpredictable enemy (which was considered an ally in the morning) could break out. Where the ship could be required to provide artillery support to forces on the shore. Or a lightning strike on the deck of an enemy corvette, with the help of a missile launcher with a contactless fuse turned off.

The Yankees considered a frigate with a primitive two-coordinate radar and a single-channel air defense system acceptable for these purposes. In the absence of full countermeasures and electronic warfare.

In addition, the frigate was equipped with a single "Falanx", covering the aft corners, that is, in the language of specialists, it had an open air defense circuit.

Given the "one-armed" launcher and the accepted consumption of two missiles for one target, the frigate had every chance not to survive a meeting even with a pair of enemy aircraft. However, like any other ship of its size, built on 1960-1970's technology.

The customer received exactly the frigate that the Navy needed: an auxiliary unit of the second or even third rank, which was a pity to spend an extra cent.

The safety of the Perry was by no means guaranteed by the strength of its weapons or the training of its crew. We rephrase the Soviet commander, who proudly answered the provocative calls of NATO ships:
“You are taking a dangerous cruise.”
- Our security is ensured by the flag of the Soviet Union!

Gouging "Perry" was not difficult. It is difficult to survive under sanctions later. However, once this logic did not justify itself.

The consequences of the attack on the "Stark" do not contain a sensational connotation


Such a ship could not drown from hits of a pair of Exocets, all the damage fell above the waterline. The explosion that arose from the engine stuck in the RCC add-on was effectively handled by the explosion of the second Exocet. Which, paradoxically as it sounds, even eased the position of the frigate.

Unlike the Sheffield, which was damaged on the edge of the earth, the Stark was near the American base in Bahrain, where he was brought the next day.

As for the overall assessment of survivability, the Perry frigates received a superstructure, traditional for that time, from fire-hazardous aluminum-magnesium alloys. Subsequently, this decision was declared unacceptable, and such ships have not been built for a long time.

The single-shaft design of the power plant is another compromise. The creators of "Perry" found such a decision justified for a second-class 2-ranking unit.

When saving is dangerous for the ship: the truth about frigates Oliver H. Perry

My colleague’s claim that there is no effect on survivability when using a single or two-shaft GEM scheme is contrary to common sense. It is interesting how the experience of using single-shaft ships during the WWII was analyzed if the main-class combat ships with a single-shaft GEM simply did not exist.

Even the smallest destroyers of the time with a displacement of approx. 2000 tons were equipped with a twin-shaft power plant.

Of course, the twin-shaft GEM radically increased survivability. There are a great many cases of combat damage to the propeller on one shaft or destruction of engine rooms on one side. At the same time, the ships retained the opportunity to give way. An example is the second trip to Theodosia of the cruiser "Red Caucasus".

Is it worth looking for meaning where it is not?


A frigate of the Oliver Perry type was programmed to defeat. The question was only in readiness to give him a fight. As time has shown, none of his opponents had the determination (or need) to attack small ships. A unique incident with Stark remained a mystery stories. Who and for what purpose gave a crazy order?

In addition to compromises, the Perry design contained positive elements. Among them is a set of technical equipment under the acronym LAMPS, which made it possible to link together all anti-submarine means of the frigate, including search and sighting systems on board helicopters. Criticizing the Perry, we must not forget about the scientific and technological level of the country in which the ship was created.


The fatal innate flaw of the Oliver Perry was mediocre seaworthiness. In fresh weather, with a longitudinal pitching, the frigate's nose showed up out of the water, followed by a terrible blow (bottom slaming). In addition to the loss of operability of sonar equipment, constant impacts destroyed the already not solid structure, causing multimeter cracks in the superstructure.

It had nothing to do with the size of the Perry; he, like any ship, was small only on paper. The reason for slamming was a too large lengthening of the hull (9,7), which made it possible to dispense with less power of the power plant at full speed. And, probably, mistakes in the design of contours.

Apparently, the computer did not take into account something in the calculations.


Dimensions of the ship with a displacement of approx. 4000 tons compared to humans. In the illustration: sailors wash off pacifist activists climbing the anchor chain. It’s happening in Denmark, they would be shot at an American base

At the beginning of the new century, the Perry underwent extensive modernization: a “one-armed bandit” was dismantled from their decks, and a patch was welded in its place. Left without missile weapons, they began to gradually withdraw from the composition fleet.

If twenty years ago, decommissioned "Perry" was a welcome present for the US allies, nowadays they are not even interesting for them. Modern ships have long had a different look and are built according to different standards.


Oliver Perry Frigate and Spruance Destroyer
Author:
113 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. DAC scratch
    DAC scratch 8 December 2019 06: 49
    0
    "With a given displacement on the technological backlog of the 70s, the frigate was obliged to concede in combat capabilities to cruisers and destroyers" - well, I see you are getting wiser before our eyes good
  2. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 8 December 2019 07: 13
    0
    Well, well ... The author expressed his vision for the model of the vessel under discussion. In some ways, I even agree with him. Probably because the shape of the vessel with a non-standard arrangement of weapons and to me, once seemed strange.
    But ... "Peri" turned out to be just that "ordinary infantry Vanya" who wins the war. Not a handsome man, not an athlete, not an Olympic champion ... Not a handsome man in appearance, but hardy. How else to explain the video in the last article about the shooting of the target corps? Who stubbornly refused to go to the bottom?
    1. Santa Fe
      8 December 2019 07: 40
      +16
      Peri "turned out to be exactly that" ordinary infantry Vanya "who wins the war.

      What kind of infantry Vanya ??! Have you definitely read the article? The Americans did not have such a thing at all, they had money and the largest and most expensive ones turned out to be the most massive. The rank and file were cruisers and destroyers

      And the frigate is for auxiliary tasks. They were built less than the first units
      1. Santa Fe
        8 December 2019 08: 09
        +9
        Platoon of rank-and-filed squalors, the rest of the company consists of ambulsally armed to the teeth

        To make the analogy clearer
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 8 December 2019 12: 25
          +1
          Gg you would Oleg to go to any armed forces! There are just two three ambalas and the rest are armed squelch. By the way, no one canceled the WWII example, it was cheap destroyers that turned out to be the most popular
          1. LeonidL
            LeonidL 9 December 2019 02: 53
            0
            Let's get ready for the last war! Perfect solution. However, Absurdistan is already asking the price for "Perry" - cheap and kind of angry.
      2. Fizik M
        Fizik M 9 December 2019 18: 07
        -3
        Quote: Santa Fe
        What kind of infantry Vanya ??! Have you definitely read the article? The Americans did not have such a thing at all, they had money and the largest and most expensive ones turned out to be the most massive. The rank and file were cruisers and destroyers

        lol
        This is an incompetent nonsense Kaptsova wassat
    2. 27091965
      27091965 8 December 2019 09: 17
      +5
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      But ... "Peri" turned out to be just that "ordinary infantry Vanya" who wins the war.


      The Americans themselves determined the capabilities of these ships from the following assessment shows that they did not pose grandiose tasks for these ships.

      " Serving as an escort with amphibious target groups or convoys."
    3. bayard
      bayard 8 December 2019 10: 47
      +24
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      The author expressed his vision on the discussed ship model

      The author expressed his vision that A. Timokhin allegedly proposed for the future fleet to take the frigate "Oliver H. Perry" as a basis, which is not such. Timokhin gave an example of this frigate as a way to solve the problem of providing the fleet with the necessary non-main (auxiliary) class ship for little money, in a short time and with characteristics sufficient for its tasks. This is an example of planning the construction of a fleet with the correct distribution of accents and refusal to try to make a universal multifunctional ship with maximum performance in any displacement. In this case, the choice of moderate characteristics in favor of economy, unification and ease of use has borne the expected results.
      ... A. Timokhin himself did not support the idea of ​​a single-shaft PLO frigate for the Russian fleet, which I proposed. On the contrary, he proposed a 2-shaft diesel engine for a ship of this class and destination. So do not blame a person for what he did not write and for which he did not campaign.

      And now a few words about whether the experience of this scheme is so useless for the needs of our fleet.
      Of course, we are not talking about ships of the main classes. Speech, as in the case of the US Navy in the mid-70s, about the need for inexpensive anti-submarine ships with good seaworthiness, autonomy and capable of carrying a helicopter, or better (much better for an ASW - 2 helicopters). Someone will ask "why not a corvette for PLO?" ... because with a displacement of 2000 - 2200 tons, such a ship has poor seaworthiness, low autonomy, carries a limited number of weapons and combat equipment and is not able to use a helicopter in fresh weather (already at 3 points). Look what the weather is like for most of the year in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk ... in the Barents Sea ... and imagine how long he will have to hang out there, covering the area of ​​the combat deployment of our nuclear submarines ... and how much of it will be there in fresh weather.
      Let's try to consider the pros and cons of this (single-shaft) scheme for a ship of this class.
      The minimum displacement for satisfactory seaworthiness in the DMZ is 3 tons, and it also gives acceptable autonomy of 500 days or more.
      From experience with "O.H. Perry" we know that the choice of a single-shaft scheme allowed to save about 800 tons of displacement. Why? Because, unlike the two-shaft scheme, this ship has ONE shaft, ONE screw, ONE gearbox and ONE turbopair. And they are located along the axis of the hull, and not along the sides, which, by the way, will add a certain amount of survivability when taking a blow to the side, because in order to get to the power plant, you will need to overcome the side compartments below the waterline, and this will weaken or dissipate the force of the impact / explosion.
      This is not an ode to a single-shaft scheme; its drawback is as obvious as some advantage is not obvious.
      Imagine that we need to get an anti-submarine frigate with a set of weapons close to 22350, but of a smaller displacement and cheaper.
      The transition to a single-shaft scheme with the installation of half of the power plant from the projected 22350M will give savings in price, weight and internal volumes ... let's say the economy in displacement will be about the same as that of "O.H. Perry": 5300 - 800 = 4 tons at the maximum displacement. And if we abandon some of the weapons ... let's say, instead of 500 anti-aircraft artillery installations on the sides, leave one, but place it behind / above the hangar? But at the same time make the hangar double?
      Here is the desired low-cost frigate PLO with two helicopters.
      Will not the running characteristics sag with the new GEM?
      Let's count.
      22350 for economic running uses 2 diesel engines of 5 l / s, totaling 200 l / s. At the same time, one cruise turbine has a capacity of up to 10 hp, while our frigate is 400 tons lighter than the "Gorshkov" ... so there will be an increase in economic speed on the contrary. It is precisely for the low speed of economic progress that "Gorshkov" is criticized. The proposed frigate will be deprived of such criticism.
      For afterburning, 22350 has two M-90FR turbines with a capacity of 27 l / s each, totaling 500 l / s. It would seem that here the new frigate will give way ... but the fact is that when working on one gearbox, the turbine power is simultaneously added and there will be 55 + 000 = 27 l / s on the shaft of the proposed frigate. ... The difference is 500 l / s ... but in the first place there is a difference in the displacement, and in the second, if the hull is slightly lengthened (the same section for the anti-aircraft artillery mount behind / over the hangar and at the same time a little to narrow the hull (a single-shaft scheme allows this without difficulty), then we get the same 12 knots of maximum stroke ... if not all 000, if you work well on the contours.
      And, by the way, this power plant may have another interesting mode - conditionally "full marching" when working on the shaft of one M-90FR turbine ...
      As a result, we get a frigate with about the same combat capabilities as the 22350, but 800 tons easier, about 20% cheaper, and with two helicopters.
      And this is also with the same "Polyment-Redut" air defense system. And if the air defense system is easier to choose?
      All of the above is only a gymnastics of the mind and the search for rational solutions in choosing the concept of an inexpensive PLO frigate - massive, cheap, convenient to operate and manufacture, and as much as possible unified with existing ships of the Russian Navy.
      It would be even cheaper to make it entirely on diesels, say for 4 x 12 l / s from Kolomenskoye working in pairs on two shafts ... but with the diesels, we are still completely sour ... but the turbines and gearboxes have already gone to them . Therefore, if you bet on a single power plant for 000 types of ships, then the industry will be more convenient and profitable, and in operation - beauty.

      I repeat once again - everything said here, gymnastics of the mind, reflection on the possible and an invitation to discussion.

      And I do not consider a single-shaft system to be better or more necessary, but it is cheaper if there is already a ready-made power plant, and it gives a tangible gain in the economy of displacement.
      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 8 December 2019 11: 16
        +2
        Quote: bayard
        It would be even cheaper to make it entirely on diesels, say for 4 x 12 l / s from Kolomenskoye working in pairs on two shafts ... but with the diesels, we are still completely sour ... but the turbines and gearboxes have already gone to them . Therefore, if you bet on a single power plant for 000 types of ships, then the industry will be more convenient and profitable, and in operation - beauty.

        There were just diesel engines for frigates of project 22350. Saturn made turbines, Kolomna made diesel engines, then it was sent to Zorya, which added its own gearbox and gas generator, tested the assembled unit at its assembly and test complex of gas turbine engines and units and sent it to St. Petersburg. GTUs were developed by Saturn and were tested back in the 2009s (they were shown at various exhibitions since 2014), it was necessary to build a test bench and replace some of the components made in Ukraine. Among other things, it was necessary to substitute import not so much for the turbine, but for the Ukrainian gearbox, which is part of the DSTU. The gearbox at Zvezda began to be reproduced only in 22350. The turbine has been made to date, the assembly and testing complex of gas turbine engines and units (GTE and GTA) for marine programs, the production of ship gas turbine engines has been built. Turbines and gearboxes have been assembled since summer at the assembly and testing complex of gas turbine engines and units. There were no official tests yet, there were test runs (one gearbox was almost ditched). Therefore, I see no reason to make changes to the design of the frigate XNUMX (purely my opinion), since the first serial "Admiral Kasatonov" has not even been accepted into the fleet.
        1. bayard
          bayard 8 December 2019 11: 53
          +5
          Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
          Therefore, I see no reason to make changes to the design of the frigate 22350 (purely my opinion), since the first serial "Admiral Kasatonov" has not even been accepted into the fleet.

          drinks I also see no reason to make changes to the project, which with such difficulty, but still was brought to readiness and accepted by the fleet. In my comments to the previous article about "O.H. Perry" by A. Timokhin, I stated my position in detail ... The frigate I proposed is possible for consideration if the 22350 series is limited to only 8 pennants, and then the 22350M will go into production, which is no longer a frigate, but a full-fledged destroyer. Only in the event that more than 22350 of those already ordered are finally refused to bookmark 8, the question of PLO frigates, which are needed in marketable quantities and for a reasonable price, arises at full height.
          Here, in this case, in order to unify with the 22350M destroyer being manufactured and to reduce the cost of the project to the maximum, I proposed this concept of a single-shaft PLO frigate in half of a power plant from 22350M. If the decision to continue the 22350 \ 22350+ series is continued and will be carried out simultaneously with the construction of 22350M parallel flows, I will only welcome this.
          This was not a proposal to redesign 22350, but an attempt to propose the concept of a cheap PLO frigate with a displacement of 4 - 000 tons with weapons sets close to 4 (500 CD in the UVP), two helicopters and a GAC ​​from Gorshkov.

          An option is also possible with an even more budgetary frigate PLO - the above single-shaft scheme and a simplified air defense system, for example, "Pantsyr-M" - for working in the near zone, in "bastions" and performing escort operations, this may be quite enough, but it will be even cheaper and easier.
          But naval commanders may not like this ...
      2. knn54
        knn54 8 December 2019 11: 45
        0
        "Each vegetable has its own time."
      3. bk0010
        bk0010 8 December 2019 12: 14
        +6
        Quote: bayard
        And if you choose a simpler air defense system?
        It’s easier for us to do harm: the most likely adversary at sea relies on aviation. This Americans can score on the air defense system, but it is fraught with us.
        1. bayard
          bayard 8 December 2019 22: 38
          0
          That is why in the proposed frigate, I proposed to keep the air defense, strike capabilities and anti-aircraft defense from frigate 22350, whose capabilities in air defense are quite satisfactory.
      4. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 8 December 2019 21: 27
        0
        Quote: bayard
        The difference is 15 l \ s ... but in the first place there is a difference in the displacement, and in the second, if the hull is slightly lengthened (the same section for the anti-aircraft artillery mount behind / over the hangar and at the same time slightly narrow the hull

        It is curious that the author points to the excessive lengthening of Perry (9.7) and you propose to do even more. :)
        1. bayard
          bayard 8 December 2019 22: 33
          0
          Quote: Saxahorse

          It is curious that the author points to the excessive lengthening of Perry (9.7) and you propose to do even more. :)

          After all, we are dancing in our extrapolations not from “Perry”, but from “Gorshkov”, which has everything in order with the lengthening and seaworthiness. So in our case there will be just a golden mean.
        2. Fizik M
          Fizik M 9 December 2019 18: 09
          -2
          Quote: Saxahorse
          It is curious that the author points to the excessive lengthening of Perry (9.7) and you propose to do even more. :)

          as Mr. Kaptsov is known to be a "great expert" wassat hydrodynamics lol
      5. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 9 December 2019 00: 34
        +1
        Quote: bayard
        ... A. Timokhin himself did not support the idea of ​​a single-shaft PLO frigate for the Russian fleet, which I proposed. On the contrary, he proposed a 2-shaft diesel engine for a ship of this class and destination. So do not blame the person for what he did not write and for which he did not campaign
        honestly, sincerely, worthy of respect (+).
        Quote: bayard
        And now a few words about whether the experience of this scheme is so useless for the needs of our fleet ...
        etc. quite a right to life, logical fabrications ... sort of
        Quote: bayard
        everything said here gymnastics of the mind , thinking about the possible and an invitation to a discussion.
        but Timokhin, just proposed an option that is closer to
        Quote: bayard
        It would be even cheaper to make it entirely on diesels, say for 4 x 12 l / s from Kolomenskoye working in pairs on two shafts ... but with diesels, we are still quite sour ...
        , and here we must assume that we are talking about 10D49 diesel engines with a capacity of 5200 hp each. ?! But, in my opinion, if you look for a purely diesel version, for a two-shaft version of the power plant - "capable of carrying a frigate", then by analogy with the same Chinese, it would probably make sense to pay attention to the promising 16DS500 engine, with a capacity of 10000 hp. ... This I mean, if we talk about a two-shaft diesel power plant, then an engine of 10000 hp is more promising for it. (i.e. 16DS500) !! What is more promising here for rapid industrial development: 1) The variant with the creation of a single-shaft escort frigate (by analogy with project 12441 "Thunder", which in the form of a power plant will have a half of the promising power plant planned for project 22350M from the M-70FRU main turbine and an afterburner M-90FR and a gearbox for them, with VI within 2700-3500 tons, or 2) Option with the creation of a two-shaft frigate, on a diesel power plant from four 16DS500 10000 hp each. each ?! Both options have their pros and cons.
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Ticonderoges were massively built for air defense, due to the presence of Aegis almost twice as expensive
        ...
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Here they are, fleet workhorses (31 units).
        we would have the material capabilities of these Yankees, and we would have churned Atlantes (1164) in such quantities or had time to put 11560 into series, but alas ... Besides, while talking about frigates and not cruisers ...
        1. bayard
          bayard 9 December 2019 01: 21
          0
          To be honest, I proposed a similar frigate with a power plant on 4 diesel engines for the needs of anti-aircraft defense a year ago, citing the Chinese diesel frigate as an example, but this happened on New Year's holidays ... By the way, Timokhin supported this idea then and we even discussed possible diesel engines for power plants, but ... with diesel engines so far ... sour ... I hope that soon industry will be able to provide reliable diesel engines in commercial quality and assortment.
          ... And the single-shaft power plant for the PLO frigate ... really inspired the example of "Oliver H. Perry" and decided to estimate this power plant for an urgently needed type of ship. By the way, the result of the estimate really inspired, and if there are still problems with diesel engines, and the 22350 is removed from production after the 8th in the series is completed, this may become quite a working material for design ... Although such a decision had to be made yesterday ... Perhaps it has already been adopted ...
          Quote: Vl Nemchinov
          The option of creating a twin-shaft frigate, on a diesel power plant from four 16DS500 of 10000 hp. each ?!

          It was this order of diesel power that I and Timokhin had in mind (10 - 000 l / s). drinks
          1. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 9 December 2019 02: 04
            +1
            Quote: bayard
            I hope that soon industry will be able to provide reliable diesel engines in commercial quality and assortment.
            For this, I think I need a state order. And for him, in turn, a reasonable project, under the same GEM of four 16DS500. And for him, in turn (I suppose so), the first one tested at the stand (i.e. experimental, but already existing in the metal GEM). Such is not an easy task ?!
            Quote: bayard
            It was this order of diesel power that I and Timokhin had in mind (10 - 000 l / s)
            I apologize, I don’t know what your name is ?!
            Quote: bayard
            To be honest, I proposed a similar frigate with a power plant on 4 diesel engines for the needs of anti-aircraft defense a year ago, citing the example of a Chinese diesel frigate
            I remember this, I read it. I always read with interest the articles on VO (especially Timokhin and Andrey from Chelyabinsk) that cause heated discussions. This time, Kaptsov also successfully (in my opinion) "shot", a topic for discussion, for which he has respect!
            Quote: bayard
            ... And the single-shaft power plant for the PLO frigate ... really inspired the example of "Oliver H. Perry" and decided to estimate this power plant for an urgently needed type of ship
            I liked your idea of ​​a "gas turbine half from a promising M-7A", for a single-shaft model, let's say 12441 "Thunder" (in VI 2700-3500), as a small escort ship. I am also of the opinion that this idea makes sense. Perhaps this would be a much better alternative for the Navy than 11356 P / M (and in view of the absence of a power plant for them, today, and given the fact that he is clearly "under-armed") ?!
            Quote: bayard
            ... and 22350 will be discontinued after the 8th in the series
            this is the worst thing that could be. In my opinion. I see this ship as the main type for the formation and filling of the KKE, in today's Russian Navy. Today this project is the most developed, the most universal, and therefore should be a priority for the Navy. (in the form of 22350+, i.e. with 24 UVP).
            1. bayard
              bayard 10 December 2019 06: 01
              0
              Quote: Vl Nemchinov
              I apologize, I don’t know what your name is ?!

              Vitaliy.
              Quote: Vl Nemchinov
              I liked your idea of ​​a "gas turbine half from a promising M-7A", for a single-shaft model, let's say 12441 "Thunder" (in VI 2700-3500), as a small escort ship

              Such a displacement will not be enough for the frigate I propose, as a carrier of exactly 2 helicopters. It is the presence of 2 helicopters that gives particular value to this frigate as an anti-submarine. Therefore, I indicated VI 4 - 000 tons (standard-full), and seaworthiness with such a displacement will be better. But the lack of power of the power plant will have to be compensated for by better contours and greater elongation than that of the same "Gorshkov".
              The second problem with him is that the single-shaft scheme needs a backup propulsion device, the role of which was played by the retractable steering columns in the Perry. But since our naval commanders rejected them, because they "will be clogged with ice" (which is true), we need to think about it. The simplest solution would be to put these speakers without shells ... and there will be nothing to clog right away. This must be foreseen immediately, otherwise the project will not work - we have a northern country.

              And one more consideration. Recently, there was a message that it was decided to drive through the repair and modernization with an extension of the IPC 1124 resource, which means that the problem of anti-submarine defense was still attended to. Corvettes did not arrive in time for now and now the old people will have to puff off. Our corvettes turned out to be expensive and not balanced enough in terms of armament. Attempts to re-equip led only to a rise in price and complexity of projects, delaying the deadlines ...
              It would be wiser to complete the already laid down and abandon the continuation of the series (from 20385 it has already happened) in favor of the construction of ASW frigates, which will cope with their duties much better, and for the near zone in the future to design a CHEAP MPK with a simplified air defense on "Pantsir -M ", without a helicopter (it is useless in the near zone, and it will not be able to launch it on a wave), rocket-torpedoes in inclined launchers (this is easier, cheaper and saves displacement), but with a GOOD HAK and high speed, on diesel engines.
              Well, yes, we have already talked about this.
              hi
              1. psiho117
                psiho117 11 December 2019 19: 06
                0
                Quote: bayard
                I apologize, I don’t know what your name is ?!

                Vitaliy.

                Add your name to the nickname (in the profile settings).
                Agree, in such discussions it is more convenient to contact by name hi
      6. Pushkowed
        Pushkowed 11 December 2019 15: 57
        0
        And they are located along the axis of the hull, and not along the sides, which, by the way, will add some survivability when taking a strike to the side, because in order to get to the power plant, it will be necessary to overcome the side compartments below the waterline, and this will weaken or dissipate the force of the impact / explosion.
        That's right, but not only this should be taken into account. With a two-shaft shock wave scheme (when hitting the side), to get to the GEM of the opposite side, it is necessary to overcome (in addition to the above) the GEM of the side in which the blow occurred. It obscures the more distant GEM. So alas, the single-shaft scheme does not add vitality.
        1. bayard
          bayard 11 December 2019 20: 02
          0
          Quote: Pushkowed
          With a two-shaft shock wave scheme (when hitting the side), to get to the GEM of the opposite side, it is necessary to overcome (in addition to the above) the GEM of the side in which the blow occurred. It obscures the more distant power plant. So alas, the single-shaft scheme does not add vitality.

          That is why I said that "to some extent will add vitality." It is easier to disable the power plant of the impact side than a single-shaft one, which has some structural protection. But if the single-shaft power plant is disabled, then the frigate still has a reserve propulsion unit and a source of energy for it - retractable steering columns. It was on them that "Stark" left the scene of the incident, and it is they - the columns that give the ship an additional chance not to remain motionless in case of damage / defeat of the power plant.
          1. Santa Fe
            11 December 2019 21: 13
            0
            Quote: bayard
            It was on them that "Stark" left the scene of the incident, and it is they - the columns that give the ship an additional chance not to remain motionless in case of damage / defeat of the power plant

            How does the cost of a ship of a two-shaft scheme (2 x 25) compare with a ship with a single-shaft GEM scheme (000x1 40) + extendable columns

            It seems that the savings are small. And the noise and talk - on two articles
            1. bayard
              bayard 11 December 2019 22: 56
              0
              Quote: Santa Fe

              How does the cost of a ship of a two-shaft scheme (2 x 25) compare with a ship with a single-shaft GEM scheme (000x1 40) + extendable columns

              So I already pointed out that a PLO frigate on a purely diesel engine (like Chinese) would be preferable, but problems with diesels (the ability to get them and reliability) make us look at other options to get such a ship with the same power plant as quickly as possible and will be produced in a large series, regardless of the possible order. It is half of the GEM from 22350M that can solve this problem and begin to build such ships in a timely manner.
              This is not a panacea, not the best option possible, it is the option that can be implemented regardless of whether diesel power plants appear necessary parameters or not. Indeed, no one is working on a similar power plant - on 4 diesel engines with a capacity of 40 - 000 l / s.
              It is so ?
              And if a decision is made, then when will they begin?
              And when will they receive the first, at least poster copy?
              And how much will they bring?
              And how much to test on an experienced \ head frigate?

              Numbers now, no one even will name.
              And there are no other two-shaft alternatives for the CHEAPER frigate PLO.
              Simply no .
              Therefore, a single-shaft power plant on the M-70FRU \ M-90FR turbocouple - half of the 22350M looks like not the best option of the desired, and not too economically preferable in comparison with a pure diesel power plant, but its advantage is that it WILL BE SIMPLE.
              It will be regardless of whether it is needed for this frigate PLO or not. It will be produced for the 22350M project. And this has already been decided.
              So here there is not only savings on the development of such a power plant (which is already quite a lot in terms of money and time), the actual price of such a power plant, savings in displacement (and cost savings in this - saved displacement), but also savings in terms of readiness for displacement bookmark. When practically NOTHING of what should be installed on a given ship does not have to be developed from scratch. And even a project that can be taken as a basis is the one that Vladimir Nemchinov proposed ... though in a slightly larger displacement, with a rearrangement for the placement of weapons and a hangar for two helicopters ...

              Although tell me that there is already a diesel power plant, which in a couple of years can be put on the ship ... I will give it preference.
  3. Santa Fe
    8 December 2019 07: 31
    +8
    Commentary preceding debates about weakness of Air Defense destroyers Spryuens

    The spruces corresponded according to the designation of our BOD, hence the designation DD - the place ddg in destroyers with long-range air defense systems (obviously, destroyer guided missile)

    The Yankees had enough air defense ships, they needed a destroyer for anti-submarine defense of battle groups. Large size, 33 knots, range 6000 miles / 20uz.

    To the standard anti-submarine set of frigates (2 helicopters, torpedoes), the destroyer carried a sonar station SLQ-53 (a drop in the photo) and the Asrok complex, which allowed firing missiles with a warhead in the form of nuclear weapons or homing torpedoes. And also a surprise in the form of 20% of reserved empty volumes and load articles



    Later, 60 tomahawks fit in these volumes (the UVP and Axes system had not yet been put into service when the Sprouts were built). Some of the destroyers did not receive UVP, but received sheltered deck installations MK.143 ALB with four axes in each (8)

    As for the air defense - they were inferior to our BOD 1155, only the near-air defense systems and the Falanks pair. In the 90s they received a second defensive air defense system, but this did not improve the situation. However, the customer was satisfied with such a large anti-submarine (universal?) Ship. Ticonderoges were massively built for air defense, due to the presence of Aegis almost twice as expensive

    From other serious weapons - artillery (2 ^ 127) and harpoons (8)

    Here they are, fleet workhorses (31 units). Of course, in their importance and combat capabilities, they were not comparable with frigates.
  4. svp67
    svp67 8 December 2019 07: 37
    +1
    If twenty years ago, the decommissioned "Perry" was a welcome gift for the US allies, but nowadays they are not even interesting for them.
    Why, the current Vlad in Kiev just dreams of them, there is already a whole sect of "perry-worshipers" headed by the commander of the Naval Forces of Ukraine
    Kiev is exploring the possibility of adopting two American frigates such as the Oliver Hazard Perry. This was announced on October 19 on the air of one of the Ukrainian television channels by the commander of the Navy of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Admiral Igor Voronchenko.
    “We received a proposal for the transfer of two units of frigates Oliver Perry, which were withdrawn from the US Navy in 2013 and 2015. We need them for the future. Now we are carefully considering all these proposals. We are studying how we will accept, in what condition, how much will it cost? Approximately $ 25 million is the annual operation of a similar frigate, taking into account salaries and crew training, ship repair. If you take into account world experience, then the cost of the ship itself is 30% of its entire operational path. 70-60% is maintenance, modernization and disposal, ”said Voronchenko.

    1. acrshooter
      acrshooter 8 December 2019 10: 16
      0
      I don't know about the sect, but I'm not surprised that they are "exploring the possibility."
      Especially considering the composition of what remains after the events in the Crimea in 2014 ...
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Ukrainian_Navy_ships
  5. Earthshaker
    Earthshaker 8 December 2019 08: 42
    +5
    Of course, it is better to be young and healthy than old and sick. ©
    But in a situation where surface ships of the 1st rank have not been built for the Navy for already 25 years, the mass construction of such frigates is better than the construction of a sea-river MPC.
    1. Santa Fe
      8 December 2019 09: 03
      +9
      We have two frigate designs 11356 and 22350
      In your opinion, is it right to dismantle weapons from them (how else to reduce the cost? Weapons and fire detection / control systems - 90% of the cost) ... why then such “frigates”, only for the sake of classification and size of the hull?

      The existing pace of construction of MRK-corvettes-frigates is an imitation of activity. Based on the known pace of putting ships into operation, no conclusions and forecasts can be made - they are meaningless. The fleet, in principle, is not built like that.

      The restoration of the fleet is a completely different level of leadership interest. And we will immediately see other rates and volumes (corresponding to what we observe at the leading sea powers). There is no place for defective ships, and naive hopes - at least something is better than nothing at all
      1. Avior
        Avior 8 December 2019 10: 25
        0
        If you build three ships of different series, then even the Americans will not be able to enter the pace.
      2. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 8 December 2019 21: 35
        0
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The restoration of the fleet is a completely different level of leadership interest.
        - ".. wonderful toast!" (as it was said in one of the Soviet films). If we wanted to, we would certainly create in parallel NPO Saturn, at least one more enterprise (with test benches) capable of manufacturing marine gas turbine engines and gearboxes for them. Indeed, on two types of turbines (M-70FRU and M-90FR), the modern shipbuilding of the Russian Federation will still "slip" (already due to the lack of a range of power options. We need analogs of 8000-10000 hp type M- 063 or DS-71; in 18000-19000 hp of the DK-59 type; and in 22000-23000 hp of the DT-59 type). We would develop the creation of promising diesel engines with 10000 hp, such as 16DS500, etc.
        Quote: Santa Fe
        There is no place for defective ships, and naive hopes - at least something is better than nothing at all
        and that is the right thought. The main thing is to spend the funds allocated to the Navy rationally (with maximum effect).
  6. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 8 December 2019 09: 24
    0
    Interestingly, judging by the number of controversial comments and objections to them by O. Kaptsov, the author agrees that he did not write the most successful article?
    1. Santa Fe
      8 December 2019 09: 40
      +1
      The author has a good mood, Sunday

      There is a desire to communicate on your favorite topic
      1. VladGTN
        VladGTN 7 January 2020 23: 02
        0
        Is the author’s resurrection right?
    2. Narak-zempo
      Narak-zempo 8 December 2019 09: 45
      +3
      I did not even recognize the author on the move. Too restrained and solidly written.
      1. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 8 December 2019 20: 42
        0
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        I did not even recognize the author on the move. Too restrained and solidly written.
        I admit me too. Usually four paragraphs are duplicated, swapping sentences, but not changing the essence ... And here, in general, a meaningful article! And then again -
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The author has a good mood, Sunday.
        There is a desire to communicate on your favorite topic
        . And I take off my hat. Oleg, you are a plus. In my eyes today, you almost surpassed yourself for the first time !! A reasoned outlook on things. Yes, even if the arguments are quite controversial, but this is precisely the author’s reasoned view of things, and already this, in any case, is worthy of respect in my eyes !!
        Quote: Santa Fe
        We have two frigate designs 11356 and 22350
        No, alas, so far only one - 22350, and as in my opinion it is not bad at all. It is they who still look like the best contenders for the construction of a large series, as ships (the main unit) of the formation of the KPUG (in the 22350+ version, i.e. with 24 UVP) !!! 11356 R / M, and I (like Kaptsov, probably) would like to see a continuation, but in its original form (from the old power plant), alas, this is not possible. Personally, I would very much welcome an attempt to give a second life to the Petrel, trying to try on them a promising power plant with partial electric propulsion, which I plan for project 20386. But since this does not happen ... Just them (11356R / M), and could replace the ships built (by analogy with the single-shaft GEM scheme, according to the cost / efficiency criteria, in terms of rational spending of funds allocated for the renewal (revival) of the Navy. One of these "hypothetical" projects, during the condemnation of the previous article A .Timokhina, joint efforts, with uv. Interlocutor bayard (unfortunately, I do not know his name), we discussed quite actively. And in condemning this article, he justly rightly remarked, -
        Quote: bayard
        The frigate I propose is possible to consider if the 22350 series is limited to only 8 pennants ...
        and then I would say - "God forbid" ...
        Quote: bayard
        ... the question of PLO frigates, which are needed in commodity quantities and at a reasonable price, rises to its full height.
        . Which in my opinion sounds absolutely true.
        Quote: bayard
        Here, in this case, in order to unify with the 22350M destroyer being manufactured and to reduce the cost of the project to the maximum, I proposed this concept of a single-shaft PLO frigate in half of a power plant from 22350M.
        This point of view, I also support. This is both an additional practice on the way of mastering a new gas turbine power plant, and a way to reduce the cost in the construction process (both destroyer-like 22350M and inexpensive escort escort frigates, which, in terms of a power plant, would use half of this promising power plant M-7A, consisting of cruise turbines M-70 FRU, and afterburner M-90 FR, with the same gearbox for the "line of one shaft"). For the industry, this was a plus!
        Quote: bayard
        .... It was not a proposal to redesign 22350, but an attempt to propose the concept of a cheap PLO frigate with a displacement of 4 - 000 tons with weapon sets close to 4 (500 CD in the UVP), two helicopters and a GAC ​​from "Gorshkov".
        moreover, VI would probably be even smaller, by analogy with the project "Thunder" 12441. And first of all, it is dictated by the need, most rational use of funds allocated to shipbuilding programs, in the process, updating the ship's naval staff.
    3. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 8 December 2019 10: 24
      +3
      Normal article, good critical analysis of the opponent article.
      "Even the smallest destroyers of that time, with a displacement of about 2000 tons, were equipped with a two-shaft power plant." Due to their small size, this did little to help the ships even in the case of shells hitting the MCO, although it made it possible to repair the car without losing speed, but in non-combat conditions. If even a typical 100 kg bomb hit, and even more so a torpedo, the separation of the MCO did not help either. A striking example is the destroyers 7 pr. And 7u pr. Rather, the reason for twin-shaft installations, in my opinion, is in the limitations of the propeller sizes, both for technological reasons and propulsive (I apologize for the term) capabilities.
      1. Santa Fe
        8 December 2019 11: 03
        +3
        Vladimir, you are absolutely right about the transfer of large power to one propeller shaft. Perry, like all Amer frigates, had a lower speed than its size analogs. Power Geu 40 thousand. hp, probably a reasonable limit for a single-shaft scheme

        Example destroyers pr. 7 - unsuccessful. Yet Perry, the ship is twice as large. And with its dimensions, it already makes sense to talk about resistance to ammunition is not the greatest power. An analogue of the mentioned bomb is 100 kg. Duplication of mechanisms could allow maintaining mobility, energy supply and partial combat efficiency. Another thing - it was nobody needed, Perry is an auxiliary unit and it is a pity to spend an extra cent on it
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 8 December 2019 11: 40
          +1
          Quote: Santa Fe
          Example destroyers pr. 7 - unsuccessful. Yet Perry, the ship is twice as large

          Rather, my comparison of these ships is unsuccessful. )))
      2. Fizik M
        Fizik M 9 December 2019 18: 13
        -6
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        Normal article, good critical analysis of the opponent article.

        incompetent article nonsense
        Quote: Vladimir_2U
        "Even the smallest destroyers of that time, with a displacement of about 2000 tons, were equipped with a two-shaft power plant."

        Mr. Kaptsov "modestly forgot" about the same "Flowers"
        apparently "coupons for google ended" lol
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 9 December 2019 18: 21
          0
          Since the answer to my comment, then I answer:
          Quote: Fizik M
          "Even the smallest destroyers of that time, with a displacement of about 2000 tons, were equipped with a two-shaft power plant."

          Mr. Kaptsov "modestly forgot" about the same "Flowers"
          apparently "coupons for google ended"

          You modestly did not mention that "Flower" is CORVETTE, with a displacement of about one thousand tons. So your sketch is that:
          Quote: Fizik M
          incompetent article nonsense

          minimum is incorrect.
          1. Fizik M
            Fizik M 11 December 2019 17: 49
            -4
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            You modestly did not mention that "Flower" is CORVETTE, with a displacement of about one thousand tons. So your sketch

            Monsieur, DROPS - according to YOUR part
            а Peri is an instrument of the end of the XNUMXth century for solving practically the same problems as the Flowers in the middle of this century
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 11 December 2019 18: 15
              -1
              Why should you, jabaliero, stick into someone else's dialogue with outright stupidity and provocative expressions, this is a true sketch and you have brilliantly succeeded. It's a pity you forgot to wear "Hurricane" type patrolmen, but what, this is also
              Quote: Fizik M
              like the flowers in the middle of this century
              , and with their displacement of 600 tons, it would have been a "blow of mercy" for me, for Oleg, or for elementary logic.
              1. Fizik M
                Fizik M 12 December 2019 20: 38
                -4
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                It's a pity you forgot to wear hurricane-type patrol boats,

                Enough for you and

                lol
          2. Fizik M
            Fizik M 12 December 2019 20: 37
            0
            Quote: Vladimir_2U

            You modestly did not mention that "Flower" is CORVETTE, with a displacement of about one thousand tons.

            apparently for you frigates are still this:
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 13 December 2019 04: 39
              0
              Ingenious! Get into our publishing house! You will be a brilliant artist. Only under supervision, of course.
              1. Fizik M
                Fizik M 13 December 2019 09: 52
                0
                Quote: Vladimir_2U
                Get into our publishing house!

                "Murzilka"?
                lol
                1. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 13 December 2019 09: 54
                  -1
                  In your case, "A spiteful, inadequate (very mild version of my opinion about you) Murzilka."
                  1. Fizik M
                    Fizik M 13 December 2019 10: 01
                    -1
                    Quote: Vladimir_2U
                    In your case, "Spiteful

                    Little Johnny!
                    1. You - is written with a capital letter.
                    2. My "murzilkas" were "Instructions for operating a nuclear submarine", "Guides" for the combat use of radio electronic means of submarines, Instructions for use of MGK-540 "Skat-3", etc.
                    3. I am a Squadman, both by education and by education laughing , moreover, SUCCESSFUL antisubmarine
                    4. Little Vovochka, you have been waiting for ducks in your dianna lol
                    1. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 13 December 2019 10: 06
                      -1
                      You, Maxim, granddaughters did not wait?
                      Quote: Fizik M
                      moreover, SUCCESSFUL antisubmarine
                      Wow, how many drowned on your account? Not on the Torpedo Fight slot, of course.
                      1. Fizik M
                        Fizik M 13 December 2019 10: 16
                        0
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        on the "Torpedo Battle" slot machine

                        Yeah laughing
                        stood such in a recreation area belay - pranksters from "Rubin" put angry
                        photos, murzilka, you will find it yourself, they are online
                      2. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 13 December 2019 10: 25
                        -1
                        Probably smeared all the time, huh? Confess, I won’t laugh, chesslovo!
                      3. Fizik M
                        Fizik M 13 December 2019 10: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        probably smeared all the time, huh?

                        count as you want lol
                        on the "opinions" of "murzilok" like you, I do not care deeply laughing
                      4. Vladimir_2U
                        Vladimir_2U 13 December 2019 10: 45
                        0
                        He was shy, but oh well. I am not your doctor either.
                      5. Fizik M
                        Fizik M 13 December 2019 10: 51
                        -3
                        Quote: Vladimir_2U
                        He was shy, but oh well.

                        lol
                        Little Johnny, you (and your murders) only ducks in the bedroom will be shy laughing
        2. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 9 December 2019 18: 25
          +1
          There is a clear personal hostility, here I'm both not a doctor!
          1. Fizik M
            Fizik M 11 December 2019 17: 52
            -5
            Quote: Vladimir_2U
            There is a clear personal hostility

            YOUR
            but as for the discussion of opus - there is absolute incompetence and bias of the author
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 11 December 2019 18: 19
              -1
              Yours, exclusively yours, because until now I haven’t talked with O. Kaptsov at all, and I only found out about you after your devilish attack.
            2. VladGTN
              VladGTN 7 January 2020 23: 20
              0
              Dear Physicist M. You, of course, are a very competent specialist. Educated, with military experience, the author of many articles on this site and, probably, on many others. Maybe you have some military rewards! I respect your sharp and, possibly, justified position on the state of torpedo weapons in the Russian Federation. Maybe everything is really so bad, I'm not an expert. But your constant rudeness is not pleasant to read. It doesn’t matter if it is typed in italics, capsloc or whatever. Have you tried to answer the questions your opponents ask you? Not to get personal, but to reasonably answer them? I (not a sailor and not a professional military man) really like the articles of clever authors such as you, but I’m not interested in reading how you fight with your opponents.
    4. Fizik M
      Fizik M 9 December 2019 18: 12
      -5
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Interestingly, judging by the number of controversial comments and objections to them by O. Kaptsov, the author agrees that he did not write the most successful article?

      the most important question is "not the most successful", or "one of the series biased"...
  7. Narak-zempo
    Narak-zempo 8 December 2019 09: 40
    0
    It is interesting how the experience of using single-shaft ships during the WWII was analyzed if the main-class warships with a single-shaft GEM simply did not exist.

    MB meant mobilized trawlers? laughing
    1. Santa Fe
      8 December 2019 09: 52
      +1
      Neither in size nor in design matched specialized warships.

      What can give an analysis of their combat survivability. In addition to the most obvious conclusions: any means of destruction of the smallest power could pose a mortal danger to the bottom
    2. Alt-right
      Alt-right 8 December 2019 17: 18
      0
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      MB meant mobilized trawlers?

      Here you can act "by contradiction" if it turns out that a two-shaft scheme, in the context of a similar pasudina, gives more gain to cost than to survivability.
      After all, it was originally intended to be a value-for-money approach, wasn't it? wassat
    3. Fizik M
      Fizik M 9 December 2019 18: 14
      0
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      MB meant mobilized trawlers?

      see Flower-class corvettes
      1. Santa Fe
        9 December 2019 21: 25
        0
        1000 tons, what vitality is there to talk

        Especially in relation to frigates 4200 tons
  8. Santa Fe
    8 December 2019 10: 07
    0
    Why they say about the "non-standard deployment of weapons" at frigate Perry

    What is non-standard in it?

    Missile launcher - available, installed on the deck, not in the casemate))) as on any warship of that era

    Helicopter in the aft. In this sense, Knox, Spruance or domestic 956 is even more interesting - they have a helipad closer to the middle of the hull, where pitching is less felt

    The phalanx above the helicopter hangar is simply not surprising. It is much more surprising that in the era of the popularity of such systems, Perry was limited to only one

    The stern cannon - see the Soviet Petrel (1135, NATO designation - Krivak-class) - it has as many as two installations centered on the stern, there is no artillery weapon in the bow, another example is the Belknap missile cruiser



    What is the "unusual" Perry ??
  9. Avior
    Avior 8 December 2019 10: 23
    +10
    The previous author did not seem to offer the obsolete Perry to build
    He proposed building a relatively inexpensive frigate in a fairly large series, taking advantage of the experience of the Americans
    With UVP, it's even easier than the Perry Americans
    If you do not change the composition of weapons and equipment from case to case and do not try to put on it all the weapons that representatives of manufacturers could break through
    1. Santa Fe
      8 December 2019 10: 47
      +4
      If you do not change the composition of weapons and equipment from case to case and do not try to put on it all the weapons that representatives of manufacturers could break through

      What ship are you writing about?
      Domestic 11356 and 22350 have no such problem

      A standard set of weapons for a modern warship of this size and purpose, the problem is that the ships are not going to produce any decent amounts
      1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
        Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 8 December 2019 11: 25
        +6
        Quote: Santa Fe
        the problem is - ships are not going to release in any decent amounts

        22350 cannot be built in large quantities due to power plants. But at the same time, almost all 22350 systems have been mastered by industry, and soon the problem with power plants will be finally solved. The frigate 11356 of the modernized project of the 1970s with Ukrainian turbines, obsolete air defense, anti-aircraft defense, with a small amount of strike weapons could be mass-produced before the events in Crimea in 2014. Now you can forget about him, but the famous "strong hind mind" of the Russian person (especially all these groans about "could", ".. but it was necessary", "money wasted 3-4-5 years ago", " if I were a sultan "etc., etc.) is already annoying.
        1. Fizik M
          Fizik M 9 December 2019 18: 17
          0
          Quote: Aristarkh Ludwigovich
          22350 cannot be mass-built because of power plants.

          can
          it is enough to transfer the "Zvezda Reducer" to the UEC
          and all problems will be resolved in a year (real)
          1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
            Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 9 December 2019 18: 31
            0
            I agree, the question is how to do this.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 8 December 2019 12: 22
        +4
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Domestic 11356 and 22350 have no such problem

        Come on. smile
        There was already a message that 5 and 6 FR pr.22350 will be different from previous ships of the series:
        On April 23, 2019, in St. Petersburg, at the Severnaya Verf Shipbuilding Plant PJSC, in the presence of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, a ceremony was held for simultaneously laying down for the Russian Navy two frigates of Project 22350 at once, which were named Admiral Amelko (serial number 925) and " Admiral Chichagov ”(serial number 926).
        These ships became the fifth and sixth frigates of Project 22350, their delivery is planned, respectively, in 2024 and 2025. It is reported that these two ships will differ slightly from the first four frigates of Project 2250 - in particular, they will receive "enhanced strike weapons in the form of 24 vertical launchers of the UKSK complex instead of 16 on the first four ships.
        © bmpd
        1. Nemchinov Vl
          Nemchinov Vl 8 December 2019 20: 55
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          There was already a message that 5 and 6 FR pr.22350 will be different from previous ships of the series:
          I see nothing wrong with that.
      3. Avior
        Avior 8 December 2019 16: 19
        +1
        I'm not about a specific ship, in the approach
        The indicated projects are actually single
        And there will be few until the campaign changes
      4. Nemchinov Vl
        Nemchinov Vl 8 December 2019 20: 53
        0
        Quote: Santa Fe
        the problem is - ships are not going to release in any decent amounts
        and in 11356, this is due to the absence of a power plant, and in 22350/22350 +, with the speed of creating gearboxes for a power plant by the Zvezda-Reductor enterprise. It is there that today it would be necessary to strengthen both financing and control over its expenditure, in order to increase the speed of creating PO55R reducers for the power plant of these ships.
    2. Fizik M
      Fizik M 9 December 2019 18: 16
      0
      Quote: Avior
      The previous author did not seem to offer the obsolete Perry to build
      He proposed building a relatively inexpensive frigate in a fairly large series, taking advantage of the experience of the Americans

      exactly!!!
      moreover, this absolutely true thesis of Timokhin, Mr. Kaptsov, to put it mildly, deliberately misinterpreted angry
  10. faterdom
    faterdom 8 December 2019 12: 10
    -2
    The Americans are so rich that they could afford to mess up in whole classes of weapons.
    But not so much that it lasts forever - every mistake is more expensive!
    Therefore, when everyone finally learns that the "Stealth" clothes of the "king" F-35 are just a word, and not clothes at all - this will be ... the penultimate straw, I hope.
    As the last, we gave them tasks almost unsolvable - to repeat hypersonic guided weapons, and learn to defend themselves from them. And they still have to endlessly repair their aircraft carriers, think for their air wings and so on ....
    Europe should pay 2% for this disgrace .... no - 4%? Or maybe better - 6% of GDP, or 7%? Well, well ... How many Mongol-Tatar yoke took there? Tithing? At the same time, it did not indicate how and with whom to sleep and to whom to pray.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 8 December 2019 13: 35
      +2
      The US has a military budget of 4% of GDP.
      China - 3%
      Russia - 5%
      Israel - 6%
      These are examples.
      4% load is considered reasonable.
      1. Golovan Jack
        Golovan Jack 8 December 2019 13: 39
        -4
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Russia - 5%
        Israel - 6%
        ...
        4% load is considered reasonable

        This (stopudas) because

        Quote: voyaka uh
        The US has a military budget of 4% of GDP

        If the US has 10% - the figure of "reasonable" will change accordingly. IMHO.

        PS: Russia and Israel - by this criterion - "unreasonable"? Funny laughing
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 8 December 2019 13: 56
          +1
          4% were not born due to the United States.
          "Unreasonable" - I put it inaccurately.
          "Forced Overloaded" - Better?
          The military budget above 4% of GDP is considered an increased burden on the economy, inhibiting the development of the country.
          1. Golovan Jack
            Golovan Jack 8 December 2019 13: 57
            -5
            Quote: voyaka uh
            "Unreasonable" - I put it inaccurately.

            Yes, all the rules, I get it. The terminology just amused, and the Russian Federation and Israel are "in the same ranks."
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh 8 December 2019 13: 58
              +2
              Have to strain drinks
  11. smaug78
    smaug78 8 December 2019 12: 16
    +1
    Again in the circus arena Oleg Popov-Kaptsov ...
  12. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 8 December 2019 12: 16
    +4
    It is interesting how the experience of using single-shaft ships during the WWII was analyzed if the main-class warships with a single-shaft GEM simply did not exist.

    Hmm ... AVE are not classified as ships of the main classes? And then the Yankees and Limes had a whole crowd of single-shaft "Bogs". And they had enough combat damage.
    1. Santa Fe
      8 December 2019 19: 46
      0
      Escort aircraft carriers - impromptu from a cargo ship

      With a displacement of 17 tons, Baugh was obliged to withstand certain damage and maintain unsinkability, purely because of its large size

      Specialized ships of this size did not have a single-shaft power plant. Because such dimensions make it possible to withstand severe damage, the main thing is to disperse and duplicate the mechanisms

      Plus, the effect of the power plant scheme on speed
  13. faterdom
    faterdom 8 December 2019 13: 57
    -4
    Quote: voyaka uh
    The US has a military budget of 4% of GDP.
    China - 3%
    Russia - 5%
    Israel - 6%
    These are examples.
    4% load is considered reasonable.

    You did not understand me a little - YOUR military budget is a matter of taste. But the USA is demanding from others the payment of OUR expenses! And this is called differently. We have - protection, in English-speaking countries = racket.
    1. Avior
      Avior 8 December 2019 16: 21
      +2
      No, they require expenses on their budgets
  14. Good_Anonymous
    Good_Anonymous 8 December 2019 14: 42
    +1
    There are a great many cases of combat damage to the propeller on one shaft or destruction of engine rooms on one side. At the same time, the ships retained the opportunity to give way. An example is the second trip to Theodosia of the cruiser "Red Caucasus".


    An example is not statistics.
    1. Alt-right
      Alt-right 8 December 2019 19: 28
      0
      Quote: Good_Anonymous
      An example is not statistics.

      Not only is this not a statistic, it's also a disproportionate example!)
      Where is the cruiser, and where is the frigate! laughing
  15. Alien From
    Alien From 8 December 2019 14: 52
    +2
    Found a scythe on a stone! Timokhin / Kaptsov) thanks to both, I am interested in both articles and comments! Indeed, truth is born in a dispute ....!
    1. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 8 December 2019 20: 59
      +1
      Quote: Alien From
      Indeed, truth is born in a dispute ....!
      not always, unfortunately ... sometimes dies ...
    2. Fizik M
      Fizik M 9 December 2019 18: 18
      0
      Quote: Alien From
      Timokhin / Kaptsov) thanks to both, I am interested in both articles and comments! Indeed, truth is born in a dispute ....!

      to begin with, Mr. Kapov should have at least a little "study the materiel" lol
  16. xomaNN
    xomaNN 8 December 2019 15: 05
    +3
    The fact of a dispute between Kaptsov and Timokhin is interesting. belay In the comments, colleagues have a good opportunity to assess different facets of the development prospects of our Navy. If only the profty in the Main Command of the Russian Navy would filter out the "rational grain" from such articles. It is often useful when the right decision is more visible from the outside winked
    1. Fizik M
      Fizik M 9 December 2019 18: 19
      0
      Quote: xomaNN
      The fact of a dispute between Kaptsov and Timokhin is interesting.

      there is no dispute
      Kapotsov has an absolutely incompetent "set of letters", and what is more, a deliberate misrepresentation of Timokhin's key theses
  17. grumbler
    grumbler 8 December 2019 16: 15
    +4
    Many thanks to the authors of both articles, they are very interesting and perfectly complement each other.
    Even criticizing the first article (https://topwar.ru/print:page,1,165313-fregat-perri-kak-urok-dlja-rossii-sproektirovannyj-mashinoj-massovyj-i-deshevyj.html)
    here the author acknowledges:
    The forced compromises in its design did not come as a surprise to the customer.

    и
    The customer received exactly the frigate that the Navy needed: an auxiliary unit of the second or even third rank, which was a pity to spend an extra cent.

    It seems to me that this in itself is a great achievement for analysts and designers.
    After all, both in our country and abroad, there are very frequent cases when the military-industrial complex "vparivatsya", excuse the expression, what can / wants, and not what the customer wants.

    For me, the main message of the first article is not "praising" the outstanding combat qualities of these compromise ships in all respects, but an overview systems engineering, "architectural" approaches, which made it possible to achieve this compromise. Someone defined the Art of Engineering itself as a compromise between the desired and the possible. Here it is. Recently, in my comments, I constantly refer to experience and achievements Systems Engineering (Systems Engineering, "systems engineering"),
    which combines all stages of creating a system: from requirements collection, design and construction, testing, to commissioning, long-term maintenance of operational activities (including repair and modernization) and up to decommissioning.

    Without directly referring to System Engineering, the author of the first article, in fact, calls for the use of these approaches. It was in the 60-70s. Over the years, Systems Engineering began to crystallize as an approach that allows the upbringing of general designers to be put on stream.

    Exactly as in medicine, especially in surgery, field surgery, where such principles as "diagnostics", "sorting", "specialization", "carousel", "unification" and with the constant improvement of widely available (!) Diagnostic tools, anesthesia, operations, disinfection and antibiotics, etc., made it possible to radically improve the provision of care, both in quality and in quantity - those operations that previously could only be performed by "surgeons-artists" have now become ordinary operations. A systematic approach to providing assistance at all stages (from patient evacuation to post-operative rehabilitation) significantly reduces the risk of complications. From the point of view of Systems Engineering, this is so reminiscent of the design and operation stages of Large Systems, be it ships, nuclear power plants or transport systems.

    In Russia, under the auspices of Rosatom, VNIIAES, the Russian Institute for System Engineering operates, publishes training manuals and translates the best foreign textbooks, for example:
    - A. Kosyakov, U. N. Sweet, S. J. Seymour, S. M. Beamer "Systems Engineering. Principles and Practice", DMK, 2017
    - E. Hull, L. Jackson, J. Dick "Requirements Engineering", DMK, 2017
    - G. "Bad" Lawson "A Journey Through the System Landscape", DMK, 2016

    Also very interesting is the approach to formalize the solution of inventive problems within TRIZ methodology (Theory of inventive problem solving), developed in the USSR by G. Altshuller and his colleagues, based on the study of the analysis of the patent base. It allows you to systematize the approach to solving engineering problems, to narrow the direction of the search (based on the so-called "matrix of contradictions") and to indicate when to resort to non-standard solutions. Which can reduce the time to find solutions and improve their quality.
    In my opinion, a huge advantage of the TRIZ methodology is that the approach from the "matrix of contradictions" is perfectly automated (especially in combination with data mining, machine learning, genetic algorithms).
  18. faterdom
    faterdom 8 December 2019 17: 58
    -2
    Quote: Avior
    No, they require expenses on their budgets

    Including in them the content of American military bases. Okinawa residents are thirsty.
  19. Operator
    Operator 8 December 2019 18: 57
    -2
    Quote: bayard
    See what the weather is like most of the year in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk ... in the Barents Sea ... and imagine how much time he will have to hang out there, covering the combat deployment area of ​​our nuclear submarines ... and how much it will be useful there in fresh weather

    Maybe it is worth replacing anti-submarine NK in these seas with systems of hydroacoustic (coastal) and magnetometric (aviation) submarines, which do not depend on the degree of freshness of the weather and the state of the ice cover?

    As a result, we get 100% protected areas of the SSBNs for less money without any domestic analogues of Perry, LCS and other littoral misunderstandings.

    And seaworthy four-thousand-strong frigates will be useful to the Russian Navy for escorting vessels supporting the expeditionary forces of the Russian Federation in Syria, Libya, the CAR - in peacetime, of course, since in TMV naval convoys will have nowhere to go and nowhere to go.
  20. Ehanatone
    Ehanatone 8 December 2019 21: 55
    +1
    The most dangerous vessels for Russia such as Sahekzadovna, Siluanovff, and the terrible Medvedoff are absolutely irresistible - and their production costs FSA completely in mere pennies, that is, cents ...
    1. Valdaev
      Valdaev 10 December 2019 14: 18
      0
      The most dangerous vessels for Russia such as Sahekzadovna, Siluanovff, and the terrible Medvedoff are absolutely irresistible - and their production costs FSA completely in mere pennies, that is, cents ...


      If you think so, then tell me who appointed them. There is such a person, do you know him?
  21. Scaffold
    Scaffold 8 December 2019 23: 11
    +2
    Oleg, you would read the article that you criticize. She's talking about something else. wassat
    1. Fizik M
      Fizik M 9 December 2019 18: 20
      0
      Quote: Scaffold
      Oleg, you would read the article that you criticize. She's talking about something else.

      Exactly!!!
  22. Kostya Lavinyukov
    Kostya Lavinyukov 8 December 2019 23: 35
    0
    Why is it needed without rockets? And why can not you put 2 standard blocks of 4 harpoons?
  23. Fizik M
    Fizik M 9 December 2019 18: 06
    -1
    Absolutely incompetent article.
    G. Kaptsov simply does not understand anything in the tactics and use of military means, and even more sadly, he does not seek to correct this ignorance:
    1. "Peri" is primarily an anti-submarine. For an effective PLO, it was necessary to be able to create an effective, and therefore DISTRIBUTED system from carriers of GAS (especially GPBA) and ensure their close interaction with aviation (including deck helicopters). There was a mistake with the PLRK, but it was due to the fact that in the 70s the Americans were counting on "remote" combat with submarines, primarily by helicopters, according to the GPBA (while the "Peri" had a large ammunition load of torpedoes for verts and TA)
    2. The main enemy of the Atlantic convoys is our MPA and DA, respectively. PU Mk13 with "long-range" missiles
    3. Single-shaft ships in the Navy were quite used, and in large quantities - the same "Flowers"
    4. The reference to "Spruence" is generally ridiculous, because it actually repeated the APPROACHES (the concept was already different) "Peri"
    5. The main thing that Mr. Kaptsov does not see point blank - in the USA, a ship is an ELEMENT OF A SYSTEM (interspecific grouping on a theater of operations). Unlike ...
    1. Santa Fe
      9 December 2019 21: 21
      0
      Quote: Fizik M
      "Peri" is primarily an anti-submarine. For effective PLO it was necessary to have

      normal sonar station and anti-submarine weapons (Asrok), which Perry did not have spawn.
      Quote: Fizik M
      The main adversary of the Atlantic convoys - our MRA and YES

      where do they come from over the ocean during the war
      Quote: Fizik M
      Single-shaft ships in the Navy were quite used, and in large quantities - the same "Flowers"

      having a total displacement of 1000 tons

      (when we talk about ships of 4000 tons, we are not going to seriously analyze the survivability of RTOs and communication boats?)
      Quote: Fizik M
      The link to "Spruence" is generally ridiculous, because in fact repeated APPROACHES (the concept was already different) "Perry"

      The Spryuans project is actually 5 years older
      Quote: Fizik M
      The main thing is that Mr. Kaptsov does not see him point-blank - in the USA the ship is an SYSTEM ELEMENT (interspecific grouping on a theater).

      Mr. Kaptsov just saw it. Peri's existence without cruisers and destroyers made little sense

      The navy, first of all, needs full-fledged rank 1 ships, and not learn to build an unarmed frigate, inferior to all ships of the "potential enemy". Frigate "Perry" - a lesson for Russia))))
      1. Fizik M
        Fizik M 11 December 2019 17: 59
        -2
        Quote: Santa Fe
        normal sonar station and anti-submarine weapons (Asrok), which Perry did not have spawn.

        Peri GPBA and LEMPS
        undergrowth GAS - purely auxiliary
        Quote: Santa Fe
        where do they come from over the ocean during the war

        from our airfields
        Quote: Santa Fe
        having a total displacement of 1000 tons

        solving problems in WWII close to Peri at the end of XX century
        Quote: Santa Fe
        The Spryuans project is actually 5 years older

        yes don't care
        approaches that are close to Peri, that to the Sprouts
        I laid out details in very good articles of the 80s in "Shipbuilding Abroad" on "courage"
        Quote: Santa Fe
        Mr. Kaptsov just saw it. Peri's existence without cruisers and destroyers made little sense

        what did i see?
        AGAIN
        for an effective search for submarines, a DISTRIBUTED SYSTEM OF SENSORS is needed, acc. "units" - their carriers
        further - the question of the price tag of these "units"
        dough for cruisers and destroyers stupidly NOT ENOUGH (for an efficient distributed system)
        therefore - frigates
        What is incomprehensible here? (however, Mr. Kaptsov is not only not clear, but obviously did not want to understand)

        Quote: Santa Fe
        The Navy primarily needs full-fledged ships of the 1st rank,

        fool
        the navy is not even stupidly out of the bases, but they use "missile battleships" wassat
        I’m not talking about the state with air cover in the far zone crying
        1. Santa Fe
          11 December 2019 21: 45
          0
          Quote: Fizik M
          Peri GPBA and LEMPS
          undergrowth GAS - purely auxiliary

          His problems

          The operation of helicopters is prohibited for waves of more than 5 points, the main search method is GAS, and anti-submarine weapons are missile torpedoes.
          Perry's sonar station was inferior to the GAS of Spruance or Knox.
          ASROK he never had
          Quote: Fizik M
          from our airfields

          From our airfields DA and MRA to the Atlantic can not be reached

          If only NATO ceases to use fighter aircraft ...
          approaches that are close to Peri, that to the Sprouts

          What are they close to
          Sprouts is a first-ranking unit built for growth

          No single-shaft power plants and strict restrictions on displacement, on the contrary 20% - reserved empty volumes
          Quote: Fizik M
          dough for cruisers and destroyers stupidly NOT ENOUGH (for an efficient distributed system)

          There are enough americans
          Quote: Fizik M
          to effectively search for submarines need

          The tasks of the fleet are not limited to the search for submarines

          The Russian Federation cannot afford to build frigates without weapons (only with an anti-submarine helicopter). We have no time for fat. This is a dump of money

          The Russian Navy lacks ships in the far sea zone. And their tasks - mean universal ships the size of Perry or slightly larger, the designation of the frigate / destroyer URO - does not matter. According to modern ideas and significance - these are ships of the 1st rank
          And not one of the ideas used to create Perry with t.z. our fleet does not make sense
          1. Fizik M
            Fizik M 12 December 2019 20: 41
            0
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The operation of helicopters is prohibited for waves of more than 5 points, the main search method is GAS, and anti-submarine weapons are missile torpedoes.

            YOU are not in the subject
            Quote: Santa Fe
            From our airfields DA and MRA to the Atlantic can not be reached

            it crying I won’t even comment ...
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The Russian Federation cannot afford to build frigates without weapons (only with an anti-submarine helicopter). We have no time for fat. This is a dump of money

            understandable - i.e. you, like Kaptsov, have a "submission of thesis" ...
            Quote: Santa Fe
            And not one of the ideas used to create Perry with t.z. our fleet does not make sense

            trampoline do not tear
            especially when in the bathroom (with ducks) you will "organize an anti-submarine search" lol
  24. aleksandaravin
    aleksandaravin 13 December 2019 15: 34
    0
    Let me just say about this Korap! Sold out with Everyone from Mexico to Poland, from Egypt to Australia! Recycling Software!
  25. kig
    kig 16 December 2019 07: 15
    0
    This one from the passage of a respected author
    And will there be any benefit from a ship designed with an eye on a foreign frigate from a past era?
    not entirely clear. It seems that the respected author believes that Timokhin's article explicitly calls for the construction of ships similar to the Perry in everything, while the approach to solving the problem is only considered.
  26. mik193
    mik193 29 December 2019 20: 27
    0
    Here you do not twist - the ship is shit, etc. - now such a monster would be useful only for us! A good anti-submarine fighter with good seaworthiness and not with the worst horseradish air defense system is normal. It’s natural to refine on modern technologies and operating experience - generally a song.
  27. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 1 March 2020 13: 34
    0
    Less pathetics ... The main task of this ship was the anti-submarine defense of convoys.
    Requirements: 1. Two helicopter PLO.
    2. Zonal air defense as part of a convoy.
    They poorly poorly solved these problems, what else is needed.