Step in the right direction. Multipurpose Karakurt Project (PLO)

Step in the right direction. Multipurpose Karakurt Project (PLO)
Here it is, "Big Karakurt"


December 24, 2019 was held enlarged meeting of the board of the Ministry of Defense with the participation of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin.

On this occasion, "Russia 24" made short report, during which "lit up" the project, which previously was not worth talking out loud. But now they say.


The same frame

We are talking about a multi-purpose corvette based on the 22800 Karakurt project - in fact, an enlarged Karakurt in size with enhanced air defense and the ability to fight against submarines. About how this ship was supposed to be from the very beginning.

A little background.

RTOs, submarines and common sense


Since 2006, when the "life-giving impulse", plunged by the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and naval to the commanders from the side of V.V. Putin, led to the appearance in the fleet of cruise missiles "Caliber", the Navy acquired their carriers in the most irrational way possible - by building specialized "missile gunboats" such as "Buyan-M", with non-localized imported diesels, lack of target designation system and "no" seaworthiness. These ships could somehow accomplish a very narrow range of tasks, but only one task is good - to strike cruise missiles at stationary (ground-based mostly) targets. In the war against an enemy with a combat-capable fleet, their survival was and remains a huge question - neither the attack of the submarine, even the most antediluvian, nor an air strike, even from a helicopter, these ships can survive.

Their first combat use was, in a sense, a surprise, but the defectiveness of such ships was always clear to experts - cruise missiles could well be on some multi-purpose ships capable of performing a wide range of tasks, moreover, Russia then had such ships now, just a little. An example is project 20385 corvettes (2 units), project 11356 frigates (3 units), project 6363 Varshavyanka submarines (7 units, 5 under construction) and project 22350 frigates (2 units, 4 under construction).

Alas, Gentschub’s requirement to have “specialized missile ships” of the Navy and industry continued to be fulfilled due to the mass construction of frankly miserable RTOs, the only plus of which was very good habitability - if there was a war, their crews would go to the bottom, having huge and comfortable “bulkheads” cabins and cockpits.

At the same time, this “holiday of life” was brewing a serious “hole” in the country's defense, associated with the outage of old anti-submarine ships of Project 1124 and 1124M Albatros. These ships were and still remain necessary to cover the deployment of our submarines and to prevent their execution by the enemy at the stage of leaving the bases.

I must say that this threat is real. Only very recently, the US Navy began to reduce its presence in the Avacha Gulf, ceasing to provide continuous presence of a hunter submarine there at any time. True, from April 2018, the Japanese took up the shift and now they are on duty there.

For many years in the north, the exit of our “strategists” from the bases was controlled by Norwegian diesel submarines of the “Ula” type. They were found extremely rarely and accidentally, then they always lost, it did not work to establish any long-term tracking or to find the places where they charged the Navy.

Today they are not on duty there, but the upcoming renewal of the Norwegian submarine starting in 2020 will make such operations very easy, and taking into account the wild anti-Russian hysteria in the West, it is also desirable for political forces and groups ruling in NATO countries.

Under such conditions, anti-submarine defense, especially in the near sea zone in general, and at submarine bases, which are still the basis of the naval striking power, in particular, become critical for ensuring Russia's security. In modern conditions, such a defense in the BMZ is provided by surface ships, non-nuclear submarines, anti-submarine aviation and underwater lighting.

In Russia, neither anti-submarine aircraft nor anti-submarine helicopters are mass-produced. FOSS has failed, and today Russia does not have a working system. Non-nuclear, or rather diesel-electric Varshavyanka are produced, and this is the only thing that works well for us - but the fact is that they are outdated and, in general, ousting enemy submarines from the defended area from the defensive area by technical missile forces is impossible. DEPL is a means of execution "from an ambush", and no more.

In the conditions of such a failure on all fronts, there was only one option left - to cover the near sea zone from enemy submarines using surface ships. Together with the remaining bits and pieces of anti-submarine aircraft, and the existing diesel-electric submarines, a large number of modern surface ships with good anti-submarine capabilities could partially compensate for the weakness of the rest of the submarine. With this approach, coverage would be critical - since we have no other means, and the submarine has an advantage in the detection range of a surface ship, there would really be a lot of such surface ships.

Like a distributed network of sensors working together, such ships equipped with towed sonar stations, combined into ship search and strike groups (KPUG), could very severely limit the possibilities for foreign submarines to act against ours, and sometimes even force them to reveal themselves and “substitute” under attacks of aircraft PLO, no matter how primitive they are. And certainly the permeability of the KPUG areas of action from such ships for enemy submarines would be near-zero. Yes, and the chances of destroying the enemy submarine in such ships in any case would be non-zero. If only because, in the correct version, the multipurpose ship should carry PLUR, and a large number of towed ASGs in the ship's group would make it possible to detect underwater targets at a considerable distance.

Thus, the BMZ defense required in our current conditions a large number of multipurpose ships with developed capabilities in the part of anti-aircraft defense.

Alas, instead of them, Russia "crazy" built RTOs. At the same time, firstly, the multipurpose ship could easily replace MRS - to launch anti-submarine missiles (PLUR) the very same 3S-14 UKSK launcher is needed as for the "Caliber", and secondly, a massive roll in the MRC took place literally “for the last money” - they were quickly built and handed over under conditions when the construction of project 20380 corvettes capable of fighting submarines was chronically underfunded, and the series of 20385 corvettes, which could also use cruise missiles, was nailed to please the ultra-expensive project 20386, at the head ship orogo I have a very good chance of never being built. And according to the keels laid, the Navy's priorities were more than clearly visible - if 20380 units were laid in corvettes 20385 and 12, then the number of RTOs built, under construction and contracted is equal to thirty today. About how much these ships are in demand today, read the articles “Does the fleet need small missile ships”, "The United States is withdrawing a whole class of Russian warships from the game".

Sanctions for Crimea forced instead of “Buyan-M” with German diesels to come up with a fully localized “Karakurt”. But the problem of PLO became more and more acute every year - the state of combatant MPC is getting worse and worse, and there are too few corvettes built, and new ones are not being laid, yes, to be honest, they turned out to be expensive. With our budget, it may be very difficult to close such an entire BMZ, or it will have to be done at the expense of all the other needs of the Navy.

We need more budgetary solutions - massive, simple and cheap, such that the gaping failure in our anti-submarine defense could be closed in a matter of years. At the same time, the United States withdrew from the agreement on the elimination of intermediate and shorter-range missiles, which ultimately put the construction of rocket gunboats beyond common sense.

The understanding that the Navy is not doing what is really needed for the country's defense capability was and is available both among military sailors and in industry. There were also projects of ships capable of replacing RTOs with themselves, and conducting effective anti-submarine defense at the same time. So, Zelenodolsk Design Bureau has a very interesting project based on the hull from the ship of Project 11661. True, he is not particularly interested in the Zelenodolsk plant either, but not because it is bad, but because the plant mows money on primitive RTOs and even more primitive and useless “patrol ships” of project 22160.

Previously, there were very interesting projects of the trimaran scheme, with a completely “corvette” displacement of the bearing weapon at frigate level.

But the “pursuit of missile cells” led to the fact that both time and money were spent on RTOs and “patrolmen”. Yes, even to the giant corvette overgrowth 20386. The “Hole” in the PLO, meanwhile, did not think to “dry up”.

Somewhere "high", apparently, an awareness of the problem began, and in 2019, rumors began to leak from the abyss of naval ideas and concepts that the IPC 1124 Albatros would be repaired and modernized. This, of course, had to be done many years ago. But this is not enough.

We need a project that will allow us to make a miracle and “close” the issue of PLO “here and now”, immediately, without wasting time.

And he appeared. It is his model that flashes in the report on the president’s participation in the expanded collegium of the Moscow Region.

We will analyze this ship in more detail.

Multipurpose "Super Karakurt"


The author is in a certain difficulty, since it is simply impossible to write about a lot that is connected with the project, and until last Tuesday it was not worth highlighting it. Therefore, even those things that are obvious and known will be written in a "presumptive" manner. About a lot of things you just have to keep silent.

Nevertheless, the project is quite worthy of being presented to the public, and launched into the series, and the fleet needs such ships yesterday and in considerable quantities, so we’ll risk it. We look at the model.

The hull of the ship was developed on the basis of the hull of the Karakurt RTO, with an elongated central part. The same 76-mm gun mount AK-176MA is installed on the nose, followed by the “Karakurt” superstructure. Behind it, as with the RTOs, a 3C-14 vertical launch missile launcher was installed, used to launch anti-ship missiles, long-range cruise missiles and PLUR. Theoretically, such a ship could even use Zircon, when receiving external target designation. Then the differences begin. On the model, when viewed in dynamics, one more installation of vertical start is traced. Given the clearly visible Positive-M radar, it can only be the Redut air defense system, the same one that is installed on corvettes 20380, 20385 and 20386, as well as on frigates of project 22350. True, it is controlled by Positive. It remains to regret that some similarly simplified RLC did not find a place on the corvette 20385, this would radically reduce the cost of the ship.

With such a radar of the Redut air defense system, inside the zone in which Positive-M can detect air targets, it will work better than on the corvette 20380.

It is also seen that, unlike the Karakurt, the exhaust of the power plant of this ship is brought up. This is necessary for an anti-submarine ship, since the discharge of the exhaust into the water seriously interferes with the operation of the under-hinged ASU.

At the stern, the round top of the AK-630 anti-aircraft artillery complex is clearly visible, apparently even the AK-630M, which is responsible for air defense from the aft corners.

The ship is explicitly equipped with a wing-mounted GAS - it is clearly visible on the model. This means that it is possible to search for submarines on the go without a towed GAS issued. The latter is on all available multipurpose ships of Russian production, which means it is here. Omitted GAS for work "on foot", which is a very effective search method, on small anti-submarine ships is a long-standing Russian tradition, which means that it will be here as well.

Thus, this ship in its anti-submarine capabilities even surpasses the corvettes of projects 20380, 20385 and was not born until 20386 in many respects. The disadvantage is the lack of a helicopter, but more on that later.

With a close increase and giving the pictures additional sharpness, symmetrically installed PU of the Package-NK complex are visible at the stern. Thus, the ship can protect itself from torpedoes of enemy submarines and itself can hit submarines with a 324 mm torpedo.

The most important thing that makes this ship attractive for mass construction is the main power plant.

It was created on the basis of the power plant of the Karakurt MRK, with additional measures to reduce noise. At the heart of this power plant are diesel engines manufactured by PJSC Zvezda.

When the Karakurt began to build, it turned out that the supplier of diesel engines for the series of this ship, the St. Petersburg PJSC Zvezda, simply could not produce engines. Enterprise degradation has gone very far.

To date, measures to improve the situation at the plant have made themselves felt, albeit not without difficulties, but the Star gives two “Karakurt” sets of power plants during the year. Since the ship does not have systems with a long production cycle, this means that such ships can be built at two units per year.

And this is a very real figure - a contractor like Pella would have mastered such a pace with such ships.

Moreover, there is a likelihood that when these ships are launched into series, it will turn out to be realistic to reach three sets, which will allow to build and even surrender three such corvettes every year. As a result, taking into account the already constructed and under construction 20380 and 20385, the BMZ PLO can be closed somewhere in five years - faster than building one 20380.

The design of the ship is such that it can be built almost everywhere - at the Pella, at the NEA, and in Zelenodolsk (no matter how offensive the engineers and designers at ZPKB), in the future, even at the Gulf - but in general where. The availability of power plants and the simplicity of design, the use of only serial ship systems with a short production cycle guarantees fast construction time - a few years on the ship. It is more fully possible that such an OVR corvette will be comparable in terms of construction time with the Varshavyanka submarine, of which 23 units have been built over the past 28 years.

There are no obstacles for this today.

Project Evaluation


This project cannot be said to be perfect - for example, the absence of a bomb is a serious minus. RBU is the only way to "get" the submarine lying on the ground, there are no others. A hit on a “contact” that suddenly appears at a short distance is also faster to carry out with a bomb.

For some reason, they stopped putting it on modern Russian ships. Super Karakurt is no exception.

Another drawback is the completely zero compatibility with the helicopter. There is not even a landing pad. At the same time, during operations to cover the deployment of submarines, the range of the Ka-27 and 27M helicopters allows them to be used from the shore. In addition, in KPUG there may be a ship with a runway and a hangar. However, note the minus.

The third minus obviously follows from the size of the ship - it is longer than the Karakurt, but its displacement is slightly larger, that is, very light. This implies restrictions on the use of weapons on strong pitching, and there is nothing to be done. But, again, if you focus on real weather, then for a significant part of the time of the year, the excitement at sea will not impose restrictions on the ship, the rest of the time it will apparently be limited to detecting a target, and will transmit contact to aviation for destruction.

The fourth minus is a narrow specialization. A ship can fight submarines and use rocket weapons, and, for example, fire along the shore - it can already be bad. A 76 mm gun is very good as an anti-aircraft gun, it surpasses a 100 mm gun in this quality, but in other cases it is inferior too - the mass of a 100 mm shell is almost three times higher, the ammunition consumption for hitting any typical ground target with a 100 mm gun XNUMX times lower.

But for us the main problem is precisely the PLO, the rest right now is in a somewhat less acute form, and the narrow specialization of the ship in this case can be neglected.

On the whole, it’s not bad - the high speed and the presence of BOGAS allows it to be placed in the PLO not only in naval bases and adjacent water areas, but also in convoys and amphibious assault forces, and taking into account the presence of Redut air defense systems, it will be able to provide their air defense.

Like the Karakurt missile defense system, it can strike at surface targets and use long-range Caliber cruise missiles.

As part of the anti-submarine KPUG, he will, minus the bomb, seriously exceed the IPC pr.1124, and minus the helicopter - the corvette 20380, due to the presence of PLUR.

The estimated price of such a ship is about 10 billion rubles, which is 2,2 times less than the corvette 20385, and somewhere 1,9-2 times less than the corvette 20380.

But the most important thing is that having laid six or nine of these ships in 2020, it will be possible to equip them with engines by 2023-2024, and the first three will receive engines by the middle of 2022 at most. Moreover, taking into account the enormous problems taking place on the "Star". This is unprecedentedly fast for modern Russia. And this makes the project simply uncontested in terms of quickly restoring the number of anti-submarine ships. You can make the ship better. You can even make it better for the same money.

But it can not be done either faster or in the same time. And this means that other options simply do not exist.

The project has some support within the Navy, albeit not at the very top. This means that he has a chance.

And this means that our submarines have a chance for deployment safe from enemy submarines. We wish the fleet not to miss it.
Author:
Photos used:
Russia 24 (video frames)
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Ross xnumx 26 December 2019 05: 13 New
    • 17
    • 3
    +14
    Dear Alexander! Thanks for the article, but I saw a certain “bitterness” of the event in this very place:
    The project has some support within the Navy, albeit not at the very top. This means that he has a chance.

    There should be a demand, and not partial support, from which a certain conciliation and commercialization of the production of ships for the Russian fleet directly blows:
    we do not what is needed, but what is beneficial!
    hi
    1. Romario_Argo 26 December 2019 10: 42 New
      • 4
      • 6
      -2
      we do not what is needed, but what is beneficial!

      ideally need small anti-submarine ships in a composite hull like the minesweeper pr.12700
      1. kepmor 26 December 2019 11: 19 New
        • 8
        • 2
        +6
        the effectiveness of the composite is very doubtful even for minesweepers ...
        the level of the magnetic and electric fields is reduced significantly, no doubt ... only modern mine mines have an acoustic and hydrodynamic path, which they fight very hard ... well, if only trawling with a helicopter or hammering with cord charges ...
        Yes, and the composite does not particularly hold a large load ... a dozen shots from the AK-176 and a bed with a barbette will simply vomit "with meat" ...
        1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 11: 55 New
          • 9
          • 2
          +7
          There is a caveat - THINNY should work along the edge of the minefield. controlling NPA and BECs, and it can be carried to the field itself or a mine can be set separately from the main field. Therefore, the physical field is still important, therefore, although it will not climb into mines, he needs a non-magnetic body and engines. For this is an additional chance to survive.

          Antisubmarine is not necessary.
          1. venik 26 December 2019 16: 10 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            Antisubmarine is not necessary.

            ========
            There was such a "funny idea of ​​the Krylovsky Research Institute: the corvette project" Breeze "...

            It looks pretty "fantastic" !!! ...
            But if you reduce the number of VPU to 8 (adapting to the 91P PLUR), air defense - limit to 2 "Armor", add RBU-6000 with the latest systems of "correctable" GB ....... Instead of Ka-27 - put "drone" with omitted GAS, and even add a towed GAS ....
            It could have turned out .... VERY-CHEN even ....
            -------
            I just can’t imagine: And HOW MUCH such "joy" can cost ???
            Besides, it’s completely incomprehensible: WHAT actually the SEAWAY in such a “symbiosis” will work out?
            Maybe you at least explain something ???
            1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 18: 30 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              An attempt by the KSCC to "saddle" the topic with "Caliber" and master the budget.
              1. venik 26 December 2019 19: 14 New
                • 2
                • 3
                -1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                An attempt by the KSCC to "saddle" the topic with "Caliber" and master the budget.

                =======
                Alexander!
                If you can: Decrypt (either here - or "in PM") ....
                I would be very grateful: the most EXTREMELY interesting !!!! request
                1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 20: 11 New
                  • 6
                  • 2
                  +4
                  There is such an office - Krylov State Scientific Center (google). As part of their scientific and applied activities, they are sometimes engaged in research design, not to design a ship - this is not their work from the word "in general", but to understand how their discoveries (for example, regarding the contours of the underwater part of the hull) are combined with the existing equipment and weapons, or vice versa - as existing weapon systems, etc., you can come up with a body with contours that allow you to walk at high speed, or with low fuel consumption or shoot from a high wave, etc.

                  It is if simple.

                  Even under the USSR, for such training purposes (satisfaction of their own curiosity at the state expense) they drew a corvette with the Fort air defense system as an exercise.

                  How long it was short, but in 1998, when the type of the new corvette for the Navy was approved (it was then project 20380), the Krylovites resuscitated the proposal with this BRIZ and tried to act as a design organization, not as a scientific center, but as a design bureau. If it had burned out, then as the head performer of the OCD, they would gain control over all the financial flows to create a new ship right up to the construction of the head ship and would go beyond the framework of a purely scientific organization.

                  However, they were naturally sent away with such ambitions and the creation of the corvette was taken up by Almaz Central Design Bureau, and the KSCC went to work for its intended purpose - to do research.

                  Since then, they have not abandoned attempts to turn into a design bureau. When the epic with the "Caliber" went on, they redrawn their "Breeze" for the vertical launch launcher, filled it with missiles more than any RTOs and again offered the fleet.

                  Well, they were sent again, because no matter how crazy the Navy's shipbuilding policy was, and to pay the price tag of a powerful frigate for a missile gunboat, albeit with a large BK, and in the size of a corvette, but without helicopters towed by a GAS, etc. even our fleet did not.

                  Here KGNTS and rushes with this "Breeze" so far.
                  1. umah 28 December 2019 09: 38 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    A ship can fight with submarines and use missile weapons, and, for example, fire along the coast - it can already be bad

                    To approach the coast at a distance art. the shot is fraught with the loss of the ship. The cheapest anti-ship missiles hit 100-200 km. And focusing on the shooting of the Papuans without coastal protection is not an option at all.
                    1. timokhin-aa 28 December 2019 12: 49 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      The last duel I knew between the coastal forces and the warship operating the artillery was 2011, Libya.
          2. the most important 28 December 2019 19: 32 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            A skinny should work along the edge of the minefield. managing NPA and BEKami

            Dear authors !! And all at once! You write articles not in a highly specialized magazine, but to a wide audience. Therefore, try to do in your articles without abbreviations of terms in the first letters. It will become much more interesting for many to read your articles. And yet ... If you mention any ship designs, you can at least insert a picture into your work.
            1. timokhin-aa 28 December 2019 20: 26 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              TSCHIM - minesweeper-seeker min. For a simple reason - a mine ship.
              BEC - a crewless boat. Almost always remotely controlled or, more rarely, also with the possibility of autonomous passage of a given route, plus a remote control.
              NPA - an uninhabited underwater vehicle, in the case described above, it is either a small underwater drone with a sonar and a television camera, or the so-called STIUM - a self-propelled mine-seeker-destroyer that finds mines with a sonar and a television camera and itself puts nearby a subversive charge, or a disposable drone killer min, so-called destroyer. There are other laws and regulations but not in the skinny.

              If you ask anything better, you can google project numbers. It is not always possible to clarify everything.
              1. the most important 28 December 2019 23: 11 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                You, if you ask anything better,

                Not everything, but more than half of the terms are familiar to me, even though I'm not a sailor. But many people have no idea what this is about. As an officer who wrote cubic meters of papers at one time, I can explain that reductions are possible only after any term, concept, etc. were written in expanded form at least once in the text. Happy New Year to you !! drinks
                1. timokhin-aa 28 December 2019 23: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Thank you, and you too!
      2. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 11: 53 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        What for? What gives plastic?
    2. Alien From 27 December 2019 17: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      PLO ships are vital for us !!!! I hope there are people in the leadership who understand this !!!!! I really want to believe in it !!!
    3. Boris Chernikov 27 December 2019 20: 41 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      here the point is that the Navy can not decide whether to put them UKKS or not .. I personally hold my fists to put
      1. timokhin-aa 27 December 2019 22: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What are you talking about now?
        1. Boris Chernikov 28 December 2019 21: 27 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          some time ago there was information that they wanted to make IPCs from Karakurt, but there were rumors that the whole question was that some admirals want a narrow-profile IPC similar to Albatross without vertical launchers for Caliber, while others say that it’s necessary still leave them to strengthen the fleet ...
          1. timokhin-aa 28 December 2019 23: 23 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, they wanted something, yes ... I don’t know about UKKS.
            1. Boris Chernikov 29 December 2019 22: 44 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              wait, sir, like Suvorov and hold our fists
  2. Sapsan136 26 December 2019 05: 59 New
    • 18
    • 5
    +13
    I’ll tell you how it is ... I consider the installation of Redut (and expensive) to be missile defense systems, it’s quite enough for the Pantsir-M air defense system ... There’s nothing to do with the GAS for working on the march, but with the anti-submarine ship entering the search area it’s no longer needed because of its primitiveness ... For a confident anti-submarine search in the patrol area, the anti-submarine needs a more advanced towed GAS ... 76 mm gun on ships is a very dubious pleasure, because neither protect the ship in naval battle, nor support the caliber with effective fire 76 mm not re Flax ... Here you need at least a 100 mm gun that was installed on the Buyan-M RTOs, 20380 corvettes and 11356 frigates ... I would not say that the RTFs are not at all needed by the Russian fleet, all these Buyan- M and Karakurt can and should qualitatively replace rocket boats and spacecraft of the type Ovod of Soviet construction, but I agree with the author that the spacecraft cannot be the basis for the fleet, this is the task of multipurpose ships .... As for finding foreign submarines in territorial waters RF, then they just need to be drowned, and the chip of which to shrug and ask - Why is it generally Lala in the territorial waters of Russia, where the Russian fleet (without noticing it), spent fighting (training) and shooting (by accident) it drowned? Tell the offending country a diplomatic FI for flagrant violation of the maritime borders of the Russian Federation ...
    1. Tiksi-3 26 December 2019 07: 46 New
      • 7
      • 6
      +1
      Quote: Sapsan136
      I’ll say it as it is ... I consider the installation of Redut (and it’s expensive) on the air defense missile systems as excessive, the Pantsir-M air defense missile system is quite enough ..

      the strike complex is 100% superfluous there, the redoubt is superfluous, but the turntable is not enough !! After all, this is PLO !!!
      1. demiurg 26 December 2019 08: 19 New
        • 12
        • 3
        +9
        Without Redoubt, such helicopters and allfire even helicopters and all kinds of patrol orions would sink such boats without entering the ZRPK coverage area. Without the UVP installation, to launch the PLUR, you will have to set 533 mm SLT, or to remain without a long arm.

        Why does the OVR ship need a turntable? Even on our corvettes which are twice as large as 20 tons of kerosene. 5-6 gas stations Ka-27.

        but an armor instead of the AK-630 would be nice.
        1. Sapsan136 26 December 2019 09: 12 New
          • 8
          • 5
          +3
          Your helicopters will not succeed, because the ATGM ranges that you write about are less than the new missiles used in the air defense missile systems ... An anti-submarine ship without an anti-submarine helicopter is an obsolete design, with great restrictions on the search for submarines ... Modern the anti-submarine needs both an anti-submarine helicopter and a towed GAS and UVP (I agree with you here) to launch anti-submarine missile torpedoes
          1. demiurg 26 December 2019 09: 32 New
            • 5
            • 4
            +1
            Okay, let's drop the hellfire. Mayverik has a range of up to 30km. There are penguins with a range of 28km. Moreover, helicopters carry this and that, and penguins and patrol planes. And the shell shoots for 20 km. And then there is rather a height of about a kilometer or two.

            The autonomy of karakurt is about 10 days. A kerosene Karakurt will take away tons of 7-9 maximum. For 10 hours of flight. And then the helicopter turns into ballast. Given the weight of the site + the weight of the helicopter + the weight of kerosene and weapons, minus 20-30-40 tons of load. 4-5% of the displacement is approximately.

            2-3 tons drone yes, it would be interesting.
            1. Sapsan136 26 December 2019 09: 40 New
              • 3
              • 6
              -3
              It is foolish to consider autonomy of an anti-submarine by autonomy of Karakurt-type RTOs, since the ship will be larger and more likely to be redesigned, taking this RTOs only with a number of weapon elements ... Even the power plant will be different, since the RTO engines will not provide the larger MPC with the one he needs high speed ... Even a regular Shell-C1, and now they are working on Shell-2, has a height of 15 km ... 4km effective firing range of 30mm guns ... The range of missiles on Shell-2 will be increased ... In addition you forget that maximum and effect Willow range, it’s different things and shooting from 30 km of ATGMs is practically useless, due to interference and other things ... A drone is not a helicopter, its capabilities are more modest
              1. demiurg 26 December 2019 10: 06 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                The whole point is to take the case and equipment existing in the series, make an insert into it in order to get a place and weight under the redoubt and GAS. It will be cheap, fast, guaranteed. And if you take the elements you say, you will need to choose two out of three quickly, cheaply, and guaranteed.

                This is not ATGM from the word at all.
                Penguin is a full-fledged RCC.
                Mayverik has a TGSN.

                [i] ... In addition, you forget that the maximum and effective range are two different things, and shooting from 30 km of ATGMs is practically useless, due to interference and other things .. [/]

                And the anti-aircraft missile with solid propellant rocket launcher to the maximum range is not practically useless?
                1. Sapsan136 26 December 2019 10: 40 New
                  • 4
                  • 2
                  +2
                  40 km is already work for the Shtil medium-range air defense system, but it’s not possible to push a modern full-fledged anti-submarine into the air defense system’s body ... Then it’s better not to try to build another useless something, but to invest in 20385 corvettes ... or frigates .... What such anti-ship missiles at the range limit have long been proven in practice ... nothing ... By the way, the helicopter will also be vulnerable, but it’s not even stealth
            2. Victorio 26 December 2019 12: 11 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: demiurg

              UAV 2-3 tons yes, it would be interesting.

              ====
              better some
      2. Sapsan136 26 December 2019 08: 19 New
        • 6
        • 4
        +2
        The strike complex there is not superfluous, since an anti-submarine missile torpedo can be installed in the cells of the Caliber rockets ... I need a turntable, I agree with you ... Yes, and a new anti-submarine aircraft could be made on the basis of the Tu-204CM well mastered by the industry ...
        1. alma 26 December 2019 08: 45 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Sapsan136
          Yes, and a new anti-submarine aircraft could be made on the basis of the well-developed by the industry Tu-204SM ...

          Apparently, they plan to do the new anti-submarine aircraft on the basis of IL-114. Although we'll see ...
          1. Sapsan136 26 December 2019 09: 07 New
            • 4
            • 3
            +1
            IL-114 is not quite what it needs, due to restrictions on flight range ... The anti-submarine should be a long-range aircraft, not 1500 km ... he needs a long flight range for long patrols
          2. timokhin-aa 27 December 2019 22: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            With the IL-114 fornication "Radar".
      3. bayard 26 December 2019 11: 41 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: Tiksi-3
        shock complex there is an extra

        If you are talking about UKKS, then in the anti-submarine version it will be equipped with missile and torpedoes of the Caliber complex, so it will be very useful - the main strike force on the submarine.
        As for the "Redut", if this is a truncated version with the radar from the "Shell", for all-round shooting of short-range missiles, then it looks like it, together with the AK-630M, is much more preferable, especially if the price does not exceed the cost of the marine "Armor-M" (it’s much more serious and more expensive land "Pantsyrya-S").
        For the near zone, this could be a good solution to replace 1124, but we need a good towed GAS.
        And at a price ... if Karakurts now cost 8–9 billion rubles. , then such an anti-aircraft defense corvette with its air defense, ASG, Package-NK and increased displacement (say, 20-25 percent) is unlikely to meet the price suggested by the author - 10 billion, the real price - 11 - 12 billion. But however, this project does not become less attractive.
      4. Boris Chernikov 27 December 2019 21: 07 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Well, yes .. an ingenious solution: rivet 10 tons of ships to drive submarines, but not to put means of destruction on them .. so that if they suddenly were part of the KUG as an extra relative
      5. Alex777 2 January 2020 20: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        the strike complex there is 100% extra

        A strike complex is needed, PLUR is the main weapon against submarines.
        The helicopter will not get on the boat - it is too small, it will turn over during rolling. bully
        Yes, and take off from such a baby - a separate pleasure. And the appreciation due to the basing of the helicopter is decent.
        In KPUG in addition to such should be 1-2 ships with helicopters.
        RBU is a good thing, but I did not see 3 types of PLO weapons on 1 boat. Or RBU, or Package.
        9M100 - quite normal air defense / missile defense for such a ship, IMHO.

        The main question for this ship is one. GEM.
        Diesels or afterburner turbine will be delivered.
        With diesel engines of 10 billion. With GTU - hardly. hi
    2. Terran 26 December 2019 10: 17 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      The carapace could and would have been sufficient if there had been the possibility of a more rational location on the ship. In fact, now the Shell on Karakurt has a huge dead zone due to the superstructure and the mast from the bow angles, especially for low-flying targets. And even there would be a sea Thor with a vertical launch of missiles - this would not change the situation due to the fact that he has the same radio command guidance and radar guidance on the launcher.
      Redoubt has 9M96 missiles with AGSN in the final section, and initial target designation can be given from Mineral-M radar - the canvases on the wheelhouse, this is a great advantage, although, of course, an expensive missile comes out.
      1. Sapsan136 26 December 2019 10: 42 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Well, then you need to put the target designation system on the mast, with any SAM, and abandon the installation of the radar on the launcher in principle
      2. Dante Alighieri 26 December 2019 11: 36 New
        • 9
        • 2
        +7
        And even there would be a sea Thor with a vertical launch of missiles - this would not change the situation due to the fact that he has the same radio command guidance and radar guidance on the launcher.

        Just Tor aka Dagger would be as adequate as possible not only for RTOs, but even for the corvette 20380, because everything that you described to put it mildly does not correspond to reality, especially with respect to the fact that the dagger guidance radar is located on the launcher. In order to be convinced of this, it is enough to look at our only aircraft carrier equipped with just this SAM. The photo clearly shows that the antenna posts of the Dagger air defense system to create a larger sector are located in the superstructure (island) of the aircraft carrier, while the launchers, are located on external pylons.


        A similar scheme was also implemented on the BOD 1155, where the first 4 drums of 8 missiles were placed in the bow of the ship, and the radar on the roof of the cabin providing them; the second 4 drums are located in the center, next to the TA, while the antenna post is advanced closer to the stern and is located on the very edge of the helicopter hangar.
        But in principle, if we are talking about a corvette or MPC, nothing prevents us from confining ourselves to placing missiles in only the front or only behind, leaving the rear at the mercy of something less powerful and cannon (AK-630, Duet, Dagger, Broadsword). If you really want to achieve "comprehensiveness", then nothing prevents you from installing a second antenna post without additional placement of additional launchers, since even the whole system will be much cheaper compared to Redoubt in any of its variations.

        Next.

        Mineral-M can hypothetically produce target designation for air defense systems, as well, for example, as the three-coordinate Fregat-M2M radar does on frigate pr.11356 (given that for 9M96 it will not be necessary to additionally highlight the target as for the Shtil complex, but it means that you don’t have to place additional “sunflowers” ​​of target illumination like on the Black Sea frigates), but, I remind you, the latter also has Positive-M 1.2, which also controls the surface installation and can give target designation for cruise missiles. At the RTOs, such duplication is not provided, in this connection the question arises: will it not work out that if Mineral-M works at the same time, it will not be able to give orders to anti-ship missiles, thereby limiting the use of the “main caliber” of the vessel against the probable the enemy?
        1. Terran 26 December 2019 14: 35 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          I would agree with you, regarding the separate installation of the Thor / Dagger guidance radar for greater efficiency compared to the Carapace, but I did not mean the installation of the complex at all (of course there are many places on the BOD and aircraft carrier, especially since several air defense systems provide a circular zone) and for a specific ship - RTOs with a displacement of 800 tons. Please tell me where you see on a specific project 22800 the position of the Dagger / Torus radar to realize the firing angles of targets in azimuth and elevation is better than the Shell does with the available, frankly unsuccessful for air defense layout ?? There is no place except where it was allocated for the Shell. Of course, fantasies with alterations are possible - but this will already be a different project.
    3. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 11: 55 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      And what did she do in the territorial waters of the Russian Federation, where the Russian fleet, (without noticing it), conducted combat (training) firing and (accidentally) drowned it ?! Tell the offending country a diplomatic FI for flagrant violation of the maritime borders of the Russian Federation ...


      They rarely climb into thermal water, mostly rubbing at the edge.
      1. gunnerminer 27 December 2019 18: 55 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        It was they who in the 80s of the last century, rarely climbed into the USSR’s guides. Now they take into account the state of the submarine defense, and the level of control of the underwater situation by the Russian Navy, therefore they climb much more often. And more effectively. Judging by the pace of upgrading sabotage weapons and PDSS carriers.
    4. Boris Chernikov 27 December 2019 21: 05 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      I do not agree about Redoubt, Redoubt is 48 missiles that allow you to repel a massive raid + the ability to combine air defense, and Shell-M is effective for 4-6 missiles by force in one salvo, then it will choke on the ship haplyk, about 76 mm. .And it makes sense to put more? It’s an air defense weapon, you don’t need to shove the inviolable .. The fleet needs a cheap, simple and massive ship, so that it is the ridge of the fleet and if the fleet has a high-quality MPC with guided weapons, then you can raise the question of curtailing the construction of inter-missile systems and replacing the gradual all RTOs with IPC with SD
    5. Charik 3 January 2020 18: 53 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, well, they didn’t drown anyone at the Kursk
  3. kepmor 26 December 2019 07: 52 New
    • 18
    • 1
    +17
    as they said in the Navy ... the anti-submarine business is dark and not grateful ... akin to shamanism ...
    the fleet has always had a slightly dismissive attitude towards anti-submariners ... they say that your business is "to aimlessly plow the expanses of the ocean" ... you still will not find anything ...

    another thing is the destroyer or MRK, without much effort, once a year a “winged” machine gun on a shield tied with ropes to barrels ... looks quite impressive, and for the bosses of delight in the ears ...
    so that the "calibrated" brains of admirals is understandable ...

    Navy "workhorses", which the IPC, already venerable old people, worn out "to the utmost" ... many combat readinesses are only "on paper" .... even the last in the Snezhnogorsk series has been 25 years old ... and the replacement is only in the layout. ..
    to capitalize, and even more so to upgrade the “Albatrosses” utter nonsense ... not a horse’s feed ... well, if only for "cutting grandmas" ...
    "karakuts" of the PLO were especially necessary for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet "yesterday" ... without the MPK corvette the PLO even the normal BP course, before going to the BS, can’t work out for boats ...

    - the RBU was removed, in principle, correctly ... the combat effectiveness is about 10% ... with the PTZ and the "Package" must cope ... but a significant amount inside the case was saved ...
    - for a small displacement, it is preferable to omit the GAS than a towed one, judging by the experience of using the Sheloni at 1124 ... however, I have not heard anything about a worthy replacement for the 329th ...
    - a helicopter to a corvette up to 2000 tons. I think that it’s not reasonable ... it won’t pull ... but an unmanned aerial vehicle would be just right, but where can I get it ...
    - Well, for dessert, the problem of the problems is our GEM ... in Soviet times, the "stars" did not cause much trust in diesel engines ... they are capricious in operation, the service life is small, maintainability is limited ...
    if the upgraded rasp-507 unit is shoved openly as a DG, then I don’t envy the commander and mechanics of this project ... I don’t even need to talk about the turbine, they’re still stupid for frigates, not to mention the "kids" ...
    - unfortunately, everything is as always with us ... while the fried rooster wasn’t getting to the asses who settled in the chairs of the “high offices” of the Moscow Region and USC ...
    1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 11: 57 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      so that the "calibrated" brains of admirals is understandable ...


      And admiral submariners too? We have about two commanders-in-chief from the submarine, they cannot but understand the danger that submarines pose and how much trouble they can do.

      - the RBU was removed, in principle, correctly ... the combat effectiveness is about 10% ... with the PTZ and the "Package" must cope ... but a significant amount inside the case was saved ...


      No, that’s not true. RBU is the only way to get the submarine lying on the ground and the fastest weapon. He is needed and the first war will show it.


      - for a small displacement, it is preferable to omit the GAS than a towed one, judging by the experience of using the Sheloni at 1124 ... however, I have not heard anything about a worthy replacement for the 329th ...


      There are worthy options, but you are wrong about Bugas. Search performance KPUG with towed GAS and only OGAS differs significantly.


      - Well, for dessert, the problem of the problems is our GEM ... in Soviet times, the "stars" did not cause much trust in diesel engines ... they are capricious in operation, the service life is small, maintainability is limited ...
      if the upgraded rasp-507 unit is shoved openly as a DG, then I don’t envy the commander and mechanics of this project ... I don’t even need to talk about the turbine, they’re still stupid for frigates, not to mention the "kids" ...


      Well, there’s nothing to be done, we don’t have another diesel engine with such parameters. There are "Stars". They are just cunning.
      1. kepmor 26 December 2019 12: 14 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        understand that they understand ... but they don’t have a “potter's” weight to reach heaven ...
        neither judokas nor Chekists in the past ...
        1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 25 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          This is not the point; the fleet has already returned the process of control over the TTZ being compiled. So there is no excuse.
  4. Connor MacLeod 26 December 2019 08: 08 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    We are talking about a multi-purpose corvette based on the 22800 Karakurt project - in fact, an enlarged Karakurt in size with enhanced air defense and the ability to fight against submarines. About how this ship was supposed to be from the very beginning.

    Most likely they simply developed more powerful engines, so it became possible to build RTOs with a large displacement and, as a result, better armed ones. Previously, such an opportunity simply did not exist ...
    1. donavi49 26 December 2019 10: 02 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      There are the same coupling from the Star to 112 cylinders. Developed even under Khrushchev, went into series under Brezhnev. Just on the MPC - they will be put on vibration-absorbing gaskets, and the compartment will be trimmed with a Shumka + some engine modes may have been stabbed.

      In any case, it is one of the loudest and most vibrant engines of our time. For high speed + 112 cylinders. The bourgeoisie have a low-medium revolutions per 12-16-24 cylinder. Plus, the main trend of our time is IEP, CODLAG, CODLOG and just diesel electric ships. These are serial ships that are already at sea. For example, a South Korean multi-functional light frigate (corvette in 2000t).
      4 marching 12 cylinder diesel engines
      2 electric motors from Leonardo, providing a maximum stroke of 11 knots (it is possible to work with muffled diesels from the battery and feeding the diesel engine)
      afterburner turbine from RR which accelerates it to 30,5 knots

      Armament:
      VPU for 16 cells - where their rocket launchers (Red Shark), the Haeseong family (their Caliber version) and their new short-range ZURka, 4 per cell - this is about it https://bmpd.livejournal.com/1541968.html

      In addition, two 324mm installation of torpedoes, 8 anti-ship missiles, MZA for extras + reception of a helicopter.

      1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 03 New
        • 7
        • 1
        +6
        We spent our time in 2001-2019 stupidly, now we have to climb on our ears.
      2. Dante Alighieri 26 December 2019 12: 49 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        I’m generally surprised how quickly they abandoned the idea of ​​water cannons, but they are also quite quiet, not in vain, if my memory serves me, the first carriers of the water cannons were the torpedo and patrol boats. Do not get it wrong, I do not require urgent installation of water cannons on all ships instead of traditional propellers. I propose first of all to provide them with an auxiliary stroke and taxiing, while the afterburner provides such a familiar screw. Moreover, in this scheme, the CODLAG scheme looks like the best: a gas turbine through a single-shaft system (for economy) provides maximum speed, while diesel engines run on water cannons. Moreover, unlike electric motors, on which there are questions, regarding the required power, water cannons are well mastered by industry.
    2. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 01 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      No, that’s not true.

      Just wisely approached the question, not the old fashioned way. The diesel there from the Star, all the same.
  5. rocket757 26 December 2019 08: 10 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    We are talking about a multi-purpose corvette based on the 22800 Karakurt project - in fact, an enlarged Karakurt in size with enhanced air defense and the ability to fight against submarines. About how this ship was supposed to be from the very beginning.

    They thought that now it’s possible / necessary that way .... the military’s wishes coincided with the capabilities of the manufacturer.
    Now so .... it’s already good that we can.
    1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 04 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Yes, we could have done better if we hadn’t been foolish in 2001-2019. Eighty years have been lost. They also need to somehow catch up, and with our budget.
      1. rocket757 26 December 2019 12: 27 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        They also need to somehow catch up, and with our budget.

        It’s clear that the matter is dark .... this is not the most important, where we have a deficiency, a hole ....
        If everything is taken to be listed, there are a couple of sheets of long text.
      2. Boris Chernikov 27 December 2019 21: 36 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Well, right in the 2001th fleet could order something, huh ... really only by 2010 that you could seriously order .. in fact this project, if it is exactly the way it seems to us, should become the main ship of the fleet and go to replace all the IPC and RTOs as a single ship .. Now the fleet has 22 Albatross, 26 Lightning, 12 Gadgets, 7 projects 1331 a la Kazanets Total 67 ships .. Of course, they will replace the Buyans and Karakurt, but I would be in place of the fleet instead of the RTOs not yet laid down began to lay such IPC
        1. timokhin-aa 27 December 2019 22: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Well, right in the 2001th fleet could order something, yeah ..


          He could have ordered the OCD, which was then embodied in 20380. Initially, this ship was planned to be done as they later did 22800, that is, almost without innovation, a mass corvette. From OCD, only the GEM was planned for it.

          But then this project was literally stuffed with all sorts of different things that had not yet been in the metal, from the Furke to the SM-588

          but instead of fleet I’d in place of the fleet, I would begin to lay such IPC


          Your words to God in the ears. But it seems to me that the deposition of RTOs will still take place for some time.
          1. Boris Chernikov 28 December 2019 21: 25 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            by the 90s and it started to be zero — everything that was being built then was built incredibly long .. If it was worth building something, then the 11356th, replacing Calm with Reduts .. but time is lost .. for the fleet you need something simple and massive
            1. timokhin-aa 28 December 2019 23: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              on the 90th and started zero, everything that was built then was built incredibly long ..


              Will the Warsaw women go as an example?

              Actually, according to the Navy’s corvettes, it’s his own fault - instead of “everything except the GEM serial”, on 20380 they did “everything according to the results of new OCD”
              1. Boris Chernikov 29 December 2019 22: 43 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                well, isolated cases, since the shipyard retained its competence .. the key problem of the backwardness of the fleet, the same as that of the army, warriors demanded to develop something supernova .. but they decided not to spend money on old developments, as a result, the army cost several hundreds of BMP-3s and T-90A, though they thought better of it and started taking BMP-3s, and the T-72b3 with all its jambs is better than the T-72b model of the 89th year .. what was before .. So it’s on ships .. until the epic with construction and development was going on, it was possible to build 11356 as a frigate and 11660 / 11661K as patrolmen .. although there would be 4 pieces of each project troili would
  6. Stirbjorn 26 December 2019 08: 30 New
    • 7
    • 2
    +5
    The estimated price of such a ship is about 10 billion rubles, which is 2,2 times less than the corvette 20385, and somewhere 1,9-2 times less than the corvette 20380.
    I do not pretend to the truth, but I heard that the admirals complained that the cost of the corvette 20385 is almost the same as the frigate 11356, with different displacement, so it was decided not to continue this series, and the author comes close with the price.

    I honestly did not understand from the article what the mass construction of the already developed project 20380 is worse than the next project, now a new "karakurt". For me it’s better to unify all projects as much as possible - it’s cheaper than such an endless hodgepodge
    1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 06 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      I honestly did not understand from the article what the mass construction of the already developed project 20380 is worse than the next project


      Nothing special. It’s just that time is wasted, you need to close the hole in the PLO here and now, and the construction cycle of 20380 can not be less than 4 years per ship with current industrial capabilities.
      Plus, 20380 does not have PLUR.

      Then we already need to talk about the cheaper 20385. But there too these same four years. If you invest in infrastructure, you can get a little shrink. Up to three years, for example.

      And here - 2-3 ships a year. Every year. And the price is half as much.
  7. rudolff 26 December 2019 08: 47 New
    • 7
    • 3
    +4
    IPC based on Karakurt? Not sure if this is the right decision. Very controversial.
    1. Romario_Argo 26 December 2019 10: 44 New
      • 1
      • 9
      -8
      IPC would have been better in the plastic case TRSC Alexandrite
      1. kepmor 26 December 2019 11: 33 New
        • 10
        • 3
        +7
        you obviously never went to sea on "plastic" ... stability on a wave is zero ...
        even with 3 points - it's just a "vanka-vstanka" ... sunset angles are such that weapons can not be used ...
        1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 07 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          This comrade is a famous dreamer.
        2. Romario_Argo 26 December 2019 12: 33 New
          • 0
          • 6
          -6
          and gyroscopes for what?
          1. Romario_Argo 27 December 2019 10: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            gyroscopes are now not particularly large, for some many forget about them
            and this is an active pitching damper

            MRK is able to calmly apply anti-ship missiles in a 7-point storm with waves of 5 meters
            1. timokhin-aa 27 December 2019 10: 55 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              MRK is able to calmly apply anti-ship missiles in a 7-point storm with waves of 5 meters


              Which of the RTOs is sposible for this?
              1. Romario_Argo 27 December 2019 11: 09 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                on the MRK where the UVP stands Karakurt and Buyan Ave., for a stable horizon there are gyroscopes
                * in open sources you will not find this
                1. timokhin-aa 27 December 2019 11: 50 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  * in open sources you will not find this


                  Yes, what are you? You have such devices, but you will not tell us about them, yes, citizen storyteller? And how then, at the first interbase passage in Buyan, even experienced sailors faded in the Bay of Biscay? To green faces? Why didn’t the gyroscopes turn on?

                  For reference - pitching not according to the points of excitement is normalized in the documents and restrictions on the use of weapons, too.
              2. Romario_Argo 27 December 2019 11: 21 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                an alternative universe from a visionary - EXPERIENCES (!)
                here's an example of an active stabilizer in super yachts just under 1000 tons of displacement
                photo, to the dimensions of the laptop in the left corner

                [media = https: //www.yachtessentials.com/2011/09/01/quick-yacht-stabilizers/]
    2. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 08 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Well, as if the cons are obvious and are listed in the article.

      Plus - price and terms. If you push now, then in 2022 you can immediately put six in pieces and in 2024, in the end, you can put everything into the water.
      According to the team in two years.

      We don’t have much time in my opinion. And the hole in the PLO is more and more.
      1. rudolff 26 December 2019 12: 45 New
        • 9
        • 3
        +6
        Exactly, the hole is such that you can’t close it with any patches. We have been stupidly lowered into the toilet for 20 years, plus or minus a few more they will not play any role. And it’s not a matter of money, but of their illiterate distribution. For whatever unnecessary they are enough for some reason. To lay down a series of 86s and patch PLOs with steroid Karakurt, simultaneously stamping RTOs with Patrolmen? This is a clinic!
        I am for the continuation of the 85s series with the development of their construction in other shipyards and for the cessation of all other smaller displacement except minesweepers. Small ships now stupidly can not afford.
        1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 13: 22 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          I am for the continuation of the 85s series with the development of their construction in other shipyards and for the cessation of all other smaller displacement except minesweepers. Small ships now stupidly can not afford.


          Sex idea yes, but there is a nuance. Even if you throw MF RLK from this ship and put something sane for the corvette, it will cost about 18-19 billion at current prices.

          The second point is gear transmission and assembly of diesel-diesel units. There is one stand on Kolomna, and the Star Reducer slowly makes the reducer. As a result, the normal period for receiving one DDA12000 unit is one year. Accordingly, two years will be made for one GEM corvette.

          If you invest in the second stand, and put at the heads of the guys from the "Stars" PM, then you can go to 2 power plants in three years.
          And more with the current state of the "Reducer" - nothing. Only change the political system or wait patiently when it comes to life. Now there are 115 people working for the entire Navy, the money that was allocated for the revitalization of production is not clear where, the owner is different, etc.

          So it turns out that in four years you can build either 3 normal corvettes, or 10-12 “patches”, moreover, at a comparable price. In small-scale production, a series of 10 ersatz will stand at about 100 billion, and a series of three corvettes in 54-55. But the trick is that with the simultaneous order of components for ersatz, their cost drops to one third.

          As a result, 3 corvettes for 55 yards or exactly the same period of 10 erasatz corvettes for 85-90.

          That is the trick.

          I myself do not like this ship, I would suggest making a light mobilization corvette in a completely different way. Yes, strictly speaking, nobody really likes him, even those who work on him.

          It’s just time, no more.

          Well, if you don’t switch the financial flows to this IPC or how it will be there, then the fleet and the Ministry of Defense will not invest in 20385 but will continue to run into the usual "Karakurt".

          Here's the thing.
          1. rudolff 26 December 2019 13: 46 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Almost agree with you. But ... in parallel with the IPC, both MRCs and Patrolmen will stamp. For the total price of this menagerie, a completely different alignment will be. And if you add another 86th there, God forbid, only the head one?
            1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 14: 06 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              But ... in parallel with the IPC, both MRCs and Patrolmen will stamp. For the total price of this menagerie, a completely different alignment will be.


              RTOs just will not be, because the ersatz will devour all available engines. There GEM on star engines.

              But the patrol topic should be killed, but I suspect that instead of activists from the Central Research Institute, the Commander-in-Chief and the Military Military Administration, the Ministry of Finance will cope - there will not be enough money, but they will kill something.

              And these IPCs are part-time Caliber carriers, and Shoigu demanded to double the number of such carriers.

              Here you can elbow and push through with PLO.
  8. NEXUS 26 December 2019 08: 54 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    I think that Super-Karakurt is extremely insufficient to counter the enemy’s submarines, even if the series is impressive there. Complex measures are needed, such as, for example, the development of unmanned hunters for submarines of various classes, from those that are simply discovered to those that will be able to destroy. Plus, I am sure that the topic of ekranoplanes should develop in the issue of PLO too.
    At the same time, the question has very much matured, and even the need to replace Varshavyanka with submarines with VNEU.
    Well, I am convinced that our fleets need Lira class nuclear submarines, redesigned and modernized for the tasks of the Hunter.
    As for Super-Karakurt, I consider this a forced and temporary measure.
  9. donavi49 26 December 2019 09: 42 New
    • 13
    • 1
    +12
    It was created on the basis of the power plant of the Karakurt MRK, with additional measures to reduce noise. At the heart of this power plant are diesel engines manufactured by PJSC Zvezda.


    The weakest point, and at the technical level of the 70s.

    Reduce engine noise with 112 cylinders impossible. Plus it's high speed = even more noise.



    By modern standards - such an IPC is able to notice on the go what a roaring cow Romeo from Kim (the rest have written off them already). Even the old 209 boats (the most common) - not to take. The chances are only for pair work - one stands and listens, drowning under the DG, the second runs to the contact. The second becomes and listens, and the first starts the diesel engine and runs to the contact. Well, etc. It still somehow works in peacetime (when the goal is to find the boat and squeeze it out with non-lethal measures). But this will not work in the military.

    If anything is trending now diesel electric installation. When the corvette or anti-submarine has a stroke of 8-12 knots on electric engines due to the battery / DG feed, with the main diesel engine turned off. Yes, and the main diesel medium or low revolutions per 12-16-24 cylinder.
    1. alexmach 26 December 2019 11: 40 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      It was created on the basis of the power plant of the Karakurt MRK, with additional measures to reduce noise. At the heart of this power plant are diesel engines manufactured by PJSC Zvezda.

      The weakest point, and at the technical level of the 70s.

      So it caused a very big question for me.
      1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 10 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        see my comment below.
        1. alexmach 26 December 2019 21: 12 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          I suppose then that the author was cheating and it’s not about the “star” at all
          1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 21: 17 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            The stars are there.

            There are just "nuances."
    2. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 10 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      The weakest point, and at the technical level of the 70s.

      It is impossible to reduce noise in an engine with 112 cylinders. Plus it's high speed = even more noise.


      The problem is that I cannot write everything. I was asked not to detail the GEM. Therefore, I will not say anything, I will limit myself to the fact that not everything is so bad there.
    3. Vadim237 26 December 2019 14: 16 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      The only way out is to put these diesel engines on a combined sound-absorbing frame and create a special sound-absorbing engine room.
      1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 14: 33 New
        • 5
        • 3
        +2
        You somehow think narrowly, there have been three or four shock-absorbing circuits since the days of the USSR, such as a motor on soft pillows on a frame that is suspended on soft pillows on the ceiling (ceiling), etc.

        This is usually not enough. A submarine five kilometers from the coast will hear the brakes of the cars traveling along the sea, distinguish between alternating current ripples in the wiring of another submarine over many kilometers (if this is an old alternating current submarine), etc.
        1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 16: 17 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Since the days of the USSR, a lot of new materials have appeared on sound insulation and continue to appear.
    4. Sergey S. 11 January 2020 19: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Have you ever wondered why the extremely high-speed engine is practically inaudible in the car interior, and vibration is hardly felt ....

      I don’t know what “low-speed” is in this context, but the main direction in the creation of submarine power plants after the Second World War is the introduction of high-speed diesel engines ... Accordingly, with an increase in the total number of cylinders on the ship. Pay attention to the Germans ...
      And only we stubbornly hold on to medium-speed diesel engines.
      Who would write the statement of work for Kolomensky Zavod for the future, well, he would throw some money ...
      And then shipbuilders are happy to stamp hulls and bark at diesel engineers who "ate" money an order of magnitude less than some ...

      PS
      While the military and shipbuilders do not realize that diesel is more complex than the ship’s hull, its development requires a longer period of work, including bench work, a sufficiently large series for working out the resource .... nothing good will appear.
      By the way, do not buy abroad either ...
  10. pmkemcity 26 December 2019 10: 11 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    We need such ships at sea,
    So that we can argue with any wave,
    Lighthouses are needed, and we need a locator,
    And we need the faithful guys!

    And then
    Water is like earth to us
    And then
    The crew is our family
    And then
    Any of us do not mind
    Though all my life
    Serve in the navy!

    We need hikes and greetings for service at sea
    From home to distant waters
    And so as not to waste free minutes,
    Of course, we need a guitar in the cockpit!

    And then
    Water is like earth to us
    And then
    The crew is our family
    And then
    Any of us do not mind
    Though all my life
    Serve in the navy!


    We need anchors and cables for service,
    We need a charter that all sailors remember,
    Need a flag that flies above the blue wave
    And the Motherland - Russia is most needed!

    And then
    Water is like earth to us
    And then
    The crew is our family
    And then
    Any of us do not mind
    Though all my life
    Serve in the navy!

    Poems by Y. Pogorelsky, music by V. Pleshak
    1. Nemchinov Vl 26 December 2019 23: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: pmkemcity
      We need such ships at sea,
      So that we can argue with any wave,
      oh-oh, somewhere else, “Bourbon” was brought for New Year’s shares ... :))
      1. pmkemcity 27 December 2019 05: 05 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Import substitution has long been - only vodka and balalaika!
  11. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 10: 27 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    If you close the Sea of ​​Okhotsk for foreign naval shipping, declaring the RF security zone (this is a resolved issue), you will be able to think about what kind of fleet the Russian Federation needs and stop running on the Soviet rake. A dozen submarines with BR, being completely safe in their waters, are able to maintain the balance of strategic nuclear forces.
    1. donavi49 26 December 2019 10: 44 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      ??
      Vilyuchinsk goes to the Pacific Ocean. There is no Sea of ​​Okhotsk there.
      In the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, there are no submarines with BR.
      In Vilyuchinsk there is already 1 combat-ready ICAPL Kuzbass - which alone should ensure a breakthrough of the strategic nuclear forces, including Boreas, through the veil of Virginia and Elk, and then drag Batons along with it to hunt large surface groups.

      The Sea of ​​Okhotsk itself can be closed only in words. Yes, and even if you close it. Submarines will go as they like. By the principle of not caught, not a thief wink .
      1. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 10: 53 New
        • 0
        • 5
        -5
        Why break through something? Sit in comfortable conditions in your water area. And so that Virginia was not at a party and needed "international relations." On the principle - "catch, drown." Well, it’s not customary for large uncles to lie in the face of each other. It costs more to itself.
        1. Alexey RA 26 December 2019 11: 08 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Quote: Robertocalos
          Why break through something? Sit in comfortable conditions in your water area.

          Then, that Vilyuchinsk goes to the Pacific Ocean. And from it to the nearest strait leading to the Sea of ​​Okhotsk - 150 miles. And to sit in comfortable conditions, you need to get these 150 miles somehow.
          1. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 11: 28 New
            • 1
            • 5
            -4
            What prevents building a base directly inside the Sea of ​​Okhotsk? What, in Vilyuchinsk the light came together in a wedge?
            1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 12 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              That it is a permeable sea through and through. Americans with their sonar there hear our SSBNs from a great distance.
              From there, on the contrary, you must leave.
              1. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 12: 19 New
                • 0
                • 6
                -6
                So if you close it, then the Americans will not be there. The Russian Federation does not sit in the Gulf of Mexico, the States in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. Delov then? The contract was signed and hello.
                1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 29 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  So no one will sign such an agreement.
                  1. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 12: 41 New
                    • 0
                    • 2
                    -2
                    There are versions why?
                    1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 43 New
                      • 4
                      • 1
                      +3
                      Because Americans hear a boat going to the North American continent for thousands of kilometers, and if we find them in the Avacha Gulf, then by chance
                      1. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 13: 15 New
                        • 0
                        • 5
                        -5
                        The Americans are well aware that it is not possible to neutralize the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation. Therefore, insisting on the sovereignty of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is just a negotiating position. Which will save Russia from throwing with naval concepts and the arms race. It is necessary to eliminate the cause, not the consequences.
                      2. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 13: 37 New
                        • 4
                        • 2
                        +2
                        The Americans are well aware that it is not possible to neutralize the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation.


                        This is not entirely true. It is just very difficult. It will be worth some loss even with success - several million people. This is a risk of failure at the preparation stage - but it is not impossible.
                      3. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 14: 07 New
                        • 1
                        • 4
                        -3
                        Right And why put these millions at stake? The trouble with our leaders is that they respond (as it seems to them) to external challenges. Instead of setting the agenda yourself. Not an aircraft carrier to respond to an aircraft carrier, have already overtaken so once.
                      4. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 14: 26 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        And why put these millions at stake?


                        That’s as soon as it’s for what - they’ll immediately deliver it. Rather, they won’t even put them on the card, but write them off in planned losses.

                        The trouble for our leaders is


                        Well, our leaders and cockroaches in their heads is a separate issue.
                      5. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 14: 32 New
                        • 0
                        • 4
                        -4
                        Your suggestion is to pump muscles until you drop. There are no reasons for the war, in the foreseeable horizon it is not expected, there will be no winners, but we will answer Karakurt to each Virginia. Well, the circus?
                      6. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 14: 45 New
                        • 7
                        • 2
                        +5
                        No.
                        You do not understand the Anglo-Saxons. They think like in chess - the one who has the advantage should attack with the threat of his loss.

                        Is Russia trying to overcome something there? Does it have nuclear weapons? Crush. Just for the fact that she is. And they will crush any other country in the same way, it will reach India once, and any other large, strong and independent state.

                        Plus, the fact that the elimination of the Russian Federation automatically makes China obey - is this not the reason?

                        Plus, there are a bunch of irrational factors in this matter that are quite significant for the Americans, but I do not want to plunge into this abyss.
                      7. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 15: 00 New
                        • 1
                        • 5
                        -4
                        And you would plunge, and suggested that the abyss and there is not much. What are these Anglo-Saxons? Collective evil?
                        I don’t know how it is with you, but I have been working there for almost half of Fiztekh’s group for already 20 years. Someone is for myself, someone is for the government. And I don’t notice that desire to fight. Moreover, they are on a drum to their former homeland. But for his children - no.
                      8. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 15: 07 New
                        • 2
                        • 2
                        0
                        And you would plunge, and suggested that the abyss and there is not much.


                        I had enough of past times.
                      9. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 15: 14 New
                        • 0
                        • 4
                        -4
                        These are emotions in you, and I (and not only) are interested in communicating with the mind. There are not many balanced and consistent authors, do not cheat on yourself)
                      10. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 15: 17 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Yes, these are not emotions, just when you start to deal with people's value system and their motivation, sometimes unpleasant things come out. To put it mildly.

                        But now I do not want to continue this topic.
                      11. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 15: 26 New
                        • 2
                        • 4
                        -2
                        "If you want peace - get ready for war" - your world order. But fear in the Maslow pyramid is at a lower level. Think about it at your leisure. Thanks for the conversation, I hope I didn’t bore you very much. And of course, no Karakurts will save from Virginia. This is mouse fuss. Real tasks must be set, and the country's leadership has obvious problems with this. Tear apart with the fleet - a vivid confirmation of this. The fleet is more complex than other troops, and competencies do not shine with a level.
              2. Orkraider 26 December 2019 18: 04 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa


                Is Russia trying to overcome something there? Does it have nuclear weapons? Crush. Just for the fact that she is. And they will crush any other country in the same way, it will reach India once, and any other large, strong and independent state.

                Plus, the fact that the elimination of the Russian Federation automatically makes China obey - is this not the reason?



                One of the best and most comprehensive comments that briefly and accurately describes the situation.

                Alexander, thanks!
                For this text and article.

                Add:
              3. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 19: 52 New
                • 1
                • 4
                -3
                And who "just the same" crushed? Well, at least one example? Even Kim is still alive and well and well-fed, even though the States are trolling to the fullest. Iran - again by. Saudis? Qatar? Can NATO fight with China? No, the Huawei pressanuli, they raised duties, but without shots. For some reason, hanging tags is easier for you than to get to the bottom of what is happening. Such a view of the world and Karakurt end. Instead of Arly Burkov.
              4. alexmach 26 December 2019 20: 58 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                And who "just the same" crushed?

                What about france? Louisiana there ...
                Japan?
                Great Britain?
                Germany?
                China, they’re crushing right now.
                Even Kim is still alive and well and well-fed, even though the States are trolling to the fullest

                Kim
                1. scarecrow useful for Americans
                2. Has a serious roof.
                Iran - again by

                How to say. Seriously, no one has taken it yet, and they never posed a serious danger or threat to the states.
                Saudis? Qatar?

                It’s also allies, relatives practically.
              5. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 21: 54 New
                • 4
                • 2
                +2
                France is alive, healthy and forms a null European agenda with the non-resistance of the other participants.
                Japan is the most advanced aircraft in the Asia-Pacific region.
                Great Britain - left France to rake the Augean stables of tolerance, and went its own (American) way. They are allies in life, for "brothers."
                Germany - feeds Europe and, perhaps, got tired of this role, however, it is in no hurry to part with hegemony.
                China? Reached the second place in the world in economics and the first in terms of development. And that suits him perfectly.
                Kim is alive and well precisely because China feeds him like a "scarecrow" of the States. Iran - is at great risk of getting a conditional "Syria" within the country. Saudis and Qatar were not and will not be relatives of the States. Just useful tactical allies with their considerable ambitions.
                Here Russia is not in this list. As the Russian Federation does not have a coherent foreign policy. With whom are we and why. The St. Petersburg group is trying to create a new aristocracy from children, they are not interested in geopolitics. They don’t offer smart books in the gateways, and they don’t need them, they already accidentally received a whole country. History, of course, is not science, but at least a chain of facts and events that can be analyzed and not run, if possible, on a rake.
              6. alexmach 26 December 2019 22: 46 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                France

                Having given up a completely unnecessary colony to a third of the modern USA.
                Japan

                Caved in under the Americans back in the 19th century.
                Great Britain - left France to rake

                Blah blah blah..
                At the same time, an empire collapsed over which the sun never set - a kind of the most powerful state of the world for centuries, and surrendering all its former US colonies.
                .
              7. Robertocalos 27 December 2019 04: 47 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Did Japan bend back in the XNUMXth century? Pearl Harbor reptiles apparently staged? Normal is "prohibitive".
                The British Empire collapsed?
                Canada, Australia, New Zealand do not think so. The standard of living in these countries is not difficult to monitor? Can England and the USA have any serious contradictions?
              8. alexmach 27 December 2019 10: 07 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Did Japan bend back in the XNUMXth century?

                And you didn’t know, did you? Learn the story.
                The British Empire collapsed?

                Have you noticed?
                Canada, Australia, New Zealand do not think so

                At the same time, they ceased to be British colonies and became ... American. Completely fitting into their world.
                Is the living standard in these countries not difficult to monitor?

                AND? Does this mean that the empire has not collapsed or what?
                maybe some serious contradictions have England and the United States ?.

                From the moment of "surrender" of Britain and the surrender of all its overseas possessions to a new hegemon - it seems not.
              9. Robertocalos 27 December 2019 10: 20 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                The British Empire has not collapsed, no matter how much you would like. Transformed according to new realities. Dropping ballast in the form of India, Southeast Asia, Africa - all those who, according to current rules, need to be fed. And white people in the face of just Australia, Canada and other territories of the Commonwealth still honor the Queen of Great Britain. Yes, England is now 51 states, but if not the first of the others, then not the second.
              10. alexmach 27 December 2019 11: 18 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The British Empire has not collapsed, no matter how you would like

                I don’t even know what to answer, are you writing from an alternative reality, where does it still exist?
                Transformed according to new realities

                Ah ... well, yes. You could say that ... only now it has departed from the hands of the British and moved to the USA .. well, yes, the new realities did not fall apart but transformed.
                Dropping ballast in the form of India, Southeast Asia, Africa - all those who, according to current rules, need to be fed.

                Ballast? Ballast? Is this the “Pearl of the Crown of the Empire” a ballast then?
                India and Southeast Asia are areas of intense economic growth since the last quarter of a century, actually. Africa is again becoming the object of neocolonial expansion, only the British no longer play the first violin in it. Feed? When did the colonialists feed someone?
                And white people in the face of just Australia, Canada and other territories of the Commonwealth still honor the Queen of Great Britain

                They honor something, only economically and politically entirely under America. They fight to the pimer where the Washington regional committee orders and not the queen,
              11. Robertocalos 27 December 2019 11: 41 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                You probably have not heard of the Commonwealth of Nations. Three dozen countries with a population of more than the United States. All empires would fall apart like that. It’s not for you to scare the Old Man with a pipe, aerobatics are much higher.
              12. alexmach 27 December 2019 11: 43 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                You probably have not heard about the Commonwealth of Nations

                Heard heard, but that's just who really controls this community is your way? Queen? The Commonwealth is British, but inscribed in the American world, that’s the whole empire.
              13. Robertocalos 27 December 2019 11: 48 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                The authorities of the former colonies agreed on some general rules of relations. For such purposes, the community is necessary. With a knife to the throat, they were not forced to enter - the colonial era was over. And friendship and mutually beneficial cooperation is present. Voluntary, moreover.
  12. Orkraider 26 December 2019 22: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    One example?
    Easily.
    China - the Opium Wars. Here is the answer to your monologue above, what is the "Anglo-Saxons".
  13. Robertocalos 27 December 2019 04: 54 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Why so modest? The British all over the planet were noted. "Whoever can, where he will try." To remind, what kind of country is 1/8 of the land?
  14. Sergey S. 11 January 2020 19: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    insisting on the sovereignty of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk is just a negotiating position. Which will save Russia from throwing with naval concepts and the arms race.

    The main goal of the enemy in the negotiations is to make Russia lose its sovereign status ... That is, the status of a power. capable of destroying America.
    So no contracts with Russia, while it is beneficial to Russia.

    Once we had a strong negotiating position .... For quite some time ...
  • Vadim237 26 December 2019 14: 22 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    There is another way, to get a few dozen buoys of noise simulators all over the Arctic Ocean and, in the event of a possible conflict, turn them on to the full - the vaunted sonar of American submarines will go deaf.
    1. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 14: 27 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      The best war - which was not). The task is to save their submarines. That is, eliminate the threat of an alien fleet. How to do it smarter than controlling the territory?
  • timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 11 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    In the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, there are no submarines with BR.


    Just there they are.
    1. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 12: 45 New
      • 0
      • 5
      -5
      By the way, in the Black there is no nuclear weapons. That is, they agreed and executed. So it is possible in Okhotsk. Moreover, only Japan is from the border countries.
      1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 13: 35 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Nobody will come to an agreement with us, the Americans are pumping a preventive nuclear strike, and now they will not agree with anyone or anything.
        1. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 14: 01 New
          • 2
          • 3
          -1
          Why do Americans strike in Russia? What will they gain from this? Did not start at 47-49, did not start at. 63, did not start at 91. Now why is this? Economies have been fighting for a long time, bombs are needed only so that the rules of the game are not forgotten.
          1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 14: 10 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            I have no idea.
            But they are actively developing opportunities for such a blow.
            Right now.

            Probably nowhere to spend money.

            Or maybe they think in this way to knock out a support from under the Chinese.
            1. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 14: 17 New
              • 1
              • 5
              -4
              Do not you think that these are phantom pains and horror stories for domestic consumption? Including the lobbyists of the military-industrial complex?
              1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 14: 25 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                No, this is the w76-2 detonator and the scheme for detonating warheads at different heights.
                This is a reduction in the power of nuclear charges and increased accuracy.
                This is the inclusion of SLBMs in the first strike.
                This is the lifting of the ban on ultra-small nuclear charges in 2004, which makes it possible to resume the production of portable nuclear munitions.

                This is all done by the Americans.

                Now here is the way out of the INF Treaty and the future way out of strategic offensive arms.

                But you can come up with your own explanation.
                1. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 14: 35 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  That is, this is an increase in rates for the Russian Federation. And for the States - the preservation of allocations in the military-industrial complex.
                  1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 14: 47 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    What are they just not doing new tanks if they only need appropriations? A heavy carrier-based aircraft carrier-based fighter aircraft? The masses are very useful for conventional warfare, high-tech and expensive pieces that are not reducible to nuclear war.

                    And, importantly, more expensive than the above toys.

                    But they do a few other things.
                  2. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 14: 53 New
                    • 1
                    • 3
                    -2
                    Cosmic amounts in f-35, Zamolty, as it were, show that the key vector of the US military-industrial complex is the reduction in the cost of each concrete strike. Tomahawks how old? 40? To minuten? To the tridents? Where are the nuclear prodigies? The economy rules. Jobs, taxes, hi-tech. It's about money, not about war.
                  3. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 14: 56 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    Where are the nuclear prodigies?


                    Google W76-2 superfuse for example.
                  4. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 15: 02 New
                    • 2
                    • 5
                    -3
                    For the rest there are no objections? Agree that their defense industry is mostly a business?
                  5. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 15: 06 New
                    • 3
                    • 2
                    +1
                    It’s business, but it’s going to the same. And by the way, this detonator is radically changing the strategic balance in the world, if you are not in the know.
                  6. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 15: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 3
                    -3
                    Do you think the Russian Federation is now stronger or weaker than 15-20 years ago?
                    And how do you see the "strategic balance?" Is that a constant?
                  7. Dante Alighieri 27 December 2019 14: 16 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Vadim, Alexander, you all say the right thing, but somewhat one-sided. Vadim considers the confrontation globally in a historical perspective, Alexander focuses on what is happening here and now. But the bottom line is that both of you are right. On the one hand, it really makes no sense to fight Russia with the USA or the USA with Russia. "But what about natural resources?" - you ask. And I will answer: the current elite will easily sell resources to anyone who has money for this. The only, theoretically, a situation may arise when the bribe for intermediary services to our oligarchs and the bureaucrats lured by them in the government will significantly exceed the cost of the energy carriers themselves. But this, given the very rich and extensive skill accumulated by the Anglaxaks to eliminate opponents by the hands of these same opponents (color revolutions, military coups, killings of objectionable politicians, etc.), is not a problem. So in this matter our “elites” just should not forget that the size of the bribe should not exceed the size of the killer’s remuneration and they will have everything in salve. To refute this, claiming that such a scenario is supposedly impossible and the people and the party are united as never before, you should not even try. The elite set over the people and propagating the principles of their personal well-being at a monstrous level of socio-economic stratification, cannot be a priori identified with the masses and is reasonably perceived by them as something alien, foreign and hostile. So, with due diligence, implementing such a scenario will not be difficult. They just haven’t taken us seriously. Evidence of this is the impotence of sanctions and the futile shelling of Syria by the Tomahawks. It is impossible not to say that nothing is being done, but how you begin to understand the effect of all these actions is approximately none. In general, there are many movements, but with orgasm - nothing. At the same time, even in the case of a popular rebellion, there is no question of a global collision, because in addition to a convenient gas station, we are also not the most stable, but still a sales market for US-Ktiai-European consumer goods, the loss of which would be very noticeable. Nevertheless, as Alexander correctly points out, militaristic hysteria is growing and more countries are joining in it and more and more funds are being invested. What's the point?

                    On the part of our authorities, those who hold it are quite simple: the increase in confrontation really cementes a shaky social space, making it more stable and, no less important, more manageable. In addition, the aggravation of confrontation gives a hypothetical chance to rise a notch in the hegemonic satellite team, displacing from the podium such "beloved" but far from fresh "concubines" of the Shah as Germany or France. It is not for nothing that the main leitmotif of any speech of the “Russian leader” on the topic of foreign policy is the lifting of sanctions, i.e. in another language, the recognition that we scared everyone, appreciated us and recognized, if not equal, then the first among the best, which, you see, is pleasant. At the same time, Crimea does not undo this vision, as if our elite was guided by other reasons than personal authority: we would not be limited to the peninsula. And so the fate of the Donbass and the Russian world testifies to how Crimea was a necessary measure, since everyone took such a step to understand that there would be consequences, but it was impossible to do otherwise, because local courtyard boys in the old communal apartment would regard this as weakness and end up cutting . Here it’s not enough interesting what the neighbors from the neighboring entrance think about you, although it’s also advisable to save face in front of them, and therefore it’s not worth building a fence, all the more so since no one is in a hurry to hammer a gate with nails in response. Therefore, the scenario of the smallest possible confrontation was chosen, especially since it had its advantages, along with undoubted disadvantages.

                    Why is it beneficial to the states?

                    Option 1. Need a whipping boy, a scarecrow, an example of whose fate would allow to keep everyone else in unconditional obedience - not suitable, because For this, as I said, we need more effective measures and real steps, and not an imitation of violent activity.

                    Option 2. Not everything is fine in the Danish kingdom. This hypothesis looks more viable. It is no secret that the economic crisis continues, while in itself it is only a projection of the crisis of the capitalist system as a whole. Economists know little effective mechanisms for overcoming crisis phenomena, and there is only one guaranteed one - confrontation. Only war (open or latent) can write off unnecessary assets and redistribute financial flows. However, the level of the scientific and technical process has led to the fact that this scenario is also impossible: the risk is too great to multiply by zero not only the enemy, but also yourself. So the enemy on the one hand should be strong enough, because otherwise, the very essence of confrontation will disappear, but at the same time it is weak and smart enough to decide to go from the cold to the hot phase. Therefore, the enemy in the person of China was thrown back immediately: the probability is too high that the young dragon, unable to restrain himself, will flare up. But it came in handy when it turned out to be a battered moth and a hole-up suit of the evil Russian Ivan.

                    And so it turns out what turns out: confrontation, without confrontation. It is mutually beneficial for everyone and everyone: someone is tightening his defense industry thereby supporting his economy and creating jobs, and someone is comforting himself with the phantom of his power and with a gentle hug, the boa suffocates his own population in a happy militaristic nap.
                  8. Robertocalos 27 December 2019 14: 38 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    About "not everything is fine." The US economy is growing. As for sanctions for the Russian Federation, they work and how. The authorities didn’t read the situation with Crimea to the end, they took it away. But it was possible and necessary to buy. Ukraine needed money in a power vacuum. Europe would applaud - for them a huge problem is less. The states went wild because the basic post-war principle was violated - the borders are not limited by force. Yugoslavia is not an illustrative example, it fell apart after the Union for similar reasons, but not bloodless, since Milosevic wanted to keep Serbian hegemony by force. Gorbachev did not do the same in the Union and, probably, this is his only wise decision after leaving Afghanistan. From the Donbass of the Russian Federation will have to leave in the near future, and get used to the Crimea. But all this after Putin will be.
                  9. gunnerminer 27 December 2019 18: 59 New
                    • 2
                    • 2
                    0
                    The main thing in their sanctions is the deprivation of the possibility of Russian lending banks in the EU and the United States, followed by technological isolation, especially in metal production technologies, radio electronics, and chemical technologies. This is noticeable in the sharply increased debt of Russian military-industrial complex enterprises to commercial banks. The debt reached 1.2 trillion rubles.
                  10. Dart2027 27 December 2019 19: 24 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Robertocalos
                    But it was possible and necessary to buy. Ukraine needed money in a power vacuum.
                    What vacuum? Everyone steered from the United States.
                    Quote: Robertocalos
                    Yugoslavia is not an illustrative example, it fell apart after the Union for similar reasons, but it is not bloodless, since
                    Milosevic refused to become a traitor and she was simply bombed.
                    Quote: Robertocalos
                    Donbass of the Russian Federation will have to leave in the near future
                    What time do not remind?
  • Robertocalos 26 December 2019 15: 19 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    You don’t steal mail from a neighbor?) Not a “thief,” not a lot, marginals, decent people are responsible for words and deeds. Just take a broader look at this question. The task is to hide the boats from the first strike. Right? This is the easiest way to do this in your water area. And so that no one was hanging around, we must close it. It is still possible.
  • Storekeeper 26 December 2019 11: 33 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Something in this world “broke” in December there is no snow, and Timokhin began to rejoice at “Karakurt”! Typically, articles from the author scolding the fleet and offering a solution to the problems identified, but here it’s joyful positive! Alexander, are you sick? laughing
    But seriously, the author once again pleased with an interesting article. He gave hope that everything will work out with us. Good news before the New Year! And about a ship, a titmouse in hands is better than a crane in the sky! We must build what we can and the more and the cheaper the better!
    Happy New Year, everyone! Health and prosperity!
    1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 13 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Typically, articles by an author scolding the fleet and offering a solution to identified problems,


      I scold the fleet in this article, nothing has changed laughing

      Do you know how much effort you had to spend to show this model?
      1. Orkraider 26 December 2019 18: 11 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Typically, articles by an author scolding the fleet and offering a solution to identified problems,


        I scold the fleet in this article, nothing has changed laughing

        Do you know how much effort you had to spend to show this model?


        God grant that this modelka began to be implemented. And I also hope that they will resume bookmark 20380, well, the mind should prevail, it should.
  • Ratmir_Ryazan 26 December 2019 12: 04 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The lack of a helicopter in the anti-submarine Karakurt can be compensated for by the fact that corps, etc. 20380/20385 or frigates with helicopters can be included in the KPUG.

    The main thing is to detect the submarine with the help of the SAS, and the helicopter can be called from another ship.

    In addition to the search for submarines, the Karakurt PLO itself must reflect missile and torpedo attacks, since it will be necessary for him to act on the search for enemy submarines alone, which, apparently, he can do.

    Overall a good idea.

    Only now, anyway, the difference in price is only 2 times with full corvettes somehow not enough in my opinion.

    What is better than 4 corvettes, etc. 20380 or 8 PLO Karakurt?

    For me, the answer is not obvious.
    1. Alexey RA 26 December 2019 12: 20 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      The main thing is to detect the submarine with the help of the SAS, and the helicopter can be called from another ship.

      In fact, it is the PLO aviation that should be the first to detect submarines. Just because, due to its greater speed and the availability of autonomous search facilities (RSL), it has a larger search area than NK (I don’t take into account all kinds of distortions like “Steelworks” with their SURTASS antennas a mile long).
      After the initial detection of a submarine (RSL operation at one of the exposed barriers), the aircraft / helicopter either engages in the target itself (sets up a new RSL field in the triggering area to determine the location of the submarine and, after specifying the location and parameters of the target’s movement, uses a weapon on it) or transfers the contact to the surface ships.
      Actually, the PLO airborne helicopter is a kind of “hydroacoustic AWACS”, which allows you to look beyond the radius of the ship’s GAS and justifies the presence of PLURs whose flight range exceeds the range of this GAS. Without it, the same PLUR lose 80 percent of their range - simply because the ship at this distance does not see the target.
      1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 12: 28 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        In fairness, in those places where we will use these boats, helicopters can also be used from the coast, plus there are carrier ships for them.
      2. Ratmir_Ryazan 26 December 2019 12: 51 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        As I understand it, it is not always possible to use a helicopter and keep it in the air all the time, and it doesn’t work on AWAX, it only sees where it can lower its GAS and beacons (I don’t know how they are called correctly), but not constantly, besides, they will be able to bring him down if the war starts, if they are far away from the ships, and the work of the ship-borne hulls of several Karakurts located at a distance from each other within the range of their hulls will create an insurmountable barrier for enemy submarines. This is their meaning in my opinion.

        Otherwise, what is the point then in PLO Karakurt, why 20 such ships, when for the same money you can make 10 full corvettes pr.20380 ?!
        1. Alexey RA 26 December 2019 13: 13 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          The helicopter, as I understand it, is not always possible to use and keep it in the air constantly does not work

          This means that it will be necessary to organize the rotation of onboard helicopters of several PLO ships (or coastal squadrons). The Soviet Navy did it - shift work with contact transfer.
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          and he doesn’t pull marine AWACS, he sees it only where he can lower his GAS and beacons

          RSL - sonar buoys. In this case, a helicopter or a plane acts as a spider: it spread out several signal networks around the patrol area (put up the RSL barriers) and waits for one of the threads to flutter (one or more RSLs heard submarines).
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          besides, they can bring him down if a war starts, if he is far removed from the ships,

          This is IPC, not BOD. Their work is OVR, coastal zone. In addition, with their rudimentary anti-aircraft defense, they will need 146% to cover with fighters (in the coastal zone near the naval base, coastal aviation is still effective). So they’ll cover the helicopter - anyway, it makes no sense to move further than 50-60 miles from the ship.
          1. mik193 26 December 2019 13: 40 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            I'm sorry, I’ll fix it. The RSL is a deep-sea rocket bomb; the sonar buoy is designated the RSL.
            1. Alexey RA 26 December 2019 15: 32 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: mik193
              I'm sorry, I’ll fix it. The RSL is a deep-sea rocket bomb; the sonar buoy is designated the RSL.

              Right! Thanks for the correction - something was cutting my eyes, but I could not understand what. smile
          2. Ratmir_Ryazan 26 December 2019 14: 53 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            I always thought that everything was the other way around, first the ship with the help of the SAC discovers the area where there is a submarine, and then this area is sown by the RSLA from the helicopter so that the sublite does not escape anywhere and does not disappear at low speed, even if it completely freezes or lies on the ground and after being amazed.

            And how to sow from the helicopter into the sea of ​​the RSHA network is how much they need and how then to remove them back from the water ?!

            Or are they disposable ?! You don’t have enough of it, the thing with electronics is clearly not cheap.
            1. Alexey RA 26 December 2019 15: 53 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
              And how to sow from the helicopter into the sea of ​​the RSHA network is how much they need and how then to remove them back from the water ?!

              No way - they are disposable and drown after completion of work.
              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
              Or are they disposable ?! You don’t have enough of it, the thing with electronics is clearly not cheap.

              Full-fledged PLO was never cheap. We don’t want to sow the RSAB - we will have to make a stationary system and carrier ships with extended towed antennas.
              And even in this case it is necessary to spend RSGB. Because as a "long-range" GAS will issue area finding the target, and then you have to “ring” the target in this area with the RSAB - to accurately determine the coordinates and parameters of the target’s movement for the further use of weapons.
              1. Ratmir_Ryazan 26 December 2019 16: 51 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Well, it’s kind of and just doing it while the PLO ships, some of them will simply detect submarines as Karakurt’s PLO, and some like pr.20380 / 20385 will also carry a helicopter that will sow the RSLB in the area where the submarines are already equipped, to destroy, and not just to be on duty in this way.

                Or maybe there is a stationary network of HAC in Russia around our bases. This is not the case when you need to shout about whether we have it or not and where it is.
      3. mik193 26 December 2019 13: 28 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Well, it seems to me that a GAS with a GPA of the AN / SQR-19 type is no perversion, almost every enemy ship with PLO functions carries it on board. And this is exactly the opposite - after the submarine is found in the contact area (it is the area that the GAS and the GPA cannot give exact coordinates), aircraft or carrier-based helicopters are induced.
        1. Alexey RA 26 December 2019 15: 49 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: mik193
          Well, it seems to me that the GAS with the GPA type AN / SQR-19 is no perversion

          So for TACTAS you need a carrier of at least OXP. The mass of the complex is 25 tons, the total cable length is 1 mile, 37 square meters. m for electronics and winch.
          Although, if there is a BUGAS (GAS with an extended towed antenna) on the ship, the tactics are really “inverted”: the helicopter is activated by the BU from the BUGAS (the same TACTAS is described in the documents as a “trigger”, “trigger” for activating the LAMPS helicopter system).
          1. mik193 26 December 2019 22: 20 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Now I’ll try to throw off the performance characteristics of our “Vignette”. It seems to fit in size and weight.
  • demiurg 26 December 2019 12: 47 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    It is interesting, but if instead of two UVP under caliber and under missiles put 2-4 533 mm with a waterfall and put the shell, a place under the platform for drones will appear? And by the way, why is the Ka-27 necessary? Kamovites should have easier helicopters.
    And by the way, what's up with Kolomna? They kind of gave birth to a new line, including and marine diesels.
    1. Alexey RA 26 December 2019 13: 18 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      It is interesting, but if instead of two UVP under caliber and under missiles put 2-4 533mm with a waterfall

      So UVP is just designed for PLUR from the "gauge" family - 91R1 and 91RT2.
      Quote: demiurg
      And by the way, why is the Ka-27 necessary? Kamovites should have easier helicopters.

      And how much will the anti-submarine version be made for this light helicopter - with all the electronics, sonar and weapons?
      Currently, the Navy has one PLO helicopter. And this is the Ka-27.
    2. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 13: 31 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      It is interesting, but if instead of two UVP under caliber and under missiles put 2-4 533mm with a waterfall and put the shell


      Then this thing will not be able to replace the RTOs and the Navy will continue to resist even the RTOs.

      And by the way, what's up with Kolomna? They kind of gave birth to a new line, including and marine diesels.



      These births promise to be very long.
  • Elturisto 26 December 2019 12: 54 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Good article.
    Rezanul-in the field of military planning, a complete mess. Everything from the floundering bay. The left hand does not know what the right is doing. A bunch of obscure projects of unfinished gunboats - neither PLO nor air defense, for whom is it all? Why? It seems that the Navy is dealing with the enemy pests.
    It’s strange, like all-Russia is building small-sized scows, and Egypt and Algeria are landing helicopter carriers :).
  • Vladimir1155 26 December 2019 13: 11 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    Truly good news, this is what the fleet needs! The only thing is that they don’t need to load Pella, there is a task for minesweepers and there are a lot of them, and let the rest of the factories build Karakurt PLO .. Helicopter absence is not exactly a minus, this is natural for the IPC, especially since it works in the coastal zone, that is in the accessibility of coastal aviation, and a helipad would significantly increase the ship, double its price to a corvette, deprive it of the possibility of transferring its gates, and ultimately reduce their number .... so a lot of sailing for small ships!
  • mik193 26 December 2019 13: 21 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Finally drew attention to the problems of PLO! It remains only to build it all.
    I dare to speak out. The new IPC (as we call it) should naturally be steel - no composites, as large as possible in terms of displacement (seaworthiness). The main attention in armament should be paid to air defense and anti-aircraft defense. I think you can do without a strike complex, but PLUR is extremely desirable. The helicopter is certainly wonderful, but on a small ship, it seems to me that it will be too limited in weather and as indicated by fuel. A small ship, perhaps aircraft can support from the shore. A 76-mm gun is enough for combat with boats and as an addition to air defense. More - I think a heavy gun will make the nose heavier and worsen seaworthiness. RBU can now come in handy when acting against PDSS and anti-torpedo defense, so the issue is debatable. The issue with 533-mm torpedoes is also thought not superfluous.
    And finally, thanks to the author for the necessary article.
    1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 13: 40 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Finally drew attention to the problems of PLO!


      Well, you are not so optimistic about things yet. In order to simply push through this model, it took a lot of effort, and even some “paperless” work in this area was still far away.
      1. mik193 26 December 2019 13: 46 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Well, at least it’s got off the ground, and then madmen around with a foam at the mouth shout “Caliber, Caliber, push the Caliber everywhere!”.
        1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 14: 08 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Yes, I also have a feeling that I got into a madhouse. But maybe we are promoting the people slowly.
        2. Vadim237 26 December 2019 14: 23 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          Now Zircon is trending.
          1. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 14: 47 New
            • 2
            • 3
            -1
            Yes Yes. No one has seen, but everyone knows that "there are no analogues." But there should be no taxes, otherwise this is a deliberately losing position.
            1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 16: 22 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              No one really has at least hypersonic anti-ship missiles, India is just starting to develop their HyperBramos. No one will show the missile launcher either, like the Vanguard, because their aerodynamic forms of the airframe are state secrets. The launch container itself will be shown and that's it.
            2. alma 26 December 2019 19: 25 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Robertocalos
              Yes Yes. No one has seen, but everyone knows that "there are no analogues." But it should not be taxesotherwise, this is obviously a losing position.

              Vadik, Freud’s reservation? laughing
              1. Robertocalos 26 December 2019 19: 42 New
                • 0
                • 4
                -4
                T9 just. Do not produce essence, it will not help. Vadik called Dame a pony. I don’t have to contact me like that.
                1. alma 26 December 2019 23: 09 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Well sorry request hi
        3. Alexey RA 26 December 2019 17: 06 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: mik193
          Well, at least it’s got off the ground, and then madmen around with a foam at the mouth shout “Caliber, Caliber, push the Caliber everywhere!”.

          So here they want to put the "caliber" - but in the version of PLUR. smile
          1. timokhin-aa 27 December 2019 11: 05 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And all other calibres will be applied there
    2. Eskobar 26 December 2019 17: 22 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Right now, do you describe a BOD that describes how to shove everything into the IPC?
      1. mik193 26 December 2019 21: 35 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Well, for an example, look at the performance characteristics of the MPK of project 1124. There are air defense systems, there is artillery, there are TAs and bombers, there is a sap and lowering ASU. And all this got into a displacement of about 1000 tons. The helicopter did not fit. In principle, a ship is needed to replace it, taking into account the experience of operating 1124 and the development of modern weapons.
  • mik193 26 December 2019 13: 38 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    I forgot to add - a very interesting topic was raised about electric propulsion at low speeds.
  • lopuhan2006 26 December 2019 15: 02 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    At last! It is better to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the IPC than the next corvette patrol. Although that topic is PLO, that mine danger is an unplowed field. Where you don’t pull, it will tear everywhere.
    1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 16: 22 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      It’s even better to discuss tugboats and minesweepers.
  • SVD68 26 December 2019 15: 13 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    About helicopters.
    Well, what helicopters for the IPC? But in addition to them, a helicopter carrier would be very useful. Not UDC, namely a helicopter carrier. Without a docking chamber. Here and the required number of helicopters, and their various varieties, and a large amount of fuel, and better control.
    1. Alexey RA 26 December 2019 17: 05 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: SVD68
      Well, what helicopters for the IPC? But in addition to them, a helicopter carrier would be very useful.

      If we limit the work area of ​​the IPC only to the OVR of the fleet bases, then a helicopter carrier will not be needed - a coastal airfield is enough.
      By the way, for a cheap helicopter carrier PLO there is even a project - "Khalzan-I" (even before they were mounted on landing tasks and began to demand survivability and combat stability at the BDK level from the ship). smile
      1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 21: 26 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        By the way, for a cheap helicopter carrier PLO there is even a project - "Khalzan First"


        A terrible project was, by the way. The voluntaristic idea of ​​Amelko.
        1. Alexey RA 28 December 2019 12: 56 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          A terrible project was, by the way. The voluntaristic idea of ​​Amelko.

          Both sides were good there - Khalzan initially became a "political" project in the fight of the Navy against the General Staff and joined him Amelko.
          At first, Amelko and GSh broke through the idea "cheap mass PLO system", which should include our" Stalworths "(BUGAS carrier in the hull of the trawler) and cheap helicopter carriers of the PLO (in the hull of the rollers). In principle, these ships were quite suitable as second-tier ships to strengthen the defense of the bastions behind the backs of ship groups. But then the General Staff mounted the tasks of the landing ship on the helicopter carrier of the PLO, and began to use the Khalzan in political games as an obstacle to building 1143.5 (instead of one TAVKR, the plant can build three or four such cheap universal ships). shis that became amphibious helicopter carrier, immediately put requirements for survivability and combat stability of the ship at the level of BDK Naturally, the base civil ro-ro was for this untenable -. and "cheap bulk“the helicopter carrier got too warm up to the size of the hull 1143. After that, Gorshkov gladly nailed the project, since even the General Staff could not argue the expediency of replacing one aircraft carrier not with three or four, but with just one helicopter carrier.
  • Eskobar 26 December 2019 16: 17 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Isn't it easier to use project 20385 as anti-submarine? Yes, it is more expensive, but we still do not know about the seaworthiness of the new project. What is his range, autonomy. + 20385 air defense 2 cannons 30 mm, there is one, and it is unclear how many anti-aircraft missile defense cells, versus 16. The corvette has already been mastered by the industry and can probably be produced at a reasonable pace. And so another new project, a departure from unification.
    1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 21: 39 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      It seems to be better to build 20385, but the fact is that for the price of two 20385 you can build four super-karakurt, and 20385 can not even theoretically be built in less than 4 years, but super-karakurt will be built in two, that's all.

      More argumentation is here - https://topwar.ru/166159-shag-v-pravilnuju-storonu-zasvechen-proekt-mnogocelevogo-karakurta-plo.html#comment-id-9969698

      Read to the end.

      That's how I myself am for 20385. Yes, and the small OVR corvette would have done quite differently and would even have entered it at the same cost.
      But the time factor cannot be defeated - faster than a supercaracourt, nothing can be built.

      The main thing is not to overdo it and build them exactly as much as you need and not one more.
      1. Nemchinov Vl 27 December 2019 00: 33 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        It seems like it’s better to build 20385, but the fact is that for the cost of two 20385 you can build four supercars,
        Eh, but no, alas. In the presence of the same UKKSof the same RedutaYour new "super-Karakurt" will not be cheaper by half !! After all, you were going to save only on radar (IFC Zaslon, and the excess of electronics accompanying it) ... Well, you’ll cross out 5-6 billion (maximum) from 23 leaving for every 20385 ..?! Alas, this is a fact! Be objective, Alexander !! (this is an argument - 1) However, I’m quite used to your craftiness ... Secondly, this is of course the GEM. Since, at the Zvezdovskys 507s, even the first of the built “IPC supercourses” will get it no sooner than after 4-5 years, with the most optimal and bright prospectsif we are not too lazy to count those under construction and contracted "Karakurt MRK" that they (the Stars engine) have not yet received (and this is 14 or 15?! from 18 contracted Including under construction?!). (we assume that this is - 2), those. funds thrown out of the budget for all R&D related to the creation of a new project of the IPC "SuperKarakurt", we kind of omit our attention. So here -
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        But most importantly, having laid six or nine of these ships in 2020, it will be possible to equip them with engines by 2023-2024, and the first three will receive engines by mid-2022.
        , You are either too optimistic, or obviously cunning ... Well, probably the third thing that would be worth noting that there was an answer, and right in the article, -
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        We need more budgetary solutions - massive, simple and cheap, such that the gaping failure in our anti-submarine defense could be closed in a matter of years.
        Uhhh how well said. Handsome, just a master of words !!
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        There have been projects of ships capable of and MRK replaceand conduct effective anti-submarine defense at the same time. So, very interesting project based on housing from 11661 project ship Zelenodolsk Design Bureau has.
        , - when you want, Alexander, the pen directly "sings in your hands" !!! And it is unlikely that it again makes sense for us to argue for a long time about the fact that the GDA DDA-12000 is from Kolomna (and this medium, not high speed diesel !!, are we on PLO ?! and it’s worked out better ...), without any “Redoubt” (the IPC in its waters and the “Osa-MA” will be enough, if you like, to modernize the “Shell-M”), and it will be cheaper in the release of the above proposed "models", approximately 3-4 billion (and this is, as it were, an argument - 3) Yes, and get their engines faster !!
        1. timokhin-aa 27 December 2019 10: 49 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The price of the ship is calculated, I just can’t disclose the details, so here you are a little past.
          1. Nemchinov Vl 28 December 2019 00: 51 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            The price of the ship is calculated, I just can’t disclose the details, so here you are a little past.
            . SW Alexander, let's be honest. I always like to look at your articles (as well as Andrei from Chelyabinsk), and discuss interesting topics raised in them, and I think that you noticed this. But ...?! What are you trying to drown for now? "for reinventing the new bicycle" ?! Agitation program ?! You even mentioned yourself in the article, and I, in turn (in the commentary above) emphasized that he, - "bike", has long been essentially created, and successfully arranged (for its tasks and goals). A new project, new costs, is a fact (!) (Starting from the development of the project, R&D, etc.) ... He will not be able to quickly get the 507 engine due to the contracted 18 MRK Karakut, - the fact (!) of the Redut air defense system, for the PLO corvette, is insane and unreasonable luxury (already, therefore, for the longest / maximum possible distances without the Poliment antenna, it will not work (!) It will not stand on the corvette (!) then why such an expensive SAM, corvette PLO in the BMZ ?! It’s like nonsense - to poke "Redoubt" wherever you want (!) So soon it will already be on minesweepers and tug boats, in an ode to his producers and lobbyists of their interests (!) By and large, for the corvette iAd even "Calm 1" for the region.
            You, in your article on frigates about Oliver Perry, gave a good example as the rationality of the Americans, in choosing one, the main thing far from the most expensive (and even the opposite), but main functional ship, to perform a certain range of tasks - their goals, which was built in a long series, with minimum changes in the project !!
            We already have:
            20380 - which is expensive and "incompetent" to perform its basic functions (or rather, it will probably be able to find a submarine, but there’s nothing to attack?!) essentially a marriage
            20385 - much better, but the trouble is, is it even more expensive ?! essentially nonsense
            20386 - Wow ... well, you yourself "noted" it !? essentially a farce
            Now you start drowning for “super Karakurt PLO” (with “Redoubt”, -?!, Under the engine “Star” - “507”, -?! essentially a bluff
            At the same time, everyone knows what has been around for a long time, a normal project ?!
            11661 - balanced, not expensive, functional in terms of armament, (if under a power plant from 20380 from Kolomenskoye engines, you will get them faster !!, and without "Star Fever"). By the way, a large government order would stimulate Kolomna. And there they have, from a large order and interest in their products of the Navy, and funds for fine-tuning the promising medium-speed 16DS500 (for 10000 hp) would you see appeared ?! As an option, say ?!
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            True, he is not particularly interested in Zelenodolsk plant, but not because he is bad but because the plant mows money on primitive RTOs and even more primitive and useless "patrol ships" of project 22160.

            Or just no one to lobby ?! And in view of the fact that it does not have a “fabulously overpriced”, contracted amounts (yes to the same two teams, for starters, like 20380/385), will be multiple lower, and therefore, - "and it’s not noticeable to steal and withdraw thinner !!!", and ... already for OSK is not interesting ?! So what happens ?!
            1. timokhin-aa 28 December 2019 12: 47 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              You see Vladimir. In order for you to remove your questions about the Karakurt PLO GEM and understand (but not believe) that they can be riveted up to 3 ships a year, you need to disclose to you here information that I have been urged not to disclose.

              Castelno of the rest - Blackjack is not a well-developed project, it is a well-developed project, but still a project of a ship that has never been built.
              Tatars could well push him instead of MRK and patrolmen. But they don’t give a damn, they are only interested in the budget and so far it can be mastered by RTOs and it’s useless to heat up the ZPKB corvette 22160.
              How can one lobby a project whose “owners” do not want to do it?

              On the other hand, there is reason to believe that 2020 is the last relatively calm year in the world. And then the time factor will rise so sharply that we can not imagine now.

              Under such conditions, no pluses of hypothetical corvettes with Kolomna diesels (obvious) will not block the fact that the Zvezda reducer will not be able to make gears quickly.
              Even for twin-engine corvettes on 2xDRRA-6000, from the patrol trough 22160 the limit for GEM will be about one unit per year.
              For the four-engine 2DDA-12000 - one set in two years.
              Having invested in infrastructure and having lost one year of time, you can achieve one set per year for a twin-engine corvette and two in three years for four. Or it is necessary to nationalize the Reducer Star.

              As a result, there are no stupid options to quickly increase the number of ships in the BMZ.

              Of course, if the political leadership could firmly guarantee that we would not be drawn into a war for 5 years, then we could do without the ersatz.

              But I don’t have that kind of confidence.

              Regarding Reduta, he is expensive only with an expensive RLC, and the ship under discussion has Positive-m. Redoubt himself is simply UVP, it is no more expensive than the Shell, which is from a billion per set.
              1. Nemchinov Vl 28 December 2019 21: 03 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                In order for you to remove your questions about the Karakurt PLO GEM and understand (but not believe) that they can be riveted up to 3 ships a year, you need to disclose to you here information that I have been urged not to disclose.
                My dear interlocutor, do not bluff ... Although ... Well, if only under PJSC Zvezda, there are exactly three of the same enterprises, each one floor below (it’s possible that you can triple the engine output), then this information is valid do not declassify ...
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                ... Or do we need to nationalize the Reducer Star ...
                Firstly, I see no reason for this. Or (secondly), as I have said many times before, in addition to Zvezda-Reductor (as in my opinion, except for NPO Saturn), you need to create one more specialized enterprise manufacturing ship gearboxes for power plants (and ship gas turbine engines) !!! Otherwise, God forbid your predictions come true in part, -
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                ... there is reason to believe that 2020 is the last relatively calm year in the world. And then the time factor will rise so sharply that we can not imagine now.
                and about the development of shipbuilding programs in the Russian Federation, we can no longer even speak ... However, now, without these specialized enterprises (you want to call an alternative, you want help Peter and Rybinsk), there was a "substantial famine in the derivatives of shipborne power plants" for military shipbuilding programs. Further it will only grow.
                At one time, (at its peak, in the 1980s !!) even the mighty USSR, with its Nikolaev “Zorya-Mashproekt” (which, both in production experience and in its production capacities, was compared with the pair “Saturn” + “Star” -Reducer ".... well, you understand me, yes, - what at times !!!) and even I could not pull out the growing needs of the Navy, as a result of which, the industry had to be divided; gas turbine power plants received BOD 1155, but for EM 956, did I have to choose KTU ?! (as they say, having ears - let him hear, but remembering the lessons of history - let him remember) !!!
              2. Sergey S. 11 January 2020 19: 38 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Or it is necessary to nationalize the Reducer Star.

                THE RIGHT DECISIONS ARE KNOWN ...
      2. Eskobar 27 December 2019 07: 12 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        20385 is a more versatile ship, thanks to better seaworthiness (and I think that they should be better, by definition, than RTOs) the corvette can perform more tasks, and escort convoys for long trips and transports. In my opinion, it is better to build more versatile ships than several different series of diverse ships. Then it will be possible to redistribute tasks for them, depending on the situation.
        1. Nemchinov Vl 27 December 2019 23: 44 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Eskobar
          20385 more versatile ship, thanks to better seaworthiness
          Well, let's say, from 11661, they are essentially “classmates” (both PLO corvettes, with a VI of 2000 tons. There is an actual difference of about 400 tons, maximum)!
          Quote: Eskobar
          ... and landings support long hikes and transports escorted.
          it's to the frigates! PLO Corvettes (OVR), slightly different tasks.
          Quote: Eskobar
          In my opinion, it’s better to build more versatile ships,
          you probably about 22350.1 (or 22350+) ?! As the main working unit of the KPUG, perhaps yes. But in the article, how much did it seem to me exactly about the prospects of replacing the “Albatrosses” ?! those. aspect under consideration - PLO (OVR) in BMZ, isn't it ?!
          Quote: Eskobar
          than several different series of diverse ships. Then it will be possible to redistribute tasks for them, depending on the situation.
          popular wisdom says something like this, “every cricket, know your sixth!” Well, the question of price difference ... Provide PLO, with cover and access to the SSBNS, with a team of six full-fledged frigates ?! Or four of them will fill / supplement the KPUG in the DMZ at this time, while there are only two fr. 22350 and 4-5 corvettes, "close the area", when the SSBN enters, on the BS (this is - price difference example)?!
          1. Eskobar 28 December 2019 16: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Here you are right. Small ships PLO, when using proven components will have a short construction time and will soon close the approaches to the bases.
  • IC
    IC 26 December 2019 16: 54 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    All these considerations apply to past wars or fictitious scenarios of future wars. There is no chance to survive in real combat conditions on water ships. They can only be the first to launch a missile strike and die.
    To discuss the prospects for the development of the Navy, it is necessary to soberly assess the state of the country's economy under the conditions of sanctions and stagnation. Everything else, exercises for the development of intelligence.
    I agree with many on energy issues.
    Building ships of the 21st century with engines based on projects from the mid-20th century is nonsense.
    Compare MTU and Star.
  • Eskobar 26 December 2019 17: 20 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Undercropped and pumped RTOs
  • Basarev 26 December 2019 18: 50 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    That is, the Japanese boat is standing in the Avacha Gulf, right in our guides? And all this is tolerated?
    1. timokhin-aa 26 December 2019 21: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Not in the guards.
  • fiberboard 26 December 2019 19: 07 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Some specialist writes one, another another. What to do?
    1. Nemchinov Vl 27 December 2019 00: 44 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: fiberboard
      Some specialist writes one, another another. What to do?
      take a glass of “Viskar” or “Brandy”, and a smile on your face, and a warming aroma and warmth ..., relax in a chair ... She’s such a different life ... :)
  • Dart2027 26 December 2019 19: 56 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    In other words, the fleet decided that he needed a normal corvette, and not an attempt to shove the frigate into the corvette's hull. I have long expected something like that. But according to its shortcomings:
    RBU is the only way to "get" the submarine lying on the ground, there are no others. A hit on a “contact” that suddenly appears at a short distance is also faster to carry out with a bomb.
    Maybe I just don’t know the characteristics of the PLUR and 324-mm torpedoes.
    Another drawback is the completely zero compatibility with the helicopter. There is not even a landing pad.
    And here is a double-edged sword. Yes, a helicopter is a serious support, but so much space is required that my mother does not grieve. This is not critical for the frigate, but if you look at the corvettes, half of the surface part is occupied by the hangar and the platform, so I’m afraid that when trying to combine it with a helicopter you will have to forget about the mass and cheap ship.
    The third minus obviously follows from the size of the ship - it is longer than the Karakurt, but its displacement is slightly larger, that is, very light. This implies restrictions on the use of weapons on strong pitching, and there is nothing to be done.
    Similarly to the previous one, there is more displacement, which means more price and construction time.
    A ship can fight submarines and use rocket weapons, and, for example, fire along the shore - it can already be bad. The 76 mm gun is very good as an anti-aircraft gun, it surpasses the 100 mm gun in this quality, but in other cases it is inferior too.
    What the hell? What will we carry out mass landing in the USA? These are ships for the BMZ guard. The cannon on such ships is air defense, and the rest - well, if you suddenly try to frighten some Georgians or the Baltic states.
    But the Redoubt here is clearly superfluous - it is medium-range air defense, and even with a cheaper radar will cost very decently. On ships of this class you need to put the marine version of the Shell or Thor.
    1. Vadim237 26 December 2019 21: 40 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Probably because the effectiveness of RBU is currently much questionable, the NK Package will be more effective. And large ships will be guarded by several kamikaze anti-aircraft guns - the detection of an approaching torpedo and the destruction of a ram with the same with underwater mines - in the direction of the ship. Disruption of attack and khan of an enemy submarine.
      1. mik193 27 December 2019 17: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Yes, you are right - the effectiveness of RBU in modern high-speed nuclear submarines is small. But no one has so far been able to take from the RBU the functions of combating PDSS and anti-torpedo defense. The rest, unfortunately, is still from the fantasy world.
        1. Vadim237 27 December 2019 17: 56 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Against PDSS, the berth has combat airbags in 2016. We demonstrated a similar
          dreaming is not harmful - it is harmful not to dream
          1. gunnerminer 27 December 2019 18: 52 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Demonstration at the exhibition is convincing medium.
          2. mik193 28 December 2019 10: 24 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            When mass production is established, we will keep them in mind. A single exhibition model somehow does not convince.
            1. Vadim237 28 December 2019 13: 55 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Vryatlya will advertise when and how much they purchased.
    2. alexmach 26 December 2019 23: 55 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      But the Redoubt here is clearly superfluous - it is medium-range air defense, and even with a cheaper radar will cost very decently. On ships of this class you need to put the marine version of the Shell or Thor.

      Here I would argue. In principle, being able to place at least several medium-range missiles on the ship is, in my opinion, a very big plus. By the way, where does the information that the Redoubt is more expensive than the Shell is? So why should he be more expensive?
      I don’t like the “Shell” with my layout decision. Not all-aspect, requires guidance on the target, guns stuck to it, the effectiveness of which is not entirely clear. The vertical launch rocket is, in my opinion, a great thing. Thor, on the other hand, is just a short-range defense weapon. Redoubt, unlike him, can also get the carrier ... well, at least try.
      1. Dart2027 27 December 2019 06: 01 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: alexmach
        So why should he be more expensive?

        Do you want to compare the Redut and Shell or Thor rockets? Well, just in size?
        Quote: alexmach
        Thor, on the other hand, is just a short-range defense weapon. Redoubt, unlike him, can also get the carrier ... well, at least try.

        And in the end, again, not a massive and cheap BMZ control ship will turn out, but a light frigate. And in Chinese and German and Israeli short-range air defense corvettes.
        Quote: alexmach
        The vertical launch rocket is, in my opinion, a great thing.

        Great. But everything rests on the dimensions.
        1. alexmach 27 December 2019 11: 08 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Do you want to compare the Redut and Shell or Thor rockets?

          So rockets are more expensive or Redoubt himself then? Missiles are more expensive, it is indisputable, but they have different opportunities. Completely modern rockets.
          Well, just in size?

          Are the dimensions strongly affecting the price? Not the complexity of the installation, namely the dimensions? So what's so complicated about vertical launchers?
          And in the end, again it’s not a massive and cheap BMZ control ship, but a light frigate

          According to the author, the ship turned out to be cheap.
          Great. But it all comes down to the dimensions

          Well, yes .. but a shell with a separate launcher and charging from the cellar with dimensions is better or something? To be honest, I don't understand its layout in principle, if it makes sense for terrestrial systems, then for naval systems it would be better to use VPU (not necessarily in the dimensions of Redoubt, there is another example of the same Tor) + separately artillery installations.
          1. Dart2027 27 December 2019 19: 20 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: alexmach
            So rockets are more expensive or Redoubt himself then?
            And Redoubt himself as well. Other radars, guidance systems, control, etc. Plus the rockets themselves. An air defense capable of operating at a distance of up to 150 km cannot be cheaper than short-range air defense.
            Quote: alexmach
            but they have different opportunities. Completely modern rockets
            Of course, only on the ships that are supposed to patrol the BMZ it is simply not needed.
            Quote: alexmach
            Are the dimensions strongly affecting the price? Not the complexity of the installation, namely the dimensions?
            And just the dimensions as well. The larger the rocket, the more powerful the engine it needs, and the more expensive it costs.
            Quote: alexmach
            According to the author, the ship turned out to be cheap.
            Maybe, but I suspect that because Redoubt is there with shortened launchers only for MD missiles.
            Quote: alexmach
            there is another example of the same Thor
            And it seems to me more suitable, in fact, Thor is the same Dagger. But the question is whether there is a finished product right now that can be put on ships. Recently I came across a note that they want to numb it again, but how much it will take time is unknown, but you need it right now.
            1. alexmach 27 December 2019 20: 57 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              And Redoubt himself as well. Other radars

              What other radars are there? The article is about staffing for RTOs Positive-M, Mineral-M is also mentioned, these are radars that are put on the ship in any case. on the old 20380, Furke gives targeting in general - based on the radar of the same Shell. Radars are the most common.
              guidance systems

              Guidance and control systems, I'm sorry, on the contrary, they will be simpler, simply due to the fact that the missiles are smarter.
              An air defense capable of operating at a distance of up to 150 km cannot be cheaper than short-range air defense

              Up to 150 km, it’s just that, on Gorshkov’s on the RTOs, it certainly won’t. Positive-M has a detection range of up to 50km.
              Of course, only on the ships that are supposed to patrol the BMZ it is simply not needed

              For example, beat off several RCC going to him or to the convoy at the same time, while also sending a “gift” to the carrier?
              And just the dimensions as well. The larger the rocket, the more powerful the engine it needs, and the more expensive it costs.

              No, well, the fact that missiles with active homing and "shot-forgot" more expensive than radio command I did not dispute at all.
              Maybe, but I suspect that because Redoubt is there with shortened launchers only for MD missiles.

              So what does PU have to do with it, you yourself write above that the main cost is electronics ...
              Although, yes, I agree you are right, for a small ship you still need a self-defense system no more, a long arm is more of a fantasy.
              Thor is the same dagger. But the question is whether there is a finished product right now that can be put on ships. Recently I came across a note that they want to numb it again, but how much it will take time is unknown, but you need it right now.

              Yes, judging by these notes, and by the fact that they haven’t put it anywhere for 20-25 years, there are still no
              1. Dart2027 27 December 2019 22: 16 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: alexmach
                Up to 150 km, it’s just that, on Gorshkov’s on the RTOs, it certainly won’t. Positive-M has a detection range of up to 50km.
                Then this is no longer a full-fledged Redoubt, which means that it is pointless to put it.
                Quote: alexmach
                from several going to him or to the RCC convoy
                Which convoy? This is a ship for guarding naval bases from enemy submarines and nuclear submarines, actually replacing the MPK, and it is covered by coastal air defense. These 20380 corvettes are built as a replacement for TFR.
                Quote: alexmach
                So what does PU have to do with it, you yourself write above that the main cost is electronics ...
                That's right, but you yourself write that the radar there is full-time and does not allow the use of Redoubt. A PU
                Quote: Dart2027
                The larger the rocket, the more powerful the engine it needs, and the more expensive it costs.
                By electronics, I mean all the stuffing, except fuel and explosives.
                Quote: alexmach
                Yes, judging by these notes, and by the fact that they haven’t put it anywhere for 20-25 years, there are still no
                It seems like that. However, I remember Thor shooting the ships from the deck and quite successfully, so that messing should not be as problematic as Redoubt.
                http://www.nationaldefense.ru/includes/periodics/defense/2017/1031/160022594/detail.shtml
                1. alexmach 27 December 2019 22: 38 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Then this is no longer a full-fledged Redoubt, which means that it is pointless to put it.

                  Well, at 20380 it costs the same, and also not full-fledged.
                  It seems like that. However, I remember Thor shooting the ships from the deck and quite successfully, so that messing should not be as problematic as Redoubt.
                  h

                  Here's another question, but is there anything else to "mess up" in the presence of one multifunctional air defense system.
                  1. Dart2027 28 December 2019 06: 51 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: alexmach
                    Well, at 20380 it costs the same, and also not full-fledged.

                    Worth it. Only wondering if he can use it to the full. There were reports of successful firing, but then there were opinions that they fired at a short distance.
                    1. alexmach 28 December 2019 10: 03 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Only wondering if he can use it to the full.

                      It definitely cannot at a maximum distance of 150 km, the radar has a shorter detection range. In the same way, it will not be able to do at MRK. But by the way, apart from the distant one, there is also a medium-range missile at 60 KM. Information about which particular missiles and which ship used from "Redoubt" in open sources is very contradictory.
                      1. Dart2027 28 December 2019 11: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: alexmach
                        The information about which particular missiles and which ship used from "Redoubt" in open sources is very contradictory.

                        In fact of the matter.
                      2. alexmach 28 December 2019 11: 23 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Well, by and large, there is no information on the Gorshkov shooting. It is not known what missiles at any distance hit the target (but I suspect that during the state tests, well, they obviously didn’t shoot at the maximum range). And it turns out that it’s not a fact at all that in principle it is - a missile is really capable of hitting targets at such a range.

                        But the big plus of the “Redoubt” is that it is put on all modern warships, which by the way are not so many being built. Why not unify the weapons used? One complex, one nomenclature of missiles. Let different radars depending on the displacement. Perhaps there is a stripped-down version of the BIUS, even if on small ships there will only be short-range self-defense missiles.
                      3. Dart2027 28 December 2019 14: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: alexmach
                        And it turns out that it’s not a fact at all that in principle it is - a missile is really capable of hitting targets at such a range.

                        The redoubt is unified with Vityaz, so I think there is.
                        Quote: alexmach
                        Perhaps there is a stripped-down version of the BIUS, even if on small ships there will only be short-range self-defense missiles.

                        If so, then this will be the right unification.
  • Arkon 27 December 2019 13: 33 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    "FOSS has failed, and today Russia does not have a working system."

    Is this the author’s version or reliable information?
  • jekasimf 27 December 2019 15: 55 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It seems that the author is “off topic” that these ships were a cheap and effective way to circumvent the INF Treaty. And it was they who forced the United States to abandon it.
    Plus-forced option, in the absence of engines for corvettes / destroyers. Due to the maydanutny Ukraine. They have done their job. Now you can go further.
    1. alexmach 27 December 2019 18: 13 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      It seems that the author is "off topic" that these ships were a cheap and effective way to circumvent the INF Treaty

      Which is no longer there, why then continue to build RTOs?
      And it was they who forced the United States to abandon it.

      And is this your achievement or something?
      Plus-forced option, in the absence of engines for corvettes / destroyers

      But he can’t say what a corvette should be able to say about the destroyers ...
      1. jekasimf 28 December 2019 18: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Which is no longer there, why then continue to build RTOs?

        That’s why the project is changing the direction of strengthening. And ships, for the inland seas (Black, Caspian, Baltic) are also needed.
  • mik193 27 December 2019 17: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It may even be worth considering the Chinese project 056 - a very good machine for the OVR, of course, you need to creatively refine all this.
  • Petrol cutter 27 December 2019 18: 40 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This is some kind of horror! ... In light of the fact that my legal wife left me today, I also read this ...
    “In 2020, it will be possible to equip them with engines by 2023-2024, and the first three will receive engines by mid-2022 at the most. Moreover, taking into account the enormous problems that exist at Zvezda, this is unprecedentedly fast for modern Russia. And this makes the project simply uncontested in terms of quickly restoring the number of anti-submarine ships. You can make the ship better. You can even make it better for the same money. "
    . You can make the ship better ..

    But it can not be done either faster or in the same time. And this means that other options simply do not exist.
    What kind of chimney is marked there? What engine do you plan to stick? There, behind her, I suspect and some helicopter will land?!. What to do with such a concept as the stability of a ship / vessel in the light of such events? What will be its seaworthiness to the heap? There and so she does not spoil the sailors however, but this is not a dream, it is always a compromise. Miracles however ... God forgive me.
    1. Petrol cutter 27 December 2019 19: 03 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Forgot to notice. Helipad - stands exactly at the location of the "Shell M". The existence of which on board the ship was very interested in the local people. And there’s nowhere to displace him.
      I climbed this ship up and down. hi
    2. timokhin-aa 27 December 2019 23: 07 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There is no landing pad.
      1. Petrol cutter 29 December 2019 20: 25 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        How not when ....
        Then visit the questions.
        What kind of structure that sticks out aft than the superstructure? What kind of structure is, as it were, fodder than the previous structure.
        The article was talking about how to complete this ship with a helicopter.
        How is this planned to be organized? I would like to understand.
        1. timokhin-aa 29 December 2019 23: 17 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Sequentially behind the gas turbines, first there is a “tower” with two airborne air defense systems “Redut”, then the ZAK AK-630M (you can barely see in the picture), beyond which there is a deck on which in one of the project options the launching of the pipe of the Package-NK complex is provided and towed Gus.

          I must say that the model is somewhat outdated and in the drawings a different project is now.
          1. Petrol cutter 31 December 2019 18: 32 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            So after all, the exhaust from the serial ship is in the area of ​​the waterline from Mashiny. I can’t understand why to raise it up! We invite the designer. Let him explain to us the depth of his insanity! I personally see only one explanation for this. The ship is changing the power plant to a fundamentally different. And such an exhaust is contraindicated to her.
            AK630 went only to the head. Maybe on the second one. The rest went "Armor". There are completely different rooms below deck and barbet. Actually, there is one room. In which ZRAK is mounted.
            1. Petrol cutter 31 December 2019 18: 59 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              "I personally see only one explanation for this. The ship has a power plant changed to a fundamentally different one. And such an exhaust is contraindicated to it."
              Then I repeat the question, which one? Is it really a gas turbine!?.
              So we don’t have such ... Or is there?
              1. timokhin-aa 1 January 2020 21: 48 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Initially, the option of a power plant with a marching diesel engine (s) and afterburning gas turbine was worked out.

                In truth, a model from him. With this option there will be problems with gearboxes in the first place, and at the cost of the ship in the second place, therefore it will not take off.

                Then the evolution of the project went in different ways, one of which is the one that can be implemented quickly.

                Outwardly, it differs by gas flues / exhaust, propeller-driven group, and the length of two PU 3S-14 does not fit into purely diesel ships in length.

                There were simply no other models. But the fact that the very possibility of creating a multi-purpose ship based on Karakurt exists, and the fact that such work is underway, the model lit up. It is a pity that I was asked not to post the details, there is a very interesting solution for the GEM.
                1. Petrol cutter 3 January 2020 20: 21 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  . "It is a pity that the details asked me not to spread, there is a very interesting solution for the GEM."
                  Yes, you are just a "schemer" !!! Now I crave the disclosure of secret decisions on the GEM! Well, please .... Maybe no one will notice repeat
                  1. timokhin-aa 3 January 2020 22: 43 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    According to the mind should be disclosed.

                    Elegant solution. The only minus, as it seems to me, is that the ship’s maximum speed will drop a little, but this is unprincipled.

                    But they don’t.
  • Petrol cutter 27 December 2019 20: 07 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    “To date, measures to improve the situation at the plant have made themselves felt, albeit not without difficulties, but Zvezda gives two“ Karakurt ”sets of power plants within a year. Since the ship has no systems with a long production cycle, this means that such ships can be built two units per year. "
    With which I congratulate you. A series of Karakurt - sixteen-eighteen pieces! What year will they get their motors ?! My colleagues are now building such RTOs in Vladivostok. Nobody canceled the construction ....
    Is the resource and reliability of the engines from Zvezda sufficient compared to MTU? Which were originally planned for installation on these ships? Big, big question. In fact...
    I really hope that our engine builders have gained something there. I'll just kiss them (then, if they want to go somewhere).
    1. timokhin-aa 27 December 2019 23: 02 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      With which I congratulate you. A series of Karakurt - sixteen-eighteen pieces! What year will they get their motors ?! My colleagues are now building such RTOs in Vladivostok. Nobody canceled the construction ...


      I would just cancel the RTOs - I would not build them at all. And with these ships there is one nuance with the composition of the power plant, about which I can not write.

      Is the resource and reliability of the engines from Zvezda sufficient compared to MTU? Which were originally planned for installation on these ships? Big, big question. In fact...


      Yes, this is actually not a question. Everything is clear.

      I really hope that our engine builders have gained something there. I'll just kiss them (then, if they want to go somewhere).


      Yes, they did not work, just other people figured out how to cook porridge from an ax.
      1. Petrol cutter 28 December 2019 22: 19 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        "I would just cancel the RTOs - I would not build them at all. And with these ships there is one nuance with the composition of the power plant, about which I can not write."
        Of course your opinion has the right to life. Nevertheless, the program is not curtailed.
        If this is the case, then someone needs ships, however.
      2. Sergey S. 11 January 2020 19: 51 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        other people figured out how to cook porridge from an ax

        I suppose we are discussing an adventure. Today ship diesels can be made only at 3 plants - Kolomna, Zvezda and UDMZ.
        The main ones for warships are only Star in parameters.
        The position on the "Star" is outlined. And the means of increasing production are not involved ...
        1. Remove from the management of "effective managers" and put at the head of "primitive engineers in the relevant specialties."
        2. Restoring what was destroyed by “effective managers” is expensive, but the shipbuilding program will clearly fit in and no secrets for experienced diesel engineers. By the way, I suppose that something can be returned very quickly - with the help of a fellow prosecutor.
  • Seaflame 27 December 2019 20: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Good news. I would be happy for the new destroyers of the Leader project, the new aircraft carriers of the Storm project but ... But apparently the country now has no resources (the reasons for this are a separate and gloomy topic). Therefore, now, in the coming years, not to aircraft carriers, not to UDC, but time to build minesweepers, corvettes and frigates. Qualitatively, in good series, with maximum unification.
  • bk0010 27 December 2019 22: 27 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    I do not share the optimism of the author: look at the newest 22350, people say that his gas is worse than the old Polynom at 1155. They will set up new IPCs, but they don’t hear nichrome (because the boat is quiet and far) or they need to be made a lot to make the boat there was nowhere to go. I would order the industry three types of ships. 1) 22350M2 - an enlarged analogue of 22350M with the best GAS, 4 TA (normal, not 324 mm), RBU-12000 and means for receiving boats or sea drones from the stern. When performing the missile defense tasks, this ship is entrusted with the task of searching for and destroying submarines, as well as analyzing information about the underwater situation from external sources. 2) A boat, or rather a drone, on which communications, GAS and the simplest, cheapest signal analysis tools will be located, designed to reduce the amount of transmitted data by 22350M2. Without weapons (fighting by subscription). It is better to make a drone "diving" in order to be able to operate normally during a sea wave. 3) An unarmed barge that serves as a base for GAS boats (at least 12 pieces: 6 work, 6 are repaired / charged). IMHO, such a configuration of forces and means will solve the problem of PLO in a large area for sane money.
    1. timokhin-aa 27 December 2019 23: 06 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      look at the newest 22350, people say that its GUS is worse than the old Polynomial in 1155.


      This is not so from the word “completely” - 22350 has one drawback - there is no second helicopter, otherwise it surpasses the BOD 1155 utterly as an anti-submarine.

      Of the rest - they will make the 22350M, or at least promise it soon, the boat makes sense just like a BEC with a long-wave emitter.

      But these are solutions for DMZ, such ships you will not drive on a daily basis as 1124.
  • Pancer_Hrek 28 December 2019 13: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But in the United States decided to entrust this task to drones, both air and sea.

  • ser56 28 December 2019 15: 34 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Thanks to the author for the sane article and hope for reason .... bully
    However, I would object to the author that:
    1) it is difficult to consider the lack of a helicopter basing at a displacement of about 1ct as a drawback - such a boat will not be able to use it even with minimal excitement - what is the reason to fence the garden? request
    2) Yes, caliber 76 is not offshore - but this function is not particularly important for the patrol guard at Pacific Fleet or Northern Fleet - where to work there along the coast? But aviation efficiency is much more important ... hi
    As for the bomb, like nobody puts it for the PLO anymore? Only as anti-torpedo ...
  • Petrol cutter 29 December 2019 20: 42 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "" At the stern, the round top of the AK-630 anti-aircraft artillery complex is clearly visible, apparently even the AK-630M, which is responsible for air defense from the aft corners. "
    There is the top (and the bottom you saw?) Under the "Shell M". Why are you misleading the people ?!
    All serial ships are equipped with ZRAK "Shell M".
    I have personally reported this a hundred times.
    AK 630 went to the head. Perhaps they put it on the second one. I don’t remember right now. As long as they finished the shell.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Bogatyrev 3 January 2020 23: 34 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If the superior forces of enemy submarines have already driven our SSBNs into bases, then we must do something and take some measures. Therefore, the appearance of such projects is quite logical, they are needed.
  • storm 10 January 2020 00: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Analysis of the article allows us to conclude that the fleet is once again offered an ersatz project of a PLO corvette from a missile gunboat:
    - the main disadvantage is the lack of anti-submarine helicopter or helipad "jump";
    - lack of RBU.

    A few weeks ago, on the official website of the Central Marine Design Bureau (TsMKB) Almaz, the first information about the new small anti-submarine ship of project 23420 was published.
    The small anti-submarine ship of the 23420 project should have a displacement of 1300 m and the corresponding dimensions: about 75 m and maximum width up to 13 m. According to the developer’s calculations, the main power plants proposed for use will allow the ship to reach speeds up to 25-30 nodes and provide a cruising range to 2500 nautical miles The ship will be operated by a crew of 60 people. Autonomy is set at 15 days.
    https://topwar.ru/91131-malyy-protivolodochnyy-korabl-proekta-23420.html


    The only thing that should be transferred from MRK 22800 to MPK 23420 is the Pantsir-M air defense system.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • storm 10 January 2020 00: 48 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Do not engage in zoology by crossing a camel with a rhino!
    A specialized project for a small anti-submarine ship is already ready.

    A few weeks ago, on the official website of the Central Marine Design Bureau (TsMKB) Almaz, the first information about the new small anti-submarine ship of project 23420 was published. Several images of such a ship were published, as well as basic information about its purpose, design, equipment, etc.


    According to the developer, the new small anti-submarine ship is intended for combat operations against surface, underwater and air enemies, as well as for attacking coastal targets using artillery weapons. It is also possible to protect fleet-based locations, protect the state border and the economic zone.
    The only thing that would be worth doing is to install on the new IPC, pr. 23420 SAM Pantsir-M.
  • Pavel57 17 February 2020 13: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Sanctions for Crimea forced instead of “Buyan-M” with German diesels to come up with a fully localized “Karakurt”.
    The issue of import substitution is separate, “Karakurt” differs primarily in seaworthiness.