Is alteration of project 20386 planned?


The first show to the public - a further evolution of what we know as the corvette of project 20386


On January 9, 2020, a new round of the epic with the corvetofregate of project 20386 developed by TsMKB Almaz became public. This time, Almaz Central Design Bureau again jumped above its head and finally turned the project into a frigate, moreover, not just a frigate, but nothing more than a frigate of the “ocean zone”.

We look at the photo.


Clearly visible increase in size (and therefore displacement) and new launchers

So what do we see? Fixed one of the drawbacks of the old project - a weak percussion weapon. Now instead of the RK “Uranus” on the model there are two launchers 3C-14, capable of at least using the KR “Caliber”, and, possibly, “Onyxes” and sometime in the future “Zircons”. The launcher in front of the cannon is the Redut launcher. The fact that Admiral Evmenov said about 32 "Caliber" is some kind of mistake, there are obviously 16 missiles in shock weapons and the same number in the anti-aircraft missile launcher.

For this, however, the ship had to be lengthened. Moreover, which is logical, not only the bow, where the "Caliber" sheltered, but also the stern. The reasons, apparently, are the need to avoid constant trim on the nose and the desire to provide contours with greater speed and better seaworthiness, the ship is now no longer in the "near sea zone, capable of" occasionally "performing tasks in the far", but "oceanic". Recall that even the frigate of project 22350, the most powerful warship in its class, belongs to the distant sea zone.

We will return to frigate 22350.

Background.


Those who closely monitor the domestic shipbuilding know in detail history with the “corvette” of project 20386. It is worthwhile, however, to retell it in general terms for those who missed this information.


Until recently, we knew him like that.

So, from Soviet times, the main striking force of the Navy is nuclear submarines of various types. However, they are very vulnerable from foreign submarines at the exit from bases and in a number of other cases. Similarly, foreign submarines pose a great threat to domestic surface ships and vessels.

In order to make it extremely difficult for any enemy to act in the near sea zone, small anti-submarine ships — MPC — were built in large numbers in the USSR. Despite their small size and displacement, these boats proved to be very effective anti-submariners in our specific conditions.

After the collapse of the USSR update fleet stopped, the modernization of previously built ships was not carried out. Under these conditions, the number of IPCs was constantly decreasing, Russia's vulnerability to foreign submarines was growing.

The construction of project 2000 corvettes began in the early 20380s. These ships were the first ships capable of fighting submarines built in the post-Soviet era. I must say that they were characterized by a number of both conceptual and design flaws, and the manufacturing quality of the first ships was simply terrifying. There have been changes in contractors, criminal cases, landings ... as a result, everything worked more or less on the Loud, corvette handed over to the Pacific Fleet by the Amur Shipyard.

Of course, even in a fully operational state, these ships were far from ideal. So, they don’t have a radio correction for SAM, which greatly reduces the potential of the Redut anti-aircraft missile system and makes it difficult to repel an air strike. They do not have a bomb, which makes it impossible to fight against NAPL that are lying on the ground and deprives the ship of some other advantages. They have badly located anti-aircraft guns AK-630M. There are questions about the real radar stealth and the justification of a superstructure made of composite materials. The biggest disadvantage of these ships as anti-submarine - there are no anti-submarine missiles (PLUR), which dramatically reduces the potential of this ship as a hunter for submarines. And they are expensive. The price of such a corvette calls into question its mass construction in quantities sufficient to cover BMZ.

In fairness, we will make a reservation that the modernization of the project could solve most of these problems, and the revision of the composition of the REV "in the right direction" on newly built ships - reduce the cost of them.

The corvette 20385 planned to replace this ship had an enhanced weapon composition and more powerful electronic weapons, the basis of which was the multifunctional radar system from Zaslon JSC. He also had 16 launch cells in the Redut anti-aircraft missile launcher instead of 12, and one 3C-14 eight-shot launcher, with which it was possible to launch a wide range of guided missiles, including missile defense systems and missiles of the Caliber family.

However, since 2013, strange things began to happen in the system of domestic shipbuilding. The Navy refused to continue the 20385 series. Today, there is a conviction in society that the reason was the inability to receive imported MTU diesel engines and gearboxes due to sanctions. In practice, information on the cessation of construction of 20385 was voiced in the media before the Ukrainian crisis. Information sources complained about the high cost of the resulting corvette.

The groundwork for the canceled 20385 corvettes in the form of an integrated tower-mast structure and the MF RLC was installed on the last four corvettes under construction of project 20380, which increased their cost even more.

It seemed that, since the corvettes were expensive, it was either necessary to try to make them cheaper or to develop a new, more massive project to upgrade BMZ ships, especially anti-submarine ones. The continuation of the series in a slightly modified form was quite logical from the point of view of inter-ship unification. Instead, a completely different thing happened.

In 2016, the public was presented with a model of the new corvette - project 20386. The ship was distinguished by the highest technical complexity, huge displacement for the corvette, weakened weapon composition compared to 20385, lack of unification with previously built ships in many systems. A lot of technical risks were laid in its design, and, most importantly, it was almost twice as expensive as the Project 20380 corvette, having the same offensive weapons, the same cannon, 4 SAMs and more air defense systems, and worse than 20380 submarine search capabilities. From 20385 it was impossible to compare it at a significantly higher price.

The further history of this project and its analysis was made in the author’s article “More than a crime. The construction of the corvettes of the project 20386 is a mistake ” and in a joint article with M. Klimov “Corvette 20386. Continuation of the scam ». The latter lists the technical risks of the project.

Since then, however, much has changed, and in addition, rumors about the amusing evolution of this project, the details of which were hidden from the public for some time, began to receive material evidence for a long time in the "near fleet".

Probably worth voicing them.

Scandals, intrigues, investigations


Starting from the same 2016, information circulated around the project, which for the time being, remained unconfirmed.

The first was that RK Uran was removed from the project. This, firstly, was logical, because even small RTOs had “Caliber”, and the fact that the ship with “Uraniums” will replace the ship with “Caliber” and “Onyxes” somehow looked strange.

The same sources speculated that in 2016 prices the price of the “corvette” would reach 40 billion rubles, which would “send” it to almost the same price niche in which there is an incomparably more powerful and truly worthy warship - project 22350 frigate.

A little later, closer to 2018, another source, quite informed, informed the author that "a larger ship and a displacement, and a more expensive, actually a frigate, are already being worked out to replace 20386." The source did not provide details, but as we can see, he was right: at least some work is underway. In light of the fact that the 22350 series was in doubt and there were no bookmarks for the ships of this project for a long time, the information about replacing them with something corvette-shaped, and even for the same money, sounded frightening.

And again, according to the same source, at the Almaz Central Design Bureau, some figures have the bold idea of ​​"crawling" into the niche of creating ships of large classes than Almaz has always done in the past.

Finally, after the publication of the second article, the author received a short message stating that “6” will be different ”.

All of the above gave reason to think that the project is actually undergoing some kind of processing. It is possible that the appearance of the lead ship will remain more or less close to the known, and serial ones are planned with changes. At the same time, the project number may remain the same, in modern Russia there is no need to look for examples of how the project was completely redone under the same number; everything has already been found.

Future Options and Risks


In order to build any forecasts, you need to know exactly what the model shown is. “Corvette based on project 20386” is written on the tablet, that is, it cannot be guaranteed that it is precisely amended 20386 and that it is being built in exactly the same way, although it is impossible to deny it, especially considering rumors from the past that suddenly began to be confirmed in large numbers.

Therefore, we will evaluate the project as if it were a separate project, and not one, 20386, which, since the end of 2018 (two years after laying), began to be built at the Severnaya Verf shipyard.

Firstly, this is definitely a frigate. He is big as a frigate, heavy as a frigate and armed like a frigate. Thus, this ship is already cutting off not only updating BMZ forces, like the “old” 20386, but is aiming to replace 22350. Of course, it is unlikely that they will sacrifice a series of 22350 for the sake of this project, but now, but when at least 22350M appears in the drawings, it’s quite possible that someone will try to push the idea of ​​a “light frigate” plus it, which in itself, separately from 20386, is quite good, but we need to clearly imagine what this “light frigate” will do under our specific conditions .

And why should it be that way.

So far, it’s obvious that this ship is not anti-submarine - the dimensions of the GAS fairing make it impossible to think that its main task will be to combat submarines, and it is better to have two helicopters for the anti-submarine frigate. Although using a towed GAS, a helicopter and an anti-submarine missile system from 3C-14, it is possible to deal with submarines, there are no clearly expressed features of an anti-submarine ship in this project.

Obviously, this is not an air defense ship - it has few missiles, it is not possible to simultaneously fire from a cannon and an air defense system, and the two AK-306s installed on the superstructure behind the GTU gas ducts are just some kind of anecdote.

That he has? He has 16 cruise or anti-ship missiles. This is the same as the first four frigates of 22350 have. That is, we have before us a certain edition of the strike ship, but light, and obtained by processing a completely different project.

That is, it is “just a ship” - a light frigate, invented without an explicit concept of combat use. The result of blind evolution, which did not come from tasks, but just like that - faster, more, more expensive.

Its advantages, apparently, will be speed and range. Cons - complexity, price and the fact that this is again a duplicate project in relation to frigate 22350.

Thus, such a ship, if there is now 22350, does not make sense at all, and then, when 22350 changes to 22350M, then a light frigate will apparently be needed, but different.

Returning to frigate 22350, it is worth saying that the abstraction from "Diamond" does not withstand comparison with it from the word "completely." It can be assumed that, theoretically, the diamond super corvette / light frigate may have higher speed and range. But even so, that makes little difference. The frigate 22350 has a total superiority in air defense due to the twice as much ammunition of the missile defense system and the more advanced Poliment radar, it has much more advanced air defense systems of the near zone, it has a more powerful ASG and is better able to deal with submarines, it has a more powerful gun (130 mm), his outermost two ships have 24 missile cells in 3C-14 installations against 16, and he is already in the series.

False direction


Today, Russia already has a frigate project in mass production - 22350. This ship is multiple times more powerful, which means it is more useful than any variation of 20386. In addition, it is produced in series. There is no reason for TsMKB Almaz to spend budgetary funds on unnecessary ships in the same class.

We have a gigantic, monstrous in scale hole in the defense of the near sea zone - there are no forces capable of ensuring the deployment of nuclear strategic nuclear forces, and there are no forces capable of ensuring the deployment of a submarine. Old IPCs are dying, instead of modernization in the direction of cost reduction, it was complicated (MF RLK) and then “slaughtered”, the 20380 series was completed on two ships, although its simplified version could also become the BMZ base ship, when the construction of such large corvettes still there was a time.

We have huge problems with mine forces. And if the difficulties in building new minesweepers are understandable (but not their design - it is inexplicable), then the complete absence of attempts to modernize existing ships gives away not even stupidity, but betrayal. In our country, neither anti-submarine aircraft nor anti-submarine helicopters are produced.


We really have a lot to spend without the “old” 20386, not to mention the “new”. All this was true when this crazy project was just launched, and right now, when for some reason we were shown the model of a frigate made on its basis, even more expensive.

And if, in fact, under the brand name of the “old” 20386 models, a new one with “Caliber” and a corresponding increase in price is already being built, then this will have no justification at all, because one such unnecessary overgrowth corvette will “eat” at least three ships easier .

The Almaz TsMKB has many talented designers who are capable of developing world-class ships using obviously low-tech components. There are interesting developments on the ships of the near sea zone. Have experience. There is the ability to finally give the country what it has long needed - a project of a massive simple and inexpensive ship BMZ, which can replace MRK and MPK. There are also such projects.

Instead, we see a long-standing epic of budget development in any way possible, of increasing the number of OCDs at the cost of seriality, which the TsMKB itself contributed a lot to through its leaders, and other shameful ways to get public money. Alas, yesterday’s model is from the same place, and has the same purpose. Responsibility for all of the above lies with the management of this company.

I would like to believe that fornication with gigantic and super-expensive corvettes and frigates growing from them, expensive but weak against the background of competitors already under construction (22350), will someday end, and this design bureau will again, as before, serve the country's defenses.

Who would only finally achieve this!
Author:
Photos used:
RIA Crimea / Andrey Kireev, press service of IMDS-2019, Channel 1 (TV)
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vladimir_2U 10 January 2020 05: 29 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    It seems to me that such an arrangement, closer to the tip, missiles also reduces the point of use
    1. Lexus 10 January 2020 05: 55 New
      • 14
      • 7
      +7
      Is it really impossible once to do it normally, so that then you don’t constantly redo it without even building a single ship?
      1. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 08: 42 New
        • 33
        • 5
        +28
        The fact is that when creating a new ship, funding goes through the development of a developer to the delivery of the lead ship in a series.
        The following are already funded through manufacturers.

        Diamond is a well-worn office, they hired Rear Admiral Zakharov, the former head of the 1st Research Institute, to solve problems with the Navy, and as a result they sold the scheme when there was a constant change of projects, so that each new one was the head and the result of OCD, and that Diamond controlled financing.

        It's simple.

        Zakharov, by the way, is “father” 20386, he invented it.
        1. Dante Alighieri 10 January 2020 09: 49 New
          • 11
          • 0
          +11
          So you need to change this system so that the design bureaus themselves, and not just manufacturers, are interested in releasing a series of ships, rather than simulating violent activity through the creation and re-spinning of similar projects. Because Our design bureaus, unlike their western counterparts, have no direct production capacities (we will not go into the details of the fact that each design bureau always works with only one specific manufacturer) it is reasonable that no one seeks to lose budget allocations. And they can be understood: we are all human beings and we all want to eat. Another question is that such a vicious situation negatively affects the country's defense. Wouldn’t it be better if the Design Bureau received a percentage of the cost of each ship built according to their design? We need a new project: there’s no talk, allocate additional funds for design, organize a competition, etc., but even without these funds, design engineers would have something to live on. Another question is that in this situation, many design bureaus will not be able to keep afloat and all in the end will concentrate in the hands of 2-3 offices. True, the experience of domestic aircraft construction shows that in general this is not so bad.
          1. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 11: 40 New
            • 15
            • 6
            +9
            we will not go into the details of the fact that each design bureau always works with only one specific manufacturer


            No not always.

            Regarding the rest - this is from the series “corruption must be defeated”. Difficult. Indeed, such things should not be strictly formally, protection against cuts in the OCD is multilevel, the same 20386 should have been stopped at the stage of approval of the project. But the same Zakharov went right to the end of the coordinator chain and signed everything without verification, people who were obliged to conduct an examination of the project first read the docks on it. When it was already launched.

            A lot of hair was pulled out of the heads.

            Just when in collusion deputy. the general design bureau, which also in the past commanded the core research institute and the Glavkom with it, then come up with at least some kind of system.

            Amers have both public control and Congress, and then the LCS was dragged and no one can do anything about it.

            I don’t even know what to do.
            1. bayard 10 January 2020 17: 54 New
              • 13
              • 1
              +12
              Greetings to Alexander!
              Good article, honest and timely. I share your concern for the fate of the Fleet and the outrage that is happening. The problem, apparently, can be solved only at the highest level and through a paradigm shift in the design support of the series under construction with the deduction of a certain percentage of design bureaus from each side built so that the design bureau would be interested (including financially) in the largest series. Such an approach could change the vector of corruption interests (since corruption cannot be defeated in principle) towards maximum unification and uniformity of the fleet's naval composition. Thus, the design bureau will have to work in a closer connection with the industry, be imbued with its interests, capabilities and needs, and instead of rampant racing more and more new, original and crazy projects, it will finally take up the construction of a real combat-ready fleet, balanced in size, composition, combat capabilities and compliance with the tasks before him.
              The case with this “redress” 20386 is simply blatant and your right and duty (as the author of materials on this topic) to reveal all the stupidity, wastefulness and inadequacy of this project.
              I advise you to add a bit of healthy humor, historical analogies and suggestions of alternative options. On the BMZ topic, one could devote (I think so) a whole series of articles for a better disclosure of the topic, with an excursion into history, an analysis of the challenges and existing problems and suggestions for solving them. Considering that the BMZ of the Russian Federation is very extensive and specific (Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet), to solve this problem, light class ships (MPC, corvettes, missile boats, minesweepers, NPLs) and frigates (for duty in the "bastions"), developed anti-submarine and patrol aviation, means of technical control of water areas (bottom networks of acoustic sensors and sensors of other physical fields), satellite constellation and air defense and anti-ship defense means of the Fleet-based areas.
              In order to be heard at the very top, it is necessary not only to voice the problem, but also to propose an alternative, justify the concept and, in the justification of this concept, take into account (alas) the realities of modern capitalist reality (in particular, the above-mentioned linking of the developer to the project, through support, for appropriate remuneration, through the payment of interest from each constructed (!) ship).
              Good luck in this difficult but very necessary field.
              hi
              1. timokhin-aa 13 January 2020 09: 29 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Apparently, the problem can be solved only at the highest level and through a paradigm shift in the design support of the series under construction with the deduction of a certain percentage of design bureau from each built board so that the design bureau would be interested (including financially) in the largest series. Such an approach could change the vector of corruption interests (since corruption cannot be defeated in principle) towards maximum unification and uniformity of the fleet


                Well said, it is!
            2. Vadim237 10 January 2020 20: 14 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              "I don’t even know what to do." - Be as you are.
            3. alma 10 January 2020 22: 12 New
              • 4
              • 5
              -1
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              I don’t even know what to do.

              Zakharova and the family to check for property and residence permits abroad. Himself in a cell to tuberculosis, a family in the mines.
              1. timokhin-aa 11 January 2020 13: 54 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Yes, he already does not last long - years. There is no sense in punishing, it is necessary to stop this harlot.
          2. Avia4747 4 February 2020 15: 26 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            "Corruption is the engine of progress" !!! Is that really true ??!! Zakharov and Rakhmanov (USC), Serdyukov and Slyusar (UAC), Chemezov (Rostekh) and Manturov (MPT) fit perfectly into Tsalikov's organizational system! Such is life today!
        2. EnGenius 17 January 2020 14: 44 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Honestly, the article is not objective
          critics. Just an attempt to give out
          the idea that the frigate should
          remain a frigate. And that corvette is not
          should cost like a frigate. For some reason
          other questions are not posed - are there
          necessary construction in the country
          power, build time, is there
          serial equipment where
          base and repair where
          teach and deploy crews and their
          families not considered developmental interests
          Navy, which the customer knows and takes into account, but not
          we mortals. Respectively,
          tantrums why don't frigates look
          still tantrums. The same applies to
          domestic aircraft carriers.
          Accordingly, the secrets of the Navy to you
          no one will upload. But the fact that
          stuffed corvette stands as average
          frigate, so there is the price of equipment
          and armament is more dependent, not on
          displacement.
      2. D16
        D16 10 January 2020 21: 35 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Is it really impossible once to do it normally, so that then you don’t constantly redo it without even building a single ship?

        There is a building, which was not there before, first you need to do "Building + GEM." Without field tests, it’s completely stupid to try to develop it further.
      3. Xnumx vis 11 January 2020 09: 47 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Best the enemy of the good !
  2. GKS 2111 10 January 2020 05: 37 New
    • 17
    • 2
    +15
    Again, mock-ups, models, alterations of models into mock-ups and vice versa, shifts to the right, left, discussions of altering a model into mock-ups and the risks that arise at that ... When will the ship already be there? In iron, in the fleet, on alert, at sea ?
    Instead we see many years of budget development in any way possible. I want to believe that fornication with giant and super-expensive corvettes and frigates growing out of them, expensive but weak against the background of competitors already under construction (22350), will someday end.
    And is it worth it to fence the garden around 20386, when there are already 22350 ...
    1. Observer2014 10 January 2020 20: 09 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Quote: GKS 2111
      Again, mock-ups, models, alterations of models into mock-ups and vice versa, shifts to the right, left, discussions of altering a model into mock-ups and the risks that arise at that ... When will the ship already be there? In iron, in the fleet, on alert, at sea ?
      Instead we see many years of budget development in any way possible. I want to believe that fornication with giant and super-expensive corvettes and frigates growing out of them, expensive but weak against the background of competitors already under construction (22350), will someday end.
      And is it worth it to fence the garden around 20386, when there are already 22350 ...

      And in Russia it’s everywhere. In any field where you need to develop a budget. This system works like that. Master a budget. I beg you at my enterprise where I work the same. And this does not change with the appointment of a new mayor, etc., etc. This is horror. And really I.V. Stalin hi that's all negative lacks
  3. pmkemcity 10 January 2020 06: 16 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    All this disgrace from the fact that the fleet has turned into a kind of VDNH, through which we want to vparit a potential buyer at least something. Hence, so many projects "with pearl buttons."
    1. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 08: 42 New
      • 21
      • 6
      +15
      It's getting worse. The fleet turned into a cash cow prom.
      1. D16
        D16 10 January 2020 21: 43 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        The fleet turned into a cash cow prom.

        The fleet needs a brand new ship. The fleet does not like 1135. The fleet believes that the hull and the 1135 power plant have exhausted themselves. It would be strange if the fleet did not pay for its Wishlist.
        1. pmkemcity 11 January 2020 09: 09 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          1135's, obviously a lot in the reserve. And while this reserve has not been used up, they will not build anything else.
          And from what, I apologize, does the fleet have such apathy for 1135 corps? I went to myself more than others ...
          1. D16
            D16 11 January 2020 12: 44 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            1135's, obviously a lot in the reserve. And while this reserve has not been used up, they will not build anything else.

            What do you mean by backlog? The last three unfinished ships were sold to the Indians. The fact that 1135 was obsolete was evident even in the USSR and 11540 was proof of that.
            And from what, I apologize, does the fleet have such apathy for 1135 corps?

            Due to its displacement and power plant. The first does not make it possible to make a full-fledged frigate of it, and the second, in addition to problems with cost, development and production, with its gluttony, aggravates the problem of range. We should not forget about the problem of quiet running. clean gas turbines really do not like him. By a full-fledged frigate, I mean a ship with sufficient seaworthiness, range, and the presence of a multi-channel air defense system of medium and shorter range, full-fledged anti-aircraft defense systems and USKS for all occasions.
            1. pmkemcity 11 January 2020 14: 18 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Finished cases - this is not the whole reserve (reserves of bent or cut metal, thickness, grade, etc.).
              "Cases of life" - to beat the American, squeeze the "Elk" out of the area with training ammunition, drop the inspection team into the junk of Somali pirates, put 1-2 rockets into the barmalei, shoot down a lunatic, or 1-2 URs from the 70-80s (UAVs) .
              "Cases of death" (of all world imperialism) - try to drive the same "Elk" off your coast, drown 1-2 randomly turned up vehicles (in the far zone), shoot down a couple of URs and die a brave death under the blows of superior enemy forces.
              That's all the tasks for today and in the near future. Expensive medium-range air defense systems on ...? Dagger, yes. PLRK, RBU - yes. Caliber - rather yes. Helicopter? By the shore? Cheaper is a decent aircraft that will hang over the Bering Sea around the clock. And so the perfect ship looms. And so, in order of priority - it should be, should be in decent quantities, should have good living conditions, have decent seaworthiness, reliability and range. All.
              1. D16
                D16 11 January 2020 15: 28 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Finished cases - this is not the whole reserve (reserves of bent or cut metal, thickness, grade, etc.).

                Who will do such a “backlog” before receiving an order, or at least an advance? Steel grades as they were and will be.
                HOOK om 11356 to look for Elk, Virginia and Si-Wulfs? You can search, of course lol . In order for the ship to be needed, he needs a domestic SU. Without it, all of the above does not make any sense. And 11356 is a classic example of what cannot be more than what is already there. Everything else is empty chatter.
                1. pmkemcity 11 January 2020 15: 46 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  The hardships can be in the form of equipment, dies ... But who knows?
                  What do you mean by "domestic SU"?
                  I do not advocate for 11356. A corps is just a corps. That the designer is crammed into him, so the sailor will be tormented.
                  1. D16
                    D16 11 January 2020 16: 19 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Completely made in Russia GEM. Not correctly written.
                  2. D16
                    D16 11 January 2020 16: 27 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    A case is just a case. That the designer is crammed into him, so the sailor will be tormented.

                    The housing is not considered separately from the power plant. Case 1135 just does not allow you to create a functionally balanced frigate, but for the corvette it is redundant.
                    1. pmkemcity 11 January 2020 17: 22 New
                      • 2
                      • 1
                      +1
                      Corvettes are frigates ... What kind of Americanisms? How is the Corvette ship different from the Frigate ship?
                      The ship should be as it should. No more no less. If the British considered that a ship with a displacement of 4500 tons was needed for the North Atlantic, then they built one (pr. 23) that, having excellent seaworthiness, carries weapons like an MRK. This is an example of how to.
                      So what is the difference in the displacement of a corvette, or a frigate, or a destroyer, or a BOD?
                      Corvette (sailing) - in the XVIII — XIX centuries. a three-masted warship with a full direct sailing armament and armed with 18-30 small and medium caliber guns located only on the upper deck (open). A frigate in a sailing fleet is a military three-masted ship with full sailing armament with one or two (open and closed) gun decks.
                      1. D16
                        D16 11 January 2020 18: 21 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Call them the DMZ Patrol Ship and the BMZ Patrol Ship. Will something change from this? For the Baltic and the World Cup, 2-3 thousand tons are enough. VI, but for the SF and the Far East this is not enough. Therefore, they came to pr. 22350. The same 4,5 thousand tons. Etc. 23 for his time was very well armed. The first 11540, for example, remained completely without anti-ship missiles, while the second had to lengthen the hull to accommodate PU Uranus. DMZ requires ships not only autonomy, but also the ability to independently cope with a wider range of tasks.
                      2. pmkemcity 12 January 2020 09: 00 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        For DMZ, as you put it, you need a "nanoKorean" (nano, in the sense of "innovative", and not small).
                        But in the BMZ it is necessary not only to impose confrontation on the adversary, but also to gain dominance off the coast of Kamchatka, in the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, Japan, Black Sea and the Berengov Sea.
                        Moreover, the Black Sea and Yaponomorsky fleet must be so strong that the enemy would tremble when approaching the Turkish and Japanese-Kuril barriers.
                      3. D16
                        D16 12 January 2020 09: 29 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        For DMZ need "nanoVaryag". NanoKorean has less autonomy and greater restrictions on the use of weapons in the weather laughing . The Black Sea Fleet is needed not so much for the World Cup as for the Mediterranean.
                        so that the enemy would tremble already approaching the Turkish and Japanese-Kuril barriers.

                        There are more weighty arguments than the fleet.
                      4. pmkemcity 12 January 2020 09: 39 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I "Korean" did not mean in the sense of displacement, but in the sense of functional responsibilities, so to speak, "at a new level."
                        And in the Far East, unfortunately, for a long time there is nothing to frighten not only Americans, but Japanese and Koreans.
                      5. D16
                        D16 12 January 2020 09: 45 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        I "Korean" did not mean in the sense of displacement, but in the sense of functional responsibilities, so to speak, "at a new level."

                        It’s hard to understand your allegories.
                        And in the Far East, unfortunately, for a long time there is nothing to frighten not only Americans, but Japanese and Koreans.

                        And nevertheless they are afraid. And obviously not the fleet.
                      6. pmkemcity 12 January 2020 09: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Our "likely neighbors" have long been more afraid of unpredictable Americans than us. That's why they are arming themselves, so as to say the last thing, they say, themselves somehow ... Such disgrace was not under the Soviet regime.
  • EnGenius 17 January 2020 14: 53 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But what, the fleet on our couch is conceived and built in a boat shed?
  • Vladimir1155 10 January 2020 20: 09 New
    • 1
    • 5
    -4
    There must be one sample of each type. My opinion is that a corvette is not needed, it does not go cumbersome along rivers, so why fence a garden, For a DMZ you need a frigate, and for all other tasks, small ships, RTOs, MPK minesweepers.
    1. D16
      D16 11 January 2020 14: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      My opinion is that a corvette is not needed, it does not go cumbersome along rivers, so why fence a garden, For a DMZ you need a frigate, and for all other tasks, small ships, RTOs, MPK minesweepers.

      And for what a sea boat to walk on the rivers? To do this, there is Buyan M. Corvette needed to perform more specialized tasks, like a frigate, with less autonomy. 20386, for example, it’s clearly not a hunter for submarines, but it is able to perform all the functions of 11356 in a smaller VI, with domestic power supply, with reduced ESR. In fact, this is an RTO with normal air defense and means of self-defense against submarines. And decent seaworthiness compared to 22800.
      1. Vladimir1155 12 January 2020 00: 10 New
        • 2
        • 5
        -3
        excuse me a lot of words but there is no logic, 1 on the rivers you can go from sea to another, 2 functions of a frigate without PLO, Karkurt performs well and by the way walks and costs cheaper than yours 20386 ...... 3 reduced EPR generally do not swim, do not rely on the blind if you can be seen but not very clearly, it will not help 4 if it is MRC but big and expensive, then what are its advantages besides pitching? and we are not afraid of pitching, we know .....
        1. D16
          D16 12 January 2020 09: 11 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          on the rivers you can cross from the sea to another

          With all the abundance of a mosquito fleet in the USSR, the warships on the Volga I saw only being dismantled in tow from the Zelenodolsky Shipyard. It did not occur to anyone in the campaign to chase Navy ships along the river from one sea to another. We must also take into account the seasonality of navigation. We do not live in Africa much. smile
          functions of a frigate without PLO, Karkurt performs excellently and walks along rivers by the way and costs less than your 20386

          22800 is not a DMZ ship. The use of weapons is limited to excitement of 3-4 points. It does not provide zonal air defense and does not even have means of self-defense against submarines. Therefore, he should not go far from the coast or senior comrades. Reduced EPR allows you to mislead the enemy in the absence of line of sight. It becomes problematic to distinguish a frigate from a fishing scandal, for example.
          and we are not afraid of pitching, we know

          This is you at 1400 in the storm did not fall laughing .
  • Andrei from Chelyabinsk 10 January 2020 06: 41 New
    • 14
    • 4
    +10
    As for me - basically everything is right. Corvette engineering really should have gone down in price 20380, but not in 20385-20386. And five and six are too expensive, even 20380 is a little expensive for the mass series
    1. Dante Alighieri 10 January 2020 08: 45 New
      • 8
      • 3
      +5
      Corvette engineering really had to go down in price 20380

      There is nothing easier: we throw out the Redoubt, put the Dagger (better version 2.0) in the free cells, two antenna posts in the front and back hemispheres (an occasion to save on Fourka). According to my estimates, a minimum of 24 missiles should be obtained. We leave Uranus as a missile weapon - for a ship of this size there is no cheaper option. Regarding concerns about how a corvette 20380 without Caliber caliber missiles can hit an adversary’s submarine, they are well treated with the 2 * 2 RPK-6M Vodopad-NK installation. "There are no places," you say. Really no. But if you raise the helicopter landing pad, and make the descent into the hangar at an angle, a place will appear. At the same time, you won’t even have to give up the already existing “Package” - as a weapon of self-defense and the “last argument of the kings” for those who lacked 533, they will fit quite well. As a result, we get a slightly smaller analogue of 11540 in a modern case and performance, which is not bad , for Hawks, be alive USSR, and were to become the main workhorse as the withdrawal of the 1135s (the niche of which we are trying to fill the 20380th).
      What else could make a project cheaper? Reducing the dimensions of the fuel tank for a helicopter in order to free up additional space for a new power plant: 2 marching 16D49 diesel engines and one M90FR afterburner gas turbine, used at 22350 (after all, the larger the series, the cheaper each produced unit is). Well, a couple of suggestions from the field of science fiction or arguments on the topic “Why not?”: The rejection of the two-shaft system (hello Oliver Perry) in favor of a single-shaft system that directly transfers the movement energy from the gas turbine engine (for high-speed operation) and the installation of 2 water-jet propulsors, powered by diesel engines, for moving on the march or in the case when it is necessary to hide the noise from the rotation of the screws.
      1. bayard 10 January 2020 18: 14 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: Dante
        abandonment of the two-shaft system (hello Oliver Perry) in favor of a single-shaft system that directly transfers the energy of movement from the gas turbine engine (for high-speed operation) and the installation of 2 water-jet propulsion devices powered by diesel engines for marching or when it is necessary to hide the noise from the rotation of the screws.

        Cyril, so you got a three-shaft. What is the gain? Or are you going to do retractable water jets on an electric drive? So at "Oliver H. Perry" they performed the role of thrusters and emergency propulsion ...
        For a BMZ and a ship up to 2000 tons. VI inclusive, a helicopter on board is a very dubious option, given the restrictions on use on the wave. Look what the weather is like on the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet during the year and how many days that year the given ship will be able to use a helicopter from its side ... Infrequently. Therefore, it is more reasonable for ships of such a VI to abandon the helicopter in principle, and due to the saved space, to place additional weapons - the same UKKS in place of the hangar ... And the helipad, by the way, can be left, but not for basing, but for landing. .. and launch the UAV.
        And it’s better to make a power plant with a corvette on diesel vapors - cost-effectiveness, price, ease of maintenance and repair.
        But I like your train of thought.
        1. Dante Alighieri 11 January 2020 14: 51 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          so you got a three-shaft. What is the gain? Or are you going to do retractable water jets on an electric drive? So at "Oliver H. Perry" they performed the role of thrusters and emergency propulsion ...


          I apologize for not specifying and misleading you. No, about any retractable systems, in my understanding, there is no question. As I have already said, this part of my commentary is more likely to refer to the item “to still be encouraged” rather than to the desire “to save more”. I will explain. It is difficult to call all types of weapons I have designated innovative or breakthrough. Traditional screws are also not very suitable for these definitions. Yes, they are reliable, relatively not whimsical and cheap, but as the main driver in the 21st century, you will not surprise anyone. At the same time, the ship of the Russian Federation simply must be at least somewhat modern! Otherwise, how to talk to a respectable audience? In order to at least slightly sweeten the pill to our admirals and to demonstrate that we are also in the trend of modern shipbuilding and you won’t surprise us with any Zumwalt and LCS, I just propose to experiment on the propulsion system of the corvette 20380.

          The choice of water cannons is justified by two factors. Firstly, unlike electric motors of increased power and propeller-steering complexes with a submersible propulsion engine, in which the EDL is moved outside the ship’s hull and installed in an underwater capsule (cocoon), the water cannons are well mastered by our industry and there is extensive experience in their operation, albeit on ships of lesser displacement. Secondly, water cannons as well as electric motors have lower characteristics in terms of noise produced, which is especially important, given the fact that diesel engines are quite loud units and no pillows and shock absorbers are able to fully compensate for the vibrations they produce. This is especially important, taking into account the fact that it is diesel engines that are used in patrol and search for submarines, while if you need to make a quick march to a given square or leave an insecure zone, the afterburner GTU is used. It is clear that the noise from the engines themselves will not go anywhere, but due to the smaller number of moving parts (a shorter shaft, the absence of a screw and gearbox) it will be possible to slightly reduce the noise produced by the ship, thereby making acoustics on board a little easier for them to work.
          Moreover, I will say more, this option is not without any kind of savings, because the ship’s control system is simplified, because the location of the water cannons on both sides of the main propeller will allow us to abandon the usual steering elements, and the turn or turn of the ship’s hull will be carried out simply for account shutdown of one of the water cannons. I understand that the project is somewhat amateurish, but I'm a humanist, as I see it)))

          Regarding the hangar, that is ambivalent thoughts. On the one hand, you are right - the weather and pitching make it difficult to accept / send an aircraft from such a small ship. That is why at one time the USSR fanned 11540 to the size of a frigate. In addition, I have big concerns about whether the number of pilots and aircraft available in our troops is enough to equip at least half of those corvettes that are already in service. Personally, I doubt it very much. Therefore, I completely agree with you - a variant with a folding hangar would be much more appropriate here, as for example on Cheetahs or destroyers 956: it doesn’t take up much space, and if necessary there is something to cover the “bird”. But in the conditions of northern latitude, this catfish procedure in itself is already becoming a test, so a full-fledged hangar in our climate looks much more preferable. So in this case I am inclined to adhere to the principle of one old joke: "they did not drink, but they had with them."

          By the way, if the cost of the Waterfall-NK is commensurate with the cost of the ZS-14, then it is probably better to leave the ZS-14, since it even has a variety of weapons. But if the combined cost of Waterfall-NK and Uranus is at least 15% lower than equipping a ship with Onyx / Caliber family missiles, then it is better to opt for the first option. A chicken by the grain as they say ...
          1. bayard 11 January 2020 16: 37 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            And yet your proposal is about three shafts, moreover, idle water cannons will significantly slow down the movement in idle mode. In addition, the water cannons are immediately discarded by our naval commanders and experienced captains - in our conditions, the water cannons will constantly clog with pieces of ice, wedge the screw in the casing. Already offered, rejected.
            As for the hangar - we must refuse! It takes up too much space on such a small ship, and too little sense during the calendar year.
            Regarding the reduction of noise due to water jets, they will still give out a diesel engine, and with them a gearbox and shafts. If you want low acoustic visibility, you need to switch to electric movement, but there will already be a loss of power in electric transmissions. And a serious remake of the project.
            The best option for the PLO corvette is the abandonment of the hangar in favor of the UKKS, the Pantsyr-M air defense system, towed GAS, a slightly increased power of the power plant on diesel engines (say 6000 + 10 l / s for each shaft) to bring the maximum speed to 000 knots, and it is advisable to return the bomb (for the destruction of the NPLs lying on the ground, of which there are many near us, the "Package".
            Instead of “Pantsyrya-M” you can also “Dagger”, but then + 2 AK-630 on the sides.
            And drive such PLO corvettes with a series of 30 pieces.

            "Waterfall" is good for old ships with torpedo tubes 533 mm. but he greatly unmasks both the ship and its launch by launching from the water - noise on the floor of the ocean.

            And from 20386, in the case of a real construction of such, there can be only one benefit - the development of electric propulsion technology for ships of this class. The rest is one harm.
            1. Dante Alighieri 11 January 2020 17: 51 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              And yet your proposal is about three shafts

              Yes, three-shaft: one long, two short.
              in our conditions, water cannons will be constantly clogged with pieces of ice, wedge the screw in the shell

              I didn’t think about it. I admit my mistake. I just wanted to improve the soundtrack a little))) What to do, we won’t succeed "innovative" ship when nature itself is opposite. Admirals will have to rely on traditional means, otherwise give them all that have no analogues, even in a single copy. The very second law of dialectical materialism has been forgotten, which states that quantitative changes turn into qualitative ones, and not vice versa.
              In general, your project also has a place to live. I wouldn’t be in a hurry to put the carapace: experienced comrades, including those close to production, are saying that Thor will be better.
              1. bayard 11 January 2020 19: 31 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Dante
                I wouldn’t be in a hurry to put the carapace: experienced comrades, including those close to production, are saying that Thor will be better.

                A vertical start, a reaction rate - of course. But the range ... 12 km. it will not be enough ... admirals will not approve. Yes, and the captains, too. The “Shell-M” has a range of up to 40 km. ... but not less than 30 km. Plus guns.
                1. Dante Alighieri 11 January 2020 19: 56 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  By the way, the numbers on the Shell vary quite strongly, I do not even know who to believe. Somewhere it appears 20 km, somewhere 30. Now you are already talking about 40. Some kind of leapfrog.
                  And here is another comrade from below D16 who claims that the 9M330-2 missile needs to be further twisted towards the target, which is why it is impossible to place it on ships in cells. I’ll say frankly that I am skeptical, because wherever it is written about Dagger or Thor, the fact that the preliminary launch of the launcher towards the target is especially emphasized
                  not required. I’m sitting and thinking, either I was deceived for many years, or the engineers were complete fools (although in the last, given that this is about Soviet personnel, I don’t really believe it).
                  1. bayard 11 January 2020 22: 10 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Dante
                    By the way, the numbers on the Shell vary quite strongly, I do not even know who to believe. Somewhere it appears 20 km, somewhere 30. Now you are already talking about 40. Some kind of leapfrog.

                    20 km - range at "Shell-S", land on the KAMAZ chassis. The marine modification is much more serious:
                    - target detection range - 70 - 75 km.
                    - the range of destruction of the target (three types of missiles) - 40 km. (according to other sources 32 - 37 km.), 20 km. 10 km.
                    + two six-barrel gun mounts of 30 mm caliber.

                    But Pantsyr-M (like the land one) needs a PU turn on the target, because the PU is girder (from TPK), and not from a vertical cell, like the Dagger or Polement-Reduta. This is a minus.
                    The minus that balances the plus is a longer range. As a near-surface air defense system, both are good. And to decide whether this is enough, let the customer think.
      2. D16
        D16 10 January 2020 22: 10 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        we throw out the Redoubt, put the Dagger in the empty cells

        You have a very vague idea of ​​the dagger cells. Thor doesn’t just turn the tower. Everything is in harmony there with a rocket, and with a backlight station, and with a radio command guidance method.
        1135th (the niche of which we are trying to fill the 20380th).

        That's just 1135 and they are trying to replace 20386mi. Since 20380 with their 2500 tons of displacement in the ocean niochem.
        1. Dante Alighieri 11 January 2020 15: 19 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          You have a very vague idea of ​​the dagger cells. Thor doesn’t just turn the tower. Everything is in harmony there with a rocket, and with a backlight station, and with a radio command guidance method.


          Something I don’t understand. Are you talking about the land option, or about the sea one? It’s just if it’s about the Dagger, i.e. oversized version of the SAM Tor, then the antenna post there is always separated from the cells with missiles. I'm not talking about the fact that he himself is strikingly different in layout from his land forefather
          1. D16
            D16 11 January 2020 16: 05 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            It is about the sea. With the antenna post, everything is more or less clear, except that in 11540 they could not cram the second. There is still a very peculiar PU, resembling a revolver drum, and rotating around its axis. After all, at the ground Torah, the PU rotates with the tower and the guidance station. So it will not be so easy to throw out the redoubt and place the PU Torus in its place. Weight PU for 8 missiles 41 tons. laughing And he won’t be able to refuse from Furke. Surveillance radar should still be.
            1. Dante Alighieri 11 January 2020 17: 31 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              There is still a very peculiar PU, resembling a revolver drum, and rotating around its axis

              And what do you mean by that? That the placement of 9M330-2 missiles in the turret PU is the only possible option? So it is not. Nothing and nobody forbids you to place a rocket simply in a cell. After all, you yourself write
              After all, at the ground Thor, the PU rotates with the tower and guidance station

              The key here is a mobile guidance station, which, I repeat, is at the Dagger located separately from the SAM. Or do you think that rotational movements affect the rocket itself? Does the fuel there stagnate or does the explosive circulate inside the housing? Duck is both there in a solid state and, therefore, such a centrifuge is not needed directly by the rocket. She doesn’t need the S-300FM Fort at the 1144th or 1164th, which nevertheless is also made in a revolving version, although the PUs on land versions of the S-300 do not rotate around its axis. So you have a slightly incorrect correlation between these two factors. In fact, the revolving launcher on Soviet ships was introduced as part of saving space: place each rocket in a separate cell or load it into a drum - the volume of occupied space will turn out to be different. For the SAM itself, it does not matter where the SAM will be located in the cell or drum. So there are no ideological preconditions for placing the Dagger SAM in the 20380 eggs available. In terms of mass and overall dimensions, the Dagger also falls into place of Redut, especially given the fact that the MO plans to make the 9M100 missile from it a single missile, including for the land complexes of the TOP.
              And he won’t be able to refuse from Furke. Surveillance radar should still be.

              What again interferes can be replaced by Positive, and Mineral instead of the Monument. Combat potential for about the same money will increase significantly. After all, do not forget Furke is just a version of the ground-based radar ZRAK Pantsir-C1, which has never been distinguished by outstanding performance characteristics.
              1. D16
                D16 11 January 2020 18: 06 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                And what do you mean by that? That the placement of 9M330-2 missiles in the turret PU is the only possible option?

                Yes. This is the only option. There is no autopilot in these missiles. Therefore, she always inclines after the start only in one direction. And this side should always be directed towards the goal. This rotates not only the revolver with missiles as in the S-300F, but also the cylinder itself, in which the revolver is located. The launch window looks in the same direction as the rotating antenna post. The rocket should enter the beam 60 x 60 gr. And the 9M100 has both autopilot, and AGSN, and the corresponding price.
                What again interferes can be replaced by Positive, and Mineral instead of the Monument. Combat potential for about the same money will increase significantly.

                If you, civilians, are so smart, why don’t you go down the line? (C) laughing
                Furke operates in a longer wavelength range.
                1. Dante Alighieri 11 January 2020 18: 29 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Yes. This is the only option.

                  Well, apparently, the guys from the Dome do not know about this since they post similar images on their stands

                  I draw your attention to the fact that the towers with the radar are located just behind cells with missiles.
                  Furke operates in a longer wavelength range.

                  And what does it give him? In range, it is still inferior to the Positive I mentioned, which is not surprising since the latter is, for a second, a specialized product designed specifically for ships, and not an ersatz plug, for surrender from land complexes for the United Arab Emirates.
                  If you, civilians, are so smart, why don’t you build

                  The answer is obvious - because smart)))
                  1. D16
                    D16 11 January 2020 18: 54 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    I draw your attention to the fact that behind the tower with the radar there are precisely the cells with missiles.

                    Each of these blocks has an axis of rotation. How to redraw the bow of the 20380, and most importantly, why, if it does not provide circular shelling? On the head 20380 was ZRAK. Cheap and cheerful. But no. put the redoubt. Suggest back to the roots? smile The steamer in the picture is clearly larger than 20380.
                    And what does it give him?

                    First of all, less meteorological dependence. At 22350, the Furke observation station. Do you think it is inferior to standing not "Buyan" "Positive"?
                  2. D16
                    D16 11 January 2020 19: 24 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Well, apparently, the guys from the Dome do not know about this since they post similar images on their stands

                    Placing such images on corvettes is generally easier than ever. laughing .
                    1. Dante Alighieri 11 January 2020 19: 41 New
                      • 2
                      • 0
                      +2
                      Each of these blocks has an axis of rotation.

                      And where did you see it? Do you even understand what it takes to be imbecile in order to come up with such nonsense at the present time? Or do you think engineers are dumber than others?
                      I specially found a visual video demonstrating that the rocket itself lays on the course and adjusts its direction, and does not fall in one direction, as you say.

                      At 1:06, you can clearly see how the rocket starts, the gas-dynamic system is activated which, after the launch of the rocket - before turning on its accelerating-marching solid propellant engine - produces its inclination (orientation) towards the target.
                      At 22350, the Furke observation station. Do you think it is inferior to standing not "Buyan" "Positive"?

                      I think, yes. But her problem is not only that it is inferior to Positive, but that it is a crutch from a completely different complex. And if it’s not fatal at 22350, there are AFAR canvases of the Polyment system responsible for guiding missiles, then for 20380, which do not have these canvases, this is very critical, because Furke radar of the C-1 Armor complex is capable of providing a guidance range of only 20-30 km. Whether it is a lot or a little for the ship on which rockets are installed capable of flying 40-50 km is up to you.
                      1. D16
                        D16 11 January 2020 20: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        And where did you see it?

                        And you take a closer look at the picture. Do you think PUs have a cylindrical body for beauty?
                        the rocket itself lays on the course and adjusts its direction, and does not fall in one direction, as you say.

                        And I didn’t write that she inclines without a gas-dynamic system. with the engine turned on, it will never enter the control target.
                        before turning on its accelerating-marching solid propellant engine - produces its inclination (orientation) towards the target.

                        Orientation towards the target is made by turning the tower, and not by rocket considerations. She has nothing to think about. Therefore, inexpensive. smile
                        But her problem is not only that it is inferior to Positive, but that it is a crutch from a completely different complex.

                        Actually, it was developed by AA, which was also developed by Redoubt. So the demand is only with them. After all, it was not the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, looking at the Shell, he decided that it was his observation station that was not enough for new ship projects. Ah, something went wrong, but people are working. Maybe they already brought it to mind. I do not know. And the fact that the combination Positive-Redoubt was generally applied somewhere I did not hear.
                        Whether it is a lot or a little for the ship on which rockets are installed capable of flying 40-50 km is up to you.

                        Why should I bathe? And in general, where are the numbers about 20-30 km?
                      2. alexmach 11 January 2020 22: 45 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        At 1:06, you can clearly see how the rocket starts, the gas-dynamic system is activated which, after the launch of the rocket - before turning on its accelerating-marching solid propellant engine - produces its inclination (orientation) towards the target.

                        0:32, 0:53, 1:06 three missile launches in all three cases of missiles lie on the course along the Pu tower from the rotating locator forward.
                      3. D16
                        D16 11 January 2020 23: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        And it in radio command control, even in principle, cannot be any different. The British had a naval air defense system Sea Wolf. In a later modification, he received VPU. But the rocket in Soviet times cost 330 kilobax and had an autopilot. We went the other way, and began to turn the PU. laughing
                      4. alexmach 12 January 2020 00: 01 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Well, really more rational.
                    2. Genry 12 January 2020 13: 22 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: alexmach
                      in all three cases, the missiles lie on the course along the Pu tower from the rotating locator forward.

                      The missile always goes along the headlamp beam to aim at the target. The tower is always turned towards the tracked target. It turns out tough mechanical binding.
                      In the marine version, the radar is separate and the missile does not mechanically orient itself in the direction of the radar.
                    3. alexmach 12 January 2020 17: 22 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      In the marine version, the radar is separate and the missile does not mechanically orient itself in the direction of the radar.

                      Yeah, and she falls into this radar beam exactly how?
                    4. Genry 12 January 2020 20: 08 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: alexmach
                      she gets into this radar beam exactly how

                      About the inertial control system, which is programmed and works in the first time interval of the flight - you have not heard?
                      After all, not only the direction, but also the angle to the horizon can be different.
                    5. alexmach 12 January 2020 20: 29 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      About the inertial control system, which is programmed and works in the first time interval of the flight - you have not heard?

                      On a torus rocket? I haven’t heard a confession, although I’m not saying that it cannot exist in principle. But you must admit, it’s an order of magnitude easier to tighten the launcher and launch a missile along a standard path and then adjust it in the right direction than what you wrote above.
                      After all, not only the direction, but also the angle to the horizon can be different.

                      Withdraw under standard 45 (or how many there) degrees to the horizon and then adjust in flight? Look at the video above what maneuvers a launch rocket makes.

                      The inertial guidance system is needed for those who fly most of the way through this system, for example, OTRK, and in order to simply orient a short-range missile in the right direction to block the whole system in my opinion.
                    6. Genry 12 January 2020 23: 16 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: alexmach
                      But you must admit, it’s an order of magnitude easier to tighten the launcher and launch a missile along a standard path and then adjust it in the right direction than what you wrote above.

                      Without a stabilization system that is tied to a trajectory, you will never do this, they will bump into the ground or fly away to the side.
                      Quote: alexmach
                      Bring under standard 45 (or how many there) degrees to the horizon and then adjust in flight

                      And if you need strictly at the zenith? And what if a low-altitude target?
                      The rocket will have too much departure from the trajectory and will chatter strongly until it stabilizes after pulling - this may worsen the probability of hitting a close target.
                      Quote: alexmach
                      The inertial guidance system is needed for those who fly most of the way through this system, for example, OTRK

                      For tactical ... you need an accurate and complex system that determines the accuracy of the hit.
                      And for Thor, the level of the system that is built into the smartphone is enough, because the ultimate accuracy is provided by the radio command system ..
                    7. alexmach 12 January 2020 23: 35 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      And if you need strictly at the zenith? And what if a low-altitude target?

                      And most likely he doesn’t know how to strictly zenith, like any air defense system, and if the target is low-altitude, then they are corrected for its defeat on the radio channel, as well as for any other.
                    8. Genry 12 January 2020 23: 36 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: alexmach
                      And most likely he’s not able to strictly zenith,

                      He just does not have such a flaw.
                  3. Cympak 12 January 2020 23: 52 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    They flooded .... And meanwhile, the reality is simple and sad: the old 3K95 Dagger / Blade complex is no longer being produced, and the new Tor-MF exists only in the form of a presentation.
        2. Dante Alighieri 12 January 2020 18: 51 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Alexander, the point is not that the rocket flies in the same direction where the radar of the illumination of the target is looking. It should be so. The fact is that the D16 claims that the rocket itself also has design features that supposedly force it to be turned at the right angle to this very target (roughly speaking, it always lands on one side, by default, the ground Torah on this side always has a radar. Probably there is even a special risk that the servants did not confuse). Ostensibly, therefore, the marine version of the Torah can only be placed in revolvers, and not otherwise (i.e., the option of placing SAM in cells is impossible). Well, let's say that it is. Let's say. But then it becomes completely unclear why the Torah developer chose the vertical launch of the rocket, because, in essence, if the rocket itself not only focuses on the backlight beam, which is reflected from the target by its guidance system, but also flies in it like in a corridor, it was simpler cheaper and safer to just make the inclined PU grumble to the same place where the radar “looks” without options to start from the right or left, so that inadvertently to leave the designated corridor. True, in this case, there are great suspicions about the ability of such a "straightforward" missile to hit highly maneuverable targets, which, as is known, is characterized by Tor / Dagger. But the fact of the matter is that the creators of Thor went a completely different way. By creating an all-round perspective. Moreover, they laid in the complex the ability to exchange data with other machines of the division and even use their guidance systems to adjust their missiles. How to accomplish this if a rocket must necessarily fall into a rather narrow beam of 60 by 60 g., As D16 claims, while the neighboring complex can be located far enough from where the operational target illumination radar is located, remains a mystery to me.
          Understand, I am not saying that I am a “dock” in this matter, I am just trying to reason logically. And while the proposed picture does not add up to me.
          And in general, judging by this photo

          not even the drum itself moves, but the lid covering the SAM, otherwise the exhaust window on all the lids would constructively be in one place. But as we see it is not so. Then what kind of general rotation not only of the revolver, but also of the cylinder with SAM, located in this very revolver can be said? I do not understand...
        3. alexmach 12 January 2020 19: 43 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          The fact is that the D16 claims that the rocket itself also has design features that supposedly force it to be turned at the right angle to this very target (roughly speaking, it always lands on one side, by default, the ground Torah on this side always has a radar.

          Well, you must admit that for a land complex this is a logical decision. And it is noticeably easier than programming each time the initial deflection of the rocket left-right. Always forward, and further on the radio commands.
          it was easier cheaper and safer to just make an inclined PU grumble to the same place where the “radar” “looks” without options to start right or left

          Yes, not at all easier. In the decision where the tower unfolds, the whole corny is less mechanically involved.
          if the rocket itself does not just focus on the backlight beam, which is reflected from the target by its guidance system,

          What a ray and from what other purpose. There is a radio command guidance system.
          not even the drum itself moves, but the lid covering the SAM, otherwise the exhaust window on all the lids would constructively be in one place. But as we see it is not so. Then what kind of general rotation not only of the revolver, but also of the cylinder with SAM, located in this very revolver can be said? I do not understand...

          What else is the rotation of the cylinder with missiles, why, exactly the same way rockets are loaded "according to the picture", then the drum and also the drum cover should rotate. The drum unfolds a missile designed to be launched with a "little picture" in the right direction. Well, it also sets a cover over the launching missile. So much for 2 rotations ... but these are all my speculations too.
  • D16
    D16 11 January 2020 18: 26 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    even 20380 is expensive for the mass series

    But he is like good shoes. You can on the parade ground, and you can in the restaurant. laughing
  • jonht 10 January 2020 07: 27 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    This, as I understand it, Alexander did not add to this heap not until the corvette PLO on the basis of increased KARAKURT.
    1. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 08: 44 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      There really are three PLO corvettes at least. And one of the options guarantees fast and cheap plugging of holes in the PLO, though with a bunch of disadvantages, but it’s really cheap and fast.

      Another essentially slightly doped MRK, the third is fornication with a gas turbine power plant, but it certainly will not take off.
      1. jonht 10 January 2020 09: 23 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Actually, to what end, as always, we have piled up projects and, by the measure of their “implementation,” they begin to increase them more and more. Although, everyone understands that it is time to do a new project.
        My opinion, this whole mess, from the fact that the Navy has not decided on the plans for the use of the fleet and its deployment in wartime and a threatening period. There is no understanding, there are no reasonable requirements for ships and their performance characteristics.
        Thanks for the article, Alexander.
        1. VicktorVR 10 January 2020 10: 21 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          And this inspires fears that the Navy simply does not have those who have an understanding :(
          1. jonht 10 January 2020 10: 24 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Rather, those who are ready to take responsibility and make a decision and impose this decision on the military-industrial complex. hi
          2. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 11: 42 New
            • 6
            • 2
            +4
            Well, in general, there is plenty.

            Only the system is somehow arranged so that the commander of one of the fleets is a ceiling for normal people. I don’t know why, I haven’t figured it out yet.
            1. VicktorVR 10 January 2020 15: 00 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              I advise you to read the theory of power "Ladder to Heaven" by Khazin-Scheglov, of course, academic work, but it’s becoming clear
            2. Cympak 12 January 2020 23: 55 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Because you need to be a “shit” to make a career, you need to go over your head and think first of all about yourself, and not about subordinates and the country's defense capabilities.
            3. Valdaev 14 January 2020 01: 04 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              IMHO, because the positions on which the distribution of really big money depends - they are not about the war AT ALL. Namely, about this very money. And the Putin system does not allow ideological people to such a level, regardless of whether these are patriotic ideas or not. There we are talking about the loot, and not about the "balance of the fleet." A typical example is minesweepers. Here on the forum, many are surprised - why is such an obvious hole in the ship’s composition not the object of attention of the military-political leadership? Yes, because their goal is money and PR for fog. Show off. Hanging out, showing a nuclear submarine or a large surface ship is simple, the audience sees and penetrates. Try hanging out in front of the public with minesweepers
        2. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 11: 41 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          My opinion, this whole mess, from the fact that the Navy has not decided on the plans for the use of the fleet and its deployment in wartime and a threatening period. There is no understanding, there are no reasonable requirements for ships and their performance characteristics.


          You are absolutely right. Only the fleet should be responsible for this. This is the fault of the Ministry of Defense, and the president has nothing to blindly trust subordinates. The fleet is a serious matter.
        3. Grits 10 January 2020 14: 53 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: jonht
          Actually, to what end, as always, we have piled up projects and, by the measure of their “implementation,” they begin to increase them more and more. Although, everyone understands that it is time to do a new project.

          I think that all the problems come from the fact that the industry has been building the ship for too long. Even seedy MRK. Because while the lead ship has been under construction for several years, the military has already wanted to “strengthen”, “re-equip”, “move home” and, in general, increase EVERYTHING (to see our admirals’s wives are small and thin, and so they’re born such thoughts about dimensions ...). Meanwhile, engineers of the Design Bureau dawned on the next ideas on how to improve this project or create a new one on its basis. Fortunately, good grandmas also pay for this.
          So it turns out that in a few years, after the appearance of the lead and serial ship, they already say "fiiii" to him - we want cooler. And it's time to make a new one. And so it will be infinite. If such ships were stamped like hot cakes (as in China), then neither the design bureau nor the military would have time to give birth to new thoughts and everything would be great.
          P.S. This, of course, is a joke ...
        4. D16
          D16 10 January 2020 22: 21 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          this whole mess

          And what's the mess? 1135 people are trying to exchange for a steamboat with our EU.
          1. Cympak 14 January 2020 08: 52 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The best replacement pr.11356 - pr.22350, but not like 20386+
            Project 22350 needs to be massively built, and not at one shipyard, but at two or three. For this, however, it is still necessary to scale the capabilities of engine builders.
            Corvette Ocean Zone 20386 - a rare delirium generated with an eye on the American LCS. But Americans for the LCS have an ocean fleet with a bunch of destroyers, cruisers and aircraft carriers that will ensure the deployment and stability of the LCS off enemy shores.
            And looking at the inferiority of the LCS program, the Americans decided to order frigates comparable in terms of armaments to 22350.
            The minimum stable ship of the far zone is a frigate. And 20386+ even after equipping 16 UKKS greatly loses 22350
            1. D16
              D16 14 January 2020 18: 29 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The best replacement pr.11356 - pr.22350

              Being rich and healthy is much better than being poor and sick. Just what they do in the World Cup and SM? It’s not necessary to cover their “SSBNs” from the “Virginia” and the Elk and the base is at hand.
      2. D16
        D16 11 January 2020 15: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        What was in the pictures is just fornication with a gas turbine. And all of its PLO features were expressed in a small nodule of GAS and "Package" e at the stern. No hints of BUGAS or crewless boats. With them, plugging holes in the PLO is more convenient. smile
  • mark1 10 January 2020 08: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    But I agree with everything that is written!
    It is necessary to bring pr.20380 and in order to saturate the fleets as soon as possible, connect Zelenodolsk with a corvette based on the 22160 hull.
    1. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 08: 39 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      22160 have poor bypasses, and there is nowhere to put the GAS, the vertical missile launchers will not fit in because of the narrowed hull.
      Zelenodolsk has projects for much more successful ships, potentially massive and inexpensive. With fast delivery time.
      1. mark1 10 January 2020 08: 44 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        You know better, I will not argue, but Zelenodolsk should be connected to the construction of corvettes. I think you will agree with this. And the case 22160 at least worked out (minimum delays). base pr.11661 perhaps still outdated
        1. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 08: 49 New
          • 8
          • 0
          +8
          Base 11661 has never been deprecated, it has good contours, but what else is needed? Serial and clear case, which proved to be good.

          And 22160 already proved to be very, very bad. And an anti-submarine cannot be made of it.
          1. keleg 10 January 2020 10: 54 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            11661 duralumin superstructure, it was made only with turbines. Neither one nor the other are optimal solutions for the corvette, i.e. need serious redesign. Whether it will be successful is a big question.
            1. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 11: 43 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              Case standards, contours of norms.

              The rest still needs to be done.
            2. ser56 10 January 2020 11: 54 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: keleg
              at 11661 dural superstructure

              What is the problem of replacing it with other materials? For example from fiberglass ...
              1. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 15: 19 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Yes, there are already norms. project...
          2. D16
            D16 10 January 2020 22: 59 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Base 11661 has never been deprecated, it has good contours, but what else is needed?

            Need your own EU and the will of the admirals.
          3. Cympak 14 January 2020 08: 59 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Zelenodoltsy also had a chic project of the Rusich-1500 corvette with outriggers. Which was supposed to provide high seaworthiness, combat stability and the necessary set of weapons while maintaining a small size.
      2. D16
        D16 10 January 2020 22: 31 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        Zelenodolsk has projects for much more successful ships, potentially massive and inexpensive.

        Timokhin, Go to Google and ask about the GEM, etc. 11661. You will immediately become easier to live. laughing
        1. timokhin-aa 11 January 2020 13: 56 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Why, if I know which GEM should be used at 1166 *.
          True, he is not in Gugda.
          1. D16
            D16 11 January 2020 15: 33 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            So it is not only in Google, it is generally not for our ships. I'm not talking about export.
          2. alexmach 12 January 2020 01: 34 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            if I know which GEM should be applied at 1166 *

            But which one? The same from 20380, which there is no way to build at the right pace?
            1. timokhin-aa 13 January 2020 09: 35 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Do not build, but collect. Stands for the assembly and testing of gearboxes and units are limited, but somehow wrote about it. With the stands we have one set in a couple of years, adding stands even with the current state of the Reducer Stars can reach a pace that exceeds the shipbuilding bookmarking capabilities.
              In the limit, now two corvettes a year

              Just need stands.
              1. alexmach 13 January 2020 12: 22 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Just need stands

                I have a naive and slightly repeating question here.

                Why, if this is obvious to you, is it not obvious to our shipbuilding industry and others involved? Why are they still not being built? For gas turbine plants, they built it. Is booths too much capital investment? Or hands do not reach? Or do not understand the importance? Or does everyone understand everything, but such a "disorder and sway" that the right things are not able to do in principle? Or are there any unnamed alternatives?
                1. timokhin-aa 13 January 2020 13: 17 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Zvezda-Reduktor is a private enterprise. Who can make him build a second stand? Or take a stand for the final assembly of DDA12000 in Kolomna - who can force a private organization to build it?

                  This is on the one hand.

                  On the other hand, who at the very top will delve into such questions to such a level?

                  Each leader has a certain range of tasks, including urgent ones. As a rule, there is simply no time to devote a lot of time to self-education, therefore, assistants who themselves are not experts in many matters are responsible for providing the information. There’s no time to sit a couple of hours on the Internet and rip the news

                  As a result - huge loss of information on the way up.

                  Plus our traditional referral unsubscribe system. Often there is simply no feedback, the authorities have not established a reliable system of collecting what is happening at the lowest levels, while any sane leader would easily have delved into all this, but the nature of the workload will not give him such an opportunity.
                  1. alexmach 13 January 2020 14: 18 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Who can make him build a second stand?

                    Government order? Any military-industrial commission there ... well, it can recommend and not force.
                    On the other hand, who at the very top will delve into such questions to such a level?

                    Well, the same officials from the USC?

                    Trite, the issue of arming the Navy is being discussed, 10 corvettes must be built. Under which power plants? There are probably not many options. The question is asked if we can build them in 10 years. Someone should work out this issue and identify bottlenecks? Well, realizing that if it takes at least several years to complete one power unit, it doesn’t work out faster because ... I still think that people directly involved in the construction should have more information for years than those who analyze the news.
                  2. Valdaev 14 January 2020 01: 11 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Star Reducer is a private enterprise. Who can make him build a second stand?

                    Why force? An order for money can’t be placed or what?
                  3. Cympak 14 January 2020 09: 15 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    In addition, the small-town interests of various design bureaus and related shipyards, multiplied by lobbying.
                    It is necessary to change the system: conduct real tenders, change the financing system of the design bureau ....
      3. Nemchinov Vl 17 January 2020 02: 45 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        Zelenodolsk has projects for much more successful ships, potentially massive and inexpensive. With fast delivery time
        We are waiting for you to review the developments 11664 ?! and its possible performance characteristics ?!
        1. timokhin-aa 17 January 2020 10: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          There is another option.
          1. Nemchinov Vl 17 January 2020 18: 13 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            There is another option.
            Well, that’s the reason to consider these two projects in your new article, because you are very good at raising such topics, "without disdaining the TTX indication" of the projects ... (otherwise Ryabov "intrigued" many, without TTX) winked ?! Waiting, sir ?! belay
            1. timokhin-aa 17 January 2020 21: 11 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              I don’t have enough information.

              For now - ZRAK is not there. In this place, the Shell radar will not work due to water suspensions in the air, plus there will be a terrible icing.

              Models are left, on one there isn’t even gas-flue gas ducts. Do they have an atomic corvette?

              Well, enough for now.
              1. Nemchinov Vl 17 January 2020 21: 22 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                I don’t have enough information.
                For an honest answer, respect (+) and respect ...
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Well, enough for now.
                Well then, wait ... bye. sad
    2. opus 10 January 2020 17: 36 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: mark1
      Zelenodolsk with a corvette based on the housing 22160.

      Well you already gave. Still, Pell’s hand Made would be offered a thread on the “base”

      How do you expect this to be "base"? insert or what?
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      Zelenodolsk has projects of much more successful ships,

      what kind?
      Not pr 1239 an hour?
      wink
      1. Former "Parat ship repair workshops" do not design themselves.
      all they released / release is
      OJSC Zelenodolsk Design Bureau and / or the same FSUE Central Marine Design Bureau Almaz / OJSC Northern Design Bureau
      2. There will always be a limit of 2000-3000tn
      Although "Allowed the movement of vessels with a carrying capacity of up to 7 thousand tons."
      but it’s not the same vessel, or rather it’s not for the ships of the Navy

      Dimensions of lock chambers - 145 × 18 meters, Depth - "not less than 3,5 m".

      Do you mean this?

      4 x 4 launchers of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Uran-E" or 2 x 4 launchers of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Yakhont" or 1 x 8 launchers of the Republic of Kazakhstan "Caliber-NKE"
      or 2 x 4 launchers of the Republic of Kazakhstan “Mosquito-E” or “Mosquito-MVE”,
      4 x 8 VPU SAM "Blade",
      1 KM + 2BM ZRAK “Chestnut” or 2 x ZAK “Palma”

      It's all the same, nothing ...
      1. mark1 10 January 2020 20: 27 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: opus
        How do you expect this to be "base"? insert or what?

        This is not me, I guess, but you. There is a spent building 22160 with good autonomy, a helicopter and volumes. I, as a not-so-very naval man, proposed this option, the more overlaid comrades refuted, but the topic with the Rooks is yours.
        1. opus 10 January 2020 20: 44 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: mark1
          There is a waste case 22160 with good autonomy

          22160 is a PATROL ship, albeit a "distant sea zone."
          How do you imagine, based on it, something like 20380 (corvette of the near sea zone (to do)?
          Quote: mark1
          I like not very naval

          Yes, I am the same. hi
          1. mark1 10 January 2020 21: 05 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: opus
            How do you imagine, based on it, something like 20380 (corvette of the near sea zone (to do)?

            And what is stopping you? In full "stuffing" it looks very, very ... And what about the Shtil air defense (24 pieces!) Is cheaper and "more developed" than the Reduta (and you can also put the marine Tor (Dagger) without putting drums or The carapace "), the helicopter is there, the towed gas is not a problem, the same bombers (1), the" Package "are also visible, but the autonomy and range can be reduced.
            1. alexmach 10 January 2020 23: 52 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              And what is stopping you? In full "stuffing" he looks very, very

              probably the lack of a fundamental opportunity to collect it in this so-called "full stuffing." And also the absence of any mincemeat on the built ships. They are generally unarmed.
              1. mark1 11 January 2020 07: 13 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Can you tell me about the fundamental lack of opportunities element by element? I know that there are problems with the engines, that instead of the slot for the air defense cells there is a "conference room", but that there is a "PRINCIPAL" design that interferes with equipping the ship as planned, I don’t know. Tell me. hi
                1. alexmach 11 January 2020 11: 26 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Can you tell me about the fundamental lack of opportunities element by element?

                  Well, you already said about the conference room instead of the air defense. (either a sports hall or storage rooms in fact).
                  Well, further on the modules - there is a place, but there is a place either under towed GAS, or under Caliber, or under a helicopter. 3 at the same time will not fit into 2 slots in any way, and 2 at the same time got stuck it will work.
                  Moreover, it is unclear how it is with the BIOS and is there any way at all to connect something external to it in the absence of these modules themselves.
                  1. mark1 11 January 2020 11: 56 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    I. So I see that you do not quite understand what I am talking about and tie everything to the already built ships. You're not right. I propose to re-read and rethink everything.
                    1. timokhin-aa 17 January 2020 10: 05 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Fundamentally speaking, the case 22160 in the lower part is too narrow; when installing the UVP, their lower size will go beyond the dimensions of the case.

                      Unresolved issue.
        2. timokhin-aa 11 January 2020 13: 58 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This corps cannot reach more than 22 knots even on the lake, it has structurally unfulfilled combat survivability requirements, which is why it is rated as “non-combat” in the Navy, it has no place for missile weapons and sonar systems ...

          Enough already, stop.
          1. mark1 17 January 2020 11: 18 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            At least you answer in the case, I accept and will not argue about this. Well, 22 knots are probably still not so much because of the body as because of a failure with the engines.
  • Cyrus 10 January 2020 08: 36 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    And, given the economic condition of the country, are corvettes needed at all? Isn’t it easier to get by with one type of relatively inexpensive frigate, and for BMZ and DMZ, sharpened for anti-aircraft defense and air defense, the shock functions are secondary, for them there are ships of the 1st rank?
    1. Zaurbek 10 January 2020 08: 47 New
      • 5
      • 2
      +3
      To do this, you need to have a clear concept of fleet development and, simultaneously, a concept of industrial development. And that these two components would go in parallel. And then the ship was painted, but there are no engines ... At the moment, the issues of PLO and air defense and missile defense are the most important. It is still necessary to grow up to shock functions with the economy and interests of the state.
    2. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 08: 47 New
      • 8
      • 1
      +7
      Namely, under the special task of covering the fleet's strike forces, it is better than corvettes. Experience shows that small diesel ships over the long term are much cheaper for the country because of the lower cost of operation.
      Moreover, in BMZ they sometimes turn out to be better than BNK in the course of solving combat missions.

      Therefore, a certain number of small ships is necessary, the question is not to overdo it and not to dump all the money into the BMZ, remaining powerless for the far zone.
      1. Vladimir1155 10 January 2020 09: 24 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        but it should be PLO corvettes and minesweepers, not drummers. Shock core forces are best hidden under water.
        1. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 11: 44 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          No, you have to make multi-functional ships. RTOs and IPCs should merge into one class of ships, at least.
          1. Dart2027 10 January 2020 19: 05 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            RTOs and IPCs should merge into one class of ships, at least

            They automatically grow together with the caliber - PLUR or RCC in any launcher.
            1. timokhin-aa 13 January 2020 09: 32 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Hydroacoustics, torpedoes as a minimum, and also a bomb would be desirable.
              1. Dart2027 13 January 2020 19: 48 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                Wow, hydroacoustics, torpedoes at least

                I do not mean that RTOs are IPC, since its absence is obvious. But IPC with UPV Caliber automatically becomes an RTO.
          2. Vladimir1155 10 January 2020 20: 01 New
            • 1
            • 2
            -1
            that is, this is a frigate, partly true (for the oceans), but how do you overtake such a ship in terms of GDP? and it’s even more expensive ..... the PLO task may not include the shock component, but will it be necessary to drive the entire frigate for the PLO? It would be reasonable, in addition to the DMZ frigates (no more than 5-7 per ocean), to have nearby MPCs, minesweepers, anti-aircraft mines, maybe air defense karakurt, and a bit of small missiles, both on the seas and near the nuclear submarines.
          3. ser56 11 January 2020 13: 55 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            No, you need to make multi-functional ships

            strange, but this simple thought does not reach the decision makers - why? request
      2. D16
        D16 10 January 2020 22: 45 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        Experience shows that small diesel ships in the long term are much cheaper for the country due to the lower cost of operation.

        20380 (5) FSO. laughing What other promising diesel corvettes do you know? laughing
    3. timokhin-aa 17 January 2020 11: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The solution is multivariate, and for example, I will beware of writing on this topic. BMZ is the most difficult topic; one person cannot come up with solutions for it, even a genius.

      I had a plan to write an article on this topic, such as "pose questions."
  • Vladimir1155 10 January 2020 09: 22 New
    • 5
    • 5
    0
    oddly enough, but forced to agree with uv Timokhin, enough variety! There is a draft of a serial frigate and .... and by the way, it may need a couple more no more excess (as long as 1155 still exists), minesweepers, submarines, coastal aviation, coastal strike complexes are much more important
  • The leader of the Redskins 10 January 2020 09: 33 New
    • 5
    • 7
    -2
    I don’t know ... I am not a sailor, but it looks powerful! Purely visual! Once our Trudovik, an ardent admirer of the Soviet Navy, just noticed - our ships are the most beautiful. And then I agree with him!)
    1. Dante Alighieri 10 January 2020 10: 04 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Only in the Soviet Union there is nothing special about it. Rather, something from Zumwalt, or even from Star Wars. Compare the first photo of the layout and this "friend"
  • Demagogue 10 January 2020 10: 01 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    In addition to towing a gas and a jamming station and a packet, the corvette is basically nothing more. His main task is to hold down the opponent’s square. If suddenly he discovers a pl, then you can attack her as you please. The caliber is the same from another ship or torpedoes from an airplane, etc. Attempts to shove the unwrapped into corvettes is stupid.
    1. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 11: 45 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      This is the main type of combat use, but this does not mean that there will be no other situations.
  • Operator 10 January 2020 10: 11 New
    • 4
    • 13
    -9
    Purely marginal method - transfusion of desa from empty to empty laughing
    1. keleg 10 January 2020 11: 02 New
      • 14
      • 5
      +9
      Timokhin raises interesting topics and writes well. The problem is that he is not a journalist, but a propagandist.

      The differences are simple - the journalist gives several points of view, writes about the arguments of various parties. He may have his own vision of the problem, but he allows the reader to choose for himself. He writes for the smart, his articles are an invitation to seek the truth together. Journalist brings together.

      The propagandist moves his vision, picking up arguments for him and leaves the reader no choice but to agree with him. He writes for fools who either nod in agreement or rush into the fray dissonantly. The propagandist shares.

      Therefore, with all the ease of style, reading Timokhin is difficult.
      It’s unpleasant when you are considered a fool and everything is decided for you.
      This is primarily unprofessional and I hope that he, as a very intelligent person, will grow to understand this shortcoming.

      Good Navy theme journalists are very needed.
      1. timokhin-aa 10 January 2020 11: 45 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        Is this a hint of your love for project 22160 or something, Vladimir?
        1. keleg 10 January 2020 16: 28 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Yes, there are no hints, I kind of write everything directly. Really really like your style and potential. And without breakdowns in demagogy (which is the science of winning a dispute with an opponent, and not looking for the truth), he would be much, much larger.
          1. timokhin-aa 13 January 2020 09: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Well, you understand, for example, that your favorite boat does not know how to speed. How, for example, should I describe its speed and seaworthiness, what points of view are voiced?
      2. Sergey S. 11 January 2020 00: 11 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: keleg
        Good Navy theme journalists are very needed.

        May God save us from journalists!

        For journalists, instead of accurate information, state something that they call the author’s vision, opinion, versions ....
        The truth does not interest them, for the truth is one, the truth is the destiny of superprofessionals who, for example, will not write openly on the subject under discussion ...
        Journalism is a way of disguising and hiding information. At least in such democracies as the USA .... They will publish about the same dozen articles with conflicting information ... and let people discuss ... among the rich speculations, it’s hard to single out the real parameters of technical systems.
        Remember how many versions of the external appearance of Zamvolt were ... Yes, and its parameters also have several sets of options. And about his gun mounts and shells of which they just did not compose ...

        Output.
        Let the authors write with conviction.
        In fact, for professionals, it is precisely honest, original, hard-won ideas and evaluations that are of interest.
        1. keleg 11 January 2020 13: 51 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Ideas and evaluations are very important, yes. The problem is that in our country people do not know how to unite into something constructive, outside of "kick the opponent." In these countries, active and productive communities of professionals who direct journalists and provide expert assessment of the actions of the country's leadership. You must admit that it’s one thing to write to the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy from a retired captain, and another to write the same letter, which is signed by a couple of dozens of such captains, known to the public. The effect can be much greater.
          But for this you need to be able to listen to each other, look for a common opinion, and agree. Propaganda and demagogy interfere with this, even in small doses.
          1. Dante Alighieri 11 January 2020 15: 51 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Timokhin raises interesting topics and writes well. The problem is that he is not a journalist, but a propagandist.


            Let me disagree with you. Alexander is not a propagandist, he is an idealist. He sincerely believes and suffers for the business he is writing about. In addition, unlike the categories you cited, it seems to me that he writes primarily for himself, and only then for others. That’s why the style chosen by him can confuse a lot of unprepared layman who is not used to reading something longer than a telegram tweet. And this is while journalists and propagandists work out the money of customers, processing a specific audience, for which, to a large extent, they adjust the form of presentation of information in order to maximize the effectiveness of its understanding by recipients.

            In addition, let's not tell each other tales about honest, unbiased journalism. She is not as a class. Any report that goes against the editorial position and the position of the owner of the publication or channel - and from the category of “sharks of the pen” a person goes into the categories of “freelancer” and “YouTube blogger”. As a rule, such transformations are accompanied by a sharp rethinking of the situation of oneself and things in this world. From which, again, the narrative style changes dramatically (most often turning to critically negative). I think this does not threaten Alexander. They will ask with VO, will leave for LiveJournal, Fleet.com, etc., where they will do exactly the same and in exactly the same vein.
  • ser56 10 January 2020 11: 48 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    “Instead, we see a long-standing epic of budget development in any way possible, of increasing the number of OCDs at the cost of seriality, which the CDMC itself has contributed a lot to through its leaders, and other shameful ways to get government money.”
    it is foolish to blame the business entity for the desire to survive and earn hi
    Maybe it's better to look for those who give money for these ventures?
    And why gives, or rather for how much .... request
    And why there is no concept of designing a ship system for the Russian Navy .... repeat
  • Demagogue 10 January 2020 11: 55 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    This is the main type of combat use, but this does not mean that there will be no other situations.


    Well, it doesn't make sense to pump corvette with steroids. He then, at a price, rushes to the frigates. The same French on the frigate, not the corvette, Faye, put only an analog of our shell as an air defense. The toad strangled. And there are 3600 tons. On a corvette, you need a maximum of 2 or 4 calibers in inclined pu (which you proposed to introduce by the way). In case of emergency.
  • Volly 10 January 2020 13: 10 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Do I alone see a contradiction? It is said that in 20380 there is not enough of this and that, and at the same time they demand to simplify and reduce the cost of the project. How can I simplify if you need to add?
    1. LeonidL 11 January 2020 04: 53 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      You're right! The author as always is at odds with logic, for example, "In fairness, we will make a reservation that the modernization of the project could solve most of these problems, and the revision of the composition of the REV "in the right direction" on newly built ships - reduce the cost of them.“Putting the modern means more expensive and ... cheaper. Stunning logic. But what to expect from the layman?
      1. alexmach 11 January 2020 11: 49 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        To put up-to-date means more expensive and ... cheaper. Amazing logic

        So he represents the exact opposite. Put a simpler REV. Radar and air defense are simpler. Since the current one, according to Alexander, still does not allow to realize the potential of Redoubt, so put instead of AFAR radar the Barrier of some Positive-M and confine ourselves to the defense of the near zone. Opportunities will not suffer and the price will decrease.
        1. timokhin-aa 11 January 2020 14: 03 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Exactly. And about replacing Furke + Monument + Puma with Positive + Mineral / Puma they will also grow
        2. LeonidL 12 January 2020 01: 26 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          T e again the idea - a lot of cheap metal instead of the fleet? What for? I don’t see a special meaning. and everything that the amateur offers sounds weightlessly doubtful. Always a hidden, but dominant idea - one way or another, but to "run into" the leadership of the country of the Ministry of Defense and the Navy. I would understand it even if a professional - but from an amateur versatile person such "tips" are very reminiscent of stuffing "well-wishers"
    2. timokhin-aa 11 January 2020 14: 01 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      You didn’t see it. He has a RLC PART from the original version, devoid of a radio correction line. How it happened, this is a separate topic, but if you put a simpler, but with uncut functionality of the RLC in the composition, for example, “Positive” for work on air targets, “Mineral” for work on surface and the same Puma, then it will be easier, better and cheaper.
    3. Nemchinov Vl 17 January 2020 03: 10 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Volly
      Do I alone see a contradiction? It is said that in 20380 there is not enough of this and that, and at the same time they demand to simplify and reduce the cost of the project. How can I simplify if you need to add?
      There is a surplus of REV! There is an expensive Redut air defense system (without the Polyment antenna, which casts considerable doubt on the possibility of the effective use of long-range missiles), and the BMI’s corvette would also be Shtil-1, as they say “beyond the edges,” or even Enough "Shell-M", etc. etc. Corvette should not cost 20 billion, being “toothless” by its main task in BMZ - PLO !!!
  • Boris Chernikov 10 January 2020 13: 22 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    At the moment, one thing is clear, nothing is clear, with the same success it can be said that this model will remain a concept ... Next, keep in mind that the author, in her aspirations, builds on her Wishlist, and not on the capabilities of the shipyards .. What am I I personally see: there is a gradual shift in building opportunities while maintaining the size in fact ... Albatrosses will undergo modernization, the IPC project on the Karakurt base, the so-called SuperKarakurt, will be illuminated, which will provide the nuclear submarine with access and protection of the near sea zone .. As for the frigates, the Gorshkovs went in height For the first time, ships have 16 missiles, 24 transitional projects, and the predicted SuperGorshkovs will have almost 48 missiles, which is already the level of the URO destroyer, not the frigate, and they will be added to it along the range, which brings it already to the ocean level ... it turns out that a window appears, since the MPK and corvettes from one end and SuperFrigates from the other .. are in KB and apparently offered a transitional option in the form of a Super Corvette, which, as far as possible, will come closer to the Gorshkovs (you can only guess about the filling of the corvette), but the most important thing is in the other. .Frigates with us are building only the Northern Shipyards, and the corvettes are also building the Amur Shipyard .. how many frigates were laid at the same time? 2-3 frigates from strength .. And corvettes? about 4-5..That’s what they’re dancing from the wall and possibly at the expense of cost, but increasing the number of ships ..
    1. LeonidL 12 January 2020 01: 27 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And there was a mass of models, even exotic aircraft carriers and ekranoletami. What, what will be built? Why such a fuss?
      1. Valdaev 14 January 2020 01: 37 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        gold words!
  • Star Destroyer 10 January 2020 13: 40 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    I like the ship.
    Probably the most advanced ship in our fleet, which is not ashamed to raise a flag! Sane anti-aircraft defense, air defense and autonomy (his ancestors had big problems with this), if the sane avionics are also stuffed, then there will be no price.
    The problem is that we need such ships in a large series ... but there is no money.
    And he doesn’t need what calibers. Again, the elderly senile generals shove the unseen, scream what is not supposed to be on the ship.
    If only I would look around, but around, what is happening in the world ... but no, “Russia has its own way” - to walk along the rake, but to condemn “and who knew that it would be so","but we have no concept for the development of the fleet”And so on blah blah blah
    1. timokhin-aa 11 January 2020 14: 04 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Sane anti-aircraft defense, air defense and autonomy (his ancestors had big problems with this), if the sane avionics are also stuffed, then there will be no price.
      The problem is that we need such ships in a large series ... but there is no money.


      PLO is worse than that of 20380 or 20385, nobody knows how to work with radar with fastening cloths on a plastic superstructure. There is an option that in no way - and it is quite real.
    2. Valdaev 14 January 2020 01: 38 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      I like the ship

      You don’t like the ship, but its model
  • Grits 10 January 2020 15: 03 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    In order to make it easier to navigate the project numbers. it is difficult for some.




    1. opus 10 January 2020 18: 06 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Gritsa
      In order to make it easier to navigate the project numbers.

      but I was always interested in: Is there any connection between digital and technical data?
      It seems that the project number is taken from the bulldozer, picking a finger in the nose.
      1400M "Vulture" versus 12341 "Gadfly" is permissible belay
      Or am I wrong?
      1. Grits 10 January 2020 18: 35 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: opus
        but I was always interested in: Is there any connection between digital and technical data?

        Honestly, for me, a dark forest is how project numbers are assigned. No matter how I tried to catch the logic, but I did not catch it.
  • Ivan Medvedev 10 January 2020 15: 12 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Chubais tribe.
  • opus 10 January 2020 17: 07 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    [quote =
    Alexander Timokhin] I want to believe that fornication with gigantic and super-expensive corvettes and frigates growing from them, expensive but weak against the background of competitors already under construction (22350), will someday end, and this design bureau will again, as before, serve the country's defense capabilities. [/ quote]
    Alexander .. I think you're wrong.
    "fornication" only, is gaining strength
  • Foxnova 10 January 2020 18: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    There still Akbars wants to get in with his 20380
    1. Vadim237 10 January 2020 20: 23 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      The main thing is that they build corvettes and frigates, and this is the main thing - not as fast as they wanted, because Russia has never done ships using stealth technology before.
      1. Foxnova 11 January 2020 08: 16 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Stealth technology at sea is such an activity for yourself as you don’t hide a fool of 5000 tons, it will still glow too many reflective waves of surfaces too much IR is noticeable
        1. Star Destroyer 11 January 2020 14: 23 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          It will glow, but identifying an inconspicuous target is much more difficult, it is much more difficult to get an anti-ship missile with a GOS radar.
          IR emissions (as well as the amount of fuel burned) to modern diesel ships are also much lower than those of steam turbines of the past.
          Stealth technology is not a panacea, but an effective way to reduce losses. About the same as conventional disguise.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • zavyalov4leksandr 11 January 2020 01: 33 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Interestingly, any of the commentators on VO will call this layout an “iron”, like, well, Zamvolt, very similar to it?
  • Elturisto 11 January 2020 02: 41 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    The right approach to the topic. Timokhin is far from the first to pay attention to this problem. Only there is no need to worry about project 20386 - there’s no gas turbine for him, and apparently he won’t. Even frigates 22350, all 4 have gas turbines of Ukrainian production, their most thorough construction has been frozen.
    1. Dart2027 11 January 2020 06: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: ElTuristo
      Even frigates 22350, CE 4 have gas turbines of Ukrainian production, their most thorough construction is frozen.

      Frozen?
      1. Elturisto 12 January 2020 10: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        and what not?
        1. Dart2027 12 January 2020 11: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: ElTuristo
          and what not?

          And yes? Will the source be?
    2. timokhin-aa 11 January 2020 14: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Everything is already there, on the new Fregaha “Amelko” and “Chichagov” there will be Saturn turbines. Zorya didn’t do these gas turbines as a whole, at all times there were 80 percent of the Russian there. If we talk about the M90.
      1. Elturisto 12 January 2020 10: 52 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        What’s Russian? GTU has always been done in Nikolaev. There will be no open question about Saturn. Saturn is a garbage can for money laundering, including defense. All GTUs were delivered from Nikolaev to the Turborus JV (50 Zarya + 50 Saturn). That's all Russian participation. The situation with the ship’s GTU is one-on-one reminiscent of the situation with the GTD-110 (all 6 units are Ukrainian) and the VK-2500 helicopter engines, which are supposedly manufactured on Klimov’s and turbojet engines for cruise missiles. There is a lot of R&D - exhaust -0.
        1. timokhin-aa 13 January 2020 09: 38 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          It is simply not so.
          Zorya made the turbine 20% of the force, and assembled the gearbox.

          Now Saturn can make the M90 ​​completely by itself, and the gears assembled on the Star are already spinning at the stands.
          1. Elturisto 13 January 2020 09: 41 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Yes, not so, but how? And what else is 20%? What is 20% percent? Saturn did not create anything in 30 years, but sawed a lot of money. Where did the firewood come from?
            1. timokhin-aa 13 January 2020 09: 42 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              What will you scribble when turbines and gears are loaded on Amelko and Chichagov?
              1. Elturisto 13 January 2020 19: 14 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Yeah, I will ... They already wrote that all the turbines, for the four 22350 Nikolaev - "Dawn Mashproekt."
                But let's not argue, time will tell.
                PSYou would have already torn off the covers from Saturn, it’s high time. 20386 is such a trifle ...
                1. Dart2027 13 January 2020 19: 50 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: ElTuristo
                  They wrote already that all the turbines, for the four of 22350 Nikolaev - "Dawn Mashproekt."

                  Where?
                  1. Elturisto 14 January 2020 08: 52 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    In the Internet.
                    1. Dart2027 14 January 2020 19: 19 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: ElTuristo
                      In the Internet.

                      That is, all this is your chatter.
                      1. Elturisto 15 January 2020 09: 08 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        ........................Where?
                      2. Dart2027 15 January 2020 20: 08 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        ........................Where?
                        Here
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        They wrote already that all the turbines, for the four of 22350 Nikolaev - "Dawn Mashproekt."
                      3. Elturisto 16 January 2020 09: 10 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        So what? You don’t agree, give reasons. And there Timokhin said something about 80% of the Russian Federation’s share in engines and that’s it.
                      4. Dart2027 16 January 2020 19: 27 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        So what? You disagree

                        To begin with, the 22350 is no longer four, and end up with the fact that the engines assembled at the Dawn only managed to get for the first, and the rest are gone.
                      5. Elturisto 16 January 2020 19: 54 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        4 was laid and under construction. So 4-ka. So the rest without GTU?
                      6. Dart2027 16 January 2020 21: 21 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        4 was laid and under construction

                        And where are two more?
                        https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2019/04/23/800007-vmf-nadvodnih-korablei
                        5 mortgaged and under construction (1st head has already been commissioned)
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        Ie the rest without gas turbine

                        The source of the fact that they are without GTU?
                      7. Elturisto 17 January 2020 09: 21 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Bookmark 5,6 ship does not mean the presence of Russian turbines at all. According to the most optimistic data, the GTU gearbox has just begun testing. The tests themselves have been going on for at least 1-2 years. So there are no Russian turbines, and they won’t be. If Saturn took over and UEC means the result will be 0.
                      8. Dart2027 17 January 2020 18: 15 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        The reducer for gas turbines, according to the most optimistic data, has just begun testing.

                        As of March 2018, PJSC UEC-Saturn issued three prototypes of the M90FR gas turbine engine (GTE).
                        https://flotprom.ru/2018/%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BA3/
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        So there are no Russian turbines, and there won’t be any.

                        So there are already Russian gas turbines, so your dawn will soon have to close.
                      9. Elturisto 17 January 2020 18: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        This is all nonsense. An experienced sample is nothing. There is information that turbines and gearboxes manufactured by the Russian Federation are installed on 22350 ships?
                      10. Dart2027 17 January 2020 18: 55 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        This is all nonsense.

                        Source. I brought mine.
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        Prototype is
                        Did you try to see the date of the article? This is the year 2018. And now that’s all, the process has begun https://sudostroenie.info/novosti/25845.html
                      11. Elturisto 17 January 2020 18: 59 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Once again, where are the turbines? By the link - “On the frigates Admiral Golovko and Admiral Isakov under construction, the use of M90FR gas turbine engines manufactured by ODK-Saturn is envisaged. releases :)
                      12. Dart2027 17 January 2020 19: 20 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        By the link - "On frigates under construction

                        Which are being built. As I understand it, the fact that you can only build a ship for a specific power plant is unknown to you. Quoting the same article
                        "UEC - Saturn" released gas turbine units for frigates of the project 22350 being built at the Northern Shipyard. As follows from the press service of the military department, Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko said during a visit to the shipyard on February 12.
                        According to him, the first domestic gas turbines for frigates of this project built in Rybinsk as part of the import substitution program.

                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        magazine girl
                        That you are self-critical.
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        Saturn may release
                        GTU necessary for our fleet, well,
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Your dawn will have to close soon
                      13. Elturisto 17 January 2020 23: 31 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Read the press release of the Ministry of Defense, son.
                        What is your Israeli fleet?
                        From the fact that Zarya closes, turbines on Saturn do not appear, rather the opposite.
                      14. Dart2027 18 January 2020 06: 55 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        Read the press release of the Ministry of Defense, son

                        Will you show the source, boy?
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        To your it

                        Russian
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        From the fact that Dawn is closing, the turbines on Saturn

                        Source about Saturn.
                      15. Elturisto 18 January 2020 09: 14 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        What source do you want to show the girl. It already stated that the turbines on Saturn were produced, and from the evidence a zilch .... so at one grandmother on the fence in Haifa I read.
                      16. Dart2027 18 January 2020 10: 04 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        What source do you show the girl
                        This girl
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        Read the press release of the Ministry of Defense
                        Or is this another lie?
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        and from the evidence zilch
                        Your evidence is a girl, otherwise you vote that Saturn can’t do anything, but from the evidence it’s zilch .... so one grandmother on a fence in Haifa read it.
                      17. Elturisto 18 January 2020 14: 19 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Clearly judging by the reaction, I was not mistaken in you. Until new meetings, do not eat a lot of matzo at night ...
                      18. Dart2027 18 January 2020 15: 31 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: ElTuristo
                        Clearly judging by the reaction

                        You have nothing to say other than unfounded allegations, which was clear from the very beginning.
  • Connor MacLeod 11 January 2020 02: 52 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Maybe the next article about Laika?
    1. timokhin-aa 11 January 2020 14: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I'm going to.
  • storm 11 January 2020 04: 01 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    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.
    Displacement is 1300 tons, length 75 meters, width - about 13 meters. Main power plant: 1 x diesel or diesel with electric motion or 1 x diesel-gas turbine.

    Armament: 1 x AK-176MA AU of 76 mm caliber (152 rounds), 1 x 3M-47 "Bend" turret (ammunition for 20 missiles) or ZRAK Broadsword. Anti-submarine: 1 x MPTK “Package-E / NK” (2 x launchers, 8 x torpedoes) and 1 x RPK-8E complex or (1 x RBU-6000, 48 x 90R anti-submarine missiles and RGB-60 depth charges), 1 x unmanned aerial system "Horizon-AIR-S-100" (2 x UAV).

    If the situation with RTOs is critical and you need an urgent replacement with a new inexpensive RTOs, then here is the finished project, take it and put into production a series of 30 units:
    in this case:
    - Stop the construction of Buyan-M by limiting the series to 9 units. (3 units per CFL + 6 units per BF).
    - Reduce the construction of the RTO 22800 Karakurt from 18 to 12 units (6 units at the Black Sea Fleet +6 units at Pacific Fleet).

    If the fleet wants to get a massive "budget" corvette, with anti-ship capabilities, a slightly modernized pr. 23420 M will be an ideal solution:
    - instead of Bending, we install the Pantsir-M air defense system
    - PUs for the Package-NK complex should be made three-four-pipe as These are the main anti-submarine weapons of the IPC;
    - to the left and right of the RBU to install the inclined launchers 2x2 anti-ship missiles Uran-M.

    At the same time, pr. 23420 does not exclude pr. 23420M:

    - for SF 12 units 23420M with reinforced ice class hull;
    - for Pacific Fleet 6 units. IPC pr. 23420 for the Vladivostok naval base, Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands will control 10-12 corvettes pr 20380 under construction at the NEA and in Vladik.
    - for the Black Sea Fleet 6 units. MRK 23420 + 6 units. Patrol officers pr. 22160
    - for BF 6 units MRK 23420 + 4 available corvettes pr 20380.
    1. Connor MacLeod 11 January 2020 05: 12 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The armament is too weak. negative

      The enemy’s submarine can easily remove such an IPC using a long-range torpedo or anti-ship missiles. In anti-submarine warfare, it is necessary to fully use the potential of the PLUR based on the Caliber. PLRK Response will allow ships to remain outside the detection and destruction of enemy submarines. And for the issuance of target designation, you can use your own submarines. Suppose submarines 677 could work in conjunction with corvettes equipped with UKKS (20385 and the last 20380) in the near sea zone. In the coastal zone, RTOs can work in conjunction with ... what

      ... well, let's say there was a Super Piranha project, you could bring it to mind. Such a boat would be useful in any case.

      https://zvezdaweekly.ru/news/t/20191023120-zWD4O.html
      1. Connor MacLeod 11 January 2020 16: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And in DMZ - 545 + 22350 yes
      2. storm 12 January 2020 15: 56 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        The enemy’s submarine can easily remove such an MPC using a long-range torpedo or anti-ship missiles.

        Connon MacLeod, you're wrong!
        Many submarines sunk during the 60 years of the existence of the nuclear fleet?
        even during the Cold War between the USSR and the USA
        The submarine decides to destroy the IPC only in war conditions, if it is cornered, the IPC is too small a target to give itself out and be attacked by all existing anti-submarine forces of the fleet.
        The task of the IPC is to detect nuclear submarines and "squeeze" out of the territorial waters simply by pursuing it.

        IPC-based anti-submarine helicopter / may temporarily or permanently sink a submarine discovered by homing deep bombs at least 300 miles from the IPC.
        To protect against torpedoes, the IPC can either Package-NK or RBU
        Pantsir-M will be able to protect against RCC.
        Much more weapons for the IPC?
    2. timokhin-aa 11 January 2020 14: 07 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      This is an old accordion. His Shloyahtenko and conceived when they began to push 20386.

      Everything is provided there. We take 20386, we climb into the topic of frigates, and when the authorities realize that the PLO is full of holes, put it to them.

      Sincere recognition, not a project.
    3. timokhin-aa 13 January 2020 09: 39 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      This is another game from Diamond. Instead of making a normal one-off multi-purpose ship, they saw endless OCD.
  • LeonidL 11 January 2020 04: 47 New
    • 1
    • 4
    -3
    Again, Mr. Timokhin's article on the Navy. And immediately the questions: "They do not have a bomb, which makes it impossible to fight against NAPL that are lying on the ground and deprives the ship of some other advantages."Dear sir, what century do you live in? What non-nuclear submarines occur? Where? When? From which hangover? It makes sense only for potential exports to third countries, where there may be diesel engines at the bottom, and bombers ... I don’t remember in the recent history of diesel engines invading the waters of the USSR or the Russian Federation ... well, one Soviet wandered into Sweden. Nuclear - yes, they grazed. But it’s better to drive them more culturally, without bringing them to war.
    "A little later, closer to 2018, another source, quite informed, informed the author that "a larger ship and a displacement, and a more expensive, actually a frigate, are already being worked out to replace 20386." The source did not provide details, but as we can see, he was right: at least some work is underway. "My dear Mr. Timokhin, you somehow made a reservation that you use exclusively open sources. What kind of" completely informed source "is this if he didn’t say anything specific? How is it with the sisters and sisters ..." highly likes "?
    "In order to build any forecasts, you need to know exactly what the model shown is. "As I understand it, and as you write, my dear, everything is at the level of rumors. Further comment is pointless.
    Well, the cherry on your cake is a model only a model. And very often a modelka remains a model for a very respectable public. Look, or rather listen carefully to Borisov’s remark from the last show of models, why should you let the money go ... Well, polite Putin, politely nodded his head, saying that it’s very, very interesting ...
    Intelligence, like you, Mr. Timokhin, is mainly information for analytics (this is not about you) from open sources and letting the “smoke” screen in an open show is a very common thing, do you really, Sir Timokhin, think that serious problems are solved ? And how they are solved, the public does not need to know. Even the one that is not in vain. By the way, “don’t remember in vain” is about God, not about homo.
    1. timokhin-aa 11 January 2020 14: 09 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      And how can you recall the invasion of submarines, citizen patient?

      Those who served, they can, but you weren’t standing there.

      "Fleet Commander Fleet Admiral G.M. Egorov planted an introductory shot at our squadron - to find patrol areas for Norwegian submarines. Almost none of our nuclear submarines could enter or leave the main base unnoticed by them. We knew about their presence nearby, but we needed to find a way to get around their position. We were asked to search for areas of charging the batteries and, clinging to the boat, track it before coming to the patrol area. The squadron identified two pairs of submarines operating as part of tactical groups. To no avail, ”wrote the flagship miner of the 4th squadron, E.K. Gasoline.

      It should be noted that Admiral Egorov was perhaps the only fleet commander who understood this danger, including on the basis of his own military experience: in December 1944, while repairing his submarine on the ground, he ended up in the rendezvous area of ​​three German submarines and had prolonged sonar contact with one of them.

      http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2018-11-22/12_1023_ship.html
      1. LeonidL 12 January 2020 01: 22 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        How is it over Canada, Mr. Timokhin, the sky is clear? Well, okay, not serving and not standing, do not distort - I'm talking about recent years. I do not remember, you do not know. Maybe someone will remind. And the experience of the Second World War is the last century. You, Mr. Timokhin, a participant in the information attack on the leadership of the Defense Ministry and the Navy of the country you seem to be happy about. So do not translate the arrows.
        1. LeonidL 12 January 2020 08: 21 New
          • 0
          • 2
          -2
          I will add that “tossing an opening” is one thing, but the real discovery of Norwegian diesel engines in their territories is different. They were not there, otherwise they would have found and kicked out in disgrace. But no one was at the bottom. But who grazed almost at the quays in terra waters - starting from the 70s, “Halibat”, “Sivulf”, “Purch” - these put “cocoons”. But no one would have bombarded them - everything would have been different there. ... If you caught. But they didn’t catch it - only cocoons were found after the fact. This is a different department and a different story. Therefore, it is not the bombers that are important, but the modern expensive ASG and other modern means of anti-aircraft defense, most likely high-speed anti-submarine torpedoes and missiles. Bomb bombs and depth charges, call diving shells - these are in the past. The speed of the submarines is now such that light corvetics and speedboats simply can not be hijacked.
          1. timokhin-aa 13 January 2020 09: 37 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            They were not there, otherwise they would have found and kicked out in disgrace.


            So close were. And it’s not so easy to find them with our technology, these were the quietest submarines in the world then.

            Therefore, it is not the bombers that are important, but the modern expensive ASGs and other modern means of anti-aircraft defense, most likely high-speed anti-submarine torpedoes and missiles.


            What else would you understand in this.
  • Demagogue 11 January 2020 12: 03 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Connor MacLeod
    The armament is too weak. negative

    The enemy’s submarine can easily remove such an IPC using a long-range torpedo or anti-ship missiles. In anti-submarine warfare, it is necessary to fully use the potential of the PLUR based on the Caliber.


    All is not true. Attacking a corvette plos for pl makes no sense. Especially cheaper. Such an attack unmasks the square and draws attention to it without any bonuses. This time. Also, the corvette, in the presence of a towed gas, a jamming station and a packet, is far from an easy target. So just do not destroy. These are two. It makes no sense to try to destroy it from a corvette. It’s easier to pull up helicopters with torpedoes that hang right above the square and make a control shot. Why do you need to go head-on?
    1. Connor MacLeod 11 January 2020 15: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Demagogue
      All is not true. Attacking a corvette plos for pl makes no sense. Especially cheaper. Such an attack unmasks the square and draws attention to it without any bonuses. It is time.

      Well, of course, she will calmly wait until the corvette throws her bombs! On Barracuda, Exocet stands, on Astyut Harpoon, and on Virginia LRASM may well appear. Why do you think?

      Quote: Demagogue
      Also, the corvette, in the presence of a towed gas, a jamming station and a packet, is far from an easy target. So just do not destroy. This two.

      How does all this help against RCC?

      Quote: Demagogue
      It makes no sense to try to destroy it from a corvette. It’s easier to pull up helicopters with torpedoes that hang right above the square and make a control shot. Why do you need to go head-on?

      On the corvette, only one helicopter is standing, respectively, only one target can be attacked, and with the help of PLRK several at once. There is no helicopter at all.
  • Luty 11 January 2020 13: 28 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Drawing is always easier than building. More good and different projects - so now we live.
  • Demagogue 11 January 2020 16: 05 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Quote: Connor MacLeod
    Quote: Demagogue
    All is not true. Attacking a corvette plos for pl makes no sense. Especially cheaper. Such an attack unmasks the square and draws attention to it without any bonuses. It is time.

    Well, of course, she will calmly wait until the corvette throws her bombs! On Barracuda, Exocet stands, on Astyut Harpoon, and on Virginia LRASM may well appear. Why do you think?

    Quote: Demagogue
    Also, the corvette, in the presence of a towed gas, a jamming station and a packet, is far from an easy target. So just do not destroy. This two.

    How does all this help against RCC?

    Quote: Demagogue
    It makes no sense to try to destroy it from a corvette. It’s easier to pull up helicopters with torpedoes that hang right above the square and make a control shot. Why do you need to go head-on?

    On the corvette, only one helicopter is standing, respectively, only one target can be attacked, and with the help of PLRK several at once. There is no helicopter at all.


    Here again, everything is wrong))

    You see the corvette as a spherical horse in a vacuum. But this is not so. This is a small boat for the near zone. It operates under the umbrella of coastal aviation and in conjunction with other elements of the force assigned to solve the combat mission.
    Imagine a typical task: ensuring the exit of a strategist. The task of the corvettes is to move the enemy pl from their bases. Provide a way out. They in these undertakings should be supported by their submarines and aircraft. There are patrol planes in the air. The enemy submarines a priori operate in unfriendly waters. If it is lit by the launch of the cr, then it will be overlaid by aviation and other forces. She will only let kr in a pinch.
    Corvette is a fragile little ship that shakes and is serious. No helicopters from him will hit anyone. They didn’t even make a hangar in Swedish Visby, looking the truth in the eye. Coastal aviation or from serious ships will be used. And it’s just that the nearest one can launch torpedoes.
    1. agond 11 January 2020 18: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Demagogue
      Imagine a typical task: ensuring the exit of a strategist

      That's just the point, that the typical one is typically guarding at the door of someone else's house. and everyone understands that this should not be. The only way out is to increase the number of small-sized ships, for a narrow typical purpose, an attempt to create something universal, a difficult task leads to a rapid increase in displacement, delaying the timing. a rise in price and, as a result, a reduction in the number of units to a few
      1. Connor MacLeod 11 January 2020 19: 39 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        22800 with a Caliber-based submarine, this is the Answer. By the way, this PLRK is called that! The only good thing would be to install the NK Package and a small GAS for it on Karakurt ...
        1. storm 12 January 2020 16: 26 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          and a small CEO for him ...


          Again, write nonsense!
          GAS - this is the main means of detecting submarines for the IPC
          Consequently, the GAS on the IPC should be several and the more powerful they are, the better:
          - the main GAS built into the ship's hull (bul):
          - towed GAS
          - Omitted GAS
          GAS used by anti-submarine helicopters ...
    2. Connor MacLeod 11 January 2020 18: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Demagogue
      Here again, everything is wrong))

      Really a demagogue ...

      Quote: Demagogue
      You see the corvette as a spherical horse in a vacuum. But this is not so. This is a small boat for the near zone. It operates under the umbrella of coastal aviation and in conjunction with other elements of the force assigned to solve the combat mission.

      Actually, I never said that RTOs should act alone. I’m just trying to say that in fact we have already built dozens of RTOs and the question is how they can be used in PLO. The only option in my opinion is to use their UKKS to launch anti-submarine Gauges. We should not dream about the IPC, but try to use the existing ships ...

      Quote: Demagogue
      Imagine a typical task: ensuring the exit of a strategist. The task of the corvettes is to move the enemy pl from their bases. Provide a way out. They in these undertakings should be supported by their submarines and aircraft. There are patrol planes in the air. The enemy submarines a priori operate in unfriendly waters. If it is lit by the launch of the cr, then it will be overlaid by aviation and other forces. She will only let kr in a pinch.

      Let's imagine that the enemy’s submarine successfully hit the SSBN and is trying to escape from the pursuit of our PLO forces. Well, what can the IPC with its bomb detonator make nuclear submarines armed with anti-ship missiles? She will have time to fill a bunch of PLO ships on her way home. As for anti-submarine aviation, it seems there are plans to install air defense systems on Barracuda. Just information for thought ...

      Quote: Demagogue
      Corvette is a fragile little ship that shakes and is serious. No helicopters from him will hit anyone. They didn’t even make a hangar in Swedish Visby, looking the truth in the eye. Coastal aviation or from serious ships will be used. And it’s just that the nearest one can launch torpedoes.

      By the way, how far from the coast can anti-submarine aircraft operate?
  • Demagogue 11 January 2020 19: 49 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Connor, you wrote a lot of illogical things. Except one, my nickname is really De Magog.
    1) Who told you that the anti-submarine caliber, or rather the torpedo that it delivers to the submarine, will be effective and immune to interference, which the adversary has in abundance? Without wire adjustments, then? As if to throw bombs from the Ka-27 was not more effective. Plus, the caliber of roads, this is not RBU.
    2) Use of old ships does not make sense. They are out of date. A Swedish Visby corvette costs 150 million, but it is stealth and much more. If you cut in moderation, then a corvette without armament in a large series and for 60 million can be done. Nobody needs this with us, but really.
    3) To hit the SSBN, you must first go through the picket of corvettes. Removing a corvette automatically means notching the pl, aviation will be pulled there. That is, you have to tick, and not attack further. The submarine runs silently in the region of 5 knots, while the same Ka-27 has a cruising speed of 200 km / h. Estimate the rest yourself.
    4) The range of our anti-submarine aircraft is easy to google. And the Tu-142, and IL-38. It is more than sufficient for our needs. Yes, the cars are not new, and we don’t have aircraft torpedoes, but if the corvette detects the submarine and pull off more planes and helicopters, then you can hammer out bombs. Certainly not before the attack of strategists will be.
    5) Information on the whereabouts of the enemy pl will allow the strategist to go to sea.
    6) Air defense on the French side involves firing up at random with an infrared-guided MANPADS missile. How it works and at what distance the head will work is unknown. A hovering helicopter will probably hit. Only it costs several tens of millions of dollars, and the nuclear submarines are the same billions. The destruction of nuclear submarines for 2-3 billion at the cost of several helicopters and even corvettes is inexpensive.
    1. Connor MacLeod 11 January 2020 20: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Demagogue
      Connor, you wrote a lot of illogical things. Except one, my nickname is really De Magog.

      Very well picked up.

      Quote: Demagogue
      1) Who told you that the anti-submarine caliber, or rather the torpedo that it delivers to the submarine, will be effective and immune to interference, which the adversary has in abundance? Without wire adjustments, then? As if to throw bombs from the Ka-27 was not more effective. Plus, the caliber of roads, this is not RBU.

      The chances of dodging a torpedo that goes into the water a few hundred meters and overcomes them in seconds, the submarine is about the same as evading a depth bomb. This is not a 533 mm torpedo.

      Quote: Demagogue
      2) Use of old ships does not make sense. They are out of date. A Swedish Visby corvette costs 150 million, but it is stealth and much more. If you cut in moderation, then a corvette without armament in a large series and for 60 million can be done. Nobody needs this with us, but really.

      All Karakurts were founded after 2015. What are they out of date? What are UKSC outdated? In general, you can either try to use them, or continue to dream of a new IPC. Well, dreaming is not harmful in principle ...

      Quote: Demagogue
      3) To hit the SSBN, you must first go through the picket of corvettes. Removing a corvette automatically means notching the pl, aviation will be pulled there. That is, you have to tick, and not attack further. The submarine runs silently in the region of 5 knots, while the same Ka-27 has a cruising speed of 200 km / h. Estimate the rest yourself.

      Here, at 5 submarine nodes, it will overcome the anti-submarine screening, work on the SSBN and stand on the skis on the move, firing the MPK, which they cannot even get close to.

      Quote: Demagogue
      4) The range of our anti-submarine aircraft is easy to google. And the Tu-142, and IL-38. It is more than sufficient for our needs. Yes, the cars are not new, and we don’t have aircraft torpedoes, but if the corvette detects the submarine and pull off more planes and helicopters, then you can hammer out bombs. Certainly not before the attack of strategists will be.

      Well, this is only if the IPC will constantly hang on the tail of the nuclear submarine and give target designation in real time, in reality, it will most likely be destroyed by anti-ship missiles and all the bombs will go into milk.

      Quote: Demagogue
      5) Information on the whereabouts of the enemy pl will allow the strategist to go to sea.

      Yes, there is nothing for her to impersonate until the moment she finds the SSBN.

      Quote: Demagogue
      6) Air defense on the French side involves firing up at random with an infrared-guided MANPADS missile. How it works and at what distance the head will work is unknown. A hovering helicopter will probably hit. Only it costs several tens of millions of dollars, and the nuclear submarines are the same billions. The destruction of nuclear submarines for 2-3 billion at the cost of several helicopters and even corvettes is inexpensive.

      In my opinion, all the same, it was about an active RLGSN. And why only a few helicopters? Why can't she destroy ALL helicopters that try to enter her?
  • Petrol cutter 11 January 2020 20: 27 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    T. Timokhin became my favorite author. He was ahead of Comrade Kaptsov in my ranking.
    We even periodically conduct polemic battles with him (and far from always I agree with him. Like him, with me). But a falcon! .. that is, that is! ...
  • Demagogue 11 January 2020 21: 00 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Connor MacLeod
    Quote: Demagogue
    Connor, you wrote a lot of illogical things. Except one, my nickname is really De Magog.

    Very well picked up.

    Quote: Demagogue
    1) Who told you that the anti-submarine caliber, or rather the torpedo that it delivers to the submarine, will be effective and immune to interference, which the adversary has in abundance? Without wire adjustments, then? As if to throw bombs from the Ka-27 was not more effective. Plus, the caliber of roads, this is not RBU.

    The chances of dodging a torpedo that goes into the water a few hundred meters and overcomes them in seconds, the submarine is about the same as evading a depth bomb. This is not a 533 mm torpedo.

    Quote: Demagogue
    2) Use of old ships does not make sense. They are out of date. A Swedish Visby corvette costs 150 million, but it is stealth and much more. If you cut in moderation, then a corvette without armament in a large series and for 60 million can be done. Nobody needs this with us, but really.

    All Karakurts were founded after 2015. What are they out of date? What are UKSC outdated? In general, you can either try to use them, or continue to dream of a new IPC. Well, dreaming is not harmful in principle ...

    Quote: Demagogue
    3) To hit the SSBN, you must first go through the picket of corvettes. Removing a corvette automatically means notching the pl, aviation will be pulled there. That is, you have to tick, and not attack further. The submarine runs silently in the region of 5 knots, while the same Ka-27 has a cruising speed of 200 km / h. Estimate the rest yourself.

    Here, at 5 submarine nodes, it will overcome the anti-submarine screening, work on the SSBN and stand on the skis on the move, firing the MPK, which they cannot even get close to.

    Quote: Demagogue
    4) The range of our anti-submarine aircraft is easy to google. And the Tu-142, and IL-38. It is more than sufficient for our needs. Yes, the cars are not new, and we don’t have aircraft torpedoes, but if the corvette detects the submarine and pull off more planes and helicopters, then you can hammer out bombs. Certainly not before the attack of strategists will be.

    Well, this is only if the IPC will constantly hang on the tail of the nuclear submarine and give target designation in real time, in reality, it will most likely be destroyed by anti-ship missiles and all the bombs will go into milk.

    Quote: Demagogue
    5) Information on the whereabouts of the enemy pl will allow the strategist to go to sea.

    Yes, there is nothing for her to impersonate until the moment she finds the SSBN.

    Quote: Demagogue
    6) Air defense on the French side involves firing up at random with an infrared-guided MANPADS missile. How it works and at what distance the head will work is unknown. A hovering helicopter will probably hit. Only it costs several tens of millions of dollars, and the nuclear submarines are the same billions. The destruction of nuclear submarines for 2-3 billion at the cost of several helicopters and even corvettes is inexpensive.

    In my opinion, all the same, it was about an active RLGSN. And why only a few helicopters? Why can't she destroy ALL helicopters that try to enter her?


    The demagogue is you. You write the same nonsense. In the second round I will not explain to you. Read carefully what I wrote for the first time.
    1. Connor MacLeod 11 January 2020 21: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Demagogue
      The demagogue is you. You write the same nonsense. In the second round I will not explain to you. Read carefully what I wrote for the first time.

      Sailor?
  • Basarev 11 January 2020 21: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I always said: a warship is only the end link of a huge chain. He is only a floating launcher, all other tasks must be performed by other ships and vessels: a helicopter carrier DRLO for guiding weapons, an anti-submarine for protection against submarines, a minesweeper against all sorts of mines ... That is, on an ideal attack ship there should not be all this zoo - not guns , no bombs, launchers alone, as many launchers as possible, such an arsenal ship. Each type of armament must have a separate specialized ship - an ultralight artillery cruiser like the ancient project MLK-4 AK-130 twin-gun turret is an example of such a ship.
  • Valdaev 14 January 2020 01: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Boris Chernikov
    At the moment, one thing is clear - that nothing is clear, with the same success we can say that this model will remain a concept ...


    Like in Hamlet

    "Polonium - What are you reading, my prince?
    Hamlet - Words, Words, Words ... "

    Questioner - What are you watching, Patriot?
    Patriot - Pictures, cartoons ... Pictures, cartoons ...
  • Valdaev 14 January 2020 01: 45 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: Vadim237
    The main thing is that they build corvettes and frigates, and this is the main thing - not as fast as they wanted, because Russia has never done ships using stealth technology before.


    and never will
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • LeonidL 14 January 2020 05: 14 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    What else would you understand in this.

    Here I am about the same! What do you think of yourself and what you understand in everything. Adieu, bye-bye Mr. / Sir from Canada.
    1. agond 14 January 2020 18: 39 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      We need to take an example from the Americans and build unmanned boats of tons of commercial vehicles of 50 displacement, with a combined power plant from the sun, wind and ocean waves, the diesel engine is over, of course, surveillance equipment, communications with the ground, a couple of missiles just in case and most importantly should be on board at least the rudiments of artificial intelligence
  • Leroy cox 24 June 2020 10: 27 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    For a long time I did not read such a set of nonsense about 20380 and 20385.