Corvette or modular non-corvette?


Photo: IA "Weapon Of Russia "


The last time we have only talked about whether we need to build another giant, an atomic destroyer the size of a cruiser, an atomic aircraft carrier with a displacement of 100 thousand tons, and so on.

Meanwhile, we can’t give the mind to the existing large ships (yes, I’m all about the “Orlan”), and, obviously, the only aircraft carrying cruiser is now added to the heavy nuclear cruisers.

But we make rockets ...

Okay, we really do rockets, it's a little easier than building a warship. But with missiles, a ship built by someone is much easier to bring to the state of scrap metal.

But even with our missiles, which are rightfully considered the best in the world, not everything is so rosy and beautiful. Just because rockets must be placed on some platform, rockets must receive target designation and tracking.

And here the nuances begin ...

In general, in the world there is a certain tendency to simultaneously reduce the size and displacement of ships on the one hand and equip them to the maximum in terms of weapons and mechanization on the other.

This is quite normal, with the development of technology in particular. Yes, ships are still being built, like a hundred years ago, according to the same canons, only classes are becoming less and less, precisely because scientific and technological progress and universalization rule this ball.

And if progress is almost always useful (if you don’t go too far, as with computerized latches on the latest American aircraft carriers), then there are doubts about universalization.

For universalization (coupled with a decrease in size and volume) paid by reducing the combat capabilities of weapons systems. You must admit that the same almost Washington 10 tons of Ticonderoga squeezed weapons well a little more than Arly Burke. But it’s like a cruiser ... Orlan, of course, carries a lot more on itself, but there are 000 tons afloat.

But it is a heavy cruiser and almost a cruiser. And what's at the bottom of the food chain? And below it is still more interesting.

As an example, our parable is the corvette of project 20380.

Why exactly this ship? But because it is not for the far sea zone, DMZ with "flag demonstrations" and other expensive show-offs that we still cannot afford - it is far away. And the huge sea border with the coast, here it is, has not disappeared. And if it is more important to say, frightening the US Navy with its presence in the ocean (yes, there is a threat to the Americans, may burst out laughing, looking at our “DMZ group”) or really “hold” the coastal water area in the hands of the Pacific Ocean - definitely more important the second one.

So, the corvette of project 20380, and if in a simple way, in our opinion, then a small patrol ship, is a project of multipurpose ships of the 2nd rank of the near sea zone.

The ship is designed specifically for work in the near sea zone, the fight against surface ships and submarines of the enemy. It can provide fire support for amphibious assault during naval amphibious operations by launching missile and artillery attacks, and may patrol areas of responsibility with a view to blocking.

Station wagon? Station wagon. To the very frames.

And the corvette / patrol guard has all the properties due to it: a small displacement, a small draft. And (for many, it turned out to be a surprise) quite decent sailing. That is, not only the water area of ​​the Baltic, but also the Pacific region. Can.

But about the content - not really. Judge for yourself: the Poliment radar, familiar to ships of this class, tied to the Redut complex, did not fit on the boat at all. I had to dodge, installing a radar with the FAR 1RS1-1E Furke-2.

But alas, "Furke-2" is not a smaller "Polement", it is "Shell-1C", which after registration on ships received the name "Shell-M".

However, if it affected the range, it was not the best way. Polyment-Redoubt uses three types of missiles, long-range (9M96E), medium-range (9M96E2) and short-range (9M100).

The range of missiles of the Redut complex can reach 150 km. But the Furke-2 radar cannot work at such a range, however, a lot has been written about this at one time. The situation has not improved much since the first scandals of 2012, and the Redoubt with Furke-2 still resembles a large-caliber rifle without an optical sight.

And there is nothing to be done, the size of the ship does not allow to improve the situation with the radar.


The same is true with anti-submarine / anti-torpedo weapons. Corvette - this is not the IPC, a small anti-submarine ship, imprisoned precisely for the search and destruction of enemy submarines. But the ship of project 20380 is armed with the “Package”, a rather elegant small-sized installation capable of operating both torpedoes on submarines and torpedoes on torpedoes from these boats.

The small size is the problem. The data, of course, is not enough, but it is known that there are two versions of the hydroacoustic station, differing from each other in the number and configuration of antennas. So, the version with a cylindrical antenna weighs 352 kg and provides an overview of the sector with a width of 270 °. When using two flat antennas, the weight of the station is reduced to 127 kg, but the field of view is reduced to 90 °.

Payment for small size and weight.

The MTT torpedo from the "Pack" can go up to 20 km at a speed of 30 to 50 knots. If the boat of the probable adversary stood still, no problems. But alas, the enemy’s boats, even training ones, do not stand still. And they move quite normally under water at a very decent speed. Sivulf - 35 knots, Virginia - 34 knots. And such a speed may well give a chance to break away from our torpedo. In theory. In practice, earlier the target will lose the mini-GAS from the "Pack", especially if the enemy boat will scuttle from the ship.

In this case, it would be nice to pursue the launch of a rocket torpedo, but the trouble is, it also needs the appropriate equipment, but there is no space on the corvette.

Well, the helicopter. Anti-submarine Ka-27, others, as it were, we especially do not have. Again a tribute to universality. The corvette will patrol the shallow water, blocking the area, will launch cruise missiles, helping to solve the combat mission to the main forces fleetwill shoot enemy planes with the Redutom, supporting the landing or striking along the shore in the interests of the same landing - the corvette will always carry this ill-fated anti-submarine helicopter. Which can only be used to counter submarines.

Incidentally, the helicopter in other cases is not useful, but harmful. For example, in counteracting the enemy from the shore, a helicopter can become not a weak source of fire on the ship, while being completely useless landing.

Of course, there is an option when you can carry everything with you. And we have it, albeit in a single copy. If you take all the hobbyists in the form of weapons and place them on the same ship, then it is clear that it will turn out to be Peter the Great. For only this giant carries everything necessary for all cases of battle. Everyone else in the world, alas, does not succeed. Size did not come out.

But with the "Eagles" we are very difficult. We are not able to contain them, because we have either one and a half out of three, or one whole and how many tenths are available. Expensive to build, expensive to maintain.

In addition, such cruiser-class ships are simply not able to work at shallow depths. They cannot trawl and destroy mines, they cannot hunt for submarines. A lot of things can’t.

And if you take and build not a corvette with a claim to universality, but a really universal ship? Which could be adapted to the task in the shortest possible time and use it with the greatest efficiency?

Indeed, the conclusion about a certain modular ship just begs. We must go to drive submarines - two helicopters, a gas engine, bombers and torpedoes. It’s necessary to cover the convoy — they set up a radar and an air defense system. It is necessary to land the landing - no problem, a pair of 130-mm guns and surface-to-surface missiles.

Meanwhile, in the world there are already countries that really not only thought about, but even realized such a modular structure.

In the 80s of the last century, the Danes became pioneers of modular shipbuilding. In general, one can argue who was the first or the very first, ad infinitum, but the Danish fleet is the first fleet in the world where all ships are built using the Standard Flex system or abbreviated StanFlex.


Yes, the Danish fleet is small, and had to save on everything. So the first ships equipped according to the StanFlex system appeared, which allowed reducing the number of ships without loss of combat effectiveness. And reconfiguration for certain tasks greatly simplified the life of the Danish fleet command.

Today, the Danes have at their disposal a wide variety of StanFlex modules: artillery, with anti-ship missiles, air defense module, anti-aircraft module with torpedo tubes, ASG, trawl module, electronic warfare and so on. In total, the Danish fleet has 101 modules of 11 different types.

Modules are installed by the simplest 15-ton truck crane. It takes about half an hour to replace a module; connecting and testing a ship’s system takes a few more hours. Next, the ship is ready to perform a combat mission. The main thing is to train the crew or equip specialists with the necessary profile from the reserve.

In general, it’s clear where this came from in the Danish Navy, it’s enough to remember who Lego came up with.

Meanwhile, the newest frigates of the Danish fleet of the Ivar Huitfeld type have 6 slots each (this is the name of the module installation site) in construction and a complete reconfiguration of the ship takes no more than a day.


Anything to think about? So our potential also thought, looking at how the Danes solve their problems. But the Americans did not have and will not have such problems with the budget, but nevertheless something appeared to them.

We are talking about a thoughtful project of the ships of the coastal zone Littoral Combat Ship (abbreviated as LCS) with a modular construction scheme. A “thoughtful” project - because in the USA they are still thinking about how much the ships will cost in the end and whether they are needed for that kind of money.

These are ships built in a modular scheme, in principle, very similar to Danish. The module is a standard marine 20-foot container, equipped for a specific task.

The LCS-1 Freedom became the first-born American modular design.


The tasks of ships of this type include anti-submarine and anti-terrorist protection, carrying out special operations, search and destruction of minefields, as well as the rapid transportation of military cargo.

There are already 6 ships of this type in service, three more are being completed, four are under construction and several more have been ordered.

Ships of this type have a fairly wide range of configurations, and Lockheed (developer-manufacturer) emphasizes that despite the change in configuration, the ship will not be inferior to specialized ships in performing a combat mission.

LCS-2 "Independence".


This is the brainchild of General Danimix. No less worthy project than Freedom, although due to its aluminum construction it is significantly inferior to the competitor in terms of strength.

Two trimarans of this class have been built so far, but three more ships are being built and several more have been ordered.

Everything is modular in the LCS-2 concept, even crew accommodation. That is, in addition to the combat modules, there are residential ones, if crew expansion is suddenly required.

In general, the Americans have such ships have two crews, oriented to specific tasks.


The main difference between the LSC-2 is on board the Mobicon container handler for quick replacement or loading and unloading of container modules, making the ship much easier to reconfigure by trained crew.

Well, the third and last American development, also in the rank of tests, FSF-1 "Sea Fighter".


Photo: JOHN F. WILLIAMS, CIV, USN

This standard coastal catamaran ship has 12 standard 20-foot module containers with weapons and equipment on board the upper deck for participation in various types of operations: anti-mine, anti-submarine, and also anti-surface ships.

Modules are lifted and changed using a special elevator. The catamaran is still being tested.

In general, we can say that 9 ships already built are nothing more than an admission that there is something in the modular program. Either buried billions of the budget, or a certain essence.

In general, it is worth recognizing that the modular ship system has some very clear positive points.

1. Unused modules can simply be stored and stored, saving their resource.

2. Ships do not lose their combat readiness when it is necessary to maintain or repair equipment. It is enough to replace the module to be serviced.

3. Re-equipment or re-equipment of the ship does not necessitate a major overhaul in the factory.

4. If the ship is decommissioned or lost in battle, the modules remaining in storage can be used on other ships.

It is possible, quite possibly, that such multi-purpose configurable ships will be somewhat less effective than specialized ships, but we are talking about actions from the near sea zone ...

And here the opportunity to get the necessary ship at the disposal of the day is possible to outweigh all the disadvantages of the modular scheme.

For example, if it suddenly turns out that the enemy has secretly set up minefields, quickly assembling a minesweeper and proceeding to mine clearing will be more convenient than getting out of the situation if the minesweeper is simply not available.

Surprisingly, no one thinks about the topic of modular systems in shipbuilding. But obviously in vain. Or vice versa, not in vain.

The fact is that the module is a rather high-tech product, which, moreover, will require a proper attitude to itself. Storage, care, maintenance, debugging. That is, really trained specialists. That is, for all this, considerable expenses loom.

Well, the expenses from our birth didn’t scare anyone, even more: the higher the amount for any program, the greater the opportunity ... well, you understand.

But the experts and all the rest ...

Apparently, here lies the root of the problem. There is nothing else to explain the refusal to consider the concept of a modular OVR ship. Ideas in our midst were in the air and even laid down on paper. However, everything remained at the same level.

Ten years ago, they spoke about the OVR corvette project, which was supposed to be modular and replace the obsolete MPK of projects 1124M and 1331M, MRK of project 12341, RCA of project 12411 and minesweepers as they went to the landfill.

However, the project “did not play,” and old Soviet-built ships and anti-sabotage boats still protect coastal waters and naval bases. When the Soviet junk is completely and irrevocably decommissioned, there will simply be nothing to guard the bases.

But this is only half the problem.

The second half, that even in the state in which our shipbuilding is (terrible), we continue to build seemingly universal ships with acceptable characteristics that initially allow us to perform a wide range of tasks.

That is, all the same AK-47, but in the 21st century. It's a shame.


Meanwhile, the experience of the Danes showed that the model system is a lifesaver in case of a budget shortage. Instead of 30 ships (and we need more, what are the maritime borders), 15 are being built and 60 modules to them. And here you have a minesweeper, scout, anti-submarine ship, and so on.

Yes, and transport too. In case you still have to organize "express trains".

Today, Russian shipyards and factories are not able to produce ships larger than a corvette. All that is higher is pink dreams and budget cuts on projects, nothing more. It was here that one could play by plugging holes in many places with modular designs.

Moreover, they can be played as we please. With rockets, it’s quite possible, isn't it? Why in the image and likeness not to try with the ships of the near sea zone?
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alceers 6 February 2020 06: 43 New
    • 30
    • 6
    +24
    Modularity is fiction. Crew prepared also loaded by a crane? And the extra will sit on the shore? The task of k2 and k3 to hand over how? What modules? And task C from the connection? Do all have the same modules loaded at the same time?
    1. g1washntwn 6 February 2020 07: 42 New
      • 12
      • 4
      +8
      If we consider the near sea zone, then modularity for solving the identified problems is a plus. The modularity allows for hours to switch from one task to another. Crews for such ships "should fumble" as young people say, narrow specialization is not for them. Well, or finish AI. If we are talking about work away from places of re-equipment of such modular solutions (where tasks are de facto identified), then universality is more useful, although weakened. In theory.
      About why modularity was already useless on topvar:
      Quote: topwar.ru
      https://topwar.ru/152103-modulnyj-virus-koncepcija-modulnyh-korablej-ne-rabotaet-nigde.html
      "Modular virus. The concept of modular ships does not work. Nowhere"

      Why did the author draw such conclusions? Because the conceived advantages of modularity have not been used in practice. To a lesser extent, Denmark changed the tasks for ships at least periodically, and the Americans simply put the modules as non-removable weapons as a result of all their ordeals. Why? Yes, because they did not plan to use these ships in their near zone. Where is the Strait of Hormuz and where is the USA.
      Modularity (container execution) is not for regulars, as Comrade wrote. Timokhin, regulars are created for specific tasks, and there modularity is important in the sense of facilitating modernization, and not a quick class change. Let's look at modularity and containers as a means to quickly add missing or enhance existing capabilities of these regulars. For civilian sides, in an endangered period, this method remains the only way to obtain a means of close self-defense (... as well as attacks and special tasks).
      1. Simple 6 February 2020 08: 28 New
        • 8
        • 0
        +8
        I would like to add the following consideration:
        The modularity presented by the author of the article can still go in peacetime
        (closing one eye on organizational issues on both material and human security).
        But completely unsuitable when the country is in martial law:
        Then the number of warships “here and now (in war major circumstances that the headquarters of the fleet could not have foreseen)” and not a modular container with the specialists assigned to them the next day will be sharply needed.
        1. Kalmar 6 February 2020 10: 02 New
          • 4
          • 5
          -1
          Quote: Simple
          Then sharply need the number of warships "here and now

          This is so, but what if there are, in principle, no proper number of finished ships? It’s necessary, conditionally, 5 minesweepers, 5 MPK, 5 MRK and so on, and the industry is able to issue only a dozen ships, and nothing more. Modularity here gives at least some chance to get the right number of ships of the desired type.
          1. Simple 6 February 2020 12: 49 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            Quote: Kalmar
            The modularity here gives at least some chance to get the right number of ships of the desired type



            Theoretical - yes.
            Hardly ever.
          2. Simargl 6 February 2020 20: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Kalmar
            Need, conditionally, 5 minesweepers, 5 IPC, 5 RTOs and so on
            And if you ask differently?
            How to complete flotillas?
            Let's say the operational need is 5 minesweepers, 5 IPC, 5 RTOs. Okay, we’re ordering 15 “carcasses”, and kits for organizing 5 minesweepers, 5 IPC, 5 RTOs ... or 10 and half are on the ground? Or how?
            But not only the "carcasses" will be obsolete, but also the weapons that are ballasting!
            1. Kalmar 7 February 2020 10: 21 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: Simargl
              or 10 and half are on the ground?

              Apparently, somehow. Not necessarily all of 10 (say, we believe that 10 minesweepers at once we definitely do not need). And, if necessary, we can change the same minesweepers and get 10 RTOs.

              Quote: Simargl
              But not only the "carcasses" will be obsolete, but also the weapons that are ballasting!

              Mm, so after all, weapons themselves quite successfully become obsolete even when they are mounted, no? But at the same time, it is still easier to upgrade or completely replace an individual container (in theory, anyway) than to send an entire ship for modernization.
              1. Simargl 7 February 2020 14: 26 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Kalmar
                Mm, so after all, weapons themselves quite successfully become obsolete even when they are mounted, no?
                When mounted, it performs a combat mission (containment, for example).
                Quote: Kalmar
                But at the same time, it is still easier to upgrade or completely replace a separate container (in theory, anyway)
                Ship service life 40 years approximately?
                Insert a floppy disk into your computer ... and 5 "?
                After 20 years of service, a fork will happen:
                - have to hang a double / triple set of software for compatibility with older systems,
                - limit the combat use of new systems.
                At the same time, if modernization is done, then all at once, otherwise obsolete ones will not fit the new ones, or there will be such compatibility glitches that programmers will be hung up in large numbers.
                1. Kalmar 7 February 2020 22: 27 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: Simargl
                  When mounted, it performs a combat mission (containment, for example).

                  Which in no way prevents him from gradually becoming obsolete.

                  Quote: Simargl
                  Ship service life 40 years approximately?
                  Insert a floppy disk into your computer ... and 5 "?

                  This is another side of the issue - competent implementation. The modular product should be initially designed with an eye to, including, and for further modernization. In the case of computers, this, on the whole, succeeded at a certain stage. With the ship, of course, it will be more difficult.

                  As for the double / triple set of software, I don’t see any sense in complexing at all, since the computing power of modern computers is constantly growing.

                  Quote: Simargl
                  At the same time, if modernization is done, then all at once, otherwise obsolete ones will not fit the new ones, or there will be such compatibility glitches that programmers will be hung up in large numbers.

                  I do not know sales. I myself am a programmer, albeit not in the defense industry, and quite often I work on screwing new systems to all kinds of dinosaurs 20 years ago. Until he hanged himself))

                  Then, modernization always involves replacing only part of the systems; part, accordingly, remains. No one will, say, completely change the avionics of any fighter just to teach him to launch any new missile: only some components will be replaced, the firmware will be a little finished, and go.
                  1. Simargl 8 February 2020 00: 01 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Kalmar
                    Which in no way prevents him from gradually becoming obsolete.
                    So the depreciation goes. It's like a computer, for example: buy and not use.
                    Buy two computers. You use one, not the other. After 10 years, both throw away. Only one performed its functions, and the second simply lay.
                    It’s possible to use the second one, but you can’t put new programs on it, the connectors probably no longer fit the new equipment, it is compatible with a tambourine and dances with new devices ...
                    You see, did not come across ...

                    Quote: Kalmar
                    The modular product should be initially designed with an eye to, including, and for further modernization.
                    This is not even possible for futurists. Predict weapons for 20 years ahead, when the current development can change beyond recognition? This is tin.

                    Quote: Kalmar
                    In the case of computers, this, on the whole, succeeded at a certain stage.
                    No. Failed. You probably can’t imagine how much garbage is in the software or in the hardware.
                    And the need for compatibility from the bottom up attracted so many archaisms that my mother did not grieve.

                    Quote: Kalmar
                    With the ship, of course, it will be more difficult.
                    After 10 years, you will have 15 different ships, with different configurations, conditional compatibility of the modules, it is unclear how they work ... or ... the modules will stupidly tightly fix and replace them with new, stationary ones at the first modernization.

                    Quote: Kalmar
                    As for the double / triple set of software, I don’t see any sense in complexing at all, since the computing power of modern computers is constantly growing.
                    Whatever the computing power of the computer, a good bug and freeze will fix everything. Simply put, for the computer to calculate something, it needs to configure the driver. And then new tricky 3D “mice” will come, and the connectors do not fit, the broomstick is slow, the driver cannot be installed. They will change the iron - now the old equipment cannot be connected, because the old drivers cannot be shoved onto the new system. Somehow they will write to a quick hand, but it does not work normally: you need to delve into it.

                    Quote: Kalmar
                    I myself am a programmer, albeit not in the defense industry, and quite often I work on screwing new systems to all kinds of dinosaurs 20 years ago. Until he hanged himself
                    You have the opposite situation: you need to fasten the old equipment to a new computer. And if vice versa?

                    Quote: Kalmar
                    No one will, say, completely change the avionics of any fighter just to teach him to launch any new missile: only some components will be replaced, the firmware will be a little finished, and go.
                    It depends on which rocket ...
                    1. Kalmar 8 February 2020 11: 27 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Quote: Simargl
                      So the depreciation goes. It's like a computer, for example: buy and not use.

                      What do we mean by "use" here? Fight? So in fact with the current weapons, fortunately, we are not particularly at war. Teachings and stuff? So change the modules and chase the exercises: this month we trawl, next - let the rockets train.

                      Quote: Simargl
                      Predict weapons for 20 years ahead, when the current development can change beyond recognition?

                      Oh oh Take the same tanks: most of the modern models (that their "abrams", that our "teshki") were developed back in the 70s-80s and brought to the current level by numerous "piecewise" upgrades. Suddenly and “beyond recognition”, weapons systems change quite rarely.

                      Quote: Simargl
                      You probably can’t imagine how much garbage is in the software or in the hardware.

                      I can imagine it well. Fee for modularity, backward compatibility and gradual upgradeability. If you have the resources every time to completely re-cut everything for a new task - great, but more often you have to "bring" the current solution.

                      Quote: Simargl
                      After 10 years, you will have 15 different ships, with different configurations, conditional compatibility of modules, it is unclear how they work

                      And it already depends on competent design. I agree, Russian shipbuilding in this regard does not give special reasons for optimism now, but is it possible to dream?

                      Quote: Simargl
                      Whatever the computing power of a computer, everything will fix a good bug and freeze

                      Well this is not an argument. Bugs / hangs and in new systems swarm in no less quantities. This is a matter of development culture.

                      Quote: Simargl
                      You have the opposite situation: you need to fasten the old equipment to a new computer.

                      Quote: Simargl
                      It depends on which rocket ...

                      Well, so the new equipment is not ordered by aliexpress. This equipment (including missiles) should be developed with an eye to what it has to integrate with.

                      In general, all the problems you have voiced are not specific to the modular concept; current approaches suffer from them almost to the same extent.
                      1. Simargl 8 February 2020 14: 43 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        What do we mean by "use" here? Fight? So in fact with the current weapons, fortunately, we are not particularly at war.
                        I did not write? I wrote, like:
                        Quote: Simargl
                        When mounted, it performs a combat mission (containment, for example).
                        If the ship is not docked, it is applied. Something like this.

                        Quote: Kalmar
                        Teachings and stuff?
                        Uh ... are we talking about a constantly engaged corvette?
                        Quote: Kalmar
                        Oh oh Take the same tanks: most of the modern models (that their "abrams", that our "teshki") were developed back in the 70s-80s and brought to the current level by numerous "piecewise" upgrades.
                        Like BE ... little is left of the T-72, by and large. And the fact that it remains “in demand” is the merit of politicians, when the “cold” world nevertheless allows for relatively sluggish renewal of weapons. And what is 50 years in shipbuilding? Well, look at the ships, say, the middle of the XIX (around 1850-1860) century of construction and the beginning of XX 1900-1910. This is not for you the "Union" crying
                        But this is within the limits of human life!
                        As for the tanks ... what is left there? Carcass? So even everything else is hung on the carcass itself. A gun? Well, conditionally. This is not for you "Union" crying recourse

                        Quote: Kalmar
                        And it already depends on competent design.
                        Does not depend. It will be so simply because newer systems will appear.
                        Although ... this can happen if the party is released in a short time: 5 years, say. But if we are talking about the fleet, there will not be 15 ships there. And not 5, not 10 years, but ... indefinitely, constantly.

                        Quote: Kalmar
                        but is it possible to dream?
                        laughing Cosmoflot, interstellar flights ... drinks

                        Quote: Kalmar
                        Bugs / hangs and in new systems swarm in no less quantities. This is a matter of development culture.
                        However, between incompatible at the development stage systems have to put a gasket.
                        At the same time, the new system may be outdated, or vice versa, there may be a newly appeared data set.

                        Quote: Kalmar
                        This equipment (including missiles) should be developed with an eye to what it has to integrate with.
                        Cartridge under the machine? This is some kind of nonsense.

                        Quote: Kalmar
                        In general, all the problems you have voiced are not specific to the modular concept; current approaches suffer from them almost to the same extent.
                        The problem is that modularity implies that the module can be used on any medium, but here, there will be problems. Maybe not right away, but after a while dances will begin. And if, as you noticed, the equipment assembled in a heap is not easy to configure, then with a floating configuration the ship will turn into a designer who only does what they set up ... or weld everything tongue .
                      2. Kalmar 10 February 2020 10: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Simargl
                        Are we talking about a constantly activated corvette?

                        Yeah. But he is not all the time on combat duty, he also needs to learn sometime.

                        Quote: Simargl
                        little is left of the T-72, by and large

                        Firstly, not so little. Secondly, the difference between two consecutive modifications is not very large (within several subsystems).

                        Quote: Simargl
                        However, between incompatible at the development stage systems have to put a gasket.

                        So what?

                        Quote: Simargl
                        Cartridge under the machine? This is some kind of nonsense.

                        No, you always need to understand where the designed product will be used. Let's say you created a new anti-ship missile system for the fleet (fast, powerful, “has no analogue to the world”, etc.), but it cannot start from under the water and does not fit into UKSK 3S14. Does she need such a fleet? No, there is no corny under it and no carriers are expected.

                        Quote: Simargl
                        The problem is that modularity implies that the module can be used on any medium, but here, there will be problems.

                        No serious development can do without problems.

                        In general, it seems to me that you have some kind of peculiar understanding of modularity. Modern military equipment, in principle, is already modular: air defense systems, radar, hull, power plant, etc., - these are all separate modules that are more or less assembled at shipbuilding enterprises and installed there on ships. These modules (the same UKKS) can be used on different media (say, pr. 22350 and 20385).

                        The approach described in the article implies just one more step: to combine a number of modules specific for a certain range of tasks into a construction block that can be relatively easily dismantled and replaced with another, sharpened for other tasks.

                        In general, something similar can be seen in aviation. There is a basic carrier - a multi-functional fighter. Various suspension equipment is installed on it for a specific range of tasks: containers with NURS, guided missiles, containers with electronic warfare or reconnaissance equipment, etc. And this, in principle, works, nobody tightly welds anything.
    2. volodimer 6 February 2020 09: 57 New
      • 9
      • 0
      +9
      I also remember this last article about modularity. A quick replacement of the ship’s specialization from one to another undoubtedly captivates, but the crew problem simply reduces it to zero.
      How did you write "Crews for such ships" must fumble "that is, instead of universal ships, it is necessary to have universal crews (having several crews for one ship is something beyond ..) But a sharp change in specialization can lead to inadequate crew actions. The tank commander who moved to the sau, the submarine commander at the SSBN, the fighter at the helm of the AWACS ... Therefore, either narrow specialization and the crew sharpened for it, or the versatility of the ship (at the cost of reducing capabilities) and the crew capable of using this versatility.
      Option: today with one module, two days later with another, so that the universal crew is ready to work with any module, resulting in the ship being unprepared to perform at least some task at the right time. (I recall the Japanese throwing from bombs to torpedoes at Midway)
      Therefore, I am also closer to the position of Timokhin, and not the author of this article.
      1. ser56 7 February 2020 16: 08 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: volodimer
        The presence of several crews for one ship is something beyond ..)

        this is a given for the Premier League ... request
        1. Simargl 8 February 2020 14: 48 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: ser56
          this is a given for the Premier League ...
          Let me think ... is the crew in full force changing for the submarine?
          And here it is offered to change operators. Those. the crew in parts, not in full.
          1. ser56 8 February 2020 15: 34 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            Quote: Simargl
            Let me see

            always useful ...
            Quote: Simargl
            but is the crew in full force changing for the submarine?

            does it change anything? As far as I know, there are replacements in the crews before the trip - life ...
            Quote: Simargl
            here it is proposed to change operators. Those. the crew in parts, not in full.

            for example warhead ... what is it? As an option - if you foresee the availability of spare cabins, then 2 warheads with one replaceable container can go - for training in peacetime or in shifts ... This will be a noticeable saving on the number of crew ...
            The main advantage is the ease of modernization of these removable containers, without losing the number of ships in the battle line ...
            1. Simargl 8 February 2020 21: 46 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: ser56
              always useful ...
              Undoubtedly.

              Quote: ser56
              As far as I know, there are replacements in the crews before the trip - life ...
              Units. Rarely.

              Quote: ser56
              for example warhead ... what is it?
              Interaction, co-ordination - is it just a sound?

              Quote: ser56
              As an option - if you provide for the availability of spare cabins, then 2 warheads with one replaceable container can go - for training in peacetime or in shifts ...
              Something I didn’t understand the point ... either your crew is universal, then the warhead is tied to a container, then two crews per warhead and everything is at sea ... decide! With this last pearl, are you trying to reduce the autonomy of provision? How much does a person rely on? A couple of tons of displacement, 3-5 m³ per bed and 10 kg per day of autonomy?
              Not only does the container system itself weaken the structure, it requires additional volume and mass, so you still want to add ...
              What’s the point?

              Quote: ser56
              This will be a significant savings on the number of crew ...
              Is it like if you increase it?

              Quote: ser56
              The main advantage is the ease of modernization of these removable containers, without losing the number of ships in the battle line ...
              If anything, paint and recharge - this is not a modernization.
              Moreover, ship systems also require repairs. And modernization.
              1. ser56 10 February 2020 11: 27 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Simargl
                Interaction, co-ordination - is it just a sound?

                you read Semenov - came to EM in PA, stood on the bridge - went on a campaign ... request
                Quote: Simargl
                Something I did not understand the meaning

                not careful ...
                Quote: Simargl
                then your crew is universal, then the warhead is tied to a container, then two crews per warhead and everything is at sea ... decide!

                I repeat slowly: the crew consists of the main part and the interchangeable one! The replaceable part consists of warheads attached to replaceable containers. To practice interaction and training, drugs can be displayed on one ship with a specific container at once 2 warheads, and on another ship with another container - other warheads ...
                Quote: Simargl
                you are trying to reduce provisioning autonomy

                not even funny! I remind you, this is for ships in the near zone - study tours for 1-2 days ...
                Quote: Simargl
                Not only does the container system itself weaken the structure,

                implementation issue! this system has advantages that outweigh the cons, namely:
                1) ease of modernization and repair
                2) the ability to receive ships of the desired type based on the task ...
                Quote: Simargl
                Is it like if you increase it?

                no, just instead of 2 crews you need to have one and replaceable 2-3 warheads ... by the way, this will help create healthy competition - the crew gets more ... hi
                Quote: Simargl
                If anything, paint and recharge - this is not a modernization.

                you do not understand - replacing the container does not affect the ship, its combat readiness.
                Quote: Simargl
                Moreover, ship systems also require repairs. And modernization.

                who argues, but become outdated faster than weapons systems ...
                1. Simargl 10 February 2020 20: 52 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: ser56
                  you read Semenov - came to EM in PA, stood on the bridge - went on a campaign ...
                  Oh yes: in WoSh it is.

                  Quote: ser56
                  for testing interaction and training of drugs, 2 warheads can be displayed on the same ship with a specific container at once
                  The interaction between the same warhead? Why belay ?!
                  Quote: ser56
                  and on another ship with a different container - different warheads ...
                  Even if you weld them tightly, nothing will change.

                  Quote: ser56
                  I remind you, this is for ships in the near zone - study tours for 1-2 days ...
                  Blundered. However, to configure the ship purely for a training trip ... yes, I agree: 2-3 pieces per fleet are needed. Like the Yak-130.

                  Quote: ser56
                  implementation issue! this system has advantages that outweigh the cons, namely:
                  1) ease of modernization and repair
                  2) the ability to receive ships of the desired type based on the task ...
                  1 - modular repair is more difficult.
                  2 - it’s easier for us to take in quantity.
                  3 - if you take the number of modular - it will be usedоPorridge. Now she is, but will be wild.
                  Quote: ser56
                  no, just instead of 2 crews you need to have one and replaceable 2-3 warheads ...
                  As I understand it, a permanent crew is a commanding staff that does not manage removable systems well, because not always fully able to correctly keep them in the head, so the attendant (it’s a little easier for them). Replaceable 2-3 warheads? There is only one sense: Change the helicopter for something else. The hangar and the site are large. For example, an additional stock of shells, boats and a boarding crew of marines.

                  Quote: ser56
                  By the way, this will help create healthy competition - the crew gets more ...
                  According to the results of the fight, they decided who would go camping? So the marines will always be on horseback - they are stupidly more trained in melee angry .

                  Quote: ser56
                  you do not understand - replacing the container does not affect the ship, its combat readiness
                  Like BE ... then what's the point of changing?

                  Quote: ser56
                  who argues, but become outdated faster than weapons systems ...
                  Repair and modernization ... is it not clear? Repeat again.
                  1. ser56 11 February 2020 13: 53 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Simargl
                    The interaction between the same warhead? What for

                    Quote: Simargl
                    for working out interaction and training of drugs

                    don't want to understand the obvious? bully
                    Quote: Simargl
                    Even if you weld them tightly, nothing will change.

                    and in aviation this is the norm ....
                    Quote: Simargl
                    2-3 pcs per fleet so needed

                    in our realities it will not be bigger ....
                    Quote: Simargl
                    1 - modular repair is more difficult.
                    2 - it’s easier for us to take in quantity.
                    3 - if you take the number of modular - there will be a big mess. Now she is, but will be wild.

                    1) modules can be repaired separately ... request
                    2) Russia is small and there is little money ... it’s time to forget about the quantity ...
                    3) somehow switched from sails to steam, and then from art to rockets ... and then they can handle it ... request
                    Quote: Simargl
                    According to the results of the fight, they decided who would go camping?

                    according to the results of examinations on technology ... if there are 3 warheads on 5 ships, it’s easier to choose ...
                    Quote: Simargl
                    Like BE ... then what's the point of changing?

                    corny - had Cactus-2 in service, loaded Kautus-3 ... while the hp reserve warhead mastered the equipment in advance, loaded the container and the combat ready ... request
                    Quote: Simargl
                    Repeat again.

                    I don’t see the point — if you want, you will understand, you don’t want it — it’s pointless repeat
                    1. Simargl 12 February 2020 03: 56 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: ser56
                      obvious?
                      The obvious?

                      Quote: ser56
                      in our realities it will not be bigger ...
                      So this turns out to be a school desk, not a warship.

                      Quote: ser56
                      and in aviation this is the norm ....
                      Norma, but not quite, “Dagger” will not be hung on the Su-25.

                      Quote: ser56
                      1) ...
                      2) ...
                      3) ...
                      1 - I'm about the ship as a whole.
                      2 - well, yes: Magdalene Vinnen II and the Volkhov still cannot replace ...
                      3 - You do not offer from sail to steam and vice versa?

                      Quote: ser56
                      according to the results of examinations on technology ... if there are 3 warheads on 5 ships, it’s easier to choose ...
                      wassat good Do you understand what you say? If you already put a plug-in module, then according to the combat mission, and not your choice! Here the opinion of the crew somehow ... not much taken into account.

                      Quote: ser56
                      corny - had Cactus-2 in service, loaded Kautus-3 ... while the hp reserve warhead mastered the equipment in advance, loaded the container and the combat ready ...
                      For the training ship - that’s it.
                    2. ser56 12 February 2020 11: 14 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Simargl
                      So this turns out to be a school desk, not a warship.

                      Quote: Simargl
                      For the training ship - that’s it.

                      any warship is a desk, because BP is continuous - if this is news to you .. bully
                      Quote: Simargl
                      "Dagger" on the Su-25 will not hang.

                      even 101 KR will not ...
                      Quote: Simargl
                      and the Volkhov still cannot replace ...

                      and these are warships? bully You still remember about blockchains ...
                      Quote: Simargl
                      Do you understand what you say?

                      I - quite ... it's your problem with understanding the text ... request
                    3. Simargl 12 February 2020 19: 22 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: ser56
                      any warship is a desk, because BP is continuous - if this is news to you ..
                      That the warship is a school desk is news.
                      Well then, a soldier, first of all, a builder and a porter. After all, he constantly wears (ammunition, weapons, tools) and the builder (builds temporary fortifications, housing ...).

                      Quote: ser56
                      You still remember about blockchains ...
                      I was not the first to start.
                      Let’s do this: here, we have the Pacific Fleet. Which ships to replace with modular?
                      Given that, for example, 5 modular ships at a price like 6 ordinary.
                    4. ser56 13 February 2020 16: 39 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Simargl
                      That the warship is a school desk is news.

                      I sympathize...
                      Quote: Simargl
                      Well then, a soldier, first of all, a builder and a porter.

                      by no means a student ... like an officer
                      Quote: Simargl
                      Which ships to replace with modular?

                      soon decaying MPC, RTOs and basic TR
                    5. Simargl 14 February 2020 14: 39 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: ser56
                      by no means
                      Disappointing ...

                      Quote: ser56
                      soon decaying MPC, RTOs and basic TR
                      What is TR?
                      IPC is slightly larger than RTOs. Change torpedo and missile containers ... more precisely - TPK? Option. Only this is not the modularity that the Dutch (? - forgot) ...
  • sanek45744 6 February 2020 10: 41 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Have you served on a ship?
  • bayard 6 February 2020 11: 45 New
    • 17
    • 1
    +16
    Really surprised by the resurrected theme of modularity from the ashes. After all, it seems that the very experience of attempts to build and operate such ships showed that this is a dead end and cost overruns. What kind of savings can we talk about if several more sets of removable modules are being built for one ship built in a small VI? At a cost they will pull another ship, will gather dust in warehouses, taking up space and requiring maintenance and care, maintaining an additional l \ s on the staff ... and most of their lives without any benefit.
    Isn’t it easier for the same money to build TWO ships on the same base with a different set of weapons and use them for their intended purpose with the maximum benefit for business?
    If we talk about the BMZ, the most popular ships for it are the IPC and the escort guard. Minesweepers, tugboats, transports (!? request ) and other necessary combat units - this is a completely different song.
    Therefore, it is necessary to build two ships for specific tasks on the same base (hull, power plant, general ship systems). By optimizing the composition of their weapons for their main tasks and providing for the implementation of related ones.
    There is a good body 20380 with good seaworthiness for such a VI. but due to the small displacement the wagon does not come out of it.
    So there must be two types of ships in this hull. In this case, it is desirable to put more powerful engines for better speed performance.
    How else can this project be improved?
    What reserves does he have?
    You can abandon the helicopter hangar in favor of a movable (hangar). On such a small ship, the hangar really takes up too much space, and he does not always need a helicopter on an ongoing basis. Often, a ship either leaves with an empty hangar, or never uses a helicopter for the entire exit ...
    In place of the helicopter hangar, you can transfer the UKKS - so it will be closer to the center of mass and will have fewer restrictions on the use of the ballroom. And due to the free space on the tank before the cabin, expand \ increase the ammunition load of anti-aircraft missiles. If desired, thanks to the place freed from the hangar, in its place you can place the UKKS with a slightly expanded ammunition, say up to 12 missiles. This will make it possible to simultaneously carry both missile torpedoes and anti-ship missiles in normal (sufficient to carry out BZ) quantities, and, if necessary, the Caliber missile launcher for striking at stationary targets. And all this without prejudice to its anti-submarine capabilities.

    And to invent some new ship, and even a modular one ... no, enough, and so much time and money has been spent on these nonsense. We need to build ships based on existing prototypes.
    1. ser56 8 February 2020 15: 37 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: bayard
      We need to build ships based on existing prototypes.

      and if you look at aviation? there they hang up a removable container and get a reconnaissance or electronic warfare, hang up anti-ship missiles and get an anti-ship strike aircraft ... why don’t ships introduce this?
      1. bayard 8 February 2020 15: 56 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Tried, it turns out expensive and very burdensome. And why, I have already listed above. And the topic has long been beaten.
        The time of trial and error has passed, it is time to make choices and build real series.
        1. ser56 8 February 2020 16: 13 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: bayard
          Isn’t it easier for the same money to build TWO ships on the same base with a different set of weapons and use them for their intended purpose with the maximum benefit for business?

          but let's imagine - the enemy mined the approaches to the base, and you have one minesweeper, one IPC and one RTO ... while you are clearing ... and if the vehicle will die? Everything - the base is out of order ...
          Cleared mine - you need to strike - you again have one RTO, the strike is not massive ... request
          It is necessary to accompany the TR - you will send the IPC and RTOs ...
          And how will your capabilities change if you have trawl modules with GAS and KR?
          Quote: bayard
          Tried, it turns out expensive and very burdensome

          any idea can be ruined by implementation ...
          Quote: bayard
          it's time to make choices and build real series.

          and diesel engines aren’t ... request
          1. bayard 8 February 2020 18: 39 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: ser56
            and diesel engines aren’t ...

            Is recovering.
            Quote: ser56
            but let's imagine - the enemy mined the approaches to the base, and you have one minesweeper, one IPC and one RTO ... while you are clearing ... and if the vehicle will die? Everything - the base is out of order ...

            It’s not worth stupid, we have more than one basic minesweeper per base.
            Quote: ser56
            any idea can be ruined by implementation ...

            Spoil, fix.
            1. ser56 10 February 2020 11: 16 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: bayard
              It’s not worth stupid, we have more than one basic minesweeper per base.

              I proposed a model, you did not understand right away - stupidity ... hi
              Quote: bayard
              Is recovering.

              wait and see, in any case, why drive the corps - so that there are more posts for the bosses? bully
  • karabass 6 February 2020 16: 14 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Do not count on civilian ships! As soon as they begin, they will immediately be as far from the war as possible
  • novel66 6 February 2020 07: 46 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    absolutely right! CREW!!! while fighting robots with different programs have not developed a modular design, you can and should forget
    1. ser56 7 February 2020 16: 10 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: novel xnumx
      while fighting robots with different programs have not developed a modular design, you can and should forget

      although this all goes ... request more and more control goes through computers!
  • mark1 6 February 2020 07: 01 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    As a person who does not particularly understand the essence of the problem, there are questions on pr. 20380 (85);
    - Where did Caliber PL go? If you just didn’t put it, why not put it? (it is on pr. 20385)
    - Why not use the new "shell" missiles with a range of 40 kM (naturally with the installation of a radio command unit)? For one bq you can increase 4 times.
    1. D16
      D16 6 February 2020 07: 58 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Where did Caliber PL go?

      There UKKS. What will be downloaded will be.
      why not use the new "shell" missiles with a range of 40 kM

      To "shell" missiles need their own launcher, their own supply system B / K. The new missiles are miserable b / h and there is no possibility of circular firing. As an air defense system for the armored missile defense "Shell M" is not bad, except for its EPR, but it is absolutely not a zonal air defense system.
      1. mark1 6 February 2020 08: 07 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: D16
        There UKKS. What will be downloaded will be.

        Yes, this is what I know. The groans about the lack of PLUR on board the corvettes are not clear.
        Quote: D16
        As an air defense system for the armored missile defense "Shell M" is not bad, except for its EPR, but it is absolutely not a zonal air defense system.

        Why corvette zonal air defense? Self-defense for the eyes, and 40 kM is not such a small range. And at the expense of placement-modify on the principle of placement 9M100 (vertical launch of course a problem. But solved)
        1. Orkraider 6 February 2020 08: 35 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          hi
          The moaning about the lack of PLUR on board the corvettes is not clear.

          So UKKS only 20385, of which two pieces.
          All 20380 without them.
          1. mark1 6 February 2020 08: 55 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Are there many foreign corvettes with PLURs? Of course, I lagged behind life, but still I think, not one.
            I wonder if the "Bear" is alive? There could have been an exit just on the modular principle - X-35 or Medvedka with interchangeability of installations (yes, even partial), but I would simply unify it according to PKU.
        2. Kalmar 6 February 2020 10: 07 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Quote: mark1
          The moaning about the lack of PLUR on board the corvettes is not clear.

          PLUR somehow need to be brought. If the corvette does not have an adequate HOOK, there will be little use from PLUR.

          Quote: mark1
          Why corvette zonal air defense?

          Perhaps because there is nothing more to provide for it. The fleet has few ships; it is highly desirable that everyone knows how to cover himself and his neighbor. This is so, I suppose.
          1. D16
            D16 6 February 2020 10: 47 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            PLUR somehow need to be brought. If the corvette does not have an adequate HOOK, there will be little use from PLUR.

            If this cannot be done by the best HAC of the surface fleet, then why are these PLURs needed at all? laughing
          2. mark1 6 February 2020 12: 07 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Kalmar
            If the corvette does not have an adequate HOOK, there will be little use from PLUR

            Doesn’t it? How is the “package" to shoot?
        3. D16
          D16 6 February 2020 10: 42 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          Yes, this is what I know. The groans about the lack of PLUR on board the corvettes are not clear.

          Even curious, who shared this so confidential information with you?
          Why corvette zonal air defense?

          To cover the deployment area of ​​submarines and convoys from enemy aircraft.
          (vertical start is certainly a problem. but solved

          You would first look at the design of the rocket, think about how much its range will decrease when maneuvering declination and introduction into the beam, where to put the autopilot programmed at launch, etc. After all, the “Shell” missile is essentially a guided missile for the Kurchevsky gun laughing .
          1. Alexey RA 6 February 2020 11: 08 New
            • 9
            • 1
            +8
            Quote: D16
            To cover the deployment area of ​​submarines and convoys from enemy aircraft.

            This is the frigate’s task. Corvette defense should provide self-defense.
            Otherwise, instead of a mass ship, we will get a miracle at the cost of a frigate, and we will be able to make 3-4 of them per fleet.
            1. D16
              D16 6 February 2020 11: 38 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              And we have frigates a dime a dozen laughing Do you consider the Chinese way of budget development through the construction of empty cans and calling them corvettes more correct? We still won’t build so much, and we don’t have so much and are not expected to.
              1. Alexey RA 6 February 2020 12: 01 New
                • 8
                • 0
                +8
                Quote: D16
                Do you consider the Chinese way of budget development through the construction of empty cans and calling them corvettes more correct? We still won’t build so much, and we don’t have so much and are not expected to.

                Well, did we have enough personnel at the MPC OVR? wink
                Our fleet needs a mass ship to replace the OVR Albatrosses. These IPCs are already 30 years old or more, and it is time to write them off. And their combat value after 30 years without modernization is very doubtful. Moreover, without solving the near-field missile defense problem, sweeping at something more does not make sense at all - a large fleet simply cannot leave the bases.
                And if we build corvettes with the armament of frigates and at the price of frigates, then we will simply not have enough ships to carry out the IWR tasks. Moreover, the OVR will not receive these ships yet - they will be assigned to some brigade of surface ships and will be driven to the DMZ.
                1. D16
                  D16 6 February 2020 12: 45 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Well, did we have enough personnel at the MPC OVR? wink

                  I would say enough. In another country
                  Our fleet needs a massive ship to replace the OVR-Albatross
                  .
                  Sorry, comrade admiral, did not recognize by civilian laughing . These "Albatrosses" theoretically could find someone only in fine weather while lying in a drift with a fishing rod lowered. And by now, their chances are near-zero. IMHO it is better to invest in one effective ship than a dozen worthless.
                  a large fleet simply cannot get out of bases.

                  So he will not work out with an IPC of 4+ points. But it will come out with a diesel-electric submarine, for which the weather does not matter, and the anti-submarine qualities are not comparable with the IPC.
                  1. Alexey RA 6 February 2020 14: 15 New
                    • 4
                    • 0
                    +4
                    Quote: D16
                    These "Albatrosses" theoretically could find someone only in fine weather while lying in a drift with a fishing rod lowered. And by now, their chances are near-zero.

                    What I’m talking about:
                    Quote: Alexey RA
                    These IPCs are already 30 years old or more, and it is time to write them off. And their combat value after 30 years without modernization is very doubtful.

                    But if you simply write them off, then we get a hole in the near zone. Therefore, they need to be changed - to a mass OVR corvette (the same OVR corvette, the design work of which Chirkov closed in 2014, starting instead of purchasing pseudo-ships pr. 22160).
                    Low-noise GEM, full-fledged HAK, helicopter, "Package", possibly - PLUR. Air defense - only to fight off a pair of anti-ship missiles (air defense works at the base, under the umbrella of ground-based air defense).

                    For if there is no OVR, you can put an end to the fleet. Without OVR, even an SSBN will not be able to withdraw from bases.
                    1. D16
                      D16 6 February 2020 16: 06 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      Therefore, they need to be changed - to mass OVR corvette

                      And he did the right thing, that he closed it. Even taking into account all of the nishtyaks you have listed, he as much as China will cost him more than 20380 to Varshavyanka, since such a power plant is most likely not yet, and it will not be able to cover its boats from aviation.
                      1. Alexey RA 6 February 2020 16: 56 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        Quote: D16
                        And he did the right thing, that he closed it. Even taking into account all of you listed nishtyakov to Varshavyanka to him as to China

                        And how many opponents does Varshavyanka have in the North? wink There, for starters, you need to at least drive Virginia away from the bases.
                        And one more thing - Chirkov OVR closed the corvette, but did not present an alternative. Not to consider the “coastal systems and aviation” voiced by him (eight Il-38Ns for four fleets) as a solution to the problem?
                        Quote: D16
                        It will cost more than 20380, since there is probably no such power plant yet,

                        And here there are no options - such a power plant for the fleet should be irrespective of a specific project. Because otherwise you will have to return to the stars of the "Star" (112 pots - hear me world) or long and painful to do a gas turbine engine of relatively low power.
                        Quote: D16
                        and she won’t be able to cover her boats from aviation.

                        Why should the OVR corvette cover its submarines from aviation if it operates in the air defense zone of its base? If the air defense base could not cope, then 1144 will not be enough to cover the submarines.
                      2. D16
                        D16 6 February 2020 17: 19 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        And how many opponents does Varshavyanka have in the North? wink There, for starters, you need to at least drive Virginia away from the bases.

                        That's the joke that the all-electric Varshavyanka is much quieter than nuclear-powered ships. And he listens in the same way. If the 20380 from above also the BUGAS woofer in active mode works, then it immediately becomes a Wunderwaffe: and gets + 100500 to death laughing . The GEM is doing this for 20386. CODLOG. Email motors + turbines in full swing. Everything will be there. And Bugas, and 91P, and Redoubt, and seaworthiness, and kakava with tea laughing
                        Why should the OVR corvette cover its submarines from aviation if it operates in the air defense zone of its base?

                        The corvette should work where it is ordered, especially in fine weather. Accompany convoys for example.
        4. mark1 6 February 2020 12: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: D16
          After all, the “Shell” missile is essentially a guided missile for the Kurchevsky gun

          Well, yes, here you are right.
          Quote: D16
          Even curious, who shared this so confidential information with you?

          ??
  • pmkemcity 6 February 2020 07: 27 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    For "container" weapons, it is necessary to build a semi-civilian fleet, the daily business of which will be economic activity. But for the possibility of quick conversion of the vessel, for additional speed, autonomy, "landing capacity", etc., it is necessary to pay the operator. Both in America and England there are programs that work great. Everyone is happy.
    Or, as an option, do something like military transport aviation, i.e. ships that could earn their own living. Syria has shown the need for such ships, it is under the Russian flag.
    1. mark1 6 February 2020 08: 15 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: pmkemcity
      For "container" weapons, it is necessary to build a semi-civilian fleet, the daily work of which will be

      In the USSR, there was such a project 1609-Atlantic-type missile (25 knots), several ships were built. They departed with the Black Sea shipping company to the non-ship and were overbought by the Americans. Now they are "working" as part of the Navy.
      1. pmkemcity 6 February 2020 08: 24 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: mark1
        They departed with the Black Sea shipping company to the non-ship and were overbought by the Americans. Now they are "working" as part of the Navy.

        Once upon a time, they received water from Akhtuba. Dangled in the Strait of Malak, the same see, was chartered.
        In the blessed for people in stripes with business acumen, the 90s. XX century Pacific Fleet suffered significant losses. In addition to the unique docking ship Anadyr, the giant sea tanker Akhtuba with a displacement of 62,6 thousand tons was lost! The tanker was leased to National Pacific LTD and eventually disappeared. The head of this company, Mr. Meisel sold it for $ 4 million. The then head of the Pacific Fleet’s rear, Rear Admiral Serba optimistically assured that they would find and return Akhtuba. Alas, not found. Then there was information that the mastodon tanker was secretly cut into scrap metal in India. In hindsight, a decision will be made by the RF State Property Committee (and what was left to do?), From which it followed that the Akhtuba tanker was given to Meisel for the fleet's debts to him at the expense of mutual settlements. But the most interesting thing is that soon after all this, according to another lease agreement, approved again by the State Property Committee of April 28, 1994, Akhtuba is among other Pacific Fleet vessels (Killektor-927, Pechenga, Boris Butoma , Argun) was ... transferred to the Inakva company in Vladivostok. (https://fleetphoto.ru/vessel/13385/)
      2. D16
        D16 6 February 2020 11: 45 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        They departed with the Black Sea shipping company to the non-ship and were overbought by the Americans. Now they are "working" as part of the Navy.

        One seems to be left. But he works precisely in the Navy, and no one is trying to earn money on it in a civilian. For this is utopia. There is a gas turbine, though with a heat recovery circuit.
      3. Undecim 6 February 2020 15: 27 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        One of the four built only "works" - the former "Vladimir Vaslyaev" under the name Lcpl Roy M. Wheat.

        True, the Americans carried out a radical modernization of the ship: the hull of the ship was dismantled and extended by inserting an additional section. The full displacement of the roller increased to 50 thousand tons. The ship power station was replaced - American equipment is designed for a current frequency of 60 Hz. The rest of the design of the roller did not change - its unique power plant remained the same. Even with a 1,5 times displacement, the USNS LCPL ROY M. WHEAT is now capable of developing 20 knots. With the introduction of greater automation, the crew of the punter was reduced to 29 people.
        The remaining three in 2001-2002, the Indians dismantled for scrap.
    2. D16
      D16 6 February 2020 13: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      For "container" weapons it is necessary to build a semi-civilian fleet

      Such a fleet will be the same horseradish, both military and civilian. Do you think the MO will sponsor the construction and operation of such ships for merchants?
      1. pmkemcity 6 February 2020 13: 25 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: D16
        Do you think the MO will sponsor the construction and operation of such ships for merchants?

        And now, who are we sponsoring with Syrian transport? Miser pays twice. Adurak three times!
        1. D16
          D16 6 February 2020 15: 53 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          The Syrian Express badly needs a 25 nodal move? laughing As they bought cheap Turkish pelvis for a penny, they will sell it as it ends. Even if they do not sell, then they will work out their own. There would be a need, would buy a civilian roller. But cost the BDK.
          1. pmkemcity 7 February 2020 05: 36 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: D16
            As they bought cheap Turkish pelvis for a penny, they will sell it as it ends.

            If the Americans knew that this would happen, then the natives would never have sold their "pelvis" to us.
            1. D16
              D16 7 February 2020 07: 49 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Do you think that MO bought them? lol
              1. pmkemcity 7 February 2020 09: 21 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Quote: D16
                Do you think that MO bought them?

                Who cares? MO, nor MO. Yes, even Rotenberg. Anyway, from the pocket of the taxpayer.
                1. D16
                  D16 7 February 2020 12: 13 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  The cost of these ships is cheap, compared with the cost of developing special. design and construction of transports for the fleet.
                  1. pmkemcity 7 February 2020 13: 00 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: D16
                    The cost of these ships is cheap, compared with the cost of developing special. design and construction of transports for the fleet.

                    Press, so hard drinking - a horse, half the kingdom for a horse!
                    1. D16
                      D16 7 February 2020 17: 13 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      May 9, 2 UDC laid. You can carry equipment on it. Supply ships for the EMNIP fleet were built and handed over.
  • jonht 6 February 2020 07: 41 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    And in case of war? 15 modular 30 specialized will not replace. And where will the modules come from, if you need to put the antenna under the keel for the keel, you can certainly lower the towed from the stern, but about maneuvers with shifting the half-board rudder (15 g), there will be left or right problems, but if you lay down the side (25 gr) ?
    Modularity is possible as an additional element and not for everything you need to have on the ship.
    1. D16
      D16 6 February 2020 11: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      And in case of war?

      Golden words drinks . A peacetime fleet, of course, is also needed, but you should not abuse it.
    2. bayard 6 February 2020 12: 00 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      Yes nonsense Skomorokhov ran. He proposed building (roughly generalizing) 15 ships at a price of 30 (along with the cost of modules and infrastructure for their maintenance) and with obviously worse performance than specialized ships.
      All this modularity can only be useful to remake a trawler into a minesweeper for mobilization ... or into a submarine ... Everything else is whim and corruption (the industry would only be glad to such orders - well, it’s necessary to build several sets of modules in addition to one ship )
  • Lamata 6 February 2020 07: 51 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    It seems that conversations about the aircraft carrier and all kinds of Leaders there will remain so conversations.
  • SVD68 6 February 2020 08: 02 New
    • 14
    • 0
    +14
    Ships with interchangeable modular armaments have many advantages and only one drawback - in the case of real combat operations, it is necessary to negotiate with the enemy so that he fights one at a time: today by submarines, tomorrow by aviation, the day after tomorrow by surface ships, and after the day after tomorrow we land landing.
    If it is impossible to agree with the enemy, then there has long been an idea of ​​a balanced fleet capable of fighting against the diverse forces of the enemy at the same time.
  • The leader of the Redskins 6 February 2020 08: 03 New
    • 3
    • 5
    -2
    Thanks. As a "non-sailor" something cleared up. The horizon has expanded.
    1. Kuroneko 6 February 2020 08: 22 New
      • 12
      • 3
      +9
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      As a "non-sailor" something cleared up.

      The novel itself is “non-sailor” and poorly represents all the “pitfalls” of modularity.
      There are already a lot of cones on the modules (the same Danes mentioned by him in the first place). Apparently, he wants this cup not to pass us either. = _ =

      And he didn’t even think of mentioning any lack of modules. Which already makes a one-sided agitation from the whole article.
      PS I note that the LCS program in the United States itself is considered one of the largest national failures. Squandering resources is not clear on what and why.
  • Foxnova 6 February 2020 08: 13 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    We look at the corvettes and suddenly the Danish frigate which, with its displacement, can already be multi-purpose and without troubles with modules

    All described problems 20380 solved in 20385 again without modules

    With the modules we have 22160, everything is straight in the modules (sarcasm) on it and the usual crew can’t dial not only for the modules
    1. D16
      D16 6 February 2020 12: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      The Danes save by creating peacetime ships, which in which case can be made wartime ships, loading weapons and calling on reservists. But these reservists still need to be trained and periodically supported by their prof. suitability. This is not cheap either. The modules in the warehouse must not only be stored, but also maintained in good condition. Plus only in the convenience of modernization, but there is a strict restriction on volume. As with the MK-41.
      1. Foxnova 6 February 2020 12: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Denmark was occupied in one day last time
        1. D16
          D16 6 February 2020 12: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Next time, the fleet will definitely not help her.
  • Avior 6 February 2020 08: 18 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    It may make sense to use modularity to enhance existing capabilities
    There is an air defense missile system, an under-hull hull, a gun, and in the module an additional launcher for anti-aircraft missiles, a towed ASU or a trawl module, a module of shock missiles or MLRS for strikes along the coast in addition to the gun and so on
    Separate topic support module
    The landing party is preparing — additional ammunition for the gun, long patrols — an additional supply of food and water, and so on.
    That is, to strengthen certain functions, but the ship as a whole remains universal
    1. 1Alexey 7 February 2020 13: 50 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Avior
      It may make sense to use modularity to enhance existing capabilities

      Different modules require different crew qualifications. Shooting anti-aircraft missiles and, for example, trawling - these are completely different in skills of specialization, etc. That is, one crew cannot do.

      In addition, who will tell you in advance how the enemy will attack you: with the help of surface ships or with the help of submarines? Both modules are needed at the same time to be ready, that is, even frigates, not corvettes, are needed even in the coastal zone.
      Moreover, their cost is about the same: a modular corvette, pr. 20386 (without modules for trawling and MLRS) costs almost a unit of pr. 22350.
  • Sancho_SP 6 February 2020 09: 00 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    And what are the fleet's tasks? (from)

    In the near sea zone, especially in Russia, only anti-submarine activities are relevant.

    The fight against surface ships is coastal aviation. Cheaper, more secure (boats cannot be reached), more mobile. Well, coastal missile systems in particularly important areas.

    Landing of the enemy’s amphibious landing on the territory of the Russian Federation ... a fabulous scenario.
  • Konstantin Shevchenko 6 February 2020 09: 05 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Why does a corvette / guard watch need powerful air defense near the shore? If an unearthly air defense can well protect.
  • d4rkmesa 6 February 2020 09: 13 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Hahaha, again this modularity! Meanwhile, more than once or twice already discussed that this pseudo-modularity in fact, turns into more expensive maintenance and very limited capabilities. No, for some Arctic patrol icebreaker the rules, but anyway, “Caliber” can’t just be put into a commercial container, integration is not for you khukh-mukhra.
    1. God save the king 6 February 2020 10: 18 New
      • 1
      • 5
      -4
      “Gauges” were registered in containers much earlier than on warships.
      1. d4rkmesa 6 February 2020 11: 41 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Yes, judging by Wikipedia, Caliber-K was tested in 2012. In fact, there are no videos with tests in this design. In addition, if the CMS is not used from "another container", then you need to integrate with the CMSS of the ship. Each type of ship = essentially unique integration. That is, you can’t just put a container and go to sea to solve combat missions.
        1. g1washntwn 6 February 2020 12: 52 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: d4rkmesa
          there are no videos with tests in this design

          Sea containers except seen on ships? Was the deceased INF Treaty now to be observed? That's why you will not find anywhere.

          Quote: d4rkmesa
          you can’t just put a container and go to sea to solve combat tasks

          I will quote:
          "each starter module is completely autonomous"
          "It can be used in combination with active-passive or passive radar systems (including containerized), which allow to detect, identify, direction-finding and determine the coordinates of the target at a distance exceeding the flight range of the missiles. It can receive target designation data from any coastal, ship, aviation, satellite systems and complexes. "
          Which of the above does not allow “to immediately take and deliver”?
          I also note that Caliber-K (Club-K) does not fit the discussion about installing them on corvettes. Maybe, but not for this they were made. For corvettes, for example, a container version with harpsichord was made, the Americans sawed air drones. So what exactly is the addition and extension. For everything else, this is called not modularity, but unification.
      2. Alexey RA 6 February 2020 11: 44 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: God save the King
        “Gauges” were registered in containers much earlier than on warships.

        ICH, despite this, no one has ordered this container installation yet. Even the native Navy, very fond of pictures of ships with container launchers.
        1. God save the king 6 February 2020 12: 52 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          ICH, despite this, no one has ordered this container installation yet.
          so the Indians themselves bought the "calibers".
          Even the native Navy, very fond of pictures of ships with container launchers.
          still ahead, someday, domestic admirals will understand the need for a large-scale universal ship.
  • Maks1995 6 February 2020 09: 30 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And recently, just a month or two, here it was written in VO that modularity - bullshit, Catamarans - bullshit, timarans - too, they all have already been abandoned and will not be built.

    And then again - let's go with the modules ....
  • slm976 6 February 2020 09: 45 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The author, in his own words, with small additions retells a very controversial article "How to create a modern fleet of cubes", published in the Military-Industrial Courier, at the end of January this year:
    https://www.vpk-news.ru/articles/54902

    I honestly believed that the idea of ​​modularity, after a rather controversial experience with projects 22160 and 20386, will slowly order a long life, but this topic is starting to spin again !!!
    Although the idea is crazy, it is impossible to make the main combat systems of the ship modular. Accessories, some kind of diving module - please. And the modular core systems are nonsense.
    1. g1washntwn 6 February 2020 12: 55 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: slm976
      And the modular core systems are nonsense.

      If you do not confuse modularity with unification and apply it as intended, then the idea is not useless.
      1. slm976 6 February 2020 13: 44 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        It is not useless when it comes to what additional equipment that can really be crammed into one container and easily integrated into ship systems, as I wrote above. But it is absolutely useless when it comes to weapons systems, ASG and radar.
        1. g1washntwn 6 February 2020 14: 26 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          No one disputes about integrated GAS and radar. They have both dimensions and weight not in the container category.
          But for towed GAS in the container there is for example the Minotaur. Useful? I think so. Well, etc.
          The main thing is not to try to build a ship around the container. For the compactors of matter have not yet been invented.
  • Ros 56 6 February 2020 09: 50 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Judging by the article and comments on the site, a closed meeting of the operational-technical department of the headquarters of the Navy is open. good Then we will send the results of the discussion to the Navy Commander. fellow
  • Andrey Zhukov 6 February 2020 10: 10 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    The answer is given in project 20386 - everything is also modular there. So we can ...
    Why don't you write about it?
    One problem - EXPENSIVE!
    for the price it goes like a frigate Gorshkov.
    1. 1Alexey 7 February 2020 10: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Andrey Zhukov
      The answer is given in project 20386 - everything is also modular there. So we can ...
      Why don't you write about it?
      One problem - EXPENSIVE!
      for the price it goes like a frigate Gorshkov.

      That’s just the point - it turns out that it’s better even to patrol the coastal zone with frigates, the price is about the same, and the efficiency is much higher.
      1. Andrey Zhukov 7 February 2020 23: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        it is better to multiply corvettes 20380/20385 - they are cheaper and mastered in a series
        And frigates for the far sea zone
  • God save the king 6 February 2020 10: 13 New
    • 0
    • 5
    -5
    The author did not mention such an important thing as a significant reduction in the cost and acceleration of the construction of a large series of ships according to the same design, as well as the ease of modernization without major alterations.
    This alone makes modularity an attractive development area.
  • Devil13 6 February 2020 10: 45 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    And now look in numbers how much it really costs in% ratio from 055A or Arly-Burke.
    Modularity gives versatility, and drives the price.
    There are no crews anyway, and now imagine how many specialists with equipment to cook on the shore.
    We need normal ships of 7-8 thousand tons, so as not to "cram the unwelcome", and separation by tasks.
    The corvette’s task is anti-aircraft defense, guarding our waters, patrolling, escorting from pirates, etc. Anti-aircraft defense - they have enough analogue of the TOP / shell (the shell is shit oblique, but with guns ...) For self-defense, but bad - VPU with calibers in the anti-submarine version, or 533mm torpedo tubes and normal torpedoes, package-nk for self-defense, normal gas, towed, etc., buoys, etc., helicopter
    This can be shoved into the corvette up to 3 thousand tons.
    In 7-8 thousand tons of frigate (greetings from the French, Italians, etc.)
    You can cram without problems, and the crew can also comfortably - a couple of turntables / Drones, 16-24 cells 3C14, and up to 64+ cells for air defense, with normal polymer and "coverage area" up to 120km.
    It is necessary not to suffer garbage, but to build specific ships for specific tasks.
    Well, 12441 has not been canceled, as an example of the fact that the corvette CAN 3 thousand tons.
  • Santa Fe 6 February 2020 11: 36 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    You must admit that the same almost Washington 10 tons of Ticonderoga squeezed weapons well a little more than Arly Burke. But it’s like a cruiser ...

    Well, and why do you think?

    Answer...

    They are the same in terms of displacement.

    Answer - Burke was designed after the Falkland War. Its superstructure is made of steel
    Tiki add-ons are made of aluminum. which is not only burning, but also fragile

    ... During operation, cruisers were detected in 27 add-ons over 3000 cracks
    - www.navytimes.com, “The epidemic of cracking on Ticonderogs”


    that’s the whole answer why 1/3 less weapons
  • Usher 6 February 2020 11: 51 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    I do not understand why to breed all this cheese boron? There is a destroyer / light cruiser ship (Arly Burke), an absolutely universal platform for the distant sea zone, but finally build about the same as the Chinese did (052). And the frigate which is a little smaller (Project 22350 frigates). Well, anti-submarine corvettes, why shove "Redoubt" on it, you can "Calm" or even ZRAK leave. This is not his business, but the business of coastal corvettes, chasing American nuclear submarines. All the time they try to cram the invisible and at the same time save, the most important rule in life: quality can not be cheap and fast (in terms of speed of receipt). And we need cheaper and faster, then we need to crop Wishlist and lay what we need according to priority. And air defense of coastal zones is left for the Air Force and Air Defense, and not to the fleet. All the time they think, present, experience, and have already begun to stiffen, when will they start building? Piece copies, always such a thing, one will be built, and the second is another, and all the ships are not alike. They would rivet at least a series of 20-30 pieces. And then they would modernize, otherwise they won’t finish it. Share the skin of a dead bear. IMHO.
  • Alexey RA 6 February 2020 11: 52 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    You must admit that the same almost Washington 10 tons of Ticonderoga squeezed weapons well a little more than Arly Burke. But it’s like a cruiser ...

    So in fact, “Ticonderoga” - this is not a cruiser, but the same destroyer as the “Burke”. smile
    The Tiku was designed as an EM URO (the Aegis was pushed into the Spryuens case), ordered as an EM URO DDG-47 and built as an EM URO. It’s just that during the construction process the admirals declared that USN could not remain without new cruisers - and the destroyer became a cruiser by force.
    We had a similar situation with project 58.
    1. g1washntwn 6 February 2020 12: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Right Then they jokingly asked about the terms for renaming boats on DDG into battleships. smile
  • Protos 6 February 2020 14: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "this is the" Shell-1C ""
    Shell-1C 8.3 laughing
  • Scharnhorst 6 February 2020 14: 56 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    SHIP'S MODULARITY BY THE AUTHOR MEANS the rapid change of its specialization. And let me ask, how often is the task of ensuring an exit-meeting of the SSBN canceled? We’ll meet one, we don’t carry out the other, you see the universal modular ship went to trawl the neighboring bay or to support the landing! Etc. Specific combat missions are assigned not to individual ships, but to brigades and divisions, taking into account the area of ​​deployment, the likely enemy and the interacting units and subunits. And, of course, a specialized ship with a trained, trained crew will successfully complete these tasks, and not a set of modules with reservists on board. As they say in the air defense, it is impossible to guard the border with the "troika"!
    1. Alexey RA 6 February 2020 17: 00 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      And let me ask, how often is the task of ensuring an exit-meeting of the SSBN canceled? We’ll meet one, we don’t carry out the other, you see the universal modular ship went to trawl the neighboring bay or to support the landing!

      Worse. One ship met the submarine, then the modules were quickly changed to him - and he immediately became a warhead and went to trawl.
      And then the headquarters takes the next first modular ship that came across - and sets it the task of ensuring the release of the submarine. And he instantly changes the modules, and from the ship, say, the OP becomes a professional anti-submariner. smile
  • 5-9
    5-9 6 February 2020 15: 18 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Fourke is bad, but if you charge 9M100, and not 9M96, then it’s quite for yourself.

    Modularity is nonsense. Do the modules themselves cost more than the trough, make them 5 different so that 4 stand on the shore and spoil? At the same time, to the extra composition of this warhead around the standing module was engaged in drunkenness and debauchery? Moreover, from the service of the ship spoils primarily the power plant. Everyone has already forgotten about modularity ...
  • Igor Borisov_2 6 February 2020 16: 43 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Avior
    It may make sense to use modularity to enhance existing capabilities
    There is an air defense missile system, an under-hull hull, a gun, and in the module an additional launcher for anti-aircraft missiles, a towed ASU or a trawl module, a module of shock missiles or MLRS for strikes along the coast in addition to the gun and so on
    Separate topic support module
    The landing party is preparing — additional ammunition for the gun, long patrols — an additional supply of food and water, and so on.
    That is, to strengthen certain functions, but the ship as a whole remains universal


    You forgot the intelligence modules. Danish Fleks regularly patrolled with them in the Gulf of Gdansk. By the way, FR BOKHR type "Tetis" is also modular "Standard Flex-1000" ....
  • Arkon 6 February 2020 20: 25 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    In general, it’s clear where this came from in the Danish Navy, it’s enough to remember who Lego came up with.


    Of course we remember! Like the heroic defense of Denmark from the advancing Wehrmacht. Lasting an incredible 6 hours. The Danish fleet showed itself especially heroically, without firing a single shot.

    The geniuses of war, cho ...
  • Petrol cutter 6 February 2020 21: 15 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Oh I do not know.
    Modularity ... It is certainly smart and beautiful in theory. On practice...
    There are a lot of questions. And not just questions, but really QUESTIONS.
    Partly, which modules will be a priority, in what quantities to manufacture certain modules, how to guess the change of a module in a dramatically changing surface / underwater environment. Etc. etc.
    Again, the crew must be universal (rather, it’s utopia), or replaceable when replacing the module? Soon, then the crew will be partially interchangeable. Then, specialists working on each individual module should be prepared in advance ... How to deal with the coherence of the crew? ...
    1. 1Alexey 7 February 2020 10: 02 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Absolute modularity is a utopia, in my opinion.

      I think it’s ridiculous to make a ship that, thanks to replaceable modules, will be both a minesweeper, and an attack missile ship, and anti-submarine, and MDK.

      With this approach, he can still, in peacetime, be instructed to work both with a fishing ship and a dry cargo ship, and, if necessary, install combat modules. )))

      In my opinion, it is more logical to patrol even the coastal zone with frigates (such as pr. 22350), and for the "Far Sea" and "Ocean" zones use destroyers (such as pr. 20350M).

      Corvettes, in my opinion, will be flawed in any case. Making two corvettes (shock and PLO) will be more expensive than making one frigate. And the change of modules here is ineffective, because it is not known in advance how an attack (or provocation) by surface ships or submarines will occur.
  • xomaNN 6 February 2020 21: 18 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Modular (1 + 1) is not equal to 2! In our conditions, 1 TFR and 1 PLO are in every way better than a hypothetical platform (not even in the project) and a set of modules (there is not even a clear idea). So the Russian Navy will not soon order this smile
  • Lexus 7 February 2020 01: 46 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Yeah ... Roman, thanks for the article! good With humor about sad things.
    If we start the ascent from somewhere “in the depths of the near-bottom space”, then by dumping the “ballast” in the guises of those who for decades have not been able to clearly formulate the defense doctrine as a whole and the naval in particular. Those who constantly religiously victorious about and without just not lose their “trust” (it’s a pity that they don’t put them on the wall) practically “reigned” ^ Roskomnadzor ^, having brought to him the bad news, received in this way, and also due to kinship and investments "awards, titles and positions to which they never will ever reach the mind. Otherwise, there will be a knock on the earth’s crust, and there will be another “projects that have no analogues” that will act “on top of the new physical principles” in the mantle of the Earth, “super secret”, and therefore no one will see them. And on the Russian coast (and maybe already on them), in the meantime, others will host. hi
  • 1Alexey 7 February 2020 09: 21 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And why did the author decide that cruisers such as "Orlan"
    can't hunt for submarines
    ?

    Very much can !!!
  • rudolff 7 February 2020 10: 20 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    No matter how flawed modularity is, but it will be. For the simple reason that Putin, at the last meeting on the Navy in December last year, identified modularity as a priority in military shipbuilding. You can discuss nothing further. We are waiting for new Patrolmen with platforms for containers, we are waiting for the next a la Mercury (86th).
    1. 1Alexey 7 February 2020 13: 23 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: rudolff
      No matter how flawed modularity is, but it will be.

      It is not modularity itself that is injurious, but an attempt to achieve universalization of the ship with its help. And instead of, for example, a frigate, build a corvette with modular weapons.

      And the modularity itself can even be useful: for example, you can remove a failed module for repair and instead install a backup module from the warehouse, rather than send the entire ship for repair.
      1. Petrol cutter 7 February 2020 20: 47 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        But in this planet. Such a thought did not visit me.
        Although, more often the carrier itself goes for repair for one reason or another than repair armaments are required. To date.
  • Vladimir Mashkov 7 February 2020 15: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Maybe I'm wrong, but, in my opinion, the modular idea is seductive, but rotten. Suitable only in peacetime for small boats is limited.
  • Polar Bear 7 February 2020 19: 12 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well, what if the situation at sea changes? Every time for new modules to run to the base? The correct approach is to build ships of the frigate and destroyer type in the required number. There is money for it. They just don’t want to take them from the rich and over the rich whose fleet of luxury yachts is several times larger in number of ships of the Navy.
  • fomin 8 February 2020 18: 30 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Simple
    I would like to add the following consideration:
    The modularity presented by the author of the article can still go in peacetime
    (closing one eye on organizational issues on both material and human security).
    But completely unsuitable when the country is in martial law:
    Then the number of warships “here and now (in war major circumstances that the headquarters of the fleet could not have foreseen)” and not a modular container with the specialists assigned to them the next day will be sharply needed.

    Dear opponents, you imagine that during the war we will lose part of the warships i.e. need to fight, and not what, what to do? Rebuild? Long and expensive, how will we mobilize civilian vessels during the Second World War, and how can we arm them? This is where the combat containers will be. By the way, if anyone has already wrinkled wears civilian vessels, I’ll say that in the still prosperous and well-fed America, the Arapaho plan has long been developed; this plan provides for the use of civilian vessels in military operations. The first to apply this plan to the British in the war for the Falkland Islands, they mobilized container ships, one of them served as an aircraft carrier.
    1. Karen 8 February 2020 18: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: fomin
      The first to apply this plan to the British in the war for the Falkland Islands, they mobilized container ships, one of them served as an aircraft carrier.

      Really? I watched an American film about this war ... It was said that the British government was planning to sell an aircraft carrier, and if Argentina waited a couple of months, it would not have faced this formidable phenomenon ...
  • Sckepsis 12 February 2020 17: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0

    Surprisingly, no one thinks about the topic of modular systems in shipbuilding.

    And 21160 why not count?
  • Vadim777 30 March 2020 14: 35 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    What is the conclusion of the article? The Russian fleet now needs naval aircraft carriers to ensure the withdrawal of nuclear submarines in the operational space and the squadron breaking through the sea blockade with the same task, AWACS seaplanes (from the realm of fantasy) ... Who is talking about, and the woman is about canned food ...
  • Arthur 85 April 8 2020 15: 32 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I went to the site http://www.virtus-china.ru/index.php/item/57-universalnyj-sukhogruz-kontejnerovoz-dedvejtom-12-000-tonn-665-teu 12 thousand tons of cargo ship 17 million dollars. 14 months construction period. Then put the container with bulletproof guns, put the module crew in it. On top of it is a container with any missiles, or a doubled container with a sacred radar. Not enough energy - containers with generators. On the crane - towed gas. It is for them to change these containers. At the time of operation of the crane, the GAS should be held by the forces of the crew that left their armored containers. And "avery blue wont."
  • Angry April 26 2020 08: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Modularity is Utopia! In my opinion, everyone has already spoken out about this. Did the Swedes have one experience? Have you played, played your own SuperFlex-300? (I can mistake the name of these boats from memory) they made them specialized out of universal ones, and quickly got rid of them. And no one accepted or developed their “experience”. Because specially-better than universal. Modularity can exist only as a planned modification of a ship, in which new weapons or mechanisms must be compatible but in size and can be massed with previously installed weapons and installed on existing foundations ... That is, you must immediately plan and build ships on which to provide several points re-equipment, both deck-based and under-deck, for which modules should be developed for existing models of weapons, in the required dimensions. Of course, they should be in several dimensions. For example, for a pair of UKKS 5x5x10 m. For AC and SAM 5x5x5 m. For SPACES 3x3x3 m. Etc. Having such "cellars", during the next repair, the time of its holding is accelerated with re-equipment with new types of weapons and equipment. However, I’m not opening America here, the whole world is building its fleets in this way. Changing weapons modules not in operational terms, but in planned modernization, possibly with a change in the purpose of the ship. And taking into account possible exports, these modules should already be compatible with existing weapons models of other countries of the world.