Upgraded "Marshal Shaposhnikov" will receive a new gun mount A-190-01

Upgraded "Marshal Shaposhnikov" will receive a new gun mount A-190-01

Undergoing repair and modernization, the former large anti-submarine ship, retrained to the frigate "Marshal Shaposhnikov", is changing its artillery. Instead of two bow 100-mm AK-100 guns, the ship will receive a 100-mm gun mount A-190-01. This was reported by Izvestia with reference to the Ministry of Defense.


The modified A-190-01 installation passed all tests and was adopted eight years ago. It has a rate of fire of up to 80 rounds per minute with a maximum range of over 20 km. She can also shoot down aircraft at an altitude of up to 15 km. At the same time, the installation tower is made using the "stealth" technology, which reduces the likelihood of "glow" of the frigate on radars. The two A-100 gun mounts previously installed on the ship were developed back in the 70s of the last century and were clearly visible on enemy radars.

Earlier it was reported that the large anti-submarine ships of Project 1155 will become frigates, a decision on this has already been made at the Ministry of Defense. In the first summer of 2019, the Marshal Shaposhnikov BPC, which is undergoing modernization at the Dalzavod in Vladivostok, was officially retrained. The remaining ships of this project will be retrained after passing the modernization. According to the source, the upgraded ships will combine the capabilities of carriers of precision cruise missiles and anti-submarine ships.

During the modernization, the Marshal Shaposhnikov has already installed the Uran anti-ship complex with X-35 missiles, the universal caliber, Onyx or Zircon cruise missile launcher, the Bagira fire control system for naval artillery, the ship electronic suppression complex TK-25.

After replacing two A-100 gun mounts with one A-190-1, the fate of the armament that stood on the BOD before modernization remained unknown: two 45-mm semi-automatic guns 21-KM, four 30-mm ZAK AK-630, two SAM "Dagger", two anti-submarine complexes "Rastrub-B", two reactive-bomb installations RBU-6000, as well as torpedo tubes. On board the BOD are two Ka-27PL helicopters.

The total displacement of the ships of the 1155 project is 7570 tons, the hull length is 163,5 meters. Speed ​​- up to 32 nodes, cruising range - 5 thousand miles on 18 nodes, autonomy - 30 days. Crew - 220 people (including 29 officers).
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Victor_B 15 March 2020 11: 31 New
    • 24
    • 25
    -1
    In some news I read that it was not installed STELS tower!
    That is, the enemy, without detecting the AU, will safely shout to the buffet!
    1. Aerodrome 15 March 2020 11: 42 New
      • 37
      • 6
      +31
      Quote: Victor_B
      In some news I read that it was not installed STELS tower!
      That is, the enemy, without detecting the AU, will safely shout to the buffet!

      Of course, stupidity is utterly stupid with "stealth", which is of no use to the gun turret, if the ship’s architecture itself is completely different. fellow
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 13: 01 New
          • 15
          • 3
          +12
          Quote: Victor_B
          Only a dumb journalist can write in the news feed

          alas, there are just such a sea. All news feeds are full of headlines in the style of "Russian" Marshal Shaposhnikov "get a stealth gun"
          1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 15 March 2020 14: 39 New
            • 6
            • 0
            +6
            Quote: Gregory_45
            All news feeds are full of headlines in the style of "Russian" Marshal Shaposhnikov "get a stealth gun"

            The main gun is not only stealth, I am also light. The body of protection for the A190-01 naval artillery mount is made of plastic composite materials, which resulted in a reduction in the mass of the product with high strength and resistance to the transfer of shock loads during firing.

            1. TermNachTer 15 March 2020 16: 09 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              What about PU? On the "marshal" will put UVP or will remain old?
            2. bayard 15 March 2020 22: 22 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Gazelle brought the whole tower ... however.
              And when in the ranks to wait for "Shaposhnikov", Aristarchus? In this, as I understand it, the year will not wait?
              And where are they going to upgrade everyone else? If only in the Vladivostok SRZ, then everyone will definitely not be in time. And it would be necessary.
              1. alexmach 15 March 2020 22: 40 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                According to the plans this year ...
                1. bayard 15 March 2020 22: 55 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Then for the Pacific Fleet it will be a real holiday!
                2. musorg 16 March 2020 12: 07 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  Get a stealth gun, which one there this year. For how many years I have heard surrender, now they are silent.
                  1. alexmach 16 March 2020 13: 08 New
                    • 3
                    • 0
                    +3
                    Get a stealth gun

                    1. the gun is a trifle.
                    2. not a fact that they have not yet received and have not installed, but even if it still lies there next to the cranes, then installing it is not such a big deal compared to the full amount of work being done.
              2. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 16 March 2020 17: 24 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: bayard
                And when in the ranks wait for "Shaposhnikov"

                hi This year they planned. This is the starting deadline, then the rates begin to rise!
            3. Grits 16 March 2020 02: 54 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
              The main gun is not only stealth, I am also light.

              The main thing here, of course, is not stealth. And the fact that this tower with a gun was developed as universal for many projects. Including having an architecture of stealth. And since there was no point in installing an old cannon with a tower, they just stuck a new, improved one.
        2. The comment was deleted.
      2. Hagalaz 15 March 2020 12: 07 New
        • 10
        • 0
        +10
        Well, here most likely claims should be presented to the writer of the article. And the author, in general, does not exactly position the stealth tower technology as the reason for the replacement on this ship. And the reason for the replacement, for example, may be the deterioration of old trunks, some mechanisms, and the modernization of systems. And in this case, it is more rational to replace the entire tower with the one that the plant produces when the old one is discontinued. Do not renew the same.
        1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 12: 25 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Hagalaz
          And the author, in general, does not exactly position the stealth tower technology as the reason for the replacement, on this ship

          all the same, it’s not very clear why they delivered the AU with the tower in the stealth form factor, although the plant can also produce the AU with the tower “classical” for our Navy

          in particular, they were installed on frigates pr.11356
          1. Ratmir_Ryazan 15 March 2020 13: 38 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            in particular, they were installed on frigates pr.11356


            On frigates A-190 with a tower made taking into account stealth -

            1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 13: 49 New
              • 0
              • 2
              -2
              Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
              On frigates A-190 with a tower made taking into account stealth -

              artillery mount frigate pr.11356 Trishul Indian Navy:


              gun mount frigate pr.11356R "Admiral Grigorovich" Russian Navy
              1. Ratmir_Ryazan 15 March 2020 14: 01 New
                • 14
                • 2
                +12
                See the bookmark date for frigates for India and Russia.

                They used to build a tower for India and therefore put up a tower which the plant could then release, a new tower was made in parallel and now they are only setting up a new type on all ships, both new and modernized.

                And this is correct, since it is simpler, more logical and cheaper.

                What is the point of keeping equipment at the factory and making old-style towers ?! Versatility is the way to save.
          2. venik 15 March 2020 14: 30 New
            • 5
            • 3
            +2
            Quote: Gregory_45
            all the same, it’s not very clear why they delivered the AU with the tower in the stealth form factor, although the plant can also produce the AU with the tower “classical” for our Navy

            =======
            But do not you know?
            Then I will try to explain:
            At first: The plant can no longer produce towers of “classical” forms, as you put it, because it switched to SERIAL production of new towers (which means the equipment, some machines, etc. have changed - in short, changing the WHOLE technological cycle!
            Second: And the SENSE in this (tower production using old technology) WHAT ??? Swell a bunch of dough in recovery old technology ..... For the "beauty" or something ???
            Third: AK-190-01 more than double cheaper and more than double easierthan the old AK-100 (15 tons versus 35 tons!) ...
            -----
            Quote: Gregory_45
            in particular, they were installed on frigates pr.11356

            =======
            Yah! What are you talking about! Not pr. 11356 old towers were placed only on frigates for the Indian Navy, laid before 2012!
            On our way installed AK-190 (and in the "stealth" version:

            Here is Admiral Grigorovich near the construction wall of the Yantar Shipyard, 18.06.2014/XNUMX/XNUMX
            1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 14: 36 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Quote: venik
              Third: the AK-190-01 is more than half the price and more than half the size of the old AK-100 (15 tons versus 35 tons!)

              thank you, but I know this, and it was not about the mass

              Quote: venik
              Yah! What are you talking about!

              I say so. Project 11356 - for the Indian Navy, for the Russian Navy - Project 11356R.

              Quote: venik
              On our way installed AK-190 (and in the "stealth" version

              and I know this very well (re-read the comments)

              Quote: venik
              First: The plant can no longer produce towers of the "classic" form

              you say this as a person in the subject, or is it your assumptions?

              Quote: venik
              in short, changing the whole technological cycle!

              no, not all. Only in that part which concerns a tower casing. Apart from the hinges of several additional systems, the insides of the tower remained the same
              1. venik 15 March 2020 16: 33 New
                • 3
                • 3
                0
                Quote: Gregory_45
                First: The plant can no longer produce towers of the "classic" form
                you say this as a person in the subject, or is it your assumptions?

                =======
                Enough "in the subject." Not specifically regarding the A-190. It’s just that I often had to go to machine-building factories at work, therefore I am well aware of what costs, for example, require switching to another (even slightly modified) body shape of a car. How much it requires money, resources, labor, as it affects the pace of production. Even a small change in the design of a refrigerator or a washing machine is still a "pain in the neck" !!!
                AND FOR WHAT DOES IT NEED? To make the artillery tower "more aesthetic" (from your point of view)? Is the question price too high ???
                1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 16: 49 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: venik
                  Not specifically regarding the A-190.

                  means not in the subject. Specifically for the A-190 you can’t explain, and you only have assumptions.

                  Quote: venik
                  Just for work, I often had to go to engineering plants

                  I myself worked for 11 years in the defense design bureau, and I know perfectly what engineering is. As well as the fact that snap does not have to be destroyed.
                  In addition, shipboard ACs are not a conveyor assembly. There is no need for a conveyor, piece products.
                2. Piramidon 15 March 2020 22: 35 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: venik
                  AND FOR WHAT DOES IT NEED? To make the artillery tower "more aesthetic" (from your point of view)?

                  Well, at least for the sake of weight loss. And the author used all these "stealth" for an ode of a tower for a "red word". Maybe the word "stealth" he likes.
        2. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 13: 06 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: Hagalaz
          And the reason for the replacement, for example, may be

          for example, the AK-100 is no longer manufactured. Like spare parts for them.
          1. Hagalaz 15 March 2020 13: 30 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            I agree, the issue is not sufficiently covered. I think, and the author has no information about the reasons for making a decision in this particular case.
      3. venik 15 March 2020 12: 33 New
        • 7
        • 4
        +3
        Quote: Aerodrome
        Of course, the magnitude is utterly unreasonable with "stealth", which is of no use to the gun turret, if the ship’s architecture itself is completely different.

        ========
        I agree! Here the authors, of course, were "too smart", or rather, they demonstrated complete incompetence! .... Here the "trick" is certainly not in the "stealth" tower (with lattice masts and vertical metal superstructures - this is nonsense!) - just the AK-190-01 more perfect system compared to the AK-100. It's just that it was initially mass-produced using stealth technologies. In this form, and set.
        Other "pearls" - such as:
        "....In the course of modernization, the Uran missile defense system with X-35 missiles, the universal caliber, Onyx or Zircon cruise missile launcher were already installed on Marshal Shaposhnikov..... "
        Immediately the question: If they put the UKSK "Caliber" there then what the hell out there is also needed "Uranus" ???? request
        1. alexmach 15 March 2020 13: 01 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          Immediately the question: If they put the UKSK "Caliber" there then what the hell out there is also needed "Uranus" ????

          And why not put it for small purposes. The sit is here. Still, it would not hurt to have a very small missile system for equipping ships to fight all sorts of Shahid boats and other non-independent armored boats. It would be useful for small ships at least.

          By the way, here the author is not at all to blame, this is not the first report about such a combination of USKK + "Uranus" missile weapons.
          1. venik 15 March 2020 13: 30 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: alexmach
            this is far from the first report of such a combination of USKK + "Uranus" missile weapons.

            =====
            I doubt however ..... Although, what the hell is not joking? They can also implant instead of the "Bell" .... Then instead of the second tower, it will be possible to squeeze out not 1x8 but 2x8 UKKS! It just comes out in terms of weight (without disturbing the alignment), but in terms of dimensions - I think it will squeeze in! Then a very weak boat will turn out .....
            Well, and about "fighting off jackals" - so there are both AK-190 and AK-630, and the "Dagger", as far as I know, can work on small surface targets .....
            1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 15 March 2020 14: 00 New
              • 8
              • 0
              +8
              Quote: venik
              Then instead of the second tower it will be possible to squeeze not 1x8 but 2x8 UKKS!

              Vladimir hi on "Marshal Shaposhnikov" will be 2x8 UKKS. AU A-190 is under the tap. The number of missiles increases by 2 times, the range of fire on a surface target increases by 3 times, it becomes possible to fire at ground targets from a long distance (which was previously not the case). As the dagger with a range of 12 km remains on the ship, it does not pull the URO destroyer. After modernization, there will be 16 Caliber and 8 Uranus.
              1. venik 15 March 2020 15: 30 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                Thanks! Very interesting information! True, I didn’t quite see under which particular crane the A-190 stands - under the average?
                --------
                Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                As the dagger with a range of 12 km remains on the ship, it does not pull the URO destroyer.

                =======
                Here it’s not entirely clear to me. Is the class of a ship determined by type anti-aircraft rockets ??? If the SAM "self-defense" - then the destroyer "does not pull", and if the "zonal" - then it "pulls"? Where then, etc. 20385 with its "Redoubt" - you can "record" in destroyers URO or something ??? There by the way and the "Caliber" is still available .....
                I generally thought that the rank of the ship is determined mainly by displacement, seaworthiness, autonomy and range ....
                Maybe wrong of course ??
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 16: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: venik
                  I generally thought that the rank of the ship is determined mainly by displacement, seaworthiness, autonomy and range

                  rank is determined by the totality
                3. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 15 March 2020 18: 27 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: venik
                  True, I didn’t quite see under which particular crane the A-190 stands - under the average?

                  Yes, there, behind the A-100, a new faceted A-190 tower is visible.
                  Quote: venik
                  Is the class of the ship is determined by the type of anti-aircraft missiles ??? If the SAM "self-defense" - then the destroyer "does not pull", and if the "zonal" - then it "pulls"? Where then, etc. 20385 with its "Redoubt" - you can "record" in destroyers URO or something ??? There by the way and the "Caliber" is still available .....
                  I generally thought that the rank of the ship is determined mainly by displacement, seaworthiness, autonomy and range ....

                  After modernization, 1155 will still retain anti-submarine specialization, but will also receive shock potential, which was not there before. But he will not become a destroyer. In general, it’s even somehow funny: they send a corvette to the 1155mod destroyer and it’s almost superior to the air defense capabilities in terms of air defense capabilities.
                  1. venik 15 March 2020 19: 08 New
                    • 2
                    • 1
                    +1
                    Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                    Yes, there, behind the A-100, a new faceted A-190 tower is visible.

                    =====
                    Yeah, I saw! It’s a pity it’s a little bad, but thanks for that too!
                    -----
                    Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                    But he will not become a destroyer.

                    =====
                    Well, I do not quite agree. Take the British Daring (type 45). There, in addition to anti-aircraft weapons (48 Aster missiles and 2 Volcanoes), and even 114-mm guns, there is really nothing more !!! Neither do you have any shock or anti-submarine weapons .... Anti-torpedo weapons - shot noise producers of interference and jammers.
                    And yet, the "destroyer" is considered, though with a reservation - the Britons themselves call it the "air defense destroyer" ....
                    And the question is: Why not call 1155 "destroyer PLO"??? Anti-submarine weapons there are powerful (unless of course TA and RBU are removed). The latter, by the way, have shown themselves quite well as anti-torpedo weapons .....
                    -------
                    Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                    In general, it’s even somehow funny: they send a corvette to the 1155mod destroyer and it’s almost superior to the air defense capabilities in terms of air defense capabilities.

                    =======
                    Well, I’m talking about that !! drinks
                    1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 21: 13 New
                      • 2
                      • 2
                      0
                      Quote: venik
                      Take the British Daring (type 45). There, in addition to anti-aircraft weapons (48 Aster missiles and 2 Volcanoes), and even 114-mm guns, there is really nothing more !!! Neither strike nor anti-submarine weapons

                      here you are cool wrong.
                      Let's start with PLO. Yes, Daring itself does not have anti-submarine strike weapons, but it has a powerful ASG, as well as an anti-submarine helicopter. It is helicopters that will take on the function of destroying submarines (torpedoes or depth charges), along with KUG corvettes. The helicopter in this regard is more effective than a surface ship.

                      As for strike weapons. In the current configuration, Daring does not carry it, but - there are reserved places for the installation of a 2x4 Harpoon launcher, as well as UVP Mk41 (12 cells). And to establish them is a matter of several days. And download at least the latest anti-ship missiles such as SCALP Naval or LRASM, at least Axes. Total - 20 anti-ship and cruise missiles.

                      Of course, he cannot be compared with Burke in the shock plan, but the British put emphasis on air defense / missile defense. And in this hypostasis, Daring is effortlessly able to plug even the vaunted Burke with Aegis into his belt. Not to mention domestic BODs not of the first freshness (which, apart from short-range air defense systems and a pair of automatic rifles, alas, have nothing)
              2. Dante Alighieri 15 March 2020 17: 26 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                then he doesn’t pull on the destroyer URO

                Aristarchus, I welcome you! That's the problem, that even after such a large-scale (and apparently far from expensive) upgrade for a middle-aged ship, Shaposhnikov still will not be able to take on all the functionality of his 956 destroyer companions, who have sunk into oblivion, on which even today it is very tolerant of air defense in the face of the Shtil air defense system (at least the Chinese frigates 054A and the Russian-Indian frigates 11356 are still equipped with it not only in the beam version, but in the form of cells). But this moment, too, could be solved if there were inclined UKSK ZS-14, which would easily fit in the place of Rastruba, while the space vacated after dismantling the second hundredth (AK-100) could be filled with the same Calm for 24 rockets - putting something more expensive does not make sense. In addition, Calm is very compact in both weight and dimensions, the Fregat-M2EM track-coordinate radar serves as the detection station, which will be delivered in the course of modernization, and the nuts of the radar-illumination do not take up much space without aggravating much the perfect radar appearance of the ship, characteristic of all military vessels produced in the mid-80s (of course from today's perspective). Then it would be a truly universal ship that poses a threat to all types of targets: underwater, surface, air and land. Moreover, even in such a "fat" layout, it would be possible to find a place for Uranus (for example, immediately behind a folding crane, in the area of ​​PTA-533), it would be enough to limit it to just 2 Dagger drums in the stern (next to RBU-6000), which on most 1155 and so are absent in view of the fact that the ships were introduced into the fleet earlier than the complex was put into service and to "complete" the ship with all 4 of the projected stern drums of the Dagger put forward hardly makes any special sense.
                1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 15 March 2020 18: 40 New
                  • 3
                  • 1
                  +2
                  Good evening Cyril hi I don’t see the point in upgrading 1155 (given the problems of the hull, cable routes, mechanisms, ancient electronics), which are 30 +++ years old, but I understand that with very limited resources and (in many ways) the loss of shipbuilding competencies, repairs with modernization existing units - an inevitable half measure that will save the fleet.
              3. PROXOR 15 March 2020 18: 50 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Thank. With a dagger just does not reach the destroyer. It’s a pity that at least S-300F missiles cannot be shoved into the UKKS. Although there you need to completely push the target tracking radar.
              4. bayard 15 March 2020 22: 46 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                on "Marshal Shaposhnikov" will be 2x8 UKKS.

                Aristarkh Ludwigovich, but after all, 1155 has enough space for the installation of 3 UKKS, as on the reinforced 22350 (22350+), and such a solution would be more balanced in terms of weapon composition:
                - 8 submarines rocket torpedoes;
                - 8 anti-ship missiles "Onyx" \ "Zircon";
                - 8 KR "Caliber" for strikes along the coast.
                + 8 anti-ship missiles "Uranus" for less priority purposes.
                + heavy torpedoes that seem to remain in their places.

                A deeper modernization does not make sense - price, terms of modernization, age of ships.
            2. PROXOR 15 March 2020 18: 48 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              So I sent, it turns out almost the destroyer. What about his air defense? If there is at least Polement Redut, then definitely the Destroyer.
          2. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 14: 14 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: alexmach
            And why not put it for small purposes. The sit is here

            there is no need to produce single-purpose systems on the ship that are not compatible with PU. It is logical to put UKKS under Gauges and Onyxes (there are PUs in both UVP and oblique PUs).
            Around the world, they switched to UVP, practically abandoning individual launchers. The Americans took Harpoons from Burkov.
            UVP allows you to flexibly vary the ammunition depending on the task (PLO, air defense or shock functions)

            Quote: alexmach
            Still, it would not hurt to have a very small missile system for equipping ships to deal with all sorts of Shahid boats and other non-independent armored boats.

            the nearest defense zone should be assigned to artillery (100 mm and AK-630).

            But the medium-range air defense system on the BOD would not be in the way. At least Redoubt
            1. alexmach 15 March 2020 15: 52 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              there is no need to produce single-purpose systems on the ship that are not compatible with PU.

              Somewhere slipped the estimate for the purchase of equipment for the modernization of "Shaposhnikov", PU "Uranus" was listed in it.
              It is logical to put UKKS under Gauges and Onyxes (there are PUs in both UVP and oblique PUs).

              In UKKS ammunition is not large. Inclined PU UKKS are not in service with any ship. Moreover, it is not clear whether one of them can launch missiles of the Callibre family at all. Although, of course, they would be just right for modernizing ships of old projects.
              But the medium-range air defense system on the BOD would not be in the way. At least Redoubt

              I agree, another "Calm-1" was offered. But there was an opinion that this would make the modernization too costly, and since the ship is not a new one, its service life will be limited in any case, and investing in its modernization is too rational.

              But in general, it is very interesting to see how the ship will be released after modernization, and it is very desirable to drive out all available 1155 through this modernization
              1. Dante Alighieri 15 March 2020 18: 23 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Inclined launcher in some way is already used on undergoing modernization of submarines, pr. 949 Irkutsk and Chelyabinsk. In the launch glasses of Granites, farms with guides for Onyx or Caliber rockets are simply installed. Granite launchers themselves remain in their rightful place and at their traditional angle. Moreover, due to the fact that 24 Granites by weight turn out to be lighter than 72 Onyx (176 kg against 640 kg, excluding the weight of the liner farm), it is planned to use combined options, where part of the PU is reserved only for Onyx, and part for lighter Gauges, which means for the latter there are also no restrictions on the angle of inclination (the main thing, as I understand it, is that the angle should be at least 216 degrees and not more than 000). So anything would be possible desire and will.
                Damn, I print these lines and understand that we have lost the guaranteed 72 cruise missiles that Belgorod could be equipped with ... Didn’t they see the semi-mythical Khabarovsk under their Poseidons / Statuses?
                1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 15 March 2020 18: 49 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  In my opinion, the truss launcher is completely unprotected and inconvenient to reload.
                  1. alexmach 15 March 2020 18: 56 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Cover with armored shields .. With reloading - yes it will lead. But we are not talking about the design of new ships with these launchers, and the existing ones somehow recharge them, while loading the heavy Basalt-Volcanoes.

                    Gregory below published a photo of a certain inclined farm. Only sources disagreed about what kind of photo. Some say that this is an Indian PU for the Bramos, and here they write here that this is our PU for Caliber
                    http://rbase.new-factoria.ru/missile/wobb/91re/3c14.shtml
                    How reliable it is, however, is difficult to judge.
                    1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 15 March 2020 19: 01 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      Quote: alexmach
                      and existing ones somehow recharge them

                      There is a lot of sex with reloading of inclined launchers. "Mosquito" for EM "Admiral Ushakov"
                      1. alexmach 15 March 2020 19: 09 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        But here, perhaps, still returning to the question of balancing the masses ... as they wrote below 2 AK-100s of 35 tons were replaced by AK-190-01 - 15 tons were won by 55 tons, equipped with UKKS - 30 tons, God knows how much it is this bell weighed, but vryatli there remained a large supply of mass on inclined farms ...
                      2. Dante Alighieri 15 March 2020 22: 13 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Well, the Rastruba rocket itself weighed 4 kg., This is without a glass of PU. Onyx weighs 000 kg, again without PU, with it it already weighs 3. But this is Onyx. Caliber (rocket itself) weighs from 000 to 3 kg, depending on version. The question is what to put in PU? Let's not forget that this is all about anti-submarine, which means that the number of torpedo missiles should be no less than before modernization, that is 900. That is 1 kg. against 500 old Rastruba torpedoes. The reserve is still half, it is 2 Onyx or 100 8M-16E (as the golden mean among all the Caliber family missiles). And now the question is for the experts (rhetorical) a question: is Onyx needed on ships as such? If it is not needed and we will manage with 000 missile torpedoes and 32 missiles, in general, by weight of the missiles, everything remains within the framework of the previous indicators.

                        As for the ZS-14, then the data varies. I understood one thing for sure - the installation is not universal, and its mass-dimensional indicators vary depending on the length (not the height, namely the length). I believe here again it is necessary to build on whether we are going to place Onyxes on ships of this type, which go beyond the scope of 533 mm in diameter. Again, do not forget that in addition to the weight of the gun mount, it is necessary to take into account the ammunition for it. The mass of ammunition for the AK-100 is 15,6 kg, the number of them on the ship, according to the wiki, is 1200 pieces. This is for 2 towers, one of which is written off completely, and the second is replaced by a lightweight analogue (however, something tells you that the ammunition itself remains the same). Total 600 * 15,6 = 9360 savings.

                        So preliminary (very rough) calculations show the following picture: a complete rejection of the second artillery freed up about 45 kg (000 tons of artillery and 35 tons of ammunition for it) + replacing the first AK-9,3 with AK-100-190 gives another 01 20 kg of profit. Only 000 tons. Plus, dismantling the socket facilitated the ship by another 65 tons (32 kg one missile). As a result, the volume available to us is 4 tons. Even considering that the weight of the missiles despite their increased number is maintained parity, we still have 000 tons. Vicki says that at most one ZS-97 for 65 cells can weigh 14 kg., Because two of them we get 8 tons (we take this figure as a reference, including for inclined launchers, although according to my feelings it should still be easier). And we still have 17 tons. The Navy expects to fill about 000 kg each with 24 Uraniums, i.e. taking into account the container about 41-16 tons. Even 700 tons. All the same, a reserve of 11-12 tons remains. Bearing in mind that in 15, due to the size of the Polynomial, the nose is somewhat "overloaded", this may be good, but maybe it can worsen the centering of the vessel. I don’t know, I need to model here. One thing is for sure, my version with 30 missiles of the Shtil complex instead of Uranus would somewhat reduce this difference. Based on the fact that the manufacturer indicates the weight of 25M1155ME in TPK at 24 kg, then 9 kg would be released. 317 missiles would cost 1050 kg, respectively. All the same, there is a margin for leveling the mass of the Polynomial, but not so significant as to unbalance the ship. The reorganization I proposed in the stern of the ship will generally release more than 25 tons (the mass of one drum module Dagger 200 tons). Why is there no place for additional Uraniums, as another weighty argument? But on the other hand, we would have had quite sane air defense of the middle and near radius.
                    2. Dante Alighieri 15 March 2020 22: 25 New
                      • 1
                      • 0
                      +1
                      There is a lot of sex with reloading of inclined launchers.

                      Recharge is always hemorrhagic


                      And at the expense of insecurity, there will still be some kind of container. It’s trivial to cover the rocket from precipitation. And stop small fragments stop. It is clear that this is not the side of the ship, but at least something.

                      There are pluses: fewer problems with the launch and the likelihood that the rocket leaving the cell does not fall directly onto the deck. But this happens not only among Americans. According to insider information, the last time when launching missiles from Grigorovich, one fell near the ship, one did not exit at all, the rest, however, headed towards the targets. So this is a common disease of all vertical-launch missiles.
      4. Zhan 15 March 2020 13: 19 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: venik
        Immediately the question: If they put the UKSK "Caliber" there then what the hell out there is also needed "Uranus" ????

        Himself at a loss. All the same, the warship of the ocean zone, he would have increased the number of UKKS cells to 32. And for the coastal zone there are RTOs, they would have installed the Kh-35 URAN complex
        By type as 1234EM code "ОВОД" after modernization. And so this is 16 RCC aboard this biting fly, it can really hurt to bite. Maybe they decided to reduce the cost of work on small surface targets within a radius of 200 km?
        1. alexmach 15 March 2020 15: 54 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          he would increase the number of UKKS cells to 32

          Well this is already fantastic. The existing case is not rubber. Although here above mentioned inclined PUs ....
      5. loki565 15 March 2020 13: 50 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Immediately the question: If they put the UKSK “Caliber” there, then why the hell do you need “Uranus” there?

        Most likely for purposes with a small displacement. They probably remembered the sad experience of trying to shoot at boats from the P-120 Malachite
      6. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 15 March 2020 14: 26 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: venik
        just AK-190-01 is a more advanced system compared to AK-100. It's just that it was initially mass-produced using stealth technologies.

        In addition, the mass of the AK-190-01, which weighs 15 tons, is half that of the AK-100 (weighs 35 tons).
        1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 14: 55 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
          In addition, the mass of the AK-190-01, which weighs 15 tons, is half that of the AK-100 (weighs 35 tons)

          but here everything is not clear.
          we read data on AK-190-01:
          The mass of the complex is up to 20 kg
          Installation weight - up to 15 000 kg
          Ammunition - 80 shots


          read the data on the AK-100:
          The mass of the complex is 45,5 tons (35.7 tons according to official data)
          Ammunition - 175 or 322 rounds (depending on the configuration of the unit)


          What does the term "complex mass" mean? AU and OMS? AU, SLA and ammunition?

          The casing AK-100 is made of aluminum alloys, AK-190 - even from plastic composite materials. Do not you think that the difference of 15-20 tons is a bit much for the tower casing ???
    2. Ratmir_Ryazan 15 March 2020 13: 33 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Of course, stupidity is utterly stupid with "stealth", which is of no use to the gun turret if the ship’s architecture itself is completely different. fellow


      This tower was made not for the modernization of the BOD, but for modern frigates, and there the whole hull was made so as to reduce the ESR of the ship.
  2. Askold Matveev 15 March 2020 11: 53 New
    • 31
    • 30
    +1
    In 2016, the largest yacht in the world was launched. It belongs to Alisher Usmanov, whose fortune is currently estimated by Forbes magazine at $ 12,5 billion. It is called Dilbar and was built by the German shipyard Lurssen. She received her name in honor of the mother of the owner. Prior to this, the largest yachts were considered vessels belonging to the Sultan of Oman and the Emir of Abu Dhabi, represented by the same company. The length of the new super yacht is 156 meters, displacement - 15 917 tons.
    Now compare with the "Shaposhnikov" Total displacement of ships of the project 1155 - 7570 tons, hull length - 163,5 meters. Speed ​​- up to 32 knots, cruising range - 5 thousand miles at 18 knots, autonomy - 30 days.
    And now the question is how many ships of the Navy can be built for the cost of a boat of a thief?
    1. maidan.izrailovich 15 March 2020 12: 09 New
      • 11
      • 20
      -9
      And now the question is how many ships of the Navy can be built for the cost of a boat of a thief?

      Are you a room fighter with capitalism?
      How old were you in the year 91? If you were an adult, then answer this question yourself. If not, ask your parents.
    2. Sergey Averchenkov 15 March 2020 12: 26 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      So what do you suggest? Writing about a yacht is simple - what do you offer?
      1. maidan.izrailovich 15 March 2020 12: 31 New
        • 10
        • 8
        +2
        Writing about a yacht is simple - what do you offer?

        I propose to stick to the topic given by the article. And do not make yourself a fighter for justice, at every opportunity.
        1. Sergey Averchenkov 15 March 2020 12: 32 New
          • 5
          • 3
          +2
          I did not ask you, but I agree.
        2. Askold Matveev 15 March 2020 12: 58 New
          • 21
          • 17
          +4
          Quote: maidan.izrailovich
          I propose to stick to the topic given by the article. And do not make yourself a fighter for justice, at every opportunity.

          On this topic, I propose not to rejoice at each new gun, but to build a modern ocean fleet for co-confiscated money from thieves and crooks, rather than coastal coastal boats.
          What the fleet was brought to is the shame of modern Russia!
          You are trying to enjoy the only ship of the Soviet pr.1155 undergoing modernization, which should end already in 2022! In 2022 there will be one modernized ship. Karl !!!
          From 36 Karl! Half of which will be safely written off to Chinese pins by 2022. And in China, meanwhile, it takes 2 years from bookmark to adoption !!! What else do you write on the topic? Characteristics of the new artillery system?
          PS
          Quote: maidan.izrailovich
          Are you a room fighter with capitalism? How old were you in the year 91?

          At the time of the coup, I was in my 25th year, and what makes it easier for you?
          1. carstorm 11 15 March 2020 13: 18 New
            • 5
            • 4
            +1
            Yes, who is against it. the only question is, can you prove that he stole them? or those who are rich want to dispossess without a trial and investigation and evidence? note a logical question.
            1. polar fox 15 March 2020 13: 51 New
              • 6
              • 4
              +2
              Quote: carstorm 11
              and you can prove that he stole them?

              in the “fairest court” no. but there are still witnesses who knew his dad very well and how he robbed Uzbekistan.
              1. carstorm 11 15 March 2020 14: 10 New
                • 3
                • 5
                -2
                the court does not prove. I said about the evidence and not the verdict. I didn’t talk about dad either.
              2. Amateur 15 March 2020 14: 18 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0

                This mosque in Tashkent, as they say, was built with the money of A. Usmanov
            2. mvg
              mvg 15 March 2020 14: 28 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              can you prove that he stole them?

              I’ve driven, if I remember correctly, “Uzbek”, owns about 30 percent of the shares of FC Arsenal London. At one time, Absolut was selling vodka vodka (up to 70 percent of the market), this is what I remember. Spouse - Olympic champion Irina Viner.
              PS: But a good man .. here Giner recently helped Vlašić sign.
      2. Askold Matveev 15 March 2020 12: 44 New
        • 18
        • 8
        +10
        Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
        So what do you suggest? Writing about a yacht is simple - what do you offer?

        stop the theft of the budget in the country and confiscate the stolen goods.
        1. Sergey Averchenkov 15 March 2020 12: 52 New
          • 5
          • 6
          -1
          Revolution? Civil War? Do you understand what you're talking about? Who will give you stolen just like that? Although ... in principle, I do not mind. In addition to civil.
    3. fk7777777 15 March 2020 12: 28 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      M, yes, a complete confiscation, and for each ship built for take-off, beat this relative, friend, etc., of this abomination. And hang him at the flagship’s yard, may the people have a holiday.
    4. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 15 March 2020 14: 04 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Askold Matveev
      The length of the new super yacht is 156 meters, displacement - 15 917 tons. Now we are comparing it with Shaposhnikov. The total displacement of Project 1155 ships is 7570 tons, the hull length is 163,5 meters.

      15 917 is not displacement, but gross tonnage. You compare the displacement of the BOD and the gross tonnage of the yacht. It's like comparing tomatoes and cucumbers. “Gross tonnage” is called gross tonnage. It is measured in register tons - this is a unit of volume - a cubic meter of internal space in the case. The larger the tonnage, the more useful the yacht can carry on board. Displacement of a Dilbar yacht can be easily estimated according to the formula GRT = 4/9 D where: grt - grossstonage, D - displacement in full load (Displacement). And you get about 7000 tons. And here Alisher Burkhanovich acted as a yacht owner very deeply understanding the topic.
    5. ZAV69 15 March 2020 18: 08 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      And not how much. Because the money for which the yacht is built is not public but private. It is necessary to discuss how honestly they are earned elsewhere, and this post here smacks of cheap populism.
  3. Thrifty 15 March 2020 13: 11 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    Is it instead of "SuperPotty" dust in the eyes? And how many will undergo such an upgrade? ??
    1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 14: 30 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Thrifty
      Is it instead of "SuperPotty" dust in the eyes?

      de facto, the BOD of project 1155 are the only Russian serial ocean-going ships, since all the rest are represented by single samples. It is foolish to refuse ships that can still be pulled up to an acceptable level in terms of combat capabilities.

      Quote: Thrifty
      And how many will undergo such an upgrade?

      so far only Shaposhnikov has been announced. After assessing what the modernization will result in (in terms of efficiency and cost), there will be a decision on the remaining BOD of this project.
  4. Ratmir_Ryazan 15 March 2020 13: 42 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    In some news I read that it was not installed STELS tower!
    That is, the enemy, without detecting the AU, will safely shout to the buffet!


    The tower is set so because only such now do for all ships, new and old.

    With BOD, the ship is being modernized, and not restored as a museum exhibit.

    Or did you expect, since the ship was old-built, then the plant producing artillery for the fleet needed to put a new gun for it in the old building? )))
  5. loki565 15 March 2020 14: 26 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    So this gun now goes as a unified one, for many ships, why put a gun on each ship, especially the old version.
  • Snail N9 15 March 2020 11: 40 New
    • 18
    • 15
    +3
    And the four-meter trunks on the radars do not "glow", yeah. On the "Zemvolty" -there, yes- "do not shine", there the trunks are completely retracted into the tower.
    1. KCA
      KCA 15 March 2020 11: 56 New
      • 8
      • 9
      -1
      The barrel length at Zamvolt’s cannon is 9.61 m, plus the breech of at least a meter, probably even at least one and a half, what is the size of an art tower if a gun more than 11 meters in length can easily fit in it? Besides, there must also be a mechanism that the tool removes and advances; didn’t you confuse Zamwolt with the imperial Death Star?
      1. Avior 15 March 2020 12: 14 New
        • 9
        • 4
        +5
        I don’t know what mechanism, but, surprisingly, the Zamvolt’s trunks didn’t really stick out;

        I think one of the components of the constant price tag Zamvolta
        hi
        1. KCA
          KCA 15 March 2020 12: 29 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          The guns are not removed, they fall below the level of the sides and are closed by shields, or removed altogether, for there is no sense in them, at a cost of one shot of $ 800
          1. Avior 15 March 2020 12: 35 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            The guns are lowered and retracted into the recess in the upper part of the tower and the superstructure in front of it and are covered by a shutter

            I can’t imagine how much it cost, obviously the Pleasure is expensive, but there is nothing cheap for Zamvolt, he himself is exorbitant :)
            Something like that
      2. fk7777777 15 March 2020 12: 29 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        No, an imperial star is cheaper than this gibberish.
      3. venik 15 March 2020 12: 52 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: KCA
        what size does an art tower have if a gun more than 11 meters long can easily fit in it?

        =========
        In fact, the respected "Snail" - just not up to date! Nowhere is the gun "cleaned" (here you absolutely right!), just in the stowed position, the barrel lowers (leans down) into the “P” -shaped box in front of the tower with a stealth coating! This is clearly seen in the picture from last year’s article on VO (https://topwar.ru/152628-jesmincy-zumwalt-velichajshij-proval-v-istorii-vms-ssha.html):
        1. Avior 15 March 2020 13: 02 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Actually, it can be said that the weapon is removed in the box of the tower and superstructure, but he did not write that it was being drawn into the tower, for example.
          The fact that it really doesn’t stick out, I honestly don’t remember another such case
          hi
          1. venik 15 March 2020 13: 52 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Avior
            The fact that it really doesn’t stick out, I honestly don’t remember another such case

            ========
            Well then, look at the Swedish Visby corvettes:



            By the way - VERY interesting boats !!!!
            1. Avior 15 March 2020 15: 18 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Right, you're right, Visby
              Only the caliber of the gun is noticeably different
              But the principle is almost the same
              hi
  • aristok 15 March 2020 11: 41 New
    • 1
    • 12
    -11
    Instead of two, one.
    And good (relief, cheaper)
    and bad (more risk of being left without a gun at all).
    1. UVB
      UVB 15 March 2020 12: 36 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: aristok
      Instead of two, one.
      And good (relief, cheaper)
      and bad (more risk of being left without a gun at all).

      A universal rocket launcher is installed at the site of the second gun mount
      new
      1. Avior 15 March 2020 13: 05 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        . In place of the second gun mount, a universal missile launcher is installed

        And this is a very correct decision, two modern guns on the ship
        1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 13: 20 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Avior
          two modern guns on the ship

          but the caliber should be increased ...
          1. Avior 15 March 2020 15: 20 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Perhaps for a frigate
            So that more or less by air, and by sea and by land I could work
            Not enough for sushi, of course, but you have to pay for universality
            1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 16: 25 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Avior
              Perhaps for a frigate
              So that more or less by air, and by sea and by land I could work
              Not enough for sushi, of course, but you have to pay for universality

              we have a good 130 mm A-192
  • Mountain shooter 15 March 2020 11: 42 New
    • 5
    • 9
    -4
    A completely equivalent replacement. 80 per minute 100 mm !!! Previously, from two barrels probably shot the same amount?
    And the fact that the "Stealth" tower - so now they do not do others!
    However, no ... The original guns had a rate of 60 per minute. Well, maybe the accuracy has become higher ...
    1. Uncle lee 15 March 2020 11: 53 New
      • 17
      • 10
      +7
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Stealth

      Now everything is stealth: ships, pensions, rockets, salaries, planes ... repeat
    2. fk7777777 15 March 2020 12: 31 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There was a large anti-submarine one, but it became a frigate, the assignment of tasks has changed. That is why...
      1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 13: 11 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: fk7777777
        There was a large anti-submarine one, but it became a frigate, the assignment of tasks has changed. That is why...

        not therefore. Just go to the import classification of ship ranks - in the USSR Navy there were no corvette or frigate classes. Now, RTOs and IPCs have become corvettes, and all that cannot be affixed with the nameplate "destroyer" or "cruiser" - frigates.
    3. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 12: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Previously, from two barrels probably shot the same amount?

      A pair of AK-100s have a technical rate of fire of 120 rounds / min (60 per barrel). One AK-190 - 80 rounds / min.

      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      And the fact that the "Stealth" tower - so now they do not do others!

      do. Here is a photo of the tower, which was put on frigates pr.11356


      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Well, maybe the accuracy has become higher ...

      accuracy depends on the fire control system.
      1. Lopatov 15 March 2020 13: 24 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Gregory_45
        accuracy depends on the fire control system.

        Not only.
        It depends on everything.
        Even the quality of a thermometer that measures the temperature of charges.
      2. Ratmir_Ryazan 15 March 2020 13: 50 New
        • 2
        • 2
        0
        do. Here is a photo of the tower, which was put on frigates pr.11356


        which ones?

        Here are frigates pr.11356 Grigorovich, Makarov and Essen - everywhere the tower is angular for low visibility -





        The rounded towers went to frigates for India, simply because they were laid earlier and the new tower was not ready yet, but now they all go the same type and no one will specifically do a tower with a large EPR, since this is not necessary and will require additional costs -

        1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 13: 54 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          which ones?

          Indian Talvars. They were built in Russia and have a project number 11356. Russian "admirals" - this is pr.11356Р
          1. Ratmir_Ryazan 15 March 2020 14: 02 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Well, Indian corvettes were built earlier, and probably the new turret with a gun was not yet ready.
    4. venik 15 March 2020 13: 26 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      A completely equivalent replacement. 80 per minute 100 mm !!! Previously, from two barrels probably shot the same amount?

      ======
      Not. AK-100 has a rate of fire 60 rds / min, AK-190 - 80! The gain is in cost (the 190s cost more than 2 times cheaper) and in weight (AK-190 - 15 tons, AK-100 - 35 tons !!). T.O. gain in weight - 55 tons! This makes it possible to place the Caliber UXC instead of the second tower (14 tons - into 8 cells, in running order - about 30 tons). That is, if Rastrub-B is replaced with X-35 Uranus (which is very doubtful, but in principle it is possible!), Then it is possible to mantle the 16-cell UKKS ... Although this is all just an assumption .....
  • Sky strike fighter 15 March 2020 11: 43 New
    • 6
    • 6
    0
    Air defense on the ship upgraded?
    1. alexmach 15 March 2020 17: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      According to preliminary data, no.
  • Dart2027 15 March 2020 11: 53 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    It is interesting to see what happens.
  • UVB
    UVB 15 March 2020 11: 58 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And I have this question: ships of the project 1155 in the Russian Navy appear ships of the 1st rank. What rank will Marshal Shaposhnikov now belong to? After all, frigates (patrol ships) belong to the 2nd rank. Does this mean that the “Marshal Shaposhnikov” will be downgraded, or frigates of the 1st rank will appear?
    1. fk7777777 15 March 2020 12: 32 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      In my opinion, it’s clear that the class of the ship is reduced ..
      1. alexmach 15 March 2020 13: 08 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Not a fact, it seems that it was a question of the fact that Frigates 22350 were assigned to the first ranks. Another thing is that “Shaposhnikov” is far from being able to reach 22350 ...
    2. venik 15 March 2020 14: 52 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: UVB
      And I have this question: ships of the project 1155 in the Russian Navy appear ships of the 1st rank.

      =======
      This too is completely incomprehensible to me! drinks
      According to the displacement (7 / 000 thousand tons) - 7% ship of the 800st rank (i.e. - the OCEAN zone)! Watchmen (aka frigates) - ships of the 100nd rank (distant sea zone) - to 6 tons .....
      Well, we could destroyer "re-qualify" (if you already switched to the "international" classification). Or some kind of “smart” head decided that in comparison with the “Burki” it wouldn’t look very good in armament ..... In general - it is not clear !!!
      1. UVB
        UVB 15 March 2020 15: 28 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        As I understand it, during qualification they don’t really bother with a displacement. Remember the cruiser pr.58 "Terrible". The total displacement is less than 6000 tons. They were laid as destroyers with “destroyer” names, then they were retrained as cruisers. A higher rank ship, respectively, and higher posts.
  • aristok 15 March 2020 11: 59 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    rate of fire
    AK-100 - 60 rpm
    A-190 - 80 rpm

    The mass of the new gun mount is reduced.
    Earlier (in 2012) there were complaints about the reliability of the A-190.
    Hopefully fixed now.
    1. venik 15 March 2020 15: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: aristok
      Earlier (in 2012) there were complaints about the reliability of the A-190.
      Hopefully fixed now.

      ========
      As I understand it from various sources, the A-190-01 is precisely the “modified” version in which the “childhood illnesses” were eliminated.
      1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 16: 57 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: venik
        As I understand it from various sources, the A-190-01 is precisely the “finalized” version in which the “childhood illnesses” were eliminated.

        A-190-01 is an AU with a stealth tower
        A190E - standard tower (which was placed on the Talvars)
  • zyablik.olga 15 March 2020 12: 02 New
    • 4
    • 2
    +2
    In fact, the ship built in 1986, a bit old.
    before modernization: two 45-mm semi-automatic guns 21-KM,
    Typo?
    1. fk7777777 15 March 2020 12: 34 New
      • 0
      • 2
      -2
      Yes, not from the Battle of Stalingrad, fluffs of 45, ki remained, well, don’t throw it away, but they’ve attached it)))
    2. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 12: 41 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      before modernization: two 45-mm semi-automatic guns 21-KM,
      Typo?

      not. These are 45 mm salute guns
    3. venik 15 March 2020 15: 39 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: zyablik.olga
      before modernization: two 45-mm semi-automatic guns 21-KM,
      Typo?

      =====
      Not at all! No typo. On many ships of that time such guns were actually put (usually 2 each). Of course, they did not have combat significance, but were used as signal or salute.
      1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 16: 34 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: venik
        Of course, they did not have combat significance, but were used as signal or salute

        In comparison with standard weapons - yes, they do not.
        But in order to open fire, say, on some scandal, it is theoretically enough to put the sight in place and drive the shell into the breech. All shoot. In principle, this is a real military weapon.
  • Sergey Averchenkov 15 March 2020 12: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, that's nice, what else to say?
  • IgorIP 15 March 2020 12: 19 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    ".... two 45-mm semi-automatic guns 21-KM ..."
    These guns will definitely remain after modernization)) because these are salute guns)
    1. fk7777777 15 March 2020 12: 35 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Yeah, anti-tank,))) ...
  • Grigory_45 15 March 2020 12: 59 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Undergoing repair and modernization, the former large anti-submarine ship, retrained to the frigate "Marshal Shaposhnikov", is changing its artillery. Instead of two 100-mm AK-100 guns, the ship will receive a 100-mm gun mount A-190-01

    artillery on these (rather large - 7,5 thousand tons) ships did not shine even from the moment of construction. All the same, a 1st-class ship, it was possible to put a 130-mm A-192 (which also interfaced with the Puma artillery and the Fregat type radar) instead of two in a hundred (for bourgeois on the Burki 127- mm gun mount)
    By the way, A-192 are on frigates of the project 22350 type "Admiral Gorshkov"

    In the course of modernization, the Uran missile defense system with X-35 missiles, the universal caliber, Onyx or Zircon cruise missile launcher were already installed on Marshal Shaposhnikov

    But why does the ship need both Caliber (Onyx) and Uranus at the same time ??? Or, they were stuck instead of the "Bell", so that the place does not disappear ???
    1. Dart2027 15 March 2020 13: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Gregory_45
      Or, they were stuck instead of the "Bell", so that the place does not disappear

      Rather, simply because it’s not possible to shove a sufficient number of Caliber, as well as some kind of weapon.
      1. Grigory_45 15 March 2020 14: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Dart2027
        Rather, simply because it’s not possible to shove a sufficient number of calibers, as well as some kind of weapon

        For Caliber and others like them there are inclined PUs. A raznosortitsa in armaments is not a blessing

        1. Dart2027 15 March 2020 15: 48 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Gregory_45
          For Gauges and others like them, there are inclined PUs.

          The question is whether they will fit into the place of the Waterfall. Uranium is less.
        2. Dante Alighieri 15 March 2020 18: 00 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The funny thing is that the inclined launcher is already being used on modernization submarines, pr. 949 Irkutsk and Chelyabinsk. In the launch glasses of Granites, farms with guides for Onyx or Caliber rockets are simply installed. Granite launchers themselves remain in their rightful place and at their traditional angle. But for some reason, when it comes to the implementation of such decisions on surface ships (primarily Soviet-built, which need modernization, but whose overhaul is meaningless), big minds in the admiralty corny fall into prostration and begin to carry some kind of nonsense.
  • d4rkmesa 15 March 2020 13: 11 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And that’s good! "Daggers" would still be upgraded. Yes, I know that any new air defense system would be even better, but to restore production and to make friends with the new rocket with modules would be nice. It’s bad that everything is in favor of some kind of “Shell” on the deck.
    1. Dante Alighieri 15 March 2020 18: 33 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      It was rumored that, in order to unify the land TORs, they would begin to equip the 9M100, which is for a second the Reduta / S-350 missile, which means it can be guided by means of existing radars (short-range missiles), without the need to spend money on expensive and useless Furke, which in fact, without AFAR Polymenta works at the same range as the AP Dagger.

      And if you believe the rumors about the fact that the first launches of Redoubt from corvettes in the Baltic Sea were carried out generally with the help of Puma, i.e. radar art. installation, then such a unification no longer seems to be a figment of a sick imagination
  • mmaxx 15 March 2020 13: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Particularly worried about the fate of the most formidable guns - 21-KM. How now without them? Our most common naval gun.
  • Vasyan1971 15 March 2020 14: 00 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    the fate of the weapons that stood on the BOD before modernization remained unknown: two 45-mm semi-automatic guns 21-KM, four 30-mm ZAK AK-630, two air defense systems "Dagger", two anti-submarine complexes "Rastrub-B", two reactive bomb installations RBU-6000, as well as torpedo tubes.

    "Citizen" and sell. laughing
  • Adimius38 15 March 2020 14: 20 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It is certainly a good upgrade, but all this is hastily done due to the fact that for more than three decades, not a single frigate or destroyer with a class of more than 7000 tons has been built. Therefore, they remembered the old Soviet BOD And decided to make frigates out of them. You can’t call it otherwise than washing your eyes. Let it be better called at what shipyard in Russia it is laid down or during the construction process an overhead surface ship with a class of more than 7000 tons, they will not be called.
  • Imperial Technocrat 15 March 2020 15: 55 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Total displacement of ships of the project 1155 - 7570 tons

    What kind of frigate is this? This is a destroyer
    1. Avior 15 March 2020 19: 58 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The destroyer is determined not only by displacement
      1. Imperial Technocrat 15 March 2020 22: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Then it's MRK
        1. Avior 15 March 2020 22: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Defined as a frigate
          Do not put polynomial on RTOs
          1. Imperial Technocrat 16 March 2020 15: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Means boat
  • 89625588851 15 March 2020 15: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And why not the A-192 caliber 130mm, wouldn’t it really fit ...
  • K-50 15 March 2020 16: 09 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The two A-100 gun mounts previously installed on the ship were developed back in the 70s of the last century and were clearly visible on enemy radars.

    What a stupid thing !!! belay
    There, compared with the ship itself, the luminescence on the radar from the gun turrets is slightly different from zero !!!
    The areas are not even comparable, they differ hundreds of times !!!
    Another thing is that instead of the second gun turret, something else can be squeezed in, but the "stealth" performance of the turret is not an argument at all. request
  • Kaw
    Kaw 15 March 2020 16: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Instead of two 100 mm installations, they set one 100 mm installation.
  • 75 Sergey 15 March 2020 22: 04 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    I wonder how this will help the gunners, and how did they solve the issue of thermal radiation from hot barrels?
  • Protos 16 March 2020 23: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Askold Matveev
    In 2016, the largest yacht in the world was launched. It belongs to Alisher Usmanov, whose fortune is currently estimated by Forbes magazine at $ 12,5 billion. It is called Dilbar and was built by the German shipyard Lurssen. She received her name in honor of the mother of the owner. Prior to this, the largest yachts were considered vessels belonging to the Sultan of Oman and the Emir of Abu Dhabi, represented by the same company. The length of the new super yacht is 156 meters, displacement - 15 917 tons.
    Now compare with the "Shaposhnikov" Total displacement of ships of the project 1155 - 7570 tons, hull length - 163,5 meters. Speed ​​- up to 32 knots, cruising range - 5 thousand miles at 18 knots, autonomy - 30 days.
    And now the question is how many ships of the Navy can be built for the cost of a boat of a thief?

    Microsoft founder Bill Gates paid $ 644 million to buy a hydrogen-powered Sinot Aqua, Mashable reports.
    The 112-meter yacht has five decks, which can accommodate 14 guests and 31 people from the crew. The ship also has a panoramic pool, relaxation area, cinema, spa, gym, beauty salon, helicopter and observation deck.

    The yacht became the first such vessel, completely powered by hydrogen, which makes it safe for the environment. Sinot Aqua can sail 6500 km without refueling at a maximum speed of 31 km / h.

    And now the question is: how much for the cost of a yacht of one thief can you build ships for the US Navy?

    bully
  • asr55 26 May 2020 01: 37 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Project 1155 ships with a total displacement of 7480 tons belong to ships of the 1st rank. In the presence of shock and anti-submarine weapons after modernization, they will most likely be destroyers.