Frigates in the air defense / missile defense system of modern Navy

Frigates in the air defense / missile defense system of modern Navy




Dutch frigate, type "Seven Provinces"

The deployment of long-range air defense systems on destroyers, for example, Arly Burke or UIC-type cruisers of the Ticonderoga type, or the Russian cruisers of Project 1144 Orlan and Project 1164 Atlant was a natural consequence of the desire to protect such valuable military units from air strikes and from seas. However, times are changing, technology is improving, and new challenges are emerging. Currently, the bulk of the surface fleets of most countries are not cruisers or even destroyers, but multipurpose ships with a displacement of 5000 to 7000 tons, belonging to the class of frigates. These are real “workhorses” performing missions of air defense and anti-submarine defense in the ocean zone, as well as having the ability to strike at enemy ships.

This article aims to consider the capabilities of air defense / missile defense of domestic and foreign ships of the class of frigates, to identify the main trends in the development of this class of ships and give recommendations in relation to the situation in which the Russian Navy is now. The main attention of the article is directed to naval air defense systems and radars deployed on ships of the frigate class.

Classifying and comparing frigates is a very difficult task, since in some countries ships with a total displacement of more than 5000 tons are already classified as destroyers. For convenience, we will accept the classification of producing countries and we will consider those ships that are so classified in the national Navy as frigates, making an exception for Japan, since here very small ships with a total displacement of 2500 tons are considered frigates.

Foreign experience


Netherlands


Frigates of the "De Zeven Provinsien" type. Total displacement - 6048 tons. Propulsion system - 2 gas turbine engines and 2 diesel engines rated at 52 hp. (GTE) and 300 13 hp (diesels) respectively. The air defense system is represented by 600 air defense missiles Mk 40 with missiles RIM-41 SM-66 Block IIIA and RIM-2 ESSM.

The RIM-66 SM-2 Block IIIA missiles have a starting weight of 708 kg, a single-stage solid propellant rocket engine, a range of 167 km, a maximum height of 24 km, and a speed of about 3,5 Mach. Control system - semi-active radar, inertial guidance system, infrared seeker.

SAM RIM-162 ESSM: starting weight - 280 kg, engine - solid propellant rocket engine, range - about 50 km, speed more than Mach 4,0, maximum overload - about 50g, is achieved by controlling the thrust vector. The control system is an active semi-active GOS.

The radar equipment controlling the air defense system is represented by two radars: Thales SMART-L and Thales APAR.

Thales SMART-L is a three-axis L-range radar for long-range aerial viewing with a digital antenna array.

The digital antenna array consists of 24 horizontal lines of emitters with 48 dipoles each, of which 16 lines operate in the receive and transmit mode with digital synthesis of the radiation pattern in the vertical plane (in elevation), 8 - only in the receive mode. Vertical scanning and beam stabilization electronic. Azimuth scanning - mechanical.

The detection range of the base model was 400 km for a patrol aircraft and 60 km for a low-flying cruise missile. Subsequently, ELR (Extended Long Range) mode was introduced with a maximum range of 480 km. The increase in range was achieved by software upgrades and did not affect the hardware. The number of targets followed: air - 1000, surface - 100.

Thales APAR - X-band active phased array antenna, multifunctional three-coordinate radar. Thales APAR has four fixed sensor arrays mounted on a tetrahedral mast. Each face consists of 3424 transmit / receive modules.

The radar allows airborne tracking of more than 200 targets at a range of 150 km, ground tracking of 150 targets at a distance of 32 km, supports the search mode according to data received from another sensor, can guide 32 missiles with semi-active seekers in flight and 16 in the final guidance phase.

Spain



Alvaro de Bazan frigate

Frigates of the Alvaro de Bazan type. They have a total displacement of 5802 tons. Propulsion system type CODOG, consisting of 2 gas turbine engines and 2 diesel engines. The total capacity of the gas turbine engine is 46 hp.

The air defense system consists of 48 UVK Mk 41 cells with RIM-66 SM-2 Block IIIA and RIM-162 ESSM missiles.

The main difference from the Dutch frigates is the radar weapons, presented by the American radar AN / SPY-1D and AN / SPG-62.

AN / SPY-1D is a three-axis multifunctional radar with a phased S-band antenna array. Performs search in azimuth and elevation, capture, classification and tracking of targets, command control of anti-aircraft missiles at the starting and marching sections of the trajectory. The antenna consists of 4 fixed VFDs, oriented in azimuth with an interval of 90º, each of which covers one segment (90º in azimuth, 90º in elevation) of the spatial hemisphere surrounding the ship. Each grating has the form of an octagon of 3,6 x 3,6 m in size, consisting of 4350 individual radiating elements. The radar has a wide frequency range, inside which the pulse frequency varies randomly, which complicates the work of electronic countermeasures of the enemy and anti-radar missiles. The maximum range of the radar is up to 320 km for a target with an EPR of 0,03 m² (80 km for low-flying targets). Allows you to track 200 targets and shell 20 of them.

X-band AN / SPG-62 radar performs the function of illuminating the target at the final guidance site of the Standard SM-2 missiles. The maximum range of the radar is 110 km. It has a radiation pattern with a very narrow main lobe, which allows for efficient and highly selective illumination of the target with a relatively low radiation power. It can be used as a surveillance radar.

France and Italy



Horizon frigate

Frigates URO type "Horizon". They have a total displacement of 6700 tons. Propulsion system type CODOG with a capacity of 58 hp

The frigates are equipped with PAAMS air defense systems with 48 Aster 15/30 missiles. The PAAMS system is designed to protect ship formations from a wide range of possible threats, including supersonic, low-flying, subtle, and ballistic targets. The capabilities of the system allow the simultaneous tracking of several hundred targets at a distance of 400-500 km in the atmosphere and near space. Target designation is provided simultaneously for 16 goals. The system is able to withstand a simultaneous attack from several directions and track simultaneously different types of targets.

Currently, PAAMS is considered one of the most advanced air defense / missile defense systems in the world.

The system uses 2 types of missiles: Aster 15 and Aster 30. The first has a range of about 30 km, the second - 120 km. Both missiles are identical, their difference in interception range and speed is due to the large accelerator used on the Aster 30. The total mass of Aster 15 and Aster 30 is 310 kg and 450 kg, respectively.

Aster 30 is capable of speeds of Mach 4,5 when it reaches a height of 20 km and can perform air maneuvers with an acceleration of 60 g, which gives it a very high degree of maneuverability. This is possible thanks to a combination of aerodynamic control and a thrust vector control system. The standard launch of an Aster rocket may include a change in direction of motion by 90 degrees.

The Aster rocket is autonomously guided, equipped with an active homing radar, which allows the air defense system to cope with a saturating attack.

Radar weapons are presented by the S1850M early warning radar and EMPAR radar.

S1850M is a three-axis long-range radar with a digital antenna array for early warning systems about missile attack, as well as the detection of aerodynamic, ground and surface targets. Designed based on the SMART-L radar, however, it uses its own signal processing architecture. It can detect and track up to 1000 targets at a distance of up to 400 km (65 km for stealth targets).

EMAR is a multifunctional radar with a phased array antenna range C, designed for use on ships of medium and large displacement. It is a rotating passive phased array with electronic scanning of the beam in elevation. Provides full-volume scanning of space, work with surface and low-flying targets, information transfer to control systems weapons.

The main function of EMPAR is a three-dimensional overview of airspace (azimuth, range, elevation angle) at a distance of up to 180 km. The radar is capable of tracking aircraft and smaller targets (missiles). The system uses a single narrow beam to transmit a signal and several beams for reception. The vertical beam control is electronic, allowing fast scanning in a wide range of bearings and / or elevation angles. Thus, simultaneous monitoring of the upper hemisphere is ensured. Flat radar antennas rotate at a speed of 60 rpm, which allows you to scan a hemisphere with a period of 1 s, in contrast to earlier radars, in which a hemisphere scan took 10 or more seconds. This is important for air defense systems, given the high speed of modern anti-ship missiles.

Japan



Akimzuki-class destroyer

Destroyers of the Akizuki type. Total displacement - 6800 tons. Engines - combined gas turbine from 4 turbines. With a total capacity of 60 hp

SAMs are located in the UVK Mk 41 for 32 cells with missiles RIM-66 SM-2 Block IIIA and RIM-162 ESSM.

The main feature of the ship is the FСS-3, an integrated ship weapon control system that includes a multifunctional radar with AFAR, which has two sets of antennas: large C-bands for detection and tracking and small X-bands as a fire control radar. The maximum range of the radar is 500 km, while according to open sources, the detection range of fighters is 450 km, cruise missiles - more than 200 km, the number of escorted targets - 300, while fired - 10-12.

Russian Experience



Project 11356P frigate

Frigates of the project 11356P. Total displacement - 4035 tons, engines - twin-shaft gas-gas turbine unit type COGAG with a total capacity of 56 044 hp

The Shtil-1 air defense missile system was installed on the ships of the series. This multi-channel air defense missile system with a vertical launch of missiles is designed for circular defense of the ship against all air attack weapons, including to repel massive missile and air attacks. On the frigates of project 11356R, 24 9M317M missiles with a semi-active strategic missile support were deployed. The mass of the rocket is 581 kg, the speed is 1550 m / s. The main stage of a missile’s flight is inertial mode, and when approaching a target, radio correction is carried out. SAM is capable of hitting targets with speeds of up to 3 km / s at ranges of up to 70 km and at an altitude of up to 35 km, while up to 3 9M317M missiles can be simultaneously aimed at each target. The rocket has a 24 g overload.

Primary information about the air and surface conditions comes from the Fregat-M2M radar. This three-coordinate E-band radar is designed to control space, detect, determine the coordinates, speed and flight path of air targets at large ranges and altitudes with high resolution in conditions of intense radio interference. Maximum range - 300 km, fighter detection range - 230 km, cruise missile - 50 km, anti-ship missiles with EPR of 0,1 square meters. m at an altitude of 5-10 m - 15-17 km, stealth fighter - 100 km. The number of simultaneously tracked targets is 100, the maximum rate of view is 2,5 s.

Fire control is carried out using the X-band radar with the Positive-M1.2 headlamp. The radar has a viewing range of 80 km, a viewing height of 20 km. Maximum target detection range with EPR> 1 sq. m at a flight height of 1000 m is 50 km, RCC with EPR> 0,03 square meters. m at a flight height of 15 m - 13-15 km.

Project 22350 frigates. These ships have a total displacement of 5400 tons. CODAG type propulsion system consisting of 2 afterburning gas turbines with a total capacity of 55 hp and 000 marching diesel engines with a capacity of 2 hp each.

The ships are equipped with 32 airborne air defense systems of the Redut air defense system. In the cell there is one transport and launch container with a long or medium-range missile (9M96E, 9M96E2) or 4 short-range missiles (9M100). When launching a rocket, a cold start is used. A charge of compressed air rocket is thrown from a vertically located transport and launch container to a height of 30 m, turning towards the target using a gas-dynamic system. Due to this, the minimum interception range is significantly reduced. The gas-dynamic system also provides the rocket with a super-maneuverability mode and is capable of increasing the rocket overload by 0,025g in 20 s. The maximum overload for missiles is more than 60 g.

For 9M96E, 9M96E2 missiles, inertial-command guidance is used on the marching section of the trajectory, and active radar homing in the final section. The 9M100 short-range missile is equipped with an infrared homing head. Capture the target immediately after the launch of the rocket.

The maximum range of the Redut air defense system reaches 150 km, the maximum speed of the intercepted target is 4800 m / s.

Fire control is carried out by the Poliment radar with 4 fixed HEADLIGHTS located along the 4 sides of the frigate mast. The radar can simultaneously fire up to 16 targets (4 for each grating). There are few data on the Poliment radar in open sources. The declared range of the radar reaches 200 km. The radar operates in the X-band and can track up to 200 targets. It can be assumed that Polyment is a certain analogue of Thales APAR with comparable characteristics.

The general detection and tracking of airborne (including low-flying) and surface targets is carried out using the Furke radar with a decimeter-range headlamp. Transmission - passive (one beam), reception - semi-active (three rays), electronic beam stabilization. Provides digital signal processing, multi-channel Doppler filtering, auto-compensation of active noise interference radar. The maximum viewing range is up to 150 km. The detection range of the RCC trajectory with an EPR of 0,02 square meters. m at an altitude of 5 m with an antenna post height of 21 m is 12-14 km.

Prospects for the development of domestic ship-based air defense systems


The study of foreign and domestic experience shows the following.

• Displacement of ships of the class "frigate" allows you to place missiles from small (<30 km) to long (> 100 km) range.

• The protection of modern frigates is built echeloned from medium-range missiles (up to 50 km) and long range (up to 160 km).

• Modern naval air defense systems are mainly intended for combating anti-ship missiles with low EPR, this predetermines the installation of two types of radars on ships: three-coordinate long-range radars for volume search and short-range X-band radars for fire control.
• To combat aviation armed rocket launcher achieved at modern frigates missile range of 150-160 km is already insufficient, given the development of aviation radars, as well as aircraft AWACS.

• X-band radars provide greater accuracy of guidance missiles and multi-channel, but have a relatively small detection range.

• “Division of labor” between naval radars allows the optimal allocation of radar resources, between volumetric search and target designation for missiles.

• The leading role in the fight against modern anti-ship missiles is played by highly maneuverable missiles with a maximum overload of 50-60 g.

In order to understand the development prospects of domestic marine air defense systems, it is necessary to identify the challenges and threats that our ships are facing today.

1. Widespread development of anti-ship missiles with a low-altitude flight profile.

2. The development of high-speed anti-ship missiles of the Chinese CM-400AKG type, reaching speeds of up to Mach 5, and Japanese XASM-3-E with speeds of up to Mach 3,5-3,7.

3. The spread of fighters built on stealth technology such as F-35, which significantly reduces the detection distance of aircraft of a potential enemy.

4. A small number of ships with modern air defense / missile defense systems. Hence there is a need to cover ships with weak air defense systems from the air (missile defense systems of all projects, MPK, BOD of project 1155, TFR of project 11540, patrol ships of project 22160).

5. The small number of naval fighter aircraft of the Russian Navy, which can only be compensated by the deployment of modern long-range air defense systems on ships.

A study of foreign experience shows that European countries do not seek to deploy longer-range air defense systems on their ships than 120-160 km. This range allows you to shoot down missiles, but limits the ability to work against their carriers. For NATO countries, this is understandable and normal - they are preparing to fight with a noticeable superiority in the air.

However, Russia is a different matter. Our videoconferencing is now not too numerous and also dispersed over a huge area, so in case of conflict the fleet It is necessary to count primarily on ship air defense systems. And here the range of the Reduta of 150 km is no longer enough. For example, the range of the Japanese anti-ship missile XASM-3-E is 200 km, the Chinese CM-400AKG is 240 km, the Norwegian JSM is 280 km, the French Exocet is 180 km, the Italian Otomat is 180 km, the Turkish SOM is 200 km . Obviously, it is more efficient not to fight missiles, but to destroy their carriers, and for this we need long-range naval air defense systems based on the S-400 with a 40N6E missile. It would be possible to place them on frigates of project 22350M, since we most likely will not have other platforms in the next 10-15 years. In the future, we could consider the creation on the basis of project 22350M of an air defense / missile frigate with the Redut and S-400 marine systems, by analogy with the British destroyers of type 45.

Missiles - this is important, but no less important is the creation of modern radars. From the above data it is clear that there is a lag in this component from leading arms manufacturers. Radars capable of detecting inconspicuous targets at a distance of 200-250 km are needed. Similar systems can be created on the basis of the 91H6E early warning radar S-400, and in the future based on the radar of the S-500 system.

Separately, it should be said about survey radars on frigates of project 22350. These ships are equipped with Furke radars (marine version of the Pantsir-S1 RPMS) with a maximum viewing range of 150 km. The choice of such an option can only be explained by money savings. The best option would be to install a three-coordinate Podberezovik-ET1 radar with a maximum detection range of 500 km or a Fregat-M2M radar optimized for the detection of low-flying targets with a viewing range of 300 km.

In conclusion, it should be noted that today Russia has a good backlog on naval air defense systems in the form of "Redut", "Shtilya-1" and S-400 (the marine version of which can be created), and this potential can be realized on new ships.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Amateur 8 May 2020 18: 07 New
    • 4
    • 21
    -17
    And can you check with the Author with whom are you going to fight the Netherlands Navy (1st place), Spain (2nd place) and Italy with France (3/4 places)?
    1. sanek45744 8 May 2020 18: 47 New
      • 13
      • 2
      +11
      And does it matter to you in what order your opponents are indicated? If our ships were the first to put it in an article for review, did this change anything? Everyone already knows who is going to fight with whom.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Civil 8 May 2020 21: 20 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Well, if there is no direct enemy, they will go to privateers.
  2. V.I.P. 8 May 2020 18: 32 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    Why didn’t they write about destroyers and cruisers with the Aegis system equipped with SM-3.Block IB interceptors. This system can destroy short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and missiles covering distances from 3000 to 5500 km.
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh 8 May 2020 18: 51 New
      • 14
      • 0
      +14
      The article is devoted to relatively small ships belonging to the class of frigates. There is no point in writing about cruisers and destroyers since we are not currently building them and will not build them for at least another 10 years.
      1. Nemchinov Vl 10 May 2020 00: 53 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Thank you for the article. For example, I was interested (it does not hurt, so to speak, for the overall development).
        But here uv. Dmitry, -
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        This article aims to consider the capabilities of air defense / missile defense of domestic and foreign ships of the class of frigates, to identify the main trends in the development of this class of ships ..
        it would seem wonderful after all fellow , but then, -
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        ... and make recommendations regarding the situation in which the Russian Navy is now.
        belay recourse sorry, did you want to give recommendations?
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        Russian Navy
        ?! I would not like to offend you at all, but I have a strong feeling that the Navy does not need anyone's recommendations, and moreover, he does not intend to listen to them repeat . request
        1. Dmitry from Voronezh 10 May 2020 01: 43 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Hello Vladimir! Thank you for your comment! You are certainly right - the highest military departments do well without outside recommendations. I am sure that there are sensible sane and patriotic people. Although there are others, let's say less good. As for the recommendations and suggestions, without them the article would be simply a statement of facts, there would be less room for discussion ... In short, it would be boring. I just tried to get as deep as possible into the essence of the issue and give my vision of the problem. As by the way, it turned out to be not entirely true. By and large, I don’t have a very high opinion of my understanding, but I am tempted to theorize when I write, this is such an element of creativity or something.
          1. Nemchinov Vl 10 May 2020 16: 12 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
            .. As for the recommendations and suggestions, without them the article would be just a statement of facts ..
            The world is beautiful and "no frills"... Is it worth chasing big ?!
            Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
            there would be less room for discussion.
            not how much. hi
            Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
            but he is drawn to theorizing when I write, this is such an element of creativity or something.
            good luck. You will succeed! Just don’t take more than you can bear on yourself (this is about recommendations for the Navy) .... They won’t hear us there. recourse although sometimes sorry. winked
            This is how you think (as a topic for the future)why do we feel comfortable "trying to blur their eyes", and further "replace concepts", in respect of implementation / implementation in life, the old (former) shipbuilding program .... Now we are smoothly trying to introduce the idea that 12 frigates (in all three of his incarnations: 2235016) 22350.1 (24) and 22350M (48 ) it's about UVP), is that the limit ?! And so it was planned ?! ...
            1. Dmitry from Voronezh 11 May 2020 01: 09 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Thanks for your kind words! hi The topic proposed by you is relevant. I’ll think about how and in what format it could be revealed.
    2. 5-9
      5-9 9 May 2020 10: 52 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      To make a rocket carrier about a transatmospheric interception from a frigate? Although what was this CM3 picking up there? More by satellite with a known up to 10 cm orbit special ...
  3. BREAKTHROUGH READY 8 May 2020 18: 54 New
    • 6
    • 19
    -13
    So-so article, too cursory review, which is more likely to be misleading than to give an idea on the topic
    Obviously, it’s more efficient not to fight missiles, but to destroy their carriers
    did the author hear anything about the “curvature of the earth”? For example, land anti-aircraft defense officers discovered this phenomenon only with the experience of the Syrian campaign. Domestic naval commanders would also do well to adopt the lessons of others.
    1. lucul 8 May 2020 19: 02 New
      • 5
      • 5
      0
      has the author ever heard of the "curvature of the earth"? For example, land anti-aircraft defense officers discovered this phenomenon only with the experience of the Syrian campaign. Domestic naval commanders would also do well to adopt the lessons of others.

      So you, too, recently, recently, pounded your heels in the chest, proving that there are no Gauges and Red Army Drove all stronger.
      Whose lessons are there to adopt? Are there systems superior to Poliment Redoubt on ships?
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. lucul 8 May 2020 19: 07 New
          • 6
          • 13
          -7
          Gauges dangled around the exhibitions all zero, interested in them “sucked to the screw”

          Which did not stop all the oppies from yelling that they were not there, and that they were cartoons - simply because the praised NATO radars simply could not detect them, despite the fact that they flew 1500 km to the target ...
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 May 2020 21: 54 New
            • 10
            • 1
            +9
            Quote: lucul
            What did not stop all opps from yelling that they are not

            Vitaly, do not wishful thinking. Everyone knew about calibers in the early 2000s
            Quote: lucul
            simply because the vaunted NATO radars simply couldn’t detect them

            Where did you get this?
            1. mvg
              mvg 9 May 2020 01: 47 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              Where did you get this?

              I really want to come up with a thread, for the sake of importance ... negative
      2. BREAKTHROUGH READY 8 May 2020 19: 13 New
        • 9
        • 6
        +3
        Gauges dangled around the exhibitions all zero, everyone who was interested in them literally sucked them to the screw and all the characteristics were known long before Syria.
        proving that there are no Gauges and
        so who and where proved, besides your exuberant imagination?
        Are there any systems superior to Polement Redoubt on ships?
        Aegis
        1. lucul 8 May 2020 19: 16 New
          • 3
          • 4
          -1
          Aegis

          Aegis max intercept speed? )))
          1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 8 May 2020 19: 19 New
            • 4
            • 9
            -5
            Downed satellite, approximately 27mah
            1. lucul 8 May 2020 19: 21 New
              • 7
              • 4
              +3
              Downed satellite, approximately 27mah

              The satellite does not maneuver, its trajectory is easy to calculate.
              What are the chances of knocking down the maneuvering Caliber / Onyx / Zircon?
              1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 8 May 2020 19: 23 New
                • 6
                • 6
                0
                and the warheads of ballistic missiles do not maneuver much, and so fall with difficulty.
                1. lucul 8 May 2020 19: 39 New
                  • 4
                  • 5
                  -1
                  and so fall with difficulty.

                  In the 60s, yes, now no.
              2. 5-9
                5-9 9 May 2020 10: 55 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Are minimal. One of the teak on board caught a subsonic target.
                A shot over sound targets is a Czech episode, not more than one at a time and the height is not indicated.
              3. Octopus 9 May 2020 18: 21 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: lucul
                What are the chances of knocking down the maneuvering Caliber / Onyx / Zircon?

                Zircon - 100%, it does not exist. Onyx - depends on the situation, when intercepting at a high-altitude section it is close to 100%, at a low-altitude external target designation is desirable. If the goal of Zircon is not the frigate itself, but an object hundreds of kilometers behind it (for example, AB), then the rocket can only go at altitude. Caliber - preferably outward target designation, a rocket emerges from the horizon too late. Too late for any SAM
              4. Cyrus 10 May 2020 09: 27 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                It’s quite decent.
        2. dvina71 8 May 2020 19: 40 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
          Aegis

          This is not an analogue of PR..from a word at all .., although some functions are exciting.
        3. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 May 2020 21: 54 New
          • 10
          • 0
          +10
          Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
          Are there any systems superior to Polement Redoubt on ships?
          Aegis

          Nothing that Poliment-Redoubt is a SAM, and Aegis is a BIUS?
          1. BREAKTHROUGH READY 8 May 2020 22: 21 New
            • 3
            • 9
            -6
            Nothing, because they perform the same task.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk 8 May 2020 23: 52 New
              • 8
              • 0
              +8
              Everything is clear :))) March to learn materiel!
              1. Cyrus 10 May 2020 09: 28 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                More specifically?
          2. Cyrus 10 May 2020 09: 28 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Both that and another complex ...
    2. dvina71 8 May 2020 19: 04 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
      “Curvature of the earth”

      Hosspeed .. How many years already UPV 40V6M ....
    3. Alexey RA 8 May 2020 19: 29 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      Quote: BREAKTHROUGH READY
      has the author ever heard of the "curvature of the earth"? For example, land anti-aircraft defense officers discovered this phenomenon only with the experience of the Syrian campaign.

      Seriously?

      Stationary towers for the OVC radar were built back in Soviet times. I personally saw a couple of such towers in the mid-80s near Leningrad - from Pukhtolovaya Gora towards Lake. Beauty, next to the "air defense concrete" A-120. The towers are still standing, though the radar at the site is already different.
      In addition, the S-300 air defense divisions for working at low altitudes have their own mobile towers - 40V6M (25 m) and 40V6MD (39 m). On these towers are a low-altitude detector and a radar for guidance illumination.

      That is, the division was initially given the means to not only see targets at the MV and PMV at a greater distance, but also to fire at them.
      And these towers are an excellent unmasking feature that makes it easy to determine the position of “live” divisions in space images - by the characteristic three-beam star of the base and the shadow of the tower itself. smile
      1. Avior 8 May 2020 19: 37 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        if you raise the antenna from a height of 16 m to a height of 36 m, the radio horizon will increase from 16 km to 24 km.
        This is a dubious solution to the problem, taking into account technical complexity and other things.
        1. kjhg 8 May 2020 20: 16 New
          • 8
          • 2
          +6
          Quote: Avior
          if you raise the antenna from a height of 16 m to a height of 36 m, the radio horizon will increase from 16 km to 24 km.
          This is a dubious solution to the problem, taking into account technical complexity and other things.

          Just not. You gave an example when the terrain is perfectly flat. Agree that this does not occur often, or rather, only at sea. In uneven terrain with small elevations, raising the antenna height from 16 to 36 meters will allow you to peek over these hills, which can be a decisive factor.
          1. Avior 8 May 2020 21: 13 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            But the plane does not fly at ground level.
            and antennas in the hollows do not put
            in any case, the increase in range is not due to the height of the antenna and the aircraft, but to the roots of square heights
        2. timokhin-aa 8 May 2020 23: 01 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          So the goal is also in the air, forgotten.
          With an antenna height of 36 meters and a target altitude of 50 meters, the range of direct radio visibility is almost 54 km. And when flying the target at 100 meters already 66.
          If the antenna is deployed on a hill 30 meters high above the terrain, then 74 km
          1. Avior 8 May 2020 23: 30 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            So it was about the height of the antenna
            In this case, if the antenna stood at 16 meters, that is, half as much, the range of the radio horizon would be about 60 km.
            That is, an increase in the antenna height does not give a proportional increase in range
            1. timokhin-aa 9 May 2020 02: 13 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              It doesn’t, but it doesn’t come down to the radio horizon either, I have given the numbers. What matters is, ultimately, the result.
              1. Avior 9 May 2020 07: 45 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                From the very beginning, I wrote that raising the antenna to a large mast, like the photo above, does not give a noticeable increase in the detection range at very low altitudes.
                Whatever goal parameters are taken
                1. 5-9
                  5-9 9 May 2020 10: 57 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  24 it's 1,5 times more than 16 ... time is 1,5 times more ... it's a very noticeable handicap
                  1. Avior 9 May 2020 15: 30 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Not fundamentally
                    But this is a radio horizon, not a change in real range
                    Above we considered 16 m altitude-74 km, 36 m- 60 mind
          2. Demagogue 9 May 2020 07: 35 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            It would be good to point out the goal, and it would be very good.
      2. voyaka uh 10 May 2020 23: 41 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        "I personally saw in the mid-80s near Leningrad - from Pukhtolova Mountain towards Lake Beauty, next to the" air defense concrete "" ////
        -----
        What words are familiar: Puhtolova, Beauty, concrete ... Oh, childhood, childhood drinks
        1. Alexey RA 12 May 2020 19: 19 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          What words are familiar: Puhtolova, Beauty, concrete ... Oh, childhood, childhood

          Duc ... in those parts I spent several "summer years" in the Gagarin Pioneer Camp. First, as a pioneer in the squads, and then as a permanent member - as the person responsible for the "radio room" (broadcast and evening disco). smile

          We then argued for a long time - why there are so many roads in the forest, and what kind of ring shafts come across on forest roads, and even with concrete platforms and steel flanges protruding from them in each? About ten years ago I looked at the Google Earth images from space - and found that we were walking in the field position of C-75: six rings in a circle under the launchers and one ring in the center.
          1. voyaka uh 12 May 2020 20: 20 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            "what kind of ring shafts come across on forest roads," ///
            ----
            ABOUT! And I would still not know if not for your explanation. good
            We called them because of the circular shape of the circus. It was clear that something was military,
            but what?
            I lived in the summer in Zelenogorsk, we rented a room for the summer.
            They came to Pukhtolova on bicycles and rode on the concrete. Along her
            several lakes. Bathe. And mushrooms, berries ... fellow drinks
            1. Alexey RA 13 May 2020 12: 08 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              ABOUT! And I would still not know if not for your explanation. good
              We called them because of the circular shape of the circus. It was clear that something was military,
              but what?

              So I understood only in the "top view". On earth, horseradish you will understand how these embankments are located, especially in the forest. And in the space photograph, the characteristic “circle of circles” of the position is clearly visible. smile
              On A-120 in the region of Reshetnikovo there are four such field positions of S-75 radar in the forest. True, in the new space images they are already barely distinguishable - everything is overgrown.
              1. voyaka uh 13 May 2020 12: 12 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                ABOUT! Exactly, the village / village there was - Reshetnikovo.
                And with Puhtolova, one could see the "locomotive graveyard".
                We boys climbed into a hole in the fence there and climbed
                by steam locomotives.
                1. Alexey RA 13 May 2020 19: 33 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  ABOUT! Exactly, the village / village there was - Reshetnikovo.

                  And the ZhBK plant, behind the fence of which there was a whole shaft of discarded defective reinforced concrete constructions.
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  And with Puhtolova, one could see the "locomotive graveyard".
                  We boys climbed into a hole in the fence there and climbed
                  by steam locomotives.

                  MPS-ovskaya reserve base Zelenogorsk. Somehow during the next trip to Pukhtolova Mountain we persuaded the counselor to go "to the locomotives." And we, as an organized group, were missed and even told something. smile
                  Now the "contingent" has changed there - mostly electric trains and diesel locomotives with electric locomotives live their lives on the base.
                  1. voyaka uh 13 May 2020 19: 37 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    "as an organized group, missed" ///
                    ---
                    And the watchman scared us! I had to jump straight from the engine and make legs laughing
    4. Doctor 8 May 2020 20: 29 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      did the author hear anything about the “curvature of the earth”? For example, land anti-aircraft defense officers discovered this phenomenon only with the experience of the Syrian campaign.

      And there it is in the curvature? That the stations had such large closing angles that they did not see throughout the flight?
  4. Avior 8 May 2020 19: 58 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    Interesting article.
    Only in my opinion the subtleties of the operation of some radars are not disclosed.
    For example, line-by-line scanning AN / SPY-1D and why the Spanish frigate dispenses with general-purpose radar.
    As for increasing the range of anti-aircraft missiles, everything is not so simple.
    There is a problem with the range of radio visibility.
    The radio visibility of an airplane flying at an altitude of about 1500 meters is approximately just about 150 km.
    1500 m is sufficient height for the aircraft to approach the ship below the height of the radio visibility without any problems.
    At a greater range, the height of the visibility is even greater. at a distance of 240 km (this is the range of the American SM-6), the radar will not see the aircraft below 3600 m, that is, in fact, the aircraft will easily leave the ship’s visibility range.
    In itself, a simple increase in the range of the missiles will not lead to a real increase in the air defense zone, other measures are needed
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh 8 May 2020 20: 23 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Thanks for the informative comment! It clarifies a lot.
    2. Usher 8 May 2020 20: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      At a greater range, the height of the visibility is even greater. at a distance of 240 km (this is the range of the American SM-6), the radar will not see the aircraft below 3600 m, that is, in fact, the aircraft will easily leave the ship’s visibility range.
      But even from such a height, RCCs of an air launch will not reach the ship, and if they gain altitude, it is easier to bring them down.
      1. Avior 8 May 2020 21: 17 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Modern anti-ship missiles fly at low altitude at the wave level and the range does not depend on the launch height.
        The minimum height is only necessary for starting, 1500 meters is enough with the head.
    3. Octopus 9 May 2020 18: 28 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Avior
      In itself, a simple increase in the range of the missiles will not lead to a real increase in the air defense zone, other measures are needed

      )))

      Both from the RCC and from the SAM side, the range growth is determined by the capabilities of the network, which provides reconnaissance and over-target targeting. Fans of both Caliber and S-400 usually ignore this fact.
      1. Avior 9 May 2020 18: 34 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        I did not hear about the over-target designation of the s-400, or rather, guidance from a third-party source.
        I know that the Americans were pointing cm-6 according to data from third-party sources, both ships and aircraft
        1. Octopus 9 May 2020 18: 38 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: Avior
          I did not hear about the over-target designation of the s-400, or rather, guidance from a third-party source.

          Ugums.

          Therefore, Link16 is everything, and super rockets are nothing. About the zircon of the song every week, according to the monstrous situation with the BIOS (to hell with the sea, what is happening with the land?) - not a word.
  5. Usher 8 May 2020 20: 39 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    Again crushing water in a mortar. Blah blah blah, the same thing from year to year. It is not necessary to have seven spans in the forehead to understand which ships and which scheme. The findings are simply stunning. Author Marshal Evidence! But thanks for the work.
  6. Alex Rossky 8 May 2020 21: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Even from such a short list of foreign frigates by their technical characteristics, it is clear that in each country the frigates solve their specific tasks assigned to these ships.
    My question is, does anyone know what task the frigates, ships of the far sea zone,
    in the Russian Navy?
    1. Usher 9 May 2020 08: 42 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      They have cloned weapons. 1 cannon, 1-2 missiles, 32-48 vertical air defense systems, 2-3 / 4 tube TAs, 1 helicopter, 8 launchers of anti-ship missiles. All.
      1. Cyrus 10 May 2020 09: 31 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        That's right, the strike forces of the US Navy, the rest is an escort.
  7. Pavel57 8 May 2020 22: 28 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    It should also be mentioned that anti-aircraft missiles have the ability to fire at ships.
  8. voyaka uh 8 May 2020 22: 38 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    About frigates. Americans chose Italian FREMM in a tender of 4 firms

    WASHINGTON - The US Navy selected Fincantieri's FREMM design for its next-generation frigate


    20 pieces will be built at the shipyard on the Great Lakes
    1. Avior 8 May 2020 23: 23 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      I read that 1 was ordered and an option for another 9
      Contract price - 5'5 billion with option
      The normal price, Navi in ​​the States began to count the day?
      1. 5-9
        5-9 9 May 2020 10: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        This is without weapons and radar, so everything is as usual ....
        1. Avior 9 May 2020 18: 35 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          With weapons and radar there is a question-
          What will they put
          1. Liam 10 May 2020 02: 06 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Avior
            With weapons and radar there is a question-
            What will they put

            Everything is American. The building is about 500 million. The cost of the filling is about the same.

            Sensors and
            processing systems:

            COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System (AEGIS derivative)

            AN / SPY-6 (V) 3 Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR)

            AN / SPS-73 (V) 18 - Next Generation Surface Search Radar

            AN / SLQ-61 light weight towed array sonar

            AN / SQS-62 Variable-Depth Sonar

            AN / SQQ-89F undersea warfare / anti-submarine warfare combat system
            Cooperative Engagement Capability

            Armament:

            32 Mark 41 VLS cells with:
            Possibly RIM-162 ESSM Block 2 and / or RIM-174 Standard ERAM missiles

            Planned RIM-66 Standard SM-2 Block 3C

            8x or 16x canister launched Over-the-horizon Anti-Ship Weapons (likely Naval Strike Missile)

            21x RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile launched from Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching System
            Mk 110 57mm gun with the Advanced Low Cost Munition Ordnance (ALaMO) projectile and related systems. Various machine guns M240 or M2

            Aircraft carried:

            1x MH-60R Seahawk helicopter
            MQ-8C Firescout
            1. Avior 10 May 2020 05: 57 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              I see. Instead of a cheap frigate, there will be a light version of the latest generation of Burke.
              But I did not understand this
              . 8x or 16x canister launched Over-the-horizon Anti-Ship Weapons (likely Naval Strike Missile)

              They will not stand in those 32 cells of UVP, but separately?
              1. Liam 10 May 2020 07: 35 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Separately will be
          2. 5-9
            5-9 10 May 2020 10: 35 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Yes, it seems clear, MK41 for 32 pieces and a couple of RAMs ... Everything is as usual ...
      2. Liam 10 May 2020 01: 54 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Avior
        I read that 1 was ordered and an option for another 9

        This is the first "tranche." The total number of frigates will be 20. The total cost of 19 yards. The price of 1 piece is 940 million.
        Report to Congress on US Navy Frigate FFG (X) Program
        May 5, 2020 7:49 AM
        The following is the May 4, 2020 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Frigate (FFG [X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

        From the report
        The FFG (X) program is a Navy program to build a class of 20 guided-missile frigates (FFGs).
        Quote: Avior
        Report to Congress on US Navy Frigate FFG (X) Program
        May 5, 2020 7:49 AM
        The following is the May 4, 2020 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Frigate (FFG [X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

        From the report
        The FFG (X) program is a Navy program to build a class of 20 guided-missile frigates (FFGs)
        1. Avior 10 May 2020 06: 00 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Yes, the NAVI Congress is not enough to drive money inability to count, although the effect is observed.
          But they still need to move to an inexpensive frigate.
          1. Liam 10 May 2020 07: 40 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            The French version of FREMMA with zonal air defense is 850 million, and not so stuffed. In addition, these 20 frigates are being built by cutting the LCS program. Instead, only 50 will be built.
            1. Avior 10 May 2020 09: 08 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Well, that's better already.
              But I meant something like Formidebl on the basis of Lafayette, a simple ship that would relieve the main forces from secondary tasks, at a cost of a maximum of 400 million.
  9. bk0010 8 May 2020 23: 46 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    And here the range of the Reduta of 150 km is no longer enough.
    Enough. The reason is the radio horizon of the ship (about the same). Well, or do external target designation and our Link-16. The only real use of the long-range anti-aircraft missile that I see is Hokai splash.
    Radars are needed that can detect stealth targets at a distance of 200-250 km.
    What for? They intend to make starts from a small height, according to external target designation, without fundamentally entering the zone of our air defense. Focus on your 60-80 km detection ranges given in your article.
    1. Avior 9 May 2020 15: 32 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Hokai is not easy either
      He will easily stay at the limit of radio visibility, leaving periodically lower in danger
  10. mvg
    mvg 9 May 2020 01: 43 New
    • 6
    • 3
    +3
    that Russia today has a good backlog on naval air defense systems in the form of "Redut", "Calm-1" and S-400

    Gee-gee, precisely because of the "good backlog" Gorshkov was built for 9 years. And in the fleet there is not a single modern air defense / missile defense system of the SAAMP-T class, which is on the Daring and Horizons.
    the author, what "numbed" S-400, enough to read bedtime stories
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh 9 May 2020 02: 10 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      Well, why so categorically? Polement Redoubt still brought to mind. Additional confirmation of this is the adoption of the S-350 - the land version of the "Redut". By its characteristics, the Redoubt is quite comparable with the RAAMS installed on the Horizons and destroyers type 45. This concerns the range, speed, maneuverability of missiles. In the article, these figures are given, you can compare. What we concede is as radars. But in principle, the capabilities of "Poliment" for the defense of frigates 22350 are enough.
      1. mvg
        mvg 9 May 2020 10: 18 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        By its characteristics, the Redoubt is quite comparable with the RAAMS installed on the Horizons and destroyers type 45

        As if softer. Where did you see our missiles with overloads of 60? Where did you see the Tiles level AFAR on Daring? Who told you that Polement’s problems have been resolved? State acceptance "not by washing, so by skating." Why range if it does not hit anything?
        Have you ever seen a video on the net how Redoubt knocks down RCC? For some reason, both the French with Aster-15 and the Jews with Barak-8 exist.
        There were no questions why the Hindus put Barak'i on Calcutta and Vikramadiyu?
        But in principle, the capabilities of "Poliment" for the defense of frigates 22350 are enough.

        Until the first Chinese anti-ship missiles. 22350 will be just the fleet's workhorses, replacing 1155, nothing to do with the prodigy common. Not a single “highlight”. Neither as a strike ship, nor as an air defense / missile defense.
        1. bk0010 9 May 2020 14: 16 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: mvg
          Why range if it does not hit anything?
          She will give time to get ready
          1. Avior 9 May 2020 15: 34 New
            • 0
            • 1
            -1
            Typically, radar in range is 1.5 times the range
          2. mvg
            mvg 9 May 2020 18: 36 New
            • 5
            • 1
            +4
            She will give time to get ready

            You misinterpreted me. Tell me honestly, are we on the radar “ahead of the rest”? We are 20 years behind. All performance characteristics in the network and in the media. We always reach “compromises” when we need to hand over an object. Polement-Redoubt does not meet the declared characteristics. Diamond, everyone has drunk ...
            1. voyaka uh 10 May 2020 23: 50 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              "Diamond, all ..." ////
              -----
              Not the first time.
              They have all the radars real characteristics are much lower than stated.
        2. Dmitry from Voronezh 9 May 2020 18: 28 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          There are data on overloads in the article, you can compare "Redoubt" and PAAMS. There are also videos about Redut’s work on RCC. Of course, even our videos, even foreign ones, do not give a real picture of the combat effectiveness of air defense systems. These are more advertising moves.

          When the Indians began to lay Calcutta, the Redoubt was not ready, so they put other systems on them, which, however, does not prove that the Redut is worse.
          An indirect sign that the problems of "Redoubt" have been resolved is the adoption of its land version - S-350.
          1. Alexey RA 12 May 2020 19: 52 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
            When the Indians began to lay Calcutta, the Redoubt was not ready, so they put other systems on them, which, however, does not prove that the Redut is worse.
            An indirect sign that the problems of "Redoubt" have been resolved is the adoption of its land version - S-350.

            In my opinion, you argue about different things. You write about the Corvette “pure” “Redoubt”, and your opponent speaks about the frigate “Polement-Redoubt”.
            The fact that pure Redoubt works has long been known. The corvettes at the exercises shot them back in 2015. The question is - does Redoubt work in conjunction with Polyment on frigates?
            1. Dmitry from Voronezh 12 May 2020 23: 34 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Yes, this video is not entirely correct. There is no video of the Poliment-Redut operation from the Gorshkov board, but what it is is just a video of rocket launches. Although, I think that if the MO set a goal, to remove such a video, it would be real. In general, the discussion about whether the Polyment-Redut works / does not work runs into a dead end. According to indirect data, it works, but there is no 100% evidence.
              1. Liam 12 May 2020 23: 44 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
                Yes, this video is not entirely correct. There is no video of the Poliment-Redut operation from the Gorshkov board, but what it is is just a video of rocket launches. Although, I think that if the MO set a goal, to remove such a video, it would be real. In general, the discussion about whether the Polyment-Redut works / does not work runs into a dead end. According to indirect data, it works, but there is no 100% evidence.

                And the fact that the complex has not yet been put into service is, according to your classification, an indirect sign that it works or a direct sign that it does not work?
                1. Dmitry from Voronezh 12 May 2020 23: 51 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Who says he is not accepted? On the contrary, there were reports in the media about solving problems with Redoubt. Again they took the "Pots". Another confirmation is the adoption of the land version of the Redut - S-350. In addition, in one of the articles of M. Klimov (a person closely acquainted with the problems of the fleet) there was a mention of solving problems with the "Redoubt". So I think that by indirect signs the air defense system is working.
                  1. Liam 13 May 2020 00: 08 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    It is clear. Let me remind you that adoption is carried out by orders of the Ministry of Defense and not by anonymous media.
                    The assurances of Russian shipbuilders and naval leaders are a special genre of literary creativity. The user Octopus quite accurately wrote about the tales about the S-350
                    1. Dmitry from Voronezh 13 May 2020 00: 13 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      I cited evidence that Redoubt works. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Different from the ones the Octopus brought?
                      1. Liam 13 May 2020 00: 34 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        What evidence have you brought of Redut's work? Funny stories about the land S-350? This can only serve as evidence for an avid over-optimist.
                        Do you even know what was (and is) Polement Redoubt's problem? What exactly does not work in it?
                      2. Dmitry from Voronezh 13 May 2020 00: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I know about Polent-Redoubt that there was a problem with the transfer of missile control from one lattice to another. The developers know the details. Are you one of them? Maybe you took part in the tests?
                      3. Liam 13 May 2020 09: 36 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        No, I didn’t accept. I don’t have to be a road worker to understand that the asphalt on the strip is broken)
                        When the radar does not interact with missiles, this means redoing the CIUS
                      4. Dmitry from Voronezh 13 May 2020 16: 10 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        You are not one of the developers or testers, however, you make a conclusion about the system’s operability, make a conclusion about the existing problem, and even, apparently, think that it cannot be solved. You probably consider yourself more competent than the developers.
                      5. 3danimal 15 May 2020 04: 42 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        This is a weak argument - “trust the wisdom of developers” negative
                        In addition, the story of the problems of transferring goals between the gratings shows the lag of "Diamond" from specialized companies from the USA (Tiki, Burke) and Britain (Daringi).
                      6. Dmitry from Voronezh 15 May 2020 04: 59 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Developers, whatever they are, are professionals. They solve the problems. There’s nobody else anyway. Not homegrown experts. As for the problem of managing missiles, it may well be that it has already been resolved. In any case, the arguments for are more than against. And yet, on type 45 destroyers (Dering) there is no radar with fixed blades, there is a rotating radar, that is, a slightly different principle.
                      7. 3danimal 15 May 2020 07: 12 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I agree that there are no fixed canvases on Daring, but the applied ones - AFAR (SAMPSON) and CAR (S1850M), are an even more advanced solution than the serial SPYs on Berks.
                      8. Dmitry from Voronezh 15 May 2020 07: 16 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        I do not argue, there are very good radars. We are lagging behind in this indicator. But what to wish when the electronic industry simply survived in the 1990-2000s ...
                      9. 3danimal 15 May 2020 07: 29 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        There is an important point: the lag (in the creation of radar and microelectronics) was before the collapse of the Union. The first ships with fixed PFAR - the cruiser Long Beach with their SCANFAR, and this is in 1961 (!).
                        You can recall the "largest microcircuits in the world", as well as reverse engineering of Western samples.
                  2. 3danimal 15 May 2020 07: 15 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    About developers and couch experts: this way you can “fend off” any criticism and doubts regarding technology. In fact, there is no (yet) reliable data, only speculations of the same experts. Time will tell hi
  • Cyrus 10 May 2020 09: 33 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And for a workhorse, it is too expensive ...
  • Octopus 9 May 2020 18: 31 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
    Polement Redoubt still brought to mind. Additional confirmation of this is the adoption of the S-350 - the land version of the "Redut".

    )))
    You have subtracted this argument from Andrey from Chelyabinsk.

    Andrei from Chelyabinsk is unjustified optimism. Especially in Russia, where, as it turned out on the example of the Su-57, the fact of adoption into service does not mean that the machine exists.
    1. Dmitry from Voronezh 9 May 2020 18: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Not at Andrey. From the news: https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3944299.html
      While the S-350 is only in training centers, but as soon as they are trained to work with it, it will soon be in the troops. It is significant that about 5 years on the S-350 there was silence in the news: no messages, no photos, but from last year the situation has changed - news, articles. So, I think that the appearance of the S-350 in the troops is a weighty argument in favor of the fact that the problems with the Redoubt have been resolved.
      1. Octopus 9 May 2020 19: 32 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        From the news: https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3944299.html

        I do not see mentions in the BMPD about Poliment. Logic "S-350 is Consequently PR pounded "I saw you before Andrew. Perhaps a coincidence, great minds think alike.
        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        So, I think that the appearance of the S-350 in the troops is a weighty argument in favor of the fact that the problems with Redoubt have been resolved.

        Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
        While the S-350 is only in training centers,

        The most dangerous kind of lies is to lie to yourself. Not to mention how much existed and exists in the troops of different junk, the problems with which were not nearly resolved. And not only in the USSR / RF.
        1. Dmitry from Voronezh 9 May 2020 19: 38 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          I made arguments in favor of the fact that the Redoubt and S-350 brought to working condition. What arguments do you bring in favor of the opposite?
          1. Octopus 9 May 2020 19: 57 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
            I have argued that the Redoubt and the S-350

            Firstly, I am not interested in the S-350. Whoever writes there, I don’t think that land complex = ship complex. I did not forget the S-300.

            Secondly, as long as they talk about Polement Redoubt anonymous sources in public Media (for example, you have access to chipboard or classified information, and you want to merge it, make a little treason. Will you communicate with gossmi journalists?) - it certainly does not exist. When it appears on export ships - then we'll talk.
            1. Dmitry from Voronezh 9 May 2020 20: 10 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Well, I see that you have no hard facts. There is an opinion which you adhere to and promote. Well then, there’s nothing to discuss - to each his own.
              1. Octopus 9 May 2020 20: 16 New
                • 3
                • 1
                +2
                Quote: Dmitry from Voronezh
                Well, I see that you have no hard facts.

                )))
                Like you. To prove the absence of something is generally almost impossible.

                But I’m not writing articles about this, but you.
      2. 3danimal 15 May 2020 04: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There is no evidence that problems with Polyment have been resolved.
  • Angry 9 May 2020 07: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Good article! Thanks to the author. It would be nice to submit comparative material in tabular form. Good luck!
  • Scharnhorst 9 May 2020 07: 57 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The author probably heard about the need for separation of the air defense system to increase its reliability. The simplest example: C-400 and "Shell". An example from a past technological background: Atlant with Fort and Osa and Kuzya with Dagger and Cortic. An attempt from poverty to focus everything on one ship is the Peter the Great with two Forts, Daggers, ZRPK and universal artillery. And this is understandable - in both cases, an attempt to fend off a stellar raid of an aircraft carrier wing with anti-ship missiles at the target designation of Hokai. And still, these groups are only a tool for trying to cover up not your loved ones, but either the deployment zone of the SSBN or a detachment of ships. The ship will never be hijacked and will not reach the air opponent until he goes on the attack. Therefore, reliability is important, and not the range of damage to the ICS. Well, the economic component of modern warfare cannot be avoided. Surely the possibility of hitting an air target at a range of 200 kilometers will be an order of magnitude more expensive than its guaranteed destruction at a distance of 20 kilometers from the protected object. This applies to frigates - the topic of the article.
  • Hermit21 9 May 2020 08: 07 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Ivan Osipovich, it seems, received a 9M317MA with an active seeker. Or maybe the rest of the admirals of his project
  • 5-9
    5-9 9 May 2020 10: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As usual, we want the Death Star ... Let's put a 1,8-ton rocket with a range of 380 km into the frigate ... Oh, and do the US anti-ship missiles based on the AGM158 .... BESM ICBM or well, so that on the basis of the adversary kill , do not do frigate ...
  • alexmach 9 May 2020 12: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    However, Russia is a different matter. Our VKS are now not too numerous and also dispersed over a vast area, so in the event of a conflict, the fleet will have to rely primarily on naval air defense systems. And here the range of the Reduta of 150 km is no longer enough.

    So maybe in this situation it is rational to solve the problem and not to invent workarounds. The problem of aviation support for the operations of the fleet.
  • alexmach 9 May 2020 12: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It is interesting, by the way, that the 22350M mock-ups featured a freestanding, like the Dutchman’s huge rotary radar survey.
    1. Liam 10 May 2020 02: 14 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: alexmach
      It is interesting, by the way, that the 22350M mock-ups featured a freestanding, like the Dutchman’s huge rotary radar survey.

      Oh, these models of Russian shipbuilders
      1. alexmach 10 May 2020 14: 46 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        They announced it even before the completion of state tests of Polement-Redut and Admiral Gorshkov himself. The first thought when looking at it was that the Poliment-Redoubt did not work out at all and that a new ship of a larger deployment was being developed in order to place the antennas larger, taller, and taller.
      2. 3danimal 15 May 2020 04: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And what are the handsome super destroyer and aircraft carrier wink
  • Bat039 10 May 2020 11: 12 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    Carriers of enemy missiles are more effective in destroying anti-ship missiles, rather than SAMs, and here the Russian Federation is doing fine. Even the range of obsolete Soviet anti-ship missiles Moskit is 240 km, anti-ship missiles Progress 460 km, anti-ship missiles Basalt 550 km, anti-ship missiles Granite 650-700 km, anti-ship missiles Volcano 1000 km ... Thus, it can be seen that even the Soviet anti-ship missiles are quite up to date. Range of modern anti-ship missiles Onyx-M 800 km ...