The commander of the Pacific Fleet announced the timeline for testing the frigate "Marshal Shaposhnikov"

The commander of the Pacific Fleet announced the timeline for testing the frigate "Marshal Shaposhnikov"

Undergoing major repairs and modernization, the frigate "Marshal Shaposhnikov" is planned to be sent for mooring and sea trials in the second half of 2020, work on the ship is on schedule. This was stated by the commander of the Pacific fleet (Pacific Fleet) Admiral Sergey Avakyants in an interview with Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper.


According to the commander, he constantly visits the Dalzavod, where Marshal Shaposhnikov is undergoing repairs. Work on the ship is carried out on schedule, without disruption, the start of testing the frigate is scheduled for the second half of 2020, and return to the Pacific Fleet at the end of the year.

In the second half of the year, mooring and then sea trials of the repaired and modernized frigate Marshal Shaposhnikov should begin. It is important that now it combines the capabilities of an anti-submarine ship and a carrier of high-precision cruise missiles. I regularly visit the ship at Dalzavod, where work is being carried out, and I can assure that their schedule is fully respected

- Avakyants emphasized.

As previously reported, the former BOD of project 1155 Marshal Shaposhnikov, undergoing major repairs and modernization, in the summer of 2019 was retrained as frigate. This decision was made by the Ministry of Defense.

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; bow artillery mount replaced. More than 20% of the ship’s superstructure were dismantled and newly manufactured, the hull was repaired, and other work was carried out.

The BOD was laid down on May 25, 1983, launched on December 27, 1984, and commissioned on December 30, 1985. In the Pacific Fleet since 1986.

Total displacement - 7480 tons, standard - 6840 tons. Length 163 meters, width 19 meters, draft 7,8 meters. Speed ​​30 knots, economical 14 knots. The crew of 220 people, including 29 officers.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. novel66 20 May 2020 10: 26 New
    • 3
    • 9
    -6
    was retrained in frigates

    somehow I immediately remembered ...
  2. Doccor18 20 May 2020 10: 28 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    God grant this 35-year-old giant still serve our Motherland.
    the start of the frigate tests is planned ...

    I always considered this great handsome destroyer.
    1. Bashkirkhan 20 May 2020 10: 51 New
      • 7
      • 5
      +2
      Extremely weak air defense - "carried out" by an attack from a high altitude, for a ship of 8000 tons of air defense systems with a reach of 12 km this is not enough. These ships were planned to be used together with 956 destroyers as part of the KUG, so 1155 had weak air defense and strike weapons.
      1. TermNachTer 20 May 2020 11: 07 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Alas, delivering him a serious air defense system will no longer work constructively. Although the range of the air defense system, even a short range, is growing all the time. In my opinion, he already has a more long-range complex - about 20 km.
      2. FIR FIR 20 May 2020 11: 11 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Yes, and `` Modern '' - you can’t call the air defense ship.
        Only 1144 and 1164 had decent zonal air defense.
        1. FIR FIR 20 May 2020 11: 21 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Dismantle the Dagger launcher and both ACs, and at this place the Fort-M launcher with 46 cells for 48N6E2.
        2. Serg65 20 May 2020 12: 01 New
          • 4
          • 2
          +2
          Quote: FIR FIR
          Yes, and `` Modern '' - you can’t call the air defense ship.

          Although during the exercises at the Pacific Fleet, RCC removed from the sky for a sweet soul!
          1. FIR FIR 20 May 2020 12: 43 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            When were these teachings? Which RCC did you shoot? How many modern anti-aircraft missile systems of the `` Hurricane '' of 1983 can simultaneously `` remove ''? The complex was very good, but it is outdated. And the range is a maximum of 70 km. for the latest version of Calm, no longer meets modern challenges in missile defense of a ship’s formation.
            1. Serg65 20 May 2020 13: 12 New
              • 6
              • 0
              +6
              Quote: FIR FIR
              When were these teachings?

              1989 Prize anti-aircraft missile shooting 175th BrRK Pacific Fleet.
              Quote: FIR FIR
              Which RCC did you shoot?

              RM-6, RM-35, KSR-5NM only 7 pieces from different directions with an interval of 15-20 seconds with the use of jammers Tu-16SPS-55 and Tu-16DOS, SAM consumption of 18 pieces. Missiles were launched from a distance of 20,5-19 km.
      3. alexmach 20 May 2020 11: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        These ships were planned for use with destroyers 956 as part of the KUG

        Well now, along with 22350 paired up apparently.
        1. FIR FIR 20 May 2020 11: 32 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Even in the USSR they admitted the fallacy of such an approach - `` always walk in pairs. '' In theory, it goes smoothly, but in practice .... And even in the Russian Navy, and with such a shortage of pennants in the ocean zone ....
          1. alexmach 20 May 2020 11: 49 New
            • 4
            • 1
            +3
            And what are the alternatives?
            1. write off the ship? and with the current deficit is this possible?
            2. make a larger modernization of the ship, which does not last long?
            1. FIR FIR 20 May 2020 12: 32 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              Upgrade - definitely! 22350 is too small. And it will be too short for a long time. 22350M - this is still `` Wishlist ''. The Leader is fantastic. So to upgrade 1155, there are no other options.
              And to modernize significantly so that the BOD becomes a full-fledged destroyer. Will it rise expensive? Yes, expensive. For a long time, maybe, but it depends on managers. But there are no other options. And these ships, without problems, will serve another 10 years.
            2. Nemchinov Vl 20 May 2020 14: 31 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              Quote: alexmach
              And what are the alternatives?
              create, on the basis of the Kronstadt Plant or Metalist-Samara, a center for offshore gas turbine engine building and gear assembly, a similar / similar Zarya-Mashproekt (!), the first and main task during the reorganization of which (in the first years) will be cloning / creating / copying their analogues GTD-DO90, and DT-59, as well as a copy of the gearbox for pr.1155 (!). Already three BOD 1155 from the Federation Council "froze" (by the way, "Chabanenko" fourth), but there’s nothing to replace them with GEM !!
              Quote: alexmach
              1. write off the ship?
              no not yet. send for repair, in anticipation of an analogue of its own power plant. request and it’s possible to upgrade the first couple for the time being like Shaposhnikov’s, during this time ...
              Quote: alexmach
              make a larger upgrade to a ship that does not last long?
              No, these old ones (Soviet 1155) probably do not really make sense to modernize on a larger scale. But the further study by Mishin (designer) of the project 1155 to 11560, it deserves pay attention to her (!). Even then, there was a study for 64 vertical cells of the Poliment-Redut air defense system, and for 24 UKKS cells (today, probably 32 and 48 can be added to the ship in VI 9000-10000 (having optimized and digitized the 3-D project), especially that under such a pair of gas turbine engines (M-70FRU marching and M-90FR afterburners), only gearboxes are missing (by analogy with 1155). Timokhin once reported that he would calculate and manufacture a gearbox for gas-gas (rather than diesel gas) GEM schemes are somewhat simpler, since the difference in speed is not so great ....
      4. venik 20 May 2020 13: 49 New
        • 4
        • 3
        +1
        Quote: Bashkirkhan
        Extremely weak air defense

        =========
        Weak? Hmm The question is of course interesting ..... 8x8 VPU SAM "Dagger" (64 missiles) and in the "appendage" 4 AK-630 ..... Let's just say - to repel the attack of anti-ship missiles (even massive and from different directions - it’s quite for him forces! Another thing is that defending other squadron ships - Alas! The short-range air defense system will not allow! This is YES! But his mission is OTHER - This is not a "destroyer" - it's a classic "destroyer destroyer" (with good strike capabilities after Uranium and UKKS installations)!
      5. huntsman650 20 May 2020 21: 03 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        He has completely self-defense air defense, of the ships of his class the most effective, the Dagger air defense system has 4 channels for the target, and there are two of them. Very effective complexes, but old email. base. SAM is the same as the TOP. Work was underway to modernize the air defense system, but unfortunately, in connection with the death of the chief designer, everything "stood up" for a long time.
    2. venik 20 May 2020 13: 33 New
      • 2
      • 3
      -1
      Quote: Doccor18
      I always considered this great handsome destroyer.

      I also don’t understand what kind of stupidity to retrain a ship 1th rank (ocean zone) in the frigate (by definition, a ship of the 2nd rank (i.e., the distant sea zone) ....
      Just because there are no long-range air defense systems there? Nonsense! request
    3. Phantom 104 20 May 2020 14: 18 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      According to the classification of NATO, this is the destroyer.
  3. Break through 20 May 2020 10: 29 New
    • 2
    • 8
    -6
    Waiting for him in the fleet good
  4. Replacing 20 percent of add-ons is probably serious ...
    1. Bashkirkhan 20 May 2020 10: 50 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      The AMG superstructure is rotten. Therefore, it’s problematic to upgrade old ships. Under the USSR, he would have already gone on needles after 25 years of service.
      1. Alexey RA 20 May 2020 10: 58 New
        • 7
        • 0
        +7
        Quote: Bashkirkhan
        The AMG superstructure is rotten. Therefore, it’s problematic to upgrade old ships. Under the USSR, he would have already gone on needles after 25 years of service.

        Not a fact - in the USSR, ships were decommissioned very reluctantly. The same RRC pr.58 and EM pr.56-U went on cancellation only in the 90s.
        1. TermNachTer 20 May 2020 11: 08 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Well, that’s how they were repaired regularly under the Union, right up to the capital, because they served for 30 and 40 years.
  5. Vadim Zhivov 20 May 2020 10: 37 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    God grant that the turn comes to the rest ... hi
  6. Fmax 20 May 2020 10: 46 New
    • 2
    • 5
    -3
    Why not build a new Gorshkov instead of 1155? Why spend money on resuscitation of exhausted vessels ?. Moreover, the modernization project does not apply to ship air defense ...
    1. Bashkirkhan 20 May 2020 10: 58 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      This is inevitable palliative, the construction time of the frigates of project 22350 goes right.
    2. kjhg 20 May 2020 11: 03 New
      • 13
      • 2
      +11
      Quote: FMax
      Why not build a new Gorshkov instead of 1155? Why spend money on resuscitation of exhausted vessels?

      Maybe because having 4 upgraded BOD pr.1155 on Pacific Fleet is still better than 1 new 22350?
      1. Fmax 20 May 2020 22: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        maybe it would be worth spending 4 potted ones?
  7. KVU-NSVD 20 May 2020 10: 49 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Gauges are certainly good. And what about anti-submarine weapons and equipment? Upgraded, saved, trimmed? In general, the modernization is serious - the ship is essentially rebuilt. The question arises - why does Uranus need it if it is possible to install Onyx
  8. Tuzik 20 May 2020 10: 56 New
    • 5
    • 3
    +2
    The 2nd art installation would be removed and inserted into a redoubt or shell m
    1. Marconi41 20 May 2020 12: 30 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      Quote: Tuzik
      The 2nd art installation would be removed and inserted into a redoubt or shell m

      I don’t know why you are being neglected, but replacing the second AU with something more substantial suggests itself. Maybe TOR or Shell, although this will greatly increase the period of modernization.
    2. Bersaglieri 21 May 2020 14: 01 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Redoubt is in place of Dagger, and Shell-M in place of AK-100, yes, quite.
  9. Engineer 20 May 2020 11: 12 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    BOD always belonged to the class of destroyer, and now demoted to the level of guard watch from the class of frigates
    1. Vlad Malkin 20 May 2020 11: 40 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Only "Admiral Chabanenko" could be attributed to destroyers!
      1. Bersaglieri 20 May 2020 12: 05 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        No. 1155 is an analogue of "Spruance" in its original form, in fact, pure DDG anti-sub
        1. Vlad Malkin 20 May 2020 12: 18 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Bersaglieri

          I agree! But then, the early “Sprouts” is more suitable for BOD. In general, as a ship, do not name it, the main thing is that it performs its task well.
          1. Bersaglieri 21 May 2020 13: 58 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Exactly. It’s strange: what kind of “minusers” ran in? Or "clinical poTSreotov" comparison with the technique of "potential adversary" jarred? Well, it means ... the materiel does not know :(
      2. Bersaglieri 21 May 2020 14: 00 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        “Shepherd” - the correct “convergence” of 956 and 1155 — that which was “in the mind”, as it should have been.
  10. Bersaglieri 20 May 2020 12: 04 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    What "frigate" if it is a BOD? According to the NATO classification - Pr.1155 DDG "Fregat" - only the code designation of the project.
  11. Old26 20 May 2020 13: 21 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: FIR FIR
    Upgrade - definitely! 22350 is too small. And it will be too short for a long time. 22350M - this is still `` Wishlist ''. The Leader is fantastic. So to upgrade 1155, there are no other options.
    And to modernize significantly so that the BOD becomes a full-fledged destroyer. Will it rise expensive? Yes, expensive. For a long time, maybe, but it depends on managers. But there are no other options. And these ships, without problems, will serve another 10 years.

    Well, strike weapons have been upgraded. And as for the “Fort-M” - whether it will rise to 1155, still earlier it was put on cruiser-class ships. And even more so in such numbers ...
    1. Bersaglieri 21 May 2020 11: 44 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      "Redoubt" can be shoved in place of the "Dagger"
  12. pmkemcity 20 May 2020 13: 44 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    I don’t really know what Dalzavod can repair there. In the nineties, staging in the Dalzavod, this is a one-way trip. We (EM Inspection) only made two cans of alcohol from stainless steel for our own alcohol, nothing more. But in the 91st ship was going to Kamran ... And then - Dalzavod!
  13. Imperial Technocrat 21 May 2020 03: 10 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This is a destroyer
  14. Thecubel21 21 May 2020 09: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    It’s more likely to see it after modernization. Surely the launchers are being dismantled. Although for me they painted it like that. It looked visually spectacular.
  15. Pavel57 21 May 2020 14: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    A forced decision, but better than none. Air defense is weak and the capabilities of anti-aircraft defense are not understood now.