Military Review

The addition of the "river-sea" in the composition of the ships: The timing of the transfer of the Black Sea Fleet MRK project 21631 "Grayvoron"

84
The addition of the "river-sea" in the composition of the ships: The timing of the transfer of the Black Sea Fleet MRK project 21631 "Grayvoron"

Small missile ship project 21631 (code "Buyan-M") "Grayvoron" began mooring trials. According to the press service of the Russian Navy, the ship will become part of the Black Sea fleet until the end of the year.


As explained in the press service, RTOs will undergo mooring tests, during which experts will check the operation of the main general ship systems and systems of the main power plant. Also, in parallel with the commissioning works, the arrangement and decoration of the ship's living and service premises will be carried out. After the end of this stage, “Grayvoron” will be relocated to Novorossiysk, where the factory running and state tests will be held.

Under the contract, the ship will become part of the Black Sea Fleet by the end of 2020. According to available information, RTOs will replenish the 41st Sevastopol Order of Nakhimov with a crew of missile boats. The brigade includes the MRK division and the tactical group of missile boats. The crew for the ship is already prepared.

Small missile ship "Grayvoron" is the eighth serial ship of project 21631, built at the JSC "Zelenodolsk plant named after AM Gorky" by order of the Russian Navy. Laid down on April 10, 2015, named after the city of Grayvoron in the Belgorod region of Russia.

RTOs of project 21631 "Buyan-M" are multipurpose ships of the "river-sea" type, equipped with modern weapons, including eight high-precision cruise missiles "Caliber". Displacement - 949 tons with a length of 75 meters and a width of 11 meters. The maximum speed is 25 knots. Cruising range - 2500 miles, autonomy - 10 days. The crew is 52 people. Installed jet propulsion.
84 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Sergey39
    Sergey39 10 June 2020 11: 21 New
    13
    4 more under construction.
    1. Oleg kubanoid
      Oleg kubanoid 10 June 2020 11: 42 New
      +1
      why 4? Grayvoron the ninth. 3 turns out ..
    2. antivirus
      antivirus 10 June 2020 11: 50 New
      -31
      again a trifle (spoon). when will Shoigu lay a carrier in 100 tons of explosives?
      1. ultra
        ultra 10 June 2020 12: 03 New
        10
        Quote: antivirus
        when Shoigu lays a \ bearer in 100 tons of VI

        In my opinion, we don’t need them. It’s better to spend money on more urgent tasks.
        1. Oleg kubanoid
          Oleg kubanoid 10 June 2020 12: 05 New
          14
          I would not put it that way ... at the moment it is better to spend money on something more necessary. in the future AV is needed .. at the moment we have nowhere to build it ..
          1. ultra
            ultra 10 June 2020 12: 08 New
            -5
            I would argue about the prospect.
            1. Alexey Sommer
              Alexey Sommer 10 June 2020 14: 26 New
              +3
              Quote: ultra
              I would argue about the prospect.

              I personally am very happy.
              This 3rd-class boat with a displacement of less than 1000 tons, if that. Able to destroy the floor of England, if the calibers will be special warhead. By efficiency, it’s like a Toyota pickup with a machine gun in Syria. Only at sea and instead of a machine gun 150 kt in one warhead out of 8 available.
              1. Grits
                Grits 10 June 2020 15: 07 New
                +9
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                This 3rd-class boat with a displacement of less than 1000 tons, if that. Able to destroy the floor of England, if the calibers will be special warhead. By efficiency, it’s like a Toyota pickup with a machine gun in Syria. Only at sea and instead of a machine gun 150 kt in one warhead out of 8 available.

                And the most necessary place for him is the Caspian. Because there is no one to drown him. There are no powerful surface ships, there are no submarines under the cover of their aircraft (because he has no air defense). But it can with impunity and irresponsibly spit a rocket over 2,6 thousand kilometers. It’s such a small, small and very nasty bully with a slingshot that you can’t catch and catch.
              2. ultra
                ultra 10 June 2020 15: 38 New
                -2
                I wrote about aircraft carriers.
                1. Alexey Sommer
                  Alexey Sommer 10 June 2020 16: 35 New
                  0
                  Quote: ultra
                  I wrote about aircraft carriers.

                  And here is a topic about Buyan)
                  By the way, this is Buyan, a sheer can bring more of some aircraft carrier.
              3. Nemchinov Vl
                Nemchinov Vl 10 June 2020 20: 36 New
                +1
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                I personally am very happy.
                Interestingly, I would prefer to buy Tavria myself, or at least Lada Priora or Opel Astra (even in the basic version with 1,4 and 16 valves) ?!
                Quote: Alexey Sommer
                Only at sea and
                quite controversial with excitement (!), no matter the cruising range ... ?!
        2. antivirus
          antivirus 10 June 2020 12: 05 New
          -13
          it does not convince me - my minusers.
          they are clearly lobbyists-pushers of cable products or paintwork. sit on s \ pl Yaroslavl paints or Perm cable factory (?)
        3. Kalmar
          Kalmar 10 June 2020 12: 10 New
          +6
          Quote: ultra
          In my opinion, we don’t need them. It’s better to spend money on more urgent tasks.

          Actually, the usefulness of the subject "Buyan" also on the pages of this site was repeatedly questioned: slow, poor seaworthiness, no air defense / PLO. In fact, not so much a ship as a floating launcher Caliber, somehow relevant at the time of the INF Treaty and not very interesting now.
          1. Malyuta
            Malyuta 10 June 2020 12: 32 New
            -6
            Quote: Kalmar
            In fact, it’s not so much a ship as a floating launcher Caliber, somehow relevant at the time of the INF Treaty and not very interesting now.

            I agree with you hi In the days of the USSR, containers with similar missiles could be placed on dry cargo vessels. Now, there are developments too.
          2. 5-9
            5-9 10 June 2020 13: 59 New
            -2
            Caliber-PKR can no longer be put there or Onyx?
            And to retreat to Middle-earth and from the southern flank to threaten with (naturally nuclear) Caliber?
            Is it better to air defense / missile defense in a boat up to a thousand tons with 8 large strike missiles from whom?
            The bias is understandable of course ... but ...
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 10 June 2020 14: 03 New
              +2
              Quote: 5-9
              And to retreat to Middle-earth and from the southern flank to threaten with (naturally nuclear) Caliber?

              Threaten to whom? NATO? Let me remind you that Turkey is its member, without the permission of which Buyan will not enter any Mediterranean. Well, plus the autonomy of 10 days - a little threaten and go home for refueling. If earlier the enemy submarine does not come across.
              1. 5-9
                5-9 10 June 2020 14: 07 New
                -2
                Staaaa ..... ???? Montreux how the INF Treaty canceled the stol?
                Yes, and somehow there is Latakia .... And then the "enemy submarine will be caught" - at even AUG then "threaten" will not work ...
                1. Kalmar
                  Kalmar 10 June 2020 14: 23 New
                  +3
                  Quote: 5-9
                  Staaaa ..... ???? Montreux how the INF Treaty canceled the stol?

                  But we understand that in the event of a serious aggravation, just like “Buyans” will not pass into the Mediterranean Sea? At a minimum, they will receive an unofficial escort from a pair of Turkish diesel submarines.

                  Quote: 5-9
                  And the “enemy submarine will be caught” - at least even the AUG will then fail to “threaten” ...

                  If the ship basically has means of detecting and destroying submarines, then there are many options.
                  1. 5-9
                    5-9 10 June 2020 14: 28 New
                    -3
                    Well, an escort, so what?
                    In the "case of serious aggravation," the Turks have nothing to do but escort the ships with possibly nuclear missiles, which they can possibly shoot at some American base thousands of kilometers from their borders .... yes they’ll put everything against the wall, take a picture and say " repair-quarantine-threat of Kurdish terrorists "... all ashore.
                    Once again, finding a ship with nuclear missiles that cover all of Europe from a direction where air defense is not deployed is a huge threat .... but you can even destroy the Death Star .. and even the submarine :))
                    1. Kalmar
                      Kalmar 10 June 2020 15: 06 New
                      +2
                      Quote: 5-9
                      Once again, finding a ship with nuclear missiles that cover all of Europe from a direction where air defense is not deployed is a huge threat

                      Not so huge if the ship breathes in the back of the head a submarine that the ship does not see and cannot hear. This is not to mention that the boat will also be closely scanned from the air, and he will not be able to do anything about it: the air defense is too short.
                      1. 5-9
                        5-9 10 June 2020 15: 39 New
                        -2
                        The submarine will jump out of the water and kaaaak grab all the CDs in an armful and drag them to the bottom, did the Schaub explode there?


                        PL ... round-the-clock surveillance from the air .... for a boat less than a thousand tons ... and you are useless, useless ...
                    2. Nemchinov Vl
                      Nemchinov Vl 10 June 2020 21: 38 New
                      0
                      Quote: 5-9
                      Once again, finding a ship with nuclear missiles that cover all of Europe from a direction where air defense is not deployed is a huge threat ..
                      Is this about Buyan-M ?! ...
                      Quote: 5-9
                      and you can even destroy the Death Star .. and even the submarine :))
                      to him WHAT to destroy ?!... you are not in the same car with M. Efremov (and not from one tavern / hookah) went ?!... -
                      Quote: 5-9
                      The submarine will jump out of the water and kaaaak grab all the CDs in an armful and drag them to the bottom, did the Schaub explode there?
                      (you understand what this issue is related to ?!) ...
                      Quote: 5-9
                      PL ... round-the-clock surveillance from the air .... for a boat less than a thousand tons ... and you are useless, useless ...
                      ?! really thought about the car with Efremov, when, -
                      Quote: 5-9
                      Staaaa ..... ???? Montreux how the INF Treaty canceled the stol?
                      Yes, and somehow there is Latakia .... And then the "enemy submarine will be caught" - at even AUG then "threaten" will not work ...
                      ... ????
        4. Alex draft
          Alex draft 23 June 2020 23: 29 New
          0
          Which tasks do you think are more relevant?
      2. smart ass
        smart ass 10 June 2020 12: 07 New
        -3
        Better 10 frigates instead of kuzi
        1. Grits
          Grits 10 June 2020 15: 10 New
          +9
          Quote: Clever man
          Better 10 frigates instead of kuzi

          Better 10 frigates and Kuzya
      3. Malyuta
        Malyuta 10 June 2020 12: 14 New
        -5
        Quote: antivirus
        when will Shoigu lay a carrier in 100 tons of explosives?

        Only after Ragozin builds a "moon elevator" and flies to Mars. hi good
      4. zwlad
        zwlad 10 June 2020 12: 19 New
        +2
        But why do we need an aircraft carrier?
        Well, it's just interesting to know the concept of its application.
        1. Alex 2020
          Alex 2020 10 June 2020 12: 54 New
          +3
          But why do we need an aircraft carrier?
          Well, just that would be. And there, somehow, they’ll come up with what, why .... why. laughing
          1. zwlad
            zwlad 10 June 2020 13: 24 New
            0
            By type - do they have us too?
            And how much will he eat?
            Russia is far from the USSR, where there was money for several identical programs for different design bureaus, in order to select the best later.
        2. paul3390
          paul3390 10 June 2020 13: 28 New
          +3
          Cover the deployment areas of the RKPSN ...
          1. zwlad
            zwlad 10 June 2020 13: 33 New
            0
            From whom? Ships? Sub? Aviation?
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 11 June 2020 17: 19 New
            0
            Quote: paul3390
            Cover the deployment areas of the RKPSN ...

            More precisely, to cover their ships from the air covering these areas.
            Without AB, it’s better not to move farther than 300-400 km from the nearest airfield - otherwise coastal aviation may simply not be in time.
      5. Hey
        Hey 10 June 2020 12: 23 New
        +8
        when will Shoigu lay a carrier in 100 tons of explosives?

        The other day on TV there was a broadcast about the Stalin and Molotov fortified areas, which cost a lot of money for their construction and even more money for their maintenance. And their effectiveness was close to zero.
        (And this is instead of spending these funds on smaller and more quantitative tanks, planes, artillery. Or at least on the same cars.)
        And the construction of an aircraft carrier in modern conditions from the same "opera".
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 10 June 2020 12: 35 New
          0
          Quote: MUD
          And the construction of an aircraft carrier in modern conditions from the same "opera".

          But why? If you need aviation at a substantial distance from your coast, there is essentially no alternative to an aircraft carrier. The same British felt this very well when they fought for the Falklands.
          1. zwlad
            zwlad 10 June 2020 13: 26 New
            +2
            and where do we need aviation at such a distance? well in the short term?
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 10 June 2020 13: 29 New
              +3
              Quote: zwlad
              and where do we need aviation at such a distance? well in the short term?

              In the near future, most likely, nowhere, therefore, in the same perspective, we do not need AB. Other countries have a different situation, and in our country, perhaps, in the distant future, needs will change.
        2. Vlad Malkin
          Vlad Malkin 10 June 2020 20: 18 New
          +1
          МУД (МУД)

          The fact is that almost all weapons were removed from the old fortified area, and almost everything was not completely built on the new border. Therefore, it happened: neither here nor there!
        3. fiberboard
          fiberboard 11 June 2020 07: 16 New
          0
          In this program, it was understood that the URs were disarmed and mothballed. If used correctly, the Germans would have suffered heavy losses. And it is not the fault of the URs that Stalin did not have sensible military commanders capable of correctly using them.
          1. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 11 June 2020 17: 50 New
            0
            Quote: fiberboard
            If used correctly, the Germans would have suffered heavy losses.

            Would not have. The Stalin Line was built against a completely different army and at completely different standards than the Molotov Line. The shallow depth of SD, the lack of all-round defense of defense areas, the prevalence of frontal fire bunkers and not the best quality of work - both design, when breaking down SD on the ground, and building. Even with the re-preservation and the presence of infantry filling the UR "Stalin Lines" broke through the Germans for three to four days.
            It is not surprising that the only UR of this line that withstood the blow was Karelsky - because it was attacked by the army that was taken into account during the construction: infantry with divisional artillery, light tanks, an extremely small number of large-caliber guns, without heavy tanks and assault self-propelled guns, without mechanized connections .
            The Molotov Line was designed and built already in accordance with the 1938 UR System, which was additionally adjusted based on the results of the SPS. And these were already completely different URs than in the early to mid-30s:
            1) The fortified area consists of several (5-8) defense nodes. Fortified areas have the following operational and tactical purpose:
            a) reliably cover the most important operational areas or areas, as well as represent the reference lines for the actions of field troops in defense and offensive operations;
            b) to be a solid support for the maneuver of our forces in the event of an enemy attack in neighboring operational areas.
            The system for organizing a fortified area must meet the following requirements:
            a) the mutual arrangement of defense nodes and camouflage them to create fire bags for the enemy;
            b) on the most important operational lines of defense, defense nodes are usually located in a checkerboard and step order to a depth of 8-15 km;
            c) between the fortified areas operational breaks are allowed with a length of 12-20 km;
            d) operational gaps in threatened areas are closed by defense units located in the depths of the ledge 10-15-20 km from the defense units of the 1st line. Operational gaps should be blocked by artillery fire on the flanking and in-depth defense units;
            e) between the defense nodes, gaps of 5 to 8 km are allowed, which must be reliably blocked by fire from long-term artillery structures and field artillery from defense nodes. The gaps between the defense nodes can be filled with means of field fortification and defended by field troops;
            f) fortified areas have their own special garrisons, the number of which is determined for each fortified area separately.
            Fortified areas should have 1-2 mobile divisions of anti-aircraft weapons each

            1. SD should have a total defense depth of 15-20 km, consisting of TWO bands of defense nodes, between which field positions (including cut-offs) and barriers are created. According to protocol # 7 of the GVS KA, the depth of the defense nodes was 5-10 km., And the defense nodes in the SD were located in one lane.
            2. SD in front of the main strip of defense nodes may have a FOSSIL, the depth of which depends on the removal of the front edge of the main strip of the SD from the state border, operational considerations and the nature of the terrain.
      6. dvina71
        dvina71 10 June 2020 12: 41 New
        +2
        Quote: antivirus
        . when will Shoigu lay a carrier in 100 tons of explosives?

        I hope no sooner than there is protection against anti-ship missile defense .. Avik has restrictions on the use of aircraft .. I don’t remember the ballast, pr.855 a storm on the surface is indifferent .. he will launch his missiles ..
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 10 June 2020 12: 53 New
          0
          Quote: dvina71
          Avik has restrictions on the use of aircraft .. I do not remember the score

          So any ship has its limitations. At the same ave. 885 (are you talking about him?) They also have enough. Here you just need to understand why you need a fleet and which ships have enough resources; proceeding from this and decide what and how much to build.
      7. Xnumx vis
        Xnumx vis 10 June 2020 12: 47 New
        0
        Quote: antivirus
        again a trifle (spoon). when will Shoigu lay a carrier in 100 tons of explosives?

        An aircraft carrier of 250 thousand tons with a displacement is required, and preferably 550! fellow
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 10 June 2020 13: 56 New
          -1
          Yes, I was mistaken for one toe - a need for 1 tons of VI
          without gadgets-- is there money and a place in the world of their application that needs protection by airborne aircraft? they’re not building Shoigu + USC, but Sechin, Gref-Miller + Alikverov-Daripaska and so on, “business captains” “ORDER MUSIC”.
          -There is a nonsense at our business, so that their plans should be protected so far, in the future for 5-10 years, is there a timeline for building aircraft carriers? Except for Venisuela, where else?
          name the countries and calculate their trickle of money in the pocket of the Russian Federation and the price of protecting that money with aircraft carriers.
          1. Xnumx vis
            Xnumx vis 10 June 2020 14: 45 New
            0
            Quote: antivirus
            except venicewell where else?

            Like Where in Space! drinks wink But I put a plus for you ... Sometimes the strangest projects come to life ...
      8. Interlocutor
        Interlocutor 10 June 2020 13: 05 New
        +2
        again a trifle (spoon)

        "River - Sea" with missiles. Just think. There is still one potential. For tactics - not a plowed field.
        Where will he swim .... Then I exaggerate ... On the Volga - mother I put 100 pieces - here's an additional defense line.
      9. Rubi0
        Rubi0 10 June 2020 16: 03 New
        0
        First you need to build ports that remained in the Baltic States and Ukraine, then ships of 100 tons each so that you could ship to, like Afromaks which were again built in Ukraine (even though the Kerch Bay has returned) and only then, to protect the waterways along which these vessels will be laid aircraft carriers and cruisers so that no one would scorch and threaten the blockade, otherwise ships of this class like a cruiser just pull the loot, but someone else must earn it. How bitter the Russian Federation does not sound, there are still a lot of stones and productions that need to be returned / recreated on their land from the used CIS
  2. Pavel73
    Pavel73 10 June 2020 11: 21 New
    -1
    Good boats. An alternative to ground launchers for cruise missiles. As a matter of fact, it was precisely because of these boats that the Americans became furious and left the INF Treaty. Under a far-fetched pretext.
    1. donavi49
      donavi49 10 June 2020 11: 33 New
      10
      In the distant future, these boats would have scored a whole 1 Burke in the aggregate salvo. Out of 70 in the US Navy.
      1. Pavel73
        Pavel73 10 June 2020 11: 40 New
        15
        This is not the point. The bottom line is that the Buyans-M are able to walk along almost the entire United deep-sea system of the European part of Russia, from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea. In fact, they are a replacement for ground-based launchers of long-range cruise missiles, but at the same time they formally do not violate the INF Treaty. This is our asymmetric response to the American missile defense system in Europe. So they freaked out.
        1. donavi49
          donavi49 10 June 2020 12: 06 New
          +7
          Well, they could walk. Now look where there are rivers and how many hundreds of kilometers to fly idle (above your territory? (Rivers only as an opportunity to transfer from the south to the Baltic and vice versa). And the Polish object is covered without Caliber. Romanian not. However, again - they have the strongest in the world marine component of strike CDs in the world. In Russia, even in the long term, there would be a total of 3 berks in the strike setup, taking into account the submarines of all fleets (that is, unattainable for use). And the real potential component when focusing on 1 direction is about 1 strike berk.

          Without an agreement - Russia gets a trump card, rivet the same CDs on wheeled chassis and put them in Kaliningrad, the European part of the country, or even abroad in a hidden version. Riveting mobile soil complexes in Russia has always come out much more vigorously than the fleet.

          The United States will have a unique opportunity to critically reduce the flight time for the main facilities in the European part with the commissioning of a new generation of BRS (M) D which are already under active development. Given the possible deployment of complexes in the Baltic states, Georgia and Ukraine - in theory, it is possible to achieve the destruction of the main control centers and decision-making by a sudden strike. At least such a temptation will appear.
          1. Hagen
            Hagen 10 June 2020 13: 23 New
            +2
            Quote: donavi49
            The United States will have a unique opportunity to critically reduce the flight time for the main facilities in the European part with the commissioning of a new generation of BRS (M) D which are already under active development.

            In these conditions, it is more necessary for us to have means of guaranteed a breakthrough of the missile defense of the continental United States and inflicting unacceptable damage to the United States, regardless of which bridgehead they decide to strike from. A foreign barrel at the temple forces his hands, even with brass knuckles on his fingers, to hold "at the seams". And the European "partners" will not begin independent active actions without guarantees of the help of the "big brother" nuclear club. There is also ambitious Britain, it should also be classified as an enemy "decision center." At that moment, when the USA is developing a mini-nuclear weapon, we should think about maxi. To "one pill" to treat the entire British crown with its viruses ....
        2. Kalmar
          Kalmar 10 June 2020 12: 14 New
          +3
          Quote: Pavel73
          In fact, they are a replacement for ground-based launchers of long-range cruise missiles, but they do not formally violate the INF Treaty. This is our asymmetric response to the American missile defense in Europe. So they freaked out.

          I note that the "partners" answered even more asymmetrically: they took and left the INF Treaty, making this series of ships de facto meaningless.
        3. Mechanic
          Mechanic 10 June 2020 12: 14 New
          -2
          The rivers are shallow. They drove to the Baltic around Europe
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 10 June 2020 12: 24 New
            +3
            Quote: Mechanic
            . They drove to the Baltic around Europe

            Karakurts of the Kerch building, we are ready to argue with you ..
            1. Grits
              Grits 10 June 2020 15: 24 New
              0
              Quote: dvina71
              Karakurts of the Kerch building, we are ready to argue with you ..

              Which, by the way, are much less than the Buyans adapted to this.
            2. Mechanic
              Mechanic 11 June 2020 08: 38 New
              0
              Empty buildings from Karakurt, even patrolmen from Tatarstan on pontoons were transported.
          2. fiberboard
            fiberboard 11 June 2020 07: 24 New
            0
            We must transfer the sources of the Dnieper to the Volga, kill two birds with one stone at once: And we will fill the rivers and teach a formidable neighbor
        4. Xnumx vis
          Xnumx vis 10 June 2020 12: 53 New
          0
          Quote: Pavel73
          that Buyany-M are able to walk along almost the entire United Deepwater System of the European part of Russia, from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea.

          And also along the European Dnieper, Danube, from the Baltic Vistula, Rhine, Elba ... Everything can happen in this life ..... Anything.
        5. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 June 2020 18: 28 New
          +3
          Quote: Pavel73
          This is not the point. The bottom line is that the Buyans-M are able to walk along almost the entire United deep-sea system of the European part of Russia, from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea.

          Yeah ... capable - without a radar.

          Quote: Pavel73
          In fact, they are a replacement for land-based launchers of long-range cruise missiles

          Which have neither the secrecy of the ground launchers, nor the air defense of normal ships.
      2. Sky strike fighter
        Sky strike fighter 10 June 2020 12: 26 New
        0
        Quote: donavi49
        In the distant future, these boats would have scored a whole 1 Burke in the aggregate salvo. Out of 70 in the US Navy.


        Well, all the same, not 70, but less than 66 Arly Berkov as of 2019. But in an approximate amount, you were not mistaken.
        In total, the US Navy for 2019 has 66 Armed Burke destroyers of the URO type (DDG-51 - DDG-117) in service. The series has been under construction since 1988 and is divided into seven subclasses sequentially by construction time and with improvement: Flight I, Flight II, Flight IIA: 5 "/ 54 variant, Flight IIA: 5" / 62 variant, Flight IIA: 5 "/ 62, one 20 mm CIWS variant, Flight IIA: Restart, Flight IIA: Technology Insertion.
        The first 28 ships of the Arly Burke type (Flight I and Flight II series, DDG-51 - DDG-78) must remain in service for the US Navy for 35 years, that is, until 2026 - 2034. The service life of the following 34 ships (Flight IIA series, DDG-79 - DDG-113) is determined to be 40 years, that is, until 2040–2056.
        To date, without a doubt, in its class, the largest series of destroyers of the URO type “Arly Burke” are the best ships in the world. The first highlight of Arly Berkov is the universal vertical launch launcher Mk-41, controlled by the Aegis system, which is equally used to launch the Tomahawk operational tactical missiles, missiles for air defense and missile defense: SM-2, SM -3, SM-6, RIM-7M Sea Sparrow, RIM-162A ESSM, as well as anti-submarine missiles (PLUR) RUM-139 VLA (ASROC).
        The second "highlight" of the American destroyers is their ship BIOS; the Aegis system. Among other military functions, Aegis allows you to embed Arly Burke in the US global missile defense system.

        https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2019/09/20/dogonyaya-rossiyu-ssha-razvernut-v-arktike-esmincy-uro-tipa-arli-berk
      3. dvina71
        dvina71 10 June 2020 12: 29 New
        +7
        Quote: donavi49
        In the distant future, these boats would have scored a whole 1 Burke in the aggregate salvo. Out of 70 in the US Navy.

        On a volley of PCR it is exactly equal to Arly. Moreover, the American PCR is subsonic. In general, I compare with a displacement of 1k .. with a destroyer of 8k ... Why? Will go to sea Nakhimov .. with dozens of pu for different missiles .. in the IS and GZ .... Compare ...
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 10 June 2020 12: 40 New
          0
          Quote: dvina71
          On a volley of PCR it is exactly equal to Arly. Moreover, the American PCR is subsonic.

          Firstly, the “Berks” will gradually be equipped with LRASMs, the number of which on one ship can be significant.

          Secondly, the advantages and disadvantages of subsonic and supersonic anti-ship missiles are not so straightforward.

          Thirdly, with whom will the Buyans fight these anti-ship missiles? Part is assigned to the CF (there is no enemy there), part to the BF (where the basic aviation used to unwind them), part to the Black Sea Fleet (well, only here, they might be able to grab some Turk).

          And yes, it makes no sense to compare the “Berks” and “Buyans”: these ships are being made for completely different purposes.
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 10 June 2020 12: 46 New
            +2
            Quote: Kalmar
            At first

            And secondly and thirdly .. it is necessary to compare the comparable. We take an American boat with a displacement of 1ct and compare it with Buyan .. You are still Arly with an inflatable boat with a machine gun compare ...
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 10 June 2020 12: 48 New
              -2
              Quote: dvina71
              it is necessary to compare the comparable

              Yeah, about this is just the last paragraph of my comment.
        2. Nemchinov Vl
          Nemchinov Vl 10 June 2020 21: 44 New
          +1
          Quote: dvina71
          Will go to sea Nakhimov .. with dozens of pu for different missiles .. in the IS and GZ .... Compare ...
          and will come out ?! namely, "Nakhimov", or just a plan for his release ?! and when ?!.... wait, wait ... ?!
          1. dvina71
            dvina71 10 June 2020 23: 23 New
            0
            Quote: Nemchinov Vl
            and will come out

            It will come out ... and don’t hope .... I’m driving past the factory .. I’m waiting for the forests to be removed ...
      4. Pavel73
        Pavel73 10 June 2020 13: 09 New
        +2
        Yes, 10 Buyanov-M in terms of striking power is approximately equal to one Burke. But to sink one Burke, one hit is enough. To sink 10 Buyanov, you need 10 hits. To track one Burke, you need to monitor him alone, and over the sea. To track 10 Buyans, you need to follow them all, and on our territory. Burke can only go to sea. Buyan - both at sea and along rivers, where it is much easier to hide. Burke is almost impossible to disguise. Buyan is much easier. Buyan still has many advantages as a retaliatory weapon.
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar 10 June 2020 13: 39 New
          +2
          Quote: Pavel73
          Yes, 10 Buyanov-M in terms of striking power is approximately equal to one Burke.

          And nine women carry a child without problems in a month)

          Quote: Pavel73
          But to sink one Burke, one hit is enough. To sink 10 Buyanov, you need 10 hits.

          But: for one hit in the “Buyan” one or two missiles are needed (he doesn’t, however, have air defense). “Burke” will have to handle much more scale. Moreover, in a combat situation, he is unlikely to be alone.

          Quote: Pavel73
          To track 10 Buyans, you need to follow them all, and on our territory. Burke can only go to sea. Buyan - both at sea and along rivers, where it is much easier to hide.

          Only the Burke is a ship in the ocean zone, while the Buyan’s seaworthiness limits it very much at sea. In fact, it will be somewhere near the coastline. And if you drive it deep into the territory along the rivers, then it loses its distinct advantages over conventional land launchers like the Iskander.
          1. Pavel73
            Pavel73 10 June 2020 13: 49 New
            -2
            With Burke, the situation will not come to a battle. Even one such ship, entering the Black Sea, receives the closest attention from our aviation and coastal missile systems. The simultaneous approach of several Berks to the launch distance of Tomahawk, say in Moscow, will mean preparation for the first decapitation strike, and the answer will no longer be for Berks. Buyan is the ship of retaliation.
            1. Kalmar
              Kalmar 10 June 2020 13: 59 New
              +4
              Quote: Pavel73
              With Burke, the situation will not come to a battle.

              Remind me, why do we even then RCC?

              Quote: Pavel73
              The simultaneous approach of several Berks to the launch distance of Tomahawk, say in Moscow, will mean preparation for the first decapitation strike, and the answer will no longer be for Berks.

              Decapitation? Tomahawks? From the Berks? For the secret launch of the Tomahawks (beheading openly - an obvious addiction) there is a nuclear submarine. For a decapitation strike there is an ICBM (slow-moving Tomahawks - such a choice).
              1. Pavel73
                Pavel73 10 June 2020 14: 10 New
                +2
                And who said that they are not drug addicts? How is it written there in the NATO charter? If, supposedly, one of the members of the alliance is attacked, then this will be regarded as an attack on the entire alliance. Right? But then the opposite is also true: the attack of any member of the alliance on someone means the attack on him of the entire alliance. And which member of the alliance to roll out in response, it already depends on the desire of the victim of the attack. In these circumstances, ramping up into NATO is a delayed suicide. That Americans are smashing us at NATO members. And in response we will erase Poland’s NATO member. They really want to be the first to get an answer. So they ask for American bases and nuclear weapons on their territory. Isn't that an addiction?
          2. Grits
            Grits 10 June 2020 15: 33 New
            +2
            Quote: Kalmar
            Only the Burke is a ship in the ocean zone, while the Buyan’s seaworthiness limits it very much at sea.

            Comparison in style - who is stronger - 1 bear or 10 dogs? True, the dogs understand that once again, you don’t need to go to the forest for walks - this is not their territory. Suddenly there, along with the bear, will there be a couple more pieces of dipper? But the bear also understands that climbing into the village, where a pack of dogs will start wringing it, is also not handy. Yes, even in the village a man can meet with a double-barreled gun.
          3. Nemchinov Vl
            Nemchinov Vl 12 June 2020 01: 31 New
            0
            Quote: Kalmar
            But: for one hit in the “Buyan” one or two missiles are needed (he doesn’t, however, have air defense). “Burke” will have to handle much more scale. Moreover, in a combat situation, he is unlikely to be alone.
            I agree with this opinion, although I do not know the name of the interlocutor (!). yes
            when they argue with him, hoping that, -
            Quote: Pavel73
            With Burke, the situation will not come to a battle.
            I don’t quite understand the idea of ​​opponents (!)....
            Quote: Pavel73
            The simultaneous approach of several Berks to the launch distance of Tomahawk, say in Moscow, will mean preparation for the first decapitation strike, and the answer will no longer be for Berks.
            Oh, oh?! .. belay
            Quote: Pavel73
            Buyan is precisely the retaliation ship.
            straight boldly so (!). winked
            Quote: Kalmar
            Decapitation? Tomahawks? From the Berks? For the secret launch of the Tomahawks (beheading openly - an obvious addiction) there is a nuclear submarine. For a decapitation strike there is an ICBM (slow-moving Tomahawks - such a choice).
            don’t have to ... you’ll baffle him ... smile
            Quote: Pavel73
            And who said that they are not drug addicts?
            They are ?! ?! ... lol
      5. 5-9
        5-9 10 June 2020 14: 02 New
        0
        Typical loading of the Burke - 22 Axes ... especially for shock functions, in the absence of a threat from the sea, air and from under the water when hitting Shairat, they screwed 30 with a small piece.
  3. exo
    exo 10 June 2020 11: 37 New
    +2
    The combat value of the boat is more than dubious. But, the names of these ships are a nightmare!
    After all, there was a "bad weather division": blizzard, fog, etc. Although it sounded nice.
    1. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 10 June 2020 12: 33 New
      +1
      With the names of the ships we have a nightmare. Especially given the massive renaming of RTOs in bad weather.
  4. Victorio
    Victorio 10 June 2020 11: 39 New
    +5
    Quote: exo
    The combat value of the boat is more than dubious. But, the names of these ships are a nightmare!
    After all, there was a "bad weather division": blizzard, fog, etc. Although it sounded nice.

    ===
    I think the presence of a sufficient number of such boats in the Caspian Sea will keep the entire Middle East in sight
  5. Oleg kubanoid
    Oleg kubanoid 10 June 2020 11: 46 New
    0
    without a major modernization of air defense .. a very easy goal .. whatever they say 21631 often go to mediocre ..
  6. Vasyan1971
    Vasyan1971 10 June 2020 12: 34 New
    +2
    The crew for the ship is already prepared.

    The most important thing! The rest will follow.
  7. Old26
    Old26 10 June 2020 13: 32 New
    +5
    Quote: Pavel73
    Good boats. An alternative to ground launchers for cruise missiles. As a matter of fact, it was precisely because of these boats that the Americans became furious and left the INF Treaty. Under a far-fetched pretext.

    An alternative to ground-based PU? To some extent. But ground-based launchers can be deployed to HZ, and Buyany-M has limitations. And in range, and in autonomy, and in balality.
    And it is not because of these boats that the Americans left the INF. The fact is that the INF Treaty did not apply to shipboard launchers. Came out because of a completely different rocket, which was considered a violation of this treaty

    Quote: Pavel73
    This is not the point. The bottom line is that the Buyans-M are able to walk along almost the entire United deep-sea system of the European part of Russia, from the Arctic Ocean to the Black Sea.

    And what can you offer besides the Volga and the Don as basing places. How far is the Volga from the western borders of Russia. In addition, no one has canceled the time limit of the year. There will be ice on the rivers and the boats will be fun. Even in which case they cannot escape

    Quote: Mechanic
    The rivers are shallow. They drove to the Baltic around Europe

    And there was time along the Don transported to the Black Sea. Ships (such as minesweepers - on their own, boats - in floating docks ...

    Quote: dvina71
    Quote: Mechanic
    . They drove to the Baltic around Europe

    Karakurts of the Kerch building, we are ready to argue with you ..

    You take particular. Unloaded ships, sometimes without masts (or without antennas on masts) at the optimum time (with high water) surpassed. And the fact that the same Don became shallow and a few years ago was told that from Zeleny Island it was possible to go barely soak your feet (figuratively) / who knows the geography of Rostov, roughly understands what I'm writing about /.

    Quote: dvina71
    Quote: Kalmar
    At first

    And secondly and thirdly .. it is necessary to compare the comparable. We take an American boat with a displacement of 1ct and compare it with Buyan .. You are still Arly with an inflatable boat with a machine gun compare ...

    You are right, Gennady, you need to compare the comparable. But sometimes it’s our media that put an equal sign between “Burke” and “Buyan”, not realizing that even by the number of launches they are different ships. And some idiots, to say nothing, as soon as the first volleys from the Caspian were heard, almost suffocated with delight. Recall the headlines: "The Buyans-M will sweep the American fleet out of the open ocean." Yes, and now sometimes compared. For there’s nothing more to compare with, unfortunately. Maybe now, when the updated "Shaposhnikov" goes into operation, something will change and we can talk about a ship similar to the state one. But now, alas, only "Buyan-M" are essentially carriers of the "Caliber"

    Quote: Victorio
    I think the presence of a sufficient number of such boats in the Caspian Sea will keep the entire Middle East in sight

    Thinking in vain. Twice we shot from the Caspian Sea through the territory of Iran. They did not ask themselves the question, why are we now forced to shoot from the Eastern Mediterranean? Apparently, the Iranians vetoed such firing. And let them place at least fifty Buyanov and Karakurt there - Iran, if anything, just wrecks them, if, contrary to his permission, we want to shoot at targets on B.V.
  8. Lord of the Sith
    Lord of the Sith 10 June 2020 13: 32 New
    0
    Handsome, 7 feet under the keel! good
  9. next322
    next322 10 June 2020 21: 14 New
    0
    Apparently from the remaining 3 BSF at least 1 more will go, an almost full-fledged Buyan division will be ...... which is very good
  10. chingachguc
    chingachguc 10 June 2020 21: 40 New
    +2
    minesweepers and anti-submarine ships are very necessary. In principle, RTOs are also needed, but only as an element of protection for the near sea zone
  11. iouris
    iouris 11 June 2020 01: 01 New
    -2
    RF is a great river and lake power!