The head of the USC: a series of nuclear missile destroyers "Leader" can be up to 6 ships


Vladimir Putin congratulated shipbuilders



During a press conference held at Interfax and dedicated to Shipbuilder’s Day, the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), Alexei Rakhmanov, made a statement regarding the construction of the Leader project 23560 nuclear missile destroyers. At the end of last year, Alexei Rakhmanov announced that his corporation was ready for the start of serial construction of such destroyers.

Today, the head of USC noted that the corporation is ready to begin the implementation of the order, "if such an order arrives." Alexei Rakhmanov noted that the USC "knows where to build (promising ships)."

Alexei Rakhmanov said that there is a possibility that it will not be one ship in the far sea zone. According to him, the series can be up to six destroyers.

The head of USC added that the creation of the lead ship of a promising series will play a significant role. At the same time, according to him, bookmarks of the Leader destroyer should not be expected before 2022.

Previously announced the completion of the outline design of such destroyers for the Russian Navy fleet.

Photo Wikipedia / Artem Tkachenko:



Recall that one of the distinguishing features of these destroyers is that they will be armed with not only sea-based Caliber missiles, but also Zircon hypersonic missiles, which are currently being tested.

Some preliminary characteristics of the Leader destroyer: displacement of about 14-15 thousand tons, the presence of a nuclear power plant, 8 universal launchers for missiles of various types - 8 missiles each.

The destroyer will be implemented with low radar visibility technology.
Photos used:
USC website
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. Ross xnumx 29 June 2020 15: 52 New
    • 15
    • 10
    +5
    Some preliminary characteristics of the Leader destroyer: displacement of about 14-15 thousand tons

    Let's measure in thousands of tons ... yes
    1. antivirus 29 June 2020 16: 16 New
      • 4
      • 23
      -19
      "spring again, again" .. again past aircraft carriers of 70 tons
      it’s possible to measure not thousand, but 000,
      even better 2-3 thousand km for missiles, without aircraft carrier
    2. Ryaruav 29 June 2020 20: 00 New
      • 13
      • 23
      -10
      what um, this is already a heavy cruiser, these are almost two ticonderogs, just a cool strategy of military shipbuilding from river-sea boats right away to heavy cruisers, these 6 units no matter how powerful they are even now against the us fleet nothing
      1. bk0010 29 June 2020 23: 36 New
        • 9
        • 5
        +4
        You must admit that "they did not master the nuclear heavy cruiser" sounds much better than "they did not master the destroyer (overgrowing frigate)."
      2. Vadim237 30 June 2020 00: 28 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        With hypersonic anti-ship missiles very much that.
      3. Nastia makarova 30 June 2020 08: 07 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        and who is going to overtake the us fleet?
      4. silver_roman 1 July 2020 12: 56 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        what are you? say such words "scary" .... the vulnerable souls of the patriots are tearing to shreds (like Obama is our economy). You can’t say that. do not care that they have 11 aircraft carriers and 70 destroyers, another ten nuclear submarines 4. all this is a rune. Our ash-tree will tear all ... and 1 in the field is a warrior. as well as calibrating from the Caspian with RTOs, so all 70 Arly Berkov will blow away))).
        ps I wonder who will have more minuses, you or me? laughing
        1. koramax81 2 July 2020 10: 59 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          They have 11 aircraft carriers, only combat-ready ones - only 2. Somehow.
          1. silver_roman 2 July 2020 12: 34 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            the rest are not for technical reasons. The point is to drive tons of syud such vessels? there are problems with Ford, and with the nemits it seems that everything is ok. At least in the case of a kipish, they will be able to quickly return ships to service. That and about 2 you turned down: recently they only held by the side of Kyatia three pieces. Type hinted and supported their allies in the region). I think one more AUG in the Crane Sea was for sure. They are almost always on duty there. So if there is a task, and AUGs are swimming.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. The comment was deleted.
      1. Per se. 30 June 2020 06: 42 New
        • 8
        • 3
        +5
        Quote: bayard
        What is it if not sabotage in a CRITICALLY important area of ​​ensuring the country's security?
        Sabotage, ideological sabotage (and not only ideological, as with the PD-50), it is unlikely that our "partners", who are anxious about the fleet, ignore any prospect of strengthening our Navy. Plus, your fools and traitors, buy-sell. You can, of course, recall the difficult years after the collapse of the Union, but it is unlikely that our ships were simply destroyed, sold for nothing at scrap metal or to the same Chinese as the four destroyers of project 956. Who thought of the Gorshkov needed to give the Indians our fleet? They could finish building up the Varyag, pick up Admiral Lobov (Ukraine). Why began to cut the “Sharks", P-39 is a weak argument. There are too many of these "why".
        Quote: bayard
        But in our realities it is SUCH comrades who determine the life of society, the Army, the Navy ...
        It is not the "comrades" who define it, but the gentlemen, and it seems that they are not even "local", but "local" from across the ocean. In the end, whoever owns the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, who has the money of our "elite" and those in power, orders the music, the one who "dances". And, to cheek, in a showy butting with the West, to raise the rating, our boys have learned bad things for a long time, given the failure of Yeltsin.
      2. Arkon 30 June 2020 08: 13 New
        • 5
        • 6
        -1
        Quote: bayard
        On the "Star"?
        Which has not yet been completed?
        Which even tankers like Afromaks cannot independently build?
        Joins parts built in South Korea.
        They have not even tried to build gas carriers there.
        There the dock is not completed.
        And many cases.
        There are no trained personnel there, but the fact that there is still corny to live (!) Nowhere!
        Who will go there on such conditions and such salaries?
        From the European part?
        But the money is ALREADY allocated!


        I didn’t understand something about this “cry of Yaroslavna”. So, do you need to build a star? Or do you need to build anything on the Star? Or do you need to allocate money? Or do we need to urgently change the concept of Arctic exploration to the wishes of the author of the comment?

        But for some reason, it seems to me that no matter what you do, the author will be unhappy and annoyed. Because "not according to him." But "according to him" will still not be. wink
        1. kapitan281271 30 June 2020 09: 05 New
          • 8
          • 4
          +4
          Quote: Arkon
          But for some reason, it seems to me that no matter what you do, the author will be unhappy and annoyed. Because "not according to him." But "according to him" will still not be.

          That's exactly why the author is annoyed that instead of doing it, there’s a cut, which are the “leaders” of 15 tons each, if we are not able to build corvettes, and you’ll star one on all channels, soon, soon, in the short term, at the exit zilch. And so in everything literally. But no, now we are going to build a hypermega-gas superjet, otherwise it’s all about it, but the hypermega-gas-jet is dumb.
          1. Arkon 30 June 2020 10: 17 New
            • 6
            • 5
            +1
            Quote: kapitan281271
            That's exactly why the author is annoyed that instead of doing something, there’s a cut, which are the “leaders” of 15 tons each, if we are not able to build corvettes, and you’ll star one, on all channels, soon,


            Well, that’s how we have more than 60% of new equipment in the Armed Forces, which star? Where do you live? We are launching new ships and submarines. Well, tell me one more country in the world in which over the past decade they have developed and adopted: the latest SSBN, the latest SSGN, the newest frigate, the newest corvette, the newest destroyer, the newest tank, the newest aircraft, the latest air defense, the latest electronic warfare, etc. d. etc.

            Well, at least one more. Except for Russia, in which they are sawing?
            1. bayard 30 June 2020 17: 50 New
              • 7
              • 4
              +3
              Quote: Arkon
              Well, that’s how we have more than 60% of new equipment in the Armed Forces, which star?

              Is this technique so new? Look at the armored forces - there are still the same T-72s, some of which went through the most budget modernization - with slots in dynamic protection. A small number of T-90s of the first version can not be called new either, and there are few of them to make the weather. The new version of the T-90 just arrived in the troops after the parade, and even then it is a modernization of the tanks already in service. A few dozen T-80s of the last modification go north - to the fleet, to protect the bases.
              Artillery? Also - repair and modernization of Soviet models: Msta, Malka, etc.
              In aviation, the fighter fleet has indeed been updated, but they cannot be used effectively without AWACS. And I wrote about this problem above.
              Quote: Arkon
              the latest SSBN, the latest SSBN,

              Indeed, there are such, but how is the problem of safely removing them from the databases on the database solved? The fleet is a complex thing. And at the exit from our bases the US MAPL is constantly on duty.
              Quote: Arkon
              newest frigate

              That's it - a frigate. One . Like a month in the sky. "Kasatonov" was waiting for operation under the Christmas tree, in spring, now is the middle of summer ... The third count (the second serial) was launched for completion with a new - domestic power plant ... and only in the next year we will know at the first factory sea trials whether this GEM ... and whether it took root. So it's too early to rejoice. But there is hope.
              This year, two more such frigates were to be laid. They waited in spring, summer is now ... still quiet.
              Quote: Arkon
              latest corvette

              Which of the corvettes do you think so?
              20380? Or 20385?
              They, like the frigates, have problems with power plants, only this time with diesels. There are almost none - industry will never master and will not establish rhythmic supplies. We wait . We hope so. But in the fleet of new corvettes on the fingers count.
              Quote: Arkon
              newest destroyer

              These are already wet fantasies. On it except a sketch sketch. And such a fleet is not needed. We need 22350M.
              Quote: Arkon
              the latest air defense, the latest electronic warfare, etc. etc.

              Well, my air defense is mine. Equipment went to the troops.
              And the frames?
              Who to exploit?
              And repair, adjust, calibrate?
              Specialized military schools have been optimized for a long time and seriously. And for several years no cadets were recruited at all. Now they are transferring to the air defense forces either from coastal artillery or from motorists.
              Specialists need to be trained, trained, educated. You can’t buy this at the market. So there are questions here.
              Quote: Arkon
              Well, at least one more. Except for Russia, in which they are sawing?

              China
              There, military construction is taken seriously, systematically, and statistically.
              One can and should be proud of the achievements of their Fatherland.
              Just do not throw hats.
              1. Arkon 30 June 2020 18: 20 New
                • 3
                • 6
                -3
                Quote: bayard
                China
                There, military construction is taken seriously, systematically, and statistically.


                Well, tell me about the latest Chinese SSBNs, about SSGNs, about the latest tanks and planes, about the latest air defense - the analogs of the Tori, Bukov, Derivations and S-400. And do not forget that China’s GDP is five times that of Russia.
                1. bayard 30 June 2020 18: 55 New
                  • 3
                  • 2
                  +1
                  Quote: Arkon
                  Well, tell me about the latest China SSBNs, about SSGNs

                  Soon they will probably tell about it themselves. I can only say that they are working on it.
                  Right now, they are testing the latest submarine with an air-independent power plant. And we have this topic something completely wilted. Although again the promises are full of boxes.
                  Quote: Arkon
                  about the latest tanks and aircraft

                  They are and you know it.
                  Quote: Arkon
                  about the latest air defense - analogues of Tori, Bukov, Derivations and S-400.

                  And they have it - they try as best they can.
                  And they have enough funds.
                  Quote: Arkon
                  And do not forget that China’s GDP is five times that of Russia.

                  And when it was the other way around. request What is there to be proud of? They overtook many, we are behind many.
                  You better look at how their fleet is being built - in terms of the tonnage of ships transferred to the fleet, they have FOUR (!!!) times surpassed the USA.
                  See how many corvettes they have of the latest construction.
                  How many frigates.
                  How many destroyers (two projects).
                  How many landing aircraft carriers (and how many more are under construction).
                  It is VERY helpful to look regularly at this Chinese side.
                  To sober up.
                  And understanding - who do we have to deal with after the United States surrenders.
                  And they will not be friends to us - for sure.
                  Yes, they do not hide it.
                  1. Arkon 30 June 2020 18: 58 New
                    • 1
                    • 6
                    -5
                    Quote: bayard
                    See how many corvettes they have of the latest construction.
                    How many frigates.
                    How many destroyers (two projects).


                    I think that with whom - with whom, and with China we will certainly not meet at sea. We return to the general concept.
                    1. bayard 30 June 2020 19: 03 New
                      • 3
                      • 1
                      +2
                      Quote: Arkon

                      I think that with whom - with whom, and with China we will certainly not meet at sea

                      When (and if) the USA disappears (and this is more than likely) everything in this world will change.
                      And China will cease to be a funny panda, we will see a huge predatory reptile, the children of which they dub themselves. Then the impossible will become possible.
                      My friends have served my whole life on the border with this state - we regularly communicate ...
                      And these are not jokes at all.
              2. kig
                kig 1 July 2020 07: 16 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: bayard
                China

                Well, why only China. There is another country in the east, the country of the rising sun.
                1. bayard 1 July 2020 15: 24 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  China is not the only one, and besides Japan there is someone to mention, this is me for clarity for the patriot.
            2. silver_roman 1 July 2020 13: 04 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              no one says they are not developing. the problem is that they aren’t getting to the series.
        2. bayard 30 June 2020 16: 18 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Arkon
          I didn’t understand something about this “cry of Yaroslavna”. So, do you need to build a star?

          "Star" is not able to build such ships. Neither technically nor competently. There is simply no one to do it there. An order of magnitude simpler vessels have not yet been mastered in production; she, as a schoolboy, is only studying.
          And the money for the construction of an unprecedented ship ALREADY allocated. That's what it is about.
          This shipyard is conceived as a powerful shipbuilding cluster - a complex of enterprises for the construction of large-capacity ice-class vessels. But while she collects vessels from sections, partially assembled in Korea, under the supervision of specialists from Korea.
          Such sophisticated orders as the atomic icebreakers "Leader" today are able to build in only one place in the World - in St. Petersburg. But there, the capacities are engaged in the construction of icebreakers of the previous series, and this series has been expanded by two more icebreakers (up to five in total). It is not clear from the word at all who will do the work on Zvezda - there are no personnel, there are no technical capabilities yet, who will supply the components is not clear (Koreans won’t be able to order - this is only possible with us ... specifics).
          "The star is already loaded with orders for 10 - 15 years ahead. And it can’t do it. Because of this, 10 ice-class gas carriers were ordered to be ordered in Korea, although they were planning to build everything themselves before. The deadlines for putting the Stars into full operation are expired and very seriously, many production on it has not yet been launched.
          And to build and develop this shipyard as a powerful shipbuilding cluster is not just necessary, but NECESSARY. With all the cooperative industries, including metallurgy, because it will consume metal ... a lot.
          Quote: Arkon
          But for some reason, it seems to me that no matter what you do, the author will be unhappy and annoyed. Because "not according to him." But "according to him" will still not be.

          And here I already did not understand your malice.
          Do you like the VKS not having AWACS planes?
          What meager funds allocated for the rearmament of the fleet are burned for useless projects? This is me about the "Leaders", 20386, herds of RTOs instead of corvettes and IPC.
          Do you like the new Tsushima and the unpreparedness of the Army for war (as in the First World War)?
          What so joyfully declare that in my opinion will not?
          It is ALREADY so.
          And if it doesn’t get better, it will be again, as in the REV and PMV.
          Then wink.
          1. Arkon 30 June 2020 16: 27 New
            • 0
            • 5
            -5
            Quote: bayard
            And here I already did not understand your malice.
            Do you like the VKS not having AWACS planes?
            What meager funds allocated for the rearmament of the fleet are burned for useless projects? This is me about the "Leaders", 20386, herds of RTOs instead of corvettes and IPC.


            First, tell us about your vision of a promising armed conflict at sea near Russian shores, away from Russian shores and about the promising tactics of using forces and means in such conflicts, and then you can discuss the composition of these forces.
            1. bayard 30 June 2020 18: 16 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              There has already been a lot of talk on this topic on the forums of this site, and I set forth my vision in them. If I try to do it again, it’s not even an article, but a whole series of articles. But we have full-time authors for this, I’d better unsubscribe in the comments.
              But I will say one simple thing. Any fleet is built "offshore". That is, the first and main task of any fleet is to ensure the security and inviolability of the sea borders of its state. Therefore, we should not retreat from this tactic.
              And after the initial program of re-equipping the fleet they tried to do so - they ordered a series of corvettes (it didn’t work), a little later - a series of frigates (also somehow not so) ... but then, when these two programs hung ... RTOs - forced a measure now impaired by the abolition of the INF Treaty. And now, having not solved the problems with the rhythmic construction and delivery of corvettes and frigates to the troops, with the problems of ship engine building, with the launch of all production cooperation enterprises for this ... the management of the USC, with tenacity worthy of better use, is hammering through the press year after year, lobbying this atomic destroyer that no one needs. Even the Soviet Union recognized the fallacy of this path and limited the Orlan series to four units - 4 + 4 for escorting long-range nuclear (!!!) aircraft carriers of the Ulyanovsk type. And ONLY for them.
              And instead of those remaining, according to the original plan, he ordered a series of ten beautiful cruisers of the Atlant (Glory) type.
              Because in the construction of the "Orlan" was even more expensive than our aircraft-carrying cruisers, and its operation was even more expensive. And harder.
              This is the result of the practical operation of such ships at the USSR Navy. But then there were only three of them in the ranks (!!!). And have already sucked.
              The Americans also tried and also abandoned such happiness at all.
              So it’s not for modern Russia such fantasies.
              And the one who lobbies them ... a direct wrecker of the country's defense. For besides losses and catastrophe, such programs will not bring anything.
              1. Arkon 30 June 2020 18: 27 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: bayard
                OSK’s leadership, with persistence worthy of better use, is hammering through the press year after year, lobbying for this useless nuclear destroyer.


                So I’m not ready to say anything about this particular destroyer. I only want the concept of using the fleet to be built first, and then the ships for it. If, for example, in our concept it is planned to build several naval bases around the world, and at the same time a sharp weakening of the potential enemy’s ability to operate in the ocean zone is predicted (for various reasons), then such a ship can even solve problems alone. Well, this is so - for example ... smile
                1. bayard 30 June 2020 18: 40 New
                  • 2
                  • 1
                  +1
                  This ship will not be - the Fleet does not want it. All these advertising broadcasts are lobbying and Wishlist of Rakhmanov.
                  Why is he doing this?
                  It would be better if investigative and control authorities took up this task - whoever arouses it.
                  1. frog 30 June 2020 21: 33 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    Thank you so much for the comments. Almost everything I can subscribe to, and I and all my colleagues. And as for Rakhmanov - he is there in the eleventh line, on the subject of organs' questions. Just to begin with, it would be nice for the authorities themselves to ask questions))) So that later there would be someone to ask Rakhmanov questions ......
                    1. bayard 30 June 2020 21: 46 New
                      • 1
                      • 1
                      0
                      Quote: frog
                      Thank you so much for the comments.

                      Thank you. hi drinks
                      You can ask many questions to anyone ... everything is so complicated in this world ...
                      But there is hope. bully soldier
      3. gregor6549 1 July 2020 09: 24 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        I fully support your opinion. Just do not think that in this case the ball is ruled by malice or betrayal. Nothing personal here - only business. Moreover, the long-standing business, which began back in the years of "perestroika" with the creation of the so-called Centers of Scientific and Technical Creativity of Youth (NTTM) at large industrial enterprises. They, these centers, became the first “laundries” through which many managers of these enterprises began to launder dirty money “acquired by excessive labor” by scrolling through government orders through these centers, tax breaks provided to the centers and other tricky tricks. At the same time, these leaders realized that, while remaining the heads of enterprises and the actual owners of production facilities, personnel and other resources, it was possible to engage in parallel with commercial activities, which were formally prohibited in those days. Well, then the process went on increasing and has now reached its "apofigey". Those. and hiding is no longer necessary, and doing something that the country needs too. The main thing is to declare the creation of a kind of “no equal in the world” child prodigy, to beat big money out of the budget under this “miracle” and then dissolve with it in the fog of London. Paris and other cities of the damned West, having bought on occasion a couple of three mansions in this very West.
        And no betrayal, because on the one hand, this is fraught with imprisonment with confiscation of everything acquired by “overwork”, and on the other hand, the loss of a feeder, generously supplied from the country's budget.
        Of course, in order to save the feeder, you have to do something (prototypes for example), carry out their endless tests and improvements, etc. realizing that after some time all this will die a natural death and it will be possible to begin the process of knocking out money in a new way. Well, in the meantime, to fool the heads of both the general public and the Customer. And so that the Customer does not find fault "too much", feed its representatives as much as possible.
        1. Eug
          Eug 1 July 2020 13: 05 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          I’m ready to subscribe to your every word, I’ll only add that during the “breakthrough” many really ready to do business were discarded and discredited, and the kids and other “worthy” were put in warm places ...
        2. bayard 1 July 2020 15: 52 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: gregor6549
          Moreover, the long-standing business, which began back in the years of "perestroika" with the creation of the so-called Centers of Scientific and Technical Creativity of Youth (NTTM)

          I immediately remembered their main office in Moscow on Sretenka - NTTM Center at the Komsomol Central Committee smile With citizen Khodorkovsky at the head ... and his deputy - Mevzlin. A very serious organization under this roof was born ...
          And of course, no betrayal ... no
      4. silver_roman 1 July 2020 13: 02 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        But what about the a-100 president is heard? He’s undergoing 100 years of testing. will he immediately go to the museum from tests or will they upgrade and test the a-100m? we love to do so.
        By the way, I remembered the minesweeper program. like it was announced the construction of more than 100 minesweepers. But this is still in that state. program, where 8 ash trees by 2020)))
        1. bayard 1 July 2020 15: 57 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: silver_roman
          But what about the a-100 president is heard? He’s undergoing 100 years of testing. will he immediately go to the museum from tests or will they upgrade and test the a-100m? we love to do so.

          They promised to promise.
          The very nature and pace of modernization of the A-50 indicate that it is this direction that will be inhibited by all means and forces ... responsible persons. no
  3. Jack O'Neill 29 June 2020 15: 55 New
    • 10
    • 23
    -13
    Alexei Rakhmanov said that there is a possibility that it will be on one ship in the far sea zone. According to him, a series can be up to six destroyers.

    Not funny joke. We need more, much more!
    1. Pessimist22 29 June 2020 16: 00 New
      • 31
      • 8
      +23
      "A series can be up to six hundred destroyers"
      Even if he would say so, for now these are just words ....
      1. carstorm 11 29 June 2020 16: 25 New
        • 24
        • 5
        +19
        so he seems to be talking simply about readiness to start) there is no order.
        1. Grandfather 29 June 2020 16: 34 New
          • 24
          • 16
          +8
          The head of the USC: a series of nuclear missile destroyers "Leader" can be up to 6 ships
          blah blah blah...
          1. Insurgent 29 June 2020 16: 38 New
            • 22
            • 5
            +17
            Quote: Dead Day
            blah blah blah...



            Yes ... And it will look like this until conventional destroyers they will not "fly off the slipways" like dumplings from the hands of a good housewife ...
        2. 1976AG 29 June 2020 16: 49 New
          • 12
          • 7
          +5
          Quote: carstorm 11
          so he seems to be talking simply about readiness to start) there is no order.


          And what's the point of saying if there are no orders and whether it is unknown?
          1. carstorm 11 29 June 2020 17: 47 New
            • 6
            • 9
            -3
            that you are ready. attract orders. The usual thing. he is the head of the corporation all the same. spins before the first persons her
            1. 1976AG 29 June 2020 17: 53 New
              • 9
              • 6
              +3
              Quote: carstorm 11
              that you are ready. attract orders. The usual thing. he is the head of the corporation all the same. spins before the first persons her

              That is, our MO only from a press conference learns about the capabilities of our USC? Like our president.
              1. carstorm 11 29 June 2020 18: 41 New
                • 5
                • 6
                -1
                you misunderstood. remind more of them)
            2. Nemchinov Vl 30 June 2020 03: 32 New
              • 1
              • 3
              -2
              Quote: carstorm 11
              The usual thing. he is the head of the corporation all the same.
              it seems that under Stalin, such a head of the corporation would already sit a quarter of the term (!) ...
              Quote: carstorm 11
              spins before the first persons her
              and would "unwind" already respectively before ... not the very first persons (!).
          2. Stalllker 29 June 2020 20: 03 New
            • 9
            • 3
            +6
            He said that the "production" is ready, it is a kind of advertising. The message to the comrades in the Moscow region: "look for money," we are ready to build and cut "
            1. 1976AG 29 June 2020 21: 18 New
              • 2
              • 1
              +1
              Quote: Stalllker
              He said that the "production" is ready, it is a kind of advertising. The message to the comrades in the Moscow region: "look for money," we are ready to build and cut "


              I realized that. But when they try to solve such issues, they talk about it elsewhere. Money and questions nat. security love silence.
              1. codetalker 29 June 2020 22: 37 New
                • 4
                • 1
                +3
                What silence, our glasnost won in the 80s)
              2. Stalllker 30 June 2020 00: 25 New
                • 0
                • 2
                -2
                Yes, he does not decide anything
            2. 1976AG 29 June 2020 21: 24 New
              • 4
              • 3
              +1
              Press conferences are held to inform the press, hence the name - PRESS conference. But serious issues are resolved in a different composition and in another place, without witnesses and unnecessary noise.
              1. Stalllker 30 June 2020 00: 27 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                And why do I need your set of words ??? What do you want to tell me these ??
          3. Boris ⁣ Shaver 30 June 2020 00: 11 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: 1976AG
            And what's the point of saying if there are no orders and whether it is unknown?

            No destroyer. No order. And to speak - is.
            Will it make sense in such a destroyer? Sailors decide.
            Will it make sense in such an order? Officials and "business" decide.
            Does it make sense to say that? PR managers decided.
        3. codetalker 29 June 2020 22: 35 New
          • 4
          • 7
          -3
          In fact of the matter. Nobody has ordered this “leader” yet (maybe there will be no orders), but there is already a pluralism of opinions at VO:
          1) Too little;
          2) Too much;
          3) Generally not necessary;
          4) Everything is gone ...
          1. Nikolay Balashov 30 June 2020 18: 38 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            5) we will all die.
    2. Starover_Z 29 June 2020 16: 36 New
      • 15
      • 4
      +11
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      Not funny joke. We need more, much more!

      Promise and marry are two different things! There has already been written about a lot, but things are still there!
      Just the other day there was an article that did not draw up old plans for ships and submarines, and now they are already writing about atomic destroyers ... "- Where is the money, Zin?"
      1. Jack O'Neill 30 June 2020 01: 48 New
        • 3
        • 3
        0
        Promise and marry are two different things! There has already been written about a lot, but things are still there!
        Just the other day there was an article that did not draw up old plans for ships and submarines, and now they are already writing about atomic destroyers ... "- Where is the money, Zin?"

        There is money, only it settles in the wrong place.
    3. avg
      avg 29 June 2020 16: 41 New
      • 12
      • 0
      +12
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      Not funny joke. We need more, much more!

      Then the rest of the fleet will be some "breadcrumbs to eat." This is not the first time he has hinted that his dear exclusive is closer to a large series of good and necessary ships at normal prices.
      1. Jack O'Neill 30 June 2020 01: 52 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Then the rest of the fleet will be some "breadcrumbs to eat." This is not the first time he has hinted that his dear exclusive is closer to a large series of good and necessary ships at normal prices.

        Why not exchange the gas turbine reactor? This will bring down the price well!
        The fleet needs destroyers, not corvettes on steroids, but destroyers.
        We made a cruiser, and today we are proud of ourselves as a corvette as an aircraft carrier. Tomorrow we will lower the frigate once every ten years? And then what, bonuses for launching an inflatable boat will be issued?
        Degrading hard ...
        1. Nemchinov Vl 30 June 2020 03: 37 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          Quote: Jack O'Neill
          Tomorrow we will lower the frigate once every ten years?
          Why tomorrow ?! Look at Gorshkov, Kasatonov and Glovko (!)...
          1. Jack O'Neill 30 June 2020 13: 53 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Why tomorrow ?! Look at Gorshkov, Kasatonov and Glovko (!) ..

            Because today for us the problem is to build a destroyer.
            Look at Peter the Great, pr. 1144. Previously, we could, but today we can only lower corvettes.
    4. Boa kaa 29 June 2020 17: 15 New
      • 14
      • 15
      -1
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      We need more, much more!

      23560 essentially an atomic cruiser will be similar to 1144. Therefore, 3 units each for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet will be quite powerful with the corresponding support of the rest of the KUG ships. The main thing is seaworthiness, autonomy, and operational speed for deploying and striking at the forces of the adversary's fleet.
      In addition, 2 more 1144M units will remain ... After modernization, the old people will still serve for 10-15 years, until the Leaders become operational. That will be okay.
      1. Fan-fan 29 June 2020 17: 34 New
        • 16
        • 17
        -1
        Here they are - sweet dreams in the blurred brain of the deep people.
      2. Ryaruav 29 June 2020 20: 04 New
        • 11
        • 7
        +4
        comrade boa constrictor, and what kind of bucks do you build other Kug ships if even three units take away at least 30% of the naval budget?
        1. Vadim237 30 June 2020 00: 33 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          These ships will be built for at least 15 years, and given that R&D has not been around for 20 years, there will be enough budget.
      3. Jack O'Neill 30 June 2020 01: 56 New
        • 0
        • 4
        -4
        23560 essentially an atomic cruiser will be similar to 1144. Therefore, 3 units each for the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet will be quite powerful with the corresponding support of the rest of the KUG ships. The main thing is seaworthiness, autonomy, and operational speed for deploying and striking at the forces of the adversary's fleet.
        In addition, 2 more 1144M units will remain ... After modernization, the old people will still serve for 10-15 years, until the Leaders become operational. That will be okay.


        10-15 years to replace Orlan? Well, maybe Petra will replace, and after another 15 years - Nakhimov. Since we are building corvettes ...
        And yes, you can do without a reactor, and lower the price. However, I wrote above:

    5. The comment was deleted.
    6. Revolver 29 June 2020 20: 53 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      We need more, much more!

      "Where is the money, Zin?" © V. Vysotsky
    7. mdsr 2 July 2020 12: 43 New
      • 3
      • 2
      +1
      There are many jokers there, almost without exception yes
      1. mdsr 2 July 2020 12: 43 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Yes, I agree yes
        1. mdsr 2 July 2020 12: 44 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Why be surprised?
          1. mdsr 2 July 2020 12: 45 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            I’m not surprised for a long time
            1. mdsr 2 July 2020 12: 45 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Saves only sarcasm
  4. Mountain shooter 29 June 2020 15: 56 New
    • 18
    • 23
    -5
    Serious ship. With unlimited swimming range. A good addition to the Premier League. Honey, horror! Need one? Surely.
    1. tihonmarine 29 June 2020 16: 06 New
      • 4
      • 7
      -3
      Quote: Mountain Shooter

      Serious ship. With unlimited swimming range.

      It looks good in appearance, but it hurts too much the add-on is very high, as it does not look.
      1. tralflot1832 29 June 2020 16: 11 New
        • 13
        • 6
        +7
        I like the architecture of our ships. On the horizon in the sea it was immediately determined that this is ours.
        1. tihonmarine 29 June 2020 16: 14 New
          • 5
          • 4
          +1
          Quote: tralflot1832
          I like the architecture of our ships.

          Soviet school is felt.
          1. Grandfather 29 June 2020 16: 35 New
            • 4
            • 8
            -4
            Quote: tihonmarine
            Quote: tralflot1832
            I like the architecture of our ships.

            Soviet school is felt.

            in what?
          2. K-612-O 29 June 2020 18: 52 New
            • 10
            • 2
            +8
            And it’s just Italian, they put us shipbuilding in the 20_30s
            1. tihonmarine 29 June 2020 19: 17 New
              • 7
              • 1
              +6
              Quote: K-612-O
              And it’s just Italian, they put us shipbuilding in the 20_30s

              Maybe their ships were beautiful.
        2. tralflot1832 29 June 2020 16: 48 New
          • 10
          • 24
          -14
          Minus no minus anyway you get, the Russian fleet is mighty.
      2. Boa kaa 29 June 2020 17: 26 New
        • 10
        • 1
        +9
        Quote: tihonmarine
        only it hurts too, the superstructure is very high, as it does not look.

        It’s you who didn’t see the English "Daring" type 45!
        These "Dragons" are relatives to all giraffes!
      3. Passing 29 June 2020 17: 35 New
        • 11
        • 1
        +10
        Quote: tihonmarine
        the superstructure is very high, as it does not look.

        It doesn’t look like it is for fashion shows, but the increased radio horizon for the radar is a vital handicap of tens of seconds in detecting low-flying anti-ship missiles.
      4. Sanichsan 30 June 2020 01: 24 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: tihonmarine
        It looks good in appearance, but it hurts so the add-on is very high

        look at the American cruiser wink in comparison with him a slender ballerina yes
        1. tihonmarine 30 June 2020 08: 17 New
          • 4
          • 0
          +4
          Quote: SanichSan
          look at the American cruiser in comparison with him a slender ballerina

          American ships were never beautiful, with a big stretch of the battleship “New Jersey”, but he loses to Japanese battleships.

          And also look at our handsome BOD 61 project, completely designed by the Soviet school
          1. Sanichsan 30 June 2020 13: 25 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            I wrote about this

            Quote: tihonmarine
            with a stretch of the battleship “New Jersey”, but he loses to the Japanese battleships.

            I like Italian battleships more yes
    2. Fan-fan 29 June 2020 17: 37 New
      • 13
      • 9
      +4
      There are not enough missiles - 64 pieces, the Americans have half a hundred simple destroyers and 96 missiles on each, something is weak on our project.
      1. Mountain shooter 29 June 2020 19: 27 New
        • 10
        • 4
        +6
        Quote: Fan-Fan

        Not enough rockets - 64 pieces, Americans have half a hundred simple destroyers and 96

        Do striped zircons stand in the mines? They have universal cells, they stand in mines and air defense. Ours, IMHO, only have 64 percussions. But atomic ones are not from a good life. There are no bases. Where to bunker? Yes, and the average speed can be held enormous, much more gas turbine.
        1. Sanichsan 30 June 2020 01: 28 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          There are no bases. Where to bunker?

          why not? Cuba, Syria, Venezuela and the Philippines express interest ...
        2. bayard 30 June 2020 02: 10 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          . But atomic ones are not from a good life. There are no bases. Where to bunker?

          And to eat the crew replenish supplies, drinking water and technical, oils, other consumables?
          Does an escort relies on such an atomic ship, or will it wander alone?
          And what move will the escort be?
          Also on the atomic? lol
          Quote: Mountain Shooter
          Yes, and the average speed can be held enormous, much more gas turbine.

          Can an escort withstand that speed?
          Or, again, alone at such a speed to rush?
          200 billion rubles - The minimum price of this child prodigy.
          And spit in the direction of the one who says that there will be less - modernization (!!! not building from scratch, but modernization) Nakhimova has already left for that amount.
          Which is not surprising, since even in the USSR such ships in construction cost as aircraft carriers of the Krechet series cruiser ... But in operation, it’s even more expensive than even them.
          And it will be the same with these.
          Therefore, Americans do not build such idiots - EXPENSIVELY.
          And unjustified.
          But the "comrade" Rakhmanov is not looking for easy ways for our fleet. yes
          The more expensive it is, the FUN! fellow
      2. Vadim237 30 June 2020 00: 35 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Actually, the project has 128 vertical missile launchers.
    3. Ryaruav 29 June 2020 20: 10 New
      • 7
      • 3
      +4
      shooter, we do not need a serious ship, but squadrons of simple frigates and corvettes to ensure the operations of all types of apl, we need squadrons of mine-sweeping force ships, and not boats protected by the coast
    4. bayard 30 June 2020 01: 55 New
      • 5
      • 4
      +1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Honey, horror! Need one? Surely.

      Are you really sure of the “necessity” of this nonsense?
      The cost of 200 billion rubles. ?
      With 8 x 8 = 64 KR in UKKS?
      Like the banal and MASS "Orly Burke"? lol
      Instead of 4 (FOUR) 22350M frigate-destroyers? 4 x 48 = 192 KR on all 4?
      Instead of 5 (FIVE) frigates 22350? 5 x 24 = 120 KR on 5 (FIVE) ships.
      Do you really think we need such a ship?
      And please calculate how many such ships can be built at the cost of 6 (SIX) such atomic misunderstandings. wink How do you find the digit coming from the calculus?
      Such a quantity - 24 pcs. 22350M or 30 pcs. 22350, for the rearmament of all three fleets is enough.
      It is this money that is proposed to be burned for the sake of the ships, which are extremely doubtful in combat value and NEED.
      I'm against .
      I am for the right ships.
  5. Eduard petrov 29 June 2020 15: 56 New
    • 41
    • 13
    +28
    Not a single similar ship will be built. There will be only talk, a lot and for a long time.
    1. x.andvlad 29 June 2020 17: 16 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      Perhaps they will build it, but they will build it for a long time ... These torment will be abruptly "Ivan Gren".
      1. Fan-fan 29 June 2020 17: 40 New
        • 15
        • 8
        +7
        Under the current rulers will not build. This is not their level.
        1. Vadim237 30 June 2020 00: 37 New
          • 4
          • 7
          -3
          We are building nuclear icebreakers with a displacement of 70000 - but what are you talking about about the 25000-ton destroyer we will not build.
    2. tihonmarine 29 June 2020 19: 18 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Eduard Petrov
      There will be only talk, a lot and for a long time.

      Maybe so, the main thing is to show the appearance of work, and there, how God sends.
  6. Don
    Don 29 June 2020 15: 57 New
    • 48
    • 12
    +36
    Corvettes with frigates cannot begin to build normally, they are busy for 8-10 years. Even the modernization of Admiral Nakhimov took ten years, and this effective manager is pouring everything into the ears of the scriponets about how atomic spacecraft will plow the vastness of the Milky Way. And so it goes on for decades. Ugh! In the end, for all 4 fleets, build at least 30 pieces of Project 20380 corvettes and 16 22350 frigates. Then you can talk about the destroyers.
    1. Cyril G ... 29 June 2020 16: 27 New
      • 31
      • 1
      +30
      Fight lobbyists under the microscope. All do not appease ..
      There is a sober decision. Build a series of either large frigates, or small destroyers with a / and at 7-8 thousand tons according to project 22350M using maximum reserves from project 22350. It is quite comparable in terms of performance with the Berks. The meaning of all the extra body movements with these mastodons?
      However, I still recall questions about the fleet. Rather, part of them.
      - Have we replaced all the IPC pr.1124 with new corvettes for operations in the BMZ?
      - did our coastal aviation receive new patrol planes?
      - Maybe we have at least an attack regiment with new MFIs like Su-30SM in each fleet? It’s already I’m silent that it is necessary to re-equip the existing Su-30SM naval ships with a new radar
      - Do we have the number of minesweepers with combat-friendly mine complexes that allow us to fight effectively with the latest enemy mines on all military operations?
      - We have formed and reached combat readiness carrier-based aircraft group? I’m not talking about the readiness of the aircraft carrier, I hope they will put it in order, although with regard to operations with carrier-based aircraft and full speed.
      The questions are rhetorical, but from this they do not become less serious. The fleet should be. But he must be effective and efficient. The Leaders program, if started, will be carried out by Estonian methods. That is, for a very long time devouring all the financial resources allocated to replenish the fleet. USC wants to push the sharing of greasy cake. There is no concern about the defense capability of the homeland.
    2. malyvalv 29 June 2020 18: 09 New
      • 2
      • 13
      -11
      at least 30 corvettes of the project 20380 and 16 frigates 22350.


      Then, lasers requiring high power will be installed on all ships. And what are we going to do with so many corvettes and frigates without the ability to put a laser there?
      1. Sanichsan 30 June 2020 01: 33 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: malyvalv
        . And what are we going to do with so many corvettes and frigates without the ability to put a laser there?
        actually already installed on the chassis of the tractor. What is the problem on the frigate? he is in every way more than KAMAZ.
        1. malyvalv 30 June 2020 16: 10 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This is against space satellites. You can't hit a rocket like that.
      2. bayard 30 June 2020 03: 24 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        Why do you need a corvette laser?
        A drone can be shot down with a rocket. Or a cannon. Or from a slingshot.
        And your laser will not pull for more - the medium absorbs power. The maximum possible range is a few kilometers in clear weather ... like a cannon.
        But a gun is cheaper. yes
        1. malyvalv 30 June 2020 16: 12 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          There is no need for a laser on the corvette. Need more and more powerful ships. Preferably atomic. It is more reliable to shoot down a hypersonic missile with a laser. But more power is needed.
          1. bayard 30 June 2020 18: 31 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: malyvalv
            It is more reliable to shoot down a hypersonic missile with a laser.

            At a line of sight?
            Then a better gun. yes
            A hypersonic rocket will go to the target in the plasma cocoon. yes
            And how will a laser beam behave when it enters a plasma?
            And if there is a cloud in the sky?
            And if it is overcast? This happens at sea.
            And if a haze or fog over the waters?
            No, the gun and the rocket are more reliable, cheaper, more familiar ... all-weather. wink
    3. Vadim237 30 June 2020 00: 40 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Only this year gas turbine engines and marine diesel engines of high power were completed - and here you have a lot of problems to shift the deadlines for 7 years in 2014.
  7. Lt. Air Force stock 29 June 2020 15: 58 New
    • 29
    • 0
    +29
    It is better to build the frigates of project 22350M in a large series, without rushing, as the Americans do with the arly berks that they have been building since the 80s. And we also need.
    1. codetalker 29 June 2020 16: 13 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      One gets the impression that the military made a choice in favor of just such a development of events.
      1. bayard 30 June 2020 03: 27 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        One gets the impression that the state is again trying to breed for money.
        For VERY big money.
        1. timokhin-aa 30 June 2020 15: 42 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          150 per unit. Rakhmanov really bit a bit, he arranges performances on the theme of the Leader once a quarter, although he knows that the project has been stopped.
          1. bayard 30 June 2020 18: 24 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: timokhin-aa
            150 per unit.

            I really think the price tag will be at least 200 billion - according to Klimov, the Nakhimov’s modernization is exactly the amount to do, and building from scratch ... a new project.
            And if the interest of this lobbying was only in money ... one could offer to expand the order to 22350 and 22350М - the Navy would only jump for joy ...
            But stubbornness in "stupidity" is more than just stupidity - it is INTENT.
            Bad intent.
            1. timokhin-aa 30 June 2020 22: 35 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              In the case of USC, it’s just an insatiable thirst for state bubble.
              1. bayard 30 June 2020 23: 52 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                If the leadership of the USC only craved a lot of money from the state, it would have successfully chopped it on large series of corvettes and frigates. But here the loot is not cut by them on the checked necessary - by them posakovyristy, injurious give. In order to burn money and destroy the Fleet. negative
                1. timokhin-aa 1 July 2020 11: 04 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Everything is more complicated here - USC wants to build everything from boats to aircraft carriers. As for the Leaders, this is simply a high-margin topic, and here Rakhmanov is jumping.
                  In addition, he lost the UDC, they were given to Zelenodolsk.
                  So he has something to ride for.
                  1. bayard 1 July 2020 16: 08 New
                    • 0
                    • 1
                    -1
                    Quote: timokhin-aa
                    Everything is more complicated here - USC wants to build everything from boats to aircraft carriers. As for the Leaders, this is simply a high-margin topic, and here Rakhmanov is jumping.

                    He, on the day of his departure from prime minister, Medvedev gave an order for another "Leader" - the atomic icebreaker "Leader" ... only there is nowhere to build it.
                    And at the same time, two successive 22350 frigates have not yet been laid. Does he need to leave money from these orders? I would expand the order (I would fight for it).
                    And the 22350M launched in parallel flow.
                    But it turns out that the work really useful to the Fleet is not of interest to him.
                    Only money from unnecessary orders ...
                    And the harm done by it.
  8. God forbid, we'll see in 15 years.
  9. Alex 2020 29 June 2020 16: 00 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    I may be mistaken ... but there was information from the same USC and the General Staff of the Navy that it was decided to abandon the project "super-duper-less analogous destroyer Lidler" in favor of a more realistic project 22350M.
    1. Kurare 29 June 2020 16: 10 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      Quote: Alex 2020
      "super-duper-poor analogue destroyer Leader"

      14-15 thousand tons! What kind of destroyer is this? Won the cruiser of the project 1164 Atlant 11,5 thousand tons.
      This is truly a nonsense.
    2. Cyril G ... 29 June 2020 16: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      It was, the lobby is not appeasing.
  10. Avior 29 June 2020 16: 01 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    It seems the whole world is moving away from large warships
    Large frigate on the verge of destroyer Has become a trend.
    Unless previously developed arly Burke different options still in work.
    Zamvolt stalled on the third, now frantically trying to adapt to something
    And the rest is a reduction in the size of electronics leads to a decrease in ships
    И
    1. timokhin-aa 29 June 2020 16: 09 New
      • 13
      • 0
      +13
      It seems the whole world is moving away from large warships


      King Sogeon, project 055?
      Yes, even the future 22350M?

      And the rest is a reduction in the size of electronics leads to a decrease in ships


      The increase in radar antenna areas, the number of missile weapons on board, generating capacities for electricity consumers, the need for both UAVs and manned helicopters will break this trend.
      Ships are slipping into the size of “super frigates” not because large NKs are out of date, there is a completely different set of reasons.
      1. Avior 29 June 2020 16: 25 New
        • 2
        • 7
        -5
        Sejon - Arly Burke Option
        22350m is completely included in the trend of large frigates, however, there is not a single one yet, to discuss something to guess on coffee grounds
        Electronic beam scanning headlight antennas take up less space and use an add-on
        A clear trend is medium-sized aircraft carriers.
        1. Boa kaa 29 June 2020 17: 41 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Quote: Avior
          A clear trend is medium-sized aircraft carriers.

          Something about the Yankees is not noticeable!
          And those who are not able to build super aviks, yes, they are sliding onto Elizabeth ...
          The whales are also straining at 80 Kt type 003 with 60 aircraft. And this is natural, because large airfield - a lot of aviation to solve the BZ. There is nothing to be done!
          Tactics and OI rule!
          1. Avior 29 June 2020 17: 49 New
            • 2
            • 5
            -3
            Yankees and China are the first and second in the world due to the size of their economies.
            You can repeat their path, but then you need to start with the economy
            1. Boa kaa 29 June 2020 23: 01 New
              • 4
              • 0
              +4
              Quote: Avior
              You can repeat their path, but then you need to start with the economy

              It is with the economy that you need to start!
              for it is the economy that is the basis of the country's defense capability.
              All according to Marx-Lenin.
              AHA.
              1. Avior 30 June 2020 03: 55 New
                • 1
                • 3
                -2
                The fleet, as one of the most expensive components of the armed forces, is always limited by the economic capabilities of the state.
                And one must proceed from the real possibilities of the real economy.
          2. bayard 30 June 2020 03: 50 New
            • 0
            • 3
            -3
            Quote: BoA KAA
            Quote: Avior
            A clear trend is medium-sized aircraft carriers.

            Something about the Yankees is not noticeable!

            And you count their UDC - also aircraft-carrying ships.
            And look at the UDC in other countries. bully
            It's them . yes
        2. timokhin-aa 29 June 2020 23: 26 New
          • 6
          • 1
          +5
          Sejon - Arly Burke Option


          Well, from this point of view, and 055 version of Burke. And in some ways it is, the ideology is the same.
          That is, there are THREE families of ships, where neither the displacement nor the dimensions fall.

          The UDC trend with airplanes is until the first war.
          But what will happen when he really misses kerosene, the question is interesting.

          I have an idea, through the volley equations, to simulate the battle of the KUG against the AUG with a number of tolerances and, starting from the simulation, set the “framework” for the ships of the URO of the future. Well, an article with pictures.
          Laziness is just crazy, it will be hard work.

          Maybe I will gather my strength somehow.
          1. Avior 30 June 2020 04: 02 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            The fleet is limited by the economy.
            And, if your economy is not at the level of the United States or China, there is a pronounced global trend - the base of the fleet is large frigates and medium displacement aircraft carriers.
            Of course, you can have your own opinion, but I’m writing about the really existing trend in the fleet.
            And as for the equations, any simulation always contains a simplification and begins with evidence of the correlation of the model with real facts
            1. timokhin-aa 30 June 2020 09: 45 New
              • 1
              • 2
              -1
              Volley equations along with the Lanchester-Osipov equations and the theory of operations research make up the base mat. the apparatus of military planning for many decades.

              This is kind of a requirement to carry weapons on a fuse - it requires no explanation, at least for those who know what a “weapon” and “fuse” are.

              Of course, you can have your own opinion, but I’m writing about the really existing trend in the fleet.


              This trend will not survive the first great war.
          2. Cyril G ... 30 June 2020 09: 47 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            buy https://store.steampowered.com/app/1076160/Command_Modern_Operations/
            And by the way, even the simulation of the battle between AUG and KAG in 1994, at an extremely simplified level, took 50 pages. Moreover, all the data was at hand.
            You simply do not have all the necessary information.
            1. timokhin-aa 30 June 2020 15: 25 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              I simply wanted to throw an algorithm, not to simulate it accurately, but just to show the logic in which the requirements for ships are determined.

              A toy is "about something else."
          3. K298rtm 30 June 2020 21: 33 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            1. In the late 80s modeled (Academy) the defeat of the AUG in the Norwegian Sea. According to the results it turned out like this - you need 2-a 949 plus an MPA regiment (TU-22M). We (in the 11th) even carried out such exercises.
            2. If you gather your strength (which I hope), it is interesting to look at the state of affairs today.
            1. timokhin-aa 30 June 2020 22: 41 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              11th PAD?

              Regarding the topic. I did not intend to simulate a real battle, it is beyond the scope of my capabilities, if only because in such a simulation a lot of closed coefficients are applied, grooved.

              I just wanted to play volley equations as a comment on the theses of the type “everyone switches to frigates” and based on them show the process of justification of the technical characteristics of the future URO ship.

              That is, the exchange of blows is simulated (with a bunch of assumptions) and through this the logic of determining the requirements for real combat ships is shown - with the proviso that in real life the materiel will be different.
              1. K298rtm 1 July 2020 10: 30 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                From the 11th - everything is so.
  11. sleeve 29 June 2020 16: 05 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    Due to poverty, we are not able to build cheap ships. Six? Not much, but it will fit the needs. Weakly guess what they will "answer" with. In dollars, of course. Orders of their shipyard will be provided by each "leader" who has come into operation. 8x8 also sounds a little weak. 16x8 will be closer to needs.
    1. Boa kaa 29 June 2020 17: 50 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Quote: sleeve
      "leader". 8x8 also sounds a little weak. 16x8 will be closer to needs.
      You do not take into account that these are 8 “holes” in each of the 8 UKKS! We put in 32 CBRD and RCC, and in the remaining 32 you can cram a lot of delicious: 91R, 4-7 SAMs each (depending on D page), etc.
      But under 16 x 8 you need a lot of space. This is a missile battleship, worse than Peter will succeed! We are not ready for this yet. And it is unlikely that he will be allowed to discharge to the fullest under the current TSA and RCC, plus PLA ... Nope, "Too much!"
      1. Sanichsan 30 June 2020 01: 46 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: BoA KAA
        And it is unlikely that he will be allowed to be discharged in full with the current TSA and RCC, plus PLA ...

        Caliber-K to the rescue wink The options for cramming RCC are not limited to frigates and cruisers.
  12. Valter1364 29 June 2020 16: 05 New
    • 6
    • 1
    +5
    Speak not bags tossing and turning. Moreover, at such events it is imperative to say something is necessary!
  13. timokhin-aa 29 June 2020 16: 06 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    He will eat something, but who will give it to him?
  14. tlauicol 29 June 2020 16: 11 New
    • 15
    • 0
    +15
    And by the year 80 we will build communism. And there the donkey will die
    1. antivirus 29 June 2020 16: 19 New
      • 4
      • 7
      -3
      And by the year 80 we will build communism. ---------- the main thing to believe

      .......... to the LEADERSHIP of Russia in the oceans
    2. Alf
      Alf 29 June 2020 18: 47 New
      • 12
      • 3
      +9
      Quote: Tlauicol
      And by the year 80 we will build communism. And there the donkey will die


      PS I don’t feel like writing about 25 million jobs by the 20th year ..
      1. Sanichsan 30 June 2020 01: 48 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Alf
        PS I don’t feel like writing about 25 million jobs by the 20th year ..

        Yeah ... but someone promised communism ... not?
      2. Nemchinov Vl 30 June 2020 03: 56 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Alf
        I don’t feel like writing about 25 million jobs by the 20th year ..
        it wasn’t Chevo to disband and blame .... winked
  15. tralflot1832 29 June 2020 16: 13 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    It’s certainly good where we’ll build. The shipyards are littered with orders, there are no free stocks.
    1. Narak-zempo 29 June 2020 18: 36 New
      • 6
      • 2
      +4
      Quote: tralflot1832
      It’s certainly good where we’ll build. The shipyards are littered with orders, there are no free stocks.

      And we will build the shipyards shockly.
      Contractors from the Vostochny Cosmodrome will be freed up and clogged up with great experience.
      1. tralflot1832 29 June 2020 18: 55 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        They’re already sitting; but others will draw. A participant needs to do this, every rupe is counted. The rollback system is so hung up that you can’t cut the toporm. Officials catch up on the 90s.
        1. Narak-zempo 29 June 2020 18: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: tralflot1832
          Are already sitting

          Well, let them work on the turp position. Arrange something like sharagi. It’s not for them to bring down the forest, in fact, with such experience.
        2. tralflot1832 29 June 2020 19: 07 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          The most important thing is without attracting state loans and budgetary funds. And there will be no thieves. Only yours.
  16. White AK 29 June 2020 16: 16 New
    • 5
    • 4
    +1
    A beautiful ship on the sketch, I remember it was small in Vladivostok in Minsk, it was already breathtaking from a huge ship, it would be great to build
  17. TatarinSSSR 29 June 2020 16: 20 New
    • 13
    • 4
    +9
    As they say, already "I do not believe!" So much has already been promised so much for this year and so much, but nothing has been done, and it’s ridiculous to read such articles. And there is no longer any desire to spend time on them. It is necessary to create a column of articles "Bedtime Stories" and publish plans and dreams of the Russian Defense Ministry there.
  18. Starshina 29 June 2020 16: 22 New
    • 8
    • 3
    +5
    There is a deliberate sabotage of the construction of ships in the ocean zone. Reactors are weapons; there are electronics; there are acoustic systems; there are new grades of steel; there are electronic warfare; but there is no political will of the leadership !!!!
    1. Alf
      Alf 29 June 2020 18: 50 New
      • 4
      • 2
      +2
      Quote: Starshina
      But there is no political will of the leadership !!!!

      And the working NKVD.
  19. Eskobar 29 June 2020 16: 23 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    This is an atomic missile cruiser and not a super-duper destroyer.
  20. prior 29 June 2020 16: 32 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    "Alexey Rakhmanov made a statement ..."

    To allocate money from the budget is not what you say ....
  21. BARKAS 29 June 2020 16: 37 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    This destroyer that for the Arctic they want to build why does he need an expensive nuclear power plant?
    1. Boa kaa 29 June 2020 17: 58 New
      • 9
      • 2
      +7
      Quote: BARKAS
      why does he need an expensive nuclear power plant?

      1. Unlimited D navigation and fuel autonomy.
      2. The ability to go for days with max moves - operational mobility ...
      3. Energy: for the entire avionics and possibly beam / laser weapons, or some other crap thread that our Kulibins conceive ...
      4. laughing does not smoke!
      1. Vladimir1155 29 June 2020 22: 20 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        but it will sink in the first mine, there are no minesweepers
        Quote: BoA KAA
        4. does not smoke!
        1. Sanichsan 30 June 2020 01: 53 New
          • 3
          • 0
          +3
          hmmm .. and in the AUG a lot of minesweepers? also drown in the first mine?
          1. Vladimir1155 1 July 2020 00: 27 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            if there are no minesweepers in the aug, then it will drown in a mine .... it’s not spools, the combat stability of the connection should be provided comprehensively,, PMO PLO, PVO, technical support, medical, anti-chemical, etc., supply, ... ., otherwise the aug will be destroyed and will not be able to solve the combat task ... is this new to you?
            1. Sanichsan 1 July 2020 15: 05 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              doooo !!! wassat
              and Paul Van Rieper showed that even with all this beard the AUG will drown even with the forces of a third world country wink
              but personally, you can continue to shout in the mornings "USA! USA! USA!" yes and of course, continue to broadcast the bike about "no minesweepers" yes
              no one argues that mines are dangerous, but even a converted civilian vessel with installed equipment can perform the functions of a minesweeper. in case of a problem, it is solved in a short time. Do you understand this?
              Incidentally, the installation of mines is an act of direct aggression, and if they began to put mines, it means that rockets are already flying. soldier
              1. timokhin-aa 1 July 2020 18: 55 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                and Paul Van Rieper showed that even with all this beard the AUG will drown even with the forces of a third world country


                Not shown, we have incorrectly described the Millennium Challenge.
                He showed only that he was a fool, why he was kicked out of the participants.
                1. Sanichsan 1 July 2020 20: 39 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: timokhin-aa
                  Not shown, we have incorrectly described the Millennium Challenge.

                  very interesting. in the English version the teachings are described in exactly the same way as in the Russian version.
                  Where are these teachings described “correctly”?
                  and who has "with us"? what
                2. Vladimir1155 1 July 2020 22: 33 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  plus Alexander Timokhin, although I don’t know any Van ripper
                  1. Sanichsan 1 July 2020 23: 53 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: vladimir1155
                    plus Alexander Timokhin, although I don’t know any Van ripper

                    I didn’t read it myself, but I condemn it! 5 points! wassat
              2. Vladimir1155 1 July 2020 22: 41 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                a young man hacking in a computer ..... missiles fly according to their schedule, and mines are set in their own way and not always at the same time as mines and even torpedoes, are impersonal, and are hidden. Remember the sinking of the Korean corvette by an unknown torpedo, the war did not start ... The minesweeper just has specific properties that are absent in all other ships, of course, it is possible to equip combat ships with certain equipment of naval warfare, but its effectiveness will be lower, and the risk is higher, And civilian ships will navigate they won’t be able to at all, although they could replace UDC. I'm not a fan of the USA
                1. Sanichsan 2 July 2020 00: 11 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  young man hacking in a computer ..... rockets fly on their schedule

                  cool! is it from manarchism that a missile flight schedule has been formed? belay
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  and mines are set in their own way and not always at the same time as mines and even torpedoes, are impersonal, and are hidden.

                  right now? or maybe during the war or pre-war period? if in the military, the exchange of missile attacks is already in full growth and the conversion of small boats into minesweepers too.
                  if in the pre-war, then the first who will be undermined by mines will be civilians. and this will be a good reason for a preemptive missile strike.
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  Remember the sinking of the Korean corvette by an unknown torpedo, the war did not start ...

                  um .. and this is what? Will a specialized minesweeper save a North Korean submarine from a torpedo?
                  Quote: vladimir1155
                  The minesweeper just possesses specific properties that are absent in all other ships, of course, it is possible to equip warships with certain PMO equipment, but its effectiveness will be lower and the risk higher, and civilian vessels will not be able to perform MVO at all, although they could replace UDC.

                  sorry what? belay during the last world war the British, Germans, the USA, the USSR could, and then, suddenly, they couldn’t? and what these unique properties possess only minesweepers?
                  1. Vladimir1155 2 July 2020 19: 26 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    small draft small fields, these are generally wooden or plastic ships, larger than a small ship that can’t carry electronic equipment, and unmanned autonomous vehicles ...
                    Quote: SanichSan
                    conversion of small vessels into minesweepers
                    ..... impossible .... the sinking of civilian vessels and even their internment does not lead to missile attacks ... is this new to you?
                    1. Sanichsan 2 July 2020 19: 53 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      small draft small fields, these are generally wooden or plastic ships, larger than a small ship that cannot carry electronic equipment

                      with what interruption can not? belay you do not know civil vessels with a displacement of 100-1300 tons?
                      stop! stop you don’t notice that you started to pull the owl on the globe laughing
                      Quote: vladimir1155
                      .... impossible .... the sinking of civilian vessels and even their internment does not lead to missile attacks ... is this new to you?

                      yes you! belay really chtol? belay remember the vidyashka of white helmets with fake use of chemical weapons? not?
                      not like a really sunken ship, a dubious video enough for rockets to fly wink
                      1. Vladimir1155 3 July 2020 00: 34 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: SanichSan
                        you do not know civil vessels with a displacement of 100-1300 tons?

                        no, I don’t know modern civilian wooden or fiberglass vessels of such a displacement, especially since civilian vessels do not have the necessary equipment
                      2. Sanichsan 3 July 2020 01: 04 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        no, I don’t know modern civilian wooden or fiberglass vessels of such a displacement

                        well google it. or do you think the river and the Gulf of Finland with the Black Sea are empty?
                        Quote: vladimir1155
                        moreover, civilian vessels do not have the necessary equipment

                        and religion forbids to establish it? previously set if necessary, but now, well, absolutely nothing?
                        but it is ersatz, so it is not ersatz.
                        type in the search engine "Russian Navy minesweepers" to look at what you think is not. request
  • Sahalinets 29 June 2020 16: 41 New
    • 11
    • 5
    +6
    Well, so beaten up? Promise already a flight to Alpha Centauri in 2035!
    How did they get ... angry
    1. Boa kaa 29 June 2020 18: 10 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Well, so beaten up? Promise already a flight to Alpha Centauri in 2035!

      Oh how !!! belay
      And which of the 3 stars have you gathered for? (The Crossbar of Kentaurus is the “centaur leg”), the Bungula is the “hoof” or Toliman (ostrich), because this 3rd brightest “star” in our night sky is TRIPLE! yes
      And then.
      About Alpha Centaurus you better sing unforgettable Rogozin! fellow He’s just now Eastern raping with Hangar-5!
      AHA.
    2. Vadim237 30 June 2020 00: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      As the nuclear gas-phase rocket engine will be made and the nuclear power plant for the space interstellar tug will fly to Alpha Centauri. But it will be rather 2120.
    3. Sanichsan 30 June 2020 01: 54 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Well, so beaten up? Promise already a flight to Alpha Centauri in 2035!

      it's to the mask wink
  • Starshina 29 June 2020 16: 44 New
    • 1
    • 10
    -9
    Arsenal ships are completely self-sufficient which do not need to be escorted by tankers or auxiliary vessels. Constant patrols along with an atomic submarine off the coast of the United States with the possibility of the first disarming attack by hypersonic missiles of enemy military facilities ... But who needs it? and completely helpless; aircraft carrier; Kuznetsov and other unsuccessful ships ....
  • KJIETyc 29 June 2020 16: 45 New
    • 13
    • 3
    +10
    Some kind of numb version of Rogozin? He is already flying to the moon in his own tongue, hollow, and this one is floating on nuclear destroyers
    1. mortido 29 June 2020 17: 54 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      Exactly, exactly ..., - these promising people are already scared by the rapid growth, some unhealthy boiling over hype
  • The comment was deleted.
  • certero 29 June 2020 17: 52 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    We need more, much more!

    "Where is the money, Zin?"
    The atomic of the ship so that you can demonstrate your flag on a far distant shore is cool. But trying to measure with America or China is doomed to failure in advance.
    Therefore, 6 pieces are even many, but quite acceptable
    1. Narak-zempo 29 June 2020 18: 39 New
      • 0
      • 4
      -4
      Quote: certero
      Where is the money?

      It’s time to introduce an emergency fleet fee. A couple of percent of all transactions.
      And sell bonds on a voluntary basis.
      1. Alf
        Alf 29 June 2020 18: 53 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        Quote: Narak-zempo
        It’s time to introduce an emergency fleet fee. A couple of percent of all transactions.
        And sell bonds on a voluntary basis.

        Do not prompt, otherwise they will introduce it! They will introduce taxes, but the money raised will dissolve in the vast expanses of the cabinet of power.
      2. Alexey from Perm 29 June 2020 22: 39 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Are you ready to sign bonds forcibly?
  • malyvalv 29 June 2020 18: 06 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    The atomic destroyer is very important for the future. Now rapidly developing laser systems requiring tremendous power. At 22350 there is no such stock. Yes, and the 22350M will not. So with a large number of frigates it is necessary to be more careful. How not to miss.
    1. Nemchinov Vl 30 June 2020 04: 03 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: malyvalv
      The atomic destroyer is very important for the future. Now rapidly developing laser systems requiring tremendous power. At 22350 there is no such stock. Yes, and the 22350M will not. So with a large number of frigates it is necessary to be more careful. How not to miss.
      Grachata Raptor and the Leader ?!
      1. malyvalv 30 June 2020 16: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        When everyone will have hypersonic missiles and a laser will be used as protection against them, that is how it will be.
    2. Nikolay Balashov 30 June 2020 18: 50 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      You forgot railguns - electromagnetic guns. This is more real now than hit lasers. And railguns are very voracious.
  • bars1 29 June 2020 18: 58 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Quote: Fan-Fan
    There are not enough missiles - 64 pieces, the Americans have half a hundred simple destroyers and 96 missiles on each, something is weak on our project.

    This is not counting anti-aircraft missiles
  • Xopek 29 June 2020 19: 07 New
    • 7
    • 1
    +6
    The head of the USC: a series of spaceships of the class Destroyer can make up to 6 ships. Further in the text ... provided ... the cancer hangs on the mountain. What are these tabloid headlines? Already even there is nothing to write about border guards that took up jaundice?
  • fa2998 29 June 2020 19: 17 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    Quote: Jack O'Neill
    We need more, much more!

    Each one will cost the Americans “Nimitz”, and we will build about 30 years (this is without a project). We can “torture” the tank and plane (which used to “appear” every 5 years) for 20 years and haven’t put into service. Shipbuilding is big question. We had a sea of ​​shipbuilding programs. And the battleships “planned” both aircraft carriers and puff.
    Have mastered submarines (excellent) - can there really be 6 new submarines?
  • Serpet 29 June 2020 19: 43 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    It seems that the statement is for the sake of renewing disputes and scandals. With our pace of saturation of the fleet with fresh ships, laying this cruiser is fool
  • Imperial Technocrat 29 June 2020 20: 37 New
    • 0
    • 4
    -4
    This is not a destroyer, but a cruiser. As I already wrote, ideally, you need 8, but 6 would be nice
  • Alexey Petrovichev 29 June 2020 20: 59 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    It’s already good to suffer nonsense! We’ve been building corvettes for 8-9 years, but will we destroy 15 destroyers? OSK just to use the money. Put 22350 M on the conveyor.
  • Koval Sergey 29 June 2020 21: 00 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    In my opinion, and not only mine, you need to continue a series of frigates, you can second sub-series.
  • starshina78 29 June 2020 21: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Fresh tradition, but hard to believe!
  • Vladimir1155 29 June 2020 22: 16 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    again, this nonsense was cut .... minesweepers are almost absent, as are PLO aviation, nuclear submarines are counted on the fingers, we release frigates once every two years ....... but we can see cranes in the form of ephemeral super battleships that no one in the world has long needed and having no tasks ... especially touched by the "small radar signature" of such a monstrous trough .....
    1. Fmax 29 June 2020 23: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      China is building destroyers with a similar displacement.
      1. Vladimir1155 30 June 2020 00: 07 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        China has half the land of the colonies and a population of one billion
  • Alexey from Perm 29 June 2020 22: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    most likely they will not build one.
  • Fmax 29 June 2020 23: 56 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    And you can just pieces 30 22350M frigates, only so that the range of 7 thousand miles they did and do not need leaders ...
  • Vladimir1155 30 June 2020 00: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    simulate the battle of KUG against AUG
    aug the Russian Federation does not and will not, but the kug stands out from one lonely old cruiser, for all the necessary ships will guard our shores ..... why are you plural about it? and call him a group? Is it due to the fact that he will be given a tug and a tanker? otherwise it won’t get anywhere
  • reader65 30 June 2020 05: 28 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The Rakhmanov-Evmenovs needed a project to replace status-6, because even the most stubborn bondmen, including Pu, it became clear that they were divorced into babosy, and zero at the exit. Well, here is an ordinary ship (unlike the Poseidon chimera), although it is very expensive and it takes a long time to build it. You look grandfather and behave. A little more money can be piloted than in Poseidon.
  • FRoman1984 30 June 2020 05: 47 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    They have been talking about him for about 2-3 years, then on designing, building the lead ship, fine-tuning, and as in the case of 22350 years, after 20-25 (a more complex ship), perhaps the fleet will see it.
    But judging by the problems in the economy, this series will not be there, but there will be river-sea boats, and at best 22350M.
    It’s sad, because the Rotenbergs, Michelsns, and other sidekicks have zero money.
    1. Nastia makarova 30 June 2020 08: 19 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      is everything gone again?
      1. KJIETyc 30 June 2020 12: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Of course not. In 5 years, they will promise something new. For example, an atomic deep-sea starship. They will make a cartoon, and maybe even a layout, and then write a concept that has changed, in 10 years we will build a death star! And so in a circle, and in the meantime, the “Kuze” again, the boilers will need to be changed.
        1. Nastia makarova 30 June 2020 13: 34 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          such a life
  • Alecsandr 30 June 2020 09: 49 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Coronavirus will undermine and undermine all construction plans. The economy will be in a dire crisis. It’s not a matter of fat, I would live.
  • Bagatur 30 June 2020 11: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Better learned how to do GTU than such a monster builds! You need not just good ships, but as much as possible in a large series of klepat! Look at the USA and China.
  • andrew42 30 June 2020 12: 14 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    There is no doubt, the ship of the far ocean zone from the nuclear power plant is archival and archival (forgive me adherents of the aircraft carrier sect). But ... as a cherry on the cake. And in real life it was correctly said above - the near sea zone is not closed, the AWACS aircraft in relict specimens - this trouble has not gone anywhere.
  • CastroRuiz 30 June 2020 12: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Dostali uzhe s etimi vreditelskimi Liderami.
  • Alien ... 30 June 2020 14: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And I'm for. Moreover, the bookmark needs 2 units at once. And UDC in Kerch lay. And Peter in repair next year. So that colleagues from Chamber No. 6 do not have any doubts about our competence ...
  • rusboris 30 June 2020 14: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In the near future of Russia, to conduct a low-intensity war, cruisers of the Admiral Senyavin type, project 68U-2, will be needed. Their task is to ensure the blockade of non-loyal coastal countries. And lifting the blockade from friendly countries. The amphibious assault is supported by the main caliber of artillery. Provide air defense and anti-aircraft defense of large landing ships. Disloyal pirates and merchants in communications will pinch. But there will be no war with the USA. They are not in a hurry to hell. Successful managers are waiting until Russia is ruined by their fantastic Leaders.
  • kutuz 30 June 2020 20: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "may make up" - but may not make up.
  • Polar Bear 30 June 2020 20: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Why crow about readiness if there is only a draft design? There is no documentation, no construction program, no decision to build.
  • AML
    AML 30 June 2020 21: 20 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Nikolai Balashov
    5) we will all die.

    They will all die and the Germans will become unnecessary