Military Review

Destroyer 2030 Russian Navy

119

Far Eastern four



One of the main fair arguments against the construction of a new nuclear aircraft carrier for the Pacific fleet The absence of escort ships for the future aircraft carrier strike group is considered to be in the Russian Federation. And the fact that the four full-fledged modern destroyers (of the first series) in the Far East will clearly be in demand in ten years, there is no doubt both among specialists and experts, and among people who are not indifferent to the state of our fleet in general.

Skeptics argue that today in Russia there is nowhere and no one to create, according to military standards, a hull for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier 305 meters long and 70 tons displacement. Something similar was created at the Ukrainian Nikolaev shipyards, technologies and competencies were lost, there are no qualified personnel both on the working site and in the design bureau. From the last I learned: the secret of the production of armored steel for the upper deck of an aircraft carrier has been lost. God bless him, with an aircraft carrier, with a cruiser (no one, except us and the Americans, have them), but what about a destroyer or not? I will take the liberty of saying that we can not only build it, but we must! I do not like the Hitler word "wunderwaffe" (from German. Wunderwaffe - "miracleweapon"). And you don't need a masterpiece, for yourself, not for export. Thirty years ago in Kaliningrad, at the Yantar shipyard, the hull of the Project 1155.1 ship was laid, which was launched in 1994 under the name Admiral Chabanenko. The plant is native, Russian, from that time to the present time it has been building warships. And the time-tested hull of the last Soviet BOD with minimal alterations will be suitable for the first Russian universal destroyer.


BOD project 1155.1 "Admiral Chabanenko"

The same Americans have been riveting the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers for more than thirty years, only adding a hull displacement of 300 tons from series to series. A similar stability of taste in the choice of the hull is shown for our (not dimensionless) financing of naval developments.


Destroyer DDG111 "Spruence" type "Arleigh Burke" series 2A

Instead of a heart - a fiery motor


Comparing the overall dimensions of the American "Arleigh Burke" (the Arleigh Burke) of the 2A series and the Soviet project 1155.1 "Admiral Chabanenko", we can come to the conclusion about the better seaworthiness of the former. Yielding in length to the Soviet counterpart, the American sits deeper in the water and somewhat wider. When planning to build a truly distant sea zone ship, and all the more assuming to use it in an order with an aircraft carrier, which is 8-10 times heavier, such a characteristic as seaworthiness cannot be neglected. Digitizing Soviet blueprints and reworking them with the help of computer programs for a new project (let's call it 1155.2) will not take much time and money. Purely for a general presentation, I will voice the main dimensions of the hull of the project 1155.2 intended for the construction of the future destroyer:

displacement, t (standard / full) - 7000/9000;
length, m (waterline / maximum) - 145/160;
width, m (at the waterline / maximum) - 17,8 / 19;
draft, m (hull / SAC) - 5,5 / 8.

Naturally, the new hull must be stealth-adapted and no portholes. In the front and aft parts of the hull, it is necessary to provide proportional side keels, in the central part - non-retractable active roll stabilizers.
"And instead of a heart - a fiery engine" in the literal sense of the word (like a hundred years ago), a gas turbine engine M90FR created and designed in Russia under the import substitution program. Yes, those long-awaited afterburners that are on the frigates of Project 22350. The power plant of the destroyer of Project 11552 will be created according to the COGAG scheme on gas turbine engines from Rybinsk NPO Saturn 4 * 27 hp. from. with a total capacity of 500 liters. from. It will be even slightly more powerful than the Arleigh Burke with four General Electric LM110s of 000 hp each. from. each one. But can this fact be attributed to the shortcomings of the future ship? But the unification of the fleet, the prospects for industrial growth and export supplies to the same China and India. With such energy, future ships can easily withstand the set pace of movement with the flagships of the KUG and AUG atomic "Orlans" and the latest nuclear aircraft carrier. We can say with confidence that the maximum speed of 2500 knots, cruising speed of 25 knots and economic speed of 000 knots will be confirmed during sea trials. For the first series of Russian destroyers, a cruising range of 32 nautical miles at 18 knots could be considered quite decent. Although there is an opinion that on long voyages, a detachment of warships should almost be accompanied by a fast tanker or a multipurpose supply vessel. And if you add an ocean tug and a hospital ship, then the result is a convoy or a caravan, but not a shock mobile autonomous connection of ships in the form of a KUG or AUG. With all this burden, the ocean crossing can be forced to make the RTO or IPC. But this is not what we expect from a universal destroyer. The declared autonomy of the ship must be unconditional.

Armament: "Caliber" and "Pantsir-M"


The propensity of our sailors to have on board a warship a full-fledged powerful artillery of the largest possible caliber is well known. Soviet destroyers of Project 956 are the clearest example of this. The weight of an onboard minute salvo of these ships, armed with a pair of unique AK-130 gun mounts, turned into 6 tons of steel and explosives. This is slightly less than the German battle cruiser SMS Seydlitz could bring down on the enemy in The Battle of Jutland (Skagerrakschlacht), but surpasses the power of the main caliber of the Fuhrer's "pocket battleships" during the Second World War. As a means of air defense on the destroyers of Project 956, these guns were in secondary roles, and from that time to the present they were perfectly suited to demonstrate superiority in an artillery duel with any contemporary. In addition, the AK-130 inspired the marines when landing from the large landing ships of projects 1171 and 775, which at that time did not provide for helicopters for landing, and fighters and equipment were thrown to storm enemy positions into the surf on the beach. In short, nothing new (in comparison with the realities of the Second World War).

The naval thought of the admirals of the late USSR was forced to recognize the need for a second helicopter on the new universal destroyer (Project 1155.1), but still did not want to sacrifice the ship's superiority in artillery over modern Western counterparts. And (predictably), the pride of the then military-industrial complex and the Navy was installed in the corps of the BOD taken as a basis, a single AK-130. Two barrels of 130 mm each significantly surpassed the pair of single-barreled AK-100s of the previous project in terms of fire performance.

Respecting the sailors' adherence to naval traditions, being a supporter of the evolutionary style of achieving perfection and harmony in building a balanced fleet, I propose to install a main battery gun on the new destroyer (similar to the Admiral Gorshkov class frigate installed on the project 22350 frigate) -192M. In terms of artillery power, our destroyer will still not yield to foreign counterparts, but will significantly save in weight and dimensions (in comparison with its predecessors) to accommodate the main weapons of a twenty-first century destroyer - missiles.

And at the turn of the first quarter of the 3st century, what do we have to offer for arming a destroyer of the thirties? At the moment, there are no options or alternatives - the Caliber missile family and the 14S3 universal shipborne firing system. The belated long-awaited development at the modern technological level of a set of missiles for various purposes and a single universal vertical launcher. Anti-ship missiles 14M91, anti-submarine 1R3, KR for firing at ground targets, supersonic 55M3 Onyx and hypersonic Zircon 22MXNUMX are on the way - it would seem an impressive and formidable arsenal. But I’ll ask “a question not about salary”: where are the missiles for long-range air defense, for hitting the warheads of ballistic missiles, for removing reconnaissance satellites from low earth orbits? Or will the subsonic Hawkeye, with its not the most powerful and advanced radar, remain a nightmare for a new destroyer, on which there are practically no energy restrictions for locating a detection and guidance locator with a mass and size that exceeds the opponent's capabilities by an order of magnitude?

Firstly, the versatility of the UKSK 3S14 should be the same as that of the MK 41 PU for the entire large-sized nomenclature of the ship's missile armament.

Secondly, a line of missiles compatible with PU UKSK 3S14 for the upper hemisphere of the ship's defense with the tasks mentioned above should be developed. This is necessary not only for the hypothetical destroyer discussed in the article, but also for all ships of the first rank upgraded in the future to carry this launcher.

For the four ships of the first series, we will limit ourselves to 80 launchers (10 universal modules). Of these, we will place 48, according to the classics, in front of the bow superstructure of the ship, and 16 each - on the right and left sides of the superstructure in the center of the ship near the exhaust devices of the propulsion system. If the designer or the customer has any objective reasons, it is possible to go for reducing the launcher to 64. In any case, the number of launchers of the UKSK will be less than on American destroyers, but we will not blindly copy foreign experience and unjustifiably inflate the dimensions and displacement of the ship. I am impressed by the domestic approach in this matter in the course of the development of the project of frigates 22350, on which initially there are only 16 launchers and only from the fifth corps their number will be increased to 24, or, in other words, the ammunition will increase by a third. But from a ship of twice the displacement, we have the right to demand and twice as much power. In addition, we will not give up the 48 UVP of the Redut anti-aircraft missile system (32 launchers between the gun mount and the UKSK and 16 launchers between the exhaust) for 9M96 and 9M100 anti-aircraft guided missiles. By the way, why not during the discussion raise the issue of the possibility of placing four 9M96 missiles (body diameter 240 mm) in special transport and launch containers for the UKSK and up to nine 9M100 missiles (body diameter 125 mm), if a transport and launch cup (diameter 720 mm) with anti-ship missiles 3M55 "Onyx" (diameter 670 mm)?

Finishing the missile and artillery armament of the ship, we will opt for two Pantsir-M anti-aircraft missile and gun mounts. Traditionally, all Russian warships have 30-mm assault rifles, and now they will also be able to engage surface and air targets in automatic mode. It would not be bad by that time to receive a 30-mm sub-caliber projectile with a tungsten core and a projectile with a programmable fuse in the ammunition load, but the effectiveness and correctness of the decisions made will be tested by time and operation.

Japanese brother "Congo"


It is generally accepted that a modern destroyer is a universal ship, but at the same time, a full-fledged fleet of a particular country orders ships, so to speak, with a national touch or a bias in universality for solving basic tasks. The most important priority of the Russian fleet in the north and in the Pacific Ocean was and remains to ensure the deployment and cover in the bastions of strategic missile carriers. And if for anti-submarine helicopters and coast-based patrol aircraft the very presence of a modern destroyer with long-range air defense systems on board in the area will already be a weighty argument for caution, then for submarine hunters this is a typical task. And the number of such boats and their fighting qualities among potential adversaries now significantly exceed the capabilities of our fleet in the fight against them.

The everyday probability of a duel with an enemy submarine for our destroyer (as part of a KUG, AUG) during an amphibious operation or autonomous navigation is still higher than the reflection of a star raid by a deck aviation or RCC. Therefore, the specificity of our ship should be readiness for anti-submarine defense when performing any other tasks.

We do not need to invent an adequate mission by sending a destroyer to the shores of Florida or California, as the United States does off the coast of the Crimea or the Persian Gulf. And the best air defense destroyer in the Western world in the Royal Navy of Great Britain, the Daring class, is not suitable for us. The Germans will also disappoint us with their universal frigate in the size of the destroyer F125 Die Baden-Württemberg-Klasse with the goals of our project 22160. Perhaps, the greatest similarity with our specifics we will find in Japanese destroyers of the Atago and "Congo" (The Kongō class).


Destroyer "Ashigara" DDG178 of the "Atago" type, further development of the "Congo" class

Zarya, Zvezda or Polyment-Redoubt?


So, the anti-submarine highlight of the new destroyer will be the permanent basing of two anti-submarine helicopters in a stationary hangar. Probably, SJSC "Zvezda-2" (as on the predecessor of the BOD project 1155.1 "Admiral Chabanenko") in our time, and even more so in the thirties, will no longer be relevant. On the other hand, this last version of the complex has undergone modernization on an operating ship, and, unfortunately, our military-industrial complex currently cannot offer anything worthy of a first-rank ship with a bias to confront the underwater threat in the thirties and beyond.

"Zarya" harmoniously blended into the capabilities and tasks of the frigate of project 22350. One of the arguments against the bulky "Polynom" and its classmate of the next generation "Zvezda" sounded something like this: why such powerful and long-range acoustics on an anti-submarine ship, if a low-noise submarine detects its approach on the noise of the propellers much earlier than the SAC is detected in the active mode and a timely evasive maneuver is made?

Here it will probably be appropriate to cite a criterion for the effectiveness of defense from a different "environment". The effectiveness of air defense is assessed not by the number of aircraft shot down, but by the prevention of an air defense strike against the guarded object. Thus, the very potential possibility of detecting an underwater enemy at twice the distance by a new destroyer will force him to choose more careful tactics, and, possibly, refuse to attack a protected object until better times.

Agree, it would look strange in the long term if (having eliminated the main drawback of Soviet destroyers and BODs - the absence of a coherent SAM system for collective defense), the first Russian ships would swing to the other extreme - weakening PLO, in conditions of at least an unabated threat from under the water.

A logical addition to the destroyer's anti-submarine armament will be two launchers of the Paket-NK anti-submarine defense and anti-torpedo defense system located on board.

Quite rarely (for obvious reasons), radar weapons are discussed on the pages of the VO, and then suddenly an article recently appeared immediately about a promising radar for surface ships (“The effectiveness of the air defense of a promising destroyer. Alternative radar complex "). Unfortunately, it’s hard to believe that something like this will be implemented in metal and semiconductors ten years later, interfaced and tested with existing missiles and control systems, and put into service in the Navy ...

Therefore, the recognizable FAR of the Polyment-Redut complex, which has become the hallmark of the frigates of the admiral's series, will most likely migrate to the newest destroyer. Perhaps, in the next modification, to increase the power, range and number of targets fired, the number of lines and columns of PPM in the PAR fabric will increase.

Using a creative approach to increasing the combat capabilities of a destroyer (compared to a frigate), I will propose to install not four, but five existing phased array antennas on the ship. Purely arithmetically, the number of simultaneously fired targets increases from 16 to 20 and guided missiles - from 32 to 40. The assigned sector for each HEADLIGHT will be reduced from 90 degrees to 72, and maintaining the ability of each of the grids separately to "look" into the adjacent sector by 9 degrees will create in a circular five separate sectors of 18 degrees, with the potential to double the number of targets fired, which will be 25 percent of the circular affected area. This point is especially important in terms of considering a salvo of anti-ship missiles from a single carrier-ship with a typical ammunition load of up to eight anti-ship missiles. Unfortunately, when the radiation pattern is "bent" from the normal to angles up to 45 degrees, we inevitably encounter some loss of the accuracy of the beam, but this has to be perceived as an inevitable evil from the PAR.

The installation of a radar from a frigate on a larger destroyer makes it possible to assume the placement of the electrical center of the antennas 2-3 meters higher above the water surface, which will entail an increase in the detection range of air targets at low and extremely low altitudes. By increasing the inclination of the antenna canvases by 5 degrees from the vertical, thereby reducing the size of the dead funnel above the ship, increasing the ability to combat ballistic targets and reconnaissance of satellites in low Earth orbits.
We will not delve further into the secondary issues of additional equipment and equipment for the future ship.

Eight years before trials


So, at present it is safe to say that the military-industrial complex of Russia is able to create a modern destroyer class ship at the level of world developments. Since 2014, the pain points of our military shipbuilding have been systematically eliminated: the lack of engines for warships and the lag behind the level of world developments in our own electronics for weapons systems.

Of the entire set of weapons of the ship, a nomenclature of missiles for long-range air defense systems, compatible with the UKSK PU, is to be developed almost from scratch. (If the justification for the presence of two different vertical launchers on the ship can be their optimization for such different weight and size characteristics of such products as 9M100 and 3M55, then the author could not think of such an excuse for the appearance of a third type of vertical launcher under a missile defense system).

The key to the success of the project 11552 destroyer implementation is the minimum level of the latest developments, which will require significant financial costs and constant time shifts to the right for commissioning the ships themselves. The project of the Leader destroyer has been discussed for eight years. Eight years later, Project 11552 may already be on trials.
The main question remains to be solved: does the fleet need a new destroyer at all?
Author:
119 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Koval Sergey
    Koval Sergey 11 November 2020 06: 15
    39
    The author is a great optimist.
    1. Civil
      Civil 11 November 2020 07: 14
      +8
      So, at present it is safe to say that the military-industrial complex of Russia is able to create a modern destroyer class ship at the level of world developments.

      Maybe, but:
      1. There is no money.
      2. Technology does not stand still. 8 years is indecently long.
      1. Temples
        Temples 11 November 2020 07: 51
        38
        Something similar was created at the Ukrainian Nikolaev shipyards

        Nothing like this has ever been created at Ukrainian shipyards.

        Don't deceive people.

        The ships of our country were created in Nikolaev. At that time, our country was called the USSR. The shipyards were built by the whole country.

        Ukraine did not build either the city of Nikolaev or the shipyards in this city.

        Reading your lines, young people may think that the Ukrainians built something themselves.
        This is a lie.

        It doesn't matter what you mean.
        Lies are always lies. With any sauce.
      2. CSKA
        CSKA 11 November 2020 11: 28
        -5
        Quote: Civil
        1. There is no money.

        Why do you think so?
        1. fiberboard
          fiberboard 16 November 2020 06: 44
          +3
          Siluanov told us. The money could be taken from the financial elite, the oligarchs, but in Russia there are only Russian elites, that is: Jewish, Armenian, Azerbaijani and others, but not Russians. And they have other values ​​in priority.
          1. CSKA
            CSKA 17 November 2020 15: 30
            -5
            Quote: fiberboard
            Siluanov told us.

            Well, a reference to the studio where Siluanov said that we have no money for a destroyer. Do you know how much it costs? This means there is money for SSBNs and nuclear submarines, but not for a destroyer? With gold and foreign exchange reserves of 700 billion.
            Quote: fiberboard
            Money could be taken from the financial elite, oligarchs

            You just want to get someone out of their hands.
            Quote: fiberboard
            but in Russia there are only Russian elites, that is: Jewish, Armenian, Azerbaijani and others, but not Russian

            )))))) Well, of course. Are there no Russians among Russian oligarchs? Straight all non-Russians. Nationalism has already begun. You at least read the list Forbes.
            Quote: fiberboard
            And they have other values ​​in priority.

            Did they tell you so?))))
            1. fiberboard
              fiberboard 18 November 2020 06: 36
              +6
              Siluanov proposed to reduce the army by 10 percent, or do you not know? Why dispossess someone? Specifically, return factories, factories, mines, etc., to the ownership of the state, taking them away from their current owners. If they are sensibly and documenting they will not answer where they got the money for their purchase. Why would I go to take away a store from a person if I saw how he began to travel to China by shuttle and then carried the goods on a bicycle to sell to the market. Or if he started repairing cars in his garage, and now he has a service station and a car dealership. But how the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station and the Sayan aluminum plant became someone's, if I remember it was built by the whole country, I have more desire to know. Moreover, they say that there are entirely foreigners in the CEOs.
              1. CSKA
                CSKA 19 November 2020 14: 43
                -3
                Quote: fiberboard
                Siluanov proposed to reduce the army by 10 percent, or do you not know?

                First, to reduce and only at the expense of people whose activities are not related to the performance of combat missions: doctors, teachers, personnel officers, financiers, lawyers and logisticians. How does this relate to the fact that you write that there is no money for destroyers?
                Secondly, he suggested, but nobody cut it.
                Quote: fiberboard
                Specifically, return factories, factories, mines, etc., to the ownership of the state, taking them away from their current owners. If they are sensible and documenting they will not answer where they got the money for their purchase.

                Do you need to go over each separately or read it yourself? Explain why it is suddenly, for example, it is necessary to take away the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works from Rashnikov or Mechel from Zyuzin?
                Quote: fiberboard
                Why would I go to take away a store from a person if I saw how he began to travel to China by shuttle and then carried the goods on a bicycle to sell to the market.

                So you yourself have answered the question. Honor many of our oligarchs.
                Quote: fiberboard
                But how the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric power station and the Sayan aluminum plant became someone's, if I remember it was built by the whole country, I have more desire to know.

                Very simple. On the basis of the Sayanogorsk aluminum plant, the Siberian Aluminum company was founded, and then merged with Abramovich's aluminum assets to create Rusal.
                Quote: fiberboard
                Moreover, they say that there are completely foreigners in the general directors

                ))) The fact that someone says there is not important. It doesn't even matter who is in the directors of the plant. It is important that the corporation which owns the plant pays taxes regularly.
                1. fiberboard
                  fiberboard 19 November 2020 17: 52
                  +1
                  You and I have different views, we do not understand each other. Each of us thinks differently, and sees the same things differently.
      3. Revolver
        Revolver 17 November 2020 23: 36
        +2
        Quote: Civil
        No money left.

        Quote: D.A. Medvedev
        But you hold on.
    2. Astra wild2
      Astra wild2 11 November 2020 14: 20
      0
      It is stupid to look at the world through rose-colored glasses, but it is also impossible to shout that everything is lost and will not return.
      I was taught to believe in common sense. I will hope for the triumph of common sense.
      P.
      S.
      Recently, a colleague with large "shoulder straps" told me that what is written does not mean true.
      In this case, everything written is also not true? Hee, hee
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan 11 November 2020 23: 44
        +1
        Quote: Astra wild2
        Recently, a colleague with large "shoulder straps" told me that what is written does not mean true.
        In this case, everything written is also not true? Hee, hee

        your colleague was being shy wink in fact "don't believe what you read and half what you see!" soldier
        1. Astra wild2
          Astra wild2 12 November 2020 08: 56
          +2
          In this case, if you see your wife with another, you also have to doubt, perhaps he got lost?
          1. Sanichsan
            Sanichsan 12 November 2020 21: 42
            0
            Quote: Astra wild2
            In this case, if you see your wife with another, you also have to doubt, perhaps he got lost?

            Do you plan to make a scandal for your wife every time you see someone next to her? bully
            1. Astra wild2
              Astra wild2 13 November 2020 12: 50
              +1
              Colleague SanichSan, I am a widow and a TRADITIONAL ORIENTATION. Perhaps, in your area there are only such, but we are conservative
              1. Sanichsan
                Sanichsan 13 November 2020 19: 20
                +2
                Quote: Astra wild2
                Perhaps, in your area there are only such, but we are conservative

                how much? to the level of a burqa with a hole for one eye? belay
    3. Alien From
      Alien From 12 November 2020 22: 32
      +2
      The author has collected everything he could, apparently for all the years of pain ......! But, I would also like to see such ships in the ranks))))
    4. shonsu
      shonsu 13 November 2020 12: 15
      +1
      And I would say a dreamer. I disagree with anything, almost everything is turned inside out, starting from the alteration of the body of the old project to 5 AFAR.
    5. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 14 November 2020 10: 28
      -1
      well, yes) the question is different ... why another ship project? there is also project 22350M, the same "SuperGorshkov", which is now being developed ...
  2. Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Kote Pan Kokhanka 11 November 2020 06: 23
    +2
    Thanks for reviewing the situation!
    Regards, Kote!
  3. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 11 November 2020 06: 59
    +2
    the main question: does the fleet need a new destroyer at all?


    The main answer, although also a question
    what for

    Unfortunately, it is the issue of goal-setting in building long-term plans that remains the most acute. Judging by what is happening, two options suggest themselves
    1- our commanders do not believe in the reality of war and stupidly saw the loot as they can, without being distracted by the interests of defense.
    2- the scientific and industrial potential of the country is so below the plinth that research institutes and factories are doing what they can, and the commanders take what they give, just not to be left with a bare bottom at all.
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 11 November 2020 08: 21
      +2
      In fact, one does not interfere with the other, both options are perfectly combined.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 11 November 2020 08: 35
        0
        Quote: Lex_is
        it does not interfere

        No, goal-setting is just important.
        In the first case, "I have the opportunity, but I have no desire."
        In the second - "I have a desire, but I do not have the opportunity"
        1. Lex_is
          Lex_is 11 November 2020 13: 25
          +1
          So far, not very good about goal-setting.
          Now there is no clear understanding of the role and place of the Navy in even the doctrinal provisions - they are vague, the tasks are not specific, the appearance with reference to specific dates and prospects is not defined, "all our plans are huge" (such as the GPV) are ordered to live long in terms and outlines Navy.
          Accordingly, we have what we have: the task of mastering the budget and riveting what is obtained, and not what is required.
          Fortunately, some projects come out roughly what you need.
    2. CSKA
      CSKA 11 November 2020 11: 57
      0
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      1- our commanders do not believe in the reality of war and stupidly saw the loot as they can, without being distracted by the interests of defense.

      Well, of course, that's why the army is being rearmed since 2011. But probably after 2008, 2014, 2015 they believe in war. But what difference does it make to you whiners? How are you? Do not build factories - it's bad, build - cut the dough. They don't build infrastructure - it's bad, they build - cut the dough. Not rearming the army - bad, rearming - sawing the dough. Che is not done whining.
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      2- the scientific and industrial potential of the country is so below the plinth that research institutes and factories are doing what they can, and the commanders take what they give, just not to be left with a bare bottom at all.

      Of course, below the plinth, I wonder how soon it turns out that we are producing the most modern weapons and still manage to sell them to other countries? In China, India and other countries, science is also below the floor.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 11 November 2020 12: 13
        10
        Quote: CSKA
        do we produce the most modern weapons and still manage to sell them to other countries? In China, India and other countries, science is also below the floor.

        That's exactly what we manage.
        And by the way, about the most modern, not everything is clear.
        And about sales too. The same China has sharply reduced purchases. They do it themselves, without us. In some places we can’t live without him.
        India, well, of course, thanks a lot to her, if it weren't for her, we would have neither our own tanks nor ships and nowhere to build. She saved our industry. But now she is looking more and more to the side, and in some ways she has completely surpassed us.
        We are lagging behind in the main thing - in the production of components. And it can be very difficult to make candy out of shit even for our "kulibins"
        1. CSKA
          CSKA 11 November 2020 12: 44
          -4
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          And by the way, about the most modern, not everything is clear.

          For you, of course not. Are you such a great specialist there? Of course, where there are real specialists in the rest of the world.
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          The same China has sharply reduced purchases.

          And why should they buy the same amount every year? So what country in the world is doing?
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          In some places we already cannot live without it.

          For example?
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          But now he is looking more and more to the side

          She has always bought weapons from different countries.
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          and in some ways she herself surpassed us.

          For example?
      2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 November 2020 15: 18
        15
        Quote: CSKA
        Well, of course, that's why the army is being rearmed since 2011. But probably after 2008, 2014, 2015 they believe in war.

        That is the army. And it's about the fleet
        Quote: CSKA
        Of course, below the plinth, I wonder how it turns out that we are producing the most modern weapons and still manage to sell them to other countries?

        We do not always sell the most modern weapons to other countries. The main export aircraft is the Su-30, which has long been out of the running. "Varshavyanka" - too. And the T-90 is not the most modern tank.
        Of course, there is also the most modern, the same S-400, but you need to understand that they often buy from us not because the best, but because it is optimal in terms of price / quality ratio.
        Quote: CSKA
        In China, India and other countries, science is also below the floor.

        As if yes, but how can this help us? I understand that happiness is not when my cow calves, but when my neighbor's cow died, but still?
        1. CSKA
          CSKA 12 November 2020 15: 00
          -3
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          We do not always sell the most modern weapons to other countries. The main export aircraft is the Su-30, it has not been on the cutting edge for a long time

          Of course not. How can there be a 4+ generation aircraft if 5 generations have been selling at full speed for a long time.
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          "Varshavyanka" - too. And the T-90 is not the most modern tank.

          What are you? How did you define it?
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          As if yes, but how can this help us? I understand that happiness is not when my cow calves, but when my neighbor's cow died, but still?

          You did not understand. This was my sarcasm. Science in China, India and the Russian Federation is at a high level.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 November 2020 15: 18
            +7
            Quote: CSKA
            What are you? How did you define it?

            And what is there to define? 636.3 is a straightening of "Varshavyanks", which were built in the 90s. Moreover, the straightening is such itself - there is mostly modernization of existing equipment, and not new.
            Lada was stuffed with new equipment (GAK, BIUS, etc.), but they didn't take off. And the terms of development turned out to be such that today they are not that new, even if everything worked as expected. But in any case, the newest (although partially non-working) is Lada, not Varshavyanka.
            About the T-90 - its modern modification, this is "Breakthrough", it can probably be considered the newest. But such tanks were not exported.
            Quote: CSKA
            You did not understand.

            Clear. I remove my question.
      3. 2 Level Advisor
        2 Level Advisor 19 November 2020 08: 40
        0
        1. Tell us what factories (not factories) the state built after the USSR?
        2. Name the set of weapons and military equipment developed from scratch, and not modernization (development) of the Soviet heritage, to which the army has been rearmed since 2011 (as you say)?
        3. Anyway, what kind of exaggeration, Sergei? the conversation in the dialogue was not about that it is bad to build / not build, but about the suboptimal spending of funds - what does it have to do with the lost? Or do you have - not everything is lost - this is such patriotism - an exceptional belief that the "helmsmen", like the Queen of England, cannot make mistakes and break the law? then you are my friend a monarchist in fact .. but there is no monarchy in the Russian Federation ..
        1. CSKA
          CSKA 25 November 2020 09: 51
          -1
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          tell us what factories (not factories) the state built after the USSR?

          And you do not know and do not know how to google?
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          name the set of AME

          What is AME?
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          Anyway, what kind of exaggeration, Sergei? the dialogue was not about what is bad to build / not build, but about the suboptimal spending of funds

          You read the dialogue carefully.
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          You, not everything is lost, this is such patriotism, the exclusive belief that the "helmsmen", like the Queen of England, cannot make mistakes and break the law?

          I just think that the one who does nothing is not mistaken.
          Quote: Level 2 Advisor
          You are my friend a monarchist in fact .. but there is no monarchy in the Russian Federation ..

          You are not right. I am a conservative Republican.
          1. 2 Level Advisor
            2 Level Advisor 25 November 2020 10: 31
            -1
            Armament and Military Equipment (AME) .. developed from scratch, and not modernization (development) of the Soviet legacy, to which the army has been rearmed since 2011 (as you say)?
            I did not find in Google large factories built by the state .. which are like "Norilsk Nickel" .. that's why I asked .. you understand .. it was built by the state, and not by private owners .. since in this case, the merit of the state is conditional, unlike the USSR ..
            I'm not talking about what's bad / good .. I'm about the fact that we're going to the Soviet legacy and don't need to assign it as our services to modern "figures" ..
            1. CSKA
              CSKA 25 November 2020 14: 40
              -1
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              Armament and Military Equipment (AME) .. developed from scratch, and not modernization (development) of the Soviet legacy, to which the army has been rearmed since 2011 (as you say)?

              Why shouldn't we use the USSR's achievements? What is this fetish? Like, God forbid, what kind of work will we take, finalize and start producing? In order to take some kind of project as a basis, and then finalize it, this is a huge work. And what is such a concept to develop from scratch? Develop an airplane from scratch? So all the planes that are in service with them from the USSR are only the hull, everything else is radar, the engine is a deep modernization of developments.
              Su-57, Iskander in fact, Dagger, Armored vehicles, S-400, Caliber in fact, Su-35 are all developed in the Russian Federation.
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              I have not found large factories built by the state in Google

              Why did you decide that the state should build factories? Unless the military-industrial complex. And that is my personal opinion. In all economically developed countries, private corporations are being built.
              You will understand whether there is a need for the construction of large factories. Well, let's say the state now builds 10 metallurgical plants? Is there a need in the world and in the Russian Federation for such an amount of steel? And do you understand that if now we pump billions into these factories to start producing this steel, then the price for it will fall and the factories will quickly go bankrupt?
              There is no need to build factories in aviation either. There are already factories that only need to be modernized and filled with orders. What is being done. Shipbuilding needs factories for civil ships, and they are being built.
              Should you build a plant in the automotive industry? Throw in billions to build a factory and billions more to design models. And that from this they will start buying cars all over the world from this plant? It is necessary to develop the existing ones, which is being done.
              Considering modern technologies, there is no need to build huge giants. Small factories are being built in the production of mechanical engineering, chemical products, metalworking. And they open every month. and not at the expense of the state, but at the expense of private investments, the vast majority of which are not foreign. Over the past 5 years, more than 1300 productions.
              Large factories are also being built, but mainly in those industries where there is a demand for products. You couldn't google or didn't want to, then here's a list:
              Khakassky aluminum plant, Boguchansky aluminum plant, Taishet aluminum plant (almost completed), Talitsky GOK, Zapsibneftekhim, Tobolsk petrochemical plant, Zvezda plant. Are these small factories in your opinion?
              The Baltic and Amur gas processing plants and gas chemical plants, the Eastern petrochemical complex are under construction. The Northern Kuzbass Refinery, SamaraTransNeft, Naftattrans, Dagnotech, VPK-Oil, Belgorod Refinery, all 36 refineries, Udokan GOK are under construction.
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              I'm not talking about bad / good .. I'm about going to the Soviet legacy

              So I didn't understand something? It is necessary to close all the factories that were built under the USSR, what would you not say, that everything was built under the Soviet Union?
              Quote: Level 2 Advisor
              and it is not necessary to assign it as your merits to modern "figures"

              Modern figures have modernized the vast majority of the giants that were built during the Soviet era and worked on equipment from the 60s and 70s. New factories (giants) are being built in those industries where there is a need for their construction, and there is no need to rivet large factories anyhow.
    3. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 14 November 2020 10: 30
      -3
      here it is more likely that at first I really wanted "something super-duper", then we decided to take what they could give .. in the end we worked out one series, and an improved version is on the way and now they don't know what to take
  4. Whirlwind
    Whirlwind 11 November 2020 07: 02
    -6
    Let's hope that the Leader-class destroyers will soon start being built and commissioned. With their appearance, the Russian Fleet will once again become oceanic and restore the former glory of the Soviet Union Fleet!
  5. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 11 November 2020 07: 17
    13
    I am not a sailor, but reading the author's smooth divorces, I remembered the Soviet film "Balamut".
    Remember, there, too, the guy on the computer did the calculations for the agricultural complex? The leader began to admire, and the student waved his hand: "... all this will not happen" ...
    "Why"?!
    "Yes, I know - they won't give compound feed, then the builders won't have time ..."
    So it is with these calculations.
  6. mvg
    mvg 11 November 2020 07: 50
    +5
    I'm sorry, uzhos. I confess I have not read everything. Couldn't. Author -> author -> author and not a sailor and not a shipbuilder. A couch exerd like me who wanted to try his hand at journalism.
  7. V1er
    V1er 11 November 2020 07: 57
    +5
    Why all this beauty, when there is already a project of the frigate 22350M?
    1. Fizik M
      Fizik M 14 November 2020 12: 04
      +1
      Quote: V1er
      already have a project of frigate 22350M?

      he is not here
      and it will not be for a very long time (because of the power plant, or rather gearboxes)
      1. V1er
        V1er 14 November 2020 12: 32
        0
        he is not here

        But there is a project. While the fleet is saturated with 22350. When it is saturated, it will be 22350M.
        Quote: Fizik M
        and it won't be for a very long time

        Yeah, like 22350. They're not there either. And miraculously may appear. All will be.
        1. Fizik M
          Fizik M 14 November 2020 12: 37
          +1
          Quote: V1er
          But there is a project.

          NO project
          even technical
          Quote: V1er
          22350. They're not there either.

          the first gearbox has just been "tortured", with a bunch of troubles
          at the same time, this is nothing more than "import substitution" (= copying) of the gearbox "Zorya-Mashproekt"
          1. V1er
            V1er 14 November 2020 12: 39
            -2
            Quote: Fizik M
            the first gearbox has just been "tortured", with a bunch of troubles
            at the same time, this is nothing more than "import substitution" (= copying) of the gearbox "Zorya-Mashproekt"

            You don't believe in our constructors too much. I believe in them.
            Quote: Fizik M
            NO project
            even technical

            There is a proposed project. And what actually is and will be built is known only to high-ranking officials. And you don't need to freak out and put cons to me, it's very ugly of you.
            1. Fizik M
              Fizik M 14 November 2020 12: 44
              +2
              Quote: V1er
              I believe in them.

              but at least believe in God Kuzya - in YOUR case it is almost the same
              Quote: V1er
              There is a proposed project.

              fool
              NOT THIS
              monsieur, before you GIVE BOTH, although the stages of development (design), study
              the necessary educational literature (of the same "shipbuilder") is available on the network
  8. Lex_is
    Lex_is 11 November 2020 08: 16
    21
    The author is well done!
    With such a sweep of thought - even now he is a senior official. (for mental development - one to one)
    Digitizing Soviet blueprints and reworking them using computer programs for a new project (let's call it 1155.2) will not take much time and money.

    Straight here something familiar and painfully familiar breathed!
    I just shed a tear from the realization of how simple everything is, just press a button on the computer and the PLM model will turn out, like this:

    And equipment:

    Business!
    At the same time, the body somehow adapts itself using stealth technology, the portholes will disappear. In the front and aft parts of the hull, side keels will grow, in the central part - non-retractable active stabilizers. And the new armament with engines will fit in there by itself (what a trifle)!
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 11 November 2020 14: 29
      +2
      Quote: Lex_is
      the body somehow adapts itself according to stealth technology, the portholes will disappear. In the forward and aft parts of the hull, side keels will grow, in the central part - non-retractable active stabilizers. And new weapons with engines will fit in there


      To be fair - the author did not promise this. It is clear that the digitized project will have to be finalized.
      1. Lex_is
        Lex_is 11 November 2020 15: 00
        11
        It is clear that the digitized project will have to be finalized.

        In fairness - if you remake it for stealth, new engines, weapons, electronics, 80 universal launchers - only one limitation will remain from this case. wassat
        This means getting a deliberately bad compromise result with a twofold increase in the design cost.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 11 November 2020 15: 05
          0
          Quote: Lex_is
          if you remake it for stealth, new engines, weapons, electronics, 80 universal launchers - only one limitation will remain from this case


          If you think that it will be cheaper to develop a case from scratch, say so directly. Your opinion does not have to coincide with the opinion of the author.
          1. Lex_is
            Lex_is 11 November 2020 16: 16
            +6
            I believe that in order to write something in an article, you need to have some knowledge about this issue.
            What do you think?
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 11 November 2020 16: 48
              -1
              And I believe that the author at least justified his proposal to use the old corpus by the fact that the Berks' corpus has not changed much in 30 years. You rejected his offer with two T-FLEX CAD screenshots and an emoticon.
              1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                Andrei from Chelyabinsk 11 November 2020 17: 23
                12
                Quote: Eye of the Crying
                And I believe that the author at least substantiated his proposal to use the old corpus by the fact that the Berks' corpus has not changed much in 30 years.

                Because Burke himself hasn't changed much either. So if the author just wants to clone a Project 1155 ship, then yes. But he doesn't want to. He wants a completely different ship, and therefore his analogy with Burke is wrong from the beginning.
              2. Lex_is
                Lex_is 11 November 2020 17: 35
                +8
                the author at least substantiated his proposal to use the old corpus by the fact that the Berks' corpus has not changed much in 30 years.

                Cool rationale.
                So I say: to write something in an article, you need to have some knowledge.

                Firstly, Berkov's hulls changed with each series, just the overall dimensions and displacement did not change much, and so their decks changed and the superstructure design completely changed and the hangar appeared.
                Secondly, Berkov's buildings were originally modular and were created with a view to subsequent changes.
                Thirdly, a fairly large reserve for future modernization was initially laid on Berki.
                Fourthly, on Berks, the composition of the weapons did not radically change (they removed 2 × Mk 141 Harpoon, added 6 sections Mk 41,)
                Fifthly, the engines on the Berks were not changed.
                Sixth, the radar on them did not radically change, and they were developed specifically for this type and for these dimensions.

                And which of the above is in the discussed projecting?
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 11 November 2020 18: 35
                  +1
                  Quote: Lex_is
                  Fourthly, the composition of weapons on Berks did not change dramatically.


                  It is clear that the hull will have to be modified for the TLU

                  Quote: Lex_is
                  Fifthly, the engines on the Berks were not changed.


                  If the new turbines fit into the dimensions of the old ones, what is the problem?

                  Quote: Lex_is
                  And which of the above is in the discussed projecting?


                  I do not know. But at least you have started making normal arguments against. Although you still didn't say directly that it would be cheaper to develop a new case from scratch (if you think so, of course).
              3. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 14 November 2020 10: 34
                -3
                Well, in the case of the author, it would be better to justify the production of old ships with the installation of new weapons and systems while maintaining the old hull to speed up construction by analogy with the modernization of old BODs. the real one walking on the oceans according to the principle "until there is no stamp and such"
                1. Fizik M
                  Fizik M 14 November 2020 11: 51
                  0
                  Quote: Boris Chernikov
                  to justify the production of old ships with the installation of new weapons and systems while maintaining the old hull to accelerate construction by analogy with the modernization of old BODs

                  fool
                  Do you even know what kind of Achinae you wrote?
                  Quote: Boris Chernikov
                  while our design bureaus are bringing "super-duper" again, the fleet would get something real

                  the head 22800 from the start of work to the end of the GI was made faster than the head 1234 in the USSR
                  1. Boris Chernikov
                    Boris Chernikov 14 November 2020 12: 53
                    -4
                    oh ... Mina will not calm down in any way) I remembered about Karakurt) lol, but I see no reason to argue with you .. you will again merge as you merged into corvettes and missiles of Japan ..
                    1. Fizik M
                      Fizik M 14 November 2020 12: 55
                      -1
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      how it merged into the corvettes and missiles of Japan ..

                      fool
                      bunny would you be delusional
                      Kashchenko has been waiting for you lol
                      1. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 14 November 2020 13: 07
                        -2
                        laughing this is your only phrase..so you signed up so much that you can't do anything else?
              4. Fizik M
                Fizik M 14 November 2020 12: 02
                +1
                Quote: Eye of the Crying
                And I believe that the author at least substantiated his proposal to use the old corpus by the fact that the Berks' corpus has not changed much in 30 years

                this is not a "justification" but a PUMP lol
                the author does not know that "Berkov" has a zonal-modular body
            2. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa 11 November 2020 18: 44
              +5
              Quote: Lex_is
              in order to write something in an article, you need to have some knowledge about this issue.

              The truth, sir, speak! (The author has ... "lightness in thought - extraordinary!" (C)
              The author is unfamiliar with weights, dimensions, loads, ergonomics, survivability, explosion and fire safety, or the ship's unsinkability ... Therefore, it seems to him simple and logical - to "stick" new products into the old building - business!
              Digitize, and it's in the bag! And why does he even need engineers-designers of ship systems, armed men, strength calculations and others like them !?
          2. Fizik M
            Fizik M 14 November 2020 12: 03
            +2
            Quote: Eye of the Crying
            If you think that it will be cheaper to develop a case from scratch, say so directly. Your opinion does not have to coincide with the opinion of the author.

            YES
            the author's "opinion" is not close here - due to his absolute incompetence
  9. Doccor18
    Doccor18 11 November 2020 08: 44
    +3
    Thanks to Scharnhorst for the opinion article.
    I'll try to express my own.
    I do not quite agree with some aspects of the construction of a domestic destroyer. First you need to understand when and what kind of aircraft carrier we will build.
    Being an ardent supporter of aircraft carriers, I bitterly realize that a nuclear multipurpose ship in 80-90 kt. now our military-industrial complex cannot be mastered. And to build half-aircraft carriers in 40 kt. with a modest one-sided air group it will not be much cheaper, a little easier and it is not clear why ...
    Therefore, it makes no sense to design destroyers without knowing what the aircraft carrier will be. If 90 kt. a multipurpose ship will be able to carry 2 squadrons of fighter-interceptors and fighter-bombers, then a light aircraft carrier - a maximum of 24 air defense fighters.
    To escort a multipurpose aircraft carrier, you need a destroyer with powerful air defense missile defense and significant anti-submarine capabilities. The presence of RCC and AU on it is secondary. 2-3 IS squadrons will carry out a missile and bomb strike much more efficiently than a destroyer can do.
    And for a light escort (up to 40 kt.), You need a multipurpose ship. But it will be extremely difficult to "shove" everything you need into the 7000 standard displacement.

    Even the USSR was unable to build a series of ships of the first rank more than three dozen. The capabilities of the Russian Federation, I believe, will make it possible to build no more than 3 such units. Therefore, it is incorrect to compare them with Burks. Our destroyer should be larger, something like Project 8. It should have 1164-16 cells for heavy anti-ship missiles / anti-aircraft missile guards, and the maximum possible number of cells for Redut-type anti-ship missiles. Since over the past 24 years in the war at sea, nothing has changed in this regard: the main enemy of the ship is the plane.
    1. Petro_tut
      Petro_tut 11 November 2020 20: 41
      0
      Since over the past 75 years in the war at sea in this regard, nothing has changed: the main enemy of the ship is the plane

      You did not take into account the factors of drones, swarms, loitering ammunition, now the same must be reckoned with, "the Armenians will confirm"
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 11 November 2020 21: 03
        0
        Quote: Petro_tut
        Since over the past 75 years in the war at sea in this regard, nothing has changed: the main enemy of the ship is the plane

        You did not take into account the factors of drones, swarms, loitering ammunition, now the same must be reckoned with, "the Armenians will confirm"

        Well, the Armenians did not fight at sea ..
        Although UAVs and other air attack systems do not fundamentally change the picture. The main threat is from the air. Only the quantitative indicator of these threats is growing incredibly. Now, not from 8 Harpoons or Exocets to prepare to fight off, but from several dozen ... Therefore, the basis of a hypothetical destroyer should be the most advanced radar and the maximum number of medium and short-range missiles.
      2. Alf
        Alf 11 November 2020 21: 44
        +1
        Quote: Petro_tut
        You left out the factors of drone, swarming,

        Did the Armenians use REAL EW means?
    2. Fizik M
      Fizik M 14 November 2020 12: 00
      +3
      Quote: Doccor18
      Thanks to Scharnhorst for the opinion article.

      thanks for that"? for an illiterate nonsense? and unwillingness to study the issue even minimally?
  10. Alex 1970
    Alex 1970 11 November 2020 09: 35
    +7
    "It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines, and walk on them." So the author has the same. Everything is easy and simple, but the insidious sailors do not want to do anything.
  11. KrolikZanuda
    KrolikZanuda 11 November 2020 09: 38
    -2
    And the military-industrial complex is not needed and is not able to.
  12. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 11 November 2020 10: 16
    -10 qualifying.
    the main question is whether the fleet needs a new destroyer at all ..... firstly, a destroyer is a bigger frigate, why multiply projects? is it better to continue the series of an already produced ship? the second question is generally about the combat effectiveness of surface ships in connection with the development of missile weapons, now they are trying to make all means secretive both on land and at sea, rocket launchers and artillery mostly elude defeat, hide, and the surface ship is visible to everyone and is slow-moving. thirdly, there is no money for it, frigates then release one at a time, fourthly, the very concept of destroyers and even more AB with him and the concept of a campaign somewhere far away is vicious, the task of the navy and army is to defend their territories, and not land somewhere far away, there is not even just an infantry for this. In the distance, Russia can only inflict nuclear missile strikes of retaliation, and not carry infantry and tanks somewhere ... the answer does not need a destroyer for the fleet at all
    1. Starshina
      Starshina 11 November 2020 22: 32
      -1
      Developing your idea --- why do we need surface ships at all ??? Or maybe abandon the Navy altogether and go over to the defense of its coast and leave only sea border guards ??? It is immediately clear that you did not serve in the Navy and you don’t understand anything about it, so don’t show your stupidity !!!
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 11 November 2020 23: 14
        -1
        surface ships in wartime solve anti-piracy economic tasks, and in wartime they provide coastal PLO PMO all this will be perfectly done by frigates and corvettes ... and imitation of violent activity in the form of displaying flags and tracking foreign warships ... I now understand that this is nonsense, ..... there are reconnaissance ships and aircraft for tracking, and the flag may not be displayed without urgent need, as if such a demonstration is not worth the fuel that is not spent on it
        1. max702
          max702 17 November 2020 22: 21
          +1
          But what about the beautiful form, dagger. salty sea spray .. This is the main thing for the fleet, because nothing else is of use and has nothing to do with the country's defense capability ..
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 17 November 2020 22: 52
            0
            Quote: max702
            beautiful shape, dagger. salty sea spray ..

            to the point all this has already happened in my life, but ... age, wisdom, a garden in the country is more practical ... and for whom spray, let them go on yachts
  13. alstr
    alstr 11 November 2020 10: 42
    0
    My humble IMHO, I need to decide what the destroyer is for?
    What tasks should he solve?
    If we are talking about escorting an IBM, then priority should be given not to strike capabilities, but to make a bias in air defense / anti-aircraft defense, since submarines should become the shock link.
    Those. a destroyer does not need a huge number of shock missiles: Reasons:
    1. increases the size, which leads to an increase in the likelihood of skipping a strike from anti-ship missiles. And for two reasons:
    = the larger the ship, the more priority it becomes, i.e. more anti-ship missiles will target him.
    = actual size. It is easier to get into a large ship, and any hit is a loss of combat effectiveness from partial to full.

    2. For the strike capabilities of the KUG, the nuclear submarine is more suitable, because it is possible to cram a larger number of attack missiles into it due to the fact that submarines do not need air defense (i.e., protection against anti-ship missiles is not needed - and this is practically 80-90% of threats - just compare the number of aircraft and the number of submarines - the difference will be about two )

    3. Practical impossibility of recharging cells at sea.

    Based on this, by and large, a destroyer with strong air defense / anti-aircraft defense is needed. And the necessary minimum of shock weapons. Those. 36-48 slots for Caliber (maybe less) and the presence of more than 100+ air defense missiles (the more, the better).

    Better yet, think towards the carrier ship of small specialized robotic ships.
    Those. relatively speaking, we take the case. In it, in the bow, we have the ship's air defense system and some strike weapons. In the rear part, we make a docking camera of a boat with air defense / anti-aircraft defense systems (radar + a couple of dozen anti-aircraft missiles or with anti-aircraft defense equipment. If desired, even something like Squid can be shoved.

    This will immediately make the order defense more flexible. In this case, the mother ship will play the role of a command post, and the boat - the role of spaced firing points + additional sources of information about the situation, i.e. in essence, to implement the scheme of the land air defense system.

    Considering that especially the boats will not go far from the order, they can be made remotely right now (the problem of communication within up to 50 km is quite solvable - more precisely, it even has a solution in the form of communication lines for land complexes). At the same time, crews for them are not required or they can be minimal.

    At the same time, it is also possible to install mainly Pantsir / Tor complexes (i.e. not very large) on boats to save space, and only long-range air defense systems can be left on the carrier ship.
    For greater stability, make boats in the form of catamarans.

    In addition, in this case, because there will be boats in the stern, then on top of the cameras you can make a small runway for the UAV +
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 11 November 2020 11: 33
      10
      Quote: alstr
      In this case, the mother ship will play the role of a command post, and the boat - the role of spaced firing points + additional sources of information about the situation, i.e. in fact, to implement the scheme of the land air defense system.

      In this case, the boats will play a role floats. For the seaworthiness of boats in 15-20 meters and without load it is very small, and if you put "Pantsir-M" or "Thor" on them, we get something like this:

      10-12 tons on the upper deck for a boat is too much.
      Plus, it will not be possible to raise the surveillance radar high (we again remember the "Trouble" and the way it was turned by Christopher Bonifatievich), so the radio horizon on the MV and PMV will be minimal.
      Quote: alstr
      For greater stability, make boats in the form of catamarans.

      Then say goodbye to the large capacity of the mother ship.
      1. alstr
        alstr 11 November 2020 13: 44
        -5
        Seaworthiness is great and is not needed, because when the excitement is more than 5-6 points, the use of missile weapons is not possible.
        But such boats will stand 5-6 points. Ie even from a large ship launching a rocket is unlikely to work.

        As for the antennas, the total height of the Land Carapace is about 6 meters. That's not a lot.
        The weight is also not huge.
        The total weight of the land vehicle (ie together with the chassis) is up to 20 tons. It is completely lifting. At the same time, do not forget that an UNCLEARED version is offered, i.e. no water / food supplies needed. This increases the payload significantly.
        In extreme cases, you can make more boats. And the seaworthiness of even small ships can be great.
        For example, ordinary fishing vessels that constantly get into a storm and do not die en masse.
        1. Lex_is
          Lex_is 11 November 2020 14: 10
          +6
          Seaworthiness is great and is not needed, because when the excitement is more than 5-6 points, the use of missile weapons is not possible.
          But such boats will stand 5-6 points.

          Still as needed.
          The fact that the boat will not sink at 5-6 points (and it is guaranteed not to sink) does not mean that it will be able to maintain its course, speed and use weapons.

          To use a weapon, you do not need to count points, but provide parameters, for example:
          - rolling up to 15 ° with a period of 8–10 s;
          - pitching up to 3 ° with a period of 5 s;
          - resistance to vibration with a frequency of 0–20 Hz and an amplitude of 0,5 mm.

          All weapons, radio-technical weapons, navigational weapons, and other equipment of the ship have such parameters, and it is far from the fact that at a low displacement these parameters can be sustained even with 3 points.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 11 November 2020 16: 34
          +8
          Quote: alstr
          As for the antennas, the total height of the Land Carapace is about 6 meters. That's not a lot.
          The weight is also not huge.

          And what does the land "Shell" have to do with it? It is designed for other conditions and other purposes.
          We have a naval version of the "Pantsir" - under the TZ of the Navy. Its mass in the minimum version is 10-12 tons (the previous "Dirk" from the same KBP weighed 15,5 tons).
          And so we put these 12 tons on a 20-meter boat on the upper deck. Resilience - come on, goodbye. smile
          Quote: alstr
          At the same time, do not forget that an UNCREEPED version is offered, i.e. no water / food supplies needed. This increases the payload significantly.

          Not much. Otherwise, we will again get stability problems.
          Quote: alstr
          In extreme cases, you can make more boats. And the seaworthiness of even small ships can be great.
          For example, ordinary fishing vessels that constantly get into a storm and do not die en masse.

          It's not about dying, not dying. The point is to ensure the stability of the platform - for the use of weapons. Otherwise, the boat will simply hang out at sea, unable to launch or even take the target for escort.
          1. alstr
            alstr 11 November 2020 22: 41
            -1
            Actually, the weight of the module with ammunition (8 missiles + 1000 rounds) is 7,1 tons.
            Moreover, this is the weight of the entire module. Part of it goes under the deck. Those. at the top, somewhere half remains.
            Another thing is that it also comes with the ability to have an additional module with a recharge of 32 missiles. It also weighs somewhere around 7-8 tons.

            The only problem is the size. In a 20-meter boat, this definitely does not fit. This is yes.

            In fact, there is a tendency to form a class of ships that carry autonomous weapon modules.

            This is most clearly manifested in minesweepers, where various devices for search and trawling are actively used.

            But in essence, any ships for other purposes can be created in a similar way.
            After all, now the main problem is to move the line of detection / destruction of targets away from the main carrier. And such a concept is one of the options.

            Again, first of all, the idea comes to create small devices for PLO.
            Conventionally: a small boat / pl with 2 torpedoes (moreover, of the Packet type) + hydroacoustics.
            So we got a mobile module for searching and destroying submarines.
    2. Petro_tut
      Petro_tut 11 November 2020 20: 45
      0
      Considering that especially the boats will not go far from the order, they can be made remotely right now (the problem of communication within up to 50 km is quite solvable - more precisely, it even has a solution in the form of communication lines for land complexes). At the same time, crews for them are not required or they can be minimal.
      here the fun will begin there at 5 balls laughing
    3. Fizik M
      Fizik M 14 November 2020 11: 59
      +2
      Quote: alstr
      My humble IMHO, I need to decide what the destroyer is for?
      What tasks should he solve?

      correct question
      for the destroyer is THE ELEMENT OF THE LIVE CONNECTION, THE KEY ELEMENT OF WHICH IS THE AIR CARRIER
      we, having a very vague idea of ​​AV, got into SCAM with "Leader"
  14. Rudkovsky
    Rudkovsky 11 November 2020 14: 47
    +2
    == the absence of escort ships of the future aircraft carrier strike group is considered ==
    Non-existent escort for a non-existent aircraft carrier group. Everything is in balance.
  15. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 11 November 2020 15: 45
    +2
    I will propose to install on the ship not four, but five existing phased antenna arrays.

    I would also put the grate facing up to remove the funnel altogether.
    In addition, there is a creative question about the placement of a longer wavelength antenna - such as the rotating black canvases on European frigates - they cannot see ahead, and additionally unmask the ship by spurious reflections of the beam from the forward mast. You can't see them at all on Zamvolts - why? Optoelectronics is also necessary. Computer with image recognition. And it would be nice to think about launching and returning drones - and these are also creative questions.
  16. IC
    IC 11 November 2020 16: 03
    +3
    More incompetent material is hard to imagine. The author lives in some other, fictitious country, where money grows on trees or is taken out of the nightstand. Dreams of a ship that by the 30s will catch up with American destroyers from the last century. No wonder his name is Sharnhost. He remained in the days of his namesake.
    1. Gust
      Gust 11 November 2020 17: 14
      +2
      American destroyers are floating platforms with many Mk41 cells and powerful radar, built to military standards. It's cool when there are other pennants with ASW, close-range air defense, etc. They basically go as part of the KUG or AUG. Our destroyers are hung with various sets of weapons for all occasions - and these are two big differences, as they say in Odessa. And catching up stupidly by the number of UVP cells is not difficult, and there is no achievement in catching up with Burke either.
      Another thing is that the approach voiced by the author is more expensive, longer and worse. Even super-Gorshkov will have a new building.
      1. Lex_is
        Lex_is 11 November 2020 18: 02
        +1
        It's cool when there are other pennants with ASW, near-zone air defense, etc. They basically go as part of a KUG or AUG

        Cool, only in the US AUG now, apart from the destroyers, which are also responsible for the AAW for ASW (together with the nuclear submarine), from other pennants only the aircraft carrier and support ships. laughing
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 11 November 2020 19: 03
          0
          And the cruiser URO.
          1. Lex_is
            Lex_is 11 November 2020 19: 19
            0
            Before - yes, now it is not necessary.
            1. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 11 November 2020 19: 23
              0
              In AUG - not necessary? From what time?
    2. Fizik M
      Fizik M 14 November 2020 11: 58
      +2
      Quote: IMS
      More incompetent material is hard to imagine. The author lives in some other, fictional country, where money grows on trees or is taken out of the nightstand.

      exactly!
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. Tektor
    Tektor 11 November 2020 18: 35
    +2
    Now we would put 22350 on the stream. This is the best solution possible. They need as many as Berks.
    1. Lex_is
      Lex_is 11 November 2020 18: 58
      +2
      Now we would put 22350 on stream

      Yes, now this is the best thing that can and should be done, and if it is to develop on its basis in the form of 22350M.
  19. common man
    common man 11 November 2020 19: 30
    +3
    It is necessary to create a missile defense system launched from the existing UVP.
  20. Starshina
    Starshina 11 November 2020 22: 03
    +3
    All the same answer from the government --- no money but you hold on !!! Complete failure in the construction and repair of ships of the first and second ranks !!! Outdated infrastructure in the Far East, which has shown its inadequacy. Irresponsible and unpunished attitude of contractor repair organizations to the repair and maintenance of ships, as well as their corruption !!! Lack of a clear strategy and plan for the use of naval ships in the far sea zone. And most importantly, complete disregard for the development of a strategy for the use of naval unmanned aircraft in the structure of the Navy !!! All this will lead to a new "Tsushima" --- the Russian Navy ...
    1. IC
      IC 12 November 2020 03: 43
      0
      Everyone forgets about the strong surface navies of the allies of the United States and South Korea, which are more powerful than the Pacific Fleet and continue to develop at a faster pace. All of them are united by a single information platform.
      1. Alf
        Alf 12 November 2020 19: 36
        0
        Quote: IMS
        Everyone forgets about the strong surface navies of the allies of the United States and South Korea,

        Plus the Japanese Navy.
  21. Starshina
    Starshina 11 November 2020 22: 39
    0
    And what if to remake and arm all the yachts of Russian officials and oligarchs, then I think the power and the United States can be surpassed !!! And you say --- NO MONEY !!!
  22. Desperado
    Desperado 12 November 2020 09: 25
    +2
    Quote: Starshina
    And what if to remake and arm all the yachts of Russian officials and oligarchs, then I think the power and the United States can be surpassed !!! And you say --- NO MONEY !!!


    I will correct, there is no money for a qualitative modernization of the education system and healthcare. There is money for foreign policy games and projects that are currently unnecessary. We will not say anything about the efficient use of funds. Hence the conclusion that at the current moment the country's leadership is not interested (does not want, or cannot, due to the lack of "political will"), in the successful development of the economy and the creation of comfortable conditions for the population of their country.
  23. Shadow shooter
    Shadow shooter 12 November 2020 13: 01
    +1
    Why spend money on all this when you need to rivet and rivet a ready-made project of a frigate like Gorshkov. At least 40 pieces of them would be riveted. request
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 12 November 2020 16: 43
      +4
      Quote: Shadow Shooter
      Why spend money on all this when you need to rivet and rivet a ready-made project of a frigate like Gorshkov

      The ship, alas, is not the best one. Therefore, the fleet wants a major modification of the "M"
      1. Fizik M
        Fizik M 14 November 2020 11: 57
        +3
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Therefore, the fleet wants a major modification of the "M"

        for which there is no power plant yet
        and taking into account the "Star-Reducer" (or rather "Sinara") with gearboxes - this song will be very long ...
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 14 November 2020 14: 09
          0
          Quote: Fizik M
          for which there is no power plant yet

          Yes? And I thought it was a sinful thing that they would make it a three-screw, "sticking in" another typical unit ... Maxim, I understand that you will tell me now that it is not a "sinful thing" to think, but ... I think, purely theoretically, the circuit has the right to live.
  24. xomaNN
    xomaNN 12 November 2020 13: 29
    0
    Everyone is happy with the Kaliningrad shipbuilding Yantar. But here's the question in view of the Cal enclave. region How to deliver there a huge amount of equipment for a ship, a constant rotation of specialists from various PO boxes from all over Russia through the unfriendly territory of the Balts?
  25. Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 13 November 2020 08: 52
    +1
    Quote: xomaNN
    Everyone is happy with the Kaliningrad shipbuilding Yantar. But here's the question in view of the Cal enclave. region How to deliver there a huge amount of equipment for a ship, a constant rotation of specialists from various PO boxes from all over Russia through the unfriendly territory of the Balts?


    Is it not an option to deliver goods and components by sea, through the Kaliningrad port?
  26. Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich
    Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich 13 November 2020 08: 59
    0
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    The ship, alas, is not the best one. Therefore, the fleet wants a major modification of the "M"


    Dear Andrey, I always read your posts and articles with the greatest interest. hi
    Could you explain in more detail why Gorshkov is bad, he seems to be praised ... Well, yes, the first ships have a limited number of launchers, but now their (launch) number has been increased.
    The Super Gorshkov currently being designed is already a cross between a frigate and a destroyer ...
  27. silver_roman
    silver_roman 13 November 2020 10: 19
    +2
    My subjective: Russia does not need a new destroyer developed from 0. It needs 22350m with an increased number of UKSK, ideally with 2 helicopters or a solution with a UAV. And 4 even very cool destroyers will not solve much. A large series of 22350m is needed to saturate the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet. Black Sea Fleet and BF would usually be enough 22350. cheap and cheerful.
  28. Astra wild2
    Astra wild2 13 November 2020 19: 23
    0
    Quote: SanichSan
    Quote: Astra wild2
    Perhaps, in your area there are only such, but we are conservative

    how much? to the level of a burqa with a hole for one eye? belay

    I do not live in Russia; I don’t know.
  29. Fizik M
    Fizik M 14 November 2020 11: 56
    +2
    And the time-tested hull of the last Soviet BOD with minimal alterations will be suitable for the first Russian universal destroyer.

    this is just an ACHINEA of an absolutely incompetent author
    amers have not just a "body" but area-modular ship design
    https://topwar.ru/175212-kakie-moduli-nuzhny-nashim-korabljam.html
  30. Fizik M
    Fizik M 14 November 2020 12: 05
    +2
    Quote: Leader of the Redskins
    So it is with these calculations.

    these are not "calculations" but ACHINEA
  31. Fizik M
    Fizik M 14 November 2020 12: 06
    +2
    Using a creative approach to enhance the combat capabilities of the destroyer

    wassat
    "you don't have to read further" lol
  32. Fizik M
    Fizik M 14 November 2020 12: 08
    +2
    From the entire set of ship weapons to be developed almost from scratch a range of missiles for long-range air defense systems

    fool
    the author is generally aware that wassat He wrote? the price tag and terms (15 years MINIMUM) of his graphomania!
  33. Scharnhorst
    14 November 2020 15: 20
    -1
    For 15 years, you can not only a rocket but also a new complex. create Or as in the film: well, sir, you set the timeline! An assistant is needed here!
  34. storm
    storm 14 November 2020 20: 39
    0
    Until the shipyards of three dozen serial frigates of project 22350 / 350M will not release about aircraft carriers and super-destroyers with nuclear reactors, one should not even think about ...
    Project 11552 is actually the same project 22350M and there is no point in it ...
  35. Brama agnihotra
    Brama agnihotra 16 November 2020 13: 14
    0
    Without the presence of escort aircraft carriers to ensure the combat stability of the surface group of the Russian Navy from the air, these destroyers are excellent targets for bullets ...
  36. nonsense
    nonsense 17 November 2020 15: 55
    0
    IMHO the destroyer is not needed. You first, before stuffing it with different weapons, decide that does the fleet need? - The Orly Burke-class ship is a carrier of strategic weapons (cruise missiles with a range of 2500 km) and in itself is essentially a strategic weapon. Or some kind of universal escort ship(with numerous air defense systems and PLO weapons). IMHO the first unnecessarily - expensive and they will be little(we can't pull much). Better for the same price to rivet at a speed of 1 piece. per year multipurpose nuclear submarines (although they are difficult to find) - carriers of the CD. If you make a universal escort ship, then it may well fit in a more modest ship - frigate... Take Admiral Gorshkov as a sample and multiply it into a couple of dozen pieces. Even if the Russian Federation does not have its own aircraft carriers or UDCs, which need escort ships as part of the AUG / DUG, they will always find work! - to escort transports to the next "Syria" and / or scoopers / pipelayers to some Nicaragua ... So for a ship of the "EM" type (but in reality - a cruiser capable of waging its own war alone) there is simply no work, and its operation is expensive ...
    1. max702
      max702 17 November 2020 22: 33
      +1
      Under the fact that you offer not to cut money, and in general, local naval commanders are not interested in real affairs, they would drown the AUG or the fleet alone with the entire NATO bloc and win at the same time .. Such are the lovers of unscientific fiction .. Although in reality the tasks of escorting in peacetime and during a threatened period, it is not enough to cover the sea borders near their borders .. That's all the tasks, but again they are boring and not interesting, but they are so eager to surf the vast theater ..
  37. ZEMCH
    ZEMCH 17 November 2020 16: 26
    0
    The key to the success of the project 11552 destroyer implementation is the minimum level of the latest developments, which will require significant financial costs and constant time shifts to the right for commissioning the ships themselves. The project of the Leader destroyer has been discussed for eight years. Eight years later, Project 11552 may already be on trials.

    The author joked about corpus 1155, wink I, as the operator of this hull in a modern ship, would not like to see it, and the technologies have gone ahead
  38. Kettle13
    Kettle13 26 November 2020 20: 53
    0
    How many apartments, and even houses, can this money be for at least needy officers of the fleet.
  39. Kettle13
    Kettle13 26 November 2020 20: 56
    0
    Quote: fiberboard
    Money could be taken from the financial elite, oligarchs

    This money will already be used to treat sick children.