Military Review

The basics of shipbuilding policy: a large and strong navy is inexpensive

265
The rarest photo - two the same Russian warships are not Soviet-built together. But that should stop being rare. Photo: defenceimagery.mod.uk

Having decided on the principles that should underlie the sane shipbuilding policy of Russia, you need to subject them to at least a theoretical test. In a sense, this was done with the example of corvettes in the last article, which clearly showed which ships the Navy would receive if it followed these simple rules.


But we need to put the question more broadly, and in principle show what kind of surface fleet of the Russian Federation can afford, if not chasing chimeras.

This, on the one hand, will relieve someone of illusions, and on the other, it will become a worthy response to the supporters of the thesis that the Russian Federation cannot afford a fleet due to the collapse of industry. Maybe our problems are purely organizational.
The surface fleet will be considered. And, of course, there are some comparisons of what is being done and what might have been done instead.

Let's start with the Main Power Plants - GEM.

Main power plants as a boundary condition


One of the limiting factors limiting the type of ships under construction is the ability to produce the main power plant necessary for the ship, its (roughly speaking) engines and transmission, if we appeal to things that are understandable from an everyday point of view. At the moment, a number of power plants are mass-produced in Russia.

The suppliers of diesel engines that are used to equip surface ships are PJSC "Zvezda" (with its radial multi-cylinder diesel engines of various models) and JSC "K plant", which produces medium-speed diesel engines of the D49 family with different power. The advantages and disadvantages of both are widely known. So Zvezd has problems with reliability and the possibility of long-term operation at maximum power. The Kolomn's reliability was brought to an acceptable level, but insufficient power remained (foreign classmates in the same dimensions are much more powerful). However, these engines have proven to be suitable for warships despite their "diesel roots".

Due to the specificity of Zvezda's products, it is worth putting it in a separate section, but for now, about Kolomny.

On domestic warships, 10D49 engines with a capacity of up to 5200 hp are used. from. (BDK project 11711, frigates pr. 22350) and 16D49 with a capacity of up to 6000 liters. from. (corvettes of projects 20380 and 20385, patrol ships of project 22160).

These diesels need gear drives to convert the rpm and provide the ability to reverse the direction of rotation of the propeller. The reducer is produced by JSC "Zvezda-reductor", this enterprise is a monopolist, it is irreplaceable. So, on patrol ships, a gearbox RRP-6000 (5RP) is used, one gearbox for the engine and one shaft line. A similar gearbox is used on the BDK.

On the corvettes, RRP-12000 is used, which summarizes the work of two 16D49 diesel engines on a common shaft line, and in total forms a diesel reverse-gear unit DDA-12000, where 12000 is the total maximum power of the unit in horsepower. Each corvette of projects 20380 and 20385 has two such units with a total capacity of 24000 liters. from.

An important point is that the gear drives for patrol ships and corvettes are unified and made on the same equipment. Because of this, the RRP-6000 has too much mass, inappropriate for one diesel engine.

Separate история - Power plant of frigates, where the diesel is used for the economy drive, and for the afterburner - the gas turbine M-90FR manufactured by "UEC-Saturn". Such an installation - the M-55R diesel-gas turbine unit as part of the Kolomna 10D49 diesel engine, the M-90FR GTU and the PO55 reducer - is installed on the frigate in the amount of 2 units, on two shaft lines. For frigates of project 22350, this is the minimum possible power plant.

GTU M-90FR

How many such installations can the domestic industry produce?

Regarding frigates and their M-55, the question is open, while the domestic industry has produced only one complete set, and what pace it can show in the future is unknown. We can assume that for now it makes sense to count on one ship kit every two years.

An important point - this is not due to the real capacities of the "Star-Reducer"! This is predetermined by the organizational mess around this organization, artificially induced by some structures.

In reality, if you bring the organization of labor at the enterprise back to normal, throw out different gaskets from the production process and debug the tests, then can be reached up to two ship sets per year... What does the possibility of supplying power plants for two frigates per year or other ships requiring a power plant of a similar power.

But, since this organizational issue has not yet been resolved (and there is no reason to believe that it will be solved in the near future), we will restrict ourselves to an empirical one set (ship) in two years.

Unfortunately, due to the need to provide an experimental non-serial 6RP gearbox for the project 20386 undership, work on the continuation of the production of gearboxes for frigates has been postponed for this year - the 6RP is produced on the same equipment as the P055, which is part of the M-55R. Let's hope that 20386 will remain an isolated excess, a monument to the madness that swept the naval issues in the 2010s. To do this, however, you need to end this madness.

The basics of shipbuilding policy: a large and strong navy is inexpensive
Assembly of PO55 reducers. Photo: S. Panov

Reduction gear 6РП. You can see something in common in the design, right?

Thus, the possibilities for the construction of diesel-gas turbine units should be assessed so far as one set in two years or one frigate of 22350 level in two years. This is how the GEM limits the ability to produce such ships.

As for fully diesel installations, the picture is as follows.

"Star Reducer" can assemble up to four RRP-12000 per year. That is, ships of the corvette 20380 level can be laid in the amount of two units per year annually. An alternative is the production of RRP-6000, which, although they are unified with RRP-12000, are structurally simpler and can be produced, if you strain, in quantities of up to 5-6 units per year, which in theory makes it possible to lay up to 3 ships with a pair diesel engines and such gearboxes per year, an example of a ship with such a power plant is Project 22160.

Diesel reverse gear unit DRRA-6000 as part of the diesel engine 16D49 (6000 hp) and the gearbox RRP-6000. Two such units "move" the patrol ships of project 22160. The same units, but with engines 10D49 (5200 hp) - BDK project 11711 (the first two).

Thus it is necessary to choose - either two "conventional corvettes", or three "conventional patrolmen or some small corvettes with two diesel engines" will not work at the same time.

Diesel-diesel unit DDA-12000 (two diesel engines 16D49, 6000 hp each and a gearbox RRP-12000) - "half" of the Corvette power plant, operating on one shaft line.


But the power plant is completely - a pair of units for two valolines. "Heart" of the corvettes of projects 20380 and 20385, and the BDK of the improved project 11711 (the second two).

Summarize.

The GEM limits the capabilities of the Russian Federation for laying and building warships as follows:

- 1 frigate of type 22350 or an analogue in the same hull every two years with the prospect of acceleration up to 2 units per year, but it is not known when;

- simultaneously 2 corvettes, similar to 20380 in basic dimensions, or slightly less (for example, on the case 11661) per year;

- or instead of them 3 smaller ships with two diesels each, also a year.

The candidate for the "smaller" ships is the KFOR project 21810. But this does not have to be the case.

Theoretically, one can hope that it will be possible to receive 1–2 transmissions of RRP-6000 per year, plus to the four RRP-12000. If so, it means laying down another ship within a year or two. But this is "in question."

K zavod will issue the required number of diesel engines without any problems, if it is possible to plan their production in advance.

This is how our capabilities look real today.

Someone will say that this is not much. Maybe so, but this is more than what we are building now, and much more. In terms of the construction of corvettes, this is almost a Chinese pace - they mortgage and hand over three of their 056s a year (on average). We, it turns out, can two corvettes a year, if we start only from the power plant, without taking into account other factors. So much for the collapsed industry.

On an 8-year period of time, these are 4 frigates and 16 corvettes with at least four more small ships (small corvettes, large landing craft, SDK or something else of the same kind) in the form of a "bonus". On a ten-year old, respectively, there are 5 frigates, 20 corvettes, and 4–5 smaller ships. It is clear that these are not the numbers of ships that can be built during this time, but for how many ships a power plant can be made.

Roughly speaking, with such approaches, technically, from the beginning of 2011 to the end of 2020, it would be possible to lay - 20 corvettes, 4-5 landing ships, or the same number of something similar to the Chinese project 056. With frigates it would not have worked out because of problems with import substitution, but it will come out now, if different 20386 and similar "projects" do not cross the road. The number of frigates would have been built as many as were built, with the exception that it would have been possible until 2014 to try to “pull out” a few more sets of power plants for 11356 from Ukraine, time allowed, but now this is a completely passed stage.

Only an insufficient number of test stands for the assembly of diesel units can serve as a brake with all-diesel ships. But this problem could be solved, you just need one more stand and that’s it.

What the Defense Ministry did instead of all this is well known today, and we will not return to this sad topic for now.

What projects today "claim" to be available in serial production of power plants?

On the RRP-6000 and, accordingly, the power plant with one Kolomna diesel engine per valolinium, there are patrol ships of Project 22160, their "continuation" being discussed now, another, in fact, a "sawmill".

DDA-12000 - corvettes 20380, 20385, BDK, built according to the modified project 11711 ("Vladimir Andreev", "Vitaly Trushin", perhaps the series will continue).

At the same time, we repeat - you can do or the maximum number of RRP-12000 for corvettes and RRP-6000 "as much as possible." Or do as much as necessary for all types of ships, but then the time factor arises. That is, there is competition for industrial capacities between the ships with the "power plant of the corvette" and the "power plant of the patrol ship".

In the case of the M-55R, which is used on frigates of project 22350, in addition to frigates, it will most likely be required for universal amphibious assault ships of project 23900 (sort of like being built now in Kerch), and besides, for the same industrial resources required for these units, project 20386 competes (for it, the same M-90FR afterburner turbines are needed).

Thus, there will be competition for the power plant between the frigates of project 22350, underfrigates of project 20386 and UDC of project 23900.

Now it is worth looking at how you can rationally use the available opportunities.

Available enclosures and their capabilities


We abstract partially from the available types of ships and think, and what is the “maximum fleet for the same money "can be obtained with such resources and guided by the previously voiced approaches?

We look - one "frigate" power plant every two years means laying down a ship with a total displacement of 4800-5400 tons every two years.
And this means that in five to six years (it is quite realistic to reach such a period), you can begin to receive a ship in two years.

In principle, with project 22350, it is quite realistic to reach these terms and then support them, provided that, firstly, Severnaya Verf is forced to move faster, and secondly, if they do not wedge into this rhythm from 20386 and its hypothetical mutations and UDC (for which this GEM is very suboptimal, but there is no other suitable power).

These ships can be built in more numbers than now.

But what if we do not need a universal frigate capable of more or less perform any tasks, but for example an air defense ship?

It's simple - on the same hull with the same power plant, a ship with more developed electronic weapons, with a reduced composition of the offensive missile weapons (for example, instead of 3 vertical launchers, there will be 1 for eight missiles, and behind the mast there will be Uran missile launchers. The same as for 20380 corvettes), but with an increased number of Redut air defense missile launchers. In the proposed case, it is quite realistic - 6 launchers "Reduta", which gives 48 missiles 9M96. Instead of a 130-mm cannon, such a ship can have a 100-mm A-190, which was shot on the last corvettes so that it is expensive to watch, and it works well for air targets.

Having a hull, a power plant and a set of serial general ship systems, it is possible to complete different ships for different tasks on one hull. And of them - tactical groups.

And what if a specialized anti-submarine vessel of the far sea zone?

Again, the same thing - the same power plant, the same hull, a double hangar for two helicopters, re-arranged (taking into account that the volumes are finite - simplified) anti-aircraft artillery weapons, if necessary, then a reduced number of missile launchers.

And the same "class below" approach. We have 12000 liters. from. on one pair of diesel engines and 24000 liters. from. on two, the dimensions of the hull for the example of a corvette are roughly clear, and in principle you can "fit" a lot into them: so, in width, this hull can accommodate two helicopters.

Collage based on 20385. To scale. The width of the corvette's hull is 70 cm less than that of the American frigate Perry, and the Perry carried two helicopters.

The maximum number of vertical launch units on it is 3 units (provided that there is still one helicopter), which can be seen in the example of 20385, if we simplify the radar system and free the same missile deck as on 20380, then it is possible to put a KRO on such a ship "Uranus", and from UKSK, for example, abandon, in favor of three launchers "Reduta" and 28 missiles.

In the bow there is a Redut air defense missile launcher with 12 cells, a strike weapon is an Uran anti-ship missile system, and a Redut launcher in the stern, as in 20385. There is no PLUR, but there is serious air defense. This does not mean that this should be done, but so can do, if you still need to.

If we abandon the hangar for the helicopter and confine ourselves to the take-off and landing site, then it is possible to increase the number of missile weapons on board up to 30 missiles in the Reduta air defense unit of 16 different types in the air defense unit and even keep the Uranus. Or to reduce the number of launchers, but to mount the "Pantsir" ZRAK on the ship, radically strengthening its air defense of the near zone (in comparison with what is).

That is, we again get a lot of options. At the same time, unlike a frigate, this is really a mass - twenty ships in a ten-year period and five BDK / SDK as a bonus - this is a lot by any standards, especially taking into account the possibility of forming battle groups from ships, which, on the one hand, are unified, and on the other - complement each other in their capabilities (one has two helicopters, the second has one, but has a PLUR, the third has no helicopters, but an "adult" radar, even the same "Polyment" and 30 anti-aircraft missiles, etc.) ...

And what about the landing ships with this approach?

Yes, everything is fine with them, for ten years 10-20 gearboxes working with one diesel engine can be made without problems, and these are 5-10 scows of the "Ivan Gren" type, only simpler, for example, the same project 21810 SDK.

On the other hand, in order not to be left without such an option as "vertical coverage" at a great distance from the native shores, it would be quite possible to build this:


This is the DVD, which was calculated under the code "Surf", a real "Surf", and not what journalists who are far from the topic are now talking about. Russian "Rotterdam". Before the epic with the Mistrals, the fleet wanted exactly these ships. And the "Corvette" power plant (2 DDA-12000) could well move them at the required speed. By sacrificing four hypothetical corvettes out of twenty hypothetical ones, it would be possible to create a reserve for the power plant, sufficient for the construction of such ships, and this would be a much wiser decision than the epic with the UDC, which promises to be incredibly expensive and really long, and it can still end in failure.

Thus, even the existing GEM do not really limit us.

This becomes even more obvious if you turn your attention to the "star motors".

Multi-cylinder power plants from Zvezda - М507, 504 and others


Multi-cylinder engines, types M503, 504, 520, twin (two-compartment) 507 have long been widely used in the Navy and border units. Currently, 128-cylinder М507Д are installed on the 22800 Karakurt MRK, and a special low-magnetic modification of the 42-cylinder М503 is installed on the Project 12700 minesweepers. The Navy needs such engines for the existing MRKs, IPCs, and Soviet-built missile boats.

"Zvezda" М507Д. Two "compartments" of 56 cylinders each. Instead of one 128-cylinder engine, it was possible to build two 56 cylinders each.

How many such power plants does the Navy have per year?

There is an answer - PJSC "Zvezda" is capable of producing six M507 engines or (since M504 is a "half" of M507) twelve M504s. Special M503 is a separate complex story, we will not touch on it, for the rest the statistics are clear.

In addition, there is a theoretical possibility to launch production at the Kingisepp Machine-Building Plant, and such attempts are being made. So, it was possible to assemble and transfer to the border service for testing the M520 engine produced at KMZ. That is, there is a certain growth potential. Alas, the state is not particularly trying to develop this potential, rather the opposite, but everything can change, just note for now that it exists. But we will start from reality.

What are six M507s per year?

These are two RTOs "Karakurt" per year. Today they are being built more slowly, but in any case, this series will be built relatively soon. The fact that the construction of a series of such highly specialized ships is a mistake has already been said, but in the dimensions of the "Karakurt" hull and with its power plant (3xM507, three valolines) it is quite possible to make a multipurpose ship, just a small one, without a helicopter and without a landing pad ...

Such a ship may well replace both MRK and IPC, fight against submarines, strike at the coast with cruise missiles and surface ships. The possibility of creating such a ship has been discussed more than once. Moreover, according to some reports, the Almaz Central Design Bureau even has a project of such a ship, where, as in the Karakurt, everything is serial and can be immediately produced and put into operation without modifications.

And where and how to use these engines after the construction of a series of such ships for the revival of the OVR? For example, a series of anti-submarine "Karakurt-2 PLO" in the minimum number to cover naval bases?

First, we have long needed a new missile boat, created according to modern concepts - fast, at least 45 knots, inconspicuous, cheap. It can be assumed that a pair of M507 and two valolines could well disperse a small boat armed with an Uran anti-ship missile or another missile of the same dimensions to the required speed. This means that these power plants limit the laying of boats at the rate of three boats per year.

You can, however, approach the issue from a different angle. In the author's articledevoted to shipboard power plants in the newspaper VPK-Courier, the following example was given:

At present, Zvezda is able to produce three M507D engines per year with a guarantee, which, for example, makes it possible to build one ship in the dimensions of the Karakurt. Perhaps in the foreseeable future it will be possible to produce four engines per year. But three M507Ds are essentially six M504s, and four are already eight. M507 is, simply put, a pair of two M504s. Is it possible to obtain acceptable tactical and technical characteristics on the "halves" of the M507? It turns out you can.

Currently, multi-shaft water jet installations are becoming more widespread in Western countries. This is essentially a "battery" of water cannons, occupying the entire width of the vessel from side to side.

So far, such propellers are used mainly on high-speed ferries. For example, Silvia Ana, with a length of 125 meters, a width of 18, a total displacement of 7895 tons and six engines with a capacity of 5650 kilowatts, develops a speed of up to 42 knots. Such a move is given to him by a multi-shaft water jet installation.

It is easy to calculate that for a ship the size of the Karakurt and the same displacement (less than 1000 tons), a similar multi-shaft water jet will provide comparable speed data at a lower power. Thus, instead of three M507D, four M504 can be used, each of which will work on its own water cannon.

That is, six М507Д are three water-cannon ships in the "Karakurt" class, or, if we talk about missile boats (three water cannons with М504), then four boats a year.

But you can also approach the question from the other side.

What if each M507D turns the water cannon on its own? And if six M507Ds go to some kind of high-speed hunting ships? With three or four cannons each?

It will be a very fast ship.

Yes, water cannons have problems. In our conditions, this is, first of all, ice on the water surface, for example, slush. There are other formations that are dangerous for a water jet.

Suga

In addition, at a high-speed ship, the nozzles of water cannons at high speed are not under water, the mass of water simply does not have time to close behind the ship. And this in our climate means freezing of the nozzle. However, both problems cannot be considered unsolvable, and water cannons cannot be regarded as a difficult-to-manage deficit position.

All of the above does not need to be understood as a call to build just such ships, it is not. This is just an indication that we have a choice. Serial gearboxes, "Kolomna" and turbines M-90FR make it possible to "close" the niche of ships with a total displacement of 1500 to 5400 tons. Moreover, without the engineering madness of a four-shaft power plant on a ship the size of a frigate, and similar tricks. And they make it possible to build a rather large number of warships - much more than we actually build. Without any import.

"Stars", even in their current numbers, without modernization and expansion of production, without deploying such at KMZ (which is quite possible in five years, if you try), make it possible to quickly cover the need for ships with a total displacement of 400-1000 tons.

The number of ships that could be laid down and built without delays in the supply of power plants is much greater than we are building, and we are talking about ships of all classes - from a missile boat and an OVR corvette to a powerful missile strike frigate and not the largest, but quite suitable Navy landing ship dock.

The power plant and corps do not limit the development of our Navy.

It is worth paying attention to the fact that above we are not talking about any promising product or a product that does not have the completeness required for immediate production as part of a ship's power plant. Only serial and ship-tested systems are mentioned. This is done on purpose. And below the question of "perspective" will be raised.

Also, products such as the M70 and M75 gas turbine engines remained "overboard". The reason: there are no gearboxes for these turbines, there are no serial power plants in which they could work, although there are projects for such power plants, but using serial filling on serial ships is one of the basic principles, right?

For the same reason, the options with full electric movement were not considered - the operation of the running electric motors directly on the shaft, without gearboxes. By and large, the example of the construction of the Arctic icebreakers says that the domestic industry would cope with such a task, but again - there is no serial military power plant, and there is no money either, this option is deliberately left out of brackets.

But even without any new R&D, improvements and the like, we can safely state that we have no restrictions on ship power. The one that is, allows us to build a series of surface ships, covering the bulk of the issues that may arise in the near future for our Navy. And these series will be much larger than what we have now, and incomparably higher in combat effectiveness, much more rational and with a higher level of inter-ship unification than what we are doing today.

Of course, this approach sets the bar - no ships larger in size and displacement than Project 22350 frigates. But ships larger than 22350 should be built under their own naval doctrine, under the strategic concept of what our country is for, in principle, sea power. There is none today, and is not expected. Instead, we have mantras about land and continentality, skillfully fueled. If suddenly the need for large ships arises right tomorrow, then we always have the opportunity to resort to atomic power plant and assemble it from serial ready-made components.

Does the above approach comply with the main principles of shipbuilding policy, described in the previous article?

Yes, it is quite. This approach ensures the construction of a large number of fully-fledged and combat-ready ships, the tactical and technical characteristics of which are quite sufficient to solve those combat missions that the Navy may face in the near future.

And what about the rest of the content?

Ship systems and weapons


Having hulls and power plants, you can select the appropriate weapons, ship systems, electronics, and so on.

The issue of missile launchers was disclosed above - in fact, how quickly the series of MRKs of project 21631 and 22800 received their vertical missile launch systems says everything - they can be delivered quickly.

There are not so many problems with the KRO "Uran" - this complex is also supplied to the corvettes of the 20380 project and modernized Soviet-built MRKs, even with some delays during the creation of the ship, the necessary weapons can be obtained.

Likewise with artillery.

Today the series includes artillery mounts with caliber 76, 100 and 130 mm. Presumably, on surface ships "from 2000 tons and heavier" it is logical to have 100 or 130 mm. On smaller ships - 76. An exception here is permissible only when the ships are not structurally using the strongest air defense. Then it becomes critical to look at the gun, first of all, as an anti-aircraft gun, and there is reason to believe that the 76-mm gun here may be the best choice. But this requires an accurate assessment.

Of the serial air defense systems for today, there is no alternative to "Redut". Firstly, its integration into the new BIUS ships ("Sigma") has already been worked out. It functions well with the Poliment radar station installed on Project 22350 frigates. Its compatibility with the Positiv radar of various modifications has been worked out.

Another powerful argument in favor of the "Redoubt" is the 9M96 missile - the same missile is needed not only by the Navy, but also by the Air Force Air Defense Forces, and the only way to reduce its price is to increase its mass production.

In addition, it is theoretically possible to equip the complex with other missiles that have not yet been created and expand its capabilities without making changes to the design of the ship.

Another air defense system that is still used on post-Soviet ships of the Navy - "Calm" can not be considered as any kind of alternative. The complex requires a radar target illumination MR-90 "Nut", and, as they say, "in quantity" - there are four of them on Project 11356 frigates. In addition, "Shtil" works with the "Demand" BIUS, which is not installed on modern warships, cannot shoot 9M96 missiles and fires "its own" missiles. Thus, even outside the connection with the effectiveness of this complex, no stake can be placed on it. And in terms of efficiency, it will lose even to the "Positive-M + ZUR + Redut radio correction" link, not to mention the "Polyment-Redut" complex.

Radar MR-90 "Nut" on the Indian Navy destroyer D61 "Delhi". Due to the specific architecture of the ship, the Indians had to supply six these radars.

And this is them on the frigate "Admiral Grigorovich" of project 11356, on it there are 4 of them. Otherwise "Calm" does not work.

Of the near-zone air defense systems, only the Pantsir-M air defense system and the Broadsword ZAK are serial and full-fledged. Everything else (both AK-630M, Duet, and 57-mm artillery mounts) either does not satisfy in terms of performance characteristics (for example, sighting systems are not mounted on the same gun carriage with the barrel block), or is not a serial and proven product ( 57 mm).

The possibility of installing 57-mm artillery mounts should be provided, if in the future it is required, the ships under construction should have the necessary reserve for modernization, but it is too early to rely on these systems as basic ones. As for the 30-mm six-barrels based on the AO-18 assault rifle, today they have the right to life either with sighting systems on a common gun carriage, or on some auxiliary ships on which the use of simplified weapons systems is permissible.

An example of combining sighting systems and a gun on one carriage is the Chinese ZAK "730".

Similarly, among anti-submarine weapons systems, there is no alternative to the "Package" complex, although it needs to be seriously improved, and not only in terms of replacing the monstrous SM-588 launcher on a normal torpedo tube.

Only the Poliment radar is suitable as a base radar station to ensure the use of air defense systems for ships of the 1st rank (frigates of different variants).

For the detection of surface targets - radars "Monolith", "Mineral" and "Monument".

There is a Fourke radar for detecting air targets, but it should never be used for pointing weapons, its use is possible only with other radars, as it is implemented on frigates of Project 22350. However, it can be abandoned in the future.

For smaller ships, it is rational to use the "Positive" radar, both for detecting air targets and for controlling the fire of the Redut air defense system. The Pantsir-M has its own radar station.

The Puma radar copes with the control of artillery fire.

In hydroacoustics, on the one hand, everything is imperfect - the GAS "Zarya" used on corvettes and frigates is not optimal in terms of range and is filled with imported components, with the supply of which there were already problems. But at the same time, it cannot be considered bad either. Used in conjunction with a towed GAS, a low-frequency "illumination" for it, a normal (and not a Ka-27M) helicopter, it turns out to be quite good. In addition, in most cases it is still enough.

The small GAS "Platina" used on frigates of project 11356, on the basis of which the GAS is to be created for the corvette 20386 and anti-submarine versions of the RK project 11661, is outdated and cannot be considered a full-fledged model of sonar weapons. But its specificity is that in the presence of an external low-frequency "illumination", it can work in the low-frequency range, which is not available for "Zarya". This is a huge plus. Minus - complete inadequacy without illumination.

Nevertheless, the performance characteristics of these two stations make it possible to form such types of ships that would complement each other in their capabilities. And the general level of domestic hydroacoustics tells us that it is quite possible to create a more efficient GAS in a short time.

Among the towed GAS there is no alternative to the "Minotaur", and this GAS completely covers all the urgent needs of the Navy.

Thus, there is a certain basic set of serial systems, using which it is quite possible to complete ships for various purposes - and this will be good ships with high combat capability, and most importantly, without surprises in terms of the operation of weapons and other systems, without additional R&D costing a lot of money, without imposed unnecessary developments. The potential of the domestic industry makes it possible to build them simply as a designer - for the tasks that are at this stage of historical development.

What kind of ship do you need? A missile strike with good speed? Optimized "for speed" hull with a power plant, similar to 22350, simplified compared to the real 22350 sonar complex to give "high-speed" contours to the hull, "Polyment-Redut", 100-mm gun to reduce the volumes required for artillery, one hangar for an AWACS helicopter , the reduced number of PU SAM "Redut", an offensive weapon in the UKSK.

A "universal" frigate? There are 22350. "Clean" anti-submarine for BMZ? Take a corvette with a couple of helicopters. Etc. And all this will be from standard components, with purely quantitative differences (more missiles - fewer missiles), unified with each other (sometimes on the same hulls) and capable of fighting together.

The main thing in all this is seriality. If the serial production is ensured, the industry will be able to slap these ships "like cakes", continuously reducing the construction time, and the fleet will be updated in a timely manner and without failures in numbers. There will be stable intra-industry cooperation without the loss of competencies and money from paid orders, which the industry will receive the faster the faster the ships are delivered. Of course, the Ministry of Defense will be required to pay for them, and not as it is now.

It will be the fleet that the domestic industry in its current state, without significant modernization and additional investments, will master right now. And this fleet will not be weak in any way.

A little bit about the future


All of the above does not at all negate the work for the future, but it should be built on a reasonable basis - the presence of a scientific and technical groundwork, a conscious tactical and technical task based on the requirements for combat effectiveness, tests on ground stands, on floating stands, then, if possible, on an experimental ship or a ship, then on the lead ship with a new system and only after successful state tests - into a series, for serial ships.

This cycle should never be broken - what its violation leads to, we have seen very well in the history of the corvettes, alas, continuing and no one knows what in the end is fraught with.

Moreover, it is important to understand that the topic of promising OCD cannot come out of nowhere. It should be based on something, at least - a full-fledged research work, with experiments and experimental work, with some kind of working models confirming that R&D on a new product is possible (the Zaslon radar, for example, undertook exactly "from nowhere").

What areas are promising right now? The first is the MA7 gas-tube unit, which includes the M-70 main turbine, the M-90 afterburner and the gearbox. Such an installation will technically be much simpler than the M-55, which are used for frigates (it is much easier to synchronize two high-speed turbines than a turbine and a slow-speed diesel engine compared to it), and it can be used on ships up to 8000 tons of displacement.

The promising project 22350M should be propelled by this particular power plant of two units.

Naturally, first it must be built and tested at stands, and only then ships must be ordered for it. As a backlog, there are already finished turbines and a pre-engineered gearbox.

An important point - the Ministry of Defense and industry can turn even this into a "sawmill". The multi-port can be simple - we lay the “big” 22350M, without the tested power plant in the metal, without the spent radar, but with the promises of the “Barrier” to create it sometime, on the basis that “now” we supposedly have (in fact no) a big, real rocket ship, we cut the 22350 series, instead we launch from its own power plant "20386-overgrown", which can be read about in the article "Are there any plans to rework project 20386", and voila - a bunch of long-term construction projects, budget development, a lot of development projects, financial flows to the "right" people, no new ships in service for at least ten years with huge expenses for them, long-term refinements of what will still be built, and all questions in society will drown out our powerful propaganda, which has already eliminated the ability to distinguish the present from the future in people with undeveloped intelligence. Those 22350s were already outdated, but now ... This option is directly opposite to the correct one, but, alas, it is more likely in our specific conditions. But let's not talk about sad things.

The second most important direction in the power plant is the creation of a line of ship diesel engines of the Kolomna plant D500. These engines have also already been partially developed and with sufficient funding will be quickly brought to series. But the deployment of their production in Kolomna will be much easier if there is a large and timely paid order for a diesel D49 for surface ships of the current generation. Which should remain the base diesel engines of the Navy until the launch of the D500 family in series. The creation of this family of engines will seriously untie the hands of domestic shipbuilders, because in the 20-cylinder version, it has a maximum power of 10000 hp. with., which makes it possible to build significantly larger purely diesel ships than today.


Similarly promising is the development of full electric propulsion for warships using the "icebreaking" technological reserve.

In the case of motors for small ships, we should talk about the implementation of all available developments to improve the reliability of "stars" and reduce the cost of their life cycle. The Ministry of Industry and Trade and Zvezda instead, as you know, invested in the project of the M150 Pulsar engine, which was never completed, largely due to the impossibility of cooperation with foreign partners after 2014. That is, there was a "jump for the crane in the sky", which is so much contrary to the correct principles of shipbuilding.

It is theoretically possible to consider the applicability of a power plant based on turbines M70 and M75, for example, for missile boats.

That is, work for the future can and should also be based on a real “foundation”.

And what about the creation of more advanced turbines of the next generation, more efficient than the M-70 and M-90? They should be created separately from naval affairs, with money from the Ministry of Industry and Trade. And only after creation does it make sense to engage in their implementation in the Navy, before that the fleet should not rely on these turbines at all, although questions can and should be raised before the MPT.

Which way is still worth looking at?

Towards the adjustable pitch screws (CPP). Work on them in the Russian Federation is underway, there are also functioning samples, they promise to test one on the same 20386, and this is a strategic direction. The emergence of a line of CPPs capable of transmitting high power opens the door to rejecting complex reverse gear transmissions, simplifying and reducing the cost of gearboxes and the possibilities for much more massive ship construction. CPP is a possibility of the "American" scheme with two echelons of four turbines, a pair of combiner reducers and two shaft lines. This is a significant decrease in the volumes required for the power plant inside the ship's hull.

And, for example, a heat recovery circuit from turbine exhaust gases with a steam turbine operating on the same reducer-combiner, albeit of a complicated design, is already a direct road to an aircraft carrier, moreover to a high-speed one, with a displacement of 40–45 thousand tons. And there is also where to build it - more about this in the articles “Aircraft carrier for Russia. Faster than you expect " on Military Review and “Our aircraft carrier is real. The Russians are quite capable of what the Indians are doing. " in the MIC-Courier. We are four steps away from these possibilities (the M-90FR marching modification, a relatively simple gearbox, CPP and afterburner in comparison with the P055). And again, we don't even need a serious reconstruction of production.

Russia can build such a ship, or even a larger one, only by slightly straining. There is also a reserve for the catapult (AV "Vikrant" from the picture does not have it).

In terms of weapons, everything is even simpler - for the next years twenty different versions of "Uranus", "Caliber", "Onyx" and "Zircon" will be enough with a margin. And UKSK allows you to create other missiles for a standard launcher. With the future missiles "Reduta" the same thing - there is a complex, missiles for it can be created and adapted almost any.

There are questions about the future radar complexes of the RLK.

Today the lobbyists of Zaslon are shouting out loud that the future belongs to such as those of Zaslon, integrated tower systems with AFAR. In general, they are right - except for the fact that these systems should not be made by the “Crazy Hands” circle, but by an organization that has at least some experience in such things. "Crazy hands" can then also be admitted to the subject - but strictly after the radar stations on the ships they have already captured confirm the initially required tactical and technical characteristics, and their price will be reduced to realistic 2,5-3,5 billion for the "tower" ... Not earlier. These guys have a huge field for experiments - all the corvettes after the "Aldar Tsydenzhapov" will go with their crafts, it will be possible to train for a long time. This is, of course, ideally, in reality, they will simply immediately destroy the surface forces of the Russian Navy somewhere by 2030, and they will disperse, some to their homes, and who to Oklahoma, if everything continues as it is now, but hope for something on no one will forbid us the best, right?

Among the real players in this market, developments in integrated radar systems with AFAR were at the JSC NPP Salyut, NII Fazotron and Almaz-Anteya. The intellectual potential of these organizations allows them to create such systems. Here are some examples.


The photo shows an experimental "turret" with an AFAR from "Fazotron", mounted on a missile boat of the Pacific Fleet. As it should be under normal conditions, first there was research and development work, then an experimental product was obtained, the correctness of the ideas of which was tested on an experimental ship. The "pinnacle" then started working, after all, it was made by experts in radars, and not just anyone. The problem was in goal-setting - "Phazotron" made it in order to control artillery according to its data, because there is no air defense system on the boat. And for a cannon that shoots in one direction, so many canvases are simply not needed. Nevertheless, tests have shown that, if necessary, they can create a normal "tower" on the "Faztotron".

A normal system, already capable of solving all problems without restrictions, was also developed by Phazotron, but it was no longer made in metal.

Another example is the project NIIP them. Tikhomirov, the oldest and most authoritative organization in the field of creating radar technology, which proposed a system based on aviation Radar "Irbis" used on the Su-35 fighter. True, this is PFAR, not AFAR, but, on the other hand, do we need good performance characteristics or something else? As an intermediate stage, this option was completely "working".

Almaz-Antey would also cope with the task of creating such a complex.

Alas, "respected people" came to the radar clearing, and against the background of their greed, such a question as "defense capability" simply does not exist, especially since some of the "respected people" had good connections in the United States, so good that some in the FSB could not sleep at night from this, but, alas, as in Soviet times, the Office cannot work against "truly respected people" ... Therefore, we will now have a series of mass-dimensional models of radar complexes on non-combatant ships for big money instead of working systems, combined with the complete transparency of this process for American "partners".

Nevertheless, we note that in order to work for the future and create a real radar system with AFAR, capable of doing everything that Zaslon promised, but “adjusted for reality,” Russia has everything, there are organizations, personnel, they have there is a groundwork, developments and prototypes, and in general, in six to seven years you can get a modern radar, if you start, relatively speaking, "today or tomorrow."

That is, even here it is possible to work according to the correct scheme - an experimental product, its testing on stands and experimental vessels - the lead ship with it - debugging - series.

All these opportunities are already available in Russia.

Conclusion


When eliminating the organizational chaos in the domestic shipbuilding, we can suddenly discover one pleasant, but so far inaccessible to us opportunity - the ability to very quickly and inexpensively restore fully the combat effectiveness and power of the naval surface forces. This is really so now. And only the evil will of some finite, but very large number of people does not allow this to happen. Most of them are interested in filling their pockets with methods that are dishonorable and harmful to society. The smaller one is in the same, but also in the satisfaction of its foreign curators.

If suddenly someday our fleet has to get involved in a big war, even with some weak, but competent adversary, then to justify the losses it will incur, a lot of information will be thrown into society with tremendous force that the industry could not either another thing, we didn't have time, the consequences of the 90s, and that's why ...

But even before all this happened, at the beginning of 2021, when there is still no war with anyone, we can safely say that this is not true, as we could earlier call it false the statement that

"We build 22160 because we can't do anything else"

or

“We are building only RTOs, because we can’t do anything else”

and that kind of dregs that huge armies of mercenary bots have thrown on forums and military websites all the past years.


Russia has everything to build a strong fleet right now, and it will not require phenomenal money. There is industry, technology and personnel.

There is a reserve for the future and the ability to turn it into reality in a matter of years. There is even money, because with the elimination of organizational chaos and "sawing" topics, it will suddenly become clear that there is enough money too.

All that is needed is to follow very simple and understandable principles even for a person without special education. And they, these principles, many people understand, and for their implementation as guidelines, one needs, in fact.

Give the Office a go-ahead to clean up "respected people" and nothing more.

All other factors limiting the development of the fleet as an instrument of military power (and they are) have nothing to do with industry and its capabilities.

Now you know that too.
Author:
Photos used:
defenseimagery.mod.uk, Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Wikipedia, S. Panov, Research Institute "Phazotron"
265 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Flashpoint
    Flashpoint 20 January 2021 05: 23
    +18
    Pass and thanks for the article! Now I will sit and analyze after reading, hard about "respected people" of course!
    Alexander, think about the book after all, it is the book - in hardcover! Hit "respected people" in the face with it, while
    they will not learn to think and read: it is respect that must be earned, and not the way it turns out ...
    Although, probably empty ... The book is still desecrated with these ...
    PS: the air defense is clear. Still, what about the "Package" and the torpedo tubes? Any work on the development of new products being carried out?
    Prospects?
    1. Deck
      Deck 20 January 2021 06: 10
      +16
      Give the Office a go-ahead to clean up "respected people" and nothing more.


      And if people are "highly respected" and give the go-ahead to clean up the Office itself? That we, in principle, have seen in recent years. What then to do with shipbuilding?
      1. timokhin-aa
        20 January 2021 09: 27
        +11
        Well then, that's it.
        1. Deck
          Deck 20 January 2021 11: 05
          +13
          there is a theoretical possibility to develop production at the Kingisepp Machine-Building Plant, and such attempts are being made


          Former Deputy Defense Minister and Army General Borisov came to the government as Deputy Chairman in 2018. Borisov's position in the Ministry of Defense was transferred to Alexei Krivoruchko, "Concern" Kalashnikov ". In 2020, in the team of the new Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, Yuri Borisov took the place of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. Borisov Jr. at Dieselzipservice, which develops and supplies high-speed diesel engines, a manufacturer of spare parts for American Cummins engines, Kingisepsky Machine-Building Plant, whose controlling stakes were bought by Kalashnikov, and a number of other companies. Assets in the aforementioned organizations went to him in May 2020.
          Wait for more new diesels for the fleet.
          1. Evil
            Evil April 3 2021 20: 56
            0
            I fully support, all the activities of these "Plants" are built on the basis of quietly sniffing reserves from "Kazan forests". And voila, "Super New Diesel" with new specifications !!!! And the claping military envoys taking R&D for a bunch of budget yards.
        2. antivirus
          antivirus 20 January 2021 11: 06
          +1
          wrote a long comment and left ..
          it's for the best.

          HOW DO SURGUTSKIES DIFFER FROM KOLOMENSKY CHILDREN-BROTHERS?
          And who will explain how to build a fleet?
          FOR WHAT?
          Can't you spread thanks on the bread? or can you?

          without a change in the meaning of the activity of the entire "national economy" the fleet will not get out.
          it is necessary to start with the bankers - they will show: "here the oilmen live happily" - Surgut.
          close, like Beria, the nuclear project, Kolomna and the entire contour of the fleet - go for it.
          in short - the navy starts with the social sciences. not otherwise.
        3. Alien From
          Alien From 20 January 2021 12: 14
          +1
          Thank you for an interesting article. Hope they hear your thoughts !!!!
          1. Dread
            Dread 20 January 2021 17: 57
            -10%
            Quote: Alexander Timokhin
            Moreover, it is important to understand that the topic of promising OCD cannot come out of nowhere. IN it should be based on something, at least - a full-fledged research work, with experiments and experimental work, with some kind of working models, confirming that OCD for a new product is possible (RLC "Zaslon", for example, it came from "out of nowhere").

            Captain Timokhin, writing a lie is not appropriate for a captain!
            Quote: Alexander Timokhin

            Among the real players in this market, the developments on integrated radar systems with AFAR were from JSC NPP "Salyut", Research Institute "Phazotron" and Almaz-Anteya. The intellectual potential of these organizations allows them to create such systems. Here are some examples.
            A normal system, capable of already solving all problems without restrictions, was also developed by Phazotron, but it was no longer made in metal.

            The conversation in the article is about nothing.
            Quote: Alexander Timokhin

            Another example is the project NIIP them. Tikhomirova - the oldest and most authoritative organization in the field of creating radar technology, which proposed a system based on the Irbis aviation radar used on the Su-35 fighter. It's true, PFAR, not AFAR, but, on the other hand, do we need good performance characteristics or something else? As an intermediate stage, this option was completely "working".

            "Truth-lovers" want their illiteracy to drive our radar into the Stone Age. Even with Klimov, they cannot calculate the range of the Irbis radar, taking into account the underlying surface.
            Timokhin - bring at least one developed country in the world (for example, from NATO countries) - where there are airborne radars on ships.
            Quote: Something
            Quote: Aviation Strategic Nuclear Forces: It looks like we are wrong about something. November 3, 2019. Alexander Timokhin.


            As for the B-2, its "gap" in combat effectiveness from the predecessor B-1 is even stronger than that of the B-1 from the B-52. In the case of the B-2, the "supersonic" not particularly necessary in this mode (which also "catches up" additional RCS due to the concentration of moisture from the air in the jump front behind the aircraft), but it adds significantly, several times, a smaller detection range of such an aircraft radar of any type, except for long-wave, which is unsuitable for missile guidance.

            timokhin-aa (Alexander Timokhin), with an increase in the image intensifier (EPR), the detection range increases, and not vice versa! Learn materiel!

            Captain, learn radar so you can spread your illiterate stuff about radar.
            1. timokhin-aa
              20 January 2021 19: 58
              +5
              You do not understand the meaning of what you are commenting, there the phrase is constructed in such a way that a person with a mind below average will get confused in words and will not understand anything.
              Calm down, pass by.
              1. Dread
                Dread 20 January 2021 20: 14
                -5
                Quote: timokhin-aa
                You do not understand the meaning of what you are commenting, there the phrase is constructed in such a way that a person with a mind below average gets confused in words and does not understand anything.

                Timokhin, you and Klimov have lost honor and conscience. You continue to write lies, while not understanding the Russian language, and frankly being rude!
                I, unlike you, are a specialist in the field of radar, and you are nobody in radar. I am waiting for substantiated answers to my comments, otherwise you confirm my words. You deceive members of the forum with your illiterate expressions,
                illiterate propagandists on VO are not needed!
                1. timokhin-aa
                  20 January 2021 20: 39
                  +10
                  Illiterate readers who understand the meaning of what is written opposite to what it is are also not particularly needed.

                  I wrote that an aircraft with a lower ESR (B-2) has less radar signature than an aircraft with a large RCS (B-1). You understood the opposite, and for a year now you have been rushing me to VO with this comment.

                  I can only advise you to seek medical help, it seems that you really need it.
                  1. Alex777
                    Alex777 24 January 2021 19: 53
                    +1
                    Alexander!
                    Why change the UKSK to the Reduta PU?
                    The UKSK has already learned to install the 9M96 package. hi
                    1. timokhin-aa
                      24 January 2021 20: 11
                      +1
                      Something I have never seen such a thing.
                      Well, fine if so.
                      So the argument is removed.
                      1. Alex777
                        Alex777 24 January 2021 22: 42
                        +1
                        One respected current colleague mentioned it last year. Without details. hi
                      2. timokhin-aa
                        24 January 2021 22: 48
                        +1
                        If only it is a modernized UKSK-M.
                        But there it is necessary to see how it was done, although the idea is good.
                      3. Angry
                        Angry 30 January 2021 20: 40
                        0
                        It's really GREAT! Finally we caught up with the Americans! It turns out that they have 41 ESSM airplanes in the Mk-32 and 32 9M96 airplanes in our UKSK "Air Defense"! On an 8 m2 deck, have 32 SAMs! Then only on the corvette of pr.20380 instead of VPU 3S97 it is possible to install one or two UKSK "PVO"! And get not 12 zur like now, 32/64 missiles of dimension 9M96! And on the frigate of Project 22350, it is possible to install not three, but four UKSK and there will still be a place for a pair of UKSK "Air Defense". Actually, it's a REVOLUTION! Hooray!!!!
            2. bayard
              bayard 21 January 2021 06: 29
              +4
              Quote: Dread
              I, unlike you, are an expert in the field of radar, and you are nobody in radar.

              Citizen, in VO you are not only a "radar specialist", for example, I am one too, and I have no misunderstandings in understanding what the author has written.
              Perhaps this indicates the level of your competence as a "specialist", or perhaps you just should
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              seek medical help, it seems to you really need it.

              And respect to Alexander for a wonderful article hi and perseverance in the fight for common sense.
              1. Dread
                Dread 21 January 2021 07: 35
                -4
                Quote: bayard
                Citizen, in VO you are not only a "radar specialist", for example, I am one too, and I have no misunderstandings in understanding what the author has written.
                Perhaps this indicates the level of your competence as a "specialist", or perhaps you just should

                bayard, finish talking, otherwise, like a hare - he wrote his own, not based on anything, and immediately into the bushes ...
                We know what a "radar specialist" you are, when you could not distinguish radio visibility from the radio horizon!
                "Specialist" help your comrades with the same interests in the AO, give an example of the use of airborne radars on NATO ships, otherwise they do not know! And count for them
                detection range of the Irbis radar on a sea target. Otherwise -
                you are just a chatterbox, not a "specialist"!
                1. bayard
                  bayard 21 January 2021 07: 55
                  +2
                  Quote: Dread
                  bayard, finish talking, but then like a hare

                  Hamim? No.
                  Quote: Dread
                  We know what a "radar specialist" you are, when you could not distinguish radio visibility from the radio horizon!

                  How do you know about this? Are we clowning again?
                  Quote: Dread
                  "Specialist" help your comrades with the same interests in the AO, give an example of the use of airborne radars on NATO ships, otherwise they do not know!

                  And I don't know about that.
                  And they did not claim that NATO uses airborne radar on ships. In any case, such statements are not familiar to me.
                  Quote: Dread
                  And count for them
                  detection range of the Irbis radar on a sea target.

                  But why?
                  Firstly, I do not have exhaustive data on the parameters of the Irbis, and secondly, I have never stated that the Irbis should be installed on ships. request You yourself have come up with problems and pester people with the requirement to solve them.
                  As far as I understand, Fazotron proposed developing a shipborne radar based on the Irbis, and these are different things.
                  And they are not unique.
                  In any case, the radar for the Krug air defense missile system was also designed by the design bureau, which specialized in the development of aviation radars.
                  Haven't you heard of this?
                  As for radar systems for modern ships, we have one for frigates, and for corvettes "Zaslon" is redundant both in potential and in price. For such small ships, the available serial radars are quite enough. This is my firm conviction.
                  Conviction of a radar specialist and an officer of the combat directorate of an air defense formation.

                  But you still need to see a doctor as soon as possible ... to be in the fresh air more and less to read the authors, annoying your subtle spiritual nature.
                  1. Dread
                    Dread 21 January 2021 16: 03
                    -5
                    Quote: bayard
                    Quote: Dread

                    We know what a "radar specialist" you are, when you could not distinguish radio visibility from the radio horizon!

                    How do you know about this? Are we clowning again?

                    Quote: Something
                    Quote: bayard topic: video of testing the S-400 on the F-16 and F-4 fighter of the Turkish Air Force has appeared

                    The radio horizon is unchanged and is determined by direct visibility to the target - the higher the target, the farther the detection line. For purposes at an altitude of 10 m. The detection line is 000 km. plus or minus 400 km. (from the topography and quality of position.

                    Horror! How illiterate you are! For people like you, Stary26, yours and others!
                    The radar radio horizon is defined as the distance from the antenna to the point at which the radar beam "touches" the earth's surface. In this case, targets located below the line connecting the point of contact and the radar antenna cannot be detected.
                    For your example data, the radio visibility range is D = 400 km (taking into account refraction), the target height is H = 10000 m.And if the radio visibility range is divided by the corresponding coefficient at the beginning of the equation, then we get that the sum of the roots from the antenna height and the target height is 97,087 km, however, the root of the target height is 100 km (taking into account the conversion of units), which means 97 - 100 = - 3, which cannot be mathematically and physically ... bayard, it is necessary to provide accurate data, not false.
                    However, if you take the height of the radar antenna equal to 4 meters and the height of your target
                    H = 10000 m, then carefully:
                    The radio horizon is 8,24 km,
                    Target radio visibility is 420,43 km.
                    Take any calculator on the Internet and see that you are wrong!

                    Sclerosis - and sclerosis in Africa. Therefore, use, yourself (bayard), your offer below, you need more, "not a radar specialist":
                    Quote: bayard
                    But you still need to see a doctor as soon as possible ... to be in the fresh air more and less to read the authors, annoying your subtle spiritual nature.

                    Quote: bayard
                    Quote: Alexander Timokhin

                    Another example is the project NIIP them. Tikhomirov, the oldest and most authoritative organization in the field of radar technology, which proposed a system based on the Irbis aircraft radar used on the Su-35 fighter. True, this is PFAR, not AFAR, but, on the other hand, do we need good performance characteristics or something else? As an intermediate stage, this option was completely "working".

                    And I don't know about that.
                    And they did not claim that NATO uses airborne radar on ships. In any case, such statements are not familiar to me. And I do not know about that.
                    And they did not claim that NATO uses airborne radar on ships. In any case, such statements are not familiar to me.

                    bayard, do not try to confuse readers by shielding Timokhin.
                    Timokhin suggests that Russia use the 035 Irbis radar when
                    Not a single developed country uses airborne radar on ships. Timokhin, like you, does not know how to calculate the radar detection range.
                    bayard - no need to write spam about your merits, knowledge (which you did not show) is important here, not orders and medals.
                  2. bayard
                    bayard 21 January 2021 21: 24
                    +2
                    Read carefully what Timokhin wrote in the article. And he wrote that at one time (!) "Phazotron" (!) Offered yes to develop on the basis (!) of the "Irbis" radar a shipborne radar (!).
                    Do you understand?
                    "Phazotron" offered. smile
                    On the base smile "Irbis", and not the actual aviation radar to deliver. To develop bully .
                    DEVELOP.
                    As for other things ... it's not even funny.
                    The term "radio horizon for a target at such a height" in the neo-language of near-war forums, from a certain time means - the target detection range for a given radar at the time of its exit from under the line of sight of the radar antenna sheet to the horizon line. That is, the target detection range at a given altitude.
                    This "neopeak" is sometimes used by radar specialists on this forum for the IMPORTANCE of the described process.
                    And stop pouring bile, this right does not paint you.
                  3. Dread
                    Dread 24 January 2021 01: 59
                    -1
                    Quote: bayard
                    As for other things ... it's not even funny.
                    The term "radio horizon for a target at such a height" in the neo-language of the military forums, with a certain time means - the target detection range for a given radar at the time of its exit from under the line of sight of the radar antenna sheet to the horizon. That is, the target detection range at a given altitude.
                    This "neopeak" is sometimes used by radar specialists on this forum for the IMPORTANCE of the described process.

                    1. Horror! You still don't understand radar at all - the straight-line equation. User Something wrote a masterpiece, and you could not understand his deep answer.
                    2. You do not know how to calculate the detection range a priori.
                    bayard, learn radar and do not write lies, grab a textbook and read the materials on the direct range equation. And there is no need to write about the captains in the following topics: Timokhina and Klimova are not true, they do not understand much about radar - they have no knowledge. You can read my answer to Klimov about the installation of radar antennas - he still has not written an answer. There is nothing to answer - Klimov has no knowledge of radar.
                    Klimov completely writes lies about the shooting of the Thundering, not understanding the physics of intercepting targets. Show your competence in intercepting targets "Thunders"! And write, what is the fault of "Zaslon" in the interception of air targets during state tests?
                    Probably he did not fly for the 9M96 SAM.
                  4. bayard
                    bayard 24 January 2021 10: 21
                    0
                    Quote: Dread
                    write, what is the fault of the "Barrier" in the interception of air targets during state tests?

                    I do not have sufficient data about those tests, the only thing that can be said for certain is that the target flew at an altitude of about 100 m, and this was not at all the flight altitude of modern anti-ship missiles (5-10 m), and the RCS of the target was seriously larger than the RCS of modern RCC.
                    What else is there to talk about?
                    Only that the conditions of state tests were very far from real combat. request
                    These tests did not demonstrate the ability of the "Barrier" to hit a real target (RCC) in combat conditions.
                    It is obvious .
                    What else is "Zaslon" to blame ". Probably at an inadequate price for this ship.
                    This is also obvious.
                    And tell me, just honestly, WHY does our Fleet need such a radar, which with the declared characteristics and price approaches the Poliment radar, but does not confirm the declared characteristics?
                    "Polyment" is already working and is quite happy with the Fleet.
                    He is.
                    But this is the radar of ships of the frigate class and even higher.
                    And why something like this on the BMZ ship?
                    The main tasks of which are PLO and control of the water area in BMZ?
                    This small ship must operate under the cover of base aircraft and carry out the MAIN task - the anti-aircraft submarine.
                    Why would he need a third of its own cost for this RLC? It is quite enough for a more modest, moreover, serial and sufficient in terms of characteristics.
                    Your desire to defend "Zaslon" is understandable and understandable, but irrational and unacceptable.
                    Business and service must be distinguished.

                    And the "Barrier" now has a chance to prove its worth - it has already been installed on at least 3 ships. And all its advantages and disadvantages will be obvious in the course of practical operation.
                    Now you can't hide a sewing in a sack.
                    For many, they are obvious even now, but the main assessment and "gratitude" are still ahead.
  • Svetlana
    Svetlana 20 January 2021 16: 52
    +1
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    large and strong navy inexpensive

    - Come syudy. Do you want big but pure love?
    - Who doesn't want her ...
    - Then come, as soon as it gets dark, to the hayloft. Will you come?
    - Why not come? I’ll come. Only you are coming. And then the sir, too, called, but afterwards he was frightened.
    - And she will not come alone, she will come with a blacksmith.
    “With which smith?” No, we don’t need a blacksmith. What am I, a horse or something?
    - Bless. Well you please make an offer ...
    - So, free! You don’t see, we play.
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    you can walk up to two ship sets per year.

    - Stepan! The guest carriage broke.
    “I see, master.” The axis flew. And the needles must be changed.
    - How much will you do?
    - I'll do it in a day.
    - And for two?
    - Well ... For ... We’ll do it in two.
    - And in five days?
    “Well, if you try, you can do it in five.”
    - And for ten?
    - Well, master, you are setting goals! For ten days one can not cope, then an assistant is needed - homo sapiens!
    - Take assistants, but not earlier!
    Soviet cinema "Formula of Love" (1984).
  • Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl 20 January 2021 22: 53
    +5
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    As for frigates and their M-55, the question is open, while the domestic industry has produced only one complete set, and what pace she can show in the future is unknown... We can assume that for now it makes sense to count on one ship kit every two years.
    those. You assume that the actual speed of building frigates is 22350 (already laid and under construction, starting from the 4th building), five units, -... it's almost ten years ?!.
    and another question - in the article "Fundamentals of shipbuilding policy: principles and their application" (Your article), you had a thesis, - "Can you prove that an inexpensive and combat-ready complex is better than five or six times more expensive and incapable of combat? How did you define it?
    And where did you get the idea that six incapacitated ships are better than seven combat capable for the same money? Who told you that?
    ".... and I confess, I thought, but in fact it is true .... Why, for example, the Navy allows itself to order 6 corvettes 20380/5 (after the forum" Army 2020 "), despite the admissible opinion of the same Klimov ( https://topwar.ru/178706-flot-iduschij-k-cusime-itogi-vmf-za-2020-god.html, or his article about the "leaky air defense dome 20385"), with the incapacitated "Redoubt", instead seven 11664 let's say with "Calm-1", which is brought up and running (!)....
    and then you issue -
    Quote: timokhin-aa
    Another air defense system that is still used on post-Soviet ships of the Navy - "Calm" can not be considered as any kind of alternative. The complex requires a radar target illumination MR-90 "Nut", and, as they say, "in quantity" - there are four of them on Project 11356 frigates. In addition, "Shtil" works with the "Demand" BIUS, which is not installed on modern warships, cannot shoot 9M96 missiles and fires "its own" missiles. Thus, even outside the connection with the effectiveness of this complex, no stake can be placed on it. And in terms of efficiency, it will lose even to the "Positive-M + ZUR + Redut radio correction" combination, not to mention the "Polyment-Redut" complex.
    Given your quote, fully (!) contradicts the opinion of Maxim Klimov, in the article on the analysis of the transfer of the "Thundering" to the fleet .... and your theses (given by me above).
    Some kind of strange sympathy You, specifically to the projects of the Almaz Central Design Bureau (20380/5) ..... ?!
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 24 January 2021 20: 02
      0
      The speed of targets for Shtil-1 is such that the phrase:
      Another air defense system that is still used on post-Soviet ships of the Navy - "Calm" can not be considered as any kind of alternative.

      is quite consistent with the state of affairs. hi
  • Civil
    Civil 20 January 2021 07: 53
    +5
    Not an article - a scientific work!
  • timokhin-aa
    20 January 2021 09: 27
    +13
    The book should be relevant for at least several years. Therefore, I do not think in this direction yet.

    Still, what about the "Package" and the torpedo tubes? Any work on the development of new products being carried out?


    On paper, the "Region" is still God knows when it was developed, but then the navy got rid of it with its ridiculous demands. In the case of the Package launcher, there is no corruption component, but there is stupidity of infinite proportions. It can be completely cleared up in five years, but it must be done.
    1. Flashpoint
      Flashpoint 20 January 2021 11: 46
      +2
      Quote: timokhin-aa
      On paper, the "Region" is still God knows when it was developed, but then the navy got rid of it with its ridiculous demands. In the case of the Package launcher, there is no corruption component, but there is stupidity of infinite proportions. It can be completely cleared up in five years, but it must be done.

      Yes, but in 5 years (5 years or more ... until the situation changes) The package will remain in many places. And how difficult it will be to upgrade and retrieve the package in the future and install something new ...
      According to the corvettes - there is not so much space, judging by the layout - the place is specific for installation. It will not turn out that half of 2038 (0,5,6) will have to be disassembled? Again, a place for extra. ammunition.
  • 7,62x54
    7,62x54 20 January 2021 06: 02
    +9
    "Raven crows, eyes will not peck out."
    This is the trouble.
  • Crowe
    Crowe 20 January 2021 06: 05
    +22
    Thank you for the competent and balanced article!
    Russia has everything to build a strong fleet right now, and it will not require phenomenal money. There is industry, technology and personnel.

    Let's hope for the best, that we will have a powerful and combat-ready fleet during our lifetime, and not in the distant beautiful future.
  • Kot_Kuzya
    Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 06: 09
    -44%
    Again, the Moremans dispersed with their nonsense. Russia has no overseas territories to defend, and Russia is not an island like Britain and Japan, or like the United States, only two harmless land neighbors. For Britain, Japan and the United States, yes, it is vitally important to have a strong fleet, since as long as there is a fleet, the enemy will not step on their territory. And Russia borders on many countries, many of which - Poland, the extinctions, Ukraine, Georgia - are outspoken enemies who will gladly admit and deploy millions of soldiers of a potential enemy. So it is vitally important for Russia to have a strong army, not a strong navy.
    1. Jacket in stock
      Jacket in stock 20 January 2021 06: 25
      +18
      Quote: Kot_Kuzya
      It is vitally important for Russia to have a strong army, not a strong navy.

      Is the fleet not part of the Army?
      Or is it not necessary to protect thousands of kilometers of the coast?
      Or is it not necessary to cover the submarine bases?
      Now the Yapas, if they wish, can squeeze out all the Kuriles and Kamchatka with Chukotka in a couple of days, and apart from the vigorous bonba, we cannot argue with them.

      Why is there Japan, the rodents and non-brothers you mentioned also require attention at sea.
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 06: 39
        -21%


        Quote: Jacket in stock
        Now the Yapas, if they wish, can squeeze out all the Kuriles and Kamchatka with Chukotka in a couple of days, and apart from the vigorous bonba, we cannot argue with them.

        They will not squeeze out, otherwise they will get vigorous loaves in their cities. They understand this very well, and therefore limit themselves only to annual ritual pickets in front of the Russian embassy on the day of the "northern territories".
        Quote: Jacket in stock
        Why is there Japan, the rodents and non-brothers you mentioned also require attention at sea.

        To force non-brothers and rodents into peace, there is no need for a large fleet, it is enough that there is. Building to enforce the world of rodents and non-brothers is like building an 8-lane highway in a village to cross a stream.
        1. Santa Fe
          Santa Fe 20 January 2021 08: 12
          +2
          They will not squeeze out, otherwise they will get vigorous loaves in their cities

          The territorial affiliation of the Kurils is protected by international law, and to do with them as with the Crimea means to raise a fuss to the whole world. And money loves silence

          The Japanese are too rich to get involved in such adventures.
          1. Jacket in stock
            Jacket in stock 20 January 2021 09: 04
            +1
            Quote: Santa Fe
            The Japanese are too rich to get involved in such adventures.

            Yes.
            But they are not independent.
            If the Americans are strongly recommended to them, they will get involved.
            And it is far from the fact that we will be able to give them a "loaf", because at the same time we will have to allocate a couple of hundred "loaves" to the fascinatington.
            I think our people would rather get lost than get involved in such a mess. And Americans probably think so too.
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 11: 49
              -15%
              Japan is not a member of NATO, and it can be showered with vigorous loaves with impunity. Moreover, if Japan tries to take away the Kuriles, then Japan will become an aggressor and instigator of the war.
              1. timokhin-aa
                20 January 2021 17: 40
                +12
                For people like you, everything is simple, to the point of impossibility. To settle down later, though not like you ...
              2. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 20 January 2021 18: 28
                +1
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                then Japan will become the aggressor and instigator of the war.

                then we will pay for the shame of tsushima and get legal Hokaido and Okhotsk as our lake, we will shower the Japs with hats
            2. The eye of the crying
              The eye of the crying 20 January 2021 21: 31
              +2
              Quote: Jacket in stock
              If the Americans are strongly recommended to them, they will get involved.


              And what will the Americans do to convince Japan to get involved in a war with a nuclear power, which has the first use of nuclear weapons in its military doctrine?
              1. Jacket in stock
                Jacket in stock 21 January 2021 10: 43
                -2
                Quote: Eye of the Crying
                And what will the Americans do to convince Japan to get involved in a war with a nuclear power, which has the first use of nuclear weapons in its military doctrine?

                Yes, at least by the fact that they will put a couple of their aircraft carriers and a dozen destroyers with accompanying submarines near Hokkaido and tell us that you cannot shoot at Japan, otherwise they can also shoot.
                It is unlikely that the Moscow ones, who were smokers and would not immediately find on the map, would want the whole world to dust because of them.
                1. The eye of the crying
                  The eye of the crying 21 January 2021 11: 33
                  -3
                  Those. for Japan to attack Russia, America must also declare war on Russia in a parkable way. You're a strategist.
                  1. Jacket in stock
                    Jacket in stock 21 January 2021 11: 46
                    +1
                    Quote: Eye of the Crying
                    America should also declare war on Russia in a park. You're a strategist.

                    Nuuuuu.
                    They announced sanctions to us.
                    In the old days and for less, shooting began.
                    It's just that our guts are thin now, because they don't believe in heaven, but they are simply not ready to die.
                    1. The eye of the crying
                      The eye of the crying 21 January 2021 11: 48
                      -1
                      Quote: Jacket in stock
                      They announced sanctions to us.
                      In the old days and for less, shooting began.


                      Ladies really ... and when?

                      Quote: Jacket in stock
                      It's just that our guts are thin now, because they don't believe in heaven, but they are simply not ready to die.


                      Are you personally ready to die because of the sanctions?
        2. Lannan Shi
          Lannan Shi 20 January 2021 10: 29
          +16
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          They will not squeeze out, otherwise they will get vigorous loaves in their cities

          And why do we need SV and VKS then? Limit ourselves to the Strategic Missile Forces and their protection. And to wet any sneeze with a vigorous loaf. Etozh what kind of savings will turn out .... And how the rejection of aviation differs from the rejection of the fleet, as it is not very clear.
          1. Vadim237
            Vadim237 20 January 2021 16: 57
            -5
            "And why do we need SV and VKS then?" And they are armed with the same tactical nuclear weapons, and in our not numerous fleets, tactical nuclear weapons are the same.
    2. Alexander Galaktionov
      Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 08: 36
      +12
      Yes, the Rosgvardia is outnumbered by the SV, it's a question of whom the authorities are afraid of
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 08: 44
        -18%
        Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
        Yes, the Rosgvardia is outnumbered by the SV, it's a question of whom the authorities are afraid of

        Liberators are always unhappy. Now, if Rosgvardia were not enough, the liberalist would grumble that "the government is saving on the safety of citizens, it is immediately obvious that the government is indulging criminals."
        1. Alexander Galaktionov
          Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 08: 52
          +14
          We have about 300 thousand troops and this is very little Power saves on its citizens look at Putin's new law to simplify everything for migrants, otherwise the developers are losing money, this is to the point that Putin said millions of jobs, just did not say not for his citizens but for migrants
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 08: 58
            -31%
            Well, let them come. New hands are always good. The more migrants come, the better.
            1. Alexander Galaktionov
              Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 09: 06
              +13
              I apologize at all fool we cannot provide our citizens with jobs Especially how much money migrants take out of the country count
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. Alexander Galaktionov
                  Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 09: 43
                  +16
                  There are not enough workers in Russia, then where are so many unemployed in Russia?
                  1. Kot_Kuzya
                    Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 10: 07
                    -12%
                    Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
                    There are not enough workers in Russia, then where are so many unemployed in Russia?

                    I do not know. Among my acquaintances there are no unemployed people of working age, all of them work or are small entrepreneurs.
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 20 January 2021 17: 00
                -5
                “We cannot provide our citizens with jobs.” Here they have no other education problems they need, and half of our workers are so-so.
              3. Local from the Volga
                Local from the Volga 21 January 2021 17: 39
                +1
                Ready for a construction site for twenty rubles ?! So go ahead!
            2. Alexander Galaktionov
              Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 09: 07
              +12
              You hike like Putin, I will replace my citizens with migrants, otherwise my people are not the same people
              1. Kot_Kuzya
                Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 09: 31
                -18%
                Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
                You hike like Putin, I will replace my citizens with migrants, otherwise my people are not the same people

                Are you a Nazi? In addition, a lot of Russians come from Ukraine and Kazakhstan. I knew one person, a Russian, who moved to Russia from Kazakhstan and suffered for a very long time with obtaining Russian citizenship, there were a lot of bureaucratic obstacles. Even his children, accordingly, could not obtain Russian citizenship until he himself received Russian citizenship.
                1. Alexander Galaktionov
                  Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 09: 46
                  +9
                  I'm talking about migrants from Central Asia
                  1. Kot_Kuzya
                    Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 10: 08
                    -15%
                    Are migrants from Central Asia not people for you? For me, they are citizens of the former USSR. Let them come. In Russia, by the way, not only Russians live. Russia includes Tatarstan, Yakutia, Chechnya, Dagestan, Buryatia, etc.
                    1. Alexander Galaktionov
                      Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 10: 17
                      +6
                      Migrants from Central Asia are people, but you don't need to give them a job when there are many unemployed in your country Listen to the citizens of Ukraine, too, from the former USSR, but what moods they have towards Russia in half Well at least they give Russian citizenship to residents of the DPR and LPR
                      1. Kot_Kuzya
                        Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 11: 51
                        -12%
                        Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
                        Listen to the citizens of Ukraine, too, from the former USSR, but what moods they have towards Russia in half

                        But non-brothers must be driven. It is generally necessary to introduce a visa regime with Sumeria. Let them go to work in the EU so desired by them. There is nothing for benders in Russia to do.
                      2. Alexander Galaktionov
                        Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 11: 54
                        +6
                        And from where do you know that who comes from Central Asia, they do not have the same moods as Sumer's, only they do not openly declare this
                      3. Kot_Kuzya
                        Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 12: 02
                        -10%
                        Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
                        And from where do you know that who comes from Central Asia, they do not have the same moods as Sumer's, only they do not openly declare this

                        Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in their homeland do not prohibit speaking in Russian and do not jump with an appeal to kill Russians.
                      4. Alexander Galaktionov
                        Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 12: 08
                        +9
                        Yes, and how many Russians are there in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan? Don't jump, maybe they are more cunning and do not stick out so openly Russophobia
                  2. victor50
                    victor50 20 January 2021 21: 25
                    +2
                    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                    But non-brothers must be driven. It is generally necessary to introduce a visa regime with Sumeria.

                    Why such liberal half-measures !? Yadrenbaton them! Why are you deviating from your principles !? lol
              2. Jacket in stock
                Jacket in stock 20 January 2021 10: 18
                +7
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                nor citizens of the former USSR. Let them come

                Did you communicate with them yourself?
                They have long forgotten about the USSR.
                But some people know that, for example, Siberia is not a Russian land. And for some reason it is their land. I don’t know why, but they say it very confidently.
                And they put up with us here for now. And it is unlikely that they believe that we are people too, in any case, they are definitely not equal.
              3. Alexander Galaktionov
                Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 10: 18
                +4
                What does the Yakuts and Tatarastan have to do with it? These are the citizens of Russia
              4. Lannan Shi
                Lannan Shi 20 January 2021 10: 38
                +14
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                For me, they are citizens of the former USSR.

                For the French, migrants from which Algeria were also former citizens. Now they are not happy with the Arab quarters of Paris ... By the way. Mentally, our former Central Asian citizens of those generations that the USSR did not find, are already closer to the Arabs than to us. Didn't seem to communicate with such? And I had "pleasure." And such, too, the authorities sometimes urged. Claims like - why are you living here not as it should be, quite slip through. And when such peppers are 1 / 5-1 / 4 of the population, which in general is already a very real prospect, we will get problems - a wagon.
                1. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 11: 53
                  -16%
                  Our city is full of Kyrgyz and Uzbeks, normal guys, polite. They commit extremely few crimes, and then any of their crimes is immediately inflated in social networks, since there are a lot of xenophobes.
                2. Lannan Shi
                  Lannan Shi 20 January 2021 12: 22
                  +14
                  Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                  normal guys, polite.

                  You have zero understanding of people ... Well, a little story. They worked then in the province of Vyatka. And they sent us a brigade of Uzbek handymen for a month. Also, by the way, hardworking and polite. The evening before their departure, I leave the headquarters, next to the smoking room, and I hear the end of the conversation. A monologue from one of these ... Polite ones. Not literally, but very close to the text. Yes, you ... Yes, you all ... Yes, you smoke, yes you drink, but it is not clear what kind of meat you eat, and your women in short skirts. And then literally. "Every evening I pray to Allah that he would forgive me that I am next to you." And already shakes him. Kompren? You are worse for him than dirt. And polite from only as long as he cannot tell you how to tie the laces correctly.
                3. Kot_Kuzya
                  Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 12: 27
                  -13%
                  So he is a Muslim, and if he prays to Allah every night, therefore, he is a radical, and for him all non-Muslims are not people.
              5. Glory1974
                Glory1974 20 January 2021 14: 23
                +11
                Our city is full of Kyrgyz and Uzbeks, normal guys, polite. They commit very few crimes

                According to the statistics of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, announced in the newspaper "Versia", 5% of migrants in the settlement account for 30% of crimes. The metro in St. Petersburg was blown up by migrants from Kyrgyzstan. Moreover, when they began to investigate the case, it turned out that in Kyrgyzstan, at the address of the death row's registration, no one knows him, that is, he only naturalized there. Thus, anyone can come to our country under the guise of migrants, which they are doing with success.
                You are hovering somewhere in the clouds, descend to the sinful earth.
  • Shopping Mall
    Shopping Mall 20 January 2021 10: 53
    +13
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Well, let them come. New hands are always good. The more migrants come, the better.


    All the more there is crime - drugs, rape and murder. And also the outflow of money abroad. And they are also happy to receive our citizenship, which God knows to whom, and receive all social services. goods for which they did not pay taxes - pension, medicine, etc. And they breed like cockroaches.

    First of all, it is necessary to improve education, labor efficiency and introduce automation more widely, rather than import migrants.
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 11: 55
      -15%
      Do not write nonsense.
      Quote: AVM
      And they are also happy to receive our citizenship, which God knows to whom, and receive all social services. goods for which they did not pay taxes - pension, medicine, etc.

      Is it a 65-year-old Kyrgyz who comes to Russia, becomes a Russian citizen and starts receiving a pension? Aren't you funny yourself? Mainly 18-25 years old young people come to Russia, who still work and work before retirement.
      1. Glory1974
        Glory1974 20 January 2021 14: 25
        +10
        Is it a 65-year-old Kyrgyz who comes to Russia, becomes a Russian citizen and starts receiving a pension? Aren't you funny yourself?

        A lot of Kyrgyz take Russian surnames and move to Russia for permanent residence with their families. Receive pensions. Kazakhs receive citizenship to receive maternity capital, etc.
        And yes, according to an agreement between the countries of the former USSR, everyone receives pensions in Russia.
        You don't really own the furnishings in this segment.
  • Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl 20 January 2021 20: 40
    +4
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Well, let them come. New hands are always good. The more migrants come, the better.
    it seems in France have already stopped thinking so after the "yellow vests" ....? !! And in Belgium, no longer delighted .... !!!
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 20 January 2021 18: 02
    0
    Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
    Yes, the Rosgvardia is outnumbered by the SV, it's a question of whom the authorities are afraid of

    Apparently a criminal offense. Because one third of the number of Rosgvardia is FSUE Okhrana. smile
    1. The eye of the crying
      The eye of the crying 20 January 2021 21: 34
      0
      Quote: Alexey RA
      Because one third of the Rosgvardia's strength is FSUE Okhrana.


      And the remaining two-thirds are already less than SV in number or not yet?
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 21 January 2021 10: 32
        0
        Quote: Eye of the Crying
        And the remaining two-thirds are already less than SV in number or not yet?

        The remaining "vovans" are one and a half times less than the SV.
        1. The eye of the crying
          The eye of the crying 21 January 2021 11: 38
          +1
          Only one and a half times less than CB? But the ground forces are already against NATO and China combined.
  • silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 20 January 2021 12: 26
    0
    the balance of the road is important ... BALANCE ... everything is interconnected ... and the Army and the Navy must be sufficient and correspond to the tasks of defending the Motherland ...
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 20 January 2021 13: 40
    +1
    In a comment of the same size, tell me how you will defend Crimea, Sakhalin, and Kamchatka without a fleet? I won't put a minus, I want an answer!
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 14: 43
      -13%
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      In a comment of the same size, tell me how you will defend Crimea, Sakhalin, and Kamchatka without a fleet? I won't put a minus, I want an answer!

      To sculpt the aggressor with vigorous loaves, that's all.
    2. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 20 January 2021 18: 35
      -4
      Quote: Scharnhorst
      to defend Crimea, Sakhalin, and Kamchatka without a fleet?

      Crimea is definitely not to defend by the fleet, but by coastal means, also Sakhalin, only Kamchatka needs to be protected by the fleet and not the city of Petropavlovsk where ground air defense and missiles can be placed, but the water area of ​​2000-3000 km from it for the safe exit of nuclear submarines ... in general, where did you get it from? that the territory can be protected by the fleet? There has never been such a thing and there is no sense in it, rather, land assets and the aerospace forces guard the fleet ... it has always been like that ... the fleet is made to protect the waters and remote islands, the colonies of which we do not have.
      1. common man
        common man 20 January 2021 20: 35
        0
        Quote: vladimir1155
        Crimea is definitely not to defend by the fleet, but by coastal means, also Sakhalin, only Kamchatka needs to be protected by the fleet and not the city of Petropavlovsk where ground air defense can be placed

        The bridge will be destroyed, how will you supply Crimea? Supply to Kamchatka, what share goes through water? If not 100 percent, then close to them. The Kuril Islands will seize Kamchatka with guaranteed kirdyk. The NSR will be blocked, the entire North will be bent. This is in a more or less long-term conflict.
        Although, of course, there is a "vigorous loaf". And you don't even need to launch rockets. If something to tear the entire nuclear stock on its territory and the whole world to dust.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 20 January 2021 20: 51
          -2
          Quote: man in the street
          Although, of course, there is a "vigorous loaf".

          that's the answer! you said to the point! Wars are now fleeting, they are measured for hours, so some long transportations will not be very much, as for Kamchatka and the Crimea, they are supplied through the inland seas, the Azov and Okhotsk, And the Sea of ​​Japan has nothing to do with it, like the Black Sea, otherwise they will sink like m / v Armenia with thousands of people ... and there is a hedgehog il76
          .
  • Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 20 January 2021 18: 08
    +7
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Again, the Moremans dispersed with their nonsense. Russia does not have overseas territories to defend, and Russia is not an island like Britain and Japan, or like the United States, only two harmless land neighbors.

    What does the overseas territory have to do with it? PLO corvettes are OVR, protection of the water area. Frigates are the protection of SSBN position areas.
    The proposed ships should remove the main problem of the fleet - the inability to ensure the survival of carriers of 40% of strategic SBS. And they are needed just so that there is someone, in which case, to throw vigorous loaves.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 20 January 2021 18: 36
      +1
      Quote: Alexey RA
      What does the overseas territory have to do with it? PLO corvettes are OVR, protection of the water area. Frigates are the protection of SSBN position areas.
      The proposed ships should remove the main problem of the fleet - the inability to ensure the survival of carriers of 40% of strategic SBS. And they are needed just so that there is someone, in which case, to throw vigorous loaves.

      I support your opinion, it is
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 20 January 2021 06: 19
    +16
    Give the Office a go-ahead to clean up "respected people" and nothing more.

    Naive.
    Not for that the Union was falling apart.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 20 January 2021 09: 22
      +13
      That's right. There is no other way to build it. By the way, this is an Arleigh Burke class destroyer for the money.
      1. Freemason Mason
        Freemason Mason 20 January 2021 10: 06
        +3
        Some putriotic-minded person has already put you a minus. I correct the situation with my plus. However, this is not for long - I think, now new defenders of the codpiece will catch up, throw minuses, otherwise how else laughing
      2. Vadim237
        Vadim237 20 January 2021 17: 08
        0
        And what is it in your picture and, most importantly, how did you find out the price?
      3. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski 20 January 2021 23: 09
        -5
        For example, instead of a palace, a destroyer would have been built, but not a simple "Arlie Burke", but a nuclear-powered "Leader" that has no analogues. And the war with the decaying West would also start not illusory, but quite hot, with "volleys of guns." Would you yourself have gone to serve on this destroyer, or have you sent your children to defend "looted by overwork"?
        With Timokhin, everything is clear, a faithful propagandist, ignoring everything to the fact, continues to portray that the office and "respected people" are not the same thing.
  • Yuri V.A
    Yuri V.A 20 January 2021 07: 00
    +8
    If, for the reasons listed in the article, it is currently difficult to build a warship with a displacement of more than 5 tons, which with dubious success will be in every barrel and a reader, and a reaper, and a player on a pipe, then why, due to the obvious limitations of internal volumes, it is still there is no truly universal launcher for all types of missiles, both existing systems and promising ones?
    1. timokhin-aa
      20 January 2021 09: 28
      +11
      There are two launchers - anti-aircraft redoubt and universal. In principle, this is more or less justified, I don’t think we should rush and change this situation.
      1. Yuri V.A
        Yuri V.A 20 January 2021 10: 13
        +3
        What is justified by the wishlist of missile developers? Did a single module interfere with the carriers of Calm, Redoubt, Caliber and Fort? You yourself advocate the versatility of a small ship, but 16 + 32 does not always equal 48.
        1. timokhin-aa
          20 January 2021 17: 42
          +6
          Justified by considerations of interspecies unification of missiles, for example.
          1. Yuri V.A
            Yuri V.A 21 January 2021 05: 57
            -1
            How will a single launcher interfere with the interspecific unification of missiles?
            And the question about ship systems - recently the first exercises with the equipment of a unified tactical echelon control system were held by the artillerymen, but what about the network centrism of the sailors, because on the distant shores the information deficit will be much more acute?
    2. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 20 January 2021 22: 21
      +1
      A meter diameter TPK "Fort" does not fit into any universal UVP precisely "due to obvious limitations of internal volumes."
      1. Yuri V.A
        Yuri V.A 21 January 2021 02: 04
        0
        Come on, that is, both 48N6 and Redutovskaya 9M96 somehow fit on the land mobile platform, but the sea platform "does not fit". So it turns out that we have a slightly universal PU.
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets 20 January 2021 07: 03
    +16
    Unfortunately, the Russian state now exists and exists in the interests of "respected people" ...
  • voronin
    voronin 20 January 2021 07: 09
    +28
    Thanks to the author. After reading about the situation with the power plant, a logical conclusion suggests itself: to "expand" the bottleneck - to entrust the production of gearboxes to someone else. This means that one more enterprise is needed.
    To this, of course, someone will object that such production will be prepared for many years. And the fleet is being actively built now, and in the future, if the pace of its renewal slows down, the enterprise will be underutilized. In short - a really long-range strategy for the development of the fleet is needed here - is the Fleet needed in the future, and which one?
    1. timokhin-aa
      20 January 2021 09: 29
      +14
      A strategy is needed. We have a lot of problems because it doesn't exist. But this is no longer a naval issue, this is a question at the level "above the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff."
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 20 January 2021 07: 32
    +3
    Not a bad article, I found some quotes for my own about the EP, I hope the author will not mind?
  • Ka-52
    Ka-52 20 January 2021 08: 03
    +5
    liked the article. Enough analytics, balanced criticism is present, but without bias in "everything is gone"
  • Alexander Galaktionov
    Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 08: 24
    +3
    On the engines, can someone put the video there was a new video the military acceptance just about naval engines hi
  • Alexander Galaktionov
    Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 08: 27
    -1
    About two helicopters per corvette what request again alterations and time, have already filled their hand, let them build such C norms only air defense
  • Alexander Galaktionov
    Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 08: 29
    +1
    So I think we need to build frigates pr 22350 with 3 uksk
    1. Scharnhorst
      Scharnhorst 20 January 2021 14: 07
      0
      Questions: Why are you personally not satisfied with two? What will the half increased ammunition give? Why will we also add the UKSK and the Reduta UVP? And what will become of the long and displacement of the ship, with the speed and autonomy?
      1. timokhin-aa
        21 January 2021 12: 45
        0
        Two is a smaller total salvo.
        https://topwar.ru/178269-chislennoe-prevoshodstvo-flotu-ne-nuzhno-nuzhno-prevoshodstvo-v-zalpe.html
        1. Scharnhorst
          Scharnhorst 22 January 2021 16: 59
          0
          For a larger total salvo, the modernized "Admiral Nakhimov" is very suitable, or at least two 22350s. I am for balanced ships, without distortions that are currently fashionable, and not against an increase in combat effectiveness. My opinion is that the standard UKSK 3s14 module (where 8 cells in one version 2 * 4) is not optimal. I would prefer two options with an eye on the future in 12 cells (the first and main for small ships of the MRK type, corvette, frigate - 6 * 2; for a frigate, destroyer, cruiser - 3 * 4 and 6 * 2, depending on the installation location on project). Agree, for "Buyanov M" and "Karakurt" 8 missiles will not be enough, the dispersion of forces and means. Even if 16 "Uranov" were delivered to the modernized Soviet-built MRK.
  • Alexander Galaktionov
    Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 08: 32
    0
    And as for pr 22350M, you need to look at how much it will be in terms of displacement.And it will be how Arlie Burke started from 8 thousand tons now under 10 thousand tons as GRK Moscow for water displacement
  • Scaffold
    Scaffold 20 January 2021 08: 38
    +4
    How can you put up with the situation ... Not even that. How does everyone manage to put up with the situation when gearboxes for the entire Navy of the state are produced in one place ?! This is "single point of failure" in the language of our partners! Is it really impossible to develop more production? It's a gearbox after all! It consists of (roughly) gears, bearings, and a housing. recourse
    1. Alexander Galaktionov
      Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 08: 59
      0
      For how many gas pipelines have been set up laughing how many billion $ into the void with this money could build factories and in the country itself, provide gas to settlements
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 20 January 2021 09: 40
        +1
        Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
        and in the country itself to gasify settlements

        if there were two Gazprom in Russia, then yes, but here's the bad luck - we have only one "property" ...
        1. Alexander Galaktionov
          Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 09: 51
          -1
          There is one more gas company, let it gasify
    2. timokhin-aa
      20 January 2021 09: 35
      +6
      A ship gearbox is a very complicated thing, there one gear needs to be sharpened for six months.
      This is what happens if you mess up - https://vz.ru/world/2021/1/12/1079616.html
      But this is "Renk" - the world leader in such mechanisms.
      1. Alexander Galaktionov
        Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 09: 49
        0
        You can put a video from the military acceptance about ship engines
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 20 January 2021 21: 10
          +4
          You can, you can. when you write a comment there is a button above the text with the inscription YouTube. But why? Military acceptance is a meaningless beautiful picture divorced from reality. That's all.
      2. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov 20 January 2021 10: 48
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        A ship gearbox is a very complicated thing, there one gear needs to be sharpened for six months.
        This is what happens if you mess up - https://vz.ru/world/2021/1/12/1079616.html
        But this is "Renk" - the world leader in such mechanisms.

        With all due respect to the gearbox ... it's a big deal.

        You sometimes soak off so at least stand still fall.
        By the way, they themselves worked at the CNC at least once or so, purely theoretically, does it have an idea (if you have)?
        This is a primitive detail.
        What is there to sharpen?

        For example, the level of automation of modern machine tools (for gears, others are used, although this can be done if you feel like it).
        1. VladGTN
          VladGTN 21 January 2021 00: 03
          0
          Sharpen gears there. A couple of meters in diameter and weighing half a ton. And everything is so simple, hypermill will calculate in five minutes.
      3. Scaffold
        Scaffold 20 January 2021 13: 07
        0
        But this does not mean that you need to calmly accept the situation when a single plant works for the entire Navy.
    3. Scharnhorst
      Scharnhorst 20 January 2021 14: 13
      +1
      Imagine a car with one engine on two bridges, but on the contrary, two engines on one bridge !!! ... Without a good gearbox in both cases, not life but a hassle! tongue
  • Alexander Galaktionov
    Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 08: 39
    -2
    By the way, who knows what air defense system they have installed and how many missiles are on our modernized 1st Rank ship?
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 20 January 2021 08: 45
    +4
    Someone will say that this is not much. Maybe so, but this is more than what we are building now, and much more. In terms of the construction of corvettes, this is almost a Chinese pace - they mortgage and hand over three of their 056s a year (on average).


    A lot or a little - it all depends on the specific conditions of the goals and objectives.
    This is very little for us.
    And it is inappropriate to directly compare with China.
    China does not divide its fleets by 5, as we do.

    A simple example.
    China has built 3 corvettes. (just an example).
    In peacetime, they can provide rotation of 1/3 - without straining to constantly keep 1 ship at sea.
    We built 3 corvettes - scattered across 5 fleets - what did we get? The hole is everywhere. The two fleets are generally empty. And on 3 fleets, 1 ship each, which is not.

    Therefore, the real Chinese pace of not building but of forming a grouping of ships (the ultimate goal of construction) is completely incomparable.
    1. Alexander Galaktionov
      Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 09: 03
      +1
      China is building a fleet of the second economy in the world and it needs to secure its trade routes.We, though, would provide all fleets in a brigade of corvettes and a brigade of frigates in the Northern Fleet and TF and 3 frigates each in the BF and the Black Sea Fleet
      1. Kot_Kuzya
        Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 09: 41
        -3
        Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
        3 frigates each for BF and Black Sea Fleet

        I'm wondering why keep frigates in these puddles? Against rubber boats and boats with bulletproof armor of non-brothers and rodents? In general, I think that there are enough border service boats in the Baltic and the Black Sea, the fleet is not needed there from the word at all. The combat aircraft located in the Crimea will destroy the enemy fleet much faster and more efficiently than these 3 frigates. It is not without reason that Crimea was nicknamed "the unsinkable aircraft carrier of the Black Sea." The same is with the Baltic - aviation located in the Kaliningrad region and north-west of Russia will destroy enemy ships much faster and more efficiently than these 3 frigates. The Baltic and Black Sea is not an ocean with a distance of thousands of kilometers. Russia does not need to scatter its forces on these puddles, and it is necessary to focus on the development of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, since only from the Far East and the Arctic it is possible to freely enter the World Ocean. And the Baltic and the Black Sea are puddles, the exit from which can easily be locked up by Turkey and Denmark with Sweden and Germany.
        1. Ka-52
          Ka-52 20 January 2021 09: 53
          +4
          And the Baltic and the Black Sea are puddles, the exit from which can easily be locked up by Turkey and Denmark with Sweden and Germany.

          lock it up, it's just flowers. The very waters of these seas are so closely monitored by means of radio intelligence of the NATO countries that the destruction of our modest fleet forces there seems to be a matter of a very short period of time.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 20 January 2021 23: 39
            -1
            Quote: Ka-52
            The very waters of these seas are so closely monitored by means of radio intelligence of the NATO countries that the destruction of our modest fleet forces there seems to be a matter of a very short period of time.

            I fully support your opinion, this should be obvious to any sane person
        2. Alexander Galaktionov
          Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 09: 57
          +2
          The Black Sea Fleet also runs in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, only border boats smile then you tell the Scandinavians, no matter what more boats are built laughing
        3. Doccor18
          Doccor18 20 January 2021 10: 16
          +1
          Quote: Kot_Kuzya
          Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
          3 frigates each for BF and Black Sea Fleet

          I'm wondering why keep frigates in these puddles? ... The combat aircraft located in the Crimea will destroy the enemy fleet much faster and more efficiently than these 3 frigates. It is not without reason that Crimea was nicknamed "the unsinkable aircraft carrier of the Black Sea." The same is with the Baltic ...

          Something you got excited about "puddles" ... About the Crimean Wars read? How was Sevastopol besieged ... Do you think that this cannot be repeated? In vain. Only a strong Black Sea Fleet will be able to plug the bottleneck of the straits. Aviation is unable to do this. Turkey (as has already happened more than once) will be able to quickly help Western countries in the quantitative strengthening of the Navy and Air Force. Who can help us? And the Baltic needs a fleet. The Kaliningrad region will not hold out on one air bridge in case of aggression. If not frigates, then the Baltic Fleet should have a certain number of corvettes, missile boats, secondary armaments, large landing ships and non-nuclear submarines. However, there will always be much fewer Russian ships than enemy ships, which is why we need strong MPA and coastal defense.
          1. Kot_Kuzya
            Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 10: 31
            -10%
            Don't write nonsense. And there is no need to remember about Sevastopol. First, the Russian and Soviet fleets absolutely did nothing to help lift the siege. And secondly, now with the development of technology, there will be no sieges. If Russia is attacked by a strong enemy like NATO, then everything will end in nuclear strikes.
            1. Alexander Galaktionov
              Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 10: 55
              +1
              Firstly, NATO and the United States do not have to attack themselves, there are their prizes Ukraine, Georgia, plus gifts in the form of terrorists
              1. Kot_Kuzya
                Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 11: 58
                -5
                Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
                Firstly, NATO and the United States do not have to attack themselves, there are their prizes Ukraine, Georgia, plus gifts in the form of terrorists

                The rodents were already dispersed in 2008, they immediately fled to Tbilisi, putting them in their pants. Pans, too, can only fight against the civilian population in the Donbas. Not a single pot from the Armed Forces of Ukraine and Terbats climbs into Crimea, because they understand that there is a Russian army there, and I can’t break them, it’s not fighting the militias in Donbass.
                1. Alexander Galaktionov
                  Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 12: 03
                  +1
                  They don't go to Crimea, are you serious? And who launched the saboteurs? And how did we respond ?, struck at the headquarters who sent the saboteurs
                  1. Kot_Kuzya
                    Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 12: 23
                    -6
                    Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
                    They don't go to Crimea, are you serious?

                    Do not climb. APU and Terbats do not climb. And the Crimean cities and villages are not fired from artillery.

                    Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
                    And who launched the saboteurs? And how did we respond ?, struck at the headquarters who sent the saboteurs

                    Putin is too babysitting with pots. Apparently he sincerely considers the pots to be "brothers". I hope that after him a person will come who will no longer suffer from these soviet stereotypes about the "brotherhood of peoples", and will treat the pots as they deserve.
                    1. Alexander Galaktionov
                      Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 12: 27
                      +3
                      Themselves speak with a shovel of thoughts and brotherhood of peoples Let the migrants from the USA work at home, choose their president who will provide them with a decent standard of living
                      1. Kot_Kuzya
                        Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 12: 29
                        -8
                        Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
                        Let the migrants from CA work at home, elect their president who will provide them with a decent standard of living

                        I repeat once again - Uzbeks and Kyrgyz do not jump with the call to kill Russians.
                      2. frog
                        frog 21 January 2021 16: 56
                        -1
                        I repeat once again - Uzbeks and Kyrgyz do not jump with the call to kill Russians.

                        Where? At home? so there are not so many of them there, Russians. Compare with what happened ... And here ... But here they cannot ... ... Not yet ...
            2. Vadim237
              Vadim237 20 January 2021 17: 23
              -2
              Ukraine in Donbass has already shown how it effectively fights - how many pieces of equipment they lost there - 900 more? And in the absence of modern air defense and air forces, all that they have in service now is modifications of the 80s, most of the spare parts and assemblies for which in Ukraine are not released restoration and maintenance due to donation and what remains in warehouses and purchases of used equipment.
          2. Doccor18
            Doccor18 20 January 2021 10: 57
            +3
            Quote: Kot_Kuzya
            ... now with the development of technology, there will be no sieges. If Russia is attacked by a strong enemy like NATO, then everything will end in nuclear strikes.

            Slow combat operations of the ground forces are still going on in many countries. Call it a siege or not. But modern technology does not guarantee that the war will be short-lived.
            And about "NATO and nuclear strikes" ... And if not NATO, but Poland (which will be supported by Lithuania and Ukraine) ... and / or Turkey? Without NATO. It is quite a serious provocation on the border with Russia. The US and NATO will "wash their hands and get popcorn" for easy observation ....
            Will you throw the Yarsami-Bulava over Warsaw and Ankara? and also Vilnius and Kiev, to the heap ...
            1. Kot_Kuzya
              Kot_Kuzya 20 January 2021 12: 01
              -7
              Quote: Doccor18
              Will you throw the Yarsami-Bulava over Warsaw and Ankara? and also Vilnius and Kiev, to the heap ...

              Do you propose to fight the Turks and Poles without using nuclear weapons? That is, let the Poles and Turks kill millions of Russian soldiers, along with the civilian population, destroy the Russian infrastructure and economy with bombing and shelling? I believe that it is cheaper and faster for Russia to turn Istanbul, Ankara, Warsaw and Krakow into radioactive wastelands than to admit what I described above.
              1. Vladimir1155
                Vladimir1155 20 January 2021 23: 46
                -1
                Quote: Kot_Kuzya
                I believe that it is cheaper and faster for Russia to turn Istanbul, Ankara, Warsaw and Krakow into radioactive wastelands than to admit what I described above.

                done right, and it is also necessary that the enemies of Russia do not hope for the cowardice of Russia and the use of nuclear weapons, then there will be peace, for this it is necessary to withdraw the surface fleet from the Baltic and the Black Sea Fleet, it is a fleet ... Criteria for the use of nuclear weapons by Russia in comparison with approved in 2010 The military doctrine has not changed: Moscow can use it in response to an attack on it or its allies with the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, or in the event of aggression with conventional weapons, if "the very existence of the state is threatened."
        4. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 20 January 2021 23: 41
          -1
          Quote: Doccor18
          Have you read about the Crimean Wars?

          read read, but we remind in what century it was, what was the visibility of the radar at that time and the range of missile weapons?
        5. Ka-52
          Ka-52 21 January 2021 09: 33
          +1
          Only a strong Black Sea Fleet will be able to plug the bottleneck of the straits.

          Why lock up the Bosphorus with the fleet? Push him to the straits, taking him out of the air defense umbrella, for slaughter? To close the throat of the straits, there are enough BRK Bastions - the Onyx range of about 600 km is more than enough to finish off the Istanbul bridge
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 21 January 2021 09: 59
            0
            Quote: Ka-52
            Why lock up the Bosphorus with the fleet? Push him to the straits, taking him out of the air defense umbrella, for slaughter? To close the throat of the straits, there are enough BRK Bastions - the Onyx range of about 600 km is more than enough to finish off the Istanbul bridge

            that's right, and there are also very useful submarines on the Black Sea Fleet, so they will help to close the Bosphorus together with the means you have listed, and NKs in the Black Sea (Baltic Caspian and Japanese) can only heroically die from enemy missiles in the vicinity of the enemy's coastal strip. and the number of its means of destruction
      2. Scharnhorst
        Scharnhorst 20 January 2021 14: 20
        +1
        I will try to direct your energy and perseverance in the direction you have chosen to solve a specific problem: justify and achieve the transfer of GRK "Moscow" from Sevastopol to the Pacific Fleet! angry
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 20 January 2021 18: 56
          0
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          justify and achieve the transfer of the "Moscow" GRK from Sevastopol to the Pacific Fleet!

          it is very simple to justify, but I cannot achieve it, I am a pensioner, not even an admiral, so let's make an agreement, you give me a vice admiral out of turn, just change my asterisks for more and remove the gaps, it's so simple! and I am transferring Moscow to Kamchatka by the first order, I’ll say more of the tof news in six months, and all the other 1-2 ranks to Severomorsk ... .1 the size of the Black Sea is less than the range of the anti-ship missiles of Moscow, that is, it is more profitable to place a similar missile system on land in the Crimea; and useless in the closed seas BF Black Sea Fleet CFL. Japanese Sea.
          4 In the conditions of powerful enemy coastal assets at the Baltic Fleet and Black Sea Fleet, and in the Sea of ​​Japan, the surface ship will be destroyed very quickly when going to sea, and will not play any military role, it will simply perish with the entire crew. On CFL there are no such enemies that could attack the Russian Federation, there you can quickly transfer MRK IPC from the Black Sea Fleet. 5 A few IPCs are enough for the summer protection of Bocharov Creek, and corvettes and frigates, and even more so a cruiser, are redundant. I think that Prytlivy Dagestan and Tatarstan and the flotilla of the MRK MPK, minesweepers could solve all the necessary tasks of the NK at the Black Sea Fleet
      3. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 20 January 2021 23: 37
        -1
        Quote: Kot_Kuzya
        Russia does not need to scatter its forces on these puddles, and it is necessary to focus on the development of the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, since only from the Far East and the Arctic it is possible to freely enter the World Ocean. And the Baltic and the Black Sea are puddles, the exit from which can easily be locked by Turkey and Denmark with Sweden and Germany.

        I respect your opinion and fully support, scattered the fleet in warm places for another admiral, and threw the nuclear submarine to be devoured by the enemy
  • OgnennyiKotik
    OgnennyiKotik 20 January 2021 09: 44
    +1
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    China has built 3 corvettes. (just an example).
    In peacetime, they can provide a 1/3 rotation

    Therefore, you need to build in minimal series of 9-12 pieces. Based on this, plan what exactly to build.
  • Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl 20 January 2021 21: 20
    +3
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    Therefore, real Chinese pace not construction but the formation of a grouping of ships (the ultimate goal of construction) are completely incomparable.
    no dear reader (!). Construction pace Chinese Navy in relation (comparison) with our Navy, - not comparable, completely different reasons !!!....
    Starting shipbuilding programs in China (!) (look at the main types of combat NKs), - it is always a question of LOCALIZATION of production of ship power plants, - on its territory !!!, and at several production facilities !!!.
    And there, questions such as, -
    Quote: Scaffold
    But this does not mean that you need calmly accept the situation when the only plant works for the entire Navy.
    for the production of GEARBOXES for ship power plants !!!... And in Russia, it passes (!)and NOBODY and NOTHING does not want to change this (!!).
    For example, Kolomensky Zavod, to solve problems in the interests of shipbuilding for the Navy, needs its own STAND (!), its desirably workshop for the assembly of gears, and funding, to launch a line of engines "families 500-x", for 8000 and 10000 hp ... - this time .
    at the facilities of the same "Kronstadt plant", already now disassemble by a screw and what is called "clone" the power plant from the last "singing Sharp", at 72000 hp, UNTIL too late (!!)., and also own gear shopbut no longer for diesel engines, - but for gas turbine engines (!). ... these are two.
    PJSC "Zvezda" to leave only work on gearboxes for GEM 22350 and EM / BOD for 9000 tons.from M-70fru and m-90fr) ... these are three..
    Otherwise and further, our navy will be able to receive per year: one "Karakurt", one "Alexandrite" (12700), no more than two 20380 (!), and this is the most optimistic..., and one 22350 .... and nothing more (!)well or maximum plus one 22160 ...
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 20 January 2021 08: 57
    +4
    Very informative.
    There was no need to mix everything in one heap, the article turned out
    bulky and very difficult to read. Perhaps about the GEM
    it was necessary to put it in a separate article.
    1. Alexander Galaktionov
      Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 09: 13
      +1
      About GEM I agree with you it was necessary to take it out in a separate article
    2. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 20 January 2021 09: 36
      +5
      GEM is the basis for understanding the problems. It should always come from the weakest area. Weapons can be combined, changed, upgraded. With the GEM, everything is much more complicated. Therefore, you need more details about it.
      For me, on the contrary, the article is excellent, I got really new knowledge, and not just another chewing gum with advertising slogans. Sometimes 3-4 TK has to be read a day, this is really difficult to read.
      1. Alexander Galaktionov
        Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 10: 10
        -1
        Look at the military acceptance the other day they came out about marine engines, it is interesting to see there. They touched on the propellers, and about the electric motors.
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 20 January 2021 10: 13
          +2
          Thank you, but I don't watch TV programs, they are too covered with lies. If the topic is interesting I will study from open materials from various sources on the Internet.
    3. timokhin-aa
      20 January 2021 09: 36
      +11
      I thought to do this at first, then I decided to give everything with one material. I do not like serials, in addition, large texts cut off part of the inadequacy, they do not master them.
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 20 January 2021 09: 48
        +7
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        large texts cut off part of the inadequacy, they do not master them.

        A new tactic?
        Original ...
      2. Alexander Galaktionov
        Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 10: 26
        +1
        Will there be an article about torpedoes and anti-torpedoes? By the way, how much does our Case lag behind the Mk-48 mod7?
        1. timokhin-aa
          20 January 2021 17: 44
          +4
          The case is not yet a torpedo. And mod7 is in service. The comparison is inconsistent, the case should end with a torpedo sample to begin with, then it will be possible to compare.
    4. Scharnhorst
      Scharnhorst 20 January 2021 14: 34
      +1
      No no no! The article is good! The reasoning, analysis and conclusions are based on a publicly available and verifiable framework. The author becomes consistent in defending his point of view. That's just about the office and respected people not quite on the topic, too much. You might think that he is for Navalny !? good But with a collage about a helicopter hangar, you need to be more careful, but I will write about this in a personal message over time!
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 20 January 2021 15: 39
        +4
        Quote: Scharnhorst
        You might think that he is for Navalny !?

        Do not!
        This is "Military Review", not "Political" ...
      2. frog
        frog 21 January 2021 20: 31
        0
        That's just about the office and respected people not quite on the topic, too much.

        Businessman Evgeny Lebedev - the son of a former employee of the USSR KGB and banker Alexander Lebedev, received the title of Baron of Siberia from the British Queen.

        “The Queen was delighted with the certificate of honor, sealed by the Great Seal, to confer the life title of Baron of the United Kingdom to Yevgeny Aleksandrovich Lebedev under the name of Baron Lebedev from Hampton in London's Rind-upon-Thames and Siberia in the Russian Federation,” says the official publication of the British government.

        Lebedev will become the first peer from Russia and will become a life member of the British House of Lords. According to his family's The Evening Standard, Lebedev Jr.was awarded the title for his services to the media industry and for organizing charity events that raised more than £ 75 million in support of minorities.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 20 January 2021 09: 43
    +4
    Thanks to the author for the article. hi
    Russia has everything to build a strong fleet right now, and it will not require phenomenal money. There is industry, technology and personnel.

    I never doubted it. There is everything except political will and responsibility for the work done ...
    I agree with the author on everything except
    That is, we again get a lot of options ... especially taking into account the possibility of forming battle groups from ships, which, on the one hand, are unified, and on the other, complement each other in their capabilities (one has two helicopters, the other has one , but there is a PLUR, the third has no helicopters, but an "adult" radar, even the same "Polyment" and 30 anti-aircraft missiles, etc.).

    It is better not to allow such "experiments" with different projects to our shipbuilders. All this with 100% probability will lead to cost overruns and a shift in terms. And from the side of combat stability, it is also not an ideal option. Each type of corvettes can actually be made no more than 5-6, which means 1-2 for the fleet. And if a man-made disaster occurs on this corvette with an enhanced PLO, or ... a biological one (the crew gets sick with the same covid), or an adversary damages it, then the fleet will be left without an important link.
    In my opinion, the nomenclature of weapons on all types of ships should be clearly defined before the series was laid, and then not changed. In this case, the fleet will receive more ships of the same type, universal (as much as possible). What am I for? Let there be 4 corvettes with 1 helicopter and 8 UKSK, than: 2 corvettes with 2 helicopters, but without cells and 2 with 24 UKSK, but without aviation ...
    It's the same with frigates ...
    Otherwise, I agree with the author.
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 20 January 2021 21: 23
      0
      Well, for the Pacific Fleet, the construction of two brigades of corvettes is now planned. This means that, according to the 1: 3 rule, the fleet will be able to operate a ship group of 4 corvettes on a permanent basis. There were suggestions about how to strengthen the air defense of such a connection. Why not give it a separate one "air defense corvette"? And such corvettes for the fleet will need only 3 for joint actions with the formed brigades.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 20 January 2021 09: 54
    +2
    An attempt to look at the fleet in a complex of tasks and problems. This is the only way to do it.
  • slm976
    slm976 20 January 2021 10: 23
    +3
    The article is adequate, plus. The author certainly did not do without his traditional kick on the "Barrier", in general, it is also deserved, but I liked the analysis of the topic in terms of the GEM. (True, in this part I would add a few kicks to Sinara, as the owner of "Zvezda")
    But only with the fact that you need to produce a variety of equipment in standard hulls, that is, to start sculpting specialized ships, it seems to me that the author is wrong, this will also lead to cutting funds and delaying construction time ...
    You just need to build what we can build: standard 22350, 20385,11711, 12700, XNUMX, at maximum rates and with minimal equipment modifications (fine-tuning) ...
    1. Alexander Galaktionov
      Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 10: 31
      +2
      The fact that we can build standard and different types agree will lead to an increase in terms and more cutting and an increase in funds
    2. timokhin-aa
      20 January 2021 19: 55
      +4
      a few kicks to Sinara


      Yes, I should have. But maybe they won't be allowed to destroy the plant yet. At least until the transfer of diesel production to KMZ
  • Alexander Galaktionov
    Alexander Galaktionov 20 January 2021 10: 39
    0
    To the author, a question on ak-630 and the duet, the author considers them not full-fledged means of close air defense.But after all, it is not always possible to replace ak-630 with a Broadsword or Armor M
    1. timokhin-aa
      20 January 2021 19: 54
      +4
      Well, yes.
      But we need to develop analogs of the Chinese "type 730" with a programmer and our machine.
    2. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 20 January 2021 21: 34
      +1
      Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
      But after all, it is not always possible to replace ak-630 with a Broadsword or Armor M
      . Everywhere (!). Look at the example of "Karakurt" (!).
      1. Alexander Galaktionov
        Alexander Galaktionov 22 January 2021 14: 29
        0
        Karakut had two AK-630s
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 20 January 2021 12: 10
    -5
    Thanks to the respected Alexander Timokhin, it is clear that nothing more than a surface frigate of Russia is needed, it is clear that the MRK is not needed after leaving the DMSD, and the fact that the MRK has been built and configured so much that it is possible not to build them for at least 10 years after finishing the begun. Large landing ships are not needed at all, there are more of them, more than warships, The same applies to corvettes, so a series of frigates a couple in one or two years is obtained, an MPK based on karakurt a couple of three a year, and three minesweepers a year, That's the whole surface fleet including VTG 1155 1144. But cancel the UDC, sell Kuzya. then everything will be optimal, budgetary and efficient, and there will be money to accelerate the commissioning of nuclear submarines and submarines. Coastal aviation.
  • Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 20 January 2021 13: 14
    +4
    And Beautiful and moderately optimistic and with numbers but ..
    The main problem that I saw is not the problem of "ability" and not the problem of "power" - this is the question, what are we preparing for? If the real challenge is to defend its territory, the announced pace and scale of naval building is a pale shadow of what our neighbors in the East - the USA / Japan / China - can do. For the specifics of the western direction (as I understand it, a person far from the navy), these rates are sufficient for traditional containment. But if we start spreading the products of this construction on all fleets, it turns out that efforts are not enough here.
    It seems like there is a difference to do something or do almost nothing, on the other hand, at this rate, we will only slightly slow down the rate of our lag behind our economically and industrially stronger neighbors. In any case, it is SUCH fleet-building policy that will hardly make the fleet our trump card; other types of armed forces will continue to be the main deterrent tools. But the fleet will naturally divert resources to itself - and the whole question is whether its contribution will be sufficient in relation to the invested resources in the most "acute" directions from the point of view of security?
    1. Usher
      Usher 20 January 2021 15: 39
      +2
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      And Beautiful and moderately optimistic and with numbers but ..
      The main problem that I saw is not the problem of "ability" and not the problem of "power" - this is the question, what are we preparing for? If the real challenge is to defend its territory, the announced pace and scale of naval building is a pale shadow of what our neighbors in the East - the USA / Japan / China - can do. For the specifics of the western direction (as I understand it, a person far from the navy), these rates are sufficient for traditional containment. But if we start spreading the products of this construction on all fleets, it turns out that efforts are not enough here.
      It seems like there is a difference to do something or do almost nothing, on the other hand, at this rate, we will only slightly slow down the rate of our lag behind our economically and industrially stronger neighbors. In any case, it is SUCH fleet-building policy that will hardly make the fleet our trump card; other types of armed forces will continue to be the main deterrent tools. But the fleet will naturally divert resources to itself - and the whole question is whether its contribution will be sufficient in relation to the invested resources in the most "acute" directions from the point of view of security?

      It's like the Germans before WWII (Plan Tset). They began to rivet the ocean fleet, but there was no exhaust, they ate a lot of resources, although they could rivet more submarines and tanks. But Raeder, stubborn as a ram, pushed through a utopian plan, even Goering understood that this was nonsense. And he interfered with his levers, so as not to be left completely without resources. Now, as if on the same rake not to step. Need a fleet Here and now That is, it doesn't matter which will be worse. The main thing is that it would be.
      1. timokhin-aa
        20 January 2021 20: 44
        +6
        It's like the Germans before WWII (Plan Tset). They began to rivet the ocean fleet, but there was no exhaust, they ate a lot of resources, although they could rivet more submarines and tanks


        You have some kind of chaos in knowledge. Plan Z was not implemented, the submarine was already set up above the roof and they DIDN'T HELP, and the shipbuilding industry cannot be converted into a tank industry in any way.
        If you close the shipyards, this does not mean that tomorrow you will slap tanks on all the saved metal and electricity.

        The Germans had a generally flawed strategy, within which they had a flawed approach to naval and air operations, nothing would have saved them. And only the mistakes of the allies helped them to anneal the way they annealed them.
        1. Usher
          Usher 20 January 2021 21: 09
          0
          Quote: timokhin-aa
          It's like the Germans before WWII (Plan Tset). They began to rivet the ocean fleet, but there was no exhaust, they ate a lot of resources, although they could rivet more submarines and tanks


          You have some kind of chaos in knowledge. Plan Z was not implemented, the submarine was already set up above the roof and they DIDN'T HELP, and the shipbuilding industry cannot be converted into a tank industry in any way.
          If you close the shipyards, this does not mean that tomorrow you will slap tanks on all the saved metal and electricity.

          The Germans had a generally flawed strategy, within which they had a flawed approach to naval and air operations, nothing would have saved them. And only the mistakes of the allies helped them to anneal the way they annealed them.

          No, initially it was clear that the plan was not feasible. As you probably know, at the beginning of the war, the Germans had very few submarines. And they could have stifled the British economy, but the straw that breaks a camel's back was missing.
          1. timokhin-aa
            21 January 2021 00: 08
            +4
            No, initially it was clear that the plan was not feasible.


            As a matter of fact, they did not start it.

            And they could have stifled the British economy, but the straw that breaks a camel's back was missing.


            Moreover. If you wage a war on communications, without conducting active actions to destroy the enemy's navy, then it will ALWAYS be missed.
            Submarines CANNOT cut communications completely. This is impossible in principle.
            1. Usher
              Usher 21 January 2021 01: 54
              -2
              Quote: timokhin-aa
              No, initially it was clear that the plan was not feasible.


              As a matter of fact, they did not start it.

              And they could have stifled the British economy, but the straw that breaks a camel's back was missing.


              Moreover. If you wage a war on communications, without conducting active actions to destroy the enemy's navy, then it will ALWAYS be missed.
              Submarines CANNOT cut communications completely. This is impossible in principle.

              Wrong, even as you started. The same Bismarck and Tirpitz, the first of 10 planned LKs, laid down an aircraft carrier and another LK class H, which took a huge amount of resources. I read an article on this topic. The Germans could, in fact, if not win, but prolong the war, like Japan. A few miscalculations and mistakes at critical moments and everything went to dust.
            2. Usher
              Usher 21 January 2021 01: 57
              -1
              https://vk.com/wall-162479647_70669 островному государству можно перерезать коммуникации. Не обязательно 100% блокада. надо довести до минимума, что бы они не успевали строить и готовить корабли.
              1. timokhin-aa
                24 January 2021 22: 54
                0
                Can be cut - see USA versus Japan 1941-1945. There it was cut to the 45th.
                This is just how it is done, and a war on communications without seizing dominance at sea, as the Germans did, is just a prolonged suicide.
    2. A_Lex
      A_Lex 20 January 2021 15: 41
      +3
      what are we preparing for?


      Apparently, the rearmament program at least pursues the goal of eliminating the possibility of projection of force, as the maximum pursues the goal of actual disarmament, which corresponds to the actual saturation of, albeit formally, new, but irrelevant technology.
      1. Knell wardenheart
        Knell wardenheart 20 January 2021 15: 51
        0
        Well, in general terms, the plan is understandable - at least some kind of fleet that will pose a relative theoretical threat, a kind of deterrent by its presence, with an unequivocal reliance on other types of forces in the event of threats.
        This tactic worked RELATIVELY in the western direction, and probably still works. In the Pacific Ocean, as far as I understand, this will not work. Meanwhile, it is in this direction that we have the greatest Achtung in terms of using other types of our forces and we are seeing the worst ratio between our fleet and the fleets of potential adversaries (as well as situational allies) ... Actually, this has always been historically - with respect to Japan and the United States, now the PRC has also increased its strength - the situation has worsened, the gap has increased. For the Pacific Ocean, this plan, as far as I understand it, is a pioneer drink to put out a fire that starts in a wooden hut.
        1. A_Lex
          A_Lex 20 January 2021 16: 42
          +1
          Well, in general terms, the plan is clear - at least some kind of fleet that will pose a relative theoretical threat


          The plan is to accurately select a special tool that solves a specific task in a given time frame with established quality. Everything else is not a plan.
    3. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 20 January 2021 18: 24
      -2
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      the main instruments of deterrence will continue to be other types of armed forces. But the fleet will naturally divert resources to itself - and the whole question is whether its contribution will be sufficient in relation to the invested resources in the most "acute" sectors from the point of view of security?

      it is true that the only contribution of the fleet to the country's security is the nuclear submarine, and the rest of the fleet is only providing this part of the nuclear triad, therefore, NKs on the closed seas are almost not needed, they must be concentrated in Severomorsk and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, then the fleet will not be a senseless burden and money enough for everything.
  • A_Lex
    A_Lex 20 January 2021 14: 48
    +2
    In a sense, this was done using the example of corvettes in the last article, which clearly showed which ships the Navy would receive, follow these simple rules. Really if you bring the organization of work at the enterprise back to normal, throw out different gaskets from the production process and debug tests ... Let's hope that 20386 will remain so single excess, a monument to madness, which covered the naval issues in the 2010s ... provided that, firstly, Severnaya Verf make you move faster... an epic with UDC, which promises to become incredibly expensive and really long, but it can also end in failure ... Alas, the state not really trying to develop this potential, rather the oppositebut everything can change ... Without any import... which is quite possible in five years, if you try... The number of ships that we could to be laid and built without delays in the supply of power plants, much more than we are building. But ships larger than 22350 should be built under own naval doctrine, under the strategic concept of what our country's naval power is for basically. There is none today, and is not expected. Instead, we have mantras about land and continentality, skillfully fueled. This cycle must not be broken never - what its violation leads to, we have seen perfectly well in the story with the corvettes, alas, continuing and no one knows what in the end is fraught with ... They, in general, are right - except for the fact that these systems should not be done by the "Crazy Hands" circle, but an organization that has at least some experience in such things ... Alas, in a clearing of radar came "respected people", and against the background of their greed there is simply no such issue as "defense capability".


    All of the above, of course, can be implemented or corrected. But within the framework of another state project. The goal of the current state project is to "please your people at the expense of society." In order to change the goal to "creating the most effective product for everyone", another state project is needed. There is no standard government mechanism that is one for all. Each state is created to implement the corresponding policy. That is why the USSR had to be liquidated. Because that state was not sharpened for the implementation of the policy of "pleasing its people at the expense of society."

    Give the Office a go-ahead to clean up "respected people" and nothing more.


    Historical experience shows that the Office is unable to provide a solution to this problem on a long-term basis. This means we need a different method of solving the problem.

    The fact that the construction of a series of such highly specialized ships is a mistake has already been said ... it is quite possible to make a multipurpose ship


    It makes sense to produce a universal product only if ALL of the following conditions are met:

    1. Each function in a universal product must completely and with proper quality cover the task at hand. Those. missing functionality is better than lacking functionality. In the first version, we know exactly what functionality is missing. In the second option, we mistakenly believe that the required functionality is present, although in fact it turns out that it does not fully meet the requirements, and therefore does not close the task.

    2. The complexity and, accordingly, the price and terms of creating a universal product should not lead to a significant reduction in the number of products. Those. if there is the first option in which 10 ships can be built in 10 years and 10 shock ships and the second option, in which 10 station wagons can be built in the same 10 years, then the first option is definitely better.

    3. Any product is distinguished by its specificity and features, since it is aimed at solving specific problems. This, in turn, directly dictates specific requirements for both functionality and design, i.e. to the content and form of the product. Universality is valid only when it does not interfere with the implementation of specific requirements.
  • Usher
    Usher 20 January 2021 15: 34
    0
    The Kolomn's reliability was brought to an acceptable level, but insufficient power remained (foreign classmates in the same dimensions are much more powerful)
    but to buy and disassemble someone else's engine and understand why, faith does not allow? Now the entire ICE design is probably known to all designers. What is the problem then? Or other people's engines are more powerful, but what about efficiency?
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 20 January 2021 23: 50
      +2
      but to buy and disassemble someone else's engine and understand why, faith does not allow?

      And what is there to disassemble, if so
      Now the entire ICE design is probably known to all designers

      And the whole problem is in the materials.
  • 911sx
    911sx 20 January 2021 15: 38
    +3
    The article is definitely a plus. On the topic of ship power plants ... There is such an enterprise called Uralmash. In addition to walking excavators and various equipment for metallurgy, they make gearboxes for rolling mills, these gearboxes are simpler than ship gearboxes, but in terms of loads and dimensions very good. are similar. In the ship's gearbox of complexity with diesel engagement couplings (GTE) with power transmissions (reverse is also there). If desired, the ship's reverse gearbox can definitely be produced there, another thing is that Uralmash is not allowed into this clearing. In the Uralmash photo gallery I saw the screws made for Zvezda. And the CPP is not a problem for them either - I'm sure. Diesel These 112 cylinder crafts need to be undone as quickly as possible. Only Kolomna. D500 in Kolomna is not being mastered for several reasons (a serious order is needed - a series for many years). There are technical problems - a long and massive crankshaft (problems with forging and processing) and a block (processing problems - 6 meters is not a joke). In my opinion, it would be possible to get by with 8 and 12 cylinder crankshafts and blocks. Manufacturing these 8 and 12 cylinder diesel engines with symmetric blocks and crankshafts, working in pairs on their own reducer adder (located between the blocks), we get 16, 24 cylinder units. Yes, a little heavier and a little larger (not much). Such designs have been used in motorsport, aviation, tank building ... Two blocks and, accordingly, crankshafts will give 8,12,16,24 cylinder units with a capacity of 4,6,8 and 12 thousand hp. GTE. In Rybinsk (by analogy with LM 2500, 2500 + and 2500 ++), they announced their readiness to produce a turbine with a capacity of 34000 forces - an order for it is needed. A few years earlier, on Saturn, they talked about the possibility of producing a turbine for 42000 forces. All based on M-90FR. And finally, in order to simplify, to achieve better reliability of both gearboxes and diesel engines with a gas turbine engine, it is necessary to abandon their joint work. Diesel on the march, GTD at maximum speed (sorry for the land slang). Summarize power only - diesel-diesel, turbine-turbine.
    1. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl 20 January 2021 23: 33
      +1
      Quote: 911sx
      In Rybinsk (by analogy with LM 2500, 2500 + and 2500 ++) voiced their readiness to produce a turbine with a capacity of 34000 forces ...
      there from 2-5 years and about the GTE (M-75 for 7000 hp.) voiced .... but apparently did not set out to embody in metal, in a reliable and actually functioning form .
  • The eye of the crying
    The eye of the crying 20 January 2021 15: 41
    0
    Yes, it's just some kind of MODULARITY smile
  • DrEng527
    DrEng527 20 January 2021 15: 44
    0
    Thank you! Very clearly and laid out on the shelves, especially about the power plant!
  • Usher
    Usher 20 January 2021 16: 09
    0
    Here I agree with the author. The question is, are gearboxes so difficult to make? Purely logically, we can make high-power engines, but they seem to me much more complicated than a bunch of gears? Or I'm wrong?
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 20 January 2021 16: 51
    0
    "Russia has everything to build a strong fleet right now, and it won't require phenomenal money." Well, yes, it does not require - one aircraft carrier for a trillion rubles pulls with all the necessary equipment, aircraft wing and infrastructure, and tens of billions more for its annual maintenance and maintenance. At the moment, the fleet is not a priority; the nuclear triad of air defense of the Air Force is in fourth place; ground forces; the fleet is in the last place - since Russia will not fight with anyone far from its borders, even in the most distant future - the creation of hypersonic anti-ship missiles is large range and coast-based medium-range anti-ship ballistic missiles will nullify any stuffed fleets in the world and will not be a financial super sinker for the budget and economy for the operator of such systems, which is now a fleet of hundreds of medium and large ships.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 20 January 2021 19: 08
      +3
      Quote: Vadim237
      the fleet is in the last place - since Russia will not fight with anyone far from its borders, even in the most distant future - the creation of long-range hypersonic anti-ship missiles and coast-based medium-range anti-ship ballistic missiles will nullify any stuffed fleets of the world and will not for the operator of such systems, a financial super sinker for the budget and economy, which is now a fleet of hundreds of medium and large ships.

      generally agree, but in particular, the fleet has nuclear submarines no less important than the Strategic Missile Forces (part of the triad), unfortunately developing some abstract "fleet" (about which you write in a derogatory sense and correctly write) supporters of aircraft carriers of battleships and other nonsense, do not want to use it to support nuclear submarine bases !!! that is, it is useless not only in essence, but even in placement, smeared over the seas where it is not necessary. Petropavlovsk does not have a surface fleet at all, and in Severomorsk there is little of it now, a pair of 1155, a pair of FR and a pair of Kr, that is, only 6 pennants per water area of ​​12 thousand km square ... and this decision is supported by the current admiralty ... why? I do not know
  • exo
    exo 20 January 2021 17: 38
    0
    Good article. All the nuances will be appreciated by experts, but when compared with what appears in the open press, this is the case.
    1. agond
      agond 20 January 2021 19: 45
      +5
      M507D engine, already 128 cylinders !!! , and this is not an anecdote, 512 valves alone !!! and each cylinder has its own fuel pump, and there is probably no number of gaskets at all, one flowed and sailed., but they probably have oars there just in case
      1. VladGTN
        VladGTN 21 January 2021 00: 13
        +1
        There usually 5-10 cylinders do not work. The gasket was punctured, the piston burned out or something ...
  • alexmach
    alexmach 20 January 2021 21: 25
    +1
    Thank you for a thorough, constructive and also encouraging article.
  • Vsevolod136
    Vsevolod136 20 January 2021 21: 37
    +5
    Quote: Kot_Kuzya
    Quote: Alexander Galaktionov
    Listen to the citizens of Ukraine, too, from the former USSR, but what moods they have towards Russia in half

    But non-brothers must be driven. It is generally necessary to introduce a visa regime with Sumeria. Let them go to work in the EU so desired by them. There is nothing for benders in Russia to do.

    Are you a Nazi?
    Using a caliper, separate brothers from non-brothers by skulls?
    1. Kot_Kuzya
      Kot_Kuzya 21 January 2021 03: 49
      -1
      Quote: Vsevolod136
      Are you a Nazi?
      Using a caliper, separate brothers from non-brothers by skulls?

      No. But the non-brothers are exactly the Nazis. Everyone who grunted "Glory to Bendera!" or it will ride with screeching "Russian for knives", you need to imprison for 20 years, and it is better not to bring the case to court, and beat him to death on the spot.
      1. Cympak
        Cympak 21 January 2021 12: 15
        -1
        Understand that most of the "galloping" are victims of propaganda.
        1. Kot_Kuzya
          Kot_Kuzya 21 January 2021 23: 57
          +2
          Quote: Cympak
          Understand that most of the "galloping" are victims of propaganda.

          Don't write nonsense. They will tell you that Vlasov is a national hero, and all Tatars and others must be knifed. Will you believe it too and will jump for it? I'm not.
      2. frog
        frog 21 January 2021 16: 46
        0
        and it is better not to bring the matter to court, and to beat him to death on the spot.

        How about calls to lynching ??))
  • Nestor Vlakhovski
    Nestor Vlakhovski 20 January 2021 23: 48
    -2
    And the bear is taught to dance.
    Over the years of discussions Timokhin became much more sober in assessing the capabilities of the fleet.
    But there is still no main thing, the goals and objectives that he faces.
    Not traditional declarations in the style of "we are for all good and against all bad", but real examples of challenges and needs (and not of someone's, but of a nursing hand) and ways of solving them in comparison with available alternatives.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 January 2021 12: 47
      +2
      You write as if you understand something about the issue under discussion.
      1. Nestor Vlakhovski
        Nestor Vlakhovski 21 January 2021 20: 28
        -3
        I wanted to poke my nose into your old article, but I never found it. Apparently they wiped it skillfully by stripping the tails, like their owners.
        1. timokhin-aa
          21 January 2021 22: 51
          +3
          Articles are not deleted here and I have no owners. I can suggest you contact a psychiatrist at your place of residence.
  • Lavrenty1937
    Lavrenty1937 21 January 2021 03: 55
    0
    Thus, there is a certain basic set of serial systems, using which it is quite possible to equip ships for various purposes - and these will be good ships, with high combat capability, and most importantly, without surprises in terms of the operation of weapons and other systems, without additional R&D that are huge. money, without imposed unnecessary developments. The potential of the domestic industry makes it possible to build them simply as a designer - for the tasks that are at this stage of historical development.
    Or maybe it’s easier and cheaper to go the American way: to create a universal vertical launch unit (VLR) (of the Mk41 type), the same for all (most) of the ship’s missiles? And to replace, depending on the tasks performed, only missiles in the UVP?
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 21 January 2021 12: 08
      0
      So we have UVP, even 2.
      1. Lavrenty1937
        Lavrenty1937 21 January 2021 12: 50
        0
        So we have UVP, even 2
        We have a non-universal UVP only for missiles (but anti-ship missiles are not included in it) and conditionally universal for anti-ship missiles (PLUR), but not for anti-aircraft missiles. It is impossible to rearrange the missiles from the first UVP to the second (and vice versa). Therefore, when changing combat missions, the Americans in the base install the missiles necessary for battle in the universal UVP, and Alexander Timokhin proposes in the Navy to create specialized ships (anti-submarine, shock, air defense, etc.) and change them when the mission changes.
        1. alexmach
          alexmach 21 January 2021 13: 30
          +4
          Timokhin has already answered this question above and I generally agree with him - 2 universal UVPs are not so bad. And this decision has its own motivation and its advantages. And in reality, in our current position, this is clearly not the biggest problem in our shipbuilding.
          Firstly, the dimensions of attack missiles and missiles are slightly different. And our UKSK is bigger than the American UVP. This also provides a certain margin for missile designers. The same hypersonic Zircon fits into the dimensions of the UVP.
          Secondly, the smaller cells of the redoubt make it possible to place a large number of missiles on a relatively small ship.
          And about versatility - do not forget that the American's main ship is a destroyer 2 times larger in sub-size than the "Gorshkovs" and 4 times larger than the corvettes, which are discussed in the article. Yes, there is a place to permanently place everything that is needed for a universal ship and only change the ammunition for the tasks. We also have such an opportunity, but on a smaller scale, well, and there is no possibility of flexibly changing air defense to strike weapons and vice versa. But how much is this actually necessary?
          1. Lavrenty1937
            Lavrenty1937 21 January 2021 14: 11
            0
            Basically, it all boils down to the question: which method of replacing the ship's weapons is more efficient and cheaper - replacing the ship or replacing the missiles on the ship.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion 21 January 2021 09: 45
    +2
    Instead, we have mantras about land and continentality, skillfully fueled.


    We do not have mantras about land, we have reasonable questions, whether investments in a ship in the amount of 15-30 billion rubles are justified, or it is better to spend these resources on 1-2 squadrons of fighters.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 21 January 2021 10: 11
      0
      Quote: EvilLion
      ship in the amount of 15-30 billion rubles

      if ... but you don't know that the supporters of the "large surface ocean fleet" for some reason somewhere "projecting" an ephemeral "force" (in the form of a link of aircraft) dream of several ABs for 15-30 billion rubles, not rubles, but dollars! Even the old Kuzya costs ten billion dollars, (if you sell it) then you can order not a squadron, but 730 !!!! ... Su35-su57 !!!!! and these 730 modern aircraft ...... instead of a flight deck aircraft dependent on the weather and requiring 5000 personnel on an aircraft carrier !!!!!! and they have already pushed through a super cut into a pair of UDC of 40000 tons of displacement !!!!
      1. agond
        agond 21 January 2021 12: 08
        -1
        We must go the other way, we must change the foundations of shipbuilding, if we
        1 requires a significant reduction in the cost and acceleration of the construction of the mass of ships
        2, the possibility of their further deep modernization during the period of their service should be provided,
        It is necessary to abandon the age-old tradition of building ships, when both the bottom and sides, and transverse and longitudinal bulkheads, and decks, everything is built immediately at the shipyard and remains with the ship until the end of the service life, if we want to build quickly and we need a lot at the beginning build a "trough" blank, (yes, the sailors will forgive me for this term. but it closely reflects the essence,), that is, at the beginning, assemble a hull similar to a trough with double walls and without any internal partitions and decks, and then lower it into it very large blocks "cubes" with the corresponding filling with the same width and different lengths and heights (depending on their functional purpose) in the spaces between the blocks "cubes" and sides, if necessary, bulkheads and decks can be installed, then the cubes are connected by communications and a ready-made ship. If in the future there is a need for something in the ship to alter, modernize, or altogether change the purpose of the ship, the blocks of cubes are taken out and replaced with other "cubes" with different functional properties.
        And two kopecks on the shortage of 112-cylinder marine diesels (very unreliable), well, make the stern wider and put four more reliable 56-cylinder diesel engines in a row across the hull, each with its own gearbox and with its own propeller, or better with a water cannon and not what common shaft lines, which only create a loss of efficiency in the transmission.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 21 January 2021 13: 27
          0
          the hull of the ship, and even more so the military one, is divided by watertight bulkheads, it experiences poorly readable loads, therefore it is made whole (sometimes ships break in half), no bolts will withstand this ... the very concept of modularity and standardization is known and should be used whenever possible, for example, allows you to load several different types of missiles, and weapons can be of a container type, and can be replaced in a simplified manner, while containerization does not arouse enthusiasm among the leading authors of VO, I personally am not an expert in containerization, I cannot objectively assess it
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 21 January 2021 13: 19
        +2
        Unlike a computer game, just write off "Kuzyu" and order other air units for the saved millions of gold upkeep. Instead of his air wing, which is now just under the tarpaulin, it would be quite possible to make the usual MiG-29SMT or the much needed Yak-130, which was just the first batch made on the Sokol. Nevertheless, even the shipbuilding facilities involved in servicing this trough could be used more profitably.

        Any mythical "experience of operating aircraft carriers", which supposedly can be transferred to someone, it still does not generate, if only because it is not operated most of the time, and if in 50 years the aircraft carrier becomes relevant, then all the issues related to the creation and the operation will still have to be solved from scratch.
        1. Vladimir1155
          Vladimir1155 21 January 2021 13: 30
          -2
          Quote: EvilLion
          Any mythical "experience of operating aircraft carriers", which supposedly can be transferred to someone, it still does not generate, if only because it is not operated most of the time, and if in 50 years the aircraft carrier becomes relevant, then all the issues related to the creation and the operation will still have to be solved from scratch.

          I agree, of course 730 su were made to estimate the numbers, you can make different weapons, say 20 su, 10 tu160, 10 yars, etc. ... in general, it is clear that if the military budget is increased by $ 1 billion, then a lot of things can be done, for example Submarine
  • Flakk88
    Flakk88 21 January 2021 12: 56
    +1
    Mint! A wonderful article for starting a new school year, thank you, very interesting. Good storytelling pace, and everything is said to the point. I am waiting for the final article from Alexander, tk. I see "Basics" as a series of 3 articles. Separately, I note that the absence of a large number of third-party quotes and links to previous articles of the author greatly relieves the text and makes it easier to read. And the author's thesis:
    the ability to distinguish the present from the future in people with undeveloped intelligence
    about amateurs "we can repeat" and "glaze" costs half of the current content of VO.
    Thanks to the Author for his work!
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 January 2021 14: 05
      +2
      Please.

      As for quotes from third-party resources, there is usually an author's signature under the article, and Maxim Klimov's articles are also published under my account, but I'm not him))
      Quoting is his "hobbyhorse".
  • demiurg
    demiurg 21 January 2021 14: 50
    0
    Nice to read.
    I wonder if instead of 386 cylinders on hypothetical Karakurt - PLO (which I like very much) put three 16d49? Or two sparks?
    Of the advantages, it is clearly easier to provide less noise from the units, lower fuel consumption and a longer resource. The increased mass of the engines is fully compensated by the insert, which in any case will have to be done.
    And if a missile with a range of up to 40 km is still made to the Shell, then the Redoubt on it will not be needed. And 100mm bang too. And there will be a place for a platform for a helicopter / UAV (the hangar for the OVR corvette is not needed), and 10 tons of kerosene.

    By the way, a question about Phazotron. Is this not the same organization that, even before historical materialism, promised FAR for the MiG-35, but could not, even for real money for export? Without any aggression, why suddenly Phazotron will be able to quickly and efficiently do this? I believe on the Irbis base.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 21 January 2021 15: 31
      -1
      In Russia, everyone is waiting for the photonic radar, which is now being created by KRET, probably for this AFAR is not buying.
      1. The eye of the crying
        The eye of the crying 21 January 2021 15: 42
        -1
        All existing radars are photonic.
    2. timokhin-aa
      21 January 2021 20: 27
      +1
      I wonder if instead of 386 cylinders on hypothetical Karakurt - PLO (which I like very much) put three 16d49?


      Plus 1000 tons to a displacement of approximately
  • hostel
    hostel 21 January 2021 18: 21
    0
    Bravo to the author !!! But about ships with a total displacement of 10000 tons. You need to think.
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 January 2021 19: 19
      0
      The task is needed for them. It's money.
  • exo
    exo 21 January 2021 19: 39
    0
    I wonder what our capabilities are for nuclear power plants? For example, similar to those used for new icebreakers, large ships of the 1st rank can be equipped with them.
    1. timokhin-aa
      21 January 2021 20: 25
      +1
      It is necessary to make a military installation that meets the military requirements for survivability components, resistance to EMP, secrecy for enemy electronic reconnaissance, etc.
      You can do it.

      If you do. Maybe it will come to this later. But for now - see the article, these opportunities are already there.
  • Elturisto
    Elturisto 21 January 2021 23: 59
    0
    As if the fleet would not remain without Kolomna diesel engines. The owner of Kolomenskoye-Transmashholding is a Dutch company, which is 33% owned by the American ALSTOM (GE). The Americans have long wanted to attach their turbochargers to the Kolomna diesel engines. So the author's calculations need to include this You should forget about the ship's GTEs ...
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 January 2021 09: 42
      +1
      There are still imported shopping malls, only Swiss ones.
      In an extreme case, you can localize production, up to theft of the structure.
      The question to be solved.
      1. Elturisto
        Elturisto 22 January 2021 10: 27
        0
        80% of the production of turbochargers (or maybe all 100) is controlled by American capital. Donald Rumsfeld, a former US Secretary of Defense, was the chairman of the board of directors of ABB for 11 years, in addition, the Kolomna diesel engines are competitors of American GE, which are already successfully supplied to Russian Railways. The Americans want to crush under himself Pezadizelmash, and he even makes turbochargers. So the Americans will push, connect the Israeli lobby, whose interests cause touching concern for you and everything will be in the hat. At one time the bear blamed Rogozin that he uses few foreign components in aviation.
        1. timokhin-aa
          22 January 2021 19: 13
          +1
          Well, let's wait, right?
  • Vadim_888
    Vadim_888 22 January 2021 06: 57
    0
    I wonder how, as a temporary measure, to involve the Iranians, they have dropped sanctions on the arms trade, and they are building their ships completely including the geu, as an option?
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 January 2021 09: 43
      +3
      These are very difficult partners, firstly, and secondly, it must somehow dock with Israel, which has a lot of leverage for sabotage inside the country and on which we depend in terms of military technology and smuggling of sanctioned components for the defense industry.
      1. dgonni
        dgonni 22 January 2021 13: 45
        0
        They have a habit of still leaking the code of what they sold you! According to the situation, essno. BUT will be sold at any time!
        1. timokhin-aa
          22 January 2021 19: 18
          +2
          Well what to do if:

          1. there is no such thing
          2.We don't know how to deal with their agents of influence

          ?
          1. dgonni
            dgonni 22 January 2021 20: 47
            0
            But don't they have their own brains? Only you need to invest in them! AND YES! At first it will be three times more expensive than buying a finished product! But in the future it will turn out to be much cheaper and more justified!
            P.S. You and your companion are probably the only ones who bring the problems of the fleet to the community!
            And apparently there is some progress!
            Let them be slow, but they are!
            It is a pity that there are no such people in terms of microelectronics!
            When they opened the black Syrian drying box. I cried!
            On the ancient soviet ATGMs, the installation was much more competent!
            Good luck to you!
  • dgonni
    dgonni 22 January 2021 13: 43
    0
    For the author! I understand what he writes about and what hurts him!
    After the first paragraphs, I wanted to stop reading. But he mastered it!
    Kolomentsev was kicked out of the order. Wrong and stupid. But the fact is the fact! A star with its stars is, unfortunately, the past century. Whoever exploited these engines understands what this is about! For the 60s, a bomb. At the moment, the reality has changed. And any divisional commander will not send a ship with such engines out to sea for exercises or routine planned assignments! For? For engines are not a fountain in terms of a resource.
    Kolomna could and should have increased its capacity. But again they hoped that everything would be gut!
    P.S. I just laughed at the gearbox! There are no old wolves in production! Young people only see money! Well, the equipment was actually finished in the 80s.
    I understand that a person is in pain! But in fact it will not grow together! I'm sorry!
    1. timokhin-aa
      22 January 2021 19: 17
      +1
      At Zvezda, there were many developments in improving the reliability of diesel engines. Theoretically, this scheme should be finished, in terms of MTBF. It is difficult and time-consuming, but possible.
      Instead, at first there were dances around Pulsar, and now it looks like Sinara is drowning his asset in order to make way for UDMZ diesels
      1. dgonni
        dgonni 22 January 2021 20: 17
        0
        It was difficult even during the union. And in modern realities it is already unrealistic.
        The circuit itself is flawed in terms of reliability!
        When it was created it was a different country. And this engine was created by former aviators minders. And the theory itself says that at such piston speeds and a star-shaped scheme, there is no need to talk about reliability and resource.
        Slow-speed supercharged kolomentsi is about a resource. But they need to invest in equipment and staff!
        Star? Reducer maximum. The engines must be forgotten, this is not a modern marine diesel. Unfortunately!
        1. Elturisto
          Elturisto 23 January 2021 10: 23
          0
          Maybe it's enough to sketch about the stars about the diesel engine? These diesels were originally intended for high-speed attack ships, the priority in the development was given to the liter power and weight. The fact that degenerates from the military-industrial complex put them on minesweepers, it’s not Zvezda’s problems. 50. You are not preaching to us by chance, because the niche is already occupied by Andrey from Chelyabinsk.
          1. timokhin-aa
            23 January 2021 11: 53
            0
            On the trawls they put M503, a special low-magnetic series, they are quite suitable for them. The Star simply does not master the quantity.
            Well, it was necessary to invest in the right things, and not to saw "Pulsar".
            1. Elturisto
              Elturisto 23 January 2021 12: 59
              0
              It's not about the presence or absence of magnetic versions and not about the Star and not the pulsar. Pulsar is a burp of the work of the pro-German lobby. They are doing this at the very top, including our non-setting sun. Gas supplies to Germany include counter deliveries of equipment, technologies, services and others. Thank you. The Americans for the sanctions. Therefore, when the roasted rooster pecked, the arrows were transferred to Zvezda. The same is the situation with marine gas turbine engines, but there is no star there, because Saturn is a cesspool for sawing, and at the same time a pump that pumps out funds for the Americans from GE, living off the Soviet D- 30 and endless R&D and subsidies.
  • Andrey.AN
    Andrey.AN 22 January 2021 14: 43
    0
    Still, for the "most respected people", defending their position in the near future is a long gone stage. Now they are working on their position in the distant perspective, for this it is necessary to strengthen everything, to ruin the late soil. Perhaps that is why they will not build the fleet quickly, they will build as many as they plan to call in and write off ships in a year and in 20 years, and in 50. Otherwise, having built it quickly, the enterprise will then be very difficult to save.
    1. agond
      agond 22 January 2021 16: 31
      +1
      Quote: dgonni
      But the fact is the fact! A star with its stars is, unfortunately, the past century.

      The star got on the ship from aviation, but on the plane the stars were single-row and double-row, and much less often more than two rows, but here there are 8 rows !!! , and sometimes they are paired as a result of 112 cylinders, !!! , but it is possible to create an engine of the torpedo type, axial axial for 5-6 cylinders in M507 dimensions, but also of greater power, for example, the axial engine of Duke Engineering is known, with
      1 Very low vibration
      2 only three nozzles and three spark plugs for five cylinders, plus there are no valves, the number of parts is significantly reduced
      3 Can run on a wide variety of fuels
      4 Lighter and more compact than traditional combustion engines.
      There is also a diesel engine according to the same scheme
      1. dgonni
        dgonni 22 January 2021 20: 38
        0
        Can. But this type of engine has even greater internal losses and even less reliability.
        Ideally, this is a gas turbine for maximum and something slow but eternal for the economic course.
        Kolomna needs to modernize equipment and invest in personnel!
        Let the star deal with gearboxes.
        Although, you will have to invest in equipment and personnel anyway!
        In fact, in St. Petersburg, the payment of a working machine operator will be a priori 50% more than in Kolomna!
        The first capital, as it were!
        In principle, if factories do not invest money in personnel, in 10 years there will be no engines at all!
        In fact, the old people left. Young people who can handle without CNC? Remain one unit! And this young boy is 50 years old
        These are the realities, unfortunately!
    2. dgonni
      dgonni 22 January 2021 20: 55
      0
      The Naglov have a saying! It takes 3 years to build a ship! To create a tradition of 300 years!
      If there is no new rail, then there will be no one to serve on it! And if there is no one to serve, then there is no one to preserve the tradition!
      In the mid-80s, if the division commander found out how many boats will be in the first line in Russia?
      Yes, he would have sc # ny slippers on the face of anyone!
  • Gaersul
    Gaersul 22 January 2021 20: 25
    0
    Good evenings to all. One question, is the Phazotron NIIR, and the speech, as I understood it, and about it in the article was, among other things, how does it still exist?
    1. agond
      agond 22 January 2021 22: 45
      0
      Quote: dgonni
      Can. But this type of engine has even greater internal losses and even less reliability.

      Yes, it has drawbacks, but on the other hand, axial motors are widespread in hydraulics, for example, a rolling mill drive from an axial hydraulic motor works in two or three shifts for years, and then a multi-row piston star for 56 small cylinders is like a marine diesel completely exhausted, because half a century has passed, and the characteristics are still the same, there is only one way out to reduce the number of cylinders to a minimum and increase their volume, the usual scheme of an engine with a crankshaft gives a sharp increase in size and weight, which means that there is only one way out - an axial diesel engine, but it will have a resource smaller, but a warship is not a container ship
      In terms of complexity, a 6-cylinder axial diesel will have an order of magnitude fewer parts than the M507
  • Sckepsis
    Sckepsis 22 January 2021 22: 46
    -1
    Lord, this author, with his fabrications, is simply poking around in the sandbox. And he also calls someone with an intellect below average ...
  • Volder
    Volder 23 January 2021 22: 02
    +1
    22160 we build because we can't do anything else
    Larger ships "Zelenodolsk plant named after Gorky" really cannot build. Or rather, maybe, but the width and depth of the river beds is not enough to transport large ships to the seas.
  • Vladimir Lenin
    Vladimir Lenin 23 January 2021 23: 58
    0
    Funny article, thanks for a laugh! Someone from "Anshlagovtsev" would have read it from the stage, it would be quite wonderful! I just have a question, has the "Author" been invited to the Kremlin to revive the former power of the Russian fleet?
  • Angry
    Angry 24 January 2021 05: 55
    -1
    The article is great! I will share my thoughts. We need to dramatically increase the number of cruise missiles at the BNK. One UKSK does not make any weather at the BNK, since the ships leave for multi-month BS, and we have several types of anti-ship missiles, and KRBD, and PLUR. Well, as a minimum, you need to have four "Onyx" (for cruisers / EM) and four "Alpha" (for frigates / corvettes), at least four PLUR "Answer", and how many 3M14, let there be four more. There are only 16 cells. As on the frigate of project 22350. But for a ship in a distant sea zone, this is actually nothing. At the very least, the number of CDs should be doubled. As an option for the frigate of Project 22350.  It is necessary in the bow, instead of two VPUs of the Redut 3S97 air defense system, to install two more UKSK. To modernize the VPU of the Redut 3S97 air defense system to increase the size of the cell, so that not one, but four 9M96 missiles, of the 9M100 type, become one cell. It is clear that the dimensions of such a 3S97 "M" TLU will increase and will probably double in area and will approximately amount to 3x4,5 m, but we will get four times more missiles. That is, having allocated a place for two VPU 3S97 for the installation of one or two UKSK, instead of the remaining pair of 3S97, we install one 3S97 "M" for the same 32 zur 9M96 and Ko. Well, in addition, on the helicopter deck, according to the type of the corvette of pr.20385, install standard and shortened VPU 3S97 "K" only for 9M100 aircraft. Then the ammunition of the frigate pr. 22350 will be: 32 CD, 32 air defense missiles and 64 missiles MD. As an option for the corvette pr.20380. As suggested by A.N. Sokolov, the one from Canada, on the basis of the corvette, create a rocket ship by eliminating the hangar and the helicopter, but leave the VP. His pictures are walking somewhere in the internet. At his suggestion, instead of a hangar, you can install 4? UKSK and another one on the forecastle, instead of the 12-cell VPU of the Reduta air defense missile system, and the Redut air defense missile system also install shortened VPU 3S97 "K" on the helicopter deck, of the type of project 20385, for the 9M100 missile defense system. Then the ammunition of the corvette of Project 20380 will be 40 KR and 64 9M100 missiles. IMHO
    1. agond
      agond 24 January 2021 11: 51
      0
      Modernization of classic military ships is not an easy task, it is necessary to replace the engine, three decks are cut, sometimes the hull is cut, and bulkheads are generally permanent, against their background, a simple container ship of the river sea type has an undeniable advantage in terms of installation, replacement of equipment of the kind weapons.
    2. clerk
      clerk 30 January 2021 22: 38
      0
      You can also adapt the crew quarters for missile ammunition, and control all this splendor by cables from the shore,