Military Review

Corvette 20380 or 20386? Results of the discussion on the effectiveness of air defense

174

Assessment of the air defense of the corvette 20380 of the "Guarding" type



Article "What are we building - corvettes or flag demonstrators?" it was shown that the project 20380 corvette was unacceptably noticeable. Its effective scattering surface (ESR) can be estimated at 1000 sq. m. Fighter-bombers (IB) of the enemy at an altitude of 10 km will detect a target with such an RCS immediately after leaving the horizon, that is, at a distance of 400 km.

This series 20380 also had an unacceptably ineffective air defense system. There was no missile guidance radar on the corvette at all, and the Furke surveillance radar did not have a missile defense line. The presence of expensive missiles equipped with homing heads (GOS) - 9M100 and 9M96, did not eliminate the negative results of the lack of radio correction.

SAM 9M96 is designed to defeat IS and has a launch range of 40-50 km, but it will not hit the maneuvering IS without radio correction even at a range of 25 km. The fact is that the 9M96 has a narrow body, and the GOS antenna in it has a diameter, apparently, less than 200 mm. With such an antenna, the detection range of the F-16 type IS will not exceed 10-15 km.

The typical beam width of the seeker is about 6 °. That is, the width of the target search zone is 0,1 of the detection range, namely, no more than ± 0,75 km. Even if the Furke radar can absolutely accurately measure the coordinates of the IS and the vector of its speed, the radar will assume that the target will continue to fly without maneuver.

Accordingly, the missile defense system will be sent to the calculated meeting point, expecting that the target will be captured by the GOS at the right time before the meeting. In order to hit the subsonic IS at a range of 25 km, it is necessary to fire the missile defense system when the IS range is 32-35 km. But the IS, with the help of a radar or a heat direction finder, will detect the fact of launch and will begin to perform a calm anti-zenith maneuver. In 5 sec. it is possible with an overload of 1g to turn the IB by 60–70 °, and in the next 12–14 sec. The IB will fly off to the side of the aiming line by 3 km. Consequently, by the time the missile launcher approaches the detection range, there will be no target in the beam.

When flying anti-ship missiles, 9M100 missiles are used. The detection range of its IR seeker by subsonic anti-ship missiles will hardly exceed 3 km. Therefore, it is unreasonable to launch them on maneuvering anti-ship missiles at a distance of more than 5 km. At shorter ranges, the danger is different - there is a possibility that with a simultaneous approach of a group of three or more anti-ship missiles, all missiles launched at the same time will aim at one of them.

The result is sad.

Even if the enemy does not have anti-ship missiles, he will be able to use gliding bombs, Maevriks, etc. from close range.

Despite the disastrous result, this version of the corvette had many defenders. Some write that the main advantage of the 20380 is its cheapness. There are a lot of them that can be built and will replace the retiring IPCs.

Others say that reliable air defense cannot be created on a corvette, so they should operate only in BMZ and under cover aviation... How it is possible to guard a corvette around the clock with its IS, no one explains. If there is no guard, then the corvette, which has moved away from the coast for more than 70-100 km, may be unexpectedly attacked by low-altitude IS and will not have time to call its IS from the coast. The attacking IS will not see coastal radar and air defense systems.

The question arises - should 20380 solve the PLO problem only in peacetime?

Isn't it cheaper to maintain a hydrophone barrier and PLO aircraft with magnetometers, IR thermal imagers and radar for detecting a submarine trace on the surface for the BMZ protection? But this is no longer the author's area of ​​competence.

Air defense corvettes of the following series


When the customer realized that he was building flag demonstrators, he decided to build an updated version of 20380. They renamed it 20385 and equipped it with a full-fledged radar complex (RLC) Zaslon, which was good for everyone, except for the exorbitant cost.

According to the author's indirect estimates, the price of the Barrier could be $ 100 million, which destroys the argument about the need to build corvettes due to their low cost. 20385 promised to make it less noticeable, but, apparently, this did not succeed. At least the appearance has changed little. Having laid two 20385s, they decided to stop the series. Maybe because 20380 has already been mastered, and the Zaslon radar can be placed on it.

Then they decided that it was a shame to lag behind the world level so much, and laid a fundamentally new project 20386, an order of magnitude less noticeable. Paradoxically, but it was 20386 that met the most fierce criticism. No one noticed the obvious advantages of the ship's appearance, and began to criticize the modularity of its design, inappropriate equipment, electric drive of the engine, etc.

The author does not undertake to judge these issues, perhaps this is so.

But why throw out the child with water?

If for the first time in Russia a ship's hull appeared, for which you are not ashamed, then insist on improving the equipment, and do not destroy the entire ship.

For example, placing a helicopter below deck is inconvenient. But then do not disfigure the hull with such a hangar as in 20380, but dock the hangar to the superstructure without gaps. Then there will be no harmful effect when the radio wave, reflected from the front wall of the hangar, hits the superstructure and scatters from it into a wide sector of corners.

The advantage of 20386 is that an increase in displacement by 1000 tons will increase the ammunition load of missiles and anti-ship missiles, improve the seaworthiness and living conditions of the crew, which has also been reduced from 100 to 80 people. An increase in displacement will hardly increase the price of a ship by more than 10-12%.

The article indicated what minor defects of the corvette 20386 need to be eliminated in order to meet the requirements of the Stealth technology. Moving more advanced equipment from the smaller 20385 corvette to the larger 20386 should not be difficult. If the redesign of 20386 is carried out, then the resulting qualitatively more advanced corvette should be renamed 20387 and declared that it is intended to replace the frigate 11356 as much more efficient.

From 11356 it is immediately clear that it was not made for themselves, but for the Indians who ordered it for us. Its appearance resembles a dump of equipment unclaimed on other ships. It's a shame to talk about RLC. Instead of one radar with four HEADLIGHTS (according to the model 22350), it was possible to place 4 separate guidance radars with a mechanical antenna drive only because of the brutal haste. 11356 is much more visible than even 20380.

What are the requirements for the visibility of a corvette?


For IS radar, the detection of targets located on the sea surface is always a much more difficult task than the detection of an air target in free space. The power of the reflected signal from the waves can exceed the power of the reflected signal from the ship and prevent the ship from being detected. Therefore, the radar uses very short pulses to detect ships.

For example, the pulse width can be 0,1 microseconds. Then along the sea surface it will stretch for 15 m. When the sea is 0–1 points, the surface turns into a mirror. And all the sounding signal reflected from the sea goes further and does not interfere with the detection of the ship. With an excitement of 2 points, the back reflections from the waves begin to worsen the detection of the ship, and with 4 points, a special technique has to be used - a decrease in the IS flight altitude.

If the radar beam hits the surface at very small angles (less than 1 °), then the surface again becomes mirror-like, even with increased waves. And the back reflections become smaller with further decrease. And at 0,2 ° they practically disappear. The angle of incidence is calculated from the sea surface at the point where the ship is located. Then, so that the angle of incidence does not exceed 1 °, the flight altitude of the IS, for example, at a distance of 400 km, should not exceed 10 km.

The reflecting properties of the sea can be characterized, just as for the target, by the RCS value, which at a given angle of incidence will be proportional to the sea surface area simultaneously irradiated by the probing pulse. With a given radar beam width and a given pulse duration, the irradiated sea area is proportional to the distance to the ship. Therefore, the RCS of the sea grows in proportion to this distance. The radar can detect the target when the RCS of the sea is less than the RCS of the target.

So, we get the first conclusion - the ship can have the greater EPR, the greater the range of its air defense system will not allow the IS. The more the sea is rough, the larger the ship's RCS is permissible. Since it is impossible to predict the conditions of the hike in advance, one has to rely on an expert assessment of the permissible EPR - for example, 30 sq. m, that is, we are not talking about either 1000 or even 100 sq. m.

When repelling an attack of low-altitude IS, it is necessary to take into account that IS emerges from the horizon gradually. Initially, its radar detects only the upper part of the superstructure and, only after flying another 10–20 km, will it see the entire ship. Therefore, it is important that the upper half of the superstructure has a minimum RCS - less than 1 sq. m. Otherwise, the IS will have time to launch the anti-ship missile system and turn around even before the ship's air defense missile system starts firing at it.

Consequently, all sorts of structures and rotating antennas of the surveillance radar from the top of the superstructure must be removed. Fixed flat AFARs located at the top of the lateral plane of the superstructure will reflect radio waves very little.

Requirement for radio countermeasures complex (KREP)


In the previous article, "Possibilities for improving the air defense of corvettes," it was once again emphasized that the contribution of the KREP to the effectiveness of air defense can be no less than the contribution of the air defense system. However, this statement did not attract the attention of readers. Perhaps because the KREP is traditionally considered the most classified part of the air defense, and perhaps because it is easier to deal with the air defense system. The method of using missiles is clear and generally understandable, but the effect of KREP is not obvious, and only a specialist can judge it. On the other hand, if you do not understand the main principles of the KREP functioning, then you can easily make the mistakes that were made in the design of the Zaslon radar.

Firstly, in each article it was repeated that the KREP installed on the ship cannot completely hide the location of the ship. It can only suppress the channel for measuring the range to the target in the IS radar, but it is not able to prevent the measurement of the bearing to the source of interference. Therefore, a pair of ISs, separated by 50–100 km, can determine the bearings on the KREP from two directions and by the triangulation method (finding the point of intersection of two bearings) they find the coordinates of the KREP. Worst of all, the more the interference power is, the more confidently the IS pilot determines that it is the shipboard KREP, and not any KREP placed on the UAV, that interferes with it. The accuracy of determining the coordinates of the KREP also increases.

The second drawback of the shipboard KREP manifests itself when trying to disrupt the guidance of the anti-ship missile system. A typical GOS anti-ship missile will have a very short detection range for stealth ships, for example, 8-10 km. Therefore, the seeker will be able to detect the ship only with accurate control and radio correction. If the KREP turns on the interference, then the GOS will not be able to determine the range to the KREP, but it will determine the exact bearing to it immediately after leaving the horizon, for example, from a range of 30 km, and will aim at the ship with greater accuracy than without interference.

The use of a powerful KREP can only appear with mutual protection as part of a KUG of at least three ships. If, with the help of the radar, it is possible to find out on which of the ships the anti-ship missile is being guided, then it is possible to suppress the seeker with the KREP of the neighboring ship. It is highly doubtful that such algorithms have already been implemented. The confusion in the types of ships and the lack of unification raises doubts - is there even a much simpler group CIUS that unites all the KUG radars?

However, when examining the KREP Zaslon antennas, you notice that KREP on it is very powerful and, accordingly, expensive. It is not surprising if the price of such a KREP turns out to be $ 50 million. But nothing has been reported about the jammed transmitters. In the above article, possible options for light and heavy jammers on UAVs are given. At a cost several times lower than the cost of KREP Zaslon, they could provide a much more effective disruption to anti-ship missile attacks. Thus, the task of air defense of a single ship would also be solved, which would ensure the safe performance of the main task of the corvette - an ASW in the BMZ.

The power of the UAV transmitter should be proportional to the RCS of the ship, therefore, for the protection of the 20380, a light UAV will not work, and for the 20387, no problem.

Alternative radar


Instead of a surveillance radar and a targeting radar for the Zaslon radar, it was proposed to develop an MF radar consisting of subarrays unified for all ships of the Navy - 0,22 * 0,22 m clusters containing 64 transceiver modules operating in the 5,5 cm wavelength range. The AFAR shape in the form of a cross made it possible, with the same characteristics as the Zaslon radar, to reduce the cost of the MF radar by three times.

Readers reacted with suspicion to this form of the antenna and argued that such radars did not exist, there were only complexes of two mechanical radars: one with a vertical antenna, and the neighboring one with a horizontal one. It can be argued that the so-called Mills cross was developed 70 years ago, but did not find practical application due to the lack of APAR. Then it turned out to be easier to make rectangular or circular mechanical antennas. Today, AFAR allows you to simultaneously form several receiving beams and solve the problem of noise immunity by compensating for interference in one beam with the help of another.

Meteorological stability of the MF radar is significantly higher than that of the Zaslon guidance radar. This makes it possible to aim and super-long-range missiles, which is important for frigates and destroyers.

Readers doubt the possibility of placing the MF radar on small ships, for example, MRK. For RTOs, it is possible to propose to form an AFAR with narrower vertical and horizontal antennas, then, with approximately the same size of the cross, its cost will be reduced by 1,7 times. The detection range will be reduced by 1,5 times, but it will still be significantly greater than that of the existing radars. The use of Pantsir-M missiles instead of the Gibka air defense system on the MRK 21631 will allow, instead of simulating air defense, to get a workable, meteorological and inexpensive air defense system.

conclusions


In a previous article "Possibilities for improving the air defense of corvettes" a proposal was formulated for the development of a unified family of radars and KREP, which allows to obtain an improved air defense efficiency of all ships of the Navy in comparison with the efficiency of the Zaslon radar with a simultaneous sharp cost reduction.

Reducing the visibility of the proposed modernization of corvette 20386, designated by the author 20387, will allow it to be used to replace frigate 11356 and provide the best export potential.

Corvette 20380 after the installation of the Zaslon radar began to cost more than 20387, and its efficiency remained insufficient. Such a flag demonstrator as part of the Pacific Fleet will not scare anyone - the neighbors are too serious there.
Author:
174 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 8 2021 10: 19
    +5
    it turns out that the corvette is generally useless, or it turns into a frigate (why? we continue the existing series of frigates and that's it), or we return to the MPC (Karakurt PLO),
    1. Doctor
      Doctor April 8 2021 10: 53
      +8
      it turns out that the corvette is generally useless, or it turns into a frigate (why? we continue the existing series of frigates and that's it), or we return to the MPC (Karakurt PLO),

      Corvette pr. 20380 - $ 250 million
      Frigate project 22350 - 420 million dollars

      In 5 yards you can build:
      20 corvettes
      Or
      6 frigates and 10 corvettes
      Or
      12 frigates

      In the first case, we will swarm in the near zone.
      In the second, partly in the near, partly in the far.
      In the third - in the near and far.

      For a frigate can be there and there, but not a corvette.

      In addition, in our time, the neighbor can be reliably covered from the shore.

      It turns out you are right, corvettes are not needed.
      Not to mention the RTOs. wink
      1. lucul
        lucul April 8 2021 11: 17
        +1
        It turns out you are right, corvettes are not needed.
        Not to mention RTOs

        Needed - needed, just do not require combat stability from the corvette like Peter the Great. If any plane dares to attack our corvette, then it will be in any case a war with the use of ICBMs, and then what kind of EPR the corvette will have is completely irrelevant.
        A modern Russian corvette should be designed to fight against a corvette / frigate / destroyer, and not against an aircraft carrier with its aircraft. Therefore, an inexpensive radar and a naval version of the Thor will be quite an effective solution for a corvette.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor April 8 2021 12: 32
          +6
          A modern Russian corvette should be designed to fight against a corvette / frigate / destroyer, and not against an aircraft carrier with its aircraft. Therefore, an inexpensive radar and a naval version of the Thor will be quite an effective solution for a corvette.

          The question is WHERE this fight will take place.
          30 miles from Sevastopol or 30 miles from San Diego.

          The frigate will get there and there, and the corvette?
          1. lucul
            lucul April 8 2021 12: 41
            +3
            The frigate will get there and there, and the corvette?

            The Fletcher-class destroyer (the main US destroyer in World War II), had a standard displacement of 2200 tons and sailed across the Atlantic, in all northern storms.
            The corvette is now the workhorse of the fleet. Close the sector, find a submarine, escort the convoy, and so on and so forth. The frigate is too expensive to drive like that.
            Well, so - no one argues that the frigate is more effective for the fleet - it just depends on the economy - 50 frigates of Project 22350 are beyond us.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor April 8 2021 12: 47
              +2
              The corvette is now the workhorse of the fleet. Close the sector, find a submarine, escort the convoy, and so on and so forth. The frigate is too expensive to drive like that.

              It is a question of what is more expensive and more cost effective.

              3 frigates working in full in the near and far zones.
              Or
              1 frigate working in full in the near and far zones and
              4 corvettes, working in the near and idle when needed in the far.
          2. Sergey Sfiedu
            Sergey Sfiedu April 8 2021 18: 37
            +9
            Corvette and should not work off the coast of another continent. We dream of San Diego, and we have foreign warships and submarines under our noses, just like they go at home.
            1. Doctor
              Doctor April 8 2021 20: 11
              +2
              Corvette and should not work off the coast of another continent. We dream of San Diego, and we have foreign warships and submarines under our noses, just like they go at home.

              The question is economic and tactical expediency.

              The frigate is more expensive than a corvette, but more powerful and, most importantly, more seaworthy.
              The enemy is here and he is here. The enemy is in the Red Sea and he is there.

              Who often visits the Black Sea?
              Arlie Burke. Destroyer.
              And what will our corvette do to him?
        2. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A April 9 2021 10: 59
          0
          Quote: lucul
          It turns out you are right, corvettes are not needed.
          Not to mention RTOs

          Needed - needed, just do not require combat stability from the corvette like Peter the Great. If any plane dares to attack our corvette, then it will be in any case a war with the use of ICBMs, and then what kind of EPR the corvette will have is completely irrelevant.


          And how does an attack on a corvette differ from an attack on a plane or a helicopter?
          "Or is it different?"
          1. lucul
            lucul April 9 2021 11: 38
            -3
            And how does an attack on a corvette differ from an attack on a plane or a helicopter?
            "Or is it different?"

            Well, at least the fact that the corvette will shoot missiles at the plane, and anti-ship missiles at the corvette. Or do you not know? ))))
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A April 9 2021 11: 42
              +2
              Quote: lucul
              And how does an attack on a corvette differ from an attack on a plane or a helicopter?
              "Or is it different?"

              Well, at least the fact that the corvette will shoot missiles at the plane, and anti-ship missiles at the corvette. Or do you not know? ))))


              Those. I see that you have turned on the "OFF" mode ...
              According to your logic - our planes and helicopters can be shot down many times - and no one will get anything for it.
              But if our corvette is destroyed, the enemy will definitely receive a nuclear strike by ICBM forces ...

              Oh, what's going on in your head ...
              1. lucul
                lucul April 9 2021 11: 48
                -3
                Those. I see that you have turned on the "OFF" mode ...
                According to your logic - our planes and helicopters can be shot down many times - and no one will get anything for it.
                But if our corvette is destroyed, the enemy will definitely receive a nuclear strike by ICBM forces ...

                Oh, what's going on in your head ...

                This is the finish line))))
                An article about ships or airplanes? ))))
                I wrote about ships))))
                1. SovAr238A
                  SovAr238A April 9 2021 12: 08
                  +3
                  Quote: lucul

                  An article about ships or airplanes? ))))
                  I wrote about ships))))


                  Those. for you, the defeat of an aircraft and a corvette by the forces of the enemy - two big differences?

                  Our planes and helicopters were shot down in Syria, Armenia - and nothing ...
                  And for the corvette - you yourself wrote about a nuclear strike ...

                  That's what interests me. What is the difference between an airplane and a corvette for you?
                  1. lucul
                    lucul April 9 2021 12: 29
                    -4
                    Those. for you, the defeat of an aircraft and a corvette by the forces of the enemy - two big differences?

                    Yes, but.
                    If the Zionists, with the hands of the Turks loyal to them, shoot down a Russian plane, that is, they make a provocation, in order to kindle a war between Turkey and Russia, this is one thing.
                    And if the official Turkey decided to shoot down the Russian plane, actually declaring war and not backing down, that would be different.
                    But this, in general, is understandable for a schoolchild ...
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                    2. SovAr238A
                      SovAr238A April 9 2021 14: 50
                      +1
                      Quote: lucul
                      Those. for you, the defeat of an aircraft and a corvette by the forces of the enemy - two big differences?

                      Yes, but.
                      If the Zionists, with the hands of the Turks loyal to them, shoot down a Russian plane, that is, they make a provocation, in order to kindle a war between Turkey and Russia, this is one thing.
                      And if the official Turkey decided to shoot down the Russian plane, actually declaring war and not backing down, that would be different.
                      But this, in general, is understandable for a schoolchild ...


                      I don't understand the logic.
                      In both cases of your reasoning, the Turks shoot down our plane.
                      But he is not to blame, as these are the Zionists.

                      Do you really think so?
                      A Turkish Air Force pilot, flying on a plane belonging to the Turkish Air Force, taking off and landing at a Turkish airbase, shoots down a Russian plane on the order previously given by Turkish Prime Minister avosoglu - and are the Zionists to blame?

                      It seems to me that this is a real diagnosis ...
                      1. lucul
                        lucul April 9 2021 17: 45
                        -1
                        It seems to me that this is a real diagnosis ...

                        I don’t need to breed chutzpu here - it is so primitive that it doesn’t paint you at all.
          2. bk316
            bk316 April 9 2021 14: 21
            0
            And how does an attack on a corvette differ from an attack on a plane or a helicopter?

            The fact that the planes shot down the USSR and the United States to each other and there was no war. And what would the ships be drowned .... Usually, the war begins after that.
      2. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 8 2021 11: 24
        0
        Quote: Arzt
        It turns out you are right, corvettes are not needed.
        Not to mention the RTOs.

        I agree, I think it is optimal to switch to three types of surface ships, 1) a frigate, 4000 tn only for the oceans 2) karakurt-mpk (for the closed Black Baltic Sea of ​​Japan), 3) a minesweeper, and to achieve their efficiency, to develop equipment, and not to spread on all at once and nothing in particular
        1. Doctor
          Doctor April 8 2021 12: 17
          -1
          I agree, I think it is optimal to switch to three types of surface ships, 1) a frigate, 4000 tn only for the oceans 2) karakurt-mpk (for the closed Black Baltic Sea of ​​Japan), 3) a minesweeper, and to achieve their efficiency, to develop equipment, and not to spread on all at once and nothing in particular

          + 100500
          Karakurt will also be used for lake flotillas (Ladoga, Chudskoe, Baikal), although the sediment is too large.
          1. Vladimir1155
            Vladimir1155 April 8 2021 12: 59
            0
            Quote: Arzt
            Karakurt will also be used for lake flotillas (Ladoga, Chudskoe, Baikal),

            right, and there is the Caspian too
          2. SovAr238A
            SovAr238A April 9 2021 11: 02
            +4
            Quote: Arzt

            Karakurt will also be used for lake flotillas (Ladoga, Chudskoe, Baikal), although the sediment is too large.


            Excellent location ...
            It remains to start serving there, at the same time to find the enemy ...

            It's like going to the toilet with a gun in a Moscow apartment - what if the bear is hiding ...
            1. Doctor
              Doctor April 9 2021 11: 41
              0
              Excellent location ...
              It remains to start serving there, at the same time to find the enemy ...

              It's like going to the toilet with a gun in a Moscow apartment - what if the bear is hiding ...

              And you read the story, how many times Russia fought in Chudi and Ladoga and how many in the Bay of Biscay. At the same time, see where the border with the Balts is now.

              It will immediately become clear what kind of fleet we really need. wink
              1. SovAr238A
                SovAr238A April 9 2021 11: 43
                0
                Quote: Arzt

                And you read the story, how many times Russia fought in Chudi and Ladoga and how many in the Bay of Biscay. At the same time, see where the border with the Balts is now.

                It will immediately become clear what kind of fleet we really need. wink


                And there were many naval battles on Ladoga and Chudi?
                1. Doctor
                  Doctor April 9 2021 12: 17
                  0
                  And there were many naval battles on Ladoga and Chudi?

                  You will be surprised, but you can put it this way:
                  "Without the Ladoga Flotilla, the USSR would have lost the Great Patriotic War."

                  Unlike the rest of the fleet, her role is key. winked

                  1. SovAr238A
                    SovAr238A April 9 2021 12: 43
                    +2
                    Quote: Arzt
                    And there were many naval battles on Ladoga and Chudi?

                    You will be surprised, but you can put it this way:
                    "Without the Ladoga Flotilla, the USSR would have lost the Great Patriotic War."


                    I think that the dispute at any cost is above all for you ...

                    Let's follow your path and make the Ob flotilla, the Volga-Kama flotilla, the Lena flotilla, the Yenisei ...
                    You have already formed the Baikal one.
                    At the same time, the flotilla of the Taimyr and Beloye lakes ...

                    Well, for the rivers Samara and Ural - just do not forget ...

                    Then suddenly the enemy will come to Taimyr - and we are there without a fleet with Caliber ...
                    1. Doctor
                      Doctor April 9 2021 13: 21
                      -2
                      I think that the dispute at any cost is above all for you ...

                      Not at all. Just a historical look at the wars of Russia.

                      We have been frolicking on Lake Peipsi since the time of A. Nevsky, and now the border with NATO passes right through it.

                      Ladoga is even steeper, there have been problems since the Great Northern War.
                      Cut off the Germans to Ladoga and the end to Peter.
                      Without Peter - the end of Moscow.
                      Everything is clear without Moscow.

                      And in the Red Sea, the fate of Russia has never been decided.
                      1. SovAr238A
                        SovAr238A April 9 2021 13: 37
                        0
                        Quote: Arzt
                        I think that the dispute at any cost is above all for you ...

                        Not at all. Just a historical look at the wars of Russia.


                        Then can you start casting cast-iron cannons with cannonballs?
                        Otherwise, there have never been enough of them in our history ...

                        Do not multiply entities beyond measure ...
                      2. Doctor
                        Doctor April 9 2021 14: 00
                        0
                        Then can you start casting cast-iron cannons with cannonballs?
                        Otherwise, there have never been enough of them in our history ...

                        Do not multiply entities beyond measure ...

                        It's not about the level of technology, but about geography.

                        During the Second World War, the Volga flotilla consisted of 7 gunboats, 14 armored boats, 33 boat minesweepers.
                        An assessment of its role in the defense of Stalingrad is still waiting for its researcher. Perhaps also key.
                        And the Black Sea Fleet stood idle for half the war. sad

                        Instead of muddy corvettes, we can easily build fifty Karakurt and saturate them with the Azov and Caspian Seas, Ladoga, Chudskoe, Baikal, Volga and Amur.
                        There will be more sense.

                        It is still quiet on Taimyr, but you can even think about the Dnieper. laughing
                      3. SovAr238A
                        SovAr238A April 9 2021 14: 42
                        0
                        Quote: Arzt
                        Then can you start casting cast-iron cannons with cannonballs?
                        Otherwise, there have never been enough of them in our history ...

                        Do not multiply entities beyond measure ...

                        It's not about the level of technology, but about geography.

                        During the Second World War, the Volga flotilla consisted of 7 gunboats, 14 armored boats, 33 boat minesweepers.
                        An assessment of its role in the defense of Stalingrad is still waiting for its researcher. Perhaps also key.
                        And the Black Sea Fleet stood idle for half the war. sad

                        Instead of muddy corvettes, we can easily build fifty Karakurt and saturate them with the Azov and Caspian Seas, Ladoga, Chudskoe, Baikal, Volga and Amur.
                        There will be more sense.

                        It is still quiet on Taimyr, but you can even think about the Dnieper. laughing


                        And then let's remove the border guards from the borders and put them in the region of Irkutsk, chouzhtam ...
                        After all, the war will break out, and we are already waiting ...
                        In Irkutsk ... Or Kazan ...
                        We are waiting for the enemy!

                        When was the last time you looked at the depth of the fairway on the Volga?
                        Over the past 10-12 years, there have been at least 3 summer seasons when river passenger cruisers did not operate. Those with a draft of 2,5-3 meters.
                        The depth in some places was not enough ...
                        And you are here Katakurtov gathered ...
                        And from November to April, they will fly through the air ...
                        I have in Samara - this year there was ice 80-90 cm thick on the Volga.
                        And the ferry crossings were cleared just yesterday. Narrow stripe.


                        And yes, 99% of the river work was done by ordinary tugs and trams ...
                        The role of the gunboats was near-zero.
                        The flotilla was created and disbanded during the war.
                        And the flotilla was Caspian, not Volga.
                      4. Doctor
                        Doctor April 9 2021 15: 19
                        -1
                        And the flotilla was Caspian, not Volga.

                        It doesn't matter. Now, yes, the dam will not work.

                        But even now there is more sense from MRK than from frigates. Not to mention the mythical aircraft carriers.
                        Allocate footage? angry

                      5. SovAr238A
                        SovAr238A April 9 2021 15: 23
                        0
                        [quote = Arzt] [quote]

                        But even now there is more sense from MRK than from frigates. Not to mention the mythical aircraft carriers.
                        Allocate footage? angry
                        [/ Quote]

                        Well yes...
                        but so if?
                        "The United States fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at a government base in Syria"
                        Two destroyers. Ross and Porter.



                        How many RTOs would it take for such a strike?
                        8 pieces?
                        but you can do that.

                        What's the problem?
                      6. Doctor
                        Doctor April 9 2021 15: 30
                        0
                        What's the problem?

                        In unnecessary intermediate types of ships, such as corvettes 20380/20386.
                      7. SovAr238A
                        SovAr238A April 9 2021 15: 46
                        0
                        Quote: Arzt
                        What's the problem?

                        In unnecessary intermediate types of ships, such as corvettes 20380/20386.


                        Including Karakurtov 22800 - do I understand your words correctly ???
                      8. Doctor
                        Doctor April 9 2021 15: 50
                        0
                        Including Karakurtov 22800 - do I understand your words correctly ???

                        Not. Corvettes article 20380.
                        Here is a competent comrade wrote.



                        vladimir1155 (vladimir) Yesterday, 11:24
                        +1

                        Quote: Arzt
                        It turns out you are right, corvettes are not needed.
                        Not to mention the RTOs.

                        I agree, I think it is optimal to switch to three types of surface ships, 1) a frigate, 4000 tn only for the oceans 2) karakurt-mpk (for the closed Black Baltic Sea of ​​Japan), 3) a minesweeper, and to achieve their efficiency, to develop equipment, and not to spread on all at once and nothing in particular
                2. Victor Dubrovsky
                  Victor Dubrovsky 25 May 2021 09: 06
                  0
                  Such a blow is possible only on stationary targets. Without appropriate target designation, the missile range of 2 km is needed for a ship only for advertising purposes. :(
            2. Elturisto
              Elturisto April 10 2021 09: 31
              +1
              Better to saturate the Moscow river with the cruiser Aurora in the Kremlin area ...
  • Sahalinets
    Sahalinets April 8 2021 12: 43
    0
    Even the best ship cannot be in two places at the same time!
    1. Doctor
      Doctor April 8 2021 12: 53
      +1
      Even the best ship cannot be in two places at the same time!

      Right. But you have to count.

      In 20 yards we can have:

      48 frigates operating everywhere
      Or
      96 corvettes huddling to the shore
      Or
      Their various combinations

      And do not forget, the near zone is now covered more than ever in history. wink
      1. lucul
        lucul April 8 2021 12: 56
        -3
        Right. But you have to count.

        In 20 yards we can have:

        48 frigates operating everywhere
        Or
        96 corvettes huddling to the shore
        Or
        Their various combinations

        You don't include service costs.
        1. Doctor
          Doctor April 8 2021 13: 22
          +2
          You don't include service costs

          I do not take into account. I just don't know them.
          Which is cheaper to maintain, 2 corvettes or 1 frigate?

          Do you take into account psychology?

          A corvette sailor is a coaster, scurrying between Kronstadt and Baltic, pressing his head into his shoulders at the sound of an engine in the sky.

          And the sailor of the frigate is a corsair prowling off the coast of the Bahamas in search of a prize ship with beauties! laughing

      2. Sergey Sfiedu
        Sergey Sfiedu April 8 2021 18: 39
        +3
        And don't forget, the near zone is now covered like never before in history.

        I apologize for ignorance, what is the near zone covered with? Or is it sarcasm?
        1. Doctor
          Doctor April 8 2021 20: 05
          -3
          I apologize for ignorance, what is the near zone covered with? Or is it sarcasm?


          Aviation, incl. PLO.
          Ball, Bastion.
          Varshavyanka.
          Scythians.

          The remaining holes will be plugged by frigates. Which can and at the mouth of the Potomac. wink
  • Dread
    Dread April 8 2021 13: 33
    +1
    Quote: Author Gorbachevsky
    In the article "What are we building - corvettes or flag demonstrators?" it was shown that the project 20380 corvette was unacceptably noticeable. Its effective scattering surface (ESR) can be estimated in 1000 sq. m. Enemy fighter-bombers (IB) at an altitude of 10 km will detect a target with such an RCS immediately after leaving over the horizonThat is, at a distance of 400 km.

    Author! You are confusing Radar equations - Forward Range Equation and Maximum Range Equation. You can detect a target according to the equation of direct range, and the inability to detect a target according to the equation of maximum range in free space (technical capability of the radar), and vice versa, what your expression above says, where you incorrectly indicate the horizon - which horizon, radio horizon with a factor of 3,57 for optical or 4,12.
    Author! Indicating range
    D = 400 km, while not taking into account the refraction for a wavelength of about 3 см BRLS IB, IA. Refraction depends on the attenuation coefficient, which is determined by the wavelength of the on-board radar.
    Author! American radars, for example AN / APG-77,81, detect ground targets with Image intensifier = 3000 sq. m. at a distance - 250 km... In the drive layer, the range will practically be the same, if not less. Therefore, you are wrong about D = 400 km ...
    I haven’t read further, I don’t have time yet.
    1. aagor
      April 8 2021 14: 16
      +1
      This refers to the radio horizon, i.e. coefficient 4,12. It is impossible to compare the detection range of sea targets and ground targets, because the background level in their reflection is too different. When leaving the horizon, the marine reflections are much less than the terrestrial ones. EPR 1000 sq. M. Is easy to find.
      1. Dread
        Dread April 8 2021 14: 57
        -1
        Quote: aagor
        When leaving the horizon, the marine reflections are much less than the terrestrial ones. EPR 1000 sq. M. Is easy to find.

        AUTHOR! Now let's calculate:
        Detection range of sea surface targets with Image intensifier = 15000 sq. meters for
        AN / APG-81 is equal to D = 650 km
        .
        Means for the purpose with Image intensifier = 1000 sq. meters detection range
        will be equal D = 330 km... You are wrong again.
        http://factmil.com/publ/vooruzhenie/rls/perspektivy_razvitija_radiolokacionnykh_stancij_vooruzhjonnykh_sil_inostrannykh_gosudarstv_2018/148-1-0-1290
        1. aagor
          April 8 2021 23: 16
          0
          It is impossible to count this way, the figure of 650 km is false, because range of the radio horizon from a height of 20 km - 560 km. Therefore, EPR 15000 has nothing to do with it.
          1. Dread
            Dread April 9 2021 00: 20
            -3
            Quote: aagor
            It is impossible to count this way, the figure of 650 km is false, because range of the radio horizon from a height of 20 km - 560 km. Therefore, EPR 15000 has nothing to do with it.

            Author! You do not distinguish between the maximum range equation in free space and the equation of the direct range. Therefore, the range on the surface target in free space is taken and the range D = 650 km and the image intensifier = 15000 sq. m, and you are trying to apply the equation of direct range and do not understand the difference! I calculated for you that the IS will see a surface target with an image intensifier = 1000 square meters at a distance of D = 330 km, so many of the provisions of your article are left hanging in the air.
            Author! Are you trying to question the author of the article "Foreign Military Review"? You are doing this in vain! Zarubezhnoe Voennoye Obozreniye is the most serious magazine, and "does not write a linden."
            1. Dread
              Dread April 9 2021 09: 46
              -4
              Quote: Author Gorbachevsky Topic: Possibilities for improving the air defense of corvettes

              Detection range
              for IS type F-16 with EPR 2 sq. m - 300 km,
              for IS type F-35 with EPR 0,1 sq. m - 130 km.
              For anti-ballistic missiles with EPR 0,03 sq. m, flying at a height of 3 m, and at a superstructure height above sea level of 20 m - 20 km.

              Author! Learn to count the maximum and straight, radar ranges.
              1.If you take the detection range for IS type F-16 with image intensifier = 2 sq. m - 300 km, then according to IB type F-35 with image intensifier = 0,1 sq. m - the detection range will be D ~ 141 km, not 130 km in free space.
              2. And if you specify the image intensifier = 0,03 sq. m for anti-ship missiles, then learn to indicate the maximum detection range in free space,
              which is equal to D ~ 104 km, and then the direct range, which will be equal to D = 25,57 km, not 20 km, as you write.
              1. aagor
                April 9 2021 18: 02
                -1
                It is impossible to use a direct recalculation of the range according to the D ** 4 law, because it is necessary to take into account the need to suppress reflections from the sea surface. The smaller the target, the more it takes to suppress. I can’t count accurate to units of%, the pensioner doesn’t have mathematical models at home. RCS is not an exact value, but a circular, heavily indented function. Somewhere much more than average, and somewhere much less. The detection range depends on the width of the search sector, if there is no need to search, and according to the RTR data, the approximate position is known immediately, then the detection range will increase by 1,5-2 times. Don't cling to little things. The main thing is to assess the fundamental possibility.
  • Doccor18
    Doccor18 April 8 2021 17: 17
    +4
    [quote = Arzt] [quote] it turns out that the corvette is useless in general ...
    Corvette pr. 20380 - $ 250 million
    ... It turns out you are right, corvettes are not needed ... [/ quote]
    For such a cost are not needed. It's a corvette. Why inflate it to the size of a small frigate (3000 tons)? Why would he need long-range missiles and so on ..? This is a corvette - a ship of the near sea zone, the main task of which is an ASW ... It must be simple and reliable, combat-ready (for its main task) and inexpensive (as far as possible). And corvettes for our vast Motherland need several dozen ... Is the defense budget able to handle so many ships of project 20386 ...?
  • Nazar
    Nazar April 8 2021 20: 36
    +2
    Arzt - The author is lying without blinking, "Barrier" - never worked normally, does not work and will not work.
    There are no combat modules for this miracle of technical thought, and in the foreseeable future there will not be either - we already see an analogue of this - "patrol ships" on the Black Sea Fleet. A series of 5 (!!!) ships, the only weapon of which is a 76mm cannon. The first ships of the series have been in service for several years and there are no modules for them and are not expected. 386 - the same rake.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 8 2021 22: 11
    0
    the problem is the timing of construction .. logically, we need to build ships of maximum capabilities based on the capabilities of shipyards ... i.e. improved corvettes, improved frigates and on the basis of the Karakurt you need to make mini-corvettes
  • The comment was deleted.
  • prior
    prior April 8 2021 10: 27
    +3
    How will the attempt end on one tracked chassis to place a tank turret and an air defense launcher, for example, TOP-M2, so to speak, to cross a snake and a hedgehog. That's right - a skein of barbed wire, or rather nothing good.
    Why is the navy trying to "cross" everything in one building?
    Why not design a missile cruiser for Caliber, an air defense ship, an anti-submarine ship, each of which is sharpened for its own task with maximum effect? Not a single voyage of a universal hilyak, but an order from specialists in their field?
    And if you design, then design a surface ship with the ability to submerge, like a submarine, with a supply of fuel, like a tanker.
    That will be a station wagon, so a station wagon! And what stealth, stealth technologies rest.
    I emerged, fired with Zirconia or Calibers - and lay down on the bottom. good And when necessary - with a cannon, a cannon ...
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar April 8 2021 12: 02
      +2
      Quote: prior
      Why not design a missile cruiser for Caliber, an air defense ship, an anti-submarine ship, each of which is sharpened for its own task with maximum effect?

      In fact, you need to find a reasonable balance between versatility and specialization. It is clear that it will not work to mount a full-fledged zonal air defense on the corvette; but he still has to be able to fight off a couple of IS. Well, there, if a massive use of aviation by the enemy is expected, corvettes need to be assembled in a KUG of adequate strength, reinforced with larger ships with more powerful air defense, etc.

      Quote: prior
      And if you design, then design a surface ship with the ability to dive

      Interestingly, similar ideas come up here from time to time. Perhaps in the future the ships will look exactly like this))
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin April 8 2021 19: 26
        +1
        Corvette alone should fight off a couple of IS? This is no longer a corvette. From a pair of three RCCs and not from a pair of three IB.
    2. Doccor18
      Doccor18 April 8 2021 17: 25
      +2
      Quote: prior
      Why is the navy trying to "cross" everything in one building?
      Why not design a missile cruiser for Caliber, an air defense ship, an anti-submarine ship, each of which is sharpened for its own task with maximum effect?

      It is unrealistic, unrealistically expensive. In general, it would be a dream of all the fleets of the world, but for a long time they have been following the path of unification and multipurpose use.
      But why are they persistently trying to blind a frigate from a corvette and I don't understand ...
      1. prior
        prior April 8 2021 17: 56
        0
        So I don't understand why narrow specialization is the norm in aviation, but expensive for the fleet?
        AWACS, SU-57, Tu-160, SU-34 is it really cheap?
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 8 2021 18: 11
          +4
          The comparison is not the most correct ...
          The Navy also does not manage with one ship ... The point is that there should be maximum unification (power plant, radar, electronic warfare, air defense system, PLC, etc.) in its class: mrk / rk, corvette, frigate, destroyer, aircraft carrier (the problem is the fact that only the United States is capable of building them all, and the rest - for which there will be enough funds).
          In the Aerospace Forces - the same, narrow specialization goes down in history: fighter, bombardier, attack aircraft ..... Shtumoviks will soon leave, giving way to UAVs, cat crying bombers (in three countries), and most of the air forces of the countries of the world go to the same type aircraft (example F35 is indicative). So, the Soviet variety in the Air Force is also becoming history ...
          1. prior
            prior April 8 2021 18: 21
            +1
            Thank you for your opinion. I will not argue. As for me, no food processor can surpass a set of separate, but specialized samples of equipment.
            1. Doccor18
              Doccor18 April 8 2021 18: 25
              +1
              I understand you, moreover, I agree. The device, which is sharpened for one purpose, will complete it faster and better than a station wagon.
              However, finance rules ...
        2. Doctor
          Doctor April 8 2021 20: 55
          0
          So I don't understand why narrow specialization is the norm in aviation, but expensive for the fleet?
          AWACS, SU-57, Tu-160, SU-34 is it really cheap?

          Ships are much more expensive.
          We can stretch ourselves and build 1000 front-line aircraft.
          With such a quantity, it is possible to sharpen them for different tasks and have for example:

          High altitude interceptor
          Airplane of Conquest of Supremacy
          Strike bomber
          Aircraft Carrier Assassin

          250 each. winked

          And no country can handle a fleet of 1000 ships.

          And it will pull 100.
          And there will be such, one-armed, 20 - 5 brigades in each fleet.

          And that means they will have to walk in groups and guard each other:
          PLO frigate - from boats
          Air defense frigate - from airplanes
          Strike frigate with CD
          Etc.

          And it's worth knocking out one specialist ... recourse
        3. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A April 9 2021 11: 04
          +1
          Quote: prior
          So I don't understand why narrow specialization is the norm in aviation, but expensive for the fleet?
          AWACS, SU-57, Tu-160, SU-34 is it really cheap?


          Much cheaper than the fleet ...
        4. bk316
          bk316 April 9 2021 14: 28
          0
          AWACS, SU-57, Tu-160, SU-34 is it really cheap?

          Compared to the fleet, it's not easy - it's very cheap.
          Moreover, both ICBMs and satellites are cheaper than the fleet.
          And coastal complexes are cheaper.
          Therefore, we need an ASYMETRICAL answer to AUG.
          We simply can't pull it straight even if all the competencies are there.
    3. bk0010
      bk0010 April 10 2021 20: 43
      0
      Why not design a missile cruiser for Caliber, an air defense ship, an anti-submarine ship, each of which is sharpened for its own task with maximum effect?
      We tried it (BOD 1155 and the destroyer 956 covering it), did not like it: to perform ASW missions, it would have to use twice as many ships, when influencing enemy ships, half of the ships turned out to be useless. It's a good idea, but for the states, we don't have enough ships for it.
  • lucul
    lucul April 8 2021 10: 28
    +2
    I don’t understand something - how is the RCS of the ship calculated? Front view or side / back view? Because if the view is from the front, then the corvette 20386, yes, has an advantage. And if the plane detects it from the side / behind, then the EPR there is completely different and there is no advantage.
    How to predict from what angle the plane will find the ship?
    Second, what's the difference in detection distance between 20380 and 20386? If the first one is found at a distance of 400 km, and 20386 at a distance of 100 km is one thing, and if 20380 is found from 400 km, and 20386 from 350 km, is it worth building a garden?
    Personally, I see more of a problem in the Zaslon radar - in its exorbitant cost of $ 100 million, this may be justified for a large cruiser, but not for a corvette. Therefore, either reduce the cost of Zaslon to at least $ 30 million or develop a new, cheaper radar, with a reduced detection range.
    1. Kalmar
      Kalmar April 8 2021 12: 04
      +1
      Quote: lucul
      I don’t understand something - how is the RCS of the ship calculated? Front view or side / back view?

      Usually EPR range is indicated: from minimum to maximum, depending on the angle.
      1. lucul
        lucul April 8 2021 12: 53
        0
        depending on the angle.

        About the angle, then the question is - what is the difference in EPR between 20380 and 20386 when looking at the ship from the side?
        1. Kalmar
          Kalmar April 8 2021 12: 59
          +1
          Quote: lucul
          About the angle, then the question is - what is the difference in EPR between 20380 and 20386 when looking at the ship from the side?

          Apparently, even if we find out, it will be very long ago: it is not clear when 20386 will be completed and whether it will be completed at all. In theory, there should be some kind of modeling results that would allow at least speculatively estimate the EPR, but who else would publish them ...
    2. aagor
      April 8 2021 14: 19
      +1
      The detection range of the 20386 will be 2-3 times less than that of the 20380.
    3. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 8 2021 22: 18
      0
      here, without knowing the funds that are ready to allocate for the ships, it is difficult to speak ... In fact, since the Navy is trying to deliver the Barriers even at 20380, it suits the Admiralty in terms of performance characteristics, and the price will decrease only with mass production
  • yehat2
    yehat2 April 8 2021 10: 40
    +6
    why does the barrier have such a price?
    $ 100 million is a lot. Why is no work being done to improve the cost structure?
    And if tomorrow we have the cheapest radar will cost a billion?
    1. paul3390
      paul3390 April 8 2021 10: 49
      +3
      Because it was only under Comrade Stalin that one of the main production criteria was the cost reduction. Under the bourgeoisie, there is only one criterion, maximum profit. And our defense enterprises are in the sweaty paws of highly efficient owners. Which, besides the dough, do not care about anything. Moreover - there is no alternative to them and there will not be, do not buy radars from the bourgeoisie? And - how then to get them to lower the price?
      1. yehat2
        yehat2 April 8 2021 10: 55
        +2
        Quote: paul3390
        not to buy radar from the bourgeoisie? And - how then to get them to lower the price?

        there is a ready-made experience, for example, in the USA or in the Czech Republic on the regulation of suppliers' cent
        There is also the Chinese experience, but it is too weak for us to do that.
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 April 8 2021 10: 58
          -1
          We won't be able to. For the owners of defense factories - for the most part, sidekick you know who .. How can we separate them from the sovereign's tits? Then they will not have enough for the next palace .. And it should not be so .. Correct Guys cannot lose money under any circumstances.
          1. lucul
            lucul April 8 2021 11: 11
            -4
            We won't be able to

            Nationalization has already been threatened.
            1. paul3390
              paul3390 April 8 2021 11: 20
              +3
              We must not threaten but nationalize. And to threaten - mass executions of managers and the type of highly effective owners ... And even then it won't take long - but go straight to execution.

              In addition, I am sure that this type of nationalization will simply result in a redemption at a frenzied price of enterprises from pretzels, which have plundered and pissed them off. Take away - no one will. And then they will pour in ohreniards of state money, raise them to their feet, and - again they will push them at a low cost .. It's always like this with us - privatization of income, nationalization of losses ..
          2. antivirus
            antivirus April 8 2021 12: 39
            -5
            for a long time they will not be able to catch up with Deripaska and Alekver in terms of wealth. it is in vain that you spit on your homies - they develop at least the second or third perdel (with packing in your pocket).
            --- and where does the money of metallurgists and oil workers go?
            ----- where is the earthly paradise promised in the early 90s (without the "gluttonous military") ??? - then even the future Rosatom was an enemy of democracy.
      2. lucul
        lucul April 8 2021 11: 09
        0
        Because it was only under Comrade Stalin that one of the main production criteria was cost reduction

        It can be assumed that everything is imported at the Zaslon, hence the price.
        And you will have to tinker a lot with import substitution.
        1. paul3390
          paul3390 April 8 2021 11: 16
          +2
          For such types of development - it is necessary to shoot. On import. But then a straightforward question - what have we spent 20 years on? If you are forced to buy someone else's? Can it be easier then, for example, to order ships entirely in China? It will certainly be cheaper, but the dependence is the same .. At least we will save money ..

          In general, to what extent did a once mighty country have to be brought to such an extent that the most important products could not be made by ourselves?
        2. yehat2
          yehat2 April 8 2021 12: 46
          +1
          Quote: lucul
          It can be assumed that everything on the Zaslon is imported.

          hardly iron is at least 5% of the total price.
        3. SovAr238A
          SovAr238A April 9 2021 11: 18
          0
          Quote: lucul
          Because it was only under Comrade Stalin that one of the main production criteria was cost reduction

          It can be assumed that everything is imported at the Zaslon, hence the price.
          And you will have to tinker a lot with import substitution.


          Quite the contrary.
          Our components are much more expensive than imported ones.
          1. lucul
            lucul April 9 2021 11: 41
            -1
            Quite the contrary.
            Our components are much more expensive than imported ones.

            Maybe our Su-35 is also much more expensive than the F-35? ))))
            1. SovAr238A
              SovAr238A April 9 2021 11: 54
              +1
              Quote: lucul
              Quite the contrary.
              Our components are much more expensive than imported ones.

              Maybe our Su-35 is also much more expensive than the F-35? ))))


              Well, the contract with China gives a value of $ 100 million.

              In our country, all component manufacturers work with the state under separate contracts.
              We, in our procurement system, do not have a single contractor.
              This is how our military-industrial complex is organized.

              All components and assemblies for the same Su-35S are purchased by the RF Ministry of Defense separately.
              KRET has a separate contract.
              UMPO has a separate contract.
              KNAAZ has a separate contract.
              etc. The fuel system is separate, the hydraulics are separate.

              For the manufacture of the airframe and assembly of the aircraft, KNAAZ receives only $ 25 million apiece.
              1. lucul
                lucul April 9 2021 12: 01
                -1
                Well, the contract with China gives a value of $ 100 million.

                Recently, an F-35 crashed in the USA, it was written off for $ 200 million.
                So which is more expensive?
                1. SovAr238A
                  SovAr238A April 9 2021 12: 04
                  0
                  Quote: lucul
                  Well, the contract with China gives a value of $ 100 million.

                  Recently, an F-35 crashed in the USA, it was written off for $ 200 million.
                  So which is more expensive?


                  It is strange that the cost of an ordinary plane is now $ 80 million, and, according to you, it is written off for $ 200 ...
                  Well, yes, there are deck versions costing from 120 to 130 million.
                  Do not share the information, where did you get about 200 million?
                  1. lucul
                    lucul April 9 2021 12: 23
                    0
                    It is strange that the cost of an ordinary plane is now $ 80 million, and, according to you, it is written off for $ 200 ...

                    80 million - it costs only the body of the aircraft, for everything else you need to pay extra later.
                    "US approves $ 105 billion sale of 35 F-23 warplanes to Japan,"
                    More:
                    https://avia.pro/news/stoimost-odnogo-amerikanskogo-f-35-okazalas-na-70-mln-dollarov-dorozhe-su-57
                    1. SovAr238A
                      SovAr238A April 9 2021 13: 03
                      0
                      Quote: lucul
                      It is strange that the cost of an ordinary plane is now $ 80 million, and, according to you, it is written off for $ 200 ...

                      80 million - it costs only the body of the aircraft, for everything else you need to pay extra later.
                      "US approves $ 105 billion sale of 35 F-23 warplanes to Japan,"
                      More:
                      https://avia.pro/news/stoimost-odnogo-amerikanskogo-f-35-okazalas-na-70-mln-dollarov-dorozhe-su-57



                      Do not substitute concepts and do not think out, especially about the rest pay extra later ...
                      Our contracts are very different from theirs.
                      I already wrote about ours.

                      Their contracts include:
                      Pilot training (approximately $ 4-7 million per person)
                      The cost of consumables for the first regulations (on average, from 5 to 10 years of the planned flight time of 250 hours per pilot).
                      The cost of spare engines (approximately 5-7% of the number of aircraft).
                      Almost half of the order is vertical, costing significantly higher than usual.
                      Plus, absolutely all equipment for the maintenance of the BAO and the ship is supplied.
                      The Japanese themselves write in their documents that the purchase price of the F-35B aircraft (ship-based vertical) in the contract for the supply of 6 vehicles in 2020-2021 is 14 billion yen, which is equal to 130 million dollars. (which is not much more expensive than the intra-American price of 120-125 mln.
                      At the same time, the contract takes into account fines for an over-planned order (since the production program is violated) and for a delay in deliveries (since the Japanese cannot find the required number of pilots capable of flying on fifth-generation aircraft).
                      1. lucul
                        lucul April 9 2021 17: 47
                        -5
                        Do not substitute concepts and do not come up with

                        There is no need to breed chutzpu - it causes nothing but laughter.
      3. bk316
        bk316 April 9 2021 14: 31
        0
        Which, besides the dough, do not care about anything.

        Why, then, LITERALLY ALL military equipment is cheaper in our country than in the United States? Whose sidekicks are the Northrop and Boeing genders? laughing
    2. Sergey Sfiedu
      Sergey Sfiedu April 8 2021 18: 45
      +1
      What about the effectiveness of the Barrier? I remember on the same resource he was very severely criticized ...
    3. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa April 8 2021 20: 53
      +1
      Therefore, no one puts such equipment complexes with a large number of AFARs in all directions on corvettes. And why should they be cheaper? Do we have a surplus of GaN or even GaAs PPM? Apparently, it's barely enough for the Su-57, for now. GaN is only at trade shows.
    4. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 8 2021 22: 19
      0
      and who said that it is not being conducted?
    5. SovAr238A
      SovAr238A April 9 2021 11: 17
      +1
      Quote: yehat2
      why does the barrier have such a price?
      $ 100 million is a lot. Why is no work being done to improve the cost structure?
      And if tomorrow we have the cheapest radar will cost a billion?


      And so it will be.
      A simple example.
      20 years ago, equipment for manufacturing processors cost about $ 2 billion.
      The percentage of yield of suitable products in the first 20-40 batches (tens of thousands of units) is from zero to two percent. And the output to the planned 60-70% of suitable products passed only after a long time.
      And products were stamped by the millions.
      Only in this case, as consumers, we received processor products with a "normal" price of $ 100-200.

      Now imagine that our military-industrial complex needs processors.
      You don't need a lot of them.
      But, the entire technological process of production, with all its lines, costs, expenses, personnel, is needed exactly the same as for domestic use. But now everything rests on small series.
      And all the materials, all the lines are built and bought, at best, at world average prices. Exchange prices.
      Although we buy steel or silicon in rubles, whoever sells it does it at prices much higher than world prices. Since there is no competition, we cannot place imported goods in the state order. And we cannot sell "abroad" either.
      And in order to weld the necessary thousand tons of steel of a very specific brand, a huge amount of body movements are needed from the enterprise.
      He has everything planned out, this small special order destroys the entire customized process technology for him.
      Respectively. readjust everything, shift the schedule, purchase and bring alloying materials, make melting, etc.
      All of this should pay off given the losses from the fact that they stop their software products.
      Which then also needs to be returned again.
      It's like making a couple of dozen Mercedes cars on a VAZ car assembly line.
      First, we will stop the conveyor, then we will debug and readjust to mesedes for 2-3 months, then in 3-4 days we will make 20 Mercedes, then again 3 months will be restored at the VAZ.
      We will lose six months of production of profitable VAZs and a lot of money for readjustments.
      And accordingly, the cost of these 20 Mesedes will necessarily include all losses from lost profits at VAZs and the cost of changeovers.
      Accordingly, very often buying the same steel from our plant turns out to be twice or three times more expensive than buying from the Chinese, Indians, French, Germans, Americans. So what? Find it cheaper ...

      And then you shouldn't be surprised that the cost of one processor will cost like a block of high-rise buildings, somewhere in Zadryupinsk.

      And these are only real and actual economic costs.
      Apart from examples of sawing, rolling back and other supporting the vital functions of some characters.
  • jonht
    jonht April 8 2021 10: 49
    +6
    There is no point in sculpting invisibility, it is not there, there is a reduced visibility. As already mentioned, the height of its location above sea level matters for the radar. The higher, the further we see non-flying targets. Any source of radiation, especially a powerful one, glows well itself, and therefore we aim the rocket at the radiation source and it does not need any correction. Those that do not glow themselves, but they need a correction.
    By 20386 itself, its underdecks are saved from radiation, but as long as they are tightly closed, but it is worth bringing the stern armament into a combat position, and the open doors reset all invisibility and signal the readiness to strike.
    So if you build a "little noticeable" ship, then without modularity and other nonsense.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty April 8 2021 11: 18
    0
    Andrey, not everyone on the site is experts in the field of air defense, not everyone is familiar with your abbreviations, they could make a list with a transcript, but this is not the main thing. Missile systems do not have a roll stabilization system, like a ship? Then, you will not get into anything, you will always have a re-capture with the release of a target (an airplane or a rocket). Do you write about what you understand not much better than me, because this phrase is familiar to you? points to a look-ahead point calculated on the basis of available data on detected targets. The target detection altitude is small (artificial horizon) - raise the radar higher, make it on a telescopic basis. An unmanned aerial vehicle with the same radar will help you, satellite data is not a stone age now, information is easy to obtain! The bottom line is not only that the project 20386 is crude, and consists of one ship, but the fact that this project is not needed by the fleet, so the variety of serial-built ships, and here a complex, capricious super-expensive experimental tsatsa is still under construction.
    1. aagor
      April 8 2021 14: 28
      0
      Inertial navigation systems of ships are very accurate, and there is no need to get rid of the pitching. All pitching corrections will be included in the radar algorithms. 20386 can be a warship, while 20380 can only be a flag demonstrator.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 8 2021 22: 20
        0
        laughing only according to the current plans there will be a transition to 20385 with the preservation of production of 20380 until the serial 20385 is ready
  • Pivot
    Pivot April 8 2021 11: 41
    +3
    I'm certainly not an expert on the Navy, but in the picture in my Swedish Visby
    1. Undecim
      Undecim April 8 2021 11: 56
      +2
      More precisely, the Swedish corvette Karlstad of the Visby class. How did the author get them?
      1. Pivot
        Pivot April 8 2021 12: 56
        +2
        I am burning that I am not strong in ships, I just saw Visby in Gothenburg in 2010 live.
    2. aagor
      April 8 2021 14: 29
      +1
      Exactly. You're right.
  • Kalmar
    Kalmar April 8 2021 11: 50
    +3
    Paradoxically, but it was 20386 that met the most fierce criticism. No one noticed the obvious advantages of the ship's appearance, and began to criticize the modularity of its design, inappropriate equipment, electric drive of the engine, etc.

    The author, it seems to me, places the emphasis incorrectly.

    The appearance of the ship did not raise any special questions for anyone; criticism concerned everything else:
    1. unsuccessful power plant, which now cannot be produced quickly enough;
    2. very dubious RLC: good on paper, but has not yet been able to confirm its merits, but it stands as if it were cast from gold;
    3. frail composition of weapons: neither against NK, nor against submarines, this corvette will not be able to fight;
    4. modularity, to which a lot has been sacrificed (weapons, for example), and which at the same time does not give any obvious advantages;
    5. an innovative composite superstructure, which is not at all a fact that it will be possible to create with the required characteristics.

    Yes, you can redo all of the above, but then the question is: what remains of the original 20386? It turns out that only an empty skin is a fashionable case with a low ESR. It is permissible to assume that the hull in this form is really good, it can be taken into account when designing new corvettes. But specifically, 20386 is simply not suitable for the role of a promising new corvette.
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski April 8 2021 13: 39
      -2
      1. unsuccessful power plant, which now cannot be produced quickly enough;
      What GEMs are now being produced quickly enough, except for the monstrous 112-stars that have no analogues in the world?
      Here, at least conceptually, the GEM is promising and modern.
      2. very dubious radar: good on paper, but has not yet been able to confirm its merits
      again, what to compare with. What other radar do you think is good not on paper, and how did you find out about it?
      but it stands, as if cast from gold;
      military prices are not only indirectly related to real value. You can not know either one or the other (of course, without access to rt).
      3. frail composition of weapons: neither against NK, nor against submarines, this corvette will not be able to fight;
      the composition of the armament is normal for a corvette. There is a self-defense anti-ship missile. The "far-hand" PLO is provided with a helicopter; there are torpedoes for near work. He doesn't need calibers.
      4.modularity, to which a lot has been sacrificed
      modularity is a world standard that allows you to adjust the ship to the tasks, in particular, you can make such your favorite rocket launch barge from a corvette.
      But why?
      which is generally not a fact that it will turn out to be created with the necessary characteristics.
      Well, yes, why engage in new developments, if you can sit on the priest evenly and degrade wassat
      1. Kalmar
        Kalmar April 8 2021 13: 53
        +3
        In general, the VO already had a whole series of articles about corvettes, where all this was considered.

        Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
        Here, at least conceptually, the GEM is promising and modern.

        As they write, in its current form, it masterly combines the disadvantages of different types of power plants without any distinct advantages. And its production will shift to the right the timing of deliveries of the power plant for frigates 22350 (which have already left quite indecently).

        Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
        What other radar do you think is good not on paper, and how did you find out about it?

        Also discussed. There are good serial, which would be quite suitable for the corvette. The "barrier" did not even pass the tests properly. The only public episode of its use on a target missile at the VO was discussed. In short: not impressive "at all".

        Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
        the composition of the armament is normal for a corvette. There is a self-defense anti-ship missile. The "far-hand" PLO is provided with a helicopter; there are torpedoes for near work. He doesn't need calibers.

        The composition of the armament is approximately at the level mentioned here nearby Visby, only with three times the displacement. "Calibers", as Project 20385 showed, is quite possible to deliver, which would expand both shock and anti-submarine capabilities. The latter is especially tempting, since our anti-submarine helicopters, let's face it, are thoroughly outdated.

        Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
        modularity is the world standard

        No, it's not. I played a lot with her (American LCS, for example), everyone eventually lost. There are many technical difficulties and limitations, but no real gain.

        Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
        Well, yes, why engage in new developments, if you can sit on the priest evenly and degrade

        There is such a thing as "technical risk". The more of these are collected in one product at once, the higher the chances of getting a pumpkin instead of a carriage. Old Zamvolt confirms. New developments are needed, but this is the future, and the corvette is needed now.
        1. Nestor Vlakhovski
          Nestor Vlakhovski April 8 2021 14: 34
          -1
          Quote: Kalmar
          In general, VO already had a whole series of articles about corvettes ...
          ... by Timokhin & Co., which largely negates the value of such "analytics".
          As they write, in its current form, it masterly combines the disadvantages of different types of power plants without any distinct advantages.
          a gyrid power plant with a full electric ship, which, but it has plenty of advantages.
          And its production will shift to the right the delivery time of the power plant for frigates 22350
          Forgive me, but there is nothing to comment on this Timokhinsky nonsense. It turns out that the unification of the power plant of different types of ships harms the fleet. Tell the Americans or the Chinese about it, they are stupid, on the contrary, trying to reduce everything to a set of the same type of turbines.
          ... There are good serial ones that would suit the corvette.
          not bad in the same way in theory, as there in practice no one except officials can know. One can only guess.
          The composition of the weapons is approximately at the level mentioned here nearby Visby
          That's just funny. Does Visby also have an inferior GAS, a 100mm cannon, a medium-range air defense system and a helicopter hangar?
          as shown by pr. 20385, it is quite possible to put
          Calibers can be put even on rubber boats, but why do they need this ballast, if completely different tasks are relevant for them. With the INF Treaty alive, the "calibration" of each scow could somehow be justified, but now it is just madness.
          our anti-submarine helicopters, let's face it, are thoroughly outdated.
          And instead of solving the problem, you propose to go "your own way"? Great plan...
          everyone in the end lost
          Name at least one modern ship without modularity.
          LSC problems in design errors and overall low quality of workmanship, due to which the first few ships had to be written off altogether, the rest have constant problems. The naval command has no questions about modularity as such.
          and the corvette is needed now
          we need really combat-ready units, and not anyhow, just to keep afloat, like some kind of Kimchenin, with its largest air force and fleet, which you cannot look at without tears.
          1. Kalmar
            Kalmar April 8 2021 14: 51
            +1
            Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
            ... by Timokhin & Co., which largely negates the value of such "analytics".

            The personality of the author of the statement does not influence the facts.

            Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
            It turns out that the unification of the power plant of different types of ships is harmful to the fleet.

            And here everything is simple: the burden of producing these power plants (specifically - gearboxes) falls on one single enterprise. Which is already breathing on incense and barely takes out the order for frigates. It would be possible to parallelize the work of work to several factories - it would be a different conversation.

            Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
            Does Visby also have an inferior GAS, a 100mm cannon, a medium-range air defense system and a helicopter hangar?

            A 100mm cannon clearly does not justify the extra 20386 tons of VI. The helicopter hangar at XNUMX will have to be removed to install those very wonderful modules. A medium-range air defense system cannot shoot at a medium range due to the lack of radio correction.

            If we are to compare with "Visby" it is completely sad, we can make a comparison with the same 20380: about the same composition of weapons at half the price of the 386th. Only in an old unstable case and without modules.

            Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
            Name at least one modern ship without modularity.

            Yes, almost any American, Japanese, Norwegian, Chinese (you can go on) corvette / frigate / destroyer, in general.

            Quote: Nestor Vlahovski
            we need really combat-ready units, and not anyhow, just to keep afloat

            20380 and 20385 can be quite combat-ready if they have problems with the radar. But 20386 just has a great chance of becoming "anyhow" because of the excess of innovation. Plus, the high cost will not allow building a large series. And a couple of corvettes - even if they are "super-duper-stealth" - will not make the weather anywhere.
            1. Couchexpert
              Couchexpert April 8 2021 18: 29
              +3
              To me, as a person far from the fleet, it seems strange to such an emphasis on reducing the detection range of radar, while emphasizing the need to have a powerful radar on the ship itself. That is, either not to use your own radar, while maintaining "secrecy", but to have it "just in case" (but you will have to buy it first), or not to use your stealth, using the radar (but what for then such secrecy?). Moreover, it is immediately emphasized that the ship, in any case, will not move far from its shores due to its limitations on autonomy. Yes, in our fleets, if you look at the globe, then you do not need to look for radars: it is enough, knowing the approximate limits of the cruising range and typical routes, to establish the areas where the corvettes will patrol. The very nature of their movement is largely predictable, it is not AUGi to look for in the ocean. Everything has already been studied over the years of observation. How should stealth help in such conditions? Well, the same conventional plane, moving the required course, will see the mark on the radar a couple of minutes later. A little later, he will see it with an optical system, still remaining outside the radius of missiles / cannons of close air defense. You can at least in theory understand why "stealth" is on Zamvolta, but why is it on coastal (also "in the project" not expensive / mass-produced) LCS ships? No, if it does not greatly affect the other qualities, then some ideas can be applied, but if this interferes with the main tasks ... then the choice should be simple.
  • Nemchinov Vl
    Nemchinov Vl April 8 2021 11: 53
    +5
    Reducing the visibility of the proposed modernization of the corvette 20386, designated by the author 20387, will allow it to be used to replace the frigate 11356
    won't allow !!
    Firstly, there is no power plant (!), gearbox 6 RP is still not invented in metal ! No. Secondly: the diversion of the resources of the "Star-Reducer" to it, will slow down the creation of a power plant for the only reasonable project of ships 22350 for today, for the modern Navy !!!
    Thirdly: the Redut air defense system without the Polyment antenna will remain incapacitated (!)... You can scold "Calm-1" (and its "Nuts") as much as you like, calling them "atavisms"but he is at least capable at "their declared ranges" 50 km. (and according to some sources up to 70 km.), and at the same time much cheaper than "Reduta" !!! smile
    So many and so often began to revel in the magic phrase - "stealth technology", but in fact ?! Very similar to the marketing ploy of the industry, for stealing all kinds of game (!), no more...
    Cost (!) : for 20380 already about 20-21 billion rubles, and 20385 about 23 billion rubles. 20386 threatens to go directly for 33 billion ... despite the fact that all three projects are not functional (!). USC is simply planning to use money from the budget of the Navy? !!! Is very similar....
    Alternatives (?): As an option, it is possible to clarify the TTZ under (cheaper, up to 16 billion. rub) project 11661. Where would it be used (ideally, a quadruple power plant from promising 16SD-500 (8000 hp each, Kolomna), ... or try the same "spark" of 4, engines diesel -86B (about the same 8000 hp), if "Russian Diesel" still has the competence to issue them ...
    All the rest (industrially developed as on "Dagestan": BIUS "Sigma", RLK 34K1 "Monolith" or "Mineral-M", radar MR-352 "Positive (-M1)" ...) with the only thing that would add a corvette, GAK "Zarya -2 ", and BUGAS. It is also possible to replace the Osa-M air defense system with two Broadsword SAM systems (Dirk) or "Pantsir-M" ... The OVR / PLO corvette should not be excessively expensive, and it makes no sense to fence "Redoubt" there !!
    Just like the option for a power plant consisting of "four diesel engines of 8000 hp each, preferably still from the" D-500 "family (!), 11664 s already 16 (not 8 cells UKSK, for PLUR or RCC), but there it is already possible to install 24 Shtil-1 cells, and not Pantsir-M, as its length is not 102 but about 110 meters !!... Although its price is likely to be closer to 20 billion rubles ... The rest of the systems (radar, GAK, BIUS, etc., leave the same) !! winked
    1. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl April 8 2021 12: 14
      +1
      Even more interesting, I see the idea of ​​creating a small escort frigate, on something arithmetic mean from projects 12441 "Thunder" and so on. 11664, in VI 2700-3400 tons, like the "Petrel" once.
      I'll try to explain myself.
      "Heart" (GEM) of such a frigate can become an analogy of the "Sharp-witted" scheme, from four identical GTEs of the same Rybinsk "Saturn" M-70FRU (14000 hp each.) !! For this you just need - "kind of clone" those gearboxes "Sharp"that balanced the work (four identical GTE from DC-59 On him) !!!... Such a small escort frigate, thanks to its VI, should already allow the installation of the Poliment antenna on it, which in turn will allow the use of Redoubt ... the production of its gearboxes, (anyway theoretically) should be simpler, and no more expensive than for 22350 (where you have to balance more revving GTEs and medium revving diesels) what (!)... And if this turns out to be the case, then the speed of filling the fleet with new ships will significantly increase (!).
    2. yehat2
      yehat2 April 8 2021 13: 10
      +2
      Quote: Vl Nemchinov
      OVR / PLO corvette should not be excessively expensive and fence

      for this it is necessary to form a normal set of suppliers, including territorially. It is desirable as it happens in the USA or in Germany or in Japan.
      When any specialist can get to his product in 3-4 hours.
      And we can solve the problem for a month.
      The second point is control over estimates. I myself worked at defense enterprises and I know how they formally approach the estimates and the quality of products (both the actual manufacture and the relevance of the performance characteristics). This is not at all what the MO leadership wants.
      And now we need to establish THIS work, and not argue about specific products.
      as an example, I saw several times a picture when the head of the laboratory formally participated in the work, although in fact he only signed the act and received 100k + for it
      and such in the estimate of the product was not uncommon for 4-5 people. Those. the estimate of 1 product grew by half a million for nothing already in the cost price.
      With the price of the product itself at 3-4 million.
      And with a barrier, I'm just sure that because of the merrymaking inside the supplier, the estimate is simply increased several times, not counting other extra markups.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 8 2021 11: 56
    +1
    To determine the optimal configuration of a corvette, you must first precisely define its range of tasks, otherwise the corvette will turn into a frigate, then into a destroyer, and end up with a simple Soviet nuclear cruiser ..
    1. Nemchinov Vl
      Nemchinov Vl April 8 2021 12: 22
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      To determine the optimal configuration of a corvette, you must first accurately determine its range of tasks, otherwise the corvette will turn into a frigate,
      the range of tasks of the corvette is most often the functions of OVR / PLO (!)... To carry out its functions, 20380 does not have a PLUR, low speed, and not a capable air defense system, at a not small price (!)... The rest (20385 and 20386) are even more expensive (!).
      For this reason, I see just such ways to resolve issues price reduction, and the possibility of ensuring mass production to replace the aging MPK Albatross, without loss of functionality for its intended purpose, (compared to 20380). hi
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 8 2021 22: 34
      0
      that's why you need to make a mini-frigate out of a corvette, and make a mini-corvette / mpk from the Karakurt mrk ..
  • Undecim
    Undecim April 8 2021 12: 07
    +2
    In the article "What are we building - corvettes or flag demonstrators?" it was shown that the project 20380 corvette was unacceptably noticeable. Its effective scattering surface (ESR) can be estimated at 1000 sq. m.
    The number of naval "ikspers" on the site is already off scale, they no longer fit within the resource.
    I would like to ask the author who "evaluated" the EPR of the project 20380 corvette. What method was used - the physical theory of diffraction, integral equations, or maybe an analytical one? Or maybe the author acquired a coherent RIK-E measuring complex with full polarization reception and personally measured the integral EPR (scattering matrix), differential (one- and two-dimensional portraits), as well as Doppler spectra and statistical characteristics of the corvette's scattering, and then, using the supercomputer simulation method, performed the "estimate "?
    1. Nestor Vlakhovski
      Nestor Vlakhovski April 8 2021 13: 24
      0
      Are you sure you cannot measure EPR using 3d modeling, as is done in aerodynamics or hydrodynamics?
      1. Undecim
        Undecim April 8 2021 13: 40
        +4
        It is possible to measure only on a special measuring complex.
        For calculation in the design process, there are special methods, on the basis of which the corresponding programs are created, for example - "3D-IMAGE".

        The question is not in the theoretical possibility of assessing the EPR, but in the access to this assessment of the author of the article. That is, he gave a figure of 1000 square meters. The question is - how is it received?
        1. Nestor Vlakhovski
          Nestor Vlakhovski April 8 2021 13: 54
          +2
          It is possible to measure only on a special measuring complex.
          really. The term "simulate" would be more appropriate.
          The 3d model in your picture is made very clumsy, I had to see analogs in photographic quality, made taking into account the materials of manufacture, painting and calculation with different wavelengths and weather conditions.
          Who knows, maybe the author is one of those who post such materials on the forums.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim April 8 2021 14: 01
            -3
            The 3d model in your picture is made very clumsy
            First attempts.
            Who knows, maybe the author is one of those who post such materials on the forums.
            Well, yes, Polovinkin writes under a pseudonym for VO.
            1. lucul
              lucul April 8 2021 15: 06
              -3
              The 3d model in your picture is made very clumsy
              First attempts.

              Damn, for the correct selection of the quote - first select the desired text, copy it, then click to answer, then a window pops up, in which, in the upper right corner, we find quotes, click on them. Quote appears in square brackets. With a space, we move apart these two quotes, paste the copied earlier text into the gap formed.
              All.
              Otherwise, it is impossible to read - all in one line - where is yours, where is your opponent, it is not clear.
              1. Undecim
                Undecim April 8 2021 15: 22
                -5
                Quote: lucul
                It's impossible to read

                Impossible - don't read, who makes you?
    2. yehat2
      yehat2 April 9 2021 09: 52
      0
      why can't you just fold all vertical surfaces or those close to them?
      Is it so difficult?
      1. Undecim
        Undecim April 9 2021 10: 25
        +1
        why can't you just fold all vertical surfaces or those close to them?

        1. yehat2
          yehat2 April 9 2021 10: 41
          0
          Don't hang up the noodles. a rough estimate can be made without equations and models.
          I also studied physics.
          EPR obviously cannot be less than the sum of strictly vertical surfaces.
          Those. it is possible to accurately determine some value, less than which the RCS simply cannot be.
          1. Undecim
            Undecim April 9 2021 10: 51
            0
            You would not waste your time on rudeness, but read a book. All the best.
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 April 9 2021 10: 53
              0
              you think I have not read this book)))
              Oh well
  • yehat2
    yehat2 April 8 2021 12: 55
    +2
    The above article shows possible options for light and heavy jammers on UAVs.

    understand a simple thing - the fleet must operate in different weather conditions.
    therefore, all decisions that depend on the weather are questionable.
    Therefore, it will not work to argue that the UAV is more efficient.
    only under certain conditions!
  • Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 April 8 2021 13: 08
    0
    Such antennas will create false targets in group raids.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst April 8 2021 13: 22
    +2
    that the so-called Mills cross was developed 70 years ago, but did not find practical use due to the lack of AFAR

    Maybe this is not an ideal classic of the genre, but it exists and really works.

    A sharper image with the ability to scale against a pillar of light.
  • Arkon
    Arkon April 8 2021 13: 48
    +3
    According to the author's indirect estimates, the price of the Barrier could be $ 100 million,


    Of course, I did not understand this deeply, but the very first search page for the query "how much does the barriers cost" gives this information:

    Multifunctional radar complex "Zaslon" is one of the main products of the STC "Zaslon". It was repeatedly presented at the Naval Show in St. Petersburg, and in 2017, Severnaya Verf, together with JSC Zaslon, created a special training ground on Lake Ladoga for testing new electronic weapons and optical systems.

    The decision that the new corvettes for the Russian Navy will be equipped with the Zaslon radar was made by the military command in 2017. At the same time, the St. Petersburg manufacturer had to compete for the role of a supplier with the Moscow NPO Salyut of the Morinformsistema-Agat concern, which produces similar radar systems, but with a different nomenclature.

    The purchase took place from a single supplier. Khabarovsk shipbuilders will buy two sets of the Zaslon automatic radar complex (RLC) for 3 billion rubles each, liquid cooling systems for another 63 million rubles.


    If we take the average dollar exchange rate for 2019 - 65 rubles, then 3 billion per set is less than $ 50 million.

    And these are just the first kits.

    Where is the $ 100 million?
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 April 9 2021 10: 10
      -1
      Quote: Arkon
      Where is the $ 100 million?

      there is no fundamental difference between $ 50m and $ 100m. Order is important here
      for comparison, let's take an antenna from Arlie Burke, as the most relevant analogue
      the cost of the spy-1 complex (which can already be called outdated) is just about $ 50 million. and this is with the horse margins of the American military-industrial complex.
      Our average cost of similar products is at least three times lower.
      thus, according to a rough estimate, our industry should fit into a cost of about
      0.8-1 billion rubles. serial product (not piece). In reality, it should be even cheaper.
      Moreover, I do not take the maximum performance characteristics, but simply mediocre support for at least medium-range air defense (up to 60-80 km). A successful complex does not need active presentations and the company should have spent money more efficiently on improving its products.
      1. Arkon
        Arkon April 9 2021 10: 24
        0
        Quote: yehat2
        there is no fundamental difference between $ 50 million and $ 100. Order is important here


        I understood you correctly that, in your opinion, until the product costs 300 million (this is an order of magnitude difference from 3 billion), there is nothing to talk about?
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 April 9 2021 10: 36
          +1
          you need to understand that the cost of filling a ship is directly related to its size.
          If the entire ship is worth 2 billion, and the antenna is 3, then what is the point of building corvettes at all?
          all that remains is to lay the URO cruiser. Therefore, proceeding from the fact that we SAVE in the fleet, the prime cost of its components is important. and accordingly, it is necessary to somehow outline the price of the radar complex, to put a point beyond which the antenna itself becomes meaningless.
          And where is this point?
          corvette 20380 cost 17 billion rubles.
          if it was produced in a significant series, then its price would be boldly divided in half.
          those. the real cost of a serial ship 2 years ago fluctuated around $ 160 million
          and at the same time the barrier cost 100.
          accordingly, the complex costs about 70-80% of the whole ship. this is absurd!
          It makes sense to equip a conventional corvette with a complex that costs MAXIMUM 15-20% of the entire ship, i.e. the practical limit on the cost price is about $ 30 million
          and if it is more expensive, the whole shipbuilding program becomes absurd
          1. Arkon
            Arkon April 9 2021 10: 38
            0
            Quote: yehat2
            corvette 20380 cost 310 billion rubles.
            if it was produced in a significant series, then its price would be boldly divided in half.
            those. the real cost of a serial ship 2 years ago fluctuated around $ 160 million
            and at the same time the barrier cost 100.
            accordingly, the complex costs about 70-80% of the whole ship. this is absurd!


            You have something wrong with the numbers. If the corvette cost 310 billion, then 3 billion is 10% of the cost, not 70.
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 April 9 2021 11: 15
              0
              I corrected the numbers, it was worth 17 billion
              1. Arkon
                Arkon April 9 2021 11: 31
                0
                Quote: yehat2
                I corrected the numbers, it was worth 17 billion


                Well, if 17 billion, then there is no talk at all. 3 billion is 18% of the cost.
                1. yehat2
                  yehat2 April 9 2021 11: 37
                  0
                  18% for what? for this fraction of the cost, something mind-blowing is expected.
                  is it there?
                  in addition, such expensive electronics require proper maintenance
                  and with this in our fleet it is still sad.
                  And the last - and the barrier is integrated into the general control system of the ship, or is it
                  separate system - I don't know that.
                  In general, my personal opinion is that it is completely normal to spend up to a quarter of the estimate on a ship on location and automation of information processing.
                  But our Ministry of Defense prefers to save money. Do not care that the ship is blind, but on paper there is a unit and you can provide one more ass with a standard unit for control.
                  1. Arkon
                    Arkon April 9 2021 13: 16
                    0
                    Quote: yehat2
                    18% for what? for this fraction of the cost, something mind-blowing is expected.
                    is it there?


                    Well wait. You just resented the price of the radar at 70% of the ship. It turned out that you are mistaken and the price is quite within the acceptable range. Now you are unhappy that the RLC is not "eye-popping".
                    Perhaps here you are somewhat "not in the know"? wink
                    1. yehat2
                      yehat2 April 9 2021 13: 18
                      0
                      Quote: Arkon
                      Perhaps here you are somewhat "not in the know"?

                      if I had been in the know, then someone would have fallen under a criminal case
                      we can only indirectly estimate, based on very scarce data,
          2. Arkon
            Arkon April 9 2021 11: 16
            0
            I watched. 20380 costs 10 billion. Therefore, 3 billion is 30% of the ship's price. In the series, it may well fall to 2 billion. So much for 20%.

            No one will double the price of the ship because of the new radar. Even if there is a bribe-taker on a bribe-taker, no one will be so obviously fired up.
            And there are hardly so many bribe-takers in leading positions in the Navy now.
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 April 9 2021 11: 31
              0
              Yes, you don't even need to get fired up - I worked in 2 offices that made electronics for MO and just automated estimates for products, supply of components, etc. So I know literally from the source that not everything is going smoothly in the estimate. Most often, this is an appendage of R&D and other fictitious parts of the work to compensate for overhead costs, for example, Chemezov's billion-dollar salary and other buns and ineffective costs. The second point is simply the disgusting conditions of bidding for prices in purchases. Manufacturers cannot often order what they really need. The third point is payment for initiative experimental work. With her, everything is extremely sad, and without this article, there can be no talk of any improvement and cost reduction.
              Etc.
  • Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst April 8 2021 14: 08
    +1
    Instead of a surveillance radar and a targeting radar for the Zaslon radar, it was proposed to develop an MF radar consisting of subarrays unified for all ships of the Navy - 0,22 * 0,22 m clusters containing 64 transceiver modules operating in the 5,5 cm wavelength range. The AFAR shape in the form of a cross made it possible, with the same characteristics as the Zaslon radar, to reduce the cost of the MF radar by three times.

    And to triple its size in comparison with the classic, not to mention the required area for its placement and the corresponding growth of the EPR of the entire mast product and corvette superstructure. Sly Japanese Asians, who, as you know, are not looking for easy ways in life and in the development of electronics for the fleet are not able to reach the level of the Ukrainians, did the following:
    First of all, this is the FCS-3A detection system (developed by Mitsubishi / Thales Netherlands), consisting of two radars with active phased array, operating in the frequency bands C (wavelength 7,5 to 3,75 cm) and X (wavelength from 3,75 up to 2,5 cm). The antennas are grouped on the bow and stern superstructures.



    Such a combination of antennas would easily fit on the superstructures of the frigate pr.11356R, and with the use of Russian ingenuity, a hammer and some kind of mother, it would also stand on a Russian corvette (20380/5/6/7).
    "... Unlike the decimeter AN / SPY-1, Japanese centimeter-range radars clearly see targets at an extremely low altitude, near the surface of the water. In addition, the active phased array provides several dozen guidance channels in any direction - the destroyer is capable of simultaneously aiming missiles at many air targets (for comparison: the American "Burk" has only three AN / SPG-62 radars for target illumination, of which only one falls on the front hemisphere). "

    Could this be an unscrupulous advertisement from Japanese manufacturers? But it was too convincing and clear. And returning to the discussion about the use of a more meteorological range for radar at a wavelength of 6,6 cm compared to 5,5 cm proposed by the author. Both proposals are actively used by the naval self-defense forces of the country's potential enemy in the Pacific theater of operations. If we bypass our own absurd prohibitions and restrictions, then we will be able to interfere with the adversary with the help of an alternative radar according to the author's concept. hi
  • Luty
    Luty April 8 2021 14: 11
    +4
    Project 11356 was relevant for the early 2000s, although now it is not bad. He still would have BGAS. And the author's faith in the invisibility of stealth technologies is simply amusing. Stealth is a fashion and in the criterion of cost - efficiency it is not so essential.
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 April 9 2021 10: 17
      +1
      Quote: Luty
      Stealth is a fashion and in the criterion of cost - efficiency it is not so essential.

      even primitive measures to reduce visibility sharply raise the requirements for the seeker of anti-ship missiles. Given that NATO countries have hundreds of harpoon-type missiles on their ships, it would be extremely beneficial to reduce its effectiveness and increase the cost of replacement.
      And these essentially simple measures make a significant part of the fleet of potential partners and aircraft with anti-ship missiles like Poseidons ineffective.

      so I wouldn't laugh at the author's ideas.
      this is not about invisibility or fashion, but about a completely practical move.
  • AAK
    AAK April 8 2021 14: 43
    +6
    To put it bluntly, the "corvette war" on the VO has already a little bit, supporters of 20380, 20385 and 20386 unanimously praise "their waders" and also haut "strangers", they say, the wrong layout, wrong EPR, wrong radar, wrong air defense system, wrong such KREP, etc. Curiously, in all the articles there are more often photos of the Swedish "Visby" than our corvettes. But none of the authors did an objective analysis of the corvettes of other countries on the same aspects for which they so vehemently branded "their own". Plus, it would also be very interesting to see the thoughts of those who are not indifferent on the topic: "ideal" (or at least optimal) corvette / IPC for the Russian Navy with drawings or computer models of such ships with arguments in "defense of the project." Well, in the author's article, it is enough to look at only the last paragraph, where 20380 with "Barrier" is more expensive than 20387, hypothetically invented by the author and cannot, for this reason, have any value expression
  • demiurg
    demiurg April 8 2021 15: 04
    +1
    20380/385 are not corvettes per se.
    They can be called IPC, BOD, missile cruiser, frigate, corvette, whatever.
    But in fact, this is a replacement for the Worthy. That is, a cheap replacement for beeches and basics. And excuse me for tufting, a worthy replacement. This is a watchdog, and can be autonomous if necessary.
    But this is not a corvette, a cheap consumable of war. Which can be built in dozens. They are not albatrosses.
    I really really hope that a normal corvette / MPK / MRK will turn out from Karakurt. That would be so good that it’s even scary to think about it.
    But 20386, judging by its price, is an analogue of 22350. Let's compare and laugh with it.
  • Tektor
    Tektor April 8 2021 15: 26
    -3
    I absolutely agree with the author, Andrey Gorbachevsky. Corvette - semi-frigate 20386 Mercury - is worthy of construction and commissioning.
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 April 9 2021 10: 18
      +1
      it is worthy of attention, but it is inappropriate to build it with the filling that is now.
  • Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev April 8 2021 19: 41
    +2
    The question of the unification of equipment and weapons. It is not possible that there are no adequate sets of weapons and radars for all occasions and types of ships. These are not the notorious cells with calibers (they are also needed, but the light does not end there), but air defense missile systems, PLO, anti-ship missiles, radars and so on. How to assemble a constructor for a specific type of tasks. And someday to have a fleet of ships of the same type of different types, this is this vinaigrette. And service, modernization, logistics and training are better and easier on standard samples.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 8 2021 21: 58
      +1
      "These are not the notorious cells with calibers" ///
      ---
      I agree. The calibers work well for distant stationary targets.
      Why should small ships hammer targets far away?
      The RCC Caliber variant is ineffective.
      The X-35 will hit much more reliably.
  • Lime Bayun
    Lime Bayun April 8 2021 19: 53
    +1
    The author is another lobbyist for the corvette project under FOUR "Caliber"
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 8 2021 21: 54
    +1
    In Russia, for some reason, they got stuck in any ship trying to shove the Caliber
    or Onyx.
    These are very expensive rockets. The industry simply cannot provide
    by them all fleets and ships. Or there will be one set at a time without recharging.
    Meanwhile, there is a decent X-35 anti-ship missile. She should be guided by in frigates
    and corvettes. X-35 and missiles.
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 April 8 2021 22: 24
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      In Russia, for some reason, they got stuck in any ship trying to shove the Caliber
      or Onyx.

      Just a single launcher for which all missiles will be developed in the future makes life much easier. You just need to make a modification of the X-35 anti-ship missile system for the 3S-14 launcher, otherwise you will get the rake that the USSR Navy rode on.
    2. yehat2
      yehat2 April 9 2021 10: 19
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The industry simply cannot provide
      them all fleets and ships

      we have a little more than 10 ships, where the calibers can be put
      I think the industry will cope)))
      1. YOU
        YOU April 9 2021 13: 53
        -1
        The universal 3s-14 is needed to expand the capabilities of an ASW in order to use the Answer missiles. And the x-35 is only against not the newest ships, with outdated or frankly weak air defense. Therefore, it is better to be able to use the "Caliber" in the version of the anti-ship missile system, and not only "Onyx", with "Zircon". There is plenty to choose from, and the Kh-35 is cheap, but not very effective, and when the launcher is positioned to meet each other, even a massive salvo is impossible. First, the 4th, then the U-turn, and then the 4th. A reversal time is a few seconds, but for modern air defense, this is a lot. In general, the article is interesting but one-sided. Stealth, radar, air defense, electronic warfare and where PLO. One of the main tasks of the corvette is PLO. Moreover, it is necessary to protect the exit areas of missile nuclear submarines already now, in peacetime. And in general, drive any boats away from our shores. And this requires a lot of ships, with a very effective ASW. As there were comments above, let's get a frigate. Better yet, a cruiser ??? Only where to get that kind of money, So that there are so many cruisers. In Soviet times, we had only 70 Albatrosses, and even the Polish-GDR-built MPK, to this the ships of projects 61 and 1135, which also performed tasks to protect the naval regions, and if memory serves, there were about 60 pieces combined. Well, and one more thing, I don’t want to list. Since then, the situation has only worsened. Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, were our allies, Ukraine and the Baltic states, you know. And now??? And you are here Stealth, frigates.
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 April 9 2021 14: 02
          +1
          Quote: YOU
          and when the launcher is positioned to meet each other, even a massive salvo is impossible.

          well, we are talking only about minimal abilities - launching 1-2 missiles and fighting the same salvo
          And I agree with you that the main opportunities should be in the area of ​​PLO, but here everything is very sad. In addition to ships, the United States increased the productivity of the patrol ORION by 8 times, eventually creating Poseidon, and our anti-submarine aviation is very weak.
          A very serious breakthrough is needed to make the PLO aspect more or less adequate.
          1. YOU
            YOU April 9 2021 18: 53
            -1
            Quote: yehat2
            In addition to ships, the United States increased the productivity of the patrol ORION by 8 times, eventually creating Poseidon, and our anti-submarine aviation is very weak.

            I cannot but agree that the basic patrol aviation is now almost "0" in comparison with the USSR.
            And also not a lot of ships. We need a massive construction of patrol ships, and an increase in the power of patrol naval aviation. All the nonsense about "super" corvettes, frigates, cruisers, with aircraft carriers is nothing more than a betrayal and a cut of the budget. Let's protect our shores from the beginning. And then we will conquer the Caribbean Sea.
            1. yehat2
              yehat2 April 9 2021 20: 17
              0
              Quote: YOU
              Let's protect our shores from the beginning

              the country is ruled by people who don't give a damn about protecting the country.
              they only protect their investments. For example, a pipeline in the Gulf of Finland
              and border protection? not even funny
              1. YOU
                YOU April 9 2021 20: 59
                -1
                Yes in oh
                Quote: yehat2
                they only protect their investments. For example, a pipeline in the Gulf of Finland
                and border protection?

                In general, the pipeline, although Russia really needs it, in a global sense, has nothing to protect. The problem is that we have only effective managers, and they are not an expert, they don’t care what to manage. And most importantly, "No responsibility."
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 8 2021 22: 02
    0
    hi yes, it should be easier ... we take corps 20386 ... and adapt it to 20385 in terms of armament ... we end up with normal strike and defensive armament ... let's call 20387 ..
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus April 8 2021 22: 49
    0
    If your air defense missile system works at a range of 30-40 km on your ship, then you have to shoot not at enemy aircraft, but at anti-ship missiles. The same F / a-18 shmalnets with two harpoons from a distance of 70-80 km, without even entering the air defense zone. Link F / A-18 is at least 8 anti-ship missiles in a salvo, so the ship's air defense should proceed from such a MINIMUM - resistance to a salvo of 8-10 anti-ship missiles. Aircraft may simply not enter the ship's air defense zone.
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 9 2021 01: 29
    0
    And here is the data on the corvette in the picture - like "Visby"
    :
    Displacement: - 640 tons (full)
    Length - 72,7 m (maximum), 61,5 m (waterline)
    Width -10,4 m
    Height -19,3 m
    Draft -2,4 m
    Engines - 4 gas turbine TF50A, 2 diesel MTU 16V 2000 N90
    Power:
    16 kW GTE,
    2 600 kW diesel
    Propeller 2 water cannon
    Travel speed -35 nodes (64,82 km / h)
    Cruising range - 2300 miles at a speed of 15 knots
    Crew - 43 person
    Artillery 1 × 57 mm Bofors SAK 57 Mk3
    Missile armament - 8 × RBS-15 Mk II anti-ship missiles (only on the fifth hull)
    2 × 8 PU missiles RBS 23 Bamse (only on the fifth case)

    Mine torpedo armament
    2 × 2 400-mm TA (4 torpedoes Tp 43 or Tp 45)

    Aviation Group
    Helipad,
    1 helicopter Agusta A.109, reserved space for the hangar (instead of the air defense missile system)
  • TermNachTer
    TermNachTer April 9 2021 17: 38
    0
    I'm embarrassed to ask where a low-altitude IS will come from in the open sea to attack a corvette?))) The author has woven a bunch of very dubious statements far-fetched))))
  • Charik
    Charik April 10 2021 04: 57
    0
    In the photo in the article, there is some foreigner.
    here they are 20380
    1. yehat2
      yehat2 April 10 2021 22: 08
      0
      why are they all different?
      1. Charik
        Charik April 11 2021 03: 24
        0
        For December 2020, 10 corvettes have been built, 8 ships are in the combat composition of the Russian Navy - said pikivedia
        1. yehat2
          yehat2 April 11 2021 09: 21
          0
          I'm not talking about that, take a closer look at the photos - they are ALL significantly different
          it doesn't look like serial production even once.
  • hostel
    hostel April 11 2021 12: 11
    0
    Hence the moral that it is not necessary to build ships with a small displacement. Their effectiveness is low. It is cheaper to build large frigates and destroyers.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter April 11 2021 19: 03
    0
    In fact, gentlemen.
    You will have the same corvette as ordered by the MO.
    And at least kill yourself here, on the forums ... Drawings for the shipbuilding have been issued, the process has begun.
    Previously, it was necessary to think. Yes, break spears. What is there, but how ... hi
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 April 11 2021 19: 47
    0
    Quote: alberigo
    Hence the moral that it is not necessary to build ships with a small displacement. Their effectiveness is low. It is cheaper to build large frigates and destroyers.

    For near field tasks? Decide on the tasks.
    1. Charik
      Charik April 11 2021 22: 45
      -1
      our main task is threshing and bread-giving
  • shonsu
    shonsu April 26 2021 18: 42
    0
    PPC, why is such a knowledgeable person scribbling articles and not engaged in the development and construction of ships? He knows everything, can do everything, give him a flag in his hands and a drum around his neck. And in the head of the column going to ... Maybe from the whole article there is a grain of truth, but it is precisely the grain. I'm sure the author is not smarter than everyone who designed and built these ships. And the military knows for sure what they need more than the humanities journalists. The dog barks and the caravan moves on.
  • Victor Dubrovsky
    Victor Dubrovsky 23 May 2021 09: 59
    0
    I advocate the use of ships with a small waterline area, providing a significant increase in seaworthiness. At what intensity of excitement does the pitching limit the capabilities of radars of different systems on traditional NDTs? Apparently, it depends on the displacement of the NK ...
  • Victor Dubrovsky
    Victor Dubrovsky 25 May 2021 08: 04
    0
    On the effect of excitement on the operation of the radar: it seems to me that the NK with a displacement of 1000 tons ensures acceptable operation of the radar (stabilized?) At waves of no more than 4 points (the wave height of 3% availability is 2 m). Who can confirm or deny - write to [email protected], I will be very grateful.
    1. Victor Dubrovsky
      Victor Dubrovsky 25 May 2021 08: 14
      0
      I want to note that these data essentially cannot be secret: all over the world, corvettes of the same displacement have approximately the same seaworthiness. So knowing the seaworthiness of one's own, one can reasonably assess the seaworthiness of all strangers ... :)