Military Review

Ten missile gunboats or one missile battleship. What's best for the fleet?

189

Recently, very strange and extremely controversial articles began to appear on VO, such as:

Does Russia need a strong fleet?
Which is more useful: Admiral Nakhimov or ten brawlers?
and others. In this regard, perhaps, I will repeat myself in some way, but I will try to reasonably analyze and answer within the framework of a series of articles what we need and why, using exclusively open sources, logic and articles with topwar, since it hurts me too soul.

The key to the problem


What is the fundamental problem of some authors and some people?

In a misunderstanding of the aspects and the fact that now they do not fight by the number of bayonets, tank hulls or ships of the line that line up in two lines and kick each other with cannonballs from dawn to dusk, and where the sailors are convicts and bandits (Hello Royal Navy!).

By the middle of World War II, it became clear that it was possible and necessary to solve problems as efficiently as possible and to attack or defend against the enemy. comprehensively... The interaction of different types and types of troops, their maximum interconnection calculated in seconds - this is the secret of success.

Differences from this on navy - there are none (by the way, they understood this there before the others, squadrons always consisted of different types of ships). Moreover, now each ship is a whole regiment, or even more, with a bunch of various weapons that need to be deployed in time, between which you need to interact, all this needs to be controlled, and ideally - to unite with other ships in a network and act as a single the whole, organizing a joint air defense order or, say, a missile attack from different points on the target, providing an approach from different directions and placing the maximum number of missiles in the minimum time to saturate the enemy's air defense.

What was the best connection at sea in WWII?

A new word in the world of tactics - AUG. And she was good not only because she was able to provide intelligence, a massive raid aviation on land and sea targets beyond their reach to the AUG itself. But also the fact that, for example, it provided an order for PLO (destroyers) and an order for air defense with a powerful curtain of shells with radio explosions. Moreover, the battleship did a lot, there was simply no more powerful air defense barge, powerful radars, a stable platform, a large number of 127 mm barrels with radio blasting (and 40 mm bofors too, of course). And also the processing of the coast (again, battleship and cruisers - moreover, by the Vietnam War, battleships became cheaper to use than an air wing, when working on ground targets - and clearly cheaper than the Tomahawk CD later).

Sound familiar?

A systematic approach, the use of various complexes and ships, their interaction ... Oh, yes, now it is still precisely the AUG that is considered the most effective combination of the fleet. The battleships, however, were mothballed, but submarines were added. And the most interesting thing is that in fact it is possible to train one crew of one ship, but ensuring the interaction of several ships is the task of the level of training of one ship squared, plus a time delay for communication. And the more units - ships, planes, boats - the more complicated it is. Now it is solved by BIUS - combat information and control systems, powerful computers and excellent communication. And this simplifies the matter a little, but the essence remains the same. As well as now, their correct interaction significantly increases efficiency - after all, a target that has been detected from two radars will be accurately determined much faster, it will be more difficult for it to hide behind interference, etc.

In the modern world, as I said above, a ship is a whole system, consisting of many things and capable of solving multiple tasks. This system is based on a platform - a hull of a certain displacement, with a specific power plant. And then comes the LEGO constructor, in its essence - you can build into a given displacement a certain number of detection and guidance systems, weapons, ammunition to it, armor, engine part, fuel (and accordingly - and cruising range), helicopters and landing boats.

And it's not bad that it can be built, for it to move, the systems to work, weapon fired, and even at all - but how? In front of someone there will be such a tub and defenseless, right? To arms - more ammunition. Moreover, for the best price, and even the crew to be comfortably accommodated and well trained. Yes, and so that serially - after all, one, even a large ship cannot be in ten places at the same time, and even, God forbid, it sinks or drowns - horror, we still need it!

Well, everyone should build the largest ships possible? After all, the most and better quality will fit? There is not enough money, even if you want to. Actually, this is how the classes of ships, projects and their specialization within these classes are born. Highly specialized ships or the most universal ones are being built.

In attempts to get away from this, controversial decisions are born. Like these: let's squeeze the frigate's armament into the displacement of the corvette, and build them twice as much - after all, they are twice as small! What doesn't fit? Well, let's reduce the ammunition (BC), remove some of the weapons, put it in a smaller class. But so that it was, so that they could say - more powerful than competitors a class higher! This is how all sorts of 20385, 20386 and other "hybrids" appear, which seem to be a frigate, almost a destroyer, but at a price they are almost as big as a frigate! Ammunition - the cat cried, the radar cannot provide target illumination for the air defense complex. And none of the assigned tasks can be effectively solved they can not.

What is the truth?

And the truth is, you have to start with cost / performance decisions. From the fact that the more tasks, the more systems are needed, the more a ship is needed for them, the more powerful the power plant is to accelerate such a body, provide more powerful radars. According to the latest information, the new AFAR radars based on gallium nitride elements of PPM (transceiver modules) are almost several times more effective than the old ones. Several times, respectively, more expensive. And they require 2,5 times more energy. And how, if suddenly we can produce them, can we replace such APMs, for example, the radars of the Zaslon complex at 20380?

Will there be enough generator capacity for him? Or on the ship, when the radar turns on, the light will go out, the speed will slow down and the GAK will be cut down, for example?

Yes, I'm exaggerating now. But, I hope, the idea was conveyed. That is why now there are different classes of ships. Or those who can afford it fill the fleets with large, versatile ships that can really safely ensure the operation of all their complexes and their deployment with normal ammo, with comfortable crew accommodation, with the maximum number of tasks. And they build them in series, large, which reduces their cost (Arleigh Burke). And they can be modernized - there is a supply of space and energy, there is a resource.

We cannot, alas, economically approach the solution of problems globally, that is, the most multifunctional ships capable of solving any problems. Yes, destroyers (or missile cruisers, according to our classification, rather) are cheaper to build. Yes, they are better. But, alas, even taking into account the price / quality ratio, we will not be able to build them as many as necessary to close all the holes with them. It's right. But is it worth giving them up at all?

There was a brilliant idea here that you can build lifeboats with machine guns, uh, Buyanov with Calibers, and say that this is the best option. And even better than one TARKR "Admiral Nakhimov" - Which is more useful, "Admiral Nakhimov" or ten "Buyans"? By the way, they seem to be compared with the modernized Nakhimov, and examples are given in the form of Peter the Great, that is, the version before modernization ... It's not clear. But okay.

To begin with, I will answer this opus in the first article of the cycle.

The idea, of course, is interesting - we can build 10 Buyans, and cheaper, and they will perform more and better tasks. But there is a nuance: when 10 brawlers meet with 1 TARKR (heavy nuclear missile cruiser), the fact that the TARKR will win is not even discussed.

Moreover, the fact that it is gunboat missile boats (MRK, or small missile ship, not even a boat). And nothing more. They will be sunk by any diesel-electric submarine (diesel submarine), aircraft or helicopter with an anti-ship cruise missile (anti-ship cruise missile) and anything larger than themselves.

The author somehow forgets that they do not carry either air defense (air defense) or PLO (anti-submarine defense) - see. Buyan-M... And that their combat value in a naval battle is near-zero. Because they have launchers. By the way, only on "Caliber" - after all, never from these RTOs there were no "Onyx" firing, in addition - Information about PU 3S14 from the manufacturer... The subsonic caliber in the anti-ship missile version is a terrible thing. Good, but not "Onyx", as he cites in the article. And also: the radar is much worse there. And it stands lower, the launch platform is less stable. It is trite - 1144 will see it earlier and further, it will simply crush it with electronic warfare interference, it will drown it guaranteed.

But can they even drown a dozen Buyans "11442M "Admiral Nakhimov""? Well, hypothetically?

Consider a version?

Missile attack


In the XNUMXst century, the most probable and dangerous attack at sea is a missile one. In order for it to be successful, because most targets have some means of defense against it, they try to make it secretive, ensuring the minimum time of arrival of missiles after their detection, and mass - after all, one, two, etc. missiles can shoot down. How many missiles do you need for a particular target? How to calculate it? How can this be ensured?

Let's try to calculate it simply: how many missiles can RTOs fire at Nakhimov, and how will he answer from the air defense / missile defense systems? We believe that 1 anti-ship missile system needs two missiles (anti-aircraft guided missiles). And that the guidance systems that those that those have are quite perfect. And they will be guided where necessary.

If provided secretive launch, anti-ship missiles fly over the water at a dozen meters and will be detected only after leaving the radio horizon. That is, suppose we have Yes a satellite system that can track ships in real time, and no one interferes with it, and it guides the anti-ship missile system, and they go to the point where the cruiser is currently located, capable of exchanging 60 km / h. And the enemy has such a system no, and he is blind, and does not see a bunch of RTOs 220 km away. Or do we have what? Right. What the Russian Navy does not have are normal naval reconnaissance aircraft with a target search range of 300+ km. Since the “long arm” “S-200F Fort-M” hits 300 km, and Polyment-Redut - 150 km according to the “passport”. Only, according to the "passport", the 9M96E2 missiles are included there, and this is the same 200 km. The exact information will be known after the descent of Nakhimov.

The satellites, even if, for example, restore the Legend MRCC, can provide information about the location of the target, once in what time? At two o'clock? Per day? The information will become very out of date. Even at two o'clock - an ideal option, we can predict the place where the target will be, prolongation of the route and theories about where the ship is going and what it has forgotten there. How many Caliber will fly at 190 km subsonic - about 11 minutes? During this time, the ship at full speed will change its position by 10 km. And in two hours? 100 km? And how to shoot at him, if he can go these 100 km in any way, in any direction, giving an area of ​​his approximate location with an area of ​​31416 km²? But we are simulating a situation when, for some reason, there is data about the cruiser. He relies exclusively on his systems.

By the way, in this simulation, the most advanced missiles for such an attack were used - a huge advantage of the "Calibers" in the "PKR" version is that they go quite low in the flight phase to the target, and in the final phase the target attacks, firstly, are divided (the head part is separated, it still needs to be tracked, re-targeted, etc.), and secondly, they switch to three speeds of sound. Even the LRASM - the most advanced US anti-ship missile system - cannot do that. With hypersonic and supersonic missiles, a separate история, due to the fact that they fly fast, but high.

According to the information on the Kalibr anti-ship missile system (not to be confused with the “Caliber” for coastal purposes), the range is 220 km, due to the radio horizon, it will go ± 42 km from the cruiser, and 30 km from it, it will accelerate to about three strides, cm. 3M-54... I do not see here a record about the ability of "Calibers" to come together for an attack with a minimum gap. Judging by video launches, the delay between the launch of the anti-ship missile system is about 5 s, which means if all 10 ships will start firing at the same time: there will be about 10 missiles in a wave, the delay between waves is 5 seconds, 8 "waves".
Through simple calculations, we get 30 (flight time at 2,9 M) +46 seconds (12 km before this moment at 0,8 M). 76 seconds for each wave from the moment of detection.

Let's say it takes time to recognize, to alert and start the complexes. Let's also take into account that at 2,9 M, it does not immediately accelerate, but a few seconds ... Let's leave 50 seconds of flight for the battle itself, for repelling a rocket attack for each wave. Since the gap between the waves is 5 seconds, we also take this into account. The total is 90 seconds.

We will discover this happiness with the help of the Poliment radar, each antenna post of the PAR which can simultaneously accompany 4 targets and direct missiles at them. After that, shooting at targets will begin. He will find it at a distance of the radio horizon. The anti-ship missile is at a height of 20 m, the height of the antenna post on the Project 1144 ship is conventionally 35 meters. If someone knows for sure - write, we will count.

In our case, this is 42,82 km with the radio horizon of a pure ship - 24,38 km (if it had already spread at the very edge of the water) - Radio horizon calculator... Consider how and in what order the ship will attack incoming anti-ship missiles:

Far zone (> 50 km): S-300F / Polyment-Redoubt "maximum distance" in version 9M96E2 / 48N6E2 - in this case it will not be very useful, not his path. Removing the highlighting (since it is unrealistic to attack without it, as I explained above) is his part. An attack of high-flying (or flying on the march of the same Caliber of other versions - they fly on the march by 50 m, if far and for a long time) - this is his path, from 25 km to 25 m he intercepts - Polement Redoubt.

Medium or collective defense (<50 km): Polyment-Redoubt with 9M96E missiles (from 50 km, semi-active guidance, in the final section includes an active radar guidance head (ARGSN, in other words), the ship's BIUS gives it target designation at the start, then the missile captures the target and then acts "by itself." with 9M100 (from 15 km, with the same seeker). That is, the ship will give the control center for 4 missiles in case they all come from one side. It will fire 2 missiles each - for a guarantee, on anti-ship missiles, and will give the control center for the next 4. Full launch of missiles - 1 s, respectively, 20 s for the first wave. The delay between waves is 5 seconds. That is, we spent 20 seconds, the first wave was completely "worked out" in 42000-5280 (0,8 M x ​​20 s) = 36720 m from the cruiser.

The second wave is at 31440 m, in 40 seconds. SAMs fly towards anti-ship missiles at a speed of 1 km / s. And if the RCC not maneuver, then the approach speed is 1260 m / s. At this speed, they only need 33 seconds to meet. But here's the nuance - from 30 km (20 seconds after the start of the first missiles) the Caliber anti-ship missiles separate the 2nd stage - warheads, and accelerate to 2,9 M. Already 2 km / s the oncoming speed, already 5 seconds will remain on the "meeting" from the moment of reaching such a speed (anti-ship missiles at 30 km, missiles - 20 km from the ship and 10 - from anti-ship missiles, respectively, 5 seconds per meeting).

How to calculate whether the missile defense system will be able to track such acceleration and hit the target? How long will the adjustment take?

I dont know. Again, the target's RCS is unknown. We need an adjustment from the ship, a new prolongation, a new meeting point, the missile defense system has traveled about 20 km so far. The stock of its kinetic energy should be enough to change course and intercept, we can retarget it. It takes time.

But, let's say, we retarget, spend another 3 seconds per wave for illumination, shoot down 80%, and then let the air defense of self-defense and the 9M100 in its composition be dealt with. And "Polyment-Redut" works further in the far zone. While the first three waves required adjustments, time passed (6 s, from the moment the anti-ship missiles reached 2,9 M). The first wave (the remaining 20% ​​of it) is already 24 km from the ship. Conventionally, after reaching such a speed of the anti-ship missile system, it will be caught and adjusted just up to 20 km. Having made the decision that all anti-ship missiles on the approach are of the same type, and having predicted their flight, they will be able to correct in advance, displaying the missile defense system correctly initially, exactly at the meeting point.

By the 3-4 wave, will systems or people figure out your rates? Then 100% of each wave, starting from 4, will be able to attack the 20 missiles, spending only 20 seconds (by the way, if we launch missiles from different launchers or from different, distant launchers. Then 2-4 missiles leave at the same time - the waves will end earlier , Anti-ship missiles will not reach the ship.) But well, let's say, 1 per second, and from 20 km the air defense zone of self-defense is connected. By the time of approach to it, 24 anti-ship missiles out of 30 from the first three waves were shot down. It has passed.

The next step:
Air defense self-defense (<20 km): 1144 carries 6xAK-630 or in the new version 1144.2M (Nakhimov), according to rumors - 4-6xPantsir-M, which gives a much higher density of fire from 4 km (actually ± 1,5 km), and in addition - 8 missiles with a range of 20 km. Just the same ones created to intercept anti-ship missiles (Pantsir's problems have already been covered, but, alas, no one has adapted the Tor-2M missile defense system in inclined launchers in the ZRAK-i). It is this complex that will be responsible for intercepting anti-ship missiles at the final section. 4-6 launchers (that is, 3-4 on board), with separate target tracking, will provide simultaneous shooting of 3 anti-ship missiles additionally to Redoubt, the next 20 seconds, that they will be in the area of ​​20 km. Plus, in the final section from 4 to 4 km, the cannons will fill the entire space in front of the ship with lead.

Are there any chances of hitting 1144.2M in this situation?

Wave 4 will “finish” saturation with a purely “Redoubt” within ± 60 seconds after the start of the battle and 10 seconds and 10 km before approaching the target. Further, most likely, there will be distribution, it will be necessary to intercept 50% - 5 missiles, launching 10 missiles - this is 10 seconds. 5th wave in 15 km. We will intercept her 5 up to 5 km, 6 - already end-to-end, 7, 8 - only partially. Let's roughly assume that for the Carapaces there are:

1st wave - 2 missiles.
2st wave - 2 missiles.
3st wave - 2 missiles.
4th wave - 0 missiles.
5th wave - 0 missiles.
6th wave - 1 rocket.
7th wave - 3-4 missiles.
8th wave - 5–6 missiles.

ZRAK (3 pieces) with 24 missiles and 3x2x30-mm cannons will be able to intercept this?

I think yes. Moreover, it will start working from 20 km, that is, it will have 20 seconds for each wave, there will be no oversaturation of launchers (launchers). The oversaturation of the trunks is also unlikely, only the last wave has a chance.

Yes, this is an approximate calculation based on the mathematics of "timing", figures from open sources. And it does not pretend to be reliable or super accurate. There are a huge number of nuances, from the performance characteristics of the ARGSN SAM to the accuracy of the ZRAK and the theory of probability, which predicts the hits of 30-mm projectiles and the consequences from them in the 2nd stage of the 3M-54E anti-ship missile system. We are not the last instance, which knows everything thoroughly.

I made this calculation to show you how many nuances you need to take into account and how approximately a missile attack and its reflection from such a cruiser will proceed. But the breakthrough of the echeloned air defense / missile defense, which is equal in filling to the S-400 / S-350 Vityaz division, plus the division, apparently, and Pantsirey (I did not find the size of the division for them) is not an easy task, which I showed above ... And then, let's say, they get there. And how many warheads of 220 kg equivalent do you need to sink or disable a cruiser of 25 thousand tons? It depends on the place, on the systems that will be behind this place, on the laying of cable routes, on the protection of electronics from short-circuit, on a huge number of nuances.

No, maybe these missiles were taught to regulate fuel consumption or maneuvers that would provide a one-step approach to the target (well, coordination with each other with the exchange of information)? And the situation will happen:

“It is known to all as two times two -
Even a lion is extinguished with a crowd.

But here's the nuance, even if 10 Buyan-M gather together and attack from Nakhimov, then the "situation" will be in any case: they will not be able to repel the raid of the already supersonic anti-ship missiles "Onyx" or simply missiles (the mass of the warhead 48N6E is 145 kg, and there are 96 of them in the launcher). (On each Buyan-M, for comparison: 1 Duet, count, 1 double AK-630, or, however, while on notbuilt - 1 Armor-ME). AK-630-2 "Duet" will work too late, even large fragments from a missile of ten tons at a speed of Mach 3 can seriously damage these ships. And "Flexible", in general, is not intended to intercept targets at a speed higher than the speed of sound.

Minute finance ...


So what is it, Roman Skomorokhov offered to throw almost a hundred billion rubles down the drain ?!

But one ship 21631 costs 9 billion rubles. Which, by the way, is not clear if 22800 costs 2 billion rubles apiece, but in fact - the same MRK with the same ± 100 tons of displacement and armament.

By the way, a 1 Caliber salvo is ± 110 million rubles, if it costs like the American analogue, which was churned out cheaply, cheerfully and in a circulation of thousands. Consequently, a hypothetical attempt to drown Nakhimov took ... 8 billion rubles?

How do you like this arithmetic and comparison?

But in terms of shock capabilities, it is like 10 divisional sets "Bastion". Or 5 frigates 22350. And this, not counting anti-submarine weapons, helicopters, artillery (by the way, I did not count it, but it will also give a plus in air defense). And yet, although 1144 cannot be in 10 places at the same time, he will be able to be in such places and get there so quickly at the expense of the nuclear power plant, as no RTO or even any large ship with a power plant or any not nuclear power plants. Well, or it needs a squadron tanker in addition to each such group and huge reserves of money. Is its modernization so expensive?

Maybe then take the squadrons of Su-34 / Su-30, etc. and give them a RCC? How much can they take? 1 Su-30MKI carries 1 Onyx, judging by the photo. How much do 80 Su-30MKI / SM2 cost? 50 million dollars a little thing, plus 1 hour of flight - 3 million rubles. Apart from the airfield, caponiers, combat radius, cover squadrons and others. Just 80 planes will come out at $ 4 billion or 300 billion rubles.

Does this mean that RTOs are not needed?

Of course not. This means that each ship class has specific tasks. And trying to compensate for them by increasing the number of other ships is a very bad idea. Because even if we take the conditionally minimal "multipurpose" ship - corvette 20385, calculate it cost / effectiveness, and set against 1144 - it turns out that instead of modernizing the 1st 1144.2M, we can build new ones with a needle 20385 (price per piece ± 25 billion) - 4 pieces.

Yes, we will get 4 ships, with a Redoubt, with 32 launchers for good anti-ship missiles…. And with an inoperative radar to keep the Redoubt working. That is, the same problem - they will be drowned with a high probability, they worse in terms of air defense and missile defense, PLO. Even if the Radar and, accordingly, the air defense missile system worked, on Petra there are still more powerful BIUS, air defense self-defense and GAS systems, more air defense missile systems, torpedoes, PLUR, anti-ship missiles, and it is still a much more stable and more easily relocatable platform in space. ... But it's not that bad anymore, is it?

And if you take 22350 - in general, it will be good? In theory, it is 1,5 times more expensive than 20385, which means it costs 37,5 billion rubles. As many as three pieces can be built, throwing 12,5 billion on top to 100 billion for modernization ...

But there is a nuance.

15 years have passed since the start of their construction. And I don't see in our fleet either 10 frigates or 20 corvettes, as was the case in GPV-2020. For all these years, the fleet was replenished with 2 frigates (laid down 8), 7 corvettes (out of 20). Yes, import substitution and other problems, but in the end, 1 set of gearboxes for the power plant for the frigate 22350 goes a year. Spending 100 billion more on frigates will not increase the speed of their appearance in our fleet. As well as corvettes and RTOs. And I'm not talking about the natural decline of the fleet, when instead of BOD and EM 956 we get corvettes and frigates with MRKs. Rank 1 ships have not been built since the collapse of the USSR. And there is simply no technology or school, as well as experience.

All ships "lower" in rank and displacement are unlikely to be able to match the qualities of the "missile battleship" 1144.2M. But he will be able to become the pillar of the compound, the nucleus, ensuring the stability and striking force of the combat group, its coordination.

Such ships are needed by the fleet, such flagships as part of squadrons are simply necessary - after all, in addition to combat performance, they will be able to place a headquarters, provide control center, communications, interaction of systems of different ships - they have a powerful BIUS and energy for it. The complex of any auxiliary systems for control and interaction is much easier to put on them than on a frigate or corvette. Reconnaissance UAVs or a backlight turntable? Yes, as much as necessary.

What will happen if a group of smaller ships is given such a ship? If these 10 MRK or a group of carpet, frigates cover his air defense and anti-aircraft defense? Their effectiveness will increase by an order of magnitude.

If the rumors about the S-400 / S-500 on them (or missiles from them ...) are true, then they will become the only ships in our fleet, with a range of interception of air targets of 380+ km, providing cover for the formation from AWACS ... That in the conditions of operations far from our aviation and aircraft carrier - has no analogues in importance. And by the way - "Air Defense Umbrella" in any port, wherever they stand. Imagine, such a ship, for example, in St. Petersburg, will partially become the A-135 system, which covers Moscow ... Another possibility of application and functionality?

conclusions


In conclusion, I will note the following:

- Big ship solves big problems. A crowd of small ones can solve a similar number only at a similar, or higher cost.

- One "Admiral Nakhimov" can destroy 10 "Buyanov-M". They are not.

- In terms of the totality of its capabilities, one such cruiser is much more useful than MRK - it has powerful air defense / missile defense, powerful anti-aircraft missile defense, mobility (they do not have this at all).

- We cannot yet build something similar or not much worse.

- The lack of work and the decommissioning of these ships will not give the fleet a bonus of 10 frigates. Only 3 at a time, and even then not soon, the minimum construction period for one frigate is 1 year, the real one is 10 years. In addition, these ships have extremely unique hulls, and after replacing cable routes (the main problem of warships), and on the same Ustinov they were replaced and, judging by news - on Nakhimov too, such a ship is capable of serving another 35+ years.

- Such ships are needed as a shock core, as the group's flagship.

- The fleet needs a balanced composition ...

And what, why and what exactly - my thoughts on this topic and arguments in the next article in the series.

Ten missile gunboats or one missile battleship. What's best for the fleet?


To be continued ...
Author:
189 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. north 2
    north 2 April 24 2021 15: 10
    +2
    or even better, ten rocket gunboats and one missile battleship ..
    1. mark1
      mark1 April 24 2021 16: 22
      +31
      Better yet, develop a coherent naval doctrine for the development of the Naval Forces, linked to the general Defense, and link all wishes with it ..
      1. Cowbra
        Cowbra April 24 2021 18: 31
        0
        Quote: mark1
        linked to the general Defense, and link all Wishlist with it ..

        Exactly. The point of view of the Moremans is understandable. But when it begins - "both, and it is possible without bread." Once I came across such a figure - the cost of one American modern battleship, of which there were more than one at the end of the war, is equal to the cost of ALL tanks that the USSR had at the end of the war. Here it is clear to the hedgehog what was better for the USSR - ALL tanks or 1 battleship, albeit a drop dead good one.
        The question is - a similar situation in Russia in 2021 - how? No one in the world can build everything for himself - at the same time. Even in the USA - remember why Trump didn't start wars? The fleet is there, but the land is not enough not for a new war, but for the ongoing ones! Well, compare our and their defense budget ... If we still build the fleet even 10 times weaker, which is not a purely technical fact, Russia can be occupied by one landing barge - only the Emergencies Ministry and the police will remain on land
        1. antivirus
          antivirus April 25 2021 21: 09
          0
          I will give an even worse argument - MRK without rank 1 ARE SUPPLEMENTED BY THE RVSN AND ISKANDERS. saving.
          100 MRK against 1st rank 1 does not play, and 10 MRK + Strategic Missile Forces weigh more than a clean fleet of 33 units of rank 1, torn off from the Supreme Main Command
          1. Doccor18
            Doccor18 April 26 2021 09: 57
            0
            Quote: antivirus
            ... a clean fleet of 33 units of rank 1, torn from the Supreme Main Command

            Why "torn off"?
            1. antivirus
              antivirus April 26 2021 11: 22
              0
              everything is a play of terms - augmented or detached.
              and any RTO in the situation from the article is not torn off, but promoted beyond the front lines of defense, beyond the lines of attack .... BUT UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF THE RVSN OR STUMP.
              RTOs are not against a specific ship or AUG - and
              against the whole country -vrazhina. the cat will be hit by the Strategic Missile Forces mallet
          2. Ryusey
            Ryusey April 26 2021 19: 43
            -1
            What a liquid delirium you are talking about.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion April 26 2021 08: 48
          0
          The cost of the battleship was about 5 thousand Sherman-type tanks, the USSR still had more tanks, in the Berlin operation there were 6 thousand tanks, while a lot of tanks were in the Far East, where BT-7s in the 45th went to finish off the Japanese, and some machines in the rear units (training, not yet sent to the front line) But the values, of course, are comparable.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal April 26 2021 09: 14
            -1
            It's also a matter of technology, the USSR never had the opportunity (as long as it made sense) to produce something comparable to American battleships.
            And in general did not have any strong fleet during the war years.
            As a result, he could fight Japan only on the continent, and it was impossible to organize a landing on its islands without the defeat (which was carried out by the USA) of a very strong Japanese fleet.
            1. Glad
              Glad 16 May 2021 23: 16
              0
              As a result, he could fight Japan only on the continent, and it was impossible to organize a landing on its islands without the defeat (which was carried out by the USA) of a very strong Japanese fleet.

              Hmm ... I don’t remember something ... From the Soviet coast to Sapporo in a straight line about 600 kilometers. This fits well into the range of the Pe-2. "Pawns" would not even have to go to the task alone. They would be well and tightly covered by fighters. And the Tu-2 had a slightly larger radius ... Something tells me that no fleet would help the Japanese to avoid landing on the islands.
              By the way, will there be 100 km between Sakhalin and Hokkaido, or not?
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 16 May 2021 23: 54
                0
                They would be well and tightly covered by fighters

                La-7 had a range of 630 km. Would have covered, but would have had to land in Japan.
                Something tells me that no fleet would help the Japanese to avoid landing on the islands.

                Disembarkation is carried out from sea transport.
                The uncrushed Japanese fleet had dozens of cruisers, battleships, and more than 10 aircraft carriers.
                Send transports to break through warships? For the amusement of the gunners?
                By the way, will there be 100 km between Sakhalin and Hokkaido, or not?

                Concentrate huge forces on poorly developed Sakhalin? Unnoticed?
                What prevents the blockade of the island, followed by the capture by the Japanese?
                This is well within the range of the Pe-2.

                Which is "practically equal" to the B-25 (with a combat radius of 1050 km at 1360kg of bombs) smile
                At a range close to the maximum (and from a bad field airfield), he would fly only with 6xFAB-100 or 2xFAB-250 in the bomb bay.
                A terrible force, in order to arrange Sapporo an analogue of the 1000 B-17 raid, 6000 Pe-2 would have to be used.
                Where to collect so much?
                Vladivostok is far away - 750+ km.
                1. Glad
                  Glad 18 May 2021 00: 07
                  0
                  You see, what a thing ... We are now talking about a hypothetical situation. From the field of alternative history. That is, a possible holivar will most likely resemble an anecdote about who is the worst animal in the forest. Both you and I have a bunch of certain arguments that in reality can only be supported by such a powerful thing as faith. Why? Yes, because we, in hindsight, know how it all happened in reality, given the alignment of forces that developed at a certain moment and which caused the adoption of certain decisions. A different alignment of forces would trigger a chain of completely different events and decisions.
                  No, I understand that the audience loves holivars. They invigorate and don't let you get bored. Again, you can always take part in inserting your own five cents. But to start holivar - thank you ...
                  Unless you organize a full-fledged war game using a PC or, at worst, some rules akin to those used by fans of wargames. Determine the circle of forces, the location, the tasks of the opposing sides, take into account many, many different factors (significant and not so), etc., etc. And away we go ... A kind of chess game by correspondence. And ... And still remain unconvinced, regardless of the simulation results. For faith is usually not subject to rational arguments.
                  Is that all you need? Come on, he stump! I'm too lazy for holivars.
                  Therefore, I propose to award victory to both opposing sides with the presentation of orders with ribbons, bows, swords, feathers and drills. laughing
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 18 May 2021 07: 12
                    0
                    It cannot be denied: it would be incredibly difficult for the Union to land anything in Japan.
                    We have an example of an air war between Nazi Germany and Britain to have a model of confrontation.
                    There was no landing on the Island due to the presence and opposition of a strong English fleet, while the gap in the power of the Nazi fleet and his Majesty's fleet (then there was George 6) was several times smaller than between the Soviet and Japanese (Battleship Marat, Red Caucasus crying )
                    Just ask about the scale of naval battles in the Pacific during WW2. Who other than the United States could participate in such a thing and win?
                    What the Union could really do was to crush the Japanese on the mainland: to knock them out of Korea, China, etc.
                    1. Glad
                      Glad 18 May 2021 23: 19
                      0
                      We have an example of an air war between Nazi Germany and Britain to have a model of confrontation.

                      This is not a model. This is an analogy. Moreover, some kind of it ... Unfinished, or something ... Hitler was ready to sign a separate peace with Great Britain at any time. The Fuhrer loved Britain ... So he generously released the British from Dunkirk. He was not going to land in Britain.
                      Instead of bringing to its logical conclusion the successful dynamics of events (the destruction of fighter aircraft, the airfield network and the observation and warning system) in the first period of the Battle of Britain, the Fuhrer launched an air offensive on British cities ... This is without air supremacy and with the strongest British aircraft industry! Well done!
                      But if the Luftwaffe won air supremacy ... Then the entire British fleet would not be worth anything.
                      Don't believe me? Then be curious about what the Japanese phrase "Ten itichi go" means.

                      In general, this is all empty. Well I tell you, you and I have a bunch of arguments, a la who is stronger - a whale or an elephant. In any case, in terms of the number of victories, the Romans will leave everyone far behind. smile
                      1. 3danimal
                        3danimal 19 May 2021 16: 39
                        +1
                        But if the Luftwaffe won air supremacy ... Then the entire British fleet would not be worth anything.

                        If ... There weren't enough pilots and production capacity.
                        The bombers were weak defensive weapons and low bomb load (not even close to Lancaster or B-17). As in the USSR.
                        And Britain had an important ally (big brother) - the largest factory in the world.
                        He was not going to land in Britain.
                        Instead of bringing to its logical conclusion the successful dynamics of events (the destruction of fighter aircraft, the airfield network and the observation and warning system) in the first period of the Battle of Britain, the Fuhrer launched an air offensive against British cities ...

                        Speculation. There is evidence that such plans were being considered.
                        The shelling of cities in the vain hope of forcing the British to accept their terms. After all, he knew that they could lock up almost all of his surface fleet, at least. The transition to large-scale use of submarines is associated with the same - the cruisers would inevitably be sunk. As one of two superlinkers.
                        As I said above, Hitler had NOTHING to carry out really massive raids of "1000 heavy bombers". Compare Henkel 111 and Lancaster.
                        The numbers decide.
                        Unfinished, or something ... Hitler was ready to sign a separate peace with Great Britain at any time. The Fuhrer loved Britain ...

                        I don't know if Stalin loved Hirohito, but on Sakhalin the Japanese were producing oil almost until mid-1944. After the transformation, according to the signed agreement, “as compensation, the USSR paid the Japanese government 5 million rubles. (950 thousand US dollars) and pledged to sell 50 thousand metric tons of crude oil from the Okha wells to Japan within 5 years after the end of the war "
                        And the samurai did not attack the Union from the east, instead they nightmares China and Korea.
                      2. Glad
                        Glad 20 May 2021 16: 06
                        0
                        Well ... Now let's go in a circle ... Stalin, Hirohito, oil; "Standard Oil", US trade with Germany throughout the war ... 1000 heavy bombers ... Massive raids ... Why? The same Japanese also managed to hang torpedoes on single-engine vehicles. And not only among the Japanese, by the way.
                        And initially, the conversation was generally not about the Battle of England.
                        And mind you, again we have an alternative history. If Hitler ... The plans were considered ...
                        Maybe I'm wrong, of course, but there are, in my opinion, certain sufficiently convincing arguments in support of my initial opinion.
                        If one of the opponents does not have air superiority, then that enemy has problems. This is the first thing.
                        Secondly, in 1945, the USSR had an advantage over Japan in the development of industrial potential. Could Japan repeat what the USSR did in terms of building a military industry? The question is open. My opinion is no.
                        Third, the territorial proximity of Japan to the USSR. Substantial proximity. The theater distances allowed the use of aviation of those times not from aircraft carriers, but from land airfields.
                        Fourthly, a timely decision on the landing in Japan would cause an appropriate adjustment both in terms of the production of the necessary weapons and the training of troops and infrastructure in the theater of operations.
                        Fifth, Japan was at war in China.
                        From all this, the conclusion. If Stalin wanted to land in Japan, he would have landed. And no one would have disturbed him. How the Americans were unable to prevent the Japanese from conducting amphibious operations in the first half of the Pacific War due to the Japanese air superiority.
                        Exactly the same thing would happen to the Japanese fleet as happened to the Yamato and to the rest of the Japanese fleet in 1945 in real history. Their fleet could not even have done anything to cut off the supply of Soviet troops on Japanese territory, the reason has already been indicated - Japan's proximity to the mainland. There is no need to drive transports across the sea over long distances. That from Sakhalin to Hokkaido, that from Urup to Iturup - a stone's throw. In such a situation, Japanese submarines are of little use.
                        Yes, and the Chinese comrades would have greatly helped to trouble the Japanese during the Soviet amphibious operation. And another moment. How long did the Kwantung Army hold out there against the Soviet troops who defeated Germany and possessed gigantic combat experience?
                        So ... The only thing that could have kept Stalin from landing in Japan was joint Anglo-American threats demanding not to do so. And that's all. Japan is out of business here.
        3. Cowbra
          Cowbra April 26 2021 11: 20
          -2
          Firstly - a lie, and you - take the trouble to at least cost Iowa - here to say, hamster!
    2. FIR FIR
      FIR FIR April 24 2021 20: 35
      +11
      Quote: mark1
      Better yet, develop a coherent naval doctrine for the development of the Naval Forces, linked to the general Defense, and link all wishes with it ..

      And before that, a clear doctrine of the development of the state - Russia. Where are we going at all? What are the goals of the country, its leadership, people, each family ??? Until a "coherent doctrine" of the country's path appears, there is no point in writing military doctrines.
      1. Narak-zempo
        Narak-zempo April 25 2021 15: 01
        -6
        We have the following doctrine: Motherland, stability, Putin.
        1. Doccor18
          Doccor18 April 25 2021 15: 22
          +3
          Quote: Narak-zempo
          We have this doctrine: stability ...

          Stability?
          Interesting ...
          Prices for all goods and services are growing steadily - yes.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal April 26 2021 09: 16
            +3
            Many of the president's friends are getting rich no less steadily on government contracts.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 26 2021 08: 49
        +1
        You will be surprised, but the task of defeating everyone and completing the script, as in our strategy, is not worth it, all countries of the world just live, trying to live better.
    3. TermNachTer
      TermNachTer April 24 2021 23: 45
      +1
      And who has it now? Comprehensible, when the situation changes very quickly and dramatically. Even sworn friends, mattress toppers in "neponyatki" - where should they go? And their capabilities are much more "shirier" than Russian ones)))
  2. andrew42
    andrew42 April 24 2021 20: 05
    +5
    The way it is. In general, everything depends on the complex task in particular and on the naval doctrine in general. In a situation "either / or", with limited funds, and so it is clear, namely .. A) in the Defense of the coast and in limited water areas (Baltic, Black Sea) 10 Buyanov is better than 1 Nakhimov. B) For attacking tasks in the far / middle sea zone, of course 1 Nakhimov is better than 10 Buyans. C) For a flexible response to calls / tasks in the near zone (both in the attacking and in the defensive version of actions), both Nakhimov and 10 Buyanov are needed. (Corvettes in brackets). To understand this, it is not necessary to consider the cumulative power of missile salvos and the range of radar detection. It is enough to be able to play ordinary chess, where there is a Queen and Pawns.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal April 26 2021 09: 17
      0
      We need corvettes 20385 and frigates 22350. And no Buyans.
      1. andrew42
        andrew42 April 26 2021 09: 58
        0
        Definitely needed. But Buyans also have a place. 1) in view of the lack of funds and the low speed (in fact) of the construction of corvettes 2) in view of the possibility of transferring Buyans through the river network of the White Sea - Baltic - Black Sea - Caspian (you cannot drive corvettes like that).
  3. RealPilot
    RealPilot April 25 2021 01: 16
    +1
    But his capabilities are not limited to this.

    It is atomic. So it is able to provide a good amount of electricity from the quay wall for the whole base, its course is not limited by the fuel burned and, accordingly, this cruiser does not require an obligatory call to foreign ports.

    And another moment. Due to the presence of a nuclear reactor, not every enemy will dare to attack him. The psychology of war is sometimes no less important than performance characteristics. Especially in their waters. Well, they may be afraid of a nuclear response, since this is already a "red line". But "Buyany-M" is much easier psychologically to sink!
    1. kig
      kig April 25 2021 15: 36
      0
      Quote: RealPilot
      It is atomic. So it is able to give a good amount of electricity from the quay wall for the whole base,

      This is how? Well, yes, it has two nuclear reactors and a power plant capacity of 140 thousand hp. And do you think these drugs can be easily converted into electricity? Describe the technology, at least approximately.
  • Anzhey V.
    Anzhey V. April 24 2021 15: 16
    +5
    Disputes over the VO fleet are starting to take quite serious turns. laughing
    1. lucul
      lucul April 24 2021 15: 40
      +3
      Disputes over the VO fleet are starting to take quite serious turns.

      Well, let's think about it.
      There is 1 cruiser - all equipment for him is 1 unit.
      10 gunboats - all the equipment for them - in 10 units.
      Why am I? Now the most inexpensive thing in a ship is its hull. But the filling, RLK, BIUS, and so on are quite expensive. Here is a simple example, with the corvette 20386 - it was equipped with a filling from the frigate 22350, and it was equal in price to the frigate, although in terms of displacement it was 2 times less. Why? Because there is only one Zaslon Radar Station costs $ 100 million. And if we want 10 gunboats perfectly equipped with modern equipment as a cruiser, then we also need 10 units of radar, bios and other first-class expensive equipment.
      That is, initially a cruiser will cost less than 10 gunboats, but in the process of maintenance, over time it will cost more, but it can also perform more functions.
      So, any double-edged sword)))
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 April 24 2021 15: 43
        +7
        Quote: lucul
        Ie, initially, a cruiser will cost less than 10 gunboats, but in the process of servicing it will cost more.
        So, any double-edged sword)))
        The cruiser will come where it is necessary, and will be there as long as necessary, and Buyan will come only where he can plus can pass along the inland waterways.
        1. lucul
          lucul April 24 2021 15: 48
          -7
          The cruiser will come where it is necessary, and will be there as long as necessary, and Buyan will come only where he can plus can pass along the inland waterways.

          That's why I drew an analogy with 20386 and 22350. We need cheaper equipment for small ships, otherwise it is not advisable to build them with such expensive ones.
          1. bk0010
            bk0010 April 24 2021 18: 33
            +5
            Quote: lucul
            We need cheaper equipment for small ships, otherwise it is not advisable to build them with such expensive ones.
            The trouble is that if you build small ships with cheap equipment, you will still have to create large ships with normal equipment to cover them. For the states, this is normal: they have a lot of ships, carrier-based aircraft is a danger only for them, and they have no one to defend against carrier-based aircraft, aircraft carrier fighters will be protected from the base aircraft, they have the most nuclear submarines, some can be allocated to solving ASW problems in simple ships. In our country, the ship must stand up for itself against everyone: there are few "big guys", they will have their own tasks. So I wouldn't build anything less than 22350 right now.
      2. Devil13
        April 24 2021 19: 13
        +4
        Let me remind you that they themselves said that there is a lot of equipment in them, and it is the equipment that is serviced)
    2. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 24 2021 20: 16
      +1
      and the disputes are going in the wrong direction .. what is the point of discussing the decisions already made? The cruisers will undergo modernization and will serve, the aircraft carrier will be laid, but probably not in this decade or at the end of it .. In fact, you first need to determine the strategy for the development of the fleet with an eye for the next 20 years .. We need a System .. the current actions are clear, this is an attempt to plug the holes and solve the current problems .. But if there is no Strategy .. it will not make sense .. In fact, unification is needed .. we will say the refusal of MRK / IPC in the benefits of building an anti-submarine based on Karakurt with missile weapons and without a helicopter ... For corvettes, everything is simpler: we make 20385 in two versions - one with simple electronic weapons, and the second with a more expensive one, for DMZ and future development ... Build 22350 on frigates for 24 missiles and slowly we reach the SuperGorshkovy ..
      1. Anzhey V.
        Anzhey V. April 24 2021 20: 21
        +1
        and the disputes are not going in the right direction .. what is the point of discussing the decisions already made?


        Somewhat I understand, the dispute was started with an eye on the modernization of "Peter")

        in favor of the construction of an anti-submarine based on Karakurt with missile weapons and without a helicopter


        For an anti-submarine, the helicopter, on the contrary, is more important than missile weapons)

        It's just that the helicopter must be modularly equipped, like the Sea Hawk, so that the anti-ship missile system can be suspended.
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 April 24 2021 20: 30
          0
          I don’t deny it, I just have a suspicion that if we shove PLO, air defense, UV and a hangar with a helicopter into the same Karakurt, will the shipyards that they are building now be able to build it? If they can, then I’m not against, but only for , but you need to leave the motley projects, especially since the meaning is lost ... the same patrolmen 22160, provided that they are in fact the simplest ships, the same number of ships are built as corvettes ... so what's the point of building them? Yes, to finish off the current series, but in the future, the place on the slipway should be better taken by MPK-Karakurt .. Still, getting every year of the same type of IPC among 5-6 boards is better than 3 series of 1-2 boards with different capabilities ..
          1. Anzhey V.
            Anzhey V. April 24 2021 20: 40
            +1
            I deny, I just have suspicions that in the same Karakurt, if you shove PLO, air defense, UV and a hangar with a helicopter


            It seems to me that with such ships, the functionality, on the contrary, should be cut as much as possible in favor of mass production.

            Roughly speaking, to make a purely anti-submarine ship with GAS, and provide additional functionality through the helicopter and, for example, the deployment of mine action teams with the necessary equipment (i.e., make an analogue of American sweeping units that can be transferred from ship to ship without any problems).

            We have a very big problem in the plane of the fact that we try to make almost every project as versatile as possible - therefore, the pace of construction is piecemeal.

            For BMZ it is necessary to change the approach, it seems to me. Here, DBKs can also increase the volley, and there are tactical aviation - you can't really get overwhelmed)
            1. Barberry25
              Barberry25 April 24 2021 20: 48
              +1
              and yes and no .. we do not have the size of the fleet to have 50 megapixels without strike weapons .. Plus the key problem is that there are not enough ships with strike weapons, at the moment we can actually get about 5 corvettes and 10 frigates in 2 years. .. this is very, very little .. or we can additionally get 50 small corvettes, let's say, which will be able to match the shock capabilities of full-fledged corvettes .. I would give up the Redoubt-style air defense leaving the Shell, well, maybe I would put the second shell between art installation and bridge, by analogy with 20380 .. So it is more optimal to remove mrk and mpk for the sake of mpk with shock
              1. Anzhey V.
                Anzhey V. April 24 2021 20: 56
                0
                fleet in order to have 50 MPK without strike weapons .. Plus the key problem is that there are not enough ships with strike weapons


                Well, why not at all without shock weapons - just not to the detriment of the main functionality of the ship)

                Again, 50 such ships = 50 helicopters with suspended anti-ship missiles. It doesn't look so sour anymore, you must agree)
                1. Barberry25
                  Barberry25 April 24 2021 21: 00
                  +1
                  The difference is that Vertical will allow you to put at least Caliber, at least Onyx, at least Zircon-to provide an external control center. And on a helicopter it will only be possible to place the X-35U with a range of 250 km ... You yourself understand a slightly different level ... corvettes - the growing cost of air defense systems / radars, and why did the same Karakurt become interesting to the fleet? Because it is fast, inexpensive, and there is no super-know-how ..
                  1. Anzhey V.
                    Anzhey V. April 25 2021 10: 12
                    -1
                    km .. You yourself understand a slightly different level.


                    On the one hand, you are right, but on the other hand, do we need to have such serious firepower on small ships, especially since they cannot operate without an external control center?

                    For the defense of the coast, the reinforcement of large surface ships in the BMZ will be sufficient and the X-35. This will give us a balance between functionality, firepower and cost.

                    Plus, their range is just plus or minus correlates with the characteristics of our AWACS helicopters, which can be based on such small anti-submarine warfare systems - that is, the control center is adequate, and the capabilities are not curtailed)
                    1. Barberry25
                      Barberry25 April 25 2021 10: 42
                      0
                      this is now 250 km of range - this is normal, but in 10 years? So it's better to spend a little now and get additional carriers of long-range weapons
                      1. Anzhey V.
                        Anzhey V. April 25 2021 11: 49
                        -1
                        it is now 250 km of range is normal, but after 10 years


                        Reasonable, I do not argue)

                        But then a balance is needed between missile armament and the main functionality of the ship. Otherwise, at the exit, we will again get an unknown miracle Yudo for an overpriced.
                      2. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 April 25 2021 12: 19
                        0
                        Quote: Anjay V.
                        But then a balance is needed between missile armament and the main functionality of the ship.

                        I don’t understand in any way what prevents the Kh-35U missile from being adapted to the Caliber launcher.
                      3. Barberry25
                        Barberry25 April 25 2021 12: 58
                        0
                        Therefore, I propose to cut down on the air defense capabilities, leaving only the Pantsiri ... inexpensive and angry ... you can, for example, put 2 launchers, in one place missiles and cannons, and on the other only missiles ..
                  2. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 April 25 2021 10: 47
                    0
                    especially since the current key problem is not in finance, but in the absence of a sane series
                  3. Barberry25
                    Barberry25 April 25 2021 11: 23
                    0
                    by the way .. another argument FOR VPU. Without it, Karakurt, with the help of the Package, will be able to work on boats at a distance of 20 km, and with the help of the Answer, already at a distance of 50 km, which will allow expanding the search and destruction zone
              2. OgnennyiKotik
                OgnennyiKotik April 24 2021 21: 25
                0
                On the whole, I support this strategy. Build more relatively small ships. First of all, we need to solve the tasks of ASW, air defense, reconnaissance, escort, control of sea borders, etc. Strike tasks are secondary.
                We need relatively simple, single-task ships. The main thing is uniformity and serial production. To lay in them the possibilities of modernization. The displacement is relatively large, 3-5 tons. Save on equipment, not hardware. Then upgrade when the need or opportunity arises.

                By the way, Britain does just that. Their ships are not equipped with weapons. But places for it are reserved.
                1. Anzhey V.
                  Anzhey V. April 25 2021 10: 15
                  +1
                  First of all, we need to solve the tasks of ASW, air defense, reconnaissance, escort, control of sea borders, etc. Strike tasks are secondary.


                  In my humble opinion, the strike tasks in the BMZ should be assigned to the DBK and tactical aviation. Serious strike capabilities for small ships of the coastal fleet are not needed, maximum at the level of missile boats.

                  With air defense and anti-aircraft defense, it's another matter ...
                  1. Niko
                    Niko April 25 2021 12: 37
                    -1
                    Quote: Anjay V.
                    First of all, we need to solve the tasks of ASW, air defense, reconnaissance, escort, control of sea borders, etc. Strike tasks are secondary.


                    In my humble opinion, the strike tasks in the BMZ should be assigned to the DBK and tactical aviation. Serious strike capabilities for small ships of the coastal fleet are not needed, maximum at the level of missile boats.

                    With air defense and anti-aircraft defense, it's another matter ...

                    In general, I agree and put a plus wink but there are nuances as always. The article describes the advantages of "large ships" well. And in the case of helicopter basing, this is even more relevant, at the moment the restrictions associated with weather conditions, pitching in the first place, can be overcome only with an increase in displacement
          2. Barberry25
            Barberry25 April 24 2021 20: 51
            0
            I will not deny about the DBK ... But here it is precisely that in which case it is possible to form an IBM from these ships ... still have a group of, say, 6 ships, which can not only search for boats, but also fire a salvo of 30 missiles .. This is powerful
      2. Barberry25
        Barberry25 April 24 2021 20: 34
        +1
        In general, it is necessary to expand the production of engines .. All the more so that the same Almaz is already completing a series of patrol boats for the FSB .. Let it be harnessed, the same 2 slipways .. so in 3 years we will receive 8 mpk ala corvette ... and in a few years Let's close the issue of BMZ, the deployment of missile carriers and the possibility of attacking enemy ships ... And there it will work for 10 years, because if we abandon the MRK / MPK of old projects, then about 75-80 ships need to be built there ..
      3. CastroRuiz
        CastroRuiz April 25 2021 10: 24
        0
        How needed Ka "Lamprey" is already sychas.
      4. ironic
        ironic April 25 2021 13: 01
        -2
        It is necessary to somehow justify another project of the year that way until the 30th.
    3. 3danimal
      3danimal April 26 2021 09: 25
      0
      In fact, we need unification ... let's say the abandonment of MRK / IPC in favor of building an anti-submarine based on Karakurt with missiles and without a helicopter ... For corvettes, everything is simpler: we make 20385 in two versions - one with simple electronic weapons, and the second with more expensive , for the DMZ and future development .. He builds 22350 frigates for 24 missiles and slowly we reach the Super Gorshkovy ones ..


      I support unification.
      But IMHO, it is necessary to simplify still: leave station wagons 20385 and frigates 22350 with 16-24 UKSC cells (without being distracted by the "super" version).
      All these ships can be easily transferred from fleet to fleet, depending on needs.
      To unify the air defense system as much as possible, leave 9m100e and 9m96e missiles on corvettes (range 15-50 km) and a less powerful radar optimal for their use.
      On frigates - install a fully functional Polyment-Redoubt with support for the entire range of missiles.
      IMHO, you need to create a variant of the ZAK with a radar and an anti-aircraft gun on one platform, instead of a relic of the past AK-630.
      It is desirable to replace the "Packet-NK" TA with a rechargeable one right on board during the voyage (3-4 torpedoes), launched with compressed air. Indeed, in the current version, recharging is performed only at the base.
  • Silhouette
    Silhouette April 24 2021 20: 55
    +5
    Explanatory article. There is something to think about.
    1. Boa kaa
      Boa kaa April 25 2021 10: 59
      +4
      Quote: Silhouette
      Explanatory article. There is something to think about.

      WOOOOT! Briefly and clearly ... (As A.P. Chekhov said - Brevity is the sister of talent!)
      The author, on the other hand, is guilty of excessive verbosity, which makes the article "difficult" for perception. But with tactics and knowledge of the features of naval combat - not very ...
      Essentially written.
      1. Ships like 1144.2M do not go alone. Therefore, it is fundamentally incorrect to consider the battle 1 against 10. The KUG (TG) will be at least 2-3 ships. One of which has been put forward in the missile-hazardous direction as a radar missile system This will make it possible to significantly push back the detection line of enemy air defense systems.
      2. Let me remind you: 1144.2 carries 3 helicopters. They can also take (will!) Take part in the detection of enemy air forces approaching the KUG.
      3. Electronic warfare means are absolutely not taken into account. A lot of 35-40% (and maybe more!) RCC will be taken away from the TARKR.
      Example? Yankee missile attack on the Syrian AB Esh-Shayrat on April 7.04.2017, 60. Out of 59 launched, 23 flew, flew - only 1982 Axes !!! In a naval battle, the effectiveness of electronic warfare means was proved by the British in the "shaggy" XNUMX, in the Falklands.
      4. None of the opponents will "smear" the missile attack as much as 8 (!) Waves. There is a principle of massing fire on the enemy. Therefore, in the first hit there will be 60-70% of the assigned BC. Moreover, the range of the salvo will be reduced to "technically possible", given that the launch interval of individual anti-ship missiles will be 1-2 seconds!
      BUT!!! There is a feature of organizing an anti-ship missile strike. Their start in time will be very different (depending on the position of the strike groups - it depends on D security) based on the simultaneous (maximally dense) approach of the CD to the target board.
      Therefore, the turntables have the ability to detect the onset of an impact and warn, interfere, etc.
      5. Further, according to the logic of the battle - additional reconnaissance, redeployment, development of success (or withdrawal) ...
      6. It would be wrong to believe that the radio horizon is the same as the author cites in the article. To reach the enemy farther, CDs must climb higher, and this significantly pushes the line of detection.
      Therefore. The most effective in the fight against large NK of the enemy will be a strike from under the water of our newest SSGNs (such as APRK pr 885M) according to our own sources of information. If the Angles boasted that Astyut hears them in Holy Loch as the AUG of the allies leaves Norfolk, then why can't ours hear the NK group at a distance of 150-180 miles !? Direction finding accuracy will not provide target location knowledge? And what is AI needed for then ??? and additional gadgets (keep silence for now) ???
      Therefore, in my opinion, the article should be turned into a plane - how 1144.2M or a bunch of "little things" will be able to perform various tasks characteristic of their class (rocket-artillery) ships. According to the criterion - "efficiency / cost".
      But this is my opinion. The author has his own, to which he has (absolutely!) A legal right.
      For the article - thanks. Put a plus. But reading ... is hard. AHA.
      PS Learn from Oleg Kaptsov: easy, bright, informative! You get aesthetic pleasure while reading. yes
      1. ironic
        ironic April 25 2021 13: 17
        -3
        Helicopters detect a lot at distances of hundreds of kilometers, especially if they are shot down.

        23 Ax flew only in the dreams of inadequate patriots and advertising reprints of the reflection of their dreams.

        The enemy will not need any 8 waves. It will be good if it is found out with something that was sunk, if it is found by means of "Fort".

        CR detect the enemy from a distance, when, with their RCS <0.1, the enemy knows well, if at all, that something has arrived at him.

        885 one piece, plus 885M one more piece soon, if not moved again. And they have more than 20 opponents under the water, only the last generation of the US and 3 plus one on the way of the British.

        In total, there is one costly and vulnerable target without a ship group, underwater and air cover - a status ship, as well as a platform to prove the need to repeat it in the "Peter" plan. One thing is good, jobs up to the 30th year are guaranteed.
  • Ryusey
    Ryusey April 26 2021 19: 46
    0
    Thunderstorm fronts are coming from the sea.
  • xomaNN
    xomaNN April 24 2021 15: 16
    +6
    Debate for another ten years. It is necessary to use wisely those Soviet projects of the 70-80s, such as KR, EM, mothballed at various degrees of BNK, those classes of ships that (alas) are not able to build our shipyards for another 5-7 years.
    And to balance the restored and re-equipped with the new missile defense missile defense system with modern corvettes and frigates. So you look, the fleet will wait for new projects ...
    1. Overlock
      Overlock April 24 2021 17: 29
      +14
      Quote: xomaNN
      It is necessary to use the minds of those mothballed at various degrees of BNK Soviet projects of the 70-80s of the type KR, EM, those classes of ships

      It is unlikely that with our conservation, the case can be used today
    2. bayard
      bayard April 24 2021 20: 01
      +2
      The best thing that they have come up with in recent years is that they drove to modernize the BOD 1155 of the project ... but if such a sensible thought had come five years ago, everything would not have been so bleak.
      Of the new projects, the only ship that does not raise doubts about its combat value is frigates 22350. But if in the next couple of years all the problems with their construction are not solved, then we will no longer have a Fleet. Almost everything has already been missed.
    3. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 24 2021 20: 09
      -1
      taking into account that they need to be reactivated, and then modernized ... the question of expediency ... first, let the repairmen drive the current composition of ships through the modernization ... and there already the required number of frigates / corvettes will be tightened
  • knn54
    knn54 April 24 2021 15: 26
    +7
    Namesake, plus.
    And yet, with a certain roughness of the sea / ocean, the gunboats simply will not be able to go out into the water area.
  • Eldorado
    Eldorado April 24 2021 15: 39
    -8
    10 MRK instead of Licor is nonsense, but "Orlanov" is high time to be disposed of.
    The money that was spent on their repairs and maintenance would be enough for several 22350.
    1. Overlock
      Overlock April 24 2021 17: 30
      +20
      Quote: El Dorado
      It is high time to dispose of "Eagles".

      But there is nothing to replace
    2. Devil13
      April 24 2021 19: 14
      +4
      We will not be able to reproduce eagles, 22350 are built for 10 years. I mentioned it above
      1. No name B
        No name B April 24 2021 21: 39
        -3
        And in Nikolaev?
        1. Devil13
          April 24 2021 23: 37
          +2
          And Ukraine has it, and judging by the state of the "Ukraine" Kyrgyz Republic, no one will ever build anything there.
          1. bayard
            bayard April 25 2021 06: 20
            -1
            On the Kerch "Zaliv", too, for a very long time, nothing was built, but a new owner appeared, a government order, funding, and - voila.
            So, returning the Nikolaev shipyards to their native harbor will not be much more difficult to reanimate. Moreover, one of the CVDs there has long been acquired by a Russian entrepreneur ... he wanted to build something there - big and a lot, but ... he was killed ... a long time ago. The widow of the murdered man sold the plant to his friend, but he also could not build anything there - he received an ultimatum from the Ukrainian (even pre-coup) government, demanding a 50% rollback ... Therefore, he hired a new owner of the watchmen and ... began to wait for better times.
            Probably waiting to this day.
            And if "tomorrow" to "home harbor"?
            And immediately Russia's shipbuilding capacity will increase.
            And there will be plenty of shipboard power plants.
            And in order to build a Fleet ... but at least a plant, a railway or a farm ... you need the RESPONSIBLE executor.
            HARD RESPONSIBILITY.
            And everything will start working out right away. yes
      2. Tiksi-3
        Tiksi-3 April 25 2021 08: 38
        +2
        Quote: Devil13
        Eagles we cannot reproduce

        why all of a sudden?
        Quote: Devil13
        22350 build for 10 years

        only because of the turbines and weapons systems, which have already been practically resolved ..... and what are we talking about?
        1. Devil13
          April 25 2021 13: 50
          0
          with the fact that Russia has not built such large surface ships for 25 years. less than 10 years for a new ship and a new project is a fantasy in our reality, although at least there will be no problems with the nuclear power plant.

          22350 can only receive 1 set of gearboxes for engines per year. Actually, not yet a year, longer.
          when they begin to be commissioned 1 per year, then we will applaud, but for now 2 for how many years?
          1. Tiksi-3
            Tiksi-3 April 26 2021 08: 29
            0
            Quote: Devil13
            the fact that Russia has not built such large surface ships for 25 years

            is this your reinforced concrete argument? belay
            Quote: Devil13
            in the meantime, 2 for how many years?

            By God, like a parrot, for how many years. for how long ... who were to blame ?? - shipbuilders? - no, the subcontractors and the military themselves + yes of the gearbox, now 21 years old and where did you get it. that 22 will be sculpted by 1 reducer? where is your reinforced concrete proof ??
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal April 26 2021 09: 08
              -1
              The results of 2021 will provide more data.
              But the optimal would be the most unified surface fleet of 20385 corvettes and 22350 frigates. In order not to spray the already limited capabilities and budget.
              In addition - all sorts of patrol boats and MAC from strength.
              1. Tiksi-3
                Tiksi-3 April 26 2021 09: 59
                0
                Quote: 3danimal
                In addition - all sorts of patrol boats and MAC from strength.

                Minesweepers and IPC !!!!
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal April 26 2021 10: 57
                  -1
                  Minesweepers of course good
                  And the role of the IPC will be performed by the generalists 20385. Without any overloading of them with new weapons, so as not to complicate / slow down construction.
              2. Ryusey
                Ryusey April 26 2021 19: 57
                -1
                Which will be erased just as quickly, do you feel sorry for your children to serve on these pelvis and to fight on them too?
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal April 26 2021 20: 14
                  0
                  You don't need to fight with anyone.
                  But old ships also need to be replaced. request
    3. Barberry25
      Barberry25 April 24 2021 20: 09
      -2
      laughing simple question .. when would we get these frigates?
    4. ironic
      ironic April 25 2021 13: 18
      0
      For some reason, there are no such articles. Why do you think?
  • Bez 310
    Bez 310 April 24 2021 15: 40
    +19
    Stop making people laugh with these "Buyan" RTOs ... Many understand that they did this squalor in response to the order: "More ships with" Caliber ", and got what they could only get -" fiction "for the report, but not In general, everything is in the spirit of modernity - a timely and beautiful report, but you won't have to fight ...
    In general, it is time to admit that we cannot even design the series of EMs such as "Arleigh Burke" so badly necessary for us, we have a "conflict of interests" everywhere, and those "interests" are not about the war, but about "budget development".
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 April 24 2021 15: 58
      +8
      Quote: Bez 310
      Many understand that they did this squalor in response to the order: "More ships with" Caliber "

      Not really. These are ships that are not meant for the sea at all. They were built for the Caspian Sea or inland rivers, and for this they are suitable. Well, why are there air defense and anti-aircraft defense? But they were included in the Black Sea Fleet and Baltic Fleet simply because there was nothing else.
      1. Alexey Sommer
        Alexey Sommer April 24 2021 16: 49
        +10
        Quote: Dart2027
        They were built for the Caspian Sea or inland rivers, and for this they are suitable

        Absolutely.
        This was a circumvention of the ban on medium-range missiles. On land it is impossible, but on ships it is possible and these ships sail along the rivers. Consider it a land rocket.
        And why would a land-based air defense missile?
    2. Devil13
      April 24 2021 19: 15
      +5
      in the next article I will analyze in more detail what is optimal-minimal you need to have, what you can, and what in the end you get)
      1. Bez 310
        Bez 310 April 24 2021 20: 02
        0
        Quote: Devil13
        in the next article I will analyze in more detail

        Maybe not?
        1. Boa kaa
          Boa kaa April 25 2021 11: 22
          +2
          Quote: Bez 310
          Maybe not?

          You must Fedya, you must !!! (from)
          Betz! Don't write yourself - don't bother others! I'm already lazy ... And then a new author was drawn. Yes, with such a set of buns that it is already bursting with review ...
          And you - DO NOT NEED! not even comradely enough. Or maybe this is how the new Mahen is born with Columbo to boot ...
          Don't ruin talent, let it bloom! laughing
          1. Bez 310
            Bez 310 April 25 2021 11: 57
            +1
            Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
            Betz!

            Beз!
            1. Boa kaa
              Boa kaa April 25 2021 13: 04
              +1
              Quote: Bez 310
              Without!

              Sorry, I can read German (with a dictionary ...) laughing
              Therefore - do not seek! drinks
      2. KVIRTU
        KVIRTU April 24 2021 22: 30
        +1
        They raised a sore point, gallium nitride transistors. Our, their domestic developer recently left, no, not to Skolkovo, to Taiwan ... In the store in 2000 their price is approximately.
    3. timokhin-aa
      timokhin-aa April 24 2021 22: 09
      +7
      There everything was more complicated than "More ships with calibers", more ships with calibers, this is the "late Shoigu".

      And then in 2006, Putin once asked the admirals a simple question - why do we sell ships with cruise missiles and vertical launchers to the Indians, while they themselves have nothing of the kind?

      By that time, the admirals had scrapped one atomic 671RTM submarine of the project, and one 877 diesel-powered submarine converted for "Caliber". "Novator" offered to at least remove all the equipment, the fleet was not interested.

      And after Putin's kick, it was first converted into the Dagestan UVP. tried it - it worked well. Then a command came "from above" to "calibrate", but alas, it came through the General Staff, where it was perverted to a fundamental condition - the "Calibers" were supposed to fly not from modernized submarines, not from modernized ships from stock, and not even from multipurpose under construction , but from "specialized missile ships" (literal wording from the directive).

      Then everything is simple - there are requirements for a salvo, there is a budget, the combination of these two things says that these will be small shameful ships. To reduce the price, they decided to make them on the basis of a ready-made project, which was art. ship 21630 "Buyan". Well, then, in front of Serdyukov and Vysotsky, a diesel engine once did not start at such a ship, and German MTUs hit 21631.

      This is how these troughs were born. A product of our decision making system.
  • Petrol cutter
    Petrol cutter April 24 2021 15: 53
    +10
    I propose to squeeze everything into everything, and transfer the order to our factory. And in a series.
    You read the subject ... So many lyrics ...
    Reasoning about everything / about nothing.
    Then, let's beat the UDC, then let's aircraft carriers ...
    That destroyers / cruisers you do not have enough for happiness ... Then the submarine ...
    You good gentlemen will somehow decide at last. And issue a clear government order.
    Where it will be clearly stated - what / where / how much you need. And where it is planned to build all this.
    In turn. For example, I will tell you what I need to complete your order / ship / vessel within a reasonable time frame. hi
    1. Mouse
      Mouse April 24 2021 16: 46
      +4
      Quote: Benzorez
      I propose to squeeze everything into everything, and transfer the order to our factory

      shove in unpushable? our theme! wassat lol
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter April 24 2021 16: 53
        +2
        Certainly.
        The main thing for me is for the plant to work.
        And what is there and somehow the constructor exists.
        They are smart guys, and they have cards in their hands.
    2. Sanichsan
      Sanichsan April 24 2021 23: 56
      +2
      Quote: Benzorez
      Then, let's beat the UDC, then let's aircraft carriers ...
      That destroyers / cruisers you do not have enough for happiness ... Then the submarine ...

      this is a forum. here military theorists rave about the battle of Jutland v2.0 wassat Well, these are their ideas ... AUGs need to be built and Rushen Arli Berkov and heroically, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, of course, to converge in a squadron battle with American AUGs! wassat
      so they cannot decide what to build from the couch, but what is being built in reality is certainly not the same. it is not suitable for a squadron battle in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. request
      1. Petrol cutter
        Petrol cutter April 25 2021 17: 04
        0
        That I am not naval at all. Tired of explaining that there will not be one top-down boat to fight an American aircraft carrier ...
        Well, it won't be ...
        No .... There are airplanes. That's cool! They will ask us - and that that! ..
        Where will they ask? Why do they need it? ... request
        Coastal aviation is perfectly able to cover the existing theater of operations.
        That is being worked out every single year in exercises, for example, in the Crimea.
        Just finished.
      2. Ryusey
        Ryusey April 26 2021 20: 02
        0
        Well, you don't write from the couch, "genius of the sea")
  • Niko
    Niko April 24 2021 15: 56
    +2
    Thanks to the author. Great article. We are waiting for the continuation
  • Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U April 24 2021 16: 12
    +2
    In general, it is rather incorrect to take "Buyan-M" as an example, it is much more logical to use "Karakurt", at least for seaworthiness, and here you can make assumptions a little differently.
    But we are simulating a situation when, for some reason, there is data about the cruiser.
    There is no need to model such a situation with the Karakurt; Mineral-M in the passive mode takes the radar direction finding, determining the type and parameters of the ship's movement at a distance of up to 450 km.
    Here, remove the highlight (since it is unrealistic to attack without it, as I explained above) - this is his part
    As mentioned above, highlighting is optional.

    I do not see here a record about the ability of "Calibers" to come together for an attack with a minimum gap.
    Surely it is possible to provide an approximately simultaneous approach to the target of a larger number of missiles, at least by launching some missiles away from the target, followed by a programmed turn on it.

    due to the radio horizon, it will exit ± 42 km from the cruiser,

    Again, the target's RCS is unknown.
    So 42 km is too optimistic an estimate for Nakhimov.

    they will not be able to repel the raid of the already supersonic anti-ship missiles "Onyx" or simply missiles (the mass of the warhead 48N6E is 145 kg, and there are 96 of them in the PU).
    This is true, but only in the case of MRK detection, and as we remember, they were fired unobservably for Nakhimov, well, in the event of Nakhimov's firing at MRK, a significant part of the missiles will be diverted by the REP MP-405-1 and KT-216 jamming stations (in composition of four PU).

    Personally, I am not an opponent of the TARKR, let alone its modernization, "just not for the sake of truth, but in the interests of truth." wink
    1. Devil13
      April 24 2021 19: 26
      +7
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      In general, it is rather incorrect to take "Buyan-M" as an example, it is much more logical to use "Karakurt", at least for seaworthiness, and here you can make assumptions a little differently.
      But we are simulating a situation when, for some reason, there is data about the cruiser.
      There is no need to model such a situation with the Karakurt; Mineral-M in the passive mode takes the radar direction finding, determining the type and parameters of the ship's movement at a distance of up to 450 km.
      Here, remove the highlight (since it is unrealistic to attack without it, as I explained above) - this is his part
      As mentioned above, highlighting is optional.


      There are still few Karakurt. Plus this is the answer to the article, and it was the Buyans who were taken there. About direction finding - what is the accuracy of this direction finding at 450 km? at 220 km? as calibers, have the ability to re-aim if the bearing goes somewhere "wrong"?

      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      I do not see here a record about the ability of "Calibers" to come together for an attack with a minimum gap.
      Surely it is possible to provide an approximately simultaneous approach to the target of a larger number of missiles, at least by launching some missiles away from the target, followed by a programmed turn on it.


      in theory, perhaps. in practice, you need an accurate calculation and a predicted target in the + - 15x15 km square.

      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      due to the radio horizon, it will exit ± 42 km from the cruiser,

      Again, the target's RCS is unknown.
      So 42 km is too optimistic an estimate for Nakhimov.


      Here you need accurate performance characteristics. Naturally, no one knows them, otherwise it would be possible to accurately calculate everything)
      Let me remind you that the most dangerous anti-ship missiles were used in this scenario)

      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      they will not be able to repel the raid of the already supersonic anti-ship missiles "Onyx" or simply missiles (the mass of the warhead 48N6E is 145 kg, and there are 96 of them in the PU).
      This is true, but only in the case of MRK detection, and as we remember, they were fired unobservably for Nakhimov, well, in the event of Nakhimov's firing at MRK, a significant part of the missiles will be diverted by the REP MP-405-1 and KT-216 jamming stations (in composition of four PU).


      Will it be taken away or not, too, because the issue is controversial, and the electronic warfare and electronic warfare on Nakhimov will be more powerful)

      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      Personally, I am not an opponent of the TARKR, let alone its modernization, "just not for the sake of truth, but in the interests of truth." : wink
      :


      and that's great! I, too, in the interests of truth, issued this article, since I was very much confused by some opuses and intentions.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U April 25 2021 07: 43
        +2
        Quote: Devil13
        There are still few Karakurt. Plus this is the answer to the article, and it was the Buyans who were taken there. About direction finding - what is the accuracy of this direction finding at 450 km? at 220 km? as calibers, have the ability to re-aim if the bearing goes somewhere "wrong"?
        All the same, Buyan-M is a ship with seaworthiness "river-mountain" and its confrontation with an ocean ship is beyond the bounds.))) FIG knows about the direction finding, but "Mineral" allows you to determine the elements of the target movement by the direction finding parameters, and this is the speed and course, approximate of course, but nonetheless. and with an accuracy of 1 degree, the error at 220 km goes to 4 km, more than enough for the initial target designation for the GOS anti-ship missile system.

        Quote: Devil13
        in theory, perhaps. in practice, you need an accurate calculation and a predicted target in the + - 15x15 km square.
        It is already clear that Mineral allows such accuracy.

        Quote: Devil13
        Will it be taken away or not, too, because the issue is controversial, and the electronic warfare and electronic warfare on Nakhimov will be more powerful)
        And the "Nakhimov" itself is stronger. ))) However, it is much larger, it will be harder to cover it.
        In general, I think that with a target designation attack by RTOs on Nakhimov, there are chances, not to drown, so to wrinkle. But even "Nakhimov" having target designation, for example, in the form of an AWACS helicopter, can direct a rustle with impunity. In short, whoever gets up earlier will get slippers.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 25 2021 12: 08
        +1
        Quote: Devil13
        what is the accuracy of this direction finding at 450 km? at 220 km?
        In my time, the instrumental was 1,0 *, then it seemed to be up to 0,5 *. I don’t know how it is now.
        predicted in square + - 15x15km target.
        Why are you swimming so shallowly, dear !? Old 3M45 with B14 saw +/- 75 km left / right. 150 km is already something. Then dive down and 2,5M into the side. And that's it!
        Here you need accurate performance characteristics.
        Well, yes, well, yes ... And the editor will wear the parcels to your cell ...
        Let me remind you that the most dangerous anti-ship missiles were used in this scenario)
        Oh, is it? What about the 3M22, tell me? belay
        1. Devil13
          April 25 2021 13: 57
          -1
          Quote: BoA KAA

          Let me remind you that the most dangerous anti-ship missiles were used in this scenario)
          Oh, is it? What about the 3M22, tell me? belay


          I will say that we are not yet considering what has not been put into service, unknown in detail. In theory, if everyone as they write - very cool, in practice, tell me the type of radar that will see something, and the material with which to cover this radar in a fairing that will withstand a 9M flight near the surface of the water?)

          And if it's not at the water's edge, then okay, but for example Arleigh Burke was taught to hit the warheads of ICBMs. So, theoretically, you can hit everything .... the question is how long it will take after discovery)
  • Mouse
    Mouse April 24 2021 16: 23
    -1
    One submarine will replace ten missile gunboats plus one missile battleship ... wink
    1. Xlor
      Xlor April 24 2021 17: 04
      +4
      If this "one submarine" is not sunk sooner ...
      1. SVD68
        SVD68 April 24 2021 17: 32
        +2
        But at a cost, it will replace it.
      2. Mouse
        Mouse April 24 2021 18: 00
        +2
        If this "one submarine" is not sunk sooner ...

        if they find ... laughing
        paws are soft ... wink
      3. max702
        max702 April 24 2021 18: 06
        +1
        Quote: Xlor
        If this "one submarine" is not sunk sooner ...

        The key word "if .." What ship is the most scoring pennant in the history of the fleet?
      4. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa April 25 2021 12: 11
        +1
        Quote: Xlor
        If this "one submarine" is not sunk sooner ...

        In war, anything can happen ... But you first find it! And then divide the skin ... bully
        AHA.
    2. Wilderness
      Wilderness April 24 2021 20: 26
      +4
      Situations are different. In some cases, even 5 submarines will not replace one ancient patrol boat with cannons and a helicopter. The enemy will not ... well, he will impose the battle where the submarine is completely ineffective. We need all types of ships, aviation and coastal troops. Otherwise there will be a hole in the defense.
  • mvg
    mvg April 24 2021 17: 39
    -4
    To be continued ...
    Author: Nikolay N.

    Don't ... Don't. This topic has been sucked at 150000+ times. Even the title is not original.
  • Gippo
    Gippo April 24 2021 18: 23
    0
    The couch was blown up by another expert.
    There is already an obvious shortage of upholstered furniture in the country ...
  • zwlad
    zwlad April 24 2021 18: 52
    0
    An interesting point of view.
  • lopvlad
    lopvlad April 24 2021 19: 11
    -1
    Ten missile gunboats or one missile battleship. What's best for the fleet?


    begs the question "For what fleet? sea? river? ocean?" . What the author calls "gunboat" is a full-fledged missile ship but of small displacement, which has been ordered into the ocean.
    A fleet of "gunboats" is acceptable only as a sentry or coastal for an ordinary country without any zones of influence outside its borders, and for a world power, which is Russia, the rejection of battleships will lead to the disintegration of the country. For there is an expression "a holy place is never empty" and where we are leaving there comes the United States. The abandonment of battleships is the departure of our fleet from the oceans with the abandonment of the status of a world power, as we have already done throughout the 90s.
    Therefore, the question is incorrect, or even rather stupid, since Russia cannot do without gunboats (RTOs) or battleships (TARKR) if it wants to survive and be a world power.
    Articles-footcloths with many numbers, beautiful pictures and graphs are perfect only for filling their own significance.
    1. Devil13
      April 24 2021 19: 29
      +8
      tell this to the author of the article in response to which it was written)
      The tasks of the fleet, and its composition already based on these tasks - this will be in the next article)
  • Basarev
    Basarev April 24 2021 19: 50
    -9
    And if you go even further? And make an air defense cruiser. A hyper-specialized ship that knows nothing but air, but is godlike in the reflection of air. And other tasks will be assigned to aviation, which will require an aircraft carrier. Few people know that with the advent of the aircraft carrier, the cruiser has lost its role and is now fit only for the service of the aircraft carrier. Other ships in the order are needed to perform those tasks with which aviation will cope worse. And first of all it is air defense.
    1. Devil13
      April 24 2021 20: 51
      +7
      American version. Only Aviation is better in terms of air defense / missile defense and even PLO.
      She just has nowhere to take in the ocean except from an aircraft carrier, and this is completely different money.
      And no, the Cruiser has not lost her role. The question of price, quality, flight time of missiles and raising the air group. Chess, in other words) Of course, the best way to sink an aircraft carrier is to have your own aircraft carrier, with better planes, with missiles on them even better)))))
      1. Sanichsan
        Sanichsan April 25 2021 00: 22
        -1
        Quote: Devil13
        She just has nowhere to take in the ocean except from an aircraft carrier, and this is completely different money.

        tell me, why should it, that is, aviation, should be taken in the middle of the ocean? Are we talking about military confrontation or about the reconstruction of the good old (and not so) squadron battles? do we need to stop some specific military threat or, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, side by side, converge with the Americans and pounce on each other? wassat
        you yourself wrote that the fleet is not a "thing in itself". it is part of the army. air defense missions are successfully performed by ground complexes and aerospace forces, as well as reconnaissance missions. maybe we are already going to project power off the coast of the United States? for this, it seems like we have nuclear submarines, Strategic Missile Forces and Aerospace Forces, and if there is anything there, Cuba and Venezuela are from where the Aerospace Forces will be able to operate ...
        Yes, a large ship and air defense are more solid and the radar is more powerful and the strike capabilities are higher, but why? request
  • Saxahorse
    Saxahorse April 24 2021 19: 58
    -1
    Something suggests that it is most profitable to build a rocket, self-propelled barge. Large hull, hundreds of launchers, speed of 10 knots, one diesel engine, one propeller. Target designation, air defense and anti-aircraft defense are all external. If they crash, then it's not a pity, the main thing is that all the missiles have time to release.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 April 24 2021 20: 07
    0
    What is the fundamental problem of some authors and some people? ..

    It is that the authors outplayed the strategy and believe that without buying a missile cruiser, you can buy 10 MRK at the same time ... But in reality, our shipyards are filled with orders and do not have time to make ships ... So even if you bring these 100 billion rubles, in the same period the shipyards will be able to additionally master 2-3 mrk ... with the cruiser not received
  • Baron pardus
    Baron pardus April 24 2021 20: 22
    +6
    What's better. One Komatsu 830 or 10 Toyot tundra? Which is better, one Cadex Defense Tremor or 10 Remington M700? Brilliant, huh?
    I just don't understand how people can write long, smart, well-informed articles, do a huge analytical work on the performance characteristics of missiles and missile defense / air defense systems, on a topic that requires only common sense. Question: WHY? (Including German accent, a la Colonel Klink) What are the fashi satachi? (Off German accent a la Colonel Klink)

    The battleship cannot carry out ASW. Rather, you can, but chasing a battleship for submarines is expensive. Corvettes can. By and large, it is easy to stuff 4-6 PLRs of a bear, RBU, stationary and towed sonar into a corvette. It is also possible to install two modern DASH variants on the corvette, each with acoustic buoys and 2 light torpedoes. Fortunately, now the fashion for drones, and electronics, software cannot be compared with the 60s when DASH was made. One battleship cannot patrol 3 different water areas, 10 corvettes can. The battleship cannot operate too close to the shore, corvettes can. The battleship cannot chase poachers and smugglers, or rather it can, but very expensive, it's like shooting at crows with British Starstrick air defense systems. It is possible and even fun but expensive. The 76mm automatic cannon from the corvette will upset any poaching trawler or kondrabandy boat. The corvette cannot sail from Krondstat to Cuba without refueling. The battleship can. Although to send one battleship in a combat situation somewhere without ship and air cover is suicide (SM Bismarck, Yamato). 3 Corvettes - battle group. Single battleship / aircraft carrier - floating target. Well, yes, it does, but it will simply and corny be overwhelmed with a number. Corvettes are much easier to hide and disguise. The battleship is more difficult. Engines for a corvette are cheaper and easier to make huge diesels / turbines are not needed. Even Argentina and Brazil (not God knows what industrial giants), engines for ships with a displacement of 3-4 kilotons will make, but for a whopper in 35000 tons is unlikely.
    It is difficult to put ABM elements on a corvette of 3500 tons (Standard Block 3 missiles), they will not fit, and if they fit, then to the detriment of everything else. On the battleship you can.
    In terms of firepower, I think that a salvo from 10 corvettes will be more than a salvo from one battleship. Neither one nor the others have armor, so getting Spear or Otomat into the side will do the job. American destroyers during the Second World War withstood the hits of 250 kg of aerial bombs, did not sink. And on the Harpoon, the warhead is of just such a weight, and does not fall into the deck. It is possible to sink a corvette with one Harpoon. 10 harpoons are guaranteed to sink a modern battleship (there is no armor). Although I think that for an Aiowa-class battleship, 10 harpoons won't do anything special - armor. And not aiove. 127mm armor belt from Brooklyn Harpoon / otomat / ekzoset with its HE part will not penetrate. Well, yes, they knock down the radars, but nobody canceled optical / laser rangefinders.
    Infrastructure. (A la, you bought Komatsu 830, and where will you park and repair it). The corvette can be serviced in almost any port. In any dock, a battleship needs special conditions, special infrastructure. The cost of a ship is not only the cost of the hull itself + engines + filling. Although, most likely 10 corvettes of 3000-4000 tons of displacement will cost less than a battleship of 40000 tons. It is also INFRASTRUCTURE. Berths, docks, service stations. If a 4000t corvette can be serviced in almost any sea (and even some river) ports, then a 40000t battleship is not. Infrastructure is also MONEY.
    Crew training. Simple and corny. Commanding a platoon or a ROTA is easier to learn than commanding a regiment or division. A destroyer / corvette commander is easier to train than a battleship commander. That is why, before commanding a regiment, they first learn to command a platoon, company and battalion. And the training of the command staff is also TIME AND MONEY.
    The main question is WHY. What are your goals. To control your water area, or even several, here 10 corvettes taxied the battleship in the minus. Chasing poachers and smugglers - too. (and anything can happen).
    Even if we say that "Sail to Cuba for the sake of confronting the US Navy" a battleship can, but no corvettes, all the same - one battleship will do nothing. Like the aircraft carrier, it needs to be COVERED. Than? Corvettes and destroyers and frigates. That is, ONE battleship in the sea is not a warrior (see Bismarck, see Spee), yes, Spee can have a sea battle (B6 - hit, E7 - hit) and won, but it was he who turned out to be at the bottom.
    That is, if you made a Battleship - the flag is in your hands, now you also need to finish building corvettes with destroyers in order to attach it on a long voyage. Cool economy ... "Sharik, congratulations, you are a dunce" - Cat Matroskin.
    You still won't get rid of the need for destroyers / frigates / corvettes.
    "You forgot about one little thing, my friend" "About what" "About money" - N. Nosov. Dunno on the Moon.
    So, you drove ofigliard dough into the battleship and infrastructure, opana, you need to cover the battleship on a long voyage, surprise. And now you build destroyers / corvettes and construction frigates that you tried to avoid by bucking the loot into the battleship. Do you have all the money for this? Are you China? Are you USA? Are you England? Are you France?
    a) First you need to decide on a naval strategy, taking into account geography. Are you China? Are you Japan? Are you Italy? Are you Germany? Are you France? Are you England? Are you Australia?
    1. The Russian fleet is divided into 3-4 parts that simply will not have time to come to the aid of each other. The United States, by the way, is only two, and then it is easier to overtake an aircraft carrier from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic than from the Black Sea to the Pacific Ocean or the Baltic.
    2. Of these theaters, two are easily locked in their waters: the Black Sea and the Baltic. That is, there is no place for a battleship, only in the Pacific Fleet.
    b) Then calculate the opposing sides, that is, the "partners" with which the Russian Federation will face in the OPEN sea without the support of its coastal aviation: the Pacific Ocean - the USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, plus little more. Baltic, Black Sea, Northern Fleet: - USA + NATO + "Neutrals" like Sweden and Norway, and they are EXACTLY on the sidelines during a big nix.
    c) View tactical conditions. In isolation from its shores against the Russian fleet, the coastal aviation of the enemy countries and the aircraft carrier will be involved, and the Russian fleet, having moved away from the coast, will not be able to ward off anything except naval aviation. (see Locked in their waters).
    d) "Quantity is a quality in itself." To catch up with the NATO fleets in terms of the number of heavy ships capable of operating at a distance from their shores (Ticonderoga, Allie Burke) is a thankless task. The slipways of Russia are NOT the slipways of the USSR, and it simply cannot compete with the shipyards of the USA + England + France + Italy + Germany + Japan + Spain + even on little things. The production capacity is not enough.

    You can consider the theoretical capabilities of missiles and air defense / missile defense systems and really do the hard work. Or you can just see WHAT is needed, HOW we will achieve this and in what conditions and by WHAT means.

    Before building something, you first need to decide (in a greatly simplified form) with STRATEGIES (What we need), TACTICS (How we will achieve this) and LOGISTICS (what kind of shisha).

    I just DO NOT SEE any money for which Russia will be able to build a battleship + escort forces + infrastructure for servicing such + escort ships (ACS). I don't see any real options for using the battleship anywhere except in the Pacific Ocean. In the Baltic, the North Sea, and the Black Sea, he will simply be locked up there and will be beaten by ships, coastal aviation and aircraft carrier aviation until he is sunk. NOBODY WILL GIVE him to the operational space. I mean, such a battleship should revolve around its shores, under the protection of its coastal aviation, "Battleship guarded by the coast", but what for is such happiness?

    With the money that the Russian Federation has, taking into account the geography, it would be ideal for the Russian Federation for the time being to build corvettes armed at the very least, and gain experience, or rather return experience, and shipbuilding, and engine building and infrastructure creation. If CHINA could do it, then the fate of the Russian Federation ordered it. Although, on the other hand, as in that sad joke "Eh, genatsvale, then you had a different coach."
    1. Devil13
      April 24 2021 20: 46
      +2
      Quote: Baron Pardus
      The corvette cannot sail from Krondstat to Cuba without refueling. The battleship can. Although to send one battleship in a combat situation somewhere without ship and air cover is suicide (SM Bismarck, Yamato). 3 Corvettes - battle group. Single battleship / aircraft carrier - floating target. Well, yes, it does, but it will simply and corny be overwhelmed with a number. Corvettes are much easier to hide and disguise. The battleship is more difficult. Engines for a corvette are cheaper and easier to make huge diesels / turbines are not needed. Even Argentina and Brazil (not God knows what industrial giants), engines for ships with a displacement of 3-4 kilotons will make, but for a whopper in 35000 tons is unlikely.


      Argentina and Brazil are doing. There, in the article, there is a link to the production of engines and gearboxes in our country and the price and time of construction, and if not, then you can search on the topvar. we have 1 set of gearboxes for a frigate per year (from this year), 2 for corvettes.
      So what they do, we don’t. and yes, we ALREADY have a building base and technologies (from the USSR, they recently refreshed on icebreakers (sooo right decision!)) for nuclear power plants.

      Quote: Baron Pardus
      In terms of firepower, I think that a salvo from 10 corvettes will be more than a salvo from one battleship. Neither one nor the others have armor, so getting Spear or Otomat into the side will do the job. American destroyers during the Second World War withstood the hits of 250 kg of aerial bombs, did not sink. And on the Harpoon, the warhead is of just such a weight, and does not fall into the deck. It is possible to sink a corvette with one Harpoon. 10 harpoons are guaranteed to sink a modern battleship (there is no armor). Although I think that for an Aiowa-class battleship, 10 harpoons won't do anything special - armor. And not aiove. 127mm armor belt from Brooklyn Harpoon / otomat / ekzoset with its HE part will not penetrate. Well, yes, they knock down the radars, but nobody canceled optical / laser rangefinders.


      no rangefinders work beyond the horizon. 1144 has anti-fragmentation armor. Which is true, because a blank weighing four tons, at 3 swings, will pierce ANY armor. Stupidly with mass and impulse, all that is needed is a delayed fuse. So it will pierce, even as it will pierce, and for those concerned about the armor of the side, there are options with a defeat in the deck.
      The salvo is the same in number, only heavy supersonic anti-ship missiles are not put on corvettes, so alas - the TARK has a heavier salvo.


      Quote: Baron Pardus
      The main question is WHY. What are your goals. To control your water area, or even several, here 10 corvettes taxied the battleship in the minus. Chasing poachers and smugglers - too. (and anything can happen).
      Even if we say that "Sail to Cuba for the sake of confronting the US Navy" a battleship can, but no corvettes, all the same - one battleship will do nothing. Like the aircraft carrier, it needs to be COVERED. Than? Corvettes and destroyers and frigates. That is, ONE battleship in the sea is not a warrior (see Bismarck, see Spee), yes, Spee can have a sea battle (B6 - hit, E7 - hit) and won, but it was he who turned out to be at the bottom.
      That is, if you made a Battleship - the flag is in your hands, now you also need to finish building corvettes with destroyers in order to attach it on a long voyage. Cool economy ... "Sharik, congratulations, you are a dunce" - Cat Matroskin.
      You still won't get rid of the need for destroyers / frigates / corvettes.
      "You forgot about one little thing, my friend" "About what" "About money" - N. Nosov. Dunno on the Moon.
      So, you drove ofigliard dough into the battleship and infrastructure, opana, you need to cover the battleship on a long voyage, surprise. And now you build destroyers / corvettes and construction frigates that you tried to avoid by bucking the loot into the battleship. Do you have all the money for this? Are you China? Are you USA? Are you England? Are you France?
      a) First you need to decide on a naval strategy, taking into account geography. Are you China? Are you Japan? Are you Italy? Are you Germany? Are you France? Are you England? Are you Australia?
      1. The Russian fleet is divided into 3-4 parts that simply will not have time to come to the aid of each other. The United States, by the way, is only two, and then it is easier to overtake an aircraft carrier from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic than from the Black Sea to the Pacific Ocean or the Baltic.
      2. Of these theaters, two are easily locked in their waters: the Black Sea and the Baltic. That is, there is no place for a battleship, only in the Pacific Fleet.
      b) Then calculate the opposing sides, that is, the "partners" with which the Russian Federation will face in the OPEN sea without the support of its coastal aviation: the Pacific Ocean - the USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, plus little more. Baltic, Black Sea, Northern Fleet: - USA + NATO + "Neutrals" like Sweden and Norway, and they are EXACTLY on the sidelines during a big nix.
      c) View tactical conditions. In isolation from its shores against the Russian fleet, the coastal aviation of the enemy countries and the aircraft carrier will be involved, and the Russian fleet, having moved away from the coast, will not be able to ward off anything except naval aviation. (see Locked in their waters).
      d) "Quantity is a quality in itself." To catch up with the NATO fleets in terms of the number of heavy ships capable of operating at a distance from their shores (Ticonderoga, Allie Burke) is a thankless task. The slipways of Russia are NOT the slipways of the USSR, and it simply cannot compete with the shipyards of the USA + England + France + Italy + Germany + Japan + Spain + even on little things. The production capacity is not enough.

      You can consider the theoretical capabilities of missiles and air defense / missile defense systems and really do the hard work. Or you can just see WHAT is needed, HOW we will achieve this and in what conditions and by WHAT means.

      Before building something, you first need to decide (in a greatly simplified form) with STRATEGIES (What we need), TACTICS (How we will achieve this) and LOGISTICS (what kind of shisha).


      Congratulations! this is the topic of the next article. In principle, the topic has already been discouraged a hundred times, but alas, we do not stop with ingenious ideas, such as "to hell with the fleet" or "let's solve everything with Tu-160". It's good that only on the forum.

      Quote: Baron Pardus
      I just DO NOT SEE any money for which Russia will be able to build a battleship + escort forces + infrastructure for servicing such + escort ships (ACS). I don't see any real options for using the battleship anywhere except in the Pacific Ocean. In the Baltic, the North Sea, and the Black Sea, he will simply be locked up there and will be beaten by ships, coastal aviation and aircraft carrier aviation until he is sunk. NOBODY WILL GIVE him to the operational space. I mean, such a battleship should revolve around its shores, under the protection of its coastal aviation, "Battleship guarded by the coast", but what for is such happiness?

      With the money that the Russian Federation has, taking into account the geography, it would be ideal for the Russian Federation for the time being to build corvettes armed at the very least, and gain experience, or rather return experience, and shipbuilding, and engine building and infrastructure creation. If CHINA could do it, then the fate of the Russian Federation ordered it. Although, on the other hand, as in that sad joke "Eh, genatsvale, then you had a different coach."


      Corvette 20385 is just "a corvette for the most." Expensive, very expensive, very armed, and very ineffective in terms of cost / efficiency and suitability. Built only ONE. And yes, China is the top 2 economy in the world, in which more than 75% of all production in the world is concentrated. And yes, they are building merchants, training shipyards, and they began to shockfully build a fleet at the level of the Americans practically. applause to them. Ours are still building a corvette / frigate / reworking avik for India with + - one speed. so what is more profitable and faster to build?) which is smarter?) so let's analyze ...
      1. Baron pardus
        Baron pardus April 26 2021 21: 48
        0
        Look, you are talking about a 4 ton rocket flying on Mach 3. AND HOW MANY are there? In count? How many fleets do they have? Announce the entire list. How many Brahmos does India have? How many of these airbuses does China have? And most importantly, Russia is going to fight at sea with China and India ??? Hmm, a somewhat unexpected twist.

        Such an anti-ship missile glows on all means of detection like a giant sparkler. You are talking about the super duper giant anti-ship missiles as a wunderfuffle, and how many anti-ship missiles hit the target when the modern electronic warfare systems were working? There is such a round number called zero.
        We go further, on the armor. Tell me, pliz how are you going to "a blank weighing four tons, on 3 swings," to make a slide and a PC to "attack the deck"? I really want to see this. Nobody canceled the inertia, "a blank weighing four tons, at 3 swings" going up an almost vertical hill, followed by a peak on the deck A la "OKA", it's epic. And gothic.

        ACS is great, it's even charming, especially on corvettes with a displacement of 3-4 tons. And most importantly, for the price with a diesel engine + the turbine is compatible ... Shas. And most importantly, have you calculated the weight of the installation together with the anti-radiation protection? Or decided to save electricity, did the sailors themselves illuminate their own ship with a greenish glow? (Sarcasm and farce, of course, but you shouldn't forget about the mass of the engine + anti-radiation protection)

        Your favorite "blank weighing four tons, on 3 swings", this is a weapon sharpened for a specific enemy, no, don't get me wrong, you can also hunt for hares from the PTRD, and it will be fun and crazy ... (Hares in a bloody frenzy) and the hares will be dead, but it is not economical. Your favorite "blanks weighing four tons, at 3 swings" are sharpened specifically for one target - Aircraft Carriers. By the way, I doubt very much that one such super missile will disable a modern aircraft carrier. For other purposes, they are redundant, and taking into account all the experience of modern wars, they will fly away into the old world as a pretty penny, in about the same way as the promoted Harpoons and Exocets fly away - electronic warfare and other interference. I repeat - not a single anti-ship missile hit the ship on which the electronic warfare equipment was switched on. First, this jet flying tram will light up on all means of detection, then the Stanradts, Sea Septors, Asters, Albatrosses, Evolved Sea Sparrow, and others will work on it, and the rest will finish off the Phalanxes with goalkeepers and Dardos. The problem, my friend, is money. Such a flying tram, first of all, is expensive, you can't rivet a lot of them, you can rivet more than the US aircraft carriers + their vassals, of course, but you can't get enough of these anti-ship missiles for every corvette. Moreover, you cannot hang two such airbuses under information security, therefore the number of carriers is limited. And the fewer carriers there are, the easier it is to multiply them by zero. And the USA has F15x much more than the TU-160 + Tu22 of all modifications in Russia. By orders of magnitude. And besides Ф15х there is also Ф16, and Ф / А 18, and Ф35. And the vassals of the United States have Rafali, Typhoons and other interesting little things (Grippen and F2, for example).

        About how the poor frigate Oliver X Perry was shot by the American fleet for a long time and tediously before the unfortunate ship was tortured to death, you yourself know. And this is without electronic warfare, and this is with your hits "In the deck". By the way, during the Second World War, more than once or twice, American destroyers withstood being hit by 250kg bombs (and this is in the DECK, if anything) and did not sink - even 12.7mm of armor is better than nothing against a fugasca.

        The fact that Russia began to build at least something and began to recall with a bang / creak the fact that the USSR was able in 1955-57 (for a moment 65 years ago) is, of course, a HUGE achievement (face-palm, head-wall). But, so far, even Argentina and Brazil (a country of mulattoes in white pants, where many wild monkeys live in the forests) are ahead of "a young democracy with 30 years of history."

        If you, mister, have read my answer, then IN NO EVENT did I say "we will solve everything Tu160", it is still not known what is more expensive than ONE corvette in 4000t or ONE Tu-160. As far as I know, corvettes of this size can be built by Argentina and Brazil, Emnip IRan and Turkey (not God knows what Japan and England) build them, but the Tu-160 is not. About airfields, maintenance, etc., I just keep quiet. For enemy submarines on the Tu-160, too, do not chase, and the attack of a poaching trawler (which in reality is one of the "partners" naval electronic reconnaissance ships), on the Tu-160 (especially in the dive after the over-wing coup) is charming, epic and gothic. .. Especially when the immortals "Aces High" or "Tailgunner" are ringing in your ears. The culmination of the attack is when your notorious "4-ton weight for 3 swing" bar flies into the "trawler poacher". Oil painting.

        How will you, in case of a nimble, transfer a missile battleship from the Baltic or the Black Sea somewhere I also want to see, that's how you will be given to transfer it. I'm not a supporter of "let's solve everything Tu-160", these wunderwaffe are expensive in production and maintenance, hello from Kote .. How many of them does "young democracy with a 30-year history" have, by the way? 25? I mean, about the same number of all aircraft carrier ships in your "partners".
        You need to decide everything based on the Strategy (And what do we want to do), Geography (Where we will do it), Tactics (HOW we will do it) and logistics / supply (And what are the shisha). Considering all this, so far, at the moment, Russia has only one road. Reinforced construction of the "Small Sea Fleet": Destroyers, Corvettes, Frigates, and Submarines.

        No one will let anyone into the semi-closed waters called the Black and Baltic Sea, and will not let anyone out of there. Even "neutrals" such as Sweden and Norway and Finland should be connected, since they have territorial claims and a desire to snatch a piece - they need to feed the hordes of "unfortunate refugees" and "oppressed femenists and LGBT". So the fleet needs to be built on these two waters with the understanding that there will be NO HELP, and NOBODY WILL GIVE ANYONE into the operational space of the Atlantic. And that in the case of a grandiose swing, the task of these fleets is to lay down with the bones but not to let NATO fleets, including submarines, to the distance at which they can strike a CD from a close range, and after that a salvo, then land a landing.

        The fact that your corvette turned out to be expensive - say thank you to the contractors, and all the cuts / kickbacks, brain drain and destruction of production, and loss of technology (to make an Atomic Icebreaker for modern Russia is a huge achievement, damn it, and in 1957 the Atomic Icebreaker Lenin went into operation, but to make nuclear icebreaker in 2020 - feat). Actually, you can stuff so much into a boat of 4000 tons of displacement ... There would be a desire
  • engineer74
    engineer74 April 24 2021 20: 46
    +5
    The author, as it seems to me, confuses "warm with soft": small rocket ships are generally not sharpened for sea combat. Their task on the coast is to supplement the Strategic Missile Forces and replace the MRBM for the "European" partners. And the fact that the rocket battery turned out on the water is the cost of the INF Treaty.
    IMHO, of course hi
    1. Devil13
      April 24 2021 20: 53
      +5
      it confuses the author of what this article is the answer to. I emphasized several times above that there are different classes of ships, with different tasks)
      1. engineer74
        engineer74 April 24 2021 20: 59
        +2
        I apologize hi
        I am simply inclined to view the carriers of "Caliber" as a circumvention of the INF Treaty, and not as a real combat ship.
      2. Hwostatij
        Hwostatij April 24 2021 21: 59
        0
        I emphasized several times above that there are different classes of ships, with different tasks)

        All these tactical games with volleys / targeting / avoiding satellites, etc. certainly interesting. But they never explain why a surface fleet of ships is needed at all more than a frigate for a purely land power. If there is a big batch, all these ships will quickly sink. There will be no batching - so they will ruin us without him.
        1. Devil13
          April 24 2021 23: 39
          +2
          Very interesting. Considering that 50% of our exports go by sea, like many other countries. And if an interesting dialogue with Japan is needed, then it is easier to slow down their tankers in the Persian Gulf than to threaten the land army somehow.
          The fleet has specific tasks. and he must be able to follow them.
          1. Hwostatij
            Hwostatij April 25 2021 00: 03
            -1
            Considering that 50% of our exports go by sea, like many other countries.

            A link to the studio, if possible. And how many are there in the Baltic, for the control of which ships are not very critical?
            And if an interesting dialogue with Japan is needed, then it is easier to slow down their tankers in the Persian Gulf than to threaten the land army somehow.

            Are you serious now - do we need to invest a lot of money in the fleet in order to threaten Japan in the Persian Gulf?
            The fleet has specific tasks. and he must be able to follow them.

            You can't argue here, that's exactly what I talked about in my post.
          2. for
            for April 25 2021 02: 50
            0
            Quote: Devil13
            Considering that 50% of our exports go by sea

            You mean import.
  • bandabas
    bandabas April 24 2021 21: 22
    -1
    "As you call a yacht, it will sail." hi
  • timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa April 24 2021 21: 33
    +5
    The author, the line of thought is correct, but it is better to check the facts.

    22800 costs 2 billion rubles apiece, and in fact - the same MRK with the same ± 100 tons of displacement and armament.


    The first Karakurt without Armor stood at about 5,6-5,8 billion for the state, and with Armor - 10.
    1. agond
      agond April 24 2021 21: 45
      -2
      The author raises the question, which is better, 10 small missile ships of the Buyan-M type, a standard displacement of 850 tons or one missile cruiser of the Admiral Nakhimov type of 23750 tons, as we see the displacement of the ships differ by 28 times, so it would be more correct to ask the question, that it is better to have 28 ships of the Buyan-M type or one ship of the Nakhimov type.
      1. Vladimir1155
        Vladimir1155 April 24 2021 23: 37
        -2
        Quote: agond
        "Buyan-M", standard displacement of 850t or one missile cruiser of the Admiral Nakhimov type of 23750t, as we can see, the displacement of the ships is 28 times different, so it would be more correct to ask whether it is better to have 28 ships of the Buyan-M type or one ship like Nakhimov.

        tooting! and since the Buyan is serial and there is no Cruiser in the project, we boldly compare 60 ships of the Buyan type, with a lone cruiser ... yes, they will shower him with tomahawks (calibers) with their hats
      2. Devil13
        April 24 2021 23: 40
        +2
        the question is not tonnage. but the cost. We take operations of the same cost - the construction of 10 brawlers, or 1 Nakhimov modernization.
        Do you lack metal in the country, or intelligence and money?
      3. moody
        moody April 25 2021 00: 21
        0
        Or you can set the task like that: Buyan-M has a range of 2500 miles, and Nakhimov has unlimited. Question: how many Buyans should you have instead of Nakhimov?
    2. Hwostatij
      Hwostatij April 24 2021 22: 10
      -1
      The cost has not been announced anywhere, but "Pantsir M" is unified with a ground modification, which has a cost of $ 20-25 million.
      = 1.9kkk rubles. What i found. And this is, it seems, about export contracts.
      The first Karakurt without Armor stood at about 5,6-5,8 billion for the state, and with Armor - 10.
      Can I have a link in confirmation?
      1. timokhin-aa
        timokhin-aa April 24 2021 22: 12
        +3
        According to the Chief Designer, there is no link.
        1. Hwostatij
          Hwostatij April 24 2021 22: 17
          0
          Well, it will do. Another question is why? request
          1. timokhin-aa
            timokhin-aa April 24 2021 22: 24
            +5
            Why what? These prices are very low in comparison with what the authors of other projects offer.
            For example, a Project 22160 patrol ship is 6 yards (rounded).
            Corvette 20380 with Zaslonovsky radar in prices last year is much more than 20.

            Karakurt is a cheap ship. When drawing up the TTZ, it was required to use only standard equipment and only manufactured in the Russian Federation.
            As a result, the price is low, and, if the "Zezda" did not fail with diesel engines, the construction time would be very fast.
            1. Hwostatij
              Hwostatij April 24 2021 22: 29
              0
              Why what? These prices are very low in comparison with what the authors of other projects offer.

              I mean, why Karakurt with Shell is more expensive than its counterpart without it by 4 lard, when the cost of the device does not exceed 2 lard.
              1. timokhin-aa
                timokhin-aa April 24 2021 23: 01
                +4
                And what is included in the price of the device itself? Is the revision of the BIUS included? Is another general ship radar on all units with Pantsir included? The cost that you found is the cost of a set of equipment and weapons delivered to Pella for installation on a ship by the manufacturer of the complex. Nothing else necessary for the appearance of the "Shell" on the ship is not included in this cost.
    3. Devil13
      April 24 2021 23: 42
      +1
      the fire! Because all I found was $ 2 billion.
      if 10 - then everything fits, they should cost like Brawler)
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 April 24 2021 22: 54
    -1
    All is needed, seriously.
    But the author correctly noted that we cannot do anything in time.
    So we build what we can, with what speed we can and that's it.

    You can dream of improvement, but: "...... but you hold on. Have a good mood ...."
  • Vladimir1155
    Vladimir1155 April 24 2021 22: 57
    0
    in general, the reasoning of the respected Nikolai is clear, I will not argue that it is better than 10 RTOs or one CD, in the situation described by Nikolai it seems like it turns out that the CD is better, but in reality it will be more likely that it is better than 10 brawlers ... first of all, Nikolai writes that the time of artillery battles has passed, and he himself falls into the trap of calculations and calculations of a missile duel .... and he also writes about the squadron .. that's where the dog is buried, which squadron are we talking about? if about the Chinese or American with dozens of frigates of destroyers and cruisers, then even an aircraft carrier can come in handy and survive. And if we are talking about the Russian Federation, then there is no squadron and there is no foreseen, it has not been there for more than a hundred years, and the last time it died ingloriously in Tsushima ... Therefore, although I am an enemy of MRK, I am a supporter of submarines of frigates and PLO corvettes (
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 24 2021 23: 28
      +1
      respected author Nikolai seems to be reasoning sensibly, but he himself got confused, correctly writes about the fact that art duels are outdated and begins to calculate the capabilities of MRK AND KR in an art duel? why? And he writes about the squadrons .... which squadrons? after the shame of Tsushima, there were no squadrons in the Russian Federation ever in the war. If we are talking about a Chinese or American squadron, then a cruiser and even AB, which is hated by all wise people, would be useful there, there are hundreds of cruisers and destroyer frigates ... and we are not and are not expected (about which Nikolai writes about a frigate in three years build), but then it turns out that 10 mrk is more useful than one cruiser, because they have at least some benefit and you can even touch them with your hands, and the cruiser is either a fiction = an unrealizable dream, or it is an expensive toy, old but expensive, and it will either end up in the role of a coastal frigate PLO, or simply will not go to sea as battleships in WWI and WWII ... in general, we need to understand, reconcile and abandon the unrealizable squadrons "plowing the universe" and develop nuclear submarines, and the development of nuclear submarines requires the development of strike nuclear submarines, coastal aviation , and coastal ASW ships to ensure the exit and return of the nuclear submarine from the base, so the main weapon of the surface ship is not listed by Nikolai, but the PLO equipment ... it is not so important how much the corvette has stronger air defense and missile defense, this is just it self-defense which can be more or less good and shows how much this coastal ship needs cover from the coast, but the main thing is the coastal zone ASW. So when comparing a Cruiser and 10 IPC, it turns out that it is 5 times more useful to have a 10 IPC than one Cruiser ... and more about the prices, there will be no new cruiser or destroyer, why do we need a lone destroyer? Even the repair of Nakhimov turned out to be astronomically expensive and this will not happen anymore, Petya either in a sparing VTG, or in scrap. 1164, in my opinion, also long ago turned into an ASW frigate in terms of functionality, because it is not known what the state of the volcanoes is, and Petya will also become another PLO frigate after a cheap HTG .... coastal PLO ships are not enough ...
      1. Devil13
        April 24 2021 23: 47
        +1
        And brawlers can perform PLO tasks?)
        or Karakurt, or any of our other RTOs?

        and our IPCs are Soviet and will soon be written off.

        The question is not what is more useful, but what can not be considered stupid by launchers. and that it is impossible to try to solve the RTO tasks of the CD.

        We need submarines, we need cover for small PLO URO and attack ships, we need nuclear submarines with self-defense capabilities, and not inoperative anti-torpedo systems.

        But even in 1 submarine with the size of 949A, you can't put 80 Onyxes, SAMs and so on.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 24 2021 23: 23
    +6
    It seems like there was already a discussion on this topic?
    The most effective type of surface ship for Russia is the frigate.
    It is really possible to cram into it a couple of dozen anti-ship missiles and a dozen missile defense missiles,
    and a dozen air defense missiles.
    And he can bite, and protect himself a little. And not very expensive.
    1. Vladimir1155
      Vladimir1155 April 24 2021 23: 49
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The most effective type of surface ship for Russia is the frigate.

      agree, frigate PLO
  • 123456789
    123456789 April 24 2021 23: 50
    0

    No money to build!
  • moody
    moody April 25 2021 01: 44
    0
    Quote: Baron Pardus

    The main question is WHY. What are your goals.


    For the time being, the country's security is ensured by the presence of nuclear weapons and the belief that the commander-in-chief will have the courage to press the button when necessary. One of the components of the triad (SSBN) requires cover for its bases and positional areas in which it can realize its main advantage: stealth. This is the first priority of the fleet. Otherwise, there is no point in building Boreas.

    Quote: Baron Pardus

    With the money that the Russian Federation has, taking into account the geography, it would be ideal for the Russian Federation for the time being to build corvettes armed at the very least, and gain experience, or rather return experience, and shipbuilding, and engine building and infrastructure creation.


    I completely agree, but what to do with the remnants of the legacy of a bygone civilization? Where is the criterion: repair or scrap?
  • Volder
    Volder April 25 2021 06: 26
    +1
    Quote: Nikolai N.
    instead of BOD and EM 956, we get corvettes and frigates with MRKs. Rank 1 ships have not been built since the collapse of the USSR.
    I will correct: 1. Our modern corvettes and frigates are superior to Soviet-built BODs and EMs in terms of strike weapons, air defense, and anti-aircraft defense. 2. Frigates 22350 are ships of the 1st rank, capable of operating in the far sea zone. Even 20380/85 corvettes can meet the enemy in a threatened period 500-800 km from the coast. 3. BODs will be in service for at least another 15 years, moreover, some of them are undergoing modernization, turning into frigates.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey April 26 2021 20: 07
      0
      Meet and Die ...
  • sleeve
    sleeve April 25 2021 09: 10
    0
    A cruiser of this class is a strategic factor at sea. Of course, it is more effective to have something like that, but less. The same "leader" in a series of 12 pieces, ideally. Three ships in a spaced order with c500 and zircons will themselves become "solvers" within the radius of the radar.
    But ... "take the load by yourself, so as not to fall when walking." Construction and maintenance will "eat up" the rest of the units.
    But we must strive ...
  • the same doctor
    the same doctor April 25 2021 09: 24
    +3
    "Ten missile gunboats or one missile battleship. Which is better for the fleet?"

    Depends on the tasks. But for the purposes of coastal defense, it is better to distribute weapons and air defense between tens and hundreds of small ships, united into a single information network. Today, money must be spent on communications and control systems, and then on the hardware on which these weapons will be installed.
    .
    In the future, I foresee generally small deserted yachts with a single rocket, which will patrol the water area for years and return to the port only for maintenance. Perhaps even their sails will be iron, and the speed will be a couple of knots. their main task is communication and detection. The enemy will be destroyed by floating arsenals, for example, deserted or sparsely populated diesel-electric submarines floating under the snorkel in the patrol areas of "yachts" ...
    .
    Large dreadnoughts are needed only for long voyages. With the current range of aviation and missiles, reliable defense is achieved even without aircraft carriers with aircraft carriers. However, I do not exclude that it will be possible to achieve such seaworthiness of the "yachts" that they will master the round the world.
  • CastroRuiz
    CastroRuiz April 25 2021 10: 16
    0
    Statia ponravilas.
    Avtorovi plus.
    1. agond
      agond April 25 2021 11: 38
      0
      Quote: also a doctor
      ... But for the purposes of coastal defense, it is better to distribute weapons and air defense between tens and hundreds of small ships, united into a single information network.

      And one big ship is eggs collected in one basket
      When posing the questions, which is better one large or 10 small ones, you can also bring other analogies to the theme that one tank or 10 fighters in the bushes with RPGs is better.
      one adjustable wrench or a set of open-end wrenches ... and so on
      of course, you need to look for a reasonable compromise between big and small, but you should take into account
      1 no matter how good a large universal ship is, it will be very difficult for him, but rather impossible in a combat situation to solve several tasks simultaneously, only sequentially, and small highly specialized ships can solve tasks simultaneously in accordance with their specialization
      2 Large universal ships are very slowly and expensively built and therefore quickly become obsolete, and their modernization is expensive and long, that they again have time to become obsolete, that is, a large universal ship is money down the drain,
      1. Devil13
        April 25 2021 14: 01
        +2
        2 - and when everything is under construction for a long time, and small ships (corvette) stand like the floor of a destroyer (or even 2/3) what to do?)))
  • ironic
    ironic April 25 2021 12: 57
    -3
    Hmm, it doesn't hurt that the Caliber is effective as an anti-ship missile if it is detected by Fort when leaving the radio horizon immediately and its maximum range is 220 km. Even a modernized Harpoon will be more effective.
    1. Devil13
      April 25 2021 13: 41
      +1
      Quote: ironic
      Hmm, it doesn't hurt that the Caliber is effective as an anti-ship missile if it is detected by Fort when leaving the radio horizon immediately and its maximum range is 220 km. Even a modernized Harpoon will be more effective.


      At what real distance the fort will detect him is a question of real performance characteristics. Nevertheless, let's assume that all modern anti-ship missiles can be detected at such a distance with modern radars.
      The fort on Nakhimov is changed to polyment, if my memory serves me right.

      Nevertheless, the harpoon is several times worse, if only because it is completely subsonic, and the target at 3M does not turn into the minimum size at the end of the flight.
      And yes, the latest agm-84l b2 has a -130km range.
      Plus, the range of the export version of the caliber is known, and not the real one for the navy
      1. ironic
        ironic April 25 2021 13: 54
        -1
        The fort is not changed, but modernized to M. The range will include more distant missiles and missile defense missiles, but the detection systems are already morally outdated. Polyment is added as a medium range system.

        The harpoon, especially modernized at times better precisely because it is subsonic and therefore inconspicuous, with a targeting head from a sufficiently long distance, I will generally keep silent about the targeting heads of the ASM Ax block 5 and block four upgrade 1. I don't even see any point in mentioning LRASM in vain. 3M at the end of the flight, which begins as described above with the exit from the radio horizon, is like a cry - look me here! This is how Barak-8 BRAMOS drove into the water.

        This is not a new version, the new 320 km - AGM-84 block II ER.
        1. Devil13
          April 25 2021 21: 26
          0
          Polyment-redoubt has missiles (the ability to install them), as I understood from the fort-m. Time.
          With Fort there is generally an incomprehensible story. Therefore, you need to look at the results, but their revolving drums are much better to change at the Reduta UVPU, and ideally, to ensure the launch of a heavy missile defense system from the UVPU 3S14 cells.

          Once again, RADAR is put on "Polyment" with PAR blocks.

          Dozvuk (Harpoon, NSM, Kh-35U, etc.) are good precisely because they fly at the water's edge, at a low altitude. Supersonic, like granite, flies for kilometers on the march, and therefore is clearly visible and is not hidden by the radio horizon. However, after leaving the radio horizon decides flight time (which I showed in the calculation above)., not stealth. 21st century, all this was noticeable a long time ago. Here is a target on 3 swings, go hit - the guns will not have time to react / hit, missiles - not the fact that they will have time to work out and intercept, at least this is a MUCH (at times) more difficult target.
          Moreover, if the 2nd step of the Caliber is small, it will also be less noticeable. Plus the fact that it CHANGES the speed. Maneuvers in both planes and speed is the most difficult part and makes interception very difficult.
          1. ironic
            ironic April 25 2021 21: 47
            0
            These are different systems and work at different distances, therefore they need different radar systems.

            The flight time decides when there are many of them for one, and if it is single or many for many, then 40 kilometers and with a confident capture of the target can be enough to drive it into the water, in the final section of the trojectory, Onyxes also fly over the water by ~ 1.5M , you can't fly over the water on 3M. The caliber is a more difficult target due to its stealth. But I didn't understand the topic with the booster. If it is above the water, then you cannot accelerate to 3M there, and if it is with a high-altitude slide, it instantly turns the Caliber into a target.
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal April 25 2021 22: 31
              0
              at the final section of the trojectory, Onyxes also fly ~ 1.5M above the water, you cannot fly 3M above the water

              Onyx has a ramjet engine, therefore 1,5-2M.
              And on the 9-meter two-stage caliber, a solid propellant is declared, which accelerates to 3M.
              True, I have not come across any information about tests confirming these characteristics.
              1. ironic
                ironic April 26 2021 17: 45
                0
                This means that the attack does not occur from a flight at low altitude above the water, but from a slide and a dive. If the air defense does not have time to work - hello, if it has time to capture, then an oncoming interception, even kinetic, is possible.
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal April 26 2021 18: 16
                  0
                  https://youtu.be/fCFjfUz3FaM

                  I've met only such animation smile
                  At the fifth minute, 3m54E is shown.
                  1. ironic
                    ironic April 26 2021 19: 29
                    0
                    Some kind of non-indicative animation, or such a height or 3M. 3M above the ground, I do not believe it.
                    1. 3danimal
                      3danimal April 26 2021 20: 00
                      0
                      Possibly 2M, "total" 680 'heating request
                      ZM and 1020 'are clearly overkill.

                      Although 5 and 10 are possible smile
                      1. ironic
                        ironic April 26 2021 20: 21
                        +1
                        Well, I believe in 2M, although Onyx, according to the open, flies at a small one and a half. For 3 there everything is chained in tungsten, and for 5 special ceramics, as on the X-37 sapphire. smile
                2. Devil13
                  April 26 2021 21: 52
                  0
                  what's behind these conclusions?
            2. Devil13
              April 25 2021 22: 54
              +1
              up to 3M there you can accelerate without problems - it depends on the engine. The solid propellant engine can be overclocked up to 6M, only the head will not see a niche most likely.
              Well, yes, there is. For example, Burke's "AN / SPY-1 radar station, developed by RCA, is multifunctional: it detects, searches, captures and automatically tracks targets, as well as simultaneously guides several missiles to selected targets. The station operates in the" S "range. targets flying at high altitudes reaches 500 km, and at low altitudes it is limited to the radio horizon.The radar includes an antenna, a transmitter, and indicator devices.
              Source: http://bastion-karpenko.ru/aegis-zrk-usa/ VTS "BASTION" AVKarpenko "
              "The most powerful AN / SPY-1 modifications are B and D, these are the cruisers and destroyers with the Aegis missile defense system currently equipped. In the radar of these modifications, each HEADLIGHT is 3,65 × 3,65 m in size and consists of 2175 subarrays with two elements, a total of 4350 elements Beam width - 1,7 degrees Peak radiation power is 58 MW and average power - 4-6 MW According to the official data of the US Navy, the detection range of the SPY-1 radar modifications of B / D targets with EPR 0,03 m2 is equal to 310-320 km.
              Source: http://bastion-karpenko.ru/aegis-zrk-usa/ VTS "BASTION" AVKarpenko "
              1. ironic
                ironic April 26 2021 17: 47
                +1
                At low altitude? 6M? Air defense is not needed, it will burn itself.

                0,03 at 320 km? I do not believe. Maybe 0,3 yes.
          2. 3danimal
            3danimal April 25 2021 22: 38
            -1
            21st century, all this was noticeable a long time ago

            A low-altitude target (flight altitude 5m) is a priori more difficult to detect.
            Shipborne radars have a maximum range for such targets; when using stealth technologies, the range is reduced.
            Especially when the anti-ship missile system does not shine with its radar seeker, but uses IR and passive radar guidance.
  • EvilLion
    EvilLion April 26 2021 08: 44
    0
    If you collect 10 ships and attack a monster that has better any of the systems, then the monster really has a chance to kill them from a long distance, but we again have a discussion of the spheroconin in a vacuum. The same small ships can have target designation from aircraft, and then the advantage of the large ship is nullified. And the exchange of such a ship for 1-3 small ones in the event of an attack (1 hit by a heavy anti-ship missile will be enough for any monster in 10 kt of VI) is unlikely to be profitable.

    The coastal defense fleet itself should consist of small ships (autonomy is not needed, which means less nyam and diesel fuel, which means less hull, which means even less diesel fuel and even less hull), aviation and coastal missile systems.
    1. 3danimal
      3danimal April 26 2021 09: 02
      0
      The coastal defense fleet itself should consist of small ships (autonomy is not needed, which means less nyam and diesel fuel, which means less hull, which means even less diesel fuel and even less hull), aviation and coastal missile systems.

      The monster also swims faster (30 knots).
      True, but still not MRK, but corvettes, although you (universal ships).
      By the way, Turkey is going to build very good corvettes (patrol boats) for the Ukrainian Navy.
      You look at the engines - the soul rejoices: MTU diesels, GE LM-2500 gas turbine, no restrictions ..
      And 3D surveillance radar HEADLIGHT "Thales SMART-S" at 250 km.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion April 26 2021 10: 16
        0
        Just don't talk about the Navy's Ukro, so you can die with laughter.

        A monster can have a nuclear reactor and swim 30 knots, but anti-ship missiles are still faster, like planes, a stick was placed over T 100 years ago, now there are several additional ones. knots of any advantage in maneuverability will not be created precisely in a situation when a large ship is trying to attack something on the shore from a distance of several hundred kilometers.
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal April 26 2021 11: 29
          0
          Just don't talk about the Navy's Ukro, so you can die with laughter.

          I'm talking about the Turkish corvettes themselves and how to make good use of the best equipment on the world market.
          The monster can have a nuclear reactor and swim 30 knots

          Burke has 4 of the world's best LM-2500 turbines, enough request
          add. knots of any advantage in maneuverability will not be created precisely in a situation when a large ship is trying to attack something on the shore from a distance of several hundred kilometers.

          30 knots can develop at a 10,6-meter wave and a shaft power of 75000 hp, and this storm 9-10 points. RTOs in such weather will be at the berth: Karakurt's maximum seaworthiness is 8 points.
          Here and the size is a plus, of course.
          But it is also the power of the power grid, which confidently “pulls” both 6 MW of the AN / SPY-1 radar and 1 MW of the electronic warfare station.
          Plus one of the best GAS surface ships AN / SQS-53D.
          RTOs for the PL are just a victim.
          trying to attack something on the shore from a distance of several hundred kilometers.

          E-3 (which is not A-50U at all) and the Global Hawk fly along the coast, they can issue a control center. Having quickly fired off, a large ship will give a snatch, fighting off the attackers, since there is something.

          Objectively, we cannot build Berks (especially in a comparable time frame and in a comparable series).
          But corvettes 20385 and frigates 22350 are quite capable, and all production capacities should be concentrated on them, without being sprayed on "intermediate" trifles, like MRKs.
        2. Ryusey
          Ryusey April 26 2021 20: 10
          0
          Do you have these 10 kTn?)
  • Tektor
    Tektor April 26 2021 12: 07
    +1
    In my crooked naval opinion, the main feature of the Orlan 11442M is to get AWACS and prevent him from making a control center for aiming anti-ship missiles. It is assumed that there is no satellite constellation, i.e. it is extinguished / blinded by the laser from the Orlan. And then, to target the anti-ship missile system, the foe will have to creep into the death zone. This is not an option: the Amerzians do not know how to fight like that. And to aim missiles at AWACS beyond the radio horizon in the region of 450 km, 40N6 or 40N6M and a powerful radar are required, for which the appropriate energy is needed. All this taken together determines the mass and size of the ship. To which ammunition is also added to counter submarines, surface ships and coastal targets. Those. such a mass-size allows the enemy to create unacceptable conditions for counteraction.
    1. Devil13
      April 26 2021 19: 33
      0
      what interesting lasers do you have against satellites on the eagle, a)
      As I showed above, satellite guidance does not provide an anti-ship missile guidance capability. These are the tasks of naval reconnaissance officers. Such a weight and size really becomes a headache and problem, especially with security.
  • Russian2020
    Russian2020 April 26 2021 21: 26
    0
    10 liberals or one liberalism
    1. Devil13
      April 26 2021 21: 53
      0
      self-critical. How does this manifest itself in you?
  • Vadim Kukhtiev
    Vadim Kukhtiev April 26 2021 22: 28
    +1
    Bravo, author! It is the balance that gives the combat stability of any army
  • Vanyusha
    Vanyusha April 27 2021 10: 15
    -1
    Better yet, launch a dozen nuclear submarines into Baikal, and let them swim there without disturbing anyone.
  • Non liberoid Russian
    Non liberoid Russian 4 May 2021 05: 48
    0
    it is good that the local commentators are just commentators on a yellowish site, and not in the General Staff and the Admiralty. let it stay
  • Glad
    Glad 17 May 2021 00: 35
    0
    I read the article ... After reading the second half of it, a dreamy smile appeared on my face and the memories of heavy holivars about who is stronger - an elephant or a whale - surfaced in my head. Yes ... There were times ...
    I will not say anything about calculations and estimates in the second half of the article, except that "in reality everything is not the way it really is" (C). That is, everything is both more complicated and simpler. More difficult from the technical side and easier from the human side.
    However, I would like to mention two technical points.
    We believe that 1 anti-ship missile system needs two SAMs (anti-aircraft guided missiles).

    If so ... Better to be on the safe side and assume that 5 - 7 missiles will be spent on one anti-ship missile system. In real combat conditions. This is if everything works like a clock without technical failures and ... and the human factor.
    Plus, in the final section from 4 to 4 km, the cannons will fill the entire space in front of the ship with lead.

    Alas, there is not enough lead.

    Now about the human factor. Dear Author, what do you think, for the loss of which ship will there be a "thicker wick" from the management? For one cruiser 1144 or for a dozen Buyans? That's it ...
    1. Devil13
      23 May 2021 01: 36
      0
      Given the stubbornness? Of course, for 10 ships, than for 1, they, God forbid, if they know how to count, where are the performance characteristics)
  • Polar Bear
    Polar Bear 15 June 2021 22: 00
    0
    What is the balanced composition of the fleet? Where does a modern fleet come from? The fortune of the Russian oligarchs from Forbes is, in terms of American aircraft carriers such as nimits, 75 units, and this is at an American price of $ 6 billion per piece .. ...