"The Russians place missiles on every meter of their ships": Britain compared the Type 26 frigate with the Buyan-M MRK in terms of armament

99

This week in the British House of Commons it was announced that "initially the Type 26 frigate will only be equipped with a helicopter and a short-range missile system (plus a medium-caliber cannon and Phalanx CIWS)." The announcement caused a strong reaction in the British press; observers came out with sharp criticism, being dissatisfied with the extremely weak armament of the new escort ships of the AUG.

Loses even to Buyan-M


Critics include Tom Sharp, a retired commander [Captain 2nd Rank] who has been in the seas for 20 years. He compared armory stuffing of British ships, including the Type 26, with similar warships in fleets other countries.



In the table presented by him, ships from different countries are grouped. It evaluates the existing and new projects of the Royal Navy (RN) in comparison with the fleets of the United States, France, Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, China and Russia. The nine major weapon systems are listed at the top. Depending on their availability ("yes / no"), the ships gain points. As a result, the average value for the country is displayed.

The average score for all fleets is 6 out of 9. The US Navy is in the lead with 7,25, followed by the Chinese PLAN with 7 points and the Dutch frigate De Zeven Provinciën with 7 points. The average for the Royal Navy and T26 in particular is 4: "lower than on any other ship and in any other country," the author writes. Even the Russian MRK Buyan-M scored more points.

Fighting is a bloody affair. The ability to both withstand defense and attack is critical and highly dependent on the "mass". To use a boxing analogy: if you are half the size of your opponent, you will be beaten

- the commander believes.

"The Russians place missiles on every meter of their ships": Britain compared the Type 26 frigate with the Buyan-M MRK in terms of armament


Causes of failure


He tried to understand the reasons that affected the weak armament of the new frigate:

Of the ships listed in the table, excluding RN, 15 out of 18 have any torpedo launch systems. It also begs the question why the T26 (and T31) are the only ships on the list without surface-to-surface missiles?


First, there is not enough money, although recently the defense budget was significantly increased [the World Bank was in 4th place in terms of expenditures, the Russian Federation - in 5th]. Secondly, it has already become a habit to start building new types of ships, despite the immaturity of technology.

The Russians place missiles and guns on every meter of their ships, so much so that they literally bristle with them, and our fleet seems to be taking the opposite step.

Sharpe points out.

This is due to the unavailability of technical solutions. For example, officials claim that work on the Type 45 missile defense is ongoing, “but why was it not completed when the system was put into operation?” The author asks.

Thirdly, a mentality has formed according to which pennants, devoid of a certain type of weapon, will be covered by ships that possess them.

However, show up [on the battlefield] with a low-quality set [of weapons] and you will be sent to Group B, patrolling the waters a couple of hundred miles away.

Sharpe points out.

Fourthly, during the procurement process, costs are constantly growing, and therefore a dilemma arises - either completely abandon the program, or sacrifice its component parts.

I know that every military industrial complex in the world suffers from this, but maybe ours is in the ranks of the worst?

- writes the commander, pointing out, for example, that British ships have a Mark 41 launcher for anti-ship missiles and torpedo tubes, but they are empty, since no ammunition has been purchased for them.

Calling the Type 26 project a "failure", the author was concerned about the possible fate of the promising British destroyer Type 83:

The "8" index suggests that these ships will be large enough to match the cruisers of the past [...] There is a danger that we will build another ship weighing a billion pounds, which is inferior in armament to the 15-year-old Russian corvette

- the commander concludes.

    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    99 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. +13
      23 May 2021
      Yes, there would be more meters. And then a lot of beautiful names for ships are gathering dust ...
      And so - let them complain.
      1. +17
        23 May 2021
        And the commander approached the question competently! But he is already retired and is only interesting to the local FIU - when will he finally die! laughing
        1. +8
          23 May 2021
          "The Russians are placing missiles on every meter of their ships": Britain compared the Type 26 frigate with the Buyan-M MRK in terms of weapons

          Russians even have a saying:
          Small spool but precious
          1. +13
            23 May 2021
            First, there is not enough money
            What's the problem? Take a loan from Ukraine!
            1. +5
              23 May 2021
              Quote: NIKNN
              Take a loan from Ukraine!

              Then they will pay for their whole life ... recourse
              1. +2
                23 May 2021
                Quote from Uncle Lee
                Then they will pay for their whole life ...

                Yes, wi sho ... they owe her the whole European herd without credit. laughing
          2. +1
            23 May 2021
            Quote: ROSS 42
            "The Russians are placing missiles on every meter of their ships": Britain compared the Type 26 frigate with the Buyan-M MRK in terms of weapons

            Russians even have a saying:
            Small spool but precious

            It remains to compare their air defense
        2. +4
          23 May 2021
          He is a commander, i.e. "cap two". Even when he was on duty, no one really bothered about his opinion. And the constant reductions, the Britons have already become the norm. Destroyers type 45 was supposed to be, like 42 - 12 pieces. As a result, 6 came out, with 26 frigates a similar situation.
          1. +2
            23 May 2021
            hi Thank you, that's how it is!
          2. +2
            23 May 2021
            All Europeans (Britons are no exception) have a way of not buying Tomahawks for their own money, but getting them from the States in case of a mess.
            All wars are provoked by the States and cunning Europeans prefer to save money so as not to get targets for missiles bought for hard-earned money. The states have already complained that their stock of missiles has decreased and the partners ought to have the conscience to buy for the stock themselves. But so far no one is burning with such a desire. bully
            And without the Tomahawks, the money is safe, and the second (safer line) for an "under-armed" ship, if something happens, is a good option.
            Everything was and will be so. Only retirees are torn to the first line. hi
            1. +1
              23 May 2021
              "Axes" require appropriate hardware to be used. It is impossible to bring missiles from the USA, stuff them into the airborne command of any ship and go into battle. Even type 45, "sharpened" under the gayropean CR DB if it is brought "to mind", like FREMMs. There was no talk about type 31 at all, an extremely economical option)))
              1. +1
                23 May 2021
                "Axes" require appropriate hardware to be used.

                Yes, they do. Both equipment and fittings.
                They have everything, for NATO, compatibility standards, etc.
                Both the Spaniards and anyone using the Mk-41 can launch Tomahawks. But in real life, everyone understands that where the States say, the missiles will fly there. Therefore, they do not buy. hi
                1. 0
                  23 May 2021
                  UVP MK. 41 is not only standardized for NATO. The Japanese, Koreans, Australians have them and further down the list. But not everyone has the equipment for testing and programming the heads of the "axes". And they won't give it to just anyone, because the information can "float away"))))
                  1. 0
                    23 May 2021
                    All of you correctly speak about everyone. And I'm talking about NATO. wink
                    1. +1
                      23 May 2021
                      I don’t think that even inside NATO, the mattress makers shared their secrets with everyone - it’s unsafe. Turkey and Hungary are good examples. Like NATO, but "on my mind." Why not pay off with mattress secrets for Moscow nishtyaks?)))
          3. +3
            24 May 2021
            Quote: TermNachTER
            He is a commander, i.e. "cap two". Even when he was in the service, no one really bothered about his opinion.

            It is immediately evident that they have no democracy. We have here one retired cap3 the entire Navy has already zadolbal with his nonsense, already encroaching on the Aerospace Forces and air defense. And he finds support here, at VO, although at some specialized forums of military sailors he is not remembered without a mate. But now his fantasies fit into the outlook of some immature minds. laughing
            1. 0
              24 May 2021
              Well, why, everyone can write - this is not forbidden. Whether only those who make decisions will pay attention to your writing is a big question. There was a very interesting article in the New York Times, also a retired commander, only a mattress. It’s a pity I didn’t keep it, dedicated to the problems of the mattress fleet, and of course, there’s a bit of the Air Force and the Ground Forces.
      2. -3
        23 May 2021
        The Anglo-Saxons are in a panic from the Russians .. They feel that reckoning will come soon.
        We collected our thieves there in London. They are afraid that we will slap them there in a crowd at once. bully
        Many people want who is on duty on the "buttons", but not yet.
        1. +4
          23 May 2021
          Quote: xorek
          We collected our thieves there in London. They are afraid that we will slap them there in a crowd at once.

          But that would be great! They thought to hide there, and bite them. ))))
          1. +3
            23 May 2021
            Quote: Egoza
            Quote: xorek
            We collected our thieves there in London. They are afraid that we will slap them there in a crowd at once.

            But that would be great! They thought to hide there, and bite them. ))))

            They have already begun to scatter from London Elena .. They rush around the world and do not know where to calm down. We will catch and punish everyone! Let them run for now, although their Anglo-Saxons began to rip off, like sticky, Where does the capital and accounts begin to reset hehe he
            Bastards are in a hurry.
          2. +6
            23 May 2021
            Such as S. Brilev, who sang sweetly in the ears of Russians on Channel One. (Since 2001 he has been a citizen of Great Britain, which became publicly known in 2018.) President of the Global Energy Association (since February 3, 2020), member of the Presidium Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, co-founder and president of the Bering-Bellingshausen Institute (Montevideo, Uruguay), member of the Academy of Russian Television (since 2006), former member of the Public Council under the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, Brilev was expelled from the council by the decision of the Minister of Defense from On January 28, 2019 it became known that the TV presenter has British citizenship. The Kremlin noted that Brilev “did not violate anything.” Of course, what he could have violated if half of the passports of citizens of other countries were hidden. In 2009, he worked in Manchester, I was struck by the fact that in the Manchester Cathedral church there were only bibles in German and Russian. This suggests that there are many Russian-speaking parishioners. And in London, where whole houses were bought by our fellow citizens. Regular flights to London were not canceled even during the virus. And since the prohibition for officials to own real estate abroad was not included in the list of amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Dozens of parliamentarians and civil servants, if banned, could lose their posts. Everyone understands that all this nonsense of a second-rank captain in retirement for the common people. That would not relax.
            1. 0
              23 May 2021
              Actually, this ban was included in the number of amendments. Have you read the new edition of the Constitution?
              1. +1
                24 May 2021
                The ban on the ownership of foreign real estate was not included in the draft amendments to the Constitution, as dozens of parliamentarians and officials would have had to abandon it or resign from their posts. Pavel Krasheninnikov, head of the State Duma Committee on State Construction and Legislation, told Vedomosti.
                1. +1
                  28 May 2021
                  A ban has been added for officials of different levels and deputies to possess the citizenship of a foreign state, as well as possession of a document that allows them to permanently reside in a foreign state, as well as to have an account located in banks of foreign states. That's what's really important. Not "real estate".
                  1. -1
                    30 May 2021
                    Do you yourself believe that officials will declare their accounts abroad? Americans cannot get data from the French bank BNP Paribas. Although there are the same swindlers. Do you think someone will show Russia everything?
              2. 0
                29 May 2021
                Article 97
                1. A citizen of the Russian Federation who has reached the age of 21 and has the right to participate in elections, who permanently resides in the Russian Federation, does not have citizenship of a foreign state or a residence permit or other document confirming the right of permanent residence of a citizen of the Russian Federation on the territory of a foreign state may be elected to the State Duma. ... Deputies of the State Duma, in the manner prescribed by federal law, are prohibited from opening and having accounts (deposits), keeping cash and valuables in foreign banks located outside the territory of the Russian Federation.
            2. +1
              24 May 2021
              This Brilev was given to you, here the well-known M.M. Isaev was in the ranks of the Nazi party since 1933 and, moreover, even the Berlin tennis champion. So, if it is necessary for the business, then let Brilev at least marry Psaki, or do you have any specific incriminating evidence on him?
              1. +2
                24 May 2021
                Only M.M. Isaev fought for the Motherland, and Brilev fought for trinkets.
                1. 0
                  24 May 2021
                  He has to fight for the trinkets exclusively within the framework of the assignment, according to legend. Perhaps there will even be a spy series about it.
                  1. 0
                    27 May 2021
                    Don't even try to pass off a criminal offense as a special operation.
                    1. 0
                      28 May 2021
                      And, what article do you impute to citizen S.Brilev?
                2. +1
                  27 May 2021
                  Do you have proof? Or so OBS ...
              2. 0
                24 May 2021
                There is no compromising evidence. But this man called us to patriotism and was an adviser to the Russian Defense Ministry. This is suspicious to me.
                1. +1
                  25 May 2021
                  So, what to expect from the court herald, who diligently fulfills his ration.
                2. 0
                  27 May 2021
                  Usmanov is a philanthropist, a big businessman who actually maintains our federation of rhythmic gymnastics also has English real estate and citizenship, but he is a much greater patriot than some amateurs to scandalize about our favor.
            3. 0
              28 May 2021
              Why didn't they mention that Brilev worked in the London branch of Russian television until 2001? Those. factor explaining the presence of a journalist in the UK? You pull up the facts and methods of reporting them in a way that is beneficial to your perception of the world. You are not objective.
        2. 0
          23 May 2021
          The Anglo-Saxons are in a panic from the Russians .. They feel that reckoning will come soon.
          My mother and my relatives are from Don, where a mixed Russian-Ukrainian dialect was used.
          On such occasions, when she was soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo blue either, she said;
          "God bless our calves with a wedge of health."
          I think no translation is required?
          They collected our thieves there in London. They are afraid that we will slap them there in a crowd at once.
          That's why they gathered our thieves at home, to slap them themselves. hi
      3. +3
        23 May 2021
        the British military is not the same)
    2. +10
      23 May 2021
      For that, today the English squadron and the adjoining vassals from NATO will go to threaten China and threaten us on the way! Yes, so that the Chinese met them at the exit from the Red Sea, we will meet these in Mediterranean!
    3. +6
      23 May 2021
      In the words of Admiral David Beatta: "Something is wrong with our ships today" :)
    4. +10
      23 May 2021
      I wonder if the Buyans will soon be stuffed with Zircons, what kind of mathematics will it be, and how will the small British gentlemen squeal?
      1. -1
        25 May 2021
        There will be interesting mathematics when you try to ensure the guidance of the "Zircons" at the enemy with a class slightly higher than the barmaley with ak.
        1. 0
          27 May 2021
          And how are the barmaley very different from these persons? By the way, the English ship sent to the Black Sea preferred to dump when meeting with our
          1. 0
            7 2021 June
            And the fact that the barmaley do not have PAAMS or Sea Ceptor air defense systems. They also do not have rapid-fire anti-aircraft guns. I'm not even talking about modern maritime radars and electronic countermeasures. The screams of Russian propagandists about "great victories" over every NATO ship that entered the Black Sea have long become commonplace. However, it is difficult to explain something to a person who does not distinguish between the fight against partisans and the war with a normal enemy.
    5. +4
      23 May 2021
      It also begs the question why the T26 (and T31) are the only ships on the list without surface-to-surface missiles?

      How can a ship carry surface-to-surface missiles? belay
      What is it, the "difficulties" of translation or the awareness of the correspondent or interviewer? lol
      1. +4
        23 May 2021
        Quote: K-50
        It also begs the question why the T26 (and T31) are the only ships on the list without surface-to-surface missiles?

        How can a ship carry surface-to-surface missiles? belay
        What is it, the "difficulties" of translation or the awareness of the correspondent or interviewer? lol

        Rather "surface-to-surface", obviously the translation is.
      2. -1
        27 May 2021
        Very simple and silent.
      3. 0
        28 May 2021
        Why are you surprised? The missiles are designed to be launched from the "at the bottom" position)
      4. 0
        28 May 2021
        Why are you surprised? The missiles are designed to be launched from the "at the bottom" position)
    6. -12
      23 May 2021
      Not a bad research, they will draw conclusions, it is being modernized ... and the Russian "super-armed boats" will remain boats, practically incapable of using weapons with which they are stuffed.
      1. +2
        23 May 2021
        Quote: Niko
        Russian "super-armed boats" will remain boats

        This is for the independent "cutters" of unknown purpose, and the MRK means - "small rocket ship" actually. And yes, why are such conclusions about the inability of Russian ships to use their latest weapons?
        1. +1
          23 May 2021
          Read on. Read at least something besides the victory news. There are mountains of reports written about rearmament problems to the detriment of everything else.
          1. +2
            23 May 2021
            Here I will hold you because the majority of commentators do not have enough outlook to critically look at the problem. Here is an article where a retired former commander sees his opinion about weapons and immediately hurray the patriots write that they will drive Britov boats. The concept of a balanced ship is not known to them because what to the point of a ship where offensive weapons were sacrificed to other characteristics. And there are a lot of such examples, both foreign and domestic. Take at least the pre-war sevens weapons and speed at altitude, but the range, air defense, anti-aircraft defense and hull and mechanisms are rather weak, the same British and American destroyers They did not shine with such speeds and weapons, but they were universal and could protect the convoy from aircraft and submarines and pat the stronger enemy. But alas, Russian admirals and hurray patriots want an armed tsatsu that does not exist in the world, and the sailors do not care whether he will return from the campaign or not.
        2. 0
          23 May 2021
          1) RTOs have no seaworthiness;
          2) low autonomy;
          3) Water cannons, because of which "Buyans" have to be constantly installed from the docks for their repair and cleaning;
          4) Lack of PLO;
          5) Lack of missile defense;
          6) Inability to use missile weapons, as there is no radar on the Buyan.
          7) the result of electronic weapons.
          This is not a ship, but a missile gunboat.
          1. +3
            23 May 2021
            Quote: El Dorado
            This is not a ship, but a missile gunboat.

            Did he understand what he wrote or was this a manual?
            No radar sayin?
          2. 0
            23 May 2021
            Quote: El Dorado
            Inability to use missile weapons, as there is no radar on the Buyan.

            Radar 5P-26M1 (MR-352M1) "Positive-M1".
            1. 0
              23 May 2021
              In performance characteristics "plunge" - you will understand the purpose. For shock capabilities, I need an external control center.
              1. -2
                23 May 2021
                Quote: WFP
                In TTX "plunge"

                Well, let's see these performance characteristics.
                1. -2
                  23 May 2021
                  GDPR is right. Initially, the 5P is intended for artillery, incl. Air defense. For Caliber, it is not suitable. External target designation is needed. Although it can go at short range, it has been modified for surface targets, but rather weak for a CD-based DB.
                  1. +2
                    23 May 2021
                    Quote: URAL72
                    GDPR is right. Initially, the 5P is intended for artillery, incl. Air defense. For Caliber, it is not suitable. External target designation is needed. Although it can go at short range, it has been modified for surface targets, but rather weak for a CD-based DB.

                    ???? And how do you imagine a shipborne radar capable of giving target designation to a missile with a range of 3500 km? Something like "Don"?
                    1. 0
                      23 May 2021
                      It is quite enough "Furke" for general detection and "Monument-A" for target designation.
                    2. -1
                      23 May 2021
                      Quote: abc_alex
                      And how do you imagine a shipborne radar capable of giving target designation to a missile with a range of 3500 km? Something like "Don"?
                      Look at the "Karakurt": it seems that it is "Brawler", but it has the best seaworthiness and can fire itself at enemy ships. This is already a ship, and not just a floating launcher, but it is just as vulnerable to enemy aircraft and submarines and costs significantly more.
                    3. +1
                      23 May 2021
                      The article was more about anti-ship missiles, and in this version the range is about 300 km. The curvature of the earth, for your information, changes with the height of the ship's mast. So with the same radar, Peter the Great will see much further than Buyan.
                  2. 0
                    23 May 2021
                    Quote: URAL72
                    For Caliber, it is not suitable.
                    You have already been answered.
                    Quote: abc_alex
                    And how do you imagine a shipborne radar capable of giving target designation to a missile with a range of 3500 km?
                    On any ship, the radar will be limited by the curvature of the Earth.
                    1. +1
                      25 May 2021
                      Quote: Dart2027
                      On any ship, the radar will be limited by the curvature of the Earth.

                      Thats exactly what I mean.
                      Over-the-horizon radars are somewhat non-shipborne. And according to unofficial data, the flight range of the Caliber missiles reaches 3500 km. How? :)
                      Even a 300 km range of location and target designation for the ship's radar is not feasible. From a height of 30 meters, the horizon does not exceed 50 km.
                      1. +3
                        25 May 2021
                        Quote: abc_alex
                        Even a 300 km range of location and target designation for the ship's radar is not feasible.

                        It was about the fact that El Dorado said that there was no radar station on Buyany at all, and they began to explain to him that it was there. Nobody said that it can be compared with the coastal ones.
              2. +1
                25 May 2021
                Quote: WFP
                For shock capabilities, I need an external control center.

                So if you shoot for 1000 km it is so and so external it is necessary
          3. +2
            23 May 2021
            This is not a ship, but a missile gunboat.

            Barmaley in Syria did not care that there was no air defense on Buyan when Calibers flew to them. wink
            Now there is no INF Treaty. You can solve problems in a different way.
    7. +5
      23 May 2021
      [/ b] The battle is a bloody affair. The ability to both withstand defense and lead an attack is critical and highly dependent on the "mass". To use an analogy with boxing: if you are half the size of your opponent, you will be beaten [b]
      A controversial opinion, when a "baby" anti-ship missile device has a range of 1500 km, then the mass is not important. wink
      1. 0
        23 May 2021
        1500 km - this is when hitting ground targets.
        In the variant of the anti-ship missile "Caliber" it flies for 300 km.
        1. +4
          23 May 2021
          At the turn of control by onboard REV in 80 km ...
      2. +3
        23 May 2021
        But only if there will be a control center for them.
        And yes, they have a range of 300-400 km for naval targets.
        1. -2
          23 May 2021
          But only if there will be a control center for them.
          the gypsy woman will spread the deck and give out the CO?
          1. 0
            24 May 2021
            Buyans were made to circumvent the treaty. He will not meet and fight with enemy ships.
    8. +1
      23 May 2021
      The fate of Britashka is to become the new Atlantis. Humble yourself and take for granted from above ....)))
    9. -2
      23 May 2021
      Banal whining and fairy tales for knocking out money. In addition to the armament itself, the main and most important is the means of detection, electronic warfare, etc. Russian ships are not close to this equipment in comparison with NATO. What's the difference how many missiles you have on the ship, if Can't you use them effectively?
      1. +2
        23 May 2021
        Quote: Gosha Smirnov
        Russian ships are not even close in this equipment compared to NATO ones. What difference does it make how many missiles you have on a ship if you cannot effectively use them?

        I read the comments and once again understand what kind of specimens of all-fledged people live here. winked except for stupid populism, there are simply no thoughts on the topic, well, yes, where do they come from. Did you personally attend the tests yourself?
        1. -6
          23 May 2021
          I have half of my relatives from sailors, including most of the military. So, in addition to being open, etc. information, there is still someone to know something from. So historically it has developed that since the time of WW1 the Russian-Soviet fleet has sucked. The land state simply does not need a powerful fleet. This is an axiom. The exception is strategic submarines with Yao. So that you can hold your golimy hurray-n # zriotism
          1. -4
            23 May 2021
            You know why they put minuses on the fact that people are far from the military theme, although many may have served even in large positions. But teaching is one thing, and war is another where you receive specific gifts and not mephic water.
          2. 0
            27 May 2021
            Especially for overly concerned jingoistic patriots, I recommend reading an excellent and truthful article from a fairly really patriotic site Reporter, who is not afraid of the truth. The article is called "The naval aviation of the Russian Navy was on the verge of collapse." Recommend.
        2. +1
          23 May 2021
          Yes, they are roughly equal in number with the stupid uryakalka who have everything that has an analogue in the world / tear all of them, but what can we do? these are 2 extremes, both are disgusting .. But, it's good that there are enough normal people in VO, who may not justify their opinion with slogans and it is interesting at the same time, otherwise they would have left here ..
    10. +1
      23 May 2021
      And this is on purpose, so that later there would be no complaints, which was not enough for them. wassat
    11. +1
      23 May 2021
      SOS, give me more money!
    12. +3
      23 May 2021
      The Russians place missiles on every meter of their ships ": Britain compared the Type 26 frigate with the Buyan-M MRK in terms of armament
      ... So it is ... we had fewer ships, but toothy, in all respects.
    13. +1
      23 May 2021
      And they are not yet aware that any Russian container truck can have a calibrated surprise ...
    14. +4
      23 May 2021
      Quote: Gosha Smirnov
      It so happened historically that since the time of WW1 the Russian-Soviet fleet has sucked. For the land state, a powerful fleet simply DOESN'T

      You say so don't talk, it was under Gorshkov that the Soviet fleet sucked? You take on a lot with this statement.
    15. +1
      23 May 2021

      First, there is not enough money, although recently the defense budget has been significantly increased.



      Recently, I just rush from such explanations. As you read the foreign press about Russia, so "torn to shreds", a beggar gas station, GDP like someone's village, everything is stolen. In the West, there is continuous growth and prospects, development and wealth.
      But, damn it, why the hell then they don't have enough money for government programs? Why do we poor and torn apart have money to put rockets on the ship, but they do not? :)
      Where does their GDP go? Moreover, "money is not enough" not only in Britain. The same with Poland, but it is almost a pancake not the leader of growth in the EU. But he cannot buy himself a new plane or bank, there is no money. I am silent about their gavron, which they cannot build.
      And how there is not enough US money!

      I think the British Mariman is hesitant to voice the main reason for such a strange military shipbuilding. Britain is not building its own fleet. She sees her clables exclusively as part of the NATO fleet or an auxiliary part of the US fleet.
      1. +1
        23 May 2021
        Quote: abc_alex
        Where does their GDP go? Moreover, "money is not enough" not only in Britain. The same with Poland, but it is almost a pancake not the flagship of growth in the EU.

        Because they speak, and truth is as far from lies as eyes are from ears.
    16. Tom Sharp, retired commander
      - a distant descendant of Nicholas Sharpe? laughing
    17. 0
      23 May 2021
      Do you think that they answered me? The article was more about anti-ship missiles, and in this version the range is about 300 km. The curvature of the earth, for your information, changes with the height of the ship's mast. So with the same radar, Peter the Great will see much further than Buyan.
      1. 0
        24 May 2021
        Quote: URAL72
        So with the same radar, Peter the Great will see much further than Buyan.

        Only at a height of Buyan's mast of 18 m will he see a similar ship at a distance of 32 km.
        And Peter the Great with a mast height of 59 m will see the same ship as himself at a distance of 58 km. Buyan will be visible for 45 km.
        From the point of view of anti-ship missiles with a firing range of 300 km, the difference is not great.
    18. 0
      23 May 2021
      excel didn't work? :what:
    19. +1
      23 May 2021
      The British have the genes to walk the seas and oceans. Only one thing is not clear, have they forgotten their own history? Francis Drake and Henry Morgan did not have large ships, but they kept the Spanish galleons stuffed with gold Indians at bay. And with success they were captured or drowned.
      Probably, American Hollywood, announcing today the winners of all times and peoples of the Americans, with its craving for the large size of everything and everyone, played a cruel joke with British psychology. History must not be forgotten, gentlemen, British! There was no USA at that time, alas ... Then Britain was equal to itself.
    20. +2
      23 May 2021
      What nonsense is it, how you can compare the combat capabilities of ships of different ranks, dumping them in one heap and displaying the average temperature in the hospital. And even without taking into account the weapons standing on them, including radio-technical ones. Some kind of amateurish approach. And the fact that at the Royal Nevi half of the ships are disarmed due to the lack of the required ammunition, even on the nuclear submarine has long been known. And judging by the video, it is clear that this is not a frigate, although it was called that way, the maximum is a patrol ship. Apparently everything is needed, there is no money, so they tried to sculpt something incomprehensible
    21. 0
      24 May 2021
      "... are the only ships on the list without surface-to-surface missiles?"
      Elementary Watson! Ships have surface-to-surface missiles fool
      This Sharpe is generally a real cap or two, or stood next to ...?
    22. 0
      24 May 2021
      And nothing is a brawler up to 1000 tons, and T26 is 5500 somehow not correct.
    23. 0
      24 May 2021
      Zumvalt 7 was set, this despite the fact that they seem to be rushing about and cannot determine the optimal set and how to arm it in general. And in the ranking one of the most for some reason. Playing along with your older brother? Or the youngest? Although who can understand them in their incest.
    24. 0
      25 May 2021
      Now it is clear how the name Klimov is translated into English.

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"