Military Review

US littoral ships - a shame or not?

90

The Americans are beginning to withdraw their coastal zone guard ships into reserve. The so-called littoral ships. This is a completely natural event, because the ships did not work out unambiguously. This is normal practice, it happens.


On the pages of many media outlets, many have spoken out on this topic. Including the authors, whose articles can be seen on the "Military Review". Statements in the spirit of the times:
"... this shameful история is typical of the American naval fleet»
"The story of this project is a story of endless shame."
"The shameful epic with the" littoral warships "will continue, and the shame will not diminish in it"
(the author's spelling is preserved) and stuff like that.

In general - "shame on the jungle."

But let's seriously, without shouting, try to think about whether this is good for us, or bad? So to say, to evaluate it in your own way, is it zrada or a change?

So, the first two littoral ships of the US Navy, Freedom and Independence, go into reserve. Some "experts" have already used the word "cut" in their comments, but alas. There is still a long way to go before cutting in accordance with the US system.

There is such a NISMF in the US Navy. This is a division of the US Navy, which deals with the decommissioning and storage of naval vessels pending determination of their future fate.

The options are as follows: a ship decommissioned from the Navy can be placed in reserve. Before that, the hull and equipment of the ship are thoroughly defected and repaired. After the repair, mooring and sea trials must be carried out. Then the ammunition is removed from the ship, drained aviation gasoline and oils, in general, all explosive and perishable materials, except for the main fuel in tanks... Water supplies are also drained. All other equipment and property is stored on the ship. And in this form, the ship stands in a certain place for up to 20 years.

US littoral ships - a shame or not?


Vessels that entered the reserve fleet have several classes, depending on the priority and the amount of money allocated for maintenance.


Category "B". Ships in this category are retained for possible future use. That is, they will receive the maximum funding for the service. It is possible to sell ships from this category to everyone.

Category "C". These ships will be serviced “as is”. No upgrades or improvements, just keeping it running to a minimum.

Category "D". These are ships on conservation, in fact, hulls with machines. In fact, they are not serviced, the penultimate threshold before disposal.

Category "X". These are ships excluded from the Register of Naval Vessels awaiting scrapping. Not serviced.

If a ship enters the reserve fleet, this does not mean that it will be cut down and scrapped quickly. No, it may well flounder, although littorals are likely to be sold at the residual price.

Anyway, it's better than being a reef or being cut into metal.


It is not yet known what will be chosen for littorals. But that's not the point. The bottom line is that despite the fact that some experts loudly shouting "shame!" don't understand two things.

First. The USA has where to build ships of all classes.
Second. The United States has something to build ships of all classes.

The littoral "Freedom" and "Independences" did not come in? Happens. And that's not what happens. You can also recall the project of the submarine "Seawulf". An excellent boat for its time, all three still serve, and serve without problems. Two like ordinary boats, and what "Jimmy Carter" is doing there is very difficult to say.

But the problem is not the driving performance. Not in a bold, innovative project. In cost at that time. Therefore, the series was simply taken and stopped. And the money was spent on the Columbia project, which will soon become part of the American fleet.

Roughly the same thing happened with the Zamvolts. Too high cost on the one hand and too delicate design, especially in terms of electrical engineering. Three ships as a "technology demonstration" and that's it.

And what about the T-14 tank, which is "Armata"? This is also a design platform, which, as it turned out, costs so much that the T-72B3 and T-80BVM turned out to be "no worse" in terms of price / quality ratio. Well, the difficulties with production.

You can recall the story of the "fifth generation fighter" Su-57, which is still not quite a fifth generation fighter. For approximately the same reasons, the Su-35 and MiG-35 are recognized as "no worse".

Well, we talked about ships not so long ago. About patrol ships of project 22160.


No less incomprehensible ships than the littoral American ones were developed for the Border Guard Service of the FSB of Russia, but the customer refused them. Then, by all available means, the ships were pushed into the fleet. And now there are long thoughts on what to do with them. Because something needs to be done, ships are useless for the fleet.

Install "Calibers"? Have tried it. It is impossible to launch from the stern due to the design features. Move forward - the wheelhouse is too close, it must be completely rearranged. Install air defense so that the ship would begin to represent at least some kind of combat value - there is not enough power onboard radar for the normal operation of the "Calm".

A series of ships was built. A shame? Well, sort of like yes. Only here, according to some authors, the Americans SHAME, but we have so ... a shame. The budget is 10 times less.

But the fact is that we also know how to build completely useless ships. And then you don't know what to do with them.

I personally would be very interested in how the same Alexander Timokhin would write about the misunderstanding of project 22160. And in what phrases. And how many times would the word "shame" be heard in his material.

And now the most important thing.

Shame or not shame - the main "value" of littorals is that they exist. And they can be taken into reserve and sold or disassembled. It is not so important already what will become of them next. They have already done their job, that is, they have shown that a capricious water cannon with no less capricious turbines is not the best constructive solution.


Yes, the speed of the ships is excellent. If everything works as it should, and this was just the problem. Interchangeable container weapons are also not a good idea, as practice has shown. It is not so easy to pin the containers with a crane and connect everything with cables. Re-equipment and test / debugging of systems could take up to a month, so now we are not talking about any efficiency.

The Americans themselves were convinced of this, and they taught us. Well, the whole world is now aware that modularity is a useful thing very conditionally.

But littorals have already been built. The budget money has been spent. Everyone got money: design bureaus, component manufacturers, from metal to missiles, and shipbuilders, everyone.

Is this a tragedy? Not. Considering the size of the American fleet and the fact that these littorals, shallow water protection ships, are not really in great demand - they can be written off immediately after launching and testing.

The same is with our ships of project 22160. Immediately to scrap as unnecessary.

This is easier than puzzling afterwards, figuring out how to puzzle these ships in such a way that they can handle it.

But the entire military-industrial complex is based on this.

Indeed, it is so. Let's throw out all the crazy thoughts about the conversion, and that the tank factory will survive on the packaging and metal-cutting tools produced for the civilian. A tank factory will only feel good when it produces tanks.

In shipbuilding, everything is exactly the same. And in rocketry.

Recently we discussed the issue with the new Kedr ICBM. We really need it, given that the Sarmat has not yet been brought to its senses? No, not at all necessary. But the Institute of Heat Engineering really needs it, because if the Institute does not develop rockets, it will die.

Military institutions and design bureaus must constantly invent and design something. Design and build in models. Move to mass production and profit from it.

And factories must build this technique.

Well, nothing else will work out. Look into the civil sector. Previously, cars easily passed a million on one engine, but now? And so in everything, phones, vacuum cleaners, mixers and coffee makers. The only exception, perhaps, is the Kalashnikov assault rifle. The rest, the faster it breaks, the better. Because this is a job for millions of people around the world.

So everything is quite natural here. The military-industrial complex of each country must constantly master the amounts, otherwise it will simply stand up and go bankrupt. And people working at defense enterprises will simply be left without a livelihood. An outflow of personnel and other realities of today's Russian day will begin.

In the United States, they understand this and do not want such an alignment.

Therefore, the "Sivulfs" will serve until the "demobilization" and will be disposed of. And instead of them they will build "Columbia" or something else, no matter the name, the principle is important.

Therefore, the F-22 Raptors also somehow crawl to land and will be replaced by the F-35 or F-44. It doesn't matter either.

Therefore, the Freedom, Independence and Zamwolts will leave for the harbors of the US Reserve Fleet and instead will begin to build Arleigh Burkes, Constellations, and whatever else will be invented.

The important thing is that the “replacement” has already been invented. There is the F-35, there is the Constellation frigate, which will be built by Fincantieri Marinette Marine. There is the Virginia nuclear submarine and the Columbia nuclear submarine. There is no doubt about that.

We can talk about the quality of projects and cost, but there is no doubt that they will be built.

And what's so shameful about that? Is it a shame to disable a failed technique? But then, quite recently, Defense Minister Shoigu spoke about a dozen types of weapons that were removed as a result of their use in Syria - is this also a shame?

And the ships of Project 22160 are also, it turns out, a shame?

Or is it a shame when there are no modern ships, no money to build them, no engines? And when do you have to arrange a "Trishkin Kaftan" with Soviet-built ships, patching and re-hauling ships aged 30+?

The most unpleasant thing is that the United States will definitely build something to replace the unsuccessful littorals, nuclear submarines, and destroyers. They have everything for this: factories, shipyards, personnel and, most importantly, money. How much more successful it will be - time will tell. But the fact that the US military-industrial complex enterprises will be provided with orders is a fact.

And what's so shameful?

But the fact that Russia today is not able to build a ship with a displacement of more than 20 thousand tons and provide diesel engines for large ships under construction is not very happy. And while "nothing is visible in the waves", only projectors in the range, as they say.

So I would not be so touchingly and abundantly happy that the Americans are withdrawing the failed ships from the fleet. Instead, they will immediately begin to build new ones. Enterprises will be provided with jobs, designers, engineers, workers - everyone will be happy. Well, the military too. Fortunately, the USA has everything for this.

And the shouts of "Shame on the jungle" in the Russian press will obviously not be enough for the situation to develop in our favor. For, as you know, a caravan of the American fleet will go regardless of what they say around.
Author:
90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 2 June 2021 05: 10
    -14%
    This is a completely natural event, because the ships did not work out unambiguously. This is normal practice, it happens.

    So I would not be so touchingly and abundantly happy that the Americans are withdrawing the failed ships from the fleet. Instead, they will immediately begin to build new ones. Enterprises will be provided with jobs, designers, engineers, workers - everyone will be happy. Well, the military too. Fortunately, the USA has everything for this.
    Well, of course, this is the USA, they do whatever they do, well done, with the author this is the only way!

    Some "experts" have already used the word "cut" in their comments, but alas. There is still a long way to go before cutting in accordance with the US system.
    Dear author, "cutting" is a corrupt term, at least if it is in quotation marks, but sailors have adopted the term "cutting", although I may be wrong.
    1. Revolver
      Revolver 2 June 2021 09: 26
      +9
      The business is old, but built in 1944 in the USA by USS Alaska and USS Guam. They are too big for heavy cruisers, small and rather weak for battle cruisers. Although 9x12-inch guns are not walrus fucking, and armor is 9 inches. In general, after the war, they could not understand why they surrendered so beautiful. Therefore, in 1947 they put it in a sludge. Plans were considered to be converted into missile cruisers, but the plans were deemed too expensive and were cut into metal in the early 1960s.
      And if they were in the Soviet fleet (well, supposedly they were given under Lend-Lease, having decided even earlier than in real life that America does not need them), and they would have served and served, perhaps even survived the USSR, and would have been considered battleships or at least linear cruisers. They would have figured out where to stick "Onyxes" into them, like how "Axes" were stuck in "Iowa".
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 2 June 2021 11: 16
        0
        Quote: Nagan
        The business is old, but built in 1944 in the USA by USS Alaska and USS Guam. They are too big for heavy cruisers, small and rather weak for battle cruisers. Although the 9x12-inch guns are not walrus fucking, and the armor is 9 inches.
        This is what?

        Quote: Nagan
        They would have figured out where to stick "Onyxes" into them, like how "Axes" were stuck in "Iowa".
        Iowa was not butchered. Despite the fact that the battleships were officially no use.
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 June 2021 17: 14
        +2
        Quote: Nagan
        And if they were in the Soviet fleet (well, supposedly they were given under Lend-Lease, having decided even earlier than in real life that America does not need them), and they would have served and served, perhaps even survived the USSR, and would have been considered battleships or at least linear cruisers.

        And if they were in the Soviet fleet, they would have repeated the fate of "Admiral Makarov", Kerch ", the last pr. 68-bis and" Stalingrad ".
        The Navy was unable to provide a sane project of converting into URO carriers, even for domestic cruisers, which is already before import. And purely artillery KR 146% will go to waste - Nikita does not need "cast iron" carriers (despite the fact that surface URO carriers, even modernized ones from old projects, were built calmly with him - the history of converting the artillery EM etc. 56 into an anti-ship missile carrier is an example).
        1. Revolver
          Revolver 2 June 2021 18: 09
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          And if they were in the Soviet fleet, they would have repeated the fate of "Admiral Makarov", Kerch ", the last pr. 68-bis and" Stalingrad ".

          They would rather repeat the fate of Novorossiysk. Only unlike the former "Giulio Cesare", Prince Borghese would have been purple, so no one would have tried to blow them up, and in America there were no such vengeful aristocrats. Probably one would stay at the Pacific Fleet, while the other would be overtaken either to the Black Sea Fleet or to the Baltic Fleet. A battery of nine 12-inches is not walrus horseradish, but those engineers who made (and apparently even made) a nuclear charge for the 320 mm main caliber of Novorossiysk would have to squeeze it under 305 mm. Nothing, they would do, the magic spell "The party demands!" worked wonders. And the carrier of nuclear weapons, even if not strategic, but tactical, would be thought to be left on pins and needles or still be left behind. And somehow it seems that they would have left it, if only because the fleet, unlike the army and the air force, did not have other carriers of TNW at that time. But alas, this is all fantastic.
          1. bayard
            bayard 3 June 2021 03: 45
            +3
            After 1945, the Americans suddenly found themselves in a situation where there was not a single serious fleet left on the planet. Especially above water. So all their formidable power was meaningless and useless, especially large artillery ships.
            But the USSR would have come in handy for such a gift, you rightly noted that.
          2. Alexey RA
            Alexey RA 4 June 2021 18: 16
            0
            Quote: Nagan
            Probably one would stay at the Pacific Fleet, while the other would be overtaken either to the Black Sea Fleet or to the Baltic Fleet. A battery of nine 12-inches is not walrus horseradish, but those engineers who made (and apparently even made) a nuclear charge for the 320 mm main caliber of Novorossiysk would have to squeeze it under 305 mm. Nothing, they would do, the magic spell "The party demands!" worked wonders.

            This requires a relatively sane Nikita - at least from "Superpower color - red". smile
            And for a real maize maker, non-rocket ships of the Navy are oil eaters (of which there was not so much in the USSR at that time), throwing expensive shells into milk (everyone remembers the percentage of "cast iron" hit), and only for short distances. Oh yes, without a normal air defense, this is also a target for aviation.
            Quote: Nagan
            And the carrier of nuclear weapons, even if not strategic, but tactical, would be thought to be left on pins and needles or still be left behind.

            Remember the fate of the Il-28 under Nikita? But they were also carriers of tactical nuclear weapons, and the main ones.
    2. Pushkar
      Pushkar 9 June 2021 13: 43
      0
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      "cut" the term is corrupt

      But what a terrible corruption I am "! Yesterday I sawed a board ...
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 9 June 2021 16: 31
        0
        Quote: Pushkar
        But what a terrible corruption I am "! Yesterday I sawed a board ...

        Cut without quotation marks, it means "corrupt" in quotation marks! laughing
  2. Avior
    Avior 2 June 2021 05: 23
    +8
    ... it would be very interesting how the same Alexander Timokhin would write about the misunderstanding of project 22160

    He has an article on this topic.
  3. kot423
    kot423 2 June 2021 05: 38
    -9
    The author clung to 22160, mentioning them 4 times, but the article is nothing. Because the author probably forgot that in addition to irons (zamvolt), the same fu 35 curve is slightly less than the whole (which mattresses discussed at one time, there are articles, the author wants - he will find), vaunted all over the world about the whole curve, etc. .d. Regarding "But the fact that Russia today is not able to build a ship with a displacement of more than 20 thousand tons and provide diesel engines for large ships under construction is not very happy" - the author, what is the problem? Gather your friends, sell everything that you have together and give the money to KB, motor builders ... When there is no printing press and the dominance of your currency in the world - it's not comme il faut to whine "we can't" ... What have you done to be able? Or maybe you propose to spend all the money on ships, airplanes, tanks - and score on social programs, education, science (as you put it, "Kedr ICBM. We really need it, given that the Sarmat has not yet been brought to mind?)
    1. da Vinci
      da Vinci 2 June 2021 08: 20
      +15
      Why confuse warm with soft? The main message of the article is that "anything can happen" and "while the fat one loses weight, the thin one ...". On this site there were many articles about the insufficient work on the Armata, Su57 and other projects. And no one called on the authors to sell everything and chip in. You can gloat over a competitor when there is something to set him up as an example, and you should not stoop to the level of American or Chinese Expertoffs.
      1. kot423
        kot423 2 June 2021 08: 48
        -11%
        Quote: da Vinci
        And no one called on the authors to sell everything and chip in. You can gloat over a competitor when there is something to set him up as an example, and you should not stoop to the level of American or Chinese Expertoffs.

        And no one gloats over the author. You probably read his article badly if you didn't notice how he praises "partner" (and in fact enemy number 1) and lowers the Russian defense industry ... He only modestly keeps silent that while the candy wrapper is afloat all over the world, no one interferes with printing mattresses these candy wrappers (think, a trillion more or less) and again - despite the insane amount of dough poured into their defense industry - mattresses manage to get dressed in 50% of cases, fu 35, iron, I read an article that fu 15 ex is also not a fountain from the word at all (and note, an article with comments from mattress warriors who "tried" it), about a railgun and other pribluda - there is nothing to even talk about. But then what kind of PR "we, the navels of the earth, did this, this and this, we are cooler than a boiled egg", but in fact - zilch. He even could not make an active defense on his coffin> 60 tons, they took from the promised ones, like a missile defense system, dealt with a Patriot, in fact there is nothing to defend, Idzhis and Thaady fufel (the first still has to reach the coast, the second - Gaza showed how to drop the dome , not like thaad + hyper, to which he is like walking to Mars).
        Py. Sy. And yes, the comparison with "earlier" (USSR) is inappropriate, tk. Then 15 republics worked for the defense industry to one degree or another, but now Russia, with everything killed, what is possible and impossible (thanks to the spot and the drunk, with their "friendship, reset"). But there is no dough to build on the same scale, the benefit of the groundwork and the schools are not lost ...
        1. da Vinci
          da Vinci 2 June 2021 10: 56
          0
          You don’t understand: I’m about gloating over a potential enemy (in moderation and without fanaticism), not the author.
        2. shahor
          shahor 2 June 2021 11: 51
          +5
          Quote: kot423
          no one bothers the mattresses to print these candy wrappers

          So what's up? Let us print our candy wrappers, and we will be happy. Or not? And their candy wrappers will still be happy to accept all over the world, and for ours, remember, as at Saltykov-Shchedrin, they will be punched in the face. Do you think it's the color of the candy wrappers? Or in an economy that is 10 times larger?
          1. kot423
            kot423 2 June 2021 13: 01
            -7
            Quote: shahor
            Do you think it's the color of the candy wrappers? Or in an economy that is 10 times larger?

            Oh how. Or maybe you read literature, how their economy through theft from Europe after the Second World War and the gold of the Lend-Lease (although they offered barter) became 10 times higher? At the same time about de Gaulle and the "student unrest" look where these unrest "legs" grew, after de Gaulle brought candy wrappers for the exchange of gold mattresses. Well, and to the heap you can see how after that the mattresses quickly canceled the provision of their candy wrappers with gold, so that the rest of Europe would not leave mattresses with a bare ass ...
            1. Avior
              Avior 2 June 2021 15: 58
              +6
              ... and lend-lease gold


              There are eternal things in the world - to look at fire, water, how others work and listen to how they paid for Lend Liz in gold :)))
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 2 June 2021 17: 10
                +5
                Quote: Avior
                There are eternal things in the world - to look at fire, water, how others work and listen to how they paid for Lend Lees with gold

                Yeah ... especially if you remember how much the USSR / Russia paid in real life, when and with what money. Paying the debt of the 40s with the money of the 90s - 2000s without recalculating for inflation is like paying off the debt of the times of the USSR with the current rubles 1: 1. smile
                1. Avior
                  Avior 2 June 2021 21: 04
                  0
                  There are myths that are very tenacious, people are very hard to part with them :)
            2. shahor
              shahor 2 June 2021 22: 41
              +3
              Quote: kot423
              Well, before the heap, you can see how after that the mattresses quickly canceled the provision of their candy wrappers with gold,

              Sorry, but your knowledge of economics is at a ridiculous level.
              For a start, a simple question. Why, with, as you say, the uncontrolled printing of candy wrappers, the inflation rate in the United States is lower than in Russia?
        3. ramzay21
          ramzay21 2 June 2021 22: 09
          +4
          The saddest thing is not that you are telling a lie, but that you are sure that it is true.

          1. Why do they print candy wrappers, and the ruble exchange rate falls in our country? And our ruble fell in a little over 30 years by a factor of 100 thousand. They did not ditch their Boeing, despite the fact that it is unprofitable and subsidized from the budget, and we fly on their planes and not on Ilakh and Tushki. We also buy their iPhones, their software for computers, their seeds, medical equipment, their machines, combines, tractors, we extract oil using their technologies and their equipment, we drink their Pepsi and Cola drinks, wash them with powders and brush our teeth with their toothpaste, you look around! Our country in terms of GDP is located between South Korea and Australia, with a population of 20 million.

          2. Their F-35 aircraft is outstanding, and this is the opinion of their pilots who flew it and won the F15 and F16 training battles. Therefore, Israeli pilots in the F-35 fly freely in Syrian airspace and bomb them, despite the presence of air defense in Syria, including the C300. We do not have aircraft capable of flying in airspace with normal air defense.
      2. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 2 June 2021 10: 05
        -4
        Yeah, mattress toko, it all happens with enviable constancy and not only in the navy. Because the issue of adopting this or that type of weaponry is not decided by the military or engineers, but by politicians from the Washington Reich Chancellery)))) and there is one criterion, the more expensive, the better - because the "rollback" is wider)))
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 2 June 2021 08: 33
      +10
      Quote: kot423
      fu 35 the curve is slightly less than the whole (which mattresses discussed at one time, there are articles, the author wants - he will find

      You are right, articles about how bad an LM aircraft is and why you should buy Boeing aircraft from the 70s instead of it are not difficult to find. It is easy even to guess who writes such articles.
      Quote: kot423
      vaunted all over the world about - the whole curve, etc.

      Yeah. The Americans (and Jews) have a missile defense curve, but an iron one, while everyone else has a straight, but paper one.
      Quote: kot423
      When there is no printing press and the dominance of your currency in the world - it's not comme il faut to whine "we can't" ...

      Do not understand. And what, ships are not built without a machine? In Finland, for example? True, I don't really understand why Mr. Skomorokhov had surrendered large ships.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 2 June 2021 11: 37
        -3
        At one time, the Boeing company also removed the F - 14 mattress aircraft carriers from the decks in the same way. The Washington Reich Chancellery paid for "operation is not expedient" and fffsee))) the competitor was removed. They are the same age, with F - 15. New F - 15 and now buy, and F - 14 have already drunk, so that there is no temptation to return to duty. But here, I'm glad for the mattress mats, let them write off more good technology)))
    3. Earthshaker
      Earthshaker 2 June 2021 08: 53
      -1
      In identifying the problem, the author did much more than a dormant government (or acting unprofessionally, or sabotaging, it is necessary to emphasize) and propagandists. Then specially trained specialists should act, not enthusiasts. A counter question, what have you done for our industry.?
      1. kot423
        kot423 2 June 2021 08: 55
        +7
        Quote: Earthshaker
        and what have you done for our industry.

        I am still in the workshop (which miraculously survived in the 90s) making components for tank engines. This is enough?
        1. Earthshaker
          Earthshaker 2 June 2021 09: 01
          -7
          Once the industry is degrading, you haven't done enough.
  4. Catfish
    Catfish 2 June 2021 05: 57
    +5
    A good article, I read it with interest, does not add optimism, but it is imperative to talk about it.
    Thanks to Roman. hi
  5. Professor
    Professor 2 June 2021 06: 03
    +19
    Considering the size of the American fleet and the fact that these littorals, shallow water guard ships, are not really in great demand

    This is the whole point. There is no one to defend against the bourgeois in the coastal waters.

    Is it a shame to disable a failed technique? But then, quite recently, Defense Minister Shoigu spoke about a dozen types of weapons that were removed as a result of their use in Syria - is this also a shame?

    It's one thing to adopt equipment and then write it off as there are no longer any enemies in this sector. This is shortsightedness. It is quite another to adopt equipment that does not meet performance characteristics. It's not even a shame. It is a crime. How did the state commission sign the acts of acceptance into service?
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 2 June 2021 07: 16
      +3
      Quote: Professor
      There is no one to defend against the bourgeois in the coastal waters.
      So, if we play a bit, they have one "rival" and "rival" there, our littoral ships, or even the entire fleet, for the coastal area of ​​which many of our thrifty citizens stand up, incriminating Russia in "land".
      It's not even a shame. It is a crime.
      The crime begins already when they want to make a profit from the developments themselves, profit in everything, while the fundamental sciences, of course, become unprofitable.
      In the article, Roman uttered
      Look into the civil sector. Previously, cars easily passed a million on one engine, but now? And so in everything, phones, vacuum cleaners, mixers and coffee makers.
      Transnational monopolies have taken shape, competition is becoming a fiction, this time. Second, disposable goods, for the duration of the guarantee, must provide constant sales, constant employment and profit.
      The elimination of cash, the prohibition of personal gardens, total control of people from banks, monopolies and the state, which covers banks and monopolies with laws.
      Professor, you are clearly not a communist, does not such a prospect make very smart people in Israel nervous?
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 June 2021 14: 08
      +4
      Quote: Professor
      This is the whole point. There is no one to defend against the bourgeois in the coastal waters.

      In fact, the original concept of littoral lakes provided for work in Strangers coastal waters. It was supposed to be a cheap mass ship. capable of replacing several classes of ships and even being used instead of EM URO in secondary theaters.

      The problem is that while the project was being sawed and the ships were being built, the enemy changed. The littoralnik was built like an "egg with a hammer": long-range weapons (the range is greater than that of a possible enemy in a secondary theater of operations) made it possible to score on constructive defense and air defense. However, during the journey, the coastal defense of the third world countries was able to grow - and when they began to raise flags over the littoral people, it suddenly turned out that in that very secondary theater of operations there are chances to meet, say, an Iranian clone of the Chinese clone of the French anti-ship missile system. Which, in terms of range, covers all possible onboard armament of the LCS like a bull to a sheep. And all the air defense of the LCS is the RAM self-defense air defense system and the 57-mm cannon. And if the anti-ship missile arrives, then the Khan's LCS - especially so. who have light alloy bodies.

      In general, the USN admirals stated with bitterness that for the existing LCS to work, they need cover from EM URO everywhere (the very ones that they originally had to release). Or you need to strengthen LCS. When we figured out the scale of the amplification, the LCS turned into a frigate with a "mini-Aegis". smile
  6. mark1
    mark1 2 June 2021 06: 23
    +4
    22160 is some kind of dark horse, and the problems (to me as a land person) seem somewhat far-fetched. Doesn't shoot "calibers" vertically from a container at the stern? Place them across the stern obliquely (about the fact that there are no such PUs you don't need to sing. This is the case when the magic pendal will fix everything) Can't cram "Calm"? Cram the "Armor" (you can do without the MZA). It’s strange to hear about such a "big" problem about the alteration of the cabin.
    Engines are a problem (or maybe not)
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 June 2021 17: 06
      +1
      Quote: mark1
      Place them across the stern obliquely (about the fact that there are no such PUs you don't need to sing.

      Our Navy has not seen the inclined missile launchers "Caliber" since the days of the MRK "Nakat".

      Only UVP, only hardcore! smile
      1. Cympak
        Cympak 2 June 2021 21: 25
        0
        On "Nakat" tested inclined launchers for "Onyx". There were no "gauges"
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 4 June 2021 18: 28
          0
          Quote: Cympak
          On "Nakat" tested inclined launchers for "Onyx". There were no "gauges"

          I remember. But isn't Onyx unified in PU with the Caliber family?
          In addition, the KBSM itself demonstrated the inclined launchers of the "Caliber" system.

          Deck inclined launcher is used to accommodate and launch missiles 3M-54TE, 3M-14TE and 91RTE2, is designed for modernized ships.
          Depending on the conditions, deck inclined installations 3S-14PE can be made in a shortened version.
          1. Cympak
            Cympak 7 June 2021 11: 37
            0
            No inclined launchers for "Onyx" are not unified with inclined launchers for "Caliber". For example, the angle of inclination of the PU is different for them.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Doctor
    Doctor 2 June 2021 08: 31
    +4
    Hughes Glomar Explorer [

    A couple of experimental ships for their budget is not a problem at all.
    They built a special ship for one operation (lifting K-129) - Hughes Glomar Explorer.
    Even two.
  9. Max PV
    Max PV 2 June 2021 08: 44
    +5
    I do not agree with everything in the article.
    Firstly, "cutting" is not the disposal of the ship, but inappropriate spending of the budget, which is the loading of production with unnecessary equipment.
    Secondly, I do not quite agree on pr. 22160. This is an ideal ship in our conditions. But only for the tasks for which it was originally intended - to drive poachers, patrol the sea border and intercept violating ships. To do this, it has the best range and autonomy for its size, in comparison with any of our other ships (considering the length of our sea borders), and even excess weapons - in fact, the border guards use the maximum that is the AK-630 from the sighting column. And then it is often redundant for them. And the speed is not critical - all the same, you will not catch up with a high-speed boat at 30 and 35 knots - for that there is a boat and a helipad. And the fact that the boat can be released in a wave of no more than three balls, and on a motorboat with 4-5 balls you do not really drive, and at 6-7 in general you will call the same patrol ship to rescue. Another thing is that it is not clear why these ships were stuck in the fleet, to which they are like a hare's fifth leg.
    Thirdly, the F-35 is not the best replacement for the F-22, and the result, do not understand what kind of "undercurrents" among the American military, politicians and the military-industrial complex - cheaper, but no matter how expensive the Raptor, universal, but how " Swiss knife "- always loses specialized, and even raw and mowing.
    1. Cympak
      Cympak 2 June 2021 21: 32
      +3
      The problem is not that Project 22160 is not needed at all. The problem is priorities and errors. Project 22160 "killed" the BMZ corvette, which is much more needed by the fleet.
      After the construction of the ships of project 22160, they were not really used in the DMZ, they hung out more near the coast, where there are already PSKR border guards.
      Well, a lot has already been written about the errors of project 22160: low slip height for the DSL, non-seaworthy DSL-punt, lack of speed, controversial seaworthiness of the "deep V" hull.
      1. Barberry25
        Barberry25 3 June 2021 23: 06
        0
        only about "BMZ corvette" everyone heard, but no one saw it in the eye ..
        1. Cympak
          Cympak 7 June 2021 11: 30
          0
          There was an open competition for the design of a promising OVR corvette. The project of the corvette with outriggers "Rusich-1" from "Zelenodolsk Design Bureau" was recognized as the best.
          1. Barberry25
            Barberry25 7 June 2021 11: 36
            0
            those. 20385 corvettes are expensive and difficult, but creating a trimaran is quick and easy?
  10. Artyom Karagodin
    Artyom Karagodin 2 June 2021 08: 53
    +6
    Therefore, the series ("Sivulfs" - approx.) Was simply taken and stopped. And the money was spent on the Columbia project, which will soon become part of the American fleet.

    In fact, they were slaughtered not for the Columbia SSBNs, but for the multipurpose Virginias. And it was not recently, but back in the 90s. Roman, well, start checking what you write!
  11. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 2 June 2021 09: 18
    +7
    The littorals made two projects at once from two companies.
    With a regular body and trimarans.
    Structural defects of the engines turned out to be a common design.
    In principle, the usual ones had to be abandoned immediately, at the tender stage.
    Nothing interesting.
    Trimarans are interesting. They are now reinforced by anti-ship missiles and sent to the shores of China.
  12. smaug78
    smaug78 2 June 2021 09: 24
    -5
    The novel and the navy are incompatible concepts. And when there is still a bias in propaganda ...
  13. SovAr238A
    SovAr238A 2 June 2021 09: 32
    +2
    For once and for all I agree with Roman on all points ...
  14. Andy J.
    Andy J. 2 June 2021 09: 50
    +5
    In general, everything is correct. If you turn off the jingoistic patriotism and not fixate on comparisons with the Russian Navy, there is absolutely nothing to compare here, neither in doctrine, nor in structure, nor in capabilities.

    Certainly the LCS series turned out to be unsuccessful. One of the reasons is that the United States has no other concept other than the "big fleet" where destroyers, cruisers, nuclear submarines and other capital ships rule the show. For the LCS, a successful concept of application was not really even invented within the framework of their de facto capabilities and tasks of the US Navy. They are too expensive to drive off Somali pirates. In order to conduct effective operations in coastal waters where they are likely to face a more or less serious enemy (South China Sea, eastern Mediterranean, Persian Gulf), they have insufficiently developed weapons and countermeasures.

    There was an article here recently where the problem of the unpopularity of the LCS among the officers was discussed due to the fact that it was difficult to build a career with them - again, due to the fact that they are renegades of the "big fleet".

    As a result, reason prevailed, literary works are slowly disappearing into history, and frigates that are much more suitable for the current Navy will come in their place. Those will already be able to organically supplement and remove the load from the Berks. Although they will not be very cheap either, at least in construction. On the other hand, the Pentagon is more and more interested not so much in the purchase price as in the total cost of the complex's life cycle, and here the frigates will probably still be noticeably cheaper than destroyers with fairly comparable capabilities.

    Well, as for the "cut" in terms of ineffective use of funds. Well, yes, it was quite an expensive and unsuccessful experiment that went within the framework of the same unsuccessful concept of "concurrency" which knocked down more than one Pentagon project, from LCS to Zumwalt to Ford to F-35 and other programs. The lesson is expensive, but the lesson seems to be learned when looking at the approach to current programs. Well, the USA (for now) can afford this very expensive training :)
    1. Barberry25
      Barberry25 3 June 2021 23: 07
      +1
      funny .. if we had such a series, and the cry would be higher than the mountains about "drank" .. And how the United States got into a puddle, so "oh well, think about it" ... Interestingly, here half of the "topvar" experts "mriya about the green card or did it seem to me?
  15. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 2 June 2021 09: 57
    -3
    A marine diesel engine must be turned off once a month, otherwise it will be OPS !!! We passed, we know. Diplomas were from the mountain of mechanics, they flew in jambs.
  16. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 2 June 2021 10: 01
    -8
    The comparison of the "T - 14" tank, costing $ 5-10 million, and the "Zamvolta", which had already swam to 5 lard, was very amusing. And this, by the way, is not the first time when mattress covers sit in a puddle. You can recall the Perry frigates, which were riveted by more than 40 units, and then urgently "shoved" their sixes from NATO and smaller ones.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 2 June 2021 10: 13
      +13
      Quote: TermNachTER
      You can remember the frigates "Perry", which were riveted by more than 40 pieces.

      A beautiful ship, exceptionally successful.
      1. TermNachTer
        TermNachTer 2 June 2021 11: 44
        -7
        And what is its success? How many of them were in service with the mattress fleet?
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 2 June 2021 18: 59
          +4
          Quote: TermNachTER
          And what is its success

          Massive, cheap, powerful. Compare, for example, with EM pr 56.
          Quote: TermNachTER
          How many of them were in service with the mattress fleet?

          51
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 2 June 2021 19: 28
            -2
            Massive - yes. Massively sold. Power in what? Not to mention the single-rotor scheme, which even civilian shipbuilders abandoned at that time.
            1. Cherry Nine
              Cherry Nine 2 June 2021 19: 37
              +2
              Quote: TermNachTER
              Massively sold

              What to do if the USSR is that.
              The US Navy decommissioned the latter in 2015.
              Quote: TermNachTER
              Power in what?

              Take Project 56, the most massive Soviet EV at that time, and compare.
              1. Usher
                Usher 2 June 2021 20: 15
                +2
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Massively sold

                What to do if the USSR is that.
                The US Navy decommissioned the latter in 2015.
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Power in what?

                Take Project 56, the most massive Soviet EV at that time, and compare.

                56 project must be compared with Mitcher. And Perry with 61 projects.
                1. Cherry Nine
                  Cherry Nine 2 June 2021 22: 53
                  +2
                  Quote: Usher
                  And Perry with 61 projects.

                  Perhaps you are right. I also don't see anything good, except perhaps for hydroacoustics.
              2. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 2 June 2021 20: 18
                -2
                They wrote off - this is when they completely sent them on pins and needles. How long did they suck? Nobody called Ave 56 so powerful, successful, etc. About "Perry" we can say the same as about these littoral ones. Absolutely stupid concept - because of a penny economy, the hulls were made extremely small, a normal two-shaft power plant simply did not fit, there was no double bottom either. The S / C SAM is also minimal, and the rate of fire does not matter, because there is only one guidance channel. 76 - mm. AU is installed in the middle of the hull, it is impossible to fire at the bow and stern. The only "phalanx" also cannot shoot at the nose, that is, from the bow heading angles, the ship is generally "naked". The examples of combat use are also not inspiring.
                1. Avior
                  Avior 2 June 2021 21: 07
                  +1
                  They were made for their own purposes - escorting convoys.
                  The main thing for them was anti-aircraft missile defense, air raids in the middle of the Atlantic were not planned. And that was all right.
                  1. TermNachTer
                    TermNachTer 2 June 2021 21: 34
                    -2
                    And what was the PLO on them? I want to note that due to the large lengthening of the hull, their seaworthiness was bad. A sharp side roll, in a storm over 5 points, greatly complicated the use of weapons, and helicopter flights were generally impossible. This is in the North Atlantic, where the weather is always not very good. Plus, such a remarkable phenomenon as bottom slamming - simply a strong blow from the bottom of the bow to the water, which caused equipment failure, including the sonar, and cracks along the hull, since the hull was weak, without a double bottom. And many more interesting things can be told.
                    1. Avior
                      Avior 2 June 2021 21: 50
                      +1
                      A lot of interesting.
                      Two PLO helicopters, low cost, standardization, mass production of the series and high survivability, which has been repeatedly confirmed.
                      1. TermNachTer
                        TermNachTer 2 June 2021 22: 20
                        -2
                        There could be even 10 helicopters, with the excitement of more than 5 points they no longer flew.
                      2. Avior
                        Avior 2 June 2021 22: 47
                        +1
                        There was also a towed GAS
                        was effective LEMP
                        There was a large supply of aviation fuel
                        and second.
                        Others did not fly at all - there were simply no two helicopters on ships of this class.
                        I shouldn't repeat Kaptsov's arguments - I also read this article.
                        Perry is still in service
                      3. TermNachTer
                        TermNachTer 2 June 2021 23: 09
                        -1
                        So in some countries ships of the Second World War are in service. Is this also an indicator?
                      4. Avior
                        Avior 2 June 2021 23: 15
                        0
                        of course
                        not their modern combat capabilities, but sufficient hull strength
                        and there were cracks along the hull, since the hull was weak, without a double bottom.
                      5. TermNachTer
                        TermNachTer 3 June 2021 11: 38
                        -1
                        Then the cruiser Belfast is also a powerful ship.
        2. Cympak
          Cympak 2 June 2021 21: 22
          +2
          For all your wretchedness, fuck you sink these Perries

          In the video, firing practice on the decommissioned frigate USS Thach (FFG 43)
          They already had him with missiles and torpedoes ...
          1. TermNachTer
            TermNachTer 2 June 2021 21: 39
            -3
            Advertising vidosiki narodishko has long learned to "sculpt". Two, not the most powerful, "exosets" were enough for "Stark". Moreover, the explosion of the second extinguished the fire, which began from the unburned fuel of the first. Plus, there were rescuers nearby who saved him. They took him to matrasoland on a special vessel, because he could not go under his own power, and towing caused serious concerns.
            1. Avior
              Avior 2 June 2021 21: 52
              +1
              Two, not the most powerful, "exosets" were enough for "Stark".

              actually just not enough to drown him. and there were explosions on the mine - and also stayed afloat
              1. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 2 June 2021 22: 19
                -2
                He did not drown, because, firstly, the weather conditions were perfect - complete calm. Secondly, there were rescuers and a base in Bahrain nearby. If it happened near the Falklands, then the drowning would)))
              2. Avior
                Avior 2 June 2021 22: 53
                +1
                the argument "if only, if only" is not applicable to a ship of such a large series, it participated enough in hostilities to judge it by real facts and to unequivocally assert that the ship was very tenacious.
                USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) was blown up by a mine, but survived and returned to service after repairs.
              3. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 2 June 2021 23: 07
                -2
                If, instead of an "exoset", an "amethyst" flew in - even one, there would be nothing to repair.
              4. Avior
                Avior 2 June 2021 23: 09
                0
                oh, again "if only"
              5. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 3 June 2021 11: 39
                -1
                So it's not me, but the author of the article wrote why they were designed and built. Not "harpoons" would have been shot at them))))
              6. Avior
                Avior 3 June 2021 11: 53
                +1
                I think that "would" should not be used for the events of the past
                It can already be said in the past, as it was in reality
              7. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 3 June 2021 17: 30
                -2
                Well, "Perry" is already in the past. Why talk about them?
              8. Avior
                Avior 3 June 2021 20: 06
                0
                Now just what is needed - there is experience in the real operation of a ship of a modern type of mass series, with combat experience
              9. TermNachTer
                TermNachTer 3 June 2021 21: 10
                -2
                Is standing in the bases, and then in the suck - is it real exploitation? About combat experience, maybe about BZZh.
              10. Avior
                Avior 4 June 2021 08: 27
                -3
                In my opinion, you and yourself already understand everything and you argue purely for the sake of arguing. Will not interfere:)
                hi
  17. Cherry Nine
    Cherry Nine 2 June 2021 22: 56
    +2
    Quote: TermNachTER
    He did not drown, because, firstly, the weather conditions were perfect - complete calm. Secondly, there were rescuers and a base in Bahrain nearby. If it happened near the Falklands, then the drowning would)))

    Well, wow, and then the Americans cheated.
  18. timokhin-aa
    timokhin-aa 4 June 2021 12: 34
    +2
    Nothing that he left the place of the explosion on his own?
  • Artemion3
    Artemion3 2 June 2021 11: 22
    0
    22160 and was conceived to fight poachers, smuggling and pirates, although the ship turned out to be quite expensive.
    And littoral ships must be sent to the coast guard
  • APASUS
    APASUS 2 June 2021 12: 14
    +3
    I don’t see any problems with American littoral ships at all. They will sell to Colombia or simply donate to Ukraine and write down a couple of billion dollars to help the country, money will be cut off for zips and repairs. And in our fleet I see the problem in unification, the same engines, for example. there are hundreds of them, and we have a lot to learn from the Americans in this regard.
    1. Graz
      Graz 2 June 2021 19: 59
      0
      As I understand it, they devour a lot of money to maintain them in a combat-ready state, and to replace constantly flying components and assemblies, so no one will take them for nothing. and if they take it. then they will get up from those who took the joke in a few months
      1. APASUS
        APASUS 3 June 2021 08: 18
        +1
        Quote: Graz
        so no one will take them for nothing

        Will take
  • demiurg
    demiurg 2 June 2021 18: 10
    +2
    A brief retelling of the article, who is too lazy to read.

    It is constantly repeating itself, a kind of mantra: the United States did not crap with littoral ships. And if your pants got a little dirty, it doesn't matter.

    Chorus of the mantra: It's the same in Russia, only worse.
  • Usher
    Usher 2 June 2021 20: 13
    0
    You can recall the story of the "fifth generation fighter" Su-57, which is still not quite a fifth generation fighter.
    Why is that?
  • ramzay21
    ramzay21 2 June 2021 21: 20
    +4
    The author does not at all look like himself to express common thoughts. Everyone understands that the one who does nothing is not mistaken. But why do we build mostly unsuccessful ships, and also launch them into series? We not only have 22160 unsuccessful ships, we have all MRKs are absolutely stupid and incapable of combat ships, corvettes for the price of a frigate are also so-so. Over the past 30 years, we have had one successful ship - frigate 22350, it needs to be built in a large series, reducing the cost, but the problem is that the Navy cannot clearly formulate the requirements for ships.

    The Navy now needs a massive ship capable of carrying out anti-aircraft missile defense and air defense in the near and far zone to cover the deployment and combat service of SSBNs, corvettes at an affordable price and frigates 22350 are also needed. It is necessary to invest in this the modest funds that we have, but instead the funds are spent on the next one that has no analogues in the world, incapacitated pelvis and the maintenance of dormitories of all stripes.

    And the Americans are all right, they have a well-structured, balanced fleet, with combat-ready ships, which controls the world's oceans, including our coasts. It is necessary to learn from them, and not to bawl about two ships that did not work out for them.
    They have almost seven dozen of the best destroyers in the world, they have ten battle-worthy aircraft carriers, one hundred modern ASW aircraft and two dozen Virginia nuclear submarines.

    Of all this, we have only two Ash but we are glad that they didn’t have any pelvis.
  • Barberry25
    Barberry25 3 June 2021 23: 01
    0
    nonsense gray kabily, from beginning to end .. and when he began to talk about "but we have our own" littoral "-T14" did not even read, the "topvar's expert" again proves that the topvar is slipping into the UG
  • Victor Dubrovsky
    Victor Dubrovsky 7 June 2021 08: 42
    0
    A monstrous waste of the Earth's resources, which, it turns out, are also finite ... :(