Today is the best, tomorrow is superfluous. Disadvantages of the frigate of project 22350

53
Today is the best, tomorrow is superfluous. Disadvantages of the frigate of project 22350

Continuing the discussion of the artillery theme of the frigate of project 22350, one cannot ignore the anti-aircraft artillery complex "Broadsword" present on it in the amount of two modules.

In its characteristics, one specific feature is indicated: guidance angles in elevation from -20 to +82 degrees. They are also impressive for the "main caliber" of the A-192M gun mount: from -15 to +85 degrees. And if the positive values ​​of the elevation degrees close to the vertical speak unambiguously about the claims for the fight of guns with air targets at the zenith, then the significant negative values ​​make inquisitive minds inquire about the purpose of such specific options of characteristics.



Anything that can approach the ship at a distance of a kilometer or closer can become targets for guns with a barrel position from 0 to -15 / -20 degrees. These are the boats of terrorists or saboteurs that jumped out from behind some shelter, this is a surfaced submarine, this is a drifting floating mine - "an echo of the past war." But I will assume the possibility of firing at the detected torpedo attacking the frigate, and maybe more than one.

According to specialized publications, the frigate of project 22350 possesses perfect means of illumination of the air and underwater environment, modern BIUS, capable of combining disparate weapons into a single combat organism. The detected enemy submarine and torpedoes coming to the ship will be attacked by specialized weapons in the form of torpedo torpedoes from the "Caliber" family and anti-torpedoes from the "Packet-NK" launchers, and the anti-submarine helicopter will not be left out.

But as "the last argument of the kings" at the closest line of defense, it is logical to use the fire capabilities of artillery. Considering abstractly a torpedo as a target for a ship's artillery, one must admit its great vulnerability, because it has a speed and maneuverability ten times less than any subsonic anti-ship missile system, with comparable weight and dimensions. And the fire performance, targeting speed and accuracy of the artillery guns on the ship are quite enough to effectively destroy torpedoes. Moreover, the damaging factor of the shock wave from the explosion of a land mine in water has a much stronger effect on submerged objects.

It remains to clarify the availability of specialized ammunition for firing at underwater targets in the artillery arsenal of the ship. Obviously, a "wide" choice of fuses (bottom, remote and radar) for a 130-mm gun is clearly not "what is needed" for firing at underwater targets, obviously there is a request for the development of a specialized projectile capable of penetrating the border of two media to a given depth.

Long time on navy The RBU-6000 and RBU-12000 rocket launchers were considered effective to combat the underwater threat. It seems to be a useful addition to rocket torpedoes and anti-torpedoes to attach 130-mm artillery (and if there is a replacement, then 100-mm).

If we compare the existing samples of ammunition: the RSB-60 rocket depth charge and the 130-mm unitary cartridge with a high-explosive fragmentation projectile, then it is not difficult to guess about the possibility of modern genetics to cross a snake and a hedgehog.

Caliber: 212 mm / 130 mm;
Length: 1830 mm / 1369 mm;
Weight: 119,5kg / 52,8kg;
Explosive weight: 23,5 kg / 3,56 kg;
The bomb's flight speed is 300 m / s / the muzzle velocity of the projectile is 850 m / s.

Having creatively reworked the ammunition for a given function, it is quite possible, in addition to anti-aircraft and high-explosive fragmentation, to receive a 130 mm deep projectile. In a heavier (60 kg) and long (1450 mm) shot, we reduce the mass of the propellant charge with an increase in the length and weight of the deep shell itself to 40 kg (OFS weighs 33,4 kg) with an increase in the weight of the explosive inside to 10 kg. The figures are, of course, approximate and deserve adjustments from experts and criticism from readers, but the very idea of ​​expanding the range of ammunition for naval artillery, which has frozen at the level of the end of World War II, is a global trend.

Smoothly moving from artillery to the topic of anti-torpedoes and anti-submarine defense of frigates of project 22350, I will immediately say a good word about the two four-pipe launchers of the "Packet-NK" complex.

By the presence of loaded and ready to fire pipes, our ship is twice or a third superior to enemy classmates. And the author, your humble servant, would also advocate an increase in the number of guides on the PU up to six on one condition - a change in caliber upwards! The Soviet navy used torpedo tube calibers of 400 mm, 533 mm and 650 mm. If 533 mm caliber (21 inches) can be considered historical heritage and traditional, then the other two appeared during the heyday of the power of the Navy of the Brezhnev USSR.

In general, the country draws the right conclusions from the bloody military-historical lessons: the railways maintain a track gauge of 1520 mm, not succumbing to the European temptations of 1435 mm, and even recently transferred the railway on Sakhalin to the Russian standard. The army feels calm and confident with the rifle caliber weapons 5,45 mm, resisting the temptation to switch to the NATO standard of 5,56 mm. It would seem that the difference is 8,5 centimeters and 0,11 millimeters! ...

And in the Navy they continue to learn English (but this is personal) and in the modern situation they are adopting a sample of the NATO caliber of 324 mm! One can understand the experienced general admiration for the West in the 90s, we also remember the romantic proposals for joining NATO, the desire to squeeze the West in the traditional arms markets is also understandable, but not by the same sycophantic method!

Or maybe they wanted to buy American or British small-sized torpedoes in the future (as well as German diesel engines with Italian avionics)?

The error must be fixed! If something bad and does not suit the Soviet caliber of 400 mm, let's take 381 mm (15 inches. So it was good against the British battleships of WWII!). Learned how to do everything small and miniature - no question, 330 mm (13 inches); it turned out "unparalleled in the world" - yes, at least 305 mm, please, also a traditional Russian caliber! But not the notorious 324.

A characteristic feature of all frigates from the table is the presence of a vertical launch facility. It's hard to say why, but all the neighbors in the table of our frigate have anti-ship missiles stored and launched from deck-mounted inclined launchers, and only our frigate uses anti-ship missiles from UVP. Perhaps this is how the dominant influence of the "big brother" on the military shipbuilding of satellites is manifested? And if the American UVP MK 41 can be blamed for the inability to fire anti-ship missiles from the arsenal of the carrier ship, then for the sake of objectivity, the main drawback of the domestic UVP 3S14 UKSK should be recognized - the lack of a compatible long-range anti-aircraft guided missile in the range of weapons used with it, comparable in size to mine UVP.


From the table top five, the German frigate must be recognized as the favorite in the ship's air defense, three lines of reach are provided by three types of anti-aircraft missiles (24 pieces of "Standard" SM-2 Block IIIA with a range of destruction of air targets up to 120 km; 32 pieces of Sea Sparrow RIM -162B ESSM with a launch range of up to 50 km; 42 pieces of RIM-116A with a reach of up to 10 km) in combination with the SMART-L early detection radar (can track up to 1000 targets simultaneously) and the APAR target designation and guidance radar (tracks up to 200 targets with the ability to fire at 30 targets).


To break out into the undisputed leaders according to such an important criterion for our ship, it is necessary to take a decisive and much-needed step. It is vitally important to supplement the range of missiles used by the Redut 9M100 (launch range 10-15 km) and 9M96 (50-150 km firing range) 48N6 anti-aircraft guided missile (with a range of 220-250 km) used from the UVP 3C14.


Even if the instrumental range of radar reconnaissance on our frigate is limited to 420–440 km, it will correspond to the radio horizon at a flight altitude of aerodynamic targets of 10 kilometers. At this altitude, aerodynamic targets move at speeds of 750 km / h (12 km / min) and higher. The flight time to the point of destruction by the shipborne version of the 48N6 SAM (at speeds from 750 to 3600 km / h) can be from 20 to 3 minutes, which is quite enough to determine the parameters of the target movement, take it for auto-tracking, launch and fly the SAM to the distance of the outer border affected areas.

The presence of such a long-range anti-aircraft missile in the ship's ammunition will significantly push back the boundaries of safe aerial reconnaissance and the issuance of target designation to enemy strike aircraft, and complicate the work of AWACS patrolling aircraft and active jammers. In addition, the exponentially decreasing radio horizon (and it will already be only 220 meters at a distance of 2500 km) will make it very difficult for attack aircraft-carriers of anti-ship missiles to reach the line of safe missile launch with subsequent evasion from the attacking missile defense system below the radio horizon line.

And if the proposed missile defense system is also equipped with an active radar homing head, such a maneuver may become useless. By registering the missile defense missile system on board the frigates of Project 22350 of the first four admirals, who are likely to remain in the Northern Fleet and form a full-fledged replacement for the outgoing nature from the bundle of Project 956 and Project 1155, we will get a combination of "universal destroyers in miniature." The next four admirals of project 22350, already with four UVP 3S14, will form the strike core of ships for the Pacific Fleet, even despite the beginning of modernization of the BOD of project 1155 into frigates with the expansion of strike capabilities.

And only when this prerequisite is fulfilled, common sense appears in the ships of project 22350M with an increased displacement of up to 7000 tons, with six UVP 3S14, with two helicopters and doubled ammunition of the air defense missile system, otherwise in fifty years there will be a repetition of the shortcomings of the BOD of project 1155 on a new spiral of walking by historical rake.

Unfortunately for the author, neither in the table nor in the text of the article is there a comparison of data on equipping our frigate and foreign classmates in radar weapons, hydroacoustics and electronic warfare systems, the characteristics of which mainly form and determine the combat value and capabilities of modern ships. It makes no sense to compare based helicopters either. But the propulsion energy of the ships cannot be left aside.

Let's leave aside the "vain feats" of our short-sighted industrial policy with a Ukrainian background and consider the bare facts and a few figures from the table.

The largest and fastest ship in the table is the Japanese Akizuki, as it is 20% larger than our frigate in full displacement and 10% longer than it.


At the same time, the total power of the main power plant of the Japanese (60000 hp) is almost 10% lower than the same indicator of the domestic frigate (65400 hp). It's a paradoxical situation, isn't it!

Everything will fall into place, and the laws of hydrodynamics will remain unshakable if we admit that the power plant on our frigate is of the CODOG type, and not CODAG, as many media mistakenly claim. The joint operation of a sustainer diesel engine and an afterburner (in other words, the summation of the powers of two different engines) on the M55P diesel gas turbine unit is not provided. Thus, the weakest diesel engines from those displayed in the table are forced to constantly carry on the ship two afterburner turbines of decent size and weight, and those, in turn, receive weights in the form of two marine diesel engines during the afterburner. Frankly speaking, not the most progressive and advanced scheme.


The Japanese, not relying on the reliability of a common gearbox for two propellers, use a COGAG-type power plant with a two-speed gearbox for two turbines of different power and providing for their joint operation on the propeller shaft in full speed mode.


European frigates, apparently out of greater concern for the economy of ships, use the CODAG scheme with two diesels and one turbine. With a lower total power plant of the Norwegian (41420 hp) and German (51500 hp) frigates, it allows them to compete on equal terms in maximum speed with our ship and is more flexible in everyday use. In addition, our weak diesels provide the lowest economic speed of the Russian frigate.

Unfortunately, we have to admit that the frigate of project 22350, being a breakthrough in the domestic ship engine building in terms of achieving complete import substitution, is far from perfect and the achievements of world practice.

Therefore, we must admit to ourselves that equipping frigates of project 22350 with a main power plant of the CODOG type with two DGTA M55R combined with a 4 MW diesel engine and a 20 MW turbine is a necessary measure against hopelessness and is not optimal. In the historical period of 20 years from the laying of the first hull in February 2006 to the entry into service according to the plan of the eighth frigate of the admiral's series in December 2026, we will formally receive three modifications of ships of the project 22350 (1 - two hulls with a power plant of Ukrainian origin and a small URO ammunition load ; 2 - two corps with a Russian power plant and a small URO ammunition; 3 - four corps with a Russian power plant and an increased URO ammunition load and a slightly elongated body). And at the same time, it is not yet a fact that the plans will not be revised or shifted in time to the right.

Nevertheless, plans have already been announced for a promising project 22350M, in which the power plant will consist of two M70FRU cruise turbines with a capacity of 14 MW (19000 hp) and two afterburner M90FR with a capacity of 20 MW (27500 hp).

Considering all of the above, it would not hurt to concretize now that the new power plant will be built according to the COGAG type and in no case according to the COGOG type. The optimal solution to progressive evolutionary development without voluntaristic leaps into the unknown would be the development of a power plant of the COGAG type, consisting of two M70FRU-2 cruise turbines with a capacity of 7,35 MW (10000 hp) and two afterburner M90FR with a capacity of 20 MW (27500 l s.), for the seventh and eighth ships of the project 22350.

Such modernization would have provided the elongated ships of the third sub-series with an economic cruising speed of 18 knots and a maximum speed of 32 knots, which would make it possible to form a minimum security order for the Admiral Kuznetsov TAVKR that left the modernization and a promising nuclear aircraft carrier.

Let's summarize.

The artillery armament of the project 22350 needs a critical reassessment, improvement of the tactics of use and the expansion of the range of ammunition. While the "Package" weapon system for surface ships and submarines has not become widespread in the domestic navy, it is necessary to abandon the use and production of ammunition for it in the caliber of 324 mm. In the arsenal of the first rank frigate, a long-range anti-aircraft guided missile with the possibility of using it from the UVP 3S14 UKSK should appear. Without stopping at achieving success in import substitution of the production of power plant ships, continued R&D is required to reach the level of world quality and efficiency standards.

Systematic work on the elimination of the voiced shortcomings of project 22350, if not in every subsequent hull, then at least in the next pair of ships that are still being laid, and the changes made will not require alteration of the built one and delay in commissioning - it will allow the fleet to get not an extra unit for increase in numbers, but the best ships for combat missions.

PS


In the first part of the article, when the condition for replacing the main caliber gun was fulfilled, a weight reserve of 18 tons was formed. It could be used to improve radar weapons or expand the capabilities of hydroacoustics, to install a more advanced travel gearbox or increase the fuel supply on board, to equip the ship with more powerful propulsion diesel engines or to install an additional UVP for the air defense system. In addition to the two Broadswords, the author would prefer to install a pair of Duets in the area of ​​convergence of the upper deck, side and forward superstructure. Still, the savings came at the expense of artillery, and four six-barreled blocks of rapid-fire assault rifles, spaced vertically and horizontally, will be more reliable in protecting the side from the unfinished anti-ship missiles.
Our news channels

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

53 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    21 June 2021 11: 10
    Interesting article, special thanks for the layout and dimensions of the UKSC cells,
    1. 0
      21 June 2021 11: 54
      I have a question: why are there so few UKSK cells on our ships? With a very long body length.
      To double or triple the number of UKSK ... At least. Even at the cost of some increase in displacement.

      Our fleets cannot boast of the number of ships (albeit smaller) comparable to the same Burks ... and other NATO members in the flock.

      So they would have introduced a decent amount of weapons in order to have both powerful air defense and adequate strike capabilities. Delivering more missiles is much cheaper than a whole additional ship ...

      What can I do? Or switch to full-fledged destroyers ... The teeth are sharp, but they are not enough!
      1. 517
        +3
        21 June 2021 12: 27
        Quote: RealPilot
        To double or triple the number of UKSK ... At least. Even at the cost of some increase in displacement.

        Because in TTZ it was so.
        Fixed on the following ships.
        It's good that it turned out "with little blood" (initial estimates were pessimistic)
    2. +7
      21 June 2021 11: 59
      Schoolboy delirium.
      Before writing how great it is to shoot high-explosive shells at torpedoes, it would be worthwhile to think about why others did not reach such a "brilliant" idea. Googling .... It turns out that we have experimented with supercavitational shells, but it didn’t go further than experiments.
      1. 517
        +3
        21 June 2021 12: 29
        Quote: Cympak
        It turns out that they did, they experimented with supercavitational shells, but things did not go further than experiments.

        Got it
        Amers (and not only;))
        However, BREDU wassat the graphomaniac Dyusha Kononov about 130mm has nothing to do with it.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. +2
      21 June 2021 12: 44
      The article is interesting, but speaking about the placement of 5300 tons on the VI ships. SAMs with a range of 220 - 250 km. , you need to correctly understand whether the capabilities of the existing radar are sufficient for this, which there are serious doubts about. As well as doubts about whether this radar is capable of directing missiles of this type (compatibility of the seeker).
      As for the power plant, the remarks are fair (about the non-optimality of the existing one due to the low power of diesel engines), but it is hardly possible to change anything here - for our industry, the development of the existing power plant is already a breakthrough and a labor feat. Therefore, any experiments within the already established series will be destructive. It is necessary to make a power plant for the 22350M and lay a series of these more serious ships, on which a longer-range missile defense system will be quite organic, and the number of UVP cells will be more consistent with such impulses. After all, if 22350.1 already has 4 UKSK, then on 22350M nothing prevents from having 8 of them (and not 6, as previously assumed).
      And the proposal to have on these frigates oblique launchers for light anti-ship missiles of the X-35 type sounds quite right, because they require little space, and the goals are different, and it is not entirely rational to translate "Caliber" to another.
      1. +1
        21 June 2021 13: 09
        It's time to have a single UVP, and for small game, instead of a castrated Broadsword, also a universal Armor-Hermes.
        1. +3
          21 June 2021 13: 28
          The dimensions of our UVPs are seriously the largest of the American ones, both in caliber and in length. But if you use shorter cells for missiles, and the scheme for filling them is similar to that given in the article, then why not.
          Quote: Yuri V.A
          , and for small game, instead of the castrated Broadsword, also the universal Armor-Hermes.

          The Pantsir-M will most likely be installed on the 22350M, and for the 22350 with the VI 5300 tons, the existing one is quite enough.
          1. -1
            21 June 2021 14: 36
            We are talking about PU Reduta 9K96, which can only use anti-aircraft missiles. If the rockets were left on the Broadsword, at least there was a minimum.
            1. +2
              21 June 2021 15: 15
              Quote: Yuri V.A
              We are talking about PU Reduta 9K96, which can only use anti-aircraft missiles

              I understood that, but missiles need smaller cells. And this universalism is not always justified. Cells "Reduta" are more compact and can be placed not only on the tank, but also in other parts of the ship. This allows some flexibility in layout.
              And UKSK have very solid dimensions and their placement is strictly limited by the available volumes and space.
              Quote: Yuri V.A
              If the rockets were left on the Broadsword, at least there was a minimum.

              Actually, by experience, they came up with the idea of ​​separating the artillery and missile units. In any case, in the same USA, China, etc. The powerful recoil of rapid-fire guns knocks down the radar and OLS tuning ... and launching missiles can smoke up the optics. Therefore, proposals have long been heard to separate the missile and artillery units. That is, to the existing "Broadswords" add a multi-charge launcher such as the American "Frame" or their Chinese clone.
              And to combine everything into a single "combine" - the complication and rise in the cost of the design, more complex maintenance procedures, a greater likelihood of frequent failures.
              All the barrels of the "Broadsword" are packed tightly, which gives a denser stream of shells. This, in turn, gives a greater likelihood of hitting a small low-flying target.
              And the PU like the American \ Chinese "Frame", the BC is many times larger than the "Pantsir-M".
              In addition, individually, they are much more compact than the Pantsir-M "kondelabr" and their placement on ships can be more convenient, rational and efficient in use.
              1. 0
                21 June 2021 16: 50
                A single UKSK is much more flexible in the main thing - in choosing the optimal ratio of missiles for a specific task, and there will be a place for it, in addition to the tank, on the waist, and at the stern, and along the side. The negative mutual influence of individual components of the ZRAK is most likely exaggerated, and the ammunition load of the Shell is more than that of the RAM, 32 versus 11/21. Separate placement of systems is certainly preferable, but there is not much free space on our ships.
                1. +2
                  21 June 2021 17: 58
                  A single UKSK can be more convenient for placing heavy / long-range missiles. But for small and shorter missiles, this is no longer optimal. Or it will be necessary, like the Americans, to make shortened cells.
                  At the same time, more compact (both in cross section and in length) missile defense cells can be stuck into different parts of even a small ship (as, for example, 20385), thereby increasing the overall BC and more efficiently using free space.
                  Quote: Yuri V.A
                  and there is a place for it, besides the tank and on the waist, and at the stern, and along the side.

                  This is true only for very large ships, which are not yet being built in our country. And it is extremely dangerous to deploy missiles such as "Caliber", "Onyx", and even missiles, because it will be impossible to organize acceptable constructive protection against the same missiles or even enemy shells ... and not of the largest caliber.
                  Quote: Yuri V.A
                  The negative mutual influence of individual components of the ZRAK is most likely exaggerated

                  But it was to him that the Americans and the Chinese referred, dividing separately the gun mounts and the launchers of the SAM. And these two countries are building and have VERY large fleets, and they pay a lot of attention to such things and the analysis of expediency.
                  Quote: Yuri V.A
                  and Armor has more ammunition than RAM, 32 versus 11/21.

                  But at the same time, only 8 pieces are ready for launch. , then you need to recharge
                  "Pantsir-M" is good and rational for MRK, light corvettes. And for use on large ships (cruiser, destroyer), on which there is more space, the separate placement of such complexes may be more rational and justified.
                  However, after the return of Admiral Nakhimov to service, where the Pantsir-M complexes are to be installed, practice will show how convenient and justified it will be.
                  In any case, we have a choice. "Broadswords" are already in service, and I think it will not be difficult to make an analogue of a purely rocket "Frame" with missiles from "Pantsir-M".
                  This is especially interesting for economic reasons, since the Pantsir missiles are much cheaper than the short-range Reduta missiles. GOS and radio command guidance are still different.
                  Therefore, on future large ships (destroyer, cruiser) it would be nice to have two "Broadsword" on each side and one "Frame" with missiles from "Pantsir \ Pantsir-M". This is in addition to the main "Polyment-Reduta" and "Fort-M".
                  But on the expected 22350M, the placement of two "Pantsirei-M" onboard is quite justified ... by the size of the ship.
                  1. -1
                    22 June 2021 06: 02
                    Not convinced. If it is really easier for the compact 9M100 to find a place, then for the main rocket Reduta 9M96, which has comparable dimensions with the Calibers, the location will be in the same place as the ZS-14. Moreover, the Redoubt cell, losing less than twice in linear size, is four times inferior in capacity, so that ZS-14 is more optimal. The placement of onboard missile modules is not necessary as the main one, although the Soviet designers did not consider such a scheme to be critical.
                    It is unlikely that it will work to add a "frame" to the Broadsword, most likely, the creators did not manage to connect the Pine with Polyment.
                    1. 0
                      22 June 2021 11: 37
                      Quote: Yuri V.A
                      Not convinced. If it is really easier for the compact 9M100 to find a place, then for the main rocket Reduta 9M96, which has comparable dimensions with the Calibers, the location will be in the same place as the ZS-14.

                      I compared the 9M100 with the Pantsir-M missiles. And placement of 9M96 in UKSK is quite justified. But no one will change the projects of the ships already under construction for this. It is quite possible to think about this when designing the 22350M.
                      Quote: Yuri V.A
                      It is unlikely that it will work to add a "frame" to the Broadsword, most likely, the creators did not manage to connect the Pine with Polyment.

                      I meant a "frame" for a missile block from "Pantsir", which would not only increase the overall BC of short-range missiles, but also reduce the cost of part of this BC ("Pantsir" missiles are still several times cheaper than the 9M100 missiles because of the seeker). But it matters for really big ships.
              2. 0
                22 June 2021 00: 01
                The powerful recoil of the rapid-fire cannons knocks down the radar and OLS tuning ... and launching missiles can smoke up the optics.


                Does Land Armor have this problem?
                1. +1
                  22 June 2021 01: 16
                  The land has two single-barreled submachine guns, the sea has two six-barreled units.
                  The issue of the impact of recoil was raised not in our country, but in the USA (Vulcan-Phalanx) ... and we have made the Pantsir-M and have already begun to install it.
                  But still the gun mount "Broadsword" is more effective than that of "Pantsir-M" because of the very dense (close) arrangement of the barrel blocks, which gives a very dense stream of shells. With high-quality guidance, it will take less time and less shells to hit a small-sized low-flow missile.
                  And the "Pantsir-M" gun mount stem blocks are spaced quite seriously, and when working on a small target, the latter can literally slip between two streams of shells. Moreover, the density of each of the two streams has half the density than that of the "Broadsword".
                  For the sake of increasing the flow density, the Chinese adopted an 11-barrel gun mount. And now they are experiencing even more monstrous.
                  All this is because there will be very little time to defeat the missile in the near zone, and it is necessary to hit for sure in order to destroy the missile or force it to detonate. Otherwise, the damaged CD will fly over and hit the ship simply by inertia. Or with its wreckage. Therefore, the density of the projectile flux is so important - for guaranteed destruction or detonation of the rocket.
                  1. +1
                    22 June 2021 21: 44
                    The issue of the impact of recoil was raised not in our country, but in the USA (Vulcan-Phalanx) ... and we have made the Pantsir-M and have already begun to install it.


                    It turns out interestingly: we used to carry assault rifles and guidance, in the west they were combined into a complex. Later, as the dignity of the Broadsword, the connection of machine guns and guidance to the complex was voiced under the pretext of the absence of the influence of the bending of the ship's hull. Now the question of division is again raised, but for a different reason.

                    On the question of "smoked optics": wasn't this question investigated in the land-based air defense system Sosna? Or "smoking" at sea of ​​a radically different nature?

                    But still the gun mount "Broadsword" is more effective than that of "Pantsir-M" because of the very dense (close) arrangement of the barrel blocks, which gives a very dense stream of shells. With high-quality guidance, it will take less time and less shells to hit a small-sized low-flow missile.
                    And the "Pantsir-M" gun mount stem blocks are spaced quite seriously


                    I look at the photo:

                    http://www.kbptula.ru/ru/razrabotki-kbp/kompleksy-pvo/pantsir-me

                    https://www.npovk.ru/produktsiya/zenitnye-artilleriyskie-kompleksy-/palash/

                    Somehow, at first glance, there is not much difference in the arrangement of the barrel blocks across the width. And if this is so important, then it was necessary to stage the Duet, there are already trunks nearby, there is nowhere else to go.
                    1. +1
                      22 June 2021 22: 51
                      I beg your pardon, I had "Duet" under the Broadsword ... so I repent. I just messed up and did not recheck. In fact, the Pantsir-M "is built on the basis of the gun mount and the general scheme of the" Broadsword ".
                      And so they carried gun mounts in the USSR because, first of all, they saw aircraft as the target of the Broadsword, and not small anti-ship missiles. It was the "Harpoon" and the "Tomahawk" PK that forced the Duet to combine two blocks of barrels into one package.
                      Once again I ask for your petition.
                      1. 0
                        22 June 2021 23: 35
                        For me, this is new information that seemingly insignificant spacing of trunk blocks affects so much. However, here you can draw an analogy with aviation, when wing cannons / machine guns were targeted at a certain distance.
                        It turns out that in order to get an "ideal" ZAK, you need to put a guidance system on the Duet tower, unleashing it with the cannons by vibration. And the problem with the distortion of the pickup due to the bending of the case can be solved.
                      2. 0
                        23 June 2021 01: 53
                        Quote: morose
                        It turns out that in order to get an "ideal" ZAK, you need to put a guidance system on the Duet tower, unleashing it with the cannons by vibration. And the problem with the distortion of the pickup due to the bending of the case can be solved.

                        It is possible and so, but this will greatly complicate and compact the system, especially in maintenance. Therefore, if possible, it is better to smash the artillery and missile units. It is not difficult to do this on large ships ... But on moderates, you will have to make do with "Pantsirem-M".
                        Quote: morose
                        For me, this is new information that seemingly insignificant spacing of trunk blocks affects so much.

                        This affects the likelihood of hitting and gives a certain chance to a small cross-section missile. And also for the expense of shells.
                      3. +1
                        23 June 2021 16: 11
                        I meant precisely the approach of the ZAK guidance system to the guns, without missiles. It is to reduce the error in aiming the guns from the deformations of the hull.

                        On a rocket, yes, Palma loses to Pantsiru-M. I wonder if they will be retrofitted with the first two RTO 22800?
                      4. 0
                        23 June 2021 19: 12
                        Quote: morose
                        I meant precisely the approach of the ZAK guidance system to the guns, without missiles. It is to reduce the error in aiming the guns from the deformations of the hull.

                        Clear . Yes that's right.
                        Quote: morose

                        On a rocket, yes, Palma loses to Pantsiru-M. I wonder if they will be retrofitted with the first two RTO 22800?

                        The first ones, if they will re-equip, then most likely after the construction of the entire series and will be linked to a planned, possibly medium repair.
      2. -1
        21 June 2021 15: 14
        Good day! I agree with doubts about missiles and radar systems, but the rocket needs to be developed right now in order to eliminate all its childhood illnesses on the first eight ships and install an already adopted model on the 22350M without torment with fine-tuning on ships. The Polyment-Redut link will still be relevant in ten years, the range and element base will not change. The software will be new, but it will need to be changed for new SAM samples and possibly for the increased energy potential due to an increase in the elements in the AFAR and, as a consequence, an increase in the number of targets fired and guided missiles.
        It is also more rational to test prototypes of more powerful GEMs and gearboxes in advance on the eight ships already fragmented by subseries.
        I suppose that the inclined launchers for light anti-ship missiles on board the 350M will negatively affect the already enlarged hull. Can the function of their application be transferred to two heavy helicopters for this project?
        1. 517
          -3
          21 June 2021 15: 39
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          I agree with doubts about missiles and radar systems, but the rocket needs to be developed now in order to eliminate all its childhood diseases on the first eight ships

          Boy, do you even know what nonsense wassat are you carrying?!?!?
          Develop UNDER WHAT?!?!? - because your "sweet mriya" does not fit into regular PU!
          How are you going to "eliminate childhood diseases" (the vocabulary itself clearly hints where the author lol ) on a ship on which it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BEARED and which does not ensure its application through the REV line?!?!?
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          The Polyment-Redut link will still be relevant in ten years, the range and element base will not change.

          Illiterate and completely incompetent SHOT wassat
          For long distances, another frequency range is needed, and another (and much more effective) EEE goes
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          increased energy potential due to an increase in the elements in the AFAR and, as a consequence, an increase in the number of fired targets and guided missiles.

          Youngster wassat , are you able to explain how this is related? lol
          We are waiting for S. I promise not to laugh out loud lol
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          It is also more rational to test prototypes of more powerful GEMs and gearboxes in advance on the eight ships already fragmented by subseries.

          fool
          In short - THIS IS A NEW PROJECT (for a new building)
          With all that it implies.
          It is REALLY to do this about the availability of the necessary NTZ - not to mention
          I repeat - we have lost the technical ability to do this even for RCA!
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          inclined launchers for light anti-ship missiles on board the 350M will negatively affect the already enlarged hull

          wassat
          fool
          As they say - we look forward to the continuation of this "brothel" lol
          The evening promises to be wonderful laughing
        2. +1
          21 June 2021 15: 57
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          I agree with doubts about missiles and radar, but the rocket needs to be developed now,

          There is such a rocket and the radar for it is being prepared for the Admiral Nakhimov cruiser. But for the RLC "Polyment" in a pair, it is in no way suitable. And it does not have enough power / detection range / guidance for such a missile.
          "Polyment-Redut" is a very good air defense system for ships of this class, and they don't need a heavier missile. These are very moderate ships for their class.
          And for the first sub-series 22350M, it would also be wiser to use the same "Polyment-Redut" with increased ammunition.
          And only starting from the second sub-series ("block", if in American style), you can try to get a scaled (reduced) radar antenna based on the Yenisei radar (now it is for the S-500 and S-400 air defense systems). Only in this case, a heavier and longer-range missile defense system can be installed on a ship of this class.
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          increasing elements in AFAR

          Poliment does not have AFAR, but PFAR. The first AFAR for our air defense systems is only (!) In the S-500, which is expected to be in service. The same radars with AFAR are beginning to enter the S-400 divisions.
          If the 22350M still goes into production, then it is reasonable to make the first sub-series on proven elements and weapon systems, so as not to exceed the permissible coefficient of novelty and not turn everything back into a long-term construction with endless refinements. That is, with the same "Polyment-Redoubt". And after the industry has mastered the production of a naval version of the Yenisei, and the shipbuilders of the first sub-series 22350M, order a smaller version of the Yenisei for the 22350M1 sub-series and heavy missiles with their installation in the UKSK.
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          I suppose that the inclined launchers for light anti-ship missiles on board the 350M will negatively affect the already enlarged hull. Can the function of their application be transferred to two heavy helicopters for this project?

          Look at the modernization projects of pr. 1155, there was a place for the installation of four quadruple launchers for the X-35, and if desired, more could be placed. PU X-35 does not require much space, but it gives a noticeable increase in ammunition and diversifies it. Namely - light anti-ship missiles. It is more reasonable to have helicopters on board in an anti-submarine configuration. And the helicopters may not be able to rise, detect and capture the target, launch - in the event of a sudden threat. Or in bad weather.
          Especially bearing in mind that the UKSK will charge expensive Onyxes or Zircons as anti-ship missiles, it is preferable to work with the X-35 anti-ship missiles or its analogues for less priority purposes.
  2. +2
    21 June 2021 11: 39
    And the fire performance, targeting speed and accuracy of the artillery guns available on the ship are quite enough for effective destruction of torpedoes.

    Projectiles with remote detonation will solve many problems in the fleet.
    take in the modern situation a sample of the NATO caliber of 324 mm!

    So now warships have become quite small - you don't want to launch a 1500mm torpedo on a corvette with a displacement of 600 tons? )))
    Although 533 mm is of course an argument)))
    The main drawback of the domestic UVP 3S14 UKSK is the absence in the range of weapons used for a long-range anti-aircraft guided missile comparable in size to the UVP mine.

    It is not necessary to make a cruiser out of a frigate - 400 km of air defense range is good for Peter the Great, due to its size and the size of missiles of SAM missiles with a range of 400 km.
    150 km air defense range is not bad at all for a frigate.
    if we admit that on our frigate the power plant is of the CODOG type, and not CODAG, as many media mistakenly claim. The joint operation of the sustainer diesel engine and the afterburner (in other words, the summation of the powers of two different engines) on the M55P diesel gas turbine unit is not provided.

    Here I will support, the power plant is the weakest point of our ships, it is necessary to solve this problem as a matter of priority.
    1. 0
      21 June 2021 11: 50
      further research and development is required to reach the level of world quality and cost-effectiveness standards.
      It looks like this is where the dog rummaged. Indeed, reading the article, you imagine not a frigate, but at least an analogue of "Peter the Great". You correctly noted:
      Quote: lucul
      No need to make a cruiser out of a frigate

      And in general, it is not our method to modify and modify to the state and value of the Zumvolt. And there is nothing to go this way.
      1. 517
        +3
        21 June 2021 12: 30
        Quote: NDR-791
        further research and development is required to reach the level of world quality and cost-effectiveness standards.
        It looks like this is where the dog rummaged. Indeed

        joke in another - the author absolutely does not understand what R&D is and what is OCD lol
        but how does it sound wassat
    2. -3
      21 June 2021 19: 39
      Quote: lucul

      The main drawback of the domestic UVP 3S14 UKSK is the absence in the range of weapons used for a long-range anti-aircraft guided missile comparable in size to the UVP mine.

      It is not necessary to make a cruiser out of a frigate - 400 km of air defense range is good for Peter the Great, due to its size and the size of missiles of SAM missiles with a range of 400 km.
      150 km air defense range is not bad at all for a frigate.

      In my opinion, both the author of the article and you voice the most crap options (crap from the point of view of military-economic profitability in the conditions of the Russian Federation), in my opinion, we (the Russian Federation) just need small ships that could perform the tasks of corvettes / frigates and tasks of destroyers and tasks of "universal" cruisers, ideally not only of cruisers, but the project 22350 and its modifications are not suitable because of their mass-dimensional and design solutions. The ship (ideal for the Russian Federation) must be designed for: A)for transfer along the internal rivers of the Russian Federation (between closed sea theaters of the Russian Federation), B)for passage along the northern sea route of the Russian Federation, AT)for single distant oceanic crossings, and D)for single actions in BMZ \ SMZ \ DMZ.
      1. +1
        22 June 2021 00: 13
        The ship (ideal for the Russian Federation) should be designed for: A) for transfer along the internal rivers of the Russian Federation (between closed sea theaters of the Russian Federation), B) for passage along the northern sea route of the Russian Federation, C) for single long-distance oceanic crossings, and D) for single actions in BMZ \ SMZ \ DMZ.


        The only thing left to do is to rename the Buyan-M MRK into "universal cruisers". :)
        1. 0
          22 June 2021 11: 33
          Gene the ship I voiced should be thrown along the internal rivers AND NOT TO Fight IN THEIR WATER AREAS... For understanding: we can already transfer cargo (ships) with a volume of 135 * 14 * 18 (l * w * in meters) and a mass of 7,5 + kt, plus, before transferring, you can remove some of the equipment and transport it separately to Russian Railways, so Thus, we can get a full-fledged frigate destroyer and not numerous remnants of the MRK type.
          1. +1
            22 June 2021 21: 16
            How much will you throw it over? Moreover, with partial disassembly. Will the masts with locators and SACs with fairings be sent by rail? Will the war be over by the time of assembly?
            1. 0
              22 June 2021 21: 31
              Did I understand your thought correctly: in your opinion, the creation of ships that, in the event of a war you voiced, will be isolated and separately destroyed is it better than the option I voiced where it is possible to assemble a fleet in one place?

              Well, yes, that's not even the point, both before (the USSR) and now (the Russian Federation) builds many small highly specialized ships, in the version I voiced, they (ships) are multifunctional, numerous, interchangeable, easily modernized and easily altered for specific tasks within specific theaters \ TBD in the shortest possible time. In your opinion, apparently, this is unnecessary and harmful?
              1. 0
                27 June 2021 14: 06
                Did I understand your thought correctly: in your opinion, the creation of ships that, in the event of a war you voiced, will be isolated and separately destroyed is it better than the option I voiced where it is possible to assemble a fleet in one place?


                Did you invent the ship's teleporter?
                If not, then tell me, when are you going to gather the fleet in one place, before the war or during it? If before, how is it proposed to ensure the secrecy of this process? Well, so that by the time you collect the entire fleet in the north, there is no attack in the Pacific Ocean.
                If during the war, do you have a pre-signed agreement with a potential enemy that he will wait with the attack until you inform him about the completion of the transfer of our ships? And is there no danger as a result of a missile hit or sabotage at one of the dams (sluices) to remain with the fleet, sitting aground somewhere in the Vologda region?

                Well, yes, that's not even the point, both before (the USSR) and now (the Russian Federation) builds many small highly specialized ships, in the version I voiced, they (ships) are multifunctional, numerous, interchangeable, easily modernized and easily altered for specific tasks within specific theaters \ TBD in the shortest possible time. In your opinion, apparently, this is unnecessary and harmful?


                God forbid, I am only for all good and against all bad. You previously gave your point of view on the required ships:

                in my opinion, we (the Russian Federation) just need small ships that could perform both the tasks of corvettes / frigates and the tasks of destroyers and the tasks of "universal" cruisers, ideally not only cruisers, but the project 22350 and its modifications are not suitable for for their weight-dimensional and design solutions.


                Can you be more specific about what you mean? Only not in general terms, but with some (albeit approximate) numbers: dimensions, displacement, speed, power plant, armament. Or: take ___ as a basis, remove ___, add ___.
                How this is achieved:

                multifunctional, numerous, interchangeable, easily modernized and easily altered for specific tasks within the framework of specific theaters / LDPs in the shortest possible time
                1. 0
                  27 June 2021 14: 37
                  Quote: morose
                  Did you invent the ship's teleporter?
                  If not, then tell me, when are you going to gather the fleet in one place, before the war or during it?

                  I did not suggest hammering nails with microscopes, just not everywhere and not always the land and air components are sufficient and / or militarily profitable for solving problems. Therefore, it is impossible to refuse the fleet. I just voiced the idea of ​​making a military-profitable fleet and not a military-pretentious or military-cheap (MRK-ashny).
                  Quote: morose
                  Can you be more specific about what you mean? Only not in general words, but with some (albeit approximate) numbers

                  I am a supporter of the vessels which I call the "Basic Class of Vessels of the Russian Federation" (hereinafter (BKSRF)), that is, vessels of the river-sea-ocean class (hereinafter I copy from my drafts)
                  1) BKSRF basis - Main benchmarks:
                  1.1) is intended for transfer along the internal rivers of the Russian Federation between the closed sea theaters of the Russian Federation - [height of bridges [== ~ 14,8m ~, [depth [== {3m {] 4,5m], [gateway [== 135m * 14,3, 4m * 7,5m (l * w * o), mass == ~ XNUMX + ct.
                  1.2) is intended for passage along the northern sea route of the Russian Federation - ice class, enhanced icebreaking properties, improved thermal insulation and built-in heating / heating systems for external equipment
                  1.3) is intended for single long-distance oceanic crossings - fuel supply for [12000 km [(BF <-> Black Sea Fleet || SF <-> Black Sea Fleet || SF <-> Pacific Fleet),} 50000 km}
                  1.4) is intended for single actions in BMZ \ SMZ \ DMZ
                  1.5) this class of ships is not intended for warfare in shallow water, the working draft at which the work is performed \ DB == ~ [5m [] 12m] ~,
                  1.6) {{underestimated center of mass, as well as the possibility of it]] underestimation during transfer in shallow water (rivers of the Russian Federation)
                  1.7)]] internal volumes with]] scaling for current tasks - the ability to place various elements in the same compartments (fuel \ power supply \ equipment \ people \ etc)

                  2) [_ BKSRF_notes_]
                  2.1) the mass dimensions of this class can be changed when the restrictions on inland waterways change
                  2.2) To reduce the draft, during river transfer, you can use additional displacement elements, for example, based on rigid frames and elastic inflatable modules tightly fitting to the ship's hull
                  2.3) For passage under bridges, you can use a mast that will fold along the vessel and / or will be removed into the hold and / or removed and transported separately (the latter is undesirable).
                  2.4) To lower the center of mass when transferring along shallow fairways, you can use modules that are removed / installed by the crew directly at the exit to the sea.
                  2.5) Retractable elements can be used to reduce the overall draft when crossing shallow fairways. For example, retractable bottom HACs instead of stationary ones in the bulb and / or fairing.

                  ps abbreviations [maximum-minimum [, {minimum {, | exactly |, ~ approximately ~,} maximum},] maximum-maximum]
                  [[maximum-minimum, {{minimum, ~ approximately,}} maximum,]] maximum-maximum


                  If we talk about the "appearance" (the appearance of the ship), then we can imagine the Singaporean DVKD endurance with]] an enlarged air deck (the superstructure is moved forward), a cut-down hangar-dock due to which weapons (primarily protective) are integrated into the sides. Of course, there can be and are guaranteed to be other changes, but this is a separate conversation which has no place in the next comments under the next article.
  3. The comment was deleted.
    1. +9
      21 June 2021 12: 31
      Timokhin, if I recognized you in make-up, why are you so bombarded by the author?
      Well, the game writes. But he tried. It's just that there is no humor section on the topvar. There would be him, darling. With aviagrom for a couple.
      If you have knowledge, share it without lip-service and insults.
      1. 517
        -1
        21 June 2021 13: 39
        Quote: demiurg
        Why are you so bombarded by the author?

        from the fact that he was "drawn to primates" (the administration removed his post)
        so the chimpanzees were offended and asked to convey that such nonsense (like his) would not have written laughing
        and I am not Timokhin
        1. +4
          21 June 2021 14: 22
          For a long time I suggested that for such materials, if the site cannot be without them, open the section "Murzilka-military" or "Dunno in war". On the one hand, children would practice expressing their thoughts, on the other, they would not get under the feet of adults.
          1. 517
            +1
            21 June 2021 14: 25
            Quote: Undecim
            I have long suggested for such materials, if the site cannot be without them, open the "Murzilka-military" section or something similar.

            I agree. And without any humor (for VO is read by both serious and high-ranking readers in the subject matter). Any section "ambiguous"
      2. +5
        21 June 2021 13: 51
        As usual, you missed so badly laughing
        517 it's not me, not me at all.
        1. +3
          21 June 2021 14: 03
          Oh, okay. For the two of you, too, you need your own pen. Honored ruffians of the topvar. hi
          1. +1
            21 June 2021 16: 13
            This is your hochlism, like "but what for me?"
            I'm not the first to jump on people.
  4. 0
    21 June 2021 12: 23
    I would not begin to chick a ready-made and objectively good ship. There is only one drawback of this project - there are few ships! In the future, an "experimental" ship in a modern hull will soon appear, which, according to rumors, provides an increase in speed characteristics and reduces the EPR. Here you can experiment with the engine and weapons. I don't want to drink!
  5. +2
    21 June 2021 14: 01
    "Sho, again"?
    Eh, here it would be good about steam locomotives, about their brakes ...
    But in general, and so not bad, such okroshka from military-technical terms.
  6. 517
    0
    21 June 2021 14: 16
    Another illiterate graphomania of an absolutely incompetent authorа wassat
    1. In the comments to the previous opus, the author was shoved with ogrurts, and he didn’t even understand what it was about, because he wrote about PUGN and PUVN in Russian

    PUVN and PUGN are the vertical and horizontal angles of the artillery mount. PUVN is determined by:
    1) distance to the target;
    2) longitudinal lead in the movement of the target and the course of the firing ship;
    3)side and pitching anglesand.
    When shooting at an air target, its elevation angle ε is taken into account
    (See Fig. 5.2).
    PUGN is determined by:
    1) heading angle to the target;
    2) the angle of lateral lead on the movement of the target and the course of the firing ship;
    3)roll and pitching angles.

    https://studfile.net/preview/896335/page:6/
    Those. what SHAKES on the SEA - and, accordingly, for working out the pitching angles, incl. need appropriate angles of vertical guidance AU AFFFTORU DOES NOT GUIDE.
    Dyusha Kononov Sharkhost, can you hear it at all? Do you perceive? - SWINGING ON THE SEA !!! Have you ever seen the sea? At least on TV ??? The sea is not a sleek coffee table next to your sagging couch!
    2. The graphomancy of anti-submarine projectiles is obvious at least by the fact that the AK-192 has an AUTOMATED ammunition rack. Afftor, where are you going to thrust the "anti-submarine bomb" into it?
    3. About torpedoes and PTZ - just nonsense wassat and Achinea.
    4. Distant missiles - and why are you, the author -> the author -> the author decided that the control center of the complex provides your illiterate "sweet mriyas".
    5. As for the graphomancy of AFHORA on gearboxes, I will slightly remind you that today even the installation of the RCA pr.1241.1 is IMPRODUCTABLE IN SERIES. It is for the gearbox (with the joint operation of diesel engines and turbines). "Forgotten artifact of a bygone civilization."
    I'm not talking about observers with LCS gearboxes.
    However, the graphomaniac Dyusha Kononov (SHARNHOST) has everything "simple" - "that we should build a house - we will draw we will live"

    PS
    https://topwar.ru/184087-segodnja-luchshij-zavtra-lishnij.html#comment-id-11567151
    1. +2
      21 June 2021 18: 56
      My friend, you were not so kind to enlighten me on the question - What did you put on a series of Project 12418 missile boats built for Vietnam and Turkmenistan as a power plant? To what extent I know it is a copy of the one installed on the base 1241.1 or as the 1241T is sometimes written.
      1. 517
        -3
        21 June 2021 20: 35
        Quote: Luty
        bless me on the question - What was put on a series of project 12418 missile boats built for Vietnam and Turkmenistan as a power plant?

        I'll ask for sure those who made them
        1. +2
          21 June 2021 21: 00
          Thank you. As far as I am aware, the diesel-gas turbine production of the Rybinsk plant was installed on mosquito Lightning, and on 1241 sustainer and afterburner turbines were installed. I believe that export 12418 also have only turbines.
    2. 0
      21 June 2021 23: 53
      Those. what SHAKES on the SEA - and, accordingly, for working out the pitching angles, incl. we need the appropriate angles of vertical guidance AU AFFFTORU NOT FOLLOWED.


      I was also surprised at such an interest of the author precisely in the field of combating underwater targets. The pitching is understandable, but probably the possibility of getting a roll from combat damage should also be taken into account?
  7. -3
    21 June 2021 15: 11
    If the author knows what will happen tomorrow, I advise him to go to the New York Stock Exchange. With such talents, he will quickly become a billionaire. As usual, the article contains a lot of theoretical figures that have little to do with our harsh reality. Especially amused, as an example "the most - the most" - a German frigate with three air defense systems, long, medium and short range. It is no longer a secret for anyone that, depending on the intended tasks, two air defense systems are installed. One for self-defense, the second for general tasks. Why did the Germans decide to show off - I can't put my mind to it?)))
    1. -1
      21 June 2021 15: 40
      What is an air defense system for general tasks?
  8. 0
    21 June 2021 20: 12
    I agree with the opinion that everything for missiles should be one UKSK. It is clear that 400 km of missiles is not needed here, but launching 2-4 missiles from it up to 100 km is already a good option. The variant with ultra-long-range missiles would be applicable to the modernized "Orlan", which saturates the launcher under both the CD and the missile defense system.
  9. 0
    22 June 2021 12: 43
    lucul (Vitaliy)
    It is not necessary to make a cruiser out of a frigate - 400 km of air defense range is good for Peter the Great, due to its size and dimensions of missiles of SAM missiles with a range of 400 km


    Dart2027
    I agree with the opinion that everything for missiles should be one UKSK. It is clear that 400 km of missiles is not needed here, but launching 2-4 missiles from it up to 100 km is already a good option. The variant with ultra-long-range missiles would be applicable to the modernized "Orlan", which saturates the launcher under both the CD and the missile defense system.

    Dear comrades, why do you attribute "unbearable desires" to the author! In the article, the range of destruction of the proposed long-range anti-aircraft guided missile was voiced once in a rather unambiguous context, which is difficult to understand otherwise:
    It is vitally important to supplement the range of missiles used by the Redut 9M100 (launch range 10-15 km) and 9M96 (50-150 km firing range) anti-aircraft guided missiles of the 48N6 family (with a flight range of 220-250 km) used from UVP 3S14.

    The range of 420-440 km is referred to only as the range of detection of air targets by the frigate's radar systems with the possibility of hitting missile defense missiles on the far border of the affected area of ​​an accessible missile of 220-250 km. It is enough to place such missiles on existing frigates in the amount of 4 units, without prejudice to providing space for PLUR and anti-ship missiles. With an increase in the number of UVP cells in the future, then it will be possible to talk about providing long-range air defense of the ship and a covered order with an increase in ammunition. In the meantime, this will only be a demonstration of capabilities, supported by the presence of real ammunition on board the frigate.

"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"