Project "Displacer"

253

Threat of border incidents


One of the ways to exert political pressure or even create a pretext for the start of hostilities is a demonstrative violation of the enemy's state border by ships and aircraft of the enemy. Most recently, we saw this clearly on the example of the invasion of the newest British destroyer Defender, type 45 Daring, into the territorial waters of the Russian Federation, in the area of ​​the Crimean Cape Fiolent. The formal reason, according to the British, is that they do not recognize the Crimean peninsula as Russian territory, and they moved not in Russian territorial waters, but allegedly in "Ukrainian" waters, for which they have permission.

In response, the Russian FSB border boat opened warning fire, and the Su-24M front-line bomber, as a warning, dropped FAB-250 high-explosive bombs along the course of the British destroyer. This time everything ended well - the British destroyer with the crew soaked in her pants retreated, giving explanations in style "Yes, there was nothing, we just decided to turn in the other direction ourselves - we want to sail there, we want to come here".



Project "Displacer"
British destroyer Defender in Russian territorial waters

However, such incidents pose significant risks to all involved.

What if the crew of the Su-24M “missed” a little and a pair of FAB-250 fell on the destroyer Defender?

What if the crew of the destroyer Defender got nervous and shot down a Su-24M? Banning "export of tomatoes" from Britain? And if, after the downed Su-24M, anti-ship missiles (ASMs) were fired at the destroyer Defender, which would send it to the bottom along with most of the crew? Wouldn't this destroyer have become "the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand" - Casus belli?

With the intensification of aggressive rhetoric, such incidents can be repeated more and more often, and not only in the region of the Crimean peninsula. There are more and more people who want to tease the Russian bear.

Where is the guarantee that Japan will not do something similar in the Kuril Islands, Norway or the USA in the Northern Sea Route, Poland near the Kaliningrad region?

If you wish, it is easy to find a reason. Sooner or later, one of these incidents may end tragically - a global nuclear war.


The United States and Western countries believe that they can exploit the Northern Sea Route, regardless of Russia's interests

Is it possible to somehow wean the "partners" to poke their noses into our territorial waters without using weapons?

The answer is yes - you can. And earlier this was already carried out by the ships of our fleet during the cold war.


Soviet Navy vs US Navy


In February 1988, the missile cruiser Yorktown and the US Navy destroyer Caron entered the territorial waters of Crimea, but were expelled from them by the patrol ships Selfless and SKR-6.

After the American ships entered the territorial waters of the Soviet Union, the patrol ship "Selfless" carried out two bulk heaps on the cruiser Yorktown, one of which tore the side skin and caused the paint to ignite, and the second, made in the area of ​​the helipad, cut down all the rails , tore the superstructure side skin, broke the command boat and damaged the Harpoon missile launcher - two containers were destroyed, the missiles' warheads were torn off, and a fire started in the area of ​​the Harpoon and Asrok anti-submarine missiles cellars. Meanwhile, the SKR-6 collapsed on the port side in the stern of the destroyer Caron, damaging his lifeboat and davit.

It is characteristic that the displacement of the patrol ship "Selfless" is three times less than that of the cruiser Yorktown, and the displacement of the SKR-6 is almost eight (!) Times less than that of the destroyer Caron.


The patrol ship "Selfless" of project 1135.2 "Petrel" is leaning on the American cruiser Yorktown, of the "Ticonderoga" class (image on the left), and the patrol ship "SKR-6" carries out similar actions in relation to the destroyer Caron, of the "Spruyens" type (image on the right)

If ships of such a small displacement were able to expel a much superior enemy from the territorial waters, inflicting considerable damage on him, then what can a ship, originally intended for "hand-to-hand combat", do in this situation?

"Displacer"


So, let's try to guess what a ship designed to displace enemy ships from Russian territorial waters without the use of weapons might look like - let's call it the "Displacer".

The displacement of the "Displacer" should be in the region of 3000-5000 tons, that is, it will be a ship of the corvette or frigate class.

The ship's design should be based on an integrated massive power frame, passing along the perimeter of the hull and in places of possible collisions with enemy ships. The strength and configuration of this frame will determine the ability to carry out bulk / ramming of enemy ships, with minimal damage to one's own ship and maximal - to an enemy ship.

It is possible that there will be two frames: one that provides the strength of its own hull, and the second, designed for contact with an enemy ship - something like a power kit on off-road vehicles.


Robust body - the basis of the "Displacer"

The second important property of the "Displacer" should be its high speed, amounting to at least 35 knots, and better and more - this will not allow the enemy to break away or use the speed as an advantage for an advanced maneuver. The speed can be sacrificed for the range, since the "Displacer" will work mainly near its territorial waters.

There is not much to choose from, therefore, the basis of the power plant of the "Displacer" will be M90FR gas turbine engines (GTE) produced by NPO Saturn, which are used on frigates of project 22350.


GTE M90FR produced by NPO Saturn

The third critical element of the "Displacer" is the need to provide him with good maneuverability so that he can quickly and suddenly "beat" the enemy at the right angle and quickly break contact if necessary. This will require tunnel and / or azimuth thrusters.


Tunnel and azimuth thrusters will provide the Propeller with high maneuverability

The combination of requirements for the stability of the hull against capsizing and high speed may require the use of a catamaran or trimaran layout of the "Displacer" hull.


Combat ships made according to the "catamaran" and "trimaran" scheme

In order to reduce the cost of the Displacer as much as possible, it will not carry any heavy offensive or defensive weapons. There will be no radar station (radar), apart from the simplest navigation equipment - "the rhino has poor eyesight, but with its weight and size, this should worry others."

In this case, it is necessary to install several sufficiently advanced optical-location stations (OLS), capable of retracting inside the case. Their important, albeit auxiliary, task will be to film the enemy's shame and his flight after the "bulk".

Another "Displacer" must be equipped with powerful electronic warfare (EW). Even before the "bulk", the enemy ship should lose communication and the ability to control unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), as well as unmanned escort vessels (if any). This will have a powerful psychological effect on the crew.

An additional psychological effect on the crew of the enemy ship can be provided by powerful ship howlers and super-bright searchlights installed on the "Displacer".

Propeller-class ships must have a minimum crew in an internal protected pressurized capsule - the Propeller must operate close to their shores, with the support of other ships in the fleet. It will not have a lot of complex combat systems, it is not intended for long campaigns.

The design of the "Displacer" should be minimal use of fluids that can lead to fire or failure. Most of the drives must be electrical, cable routes must be backed up. Special pyrostikers can be used to automatically extinguish fires.


Pyrostikers are triggered automatically when an open fire appears, ensuring its extinguishing without the participation of a person or complex technical devices

The absence of heavy weapons and a small crew will free up space that can be used to strengthen the ship's structure, accommodate the necessary fuel supply, and also to form a belt from external compartments filled with non-combustible foam filler with positive buoyancy - something like polyurethane foam. This ship must not sink. At all. Under no circumstances. Is that torn in half. And that's not a fact.

The upper part of the hull should prevent the landing of enemy helicopters on it, the landing of special forces. It must be resistant to attempts at penetration and capture by professionally trained teams. To further complicate the landing, the "Displacer" must be equipped with powerful water cannons.


It won't be easy to get into a ship of this configuration.

From the "lethal" weapons on the "Displacer" machine guns can be installed with a caliber of 12,7 mm to repel a sabotage threat - to make holes in motor boats or unmanned boats of the enemy. More serious weapons are rapid-fire automatic cannons of 30 mm caliber, for example, of the AK-630M-2 "Duet" type. If the situation "in the clinch" goes beyond certain boundaries, a pair of "Duets" at close range can pretty much cut the enemy ship.


30-mm naval two-automatic artillery mount AK-630M-2 "Duet"

Also, the "Displacer" armament can be reinforced with RBU-6000 rocket launchers of 212 mm caliber. They will replace the large-caliber short-range cannon.


RBU-6000

Theoretically, the Displacer-class ships can be equipped with anti-aircraft missile systems for short-range self-defense, but, perhaps, this will be superfluous. Without a normal radar, these air defense systems will be ineffective, and the installation of a radar will immediately increase the cost of the project. In addition, it (radar) is vulnerable in close combat.

But the systems for setting up camouflage curtains will be very useful. In the event of an aggravation of the situation and the launch of enemy anti-ship missiles at the "Displacer" -type ship, which will be detected by other ships of the Russian Navy, the "Displacer" can use the setting of curtains for cover and withdrawal - this measure can be quite effective, especially in combination with the expected high speed and survivability of ships of this type.


Systems for setting up camouflage curtains

The cherry on top of the cake can be a small helicopter / quadcopter-type UAV placed in a lockable hangar. Suddenly launched, it can hover over an enemy ship, interfering with the takeoff of the deck aviation or launching anti-ship missiles from vertical launch facilities (VLR). Do you want to shoot down? Please, but its burning debris will fall on your deck.


Russian UAVs of the helicopter type

The Displacer project is not too difficult from a technical point of view. It does not have any technologies that have not been mastered by Russia. On the one hand, it is practically useless as a warship, but, on the other hand, its use can prevent the development of events in which warships are required. Such ships can be built one for each fleet, simultaneously working out on them new design solutions and layout schemes of the trimaran / catamaran type, hull solutions.

The use of the "Displacer" is rather ambiguous: it does not open fire, it operates in its territorial waters. It turns out to be a controversial situation - there seems to be nothing to drown it, and it is clear that when the "Displacer" attacks, corvettes and frigates covering it from the optimal strike distance will open fire, wait for a collision - you will go for expensive repairs, you will become a laughing stock in the eyes of the whole world.

The lack of critical technologies makes it possible to create such a ship in cooperation, for example, with China, which is also constantly provoked by either the United States or Japan. Or you can sell a finished product to the PRC on a commercial basis.

While "real" warships will flex their muscles at exercises and parades, the "Displacer" will beat the enemy on an overly curious nose, or even on the head, ensuring the inviolability of the borders of the Russian Federation, not in word, but in deed.
Our news channels

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

253 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +66
    30 June 2021 18: 09
    What you can't write for the dough fool .
    1. -41
      30 June 2021 18: 31
      The author forgot to add that in 91 the commies drank and sold the Soviet Union, and American sailors from the cruiser Yorktown and the destroyer O'Bannon in 1992 drank vodka in Severomorsk. The fact that at Yorktown just 4 years earlier in the Black Sea the TFR "Selfless" had carried out the bulk of the attack no longer bothered anyone. In 2005, the selfless TFR set out on its last campaign from Sevastopol, donated by the commies to the Ukrainians, and drowned in the Black Sea while being towed.
      1. +62
        30 June 2021 18: 47
        Naval was in 1988, not in 1998 under EBN.
        What the hell is a Displacer? am Moreover, the size of a frigate and a frigate power plant. We are now building frigates for 10 years each. And the author suggests building battering rams instead of frigates. Three months ago, an authoritative author suggested building sailing ships.
        What are you smoking? fool
        1. +48
          30 June 2021 19: 09
          The author would also suggest building a floating brothel on hydrofoils with a speed of 45 knots with a telescopic gangway for disembarking a boarding party of naked girls with reduced social responsibility for organizing a lecherous party on an enemy ship and capturing the crew in BDSM slavery. Then, for sure, NATO ships will not come closer than 200 miles to our shores. laughing
          As soon as the editorial board passes such articles.
          1. +18
            30 June 2021 19: 19
            maybe then, on the contrary, they will be trampled so that they will be captured sooner laughing
          2. +12
            30 June 2021 20: 39
            I am afraid in this case the NATO ships will shoot from the main caliber for a place in the queue for the right to be attacked by such a ship as soon as possible. For now. Over time, I think the girls will have to be replaced with something gender-indefinite.
            1. +14
              30 June 2021 20: 48
              Yeah, and raise the rainbow pennant. And the ship is called the Sex Invader.
          3. +9
            30 June 2021 23: 25
            Quote: Bearded
            to organize a kinky party on an enemy ship

            Are you sure that the crew will have the correct orientation and self-identification? I am not, since the LGBTQIs are allowed to serve without restriction. And if there are non-binary in the crew (I don't know how it is in Russian), then they themselves are not sure.
            On the question of the benefits of diversity.lol
            1. +2
              1 July 2021 22: 28
              Revolver. Everything is taken into account. The team will be mixed and tarzan in the lead. But part of the wrecking squadron may disappear. Purely marine anecdote. The sailor went to the brothel. He did his job and then an expensive ring falls from his finger and pounced there. He fumbled with his fingers - did not find it. He stuck his hand up to the elbow - he couldn't find it. Eh damn it, climbed inside. And it’s dark, and there are only matches in my pocket. He will shine here and there, nothing is visible. He turned the corner and saw the lantern lit and three sailors were walking towards him and shining in the corners. Tell the sailor what you are looking for. The emerald ring fell and decided to look for him. The three burst out laughing. Well, you do. A drunken boatswain fell here the third day, so we can't find him. This is how all the teams of NATO ships can disappear. I apologize for the clarifications.
          4. +4
            1 July 2021 03: 32
            The "displacer" will hit the enemy on an overly curious nose, or even on the head,
            And these people spit at the word ekranoplan! laughing
          5. The comment was deleted.
          6. +3
            1 July 2021 17: 21
            The boarding party should consist of a stealth pihot, combine business with pleasure.
          7. 0
            5 July 2021 00: 09
            for disembarking a boarding party of naked girls with reduced social responsibility for organizing a lecherous party on an enemy ship and capturing the crew in BDSM slavery.

            Oh-li. It is in this case that all NATO will conduct exercises near our borders. And the Dutch will not get out of the water at all. You be careful with such suggestions.
          8. 0
            6 July 2021 16: 34
            "Then, for sure, NATO ships will not come closer than 200 miles to our shores."
            On the contrary, three per day, and if you hire activists from the Georgian LGBT parade for half the rate, then they will stand in line ...
        2. +13
          30 June 2021 21: 28

          They don't smoke. They are like that in themselves
          1. +3
            1 July 2021 22: 30
            This actor is to my liking. I still remember the times when he was Soviet.
        3. +7
          1 July 2021 13: 21
          Quote: Bearded
          Naval was in 1988, not in 1998 under EBN.


          On the site at the end of all materials it is written: "Noticed a mistake Select the text and press Ctrl + Enter". But, in my opinion, no one uses it, it's not interesting, right? Of course this is a typo, 1988.
          1. +2
            1 July 2021 13: 54
            Accepted.
            The article is funny and the topic is interesting. But unfortunately we have no time for ramming ships now. We will at least learn to build frigates a year, but we only dream of destroyers.
            1. +1
              2 July 2021 00: 40
              Why cut a frigate-type ship from scratch when an old icebreaker can be converted into an ethno business ??
              1. 0
                3 July 2021 19: 00
                Quote: Klingon
                an old icebreaker can be converted into an ethno business ??

                Duc -)) the icebreaker will not catch up. And there are few icebreakers. Piece goods - icebreakers and expensive. -))
          2. +2
            1 July 2021 20: 46
            "Noticed a mistake Select the text and press Ctrl + Enter".

            You shouldn’t have prompted. wink
            Judging by the reviews, there are those who want to mark the entire article. laughing
            On the subject: a specialized ship, in my opinion, is useless.
            A modernized (reinforced) frigate - could come in handy IMHO. hi
            Not so much for the bulk as for the threat to such.
          3. +2
            1 July 2021 22: 32
            Mona and so to speak that since 1985, when Tagged took the helm, the USSR, as such, no longer existed, the song was sung. He only bargained from whom he wants the order, but no less a pound in weight.
      2. +12
        30 June 2021 19: 50
        Quote: Bashkirkhan
        the commies drank and sold the Soviet Union,

        The komunyaki are shape-shifters who are still in power. Renegades are renegades in absolutely any system and party.
        According to the article, it is not necessary to create displacers, but the conditions under which it will become unprofitable and dangerous to violate the borders.
        But in the conditions of the country's complete dependence on the export of resources, this is impossible.
        1. +3
          1 July 2021 13: 27
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          ... According to the article, it is not necessary to create displacers, but the conditions under which it will become unprofitable and dangerous to violate the borders ...


          The USSR was provoked even at the peak of its power. "Displacer" is unprofitable (it will be expensive to repair a cruiser / destroyer) and dangerously (and you can drown, get a fire, one of the crew will die).
          1. 0
            1 July 2021 13: 56
            Or maybe we don't need a Displacer, but a hydrofoil or hovercraft with powerful electronic warfare. Not a single destroyer with a frigate will escape from him.
            1. 0
              1 July 2021 20: 55
              Not a single destroyer with a frigate will escape from him.

              They won't run away. But the problem is:
              hydrofoil or hovercraft

              bounce off the destroyer and cruiser. wink
          2. -2
            1 July 2021 21: 58
            Quote: AVM
            This "displacer" is unprofitable (

            Andrey, this is a Korean Boeing unprofitable.
          3. 0
            11 August 2021 22: 42
            For a long time I have been trying to explain to all flotophiles that the ship is most reliably protected not by its weapons, but by the flag that flies over it .. Over the past 70 years, the most effective military technique on the seas and oceans is bulk for one simple reason, it makes it possible to return both to one side and to both. This is not an armed conflict with shooting, but an accident! Accordingly, the reaction to this is different, you cannot dump a drowned warship on some terrorists at sea, as in the case of a car or an airplane, here the casus belli is writhing in full growth for the loss of face, and in the case of a bulk, it seems like they didn’t calculate with anyone it happens. So a special ship can be very useful, since if it is used, its enemy will receive much greater damage, which is not good for the losing side because it is shameful ... a robber rushed home and you killed him by hitting him with the butt of a gun, then there will be an order of magnitude less problems than if you shot him with the same gun .. So here they squeezed the impudent man broke everything he could, but let's say so carefully without going over the frame that in further disassembly obviously will be taken into account ..
            rs: There are of course questions about the appearance of the ship, but the concept itself is very correct ..
            1. 0
              12 September 2021 12: 48
              but the concept itself is very correct ..

              This concept is almost 2,5 thousand years old. The first "displaced" seems to have been used by the Greeks under Salamis. The next big displacement - Merrimack vs. Monitor at the Hamton Raid? And later - armored rams?
              It makes no sense to disassemble all technical bloopers, since the very idea of ​​building such a specialized ship is delusional.
              The author, you'd better share the recipe, why are you smoking that "extraordinary lightness of thought" appears.
        2. +1
          1 July 2021 22: 35
          But this could have happened in 1937 in the United States. It is still a mystery who turned in the generals and bankers. After they saw, even though they themselves created, that Hitler does not touch the bankers and millionaires, they decided to do such a thing at home. It seems to have failed, although there is no certainty about it. Already the mischief of the Americans and the Nazis are similar.
      3. +6
        30 June 2021 21: 04
        Quote: Bashkirkhan
        The author forgot to add that in 91 the commies drank and sold the Soviet Union, and American sailors from the cruiser Yorktown and the destroyer O'Bannon in 1992 drank vodka in Severomorsk. The fact that at Yorktown just 4 years earlier in the Black Sea the TFR "Selfless" had carried out the bulk of the attack no longer bothered anyone. In 2005, the selfless TFR set out on its last campaign from Sevastopol, donated by the commies to the Ukrainians, and drowned in the Black Sea while being towed.

        Napoleon ended his life on Elba, but this does not detract from all of his victories. As well as defeats.
      4. +7
        30 June 2021 21: 19
        "The author forgot to add that it is not the method of influencing the violators of the border that keeps the" partners "from a big war (what difference does it make to ram the violator or plant a couple of small-caliber shells into him), but the power of the Armed Forces, first of all, of the nuclear deterrent forces.
        If there is not enough deterrent, then casus belli can always be found, even without any reason.
        1. +1
          1 July 2021 13: 28
          Quote: Alekseev
          "The author forgot to add that it is not the method of influencing the violators of the border that keeps the" partners "from a big war (what difference does it make to ram the violator or plant a couple of small-caliber shells into him), but the power of the Armed Forces, first of all, of the nuclear deterrent forces.
          If there is not enough deterrent, then casus belli can always be found, even without any reason.


          The difference is as between the fact that to pshik a person with tear gas and drag him with a rubber truncheon or shoot him in the leg or arm.
          1. +2
            1 July 2021 22: 01
            Quote: AVM
            The difference is as between the fact that to pshik a person with tear gas and drag him with a rubber truncheon or shoot him in the leg or arm.

            It depends on whom to do it to. And taking into account who is behind you.
    2. +6
      30 June 2021 19: 06
      Quote: bandabas
      What you can't write for the sake of the dough.

      There is nothing to add.
      From me +
    3. +14
      30 June 2021 20: 32
      Quote: bandabas
      What you can't write for the dough

      That's right, he could add about a propeller with a diameter of 30-50 meters, which, in a parallel course at low speed, would simply chop the intruder's ship into nickels, and chop it into cabbage at full speed. laughing
      1. -3
        2 July 2021 10: 52
        A propeller with a diameter of 50 meters is pointless, but a specialized bulk vessel is quite reasonable. In the same way as for police officers to carry a two-handed sword with them is overkill, although it produces a very frightening effect, but having a rubber truncheon with you is the very thing.
        1. +1
          2 July 2021 12: 13
          Quote: Varcom
          A propeller with a diameter of 50 meters is pointless

          Did you take this seriously?
          Quote: Varcom
          most it
          the most it when violating the border and ignoring the requirements of the border guards is a volley into the side.
          1. 0
            3 July 2021 00: 07
            Quote: Jura
            Quote: Varcom
            A propeller with a diameter of 50 meters is pointless

            Did you take this seriously?

            As serious as the cops' two-handed swords. I understand the sarcasm and your desire to troll the author of the article, but the sarcasm must be justified. To create a specialized vessel that would force violators out of state borders without the risk of starting an armed conflict is the first thought that comes to mind when you see such provocations. And I don't see anything absurd in this idea. Pushing a large ship into neutral waters, while crushing its sides as much as possible, is quite reliable, impressive and humiliating.
            Quote: Jura
            Quote: Varcom
            most it

            the most it when violating the border and ignoring the requirements of the border guards is a volley into the side.

            Here I agree. The Ukrainians were once taught a lesson by shooting through their boat; they no longer risk provocation.
            1. 0
              4 July 2021 18: 27
              "Create a specialized ship" - what the hell is the ship? We have already forgotten how to create ships. How many aircraft carriers or battleships do we have to start with? When there are ten, it will be possible to talk about a specialized vessel.
    4. +4
      1 July 2021 02: 08
      In addition to battering displacers-battering rams from the author of the article, I propose to build fire ships, the descendants of cappers like Drake and who will die of laughter and emotion)
      And supply the coast guard with Greek fire and catapults)
      1. +4
        1 July 2021 22: 34
        Quote: Anchorite
        And supply the coast guard with Greek fire and catapults)

        Yes, load the catapults with the contents of the latrines. Why modify the design of latrines in the entire fleet, and add the function of a flusher to the displacer laughing
    5. +2
      1 July 2021 06: 50
      I recalled the persistent desire of the admirals of the Russian Empire to see rams on the battleships. Damn mature sea wolves then really believed that they would go to ram like the ancient Greeks against the Persians with a displacement of 8 kilotons. Not to mention the torpedo tubes, which were already ineffective in 3 cables. I don't stutter about a whole bunch of small-caliber trash on board the ships of the line.
      The article is utter nonsense, it's time for the author to retire.
      1. +1
        1 July 2021 15: 53
        Quote: Nikon OConor
        Damn mature sea wolves then really believed that they would go to ram like the ancient Greeks against the Persians with a displacement of 8 kilotons.

        Duc ... Lissa's heavy legacy. smile
        Quote: Nikon OConor
        I don't stutter about a whole bunch of small-caliber trash on board the ships of the line.

        And this is fucking technical progress. When in the development of the project of the ship of the line, carriers of self-propelled mines have a displacement of 20-40 tons. And by the time of the first battle of this ship, these carriers have already grown to 300-350 tons.
    6. -5
      1 July 2021 11: 10
      More and more "yellowness" with a "urYa-parasreotic" bias ((((
    7. +1
      1 July 2021 20: 52
      I do not even have words, I will give only one picture from a short period, which is called ramming madness


      our and Japanese battleship after Lissa.
    8. 0
      1 July 2021 22: 19
      bandabas. If partners are two gangs of gangsters, and if they are enemies, you need to be on your guard. Capitalist countries cannot be partners if they are not united by common interests. And if there are common interests, so they can be, only so that the social system of Russia in this form, would be as long as possible. And the enemies are, of course, the people who are being cheated. Mark Twain wrote that a dollar for a capitalist in someone else's pocket is a challenge. Just like Bolivar won't take out two.
  2. +33
    30 June 2021 18: 10
    Again "bombs" and "wet pants" of the foe ...
    It's just a shame, how many more such articles will be there ...
    1. +37
      30 June 2021 18: 20
      As much as the authors have enough imagination to create new classes of warships. "Displacer", "Non-Pusher", "Pusher", "Non-Heater", "Pusher". I haven’t laughed like that for a long time, thank you author!
      1. +17
        30 June 2021 18: 26
        Quote: SERGE ANT
        As much as the authors have enough imagination to create new classes of warships. "Displacer", "Non-Pusher", "Pusher", "Non-Heater", "Pusher". I haven’t laughed like that for a long time, thank you author!

        "Ohalnik", "Walker", "Battering ram of the Five-Year Plan", "Red Bogatyr" ....
        1. +26
          30 June 2021 18: 30
          There is a better option - to cut the violator into pieces right in the sea with a "sawmill" ship.
          1. +10
            30 June 2021 18: 33
            Chainsaw Friendship project.
          2. +12
            30 June 2021 18: 35
            And then melt it on needles with a blast-furnace ship laughing
            1. +15
              30 June 2021 18: 50
              Then reassemble it on the slipway ship and sell it to the Indians on the exchange ship hi
          3. +6
            30 June 2021 21: 21
            And all this to the songs of the group "felling"? laughing
        2. +3
          1 July 2021 02: 04
          No, it is necessary to keep in the tradition: "Shameful" !!!
          "Desolator", well, adjusted for the "spirit of the era"))
        3. +7
          1 July 2021 02: 06
          "Pissing" with the appropriate equipment and supplies))
        4. +7
          1 July 2021 02: 25
          Yes, what is really there, just call it "Push".
          - Where do you serve?
          - On the Jerk!
          Push the destroyer out, defector against the destroyer. A new class of ships, however.
          1. +2
            1 July 2021 22: 39
            So there are icebreakers for that. They can push any ship. And if you fix the saws on the bottom, like in a sawmill, then you can immediately take the parts to scrap metal.
      2. +27
        30 June 2021 18: 27
        The fuser forgot;) And the bulb is clearly visible. With antennae.
        1. +25
          30 June 2021 18: 29
          Hussars, be silent! We take the author's bread - let him invent it himself.
          1. +15
            30 June 2021 18: 32
            So let's call the project:
            "Lieutenant Rzhevsky"
            1. +6
              30 June 2021 19: 34
              Better virgin Natasha Rostova,
              1. +5
                1 July 2021 02: 08
                Too large, sorry, the displacement will have to be sculpted for the destroyer, but if the aircraft carrier !!?))
      3. +14
        30 June 2021 18: 32
        Quote: SERGE ANT
        As much as the authors have enough imagination to create new classes of warships. "Displacer", "Non-Pusher", "Pusher", "Non-Heater", "Pusher". I haven’t laughed like that for a long time, thank you author!

        One project is enough at sea - "Drowner" winked
        1. +6
          30 June 2021 19: 53
          Quote: Terenin
          One project is enough at sea - "Drowned"

          Yes. But for this you need kokoshkas in pants for those who sit in high offices.
        2. +4
          30 June 2021 21: 42
          The Evil Eater. From such a toddler will run away zaho..v.
          Because just cowards
          Let them express concern.
      4. +11
        30 June 2021 18: 42
        Quote: SERGE ant
        As much as the authors have enough imagination to create new classes of warships: "Displacer", "Non-Pusher", "Ejector", "Non-Heater", "Ejector".

        So there were already in the Russian fleet "Avos", "I suppose" and "Don't touch me." Can make one - "Pe *** ets"? feel laughing
      5. +10
        30 June 2021 18: 48
        Quote: SERGE ANT
        As much as the authors have enough imagination to create new classes of warships. "Displacer", "Non-Pusher", "Pusher", "Non-Heater", "Pusher". I haven’t laughed like that for a long time, thank you author!

        Yeah, you also forgot about the Bulbululator. laughing
        1. +1
          1 July 2021 21: 01
          Here you are hypanuli on the article! Shine! laughing
      6. +4
        30 June 2021 20: 57
        And to make it absolutely unsinkable, instead of foam we use cow dung. And we will appoint the Author as the captain.
      7. +4
        30 June 2021 21: 01
        Why, why, why do you suggest? laughing
      8. +8
        30 June 2021 23: 29
        Quote: SERGE ant
        how much imagination the authors have to create new classes of warships. "Displacer", "Non-Pusher", "Ejector", "Non-Heater", "Ejector"

        "Navalny" (not Alexei).lol
      9. The comment was deleted.
      10. +3
        1 July 2021 13: 03
        And if it acts in bulk, then "Bulk".
  3. +8
    30 June 2021 18: 11
    Anyone else ... but I like this option good
    1. +2
      30 June 2021 20: 42
      But without weapons, it's strange. At least a 152 mm Coalition-type howitzer capable of carrying tactical nuclear warheads should be. And a simple air defense will not hurt at all.
  4. +26
    30 June 2021 18: 13
    Recently, the site began to publish already explicit trash-art.
    1. +5
      30 June 2021 18: 57
      Summer, however, is just the experts on vacation and can write publications.
    2. +4
      1 July 2021 00: 22
      Quote: Undecim
      Recently, the site began to publish already explicit trash-art.

      And as for me - a normal ship. But the thruster operating at 35 knots is embarrassing ... what
      1. +2
        1 July 2021 13: 29
        Quote: Motorist
        Quote: Undecim
        Recently, the site began to publish already explicit trash-art.

        And as for me - a normal ship. But the thruster operating at 35 knots is embarrassing ... what


        Azimuthal most likely will not work, but why not tunnel?
        1. +2
          1 July 2021 19: 18
          Hello!

          Below you can see graphs of changes in the stop depending on the speed for a very specific thruster. The thrust is reduced to 30% at 6 knots. This happens "due to changing pressure situation on bow section" (for which I bought it, sorry). The upper curve is the same unit, but there is an additional tunnel in the body for any compensation of the pressure difference; but here, too, the emphasis is reduced to 50-55%.


          True, the graphs crept upward, but this is not so interesting: the thruster is installed just to ensure sufficient maneuverability at low speeds, when the rudder blade is ineffective due to a weak oncoming flow. On normal strokes, the rudder feather is quite enough, and if it is also with a "tail" - in excess. I watched myself on the way - not a police turn, but almost. Yes However, the speed sits down a lot, tk. The State Duma runs into restrictive ones.

          Phew ... what he knew - he told ... hi
  5. +5
    30 June 2021 18: 14
    In 1988 it was a writer. Learn materiel.
    1. +6
      30 June 2021 19: 51
      Quote: Stav
      In 1988 it was a writer. Learn materiel.

      True, under EBN they could not have done this anymore, there was no "kerosene" to go to sea.
      And the admirals were selling the entire fleet in a race, remember Egorov.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. +15
    30 June 2021 18: 18
    And it is not easier to use a speedboat with a cable to wind on a propeller disguised as a fisherman. And then all the claims to the one-day firm of the public joint-stock company (PJSC) "This is our waters" or PJSC "Dry the oars sir".
    1. +4
      30 June 2021 19: 53
      Quote: Mother Teresa
      And it is not easier to use a speedboat with a cable, for winding on a screw under the guise of an angler.

      Have we already read all this, or has someone forgotten "The Adventures of the Munchausen Harrow"?
      1. +1
        1 July 2021 18: 09
        Quote: tihonmarine
        Have we already read all this, or has someone forgotten "The Adventures of the Munchausen Harrow"?

        And we looked at Animal Planet - it showed the "effectiveness" of such means against whalers quite well.
  8. +8
    30 June 2021 18: 20
    laughing .. Hmmm ....
    History teaches nothing. I remember that under Lisse, Tegethoff's flagship, Archduke Ferdinand Max, sent Re d Italy to the bottom only on the third attempt, and only because the rudder was damaged. battering ram was considered nonsense request
    And how many ships of the line were built for special ramming tactics. But as the saying goes, if you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans and in the whole subsequent history of rams killed and damaged their own in peacetime (and during the war there was the death of "Yoshino", for example)
    Morality - the idea of ​​building a special "displacer" is idiotic in nature. fool
    Personally, my opinion.
    Substation The story of the ramming of the Sumerian tug is not indicative, the tug is still, not a ship of 10000 tons and 30 knots
  9. +5
    30 June 2021 18: 23
    Perhaps it is necessary to make combat NKs not of their cardboard (!) Or tin, but with a sufficiently powerful body. And there is no need to try to create a separate project for easy money. The same legendary "Burevestnik", now Project 11356, has shown itself to be a multifunctional strong ship over the decades.
  10. +6
    30 June 2021 18: 25
    By the way, after the recent events I also thought about such a thing! You don't need a lot of them, they should be located only in disputed waters.
    1. +3
      30 June 2021 19: 59
      Quote: Zlat070
      You don't need a lot of them, they should be located only in disputed waters.

      You can have one kamikaze per fleet. New ones are expensive, and not where, and, as always, time is running out. Let outdated ships of any size play the role of "kamikaze" then, maybe someone will be frightened.
      But we do not live in the Roman Empire, and the ram is now just an accident, once every 20 years.
      Let's be realistic.
      1. +1
        1 July 2021 20: 28
        About the displacer - my idea, expressed here on VO in the topic about "Defender". On the Black Sea it is necessary to create a brigade of such "Displacers" for patrolling in the area of ​​Fiolent and the Crimean bridge. A couple should be in the Peter the Great Bay at TOFE. Well, the reinforced ice class needs to oust the foe from the Northern Sea Route.
        1. 0
          2 July 2021 09: 11
          Quote: Silhouette
          On the Black Sea it is necessary to create a brigade of such "Displacers" for patrolling in the area of ​​Fiolent and the Crimean bridge.

          It will not hurt, especially at the Crimean bridge, to put an old ship nearby for this purpose. And there will be attempts to sabotage.
  11. 0
    30 June 2021 18: 28
    Author:
    Andrey Mitrofanov
    What if the crew of the Su-24M "missed" a little and a pair of FAB-250s fell on the destroyer Defender?

    The third world would not have started - Putin said about it.
    What if the crew of the destroyer Defender got nervous and shot down a Su-24M? Banning "export of tomatoes" from Britain?
    I would get a couple of anti-ship missiles on board and that would be the end of it.
    Would this destroyer have become the "assassination of Archduke Ferdinand" - Casus belli?

    I would not - our Strategic Missile Forces are the guarantee. Everyone would have let go of the brakes, like the downed South Korean Boeing.
    Sooner or later, one of these incidents may end tragically - a global nuclear war.

    Putin does not agree with this, as the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, and he must be believed.
    So, let's try to guess what a ship designed to displace enemy ships from Russian territorial waters without the use of weapons might look like - let's call it the "Displacer".

    Given our length of sea borders, this looks like a fantasy, and absolutely unacceptable from all sides. But you can dream, of course ...
    1. -1
      1 July 2021 02: 22
      “I wouldn’t - our Strategic Missile Forces are the guarantor of that. They would have let everything go on the brakes, like the shot down South Korean Boeing.”

      Not in dispute, but as a side note.

      In the "days of the Korean Boeing" There were 30 thousand, 40 charges, feel the difference
      1. +2
        1 July 2021 09: 35
        Quote: Revival
        In the "days of the Korean Boeing" There were 30 thousand, 40 charges, feel the difference

        This was in general sheer stupidity, because we all could not use them at the same time, and it made no sense to destroy the Americans and Chinese several times, and once would be enough. Reasonable sufficiency and unacceptable damage to the enemy is the main criterion when creating our nuclear missile shield. Now it seems that all the strategists have understood, and the fate of the USSR somehow does not want to be repeated, because 30 thousand charges from collapse did not save it.
        1. +1
          1 July 2021 14: 50
          I'm talking about something else, 1500 are not so scary, I think they are not quite enough
          1. -1
            1 July 2021 15: 33
            Quote: Revival
            I'm talking about something else, 1500 are not so scary, I think they are not quite enough

            In peacetime, even in the states, fires cannot be extinguished for a couple of weeks. Now imagine man-made disasters, in the form of the destruction of dangerous industries, dams, plus general chaos, and the slow death of survivors - I think not everyone wants to live in such a time. By the way, the Americans themselves admit that even 100 nuclear charges that hit densely populated areas of their territory at the same time are considered unacceptable for the existence of their state.
            1. 0
              1 July 2021 22: 59
              "The Americans themselves admit that there are even 100 nuclear warheads."

              I have not come across such a statement from the Americans.
              where is it?
              The calculations seemed to be completely different
              1. -1
                2 July 2021 11: 03
                Quote: Revival
                I have not come across such a statement from the Americans.
                where is it?

                There are different calculations, but the threshold of 100 warheads will already destroy the United States, according to American scientists:
                The researchers analyzed the consequences of three possible scenarios - the use of 7000, 1000 and 100 nuclear warheads. They assessed the environmental consequences that will affect the aggressor country.
                The team simulated the behavior of combustible materials to figure out what damage would be during an attack and how much smoke would be released into the atmosphere. The soot particles that have risen into the air will not allow sunlight to pass through, which will cause the temperature to drop, and precipitation will become more scarce. Such changes will lead to a sharp decrease in the amount of food. Even in the best case scenario, the consequences will be serious.
                1000 warheads, as it turned out, will result in only 60% less soot than 7000 - with a decrease in the number of shells, most likely, the most densely populated areas will be hit.
                "Even 100 nuclear warheads are more than enough to cause temperatures to drop colder than at any time in the past thousand years," the authors write.

                https://vpk.name/news/218602_100_boegolovok_kak_pravilno_vesti_yadernuyu_voinu.html
          2. 0
            1 July 2021 17: 33
            Even one is enough, Kim is a witness.
            1. 0
              1 July 2021 23: 01
              For the price of North Korea, it is quite possible, but this is not at all the damage that we are discussing here
              1. 0
                2 July 2021 01: 10
                As noted above, 100 for the eyes is enough to cause irreparable damage if you shoot not at cities and bases, but at industry. Even fifty blocks that have come will be enough to liquidate the key infrastructure in the form of oil, gas (chemistry) and the largest power plants, both here and there. And goodbye to the state. And the threat threshold = 1. And 1500 is to celebrate the new brave world with glamor and splendor. laughing
  12. +2
    30 June 2021 18: 31
    Theoretically, the Displacer-class ships can be equipped with anti-aircraft missile systems for short-range self-defense, but, perhaps, this will be superfluous. Without a normal radar, these air defense systems will be ineffective, and the installation of a radar will immediately increase the cost of the project.

    The overwhelmed "TOP-2m" will be in the very tunic. Yes
    It is possible to mount the combat module directly on the deck. If only rust does not harm.
  13. +10
    30 June 2021 18: 32
    Immediately I remembered the immortal:
    laughing
    1. 0
      30 June 2021 19: 05
      You don't know the classics well. It reads correctly: "Ostap was carrying!"
      1. +1
        30 June 2021 19: 16
        Ostap was carried away. laughing good
      2. 0
        30 June 2021 19: 37
        I apologize for not finding a picture with the exact quote)
    2. +1
      30 June 2021 21: 05
      Are they smoking or eating something? The apricots are gone, and they are pungent too. Maybe green plums?
  14. +4
    30 June 2021 18: 35
    The author forgot the most important weapon for such a ship - the mercaptan-jet cannon, as well as the mercaptan-bomb analogue of RBU, which officially at the international level should not be a dual-use weapon capable of throwing conventional depth charges so that the adversary knows that against him - he can feel free to apply.
  15. +6
    30 June 2021 18: 43
    Better yet, ramming like on ships of the late 19th century. We push it straight to the seabed. :-). Or a "displacer" with a sixth mine. Oh, that's an idea. A displacer with a pole mine and a battering ram. And hang the ship itself with armor, electronic warfare means, and defense against anti-ship missiles. And also a retractable mount (or better with two) with a 76mm gun. And also make it in the stealth style. That is, the adversary will not see him on the radar, but he will swim up unnoticed, and first with a sixth mine, and then with a ram kaaak zhahnet. Nobody would expect that. And at once the entire fleet of NATO and Japan - to the bottom., No modern ship will survive this :-). And name the type of ship "Iyzarg", and rivet a lot of them. After all, Iyzargi have a habit of swarming. It will be lovely.
  16. +3
    30 June 2021 18: 43
    By the way, an interesting proposal to avoid unnecessary waste of resources and possible repair of warships. It would be informative to hear additions or criticisms to the stated theory from the pros. Itself is very far from the Navy.
  17. +8
    30 June 2021 18: 48
    Overall, the proposal is interesting. But, as for the article:
    "In February 1998, the missile cruiser Yorktown and the US Navy destroyer Caron entered the territorial waters of Crimea" - they were mistaken for 10 years, the events unfolded in 1988.
    "This time everything ended well - the British destroyer with the crew soaked in her pants retreated home" - let the author's fantasies about the state of the crew's linen remain on the conscience. According to the video from the defender, the crew is in a fighting mood. Although it is clear that they understand what they are doing.
    "What if the crew of the Su-24M missed a little and a pair of FAB-250 fell on the destroyer Defender?" - you can watch the video posted by the FSB of the Russian Federation, as well as read the interview of the commander of Sushka. On the video, you can hear how when shooting makes fun of "do not hit the defender." Shooting is carried out on a parallel course and from a safe distance. The course and safety are confirmed by both the journalist from the defender ("we hear shots outside the range") and his captain, who is not at all sure that the shooting was fired. On "bombing" - xs where they dropped bombs, there is no video about this. According to the commander Sushka "at a safe distance." On the defender, this bombing was also not noticed, so if they bombed, then it was far enough away so as not to accidentally hit.
    But you didn’t remember the bulk of 1988 in vain, I’ll write about it separately.
  18. +11
    30 June 2021 18: 49
    By the way, we already had some excellent "displacers". This is a Project 68 bis cruiser. The standard displacement is about 13000 tons. Travel speed 32-33 knots. Armored. Such a cruiser could catch up and flang the fuck any "Defender".

    And so that the adversaries do not have the desire to grab for any anti-aircraft machine guns, twelve 152 mm guns aimed at close range is more than a serious argument. You won't let a rocket point-blank, and twelve six-inch shells in one salvo will turn any modern ship to the state of "save our souls, hurry to us."

    And the funny thing is that one such cruiser has survived. "Mikhail Kutuzov". It stands in Novorossiysk as a floating museum.
    1. +5
      30 June 2021 19: 00
      Quote: DenVB
      the funny thing is that one such cruiser has survived. "Mikhail Kutuzov". It stands in Novorossiysk as a floating museum.

      The saddest thing is that the old cruiser "Mikhail Kutuzov" has serious problems with the sheathing of the starboard side, it urgently needs docking and repairs, but there will be no money. The last time "Mikhail Kutuzov" was at the dock repair in 2001. Since then, the ship has been docked at the Novorossiysk berth No. 33 without prophylaxis and is rusting before our eyes. Everything flows, especially the feed. Only the heroic efforts of the crew and technical means do not allow him to drown. The residual thickness of the hull is unknown. Without docking, the cruiser may soon capsize at the wall and carry away the crew and tourists.
      1. +1
        30 June 2021 19: 26
        It is clear that getting it back into operation is already a fantasy. But our passion for scrapping everything that seems outdated has always bothered me. It was quite possible to leave one artillery cruiser per fleet. Rockets are rockets, but in certain situations, powerful guns, armor, and just the mass can be just as useful.
        1. +2
          30 June 2021 20: 59
          These ships and so went until the exhaustion of the resource, it was hardly possible to leave them in the ranks.
  19. +4
    30 June 2021 18: 50
    And by the way, thanks to Rurikovich, why did the author not mention an underwater ram to cause damage below the waterline in the area of ​​the enemy's engine compartments? And add a harpoon cannon or grappling hooks so that the immobilized and drowning foe can be dragged into their waters in shallow water for clarity of violation of the state border! drinks
  20. +1
    30 June 2021 18: 50
    with humor, the author is fine
  21. +4
    30 June 2021 18: 51
    Is the author not afraid that the PRC, for example, will use the idea?
    By the way, it will work against poachers, too, because high speed is almost a decisive factor.
    Here are just a small number of demanded "Displacers" can make them expensive.
  22. +7
    30 June 2021 18: 57
    Briefly about the essence of the contradiction:
    "The background of this case is as follows. The fact is that Soviet and American specialists had completely different approaches to where exactly the 12-mile zone of territorial waters should be counted from. The Americans adhered (and still adhere to) the point of view that counting should be taken from each point of the coastline. Soviet experts proceeded from the fact that the countdown should be taken from the so-called baseline. Difficulties arose with bays, etc. So, when a bay juts out into the coast, inside of which there was a peculiar " the language of "neutral waters, foreign ships were able to freely conduct radio-technical reconnaissance. The Soviet approach to counting the boundaries of territorial waters excluded such a possibility. In such cases, Soviet specialists measured the territorial waters from the line connecting the entrance capes of such bays. Thus, according to the Soviet version, the "language" of neutral waters in the bays did not form. The Americans did not like this and they were naked They have clearly demonstrated this more than once, both in the Black Sea and in the Far East, almost every year sending their warships to such zones for conducting radio-technical reconnaissance. At the same time, the American ships did not react in any way to the signals of the Soviet maritime border guards and passed into areas considered by the Soviet side to be their own territorial waters. They did this always demonstratively, entering the Soviet territorial waters without any need for navigation, motivating their actions by the presence of the right of "free passage." So, we have more than one place like this. Many will probably remember how, not later than a year ago, an American destroyer violated the border in the Far East with the same logic. That is, there is a different understanding of where the sea border passes. (and now the British) are simply making a demonstrative entry into that part of our tervods, which they consider to be neutral waters. Such a zigzag does not make any economic (fuel economy) or navigational (shortening of the route) sense. PS FSB Well, that is: "but we have the right, and we will use it to spite you."
  23. +2
    30 June 2021 19: 04
    I propose to name the ship project "Dubinushka"
  24. -2
    30 June 2021 19: 06
    In February 1998, the missile cruiser Yorktown and the US Navy destroyer Caron entered the territorial waters of Crimea, but were expelled from them by the patrol ships Selfless and SKR-6.

    Maybe 1988?
  25. 0
    30 June 2021 19: 08
    It is better to use barges in which the contents of the naval latrines are taken out. The Yankees will stay away from them.
  26. +3
    30 June 2021 19: 13
    In general, it would be nice to have training sea mines that explode with paint like paintball. The enemy floats where it is not necessary, and we change the course for him on a dangerous course. They did not hear, bam, and already in the minefield, and the ship is already painted in cheerful colors, with mines calling out along the path of movement. And we are nothing we are nothing. Warned, it's dangerous. Well, we have not forgotten the real mine there, or have forgotten.
  27. +7
    30 June 2021 19: 14
    Well and more. In order not to go too deeply into the law of the sea, geography and geometry, it can be simplified to say that the "controversial" site is something like a semicircle, the arc of which is on the side of the coast. In the course of a provocation, the intruder crosses the border (according to our version, that is, the "diameter" of the semicircle) and moves to the border according to their version (the "arc" of the semicircle), and then turns away from the coast. Those. further in their explanations it will look exactly so that they have not violated any boundary. Which is true with their interpretation of the border of the tervod, but wrong from our point of view. From this it is possible to draw conclusions: 1) an American / Englishman will leave our terrorists in the near future after the border violation; 2) the violator will in any case turn away from the coast towards the border (according to our version) and leave our tervod; 3) if he comes in and out of our tervods, this will already be a successful provocation; 4) all these requests / threats / overflights / shooting are not at all a fact that they somehow affect the course of the offender (after - does not mean as a result); 5) a dignified suppression of provocation - this is in 1988, when they seriously and brutally simply were not allowed to go where, as we think, our border passes; 6) arranging a half-hour show with negotiations, flights and sea tours is good PR and, most importantly, it is quite safe. The main thing is "don't get into the defender". And so he himself will leave in half an hour, and our stormy activity will look like heroism.
  28. +3
    30 June 2021 19: 15
    What is unrealistic about this project? Everything is real. But the level of comments inspires. It seems that commentators with the Censor have gathered here. Not. laughing laughing
    1. +4
      30 June 2021 19: 55
      Quote: avia12005
      What is unrealistic about this project? Everything is real. But the level of comments inspires. It seems that commentators with the Censor have gathered here. Not. laughing laughing

      one thing is unrealistic here - money. we have few of them. any undership will eat money for the project, construction and, most importantly, operation. even for two points (Crimea and Vladivostok), at least 8 pieces are needed. (one is on duty, one goes to shift, one bunkers does maintenance. one is under repair. 8 !!!! crews and parking places !!! even rich Americans cannot afford it and do not want to. because they understand - if you are not they hear that it is necessary to drown, humanity does not understand another.
      1. +4
        1 July 2021 06: 09
        To be honest, I didn’t write about whether the project has flaws or not. And about how zealously and impolitely, without any justification, they scoff in the comments. This is not a VO level, this is a bazaar.
        1. +2
          1 July 2021 06: 55
          Quote: avia12005
          To be honest, I didn’t write about whether the project has flaws or not. And about how zealously and impolitely, without any justification, they scoff in the comments. This is not a VO level, this is a bazaar.

          I agree with that
      2. 0
        1 July 2021 13: 37
        Quote: vl903
        Quote: avia12005
        What is unrealistic about this project? Everything is real. But the level of comments inspires. It seems that commentators with the Censor have gathered here. Not. laughing laughing

        one thing is unrealistic here - money. we have few of them. any undership will eat money for the project, construction and, most importantly, operation. even for two points (Crimea and Vladivostok), at least 8 pieces are needed. (one is on duty, one goes to shift, one bunkers does maintenance. one is under repair. 8 !!!! crews and parking places !!! even rich Americans cannot afford it and do not want to. because they understand - if you are not they hear that it is necessary to drown, humanity does not understand another.


        And it is rather not the fleet that needs, but the border troops of the FSB. So the fleet money will remain with him.

        8 is overkill, a pair is enough to start with. After all, this is not a patrol ship, it can be used in a special situation, there is no need for it to hang out at sea all the time, to advance in advance according to information from air reconnaissance. So to say "drive the foe".

        PMSM - a couple of broken-down destroyers and the enemy will stay away from our borders.
        1. +1
          1 July 2021 13: 49
          1. the enemy is not stupid, he will not substitute - ten will not be enough to drive, for example, "sea breeze" today
          2. The FSB fleet in wartime goes to the Navy
          3. FSB softness is needed only with occasional unintentional violators and fishermen.
          4.The military ship is well armed on a planned and deliberate basis showing that it only needs to punish the whole Russian Federation. All other sabotage against the people of the Russian Federation will entail economic costs and losses abroad, as everyone sees that no one will defend the honor of the Russian Federation at sea.
          5 nothing in the world better than a volley into the side has not come up with. all who thought otherwise died out.
    2. +2
      30 June 2021 21: 04
      The author proposes a low displacement, more likely it is necessary from 5000 tons, otherwise the "displacer" itself can be displaced.
  29. +1
    30 June 2021 19: 15
    Great title. I would call the project “sawing”, but to make it easier to call it in a combat situation, I would reduce it to: project “sawing”.
  30. +1
    30 June 2021 19: 17
    the same nonsense as traumatism - rubber shooters. scoundrels want to kill you, rob you and you must not exceed the limits of the necessary self-defense. Well, all right, the citizens of your country can be held for slaves, fools, but in the world it does not work. you either drown the insolent person or suck the leg of a dead rabbit. "international rules" are invented by the Angles and the Americans. tomorrow they will say that the bulk in their opinion is a war. and instead of normal frigates, we will be left with troughs. the one who is afraid of war and war will receive.
    1. 0
      1 July 2021 13: 24
      Quote: vl903
      the same nonsense as traumatism - rubber shooters. scoundrels want to kill you, rob you and you must not exceed the limits of the necessary self-defense. Well, all right, the citizens of your country can be held for slaves, fools, but in the world it does not work. you either drown the insolent person or suck the leg of a dead rabbit. "international rules" are invented by the Angles and the Americans. tomorrow they will say that the bulk in their opinion is a war. and instead of normal frigates, we will be left with troughs. the one who is afraid of war and war will receive.


      Injuries may be delusional, but not all non-lethal weapons are delusional - for example, gas cartridges and stun guns. Situations when the enemy must be stopped, but not killed, arise quite often. And in them, the use of military weapons will bring more problems than benefits.

      The "displacer" is just such a "non-lethal" weapon.
      1. 0
        1 July 2021 13: 38
        1. Our Navy is in dire need of lethal weapons.
        2.Enemy soldier, sailor, navy is not a peaceful demonstration
        3.world experience just screams that rubber shooters and military men who behave like women do tens of times more harm than normal pistols and ships because they only provoke the bastards to continue provocations because we start to play giveaway, or according to their rules
        1. 0
          1 July 2021 13: 40
          Quote: vl903
          1. Our Navy is in dire need of lethal weapons.
          2.Enemy soldier, sailor, navy is not a peaceful demonstration
          3.world experience just screams that rubber shooters and military men who behave like women do tens of times more harm than normal pistols and ships because they only provoke the bastards to continue provocations because we start to play giveaway, or according to their rules


          1. The border service of the FSB.
          2. But this is not a war yet, and we must do so that it does not start.
          3. Yes from rubber arrows (although I will not voluntarily give up mine), but "Displacer" is just "not giveaway". This is tough aggression, but cunning - we do not use weapons, we sail "peacefully" wherever we want. Well, have you encountered? So it often happens, it's not our fault that our ship is made of steel, and your ship is made of aluminum and went at the seams?
          1. 0
            1 July 2021 13: 59
            Quote: AVM
            Quote: vl903
            1. Our Navy is in dire need of lethal weapons.
            2.Enemy soldier, sailor, navy is not a peaceful demonstration
            3.world experience just screams that rubber shooters and military men who behave like women do tens of times more harm than normal pistols and ships because they only provoke the bastards to continue provocations because we start to play giveaway, or according to their rules


            1. The border service of the FSB.
            2. But this is not a war yet, and we must do so that it does not start.
            3. Yes from rubber arrows (although I will not voluntarily give up mine), but "Displacer" is just "not giveaway". This is tough aggression, but cunning - we do not use weapons, we sail "peacefully" wherever we want. Well, have you encountered? So it often happens, it's not our fault that our ship is made of steel, and your ship is made of aluminum and went at the seams?

            by doing this you will only deceive yourself. the war never starts only because of the death of a ship or a soldier. it is a consumable for politicians. If the Anglo-Saxons have confidence in the profitability of war, nothing will deter them. therefore, the fear of damaging their ship is an unnecessary self-deception. Well, the scratched sides were enough to start the Vietnam War. Well, once again during the war, the border guards go to the army. A naval displacer is not needed. And there are no necessary ships, so the Displacer ate up the resources. A medal for the captain of the English destroyer - he not only carried out a provocation, but was also able to count the sinking of several of our corvettes with the help of spending on the Displacers
  31. +5
    30 June 2021 19: 19
    Something similar was built at the end of the 19th century.
  32. +3
    30 June 2021 19: 23
    Phew, cool! It is proposed to create a new class of ships - "pusher" or "pusher" with armament of the team with hooks.
  33. +8
    30 June 2021 19: 26
    Andrey Mitrofanov, you seem to be claiming the status of a serious author. Why this feuilleton? Of course, I laughed like a horse for 8 minutes, which probably extended my life, but you can't write such enchanting crap without smiles. Recently they laughed at an atomic armored ram and they are offering something similar with a serious air.
    I will criticize in response, 35 knots are not enough, hundreds of Displacers will have to be built, so the Displacer must be built in the form of a double-hull ekranoplan (naturally armored, the speed is not less than 150 knots) and displaced by landing on the enemy by the inter-hull space. Then the crew of the Displacer goes outside and quickly welds the Displacer behind special areas to the intruder with electrode welding. After, the Propeller tows the intruder into international waters, the crew leaves again, cuts off the intruder at the welds with powerful laser grinders and the Propeller calmly returns to patrolling. Something like that wassat
    1. +4
      30 June 2021 19: 37
      I just thought, something has carried me. What the fuck is welding? Long, dangerous, impossible in fresh weather. There is a better idea. It is necessary to build an ekranoplan with a variable interbody distance. On the principle of a vice. They drove onto the intruder, moved the armored hull and squeezed it. good
    2. +2
      30 June 2021 19: 40
      Auto is absolutely right in proposing to use catamaran-type vessels as a displacer, catamarans ferries have high speed and good seaworthiness, for example, the Francisco ferry catamaran, develops a speed of over 100 km / h. the ships will lose their speed, and, what is especially important, the weapon will not be used, the displacer itself does not need any weapon, while it will be orders of magnitude cheaper than the destroyer. By the way, then it is possible that the intruder's ship will have to be towed quite far away from the customer
      1. 0
        30 June 2021 19: 46
        Ask a simple question, how many displacers do you need to build? And then the second, where to base them? Calculate the cost and immediately stop talking seriously about this topic.
        1. +1
          30 June 2021 21: 07
          Given their high speed, for the entire Black Sea, there will be enough steam.
  34. +2
    30 June 2021 19: 39
    It is better to use an electromagnetic bump. People are safe, the khan's electronics, the ship is helpless, there is nothing to start a war for ...
    1. +5
      30 June 2021 20: 10
      Quote: MooH
      Let the simple question be, how many displacers do you need to build?

      Answer - for Crimea, perhaps one displacer will be enough
      and then it will be known in advance about the approach of a potential intruder
      and then a catamaran sharpened only for "displacement" is simply two floats connected by beams, a turbine engine (possibly a platform for a helicopter) and a minimum cruising range, such a ship can be built quickly and inexpensively.
      1. -2
        1 July 2021 00: 42
        the approach of a potential intruder will be known in advance

        From social networks? or by mail? Ahhh, I get it, the over-the-horizon radar will help.
        1. The length of the coastline of the Crimea exceeds 2500 kilometers. What speed should a single Displacer have?
        2. What to do if there are two potential offenders and the distance between them is 1000 km? And if more than two?
        3. What to do if the Displacer is under repair, the crew on the shore or the fuel is out? The power reserve is minimal.
        4. Do you know how much one M90FR turbine costs? And how many of them can the UEC do per year?
        Only an armored ekranoplan with a nuclear reactor will help. And there are at least 4 of those pieces. For one intruder. For two at least 6. Damn, what if the enemy also has means of electronic intelligence? He will also be able to calculate patrol routes for ekranoplanes. There is either full stealth or 8-10 pieces on patrol and at least the same number in the base are resting and serviced. Then can we order a supersonic armored ekranoplan? Or just a satellite Displacer?
        1. +1
          1 July 2021 13: 45
          Quote: MooH
          the approach of a potential intruder will be known in advance

          From social networks? or by mail? Ahhh, I get it, the over-the-horizon radar will help.
          1. The length of the coastline of the Crimea exceeds 2500 kilometers. What speed should a single Displacer have?
          2. What to do if there are two potential offenders and the distance between them is 1000 km? And if more than two?
          3. What to do if the Displacer is under repair, the crew on the shore or the fuel is out? The power reserve is minimal.
          4. Do you know how much one M90FR turbine costs? And how many of them can the UEC do per year?
          Only an armored ekranoplan with a nuclear reactor will help. And there are at least 4 of those pieces. For one intruder. For two at least 6. Damn, what if the enemy also has means of electronic intelligence? He will also be able to calculate patrol routes for ekranoplanes. There is either full stealth or 8-10 pieces on patrol and at least the same number in the base are resting and serviced. Then can we order a supersonic armored ekranoplan? Or just a satellite Displacer?


          1. The appearance of NATO ships and their approximate route is known in advance from the radar and aerial reconnaissance. Otherwise, how would we have met Defender then?
          2. Fuck at least one that is more expensive. If they want to repair one ship every time - their right.
          3. The same as now. It can also work as a deterrent. They don't know for sure whether he can come out or not? And the power reserve is a relative concept - it is not enough for ocean trips, but at its borders it is abundant.
          4. There is a problem with turbines, I agree, but there may be another option.
          1. 0
            1 July 2021 14: 30
            Otherwise, how would we have met Defender then?

            The ship was on patrol in this square. It was not from the base that he was going to intercept.
            Fuck at least one, the one that is more expensive

            And if he does not violate? and break the one that is cheaper and is 1000 km away?
            Same as now

            It's too lazy to count how many patrol ships there are in the Crimea, but by simple logic there should be about the same number of displacers. When the speeds are equal, it is natural. There can be fewer high-speed displacers, 15-20 pieces for Crimea.
            There is a problem with turbines, I agree, but there may be another option.

            Yes, I already found it. Read above. Atomic armored ekranoplan. Preferably supersonic and stealth at the same time.
    2. 0
      30 June 2021 21: 10
      That is, equip the ship with powerful electronic warfare equipment?
  35. +1
    30 June 2021 20: 27
    And also a catapult to throw potato peelings!
  36. +1
    30 June 2021 20: 34
    One of the most entertaining articles in recent memory! It is ironic that despite this, I did not finish reading.

    There is only one minus. Hurry up! It was necessary to go to sea on April 1st on the Displacer.

    PS. kamenty burn stronger articles!
  37. 0
    30 June 2021 20: 34
    ... Meanwhile, the SKR-6 collapsed on the port side in the stern of the destroyer Caron, damaging his lifeboat and davit.

    The author is simply not aware that as a result of this pile, the SKR-6 became completely unusable, could not be restored and was cut into metal.
    1. +1
      1 July 2021 13: 47
      Quote: Avior
      ... Meanwhile, the SKR-6 collapsed on the port side in the stern of the destroyer Caron, damaging his lifeboat and davit.

      The author is simply not aware that as a result of this pile, the SKR-6 became completely unusable, could not be restored and was cut into metal.


      It is logical, but there is a difference in displacement by 8 times. In the case of a specialized ship with a reinforced structure designed specifically for bulk, everything can be the other way around. Defender will go to write-off when it turns out that all the structures led him and its further operation is simply dangerous. And he very expensive.
      1. 0
        1 July 2021 14: 01
        And why is all this?
        Huge money for an expensive Ship - read the ultra-fast heavy-duty icebreaker
        Despite the fact that the same Defender would have just left the terrorist without any bulk, he was not going to live there.
        If it comes to hostilities, then this icebreaker will not be useful to anything
  38. +2
    30 June 2021 20: 40
    Tomorrow is July 1st, not April.
  39. 0
    30 June 2021 20: 43
    Could it be easier to build a galley? There is also a crew member who has been plowing like a "crab in galleys" for a long time.
  40. 0
    30 June 2021 20: 51
    Lieutenant Ivanov was shot in the air .... and missed.
  41. 0
    30 June 2021 21: 06
    What a displacer ... What nonsense?
    The very idea of ​​entering terrorists should supplant it.
    It should initially seem frivolous to the enemy due to the destruction of the intruder ship at once. From the shore / air / from under the water.
    Displacer ...
    Although, as a shipbuilder to me, the more you order anything, the better.
    At least a displacer, at least a desalination plant, at least a hundred thousand tons of airborne.
    1. 0
      1 July 2021 13: 49
      Quote: Petrol cutter
      What a displacer ... What nonsense?
      The very idea of ​​entering terrorists should supplant it.
      It should initially seem frivolous to the enemy due to the destruction of the intruder ship at once. From the shore / air / from under the water.
      Displacer ...
      Although, as a shipbuilder to me, the more you order anything, the better.
      At least a displacer, at least a desalination plant, at least a hundred thousand tons of airborne.


      And how to do it? At all times there have been such provocations - by aviation, ships. And sanctions, isolation as a result of a tough rebuff.
  42. 0
    30 June 2021 21: 22
    After reading this "cranberry" a song started spinning in my head


    "Horses mixed in a bunch, people,

    And the volleys of a thousand guns

    Merged into a lingering howl "
  43. +1
    30 June 2021 21: 24
    Why not dream after watching Hollywood action movies about the Terminator
  44. -4
    30 June 2021 21: 26
    A large article, many letters, but there is absolutely no mention of Articles 17-19 of the 1992 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which guarantees the right of free passage of ships of any state through the territorial waters, subject to several simple conditions that Her Majesty's destroyer Defender was complied with. The Russian Federation violated the Convention by threatening to use force against the ship, which, according to another article, also has "warship immunity." It is clear that such saber rattling is designed only for an internal hurray-patriotic effect, but such actions can only harm the reputation of the state, which is wiping up the Convention it ratified, and the consequences can be very deplorable, because so far no one has tried to block the passage of Russian ships through the Bosphorus. Gibraltar or the English Channel, but these are "enemy" NATO waters! Foolish and shortsighted, Mr. Putin ...
    1. +3
      30 June 2021 22: 20
      Quote: Torvlobnor IV
      Foolish and shortsighted, Mr. Putin ...

      First I wanted to point out to you that you are wrong about the tervods. But then I saw that you are communicating with Putin on VO, and I realized that it was not worth it
      1. -1
        30 June 2021 22: 34
        It was a rhetorical appeal, if you know what I mean. In general, judging by the articles about the Defender incident, not to mention the comments to them, few people have heard about the Convention on the Law of the Sea and even less understand the meaning of the concept of innocent passage.
    2. +1
      1 July 2021 01: 49
      The passage of Russian ships through the Straits of Gibraltar and Dover is a "transit passage", not a "innocent passage". Another article. On the Bosphorus there is generally a separate Montreux convention. Regarding the innocent passage, it would be interesting to try to pass a Russian warship not through the straits, but simply taxi into British territorial waters somewhere near the Thames estuary. Like, "peaceful passage". See how they react. If they do not react in any way, then we also need to calmly react to their passages. Just watch.

      And so, in the sense of the articles you mentioned, a paradox turns out. It is possible to pass peacefully, but only if it is not a threat to the state through whose waters the passage is made. If the purpose of passing through other people's waters is not just to get somewhere as quickly as possible, but to prove your right to walk here unrestrained, then this can already be interpreted as a hostile motive, a "threat by force." This means that such fun is not a "peaceful passage". Inconsistent paragraphs. As, however, it often happens in the so-called. "international law".
      1. +1
        1 July 2021 11: 46
        If you "just taxi" in the Thames estuary, it will not be a peaceful passage. The ship should be heading to the destination without slowing down. Defender did just that - it went to the port of Batumi, skirting around the Crimean Peninsula, without turning anywhere or slowing down. The border guards saw that the ship, at the current course and speed, would leave the therweds itself, but an order was received to arrange a circus with shooting and bombing.
  45. 0
    30 June 2021 21: 28
    Divorce for "promising" OCD?
  46. +1
    30 June 2021 21: 34
    There are a lot of ironic comments, to put it mildly, but no one suggested anything sensible.
    But there really is a problem. Of the two options: open fire to kill or simply ram the ship, the second option is still preferable.
    Yes, a ship the size of a frigate is a bit too much.
    But this option: there are patrol boats of the project 12200, a little over 50 tons, a maximum speed of 47 knots, has an AK-306. Replace the aluminum body with a reinforced steel one - the speed will naturally drop, but 35-37 knots will give anyway. Remove the crew and make it fully robotic, controlled from the border ship. Maybe shoot a cannon if that. If it is necessary to ram any ship at a right angle, the Americans will not send tea to Iowa or Missouri. Two or three ships in each fleet will not be very burdensome
    In any case, it is better than ramming with a warship worth several tens of billions of rubles.
    1. 0
      30 June 2021 21: 39
      On the contrary, it should be a fairly large ship, larger than a frigate, with electronic warfare equipment.
    2. 0
      30 June 2021 21: 50
      We have useless 22160. Cover the sides with tires in the manner of tugs - and let them force them out.
      1. 0
        1 July 2021 21: 08
        Cook a kenguryatnik from jypa.
    3. 0
      30 June 2021 22: 02
      My option is preferable.
      Replace the hulls with steel ones! ... This is a utopia.
      It is not possible to do so. That is, it is possible. But why? Believe me, the game will not be worth the candle. Omitting all the details.
      Easier to build new ones.
      Again, why? What rams?
      What piles? The twenty-first century in the yard! ...
    4. 0
      1 July 2021 07: 04
      what is better? once in 20-50 years to spend one missile or build unnecessary ships and still walk in the role of a third-rate state that is afraid to punish the enemy?
    5. 0
      1 July 2021 13: 52
      Quote: mister-red
      There are a lot of ironic comments, to put it mildly, but no one suggested anything sensible.
      But there really is a problem. Of the two options: open fire to kill or simply ram the ship, the second option is still preferable.
      Yes, a ship the size of a frigate is a bit too much.
      But this option: there are patrol boats of the project 12200, a little over 50 tons, a maximum speed of 47 knots, has an AK-306. Replace the aluminum body with a reinforced steel one - the speed will naturally drop, but 35-37 knots will give anyway. Remove the crew and make it fully robotic, controlled from the border ship. Maybe shoot a cannon if that. If it is necessary to ram any ship at a right angle, the Americans will not send tea to Iowa or Missouri. Two or three ships in each fleet will not be very burdensome
      In any case, it is better than ramming with a warship worth several tens of billions of rubles.


      Everything is interesting, but I'm afraid that a fully robotic one can drown out electronic warfare interference. Although, there are options - communication redundancy - radio communication in several bands, satellite and optical laser communication lines from the escort ship.
    6. +1
      1 July 2021 13: 54
      Quote: mister-red
      There are a lot of ironic comments, to put it mildly, but no one suggested anything sensible.


      Offered
      Quote: chenia
      Fuck a ram. We take a fast ship with cisterns filled with shit. Console with piping and powerful pumps.
      So we are approaching, the console is above the intruder. And in a matter of seconds, tons of shit on deck.


      Quote: Petrol cutter
      My option is preferable.


      And my version is absolute and inexpensive.

      Quote: BAI
      , wrote that we need an ejector ship. Overton window. From categorical rejection, finally ripe for discussion. Although, judging by the comments, not everyone is ripe.


      Better ship (ship, tongue does not turn) - strategic shit carrier (as already suggested to call it).

      Effect from application spiritstunning. Subsequently, it is possible to use the victim of the attack only in high latitudes (in the tropics, there is not enough deodorant to clog the stench).
      The victim's crew will not look like heroes (they say they survived the ram, the anchor passed a centimeter from the ear because of us, the 3rd world war could begin, etc.). On the contrary, be quietly silent, and quickly call the name of the ship on which he served - their own will laugh.

      And the third world war will definitely not start.
      And in a place of horror, laughter and fun.
    7. SIT
      0
      1 July 2021 19: 10
      If Iowa and Missouri are not sent, then a series of depth charges, which are in the warehouse from the Second World War, dropped 100m along the side of any modern HMS, even a USS c slightly less ancient than bombs, but still available, BE12 will lead to a disruption from the mountings and foundations on the destroyer heaps of expensive crap. After that, this representative of our sworn partners will go straight for repairs worth under a hundred million dollars. From our side, on the contrary, saving funds for the disposal of antediluvian ammunition and a dozen tons of kerosene. And let the border guards put out a box of cognac for the BE12 crew from their salaries.
  47. BAI
    +5
    30 June 2021 21: 35
    Oh, how many minuses I caught and accusations of incompetence when, to the "program articles" on the construction of the fleet in general and aircraft carriers in particular, I wrote that we need an ejector ship. Overton window. From categorical rejection, finally ripe for discussion. Although, judging by the comments, not everyone is ripe. As you know, a person is 80% liquid. Apparently - for many it is inhibitory.
    1. 0
      30 June 2021 21: 37
      An artillery high-speed lightly armored electronic warfare cruiser?
  48. +2
    30 June 2021 21: 40
    Unlike the author of a long and clever article, I will try to offer an alternative. It is much cheaper and more efficient to use weapons based on "new physical principles". It is required to have a link of An-2 (corn workers) equipped with the appropriate spray and drainage devices (I do not know how they are called correctly, specialists from agricultural aviation will correct it). Refueling can be very varied, depending on the imagination - dust, slurry, etc., etc. If the pursuit boats accelerate the "foe" to 30 knots, then the "cornmen" will be able to almost hover over the deck of the intruder ship and aiming to use almost one and a half tons of special equipment available on board.
  49. +1
    30 June 2021 21: 47
    Nonsense, but normal TFRs and destroyers, at least the old projects are not ...? They are so bad with a new "filling". One "Yantar", 5 pcs. BDK (according to the Western classification of the RKR) a year "riveted" until "effective managers" from the capital did not get to it. A bicycle "can be invented when you have nowhere to put the dough, and you have everything else in abundance. What is bad, for example, PSKR Pr.11351, which has something to" scare "anyone, i.e. at the World Cup, without resorting to bulk And it’s problematic to run away from him. ”It seems to be adults, but you publish such nonsense here, it’s even a shame to discuss it.
  50. -1
    30 June 2021 21: 58
    As the main weapon of the "Displacer" breakthrough project, I propose to use the "flugegenheimen".
    The captain of this destroyer, arm, respectively, with a reduced copy.
  51. The comment was deleted.
  52. -1
    30 June 2021 22: 31
    Thank you very much, I laughed heartily!
  53. +2
    30 June 2021 22: 58
    A nuclear icebreaker is enough)))
  54. -5
    30 June 2021 23: 14
    What if the enemy copies the idea of ​​this “displacer” and invades our waters on his “vitisnitele”
  55. +2
    30 June 2021 23: 19
    An interesting idea, but it went the wrong way.

    An unmanned armored tug with a very powerful engine. Either move it off course or break the hull.

    No weapons at all. According to the documents and tracker - a tugboat.

    The hull is designed for ramming impacts, blunt nose, 45 degree sides. A nose strike at full speed should be devastating. The sides, sloping at 45 degrees, are equipped with spikes-hooks to push the ship to the floor at an angle of 45.

    Actually, that's all. The ship either sinks the enemy ship by collision, or pushes any ship off course and escorts it out of territorial waters.

    In the event of an attack, the response flies from the shore.
    1. 0
      1 July 2021 16: 19
      Everything had already been invented before us, even in the ancient world there were triremes, and at the end of the 18th century armadillos with a “fang” for this purpose, but it didn’t really help, and the speed of such a “tug” should, judging by recent events, be more than 30 knots, it’s easier and cheaper to get by with a torpedo.
  56. +1
    30 June 2021 23: 20
    What if, after the Su-24M was shot down, anti-ship missiles (ASMs) were fired at the Defender destroyer, which would send it to the bottom along with most of the crew? Wouldn't this destroyer be the "assassination of Archduke Ferdinand" - Casus belli?


    Is it possible to somehow wean our “partners” from poking their noses into our territorial waters without the use of weapons?


    This is the condition of the problem. Questions:

    1. Isn't the deliberate ramming of a warship a "Casus belli"? There is no doubt that it will be considered deliberate.
    2. How is the inevitable meeting of the ram with the “victim” ensured? It is clear that if an adversary is taking the shortest route from Odessa to Batumi, one can predict the meeting place. What if he walks past and then suddenly turns sharply towards the border? Or should the ram accompany all potential intruders?
    3. What if there are several potential violators, and everyone goes to violate the border? While you are chasing one, he can turn away into neutral waters, and in the meantime the other intruder will do his dirty deed. So you need several rams?
    4. If the task is formulated as “to wean our “partners” from poking their noses into our territorial waters without the use of weapons,” then what kind of machine guns, cannons and RBU can we talk about? Protection against boarding: thick metal and battened hatches; the very fact of boarding can just be documented as an “unprovoked attack.” Especially if they are trying to board a purely peaceful, unarmed vessel, belonging, for example, to a non-profit environmental organization.
    5. Maybe you should not try to ram the intruder, but substitute your “ram” so that he will be rammed. There is a greater chance of inflicting non-fatal, but significant damage to the adversary, as well as playing the “victim” position.

    If we think seriously, then a real attempt to create some kind of “displacers” could only multiply the effect of the perfect provocation.
    1. +1
      30 June 2021 23: 29
      Globally, you are right. If we answer, then “according to all the rules.” The first one is in the air, the second one is to kill.

      But just giving the order to sink a British or American destroyer is not enough eggs for everyone. But pushing it out of territorial waters with a tug is much easier.
  57. The comment was deleted.
  58. +1
    1 July 2021 00: 02
    It was already written somewhere here: why are there any specialized displacers? Use one helicopter or plane to drop anti-submarine bombs on course. The second one is to “hover” next to the navigation bridge. Well, at worst, which 20380 or 22460 (there are 6 of them in the region!) should be accompanied.

    Moreover, instead of designing, it is better to build an extra 20380. Or invest in increasing the maximum speed of them and the mentioned 22460.

    In general, I think that first you need to think about how to solve the problem with cash. If it doesn’t work out, how to solve it with minimal modifications or with modifications of all means. And if none of this fits, then yes, design something new.
  59. The comment was deleted.
  60. +2
    1 July 2021 00: 07
    It seems that the author did not understand anything.

    What was the main factor that made small ships chase away big ships in 1988? Strength of mind. Exactly the same factor made it possible to win air duels during the war, when one went to ram to the end, and his opponent turned away at the last moment. And they didn’t build special, “ramming” aircraft for such special operations.

    The same Maresyev, the prototype of the famous story, solely thanks to the strength of the spirit, was able not only to stay alive, return to his people, but again rise into the sky.

    What does the author do? The author pays tribute to the historical feat and immediately begins to invent a specialized wunderwaffle. Why does the author invent the wunderwaffle? To reduce the risks as much as possible, if something similar happens in the future. The author understands well that in a situation where it is necessary to show strength of spirit, he, with the help of clever mechanical devices, tries to “lay out straws”? The author understands well that force majeure cannot be fully foreseen, which means it is impossible to give an answer to it “in metal” in advance? But the worst thing is that the author does not seem to understand that the desire to “spread the straw” in advance betrays the uncertainty that, if necessary, the actions of the crew in the future will be no less effective than examples from the past, and therefore, therefore, they need to “help” them in advance with prodigies specialized for a specific task. It’s time to remember that personnel decides everything, while any technology is, although a useful tool. And it depends only on the personnel how effectively this tool will be used. And will it be used at all, which, for example, did not happen on August 19, 1991, although it was easier to do than steamed turnips. But it was then that I just didn’t have enough spirit. We must not forget what is important and what is secondary.
  61. 0
    1 July 2021 00: 22
    Why ram something that you can’t shoot. What the hell.
  62. 0
    1 July 2021 00: 59
    Return the rams right away :) Like on armadillos)
  63. +1
    1 July 2021 02: 39
    What can I say/add..
    All these “displacers”, except humor, are from weakness...
    Not a single one ... ... .. goes into the United States to dispute territory, or at least I don’t know.
    And this is not due to the presence of “displacers/pissers” in the United States...
    So here it is ..
  64. +1
    1 July 2021 04: 38
    You don't need a displacer, you just need to heat it.
  65. 0
    1 July 2021 06: 53
    Fun article. I would also add, in addition to the aerial drone, the underwater drone. I would call it - TresuPets or Kapets. Better yet, I drew a holographic skull with bones along the way.
  66. The comment was deleted.
  67. +5
    1 July 2021 07: 12
    with the crew wet their pants...

    Did the Donald Cook Witnesses sect hold another candle? lol

    decided to turn in the other direction...

    360 degrees visible. wassat
  68. +1
    1 July 2021 07: 12
    The Displacer project is not too complex from a technical point of view. It does not contain any technologies not mastered by Russia. On the one hand, it is practically useless as a warship,

    Well it is more like Yes.
    And how can we end this? No?))
    1. +1
      1 July 2021 08: 10
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      Project . On the one hand, it is practically useless as a warship,

      But a tanker is useless as an icebreaker, and an icebreaker is useless as a steamship, and a steamship is useless as a pipe layer, and this is clear to everyone, with the exception of some military men who believe that a universal Swede, a reaper, a player on the pipe will be better than each individual.
  69. 0
    1 July 2021 10: 02
    In development of the topic. The approach must be creative. Fuck the ram. We take a fast ship with tanks filled with shit. Console with pipeline and powerful pumps.
    So we are approaching, the console is above the intruder. And in a matter of seconds, tons of shit on deck.

    Let them wash themselves laughing
    After this, a statement. that this or that power is reviving its traditions will not follow.
    And those who want to repeat it will greatly decrease. And the approach of such a ship (well, don’t call it a ship) to the violator (after at least one incident). will immediately cause panic there, and certainly a sharp change in course.
    1. +1
      1 July 2021 11: 23
      Yes, this is just a new class of ships: a fast ship!
      Based on the scale of impact, you can immediately add the prefix “strategic”.
      Without a doubt, your proposal is simply the apotheosis of this discussion.
  70. 0
    1 July 2021 10: 47
    Why is it, if all the same, as the author writes, other ships will cover it? Taking up space at the base?
  71. 0
    1 July 2021 14: 35
    building special ships that are useless in other situations is stupid IMHO. It’s better to drop cheap drones on the deck; you can also use large ones based on obsolete/worn-out aircraft that are being written off. You can always blame it on operator error/program failure.
    1. 0
      1 July 2021 15: 08
      Quote: morose
      new class of ships: fast ship!

      And if you make an underwater drone with a large capacity and long range, then this will be a new class of weapon
  72. +1
    1 July 2021 15: 01
    Actually, almost. A highly specialized ship is expensive, even if it is cheap. Must combine the tasks of a patrol ship, then it’s fine. And not for the Navy, but for the FSB, which themselves guard the border.
  73. -2
    1 July 2021 15: 38
    What kind of stupid nonsense this author writes, although such is the author and the work, there is nothing to be surprised about.
  74. The comment was deleted.
  75. 0
    1 July 2021 17: 27
    Too much money wasted on a useless waste.

    Torpedo with a chain on floats (and a shark fin for good identification). A torpedo boat (even an unmanned one) overtakes any enemy trough and fires a torpedo across the course, or the enemy turns off or winds the chain around the propellers.
    1. 0
      4 July 2021 12: 39
      A torpedo is too similar to a military weapon and can provoke a retaliatory strike, which in this case no one needs.
  76. 0
    1 July 2021 19: 22
    The “patrol pirate winner” project has already been implemented, that’s enough. When will they start building ships of the main classes of 1st rank?
  77. -4
    1 July 2021 21: 16
    As if *Young Technician* read it))
  78. 0
    1 July 2021 22: 51
    Quote: Bashkirkhan
    In 2005, the TFR "Selfless" set out on its last voyage from Sevastopol, donated by the commies to the Ukrainians, and sank in the Black Sea while being towed.


    Drowned you say? No !!! \I lay down on the bottom and fell asleep!!!
    Now we need to raise it and restore it to at least the state of a full-fledged combat unit!!!
    This must be done in the public interest!!! The legend must live at any cost!!!
    У
  79. The comment was deleted.
  80. +1
    2 July 2021 07: 22
    Why a ship? There was a case when our plane dumped some kerosene onto the intruder ship. It worked.
  81. 0
    2 July 2021 11: 11
    It is cheaper to use one anti-ship missile than to build a specialized fleet of ships that will not be in demand. And you shouldn’t accustom bandits to the idea that when they break into a house, the maximum they will receive as punishment is that they will be escorted out the door.
  82. 0
    2 July 2021 14: 22
    you don't even need to search
    to the Black Sea Fleet Yes at once 2 ship
    MRK Ave 1239 Bora and Samum
    VI 1000 tons, catamarans, with reinforced hull, anti-ship missiles, 76-mm artillery, Osa air defense system, AK-630

    according to the author’s fantasy about VI 6000 tons
    Only the unrealized BOD project 10210 Bison is suitable
  83. 0
    2 July 2021 15: 39
    after “The Suppressor” there will be “Bukhatel”, “The Abuse” and, of course, the series will end with “The Drapolator”
  84. 0
    2 July 2021 18: 44
    Quote: Jura
    Quote: Varcom
    A propeller with a diameter of 50 meters is pointless

    Did you take this seriously?

    As serious as the cops' two-handed swords. I understand the sarcasm and your desire to troll the author of the article, but the sarcasm must be justified. To create a specialized vessel that would force violators out of state borders without the risk of starting an armed conflict is the first thought that comes to mind when you see such provocations. And I don't see anything absurd in this idea. Pushing a large ship into neutral waters, while crushing its sides as much as possible, is quite reliable, impressive and humiliating.
    Quote: Jura
    Quote: Varcom
    most it
    the most it when violating the border and ignoring the requirements of the border guards is a volley into the side.

    Here I agree. The Ukrainians were once taught a lesson by shooting through their boat; they no longer risk provocation.
    1. 0
      4 July 2021 12: 37

      Here I agree. The Ukrainians were once taught a lesson by shooting through their boat; they no longer risk provocation.

      They just did it out of hopelessness, but first they disgraced themselves by crashing into the boat as a patrol boat and tearing up all the skin.
  85. 0
    2 July 2021 19: 33
    These are the authors who turned the network into a cesspool. Previously, VO was an authoritative publication, and now it is RBU for firing at surface ships. author-->author-->author do you have any idea how much RBU occupies: 6000 places
    1. 0
      4 July 2021 12: 33
      As a means of self-defense to cool down the ardor, it’s quite ok.
  86. 0
    3 July 2021 11: 16
    a ship designed to displace enemy ships from Russian territorial waters without the use of weapons - let’s call it “Displacer”.


    crap ...
    nothing prevents the West from equating “ramming” with the use of weapons...
    and the whole “concept” will collapse...
    however, such an action is now equated with “aggression”...
    so nothing is stopping them from drowning the “displacer”...
    all these “projects” are the essence of the snotty authorities who are in charge of the legal use of weapons...
    1. 0
      4 July 2021 12: 31
      Well then, they can equate a request to leave our territorial waters with a declaration of war.
  87. +2
    3 July 2021 21: 19
    By the way, why is the author offering his “Displacer” to the Navy? Even if you imagine this on our seas, it would be a ship in the colors of the coast guard, owned by the FSB. This is the “division of labor” we have now.
  88. +1
    4 July 2021 12: 25
    Great idea. The ship is simple - essentially a hull and an engine, minimal equipment, which means it’s cheap and replicable. You can design it in half a year, and rivet it in the required quantity in another year. It will cope perfectly with the task of displacing intruder ships. But in my opinion, such a large size is not needed - you need a small, fast and durable boat, something like a crazy tugboat and don’t forget anti-g seats for the crew)).
  89. 0
    4 July 2021 13: 49
    Drug addiction is evil. The author is an evil genius.
  90. 0
    4 July 2021 19: 17
    Nah...
    If the Americans see this article, then they will send “New Jersey” or “Wisconsin” to the next exercise.
  91. 0
    5 July 2021 13: 07
    Rave. Foreign ships that have invaded our territorial waters should not be forced out, but should be detained by all available means, then interned, the crews under arrest as violators of the state border. If it doesn't work, destroy it.
  92. 0
    5 July 2021 14: 32
    ahhhh....tasipan oly
  93. 0
    5 July 2021 15: 35
    A fertile topic for fantasy.

    I will add my vision of such a miracle - a displacer. Gun - 152mm caliber. MLRS type A-215 "Grad-M", air defense with the ability to fire at sea targets of the "Kinzhal" type, double-barreled gun - DUET. Speed ​​to catch up with the intruder and the possibility of being forced out by a ram (in bulk).
  94. 0
    5 July 2021 17: 29
    The most interesting thing is that on the day when the English corsair came to us in Crimea, the author of the article also came up with the idea wink
  95. -1
    6 July 2021 07: 42
    Why invent something? Captain Nemo's Nautilus is just what you need. :)
  96. 0
    6 July 2021 16: 31
    Well, now all sorts of projects will begin just to extract money from the budget and ruin it, the only solution is simple and as old as the world, to land one intruder plane and sink one ship that comes to us and the disease of permissiveness and impunity will go away immediately..
  97. +1
    6 July 2021 20: 05
    What a project this is. A good mine, torpedo, or air bomb is the best displacer. And also the determination of the country’s leadership to use them when the state border is violated.
    1. 0
      7 July 2021 09: 22
      A good mine, torpedo, aerial bomb is everything for war, in peacetime peaceful weapons should be used, that is, if the explosive in an anchor mine is replaced with a strong magnet, then it can be magnetized to the hull of the intruder’s ship so that it can only be demagnetized in a dry dock, and if the mine-magnet also has a cable with an underwater parachute at the end, then it will greatly slow down the progress of the intruder; in general, you cannot unhook it while moving, you must stop and send a diver with a hacksaw
  98. +1
    8 July 2021 13: 54
    Then they will come to us every day for a walk to the border, if at all that they will be in danger of being rammed, and so the fools know that we will not drown without much persuasion, why should we always think for others how not to start a war when our borders are already being trampled , if our ancestors had reasoned like this, our country would not be the largest in the world
  99. 0
    9 July 2021 11: 38
    Started well, but finished poorly. Engines and unsinkable armored hull! A pair of machine guns. All!
    .
    Everything else is on other ships.
  100. 0
    10 July 2021 12: 21
    God, what nonsense I read. The ship is created for one purpose - to destroy the enemy. And don’t start pushing in the water area. Such a waste of money for unknown purposes..... A couple of land mines at the rate of the ship are cheaper than building some kind of special ship.

"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), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“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 Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"