Tasks and composition of the Russian fleet

108
Tasks and composition of the Russian fleet

Entry


In the last article, I tried to reveal why you can't try to pull an owl onto a globe and plug holes with ships of inappropriate classes. Now let's talk about two eternal questions: "Why?" and "What to do?"

Many people ask: why does a land power need a fleet?



To answer, first of all, let's look at the following set of facts:

- The laying of the pipeline is slipping many times. This time, someone's scrap metal, which is hanging around, interferes (it was not me who came up with this, the Poles themselves joke).

- More than 50% of the export of goods from the Russian Federation is carried out by sea.

- In 2500 km from the sea there are many land bases of the potential enemy.

- It is the attack from the sea that is considered by the US Armed Forces when building plans for military operations against Russia. Mass raid of nuclear / non-nuclear weapons on key points and bases, mines to exclude the possibility of a full-fledged retaliatory nuclear strike.

And while it turns out that cover all airfields, mines, PGRK (mobile ground missile system) bases and their launch sites, and it is not so difficult to spot the convoy now, and they go on duty at best if at least several routes, and not a single road. Submarines, strategic missile submarine cruisers (SSBNs) remain a factor of uncertainty. That is why the anti-submarine defense (ASW) forces of NATO countries are well developed, and multipurpose boats are primarily hunters for our "strategists".

- When is it necessary to support, for example, the Syrians, how do they bring equipment and ammunition there? What will happen if dry cargo ships are stupidly blocked by announcing a naval blockade of Syria? After all, that's why the Syrian express was organized from the BDK.

- The congestion in the Suez Canal clearly shows how important sea transport routes are. What will have a greater impact on Japan (for example) in the event of questions about the Kuril Islands: blocking their oil tankers in the Persian Gulf or maneuvers of the ground army near Vladivostok (in the absence of an adequate number of large landing craft for the landing operation and ships to cover it)? But oil is the most commonplace that an island nation needs.

- and so on, because there are a lot of such facts and questions related to them.

Tasks


Everything has certain tasks. There are doctrines, there is logic. According to the official docs, they are as follows. Specifically, in accordance with the "Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of naval activities for the period up to 2030", approved by the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 20.07.2017, 327 No. XNUMX ":


12. The Navy, as a service of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, is intended to ensure the protection of the national interests of the Russian Federation and its allies in the World Ocean by military methods, to maintain military-political stability at the global and regional levels, and to repel aggression against the Russian Federation from ocean and sea directions. ...

13. The Navy creates and maintains the conditions necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime activities of the Russian Federation, ensures its naval presence, demonstrates the flag of the Russian Federation and the military power of the state in the World Ocean, takes part in the fight against piracy in the activities carried out by the world community military, peacekeeping and humanitarian actions that meet the interests of the Russian Federation, makes calls by warships (ships) of the Russian Federation to ports of foreign states, protects the state border of the Russian Federation in the underwater environment, including anti-submarine, anti-submarine sabotage defense in the interests of the security of the Russian Federation ...

17. The Navy and the federal security service bodies interact with each other in order to solve the tasks assigned to them.

By the way, I recommend that you read the entire document, where the threats are noted, and the tasks, and what we can do.

I will not cite it in full (there are 38 points), just note the most important in it in abbreviated order in order of increasing complexity:

- ensuring the protection of our territorial waters, assistance to border guards (and protection of bases);

- provision of anti-piracy activities, protection of shipping in the world's oceans;

- protection against attacks from sea areas;

- a demonstration of strength anywhere in the world (that is, if necessary - to be a small, but combat-ready squadron anywhere);

- be able to resist fleets other states in the event of a conflict;

- protection by the presence of the naval component of the triad of strategic nuclear forces and ensuring its functioning (to ensure the functioning and access to the SSBN position).

Of all this, we do not consider piracy, because if we wanted to, we would build an air base in dangerous areas and solve the problem with a few patrols. By the way, a group of mercenary guards (for which PMCs are used) costs less than one frigate exit at sea. And also, given the number of ships in the world's fleets, let them figure it out for themselves. I remember reports about poaching in our Sea of ​​Okhotsk by the Japanese and the Chinese - that would be to drive them ...

What is the optimal composition of the fleet for such tasks?

Is it worth building ships for "patrolling" like 22160 (6 laid, 3 in service, cost about 6 billion / piece), which have no combat value in the event of a conflict for the first two points? Yes, they do the third, but what's the use of them - zero? And the fourth does not hit at all, they cannot resist (attention) to nobody, their Soviet MRK will sink, which is full in different fleets.

On all these questions, there is also a clause that we have four directions that have their own fleet. Two of them are local and two are strategic.

Baltic and Black Sea almost completely overlap aviation, are closed at the exit and are such puddles. Fleets on them should be able to:

- cover strategic points, bases;

- to cover the ground units and provide them with support;

- to prevent the deployment of enemy forces in our territorial waters and nearby;

- to provide "control over the situation" in these seas;

- if necessary, ensure the landing of a small assault force;

- The Black Sea Fleet can reinforce the squadron in the Mediterranean. Really, why? Are we going to climb into the Middle East and Africa forever? We don't even get paid for that.

The North and the Pacific are of strategic importance: access to the open ocean and in addition to the tasks set out above:

- Provide a guaranteed retaliatory nuclear strike in the event of a global nuclear war (SSBNs, as well as all carriers of anti-ship missiles with SBS) - accordingly, the covert and safe deployment of the SSBN in patrol areas and the exit of all carriers to the sea, if necessary.

- They guarantee the possibility of retaliatory hostilities in a non-nuclear version anywhere in the world against the enemy's naval forces and the delivery of missile strikes, providing cover from enemy missile strikes.

- Allows to monitor and control the enemy's naval nuclear deterrent forces (NSNF) with the possibility of disrupting their deployment and destroying carriers.

What is the optimal composition?

But it is not enough to have a certain number of pennants, it is important that they are enough for a quiet service - with repairs, upgrades ... For example, there is a nuclear submarine with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). While one is on patrol, the other is being inspected and preventive work, the third is being modernized / overhauled. In theory, there are already three of them. In practice, there is now one in the sea, you can push two. This also needs to be taken into account, especially with our long-term construction projects.

Also, an important role is played by naval aviation, satellite tracking systems, and coastal defense units. How many do you need? What can they and cannot do? The USSR Navy had a powerful naval reconnaissance system, brought together:

- satellite system of marine reconnaissance and target designation "Liana" (primary reconnaissance and control center);

- scouts of naval aviation;

- reconnaissance ships and patrol boats.

All this ensured constant monitoring of all AUG and most of the boats, including SSBNs. There was information in real time: who, where, when.

As a result, there was a real opportunity to track the enemy's movements and respond to them in a timely manner, carry out operations and apply countermeasures. And now we cannot even close the training area in the Barents Sea.

Compound. Minimum and maximum


Now we are not taking auxiliary support forces: minesweepers, supply vessels, medical, icebreakers, etc. It's about the main combat strength. Also, I do not take landing forces - this is a separate conversation.

In my understanding, it looks like this. In brackets - optional additions in the ideal case, so to speak, "maximum plan":


Explanatory brigade: for the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Fleet, optional - MRK, 1-2 destroyers as flagships of the fleet and, accordingly, the combat core, as well as an air defense / missile defense mobile point of the S-400 / S-500 level. The functions of these fleets are more defensive than offensive, the rest can be solved by the deployment of aviation ... More on this a little later.

For the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet, an aircraft carrier is optional, 1 per fleet to form a full-fledged AUG. Alas, so far nothing has been invented better for placing AWACS aircraft, and this is their main function. It is the presence of reconnaissance aircraft and an air strike wing, which in one raid can release up to 200 anti-ship missiles without entering the air defense zone of ships and remaining for them in general beyond the radio horizon (covert launch, which we talked about earlier), according to target designation data in real time from AWACS aircraft. Considering the range of anti-ship missiles of 300 km (up to 930 in the case of LRASM) +750 km radius of combat patrols, this is not just a "long arm". This is the beating of babies.

Further "optionality" is increased by the increase in the number of frigates and destroyers, as well as multipurpose submarines.

Tasks depending on the class of the ship. What kind of ship should it be?


As I wrote in the last article of the series, there are several criteria: cost / efficiency and versatility, which is imposed additionally. The problem is that the “multifunctionality” option is expensive and becomes optimally available only on large ships. They have large dimensions, a large ammunition load (AM), various weapons in the cells, which allows them to optimally fill the ammunition. For example, there is a nuance on what seems to be the most, "unparalleled in the world" ships of the corvette class - 20385: there are only 8 cells of 3C14.

It would seem great?

No, not great. To hit submarines, he needs a version of the caliber in the version of the PLUR (anti-submarine guided missile), because the 324-mm "Packet-NK" is still a means of self-defense. How many of them can he accommodate? Maximum 8. Taking into account that in modern realities of countermeasures it is clearly not 1 PLUR - 1 boat, for the entire BC to guarantee its defeat, the question is: where to stick anti-ship missiles or missile launchers to attack ground targets? Shoot "Redoubt"? So the warhead is not the same, it will not be enough. Redoubt is also a separate kind of perversion: launchers are inexpensive, but take up space and weight. At the same time, the radar complex and the actual fire control system (FCS) cost a lot of money. Shove it all into a corvette? As a result, we have a corvette at a price of half the destroyer with the capabilities of it - in 1/4, if not 1/8. Frigate? Not bad already, but what exactly does the frigate do? They are now from 3500 to 7200 tons, from PLO to anti-aircraft (AA) and station wagons. Accordingly, the price changes. The destroyer is now generally the pinnacle of the evolution of strike ships for everyone except the Russian Federation.

So what should a corvette be: a mini-destroyer or a ship that will do something well?

Corvette


Tasks: functioning within the near sea zone under the cover of our aviation, providing anti-aircraft missiles, providing counteraction at sea to ships of the same class, protecting territorial waters.

Meet, these tasks are performed by the Corvette. The smallest ship in size, where you can fit a GAS of normal characteristics, a helicopter (if needed).

What does a corvette need?

By the list:

Armament:

- HAK. Normal GAS, towed GAS, helicopter with GAS, drones with GAS. Let them even launch radio-controlled boats - and disguise their noises as a corvette, let them disguise it playing the role of "false targets", and watch the acoustic situation from several points. Or underwater vehicles.

- PLUR - optional or helicopter. The PLUR responds faster, the helicopter is much more multifunctional.

- Torpedoes / anti-torpedoes. Counter-torpedoes, in my opinion, need 4+ pieces per board. Why? Because if it is drowned by a boat, then, most likely, torpedoes or anti-ship missiles, and knowing that there is such a complex on board, fire a volley into all 4 TA. The Harpoon anti-ship missile system is, of course, cheaper, but torpedoes, in the event of direct opposition, are probably still more convenient to use.

- Bomber - if still relevant. I do not know, I will not say here about the effectiveness of countering such weapons torpedoes, it is certainly easier to hit a boat with torpedoes, with its maneuverability of 60 km / h and depths ...

- Air defense - exclusively for self-defense. A pair of Pantsir-ME / "Broadsword" with missiles will completely cover this, 16 missiles up to 20 km and plus ZAK. Or Ak-630 ("Duet", "Broadsword", etc. plus TOR-M2KM ("Dagger") in the VPU.

- Striking capabilities: anti-ship missiles - subsonic, cheap - to sink boats / corvettes / frigates / transports, if necessary. X-35U / "Caliber".

- A gun. If, of course, you need it, from 57 to 100 mm ...

Possibility of a stroke of 30-35 knots at least temporarily (hello to "Defender", which just left our TFR). Possibility of movement at low speed on electric motors for hunting submarines.

And the main thing - mass character... Such ships are needed not 1, not 2, not even 10 - but 36–66. You can, of course, say that I went too far with the number ... But how many corvettes do you need to cordon off the exercise area, for example? Again, it is the corvette that can be sent to chase the same pirates, poachers, border trespassers in our waters. Also, precisely because of the massiveness (and therefore, the minimum cost is needed), we refuse the Polyment-Redut complex. A radar for him costs a lot of money, requires space, energy, missiles are also not cheap and require space. So we are creating a corvette specifically for the purpose of anti-submarine defense against diesel-electric submarines, nuclear submarines. Naval aviation will provide him with air defense.




As cheap and cheerful as possible comes out something like the corvette "Visby" of the Swedish Navy:

640 tons,
35 knots,
57 mm AU Bofors,
8 anti-ship missiles,
2x8 PU SAM,
2x2 TA,
a helicopter (instead of an air defense system) and an excellent sonar consisting of: a sonar, an active descending sonar, a towed sonar in the form of a flexible extended towed antenna, underwater drones, a set of hydrophone buoys, as well as ship noise sensors, acoustic and vibration, throughout the hull.

Of course, their price came out to $ 0,9 billion, but ... Let's remember about calculation of the cost of ships in big macs 0,9x23,67 = 21 billion rubles. With a price of $ 22380 at 17,2 billion, something does not add up, given the size, "Polyment-Redut" and so on.

22800 in 800-870 tons is worth 2 billion, in the presence of UKSK (UVPU) for serious anti-ship missiles (and hence the price of BC). Considering that the GAC costs money, let's try to estimate the performance characteristics of what is needed in the minimum / maximum.

Although what am I talking about? The maximum is 20385 with a larger range of SJSCs or "Super-Karakurt", the middle peasant was made recently by the respected Maxim Klimov - here.

Therefore ... let's try to present the most minimal option:

- Displacement up to 800 tons. And you can also strain the creators of the hull of the minesweeper 12700 - fortunately, they made a unique hull of fiberglass, they can also make a hull similar in contours and bevels to the "Visby".

- Speed ​​up to 30–35 knots.
- 1x57 (derivation-air defense in the sea version) or 1xAK-176 with new projectiles of the ZAK type from Bofors.
- 1x30-mm air defense installation. Whether it's a shell or one of a dozen other complexes "making brrr", since we have a lot of versions of them.
- 8 launchers Kh-35U (15 million rubles / piece)
not less than 8 PU Package-NK.
- 2x8 TOR-M2KM.
- SAC + underwater / surface drones.
- Helipad + system for refueling and supplying ammunition to the helicopter in the air.

All this can be placed on the Karakurt, if the Swedes have pushed it into 640 tons. And at the price of "Karakurt" / a little more expensive. Moreover, even with minimal alterations of the hull, it is possible to build up the superstructure to the very stern and assemble the weapons in it a little more competently. Although the same applies to the middle peasant - the key difference there is that the UKSK with a guidance complex is not thrown out of the "Karakurt". And the same it all fits into the "Karakurt" with the superstructure stretched to the stern section.

Frigate


In the niche of a frigate up to 5 thousand tons, our shipbuilders managed to make the best frigate. Substantial strike weapons, a powerful air defense system, solid anti-aircraft weapons, seaworthiness, range ...

The only thing that would be worth doing with it is to provide for the integration of the cheap and angry 9M-338 missile defense system into the Reduta launchers.

If we approach it globally, then yes, re-equip the ship.

As planned:

- Install not 16, but 24 PU UKSK (or even 32 ... according to rumors);

- Add more "Packet-NK" launchers. Because they are not rechargeable (only in the base), are unnecessarily heavy and in the place where it is installed, it is absolutely realistic to accommodate not 4, but 8 launchers each. Considering that this is a non-rotary launcher, consider a quadruple onboard torpedo tube from the times of the Russo-Japanese War, it can simply be stacked on a fortified side, two rows of 4, where the upper and lower cells are one module, which is pulled out and reloaded by a crane in the base. through the hatch. Yes, even 6 launchers, at least - there will already be a victory, giving a total of 12 anti-torpedo / torpedoes in the BC.
I don't know if the A-192M was taught to shoot normally? Let's hope that they taught us, because otherwise it is quite possible to install the A-190, which works normally and stably. A 100 mm frigate will be enough.

- Optionally - attach TOP or Pantsir missiles to the "Broadsword", since there is a place and the ability to install inclined launchers. Again - an increase in ammunition without significant alteration of the ship and an increase in channeling.

- Expand the hangar by two helicopters and provide for the placement of UAVs, including underwater drones.

We will keep silent about the fact that it is time to make a normal PLO / assault helicopter for the fleet, as well as the fact that, in theory, the entire range of 30-mm metal cutters can be taught to shoot not with cannon shells of the Great Patriotic War, but a la the Oerlikon-Millennium system »To provide projectiles with detonation in the air and 152 ballistic elements, which will greatly increase the efficiency of the use of these complexes, which are installed on all types of our ships.

Why?

With a rate of fire of 1000 rds / min and 152 striking elements, its density of fire is 152. Yes, here we need details on the effect of these elements weighing 000 g on an anti-ship missile, say, "Onyx", because the weight of a bullet is 3,3x7,62 - about 54 grams, and for a reason, 9-mm and 20-mm rapid-fire guns were invented to counter the heavy Soviet anti-ship missiles. But with such a density of fire (and much greater accuracy than that of the Ak-30), the rocket will be all like a sieve. "Broadsword" has a rate of fire of 630 rounds / min, and if it is stuffed with at least 10 larger elements, we will have 000 conventional "fire density". At the very least, it is definitely worthwhile to introduce measuring the projectile flight speed and setting the time of its detonation, as in the Erlikon.

- It is possible to envisage the placement of heavy missiles (for example, from the S-500) in the UKSK launcher. It will be very pleasant to arrange a surprise for the AWACS aircraft.

In summary:

- 24–32 RCC / PLUR / KR / heavy. SAM;
- 32-128 missiles;
- 12-16 324 mm torpedoes and anti-torpedoes;
- 2 helicopters.

And all this is not much more expensive than the original version, since all systems and radars already are on the ship, the hull is the same, well, except that the hangar will have to be redone and up to 1000 tons of increase in displacement.

In principle, such a frigate in our time is a small destroyer, and in the same Japanese Navy there are such destroyers ("Asahi"). Therefore, you can have 6 destroyers in the Pacific Fleet / Northern Fleet, and finish off the rest with such frigates (at least 9–12 per fleet). The key point is that they finally seem to have suffered, the supply of engines and gearboxes for them has begun, and, hopefully, someone in the fleet will have a bright idea that it is possible to deploy a second assembly line at the enterprise, allowing more than 1 set of power installations per year, but at least two.

Destroyer


Let's move on to the top of the evolution of shipbuilding in our time.

Due to the fact that such successful series of ships as BOD 1155, EM 956, 1164 are gradually aging, sooner or later it will be necessary to build something to replace them and come to the conclusion that one destroyer with an air defense system in the far zone can greatly enhance KUG ships with medium / self-defense. And yes, it is he who will be the most versatile ship.

Consider analogs?


As we can see, in a small displacement of up to 10000 tons, only highly specialized ships can be built, like the URO destroyer of Great Britain and Japan, where frigates / destroyers of other classes play the role of PLO (similar to the bundle from projects 1155 + 956). We will go the way of one ship to reduce the cost of the series, adequate terms of design and construction.

The Russian Federation now has two projects: the 15000-18000-ton nuclear "Leader" 23560 or the "bloated frigate" 22350M (7000+ tons). For convenience, they are listed in the table above.

This is how destroyers look like mock-ups in the photo.



22350M




22560 "Leader"

Taking into account the problems with the power plant of the Russian frigates, I suppose that it is worth building a nuclear destroyer, in addition, it has a number of undeniable advantages:

- cruising range;

- the speed of deployment (swimming) - it can go in a 30-knot stroke for a long time. An ordinary ship has a cruising speed of up to 20 knots ("Arleigh-Burke");

- power reserve for onboard systems.

The tasks of the flagship destroyer KUG: providing long-range air defense, providing air defense for the AUG (if we live to see them), deploying several helicopters and a powerful composite HAC. Let's add increased autonomy, high speed and a powerful radar complex with AFAR.

So let's stop at a displacement of 12000-14000 tons, which is quite realistic to build at our shipyards. And suppose the composition of the weapons:

- 1x130 mm AU;

- 2–4 ZAK "Broadsword" / "Pantsir-M" (with guidance systems TOR-M2MK);

- UKSK: for 64+ units. - I suppose, nevertheless, that it makes sense to integrate the S-500 / S-400 into them, since the dimensions in terms of dimensions should be plus or minus comparable (maximum capacity within the Onyx anti-ship missile system);

- VPU: launching Redoubt / Thor, no more than 64 cells, the benefit of 9M338 / 9M100, in theory, should accommodate 4 pieces in a cell;

- TA: 12-16 "Package-NK";

- 2 helicopters;

- underwater, surface, flying drones;

- perhaps this is where assault boats will also fit? Well, or at least a couple of normal RHIBs with a quick descent / ascent system in the stern of the ship.

It is on this ship that you do not need to spare money, you do not need to stretch the work - having worked out everything that is possible on other ships. Reactors are already on icebreakers, all except for the S-500 and TOP, too. Moreover, both complexes can be run-in on the Gorshkov and then installed on various ships of the fleet. Either on "Peter the Great", but there is no reliable data on replacing the S-300 drum launchers with something normal, at least "Redoubt" or maybe S-400 / S-500, there is no.

The integration of radars from the S-500 is real. Again, you can test it on other ships.
By the way, it is on the nuclear destroyer that there will be no problems with the modernization of the complex later with new APMs based on gallium nitride elements.

I will not talk about the aircraft carrier here. There is a set of facts, such as:

- It is necessary as a carrier of early warning systems.

- As a carrier of a cover wing (24 fighter-interceptor-attack aircraft) minimum and strike (up to 60) - maximum.

- As a carrier of a large number of PLO, assault, rescue helicopters.

Actually, in the modern world it is he who is the eyes, ears, air defense and the main striking force of a classic ship formation. Air defense orders and PLO are needed to guarantee and reflect sudden attacks.

- It must be atomic.

Considering modern technologies, such as radars with AFAR, it is possible to create compact radar carriers - helicopters, attack fighters, small airplanes or even AWACS unmanned aerial vehicles. Also, taking into account aircraft with short take-off and landing, drones that are more compact than a conventional aircraft - it is possible to build not a giant of 100 tons, but something more modest in 000-30 thousand, like the Izumo helicopter carriers with the placement of F-45s or Chinese copies "Kuznetsova".

Only once again - first we need "components" in the form of aircraft, missiles for aircraft (the KS-172 is generally forgotten, nothing but the Mosquito / Kh-35U, as the anti-ship missile system for aviation is not adapted, as far as I know, and the RVV-SD is inferior to AIM -120D).

All this can be tested within the framework of naval aviation, in the form of creating an adequate air force included in the fleet system. We need AWACS aircraft that will constantly work out interaction with the forces of the fleet in exercises: giving illumination of targets, exercising control of the airspace and reconnaissance. We need regiments of missile carriers - be it Su-30SM, Su-34, Tu-22M3M, Tu-95 and others, who will train and, therefore, be able to use and organize a joint attack by an enemy KUG / AUG together with the forces of the fleet, so that anti-ship missiles from ships , Submarines and aircraft approached the target from different directions with a gap of a couple of seconds. Which will be able to detect and shoot down, for example, a subsonic anti-ship missile system at 15 m above sea level or issue a control center for missiles from the ship along it.

It should be understood that the price of, say, Su-30SM or Su-35 is about 3 billion rubles. Price 22800 - 2 billion, corvette 22380 - 17-21 billion, frigate 22350 - 27 billion (approximately). Modernization of "Nakhimov" and the estimated cost of construction 22560 - 100 billion, 885M - 41 billion, 955A - 64 billion, aircraft carrier "Vikramaditya" - 375 billion rubles.

Speaking about the economy and the capabilities of the Russian Federation, at GPV-2020 the fleet's share was 5 trillion rubles. Of course, in the end it was cut, because well, all plans were thwarted. Only 22800 "Karakurt" was not disrupted and incredibly quickly appeared, for which its creators need to be rewarded, cared for and cherished. But 5 trillion rubles is, for a second, 50 (!) Leader-class destroyers.

Yes, even if only 60% is for ships, and everything else is for infrastructure, development work, etc. - this is 3 trillion rubles!

These are 6 destroyers (600 billion), 18 frigates (600 billion), and if you build corvettes according to the proposed project and even if they cost not 2, like 22800, but 5 billion rubles, then 36 of these are 180 billion + 8 SSBN 955 ( 512 billion) + 12 885M "Ash" (492 billion) + 24 diesel-electric submarines 636 "Varshavyanka" (7,2 billion). And another 600 billion in reserve for the modernization of ships in the composition. Yes "Kuznetsov" one more could be built and modernized 3 out of four 1144.

As a result, we are building RTOs, which in fact are missile gunboats, have the displacement of a corvette, but they do not carry its functions, and without air defense and anti-aircraft defense they are only targets.

We have a modest 3 TFR (frigates still in fact according to the international classification), 10 corvettes, 2 frigates (plus 2 more sooner or later will reach the fleet), 2 (+2 launched) nuclear submarines, 6 SSBNs, 8 diesel-electric submarines (+4) and "Nakhimov" will be pushed off the slipway someday.

Where is the money, Billy?


Where are the ships?

Yes, of course, 2014 put a pig on everyone and it's good that at the very least, with the use of Chinese copies of Ukrainian diesel engines, they are trying to give birth with torment and suffering. And that our defense industry and the army are far from the most effective structure, and in terms of speed, the sloth designs something faster. And that “remember, gentlemen, this country will be ruined by corruption”, but ... you also need to understand that, as one cat said:

“We have the funds. We don't have enough intelligence. "

For two such programs, it was possible to saturate the fleet, and re-create naval aviation, and give birth to aircraft carriers, and put naval bases in order, and provide the basing of any nuclear / non-nuclear ships, cranes and docks for their repair and modernization, for fast loading of ammunition.

And we have what we have: the construction of absolutely unnecessary ships, controversial, pushing not a series, but "experimental ships" like 20386, and so on and so on. About any exercises on attacking a ship by aircraft, a joint attack and normal exercises to repel a missile / torpedo attack, imitation of missile attacks - the author also did not hear, which is even more sad.

MKRTS - also seems to have served its term for a long time, and the replacement of 4 satellites, if it works, is unlikely to close the space that was closed by 30+ of them.
Our news channels

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

108 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    6 August 2021 11: 11
    From all that was read earlier in this series of articles, the weak ability of the Russian Navy to ensure a safe or guaranteed exit of SSBNs in the opposite direction (the Barents Sea) looms. Can develop anti-submarine capabilities at the proper level first
    1. 0
      6 August 2021 11: 24
      Quote: Siegfried
      From all that was read earlier in this series of articles, the weak ability of the Russian Navy to ensure a safe or guaranteed exit of SSBNs in the opposite direction (the Barents Sea) looms. Can develop anti-submarine capabilities at the proper level first

      And how will "anti-submarine capabilities" help against NATO anti-submarine aircraft? "Poseidon" reigns almost completely, and in the north, for example, even AUG is not needed to protect it, there are enough coastal bases.
      1. +8
        6 August 2021 12: 20
        From the shore, planes can cover ships no further than 300 miles, and then they will always be late to provide this cover (see R&D "Order" and a couple of similar works earlier). Until they take off, until they fly, only charred skeletons will remain from our conditional squadron. "Kuzyu" was then built to exclude such a development of events. Although this is not the best ship for solving the indicated task, but even it is ORDERLY better than just coastal bases.

        And thanks to the author! In general, the publication turned out to be competent. There are questions about particulars (as it always happens), but the general direction of thought is correct. good
      2. -4
        6 August 2021 12: 22
        If you brush away all the foam, critics, hurray-patriots, paid patriots, they will pile up ... then it turns out that the main task of the modern Russian fleet is to preserve the experience of operating ships and the system of naval education until better times when goals, tasks and money appear. That's basically all.
        1. +2
          6 August 2021 12: 44
          Quote: Civil
          If you brush away all the foam, critics, hurray-patriots, paid patriots, they will pile up ... then it turns out that the main task of the modern Russian fleet is to preserve the experience of operating ships and the system of naval education until better times when goals, tasks and money appear. That's basically all.

          The "main" task now is the maintenance of the gas and oil pipe.
        2. +1
          6 August 2021 13: 01
          Yes, there is money, this is the second publication in which the author convincingly says that with the current funding, but with its competent use, Russia could have a very strong fleet. But with the goals and objectives - the problem, you are right.

          However, this is only the second most important reason why we have the failure that we have. The first is endless "sawmills" to the detriment of the construction of ships really necessary for the Navy, and so on.
        3. +1
          6 August 2021 23: 34
          Quote: Civil
          ... until better times when goals, tasks and money appear.

          The Navy always has goals and objectives.
          There is also money.
          But the strong Russian Navy has a lot of opponents, both on the other side of the border and on this ... When the professional Patriots can defeat enemies (explicit and hidden), then Russia will have a strong Navy.
    2. +10
      6 August 2021 12: 21
      From everything read in this article, judging by the table
      Compound. Minimum and maximum
      .
      It becomes absolutely clear that the author does not understand anything about what he is writing about.
      I am not a supporter of aircraft carriers and generally not even a sailor, but even I know that in order for a large ship to perform tasks at sea at any time, there must be at least 3 of them in each fleet (Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet).
      Since one is at sea, the second is undergoing restoration repairs after the cruise, the third is preparing to go to sea.
      ps Although there are examples of the author's ignorance in the described issue, the full article.
      Nikolay, isn't it the best to write about what you understand?
      1. +1
        6 August 2021 13: 06
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        Since one is at sea, the second is undergoing restoration repairs after the cruise, the third is preparing to go to sea.

        The optimal KOH is 0,5, and not 0,33, as in the scheme you are describing. Which is just right for aircraft carriers due to the complexity of their design and the presence of a mass of mechanisms, systems, subsystems, etc. It is there that there is the 1/3 rule, under which, having three ABs, it is possible to ensure the constant presence of one of them in the sea.

        Well, if less complex ships will be under repairs for a third of the time, then these are very bad ships. I though
        Quote: Alexey Sommer
        not even a sailor at all, but even I know
        these facts.
        1. -2
          6 August 2021 20: 16
          There is a nuance - how long does it take us to repair Ustinov? Repair of Nakhimov with modernization? or 949A, which have been modernizing for seven years? This coefficient should be calculated taking into account the real terms of repair and modernization. In addition, there is reason to believe that what has now been riveted will need to be modernized in the next five years. And what, again without a fleet?
        2. +2
          7 August 2021 02: 35
          Quote: Artyom Karagodin
          The optimal KOH is 0,5, not 0,33,

          It's almost impossible. To do this, absolutely all ships must be new, do not require major repairs and modernization ... even medium repairs - only post-sailing and pre-sailing maintenance.
          It doesn't work that way. The older the ship, the more attention it requires.
          To date, no one can boast of KOH 0,5 at all.
          Remember Reagan's program - "A Fleet of 600 Ships."
          From what calculation was it typeset?
          1 \ 5!
          When 120 ships out of 600 are deployed "where necessary".
          Now they dream of KOH 1 \ 3 and even 1 \ 2,5 ... but they are dreaming ... proposing to change the structure of deployment and delivery of services.
          Talking about the KOH at 0,5, this is from a series of propaganda and "reference data" about the speed of the F-111 at 2650 km / h. feel And when he was removed from service, it turned out that he had never flown more than 2000 km / h.
          ... It's like a "reference data" about the bomb load of the first F-16s of almost 7 tons !!!
          "- Doctor, I am 70 years old and I can no longer, and my neighbor is 75 and he says he can every evening.
          - So you say that you can. "
          The optimal end is 1/3. And not only for aircraft carriers.
          And the article ... is not deep, without proper knowledge of the material ... and even understanding of how the ship's power plant is arranged and what it consists of. Already in the second publication, the author calls gas turbines and gearboxes manufactured by Zarya-Mashproekt ... "Ukrainian diesel engines" ...
          ... Again the mantras about "nuclear-powered destroyers" ... What these writers (but unimportant readers) were given these steam boilers with steam turbines ?! Bulky, heavy, requiring structural (armor) and radiation protection ... specific maintenance personnel .... which will not be allowed into any normal (but not our) port! Due to the radiation threat ...
          At the same time, gas turbines are several times (by an order of magnitude / orders of magnitude) lighter, cheaper, easier to operate and an order of magnitude cheaper in the life cycle.
          It is for submarines that they (NPP) are relevant.
          And for heavy nuclear aircraft carriers for powering steam catapults with steam without losing maximum speed ...
          The Americans had experience in building and operating not only nuclear aircraft carriers, but also:
          - nuclear cruisers,
          - nuclear destroyers,
          - and atomic frigates!
          They dreamed of forming AUG exclusively from atomic-powered ships.
          They had the money and technical capabilities for this.
          They even built such ships.
          AND REFUSED them almost immediately, leaving nuclear cruisers in service for a while ...
          But the aircraft carriers were left. But solely for the sake of providing the required number of launches per day with steam catapults.
          And even these aircraft carriers, admirals resisted for a very long time (and strongly) - the cost of their life cycle was about 5 (!!!) times more expensive than the same AB with a traditional power plant.
          Steam boiler!
          Steam turbine !
          Distilled water supply and preparation.
          Heat exchangers, refrigerators, radiation, structural protection ...
          An order of magnitude more expensive and technically trained personnel for its (NPP) maintenance ...
          But then there was (it was already ending, but they did not know about it then) the Vietnam War, the role in which aircraft carriers cannot be overestimated ...
          And the admirals agreed.
          But they demanded !!!
          So that it was not a project of the prohibitively expensive and complex Kiti-Hawk, but a simpler, cheaper and more understandable Nimitz.
          Therefore, there is no need to walk on someone else's rake ... we and ourselves have such cruisers ah 4 pcs. were built.
          We planned 10!
          But just after the construction of the first two, we decided that "well, it nafig!" and limited the series to 4 ships - one for each Ulyanovsk.
          And instead of the remaining 6 atomic monsters, they ordered almost an order of magnitude cheaper 10 Atlants, the combat and strike capabilities of which were about 60 - 70% of the Orlan, and at a price almost an order of magnitude cheaper.
          It is difficult to come up with anything better and more optimal for modern ships than gas turbines.
          Almost impossible !
          Highest power-to-weight ratio.
          Exceptional compactness.
          The possibility of using hot waste gases to feed the steam (!!!) turbine through a steam recovery unit, which increases the output of a unit of fuel per torque almost twice!
          And this is exactly what was done on our Atlantes - there, in tandem with the main turbine, a steam turbine also works ... But in this case, the power plant will no longer be so compact and will require everything necessary for servicing the steam turbine - a refrigerator (for condensing the exhaust steam), a stock prepared water ... Such an installation is justified only on a large ship.
          At the prospective average AV RF VI of 45 - 000 tons, such a power plant will be quite harmonious.
          And the steam from the "heat exchanger" can be supplied directly to the catapults during flights.
          And therefore to have on the AV medium VI and AWACS aircraft.
          And ensuring the launch of attack aircraft with a full bomb load.
          1. +1
            7 August 2021 11: 43
            I have already noted the fact that there are inaccuracies in the article. True, I noticed them less than you. Thanks for pointing out. But, it seems to me, the main thing is the general direction of the article. And it is true. Yes, the dilettante wrote, but he tried to honestly state his view, without omissions and distortions. Has the right, in my opinion.

            But about the rule 1/3 I heard a different opinion. Moreover, from a professional. True, this did not concern KON, but the time spent on repairs. They say, probably, there are so bad ... ships that do not get out of repair for a third of their life cycle. I trust the opinion of this person. But with the KON I, perhaps, really clever. With SSBNs, this is still possible if you form two crews per board, but you cannot provide two crews for the entire fleet.
          2. +1
            7 August 2021 18: 57
            Quote: bayard
            AND REFUSED them almost immediately, leaving nuclear cruisers in service for a while
            They have bases all over the ocean. In such a scenario, it also makes no sense to spend on nuclear destroyers. Our bases can be counted on one hand.
            Quote: bayard
            And instead of the remaining 6 atomic monsters, they ordered almost an order of magnitude cheaper 10 Atlants, the combat and strike capabilities of which were about 60 - 70% of the Orlan, and at a price almost an order of magnitude cheaper.
            In addition to the reactor, they also cut the PLO. So the shock capabilities are comparable, but they could not solve the problems of 1144 (to search for Franklin).
            1. 0
              7 August 2021 22: 02
              Quote: bk0010
              They have bases all over the ocean. In such a scenario, it also makes no sense to spend on nuclear destroyers. Our bases can be counted on one hand.

              They planned to form the AUG entirely with atomic-powered ships - for more independent maneuvering and quick maneuvering of the entire AUG at high speeds during transitions. But it turned out to be TOO expensive and complicated.
              We also dreamed of atomic-powered surface ships ... but also changed their minds, limiting themselves to only 4 cruisers for 4-nuclear AB type. "Ulyanovsk". And not only because it is TOO expensive and difficult to operate, but also because you cannot enter any neutral or even friendly port - such ships were feared because of the possible leakage of nuclear materials. Yes, and during the last cruises of the "Petra" in the Mediterranean, it was also not allowed into the ports - it was in the roadstead.
              Quote: bk0010
              Our bases can be counted on one hand.

              This is not a reason to switch to nuclear ships and go broke. It is enough just to have sea / ocean tankers and integrated supply ships. Refueling at sea has been worked out for a long time, as well as the transfer of all necessary cargo.
              And one nuclear power plant cannot solve the issues of autonomy - the ship, in addition to fuel, needs water, food, spare parts, consumables, technical fluids. All this is decided by the fleet's integrated supply ships.
              Quote: bk0010
              In addition to the reactor, they also cut the PLO. So the shock capabilities are comparable, but they could not solve the problems of 1144 (to search for Franklin).

              To compensate for the lack of PLO funds, it is enough to take one or two 1155 with you on the hike and all problems disappear. In 1155, one "Polynom" weighed about 900 tons, so the rest (shock and air defense) capabilities of this BOD were also cut. But in combination, paired with a strike ship, it was power.
              The task of both 1144 and 1164 was to search for and accompany the enemy's AUG. As a rule, as part of a shock KUG with a BOD and SSGN in the composition. The United States then had up to 15 AB, so for each of them it was necessary to have its own KUG. And from the fact that one of the surface ships would be atomic in the composition of such a KUG, it did not give any particular advantages, because the speed of the KUG is determined by the slowest of its composition. All of them just needed to have a sufficiently high cruising and maximum speed. In the USSR, special attention was paid to this.
              In the Russian Federation - on the contrary.
              All new ships suffer from an acute (!) Lack of running characteristics. This means that the initiative is initially and unconditionally given to the enemy.
              Perhaps on 22350M this will already be avoided.

              As for the lack of bases abroad ... We have our own base in Middle-earth, Egypt also always readily accepts our ships, Algeria and even Spain regularly refueled our ships. Vietnam in Cam Ranh is always happy with our ships and aircraft (Il-78 and Tu-142 periodically enjoy his hospitality). In the Caribbean, we are always welcome in Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. In the Indian Ocean - India and the Seychelles, Iran. In Africa, too, a number of countries will be glad to see our ships call for replenishment and refueling.
              We do not have a permanent presence in the entire world's oceans and we do not need permanent bases in large numbers. But having good relations with the countries of the region, we can always make a friendly visit, increasing the income of local business.

              You just correctly imagine what a nuclear engine is - it's an ordinary steam boiler with a steam turbine and a travel gearbox. In terms of compactness, convenience and safety, it can never be compared with classic ship power plants. They are relevant only for the submarine fleet and huge heavy aircraft carriers.
          3. -2
            8 August 2021 10: 42
            Let's discuss where and what is worth? How long have we had a turbine at our RTOs?
            GEM:
            diesel
            3 × М507Д-1 "Zvezda", М507 - an engine consisting of two 56-cylinder compartments (diesel engines), each of which runs on its own shaft. The compartments are interconnected by a main gear that transfers rotation from the crankshafts of the compartments to the power take-off flange.
            diesel generators
            3 × DGA-315-1 (diesel generator)
            Where do you see the words "gas turbine" here?
            Maybe 20380?
            "Two twin-shaft diesel-diesel units DDA-12 provide high power at reversing modes with minimal fuel and oil consumption. One DDA-000 consists of 12 diesel engines 000D2 (10 hp each) and two reverse gear units , the local control system of NPO Aurora. Through the summing reversible gearboxes, the motor units operate on two fixed-pitch propellers "
            We have only 22350 turbines.
            And you can find out why the turbine, in its essence, fundamentally knocks out of the line of the "steam boiler"? exactly the same principles, just in a slightly different form. Like the reactor, it is still a "steam boiler", alas, nothing is smarter until people have come up with it.

            Can you find out about accidents with the undercarriage of icebreakers or 1144? And let's talk about your favorite boilers at 956 or about the power plant at Gorshkov? And there she is German, what will happen when the 3rd corps still goes to tests with "our" - it's hard to imagine.

            I pointed out in the article why a nuclear power plant is needed.
            I can add a couple more ideas for you:
            new types of weapons (railguns, lasers, etc.) will primarily consume energy. In principle, everything that we do as humanity now technologically consumes energy orders of magnitude more than at the previous technological level. If you make a ship not for 10 years and now or yesterday, but for tomorrow, you need a large supply of energy.

            Yet again. What has already been said, but you did not take into account.
            You need a highly mobile connection. ships with nuclear power plants can go at high speed for a long time, for them this is normal. Ships with GEM cannot. or you need tankers with a speed of 30 knots and the ability to refuel at 30 knots. Which, in any case, will result in wear and tear of the power plant and breakdown - because they do not go so constantly. Even in the composition of the control system, the turbines for such a regime are called afterburners.
            Atlant and Orlan is not 70%. Orlan's air defense and anti-aircraft defense is much better. As well as survivability and moveability.
            Unlike the Americans, we need a highly mobile, small but powerful AUG. and this can only be provided by ships with nuclear power plants.
            Plus, there is simply no analogue. Well, they do not make such power plants in Russia. We began to revive the GEM only recently, when the sanctions were imposed. and here the power plant for ships from 10000 tons, for our industry it's like catching up with China.

            And yes, steam catapults in the 21st century on new ships, are they not electro-magnetic? Seriously?
            1. +1
              8 August 2021 15: 57
              Quote: Devil13
              You need a highly mobile connection. ships with nuclear power plants can go at high speed for a long time, for them this is normal. Ships with GEM cannot. or you need tankers with a speed of 30 knots and the ability to refuel at 30 knots ...

              Maybe I will upset you, but nuclear ships cannot go for a long time at 30 knots. Rather, there is a technical possibility, you can drive them to Venezuela "with a breeze", but all this will later result in expensive and lengthy repairs.
              So the advantage of the atomic power plant over the gas turbine is clearly not in speed. And "tankers at 30 knots", it seems, have not yet been created. At 17, a gas station is still "fun", with 3-4 points ...

              Quote: Devil13
              Unlike the Americans, we need a highly mobile, small but powerful AUG. and this can only be provided by ships with nuclear power plants.

              Unlike the Americans, we do not "burn" to ensure "freedom of navigation" around the world. Therefore, there is time to choose the ideal performance characteristics of ships of all classes.
              And most importantly - ships of the same type in each class and serial production. Even the mighty USSR could not afford 15 nuclear cruisers, how can modern Russia be able to?
              If you "fit" into an aircraft carrier program, it makes no sense in one or two ships. The minimum is 4 (one pair for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet), and the optimum is 6.
              So there should be 12 nuclear destroyers. It's unrealistic ...
              And to build 4-6 aircraft carriers (45-50 kt.) And 12-18 frigates 22350M is a completely solvable task, even today.
              hi
            2. +1
              8 August 2021 22: 25
              Quote: Devil13
              Let's discuss where and what is worth?

              Well, let's talk.
              Quote: Devil13
              How long have we had a turbine at our RTOs?

              And immediately about nonsense. There were turbines on Soviet RTOs, and the speeds were (and some remained) of the order of 34 knots. But now everything is exclusively on diesel engines. On those that sanctions allow. There is a problem with the production of high-speed diesel engines - although they are of the old model, they are extremely difficult to manufacture and capricious in operation. The calculation when choosing them was that the industry would be able to ensure their production ... but Zvezda-Reductor is not doing well - the state defense order for diesel engines has failed with a bang, the Karakurts are standing in built hulls without engines in a herd against the wall.
              I made a remark to you for the "Ukrainian diesels", which you mention in the second article ... Today and yesterday only Kolomna low-speed and high-speed "Stars" are used in our country - all domestic. Zarya-Mashproekt assembled turbines for our Fleet, partially from Russian components, gearboxes, and assembled / tested assemblies at the stand with Kolomna diesel engines (for 22350).
              Quote: Devil13
              Where do you see the words "gas turbine" here?
              Maybe 20380?

              I don’t know where you are getting your questions from, but I mentioned Project 20380 \ 85 only in the context that initially, during the design, a power plant was proposed for two M70FRU GTUs with a capacity of 14 l / s. Such a power plant was capable of imparting a speed of about 000 knots to the corvette at full speed, and with the distribution of torque from one turbine to both propellers (shafts), a high cruising / economic speed. But the sensible idea was abandoned in favor of more economical diesel engines ... But with diesels, a bummer came from Germany and ... I had to put my own - Kolomna, from a diesel locomotive.
              Result?
              Even the declared speed of 28 knots is not achieved, in real life the maximum is 26 - 27 knots at 20380 and no more than 25 knots at 20385.
              Slow, but economical.
              In the Republic of Ingushetia after the RYaV and especially in the Soviet Union, the speed characteristics of ships were given primary importance. The ship starts from the GEM.
              In the Russian Federation, unfortunately, the opposite is true.
              As a result, of the new ships with more or less acceptable speed characteristics, we have only ... "Karakurt" with its 30 knots. request
              Even a really successful frigate 22350 has an extremely insufficient economic speed - 14 knots (!!!?) And a relatively insufficient, but tolerable maximum speed - 29 ... and even 29,5 knots. That is, knowingly and overwhelmingly LOWER speed than any ship in the enemy's oceanic zone.
              Was there an alternative?
              It was.
              Instead of low-power diesel engines (5200 l / s), coupled with the afterburner M90FR (27 l / s), put the GTU M500 (75 l / s), which would immediately give an increase in economic speed up to 7 knots, and subject to the addition of torque from both turbines of a turbopair, the maximum speed would be at least 500 knots.
              And it would turn out to be a really formidable ship of the oceanic zone, capable of pursuing / accompanying the enemy's AUG and KUG, carrying out "weapon tracking", capable of making rapid throws breaking the distance, or, on the contrary, overtaking the enemy.
              In any case, there would be parity in the ability to maneuver ...
              There was one more proposal - to build frigates based on the power plant from four M70FRU. Yes
              Such a ship would have simply excellent economic performance - at least 20 knots.
              Yes, the fuel consumption would not be small. But he could easily chase any Burke with its 20 knots of economic speed.
              But because of what was done then - during the design period, the choice of priorities (fuel economy and in no case to anger the "partners"), all new ships of the Russian Navy have very serious problems with running characteristics - exactly as on the eve of the RYA.
              Quote: Devil13
              Can you find out about accidents with the undercarriage of icebreakers or 1144?

              Fortunately for us, the USSR designed very reliable nuclear power plants, and there were few such accidents.
              They were, but there really were very few of them, if we are talking about serious accidents.
              But you are apparently quite young and have recently been on our site. You should carefully look through the publications on the topic of nuclear power plants for surface ships and on the forums of these articles. There were enough of them, many of them were quite solid and professional. For they were written by professionals. The forums of these articles will be even more interesting for you, because many professionals also took part in them.
              ... This has long been a hackneyed and gnawed topic ... I just do not want to repeat myself.
              You just study these articles and materials on this topic on other resources.
              If nuclear power plants were more convenient, economically profitable and acceptable in operation on surface ships of the middle (!) Class, then there would be, if not hundreds, then many dozens of such ships today, for sure.
              In all fleets of planet Earth.
              But this is not the case.
              Although nuclear submarines, icebreakers and aircraft carriers are quite present in the fleets.
              WHY do you think?
              Answers to this are given in many publications, including our site - VO.
              Quote: Devil13
              And let's talk about your favorite boilers at 956 or about the power plant at Gorshkov?

              Do you even know the difference between a steam and a gas turbine ... do you understand?
              The hawks were equipped with excellent steam turbines and boilers with steam characteristics at the level of the nuclear power plant. This was the pinnacle of this technology. And they were very good walkers ... as long as their GEM was in the hands of professionals.
              Let's talk about gas turbines.
              What is their advantage over any other type of engine?
              Highest power density (power per gravity) and compactness.
              This means that they take up much less space on the ship, giving much more power to the propellers. And the saved space and weight can be used to accommodate additional volumes of fuel, weapons, ammo, etc. equipment. In the limited space of a warship, this is a very important option.
              Such a turbine does not need a boiler / boilers, refrigerators (for condensation of waste steam), supplies of fresh specially prepared water ... yes, they are simply much more compact in size and weight than any steam turbine. Including (and first of all) a steam turbine with a nuclear boiler and all the infrastructure for it - the difference in weight and volume is simply orders of magnitude.
              And they are gas turbines, much cheaper than any nuclear power plant.
              On orders.
              And at least an order of magnitude cheaper in the cost of operation / life cycle.
              Quote: Devil13
              Power plant on Gorshkov? And there she is German

              belay What kind of fantasies?
              It was really planned to include more powerful German diesel engines in its composition.
              But we were refused them even at the stage of construction of the lead (!) Ship.
              Quote: Devil13
              what will happen when the 3rd corps still goes to tests with "our"

              I am also looking forward to the results of sea trials of the first domestic power plant.
              And I also have doubts about their success ... the fact is that this power plant was installed in the frigate's hull, which had already been launched.
              Nobody in the world has done this!
              And this was by no means done out of great intelligence and responsibility. I would call it bluntly - sabotage. The power plant was loaded into the hull in parts by a port (!) Crane.
              Therefore, the results may be ... different.
              But these are not the problems of the turbines themselves. Problems in the conditions of the installation itself ... its quality and accuracy ... I still hope for the best.
              Quote: Devil13
              I pointed out in the article why a nuclear power plant is needed.

              They thought and experimented about this in the USA and the USSR since the 50s - 60s ...
              And practice has shown the erroneousness of your opinion.
              For the sake of a practical method to come to such a disappointing result, both the USA and the USSR spent a lot of money, time and effort.
              Do not strive to be a writer in everything. First, become an attentive and judicious reader - there are simply heaps of materials on this topic. But choose serious ones.
              Quote: Devil13
              new types of weapons (railguns, lasers, etc.) will primarily consume energy

              Quote: Devil13
              If you make a ship not for 10 years and now or yesterday, but for tomorrow, you need a large supply of energy.

              There will be no railguns - this is bluff and nonsense.
            3. +1
              8 August 2021 23: 09
              But lasers are already appearing on warships - precisely as an air defense for the near zone. This promises to be cheaper than ZAK metal cutters. But so far everything is in experimental and test mode.
              Quote: Devil13
              Yet again. What has already been said, but you did not take into account.

              smile
              Quote: Devil13
              You need a highly mobile connection. ships with nuclear power plants can go at high speed for a long time, for them this is normal.

              Yes They can. But still not at the maximum. Otherwise, both the turbines and the gearbox will shut up.
              The high cruising speed of ships with nuclear power plants is about 25 knots. Of course, they can keep the maximum speed longer than any ship with a classical power plant, but this can have consequences, so in ordinary life this is not abused.
              Escort ships of the American AUG can maintain a cruising speed of 20 knots for a long time. And this is usually enough for them.
              Quote: Devil13
              Ships with GEM cannot. or you need tankers

              GEM is the main power plant.
              It can be nuclear, nitrogen turbine, mixed, diesel and even electric.
              Quote: Devil13
              or you need tankers with a speed of 30 knots

              lol laughing good
              Yeah ... I haven't heard this for a long time ...
              And tell me, author, why the goblin AUG or KUG to carry a tanker with them in a warrant?
              Tankers usually go separately (like supply ships) and meet / wait for warships at the rendezvous point.
              If there is a long voyage without calling into ports, then tankers (as well as integrated supply ships) simply leave before the KUG / AUG and wait for them at a predetermined point.
              Or they simply arrive in the area of ​​activity of such a KUG / AUG and calmly replenish their stocks.
              And stocks are needed DIFFERENT.
              Except fuel.
              Fresh water, food, technical fluids, consumables, ammunition, etc., etc., etc.
              But this is all - the last (except for fuel) and every ship with nuclear power plants needs.
              And the aircraft carrier is also regularly replenished with aviation fuel.
              For without aviation fuel, to whom would it be so autonomous?
              Quote: Devil13
              Even in the composition of the control system, the turbines for such a regime are called afterburners.

              Yes Namely - in order to prevent excessive fuel consumption in cruising modes.
              Quote: Devil13
              Atlant and Orlan is not 70%. Orlan's air defense and anti-aircraft defense is much better. As well as survivability and moveability.

              Well, not an order of magnitude smile but the ship is really good.
              Here are just the original plans for their construction, even the mighty USSR refused - it was limited to 4 to accompany the same 4 "Ulyanovsk".
              And PLO in 1164 is much weaker. Yes I also pointed out this in a post above.
              But if, together with 1164, 1155 goes on the campaign, then all the shortcomings in ASW (and partly in air defense) will be excluded.
              I wrote about the IMPACT capabilities of this ship - it was for this that they were created.
              To destroy the enemy's AUG with heavy anti-ship missiles.
              And it is precisely in their strike capabilities that the difference is by no means great - 16 heavy anti-ship missiles against 20.
              This is 80% (!!!) of the Orlan's capabilities.
              At least 5 times lower cost, and at least 10 times lower life cycle cost.
              Think well about this simple arithmetic.
              Quote: Devil13
              As well as survivability and moveability.

              Vitality - yes, the ship has more than 2 times more VI.
              In terms of air defense ... the same "Fort" (only one, not two, as on the "Orlan") BC is smaller, but the possibilities in terms of range and complexity of targets are the same. It's just that the missiles will run out later. Be close to 1155 and 956 (and they planned to walk, and the SSGN under water as part of the KUG), and there will be enough missiles to repel raids. And this despite the fact that all such IBM will cost less than one 1144.
              And money in the USSR knew how to count.
              And for their decisions - ANSWERED.
              Quote: Devil13
              Unlike Americans, we need a highly mobile, small but powerful AUG

              belay Yah ?
              And where ?
              Where do we need such a "small, powerful and highly mobile AUG"?
              Which Fleet?
              Which TVO?
              They are all geographically separated by many thousands of kilometers. smile
              On the Northern Fleet?
              Or at the Pacific Fleet?
              Is one even enough for one theater?
              The enemy will wait until she is so fashionable to be repaired, powdered and the sea will come out?
              Have you thought about it?
              But the experts THOUGHT.
              There will be no benefit from "one" such AUG - as well as from the only "Kuznetsov".
              What is needed is the grouping.
              At least three aircraft carriers in two theaters (Pacific Fleet, Northern Fleet).
              Based on the assumption that one AUG is constantly at sea, one in the base in readiness for an exit for 1 - 2 weeks, and one for scheduled repairs in the field of service.
              The only way .
              And with atomic monsters we will never accomplish such a task (6 AUG in two theaters). Neither for the money nor for production capabilities.
              But to build 6 AV medium VI - 45 - 000 tons on gas turbines (or even better - on gas-steam turbine pairs) - COMPLETELY. For reasonable money and within a reasonable time frame.
              Quote: Devil13
              And yes, steam catapults in the 21st century on new ships, are they not electro-magnetic? Seriously?

              More than, and it is for AB with just such a power plant - on gas-steam turbopairs. For steam will always be in excess, and this steam will be FREE - without additional fuel consumption.
              I have already written on this topic more than once in the comments and I will not go into details.
              Just look at the economic gas-steam turbine at the 1164 Ave.
              All the best . hi
              1. -1
                10 August 2021 00: 00
                Thank you for your answers, it is interesting to deal with you. hi
                About the mention of "Ukrainian / Chinese diesels" - it was just about the RTOs. Yes, the information needs to be double-checked, but somewhere I have already read about just such a characteristic of diesel engines for RTOs. I'll double-check.
                About the power plant: speaking of the power plant in the section on discussing power plants, I mean the gas turbine, the nuclear power plant - nuclear, etc., implying that the discussion is already going on about the main power plant. So: the USSR, in principle, could. He could create unique, advanced projects, apply modern technical solutions. Now, as we can see, Nakhimov can be repaired within normal timeframes, let alone 1164 that the defense industry is unable to build. I'm not talking about the rest of the ships and Frankenstein based on the BOD.
                No, in theory, Saturn survived and even afloat, but in general there are problems with the power plant on the ships.
                Moreover, at 22350, which is the first, which is the second, the power plant is still partially not ours. And it's not a fact that it can now (in the absence of supplies of spare parts and service) give full speed.
                I do not dispute that gas turbines are good. In the end, one of the best serial destroyers in the world is built on it, and indeed has a cruising speed of 20, and a maximum speed of 32, using 4 GTEs. But the question is in the capabilities of the industry and the seriality of deliveries.
                icebreakers with nuclear power plants, boats, we can build. We build in the end.
                For example, RITM-200, the entire nuclear power plant has a weight of 2 × 1220 tons, 6 × 13,2 × 15,5 meters and a power of 75 MW, The weight of the M-21 power plant is 1164, and the truth is 267,3 tons, I will not say the dimensions. 27MW if memory serves.
                On the one hand, the power is 3 times higher, on the other - the weight is 10. Comparing this way, I believe, I agree, but ... there are still supply problems, refueling problems, problems, problems. We cannot build a frigate in series, but here the destroyer is twice as large in displacement, at least 1,2-1,5.
                About tankers - it meant an emergency. not when you have agreed on all the routes in half a year, but when an exacerbation has come sharply, and you need to transfer ships. In this case, feet in hand, supplies for transport, transport to the squadron, not an option? for the average travel speed without stops is the average travel speed.
                About aircraft carriers. Exactly the same problem. In theory, we can make a power plant in the form of a gas turbine, or a steam-gas for a ship with a displacement of 50 thousand tons. in practice ... such. And the maintenance of an aircraft carrier is the maintenance of an aircraft carrier, no one argues with that, although it would be fun to calculate how much fuel it will consume on it. and AZ 6 ... well, I don’t know, if only suddenly people decide on something serious according to the precepts of Ilyich, revive the USSR, and nationalize all the yachts of our snickering privatizers along with dachas and palaces, as well as enterprises. Then, in five to ten years, something like this will be possible, serially and not much beating out at the price of sold yachts).
                And yes, about the railgun: absolutely real, and realizable in the future. The question is in proper application. OBPS tanks are now using the main projectile, but the principle of the railgun is the same - a blank at the highest possible speed.
                1. 0
                  10 August 2021 02: 09
                  Quote: Devil13
                  Thank you for your answers, it is interesting to deal with you.

                  hi
                  Quote: Devil13
                  About the power plant: speaking of the power plant in the discussion section of power plants, I mean exactly the gas turbine,

                  It is better to use the abbreviation GTU - gas turbine unit, or GT GEM. For a power plant is a common abbreviation for the main propulsion system of any ship / vessel.
                  Quote: Devil13
                  Now, as we can see, Nakhimov can be repaired within normal timeframes, not to mention that the defense industry cannot build 1164.

                  "Nakhimov" is not only renovated (overhauled), but also radically modernized. In practice, it will be a completely new ship in the old hull. Therefore, the price is appropriate. In addition, during the modernization, the project was revised several times towards complication. This also applies to its air defense, and this is a very complex component. The S-500 was adopted, and it has a very good radar, moreover, AFAR. These radars are now being supplied to re-equip the entire existing S-400 fleet, expanding their capabilities. Such a radar in the naval version will not be superfluous on such a highly saturated air defense ship. But suppliers are delaying its marine version (there are nuances).
                  Air defense systems in general often delay the delivery of any lead ship if these systems are new. And the cost of air defense in a complex sometimes reaches 40% of the cost of a ship.
                  And ships of dimension 1164, in principle, can be built by our industry, especially in the new boathouse of the Northern Shipyard. A power plant for four M90FR / FRU will give a power of 110 hp, this is enough for a VI ship of 000 - 12 tons - that is, even a somewhat larger one, with 000 CD in the UKSK, the "Fort-M" air defense system with a new radar AFAR, developed by the State Aircraft Corporation, 14 - 000 helicopters ... It's just that everything should go in order - first, the development and equipping of the 80 \ 2 series (this is already at the final stage), then the laying of the 3M VI series 22350 tons - the main workhorse of the future Fleet OZ, and finally after the successful launch of the "Super-Gorshkov" - a cruiser / destroyer (call it whatever you like) of the aforementioned appearance ... in the very new boathouse of "Severnaya Verf", in which the first 22350.1M will be laid.
                  For the serial 22350M can be built on the existing slipways of both Severnaya Verf and Yantar Kaliningrad - the existing slipways allow it both in size and carrying capacity.
                  Quote: Devil13
                  No, in theory, Saturn survived and even afloat, but in general there are problems with the power plant on the ships.

                  Gas turbines M75RU, M-70FRU and M90FR have been mastered by the industry, are mass-produced and are used not only for new ships under construction, but also for remotorization of Soviet-built ships. The M70FRU was installed on the Bora and its sister ship, they also go to the new hovercraft ...
                  But for the new ship, the 22350M power plant will still be new, although not at all more complicated than for 22350, because gas turbines have closer operating speed values ​​and it is easier to marry them on one gearbox than a high-speed turbine and a low-speed diesel locomotive. It's just that you need to MAKE such a reducer ...
                  And some clever guys puzzled Zvezda-Reductor, go from the power plant for the "innovative" "corvette of the future" 20386 ... and they have been doing it for the last time.
                  For a ship that is not just unnecessary for the Navy, but directly - harmful. Now it will only be an experimental vessel without being put into service.
                  But time is wasted.
                  And the gearbox for the power plant 22350M will be ready no earlier than 2023.
                  I would like to rip and throw, but unfortunately our defense industry complex throws out not such pretzels to us.
                2. 0
                  10 August 2021 03: 00
                  Quote: Devil13
                  Moreover, at 22350, which is the first, which is the second, the power plant is still partially not ours. And it's not a fact that it can now (in the absence of supplies of spare parts and service) give full speed.

                  I think they will be able to give full speed to both "Gorshkov" and "Kasatonov", and without any problems. Problems, as I remember, were with diesel engines, but since the ship (Gorshkov) waited a very long time for its air defense to be ready, all childhood diseases of its power plant had already been cured. Questions are now raised by the operation of his travel gearboxes at No. 3. For it is really new.
                  Quote: Devil13
                  I do not argue that gas turbines are good

                  Quote: Devil13
                  But the question is in the capabilities of the industry and the seriality of deliveries.

                  For the above three GTUs, there are no production problems - they are already serial. And they are no more complicated than aircraft engines. Moreover, they are made on their basis.
                  Quote: Devil13
                  The weight of the M-21 power plant is 1164 and really is 267,3 tons, I will not say the dimensions., 27 MW if memory serves.

                  It should be remembered that the 1164 has a rather complex power plant of EIGHT turbines. Two of them are steam rooms. Four for each shaft. Despite the fact that steam turbines (although they are small) need a supply of water and refrigerators (for steam condensation). The power plant of project 22350M is close in power to the power of the power plant of project 1164, but it will weigh significantly less - only four turbines. And yes - the gearbox weighs more than the turbines themselves.
                  Quote: Devil13
                  On the one hand, the power is 3 times higher, on the other - the weight is 10

                  Not everything has been taken into account yet. The external circuit of the refrigerator, radiation and structural protection are very heavy. This is also worth considering. Therefore, the nuclear power plant is justified only on very large special-purpose ships.
                  And in a foreign port (any!), A ship with such a power plant will not be allowed.
                  And this is very, VERY inconvenient during months of services away from the bases.
                  Newcliphobia. request
                  Quote: Devil13
                  We cannot build a frigate in series, but here the destroyer is twice as large in displacement, at least 1,2-1,5.

                  Our serial frigates of almost the same VI were built for 3 - 3,5 years.
                  Serial, which means that all systems are worked out, the technical process is debugged, production cooperation is established and there are no delays with components.
                  All frigates 22350 that are now built and the one that is being tested are, in fact, head ones. On them, everything was only worked out with a bunch of introductory inputs, independent of shipbuilders. At first, they waited for several years to fine-tune the air defense system (Polyment-Redut), then the breakdown of cooperation with Ukraine, when all the ships of the series were left without engines ... a painful acquisition of competencies and the creation of sufficient capacities.
                  But POWER HAS BEEN CREATED. Moreover, the power is sufficient.
                  So much so that the industry is already starting to look for external orders, although there are simply heaps of its own. It remains to bring these powers to a steady rhythmic rhythm of work. I hope to wait a little longer.
                  Quote: Devil13
                  About aircraft carriers. Exactly the same problem. In theory, we can make a power plant in the form of a gas turbine, or a steam-gas for a ship with a displacement of 50 thousand tons. in practice ... such

                  And why practice scares you so much?
                  Such a turbopair has not been unprecedented for a long time, just such gas-steam turbine installations have been implemented not in the fleet, but in the power industry. This is now the most advanced direction - such TPPs generate 2 times more electricity per burned kilocalorie! Efficiency of conversion of heat into el. energy came close to 40% (36 - 38%) ... instead of 18 - 20% (max.!) before - on a steam turbine. The installation itself is more expensive, but pays off faster. Now in the Russian Federation, a program has been adopted for the modernization of most of the CHPPs for just such installations.
                  On a ship, even a very large one, such an installation is needed ... smaller ...
                  Which one?
                  Well, for example, a gas-steam turbopair based on the M90FR. winked
                  The gas turbine will give 27 l / s, the steam turbine will add at least 500 l / s. feel
                  With the same fuel consumption. Yes
                  Four such turbopairs will give power to the shafts in the aggregate of 200 - 220 hp. bully
                  This is enough for a full stroke of 30 knots.
                  And you know what is the most interesting?
                  Such turbopairs already exist. bully
                  In the energy sector.
                  Gazprom, Rosneft and a number of other companies have ordered them to electrify their workers' settlements and small towns.
                  And you can take turbines and more powerful. smile
                  Now the UEC operates at a gas turbine with a capacity of 40 - 000 l / s.
                  And for the energy sector, these are also being created - a whole line.
                  If desired, you can organize the electric movement - electric transmission.
                  When turbines work for generation, and the propellers rotate by electric motors.
                  At the same time, there will be losses on double conversion, but we have already doubled the efficiency wink , you can part and sacrifice for the sake of convenience - no shafts through the floor of the ship, no noise and vibrations, and excess electricity on board. If you want it, give it to the EM catapults, if you want it to the combat lasers for close air defense ... If you want it, arrange the illumination like a New Year tree ... Or power the port in case of an accident.
                  Quote: Devil13
                  although it would be fun to calculate how much fuel he will eat on it. and АЖ 6 ... well, I don't know,

                  They will eat twice less than any others - gas-steam turbopairs are a guarantee of that.
                  And you can also call another small tax on oil companies ... and call it "Naval tax in kind." In return, a guarantee of the safety of domestic shipping in the world's oceans. wink Such a roof is worth a lot.
                  Quote: Devil13
                  And yes, about the railgun: absolutely real, and realizable in the future. The question is in proper application. OBPS tanks are now using the main projectile, but the principle of the railgun is the same - a blank at the highest possible speed.

                  Forget it as a nightmare.
                  The blank is terrible for the tank - it is small and will kill the crew with secondary fragments.
                  The ship is as stupid as a mosquito bite. But it is expensive, there is no guidance system, there is no high-explosive effect.
                  Better a regular anti-ship missile.
                  Or just a classic cannon.
        3. +1
          7 August 2021 18: 47
          Quote: Artyom Karagodin
          The optimal KOH is 0,5, and not 0,33, as in the scheme you are describing.
          And real - 0.15. And this is with the states, with their ship repair facilities.
      2. 0
        6 August 2021 20: 20
        yeah, 3 or 6 aircraft carriers for the Russian Federation are so real, aren't they?) It is clear that ideally there should be at least three of them. and preferably in every fleet.
        nevertheless, with "THREAD" there will be just three of them in this scheme, and with the ability to push them out if really necessary - two, and one on an ongoing basis.
        And yes, the table does not take into account Kuznetsov, only new ships and full-fledged AB, not hybrids.
        1. 0
          8 August 2021 16: 06
          Quote: Devil13
          yeah, 3 or 6 aircraft carriers for the Russian Federation are so real, aren't they?)

          The most difficult thing now is not even to build these 6 corps, but to create an adequate air group for them. And to create it for one, that for six - all the same. AWACS aircraft, modern carrier-based fighter, heavy PLO helicopter - the tasks are very difficult, and not cheap ...
    3. -9
      6 August 2021 14: 23
      all-kin will not be.
      "They cut down an oak near the sea. A cat for meat ...".
      max WORKS EFFECTIVELY EXACTLY MO.
      not for building and reviving the fleet - for fighting other groups of influence on the Kremlin.
      the very fact of duties on metallurgists is already a victory (and it seems that it is not the Ministry of Defense), which must now be done by the authorities.
      if you do not build the fleet faster, you will grind in the dressing room with old troughs.
      Bend your line, Vovka ..
      all will not be considered your wishlist, but the cost of the fleet "HERE AND NOW"
      EASIER TO GIVE IN LIKE E + Deripaska. instead of such costs.
      judo without "eh, uhnem cudgel ..."
      1. -1
        6 August 2021 20: 08
        how does the MO work effectively? in the fact that it builds unnecessary troughs for the dear?
        1. -4
          6 August 2021 21: 41
          how does the MO work effectively?

          -for the fight against other groups of influence on the Kremlin.
    4. 0
      6 August 2021 20: 03
      PLO and proposed in corvette format
    5. -1
      7 August 2021 23: 33
      Quote: Siegfried
      the weak ability of the Russian Navy to ensure a safe or guaranteed exit of SSBNs in the opposite direction (the Barents Sea) is emerging.

      quite right, again spreading about aircraft carriers and why are destroyers on closed seas, but in reality the spreading of ships on small unprotected bases, as in front of tsushima ... like there are ships, but there is no fleet anywhere ... and it is everywhere weak and incapable of combat ... It is necessary to collect everything that is of the first second rank in the North and Kamchatka, all new ships of the first second rank only there, when we form the Northern and Kamchatka fleets according to its tasks, it may become possible to allocate a few frigates to the Black Sea Fleet to strengthen Pytlivy and Ladny. Aircraft carriers are definitely not needed, and for a long time the Cruiser Moscow has no missions on the Black Sea Fleet, her to the North.
  2. +10
    6 August 2021 11: 17
    Many people ask: why does a land power need a fleet?
    As for the "land power" - Mongolia is a land power. Russia, with its length of sea borders with the equator (39000 km), can hardly be called such. And as for "why the fleet?"
    "Every Potentate who has one land army, has one hand, but which also has a fleet, has both hands."
    Peter I
    1. +3
      6 August 2021 11: 26
      Thinking "overland" in a huge number of people.
      1. +4
        6 August 2021 12: 04
        Quote: Niko
        Thinking "land"
        Rather, it is a lack of ambition for leadership in the world, primarily among our powers that be. Why do they need a fleet, to pump out raw materials for sale and so it is possible. For internal ratings, there is something to puff the cheeks, one "miracle torpedo" for the world armageddon, which is worth it. Fat cats, who have made billions of "backbreaking work", keep their junk in the West, they have their own fleet, many yachts will go for a cruiser. They have other world ambitions, their own, not for the country, with their masters, and so they will agree.
      2. +4
        6 August 2021 12: 18
        Thinking "overland" in a huge number of people.

        Even the sailors. We are all thinking about protecting the shores.
        20 MAPLs with CD capable of carrying special warheads - and all NATO will only deal with attempts to neutralize them.
        1. +4
          6 August 2021 20: 07
          and will simply respond with 200 Orions on leaving the bases or by activating all the hydrophones of the "curtain" systems in the ocean.
          I have already told you that there is no "ultimatum" solution to the problem. the problem is being solved in a comprehensive manner, by the interaction of the entire fleet.
          1. 0
            6 August 2021 20: 45
            and will simply respond with 200 Orions on leaving the bases or by activating all the hydrophones of the "curtain" systems in the ocean.
            I have already told you that there is no "ultimatum" solution to the problem. the problem is being solved in a comprehensive manner, by the interaction of the entire fleet.

            What's the problem? Victory over NATO's Joint Fleet?
            This requires an alternative fleet, which is unrealistic.

            The composition that you propose is the reincarnation of the Gorshkovsky "balanced" fleet.
            Since the era of battleships, Russia has been trying to build it, spending huge amounts of money, it is not clear why.

            At the same time, each new war strains the last forces, trying to provide the land army.
        2. 0
          8 August 2021 16: 15
          Quote: Arzt
          20 MAPLs with CD capable of carrying special warheads - and all NATO will only deal with attempts to neutralize them.

          And also Kuznetsov (modernized), Nakhimov and 3-4 frigates in Middle-earth, and you can be calm about the grouping in Syria ...
          The same squadron in the Far East, and you don't have to worry about the Kuril Islands ...
          The fleet is so multipurpose, and inspires ...
      3. -1
        8 August 2021 16: 11
        Quote: Niko
        Thinking "overland" in a huge number of people.

        And this is normal for our vast Motherland.
        The bad news is that "overland" thinking is among the high authorities, among the generals in the General Staff ... These must think broadly ...
    2. +6
      6 August 2021 11: 54
      Peter also had a head, but the current ones have one bottomless pocket.

      Hello my friend. smile
    3. +4
      6 August 2021 13: 26
      smile for reference: Mongolia does have a navy! Trade and fishing. It appeared in the 90s when in Russia, thanks to "anti-crisis managers", it became unprofitable to maintain their ships ...
      1. +2
        9 August 2021 01: 06
        And I read about the Mongolian merchant fleet back in Soviet times, as well as about the merchant fleet of Czechoslovakia.
  3. +4
    6 August 2021 11: 27
    Many people ask: why does a land power need a fleet?

    Author! To answer such questions is not to respect yourself!
    The total length of the borders of RUSSIA ~ the largest in the world reaches 62 km. Of them the length of the Sea borders is 37636 km, Land - 24625, 3 km.

    THE EXTENSION OF THE SEA BORDERS IS MORE THAN HALF OF THE TOTAL !!! COMPARABLE WITH THE LENGTH OF THE EQUATOR !!!
    I will not be too lazy to remind you (I like it very much):
    1. 0
      6 August 2021 13: 36
      As my history teacher at the university used to say, "What next?" Here everyone can see the American marines near Magadan.
    2. 0
      6 August 2021 20: 22
      Unfortunately, the military in the army only forces the dates to be taught, films for educational purposes about the navy are not staged.
    3. 0
      8 August 2021 16: 20
      I also really like this scene. hi
      And they noticed the face of the British ambassador who saw the Black Sea squadron. Centuries have passed, but nothing in this face has changed to this day ...
  4. -6
    6 August 2021 11: 40
    The author is enough about our TFR from which Defender left, huh? What kind of TFR were there? Patrol Hunters COHR long ago became the TFR?)))
    1. +3
      6 August 2021 12: 09
      22160 was there
      1. -7
        6 August 2021 12: 38
        NS. Is he also a TFR?)
  5. -9
    6 August 2021 11: 46
    - ensuring the protection of our territorial waters, assistance to border guards (and protection of bases);

    - be able to resist the fleets of other states in the event of a conflict;

    - protection against attacks from sea areas;

    In the event of a global conflict at sea, we cannot win in any case. Our entire surface fleet will be sunk or pushed to shore - no options.
    providing anti-piracy activities, protecting shipping in the world's oceans;

    You can't argue here - the option is useful, but you need to consider - maybe it's cheaper to donate a couple of civilian vessels than to maintain a whole navy. In general, as far as I know, the issue of piracy off the coast of Somalia was radically resolved with the help of PMCs, not the fleet.
    - a demonstration of strength anywhere in the world (that is, if necessary - to be a small, but combat-ready squadron anywhere);

    It will not work against normal states, and the Papuans can be scared with a trifle with cruise missiles - so long as they do not drown.
    - protection by the presence of the naval component of the triad of strategic nuclear forces and ensuring its functioning (to ensure the functioning and access to the SSBN position).

    I was surprised to learn that one 22350 is worth two Boreas. Hence the question: maybe it is cheaper to solve the issue of SSBN stability by the number of these?

    Hence the conclusion: ff firebox this your surface fleet from 10 AB to 100.
    1. +5
      6 August 2021 13: 11
      Quote: Hwostatij
      I was surprised to learn that one 22350 is worth like two Boreas

      Where does this data come from ??? The cost of Borey is $ 0,7-0,9 billion, that is, 50-60 billion rubles. The cost is 22350 - about 30. So it turns out exactly the opposite.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. +3
          6 August 2021 14: 45
          APRKSN cannot cost as corvette 20385. It simply cannot, because it is incomparably more complicated. So they tried to feed you either stupidity, or outdated information. This price was announced in 2011. And the price of "Gorshkov" and others 222350 you give a sample of 2018.
          1. -4
            6 August 2021 15: 13
            $ 313 million. By the way, Varshavyanka costs about that much for export. I do not insist - not my business profile. If you have other data - links to the studio - the most interesting hi
            1. +1
              6 August 2021 15: 48
              Quote: Hwostatij
              If you have other data - links to the studio - the most interesting

              I agree. So far, however, I have not found it, but it takes time - I have already read on this topic for a long time. I'll send it a little later. Okay?
          2. 0
            6 August 2021 15: 17
            Yes, I got excited about links - just brought it up - the post was immediately deleted feel
    2. +1
      6 August 2021 21: 00
      In case of global conflict

      To prevent a global conflict, there are strategic nuclear forces, including their naval component - SSBNs with SLBMs, and to support them, they build bases, organize OVR forces (minesweepers, corvettes, base aviation), a protected area of ​​combat service (an aircraft carrier, if any, EM / frigates). Suddenly it turns out that a full-fledged fleet is needed, albeit not the same as that of the Americans, but a full-fledged one.

      Will not work against normal states

      Rolled, the usual projection of force, since 2013, our fleet has been holding a connection in the Mediterranean so that "unidentified terrorists" do not sink our ships supplying the warring group in Syria.
      1. 0
        6 August 2021 21: 18
        To prevent a global conflict, there are strategic nuclear forces, including their naval component - SSBNs with SLBMs, and to support them, they build bases, organize OVR forces (minesweepers, corvettes, base aviation), a protected area of ​​combat service (an aircraft carrier, if any, EM / frigates). Suddenly it turns out that a full-fledged fleet is needed, albeit not the same as that of the Americans, but a full-fledged one.

        Do you want to protect the entire world's oceans? So, the meaning of the existence of submarines is in their stealth, and not protection by nonexistent
        (aircraft carrier, if any, EVs / frigates)

        Rolled, the usual projection of force, since 2013, our fleet has been holding a connection in the Mediterranean so that "unidentified terrorists" do not sink our ships supplying the warring group in Syria.

        Yes, where is there without an avian? Maybe a couple of corvettes will be enough?
        1. 0
          7 August 2021 09: 30
          Do you want to protect the entire world's oceans?

          Not all, only the bastion and the way to it.
          Maybe a couple of corvettes will be enough?

          Ideally, yes, without lighting the situation from the air, the air defense zone narrows to the radio horizon, 30-40 km, especially for corvettes, the air defense of which is built on a leftover principle. A relatively cheap option is DVKD, the situation is illuminated with the help of helicopters.
  6. 0
    6 August 2021 11: 55
    Keep observing.
  7. -8
    6 August 2021 12: 42
    The opinion is interesting, but why do we need to pump a lot of money into the fleet at all? And without him there are enough problems
    1. +5
      6 August 2021 16: 41
      Quote: MegaWattExpert
      Why do we need to pump a lot of money into the fleet at all? And without him there are enough problems

      1. Without a fleet, there will be many times more problems.
      2. Those who do not want to feed their own ARMY will feed someone else's.
      AHA.
      1. -5
        6 August 2021 20: 51
        1. And with the fleet the costs will be more than we can afford.
        2.The USSR has already tried, AHA
  8. -1
    6 August 2021 12: 45
    us not needed a fleet in the likeness of the US Navy and even more so AUGi
    we need to revive the operational squadrons of the times of the USSR
    5th Mediterranean, 8th Indian, 17th Vietnam, 7th Atlantic,
    10th Pacific
    minimum per squadron: 4 destroyers of Project 22350, 1 cruiser of Project 1144/1164, 1 TAVKR = 6 per 5 squadrons = 30
    20 destroyers (4 available, 6 under construction), 5 cruisers (everything is: 2 Project 1144, 3 Project 1164) 5 TAVKR (1 present)
    the Russian Navy has other tasks
    USA recognized that even 8 CRP Zircon on RTOs - fatal to US Navy AUG
    1. +1
      6 August 2021 20: 27
      Quote: Romario_Argo
      us not needed a fleet in the likeness of the US Navy and even more so AUGi
      we need to revive the operational squadrons of the times of the USSR
      5th Mediterranean, 8th Indian, 17th Vietnam, 7th Atlantic,
      10th Pacific
      minimum per squadron: 4 destroyers of Project 22350, 1 cruiser of Project 1144/1164, 1 TAVKR = 6 per 5 squadrons = 30
      20 destroyers (4 available, 6 under construction), 5 cruisers (everything is: 2 Project 1144, 3 Project 1164) 5 TAVKR (1 present)
      the Russian Navy has other tasks
      USA recognized that even 8 CRP Zircon on RTOs - fatal to US Navy AUG

      And they in Congress admitted it when the grandmothers were knocked out to the fleet?
      Cruisers 1164 will serve for another 10 years. 1144 - well, twenty, if you're lucky. What to replace?
      22350 is NOT a destroyer yet and has not even stood nearby.

      And this whole squadron loses its combat effectiveness by 1 raid of the air group of a medium aircraft carrier, which will not even enter the affected area. Moreover, the squadron will not see him or the planes without AWACS. Well, except that the airship is tied to Peter on a string, equipped with huge grates and powered from 1144.
      Money down the drain?
      1. +1
        9 August 2021 09: 33
        it's funny.
        combat radius of F-18 = 700 km., range of anti-ship missiles Zircon = 1000 km
        and also pr.949 and 855M with Onyx anti-ship missiles at a distance of 300 km from AUG
        1. -1
          10 August 2021 00: 20
          Excellent! only there is a nuance:
          The LRASM range (4 units on the F-18SH) is another 900 km, which is 1600 km.
          The range of the AWACS radar is about 500-400 km (the KUG will be seen even further), it will see the anti-ship missiles for 100-200.
          That is, our KUG will be illuminated with impunity to attack for 1600 km, while the blind and deaf KUG will suck a paw, wondering where this aircraft carrier is.
          Once again: Aircraft carrier at sea - REVEALING, air defense, anti-aircraft defense, and long-range and area.
          The USSR could afford it and had
          1) satellite reconnaissance system (30+ satellites). If anything, as far as I know, she has already died, and nothing was taken to replace her except for 4 satellites. You know, Glonass only transmits tracker points, and they take pictures on Yandex maps every couple of years.
          2) scouts in naval aviation - on the basis of both the Tu-95 and ILov, etc., refuellers, etc.
          3) marine reconnaissance vessels, both semi-civil and special.
          4) about 200-300 boats, some of which dangled in the sea and watched each of the AUG.
          all this was formed into a single information field, and yes, it was actually possible to withdraw a cruiser / boat with long-range anti-ship missiles and fire a salvo for 500 km.
          Now this is not the case. As well as boats with cruisers - even 1 each for the AUG is not enough, and the countermeasures have increased by an order of magnitude.
          that 949A, that 1164 and 1144 are now more likely suicides, if they try to reach such a target, even with the cover of the IBM.
          949A with Onyxes? can I link to an existing sample at sea?
          So, billions to sink after 1 raid? The nuclear submarine firing according to the data of its GAK is + - 100 km - a corpse.
          The CD will not even reach its 40 km radio horizon, even with the KUG. Its radius is 1600 km from the aircraft carrier. but the F-18 can take 2 anti-ship missiles + PTB.
          So can you build a couple of aircraft carriers than do a bunch of KUGs?
          AWACS will provide illumination no worse than an American. And it will be possible to strike the anti-ship missile system, and then finish off the aircraft that managed to take off, and with the second wave - the enemy KUG.
          Fighters, attack aircraft, will provide air defense cover, and additional strike capabilities, as well as cheap ones - on the ground.
          Helicopters - landing, PLO.
          As?
          By the way, here is a detailed analysis of what I am trying to explain to you in a couple of lines.
          https://topwar.ru/145229-takr-kuznecov-sravnenie-s-avianoscami-nato-ch6.html
          1. +1
            10 August 2021 15: 05
            He will see anti-ship missiles for 100-200.

            your next fairy tales
            the height of the Aegis radar station on Em A. Berk = 25 meters,
            tilt angle + 6 degrees, (for radar RPN 30N6E2 S-400: - 4 degrees)
            radio horizon = 40 km.
            target height not lower than 60 meters
            The anti-ship missile system Zircon runs at a height of 15 meters,
            will actually be seen only at a distance of 20-25 km
            about AWACS and Destroyers in the role of radar patrol - these will be the first goals
            - so to speak, to clear the field
            by the way, on our nuclear submarines in the BC there are 9M96E2 missiles in the TPK for launching through the TA
            just against the F-18 and AWACS
            1. -1
              12 August 2021 00: 03
              firstly, can you open the simplest radio horizon equation and fill in the numbers?
              Secondly, will you read what they write?
              The range of the AWACS radar is about 500-400 km (KUG will be seen even further), it will see anti-ship missiles for 100-200
              .
              AWACS is an AWACS aircraft, AWACS does not exist, long-range radar reconnaissance.
              в-третьих,
              RCC goes at a height of 15 meters
              - not a single modern anti-ship missile system except subsonic, the entire flight does not go at such an altitude, you can study this issue, there are a lot of materials.
              about AWACS and Destroyers in the role of radar patrol - these will be the first goals
              - so to speak, to clear the field

              Truth? but at least one ship has an anti-radar anti-radar anti-radar system? or SAM? with a range of 400 km?
              name at least one.
              by the way, on our nuclear submarines in the BC there are 9M96E2 missiles in the TPK for launching through the TA
              just against the F-18 and AWACS

              .... I don't know where you got this nonsense from, from games?
              Let's start with the fact that it is UNREALABLE to fire a missile defense system without having a target on the radar at all.
              Let's end with the fact that NOBODY and NEVER put SAM on the BOATS. Igla MANPADS everything that the maximum can be on them.
              and the fact that this is enchanting nonsense. I have never heard this from any schoolchildren, dreamers or "experts", thanks
              1. +1
                12 August 2021 10: 08
                It is UNREALABLE to fire a missile defense system without having a target on the radar at all

                9M96E2 has ARGSN + to TA for submarines go to the BC TPK with 5 buoys and coils of 25 km each
                by the way, Germany is great at launching missiles with diesel-electric submarines through the TA from under the water
                Really?

                the attack on the AUG will be carried out in a complex manner:
                SSGNs pr.949A, 855M, PLAT 971; KUG in the composition of 22350, 1144, 1164; Tu-22M3
                under certain conditions: diesel-electric submarine 636.6; Tu-95MS; Tu-142M3; MiG-31K
                not a single modern anti-ship missile system except subsonic, the entire flight at this height does not go

                it will soon be a surprise for all of us - the Zircon anti-ship missile flight along a low-altitude profile:
                from SSGNs to a range of 400 km at an altitude of 15 meters;
                with KUG mixed profile of 500 km at an altitude of 60 km, and 300 km at an altitude of 15 meters
                1. -2
                  12 August 2021 22: 06
                  No one launches Zur from under the water. Name the facts, not myths and your speculations. Give a photo of at least plates with such a layout or at least something.
                  I say it again, this is nonsense.
                  Further. Suppose there is one who will make such a Zur.
                  Argsn does not give guidance "anywhere", do not see the area 150x150x150km. She sees like a funnel in a certain, very narrow sector. And it is impossible to release it without knowing where the enemy is, it will not even start. Roughly speaking, missiles with args are given a direction to the target, given an approximate distance through which they turn on and begin to "search" for the target.

                  The boat can't see the plane.
                  If you float up and raise the antennas, she's a corpse.

                  When it becomes, then we'll talk. So far, there is not a single patent that allows you to fly low (near water 50m in a dense atmosphere) at such speeds and not burn.
                  1. 0
                    13 August 2021 12: 49
                    here is a fresh post on IN
                    sign and read wassat
                    https://topwar.ru/179617-zenitno-raketnye-kompleksy-na-podvodnyh-lodkah-neizbezhnaja-jevoljucija-podplava.html
                    1. -1
                      21 August 2021 00: 09
                      i still can't see
                      by the way, Germany is great at launching missiles with diesel-electric submarines through the TA from under the water
                      proof. The wet dreams of one of the authors on VPO are not yet "this is, this exists, this is being tested and it will be so".
                      Moreover, the author, like you, blindly believes that a low-power radar on the boat's periscope will allow you to find out the initial location of the target and shoot at it (at least somewhere in its area, which allows missiles with ARGSN to do it), BEFORE, how the aviation detects the periscope (which they learned to do during the SECOND WORLD WAR) and the torpedo will go "somewhere in its direction".
                      Placing missiles on submarines is still nonsense, Still unproven ... but you try.
                      1. 0
                        23 August 2021 10: 58
                        our concept is different
                        TPK for a torpedo tube, with 5 buoys under the radar and 25 km coils
                        you can shoot and use 1, 2, 3, 4 buoys
                        when cutting cables with radar buoys and closing the torpedo tube
                        TPK is removed from the TA with the subsequent possible pre-use of the 5th radar buoy
                        from other TA use anti-aircraft guided missiles with preliminary shooting of TPK from TA
                        9M96E2-1 with ARGSN 9B-1348 Slate (Redoubt)
                        9M317MD with ARGSN 9B-1103M (Shtil-1)
                        the presence of only one radar buoy on the sea surface will mean the actual e destruction of anti-submarine helicopters and aircraft located within a radius of 100 km - cold war
          2. 0
            12 August 2021 23: 22
            Quote: Devil13
            The range of the AWACS radar is about 500-400 km (KUG will be seen even further), He will see anti-ship missiles for 100-200.
            That is, our KUG will be highlight with impunity to attack for 1600 km, while the blind and deaf KUG will suck his paw, wondering where this aircraft carrier is.

            Author, what kind of AWACS radar can you illuminate the KUG further than 500 km and at what altitude?
            1. -1
              21 August 2021 00: 01
              "The Liana system on the Tu-126 made it possible to detect airborne objects at ranges from 100 to 350 km, and sea targets up to 400 km."
              "The characteristics of the A-50 are impressive even today: the detection range of air targets can reach 650 km, and the number of escorted targets can reach 300. The aircraft can stay in the air for up to four hours, and refueling almost doubles this figure."
              Can you prolong these facts yourself? And the Americans, unlike us, did not stand still. and GROUP naval target, this is much more noticeable than a single naval target.
  9. +3
    6 August 2021 12: 56
    Why doesn't anyone in the United States have any questions about why their state needs a navy? For one simple reason, the United States transports by ocean steamships millions of tons of cargo, raw materials, equipment, materials, as well as tourists, researchers, etc. a huge number of American citizens, as well as what these American citizens are associated with. And all this and everyone must be protected. From anyone, even from sea monsters.
    When Russia understands that Russian cargo, food, raw materials, equipment, as well as tourists and scientists who swim in the oceans and seas, must also be protected, then the concept of the Russian Navy will become clear to everyone and everyone, and this will entail the construction and development of new types of ships, support vessels, naval aviation, space navigation satellites and much more. It seems that this has already been understood.
  10. +1
    6 August 2021 13: 39
    ehh .. too many letters and unfortunately everything is not about anything .. nothing new recourse
  11. 0
    6 August 2021 15: 15
    I will immediately point out the obvious shortcomings. The author, there is still such an important indicator as seaworthiness! Your 800-ton corvettes will be incapable of combat in the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet most of the time.
    A trifle, in principle, can be useful there when operating near bases, but then they do not need an air component, they will support helicopters from the shore.
    The advantages of a nuclear destroyer in speed and range are illusory. We're not going to send them one by one to slaughter, are we? And when operating as part of a formation, its speed and range are determined by the slowest ship with the most limited range.
    1. +2
      6 August 2021 17: 34
      Quote: Sahalinets
      I will immediately point out the obvious shortcomings.

      Crap! What a commendable determination !!! Allow me to join?
      1. The author is not closely acquainted with the fleet. Therefore, the coastal reconnaissance centers of the fleet for him are a "thing in itself" about which he has not heard, and therefore does not mention.
      2. The Trawlers are not support vessels, but the most, that neither is MINE-MINE combat ships, which, like miners, go ahead of SSBNs, submarines and linear forces of the fleet during their deployment ... Doubt? Then a simple example. In order to disrupt the inter-fleet maneuver by forces (SF-Pacific Fleet), the Yankees plan (just something!) To fill up the Berenga Strait with mines. Voila la!
      3. The opinion is erroneous that the Black Sea Fleet and the Baltic Sea Fleet do not need ships of rank 1-2. It all depends on the tasks. Black Sea Fleet (anyway) donor of Mediterranean. And there all sorts of boats are needed. BF (under the Union) provided the submarines of the northerners when crossing the Faro-Icelandic PLO line. This task cannot be solved without ships of rank 1-2. Therefore, - there will be a day, there will be food. They will set tasks, they will build forces for them.
      4. AVU needs at least 3-4 for their normal "functioning". And ideally, 2 each for the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleet, so that in the event of a "surprise" you will not be left with a bare bottom ... instead of air cover for the forces at sea.
      5. About "curvettes". In fact, these are PLO-shny ships in escort service. Trans-Atlantic (with a big BADA-BOOM) we seem to be not going to drive, but for PLO (OVR) naval base and brigade are quite enough. Total: 24 units, well, on the strength of 36-40.
      6. The author "seriously" talks about the future of the fleet, but looks back ... What does the 636 project have to do with it, when everyone is quietly but stubbornly engaged in the 777A project? And it is not a fact that the 677D will not be brought to mind. The potential of this baby for PLO weapons is 885 projects. But with energy ... not ICE!
      In general, I am more impressed by the approach to the problem of the size of the Navy of our METROV:

      Here's what we're going to build soon:

      And here is approximately how it will look in terms of cost:

      But all the same, to the Yankee fleet we are like walking to the moon ...

      So, there is something to think about. what
      But.
      1. 0
        6 August 2021 20: 42
        1. Can you find out what you mean by this broad concept? over-the-horizon detection stations? observation stations? fleet headquarters?
        2. Well, yes, but it's a- we are able to build and build, b- not within the framework of this article.
        3. with a union - the key. not with an alliance - it will not go beyond Baltiysk. And in peacetime - isn't it easier to solve this with a normal squadron of the Northern Fleet? Nevertheless, I laid down 1-2 EVs and up to 6 frigates.
        4. Ideally, naval aviation should be built from the future carrier-based aviation - and then replenish the air group from it, with already experienced flyers and mastered machines. It is quite possible to do this on the basis of the Su-30SM2. The tasks were set. GPV - planned. Money - allocated. and where is that cart?
        5. Enough if you build more frigates instead. With the proposed version of the corvette, the price difference is colossal.
        6. It was a good fairy tale, but I can't believe it. The plans have been thwarted, and the RF cannot believe in 4 AV all the more. It's just too good an option)))
        And so I note that in the end it is not very different)
        1. 0
          6 August 2021 22: 42
          Quote: Devil13
          And so I note that in the end it is not very different)

          Well, yes, well, yes ... However, on the topic.
          1. About what the RC of the fleet (flotilla) is - in another place, without witnesses, and even better under the sound of pouring water ... AHA.
          2. Just pointed out an error in the classification of the forces of the fleet. Nothing personal.
          3. The statement is not correct, since you are not aware of the immediate (priority) and subsequent tasks of the BF naval forces. BUT!!! 20380 on the BS for some reason go to the shores of Albion ... And why would that be !?
          4. Look at the structure of MA by type of aviation: naval missile-carrying; anti-submarine; exterminating; reconnaissance and auxiliary purposes (long-range radar detection and guidance, electronic warfare, mine countermeasures, control and communications support, aircraft refueling in the air, search and rescue, transport, ambulance). Therefore, it is unlikely that "It is quite realistic to do this on the basis of the Su-30SM2."
          5. The discussion about corvettes = MPC has just ended. Therefore, it is not worth renewing it.
          6. And nevertheless, "verticals" are already being developed, GVP 2027 will be exactly with AVM ... Therefore - wait and see.
          AHA.
    2. 0
      6 August 2021 20: 31
      seaworthiness of 22800 is quite sufficient for this. 9 points are still not permanent there. and he holds 6-7.
      And I also propose to make it possible to refuel the turntables, and not their constant basing.

      About the benefits. AB to build NOT atomic is nonsense. Not with our power plant capabilities, we only have no problems with the atom. Consequently. we have, say, 3 EM + TARK + AB + 885. All connection is capable of moving at 25-30 nodes in constant mode
      1. 0
        7 August 2021 07: 20
        What does "hold" mean? Doesn't he sink? Well, this will not be enough for a warship.
        But the USSR was not able to pull atomic compounds either.
        1. 0
          7 August 2021 21: 40
          The USSR pulled everything. He was not given, and so there were no problems with construction. If some personalities did not stubbornly push the ideas of helicopter carriers and hybrids with missile cruisers, the USSR would have had aircraft carriers back in the 70s. This is a question of politics and khrushchev, "nothing personal", only missiles ...

          and yes, after 4-5 points any ships from other countries of the world are not even able to use their weapons, so 6-7 points is worthy.
  12. +1
    6 August 2021 18: 04
    White on white drinks Northern Fleet, Pacific Fleet - should be full-fledged strike fleets. BF and Black Sea Fleet are semi-fleets with defensive and shock functions. This is how it is done in the General Staff of the Navy. Taking into account the capabilities of the current Russian shipbuilding industry.
    1. 0
      7 August 2021 23: 43
      there have already been articles purely about the ship industry and possible boot options. they do whatever. but do not build a normal fleet
  13. -2
    6 August 2021 18: 15
    The MRCC also seems to have served its term for a long time, and the replacement of 4 satellites, if it works, is unlikely to close the space that was closed by 30+ such satellites.
    As I understand it, this is MKRTs? The Legenda maritime reconnaissance and target designation system, instead of which this year, in addition to the five passive reconnaissance satellites that are part of the Liana system, have already been launched into orbit, it is planned to launch the first active reconnaissance satellite. Hopefully the creation project is well thought out and will indeed provide reliable intelligence.
  14. +1
    6 August 2021 19: 03
    such a situation not only in the navy, such bungling everywhere in all spheres of Russian life
  15. 0
    6 August 2021 19: 22
    In general, the fleet is being built very actively. The most expensive most modern technologies. The cost of this fleet is off the charts. And it may even be comparable to some parts of the US Navy.
    This fleet consists of super-mega yachts of the oligarchy. Lomonosov also said "if it flows away somewhere, it arrives somewhere"!
    1. +1
      6 August 2021 20: 44
      this is undeniably and extremely sad. But alas, regardless of the type of power and the structure of the system, it is worth having a normal fleet.
  16. +1
    7 August 2021 16: 59
    To all the tasks of the Russian Navy revised in the article and in the comments, I would add the task of countering anti-missile systems that are equipped with the fleets of potential adversaries (i.e. Aegis air defense systems and their analogues) that try to get as close as possible to the shores of Russia and also to its naval bases in order to be able to intercept land-based and sea-based intercontinental ballistic missiles in the active section of their trajectories (which, in principle, is much easier than fighting the warheads of these missiles in the descending section of the trajectories where the warheads have already separated and it is already difficult to select true warheads from false ones.
    To solve such a problem, the Aegis system is constantly being modernized, including through the introduction of more advanced sensors and anti-missiles into its composition. Therefore, even as part of the fleets of the near zone, it is necessary to have ships capable of effectively and timely "extinguishing" AUG grazing off the coast of Russia before ...
    And further. I have already expressed my opinion about the combination of cannon artillery with anti-aircraft guided missiles "in one bottle", for example, in Pantsir, Kashtan, etc.
    To begin with, enemy air forces can carry out raids from different angles. In this case, some targets may be more likely to be hit by missiles, and others by cannons.
    In addition, the algorithms for controlling the cannons and missiles are completely different, which adds a load to both the Pantsir operators in the process of deciding on which targets to fire and what and on the computers of the complex.
    Further. Turning a massive Carapace turret to different azimuths requires both decent energy costs and turnaround time. I'm not even talking about the complexity and weight of the servos, which rotate this "head" in different directions and also control the position of missiles and guns in elevation.
    As a result, the effectiveness of the Carapace in a stellar attack by enemy air forces compared to a raid from one direction or in a narrow azimuth and elevation sector can seriously fall. Not up to the baseboard, but still
    And further. Installing an active radar on the same turret can significantly reduce the life of the Pantsir, up to its loss when the enemy uses anti-radar homing missiles (PRR) from distances where neither the guns nor the missiles of the Pantsir can reach their carrier.
    There are also great doubts about Pantsir's ability to destroy these missiles. modern PRR can go to the intended target using different flight profiles (including extremely low altitudes) and guidance methods. Hope for "trickery", i.e. on the radar simulators, designed to lure the PRR, is also very ghostly, tk. modern PRR can carry out a fairly fine analysis of radiation sources and weed out false targets.
    Of course, where the Carapace can be placed along the perimeter of the protected object with a cut for each of them a narrow zone of responsibility, then the Carapace can be quite effective. But where a single Armor is involved, for example, on ships, there arises a big question how long it can hold out with a massive raid from different azimuths and angles of elevation.
    And an example from the experience of waterfowl "partners"
    They managed to integrate the sensors of their CIWS Phalanx with the CI-RAM missile launcher,
    removing the six-barreled cannon from the complex, which was originally part of the CIWS Phalanx https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/capabilities/products/searam-ship-defense-system
    And the purely artillery CIWS Phalanx, as they were on the ships, did not go anywhere.
    The solution looks quite logical (in spite of the Armor, Tunguska and other Chestnuts).
    1. 0
      7 August 2021 21: 52
      1. "Extinguish Aegis" means not letting the enemy into your territorial waters and being able to resist other fleets of the world. I see no reason to single out her as a special point, she is included in these two. But yes, there is such a subtask too.
      2. In the last article there is a moment about the effectiveness of guns and about the effectiveness of missile defense / air defense in general.
      About the low profile of the flight - RCC Exocet goes like this. The carapace and its analogs are designed specifically to intercept anti-ship missiles.
      Launch of the PRR is the same launch of the RCC. after hitting the corvette, there is no loss of the antenna, there is a skiff for the ship.
      complexes with active antennas can operate in a passive mode. But the maximum efficiency of any complex is the active mode.
      Plus Pantsir and ZRAKov as a whole is that it is a compact installation, giving 1 - as much as two barrels, 8+ PU SAMs and 1 guidance channel at least. Ideally, of course, you need a ZAK with its own, better - active guidance systems and radio / timer detonation, and vertical launchers of the same TOP, plus its radars and missiles. According to the results of tests and real work, the TOP is one head superior to the shell in terms of guidance systems. and EMNIP-does not go blind in our bad weather. The carapace is not offered as a full-fledged replacement for serious systems, but as a replacement for the AK-630, and as a completely sufficient level of the complex on ships like a corvette up to 800 tons.
      On the same Peter, if you fasten 6 Shells with divided sectors, it will be an excellent border of the near zone.

      "They managed to integrate the sensors of their CIWS Phalanx with the CI-RAM missile launcher,
      removing the six-barreled cannon from the complex, which was originally part of the CIWS Phalanx https://www.raytheonmissilesanddefense.com/capabilities/products/searam-ship-defense-system
      And the purely artillery CIWS Phalanx, as they were on the ships, did not go anywhere.
      The solution looks (in defiance of the Armor, Tunguska and other Chestnuts) is quite logical. "- and the launchers are rotating faster and there are more channels?)) No cannon is a cannon for a zone up to 2 km.
  17. 0
    7 August 2021 19: 04
    It seems to me that building for us a corvette with VI less than 2000 tons is a bad idea: the weather is not available. And if you really want to turn the corvette into an IPC, cutting off its air defense and anti-aircraft defense, then it may make sense to increase the displacement by another 1.5-2 times, turning it into a carrier for search boats. Then you need fewer corvettes, and the result (search radius) will be better.
    1. 0
      7 August 2021 21: 56
      but how to fasten the GAS from the corvette to the boat? neither energy nor size will be enough.
      In the corvette visby intermed two drones underwater, GAS, lowered GAS, towed GAS-cable. Nothing smarter has yet been invented, and it is difficult to cram more.
      Corvettes and IPC and in general - are. 3500 tons, "Guarding" 20380 pieces 10 were never built.
      But we can still build RTOs Karakurt and other RTOs at a much larger number of enterprises and without problems with engines, hulls, etc. and the point is precisely to stop wasting resources on gunboats, and instead build normal corvettes that the fleet needs.
      About the weather: Karakurt holds up to 6-7 points. More, any corvette will get sick.
      And resources from "super-corvettes" to use on normal frigates. At least there are no problems with polyment.
      1. 0
        7 August 2021 23: 09
        Quote: Author
        ..it turns out that cover all airfields, mines, PGRK bases
        (mobile ground missile system) and their launch sites, and just pinpoint the convoy it's not so difficult now, and they go on duty at best if at least by several routes, and not by one and only road.

        ))))
        the author is clearly not in the subject, if everything was not so hard it would have been "covered" long ago, fortunately, while, on the other side, not "couch analysts" are sitting and they understand how such an attempt will end.
        1. 0
          7 August 2021 23: 50
          The author expressed his opinion. Everything is really not complicated at all and it is organized that way. PGRK even has prepared launch sites.
          The forecasts of real analysts are given above. But you can also read the originals - namely, the reports of the US Department of Defense - what they consider a threat, based on the results of exercises and runs of plans, and what is not
      2. -1
        8 August 2021 08: 59
        Quote: Devil13
        but how to fasten the GAS from the corvette to the boat? neither energy nor size will be enough.
        The helicopters have enough ... Put the low-frequency illumination on the boat, then the boat and the main corvette will be spotted, and the GAS is simpler, which fits.
        1. -1
          12 August 2021 00: 04
          helicopters have two very powerful turbines on the roof) and they have a much simpler extinguishing system. LF illumination also needs to be placed.
  18. 0
    12 August 2021 16: 25
    MKRTS - also seems to have served its term for a long time, and the replacement of 4 satellites, if it works, is unlikely to close the space that was closed by 30+ of them.


    Nikolay. We need to study the material deeper.

    30 satellites have never functioned at the same time in the legend.
    According to the ICRC project, all coverage was simultaneously provided by 7 satellites.
    In fact, on average 5-6.
    According to Liana's project, 4 satellites were supposed to function (2 + 2)
    5 satellites (4 + 1) are currently functioning as part of the liana
    Soon there will be 6 (4 + 2). Then probably the first 2 will be withdrawn to the reserve.

    Summary: at the moment, the Legend functionality has been restored.
    Well, in reality, it has been exceeded many times, since the ZGRLS entered service.
  19. 0
    14 August 2021 14: 55
    I read the article.
    What good can I say - the author in HIS doctrine calculated everything, in principle, correctly, put it on the shelves, and so on. So it smelled like the times of the Cold War, battles of the largest squadrons of the USSR and the United States at sea, etc.)
    What can be said badly - the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation naturally does not use the author's doctrine, but uses its own. And it clearly shows that in a global war no squadrons of the Russian Federation will be sent anywhere. In a nuclear conflict with the United States, ICBMs, long-range aviation, a submarine fleet and the latest delivery vehicles (such as Avangard, etc.) are FULLY enough to deliver strikes on their territory.
    As for some hypothetical threats from squadrons with aircraft carriers, taking into account the development of modern missile systems in the Russian Federation - from the Black Sea this is generally absurd, from the Northern Sea Route - again, complete absurdity (there, aircraft carriers cannot function normally). Only the eastern coast of the Russian Federation remains. Well, before, the United States, having created a grouping of several AUG, will be able to suppress the coastal defenses in those parts, "swim" to the coast, iiiii ....? Well, you get the idea, senseless and merciless. By the way, the TOF, which we have based mainly in Vladivostok, primarily performs the task of containing Japan and other ATR countries.
    Therefore, in real life, the Russian fleet does not need aircraft carriers, cruisers, or even destroyers in the foreseeable future (well, maybe 1 piece as a flagship for each of the 3 fleets). For a frigate of the Grigorovich type is quite enough both for work in the near sea zone, and for the passage and escort of transport ships to distant bases (the same Syria). For the Russian Federation, unlike the United States, does not carry out democracy by bombing from aircraft based on aircraft carriers, we have a different method)
    1. -2
      21 August 2021 00: 20
      Well, yes, we have cheap and cheerful - to put the boys, and not officially - so PMCs, fortunately in a poor country salary of 150 for the opportunity to shoot - go bad. And most importantly, they are outside the law, and no one owes them anything.
      In reality, they will arrange a naval blockade for you, and the Russian Federation will slowly bend in itself, because it is not the USSR - the cat cried for its production, technologies in industry are very deep in shit, I generally keep quiet about engine building and so on.
      The author did not consider the global conflict. He specifically wrote with whom, how and what is possible: a local clash in the same Syria; "small victorious war of turkey / sweden / japan" of any of the "small members" of NATO.
      On the Black Sea coastal complexes are still not closed. And yes, they are perfectly "opened" by aviation. You can see the results of the exercises and tactical developments of the US Armed Forces - it is on the network.

      I will repeat once again that the ship of the next, higher class in the corvette-frigate-destroyer-cruiser-aircraft carrier chain DIMENSIVELY increases the capabilities of the KUG (the fleet as a whole).
      I am not against the plan to build 100500 Grigorovichs - the boat is generally good, it’s a pity really until the first boat with torpedoes or a normally organized attack by aviation.
      But we are building 100500 RTOs (and not even 22800), and 22160, and not Grigorovichi in normal quantities and with all our might.
      1. 0
        12 September 2021 14: 15
        Heh, it's funny to read from a fan of the West - mirroring the situation when exactly the United States will be bent if their squadrons are stupidly sunk.)
        Heh, well, how do you imagine the overlap of the northern border of the Russian Federation by aircraft carriers (they stupidly cannot work there) or the land border with China - let it remain on the conscience of your sick imagination)
        1. 0
          14 September 2021 22: 35
          What about our northern sea route, the main transport artery or port? Look at the statistics of commodity flow and turnover. you will be surprised.
          1. 0
            16 September 2021 22: 27
            So in case of a big war - we have with our allies - first of all the CSTO countries and China - we all have a land border. To us, in general, and in general, on the overlap by some country of the seas and Okians - deeply pohui. But what will happen if dry cargo ships and tankers stop reaching the United States ...) And for this, just a few long-range submarines are enough.
            1. 0
              22 October 2021 09: 45
              Funny.
              Because a few squares are not enough. Even packs of wolves are not enough.
              Did the WWII experience teach you nothing?

              Are you so sure that China is an ally?)
              There are two companions - the army and the navy.
              The rest are temporary partners of interest. As soon as the area of ​​interest changes, they are already enemies
  20. 0
    11 September 2021 14: 24
    If you are building a defensive policy, then you need a fleet for coastal defense. If you are impatient to protect someone, then wage a war on the territory of the aggressor, and all your arguments against will be just tricks to justify your own aggression. If you are afraid to declare war on another state or you cannot wage war on foreign territory, then say so.
    1. 0
      14 September 2021 22: 34
      in a world with the threat of the use of nuclear weapons, a conflict "on the territory of the aggressor" is impossible. Well, except for some chamoised Georgia, which is not serious. LOCAL conflict is possible. In general, above in the article there is a link to DOCTRINE and tasks, and tasks are listed. Is something not clear about them?
  21. 0
    29 September 2021 21: 23
    I largely agree with the author. But I want to note that not a single ship is able to maintain its maximum speed for a long time. Suffice it to recall the fate of the cruiser Kirov, who killed the EI during such a transition.
  22. 0
    12 October 2021 08: 56
    Whatever you write about the need to build a long-range fleet, the President outlined our position many years ago as a defense one - we do not need someone else's, but we will not give up ours either. As soon as a lot of money has started up in the country, we, with the strongest ground army, donate money not to the social sphere to raise wages and pensions, as in developed countries, but to arms. We have become the most militarized country in the world. Just do not provide evidence of the costs of other countries compared to us in dollar terms. It’s clear that the dollar against the ruble is significantly overvalued.
    1. -1
      22 October 2021 09: 48
      Even if 3 times, we are still in shit.
      Our Armed Forces are something on the level of Japan and Turkey, and still consist of outdated weapons. Do not stick around the T-72b3 as a relic, it will not become a merkva or a leopard 2A7 +.

      We have huge expenses for bureaucrats and theft, for the National Guard, but not for the defense industry. A very modest budget has been allocated for it, which is also sawed.
      And for you there are statistics in% ratio, what and where they cut from the budget, I recommend to study.

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

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