Not a godfather, not a matchmaker, not a destroyer, not a frigate

211
The relevant media were very pleased with the exit from the modernization of the former large anti-submarine ship of project 1155.1 "Admiral Chabanenko". The repair was long, since 2014. We also welcome the exit of the former BOD, as we understand very well what the situation is on navy with ships, in particular - with ships of the far sea zone.


And the situation is such that all hope is exclusively on Soviet-built ships. And today, project 1144 TARK, project 1164 missile cruisers and project 1155 BOD are the main ships of the Russian Navy capable of operating in the far sea zone. Unfortunately, even an inveterate optimist will not turn his tongue to call them new. All of them come from the eighties of the last century.



New ships of this class in Russia are clearly not yet built according to their strength and capabilities, so they have to use what they have. Modernizing, repairing, it is clear that it is unrealistic to do this indefinitely, but so far this is how it is. The presence of Russia in the DMZ can only be indicated by Soviet-built surface ships.

"Admiral Chabanenko" was initially somewhat different from its counterparts, since it was the only representative of the improved project 1155.1. The rest of the ships, of which seven have survived to date, the Project 1155 BODs were slightly smaller in terms of displacement and weaker in terms of weapons.

In general, project 1155 can be safely called one of the most successful projects of Soviet shipbuilding. These were ships with very decent seaworthiness, with good means of detecting submarines and anti-submarine weapons by the standards of that time. Plus two helicopters. The disadvantages were very weak (mainly artillery) air defense and the absence of strike anti-ship weapons. But for the designated function of anti-submarine ships, weapons were more than enough.

Project 1155.1 BOD was significantly different from its predecessors: more displacement, better hydroacoustics, anti-ship weapons appeared: Moskit missiles. Air defense has become more modern, with the advent of the Kortik ZRAK, which replaced the Dagger. The Vodopad-NK anti-submarine complex made it possible not only to fight submarines, but also quite successfully the torpedoes of the complex could be used against surface ships.

And so, in 2014, the most modern of the BOD went for modernization. And after 8 years, repairs and modernization are completed.

And now the Admiral Chabanenko is no longer a large anti-submarine ship, but a frigate. Here are the changes.

It turned out interesting that the frigates were played by a ship that, in terms of displacement, corresponds to the American destroyer Arleigh Burke. Yes, in terms of displacement, but not in terms of weapons.

What was the newly-minted frigate armed with?

Four PU anti-ship missiles "Uranus", each for 4 missiles. A total of 16 missiles, which are more modern than the Mosquitoes, but are designed to destroy ships up to 5 tons, and optimally for boats of different classes.

Next are the universal cells of the 3C14 complex. 16 cells in which you can charge anything you want, "Calibers", "Zircons", "Onyxes".

Total - 32 missiles. 16 for small ships, 16 for larger targets.

"Arleigh Burke" can take into its cells (32 in the bow and 64 in the stern) from 8 to 56 Tomahawk missiles. Plus two PU anti-ship missiles "Harpoon" for 4 missiles each.

If you look at the frigates, then if you take the German "Baden-Württemberg", then yielding about 1155.1 tons in displacement to the 1M project, the German carries only 000 Harpoon anti-ship missiles and about 8 missiles of the ship's direct anti-aircraft defense. Artillery and torpedoes are also present, of course.


The British new type 26 frigate under construction is similar in displacement to the Admiral Chabanenko, but is armed with the Mk.41 UVP, which, as you know, can include everything from the Tomahawk to the LRASM. Plus the CAMM air defense system with its own UVP for 48 cells.

Like the Russian ship, the German and the British carry two helicopters each.

In general, it looks like. Considering that many media outlets said that Admiral Chabanenko had significantly shaken up the radio-electronic filling, I would like to believe that this is exactly the case.

As a result, the reclassification of the BOD into a frigate looks justified. The ship will be able to attack not only submarines, but also surface ships and targets on the coast. This is generally useful and justified. Versatility is in fashion today.

But there is also a not very pleasant moment. There is no information about how much repair and restoration work was done on the Admiral Chabanenko. Let me remind you that the ship was launched in 1992 and entered service in 1999. His almost classmate "Marshal Shaposhnikov" was launched in 1984, the ship entered service in 1986.


In April last year, after a modernization repair that lasted more than five years, Marshal Shaposhnikov returned to the Pacific Ocean.

According to available information, 80% of the cable routes were replaced on the ship as part of the repair and about 40% of the hull structures were replaced. The structures had to be rebuilt.

What does it say? This indicates a decent wear of the ship. It is clear that the Chabanenko has less wear and tear, but we have 6 more such ships in the ranks of the fleets, which will also have to be repaired, replacing the "tired" structures.

Do you think 40% is a lot or a little? Wouldn't it be easier in this situation to build a new ship, immediately equipping it with the most modern weapons and equipment?

The shipyards in Kaliningrad (the BOD was built at Yantar) seem to be intact, the engines seem to have appeared (M-70FRU from Saturn as an option), the question arises: is it worth it to patch and patch the old ships of project 1155 instead of building new ones ?

Next in line is the BOD of the Pacific Fleet "Admiral Vinogradov", which is also about to begin to modernize. The press service of Dalzavod reported that almost all combat systems would be replaced, except for the AK-630 gun mounts. PU for Caliber-NK, anti-submarine Package-NK, hull upgrade and so on. “Vinogradov will receive” not 2, but 4 launchers 3S14, 8 cells each. That is, the former BOD will be able to carry up to 48 cruise missiles at the same time.

Next, it should be the turn of Admiral Panteleev and Admiral Tributs to become destroyer-sized frigates.

Unfortunately, this says today only one thing: Russian shipbuilding is simply not able to repeat the successes of Soviet shipbuilders. Therefore, instead of initially building new and modern ships that meet all the requirements of our time, we enthusiastically continue to patch up and use Soviet-built ships.

It's good that the margin of safety allows you to do this.

But in any case, the “Trishkin caftan” for Russian ships of the far sea zone is not exactly what I would like to see in the end.

Of course, it's better than nothing. An old ship that allows you to install and use more modern weapons systems is better than nothing, more precisely, ships that will never be built. However, forty years is forty years. And is it reasonable to spend so much money and resources building the country's defense capability at the expense of such ships?

However, the question is rather rhetorical. We still do not have others and are not expected.

So the answer to the question posed at the beginning may be that behind the modernization of the forty-year-old Project 1155 ships is Russia's inability to build modern destroyers and frigates on its own. And I would like to.
Our news channels

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

211 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. for
    +29
    16 January 2022 05: 41
    What's the difference what it's called, a frigate or a destroyer, the main thing is its capabilities. I liked BOD, SKR, IPC, BDK, etc. more.
    40% probably not from worn, converted designs for the installation of new weapons and equipment.
    1. +20
      16 January 2022 07: 03
      What's the difference what it's called, a frigate or a destroyer, the main thing is its capabilities. I liked BOD, SKR, IPC, BDK, etc. more.

      Destroyers as a class are gaining mass significantly! During the years of the Russo-Japanese War, the "Trouble" had a displacement of slightly more than 350 tons, today some of the specimens have crept up to 10000 tons.
      Therefore, I think it should be measured not in tons, but in performance characteristics.
      1. +12
        16 January 2022 12: 36
        The destroyers have already crossed this mark. Korean type "King Sejong" 11000 tons, Chinese type 055 13000 tons.
      2. +10
        16 January 2022 22: 05
        Tons will still have to be compared, because. seaworthiness cannot be ignored anywhere. And no matter how beautiful and capable the Gorshkovs 22350 are, it’s still a boat of 4500t Vee with a draft just above 4,3m. The manufacturer himself gives him the opportunity to use weapons with excitement no higher than 4-5 points. The helicopter will probably stop taking off and landing even earlier - the deck is narrow, there is no automatic landing in rough conditions. What is open ocean water like here? A little weather turned bad and sail Virginia wherever you want - we're home ... This is a maximum control of a 200 mile economic zone.
        1. +1
          17 January 2022 06: 54
          "Gorshkovy 22350 is still a boat of 4500t Vee with a draft of just over 4,3m" - you are absolutely right, 4.3 meters is very small for open water spaces like in the Far East and North, especially in winter. I can’t even imagine how you can carry out a full-fledged service in stormy conditions on such boats.
        2. -3
          17 January 2022 15: 04
          What is open ocean water like here? A little weather turned bad and sail Virginia wherever you want - we're home ... This is a maximum control of a 200 mile economic zone.

          You are so naive. Right in the open ocean, someone is able to find a submarine. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack.
          1. 0
            18 January 2022 10: 30
            The entire ocean, air and space are studded with tracking devices, especially the exit, approach, and return routes. Well, oh-oh-oh, it's very hard to go unnoticed.
            1. 0
              18 January 2022 14: 40
              Difficult does not mean impossible.
          2. 0
            20 January 2022 18: 23
            Since you are so advanced, then look for boats in the bases, where you will definitely find them. That's just what you will do with them, having found them - share your thoughts with us.
          3. +1
            21 January 2022 11: 27
            No.

            https://topwar.ru/183065-skrytnosti-bolshe-net-podlodki-privychnogo-nam-vida-obrecheny.html
    2. +16
      16 January 2022 08: 38
      Quote: for
      What's the difference what it's called, frigate or destroyer,

      Destroyer is still a Russian name. But in general you are right, the main thing is the possibilities. hi
      1. +13
        16 January 2022 12: 35
        The main thing is in the last paragraph of the article.
        "So the answer to the question posed at the beginning may be that behind the modernization of the forty-year-old Project 1155 ships is Russia's inability to build modern destroyers and frigates on its own."
        1. 0
          3 March 2022 20: 07
          everything is possible. because you yourself understand. the economy of wild capitalism. no one will build for free. everything as far as the means
      2. -1
        17 January 2022 18: 54
        then a destroyer)
        1. -1
          17 January 2022 19: 05
          Destroyer is short for destroyer. hi
          1. 0
            17 January 2022 22: 02
            but the destroyer sounds cooler)
      3. 0
        20 January 2022 18: 28
        The destroyer, in fact, is a destroyer, suitable for an AUG warrant, inexplicable for a PLC. They, as a class, will probably be 120 years old ...
    3. 0
      17 January 2022 20: 24
      so it is if they put new weapons, it is necessary to modernize a lot of things for this
  2. +22
    16 January 2022 05: 52
    “Vinogradov will receive” not 2, but 4 launchers 3S14, 8 cells each. That is, the former BOD will be able to carry up to 48 cruise missiles at the same time.


    am i bad at math?
    1. -3
      16 January 2022 06: 22
      They are like drums, shot scrolling, shot scrolling.
      1. +9
        16 January 2022 07: 37
        No. some moving parts! You are 30 years behind the times...
      2. +14
        16 January 2022 11: 05
        The navy abandoned drums a long time ago. It was generally some kind of sabotage: the mass empty the drum launcher of the same Kinzhal air defense system was more than 40 tons - more than full the mass of the army air defense system "Tor" - not only launchers, but missiles, radars, etc. on a tracked chassis.
        1. +1
          16 January 2022 20: 54
          Quote: Alexey RA
          It was actually some kind of sabotage

          not only mass, but also rate of fire. In general, how did the fleet come to such a system? The revolver scheme is justified in firearms when you have one striker and many chambers. But rockets are launched by the "electric" method. It was logical to make a separate mine for each (moreover, they physically exist), and arrange it not with a "chamomile", but more tightly - and the same UKKS or Mk41 would have turned out. Moreover, in the land system it is precisely this principle that is adopted - batch layout.
          1. -1
            17 January 2022 05: 55
            Well, it seems like our admirals didn't want a lot of holes in the deck.
      3. +12
        16 January 2022 12: 06
        Quote from Viktop
        They're like drums, shot scroll, shot scroll

        the drum-type launcher has the Fort air defense system (marine S-300).


        UKSK 3S14 for "Caliber" and "Onyx" is generally similar in design and principle of operation to the American UVP Mk41, there are no drums, just a cell-container for placing a rocket
    2. +3
      16 January 2022 06: 43
      Vinogradov will have 3 launchers 3s14
      1. +2
        16 January 2022 07: 31
        i.e. 24 UKKS cells
    3. +12
      16 January 2022 07: 32
      USE.
      Now four times eight is forty-eight. Not at all 32.
    4. +11
      16 January 2022 07: 37
      32 3s14+ 4×4 uranium
    5. +18
      16 January 2022 07: 39
      Quote: just explo
      am i bad at math?

      Vinogradov has 4 UKKS, 8 cells each = 32 CR + 4 X-35 Uran launchers, 4 CR each = 16 CR
      Total: 32 + 16 = 48 CR.
      That's right.
      1. +6
        16 January 2022 08: 48
        32 KR and 16 RCC.
        1. 0
          16 January 2022 08: 56
          Among the missiles in the UKKS, there may be up to 16 Onyx or Zircon anti-ship missiles.
          And anti-ship missiles, this is also a cruise missile.
          But the weight categories are different.
          But for every taste.
          1. +1
            16 January 2022 10: 35
            well, then the NAR is a cruise missile, but still, a classic cruise missile is a missile that destroys ground targets with known coordinates (tomahawk, although it is also available in the anti-ship missile version, Caliber, X-55,555,100,101). but the point is that UKKS is a universal launcher, there are anti-ship missiles and missile launchers and PLUR and there are only 32 cells. and IMHO Uranus, like its counterparts, is already against weak targets, because back in the days of the USSR, air defense of frigates and ships of higher ranks was created to repel an attack by 8 subsonic anti-ship missiles, and more than 30 years have passed since then. now the frigate, if it is not ancient, will be able to reflect 16 subsonic anti-ship missiles.
            1. +1
              16 January 2022 16: 57
              Quote: just explo
              well, then NAR is a cruise missile

              I'll tell you more, even missiles, these are usually cruise missiles.
              Quote: just explo
              , but still classically a cruise missile is a missile that destroys ground targets with known coordinates

              Yes, in the classification and designation of various CRs, it is accepted that way, in order to avoid confusion. But the fact is that the X-35 works quite well for stationary targets on the ground. Yes And it has been successfully tested in this capacity in Syria. Including air-based, even the MiG-29K and M are capable of carrying them. So I did not sin at all against the Truth, classifying the X-35 as a cruise missile, it is so.
              Quote: just explo
              but the point is that UKKS is a universal launcher, there are anti-ship missiles and missile launchers and PLUR and there are only 32 cells.

              Total ??
              At the "Burks" in their 96 cells, not only KR (Tomahawk), but also anti-ship missiles (Harpoon), and missiles are installed. And if up to 48 cells for "Calm" are installed on "Vinogradov" ... let's count them to the heap. what Accurate 96 pcs. and it will work. lol ... if you count "Uranus". feel
              Kidding . The fact is that 32 cells for 8 PLURs and 24 KR \ SZ RCC \ GZUR, this is a lot. Especially for an old modernized ship. This will be a very good result.
              Quote: just explo
              Uranus, like its counterparts, is already against weak targets

              So I wrote - for purposes for every taste. For less priority ones, so as not to be sorry - X-35, for more serious ones - "Onyx" or "Zircon". The range of tools for war at sea is very good.
              Quote: just explo
              back in the days of the USSR, air defense of frigates and ships of higher ranks was created to repel the attack of 8 subsonic anti-ship missiles, and more than 30 years have passed since then. now the frigate, if it is not ancient, will be able to reflect 16 subsonic anti-ship missiles.

              It depends on many things. From the RCC flight profile, for example. If it spreads over the waves at a height of 3 - 5 meters (when approaching the target -20 - 30 km), then its detection range will be 15 - 25 km. , no more (it all depends on the characteristics and height of the radar antennas). And for such a flight time, the air defense system may not be able to cope with the 8 KR you indicated. Especially if they go from about the same angle in a tight formation.
              Why
              Yes, because modern air defense systems indicate combat performance in the event of a uniform raid from all angles ("Star raid"), but if they go in a relatively dense formation from one angle, only one PAR antenna canvas will work on them, and it has limitations by performance. At the same "Polyment-Redoubt" simultaneous shelling of 16 targets is possible - 4 targets in each sector (one PAR antenna). And if more low-flying targets come from one angle, then during the flight time it will be possible to hit 4 of them in one launch with a guarantee. And there may not be enough time for the second salvo. In addition, our Onyxes are supersonic and their flight time during low-profile flight will be several times less than that of the Harpoon, Tomahawk, LRASM, Kh-35, etc. subsonic anti-ship missiles.
              But this is the art of combat use.
          2. +1
            16 January 2022 11: 08
            Quote: bayard
            And anti-ship missiles, this is also a cruise missile.

            Nope. KR should be able to work on ground targets. Therefore, the same "Granite" until recently was considered a pure anti-ship missile, until it was tested for work on the ground.
            1. +1
              16 January 2022 17: 07
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Nope. KR should be able to work on ground targets.

              This is how it works - for ground targets. Yes
              And quite successfully. In Syria, it was used more than once, when it was a pity to waste the "Caliber", and the target had to be hit far and accurately.
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Therefore, the same "Granite" until recently was considered a pure anti-ship missile, until it was tested for work on the ground.

              You see, even such a monster was taught. bully hi
            2. +7
              16 January 2022 21: 04
              Quote: Alexey RA
              Nope. KR should be able to work on ground targets

              Not certainly in that way. A cruise missile is one in which, among other things, the flight path is determined by the aerodynamic lift of the wing. This is a snard plane, if in the old way. And now a cruise missile can be strategic (SLCM, for example), and anti-ship. Any. It can be attributed to any type according to the classification of the target being hit, but there is also the main feature - the presence of an aerodynamic control surface, a wing. Because the Tomahawk and Garnet are winged, and the Kh-35 is also winged. Only recently they began to omit this word, and focus on the purpose of the rocket. Anti-ship - as a rule, also winged. And here the possibility of working on the "ground" is not important. Again, the emphasis has shifted recently. And so, the same missile of the Caliber complex has a wing, and the LRASM missile also has it. "Caliber" is both KR and RCC, as well as LRASM
    6. +5
      16 January 2022 08: 16
      Quote: just explo
      am i bad at math?

      No.. You are not alone.. there are many of us wassat drinks
      1. +1
        16 January 2022 08: 41
        Quote: lonely
        No.. You are not alone.. there are many of us

        There are still many people with a Soviet education. Daughter in first grade, hair standing on end with math problems. Children are deliberately blunted. hi
        1. +4
          16 January 2022 10: 40
          And what is the difference between first-class problems then and now? give an example that you have your hair on end
          1. +1
            16 January 2022 10: 44
            It is necessary to divide the group of objects into two parts according to the common features. There are two small squares, two large ones, one small circle, two large ones. In addition, items of two different colors. There are four options in total.
            1. +6
              16 January 2022 10: 57
              further - worse, they drown in unnecessary calculations, the very meaning of the task is lost
            2. +11
              16 January 2022 11: 41
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              It is necessary to divide the group of objects into two parts according to the common features. There are two small squares, two large ones, one small circle, two large ones. In addition, items of two different colors. There are four options in total.

              This is a task for associative thinking. In other words, for logic, for which calculations are not needed, intelligence is important here, which does not depend on education. confuse education with intelligence, these are two different things.You can know a lot by studying and remembering, but you won’t be able to solve problems because you don’t have enough intelligence.You will be educated but stupid.Or you can not go to school at all and be illiterate, but you can be an IQ under 6, of course, you won’t be able to use it in science due to a lack of education and knowledge, but what is called ingenuity, you will be very well developed and you will solve logical problems very simply, where there is no need for special knowledge) And this is not mathematics (I repeat, no mathematical calculations are needed here)
              1. +1
                16 January 2022 12: 01
                Quote: A009
                This is a task for associative thinking. In other words, the logic

                There are only 2 options in the answer, although logically there are four of them. This is not logic, this is the imposition of exactly 2 options. And this task has nothing to do with the development of associative thinking in a child. Now, if the answer contained 4 options, then another matter. This is just one example. Today it has come to the point that a teacher of mathematics in one study program cannot solve a problem in another program.
                1. +4
                  16 January 2022 12: 17
                  Vice versa. Logic levels are different. If a person thinks out on his own (without a teacher's prompt) that even the answers are wrong, this is a very strong signal that the person is very logically gifted and, at the same time, is not afraid to express an excellent point of view. This among adults occurs in less than 1 in a hundred. And this is a medical fact. And among children, with the authority of adults less than 1 in 10 (I can be wrong in the data, but the proportion is plus or minus this)
                  1. DMi
                    +4
                    16 January 2022 13: 12
                    Anyone who thinks of himself about the presence of a logical error will be given a deuce. This is the vicious essence of today's education. It is necessary to decide not how to do it right, but how the authorities and the authorities say.
                    1. +3
                      16 January 2022 13: 13
                      They won't put it. If the teacher is good. And yet most of them are. Although, of course, there are differences.
                      1. DMi
                        0
                        17 January 2022 17: 01
                        Grades are written in the instructions for the problem book. The teacher does not have the right to evaluate independently.
                  2. 0
                    20 January 2022 15: 32
                    Do not argue with him (Ingvar). He has the main thing to write how everything is bad now.
                    And he does not understand at all either mathematics or logic or teaching anything. Anticipating a screech, we can arrange an exam at the level of the 8th grade of the Soviet school. Only he refuses. laughing (already suggested)
            3. +1
              17 January 2022 18: 26
              The second grade will be the toughest. Nothing, then from the fifth it will be easier
          2. +3
            16 January 2022 11: 08
            Quote: A009
            And what is the difference between first-class problems then and now

            I can explain it this way. The current solution of problems is similar to the fact that you are forced to fly from Moscow to Vladivostok with a transfer in Kaliningrad belay recourse hi
            1. +5
              16 January 2022 11: 33
              That is, the complication of the task is the way to warm children? Did I understand your idea correctly?
              1. +1
                16 January 2022 12: 22
                Quote: A009
                That is, the complication of the task is the way to warm children?

                It depends on how difficult it is.
                Why, for example, to solve 525 +382 it is necessary to complicate it to such an extent: 500 + 20 + 5 + 300 + 80 + 2?
                1. +3
                  16 January 2022 12: 48
                  How do I know? I'm sure you don't know either. There is only your subjective opinion. But subjective opinion cannot be measured. Therefore, some methodological rules are introduced. Somehow systematize or try to quantify.
                  How do you determine that the level of education is worse than in the SSR? “Like not to like”, “I think so”, and the rest does not work here. How many people have so many opinions. There is, for example, a very specific indicator. Scientific Olympiads won (more precisely, the number of medals). I take only the main ones in my opinion. These are the Olympiads in the exact sciences. Mathematics, physics, well, computer science is very much in demand. And according to them, Russian education is quoted in the world somewhat better than the USSR. In terms of the number of medals per population and relative to the rest of the world, Russia is clearly and significantly better than the USSR was. Does this indicate the decline of education and the fact that EGE is bad? Or vice versa? And this is something that can be measured and does not depend on the opinion of our officials. But I can't convince you. You have no arguments. You have your own opinion. It is so?)
                  1. +4
                    16 January 2022 12: 54
                    Quote: A009
                    But I can't convince you. You have no arguments. You have your own opinion. It is so?)

                    I would be glad if what you say is really useful for children .. But when I see that the current excellent student is worse than the then triple student, I have to think about it ..
                2. 0
                  20 January 2022 08: 03
                  Quote: lonely
                  Why, for example, to solve 525 +382 it is necessary to complicate it to such an extent: 500 + 20 + 5 + 300 + 80 + 2?

                  Maybe to make it easier to calculate? Mentally divide into groups: 500+300=800, 20+80=100, total 800+100+6. Maybe it's more convenient? As an option...
                  1. 0
                    20 January 2022 08: 12
                    Quote: region58
                    total 800+100+6. Maybe it's more convenient? As an option...

                    Well, generally 7, not 6 .. I gave this as a simple example. The higher the class, the worse the complication .. that's why the majority blinks their eyes
              2. +6
                16 January 2022 12: 28
                Quote: A009
                That is, the complication of the task is the way to warm children? Did I understand your idea correctly?

                Unfortunately, yes, the complication of the task is precisely the way to stupefy children.
                It works as follows.
                The child is offered a task, the essence (meaning) of which he does not understand well. Then he is given a "magic" formula by which this problem is solved. the child does not fully understand the meaning, the essence of the task. As a result, he does not understand at all where the formula came from. However, he knows for sure: if the data presented in the problem is substituted in the right places in the formula, the correct answer will appear!
                Result: instead of thinking, the child begins to prepare for himself a kind of matrix - a typical condition - a typical formula - the correct answer.
                Here the child does not need to think, it is not necessary to understand the essence of the task (process, chemical reaction, etc.), the main thing is to remember the typical condition and the typical magic formula.
                When the task is at least somewhat beyond the scope of the typical one, the child is not able to solve it.
            2. 0
              16 January 2022 22: 42
              Quote: lonely
              The current solution of problems is similar to the fact that you are forced to fly from Moscow to Vladivostok with a transfer in Kaliningrad

              Sometimes it's easier if you don't know the right way.

              I can show you the way! Only from the bazaar. (c)
        2. +1
          16 January 2022 11: 04
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Children are deliberately blunted.

          This is systematized .. They need stupid sycophants who do not have their own thinking. . In a word, an army of zombies...
        3. +6
          16 January 2022 12: 20
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          hair stand on end from math problems. Children are deliberately blunted.

          It was in mathematics that I did not notice a decrease in the level of the program, somewhere even the other way around. The problems are different, the educational literature is extremely inconvenient. Poorly given explanations, analysis and examples of solutions. These are not textbooks, but some kind of problem books. Teachers, for the most part, do not bother with repeated explanations, and it happens that children do not understand even the second time. Plus huge classes, 30-35 people each. In mathematics, more than in other areas, it is impossible to jump to the next step without mastering the previous one. And the level of comprehensibility varies greatly. If one grasps everything on the fly, another hour is not enough to understand...
          1. +5
            16 January 2022 12: 30
            Quote: Doccor18
            It was in mathematics that I did not notice a decrease in the level of the program

            Hi Sasha! hi The level of the program has increased in volume, but it has decreased in quality. There is more sand in the solution, less cement. request
            1. +9
              16 January 2022 12: 47
              Good afternoon! hi
              To give reports about Remarkable curves (all sorts of cycloids and lemniscates) in the fifth grade I consider it to be overkill.
              Quote: Ingvar 72
              The level of the program has increased in volume...

              Absolutely agree. Volumes are unrealistic. Sometimes ungrateful thoughts come to mind that this was started with only one purpose - to confuse, crush, cause persistent antipathy to the educational process and, as a result, get ignoramuses as a result. Moreover, there are always killer arguments at the ready: "the program is too complicated for your child" or "hire tutors." To a reasonable question: “How did they manage without tutors before, graduating from institutes and writing doctoral dissertations?”, The answer is striking in its sincere indifference: “Now the time is different” ...
        4. +2
          16 January 2022 19: 26
          Quote: Ingvar 72
          Quote: lonely
          No.. You are not alone.. there are many of us

          There are still many people with a Soviet education. Daughter in first grade, hair standing on end with math problems. Children are deliberately blunted. hi

          One can argue with this. I constantly stick around on Yandex-Zen, there are mostly people aged 35 and older, even from the pre-Unified State Examination era. And there is so much idiocy, illiteracy ... Mom, don't worry. You read such things and your hair stands on end and it’s okay if you don’t teach, but no, people with education carry nonsense.
        5. +1
          20 January 2022 18: 44
          You are right, the task of stupefying was set by geostrategists, but they are not joking, at best they do not pay, but this is not surprising: it happens that they pay - the goal is too great and the task is very responsible ...
    7. The comment was deleted.
    8. +6
      16 January 2022 12: 45
      Quote: just explo
      am i bad at math?

      Of course not! It's just that the author did not finish one phrase: - "Together with" Uranus "... the former BOD will be able to carry up to 48 cruise missiles at once. And then everything falls into place.
      But the author is above all this: HE is ugly to the point of ugliness (And also during and after ugliness!) - that's why we read these PEARLS. Yes
      1. +4
        17 January 2022 09: 27
        The novel, of course, is not the worst author, but the topic of the Navy is not his! Well, there are a lot of blunders and in order to write about the WFM, it would be necessary to at least pull an urgent time there and this is a minimum, otherwise an article for hype, he would also write that these same former BODs would escort container ship caravans to Cuba with missiles on board .. ...
    9. +1
      16 January 2022 13: 16
      Including 16 anti-ship missiles "uranium"
    10. +1
      16 January 2022 15: 07
      uranium is also taken into account. so everything seems to fit
    11. 0
      17 January 2022 15: 06
      am i bad at math?

      I mean, plus 4 * 4 KR "Uranus" total 32 + 16 = 48
    12. 0
      17 January 2022 18: 54
      except for the VPU there will be launchers with Uranium. just 16 units
    13. +1
      17 January 2022 19: 30
      drinks
      Four PU anti-ship missiles "Uranus", each for 4 missiles. Total 16 missiles
      , A PLUS
      4 PU 3S14 8 cells each
      = 4х4+4х8=16+32=48
      Quote: just explo
      can carry up to 48 cruise missiles at once.


      Quote: just explo
      I have one with math badly?

      Arithmetic is simple calculation good , and mathematics is knowledge. what
  3. +4
    16 January 2022 05: 54
    On the one hand, such a repair is not reasonable. For the money, it's definitely a loss. Americans won tiki write off - they save, and it would seem that they have much less repairs.
    but on the other hand, supply chains are being renewed for new projects. everything is impossible now. I’m sure this repair will be followed by brand new frigates.
    1. +15
      16 January 2022 07: 55
      Quote: Momento
      On the one hand, such a repair is not reasonable. For the money, it's definitely a loss.

      But what a loss it is when for 8 years the shipyards have been standing without power plants for frigates, and ship repair (and not shipbuilding!) Plants are used to modernize the BOD.
      And in terms of money, everything is fine there - for "Gorshkov" only air defense systems make up at least 40% of the cost. During modernization, cheaper serial, but proven radars are installed on the BOD. Plus, the overhaul of the power plant has been successfully mastered. As a result, we have already received two "frigates" with excellent seaworthiness and autonomy, with strike capabilities head and shoulders superior to any frigates, approaching (in the latest versions of modernization) quite a destroyer.
      And in addition to the return to service of the updated ships of the oceanic zone, shipyards are returning to good shape, which means there will be where to repair and modernize ships in the future.
      Quote: Momento
      I’m sure this repair will be followed by brand new frigates.

      Frigates of the 22350 and 22350.1 series are on the stocks, and the Admiral Golovko is preparing for sea trials. And they will rhythmically go to the fleets only when the industry has mastered it properly and begins to supply power plants to them at the shipyards. The problem is only in the propulsion systems.
      1. 0
        16 January 2022 14: 21
        Quote: bayard
        The problem is only in the propulsion systems.

        Not only. We have almost all hand-assembled electronics and laborious fine-tuning ... This is now the root of evil, and not in the power plant, with its gear problem. Everything is simpler in mechanics than in electronics.
        1. +5
          16 January 2022 17: 47
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          We have almost all hand-assembled electronics and laborious fine-tuning...

          If we consider the issue with the power plant and gearboxes for them almost resolved, then the issue with the element base (radio component) is our pain. But launching a full cycle of production of radio components is possible only if a sufficiently capacious market is provided for its implementation. Military orders alone are catastrophically insufficient.
          And what is needed for the emergence / formation of the market?
          Consolidation of one's own state (domestic market), creation of unions and alliances (foreign market) and a clear, competent and comprehensive program for the development of the industry.
          In the meantime, the only hope is for China, its own pickers (hello Rosnano and its pets), Belarus and the fact that Taiwan will soon become Chinese (the "United China" program). And then (with Taiwan) - we will live fellow lol .
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          Everything is simpler in mechanics than in electronics.

          But what about the hardening of finished gears, shafts ... how about hardening furnaces?
          And yes, they bought tooth cutters.
        2. 0
          17 January 2022 21: 25
          Quote: Boa constrictor KAA
          We have almost all hand-assembled electronics and laborious fine-tuning...

          alas, it is. We have a very, very bad situation with the electronic base, this can only be understood by those who are constantly faced with this. As a former radio amateur myself and now a former engineer in that area, I largely agree (not in everything) with the author of this "cry of pain": https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4465267.html
      2. +3
        17 January 2022 00: 27
        As a result, we have already received two "frigates"

        Where is it and who got it. So far, only "Shaposhnikov" has been transferred. "Admiral Chabanenko" will be under repair for at least another year, "Vingradov" has just been delivered.
        1. +2
          17 January 2022 05: 22
          Yes ... I took on faith the article about "Chabanenko", I also thought "how did I miss the news like that?" . Well, in a year it’s not bad - in a year the “Admiral Golovko” may / should also arrive in the Northern Fleet, and this is already at least some kind of profit.
    2. 0
      16 January 2022 14: 17
      Quote: Momento
      Americans won tiki write off - they save, and it would seem that they have much less repairs.

      The amas calculated and came to the conclusion that it is more economically profitable to write off the ship (Tiki - 7 units, so far ...) than to carry out a large-scale replacement of exfoliated metal throughout the ship's hull ... which entails questions of the strength of hull structures and other crap, such like tracing cable lines, etc.
    3. -1
      16 January 2022 23: 58
      When and how many Tikorogs were written off, announce the entire list please
      1. -1
        20 January 2022 20: 43
        judging by the wiki 6 this year and 2 each at 23 and 24. but the congress seems to have halved the navy's wishes. it seems that even some of them will be for sale, but it’s hard to imagine a buyer except for the Turks.
        1. 0
          20 January 2022 22: 41
          how much Ticonderog was written off?
          1. 0
            21 January 2022 00: 09
            5 pieces will be written off this year already approved by Congress, but the Navy wants to write off 7. Until 26, at least 5 more will be written off.
            primarily write off ticks with analog radars.
    4. 0
      20 January 2022 18: 47
      Are you sure that the Russian fleets need frigates more than PLCs ??
  4. 0
    16 January 2022 06: 10
    Project 1155 was not successful, like 956. Solid compromises due to the fleet's need for a large number of ships in the ocean zone.
    1. +3
      16 January 2022 07: 37
      As if 20380 is better. Or doves of peace - a masterpiece of shipbuilding.
      1. -1
        16 January 2022 08: 34
        Well, let's take the worst then.
        1. -1
          16 January 2022 10: 48
          Well, if 1144 is not being built and is not going to, then why not. In the absence of fish, the seal is almost a fish.
  5. +11
    16 January 2022 06: 18
    The Achilles' heel of these ships has always been the lack of a sane air defense system. A dagger with 630s is more of a "last frontier" of defense ...
    As for modernization, it certainly looks strange. It would be time for the ships to have an honorable rest soon, and they are being "reflashed". But here "on bezrybe and cancer - fish." If you write off the Soviet BOD 1155 (the 956th has already been buried), then you can now forget about the DMZ.
    1. +9
      16 January 2022 08: 01
      Quote: Doccor18
      The Achilles' heel of these ships has always been the lack of a sane air defense system. A dagger with 630s is more of a "last frontier" of defense ...

      Starting with Vinogradov, they are going to put the Shtil air defense system on them, and this is already much better. If only they didn’t delay the work - the experience was gained at the first, the power plant learned how to capitalize, maybe they will have time to modernize more than 4 BODs.
      1. +1
        16 January 2022 13: 31
        An abstract question on the topic of discussion. What is your opinion, what is better for the Navy - the modernization of the BOD 1155 into frigates or the continuation of the series of frigates pr. 11356? From an economic perspective, of course.
        1. +6
          16 January 2022 17: 29
          Quote: Scharnhorst
          what is better for the Navy - the modernization of the BOD 1155 into frigates or the continuation of the series of frigates pr. 11356? From an economic perspective, of course.

          The modernization of the BOD according to the Vinogradov project is definitely preferable.
          The matter is that the modernization is carried out at the capacities of ship-repair plants without occupying the capacities of ship-building plants. At the same time, CVDs can devote themselves entirely to the construction of new ships. And as new ships, Project 11356 is completely unpromising and irrelevant - this is an export project, the purchase of which was solely due to delays in fine-tuning the Poliment-Redut air defense system for 22350.
          Today, not all shipbuilding capacities are involved in the construction of warships due to the lack of a serial domestic power plant for ships of the frigate / destroyer class. But there are moves. And if "Admiral Golovko" is successful in sea trials this year, then you can be calm about engines for the 22350 \ 22350.1 series. And when a power plant appears for pr. 22350M (on M70FRU and M90FR turbopairs), then it will be possible to safely launch mass production of such ships of the Ocean Zone at several shipyards at once - Admiralteisky, Yantar, Amur Shipyard.
          Today, even the completion of building 11356 is irrational, that one remained ownerless on Yantar. The best thing is to find a buyer for him, who himself will order a power plant in Ukraine, and we will complete the construction. Or conversion into a training ship with diesel engines.
          And it is precisely the economic and temporal aspects that are decisive in this choice.
          In addition, those 11356 that are already serving in the Black Sea Fleet need serious modernization and re-equipment with future medium repairs - improving the GAK, retrofitting BUGAS with the possibility of replacing old torpedo tubes with "Package-NK". And the possibility of firing "Onyx" is also desirable to give them (now it can only be "Caliber").
    2. +1
      17 January 2022 21: 37
      Quote: Doccor18
      The Achilles' heel of these ships has always been the lack of a sane air defense system

      so after all, this is not the fault of the ship, but a flaw in the project, which, in turn, comes from the TTZ. For some reason, we believed and continue to believe that strike weapons are a priority. Even here, let the commentators make a verdict on two certain projects, the project that has more powerful strike weapons will break out in front of it.
      For some reason, our protection is implied either by itself, or by some otherworldly forces, or it is provided by the weakness of the enemy.

      In this case, the renewal of ships is in the best interests of the fleet, these are one of the few of our ships in the ocean zone, yes, they will not grab stars from the sky, but they will be normal and sane, with real, not paper, characteristics, combat units.
      1. 0
        18 January 2022 07: 43
        Quote from Tomcat_Tomcat
        so this is not the fault of the ship, but a flaw in the project ...

        Of course. It was not possible to cram into 8 kt. displacement powerful offensive weapons (AK-130 and Mosquito) and a serious anti-aircraft defense system (Polynom and Metel). Therefore, they started designing two different ships, failing the "universality" exam with a bang...
        Quote from Tomcat_Tomcat
        For some reason, we believed and continue to believe that strike weapons are a priority.

        And this is from the fact that they abandoned aircraft carriers. For the Americans, it is carrier-based aviation that is entrusted with the task of destroying enemy ships. And in the USSR, for lack of such, these tasks were given to surface ships and nuclear submarines with powerful long-range supersonic anti-ship missiles. There were no other options then, and there are none now. Refusing then to build full-fledged aircraft carriers, the Soviet leadership drove itself into a corner from which there is no way out. The strike armament on the ship should be numerous (otherwise it makes no sense), and supersonic anti-ship missiles with a decent range and a serious warhead simply, in principle, cannot be small and light. Therefore, there was no longer room for something else, for example, for a powerful air defense system. Such a combination was possible only on the monstrous nuclear cruisers 1144 and cruisers 1164. But even the mighty USSR could not build many such ships for financial reasons.
        I would also like to add about one of the most important problems of domestic shipbuilding - the lack of standardization of the main classes, large series of the same type. We have bred and continues to breed a fan of projects. There are heaps of a few sub-series everywhere, the projects of which differ significantly from each other. All this leads to a significant increase in the cost of construction and maintenance, an increase in the implementation time and, as a result, a decrease in the number of combat-ready units. It is customary to scold the Soviet Navy for all this, but Russia has not gone far in this either ...
  6. -12
    16 January 2022 06: 37
    Unfortunately, they will not put zircons or calibers on naked. And they leave the old ones !!! Throw or fake! There will be only Uranus!
  7. +6
    16 January 2022 06: 46
    From a subjective point of view, it’s still better to build new ships of the 22350 series. They have excellent air defense in the person of Polyment-Redut, and good anti-aircraft defense - Packet-NK, and a strike 2x8 3S14.
    BOD 1155 and 1155.1, one might say, did not have air defense at all, and modernization will also not bring anything to them in terms of strengthening protection against anti-ship missiles and aviation. A very controversial decision.
    1. +4
      16 January 2022 08: 05
      Starting with "Vinogradov" they will install "Calm", 4 UKKS + 4 launchers Kh-35. + "Packet-NK". In addition to air defense, in all other respects it is even more powerful than 22350.1, which already has 4 UKKS, but no Uraniums and only one helicopter.
      1. 0
        16 January 2022 22: 47
        Quote: bayard
        Starting with "Vinogradov" they will install "Calm", 4 UKKS + 4 launchers Kh-35. + "Packet-NK". In addition to air defense, in all other respects it is even more powerful than 22350.1, which already has 4 UKKS, but no Uraniums and only one helicopter.

        I'll rummage through the internet about "Vinogradov", somewhere I saw a list of upgrades. It is very similar to Shapashnikov and there was no calm there, there were also no 4 UKKS, but only 2.
        22350.1 do you mean 22350M? Recently, Rakhmanov said that the process of working on a specification (he probably meant it) from the Ministry of Defense is underway, that is, the laying of the first one will not be soon.
        1. +2
          17 January 2022 04: 47
          Quote: FRoman1984
          I'll rummage on the Internet about "Vinogradov", somewhere I saw a list of upgrades

          At VO repeatedly, incl. in the comments there was a photo of the factory stand with a modernization project, a painting of the entire upgrade and a comparison with the Shaposhnikov modernization project. Stand - the shipyard itself. And there are 4 UKKS, while 2 UKKS are on the tank, like the "Shaposhnikov", the other 2 UKKS are on the waist in front of and close to the helicopter hangar. In the same place on the waist of the "Calm" launcher.
          You can find these photo stands in the VO archive.
          Quote: FRoman1984
          22350.1 do you mean 22350M?

          No, this is the same 22350, but with reinforced ammo for strike weapons. All 4 UKKS on the tank before cutting. In this form, 4 frigates have been laid down, they are already on the stocks, 2 more of these frigates have been ordered, but not yet laid down.
          Quote: FRoman1984
          Recently, Rakhmanov said that work is underway on the specification (he probably meant technical specifications) from the Ministry of Defense, that is, the laying of the first one will not be soon.

          The draft design was ready 2 years ago, but they are not in a hurry with the technical project - most likely there is no power plant, namely the travel gearbox with the addition of the GTU M70FRU and M90FR to a single shaft. A new boathouse in St. Petersburg has also been built and is ready for laying (there can be work on two ships up to 200 m long at once), but USC is delaying the start of work in every possible way. The creation of a technical project is also being delayed.
          Quote: FRoman1984
          Rakhmanov said that the process of working on the specification is underway

          This is generally some kind of nonsense, are they going to sculpt a new project there?
          The whole point and benefit was that the 22350M would be exactly the enlarged version of the 22350, with an increased ammo for the KR (48 - 64), the ammo for missiles increased 3 times, a hangar for 2 helicopters. But the radar and the entire composition of the avionics, BIUS, general ship systems are all the same.
          Apparently not yet ready GEM MO decided to make changes to the terms of reference. There are rumors about an increase in the number of UKKS from 6 to 8 pcs. (64 KR), there may be an attempt to replace the Poliment radar with a new one with AFAR, using PPM from the antenna sheets of the MFRS AFAR SAM S-500.
          1. +1
            18 January 2022 03: 13
            You are probably right that there is no ready-made power plant for the heavier 22350M, so Rakhmanov answered that all questions were for the Ministry of Defense.
            Yes, I watched Vinogradov. That's right. Well, if that's the case, and they won't follow Shapashnikov's path, leaving him without air defense.
    2. 0
      17 January 2022 21: 50
      Quote: FRoman1984
      From a subjective point of view, it’s still better to build new ships of the 22350 series. They have excellent air defense in the person of Polyment-Redut, and good anti-aircraft defense - Packet-NK, and shock 2x8 3S14

      Both "Packet-NK" and UKKS will be on "Vinogradov", and on "Chabanenko", and on our other 1155s.
      But as for the air defense system, the question is, which is better, a well-developed and reliable "Dagger", or don't understand which Redoubt. Read here: https://topwar.ru/178009-dyrjavyj-zontik-flota.html
      In my opinion, you need to have strong middle peasants than tender and expensive outstanding ones in terms of parameters (often on paper) And two modernized 1155s have a much greater combat value than one 22350, especially since in terms of strike weapons one 1155M will be equal to one 22350
      1. -1
        18 January 2022 03: 07
        Quote from Tomcat_Tomcat
        Quote: FRoman1984
        From a subjective point of view, it’s still better to build new ships of the 22350 series. They have excellent air defense in the person of Polyment-Redut, and good anti-aircraft defense - Packet-NK, and shock 2x8 3S14

        Both "Packet-NK" and UKKS will be on "Vinogradov", and on "Chabanenko", and on our other 1155s.
        But as for the air defense system, the question is, which is better, a well-developed and reliable "Dagger", or don't understand which Redoubt. Read here: https://topwar.ru/178009-dyrjavyj-zontik-flota.html
        In my opinion, you need to have strong middle peasants than tender and expensive outstanding ones in terms of parameters (often on paper) And two modernized 1155s have a much greater combat value than one 22350, especially since in terms of strike weapons one 1155M will be equal to one 22350

        "Dagger" is a low-altitude short-range air defense system, it will not help against modern anti-ship missiles.
        "Polyment-Redut" is a seared S-350 "Vityaz". Advanced and modern air defense system. Neither Calm nor Dagger are even close.
        If "Vinogradov" and "Chabanenko" are reinforced with air defense at least with Calm, then this modernization will make sense.
        In terms of strike weapons, 22350.1 will then be comparable to 1155M.
    3. 0
      17 January 2022 22: 01
      build at a shipyard? Or is the Northern Shipyard idle?
  8. +3
    16 January 2022 07: 08
    But in any case, "Trishkin caftan" for Russian ships of the far sea zone - this is not quite what I would like to see in the end.

    Especially in the light of the emergence of new materials, weapons and electronics ... I do not exclude the option of powerful power plants ...
    I assume that a new ship can be built faster than reanimating an old one, but in our country something always rests somewhere: in our case, industrial capacity and the availability of professional personnel.
    ==========
    You noticed that 80% of cable routes were replaced at Shaposhnikov ... The emergence of new types of insulating materials and emergency protection devices makes it possible to carry out cable routes (wiring), even with duplication for the entire service life ...
  9. +4
    16 January 2022 07: 18
    Once again I guessed the author by the title.
  10. +4
    16 January 2022 07: 19
    Judging by the comments, fleet officers fled. I'll leave. Kill like a mammoth. Although I am not an expert in ships, it looks like a beautiful ship. As for the possibilities of shipbuilding, it remains to be hoped that everything will be fine.
  11. +1
    16 January 2022 07: 29
    Russian shipbuilding is simply not able to repeat the successes of Soviet shipbuilders. Therefore, instead of initially building new and modern ships that meet all the requirements of our time, we enthusiastically continue to patch and use Soviet-built ships.


    That's how they build it.
    1. +2
      16 January 2022 09: 20
      can you tell me what they are building?
      1. 0
        8 February 2022 16: 52
        You, being here, do not know what is being built? Enlighten me, no problem. They build quite different things: frigates, corvettes, BDK, UDC ... More complicated than nuclear submarines, nothing is being created in the world at all, and we are building the most modern and complex of them in series.
  12. +3
    16 January 2022 08: 04
    The bias towards strike weapons at the expense of air defense capabilities is striking. Moreover, a potential enemy traditionally considers aviation as the main means of combating surface ships.
    1. 0
      16 January 2022 08: 30
      “A potential enemy is traditionally considered aviation as the main means of combating surface ships” - a potential enemy has aircraft carriers, we do not have them, they are not expected.
      1. -5
        16 January 2022 09: 21
        But we foresaw ship missiles, Zircon! Much cheaper than AUG!
      2. +9
        16 January 2022 09: 56
        I am not talking about that.
        In the event that, God forbid, the war starts, the main enemy of Russian NKs will be aviation, and, in part, submarines, and not enemy NKs.
        The defense of ships from the enemy is considered a secondary means compared to strike means, is it? Moreover, the enemy will in every possible way avoid conducting combat operations with his NK and shifting them to aviation?
    2. -8
      16 January 2022 10: 18
      Quote: Avior
      For a potential enemy, traditionally, it is aviation that is considered as the main means of combating surface ships.
      This aircraft, that is, the aircraft carrier, Russia will disable with the help of submarines and aircraft. Sending frigates to fight aircraft carriers is stupid. After the enemy aircraft carrier strike group loses its air wing (aircraft will not be able to take off from the deck), then Russian frigates and corvettes will come into play. In this case, the American fleet will not break through the defenses.
      1. +3
        16 January 2022 11: 08
        This aircraft, that is, an aircraft carrier

        Aviation is not only an aircraft carrier. It can be coastal-based aviation, both within its range and far beyond its limits with the use of aerial refueling - the United States and NATO have worked out this procedure for a long time and in detail. Attack aircraft attacked Iraq from European airfields, including from England, for example, and bombers, in general, directly from the States. It can also be aircraft carriers, in addition to an aircraft carrier, for example, more than two dozen aircraft can be based on the same UDC America. And there may be more than one aircraft carrier - for example, four of them were deployed against Iraq, in addition to coastal-based aviation - simply as an operational reserve.
        Yes, and drowning even one aircraft carrier is far from a simple matter, as you have depicted.
        In any case, it is strange to see that NKs very weakly provide for measures in the event of a ship being attacked by means that the enemy considers the main ones in his doctrine.
        1. -3
          19 January 2022 08: 38
          Quote: Avior
          It could also be shore-based aviation
          In this case, the task of eliminating ground airfields and infrastructure is simplified.
          and far beyond it with the use of in-flight refueling
          And what is the range of anti-ship missiles they have? In any case, their aircraft will be met by our tactical aircraft from the shore, as well as the MiG-31 interceptor.
          the United States and NATO have worked out this procedure for a long time and in detail
          Russia, too.
          Yes, and drowning even one aircraft carrier is far from a simple matter, as you have depicted.
          I did not suggest sinking aircraft carriers. They don't need to be heated. I urge you to be careful.
          In any case, it is strange to see that NKs very weakly provide for measures in the event of a ship being attacked by means that the enemy considers the main ones in his doctrine.
          During a threatened period, our NKs will defend the coast, and not swim God knows where in the ocean. That is, they will be under the umbrella of coastal air defense / missile defense. The task is to fight off the missiles. And our planes will fight with enemy planes. And if you also take into account that carrier-based aircraft will not take off, then repelling an air raid is quite within the power of the Russian Aerospace Forces.
          1. +1
            19 January 2022 18: 31
            During the threatened period, our NKs will defend the coast

            And why are they needed then? It will be necessary to defend them
            1. 0
              22 January 2022 11: 01
              Quote: Avior
              And why are they needed then?
              Our surface fleet is needed to finish off the enemy ships accompanying the aircraft carrier. This can be done while being close to the shore. Also, ships are needed to withdraw the SSBNs from the bases. Well, for peacetime they also have tasks ...
              1. 0
                22 January 2022 12: 58
                For the last 75 years after the war, no one managed to hit the aircraft carrier. And they wanted to. What is the point of ships near the shore? Waste of money.
                1. 0
                  23 January 2022 12: 33
                  Quote: Avior
                  For the last 75 years after the war, no one managed to hit the aircraft carrier. And they wanted to.
                  They wanted the backward countries of the third world, which did not have the weapons and combat capabilities that Russia has.
                  What is the point of ships near the shore? Waste of money.
                  And what's the point in ships not near the shore ?? In peacetime, it is clear why. And in the military? Russia's military doctrine is purely defensive.
                  1. +1
                    23 January 2022 14: 00
                    And which of these Russian capabilities has been tested in combat conditions? Here, for example, how many times and with what result did the Russian anti-ship missile fleet shoot? And how many times did anti-ship missiles shoot at an enemy with a modern fleet?
                    1. 0
                      23 January 2022 18: 18
                      Quote: Avior
                      And how many times did the anti-ship missiles shoot at an enemy with a modern fleet?
                      The same question can be addressed to the United States: how many times did the American fleet try to hit and sink Russian ships with their anti-ship missiles? I repeat once again: US attacks on third world countries are not at all such "combat conditions" as the US will find itself in when attacking the Russian Federation.
                      1. 0
                        24 January 2022 00: 29
                        The Americans use anti-ship missiles as a secondary means, the main thing is aviation
                        They used aviation many times in different situations. They had to repulse the enemy's anti-ship missiles.
                        So what about the use of anti-ship missiles by the Russian fleet?
      2. +7
        16 January 2022 11: 28
        Do you think they are such fools that they will disable their aircraft carriers with our missiles? And they will not try to destroy our ships where we are weaker? They will hit small ships with aircraft, as they will. At least because they have weak air defense. And they will try to find and destroy our frigates. Simply because it is on small ships that the work of protecting the coast will fall. And if there are fewer and fewer such ships, then the defense will become thinner and it will be easier for their fleet (in particular, submarines) to enter our waters. They will not be "noble" in a duel, to bring their ships to ours only if we have the same strength. No, they will hit in weaker places. This is an army and war, they always hit where it is weaker. And the problem of our fleet is that we have a catastrophic number of weak points and no resources for the rapid mobilization of losses. What can we say, even if at the level of tactics we cannot organize defense in such a way that ships and aircraft would not only cover each other in a wide area of ​​​​the theater of operations, but also timely replace their forces in weakened areas in order to hit the weak link, could not outgrow for the enemy the beginning of a full-scale offensive.
        1. -2
          19 January 2022 13: 49
          Quote: Mustachioed Kok
          Do you think they are such fools that they will disable their aircraft carriers with our missiles?
          Their defense against missiles is not effective enough.
          They will hit small ships with aircraft, as they will.
          You, apparently, need to repeat what has already been said several times: carrier-based aircraft will not take off from a wrecked aircraft carrier, and spending long-range missiles of strategic bombers on RTOs is stupidity. There remains ground aviation, but in the Pacific Ocean it is not near the Russian Federation (except in Japan), and in the North in the European part we will cover all airfields with Iskanders.
          And the problem with our fleet is that we do not have the resources to quickly mobilize losses.
          They don’t have either, because they come across the ocean - thousands of kilometers from their native shores. And there are not so many forces in the bases on the islands.
          we cannot organize defense in such a way that ships and aircraft would not only cover each other over a wide area of ​​​​the theater of operations ...
          It is not required over a wide area, it is enough to cover important infrastructure facilities and coastal cities. They do not poke their nose into the forests and steppes, because. clash with Russian ground forces there.
      3. +4
        17 January 2022 09: 54
        Quote: Volder
        This aircraft, that is, the aircraft carrier, Russia will disable with the help of submarines and aircraft.

        belay can be detailed, with names and in colors. For example, 3 AUGs, two AUGs from the Pacific Ocean and one AUG at least in the Mediterranean Sea ??? let's go for it, only in detail I wonder what kind of nonsense you can post
        1. -3
          19 January 2022 14: 03
          Quote: Sandor Clegane
          For example 3 AUG, two AUG from the Pacific Ocean
          One of our nuclear submarines "Ash" will be able to knock out, if not all the ships of one AUG, then certainly an aircraft carrier. Fortunately, missiles fly out of the submarine quickly. Well, our corvettes, RTOs and the remnants of the Soviet fleet will cope with escort ships - because. anti-ship missiles have a range greater than that of Western anti-ship missiles. We are talking about "Volcanoes", "Caliber", "Onyxes" and "Zircons".
          and one AUG even in the Mediterranean Sea ???
          Our unsinkable aircraft carrier, the Khmeimim air base, will be put up against it. Well, a couple of our diesel-electric submarines are guarding the enemy fleet there.
          1. +2
            19 January 2022 14: 07
            Quote: Volder
            One of our nuclear submarines "Ash" will be able to knock out

            what a naive young man you are
            1. -3
              19 January 2022 14: 14
              It is naive to think that Russian submarines are not capable of anything.
              1. +3
                19 January 2022 14: 20
                Quote: Volder
                It is naive to think that Russian submarines are not capable of anything.

                I didn’t say this, there’s no chance for our 2 ash trees 22 US elk, well, you also wrote nonsense about corvettes, you can throw hats, but studying materiel is superfluous !! love
                1. -4
                  19 January 2022 14: 39
                  Firstly, we not only have 2 Ashes, we also have other submarines with cruise missiles and rocket-torpedoes. Secondly, the United States will not pull out all its submarines from different regions of the globe, leaving Iran, China, North Korea, India, Europe unattended, and they will not bare the coast of America either. That is, half of the submarines will be occupied in other areas. Thirdly, even if you attack Russia, then it is stupid to do it only from one side. That is, enemy submarines will be dispersed in the north, south, west and east. Fourth, it is not correct to think that all submarines are in service and ready to perform combat missions at any time. Obviously, somewhere around 20-25% of the entire composition is on those. maintenance, repairs, or at the wall waiting to be taken care of. We are talking about technical and combat readiness, which will never be 100%, especially for old boats. And Yaseni are young boats, they are fully combat-ready, as well as Soviet-built ones that have undergone repairs. As a result, approximately equal forces are obtained. And of course, the battle of submarines with each other is a very rare case. Therefore, your words "there is no chance" are absolutely divorced from reality.
                  1. +2
                    19 January 2022 14: 46
                    Quote: Volder
                    Firstly, we not only have 2 Ashes, we also have other submarines

                    your knowledge is amazing, but oh well, you are not naive, you are just a cheer patriot
                    I ask you to just study the materiel, not according to Wikipedia - and immediately everything will be very clear to you
                    1. -1
                      22 January 2022 10: 51
                      Quote: Sandor Clegane
                      your knowledge is amazing, but oh well, you are not naive, you are just a cheer patriot
                      I ask you to just study the materiel, not according to Wikipedia
                      When there is nothing to object, the opponent is immediately declared a fool. At your leisure, count the number of RF submarines that are not under repair, and the number of missiles (torpedo missiles) in them. This is enough to counter American expansion into Russian territory. Why enough - explained above.
                      1. +1
                        22 January 2022 10: 59
                        learn the mat part is not according to the noobian wikipedia
          2. +1
            20 January 2022 22: 59
            Have you ever wondered how many anti-ship missiles fall into a modern combat-ready ship of this anti-ship missile in real combat use? And separately, with an over-the-horizon launch?
    3. 0
      20 January 2022 19: 22
      With the advent of hypersonic vehicles, it is still unknown where those attack aircraft will be based, which theoretically should withstand our squadrons ...
  13. +6
    16 January 2022 08: 07
    Saturn, of course, well done, but the fact that there the turbines are made piece by piece for frigates 22350 and they are not yet available in commercial quantities, so that they could be put on one more project ... I think that this is the case for now. hi
    1. +1
      16 January 2022 09: 19
      And, do we currently have the capacity to build far-field warships? Saturn makes gas turbine engines and gearboxes as 22350 is built.
      1. +8
        16 January 2022 11: 18
        Quote: Sergey39
        Saturn makes gas turbine engines and gearboxes as 22350 is built.

        The RO55 gearboxes for the M55R frigate power plant are made by St. Petersburg Zvezda.

        And everyone is aware of the problems of Zvezda - the plant has received orders and does not have the capacity and personnel to fulfill them.
  14. +3
    16 January 2022 08: 19
    The shipyards in Kaliningrad (the BOD was built at Yantar) seem to be intact,

    Shipbuilding ("Yantar") are building, ship repair ("Nerpa") are repairing - harmony is on the face
    1. +3
      16 January 2022 09: 17
      Yantar is building two frigates for the Indians (one is already afloat), two BDKs for Us. The construction of two rescuers of the ocean zone (Voevoda and Yevgeny Goriglidzhan) is being completed, a special vessel "Almaz" is on the water! Finished the modernization and went to the test Persistent.
  15. +7
    16 January 2022 08: 42
    Damn, can someone clearly explain to me (well, I'm young and inexperienced, what can I do) why 22350 is supposedly not a ship of the far sea zone? How is he, as a strike unit, worse than the same modernized Shaposhnikov? Why does everyone say that they are supposedly not capable of building DMZ ships? 2 are in service, one is being prepared for testing, another 5 are being built (and they say that new ones will be laid in Komsomolsk-on-Amur)? Duck of modernized BODs is also 2 so far .... What is wrong with 22350 (well, not counting the pace of construction, and power plants with which there is progress)? Problems with production can and should be solved, and God forbid they are solved. Air defense is good, strike weapons (as for a frigate) are excellent, especially when those with 32 cells are put into operation, seaworthiness seems to be decent, there are anti-submarine capabilities. It is clear that the situation is complicated, but is it correct to say that apart from the modernization of Soviet pennants, nothing can be done and is not being done?
    1. 0
      16 January 2022 09: 11
      22350 is one of the best frigates of its class, and all - these articles are aimed at undermining society in relation to the state. There is a hybrid war against the Russian Federation! (((
    2. -2
      16 January 2022 09: 46
      Quote: Rutrick
      Damn, can someone clearly explain to me (well, I'm young and inexperienced, what can I do) why 22350 is supposedly not a ship of the far sea zone?

      Because Russia is not the USSR they dream of.
    3. +5
      16 January 2022 12: 38
      Quote: Rutrick
      Damn, can someone clearly explain to me (well, I'm young and inexperienced, what can I do) why 22350 is supposedly not a ship of the far sea zone?
      Because small. It is necessary to increase it at least up to 6000 tons. Or better, up to 8 thousand tons.
    4. -3
      16 January 2022 14: 41
      Quote: Rutrick
      why 22350 is not supposedly a ship of the far sea zone?
      Is it our homegrown authors and couch specialists who think so? But the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy thinks differently: 22350 is the main NK of our fleet for operations in the DMZ.
      Is it correct to say that apart from the modernization of Soviet pennants, nothing can be done and is not being done?
      Incorrect. But spiteful critics itch, and the tongue, as you know, is without bones. And they thresh - not toss bags (s).
      I will say one thing: we will have everything with time. I would like to do it as soon as possible - all at once and immediately ... But even children are not born at once. Especially the ships... Yes
    5. 0
      20 January 2022 21: 10
      I think it is quite indicative (the displacement of "Ushakov" is 6600 tons, and for 22350 - 4500 tons):

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ePnHSnswK4
  16. +5
    16 January 2022 08: 47
    The repair of this ship has not been completed: it makes no sense to read the article beyond the headline.
  17. +4
    16 January 2022 08: 49
    I don’t understand why the author of the article writes that the repair of the ship is over. We read the latest message about the repair of the ship dated 27.12.2021/2022/XNUMX: "The preliminary dates for the start of sea trials of the modernized ship are the fourth quarter of XNUMX."
    Source: https://ria.ru/20211227/rakety-1765585869.html
    So, at best, Admiral Chabanenko will be in the fleet only in two years - in 2024.
    1. +4
      16 January 2022 09: 11
      Quote: Lair
      I don’t understand why the author of the article writes that the repair of the ship is over

      Dock repair completed.
      Modernization ahead
      https://tvzvezda.ru/news/202112241114-adtMV.html
  18. +5
    16 January 2022 09: 08
    The article talks about the modernization of project 1155, as the only ships of the far sea zone. Not to mention the 3 built frigates 11350 (Burevestniki) and two 22350. There are 6 frigates of varying degrees of readiness on the stocks, 2 more are being prepared for laying. In the plans for 2023-2024, lay the upgraded 22350m (increased displacement). About the number, they are still silent. In my opinion, ships of the far sea zone are being developed, according to the capabilities of the state!)))
    1. -2
      16 January 2022 09: 23
      Not to mention the 3 built frigates 11350 (Petrel) and two 22350
      - can you tell me how many destroyers and frigates of NATO countries + the fleets of Japan, Australia and South Korea account for each of them?
      1. +6
        16 January 2022 09: 47
        Quote: faiver
        - don't tell me how much
        people lives in NATO countries, Japan, Australia and South Korea?
        1. -1
          16 January 2022 10: 29
          Katz offers to surrender?
          1. 0
            16 January 2022 11: 05
            Quote: faiver
            Katz Suggests

            Well, anyway, how much?
            1. +4
              16 January 2022 11: 25
              I won’t count, but don’t you think that FIVE more or less modern DMZ ships for FOUR fleets of the Russian Federation are somehow very few?
              1. 0
                16 January 2022 12: 27
                Quote: faiver
                I won't count
                Previously, they considered
                Quote: faiver
                accounts for destroyers and frigates of NATO countries + the fleets of Japan, Australia and South Korea
                What don't you want now?
                Quote: faiver
                then FIVE more or less modern DMZ ships for FOUR fleets of the Russian Federation, somehow, well, very little
                Not enough. 6 more are being built in the NE, they are preparing to lay 2, and it looks like they are getting ready to start a series of 6 at the NEA.
                1. 0
                  16 January 2022 12: 42
                  6 more are being built in the NE, 2 are being prepared for laying
                  - remember how long it takes from bookmarking to acceptance by the fleet? the first one is 12 years old, the second one is 11 years old....
                  1. -1
                    16 January 2022 14: 26
                    Quote: faiver
                    how long does it take from bookmarking to acceptance by the fleet

                    When a project is mastered, it always takes time to fine-tune new equipment and weapons, then there were problems with the gas turbine. Now Redoubt is working and gas turbines have begun to make their own.
                    1. +1
                      16 January 2022 14: 53
                      well, yes, they already promise to meet the third in 10 years, but with the fourth in 6 years ... Calculate by what year the Russian Federation will receive all the listed frigates? I think not all the inhabitants of this site will live to see that day ....
                      1. -1
                        16 January 2022 16: 00
                        Quote: faiver
                        Calculate by what year the Russian Federation will receive all the listed frigates?
                        Do you want everything at once tomorrow? Well, show me how to build, who is against something?
                      2. 0
                        21 January 2022 23: 37
                        Quote: Dart2027
                        Well, show me how to build, who is against it?
                        Like the Chinese, for example (!) ...
                        Do not sweep the nipples, but first take care of the possibilities of rhythmic supplies of power plants and other components for shipbuilding programs. (There, for example, they immediately bought licenses for GTEs brought to mind and set up their rhythmic release, already at home - quickly) ....
                        And then parallel bookmarks at four shipyards .... etc.
                        and we have only bravura statements - "about the success of import substitution in the field of creating gas turbine engines, and avoiding dependence on Ukraine ..."
                        And this is from 2014...?!!!
                      3. -3
                        22 January 2022 06: 45
                        Quote: Vl Nemchinov
                        There, for example, they immediately bought licenses for GTEs brought to mind and

                        Do you seriously think that they would be sold to us? Hmm...
      2. 0
        18 January 2022 12: 29
        And what does it matter? The article talks about the fact that the modernization of Soviet ships is the only possibility and way ... How many of those ships? What about modernized ones? (So ​​far in general 1) And how many American ones are on them? The point is to say that the modernization of the Soviet legacy is the only way, but this is not so, neither in theory nor in practice.
    2. -2
      16 January 2022 14: 56
      Most likely, if the 22350M is successful, the Moscow Region will order 12 units with the first contract.
  19. +9
    16 January 2022 09: 43
    Well, then praise the seaworthiness of the Deleted, this is nothing.

    But what is better, to modernize or build, tell the Americans. They were in the Pearl Harbor from the bottom of the battleships of the First World War to put into operation. When Kennedy cut off Belknap's superstructure, and the remains of the cruiser burned for almost 8 hours, there was no question of decommissioning or restoring.
    If the hull resource is not knocked out, then it is necessary to repair it. England is still operating the 23rd project and does not complex. The same rarities can be found in any large fleets, France, Japan, China, India. And in the Russian Federation, Udalym is also slightly modernizing weapons.
    1. +3
      16 January 2022 11: 35
      Quote: demiurg
      But what is better, to modernize or build, tell the Americans. They were in the Pearl Harbor from the bottom of the battleships of the First World War to put into operation.

      Judging by the EM "Kassin", "Downs" and "Shaw", the Pearl Harbor drowned were also restored for reasons of prestige. America cannot lose almost the entire Pacific Fleet in one battle. smile
      The same "ViVi" after being hit by seven torpedoes and two heavy armor-piercing bombs (one of which caused a fire and detonation of the "first shots" in the PMK casemates) was easier to write off. Moreover, the United States already had six old LKs left to support the landings - Colorado (which was lucky to leave P-X for repairs on time), a trio of New Mexico and a couple of New Yorks. Oh yes, and more "Orc Kansas" "Arkansas".
    2. 0
      16 January 2022 12: 36
      Quote: demiurg
      When Kennedy cut off Belknap's superstructure, and the remains of the cruiser burned for almost 8 hours, there was no question of writing off or restoring it.

      "Belknap" is not a very good example, it was restored solely for reasons of prestige. America cannot lose a ship without a fight! (especially out of stupidity) They just took their feet out of Vietnam - and here it is again ?! There was no more reason to rebuild (since only one burned-out hull remained from it) the obsolete ship was, especially since the Ticonderogi were already going to the fleet
  20. +1
    16 January 2022 09: 49
    Quote: Momento
    On the one hand, such a repair is not reasonable. For the money, it's definitely a loss. Americans won tiki write off - they save, and it would seem that they have much less repairs.

    They have developed shipbuilding, experience, money. It’s better to build a new ship than to dig into the old one. We have shipyards like fingers on one hand, experience is lost (some are retired, some are in the churchyard), and with money, they give a little, here they dig into old ships, ten years old! hi
    1. +5
      16 January 2022 10: 35
      Quote: fa2998
      It is better to build a new ship than to dig into an old one.
      In Russia, the repair and modernization of ships is mainly carried out by shipyards. Shipyards are engaged in the construction of new ships. Do you catch the difference? That is, we are talking about the distribution of functions and the rational use of capacities.
  21. +4
    16 January 2022 09: 58
    The conclusions at the end of the article are, as always, lubricated by the author.
    Quote: Roman Skomorokhov
    We still do not have others and are not expected.
    Of course it is expected.
    ... Russia's inability to independently build modern destroyers and frigates.
    Frigates 22350 are already being built and are being introduced into the fleet. As for destroyers, thanks to the improvement of weapons, electronic filling and technical automation on the ship, it is more appropriate to abandon gigantomania, focusing on universal frigates of the first rank of the far sea zone. Russia has no plans to carry out the transfer of the fleet and landing forces to the opposite part of the globe (to the shores of the United States). Therefore, it makes no sense to stupidly copy the United States, which does nothing but swim off the coast of the Russian Federation.
    1. 0
      16 January 2022 12: 29
      Do you know anything about Russia's plans? Please share.
      1. 0
        16 January 2022 15: 00
        The doctrine of our fleet is purely defensive. A huge ocean fleet like the United States and hundreds of naval bases around the world are beyond our means.
  22. +3
    16 January 2022 10: 09
    And the situation is such that all hope is exclusively on Soviet-built ships. Russia is clearly not yet building new ships of this class according to its strengths and capabilities, so you have to use what you have.

    Question number 1: - Who has been destroying our shipbuilding industry for 30 years?
    Question number 2: - Why do military and civilian ships built in the Russian Federation cost 25% more than imported ones. This was announced by a permanent member of the Security Council of the Russian Federation S. B. Ivanov.
    Question number 3: - Created in the USSR, the industry is successfully destroyed. Who is responsible for this or will be responsible? But no one is in a hurry to do it.
    The industry is falling apart before our eyes. We are told that the USSR is already in the past, that we must move into the future. But do we need such a future?
    1. +6
      16 January 2022 11: 51
      They forgot to mention the drinks. So don't win.
      And about the cost of warships, in the Russian Federation they are building more expensive than in the USA and Japan?
      Destroyed so that the shipyards are overloaded with orders for military and civilian products. And about the Far East megashipyard, this is probably the nail in the coffin of Russian shipbuilding.
      1. -2
        16 January 2022 13: 58
        And about the cost of warships, in the Russian Federation they are building more expensive than in the USA and Japan?
        This question is for S.B. Ivanov. Again same question: - price - quality. In the price of our ships, as you rightly said, there are cuts.
        1. +1
          16 January 2022 14: 02
          There is some logical explanation for the fact that with drank, inefficient management, poor-quality workforce (what else did I forget to mention?)
          Any weapon produced in the Russian Federation costs two to three times cheaper than in the crystal clear USA, where talented managers plan, and a worker works at least five times better?
        2. +1
          16 January 2022 14: 18
          Probably the other way around, sometimes ships fall out among the cuts.
          All tied, all! Laws are adopted and developed by specialists such that they can be circumvented, this is not a law, but some kind of rubbish.
          It's time to change.
    2. +3
      17 January 2022 10: 37
      Quote: Z.O.V.
      Question number 2: - Why do military and civilian ships built in the Russian Federation cost 25% more than imported ones.

      I would venture to guess - for the same reason as in the days of the Empire: single orders and small series are always more expensive than mass construction. For ships, the constant change in requirements from the Navy makes its contribution (the picture is practically the same as that described by Melnikov in the Potemkin BR).
  23. +2
    16 January 2022 11: 55
    For me, frigates are 3,5 - 6 thousand tons. Chabanenko 8 thousand, well, rather a destroyer. Whatever you call it, the ship is large and powerful, it will not be superfluous in any way.
  24. -1
    16 January 2022 14: 17
    Frigate, destroyer... what was worse than the old names... And how to identify what kind of ship according to the new / ancient classification?
  25. +1
    16 January 2022 14: 33
    "Arleigh Burke" can take into its cells (32 in the bow and 64 in the stern) from 8 to 56 Tomahawk missiles. Plus two PU anti-ship missiles "Harpoon" for 4 missiles each.


    And how many "Arleigh Burke" can carry "Zircons"?
  26. -2
    16 January 2022 14: 46
    "Unfortunately, this says today only one thing: Russian shipbuilding is simply not able to repeat the successes of Soviet shipbuilders." The author is not aware that all shipyards capable of building new destroyer-class ships for years to come are clogged with orders for the same frigates, corvettes in Crimea, two helicopter carriers are building supply ships and all the rest, and the construction of new destroyers will cost at least 150 billion rubles and its creation it will take 10 years to repeat what they did in the USSR, there is no point, since it is outdated, all that remains is to create a new one and modernize the old one.
    1. +1
      16 January 2022 16: 22
      Well, they will build destroyers, the same Super Gorshkovs are not inferior to the Berks in terms of performance characteristics, it’s just that his passage about “it would be better if they built new destroyers” is incomprehensible, since different enterprises are engaged in construction and repair, not to mention the fact that it’s better to have a frigate based on Chabanenko, than a "destroyer / BPC", which has weapons 40 years ago, on the whole it's quite funny how topvar experts even try to dump positive news in the mud and show that this is very bad news
  27. +2
    16 January 2022 15: 06
    I somewhat disagree with the author about the inability to build frigates and destroyers now - we are building and the construction time is gradually decreasing
  28. 0
    16 January 2022 15: 13
    I wonder why they are not modernized according to one project. if you can shove so many missiles into Vinogradov and give air defense ...
  29. IC
    0
    16 January 2022 15: 20
    Where does the information about the ship's exit from modernization come from.
  30. +1
    16 January 2022 16: 19
    Roman can be recognized by the first paragraph, but something else is interesting ... "but it's not easier to build a new ship" - no, it's not easier, so the Zvyozdochka shipyard is under repair, and the construction of the Yantar and Severnaya shipyard frigates i.e. we don’t have repairs instead of construction, but repairs in addition to the construction of frigates ... it seems that you expect more professionalism from Skomorokhov
  31. 0
    16 January 2022 22: 22
    The fundamental problem with this ship is that it is alone.

    It is advisable to have large ships the same, it is sometimes cheaper than restoring the remains.
  32. 0
    17 January 2022 05: 49
    Dear colleagues. Have a good day. I might be wrong. Lately I've only been to the history page. There is a lot of interesting, albeit ambiguous, stuff in there. I read the rest and was amazed. Something is not right and wrong. There is such a thing as doctrine. That is what and why we need. It seems that something went wrong with our strategists. You just need to comprehend the length of the maritime borders of the Russian Federation. From this point of view, the comparison of "Admiral Chabanenko" with other people's new buildings is somehow not very good. From the USSR, we got a fleet, which is at least irresponsible to squander. The main thing is to define a niche for him. I hope that the issue with the import of ships and their components has been resolved. Mistrals and German diesel engines for ships are a thing of the past.
  33. SOF
    0
    17 January 2022 08: 25
    .... it smelled of polymers .....
    .... it seems to me that the situation with repairs ..... is easily explained by the political situation ....... and is absolutely parallel ......... modernization of the tank fleet ..... to the detriment of new machines ..... - pragmatics of pure water - while you are building a new one ...... what is available will finally be bent .... and at the time of a possible nix ..... there will be nothing .... .... therefore - first we will restore and modernize the existing one .... to keep the gunpowder dry, and then we will rivet a new one ...... because it takes a long time for this new one to be born .....
  34. +1
    17 January 2022 09: 01
    The author is clear from the title. The rest is no longer interesting.
  35. +1
    17 January 2022 09: 42
    it’s time to write off the entire Soviet backlog - it’s outdated morally and physically and start building a fleet from scratch with other tasks and more unified
  36. 0
    17 January 2022 10: 20
    Can someone explain how Admiral Lazarev broke down and was decommissioned after <15 years of service? Those. he was golden in fact for the country. Billions of Union rubles sent to the scrap. Such ships should live for decades.
    https://topwar.ru/184525-spasti-admirala-lazareva.html

    The ship is >30 years old and is not going to be written off
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Arleigh_Burke
  37. 0
    17 January 2022 11: 16
    The author, as usual, in his spirit! Facts are manipulated into a completely illogical conclusion.

    So the answer to the question posed at the beginning may be that behind the modernization of the forty-year-old Project 1155 ships is Russia's inability to build modern destroyers and frigates on its own. And I would like to.



    The author delicately did not notice a series of frigates under construction pr.22350, it does not fit into the outline of his article, and is accordingly ignored. I’ll keep quiet about destroyers for now, since 22350M has not yet been laid down ....

    It didn’t even occur to the author that ships were being modernized at shipyards, but they were being built at shipbuilding factories, the capacities of which are not unlimited, that is, the modernization of old ships goes in parallel with the construction of new ships .... Shaposhnikov was modernized at Dalzavod, Chabanenko at Nerpa, in parallel with At the same time, shipyards were building a series of new ships for our fleet .... That is, modernization was not instead of, but along with the construction of new ships! And we couldn’t build new frigates instead of the modernized BODs, nowhere!

    Our ships, unfortunately, are being built slowly, shipbuilding capacities are not enough, therefore, in order not to be left without ships, we have to modernize old Soviet ships simultaneously with the construction of new ones, this decision is absolutely right, and it was necessary to start doing this a long time ago.


    What does it say? This indicates a decent wear of the ship. It is clear that the Chabanenko has less wear and tear, but we have 6 more such ships in the ranks of the fleets, which will also have to be repaired, replacing the "tired" structures
    Do you think 40% is a lot or a little? Wouldn't it be easier in this situation to build a new ship, immediately equipping it with the most modern weapons and equipment?

    The shipyards in Kaliningrad (the BOD was built at Yantar) seem to be intact, the engines seem to have appeared (M-70FRU from Saturn as an option), the question arises: is it worth it to patch and patch the old ships of project 1155 instead of building new ones ?


    The fact that Yantar is building frigates for India and a large landing ship for our Navy, the author somehow missed, they have no problems with loading ... but as soon as the capacities are freed up, I think they will immediately be loaded with additional corvettes, frigates or large landing ships for our fleet.
    And this can be said about any of our shipyards capable of building ships of this class. Everyone is loaded, everyone is building, someone is longer, someone is faster, only if the money from the modernization of the BOD is thrown into the construction of new ships, these ships will simply stand in the line of construction .. and that's all, and the BODs that can still serve will go on pins and needles ...
    1. 0
      14 March 2022 10: 09
      Two Indians are already on the water, the stocks are occupied by the BDK. I suppose Yantar will continue to sculpt the BDK. We still need to complete the construction of Almaz 22010, otherwise it is in the sump, next to the hull of frigate 11356.
  38. 0
    17 January 2022 11: 18
    Conventionally, the analysis is competent, but the whole point is that this is better than nothing. When the Russian Federation will build modern DMZ warships, how much more time will pass? And they are already needed here and now, and modernization at the moment remains the only right decision. We will use the Soviet backlog.
  39. 0
    17 January 2022 13: 32
    X-35U for the destruction of boats up to 5 thousand.
    fucking boat lol
    145kg semi-armor-piercing warhead plus fuel and turbojet engines ... even AB will not be bored Yes
  40. 0
    17 January 2022 15: 08
    Chief, it's all gone!

    Skomorokhov and Damantsev are easy to recognize))

    Of course, there are serious issues with shipbuilding. But still, don't rush to bury it. We solve problems based on the available opportunities, not all at once.

    Let's still dream about the times of the Russian Empire
  41. 0
    17 January 2022 15: 55
    Not a godfather, not a matchmaker

  42. 0
    17 January 2022 16: 01
    Dagger at 1155.1 and so it was. Along with the dagger. And why did the author take that the Dirk is "more modern" than the Dagger, which was originally in the UVP?
  43. +1
    17 January 2022 16: 08
    Is it worth modifying old ships than repairing new ones? Costs. It is cheaper to unscrew launchers for some missiles and put launchers for other missiles in its place than to cut the hull + engines and buy new ones. It's cheaper to pull out an old radar and put in a new one than to make a whole ship. The modern Russian economy is such that every million dollars saved is HUGE money. It's the same with engines. You need to approach the criterion "Cost-effectiveness". If the upgraded ship will have 90% of the efficiency of the new one, but at the same time will cost HALF the cost of the new one, then there is no question - it needs to be modified. It is a completely different matter to choose WHAT EXACTLY to modify on the ship. It is FAVORABLE for private capitalist companies to manipulate data so that the state gives them an order to replace some module, even if it is not necessary, give it to someone's paw, use lobbyists (as in the USA), pay an expert, realizing that the expert wants to eat and will make such conclusion as a customer SHOULD be because the expert also needs to be invited again. The United States had no problem pushing the HARPOON launchers into the Spruences. There were no problems replacing the Sea Sparrow air defense system with NATO Sea Sparrow, and further down the list.
    Now there are installations in stock that fit anywhere, as long as there is enough displacement. For example, launchers for ASTER air defense systems, the same launchers for ESSM air defense systems, launchers for anti-ship missiles harpoon, none further down the list. There are even artillery systems that require practically no under-deck space. So it would be a DESIRE and a rational approach. Under conditions of low wear of the hull ITSELF, anything can be crammed into this hull, of course, taking into account the displacement of the ship.
  44. 0
    17 January 2022 21: 54
    >Russia's inability to independently build modern destroyers and frigates.

    So in the article it is reported that there are capacities and domestic engines. So we can talk about reluctance, given that the country has enough money, if objectively.
  45. 0
    17 January 2022 22: 37
    "So the answer to the question posed at the beginning may be that behind the modernization of the forty-year-old Project 1155 ships is Russia's inability to build modern destroyers and frigates on its own. But I would like to." This fact is 22350 2 units. and 11356 3 units. do not change the weather, they are very lacking in the fleet. And there is no talk of destroyers. In addition to RTOs and Corvettes, pennants of the 1st rank are needed, and there are catastrophically few of them.
  46. 0
    18 January 2022 08: 28
    Interestingly, what's the point of building new useless cruisers? I didn’t understand, with whom are we going to fight at sea? The United States will sweep us away in three seconds, we have a land border with China, Britain and France are so-so, a trifle, and the rest stupidly do not have a normal fleet.
    Have these huge galoshes done much lately? That is why no one spends money on their creation and maintenance, they build small, but powerful enough ships. The main class is now a destroyer and a frigate.
  47. 0
    22 January 2022 12: 58
    ""Vinogradov will receive" not 2, but 4 launchers 3S14 with 8 cells each. That is, the former BOD will be able to carry up to 48 cruise missiles at once. "I have an arithmetic collapse, isn't 8 * 4 32
  48. 0
    23 January 2022 04: 29
    I'm not in the subject, not a rocket sailor, but IMHO, not the one who has more missiles will win, but the one who hits first.
    Should I name the author of the words: "Better less, but better"? Or do we still remember?
  49. 0
    14 March 2022 10: 02
    Pretty biased article! No need to shout that the Russian Federation is not building, but only modernizing the BOD and the nuclear cruiser. It is silent about the construction of a series of project 22350 and the modernization of the slipway for 2 buildings, for the construction of project 22350m.
  50. 0
    April 13 2022 01: 29
    Quote: for
    What's the difference what it's called, a frigate or a destroyer, the main thing is its capabilities. I liked BOD, SKR, IPC, BDK, etc. more.
    40% probably not from worn, converted designs for the installation of new weapons and equipment.

    Its tasks depend on the type of ship. This is for you and me, even on the forehead, even on the forehead, it doesn’t matter. Maremans are different. The warrant is not built from the bay-floundering of something. There is a strict hierarchy, place and tasks. It is possible to put a lightweight against something heavier, dooming him and the squadron to defeat.
  51. 0
    April 26 2022 00: 25
    We’re building UDCs, but we can’t do destroyers??? rave

"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"