The first of the British frigates of project 26 - the Glasgow frigate - was taken out of the boathouse

111
The first of the British frigates of project 26 - the Glasgow frigate - was taken out of the boathouse

The frigate "Glasgow" for the British Navy - the first in a series - is taken out of the boathouse and is preparing to be launched.

The design of Project 26 frigates began back in 1998, since the "old men" of Project 23 no longer corresponded to realities and those that were still "not quite shabby" were sold to everyone. In 2008, the construction of two destroyers, Project 45, was canceled in order to free up finance for promising frigates. Initially, they were supposed to be purchased in 13 pieces, like pr. 23, but, as has long been the norm in the UK, the series was greatly curtailed. Only eight Type 26s are already envisaged, the remaining five ships are a much more budgetary project 31.




In the 2010s, when the design of new frigates entered the detailed development phase, the cost of one was estimated at 250 to 350 million pounds, depending on the specialization. It must be understood that now the price has risen significantly, and then, given the current rise in prices for energy and raw materials, and the UK budget deficit of more than 50 billion pounds (as of November 2022), the amounts may become "fabulous", which in the end, it can affect both the total number of ships and the distribution of types in the series. Part of the more expensive ships of the British project 26 can be replaced with cheaper ones, or they can cut the entire series. Most likely it will be both. It is assumed that these ships will be in service until 2060.

It should be noted that the series is pretty late. The entry of Glasgow into service was originally expected in 2023, now, of course, the date will shift to the right by two years. And the construction itself was delayed: the ship has not yet been launched, although it was laid down 4,5 years ago. The negative trend has been flourishing in the United Kingdom for a long time. Steel cutting for the second Cardiff ship was completed in the summer of 2019, for the third ship Belfast in the summer of 2021.

Now a few words about the ships themselves. In fact, more than enough has been written about them on the Internet, but I want to express my opinion. The Sea Septor air defense system with a range of 25 km does not even look funny anymore. At a range of 30 km or more, even UABs work, unless by the time of entry into service the ship is equipped with more long-range missiles. A speed of 26 knots also does not look very impressive, as for a combat unit, especially since the PLO option is supposed.

111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. The comment was deleted.
  2. PC
    +1
    28 November 2022 08: 01
    The British, okay, they took us out of the boathouse. But for some reason I haven’t seen information about a ship built by the Turks for Ukraine for a long time?
  3. -1
    28 November 2022 08: 03
    Now a few words about the ships themselves. In fact, more than enough has been written about them on the Internet, but I want to express my opinion. The Sea Septor air defense system with a range of 25 km does not even look funny anymore. At a range of 30 km or more, even UABs work, unless by the time of entry into service the ship is equipped with more long-range missiles. A speed of 26 knots also does not look very impressive,
    The British lion will climb...
    But the pomp is not getting any smaller.
    Queen of the damn sea!
    1. +5
      28 November 2022 08: 51
      ASTER 30, air defense missile from 3 to 120 km, ship radar up to 400 km. So at least the British.
      1. +2
        28 November 2022 10: 04
        Quote: tralflot1832
        ASTER 30, SAM missile from 3 to 120 km, ship radar up to 400 km. So at least the British.

        So they have type 45 destroyers.
        The main feature of the Sea Zeptor is the number of simultaneously fired targets. It is claimed that there are almost no restrictions.
        Target speed - up to 3M. To intercept anti-ship missiles of the Onyx type.
        But whatever one may say, there are clearly not enough missiles on frigates.
  4. +3
    28 November 2022 08: 04
    It’s a pity there is little information about the ships themselves. And about the air defense systems they are generally strange
    conclusions. These are short-range air defense systems. And it will be easy to put the same Asters with a much greater range into universal containers. There is generally silence about strike weapons.
    1. -1
      28 November 2022 08: 21
      Quote: Magic Archer
      It is a pity there is little information about the ships themselves
      https://topwar.ru/139003-fregaty-tipa-siti-tip-26-buduschee-britanskogo-nadvodnogo-flota.html
    2. +5
      28 November 2022 08: 40
      Quote: Magic Archer
      And in universal containers it will be easy to put the same Asters with a much greater range.

      You can not.
      To control medium-range missiles, you need an appropriate radar, which is not on the 26th. Therefore, theoretically, it is possible to even install long-range missiles, but in practice there is no sense in this - the same problems as on 20380, on which there is a redoubt, but there is no polyment
      1. 0
        28 November 2022 08: 59
        On Daring, a radar with such characteristics, on Glasgow, was this also cut?
        1. +3
          28 November 2022 09: 29
          Quote: tralflot1832
          On Daring, a radar with such characteristics

          The fact of the matter is that on Daring, as part of the PAAMS, there is a Sampson radar with twice the range as 997 on the frigate 26. And the twenty-sixth radar is a standard radar for fire control of short-range air defense systems
          1. +3
            28 November 2022 10: 08
            So it turns out that Aster 30 is like a hare's fifth leg? I found according to Gorshkov that he shot in the Baltic at small ship shields from Poliment Reduta. Not a word about air targets.
            1. +3
              28 November 2022 10: 12
              Quote: tralflot1832
              So it turns out Aster 30 is like a hare's fifth leg?

              Something like that...
              1. +2
                28 November 2022 10: 17
                Well then, okay, otherwise Ustinov left Severomorsk somewhere the other day. Probably to the English aircraft carriers. News of the Federation Council.
              2. 0
                28 November 2022 10: 20
                But I’m thinking how to optimize Glasgow from 500 million apiece to 300 million. MCO alone will not give such savings.
          2. +1
            28 November 2022 10: 20
            than 997 on frigate 26. And the radar of the twenty-sixth is a standard radar for fire control of short-range air defense systems

            The radar itself is medium-range, up to 200 km.
            1. +1
              28 November 2022 10: 31
              Quote from solar
              The radar itself is medium-range, up to 200 km.

              Small. 200 km is the maximum distance at which the radar sees something; it sees relatively small targets much closer. Therefore, on Daring, the radar is seen at 400 km.
              1. 0
                28 November 2022 12: 13
                200 km is the maximum distance at which the radar sees something; it sees relatively small targets much closer.

                this is for all radars - the range of small targets is less.
                But 200 km is a medium-range radar.

                The Type 997 Artisan (Advanced Radar Target Indication Situational Awareness and Navigation) is a medium-range air and surface surveillance 3D radar developed and built by BAE Systems for the United Kingdom's Royal Navy. It has been fitted to all 13 Type 23 frigates, HMS Ocean, HMS Bulwark, HMS Albion, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.[1]

                The Type 997 Artisan has a range of 200 m – 200 km (110 nmi) at 30 RPM and is reportedly capable of tracking more than 900 targets at once. BAE Systems state that Artisan is capable of tracking targets the size of small birds or tennis balls traveling at Mach 3 ...
                The Artisan Type 997 (Advanced Radar Target Indication Situational Awareness and Navigation) is a 3D medium-range air and surface surveillance radar, designed and built by BAE Systems for the British Royal Navy. It was installed on all 13 Type 23 frigates, HMS Ocean, HMS Bulwark, HMS Albion, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. [one]

                The Type 997 Artisan has a range of 200 m to 200 km (110 nmi) at 30 rpm and is reportedly capable of tracking over 900 targets simultaneously. BAE Systems says the Artisan is capable of tracking targets as small as a small bird or a tennis ball moving at Mach 3...

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_997_Artisan_radar
                Therefore, on Daring, the radar is seen at 400 km.

                This is a long range radar.
                1. +1
                  28 November 2022 12: 26
                  All your copy-paste does not answer one simple question - the detection distance of a modern radar 997 fighter. It is understandable, such information is usually secret. But if twice as strong radar is used for Daring with his medium-range missiles, the rest is easy to guess
                  1. 0
                    28 November 2022 12: 51
                    if for Daring with his medium-range missiles

                    Aster 30 long-range missiles.
                    But you've come from the wrong side. It is the capabilities of the radar that exceed the capabilities of the zur, and not vice versa.
                    The usual multiplicity for multifunctional radars with surveillance functions is 2-3 times, that is, with an aster 30 range of 120 km, the radar range should be 240-360 km.
                    But the Type 45 also has the S1850M with even greater range and missile defense capability, so it’s more logical to assume that the radar was delivered with overestimated capabilities based on new weapons or upgrades.
                    The S1850M is a long-range radar with a digital antenna array for wide area search in elevation.
                    1. +1
                      28 November 2022 13: 29
                      Quote from solar
                      Aster 30 long-range missiles.

                      120 km has long been the average range.
                      Quote from solar
                      The usual multiplicity for multifunctional radars with surveillance functions

                      You do not know, because this is classified information that is not published in the open press.
                      Quote from solar
                      But on type 45 there is also S1850M with even greater range

                      No, the same 400 km
                      Quote from solar
                      therefore, it is more logical to assume that the radar was delivered with overestimated capabilities

                      There is nothing overpriced. It is necessary to detect a target, develop target designation for it, launch a missile, and the missile defense system will spend some time flying to the target.
                      If we assume that Aster 30 has not a maximum, but a marching speed of 4,5 m, then it will fly 120 km in 80 seconds + 20 seconds, at least to determine the target designation. A total of 100 seconds, the target on 2M will overcome 55 km during this time. That is, the line of detection of a two-wing target for hitting the maximum radius is at least 175 km, actually more.
                      1. 0
                        28 November 2022 13: 50
                        120 km has long been the average range.

                        if you give a link that somewhere there is such an official range gradation, I read with interest, I have not heard that a range of 120+ is average.
                        You do not know, because this is classified information that is not published in the open press.

                        This is a typical ratio for air defense systems - both for new ones and for old ones, about which there is information.
                        No, the same 400 km

                        The S1850M is a radar from the SMART-L family, capable of tracking, among other things, ballistic missiles in the atmospheric area.
                        It is not clear what you are arguing about? That
                        for Daring with his medium-range missiles, twice as strong a radar is used - it’s easy to guess the rest

                        where did you get all this from?
                        That is, the line of detection of a two-wing target for hitting the maximum radius is at least 175 km, actually more.

                        And who argues with this? I wrote, the usual multiplicity for the air defense system is 2-3 times. Detection should be carried out in advance of the target entering the affected area.
                      2. +1
                        28 November 2022 18: 43
                        Quote from solar
                        if you give a link that somewhere there is such an official range gradation, I read with interest, I have not heard that a range of 120+ is average.

                        If you haven’t heard, then why are you going to claim that 120 km is a long range? :)))) And so, at least [media=http://zrv.ivo.unn.ru/pages/vtp/7/7 -2-obshchaya-kharakteristika-zenitnykh-raketnykh-kompleksov.htm] take
                        Long range - over 200 km.

                        Quote from solar
                        This is a typical ratio for air defense systems - both for new ones and for old ones, about which there is information.

                        This can't be a "typical ratio" First, what is 200 km for a 997? With what EPR does she see the target at this range? Bridge? Aircraft carrier? Destroyer? And then you can already see which EPR target she will see at a distance of "normal multiplicity"
                        Quote from solar
                        The S1850M is a radar from the SMART-L family, capable of tracking, among other things, ballistic missiles in the atmospheric area.

                        And how does this contradict what I said?
                        Quote from solar
                        I wrote, the usual multiplicity for the air defense system is 2-3 times. Detection should be carried out in advance of the target entering the affected area.

                        In addition, having a maximum range of 200 km, it is impossible to count on the detection of a modern attack aircraft at 175 km
                      3. 0
                        29 November 2022 00: 32
                        If you haven’t heard, then why are you going to claim that 120 km is a long range? :)))) And so, at least [media=http://zrv.ivo.unn.ru/pages/vtp/7/7 -2-obshchaya-kharakteristika-zenitnykh-raketnykh-kompleksov.htm] take
                        Long range - over 200 km.

                        It is not written there that long-range air defense systems are over 200 km.
                        It says there, long-range, not long-range, firstly. Second, it is written
                        equipped with missiles designed to hit targets at ranges over 200 km
                        .
                        which can be read as "can be equipped" with such missiles as well.
                        But about medium-range air defense systems it is written clearly and unambiguously-
                        SAM medium range have a firing range of several tens of kilometers.

                        Which is fully consistent - more than 100 - this is a long range.
                        This can't be a "typical ratio" First, what is 200 km for a 997? With what EPR does she see the target at this range? Bridge? Aircraft carrier? Destroyer?

                        I draw your attention to the fact that the earth is spherical, and no one has canceled the radio horizon.
                        In addition, having a maximum range of 200 km, it is impossible to count on the detection of a modern attack aircraft at 175 km

                        it does not need to be detected at such a range when using medium-range air defense systems, which, according to your statements alone, exceed one hundred kilometers.
                        I also note that they will not shoot at him until he enters the affected area, especially at an attack aircraft, maneuverable and fast enough by definition, after launching a rocket, he will simply change course and / or height and an expensive rocket, or even more than one will go into milk.
                      4. +1
                        29 November 2022 09: 05
                        Quote from solar
                        It is not written there that long-range air defense systems are over 200 km.

                        Well if
                        Long-range air defense systems include, first of all, air defense air defense systems of the VKS. They are all-weather, can be self-propelled or towed, equipped with missiles designed to hit targets at ranges over 200 km.

                        It leaves some more questions ... However, the question is not fundamental, we will assume that you are right.
                        Quote from solar
                        I draw your attention to the fact that the earth is spherical, and no one has canceled the radio horizon.

                        Nobody canceled a certain amount of malice either. But here are the numbers.
                        Suppose station 997 detects a strategic bomber with an RCS of 200m100 at 2 km. Since the detection range is proportional to the fourth power of the RCS, a target in the form of a modern fighter with stealth technologies (ERR, for example, 2 m2) will be detected at 75 km. This is quite enough for the Sea Captor air defense system with its maximum range of 25-40 km, although taking into account the speed of the rocket at 3M, it will be difficult to use it at full range. But some thread of the Su57 with its predictive RCS of less than a meter will be noticeable fifty kilometers away ...
                        But if we assume that at 200 km the radar sees a target with an RCS of 15 m2, then, of course, the result of the calculations will be different.
                        Therefore, talking about the redundancy / insufficiency of the radar based on its range, without knowing what target it can see at this range, is a completely pointless exercise
                      5. 0
                        29 November 2022 10: 44
                        Well if
                        Long-range air defense systems include, first of all, air defense air defense systems of the VKS. They are all-weather, can be self-propelled or towed, equipped with missiles designed to hit targets at ranges over 200 km.

                        It leaves some more questions ... However, the question is not fundamental, we will assume that you are right.

                        If you have a phrase from your own source
                        Medium range air defense systems have a firing range of several tens of kilometers.

                        Leaves room for ambiguity, it's really unclear what we're arguing about.
                        Nobody canceled a certain amount of malice either.

                        And how should I react if they give me an example of a surface target at a distance of 200 km for a ship's radar?
                        But here are the numbers.

                        The numbers mean nothing. For different types of targets, air defense systems have different ranges, moreover, this is a common truth. This applies to all air defense systems. This did not prevent anyone else, except you, from determining the class of air defense systems.
                        Suppose station 997 detects a strategic bomber with an RCS of 200m100 at 2 km

                        Are you serious? You will outline your "assumptions" to me, and you will nobly leave me the right to refute your "assumptions"? And in response, will you casually inform me through your lip that my source is wrong?
                        Here's from the brochure for 997
                        The radar can identify a target
                        the size of a tennis ball travel
                        at a speed of Mach 3 (over 2,000
                        mph), greater than 25km away

                        You can recalculate using the formula with roots of the fourth degree. I don’t know if you are aware that for real conditions this formula is far from the only thing that determines the range.
                      6. +1
                        29 November 2022 11: 30
                        Quote from solar
                        Are you serious? You will outline your "assumptions" to me, and you will nobly leave me the right to refute your "assumptions"?

                        Have you already forgotten how our little dispute began?
                        I stated that radar 997 with its passport maximum range of 200 km. can only ensure the operation of a relatively short-range air defense system at the Si Captor level. In support of my words, I pointed out that:
                        1. Usually, the maximum detection range (unless expressly stated otherwise) is indicated for the largest targets.
                        2. He gave a simple calculation showing that, assuming that at a distance of 200 km, the 997 radar detects only a large transport aircraft or a stratobomber, my statement is correct.
                        3. Pointed out that equipping British Daring radars with twice the range fits perfectly into the logic I presented.
                        In response to this, you postulate that everything is wrong, and that the 997 radar is enough to control an air defense system with a range of 120 km, and a more powerful radar on Daring is "in reserve".
                        So, it is for you to confirm your point of view, because you have not confirmed it with anything - neither facts nor logical constructions. Your postulates are unfounded.
                      7. 0
                        29 November 2022 12: 20
                        Have you already forgotten how our little dispute began?

                        I remember very well. I gave you a quote confirming that the British themselves classify this radar as a medium-range radar
                        The Type 997 Artisan (Advanced Radar Target Indication Situational Awareness and Navigation) is a medium range air and surface surveillance 3D radar

                        If someone thinks otherwise (except for you personally, of course) - provide confirmation with a quote and a link, without this all your reasoning is not serious.
                        1. Usually, the maximum detection range (unless expressly stated otherwise) is indicated for the largest targets.

                        There is such a thing - instrumental range, have you heard about it?
                        2. He gave a simple calculation showing that, assuming that at a distance of 200 km, the 997 radar detects only a large transport aircraft or a stratobomber, my statement is correct.

                        A classic propaganda trick is to make an "assumption" or "assumption" - and then argue while pretending that this assumption is true.
                        3. Pointed out that equipping British Daring radars with twice the range fits perfectly into the logic I presented.

                        You have already forgotten that we have found out that Aster 30 does not apply to medium-range systems, which makes all your "reasoning" incorrect.
                        You postulate that everything is wrong, and that the 997 radar is enough to control an air defense system with a range of 120 km

                        And this is already a direct lie, I have not made such statements anywhere, and nothing of what I have written can be interpreted in this way. Once again, usually the radar detection range is 2-3 times higher than the range of anti-aircraft missiles. 120+ km Astrar 30 does not fit into this statement.
                        So, it is up to you to confirm your point of view

                        this is not my point of view, I gave you a quote that the British themselves consider this medium-range radar.
                        But from you I have not seen any confirmation that any source other than you personally believes that this is not so. And your "logical constructions" are replete with arbitrary assumptions and errors, such as in relation to the range of Aster 30, and are refuted by the sources you cite.
                        hi
                      8. +1
                        29 November 2022 12: 47
                        Quote from solar
                        You can recalculate using the formula with roots of the fourth degree

                        I can, of course, but that's bad luck - if the radar is able to see a target with an RCS of 0,0035 m2 at 25 km, then at an eightfold greater distance it can see a target with an RCS of 8 to the fourth power, that is, approximately 15 m2
                        In this case, the 997 will detect a target with an RCS of 2 m2 at 121 kilometers from the ship, and a target with an RCS of, say, 0,75 m2 at 95 km.
                        Thus, the advertising calculations of the British radar directly confirm its inability to direct a missile with a range of 120 km.
                      9. 0
                        29 November 2022 13: 02
                        Your reasoning is based on your own assumptions, which you do not confirm. For example, you ignore "greater than", assign RCS arbitrarily, and so on.
                        You stubbornly prove that the 997 cannot direct missiles with a range of 120 km, which neither I nor the British claimed, it is purely your idea to prove what no one has ever claimed except you.
                        Just look for a link where it says someone says 997 short range radar.
                      10. +1
                        29 November 2022 13: 45
                        Quote from solar
                        Your reasoning is based on your own assumptions, which you do not confirm with anything.

                        Actually, on yours.
                        Quote from solar
                        For example, you ignore "greater than",

                        I don't ignore. It is written - to identify, and this is not the same as taking it for escort, which is necessary for the issuance of a control center. Written MAY identify, not PROVIDE identification. By the way, when talking about the Daring radar (pigeon at 105 km), it was indicated that under ideal observation conditions ... Thus, accepting 25 km as a range of stable target control for issuing a control center is an assumption in YOUR favor.
                        Quote from solar
                        arbitrarily assign EPR

                        You are in vain. Your link indicates a tennis ball, and it has a diameter of 6,7 cm from which the calculation was made.
                        Quote from solar
                        You stubbornly prove that the 997 cannot direct missiles with a range of 120 km, which neither I nor the British claimed.

                        I propose to complete this. Your remarks were read in such a way that you claim the opposite.
                        Well, if you don't say so, then there has been a misunderstanding. My apologies.
                      11. -1
                        29 November 2022 20: 55
                        I don't ignore.

                        you're just ignoring. I don't think you know the translation.
                        Your reasoning is based on your own arbitrarily chosen assumptions, for example, about the EPR, on the basis of which you determine the range, greater than you also ignored (or do you not know the translation?).
                        In this case, the 997 will detect a target with an RCS of 2 m2 at 121 kilometers from the ship, and a target with an RCS of, say, 0,75 m2 at 95 km.

                        all these are arbitrary numbers you have chosen, which are not confirmed by anything. 120 km is a short range?
                        In principle, all this is your personal reasoning, which you conduct on arbitrarily chosen numbers, in every line you have empty juggling with numbers ..
                        Everything is very simple - provide confirmation that someone believes that the 997 radar is not a medium-range radar.
                        The statement of what exactly is average, I gave you initially. And to read your reasoning "about nothing" - I see no point.
                        hi
                      12. 0
                        29 November 2022 22: 13
                        Quote from solar
                        you're just ignoring.

                        well - close your eyes to the opponent's argument and shout "vyfsevreti" loudly - also a method of conducting a discussion :))))
                        However, the bottom line is that you refuse the thesis that 997 can ensure the work of Aster 30, after which the subject of the dispute has been exhausted.
                      13. -1
                        30 November 2022 00: 16
                        However, the bottom line is that you refuse the thesis that 997 can ensure the work of Aster 30, after which the subject of the dispute has been exhausted.

                        no need to invent, I have not stated this anywhere, so I have nothing to refuse. It's probably convenient to come up with something for the opponent, and then declare that he refuses.
                        The point of contention was completely different.
                        The radar itself is medium-range, up to 200 km.

                        and your statement
                        Small.

                        after which I gave you how the British evaluate this radar
                        The Type 997 Artisan (Advanced Radar Target Indication Situational Awareness and Navigation) is a medium range air and surface surveillance 3D radar

                        and then I saw from you a leapfrog of the figures you invented "about nothing."
                        And a link is expected from you, where it will be written that 997 is a short-range radar, as you stated.
                        Waiting for a link.
                      14. 0
                        30 November 2022 08: 16
                        Quote from solar
                        The point of contention was completely different.

                        For you, he was completely different. For me, the situation looked different - when you got into a conversation about whether the 997 radar could support the Aster 30 with the statement that the 997 medium-range radar, I took this as an argument in defense of what it could. And I argued with you not about what you argued about. When I wrote to you that 997 is short-range, I meant that it provides relatively short-range air defense systems, such as Sea Captor.
                        The only difference between us is that I realized this mistake and even apologized for it, while you continue to fight in hysterics. Calm down, no one argues with the fact that the 997 is positioned as a medium-range radar.
                      15. -1
                        30 November 2022 11: 06
                        with the statement that 997 medium-range radar

                        I did not get in, but commented. Indeed, the 997-medium-range radar is an objective fact.
                        no one argues with the fact that the 997 is positioned as a medium-range radar.

                        I am calm. Since you confirmed my original statement, I don't see what to argue about further.
                        hi
                      16. 0
                        4 February 2023 12: 19
                        The concepts of "medium" and "near" ranges have now "shifted" great. Previously, the Buk-M1 had a range of 35 km. and was considered the average radius. Now, M3 - has a range of 70 km. and also medium range. So this division is very conditional, basically, as each reader has decided for himself.
          3. 0
            28 November 2022 10: 51
            It’s a pity I can’t find the words of the English admiral, who called Dering "Bucket of Bolts" because of his noise.
            1. +2
              28 November 2022 12: 04
              There is such. But the air defense of this bucket is really good, which, in fact, ends with its merits
              1. 0
                28 November 2022 12: 27
                With air defense on ships, they are always good, starting with Burks and type 23.
                1. +2
                  28 November 2022 13: 17
                  Not really:))))
                  With Aegis, they suffered to train him to hit low-altitude targets and really taught him only in the early 2000s. And the 23rd is only short-range air defense. There’s even more missile defense, just Sivulf
                  1. 0
                    28 November 2022 13: 39
                    As far as I remember Sea Dart, they advertised that he shoots down shells, and the Falklands won out how it turned out. Ideal test conditions are one thing, and another thing is when a blank on two waves flies into the side. I say about Ustinov what he has on board.
                    1. +2
                      28 November 2022 18: 43
                      Quote: tralflot1832
                      As far as I remember Sea Dart, they advertised that he shoots down shells

                      Sivulf, and he really knocked them down on tests, Woodwart has it
                      Quote: tralflot1832
                      Ideal test conditions are one thing, and another thing is when a blank on two waves flies into the side.

                      I do not argue. Exactly
                    2. +1
                      28 November 2022 19: 16
                      This "Sea Wolf" hit 114 mm in tests. shell. "Seed Dart" just turned out to be quite bad in terms of small size and low altitude.
                  2. +1
                    28 November 2022 19: 14
                    On pr. 23 "sea wolf" - good, but already quite short-range. Doesn't match reality.
                    1. +1
                      28 November 2022 20: 12
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      On pr. 23 "sea wolf" - good, but already quite short-range

                      Actually, that's what I wanted to say, but it turned out somehow tongue-tied
                    2. 0
                      29 November 2022 13: 10
                      on pr23 it was replaced with a modern Sea Septor
                      Under the name Sea Ceptor, CAMM has replaced the Sea Wolf missiles on Type 2018 frigates of the Royal VIS since 23, and since 7 under the name Land Ceptor will replace the Rapier air defense system in service with the British army.
                      1. 0
                        29 November 2022 13: 33
                        The missiles were replaced, but what about the guidance systems and radar?
                      2. 0
                        29 November 2022 21: 04
                        The radar is standard for the British - the multifunctional Artisan Type 997 medium-range - for 200 km, they have it on almost all ships except destroyers. For Si Septora is sufficient with a large margin.
                      3. 0
                        29 November 2022 21: 58
                        The declared performance characteristics of the Sea Septor are not bad, except for the range. The problem is that he never fired in combat. Two training targets, at the training ground, are not very reassuring.
                      4. -1
                        30 November 2022 00: 29
                        They're focused on performance. However, they also made a medium-range version
                        A modification of the CAMM Extended Range (CAMM extended range), known as CAMM-ER, has been developed jointly with MBDA and Avio for the Italian Ministry of Defense since 2013. [26] The CAMM-ER has the same characteristics as the original CAMM, with the exception of the new Avio rocket engine, which increases the missile's range to 45 km, and a slightly modified layout.

                        and offered it to the Spaniards, but they chose the American ESSM.
                        I agree that verification in real combat conditions is more important for evaluation than field tests.
                      5. 0
                        30 November 2022 01: 21
                        My purely personal opinion is that the range is 45 km. - this is no longer the average radius, but rather the near one. Medium-range air defense systems are somewhere in the region of 70 km. Again, there are suspicions that the performance characteristics are somewhat overstated. The Britons, near the Falklands, suddenly learned that the declared range of the Sea Dart did not correspond to the real one by about five miles, and it did not work very well at low-altitude, small-sized ones. So, for now, this is all in the realm of theory. So, when he confirms his parameters in a combat situation, then we will say that "yes, the thing is cool - you have to take it."
                      6. -1
                        30 November 2022 01: 38
                        Beech, ECSM is the average range. However, it is not yet heard that the British were going to put the EP.
                        The range of the Sea Septor is approaching the range of the Astor 15. According to their logic, the range is compensated by the high performance of the complex and missiles with active seekers.
                        English ships have long been traditionally underarmed. However, this is generally the situation with many European ships.
                        Compare, for example, the small French frigate Lafayette
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Фрегаты_типа_«Лафайет»
                        and its modification - Singapore Formideble
                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Фрегаты_типа_«Формидэбл»
                        As if not just two fundamentally different ships, but also different classes!
                      7. 0
                        30 November 2022 10: 00
                        Short range can hardly be replaced by high performance. There may be several carriers of RCC or AUB, and each of them carries several TSA. Aircraft can return to base and re-arm, but the frigate has only what is in its airframe. Again, the pilots feel absolutely calm, because they know that they are operating outside the zone of destruction of the air defense system.
                      8. -1
                        30 November 2022 10: 50
                        The zone of destruction of the air defense system is limited by the radio horizon.
                        During attacks in the Falklands War, the Argentines approached at low altitudes outside the air defense zone, made a slide, launched anti-ship missiles and again went to low altitudes. And the air defense system will not be able to do anything about it.
                        Therefore, according to the British, the real long-range air defense is provided by carrier-based aviation of aircraft carriers with AWACS helicopters.
                      9. 0
                        30 November 2022 12: 21
                        This is true if the carrier entered at an extremely low altitude. But, in this case, the aircraft can enter at any altitude convenient for the use of ASP, without any danger to itself. Accordingly, if the UAB launch range from a height of 100 m is 15 km, then from a height of 1000 m it is 50 km. You can safely shoot a frigate from a range of 50 km until it runs out of missiles.
                      10. -1
                        30 November 2022 13: 34
                        This is if the frigate is alone in the field of warrior-pirates to drive, for example.
                        But for any serious conflicts, he will be part of a group, and there will be either type 45, which has long-range air defense, or an aircraft carrier, or rather, both.
                        That is, they build a ship for the concept of application. I think they reserved a place for weapons there, but whether they will raise a big question. Saving.
                        But type 45 was rearmed with Sea Septor instead of Aster 15 in order to free up cells for Aster 30. So anything can happen. Maybe the EP version is stuck, expanding the air defense zone.
                      11. 0
                        30 November 2022 19: 29
                        Judging by the way they "scraped" the group to escort "Lizka" through all the barrels, I am tormented by vague doubts.
                      12. -1
                        1 December 2022 00: 20
                        formally, they have 6 destroyers and 13 frigates in the fleet - quite enough to recruit an escort for 2 aircraft carriers. Perhaps not everyone was in a combat-ready state at that moment, but this is a matter of allocating money for repairs.
                      13. 0
                        1 December 2022 00: 55
                        I don’t know how formally, but in reality, out of six “derings”, five were under repair. I don’t know how many of Project 23, but as they say - a fact on the face and on the face))) by the way, the escort group, the newest Ford, included the BOHR patrol ship, which militarily means nothing at all.
                      14. -1
                        1 December 2022 01: 57
                        In peacetime, a large escort is not needed.
                        As for "under repair", its duration is also a matter of money. I don’t think that almost all destroyers there are always under repair
                      15. 0
                        1 December 2022 10: 08
                        The subjective opinion of many comrades on this site is that the British have forgotten how to build ships. Their new aircraft carriers are also by no means masterpieces. Let's see what will be pr. 26.
                2. 0
                  4 February 2023 12: 27
                  I cannot agree with you. At 42 Sea Dart had many problems. During the Falklands War, it turned out that the range did not correspond to the declared one, and for low-altitude and small-sized targets it works poorly, or rather, not at all. He did not intercept a single "exocet", although he tried. Already much later, more modern modifications theoretically could. Although in the Persian Gulf, all the same, at low and low altitude, Sea Wolf mainly worked.
                3. 0
                  1 June 2023 10: 08
                  To put it mildly, "bjorks" and type 23 frigates, ships for completely different actions. And the air defense type 23, the Sea Wolf air defense system, is a very short-range air defense system. Simply put, this is an ATGM with a slightly increased firing range))
        2. +3
          28 November 2022 09: 46
          Quote: tralflot1832
          On Daring radar

          So this is a surveillance radar. And the question is in the guidance radar.
          1. 0
            28 November 2022 10: 10
            But Astor 30 itself cannot aim at the target? Like they showed her by hand where to fly, and then she herself will figure out where to fly.
            1. +4
              28 November 2022 10: 13
              Maybe if it flies 25 kilometers to the target and someone tells her to turn on the agsn. And who will do it?
            2. +2
              28 November 2022 10: 33
              Quote: tralflot1832
              Like a hand showed her where to fly,

              So about such a hand and speech - the guidance radar is called. But the type of guidance can be different - semi-active, radio command, radio command with homing in the final section. But without a pointing finger, it won't work.
          2. 0
            28 November 2022 12: 25
            Daring has two long-range multifunctional radars.
            SAMPSON for detection and correction and S1850M.
            Sampson is intended for use in control systems for various types of weapons. As part of the PAAMS air defense system, it performs the functions of review, target recognition and control on the cruising section of the trajectory for anti-aircraft missiles of the Aster family.

            The S1850M can also be used in missile defense systems.
    3. 0
      28 November 2022 11: 43
      Features
      Displacement
      6900 t (standard)[3]
      8000+ tons (full)[4][5]
      Length
      149,9 m [3]
      Width
      20,8 m [3]
      Engines
      CODLOG[6]: 2 MTU diesel generators, 2 GEC electric motors, 2 Rolls-Royce MT-30 gas turbines
      Travel speed
      26 knots[3]
      Range of navigation
      7000 nautical miles[3]
      Autonomy of swimming
      60 days
      Crew
      118 people[3]
      weaponry
      Navigational weapons
      Radar Kelvin Hughes Ltd SharpEye[7]
      Radar weapons
      Type 997 Radar
      Radio-electronic armament
      GAS Sonar 2087 (towed)
      GAS Type 2050
      SCOT-5 (satellite communications)
      EW IRVIN-GQ
      Tactical strike weapons
      "Tomahawk" in UVP Mk 41[8]
      Artillery
      1 × 127 mm gun Mk 45
      2 × DS 30M Mk30 2mm assault rifles
      2 × M134 Miniguns
      4 machine guns
      Flak
      2 × Mk 15 Phalanx
      Missile weapons
      LRASM in UVP Mk 41[9]
      SAM CAMM (UVP 48 cells)
      Anti-submarine weapons
      RUM-139 VLA in UVP Mk 41[9]
      Aviation Group
      2 helicopters: AgustaWestland AW159 Wildcat (2 anti-ship missiles or 4 torpedo submarines)
      Merlin HM1 (4 submarines torpedoes)
  5. +3
    28 November 2022 08: 06
    That's what the British like to cut their fleet. Either they will cut the series, then the armament. It has been customary since the time of Margaret. in parliament they consider themselves sailors, and even more so in shipbuilding. But the fleet of England is more likely alive than dead.
    1. +2
      28 November 2022 10: 09
      Quote: tralflot1832
      That's what the British like to cut their fleet. Either they cut the series, then the armament. Since the time of Margaret, this has been the custom.

      So in Russia everything is the same))) and not only in the navy, but everywhere, well, maybe with one exception - the Strategic Missile Forces. And it’s not the parliament that cuts in the end, but the Moscow Region itself - first: we will order 100500 armats, after I get drunk ... but ... no, a couple of dozen will be enough to ride in parades))
      Quote: tralflot1832
      But the English fleet is more alive than dead.

      Well, at least they have it in this sequence: "rather alive than dead", in Russia it is rather the other way around "rather dead than alive." yes yes yes, there are a bunch of new submarines, but submarines alone cannot solve all the problems.
      1. +1
        28 November 2022 10: 34
        As if he walked past Severomorsk all his life, even under the USSR he did not impress with surface ships. I was a witness, I was lucky, in 1986 the fleet left the base, and all walking and not walking. But the nuclear submarine is, of course, power. but it sank in the north.
      2. +3
        28 November 2022 10: 40
        Quote: JD1979
        So in Russia everything is the same)))

        No, we have re-armed ships, in England - on the contrary.
        Quote: JD1979
        . And it’s not the parliament that cuts in the end, but the Moscow Region itself - first: we will order 100500 armats, after I get drunk ... but ... no, a couple of dozen will be enough to ride in parades))

        Well, in general, the contract was signed not for 20, but for more than a hundred tanks. Few? Well, this is half of the UK tank fleet, if anything :)))
        And MO has nothing to do with it. They planned 2300 armats when they were promised 20 trillion for SAP 2012-2020, and when it turned out that they would give it well if half, they had to pull their legs along their clothes. In the media field, all that remains is that "grapes are green", they say, they didn’t really want to.
        Quote: JD1979
        Well, at least they have it in this sequence: "rather alive than dead", in Russia it is rather the other way around "rather dead than alive."

        Well, how? In surface shipbuilding, they are unequivocally ahead of us, in underwater they are inferior, six astyuts cannot solve all problems. So it's hard to pick a leader
    2. +1
      28 November 2022 19: 18
      Well, this has been the custom since Project 42. To put it mildly, the boats turned out to be completely unsuccessful, except for the second series. But, the second series, ironically, stayed in service the least to free up money for pr. 45.
    3. 0
      4 February 2023 12: 33
      It happened even when the First World War ended - the Gedds Ax. And then, only the speed of the process changed.
    4. 0
      25 February 2023 15: 56
      This has been going on since the period between the First and Second World Wars))) you can look at the battleships of the King George type or the Illustrious aircraft carriers.
  6. -1
    28 November 2022 08: 12
    You can add yellow squares to the boat and you can immediately sell to Ukraine)
    1. +1
      28 November 2022 09: 28
      Quote: PlotnikoffDD
      you can immediately sell to Ukraine

      It’s impossible to sell, because Pan Ataman Zelensky has no gold reserves, from the word “absolutely”. Only if in a "credit", which is clear that they will not pay.
  7. +1
    28 November 2022 09: 07
    Not only We are shifting the commissioning of ships to the right, the Glasgow will take 6-7 years to build. The speed for a frigate is 26 knots, too small and missiles are rather weak!
    1. -2
      28 November 2022 09: 29
      With air supremacy and constant AWACS, such an air defense system is enough for them. And they have overwhelming air supremacy. Our plane will not reach the frigate, they will spot the Caliber from the start, and the Chinese are on the other side of the planet.
      1. -1
        28 November 2022 09: 53
        You forget about the submarine (even a black hole), it will cover them with Caliber for naval targets or a torpedo, and the cherry on the Zircon cake! Plus, coastal Zircon is being developed.
        Air-launched Kh32 cruise missile with a range of 1000 km and a speed of 5,6 Mach.
        Airborne dagger, MIG 31I.
        So, what about non-flying planes, You should not!
        Ground-based BRAVs, Bastion mobile complex with Onyx / Yakhont (Brahms) missiles.
        The arsenal is sufficient to sink NK!)))
        1. +1
          28 November 2022 12: 13
          Find here on the site an article on the problem of target designation at sea - you will learn a lot of interesting things
        2. +1
          28 November 2022 12: 19
          Sufficient to sink the NK at a maximum of 400 km from our coast. And on the high seas, without at least the Kuznetsov, we have nothing to do. And there are missiles, but with target designation it is still unclear. When "Liana" is deployed, we will see, and even then, KMK 7 satellites will not provide control center wherever we want and at any time. The Soviet "Legend" could not. While I am reading the news that the control center is giving Tu-142 with our missiles. Seriously? Who will let this bandura reach the AUG for at least 300 km.?
      2. +3
        28 November 2022 09: 57
        Quote: Galleon
        With air supremacy and constant AWACS

        They don’t have AWACS carrier-based aircraft, and without them, there are sooooo big problems with intercepting air targets, which the Falklands proved
        Quote: Galleon
        Our plane will not reach the frigate, they will spot the caliber from the start

        Is the position of a full-time psychic introduced in the crews of the CVMF? What did I miss?
        In short, do not give out need for virtue
        1. 0
          1 June 2023 10: 14
          Well, theoretically, they have AWACS helicopters, although this is of course very different, in several respects at once)))
  8. -1
    28 November 2022 11: 31
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    They don’t have AWACS carrier-based aircraft, and without them, there are sooooo big problems with intercepting air targets, which the Falklands proved

    How do they manage in Ukraine without carrier-based AWACS aircraft? Receive information as part of NATO? Wow. But will it be different in a future war at sea?
    Well, then you don’t have to fantasize in vain and imagine the battle of a single ship with everything in the world. They have not been fighting there for a long time with single ships, like ours, and the ships go to sea with all active, and not imaginary types of support. This boat is designed from this. And you and I, Andrey, cannot refute this calculation, alas.
    1. +1
      28 November 2022 12: 38
      Quote: Galleon

      How do they manage in Ukraine without carrier-based AWACS aircraft?

      Fuck .... Bad, in general.
      Quote: Galleon
      Receive information as part of NATO? Wow. But will it be different in a future war at sea?

      Taking into account the fact that despite the presence of not the worst air defense systems and external target designation / warning from NATO, Ukrainian air defense categorically fails to parry the missile threat - your question reads very ambiguously, don't you think? :)
      Quote: Galleon
      Well, then you don’t have to fantasize in vain and imagine the battle of a single ship with everything in the world

      And let's not overdo it. I'm not talking about a single ship, but about the CVMF.
      1. 0
        28 November 2022 13: 35
        If we talk about such a target as a ship, then you do not need to explain that the NK air defense system is a rather limited thing both in terms of channel capacity and ammunition. If we take into account the seriousness of the air enemy, then for the sake of a few minutes of battle, you won’t want to build ships. Therefore, AWACS is taken into account, and coastal or carrier-based aviation, who has it, and ... The ship is considered in the totality of the actions of forces as a component, and not as a very lonely rooster in the figure. We have an officer of the KPUNIA on board once a year, but there it is a routine.
        With this thought, I justified the armament of the English frigate with a nondescript air defense system. They take into account his life as part of a combination of heterogeneous forces and consider such weapons sufficient. And this is justified. You can crush me here with arguments - go to sea, crush the Glasgow in the North Sea with your arguments, or at least in the Baltic.
        1. 0
          28 November 2022 18: 45
          Quote: Galleon
          You can crush me here with arguments

          What for? The Argentine Air Force did it for me at the Falklands. Yes - the United States, 15 aircraft carriers, yes, NATO. And the result...
          1. +1
            28 November 2022 19: 25
            The Falklands War - more questions than answers. It's just that the Argentos made more mistakes than the British. Mattress covers do not have 15 aircraft carriers, even together with NATO, if you count - they are normally combat-ready. "The first operational deployment of the Ford is 1,5 months, instead of the usual 5 - 6. Yes, and the air group is the old F - 18. Where are the" penguins ", because of which the garden was actually built" is unknown.
            1. +1
              28 November 2022 20: 12
              Quote: TermNachTER
              Mattress covers do not have 15 aircraft carriers, even together with NATO

              In 1981 they were.
              1. +1
                28 November 2022 21: 12
                So in 1981, in the USSR there were so many MCIs that there were enough of them "for the eyes."
                1. 0
                  29 November 2022 09: 07
                  Quote: TermNachTER
                  So in 1981, in the USSR there were so many MCIs that they were enough "for

                  What does the USSR have to do with it? We are talking about the Falklands :)))
                  1. +1
                    29 November 2022 11: 17
                    And what do 15 mattress aircraft carriers have to do with the Falklands? And by the way, naval aviation watched the Falkland war. My friend served on the Tu - 95, they flew from Angola to the Falklands.
                    1. 0
                      29 November 2022 11: 56
                      Quote: TermNachTER
                      And what do 15 mattress aircraft carriers have to do with the Falklands? And

                      When you get into a discussion, you at least read it.
                      My opponent said that the Britons did not need AWACS and other aircraft, because not the KVMF would fight separately, but all of NATO at once, and then AWACS and air supremacy would follow. I reminded you of the Falklands, where, despite the full power of NATO with 15 US ABs and so on, the KVMF had to work on its own
                      1. +1
                        29 November 2022 12: 16
                        And the appearance of mattress aircraft carriers was not supposed there at all, initially. Woodward wrote about it. the Americans took a neutral position, a little more benevolent towards England. Regardless of all items NATA.
                      2. 0
                        29 November 2022 12: 56
                        What is it about. When building a fleet, it cannot be expected that it will fight exclusively with the support of allies
    2. 0
      30 November 2022 00: 51
      The British have carrier-based AWACS helicopters. Although they are inferior to AWACS aircraft, in any case they greatly increase the capabilities of carrier-based aviation. They were adopted after the Falklands War
      1. 0
        April 15 2023 15: 18
        The AWACS helicopter is not only much inferior to the AWACS aircraft, but simply catastrophically. The AWACS helicopter is a "crutch" if there are simply no others.
  9. +1
    28 November 2022 11: 37
    The Sea Septor air defense system with a range of 25 km does not even look funny anymore.

    Should we, with stupid malice, discuss shipboard short-range air defense systems of the empirialists, after the loss of the flagship of the KChF KR URO "Moskva", which is armed with incl. and longer-range air defense systems .... and drowned off its shores, the second same "trough" with the absence of a modern fire extinguishing system floats in the Pacific Fleet ....
    1. 0
      28 November 2022 12: 46
      Our problem is that we are forced to use a 40 year old cruiser that has not been upgraded. British - that they are building a new ship completely out of step with modern threats. So what is stupid in malice? Or are we only allowed to sneer at our own, and we don’t need to notice other people’s jambs?
      1. +1
        28 November 2022 13: 44
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        Or are we only allowed to sneer at our own, and we don’t need to notice other people’s jambs?

        Not at all. Terrible laughter at the empirialists is also welcome....
        Long before the NWO, there were articles about the construction by the British for the Navy of large RCAs with 8 SCRCs on each, everyone laughed at me that these "troughs" did not pose any threat to the KChF of the Russian Federation, but as it turned out, in order to drown the flagship of the KChF, it is not necessary to have an RCA ... ..
        Our problem is that we are forced to use a 40 year old cruiser that has not been upgraded.

        Not at all. Before his death, he was undergoing modernization, another thing is that it was reduced "a little", in the 18th he was in the Crimea, he was already under repair with subsequent modernization ....
        Yes, and he had nothing to do in the Black Sea at the beginning of the NWO, it would be better if they would have been sent to the Pacific Fleet ....
        Now the KChF of the Russian Federation until the end of the NMD will stand in their naval bases under the cover of an air defense facility ...
        1. 0
          28 November 2022 19: 01
          Quote: Lara Croft
          Long before the NWO, there were articles about the construction by the British for the Navy of large RCAs with 8 SCRCs on each, everyone laughed at me that these "troughs" did not pose any threat to the KChF of the Russian Federation, but as it turned out, in order to drown the flagship of the KChF, it is not necessary to have an RCA ... ..

          Excuse me, what was that all about?
          First, we still do not know what killed Moscow. The description of its damage and the development of events is extremely similar to the emergency at the Admiral Zakharov BOD. In the famous photo of the dying cruiser, there is no damage that could be identified as the consequences of missile strikes.
          Secondly, the RK could not have done this in any way, because they would have become a priority target in the very first days of the operation. So they would simply be destroyed - either by us, or by the Armed Forces of Ukraine themselves, like Saigakdachny.
          Quote: Lara Croft
          Not at all. Before his death, he was undergoing modernization

          He did NOT undergo modernization. He passed the VTG, that is, the restoration of technical readiness. The Navy's ship charter, in the chapter "Ensuring Technical Readiness", interprets the technical readiness of a ship as readiness for the intended use of the hull, weapons and technical means of the ship, means of combating its survivability. Do you need to explain the difference with modernization?
          When equipment / weapons / units are changed on a ship to more modern ones and this gives it additional capabilities that were not there before - this is modernization. When the existing equipment is simply restored on the ship, this is VTG.
        2. +1
          28 November 2022 19: 28
          The repair of "Moskva" in 2018 is a complete hack, I think the comrades from the deep drilling office will figure out where the money allocated for modernization has gone. The Black Sea Fleet does not settle in the base, the ship is regularly at sea, the launches of "calibers" are stable.
          1. 0
            29 November 2022 09: 11
            Quote: TermNachTER
            The repair of "Moscow" in 2018 is a complete hack, I think the comrades from the deep drilling office will figure out where the money has gone

            No bullshit, everything is fine. Simply, firstly, there was little money, and secondly, the plant that made the VTG had not been working with large ships for 100500 years. In fact, initially it was about patching up the cruiser to a state that allowed it to reach the north on its own and be repaired there for real. Then - there wasn’t enough money, we decided that we would develop the Black Sea shipbuilding industry, let it train in Moscow ... I trained am
      2. +1
        28 November 2022 13: 57
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        British - that they are building a new ship completely out of step with modern threats.

        The KVMS has the only task, as in the years of the XNUMXth century, to fight against submarines / SSBNs of the Russian Navy in the North Atlantic, at the moment they have enough strength for this ...
        They can reduce their participation in the joint command of mine-sweeping forces in the zone of the Baltic straits in favor of the future NATO countries - Finland and Sweden ....
        The British WB in Gibraltar and Cyprus will not allow our fleet formations to operate in the Mediterranean ....
        1. 0
          28 November 2022 19: 11
          Quote: Lara Croft
          The KVMS has the only task, as in the years of the XNUMXth century, to fight against submarines / SSBNs of the Russian Navy in the North Atlantic,

          Yes, and as part of this struggle, the KVMF either storms the Falklands, or shows the power of its AUGs to China.
          Quote: Lara Croft
          at the moment they have enough strength for this ...

          Yes. As many as 9 patrol aircraft (Japan has about a hundred, for example), frigates armed with anti-aircraft missiles as much as 324-mm torpedoes ... which you can only shoot yourself in a battle against modern submarines.
          You would still first learn to distinguish the VTG from modernization, then you will get to the assessment of the potentials of the fleets ... someday.
      3. 0
        1 June 2023 10: 19
        If we consider that all of NATO, with all its types of reconnaissance and strike support, worked to destroy "Moscow", then I can say that the result is very so-so. More PR is an action than a real result. There is no "Moscow", but who controls the Black Sea, well, with the exception of the Odessa Bay?
    2. 0
      28 November 2022 19: 26
      There are a lot of questions about Moskva and no answers at all, except that they were going to write it off back in 2015.
  10. +1
    30 November 2022 07: 44
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    My opponent said that the Britons did not need AWACS and other aircraft, because not the KVMF would fight separately, but all of NATO at once, and then AWACS and air supremacy would follow.

    You really don’t understand that single ships don’t go to NATO at sea, they don’t go there without information support, they can call in aviation? Have you ever felt that the seas adjacent to them are "transparent" for them? You wrote normal articles, with ideas that I supported. And here you show limited thinking, while you have arguments like a hole in a shag. And all naphthalene, 40 years old. Since then, the world has changed, and with this amendment, the British are building their frigates. And we can't get them. Instead of an air defense system, they could build a crew on board with bare asses, we still have nothing to get them with.
    1. 0
      4 December 2022 00: 49
      It takes time to call the aircraft and it arrives, but it may not be there. Or aviation may not arrive due to weather conditions. And the "zircon" arrives quickly and practically does not depend on the weather.
  11. 0
    4 December 2022 00: 46
    The hull was dragged to Stockton, they will install the stuffing.