Military Review

New ships in the post-sanctions era. What will we be able to build after NWO?

190
New ships in the post-sanctions era. What will we be able to build after NWO?
Project 20386 hull, then still it was Mercury, formal laying date - autumn 2016, and a small hull nearby - "Strict" project 20380, has been under construction since February 2015. The photo was taken at Severnaya Shipyard in mid-2021. Now with the filling of the buildings, everything will be much more complicated. And any mistake with the choice of components in the project will end up with such cases. Photo: Curious, forums.airbase.ru




The sanctions imposed on Russia after the start of the NWO will inevitably require a revision of the programs for the construction of surface ships. And the sooner the leadership of the Ministry of Defense, the General Staff and the Main Command of the Navy realize this, the less problems, financial losses, empty buildings in the "eternal parking" at shipyards and shame the country will see ahead.

Alas, until this is realized, and the industry, represented by some of its representatives, is doing everything to ensure that nothing changes (the main thing is that the gigantic and incredibly expensive "swelling" of funds into the submarine does not change, with the absence of a system for its anti-mine and anti-submarine support, not ensured the combat stability of the submarine forces themselves, the defense of bases and the near sea zone as a whole).

The proposed article contains a short overview of those possible options for building multi-purpose main classes of ships that Russia has left. This does not mean that only this can be done. But this means that all other paths will not be successful and will end in failure in one form or another.

Brief background of the issue


About what approaches in the correct version should be guided in the construction of a surface fleet, the author wrote in the article "Fundamentals of shipbuilding policy: principles and their application". All these principles are true and relevant to this day, but now we have to make a very sharp correction for the fact that the type of ships will have to be reduced to the limit.

An example of the result of the application of such principles by the United States is described in the article "The frigate" Perry "as a lesson for Russia: machine-designed, massive and cheap".

The actual technological capabilities of the country were analyzed and "sorted" in the article "Fundamentals of shipbuilding policy: a large and strong Navy inexpensively".

The time has come to clarify what is written there, taking into account the new realities.

Let's make a reservation right away - we are talking only about technical and industrial capabilities, and not about the results of the combat activities of the Navy. The way the fleet showed itself in its first major military campaign since the Great Patriotic War is a separate sad topic. The author warned for several years how any collision of our fleet with a "competent and understanding enemy" would end, and, in fact, the results are obvious, and the fact that the enemy does not have a fleet at all has not changed anything.

But this is a topic for a separate material, and now - the technical part.

As before, a certain overview will be given on various ship systems, with an approximate list of what is now technically possible and what needs to be done.

Before moving on, it must be emphasized once again that the risk of a nuclear war for the Russian Federation has not gone away, moreover, it is growing. V.V. Putin also stated this on December 7, 2022, and verbatim.

The only means of deterrence that guarantees a retaliatory strike against the United States, even in the event of a “missed” disarming strike from the Americans, are maritime strategic nuclear forces with combat stability.

Now everyone is looking at Russia’s prospects through the prism of the ongoing war, but one must understand that it will either end or turn into a low-intensity border conflict, but the threat from the United States will remain at best, and at worst will grow to the limit.

And ensuring the deployment and combat stability of NSNF is impossible either without surface forces operating in the near sea zone, or without a detachment of forces in the far one, for which, among other things, appropriate surface ships are needed.

For this reason, the need to drastically restore the capabilities of the fleet is becoming more and more acute. And this is impossible without increasing its numbers, especially in the light of the upcoming mass retirement of Soviet-built ships.

This need is also made acute by the actual level of adequacy to the tasks of the Navy shown by the Black Sea Fleet during the NWO. Recall that Ukraine has practically no fleet as such, and it is difficult to imagine the fate of the Black Sea Fleet if Ukraine had an adequate fleet, at least some.

And the sanctions, the continuous growth of economic pressure on the Russian Federation, the technological blockade and the inevitable economic recession in the near future impose a lot of restrictions on how the task of recreating the fleet can be solved, and place a lot of demands on our decision-making system.

"Sanction" and industrial production


The sanctions imposed on Russia after the NWO left a sharp imprint on the country's technological capabilities, primarily in terms of components for electronic systems. The production of radar complexes, communication systems, guided missiles, sonar equipment and other similar systems proved to be difficult.

At the same time, the situation is generally not catastrophic - most of the components can still be imported.

True, firstly, not everything that is needed, secondly, with delays in deliveries, and thirdly, at a higher price than before.

Therefore, on the one hand, it will no longer be possible to produce some expensive and complex ship complexes. On the other hand, Russia will not be left without shipboard electronic systems, but firstly, they will have to reduce their list, and secondly, to revise a number of long-term plans.

Some time ago, the author for the Army and Navy Review magazine wrote an article “Air defense of modern Russian ships”, which outlined the immediate prospects for shipborne air defense systems. The article was not laid out on resources on the Internet, but there is a pdf file with it in this message of the telegram channel "Sea power of the state"and anyone who wants to can see it.

Let us briefly list what available options the Russian Federation has left in terms of shipborne air defense systems.

As a radar complex for frigates and large ships - "Polyment" with some kind of "set" of serial radars for detecting air and surface targets and controlling artillery fire. By and large, we can say the following - no matter what ship of the 1st rank in the Russian Federation is planned, but in terms of the composition of the radar equipment, the REV will be “approximately 22350” - even if it is a ship in the dimension of a cruiser.

For ships of the size of a cruiser, it is possible to use the Poberezovik radar for long-range detection and expanding the frequency band of the detection equipment.

The industry in its current state simply cannot master anything else, at least within a reasonable time frame.

Sanctions, of course, will complicate the production of these subsystems, but at least in relation to the specified composition of equipment, they have more or less learned how to bypass them.

Similarly, it is possible to “bypass” all restrictions for the production of radars used on RTOs of project 22800 Karakurt.

The following is a quote from the mentioned article on air defense:

“The issue of radar frequency on small ships needs to be analyzed separately. If frigates and ships of a higher class have both the Fourke decimeter radar and the Poliment radar, which together “cover” all the ranges necessary to provide air defense, then this cannot be done on small ships.
...
That is, there is an “expensive solution” - a decimeter long-range radar (including multifunctional, with mission support and firing), in addition to which the driving layer is controlled by an optimal centimetric radar, and there is a “cheap”, but also effective, albeit with a range limitation (and some restrictions on difficult weather conditions) - one centimeter radar.

Well, or in a simple way - a ship without a Poliment can either have a Furke and Positive-M (MK) radars working together (or a good centimeter radar for detecting surface targets with a cosecant radiation pattern capable of working on low-flying targets - then is in the drive layer, which is problematic for the dm-radar), or only the Pozitiv-M (MK) with some kind of radar that provides detection of surface targets, of course.

As an artillery fire control radar, there is an excellent 3-centimeter "Puma", and "Bagheera". In general, there is even a choice, but the latest radar (as simpler and cheaper) must be checked against RM-24 target missiles, including their destruction by artillery fire.

The issue of creating a small-sized 8-mm range radar for installation directly on mass AK-630M installations in order to increase their effectiveness against modern targets at the required level remains relevant.

Let's estimate the approximate composition of radar systems for surface ships.

1. Destroyer, light cruiser, frigate:
Radar OVTS - 5P27 "Furke-2" (or "Podberezovik")
At the same time, it is extremely advisable to have two radars of different ranges (DM and SM) for the OTC.
Air defense radar - "Polyment"
Radar TsU PKRK - 34K1 "Monolith-B"
Radar UO artillery 5P-10 "Puma"

2. Light frigate, large ocean corvette (on the concept of "ocean corvette" - see article "Ocean corvette as an option for study"):
Radar OVTS - 5P27 "Furke-2"
RLC OVTs - "Pozitiv-MK"
Radar TsU PKRK - "Mineral-M"
Radar UO artillery 5P-10 "Puma" (or "Bagheera")
SAM radio correction equipment

3. Corvette (800-2500 tons displacement)
Air defense radar - "Positive-MK"
Radar TsU PKRK - "Mineral-M"
Radar UO artillery 5P-10 "Puma" or MP-123-02 "Bagheera"
SAM radio correction equipment or a separate SAM or SAM fire control system, including separate radar sheets or antenna posts.

Note - for the Pantsir-M ZRAK, it is possible to use a standard decimeter SOC, subject to the mandatory pairing of the ZRAK with good centimeter detection radars in the drive layer.

It is worth noting here that, taking into account some of the nuances of the operation of the Monolith radar, in many cases it is more preferable to use the reliable and proven Mineral radar.

The second one is an alternative complex for small ships.

Here it is:
Radar "Pozitiv-M (MK)"
Radar ZRAK "Pantsir-M" without the SOC "Pantsir" itself - see antenna canvases on the mast "Karakurt"
Radar TsU SCRC "Mineral"
Radar UO artillery 5P-10 "Puma" (or "Bagheera")

The important thing here is that, in terms of its parameters, such a bundle completely replaces the expensive and inoperable MF-RLK regiment from Zaslon JSC, but replaces it “without discounts”, that is, it provides those capabilities in terms of radar that were promised, but not really provided by the creators of the MF - RLC "Barrier".

And all on serial products with more than a moderate cost.

Perhaps, if the development of the Tor-MF air defense system is successfully completed, it will be possible to use it together with a standard radar.

It's all. The rest is either withdrawn into a separate R&D “for growth” to provide means of REV for some ships of the distant future, getting to the first project only after receiving a serial letter, or simply ceases to exist.

About "work for the future" was written in the already mentioned article "Fundamentals of shipbuilding policy: a large and strong Navy inexpensively", in this article, a whole section is devoted to working for the future, and there is no point in repeating it.

It is easy to see that, for example, an extremely expensive and, to put it mildly, “non-import-substituted” design from Zaslon JSC falls out of the list of radars available for the country. Even before the start of the SVO, there was a systemic breakdown with the release of this radar (with huge problems with the real ability to solve problems as intended). Now, under the conditions of sanctions and technological restrictions, the construction of ships with this complex is pure madness, fraught with empty hulls near the outbuilding wall.

At the same time, we will make a reservation - the Zaslonovites are trying to correct their mistakes, this is really true. How successful they have been will be shown by the delivery of the next corvettes, but even if the complex shows that you can shoot and hit from under it, its complexity, price and problems with serial production on corvettes have no justification.

Also, various supposedly promising “radar pagodas”, “radar towers”, and other pictures from pictures that exist only on paper and are unrealizable in the post-sanctions era are also “disappearing”.

Now all this is impossible: both due to problems with components, and because of the price appetites of "respectable people" - they will not do anything for cheap, and now there is no money.

It is important to pay attention to the fact that only three types of multi-purpose ships are proposed above. For comparison, projects 21631, 22160, 22800, 20380, 20385, 22350 are currently under construction.

At the same time, in truth, ships classified as a “light frigate / ocean-going corvette” do not exist even in the form of an idea, so in fact we can talk about two classes of ships for the fleet of the future - a certain large ship (now it is 22350) and a certain little corvette.

In an interesting way, we will see below that this is what is feasible for the country.

Alas, shipbuilding figures are trying to lobby for something completely different.

In one of the last interviews (and at Army-2020), Ak-Bars General Director R. Mistakhov announced a “new version” of project 21631 - in fact, a complete redesign of this project with the elimination of its acute shortcomings (water cannons, seaworthiness, sharp problems with air defense, etc.), link here. The question arises - why was it necessary to drive and lobby for the supply to the fleet of a series of obviously inferior ships with a "bouquet" of shortcomings (moreover, which experts spoke about right away)?

At the same time, today the Zelenodolsk Design Bureau at AkBars is fully loaded with work on the subject of UDC, and the possibility of allocating the necessary resources for a new corvette project raises serious doubts. Ak Bars had such an opportunity (a new version of the “lightweight” Gepard project, suitable for mass serial construction), however, having got involved in a scam with UDC, Ak Bars buried him himself.

But an attempt to shove the new 21631 “on steroids” into the fleet can again lead to a lost decade in shipbuilding, and objectively such a ship cannot be obtained under sanctions, that is, time and money will go nowhere. There won’t even be bad ships this time, even such terrible squalor as Project 22160.

For example, because there will be no more engines for them.

Main power plants


The most unpleasant surprise, oddly enough, is not in electronics. The most unpleasant surprise was thrown by the ship's energy.

To understand the question - a quote from article previously published on Military Review:

“Let's leave both series of RTOs for now, and focus on large ships by Russian standards - frigates, corvettes and landing ships.

First, what unites them all.

They all have something in common - diesel engines produced by the Kolomna Plant. Not the worst diesel engine, albeit inferior to Western counterparts, could be the main engine for the mass of warships, but ... turbochargers and parts of the cylinder-piston group are imported there and cannot be replaced by domestic counterparts.

And yet, according to informed comrades - forging the crankshaft and fuel equipment (mostly). Alas, like many other domestic engines, the Kolomna D49 is not entirely domestic.

What ships are they on? Project 22350 frigates use 10D49 with a maximum power of 5200 hp each. s., in the amount of two units, one for a diesel-gas turbine unit, on corvettes - four 16D49 of 6000 liters each. with., working through two reducers on two valoliny. The same "Corvette" power plant should stand on a couple of new BDKs.

But now Kolomna, apparently, will no longer be able to provide engines, at least for a while. Illusions that it is possible to replace foreign turbochargers, pistons and rings with our own must be discarded immediately - in Russia there is simply no technical ability to provide the required level of machining of products, there are no necessary alloys, automation and precision mechanics.

A lot of time has passed since then, and I must say that everything has been confirmed. The assumption made earlier in the article turned out to be correct, and even somewhat optimistic.

So far, USC is receiving diesels for the ships laid down earlier. Moreover, it will receive a certain number of diesel engines in the future.

But the problems are already obvious, and with them the most unpleasant conclusion is obvious - the D49 series of diesel engines may soon lose their "non-import-substituted" representatives. In the best case, Kolomensky Zavod will be able to replace something with imports - with a loss of reliability, power, an increase in fuel consumption, and, apparently, an increase in the mass of engines (those in the subject understand why this can happen). But to remove from a 16-cylinder block of 6000 liters. with. it will apparently be impossible to run on it from the Baltic to the Red Sea and back, with reasonable fuel consumption, maximum power and without breakdowns.

And this means that projects 11711 in all iterations, 20380 and 20385, and most importantly - 22350 in the foreseeable future will have to give up.

It's inevitable whoever starts throwing a tantrum about the media leak right now.

Let's give Kolomna their due - they are trying their best and succeeded in some ways.

It is possible that in one way or another they will be able to get out, but the problem is that this is now a big question.

This means that it is no longer possible to rely on the D49, God forbid that the contracted ships be completed and equipped with diesel engines.

But then the question arises - and if our frigates and corvettes, perhaps, will soon be impossible to build, then what to build instead of them?

For the current leaders of the Armed Forces and the country, this issue cannot arise for obvious reasons.

But purely due to age factors, the country will soon be waiting for the renewal of the elites, and then the question will arise anyway, just now before other people.

Okay, corvettes, they have incapable air defense, about which a lot has been written, for example, an article by M. Klimov "Thundering" and others. Will our fleet get effective ships in the near-field? ".

But frigates are another matter. These are our "top" ships, the only ships capable of fighting more or less effectively in oceanic areas, the only ships capable of repelling massive air strikes at least by a detachment of ships, our most powerful combat units in the surface forces.


The Project 22350 frigate is so far our most powerful warship, and for all its shortcomings, it is the best. Especially if it's well built. But... Photo: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation

Yes, and instead of corvettes, something is needed. It is now that the Navy has fundamentally abandoned the protection of its near sea zone (this is exactly the case - it refused, and not “cannot, etc.”), and then the question will arise anyway (if a sudden and successful massive nuclear strike by the United States will not “carry out” us “in one gate” - the probability of this is now growing explodingly, and no one really wants to take countermeasures in the highest echelons of power).

And then it will be necessary to act very quickly, in a matter of years.

So what to build?

Zvezda and mobilization corvette


The above quote about the diesel industry situation is taken from an article that was the first in a series of materials about the so-called mobilization corvette - a multi-purpose ship capable of performing all the tasks of a warship: hitting surface and air targets, hitting surface targets using anti-ship cruise missiles (up to "Zircon"), attack ground targets with long-range cruise missiles, conduct artillery fire on air, surface and ground targets, and fight submarines.

At the same time, such a ship is maximally import-substituted, inexpensive, and its construction time, even in the conditions of Russian realities, is minimal.

The rejection of the use of M-507 diesel engines powered by propellers in favor of their M-504 "halves" working for a multi-shaft water jet installation (a diesel engine for a water jet) actually doubles the country's production capabilities even with a half-dead Zvezda, somehow released for 2,5-3 ship sets for "Karakurt" per year.


Engine M507. It can be seen that it consists of two identical sections-compartments working on a common gearbox. And it is true, these are two 56-cylinder engines working together. Photo: Dieselzipservice


And this is a single 56-cylinder compartment - the basis of both the M504 engine from one compartment and gearbox, and the two-compartment M507. Given the age of the structure, this is our past. And taking into account the sanctions, this is our future, and it has no alternative. No

Here it is necessary to emphasize the need for a mass series, because, taking into account real (complex) hydrology, effective control of underwater space requires a “network” of optimally distributed carriers and sensors of search facilities. That is, it is precisely the optimally distributed system with the required number of elements (carriers - ships) that is effective. Accordingly, there is an acute question of a reasonable limitation of the cost of such carriers (in combination with the necessary level of efficiency and combat stability).

There is no point in retelling this material. All technical scores (including high technical risk options) are available here and should be read by those interested in the topic.


The mobilization corvette will be slightly larger than the Karakurt RTO and will have a towed sonar, the Paket-NK complex and the Kalibr KRO

It is also recommended for familiarization, as it were, a “duplicate” article - "Near Sea Zone and Nuclear Deterrence" (originally published in the Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine, but then it had to be removed from the site), where the issue is discussed again, in a slightly more conservative version, and there are illustrations of the mentioned multi-shaft water-jet installations, including those actually built.

Let's pay attention to something else - how many ships Russia can build if it focuses on bringing the situation in its near sea zone (BMZ) back to normal.

For those who do not know why, in principle, to entrust part of the tasks of nuclear deterrence to the Navy, a special article with clarifications on this issue - Anti-submarine ships and nuclear deterrence, where the role and place of NSNF in the nuclear triad is revealed.

There are several scenarios for building a series of such ships. The first is conservative: first we complete the Karakurt series (Zvezda's capacities are limited, one mobile corvette diesel engine is half of one Karakurt diesel engine), then we start the mobilization corvette. These are the so-called "successive deliveries of diesel engines."

The second is when Zvezda's power is redistributed in such a way as to provide diesel engines for both series.

A summary analysis of shipbuilding capabilities is given in the summary table. In the optimistic scenario, it should be understood that some of the diesel engines built in a given year, but not used in it, are transferred to the hulls laid down in the next. With a two-year construction cycle, two years after the laying of each ship, a new ship will enter the fleet. Why such a short period? And the ship is simple, and besides, there is a precedent - the timing of the construction of the first "Karakurt". It must also be remembered that, due to their small size and draft, mobilization corvettes can be built at any of the shipyards.


It is easy to see that even our killed shipbuilding industry, with the technical and design solutions listed in the article at the link, is capable of building ships at a completely Chinese pace, and these ships are more powerful than the Chinese "056", they carry long-range cruise missiles. And they are faster (up to 28-29 knots).

Nevertheless, it is worth estimating how many ships of the near sea zone could be obtained in China if ships of Project 056A were ordered there.


Here it should be noted that the table shows the rate of delivery of ships, depending on the construction sites. For themselves, the Chinese built these corvettes at 4 shipyards. The table shows the number of ships to be handed over for 1, 2, 3 and 4 building sites, regardless of how many shipyards they are located, or, alternatively, for 1, 2, 3 and 4 shipyards, one building site each on each.

If there is a desire to simulate a larger number of building places, then you just need to multiply the data of the first column by the number of building places, for example, for 6 places by 6.

These figures are, of course, approximate, but close to reality.

You also need to take into account that crews from Russia will have to study in China, pass all the tests and coursework there, and then go on their own to their bases.

And it must be remembered that Chinese ships do not carry cruise missiles, while the maximum theoretical total salvo of 33 domestically built small corvettes will be 264 cruise missiles.

As you can see, Russia, even in its wretched state, can close the need for ships in the near sea zone faster than China can do.


Troika 056s against the background of other Chinese ships. The Chinese shipbuilding assembly line is impressive, but in this class, Russia, oddly enough, may not be inferior in quantity, still leading by head in quality. Photo taken in Ch. Dambiev's telegram channel, original copyright on the photo

The disadvantage of domestic small water-jet corvettes, in comparison with the Chinese ships of project 056 of any modifications, is the lack of a helicopter landing pad on the proposed ship.

Three things need to be said here.

First, in the near sea zone, there is always the opportunity to rely on a land-based network of landing sites from which helicopters could operate.

Secondly, there are ways to compensate for the fact that there is no helicopter on the ship, for example, to place them on a converted ship operating together with ships, or a supply ship (although we don’t build them in the right form and don’t plan to build them, well, we have anti-submarine forces do not build, this is the business of the next administrations).

Thirdly, the ways of interaction of a ship without a runway with a helicopter, up to refueling, were considered by M. Klimov in the article "A powerful efficient small multi-purpose corvette at the price of a fighter flight", in which for the first time the concept of a small ship was laid out in detail with an analysis of possible subsystems that can be used on such a ship. As you can see, everything is solved.

And we should once again “hack on the nose” - problems with the fleet in Russia are 100% organizational and rest ONLY into the human factor, and nothing else. As, however, and problems with SVO.

As soon as that extremely specific contingent (it is impossible to call a spade a spade for censorship reasons), which is now responsible for naval construction, is cleared out, the problems will be solved in a year or two, which are needed to reconfigure management structures.

If only we were ahead of the Americans ...

With large ships, the situation is slightly different.

Large cases


The only large multi-purpose ship of the far sea zone that is produced in Russia is the Project 22350 frigate. This is a good ship. True, it has serious shortcomings, both constructive and production, but nothing can be found in the open press about them, and this ship can fight with them.

Therefore, we will not talk about the shortcomings.

But what is the real problem is the 10D49 diesel engines of the Kolomna plant, which are part of the M55R diesel-gas turbine units that set the ship in motion.

So far, the Kolomna Plant is supplying diesel, but the moment when this will turn out to be impossible without a very serious deterioration in the performance characteristics of the ship is already visible on the horizon. And there is no way to quickly fix the situation.

The conclusion from this is simple - you need to switch to a fully gas turbine power plant. And with it, since it happened so, to a new ship: with a similar composition of the REV, the same or almost the same composition weapons, but larger in size - in proportion to the more powerful power plant.

What is needed for this? First, turbines. This issue is closed in Russia, marching GTU M-70FRU and afterburner M-90FR in the country are either mass-produced, or can begin to be produced at any time.

What else? There are also adder reducers, and, possibly, an inter-gear transmission, either integrated into the reducers, or as a separate mechanism.

Two important remarks. Firstly, with a certain mutual position of the propellers and rudders, you can do without an inter-gear transmission, the ship, if necessary, goes on the same shaft line. But it should be provided constructively. If it works, the task is greatly simplified. Since you only need two gearboxes.

The task will be simplified even more if it is possible to develop and start producing reverse pitch propellers (RPP) for ships with such a power (14 hp + 000 hp on each of the two shaft lines when both turbines are operating at maximum power) of the main power plants.

There are prospects here - it was the VRSh that should have been installed on the project 20386 corvette, infamous for its "drank", which, apparently, will never be completed now.

If it works out with a CPP, then the gearboxes will not need a reverse, since the reverse gear will be provided by screws.

Then the problem will be reduced to the summation of the torque from two turbines operating at the same speed.

Such a gearbox is many times simpler than the RO22350 gearbox produced for project 55, and just as cheaper, its production cycle will be significantly shorter.

In case of failure with the CPP, a reverse should appear in the gearbox, which will make it a product about as complex as the “Corvette” RRP-12000, just larger, designed for high power and speed.

Well, if you can’t do without MCI, then a third gearbox will be added, which allows you to transfer the torque from the shaft line to the shaft line.

In general, it would be worth taking the American destroyer of the Spruance type as a model - it had two shaft lines, each of which had two gas turbines through one non-reversible gearbox-adder, and the reverse was provided on the screws. There was no inter-gear transmission.


Spruance-class destroyer, not yet upgraded. The position of the gas ducts shows how the "echelons" (a pair of turbines with a gearbox) of the power plant were located

However, no matter how it turns out, but all these are solvable tasks. They will require putting things in order at the Gear Star, which is unbearable for the current government, but on the whole it is simple and can be done very quickly. A large, with about 6600 tons of standard and about 7400 tons of full displacement, high-speed (30+ full speed knots) ship is literally a little smaller than the old 1155 or 1134B, with the same RLC composition, almost the same REV as the 22350 project, with by an increased number of launchers for missiles of all types and a couple of helicopters, it is “separated” from us precisely by the gearboxes and / or propellers listed above - and nothing more.

Are there any developments in our country on the GEM described above? Yes, it even has an index, it just doesn't exist in the metal yet.

In one of the presentations of UEC-Saturn, there was a MA7 power plant with just these turbines.

Such as in the presentation, or not, but the installation can be created. Two or three gearboxes are simpler than those that are currently being produced, perhaps a CPP, but everything will work out without it - and we will be in the future.

Moreover, according to some reports, work on the MA2023 will intensify from 7, which will make it possible to return to the construction of large ships. But they must have the “correct” filling of the cases.

As a last possibility, we can mention the development of the M70FRU-R reversible turbine, but in order to build any forecasts on it, you need to know exactly at what stage the development is. In principle, a reversible economy turbine is an almost ideal solution, and technically it is possible.

In general, a large ship in the long run is much more real than 22350 in its current form. And there is almost everything for it ... Except for the slipway at the Northern Shipyard. However, perhaps, to remember the same Baltzavod? Large-block production is still impossible there, but have the icebreakers been rebuilt?


One of the not the most successful concepts of a "large" warship of the far sea zone. But it is a ship in such dimensions that will soon turn out to be the most realistic option for the Navy - we will have to say goodbye to 22350, whether we like it or not. Photo: blog.hange.jp

Then, of course, it will be necessary to develop new radars, weapons and everything else, but it is possible to urgently increase the combat strength of ships capable of effectively fighting any enemy anywhere, even without this.

"Kolomensky question"


However, the question arises of large and powerful diesel engines. Now their only supplier for the ships of the Navy is the Kolomensky Zavod (with the above problems).

But this does not mean that Kolomna will have to “go out of business” - the fleet will need diesels in the future anyway, for the same landing and auxiliary ships, at least, and no one can make them with the required power except Kolomna.

Therefore, of course, it is necessary that Kolomensky Zavod continue to work on import substitution - if they succeed with the 49th series, then it will not be left without orders.

Yes, already contracted ships will have to be built by some diesel methods. How the Kolomensky Zavod will get everything that fell under the sanctions is a separate question, perhaps it will be a really complicated scheme.

Here, in theory, the state should come into play, and not by imposing repression on the plant, which in the future may start to miss the deadlines, but by helping to circumvent sanctions. Our special services are not at all in such a state that such activities have reliable chances of success, but the issue needs to be resolved somehow.

But then...

Opportunity "Kolomensky Zavod" will be a retreat to a lower technological level.

An example from an article about a mobilization corvette is indicative - the same power that a non-import-substituted 16-cylinder 16D49 (6000 hp) produces could at one time be produced by a completely domestic 20-cylinder 20D49 with two-stage supercharging.

Yes, such a diesel engine is worse, and can only be considered as a half measure. It cannot be used on corvettes and frigates of existing projects, but, for example, on ships and vessels of the auxiliary fleet or on landing ships, such diesel engines will be quite applicable.

Naturally, the main task of Kolomna would be the launch of the 500th series. However, with the level of dependence on imports and foreign contractors that this project has, hopes for engine production must be abandoned.

Once upon a time, the author analyzed the benefits of betting on the "dieselization" of the Navy in an article "Diesel Fleet. The Navy must learn to order inexpensive but effective ships.. And all the considerations expressed in it, and the fact that the role of the "Kolomensky Zavod" in such programs will be decisive or even uncontested, have not changed today.

But the 500th series, it seems, will not be used here. It is possible that it is time for the Kolomna Plant to start developing an alternative family of diesel engines from scratch.

"Light Frigate"


If the entire burden of tasks in the BMZ falls on the mobilization corvette, and the main ship of the DMZ becomes large, capable of operating in remote areas of the oceans, then the question arises - which ship will be the mass "workhorse" in the DMZ and will strengthen the detachments of small corvettes in the BMZ ? For example, if you look at the NVO in Ukraine, what should be the ship capable of blocking the Ukrainian coast in the presence of a missile threat?

The answer is some kind of light frigate, smaller and cheaper than the large ship described earlier, but at the same time larger and more powerful than the modern corvettes of projects 20380 and 20385. The composition of the radar complex of such a ship is outlined above, the weapon systems on it should be similar to corvettes 20380 and 20385, it is desirable to have two helicopters, without which it is difficult to fight at sea (remember the American principle - if you have one, you have none - if you have one [helicopter], then you do not have them at all; this is not entirely true, of course, but the share there is a lot of truth here).

The contours of such a ship are a separate and voluminous issue, therefore, in addition to the radar, it is worth limiting to the power plant, taking into account the sanctions.

It would be ideal for such a ship to equip it with a purely diesel two-shaft power plant based on Kolomna diesel engines of the 500th series.

But they most likely won't.

However, there is an option with gas turbine power, suitable specifically for a not very large ship.

We are talking about the MA4 installation proposed at the time, built on the basis of the M-70FRU turbines, with the operation of a pair of turbines through a gearbox on one shaft line.

This power plant also needs gearboxes, according to the same logic that is described for the “large” ship with the M-70FRU and M-90FR.

Turbines UEC can start producing at any time.

That is, if there is political will and interest on the part of the authorities to ensure that the country has at least some sane fleet, the creation of such a gas turbine power plant is a matter of several years.

Yes, such a ship, both in terms of the cost of construction and in terms of the cost of the life cycle, will be more expensive than a diesel one. But there will be advantages, the same speed, and it will be possible to save on construction without overcomplicating the design of the ship (for example, due to serial electronic weapons and the rejection of the mass use of composites in the design in favor of aluminum alloys or even just steel).

And then Russia will get its "Perry" or "new 1135", "new 61st project", "Russian 054", etc. - a massive "workhorse".

Weapons and other means


Completing the contours of the possible, it is worth mentioning what was not included in the review. Basically, as outlined in the above article "Air defense of modern Russian ships". As a ship-based air defense system, the Redut with its 3S97 launchers is uncontested; as the main anti-aircraft missiles, the SAM family is 9M96 (with mandatory radio correction).

As a short-range missile, it is urgent to begin integration into 3S97 of the 9M338K missile to the Tor complex. In the air defense of the “last frontier”, artillery systems are needed, in which the line of aiming of the aiming system is combined with the barrel blocks, now it is without options “Broadsword”, standing at 22350, but it needs to be reinforced with small anti-aircraft missiles, for example, the complex “Sosna-R”.

An important point is that it is necessary to strive for the integration of "Thor" systems into the air defense circuit of large ships and for the creation of a full-fledged naval version of this air defense system.

Apparently, we will have to “work” on Pantsir-M - the limited capabilities of the radar of this complex in rainy, stormy weather, etc. are increasingly being revealed. This does not mean that Pantsir-M should be run and abandoned, especially taking into account how many buildings are being built for it, but in order for the complex to have a future, a lot of work remains to be done. And if it is not done, then the ships with it will become “good weather ships” - and this is in our climate!

On large ships, the issue of returning 57-mm automatic cannons and the use of 30- and 57-mm projectiles with programmable detonation to repel swarm attacks of future attack drones should be studied. Guns of 76, 100 and 130 mm calibers need guided projectiles, primarily anti-aircraft ones.

It is necessary to study the issue of firing supercavitating "diving" shells at torpedoes approaching ships. For a ship with a modern sonar system, such a solution is quite realistic, although it will require the integration of the HAC and artillery control.

Our hydroacoustics is quite “on the level”, and serial solutions make it possible to assemble an effective hydroacoustic complex. Another thing is that we have problems with the integration of other anti-submarine weapons and ship systems, for example, ships cannot receive information from sonar buoys placed aviation, cannot exchange "portraits" of targets with aircraft, etc. But this is no longer a question for shipbuilders.

The last issue is the replacement of the monstrous design of RTPU SM-588 missile and torpedo launchers for the Paket-NK complex. These installations greatly "cut" the combat potential of the ships and are problematic in operation. They also require specific design solutions for the ship itself, and their harmfulness is underestimated today even by professionals, unfortunately.

The problem, as well as its solution, is described in the article. “Lightweight torpedo tube. We need this weapon, but we don't have it. ".

However, some realities require clarification.

As you know, the brilliant lawmaking of the last decade, coupled with a completely wrecking approach (with a high probability, this is partly sabotage by various "sleeper" agents) to the creation and application of regulations governing the conduct and financing of developmental developments, is to blame for everything.

The ships described above require at least R&D for gearboxes for "large" hulls.

As a maximum - a gearbox, the Tor air defense system for a small corvette, from which only a rocket, shells, a modification of the Broadsword with missiles are completely ready.

This is dozens of times less than what was launched for the fleet in the 2000s, but with our current bureaucracy, this is a challenge.

The design of the mentioned new 32-cm torpedo TA will become an even greater challenge, since of all the “branches” of weapons creation, the torpedo is the most difficult and problematic.

Those who do not fully understand "the whole depth of our depths" should read the articles by M. Klimov Our Pentagon Wars. The realities of domestic military R&D " и "Our" Pentagon Wars "-2. Development chaos ", after which it partially becomes clear why “everything is like this” with us (although in reality everything is much worse, since corruption and sabotage in favor of “foreign customers” that still no one is trying to get rid of) fall like heavy stones on this indecency from above.

But there really are no options, you have to go to this.

Near future


A crisis is not only a danger, but also an opportunity. The course of the NMD in Ukraine, the real capabilities of the RF Armed Forces, so clearly demonstrated there, and the demonstrated real ability of the political leadership to respond to crisis phenomena, are more and more convincing the West that Russia is not dangerous and can be easily defeated, and its leadership will not dare to use all available means to repel aggression and protect the country.

All this dramatically increases the risks of wars with technically advanced adversaries with powerful naval forces, including the US Navy. Under such conditions, Russia, if it survives in the next ten years, will have to abruptly, literally in a matter of years, “bring the fleet to its senses”, including shipbuilding programs and their financing. Thus, such issues as the withdrawal of control over finances from the “underwater mafia”, the closure of such projects as “Poseidon / Status-6”, the refusal to lay new SSBNs until the combat services of the existing ones are provided, etc., have “overripe”.

And the proceeds will be directed to emergency needs, including surface forces.

This article shows realistic prospects for the development of this money in surface shipbuilding. The development of a sane and powerful fleet is quite possible with the money that is being spent on the fleet now - but with a different result.

The aircraft carrier theme remained outside the scope of the article, however, the theme of the aircraft carrier was disclosed in the articles "Aircraft Carrier for Russia: Faster Than You Expect" и "Our aircraft carrier is real" in the newspaper VPK-Courier (the link leads to an archived copy).

The prospects for creating new submarines instead of the incredibly expensive, but ineffective Yasenya-M with extremely dubious combat capability, remained outside the scope of the article. This issue requires a separate disclosure.

Unfortunately, the responsible leaders, who are responsible for what areas the country should focus its efforts on, are still in the "beckoning world", completely out of touch with reality.

So, at the last Maritime Board, Deputy Minister of Industry and Trade Viktor Evtukhov said:

“...in the Russian Federation, domestic enterprises not only produce marine diesel engines and diesel generators based on developed and mass-produced domestic machines, but also take measures to develop modifications of the D-500 and DM-185 engines.”

Link.

Meanwhile, the D-500 can simply be closed, the project has no chance with the current level of sanctions, and the DM-185 from Sinara, although somewhat more real, is just another family of diesel engines that are not completely localized, “raw”, and it will not give any radically new opportunities for shipbuilding. Sinara promises to someday create an engine with a power of up to 4500 kW in this family. Then, if it succeeds, it will be possible to return to ships similar to 20380 and 20385. If it succeeds ...

But these are years of hard work with unguaranteed results. Years, during which, with the right approaches, you can simply get a large and combat-ready fleet.

We state that the gap with reality among domestic leaders continues to be critical.

However, reality is stronger, and after February 24, 2022, it came into its own.

A very sharp wake-up call awaits all these statesmen shining with importance with smug faces.

Sorry for the wasted time.

But on the other hand, today we can say absolutely for sure - the construction of powerful and efficient multi-purpose ships on the existing industrial and technological base and under the conditions of sanctions is real. There would be someone to organize it.

And, taking into account the growing aggressiveness of the Americans who felt the blood (ours), the most important thing is that there would be enough time ...
Author:
190 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Leader_Barmaleev
    Leader_Barmaleev 4 January 2023 06: 23
    +10
    What would Iosif Vissarionovich do in this situation? He would call Lavrenty Pavlovich and say - Lavrenty, why don't we have (further on the list from this article - from electronic components to alloys and machine tools), did you understand me correctly, Lavrenty? And in a year, everything needed would be produced in the required quantities and even with some stock. What would Leonid Ilyich do in such a situation? And he would have called Alexei Nikolaevich and said - ghrrrrmm, Alexei, we need the most modern fleet! Strain everyone along the line of the CMEA ... And in five years, with the forces of our intelligence (industrial - don't think anything like that), everything would have started spinning ... But the cunning Americans slipped us Mishka-tagged and Borka the drunk, and everything started spinning, but in the other direction . The main concept was two delusions: why do it if you can buy it and YES WHO WILL FIGHT WITH US ??? Here we are reaping the rewards. Maybe it's time to remember the right methods of motivation and organization? And maybe we will already begin to think for whom we vote in the elections?
    1. tone
      tone 4 January 2023 11: 27
      -4
      You flog nonsense and it hurts, Stalin could not build a fleet from the word at all. Tsarist battleships used.
      1. PPD
        PPD 4 January 2023 13: 26
        +10
        Stalin could not build a fleet from the word at all.

        Is it true ... horror ...
        About battleships pr 23, they are the Soviet Union, cruisers pr 69, aka Kronstadt, you must have not heard?
        Yes, they were unfinished due to the war, but they were built.
        And this is if you do not remember Kirov with his brothers, Stalin's 7, the bad weather division, etc. hi
        1. filibuster
          filibuster 4 January 2023 14: 31
          0
          Compare how long battleships were built in Germany, Japan and the USSR under Stalin. And it’s not the war that started construction in 38, but by the beginning of the war, only the Battleship “Soviet Union” had the best result, it was built by 21%, “Soviet Ukraine” by 17%, Soviet Russia by 5%.
          "Yamato" and "Bismarck" were built in four years, but the United States in general was on a completely different level, "Iowa" in less than three years.
          1. Ulan.1812
            Ulan.1812 4 January 2023 19: 19
            +14
            Quote from: filibuster
            Compare how long battleships were built in Germany, Japan and the USSR under Stalin. And it’s not the war that started construction in 38, but by the beginning of the war, only the Battleship “Soviet Union” had the best result, it was built by 21%, “Soviet Ukraine” by 17%, Soviet Russia by 5%.
            "Yamato" and "Bismarck" were built in four years, but the United States in general was on a completely different level, "Iowa" in less than three years.

            Was there a revolution and a civil war in the USA?
            Or did they get rich in World War I?
            1. filibuster
              filibuster 4 January 2023 20: 31
              -5
              What is your opus for? The question was about the pace of construction, and not about the reasons.
            2. FRoman1984
              FRoman1984 4 January 2023 21: 24
              +13
              Quote: Ulan.1812
              Quote from: filibuster
              Compare how long battleships were built in Germany, Japan and the USSR under Stalin. And it’s not the war that started construction in 38, but by the beginning of the war, only the Battleship “Soviet Union” had the best result, it was built by 21%, “Soviet Ukraine” by 17%, Soviet Russia by 5%.
              "Yamato" and "Bismarck" were built in four years, but the United States in general was on a completely different level, "Iowa" in less than three years.

              Was there a revolution and a civil war in the USA?
              Or did they get rich in World War I?

              In Germany there was ... and war, and revolution, and indemnities. And "Tirpitz" with "Bismarck" was built. And many other things, V-2 rockets and so on.
              1. bayard
                bayard 5 January 2023 05: 47
                +10
                Quote: FRoman1984
                In Germany there was ... and war, and revolution, and indemnities.

                But there was no loss of scientific and engineering personnel, as well as the production base of one of the most developed countries in the world. Actually, about 70% of all patents in the world in the 30s and up to the 45th year belonged to ... Germany. Yes, yes, Germany was then a generator of technology, inventions and scientific thought. And after the lost WWI, they did not have such an outcome of the most educated part of society in emigration.
                And the USSR before WWII had only 2 five-year plans for industrialization, and if it was possible to build ships of a relatively small VI on the same groundwork and Italian licenses, then large ships ... the industry simply did not pull - not only experienced engineers were lacking, but also enough qualified workers. They just rushed to build all types of ships at once, because time and needs were running out (they saw a future war with England and therefore the Fleet was gentle). But the threshold of their capabilities was realized and the approach to building the Fleet after WWII was much more systematic. Therefore (in order to gain sufficient experience) a large series of light cruisers was ordered, and at the same time, battlecruisers with outstanding performance were being developed. Further plans included the construction of aircraft carriers (large - "like the Americans"), for which Kuznetsov advocated so much, carrier-based aircraft were developed ... The Father of Nations did not have enough years of life for 10 years to rebuild both the country and its Fleet and bring it to a complete look . But after the war, ships in the USSR were already being built quite within the "world" terms. Until 1992, the last 15 years before the death of the USSR, in terms of the pace of construction of the Navy, the USSR and the USA went head to head (in terms of the total tonnage of ships delivered per year).
                Quote: FRoman1984
                And "Tirpitz" with "Bismarck" was built.

                In the 30s, the USSR bought out a complete set of documentation for the Tirpitz, but we decided that it was too ... a weak battleship ... And they laid the "Soviet Union" with nine 16 "main guns in three three-gun turrets (the Germans did not were able to quickly develop a three-gun turret for the main gun and therefore installed 4 two-gun turrets).
                Quote: FRoman1984
                V-2 missiles

                In rocket technology, the Germans were 15 years ahead of all other countries ... but this is also because other countries were not doing this then ... and according to Versailles, the Germans were forbidden to have heavy artillery ... that's all the engineering enthusiasm for rockets and went .
                And the contribution of German engineers and designers to our rocket, aviation (aircraft) and nuclear programs is really huge. And in Russia they had very good and talented students.
          2. Mustached Kok
            Mustached Kok 4 January 2023 23: 38
            +14
            It is strange that you did not take into account the fact that in Germany ship designs, infrastructure and a well-functioning school of construction were even BEFORE the laying of Bismarck or "Pocket Battleships" began.

            With all due respect to the work of domestic shipbuilders of tsarist Russia, there was no well-functioning shipbuilding school. In the tsarist fleet there were many foreign-made ships, as well as our ships, but with a large number of foreign components. Many of the critical systems needed by the fleet were simply not produced in the country. Germany, immediately after unification and formation into an empire, immediately made great efforts to develop not only the FLEET, but also the construction of the entire INDUSTRY for the fleet.

            In addition, at the time of the second half of the 30s, there were industrial enterprises in Germany that made armor / engines / guns, etc. What has been doing this for decades. There was a whole naval school that trained sailors and naval officers no worse than the British. For a long time there were shipyards and dozens of OWN enterprises that collected EVERYTHING needed for the fleet INSIDE the country.

            While we got good shipbuilders - but there was no industry. Let me remind you that even by the end of WWI, many ships remained in the domestic fleet, either of foreign purchase, or containing a large% of foreign components. The industry and shipbuilding school of Russia in those years did not allow FULLY to produce everything for the fleet at home, and even the little that it did could not be produced on an INDUSTRIAL scale. Well, the icing on the cake, even taking into account the loss in WWI, Germany did not continue to follow global trends in military construction. And many German designers and engineers worked in the construction and development of fleet systems for other countries, and therefore the experience of specialists was not lost, but continued to grow.

            While in the second half of the 30s, the backbone of industrialization had just ended. In those years, they had not yet had time to properly establish the production of all systems. While in Germany, by the time the barbel arrived, there was everything: a school of shipbuilding, and hundreds of specialists, hundreds of enterprises capable of producing products for the fleet, there were shipyards with experienced personnel, there were draft plans and drawings, there were scientific developments for new mechanisms. The world-famous Krupp steel industry and the German chemical industry alone are worth something. It only remained to give the command and allocate money for it.
          3. ananias mudishev
            ananias mudishev 5 January 2023 00: 56
            +3
            And what do you take Stalin's times? Take for example the 70s, see how ships were stamped then
          4. Devil13
            Devil13 6 January 2023 13: 12
            +2
            Germany all this time was engaged in the construction of ships, the industry was not destroyed.
            The United States - all the more so, and she did not have a war.
            Japan? Even more so.

            The USSR had to start from 0! To restore the industry in this industry, because the "allies" (occupiers), leaving, blew up the boilers at Efistafia and the brothers, and also destroyed the shipyards.
            The USSR is often measured by the level of 13 years.
            They say they came to him only to 35-37.

            Only here is the nuance, the USSR began from the level of 22 years, when the entire industry was equal to 1 to 5% of the level of 13 years.
            And as a result, they restored and developed, and by 39 they multiplied by 1.2 times, by 43 by 2 times.
            And the fleet was built competently, again from 0, practically restoring.
            Does it make sense to have battleships without light security forces?

            Yes, the controversial choice of the Italian school for our harsh north, it would be better if they did something like Fletcher or developed Novik's idea, but what do we have.
            The fact is that the USSR had a fleet, and rebuilt, as far as it was realistic, in parallel with the Air Force and the Red Army, unlike the VRI, which sank on all fronts, and whose Dreadnoughts did not participate in a single battle.
            There were dreadnoughts, but there were no shells for regimental guns for the first 2 years, for sure, rifles !!! Ordered all over the world, including Japanese arisaki. disgrace
        2. UAZ 452
          UAZ 452 4 January 2023 17: 39
          -1
          Modern Russia can build at least battleships, at least aircraft carriers, at least a death star, just give money. And he will build it with no less success than the Stalinist battleships, that is, he will not build it either. Because of the war, the pandemic, something else... Well, as usual. As it was under Stalin.
      2. Glagol1
        Glagol1 5 January 2023 14: 53
        +1
        Stalin (USSR) simply did not have enough time before the war to launch a program for the construction of the latest ships. A part was already in the corps, with a readiness of 20-30 percent, but ... On June 22, 1941, everything changed.
    2. AVESSALOM
      AVESSALOM 4 January 2023 11: 32
      +20
      Thank God, but more than 20 years have passed since EBN. And where is the result? For comparison, 1945 + 20 = 1965. Let's compare the successes?
      1. fa2998
        fa2998 4 January 2023 17: 07
        +12
        Quote: AVESSALOM
        For comparison, 1945 + 20 = 1965. Let's compare the successes?

        Instead of 65, you can put 57 (satellite) or 61 (Gagarin), then the example will be devastating.
        And Gorbachev was in power for only 5 years, all "jambs" can be eliminated long ago. hi
        1. avg
          avg 4 January 2023 17: 21
          +2
          I agree with the first part. Our post-war successes are amazing. But with the second one, no, in 5 years you can do something that you won’t rake in 50, and most importantly, Gorbachev and Yeltsin have spoiled the whole soul of the people, it will take more than one generation to wash it off.
        2. UAZ 452
          UAZ 452 4 January 2023 17: 43
          -3
          By the 60s, the country that once fed the whole of Europe bought grain in Canada. And for some reason, it was necessary to shoot demonstrations of workers, who, apparently, went crazy from the successes of the country, began to rebel.
          1. Ulan.1812
            Ulan.1812 4 January 2023 19: 27
            +10
            Quote: UAZ 452
            By the 60s, the country that once fed the whole of Europe bought grain in Canada. And for some reason, it was necessary to shoot demonstrations of workers, who, apparently, went crazy from the successes of the country, began to rebel.

            Russia has never fed the whole of Europe.
            In the grain balance of Europe, RI occupied a maximum of 20-25%.
            Moreover, the country itself periodically suffered from hunger, and the peasants got bored.
            How did Witte say? We won't finish it, but we'll take it out.
            It is clear that Witte himself was not going to bother.
            The bread exported to Europe was not peasant, but from large landlord and church farms.
            By the way, under Stalin, grain was not purchased.
            They began to buy after Khrushchev's experiments with agriculture. Just like the sixties.
            Caught that time as a boy.
      2. Oldbaton
        Oldbaton 6 January 2023 07: 23
        0
        Let's compare. Look, for example, at the construction of roads.
    3. NOMADE
      NOMADE 4 January 2023 11: 55
      +6
      Do not flatter, then this issue was resolved in a comprehensive manner, by "5 years". And it will be, as it is now, "Potemkin villages."
    4. AAK
      AAK 4 January 2023 13: 20
      +2
      Dear Leader, can you suggest at least 65-70% suitable candidates for the roles of Joseph Vissarionovich and Lavrenty Pavlovich? Based on the complete absence of the CMEA, we are not considering other candidates yet ...
      1. Dante Alighieri
        Dante Alighieri 4 January 2023 15: 59
        0
        At least I'm not the Leader, but I can offer. Alexey Borisovich Mozgovoy, now, unfortunately, already deceased. But who said that among our people there are no other worthy people? Deep people in their desire to survive can unpleasantly surprise many
    5. skeptick2
      skeptick2 4 January 2023 14: 01
      +10
      Quote: Leader_Barmaleev
      . But the cunning Americans slipped us Mishka-tagged and Borka-drunk, and everything started spinning, but in the other direction.

      Did you miss a last name?
      Or in the last quarter of a century, our fleet has been developing at an accelerated pace and by leaps and bounds? At that very time, by the way, when the country was swimming in petrodollars and did not know where to put them?
      1. Alex_mech
        Alex_mech 4 January 2023 14: 36
        +4
        Of course I didn’t miss it, it’s easier to blame everything on the dead and admire the dead
      2. ailcat
        ailcat 4 January 2023 18: 13
        -3
        Knew where to go. But she didn't have a chance.
        And only now (after the start of the NWO and the violation by the West of all possible obligations under the guise of sanctions - that is, when there was nothing to lose) she also risked "putting it in the middle" on obligations and opening the egg-shell.
        1. Expert
          Expert 7 January 2023 21: 24
          0
          What other pod to open now? In the West, 300 billion dollars and 318 billion euros are frozen!!
          1. S. Nikolaev
            S. Nikolaev 8 January 2023 14: 15
            +1
            Quote from: skeptick2
            At that very time, by the way, when the country was swimming in petrodollars and did not know where to put them?

            Quote: Expert
            In the West, 300 billion dollars and 318 billion euros are frozen!!

            What are you carrying? What frosts? It is not our money and never was ours. Since 1991 at least. The system was so arranged, the colonial is called. It was not created so that you could spend your own resources on your own needs, especially on the needs of the army and navy. Yes, even if you have some kind of money, then there was essentially nowhere to send it - the production chains were destroyed, even little was left of entire industries. You will remember how the same UEC, USC, etc. were created in an attempt to pool resources, what a fuss immediately arose: “Ai-ya-yay .. What are you talking about! This is not market regulation .. It’s impossible! Back to totalitarianism. .! and everything else" - and that's just what rushed from the West. I’m not talking about the majority of our elite, moreover, its overwhelming majority, which didn’t need all this either, since they had already conveniently integrated into the global, so to speak, division of labor, and had already decided everything for themselves. And not only for themselves, but also for the country, as they thought.
            By the way, China will have more dollar gold reserves, and this is also not his money. And he knows this very well.
    6. Alex_mech
      Alex_mech 4 January 2023 14: 34
      0
      Do I understand correctly that Yeltsin is again to blame for everything? What a sly man, pulling his hands from the other world.
    7. shikin
      shikin 4 January 2023 16: 05
      +4
      First of all, both Beria L.P. and Kosygin A.N. They were very good organizers. And they well understood and knew the limits of the possible and the impossible, but they were never magicians.
      And you forgot to mention Ustinov D.F. - People's Commissar of Arms during the war years. Here on it lay the brunt of the military industry.
      And now there are no such people. Other times, other people. Of the current leaders (or public figures), who can you name who should be voted for?
      1. Leader_Barmaleev
        Leader_Barmaleev 4 January 2023 17: 49
        +3
        Other times, other people. Of the current leaders (or public figures), who can you name who should be voted for?

        To my great regret, I do not see now the people whom I would like to see at the head of my country. If a person is smart and calm, then he does not have the willpower that would allow all performers to be twisted into a ram's horn, and if he is strong-willed and strong, then as a rule he is a scoundrel ... But I am already an old man, I can probably already, here to reflect in such an intelligent way, but the grandchildren will have a difficult choice.
        1. shikin
          shikin 4 January 2023 19: 32
          0
          You know, when Stalin was nominated General Secretary, no one saw in him the future leader of the country, especially among the people. Influence and fame came through many deeds that gave very high prestige. The same can be said about Brezhnev. But the same Khrushchev himself was clearly eager for power, but in the end it didn’t work out with authority.
          So I don't think it's all that clear. And not everything is so bad now. And to some extent I agree with P.N. Tolstoy - that it is not individuals who create history, but history (objective historical processes) creates (puts forward) individuals.
        2. Expert
          Expert 7 January 2023 21: 56
          0
          Quote: Leader_Barmaleev
          To my great regret, I do not see now the people whom I would like to see at the head of my country.

          1. And where are you trying to find them, only in the body-box?
          2. Ask what considerable requirements a citizen needs to meet in order to become a candidate.
          3. According to official statements by officials, >140 million people live in the country. Do you think that as candidates all> 112 million people (adult population) are obviously worse than Putin, for example?
    8. fa2998
      fa2998 4 January 2023 16: 52
      +1
      Quote: Leader_Barmaleev
      And maybe we will already begin to think for whom we vote in the elections?

      For whom you do not vote - it is important how they calculate. And they calculate for whom they need.
      We are building 2 fleets.
      One is mainly the near zone, to protect the coast. This can be partially understood - difficulties with financing and production.
      But the second one is from nuclear submarines. It is ocean-going. But imagine, if the situation worsens, hundreds of destroyers, cruisers, etc. will "chase" them in all oceans. And how will we protect them? Peter and Kuznetsov? Our "large" ships are getting old. Better funds for nuclear submarines were used for something else.
      1. bayard
        bayard 6 January 2023 05: 31
        +1
        Quote: fa2998
        It would be better if the funds for the nuclear submarine would be used for something else.

        Perhaps I will surprise you, but by some miracle the construction of nuclear submarines in our country is much cheaper than the construction of surface ships. Perhaps due to the retained competencies and personnel and a lesser degree of sabotage from "sleepers" and other "watchers". So the cost of the SSBN "Borey-A" cost about 550 million dollars during the construction of the lead and the first serial ones. (prices fluctuated in rubles), but the latest SSBNs cost about 450 million dollars. For comparison, the cost of "Admiral Gorshkov" cost the same 550 million dollars. , and this is with a multiple of a smaller displacement ... And 450 million dollars. today stands ... corvette yes pr. 20385 !!
        So the construction of a submarine fleet for us today is not only a more accessible opportunity in terms of technical capabilities, but also much cheaper.
        Another thing is that without a surface fleet, the underwater fleet will not be of any use to us.
        But here we have a triangular "motor curse", which the author described quite intelligibly ... But it seems that something has begun to improve with this. And of course, I’m talking about the current running and, in general, factory tests of the first frigate with the domestic power plant "Admiral Golovko". And it was the first part of the tests (running) that he passed quite successfully. And if this is so, then it means that the main power plant did take place and you can continue to build / complete the ships of this series stuck on the stocks.
        But there is a problem with diesels. And this problem is serious.
        Hence the conclusion - since there are no normal own diesel engines, then we must return to marching gas turbines. Fortunately, the gearboxes for them are simpler, and we seem to have learned how to make them (reducers). And a gearbox for two turbines on a single shaft, and with torque addition, is much easier to make than for a diesel-gas turbine power plant. Yes, and when two turbines are plused at maximum speed, the speed will be greater than on one afterburner.
        So it's up to the choice of turbines.
        And if for Project 22350M an afterburner M90FR and an economic move M70FRU will go to each shaft, then for a promising frigate, two M70FRUs per shaft ... no, such a frigate will become golden for us - on two M70FRUs an economic move, this is redundant in terms of power and fuel consumption , and with the transfer of torque from one turbine to both shafts ... the gearbox will be too complicated and NOISY ... And we ourselves barely learned how to make gearboxes for marine power plants. After all, the Nikolaev "Zarya-Mashproekt" is not available to us.
        Hence the categorical proposal - to make a new modification of the frigate (as the workhorse of the Fleet) on the power plant from the marching M75RU (power 7500 l / s) and afterburner M90FR (27 500 l / s). And it is from this power plant to dance.
        But have you noticed what we get for the GEM?
        And it turns out that the power plant for us is not even equivalent, but superior at the maximum speed to our famous power plant pr. And we have (1155 + 8) x 000 = 22 x 000 = 60 l / s !! And this is at a lower cost on the economic course.
        This means that the frigate can be safely designed in the VI of the order of 7000 - 7500 tons. bully as well as the VI of all the new frigates of our potential opponents. But our frigate, with the same VI, can turn out to be much more toothy than each of them, and even plug most of their destroyers into the belt.
        The proposed armament of such a frigate:
        - RLC is the same as that of 22350,
        - SAM "Polyment-Redut", but with a large number of cells for missiles ... let's say twice,
        - From 4 to 6 UKKS (from 32 to 48 cells for GZUR, PLUR and KRBD),
        - from 2 to 4 quadruple anti-ship missiles X-35 (with placement on the waist),
        - ZAK "Broadsword" for the near air defense zone can be left as on "Gorshkov", because "Pantsir-M", although much better, will come out more expensive, and it (Pantsir) is better to put on destroyers),
        - Hangar for 2 (TWO) helicopters,
        - GAK is the same as on 22350,
        - For "Package-NK" normal TA with the possibility of reloading are highly desirable (as the author painted).
        As a result, we will get an enlarged "Gorshkov" with doubled ammo ammo, two helicopters and seriously better seaworthiness due to increased VI. And all this pleasure will cost "only" about 100 million dollars. That is, no more than 650 million dollars.
        It will be possible to build such frigates both in St. Petersburg and in Kaliningrad on Yantar (where etc. 1155 were built), and on the Amur Shipyard, and if desired, on the Kerch Bay. This will not amount to exactly any difficulties, because all the components have already been worked out by the industry and are serial (except perhaps for the TA for "Packet-NK", but this is not a difficult task).
        If you need a frigate ... of a smaller VI and much cheaper, then ... there is such an option. We take the case of project 11356 as a basis, put on it a power plant from two pairs of M75RU and M70FRU. The power of such a power plant will be (7 + 500) x 14 = 000 l / s.
        Few ?
        And you look at the power plant of the Chinese frigate Type. 054A . For an escort ship, a speed of 29 knots is enough.
        The composition of weapons:
        - 2 - 4 UKKS (from 16 to 32 cells),
        - RLC can be either "Polyment", or something simpler,
        - SAM "Redut" (for the sake of unification across the Navy) or "Calm" (which is also enough), short-range air defense systems the same "Duet" or "Kashtan".
        - VI full - 4500 t.
        - GAK from the corvette pr. 20380 with BUGAS,
        - "Package-NK"
        - A hangar for one, or even two helicopters (the "Parry" with the same VI had two).
        And about the corvette with a bunch of water cannons ... I'm against it. It’s just that it’s cold here and the ice slush will completely clog these water cannons.
        1. Vladgar
          Vladgar 6 January 2023 07: 40
          +2
          Dear Bayard, there is another NPO Saturn turbine, this is the M70FR-R with a capacity of 10 thousand hp. It has passed the State Acceptance Committee and has a certificate, ready for production. By the way, it is reversible, unlike others, and is very well suited as a marching one. You can adjust the speed.
          On the corvette, you can put 4 of these turbines. The gearbox is not complicated. Total power 40 hp Top speed over 30 knots.
          On the frigate 22350, you can put the M90FR + M70FR-R pair on the shaft. Total power 75 hp Top speed over 30 knots.
          For a frigate 22350M (destroyer), this power will not be enough. There was information in the media that its displacement was increased to 9-10 tons. But now, on Saturn, work is underway to create a turbine with a capacity of 90 thousand hp on the basis of the M35FR. This turbine, paired with a reversible one, can be placed on one shaft. The total power will be 90 hp. Top speed over 30 knots.
          You can even put small turbines on RTOs. And say goodbye to diesel and aviation diesel engines.
          You need gearboxes.
          This may be a way out of the situation, as an option.
      2. Clone
        Clone 6 January 2023 22: 44
        +1
        Quote: fa2998
        But imagine, when the situation worsens, hundreds of destroyers, cruisers, etc. will "chase" them in all oceans.

        I'll stick my purely land penny ... When the situation worsens, this is one thing. It's like a stern look and formidable tension of the biceps in the distance. And with the start of real hostilities, the boat that fired missiles from a nuclear warhead will no longer be of interest to anyone. She fulfilled her mission by 146 percent. Nuuu, if "drown" only out of a sense of revenge. Purely my guess.
        ______________________
        And by the way ... And what about the "reconstruction" of the two remaining nuclear cruisers? Don't go to Vicki... feel
    9. bk0010
      bk0010 4 January 2023 19: 50
      +6
      Quote: Leader_Barmaleev
      What would Iosif Vissarionovich do in this situation? He would call Lavrenty Pavlovich and say - Lavrenty, why don't we have (further on the list from this article - from electronic components to alloys and machine tools), did you understand me correctly, Lavrenty?
      So what? So, during the war (1944), the country needed heavy machine guns KPV. And how Beria did not jump, but the machine gun went into service only in 1949. And no one was shot: there were no fools at the top and they understood what depended on people, and what depended on technology. Details here: https://warspot.ru/3108-pri-staline-takoy-figni-ne-bylo-ili-kak-kpv-v-stroy-vstaval
    10. Jonny_Su
      Jonny_Su 5 January 2023 00: 10
      +4
      There's a problem that you're waiting for I.V. Stalin, so that he sent L.P. Beria, but in a monarchy (including our "quasi") you do not choose a king. What came, and sat down, with all his cockroaches. Be honest, if you are satisfied with the design with the authoritarian leader of the country, then accept the roulette.
      1. your1970
        your1970 5 January 2023 01: 51
        +3
        Quote: Jonny_Su
        There's a problem that you're waiting for I.V. Stalin, so that he sent L.P. Beria, but in a monarchy (including our "quasi") you do not choose a king. What came, and sat down, with all his cockroaches. Be honest, if you are satisfied with the design with the authoritarian leader of the country, then accept the roulette.

        Moreover, there is also confirmation of roulette - the epic with the people's commissars of the NKVD. When they had to be shot regularly ...
        1. frog
          frog 5 January 2023 15: 33
          0
          Moreover, there is also confirmation of roulette - the epic with the people's commissars of the NKVD. When they had to be shot regularly ...

          So these are also Stalinist achievements. ICHSH, not only the People's Commissar of Internal Affairs were regularly shot .....
        2. Clone
          Clone 6 January 2023 22: 50
          0
          Quote: your1970
          epic with the people's commissars of the NKVD. When they had to be shot regularly ...

          So maybe that's why with the rest of the people's commissars, especially during the war years, there was no such "regularity"? "If it has gone somewhere, it means it has arrived somewhere" ... it is difficult to argue with M. Lomonosov. recourse
    11. Elf
      Elf 5 January 2023 08: 15
      +3
      problems with the fleet in Russia are 100% organizational and rest ONLY on the human factor, and nothing else. As, however, and problems with SVO.


      In general, everything problems in Russia are 100% organizational and rest ONLY on the human factor.
      Cadres decide everything (s)
    12. S. Nikolaev
      S. Nikolaev 5 January 2023 18: 29
      0
      Maybe it's time to remember the right methods of motivation and organization?

      It wouldn't be bad. But, as they say, you need to start from the beginning - from the goals and objectives of the fleet, our fleet, the Russian Federation. Its place and role in the doctrine. Then everything else, up to the boletus and piston rings for diesel engines. Otherwise, it looks like this:
      The only means of deterrence that guarantees a retaliatory strike against the United States, even in the event of a “missed” disarming strike from the Americans, are maritime strategic nuclear forces with combat stability.

      Missed? Is this possible in principle? That is, the warning means will not work and our missiles will wait until the trident arrives in the mine? One would like to ask: Why, it was possible, - in the sense, will it be? No, seriously.
      Further more interesting
      and then the question will arise all the same (if a sudden and successful massive nuclear strike by the United States does not “take us out” “in one gate” - the likelihood of this is now growing explodingly, and no one really wants to take countermeasures in the highest echelons of power)

      Well, just awesome!
      In fact, writing in a state of passion is inhumane towards others. Firstly, it negatively affects the psyche, including those who read it. And, secondly, some garbage turns out. Here's how, for example

      The conclusion from this is simple - you need to switch to a fully gas turbine power plant. And together with her, since it happened so, to a new ship: with a similar composition of the REV, the same or almost the same composition of weapons, but larger in size - in proportion to the more powerful power plant ...

      ...What is needed for this? First, turbines. This issue is closed in Russia, marching GTU M-70FRU and afterburner M-90FR in the country are either mass-produced, or can begin to be produced at any time.

      That is, possible (I emphasize possible) problems with diesel engines - you need to switch to a new project (ship)! Simply stunning. And with the same gas turbines, you don’t remember what the problems were? That's right, none. They simply did not exist, no problems, no gas turbines.
      1. Expert
        Expert 7 January 2023 22: 34
        +1
        Quote: S. Nikolaev
        Missed? Is this possible in principle? That is, the warning means will not work and our missiles will wait until the trident arrives in the mine? I just want to ask: Why, it was possible,

        The opponent does not attack when he is convinced of failure. And to convince him, the maximum number of systems should be in order.
        1. S. Nikolaev
          S. Nikolaev 8 January 2023 14: 26
          0
          But who argues that the grass is green and the water is wet. Only the whole fuss is about what maximum is meant by necessary and sufficient. At least at the current stage.
          1. Expert
            Expert 9 January 2023 22: 59
            0
            One can only dream of sufficiency. Short-term tasks are constant: the protection of nuclear submarines and the control of their borders. Frigates with good seaworthiness for any task underway. Therefore, 22350 (M) about 30-45 units will not interfere, given the number of fleets. It requires the completion of the planned helicopter carriers, the construction of submarines, fiberglass minesweepers, an auxiliary fleet, the repair of Admiral Kuznetsov and the modernization of Peter the Great and Admiral Nakhimov, and the repair of various other ships according to plan. In general, everything that goes on as usual and has long been counted a hundred times. I would like to keep the Sharks for rearmament. But, that's for later.
    13. The comment was deleted.
    14. The fog
      The fog 8 January 2023 11: 45
      -2
      Yes, if only, there’s no need to blame everything on the labeled and Boriska alcoholic. Gorbachev took the union mortally ill and with a stalemate in the Afghan war. The whole system was unsustainable if one tagged one could bring down an entire empire. Where were 4 million communists, why didn't they defend their country? The answer is obvious and confirmed by history, none of these millions of Soviet citizens no longer believed in the bright idea of ​​communism. Of course, I’m off topic now ... So about motivation, it was necessary 20 years ago. Russia had 22 years to wise up and prepare. How wiser and prepared you can see now.
  2. tone
    tone 4 January 2023 06: 33
    +12
    The article is outdated. There is no point in building any ships. The level of admirals of the Russian Federation allows you to brilliantly fail any operation to deploy SSBNs, and the more ships there are, the more terrible the new Tsushima will be. It is necessary to follow the path of China, huge areas of mine complexes, with false mines. There are many photos where almost all SSBNs are crowded at the berths at the same time, one UAV strike will destroy them. And to destroy one mine, you need one special missile.
    Until normal admirals appear, and there are no prerequisites for this, there is no need to build a fleet, this is money in useless cuts like 22160 ...
    1. IVZ
      IVZ 4 January 2023 06: 40
      +7
      Admirals do not appear separately from the fleet. First the fleet, then the admirals.
      1. Leader_Barmaleev
        Leader_Barmaleev 4 January 2023 09: 31
        +4
        First the fleet, then the admirals.

        You are mistaken, my friend, you are deeply mistaken. The entire history of the fleet - from ancient Egypt to the present, shows that first a naval commander appears who, instead of garbage floating on the water, can create a combat-ready fleet from scratch, lead it, train officers and sailors, and only then will FIGHTING admirals appear from among these officers. Then they will become obsolete along with the fleet and the cycle will repeat itself. Or it will not happen again, but the country will lose ports, straits, influence in the world, etc.
      2. saigon
        saigon 4 January 2023 10: 25
        +3
        Well, the Black Fleet is found on the sea with us (or was found) and admirals are found in this fleet, but somehow there is no sense.
        No, of course, and rockets are released from the parking lots and they depict something else - but there is not enough current.
        Although where is the infantry to understand the higher destinations of beautiful ships, how is the infantry to notice the overcoming of the enemies by our admirals. Okay, but seriously, there is no point in thinking about the fleet.
        There is no understanding why the hell the fleet is needed, with whom and how it will fight.
        And so, of course, they need admirals. The form is beautiful.
        1. bayard
          bayard 5 January 2023 07: 18
          +2
          Quote: saigon
          There is no understanding why the hell the fleet is needed, with whom and how it will fight.

          Well, then it is possible to agree on the Army.
          Why, they say, is she needed if for 11 months not only the Armed Forces of Ukraine cannot win, but also regularly demonstrates "regroupings" and "gestures of good will"? Since it’s not even capable of this, then ... so what?
          Or is it still wrong?
          And if not, then one thought should be born - those who called themselves the "elite" and appropriated power, failed the exam for the right to power and decision-making. Both generals and admirals are appointed and promoted not for their professional qualities, but for nepotism and loyalty. And for loyalty.
          That's just "loyal" and bourgeois-liberal to the board, it turns out in a professional (and moral and ethical) plan ... not even zeros, but often minuses (especially the rear services are good).
          That is why the Author is right when he says that there will be a chance for the revival of the Country, the Army and the Navy only when ... a "natural change of power" occurs. And it's about chance.
          And if this chance happens ... in the desktops of the designers, in the folders of the officers of the General Staff and the General Staff of the Navy, there should already be plans for the construction of the Fleet - at the available capacities and own developments.
          1. Alemax
            Alemax 6 January 2023 05: 40
            0
            on existing capacities and own developments.
            we won't build anything. And to sculpt a bulldozer from a scooter - well, such a thing.
            We really do not have a clear concept or methods for its implementation. Blind abysho out of what and how we can, of course, we can, sorry for the tautology, but WHY? HOW and WHERE the element should work. Here is the Question. It is clear that destroyers are needed, it is clear that we need a near and far sea zone. But, if you look at the same notorious NATO, the days of wall-to-wall battles are long gone. See how the tasks and ways to complete them have been transformed for AMG! Previously, these were floating airfields with an escort, now the escort itself, with strike weapons, is a fist, and the aircraft carrier has essentially faded into the background.
            The states even dispersed the command of the fleets around the world. For example, a week more than the headquarters for the 6th Mediterranean Fleet. Italy is no longer relevant. Deal a blow to the former headquarters there now, nothing in the administration will change. They will steer from another part of the world, because the structure of management, information and decision-making has changed globally. That's what you need to think about when talking about the prospects of our Fleet. And not about how to put the VRSh (adjustable pitch screw) on some Dove of Peace.
          2. Clone
            Clone 6 January 2023 23: 04
            -1
            Quote: bayard
            when will happen ... "natural change of power"

            The question is in which direction this change will take place ... Personally, "fraternization" with our current adversary has not grown together to a stump for me. For after it there will come not universal splendor for the Russian people according to liberoid patterns, but the wildest confusion and vacillation with an unpredictable result. After "solving the stated problems" with the country 404, it will be possible to demand "naturalness", but not earlier.
      3. tone
        tone 4 January 2023 11: 19
        +3
        Black Sea Fleet admirals show brilliant results?! Give them more ships, they'll kill more.
        1. Ulan.1812
          Ulan.1812 4 January 2023 19: 32
          +3
          Quote: tone
          Black Sea Fleet admirals show brilliant results?! Give them more ships, they'll kill more.

          And most importantly, no one answered for it. Everything is in its place.
      4. UAZ 452
        UAZ 452 4 January 2023 17: 48
        +3
        Admirals do not appear separately from the fleet. First the fleet, then the admirals.

        But the opposite is not always true - it seems that there is no fleet anymore, and the number of admirals does not even think of decreasing. We may even increase.
    2. timokhin-aa
      4 January 2023 11: 02
      +8
      Officers just need to be trained. Boats are brought to services by 2-3.
      Don't invent anything.
      Readers of "VO" always have a storm in their heads of some kind ...
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. Doccor18
        Doccor18 4 January 2023 22: 33
        +5
        Alexander, thanks for the article. It hasn't been for a while.
        Quote: timokhin-aa

        Readers of "VO" always have a storm in their heads of some kind ...

        This is not a storm, this is a misunderstanding. But it's hard to blame them for this, when misunderstanding is everywhere...
    3. Doccor18
      Doccor18 4 January 2023 22: 29
      +4
      Quote: tone
      Until normal admirals appear

      Admirals are not mushrooms in the autumn forest. How will they appear without a fleet, without a large number of ships, exercises, long-distance campaigns ???
  3. Alien From
    Alien From 4 January 2023 06: 34
    +3
    Thanks to Timokhin, you need to look to the future without uryakolok.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 4 January 2023 06: 48
      -9
      the future belongs to "drones", and we hope to complete the "diesel" one.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 4 January 2023 08: 05
        +4
        Quote: Dead Day
        the future belongs to "drones", and we hope to complete the "diesel" one.

        Some drones without a set of tools are ineffective.
  4. squid
    squid 4 January 2023 06: 49
    -14
    who is talking about what, and the sectarians are again talking about boats .. the best ship in their era is no ship. we don't have a land army, we don't have drones, we don't have military space, we have a backward air force... and the sect of aircraft carrier witnesses again proposes to throw money at the fleet! absolutely useless in the hardest war that we are waging. weird.
    1. qQQQ
      qQQQ 4 January 2023 10: 28
      -5
      Quote: squid
      and the sect of aircraft carrier witnesses again offers to throw money into the fleet! absolutely useless in the hardest war that we are waging. weird.

      I fully support. We have higher priority goals where to invest. For the next decade, only the minimum necessary funds for the fleet, everything else is in microelectronics, machine tool building and everything connected with this.
      1. timokhin-aa
        4 January 2023 11: 02
        +5
        We have a world war squirming, if anything.
        1. filibuster
          filibuster 4 January 2023 14: 37
          +1
          If so, then all the more so it’s not up to the fleet now, it will still be useless, closed at best in its ports, at worst sunk.
    2. timokhin-aa
      4 January 2023 11: 08
      +5
      I wanted to answer, then I saw the nickname, no, I won’t waste time)))
    3. Alex_mech
      Alex_mech 4 January 2023 14: 40
      +7
      What a fleet, what is not a fleet, as practice has shown, consumes any resources well. It's not about the Navy. The whole system needs to be changed.
    4. Doccor18
      Doccor18 4 January 2023 22: 36
      +3
      Quote: squid
      we don’t have a land army, we don’t have drones, we don’t have military space, we have a backward air force ...

      Apparently because we are laying hundreds of ships ...
  5. FRoman1984
    FRoman1984 4 January 2023 07: 08
    +1
    I would not, Alexander, say goodbye to 22350 because, in general, good Kolomna diesel engines. It’s easier to get around the sanctions (and this is real and possible) than to design and build some other ship in the ocean zone in modern Russia. It will be a utopia. Frigate 22350 is an excellent ship, as rightly noted, with its own shortcomings. But any ship, any complex product created by man, has drawbacks.
    Therefore, all forces are at 22350. This is the future workhorse of the Fleet .... must become ... without 22350, you can forget about the surface ocean fleet.
    Good article.
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 January 2023 11: 03
      0
      They will soon be impossible to build, these ships. Alas.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 5 January 2023 09: 45
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        They won't be able to build soon.

        what Oh, Sasha ... in my memory, you are burying them for the second time! laughing
    2. Dante Alighieri
      Dante Alighieri 4 January 2023 15: 23
      +10
      The problem is not that the 22350 is a bad ship. This is a good ship, squeezed into dimensions, inside which it is frankly cramped, because the cost of its radio-electronic equipment and the capabilities that this equipment has are not fully realized by the existing armament. That is why it was decided on Project 22350M to increase the number of ZS14 cells from 16 to 32 units. Another question is that the number of redoubt cells also needs to be scaled from 32 to 64 in a good way. It is clear that all this will lead to an increase in the volume of the ship to the size of a destroyer, but again, this is not bad, since larger ships, as follows from physics, have more inertia, which means they better resist longitudinal and transverse sea waves, which in turn pushes the boundaries of the use of weapons available on the ship.

      In general, I deeply incomprehensible the vicious desire of our Navy for compactness and diminutiveness. We build small ships, try to cram everything into them to the maximum, thanks to the efforts of engineers, we still achieve what we are looking for, but, as a result, we still get a ship that, with minimal excitement, is no longer able to use most of its weapons. Moreover, such ships, as a rule, also have mediocre speed indicators (like the corvette 20380). All this is not justified by either the lower cost of the power plant, or the economy of the course that it provides, because on the scale of the entire project it looks like saving on matches.

      That is why I do not share Alexander Timokhin's optimism about the mobilization corvette. In our climatic conditions and general marine geology, in my opinion, the main stake should still be placed on ships with a displacement of 3,5 to 5,5 thousand tons. Those. to frigates. There should also be corvettes, but these should be OVR corvettes and their number should not be large.

      The main backbone of the fleet should be precisely the frigates, capable of operating most effectively in the near and far sea zone. Therefore, it is to them in the first place that the concept of "mobilization" should be applied. Moreover, we already have a ready-made project for such a frigate - this is project 11356, with which attempts have already been made to saturate the fleet in the absence of the 22350s. Another question is that 11356 also needs to be improved in the current conditions. This includes the installation of normal GAS (for example, the same Zarya and Minotaur from 20380 corvettes) and an increase in USK ZS14 to 16 cells with the possibility of placing Onyxes and Daggers in them, and the placement of the Packet-NK PLO complex instead of outdated PTA-53. But relative to other projects, improvements are not so significant.

      True, as for the destroyer 22350 enlarged to the size of the frigate 11356, the issue of the propulsion system is acute, because we still have seams with the gearboxes for the gas turbine. Moreover, most likely everything that is produced by the industry will be primarily aimed at meeting the needs of the 22350 series, which means that the 11356 frigate will need a fundamentally different engine. As Alexander writes, problems will soon begin with diesel engines, and half of the M507, even if you use it only to charge batteries for electric motors, will not be enough for a frigate. There is only one way out - the use of the type of power plant, which everyone should refuse, because. due to prejudice, they consider it not reliable, but the production of which is still preserved in the Russian Federation. We are talking about the KVG-6M boiler-turbine power plant of the St. Petersburg OJSC Special Design Bureau for Boiler Building. It was the reworking of the 11356 frigate project for this type of power plant that could allow us to quickly increase the number of really combat-ready units in the fleet, without pulling resources from either the 22350M project we needed so much, or spraying ourselves into little things like a "mobilization corvette", the use of which will still be limited.

      At the same time, such a frigate will be in no way inferior to the Chinese 054 frigate, which many offer us to buy in China as an alternative, and given the increase in the number of ZS14 and normal GAS, the domestic frigate will also be more toothy than the Chinese comrade. And most importantly, the cost of such a frigate and the complexity of construction are not much higher than the same corvettes 20385, which means that they can be built at all shipyards available to us (except, of course, Zelenodolsk, which should be entrusted with the construction of the OVR corvette based on pr.11661).
      1. Doccor18
        Doccor18 4 January 2023 22: 51
        +3
        Quote: Dante
        In general, I deeply incomprehensible the vicious desire of our Navy for compactness and diminutiveness. We build small ships, try to cram everything into them to the maximum, thanks to the efforts of engineers, we still achieve what we are looking for, but, as a result, we still get a ship that, with minimal excitement, is no longer able to use most of its weapons.

        Yes, this is generally not clear to anyone ...
        The cost of the hull is many times lower than the cost of the electronic filling and weapons systems. There was time, there was money, there were opportunities...
        Quote: Dante
        That is why I do not share Alexander Timokhin's optimism about the mobilization corvette. In our climatic conditions and general marine geology, in my opinion, the main stake should still be placed on ships with a displacement of 3,5 to 5,5 thousand tons. Those. to frigates.

        And here I have to disagree with you.
        A massive and inexpensive corvette with mastered (working) systems is needed now (even yesterday), it is the only saving way out. You need a lot of ships - several dozen. Building so many frigates in such a short time (and with a limited budget) is unrealistic.
        Of course, the Russian Navy would look much more serious and perform tasks more efficiently, having 40 frigates, than the same number of "mobilization corvettes", but reality puts everything in its place.
        1. Serg65
          Serg65 5 January 2023 11: 05
          -1
          Quote: Doccor18
          And here I have to disagree with you.

          Well, why, it’s quite understandable, the fleet finally got what it had been dreaming of for the last 60 years ... a compact powerful weapon and no less compact, but at the same time decent electronics! Moreover, a warship is created for combat, and not for transporting tourists.
          Quote: Doccor18
          Building so many frigates in such a short time (and with a limited budget) is unrealistic

          I have been looking at you for a long time, you are not a stupid person ... the construction of corvettes, however, like frigates, depends not only on the budget ... not even so much on the budget as on the abilities of the industry! At least 700 factories are involved in the construction of the same frigate, some of them had to be rebuilt, some modernized, some nationalized, and this is also money and time! In addition, unlike the United States, where the fleet dominates the armed forces, our fleet, according to the old Soviet tradition, is on the sidelines.
          Quote: Doccor18
          The Russian fleet looked much more serious and would perform tasks more efficiently with 40 frigates

          And what, in your opinion, are the tasks of the Russian fleet?
  6. Athariel
    Athariel 4 January 2023 08: 09
    +1
    Many people forget that the current confrontation has two components, military and economic. And in the military component, you can lose the confrontation, but it is impossible to win. And therefore, the entire military component is not number one or even number two when it comes to solving problems and setting tasks, it is number three, after the economy and after civil development. Here people are salivating, telling how our military command can’t do anything, there is no communication and no support, but please don’t forget that a budget comparable to the needs of the Northern Military District, for example, is allocated for the design of embankments and the construction of access roads to promising ports of the Arctic Ocean. Some (and most likely, almost all) tasks are not solved because there are no such tasks. Moreover, lovers are noted in the comments on the topic, but let's change all the generals and admirals to colonels and caprazes with combat experience - that's just a medical fact that there is a direct task to prevent them from being fired at a cannon shot to the level where there is a budget. They are heroes, you can’t go anywhere without them, you can call equipment and streets after them, but they won’t be given money. We have a civilian country with an emphasis on the economy, built into the global economy, and no one will ever give a go to any revolutions with a chance of the appearance of a military aristocracy. Like any capitalist state, we have a business aristocracy at the head of the power bloc, there is and will be. There is no need to pretend that the military part of the confrontation is being raced against time - no, it is not. Before writing long reads about what changes need to be urgently made in order to win faster, or have time to win, in general, try to hear if someone is trying to complete something faster.
    1. Vladimir_2U
      Vladimir_2U 4 January 2023 08: 38
      0
      Quote from Athariel
      Before writing long reads about what changes need to be urgently made in order to win faster, or have time to win, in general, try to hear if someone is trying to complete something faster.

      I'm afraid this is about survival. Because without at least some kind of cover from the sea and SSBN cover, the country cannot survive.
      1. Alex_mech
        Alex_mech 4 January 2023 14: 42
        +6
        Yes, no one is going to destroy the country with a missile strike. There are faster ways. The USSR is an example.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 4 January 2023 17: 31
          +1
          Quote from: Alex_mech
          Yes, no one is going to destroy the country with a missile strike.

          If there was a chance, they would have been destroyed. In winter, power plants in cities, for example. And nuclear weapons are not needed.
          1. filibuster
            filibuster 4 January 2023 17: 43
            -3
            Why, even Iran is not destroyed, and moreover, Maduro was not thrown off, but Voronezh in Russia must certainly be destroyed.
            1. Vladimir_2U
              Vladimir_2U 4 January 2023 17: 56
              0
              Well, how can Iran and Venezuela threaten the states? Unlike Russia/USSR.
              1. filibuster
                filibuster 4 January 2023 18: 11
                -2
                What is Russia's threat to the US? We're getting ready to attack them, made a claim to Alaska? Iran threatens the US even more, it is trying to weaken the influence of the US in its region, to "intercept" the US allies.
                1. Vladimir_2U
                  Vladimir_2U 4 January 2023 18: 36
                  -2
                  Quote from: filibuster
                  What is Russia's threat to the US?

                  We can destroy their top.
                  Quote from: filibuster
                  Iran threatens the US even more, it is trying to weaken the influence of the US in its region, to "intercept" the US allies.
                  Daisy Bolsii. And what is Russia doing? And what did the USSR do?
                  No one was destroyed.. Where is Iraq, where is Libya?
                  1. filibuster
                    filibuster 4 January 2023 19: 02
                    -4
                    We can destroy their top.


                    We can them, they can ours, and ours is simpler, we definitely have it, and it’s even difficult for them to name their top, who is the leader of the United States Biden, Trump, Oprah Ebyahb or each governor separately or the owners of Big Tech?

                    Where is Iraq, where is Libya?


                    Saddam and Gaddafi themselves brought their countries to such a situation, the United States “does not attack” everyone in a row, even they cannot afford this, either on those who themselves strongly ask like Saddam, or when the country is already on the verge of war / collapse and it is enough just to "pour gasoline".
                    1. alexoff
                      alexoff 5 January 2023 02: 32
                      -2
                      We can fall apart and become part of the PRC, which will greatly strengthen the main enemy of the United States. Iran or Cuba will not be able to do this. And the Chinese, I suspect, will quickly send us all to rivet corvettes much faster, resurrect a bunch of GOKs and mines, it suddenly turns out that we can be very effectively managed and we are still under sane control. This does not give the United States rest, as I understand it, the probability is not 100%, but not 0% either
                    2. Vladimir_2U
                      Vladimir_2U 5 January 2023 05: 06
                      -1
                      Quote from: filibuster
                      Saddam and Gaddafi themselves brought their countries to such a situation

                      That's enough, that's all clear with you ...
                      Quote from: filibuster
                      The United States “does not attack” everyone in a row, even they cannot afford this
                      Because there was a Union, and because there is Russia.
                      Thanks to Comrade Stalin for Russia's nuclear shield and sword!
    2. qQQQ
      qQQQ 4 January 2023 10: 34
      -1
      Quote from Athariel
      generally try to hear if someone is trying to complete something quickly

      I agree, I prove to everyone that there is no task to capture at least some parts of Ukraine, there is a task to agree. hence the methods: slow extrusion in the hope of forcing peace. In my opinion, the West will not allow this to be done, so you still have to fight to seize territories. Nobody needs Ukraine as a prize, it is a yoke for the loser.
  7. certero
    certero 4 January 2023 09: 24
    +4
    Good detailed article. Behind one "but" - the Strategic Missile Forces are the guarantee of a retaliatory strike in Russia. Spending money on the rest is throwing limited resources to the wind. We have all seen how "protected" our strategic bombers are. Not protected at all.
    In the same way, missile cruisers are in no way, since the enemy has much more forces and means, and if you shoot directly from the base, then what for nuclear submarines?
    But resources can be spent on the construction of surface ships, which are needed in any case. Only not for a clash with NATO, but for "showing the flag" and operations like the Syrian one. And now also to accompany merchant ships.
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 January 2023 11: 04
      0
      The ground component of the strategic nuclear forces is vulnerable to a sudden strike, enough has been written about this.
      1. tone
        tone 4 January 2023 11: 31
        +5
        You yourself wrote with Klimov that the Orions graze our boats through the seas and they cannot escape. That the boats do not have anti-torpedoes and modern torpedoes, that for every SSBN there are a dozen hunters from NATO and Japan. Deployment of msyas ​​absolutely cannot be provided with a dozen ersatz frigates. Only stamp ground mine pu. Get out of START and churn out hundreds of them.
        1. timokhin-aa
          4 January 2023 16: 52
          -1
          You yourself wrote with Klimov that the Orions graze our boats through the seas and they cannot escape.


          It is at the expense of the fleet that we will secure the routes for the breakthrough of SSBNs under the ice. And there "barrel to barrel" - our boat rooting them, is also a problem, but not so complicated.
        2. Scharnhorst
          Scharnhorst 4 January 2023 17: 11
          +5
          Dear comrade, you are emotional after reading ... The coastline of China is 18000 km, we have 17740 km only in the Pacific Ocean. Comparing population and economy is not correct. As Ostap Ibragimovich said in the Four Horses club: "It is possible to master the whole board with meager forces ...!" Transfer the SSBNs of the Pacific Fleet to the Eyriney Bay of the Sea of ​​\u90800b\u67bOkhotsk and close it with available forces, turning it into a "bastion" - is it real !? It is even easier to enter the Northern Fleet: transfer the SSBN duty area to the White Sea and completely close it. For reference: sea area - 343 sq. km; average depth - XNUMX m; maximum - XNUMX m. If you want - lie at the bottom, if you want - swim! what But we are not recommended to go to the OCEAN without an aircraft carrier.
          1. UAZ 452
            UAZ 452 4 January 2023 18: 10
            -1
            If by an aircraft carrier we mean "Kuznetsov", then it is definitely not recommended for him to go to sea.
          2. Alien From
            Alien From 5 January 2023 00: 03
            +2
            Surely you know that nuclear submarines do not lie at the bottom, due to the intake of water to cool the reactor. And how can we close any sea if our bases shamelessly graze?
          3. Dmitry Chelyabinsk
            Dmitry Chelyabinsk 9 January 2023 23: 03
            +1
            Transfer the SSBNs of the Pacific Fleet to the Eirinei Bay of the Sea of ​​\u90800b\uXNUMXbOkhotsk and close it with available forces, turning it into a "bastion" - is it real !? It is even easier to enter the Northern Fleet: transfer the SSBN duty area to the White Sea and completely close it. For reference: the area of ​​the sea is XNUMX sq. km


            A little disappoint.
            The area of ​​the Eyrineyskaya Bay is only a few hundred square kilometers, which makes several warheads sufficient to cover it (especially given the shallow depths). In addition, it is wide open water area.
            The area of ​​the White Sea is 90 thousand square meters. km, of which only the water area in the southern part is closed and available for patrol, in the amount of about 28 thousand square meters. km. (6,5 thousand sq. km Kandalaksha Bay and the so-called Basin of 21,5 thousand sq. km). The remaining parts of the sea are either shallow bays unsuitable for nuclear submarines in the south of the sea (such as Onega, Dvina), or a shallow water area open to the outside in the north, the so-called. Funnel, with depths mainly up to 50 m.
  8. S. Viktorovich
    S. Viktorovich 4 January 2023 10: 04
    +2
    The first thing that needs to be done for the fleet in terms of reasonable spending of funds is not to curtail the construction of the submarine fleet, but to stop senseless attempts to revive the hopelessly outdated Soviet monsters (Kuznetsov, etc.). The fate of "Moscow" clearly shows their fate in any possible scenario of military action.
    The future of the fleet is in the creation of underwater, surface and air carriers of high-precision long-range weapons. The basis for the use of such means is an interspecific system of reconnaissance, target designation, control and communications, the creation of which is a priority task for both the fleet and the Armed Forces as a whole. In the presence of such a system, the ongoing NWO would look completely different.
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 January 2023 11: 06
      +14
      The fate of "Moscow" clearly shows their fate in any possible scenario of military action.


      No, the fate of "Moscow" shows that if you do not repair and modernize ships, do not train personnel, then send the ship into battle without support in a malfunctioning state and with a non-combat-ready crew, then, after the defeat of the ship, stop fighting for survivability and abandon him, then after 5-6 hours he may drown.
      The example of "Moscow" does not show anything else.
      As part of the same US Navy and the PLA Navy, "Moscow" would have eaten this pair of missiles along with the carrier, and that's it.
      1. S. Viktorovich
        S. Viktorovich 4 January 2023 11: 27
        -1
        "Moskva" in the Black Sea was simply not needed for anything other than parades. A single instance, excessively large for this database theater, with a weapon of incomprehensible purpose. In the conditions of superiority of the enemy in reconnaissance and target designation, he was doomed.
        1. ailcat
          ailcat 4 January 2023 19: 04
          -5
          Moscow played the role of AWACS there to detect Ukrainian Air Force sorties from the territory of Romania (fortunately, the capabilities of its partially modernized RLC were quite enough for this). And, alas, there is no replacement (including due to the wrong choice of platform for our AWACS aircraft).
          That the crew of the cruiser is on alert in the zone of military conflict turned out to be unprepared for an attack on his own ship (it makes no sense to evaluate the effectiveness unused air defense systems) - definitely not the fault of the admirals or the design of the cruiser.
          Moreover, the choice of Moscow for this task just speaks of the professionalism of the command: the use of an outdated ship (but with a partially updated radar) to solve the AWACS problem made it possible to release more combat-ready ships and, most importantly, the scarcest A-50s to solve problems on more critical sectors of the fronts .
          1. S. Viktorovich
            S. Viktorovich 4 January 2023 19: 20
            +2
            Those. "Moskva" was allowed to be drowned in order to preserve the resource of aircraft with radar?
            1. ailcat
              ailcat 10 January 2023 16: 30
              0
              Worse. Not to save the resource, but due to the lack of a sufficient number of aircraft with radar to ensure continuous closure in two (if not three) separated theaters of operations.
    2. the same doctor
      the same doctor 6 January 2023 19: 06
      0
      The fate of Moscow showed that missile cruisers should be used for strikes, and not kept senselessly at sea in the hope of intimidating the enemy.
  9. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 4 January 2023 10: 32
    -10
    Timokhin - in his repertoire; “Chief, everything is gone))) I want to remind you that everyone and everywhere has problems. Even in England there was a moment when out of six “derings” five were under repair. And nothing, no one shouts: “Everything is lost.” And the United States has problems, and in France - from one decommissioned and one burned out, they built an almost new nuclear submarine)))) you need to look at the question wider)))
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 January 2023 11: 08
      +8
      10 months of war, the loss of a missile cruiser, an expensive rescue tug and a BDK with the surrender of dominance at sea to an enemy who does not even have normal boats, and does not convince the brutes of anything.

      Drink some rebuffs, you have problems with higher nervous activity.
      1. filibuster
        filibuster 4 January 2023 14: 36
        -2
        So there’s nothing to puff up, well, we don’t have a strong economy, hence the same fleet, and we have been in this position since the Crimean War. And now the fleet consumes even more resources.
        1. frog
          frog 4 January 2023 15: 46
          -1
          And now the fleet consumes even more resources.

          Sorry, but only the fleet consumes resources? Wonderful tankers and brave flyers do not consume? graze on pasture? And the results of their actions are also somehow not inspiring ..... In this place, I recall some kind of parable for sofas and girls ....
          1. filibuster
            filibuster 4 January 2023 17: 41
            0
            The fleet consumes incomparably more.

            And the results of their actions are also somehow not inspiring .....


            And everything exactly from the result is better than that of the fleet.
            1. frog
              frog 5 January 2023 15: 27
              +1
              The fleet consumes incomparably more.

              And here there are two points at once)).... I would like to see the numbers))).. And still understand how much of them was spent, albeit conditionally, properly)) and how much was mastered.
              And everything exactly from the result is better than that of the fleet.

              And there are still no less questions .... And, purely IMHO, it seems to me that the problem is not in the fleet itself, the Aerospace Forces or something else ... But in those who, how and why manage it all ... ..
              Here, as in the Council of Deputies, there were millionaire collective farms (and real ones)), and there were millionaires. I think you know the difference.... And the collective farms were the same. From a device point of view...
            2. Stepan S
              Stepan S 6 January 2023 02: 17
              +2
              And what is their result? If you collect all the land "regroupings" and "victories" of all the abandoned equipment on the battlefield, then there will be enough for three fleets. Systemic problems, not one fleet in such a corral.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  10. Adrey
    Adrey 4 January 2023 11: 13
    +2
    Of course, it is difficult to disagree with the author (authors) on the theses and conclusions in the topic raised. But, as noted in the article, the issue of the nomenclature and construction of the fleet (and its use) is primarily not financial and technical, but internal political. And any significant progress in this field is not noticeable, and apparently not expected. And therefore request...
  11. Suomynona
    Suomynona 4 January 2023 11: 13
    +5
    I love this author's articles. Volumetric and stand out against the background of uryakolok. In the morning at work for a coffee they go great
  12. AVESSALOM
    AVESSALOM 4 January 2023 11: 38
    +2
    You can write a lot, but the essence will not change: Russia’s VPR is not competent. The USSR could resist the United States anywhere in the World Ocean. China now shows how fast the construction of the fleet went. Competences have been lost, and, most importantly, intelligent people. to correct.
    1. your1970
      your1970 5 January 2023 02: 11
      +2
      Quote: AVESSALOM
      The USSR could resist the USA anywhere in the World Ocean

      This is when you had to lean on and squeeze out in your native Black Sea at almost a pistol distance from the coast?
      Remind me of a similar case at least 500 km from the US coast. Can you?
      The submarine fleet resisted without any questions - and there was surface water for decoration. So that "like all decent states" would be ...
  13. u4gr8Kk6p8
    u4gr8Kk6p8 4 January 2023 11: 38
    0
    The necessary article is about sore points, but the money intended for the construction of the fleet, as usual, will be given to the children of the oligarchs, they need it more.
  14. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 4 January 2023 11: 51
    -4
    The main thing is to eradicate the zoo of different systems in the army and navy, to make standard projects with units scalable in power. Now the fastest growing fleet is Chinese. Take an example and buy ready-made ship designs with already known pluses and minuses.
    1. Scharnhorst
      Scharnhorst 4 January 2023 17: 22
      +1
      A very similar example is with civil aviation. There is such international wisdom: if you want to do something good, do it yourself.
  15. Vyacheslav Ermolaev
    Vyacheslav Ermolaev 4 January 2023 12: 21
    -2
    Well, I understand, there is no electronics. But "there is simply no technical possibility to provide the required level of machining of products, there are no necessary alloys" is this where they have gone? Forging!!! crankshaft - is it a miracle for us? "Required level" I wonder what it is?
    1. S. Viktorovich
      S. Viktorovich 4 January 2023 13: 31
      -4
      Many still living enterprises that can provide machining, installation (including electronic circuits), assembly, are underutilized. The problem is the lack of orders, i.e. documentation and targeted funding.
    2. Alex_mech
      Alex_mech 4 January 2023 14: 51
      +4
      Well, you can see what civilian cars are produced and where the parts come from. And here and there, metal needs to be processed, alloys are needed. And no? Yes, no. Why? Because there is no one to do it. Smart and ambitious scientists and engineers went to where it is better. And it was better for them to provide the same cunning and ambitious businessmen and states. People are what matters.
      1. Clone
        Clone 6 January 2023 23: 23
        0
        Quote from: Alex_mech
        Smart and ambitious scientists and engineers went to where it is better.

        That's why they talk about the need for the reincarnation of Lavrenty Pavlovich. And there is no reason to object ... and it is in the current situation. "First think about the Motherland, and then about yourself ..." - we were taught this way.
    3. timokhin-aa
      4 January 2023 16: 53
      +7
      I have no other reality for you.
      1. Serg65
        Serg65 5 January 2023 11: 40
        -2
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        I have no other reality for you.

        You just don't see it or don't want to see it!
    4. ailcat
      ailcat 4 January 2023 19: 42
      +5
      Forging a crankshaft for a high-torque engine is such a "wonderful miracle" that only three firms on the ball make them in the mass segment.
      You can do it like in the USSR or modern China - with a resource of several thousand hours (several tens of thousands of hours at the cost of switching to low-torque connecting rod and piston groups - that is, with a significant decrease in efficiency and an increase in engine mass).
      I think the truth is somewhere in the middle - to give up resources and efficiency, but exactly to the extent that the technology is provided with the means available to Russia (including through the purchase of imported equipment).
      ***
      But with steel it is more difficult. For besides money, the creation of complex alloys stupidly takes time. The same ceramic-metal (which was simply prayed for 20 years ago) failed due to severe resource limitations in most of the expected applications - and this was only understood after years, or even decades of its use.
    5. your1970
      your1970 5 January 2023 02: 22
      +4
      Quote: Vyacheslav Ermolaev
      Forging!!! crankshaft - is it a miracle for us? "Required level" I wonder what it is?

      And you don’t know that even in the USSR in the engine - they couldn’t and didn’t know how?
      That sailors loved to sail on imported ships - Finnish and German - because everything was done there for people ...
      The banal valve of the VAZovsky heater is quite enough - it flowed on the entire "classic" for the entire period of its release.
  16. Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev
    Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev 4 January 2023 13: 42
    -11
    The article describes the construction of surface warships in Russia. With the creation of the submarine fleet in Russia, everything is more or less normal. But there is a problem with surface ships. In fact, Russian shipbuilders copy warships currently in service with the United States and NATO countries. Now in the west they are still building such, but less and less. The emphasis in the United States and NATO is on the creation of high-speed ships: catamarans, hydrofoils, ekranoplanes, i.e. ships with dynamic means of keeping afloat. Everything that the Americans are trying to do now when creating surface ships was already done 40-45 years ago in the USSR under Gorshkov. And now our shipbuilders have lost their conquests in shipbuilding and have begun to stupidly copy the Americans. They also forgot about the modular approach to design. The ship is a carrier of weapons, which, with a modular design, can be changed as needed. Even an aircraft carrier can and should be made like a catamaran and hydrofoil. Take two Project 1144 TAKR hulls, lengthen them by 50-60 meters due to additional compartments, make twins out of them and equip hydrofoils in the hulls. Mobility, the speed of movement of such a nuclear aircraft carrier can be increased to 60-70 knots! Ride with the wind. Powerful bulkheads between compartments, a modern fire extinguishing system using inert gas and outboard water will make such an aircraft carrier practically unsinkable. Russia has the longest maritime border in the world and it will be reasonable to protect it using high-speed warships such as ekranoplans and catamarans. Ekranoplanes, in principle, can generally be relocated across land from one water area to another. Here it would be appropriate to recall amphibious aircraft, which our Russian naval commanders have not been purchasing for the Russian Navy for decades. And they are already ready-made in the TANTK them. Beriev, they can be touched and felt. There are also new projects of amphibious aircraft. Ekranoplanes and amphibious aircraft are mobile combat vehicles of the fleet, weapons carriers, which in the future will not only make it possible to protect Russia's maritime borders many times more efficiently and cheaper, but will also ensure the protection, protection and rescue of not only the military, but also trade, cargo, fishing, passenger Russian ships all over the oceans. Spending ten times less than the United States, creating with the help of engineering a fundamentally new military high-speed surface fleet of ekranoplans, catamarans and amphibious aircraft, Russia will be able to become the most powerful maritime power in the world, the world ocean ruler. Good luck to everyone in the New Year 2023!
    1. your1970
      your1970 5 January 2023 02: 25
      +5
      Quote: Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev
      They also forgot about the modular approach to design. The ship is a carrier of weapons, which, with a modular design, can be changed as needed.

      Here one country has been worn with modularity for a long time.
      Then she said - it's time to tie up with this canoe, we don't have time to print bucks on it ...
      1. Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev
        Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev 9 January 2023 19: 09
        0
        If there is no mind, consider a cripple .... We only had some attempts in modular shipbuilding. Necessary general principles and requirements for this case.
    2. Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev
      Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev 9 January 2023 19: 15
      0
      The comment seems to have touched the nerve of many. Many readers appreciated the comment. So it's written by me. Do not hide the truth!
      1. Kened
        Kened 23 January 2023 05: 50
        0
        You just wrote utter nonsense, mixing it with your fantasies, divorced from reality
  17. Radikal
    Radikal 4 January 2023 13: 47
    +6
    As soon as that extremely specific contingent (it is impossible to call a spade a spade for censorship reasons), which is now responsible for naval construction, is cleared out, the problems will be solved in a year or two, which are needed to reconfigure management structures.
    Do you know how many of this "contingent" is in all areas (not only in the defense industry) of the life of the state? Their name is legion! But the person who will realize our "wishlist" with you in relation to this "legion", unfortunately - no. sad
  18. Andrey A
    Andrey A 4 January 2023 14: 12
    -12
    Well, the author exaggerates and replicates, mostly "cissos" horror stories ... To the question of the long-suffering element base for our electronics, which we supposedly don't have and won't have now ... You need to understand that we produce chips with a dimension of - 65nm . This is not so little, it is enough for the production of personal computers. For laptops, their use is already problematic, but they cannot be stuffed into a good smartphone. But, you need to keep in mind that the ship (even the Karakurt) is significantly larger than your pocket, where the smartphone lies and will take a little heavier electronics for itself, the Karakurt has a displacement of under - 1000 tons, so several tens of kg of excess weight will not they will drown (especially since you can also buy a lot of things) ... As for the weakness of the air defense of our ships, this is not true and there is no reason to believe that the same cruiser "Moskva" missed the strike of cruise missiles ..... So, the frigate "Admiral Makarov" made a trip to Zmeiny alone and was not sunk or even damaged ... Ukrainians regularly use combat drones from the times of the USSR, modernized by Western specialists, but they could not defeat the ships in Sevastopol, attacks by underwater drones were also repelled, delivered from England. The same can be said about the production of diesel engines: they are mass-produced ... As for the fairy tales about sanctions that will stop their production, gentlemen, dreamers forget that sanctions against the defense sector have existed for many years and new diesel engines have begun to be produced, namely, under the conditions of total sanctions ... Regarding the stubbornly implemented idea of ​​​​a "mobilization" corvette, this is a far-fetched idea: during the war, in our country, in an extremely difficult situation, they tried to create a "mobilization" bomber, but even in difficult 1942 from it they refused: the characteristics of this bomber were too miserable ... The same can be said about the improved Karakurt. We are far from being in a position to refuse to build ships of the far sea zone ... Then you need to understand that the larger the ship, the more weapons can be placed on it, and the number of weapons is growing progressively: a doubling of the displacement will allow placing on the ship almost three times more weapons ... So that's it .....
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 January 2023 16: 49
      +9
      Who does not jump, that CIPSO? Do you have the slightest idea about the subject of discussion?

      The same can be said about the production of diesel engines: they are mass-produced...


      Do ABB+ turbochargers grow on trees in your reality, right? What about casting? Crankshaft forgings, piston rings?
      We are interfering now because of storytellers like you, only in power and we will intervene until people like you are shut up forever.
    2. Dmitry Rigov
      Dmitry Rigov 4 January 2023 23: 53
      +4
      You need to understand that we produce chips with a dimension of 65nm

      In fact, no, 65nm has remained in the promises, even 90nm has big questions, since the mass production of microprocessors on this technical process has not yet been mastered, there is information only about memory chips and microcontrollers. For production at 65nm, it is necessary to build a completely new plant, for which we will also master the production of 300mm silicon wafers, in general, we only lack equipment, raw materials and personnel for the production of our microelectronics.
  19. Alex_mech
    Alex_mech 4 January 2023 14: 33
    +2
    The author warned for several years how any collision of our fleet with a "competent and understanding enemy" would end .... the fact that the enemy does not have a fleet as such at all has not changed anything.
    Paaaaaaaaazhdite, because all the previous series was about NATO and about Japan, which have a fleet. Somehow it's not logical. The presence or absence of a fleet "doesn't change anything"? And with whom did the fleet fight then, except for sea waves and coastal rocks?
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 January 2023 16: 50
      +3
      The presence or absence of a fleet "doesn't change anything"? And with whom did the fleet fight then, except for sea waves and coastal rocks?


      And here also answer this question, for sobering.
  20. filibuster
    filibuster 4 January 2023 14: 34
    +2
    You plan at least how much, but there is one problem with the fleet without a strong economy there cannot be a strong fleet, and the USSR could not build a fleet comparable to the US fleet, even in the Stalin period they could not build battleships at the same speed as they built in Germany, Japan and not to mention the US.
  21. Alex_mech
    Alex_mech 4 January 2023 14: 44
    +7
    By the way, I have been waiting for a very long time for an article with a "debriefing" of "flights" of the Black Sea Fleet in the current non-war to appear. But apparently I can't wait.
    1. ramzay21
      ramzay21 10 January 2023 11: 43
      +1
      And with this power, do not wait! If you write honestly, then the people will have many questions for the current government and no one will print this.
      But it’s impossible to plausibly explain how and why the RRC Moscow died, who ordered to send a non-combat-ready ship to the BS, who appointed Osipov as commander of the Black Sea Fleet, and therefore they stopped pedaling this topic. And now the Black Sea Fleet does not go to enemy shores so as not to lose other ships.
    2. timokhin-aa
      18 January 2023 12: 03
      0
      Censorship. Such an article simply cannot be published. If it's detailed.
  22. Alex_mech
    Alex_mech 4 January 2023 14: 47
    +5
    Quote: TermNachTER
    Everyone has problems, everywhere.

    The level of problems is just different. For some, road repairs, for others, the missile cruiser sank for the official reason "fire and storm"
  23. Alex_mech
    Alex_mech 4 January 2023 14: 52
    +5
    Quote: Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev
    hydrofoil ships, ekranoplanes

    I don’t remember something that someone in the USA or Europe made combat ekranoplans. Dead end branch.
    1. Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev
      Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev 5 January 2023 11: 59
      0
      In the USA there is such an organization called Darpa. I advise you to take an interest in the work of this organization.
    2. Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev
      Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev 5 January 2023 12: 38
      -3
      In the Caspian Sea, for several years, a passenger ekranoplan successfully ran between Krasnovodsk and Baku in Soviet times, which transported people across the Caspian Sea in two hours. On a conventional ship, this is 4 times longer. Let's say you boarded an ekranoplan in Yalta or Sochi, and after 4 hours you are already in Istanbul. Cool! And you are a dead end branch. Darpa in the United States, as well as in other countries, have been trying to build ekranoplanes for many years. But they still cannot master the Russian technology of 40 years ago.
  24. Alex_mech
    Alex_mech 4 January 2023 14: 54
    +6
    Quote: Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev
    son-in-law of two TAKR hulls of project 1144, due to additional compartments, lengthen them by 50-60 meters, make twins out of them and equip hydrofoils in the hulls.

    Good idea, but have you tried to calculate the loads on the wings of a catamaran from two aircraft carriers? Can you see?
    1. ailcat
      ailcat 4 January 2023 20: 02
      +1
      Calculated by specialized experts back in the 90s of the last century.
      3000-3500 tons of full displacement is the limit for ships with dynamic support principles.
      260-1100 tons of full displacement is the optimum at which the efficiency of the wing exceeds the costs of its presence.
      ***
      But multi-hull vessels are capable of operating up to a displacement of 65-80 thousand gross tons.
      At the same time, at speeds up to 35-42 knots, they are more economical than single-hull ones, while they are able to maintain speed up to 37-55 knots in waves up to 5 points.
      1. Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev
        Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev 5 January 2023 12: 16
        -2
        Do you have a car? Do you know what a spoiler on a car is? So, a spoiler on a car plays the role of hydrofoils on ships. At low speed there is no spoiler effect, but at high speed it's a cool thing...
        1. Rustic
          Rustic 6 January 2023 05: 54
          0
          Excuse me, but do you understand exactly what a spoiler is, and how it differs from a wing? I won’t even ask about how it works, and what a ground effect is. It makes no sense. Automotive aerodynamics is clearly not for you. Actually a spoiler, it's more about ekranoplans. And wings, they are wings in Africa.
        2. Clone
          Clone 6 January 2023 23: 43
          0
          Quote: Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev
          and at high speeds it's a cool thing ...

          And in a storm, so finally ... if the wings do not tear off. Wave height for "winged" - no more than 3 meters.
    2. Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev
      Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev 5 January 2023 12: 04
      0
      Every idea is tested in R&D. Most ideas have three stages of development:
      1. This is complete nonsense;
      2. There is something in this;
      3. Well, who doesn't know about it?
    3. Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev
      Vladimir Dmitrievich Burtsev 9 January 2023 19: 19
      0
      Yes, at least let the wings be a meter. And that will be use at 40 knots! Looks like the guy worked as a strength calculator. Now there are computer programs that do the calculation in 5 minutes.
  25. Andrey Andreev
    Andrey Andreev 4 January 2023 15: 04
    +4
    Great article, funny comments. But as always.
    Those who read it carefully mostly agree, and critics either read through the word (paragraph) or really demand a call to the doctor).
    For those who disagree, for various reasons, with the exception of those who are sick, it would be nice to understand that the author really understands this topic and writes not only for you and me, but also tries to get through to ...
    Although apparently unsuccessful.
  26. Wildcat
    Wildcat 4 January 2023 15: 53
    +5
    hi
    As always, a good article "on hardware", for the rest .. not very good.
    A very sharp wake-up call awaits all these statesmen shining with importance with smug faces.
    Nothing bad awaits them, in the worst case - as the curator of the military-industrial complex Rogozin, they will send pieces of iron from .... to the embassies with the question "what am I for? We know each other ...": "" I remember with pleasure our communication with you, joint trips to the Borodino field and Baikonur, - this is how Dmitry Rogozin begins his cover letter to the French ambassador. - At that time we discussed a lot and often the prospects for Russian-French political and economic cooperation.
    .....
    It is only thanks to the great skill and patience of Russian military and civilian doctors that I am alive and almost healthy again. In this envelope, along with my letter, you see a fragment from a shell fired by the French 155-mm Caesar self-propelled artillery mount. He pierced my right shoulder and got stuck in the fifth cervical vertebra, just a millimeter away from killing me or making me immobile with an invalid.
    "" (c) Rogozin AKA "The Tsar's Wolf".

    But on the other hand, today we can say absolutely for sure - the construction of powerful and efficient multi-purpose ships on the existing industrial and technological base and under the conditions of sanctions is real. There would be someone to organize it.
    The question is not only "who will organize" (spoiler - no one). But also in the fact that there is no money in the budget, as before, "with a surplus" and will not be. This year for the budget - already with a deficit, the next one - too, according to plan (we look at the documents of the Central Bank). What will happen in the next years - yes, the same thing, IMHO, there are no options for financial optimism. Moreover, the scale of the deficit is not yet clear; sanctions "on the oil industry" will fully come into effect only in March.

    Question: during land battles (and these are big expenses) and the need to reduce budget spending in general, will someone be involved in the proposed shipbuilding program?

    IMHO, of course: the shipyards will work and will finish building and building something new "from what was", but in very small quantities.
    Forget about aircraft carriers, cruiser-destroyers and helicopter carriers, forever. Underwater shipbuilding somehow survived the "fat 2000s", all hope for it is in first-rank ships.
    Our fleet is moving towards the Iranian one - a few old ships are on the move, a few new ones and "converted transports", IMHO (and this is still optimism).
    1. timokhin-aa
      8 January 2023 04: 46
      +1
      Question: during land battles (and these are big expenses) and the need to reduce budget spending in general, will someone be involved in the proposed shipbuilding program?


      In short - I would find where to get the money. It's just like this.
  27. Vladgar
    Vladgar 4 January 2023 16: 17
    -1
    Corvette 20380 can become an inexpensive, mobilization, anti-submarine ship. On the tank of the ship, along the DP, three modules of four cells each under the missile defense system are installed. There you can also install another module for 4 cells under the PLUR. All four modules can be placed in a T-shaped pattern. Two modules in front of the superstructure across the hull, and further forward, two more along the DP. Far module under PLUR. There is a place, technically it is possible, the volume of work is not very large. Such a scheme can be tested on the lead corvette, Guarding, which is undergoing medium repairs and on which the bow will be shredded.
    The 20380th corvette has everything else for the anti-submarine. This is a good version of the ship in our conditions. There is no need to put a crude and import-dependent tower on it. Install reliable radars ,,Pozitiv,, ,,Mineral,, ,,Puma,, and navigation stations. It will be easier and cheaper.
    The composite superstructure at the Komsomolsk ASZ is already partly made by themselves. In the plans, together with the researchers of the local university, to fully master the technology of creating a composite on their own raw materials. There shouldn't be any problems with the add-on either.
    1. timokhin-aa
      4 January 2023 16: 45
      0
      What about diesel? Have you read the article about problems with diesel engines?
      1. the same doctor
        the same doctor 5 January 2023 20: 34
        0
        I don't understand the problems described in the article. Rings! What kind of accuracy is required for rings? Virtually none. And modern bent tape rings generally adapt to any diameter. Is there any special steel? We have MISIS, let them cook in a crucible, how much does it take - a hundred kg for all diesel engines for a year?
        crankshaft forgings? Almost any forge can forge. peel off on a lathe ... they do overhauls, which means you can turn a new shaft.
        .
        Everything can be done, but for this effective managers must share money and power with production workers. In the meantime, they look at the situation like this: "Give our money to hard workers!!!! No way!!!!"
      2. Vladgar
        Vladgar 7 January 2023 04: 40
        0
        Dear author, I read the article, I am aware of the problems with diesel engines. If the production of diesel engines in Kolomna stops, then the railway workers will have big problems. In the fleet, you can do without diesel engines. The M70FR-R turbine, which you mention in your article, has already been created and certified. Its power is 10 hp. and it is reversible, which is very important. Installing 4 such turbines on the corvette described above, two per shaft, will make it a very fast ship. The gearbox for it is not difficult to create. Everything else is in the gland. Such a corvette without a miracle tower, with reliable radars, with a PLUR module, with turbines in the power plant, could become a mass mobilization ship. This is quite within the power of our industry. You can build such a corvette at three factories at once. ,, Saturn ,, will provide the supply of turbines. Three of these turbines can even be installed on Karakurt, and as a main engine such a turbine will go to a frigate and a destroyer. There is a way out of this situation. You just need to really want it and roll up your sleeves.
  28. Pavel Tukabaev
    Pavel Tukabaev 4 January 2023 16: 33
    -3
    how long to think? why not in reactors?
  29. Reklastik
    Reklastik 4 January 2023 17: 07
    -1
    crews from Russia will have to study in China, pass all the tests and coursework there, and then go on their own to their bases.
    - maybe immediately hire part of the personnel and ships of the Chinese Navy to protect the interests of our country? Contract, amount, terms, quality of service and conditions for early termination of the contract with penalties... laughing
  30. Vladgar
    Vladgar 4 January 2023 17: 22
    0
    According to the power plant for the corvette, there are several options.
    If the Kolomna 16D49 engine is assembled from Russian components and, with the same dimensions, it will lose power, let's say up to 4 thousand hp. , then this is not critical for the corvette. But there will be a purely domestic engine. There is also a domestic NPO Saturn turbine M70FRU with a capacity of 14 thousand hp. On this pair, you can create a DGTA, similar to what is on frigates. And the gearbox to it is also similar to the Fregat one. When following the corvette at an economical pace, it will run on diesel engines with a total capacity of 8 thousand hp. This is quite enough for a displacement of 2300 tons and the ship will reach a speed of 14 knots. During forced movement, turbines are connected, the total power increases to 36 thousand hp. and the speed of the ship will be about 32 knots. Good indicator.
    In DGTA, it is also possible to use the domestic diesel plant Zvezda M504 with a capacity of 4 hp. This engine can be additionally ordered at the Kingisepp plant. He had plans to produce such engines.
    There is also a Rybinsk M70FR-R turbine with a capacity of 10 hp. You can try to make the unit with it. This turbine is created, assembled and tested on the stand. The State Commission accepted it and assigned the letter 01, which means it is ready for serial production. This turbine is reversible and was designed for a corvette. But it is not produced for the simple reason that there is no order for it from the fleet. By the way, you can put 4 such turbines on a corvette. The total power will be 40 hp. and the speed of the corvette will be good beyond 30 knots. Such a power plant scheme for ,, Arly Burke ,,
    A turbine generator was created on the basis of this turbine. Four of these can also be used on a corvette. With such a scheme, neither bulky gearboxes, nor shaft lines, nor complex CPPs are needed. In the aft compartment of the ship, two PEDs (propeller motors) are installed, which are powered by turbogenerators through cable routes and directly rotate the propellers. Motor resource of engines increases. Such a scheme has long been used on non-nuclear icebreakers.
    There is another option with azipods.
    And for the future frigate ,, M ,, on ,, Saturn ,, a turbine with a capacity of 35 thousand hp is being developed. The enterprise has great production capabilities and can fully meet the needs of the fleet.
  31. UAZ 452
    UAZ 452 4 January 2023 18: 01
    0
    Before sorting out what kind of fleet the country needs, what kind of ships, etc., it is necessary to formulate a doctrine at the country level, for all the RF Armed Forces, and then decide what share of the budget pie the Navy can claim. In the NWO, at least, the fleet did not at all demonstrate that the resources spent on it were worth it (you don’t need to mention the heroism of the Marines and the launch of Caliber almost from the pier - only for this the fleet is not needed, missiles are launched from other carriers, and Marine brigades would have fought no less heroically as part of the ground forces, and in fact they are in their composition). And the naval history of Russia and the USSR over the past hundred and fifty years does not inspire optimism and a desire to take away from the ground forces, the Aerospace Forces, and give it to the fleet.
    And the distribution of finances, which in the coming decades will be catastrophically insufficient, according to the principle of "earrings to all sisters", will lead to the fact that we will be weak everywhere. As for the naval component of the strategic nuclear forces, far from our shores, we still won’t be able to protect our SSBNs, and near our coast, coastal-based forces will be more successful, and relatively large surface ships themselves will most likely need protection.
    1. Beregovic_1
      Beregovic_1 6 January 2023 13: 11
      +2
      The very presence of the fleet forces the enemy to take it into account in the layouts. The presence of a cruising group in the Mediterranean prevented the passage of NATO ships to the Black Sea and the escalation of the conflict. The presence of 10 BDKs with cover ships and their presence at sea, constant loading and unloading of landing forces, fettered the rather large forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine near Odessa. Caliber strikes from the water area require the diversion of air defense systems of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the coast. Etc.
  32. GRAFIN_32
    GRAFIN_32 4 January 2023 19: 58
    +2
    I agree that the person is to blame. It's not about sanctions, but about the fact that a friend is known in trouble. These friends are in positions of (responsible) friends in words. On the topic of diesel engines, absolutely everything is solved. But there are people at the head who are not able to work by nature. Managers and nothing more. If you want to live, know how to spin. But looking at these, you understand that their life was a success ... You can not strain the fifth place.
  33. engy
    engy 4 January 2023 23: 02
    -1
    Well, now Manturov is doing everything with us. From building a tanker fleet to machine tool building and microelectronics. Of course, he will not be able to cover everything and has already stated that business should take on the problems. However, experience has shown that the business did what it could, and what it could not, it bought. Post-Soviet enterprises also did what they could, but they should not bother with what kind of stones semiconductors are made of. This should be decided by the state. If the plant cannot organize the production of blanks-forgings of crankshafts, then the state should do it. And for this, auxiliary structures are needed. Yes, I'm talking about ministries. Let it be committees, let something simpler, but local enterprises today will not pull such modernization measures themselves. The same question in the spirit of Beria: what do you need to produce the required number of products.
  34. konstant213
    konstant213 5 January 2023 04: 42
    -1
    If you really need a fleet, then it's probably worth buying Chinese 056A ships for now, as a temporary solution IMHO.
  35. Alex242
    Alex242 5 January 2023 04: 47
    0
    the risks of wars with technically advanced adversaries with powerful navies, including the US Navy. Under such conditions, Russia, if it survives in the next ten years, will have to abruptly, literally in a matter of years, “bring the fleet to its senses”, including shipbuilding programs and their financing. Thus, such issues as the withdrawal of control over finances from the “underwater mafia”, the closure of such projects as “Poseidon / Status-6”, the refusal to lay new SSBNs until the combat services of the existing ones are provided, etc., have “overripe”.
    - if only they did everything right, without any mistakes, (and this is very good for ours)
  36. fa2998
    fa2998 5 January 2023 07: 58
    +3
    Quote: IVZ
    Admirals do not appear separately from the fleet. First the fleet, then the admirals.

    And how many of us are admirals within the Moscow Ring Road? And they don't feel bad. lol
    1. UAZ 452
      UAZ 452 5 January 2023 10: 35
      +1
      Don't you know that Moscow is a port of five seas?
  37. the same doctor
    the same doctor 5 January 2023 13: 17
    -3
    The NWO showed that ships should be built large and with a sufficient margin of buoyancy. Armaments should be smaller and not stuffed tightly. Between compartments with weapons and fuel should be 2-3 empty compartments. In general, it turns out a huge ocean ferry of 200-300 meters with loading from the sides and divided into dozens of compartments across the hull and hundreds of compartments below the waterline. Jewish stinginess to save displacement and dense layout of military vessels should be forgotten. It would be nice to collect bonuses for "savings" from the authors ...
    .
    In peacetime, these ships are used as railway ferries, in military time they can be rolled up weapons on railway platforms. This weapon can be transferred from fleet to fleet on rails and used on land if necessary. On the upper deck, helicopters and weapons on a car chassis. Well, something in the threatened period will need to be installed and welded additionally.
    .
    The power plant should be as decentralized as possible and consist of many Kolomna diesel engines with generators. For an economical course, diesel engines with direct drive to the propellers are needed; during afterburner, electric motors are connected to them.
    .
    where to build such ships and when? Yes, already today it is possible somewhere near Murmansk to level a site of the required size at sea level by explosions and begin building ships. It’s not a quick matter, by the time it’s over, build the walls of a flooded chamber around and stretch them into the sea for a pool into which the ships will sail ... It’s better to make the gates floating in order to use them for any number of such dry docks. Place pumps for dock filling in floating gates...
    .

    Plus, metallurgy and the cement industry will revive. No need to steal French technology for docking ships from blocks. Their own cadres will appear ... They will learn everything. After all, just imagine the thermal stresses during welding and ways to compensate for them. A lot of hard work, but nothing impossible. Just give money and rein in the thieves.
    I think 10 billion will be enough for one floating gate and five docks, allowing you to build ships half a kilometer long. Against the background of the "lost" Nabiulina trifle. And after all, we could have had these docks back in 2006, if not for the whim, you know who about the reserves.
  38. Olegsv
    Olegsv 5 January 2023 13: 33
    -5
    How can you seriously discuss what the author writes if he believes in some kind of nuclear strike by the Americans and other crap of our propaganda ???
    1. Rustic
      Rustic 6 January 2023 06: 34
      0
      if he believes in some kind of nuclear strike by the Americans and other crap of our propaganda???
      The Americans believe the same in their doctrine of a preventive strike. Well, what a cool propaganda we have, it even made the Americans believe it. Whether it's worthless American propaganda. Which the Americans themselves cannot be led to believe that it is they who choose their own presidents.
  39. Ruslan
    Ruslan 5 January 2023 14: 50
    -1
    the voice of one crying in the wilderness. I hope the bastards guilty of such a state of the fleet, at least out of a sense of self-preservation for their chairs, will repeat at least part of what is described in the article.
  40. zenion
    zenion 5 January 2023 22: 29
    0
    It is necessary to build not only ships on the sea, but also agree with aliens to build them in such a way that it was possible to fly in them in space, wherever the soul and carcass wishes.
  41. Devil13
    Devil13 5 January 2023 22: 59
    -1
    The author, thanks for the cool material, your words and the leadership of the country and the Navy with DOGOZ would be in the ears ....


    1. AU A-220M 57mm exists. It seems like there are even shells for it.
    She is insanely needed by the army for the T-15 and the sane future BMP, TBMP, BMPT and even army air defense, because it will perfectly beat drones and aircraft, is more effective than the current ZAK and ZRAK and is CHEAPER.
    On small ships, you can put it in the nose instead of the AU, you can also put it (and you need to!) On Coast Guard ships, so that there would not be a situation like with an English destroyer.
    Even on boats - and that is possible, but on larger ones, the size of old torpedo boats.
    Colossal series, isn't it?
    And that means cheap production.

    2. What tolerances are needed for the production of 16c diesels?
    Or are we talking about all sorts of smart stray?

    3. In 22350, instead of the heavy launcher Package-NK, it is possible and necessary to shove 6-8 TAs into the same places in the light version.

    4. The normal deep sea destroyer is the ideal solution for DMZ.
    And the power plant for him - too.
    According to the composition of weapons:
    1) 2 helicopters, 2 boats (places for them).
    And it’s worth NOW to think about UAV-DRLO in the size of a helicopter.
    And BPNA - in the size of a standard boat, with the possibility of simulating a portrait of a ship, and with the possibility of placing a GAS.
    This is the future, and it is foolish to deny it.
    Having a place for placement, and having carried out R&D, when there are already ships in the fleet, it will be possible to equip them cheaply!.

    2) 3S14 - you need at least 24 cells for a full-fledged "universal load", and at least 32-48 to ensure long-term work off the coast of the enemy.

    Ideally, placement in at least 4-8 cells of a long-range missile, with integration into Poliment-Redut.
    That will allow solving the issues of the operation of the enemy's AWACS, at least indirectly.
    So you need at least 48 cells.

    3) Air defense - I call on specialists if at least 1 missiles in mathematics are always used to intercept 2 anti-ship missiles.
    The cells are clearly worth calculating from this.
    And from the fact that a group of 4 F-18s can carry up to 16 anti-ship missiles.

    2x57mm - minimum, 2x2, or 4x1 is possible, for a full overlap of the near air defense zone, from 4 km. (Like from 8) the fact that 1 57mm is much more effective than a 6-barrel AK-630 or Pantsir-M is obvious, as well as the fact that making 57mm with remote controlled detonation is much easier and easier (and more effective) than 30mm.

    The integration of Tor-2M is certainly necessary and important, or the Shell with a normal radar. Undoubtedly and bravo!

    5) The remote control should provide 31-35 knots in afterburner to pursue the enemy. Certainly in the ideal case.

    According to the BMZ corvette - using Visby as an example, you can consider a high, even superstructure at the stern, which will allow you to land a helicopter if necessary, refuel it in the air, and !!! Again, place UAVs that are COMPACT and lighter than a helicopter.
  42. Not_comrade_of_comrades_of_hu_yaobang
    -1
    Comrade Timokhin, you are a great scientist,
    You know a lot about war at sea ...
    Please write faster. You should keep in mind that the articles here are published not for academics, but for non-specialists. I am afraid that after reading your articles, some VO readers will receive titles, not even generals and marshals, but the titles of Napoleons and Alexanders of Macedon. And my friends and I will support you. With past and upcoming holidays.

    And further on the motives of Vysotsky:

    Fellow scientists, associate professors with candidates
    You drowned in the sciences, entangled in zeros,
    But we will come to power for you, and with rakes, shovels,
    We will correct all mistakes in the Chelyabinsk seas.
    1. Sergey39
      Sergey39 6 January 2023 23: 43
      +1
      Of course! These articles are directed under the tinsel of science, against Our state, for its destruction!
      A bunch of examples even in their articles! But, local admins let them through, but why? Or money or a political component!
      Everyone who is against their satellites downvotes or bans!
      What, in the Ural region, is everyone so corrupt? Or to your joy Our losses in the NWO and other messes! (((
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 7 January 2023 03: 31
        +1
        Quote: Sergey39
        Everyone who is against their satellites downvotes or bans!

        We have normal admins. Let's break through. drinks
  43. 3danimal
    3danimal 6 January 2023 17: 30
    0
    small-sized 8-mm range radar for installation directly on mass AK-630M installations in order to increase their effectiveness against modern targets at the required level

    It's high time to pile something like the "Goalkeeper" or Phalanx.
    But ZAK AK-630M2 looks more interesting:

    Or "Broadsword":

    The latter, in addition, has its own OLS.
    We need a higher density of fire to protect against anti-ship missiles.
    The accuracy of domestic ZAK drives is inferior to the Goalkeeper, so you will have to compensate for the high consumption of ammunition.
    1. Expert
      Expert 9 January 2023 22: 01
      0
      Quote: 3danimal
      The accuracy of domestic ZAK drives is inferior to the Goalkeeper, so you will have to compensate for the high consumption of ammunition.
      Maybe it's better to improve the accuracy of the drives?
  44. Mustached Kok
    Mustached Kok 7 January 2023 01: 44
    0
    I will voice a rather radical thought. But logically, it is necessary to start restoring the fleet from the choice of a concept. And I believe that at the beginning of the reform it is necessary to abandon the current system of four fleets. And my rather radical idea is to make only 2 fleets (Northern and Pacific) and 3 flotillas (Caspian, Black Sea and Baltic).
    This decision was caused solely by geographical, and therefore also strategic considerations. Ships of the level of heavy destroyers and higher in the Black and Baltic Seas are not only unnecessary, but also useless. Such a large ship, by definition, will not be able to fully reveal its potential in such "puddles" as rather small and closed seas. At the same time, they, like large ships, will be primarily at the sight of opponents, and there are many of them in the Baltic and the World Cup. And most importantly, they are CLOSE to our shores. In the event of an armed escalation, many countries can destroy ships and port infrastructure using simply barrel and rocket artillery.
    At the same time, the Black and Baltic Seas go to the large seas (Mediterranean and North) through narrownesses that are under the direct control of unfriendly countries (some of which are even NATO members).
    At the same time, the need for a fleet is still there. Therefore, for the Baltic and Black Seas, fleets are needed, consisting of:
    1. A large number of PLO Corvettes
    2. Many multifunctional diesel-electric submarines and minelayer boats
    3. Attack frigates and air defense frigates
    4. A large number of minesweepers
    5. Multiple landing craft
    6. Several universal destroyers (but not as big as Giant Gorshkov).

    The fleet (especially diesel-electric submarines) must create a defensive line in their areas in order to prevent the enemy fleet from breaking through to the shores of their cities. In the Baltic, the fleet will have to block Helsinki and Tallinn (and all the sea space between them) in order to keep enemy submarines and ships with missile weapons out. The distance from this line to St. Petersburg is almost 300 km. This means that missiles launched by the enemy may not have time to overcome this distance due to opposition from our air defenses. And on the Black Sea, the fleet must block the Bosphorus at the exit. To prevent enemy ships from entering the Black Sea.

    What does some of the ships have to do with the calculation of the possibility of transferring ships (of course, the lightest ones) between the Black and Baltic Seas along inland navigation routes.

    But in the Northern and Pacific Fleets, where there are gigantic territories, difficult weather conditions and chances to meet with the troops of the largest countries. In the North with the US Air Force and Navy (the fleet is from Alaska) and the Scandinavian Navy and Air Force and Royal Fleet. In the Pacific, these are the Japanese fleet (one of the strongest in the world) and the US Pacific Fleet. And I have not yet counted countries with a smaller fleet that can send some of their ships to support (Taiwan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, Germany, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey, etc.).
    Therefore, it is these two places that should become centers for the creation and consolidation of two fleets. It is there that in the first place it is worth developing as large shipyards. And to establish ALL infrastructure. It is desirable that the Northern and Pacific fleets be unified, but at the same time, the construction of ships, their support and equipment for each of the fleets could be done independently.
  45. abc_alex
    abc_alex 7 January 2023 03: 19
    +4
    However, the question arises of large and powerful diesel engines. Now their only supplier for the ships of the Navy is the Kolomensky Zavod (with the above problems).
    But this does not mean that Kolomna will have to “go out of business” - the fleet will need diesels in the future anyway, for the same landing and auxiliary ships, at least, and no one can make them with the required power except Kolomna.


    I would like to immediately correct the author. Because he has a fundamentally wrong view of the problem. The main thing here is that the Kolomna Plant does not actually need a naval order. At all. For 20 years after 1991, due to the disregard of the naval leadership, the plant completely abandoned the production of ship installations. And even if the entire fleet order disappears, the plant will not be left without a customer, its main production is focused on diesel locomotives and power generation. And here is this squeamish "at least", I would advise you to reconsider. Because, with the current volume of delivery of ships, the plant will not take the "third position" for the sake of satisfying someone's "want". 10-12 engines per year is not something for which it is generally worth starting some kind of import substitution. Especially for such a frankly .... customer as the domestic fleet. It is possible to expect from the plant to dig the earth with its nose for the sake of creating naval power plants. But for this, a very UNIQUE counter movement must follow from the side of the fleet, expressed at least in a long-term contract for a large number of engines and serious investments in the "marine order" line. No other way. The plant belongs to Trangsmashholding, not the Russian Navy. And he works exactly the same way and on how and what Transmashholding needs.
    To avoid any doubts, I advise you to go to the Kolomzavod page
    https://www.kolomnadiesel.com/catalog/diesels/section_detail.php?SECTION_ID=16
    and make sure that he does not consider the naval order as a field of activity. And D49 diesels are manufactured by:
    For the modernization of diesel locomotives
    For NPP
    For power plants
    For the construction of new locomotives

    Therefore, of course, it is necessary that Kolomensky Zavod continue to work on import substitution - if they succeed with the 49th series, then it will not be left without orders.


    Captain Evidence, compared to the author of the article, is a teenager darting about in doubt. :)
    Once again and very clearly: Kolomzavod DOES NOT DEPEND on the naval order. And he will not work on anything for the sake of the fleet. If the fleet needs its diesel engines, the admirals must already now run electric trains between Kolomna and Moscow with regularity, carefully satisfying the plant's requests for re-equipment of production. But I haven't seen anything like it yet. :)

    Opportunity "Kolomensky Zavod" will be a retreat to a lower technological level.

    No. This opportunity for the fleet will be the transition to what they will give. However, even now, thanks to the "foresight" of the admirals, he is sitting in the "engine pit" and is content with a motor developed in the 60s. Yes Yes. The D-49 diesel engine was developed over 50 years ago, and I want to inform the author that for more than half a century the plant somehow managed without foreign components :) And 16D49 (wow!) is also produced with a domestic turbocharger TK6 (TK-38). Only two of them are needed for 6000 hp. In exactly the same way, pistons and cylinders and shafts were made in Kolomna. Now the plant is 3/4 idle. And if the fleet wants to get a domestic diesel of high power, it is OBLIGED by hook or by crook to revive "unnecessary" production units at the plant. Otherwise, it will continue to walk around the world with a cap, beg for a diesel engine for poverty.
    Please understand me correctly, I am not writing this out of malice and malice, but to dispel the "diamond dust" that comes through in the article. And return the author not the Earth. The harsh reality is that NOBODY will do ANYTHING for the sake of the fleet now. NOT PROFITABLE, NOT PROMISING, DOES NOT MEET THE PROFILE. The Navy must radically reconsider its attitude towards manufacturers, which they didn’t give a damn about in the 90s, and whom they humiliated in the 2000s.

    Here, in theory, the state should come into play, and not by imposing repression on the plant, which in the future may start to miss the deadlines, but by helping to circumvent sanctions. Our special services are not at all in such a state that such activities have reliable chances of success, but the issue needs to be resolved somehow.


    No. To begin with, the fleet must decide on a SERIES. I repeat, no one will do anything for the sake of 2 diesel engines a year. We need unification. If you want Kolomna diesel engines, make a ship engine building center on the basis of the idle capacities of Kolomzavod. Issue performance characteristics, distribute kicks and cracks to ship designers, create a single power plant, the circulation of which will be dozens of engines a year. And provide the plant with a load for 10-15 years ahead. Indeed, after the 2000s, no one can be sure that the admirals will again not commit a "feint with their ears" by rushing to buy diesel engines from the Germans, again leaving domestic producers with debts and without an order. And then the state can already take care to subsidize the finished plan and finance the project and somehow get around the sanctions in the supply of the necessary equipment. The trouble is that the re-equipment of the plant began in 1991-1992 and, of course, did not take place. The plant operates on equipment, to put it mildly, not the most sophisticated.
    And now what to finance? What to care about? Transmshholding, energy and gas companies receive their orders regularly. They don't need to.

    Naturally, the main task of Kolomna would be the launch of the 500th series. However, with the level of dependence on imports and foreign contractors that this project has, hopes for engine production must be abandoned.

    And the fleet should not have "rolled its lip" on this motor. Alas and ah, but it was also developed in the interests of other customers. For diesel locomotives and generators. And the fate of the 300th and 500th series has nothing to do with the fleet. Not now, not in the future. If Transmashholding wants it, there will be a massive 500th. But he won't go to the ships. Firstly, it was not made for them, in the sense that a gearbox is needed, until they do it ... Secondly, the order was made in the interests of the railway and the Ministry of Energy, and therefore, first of all, the motor will go there. Therefore, for the fleet there is no difference whether there will be a 300th and 500th series or not. The fleet is DOOMED by the decisions of its former leadership to be content with the D-49.

    It is possible that it is time for the Kolomna Plant to start developing an alternative family of diesel engines from scratch.

    Perhaps. But first, it's long. Unfortunately, it is impossible to make such a motor quickly. Secondly, no one will undertake this without a series, the plant belongs to another owner, whose interests are extremely far from military shipbuilding. Thirdly, without a conscious, rather than fussy-stochastic strategy of marine engine building, developing a motor from scratch in the interests of the Navy is sheer unscience fiction.
    1. timokhin-aa
      8 January 2023 04: 42
      0
      I kind of want to agree, Kolomna will do without the Navy, but I remember well how TMH rushed about with a request to remove an article about a diesel engine from the Arsenal of the Fatherland website and, in the person of one of its representatives, even went to deception for this.
      Let's do without names, shall we?

      And 16D49 (oh miracle!) Is also produced with a domestic turbocharger TK6 (TK-38). Only two of them are needed for 6000 hp


      No, there is a pair from ABB + for 6000 hp. And you can also remember such a brand as SIPAVAG. Should it be publicly disclosed?

      And so, yes, it’s time for the naval ones to shoot.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 12 January 2023 00: 39
        0
        Quote: timokhin-aa
        No, there is a pair from ABB + for 6000 hp. And you can also remember such a brand as SIPAVAG. Should it be publicly disclosed?


        What is put there now is a purely second question. I'm talking about what was there and can be installed in the process of replacement.


        Alexander, you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about the fact that tomorrow you can replace imported equipment 1-in-1. I'm talking about the fact that the D-29 is so old that the entire body kit was once made for it. And the mistake was that instead of improving the existing equipment, imports began to be installed on the power plants of warships. Probably, it seemed to someone that doing their own is not necessary, why feed the workers and engineers, if you can cut the loot between managers?

        And with casting in Kolomna, not everything is so bad. There were also TWO large machine-building enterprises and both had foundries and forging shops. Both at Kolomzavod and at the ZTS it is quite possible to revive both casting and forging, instead of feeding Europeans with orders. I repeat, since the 50s, Kolomna has been making D-49s without any imports, and if anyone was puzzled by maintaining production, one foundry and forge shop could be staffed with top-class professionals from two factories. Yes, a foundry is still operating at ZTS. I'm ashamed to say that it produces, but cast iron is poured. And in front of the entrance, until recently, "" unsuccessful swimming trunks of the past, ingrown into the ground, were lying like a monument to the past.

        Quote: timokhin-aa
        TMH rushed about with a request to remove an article about a diesel engine from the Arsenal of the Fatherland website and, in the person of one of its representatives, even went to deceit for this


        So one thing is the work of the PR department, and another is the loading of production. It is clear that no one will simply take and send a fleet. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the fact that it is not interesting for the plant to DEVELOP the topic of ship diesel, especially at an accelerated pace. In the same place, in the design work, emphasis was placed on "international cooperation."
    2. Clone
      Clone 9 January 2023 14: 14
      0
      I think it is not necessary to be so unambiguous about the position of the plant and its management. The plant will take the "position" that the President and the situation on the "fronts" will require ...
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 12 January 2023 00: 42
        0
        Quote: Clone
        I think it is not necessary to be so unambiguous about the position of the plant and its management. The plant will take the "position" that the President and the situation on the "fronts" will require ...


        Do you think someone in Kolomna will regret that the plant and design bureau will be launched at 100% capacity? Now, if tomorrow Putin announces the nationalization of the enterprise and the creation of a Russian center for heavy thermal engine building on its basis, do you think people will run to Kazakhstan to hide? Yes, even those who are retired will gather at the plant. This is a local legend, the firstborn of Russian engineering, the pride and pain of the whole city.
        So after all, they won’t announce it, and they won’t create it. Because, the further, the more I get the impression that the naval authorities have chosen the tactics of "we will sit out." Moreover, the fleet after "Moscow" is actually used as a fixed missile battery, and it does not need to go anywhere. And there you look, the crab-bearers think, and again it will be possible to go to the Germans to lick your ass, buy a diesel engine. Well, yes, exorbitant prices, but not from your own pocket!
        That is why I am writing that a radical revision of the shipbuilding program is needed, and a political, fundamental and categorical ban on the use of foreign-made power units for warships (so that the developers do not even have the thought of sticking a "German" into the new project. Let them better refine their brains on the issue long series) and development of own productions.
        And if you just put the plant upside down, I assure you, NOTHING good will appear in the engine compartments of the ships of our fleet.
  46. Dmitry Chelyabinsk
    Dmitry Chelyabinsk 9 January 2023 23: 13
    0
    We started building such a project, 12441, which is just the size of an ocean corvette. It only differs from the concept of the "ocean corvette" in that it is fully armed, there are practically no unused volumes.
  47. ramzay21
    ramzay21 10 January 2023 11: 33
    0
    Great article! Thanks to the author! And the example of the Black Sea Fleet, which lost several warships, including the RRC Moscow and the abandonment of Snake Island for everyone who is friends with the head confirms your innocence
  48. yakyu20
    yakyu20 11 January 2023 05: 25
    0
    Dear Timokhin, the ship you described is slightly larger than project 22350 - this is exactly project 22350m according to information in open sources: displacement 7000t, power plant from M-70FR (U) and M-90FR, more missiles than 22350, two helicopters and UAV. And OCD has been going on it since at least 2019 (that is, already 4 years). And whether you want to admit it or not, they thought about replacing 22350 much earlier than this article was published. Another question is why there are still no significant results. And here I agree with you - the implementation of an adequate ship design (namely, the implementation, not the idea) is a challenge for our bureaucracy, perhaps even overwhelming.
    In general, articles on the range of engines and dimensions of ships that can be built with such engines have existed for more than a year. For example, an article by Skomorokhov (https://topwar.ru/184431-otchet-odk-tihaja-radost-s-nebolshim-voprosom.html) dated June 28, 2021. It is an analysis of the JEC report.
    1. timokhin-aa
      18 January 2023 11: 59
      0
      And whether you want to admit it or not, they thought about replacing 22350 much earlier than this article was published. Another question is why there are still no significant results.


      Yash has no significant results because the project has long been stopped until better times.
      And no one there promised two helicopters to anyone.

      In general, articles on the range of engines and dimensions of ships that can be built with such engines have existed for more than a year. For example - Skomorokhov's article (https://topwar.ru/184431-otchet-odk-tihaja-radost-s-nebolshim-voprosom.html)


      We put diesel out of the brackets, they are not interesting to us and do not affect anything?

      Before you speak out with such aplomb, you need to become someone, Yasha.