Better a small rocket ship in the ranks than a destroyer in the project

With all the wealth of choice, the alternative to "mosquito the fleet" not yet

From birth in 1967, the 1234 project turned out to be extremely controversial and elevated to the absolute the Soviet desire for specialized ships - it was not for nothing that a separate class was created specifically for it. Unprecedented "ship hunters" immediately attracted the attention of military experts from around the world, who vigorously discussed the question: what is the Soviet "toothy kid" really - a "gun at the temple of capitalism" or an easy target?

These disputes do not subside even today, when the domestic fleet is at a crossroads: whether to continue the Soviet tradition or go to the Western paradigm of multifunctional ships?

Our fleet inherited 15 small missile ships (RTOs) from the Soviet Union: 13 Project 12341 RTGs and two Project 1239 air cushion RTOs. The distribution of hulls by fleet looks like this: three for the Northern Fleet, four for the Pacific Fleet, four for the BF and four on the Black Sea Fleet (two ships of project 12341 and two ships of project 1239). As a result, today this class of ships is one of the most numerous in the fleet. It is noteworthy that all to one are in service. Nevertheless, the need for these ships is the subject of much controversy and controversy. Many people believe that in the modern concept of the fleet such highly specialized ships should be replaced by multi-purpose corvettes. The combat effectiveness of RTOs under conditions of powerful electronic warfare and the enemy’s assault aviation. In addition, today the tasks of RTOs can be performed in the same way by fighter-bomber aircraft and coastal missile systems. How justified are these doubts and has the RTO century really come to an end?

Advantages and disadvantages

First you need to understand the advantages and disadvantages of small rocket ships, applying them to modern realities.

The first and most basic advantage is powerful rocket armament. The main caliber of the 1234 project - six P-120 “Malachite” missiles reach speeds of M = 1 and have the maximum range to 150 kilometers, the active radar guidance system with an “insure” IR sensor. Having a powerful warhead (warhead) and impressive speed, these missiles are able to destroy rather large ships, such as a destroyer (EM) and, with several hits, even a missile cruiser (RKR). For example, in the course of the Crimea-76 exercises, two missiles were enough to sink the decommissioned destroyer of the 30 project bis with a displacement of 2300 tons, thereby demonstrating the excellent pointing accuracy. An important advantage is the relatively large ammunition, allowing to produce massive volleys.

However, the P-120 has significant shortcomings. First of all, it can be noted that the launch range is insufficient compared to some classmates, for example, with its closest competitors, Exocet and Harpoon, it is 180 and 315 kilometers, respectively. In addition, a considerable size of the rocket itself imposes considerable restrictions: on the experimental Nakat MRC of the 1234.7 project armed with relatively small P-800 Onyx missiles, it was possible to place twice as many launchers. Further, the ability to use weapons at the maximum range depends on reliable target designation (CC). The capabilities of the on-board radar do not allow to give a clear target control at extreme ranges, therefore it was initially assumed that the MRK would receive more accurate information from reconnaissance aircraft Tu-95РЦ and other ships.

The next undeniable advantage of the 1234 project is its excellent speed and mobility. The relatively small displacement and powerful engine allows it to reach maximum speed in 35 knots along with good agility. In combination with relatively large autonomy of navigation (10 days), this gives IRC advantages both at the operational level - you can quickly transfer combat units to the right directions, and in battle, where good maneuverability allows, for example, to dodge a torpedo or first to take a position for missile launch. However, these qualities inherited from the boat turn into a very mediocre seaworthiness. Nevertheless, for actions in the coastal and near-ocean zone, it is quite sufficient.

And one more important factor is the production one. The 1234 project ships are relatively inexpensive, can be built at almost any military shipyard capable of producing a ship with a displacement of up to one thousand tons, and the construction period under extraordinary circumstances and the strain of all capabilities will be within three to four months. This combination favorably distinguishes RTOs from all other classes, excluding only boats.

But along with these advantages, RTOs are not without very significant drawbacks.

The first and most important is the almost complete defenselessness of such a ship from air attacks. Of the anti-aircraft artillery armament, there is only one six-barreled 30-mm AK-630 unit and one 76-mm AK-176 (highly conventional as an air defense system), and from the missile system Osa-M, having a range of no more 10 kilometers. As experience shows, including real combat, the likelihood of interception of an enemy anti-ship missile (PKR) by these means is small, not to mention the possibility of directly dealing with strike aircraft.

The second drawback is the low survivability of the IRAs: as the tragic experience of the “Monsoon” that died in the training exercises when the P-15 rocket hit an inert warhead showed, the ship is very fire-hazardous due to the hull material - an aluminum-magnesium alloy. Small sizes cause insufficient buoyancy and margin of safety. As a result, many people consider RTOs to be “one-time” ships - by one salvo.

Application possibilities

Paradoxically, for all its narrow specialization, the small rocket ship of the 1234 project is relatively universal.

In the context of a large-scale conflict in the ocean theater, several options for the use of RTOs are possible. By virtue of their powerful weapons, these ships are able to support the overcoming of the air defense of a large enemy naval compound, making a significant contribution by launching six P-120 missiles. Using their speed and mobility, IRAs can act within the framework of the tactic "hit and run away", making sudden attacks on transport convoys, landing craft and destroyers of the PLO and ABM. And yet - maybe escort and protection of their own convoys.

All these three options rest against the already indicated shortcoming: the firing range. It is difficult to assume that the MRK will be able to approach, for example, the carrier-based strike group a distance of 120 kilometers and survive: even on the approaches it will be guaranteed to be detected and destroyed by deck aircraft, unlike carriers of large PKRs of the P-500 and P-700 type capable of firing over 500 kilometers. The second tactic also has vulnerabilities. The first of these could be the return fire of more long-range anti-ship missiles (for example, widely used on NATO ships “Harpoon”). The presence of a helicopter armed with short-range anti-ship missiles (Penguin and Sea Skua missiles can be launched at 28 and 25 kilometers, respectively) is possible on board destroyers and escort frigates. As noted above, the anti-aircraft capabilities of a small rocket ship are not enough to ensure that such an attack is repelled. A similar situation develops with the use of short-distance radio communications in defense: in modern conditions, an attack on a convoy will be made with high probability with the help of attack aircraft. Effectively deal with this threat can only their own fighter-interceptors.

But the main factor limiting the use of a small rocket ship under the conditions described is the need for accurate target designation and, therefore, active interaction with other parts of the fleet, including under conditions of powerful radio-electronic suppression. For full-fledged work, it is necessary to provide early warning or support of a larger surface ship, which is armed with a target designator helicopter.

Coastal defense can become another logical role for ISCs. In many ways, ships of this type fit well with the requirements for a patrolman: good artillery weapons, decent speed, autonomy. However, as the sailors say, for such tasks, the ISCs with their missile weapons are “redundant” - there are enough missile boats and small artillery ships to protect the sea border.

All of these concepts originate in the 70s of the last century, when small rocket ships were created. Today, all of the above tasks can be performed by the Air Force. For attack missions, light cruise missiles X-31 and X-35 have been created, which are suspended even on light fighters. Moreover, the X-31 product exceeds the P-120 both in speed (M = 2) and in range (160 kilometers). The X-35 “Uranus” missile is capable of reaching the target along a combined trajectory, has a smaller size, which makes it possible to increase the ammunition and produce more massive salvos, and also provides a smaller effective dispersion surface (ESR). Coastal defense against a serious enemy, which will be too hard for a missile boat (RCA) and a small artillery ship (MAC), can be produced by coastal missile systems and the same aircraft. There are several factors on the side of the air force: less vulnerability to the enemy’s oncoming fire (let us recall that the range of aviation anti-ship missiles does not allow the enemy to enter the enemy’s air defense zone), greater speed and mobility, no need to spend a long time in the threatened zone, and flexibility multifunctionality.

Many believe that the shortcomings of the RTOs are devoid of modern projects of multifunctional corvettes, combining the strike power of the 1234 project with a developed air defense system, capabilities for maintaining air defense, the presence of a helicopter, better survivability and navigability. In this way, almost all countries that had armament analogues of IRCs went: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany withdrew 90, 25, 20 and 15 units of missile boats from the Navy for 20 for the years. Instead, they put into operation exactly the corvettes of increased displacement. Moreover, a corvette with antisubmarine bias is also preferable for domestic realities, since in our vast territorial waters it is the enemy’s submarines that pose the greatest potential threat. Acting together with aviation, such corvettes (being built in sufficient quantities, of course) will be able to significantly reduce the danger.

As a result, it turns out that small rocket ships are indeed out of work: today more sophisticated means of destruction of enemy ships, capable of attacking faster and more efficiently, have been created. However, everything is not as clear as it seems at first glance.

To begin with, the MRC is a very unpretentious ship. A few floating piers, a fuel depot and an electrical network are sufficient for arranging a temporary base station. The modern strike aircraft, however, needs a much more developed infrastructure, not to mention the fact that the airfield is the primary target for the attack, and therefore, when conducting combat operations, it is likely to require frequent repairs. Further, the aircraft cannot, like a ship, conduct long-term passive tracking of a target during a period of heightened opposition or a potential enemy ship’s invasion of territorial waters (recall the incident with the American cruiser Yorktown in 1988). The main thing is the possibility of immediately striking the target when such an order is received, and in advance, the IRC will have an advantage over the aircraft that has just taken off from the base.

But the decisive factor is that today, compared to new projects of corvettes and, to a lesser extent, fighter-bombers, small missile ships have been fully developed weapons the complex, well-developed tactical techniques, there are trained staffs that provide structures and full-fledged ship formations.

In other words, the 1234 project is a very reliable and proven ship, guaranteed to be able to perform its tasks with maximum efficiency. Quite another thing - the corvettes of the project 20380, which are still a novelty - as the ship class itself, which did not exist in the Soviet naval doctrine, and from the point of view of the established weapons, not yet run-in exercises.

Without in any way denying the need to move ahead and build ships of a new generation, it must be admitted that now Russia needs a combat ready and equipped with all necessary MRCs than a completely new, but undeveloped, corvette. Of course, it is senseless to continue building old Soviet projects, but it is also impossible to simply leave the accumulated experience gained overboard. The best way out seems to be a significant increase in the potential of already existing buildings through upgrading with the installation of, for example, Onyx missiles in the 2x9 variant, the Kashtan TYPE and new electronic equipment. Sailors would not refuse from an unmanned aerial vehicle for reconnaissance and target designation. The preferred measure would be to build up a group of RTOs by producing a modernized version. For example, the capacities of the Eastern Shipyard and the shipbuilding firm Almaz can produce up to four MRK per year. This measure will help plug significant gaps in the maritime defense, including in the middle sea zone, which is not covered by lighter ships. In the future, with proper modernization of shipyards and the development of the production of ISCs at the end of their service life, they should be replaced with corvettes, provided that the number of new ships will at least not yield to sludge.

Of course, one cannot keep silent about the relatively new IRC of the 21631 “Buyan-M” project, which represents the development of the river IAC of the 21630 “Buyan” project. Armed with UVP for eight Caliber or Onyx missiles, as well as 100-mm AU A-190M and 30-mm AK-630М1-2, it is nevertheless not an alternative to the heavier 1234 project, since it can operate exclusively in the near marine zone. But precisely in cooperation, these two types of RTOs can ensure an acceptable level of security for our borders and economic zones.

Summing up, let's say that today our fleet needs, first of all, a completely clear and well-thought-out concept of combat operations, which ensures the formulation of tasks and requirements for each class of ships. And although the interaction systems of old specialized ships with new ones built according to the Western model have not been worked out, it is at least unwise to ignore the remaining IRAs from the USSR. Do not forget that the combat effectiveness of these ships was confirmed during the "five-day war" in South Ossetia. Under current conditions, when the fate of the fleet is still unclear, it is better to rely only on proven and reliable solutions and, as a result, several old IRAs may be preferable to the mythical prospective destroyer.
Our news channels

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

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    5 December 2012 07: 38
    I agree completely about the soundness of the concept. In the meantime, there is a desire to make money regardless of quality, compliance with modern requirements and logic ...
  2. +6
    5 December 2012 07: 47
    Perhaps a tit in the hands is better than a duck under the bed, but Russia's ocean-going fleet is indispensable. The "five-day war" in South Ossetia is not an indicator of the effectiveness of RTOs, especially since their enemy was in the form of boats of the coastal zone. No need for extremes, a full-fledged fleet, in any case, implies an integrated approach. If we don't think about the prospects now, living only in the present, we will lag behind forever. It's a shame when a country like ours rejoices at every "Rook" as "the last Honduras".
  3. +2
    5 December 2012 08: 09
    So far, a titmouse in our hands is better than a crane in the sky. Although looking, how to consider this saying in the context of this article.
  4. +1
    5 December 2012 08: 32
    In battle, a squadron of "malachite" does not pull well. And it’s antiquity. And you can fight boats with junks like "Makhachkala"
  5. +3
    5 December 2012 08: 34
    "Yes, I can, if necessary, and the aircraft carrier to the bottom! .. Well, if you're lucky, of course" ... (phrase from the movie "Features of national fishing")

    On the one hand, it is logical - it is easier, cheaper and faster to put ships of the MRK class into production, and with their help compensate for the current shortage of ships of I and II rank ... Helicopters and aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles can insure such a "mosquito fleet" .. ...
    But on the other hand, this is just a temporary measure that can only help for the first five to seven, a great maximum of ten years. And then (or rather, during this time!) We need to either seriously engage in the creation of a strong ocean fleet with the mandatory presence of new aircraft carriers and destroyers (light cruisers and BODs), or completely forget about the status of a sea power. Personally, I am exclusively for the first option ...
  6. Vito
    5 December 2012 08: 35
    Well, for me personally, the question is not worth it, to continue the SOVIET heritage or how to build multifunctional ships in Western countries.
    Of course, multifunction should be produced. The future lies precisely with such ships, and the faster our officials and leaders realize this, the better for us all!
    Well, about the possibilities of quick construction, sufficient funding, and finally about the personnel who will decide and produce all this, about the capacities and technical capabilities of our shipbuilding, I will remain modestly silent.
    What a vicious circle!
  7. YARY
    5 December 2012 08: 36
    The article is good but, the main thing is not said, secrecy!
    Until the MRK approaches the distance of the visible horizon, and turns on the electronics to determine that this is a "hunter" and not a fishing laiba, it is not possible.

    I don’t know how now with this business.
    1. Kavtorang
      5 December 2012 09: 17
      But nothing has changed. Like the Libyans in 1986. MRK project 1234E, sneaking up with a disguise as a felucca, two turns of the radar and then two anti-ship missiles "Harpoon" in the side. 15 minutes and curtain. With the whole crew.
      1. PLO
        5 December 2012 09: 21
        RTOs are not a child prodigy capable of drowning cruisers and destroyers alone.
        he can reveal his potential completely exclusively in interaction with other types of troops, in particular with aviation
  8. PLO
    5 December 2012 08: 42
    controversial article
    it’s clear that the armament of these ships is now outdated, although at one time it was excellent and modern

    it would be better if the author appreciated the current capabilities of the concept of such ships, in addition, the author in the article has an unfortunate blunder

    Of course, one should not be silent about the relatively new interregional missile system of project 21631 Buyan-M, which is the development of the river IAC of project 21630 Buyan. Armed with an air-launching system for eight Caliber or Onyx missiles, as well as the 100-mm A-190M and 30-mm AK-630M1-2 missiles, it nevertheless is not an alternative to the heavier project 1234

    just Buyan-M (949t) is heavier than 1234th (700t)

    but in general I think that you need one ship near the marine zone to replace the MRK 1234 and MPK 1124, no matter what you call it a corvette or a guard ship with a full w / and not more than 1500 t
    Fortunately, the Caliber complex allows you to flexibly change its weapons for shock or anti-submarine missions
    1. +1
      5 December 2012 12: 40
      Different ships that overlap the sectors of responsibility are NOT absolutely needed. + Features of the water area.
      Therefore, all ships are made under certain conditions and requirements.
      But I like the line of ships. The most important thing is to build faster
      1. PLO
        5 December 2012 17: 01
        But I like the line of ships. The most important thing is to build faster

        I can not agree
        Buyan-M I do not like the lack of sane self-defense

        if for the Caspian it will still be adequate, then for the Black Sea Fleet and especially the other fleets, the absence of ASG and SAM makes this project ill-conceived
        especially since there is still no ship to replace the IPC 1124
        1. +1
          5 December 2012 17: 20
          if for the Caspian it will still be adequate, then for the Black Sea Fleet and especially the other fleets, the absence of ASG and SAM makes this project ill-conceived
          you do not try to shove the uncanny. Buyan-M is an arms platform which, in case of problems, covers more serious uncles. ECgo task at hour X to release all the rockets. And if there will be no cover for large uncles, then a strong air defense and hack are not necessary.
          1. PLO
            5 December 2012 17: 31
            you do not try to shove the uncanny. Buyan-M is an arms platform which, in case of problems, covers more serious uncles. ECgo task at hour X to release all the rockets. And if there will be no cover for large uncles, then a strong air defense and hack are not necessary.

            nevertheless, in August 2008, the two BDKs were not accompanied by large uncles (Savvy, Inquisitive or Ladny), but by the MRK Mirage and the MPK Suzdalets
            and thank God that the battle (as it turned out later) was not with the missile boats of Georgia, which were malfunctioning and quietly rusting at the pier, but with the ships of the Bohr who insolently decided to remove the sonar buoy under the nose of our ships.
            The Mirage released 2 Malachite and 1 Osa Zur, after which the Wasp launchers jammed, and if the Georgian RCAs still fired at these ships, there would be nothing to defend against the RCC, so even small ships need self-defense air defense systems

            in the same dimensions of the wasp decks below the deck, now you can easily put in the UVP pieces of 20 for small 9M338k missiles or the new 9M100 with a range of 20km, which are currently being developed

            and if you increase, for example, 1234 / 500th tons by XNUMX tons, you can also organize a towed gas generator and a jump platform for a PLO helicopter

            by the way we had a similar project
            CANCER 12300

            in / and full 465t

  9. Brother Sarych
    5 December 2012 08: 53
    Not a specialist, but it seems to me that today the main problem is not the weapons platform, but the weapons themselves! We need new missiles, anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft defense, with much higher characteristics and acceptable in size and cost ...
    Yes, and with traditional guns, as it turned out, there are big problems ...
    Ships can be blinded, only with what to arm them? Ships are built so that they carry weapons and can use it effectively, and not for cruises ...
    1. +1
      5 December 2012 12: 45
      Well at the moment, problems 2
      This is an art installation and polymer redoubt for corvettes 20385 and frigates 22350
      Gauges are quite suitable for patching.
      1. PLO
        5 December 2012 17: 54
        This is an art installation and polymer redoubt for corvettes 20385 and frigates 22350

        now the A-190 shoots quite normally
        there are problems with the A-192 for the 22350th
        there are still problems with Redoubt (without polymer, this is the problem) for 20380
        at 20385 they say there will already be a truncated version of the polymer (3 canvases instead of 4 and removed altitude)

        Well, with the polymer-redoubt for 22350 problems have not yet been observed (pah)
        1. PLO
          5 December 2012 18: 01
          that's the way the 20385th and 20380th
          watercolor by V.M. Antonov

          1. Vito
            5 December 2012 18: 24
            Excellent technique for mastering watercolor!
            Thank you, I really liked it! good
  10. Kavtorang
    5 December 2012 09: 33
    "... The best way out is a significant increase in the potential of the existing hulls through modernization with the installation of, for example, Onyx missiles in the 2x9 version, the Kashtan air defense missile system and new electronic equipment. Sailors would not refuse from an unmanned aerial vehicle for reconnaissance and target designation ... "
    This is the author’s appetite fellow ... The price tag will be such that two Tarantulas are easier to build.
    Yes, and RTOs in 3-4 months ... They were even built in the Soviet Union for three years. For example, the now famous "Mirage": laid down on 30.08.1983/30.12.1986/XNUMX, commissioned on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX.
    1. PLO
      5 December 2012 09: 41
      But do they need to be modernized?
      the hulls are old, the layout is out of date.

      it’s much more profitable to build a new multi-purpose patrol instead of the 1234th and 1124th
      and 4-8 pieces per fleet

      For example, the now famous "Mirage": laid down on 30.08.1983/30.12.1986/XNUMX, commissioned on XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX.

      here by the way the Mirage in August 2008
  11. +1
    5 December 2012 09: 42
    And I’ll tell you so, dear ones, there was such a direction as ekranoplanes. Why did you ask, I’ll say, because now it’s not. The combat ekranoplans are, in my opinion, better than the MRK. More mobile (600-800 km \ h in a meter above the water), poorly visible to radars (without any stealth technology), invulnerable to torpedoes, if properly developed, they can (could) carry a huge amount of missile weapons. The volley of one such dragon (as they were called by the NATO) and there is no more carrier group. The beauty! That's just what happened to him, too, as with the ECIP device. They were destroyed not by the enemy, but by their traitors without any explosive equipment and weapons, with a stroke of the pen. Supplement-not a weapon wins, a soldier wins. Do not throw RTOs, the very true title of the article.
    1. PLO
      5 December 2012 09: 45
      ekranoplan thing certainly excellent, but highly specialized
      a kind of sea interceptor

      it is difficult to carry a BS on it, and there can be no talk about PLO and air defense
      1. +1
        5 December 2012 13: 00
        Quote: olp
        it is difficult to carry a BS on it, and there can be no talk about PLO and air defense

        Everything is developing, but this car didn’t have such a chance.
    2. 0
      5 December 2012 12: 39
      Quote: dimyan
      The volley of one such dragon (as they were called by the NATO) and there is no more carrier group.

      belay come up with yourself?
      1. +1
        5 December 2012 12: 58
        Well, here's how to talk to you. What are you. do not know how to read "WITH PROPER DEVELOPMENT COULD CARRY A HUGE STOCK OF ROCKETS" And yes, look in the network for a video with a volley from an ekranoplan, do not be lazy. Everything speaks for itself.
        1. 0
          5 December 2012 18: 35
          And do you really think that the ekranoplan has enough rockets qualitatively and quantitatively to sink 10 large (and one of them huge) ships in one gulp, breaking through their powerful air defense? And I still close my eyes to the fact that he needs to come up somehow without dying at a salvo distance.
          1. -1
            5 December 2012 19: 42
            I am absolutely sure that ekranoplanes as a type of weapon have a great future. When investing in development and improvement, they can be used as a platform for a lot of things. It is very difficult to get into it, like from the air. and overcame, anti-ship missiles are not afraid of him. If 3-4 vehicles enter firing positions, this is very serious. Having increased the carrying capacity (for a design idea, a huge field), you can hang something more serious than a "mosquito" on it. You can also add "mosquitoes", a massive volley will not withstand more than one air defense. The platform is unique in its characteristics. And the air defense of the "Western partners" is not as powerful as you think. Well, when interacting with aviation and the fleet, crushing an aircraft carrier group is not so difficult. The Maginot Line was also considered impregnable. And she was simply bypassed. Where some see hopelessness, others see opportunity.
            1. +1
              5 December 2012 21: 53
              Do you know why there is no normal weapon against ekranoplanes? Because there are no ekranoplanes themselves. Respectively, no weapons are needed against them either. And I don’t see anything difficult to create a rocket capable of hitting ekranoplanes. A usual explosive rocket with a contact fuse, more powerful Warhead and the ability to work on targets at a minimum height. One rocket - and the ekranoplane will not take off anywhere. Again, it can be detected almost 1000 km from the AUG. Its stupid pilots from airplanes will bark even before it is at a distance volley flies up.
              Quote: dimyan
              not one air defense can stand a massive salvo

              How massive is the salvo? I would not mind if you cited any facts and figures by which to judge how many weapons fit on one ekranoplan. The air defense ships in the AUG are also far from one or two.
              1. 0
                5 December 2012 22: 45
                How hard it is with you. Read and understand what has been read (written twice in large print), and then with reasoning. Such a feeling as if I’m really talking with the BOY. (By the way, the boy is a circumcised boy. He always could not stand the punks).
                1. 0
                  5 December 2012 23: 41
                  with proper development wassat Yes, you’re my friend’s dreamer, can we talk about the fact that with the proper development of economics and science, you can make a ship fly into space? I also have an argument.
                  But the punks didn’t please you? Does that take away cigarettes? wassat
                  1. +1
                    6 December 2012 00: 08
                    Here is just no need to minus. And I just hate punks. I had to drive very badly ... s. Gopnik juveniles, and not only. And I learned to argue long ago, back in school. If you really do not know how to read and do not understand what you are reading, then you do not need to shine with stupidity. We learned from the older comrades from the forum - numbers, numbers, but the conversation is not about them. I had one teacher, a wonderful person. In such cases, he said: "Read the code, mikitki, everything is written there."
                    1. 0
                      6 December 2012 13: 17
                      Minusanul for the transition to personalities. As for the numbers, I suggested that you convince me of the effectiveness of ekranoplanes, confirming with your numbers or facts your words that they are able to deal effectively with ACG with numbers. You refused. Conclusion - your statements are nothing more than a fart in flour .
                      And yet, mind you, you didn’t justify your words, but you dare to say that I don’t know how to read, drag in some cropped boys, etc.
                      1. 0
                        6 December 2012 16: 02
                        For me to justify. do not. I'm talking about things that could be improved further, but you did not understand this. (I tell you that the nickname speaks for itself. The subconscious cannot be fooled) What can be added here. Absolutely nothing! I have always been for OUR RUSSIAN EMPIRE. It cannot be moved by the plebeians. And if you talk like you, then you can immediately give up, and shout like in that movie (guess which one) "FOR RENT".
                      2. 0
                        6 December 2012 17: 27
                        Quote: dimyan
                        I'm talking about what could be improved further, but you did not understand this.

                        And I’m talking about the fact that your statement, saying that an ekranoplane can make AUG in one gulp, is farting into flour. And there really is nothing to add.
                        Quote: dimyan
                        I tell you that the nickname speaks for itself. The subconscious cannot be fooled

                        How does my nickname relate to the topic of conversation? Do you even know what this word means, or just decided to show off a little gyrus here?

                        Quote: dimyan
                        And if you talk like you, then you can immediately give up, and shout like in that movie (guess which one) "FOR RENT".

                        How am I - it's like? In my opinion, it's better to be realistic than to send one T-90 against a whole brigade of Abrams with the words "this is a T-90, he's ours, so he will crush their entire brigade," as you would do.
                      3. -1
                        6 December 2012 23: 10
                        Do not distort. Only those who are unable to understand their own errors and errors do this. They pretend to be right and very smart. Although this is their main misconception.
                      4. -1
                        7 December 2012 13: 02
                        You don’t have to breed demagoguery, either speak on the topic or don’t speak at all. If you want to discuss my personality, you can try creating a separate article on it.
                      5. -1
                        7 December 2012 15: 36
                        Your personality is deeply, to put it mildly, indifferent to me. You yourself got into something that you do not initially understand. And you just litter the "ether".
                      6. 0
                        7 December 2012 15: 39
                        Quote: dimyan
                        I am deeply indifferent to your personality, to put it mildly.

                        You have already dedicated 4 posts to her.

                        Quote: dimyan
                        You yourself got into what you did not understand initially.

                        But at the same time, the arguments ended with you, and you passed on to the person here.
                        But I don’t understand what I mean - well, naturally, I don’t understand anything about the fantasies and other schizos that walk in your head.
                      7. -1
                        7 December 2012 20: 38
                        At first I wrote (especially for the stupid) in large print that the technique needed to be developed, and in the future it could become an indestructible weapon. You didn't get it. They began to carry some kind of nonsense. I would find the arguments for you. Yes, meaning. Further, I have nothing to talk about with you at all. Learn to read . And yes, not "your personality", but your stupidity. Well this is how much time I spend on a narrow-minded person. With you I stop, as normal people do in such cases, communication.
                      8. 0
                        7 December 2012 21: 20
                        What a miserable and wretched person. Inability to confirm and argue your words (although yes, it would be something to argue, otherwise there are just dreams and fairy tales, in fact there is nothing) you are trying to compensate by pathetic attempts to hurt me. I don’t even know what you can I help, is lobotomy suitable?
  12. Kavtorang
    5 December 2012 10: 09
    Quote: olp
    ekranoplan thing certainly excellent, but highly specialized

    Recently there were two not indisputable, but interesting articles about ekranoplanes with a massive shit in the comments.
    You, presumably, about "Lun" - there were no other drums in metal. "Lun" fired once with a two-rocket salvo. So what about the interceptor - just a theory.
    The combat effectiveness of two missile boats 1241-1 (aka "Molniya-1", aka "Tarantul") or the discussed RTOs is not lower, but to the text of the article - WHO WILL GIVE THEM A PURPOSE what
    1. PLO
      5 December 2012 10: 18
      "Lun" fired once with a two-rocket salvo. So what about the interceptor - just a theory.

      yes about Lun
      if I’m not mistaken, I only shot blanks

      but to the text of the article - WHO WILL GIVE THEM PURPOSE

      RTOs are primarily intended for operations in the near sea zone, therefore, problems with the issuance of ATs by AWACS should not arise and the shock potential of RTOs can be fully realized
    2. YARY
      5 December 2012 16: 23
      ttp: // feature = player_embedded "% 20framebor
      der = "0"% 20allowfullscreen> ]
      Here familiarize the profane.
    3. YARY
      5 December 2012 16: 26

      For those who want (REALLY WANTS) to know at least something about the Alekseevsky miracle.
      1. +3
        5 December 2012 17: 55
        Back to the Future. And on the ridge "Awax" for complete happiness.
  13. Vanek
    5 December 2012 10: 38
    Small spool but precious.
  14. Kavtorang
    5 December 2012 10: 39
    Quote: olp
    problems of issuing a control center by AWACS should not arise and it is possible to realize the fully shock potential of RTOs

    Where are they? Where is the A-50, where are the Ka-31s that will fly in their airspace, covered by their air defense and their fighter aircraft. Where are the coastal observation areas?
    Although why ask you - this is Taburetkin and you need to ask someone higher. Preferably at a meeting of the special troika.
    I'm just showing how everything clings to one another. Nearby we have Japan, who walked around the La Perouse Strait will not be allowed to lie. You are spotted far on the way by the Hokai or coastal radars, the Orion is pointing, and then this viper hovers over your head for several hours, and in 30-40 minutes the destroyer will visit. This is a working system.
    Thanks for the video, have not met before hi
    1. PLO
      5 December 2012 10: 42
      Although why ask you - this is Taburetkin and you need to ask someone higher. Preferably at a meeting of the special troika.

      Where are they? Where is the A-50, where are the Ka-31s that will fly in their airspace, covered by their air defense and their fighter aircraft. Where are the coastal observation areas?

      what can I say
      we are powerless here request
      I can only voice the obvious concept, the rest is from a stool and other pasta
  15. +2
    5 December 2012 10: 57
    If we are talking about a mosquito fleet, then we need to say not "small missile ship", but "small warship". We need RTOs armed not only with anti-ship missiles, but separately with RTOs armed with air defense missiles, electronic warfare systems, and anti-aircraft missiles. ArlieBerk has a displacement of 10 Mirages.
    1. Kavtorang
      5 December 2012 11: 18
      There was such a concept, they even tried to start testing by placing the "Kortik" on one of the Black Sea Fleet boats. They did not bring it to mind in connection with the "gorbostroyka". The complex was dismantled.
      Although, here you are: the team in Vladivostok is a battalion of the rk, several mnc and minesweepers. Take, re-equip one unit for air defense and practice the application.
      Do you know why they don’t? There is nobody and almost nothing. The age of the boats is such that they are once again afraid to sneeze. For the time being, I wound around all the ships, each time I was baptized so that through the painted rust I would not fall into the holds. Video from PLO take a look. This is not the worst option.
  16. 0
    5 December 2012 12: 33
    The conclusion is:
    1. Look at all the Soviet developments, there is still a lot of good and necessary things (if you haven’t stolen and haven’t fused over the hill)
    2. The fleet needs to be actively revived, and therefore "all kinds of ships are needed, both large and small" and a LOT! hi
  17. bart74
    5 December 2012 13: 09
    The article is good. I came to the conclusion that, taking into account the improvement of air defense systems, gun mounts and anti-submarine defense systems, RTOs may well be suitable for solving various tasks, both for local protection of remote areas and patrolling, as well as for the fulfillment of missions for the protection of commercial waterways and the fight against piracy. You should not refuse from proven projects, but it is also necessary to develop the OCEAN FLEET. Thanks to the author for an interesting article!
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. PLO
    5 December 2012 22: 07
    80 & hd = 1]

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

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