Shipbuilding - 2012. Time to take stock

101


On the stocks, from the echoing hollow, through the lines no thicker than the cobweb, smooth features appear suddenly, as if on a decal ... And it will take a lot of time and effort for the ship, having got stronger, finally stepped onto the water and stood on an even keel, gently rocking on the waves.

Military shipbuilding is one of the most complex, laborious and expensive industries. It implements the best technologies and the latest developments from related fields of science: engine building, metallurgy and physics of composites, radio electronics, rocket science, precision mechanics ... Quantitative and qualitative composition of the naval fleet - objective indicators of the economic situation in any country (geographical embarrassment a la “Mongolian fleet” or the Swiss Navy - a rare exception to the general rules). The Navy is a symbol of the power and prestige of the armed forces: ships are always in sight, they are huge and beautiful, real Leviathans of our time.
That is why all the events connected with the Navy, be it the launching of a new submarine or the purchase of the Mistral, receive such a wide public response.

During Soviet times, the situation was somewhat different - military shipbuilding was shrouded in mist of secrecy, there were no public discussions on this topic, and there was no need for it: everyone already knew that the Soviet Union fleet was the largest in the world. As for secrecy, let the “probable enemy” wrestle with how many ships we have: 1250 or 1380 (that was exactly the number that 1989 had in the USSR Navy! , to besiege any opponent).
Shipbuilding - 2012. Time to take stock

Launched a new nuclear submarine K-329, in the background you can see the bulk of the superstructure of the preserved nuclear cruiser, pr.1144

The era of the ensuing capitalism, privatized enterprises, holdings and corporations dictates other rules of behavior: shipbuilders are forced to declare all their successes and achievements as loudly as possible. Sometimes this leads to annoying consequences: corrupt officials and unscrupulous contractors deliberately delay construction time and sometimes overestimate the cost of materials and equipment. The explosive mixture of corruption is superimposed on the inevitable technical difficulties in creating a new technology, which ultimately affects the construction time even more.

At the same time, in order to create the illusion of "intense work activity", they are at all angles trumpeting about "great accomplishments", which, upon closer inspection, are completely everyday events that do not require excessive ovations.

Signed a contract to build a frigate! Applause!
The laying of the frigate! Applause!
The frigate is launched! Applause!
Mooring trials took place! Applause!
The frigate went to the factory running tests! Applause!

Usually these events occur at intervals of a year during which everyone forgets the name of the ship and last year’s conversation. As a result, the inexperienced man in the street seems to have added five new ships to the fleet. In fact - one, and he has not yet passed the state tests.

It is worth remembering that story knows thousands of pledged ships that, for various reasons, have never touched the water. A specific example is the nuclear aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk, which was disassembled on the stocks when 18% is ready.
And not every launched ship was completed and accepted into the fleet. A concrete example is the heavy cruiser “Lutzov”, bought in Germany for the Soviet Navy, but remaining unfinished due to the start of the war. Or the missile cruiser "Ukraine", quietly rusting in Nikolaev at readiness of 95%

"Going to the sea trials" is also not a sufficient criterion for ship readiness. Sea trials can easily fail and again get stuck in the extension wall of the plant for another year, as did the Indian aircraft carrier Vikramaditya.

“Acceptance Certificate signed. The ship is accepted into the Navy "- these are the magic words, hearing that you can throw a hat in the air and say a toast" seven feet under the keel. "

Of course, one should not neglect information on the construction schedule: bookmark, launching - important information that can shed light on the fate of the ship and the prospects of the fleet.

Nobody requires Stakhanov's pace from shipbuilders - it is enough to annually lay several warships (2-th, 3-th rank, ideally - 1 rank). If everything is done correctly, without delays and the corrupting influence of corruption, then through 10 for years in the roads there will be a strong squadron of two dozen pennants. And in 20 years, the mighty ocean fleet.

How to distinguish honest contractors from bastards? Very simple - just look at the size of the ship and relate them to
construction time. Adjust calculations based on international experience and nuances in the form of technical risks in the application of innovative solutions and innovations (if any).

The picture becomes visible in full view. If within a year after the laying of the frigate follows the message that the ship was launched, and a couple of years later a white panel was hoisted over it with blue lines crossed diagonally - that means the entire team of shipbuilders and contract officials is respectable and well-paid.
If the most common frigate is launched five years after laying in the readiness level of 40%, and at the same time, the responsible persons have enough conscience to rant on the topic of “strengthening the defense capability of the motherland” - this situation smells like a criminal case.

Now, having outlined the “basic points” of our conversation and taking into account the gradations presented, let us proceed to the announcement of the results of the activities of the Russian state holding company United Shipbuilding Corporation.

So, in 2012, it was taken into the fleet of 5 ships:

Strategic missile submarine cruiser K-535 "Yury Dolgoruky" (955 "Borey" project)
Displacement above-water / underwater - 14 500 / 24 000 tons.
Working depth immersion 400 m.
Armament: X-NUMX submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missiles P-16 Bulava; 30 torpedo tubes caliber 6 mm.


The guard ship "Dagestan" (project 11661K "Cheetah-3.9")
The first ship of the Russian Navy, armed with the Kalibr-NK missile system.
The total displacement is 2000 tons.
Armament: the Kalibr-NK missile system (ammunition assembly - 8 cruise missiles designed to destroy surface or ground targets at a distance of up to 300 km), the Palma anti-aircraft missile system; AK-176 universal gun mount (caliber 76 mm).

Small artillery ship "Makhachkala" (project 21630, cipher "Buyan")
Specialized means for strengthening the surface forces of the Caspian flotilla in the near-sea zone and taking into account the special conditions of the Volga delta.
Displacement 500 tons.
Armament: AK-190 universal caliber artillery (mm 100 caliber), Grad-M A-215 multiple launch rocket launcher with 40 guides (mm 122 caliber), ZM47 “Bending” anti-aircraft missile system (4 launch tanks PZRK “Xmum NXX”) ").

MAK "Makhachkala" at a late stage of construction


Anti-diversion boat П-191 (project 21980, cipher "Rook").
Anti-diversion boat П-349 (project 21980, cipher "Rook").

Boats are designed to counteract saboteurs and terrorists in the waters of the bases and near approaches to them, as well as to assist the Border Service of the Russian Federation in solving the tasks of protecting and protecting the state border of Russia. Displacement of boats 140 tons. Armament: heavy machine gun, 2 grenade launcher DR-64 and DP-65, MANPADS "Igla".

Another 3 ship undergoing sea trialsand, therefore, their adoption into service is a matter of the near future:

Strategic missile submarine cruiser K-550 "Alexander Nevsky" (project 955 "Borey").

Multipurpose nuclear submarine K-329 "Severodvinsk" (project 885 "Ash").

Corvette with guided rocket weapons "Lively" (project 20380). Tests of this ship were saddened by an unfortunate incident - during mooring in the harbor of Kronstadt, the corvette collided with the oceanographic vessel “Admiral Vladimirsky”. Fortunately, there were no casualties and destruction.


In 2012, the ship's 4 was launched:

Strategic missile submarine “Vladimir Monomakh” (project 955, code “Borey”).

Corvettes with guided missile "Resistant" (project 20380).
Intended for operations in the near-sea zone and conducting combat with surface ships and submarines of the enemy, as well as for artillery support of landings during naval landing operations.
The total displacement is 2200 tons.
Armament: 8 PKR X-35 "Uranus", universal artillery mount AK-190, 2 anti-aircraft guns AK-630М, 8 anti-submarine torpedoes of caliber 330 mm.

Large landing ship "Ivan Gren" (project 11711).
Displacement 5000 tons.
BDK "Ivan Gren" is designed to solve a wide range of tasks - from assisting in the conduct of amphibious operations to transportation of various cargoes in peacetime in the interests of the Ministry of Defense. BDK "Ivan Gren" can transport modern Russian military equipment, including advanced weapons of marines and coastal troops.
Payload: 13 basic combat tanks or 300 marine personnel.
Armament: 76 mm and 30 mm artillery systems, 2 multiple rocket launcher systems. On board there is a Ka-29.


Rescue ship "Igor Belousov" (project 21300).
Displacement 5000 tons.
The specialized vessel “Igor Belousov” is intended for the evacuation and rescue of crews from emergency submarines lying on the ground, supplying high-pressure air, electric power and rescue equipment to submarines and surface ships. In addition, the ship can search for emergency facilities in a given square, including as part of international maritime search and rescue teams.

In 2012, 7 ships were laid:

Strategic missile submarine cruiser "Prince Vladimir" (955 project "Borey").
Due to some features of the modern Russian shipbuilding, the Prince Vladimir nuclear-powered icebreaker has some differences from the three previous Borey SSBNs. It is no longer a secret that to speed up the construction of the Boreyev, ready-made sections of the unfinished multi-purpose submarines of the 971 project and underwater "aircraft carrier killers" of the 949A project (of the same type of the submarine Kursk) were used. As a result, all the “Boreas” are somewhat different among themselves - but only for the better. “Prince Vladimir” is particularly notable, carrying not the 16, but the 20 of the Mace ballistic missiles on board!

Diesel-electric submarine B-262 "Stary Oskol" (project 636.6 "Varshavyanka").

Multi-purpose frigate of the far sea zone "Admiral Golovko" (project 22350).
The third ship of its type. Full displacement: 4500 tons. In the coming 10-20 years, the 22350 ships will most likely form the basis of the surface forces of the Russian Navy.
The 22350 frigates are rebalanced in the direction of strengthening weapons, the Caliber-NK universal missile system with 16 launch cells, the Poliment-Redut air defense system, the Package-NK anti-submarine complex, the 130-mm A-192 gun mount will be installed on board the ship ZRAK "Broadsword". Aviation armament - helicopter KA-27PL.

Embedded section of the frigate "Admiral Golovko"


Multipurpose frigate of the far sea zone "Admiral Makarov" (project 11356).
The third ship of its type. The total displacement is 4000 tons. On the technical side, the frigates of the 11356 Ave. are a deep modernization of the project Petrol of the 1135 Ave. Petrel project with modern weapons and radio electronics.
The 11356 frigates are a simpler and cheaper alternative to the 22350 frigates - in many ways, new and innovative ships, whose construction required much more time than previously thought. This circumstance led to the appearance of the frigate ersatz project based on well-known technologies and technical solutions. The construction of the 11356 frigates will allow more likely to fill the Russian Navy with new ships of the far sea zone, in addition, they are designed specifically for the Black Sea Fleet, operations in the Mediterranean and the fight against piracy in the Horn of Africa - agree that using large warships is too wasteful for these purposes.

Corvette with guided missile "Loud" (project 20380).

Corvettes with guided missile "Gremyashchy" (modified project 20385).

Universal amphibious assault ship dock "Vladivostok".
The total displacement is 21300 tons.
The composition of the air group: X-NUMX attack helicopters Ka-8 and 52 anti-submarine (multipurpose) Ka-8 or Ka-27.
Last February, metal cutting for the first Russian UDC of the Mistral type began at the STX France shipyard in Saint-Nazaire. To date, the assembly of the first block of the bow of the hull has been completed.
The modular design of the Mistral allows the construction of various sections of the ship simultaneously in different shipyards. 2 December 2012 of the year in St. Petersburg on the stocks of LLC Baltiysky Zavod - Shipbuilding began the production of fodder sections Vladivostok UDC - in total, according to the contract, 12 fodder sections of the landing helicopter carrier will be built (about 20% of ship design).


Ships under construction

Of course, this list is far from being complete - the ships under construction, which are in varying degrees of readiness, were not included in it — built or launched several years ago, but still not accepted into the Navy. Among them:

- a multi-purpose submarine with Kazan-launched cruise missiles, laid down in 2009 in accordance with the advanced project 885М Yasen;

- small rocket ship "Grad Sviyazhsk", built in 2011 year;

- frigates of projects 22350 and 11356 - two ships of each type;

- The diesel-electric submarines of the 636.6 (“Varshavyanka”) and 677 (“Lada”) projects - two boats of each type;

- small hydrographic vessel "Victor Faleev" (project 19910);

- The base minesweeper of the 12700 Alexandrite project, laid out in 2011.

Also, special naval facilities were not taken into account, for example, the Sviyaga transport floating dock (laid out at the end of 2012) (the 22570 project Kvartira) and the sea support vessel Akademik Aleksandrov (the 20180 project).

We built, built and, finally, built!

Even with the current pace of military shipbuilding, the promises of the Russian government to replenish the Russian 50 fleet with new ships by 2016 look quite realistic and doable. The second positive point is that despite all the skeptics' fears, the shipbuilding dynamics of the last few years not only survived, but even improved - this year the fleet received 5 ready ships with a total displacement of more than 20 thousand tons! For comparison: in 2011, this indicator was at the level of 3 th. Tons - there is progress.
Such a sharp increase in the pace of construction occurred mainly due to the transfer of the K-535 “Yuri Dolgoruky” to the fleet of the submarine strategic rocket carrier. A doubly joyful event - the Russian Navy received the first nuclear submarine after a long break from 2001, when the multipurpose G-335 "Cheetah" was accepted into the Northern Fleet.

In 2013, we can safely predict a twofold increase in the number of ships accepted into the Navy: the second strategic Borey K-550 Alexander Nevsky and the multipurpose K-329 Severodvinsk have been built and tested for a long time. Only one step separates them from service. Let's hope that the Admiral Gorshkov, the lead frigate of the 22350 project, will finally be completed. The active construction of new corvettes and small rocket ships continues, and somewhere far away, on the other side of Europe, the French welders will sparkle with electrodes, collecting the Vladivostok landing craft.

Criticism? Yes, in this whole story there are a couple of impartial moments. The ship construction terms still cause little optimism - the Yuriy Dolgorukiy strategic missile carrier was built almost 16 years - since November 1996 has failed the main diesel-electric propulsion submarine of the 677 Lada project, it looks like it will remain in trial operation forever. An amazing New Year's Eve gift was made by the Defense Ministry - the contract for the construction of two Mistrals in Russia was transferred from 2013 to 2016 year.

What will happen next - time will tell. It remains only to congratulate everyone on the New Year 2013 and wish more good News in the new year.


Mortgage section of the Admiral Essen foogath (eg 11356)



Frigate "Tarkash" Indian Navy - this is how ships will look like pr.11356



Mortgage section of the corvette "Thundering" (project 20380)



K-329 "Severodvinsk" on running trials



SSB K-550 "Alexander Nevsky"



In half the sky growing out of the ground
and finding contour and clarity
he sleeps bye, mighty giant
slightly shaded by a building lattice.



And this moment is truly great,
when under the thunder of orchestras and ovations he
startled, off the ground
- the one from which we can not tear myself away ...
101 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. lotus04
    +15
    4 January 2013 09: 30
    Looked at the mortgage sections, it remains to wait for the product "face".
    1. +7
      4 January 2013 12: 11
      the topic of minesweepers is not disclosed ... and for some reason there are no articles about basic
      1. +8
        4 January 2013 14: 35
        There is nothing about upgrading 1144 "Orlan", but when they do, there will be an event!
        1. 0
          4 January 2013 22: 35
          Yesterday everyone already procrastinated it, and they generally consider the Orlans already 3 instead of 4.
  2. +15
    4 January 2013 09: 50
    shipbuilders well done, there is no arguing. but the pace must be increased. and it’s good that those acting now do not wither away from the piers, but are constantly in the ocean.
    1. +15
      4 January 2013 13: 42
      Quote: andrei332809
      shipbuilders well done, there is no arguing. but the pace must be increased


      In the years of the Second World War, the following story happened: the leading American shipbuilder Kaiser (it seems, an ethnic German) came to reception at Roosevelt:
      - Mr. President, my shipyards can build 50 aircraft carriers in a year.
      - Okay. But will this not affect the pace of construction of Liberty transports?
      - No, the pace of construction of Liberty will remain - three ships daily. Additional slipways will be built for aircraft carriers.
      - Okay (shocked with claws)

      The first escort aircraft carrier of the Casablanca class entered service on July 8, 1943, the last, the 50th in a row, entered service on July 8, 1944.
      The total displacement of each is 10 thousand tons, an air group of 25-30 aircraft, a 150-meter flight deck, an under-deck hangar, 2 aircraft lifts, 20 anti-aircraft guns, a full set of radars (5 pieces each). The crew is 860 people. It's almost Mistral!
      The only drawback is the low speed of 19 knots ... although the Mistral is even slower.

      You can treat the American capitalists differently, admire "kickbacks", bribes of cosmic proportions and guess how much money was stolen on such "construction sites", but the fact remains - 50 aircraft carriers were in service a year later. And all the amers during the war years built 160 aircraft-carrying ships, including 30 heavy ones. I'm not even talking about the Liberty transports, which were riveted by 2700 pieces.

      In the photo - aircraft carriers of the 38-th operational formation unfold towards the enemy
      1. stranik72
        +6
        4 January 2013 13: 59
        Well, to be absolutely precise, "Aircraft carriers of this type were designed using the technology of mass civilian cargo ships, which ensured the speed and low cost of their construction." They were "consumer goods", but still you are right it was an achievement and they fulfilled their purpose.
        1. +1
          4 January 2013 14: 13
          Quote: stranik72
          Carriers of this type were designed using the technology of mass civilian cargo ships, which ensured the speed and low cost of their construction.

          What do you think this phrase means? On the technical side, so to speak?

          Quote: stranik72
          They were "consumer goods"

          With the same success can be called "consumer goods" Mistral. True, unlike the Mistral, the Casablanca were truly formidable ships.
          1. Durant
            +2
            4 January 2013 14: 42
            Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
            With the same success can be called "consumer goods" Mistral. True, unlike the Mistral, the Casablanca were truly formidable ships

            Casablanca is just consumer goods, and there was nothing formidable in them ... except for the air group ... in fact, it was a self-propelled barge with huge reserves of aviation fuel and a runway. To the limit, a simplified ship with only anti-aircraft weapons.
            In general, to compare these ships, to put it mildly, is debatable ...
            1. +1
              4 January 2013 15: 03
              Quote: Durant
              it was essentially a self-propelled barge

              It was a clot of military matter, capable of hitting targets at a distance of 300 km and keeping tens of thousands of square kilometers of the ocean surface under control.

              Quote: Durant
              huge reserves of aviation fuel

              The stock of aviation fuel is 500 tons. This is 5% of the total displacement of the aircraft carrier "Casablanca".

              Quote: Durant
              Simplified ship to the limit

              150 meter smooth flight deck, 2 aircraft lift, hangar, gas stations with fuel and compressed air, fire extinguishing and ventilation systems. 860 people crew, a luxurious set of radar and radio stations ...

              Quote: Durant
              and there was nothing formidable in them

              On 25 on October 1944, six escort aircraft carriers (+ 2 destroyers and a hundred aircraft with other escort units in the adjacent square) stopped the Japanese squadron of 15 battleships and heavy cruisers. In total, about 500 sorties were completed, the Japanese were stunned, they lost 2 heavy cruisers and rushed off. By the way, the battleships still managed to kill one jeep carrier - they brutally avenged the death of their cruisers))))

              Quote: Durant
              In general, to compare these ships, to put it mildly, is debatable ...

              Naturally, unlike the Mistrals, "Casablanca" was created in accordance with clear requirements and objectives. Although their use often went beyond escorting convoys, transporting aircraft and fighting submarines. After all, their main weapon is airplanes. and in a naval battle it meant a lot.
              1. Durant
                +3
                4 January 2013 15: 21
                You conquered me with a "clot of combat matter" in everything else you did not convince. Do you poorly understand the concept of an escort aircraft carrier? I think you know, then why argue? Not why. This is a simple (as simple as an aircraft carrier can be), technically unremarkable aircraft carrier. Simple, which means massive, but really poorly protected.
                Mistral, in addition to some technical aspects, landing ships, docks with a flight deck ... which, as far as I understand, has never been in our Navy ... the functions are different and the purpose of military equipment and cargo is different ...
                1. 0
                  4 January 2013 16: 27
                  Quote: Durant
                  This is a simple (as far as a simple aircraft carrier can be) technically unremarkable aircraft carrier.

                  Simple compared to what? You yourself even came to this idea after making an amendment "how much a simple aircraft carrier can be."

                  The escort aircraft carrier was much inferior to the heavy Essex and Midway (tightness, half the speed, curved hangar - due to some design features, the hangar deck turned out to be a "house", which greatly complicated the movement of aircraft). But do not forget, we are comparing Casablanca with real aircraft carriers - without undue modesty, masterpieces of shipbuilding.

                  The complexity of building an escort was consistent with the construction of a light cruiser (material costs, equipment, time), and the jeep aircraft carrier surpassed even heavy cruisers in combat characteristics. And most importantly - mass. Still, the hull set and the machine are from an ordinary bulk carrier.

                  Quote: Durant
                  but the truth is poorly protected.

                  No weaker than a heavy Essex. All American aircraft carriers of those years were practically devoid of armor. True, after the meeting with the kamikaze, the opinion changed, on the Midway there was already an 87 mm flight armored deck.
                  1. Durant
                    0
                    5 January 2013 04: 40
                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    Simple compared to what? You yourself even came to this idea after making an amendment "how much a simple aircraft carrier can be."

                    So naturally, you don't need to draw a picture that aircraft-carrying ships and nuclear submarines are probably the most complex "vehicles" in the history of mankind. At the same time "Casablanca" is a simplified construction to the limit.

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    The complexity of building an escort was consistent with the construction of a light cruiser (material costs, equipment, time), and the jeep aircraft carrier surpassed even heavy cruisers in combat characteristics. And most importantly - mass. Still, the hull set and the machine are from an ordinary bulk carrier.

                    that’s precisely the costs, rather, just a dry cargo ship ... well, according to the materials of apparently two dry cargo ships. Light cruisers are already armament specialized equipment and reservations ...

                    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                    No weaker than a heavy Essex. All American aircraft carriers of those years were practically devoid of armor. True, after the meeting with the kamikaze, the opinion changed, on the Midway there was already an 87 mm flight armored deck.

                    what's behind these conclusions? The Essex is already booked from the very beginning, it is already a specialized ship, not a "rebuilding". Already constructive protection, armor belt, etc. And the size ... this already affects the survivability. But what can I say, in fact ... Casablancas sometimes died from a single torpedo, from a single kamikaze plane, while the Essexes withstood these "tests" ...

                    And about the combat characteristics ... how can you not understand that you can not even closely compare cruisers and aircraft carriers? This is generally nonsense ...
              2. +1
                4 January 2013 21: 05
                Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
                Naturally, unlike the Mistrals, "Casablanca" was created in accordance with clear requirements and objectives. Although their use often went beyond escorting convoys, transporting aircraft and fighting submarines. After all, their main weapon is airplanes. and in a naval battle it meant a lot.
                Sometimes the requirements are "too intelligible", as was the case with the Project 10210 Halzan helicopter carrier. The idea was good, to use the 1609 project, a civilian ro-ro container ship, for an amphibious helicopter carrier, but I wanted to endow the ship with anti-submarine functions, and the project was finished due to the noise of civilian mechanisms, although escort ships and helicopters themselves could handle anti-submarine functions. This project was of help for the Navy, if necessary, the helicopter carriers could be altered from the built ro-ro-ships. The Americans got ahead of themselves here too, having bought all the rollers of this type. Indeed, for the grandiose sabotage, the lobby and the direct destruction of our aircraft carrier fleet, the CIA must give someone a medal.
      2. 0
        4 January 2013 17: 34
        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        There are different ways to treat American capitalists

        we have a slightly different problem. the official (and the director of the enterprise, the official) thinks only about his pocket. I didn’t manage to extend it by the deadline, and even throw the money (not the Union, they won’t send potatoes to spud). and as is customary, the first decree is past the eyes, the second is past the ears, and the third must be executed, but in its own discretion (still no one controls)
  3. +9
    4 January 2013 09: 57
    In general, the industry works, and that’s good. I’m waiting for the real aircraft carriers to officially lay at the new shipyard, which they supposedly bring under the construction of supertankers, and then I can calmly start smoking. In the meantime ANYWHERE, UPDATE THE PICTURE ABOUT LOADED AND BUILDING SHIPS FOR RUSSIA. IT IS POSSIBLE TO TURN THERE AND HUNCHERS AND AIRCRAFT BOATS TO TURN ON. PERSONALLY CHOCOLATE TILES SEND
  4. +2
    4 January 2013 10: 14
    If they don’t steal, there will be ships, but is there another aircraft carrier needed now, and not buy it from the USA?
    1. Durant
      0
      4 January 2013 11: 54
      under one comb do not row everything No.
    2. Marine One
      +4
      4 January 2013 11: 58
      Quote: valokordin
      and not buy it from the USA?

      What to buy from them? One of the Kitty Hawks that were taken out of the fleet in the 2000s? They won't sell. And it makes no sense when we do not have infrastructure for an aircraft carrier at the moment in any of the fleets.
    3. 0
      6 January 2013 15: 16
      Quote: valokordin
      If they don’t steal, there will be ships, but is there another aircraft carrier needed now, and not buy it from the USA?

      I agree with the

      Quote: Marine One
      What to buy from them? One of the Kitty Hawks that were taken out of the fleet in the 2000s? They won't sell. And it makes no sense when we do not have infrastructure for an aircraft carrier at the moment in any of the fleets.


      Moreover, it is necessary to build escort ships.

      do not rush and jump above your head. Now frigates are being built, then, God forbid, destroyers will go, and then you can think about aircraft carriers.
  5. +1
    4 January 2013 10: 15
    It would be nice to return the Nikolaev shipyard to our production sphere.
    Well, or build yourself even more ambitious.
    1. Durant
      +3
      4 January 2013 12: 25
      It seems to me much better to rebuild our own ... why should we feed alien, albeit fraternal mouths, when aircraft carriers for the Navy and tankers with dry cargo ships for civilians can be built at such mighty shipyards ... we need to.
      1. 0
        4 January 2013 15: 26
        It is interesting to know: on which such "mighty shipyards"? A couple of decent factories are already called that?
        About the mighty shipyards - see above, where SWEET, 16-s, told ... We are still plowing and plowing to this level.
    2. Vladyka
      +1
      4 January 2013 13: 44
      Yes, there’s already nothing to return ... No. For more than 20 years they have been cutting metal ... a plan for the export of ferrous metal 800 tons a month, excluding colormet (it has long been in the first place). Here is something else left from the equipment ...
    3. +2
      4 January 2013 14: 37
      If you dream, it’s more global))) Ukraine + Russia + Belarus = united state).
  6. david210512
    0
    4 January 2013 10: 47
    excellent ships but the quantity does not suit !!!!!!!!!!!
    1. +2
      4 January 2013 14: 39
      Yes, Internet warriors do not like EVERYTHING at all)))). If they do little. If they do a lot, they do it badly. If they do a lot and well, then kickbacks and finally, "pro-salipolymers")))
      1. Logs
        0
        8 January 2013 22: 55
        To the point lol The state is doing everything possible, the main thing is that the money allocated is simply reached the goal. I think the world has not forgotten the 45th lol .We are a great power and a worthy adversary in the modern world, it is difficult for us to find.
    2. 0
      6 January 2013 15: 18
      Quote: david210512
      excellent ships but the quantity does not suit !!!!!!!!!!!

      In 2012, more ships were laid down than in the last three years. 2013 should be very fruitful ...
  7. avt
    +5
    4 January 2013 10: 51
    The article is sensible! It’s nice to read, to the best of information and emotions, it’s not going off scale, I really liked the photo of Severodvinsk on the way! hi
    1. 0
      6 January 2013 15: 25
      Quote: avt
      The article is sensible! It’s nice to read, to the best of information and emotions, it’s not going off scale, I really liked the photo of Severodvinsk on the way!

      I recommend you this article: http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/25787/
      The author of A_SEVER is a very knowledgeable person in naval affairs (it is interesting to read his answers to questions).
  8. +10
    4 January 2013 10: 55
    “Acceptance Certificate signed. The ship is accepted into the Navy "- these are the magic words, hearing that you can throw a hat in the air and say a toast" seven feet under the keel. "

    I completely agree with this! Good article. God grant us to gain momentum. However, I am not impressed with the construction of a surface fleet, all these corvettes and frigates are ships of the second rank, or even the third! Need ocean ships of the first rank!
    1. +3
      4 January 2013 15: 35
      If you carefully look at the plans for building the fleet, it immediately becomes clear that the main task is to maintain the nuclear strike submarine component. Everything else, these frigates, corvettes, etc., indicates that the military doctrine of the state does not foresee, in the near future, 20-30 years, to claim the role of the primary sea power ... Therefore, we will not see aircraft carriers, new missile cruisers and other projects of the ocean zone - while strength is not enough, God forbid to keep nuclear parity.
      And there is nothing shameful and terrible about this. God is God, Caesar is Caesar.
      1. 0
        4 January 2013 19: 59
        Quote: TRex
        And there is nothing shameful and terrible about this.

        And I have a different opinion! Don't you know that we do not have this very submarine nuclear attack component ??? The largest attack submarines are without missiles, and new ones have not yet been built. But the United States has 18 submarines with Trident missiles, each carrying 24 missiles, which in turn are divided into 10 parts !!! hi
        And further! But the NATO countries and, above all, the USA have big plans for us, and also for the Arctic, etc. hi
        1. 0
          5 January 2013 10: 03
          So I say that today nuclear deterrence forces will be more glorious than ocean ambitions. The Soviet legacy has been successful (even hastily) about ... whether, now we only need to think about our own security, the borders of the state and economic interests, and how is it in Honduras - somehow later ... We must build up meat on the bones.
  9. +2
    4 January 2013 11: 01
    The process of building ships is time-consuming and time-consuming so good luck and success to shipbuilders !!!
  10. fenix57
    0
    4 January 2013 11: 23
    After reading the article, a sense of joy for the Russian shipbuilding and the future of the Russian Navy.
  11. Misantrop
    +1
    4 January 2013 11: 42
    And what is going on in the Far East, is it really that apart from that long-suffering submarine, nothing is being built for India?
    1. USA95
      +2
      4 January 2013 13: 40
      Amur Shipbuilding Plant (Komsomolsk-on-Amur)

      Corvette Project 20380

      “Perfect”, “Loud” Everything.
    2. 0
      5 January 2013 14: 50
      and at the Dalzavod, Korean jeeps are riveting
  12. +3
    4 January 2013 11: 47
    If our state really struggles with the CARDIAC, there will be a fleet.
    1. +6
      4 January 2013 14: 45
      Quote: glagol58
      If our state really struggles with the CARDIAC, there will be a fleet.


      The situation in the "dashing nineties":

      K-141 Kursk nuclear submarine, laid down on 22 on March 1992. launch on 16 on May 1994, adopted by 30.12.1994 as part of the Northern Fleet.

      Nuclear submarine K-150 “Tomsk”: laid down - 1991 g., Launched - July 1996. Since March 17 1997 of the year K-150 as part of the 1-th fleet of submarines of the Northern Fleet. In 1998, the latest submarine nuclear submarine made the transition to the Far East under the ice of the Arctic. Currently, it is a member of the Pacific Fleet.

      The nuclear submarine K-419 Kuzbass. Bookmark 1991. Launch: 1992. Admission to the fleet in 1992.

      The nuclear submarine K-295 Samara. Bookmark 1993. Launching 1994. Admission to the fleet in 1995.

      Nuclear submarine K-335 "Gepard". Laid down in 1991, 90% readiness at the end of the 90s, Adopted to the fleet in 2001 (in fact, given the volume of work, the boat was built in the "dashing nineties").

      Large anti-submarine ship Admiral Chabanenko (tab - 1990 year, commissioning - 1999 g.)

      Huge TARKR "Peter the Great", 26 thousand tons of metal, four hundred missiles on board - completed by 1998! Honestly completed, without any complaints about the complexity and large amount of work.

      Underwater strategic missile carrier K-535 "Yuri Dolgoruky". The first nuclear-powered ship of project 955 "Borey". Laid down in 1996, adopted on the last day of 2012.

      Multipurpose nuclear submarine with cruise missiles K-329 "Severodvinsk". Laid down in 1993, has not yet been accepted into the fleet.

      Nuclear submarine K-139 "Belgorod" Laid down in 1993. By 1999, 80% readiness. Not completed yet.

      Destroyer pr. 956 "Important" - bookmark in 1988, completed by 1999
      Destroyer pr. 956 "Thoughtful" - bookmarked in 1988, completed by 2000
      At the beginning of the 2000's, the flag of the Navy was lowered on the latest ships and the destroyers replenished the Chinese Navy.

      The heavy nuclear cruisers "Admiral Lazarev", "Admiral Nakhimov" have been in storage since the early 2000s, their further participation is unknown, the ships are not being modernized and not being completed, not utilized, they are quietly rotting at the piers.

      On the basis of the above facts, an unpretentious conclusion follows: there is no talk of any "restoration" of the Russian Navy and "getting off its knees" - now we cannot even reach the level of the 90s.

      The boats under construction actually turn out to be a hodgepodge of ready-made sections of embedded, but unfinished boats, from the backlog of the 90's. We are not talking about any ships of the first rank; USC cannot even overpower a frigate with a displacement of 7 thousand tons for 4 years. Officials are trying to cover up the mess going on with vigorous reports about the three corvettes and boats built, although, given the sums of the great and terrible State Defense Order, it would be strange if they did not fulfill this.

      In fact, the domestic fleet does not receive from 1 / 4 what it received in the 90 years. Denying the obvious is stupid - you have real facts before your eyes
      1. 0
        4 January 2013 15: 36
        Oleg! Repeat it!
        1. +2
          4 January 2013 16: 13
          Quote: TRex
          Oleg! Repeat it!

          Yes. But it is good to know for general development.
          1. +1
            4 January 2013 17: 47
            repeating the teachings
      2. evil hamster
        +6
        5 January 2013 20: 16
        My dear man, there is such a thing called inertia, here you have an industry that works at a good pace for long-term programs. The country has collapsed, but this does not mean that all your cooperation died right away, there are no subcontractors and head enterprises still working, there are large stocks of components in the warehouses, there is still some money from the budget, many ships are almost ready, you still have labor collectives, people have not yet run away and allies have not yet run away. Work is still going on but is slowing down, finances are getting worse, subcontractors are slowly dying one by one, people are running, and so on. You just look at the dynamics over the years, it’s lucky for us that the giants of the Soviet industry had such a margin of safety.
        And in vain in the 90s, Jura and Severodvinsk didn’t record them; they really started to build them only in 2000 and the projects have since changed.
      3. -2
        6 January 2013 16: 07
        SWEET_SIXTEEN,
        Again you are, to put it mildly, distorting.
        In addition, he told you quite rightly:
        Quote: evil hamster
        My dear man, there is such a thing called inertia, here you have an industry that works at a good pace for long-term programs. The country has collapsed, but this does not mean that all your cooperation died right away, there are no subcontractors and head enterprises still working, there are large stocks of components in the warehouses, there is still some money from the budget, many ships are almost ready, you still have labor collectives, people have not yet run away and allies have not run away yet ...

        you are still very strange comparing and writing lies:

        Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
        OSK for 7 years can not even master a frigate with a displacement of 4 thousand tons.

        And the frigates "Teg" and "Tarkash" of Project 11356 for the Indian Navy?
        And the frigates "Admiral Kasatonov" and "Admiral Grigorovich", the launch of which is planned this year?


        But "Admiral Ushakov" will be modernized and put into operation. http://oborona.gov.ru/pages/330/#kirov

        In addition, for complete clarity, can you give data on the ships built since the 00s?
        Here at the end of the article there is a small table of the built ships from 09g: http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/24914/
        And here is the table laid down during this time: http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/24773/

        And what about the list of acting admiral generals whose children live and study abroad?
  13. black_eagle
    +9
    4 January 2013 12: 21
    Doctor, give me pills for greed, but more, more!)))) This is about me! I want to see atomic missile cruisers, aircraft carriers (as they are needed near Syria !!!), BODs, frigates, and corvettes, too, and all as they say in the maximum configuration, with the latest weapons, so that would be one salvo of Arly Burke with the Ticonderogs allowed to the bottom, what would the Americans go beyond the Gulf Stream! And submarines of nuclear missile and strike pieces 50 is for dessert))))
  14. vmf971
    +3
    4 January 2013 12: 23
    I did not understand, it seems like a long-armed in the system is not accepted postponed the Far East will generally be amplification
  15. toguns
    +7
    4 January 2013 12: 39
    recourse
    if we are very picky about the article and shipbuilding in particular and comprehending the successes of our shipbuilders, we can draw the following conclusion
    1) with the construction of surface ships, problems were as they were
    22350 major disappointment
    22380 with grief in half allowed into series
    11356 It’s hard to say what kind of fruit it will turn out.
    final grade deserved bold 1.
    2) a) nuclear submarine fleet (who pleases only Sevmash)
    let's be honest in the tests of 2 boreas and ash trees very pleased. + repair and modernization of dolphins began.
    b) the dap here as well as the surface soldiers have problems, they are still significant, it’s not clear what to do with the frets, but there are pluses to return the Warsaw woman to the series and repair has begun, or we’ll hang noodles about the dap.
    0 points 3 I think for submariners a decent indicator.
    3) landing and rescue vessels
    Ivan Gren I don’t even know why our fleet needs such a quantity, and if we make landing, then we need a series of at least 15, knowing that our borders are very large at 5 base units such as Ivan Gren on a quiet, northern and black sea was a normal solution but I don’t even know how to build 1 thing.
    Ivan Belousov, this is what our navy doctor prescribed 2-3 ships per fleet and that’s what it will be.

    As a result, our shipbuilders and the customer in the form of a mo in 2012 worked wonderfully and they can safely put 2 with a big plus.
    1. USA95
      0
      4 January 2013 13: 17
      On the next branch, the topic of ordering ships on foreign routes was discussed. Given our achievements (in quotation marks), it would not be out of place to consider such an option.
      1. toguns
        0
        4 January 2013 13: 37
        Quote: USA95
        On the next branch, the topic of ordering ships on foreign routes was discussed. Given our achievements (in quotation marks), it would not be out of place to consider such an option.

        wassat and what do you want to say by this ???
        in fact, at the moment, China is becoming the leader of the ship building and the only limiting factor is the lack of experience and some technologies, but I think this Kikai will not stop much.
        1. USA95
          0
          4 January 2013 13: 44
          I talked about quality, not quantity. The Chinese themselves admit that they are not yet leaders in submarines. The best in the construction of submarines are the United States, Russia, Germany and Japan. The USA and Japan do not sell anything to anyone. Secret s.
          1. toguns
            +4
            4 January 2013 14: 14
            Quote: USA95
            I talked about quality, not quantity. The Chinese themselves admit that they are not yet leaders in submarines. The best in the construction of submarines are the United States, Russia, Germany and Japan. The USA and Japan do not sell anything to anyone. Secret s.

            wassat Japan and Germany experts in the construction of nuclear submarines ???
            dear yusa95 share picky mushrooms :)
            1. USA95
              0
              4 January 2013 14: 25
              If you do not know, then yes, experts. Type 212 Submarines and Soryu Type Submarines are considered the most advanced in their classes. Both have experimental engines
              1. toguns
                0
                4 January 2013 14: 34
                Quote: USA95
                If you do not know, then yes, experts. Type 212 Submarines and Soryu Type Submarines are considered the most advanced in their classes. Both have experimental engines

                and Germany and Japan will sell them to us ???
                I think not, and the counter-question arises: why then do you smack nonsense about these submarines if physically, well, these submarines are not bought at all.
                1. USA95
                  +1
                  4 January 2013 15: 10
                  The Germans are ready to sell Russia a license for stale, still slightly expired goods
                  The ability to create submarines competitive in the global arms market has always been the hallmark of a highly developed state. Until the mid-1990s, the undisputed leaders and main competitors in the production of diesel-electric submarines (diesel-electric submarines) were Germany and our country. After World War II, every second submarine in the world had the "Made in USSR" label.

                  Soviet specialists have developed over 300 submarine projects, most of which have been implemented. Three powerful design bureaus and several shipyards were involved in the design and manufacture of submarines. The most successful domestic model was the diesel-electric submarine of the 3rd generation of the project 877/636 "Varshavyanka" and its export versions.

                  FOURTH GENERATION
                  But in the fall of 2009, the media unexpectedly began actively discussing the topic of possible purchases of foreign 4th-generation nuclear submarines for the Russian Navy. The impetus for various judgments was the publication by the RIA Novosti agency, citing a source in the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, that the issue of building in Russia under the license of the German submarine project 212 is being considered.

                  Later, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, during a visit to Kaliningrad, denied this report. According to the commander in chief, we can only talk about the purchase of new technology for the production of anaerobic (non-volatile) power plants designed to recharge batteries without surfacing a submarine.

                  In this situation, two questions naturally arise:

                  - Why should Russia, which has independently built submarines for nearly a century, now purchase them in Germany?

                  - Why do the Germans sell to us, their main competitors in the production of modern underwater marine equipment, their latest technologies?

                  In order to objectively answer the first question, it is necessary to analyze the situation in domestic submarine shipbuilding over the past 20 years.

                  History shows that the fierce competition between the Federal Republic of Germany and the USSR for the world submarine arms market and the need to increase the duration of scuba diving, eliminating the need for frequent sub-flooding to recharge batteries, led to the fact that both at the same time (in the 80–90s) in both countries began work on the creation of nuclear submarines of the 4th generation. The main fundamental difference between the 4th generation submarines and the 3rd generation submarines is the presence of anaerobic power plants with power from 100 to 300 kW, which increase the duration of scuba diving (autonomy) up to 700-1000 hours.

                  This was due to the fact that the combat effectiveness of 3rd generation diesel-electric submarines depends on the need to periodically recharge batteries. When on duty in the combat patrol zone at a speed of 2–4 knots, submarines can be underwater for up to 4 days. However, at the same time, their batteries are discharged by about 80% and recharging will require significantly more time. For this, diesel-electric submarines have to float to the periscope depth in the diesel engine’s operating mode under water, which reduces the secrecy of their actions and increases the likelihood of detection both from the raised air intake devices raised above the surface and from the noise and exhaust of the working diesel engines.
                  1. USA95
                    0
                    4 January 2013 15: 24
                    To date, the task of creating a 4th generation NAPL by German specialists has been successfully solved. So, the German companies Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH (HDW) and Thyssen Nordseewerke GmbH (TNSW) designed and in 1998 laid the first four non-nuclear submarines of the 4th generation of project 212. Now these ships are already built for the German submarine fleet. The first of them - U-31 - was launched in 2005, the subsequent ones - U-32, U-33 and U-34 - went into operation in October 2005, June 2006 and May 2007, respectively.
                    The power plant in the boats of Project 212 includes a conventional diesel-electric power plant (EU), supplemented by an anaerobic power plant based on an electrochemical generator (ECG). The power of the ECG is about 306 kW (nine generators of 34 kW each), which provides the submarine with a full underwater speed of 8 knots, and at a cruising speed of 3 knots, the submarine, according to the statements of the representatives of the manufacturer, is able to go underwater for 14 days.
                    At the same time as the Germans, the construction of a 4th generation nuclear submarine was launched in Sweden, France and Japan. Anaerobic plants based on Stirling engines and closed-cycle steam turbine plants have been developed for these projects.
                    SERIOUS FAILURE
                    But in Russia, work on the creation of the 4th generation nuclear submarine did not go well. The design of the domestic submarine of the project 677 "Lada" began in the Central Design Bureau MT "Rubin" in 1989. Approximately 10 years later, on December 26, 1997, the first Russian non-nuclear submarine of the 4th generation, named "St. Petersburg", was laid down on the closed slipway of JSC "Admiralty Shipyards" in St. Petersburg. When it was laid, it was assumed that during the construction process it would be equipped with a domestic anaerobic installation with ECH, as in the German project 212.
                    The boat was completed only in 2007, and then she went to the factory sea trials. Almost at the same time, the construction of the second (Kronshtadt) and the third (Sevastopol) NPL of Project 677 Lada for the Russian Navy began at the Admiralty Shipyards. At the end of 2007, the State Commission was to accept St. Petersburg and put the submarine into operation. However, the tests, it seems, are not entirely successful, since the boat has not yet been commissioned. It is possible that this project has intractable defects.
                    Moreover, the submarine went on sea trials without an anaerobic installation based on an electrochemical generator (fuel cells). Research on its creation for small submarines began in our country 30 years ago. In 1978, the Special Design Bureau of Boiler Building became the head developer of propulsive systems with ECG. It used the experience of the Ural Electrochemical Plant and NPO Energia, who managed to create such generators for spacecraft. Based on this experience, the Crystal-20 ECG was designed. However, in the future, these developments did not find their application either on small Piranha submarines or in projects 877/636 Varshavyanka. Open sources do not contain information about the problems of domestic marine ECG, but their absence to date on Russian submarines suggests that the results of field tests do not suit the leadership of the Russian Navy.
                    Earlier it was planned that an anaerobic power plant based on ECH would finally appear on Russian nuclear submarines of the 4th generation of Project 677 "Lada". However, as mentioned above, there is no anaerobic installation on the submarine "St. Petersburg" either. In this regard, this boat cannot be considered a 4th generation submarine. And this already means a serious failure of the domestic submarine shipbuilding. After all, Russia is the only highly developed country in the world unable to create a new generation submarine. Which gives rise to a number of internal and external problems.
                    1. USA95
                      -1
                      4 January 2013 15: 27
                      The first includes the fact that the entire non-nuclear submarine fleet of Russia, built during the existence of the USSR, is simply outdated. The last diesel boat was created in 1992. It was planned that the boats of the project 677 "Lada" will enter service with all four Russian fleets. According to the Russian naval strategy, the Russian Navy should receive up to 2015 40th generation nuclear submarines by 4. However, now, after the failures with St. Petersburg, this program of re-equipment of the Russian submarine fleet began to burst at the seams.
                      External problems are connected, firstly, with the complete loss of the world market. Thus, the regular buyers of Russian submarines, China and India, are already producing submarines themselves, and it is unlikely that they will purchase Russian non-nuclear submarines in the future. Our last customer on the foreign market, Venezuela, at the beginning of 2009 intended to purchase in Russia the 4th generation nuclear submarine of the project 677 "Lada". But Russian shipbuilders offered Caracas project 636 submarines (diesel-electric submarines of the 3rd generation), leaving the 4th generation boats for possible subsequent orders, citing the need to refine the design. However, the Russian ploy failed; one of the requirements of Venezuela continues to be the obligatory equipping of Project 636 submarines (diesel-electric submarines of the 3rd generation) with an anaerobic power plant. And it is not yet clear whether it will be possible to do this and what type of anaerobic installation will be chosen after failures with domestic ECH.
                      Secondly, in the last 3–5 years, a number of countries (Sweden, Japan, etc.) have officially announced the start of work on the creation of a 5th generation submarine, where the use of all-mode, unified Stirling engines for both surface and underwater swimming. Russia, having not mastered the technology for creating anaerobic power plants, has virtually no future in the creation of 5th generation nuclear submarines.
                      For the first time in the past 100 years since the construction of the first Russian submarine, our country has lost its leadership position and found itself in the margins of world underwater shipbuilding. Now at stake is the international image of Russia as a state capable of creating modern naval weapons. And the most critical technology for domestic shipbuilders is the problem of creating an anaerobic power plant.
                      ... WHAT WE NEED
                      So, the answer to the question why Russia, which has been producing submarines for one hundred years, to purchase the technology for their production in Germany, is obvious. We need modern technology for the production of submarines with anaerobic power plants.
                      To answer the second, most interesting question, why the Germans are ready to sell us technologies that will allow Russia to return to the club of manufacturers of modern marine equipment and again become the main competitors of the shipyards of Germany, it is necessary to analyze the current situation with the development of electrochemical generators and the sale of project 212 boats on world market.
                      Nowadays, the technology of anaerobic power plants based on electrochemical generators for submarines has gained a start in life solely through the lobbying policy of Siemens, which has invested heavily in the development of fuel cells and hydrogen storage systems. The open press lacks the main characteristics of the ECH installed on Project 212 submarines (except for power). It can be assumed that they differ little from modern ECHs of other foreign companies, or even inferior in some parameters, because in Germany they started building boats of Project 212 back in 1998.
                      1. USA95
                        +1
                        4 January 2013 15: 31
                        Today, some companies in the world have established small-scale production of low-power ECH. However, despite more than 30 years of work to improve ECH in developed countries of the world, no significant progress has been achieved. As before, the cost of fuel cells is 5–10 thousand dollars per 1 kW of installed capacity, the life of the best prototypes is less than 6 thousand hours, and the average efficiency for the entire life cycle is about 22–25%. Unfortunately, the best Russian sample of EHG "Foton" has even worse characteristics than foreign samples. So, with a forced power of 25 kW "Foton" costs more than 300 thousand dollars, that is, more than 12 thousand dollars per 1 kW of installed capacity, and the resource is only about 2 thousand hours.
                        Many American researchers believe that technologies in the creation of fuel cells have reached their limits, and do not see in the near future the possibility of further improvement. So, in the reports of the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences of the USA it is noted: in order to implement the program for the widespread use of hydrogen energy using ECG, it is necessary to make a technological breakthrough in at least 100 areas of modern science. In this regard, already in 2006, federal funding for the hydrogen program and the creation of ECG in the United States was discontinued, and on May 13, 2009, President Barack Obama closed the $ 1,2 billion hydrogen automobile development fund established by the President George’s Administration Bush back in 2003. According to Obama, making cars with fuel cells is simply unprofitable.
                        Since the late 1990s, the Germans launched a powerful advertising campaign to promote the NPL project 212 in the world market. However, in addition to the Bundesmarine, only Italian sailors voluntarily decided to acquire similar submarines. Fincantieri built two submarines (S2005 Salvatore Todaro and S2007 Scire) under a German license in 526-527. In March 2008, the Italian government decided to order two more submarines of project 212.
                        However, further promotion on the world market of the German nuclear submarines of the 4th generation of project 214 (export version of project 212) was faced with an insurmountable obstacle - Swedish submarines of the same generation of Gotland equipped with an anaerobic power plant with a Stirling engine. The Swedish company Kockums sensationally won the tender for the development of the NPL project for the Australian Navy, where the Germans were favorites. It turned out that the Swedish version of the anaerobic installation for 4th generation NPLs is much cheaper than the German one with ECG.
                        According to the foreign press, during the modernization of two boats of the A-17 type (Södermendland and Wastergotland), 10-meter compartments with anaerobic installations based on Stirling engines of the V4-275R type were cut into them. The total cost of the project was $ 73 million.In other words, the cost of inserting one 10-meter compartment is about $ 35 million, which is almost 4 times lower than the cost of a submarine compartment with an ECH-based anaerobic plant of the German company HDW for Project 212 (about $ 120 million, according to foreign sources).
                        Moreover, the experience of real operation of existing anaerobic installations on foreign submarines of the 4th generation over the past 10 years allows us to firmly say that the priority is more and more in favor of anaerobic installations with Stirling engines. Swedish, Japanese, Indian and American shipbuilders follow this path. It is likely that the Germans also decided to join them. In 2004, after the European Commission approved the takeover of the Swedish shipbuilding company Kokums Neyval Systems by the German shipyard Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft, the Germans, in essence, acquired the styling technology for their submarines.
                      2. USA95
                        -3
                        4 January 2013 15: 36
                        The rest is here: http://flot.com/nowadays/concept/reforms/project212.htm

                        toguns, MY ADVICE TO YOU. LEAVE FORUM AND DON'T POSTER. YOU DON'T KNOW THE MATCH, BUT IMAGINE YOURSELF. HERE ADULT PEOPLE SIT. Stalin was NOT he knew that sometimes someone else's can and should be bought. Apparently, you are a preoccupied teenager of about 15 years old who knows a damn thing and is trying to argue with adults.
                      3. toguns
                        0
                        4 January 2013 15: 53
                        Quote: USA95
                        toguns, MY ADVICE TO YOU. LEAVE FORUM AND DON'T POSTER. YOU DON'T KNOW THE MATCH, BUT IMAGINE YOURSELF. HERE ADULT PEOPLE SIT. Stalin was NOT he knew that sometimes someone else's can and should be bought. Apparently, you are a preoccupied teenager of about 15 years old who knows a damn thing and is trying to argue with adults.

                        bully everything is clear with you, the maximum you have is enough to copy someone else’s text and paste :)
                        I’m watching you are so worn out on diesel submarines, but I’m grieving you a little bit their century ended with the end of World War II :)
                        To summarize, your whole flood goes into the pipe, and so on for the future, the first usa95 learn how to behave on the forum, well, the second adult dyatka do not measure by age, and you started and don’t even know what to call you after that, oh, you found the right word USA95 - undergrowth :)
                      4. USA95
                        -4
                        4 January 2013 17: 03
                        I brought the facts, and you just throw poop. Which of us is undersized? Dumb shkolota.
                      5. toguns
                        +2
                        4 January 2013 17: 43
                        Quote: USA95
                        I brought the facts, and you just throw poop. Which of us is undersized? Dumb shkolota.

                        Your facts about the dap were relevant in the 30s of the 20th century, but right now in the courtyard of the 21st century it is in the first place.
                        secondly, I didn’t even start to throw poop yet, I just showed you the wretchedness of all your facts :)
                        Well, in the third, 0_o completely agree with you that usa95 is really stupid shkolota.
                      6. black_eagle
                        +1
                        4 January 2013 17: 25
                        do not want to enlighten, why then in the Black and Baltic Sea there is not a single submarine nuclear cruiser?
                      7. toguns
                        +1
                        4 January 2013 18: 16
                        Quote: black_eagle
                        do not want to enlighten, why then in the Black and Baltic Sea there is not a single submarine nuclear cruiser?

                        bully why are they needed there ???
                        if underwater cruisers are extremely crowded in the Baltic and the Black Sea, they have little room for maneuver and it is easier to find anti-submarine aircraft and ships of the coastal zone.
                      8. black_eagle
                        +1
                        4 January 2013 19: 10
                        Here's the answer to why you need diesel submarines
                      9. toguns
                        -2
                        4 January 2013 19: 23
                        Quote: black_eagle
                        Here's the answer to why you need diesel submarines

                        wassat What are you going to achieve with hits in the Baltic and the Black Sea ???
                        they will be flooded as well as apls :)
                        all the use of deaths comes down to hunting for transporters and setting mines,
                        by definition they will not be able to conduct offensive and defensive operations at sea.
                        ps
                        the only suitable use case for a dap is to make drones of them + create an ultra-high-speed powerful rocket.
                        the principle of use is that such a drone approaches the avik for the range of a missile strike, a shot, and then how lucky or drown or not, but if you take into account that the tin can is empty, it’s not very bad.
                      10. Misantrop
                        +2
                        4 January 2013 20: 21
                        Quote: toguns
                        by definition they will not be able to conduct offensive and defensive operations at sea.

                        What is it all of a sudden? They have better stealth than atomic ones due to less noise - they have less working noisy equipment and a direct current power network (now submarines in low-noise mode have almost the main source of noise - harmonics of 50 Hz, it is very difficult to tune from them). In addition, the submarines are capable of laying down on the ground (unlike the nuclear submarines, which need a constant channel along the circulating paths of nuclear weapons and turbines - they will pick up debris from the bottom). Aviation and satellites are capable of detecting submarines visually at a depth of less than 50 m, coastal currents and flooded iron along the coast are full, so magnetometers and thermal imaging devices will not help much. Place mines, send and receive diversionary groups, etc. DPL is quite able. So it's too early to write them off. Again, in the case of a GUARANTEED absence of submarines in the water area, surface ships behave MUCH more brazenly ...
                      11. toguns
                        +1
                        4 January 2013 21: 04
                        Quote: Misantrop
                        What is it all of a sudden? They have better stealth than atomic ones due to less noise - they have less working noisy equipment and a direct current power network (now submarines in low-noise mode have almost the main source of noise - harmonics of 50 Hz, it is very difficult to tune from them). In addition, the submarines are capable of laying down on the ground (unlike the nuclear submarines, which need a constant channel along the circulating paths of nuclear weapons and turbines - they will pick up debris from the bottom). Aviation and satellites are capable of detecting submarines visually at a depth of less than 50 m, coastal currents and flooded iron along the coast are full, so magnetometers and thermal imaging devices will not help much. Place mines, send and receive diversionary groups, etc. DPL is quite able. So it's too early to write them off. Again, in the case of a GUARANTEED absence of submarines in the water area, surface ships behave MUCH more brazenly ...

                        all this is true but there is one but .... the Baltic and the Black Sea are NATO ....
                        the question is how are you going to contain the fleet of Warsaw nato ???
                        in the Baltic ...
                        they’ll have time to block the Baltics along and across + here the experience of World War II and Leningrad in blockade is the question of why submarines should be shoved into the Baltic if it is potentially steel coffins.
                        across the Black Sea
                        the Bosphorus and Dardanelles proliferation overlaps, and everyone sailed the fleet is closed, where the base is planned Novorossiysk, so given the same experience of the Second World War they can reach it.
                        the tof and the north one is another matter there, but again the main thing is not to overdo it by 20 submarines per fleet, it will be the most, the main thing is to keep it in working order and modernize on time and no longer need it for the eyes.
                        and again, how to use them, I see the only options are covering the bases of nuclear submarines and reconnaissance for apl.
                        about the impudence of ships and submarines
                        so that ships and submarines do not become impudent, it is necessary to put in order the marine missile carriers and anti-submarine aviation.
                        ps
                        I think it’s now clear to you that I’m just proposing to transfer the main forces of the deep to the quiet and northern ones, and in return to strengthen the Baltic and the Black Sea with missile carriers and anti-submarine aircraft.
                      12. Misantrop
                        +1
                        8 January 2013 19: 35
                        Quote: toguns
                        tof and north that's another thing there

                        If you look at the map (or talk with those who served there), then blocking the entrance to Kola if you wish is not much more difficult. To base in Gremikha - well, why the hell (the Novorossiysk bora is resting), too, from the White Sea not to break through at the slightest opposition. There are no more bases, except for Western Faces. But there, close to the border, there will be enough saboteurs ... The Pacific Fleet is locked up even easier, there remains only the base in Rybachy (Kamchatka), it is very easy to cut it off the supply. Is that based on the moon laughing
                        Quote: toguns
                        how are you going to keep the navy from the navy ???

                        Varshavyanki? No way. Pikes, Aesques, Babies and Decembrists also will not work. Therefore, NEW is needed. For all its chic capabilities, aviation has too much vulnerability and low secrecy, especially since it will by no means have to get to Middle-earth through friendly territory, should it happen. Nevertheless, I grew up in the air garrison of marine missile carriers, so that they are not strangers to me winked But the Bosphorus, if need be, can be expanded, one tactical charge is enough so that no one throws anything from the banks when passing laughing

                        By the way, in the times of the USSR, there was such a project of a detachable uncontrolled subcritical power generating unit "Romashka". It is for hanging from the outside on the submarine in order to dramatically improve its underwater capabilities. Nothing particularly complicated, but with the deterioration of the international situation, the number of submarines capable of staying in training grounds for a VERY long time without surfacing could practically triple. Blow off dust from old developments as if nothing interferes winked
                      13. +1
                        4 January 2013 19: 10
                        black_eagle
                        According to international conventions, the use of ships with nuclear power plants is prohibited in the Baltic. Everything that was built in Leningrad came out under diesel engines or in tow. And the zone was already loaded in the north. Only on "Lenin" the zone was loaded at the plant. The men said the background was terrible.
                      14. Misantrop
                        +3
                        4 January 2013 20: 01
                        Quote: Very smart
                        Only on "Lenin" the zone was loaded at the plant. The men said the background was terrible.
                        Guys lied, sorry. If unload spent assembly, then there really is a nightmare background. And the new assembly can be stored at home without any harm to health if you wish. The level of its radiation practically does not differ from the background. Moreover, after loading a new zone into a new building, the first physical launch of the nuclear weapon is carried out with the nuclear weapon cover open and with the help of specially introduced neutron sources, otherwise it will not start. Not only that, if you don’t particularly mock the zone and use it normally, then it is simply not able to stain anything around the first few years, nothing. We once visited the dock of the 35th plant in Murmansk, which was not involved in anything military-nuclear. Their hysteria was terrible that they would pollute the plant. It’s only when they measured it, it turned out that we have connectors of the samplers of the 1st circuit less than their mooring wall laughing Personally present wink
                    2. +4
                      4 January 2013 15: 41
                      USA95,
                      You are saying everything correctly, but you are not all right with your conclusions. Russia really lagged behind Germany and Sweden in the construction and development of the 4th GENERATION submarine, BUT NOT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CAPABLE, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T SUCH NECESSITY IN THIS, like these countries, having nuclear submarines, diesel boats perform auxiliary tasks. Do not worry too much, we will have everything "in chocolate", "failure in the domestic submarine building" is a pipe dream of well-wishers laughing
                      1. USA95
                        -2
                        4 January 2013 15: 43
                        I say "BUY TO GET TECHNOLOGY" WHAT IS WRONG?
                      2. postman
                        +1
                        5 January 2013 04: 13
                        Quote: USA95
                        I say "BUY TO GET TECHNOLOGY" WHAT IS WRONG?

                        It's like that.
                        212 is certainly good (even in "clothes"):



                        There are really a few "but":
                        - EXPENSIVE, for export it was necessary to develop cheaper 214.
                        - not variable = making a simplified version (for third world countries) without ECG is impossible.
                        Half-hull and lightweight body in the area of ​​the most vibroactive equipment (tanks with oxygen outside a durable housing).
                        -AIP provides once for autonomy 1500 miles, all the remaining time it is necessary to carry it on its own hump as a dead load (unnecessary ballast)
                        - ECG does not provide the required operational and tactical characteristics of an ocean-class submarine, primarily in terms of performing high-speed maneuvers when pursuing a target or evading an enemy attack.
                        -AIP operates at 80 ° C ......
                        True, there is also a "+":
                        fiberglass lightweight housing (magnetic field)
                        -X aft steering wheels
                        -high energy conversion efficiency (thermal field)

                        WITH A GREAT PROBABILITY SHARE 12 PLANS PLANNED WILL NOT BE BUILT.
        2. 0
          5 January 2013 22: 27
          DON'T KNOW CHINA PLAYED A CARRIER
  16. +7
    4 January 2013 12: 40
    Oh, brothers! And at us in Nikolaev such shipyards for nothing disappear! Damn Gorbachev.
    1. black_eagle
      +2
      4 January 2013 12: 45
      Well, why are they disappearing, it’s simply more prestigious for the state to collect tin cans for some Greece than aircraft carriers on high-tech science-intensive equipment, we have a smart government, everything is thinking about the people!
      1. +2
        4 January 2013 13: 29
        So even banks cannot collect! The housing is launched, and completion is carried out in the country of the customer! This is an incredible speed and depth of degradation.
    2. Misantrop
      +3
      4 January 2013 14: 42
      IMHO they already more than disappear. If anything is more complicated than a barge, you need billions of dollars in investment. And who dares to invest so much in them, if Ukraine even has an unpredictable past (not to mention the present and future)? There are no guarantees - no one invests. The "More" plant near Feodosia is also holding on with its last bit of strength, but what gorgeous ships it did ...
      1. black_eagle
        0
        4 January 2013 16: 59
        And now we need the latest modern hovercraft!
  17. kasper
    0
    4 January 2013 13: 28
    To the Russian Navy BE !!!!
  18. USA95
    -5
    4 January 2013 13: 29
    Given the problems in our shipbuilding, why not buy the best in the west. The USSR did so.

    1. stranik72
      +1
      4 January 2013 14: 02
      This is where in the west and when the USSR bought something from warships?
      1. USA95
        0
        4 January 2013 14: 07
        Luttsov ”- the fifth heavy cruiser of the Admiral Hipper type, planned to be adopted by the German Kriegsmarine. It was laid down in 1937, launched in 1939. In February 1940 it was sold to the Soviet Union, received the name Petropavlovsk, in August 1941 it was included in the USSR Navy in conditionally combat-ready condition, and participated in the defense of Leningrad from Nazi troops. In September 1944 it was renamed “Tallinn”, in 1953 - “Dnipro”, in 1956 - “PKZ-12”. Its completion was not completed, in 1958 the ship was excluded from the lists of the Soviet fleet, and in 1959-1960 it was disassembled for metal.


        This is just what I remembered right away.
      2. +1
        4 January 2013 14: 28
        Quote: stranik72
        This is where in the west and when the USSR bought something from warships?


        Leader "Tashkent", built at the shipyards of Genoa (Italy)
        The ship turned out beautiful - 6 guns of the main caliber, speed 43 node. Still, pasta can build ships.

        Type C boats (medium), on which Shchedrin and Marinesko fought, are a German project.

        Quote: stranik72
        This is where in the west and when the USSR bought something from warships?

        Yes, in fact, the destroyers of Project 7 ("Stalin's sevens") themselves are an Italian project, aka the Maestrale destroyer.
        Then there was a bummer. "Maestrale" was created for inland seas, Soviet shipbuilders tried to adapt "seven" for the Barents Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The result was not long in coming - the ships fell apart in a storm, like houses of cards. Although they were among the fastest in the world (the Italians were obsessed with speed).
        1. USA95
          -3
          4 January 2013 14: 31
          Oh, thanks, plus. Did not know. I also wanted to bring the ships under Lend-Lease, but I think this is already superfluous.
        2. +1
          4 January 2013 18: 03
          They also wanted to order a battleship in the USA with 16 inches, prepared the project in 39
    2. toguns
      +1
      4 January 2013 14: 05
      Quote: USA95
      Given the problems in our shipbuilding, why not buy the best in the west. The USSR did so.

      wassat do not be offended, but the campaign with your head slightly wassat
      1. USA95
        -8
        4 January 2013 14: 16
        do not worry, but in my opinion you are a balabol and a lover of boys wink in fact there is an objection to what?
    3. Misantrop
      +3
      4 January 2013 14: 48
      Quote: USA95
      Given the problems in our shipbuilding, why not buy the best in the west.
      The main problems of shipbuilding now in low-quality components and outdated equipment. Equipment, even with a creak, can still be purchased (but the difficulties are also terrible - they don’t need old things, but they prefer not to sell new ones), and the military acceptance (nowadays not existing) could solve the problem with equipment. Or strict incoming quality control in shipyards.
      Well, shipbuilding design bureaus need to be restored until they completely fall apart
    4. +1
      4 January 2013 15: 47
      USA95,
      So you buy, and we ourselves with a mustache.
      And there's nothing to snot soldier
  19. 0
    4 January 2013 13: 50
    I read that for a Vietnam contract a submarine was launched - a period of 15 months. I understand that obligations must be fulfilled, earned, but the construction time of their ships should be longer No. should not!!!
  20. USA95
    0
    4 January 2013 14: 00
    30.11.2012/XNUMX/XNUMX The statements of unnamed sources of the Navy published in the media about the navy's dissatisfaction with the project of a promising aircraft carrier and unsatisfactory living conditions on the frigate "Admiral Gorshkov" are ridiculous and self-revealing. This opinion was expressed to the correspondent of the Central Naval Portal by an informed employee of the United Shipbuilding Corporation.

    We are talking about two materials published in the media, which reflect the opinion of a certain high-ranking source in the command of the fleet. The first article criticized the design of a promising aircraft carrier.

    It is quite natural, according to the USC representative, that the Navy "was offered the old Soviet aircraft carrier Ulyanovsk, which was never built due to the collapse of the USSR," as the media write, since the winner of the 2011 tender for the development of the concept of a promising aircraft carrier, more precisely, a naval aircraft carrier complex, the Ministry of Defense chose a non-specialized design organization with rich experience in the creation of aircraft-carrying ships - the Nevsky Design Bureau, and the general scientific organization - the Central Research Institute named after Academician Krylov, now - the Krylov State Scientific Center.

    "And from here, apparently, and the negative result, - suggested the interlocutor of the Portal. - Since the Krylovites did not have any, except for the most general, developments on the aircraft carrier, they were forced to attract the Nevskoye PKB as a consultant. The Central Research Institute of Krylov took the most perfect the project was still from the Soviet era and simply "redesigned" it, adding modern equipment and weapons. In addition, it should be noted that the wishes of the Navy in the form of requirements for the ship were, to put it mildly, not very specific. "

    “I want to answer one more claim of the fleet - about the frigate“ Admiral Gorshkov ”- said the interlocutor of the Portal.“ The construction of the frigate continues in St. Petersburg at the Severnaya Verf. I will give one more quote from the Izvestia newspaper: "The sailors also have questions about the layout of the ship, the placement of personnel. The cubicles are too small, the aisles and other rooms are overloaded with equipment."

    I would like to exclaim: "Where have you been before? Who, if not the fleet, gave the industry a technical assignment, who approved the project? The plant cannot build an order for the fleet without the control and supervision of the Navy. These claims can only be against themselves, since state the ferment of minds in the command of our fleet. Several years ago there were some requirements, now for some reason others. Decide, friends, what do you want? A well-armed, traditionally with a large ammunition load of a ship with "stealth" elements or a cruise liner under a naval flag ? "

    "The claims to the ship industry in the part where they relate to the gun mount are also unfounded," the USC representative said. "If funding is not allocated for a long time, then the result is natural - the deadlines are missed. The Defense Ministry knows this very well. Gorshkov is also the main order, it is only testing technologies, there will be prototypes of weapons and equipment. The Navy command knows this. True, under the previous command of the fleet, all the powers of the Navy and all decisions made were transferred to the competence of the Ministry of Defense.With the current command, I hope we will be able to solve our problems in a business-like manner, and no one else will think of stirring up the public with rumors, which may well turn out to be newspaper duck ", - concluded the interlocutor of the Central Naval Portal.
  21. +2
    4 January 2013 14: 01
    Given the nonsense of Russian officials, even the phrase
    “Acceptance Certificate signed. The ship is accepted into the Navy "- these are the magic words, hearing that you can throw a hat in the air and say a toast" seven feet under the keel. "
    ceased to be a reliable criterion of the ship's readiness. When the construction time already exceeds all conceivable limits, an Act is signed, while the construction can still be carried out for several years. As well as the fine-tuning of all systems of the ship - even the special terms "the submarine is in trial operation" appeared. If translated from Russian into Russian - "we have mastered all the grandmas within the framework of construction and testing, but the ship is not ready, we still need time and money to at least partially bring the boat's performance characteristics to the terms of the terms of reference"
  22. +2
    4 January 2013 14: 12
    Good news. Yes, there are errors. But they were under the USSR. It’s just that it was worse with the Internet, and they didn’t use their tongues in vain. Now, in fact, it is necessary to raise the construction of ships from scratch. On the go, come up with new projects and improve old projects. And if the truth about the 30% of the real readiness of the Soviet fleet is true, it’s not surprising that the ships in 90 were so active under the knife.
  23. not good
    +1
    4 January 2013 14: 19
    There were 250 diesels at a time per year. In the USSR it was 10. Compared to nuclear submarines, it’s several times cheaper and faster to build, in the coastal zone it’s more effective, at least 15-XNUMX diesel-electric submarines per year are needed.
    1. 0
      4 January 2013 16: 51
      Quote: Negoro
      Diesel, one per year, a shame.

      The "dashing leftists" built two diesel-electric submarines a year. Degradation is evident, however
  24. 0
    4 January 2013 15: 28
    Without a real impetus for action, there won't be anything, by and large, not a fleet, not an army. It is necessary to build a new one based on the experience of the old! In Soviet times, excellent ships were built for the chosen military doctrine, but time goes by and we cannot do without new ideas in design and construction, as well as without a clear naval doctrine. I wish the shipbuilders to launch a rank 1 ship no worse than the Arlie Burkov and Zamwalt.
    1. +5
      4 January 2013 16: 08
      Zabvo,
      The key words are "for the chosen military doctrine," and there is no clear doctrine for the use of the Navy, therefore, there is no clear, for many years, program for the reconstruction of the fleet, which can be said in terms of the construction of aircraft carriers, even if there is NO SINGLE OPINION among the Navy command their necessity, hence the "vacillation"
      not good,
      The quality and combat capabilities of aviation, small ships and coastal systems of anti-ship missiles have grown so much since the 50s that the use of submarines to protect the coastal zone is, to put it mildly, a big question, at least in the quantity you offer.
  25. vmf971
    0
    4 January 2013 16: 00
    and why the plant in Sormov doesn’t work before there they built boats would give at least diesel build
  26. Grits
    0
    4 January 2013 18: 16
    Without aircraft carriers and cruisers, the fleet cannot be called the fleet of a great power. What we have now is the "somewhere around this" level.
    Therefore, it is a sinful thing to dream that the Indians, having suffered with all sorts of imperfections, will give up Vikrimaditya. Then we will have to keep it. It is clear that the money will have to be returned, all sorts of penalties. But still .... Wouldn't hurt.
    I personally saw this ship near the wall of the Northern Sea Route in Severodvinsk in the late 90s. When he was still "Gorshkov". It is a pity that one more ship will go beyond the cordon. we will be like with "Varyag" - only nominally consider him "ours". And bite your elbows ...
  27. B52pilot
    +2
    4 January 2013 18: 36
    Quote: SWEET_SIXTEEN
    The boats under construction actually turn out to be a hodgepodge of ready-made sections of embedded but unfinished boats, from the backlog of the 90s


    Accordingly, the list of great achievements of the 90's that you provided was a hodgepodge from the backlog of the 80's.
    1. 0
      5 January 2013 00: 38
      Quote: B52pilot
      Accordingly, the list of great achievements of the 90's that you provided was a hodgepodge from the backlog of the 80's.

      Nope. Nobody took apart Barracuda to collect 949A
  28. 0
    4 January 2013 19: 09
    and that Ukraine does not sell us "ukrainu"?
  29. Insurgent
    0
    4 January 2013 19: 10
    Shallow ships of 5000 tons of displacement
  30. +1
    4 January 2013 19: 14
    Yes, you need to develop your own, lag is a great incentive. It’s also not necessary to invent a bicycle, of course, but buying technologies is now irrelevant because no one will sell new technologies, but they will already slip on it, it’s an ECG. The USSR and Stalin bought the LATEST ships, planes, tanks and technologies, why they sold them to him, this is another question, but the fact remains, but who will sell the latest to Russia now? in the end, no one will artificially keep us on their well-developed and already not much needed technologies, like on a leash, with a permanent lag of 15 years. So it was at one time with computers, when they decided not to develop their own (but there were ideas and specialists), but to copy the western one and buy from them, the result is known
    1. 0
      4 January 2013 20: 05
      Quote: barbiturate
      So it was at one time with computers, when they decided not to develop their own (but there were ideas and specialists), but to copy the western one and buy from them, the result is known

      Totally agree with you! The West will never sell us technologies, and the purchase of weapons and military equipment without them is a technological trap! It is a pity that our grief managers do not understand this, or maybe they understand ........
  31. caiman crocodilus
    +1
    4 January 2013 21: 41
    TRex,
    the expansion of the Zvezda plant is already underway. It will be possible to build ships with a displacement of 350 thousand tons.
    http://dcss.ru/projects/koc-oao-dvz-zvezda.html
    http://sdelanounas.ru/blogs/20391/
  32. Spstas1
    0
    4 January 2013 22: 11
    Though these words filled their nostrils, but! The main thing is that the process has started !!
    And now we must in no case stop, but go and go forward.
  33. Odessa16
    -4
    4 January 2013 22: 23
    I looked. According to the list of ships under construction, he made one thing - the fleet is created as a target, not a means. Target for the enemy fleet.
    Patrol ships are being built ahead of the submarines (I mean nuclear). That is, the fleet is completely tied to the coast, where it is also defenseless due to weak coastal aviation. There are no submarines (7 Ashes were promised until 2020 (this is insanely small), but I doubt that 4 will be built).
    All wrong. The fleet continues to rot, shock ships are thrown into the trash, and new pirates are good to drive, maximum - to guard the base. Submarines are aging, the composition is decreasing, and without them, the fleet will soon become target buoys for the enemy fleet.
    In short - they will cover you with the IJIS with missile defense and will cook with your tiny arsenal on START-3. And sho, cool!
    1. +1
      4 January 2013 23: 25
      And in Lviv (or whatever is right there) they will stock up and watch popcorn?
      1. Odessa16
        0
        5 January 2013 13: 18
        I, actually from Odessa. But yes, yes - we will watch and chew popcorn. What else should we do?
  34. +2
    5 January 2013 03: 32
    Quote: nycsson
    the construction of the surface fleet is not impressive, all these corvettes and frigates are ships of the second rank, or even the third! Need ocean ships of the first rank!

    exactly!
    But for some reason this is rarely voiced ...
  35. sad32wqesadf
    0
    5 January 2013 11: 24
    It just can't be !!! The FSB has created this http://zipurl.ws/sngbaza database about any resident of Russia, Ukraine and other CIS countries. Really was really scared
    there are a lot of interesting things about me (addresses, phone numbers, even my photos of a different nature) - I wonder where they dug up this. In general, there are good sides - this
    Information can be deleted from the site.
    I advise you to hurry, you never know how to fumble there ...

    It just can't be !!! The FSB has created this http://zipurl.ws/sngbaza database about any resident of Russia, Ukraine and other CIS countries. Really was really scared
    there are a lot of interesting things about me (addresses, phone numbers, even my photos of a different nature) - I wonder where they dug up this. In general, there are good sides - this
    Information can be deleted from the site.
    I advise you to hurry, you never know how to fumble there ...
  36. Mgydvin
    0
    5 January 2013 11: 59
    Right now 1 rocket will do more than an aircraft carrier.
    1. 0
      5 January 2013 17: 49
      what rocket do you mean?
    2. Odessa16
      +3
      5 January 2013 21: 05
      Khrushchev also believed that as a result the USSR was left without a balanced fleet, and Russia’s successor should not dream of such plans. 6 heavy and 6 medium aircraft carriers - with what they proposed to start under Stalin. With a HUGE (hundreds of ships) fleet of guarding and escort ships.
      An aircraft carrier is the main and universal force away from its ports and bases. In addition to land bases - a real force in the region.
      Unfortunately, aircraft carriers do not threaten Russia for a long time. But if you start this program - you need to start small. Mistral does not count - this is a purchased toy. We need to start with small carriers (35-40 thousand tons) - to build a series, to develop production.
      But this is BECAUSE! First you need to build a NORMAL coastal fleet. 12 BMZ and DMZ ships under construction are not bad for the Black Sea Fleet, and for the Pacific Fleet and Northern Fleet, great forces are needed. And there are doubts that over the remaining 5 years (if at a plan) they will manage to build ships for all fleets. Early to think over the ocean fleet. Until 2025-2030, you can only design and develop.
      1. 0
        5 January 2013 22: 38
        Quote: Odessit16
        Unfortunately, aircraft carriers do not threaten Russia for a long time.

        Unfortunately ... The collapse of a great country for the fleet had the most destructive effect, becoming a bright litmus of the state of industry. But, I do not agree that it is too early to think overseas fleet. You can assemble a fist of an operational squadron, there are still ships for this, but many are in need of repair and modernization. Take the nuclear-powered cruisers of the "Kirov" type (project 1144), you can also buy the cruiser of the project 1164 "Admiral Lobov" (now "Ukraine") for them, this is already power. Even aircraft carriers can, if desired, be obtained by converting one or two nuclear-powered cruisers (Admiral Ushakov, former Kirov and Admiral Lazarev, former Frunze) into light nuclear-powered helicopter carriers. This is all better than considering the issue of their disposal, when the ships are completely finished. Probably, if you wish, you can order a new hull of the aircraft carrier at someone else's shipyard, and finish building it in Russia, as the Chinese did with the Varyag. But, this requires political will, or even a leader with the ambitions of Peter I. In 2025-2030, God alone knows what will happen, and whether there will be anything good for us, if we do not think about defense capability now, we are not preparing for the country's defense using all the possibilities before it's too late.
        1. +2
          6 January 2013 19: 41
          Quote: Per se.
          there are still ships for this

          Malova after all. So Peter and Chabanenko and Kuzya go ...

          Quote: Per se.
          many need repair and modernization

          and this is not frail chores

          Quote: Per se.
          nuclear cruisers of the "Kirov" type (project 1144)

          in fact, their fate should have been - to go as part of the CAG. without CAG, their successful application can be calculated, rather, as a result of the effect of surprise.

          Quote: Per se.
          aircraft carriers can be obtained, if desired, by converting one or two nuclear-powered cruisers (Admiral Ushakov, former Kirov and Admiral Lazarev, former Frunze) into light nuclear-powered helicopter carriers

          the game will not cost a candle ... it’s better to just upgrade in the hope that they will live up to the introduction of normal (not a single string of hybrids) AB, and become part of a full-fledged CAG.

          Quote: Per se.
          what the Chinese did with the Varyag

          Well, the fate of luck to the Chinese. the Americans were worried. this will not work now. or they will take the order, but no one will give more advanced than Kuzya. and then what for it is necessary?
          it’s easier to upgrade the pool on the NSR, with some movers of course, and build it yourself. it is more profitable.
          1. 0
            6 January 2013 20: 41
            Quote: bugagich
            the game will not cost ...
            There is also a saying - the way is a spoon for dinner, and about "dressing", it depends on how you look at it. We have nothing but "Kuzi" so far, and it is not expected for the foreseeable 20-30 years, and this is too long. The combat efficiency of a nuclear-powered helicopter carrier is higher than that of a cruiser, and Kuza also needs a backup partner. During the war, the Americans made light aircraft carriers on the basis of cruisers, this was justified. In our situation, this is also worth the candle.
            1. +1
              6 January 2013 20: 52
              Quote: Per se.
              During the war, the Americans made light aircraft carriers based on cruisers, it was justified

              now it’s not 2MB and the lungs of AB are no longer relevant.
              Quote: Per se.
              In our situation, it is also worth dressing.

              you apparently did not carefully read my comment. such an example of savings has already been. the result - they spent no less money than the proposed 1160 would have cost, got useless TAVKRs .. and still had to increase the displacement more and more. as a result, the Tavkr doctrine did not justify itself (!). suggest to step on the same rake again? in my opinion it is better not to rush but to systematically solve the problem BASICLY.

              the fact that there is such a picture does not say that it will be "cheap and cheerful" ...

              PS: in addition, you will cut the 1st-class missile ships, in return you get it is not clear yet what - the weapons with which it is now stuffed, apparently, will no longer be. and get the air group funnier than at the moment on the Kuz.
              and just for the formation of KAG with these ABs you will no longer have TARKrs ... and how will they walk?
              1. 0
                6 January 2013 21: 09
                Quote: bugagich
                received useless TAVKRy.
                The problem with the TAVKR was the desire to have a cruiser with an aircraft carrier in "one bottle", which resulted in an unimportant cruiser and a bad aircraft carrier. This time, the second, it will take a very long time to solve the problem "thoroughly", and the desire of our command to get a "multi-medium aircraft carrier" will, perhaps, be worse than the TAVKR, this "space carrier", a la Shvets, and a reaper and a gamer, it only remains to attach the wheels, so that the land environment will obey him. Third, we have ready-made ships that can be converted into full-fledged aircraft carriers (or helicopter carriers), focusing on aircraft weapons, without wasting time.
                1. +1
                  6 January 2013 22: 23
                  Quote: Per se.
                  TAVKR was in the desire to have a cruiser with an aircraft carrier in "one bottle"

                  no way. the desire of the fleet was precisely that to acquire AB. Well, the anti-ship missiles were stuck there, so in fact they didn’t "steal" a lot of space - so they got the shock capabilities of the TARK as a good, I think, bonus. Is it bad. the other thing is bad - they wanted to get exactly AV of a LOW (!) displacement, which did not work out in any way ... and you can increase the displacement of 1144 by a lot?
                  Quote: Per se.
                  the desire of our command to get a "multimedia aircraft carrier" will be, perhaps, worse than the TAVKR, this "space carrier", a la Shvets, and a reaper, and a gamer on the pipe, will only have to attach wheels so that the land environment will obey him

                  not so simple. remember about MKRTs "Legend". and so by this, rather, it was understood that the new AV would have to work with a similar one ... and this is already yes, serious manners. but after the death of the Legend, our fleet lost a significant part of its capabilities.
                  Quote: Per se.
                  Third, we have ready-made ships that can be converted into full-fledged aircraft carriers (or helicopter carriers), focusing on aviation weapons, without wasting time

                  So, as I said, it’s not a ride. I will explain lightly.
                  You can draw a lot, hard and very beautiful. but then Kaga was enough. Now it’s not a ride.
                  Pay attention to the flight of the Kag - it is direct. in fact, it’s easier to gash it. but it was so bad that on flights of this type very often planes fought. came to the need to make a flight at an angle to the DP, and with this you need to place the island. the result is problems with the roll ... it's not so simple. so you’ll have to saw and saw so that the cost is unlikely to be less than the cost of a new ship.
                  but let's say you gash. but get a flight because of the voiced problems of smaller sizes than we say so, it was expected ... which entails a bunch of problems too ...
                  in short - the game is not worth the candle negative
            2. 0
              6 January 2013 21: 09
              I apologize - about Taurus before. the comment was not for you ...
              but nevertheless this is a good example of saving ...
              1. 0
                6 January 2013 21: 32
                Quote: bugagich
                good example of savings
                A clear example of economy - the aircraft carrier "Kaga", the pride of the Japanese Imperial Navy, converted from an unfinished battleship. Say, another time, yes, but the situation is similar. In general, most of the aircraft carriers at the beginning of World War II are converted ships, and during the war, as noted above, light, escort and escort aircraft carriers were built on the basis of cruisers and civilian ships. When there is a desire, an opportunity is found, and if we go into the absolute, we will wait a hundred years for an ideal that will have time to become outdated.
                1. +1
                  6 January 2013 21: 47
                  Yes, it’s not a ride now. I repeat - there were already TAVKRs, they saved - it did not work out.

                  and in general, in the picture, you can beautifully draw an AB from 1144, but I don’t think that when designing 1144 there were enough opportunities for modernizing it in AB ...
                  Well, you will remove the RCC, re-plan the interior ..., but you won't win much space. and this despite the fact that you will need to saw through it as if you were building a new AB ("light", of course). in any way you will not get at least for something, except "for show", a capable air group, and deprive the ship of its native and non-health weapons.
                  and, as I already wrote, deprive the fleet of ships of the 1st rank, which are already on fire in the daytime ..., and in return you will get useless "under-AB", which, as a result of such an adventure, will not be able to go anywhere .. ...
                  1. 0
                    6 January 2013 22: 16
                    If the cruisers are to be repaired (and there are doubts about this, regarding "Admiral Ushakov" and "Admiral Lazarev"), a lot of things will have to be "sawed". Of course, it is better to save them as cruisers, but there are options or an option for one aircraft carrier (helicopter carrier). I will not argue with you, here it is not we who decide, but who decides, they may not even need them as a cruiser ...
                    1. 0
                      6 January 2013 22: 46
                      Quote: Per se.
                      If the cruisers will be repaired (and there are doubts about this, regarding "Admiral Ushakov" and "Admiral Lazarev"), a lot of things will have to be "sawed"

                      I agree, of course. but the sawing will not be commensurately less than when "turning" it into AB. doubt, that's putting it mildly. it's a pity if they finally let them go ... (pah-pah-pah)
                      Quote: Per se.
                      there are options or an option for one aircraft carrier (helicopter carrier)

                      that's just such options I do not like ...
                    2. +1
                      6 January 2013 23: 09
                      and yes, by the way:
                      Quote: Per se.
                      perhaps, and as a cruiser they are not needed ...

                      all the same, these are ships of the 1st rank, and not very frail. when we still get these - only God knows ...
                      the trouble is that they need to go with AB. and to AB, in turn, they are needed ...
                      whether it is necessary, as part of the KAG, of more than 1 such, I think, not necessarily. but at least one - it would be ... ideally.
          2. +2
            6 January 2013 23: 29
            Quote: bugagich
            it’s easier to upgrade the pool on the NSR, with some movers of course, and build it yourself. it is more profitable.

            And also more reliable and safer.
      2. +1
        6 January 2013 19: 12
        In general, I share your opinion. but, the construction of aircraft carriers of 35-40 thousand tons, I think, is not advisable.
        the story can be repeated with the TAVKRs - the brainchild of the lobby of Mukhin, Yakovlev, from part of Ustinov and others ... i.e. spent a bunch of candy wrappers. however, I had to turn to the experience of Comrade Morin, and, in the end, design and build 1143.7. and without these ordeals with savings, the USSR could have received full-fledged CAGs, at least a couple, a dozen and a half years earlier. and I don’t think that, for a great price, what did the construction of 1143 cost, which turned out to be ugly ducklings ...

        PS: a dozen and a half years earlier, I mean, what did they plan to get Ulyanovsk, of course ...
  37. +1
    6 January 2013 00: 50
    Quote: radio operator
    radio operator Yesterday, 10:15 1 
    It would be nice to return the Nikolaev shipyard to our production sphere.
    Well, or build yourself even more ambitious.

    In Nikolaev there were 3 shipyards and a mass of special plants of marine engineering and instrument making. There were respectively Nikolaev shipbuilders.
    Now it is Mykolaev. Specialized plants are mostly destroyed. To disassemble them in the 90s, the West gave sickly loans. If in the mid-80s there was a problem with updating frames, now there is no such problem, just as there are no frames themselves.
    Everything related to the defense industry, Russia needs to decide for itself. It will be cheaper and more reliable.
    1. +1
      6 January 2013 20: 37
      I agree. but at ChSZ was the only slipway in the USSR on which such ships could be built. ChSZ was specially modernized in order to provide a modular large-block construction method.

      it was truly an impressive production.
      in particular: a Japanese sheet metal processing line with straightening rollers was mounted, a machine for cleaning and priming rolled products, laser technology was introduced, chain welding was purchased in Sweden, the ESAB Swedish welding and assembly line was installed, which made it possible to assemble blocks up to 1700 tons (! ) with their subsequent installation of 2 900-ton Finnish cranes (each had a span of 140 meters!) and a whole bunch of everything ...
      it is unlikely that we will soon see this in the entire post-Soviet space.
      1. +3
        6 January 2013 23: 14
        Here the cranes still stood 2 years ago (since then I have not been there anymore). There are moorings, an internal water area (bucket) and empty hulls. And all that was listed, forget and do not be distracted. Everything must be built in Russia and not spray funds.
        1. +1
          7 January 2013 00: 08
          heard from nikolayevets that affairs, to put it mildly. bad. ((
          Quote: wading
          Everything must be built in Russia and not spray funds.

          but what can I say ... Ideally, yes.

          But in principle, why not assess the "degree of devastation" at ChSZ? and suddenly it turns out to be all the same cheaper to restore it. to say that Russia will become dependent on Ukraine? well, well - yes, it will be dependent. however, Ukraine will also depend on Russian orders ... maybe this will become one of the conceptions of "mutual integration"? but, I in no way state this - so fantasies winked
          1. 0
            8 January 2013 16: 38
            Forget about the shipyard in Nikolaev. No to her. A friend from Ukraine made it clear to you. Ukraine is not going to restore it, we are all the more so.
  38. VNM
    0
    8 January 2013 11: 31
    The plans are good, but there are no aircraft carriers! Well, what's so difficult to build an aircraft carrier? 1-e) It is good to stimulate university graduates and lure them to zavordami. 2-e) Gather back all the specialists (welders, etc.) of the old guard, also financially stimulating. 3rd) Put the designers in the place of production. 4th) to debug financing - to do directly without interlayers.
    And these frames will decide everything. The mountains will collapse. And then it seems that there is nobody to do.
    1. 0
      8 January 2013 16: 33
      But what for us aircraft carriers? What would it be? So there is one, though he can’t shoot rockets anymore - the post was flooded. We use it as a scarecrow.

      Well, what's so difficult to build an aircraft carrier?
      --
      Build. All of Russia will be grateful to you.
      1. 0
        8 January 2013 18: 28
        Quote: Andrey77
        But what for us aircraft carriers? What would it be?

        are we, like, screaming that we need an ocean fleet? screaming ...
        so if you need an ocean fleet, then you need to build and AB. without AB, this is fiction.
        Quote: Andrey77
        there is one, though he can’t shoot rockets anymore - the post was flooded.

        Well, the RCC is a nice bonus, but still a bonus ... with missiles, others should work this AB. and he as part of the KAG should provide air defense connections, not naughty rockets.
        if 1143.5 (be it, of course, in good condition) begins to scam the RCC - consider it a matter of tobacco ...
        Quote: Andrey77
        We use it as a scarecrow.

        and the role of kuzi did not scare. but in essence - to save the backbone of the school of decks ...
        1. 0
          9 January 2013 21: 40
          The same "Thread", only floating. What are we talking about.
    2. 0
      8 January 2013 18: 19
      Quote: VNM
      Well, what's so difficult to build an aircraft carrier?

      yes, at least just Nowhere to build it in Russia ...
    3. +1
      8 January 2013 18: 24
      Quote: VNM
      Well, what's so difficult to build an aircraft carrier?

      Quote: VNM
      1-e) It is good to stimulate university graduates and lure them to zavordami.

      In the 70s, the cultivation of a functional designer from a graduate of a specialized university (shipbuilding) took up to 7 years with a dropout rate of up to 50%. And only a small part of this subsequently reached the level of a designer - designer. For everything up to 15 years, in the conditions of functioning production.
      The level of training of university graduates is now better not to discuss.
      Quote: VNM
      3rd) Designers put in the place of production

      Alas, this species of dinosaurs has become extinct and, moreover, for a long time.
      Quote: bugagich
      maybe this will become one of the conceptions of "mutual integration"?

      Mutual integration will arise when the process of creation begins in Ukraine. Those who begin to create something - begin to look around in search of companions. But this time has not come yet.
      1. 0
        9 January 2013 21: 43
        Marsh, I have long answered everyone - take it and build it. At least a boat.
        1. 0
          10 January 2013 02: 15
          Quote: Andrey77
          take and build. At least a boat.

          And the boat from yesterday’s newspaper? sad
          Alas! There are no newspapers either.
  39. 0
    8 January 2013 22: 01
    Previously, the names of the admirals were given to aircraft-carrying cruisers, now they are wretched to the watchmen, the program itself is miserable, a submarine, no missile cruisers, no normal BDKs, no projects
    1. 0
      9 January 2013 21: 45
      What fleet do you want to see?
    2. 0
      11 January 2013 19: 21
      Quote: tomket
      the program itself is wretched

      yes is there a program? how can a program be without a clear doctrine? there are only some numbers, but they just want to see the program, in my opinion ...